Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Evaluation of an alternate education program for students with behaviour problems Reid, Sharon Lyn 1984

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1984_A8 R44.pdf [ 9.4MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054377.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054377-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054377-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054377-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054377-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054377-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054377-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054377-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054377.ris

Full Text

EVALUATION OF AN ALTERNATE EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS WITH BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS by SHARON LYN REID B.A., York U n i v e r s i t y , 1975 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology And S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA APRIL 1984 © Sharon Lyn Reid, 1984 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of ^^L^^-^g^L^ y-g^ r<i The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 -6 (3/81) i ABSTRACT AN EVALUATION OF AN ALTERNATE PROGRAM FOR STUDENTS WITH BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS Th i s t h e s i s i s a re p o r t of the f i r s t e v a l u a t i o n study of an a l t e r n a t e education program in the Surrey School D i s t r i c t , p r ovince of B r i t i s h Columbia. A l t e r n a t e programs are g e n e r a l l y d i r e c t e d towards behaviour remediation, upgrading b a s i c s k i l l s , and school r e i n t e g r a t i o n f o r students suspended from r e g u l a r c l a s s e s . The Newton J u n i o r A l t e r n a t e Program (NJAP) was e s t a b l i s h e d with these goals in mind in 1978. The e v a l u a t i o n purpose was to provide NJAP s t a f f with a complete systematic d e s c r i p t i o n of program o p e r a t i o n — i t s antecedents, t r a n s a c t i o n s and outcomes. T h i s d e s c r i p t i o n i s the b a s i s f o r the set of recommendations prepared to a i d f u t u r e p l a n n i n g . The e c l e c t i c e v a l u a t i o n design developed f o r t h i s study permitted a comparison between program i n t e n t i o n s and a c t u a l o c c u r r e n c e s . A d e s c r i p t i v e matrix modelled a f t e r Stake (1967) was used as the framework f o r t h i s comparison. To h e l p formulate the e v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n s , a general program d e s c r i p t i o n was prepared p r i o r to the e v a l u a t i o n (February 1, 1981 to June 1, 1981). S e v e r a l methods of data c o l l e c t i o n were used to av o i d b i a s and e r r o r p o s s i b l e with s i n g l e method approaches. The v a r i o u s sources of in f o r m a t i o n and data were 22 students, three program s t a f f members, 18 r e g u l a r teachers, i i t hree a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and 12 p a r e n t s . Q u a l i t a t i v e and q u a n t i t a t i v e data were c o l l e c t e d from above samples u s i n g s e m i - s t r u c t u r e d i n t e r v i e w s , q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , o b s e r v a t i o n c h e c k l i s t s , and achievement and a t t i t u d e t e s t s . The o b t a i n e d i n f o r m a t i o n and data were summarized i n terms of f r e q u e n c i e s and percentages, and where a p p r o p r i a t e , by means and stan d a r d d e v i a t i o n s . With the e x c e p t i o n of attendance, program g o a l s were a c h i e v e d f o r stu d e n t s who remained e n r o l l e d . However nine students were suspended. Ten students were r e i n t e g r a t e d i n t o r e g u l a r c l a s s e s at the end of the s c h o o l year. Problems noted i n the program maybe p a r t i a l l y a t t r i b u t e d to the f a c t t h a t g u i d e l i n e s f o r student placement were not f o l l o w e d . i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES v i i LIST OF FIGURES ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION STUDY 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 Purpose of the E v a l u a t i o n 4 D e f i n i t i o n of the E v a l u a t i o n 5 D e s c r i p t i o n of the Program 7 Goals of the Program 8 P h y s i c a l L o c a t i o n of NJAP 8 S t a f f 10 Students 13 Admission Procedures 14 Schedule 15 Grading and Reporting 16 Suspensions or R e i n t e g r a t i o n s 17 Techniques Employed by NJAP 19 Th e s i s O r g a n i z a t i o n 20 i v 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 21 Review of A l t e r n a t i v e Programs 22 Experimental S t u d i e s 34 Summary 3 9 3. EVALUATION MODEL AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES ... 41 Basic E v a l u a t i o n Design 41 S p e c i f i c E v a l u a t i o n Questions 45 Methodology 48 Sources of Information 51 E v a l u a t i o n Instruments 52 Scal e s 59 DATA ANALYSIS 67 4. EVALUATION RESULTS: ANTECEDENTS AND TRANSACTIONS . 71 Antecedents 71 Student Sample 7 1 D i s p a r i t i e s Between Student Sample and Intended P o p u l a t i o n 80 Standard Admission Procedure f o r NJAP .... 83 D i s p a r i t i e s Between A c t u a l and Intended Admission Procedures 84 S t a f f T r a i n i n g and Experience 84 D i s p a r i t i e s Between Intended and A c t u a l S t a f f T r a i n i n g and Experience 85 T r a n s a c t i o n s 86 S t r u c t u r e of the Program 86 D i s p a r i t i e s Between A c t u a l and Intended Program S t r u c t u r e 96 P a r e n t a l Involvement 97 V D i s p a r i t i e s Between A c t u a l and Intended P a r e n t a l Involvement 98 5. EVALUATION RESULTS: OUTCOMES 99 Outcomes 99 Goals of NJAP 99 Student R e i n t e g r a t i o n 128 A t t i t u d e s Toward NJAP 132 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 146 Summary 146 E v a l u a t i o n Design 147 D e s c r i p t i o n of NJAP 148 E v a l u a t i o n Questions 151 Methodology 151 Congruences and D i s p a r i t i e s 152 Con t i n g e n c i e s 163 L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study 165 Recommendations 166 I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Future Studies 170 REFERENCE NOTES 171 REFERENCES 172 v i APPENDICES A NJAP PARENT/GUARDIAN STUDENT INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 176 B 1 PRE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR STUDENTS ENROLLED AFTER EVALUATION BEGAN 179 2 POST INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR STUDENTS ENROLLED AFTER EVALUATION BEGAN 183 3 SHORT INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 187 4 POST INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR STUDENTS ENROLLED PRIOR TO EVALUATION 189 5 PROGRAM TEACHERS INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 193 6 SUPPORT PERSON INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 197 7 PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 201 8 PREVIOUS PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 203 9 HEAD OF STUDENT SERVICES INTERVIEW SCHEDULE . 205 C 1 REGULAR TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE 207 2 PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE 210 D TEACHER-MADE MATH TEST 214 E CLASSROOM RECORDS CHECKLIST 220 F CLASSROOM OBSERVATION SCHEDULE 222 G TEACHER'S QUESTIONNAIRE 224 H TEACHER-CHILD DYADIC INTERACTION CHECKLIST .. 227 I THE RE ID BEHAVIOUR CHECKLIST 229 J STUDENT DAILY WORK CHECKLIST 232 K STUDENT CHECKLIST FOR RECORDS 234 L 1 STUDENT SUSPENSION CHECKLIST 237 2 STUDENT REINTEGRATION CHECKLIST 239 v i i LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. E v a l u a t i o n Questions 46 2. Data C o l l e c t i o n Procedures 49 3. Data Reported by the Authors f o r Canadian Test of Basic S k i l l s and Nelson Reading Test 56 4. R e l i a b i l i t y C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r the School Sentiment Index and The S e l f A p p r a i s a l Inventory 61 5. Proposed Formal Observation P e r i o d 64 6. A c t u a l Formal Observation P e r i o d 64 7. A c t u a l Dates of Informal Observation 68 8. Grade Scores f o r the Canadian Test of Basic S k i l l s and the Nelson Reading Test and L e t t e r Grades upon Admission to NJAP 74 9. Mean Scores and Mean Item Scores f o r A t t i t u d e and Self-Concept 78 10. Reasons f o r I n i t i a l Suspension from School .... 79 11. Behaviour Problems According to the Student R e s u l t s of Student Interviews 81 12. L e a r n i n g Problems as Seen by the Student 82 13. R e s u l t s of the Teacher Observation Schedule and Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 88 14. t - T e s t s and Alpha L e v e l s f o r S t a n d a r d i z e d T e s t s f o r Group 1 and 2 Students 101 15. t - T e s t s and Alpha L e v e l s for S t a n d a r d i z e d T e s t s f o r Group 1 Students 103 16. Math and E n g l i s h Performance Program Report Cards f o r Group 1 Students 106 v i i i 17. Achievement D i f f e r e n c e s : Suspended and Not Suspended Students 107 18. R e s u l t s of the Behaviour C h e c k l i s t f o r Group 1 and 2 Students 112 19. Student B e h a v i o u r a l Progress According to A l t e r n a t e Teachers 116 20. Attendance Records f o r Group 1 and Group 2 Students 117 21. Number of Detentions per Student 119 22. Number of R e f e r r a l s to the P r i n c i p a l ' s O f f i c e per Student 120 23. Communication With Parents: Program Records ... 127 24. Number of Regular C l a s s e s f o r Group 1 and 2 Students 129 25. C r i t e r i a and Those Involved i n Suspensions and R e i n t e g r a t i o n s 130 26. Number of R e i n t e g r a t e d Students Each Year at NJAP 132 27. A t t i t u d i n a l Change: Comparison of Means 134 28. A t t i t u d e and Self-Concept S c a l e s : Comparison of Means 142 29. Reasons f o r I n i t i a l Suspension From School .... 143 30. Classroom Behaviour: Suspended and Not Suspended Students 144 31. Reasons f o r Suspension or R e i n t e g r a t i o n 145 32. Congruences and D i s p a r i t i e s 154 ix LIST OF FIGURES Fi g u r e Page 1. A map of the Surrey School D i s t r i c t d i s p l a y i n g the schools where a l t e r n a t e programs are l o c a t e d 3 2.. The e v a l u a t i o n model 43 3. C l a s s hours observed 90 4. Median d i f f e r e n c e s on the CTBS and Nelson Reading Test f o r groups 1 and 2 140 X ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Sever a l people pr o v i d e d support and a s s i s t a n c e i n t h i s e v a l u a t i o n . I would l i k e to thank the f o l l o w i n g people. Dr. Todd Rogers, Chairman of my T h e s i s Committee, who gave me encouragement, guidance and c o n s t r u c t i v e c r i t i c i s m . Dr. Robert Conry, who a l s o p r o v i d e d sound advice and s i n c e r e i n t e r e s t . Dr. Peggy Koopman, who k i n d l y agreed to serve on my t h e s i s committee. Dr. Jung Lee, Head of Student S e r v i c e s , Surrey School Board, who provided much encouragement and a s s i s t a n c e in p r a c t i c a l concerns re g a r d i n g the program. -'Mr. Wayne S e a r l e , who a l s o provided some a s s i s t a n c e in t h i s matter. Ms. Mary Karr, Ms. Sue M i l l e r and Ms. C a r o l Arbour, S t a f f of Newton J u n i o r A l t e r n a t e Program, whose c o o p e r a t i o n and a s s i s t a n c e g r e a t l y eased my data c o l l e c t i o n . My thanks to Mr. Toddei and Mr. Sproxton, past and present p r i n c i p a l s , and a l l the teachers, students and parents i n v o l v e d i n the study. I would a l s o l i k e to thank B r i a n Reid f o r h i s support and c o n s t r u c t i v e c r i t i c i s m during t h i s p r o j e c t . 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION STUDY Introduct ion I t i s apparent that the r e g u l a r e d u c a t i o n a l program t y p i c a l l y o f f e r e d i n secondary schools cannot f u l f i l l the needs of a l l students, many of whom drop out or are suspended from school when they d i s p l a y i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour. I n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour ranges from poor attendance to a c t s of v i o l e n c e such as d e f a c i n g p r o p e r t y or f i g h t i n g . These students t y p i c a l l y resent a u t h o r i t y and sometimes react by swearing, shouting, r e f u s i n g to l i s t e n , t a l k i n g to other students, or o c c a s i o n a l l y t a l k i n g back to the teachers i n an abusive manner. Other more s e r i o u s problems may be drug or a l c o h o l r e l a t e d and i n c l u d e s t e a l i n g or smoking on school p r o p e r t y . There are cases of j u v e n i l e delinquency with concomitant p r o b a t i o n a r y p e r i o d s i n a d d i t i o n to f a m i l y problems. The m a j o r i t y of the students show l e a r n i n g problems caused by poor study s k i l l s or gaps in t h e i r l e a r n i n g that have prevented them from being s u c c e s s f u l i n a r e g u l a r classroom. To h e l p meet the needs of such students, a l t e r n a t e or r e h a b i l i t a t i o n programs are f r e q u e n t l y o f f e r e d . The general purpose of these programs i s to a s s i s t students who 2 have problems coping with school and then to r e i n t e g r a t e these students back i n t o the r e g u l a r school s e t t i n g . Compared to the r e g u l a r classroom, these programs are intended to be f a r more f l e x i b l e , thereby p r o v i d i n g the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r g r e a t e r a t t e n t i o n to i n d i v i d u a l student needs. A l t e r n a t e programs designed to meet the needs of students with behaviour problems were i n t r o d u c e d i n the Surrey School D i s t r i c t of B r i t i s h Columbia i n 1968. At that time there was only one program, but by 1981 the number of programs had expanded to s i x . Students are r e f e r r e d to one of these programs by the School Board only a f t e r they have been suspended from a r e g u l a r classroom. The primary goal i s the s u c c e s s f u l r e i n t e g r a t i o n of these students back i n t o the r e g u l a r s c h o o l . The s i x a l t e r n a t e programs are g e o g r a p h i c a l l y p o s i t i o n e d to cover the e n t i r e area of the Surrey School D i s t r i c t as shown i n F i g u r e 1. F i v e of the programs are designed f o r students e n r o l l e d i n grades 8, 9, and 10. The s i x t h , l o c a t e d at P r i n c e s s Margaret, i s designed f o r students i n grades 10, 11, and 12. Newton J u n i o r A l t e r n a t e Program, White Rock A l t e r n a t e Program, West Whalley A l t e r n a t e Program, and the "Re-entry" Program of P r i n c e s s Margaret are s i m i l a r i n that they are a l l a c a d e m i c a l l y based with a c o n c e n t r a t i o n on four s u b j e c t s — Mathematics, E n g l i s h , S o c i a l S t u d i e s and 3 F i g u r e 1. A map of the Surrey School d i s p l a y i n g the s c h o o l s where programs are l o c a t e d . D i s t r i c t a l t e r n a t e 4 Science. Each u t i l i z e s two team teachers and a support worker, a l l of whom are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r modifying the u n d e s i r a b l e behaviour of these students p r i o r to r e i n t e g r a t i o n back i n t o the r e g u l a r school classroom. The emphases of the two remaining programs at P r i n c e s s Margaret, "Focus" and "Pre-employment", are p l a c e d r e s p e c t i v e l y on the development of s o c i a l r a t h e r than academic s k i l l s and on the development of b a s i c s k i l l s f o r everyday f u n c t i o n i n g through a weekly work/learn experience. Of p a r t i c u l a r concern i n t h i s study was the Newton Ju n i o r A l t e r n a t e Program (NJAP) l o c a t e d at Newton J u n i o r Secondary School. In 1981 the s t a f f of the program b e l i e v e d that an e v a l u a t i o n would be u s e f u l i n p r o v i d i n g a comprehensive a p p r a i s a l of the program which would subsequently a i d i n p l a n n i n g f o r f u t u r e y e a r s . Purpose of the E v a l u a t i o n The Newton J u n i o r A l t e r n a t e Program was i n i t s f o u r t h year of o p e r a t i o n at the time of the e v a l u a t i o n . As i n d i c a t e d above, the program s t a f f f e l t that a comprehensive e v a l u a t i o n of the program at t h i s time c o u l d serve as a b a s i s f o r f u t u r e p l a n n i n g . Thus, t h i s e v a l u a t i o n was designed to answer the f o l l o w i n g two major q u e s t i o n s : (1) Is NJAP e f f e c t i v e i n meeting i t s s t a t e d goals? S p e c i f i c a l l y , are suspended students prepared f o r r e i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o the r e g u l a r c l a s s s i t u a t i o n ? 5 (2) Does NJAP succeed i n meeting any other goals which are not f o r m a l l y stated? The e v a l u a t i o n was designed to provide s t a f f of NJAP with a complete systematic d e s c r i p t i o n of program o p e r a t i o n — i t s antecedents, t r a n s a c t i o n s , and outcomes. From t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n , a set of recommendations was prepared to serve in the development of f u t u r e programming. D e f i n i t i o n of E v a l u a t i o n Worthen and Sanders (1973) p o i n t e d out that i t i s paramount to s e l e c t a d e f i n i t i o n of e v a l u a t i o n that i s p e r t i n e n t to the d i r e c t i o n one wishes the e v a l u a t i o n study to proceed. "Obviously, the way i n which one d e f i n e s e v a l u a t i o n has d i r e c t impact on the type of e v a l u a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s conducted" (p. 21). Three d e f i n i t i o n s of e v a l u a t i o n were c o n s i d e r e d f o r the present study. Provus (1971) d e f i n e d e v a l u a t i o n as "a comparison of a c t u a l program outcomes with i t s d e s i g n " and h e l d "that every aspect of a program, not j u s t i t s outcomes, i s i n v o l v e d i n an e v a l u a t i o n " (p. 10). Stake (1967) suggested "an e v a l u a t i o n of a school program should p o r t r a y the merit and f a u l t p e r c e i v e d by w e l l - i d e n t i f i e d groups, s y s t e m a t i c a l l y gathered and processed. Thus, judgment data and d e s c r i p t i o n data are both e s s e n t i a l to the e v a l u a t i o n of e d u c a t i o n a l programs" (Stake, 1967, p. 527). Worthen and 6 Sanders (1973), i n attempting to c l a r i f y Stake's conception of e v a l u a t i o n , commented that "the comparison of d e s c r i p t i v e data with standards would l e a d , then, to a s e r i e s of recommendations about the r e l a t i v e m e r its of the program" (p. 114). F i n a l l y , Rutman (1971) p e r c e i v e d e v a l u a t i o n as " f i r s t and foremost, a process of a p p l y i n g s c i e n t i f i c procedures to accumulate r e l i a b l e and v a l i d evidence on the manner and extent to which s p e c i f i e d a c t i v i t i e s produce p a r t i c u l a r e f f e c t s or outcomes" (p. 16). L i k e Provus and Stake, Rutman maintained that e v a l u a t i o n should go beyond the focus of s t a t e d g o a l s . In c o n t r a s t to s t a t e d g o a l s , unstated goals are those not given formal d e f i n i t i o n by the program, yet they are s t i l l understood to be part of the system. Consequently, only i f an e v a l u a t i o n i s r e s t r i c t e d to a l r e a d y i d e n t i f i e d goals can unstated goals be overlooked. In the present study, the v a r i o u s components that an e v a l u a t i o n should i n c l u d e were based on the three d e f i n i t i o n s above. The f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n , e c l e c t i c i n nature, was adopted: E v a l u a t i o n i s a set of procedures that d e f i n e the u t i l i t y of the program. These procedures p r e s c r i b e sampling techniques and s t a t i s t i c a l l y approved methods of data c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s that w i l l r e s u l t i n data that are both r e l i a b l e and v a l i d . In those cases where a numerical a n a l y s i s i s not p o s s i b l e , which o f t e n a r i s e s i n e v a l u a t i o n s t u d i e s , r e l i a b l e q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s i s employed. An e v a l u a t i o n should examine a l l f a c e t s of the program i n c l u d i n g d e f i n e d and unstated g o a l s , a c t i v i t i e s of the program i n c l u d i n g a l l consequences a n t i c i p a t e d or unintended. F i n a l l y , the e v a l u a t o r i s 7 r e s p o n s i b l e f o r making recommendations as to the outcomes of the program based on the evidence garnered i n the e v a l u a t i o n study. D e s c r i p t i o n of the Program P r i o r to undertaking the a c t u a l e v a l u a t i o n of the program, i t was f i r s t necessary to prepare a general d e s c r i p t i o n of the program. Although i t i s a small part of an o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n , t h i s component i s o f t e n overlooked. A d e s c r i p t i o n i s necessary before e v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n s and procedures can be f u l l y formulated. The d e s c r i p t i o n i n the present e v a l u a t i o n was prepared using i n f o r m a t i o n and data c o l l e c t e d from a l l p e r t i n e n t s t a f f members, which i n c l u d e s two program teachers, a support person, and the Head of Student S e r v i c e s . T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was gathered by use of s e m i - s t r u c t u r e d i n t e r v i e w s , i n f o r m a l o b s e r v a t i o n , and a p e r u s a l of e x i s t i n g a v a i l a b l e documents. The d e s c r i p t i o n of the program i s presented below under the headings Goals of the Program, P h y s i c a l L o c a t i o n , S t a f f , Students, Admission Procedures, Schedule, Grading and Reporting, Suspensions or R e i n t e g r a t i o n s , and Techniques Employed i n NJAP. 8 Goals of the Program The s t a t e d w r i t t e n goals of Newton J u n i o r A l t e r n a t e Program i n c l u d e : 1 . to communicate with parents and teachers i n the r e g u l a r program to f a c i l i t a t e r e - e n t r y i n t o the r e g u l a r program; 2. to r e i n t e g r a t e students back i n t o r e g u l a r c l a s s e s ; 3. to upgrade students' knowledge of the core subject areas E n g l i s h , Mathematics, Science, and S o c i a l S t u d i e s ; 4. to teach students coping s k i l l s which w i l l h e l p them with school and g e n e r a l i z e to home and s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s ; 5. to reduce the frequency of i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviours; and 6. to r e i n f o r c e behaviour that i s c o n s i d e r e d s o c i a l l y a c c e p t a b l e (Karr, M i l l e r , & Arbour, Note 1). P h y s i c a l L o c a t i o n of NJAP Newton J u n i o r Secondary School i s l o c a t e d at 13220 64th Avenue, Surrey, B.C. During the school year 1981 to 1982, the b a s i c student p o p u l a t i o n was 586 c o n s i s t i n g of 233 grade e i g h t students, 233 grade nine students, and 120 grade ten s t u d e n t s . There were a l s o three grade seven c l a s s e s (these students were t e m p o r a r i l y i n c l u d e d f o r two years (1980-82) while a new elementary school was being b u i l t ) , the Surrey Learning Improvement Program s e r v i n g 10 mentally 9 r e t a r d e d students, and the a l t e r n a t e program s e r v i n g a maximum of 20 students. There was a l s o a School Base Reading Program (Learning A s s i s t a n c e ) a v a i l a b l e f o r any e n r o l l e d students r e q u i r i n g remedial i n s t r u c t i o n . The school i s s u p e r v i s e d by a p r i n c i p a l and two v i c e - p r i n c i p a l s . In a d d i t i o n to r e g u l a r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n d u t i e s , the p r i n c i p a l s are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the two s p e c i a l programs and the grade seven students. The p r i n c i p a l a c t s as a l i a i s o n with the grade seven students, one v i c e - p r i n c i p a l with the Surrey Learning Improvement Program, and the other v i c e - p r i n c i p a l with NJAP. NJAP i s l o c a t e d i n a l a r g e U shaped open area s i t u a t e d i n the basement of the s c h o o l . Included in t h i s room are two washrooms and a d r i n k i n g f o u n t a i n . The room i s d i v i d e d i n f o r m a l l y i n t o two classrooms, one f o r the i n s t r u c t i o n of E n g l i s h and S o c i a l Studies and the other f o r Mathematics and Science. Both classrooms are c l o s e to each other and there i s no c l e a r d i v i s i o n between them ( i e . , no use of screens, bookcases, or other forms of room d i v i d e r s ) . The classroom has three e x i t s , one l e a d i n g d i r e c t l y outdoors and the other two to hallways w i t h i n the s c h o o l . The remaining two classrooms i n the basement belong to grade seven students (the t h i r d grade 7 classroom i s l o c a t e d i n a p o r t a b l e ) . The a l t e r n a t e classroom seems q u i t e segregated from the r e s t of the s c h o o l . The entrance to the a l t e r n a t e classroom i s from a s t a i r c a s e which i s s i t u a t e d at the f a r 10 wing of the s c h o o l . T h i s wing has i t s own set of e x i t doors beside the s t a i r c a s e l e a d i n g down to the a l t e r n a t e room. I t i s p o s s i b l e f o r a l t e r n a t e students to come i n t o the b u i l d i n g through t h i s set of doors, proceed d i r e c t l y downstairs to the a l t e r n a t e classroom and have no contact with the r e s t of the s c h o o l , excepting grade seven students. S t a f f The s t a f f of NJAP c o n s i s t s of f i v e people: two team tea c h e r s , one support person, the Head of Student S e r v i c e s , and the D i s t r i c t C o u n s e l l o r . Teaching i s shared by the two t e a c h e r s . One i s r e s p o n s i b l e for t e a c h i n g E n g l i s h S k i l l s and S o c i a l S t u d i e s , while the other i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r Mathematics and S c i e n c e . Teachers c o n s u l t r o u t i n e l y with r e g u l a r teachers who have a l t e r n a t e students i n t h e i r c l a s s e s about student behaviour and p r o g r e s s . A l t e r n a t e t e a c h e r s and the support person a l s o d i s c u s s the progress of t h e i r students. F i n a l l y , i t i s a l s o the a l t e r n a t e teachers' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to i n t e r v i e w new students and t h e i r parents. Besides reviewing the progress of the students with the two a l t e r n a t e t e achers, the support person i s otherwise engaged in many tasks such as recordkeeping, c o u n s e l l i n g , a c t i n g as a l i a i s o n between parents, students, and teachers, c o n t a c t i n g s o c i a l agencies such as Mental H e a l t h , c o n s u l t i n g with r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s , and a s s i s t i n g a l t e r n a t e t e a c h e r s . Recordkeeping i n v o l v e s l o o k i n g a f t e r p a r e n t a l appointments, 11 keeping track of attendance, and f i l l i n g out r e q u i s i t e forms when students enter the program, or leave as a r e s u l t of resuspension (which may take p l a c e anytime) or r e e n t r y i n t o a r e g u l a r c l a s s (which only takes place at the end of the y e a r ) . The support person p r o v i d e s more moral support and encouragement than c o u n s e l l i n g . For example, she i s a v a i l a b l e whenever a student i s upset with e i t h e r parents or te a c h e r s . She telephones parents about attendance or behaviour problems, meets the pr o b a t i o n o f f i c e r about student progress, and makes some home v i s i t s . Making con t a c t with s o c i a l agencies such as Mental H e a l t h , P u b l i c H e a l t h , and Human Resources i n v o l v e s t e l e p h o n i n g Human Resources i f a student r e q u i r e s a s s i s t a n c e ( f o r example, c h i l d abuse) or s e t t i n g p s y c h o l o g i c a l and medical appointments with e i t h e r Mental or P u b l i c H e a l t h . The r o l e of the support person i s a l s o extended to accompanying the student to any meetings, c o u r t appearances or appointments h e l d o u t s i d e the school d u r i n g school hours. C o n s u l t a t i o n with r e g u l a r c l a s s teachers c o n s i s t s mainly of d i s c u s s i n g attendance and behaviour of a l t e r n a t e s t u d e n t s . F i n a l l y , the support person must a s s i s t a l t e r n a t e t e a c h e r s i n other ways such as s u p e r v i s i n g while a teacher i s out of the room and p l a n n i n g and e v a l u a t i n g student programs (mainly behaviour p r o g r e s s ) . S u p e r v i s i o n of the s i x a l t e r n a t e programs i n the school d i s t r i c t i s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the Head of Student 1 2 S e r v i c e s a s s i s t e d by the D i s t r i c t C o u n s e l l o r . They are a l s o r e s p o n s i b l e f o r scre e n i n g a p p l i c a n t s at the School Board and p l a c i n g students i n the a p p r o p r i a t e a l t e r n a t e program. The Head of Student S e r v i c e s and the D i s t r i c t C o u n s e l l o r v i s i t NJAP once a week f o r a group meeting with the c l a s s . At t h i s meeting t o p i c s both i n t e r e s t i n g and t r o u b l i n g to the students are examined. The Head of Student S e r v i c e s and the D i s t r i c t C o u n s e l l o r a l s o conduct ongoing bi-weekly t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n s f o r a l t e r n a t e s t a f f where o p i n i o n s and problems can be a i r e d . The Head of Student S e r v i c e s and the D i s t r i c t C o u n s e l l o r provide a l t e r n a t e s t a f f with support and advice whenever needed. Even though the program i s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the School Board, the teachers are accountable to the p r i n c i p a l . The involvement of the p r i n c i p a l i s l i m i t e d to oc c a s i o n s when a student breaks a school r u l e and i s sent to the o f f i c e . However, most student encounters take p l a c e with the v i c e - p r i n c i p a l who a c t s as a l i a i s o n to the a l t e r n a t e c l a s s . The p r i n c i p a l h i r e s teachers and updates t h e i r personnel i n f o r m a t i o n , but he i s not r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the support person, program agenda or the running of the program. T h i s i s the f u n c t i o n of the teachers and Head of Student S e r v i c e s . 1 3 Students The program i s designed to support up to 20 f u l l - t i m e students at any one time. However, a f a r greater number are a c t u a l l y served d u r i n g the school year because of continuous intake and outflow. Some students remain i n NJAP only f o r a short p e r i o d of time, a small number are resuspended (which u s u a l l y i m p l i e s a t r a n s f e r to another a l t e r n a t e program), and others withdraw from school on t h e i r s i x t e e n t h b i r t h d a y , as i s t h e i r l e g a l r i g h t . Those students who are not resuspended or r e i n t e g r a t e d at the end of the year remain through the beginning of the next school year. Students i n NJAP e x h i b i t e d behaviours which were u n d e s i r a b l e i n the r e g u l a r classroom and l e d to t h e i r suspension from s c h o o l . Whether such behaviour would be co n s i d e r e d i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r s i t u a t i o n s o u t s i d e the classroom i s beyond the scope of t h i s study. Regardless, at some stage i n the education process these behaviour problems caused s e r i o u s d i s r u p t i o n to the r e g u l a r classroom, r e s u l t i n g i n suspension. The behaviour problems common to NJAP students, as d e s c r i b e d by program s t a f f , are p e e r - r e l a t e d and f a m i l i a l . They have d i f f i c u l t i e s d e a l i n g with a u t h o r i t y f i g u r e s and coping i n a r e g u l a r classroom. They lack the m o t i v a t i o n to atte n d school (which may r e s u l t i n s k i p p i n g o u t ) , and i n c l a s s they may t a l k out loud, 1 4 r e f u s e to work or d i s t u r b o t h e r s . E i g h t common l e a r n i n g problems were re p o r t e d by the program s t a f f . These were: 1. short a t t e n t i o n span; 2. e a s i l y discouraged; 3. poor c o n c e n t r a t i o n ; 4. poor o r g a n i z a t i o n s k i l l s ; 5. poor reading and w r i t i n g s k i l l s ; 6. i n c o n s i s t e n t e f f o r t ; 7. i n s u f f i c i e n t background s k i l l s ; and 8. a r e s i s t a n c e to l e a r n i n g new s k i l l s . Admission Procedures The c r i t e r i o n f o r entry to an a l t e r n a t e program i s suspension from school although there are some exc e p t i o n s . Students on the verge of suspension may be t r a n s f e r r e d d i r e c t l y to an a l t e r n a t e program in l i e u of suspension. Students who withdrew from school i n l i e u of suspension may a l s o be admitted to an a l t e r n a t e program. However, in a l l cases a student must be r e f e r r e d to an a l t e r n a t e program by the School Board. Students are f i r s t p l a c e d on the a l t e r n a t e program w a i t i n g l i s t , with a c t u a l placement in an a l t e r n a t e program f o l l o w i n g w i t h i n three to four weeks. The student undergoes a s c r e e n i n g process whereby h i s / h e r f i l e i s sent to an a l t e r n a t e program. The a l t e r n a t e s t a f f review the f i l e and e i t h e r accept or r e j e c t the student. If i t 1 5 appears the student meets the program's requirements , a parent/guardian student i n t e r v i e w i s arranged (see Appendix A f o r the a c t u a l i n t e r v i e w schedule used by NJAP). I t i s at t h i s i n t e r v i e w that the f i n a l d e c i s i o n i s made whether or not the program i s the most a p p r o p r i a t e one f o r the student. If a student i s accepted by NJAP then long term goals are s e t . Previous records are examined i n order to assess the grade l e v e l at which the student should be e n r o l l e d . F u r t h e r , each student begins the program with a s e r i e s of achievement p r e t e s t s i n Mathematics, Reading, S p e l l i n g , S o c i a l S t u d i e s , and Science in order to assess the present l e v e l of attainment and to h e l p design i n d i v i d u a l i z e d courses of study. F o l l o w i n g p r e t e s t i n g , the remainder of the f i r s t two weeks i s devoted to a review of b a s i c s k i l l s . Based on t h i s review, a student may be p l a c e d in a r e g u l a r classroom f o r those s u b j e c t areas which the a l t e r n a t e teacher f e e l s are w i t h i n the student's present c a p a b i 1 i t i e s . Schedule Program hours are 8:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday. F r i d a y s are used f o r p a r e n t a l c o n s u l t a t i o n , course p l a n n i n g , and student r e v i e w i n g . Students who have c l a s s e s o u t s i d e the a l t e r n a t e room att e n d school on F r i d a y , and a t t e n d only those r e g u l a r c l a s s e s i n which they are e n r o l l e d . 1 6 Group meetings are he l d Monday mornings, and Wednesday and Thursday a f t e r n o o n s . On Monday mornings a l l tea c h e r s , students and the support person plan and d i s c u s s the week's g o a l s . Wednesday afternoon s e s s i o n s are reserved f o r group c o u n s e l l i n g with the students by the Head of Student S e r v i c e s and the D i s t r i c t C o u n s e l l o r . The Thursday s e s s i o n s are a forum f o r d i s c u s s i o n of the week's events and progress towards the weekly g o a l s . The remaining class, hours are used to teach b a s i c s k i l l s . Grading and Reporting Each student must score 70% to pass any t e s t or assignment. Students redo any t e s t s or assignments where t h i s standard has not been met u n t i l the 70% requirement i s reached. In a d d i t i o n to t h i s standard, Newton J u n i o r Secondary r u l e s s t a t e that no student i n a mo d i f i e d math program may o b t a i n a grade higher than C+ r e g a r d l e s s of how w e l l he/she performs. T h e r e f o r e , a student t a k i n g math in the a l t e r n a t e program can not o b t a i n a grade that surpasses C+. D a i l y r e p o r t s which i n c l u d e p o s i t i v e and negative behaviours, absenteeism and t a r d i n e s s are prepared by both teachers and the support person. I n d i v i d u a l performance i s d i s c u s s e d at the end of each day by teachers and the support person to supplement the r e g u l a r F r i d a y e v a l u a t i o n . P a r e n t a l and student feedback are pr o v i d e d by r e p o r t cards 1 7 prepared monthly by both a l t e r n a t e teachers and, where a p p r o p r i a t e , by r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s . The support person a l s o telephones the students' home each F r i d a y to inform parents of the weekly progress and to d i s c u s s any behaviour problems that may have occurred during the previous week. Suspensions or R e i n t e g r a t i o n s Students can be suspended from t h i s program for a number of reasons. The most common are: not l i s t e n i n g to d i r e c t i o n s , d e f i a n c e , arguing, l a c k of c o - o p e r a t i o n , r e f u s a l to work, constant i n t e r r u p t i o n , absence from s c h o o l , or the v i o l a t i o n of an important school r u l e such as f i g h t i n g , p u l l i n g the f i r e alarm or being d e f i a n t to the p r i n c i p a l or v i c e - p r i n c i p a l . Parents are c a l l e d and informed of a problem s i t u a t i o n before a suspension i s gi v e n . On occasion a suspension may be given f o r l e s s than f i v e days. T h i s " u n d e r - f i v e " suspension means that a student i s sent home u n t i l he/she r e t u r n s with h i s parents. Records of any suspensions or d e t e n t i o n s are kept by the support person. It i s the o b j e c t i v e of the program to phase the i n t e g r a t i o n of the student i n t o r e g u l a r c l a s s e s as acce p t a b l e performance i s reached i n each s u b j e c t . A f t e r a student has fu n c t i o n e d w e l l i n the core s u b j e c t s ( E n g l i s h , Math, S o c i a l S t u d i e s , and Science) of the program f o r a few weeks, he/she i s permitted to take e l e c t i v e courses such as P h y s i c a l Education. Students are then g r a d u a l l y 18 r e i n t e g r a t e d i n t o other r e g u l a r c l a s s e s when teachers see that they are acade m i c a l l y ready to handle the workload. T h i s phased r e i n t e g r a t i o n can take plac e at any time duri n g the year. Students are r e i n t e g r a t e d completely i n t o the re g u l a r c l a s s program at the end of the school year i f they have experienced success i n the r e g u l a r c l a s s e s they attended and i f t h e i r behaviour has changed to the extent that they w i l l no longer d i s r u p t the r e g u l a r classroom. Quite o f t e n students are not t o t a l l y r e i n t e g r a t e d . They may begin the next year with mainly r e g u l a r c l a s s e s , yet s t i l l have one or two c l a s s e s i n the a l t e r n a t e room. A good p r o p o r t i o n of judgment comes i n t o play when d e c i d i n g whether the time i s r i g h t to r e i n t e g r a t e a student. There are cases i n which a student i s r e i n t e g r a t e d because he/she i s doing w e l l a c a d e m i c a l l y yet s t i l l has behaviour problems. The teachers may f e e l the i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviours w i l l l e s s e n i n the r e g u l a r c l a s s . Sometimes students are r e i n t e g r a t e d when they have been i n the program fo r a time, even though no apparent progress has been made. It i s hoped that a change w i l l b r i n g about success. Each student i s c o n s u l t e d p r i o r to r e e n t r y . At the end of the year, i f he/she has changed h i s a t t i t u d e , i s working b e t t e r , has fewer behaviour problems, i s s u c c e s s f u l i n h i s / h e r s e l e c t e d r e g u l a r c l a s s e s , and f e e l s ready f o r r e i n t e g r a t i o n , then r e e n t r y takes p l a c e . Students who have been r e i n t e g r a t e d may be returned to an a l t e r n a t e program, e i t h e r 19 because of an i n a b i l i t y to perform up to academic e x p e c t a t i o n s or because of a subsequent behaviour problem. Techniques Employed In NJAP To h e l p meet the needs of a l t e r n a t e students with behaviour problems, NJAP employs the f o l l o w i n g techniques: 1. i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n i n the four b a s i c s u b j e c t s — Mathematics, E n g l i s h , S o c i a l Studies and Science; 2. phased r e i n t e g r a t i o n where students begin by t a k i n g one or two r e g u l a r c l a s s e s ; 3. goal o r i e n t a t i o n whereby teachers and the support person a i d the students in plan n i n g t h e i r weekly goals and working towards them; 4. weekly group c o u n s e l l i n g with the Head of Student S e r v i c e s and D i s t r i c t C o u n s e l l o r ; 5. i n d i v i d u a l c o u n s e l l i n g which may be obtained at Newton J u n i o r Secondary School and at the Surrey School Board; 6. reinforcement i n the form of p r a i s e and encouragement are used; and 7. weekly communication with parents and r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s . 