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 Department  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology  We a c c e p t to  THE  this  the  thesis  required  as  ©  conforming  standard  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH APRIL  And S p e c i a l  COLUMBIA  1984  Sharon Lyn R e i d ,  1984  Education  In p r e s e n t i n g  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  requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the  the  University  o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and  study.  I further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may  be granted by  department o r by h i s o r her  the head o f  representatives.  my  It i s  understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f 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 w i t h o u t my  permission.  Department o f  ^^L^^-^g^L^y-g^  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3  -6  (3/81)  Columbia  r<i  written  i  ABSTRACT AN  EVALUATION OF AN ALTERNATE PROGRAM BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS This  study  isa  report  o f an a l t e r n a t e e d u c a t i o n  District, are  thesis  province  generally  upgrading students  of B r i t i s h  directed  basic  from  the  program  first  evaluation  i n the Surrey  Columbia.  towards  skills,  suspended  of  FOR STUDENTS WITH  A l t e r n a t e programs  behaviour  and  School  school  remediation,  reintegration  regular classes.  The Newton  Junior  Alternate  Program  (NJAP) was e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h  mind  in  1978.  The e v a l u a t i o n p u r p o s e was t o p r o v i d e  staff  with  a  operation  complete  —  i t s antecedents,  This description prepared  eclectic  study  permitted  actual  occurrences.  Stake To  a comparison  program d e s c r i p t i o n  The  A  developed  between p r o g r a m  descriptive  the  matrix  evaluation  was p r e p a r e d  1, 1981 t o June  Several  methods  students,  sources  of  of  t h r e e program  for  i n t e n t i o n s and modelled  for this  to  after  comparison.  questions,  prior  this  a  the  general  evaluation  1, 1981). data  b i a s and e r r o r p o s s i b l e w i t h various  program  planning.  evaluation design  formulate  (February  of  NJAP  t r a n s a c t i o n s and outcomes.  (1967) was used a s t h e framework  help  avoid  description  goals in  i s t h e b a s i s f o r t h e s e t of recommendations  to a i d future The  systematic  these  for  collection single  information  staff  members,  were u s e d t o  method  and  approaches.  data  18 r e g u l a r  were  22  teachers,  i i  three  administrators,  quantitative  data  semi-structured checklists, obtained  and  With  students into  followed.  from above samples  questionnaires,  and d a t a  the exception  for  students  who  were s u s p e n d e d .  regular  fact  Qualitative  and  were  and using  observation  attitude  tests.  summarized  in  a n d where a p p r o p r i a t e ,  The  terms  of  by means  deviations.  Problems noted the  collected  and p e r c e n t a g e s ,  standard  parents.  achievement  information  achieved  were  12  interviews,  and  frequencies  and  that  classes  of attendance, remained Ten  at  enrolled.  students  the  end  program g o a l s  of  were the  i n t h e p r o g r a m maybe p a r t i a l l y guidelines  for  student  However  were nine  reintegrated school  year.  attributed  placement  to  were n o t  iii  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Page  L I S T OF TABLES  v i i  L I S T OF FIGURES  ix  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  x  Chapter 1.  INTRODUCTION  TO THE EVALUATION  STUDY  1  Introduction  1  Purpose of the E v a l u a t i o n  4  Definition  of the E v a l u a t i o n  5  of t h e Program  7  Description  G o a l s of t h e Program  8  Physical  8  Location  o f NJAP  Staff  10  Students  13  Admission  Procedures  14  Schedule Grading  15 and R e p o r t i n g  16  Suspensions or Reintegrations  17  T e c h n i q u e s Employed  19  Thesis  Organization  by NJAP  20  i v  2.  REVIEW OF LITERATURE  21  Review of A l t e r n a t i v e Programs  22  Experimental  34  Studies  Summary 3.  39  EVALUATION MODEL AND Basic  Evaluation  Specific  EVALUATION PROCEDURES  ...  Design  Evaluation  41  Questions  45  Methodology  48  Sources  51  of I n f o r m a t i o n  Evaluation  Instruments  52  Scales  59  DATA ANALYSIS 4.  41  67  EVALUATION RESULTS:  ANTECEDENTS  AND  TRANSACTIONS  .  71  Antecedents  71  Student  71  Sample  Disparities Intended  Between  Sample  and  Population  Standard Admission Disparities Admission Staff  Student  80  Procedure  Between  Actual  f o r NJAP and  ....  Intended  Procedures  84  T r a i n i n g and E x p e r i e n c e  Disparities Staff  Between  Intended  84 and  Actual  T r a i n i n g and E x p e r i e n c e  85  Transactions Structure  83  86 of t h e Program  Disparities Between Program S t r u c t u r e P a r e n t a l Involvement  Actual  86 and  Intended 96 97  V  Disparities Parental 5.  Between A c t u a l  and  Involvement  EVALUATION RESULTS: OUTCOMES Outcomes  Reintegration  Attitudes 6.  98 99 99  G o a l s o f NJAP Student  Intended  Toward NJAP  CONCLUSIONS AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  Summary  99 128 132 146 146  Evaluation  Design  147  Description  o f NJAP  148  Evaluation  Questions  151  Methodology  151  C o n g r u e n c e s and D i s p a r i t i e s  152  Contingencies  163  Limitations  165  of the Study  Recommendations  166  Implications  170  f o r Future Studies  REFERENCE NOTES  171  REFERENCES  172  vi  APPENDICES A  NJAP PARENT/GUARDIAN SCHEDULE  B 1  STUDENT  INTERVIEW 176  5 6 7 8 9  PRE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR STUDENTS ENROLLED AFTER EVALUATION BEGAN POST INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR STUDENTS ENROLLED AFTER EVALUATION BEGAN SHORT INTERVIEW SCHEDULE POST INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR STUDENTS ENROLLED PRIOR TO EVALUATION PROGRAM TEACHERS INTERVIEW SCHEDULE SUPPORT PERSON INTERVIEW SCHEDULE PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW SCHEDULE PREVIOUS PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW SCHEDULE HEAD OF STUDENT SERVICES INTERVIEW SCHEDULE .  1  REGULAR  2  PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE  210  D  TEACHER-MADE  214  E  CLASSROOM  RECORDS CHECKLIST  220  F  CLASSROOM  OBSERVATION  222  G  TEACHER'S QUESTIONNAIRE  224  H  TEACHER-CHILD DYADIC  227  I  THE RE ID BEHAVIOUR  CHECKLIST  229  J  STUDENT DAILY WORK CHECKLIST  232  K  STUDENT CHECKLIST FOR RECORDS  234  STUDENT SUSPENSION CHECKLIST STUDENT REINTEGRATION CHECKLIST  237 239  2 3 4  C  L  1 2  TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE  MATH TEST  SCHEDULE  INTERACTION CHECKLIST ..  179 183 187 189 193 197 201 203 205 207  vii  L I S T OF  TABLES  Table  Page  1.  Evaluation  2.  Data  Collection  3.  Data of  R e p o r t e d by t h e A u t h o r s B a s i c S k i l l s and N e l s o n  4.  Questions  Reliability Sentiment Inventory  46  Procedures  49  Coefficients Index and The  f o r Canadian Test Reading T e s t for Self  the School Appraisal 61  5.  Proposed  6.  Actual  Formal  7.  Actual  Dates  8.  Grade Scores for t h e C a n a d i a n T e s t of B a s i c Skills and the Nelson Reading Test and L e t t e r G r a d e s upon A d m i s s i o n t o NJAP  9.  Mean and  Formal  Observation Period  64  Observation Period  64  of I n f o r m a l O b s e r v a t i o n  S c o r e s and Mean Item  Scores  68  Reasons  11.  Behaviour  78  for I n i t i a l  Results  Problems  Suspension According  of S t u d e n t  from to  School  the  ....  Interviews  81  L e a r n i n g Problems  13.  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 t-Tests and Alpha Levels for Standardized T e s t s f o r G r o u p 1 and 2 S t u d e n t s t-Tests and Alpha Levels for Standardized T e s t s f o r Group 1 S t u d e n t s  15. 16.  as Seen by  Math and E n g l i s h Performance Cards f o r Group 1 S t u d e n t s  79  Student  12.  14.  74  for Attitude  Self-Concept  10.  56  the Student  Program  82  88 101 103  Report 106  viii  17. 18. 19. 20.  Achievement Differences: Suspended S t u d e n t s R e s u l t s of the Behaviour and 2 S t u d e n t s Student Behavioural A l t e r n a t e Teachers Attendance  Records  Suspended  and  Not 107  Checklist  f o r Group 1 112  Progress  According  to 116  for  Group  1 and G r o u p 2  Students  117  21.  Number  of D e t e n t i o n s per Student  22.  Number  of R e f e r r a l s  per  119  to the P r i n c i p a l ' s  Office  Student  120  23.  Communication With  24.  Number of Regular C l a s s e s f o r G r o u p 1 and 2 Students C r i t e r i a and Those I n v o l v e d i n S u s p e n s i o n s and Reintegrations Number o f R e i n t e g r a t e d S t u d e n t s E a c h Year at  25. 26.  P a r e n t s : Program R e c o r d s  ...  NJAP  127  129 130 132  27.  Attitudinal  28.  Attitude  Change: C o m p a r i s o n  and  o f Means  Self-Concept Scales:  134  Comparison  of Means 29.  Reasons  30.  Classroom  142  for Initial  Suspended 31.  Reasons  32.  Congruences  Suspension  Behaviour:  From S c h o o l  Suspended  and  Students  f o r Suspension  ....  143  Not 144  or R e i n t e g r a t i o n  and D i s p a r i t i e s  145 154  ix  L I S T OF  FIGURES  Figure 1.  Page A map of t h e S u r r e y S c h o o l D i s t r i c t d i s p l a y i n g the schools where alternate programs are located  2..  The  evaluation  3.  Class  4.  Median d i f f e r e n c e s  3  model  43  hours observed  90  Reading  Test  on  the  f o r groups  CTBS  1 and  2  and  Nelson 140  X  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  Several this  evaluation.  people. who  to  gave  me  serve  in  Newton  parents  of  Student  Services,  the  p r o g r a m . -'Mr. Wayne  some a s s i s t a n c e  in  and Ms. C a r o l  Program,  t o Mr. T o d d e i and  Surrey  much encouragement and a s s i s t a n c e  regarding  Alternate  whose  this  Arbour,  matter. S t a f f of  cooperation  and  collection. and Mr. S p r o x t o n ,  a l l the  teachers,  past  and  s t u d e n t s and  i n the study.  I would a l s o support  Head  g r e a t l y e a s e d my d a t a  involved  constructive  agreed  Ms. Sue M i l l e r  principals,  and  Committee,  committee.  Lee,  My t h a n k s present  guidance  following  D r . Peggy Koopman, who k i n d l y  who a l s o p r o v i d e d  assistance  the  advice  concerns  Junior  thank  sound  B o a r d , who p r o v i d e d  Ms. Mary K a r r ,  to  and a s s i s t a n c e i n  C o n r y , who a l s o p r o v i d e d  interest.  practical  Searle,  like  encouragement,  Jung  support  R o g e r s , C h a i r m a n of my T h e s i s  on my t h e s i s Dr.  provided  would  Dr. Robert  sincere  School  I  D r . Todd  criticism. and  people  like  and c o n s t r u c t i v e  to  thank  Brian  c r i t i c i s m during  this  Reid  for his  project.  1  CHAPTER 1  INTRODUCTION  TO THE EVALUATION  STUDY  Introduct ion  It  i s apparent  typically  offered  needs of  from  behaviour.  These  sometimes  react  p r o b l e m s may  they  their  drop  fulfill out  display  behaviour  typically  students,  with  the  or  are  inappropriate  ranges  an  resent  shouting,  from  poor  abusive  in a regular help  rehabilitation  Other  probationary  The m a j o r i t y  have  by p o o r  more  of  study  prevented  to  serious stealing  of  juvenile  periods  in  the  students  skills  o r gaps  them  from  being  classroom.  meet t h e needs o f s u c h s t u d e n t s , programs  purpose of these  back  and i n c l u d e  There are cases  concomitant  and  refusing to l i s t e n ,  manner.  property.  that  authority  or o c c a s i o n a l l y t a l k i n g  problems caused  learning  To  cannot  whom  be d r u g o r a l c o h o l r e l a t e d  learning  general  when  t o f a m i l y problems.  successful  or  of  by s w e a r i n g ,  smoking on s c h o o l  show  schools  many  students  in  delinquency  in  school  to other  teachers  addition  secondary  program  t o a c t s o f v i o l e n c e s u c h as d e f a c i n g p r o p e r t y o r  fighting.  or  the r e g u l a r e d u c a t i o n a l  Inappropriate  attendance  the  in  a l l students,  suspended  talking  that  are  programs  frequently  alternate  offered.  i s to a s s i s t  students  The who  2  have p r o b l e m s c o p i n g w i t h these  students  back  Compared  to  the  intended  to  be  opportunity  into  regular far  for  school the  then  to  regular  classroom,  more  greater  and  attention  school  these  flexible,  setting.  programs  thereby  to  reintegrate  are  p r o v i d i n g the  individual  student  needs. Alternate  programs  students with behaviour Surrey time  School D i s t r i c t there  was  been  these  is  the s u c c e s s f u l  the  regular school. The  positioned  six to  the  at  Alternate  Princess 10,  Junior  11, and  subjects  —  Mathematics,  1981  The  in  the  At  that  t h e number of  only a f t e r  to  one  they  have  primary  of  i n grades Margaret,  the 8,  into  geographically  a r e a of t h e S u r r e y  Five  goal  s t u d e n t s back  are  School  programs 9, and  is  10.  are The  designed  for  White  Rock  12. Program,  A l t e r n a t e Program,  Program o f P r i n c e s s M a r g a r e t  a r e a l l a c a d e m i c a l l y based  i n 1968.  are r e f e r r e d  of t h e s e  Alternate  Program, West W h a l l e y  "Re-entry"  Board  entire  i n F i g u r e 1.  i n grades Newton  they  cover  located  but by  programs  for students e n r o l l e d  students  Columbia  Students  reintegration  meet t h e needs of introduced  a regular classroom.  alternate  as shown  designed sixth,  of B r i t i s h  to s i x .  to  were  p r o g r a m s by t h e S c h o o l  s u s p e n d e d from  District  problems  o n l y one program,  p r o g r a m s had expanded of  designed  are s i m i l a r  and  in that  w i t h a c o n c e n t r a t i o n on  English,  Social  the  Studies  four and  3  Figure  1.  A map of displaying programs a r e  the Surrey the schools located.  School where  District alternate  4  Science.  Each  worker, a l l  utilizes  of  whom  two  are  undesirable  behaviour  reintegration  back  these  students  emphases of  the  remaining  " F o c u s " and  "Pre-employment", a r e  development  of  social  development  of  basic  a weekly w o r k / l e a r n Of Junior  Secondary that  rather  an  In  subsequently  the  fourth year  of  indicated  above,  evaluation  of  basis  future  for  designed  the the  the  skills  The  Margaret,  and  functioning  at  the  program  study  the  on  the  through  planning. following  at  the  Newton  the  program in  Newton Junior  believed  providing which  a  would  years.  Evaluation  t i m e of  staff at  was  program  Alternate  program  t o answer t h e (1)  to  r e s p e c t i v e l y on  useful  for future  Junior  operation  be  of  the  in planning  Newton  staff  of  P u r p o s e of  The  prior  Princess  located  would  appraisal aid  in this  (NJAP)  1981  evaluation  comprehensive  for everyday  the  classroom.  than academic  concern  Program  School.  placed  support  modifying  school  programs at  a  experience.  particular  Alternate  and  for  regular  skills  teachers  responsible of  i n t o the  two  team  felt this  Thus, two  Program the  was  evaluation.  that  a  major  As  comprehensive  time c o u l d this  in i t s  serve  evaluation questions:  I s NJAP e f f e c t i v e i n m e e t i n g 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 for r e i n t e g r a t i o n into the r e g u l a r c l a s s s i t u a t i o n ?  as  a was  5  (2) Does NJAP s u c c e e d i n m e e t i n g g o a l s w h i c h a r e not f o r m a l l y The  evaluation  complete  r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s was  development  of  future  and  to s e l e c t  pertinent  to  the  to proceed.  has  activities  Sanders a  the  study.  comparison  of  held  "that  every  is  involved  suggested  in  an  and  systematically  on  in  of  programs"  to  serve  that  i t is  that  evaluation one  t y p e of  is  study  defines evaluation  were c o n s i d e r e d  (1971) d e f i n e d  (p.  a school  perceived  g a t h e r e d and are  out  which  the  evaluation  evaluation"  fault  d e s c r i p t i o n data  educational  way  of a program, not  evaluation  this  evaluation  a c t u a l p r o g r a m outcomes w i t h  "an  merit  Provus  aspect  From  21).  T h r e e d e f i n i t i o n s of present  of  wishes the  impact  (p.  its  prepared  (1973) p o i n t e d  d i r e c t i o n one  conducted"  —  Evaluation  definition  direct  a  programming.  of  "Obviously,  evaluation  of NJAP w i t h  outcomes.  of  paramount  and  and  a set  Worthen  the  staff  d e s c r i p t i o n of p r o g r a m o p e r a t i o n  Definition  the  to provide  transactions,  description, the  designed  systematic  antecedents,  in  was  any other stated?  by  its just  should  well-identified  1967,  p.  "a and  i t s outcomes, Stake  Thus,  as  design"  10).  both e s s e n t i a l to (Stake,  evaluation  program  processed.  for  (1967) portray groups,  judgment  the 527).  data  evaluation Worthen  of and  6  Sanders of  (1973),  in attempting  e v a l u a t i o n , commented  data  with  standards  that  the  (p.  Rutman  "first  Finally,  and  foremost,  procedures manner and  Stake, the  to  and  of  which  yet  they  already  goals.  are  Consequently,  valid  not  identified  the  of  program"  (p.  scientific  evidence  16).  on  produce  L i k e Provus  should  the  go  and  beyond  In c o n t r a s t t o s t a t e d g o a l s ,  given  still  only  series  activities  that evaluation  those  a  applying  specified  outcomes"  stated  goals are  program, system.  reliable  or  of  descriptive  (1971) p e r c e i v e d e v a l u a t i o n as  to accumulate to  conception  of  to  merits  of  Rutman m a i n t a i n e d  unstated  then,  process  effects  focus  lead,  relative  Stake's  comparison  a  extent  particular  "the  would  r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s about 114).  to c l a r i f y  formal  definition  understood  i f an goals  t o be  evaluation can  is  unstated  by  the  p a r t of  the  restricted goals  be  overlooked. In t h e evaluation  present  should  definitions  above.  nature,  adopted:  was  study,  include The  t h e v a r i o u s components t h a t were  based  on  following definition,  the  an  three  eclectic  in  E v a l u a t i o n i s a s e t of p r o c e d u r e s that define the utility of t h e p r o g r a m . These p r o c e d u r e s p r e s c r i b e sampling techniques and statistically approved methods of data c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s t h a t w i l l r e s u l t i n d a t a t h a t a r e b o t h r e l i a b l e and v a l i d . In those cases where a numerical analysis is not possible, 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 , reliable qualitative analysis i s employed. An evaluation s h o u l d examine a l l f a c e t s of t h e p r o g r a m i n c l u d i n g d e f i n e d and u n s t a t e d 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. Finally, the evaluator is  7  responsible f o r making recommendations as t o t h e outcomes of the program based on the evidence garnered i n the e v a l u a t i o n study.  Description  Prior  to  it  was  program,  description an o v e r a l l A  undertaking first  evaluation, this  procedures The  pertinent  staff  teachers,  a  Services.  This  and  data  which  person,  information interviews,  under  the headings  Staff,  Students,  available  Admission  i n NJAP.  overlooked.  or  evaluation  collected  includes and  was  the  informal  was  from a l l  two  Head  gathered  program  of by  Student use  observation,  of  and  a  documents.  of t h e p r o g r a m  Goals  Suspensions  general  b e f o r e e v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n s and  information  The d e s c r i p t i o n  Employed  i s often  present  support  a  i t i s a s m a l l p a r t of  the  of e x i s t i n g  Reporting,  prepare  in  members,  semi-structured perusal  component  e v a l u a t i o n of t h e  formulated.  description  using  to  Although  i s necessary  can be f u l l y  the a c t u a l  necessary  of t h e p r o g r a m .  description  prepared  of t h e Program  is  o f t h e Program, Procedures,  presented  below  Physical Location,  Schedule,  Reintegrations,  and  Grading  and  Techniques  8  Goals  of t h e  Program  The  s t a t e d w r i t t e n g o a l s 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 . t o communicate w i t h p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s i n t h e r e g u l a r program t o 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;  Physical  2.  to r e i n t e g r a t e students classes;  3.  t o u p g r a d e s t u d e n t s ' knowledge of t h e subject areas E n g l i s h , Mathematics, S c i e n c e , and S o c i a l S t u d i e s ;  4.  to t e a c h s t u d e n t s c o p i n g s k i l l s which w i l l h e l p them w i t h s c h o o l and g e n e r a l i z e t o home and s o c i a l activities;  5.  to reduce the frequency b e h a v i o u r s ; and  6.  to r e i n f o r c e behaviour that i s considered s o c i a l l y acceptable (Karr, M i l l e r , & A r b o u r , Note 1 ) .  L o c a t i o n of  Avenue,  1982,  the  Surrey,  students.  (these  students  Surrey  School  core  grade nine  elementary Improvement  at  school year  586  13220 1981  to  of  233  consisting  s t u d e n t s , and  three  temporarily  is located  the  p o p u l a t i o n was  233  were  Learning  regular  of i n a p p r o p r i a t e  During  T h e r e were a l s o  (1980-82) w h i l e a new the  B.C.  b a s i c student  grade e i g h t s t u d e n t s , ten  into  NJAP  Newton J u n i o r S e c o n d a r y 64th  back  grade included  seven  120  grade  classes  f o r two  years  school  was  being  built),  Program  s e r v i n g 10  mentally  9  retarded  students,  maximum  of  Reading  students.  Program  (Learning  students  seven  Learning with  also  serving  a School  available  remedial  special  principal one  Improvement  and  for  vice-principal  The  principals  programs and  the  any  vice-principals.  the  a c t s as a l i a i s o n  Program, and  Base  instruction. two  a  with  other  grade  with  the  the  Surrey  vice-principal  NJAP.  situated  is located  in  the  room a r e  two  divided  informally  other  and  use  screens,  outdoors  and  portable).  classroom  rest is  has  or  other  two  forms of  i n the  grade  alternate school.  one  classroom The  a staircase  them  room  the for each  ( i e . , no  dividers). directly  belong  school. to  grade  i s located in  seems q u i t e  entrance  which  room i s  the o t h e r  w i t h i n the  7 classroom  this  for  leading  basement  area  in  are c l o s e to  between  to hallways  The  one  S t u d i e s and  division  open  Included  classrooms,  three e x i t s ,  classrooms  from  shaped  school.  Social  clear  other  of t h e  U  Both classrooms  (the t h i r d  The  the  two  bookcases,  two  large  a drinking fountain.  into  i s no  the  students  the  of  classroom  remaining  seven  basement  Science.  there  The  a  of E n g l i s h and  M a t h e m a t i c s and  of  in  washrooms and  instruction  from  was  Assistance)  two  The  students,  NJAP  The  program  t o 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  students.  grade  There  a principal  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the  seven  alternate  requiring  i s s u p e r v i s e d by  In a d d i t i o n are  the  20  enrolled school  and  a  segregated  to the  alternate  is situated  at the f a r  10  wing o f beside is  the the  school.  T h i s wing has  staircase  this  the  students  s e t of d o o r s ,  the a l t e r n a t e  s e t of e x i t  l e a d i n g down t o t h e a l t e r n a t e  possible for alternate  through  i t s own  classroom  school, excepting  t o come i n t o  proceed  and  directly  have no  grade  seven  doors  room.  the  It  building  downstairs  contact with  the  to  rest  of  students.  Staff  The teachers, and  staff  one  support  the D i s t r i c t  teachers. and  One  Social  their  Science.  