20 T h e s i s O r g a n i z a t i o n The b a l a n c e o f t h e t h e s i s i s o r g a n i z e d i n t o f i v e C h a p t e r s . C h a p t e r two i s a s u m m a t i o n o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e r e v i e w e d p r e p a r a t o r y t o f o r m u l a t i n g t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s p r e s e n t e d i n C h a p t e r 6. The e v a l u a t i o n m o d e l u s e d i n t h e s t u d y i s p r e s e n t e d i n C h a p t e r 3 f o l l o w e d by a l i s t i n g o f t h e e v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n s , a n d a d e c r i p t i o n o f t h e s a m p l e , e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e d u r e , i n s t r u m e n t s , a n d d a t a a n a l y s i s . The r e s u l t s o f t h e e v a l u a t i o n a r e r e p o r t e d a n d o r g a n i z e d i n t e r m s o f e a c h e v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n i n C h a p t e r s f o u r a n d f i v e . The c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e e v a l u a t i o n s t u d y a r e p r e s e n t e d i n C h a p t e r 6. C o n g r u e n c e s a n d d i s p a r i t i e s o f N JAP a s o b s e r v e d by t h e e v a l u a t o r a r e i n c l u d e d . F i n a l l y r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r p r o g r a m i m p r o v e m e n t s a n d s u g g e s t i o n s f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h a r e p r e s e n t e d . 21 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE As d i s c i p l i n a r y t o o l s , t r a d i t i o n a l suspension and e x p u l s i o n exacerbate the problems a s s o c i a t e d with d i s r u p t i v e behaviour; they v i r t u a l l y never s o l v e them. At the time, o u t - o f - s c h o o l suspension i s o f t e n viewed by the students i n v o l v e d as a reward rather than punishment ( s i n c e i t gets them out of a d i f f i c u l t and u n s a t i s f y i n g s i t u a t i o n ) ; and i t i n c r e a s e s the l i k e l i h o o d of the suspended students g e t t i n g i n t o t r o u b l e i n the community while being excluded from s c h o o l . In sum, removing students from school n e i t h e r d i s c i p l i n e s nor educates them as s o c i e t y intended i t s e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s to do. ( N a t i o n a l School Resource Network, 1980, p. 1) A l t e r n a t e schools or programs have been designed to redress the problems i n d i c a t e d above. Introduced during the 1970s, these programs, which vary i n approach, a l l share the common element of t r y i n g to keep students i n s c h o o l . In t h i s chapter, s e v e r a l of these programs are d e s c r i b e d . To gain i n f o r m a t i o n about successes and problems encountered by a l t e r n a t e programs elsewhere, an ERIC search was conducted i n which 36 a r t i c l e s were i d e n t i f i e d and subsequently reviewed. From t h i s review, 15 a r t i c l e s were s e l e c t e d on the b a s i s of t h e i r s i m i l a r i t y and/or p e r t i n e n c e to NJAP. Information from these 15 a r t i c l e s was used as a standard of comparison a g a i n s t which e v a l u a t i o n r e s u l t s from t h i s study c o u l d be examined. I t was f e l t that the r e l a t i v e success and/or f a i l u r e s of NJAP might be b e t t e r i l l u m i n a t e d 22 through such a comparison and thereby p r o v i d e a b a s i s f o r the f o r m u l a t i o n of recommendations. Twelve a r t i c l e s d e s c r i b e d programs very s i m i l a r i n purpose to NJAP, namely the common goal of r e i n t e g r a t i n g students back i n t o the r e g u l a r school s e t t i n g . These programs were mainly designed f o r 13 to 17 year o l d students, of average i n t e l l i g e n c e , whose d i s r u p t i v e behaviour prevented them from coping in the r e g u l a r school system. They are reviewed i n c h r o n o l o g i c a l order, beginning with the e a r l i e s t and proceeding to the most r e c e n t . The remaining three a r t i c l e s reviewed were experimental s t u d i e s i n which e x p l i c i t comparison groups were used. In each, a technique which proved to be e f f e c t i v e i n changing i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour was i d e n t i f i e d ; thus t h e i r i n c l u s i o n i n the present review. Review of A l t e r n a t i v e Programs Walbridge Academy. In 1971, walbridge Academy, Grand Rapids, Michigan was e s t a b l i s h e d to meet the needs of students i n grades seven to twelve who were u n s u c c e s s f u l i n the r e g u l a r classroom (Amove & Stout, 1978). The school emphasizes behaviour m o d i f i c a t i o n techniques and i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n . The behaviour m o d i f i c a t i o n component employs a token economy. Students earn p o i n t s f o r assignment completion, f o r p u n c t u a l i t y , f o r a p p r o p r i a t e 23 behaviour, and f o r time on tas k . P o i n t s can be accumulated toward canoe t r i p s , t r i p s to Chicago or bowling o u t i n g s , or the p o i n t s may be exchanged f o r f r e e time i n the r e c r e a t i o n room. The r e c r e a t i o n room has pool t a b l e s , a pingpong t a b l e , games, magazines, snacks, and a jukebox. I n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour i s punished by "time-out" i n which a student i s removed from the c l a s s and i s o l a t e d f o r 30 minutes. A student who accumulates three time-outs i n a ten week p e r i o d must a t t e n d a conference with the c o u n s e l l o r before r e t u r n i n g to c l a s s . The i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n component i s comprised of performance c o n t r a c t s , programmed m a t e r i a l s and m i n i - u n i t s . There are no f a i l i n g grades and students must score a "C" to complete the b a s i c s u b j e c t s . No thorough e v a l u a t i o n of Walbridge Academy has been r e p o r t e d . However, Amove and Stout assessed student a t t i t u d e s and found that the students f e l t that t h e i r academic performance had improved. They a l s o r e p o r t e d that they f e l t happier at Walbridge than at any of t h e i r p r e v i o u s schools (Amove & Stout, p. 47). Deep P r o j e c t ( D i v e r s i f i e d Education Experiences  Program). Deep P r o j e c t , l o c a t e d i n W i c h i t a , Kansas, began in 1971 (Cornett & Swanson, 1979). The program was designed fo r students i n grades 9 to 12 with d i s c i p l i n e and attendance problems, and i d e n t i f i e d as p o t e n t i a l drop-outs. T h i s program i s s t u d e n t - c e n t e r e d and p r o j e c t - o r i e n t e d 24 whereby students f i r s t i d e n t i f y t h e i r own needs and o b j e c t i v e s , and then design t h e i r own e d u c a t i o n a l p r o j e c t s . Upon completion of these p r o j e c t s , a conference takes p l a c e between teacher and student. The teacher's r o l e i s that of a d v i s e r and c o n s u l t a n t . An i n t e r n a l program e v a l u a t i o n showed a s i g n i f i c a n t decrease i n absences and number of drop-outs (Cornett & Swanson, p. 2). I t was found that 51% of the students improved i n achievement (p. 2) and that 98% graduated (p. 3). A t t i t u d e s of the students were measured by the Risk Taking A t t i t u d e s Values Inventory (RTAVI). A p o s i t i v e change was found (p. 3). The P o s i t i v e A l t e r n a t i v e to School Suspension  Program (P.A.S.S.). P.A.S.S., s i t u a t e d i n St. Petersburg, F l o r i d a and opened i n 1972, was planned f o r d i s r u p t i v e s e n i o r secondary students with d i f f i c u l t i e s coping in a reg u l a r program (NSRN, 1980). I t was designed as an a l t e r n a t i v e to suspending students. Three techniques were dev i s e d for modifying student d i s r u p t i v e behaviour. Two of these were long term p r o j e c t s — the Student's School S u r v i v a l Course and the Student's Home S u r v i v a l Course. The Student's S u r v i v a l Course c o n s i s t s of one-hour weekly c l a s s e s spread over a 12 week p e r i o d . The program makes use of behaviour m o d i f i c a t i o n techniques, r e a l i t y therapy and value s c l a r i f i c a t i o n . Students are taught that i t i s 25 p o s s i b l e to s u r v i v e i n s c h o o l . The Student's Home S u r v i v a l Course i s another 12 hour program, one hour per week, which u t i l i z e s R e a l i t y Therapy, T r a n s a c t i o n a l A n a l y s i s , and R a t i o n a l Behaviour Therapy. Students are taught p o s i t i v e means of working out home r e l a t i o n s h i p s or home r e l a t e d problems. The t h i r d technique, the Time-Out Room, was designed as an immediate response to g r o s s l y i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour that i n t e r r u p t s classroom a c t i v i t y . The Time-Out Room i s a s e p a r a t i o n area where students can be te m p o r a r i l y p l a c e d f o r c o u n s e l l i n g with the school c o u n s e l l o r . The Co u n s e l l o r helps students explore consequences of t h e i r behaviour, and suggests p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s that may have more p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s . F i n a l l y , parents of d i s r u p t i v e students take s i x two-hour s e s s i o n s of parent e f f e c t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g . No e v a l u a t i o n has been repo r t e d f o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r program. The S t r e e t Academy. The S t r e e t Academy (Bournazos, 1975) began i n Grand Rapids, Michigan i n 1973. I t was developed f o r students 12 to 18 years of age i n grades 8 to 12, and who had d i f f i c u l t i e s coping i n a r e g u l a r school s e t t i n g . I n d i v i d u a l c o u n s e l l i n g , immediate reinforcement of course work, i n d i v i d u a l l e a r n i n g a i d s , b e h a v i o u r a l and academic c o n t r a c t s , parent c o u n s e l l i n g , and the teaching of ba s i c s k i l l s are a l l part of the school format. School 26 s u b j e c t s are d i v i d e d i n t o short mini courses and p o i n t s (immediate reinforcement) are awarded upon completion of each mini course. P o i n t s are a l s o a c q u i r e d f o r a t t e n d i n g school and t a k i n g part i n c o u n s e l l i n g s e s s i o n s . These p o i n t s may be accumulated and exchanged fo r f r e e time i n the Student A c t i v i t y Center. The 1974 e v a l u a t i o n of the S t r e e t Academy showed the program to be e f f e c t i v e i n improving math (p. 35) and reading a b i l i t y (p. 28), and in i n c r e a s i n g the t o t a l number of student high school c r e d i t s (p. 42). Bournazos i n d i c a t e d that school attendance a l s o had improved, but there was s t i l l a need f o r f u r t h e r improvement (p. 42). G r a n i t e A l t e r n a t e School. G r a n i t e A l t e r n a t e School of S a l t Lake C i t y , Utah began i n 1974. The school was designed f o r students i n grades 9 to 12 who c o u l d not cope i n the r e g u l a r school s e t t i n g . Whipples (1977) s t a t e d that the s c h o o l ' s concern i s with changing student a t t i t u d e s : "As t h e i r a t t i t u d e s change, we w i l l a l s o see a change i n behaviour" (p. 3). The f o l l o w i n g techniques are used to change student a t t i t u d e : 1. p r o v i d i n g d a i l y reinforcement of a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour by d i s p l a y i n g approval and p r a i s e ; 2. demonstrating to students that the s t a f f c ares about them; 3. modeling p o s i t i v e behaviour; 27 4. p r o v i d i n g token reinforcement by a) p o s i t i v e grading (no "F's" on report c a r d s ) , b) l e t t e r s sent home to parents p r a i s i n g good work of students, c) p r o v i d i n g lunch or bre a k f a s t to students as a way of showing a p p r e c i a t i o n and c a r i n g , d) buying a pop or lunch f o r students who a s s i s t t e a c h e r s ; and 5. m a i n t a i n i n g an environment in which success can be obtained by a l l students. Whipples commented that the success of G r a n i t e A l t e r n a t e School i s shown by the f a c t that 85% of the students are a t t e n d i n g r e g u l a r l y and working toward a high school diploma (p. 2). Dade County A l t e r n a t e School. The Dade County A l t e r n a t e School of Miami, F l o r i d a opened i n 1975 (Department of Planning and E v a l u a t i o n , 1976). Intended f o r d i s r u p t i v e students at the J u n i o r high school l e v e l , the school f e a t u r e s i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n i n the b a s i c s u b j e c t s and v o c a t i o n a l t r a i n i n g . Behaviour m o d i f i c a t i o n techniques are emphasized. Students are awarded p o i n t s f o r modifying i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour. I n t e n s i v e group and i n d i v i d u a l c o u n s e l l i n g are a l s o part of the school agenda fo r modifying i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour. It was r e p o r t e d by teachers of Dade County A l t e r n a t e School that students who remained i n the school have 28 p o s i t i v e changes in both d i s r u p t i v e behaviour and academic performance (p. 10). L i v i n g s t o n School. L i v i n g s t o n School, New York C i t y (Rothman, 1980) opened i n 1975 as an a l t e r n a t i v e to suspending students from s c h o o l . The school serves students aged 12 to 21 in grades 7 to 12. At L i v i n g s t o n School, students are taught that they c o n t r o l t h e i r own l i v e s and are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i r own a c t i o n s . Once t h i s concept has been understood, students are ready to work toward academic g o a l s . The program s t r e s s e s decision-making and peer c o u n s e l l i n g , and i n c l u d e s a v a r i e t y of d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s , i n d i v i d u a l i z e d t e a c h i n g and d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n . Students plan t h e i r days with the guidance of t h e i r t e a c h e r s . Newly e n r o l l e d students are c o u n s e l l e d by students a l r e a d y i n the program. Through d i s t r i b u t i v e e ducation the students l e a r n a l l aspects of running the school s t o r e : merchandizing, recordkeeping, bookkeeping, a d v e r t i s i n g , salesmanship, and communication s k i l l s . Rothman concluded that success of L i v i n g s t o n i s demonstrated by the o b s e r v a t i o n that 80% of the students continue f o r the second h a l f of the program, Career Academy (p. 115). In Career Academy, students work toward academic goals and prepare f o r g r a d u a t i o n . Students work in n o n p r o f i t o r g a n i z a t i o n s (such as school l i b r a r i e s and p o l i c e s t a t i o n s ) f i f t e e n hours a week and a t t e n d s c h o o l the 29 remainder of the time. Ninety percent of students a t t e n d i n g Career Academy graduate and over h a l f of these students continue on to c o l l e g e (p. 115). Community Centered Classroom Program ( T r i c - C ) . The goal of T r i c - C , Los Angeles (NSRN, 1980) i s to prepare students f o r r e i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o the r e g u l a r school or an o c c u p a t i o n a l s e t t i n g . T h i s program, which began in 1975, was developed f o r students in grades 9 to 12. Students are taught the b a s i c s k i l l s through both i n d i v i d u a l and group i n s t r u c t i o n . I n t e n s i v e group c o u n s e l l i n g , a f a m i l y - t y p e atmosphere, and the use of community resources are a d d i t i o n a l program components. Parents are expected to attend i n d i v i d u a l conferences and group meetings. I t i s a l s o the parents' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to check up on t h e i r son/daughter's academic and b e h a v i o u r a l p r o g r e s s . T r i c - C i s s u c c e s s f u l i n that there are no reassignments. The N a t i o n a l School Resource Network observed that 62% of the students had improved s a t i s f a c t o r i l y i n both academic and behaviour progress (p. 4). Ninety per cent of parent respondents agreed there were p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e changes i n t h e i r sons/daughters (p. 4). However, an improvement in attendance i s s t i l l a goal of T r i c - C (p. 4). 30 Community Experimental Education Centre (CEEC). In 1976 CEEC, Iowa C i t y began o p e r a t i o n (Yates, 1979). Designed f o r students aged 16 to 20, t h i s program has no scheduled c l a s s e s , grades or c r e d i t s . Students must complete 32 competencies i n three years to graduate. A competency i s d e f i n e d as "something a student can do a f t e r i n s t r u c t i o n that he couldn't do b e f o r e " (Yates, 1979, p. 265). These competencies are taught in the areas of community involvement, c u r r e n t i s s u e s , consumer awareness, c u l t u r a l experience, i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r i n g , and personal and i n t e r p e r s o n a l s k i l l s ( f o r example, f i t n e s s , decision-making, and communication s k i l l s ) . Most of these competencies i n v o l v e E n g l i s h and Mathematics. At the time of t h i s a r t i c l e , the program had only been in o p e r a t i o n 16 months. Since the goal of the program c a l l e d f o r students to pass a l l competencies w i t h i n three years, the success r a t e c o u l d not be f u l l y assessed (Yates, 1979, p. 270). W i l l i a m A. Wurt High School Behaviour M o d i f i c a t i o n  C l i n i c . As an a l t e r n a t i v e to e x p e l l i n g students d i s p l a y i n g d i s r u p t i v e behaviour, a behaviour m o d i f i c a t i o n c l i n i c was opened at W i l l i a m A. Wurt High School, Gary, Indiana in 1977 (NSRN, 1980). The c l i n i c serves students i n grades 9 to 12. 31 The c l i n i c s t r e s s e s behaviour m o d i f i c a t i o n and c o u n s e l l i n g . The behaviour m o d i f i c a t i o n techniques i n c l u d e m i n i - u n i t s i n the core subject areas as w e l l as b e h a v i o u r a l and academic c o n t r a c t s . Upon entry, students are helped to recognize what event l e d to t h e i r placement i n the program, who i s to blame for that event and what can be done to prevent t h i s from o c c u r r i n g again. Behaviour or academic c o n t r a c t s are drawn up and the students work toward f u l f i l l i n g these c o n t r a c t s . C o u n s e l l i n g u t i l i z e s two approaches: t r a n s a c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s and r e a l i t y therapy. The N a t i o n a l School Resource Network r e p o r t e d that a f t e r two years of o p e r a t i o n , the number of days l o s t due to suspension and the a c t u a l number of suspensions had both decreased (p. 5). The Committee on R e f e r r a l and E v a l u a t i o n (C.O.R.E.). The CO.R.E. program i s l o c a t e d at Seaford High School, Seaford, Delaware (Newman, 1979). Begun in 1978, i t was designed as an i n t e r v e n t i o n program f e a t u r i n g school personnel and community resource people. The goal of CO.R.E. i s to modify d i s r u p t i v e behaviour and prevent f u t u r e d i s r u p t i v e behaviour. T h i s i s done by i n t e r v e n i n g at an e a r l y age (the 9th grade) with many d i f f e r e n t t h e r a p e u t i c approaches. D i s r u p t i v e students are i d e n t i f i e d i n Phase 1 by reviewing records of those students who are c o n s i s t e n t l y engaged i n i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour. In Phase 2, the 32 i n t e r v e n t i o n stage, the best approach f o r modifying behaviour i s decided. I n t e n s i v e data are c o l l e c t e d on the student before the i n t e r v e n t i o n approach i s s e l e c t e d . These data are c o l l e c t e d by i n t e r v i e w s , v i s i t i n g the student's home, and observing the students in the classroom h a l l and c a f e t e r i a . One of the f o l l o w i n g 15 procedures i s then s e l e c t e d f o r a student depending on the c a u s a t i v e f a c t o r s of h i s / h e r i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour: 1. f a m i l y c o u n s e l l i n g ; 2. teacher c o u n s e l l i n g where a v o l u n t e e r teacher p r o v i d e s c o u n s e l l i n g , f r i e n d s h i p and t u t o r i n g to the student; 3. student c o u n s e l l i n g where a peer b e f r i e n d s a d i s r u p t i v e student; 4. new course of study; 5. work-school programs; 6. home study program t i e d i n with c o u n s e l l i n g and t u t o r i n g ; 7. correspondence program; 8. night s c h o o l ; 9. v o c a t i o n a l r e h a b i l i t a t i o n ; 10. job corps; 11. community c o l l e g e f o r remedial and enrichment l e a r n i n g ; 12. mental hygiene c l i n i c ; 13. p r i v a t e p s y c h i a t r i c c a r e ; 33 14. community resources such as Big Brothers, Big S i s t e r s ; and 15. e x p u l s i o n from school when e v e r y t h i n g e l s e has f a i l e d . Each of the above approaches a l s o i n c l u d e s c o u n s e l l i n g and classroom i n s t r u c t i o n . Newman i n d i c a t e d that suspensions were reduced by 25%, d e t e n t i o n s by 50%, and that the program was s u c c e s s f u l in e n r o l l i n g 100% of the d i s r u p t i v e students in a t h e r a p e u t i c program (p. 68). H u n t s v i l l e Academic School. The H u n t s v i l l e Academic School, H u n t s v i l l e , Alabama (Yates, Sanders, & Watkins, 1980) was designed f o r students aged 11 to 19. I t i s the b e l i e f of the s t a f f of the school that s e l f - c o n c e p t i n f l u e n c e s behaviour. The t h e o r e t i c a l s t r u c t u r e was d e r i v e d from Maslow's h i e r a r c h y of b a s i c needs: as an approach to improving s e l f - c o n c e p t , student needs are met by the s t a f f . P h y s i c a l needs are p r o v i d e d by cooking b r e a k f a s t and lunch d a i l y f o r students. The s t a f f j o i n s the students f o r meals. A c l o t h i n g bank i s a l s o a v a i l a b l e to students. Safety and s e c u r i t y needs are s a t i s f i e d by p r o v i d i n g a non-threatening environment where teachers t a l k with students i n small groups about t o p i c s that concern them. Teachers a l s o engage in r e c r e a t i o n breaks with the students ( f o r example, a game of S o f t b a l l , v o l l e y b a l l or ping pong). Sense of belonging 34 needs are p r o v i d e d by d a i l y teacher d i s p l a y of p r a i s e f o r a c c e p t a b l e behaviour. Student s e l f - e s t e e m i s e s t a b l i s h e d by p r o v i d i n g i n d i v i d u a l i z e d l e s s o n s and assignments where students can experience success. S e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n needs are met by student c o n t r a c t s i n which students work toward s p e c i f i e d g o a l s . Rewards for reaching goals i n c l u d e f i e l d t r i p s or r e c r e a t i o n breaks. No e v a l u a t i o n of the success of H u n t s v i l l e School has as yet been r e p o r t e d . Experimental S t u d i e s Three experimental s t u d i e s r e l e v a n t to the present study were i d e n t i f i e d . In each case a technique f o r improving s o c i a l behaviour was d e s c r i b e d and shown to be e f f e c t i v e . Block (1978) i n v e s t i g a t e d the e f f e c t s of r a t i o n a l - e m o t i v e therapy on students with academic and behaviour problems. S l a v i n (1977) analyzed Teams-Games-Tournament as a method of i n s t r u c t i o n f o r a l t e r n a t e students. F i n a l l y Cox and W i l l i a m s (1977) explo r e d the success of parent e f f e c t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g . These three s t u d i e s are reviewed below. Rational-Emotive Therapy. "Rational-emotive therapy i s a system based on the e d u c a t i o n a l model and emphasizes the t e a c h i n g and a p p l i c a t i o n of s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n r u l e s " 35 (Block, p. 61). Block adopted t h i s approach and "focused upon c o g n i t i v e r e s t r u c t u r i n g through the p r a c t i c e of a d j u s t i v e r a t i o n a l a p p r a i s a l , small-group d i r e c t e d d i s c u s s i o n " (p. 62), r o l e p l a y i n g , and dramatic emotional e x e r c i s e s . S e l f - q u e s t i o n i n g techniques were taught as a way of l e a r n i n g s e l f - e x a m i n a t i o n s k i l l s . Block i n v e s t i g a t e d the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of r a t i o n a l - e m o t i v e therapy using a group of 40 d i s r u p t i v e and f a i l u r e - p r o n e grade 11 and 12 students. The 40 students, s t r a t i f i e d by sex, were randomly assigned to three treatment groups — r a t i o n a l - e m o t i v e c o n d i t i o n , human r e l a t i o n s c o n d i t i o n , and no-treatment c o n t r o l . The human r e l a t i o n s c o n d i t i o n "was chosen as a comparison to the r a t i o n a l - e m o t i v e c o n d i t i o n because i t was based on a d i f f e r e n t t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n and i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s had been p r e v i o u s l y demonstrated" (p. 62). Thi s technique employs psychodynamic p r i n c i p l e s to promote b e t t e r adjustment. S i x t y treatment s e s s i o n s , each 45 minutes i n l e n g t h , were conducted f i v e times per week f o r 12 cons e c u t i v e weeks. Grade p o i n t average, number of occurrences of d i s r u p t i v e behaviour, and number of c l a s s e s cut were the dependent v a r i a b l e s of i n t e r e s t i n the study. A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e showed s i g n i f i c a n t improvement (p<.001) on a l l three dependent v a r i a b l e s for the group with the r a t i o n a l - e m o t i v e treatment. Other groups showed no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e . 36 Teams Games Tournament. S l a v i n (1977) i n v e s t i g a t e d the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of Team-Games-Tournament f o r teaching students of normal i n t e l l i g e n c e with academic and behaviour problems. In the study Team-Games-Tournament was compared to i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n . The sample contained 39 students i n grades seven through nine at Mark Twain Middle School, Washington, D.C. Students were randomly assigned to one of two s o c i a l s t u d i e s c l a s s e s each taught by a two person team. The treatment group was taught by two methods — Team-Games-Tournament and i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n , while the c o n t r o l group was taught s o l e l y by i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n . Cooperation amongst the c o n t r o l group was n e i t h e r encouraged nor discouraged. A 12 week u n i t on American H i s t o r y was the sub j e c t matter f o r both groups. The f i r s t s i x weeks were devoted to the U.S. c o n s t i t u t i o n with the l a s t s i x spent on the c i v i l war. The treatment group p a r t i c i p a t e d i n tournaments of three student academic games comprised of m u l t i p l e c h o i c e or true and f a l s e items designed by the teacher. Each student was assigned to a four or f i v e member team from v a r y i n g academic l e v e l s . At the tournament students from opposing teams went through the process of s e l e c t i n g c a r d s , answering the qu e s t i o n s , c h a l l e n g i n g , and checking answers a g a i n s t the answer sheet. The winner of each game was the student who had completed the most c a r d s . The top sco r e r earned s i x p o i n t s , the middle s c o r e r four p o i n t s , and the lowest s c o r e r two p o i n t s . 37 The highest s c o r e r moved on to a more d i f f i c u l t game, the middle s c o r e r remained at the same l e v e l , and the low s c o r e r moved to an e a s i e r games. P o i n t s a c q u i r e d by i n d i v i d u a l s were combined with those of the other team members. The team with the highest poin t t o t a l s won the tournament. Team members p r a c t i c e d together the day before tournaments which were he l d once a week. A behaviour c h e c k l i s t and a s o c i o m e t r i c s c a l e were used to o b t a i n measures of student mutual a t t r a c t i o n , occurrence of peer t u t o r i n g , and time on task. A n a l y s i s of the data obtained r e v e a l e d that the treatment group spent s i g n i f i c a n t l y (p<.001) more time on task (56.8%) when working with t h e i r peers than d i d the c o n t r o l group (11.4%) (p. 81). However, the c o n t r o l group spent more time on task when working i n d i v i d u a l l y (69.7% vs 27.8%; p<.001). When both i n d i v i d u a l and peer tasks were examined together, i t was found that the treatment group spent more time on task (84.6% vs 81.1%; p<.05). Three items on the s o c i o m e t r i c s c a l e were used f o r r a t i n g mutual a t t r a c t i o n . A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between treatment and c o n t r o l groups on a l l three q u e s t i o n s (p<.02; p<.03; p<.10) in favour of the treatment group. Two items on the s o c i o m e t r i c s c a l e were used f o r r a t i n g peer t u t o r i n g . D i f f e r e n c e s between the two groups were n o n s i g n i f i c a n t (p. 81). 38 Parent E f f e c t i v e n e s s T r a i n i n g . Cox and Matthews (1977) introduced the Downing Program to 58 parents of students a t t e n d i n g a secondary a l t e r n a t e school in Eastern V i r g i n a . In the Downing Program parents l e a r n e d techniques f o r improving f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p s and management s k i l l s . S e l e c t e d parents were taught these techniques by reinforcement and modeling i n small groups. I t was Cox and Matthew's hypothesis that students whose parents underwent the Downing Program would demonstrate fewer i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviours than other students i n an a l t e r n a t i v e school s e t t i n g . F i f t y - e i g h t students were randomly s e l e c t e d and ass i g n e d to e i t h e r treatment or c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s . Parents of these students formed the sample. Parents i n the treatment c o n d i t i o n attended s i x parent e f f e c t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n s . Students were eva l u a t e d by a behaviour r a t i n g c h e c k l i s t and classroom o b s e r v a t i o n . R e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the frequency of i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour f o r the treatment group (p<.027). Students i n the treatment group showed a r e d u c t i o n i n the occurrence of i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour and an i n c r e a s e i n the occurrence of a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour (p. 360). 39 SUMMARY Programs d e v i s e d to a s s i s t students s i m i l a r to those e n r o l l e d at NJAP were d i s c u s s e d in 12 of 15 a r t i c l e s reviewed. Since these programs f u n c t i o n e d o u t s i d e r e g u l a r classrooms, the o p p o r t u n i t y e x i s t e d to provide a more f l e x i b l e teaching atmosphere and more i n d i v i d u a l l y adapted i n s t r u c t i o n . Behaviour M o d i f i c a t i o n was found to be an important f a c t o r i n the s i x programs. T h i s technique was given prominence in four programs where token economies were e s t a b l i s h e d . S i m i l a r l y , the d i s t r i b u t i v e e ducation plan of L i v i n g s t o n School c r e a t e d a micro-economy, i n which the school f u n c t i o n e d as a s t o r e . Six programs provided e x t e n s i v e c o u n s e l l i n g i n group and/or i n d i v i d u a l s e s s i o n s . T h e r a p e u t i c methods were o f t e n p r e s c r i b e d , i n c l u d i n g , R e a l i t y Therapy, R a t i o n a l Behaviour Therapy, and T r a n s a c t i o n a l A n a l y s i s . Three programs o f f e r e d parent e f f e c t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g to supplement remedial programs o f f e r e d at s c h o o l . Unique f e a t u r e s were found in four programs. At Deep P r o j e c t , students were encouraged to i d e n t i f y t h e i r needs and design t h e i r own p r o j e c t s . The c u r r i c u l u m of the three-year Community Experimental Education Centre was composed of 32 l i f e - s k i l l s courses d e f i n e d as competencies. 40 At C.O.R.E., the most v a r i e d program reviewed, d i s r u p t i v e students were i d e n t i f i e d and assigned to one of 15 i n d i v i d u a l i z e d programs f o r treatment i n a d d i t i o n to classroom i n s t r u c t i o n . P h y s i c a l and i n t e l l e c t u a l i n t e r v e n t i o n were provided at the H u n t s v i l l e Academic School based on the t h e o r e t i c a l framework of the h i e r a r c h y of needs as d e f i n e d by Maslow. Rational-emotive therapy, Team-Games-Tournament, and parent e f f e c t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g were the t h e r a p e u t i c and teaching techniques assessed i n the three experimental s t u d i e s reviewed. T h i s review was undertaken to provide a comparative base a g a i n s t which the techniques used to improve i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour at NJAP c o u l d be assessed. The i n f o r m a t i o n gathered aided the f o r m u l a t i o n of the recommendations presented in Chapter S i x . 41 CHAPTER 3 EVALUATION MODEL AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES As noted i n Chapter 1, the purpose of the e v a l u a t i o n was d i r e c t e d towards answering the f o l l o w i n g two major quest ions: (1) Is NJAP e f f e c t i v e i n meeting i t s s t a t e d goals? S p e c i f i c a l l y , are suspended students prepared f o r r e i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o the r e g u l a r c l a s s s i t u a t i o n ? (2) Does NJAP succeed i n meeting any other goals which are not f o r m a l l y stated? The present chapter begins with a d e s c r i p t i o n of the e v a l u a t i o n design used to address the purposes of t h i s study. The s p e c i f i c e v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n s are then l i s t e d f o l l o w e d by an o u t l i n e of the e v a l u a t i o n procedure. The sample, e v a l u a t i o n instruments, and data a n a l y s i s are then d e s c r i b e d i n order. Basic E v a l u a t i o n Design The e v a l u a t i o n d e f i n i t i o n s t a t e d i n Chapter One was a c o m p i l a t i o n of three d e f i n i t i o n s commonly found i n modern e v a l u a t i o n theory. Consequently, the e v a l u a t i o n design used i n t h i s study was e c l e c t i c i n nature. Although the model developed by Stake (1967) f o r o r g a n i z i n g data served as the c e n t r a l framework f o r the d e s i g n , the ideas of Rutman (1971) 42 and Provus (1971) in t r o d u c e d changes to the b a s i c Stake model. The present e v a l u a t i o n study employs s e v e r a l f a c e t s of the Stake Model. L i k e the Stake Model, t h i s e v a l u a t i o n design s t a r t e d out with the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the r a t i o n a l e of the program to be e v a l u a t e d . The r a t i o n a l e p r e s c r i b e d the program d e s c r i p t i o n , i n c l u d i n g i t s g o a l s . A d e s c r i p t i v e matrix, again from the Stake Model, was used to compare the i n t e n t s of the program with that which was a c t u a l l y observed. In the Stake Model there i s another step, that of a judgmental matrix which d e f i n e s a standard a g a i n s t which the e v a l u a t e d program i s compared. Since t h i s was the f i r s t e v a l u a t i o n conducted w i t h i n the Surrey School D i s t r i c t , there e x i s t e d no standard of comparison on which to base judgments. Th e r e f o r e , the judgmental matrix was not used i n t h i s study. A jugmental matrix was supplanted by a d i s p a r i t i e s v e c t o r which served as the b a s i s f o r the f o r m u l a t i o n of recommendations designed to redress program d i s p a r i t i e s . The f u l l , m o d i f i e d design i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 2. The r a t i o n a l e i s as d e f i n e d above. F o l l o w i n g Stake (1967), the two columns forming the d e s c r i p t i v e matrix are headed I n t e n t s , which are s t a t e d by the program, and O b s e r v a t i o n s , which are noted by the e v a l u a t i o n . In each column there are three c a t e g o r i e s — antecedents, t r a n s a c t i o n s , and outcomes. Antecedents d e f i n e the Rat i ona1e I n t e n t s Observat i ons Antecedents T r a n s a c t i ons Outcomes Antecedents T r a n s a c t i ons Outcomes Contingence | V Congruence <—> i g u r e 2. The e v a l u a t i o n model D i spar i t i es Recommendat i ons D i spar i t i es Recommendat i ons D i spar i t i es Recommendat i ons D e s c r i p t i v e M a t r i x 44 s i t u a t i o n at the onset of the program and i n c l u d e elements such as demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of students, t h e i r behaviour and l e a r n i n g problems, and t r a i n i n g of program s t a f f . In the process of education, t r a n s a c t i o n s are d e f i n e d as the s e r i e s of encounters that take p l a c e between any of the people i n v o l v e d . Examples i n c l u d e ongoing t r a i n i n g f o r s t a f f and involvement of par e n t s . Outcomes are the e f f e c t s or consequences of educ a t i o n . An example i s , "how many students were r e i n t e g r a t e d at the end of the' school year?" The two columns — I n t e n t s and Observations — are compared f o r degree of congruence. In a p e r f e c t environment, intended antecedents would be i d e n t i c a l to observed antecedents. It was the purpose of t h i s e v a l u a t i o n to determine the extent of t h i s i d e n t i t y . Any d i f f e r e n c e s between the two are l i s t e d under the column headed d i s p a r i t i e s . T h i s h o r i z o n t a l a n a l y s i s a c r o s s the matrix i s a l s o made on t r a n s a c t i o n s and outcomes. Each column l i s t s the c h r o n o l o g i c a l p r o g r e s s i o n from antecedents through t r a n s a c t i o n s to outcomes. The l o g i c of the model assumes that the intended antecedents w i l l c r e a t e an environment in which e d u c a t i o n a l t r a n s a c t i o n s w i l l generate the intended outcomes. If the h o r i z o n t a l a n a l y s i s d e t a i l e d above y i e l d s d i s p a r i t i e s , then c o n t i n g e n t a n a l y s i s must be performed v e r t i c a l l y down the columns from antecedents through t r a n s a c t i o n s to outcomes. For example, 45 in a case in which intended math achievement has not occurred, the model suggests one of the following: that a transaction has f a i l e d ; a transaction never actually took place; or the standards of the antecedents were not met. Specific Evaluation Questions A brief description of NJAP, provided in Chapter 1, was prepared as the i n i t i a l step in the evaluation. Using this description, several related evaluation questions were then formulated and categorized according to the c e l l s shown in the descriptive matrix of Figure 2. These questions, categorized under the headings of antecedents, transactions, and outcomes, are presented in Table 1. The evaluation questions covered both intents and observations, but for the sake of brevity, only the questions corresponding to the observations column (of the descriptive matrix) are l i s t e d . 46 Table 1 E v a l u a t i o n Questions Antecedents 1. How many students passed through the program during the course of the e v a l u a t i o n ? What were the demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of these students? What was the academic a b i l i t y and standing of these students upon entry? What were the a t t i t u d e and s e l f - c o n c e p t scores of these students upon entry? What were the behaviour problems of the students upon entry? What were the l e a r n i n g problems of the students upon entry? 2. How were students admitted to the Program? 3. What was the t r a i n i n g and work experience of the s t a f f at NJAP? Transact ions 4. How was the program s t r u c t u r e d ? Did the p h y s i c a l f a c i l i t i e s meet the requirements of NJAP? What g u i d e l i n e s were used f o r i n s t r u c t i o n ? What were the a c t i v i t i e s of the two a l t e r n a t e teachers? What were the a c t i v i t i e s of the support person? Were there any program s t a f f c o n f l i c t s ? What were the a c t i v i t i e s of the Head of Student S e r v i c e s ? How d i d the p r i n c i p a l p a r t i c i p a t e i n NJAP? What support and s t a f f s e r v i c e s were used by NJAP? What ongoing t r a i n i n g programs were used by NJAP? 5. How were parents i n v o l v e d i n the program? 47 Table 1 continued Outcomes 6. What program goals were achieved? Did NJAP upgrade knowledge i n Math and E n g l i s h ? Did the students l e a r n s k i l l s to help them cope both i n school and in the home? Was there a r e d u c t i o n of i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviours? Did the program r e i n f o r c e s o c i a l l y a c c e p t a b l e behaviour? Did the s t a f f communicate with parents and teachers i n the r e g u l a r program to f a c i l i t a t e s u c c e s s f u l r e e n t r y ? Are students r e i n t e g r a t e d ? Was r e e n t r y of students phased? How many students from the a l t e r n a t e program were r e i n t e g r a t e d i n t o the r e g u l a r classroom at the end of the year or suspended from the program d u r i n g the e v a l u a t i o n p eriod? What c r i t e r i a were used to determine i f the student was ready to r e t u r n to the r e g u l a r program? What c r i t e r i a were used to determine i f the student should be suspended? Have more students been r e i n t e g r a t e d each year that NJAP operated? 7. Did students improve in a t t i t u d e and s e l f - c o n c e p t from p r e t e s t to p o s t t e s t ? 8. What were the a t t i t u d e s of the students towards the program and i t s s t a f f ? What were the a t t i t u d e s of the parents towards NJAP? What were the a t t i t u d e s of the r e g u l a r teachers towards NJAP? 9. What e f f e c t d i d NJAP have on Newton J u n i o r Secondary? 1 0 . What were the t r a i t d i f f e r e n c e s between suspended and r e i n t e g r a t e d students? 48 Methodology In order to adequately address the s p e c i f i c e v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n s , i n f o r m a t i o n and data were c o l l e c t e d from many sources by s e v e r a l methods. T h i s m u l t i p l e - s o u r c e multiple-method approach was adopted to a v o i d the b i a s and e r r o r sometimes a s s o c i a t e d with s i n g l e method approaches, thereby i n c r e a s i n g the c r e d i b i l i t y of the study. For example, i f in f o r m a t i o n and data were c o l l e c t e d from students using only a s e m i - s t r u c t u r e d i n t e r v i e w then b i a s due to dishone s t y or change of mood, which o f t e n e x i s t s in such, c o u l d not be d e t e c t e d . But coupled with data c o l l e c t e d from other sources — parents, teachers and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s — and with other methods — o b s e r v a t i o n , q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , and paper and p e n c i l t e s t s — the students' responses c o u l d be compared and v e r i f i e d . The data sources, types of instrument, dates of data c o l l e c t i o n , and summarization of data are l i s t e d i n Table 2. The data were c o l l e c t e d over a four month p e r i o d as shown in t h i s t a b l e . A more d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of the sources of inf o r m a t i o n and the instruments used f o l l o w s . Summarization of data i s subsumed under the heading Data A n a l y s i s . Table 2 Data C o l l e c t i o n Procedures Source of I n f o r m a t i on E v a l u a t i o n Instrument Date of C o l l e c t i o n Summarization of Data Adm i n i s t r a t i on Head of Student Serv i c e s Pr i nc i pa 1 P r e v i o u s P r i n c i p a l T e a c h e r s NJAP Teachers R e g u l a r Teachers Support Person I n t e r v i e w Schedule Informal O b s e r v a t i o n 1 Informal O b s e r v a t i o n ' I n t e r v i e w Schedule I n t e r v i e w Schedule I n t e r v i e w Schedule Teacher C h i l d Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n C h e c k l i s t Classroom O b s e r v a t i o n Check 1i s t Student D a i l y C h e c k l i s t Teacher Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Follow-up I n t e r v i e w Informal O b s e r v a t i o n 3 Quest i onna i r e I n t e r v i e w Schedule Behaviour C h e c k l i s t Check 1i s t s Classroom Records Check l i s t Informal O b s e r v a t i o n March 26 March 17, Apr i1 1 A p r i l 2 Apr i1 8 Apr i1 15 March 30, Apri1 2 Feb. 11, A p r i l 26 Feb. 11, A p r i l 26 Feb. 11. A p r i l 26 A p r i l 30 May 29 March 26, Apri1 3 A p r i l 30 A p r i l 2 Feb. 1 - A p r i l 30 May 29 Feb. 11 - Apri1 26 summary of res p o n s e s summary of responses summary of responses summary of responses f r e q u e n c i e s and summary of responses f r e q u e n c i es fr e q u e n c i es f r e q u e n c i e s , means, pe r c e n t a g e s summary of responses f requenc i es summary of responses SPSS Computer Program f o r means, s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s , f r e q u e n c i e s , and p e r c e n t a g e s summary of responses f r e q u e n c i es f r e q u e n c i e s , p e r c e n t i l e s summary of responses Table 2 c o n t i n u e d Source of I n f o r m a t i o n E v a l u a t i o n Instrument Date of C o l l e c t i o n Summarization of Data S t u d e n t s P r e - I n t e r v i e w Schedule Short I n t e r v i e w Schedule P o s t - I n t e r v i e w Schedule Follow-up I n t e r v i e w A t t i t u d e S c a l e * S e l f - c o n c e p t S c a l e * Achievement t e s t s ( P r e ) * Achievement t e s t s ( P o s t ) * Behaviour C h e c k l i s t Feb. 1 March 30 March 1 - March 30 March 1 - A p r i l 30 May 25 - 29 Feb. 1 - Apr i1 30 Feb. 1 • Feb. 1 • March 1 A p r i l 30 March 30 - Apr i1 30 Feb. 1 - A p r i l 30 f r e q u e n c i e s and summary of responses f requenc i es f r e q u e n c i e s and summary of responses f requenc i es t - t e s t t - t e s t Norm-Referenced Model Norm-Referenced Model f requenc i es P a r e n t s Quest i onna i r e March 30 SPSS Computer Program means, s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s , f r e q u e n c i e s , p e r c e n t i l e s Student Records Student C h e c k l i s t f o r Apr i1 15 - Apr i1 30 f r e q u e n c i e s , p e r c e n t i l e s 1 C o u n s e l l i n g S e s s i o n ! I n s e r v i c e Meeting at the School Board 3 F r i d a y ( N o n t e a c h i n g day at NJAP) 51 Sources of Information A d m i n i s t r a t o r s . Data and in f o r m a t i o n were obtained from the Head of Student S e r v i c e s , the c u r r e n t p r i n c i p a l of Newton J u n i o r Secondary School, and the former p r i n c i p a l . Information was sought from the pre v i o u s p r i n c i p a l s i n c e the cu r r e n t p r i n c i p a l was i n h i s f i r s t year at the s c h o o l . Teachers. Every teacher who taught a l t e r n a t e students c o n t r i b u t e d i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h i s study. T h i s i n c l u d e d the 18 r e g u l a r teachers who taught a l t e r n a t e students p l a c e d i n t h e i r r e g u l a r c l a s s , as w e l l as the the two a l t e r n a t e t e a c h e r s . As mentioned i n Chapter 1, a l t e r n a t e students began t a k i n g r e g u l a r c l a s s e s as soon as a l t e r n a t e s t a f f thought they were ready. Support Person. Information was a l s o c o l l e c t e d from the support person. Students. The students s t u d i e d were d i v i d e d i n t o two groups. Group 1 students were those s t i l l e n r o l l e d i n school at the end of the e v a l u a t i o n p e r i o d . Some of these students were e n r o l l e d i n the a l t e r n a t e program when the study began, while others j o i n e d the program a f t e r the 52 e v a l u a t i o n commenced, February 1, 1982. Group 2 students c o n s i s t e d of those students who were suspended from the program. The t o t a l sample was 22 with 13 students i n group 1 and nine i n group 2. Parents. Data were c o l l e c t e d from 12 of the 22 parents/guardians of the students i n NJAP. The remaining 10 chose not to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the e v a l u a t i o n . E v a l u a t i o n Instruments Interview schedules. S e m i - s t r u c t u r e d i n t e r v i e w s were conducted to c o l l e c t i n f o r m a t i o n from the students, program t e a c h e r s , support person, the two p r i n c i p a l s , and the Head of Student S e r v i c e s . A copy of the schedule used fo r each group can be found i n Appendix B. A l l i n t e r v i e w s were conducted by the p r i n c i p a l i n v e s t i g a t o r . The students, program s t a f f , and the c u r r e n t p r i n c i p a l were in t e r v i e w e d at the s c h o o l . The Head of Student S e r v i c e s and the pr e v i o u s school p r i n c i p a l were i n t e r v i e w e d , r e s p e c t i v e l y , at the Surrey School Board O f f i c e and the new s c h o o l . 1. Student i n t e r v i e w schedules. Three student i n t e r v i e w schedules were c o n s t r u c t e d , i n c l u d i n g an i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w , a post i n t e r v i e w , and a tw i c e - a d m i n i s t e r e d f i v e minute i n t e r v i e w . The i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w schedule i n c l u d e d demographic q u e s t i o n s and items p e r t a i n i n g to academic and 53 behaviour progress at the student's p r e v i o u s s c h o o l . The post i n t e r v i e w , which took p l a c e four to s i x weeks a f t e r i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w s , i n c l u d e d items p e r t a i n i n g to the a t t i t u d e s and r e l a t i v e success while at NJAP. The five-minute i n t e r v i e w schedule was a d m i n i s t e r e d twice, once between the i n i t i a l and post i n t e r v i e w s and again i n the l a s t week in May f o l l o w i n g the e v a l u a t i o n p e r i o d . T h i s schedule comprised items that allowed the student to r a t e h i s / h e r academic and behaviour p r o g r e s s . These i n t e r v i e w s were conducted with the students who e n r o l l e d i n NJAP a f t e r the e v a l u a t i o n began. Students a l r e a d y i n attendance p r i o r to the commencement of the e v a l u a t i o n were a l s o given the five-minute i n t e r v i e w twice, but pre and post i n t e r v i e w s were c o l l a p s e d i n t o one. Although a d m i n i s t r a t i o n techniques v a r i e d , a l l students were asked the same items. A l l student i n t e r v i e w s were p r i v a t e l y conducted in an o f f i c e removed from the classroom and d u r i n g school hours. 2. Program s t a f f i n t e r v i e w schedules. Program s t a f f were interv i e w e d twice. On the f i r s t o c c a s i o n , a formal i n d i v i d u a l schedule was used. Included i n t h i s form were items r e l a t e d to the t r a i n i n g and experience of the teacher and the o p e r a t i o n of NJAP. As w e l l , the program s t a f f were asked to i d e n t i f y the s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses of NJAP that they p e r c e i v e d . On the second o c c a s i o n , an i n f o r m a l group i n t e r v i e w was employed in which the s t a f f members were asked to d i s c u s s the behaviour and academic progress of each 54 student in the sample. 3. P r i n c i p a l i n t e r v i e w schedules. The two p r i n c i p a l s were each i n t e r v i e w e d once. They were asked to d e f i n e t h e i r r o l e s i n the program and to s t a t e t h e i r o p i n i o n s and a t t i t u d e s concerning program s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses. 4. Head of Student S e r v i c e s i n t e r v i e w schedule. The Head of Student S e r v i c e s was interviewed to provide i n f o r m a t i o n about the background and design of NJAP, and to express h i s o p i n i o n s as to the r e l a t i v e success of the program. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . To c o l l e c t i n f o r m a t i o n from the r e g u l a r c l a s s teachers and parents two q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were dev i s e d , with 20 items and 22 items r e s p e c t i v e l y (see Appendix C). These q u e s t i o n n a i r e s c o n t a i n e d semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l items, open-ended items and supply-type items. The s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n sought from teachers and parents concerned a t t i t u d e s about the success of the program and t h e i r involvement i n i t . Since short q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were deemed more l i k e l y to be answered these instruments were intended to be completed i n 15 minutes. 55 Achievement measures. Three paper and p e n c i l t e s t s — the Canadian Test of Basic S k i l l s , the Nelson Reading T e s t , and a teacher-made math t e s t — were used to assess student achievement in Math and E n g l i s h . Together these t e s t s p r o v i d e d two measures of performance in each of the s u b j e c t areas of i n t e r e s t . Each t e s t was administered twice, once as a p r e t e s t and second as a p o s t t e s t four to s i x weeks l a t e r . 1. The Canadian Test of Basic S k i l l s . The Math and four E n g l i s h s u b t e s t s of the Canadian Test of Basic S k i l l s , Form 3, L e v e l 14 (King, 1976) were s e l e c t e d f o r use i n the present e v a l u a t i o n . L e v e l 14, f o r students 14 years o l d i n grade e i g h t , was used s i n c e the m a j o r i t y of students i n the program were at the grade e i g h t l e v e l . The s i x s u b t e s t s used in the study covered four areas of language s k i l l s : S p e l l i n g (L1); C a p i t a l i z a t i o n (L2); Punctuation (L3); and Usage (L4); and two areas of Mathematics s k i l l s : Math Concepts (M1) and Math Problem S o l v i n g (M2). The s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t c o r r e c t e d by the Spearman-Brown formula (CTBS manual, p. 54) i s r e p o r t e d in Table 3 f o r each of the s u b t e s t s . I t i s d e s i r a b l e to have hi g h r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s and low e r r o r s of measurement. In t h i s case e r r o r s of measurement are low and r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s are r e l a t i v e l y h i g h . Table 3 Data Reported by the Test Authors For Canadian Test of Basi c S k i l l s and Nelson Reading Test Canadian Test of Basi c S k i l l s Subtest X s r SEM L1 23.1 9.44 .91 2.9 L2 21.1 7.16 .82 3.0 L3 18.0 6.41 .80 2.9 L4 13.7 5.28 .80 2.4 M1 23.7 7.73 .84 3.1 M2 14.1 5.38 .79 2.5 Nelson Reading Test Grade n x s r SEM Word Meaning 7 428 21.1 8.8 .92 2.5 8 381 23.0 8.6 .91 2.6 9 212 23.7 8.9 .93 2.3 Word Comprehension 7 428 20.5 7.9 .86 3.0 8 381 21.5 7.9 .88 2.7 9 212 22.4 7.1 .81 3.1 Note. n was not recorded f o r the CTBS. 57 Test v a l i d i t y in the form of content v a l i d i t y was assured by i n c o r p o r a t i n g the f o l l o w i n g : 1. items that apply to t o p i c s c u r r e n t l y d i s c u s s e d i n the school system; 2. item f r e q u e n c i e s that correspond to the frequency of use i n the s c h o o l s ; 3. items that are a p p r o p r i a t e to the t e s t populat ion; 4. feedback from users; and 5. examination of the t e s t f o r b i a s and e r r o r (p. 41). 2. The Nelson Reading S k i l l s T e s t . The Nelson Reading Test (Hanna, S c h e l l & S c h r e i n e r , 1977) c o n s i s t s of four s u b t e s t s — Word Meaning, Reading Comprehension, Word Pa r t s , and Reading Rate. Only the Word Meaning and Reading Comprehension s u b t e s t s were used. At NJAP, these are the two s u b t e s t s normally a d m i n i s t e r e d . L e v e l C, Form 3 was used because i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r grades 7, 8, and 9. The two s u b t e s t s have a t o t a l of 70 m u l t i p l e c h o i c e items, with 29 f o r Word Meaning and 41 f o r Reading Comprehension. R e l i a b i l i t y estimates were c a l c u l a t e d by means of the common s p l i t - h a l v e s method (p. 43). Table 3 l i s t s the means, standard d e v i a t i o n s , r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s , and standard e r r o r s of measurement f o r the two s u b t e s t s . The r e l i a b i l i t i e s f o r the s u b t e s t s and f o r the t o t a l t e s t are 58 high and the measurement e r r o r i s low. Test v a l i d i t y was assessed by means of c o n s t r u c t and content v a l i d i t y . C o n s t r u c t s of i n t e r e s t to reading teachers were analyzed and context of the t e s t was s t u d i e d f o r s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n , d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l , grade l e v e l , r e a d a b i l i t y , speededness, and b i a s (p. 37). 3. Teacher-made math t e s t . A teacher-made math t e s t (see Appendix D) developed by the Math Department at Newton J u n i o r Secondary School was used to provide a second measure of mathematics performance. The 68 item t e s t i s used as a p r e t e s t by the NJAP s t a f f to provide the i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d to design i n d i v i d u a l i z e d math programs. Items t e s t a student's a b i l i t y i n the areas of a d d i t i o n , s u b t r a c t i o n , m u l t i p l i c a t i o n , and d i v i s i o n . The c a p a c i t y to mathematically manipulate f r a c t i o n s i s t e s t e d , as w e l l as changing f r a c t i o n s to decimals, and v i c e v e r s a . Word problems t e s t the use of equations in working with r a t e s , r a t i o s , and p r o p o r t i o n s i n numbers, and w r i t i n g numerals i n words. I n i t i a l problems are r e l a t i v e l y simple; complexity i n c r e a s e s as the t e s t p r o g r e s s e s . For example, the f i r s t a d d i t i o n q u e s t i o n r e q u i r e s the student to sum two s i n g l e d i g i t numerals whereas the f i n a l a d d i t i o n q u e s t i o n r e q u i r e s the student to add f o u r , three d i g i t numerals. R e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y i n f o r m a t i o n of the t e s t have not been r e p o r t e d by the t e s t u s e r s . 59 S c a l e s The School Sentiment Index ( I n s t r u c t i o n a l O b j e c t i v e s Exchange (IOX), 1970) was used to assess student a t t i t u d e s and the S e l f - A p p r a i s a l Inventory (IOX, 1972) was used to assess s e l f - c o n c e p t . Both L i k e r t - s t y l e s c a l e s c o n s i s t of four p o i n t items ( s t r o n g l y agree, agree, d i s a g r e e , s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e ) . Approximately h a l f of the items on each t e s t have reversed p o l a r i t y to a v o i d p o s s i b l e contamination due to a p o s i t i o n a l p r e f erence s e t . Students were given each s c a l e twice, f i r s t as a p r e t e s t and second as a p o s t t e s t . There was a four to s i x week p e r i o d between t e s t i n g s . 1 . The School Sentiment Index. The School Sentiment Index i s d i v i d e d i n t o f i v e s u b s c a l e s . One n o n s p e c i f i c subscale i s a measure of general a t t i t u d e . The other four s u b s c ales measure a t t i t u d e s toward school s t r u c t u r e and c l i m a t e , l e a r n i n g , peers, and t e a c h e r s . The teacher subtest i s f u r t h e r s u b d i v i d e d i n t o a t t i t u d e s toward i n s t r u c t i o n , a u t h o r i t y and c o n t r o l , and i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . For those students who e n r o l l e d i n the program a f t e r the beginning of the e v a l u a t i o n , the School Sentiment Index was used as a p r e t e s t which a p p l i e d to the student's p r e v i o u s s c h o o l . For the post t e s t , the School Sentiment was m o d i f i e d so that the a t t i t u d e s r e f e r r e d to NJAP. Items 60 which a p p l i e d to teachers were changed to r e f e r to a l t e r n a t e teachers and support person. S i m i l a r l y , items which a p p l i e d to the school were changed to r e f e r to the a l t e r n a t e classroom. The f o l l o w i n g i s an example of a change made from p r e t e s t to p o s t t e s t . P r e t e s t : 'My teachers r a r e l y e x p l a i n to me why I deserve the grades I earn on assignments and t e s t s ' . P o s t t e s t : 'My a l t e r n a t e teachers r a r e l y e x p l a i n to me why I deserve the grades I earn on assignments and t e s t s ' . Two i n d i c a t o r s of r e l i a b i l i t y , t e s t - r e t e s t and i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y , f o r the o r i g i n a l ( u n a l t e r e d ) form were provided by the t e s t authors (Popham, 1972, p. 15) and are reproduced i n Table 4. Since t h i s i s an a f f e c t i v e t e s t the r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r each of the f i v e s u b t e s t s are good. Test authors reported no v a l i d i t y data: however both the School Sentiment Index and the S e l f - A p p r a i s a l Inventory ( d e s c r i b e d below) have been used s u c c e s s f u l l y in s e v e r a l program e v a l u a t i o n s (eg., Hawaii 3 on 2, 1977, p. 57). 2. S e l f A p p r a i s a l Inventory (Secondary L e v e l ) . The S e l f - A p p r a i s a l Inventory i s s u b d i v i d e d i n t o four s u b s c a l e s . Three s u b s c a l e s assess s e l f - c o n c e p t of the f a m i l y , peers and s c h o l a s t i c achievement, while the f o u r t h subscale assesses a g e n e r a l s e l f - c o n c e p t . 61 Table 4 R e l i a b i l i t y C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r the School Sentiment Index and The S e l f A p p r a i s a l Inventory I n t e r n a l Consistency T e s t - R e t e s t Subtest n r n r School Sentiment I ndex Mode of I n s t r u c t i o n 74 .73 101 .68 A u t h o r i t y and C o n t r o l 75 .71 1 07 .65 I n t e r p e r s o n a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s 76 .76 1 04 .81 General 72 .79 1 1 1 .68 S t r u c t u r e and C o n t r o l 78 .77 1 05 . 64 Peer 73 .71 1 00 .71 Learning 74 .68 1 04 .62 S e l f A p p r a i s a l Inventory General 133 .60 1 78 .67 Peer 128 .61 1 79 .62 S c h o l a s t i c 101 .72 1 53 .53 Family 124 .74 1 82 .69 Note. The means and standard d e v i a t i o n s were not r e p o r t e d . I n d i c a t o r s of r e l i a b i l i t y as r e p o r t e d by the author (Popham, 1972, p. 14) were the i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y index and t e s t - r e t e s t s t a b i l i t y index. The c o e f f i c i e n t s are shown in Table 4. No v a l i d i t y data were r e p o r t e d by the t e s t author. 62 Formal o b s e r v a t i o n schedules. Seven d i f f e r e n t instruments were used f o r o b s e r v a t i o n purposes. These instruments were: 1. Classsroom Records C h e c k l i s t ; 2. The Classroom Observation Schedule and Teacher's Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Evans, 1971); 3. Teacher-Student I n t e r a c t i o n C h e c k l i s t (Brophy & Good, 1974); 4. The Reid Behaviour C h e c k l i s t ; 5. Student D a i l y Work C h e c k l i s t ; 6. Student Records C h e c k l i s t ; and 7. Student Suspension or R e i n t e g r a t i o n C h e c k l i s t . Instruments not r e f e r e n c e d were c r e a t e d f o r t h i s e v a l u a t i o n . It was the d e s i r e to p o r t r a y three p i c t u r e s of the classroom: one from a classroom p e r s p e c t i v e ; another from a teacher p e r s p e c t i v e ; and a t h i r d from the student p e r s p e c t i v e . S e v e r a l of these instruments served dual purposes. For i n s t a n c e , the Teacher- Student I n t e r a c t i o n C h e c k l i s t p rovided i n f o r m a t i o n from both teacher and student perspect i v e s . Students and teachers were observed f o r m a l l y from February 11 c o n t i n u i n g through A p r i l 30. Observation dates accommodated the four-day r o t a t i o n schedule of NJAP. Days from the classroom schedule we're s e l e c t e d f o r o b s e r v a t i o n to av o i d any systematic b i a s . As shown i n Table 5, there were a t o t a l of 50 c l a s s p e r i o d s d u r i n g the o b s e r v a t i o n p e r i o d . 63 However, only t h i r t y p e r i o d s were a c t u a l l y observed, f i f t e e n per teacher. Unforeseen circumstances (such as high student absenteeism, teacher absenteeism, guest speakers, student assemblies or change i n school schedule) arose l e a v i n g the schedule shown i n Table 6. 1. Classroom Records C h e c k l i s t . The purpose of the Classroom Records C h e c k l i s t was to provide the f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n f o r each year the program operated: number of students e n r o l l e d ; number of students who withdrew; number who were suspended; and number who were r e i n t e g r a t e d (see Appendix E ) . T h i s c h e c k l i s t was completed by the support person. 2. The Classroom Observation Schedule and Teacher's Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The Classroom Observation Schedule and Teacher Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Evans, 1971) were i n i t i a l l y developed to evaluate open e d u c a t i o n . Both were adapted f o r use, i n the present study (Appendix F and G). The o b s e r v a t i o n schedule was employed to re c o r d t y p i c a l classroom i n t e r a c t i o n u s ing short-answer d e s c r i p t i o n s of the classroom environment and a c t i v i t i e s (e.g., 'Students move o u t s i d e the c l a s s without p e r m i s s i o n ' ) . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was used to d e s c r i b e intended t e a c h i n g s t y l e s , as p r o v i d e d by the teacher, while the o b s e r v a t i o n schedule was used to record a c t u a l classroom progress and a c t i v i t i e s . Table 5 Proposed Formal O b s e r v a t i o n P e r i o d Thursday Thursday Wednesday Monday Tuesday Tuesday Wednesday Wednesday Thursday Monday Feb. 1 1 Feb. 18 March 10 March 15 March 16 March 23 March 24 Apr i 1 14 Apr i 1 22 Apr i 1 26 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 1 Day 2 Day 4 Day 2 B1 ock F Block G Bl ock H Block G B1 ock H Block G B 1 ock F Bl ock G B 1 ock G B 1 ock G Bl o c k G Block H Bl ock F Bl ock H Block F Block H B 1 ock G Bl ock H Block H B 1 ock H Bl o c k H Block F Bl ock G Bl ock F Bl ock G Bl ock F B 1 ock H Block F B l o c k F B 1 ock F B 1 ock I Block J Block I B 1 ock d Bl ock I B 1 ock J B 1 ock I Bl ock d Bl ock d B 1 ock d B l o c k J Block I B l ock J Bl ock I Bl ock d B 1 ock I B 1 ock d B 1 ock I Bl ock I B l o c k I T able 6 Actual Formal O b s e r v a t i o n P e r i o d Thursday Thursday Wednesday Monday Tuesday. Tuesday Wednesday Wednesday Thursday Monday Feb. 11 Feb. 18 March 10 March 15 March 16 March 23 March 24 A p r i l 14 A p r i l 22 A p r i l 26 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 1 Day 2 Day 4 Day 2 Bl ock H B1 ock G Block H B1 ock H Bl ock H B 1 ock H Bl ock H Bl ock H B l o c k H Block F Bl ock G Bl ock G B 1 ock F B l o c k H Bl ock F B lock F B 1 ock I Block d Bl ock I Bl ock I Bl ock d Block I Bl ock d B 1 ock d Bl ock d B l o c k d Block d Bl ock d Bl ock I Bl ock I Note. C l a s s e s a r e marked by l e t t e r s , i . e . . Block H. A l p h a b e t i c sequence s t a r t s w i t h F, c o n t i n u i n g through G, H, I and d. 65 3. T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n C h e c k l i s t . An adaption of the T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n C h e c k l i s t developed by Brophy and Good (1974) was used to analyze student-teacher i n t e r a c t i o n . Names of students present f o r the p e r i o d observed were l i s t e d v e r t i c a l l y down the page and teacher a c t i v i t i e s were l i s t e d h o r i z o n t a l l y a c r o s s the page. Examples of the l i s t e d t e a c h i n g a c t i v i t i e s a r e : 'teacher asks a q u e s t i o n ' ; 'teacher answers a q u e s t i o n ' ; and 'teacher p r a i s e s behaviour' (see Appendix H). At r e g u l a r i n t e r v a l s the e v a l u a t o r would p l a c e a checkmark beside the student observed under the heading of the a p p r o p r i a t e teacher a c t i v i t y . For example, the teacher may have been engaged i n answering a qu e s t i o n of student 101. In that case a checkmark was p l a c e d beside student 101 i n the column headed 'Teacher answers a q u e s t i o n ' . The i n t e r v a l s were set at three minutes to allow s u f f i c i e n t r e c o r d i n g time. The coding system was based on a t a b u l a t i n g matrix i d e n t i f i e d by Fl a n d e r s (1970, p. 85). H o r i z o n t a l and v e r t i c a l checkmarks were t a l l i e d . The h o r i z o n t a l t o t a l s r e f e r to the number of times the teacher i n t e r a c t s with each student. The v e r t i c a l t o t a l s r e f e r to the t o t a l number of times the teacher was observed performing the d u t i e s d e s c r i b e d i n the category headings. 4. The Reid Behaviour C h e c k l i s t . The Reid Behaviour C h e c k l i s t was designed to p o r t r a y an accurate i n v e n t o r y of student behaviour d u r i n g c l a s s p e r i o d s . The behaviours on 66 t h i s c h e c k l i s t were those l i s t e d by teachers as being p r e v a l e n t amongst t h e i r students p r i o r to the e v a l u a t i o n (e.g., 'Not Paying A t t e n t i o n ' ; ' T a l k i n g Out Loud'; and ' T a l k i n g To P e e r s ' ) . (Refer to Appendix I f o r a copy of the instrument used.) One c h e c k l i s t was completed by the ev a l u a t o r f o r each student observed i n the c l a s s p e r i o d . The classroom was scanned every three minutes and i n d i v i d u a l student behaviour recorded. Unusual or inf r e q u e n t behaviours such as swearing, f i g h t i n g , making n o i s e s other than t a l k i n g were recorded as they o c c u r r e d . 5. Student D a i l y Work C h e c k l i s t . The Student D a i l y Work C h e c k l i s t was used to r e c o r d student achievement. A c h e c k l i s t was completed by the teacher f o r each student at the end of each observed c l a s s i n order to r a t e the percentage c o r r e c t , amount of work completed, and time on task (See Appendix J ) . The teacher checked the a p p r o p r i a t e items d e s c r i b i n g work completed and percentage c o r r e c t . Time on task was estimated on a 50 minute p e r i o d . 6. Student C h e c k l i s t f o r Records. The Student C h e c k l i s t f o r Records was used to organize data obtained from student f i l e s at both NJAP and each student's p r e v i o u s s c h o o l . Information was gathered concerning grades, absenteeism, t a r d i n e s s , reason(s) f o r suspension, and amount of p a r e n t a l c o n t a c t . T h i s c h e c k l i s t (see Appendix K) was completed by the e v a l u a t o r . 67 7. Student Suspension and R e i n t e g r a t i o n C h e c k l i s t s . Two c h e c k l i s t s (Appendix L) were designed to c o l l e c t i n f o r m a t i o n about the suspension and r e i n t e g r a t i o n procedures. The c h e c k l i s t s c o n t a i n e d two supply-type items: 'Who was i n v o l v e d i n the d e c i s i o n ? ' and 'What c r i t e r i a was used i n making the d e c i s i o n ? ' The c h e c k l i s t was completed by the support person at the time of suspension or at the end of the year i n the case of r e i n t e g r a t i o n . Informal O b s e r v a t i o n . Any f a c e t s of the program not examined by the seven p r e v i o u s instruments were observed i n f o r m a l l y . The l i s t i s as f o l l o w s : support person d u t i e s ; Wednesday c o u n s e l l i n g s e s s i o n s ; Thursday i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g ; and F r i d a y a c t i v i t i e s (nonteaching day). Dates of i n f o r m a l o b s e r v a t i o n are shown i n Table 7. DATA ANALYSIS The methods used to summarize the i n f o r m a t i o n gathered by the e v a l u a t i o n study are l i s t e d i n the f i n a l column of Table 2. Frequencies, percentages, and means were computed by means of a hand c a l c u l a t o r i f the data was gathered from a small sample group such as a l t e r n a t e s t a f f and a l s o i n those cases where computer coding was more time-consuming than hand c a l c u l a t i o n s . The numerical data from r e g u l a r teacher 68 Table 7 A c t u a l Dates of Informal Observation Support Person 1 Monday March 8 Day 1 Per iod 1 Thursday March 18 Day 1 Pe r i o d 2 Fr iday A p r i l 2 Day 4 P e r i o d 5 Tuesday A p r i l 1 3 Day 1 Per i o d 3 Tuesday A p r i l 1 3 Day 1 Pe r i o d 1 Wednesday A p r i l 2 Day 3 Per iod 4 Thursday A p r i l 22 Day 4 Per iod 4 F r i d a y A p r i l 23 Day 1 Pe r i o d 2 Monday Apr i 1 26 Day 2 Pe r i o d 3 Wednesday Apr i 1 27 Day 4 Per iod 5 F r i d a y (NonTeaching Days) F r i d a y March 26 F r i d a y A p r i l 3 Wednesday C o u n s e l l i n g Sessions Wednesday March 17 Wednesday A p r i l 1 Thursday I n s e r v i c e Meeting Thursday A p r i l 2 Since the e v a l u a t o r conducted a l l i n t e r v i e w s and o b s e r v a t i o n s , the above o b s e r v a t i o n schedule f o r the Support Person was adopted. T h i s schedule was amenable to the e v a l u a t o r ' s time t a b l e and i n c l u d e d two of each c l a s s p e r i o d and two of each school day. 69 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , parent q u e s t i o n a i r e s , s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s , and s c a l e s was coded to permit use of standard computer programs to c a l c u l a t e means, standard d e v i a t i o n s , frequences, percentages, and t - t e s t s t a t i s t i c s . Some data c o u l d not be manipulated by means of q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s . T h i s was true f o r inf o r m a l o b s e r v a t i o n and f o r the q u a l i t a t i v e p o r t i o n s of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and i n t e r v i e w schedules. These responses were summarized as recorded. Some instruments i n Table 2 are marked with an a s t e r i s k . T h i s n o t a t i o n was used to designate instruments f o r which more complex data a n a l y s i s was r e q u i r e d . A d e t a i l e d e x p l a n a t i o n f o l l o w s . The School Sentiment Index and the S e l f - A p p r a i s a l Inventory were both scored by the LERTAP computer program (Nelson,1974), and the SPSS program ( K i t a , 1980) was used to generate independent t - v a l u e s and p r o b a b i l i t i e s f o r the two groups of students. Using a s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l of f i v e per cent, the t - t e s t s were used to t e s t the hypotheses that d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d between the two student groups on a t t i t u d e and s e l f - c o n c e p t . To determine i f s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d between p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t s c o r e s , the Norm-Referenced Model (Tallmadge & Horst, 1976) was employed fo r the CTBS and Nelson Reading T e s t . The SPSS computer program was used to c a l c u l a t e means, standard d e v i a t i o n s , 70 and c o r r e l a t i o n s from grade scores on both p r e t e s t s and p o s t t e s t s of the two s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s . P r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t means were converted to p e r c e n t i l e e q u i v a l e n t s using the t a b l e s found i n the t e s t manuals a c c o r d i n g to a d m i n i s t r a t i o n times (Winter and S p r i n g ) . Using the p r e t e s t p e r c e n t i l e s , the expected mean p o s t t e s t scores were found i n the P o s t t e s t Norms Tables (King & Hieronymus, 1976 ; Hanna, S c h e l l & S c h r e i n e r , 1977). These values which represent no treatment e f f e c t were then compared to the a c t u a l p o s t t e s t means obt a i n e d . If the comparison y i e l d e d an observed mean gre a t e r than the expected, a t e s t was performed to determine i f the d i f f e r e n c e was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t using the f o l l o w i n g formula: t(N-1) = Y - 1 i/Sx 2 + Sy 2 - 2rxySxSy T = observed mean p o s t t e s t score Y = expected mean p o s t t e s t score Sx = p r e t e s t standard d e v i a t i o n Sy = p o s t t e s t standard d e v i a t i o n rxy = c o r r e l a t i o n between pre and p o s t t e s t scores N = Number of students N-1 = degrees of freedom (Tallmadge & Horst, 1976, P. 74) From p r o b a b i l i t y t a b l e s ( K i r k , 1978), i f the o n e - t a i l e d t value had a p r o b a b i l i t y l e s s than or equal to .05 than the d i f f e r e n c e was co n s i d e r e d s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . 71 CHAPTER 4 EVALUATION RESULTS: ANTECEDENTS AND TRANSACTIONS The e v a l u a t i o n r e s u l t s presented i n Chapters 4 and 5 are organized a c c o r d i n g to the three major c a t e g o r i e s i d e n t i f i e d i n the Stake model — antecedents, t r a n s a c t i o n s , and outcomes. Within each category, r e s u l t s are reported for each a p p l i c a b l e e v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n . The r e s u l t s are reported i n the c h r o n o l o g i c a l order i n which they occurred du r i n g the e v a l u a t i o n . Antecedent and t r a n s a c t i o n r e s u l t s are r e p o r t e d i n Chapter 4; outcome r e s u l t s are r e p o r t e d i n Chapter 5. The data f o r students i s reported en masse in Chapter 4. In Chapter 5, the data are r e p o r t e d by the groupings that became apparent from the outcomes. (Group 2 students were suspended, whereas Group 1 students were s t i l l e n r o l l e d at the end of the school year.) Antecedents Student Sample Number of students e n r o l l e d i n NJAP. As reported i n Chapter 1, although NJAP was designed to accommodate a maximum of 20 students at any one time, over the course of a year more students were served due to r e f e r r a l s , t r a n s f e r s , dropouts, and suspensions. 72 For the 1981-82 year, a t o t a l of 45 students were e n r o l l e d i n NJAP f o r some p e r i o d of time. During the e v a l u a t i o n p e r i o d (February 1 to June 1), 30 students were e n r o l l e d i n the program, 22 of whom were i n c l u d e d i n the study. Of the remainder, four students were not in t e r v i e w e d because they entered the program a f t e r the c u t o f f date (March 3 1 s t ) , three students were d e l e t e d because they were suspended from the program before t h e i r i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w , and one student never attended. Demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the students. The student sample i n c l u d e d 12 males and 10 females. Although t h e i r ages ranged from 13 to 16 years, the m a j o r i t y were e i t h e r 14 (n=l0) or 15 (n=7). Two of the students were e n r o l l e d i n grade 7, 11 i n grade 8, two i n grade 8/9 s p l i t , s i x in grade 9, and one i n grade 10. As re p o r t e d i n Chapter 1, NJAP was designed f o r suspended students and the m a j o r i t y , 16, had been. Four others had withdrawn from t h e i r former s c h o o l , and two were t r a n s f e r r e d d i r e c t l y because of poor grades. A l l students had attended a Surrey School p r e v i o u s l y , and a l l but one l i v e d w i t h i n the Surrey School D i s t r i c t . Three students had been suspended from another Surrey a l t e r n a t e program. The remaining 19 were a t t e n d i n g an a l t e r n a t e program f o r the f i r s t time. T h i r t e e n students l i v e d with both p a r e n t s , s i x with 73 only one parent, and three l i v e d i n a group home or with f o s t e r p a r e n t s . Academic a b i l i t y or s t a n d i n g . The academic a b i l i t y of the students upon admission to NJAP was determined i n three ways. F i r s t , using data obtained from student f i l e s , i t was found that of the 15 students who had taken the Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale f o r C h i l d r e n (Wechsler, 1974), four scored between 110 and 119 (High average), f i v e between 90 and 109 (middle average), f i v e between 80 and 89 (low average), and one between 70 and 79 ( b o r d e r l i n e ) . A second method of determining academic a b i l i t y was based upon l e t t e r grade standing from the students' previous s c h o o l . The students' grade l e v e l and l e t t e r grade standings upon entry at NJAP are shown i n the second and l a s t three columns, r e s p e c t i v e l y , of Table 8. T h i r t e e n students had a f a i l i n g modal l e t t e r grade of e i t h e r "F" or "E", and e i g h t a modal l e t t e r grade from "D" to "C+". Data from school records were missing f o r the remaining student. F u r t h e r , as shown i n Table 8, the m a j o r i t y of students, 11, had f a i l i n g grades f o r both Mathematics and E n g l i s h . The t h i r d student assessment was performed when students f i r s t entered the program by means of the Reading and Mathematics s u b t e s t s of the Canadian Test of Basic S k i l l s , Form 3, L e v e l 14, and the Nelson Reading Test, Form 3, L e v e l C. The scores obtained are d i s p l a y e d i n Table 8 i n T a b l e 8 Grade Sco r e s f o r the Canadian Tes t of B a s i c S k i l l s and the Nelson Reading Tes t and L e t t e r Grades upon Ad m i s s i o n to NJAP CTBS Nelson L e t t e r Grades Grade M1 M2 L1 L2 L3 L4 Math E n g l i s h Voc. Com. Comp Dev. Mode Math E n g l i s h L e v e l Comp Dev Comp Dev 8/9 1 7 . 9 8 .0 8 .0 8 .8 8 . 2 - . 3 6 .0 4 .0 5 .0 -3 . 5 F F F 8 7 . 9 6 .4 9 .6 6 . 2 6 .5 5 . 5 7 . 2 - . 8 7 .0 -1 7 .7 7 .9 7 . 8 - . 2 P P P 8 7 . 7 G . 4 3 . 7 8 . 4 8 . 5 8 .5 7 . 1 - . 9 7 . 3 - . . 7 10 . 1 5 . 3 7 . 7 - . 3 D D C 8 5 . 5 9 .5 10 . 2 10. . 1 1 1 .4 9 . 5 7 . 5 - . 5 10 . 3 2 . 3 7 . 7 9 . 3 8 . 5 . 5 C C C 8 7 .0 8 .3 8 . 6 5. .6 8 . 2 7 . 4 7 . 7 - . 3 7 . 5 - . 5 8 . 2 7 .9 8 . 1 . 1 F F F 9 4 . 2 2 . 5 9 .0 8 . 4 8 . 2 8 .8 3 .4 -3 .6 8 . 6 - . 4 1 1 12 1 1 . . 5 2 . 5 F F F 8 6 . 3 7 .7 8 .4 6 . 8 8 . 5 5 .0 • 7 - 1 7 . 2 - . 8 6 . 6 6 .6 6 . 6 - 1 . 4 F F I 9 9 . 2 9 . 2 8 .6 6 . 2 8 .5 6. . 5 9 . 2 . 2 7 . 5 -1 . 5 12 . 0 10 . 2 1 1 . . 1 2 . 1 E E I 9 5 .0 7 . 7 9 .0 8 . 8 8 . 5 8 . 2 6 .6 -2 . 4 8 . 6 - . 4 10. .8 9 .8 10. . 3 1 . 3 F E E 8 6 .3 5. . 5 6 . 5 4 , .0 4 .9 4 . 5 5 .9 -2 , 1 5 -3 9 . 9 9 . 3 9 . 6 1 . 6 F E E 9 8 . 3 7 . 7 9 . 6 3 . 4 4 .5 10. . 3 8 - 1 7 -2 10. . 1 1 1 . 4 10. . 8 1 . 8 C C B 10 5 . 2 5 .0 5 . 9 8 .  1 7 .9 6 . 5 5 . 1 -4 . 9 7 .  1 -2 .9 10. 4 9 . 8 10. . 1 . 1 9 10 .8 12 . 3 9 .0 10. .4 10. . 3 8 . 5 1 1 . 6 2 .6 9 . 6 . 6 9 . 9 1 1 .0 10. . 5 1 . 5 P C + D 8 ! 8 . 5 7 .  1 7 . 8 - . 2 6 . 0 6 . 1 6 .  1 -1 . 9 C + C C + 8 2 . 5 2. . 5 6 . 5 G . 5 5 .8 3 . 6 2 . 5 -5 . 5 5 . 6 -2 . 4 6 . 6 4 . 3 5 . 5 -2 . 5 F I I 7 2 . 5 2 . 5 5. . 9 6 . 7 2 . 5 2 . 5 '2 . 5 -4 . 5 4 . 4 -2 . G 5 . 1 2 . 6 3 . 9 -3 . 1 C- c - C-8 5 . 5 9. .5 6 . , 5 5 . 2 6 . ,9 8 . 2 7 , . 5 - . . 5 6 . 7 -1 . 3 9. 2 4 . 9 7 . 1 - . .9 E E E 7 4 . 2 2 , .5 4 . 8 5 . 9 7 .6 6 . 5 3 . 4 -3 , .6 6 . 2 - .8 6 . 3 4 . 9 5 . 6 - 1 . 4 D D D 8/9 9 .8 9 . 7 9. .9 10. 1 9 . 4 9 . 8 9 . 8 1 . . 3 9. 8 1 . 3 12 . 4 12 . 5 12 . 5 4 . 0 F F F 8 7 . 2 G . 0 8 . 8 7 . 7 6 . 9 9 . 1 6 . 6 - 1 . . 4 8 . 1 . 1 8 . 5 4 .0 6 . 3 - 1 . . 7 F E E 8 7 . 4 6 . 4 5 . 1 5 . 9 4 , .9 7 . 0 6 . 9 - 1 . . 1 7 - 1 9 . 2 5 . 3 7 . 3 - . . 7 F c - c -9 6 . 5 2 . 5 5 . 9 5 . 9 5 . 8 6. 5 4 . 5 -4 . 5 -3 5 . 5 5 . 6 5 . 6 -3 . 4 E S S Note. Blank r e p r e s e n t s m i s s i n g d a t a . Any s t u d e n t s who s c o r e d below grade 3 l e v e l were g i v e n 2.5 as t h e i r s c o r e . 1 T h i s s t u d e n t ' s emotional i n s t a b i l i t y p r e vented t e s t i n g i n Math. 2 T h i s s t u d e n t was suspended b e f o r e p r e t e s t i n g was completed. 75 Columns three and four f o r the CTBS Math subtest and i n Columns f i v e to e i g h t f o r the CTBS E n g l i s h s u b t e s t . The Nelson Reading t e s t scores are shown in Columns 13 and 14. Composite scores (Columns 9, 11, and 15) were c a l c u l a t e d for the two t e s t s as f o l l o w s . The authors of the CTBS (King & Hieronymus, 1976), suggest that the Mathematics and E n g l i s h s u b t e s t s be averaged s e p a r a t e l y and that these two means be averaged together to d e r i v e a s i n g l e composite score (p. 22-23). In the present study t h i s f i n a l average was not computed because i t was f e l t that poor performance in one area c o u l d be compensated f o r by b e t t e r performance in the other, thus masquerading w i t h i n i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , Mathematics and E n g l i s h r e s u l t s were not combined. The two composite CTBS scores p l u s the s i n g l e score f o r the Nelson Reading Test were used to compare entry performance with the student's expected grade l e v e l d e f i n e d as the nominal grade i n which the student was e n r o l l e d . These grade d e v i a t i o n scores are shown in three columns headed 'Dev' of Table 8. A negative grade d e v i a t i o n score denotes a value below that of the expected grade. As shown, 20 of 22 students were below t h e i r expected grade l e v e l on at l e a s t one of the three t e s t s (CTBS E n g l i s h ; CTBS Math; Nelson Reading T e s t ) . Seventeen students had negative grade d e v i a t i o n scores on the CTBS Math s u b t e s t , 18 on the CTBS E n g l i s h , and 12 on the Nelson Reading T e s t . A negative 76 grade d e v i a t i o n would be c o n s i d e r e d a c c e p t a b l e i f i t d i d not exceed f i v e months because t h i s i s h a l f of one school year. The f i v e month grace p e r i o d was a r b i t r a r i l y adopted to allow f o r e r r o r s i n measurement. Three of the 17 students had grade d e v i a t i o n scores on the CTBS Math subtest between -1 and -5 months which puts them w i t h i n the t o l e r a n c e band. However, there were s t i l l 14 students below t h i s marker. On the CTBS E n g l i s h s u b t e s t , f i v e of 18 students' grade d e v i a t i o n scores f e l l w i t h i n the t o l e r a n c e band. On the Nelson Reading Test, only two of 12 students with negative grade d e v i a t i o n scores were w i t h i n the a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l . Eleven of 22 students were below t h e i r expected grade l e v e l on every t e s t . Some of these grade d e v i a t i o n scores exceeded three years below a n t i c i p a t e d grade l e v e l . The three academic measures o v e r l a p to some degree. For the four students of upper average a b i l i t y , two were below grade l e v e l on the Nelson Reading Test and three below grade l e v e l on the Canadian Test of Basic S k i l l s . Two of these students had f a i l i n g grades upon en t r y ; one had a "C" s t a n d i n g . One a d d i t i o n a l student was above grade l e v e l on both t e s t s but had f a i l i n g grades upon e n t r y . Of the f i v e average a b i l i t y students, three were below grade l e v e l on both s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s , but only one of these had a f a i l i n g entry grade. One student with a "C" standing showed a mathematics d e f i c i e n c y but was above average on both the CTBS E n g l i s h and Nelson r a t i n g s . The 77 f i f t h average student's entry grade was "E" but he/she was below grade l e v e l on only the CTBS E n g l i s h t e s t . The f i v e low average students showed uniformly poor grades. On the s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s only one student had a grade above the expected l e v e l , and that was only on the Nelson Reading t e s t . The highest grade standing was a "C+". One student recorded a "D" and the other three an "F". The only b o r d e r l i n e low student had an "E" standing and was below average on a l l t e s t s . A t t i t u d e and s e l f - c o n c e p t . Mean scores and mean item scores f o r the S e l f - A p p r a i s a l Inventory and the School Sentiment Index are shown i n Table 9. The f i r s t column l i s t s the highest p o s s i b l e scores and the second, the a c t u a l score obtained f o r each of the s u b t e s t s . The t h i r d column l i s t s the number of items on each subtest and the f o u r t h column, the mean item response. High scores represent p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e and s e l f - c o n c e p t : low scores suggest a negative a t t i t u d e and s e l f - c o n c e p t . Although the mean item responses f e l l between two and three ( d i s a g r e e and agree f o r p o s i t i v e phrased statements; agree and d i s a g r e e f o r negative phrased statements), the trend i s more towards two. However, the lack of a r e f e r e n c e group prevents making a statement as to whether t h i s low value r e p r e s e n t s an abnormally negative s e l f - c o n c e p t . 78 Table 9 Mean Scores and Mean Item Scores f o r Att i tude and S e l f -Concept The School Sentiment Index Subtest Highest Mean Number Mean Item P o s s i b l e Score of Items Score Score Teacher 1 56 87.4 39 2.2 School 80 48.4 20 2.4 Peer 24 13.5 6 2.3 Learning 28 15.8 7 2.3 General 44 28.5 1 1 2.6 T o t a l Test 332 1 94.8 83 2.3 The S e l f - A p p r a i s a l Inventory Peer 64 35.7 1 6 2.2 Family 64 38.0 1 6 2.4 School 56 29.2 1 4 2.1 General 64 37.5 1 6 2.3 T o t a l 248 140.4 62 2.3 Behaviour problems. Observed behaviour problems of NJAP students were assessed f i r s t by a review of f i l e s and second, by student i n t e r v i e w . 1. Reasons f o r I n i t i a l Suspension. The r e p o r t s completed f o r each student at h i s / h e r p r e v i o u s school r e v e a l e d that poor attendance and poor classroom behaviour 7 9 were the major reasons f o r suspension. As shown in Table 10, poor attendance was the most f r e q u e n t l y r e p o r t e d reason (n=14) fo l l o w e d by poor classroom behaviour (n=8). Poor Table 10 Reasons f o r I n i t i a l Suspension from School Reason for Suspension Frequency Attendance Problems 14 Poor Classroom Behaviour 8 Poor Grades 3 F i g h t i n g 2 Alcohol/Smoking on School Premises 2 Negative School A t t i t u d e 2 Vandalism 1 Note. n=22 T o t a l s w i l l not add up to 22 as some students were suspended f o r more than one reason. Source of i n f o r m a t i o n i s the suspension report completed by the l a s t school the student attended. grades, f i g h t i n g , consuming a l c o h o l and/or smoking c i g a r e t t e s on school premises, negative school a t t i t u d e , and vandalism appeared l e s s o f t e n . 2. Family and classroom problems. The problems most f r e q u e n t l y i d e n t i f i e d by students at the i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w were: t a l k i n g to peers d u r i n g c l a s s , teacher r e l a t i o n s h i p 80 problems, not l i s t e n i n g i n c l a s s , and t a r d i n e s s (see Table 11) . Although 14 of the students had been p r e v i o u s l y c i t e d f o r poor attendance (see Table 10), only 10 i n d i c a t e d that they were absent more than 11 days a year. In l i g h t of the school problems mentioned above, i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note the problems that the students b r i n g with them from home. Sixteen students s t a t e d that they had problems " g e t t i n g along" with f a m i l y members. A l l s i x t e e n students mentioned q u a r r e l i n g and s i x of these had d i f f i c u l t i e s communicating. F i v e had been beaten by parents, one student noted that the beatings took p l a c e when the parent had been d r i n k i n g . One g i r l was beaten by her b r o t h e r . In a d d i t i o n to these problems, three students were abused v e r b a l l y by parents and three o t h e r s had been threatened with banishment from home i f they dropped out of s c h o o l . L earning problems. Students were asked to d e s c r i b e t h e i r e x i s t i n g l e a r n i n g problems upon entrance at NJAP. The most common problems r e p o r t e d by the students were remembering f a c t s (n=14), c o n c e n t r a t i n g on tasks (13), s t u d y i n g (13), and l i s t e n i n g to the teacher (11) (see Table 12) . D i s p a r i t i e s Between Student Sample and Intended P o p u l a t i o n Three d i s p a r i t i e s were found between the intended 81 Table 11 Behaviour Problems According to the Student R e s u l t s of Student Interviews Family Problems Frequency Percentage With Family With Parents With S i b l i n g s With Parents and S i b l i n g s 16 4 5 7 72.7 18.2 22.7 31.8 Classroom Problems Swearing i n c l a s s 4 18. 2 T a l k i n g back to the teacher 1 0 45. 5 T a l k i n g to peers in c l a s s 19 86. 4 Not l i s t e n i n g in c l a s s ' 1 4 63. 6 Y e l l i n g i n c l a s s 9 40. 9 Making fun of the teacher 5 22. 7 P e e r - r e l a t e d problems 3 13. 6 Teacher R e l a t i o n s h i p problems 1 5 68. 2 Absenteeism (11 or more days) 1 0 45. 5 Absenteeism (5 to 10.5 days) 1 4. 5 Ta r d i n e s s (11 or more days) 13 59. 1 Ta r d i n e s s (5 to 10.5 days) 5 22. 7 Note. n=22 Data are from i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w s of those students who began the program a f t e r the e v a l u a t i o n commenced. T o t a l s w i l l not add up to 22 because some students had more than one behaviour problem. 82 Table 12 Learning Problems as Seen by the Student Learning Problem Frequency Remembering 14 Studying 13 C o n c e n t r a t i n g 13 L i s t e n i n g 1 1 W r i t i n g 8 Reading 2 Note. n=22 T o t a l s w i l l not add up to 22 as some students saw themselves as having more than one l e a r n i n g problem. Source of inf o r m a t i o n i s the i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w . student p o p u l a t i o n as d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter 1 and the o b s e r v a t i o n s j u s t noted. B r i e f l y , in Chapter 1 i t was mentioned that the program was designed f o r students of average or above average a b i l i t y , aged 13 to 16, e n r o l l e d i n grades 8, 9 and 10 and suspended from s c h o o l . The d i s p a r i t i e s were: 1. Two students were i n grade 7; 2. Six of 15 students with a v a i l a b l e IQ scores were below average (<90); 3. T h i r t e e n students had f a i l i n g l e t t e r grades upon entry at NJAP; 4. Eighteen of 22 students had at l e a s t one grade d e v i a t i o n score below t h e i r nominal grade l e v e l (using f i v e month t o l e r a n c e band). Six of these students had a l l three grade d e v i a t i o n scores below the t o l e r a n c e band f o r t h e i r nominal grade l e v e l . 83 There were no d i s p a r i t i e s between the behaviour and l e a r n i n g problems i d e n t i f i e d by the s t a f f i n Chapter 1 and the observed behaviour and l e a r n i n g problems d i s c u s s e d above. Standard Admission Procedures f o r NJAP Standards f o r admission to NJAP were d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter 1. The main c r i t e r i o n f o r entry to NJAP i s the student's previous suspension from s c h o o l . As recorded e a r l i e r in the Chapter, 17 students had been suspended from school before t h e i r r e f e r r a l to NJAP. Three students had withdrawn from school and two were t r a n s f e r r e d d i r e c t l y because of poor grades. It i s important to mention that as d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter one some exceptions are made when adm i t t i n g students. The f i v e students who had e i t h e r withdrawn from school or had been t r a n s f e r r e d to NJAP d i r e c t l y were admitted because they were on the verge of suspension. It i s the i n t e n t i o n of the school board to p l a c e students i n an a l t e r n a t e program q u i c k l y . I d e a l l y the w a i t i n g p e r i o d should be no longer than two to three weeks from the date of suspension. F i l e s examined showed that ten students were p l a c e d i n an a l t e r n a t e program i n l e s s than three weeks. Four students were on the w a i t i n g l i s t four weeks and three waited more than a month. 84 D i s p a r i t i e s Between A c t u a l and Intended Admission Procedures Seven students were on the w a i t i n g l i s t longer than three weeks, suggesting that the second c r i t e r i o n was not met i n every case. But, four weeks i s s t i l l very c l o s e to the intended time. The f a c t that there were only three students who waited longer shows that the School Board was making every e f f o r t to f i n d the proper p l a c e f o r the students. S t a f f T r a i n i n g and Experience T r a i n i n g and experience of program s t a f f were determined through i n t e r v i e w s . One teacher h e l d a B.A. i n elementary education, a M.A. i n Reading Education, and i s a D o c t o r a l Candidate. In a d d i t i o n , her formal t r a i n i n g i n c l u d e d s e v e r a l r e l a t e d courses i n Psychology and S o c i o l o g y . Her t o t a l range of experience i n c l u d e d one year t e a c h i n g at the elementary l e v e l , f i v e years t e a c h i n g at the c o l l e g e or u n i v e r s i t y l e v e l , and three years i n the a l t e r n a t e program. The second teacher h e l d a B.A. in E n g l i s h and a one year teacher q u a l i f i c a t i o n c e r t i f i c a t e in a l t e r n a t e programs. Her r e l a t e d experience came from c r i s i s c e n t r e t r a i n i n g and courses i n Pyschology and S o c i o l o g y . Her p r a c t i c a l experience i n c l u d e d a four month practicum at the Maples Treatment Centre, 20 months at Horizon Treatment Home, and one year as a classroom teacher. The support 85 person had a one year C h i l d Care C e r t i f i c a t e from a community c o l l e g e with a practicum at an a l t e r n a t e program s i m i l a r to NJAP. D i s p a r i t i e s Between Intended and A c t u a l S t a f f T r a i n i n g and  Experience The Head of Student S e r v i c e s at the Surrey School Board r e p o r t e d that the teachers f o r the a l t e r n a t e program should have a Bachelor's degree with a major in S p e c i a l Education and experience working with students who have behaviour problems. I d e a l l y , the teacher should have a Master of A r t s degree combined with s e v e r a l years of teaching experience. The Support person should have a C h i l d Care Program C e r t i f i c a t e as the minimum, "but p r e f e r a b l y a B.A. or B.S. with emphasis on pyschology or s o c i o l o g y and/or e x t e n s i v e experience working with e m o t i o n a l l y d i s t u r b e d or s o c i a l l y maladjusted a d o l e s c e n t s i n i n d i v i d u a l or group s e t t i n g s . " The program s t a f f at NJAP d i d not match the program requirements to the l e t t e r . N e i t h e r h e l d a Bachelor degree i n S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n . However, the p r e v i o u s experience of one of the teachers i n the a l t e r n a t e program and the p r a c t i c a experience of the second teacher and the support person compensated f o r the l a c k of a S p e c i a l Education Degree. 86 T r a n s a c t i o n s S t r u c t u r e of the Program P h y s i c a l f a c i l i t i e s . The program s t a f f i n d i c a t e d s a t i s f a c t i o n with the p h y s i c a l f a c i l i t i e s ( d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter 1) and i n d i c a t e d that there was adequate space. They d e s c r i b e d the l o c a t i o n as 'obvious but not conspicuous'. Both agreed t h a t the open area worked w e l l because s t a f f members were aware of t h e i r students throughout the day. The open area was seen as being b e n e f i c i a l to the team teaching approach, s i n c e teachers were in s i g h t of each other a l l day. Noise d i d not appear to be a major problem; the noise generated i n one c l a s s d i d not i n t e r f e r e with the o p e r a t i o n of the second. The s t a f f d i d mention, though, that the a d d i t i o n of c a r p e t i n g would reduce the noise l e v e l . Teaching g u i d e l i n e s . The M i n i s t r y of Education has set g u i d e l i n e s f o r s t u d i e s i n Mathematics, Sci e n c e , E n g l i s h , and S o c i a l S t u d i e s . These g u i d e l i n e s were f o l l o w e d by the program t e a c h e r s . Teacher a c t i v i t i e s . A r e c o r d of the work performed by each student was obtained u s i n g the Teacher Observation 87 Schedule (Appendix F) to provide an i n d i c a t i o n of what the teachers a c t u a l l y d i d and a teacher r a t i n g s c a l e (Appendix G) to provide an i n d i c a t i o n of what the teachers' p e r c e p t i o n s of the procedures they, the teachers, b e l i e v e d they were u s i n g . F i f t e e n c l a s s p e r i o d s were observed f o r each teacher. A summary of the responses to the Teacher Q u e s t i o n n a i r e and the data a c q u i r e d using the Observation Schedule are d i s p l a y e d i n Table 13. Column one c o n t a i n s a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l method observed. The data in columns 2 and 3 r e p r e s e n t , r e s p e c t i v e l y , the number of c l a s s e s d u r i n g which each a t t r i b u t e was a c t u a l l y observed. Columns 4 and 5 c o n t a i n the r a t i n g s by teacher A and by teacher B of the extent to which they b e l i e v e d each i n s t r u c t i o n a l method to be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r t e a c h i n g s t y l e (4=strongly agree, . . . , 1=strongly d i s a g r e e ) . C o n s i d e r i n g the a t t r i b u t e s as a s e t , and t a k i n g i n t o account the observed occurrence of these a t t r i b u t e s , the teaching method of teacher A can be c h a r a c t e r i z e d as f o l l o w s : uses i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n ; students must have teacher p e r m i s s i o n to move o u t s i d e c l a s s area; frequent use of teacher-made m a t e r i a l s ; students t a l k while working; student c o n f l i c t s and d i s r u p t i v e behaviour may be solved with or without group involvement; the teacher i s i n charge; the teacher spends part of the c l a s s p e r i o d marking and; the T a b l e 13 T e a c h i n g Techniques R e s u l t s of the Teacher O b s e r v a t i o n Schedule and Q u e s t i o n n a i r e O b s e r v a t i o n Schedule Teacher Q u e s t i o n a i r e T e a c h i n g Method Teacher A Teacher B Teacher A Teacher B f f r a t i n g r a t i n g 1. More o f t e n s t u d e n t s work i n d i v i d u a l l y 15 15 4 4 2 . More o f t e n s t u d e n t s work i n groups 0 3 2 2 3 . S t u d e n t s can move o u t s i d e c l a s s without p e r m i s s i o n 2 2 1 1 4 . Environment i n c l u d e s m a t e r i a l s developed by teacher 15 15 3 3 5 . S t u d e n t s a r e a l l o w e d to t a l k w h i l e working 15 15 3 3 6 . S t u d e n t s w i t h s p e c i f i c needs are grouped 0 0 2 2 7 . Math m a t e r i a l s are r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e to the c l a s s 1 15 4 8 . E n g l i s h m a t e r i a l s are r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e to the c l a s s 1 15 4 9 . S o c i a l S t u d i e s m a t e r i a l s are r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e to the c l a s s 2 15 4 10. S c i e n c e m a t e r i a l s are r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e to the c l a s s 1 15 4 1 1 . C l a s s i s taught by i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n 15 15 4 4 12 . C l a s s i s taught by group i n s t r u c t i o n 0 0 2 1 13 . C l a s s i s taught as a l e c t u r e 0 0 1 1 14 . Student c o n f l i c t s and d i s r u p t i v e behaviour are s o l v e d without i n v o l v i n g the group 5 6 2 2 15 . The t e a c h e r i s i n charge 15 15 4 4 16 . The t e a c h e r spends p a r t of the c l a s s p e r i o d marking 9 10 3 3 17 . The t e a c h e r spends p a r t of the c l a s s p e r i o d working on her own work 1 6 1 3 18 . The t e a c h e r sometimes goes out of the room d u r i n g the c l a s s 7 12 3 3 1. Q u e s t i o n s 7 and 10 o n l y a p p l y to teacher B 2. Q u e s t i o n s 8 and 9 o n l y a p p l y to t e a c h e r A. 89 teacher r a r e l y goes out of the room during the c l a s s p e r i o d . And, with two ex c e p t i o n s , those being more time spent on her own work and more time out of the room duri n g the c l a s s p e r i o d , Teacher B's teaching method was s i m i l a r . Examination of these data shows that with one exce p t i o n , both teachers h e l d s i m i l a r b e l i e f s about what was i n d i c a t i v e of t h e i r own t e a c h i n g techniques. Teacher A p e r c e i v e d that "working on her own work d u r i n g c l a s s time" (Item 17) was l e s s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of her behaviour than d i d Teacher B. One item observed c o n f l i c t e d with teacher p e r c e p t i o n s . Teachers f e l t that they used group d i s c u s s i o n to s e t t l e student c o n f l i c t s and d i s r u p t i v e behaviour. However, o b s e r v a t i o n s of 30 c l a s s e s showed 11 instances where teachers d i s c u s s e d c o n f l i c t s p r i v a t e l y with i n d i v i d u a l s tudents. These c o n s u l t a t i o n s were h e l d w i t h i n the boundaries of the classroom but other students d i d not take p a r t . The T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n C h e c k l i s t was used to re c o r d the amount of time spent on each teaching aspect d u r i n g the 15 c l a s s e s observed (see F i g u r e 3). Time was c a l c u l a t e d by m u l t i p l y i n g the frequency f o r each te a c h i n g aspect by the lapse time, three minutes (see Methods Chapter 3, P. 65). The frequency was c a l c u l a t e d by t o t a l l i n g the number of occurrences (checkmarks on the T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n C h e c k l i s t ) f o r each te a c h i n g aspect a c r o s s a l l students and classrooms observed. Teacher A I n d i v i d u a l i z e d Teaching MCP 1 C 2 Out of Room 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100% Teacher B Ind i v i dua1i zed Teach i ng GI 3 MCP 1 C* Out of Room 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100% Marking and Course P r e p a r a t i o n Counsel 1i ng Group I n s t r u c t i o n i g u r e 3. C l a s s Hours Observed. The top h a l f shows how teacher A's time was d i v i d e d and the bottom h a l f shov/s how te a c h e r B's time was d i v i d e d . 91 T o t a l observed time f o r each teacher was c a l c u l a t e d by adding the estimated time spent on each of the s i x teaching aspects observed. The t o t a l s were 720 minutes f o r Teacher A and 750 minutes f o r Teacher B. Examination of these data shows that i n d i v i d u a l i z e d t e a c h i n g accounts f o r the m a j o r i t y of each teacher's time, with 76% f o r Teacher A and 54% f o r Teacher B. Teacher B spent 4% of her time on group i n s t r u c t i o n ; Teacher A d i d not employ group i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods. The only other d i f f e r e n c e of note between the two teachers was the amount of time spent out of the classroom, teacher A being absent from the c l a s s 10% of the time and teacher B 24%. Teacher absence c o u l d be f o r one of the f o l l o w i n g f i v e reasons: d i s c u s s i n g a l t e r n a t e students with r e g u l a r classroom teachers, checking the whereabouts of a l t e r n a t e students to a v o i d truancy, d i s c u s s i n g a l t e r n a t e students with the v i c e - p r i n c i p a l , t e l e p h o n i n g parents about a l t e r n a t e students, or t a k i n g a break. In a d d i t i o n to the t e a c h i n g a c t i v i t i e s observed and d i s c u s s e d above, teachers estimated that recordkeeping and review of student progress r e q u i r e d 20% of t h e i r time per week. These l a t t e r a c t i v i t i e s i n v o l v e d one-half hour per t e a c h i n g day, Monday through Thursday, and three hours on F r i d a y . Support person a c t i v i t y . The work of the support person was observed f o r 10 p e r i o d s . A time-on-task a n a l y s i s 92 co u l d not be performed because most of the Support Person's a c t i v i t i e s took p l a c e o u t s i d e the classroom. However, the f o l l o w i n g d u t i e s were performed on a r e g u l a r b a s i s : 1. recordkeeping, i n c l u d i n g maintenance of classroom records on attendance, suspension r e p o r t s , and d a i l y r e p o r t s of student's behaviour progress; 2. tel e p h o n i n g parents concerning attendance or behaviour; 3. s u p e r v i s i n g the c l a s s when teachers l e f t the room and a s s i s t i n g with homework or a d m i n i s t e r i n g a t e s t ; 4. co n v e r s i n g with students i n d i v i d u a l l y about progress i n s c h o o l , behaviour or personal problems; 5. accompanying students to appointments such as Mental H e a l t h and P u b l i c H e a l t h ; 6. d i s c u s s i n g a l t e r n a t e student's behaviour with r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s ; and 7. a s s i s t i n g students to set t h e i r weekly g o a l s . The job d e s c r i p t i o n by the Surrey School Board i n c l u d e d the r o l e of c o u n s e l l o r . In the a l t e r n a t e teachers i n t e r v i e w s , one teacher mentioned c o u n s e l l i n g as an a c t i v i t y of the support person however, the other teacher d i s a g r e e d . She commented that the support person d i s c u s s e d behaviour and progress with students but d i d not counsel them. Program s t a f f c o n f l i c t s . The program s t a f f members were asked i f c o n f l i c t s e x i s t e d amongst themselves. The common response was a q u a l i f i e d yes; a l l three s t a f f members i n d i c a t e d that some d i s c o r d should be expected when working 93 as a team. The s t a f f i d e n t i f i e d the f o l l o w i n g advantages of working as a team: 1. someone i s always a v a i l a b l e to provide feedback on i n d i v i d u a l students; and 2. d i f f e r e n t t e a c h i n g p e r s p e c t i v e s are employed. Disadvantages mentioned i n c l u d e d : 1. s t r e s s i n c r e a s e s when someone i s watching you; 2. compromises are necessary; and 3. agreements on suspensions from NJAP must be t o t a l . A student i s often kept longer than necessary before a d e c i s i o n i s reached. One member of the team may work w e l l with the student and not want him/her suspended whereas the other member doesn't work w e l l with the student and wants him/her suspended. Head of Student S e r v i c e s a c t i v i t y . The r o l e of the Head of Student S e r v i c e s was that of a c o u n s e l l o r a c c o r d i n g to 11 of 16 students. Seven s a i d he helped "to s t r a i g h t e n t h i n g s out f o r you", r e f e r r i n g to the f a c t that he helped students reenter the school system. According to program s t a f f members, the Head of Student S e r v i c e s acted as a c o u n s e l l o r to students and c o n s u l t a n t to t e a c h e r s . The Head of Student S e r v i c e s and the D i s t r i c t C o u n s e l l o r met with the c l a s s Wednesday afternoons f o r an hour. Two of these s e s s i o n s were observed. T h i s was the time at which the c o u n s e l l o r welcomed new students i n the program, determined how students were doing, d i s c u s s e d 94 s p e c i f i c problems that students were having, or introduced a t o p i c of i n t e r e s t to the group. In the two s e s s i o n s observed students expressed t h e i r o p i n i o n s on the d i c u s s i o n t o p i c s and the Head of Student S e r v i c e s a c t e d as moderator. One s e s s i o n began with a student s t a t i n g h i s wish to drop out. Each student o f f e r e d h i s / h e r o p i n i o n and urged t h e i r classmate to s t a y . As a r e s u l t of t h i s d i s c u s s i o n , the student d i d not drop out. One bi-weekly School Board meeting was attended by the e v a l u a t o r . The t o p i c f o r d i s c u s s i o n was the behaviour problems of one student at an a l t e r n a t e program. Reasons were a i r e d f o r and a g a i n s t g i v i n g the student one f i n a l chance. The Head of Student S e r v i c e s and the D i s t r i c t C o u n s e l l o r provided a d v i c e . P r i n c i p a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The p r i n c i p a l d e f i n e d h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the a l t e r n a t e program as l i m i t e d to d i s c i p l i n i n g students when they were sent to the o f f i c e f o r misbehaviour or i n cases where important school r u l e s had been broken. The p r i n c i p a l has the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to s u p e r v i s e and assess the program teachers, yet the program i t s e l f i s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the Head of Student S e r v i c e s . With no a u t h o r i t y over the program, the p r i n c i p a l f e l t i t d i f f i c u l t to assess t e a c h e r s . The p r i n c i p a l r e p o r t e d that he was not i n v o l v e d in student suspensions or r e i n t e g r a t i o n s . He was advised a f t e r 9 5 the f a c t by l e t t e r s of c o n f i r m a t i o n . Support and S t a f f S e r v i c e s . Program s t a f f l i s t e d the f o l l o w i n g support and s t a f f s e r v i c e s a v a i l a b l e to NJAP: 1. Human Resources f o r s o c i a l workers, c h i l d abuse teams, group homes and l e g a l guardians; 2. RCMP f o r i n s t a n c e s of runaways and j u v e n i l e crimes; 3. Attorney-General Department f o r p r o b a t i o n s ; 4. P u b l i c H e a l t h Unit f o r nurses; 5. Mental H e a l t h f o r c o u n s e l l i n g ; 6 C o u n s e l l o r s at Newton J u n i o r Secondary f o r emotional, s o c i a l and career problems; 7. Head of Student S e r v i c e s f o r group c o u n s e l l i n g ; and 8. Head of Student S e r v i c e s f o r biweekly s t a f f meetings. During the e v a l u a t i o n p e r i o d , the s t a f f of NJAP i n t e r a c t e d with Human Resources 15 times. Six students were r e f e r r e d to Human Resources f o r e i t h e r c h i l d abuse or fami l y support reasons. Three students were moved to group homes or p l a c e d with f o s t e r p a r e n t s . The s t a f f were not i n v o l v e d with the RCMP or the Attorney General's Department. However, f i v e a l t e r n a t e students were i n v o l v e d with the the Attorney General's Department because of p r o b a t i o n . There were f i v e r e f e r r a l s to a P u b l i c Health Nurse and one to Mental H e a l t h . Four students had ongoing c o u n s e l l i n g with c o u n s e l l o r s at Newton J u n i o r Secondary. 96 Group c o u n s e l l i n g and biweekly s t a f f meetings were d i s c u s s e d p r e v i o u s l y . With the exception of the RCMP, a l l a v a i l a b l e s e r v i c e s were used by NJAP s t a f f and students. Ongoing t r a i n i n g . A v a i l a b l e ongoing t r a i n i n g f o r s t a f f c o n s i s t e d of the i n f o r m a l meetings at the School Board O f f i c e every second Thursday, p a i d workshops, attendanace at at l e a s t one p a i d conference per year, and v i s i t s to other a l t e r n a t e programs on p r o f e s s i o n a l days. A l l s t a f f members made use of most ongoing t r a i n i n g . A l l program s t a f f members took p a r t i n the Thursday s e s s i o n s on a r e g u l a r b a s i s . During the e v a l u a t i o n p e r i o d no workshops were attended but over the course of the school year Teacher A attended two and Teacher B one. A l l three s t a f f members attended one conference d u r i n g the p e r i o d under study. Teacher A v i s i t e d three a l t e r n a t e programs, teacher B two, and the support person none. D i s p a r i t i e s Between A c t u a l and Intended Program S t r u c t u r e S t a f f teachers agreed that student c o n f l i c t s were solv e d by c l a s s involvement. However, t h i s was not the case in 11 i n s t a n c e s during the 30 c l a s s e s observed. What occur r e d i n these cases was a p r i v a t e c o n s u l t a t i o n between the d i s r u p t i v e student and the teacher. 