teachers  t e a c h e r s and  the  students. to  two  engaged acting  alternate in  with  social  t a s k s such  as  agencies  such  team  Services, by  the  two  Skills  i s responsible for routinely  students progress.  in  with their  Alternate  a l s o d i s c u s s the p r o g r e s s the  students  support  of  alternate  teachers'  and  parents.  of  their  the  person  students is  with  otherwise  recordkeeping, c o u n s e l l i n g ,  between p a r e n t s ,  r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s , and  Recordkeeping  and  two  English  consult  the p r o g r e s s  t e a c h e r s , the  many  other  i t is also  i n t e r v i e w new  as a l i a i s o n  contacting  person  reviewing  i s shared  alternate  behaviour  support  people:  teaching  the  have  five  Teaching  Teachers  Finally,  Besides the  who  student  responsibility  while  of  t h e Head of S t u d e n t  Counsellor.  Studies,  c l a s s e s about  person,  i s responsible for  M a t h e m a t i c s and regular  of NJAP c o n s i s t s  s t u d e n t s , and  as M e n t a l  assisting  involves looking after  teachers,  Health, consulting  alternate parental  teachers. appointments,  11  keeping  t r a c k of attendance,  when s t u d e n t s  enter  resuspension  (which  a  regular class  year).  The  available  (which  than  She  behaviour student  social  and  Resources child  or  appointments with of  the  student held with  support  person  and  the  person  ways and  such  home  extended  must a s s i s t  evaluating  Making Public Human  ( f o r example, and  medical  The  role  t o accompanying t h e or  mainly  student  or  about  Health,  school hours.  alternate  is  parents or  Health.  court appearances  of a l t e r n a t e  she  officer  psychological  i s also  support and  telephoning  or P u b l i c  into  attendance  assistance  of  of the  visits.  as Mental  teachers consists  and  end  either  about  involves  Mental  behaviour  appointments Consultation  of  discussing  students. teachers  Finally, in  other  i s o u t o f t h e room programs  (mainly  progress).  Supervision school  with  as s u p e r v i s i n g w h i l e a t e a c h e r  planning  behaviour  such  the school during  attendance  result  example,  probation  some  setting  either  regular class  support  makes  requires  t o any m e e t i n g s ,  outside  the  Resources  i f a student  For  parents  agencies  Human  abuse)  place at the  i s upset  meets and  a  p r o v i d e s more m o r a l  telephones  problems,  with  Health,  only takes person  as  forms  p l a c e anytime) or r e e n t r y  counselling.  progress,  contact  may t a k e  whenever a s t u d e n t  teachers.  out r e q u i s i t e  t h e program, o r l e a v e  support  encouragement  and f i l l i n g  district  of  the  six alternate  i s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  programs  i n the  of t h e Head o f S t u d e n t  1 2  Services  assisted  responsible placing Head  Counsellor.  i n the a p p r o p r i a t e a l t e r n a t e  Student  S e r v i c e s and t h e D i s t r i c t  NJAP once a week f o r a g r o u p m e e t i n g this  meeting  topics  both  a r e examined.  District  C o u n s e l l o r a l s o conduct  sessions  for alternate  aired.  Counsellor whenever  The  The  when a s t u d e n t office.  visit  class.  and t r o u b l i n g  ongoing  At  to the  S e r v i c e s and t h e  bi-weekly  of Student  training  staff  S e r v i c e s and t h e D i s t r i c t with  support  and  advice  of  breaks  However,  class.  The  personnel  i s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  the t e a c h e r s a r e a c c o u n t a b l e  the v i c e - p r i n c i p a l  Student  Counsellor  where o p i n i o n s and p r o b l e m s c a n  though t h e program  involvement  program.  Head  The  needed.  Board,  support  staff  B o a r d and  program.  the  The Head o f S t u d e n t  provide alternate  Even School  with  interesting  students  be  They a r e a l s o  f o r screening a p p l i c a n t s at the School  students  of  by t h e D i s t r i c t  the  principal  a school  most  student  hires  This  program  agenda  is  encounters  teachers  i n f o r m a t i o n , b u t he i s person,  and  who a c t s a s a l i a i s o n  principal  t o the p r i n c i p a l .  i s limited  rule  not or  to occasions sent  take  to and  the  the  running  with  alternate  updates  responsible the  to  place  i s t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e t e a c h e r s and  Services.  of the  their  f o r the of Head  the of  1 3  Students  The full-time number  is  designed  to  s t u d e n t s a t any one t i m e .  are actually  continuous only  program  resuspended  short (which  period usually  time,  implies  a  a  sixteenth  b i r t h d a y , as i s t h e i r  who  are  not  year  remain  through  undesirable suspension  in from  considered classroom some s t a g e caused  NJAP  in  with a u t h o r i t y  in  regular  school.  disruption suspension. as  and  such  for  to  study.  these  the  another  students  a t t h e end o f t h e school  year.  which  were  l e d to their  situations  by  would  outside  be the  Regardless, at  behaviour  regular  problems  classroom,  p r o b l e m s common t o  program  staff,  are  They have d i f f i c u l t i e s d e a l i n g  and c o p i n g  in a  regular  the m o t i v a t i o n t o attend school  s k i p p i n g o u t ) , and i n  Those  and  The b e h a v i o u r  familial.  to  behaviour  of t h i s  described  figures  right.  classroom  Whether  number a r e  behaviours  i n the education process  students,  lack  the  i n NJAP  s c h o o l on t h e i r  of t h e n e x t  exhibited  i s beyond t h e scope  peer-related  They  i n NJAP  from  or r e i n t e g r a t e d  inappropriate  serious  resulting  legal  the beginning  small  transfer  program), and o t h e r s withdraw  resuspended  b e c a u s e of  Some s t u d e n t s r e m a i n  of  20  to  However, a f a r g r e a t e r  alternate  Students  up  served d u r i n g the school year  i n t a k e and o u t f l o w .  for a  support  class  they  may  classroom.  (which  may  result  talk  out  loud,  14  refuse  t o work or Eight  program  disturb  others.  common l e a r n i n g  staff.  These  p r o b l e m s were r e p o r t e d  short  2.  easily  3.  poor  4.  poor  organization  5.  poor  reading  6.  inconsistent  effort;  7.  insufficient  background  8.  a  to  attention  concentration;  and  resistance  skills; writing  criterion  for entry although  S t u d e n t s on  the  of  to  S t u d e n t s who  cases a the  verge  an  withdrew  student  t o an  must be  Board.  Students  program  file  undergoes t o an and  program  referred  alternate  the  and  skills.  list,  following a  program.  either accept  are  or  some  may  of  program.  t o an are  be  in l i e u  in lieu  of  first  three  to  exceptions. transferred suspension.  suspension However,  alternate  with actual  within  screening  alternate  alternate  there  alternate  program w a i t i n g  sent  new  t o an  from s c h o o l  alternate  is  skills;  suspension  alternate  admitted  School  student  skills;  learning  from s c h o o l  be  is  discouraged;  suspension  also  program  span;  Procedures  The  directly  the  were:  1.  Admission  by  placement four  in a l l  program  placed  on in  weeks.  p r o c e s s whereby h i s / h e r The  reject  alternate the  staff  student.  may  by the an The file  review If  it  15  appears  the  student  parent/guardian  meets  student  the  program's r e q u i r e m e n t s  interview i s arranged  A f o r the a c t u a l  interview schedule  this  that  not  interview the program If  a student  are  assess  the grade  series  of  set.  Previous level  Social  present  level  of  by N J A P ) .  I t i s at  i s made whether  the  of  first  Based on  a regular classroom teacher  two this  term  in order  to  should  be  the program w i t h  in order  help  to a review  a student  subject w i t h i n the  may  areas  the  design  Following pretesting,  review,  a  Reading,  to assess  to  weeks i s d e v o t e d  are  long  student  and  or  student.  Mathematics,  Science  f o r those  feels  then  examined  begins in  study.  f o r the  NJAP  the  attainment  remainder  alternate  pretests  S t u d i e s , and  courses  in  which  each student  individualized  skills.  by  records are  at  achievement  Spelling,  basic  Appendix  decision  i s accepted  Further,  of  final  (see  i s t h e most a p p r o p r i a t e one  goals  enrolled.  the  used  , a  be  of  placed  which  student's  the  the  present  capabi1i t ies. Schedule  Program hours through  Thursday.  consultation,  course  Students  who  school  F r i d a y , and  on  which they  are  are  8:00  Fridays planning,  a.m. are and  to  2:30  used  for  student  have c l a s s e s o u t s i d e t h e a l t e r n a t e attend only  enrolled.  those  regular  p.m.  Monday parental  reviewing. room a t t e n d classes  in  1 6  Group  meetings  are  held  Wednesday and T h u r s d a y a f t e r n o o n s . teachers,  students  week's g o a l s .  for  group c o u n s e l l i n g with  s e s s i o n s a r e a forum  Grading  by  the  Counsellor.  goals.  to teach basic  Students  standard  The  Head  of  The T h u r s d a y  remaining  and  class,  skills.  In  Secondary  rules  p r o g r a m may  redo  score  addition  to  state  this  that  performs.  the a l t e r n a t e Daily  70%  any t e s t s  t o pass  or  assignments  standard,  than  C+  absenteeism  Newton  include  Junior  r e g a r d l e s s of  how  t a k i n g math i n that  positive  by  both  teachers  and t h e s u p p o r t  discussed  a t t h e end o f e a c h day by t e a c h e r s and t h e s u p p o r t  person Parental  to  supplement  and  student  the  Individual  surpasses  and n e g a t i v e  and t a r d i n e s s a r e p r e p a r e d person.  is  math  Therefore, a student  which  where  in a modified  program can not o b t a i n a grade reports  any t e s t o r  t h e 70% r e q u i r e m e n t  no s t u d e n t  o b t a i n a grade h i g h e r  he/she  behaviours,  must  has n o t been met u n t i l  reached.  C+.  weekly  student  assignment.  well  p l a n and d i s c u s s  and R e p o r t i n g  Each  this  mornings a l l  f o r d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e week's e v e n t s  towards the  hours a r e used  and  sessions are reserved  students  S e r v i c e s and t h e D i s t r i c t  progress  person  Wednesday a f t e r n o o n the  mornings,  On Monday  and t h e s u p p o r t  the  Student  Monday  regular  feedback  Friday  performance i s  evaluation.  a r e p r o v i d e d by r e p o r t  cards  1  prepared  monthly  appropriate, telephones of  by  both  alternate  regular teachers.  t h e s t u d e n t s ' home e a c h  and,  The s u p p o r t  where  person  also  parents  t h e w e e k l y p r o g r e s s and t o d i s c u s s any b e h a v i o u r  problems  may have o c c u r r e d d u r i n g t h e p r e v i o u s week.  Suspensions  or R e i n t e g r a t i o n s  Students number o f r e a s o n s . directions,  pulling  can  be  suspended  from  this  program  The most common a r e :  not  listening  defiance, arguing,  work, c o n s t a n t  violation  interruption,  o f an i m p o r t a n t the f i r e  lack  alarm  absence  school  or being  before a suspension  "under-five" until  may  suspension  he/she  suspensions It  returns  student  Physical  with  of  the  performance  has  student i s reached  functioned well  five  a  This  sent  home  is  R e c o r d s o f any  program  person.  to  regular  phase  subjects  of the program elective  After  as a  (English, fora  courses  then  the  classes  i n the core  are  of  days.  subject.  Students  fighting,  On o c c a s i o n  i n each  i s permitted t o take  Education.  than  into  refusal  informed  by t h e s u p p o r t  S t u d i e s , and S c i e n c e )  he/she  and  a student  the  to  to the p r i n c i p a l or  h i s parents.  of  as  i s given.  for less  means t h a t  i s the o b j e c t i v e  Math, S o c i a l weeks,  given  o r d e t e n t i o n s a r e kept  integration acceptable  be  called  for a  s c h o o l , or the  such  defiant  problem  suspension  from  rule  Parents  situation  are  of c o - o p e r a t i o n ,  vice-principal.  a  teachers  Friday to inform  that  to  by  7  few  such a s  gradually  18  reintegrated that  other  regular  they a r e a c a d e m i c a l l y  This the  into  phased year.  regular have  Students are  and  often  begin  the  their  the  completely  next  There  are  he/she  i s doing  year  with mainly  The  behaviours w i l l  It  is  student  hoped  yet s t i l l  room.  to reintegrate  i s reintegrated  yet  may  in  prior  classes,  They may  a student.  the  still  feel  has  the  regular  selected  behaviour  Sometimes  i n t h e program  p r o g r e s s h a s been made.  bring  to reentry.  regular  reentry  reintegrated  problems,  is  c l a s s e s , and f e e l s  takes  place.  may be r e t u r n e d  because  inappropriate  about  success.  At the  end  i f h e / s h e has c h a n g e d h i s a t t i t u d e , i s w o r k i n g fewer  when  behaviour  class.  when t h e y have been  a change w i l l  i s consulted  classroom.  i s right  t h o u g h no a p p a r e n t  that  they  play  teachers  students are reintegrated  i f they  o f judgment comes i n t o  academically  lessen  even  regular  the  to the extent  reintegrated.  i n which a s t u d e n t  well  into  year  regular  i n the a l t e r n a t e  t h e time  cases  problems.  a time,  the  during  classes  has c h a n g e d  see  workload.  a t any t i m e  regular  students a r e not t o t a l l y  whether  for  the  disrupt  A good p r o p o r t i o n deciding  in  behaviour  no l o n g e r  have one o r two c l a s s e s  then  handle  reintegrated  success  if  they w i l l  Quite  has  when t e a c h e r s  c l a s s p r o g r a m a t t h e end of t h e s c h o o l  attended  year,  to  r e i n t e g r a t i o n can take p l a c e  experienced  that  ready  classes  successful  ready  Students  Each  of  the  better,  i n his/her  for reintegration, who  have  been  t o an a l t e r n a t e p r o g r a m ,  either  19  because  of  expectations Techniques  To behaviour  an  inability  to  perform  or because of a subsequent  Employed  to  behaviour  academic problem.  In NJAP  h e l p meet  t h e needs o f  p r o b l e m s , NJAP employs  1. i n d i v i d u a l i z e d subjects — and  up  alternate  students  with  the f o l l o w i n g t e c h n i q u e s :  instruction  in  the  Mathematics, E n g l i s h ,  four  Social  basic Studies  Science;  2. p h a s e d taking  reintegration  one o r two r e g u l a r  3. g o a l o r i e n t a t i o n person  where  students  g o a l s and w o r k i n g  towards  and D i s t r i c t  5. i n d i v i d u a l  their  weekly  them; t h e Head o f  Student  Counsellor;  counselling  Newton J u n i o r S e c o n d a r y School  and t h e s u p p o r t  in planning  4. w e e k l y g r o u p c o u n s e l l i n g w i t h Services  by  classes;  whereby t e a c h e r s  a i d the students  begin  w h i c h may School  be o b t a i n e d a t  and a t t h e  Surrey  Board;  6. r e i n f o r c e m e n t  in  the  encouragement a r e u s e d ; 7. w e e k l y c o m m u n i c a t i o n teachers.  form  of  praise  and  and  with  parents  and  regular  20  Thesis  The Chapters.  balance Chapter  two  reviewed  preparatory  presented  in  study  is  Chapter  presented  evaluation evaluation  terms  each  The  the  program  6.  formulating The  and  evaluation  a  evaluation  of  the  are  improvements  of  are  question  model  listing  of  the  Finally  suggestions  for  the  of  the  sample,  analysis.  and  presented  NJAP  as  in  five. in  observed  recommendations future  The  organized  four  are of  in  a  Chapters  study  five  literature  used  r e p o r t e d and in  into  recommendations  and d a t a  and d i s p a r i t i e s  included.  the  the  decription  evaluation  and  organized  3 f o l l o w e d by  instruments,  Congruences  evaluator  presented.  to  evaluation  conclusions  Chapter by  the  is  summation  Chapter  procedure,  of  thesis  a  6.  in  the  is  questions,  results of  of  Organization  research  for are  21  CHAPTER 2  REVIEW OF  LITERATURE  As d i s c i p l i n a r y t o o l s , traditional suspension and expulsion 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 virtually never solve them. At the time, out-of-school suspension i s o f t e n v i e w e d by the s t u d e n t s i n v o l v e d as a reward rather than p u n i s h m e n t ( s i n c e i t g e t s them out of a difficult and unsatisfying situation); and it increases the l i k e l i h o o d of t h e s u s p e n d e d s t u d e n t s 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 school. In sum, r e m o v i n g s t u d e n t s from s c h o o l n e i t h e r d i s c i p l i n e s nor e d u c a t e s them as s o c i e t y i n t e n d e d 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 t o do. ( N a t i o n a l S c h o o l R e s o u r c e Network, 1980, p. 1)  Alternate redress  the problems  1970s, t h e s e common this  chapter,  NJAP.  standard this  of  alternate  in  which  reviewed.  of c o m p a r i s o n c o u l d be  s u c c e s s and/or  during  the  a l l share  the  in school.  In  i n approach,  about  successes  programs elsewhere, 36  articles  From t h i s  from  an  problems  ERIC  search  were  identified  and  review,  15 a r t i c l e s  were  similarity  these  and  and/or  pertinence  15 a r t i c l e s was  used  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  examined.  failures  Introduced  t o keep s t u d e n t s  the b a s i s of t h e i r Information  study  above.  to  these programs a r e d e s c r i b e d .  information  by  subsequently  to  trying  several  conducted  on  of  gain  encountered  selected  indicated  programs, which v a r y  element  To  was  s c h o o l s or p r o g r a m s have been d e s i g n e d  I t was  felt  of NJAP m i g h t be  that  better  the  as  a  from  relative  illuminated  22  through the  such  a  comparison  f o r m u l a t i o n of  to  NJAP,  back  into  programs  were  mainly  students,  of  behaviour  prevented  with  in  designed  them from  and  which e x p l i c i t  inappropriate  proceeding  the p r e s e n t  groups to  was  be  students the  Michigan seven  behaviour  individualized  In  was  classroom  emphasizes  year  i n the  old  disruptive  regular  school  order, beginning  most  recent.  were e x p e r i m e n t a l  The  studies  were u s e d .  In  each,  effective  in  changing  identified;  Academy.  i n grades  regular  17  These  thus  their  a  inclusion  review.  Walbridge Rapids,  to whose  t o the  Review of A l t e r n a t i v e  Grand  13  coping  reviewed  proved  behaviour  for  in  reintegrating  setting.  in chronological  comparison  which  school  intelligence,  three a r t i c l e s  technique  in  regular  reviewed  the e a r l i e s t  similar  t h e common g o a l o f  the  average  They a r e  remaining  d e s c r i b e d programs v e r y  namely  students  system.  thereby provide a b a s i s f o r  recommendations.  Twelve a r t i c l e s purpose  and  employs a t o k e n  assignment  completion,  1971,  established  to twelve (Amove  who  walbridge t o meet  & Stout,  The  economy. for  Academy,  t h e needs o f  were u n s u c c e s s f u l  modification  instruction.  component  Programs  1978).  The  school  techniques  and  behaviour Students  punctuality,  in  modification  earn p o i n t s f o r for  appropriate  23  behaviour, toward the  and  canoe  f o r t i m e on  trips,  p o i n t s may  room.  The  table,  recreation  Inappropriate  week before  room  from  must  returning  component materials  to c l a s s .  The  thorough e v a l u a t i o n Amove  and  academic  performance  they  happier at Walbridge  (Amove  in  1971  for  three  (Cornett  students  program  the  in  is  and  pingpong  a  jukebox.  for  a 30  time-outs in a ten counsellor instruction  contracts, failing  programmed grades  the b a s i c  students  and  subjects.  assessed felt  They a l s o  t h a n a t any  been  student  that reported  their that  of t h e i r p r e v i o u s  47).  located  grades  a  isolated  Stout  improved.  & Swanson,  recreation  o f W a l b r i d g e Academy has and  or  " t i m e - o u t " i n which  a r e no  (Diversified  Deep P r o j e c t ,  attendance problems, This  that  & S t o u t , p.  Deep P r o j e c t Program).  and  and  to complete  had  i n the  individualized  There  s c o r e a "C"  found  accumulated  a c o n f e r e n c e w i t h the  attitudes  schools  class  accumulates  attend  However,  be  tables,  snacks,  the  and m i n i - u n i t s .  reported.  felt  pool  i s c o m p r i s e d of p e r f o r m a n c e  s t u d e n t s must No  has  time  b e h a v i o u r i s p u n i s h e d by  A s t u d e n t who  period  for free  magazines,  i s removed  minutes.  P o i n t s can  t o C h i c a g o or b o w l i n g o u t i n g s ,  be e x c h a n g e d  games,  student  trips  task.  Education Experiences in Wichita,  1979). 9  to  The 12  identified  student-centered  Kansas,  program with  designed  discipline  as p o t e n t i a l and  was  began  and  drop-outs.  project-oriented  24  whereby  students  objectives,  and t h e n  Upon c o m p l e t i o n between  decrease  internal in  improved  own  needs  and  educational projects.  a conference  takes  The t e a c h e r ' s r o l e  Taking  found  place  i s that of  Florida  and opened  senior  secondary program  P.A.S.S., in  Student's  behaviour  students  98%  (RTAVI).  with  graduated  A  positive  over  Course  It  —  clarification.  consists  was  are  disruptive coping  designed  Three  of  as  techniques  behaviour.  the  Student's  Two  an were of  School  Course.  one-hour  in a  The  weekly  The p r o g r a m makes use  techniques,  Students  for  Home S u r v i v a l  a 12 week p e r i o d .  modification  i n St. Petersburg,  difficulties  disruptive  projects  Suspension  planned  students.  student  term  to School  was  and t h e S t u d e n t ' s  Survival  spread  the  that  situated  1980).  suspending  long  Course  1972,  students  for modifying  Survival  Inventory  Alternative  (NSRN,  to  were  and  of  (p. 3 ) .  (P.A.S.S.).  devised  51%  (Cornett &  o f t h e s t u d e n t s were measured by t h e R i s k  Positive  alternative  significant  of d r o p - o u t s  that  ( p . 2)  Values  Program  regular  number  found  achievement  Attitudes  The  and  I t was  Attitudes  change was  p r o g r a m e v a l u a t i o n showed a  absences  in  (p. 3 ) .  values  own  of these p r o j e c t s ,  Swanson, p. 2 ) .  of  design their  their  and c o n s u l t a n t . An  classes  identify  t e a c h e r and s t u d e n t .  adviser  these  first  reality taught  t h e r a p y and that  it is  25  possible Course  to survive  i s another  utilizes  working  problems.  The  designed  as  behaviour  that  Room  Therapy,  Behaviour Therapy.  of  out  third  Students  home  an immediate  helps  positive  students take  taught  area  the  positive  Time-Out  response to g r o s s l y  Room,  the  school  explore  was  inappropriate The  where s t u d e n t s c a n be  with  students  and  r e l a t i o n s h i p s o r home r e l a t e d  b e h a v i o u r , and s u g g e s t s p o s s i b l e more  are  which  Analysis,  interrupts classroom a c t i v i t y .  forcounselling  Counsellor  Transactional  technique,  i s a separation  placed  The S t u d e n t ' s Home S u r v i v a l  12 hour p r o g r a m , one hour p e r week,  Reality  Rational means  in school.  Time-Out  temporarily  counsellor.  consequences  of t h e i r  a l t e r n a t i v e s that  results.  Finally,  parents  of  s i x two-hour  sessions  of p a r e n t  The  may  have  disruptive  effectiveness  training. No  evaluation  The  Street  h a s been  reported  forthis particular  program.  1975)  began  in  Academy. Grand  developed  f o r students  12,  who  and  setting. course  basic  Individual work,  academic  had  skills  Rapids,  Academy  Michigan  (Bournazos,  i n 1973.  