97 The Surrey School Board and one of the program teachers d e s c r i b e d the support person as a c o u n s e l l o r . The second a l t e r n a t e teacher d i s a g r e e d . The support person was observed d i s c u s s i n g behaviour and progress with students but not c o u n s e l l i n g them. The support person l a c k s the formal t r a i n i n g necessary to act as a c o u n s e l l o r . P a r e n t a l Involvement According to program s t a f f , parents were i n v o l v e d i n i n i t i a l placement of students i n NJAP, subsequent suspensions and r e i n t e g r a t i o n s , and i n home programs (such as r e s t r i c t i n g phone c a l l s f o r the student u n t i l h i s / h e r homework had been completed). The s t a f f reported that the parents were not i n v o l v e d i n assessments or reassessments and that there was not a formal agreement or c o n t r a c t between parents and teachers on standards of student achievement and behaviour. Of the 12 parents who took p a r t i n the study, a l l agreed that they had been i n v o l v e d i n the i n i t i a l placement of t h e i r son/daughter i n NJAP. Four parents s a i d that they had p a r t i c i p a t e d i n home programs of the type d e s c r i b e d above. Nine parents rep o r t e d that they were i n v o l v e d i n assessments of t h e i r sons/daughers and seven parents thought they were i n v o l v e d i n reassessments. F i n a l l y nine parents s t a t e d that a c o n t r a c t was e s t a b l i s h e d between themselves and the a l t e r n a t e s t a f f . Parents were q u i t e s a t i s f i e d with 98 t h e i r o v e r a l l involvement. Both the mean and median on a f i v e p o i n t s a t i s f a c t i o n s c a l e (Appendix C) was fo u r . D i s p a r i t i e s Between A c t u a l and Intended P a r e n t a l Involvement The d i s c r e p a n c i e s between parents and program s t a f f may be e x p l a i n e d . Parents i n t e r p r e t e d assessments and reassessments as being p h o n e c a l l s , v e r b a l r e p o r t s , d i s c u s s i o n s at school and report cards, whereas teachers viewed assessment as the a c t u a l a n a l y s i s of whether or not a student has made or w i l l make e d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r e s s . Some parents thought that the goals d i s c u s s e d i n the i n i t i a l p a r e n t / s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r i n t e r v i e w c o n s t i t u t e d a c o n t r a c t , whereas the program s t a f f c o n s i d e r e d a c o n t r a c t to be a w r i t t e n agreement. 99 CHAPTER 5 EVALUATION RESULTS: OUTCOMES The outcomes of the program o p e r a t i o n are re p o r t e d in Chapter 5, u s u a l l y a c c o r d i n g to the two student groups. At the end of the e v a l u a t i o n , students were c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r e nrollment. Group 1 c o n s i s t e d of those students s t i l l e n r o l l e d ; Group 2 c o n s i s t e d of those students suspended from NJAP during the e v a l u a t i o n . The outcome chapter i s d i v i d e d i n t o three s e c t i o n s : Goals of NJAP; A t t i t u d e s Toward NJAP; and a summary of the d i f f e r e n c e s between suspended and r e i n t e g r a t e d students. Outcomes Goals of NJAP A major task of t h i s or any e v a l u a t i o n i s to determine whether or not the p r o j e c t has achieved i t s g o a l s . For r e f e r e n c e , the s i x goals of NJAP are r e s t a t e d : i . to upgrade students' achievement i n the core s u b j e c t areas E n g l i s h , Mathematics, S o c i a l S t u d i e s , and Sc ience; i i . to teach students coping s k i l l s which w i l l h e l p them with school and g e n e r a l i z e to home and s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s ; i i i . to reduce the frequency of i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviours; i V . to r e i n f o r c e behaviour that i s c o n s i d e r e d s o c i a l l y a c c e p t a b l e ; 1 00 V. to communicate with parents and teachers i n the re g u l a r program to f a c i l i t a t e r e - e n t r y i n t o the re g u l a r program; and V i . to r e i n t e g r a t e students i n t o r e g u l a r c l a s s e s . Achievement. S e v e r a l measures were employed to assess Math and E n g l i s h performance — s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s , student i n t e r v i e w s , p a r e n t a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , r e g u l a r teacher q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , program s t a f f r e p o r t s and o b s e r v a t i o n . 1. Standardized T e s t s . To determine i f achievement has occurred the Norm-Referenced Model (Horst, Tallmadge, & Wood, 1975, p. 72-75) as d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter 3 (p. 69-70) was used to analyze s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t r e s u l t s . The r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s are presented i n Table 14. L i s t e d there, for each subtest are the student sample s i z e (n), observed p r e t e s t mean (X) and standard d e v i a t i o n (Sx), expected p o s t t e s t mean (T) , the observed p o s t t e s t mean (Y) and standard d e v i a t i o n (Sy), c o r r e l a t i o n between p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t ( r x y ) , t - t e s t value ( t) obtained when comparing the observed post t e s t mean with the expected post t e s t mean, and the corresponding o n e - t a i l e d p r o b a b i l i t y ( prob.). Unequal n's are e x p l a i n e d by the v a r i a t i o n i n attendance i n d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s i n the a l t e r n a t e c l a s s e s . Some students s t u d i e d the s u b j e c t i n a r e g u l a r c l a s s and were not p o s t t e s t e d . Other students were suspended before t e s t i n g was completed. One student's emotional i n s t a b i l i t y 101 Table 14 t - T e s t s and Alpha L e v e l s f o r Standardized T e s t s For Group 1 and 2 Students Subtest n Sx A T T Sy rxy t prob Nel/Voc 14 8.6 2.1 9.2 9.6 2.1 .9 1 .3 .12 Nel/Comp 14 7.3 2.8 7.8 9.2 2.5 .7 2.5 .02 CTBS(L1) 1 2 7.5 2.1 7.8 8.3 1 .6 .9 1 .6 .08 CTBS(L2) 1 2 6.9 2.1 7.3 8.3 1 .5 .7 2.4 .03 CTBS(L3) 1 1 7.4 2.2 7.7 8.3 1 .4 .5 .9 .18 CTBS(L4) 1 1 7.2 2. 1 7.5 8.5 1 .2 .5 1 .7 .06 CTBS(M1) 1 1 6.4 2.4 7.0 7.7 1 .9 .9 2.2 .03 CTBS(M2) 1 1 6.5 2.7 7.0 8.3 2.1 .8 2.5 .02 prevented post t e s t i n g of CTBS Math. S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the expected post t e s t mean and the observed post t e s t mean were obtained on four s u b t e s t s : the two math s u b t e s t s (CTBS(M1) and CTBS(M2)) and the two E n g l i s h s u b t e s t s ( C T B S ( C a p i t a l i z a t i o n ) and Nelson Reading Test(Comprehension). Since the teacher-made math t e s t had n e i t h e r a c o n t r o l group nor a norm-referenced group a r e l i a b l e comparison of gain scores c o u l d not be made between p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t . There was evidence of gain i n scores (X = 22.94, S x = 1 3 . 2 ; Y = 34.5, Sy = 15.18), but the 1 02 s t a t i s t i c a l l i m i t a t i o n s ( i e . , r e g r e s s i o n ) prevent simply a s c r i b i n g t h i s gain to i n t e r v e n t i o n . However, the scores on the teacher made math t e s t c o r r e l a t e d h i g h l y with both CTBS math subt e s t s (Ml(pre) and Math(pre) = .7; M1(post) and Math(post) = .9; M2(pre) and Math(pre) = .8; M2(post) and Math(post) = .9). Given s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t gains were found on the CTBS s u b t e s t s , one might s p e c u l a t e that gain shown by the teacher made math t e s t i s a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t due to something other than s t a t i s t i c a l r e g r e s s i o n . Further i n s p e c t i o n of the data summarized in Table 14 r e v e a l e d that on the p r e t e s t , students who were suspended from NJAP (Group 2) scored below the students who remained through the e v a l u a t i o n p e r i o d (Group 1). However, post t e s t data r e v e a l e d higher scores f o r Group 2 approximating that of Group 1. Given that Group 1 students were to be r e i n t e g r a t e d i n t o r e g u l a r school programs the f o l l o w i n g year, the q u e s t i o n arose as to whether Group 1 students had made s i g n i f i c a n t gains or whether the s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s noted i n Table 14 were due to the presence of Group 2 students. The r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s are shown i n Table 15. As report e d , a f t e r data f o r Group 2 students were removed only one of the s u b t e s t s s t i l l showed a s i g n i f i c a n t gain ( C T B S ( C a p i t a l i z a t i o n ) . On the other seven s u b t e s t s , Group 1 students showed no s i g n i f i c a n t gain over the expected p e r c e n t i l e change. T h e r e f o r e , the o r i g i n a l t - t e s t r e s u l t s on Group 1 and 2 students combined were skewed. 1 03 Table 15 t - T e s t s and Alpha L e v e l s f o r Standardized Tests Group 1 Students Subtest n r Sx Y Y Sy r t prob Nel/Voc 1 1 9.3 1 .8 9.8 9.7 1 .8 .8 Nel/Comp 1 1 8.4 2.4 8.8 9.5 1 .9 .6 1 . 1 .15 CTBS(L1) 10 8.2 1 .8 8.5 8.5 1 .7 .9 CTBS(L2) 10 7.3 2.2 7.7 8.7 1 .4 .8 2.2 .03 CTBS(L3) 9 8.2 2.0 8.5 8.6 1 . 1 . 7 .2 .40 CTBS(L4) 9 7.6 1 .9 7.9 8.8 1 . 1 .6 1 .7 .06 CTBS(M1) 9 6.9 1 .9 7.3 7.4 1 .9 .9 .3 .35 CTBS(M2) 9 7.4 2.5 7.7 7.9 1 .9 .9 .5 .30 Note. For the Nelson(Vocabulary) and CTBS(L1) s u b t e s t s , t - v a l u e and p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l s are omitted because i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the Norm-Referenced Model (p. 74) s t a t e that i f the observed mean i s l e s s than the expected one than no s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e t e s t i s performed. 2. Student Interview. Student a t t i t u d e s toward, and awareness of performance in E n g l i s h and Math were assessed in the f i n a l student i n t e r v i e w . Only three Group 1 students i n d i c a t e d they d i s l i k e d E n g l i s h and f e l t t h e i r performance had not improved. Four of the 13 students had reentered r e g u l a r E n g l i s h c l a s s e s . Of 12 students t a k i n g math only two students d i s l i k e d i t and f e l t that t h e i r performance had 1 04 not improved. F i v e students had reentered r e g u l a r Math c l a s s e s . F i v e of s i x Group 2 students (three students had a l r e a d y been suspended p r i o r to t h i s i n t e r v i e w ) f e l t they had made an improvement in E n g l i s h ; however t h e i r grades were r e l a t i v e l y unchanged. Three of these students r e p o r t e d that they d i s l i k e d E n g l i s h . Only two of the students r e p o r t e d they d i s l i k e d Math. A l l s i x students f e l t t h e i r performance had improved but, again t h i s was not r e f l e c t e d in t h e i r grades. 3. Parent Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . There were 12 p a r e n t a l respondents. E i g h t of 10 Group 1 parents noted improvements in Math and E n g l i s h . One of the two Group 2 parents mentioned an improvement. 4. Regular C l a s s Teacher Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . Seventeen teachers were asked by q u e s t i o n n a i r e to r a t e the work of a l t e r n a t e students who had been r e i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e i r classrooms. In p a r t i c u l a r , these teachers were asked to r a t e how hard these students were working. Twelve d i f f e r e n t a l t e r n a t e students were i n c l u d e d i n t h i s sample, but some of these students were e n r o l l e d i n more than one r e g u l a r c l a s s , thereby y i e l d i n g 25 " o b s e r v a t i o n s " . Performance was d i v i d e d i n t o three c a t e g o r i e s — hard workers, average workers, and nonworkers. The corresponding f i g u r e s were 12 (Group 1 = 8, Group 2 = 4 ) , seven (Group 1 = 6, Group 2 = 1), and s i x 105 (Group 1 = 5, Group 2 = 1 ) r e s p e c t i v e l y . The s i x nonworker r a t i n g s r e f e r r e d to only two (Group 1 = 1 , Group 2 = 1) of the 12 i n d i v i d u a l students. In 17 (Group 1 = 13, Group 2 = 4 ) of the 25 o b s e r v a t i o n s , l e a r n i n g was d e s c r i b e d as s t e a d i l y improving. In two (Group 1 = 2) cases only a small amount of l e a r n i n g occurred, and i n four (Group 1 = 3, Group 2 = 1 ) l i t t l e or nothing. ( M i s s i n g data accounts f o r the other 2 i n s t a n c e s (Group 1 = 1 , Group 2 = 1 ) ) . A l l 12 students were l e a r n i n g something i n at l e a s t one of t h e i r r e g u l a r c l a s s e s (Group 1 = 8, Group 2 = 4 ) ac c o r d i n g to these t e a c h e r s . 5. Program S t a f f Reports. E n g l i s h and Mathematics l e t t e r grades from Program Report Cards f o r Group 1 students are l i s t e d i n Table 16 ( f i n a l r e p o r t s were not repor t e d f o r Group 2 s t u d e n t s ) . Comparison of f i n a l and entry l e t t e r grades r e v e a l s that e i g h t of the 10 pa s s i n g students made n o t i c e a b l e improvements. In three cases, students advanced two grade l e v e l s . 6. Obs e r v a t i o n . A l t e r n a t e t e a c h e r s completed a Student D a i l y Work C h e c k l i s t f o r each student present i n every observed c l a s s . As d e s r i b e d i n Chapter 3, t h i s instrument was used f o r o b t a i n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on percentage c o r r e c t , time on task, and amount of work completed i n Math and E n g l i s h . 1 06 Table 16 Math and E n g l i s h Performance Program Report Cards f o r Group 1 Students Grades Upon Entry Nominal Modal Math E n g l i s h Grade L e t t e r L e t t e r L e t t e r L e v e l Grade Grade Grade F i n a l Grades Nominal Modal Math E n g l i s h Grade L e t t e r L e t t e r L e t t e r L e v e l Grade Grade Grade 8/9 F F F 1 0 C+ C + C + 8 P P P 1 o/MMg^g 1 P SG P 8 D D C 9/MM C C + P 8 C C c 1 0/MM C+B- c+ C + 8 F F F 9/MM C c+ C 9 F F F 10/E92,MM9 C SG F 8 F F I 9/E8 C P F 9 E E I 10/MM9,E9,SS9 SG SG I 9 F E E 1 0/MM C+B- C+ B 8 F E E 9/MM P SG P 9 C C B 9/SS103,MM10 F P F 1 0 P c+ D 10 F P 9 5 9 F F F 1 MM = M o d i f i e d Math, S = Science 2 E = E n g l i s h 3 SS = S o c i a l S t u d i e s * T h i s student was i n l e a r n i n g a s s i s t a n c e f o r both Math and E n g l i sh. 5 Entry l e t t e r grades were not a v a i l a b l e f o r t h i s student. Table 17 below i n c l u d e s the d i f f e r e n c e s between Group one and two students f o r each of the three items: percentage c o r r e c t , time on task, and amount of work completed. According to q u a l i t y of work and time on task, Group two d i f f e r e d l i t t l e from Group 1 i n E n g l i s h . However, in Mathematics, Group two students scored much lower on 1 07 Table 17 Achievement Differences Suspended and Not Suspended Students English Group 1 Group 2 Group Math 1 Group 2 Percentage Correct 76% 78% 75% 59% (n=9) (n=4) (n = 8) (n = 3) Time on Task 36 min. 36 min. 36 min 28 min. Amount of work Completed 4 3 3.5 2.5 quality of work and time spent working. Work completed was lower in both subject areas for suspended students. Achievement d i s p a r i t i e s . Consideration of a l l of the results presented above presents a somewhat equivocal view of student academic progress. With the exception of the standardized tests, achievement gains were noted on a l l other measures and sources of data. On the standardized tests used, s i g n i f i c a n t gains beyond that normally associated with passage of time were noted for half of the tests for the t o t a l group of students. Deletion of suspended students, l e f t only one s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t . Thus i t would appear that within the group i t s e l f , there appears 1 08 to have been pro g r e s s . But, when compared to an outside refer e n c e group, the progress made by these students was not above that expected f o r the p e r i o d of the school year under c o n s i d e r a t i o n . S k i l l s necessary f o r s c h o o l , home and s o c i a l  a c t i v i t i e s . The g o a l , teaching s k i l l s necessary f o r sch o o l , home and s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s , was assessed u s i n g data from student i n t e r v i e w s and parent q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . 1. Student Interview. Students were asked whether or not they had problems g e t t i n g along with parents or s i b l i n g s at home. At the i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w , 10 of 13 Group 1 students s a i d they had problems d e a l i n g with t h e i r f a m i l i e s . Three had problems d e a l i n g with parents, three with s i b l i n g s , and four with both s i b l i n g s and parents. Problems stemmed from arguing, f i g h t i n g , and f a i l i n g to communicate. By the end of the e v a l u a t i o n only four of 13 students s t i l l s a i d problems e x i s t e d , but two of these f e l t that the home environment had improved s i n c e beginning at NJAP. At the i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w s i x of nine Group 2 students had problems g e t t i n g along with t h e i r f a m i l i e s . One student had problems with h i s / h e r p a r e n t s , two with s i b l i n g s , and three with both. Problems common to these students were arguing, f i g h t i n g , and f a i l i n g to communicate. 1 09 By the end of the second i n t e r v i e w four of s i x students r e p o r t e d that they s t i l l had problems. One student had problems d e a l i n g with p a r e n t s , one with s i b l i n g s , and two with both. The four students s a i d that the home environment had not improved s i n c e beginning at NJAP. Students were a l s o asked whether or not they had problems g e t t i n g along with students and t e a c h e r s . At the i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w , three Group 1 students s a i d that they had problems g e t t i n g along with teacher A, one with teacher B, none with the support person, and 7 with classmates. By the end of the study two Group 1 students s t i l l r e ported problems with teacher A, one with teacher B, none with the support person, and four with classmates. At the i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w , two of nine Group 2 students r e p o r t e d that they had problems g e t t i n g along with teacher A, three with teacher B, one with the support person, and none with classmates. At the end of the second i n t e r v i e w , no Group 2 students had problems g e t t i n g along with Teacher A, one s t i l l had problems with Teacher B, one with the support person, and two with classmates. 2. Parent Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . One item on the parent q u e s t i o n n a i r e which d i r e c t l y measured t h i s f a c e t was 'Has your son/daughter l e a r n e d any s k i l l s that have helped him/her to cope b e t t e r at home?' Of the 12 parent sample, e i g h t responded yes (Group 1 = 7, Group 2 = 1), three no (Group 1 = 2, Group 2 = 1); and one parent d i d not respond. 1 10 S k i l l s that parents l i s t e d and t h e i r concomitant f r e q u e n c i e s were: has l e a r n e d to c o n t r o l h i s / h e r temper 4 has more s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e 2 takes r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r own a c t i o n s 1 more h e l p f u l 1 a t t i t u d e has improved 1. D i s p a r i t i e s i n s o c i a l s k i l l s . Among group one students, problems coping with f a m i l y , classmates, and teachers had improved. Group two students had not g e n e r a l i z e d a c q u i r e d coping s k i l l s to the home but they a p p l i e d them to some extent at school even though they showed an i n c r e a s e i n peer d i f f i c u l t i e s . R e l a t i v e change of i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviours. Reducing i n a p p r o p r i a t e hehaviour was the t h i r d program g o a l . Behaviour change was measured by the behaviour c h e c k l i s t , parent q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , r e g u l a r teacher q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , program s t a f f i n t e r v i e w s , and student r e c o r d s . 1. Behaviour C h e c k l i s t . Students were observed from February 11 through A p r i l 26. The o b s e r v a t i o n p e r i o d was d i v i d e d i n t o two h a l v e s . February 11 to March 19 provided the data f o r the f i r s t h a l f and data from the second h a l f came from o b s e r v a t i o n s made March 20 to A p r i l 26. Table 18 111 i n c l u d e s the r e s u l t s of the student behaviour c h e c k l i s t f o r the two groups of students. Column one l i s t s the observed behaviour and column two, the number of students d i s p l a y i n g the behaviour d u r i n g the f i r s t p o r t i o n of the student o b s e r v a t i o n s . Column three l i s t s the a d j u s t e d number of students who e x h i b i t e d the behaviour which r e s u l t s from d e l e t i n g the students f o r whom no c h r o n o l o g i c a l comparison c o u l d be made. The average per c l a s s frequency for each form of behaviour i s shown in Column four f o r p e r i o d one. For i n s t a n c e , i n a t y p i c a l c l a s s d u r i n g time p e r i o d one, the student observed t a l k i n g to peers would do so an average of four times. The corresponding data f o r p e r i o d two are presented i n the l a s t three columns of the T a b l e . Eighteen i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviours are l i s t e d i n Table 18, but only 15 of these were e x h i b i t e d by Group 1. In time p e r i o d two, students showed a decrease in the average frequency of 11 behaviours. For these remaining four behaviours, both the average frequency and the number of students d i s p l a y i n g the behaviour remained e s s e n t i a l l y the same and were low throughout the t o t a l p e r i o d . An examination of the Group 2 r e s u l t s , r e v e a l s that students e x h i b i t e d 13 of the 18 l i s t e d behaviours. In the time p e r i o d two, the average frequency of f i v e behaviours decreased and e i g h t i n c r e a s e d . One item i s worthy of note. 'Not paying a t t e n t i o n ' had a high average frequency i n the f i r s t time p e r i o d and an even higher average frequency i n T a b l e 18 R e s u l t s of the Behaviour C h e c k l i s t For Group 1 and 2 S t u d e n t s P e r i o d 1 P e r i o d 2 Behaviour n A d j u s t e d Average n A d j u s t e d Average n Frequency n Frequency Group 1 T a l k i n g to peers 9 8 4 .0 8 6 2 . 1 T a l k i n g out loud 4 4 2 . 3 5 3 1 .0 Swear i ng 1 1 . 1 2 2 . 1 Compla i n i ng 4 4 1 . 6 4 4 1 .6 Not p a y i n g a t t e n t ion 8 7 5 .6 1 1 8 3 . 7 B o d i l y a g g r e s s i o n towards peers 1 1 . 1 1 1 .4 Verbal a g g r e s s i o n towards teacher 0 0 0 0 0 0 Verbal a g g r e s s i o n towards peers 3 3 . 5 1 1 .8 Seeks p r a i s e 1 1 . 5 2 2 . 3 Shows withdrawal 1 1 2 1 1 1 . 5 Appears to be work i ng but i s n ' t 2 2 3 . 0 3 3 1 .  5 Makes n o i s e s 3 3 1 . 5 3 3 .6 G i ves up eas i1y 1 1 .8 0 0 0 Uncooperat i ve 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gets out of seat without p e r m i s s i o n 3 3 5 2 2 . 3 S l e e p i n g i n c a r r o l 1 2 2 3 4 4 . 5 Makes fun of the teacher 0 0 0 0 0 0 D i s t u r b s o t h e r s 5 5 1 . 0 4 3 2 Table 18 c o n t i n u e d P e r i o d 1 P e r i o d 2 Behaviour n A d j u s t e d Average n A d j u s t e d Average n Frequency n Frequency Group 2 T a l k i n g to peers 5 3 4 . 1 4 3 2 . 8 T a l k i n g out loud 4 3 . 9 1 1 1 .0 Swear i ng 1 0 .9 1 1 . 3 Comp1 a 1n i ng 2 1 . 3 1 1 1 .0 Not p a y i n g a t t e n t ion 5 3 5 .4 4 3 6 . 5 B o d i l y a g g r e s s i o n towards peers 0 0 0 0 0 0 Verbal a g g r e s s i o n towards teacher 0 0 0 1 1 . 2 Verbal a g g r e s s i o n towards peers 1 1 . 1 0 0 0 Seeks p r a i s e 1 0 0 1 1 . 3 Shows withdrawal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Appears to be working but i s n ' t 3 3 .6 3 2 .5 Makes n o i s e s 3 2 7 1 1 . 4 G i ves up eas11y 0 0 0 0 0 0 Uncooperat i ve 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gets out of seat without p e r m i s s i o n 1 1 6 1 1 2 S l e e p i n g i n c a r r o l 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 . 0 Makes fun of the teacher 0 0 0 0 0 0 D i s t u r b s o t h e r s 3 3 7 2 2 1 . 0 Note, The a d j u s t e d n f o r Group 1 i s e i g h t and f o r Group 2 t h r e e . 1 1 4 the succeeding time p e r i o d . 2. Parent Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . E i g h t (Group 1 = 7, Group 2 = 1) of 12 (Group 1 = 10, Group 2 = 2 ) parent respondents s a i d there was a r e d u c t i o n i n unwanted behaviour such as swearing, shouting or f i g h t i n g . On a s c a l e from one ( s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e ) to f i v e ( s t r o n g l y a gree), the average parent response f o r the 10 group 1 students was four to the statement 'My son/daughters behaviour at home has improved', four to 'My son/daughter's behaviour problems have decreased s i n c e e n r o l l i n g at NJAP', and four to 'My son/daughter's a t t i t u d e toward school has improved'. The corresponding average responses f o r parents of the two Group 2 students were one, f o u r , and one. Nine (Group 1 = 8, Group 2 = 1 ) parents s a i d that t h e i r sons/daughters looked forward to going to s c h o o l . 3. Regular Teacher Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . Regular c l a s s teachers r a t e d a l t e r n a t e students' behaviour in t h e i r classrooms. There was no mention of any student whose behaviour was l e s s than s a t i s f a c t o r y . Of the 25 students, the m a j o r i t y ,21, were r a t e d e i t h e r good (Group 1 = 9, Group 2 = 5) or e x c e l l e n t (Group 1 = 6, Group 2 = 1). The four (Group 1 = 3, Group 2 = 1 ) remaining students d i s p l a y e d behaviour c o n s i d e r e d a c c e p t a b l e by r e g u l a r c l a s s t e a c h e r s . T h i r t e e n of 17 r e g u l a r c l a s s teachers responded yes when asked "Do a l t e r n a t e students take part i n classroom 1 1 5 d i s c u s s i o n s ? " , and a l l responded no to the q u e s t i o n "Do a l t e r n a t e students c o n t i n u a l l y d i s r u p t the c l a s s ? " . Twelve teachers s a i d a l t e r n a t e students were not withdrawn in c l a s s and s i x s a i d they were. 4. Program S t a f f I n t erviews. At the end of the e v a l u a t i o n , program s t a f f members were asked to d i s c u s s b e h a v i o u r a l progress f o r each student. Table 19 i n c l u d e s the r e s u l t s of t h i s i n t e r v i e w . For Group 1 students, most i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviours had improved. Attendance had not improved f o r f i v e s t udents. However, one of these f i v e students was s t a y i n g at home f o r medical reasons and was i n s t r u c t e d by a v i s i t i n g teacher. For Group 2 students, teachers r e p o r t e d that most i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviours had not changed. One student was not i n the program long enough for teachers to rate him/her. 5. Student Records. Student records were used as a source of i n f o r m a t i o n f o r attendance and behaviour r e p o r t s . The number of days absent i s shown i n Table 20. Detentions are shown i n Table 21 and number of v i s i t s to the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e i n Table 22. In a l l three t a b l e s the data are complete f o r every student in each month in attendance at NJAP. The f i r s t column in the t a b l e s l i s t s the student i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number. For each month l i s t e d i n Table 20, attendance i s expressed as a r a t i o of the number of days in attendance to 1 16 Table 19 Student B e h a v i o u r a l Progress According to A l t e r n a t e Teachers Poor Poor With Poor Aggressive R e f u s a l ID Classroom Attend. drawn A t t i t u d e Behaviour to Work Behaviour Group 1 1 _ 1 N 2 I 3 - - I 2 I - - - I I 3 N - - - - I 4 - I - - I -5 - N I - - -6 I N - I - -7 - N - - - -8 - N - - - -9 I I - - I -1 0 I - - - - I 1 1 I - - I I I 1 2 - - - N - N 1 3 - I - I - I Group 2 1 - N - - -2 - N - - -3 N N - N N 4 N I - - N 5 - N N 6 N - - N 7 N N - - N 8 - I - N - N Note. n f o r Group 1 = 13, n f o r Group 2 = 8 1 - = Did not apply. 2 N = No improvement 3 I = Improvement. 1 1 7 Table 20 Attendance Records For Group 1 and 2 Students ID Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Group 1 1 8/8 14/18 9.5/13 12.5/16 16.5/20 2 11/11 11/16 6/13 8/16 15.5/20 3 6.5/9 10/11 9.5/13 15.5/19 4 6/8 14/20 15.5/20 10.5/13 12.5/16 14.5/20 5 7/11 10/20 6 8/13 14.5/16 14/19 8/12 8.5/15 10/20 7 1/1 5/12 2/12 0/6 8 12/20 9 5.5/10 10 4/4 1 1 1 2 1 3 Group 2 1 1/7 4/18 2 5/15 3 3/11 4 12.5/16 12/19 5 6/11 10/17 8/11 7/13 18.5/19 6 4/4 1 5 . 5 / 1 9 9.5/13 11.5/16 11.5/20 7 .5/1 14.5/17 8 9/18 9 Table 20 continued 1 18 Mar Apr May June T o t a l % % Imp (1) (2) Group 1 15.5/22 12/16 1 0 / 1 8 7.5/13 38.5 1 9 35 _ * 1 3/22 11/11 16.5/18 4.5/13 43.5 22 30 -21.5/22 15.5/16 18/18 11/11 11.5 20 1 + 17.5/22 13.5/16 15/18 1 0/1 3 37 24 21 0 * 9.5/22 1 2/1 6 12.5/18 6.5/13 42.5 50 34 + * 1 1/22 9.5/16 11.5/18 7.5/13 56.5 29 44 - * 5/18 1/1 2 7.5/16 7/1 1 59.5 73 60 0 * 1.5/21 0/1 28.5 * 12.5/22 9/14 11/18 4.5/13 34.5 41 50 - * 17.5/22 13.5/16 15.5/18 8.5/13 1 4 1 7 23 -7/1 1 16/16 1 7/1 8 12.5/13 5.5 1 5 5 + 5.5/7 16/16 15.5/18 1 3/1 3 4 7 8 0 3/3 12.5/15 13.5/18 9/13 21 1 4 27 - * Group 2 20 80 78 0 * 19 67 1 00 - * 8 27.5 21 45 - * 23.5 38 18 + * 37.5 22 50 - * 5.5 1 7 1 6 0 21 50 60 - * 5.5 1 3 37 -4/18 0/9 18/22 13/15 7/22 13.5/16 8/20 3.5/5 9.5/16 1 3/1 4 6.5/13 7.5/10 5/8 Note. A p o s i t i v e s i g n (+) i n d i c a t e s a p o s i t i v e improvement i n attendance, a negative sig n (-) a negative change in attendance and a zero (0) l e s s than 5% change i n attendance. * denotes p r e v i o u s attendance problem 1 T h i s student was at home with a v i s i t i n g t eacher. 2 T h i s student was only i n the program f o r three days. Table 21 Number of D e t e n t i o n s per Student ID Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Tot Tot Imp (1) (2) Group 1 1 0/8 1/14 0/9.5 1/12.5 0/16. 5 0/15.5 1/12 2/44 1/44 0 2 0/11 8/11 2/6 5/8 3/15. 5 1/13 0/1 1 15/36 4/39 . 5 + 3 3/6 . 5 7/10 1/9.5 1/15. 5 4/21 . 5 1/15.5 12/41.5 5/37 + 4 3/6 4/14 3/15.5 0/10.5 3/12.5 2/14 . 5 0/17.5 0/13.5 10/46 5/58 + 5 3/7 3/10 5/9 . 5 2/12 6/17 7/21 . 5 0 6 0/3 3/14. .5 4/14 3/8 1/8.5 4/10 2/1 1 1/9.5 10/39.5 8/39 0 7 0/1 4/5 4/2 0/0 6/15 0/1 8/8 6/16 + 8 0/12 0/1.5 0/0 0/12 0/1.5 0 9 3/5 . 5 5/12.5 2/9 8/18 2/9 + 10 1/4 3/17.5 1/13.5 4/2 1 .5 1/13. 5 + 1 1 0/0 0/7 0/16 0/7 0/16 0 12 0/5.5 0/16 0/5 . 5 0/16 0 13 1/3 1/12.5 1/3 1/12. 5 + Group 2 1 1/1 1/4 1/1 1/4 + 2 0/0 0/5 0/0 0/5 0 3 0/3 0 4 11/12 .5 7/12 8/18 2/9 . 5 18/24.5 10/27. . 5 + 5 2/6 8/10 3/8 5/7 4/18 . 5 4/13 13/24 13/38. 5 + 6 0/4 9/15.5 8/9.5 5/11. .5 8/11. 5 5/7 17/29 18/30 0 7 0/ . 5 8/14 . 5 10/13. 5 8/15 10/13. 5 -8 2/9 6/8 2/9 6/8 -9 0/3 . 5 2/13 0/3 . 5 2/13 -T a b l e 22 Number of R e f e r r a l s to the P r i n c i p a l ' s O f f i c e Per Student ID Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Tot Tot Imp Group 1 1 0/8 1/14 0/9.5 0/12.5 0/16. 5 0/15.5 1/12 1/44 1/44 0 2 0/11 0/1 1 0/6 0/8 0/15 . 5 0/13 1/11 0/36 1/39. 5 0 3 3/6.5 0/10 0/9.5 0/15 . 5 0/21 .5 0/15. 5 3/41.5 0/37 + 4 0/6 0/14 0/15.5 0/10.5 0/12.5 0/ 14 . 5 0/17.5 0/13. 5 0/46 0/58 0 5 0/7 1/10 0/9 . 5 0/12 1/17 0/21 . 5 + 6 0/3 0/14 . 5 1/14 0/8 0/8 . 5 0/10 0/ 1 1 0/9 . 5 1/39 . 5 0/39 0 7 0/1 0/5 0/2 0/0 0/15 0/1 0/8 0/16 0 8 0/12 0/1.5 0/0 0/12 0/1.5 0 9 0/5.5 0/12.5 2/9 0/18 2/9 -10 0/4 1/17.5 0/13 . 5 1/21.5 0/13. 5 0 1 1 0/7 1/16 0/7 1/16 0 12 0/5 . 5 1/16 0/5 . 5 1/16 0 13 0/3 0/12 . 5 0/3 0/12 . 5 0 Group 2 1 0/1 0/4 0/1 0/4 0 2 0/5 0/5 0 3 0/3 0/3 0 4 0/12. .5 0/12 0/18 0/9.5 0/24 . 5 0/27 . 5 0 5 0/6 2/10 1/8 1/7 3/18 . 5 5/13 4/31 8/31 . 5 -6 0/4 1/15.5 0/9.5 0/11. .5 0/11. 5 2/7 1/29 2/30 -7 0/ . 5 0/14 . 5 3/13.5 0/15 3/13 . 5 -8 0/9 1/8 0/9 1/8 0 9 0/3.5 0/13 0/3 . 5 0/13 0 121 the number of school days. The t o t a l s column l i s t s the t o t a l number of days absent. The f i r s t percent columns shows the percentage of days absent i n the f i r s t h a l f of the student's attendance p e r i o d . The corresponding percentage for the second h a l f of the attendance p e r i o d i s shown i n the next percent column. The f i n a l column i s a summary of r e l a t i v e change i n attendance. A p o s i t i v e s i g n denotes an improvement i n attendance i n the l a t t e r months e n r o l l e d . A negative s i g n denotes a net d e c l i n e in days attended. Zero i s used i n those cases where attendance v a r i e d l e s s than f i v e percent from one segment to the next. The a s t e r i s k i d e n t i f i e s those students suspended from t h e i r p r e v i o u s school because of poor attendance. Of these 14, only three improved attendance while at NJAP. (Improvement was not c a l c u l a t e d f o r one student who, because of i l l n e s s , was at home with a v i s i t i n g teacher.) Of the remaining students only two improved attendance while at NJAP. (Improvement was not c a l c u l a t e d f o r one student who was only e n r o l l e d i n NJAP f o r three days.) In summary, only f i v e of 20 students showed an improvement i n attendance while at NJAP. In many i n s t a n c e s the percentage of time absent exceeded 25%: 13 students missed more than one school day per week. The numbers of d e t e n t i o n s and r e f e r r a l s to the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e are d i s p l a y e d i n Tables 21 and 22. In Table 21, the numerator i s the number of d e t e n t i o n s and i n 122 Table 22 the numerator i s the number of r e f e r r a l s to the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e . The denominator in both cases i s the number of days the student attended each month. In Table 21, columns 11 and 12 l i s t the number of d e t e n t i o n s with respect to days attended f o r both p o r t i o n s of the enrollment p e r i o d e v a l u a t e d . Likewise, in Table 22, columns 11 and 12 l i s t the number of v i s i t s to the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e with respect to days attended i n e i t h e r p o r t i o n of the enrollment p e r i o d e v a l u a t e d . Again i n the improvement column, a p o s i t i v e s i g n denotes fewer d e t e n t i o n s or r e f e r r a l s i n the second h a l f . A negative sig n marks i n c r e a s e d d e t e n t i o n s or r e f e r r a l s , and a zero i n d i c a t e s there was l e s s than a f i v e percent d i f f e r e n c e between the two segments. Comparing the number of d e t e n t i o n s f o r the two segments of the enrollment p e r i o d evaluated, no Group 1 student i n c r e a s e d the number of d e t e n t i o n s , seven students showed a decrease, and s i x a change l e s s than f i v e percent. However, three Group 2 students i n c r e a s e d t h e i r d e t e n t i o n s in the second p o r t i o n of t h e i r term. The other s i x Group 2 students are marked by a p o s i t i v e or zero r e l a t i v e change, but three of these were e n r o l l e d f o r l e s s than s i x days. Only two of 13 Group 1 students had more than one r e f e r r a l to the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e i n e i t h e r p o r t i o n of t h e i r enrollment (see Table 22). One student had three r e f e r r a l s i n the beginning but improved to the p o i n t that there were no r e f e r r a l s near the end. The other student 1 23 s t a r t e d with zero r e f e r r a l s and ended with two. For Group 2, three of the nine students were in attendance l e s s than s i x days. Of the remaining s i x students, only three had more than one r e f e r r a l to the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e and in a l l three cases, there was a g r e a t e r c o n c e n t r a t i o n of r e f e r r a l s towards the end of t h e i r e n rollment. Behaviour change d i s p a r i t i e s . With the exception of attendance, NJAP was s u c c e s s f u l i n d e c r e a s i n g i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour problems of Group 1 students. In c o n t r a s t , f o r Group 2 students, i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviours had not improved. Reinforcement of a c c e p t a b l e behaviour. Student i n t e r v i e w , the T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n C h e c k l i s t , and i n f o r m a l o b s e r v a t i o n were used to assess whether or not the program r e i n f o r c e d s o c i a l l y a c c e p t a b l e behaviour. A l l students r e p o r t e d that the three program s t a f f members pro v i d e d encouragement and reinforcement f o r improved performance. O b j e c t i v e o b s e r v a t i o n of teacher p r a i s i n g student behaviour and performance was recorded on the T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n C h e c k l i s t . For 15 observed c l a s s e s , Teacher A p r a i s e d performance 18 times and behaviour four times whereas teacher B p r a i s e d performance 13 times. Teacher B was not observed p r a i s i n g behaviour. 1 24 P r a i s i n g behaviour was not observed f r e q u e n t l y i n c l a s s p e r i o d s , but t h i s does not mean i t was never used. Informal o b s e r v a t i o n showed that the Wednesday c o u n s e l l i n g s e s s i o n s f o r a l t e r n a t e students were not l i m i t e d to expressing o p i n i o n s and problems that students might have. These p e r i o d s were a l s o used f o r r e i n f o r c i n g behaviour or teaching a c c e p t a b l e s k i l l s . If a student expressed a good behaviour i n the s e s s i o n he/she was commended by both teachers and c o u n s e l l o r s . Students who had shown recent improvement a l s o r e c e i v e d r e c o g n i t i o n at t h i s time. As d e s c r i b e d in Chapter one, students and teachers set weekly goals on Monday morning. Students were expected to achieve these goals by the next Thursday a f t e r n o o n when goal achievement was d i s c u s s e d . Those students who achieved t h e i r goals were r e i n f o r c e d . Those students who had not achieved t h e i r goals were taught techniques f o r doing so. Other forms of reinforcement i n c l u d e d : encouragement from the support person and lunch at MacDonalds Restaurant. Lunch was o f t e n a reward f o r improved behaviour. Reinforcement of a c c e p t a b l e behaviour d i s p a r i t i e s . P r a i s e f o r s o c i a l l y a c c e p t a b l e behaviour was o f t e n observed du r i n g c o u n s e l l i n g s e s s i o n s or group meetings. T h i s was not true of c l a s s p e r i o d s i n the a l t e r n a t e program a c c o r d i n g to the r e s u l t s of the T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n C h e c k l i s t . Although the goal of the program was to 125 r e i n f o r c e s o c i a l l y a c c e p t a b l e behaviour, r u l e s of acceptable behaviour were not e s t a b l i s h e d . Neither was there an e x p l a n a t i o n of the l o g i c behind reinforcement. Lunch at MacDonalds was used as a reward but there was no statement as to what s p e c i f i c s o c i a l behaviours would merit t h i s reward. S t a f f communication with parents and r e g u l a r  t e a c h e r s . I t was the goal of program s t a f f to communicate with parents and teachers i n the r e g u l a r program so as to f a c i l i t a t e s u c c e s s f u l r e e n t r y i n t o the r e g u l a r classroom. Amount of communication was measured by parent q u e s t i o n n a i r e , r e g u l a r teacher q u e s t i o n n a i r e , and program records c h e c k l i s t . 