I t was  12 t o 18 y e a r s o f age i n g r a d e s 8  difficulties counselling,  individual  contracts,  The S t r e e t  parent  are a l l part  coping  immediate  learning  aids,  counselling, of  i n a regular  the  school  r e i n f o r c e m e n t of behavioural  and  and the t e a c h i n g  school  to  format.  of  School  26  subjects  are  (immediate each  course.  and  taking  p o i n t s may Student  program  of  be  short  P o i n t s are a l s o part  accumulated  and  exchanged  e v a l u a t i o n of t h e  be  effective  ability  student  in  ( p . 2 8 ) , and  that  school  attendance  still  a need  for further  (p. 42).  Salt  designed  Lake  City,  for students  in  the  the  school's concern  their  i n grades  attitudes  (p. 3 ) .  student  we  The  the  and  total  12 who  The could  indicated there  was  School  school not  was cope  (1977) s t a t e d  student  also  following  number  42).  Whipples  will  i n the  ( p . 35)  but  i n 1974.  i s with changing  change,  math  These  the  Bournazos  (p.  9 to  of  showed  Granite Alternate  began  regular school setting.  behaviour" change  Utah  time  Academy  improved,  improvement  Granite Alternate School. of  Street  had  completion  for free  in increasing  also  points  sessions.  improving  high school c r e d i t s  and  acquired for attending  counselling  The  courses  upon  in  Center.  1974  mini  awarded  Activity  to  reading  into  reinforcement) are  mini  school  divided  that  attitudes:  see  a  change  t e c h n i q u e s are used  "As in to  attitude:  1. p r o v i d i n g behaviour  daily by  2. d e m o n s t r a t i n g about  reinforcement  displaying to  a p p r o v a l and  students  them;  3. m o d e l i n g  positive  of  behaviour;  that  the  appropriate praise; staff  cares  27  4. p r o v i d i n g grading sent  token (no  home  students caring, assist  "F's"  to  students,  d) b u y i n g teachers;  obtained  W h i p p l e s commented  that  School  by  is  attending  of  shown  an  a)  positive  c a r d s ) , b)  praising  providing  a s a way  by  on r e p o r t  parents  c)  5. m a i n t a i n i n g be  reinforcement  lunch  good or  showing  letters work  breakfast to  appreciation  a pop o r l u n c h  of  f o r students  and who  and environment  i n which  success  can  by a l l s t u d e n t s . the  success  the f a c t  r e g u l a r l y and w o r k i n g  of  that  Granite  Alternate  85% o f t h e s t u d e n t s a r e  toward a h i g h  school  diploma  (p. 2 ) .  Dade C o u n t y A l t e r n a t e Alternate  School  (Department  of Planning  disruptive school  students  features  subjects  modifying  individualized  inappropriate counselling  for modifying was  that  Florida  students  high  1976).  County in  1975  Intended f o r  school  level, in  the  the b a s i c  modification  S t u d e n t s a r e awarded p o i n t s f o r Intensive  also part  group  of the s c h o o l  and  agenda  behaviour.  by t e a c h e r s who  opened  Behaviour  behaviour. are  Dade  instruction  training.  inappropriate reported  The  and E v a l u a t i o n ,  a r e emphasized.  individual  It  Miami,  at the J u n i o r  and v o c a t i o n a l  techniques  School  of  School.  o f Dade C o u n t y  remained  in  the  Alternate  school  have  28  positive  changes  performance  (p.  i n both  School.  (Rothman,  1980)  suspending  students  12  to  students  are  are has  opened  21  taught  their  Students  teachers.  students  the  continue (p.  concluded  nonprofit stations)  second  In C a r e e r  and  a  for  all  hours  the  concept toward  of  80%  different  guidance  of  running  the  bookkeeping,  skills.  of  Livingston is  of  the  work t o w a r d Students  school l i b r a r i e s and  of  distributive  students  t h e program, C a r e e r  week  and  a r e c o u n s e l l e d by  communication success  and  distributive  aspects  graduation.  a  of  recordkeeping,  o r g a n i z a t i o n s ( s u c h as fifteen  lives  work  Through  Academy, s t u d e n t s  prepare  to  and  students  that  half  students  Once t h i s  variety  the o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t  f o r the  115).  goals  by  and  to  own  ready  program. learn  salesmanship,  alternative  their  days w i t h  merchandizing,  Rothman demonstrated  the  City  Livingston School,  teaching  their  students  store:  advertising,  in  York  stresses decision-making  includes  plan  At  actions. are  program  an  12.  Newly e n r o l l e d  already  education school  own  individualized  education.  academic  school serves  control  students  and  as The  7 to  their  The  counselling,  subjects,  school.  that they  for  goals.  1975  grades  been u n d e r s t o o d ,  peer  and  L i v i n g s t o n S c h o o l , New in  from  in  responsible  academic  behaviour  10).  Livingston  aged  disruptive  attend  Academy academic work  and  in  police  school  the  29  remainder Career  of  the  time.  Academy  c o n t i n u e on  Ninety percent  graduate  to c o l l e g e  and  (p.  of  students  Tric-C,  Los  for reintegration setting.  was  for students  developed  taught  the  basic  atmosphere,  and  additional  also  the  through  use  individual  conferences  and  is  successful  reassignments.  The  National  that  satisfactorily (p. 4 ) . were  goal  in  N i n e t y per  positive  (p. 4 ) .  62% both  cent  attitude  However,  of T r i c - C  of  an  (p. 4 ) .  i s to  Parents and  or in  a  and  group  family-type are  expected  group meetings. to  are  resources  are  an 1975,  Students  individual  community  prepare  school  12.  The  check  up  to  It i s  on  their  behavioural progress.  Tric-C  observed  9 to  counselling,  responsibility  academic  1980)  regular  both  of  components.  son/daughter's  students  (Tric-C).  p r o g r a m , w h i c h began  program  parents'  the  group  the  of t h e s e  Program  in grades  skills  Intensive  half  (NSRN,  into  This  instruction.  attend  Classroom  Angeles  occupational  students attending  115).  Community C e n t e r e d goal  over  of  in School  the  that  there  Resource  students  had  academic  and  of p a r e n t  respondents  changes improvement  in  behaviour  their  are  no  Network improved progress  agreed  there  sons/daughters  in attendance  is s t i l l  a  30  Community E x p e r i m e n t a l 1976  CEEC,  Designed  Iowa  for students  scheduled complete  32  instruction  cultural  that  he  experience, skills  been  1979,  p.  As  disruptive  ( f o r example, Most  of  can  Since  all  1979, of  awareness, and  decision-making, competencies  program  fully  after  personal  the g o a l of  be  A  i n the areas  competencies  r a t e c o u l d not  do  (Yates,  these  the  must  graduate.  consumer  fitness,  article,  to pass  an  A.  Wurt H i g h  alternative  behaviour,  opened a t W i l l i a m A. (NSRN,  to  no  had the  program  within  assessed  only  three (Yates,  270).  William Clinic.  Students  i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r i n g , and  16 months.  success  has  taught  issues,  of t h i s  the  program  before"  are  At  for students  years,  do  Mathematics.  in operation  called  current  skills).  time  years  In  1979).  "something a student  E n g l i s h and the  this  (CEEC).  (Yates,  credits.  three  competencies  communication  involve  or  couldn't  involvement,  interpersonal and  d e f i n e d as  These  community  in  Centre  operation  16 t o 20,  grades  competencies is  265).  began  aged  classes,  competency  p.  City  Education  1980).  The  a  School  to e x p e l l i n g behaviour  Wurt H i g h  clinic  Behaviour M o d i f i c a t i o n students  modification clinic  S c h o o l , Gary,  serves  displaying  students  Indiana  i n grades  was  in  1977  9 to  12.  31  The  clinic  The  behaviour  the  stresses  core  behaviour  m o d i f i c a t i o n and  m o d i f i c a t i o n techniques  s u b j e c t a r e a s as w e l l  contracts.  Upon e n t r y , s t u d e n t s  what  event  l e d to t h e i r  blame  for that  from  occurring  drawn up and  event  The two  years  program  Seaford,  Delaware  designed  as  personnel  future an  and  age  reviewing  engaged  toward  recognize i s to  prevent  this  c o n t r a c t s are  fulfilling two  these  approaches:  therapy.  Resource  Network  reported  number of d a y s l o s t  number of  in  Referral  is located  (Newman,  suspensions  that due  had  community modify  and  Evaluation  at  Seaford  High  Begun  i n 1978,  1979).  intervention  i s to  approaches. by  an  disruptive  early  to  or a c a d e m i c  reality  actual  Committee on  CO.R.E.  CO.R.E.  done  utilizes  and  to  to  both  (p. 5).  The The  the  be  work  of o p e r a t i o n , t h e  and  helped  in  academic  i n t h e p r o g r a m , who  Behaviour  N a t i o n a l School  suspension decreased  analysis  are  what can  students  include mini-units  as b e h a v i o u r a l and  placement  Counselling  transactional  after  again.  the  contracts.  and  counselling.  program  resource disruptive  behaviour.  This  (C.O.R.E.).  featuring  people. behaviour i s done by  The  School, it  school goal  and  was  of  prevent  i n t e r v e n i n g at  ( t h e 9 t h g r a d e ) w i t h many d i f f e r e n t t h e r a p e u t i c Disruptive  students are  r e c o r d s of t h o s e inappropriate  identified  s t u d e n t s who behaviour.  are In  i n Phase 1  consistently Phase  2,  the  32  intervention behaviour student data  stage,  is  before  decided.  and  cafeteria. selected his/her  best  approach  I n t e n s i v e data  the i n t e r v e n t i o n  are collected  home,  the  interviews,  observing  the students  One o f  the  f o r a student inappropriate  the  These  student's  i n the classroom 15  on t h e  i s selected.  visiting  following  depending  modifying  are c o l l e c t e d  approach  by  for  h a l l and  procedures  is  on t h e c a u s a t i v e f a c t o r s o f  behaviour:  1.  family counselling;  2.  teacher  counselling  where  a  volunteer  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 the 3.  then  to  student;  student  counselling  disruptive 4. new c o u r s e  where  a  peer  befriends a  student; of study;  5. w o r k - s c h o o l  programs;  6. home s t u d y  program t i e d  i n with  counselling  and  tutoring; 7.  correspondence  program;  8. n i g h t 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  college  for  learning; 12. m e n t a l 13.  private  hygiene  clinic;  psychiatric  care;  remedial  and  enrichment  33  14.  community  resources  such  as  Big  Brothers,  Big  S i s t e r s ; and 15.  expulsion  from  school  when e v e r y t h i n g e l s e has  failed. E a c h of t h e above a p p r o a c h e s a l s o classroom  includes  counselling  instruction.  Newman  indicated  that  suspensions  were r e d u c e d  25%,  d e t e n t i o n s by 50%, and t h a t t h e p r o g r a m was  in  enrolling  therapeutic  100%  program  Huntsville School, 1980)  was  the  influences from  improving Physical daily A  School.  of  the  hierarchy  aged  The s t a f f  joins  i s also available  teachers  groups about  topics  that concern  of  Softball,  with  volleyball  that  Academic Watkins, I t i s the  self-concept  s t r u c t u r e was d e r i v e d  breakfast  talk  and  the students  with  them.  the students  S a f e t y and  non-threatening  students Teachers  i n small  also  ( f o r example, a  or p i n g pong).  lunch  f o r meals.  to students.  by p r o v i d i n g a  where  breaks  a  needs a r e met by t h e s t a f f .  environment  recreation  in  o f b a s i c n e e d s : a s an a p p r o a c h t o  needs a r e s a t i s f i e d  in  &  11 t o 19.  school  needs a r e p r o v i d e d by c o o k i n g  bank  students  Sanders,  The t h e o r e t i c a l  s e l f - c o n c e p t , student  clothing  successful  The H u n t s v i l l e  (Yates,  f o r students  staff  f o r students.  security  disruptive  by  68).  Alabama  behaviour.  Maslow's  the  Academic  designed  of  of  (p.  Huntsville,  belief  and  engage game  Sense of b e l o n g i n g  34  needs a r e p r o v i d e d by acceptable  behaviour.  providing students are  can  specified  student  goals.  been  were  improving  of  These  behaviour  work  toward  include  field  of H u n t s v i l l e  School  s t u d i e s r e l e v a n t to In  each  was  described  (1978)  therapy  success  is  a  b a s e d on  the  t e a c h i n g and  students  of  a  a  method  parent  reviewed  Therapy.  Cox  the  and  shown  the  and  of  effects  of and  analyzed  instruction Williams  for (1977)  training.  below.  "Rational-emotive  t h e e d u c a t i o n a l model and  application  be  academic  effectiveness  for  to  (1977) of  present  technique  with  Slavin  Finally  Rational-Emotive  case  investigated  on  as  s t u d i e s are  system  needs  Studies  students.  three  Self-actualization  Experimental  problems.  the  where  success  Teams-Games-Tournament  explored  i s e s t a b l i s h e d by assignments  the  Block  rational-emotive  alternate  for  reported.  social  behaviour  and  praise  breaks.  identified.  effective.  lessons  of  c o n t r a c t s i n which s t u d e n t s  Three experimental study  self-esteem  success.  evaluation  as y e t  display  Rewards f o r r e a c h i n g g o a l s  recreation No  has  Student  experience  by  or  teacher  individualized  met  trips  daily  therapy  emphasizes  self-actualization  rules"  35  (Block, upon  p. 6 1 ) .  cognitive  adjustive  Block  adopted  restructuring  rational  this  a p p r o a c h and " f o c u s e d  through  appraisal,  the  practice  small-group  (p. 62),  exercises.  Self-questioning  t e c h n i q u e s were t a u g h t  of  self-examination  skills.  Block therapy  investigated using  a  11 and 12 s t u d e n t s .  sex,  were  no-treatment  because  The 40  assigned  condition,  control.  to  the  groups  —  relations condition  "was  rational-emotive  condition  i t was b a s e d 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 had been p r e v i o u s l y  This  technique  employs p s y c h o d y n a m i c  better  adjustment.  minutes  in length,  consecutive occurrences  on  treatment  by  and  effectiveness  Sixty  weeks.  Grade  of d i s r u p t i v e  of v a r i a n c e  a l l three  significant  five  point  variables  variables  treatment.  difference.  sessions,  Other  62).  each  45  t i m e s p e r week f o r 12 average,  of i n t e r e s t  for  (p.  p r i n c i p l e s t o promote  b e h a v i o u r , and number  showed s i g n i f i c a n t  dependent  rational-emotive  demonstrated"  treatment  were c o n d u c t e d  were t h e d e p e n d e n t  Analysis  failure-prone  condition,  its  cut  a s a way  stratified  relations  human  emotional  rational-emotive  students,  to three  human  The  chosen as a comparison  of  of 40 d i s r u p t i v e and  grade  rational-emotive  dramatic  the e f f e c t i v e n e s s  group  randomly  and  directed  discussion"  learning  roleplaying,  of  number of  of  classes  i n the study.  improvement (p<.001) the  group  groups  with showed  the no  36  Teams Games T o u r n a m e n t. the  effectiveness  of  s t u d e n t s of normal problems. to  In  students  in  the study  o f two s o c i a l  person —  team.  seven  through  control  studies  group  encouraged  American  History  The  first  with  the l a s t  group  sample  each  by  or f i v e  process  of  challenging,  by  teacher.  control A  12  students  from  selecting  week u n i t on groups.  civil  war.  The  treatment  opposing  academic  false  of each  the  most  cards.  levels.  top  answering  scorer four points,  scorer  At  teams went t h r o u g h t h e  game was t h e s t u d e n t The  items  was a s s i g n e d t o a  the  questions,  and c h e c k i n g a n s w e r s a g a i n s t t h e answer  winner  was  t o t h e U.S. c o n s t i t u t i o n  v a r y i n g academic  cards,  two  while  group  f o r both  Each student  from  a  individual  i n tournaments of t h r e e student  member team  The  middle  by  by two methods  of m u l t i p l e c h o i c e or t r u e and  the  tournament  taught  solely  discouraged.  on t h e  39  Middle  instruction,  the  s i x weeks were d e v o t e d  games c o m p r i s e d  four  taught amongst  nor  contained  g r o u p was t a u g h t  was t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r  participated  designed  was  s i x spent  behaviour  were r a n d o m l y a s s i g n e d t o  classes  Cooperation  neither  teaching  n i n e a t Mark Twain  Students  The t r e a t m e n t  instruction.  the  The  Team-Games-Tournament and i n d i v i d u a l  the  for  Team-Games-Tournament was compared  S c h o o l , W a s h i n g t o n , D.C. one  investigated  w i t h a c a d e m i c and  instruction.  grades  (1977)  Team-Games-Tournament  intelligence  individualized  Slavin  who  earned  and t h e l o w e s t  had  sheet.  completed  s i x p o i n t s , the  s c o r e r two p o i n t s .  37  The  highest scorer  middle  scorer  moved  to  moved on  remained  an  easier  t o a more  a t t h e same l e v e l , games.  team w i t h t h e h i g h e s t p o i n t practiced  were h e l d  obtain  measures  of peer  the  obtained  data  significantly  found vs  members.  that  peers  and  b e f o r e tournaments  which  was  time  on  on  task.  task  group  peer  Analysis  spent  (56.8%)  when  group  group  mutual  i t e m s on  attraction.  f o u n d between t r e a t m e n t  and  group. peer  Two  i t e m s on  tutoring.  were n o n s i g n i f i c a n t  (p. 81).  task When  together, i t on  task  the  sociometric  A  significant  control  groups  on  of  the  scale  were  between t h e  two  the s o c i o m e t r i c  Differences  on  p<.001).  s p e n t more t i m e  Three  (11.4%)  s p e n t more time 27.8%;  of  group  t a s k s were examined  p<.05).  for rating  vs  were  attraction,  the treatment  time  (69.7%  scale  mutual  than d i d the c o n t r o l  the treatment  81.1%;  for rating  groups  The Team  t h r e e q u e s t i o n s (p<.02; p<.03; p<.10) i n f a v o u r  treatment  scorer  individuals  a sociometric  that  more  individually  individual  difference  used  revealed  (p<.001)  s c a l e were u s e d  all  low  the tournament.  student  and  However, the c o n t r o l  when w o r k i n g  (84.6%  and  of  tutoring,  with t h e i r  (p. 8 1 ) .  was  team  won  t o g e t h e r t h e day  occurrence  both  the  the  once a week.  to  working  other  totals  A behaviour c h e c k l i s t used  and  game,  P o i n t s a c q u i r e d by  were combined w i t h t h o s e of t h e  members  difficult  38  Parent  Effectiveness  (1977) i n t r o d u c e d t h e  Training.  Downing  Cox  Program  students  attending  Virgina.  In t h e Downing Program p a r e n t s  for  improving  Selected  a secondary  to  family relationships  parents  reinforcement  were  and  Downing  Program  behaviours  than  setting.  Fifty-eight  assigned of  other  to e i t h e r  these  training  58  learned  and  Matthews  parents  school  these  s t u d e n t s whose  techniques skills.  techniques I t was  parents fewer  students  alternative  students  formed  condition  an  were r a n d o m l y  or c o n t r o l the  attended  six  school  selected  Parents  parent  and  inappropriate  conditions.  sample.  Cox  by  underwent  would d e m o n s t r a t e in  of  in Eastern  management  i n s m a l l groups.  treatment  students  treatment  taught  modeling  Matthew's h y p o t h e s i s t h a t the  alternate  and  and  Parents in  the  effectiveness  sessions. Students  checklist  and  significant  were  classroom  difference  behaviour  f o r the  treatment  group  inappropriate appropriate  evaluated  the  treatment  behaviour  behaviour  behaviour  and  (p<.027).  reduction an  360).  rating  Results indicated  frequency  group  a  (p.  a  observation.  in  showed  by  of  a  inappropriate Students  i n the  i n the  occurrence  of  i n c r e a s e i n the  occurrence  of  39  SUMMARY  Programs d e v i s e d enrolled  at  NJAP  reviewed.  Since  classrooms, flexible  the  to a s s i s t  were  discussed  these  programs  opportunity  teaching  students in  12  similar  to  of  articles  15  functioned outside  existed  a t m o s p h e r e and  to  those  regular  provide  a  more i n d i v i d u a l l y  more  adapted  instruct ion. Behaviour factor  in  the  prominence  in  established. Livingston school  M o d i f i c a t i o n was six  four  School  as  Reality  Therapy,  effectiveness at  were  token  Six  Rational  training  features  Deep P r o j e c t , s t u d e n t s design  their  three-year  Community  composed  32  of  to  education in  given were  plan  which  programs  individual  the  provided  including,  Therapy,  programs  of  sessions.  prescribed,  supplement  was  economies  Behaviour  Three  important  offered  remedial  and parent  programs  school.  Unique  and  often  an  technique  micro-economy, store.  Analysis.  t o be  distributive  a a  methods  Transactional  needs  where  the  created  This  c o u n s e l l i n g i n group and/or  Therapeutic  offered  programs  Similarly,  functioned  extensive  programs.  found  were  were own  found  encouraged projects.  Experimental  life-skills  i n four programs.  courses  to The  identify  their  c u r r i c u l u m of  Education d e f i n e d as  Centre  At  the was  competencies.  40  At  C.O.R.E.,  students  the  were  program  reviewed,  identified  and  assigned  programs  for  treatment  individualized classroom  most v a r i e d  instruction.  Physical  to  based  theoretical  the  as d e f i n e d by  studies  techniques  Academic  School needs  therapy,  training assessed  Team-Games-Tournament, were  in  the  the  therapeutic  three  and and  experimental  reviewed. This  base  to  Maslow.  effectiveness  teaching  15  intellectual  framework of t h e h i e r a r c h y of  Rational-emotive parent  of  addition  and  were p r o v i d e d a t t h e H u n t s v i l l e  on  one  in  intervention  disruptive  against  inappropriate information  review which  was  undertaken  the  behaviour gathered  techniques at  aided  recommendations p r e s e n t e d  to provide a  NJAP the  in Chapter  used  could  be  comparative to  assessed.  formulation Six.  improve  of  The the  41  CHAPTER 3  EVALUATION MODEL AND  As was  noted  directed  i n Chapter  towards  EVALUATION PROCEDURES  1,  t h e p u r p o s e of  answering  the  the e v a l u a t i o n  following  two  major  quest ions: (1)  Is NJAP e f f e c t i v e i n m e e t i n g i t s s t a t e d g o a l s ? S p e c i f i c a l l y , are suspended students prepared for reintegration into the regular class situation?  (2) Does NJAP s u c c e e d i n m e e t i n g any w h i c h a r e not f o r m a l l y s t a t e d ? The  present  chapter  evaluation  design  used  study.  specific  The  followed  by  an  begins  to  of  address  The  and  Evaluation  evaluation definition  a c o m p i l a t i o n of t h r e e d e f i n i t i o n s  in  this  central  theory. study  developed  purposes are  of  then  data  analysis  the this  listed The  are  then  in order.  Basic  evaluation  the  of  the e v a l u a t i o n procedure.  sample, e v a l u a t i o n i n s t r u m e n t s , described  goals  with a d e s c r i p t i o n  evaluation questions  outline  other  by  was  Stake  framework  Consequently, eclectic  Design  s t a t e d i n Chapter commonly  found  in  Although  (1967) f o r o r g a n i z i n g d a t a the  the  used model  s e r v e d as  i d e a s of Rutman  was  modern  the e v a l u a t i o n d e s i g n  in nature.  f o r the d e s i g n ,  One  the  (1971)  42  and  Provus  (1971)  introduced  changes  to the  basic  Stake  model. The of  the  present  Stake Model.  design  started  of  rationale  the  rationale goals. was  e v a l u a t i o n study  out  L i k e the  with of  the  the  A descriptive  used  to  w h i c h was  actually  the  step,  standard  a g a i n s t which the  this  Surrey  was  School  comparison  on  was  supplanted  to  r e d r e s s program full,  the  two  headed  Intents,  Observations, there  transactions,  used  by  the  Stake  Model  that  there  is  which d e f i n e s a  program  is  no  judgments.  compared. within  the  standard  of  Therefore,  the  study.  a disparities  Model,  program w i t h  Stake  in this  The  including i t s  the  existed  f o r m u l a t i o n of  modified is  design  as  A  jugmental  v e c t o r which  recommendations  which  which are are  is illustrated  d e f i n e d above.  columns f o r m i n g  and  specification  served  designed  disparities.  rationale  (1967),  column  to  evaluation  e v a l u a t i o n conducted  base  b a s i s f o r the  The  evaluated  first  not  the  facets  evaluated.  judgmental matrix  which  the  2.  In  there  was  and  be  from  i n t e n t s of  District,  as  The  of a  the  judgmental matrix matrix  again  observed.  that  to  this  program d e s c r i p t i o n ,  another  Since  identification  matrix,  compare  several  Stake Model,  program  p r e s c r i b e d the  employs  are noted three  outcomes.  in  Following  the d e s c r i p t i v e  are  program,  and  by  by  evaluation.  categories  the  —  Antecedents  Stake  matrix  stated the  Figure  In  each  antecedents, define  the  Rat i o n a 1 e  Intents  Antecedents  Antecedents  D i s p a r i t i es  Recommendat i o n s  T r a n s a c t i ons  T r a n s a c t i ons  D i spar i t i es  Recommendat i o n s  Outcomes  Outcomes  D i spar i t i es  Recommendat i o n s  Contingence  igure  2.  O b s e r v a t i ons  The e v a l u a t i o n  | V model  Congruence  <—>  Descriptive  Matrix  44  situation such  as  at  the onset  demographic  behaviour  and  characteristics  learning  staff.  In  defined  as the s e r i e s  any  the  of  training the  the  for staff or  problems,  process  people  effects  o f t h e p r o g r a m and i n c l u d e  education,  involved.  consequences  that  are  t a k e p l a c e between include  of p a r e n t s .  of e d u c a t i o n .  reintegrated  of program  transactions  Examples  and i n v o l v e m e n t  their  at  ongoing  Outcomes a r e An example i s ,  the  end  of t h e '  year?" The  compared  two  for  environment, observed  columns —  degree  of  intended  antecedents.  to determine between  antecedents  two  are  lists  through  environment  in  performed  antecedents  through  be  Any the  perfect  i d e n t i c a l to  of t h i s  evaluation differences  column  headed  across the matrix  the c h r o n o l o g i c a l  is  p r o g r e s s i o n from  t o outcomes.  The l o g i c o f  the intended antecedents educational  t h e i n t e n d e d outcomes.  must  a  are  and o u t c o m e s .  which  above y i e l d s  under  analysis  transactions  detailed be  would  identity.  listed  This horizontal  column  In  I t was t h e p u r p o s e  t h e model assumes t h a t  generate  congruence.  antecedents  a l s o made on t r a n s a c t i o n s Each  I n t e n t s and O b s e r v a t i o n s —  the e x t e n t of t h i s  the  disparities.  an  students,  and t r a i n i n g  of e n c o u n t e r s  "how many s t u d e n t s were school  of  of  elements  transactions  then c o n t i n g e n t  down  create  transactions  I f the h o r i z o n t a l  disparities,  vertically  will  the  t o outcomes.  will  analysis analysis  columns  from  F o r example,  45  in a  case  occurred,  in  which  intended  the  model  suggests one of the f o l l o w i n g : that a  t r a n s a c t i o n has f a i l e d ;  math  achievement  a transaction  never  has  not  actually  p l a c e ; or the standards of the antecedents were not  took  met.  S p e c i f i c E v a l u a t i o n Questions  A was this  b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of NJAP, p r o v i d e d i n Chapter  prepared as the i n i t i a l  step i n the  evaluation.  1,  Using  d e s c r i p t i o n , s e v e r a l r e l a t e d 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 shown in the d e s c r i p t i v e matrix of c a t e g o r i z e d under the headings and  outcomes,  are  presented  Figure  2.  These  of antecedents, in  Table 1.  questions,  transactions, The  evaluation  q u e s t i o n s covered both i n t e n t s and o b s e r v a t i o n s , but f o r the sake of b r e v i t y , only the  questions  corresponding  o b s e r v a t i o n s column (of the d e s c r i p t i v e matrix) are  to  the  listed.  46  Table 1 Evaluation  Questions  Antecedents 1. How many s t u d e n t s p a s s e d t h r o u g h t h e p r o g r a m d u r i n g the c o u r s e o f t h e e v a l u a t i o n ? What were t h e d e m o g r a p h i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e s e students? What was t h e a c a d e m i c a b i l i t y and s t a n d i n g o f t h e s e s t u d e n t s upon e n t r y ? What were t h e a t t i t u d e and s e l f - c o n c e p t s c o r e s o f t h e s e s t u d e n t s upon e n t r y ? What were t h e b e h a v i o u r p r o b l e m s o f t h e s t u d e n t s upon entry? What were t h e l e a r n i n g p r o b l e m s o f t h e s t u d e n t s upon entry? 2. How  were s t u d e n t s  admitted  3. What was t h e t r a i n i n g a t NJAP?  t o t h e Program?  and work e x p e r i e n c e  of the s t a f f  Transact ions 4. How was t h e p r o g r a m s t r u c t u r e d ? D i d t h e p h y s i c a l f a c i l i t i e s meet t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f NJAP? What g u i d e l i n e s were u s e d f o r i n s t r u c t i o n ? What were t h e a c t i v i t i e s of t h e two a l t e r n a t e t e a c h e r s ? What were t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e s u p p o r t person? Were t h e r e any p r o g r a m s t a f f c o n f l i c t s ? What were t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e Head o f S t u d e n t Services? How d i d t h e p r i n c i p a l p a r t i c i p a t e i n NJAP? What s u p p o r t and s t a f f s e r v i c e s were u s e d by NJAP? What o n g o i n g t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m s were u s e d by NJAP? 5. How  were p a r e n t s  i n v o l v e d i n t h e program?  47  Table  1 continued  Outcomes 6.  What p r o g r a m g o a l s were a c h i e v e d ? D i d NJAP u p g r a d e knowledge i n Math and E n g l i s h ? D i d t h e s t u d e n t s l e a r n s k i l l s t o h e l p them cope b o t h i n s c h o o l and i n t h e home? Was t h e r e a r e d u c t i o n of i n a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o u r s ? 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 b e h a v i o u r ? D i d t h e s t a f f communicate w i t h p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s i n the r e g u l a r program t o 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 s t u d e n t s r e i n t e g r a t e d ? Was r e e n t r y of s t u d e n t s p h a s e d ? How many s t u d e n t s from t h e a l t e r n a t e p r o g r a m were r e i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e r e g u l a r c l a s s r o o m a t t h e end of t h e y e a r or s u s p e n d e d from t h e p r o g r a m d u r i n g t h e evaluation period? What c r i t e r i a were u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e s t u d e n t was r e a d y t o r e t u r n t o t h e r e g u l a r program? What c r i t e r i a were u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e s t u d e n t s h o u l d be s u s p e n d e d ? Have more s t u d e n t s been r e i n t e g r a t e d e a c h y e a r t h a t NJAP o p e r a t e d ?  7.  D i d s t u d e n t s improve i n a t t i t u d e p r e t e s t to p o s t t e s t ?  8.  What were t h e a t t i t u d e s p r o g r a m and i t s s t a f f ? What were t h e a t t i t u d e s What were t h e a t t i t u d e s NJAP?  9. 10.  What e f f e c t  of  the  and  s e l f - c o n c e p t from  students  towards  the  of t h e p a r e n t s t o w a r d s NJAP? of t h e r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s t o w a r d s  d i d NJAP have on Newton J u n i o r  What were t h e t r a i t d i f f e r e n c e s reintegrated students?  between  Secondary?  suspended  and  48  Methodology  In  order  evaluation from  to  questions,  many s o u r c e s  multiple-method error  if  associated the  with  and  due  dishonesty  could  collected  not  from  administrators — questionnaires, responses  collection, data  this  table.  data  the  were  and  approaches, study.  For  collected  from  interview  then  bias  o r change o f mood, w h i c h o f t e n e x i s t s i n be  other  detected.  But  sources  and w i t h  —  other  coupled  parents, methods  and p a p e r and p e n c i l  data  sources,  types  and s u m m a r i z a t i o n  were c o l l e c t e d  information of  of  bias  with  data  teachers  and  —  observation,  tests —  the students'  c o u l d be compared and v e r i f i e d .  The  The  collected  to avoid the  data  using only a semi-structured  such,  were  specific  This multiple-source  credibility  information  the  s i n g l e method  students to  data  by s e v e r a l methods.  increasing  example,  address  i n f o r m a t i o n and  a p p r o a c h was a d o p t e d  sometimes  thereby  adequately  over  A more d e t a i l e d  of data  dates  are l i s t e d  of d a t a  i n Table  2.  a f o u r month p e r i o d a s shown i n description  and t h e i n s t r u m e n t s  i s subsumed under  of instrument,  used  the heading  of the  follows.  sources  of  Summarization  Data A n a l y s i s .  Table Data  Source of I n f o r m a t i on  Evaluation  2  Collection  Instrument  Procedures  Date of C o l l e c t i o n  Summarization  summary summary  of  Data  Adm i n i s t r a t i on Head o f S t u d e n t Serv i ces  Interview Schedule Informal O b s e r v a t i o n Informal Observation'  M a r c h 26 M a r c h 17, A p r i1 April 2  Pr i nc i p a 1  Interview  Schedule  Apr i1  Interview  Schedule  Apr i1  Previous  Principal  1  of of  responses responses  8  summary o f  responses  15  summary o f  responses  1  Teachers NJAP  Teachers  Interview Schedule Teacher C h i l d Dyadic Interaction Checklist Classroom Observation Check 1i s t Student D a i l y C h e c k l i s t  M a r c h 30, A p r i 1 2 Feb. 11, A p r i l 26  Teacher Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Follow-up Interview Informal O b s e r v a t i o n  A p r i l 30 May 29  Feb.  11, A p r i l  26  Feb.  11. A p r i l  26  3  Regular  Teachers  Q u e s t i onna i r e  Support  Person  Interview Schedule Behaviour C h e c k l i s t Check 1i s t s Classroom Records Check l i s t Informal Observation  M a r c h 26, A p r i 1 April  30  April  2  Feb. May Feb.  1 - April  3  f r e q u e n c i e s , means, percentages summary o f r e s p o n s e s f requenc i es summary o f r e s p o n s e s SPSS C o m p u t e r P r o g r a m f o r means, s t a n d a r d deviations, frequencies, and p e r c e n t a g e s  30  summary o f r e s p o n s e s frequenc i es frequencies,  29 11 - A p r i 1  f r e q u e n c i e s and summary o f r e s p o n s e s frequenc i es frequenc i es  26  summary o f  percentiles  responses  Table  Source of Information  Evaluation  Students  Pre-Interview  Parents  Student  1  !  3  Counselling Inservice Friday  Records  Feb. 1  Collection  March  30  March March  1 - March 1 - April  30 30  Follow-up Interview Attitude Scale* Self-concept Scale* Achievement tests (Pre)* Achievement tests (Post)* Behaviour C h e c k l i s t  May 25 - 29 Feb. 1 - Apr i1 Feb. 1 • A p r i l Feb. 1 • M a r c h M a r c h 1 - Apr i1 Feb. 1 - A p r i l  30 30 30 30 30  Q u e s t i onna i r e  March  Student  at the School  (Nonteaching  Schedule  Date of  Short Interview Schedule Post-Interview Schedule  Session  Meeting  Instrument  2 continued  d a y a t NJAP)  Board  Checklist for  Apr i1  of Data  f r e q u e n c i e s and summary o f r e s p o n s e s f requenc i es f r e q u e n c i e s and summary o f r e s p o n s e s f requenc i es t-test t-test N o r m - R e f e r e n c e d Model N o r m - R e f e r e n c e d Model f requenc i es SPSS C o m p u t e r P r o g r a m means, s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s , frequencies, percentiles  30  15 - Apr i1  Summarization  30  frequencies,  percentiles  51  Sources  of I n f o r m a t i o n  Administrators. from  t h e Head o f S t u d e n t  Newton  Junior  Information current  was sought  principal  Every  contributed  included  the  students  placed  two  alternate  alternate alternate  18  for  teachers  principal.  taught this  who  As  since the  alternate  study.  taught  regular class,  teachers.  of  at the school.  who  information  This  alternate  as w e l l as t h e t h e  mentioned  in  Chapter  1,  began t a k i n g r e g u l a r c l a s s e s a s soon a s  staff  thought  Support  Person.  they  were  ready.  Information  was a l s o  collected  from  divided  into  person.  groups.  The s t u d e n t s  Group  1 students  studied  were  were t h o s e  a t t h e end o f t h e e v a l u a t i o n p e r i o d .  students study  year  teacher  in their  Students.  school  and t h e former  the previous p r i n c i p a l  regular  students  support  two  from  was i n h i s f i r s t  students  obtained  S e r v i c e s , the current p r i n c i p a l  Secondary School,  Teachers.  the  D a t a and i n f o r m a t i o n were  were  enrolled  began, w h i l e  others  in  the alternate  joined  the  still Some  enrolled in of  these  p r o g r a m when t h e  program  after  the  52  evaluation consisted  commenced, of t h o s e  students  program.  The t o t a l  1 and n i n e  i n group  Parents. parents/guardians  February  suspended  22 w i t h  of the students  13 s t u d e n t s  from  to collect  information  the  22  The r e m a i n i n g  10  support  person,  Services.  g r o u p c a n be f o u n d  from  A copy  school.  i n Appendix  School  were  Board  1. S t u d e n t interview  schedules  interview,  a post  interview.  and t h e new  interview  B.  The  were  d e m o g r a p h i c q u e s t i o n s and i t e m s  students,  interviewed at the  previous at the  school.  Three  were c o n s t r u c t e d , i n c l u d i n g  The i n i t i a l  used  respectively,  schedules.  i n t e r v i e w , and a  and  A l l interviews  S e r v i c e s and  interviewed,  Office  students,  schedule  investigator.  The Head of S t u d e n t  principal  the  of t h e  and t h e c u r r e n t p r i n c i p a l  staff,  interviews  t h e two p r i n c i p a l s ,  program  minute  the  i n group  of  Semi-structured  by t h e p r i n c i p a l  Surrey  12  i n NJAP.  were c o n d u c t e d  school  from  i n the e v a l u a t i o n .  schedules.  t h e Head of S t u d e n t  the  students  2.  teachers,  each  Group 2  Instruments  were c o n d u c t e d  for  were  D a t a were c o l l e c t e d  Interview  program  who  sample was  chose not to p a r t i c i p a t e Evaluation  1, 1982.  student an  initial  twice-administered  interview schedule pertaining  to  five  included  academic  and  53  behaviour post  progress  at  the  i n t e r v i e w , w h i c h took  initial  interviews,  attitudes  and  five-minute  last  in  and  May  post  comprised  items  his/her  academic  and  were c o n d u c t e d  to  with  e v a l u a t i o n began. t h e commencement  five-minute  of  varied,  the c l a s s r o o m  2. were  individual  already  twice,  items and  the  asked they  related  identify  was  discuss  the  On  the  employed the  enrolled  the  On  post  same i t e m s . in  the  an  first  and  well,  and  after prior  given  the  interviews  A l l student removed  Program  occasion, a  in  this of  the p r o g r a m  staff formal  form the  were  teacher  staff  were  w e a k n e s s e s of NJAP t h a t  o c c a s i o n , an  i n which the  behaviour  interviews  office  experience  s t r e n g t h s and second  rate  hours.  Included  As  to  i n NJAP  also  the This  in attendance  interview schedules.  used.  in  once  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n techniques  school  to the t r a i n i n g  perceived.  interview to  was  These  the The  twice,  again  p r e and  conducted  o p e r a t i o n of NJAP. to  but  Although  during  to  NJAP.  student  progress.  Students  twice.  schedule  the  who  Program s t a f f  interviewed  and  The after  the e v a l u a t i o n p e r i o d .  were a s k e d  and  at  administered  students  i n t e r v i e w s were p r i v a t e l y from  pertaining  while  that allowed  one.  a l l students  weeks  six  t h e e v a l u a t i o n were  interview  were c o l l a p s e d i n t o  to  interviews  behaviour  the  school.  items  was  following  schedule  previous  four  success  interview schedule initial  the  place  included  relative  between t h e week  student's  staff  academic  informal  group  members were progress  of  asked each  54  student  i n the 3.  Principal  principals define  were  their  opinions  sample.  each  roles  and  interview  schedules.  interviewed  once.  in  the  attitudes  program  two  They were a s k e d  and  concerning  The  to  program  state  to  their  strengths  and  weaknesses. 4. Head  of  Head of Student  information express  about  Student  Services  Services the  his opinions  was  interview  interviewed  b a c k g r o u n d and  as  to  schedule.  the  design  relative  to  The  provide  of NJAP, and success  to  of  the  from  the  program.  Questionnaires. regular  class  teachers  devised,  with  20  Appendix  C).  These  differential The  items,  specific  To and  items  open-ended  about  their  in  deemed more l i k e l y t o be  and  information  two  22  questionnaires  items  questionnaires  concerned a t t i t u d e s  intended  parents  information  involvement  collect  t o be  completed  items  sought the  i t .  contained and  answered i n 15  of  and  items. parents  program  and  short questionnaires  were  these  minutes.  the  (see  semantic  supply-type  from t e a c h e r s  success Since  respectively  were  instruments  were  55  Achievement measures. —  the  Canadian Test  Test,  and  student  a  provided  subject  areas  twice,  once  six  weeks  3,  grade e i g h t ,  used  Canadian Test subtests 14  was  were  i n the  Spelling Usage  used  test  (M1)  the  assess  Together  these  i n e a c h of  the  administered  a posttest  Basic  of  were s e l e c t e d  f o r use  14,  for students  since  the  majority  grade e i g h t  two  four  areas  split-half  of  four  The  of  to  Solving  reliability  in  Table  e a c h of  the  measurement. reliability  In  this  subtests.  coefficients  in  years  are  relatively  old in in  the  language  skills: (L3);  skills:  and Math  54)  It  and  corrected is  low  high.  by  reported  is desirable errors  c a s e e r r o r s of measurement a r e  coefficients  the  subtests  coefficient  (CTBS manual, p.  reliability  Skills,  (M2).  formula  high  and  six  Mathematics  Spearman-Brown for  Basic  (L2); Punctuation  the  3  14  Math  students  level.  areas  of  Math P r o b l e m  The  Canadian Test  Capitalization  and  Skills.  Level  covered  and  The  have  Reading to  was  s e c o n d as  of  1976)  the  study  (L4);  of  (King,  at  (L1);  Concepts  were u s e d  performance  Each and  —  Nelson  English.  m e a s u r e s of  a pretest  evaluation.  program  and  the  pencil tests  later.  Level  present  Skills,  interest.  as  English  Form  i n Math  two of  1. The four  Basic  t e a c h e r - m a d e math t e s t  achievement  tests  of  T h r e e p a p e r and  low  to of and  Table Data  R e p o r t e d by t h e T e s t  Canadian Test  of B a s i c  Canadian Subtest  Skills  Test  of B a s i c  Nelson x  9.44 7.16 6.41 5.28 7.73 5.38 Reading  Test  Skills  s  23.1 21.1 18.0 13.7 23.7 14.1  n  Authors For  and Nelson Reading  X  L1 L2 L3 L4 M1 M2  Grade  3  r  SEM  .91 .82 .80 .80 .84 .79  2.9 3.0 2.9 2.4 3.1 2.5  r  SEM  .92 .91 .93  2.5 2.6 2.3  .86 .88 .81  3.0 2.7 3.1  Test s  Word M e a n i n g 7 8 9  428 381 212  21.1 23.0 23.7 Word  7 8 9 Note.  428 381 212  20.5 21.5 22.4  n was n o t r e c o r d e d  8.8 8.6 8.9 Comprehension 7.9 7.9 7.1 f o r t h e CTBS.  57  Test assured  validity  in  the  by  i n c o r p o r a t i n g the  1.  items the  2.  that apply  school  item of  3.  items  validity  was  following: to t o p i c s c u r r e n t l y discussed  in  system;  frequencies  use  form of c o n t e n t  that correspond  i n the  schools;  that  are  t o the  appropriate  frequency  to  the  test  bias  and  error  populat ion; 4.  feedback  5.  examination (p.  2. Reading four  The  two 29  (Hanna, S c h e l l  subtests  41  deviations, of  f o r the  At NJAP,  c o n s i s t s of  these  L e v e l C,  f o r g r a d e s 7, 70  8,  (p. 43).  reliability  s u b t e s t s and  Reading the  Form 3  was  9.  items,  The with  Comprehension.  were c a l c u l a t e d  measurement  Word  are  and  multiple choice  f o r Reading  estimates  1977)  Nelson  Comprehension,  administered.  of  The  t h e Word M e a n i n g and  s p l i t - h a l v e s method  errors  reliabilities  Only  have a t o t a l  means, s t a n d a r d standard  Test.  & Schreiner,  i t i s appropriate  f o r Word M e a n i n g and  common  for  Skills  were u s e d .  normally  Reliability the  test  Word M e a n i n g , R e a d i n g  subtests  subtests  used because  the  Reading  Reading Rate.  Comprehension two  Nelson  Test  and  of  and  41).  subtests —  Parts,  from u s e r s ;  f o r the f o r the  by  Table  means  of  3 lists  the  coefficients,  and  two  The  subtests.  total  test  are  58  high  and  the  assessed  by  Constructs context  bias  means  of  (p.  of  interest  of  difficulty  measurement e r r o r i s low. construct to reading  the  test  level,  grade  was level,  developed  Junior  School  Secondary  mathematics by  the  required  to design  student's  NJAP  multiplication,  was  used  staff  i n the  and  provide  the  The  fractions  of e q u a t i o n s  proportions  Initial  i n c r e a s e s as  the  test  question  n u m e r a l s whereas t h e  student  t o add  Reliability been  and  For  the  final  r e p o r t e d by  the  test  to as  Word  in working with  rates,  w r i t i n g numerals simple;  in  complexity  example, t o sum  the  first  two  single  addition question  validity  test  versa.  student  four, three d i g i t and  Items  capacity  vice  relatively  progresses.  requires  information  i s t e s t e d , as w e l l  i n numbers, and  problems are  a  of a d d i t i o n , s u b t r a c t i o n ,  use  and  i s used as  math p r o g r a m s .  test  the  measure  to  division.  manipulate  a second test  areas  test  Newton  item  problems  have not  and  at  68  decimals,  the  speededness,  The  to  digit  standardization,  to provide  fractions  addition  for  and  A t e a c h e r - m a d e math  changing  words.  validity.  t h e Math D e p a r t m e n t  individualized  ability  mathematically  by  performance.  pretest  ratios,  was  were a n a l y z e d  readability,  Teacher-made math t e s t .  (see A p p e n d i x D)  a  content  teachers  studied  validity  37). 3.  of  and  Test  requires  numerals. information  users.  of  the  test  59  Scales  The Exchange and  (IOX),  the  assess four  School  1970)  was  self-concept. items  disagree).  (strongly  half  week p e r i o d  between  1 . The Index  is  is  School  (IOX,  the  possible  each  scale  a posttest.  five  a measure of  Index.  general  beginning  subdivided  u s e d as school. modified  of  who  so  that  attitudes  enrolled  in the  which a p p l i e d  the the  post  school  interpersonal  evaluation,  a pretest For  into  c o n t r o l , and  the  test  first a  test,  attitudes  One  attitude.  teachers.  students  strongly  each  four  School  subscales.  p e e r s , and  those  to of  contamination  The  climate,  and  on  T h e r e was  toward  authority  used  consist  twice,  attitudes  further  was  scales  items  s u b s c a l e s measure  is  1972)  attitudes  due  set.  Sentiment  into  learning,  student  as to  a six  testings.  divided  subscale  of  p o l a r i t y to a v o i d  s e c o n d as  Objectives  agree, agree, disagree,  S t u d e n t s were g i v e n and  to assess  Both L i k e r t - s t y l e  to a p o s i t i o n a l preference  pretest  (Instructional  Inventory  Approximately  reversed  Index  used  Self-Appraisal  point  have  Sentiment  the  The  nonspecific  The  other  four  structure  and  teacher  the  the  relationships.  For  program  the  after Index  student's  School  referred  subtest  toward i n s t r u c t i o n ,  School Sentiment  to  Sentiment  to  previous  Sentiment NJAP.  was  was Items  60  which a p p l i e d t e a c h e r s and to  the  support  school  classroom. from  t o t e a c h e r s were c h a n g e d t o r e f e r  pretest  were  following  to  posttest.  deserve  'My  internal  me  why  and  tests'.  