1. Parent Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Eleven of 12 parents s a i d that program s t a f f communicated with them on a r e g u l a r b a s i s . On a f i v e p o i n t s c a l e , (1 = s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e , 5 = s t r o n g l y agree) the mean response was 4 to the item "are you s a t i s f i e d with the amount of contact that takes p l a c e between you and the s t a f f of NJAP?" Six parents r e p o r t e d that they were c o n t a c t e d on a weekly b a s i s , four bi-weekly, and two monthly. 2. Regular Teacher Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Two items on the teacher q u e s t i o n n a i r e measured program c o n t a c t . The f i r s t item asked the 18 r e g u l a r teachers to r e p o r t how o f t e n 1 26 a l t e r n a t e teachers communicated with them. The responses were: one ' d a i l y ' ; one 'thric e - w e e k l y ' ; e i g h t 'weekly'; two 'bi-weekly'; and f i v e 'monthly'. One teacher f a i l e d to respond. The second item asked r e g u l a r teachers to report how o f t e n the support person communicated with them. The responses were: three ' d a i l y ' ; s i x 'three times per week'; two 'weekly'; two 'bi-weekly'; and four 'monthly'. One teacher f a i l e d to respond to t h i s item. 3. Program Records. Program records were examined to determine contact made with each parent from the date t h e i r son/daughter was e n r o l l e d at NJAP u n t i l the end of the e v a l u a t i o n p e r i o d . Table 23 l i s t s , f o r each student, the average number of phone c a l l s made per week (column one) and per month (column two), t o t a l phone c a l l s f o r p e r i o d of student's enrollment (column t h r e e ) , number of parent v i s i t s per month (Column f o u r ) , t o t a l number of parent v i s i t s (Column f i v e ) , the number of r e p o r t cards sent home from the a l t e r n a t e program (column s i x ) , the number of report cards sent home from the r e g u l a r classroom (Column seven), and the t o t a l number of re p o r t cards sent home (Column e i g h t ) . The s t a f f of the a l t e r n a t e program telephoned each parent an average of once per week. Parents v i s i t e d the school on the average of twice during the course of the year. Report cards were sent home f o r a l t e r n a t e c l a s s e s and a l s o f o r the r e g u l a r c l a s s e s taken by a l t e r n a t e students. The average i n both cases was two. 1 27 Table 23 Communication With Parents Program Records Ph o n e c a l l s Parent V i s i t s Report Cards X/Wk X7Mon Tot "X/Mon Tot F/NJAP F/Reg Tot Group 1 .9 3.5 25 . 1 1 4 4 4 .9 3.0 20 .3 2 4 4 8 .7 3.0 18 .3 2 4 2 6 .9 4.0 28 . 1 1 4 4 8 1 .5 6.0 30 .8 4 2 2 4 1 .5 6.0 43 .5 3 4 4 8 1 .6 6.5 31 .8 4 2 2 4 1 .0 4.0 1 7 .5 2 2 2 4 1 .4 5.4 1 9 .3 1 2 2 4 1 .2 4.7 1 3 .3 1 2 2 4 .4 1 .6 4 .5 1 2 2 4 1 . 1 4.4 1 0 .5 1 2 2 4 Group 2 1 .0 4.0 4 1 1 1 .0 4.0 4 1 1 1 .0 2.0 2 1 1 1.1 4.5 19 .8 3 2 2 4 .7 2.6 1 3 1 5 2 2 4 .9 3.8 17 2 4 3 3 6 1 .2 4.9 1 1 .5 1 1 1 2 1 . 1 4.5 9 1 2 1 1 2 1 28 S t a f f communication d i s p a r i t i e s . There were no d i s c r e p a n c i e s between intended and observed outcomes with re s p e c t to s t a f f communication. Parents expressed s a t i s f a c t i o n with a l t e r n a t e program c o n t a c t . Table 23 c o r r o b o r a t e s the r e s u l t s of the parent q u e s t i o n n a i r e s that some form of c o n t a c t i s indeed made on a r e g u l a r b a s i s . The most common response f o r the amount of c o n t a c t made with r e g u l a r teachers was weekly by the a l t e r n a t e teachers and three times per week by the support person. Student R e i n t e g r a t i o n 1. Phased r e i n t e g r a t i o n . I t i s the i n t e n t i o n of NJAP to phase students' r e e n t r y i n t o the s c h o o l . As they make improvement, a l t e r n a t e students begin to study some s u b j e c t s i n r e g u l a r c l a s s e s . Table 24 l i s t s the enrollment i n r e g u l a r c l a s s e s f o r students d u r i n g t h e i r time at NJAP. Eleven of 13 Group 1 students were e n r o l l e d i n at l e a s t one r e g u l a r c l a s s . One student, not e n r o l l e d i n any r e g u l a r c l a s s e s , remained at home due to i l l n e s s and was t u t o r e d by a v i s i t i n g t e a c h e r . Only three Group 2 students were ree n t e r e d i n any r e g u l a r c l a s s e s p r i o r to t h e i r suspension from NJAP. 2. Number of students r e i n t e g r a t e d and suspended. The a l t e r n a t e s t a f f at NJAP s t a t e d that t h e i r i n t e n t i o n was 1 29 T a b l e 24 Number o f R e g u l a r C l a s s e s f o r G r o u p 1 a n d 2 s t u d e n t s G r o u p 1 G r o u p 2 ID n ID n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 3 2 0 2 2 1 2 4 3 0 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 t o r e i n t e g r a t e a l l s t u d e n t s . A t t h e end o f t h e s c h o o l y e a r , a l t e r n a t e s t a f f r ecommended t h a t n i n e o f t h e 13 G r o u p 1 s t u d e n t s be c o m p l e t e l y r e i n t e g r a t e d , one s t u d e n t be p a r t i a l l y r e i n t e g r a t e d , a n d t h a t two s t u d e n t s b e g i n t h e n e x t s c h o o l y e a r a t N J A P . The 1 3 t h s t u d e n t was t o t r a n s f e r t o a n o t h e r s c h o o l a n d be p l a c e d i n an a l t e r n a t e c l a s s . 3 . C r i t e r i a u s e d f o r s u s p e n s i o n s a n d r e i n t e g r a t i o n s . S u s p e n s i o n a n d R e i n t e g r a t i o n R e p o r t s w e r e c o m p l e t e d by t h e s u p p o r t p e r s o n . T a b l e 25 i n c l u d e s t h e c r i t e r i a u s e d when e i t h e r s u s p e n d i n g o r r e i n t e g r a t i n g a s t u d e n t . I t a l s o l i s t s 1 30 Table 25 C r i t e r i a and Those i n v o l v e d i n Suspensions and R e i n t e g r a t i o n s C r i t e r i a Suspensions Reason R e i n t e g r a t i o n s Reason No change in behaviour 6 Poor attendance 6 Poor c o - o p e r a t i o n 4 Ref u s a l to work 4 Definace towards the 2 p r i n c i p a l Aggressive behaviour 1 towards the teacher Student f e e l s c o n f i d e n t that he/she i s ready A l t e r n a t e teacher f e e l s student i s ready Regular teachers f e e l student i s ready Higher grades Student i s r e - i n t e g r a t e d f o r most s u b j e c t s Student works w e l l on own Other - Has been in the program long enough. Needs a push i n t o the r e g u l a r system 7 6 5 4 4 Those Involved Suspensions R e i n t e g r a t i o n s Person F Person A l t e r n a t e Students 9 A l t e r n a t e Teachers 1 0 Support Person 9 Support Person 10 Student 8 Student 1 0 S o c i a l Worker 3 Parents 2 Parents 2 Head of Student S e r v i c e s 2 V i c e - P r inc i p a l 2 P r i n c i p a l or School Head of Student S e r v i c e s 1 D i s t r i c t where student i s to be admitted 2 V i c e - P r inc i p a l 1 131 those i n v o l v e d when a d e c i s i o n i s made. Poor attendance and unimproved behaviour were the most common reasons f o r suspending a student. Students were r e i n t e g r a t e d when unacceptable behaviours had decreased and when both the a l t e r n a t e teachers and the student f e l t c o n f i d e n t that he/she was ready. When a d e c i s i o n was made to e i t h e r suspend or r e i n t e g r a t e a student, c o n s u l t a t i o n most o f t e n i n v o l v e d the a l t e r n a t e t e achers, support person and the student. 4. Percentage of students r e i n t e g r a t e d each year. I t was s t a t e d by the program s t a f f that the number of students r e i n t e g r a t e d was expected to i n c r e a s e each year. By use of the Classroom Records C h e c k l i s t , the number of students r e i n t e g r a t e d f o r the 1979-80, 1980-81, and 1981-82 school years were c a l c u l a t e d . As shown i n Table 26, the percentage i n c r e a s e d from 17.9% in 1970-80, to 21.0% i n 1980-81, and 22.2% i n 1982-83. Student r e i n t e g r a t i o n d i s p a r i t i e s . Not a l l students were r e i n t e g r a t e d . Only 10 of 22 students were r e i n t e g r a t e d at the end of the school year. 1 32 Table 26 Number of R e i n t e g r a t e d Students each year at NJAP Year n of students n % r e i n t e g r a t e d 1979- 80 5 28 17.9 1980- 81 8 38 21.0 1981- 82 10 45 22.2 Note. No s t a t i s t i c s were a v a i l a b l e f o r the 1978-9 year, the f i r s t year of the program's o p e r a t i o n . A t t i t u d e s Towards NJAP Student a t t i t u d e s toward NJAP and i t s t e a c h e r s . During the post i n t e r v i e w s e s s i o n s , a l t e r n a t e students were asked whether or not they l i k e d the a l t e r n a t e s t a f f and i f they were doing a good job. T h i r t e e n of 16 students responded t h a t they l i k e d Teacher A because she was f r i e n d l y , easy to t a l k to and was always a v a i l a b l e when needed. Three d i s l i k e d her, s t a t i n g she was argumentative and complaining. However, even these students agreed that she was a good teacher. F i f t e e n of 16 students l i k e d teacher B because she was f r i e n d l y , easy to t a l k t o , a v a i l a b l e when needed, easy to r e l a t e t o , and fun to be wi t h . One d i s l i k e d her saying 1 33 she was argumentative. A l l agreed that she was a good teacher. A l t e r n a t e students l i k e d the support person because she was f r i e n d l y , easy to t a l k to, and always a v a i l a b l e . A l l thought her good at her job. T h i r t e e n of 16 students l i k e d the Head of Student S e r v i c e s because he was f r i e n d l y , easy to t a l k to, h e l p f u l i n g e t t i n g students back i n t o s c h o o l , and fun to be with. Three d i s l i k e d him saying he was n e i t h e r h e l p f u l nor understanding. A l l a l t e r n a t e students agreed that they had good r e l a t i o n s with a l l a l t e r n a t e s t a f f members. The School Sentiment Index was a l s o used to assess a t t i t u d e s toward teachers and NJAP. P r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t r e s u l t s were used to determine i f an a t t i t u d i n a l change had occurred while students were e n r o l l e d at NJAP. A t - t e s t was performed, the r e s u l t s of which are d i s p l a y e d in Table 27. Table 27 i n c l u d e s the sample s i z e (n),mean (X) and standard d e v i a t i o n (Sx), the dependent t - v a l u e ( t ) , and the t w o - t a i l e d p r o b a b i l i t y (prob.) f o r the teacher and school s u b t e s t s . The number of s u b j e c t s does not equal 22 because some students were suspended before post t e s t i n g o c c u r r e d . As shown in Table 27, there i s not a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n a t t i t u d e towards teachers or school between p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t . The student a t t i t u d e toward teachers and school had not changed. As mentioned in 1 34 Table 27 A t t i t u d i n a l Change Comparison of Means A t t i t u d e Towards Teacher Test n X Sx t prob. P r e t e s t P o s t t e s t 1 5 86.0 3.7 1.1 84.2 4.8 .28 A t t i t u d e Towards School Test n X Sx t prob. P r e t e s t P o s t t e s t ' 1 5 49.9 4.0 -0.39 50.4 3.3 .70 Chapter 4, student a t t i t u d e i s f a i r l y low f o r both of these s u b t e s t s . Students were asked i f they l i k e d NJAP. A l l agreed. Reasons given and accompanying f r e q u e n c i e s were: Teachers are f r i e n d l y and n i c e 10 Learning has improved 8 More i n d i v i d u a l h e l p and a t t e n t i o n 3 Work i s e a s i e r 3 Pressure i s lower 2. T h i r t e e n students had attended a r e g u l a r c l a s s p r i o r 1 35 to a t t e n d i n g NJAP. Eleven of these p r e f e r r e d NJAP over t h e i r l a s t attended s c h o o l . Reasons given were the same as those mentioned above. F i v e students p r e f e r r e d t h e i r p r e v i o u s school because f r i e n d s had been l e f t behind. A l l 13 students agreed that they l e a r n e d more at NJAP than at t h e i r p r e v i o u s s c h o o l . Three students attended another a l t e r n a t e program p r i o r to a t t e n d i n g NJAP. Two of these thought that they had learn e d more at NJAP. Parent a t t i t u d e s toward NJAP. A l l 12 parent respondents s a i d that they wanted t h e i r son/daughter to at t e n d NJAP. The reasons and accompanying f r e q u e n c i e s were: 1. i n d i v i d u a l h elp and a t t e n t i o n was needed 9 2. t h e i r son/daughter was behind i n school 6 3. student a t t i t u d e should be more p o s i t i v e 2. On a f i v e p o i n t s c a l e , parents gave a l t e r n a t e s t a f f the highest p o s s i b l e r a t i n g (mean = 5) i n response to the q u e s t i o n , 'are they knowledgable and s k i l l f u l i n t h e i r r o l e s ? ' . O v e r a l l success of NJAP was a l s o given the highest r a t i n g . Only two parents would have p r e f e r r e d t h e i r sons/daughters, attend another a l t e r n a t e program. The reason c i t e d i n responses was that Newton J u n i o r was too f a r from t h e i r homes. 1 36 A t t i t u d e s of the r e g u l a r teachers toward NJAP. Regular teachers were asked to d e s c r i b e t h e i r knowledge about the a l t e r n a t e program? Ten teachers s a i d they were aware of what occurred, seven s a i d they were not, and one f a i l e d to respond. Of the 18 t e a c h e r s , only three responded yes to the item, 'would you at some l a t e r date c o n s i d e r t e a c h i n g at an a l t e r n a t e program?'. Only three r e g u l a r teachers mentioned problems i n t h e i r classroom caused by a l t e r n a t e students. Two of these s a i d any e f f e c t was only o c c a s i o n a l . T h i r t e e n of the teachers l i k e d having a l t e r n a t e students i n t h e i r c l a s s , four d i d not and one f a i l e d to respond. E f f e c t of NJAP on Newton J u n i o r Secondary. Accor d i n g to a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , a l t e r n a t e s t a f f and r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s , NJAP students had l i t t l e e f f e c t upon the r e s t of the s c h o o l . T h i s may be e x p l a i n e d by the small number of NJAP students, the s e t t i n g of the program i n an e s s e n t i a l l y o u t - o f - t h e way p l a c e w i t h i n the s c h o o l , and the tendency of a l t e r n a t e students to congregate together i n groups. However, the program i t s e l f had an e f f e c t i n that i t generated more work f o r the p r i n c i p a l , v i c e - p r i n c i p a l s , and r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s . An ongoing problem mentioned by both the p r i n c i p a l 1 37 and h i s predecessor was that a l t e r n a t e students would come to the P h y s i c a l Education c l a s s without the proper gym a t t i r e thereby f r u s t r a t i n g P.E. t e a c h e r s . Another problem noted by the p r i n c i p a l s was the c o n f u s i o n amongst r e g u l a r teachers as to the best way students might be i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e i r c l a s s e s . Many f e l t a need to be more t o l e r a n t of unusual behaviour. When a l t e r n a t e students j o i n e d r e g u l a r c l a s s e s d u r i n g the course of the year, teachers had d i f f i c u l t y a d a pting. In s p i t e of these p r e s s u r e s , the p r i n c i p a l s saw few problems a r i s e with r e g u l a r teachers because a l t e r n a t e s t a f f members made an e f f o r t to know which teachers were most w i l l i n g to have a l t e r n a t e students in t h e i r classrooms and whose schedules were f l e x i b l e enough for students to enter at i r r e g u l a r times. D i s p a r i t i e s i n a t t i t u d e s toward NJAP. 1. The School Sentiment Index shows that students do not have a f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e towards school and the t e a c h e r s . 2. Many r e g u l a r teachers were not f u l l y aware of a c t i v i t i e s i n the a l t e r n a t e program. 3. The p r i n c i p a l s and teachers s t a t e d that the a l t e r n a t e students had l i t t l e e f f e c t on the s c h o o l because a l t e r n a t e students were a small group unto themselves. Conversely, t h i s i s o l a t i o n means that the r e g u l a r school can have l i t t l e impact on a l t e r n a t e students. T h i s may 138 i n h i b i t r e i n t e g r a t i o n . D i f f e r e n c e s Between Suspended and R e i n t e g r a t e d  Students. Common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of students most or l e a s t l i k e l y to be helped by the program were determined by comparing Group 1 and 2 students on the f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s : age; sex; grade l e v e l ; IQ; grades and p r e t e s t s c o r e s ; l e g a l g u a r d i a n s h i p ; a t t i t u d e ; s e l f - c o n c e p t ; reasons f o r suspension from p r e v i o u s s c h o o l ; behaviour problems; and reasons f o r suspension or r e i n t e g r a t i o n from NJAP. Age. The only age d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups of students was that Group 1 had no 13 year o l d s . Group 2 had two. Sex. Group 2 students had more males (6) than females (3) and Group 1 had a f a i r l y even d i s t r i b u t i o n of both males (6) and females ( 7 ) . Grade l e v e l . The only d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups of students was that Group 1 had no grade seven students while Group 2 had two. I.Q. The percentage of students i n the High Average (110 to 119) IQ range was the same f o r Groups 1 1 39 (2/9) and 2 (1/6), 20 percent. Most Group 1 students (5) f e l l w i t h i n the Average range (90 to 109), but t h i s range i n c l u d e d only one Group 2 student. The Low Average range (80 to 89) c o n t a i n e d the two remaining Group 1 students and three Group 2 students. The only students i n the b o r d e r l i n e range (70 to 79) were the l a s t two Group 2 students. Grades and p r e t e s t s c o r e s . Upon entry both groups had a modal l e t t e r grade of " f a i l " . In F i g u r e 4, the d i f f e r e n c e s between the two groups on p r e t e s t scores are i l l u s t r a t e d . The d e v i a t i o n scores represent the amount each student was above or below h i s / h e r present grade l e v e l . The median d e v i a t i o n scores f o r Group 1 were (-.95) on the CTBS Math, (-.7) on the CTBS E n g l i s h , and (+.5) on the Nelson Reading T e s t . Group 2 had median d e v i a t i o n scores of (-2.45) on the CTBS Math, (-1.0) on the CTBS E n g l i s h , and (-1.7) on the Nelson Reading T e s t . Legal g u a r d i a n s h i p . Two parent f a m i l i e s were more common with Group 1 students than Group 2 students; the t o t a l s being nine and f o u r , r e s p e c t i v e l y . The remaining four Group 1 students and two Group 2 students came from s i n g l e parent f a m i l i e s . The remaining three Group 2 students came from e i t h e r group homes or f o s t e r p arents. No Group 1 students l i v e d i n a group home or with f o s t e r x o . X o "X X tf. mdr, -2. -i ' "Ndr CTBS Math o oX" 0 x * * o x oo * o X X X x o "3 1 -2 -I / »Odn CTBS E n g l i s h 0 O * ~ w • X -I r x G 0 * x X x x X X x x G>r- 2. I far I _ Nelson Reading Test Croup Z •= O F i g u r e 4. Median d i f f e r e n c e s on the CTBS and Nelson Reading Test f o r Groups 1 and 2 141 parents. A t t i t u d e and s e l f - c o n c e p t . Table 28 below i n c l u d e s the sample s i z e , the mean(X) and standard d e v i a t i o n ( S x ) f o r the two groups of students, the independent pooled t - v a l u e ( t ) , and the t w o - t a i l e d p r o b a b i l i t y (prob) f o r a l l subt e s t s of the School Sentiment Index and the S e l f - A p p r a i s a l Inventory. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups i n four of f i v e s u b t e s t s . Group 1 has a more favo u r a b l e a t t i t u d e toward s c h o o l , toward peers, and toward g e n e r a l i s s u e s . Group 2 has a more favourable a t t i t u d e towards the teacher. There i s no d i f f e r e n c e i n a t t i t u d e toward l e a r n i n g . There i s a l s o a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups in s e l f - c o n c e p t . Group 1 has a higher school s e l f - c o n c e p t than Group 2. Reasons f o r suspension from the student's p r e v i o u s  s c h o o l . An examination of Table 29, shows that the most common reason f o r suspension was poor attendance i n the case of both groups. Poor classroom behaviour was twice as common f o r Group 2. There were no cases of vandalism, f i g h t i n g or alcohol/smoking f o r Group 2. T h i s was not the case f o r group 1, the nonsuspended group. There were two 142 Table 28 A t t i t u d e and S e l f - C o n c e p t S c a l e s Comparison of Means A t t i t u d e Group T Sx t prob. Teacher 1 85.3 4.0 -2.2 .04 2 90.6 7.7 School 1 50.8 3.3 2.8 .01 2 45.9 4.9 Peer 1 14.5 2.0 2.4 .03 2 12.0 2.7 L e a r n i n g 1 16.7 2.1 .7 .50 2 16.1 1 .5 General 1 29.4 2.1 2.5 .02 2 27.3 1 .8 S e l f - C o n c e p t Peer 1 37.6 4.2 1 .9 .08 2 32.9 7.7 Family 1 39.2 4.6 1 .3 .20 2 36.3 5.7 School 1 30.9 3.1 2.3 .04 2 26.8 5.5 General 1 38.8 4.6 1 .5 .10 2 35.6 5.5 Note, n for Group 1 = 13, n for Group 2 = 9 . 1 43 Table 29 Reasons f o r I n i t i a l Suspension from School Group 1 Group 2 N % N % Poor Attendance 9 69.2 7 77 .8 Poor Classroom Behaviour 4 30.8 6 66 .7 Poor Grades 1 7.7 2 22 .2 F i g h t i n g 1 7.7 0 Alcohol/Smoking on school 2 15.4 0 premises Negative School A t t i t u d e 0 2 22 .2 Va n d a l i sm 1 7.7 0 Note. N f o r Group 1 = 13, N f o r Group 2 = 9 . T o t a l s w i l l not add up to 100% because some students had more than one reason f o r being suspended. cases of negative school a t t i t u d e i n Group 2 but none i n Group 1. Behaviour Problems. Table 30 prese n t s a comparison of the two groups of students on behaviour problems. I n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour was more common f o r Group 2 students i n both the average number of occurrences per c l a s s and the number of students observed d i s p l a y i n g the i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour. I t was p r e v i o u s l y mentioned that Group two had a gre a t e r number of d e t e n t i o n s and r e f e r r a l s to the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e . 1 44 Table 30 Classroom Behaviour Suspended and not Suspended Students Group 1 Group 2 n X F / c l a s s n "XF/class T a l k i n g to peers 1 1 1 .7 6 3 .4 T a l k i n g out loud 6 1 .7 4 2 .4 Swearing 3 .3 2 .7 Complaining 7 .8 4 1 .8 Not paying a t t e n t i o n 1 3 2 .4 6 4 .3 B o d i l y a g g r e s s i o n towards peers 1 .2 0 0 Seeks p r a i s e 4 .6 1 .3 Shows withdrawal 1 .7 0 0 Appears to be working, but i s n ' t 5 .8 5 1 .7 D i s t u r b s others 7 1 .2 4 .7 Makes no i s e s 3 .6 2 .9 Gives up e a s i l y 1 .8 0 0 Uncooperat ive 0 0 0 0 Gets out of seat without permission 4 .2 2 .5 V e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n towards teacher 0 0 1 .2 V e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n towards peers 1 .3 1 . 1 S l e e p i n g i n c a r r o l l 5 .5 1 1 .0 Note. N f o r group 1 = 13, N f o r group 2 = 6 . Reasons fo r Suspension and R e i n t e g r a t i o n from NJAP. In Table 31, a f i n a l d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups can be seen. Reasons f o r suspension and reasons f o r r e i n t e g r a t i o n were compared. Group 1 was r e i n t e g r a t e d because t h e i r i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviours had decreased, t h e i r a t t i t u d e towards work had changed, and t h e i r grades had 1 45 Table 31 Reasons for Suspension or R e i n t e g r a t i o n Reason for Suspension n Reasons f o r R e i n t e g r a t i o n n No change in i n a p p r o p r i a t e Less i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour 6 behaviour i n c l u d i n g improved attendance 6 Nonattendance 6 No c o o p e r a t i o n 4 Defiance to the p r i n c i p a l 2 Aggressive behaviour to teacher 1 R e f u s a l to work 4 Works w e l l on own 4 Poor grades 0 Higher grades 4 R e i n t e g r a t e d f o r most s u b j e c t s 4 Needs a push i n t o r e g u l a r c l a s s 3 improved. T h i s was not the case fo r Group 2. These students were suspended because t h e i r i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviours had not changed and they r e f u s e d to work. Students most l i k e l y to b e n e f i t . NJAP i s most l i k e l y to h e l p those students who d i s p l a y fewer behaviour problems in c l a s s , have an average i n t e l l e c t , have a more favou r a b l e a t t i t u d e and s e l f - c o n c e p t , and are near expected grade l e v e l . 1 46 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter s i x begins with a d e s c r i p t i v e summary of the study, followed by a summary of the congruences, d i s p a r i t i e s , and c o n t i n g e n c i e s r e v e a l e d by the e v a l u a t i o n . Recommendations intended to improve the Newton J u n i o r A l t e r n a t e Program are next presented f o l l o w e d by a d i s c u s s i o n of the l i m i t a t i o n s of the e v a l u a t i o n and f i n a l l y i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r f u t u r e study. The recommendations f o r improving the program were based on suggestions made by respondents and on the study of r e p o r t s of s i m i l a r programs (summarized i n Chapter 2). I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r f u t u r e study were d e r i v e d from weaknesses found i n the e v a l u a t i o n or from q u e s t i o n s that arose from a review of p e r t i n e n t l i t e r a t u r e . Summary NJAP, Newton, B.C. was e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1978 to a s s i s t students i n grades e i g h t to 10 who had been u n s u c c e s s f u l i n the r e g u l a r s c h o o l s . These students, aged 14 to 16 were u s u a l l y those whose i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour had r e s u l t e d i n suspension from s c h o o l . A f t e r three years of o p e r a t i o n , program s t a f f thought that an e v a l u a t i o n would provide a comprehensive a p p r a i s a l of the program which would 1 47 a s s i s t p l a n n i n g f o r f u t u r e y e a r s . The o v e r a l l goal of t h i s e v a l u a t i o n was to answer the f o l l o w i n g two major e v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n s : 1. Is NJAP e f f e c t i v e i n meeting i t s s t a t e d goals? S p e c i f i c a l l y , are suspended students prepared fo r r e i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o the r e g u l a r c l a s s s i t u a t i o n ? 2. Does NJAP succeed in meeting any other goals which are not f o r m a l l y stated? The f o l l o w i n g e c l e c t i c d e f i n i t i o n of e v a l u a t i o n was adopted: E v a l u a t i o n i s a set of procedures that d e f i n e the u t i l i t y of the program. These procedures p r e s c r i b e sampling techniques and s t a t i s t i c a l l y approved methods of data c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s that w i l l r e s u l t i n data that are both r e l i a b l e and v a l i d . In those cases where a numerical a n a l y s i s i s not p o s s i b l e , which o f t e n a r i s e s in e v a l u a t i o n s t u d i e s , r e l i a b l e q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s i s employed. An e v a l u a t i o n should examine a l l f a c e t s of the program i n c l u d i n g d e f i n e d and unstated g o a l s , a c t i v i t i e s of the program i n c l u d i n g a l l consequences a n t i c i p a t e d or unintended. F i n a l l y , the e v a l u a t o r i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r making recommendations as to the outcomes of the program based on the evidence garnered in the e v a l u a t i o n study. E v a l u a t i o n Design The e c l e c t i c e v a l u a t i o n design u t i l i z e d i n the present study was developed to permit a comparison between the program i n t e n t i o n s and what a c t u a l l y o c c u r r e d . A d e s c r i p t i v e matrix modelled a f t e r Stake (1967) was used as the framework w i t h i n which t h i s comparison was made. Fo l l o w i n g Stake, the r a t i o n a l e of the goals and i n t e n t s of the program were f i r s t i d e n t i f i e d . The i n t e n t s were 1 48 o r g a n i z e d in terms of Antecedents, T r a n s a c t i o n s and Outcomes l i s t e d i n the f i r s t column of the d e s c r i p t i v e matrix. A c t u a l o b s e r v a t i o n s are s i m i l a r l y arranged i n a second columm so that a comparison can be made as to the extent that program o p e r a t i o n matches intended program f u n c t i o n . The major r e s u l t of t h i s comparison i s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of congruences and d i s p a r i t i e s between i n t e n t s and o b s e r v a t i o n s . V e r t i c a l contingent a n a l y s i s i s used to i d e n t i f y the o r i g i n of problems that have caused d i s p a r i t i e s between d e s i r e d and a c t u a l occurrence. D i s p a r i t i e s i n h i b i t goal achievement. To e l i m i n a t e d i s p a r i t i e s and f u r t h e r goal attainment was the purpose of the recommendations put forward l a t e r i n t h i s c h a p ter. D e s c r i p t i o n of NJAP P h y s i c a l l o c a t i o n of NJAP. NJAP i s l o c a t e d i n the basement of Newton J u n i o r Secondary S c h o o l . The l a r g e U-shaped open area i s d i v i d e d i n t o two classrooms with a d j o i n i n g washrooms. NJAP has a separate entrance and i s i s o l a t e d from the mainstream of the s c h o o l ' s a c t i v i t i e s . S t a f f . The NJAP s t a f f c o n s i s t e d of f i v e members: two team te a c h e r s , one support person, the Head of Student S e r v i c e s , and the D i s t r i c t C o u n s e l l o r . Teachers d i v i d e d the d u t i e s , with one t e a c h i n g E n g l i s h and S o c i a l S t u d i e s and the other Mathematics and Science. The support person's tasks 1 49 i n c l u d e d recordkeeping, a c t i n g as a l i a s o n between parents, students and teachers, c o n s u l t i n g with r e g u l a r teachers, a s s i s t i n g a l t e r n a t e teachers and p r o v i d i n g moral support and encouragement to students. The Head of Student S e r v i c e s with a s s i s t a n c e from the D i s t r i c t C o u n s e l l o r , s u p e r v i s e d NJAP. They a l s o screened a p p l i c a n t s and recommended students f o r placement in a l t e r n a t e programs. Weekly student c o u n s e l l i n g and bi-weekly teacher t r a i n i n g were a l s o p r o v i d e d by the s u p e r v i s o r s . Students. Enrollment at any one time i s l i m i t e d to 20 students who have been p r e v i o u s l y suspended from s c h o o l . Because of continuous intake and outflow a much l a r g e r number of students may be e n r o l l e d over the course of a f u l l year. Behaviour problems common to these students are nonattendance, poor classroom behaviour, p e e r - r e l a t e d and f a m i l i a l problems, problems d e a l i n g with a u t h o r i t y , and i n some cases more s e r i o u s problems such as d r i n k i n g or smoking on school p r o p e r t y . L e a r n i n g problems are a l s o common r e s u l t i n g from poor study s k i l l s or gaps in t h e i r l e a r n i n g which i n h i b i t performance i n the r e g u l a r classroom. Admission procedures. Suspension from school i s e s t a b l i s h e d as the usual c r i t e r i o n f o r entry to an a l t e r n a t e program. A student must be r e f e r r e d to an a l t e r n a t e program 150 by the school board. Schedule of NJAP. C l a s s hours run from 8:00 A.M. to 2:30 P.M. Monday through Thursday. F r i d a y s are used f o r p a r e n t a l c o n s u l t a t i o n , course p l a n n i n g and student reviewing. Group meetings are he l d Monday mornings and Wednesday and Thursday a f t e r n o o n s . Grading and r e p o r t i n g . The passin g grade on t e s t s and assignments i s set at 70%. M a t e r i a l i s reviewed u n t i l a passing grade i s achieved. D a i l y r e p o r t s i n c l u d i n g p o s i t i v e and negative behaviour, absence, and t a r d i n e s s are prepared by program s t a f f . I n d i v i d u a l performance i s d i s c u s s e d at the end of each day by teachers and support person to supplement the r e g u l a r F r i d a y e v a l u a t i o n . Suspensions or r e i n t e g r a t i o n s . Students may be suspended from the program f o r : not l i s t e n i n g to d i r e c t i o n s , d e f i a n c e , arguing, l a c k of c o - o p e r a t i o n , r e f u s a l to work, constant i n t e r r u p t i o n , absence from s c h o o l , or the v i o l a t i o n of an important school r u l e , such as f i g h t i n g or being d e f i a n t to the p r i n c i p a l or v i c e - p r i n c i p a l . I t i s the o b j e c t i v e of the program to phase the i n t e g r a t i o n of the student i n t o r e g u l a r c l a s s e s as a c c e p t a b l e performance i s reached i n each s u b j e c t . A f t e r a 151 student has f u n c t i o n e d w e l l in the core s u b j e c t s (Math, E n g l i s h , S o c i a l S t u d i e s , and Science) in the program for a few weeks, he/she i s p e r m i t t e d to take e l e c t i v e courses such as P.E. Students are then g r a d u a l l y r e i n t e g r a t e d i n t o other r e g u l a r c l a s s e s when teachers see that they were aca d e m i c a l l y ready to handle the workload. If school work i s s u c c e s s f u l and d i s r u p t i v e behaviours have decreased at the end of the school year, then students are recommended for r e i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o r e g u l a r c l a s s e s beginning with the next school year. E v a l u a t i o n Questions From the d e s c r i p t i o n of NJAP, s e v e r a l e v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n s were then formulated and c a t e g o r i z e d a c c o r d i n g to the c e l l s of the d e s c r i p t i v e matrix used i n the e v a l u a t i o n model. A l t o g e t h e r 10 q u e s t i o n s were formulated (see Table 1, p. 46) . Methodology In order to adequately address these q u e s t i o n s , data were c o l l e c t e d from the v a r i e d sources by a m u l t i p l i c i t y of methods to a v o i d the b i a s and e r r o r sometimes a s s o c i a t e d with s i n g l e method approaches. Information and data were c o l l e c t e d from 22 students, three program s t a f f members, 18 r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s , three a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and 12 parents. D i f f e r e n c e s and s i m i l a r i t i e s between two groups of students 1 52 were examined i n an attempt to a s c e r t a i n who was s u c c e s s f u l in the program. Group 1 c o n s i s t e d of 13 students who were in the program f o r the f u l l e v a l u a t i o n p e r i o d . Group 2 c o n s i s t e d of nine students who were suspended from the program d u r i n g the e v a l u a t i o n p e r i o d . Both q u a l i t a t i v e and q u a n t i t a t i v e data were c o l l e c t e d from the above samples using s e m i - s t r u c t u r e d i n t e r v i e w s , q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , o b s e r v a t i o n c h e c k l i s t s , and achievement and a t t i t u d e t e s t s . The obtained i n f o r m a t i o n and data were summarized i n terms of f r e q u e n c i e s and percentages, and where a p p r o p r i a t e , by means and standard d e v i a t i o n s . Congruences and D i s p a r i t i e s The congruences and d i s p a r i t i e s i d e n t i f i e d i n the e v a l u a t i o n are organized i n terms of the Antecedents, T r a n s a c t i o n s , and Outcomes, are summarized i n Table 32. 