teachers  rarely  I  alternate  deserve  indicators  by  reproduced reliability  the  example  I earn  the  test  in Table  School  4.  I earn  Index and  Self  Self-Appraisal  subscales assess  scholastic  general self-concept.  1972,  and  used  2,  on  five  (Secondary  fourth  I  tests'. to  assignments  p.  1977,  s e l f - c o n c e p t of t h e the  why  explain  15)  and  test  and were are the  subtests are  successfully 3 on  made  d a t a : however  i s subdivided into  achievement, while  t o me  the S e l f - A p p r a i s a l  Appraisal Inventory Inventory  change  test-retest  of t h e  validity  program e v a l u a t i o n s (eg., Hawaii  2.  alternate  i s an a f f e c t i v e  f o r each  applied  ( u n a l t e r e d ) form  (Popham,  Since t h i s  b e l o w ) have been  a  assignments  grades  r e p o r t e d no  Sentiment  the  explain  reliability,  authors  coefficients  Test authors  (described  Three  on  to of  alternate  which  teachers rarely  the  of  items  refer  c o n s i s t e n c y , f o r the o r i g i n a l  provided  good.  'My  to  i s an  the grades  Posttest:  Similarly,  changed  The  Pretest:  Two  person.  to  Inventory  in p.  both  several  57).  Level).  The  four subscales. f a m i l y , peers  and  subscale assesses a  61  Table 4 Reliability School  Sentiment  Coefficients  Index and The S e l f  f o r the Appraisal  Internal Consistency Subtest School  Note.  74 75 76 72 78 73 74  .73 .71 .76 .79 .77 .71 .68  Appraisal  General Peer Scholastic Family  and  test-retest  in Table author.  4.  p . 14) stability  No v a l i d i t y  .68 .65 .81 .68 . 64 .71 .62  index.  The  were  .67 .62 .53 .69  1 78 1 79 1 53 1 82  d e v i a t i o n s were not  reported.  r e p o r t e d by t h e  were t h e i n t e r n a l  data  101 1 07 1 04 11 1 1 05 1 00 1 04  .60 .61 .72 .74  I n d i c a t o r s o f r e l i a b i l i t y as 1972,  r  Inventory  133 128 101 124  The means and s t a n d a r d  (Popham,  n  S e n t i m e n t I ndex  Mode o f 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 Interpersonal Relationships General S t r u c t u r e and C o n t r o l Peer Learning Self  Test-Retest  r  n  Inventory  author  c o n s i s t e n c y index  c o e f f i c i e n t s a r e shown reported  by  the  test  62  Formal  observation schedules.  instruments  were  instruments  were:  1. C l a s s s r o o m 2. The  used  Records  Classroom  Questionnaire  for  observation  different  purposes.  These  Checklist; Observation  (Evans,  3. T e a c h e r - S t u d e n t  Seven  Schedule  and  Teacher's  1971);  Interaction  Checklist  (Brophy  &  Good,  1974); 4. The R e i d  Behaviour  Checklist;  5. S t u d e n t  Daily  6. S t u d e n t  Records C h e c k l i s t ;  7. S t u d e n t  Suspension  Instruments It  was  teacher  Checklist; and  or R e i n t e g r a t i o n C h e c k l i s t .  n o t 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 .  the  classroom:  Work  desire  one from  to  a classroom  perspective;  perspective.  Several  purposes.  For  Checklist  provided  portray  and of  pictures  of  p e r s p e c t i v e ; another a  third  these  instance,  three  both  from  the  instruments  the Teacher-  i n f o r m a t i o n from  from  a  student  served  Student  the  dual  Interaction  t e a c h e r and  student  perspect ives. Students February  11 c o n t i n u i n g t h r o u g h  accommodated from  and t e a c h e r s were  the four-day  the classroom  avoid a total  any s y s t e m a t i c b i a s . o f 50 c l a s s  April  rotation  schedule  observed 30.  schedule  we're s e l e c t e d As shown  formally  from  Observation  dates  of  NJAP.  Days  f o r observation to  i n Table  5, t h e r e were  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  period.  63  However, o n l y t h i r t y per  teacher.  Unforeseen  absenteeism, assemblies schedule  teacher  o r change  shown 1.  Classroom  were  (such as h i g h  student  guest  each  speakers,  arose  Records C h e c k l i s t . was  year  number  suspended; E).  fifteen  student  leaving  the  6.  Records C h e c k l i s t for  observed,  i n school schedule)  in Table  students e n r o l l e d ;  Appendix  circumstances  absenteeism,  Classroom  information  who  p e r i o d s were a c t u a l l y  to  The p u r p o s e  provide  the  following  the program o p e r a t e d :  o f s t u d e n t s who  and number  This checklist  who  of t h e  number o f  withdrew;  number  were r e i n t e g r a t e d ( s e e  was c o m p l e t e d  by  the  support  person. 2. The  Classroom  Questionnaire. Teacher to  The  Classroom  Questionnaire  evaluate  the p r e s e n t schedule  Observation  (Evans,  was  Both  (Appendix  F  employed  environment  and a c t i v i t i e s  describe teacher, actual  intended while  teaching  G).  record  p r o g r e s s and  f o r use, i n observation classroom  of the c l a s s r o o m move o u t s i d e t h e  The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was styles,  as was  activities.  and  developed  typical  'Students  the o b s e r v a t i o n schedule  classroom  The  descriptions  (e.g.,  permission').  Teacher's  Schedule  were a d a p t e d  and  to  u s i n g short-answer  without  and  1971) were i n i t i a l l y  interaction  class  Observation  open e d u c a t i o n . study  Schedule  used  provided used  to  by  to the  record  Table 5 Proposed  Thursday Feb. 1 1 Day 1  Thursday Feb. 18 Day 2  B1 o c k F  Block  Block  G  Block  Formal O b s e r v a t i o n  Wednesday M a r c h 10 Day 3  Monday M a r c h 15 Day 2  Tuesday M a r c h 16 Day 3  Tuesday M a r c h 23 Day 4  Wednesday M a r c h 24 Day 1  Wednesday Apr i 1 14 Day 2  Thursday Apr i 1 22 Day 4  Monday Apr i 1 26 Day 2  G  Bl o c k H  Block  B1 o c k H  Block  G  B 1 ock F  Bl o c k G  B 1 ock G  B 1 ock G  Block  H  Bl o c k F  Bl o c k H  Block  F  Block  H  B 1 ock G  Bl ock H  Block  H  B 1 ock H  H  Block  F  Bl o c k G  Bl o c k F  Bl o c k G  Bl ock  F  B 1 ock H  Block  Block  F  B 1 ock F  B 1 ock I  Block  J  Block  I  B 1 ock d  Bl o c k  I  B 1 ock J  B 1 ock I  Bl ock d  Bl o c k d  B 1 ock d  Block  Block  I  Block  J  Bl o c k  Bl o c k d  B 1 ock I  B 1 ock d  B 1 ock I  Bl o c k  Block  Wednesday A p r i l 14 Day 2  Thursday A p r i l 22 Day 4  Monday A p r i l 26 Day 2  B 1 ock H  Bl o c k H  Bl o c k H  J  G  I  Table Actual Thursday F e b . 11 Day 1  Thursday Feb. 18 Day 2  Wednesday M a r c h 10 Day 3  Monday M a r c h 15 Day 2  Bl o c k H  B1 o c k G  Tuesday M a r c h 23 Day 4  Wednesday M a r c h 24 Day 1  H  Block  F  Bl o c k G  Bl o c k G  B 1 ock F  Block  H  B l ock F  Block  B 1 ock I  Block  d  Bl o c k  I  Bl o c k  Bl o c k d  Block I  B l ock d  B 1 ock d  Block  d  Bl o c k d  Bl o c k  Alphabetic  sequence s t a r t s  Classes  d a r e marked by  letters,  i . e . .Block  Bl o c k H  H.  I  I  Period  H  Block  B1 o c k H  I  6  Formal O b s e r v a t i o n Tuesday. M a r c h 16 Day 3  F  Block Block  Note.  Period  F Bl o c k d Bl ock  I with  F, c o n t i n u i n g  through  G,  H,  I I a n d d.  65  3. T e a c h e r - C h i l d adaption  by  Brophy  student-teacher  activities  Examples asks  observed  (1974) was u s e d  to analyze  vertically  place  the  heading  of  the  F o r example,  the teacher  answering  a  of  student  'Teacher answers a q u e s t i o n ' .  101.  times  the teacher  totals  refer  observed  intervals  sufficient  intervals the student  interacts  t o the t o t a l the  with  were  recording  refer  case a headed set at  time.  The  i d e n t i f i e d by checkmarks  t o t h e number o f  each s t u d e n t .  number o f t i m e s duties  teacher  that  H o r i z o n t a l and v e r t i c a l  The h o r i z o n t a l t o t a l s  performing  'teacher  101 i n t h e column  s y s t e m was b a s e d on a t a b u l a t i n g m a t r i x  tallied.  and  In  coding  were  'teacher  appropriate  minutes  (1970, p. 8 5 ) .  are:  beside  three  Flanders  allow  The  t h e page.  may have been engaged i n  student  was p l a c e d b e s i d e  to  across  regular  a checkmark  activity.  checkmark  At  for  down t h e page and  horizontally  (see Appendix H).  question  present  answers a q u e s t i o n ' ;  would  under  Checklist  teaching a c t i v i t i e s  'teacher  An  Interaction  Names o f s t u d e n t s  were l i s t e d  listed  behaviour'  evaluator  Good  were l i s t e d  the  a question';  praises the  of  and  interaction.  p e r i o d observed  teacher  Interaction Checklist.  of the T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic  developed  the  Dyadic  the  described  The v e r t i c a l teacher  was  i n the category  headings.  4. The R e i d Checklist student  Behaviour  was d e s i g n e d behaviour  Checklist.  The R e i d  t o p o r t r a y an a c c u r a t e  during class  periods.  Behaviour  inventory  The b e h a v i o u r s  of on  66  this  checklist  prevalent (e.g.,  were  amongst  'Not  those their  Paying  evaluator The  used.) f o r each  classroom  student  such  talking  One  scanned every  checklist the  end  was of  task  was u s e d  correct,  items  describing  work  6. S t u d e n t  from  for  student  school.  completed  noises  other  The S t u d e n t  Daily  achievement.  f o r each order  checked  student at  to  the  A  rate  and t i m e  the on  appropriate  and p e r c e n t a g e  correct.  on a 50 m i n u t e p e r i o d .  was  for used  Records.  The  Student  to organize data  NJAP a n d e a c h  was  gathered  student's  (see  obtained previous  concerning  f o r suspension,  This checklist  by t h e e v a l u a t o r .  period.  infrequent  o f work c o m p l e t e d ,  t a r d i n e s s , reason(s)  parental contact.  the  individual  or  making  in  completed  at both  Information  absenteeism, of  files  by  class  student  class  Checklist  Records  and  occurred.  The t e a c h e r  Time on t a s k was e s t i m a t e d  Checklist  fighting,  by t h e t e a c h e r  amount  (See A p p e n d i x J ) .  the  Unusual  to record  observed  Loud';  completed  Work C h e c k l i s t .  completed  each  percentage  Daily  Out  t h r e e m i n u t e s and  recorded.  as swearing,  in  being  I f o r a copy of t h e  was  observed  as  to the e v a l u a t i o n  'Talking  were r e c o r d e d a s t h e y  Work C h e c k l i s t  prior  checklist  student  5. S t u d e n t  teachers  (Refer t o Appendix  behaviour  behaviours than  was  by  students  Attention';  ' T a l k i n g To P e e r s ' ) . instrument  listed  grades,  and amount  Appendix  K)  was  67  7. Two  Student  checklists  information  was  used the of  (Appendix  about  procedures. 'Who  Suspension  The  the  and L)  the year  checklists  person  at the  i n the c a s e  The  time  of  by  the  seven  informally.  The  Wednesday  counselling and  list  of  to  collect  reintegration  supply-type  and  items:  'What c r i t e r i a  checklist  was  suspension  was  completed  or at  by  the  end  reintegration.  Any  facets  previous  i s as  support  sessions;  shown  of  t h e program  instruments  follows:  Friday a c t i v i t i e s  observation are  and  c o n t a i n e d two  Informal Observation.  informal  designed  i n v o l v e d i n the d e c i s i o n ? '  support  training;  were  suspension  i n making t h e d e c i s i o n ? '  examined  Reintegration Checklists.  were  observed  person  duties;  Thursday  in-service  (nonteaching day). in Table  not  D a t e s of  7.  DATA ANALYSIS  The gathered  by  methods the  column of T a b l e  used  evaluation  sample g r o u p s u c h where  study are  percentages,  means of a hand c a l c u l a t o r  cases  summarize  the listed  information i n the  final  2.  Frequencies,  small  to  computer  hand c a l c u l a t i o n s .  The  and  means were computed  i f t h e d a t a was  as a l t e r n a t e coding  was  numerical  staff  gathered and  also  from in  more t i m e - c o n s u m i n g  data  from  regular  by a  those than  teacher  68  Table Actual  Dates of I n f o r m a l  Support Monday Thursday Fr iday Tuesday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Monday Wednesday  7  March March April April April April April April Apr i 1 Apr i 1  Person  8 18 2 1 3 1 3 2 22 23 26 27  Friday  Observation  Day Day Day Day Day Day Day Day Day Day  (NonTeaching  1  1 1 4 1 1 3 4 1 2 4  Per i o d Period Period Period Period Per i o d Per i o d Period Period Per i o d  1 2 5 3 1 4 4 2 3 5  Days)  F r i d a y March 26 Friday April 3 Wednesday C o u n s e l l i n g  Sessions  Wednesday M a r c h 17 Wednesday A p r i l 1 Thursday Thursday A p r i l  Inservice  Meeting  2  Since the evaluator conducted a l l interviews and observations, t h e above observation schedule f o r the S u p p o r t P e r s o n was a d o p t e d . This schedule was amenable to the e v a l u a t o r ' s t i m e t a b l e and i n c l u d e d two o f e a c h c l a s s p e r i o d and two o f e a c h s c h o o l d a y .  69  questionnaires, and  parent  s c a l e s was c o d e d  questionaires,  to  programs  to  frequences,  percentages,  permit  calculate  Some d a t a quantitative  and t - t e s t  could  and  not  the  questionnaires  and  were summarized  as recorded.  for  This  which  detailed  more  in  standard  2  Inventory  School  were b o t h  (Nelson,1974), generate  Sentiment  with  an  instruments  required.  A  Index a n d t h e S e l f - A p p r a i s a l  s c o r e d by t h e  and t h e SPSS p r o g r a m  independent  LERTAP  cent,  were  used  differences  t-tests existed  between  to test the  two  program  1980) was u s e d t o  t - v a l u e s and p r o b a b i l i t i e s a significance  the  computer  (Kita,  Using  level  f o r t h e two of f i v e  per  the hypotheses  that  student  groups  on  and s e l f - c o n c e p t . To  differences  determine existed  if  (Tallmadge  t h e CTBS and N e l s o n was  used  statistically  significant  between p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t s c o r e s , t h e  N o r m - R e f e r e n c e d Model  program  of  responses  marked  was  of  informal  portions  to designate  groups of s t u d e n t s .  for  for  These  are  analysis  means  explanation follows. The  attitude  by  true  schedules.  data  computer  statistics.  was  Table  tests,  deviations,  manipulated  n o t a t i o n was u s e d complex  standard  qualitative  interview  Some i n s t r u m e n t s asterisk.  be  This  for  of  means,  analysis.  observation  use  standardized  Reading  to calculate  & Horst, Test. means,  1976) was employed The  SPSS  computer  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 g r a d e  posttests posttest using  of  the  means  the  two  were  tables  administration  scores  standardized  converted found  times  on  in  to  Norms T a b l e s  & Schreiner,  means greater if  (King  than  1977).  and  I f the comparison  scores  the p r e t e s t  1976 ;  which  t o the  to  were f o u n d i n Hanna,  represent  actual  no  posttest  y i e l d e d an o b s e r v e d  t h e e x p e c t e d , a t e s t was p e r f o r m e d  mean  to determine  significant  using  the  formula:  t(N-1) =  Y - 1 i/Sx T Y Sx Sy rxy N N-1  2  + Sy = = = = = = =  2  - 2rxySxSy  o b s e r v e d mean p o s t t e s t s c o r e e x p e c t e d mean p o s t t e s t s c o r e pretest standard d e v i a t i o n posttest standard deviation c o r r e l a t i o n between p r e and p o s t t e s t Number o f s t u d e n t s degrees of freedom (Tallmadge & Horst,  From  probability  value  had a p r o b a b i l i t y l e s s t h a n o r e q u a l  difference  equivalents  Using  These v a l u e s  t h e d i f f e r e n c e was s t a t i s t i c a l l y  following  Pretest  & Hieronymus,  e f f e c t were t h e n compared  obtained.  tests.  ( W i n t e r and S p r i n g ) .  the  treatment  and  t h e t e s t manuals a c c o r d i n g  t h e e x p e c t e d mean p o s t t e s t  Schell  pretests  percentile  percentiles, Posttest  both  tables  was c o n s i d e r e d  (Kirk,  1978),  statistically  scores  1976, P. 74)  i f the o n e - t a i l e d t t o .05  than  significant.  the  71  CHAPTER 4  EVALUATION RESULTS: ANTECEDENTS AND  The are  organized  identified and for  each  during  according  i n the  outcomes.  reported  are  evaluation results  Stake  Within  to  the  model —  Chapter  5. 4.  The  data  In C h a p t e r  groupings  4;  results  the  and  data from  the  enrolled  at  school  results  they  are  occurred  transaction results  are  were s u s p e n d e d , whereas G r o u p the  The  reported  are  reported  i s r e p o r t e d en  students  of  5  categories  are  i n which  outcome r e s u l t s  for students 5,  4 and  antecedents, t r a n s a c t i o n s ,  Antecedent  t h a t became a p p a r e n t  t h e end  major  evaluation question.  evaluation.  r e p o r t e d i n Chapter  in Chapters  three  i n the c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r d e r the  Chapter  presented  each c a t e g o r y ,  applicable  TRANSACTIONS  reported outcomes.  1 students  in  masse i n by  the  (Group 2 were  still  year.)  Antecedents Student  Sample Number of  Chapter  1, a l t h o u g h  maximum of year  students  20  students  more s t u d e n t s  dropouts,  and  NJAP  enrolled was  a t any  designed one  time,  were s e r v e d due  suspensions.  i n NJAP. to over  As  reported in  accommodate the course  to r e f e r r a l s ,  a  of a  transfers,  72  For enrolled  t h e 1981-82 y e a r ,  in  evaluation enrolled  NJAP  for  some  p e r i o d (February in  the  a total  of  period  of  1 t o June  program,  45  students  time.  1 ) , 30  22 o f whom were  During the  students  Of t h e r e m a i n d e r ,  because  they  (March  3 1 s t ) , t h r e e s t u d e n t s were d e l e t e d b e c a u s e  suspended and  from  f o u r s t u d e n t s were n o t i n t e r v i e w e d  the  program  after  the program b e f o r e t h e i r  one s t u d e n t  never  sample ages  either  14 (n=l0)  enrolled six  ranged  i n grade As  suspended  from  7,  Two  11 i n g r a d e  9, and one i n g r a d e  r e p o r t e d i n Chapter students  1,  their  transferred  b e c a u s e o f poor had  former  District.  Three  an  alternate  program.  program  Thirteen  was  had been  split,  designed  a  for Four were  Surrey  School  Surrey  School  suspended  The r e m a i n i n g  lived  were  grades.  w i t h i n the  f o r the f i r s t  students  8/9  s c h o o l , and two  attended  and a l l b u t one l i v e d  alternate  students  m a j o r i t y , 16, had b e e n .  previously,  students  Although  t h e m a j o r i t y were  the  NJAP  from  students  The  10.  o t h e r s had w i t h d r a w n  Surrey  were  interview,  8, two i n g r a d e  the  All  they  females.  of  and  directly  date  of the s t u d e n t s .  13 t o 16 y e a r s ,  o r 15 (n=7).  i n grade  cutoff  initial  i n c l u d e d 12 males and 10  their  the  attended.  Demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s student  were  i n c l u d e d i n the  study.  entered  were  19  from  were  another  attending  time.  with both p a r e n t s ,  s i x with  73  only  one  foster  parent,  and  the  students  a b i l i t y or  ways.  First,  it  found  t h a t of  was  Wechsler  90  and  109  average),  (middle and  A upon  school.  the  15 Scale  or  academic  with  110  and  between  119  and  standing  had  grade at  NJAP a r e  f a i l i n g grades The  students  letter  shown i n T a b l e  third  first  entered  Form  L e v e l C.  3, L e v e l The  grade  five  and  and  (low  of  ability  i n the  Table  grade  second  8.  "D"  f o r the  to  Canadian  the Nelson  "F"  "C+".  remaining  was  and  Thirteen  g r a d e of e i t h e r  from  was  previous  letter  t h e m a j o r i t y of  the  1974),  89  students'  shown  assessment  of  the  between  and  or  Data  student.  students,  11,  English. performed  t h e p r o g r a m by means of  14,  files,  taken  academic  f o r b o t h M a t h e m a t i c s and  Mathematics s u b t e s t s  Skills,  8,  student  had  80  the  a f a i l i n g modal l e t t e r  s c h o o l r e c o r d s were m i s s i n g as  from  respectively,  e i g h t a modal  student  in  (borderline).  level  from  Further,  79  grade  entry  from  between  letter  upon  determined  who  method of d e t e r m i n i n g  students'  was  (High average),  five  70  ability  f o r C h i l d r e n (Wechsler,  and  3,  The  obtained  "E",  and  home  students  average),  t h r e e columns,  students  had  group  NJAP  second  The  standings last  one  to  using data  Intelligence  s c o r e d between  based  in a  standing.  upon a d m i s s i o n  three  four  lived  parents.  Academic of  three  Test  the  when  Reading  of  Basic  Reading Test,  Form  scores obtained are d i s p l a y e d in Table  8 in  Table Grade  Scores  f o r the Canadian  Test  of Basic  Skills  8  and t h e Nelson  Reading  CTBS Grade Level 8/9 8 8 8 8 9 8 9 9 8 9 10 9 8 8 7 8 7 8/9 8 8 9  M1  M2  L1  1  7. 9 7. 7 5. 5 7 .0 4. 2 6. 3 9. 2 5 .0 6 .3 8. 3 5. 2 10 .8  6 .4 G.4 9 .5 8 .3 2. 5 7 .7 9. 2 7. 7 5.. 5 7. 7 5 .0 12 . 3  2. 5 2. 5 5. 5 4. 2 9 .8 7. 2 7. 4 6. 5  2.. 5 2 .5 . 9..5 2 .5 , 9 .7 . G .0 . 6 .4 . 2 .5  !  Note.  Blank  represents  1  This  student's  2  This  student  7. 9 9 .6 3. 7 10 . 2 8.6 9 .0 8 .4 8 .6 9 .0 6. 5 9. 6 5 . 9 9 .0 8. 5 6. 5 5.. 9 6, .5 4. 8 9..9 8 .8 . 5 .. 1 5 .9 .  missing  emotional  L2  8 .0 6. 2 8.4 10.. 1 5..6 8 .4 . 6 .8 . 6. 2 8 .8 . 4 .0 , 3 .4 . 8 .. 1 10..4 7 .. 1 .5 G . 6 .7 5 .2 5 .9 . 10. 1 7.7 5 .9 5 .9  L3  8 .0 6 .5 8. 5 1 1 .4 8. 2 8. 2 8. 5 8 .5 8.5 4 .9 4 .5 7 .9 10.. 3  data.  5 2 6 7 9 6 4 5  .8 . 5 . ,9 .6 .4 . .9 . , .9 .8  L4  Math Comp Dev  8 .8 7. 2 - . 8 5. 5 7. 1 - . 9 8 .5 7. 5 - . 5 9. 5 7. 4 7. 7 - . 3 -3 .6 8 .8 3 .4 - 1 5 .0 • 7 9. 2 . 2 6.. 5 8. 2 6 .6 -2 . 4 4. 5 5 .9 -2 , 1 - 1 8 10.. 3 6. 5 5 . 1 -4 . 9 1 1 .6 . 2 .6 8 .5 . 3 .6 . 2 .5 . 8 .2 6 .5 . 9 .8 9 .1 7 .0 6. 5  2 . 5 -5 . 5 '2 . 5 -4 . 5 7 ., 5 - .. 5 3 .4 . -3 , .6 9 .8 . 1 .. 3 - 1 .. 4 6 .6 . - 1 .. 1 6 .9 . -4 . 5 4 .5  Any s t u d e n t s  before  a n d L e t t e r G r a d e s upon A d m i s s i o n  Nelson  instability  was s u s p e n d e d  Test  English Comp Dev 8. 2 7 .0 7. 3 10 . 3 7. 5 8. 6 7. 2 7. 5 8.6 5 7 7 .. 1 9 .6 . 7 .8 . 5 .6 . 4.4 6 .7 6. 2 9. 8 8 .1 7  who s c o r e d  prevented  testing  -  . 3  -1 - .. 7  2. 3 . 5 - . 4 - . 8 -1 . 5 - . 4 -3 -2 -2 .9 .6 - . 2 -2 . 4 -2 . G -1 . 3 - .8 1 .. 3 . 1 - 1 -3 -  Voc.  Com.  Comp  6 .0 7 .7 10 . 1 7. 7 8. 2 1 1 6 .6 . 12 . .0 10..8 9 .9 . 10.. 1 10. 4 9 .9 6 .0 . 6 .6 . 5 .1 9. 2 6 .3 12 .4 8 .5 9 .2 5 .5  4 .0 7 .9 5. 3 9. 3 7 .9 12 6 .6 10 . 2 9 .8 9. 3 1 1. 4 9.8 1 1 .0 6. 1 4. 3 2. 6 4. 9 4.9 12 . 5 4 .0 5 . 3 5 . 6  5 .0 7. 8 7. 7 8. 5 8. 1 1 1 .. 5 6. 6 1 1 .. 1 10.. 3 9 .6 . 10.. 8 10.. 1 10.. 5 6 .. 1 5 .5 3 .9 7 .1 5 . .6 12 .5 6 .3 7 .3 5 .6  below grade i n Math.  p r e t e s t i n g was c o m p l e t e d .  L e t t e r Grades  3 level  were  Dev.  -3 . 5 . 2 . 3 . 5 . 1 2. 5 - 1. 4 2. 1 1. 3 1. 6 1. 8 . 1 1. 5 -1 . 9 -2 . 5 -3 . 1 - ..9 - 1. 4 4 .0 . - 1 .. 7 - .. 7 -3 . 4 -  given  Mode M a t h  English  F P D C F F F E F F C  F P D C F F F E E E C  F P C C F F I I E E B  P C+ F CE D F F F E  C+ C I cE D F E cS  D C+ I CE D F E cS  2.5 a s t h e i r  score.  t o NJAP  75  Columns t h r e e and Columns Nelson  five  four  to  Reading  f o r the  eight  test  Composite  CTBS  (King  & Hieronymus,  and  English  as  9,  11,  follows.  1976),  suggest that  be a v e r a g e d  score  (p.  22-23).  not computed b e c a u s e  in  one  area could  the other,  Therefore,  the  i t was  felt  be compensated  thus masquerading  Mathematics  and  that  poor  average  performance performance  individual  English  these  composite  final  f o r by b e t t e r  within  were  Mathematics  a single  that  The 14.  15)  and  In t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y t h i s  was  in  a u t h o r s of t h e  separately  means be a v e r a g e d t o g e t h e r t o d e r i v e  13 and  and  The  and  subtest.  i n Columns  (Columns  tests  subtests  subtest  f o r t h e CTBS E n g l i s h  scores  f o r t h e two  in  Math  s c o r e s a r e shown  calculated  two  CTBS  variation.  results  were  not  the s i n g l e  score  combined. The for  two  composite  the Nelson Reading  performance  Test  i n which  These  grade  deviation  headed  'Dev'  of T a b l e 8.  d e n o t e s a v a l u e below  at  of  22  least  Nelson  one  English,  used  to  compare  and  on  12 on t h e  student  are  shown  A n e g a t i v e grade  that  of the t h r e e  scores  the  scores  level  was  their  tests  Seventeen  English;  s t u d e n t s had  Reading  columns  deviation  t h e CTBS Math s u b t e s t , Nelson  defined  in three  As  e x p e c t e d grade  (CTBS  Test.  entry  enrolled.  of t h e e x p e c t e d g r a d e .  s t u d e n t s were below  Reading T e s t ) .  deviation  were  w i t h the s t u d e n t ' s expected grade  as t h e n o m i n a l g r a d e  20  CTBS s c o r e s p l u s  score shown,  level  CTBS  on  Math;  n e g a t i v e grade 18 on A  t h e CTBS negative  76  g r a d e d e v i a t i o n would be exceed The  five  five  for  months b e c a u s e t h i s  month g r a c e  errors  in  -5  months  However, t h e r e the  CTBS  were s t i l l  English  deviation  fell  Nelson  Reading Test,  grade  deviation  Eleven  of  on  every  exceeded  test.  The For  the  these  four  below of  on  on  students  had  Of  the  five  had  standing a v e r a g e on  both  with  expected  Reading Test Test  average on  both  a the  ability  mathematics  grade  to  level scores  some d e g r e e .  and  two  were  three  below  Skills. one  Two  had  above g r a d e  of  a  "C"  level  on  entry. students,  One  tests,  three but  student  deficiency  CTBS E n g l i s h and  level.  level.  of B a s i c  standardized grade.  the  negative  ability,  was  On  deviation  Nelson  On  grade  acceptable  average  f a i l i n g entry  showed  the  f a i l i n g g r a d e s upon  level a  students  upper  Canadian  marker.  t o l e r a n c e band.  grade  a d d i t i o n a l student  but  these  the  band.  students'  f a i l i n g g r a d e s upon e n t r y ;  tests  grade  of  the  had  One  18  their  these  this  below a n t i c i p a t e d g r a d e  students  level  12  tolerance  below  of  the  of  the  academic measures o v e r l a p  level  standing. both  years  -1  were w i t h i n  of  allow  between  were below  Some  three  below g r a d e grade  scores  to  CTBS Math s u b t e s t  five  the  year.  had  students  two  school  students  within  only  students  three  14  one  not  17  them w i t h i n  subtest,  scores  22  T h r e e of  the  which puts  of  i f i t did  a r b i t r a r i l y adopted  measurement. on  acceptable  i s half  p e r i o d was  grade d e v i a t i o n s c o r e s and  considered  Nelson  but  were  only  with  a  was  ratings.  one "C"  above The  77  fifth  average  below g r a d e The grades.  student's  level five  On  on o n l y  the  One  Reading  student  and  only  item  scores  Sentiment lists  only  and t h a t  test.  grade  only  standing  a "D" and t h e o t h e r  poor  one s t u d e n t was  three  b o r d e r l i n e low s t u d e n t  lists  and s e l f - c o n c e p t .  had a  on  was a  the "C+".  an " F " .  had an "E" s t a n d i n g  Index a r e shown  obtained  in  item  scores low s c o r e s  self-concept.  Although  three  statements; statements),  this  self-concept.  The  agree  and  the  trend  low  subtest  mean  and t h e S c h o o l first  and t h e s e c o n d ,  on e a c h  represent  column  the a c t u a l  The t h i r d  column  and  fourth  positive  suggest  a  negative  t h e mean i t e m  (disagree  of a r e f e r e n c e  whether  9.  and  the  response.  self-concept:  and  scores  f o r each of the s u b t e s t s .  t h e mean High  Table  possible scores  t h e number o f i t e m s  column,  Mean  f o r the S e l f - A p p r a i s a l Inventory  the highest  score  lack  level,  was  was below a v e r a g e on a l l t e s t s .  Attitude  two  "E" b u t he/she  showed u n i f o r m l y  tests  The h i g h e s t  recorded  The  students  standardized  test.  g r a d e was  t h e CTBS E n g l i s h  low a v e r a g e  g r a d e above t h e e x p e c t e d Nelson  entry  and  agree  disagree  for  and  attitude  and  fell  between  for positive  phrased  negative  phrased  i s more t o w a r d s two.  group prevents value  responses  attitude  However, t h e  making a s t a t e m e n t  represents  an a b n o r m a l l y  as  to  negative  78  Table 9 Mean S c o r e s and Mean Item S c o r e s f o r A t t i tude and  The Subtest  1 56 80 24 28 44 332 The  Peer Family School General Total  students  second,  revealed  Mean Item Score  39 20 6 7 1 1 83  2.2 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.3  35.7 38.0 29.2 37.5 140.4  problems.  2.2 2.4 2.1 2.3 2.3  1 6 1 6 1 4 1 6 62  Observed behaviour first  by a r e v i e w  problems  of  o f f i l e s and  interview.  1. R e a s o n s for  Number of Items  S e l f - A p p r a i s a l Inventory  were a s s e s s e d  by s t u d e n t  completed  Mean Score  Index  87.4 48.4 13.5 15.8 28.5 1 94.8  64 64 56 64 248  Behaviour NJAP  School Sentiment  Highest Possible Score  Teacher School Peer Learning General Total Test  S e l f -Concept  each  for  Initial  student  t h a t poor a t t e n d a n c e  at  Suspension. his/her  and poor  The  reports  previous  classroom  school  behaviour  7 9  were 10,  the poor  (n=14)  major  reasons  attendance followed  was  by  for suspension.  t h e most  poor  Reasons f o r I n i t i a l  Reason  behaviour  in Table reason  (n=8).  Poor  10  Suspension  from  School  for Suspension  Frequency  Attendance Problems Poor C l a s s r o o m B e h a v i o u r Poor G r a d e s Fighting A l c o h o l / S m o k i n g on S c h o o l Negative School A t t i t u d e Vandalism Note.  shown  frequently reported  classroom  Table  As  14 8 3 2 2 2 1  Premises  n=22 Totals will not add up t o 22 as some s t u d e n t s were suspended f o r more than one reason. Source of i n f o r m a t i o n i s t h e s u s p e n s i o n r e p o r t c o m p l e t e d by t h e l a s t s c h o o l the s t u d e n t a t t e n d e d .  grades,  fighting,  cigarettes vandalism 2. frequently  on  consuming  school premises,  appeared Family  less and  identified  were: t a l k i n g  to peers  alcohol  and/or  smoking  negative school a t t i t u d e ,  and  often.  classroom by  problems.  s t u d e n t s a t the  during  class,  The  p r o b l e m s most  initial  teacher  interview  relationship  80  problems, 11) .  not  listening  Although  14 of  for  poor  they  were a b s e n t  attendance  In is  light  interesting  with  them from  of  students  mentioned  the parent brother. abused  the  t o note  "getting  one  (see T a b l e  home.  difficulties  11  been p r e v i o u s l y  10),  only  Table cited  indicated  that  year.  noted  and  six  One  girl  problems,  parents  and  from  three  by  her  students  were  others  home i f t h e y  by  p l a c e when  beaten  three  had  beaten  took  was  to these  these  been  beatings  had  A l l sixteen  of  had  it  bring  s t a t e d t h a t they  Five  t h a t the  banishment  students  f a m i l y members.  quarreling  by  10  the problems t h a t the  along" with  In a d d i t i o n  t a r d i n e s s (see  s c h o o l p r o b l e m s m e n t i o n e d above,  been d r i n k i n g .  with  had  Sixteen students  student  verbally  and  days a  communicating.  had  threatened  students  more than  problems  parents,  the  in class,  had  been  d r o p p e d out  of  school.  Learning problems. their  existing  most  common  remembering studying  learning problems  facts  ( 1 3 ) , and  Students  were a s k e d  p r o b l e m s upon e n t r a n c e reported  (n=14), listening  by  the  a t NJAP.  students  concentrating  on  t o the  (11)  teacher  to describe The were  tasks  (13),  (see  Table  12) . Disparities  Between S t u d e n t  Three d i s p a r i t i e s  Sample and  were f o u n d  Intended between  Population the  intended  81  Table Behaviour  Problems  11  A c c o r d i n g t o the Student  R e s u l t s of Student  Family  With With With With  Problems  Family Parents Siblings P a r e n t s and S i b l i n g s  Classroom  Frequency  Percentage  16 4 5 7  72.7 18.2 22.7 31.8  4 1 0 19 1 4 9 5 3 1 5 1 0 1 13 5  18. 2 45. 5 86. 4 63. 6 40. 9 22. 7 13. 6 68. 2 45. 5 4. 5 59. 1 22. 7  Problems  Swearing i n c l a s s T a l k i n g back t o t h e t e a c h e r T a l k i n g to peers i n c l a s s Not l i s t e n i n g i n c l a s s ' Yelling in class Making fun of the t e a c h e r P e e r - r e l a t e d problems Teacher R e l a t i o n s h i p problems A b s e n t e e i s m (11 o r more d a y s ) A b s e n t e e i s m (5 t o 10.5 d a y s ) T a r d i n e s s (11 o r more d a y s ) T a r d i n e s s (5 t o 10.5 d a y s ) Note.  Interviews  n=22 D a t a a r e from who began t h e Totals will had more t h a n  i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w s of t h o s e students p r o g r a m a f t e r t h e e v a l u a t i o n commenced. n o t add up t o 22 b e c a u s e some s t u d e n t s one b e h a v i o u r p r o b l e m .  82  Table Learning  Problems  Learning  Problem  12  as Seen  by t h e S t u d e n t Frequency  Remembering Studying Concentrating Listening Writing Reading Note.  14 13 13 1 1 8 2  n=22 Totals will not add up t o 22 as some s t u d e n t s saw t h e m s e l v e s as h a v i n g more t h a n one l e a r n i n g p r o b l e m . S o u r c e of i n f o r m a t i o n i s t h e i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w .  student  population  observations mentioned  just  that  as  described  noted. the  Briefly,  program  was  a v e r a g e or above a v e r a g e a b i l i t y , grades  8,  disparities  9  10  and  Chapter  in  Chapter  1  and 1  it  the was  d e s i g n e d f o r s t u d e n t s of aged  13 t o  suspended  from  16, e n r o l l e d i n school.  The  were:  1. Two 2.  and  in  s t u d e n t s were  i n grade  7;  Six of 15 s t u d e n t s w i t h a v a i l a b l e below a v e r a g e (<90);  3. T h i r t e e n s t u d e n t s had e n t r y a t NJAP;  failing  IQ s c o r e s  letter  grades  were upon  4. E i g h t e e n of 22 s t u d e n t s had a t l e a s t one g r a d e d e v i a t i o n s c o r e below t h e i r n o m i n a l grade level (using f i v e month t o l e r a n c e b a n d ) . S i x of t h e s e s t u d e n t s had a l l t h r e e grade deviation scores below t h e t o l e r a n c e band f o r t h e i r n o m i n a l g r a d e level.  83  There learning the  were no d i s p a r i t i e s  problems  observed  identified  behaviour  between t h e b e h a v i o u r  by t h e s t a f f  and  learning  i n Chapter  problems  and 1 and  discussed  above. Standard Admission  Procedures  Standards Chapter  1.  for  previous  i n the Chapter,  school  before from  their school  of poor  described admitting  students.  entry  from  to  referral and  some  The  from  school  directly  were  admitted  were  or  had  been  because  from  s t u d e n t s had directly  t o mention  students  the  As r e c o r d e d  transferred  exceptions  five  is  suspended  Three  I t i s important  one  withdrawn  t o NJAP.  two  NJAP  school.  17 s t u d e n t s had been  grades.  i n Chapter  t o NJAP were d i s c u s s e d i n  for  suspension  earlier  because  admission  The main c r i t e r i o n  student's  withdrawn  f o r NJAP  are  that  made  who  had  transferred  as  when either  to  NJAP  t h e y were on t h e v e r g e o f  suspension. It students waiting from  i s the i n t e n t i o n in  period  the date  students  were  t h r e e weeks.  an  alternate  of the program  school  quickly.  s h o u l d be no l o n g e r t h a n of s u s p e n s i o n . placed Four  Files  board  two t o  examined  i n an a l t e r n a t e  weeks and t h r e e w a i t e d more t h a n a month.  place  I d e a l l y the three  weeks  showed t h a t t e n  program  s t u d e n t s were on t h e  to  waiting  in less  than  list  four  84  Disparities  Between A c t u a l and I n t e n d e d  Seven  s t u d e n t s were on t h e w a i t i n g l i s t  t h r e e weeks, s u g g e s t i n g t h a t met the  in  every  case.  intended time.  students  who  making e v e r y  Admission  the second  B u t , f o u r weeks The f a c t  waited  that  longer  effort  to  is still  there  the  longer  criterion  shows t h a t  find  Procedures  was  not  very close to  were  only  the School  proper  than  three  Board  was  for  the  place  students.  Staff  Training  and  Training determined  and  through  elementary  Experience experience  interviews.  e d u c a t i o n , a M.A.  of  One  program  teacher held  i n Reading  Doctoral  Candidate.  In  included  several  related  courses  range  of e x p e r i e n c e  Sociology. teaching  at the elementary  college  or  alternate English  Her  university  program.  programs.  training  practical  and  one  level, second  Her r e l a t e d  experience  year  in  B.A. i n  her  formal in  Psychology  and  i n c l u d e d one  five  years  and  three  teacher  experience Pyschology  training  year  t e a c h i n g a t the years held  in  a  the  B.A. i n  c e r t i f i c a t e in  came from and  crisis  Sociology.  i n c l u d e d a f o u r month p r a c t i c u m a t  Centre, as  a  were  E d u c a t i o n , and i s a  teacher q u a l i f i c a t i o n  and c o u r s e s  the Maples Treatment Home,  level,  The  and a one y e a r  alternate centre  Her t o t a l  addition,  staff  20  months a t H o r i z o n  a classroom  teacher.  Treatment The  support  85  person  had  community similar  a  year  college  Child  Care  with a practicum  Certificate  a t an  from  alternate  a  program  t o NJAP.  Disparities Experience  Between  The Board  one  Intended  Head of S t u d e n t  reported  t h a t the  s h o u l d have a B a c h e l o r ' s Education  and  behaviour Master  of  teaching  Arts  B.A.  or B.S.  socially  as  a  major  with teacher with  person  pyschology with  adolescents  in  Special  students  who  should  several should  t h e minimum, "but  working  maladjusted  program  the  e m p h a s i s on  experience  f o r the a l t e r n a t e  working  Support  and  School  with  the  Training  Surrey  combined  The  Program C e r t i f i c a t e  extensive  degree  degree  Care  with  S e r v i c e s at  Ideally,  experience.  Actual Staff  teachers  experience  problems.  and  or  have  have years  have a  a of  Child  preferably  a  s o c i o l o g y and/or  e m o t i o n a l l y d i s t u r b e d or in  individual  or  group  settings." The  program  staff  requirements  t o the  in  Special  Education.  one  of  teachers  the  practica person Degree.  letter.  experience  compensated  a t NJAP d i d not  for  match t h e  program  Neither held a Bachelor  degree  However, t h e p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e in  of  the the  the  alternate second  lack  of  program  teacher a  and  Special  and  the  of the  support  Education  86  Transactions Structure  of  the  Program  Physical  facilities.  satisfaction  with  Chapter  and  They  1)  the  physical  indicated  described  the Both  because  members  throughout beneficial  the  The  team  were  in  to  a major p r o b l e m ;  not did  be  s i g h t of  interfere  mention, though,  reduce  the  noise  as  the that  adequate  open a r e a of was  addition  but  the of  students as  since  being  teachers  d i d not  appear  i n one  class  second.  The  carpeting  guidelines.  The  did staff would  M i n i s t r y of E d u c a t i o n  set  g u i d e l i n e s for s t u d i e s in Mathematics,  Science,  and  Social  followed  Studies.  These g u i d e l i n e s were  has  English, by  the  teachers.  Teacher a c t i v i t i e s . by  well  level.  Teaching  program  not  worked  seen  Noise  in  space.  their  generated of  indicated  (described  approach,  operation the  the  a l l day.  noise  was  area  teaching  the  staff  'obvious  aware open  each other  with  there  that  were  day.  to the  that  agreed  program facilities  location  conspicuous'. staff  The  each student  was  obtained  A  r e c o r d of  using  the  the  work  Teacher  performed  Observation  87  Schedule  (Appendix  teachers a c t u a l l y G)  to  F) t o p r o v i d e an i n d i c a t i o n  d i d and a t e a c h e r  provide  an  indication  perceptions  of the procedures  they  using.  were  each  Fifteen  of  they, class  summary  Questionnaire Schedule  of  and  the  the  data  the  teachers'  teachers,  believed  are displayed in Table  13.  i n c o l u m n s 2 and 3 r e p r e s e n t , classes  observed.  which  instructional  method  particular  teaching  1=strongly  disagree).  Considering the  method  follows:  uses  of  permission  respectively,  teacher  be  by t e a c h e r A  representative  A  can  be  t o move o u t s i d e c l a s s students  group involvement;  of  agree,  of these  instruction;  and d i s r u p t i v e  each their  . . . ,  as a s e t , and t a k i n g  occurrence teacher  The  actually  believed  (4=strongly  into  a t t r i b u t e s , the  characterized  as  s t u d e n t s must have area; talk  behaviour  frequent while  may  the teacher  s p e n d s p a r t of t h e c l a s s  a  t h e number  was  t o which they  style  materials;  conflicts  with or without  to  individual  teacher-made  student  method o b s e r v e d .  attribute  the a t t r i b u t e s  observed  teaching  teacher  each  B of t h e e x t e n t  Teacher  contains  Columns 4 and 5 c o n t a i n t h e r a t i n g s  by t e a c h e r  account  the  Column one  of t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l  during  to  a c q u i r e d using the Observation  data  the  the  responses  description  of  what  (Appendix  p e r i o d s were o b s e r v e d f o r  brief  and  scale  teacher. A  of  rating  of what t h e  be  use  working; solved  i s i n charge;  p e r i o d m a r k i n g and; t h e  Table Teaching Results  Teaching  of  the  Teacher  13 Techniques  Observation  Schedule  and  Questionnaire  Observation Schedule Teacher A Teacher B f f  Method  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 2 . More o f t e n s t u d e n t s work i n g r o u p s 3 . S t u d e n t s c a n move o u t s i d e c l a s s w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n 4 . E n v i r o n m e n t 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 t e a c h e r 5 . Students are allowed to t a l k while working 6 . 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 7 . Math 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 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 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 10. 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 t h e c l a s s instruction 1 1 . C l a s s i s t a u g h t by i n d i v i d u a l 12 . C l a s s i s t a u g h t by g r o u p i n s t r u c t i o n 13 . C l a s s i s t a u g h t as a l e c t u r e 14 . S t u d e n t 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 a r e s o l v e d without i n v o l v i n g the group 15 . The t e a c h e r i s i n c h a r g e 16 . The t e a c h e r s p e n d s p a r t o f t h e c l a s s p e r i o d m a r k i n g 17 . The t e a c h e r s p e n d s p a r t o f t h e c l a s s p e r i o d w o r k i n g on h e r own work 18 . The t e a c h e r s o m e t i m e s g o e s o u t o f t h e room d u r i n g t h e c l a s s  15 0 2 15 15 0  1  1  2  Questions  7 and  10 o n l y  2.  Questions  8 and  9 only  apply apply  to t e a c h e r to teacher  B A.  4 2 1 3 3 2  Questionaire A Teacher B rating  4 2 1 3 3 2 4  4 4  15 15 15 0 0  15 15 0 0  4 2 1  4 4 1 1  5 15 9  6 15 10  2 4 3  2 4 3  1 7  6 12  1 3  3 3  1  1.  15 3 2 15 15 0 15  Teacher Teacher rating  89  teacher  rarely  And, w i t h own  two e x c e p t i o n s ,  work  period,  goes o u t of t h e room d u r i n g  and  more  Teacher  time  both  indicative  of  perceived (Item  that  B.  settle  However,  spent  these  data  shows  their  techniques.  teaching  One  the c l a s s  that  beliefs  own  with  about  work d u r i n g  observed  Teachers student  felt  t h a t they  conflicts  observations  of  and  30  These  consultations  boundaries  of t h e c l a s s r o o m  teacher  behaviour.  showed  11  with  held  but o t h e r  time"  group d i s c u s s i o n  privately were  A  than d i d  with  disruptive  classes  where t e a c h e r s d i s c u s s e d c o n f l i c t s students.  used  was  Teacher  class  conflicted  one  what  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of h e r b e h a v i o u r item  on h e r  similar.  teachers held similar  less  perceptions. to  of  time  o u t of t h e room d u r i n g  " w o r k i n g on h e r own  17) was  Teacher  b e i n g more  B's t e a c h i n g method was  Examination exception,  those  the c l a s s p e r i o d .  instances individual  within  students  the  d i d not take  part. The used aspect was  to  T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic  record  the  amount  Interaction  of t i m e  spent  d u r i n g t h e 15 c l a s s e s o b s e r v e d calculated  teaching  aspect  by by  multiplying the  lapse  Methods C h a p t e r  3, P.  65).  totalling  number  of  the  Teacher-Child teaching aspect  Dyadic  time,  frequency three  The f r e q u e n c y occurrences  across a l l students  on e a c h  was  teaching  (see F i g u r e 3 ) .  the  Interaction  Checklist  Time  for  minutes  each (see  was c a l c u l a t e d  (checkmarks  Checklist) and c l a s s r o o m s  for  by  on t h e each  observed.  Teacher A  Individualized  10  20  30  40  Teaching  MCP  C  1  50  60  70  Out o f Room  2  80  90  100%  Teacher B  GI  I n d i v i d u a 1 i z e d T e a c h i ng  10  Marking  and Course  20  30  40  50  1  60  Out  C*  MCP  3  70  o f Room  80  90  and t h e bottom  half  100%  Preparation  C o u n s e l 1i ng Group  igure  Instruction  3.  C l a s s Hours Observed. The t o p h a l f t e a c h e r B's t i m e was d i v i d e d .  shows how t e a c h e r A ' s t i m e was d i v i d e d  shov/s  how  91  Total  observed  time  for  adding  the e s t i m a t e d time  each spent  aspects observed.  The  and  f o r Teacher  750  minutes  shows t h a t of  each  totals  individualized  B.  Teacher  instruction; methods.  The  t e a c h e r s was teacher  A  teacher  Teacher  regular  were 720 B.  76%  being  absent  Teacher  five  to  In discussed review week.  of  addition above,  These l a t t e r  teaching  day,  the  to the  a  for  the  alternate  two  time  and  of  the  students  with  one  whereabouts  of  alternate  telephoning parents  about  break.  teaching a c t i v i t i e s  progress required activities  group  classroom,  of t h e  the  for  instructional between  10%  teachers estimated that  student  on  avoid truancy, discussing  s t u d e n t s , or t a k i n g  A  data  54%  time  of  be  checking  students with the v i c e - p r i n c i p a l , alternate  of t h e s e  A and  of n o t e  could  teaching  f o r Teacher  group  out  by  f o r the m a j o r i t y  her  the c l a s s  absence  teachers,  of  spent  reasons: d i s c u s s i n g  students  minutes  employ  from  six  Examination  4%  A d i d not  calculated  of t h e  f o r Teacher  spent  t h e amount of t i m e  classroom  alternate  each  only other d i f f e r e n c e  B 24%.  following  B  on  was  teaching accounts  t e a c h e r ' s time, with  Teacher  teacher  Monday  through  person  activity.  recordkeeping  20%  involved  observed  of t h e i r  one-half  Thursday,  and  time hour  three hours  and and per per on  Friday.  Support person  was  observed  The  f o r 10 p e r i o d s .  work  of  the  support  A time-on-task  analysis  92  could  n o t be p e r f o r m e d  activities following  took  b e c a u s e most of t h e S u p p o r t  place outside the classroom.  d u t i e s were p e r f o r m e d  on a r e g u l a r  Person's  However,  the  basis:  1. r e c o r d k e e p i n g , i n c l u d i n g m a i n t e n a n c e o f c l a s s r o o m records on a t t e n d a n c e , s u s p e n s i o n r e p o r t s , and d a i l y r e p o r t s of s t u d e n t ' s behaviour p r o g r e s s ; 2. t e l e p h o n i n g behaviour;  parents  3. s u p e r v i s i n g t h e c l a s s and assisting with test; 4. c o n v e r s i n g progress problems;  concerning  attendance  when t e a c h e r s l e f t t h e room homework o r a d m i n i s t e r i n g a  with students individually about in school, behaviour or personal  5. a c c o m p a n y i n g s t u d e n t s to appointments M e n t a l 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 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 The included  job  interviews, of  the support  progress  person  Program were a s k e d  by  the  weekly  as with  goals.  