1 53 Table 32 Congruences and D i s p a r i t i e s Antecedents Question Congruences D i s p a r i t i e s Demographic Students were aged 13 C r i t e r i a f o r student C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to 16. placement was not met. Although designed f o r grades 8 through 10, two grade 7 students were e n r o l l e d . The student i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y was not average or above. Six of 15 students with a v a i l a b l e IQ scores were below average (<90). T h i r t e e n of 22 students had f a i l i n g l e t t e r grades upon entry to NJAP. Eighteen students were below t h e i r present grade l e v e l (below the t o l e r a n c e band) on at l e a s t one of the s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s used (Nelson Reading T e s t , CTBS E n g l i s h , CTBS Math). Six students were below grade l e v e l on a l l t e s t s (below the t o l e r a n c e band). Common behaviour problems were t a l k i n g to peers, not g e t t i n g along with t e a c h e r s and f a m i l y , high absenteeism, and not l i s t e n i n g i n c l a s s . Behaviour Problems 1 54 Table 32 continued Antecedents Quest ion Congruences D i s p a r i t i e s L e arning Problems Common l e a r n i n g problems were remembering f a c t s , c o n c e n t r a t i n g on t a s k s , studying and l i s t e n i n g to the teacher. Admi s s i o n Procedures The main c r i t e r i o n fo r e ntry was the students' p r e v i o u s suspension from s c h o o l . Seven students were on the w a i t i n g l i s t f o r an a l t e r n a t e program longer than three weeks. Only three of these students were on the w a i t i n g l i s t longer than a month. S t a f f T r a i n i n g and Experience One teacher had ex t e n s i v e experience and the other p r a c t i c a e x perience. The support person a l s o had r e l e v a n t p r a c t i c a exper i e n c e . N e i t h e r a l t e r n a t e teacher h e l d a S p e c i a l Education Degree. The support person met the minimum q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . She had no t r a i n i n g as a c o u n s e l l o r . Table 32 continued 1 55 Transact ions Quest ion Congruences D i s p a r i t i e s P h y s i c a l F a c i l i t i e s The three s t a f f Because NJAP members were s a t i s f i e d students segregated Teaching G u i d e l i n e s Teaching Act i v i t i e s with the p h y s i c a l fac i l i t i e s . themselves from other students, p r i n c i p a l s and teachers s t a t e d that the program had l i t t l e e f f e c t on the s c h o o l . Conversely, t h i s s e g r e g a t i o n l i m i t s the e f f e c t of the school on a l t e r n a t e students. T h i s may i n h i b i t r e i n t e g r a t i o n . The program teachers used the g u i d e l i n e s set by the M i n i s t r y of Education f o r Mathematics, E n g l i s h , Science, and S o c i a l S t u d i e s . The program s t a f f reviewed student progress d a i l y and maintained d e t a i l e d and thorough r e c o r d s . I n d i v i d u a l i z e d teaching accounted f o r the m a j o r i t y of each teacher's time with 76% f o r Teacher A and 54% f o r Teacher B. The two t e a c h e r s and support person worked w e l l as a team. S t a f f teachers agreed that student c o n f l i c t s were so l v e d by c l a s s involvement. However, t h i s was not the case i n 11 i n s t a n c e s d u r i n g the 30 c l a s s e s observed. What oc c u r r e d i n these cases was a p r i v a t e c o n s u l t a t ion between the d i s r u p t i v e student and the teacher. Table 32 continued 1 56 Transact ions Quest ion Congruences D i s p a r i t i e s The team approach provided d i f f e r e n t t e a c h i n g p e r s p e c t i v e s , The a l t e r n a t e s t a f f p r o v i d e d c l o s e s u p e r v i s i o n of students. Support Person A c t i v i t y The support person performed her many tasks on a r e g u l a r b a s i s. One of the teachers was out of the room 24% of the time as compared to 10% f o r the other teacher. Absence c o u l d be f o r d i s c u s s i n g a l t e r n a t e students with r e g u l a r c l a s s t e a c h e r s , checking the whereabouts of students, d i s c u s s i n g students with the v i c e - r i n c i p a l , t e l e p h o n i n g parents about students, or t a k i n g a break. The vast m a j o r i t y of these a c t i v i t i e s c o u l d have been performed by the support person. The job d e s c r i p t i o n f o r the support person prepared by the s c h o o l board i s too lengthy. The d e s c r i p t i o n does not p r e s c r i b e d u t i e s that should be performed d a i l y . C o u n s e l l i n g i s i n c l u d e d i n the support person's job d e s c r i p t i o n . She l a c k s the time or t r a i n i n g necessary to p r o v i d e proper c o u n s e l l i n g . Table 32 continued Transact ions Question Congruences D i s p a r i t i e s Head of Student S e r v i c e s A c t i v i t y The Head of Student S e r v i c e s provided e f f e c t i v e c o u n s e l l i n g to students and support to a l t e r n a t e s t a f f members. P r i n c i p a l P a r t i c i p a t ion Support and S t a f f S e r v i c e s Ongoing T r a i n i n g The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the program should be made c l e a r to the p r i n c i p a l . The p r i n c i p a l was r e q u i r e d to report on t e a c h e r s but do so w i t h i n a su p e r v i sed framework not of h i s own d e v i s i n g . A v a i l a b l e Support and s t a f f s e r v i c e s were w e l l used by both s t a f f members and students. S t a f f members p a r t i c i p a t e d r e g u l a r l y in ongoing t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n s . P a r e n t a l Involvement Parents were s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r involvement. Table 32 continued 1 58 Outcomes Quest ion Congruences D i s p a r i t i e s Achievement At the f i n a l i n t e r v i e w , 10 students l i k e d both Math and E n g l i s h and f e l t that an improvement had been made. E i g h t of 10 Group 1 parents noted an improvement i n E n g l i sh. Regular teachers r e p o r t e d that of the 12 students e n r o l l e d i n r e g u l a r c l a s s e s a l l were l e a r n i n g s t e a d i l y in at l e a s t one of t h e i r r e g u l a r c l a s s e s . There was no sign i f i c a n t gain between p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t scores f o r seven of e i g h t s u b t e s t s f o r Group 1 students. P o s t t e s t scores f o r Group 2 were high and s i m i l a r to those of Group 1. Thi s was a n o t i c e a b l e gain over the low p r e t e s t scores of Group 2. T h i s gain c o u l d be a s c r i b e d to simple r e g r e s s i o n towards the mean. On f i n a l r e p o r t cards, 10 of 13 Group 1 students passed. E i g h t made n o t i c e a b l e improvements: three advanced two grade l e v e l s . The s i x Group 2 students s t a t e d at the f i n a l i n t e r v i e w that t h e i r performance had improved i n both Math and E n g l i s h . There was however, l i t t l e improvement i n grades. 1 59 Table 32 continued Outcomes Quest ion Congruences D i s p a r i t i e s S k i l l s Necessary f o r School, Home and S o c i a l A c t i v i t i e s Group 1 students l e a r n e d coping s k i l l s . E i g h t of 10 parents n o t i c e d improvement at home. At the i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w , 10 of 13 students r e p o r t e d fam i l y problems. Only four r e p o r t e d problems at the f i n a l i n t e r v i e w and two of these ment ioned improvement. At the i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w , three Group 1 students r e p o r t e d p e r s o n a l i t y c o n f l i c t s with Teacher A, one with Teacher B. Two of the c o n f l i c t s with Teacher A were s i l l o u t standing at the f i n a l i n t e r v i e w as was one with Teacher B. Peer problems were mentioned by seven students i n i t i a l l y but only four at the end. At the i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w , two Group 2 students r e p o r t e d problems with Teacher A, three with B and one with the support person. At the f i n a l i n t e r v i e w , one report e d problems with Teacher B and one with the support person, The coping s k i l l s taught d i d not g e n e r a l i z e to the homes of Group 2 stu d e n t s . Two-thirds of the students reported home problems: none mentioned improvement. At the i n i t i a l Group 2 i n t e r v i e w , none mentioned p r e v i o u s peer problems, but two had developed problems by the second i n t e r v i e w . 1 60 Table 32 continued Outcomes Quest ion Congruences D i s p a r i t i e s R e l a t i v e Change of I n a p p r o p r i a t e Behaviour Eighteen i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviours were recorded by the c h e c k l i s t . T h i r t e e n A l t e r n a t e teachers r e p o r t e d that Group 2 behaviour had not improved. behaviours decreased Group 2 r e f e r r a l s for both Groups 1 and and d e t e n t i o n s Regular c l a s s teachers expressed s a t i s f a c t i o n with behaviour. E i g h t of 13 parents reported a r e d u c t i o n in behaviour problems. A l t e r n a t e teachers A l t e r n a t e teachers r e p o r t e d improved r e p o r t e d that Group behaviour f o r Group 1, 2 behaviour had with the e x c e p t i o n of not improved, attendance. By observing student Group 2 r e f e r r a l s r ecords, i t was and d e t e n t i o n s found that Group 1 i n c r e a s e d i n three d e t e n t i o n s and o f f i c e cases, r e f e r r a l s decreased. 2. i n c r e a s e d i n three cases. Attendance was poor f o r both groups of students. T h i r t e e n of 20 students missed more than a q u a r t e r of a l l school days. Attendance improved f o r f i v e . 161 Table 32 continued Outcomes Question Congruences D i s p a r i t i e s Reinforcement of Acceptable Behaviour A p p r o p r i a t e behaviour Acceptable was r e i n f o r c e d at the behaviour i s not c o u n s e l l i n g s e s s i o n s d e f i n e d . Reward and encouraged by f o r improved the support person and behaviour i s not lunch at MacDonalds. c o n s i s t e n t . S t a f f Communication with Parents and Teachers Students r e p o r t e d that a l l three s t a f f members prov i d e d encouragement and reinforcement f o r improved performance. The a l t e r n a t e s t a f f communicated with parents on a re g u l a r b a s i s . Contact was on a weekly or bi-weekly b a s i s for 10 of 12 pa r e n t s . A l t e r n a t e teachers and the support person made at l e a s t weekly co n t a c t with 10 of 17 r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s . Student R e i n t e g r a t i o n C r i t e r i a used Unimproved behaviour for Suspensions was the most common or R e i n t e g r a t i o n s reason f o r suspension, R e i n t e g r a t i o n occurs when students and s t a f f agree that behaviours and school work have improved. Only ten students were r e i n t e g r a t e d at the end of the school year. Nine students were suspended. Table 32 continued Outcomes Question Congruences Di s p a r i t i e s Percentage of The percentage of Students students who were Re i n t e g r a t e d each r e i n t e g r a t e d at NJAP year i n c r e a s e d with each succeeding year. A t t i t u d e s of Part i c i p a n t s toward NJAP A l l p a r t i c i p a n t s had a favourable a t t i t u d e towards the a l t e r n a t e program. 1 63 Cont inqenc i e s A contingent a n a l y s i s i s begun a f t e r a d i s p a r i t y has been noted between an observed and an intended outcome. To determine the reason that a d e s i r e d outcome has not occurred, the corresponding t r a n s a c t i o n s and antecedents which were supposed to l e a d to d e s i r e d outcomes are examined fo r p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s . An intended outcome of the program was to teach coping s k i l l s at school which c o u l d a l s o a i d students at home. For Group 2 students, t h i s outcome was not observed. When i n i t i a l l y i n t e r v i e w e d two-thirds ( s i x of nine) of Group 2 students r e p o r t e d f a m i l y d i f f i c u l t i e s , such as f i g h t i n g , arguing and f a i l i n g to communicate. The p r o p o r t i o n of students (four of s i x ) r e p o r t i n g f a m i l y problems was unchanged at the f i n a l i n t e r v i e w . The e d u c a t i o n a l t r a n s a c t i o n , teaching coping s k i l l s , had f a i l e d to occur. Another outcome intended was to improve student behaviour. A l t e r n a t e teachers d i d not see an improvement in Group 2 students. T h i s f e e l i n g was born out by the c o n t i n u a t i o n of d e t e n t i o n s and r e f e r r a l s to the p r i n c i p a l throughout the enrollment p e r i o d . Here there was no e d u c a t i o n a l t r a n s a c t i o n e s t a b l i s h e d to b r i n g about the d e s i r e d behaviour change. The program p r o v i d e s c o u n s e l l i n g and encouragement to improve behaviour but has no s p e c i f i e d 164 code of a c c e p t a b l e or unacceptable behaviour. N e i t h e r were i n c e n t i v e s i n s t i t u t e d f o r r e d u c t i o n s i n d e t e n t i o n s or o f f i c e r e f e r r a l s . Student attendance v a r i e d g r e a t l y from that which was intended. Many students had poor attendance before e n r o l l i n g at NJAP. These students d i d not improve attendance. Neither d i d those students not p r e v i o u s l y i d e n t i f i e d as poor a t t e n d e r s . Only f i v e of 20 students showed an improvement i n attendance while at NJAP. Here again no e d u c a t i o n a l t r a n s a c t i o n was e s t a b l i s h e d to b r i n g about improved attendance. Students were not c o n s i s t e n t l y r e i n f o r c e d f o r a t t e n d i n g school nor were they c o n s i s t e n t l y punished f o r not a t t e n d i n g s c h o o l . The major outcome d e s i r e d by the program was to r e i n t e g r a t e students i n t o the r e g u l a r s c h o o l . The d i s p a r i t y here i s that 9 of 22 students were suspended from s c h o o l . T r a n s a c t i o n s may have f a i l e d , but i t i s more l i k e l y that t h i s f a i l u r e may be a s c r i b e d to the observed antecedents. C r i t e r i a f o r student placement were not met. Whereas NJAP was designed f o r average or above average grade e i g h t , nine and ten students, s i x students with a v a i l a b l e IQ scores were below average. Eighteen students were below grade l e v e l (below the t o l e r a n c e band) on at l e a s t one of the p r e t e s t achievement s u b t e s t s , and two students were e n r o l l e d i n grade seven. F a i l u r e to meet entry c r i t e r i a l e d to the f o l l o w i n g : four students below average IQ were suspended, 1 65 e i g h t students who scored below grade l e v e l were suspended, and both grade seven students were suspended. L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study 1. The e v a l u a t i o n concerned only three months (February to A p r i l ) of one school year. Not a l l students c o u l d be p r e t e s t e d upon entry to the program. In some in s t a n c e s , the e v a l u a t i o n began months a f t e r the students were f i r s t e n r o l l e d . These students had been l e a r n i n g in the program before the e v a l u a t i o n , t h e r e f o r e the f u l l c o n t r i b u t i o n that the program made to t h e i r achievement c o u l d not be assessed. A longer e v a l u a t i o n p e r i o d would permit a gr e a t e r time to elapse between p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t . T h i s would g i v e g r e a t e r v a l i d i t y to c a l c u l a t i o n s of improvement. 2. Student absense, resuspensions, and enrollment i n r e g u l a r c l a s s e s decreased the number of students observed i n the a l t e r n a t e c l a s s . Observations were unequal. Poor a t t e n d e r s were not observed as o f t e n as other students. Resuspended students were e x p e l l e d before many or any ob s e r v a t i o n s were taken. Because the e v a l u a t o r observed only the a l t e r n a t e c l a s s , students were not observed i n t h e i r r e g u l a r c l a s s e s . T h i s a l s o made ob s e r v a t i o n s unequal. 1 66 3. P o s t t e s t data was missing f o r some group 2 students. T h i s r e s t r i c t e d the s i z e of what alr e a d y was a small sample. 4. Ten parents d i d not respond to q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . T h i s r e s t r i c t e d the s i z e of the sample. 5. The e v a l u a t o r was the s o l e c o l l e c t o r , c o l l a t o r , and ana l y z e r of data. A l s o , instruments used were e i t h e r designed or s e l e c t e d by the e v a l u a t o r . T h i s means that there were no e x t e r n a l checks a g a i n s t the i n t r o d u c t i o n of b i a s . Recommendat ions Not withstanding the l i m i t a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d above, the agreement among the v a r i o u s data souces and forms l e d to the f o l l o w i n g recommendations: 1. The program should serve the intended group. Ne i t h e r grade seven nor below average students should be e n r o l l e d . I f , below average students w i l l be e n r o l l e d , the w r i t t e n entry c r i t e r i a should be r e d e f i n e d . 167 E f f o r t s should be made by s t a f f to determine and c o r r e c t the u n d e r l y i n g causes of student suspension. Students were sent to NJAP because they had been suspended from s c h o o l . Too many were subsequently suspended from NJAP without any i n t e r v e n t i o n being taken p l a c e . Techniques should be p r e s c r i b e d to reduce s p e c i f i c i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviours. Since poor attendance was observed, procedures should be developed to ensure that more students a t t e n d school more o f t e n . Basic behaviour m o d i f i c a t i o n techniques i n c l u d i n g token economies have been e f f e c t i v e at improving attendance i n other a l t e r n a t e programs. The S t r e e t Academy (Bournazos, 1975), W i l l i a m A. Hurt High School ( N a t i o n a l School Resource Network, Washington, D.C, 1980), G r a n i t e A l t e r n a t e School (Whipples, 1977), and Dade County A l t e r n a t e School (Dept. of Planning and E v a l u a t i o n , F l o r i d a , 1976) have a l l experienced success using behaviour m o d i f i c a t i o n techniques to improve attendance. Parent e f f e c t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g i s a technique found to produce a r e d u c t i o n i n absenteeism at the S t r e e t Academy (Bournazos, 1975). Regular s e s s i o n s of group and i n d i v i d u a l c o u n s e l l i n g with an experienced p r a c t i t i o n e r have been s u c c e s s f u l i n improving attendance at the L i v i n g s t o n School (Rothman, 1980). 168 Acceptable behaviour should be d e f i n e d . S i m i l a r l y , there should be w r i t t e n d e f i n i t i o n of behaviour c o n s i d e r e d unacceptable. Standards of reward or punishment should be e s t a b l i s h e d f o r s p e c i f i e d behaviours. A l t e r n a t e teachers should not leave the classroom d u r i n g t e a c h i n g p e r i o d s . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e d u t i e s should be handled by the support person. Should the support person be absent the e x t r a d u t i e s should be l e f t f o r nonteaching p e r i o d s . If one teacher needs to speak to parents, the other teacher should take both c l a s s e s . A l t e r n a t e teachers should not d i s c u s s a l t e r n a t e students with r e g u l a r teachers d u r i n g c l a s s time. The need e x i s t s f o r a l t e r n a t e teachers to communicate with r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s . One hour per week should be scheduled i n each teacher's t i m e t a b l e for t h i s purpose. The support person's job d e s c r i p t i o n should be r e w r i t t e n to p r e s c r i b e d a i l y d u t i e s . The support person should have a d a i l y t i m e - t a b l e l i s t i n g d u t i e s and the times at which they are to be performed. The term c o u n s e l l o r should be d e l e t e d from the the l i s t of d u t i e s in the job d e s c r i p t i o n of the support person. 1 69 7. A p r o f e s s i o n a l l y q u a l i f i e d c o u n s e l l o r should be a v a i l a b l e to the a l t e r n a t e program one f u l l day a week. 8. Regular teachers should be more f a m i l i a r with the goals and procedures of the a l t e r n a t e program. A w r i t t e n d e s c r i p t i o n of the program goals and procedures should be a v a i l a b l e to r e g u l a r s t a f f . A l t e r n a t e teachers c o u l d make p r e s e n t a t i o n s at school s t a f f meetings. 9. At the time of the e v a l u a t i o n , s u p e r v i s i o n of the program was not made c l e a r to the p r i n c i p a l . Now that the p r i n c i p a l has been with Newton J u n i o r Secondary f o r two years t h i s may no longer be a problem. However, the School Board should w r i t e a c l e a r d e s c r i p t i o n of p r i n c i p a l ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . A copy should be l e f t at Newton J u n i o r Secondary to inform the p r i n c i p a l of the e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r him/her. T h i s would be a v a i l a b l e f o r any f u t u r e p r i n c i p a l s . F r i t z et a l (1979) i n t h e i r review of a l t e r n a t e programs recommended that s u c c e s s f u l a l t e r n a t e program implementation should i n c l u d e " c l e a r l y d e f i n e d and documented procedures". (P. 1) 10. The program i s p h y s i c a l l y segregated from the r e s t of the s c h o o l . If the i n t e n t i o n i s to r e i n t r o d u c e students to r e g u l a r c l a s s e s , the a l t e r n a t e c l a s s should be more 170 c l o s e l y i n t e g r a t e d with the r e s t of the s c h o o l . 11. The support person should keep simple accurate records of student d e t e n t i o n s and v i s i t s to the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e . 12. E v a l u a t i o n should be b u i l t i n t o NJAP as a means of c o n s t a n t l y a s s e s s i n g program g o a l s . I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Future S t u d i e s T h i s study observed a l l program o p e r a t i o n s using the d e s r i p t i v e matrix proposed by Stake (1967). Now that t h i s i n i t i a l study has i d e n t i f i e d problem areas, succeeding e v a l u a t i o n s c o u l d use the same model to concentrate on s p e c i f i c problems. Other s t u d i e s c o u l d focus on s p e c i f i c behaviour or i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques. I n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n , team-games-tournament or a combination of the two might be compared to determine which i s more e f f e c t i v e i n te a c h i n g the b a s i c s u b j e c t s . Behaviour m o d i f i c a t i o n , c o u n s e l l i n g , parent e f f e c t i v e n e s s t r a i n i n g or combinations of the three c o u l d be compared f o r t h e i r c a p a c i t y to improve behaviour. F u r t h e r s t u d i e s c o u l d invoke a comparison of NJAP to other Surrey programs or to a l t e r n a t e programs or schools i n the Lower Mainland of B.C. 171 Reference Notes 1. Karr, M., M i l l e r , S., & Arbour, C. Newton J u n i o r  A l t e r n a t e Program D e s c r i p t i o n . Unpublished document, Newton J u n i o r Secondary School, 1981. 1 72 References Amove, R.F., & S t r o u t , T. A l t e r n a t i v e schools f o r  d i s r u p t i v e youths. Washington, D.C: N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e of Education, 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 162413) Block, J . E f f e c t s of a r a t i o n a l - e m o t i v e mental h e a l t h program on p o o r l y a c h i e v i n g , d i s r u p t i v e high school students. J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology, 1978, 25(1), 61-65. B o r i c h , G.D. & Madden, S.K. E v a l u a t i n g Classroom  I n s t r u c t i o n : A Sourcebook of Instruments. P h i l i p p i n e s : Addison-Wesley P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1977. Bournazos, Kimon: And Others, Information S e r v i c e s , Inc. The s t r e e t academy: f i n a l e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t . Kalamazoo, Michigan: Grand Rapids P u b l i c Schools, 1975 (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 112461) Cofer, C.N., D a n i e l , R.S., Dunham, F.Y., & Heimer, W.I. P u b l i c a t i o n Manual of the American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n (Second E d i t i o n ) . Washington, D.C: American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , 1974. Cox, W.D. & Matthews, C.E. Parent group e d u c a t i o n : what does i t do f o r the c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of School Psychology, 1977, 21(4), 358-361. Cor n e t t , J . & Swanson, M. A guide f o r implementing P r o j e c t  Deep ( D i v e r s i f i e d Education Experiences Program): a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s guide. W i c h i t a , Kansas: W i c h i t a P u b l i c Schools, 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 184272) Department of Planning and E v a l u a t i o n . Impact and  o p e r a t i o n a l f e a t u r e s of programs designed to modify  d i s r u p t i v e behaviour i n the Dade County P u b l i c Schools. Miami: Dade County P u b l i c Schools, 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 013371) Edwards, J . An e v a l u a t i o n of h e a l t h promotion workshops f o r nurses. Unpublished master's t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B.C., 1977. 1 73 Evans, J.T. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of open edu c a t i o n : r e s u l t s from  a classroom o b s e r v a t i o n r a t i n g s c a l e and a teacher  q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Newton, Mass.: Education Development Center, Inc., 1971. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 058160) Fagan, B.M. & Horst, D.P. S e l e c t i n g a Norm-Referenced Test  ESEA T i t l e 1 E v a l u a t i o n and Reporting System T e c h n i c a l Paper  No. 4. Mountain View, C a l i f o r n i a : RMC Research Corp., 1976. F l a n d e r s , N.A. A n a l y z i n g Teaching Behaviour. P h i l i p p i n e s : Addison-Wesley P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1970. Hanna,G., S c h e l l , L.M., & S c h r e i n e r , R. The Nelson Reading  S k i l l s T e s t . L e v e l s A, B, & C. Forms 3 & 4. Teacher's  Manual. Houghton M i f f l i n Co., 1977. Horst, D.P. & Fagan, B.M. Common E v a l u a t i o n Hazards. ESEA  T i t l e 1 E v a l u a t i o n Reporting System. T e c h n i c a l Paper No. 14. Mountain View, C a l i f o r n i a : RMC Research Corp., 1975. Horst, D.P., Tallmadge, G.K. & Wood, C.T. A P r a c t i c a l Guide  to Measuring P r o j e c t Impact on Student Achievement. Number  1 in a s e r i e s of Monographs on E v a l u a t i o n i n Research. Mountain View: RMC Research Corp., 1975. I n s t r u c t i o n a l O b j e c t i v e s Exchange. A t t i t u d e Toward School K  - 12 (Rev. ed.). Author, 1972. I n s t r u c t i o n a l O b j e c t i v e s Exchange. Measures of Self-Concept  K - 12 (Rev. ed.). Author, 1972. Jordan, J.B., Sabatino, D.A., & S a r r i , R.C. D i s r u p t i v e  youth i n s c h o o l : a r e p o r t from the CEC I n v i s i b l e C o l l e g e  Conference on educator's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r d i s r u p t i v e ,  a l i e n a t e d , & i n c a r c e r a t e d youth. Reston, V i r g i n a : The C o u n c i l f o r E x c e p t i o n a l C h i l d r e n , 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 188367) King, E.M. (Ed.). Canadian T e s t s of Basic S k i l l s . Manual  fo r A d m i n i s t r a t o r s , S u p e r v i s o r s , and C o u n s e l l o r s . ( L e v e l  E d i t i o n Forms 3 & 4)~ Thomas Nelson & Sons (Canadian L t d . ) , 1 976. King, E.M. & Hieronymus, A.N. (Eds.). Canadian T e s t s of  Basic S k i l l s . Manual f o r Teachers. (L e v e l E d i t i o n Forms 3 & 4). Thomas Nelson & Sons (Canadian L t d . ) , 1976. 174 K i r k , R.E. I n t r o d u c t o r y S t a t i s t i c s . Belmont, Ca.: Wadsworth P u b l i s h i n g Company, Inc., 1978. K i t a , S. UBC SPSS S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r the S o c i a l Sciences V e r s i o n 8.00 (Under MTS). Computing Centre, U n i v e r s i t y of B.C., 1980. N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of School S e c u r i t y D i r e c t o r s . Model  Middle School A l t e r n a t i v e Education Program. Workshop I I . Prevention programs and funding. F o r t Lauderdale: Workshop presented at the Annual Meeting of the N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of School S e c u r i t y D i r e c t o r s , 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 193781) N a t i o n a l School Resource Network. A l t e r n a t i v e schools and  programs: f i v e d e s c r i p t i o n s . T e c h n i c a l A s s i s t a n c e B u l l e t i n 37. Washington, D.C: Dept. of J u s t i c e , 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 199882) N a t i o n a l School Resource Network. The W i l l i a m A. Wurt High  School Behaviour M o d i f i c a t i o n C l i n i c . T e c h n i c a l A s s i s t a n c e  B u l l e t i n 36. Washington, D.C: Dept. of J u s t i c e , 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 199881) Nelson, L.R. Guide to LERTAP Use and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Dunedin, New Zealand: U n i v e r s i t y of Otago, 1974. Newman, D.G. An approach to combat student misbehaviour at  the n i n t h grade l e v e l . The Committee on R e f e r r a l and E v a l u a t i o n (CO.R.E. )". Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Nova U n i v e r s i t y , 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 193766) Northwest Regional Education Laboratory, Hawaii 3 on 2  E v a l u a t i o n Report 1976-77. P o r t l a n d , Oregon: Author, 1977. Perry, C.L. & Duke, D.L. Lessons to be l e a r n e d about d i s c i p l i n e from a l t e r n a t e high s c h o o l s . J o u r n a l of Research  and Development in Education, 1978, 7(4), 78-91. Provus, M. Discrepancy E v a l u a t i o n . Berkeley: McCutchan P u b l i c a t i o n Corp., 1971. Reid, J . I . & Lindstrom-Rogers, M. E n g l i s h S k i l l s : A  F u n c t i o n a l Approach. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson L t d . , 1 979. Rutman, L. (ed.). E v a l u a t i o n Research Methods: A Basic Guide. Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s , Inc., 1977. 1 75 Simon, A. & Boyer, E.G. ( e d s . ) . M i r r o r s f o r Behaviour I I I :  An Anthology of Observation Instruments. Brophy, J.E. & Good, T.L. T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n . Wyncote: Communication M a t e r i a l s Center, 1974. S l a v i n , R.E. A student team approach to teaching a d o l e s c e n t s with s p e c i a l emotional and b e h a v i o u r a l needs. Psychology in the Schools, 1 977, J_4 ( 1 ) , 77-83. Stake, R. The countenance of e d u c a t i o n a l e v a l u a t i o n . Teachers C o l l e g e Record. 1967, 68 (7 ) , 523-540. Tallmadge, G.K. The Regression E f f e c t . ESEA T i t l e 1 E v a l u a t i o n and Reporting System. T e c h n i c a l Paper No. 3. Mountain View: RMC Research Corp., 1976. Tallmadge, G.K., & Horst, D.P. A P r o c e d u r a l Guide f o r  V a l i d a t i n g Achievement Gains i n E d u c a t i o n a l P r o j e c t s . Number 2 i n a S e r i e s of Monographs i n E v a l u a t i o n and  E d u c a t i o n . Mountain View: RMC Research Corp., 1976. Whipple, W.S. Changing a t t i t u d e s through behaviour modif i c a t i o n . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of Secondary School P r i n c i p a l s : New Orleans, L o u i s i a n a , 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 146500) Wood, F.H. (ed.). P e r s p e c t i v e s f o r a new decade: Education's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s e r i o u s l y d i s t u r b e d and  b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i s o r d e r e d c h i l d r e n and youth: s e l e c t e d papers  based on p r e s e n t a t i o n s from the CEC:CCBD N a t i o n a l T o p i c a l  Conference on the S e r i o u s l y E m o t i o n a l l y D i s t u r b e d . M i n n e a p o l i s : C o u n c i l f o r E x c e p t i o n a l C h i l d r e n , 1981. Worthen, B.R., Owens, T.R., & Anderson, B. E v a l u a t i o n of  the A l t e r n a t i v e Teacher Education Programs of the U n i v e r s i t y  of B r i t i s h Columbia, F a c u l t y of E d u c a t i o n . P o r t l a n d , Or.: Northwest Regional Education Laboratory, 1975. Worthen, B.R. & Sanders, J.R. E d u c a t i o n a l E v a l u a t i o n :  Theory and P r a c t i c e . Belmont, C a l i f . : Wadsworth P u b l i s h i n g Company, Inc., 1973. Yates, J.B. A new a l t e r n a t i v e s c h o o l : CEEC. C l e a r i n g House, 1979, 52(6) , 265-271. Yates, M.R., Saunders, R., & Watkins, J.F. A program based on Maslow's hi e r a c h y helps students i n t r o u b l e . Phi D e l t a  Kappa n, 1980, 6J_(10), 712-713. APPENDIX A NJAP PARENT/GUARDIAN STUDENT INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 1 77 APPENDIX A NJAP PARENT/GUARDIAN STUDENT INTERVIEW SCHEDULE I . Background 1. What sc h o o l s or programs have you attended i n the l a s t two years? How many months were you i n a c t u a l attendance? 2. What are the behaviours that have caused you problems in school? 3. What s p e c i f i c i n c i d e n t r e s u l t e d i n your suspension from school? 4. How d i d you f e e l about being suspended? 5. Is attendance or g e t t i n g to school on time a problem f o r you? If so, what do you plan to do about i t t h i s time around? 6. What changes do you have to make so that you don't get suspended again? 11. Commitment 7. Are you w i l l i n g to accept our support i n changing the behaviours that have caused problems f o r you? 8. How much r e s p o n s i b i l i t y are you w i l l i n g t o accept f o r your homework and attendance? How much r e s p o n s i b i l i t y do you expect your parents to take? 9. What do you expect from being i n t h i s program? 10. When do you think you w i l l be ready to take r e g u l a r c l a s s e s on a pa r t time or f u l l time b a s i s ? 11. Is i t your d e c i s i o n to be i n the A l t e r n a t e Program? If not, why are you here? What would you r a t h e r be doing? What other o p t i o n s are there a v a i l a b l e f o r you? I I I . School Information 12. Are there any major concerns you have i n coming to Newton J u n i o r Secondary School, ( i . e . problems h a n d l i n g school r u l e s ? r e l a t i n g to teachers? other students?) 13. Do you have any f r i e n d s i n t h i s school? 1 78 14. What courses do you need to complete? 15. What courses have caused you problems? 16. What people, such as s o c i a l workers, are i n v o l v e d i n your l i f e now? 17. With whom are you l i v i n g now? 18. What arrangements have been made f o r you to have a reg u l a r study time at home? APPENDIX B 1. PRE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR STUDENTS ENROLLED AFTER EVALUATION BEGAN 2. POST INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR STUDENTS ENROLLED AFTER EVALUATION BEGAN 3. SHORT INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 4. POST INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR STUDENTS ENROLLED PRIOR TO EVALUATION 5. PROGRAM TEACHERS INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 6. SUPPORT PERSON INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 7. PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 8. PREVIOUS PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 9. HEAD OF STUDENT SERVICES INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 180 APPENDIX B PRE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR STUDENTS ENROLLED AFTER EVALUATION BEGAN Date of Entry Date of Interview Name I.D. Code Sex Male Female 1 . How o l d are you? 2. Do you l i v e with your parents? yes no Who do you l i v e with? 3. Where do you l i v e ? (Probe - West Whalley, Newton) 4. Which school d i d you go to before coming to Newton Jun i o r ? 5. Were you suspended from school or d i d you drop out? suspended dropped out Why were you suspended or why d i d you drop out? How long have you been out of school? 6. Do you think any of these behaviour problems apply to you? Would you p l a c e a checkmark beside any that do? (The item i s on a separate sheet.) swearing i n c l a s s t a l k i n g back to the teacher t a l k i n g to other classmates not l i s t e n i n g i n c l a s s y e l l i n g i n c l a s s making fun of the teacher Do you have any other behaviour problems? Please l i s t them? 181 7. Do you think that any of these l e a r n i n g problems apply to you? Place checkmark beside any that do? (The item i s on a separate sheet.) Do you have problems reading w r i t i n g remembering t h i n g s studying l i s t e n i n g f o r a long time c o n c e n t r a t i n g f o r a long time Do you have any other l e a r n i n g problems? Please l i s t them? 8. How o f t e n are you away from school? Are you away from school more than 10 times a year? l e s s than 10x but more than 5x l e s s than 5x but more than 1x never 9. How o f t e n are l a t e f o r school? Are you l a t e f o r school more o f t e n than 10x a year? l e s s than 10x but more than 5x l e s s than 5x but more than ix never 10. In your l a s t school d i d you have any t r o u b l e g e t t i n g along with your teachers? yes no classmates yes no 11. Do you have any t r o u b l e g e t t i n g along with your parents? yes no brothers and s i s t e r s yes no What kinds of problems do you have at home? (Probe do you f i g h t with your f a m i l y . ) 12. At your l a s t s c h o o l , how w e l l d i d you understand the f o l l o w i n g s u b j e c t s ? Poor F a i r Good E n g l i s h Mathematics S o c i a l S t u d i e s Sc ience 182 13. Did you l i k e these s u b j e c t s ? E n g l i s h yes no Math yes no S o c i a l S t u d i e s yes no Science yes no 14. Do you know what an a l t e r n a t e program i s ? yes no What i s i t ? 15. Is t h i s the f i r s t a l t e r n a t e program that you have attended? yes no How many a l t e r n a t e programs have you attended? What are these programs? 16. Are you happy that you are back at school? yes no If yes, why? 17. Would you p r e f e r to be i n a r e g u l a r classroom? yes no If yes, why? 18. When do you think that you should be p l a c e d back i n a r e g u l a r classroom? (Probe - When the teachers t h i n k that you are ready? or when you t h i n k that you are ready? or f o r both reasons? 1 83 APPENDIX B POST INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR STUDENTS ENROLLED AFTER EVALUATION BEGAN Date of Interview Name I.D. Code 1. Do you think any of these behaviour problems apply to you? Would you p l a c e a checkmark beside any that do? (The item i s on a separate sheet.) swearing in c l a s s t a l k i n g back to the teacher t a l k i n g to other classmates not l i s t e n i n g i n c l a s s y e l l i n g i n c l a s s making fun of the teacher Do you have any other behaviour problems? Please l i s t them? 2. Do you think that any of these l e a r n i n g problems apply to you? Place checkmark beside any that do? (The item i s on a separate sheet.) Do you have problems reading w r i t i n g remembering t h i n g s studying l i s t e n i n g f o r a long time c o n c e n t r a t i n g f o r a long time Do you have any other l e a r n i n g problems? Please l i s t them? 3. Do you l i k e Newton J u n i o r A l e r n a t e program? yes Why? (Probe - Is i t because you l i k e the teachers? or ar you doing w e l l ? ) no Why? (Probe - Do you d i s l i k e the teachers? or are you doing p o o r l y ? ) 4. How does the a l t e r n a t e program d i f f e r from the r e g u l a r c l a s s ? (Probe - Is i t more f l e x i b l e ? Is there more freedom? Are your c l a s s e s more i n d i v i d u a l i z e d ? ) 184 5. Do you p r e f e r Newton Ju n i o r over the l a s t r e g u l a r school you went to? yes, Why? (Probe - Are you doing b e t t e r ? Are your teachers more understanding?) no Why? (Probe - Is the program more d i f f i c u l t ? Can you not f o o l around as much? Are the teachers not as nice?) Is t h i s your f i r s t a l t e r n a t e program? yes no (If yes) Have you learned more in the a l t e r n a t e program? (If no) Do you p r e f e r Newton J u n i o r over the other a l t e r n a t e programs that you have attended? yes Why? (Probe - Is Newton J u n i o r more f l e x i b l e ? or does i t o f f e r more freedom? or are the teachers b e t t e r ? In which a l t e r n a t e program have you lear n e d more? Newton J u n i o r other 6. Do you l i k e Mary? yes, Why? no Why? Is she a good teacher? What about Sue? Do you yes l i k e her? no yes Why? Is she a good teacher? yes no What does C a r o l do? Do you l i k e her? yes Why? no, Why? Is she good at her job? What does Mr. Lee do? yes no Do you l i k e him? no Why? yes 8. Do you l i k e E n g l i s h ? yes no How do you thin k you're doing i n E n g l i s h ? poor f a i r good Do you thin k you're doing b e t t e r now that you are at t e n d i n g Newton J u n i o r ? no yes What about math? Do you l i k e i t ? yes no How do you thin k you're doing i n Math? poor f a i r good 185 Are you doing b e t t e r than before? yes no How about S o c i a l S t u d i e s ? Do you l i k e i t ? yes no How are you doing i n i t ? poor f a i r good Are you doing b e t t e r than before? yes no Do you l i k e Science? yes no How do you think you're doing i n i t ? poor f a i r good Are you doing b e t t e r than before? yes no 9. Do you have any problems at home? no yes, Who with? your parents brother & s i s t e r s What kinds of problems do you have? (Probe - f i g h t i n g T Is i t any b e t t e r at home s i n c e coming to Newton J u n i o r ? no yes, How i s i t b e t t e r ? 10. Do you get along with Mary & Sue? yes no, Why not? classmates? yes no, Why not? 11. Since coming to t h i s s c h o o l , how o f t e n have you been away? per week per month Are you absent as o f t e n as at your l a s t school? yes no, Why not? 12. How o f t e n are you l a t e ? per wk per month Are you l a t e as o f t e n as at your l a s t school? yes no 13. Does Mary encourage you to work hard? yes no Does she t e l l you when you are doing w e l l ? yes no What about Sue? Does she encourage you? yes no Does she t e l l you when you are doing w e l l ? yes no What about C a r o l ? yes no 186 14. Do you a t t e n d any r e g u l a r c l a s s e s o u t s i d e the a l t e r n a t e program? yes no Horn many r e g u l a r c l a s s e s ? Which s u b j e c t s are these? 1 . 5. 2. 6. 3. 7. 4. 8. 15. Do you want to a t t e n d any r e g u l a r c l a s s e s ? yes Why no Why 16. Do you think that any improvements should be made at Newton J u n i o r ? (Probe - te a c h e r s , s u b j e c t s , hours) no yes What improvements? 