School  In the a l t e r n a t e  Board  teachers  m e n t i o n e d c o u n s e l l i n g a s an a c t i v i t y  students  staff  such  behaviour  Surrey  however, t h e o t h e r person  teacher  existed  was a q u a l i f i e d  t h a t some d i s c o r d  The p r o g r a m amongst  behaviour  them.  staff  members  themselves.  yes; a l l three  should  disagreed.  discussed  but d i d not c o u n s e l  conflicts.  i f conflicts  common r e s p o n s e indicated  to set their  that the support with  student's  of c o u n s e l l o r .  one t e a c h e r  She commented and  students  description  the r o l e  or  be e x p e c t e d  The  staff  members  when  working  93  as a  team. The  staff  w o r k i n g as a  identified  1.  someone i s always a v a i l a b l e on i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t s ; and  2.  different  mentioned  employed.  included:  compromises a r e  3.  agreements on suspensions from NJAP must be total. A student i s often kept l o n g e r than necessary before a decision is reached. One member of t h e team may work w e l l w i t h t h e s t u d e n t and not want h i m / h e r s u s p e n d e d whereas t h e o t h e r member d o e s n ' t work w e l l with the student and wants h i m / h e r s u s p e n d e d .  students  i n c r e a s e s when someone i s w a t c h i n g  16  S e r v i c e s was  students.  f o r you", reenter  counsellor  Seven  the  school  Counsellor  Head met  Two at which  of  with  of  of and  said  he  to the  fact  the  according  he  helped  to program  acted  as  a  c o n s u l t a n t to t e a c h e r s .  Student  Services  and  students  were  the  afternoons  s e s s i o n s were o b s e r v e d .  how  of  "to s t r a i g h t e n  that  Services  t h e c o u n s e l l o r welcomed new  determined  role  According  t h e c l a s s Wednesday  these  The  helped  system.  Student  you;  and  t h a t of a c o u n s e l l o r  referring  to students  The  necessary;  Services a c t i v i t y.  members, t h e Head  program,  feedback  2.  t h i n g s out  time  to provide  stress  of  hour.  of  1.  Head of S t u d e n t  staff  advantages  teaching p e r s p e c t i v e s are  Head of S t u d e n t  11  following  team:  Disadvantages  to  the  District for  T h i s was  students doing,  in  an the the  discussed  94  specific topic  problems  of  interest  observed  to  the  group.  the Head of  their  Student  Each  classmate student  student  to stay.  problems  of  were a i r e d chance.  The one  The  participation disciplining  student  of  this  of  Board  a t an  the  dicussion  moderator.  wish  to  drop  urged  their  discussion,  meeting  giving  Student  was  was  alternate  the  the  attended  the  student and  by  behaviour  program.  Services  participation.  or  the  in The  and  The  alternate  Reasons  one the  cases  the  were s e n t  final  District  principal  has  authority to assess  principal  suspensions  or  over  defined  as  the  limited  the  to for  school rules  had  responsibility  to  teachers, yet  of  his  t o the o f f i c e  where i m p o r t a n t  responsibility  W i t h no  principal  program  a s s e s s the program  it difficult The  his  for discussion  s t u d e n t s when t h e y  broken.  Services.  sessions  h i s / h e r o p i n i o n and  School  against  in  misbehaviour  is  two  provided advice.  Principal  supervise  o p i n i o n s on  introduced a  out.  topic  Head  the  stating  result  student  f o r and  Counsellor  a  bi-weekly  the e v a l u a t o r .  itself  As  d i d not d r o p One  been  offered  In  or  S e r v i c e s a c t e d as  s e s s i o n began w i t h a s t u d e n t  out.  felt  s t u d e n t s were h a v i n g ,  students expressed  t o p i c s and One  that  Head  the  program  of  Student  the program, the  principal  teachers.  reported that reintegrations.  he  was He  not  was  involved in  advised  after  9 5  the  fact  by l e t t e r s  Support the  of c o n f i r m a t i o n .  and S t a f f  f o l l o w i n g support  Services.  and s t a f f  Program  services available  1. Human Resources for social teams, g r o u p homes and l e g a l 2.  RCMP for crimes;  instances  3. A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l 4.  Public  5. M e n t a l  Health  7.  Head of S t u d e n t and  8.  Head of meetings.  interacted  support  reasons.  the  However,  RCMP  five  Three  the  alternate  students  students  Department  were f i v e  referrals  to a Public  Four  students  c o u n s e l l o r s a t Newton J u n i o r  of  NJAP  S i x students  were  child  staff  staff  abuse o r f a m i l y  were moved t o g r o u p homes  The s t a f f  Attorney  General's  Health.  15 t i m e s .  foreither  Attorney  Mental  the  for  counselling;  f o r biweekly  period,  parents.  or  juvenile  for probations;  Services  w i t h Human R e s o u r c e s  t o Human R e s o u r c e s  with  and  Newton Junior Secondary and c a r e e r problems;  Student  foster  runaways  abuse  f o r nurses;  the e v a l u a t i o n  placed with  t o NJAP:  workers, c h i l d guardians;  S e r v i c e s f o r group  referred  or  listed  for counselling;  6Counsellors at emotional, s o c i a l  During  of  Department  Health Unit  staff  were  were n o t  General's  involved  Department.  involved with  the the  because of p r o b a t i o n . Health  Nurse  had ongoing  Secondary.  and  There one  to  c o u n s e l l i n g with  96  Group c o u n s e l l i n g discussed  the  every  least  alternate  staff  meetings  of  RCMP,  a l l  training.  second  one  the  by NJAP s t a f f  c o n s i s t e d of t h e  Office at  exception  were u s e d  Ongoing staff  biweekly  per  year,  professional  days.  members made use  All  program  staff  members t o o k  on  a  Teacher  staff under  basis.  were  A attended  study.  teacher  Teacher and  one  the  by  class  in  instances in  the d i s r u p t i v e  these  the  c a s e s was  student  three person  and  the  for Board  B  that  to other  sessions  period  of t h e  one.  no  school  All  three  d u r i n g the p e r i o d programs,  none. Program S t r u c t u r e  student  However, t h i s 30  at  training.  alternate  Intended  agreed  during  the c o u r s e  conference  support  involvement.  evaluation  Teacher  A visited  teachers  solved  occurred  and  visits  i n the Thursday  the over  Between A c t u a l and  Staff  11  two  attended  B two,  Disparities  but  and  of most o n g o i n g  part  During  attended  members  training  p a i d workshops, attendanace  staff  workshops  ongoing  i n f o r m a l meetings at the School  paid conference  regular  available  students.  Available  Thursday,  p r o g r a m s on  and  All  year  were  previously.  With services  and  classes  a private teacher.  conflicts  was  not  the  observed.  consultation  were case What  between  97  The teachers second  alternate  necessary  homework  had  that  as a c o u n s e l l o r .  person  staff,  person  lacks  The was  the formal  f o r the  been c o m p l e t e d ) . in  NJAP,  student  The s t a f f  assessments  not  parents  and  teachers  subsequent  a  formal on  (such  until  his/her  reported  that the  or  reassessments  agreement standards  or c o n t r a c t of  student  and b e h a v i o u r .  Of  the  12  that  they  had been  their  had  participated  p a r e n t s who t o o k  son/daughter  Nine  parents  of t h e i r  a  the a l t e r n a t e  involved  i n NJAP.  i n home  were i n v o l v e d that  in  involved in  r e i n t e g r a t i o n s , and i n home programs  was  assessments  p a r e n t s were  students  phone c a l l s  of  stated  program  and p r o g r e s s w i t h s t u d e n t s b u t  there  achievement  and  of  were n o t i n v o l v e d  between  they  the  The s u p p o r t  The s u p p o r t  t o program  and  restricting  above.  person  of  t o a c t as a c o u n s e l l o r .  placement  suspensions  agreed  one  Involvement  initial  and  behaviour  them.  According  parents  and  teacher disagreed.  counselling  Parental  Board  the support  discussing  training  as  School  described  observed not  Surrey  i n the study, a l l  i n the i n i t i a l  Four  programs reported  part  parents  of that  the they  contract staff.  Parents  they  described  parents nine  between  were q u i t e  that  were i n v o l v e d i n  Finally  was e s t a b l i s h e d  said type  s o n s / d a u g h e r s and s e v e n  i n reassessments.  placement  thought parents  themselves  satisfied  with  98  their five  overall point  Disparities The may  be  involvement.  satisfaction  scale  Between A c t u a l discrepancies  explained.  reassessments discussions  as at  B o t h t h e mean a n d median on a (Appendix  and Intended  being and  parents  has made o r w i l l thought  that  parent/student/teacher whereas written  the  program  agreement.  Parental  interpreted  Involvement  report  make the  verbal  cards,  and  reports,  whereas  teachers  a n a l y s i s o f whether  or not a  educational goals  interview staff  staff  assessments  phonecalls,  viewed assessment as the a c t u a l student  four.  between p a r e n t s a n d p r o g r a m  Parents  school  C) was  progress.  discussed constituted  considered  Some  i n the i n i t i a l a  contract,  a contract  t o be a  99  CHAPTER 5  EVALUATION RESULTS: OUTCOMES  The in  Chapter  At  t h e end  according students  5, u s u a l l y a c c o r d i n g of to  still  suspended  of  differences  are  reported  t o t h e two s t u d e n t  the  evaluation,  students  their  enrollment.  Group  were  groups.  classified  1 c o n s i s t e d of those  e n r o l l e d ; Group 2 c o n s i s t e d o f t h o s e  f r o m NJAP d u r i n g  The Goals  outcomes o f t h e p r o g r a m o p e r a t i o n  students  the evaluation.  outcome c h a p t e r  i s divided into  three  sections:  NJAP; A t t i t u d e s Toward NJAP; and a summary o f t h e between  suspended and r e i n t e g r a t e d  students.  Outcomes Goals  o f NJAP A major  task  d e t e r m i n e whether For i.  ii.  iii. iV.  reference,  of  this  or  any  evaluation  or not the p r o j e c t has a c h i e v e d  the s i x goals  i s to  i t s goals.  o f NJAP a r e r e s t a t e d :  t o upgrade students' achievement i n the core s u b j e c t areas E n g l i s h , Mathematics, Social Studies, and Sc i e n c e ; t o teach students coping s k i l l s with school and g e n e r a l i z e to activities; t o reduce  the frequency  to reinforce acceptable;  behaviour  w h i c h w i l l h e l p them home and social  of i n a p p r o p r i a t e that  is  behaviours;  considered  socially  1 00  V.  t o communicate with parents and t e a c h e r s regular program to f a c i l i t a t e re-entry r e g u l a r p r o g r a m ; and  Vi.  to r e i n t e g r a t e students  Achievement.  into  Several  regular  measures  employed  assess  Math  student  interviews, parental questionnaires, regular  questionnaires,  program  staff  1. S t a n d a r d i z e d has  occurred  Wood, was of  this  for  analysis  Tests.  posttest  standardized test  are presented  (X)  mean  and  (T) ,  the  d e v i a t i o n (Sy),  posttest  (rxy),  observed  post  t-test  if  test  Unequal attendance  testing  are  was c o m p l e t e d .  The  there, observed  (Sx),  expected  mean  (Y) and  between  probability  explained  pretest  by  post  test  and  in  students  One s t u d e n t ' s  a  mean,  (prob.).  the  variation  s u b j e c t s i n the a l t e r n a t e  Other  results  (n),  posttest  the expected  s t u d i e d the s u b j e c t  posttested.  ( p . 69-70)  Listed  size  &  ( t ) o b t a i n e d when c o m p a r i n g t h e  one-tailed  in different  Some s t u d e n t s not  n's  3  14.  deviation  correlation  mean w i t h  the corresponding  teacher  achievement  results.  sample  observed  value  tests,  (Horst, Tallmadge,  i n Table  standard  standard  were  To d e t e r m i n e  subtest a r e the student  mean  to  r e p o r t s and o b s e r v a t i o n .  t h e N o r m - R e f e r e n c e d Model  to analyze  each  pretest  and  standardized  1975, p . 72-75) a s d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r used  the the  classes.  were  and E n g l i s h p e r f o r m a n c e —  in into  regular  classes. class  were s u s p e n d e d emotional  in  and  before  instability  101  Table t - T e s t s and A l p h a For  Levels  Group  for Standardized  1 and 2  A  T  2.1  9.2  9.6  7.3  2.8  7.8  1 2  7.5  2.1  CTBS(L2)  1 2  6.9  CTBS(L3)  1 1  CTBS(L4)  n  Sx  Nel/Voc  14  8.6  Nel/Comp  14  CTBS(L1)  Tests  Students  T  Subtest  rxy  t  2.1  .9  1 .3  .12  9.2  2.5  .7  2.5  .02  7.8  8.3  1 .6  .9  1 .6  .08  2.1  7.3  8.3  1 .5  .7  2.4  .03  7.4  2.2  7.7  8.3  1 .4  .5  .9  .18  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  testing  Significant  differences  mean and t h e o b s e r v e d  four  s u b t e s t s : t h e two math  and  the  Nelson  two  English  Reading Since  control  the  post  between  the expected  test  mean were  subtests  (CTBS(M1)  subtests  teacher-made nor  of g a i n  posttest.  (X = 22.94,  prob  post  obtained and  on  CTBS(M2))  (CTBS(Capitalization)  and  Test(Comprehension).  group  comparison  Sy  o f CTBS M a t h .  test  and  14  a  math  test  norm-referenced  had  group  neither a  reliable  s c o r e s c o u l d n o t be made between There  Sx=13.2;  was  evidence  Y = 34.5,  of  gain  Sy = 15.18),  a  pretest  in but  scores the  1 02  statistical ascribing the  limitations  this  (ie.,  gain to intervention.  t e a c h e r made math t e s t  math  subtests  (Ml(pre)  correlated and  M a t h ( p o s t ) = .9; M 2 ( p r e ) and Math(post) = .9). were f o u n d gain due  t o something other  h i g h l y with  M a t h ( p r e ) = .8;  statistically  than  through data  the e v a l u a t i o n p e r i o d  revealed  Group  1.  reintegrated  higher Given into  that  year,  the question arose  made  significant  noted  i n Table  students. 15.  The  results  As r e p o r t e d , a f t e r  removed gain  14 were  o r whether to  the  of t h i s data  expected results  students  students percentile  on G r o u p  showed change.  of  2  had  results Group  students  showed a  other  Therefore,  be  2  a r e shown i n T a b l e  significant  1 and 2 s t u d e n t s  1 students  presence  analysis  to  the f o l l o w i n g  the s i g n i f i c a n t  f o r Group  no  remained  were  programs  o n l y one o f t h e s u b t e s t s s t i l l  1  who  that  1  1).  suspended  f o r Group 2 a p p r o x i m a t i n g  ( C T B S ( C a p i t a l i z a t i o n ) . On t h e  Group  who were  i n Table  test  school  due  significant  summarized  a s t o whether G r o u p  gains  that  However, p o s t  Group  regular  and gains  speculate  the students  (Group  scores  M2(post)  regression.  of the data  (Group 2) s c o r e d below  CTBS  M 1 ( p o s t ) and  i s also  r e v e a l e d t h a t on t h e p r e t e s t , s t u d e n t s NJAP  both  significant  might  statistical  inspection  simply  However, t h e s c o r e s on  shown by t h e t e a c h e r made math t e s t  from  of  Given  prevent  M a t h ( p r e ) = .7;  on t h e CTBS s u b t e s t s , one  Further 14  regression)  significant  seven gain  subtests, over  the o r i g i n a l  combined were  were  the  t-test  skewed.  1 03  Table t - T e s t s and  Alpha  Levels  Group  Y  Y  1 1  9.3  1 .8  9.8  Nel/Comp  1 1  8.4  2.4  CTBS(L1)  10  8.2  CTBS(L2)  10  CTBS(L3)  Nel/Voc  Tests  Students  Sx  n  Sy  r  9.7  1 .8  .8  8.8  9.5  1 .9  .6  1 .8  8.5  8.5  1 .7  .9  7.3  2.2  7.7  8.7  1 .4  .8  9  8.2  2.0  8.5  8.6  1. 1  CTBS(L4)  9  7.6  1 .9  7.9  8.8  CTBS(M1)  9  6.9  1 .9  7.3  CTBS(M2)  9  7.4  2.5  7.7  t  prob  1. 1  .15  2.2  .03  .7  .2  .40  1. 1  .6  1 .7  .06  7.4  1 .9  .9  .3  .35  7.9  1 .9  .9  .5  .30  For the Nelson(Vocabulary) and CTBS(L1) subtests, t-value and probability l e v e l s are o m i t t e d because i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the Norm-Referenced Model ( p . 74) state that i f the observed mean i s l e s s t h a n t h e e x p e c t e d one t h a n 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. awareness the  Student of  final  student  they  had  improved.  not  regular  Interview.  performance  indicated  two  for Standardized  r  Subtest  Note.  in  1  15  disliked  disliked  attitudes  i n E n g l i s h and  interview.  Only  E n g l i s h and  Four  English classes.  students  Student  of Of  i t and  12  the  their  students  students  felt  Math were  t h r e e Group  felt 13  toward,  assessed students  performance had  taking  that t h e i r  1  and  reentered math  performance  only had  1 04  not  improved.  Five  students  had  r e e n t e r e d r e g u l a r Math  classes. Five already had  of  been  made an  s i x Group 2 suspended  improvement  were r e l a t i v e l y that  they  reported  performance in  their  Math  Math.  they  their  students  two  of  this  was  grades reported  the  students  again  students  felt  their  not  reflected  1 parents of  C l a s s Teacher  were  alternate  s t u d e n t s who  asked  classrooms.  In  r a t e how  these  alternate  One  There  were  12  parental  noted  improvements  the  two  by  Questionnaires.  Seventeen  q u e s t i o n n a i r e to rate  t h e work of  had  been  particular,  reintegrated  these  s t u d e n t s were w o r k i n g .  s t u d e n t s were e n r o l l e d yielding  25  three categories —  2=4),  The  i n more than  "observations". hard  corresponding seven  (Group  into  their  t e a c h e r s were a s k e d  s t u d e n t s were i n c l u d e d i n t h i s  nonworkers.  Group 2 p a r e n t s  improvement.  Regular  hard  10 G r o u p  English.  teachers  thereby  interview) f e l t  of t h e s e  A l l six  but,  had  however  Only  Questionnaires.  E i g h t of  and  4.  Group  Three  improved  Parent  m e n t i o n e d an  into  English;  students  grades.  respondents.  these  in  (three  to t h i s  English.  disliked had  3.  in  prior  unchanged.  disliked  they  students  Twelve  sample, one  different  but  some of  regular class,  P e r f o r m a n c e was  workers,  divided  average  workers,  figures  were  (Group  1 = 6,  Group 2 =  12  to  1 =  1 ) , and  and 8, six  105  (Group  1 = 5, G r o u p 2 = 1 )  ratings the  referred  to only  12 i n d i v i d u a l  2=4)  of  steadily  the  respectively. two (Group  students. 25  improving.  In  little  other  2  and i n f o u r  (Group  1=1,  classes  (Group  letter  Program S t a f f  grades  listed  grades  i n Table  reveals  noticeable grade  16 ( f i n a l Comparison  that  Group  f o r the  2 = 1)). one  2=4)  A l l  of  12  their  according to  Mathematics  f o r Group  1 students  of  final  and  entry  In t h r e e  cases,  letter  students  students  made  advanced  levels.  observed  correct,  Cards  and  r e p o r t s were n o t r e p o r t e d f o r  Alternate  D a i l y Work C h e c k l i s t f o r  instrument  English  e i g h t o f t h e 10 p a s s i n g  improvements.  6. O b s e r v a t i o n . Student  Reports.  from Program R e p o r t  Group 2 s t u d e n t s ) .  and  Group  a small  teachers.  5.  every  Group  1 = 3, Group  accounts  in at least  1 = 8,  only  (Group  (Missing data  regular  two  1 = 13,  1 = 2) c a s e s  were l e a r n i n g s o m e t h i n g  are  (Group  In two (Group  students  these  17  G r o u p 2 = 1) o f  l e a r n i n g was d e s c r i b e d a s  or nothing.  instances  1=1,  nonworker  observations,  amount o f l e a r n i n g o c c u r r e d , 2=1)  The s i x  class.  was u s e d  desribed  for obtaining  t i m e on t a s k ,  English.  As  each  teachers  completed  student in  present  Chapter  information  on  3,  a in  this  percentage  and amount o f work c o m p l e t e d  i n Math  1 06  Table  16  Math and E n g l i s h P e r f o r m a n c e Program R e p o r t  G r a d e s Upon  Cards f o r Group  Entry  Final  N o m i n a l 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 Level G r a d e Grade Grade  F P D C F F F E F F C P  8/9 8 8 8 8 9 8 9 9 8 9 1 0 9  1 Students  F P D C F F F E E E C c+  F P C c F F I I E E B D  Nominal Grade Level  Modal Math E n g l i s h Letter Letter Letter Grade Grade Grade  1 0 1 o/MMg^g 9/MM 1 0/MM 9/MM 10/E9 ,MM9 9/E8 10/MM9,E9,SS9 1 0/MM 9/MM 9/SS10 ,MM10 10 9 1  2  3  5  Grades  C+ P C C+BC C C SG C+BP F F F  C+ SG C+ c+ c+ SG P SG C+ SG P  C+ P P C+ C F F I B P F P F  F  MM = M o d i f i e d Math, S = S c i e n c e E = English SS = S o c i a l S t u d i e s * T h i s s t u d e n t was i n l e a r n i n g a s s i s t a n c e f o r b o t h Math and E n g l i sh. E n t r y l e t t e r g r a d e s were n o t a v a i l a b l e f o r t h i s s t u d e n t . 1  2  3  5  Table Group  one  percentage completed.  17  and  below two  correct, According  G r o u p two d i f f e r e d  includes  the  differences  between  students  f o r each of the t h r e e  time  task,  on  and  amount  items:  of  work  t o q u a l i t y o f work and t i m e on t a s k ,  little  i n M a t h e m a t i c s , G r o u p two  from Group students  1 in English. scored  much  However, lower  on  1 07  Table  17  Achievement D i f f e r e n c e s Suspended and Not  Suspended  Students  English Group 1  Percentage  Correct  Time on Task  quality lower  Group 2  76% (n=9)  78% (n=4)  36 min.  Amount of work Completed  Math  36  min.  4  59% (n = 3)  36  presented  other measures and  min. 2.5  Work completed  Consideration  was  used,  for  sources of  total  suspended students, l e f t  all  of  With  the  exception  of  achievement gains were noted on a l l  significant  the  of  above p r e s e n t s a somewhat e q u i v o c a l  data. gains  On  group  of  only one  the  beyond  a s s o c i a t e d with passage of time were noted  it  28  i n both s u b j e c t areas f o r suspended students.  standardized tests,  tests  min 3.5  view of student academic p r o g r e s s .  tests  75% (n = 8)  of work and time spent working.  results  the  Group 2  3  Achievement d i s p a r i t i e s . the  Group 1  standardized that  normally  for half  students. significant  would appear that w i t h i n the group i t s e l f ,  of  Deletion result. there  the of Thus  appears  1 08  to  have been p r o g r e s s .  reference above  group,  B u t , when  the progress  that expected  compared  to  made by t h e s e  an  outside  students  was n o t  f o r the p e r i o d of the s c h o o l year  under  considerat ion.  Skills activities.  necessary  The g o a l , t e a c h i n g s k i l l s  home and s o c i a l student  activities,  not they  siblings 1  families.  problems  said  assessed  siblings,  communicate. students  getting  had  had  along  f o r school,  using  data  from  were a s k e d with  parents  dealing  with  from  both  arguing,  said  siblings fighting,  problems e x i s t e d ,  t h e home e n v i r o n m e n t  or  their  problems d e a l i n g w i t h p a r e n t s , and  had improved  three  parents.  and f a i l i n g t o  By t h e end o f t h e e v a l u a t i o n o n l y  still  whether  i n t e r v i e w , 10 o f 13 Group  problems  and f o u r w i t h  stemmed  Students  At the i n i t i a l they  Three  Problems  that  had  Interview.  a t home.  students  with  was  necessary  i n t e r v i e w s and p a r e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . 1. S t u d e n t  or  f o r s c h o o l , home a n d s o c i a l  four  of  b u t two o f t h e s e since  13 felt  beginning  at  NJAP. At students One  the  students  interview  had problems g e t t i n g  student  siblings,  initial  had  problems  and t h r e e w i t h were a r g u i n g ,  along with  both.  fighting,  s i x of with  nine  their  his/her parents, Problems  common  and f a i l i n g  Group  2  families. two w i t h to  these  t o communicate.  1 09  By  the  reported  end  of  that  they  problems with had  were a l s o  of  the the  support  study  two  teacher  B,  students  had and 2.  (Group  the  problems two  with  Parent  to  which  cope  responded yes 1 = 2,  and  A,  1  with  along the  end  with  said  one  teacher  with  the  they  teachers.  two  the  they  had  teacher  B,  still  B,  none At  second along  the  initial  that  they  three  with  none  with  i n t e r v i e w , no with  Teacher  and  the  reported  the  A,  person,  By  with  reported  teacher  had  At  that  with  students  support of  not  classmates.  