17. What do you l i k e about Newton J u n i o r ? 187 APPENDIX B SHORT INTERVIEW SCHEDULE Date of Interview Name ID Code 1. (show card) Do you think any of these behaviour problems apply to you? (Check any that do.) Have any of these problems decreased s i n c e being at Newton J u n i o r ? no yes, which ones 2. (show card) Do you think that any of these l e a r n i n g problems apply to you? (check any that do.) Have any of these problems decreased s i n c e being at Newton J u n i o r ? no yes, which ones? 3. How do you think you're doing in E n g l i s h now? poor f a i r good Do you think that you have improved s i n c e the l a s t time I asked you? yes no Do you l i k e E n g l i s h ? yes no What about math? How are you doing i n i t ? poor f a i r good Have you improved? yes no Do you l i k e Math? yes no Do you l i k e Science? yes no How do you think you're doing i n Science now? poor f a i r good Have you improved? yes no What about S o c i a l S tudies? Do you l i k e i t ? yes no How do you th i n k you're doing i n i t ? poor f a i r good Have you improved any? yes no 4. Do you have any problems at home? no yes Who with? your parents bro t h e r s and s i s t e r s What kinds of problems do you have? (probe - f i g h t i n g ) Has i t improved at home s i n c e the l a s t time I asked you? no yes, how i s i t b e t t e r ? Do you have any t r o u b l e g e t t i n g along with Mary? no yes, what kind of problems? Do you have any t r o u b l e g e t t i n g along with Sue? no yes, what kind of problems? What about C a r o l ? no yes, what kind of problems? Do you get along with your classmates? yes no, why not? How o f t e n were you away t h i s past month? Were you away more l a s t month? yes no, why not? How many times were you l a t e t h i s past month? Were you l a t e more l a s t month? yes no, why not? Does Mary encourage you to work hard? yes no Does she t e l l you when you are doing we l l ? yes no What about Sue? yes no yes no What about C a r o l ? yes no yes no 189 APPENDIX B POST INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR STUDENTS ENROLLED PRIOR TO EVALUATION Date of Entry Date of Interview Name I.D. Code Sex Male Female 1. How o l d are you? 2. Do you l i v e with your parents? yes no Who do you l i v e with? 3. Where do you l i v e ? (Probe - West Whalley) 4. Which school d i d you l a s t attend? 5. Were you suspended from school or d i d you drop out? Suspended, Why were you suspended? Dropped out, Why d i d you drop out? How long have you been out of school? 6. (Show card) Do you think any of these behaviour problems apply to you? (Check any that do.) Have these problems decreased s i n c e being at Newton J u n i o r ? no yes, Which ones? 7. (Show Card) Do you think that any of t h e s e . l e a r n i n g problems apply to you? (Check any that do.) Do you th i n k any of these problems have improved? no yes, Which ones? 8. Do you l i k e Newton J u n i o r A l e r n a t e program? yes, Why? (Probe - Is i t because you l i k e the teachers or i s i t because you are doing b e t t e r i n school?) no" Why? (Probe - Do you d i s l i k e the teachers or are you doing p o o r l y ? ) 190 9. How does the a l t e r n a t e program d i f f e r from the r e g u l a r school? (Probe - Is i t more f l e x i b l e ? more i n d i v i d u a l i z e d ? more f r e e r ? ) 10. Do you p r e f e r Newton J u n i o r to the l a s t r e g u l a r r e g u l a r school you attended? yes, Why? (Probe - Are you doing b e t t e r ? ) no, Why? (Probe - Are you doing worse?) In which c l a s s have you lear n e d more? a l t e r n a t e r e g u l a r 11. Is t h i s the f i r s t a l t e r n a t e program that you have attended? yes no How many a l t e r n a t e programs have you attended? What are these programs? 1. 3. 2. 4. Which a l t e r n a t e program do you p r e f e r ? Why? In which a l t e r n a t e program have you le a r n e d more? Newton J u n i o r other, Which program? 12. Do you l i k e Mary? yes, Why? no, Why? Is she a good teacher? yes no What about Sue? Do you l i k e her? yes, Why? no, Why? Is she a good teacher? yes no 13. What does C a r o l do? Do you l i k e her? yes, Why? no, Why? Is she good at her job? What does Jung Lee do? yes no 191 Do you l i k e him? no yes Why? 14. Do you l i k e E n g l i s h ? yes no How do you think you're doing i n E n g l i s h ? Poor F a i r Good Do you think you're doing b e t t e r than before you attended Newton J u n i o r ? no yes What about math? Do you l i k e i t ? yes no How do you think you're doing in Math? Poor F a i r Good Are you doing b e t t e r than before? yes no How about S o c i a l S tudies? Do you l i k e i t ? yes no How are you doing i n i t ? Poor F a i r Good Are you doing b e t t e r than before? yes no Do you l i k e Science? yes _no How do you think you're doing i n i t ? poor f a i r good Are you doing b e t t e r than before? yes no 15. Do you have any problems at home? no yes, Who With? parents b r o t h e r s / s i s t e r s What kinds of problems do you have? (Probe - f i g h t i n g ) I s i t any b e t t e r at home s i n c e coming to Newton J u n i o r ? no yes How i s i t b e t t e r ? 16. In your l a s t school d i d you have any problems g e t t i n g along with your teachers? no yes, What kinds of problems? classmates? no yes, What kinds of problems? Do you get along with Mary & Sue? yes no, Why not? classmates? yes no, Why not? 1 92 17. Since coming to t h i s s c h o o l , how o f t e n have you been absent? per week per month Are you away as o f t e n as at your l a s t school? yes no, Why not? 18. How oft e n are you l a t e ? per wk per month Are you l a t e as o f t e n as at your l a s t school? yes no, Why? 19. Does Mary encourage you to work hard? 20 Does she t e l l you that you are doing w e l l ? yes no yes no yes yes no What about Sue? no What about C a r o l ? yes no yest no Do you atte n d any re g u l a r c l a s s e s o u t s i d e the a l t e r n a t e program? yes no How many re g u l a r c l a s s e s ? Which s u b j e c t s are these? 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 21. Do you want to at t e n d any r e g u l a r c l a s s e s ? yes no Why? 22. When do you thin k that you should be p l a c e d i n a r e g u l a r classroom? (Probe - When the teachers think that you are ready or when you thin k that you are ready? - or both?) 23. Do you think that any improvements should be made at Newton J u n i o r ? (Probe - tea c h e r s , c l a s s e s , hours) no yes What improvements? 24. What do you l i k e about Newton J u n i o r ? APPENDIX B PROGRAM TEACHERS INTERVIEW SCHEDULE Name Code 1. When d i d you begin working at Newton J u n i o r A l t e r n a t e Program? 2 Where d i d you work p r i o r to Newton J u n i o r ? 3. Is NJAP your f i r s t t e a c h i n g experience at an a l t e r n a t e program? yes no, please expand? 4. What t r a i n i n g do you have? 1 year teaching t r a i n i n g program B.Ed 5th year S p e c i a l Education B.A. M.A. S o c i a l Work Program Courses i n Psychology Courses i n S o c i o l o g y Did you r e c e i v e any s p e c i a l t r a i n i n g f o r the a l t e r n a t e program? no yes, please e l a b o r a t e . 5. What work experience do you have? r e g u l a r classroom teacher l e n g t h of time other a l t e r n a t e programs l e n g t h of time other s p e c i a l ed. c l a s s e s l e n g t h of time Please s p e c i f y ? r e l a t e d experience l e n g t h of time Please s p e c i f y ? 6. Who was the program designed f o r ? 7 . For what grade l e v e l and i n t e l l e c t u a l l e v e l was the program designed? 1 94 8. What behaviour problems do the students have? 9. What l e a r n i n g problems do the students have? 10. Are there any support and s t a f f s e r v i c e s a v a i l a b l e f o r Newton J u n i o r ? no yes, What are they? Which of these s e r v i c e s are used by the program? 11. What standards must be met i n order f o r a student to be admitted to Newton J u n i o r ? 12. D e s c r i b e the process f o r a d m i t t i n g a student? 13. Can students be admitted to the program without being r e f e r r e d by the school board? no yes, please e l a b o r a t e . 14. Who i s i n v o l v e d i n the d e c i s i o n when a student i s to be r e i n t e g r a t e d ? Do you c o n s u l t teachers at the r e g u l a r school where the student i s to be e n r o l l e d ? no yes 15. To what degree are parents i n v o l v e d in the program? assessment and placement p a r e n t a l c o n t r a c t i n g home programs reassessments r e i n t e g r a t i o n and d i s m i s s a l Is there enough p a r t i c i p a t i o n from parents? yes no, Why not? 16. What ongoing t r a i n i n g i s a v a i l a b l e f o r s t a f f ? Do you make use of t h i s ongoing t r a i n i n g ? yes no 195 17. What c r i t e r i a i s used i n determing whether or not a student i s ready to r e t u r n to the re g u l a r program or i s l i a b l e to be suspended? 18. What e f f e c t does the a l t e r n a t e program have on the r e g u l a r school? Do you r e c e i v e support from the r e g u l a r teachers? yes no, please e l a b o r a t e ? p r i n c i p a l yes no, please e l a b o r a t e ? c e n t r a l o f f i c e yes no, please e l a b o r a t e ? Is i t d i f f i c u l t to get m a t e r i a l s and s u p p l i e s for the a l t e r n a t e program? yes no 19. What percentage of your time i s devoted to recordkeeping and review? 20. Are any g u i d e l i n e s followed f o r i n s t r u c t i o n ? yes no What are these g u i d e l i n e s ? 21. Is the i n t e n t i o n of the program to r e i n t e g r a t e a l l of the students students? yes no 22. Are the number of r e i n t e g r a t e d students expected to i n c r e a s e each year? yes no 23. What do you think of the p h y s i c a l f a c i l i t i e s ? Do you l i k e the open-area classroom? 24. What do you think of team teaching? Are there any c o n f l i c t s between the two of you? Are there any c o n f l i c t s with C a r o l ? 1 96 25. What are the s t r e n g t h s of the program? 26. What are the weaknesses? 27. What suggestions do you have f o r the improvement of NJAP? 28. Do you want to continue t e a c h i n g i n the a l t e r n a t e program? yes no, Why not? Where would you l i k e to teach? 1 97 APPEND IX B SUPPORT PERSON INTERVIEW SCHEDULE Name Code 1 . When d i d y o u b e g i n w o r k i n g a t Newton J u n i o r A l t e r n a t e P r o g r a m ? 2 . Where d i d y o u work p r i o r t o Newton J u n i o r ? 3 . I s N JAP y o u r f i r s t e x p e r i e n c e a t an a l t e r n a t e p r o g r a m ? y e s n o , p l e a s e e x p a n d ? 4 . What t r a i n i n g do y o u h a v e ? 1 y e a r c h i l d c a r e p r o g r a m B .A . B .S .W. B . S . S o c i a l Work P r o g r a m C o u r s e s i n P s y c h o l o g y C o u r s e s i n S o c i o l o g y D i d y o u r e c e i v e any s p e c i a l t r a i n i n g f o r t h e a l t e r n a t e p r o g r a m ? no y e s , p l e a s e e l a b o r a t e . 5. What w o r k e x p e r i e n c e do y o u h a v e ? 6 . Who was t h e p r o g r a m d e s i g n e d f o r ? 7 . F o r wha t g r a d e l e v e l a n d i n t e l l e c t u a l l e v e l was t h e p r o g r a m d e s i g n e d ? 8 . What b e h a v i o u r p r o b l e m s do t h e s t u d e n t s h a v e ? 9. What l e a r n i n g p r o b l e m s do t h e s t u d e n t s h a v e ? 198 10. Are there any support and s t a f f s e r v i c e s a v a i l a b l e f o r Newton J u n i o r ? no yes What are they? Which of these s e r v i c e s are used by the program? 11. What standards must be met i n order f o r a student to be admitted to Newton J u n i o r ? 12. Describe the process f o r a d m i t t i n g a student? 13. Can students be admitted to the program without being r e f e r r e d by the school board? no yes, please e l a b o r a t e . 14. Who i s i n v o l v e d i n the d e c i s i o n when a student i s to be r e i n t e g r a t e d ? Do you c o n s u l t teachers at the r e g u l a r school where the student i s to be e n r o l l e d ? no yes 15. To what degree are parents i n v o l v e d i n the program? assessment and placement p a r e n t a l c o n t r a c t i n g home programs reassessments r e i n t e g r a t i o n and d i s m i s s a l Is there enough p a r t i c i p a t i o n from parents? yes no, why not? 16. What ongoing t r a i n i n g i s a v a i l a b l e f o r s t a f f ? Do you make use of t h i s ongoing t r a i n i n g ? yes no 17. What c r i t e r i a i s used i n determing whether or not a student i s ready to r e t u r n to the r e g u l a r program or i s l i a b l e to be suspended? 199 18. What e f f e c t does the a l t e r n a t e program have on the r e g u l a r school? Do you r e c e i v e support from the r e g u l a r teachers? yes no, ple a s e e l a b o r a t e ? p r i n c i a l yes no, please e l a b o r a t e ? c e n t r a l o f f i c e yes no, please e l a b o r a t e ? Is i t d i f f i c u l t to get m a t e r i a l s and s u p p l i e s for the a l t e r n a t e program? yes no 19. What percentage of your time i s devoted to recordkeeping and review? 20. What i s your r o l e i n the a l t e r n a t e program? 21. Is the i n t e n t i o n of the program to r e i n t e g r a t e a l l of the students students? yes no 22. Are the number of r e i n t e g r a t e d students expected to i n c r e a s e each year? yes no 23. What do you think of the p h y s i c a l f a c i l i t i e s ? Do you l i k e the open-area classroom? 24. What do you think of the team approach? Are there any c o n f l i c t s ? 25. What are the st r e n g t h s of the program? 26. What are the weaknesses? 200 27. What suggestions do you have f o r the improvement of NJAP? 28. Do you want to continue working i n the a l t e r n a t e program? yes no, Why not? Where would you l i k e to work? 201 APPEND IX B P R I N C I P A L INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 1. I s t h i s y o u r f i r s t e x p e r i e n c e w i t h S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n ? y e s no C o u l d y o u e l a b o r a t e on t h i s e x p e r i e n c e ? 2 . D i d y o u know t h a t t h e a l t e r n a t e p r o g r a m was i n t h e s c h o o l b e f o r e y o u came t o Newton J u n i o r ? y e s no Had y o u known, w o u l d t h a t h a v e made a d i f f e r e n c e ? Do y o u want t h i s p r o g r a m t o be h e r e ? y e s no I f y e s , Why? I f n o , Why? 4. Have y o u c o n s i d e r e d o r a t t e m p t e d t o g e t r i d o f t h e p r o g r a m ? y e s no 5. Were y o u i n v o l v e d i n t h e s e l e c t i o n o f t h e t e a c h e r s f o r t h e a l t e r n a t i v e p r o g r a m ? y e s no 6. What r o l e do y o u p l a y i n t h e a l t e r n a t e p r o g r a m ? A r e y o u i n v o l v e d i n t h e s u p e r v i s i o n o f t h e p r o g r a m ? y e s no - s u p e r v i s i o n o f t e a c h e r s ? y e s no - s u p e r v i s i o n o f s t u d e n t s ? y e s no - A r e y o u i n v o l v e d i n d i s c i p l i n i n g a l t e r n a t e s t u d e n t s ? y e s no W o u l d y o u p r e f e r t o h a v e more c o n t r o l o v e r t h e p r o g r a m ? y e s n o , Why? 7 . What i s y o u r i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h t h e r e i n t e g r a t i o n o r s u s p e n s i o n p r o c e s s ? Who i s i n v o l v e d i n t h i s p r o c e s s ? I s t h e t e a c h e r o f t h e s c h o o l w h e r e t h e a l t e r n a t e s t u d e n t i s t o be e n r o l l e d p a r t o f t h e p r o c e s s ? 202 8. What i s t h e i m p a c t o f t h e a l t e r n a t e p r o g r a m on t h e r e g u l a r s c h o o l ? - t h e s t u d e n t s ? - t h e r e g u l a r c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r s ? - y o u r s e l f ? I s t h e r e c o o p e r a t i o n among a l t e r n a t e t e a c h e r s a n d r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s ? Do t h e a l t e r n a t e t e a c h e r s c o o p e r a t e w i t h y o u ? A r e t h e r e c o n f l i c t s b e t w e e n a l t e r n a t e a n d r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s ? 9 . Do a l t e r n a t e t e a c h e r s i n t e r a c t s o c i a l l y w i t h r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s ( e g . l u n c h h o u r , a f t e r s c h o o l ) ? y e s no 10. What a r e t h e s t r e n g t h s o f t h e p r o g r a m ? What a r e t h e w e a k n e s s e s ? 1 1 . What s u g g e s t i o n s do y o u h a v e f o r i m p r o v i n g t h e p r o g r a m ? 203 APPENDIX B PREVIOUS PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 1. Was Newton J u n i o r your f i r s t experience with S p e c i a l Education? yes no If yes, please e l a b o r a t e ? 2. How d i d the a l t e r n a t e program end up i n your school? Did you want the a l t e r n a t e program i n Newton J u n i o r ? yes no 3. Did you ever c o n s i d e r or attempt to get r i d of the program? yes no 4. Were you i n v o l v e d in the s e l e c t i o n of the teachers f o r the a l t e r n a t e program? yes no 5. What r o l e d i d you play in the a l t e r n a t e program? Were you i n v o l v e d i n the s u p e r v i s i o n of the program? yes no - s u p e r v i s i o n of teachers? yes no - s u p e r v i s i o n of students? yes no Were you i n v o l v e d with d i s c i p l i n i n g a l t e r n a t e students? yes no 6. What was your involvement with the r e i n t e g r a t i o n or suspension process? Who was involved? Was the re g u l a r teacher at the school where the a l t e r n a t e student was to be e n r o l l e d i nvolved? 7. What was the impact of the a l t e r n a t e program on the r e g u l a r school? - the teachers? -the r e g u l a r classroom teachers? - y o u r s e l f ? 204 Was there understanding and c o - o p e r a t i o n amongst r e g u l a r teachers and a l t e r n a t e s t a f f ? Were there any c o n f l i c t s ? 8. Did the a l t e r n a t e teachers with r e g u l a r teachers (eg. 9. What were the st r e n g t h s of i n t e r a c t s o c i a l l y lunch hour, a f t e r s chool)? the program? What were the weaknesses? 10. What suggestions do you have f o r improving the program? 205 APPENDIX B HEAD OF STUDENT SERVICES INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 1. What t r a i n i n g and work experience are teachers employed at NJAP expected to have? Are they given any t r a i n i n g before t e a c h i n g at the a l t e r n a t e program? ) no yes, please s p e c i f y ? 2. What t r a i n i n g and work experience i s the support person expected to have? 3. Are there any support and s t a f f s e r v i c e s a v a i l a b l e f o r Newton J u n i o r ? yes no , What are these? 4. What ongoing t r a i n i n g i s a v a i l a b l e f o r s t a f f ? 5. What d i s t r i c t support do you r e c e i v e f o r Newton J u n i o r ? Are you g e t t i n g adequate support? yes no Who do you re p o r t to? 6. Who was the program designed f o r ? 7. For what grade l e v e l and i n t e l l e c t u a l l e v e l was the program designed? 8. What standards must be met i n order f o r a student to be admitted to Newton J u n i o r ? 9. D e s c r i b e the process f o r a d m i t t i n g a student? 206 10. Can students be admitted to the program without being r e f e r r e d by the school board? no yes, Please e l a b o r a t e . 11. How long should the w a i t i n g p e r i o d be? 12. Who i s i n v o l v e d i n the d e c i s i o n when a student i s to be r e i n t e g r a t e d ? Do you c o n s u l t teachers at the r e g u l a r school where the student i s to be e n r o l l e d ? yes no 13. To what degree are parents i n v o l v e d i n the program? Are they i n v o l v e d in - assessment and placement? yes no - p a r e n t a l c o n t r a c t i n g ? yes no - home programs? yes no - reassessments? yes no - r e i n t e g r a t i o n or d i s m i s s a l ? yes no Is there enough p a r t i c i p a t i o n from parents? yes no 14. What e f f e c t does the a l t e r n a t e program have on on the r e g u l a r school? 15. Is the i n t e n t i o n of the program to r e i n t e g r a t e a l l of the students? yes no 16. Are the number of r e i n t e g r a t e d students expected to i n c r e a s e each year? yes no 17. What are the streng t h s of the program? 18. What are the weaknesses? 19. What suggestions do you have f o r the improvement of Newton J u n i o r ? 208 APPENDIX C REGULAR TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE 1. For what s u b j e c t s do you have a l t e r n a t e students in? 2. Who are these students? 3. How do these students behave i n the r e g u l a r c l a s s ? 4. What category best d e s c r i b e s each student? hard worker average worker nonworker 5. How much are these students l e a r n i n g ? Please s e l e c t one category f o r each student? s t e a d i l y improving small amount of l e a r n i n g not l e a r n i n g 6. Do a l t e r n a t e students take p a r t i n classroom d i s c u s s i o n s ? 7. Do a l t e r n a t e students c o n t i n u a l l y d i s r u p t the classroom? 8. Are these students withdrawn while i n your classroom? 9. Do you want to have students from the a l t e r n a t e program i n your classroom? yes no 10. What e f f e c t do these students have on your classroom? on your students? 209 11. What r o l e do you play in the d e c i s i o n to r e i n t e g r a t e a student? 12. Do you play any r o l e i n the d e c i s i o n to suspend a student? no yes, please e l a b o r a t e ? 13. How would you rate the amount of contact that takes p l a c e between you and a l t e r n a t e teachers? d a i l y 3 times per week . weekly biweekly monthly 14. How o f t e n does the support person contact you about a l t e r n a t e students? d a i l y 3 times per week weekly biweekly monthly 15. Are you aware of what takes p l a c e i n the a l t e r n a t e classroom? yes no 16. Would you at some l a t e r date c o n s i d e r teaching i n the a l t e r n a t e classroom? yes no 17. Would you p r e f e r that the a l t e r n a t e program was not at your school? yes no Please e l a b o r a t e ? 18. What are the s t r e n g t h s of the a l t e r n a t e program? 19. What are the weaknesses? 20. What suggestions do you have f o r improving the a l t e r n a t e program? 210 APPEND IX C PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE 1. How l o n g h a s y o u r s o n / d a u g h t e r been a t Newton J u n i o r A l t e r n a t e P r o g r a m ? 2. D i d y o u want y o u r s o n / d a u g h t e r t o a t t e n d an a l t e r n a t e p r o g r a m ? y e s , why? n o , why n o t ? 3. Were y o u c o n s u l t e d when y o u r s o n / d a u g h t e r was t o be p l a c e d i n Newton J u n i o r A l t e r n a t e P r o g r a m ? y e s no 4. Were y o u i n v o l v e d i n t h e a s s e s s m e n t o f y o u r s o n / d a u g h t e r ? y e s no 5. Was a c o n t r a c t e s t a b l i s h e d b e t w e e n y o u a n d t h e s c h o o l when y o u r s o n / d a u g h t e r was p l a c e d i n Newton J u n i o r A l t e r n a t e P r o g r a m ? no y e s 6. A r e t h e r e any home p r o g r a m s f o r y o u r s o n / d a u g h t e r t h a t i n v o l v e you ? no y e s What a r e t h e s e ? 7 . Have y o u been i n v o l v e d i n a n y r e a s s e s s m e n t s o f y o u r s o n / d a u g h t e r ' s b e h a v i o u r o r l e a r n i n g c a p a b i l i t i e s ? no y e s , p l e a s e e l a b o r a t e ? 8 . How w o u l d y o u r a t e t h e d e g r e e o f i n v o l v e m e n t t h a t t a k e s p l a c e b e t w e e n y o u - a n d t h e a l t e r n a t e p r o g r a m ? ( P l e a s e c i r c l e one o n l y ) L e s s t h a n a d e q u a t e 1 2 3 4 5 V e r y A d e q u a t e 9 . Do y o u t h i n k t h a t y o u r s o n / d a u g h t e r ' s k n o w l e d g e o f E n g l i s h , M a t h , S c i e n c e , a n d S o c i a l S t u d i e s h a s i m p r o v e d s i n c e a t t e n d i n g Newton J u n i o r ? y e s no I n wha t s u b j e c t a r e a s h a s y o u r s o n / d a u g h t e r ' s k n o w l e d g e i m p r o v e d ? ( C h e c k a l l t h a t a p p l y ) E n g l i s h 21 1 Math S o c i a l S t u d i e s Science 10. Has your son/daughter l e a r n e d any s k i l l s that have helped him/her to cope b e t t e r at home? no yes, please g i v e examples. 11. Has there been a r e d u c t i o n i n unwanted behaviours, such as swearing, f i g h t i n g , or shouting? yes no 12. Does your son/daughter look forward to going to school? yes no 13. Has your son/daughter's attendance improved? yes no 14. Do e i t h e r the teachers or support person communicate with you about your son/daughter on a r e g u l a r b a s i s ? yes no 15. Are you s a t i s f i e d with the amount of c o n t a c t that takes p l a c e between you and s t a f f of Newton J u n i o r A l t e r n a t e Program? (Check one only) Not s a t i s f i e d 1 2 3 4 5 Very s a t i s f i e d 16. How o f t e n are you contacted? (Check one only) d a i l y weekly bi-weekly monthly have not experienced 212 17. How would you rate the Newton J u n i o r A l t e r n a t e Program with respect to the f o l l o w i n g ? ( C i r c l e one number f o r each) The teachers and support person are knowledgeable and s k i l l f u l i n t h e i r r o l e s . s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e 1 2 3 4 My son/daughter's behaviour problems have decreased s i n c e e n r o l l i n g at Newton J u n i o r A l t e r n a t e Program, s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e 1 2 3 4 My son/daughter's l e a r n i n g problems have decreased s i n c e e n r o l l i n g at Newton J u n i o r A l t e r n a t e Program, s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e 1 2 3 4 My son/daughter's a t t i t u d e toward school has improved si n c e beginning at Newton J u n i o r . s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e 1 2 3 4 My son/daugter's behaviour at home has improved, s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e 1 2 3 4 I am g l a d that my son/daughter i s a t t e n d i n g the a l t e r n a t e program. s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e 1 2 3 4 5 s t r o n g l y agree 18. How would you ra t e the o v e r a l l success of Newton J u n i o r A l t e r n a t e Program? Poor 1 2 3 4 5 E x c e l l e n t 19. Would you p r e f e r that your son/daughter was at another a l t e r n a t e program? no yes, Which one and Why? 5 s t r o n g l y agree 5 s t r o n g l y agree 5 s t r o n g l y agree 5 s t r o n g l y agree 5 s t r o n g l y agree 20. What are the st r e n g t h s of the a l t e r n a t e program? 213 21. What are the weaknesses? 22. What suggestions do you have f o r improving Newton J u n i o r A l t e r n a t e Program? APPENDIX C REGULAR TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE 214 APPENDIX D TEACHER-MADE MATH TEST APPENDIX D TEACHER-MADE MATH TEST A d d i t i o n 1. 7 2. 8 3. 36 4. 479 0 9 98 894 2 65 273 6 18 686 Subtract ion 5. 763 6. 4730 7. 3001 464 4041 485 Mult i p l i c a t ion 789 10. 945 11. 820 67 308 40 D i v i s i o n 12. 4T0 13. 3)2830 (Write remainders i f any, as common f r a c t ions.) 14. 96)76801 15. 42)8526 Change to i t s simplest form. 16. 6/10 = 17. 3 4/8 = 18. 14 3/3 = Change to a mixed number. 19. 19/8 = 20. 2 3/4 = /4 21. 2/3 - /6 22. 7 i s what part of 28? 216 A d d i t i o n 23. 39 24. 15 3/4 25. 3/4 5 7/12 12 1/2 4 1/3 5 5/6 Subtract ion 26. 1/2 27. 15 28. 23 1/4 1/3 6 3/4 8 2/3 For items 29 through 36, each answer should be w r i t t e n i n i t s simplest form. 29. 1/2 of 1/3 = 30. 24 X 3/4 = 31. 2 / 3 X 5 = Mult i p l y 32, 1 5 X 3 2/3 = 33. 2 1 / 2 X 3 3/4 = D i v i d e 34. 1/2 7 2 = 35. 4/5 '- 4/5 = 36. 6 r 2/3 = 37. Write 15 thousandths as a decimal. 38. Which of the f o l l o w i n g i s the way you would read .06? ( s i x - t e n t h s ) ( s i x ) (six-thousandths) (six-hundredths) Rearrange the numbers i n the next two problems so that the l a r g e s t number i s f i r s t and the sm a l l e s t i s l a s t . 39. .7 .007 .08 40. .043 .23 .3 41. Change .9 to a common f r a c t i o n . 42. Change 1/9 to a decimal. (Leave the remainder as a remainder as a common f r a c t i o n a f t e r the second decimal p l a c e . ) 43. .7 + .8 + .9 = 44. .$5.76 + $25.90 + $.49 45. $73.80 - $7.17 = 46. Take $8.11 from $10.00. The remainder i s 47. $5.47 X 10 = 48. .35 d i v i d e d by 10 = Place the decimal p o i n t c o r r e c t l y i n the answers to the f o l l o w i n g problems. Add any zeros that may be needed. 49. .06 X .9 = 54 50. $3.75 X .6 = $2250 5 0 - 37 52. 37 25J9.25 25 ).925 75 75 175 175 175 175 000 000 53. 37 54. 37 .25)925 2.5)9.25 75 75 175 175 ,17 5 .175 . 000 000 Change the f o l l o w i n g decimal numbers to per c e n t s . 55. .04 = 56. .025 = 57. 1.2 = 58. Write 8% as a decimal. 59. Write 1/2% as a decimal. 60. Write 105% as a decimal. 61. Change 1/3 to a per cent. 62. Change 40% to a common f r a c t i o n . 63. How much i s 2% of $3.50? 64. How much i s 12 1/2% of $160? 65. How much i s 150% of $50? 66. $5 i s what per cent of $50? 67. What per cent of $100 i s $300? 68. Harry Jackson loaned $500 to James Smith f o r s i x months. He charged Mr. Smith i n t e r e s t at the rate of 6% per year. How much was the i n t e r e s t on the loan? (Do Part A o r a l l y . Part B on board) Write i n short form the numbers f o r the f o l l o w i n g numerals, ( s a i d o r a l l y ) i e ten ( s a i d o r a l l y ) = 10 Part A 1 . 767 2. 2,804 3. 1 ,038 4. 6,532.6 5. 121.13 6. 12,681.028 7. 121.328 Part B From the numerals w r i t t e n f o r the numbers i e . 10 ( w r i t t e n on board) 1 . 708 2. 12,629 3. 28.2 4. 12.12 5. 1.001 6. 1,001,001.001 on the board w r i t e the words = ten APPENDIX E CLASSROOM RECORDS CHECKLIST APPENDIX E CLASSROOM RECORDS CHECKLIST Number of students e n r o l l e d September to January 31 Number of females Number of males How many of these students were suspended? How many withdrew? How many were r e i n t e g r a t e d ? How many were t r a n s f e r e d ? Number of students e n r o l l e d February 1 to March 31 Number of females Number of males How many of these students were suspended? How many withdrew? How many were r e i n t e g r a t e d ? How many were t r a n s f e r e d ? Number of students e n r o l l e d 1980-81. Number of females Number of males How many of these students were suspended? How many withdrew? How many were r e i n t e g r a t e d ? How many were t r a n s f e r e d ? Number of students e n r o l l e d 1979-80. Number of females Number of males How many of these students were suspended? How many withdrew? How many were r e i n t e g r a t e d ? How many were t r a n s f e r e d ? Number of students e n r o l l e d 1978-79. Number of females Number of males How many of these students were suspended? How many withdrew? How many were r e i n t e g r a t e d ? How many were t r a n s f e r e d ? APPEND IX F CLASSROOM OBSERVATION SCHEDULE Category C l a s s t a k e s p l a c e i n Sue's a r e a . C l a s s takes p l a c e i n Mary's a r e a . S t u d e n t s work i n d i v i d u a l l y . S t u d e n t s work i n groups. S t u d e n t s move o u t s i d e the c l a s s without perm i ss i on. The environment i n c l u d e s m a t e r i a l s d e v e l o p e d by the t e a c h e r s . S t u d e n t s t a l k w h i l e working. A) w i t h p e r m i s s i o n b) w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n . S t u d e n t s w i t h s p e c i f i c needs are grouped. Ready a c c e s s i b i l i t y of m a t e r i a l s . A) Math b) E n g l i sh c) S o c i a l S t u d i e s d) S c i e n c e . I n d i v i d u a l I n s t r u c t i o n . Group I n s t r u c t i o n . C l a s s I n s t r u c t i o n . Teacher takes c a r e of d e a l i n g w i t h c o n f l i c t s and d i s r u p t i v e b e haviour w i t h o u t i n v o l v i n g the group. The t e a c h e r i s i n charge. Teacher i s working/marking. Teacher l e a v e s room. APPENDIX F ROOM OBSERVATION SCHEDULE Comments VjO> APPEND IX G TEACHER * S QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX G TEACHER'S QUESTIONNAIRE S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e Sometimes s t u d e n t s work i n d i v i d u a l 1y. Sometimes s t u d e n t s work i n groups. More o f t e n s t u d e n t s work i n d i v i d u a l l y . More o f t e n s t u d e n t s work i n groups. S t u d e n t s can move o u t s i d e the c l a s s w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n . The environment i n c l u d e s m a t e r i a l s d e v e l o p e d by the t e a c h e r s . S t u d e n t s a r e a l l o w e d to t a l k w h i l e working. S t u d e n t s w i t h s p e c i f i c needs a r e grouped. Math m a t e r i a l s a re r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e t o the c l a s s . E n g l i s h m a t e r i a l s a r e r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e to the c l a s s . S c i e n c e m a t e r i a l s a r e r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e t o the c l a s s . S o c i a l S t u d i e s m a t e r i a l s a re r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e to the c l a s s . The c l a s s i s taught by I n d i v i d u a l I n s t r u c t i o n . The c l a s s i s taught by Group I n s t r u c t i o n . The c l a s s i s taught by as a l e c t u r e . D i s agree 2 2 2 2 Agree 3 3 3 3 S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e 4 4 4 4 Student c o n f l i c t s and d i s r u p t i v e b e h a v i o u r are taken c a r e of without i n v o l v i the group. The t e a c h e r i s i n charge. The t e a c h e r spends p a r t of the c l a s s p e r i o d working on her own work. The t e a c h e r sometimes goes out of the room d u r i n g the c l a s s p e r i o d . APPENDIX G c o n t i n u e d S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e D i s a g r e e Agree S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 APPENDIX H TEACHER-CHILD DYADIC INTERACTION CHECKLIST APPENDIX H TEACHER-CHILD DYADIC INTERACTION CHECKLIST Teacher C l a s s P e r i o d Date Teacher Teacher asks a answers q u e s t i o n q u e s t i o n Pra i ses behavi our Pra i ses work Ignors i napprop. behav i our Pun i shes i napprop. behav i our Prov i des pos i t i ve feedback Works on an i nd i v bas i s Works on a group bas i s Teacher 1ectures Teaches s k i l l s used o u t s i de c l a s s Teacher marks S T U D E N T I D APPENDIX I THE REID BEHAVIOUR CHECKLIST APPENDIX I THE REID BEHAVIOUR CHECKLIST Student ID S u b j e c t Date of o b s e r v a t i o n Observor Category Tal 1 y Marks T o t a l T a l 1 i e s % T a l k i n g to p e e r s (when i t i s not p e r m i t t e d ) T a l k i n g out l o u d * ( t o the t e a c h e r or to no one i n p a r t i c u l a r ) Shows v e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n towards peers * ( y e l l s , swears, t h r e a t e n s , blames, t e a s e s ) Shows b o d i l y a g g r e s s i o n towards peers * ( b i t e s , pushes, h i t s ) V e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n towards t e a c h e r * ( y e l l s , swears, t h r e a t e n s , blames, t e a s e s ) Shows b o d i l y a g g r e s s i o n towards t e a c h e r * ( h i t s , pushes) Not p a y i n g a t t e n t i o n (not l i s t e n i n g , l o o k i n g around, daydreaming) Pays a t t e n t i o n ( l i s t e n s , watches tea c h e r , working q u i e t l y ) Makes n o i s e s o t h e r than t a l k i n g * ( c l a p p i n g , t a p p i n g p e n c i l , r a t t l i n g paper, w h i s t l i n g , s i n g i n g , loud coughing, loud laughing) D i s t u r b s o t h e r s when they a r e working (pushes, takes another's book, pokes, t a l k s ) Swears * Y e l l s i n c l a s s * N o O APPENDIX I c o n t i n u e d Category Ta11y Marks Tota1 T a l l i e s % Makes fun of the teacher (micmics, makes f a c e ) Shows i n t e r e s t i n s u b j e c t ( a s k s or answers q u e s t i o n ) seeks p r a i s e * (asks t e a c h e r i f he/she i s d o i n g w e l l ) U n c o o p e r a t i v e * ( r e f u s e s to work) G i ves up eas i1y * ( d o e s n ' t r e a l l y t r y ) Seems to be working, but not p r o d u c i n g ( d o o d l i n g , w r i t i n g a l e t t e r , r e a d i n g ) S l e e p i n g i n c a r r o l 1 Complains to the t e a c h e r * Gets out of s e a t f o r no reason * Some items a r e checked o f f at t h r e e minute i n t e r v a l s , as o c c u r . Those items marked by an a s t e r i c k are checked i n Scor i ng d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter 3. However, some items a r e checked as they t h i s f a s h i o n . fO APPENDIX J STUDENT DAILY WORK CHECKLIST APPENDIX J STUDENT DAILY WORK CHECKLIST ID Code Date of o b s e r v a t i o n Subject Time on task Amount of work completed Completed Mostly completed H a l f completed S l i g h t l y completed Not at a l l completed Percentage C o r r e c t 100% c o r r e c t 75% c o r r e c t 50% c o r r e c t 25% c o r r e c t None c o r r e c t . APPENDIX K STUDENT CHECKLIST FOR RECORDS APPENDIX K STUDENT CHECKLIST FOR RECORDS Student Name ID Code Address Age Bi rthdate Grade le v e l when admitted Standing coming in IQ Standardized Test Scores 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. Knowledge of core subjects Standing coming in Pretest Score Math English Previous School Suspension yes no Withdrawal yes no Reason: Number of days absent (at previous school) during the l a s t 3 months Number of times late (at previous school) during the l a s t 3 months Number of days absent from date of entry to end of observation period average/week average/month Total Number of times late from date of entry to end of observation period 236 average/week average/month T o t a l V i s i t s to the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e from date of entry to end of o b s e r v a t i o n p e r i o d . average/week average/month T o t a l Reasons Is student on probation? yes no Date p l a c e d on prob a t i o n Reason How many r e g u l a r c l a s s e s i s the student e n r o l l e d in? What are these r e g u l a r c l a s s e s ? P a r e n t a l Involvement o r i g i n a l i n t e r v i e w yes no p a r e n t a l c o n t r a c t i n g yes no home programs yes no reassessments yes no r e i n t e g r a t i o n yes no suspension yes no Communication with parents p h o n e c a l l s average/wk average/mon. T o t a l l e t t e r s average/wk average/mon. T o t a l a l r e p o r t cards average/wk average/mon. T o t a l r e p o r t cards from r e g u l a r c l a s s average/wk average/mon. T o t a l V i s i t s average/wk average/mon. T o t a l APPENDIX L STUDENT SUSPENSION CHECKLIST STUDENT REINTEGRATION CHECKLIST APPENDIX L \ STUDENT SUSPENSION CHECKLIST ID No. Date of Suspension Who i s i n v o l v e d i n suspension d e c i s i o n ? parents p r i n c i p a l r e g u l a r classroom teachers a l t e r n a t i v e teachers support person Jung Lee student What c r i t e r i a i s i n v o l v e d i n t h i s d e c i s i o n ? poor grades r e f u s a l -to work poor c o - o p e r a t i o n a g g r e s s i v e behaviour towards teacher • poor attendance no change in behaviour Other reason 239 APPENDIX L STUDENT REINTEGRATION CHECKLIST ID No. Date of R e i n t e g r a t i o n Who i s i n v o l v e d i n r e i n t e g r a t i o n d e c i s i o n ? parents p r i n c i p a l r e g u l a r classroom teachers a l t e r n a t i v e teachers support person Jung Lee student teacher of school where student i s to be admitted What c r i t e r i a i s i n v o l v e d i n t h i s d e c i s i o n ? higher grades l e s s i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviours c h i l d f e e l s c o n f i d e n t that he/she i s ready r e g u l a r teacher f e e l s that student i s ready a l t e r n a t i v e teachers f e e l that student i s ready r e i n t e g r a t e d f o r most s u b j e c t s works w e l l on h i s / h e r own Other c r i t e r i a 

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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054377/manifest

Comment

Related Items