Group 2  Teacher  A,  one  with  the  support  item  on  the  parent  B,  one  classmates.  Questionnaire.  son/daughter  him/her  four  had  and  7 with classmates.  with  problems g e t t i n g  questionnaire  eight  with At  had  teacher  one  student  siblings,  or  1 students  and  students  NJAP.  students  Group  A,  getting  one  classmates.  with  and  at  six  the home e n v i r o n m e n t  of n i n e G r o u p 2 s t u d e n t s  problems  your  with  two  with  that  of  One  a s k e d whether  person,  teacher  person,  interview,  person,  along  support  problems with  still  beginning  along  one  said  i n t e r v i e w , t h r e e Group  none w i t h  had  students  Students getting  problems.  parents,  since  problems g e t t i n g  end  with  four  interview four  had  improved  problems initial  The  second  still  dealing  both. not  the  directly learned  better (Group  Group 2 =  One  measured t h i s  any  skills  a t home?' Of 1 = 7,  1 ) ; and  one  the  Group parent  that  facet  was  'Has  have  helped  12 p a r e n t  sample,  2 =  1),  d i d not  three  no  respond.  1 10  Skills  that parents  listed  and  their  concomitant  frequencies  were: has  l e a r n e d to c o n t r o l  has  more s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e  takes  responsibility  h i s / h e r temper  4 2  f o r own  actions  1  more h e l p f u l attitude  has  1 improved  Disparities students,  problems  teachers  had  generalized applied  in social coping  to  some  i n c r e a s e i n peer  change was  February  11  divided  into  the data  f o r the  came  from  through two  classmates, students  the  and  had  home  s c h o o l even  was  measured by  f i r s t half  third  not  but  they  though  they  questionnaires,  were o b s e r v e d  observation  February  11  and  from  data  o b s e r v a t i o n s made M a r c h 20  checklist,  records.  Students The  program g o a l .  behaviour  teacher  student  26.  halves.  the  the  regular  Checklist. April  one  inappropriate behaviours.  i n t e r v i e w s , and  1. B e h a v i o u r  to  group  difficulties.  questionnaires,  program s t a f f  two  at  i n a p p r o p r i a t e hehaviour  Behaviour parent  skills  extent  Among  family,  Group  R e l a t i v e change of Reducing  skills. with  improved.  acquired coping  them  showed an  1.  period  to March the  to A p r i l  from  19  provided  second 26.  was  half  Table  18  111  includes the  the  two  g r o u p s of  behaviour the  results  and  of  two,  during Column  students  exhibited  deleting could form For  the  be  made.  four  times.  talking  The  i n the  last  Table In  18,  but  time  average four  period frequency  two, of  An students time  decreased 'Not first  11  the  time  showed  of  the  18  frequency  eight  increased.  One  period  and  an  item  are  Group  decrease these  in 1.  i n the  remaining  and  the  number  essentially  period. reveals that  of  five  i s worthy  a h i g h average even h i g h e r  two  behaviours.  the average  had  of  listed  remained  two,  attention'  are  frequency  listed  the  Table.  the Group 2 r e s u l t s ,  the  one.  average  period  a  total  f o r each  period  so an  For  behaviour  from  comparison  were e x h i b i t e d by  throughout  e x h i b i t e d 13 of  paying  these  results  of  p e r i o d one,  behaviours  the average  examination  and  time  for  behaviours.  both  were low  period  for  would do  data  students  displaying  same and  four  student  number  frequency  t h r e e c o l u m n s of t h e  15 of  behaviours,  students  the  only  class  observed  the  adjusted  during  to peers  inappropriate  of  which  for  displaying  chronological  i n Column  corresponding  Eighteen  the  per  class  the  students  behaviour  average  i s shown  observed  presented  of  the  instance, in a t y p i c a l  student  lists  checklist  lists  portion  f o r whom no  The  of b e h a v i o u r  number of first  three  students  behaviour  Column one  the  the  observations. who  student  students.  column  behaviour  the  frequency  average  In  the  behaviours of  note. in  frequency  the in  Table Results  of  the  Behaviour  Behaviour  n  18  C h e c k l i s t For  Period 1 Adjusted Average n Frequency  Group  n  1 and  2  Period Adjusted n  Students  2 Average Frequency  Group 1 T a l k i n g to peers T a l k i n g out loud Swear i ng Compla i n i ng Not p a y i n g a t t e n t ion Bodily aggression towards peers Verbal aggression towards teacher Verbal aggression towards peers Seeks p r a i s e Shows w i t h d r a w a l A p p e a r s t o be work i ng b u t i s n ' t Makes n o i s e s G i v e s up e a s i 1 y U n c o o p e r a t i ve Gets out of seat without permission Sleeping in carrol1 Makes f u n o f t h e teacher Disturbs others  8 5 2 4  6 3 2 4  2 . 1 1 .0 . 1 1 .6  1 1  8  3 . 7  1  1  .4  0  0  0  2  1 2 1  1 2 1  .8 . 3 1. 5  2 3 1 0  3 . .0 1 .5 .8 0  3 3 0 0  3 3 0 0  1 .. 5 .6 0 0  3  3  5  2  2  . 3  2  2  3  4  4  . 5  0 5  0 5  0 1 .0  0 4  0 3  9 4 1 4  8 4 1 4  4 .0 2. 3 . 1 1. 6  8  7  5 .6  1  1  0  0  3 1 1  3 1 1  2 3 1 0  . 1 0 . 5 . 5  0 2  Table  Behaviour  18  continued  Period 1 Adjusted Average n Frequency  n  n  Period 2 Adjusted Average n Frequency  Group 2 T a l k i n g to peers T a l k i n g out loud Swear i ng Comp1 a 1n i ng Not p a y i n g a t t e n t ion Bodily aggression towards peers Verbal aggression towards teacher Verbal aggression towards peers Seeks p r a i s e Shows w i t h d r a w a l A p p e a r s t o be working but i s n ' t Makes n o i s e s G i v e s up e a s 1 1 y U n c o o p e r a t i ve Gets out of seat without permission Sleeping in carrol1 Makes f u n o f t h e teacher Disturbs others Note,  The a d j u s t e d  5 4 1 2  3 3 0 1  4. 1 .9 .9 . 3  4 1 1 1  3 1 1 1  2. 8 1 .0 . 3 1 .0  5  3  5 .4  4  3  6. 5  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  1  1 1 0  1 0 0  0 0  0 1 0  0 1 0  3 3 0 0  3 2 0 0  3 1 0 0  2 1 0 0  1  1  1  1  2  0  0  0  1  1  1 .0  0 3  0 3  0  0 2  0 2  0 1 .0  n f o r Group  . 1  .6 7 0 0 6  7  1 i s e i g h t and f o r Group  . 2 0 . 3 0 .5 .4 0 0  2  three.  11 4  the  succeeding 2.  2 =  1) of  said  time  Parent 12  period.  Questionnaires.  (Group  there  was  1 =  a  shouting  (strongly  disagree)  response  statement four  to  since  'My 'My  five  that  and  Nine  their  of  was  from the  (Group  as one  average  four to  the  improved',  p r o b l e m s have  the  such  decreased  'My  son/daughter's  The  corresponding  two  Group 2  1 = 8,  sons/daughters  students  Group  looked  2=1)  forward  to  to school.  3.  Regular  teachers  rated  classrooms. behaviour  Teacher  was  less ,21,  1 = 3,  students'  no  than  mention  (Group  Group  1 = 6,  2=1)  behaviour  considered acceptable  Thirteen  of  "Do  17  regular  alternate  of  any  good  the  take  25  class their whose  students,  1 = 9,  Group  The  four  1).  students displayed  regular class  teachers  in  student  (Group 2 =  remaining  class  students  Of  Group  by  Regular  behaviour  satisfactory.  were r a t e d e i t h e r  or e x c e l l e n t  (Group  Questionnaires.  alternate  T h e r e was  the m a j o r i t y  asked  scale  a t home has  four to  Group  respondents  agree),  improved'.  parents  one.  a  1 students  behaviour  has  for  On  behaviour  school  f o u r , and said  1 = 7,  parent  (strongly  10 g r o u p  NJAP',  responses  2 = 5)  to  at  average  going  fighting.  son/daughter's  toward  parents  Group 2 = 2 )  son/daughters  attitude  were one,  or  f o r the  enrolling  (Group  r e d u c t i o n i n unwanted b e h a v i o u r  swearing,  parent  10,  Eight  teachers.  responded  part  in  yes  when  classroom  115  discussions?", alternate teachers and  said  six said  alternate they  program  behavioural results  of  this  was  instructed  for  of  students.  principal's  most was  Records.  office  of  the  discuss  19 i n c l u d e s  students,  Attendance of  most  had  not  these  reasons  Group  i n t h e program  Student  i s shown  21  2  five  and  was  students, had  not  l o n g enough f o r  and  r e c o r d s were u s e d and  number  Table  22.  for  every  student  NJAP.  The  identification  first  of  of  20.  reports. Detentions  visits  In a l l t h r e e in  each  column  in the  Table  20,  as a  to  the  tables  the  month  in  tables  lists  number.  month l i s t e d  as a r a t i o  behaviour  i n Table  in  the  each  1  one  For  to  inappropriate behaviours  not  at  For  in class  end  Table  home f o r m e d i c a l  teacher.  attendance  expressed  improved.  the  asked  student.  However,  at  Table  complete  student  Twelve  withdrawn  At  were  information for attendance  in  the c l a s s ? " .  "Do  him/her.  Student  shown  to the q u e s t i o n  For Group  had  number of d a y s a b s e n t  data are  each  interview.  student  to rate 5.  are  members  a visiting  One  teachers  The  staff  reported that  changed.  source  Interviews.  staying  by  disrupt  Staff  behaviours  for five  students  no  s t u d e n t s were not  progress  inappropriate  teachers  responded  were.  Program  evaluation,  improved  a l l  students c o n t i n u a l l y  4.  the  and  in  t h e number of d a y s  attendance  is  in attendance  to  1 16  Table Student According  Poor Classroom Behaviour  ID  Behavioural  _  1  Poor With A t t e n d . drawn  I N I -  -I I I -  N I N N N N I -  Progress  to A l t e r n a t e  Refusal t o Work  I I N I  I I I I -  I I I I I N I  -  N -  N  N -  N  -  I -  2  Poor Attitude  1  3  -I  -  -I  Teachers  Aggressive Behaviour  Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3  19  Group 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Note.  N N N n f o r Group 1 2 3  N N N I N N I  1 = 13, n f o r G r o u p  - = D i d not a p p l y . N = No improvement I = Improvement.  N  2=8  N N N N  11 7  Table  20  Attendance Records F o r G r o u p 1 and 2 S t u d e n t s  ID  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec  Jan  14/18 11/16 6.5/9 15.5/20  9.5/13 6/13 10/11 10.5/13  14/19 1/1  8/12 5/12  12.5/16 8/16 9.5/13 12.5/16 7/11 8.5/15 2/12  Feb  Group 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 1 2 1 3  8/8 11/11 6/8 8/13  14/20 14.5/16  16.5/20 15.5/20 15.5/19 14.5/20 10/20 10/20 0/6 12/20 5.5/10 4/4  Group 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  1/7  6/11 4/4  10/17 15.5/19  8/11 9.5/13  12.5/16 7/13 11.5/16 .5/1  4/18 5/15 3/11 12/19 18.5/19 11.5/20 14.5/17 9/18  1 18  Table  Mar  Apr  May  20 c o n t i n u e d  June  Total  %  Imp  (1)  %  (2)  1 9 22 20 24 50 29 73  35 30 1 21 34 44 60  _ + 0 + 0  * - * + 0 - *  Group 1 15.5/22 12/16 1 3/22 11/11 21.5/22 15.5/16 17.5/22 13.5/16 9.5/22 1 2/1 6 1 1/22 9.5/16 5/18 1/1 2  16.5/18 18/18 15/18 12.5/18 11.5/18 7.5/16  1.5/21 0/1 12.5/22 9/14 17.5/22 13.5/16 7/1 1 16/16 5.5/7 16/16 3/3 12.5/15  11/18 15.5/18 1 7/1 8 15.5/18 13.5/18  10/18  7.5/13 4.5/13 11/11 1 0/1 3 6.5/13 7.5/13 7/1 1  38.5 43.5 11.5 37 42.5 56.5 59.5  4.5/13 8.5/13 12.5/13 1 3/1 3 9/13  28.5 34.5 1 4 5.5 4 21  41 1 7 1 5 7 1 4  50 23 5 8 27  20 19  80 67  78 1 00  8 27.5 23.5 37.5 5.5 21 5.5  21 38 22 1 7 50 1 3  *  * * * *  Group 2 4/18 0/9 18/22 13/15 7/22 13.5/16 8/20 3.5/5  Note.  9.5/16  6.5/13 7.5/10  1 3/1 4  5/8  45 18 50 1 6 60 37  0 *  -  *  -+  * * *  -0 -  -  *  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 in a t t e n d a n c e , a n e g a t i v e s i g n (-) a n e g a t i v e change i n a t t e n d a n c e and a z e r o (0) l e s s t h a n 5% change i n attendance. * denotes p r e v i o u s attendance problem T h i s s t u d e n t was a t home w i t h a v i s i t i n g t e a c h e r . T h i s s t u d e n t was o n l y i n t h e p r o g r a m f o r t h r e e d a y s . 1  2  Table  ID Sep  Oct  Nov  21  Number o f D e t e n t i o n s  per  Dec  Mar  Jan  Feb  Student  Apr  Tot (1)  Tot (2)  Imp  1/44 4/39 .5 5/37 5/58 7/21 . 5 8/39 6/16 0/1.5 2/9 1/13. 5 0/16 0/16 1/12. 5  0 + + + 0 0 + 0 + + 0 0 +  Group 1  1 0/8 2 0/11 3 4 3/6 4/14 5 6 0/3 3/14..5 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13  1/14 8/11 3/6 . 5 3/15.5 4/14 0/1  0/9.5 1/12.5 2/6 5/8 1/9.5 7/10 0/10.5 3/12.5 3/7 1/8.5 3/8 4/2 4/5  0/16. 5 3/15. 5 1/15. 5 2/14 .5 3/10 4/10 0/0 0/12 3/5 . 5 1/4 0/0  0/15.5 1/12 1/13 0/1 1 4/21 . 5 1/15.5 0/17.5 0/13.5 5/9 . 5 2/12 1/9.5 2/1 1 6/15 0/1 0/1.5 0/0 5/12.5 2/9 3/17.5 1/13.5 0/7 0/16 0/5.5 0/16 1/12.5 1/3  2/44 15/36 12/41.5 10/46 6/17 10/39.5 8/8 0/12 8/18 4/2 1 .5 0/7 0/5 . 5 1/3  Group 2  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  1/4 0/5 0/3 11/12 .5 7/12 5/7 4/18 .5 5/11..5 8/11. 5 0/ . 5 8/14 . 5 2/9  1/1 0/0  1/1 0/0  2/6 0/4  8/10 9/15.5  3/8 8/9.5  2/9 . 5 8/18 4/13 5/7 10/13. 5 6/8 0/3 . 5 2/13  18/24.5 13/24 17/29 8/15 2/9 0/3 . 5  + 0 0 10/27.. 5 + + 13/38. 5 0 18/30 10/13. 5 6/8 2/13 1/4 0/5  -  Table Number o f R e f e r r a l s  ID Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec  22  to the P r i n c i p a l ' s  Jan  Feb  Mar  Office  Apr  Per Student  Tot  Tot  Imp  Group 1  1 0/8 2 0/11 3 4 0/6 0/14 5 6 0/3 0/14 ..5 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13  1/14 0/1 1 3/6.5 0/15.5  0/9.5 0/6 0/10 0/10.5  1/14 0/1  0/8 0/5  0/12.5 0/8 0/9.5 0/12.5 0/7 0/8 . 5 0/2  0/16. 5 0/15 .5 0/15 .5 0/ 14 .5 1/10 0/10 0/0 0/12 0/5.5 0/4  0/15.5 0/13 0/21 .5 0/17.5 0/9 . 5 0/ 1 1 0/15 0/1.5 0/12.5 1/17.5 0/7 0/5 . 5 0/3  1/12 1/11 0/15. 5 0/13. 5 0/12 0/9 . 5 0/1 0/0 2/9 0/13 .5 1/16 1/16 0/12 .5  1/44 0/36 3/41.5 0/46 1/17 1/39 . 5 0/8 0/12 0/18 1/21.5 0/7 0/5 . 5 0/3  1/44 1/39. 5 0/37 0/58 0/21 . 5 0/39 0/16 0/1.5 2/9 0/13. 5 1/16 1/16 0/12 .5  0/1 0/5 0/3 0/24 . 5 4/31 1/29 0/15 0/9 0/3 . 5  0/4  0 0 +  0 +  0 0 0 -  0 0 0 0  Group 2  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  0/4 0/5 0/3 0/12. .5 0/12 0/18 1/7 3/18 . 5 5/13 0/11. .5 0/11. 5 2/7 0/14 .. 5 3/13.5 0/ . 5 0/9 1/8 0/3.5 0/1  0/6 0/4  2/10 1/8 1/15.5 0/9.5  0/9.5  0/13  0/27 . 5 8/31 . 5 2/30 3/13 . 5 1/8 0/13  0 0 0 0  0 0  121  the  number  total  of s c h o o l d a y s .  number  of  days  The  totals  absent.  column  The f i r s t  percent  shows t h e p e r c e n t a g e  of days  absent  i n the f i r s t  student's attendance  period.  The  corresponding  for  the second  next  percent  relative  negative  five  their 14,  those from  asterisk  only  remaining NJAP.  improved  those  was  at  missed  The  attendance  an A  attended.  Zero  varied  than  less  only  of time  of  at  these NJAP.  because  t e a c h e r . ) Of t h e  attendance  while  at  f o r one s t u d e n t  who  days.) 20  students  w h i l e a t NJAP.  absent  from  Of  f o r one s t u d e n t who,  improved  five  suspended  while  was n o t c a l c u l a t e d  exceeded  showed  an  In many i n s t a n c e s 25%:  13  students  one s c h o o l day p e r week.  numbers  of  principal's  office  Table  t h e numerator  21,  i n the  denotes  attendance.  home w i t h a v i s i t i n g  i n attendance  more t h a n  percentage  i s a summary o f  students  i n NJAP f o r t h r e e  summary,  percentage  of the  months e n r o l l e d .  i n days  of poor  was n o t c a l c u l a t e d  (Improvement  improvement  half  sign  c a s e s where a t t e n d a n c e  identifies  was o n l y e n r o l l e d  the  a net d e c l i n e  s t u d e n t s o n l y two  In  A positive  columns  i s shown  column  the  one segment t o t h e n e x t .  three  illness,  period  i n the l a t t e r  p r e v i o u s s c h o o l because  (Improvement of  final  i n attendance.  denotes  in  percent The  The  i n attendance  sign  used  of t h e a t t e n d a n c e  column.  change  improvement  is  half  lists  detentions  are displayed  and  referrals  i n T a b l e s 21  and  to the 22.  In  i s t h e number o f d e t e n t i o n s and i n  122  Table  22  the  principal's  numerator  i s the  office.  The  number of d a y s t h e 21,  columns  respect period list  11  12  to days a t t e n d e d evaluated.  the  of  to days attended  period  evaluated.  second  sign  half.  referrals, percent  a zero  Comparing segments student  of  the  showed a d e c r e a s e , However, in  the  three  second  students but  are  t h r e e of Only  referral their  to  in  t h e r e were no  sign  two  of  the  the  columns  referrals  near  and  office  the  12 with  enrollment column,  less  two  segments.  of  detentions  period  The  i n the  or z e r o  office  the  One  had  end.  five  the  two  percent. detentions  s i x Group  six  student  2  change,  days.  more  in either  improved  a  relative  than  or  students  five  other  a  no G r o u p 1  seven  increased their  1 students  but  for  than  for less  22).  than  evaluated,  less  term.  were e n r o l l e d  beginning  11  referrals  t h e r e was  a positive  (see T a b l e  with  enrollment  improvement  s i x a change  13 G r o u p  Table  the  p o r t i o n of  the  principal's  the  22,  number of d e t e n t i o n s ,  marked by  In  month.  p o r t i o n s of  indicates  number  and  i s the  marks i n c r e a s e d d e t e n t i o n s  p o r t i o n of t h e i r  enrollment  referrals  in  the  cases  t o the p r i n c i p a l ' s  Group 2 s t u d e n t s  these  each  in Table  enrollment  i n c r e a s e d the  i n both  to  number of d e t e n t i o n s  in either  between the  referrals  fewer d e t e n t i o n s or  A negative  difference  the  f o r both  Again  denotes  and  list  visits  respect  positive  attended  Likewise,  number  of  denominator  student and  number  than  one  p o r t i o n of had  three  to the p o i n t t h a t  The  other  student  1 23  started 2,  with  t h r e e of  six  three  Of one  cases,  towards the  Group 2 s t u d e n t s ,  six students,  program  students provided  office  With  of  Group  the  1 students.  inappropriate behaviours  less  than  and  in  had all  referrals  exception  reinforced  socially  that  the  encouragement  In c o n t r a s t , f o r had  not  improved.  Student  Interaction  Checklist,  to assess  whether or  not  acceptable  behaviour.  All  three  and  of  inappropriate  of a c c e p t a b l e b e h a v i o u r .  T e a c h e r - C h i l d Dyadic  reported  Group  enrollment.  i n f o r m a l o b s e r v a t i o n were u s e d  the  For  only three  successful in decreasing  Reinforcement  and  in attendance  change d i s p a r i t i e s .  problems  the  were  two.  a g r e a t e r c o n c e n t r a t i o n of  their  NJAP was  interview,  ended w i t h  t o the p r i n c i p a l ' s  t h e r e was of  and  remaining  referral  end  attendance,  students  the  Behaviour  behaviour  referrals  the n i n e  days.  more t h a n  zero  program  staff  members  for  improved  reinforcement  performance. Objective behaviour Dyadic  p e r f o r m a n c e was  Interaction  Teacher times  and  o b s e r v a t i o n of  A  whereas  Teacher  B was  performance  teacher not  recorded  Checklist.  praised  B  observed  teacher  For  on  15  18 t i m e s  praising the  Teacher-Child  observed and  student  classes,  behaviour  praised  performance  praising  behaviour.  13  four  times.  1 24  Praising class  behaviour  p e r i o d s , but t h i s  Informal  observation  sessions  for  expressing  behaviour  in  teachers  and  improvement  goal  the  used  for  skills.  were  never  not  also  session  he/she  these  goals their  was  g o a l s by t h e n e x t was d i s c u s s e d .  Those  reinforced.  forms o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t person  Reinforcement  f o r improved  c o u n s e l l i n g s e s s i o n s or group meetings.  results  Checklist.  of  the  Although  behaviour  i n the a l t e r n a t e Teacher-Child the  goal  of  had n o t  Restaurant.  behaviour.  during  the  who  achieved  i n c l u d e d : encouragement  of a c c e p t a b l e b e h a v i o u r  acceptable  who  when  f o r doing so.  for socially  periods  expected  afternoon  Praise  of c l a s s  were  and l u n c h a t M a c D o n a l d s  L u n c h was o f t e n a r e w a r d  recent  teachers  students  techniques  both  and  Those s t u d e n t s  g o a l s were t a u g h t  by  time.  Students  Thursday  or  a good  had shown  one, s t u d e n t s  morning.  have.  expressed  received r e c o g n i t i o n at t h i s  were  the support  who  to  behaviour  commended  Students  d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter  Other  true  used.  limited  reinforcing  I f a student  counsellors.  achievement  achieved  from  students  w e e k l y g o a l s on Monday  their  was  o p i n i o n s and p r o b l e m s t h a t s t u d e n t s m i g h t  acceptable  to achieve  frequently in  showed t h a t t h e Wednesday c o u n s e l l i n g  alternate  teaching  set  not observed  does n o t mean i t  These p e r i o d s were a l s o  As  was  disparities.  was o f t e n  observed  T h i s was n o t  program a c c o r d i n g t o Dyadic the  Interaction  program  was  to  125  reinforce  socially  behaviour  not  established.  of  the  logic  M a c D o n a l d s was to  behaviour,  were  explanation  as  acceptable  u s e d as  what  specific  Staff  communication  Neither  behind  a reward  but  social  rules  of  acceptable  was  there  an  reinforcement.  Lunch a t  t h e r e was  statement  behaviours  no  would m e r i t  this  reward.  teachers. with  I t was  parents  facilitate Amount  and  i n the into  the  program On  you  they two  communicated  five  point  item  regular  to  classroom. parent  questionnaire,  and  program  Eleven with  scale,  was  and  the  on  12 p a r e n t s on  a  said  regular  (1 = s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e ,  t h e amount of c o n t a c t staff  of  them  with  were c o n t a c t e d  o f NJAP?"  4 to the that  item  takes  Six parents  a weekly b a s i s , f o u r  "are place  reported bi-weekly,  monthly.  2. teacher  communicate  by  Questionnaire.  staff a  satisfied  between  and  to  measured  5 = s t r o n g l y a g r e e ) t h e mean r e s p o n s e  that  regular  checklist.  basis.  you  and  r e g u l a r p r o g r a m so as  was  regular teacher  1. P a r e n t that  teachers  communication  questionnaire,  parents  g o a l of p r o g r a m s t a f f  successful reentry of  records  the  with  Regular  Teacher Q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  Two  q u e s t i o n n a i r e measured program c o n t a c t .  asked  the  18  regular  teachers  items The  t o r e p o r t how  on  the  first often  1 26  alternate were:  t e a c h e r s communicated  one ' d a i l y ' ;  'bi-weekly'; respond.  two  were:  failed  3. to  determine  their  average  (Column  (Column  home from  parent school year. also The  the  Report  each  parent  p e r week'; One  from  the  date  t h e end o f t h e  f o r each  student, the  made p e r week (column one) and phone  calls  for period  of  visits  four),  total  visits  number  sent  o f once p e r average  of  c a r d s were s e n t  cases  of parent sent  s i x ) , t h e number o f  home from t h e report  (Column s e v e n ) ,  home  of the a l t e r n a t e  i n both  The  'monthly'.  a t NJAP u n t i l  (Column  program  week.  was two.  and t h e  telephoned visited  the course  home f o r a l t e r n a t e by  cards  eight).  Parents  twice during  f o r the r e g u l a r c l a s s e s taken average  them.  item.  the regular classroom  an a v e r a g e on  four  to report  t h r e e ) , number o f p a r e n t  (column  staff  with  to  (column  number o f r e p o r t c a r d s The  and  t h e number o f r e p o r t c a r d s  program  failed  s i x 'three times  23 l i s t s ,  two), t o t a l  enrollment  five),  alternate  total  Table  'weekly'; two  Program r e c o r d s were examined  c o n t a c t made w i t h  (column  month  sent  Records.  responses  regular teachers  to this  number o f phone c a l l s  student's per  'daily';  t o respond  period.  month  The  teacher  communicated  s o n / d a u g h t e r was e n r o l l e d  evaluation  per  person  'bi-weekly';  Program  One  item asked  three  'weekly'; two  teacher  'monthly'.  second  how o f t e n t h e s u p p o r t responses  them.  one ' t h r i c e - w e e k l y ' ; e i g h t  and f i v e  The  with  alternate  each the  of the  c l a s s e s and students.  1 27  T a b l e 23 Communication Program  Phonecalls X/Wk  X7Mon  With Parents Records  Parent V i s i t s Tot  "X/Mon  Tot  Report F/NJAP  Cards F/Reg  Tot  Group 1 .9 .9 .7 .9 1 .5 1 .5 1 .6 1 .0 1 .4 1 .2 .4 1. 1  3.5 3.0 3.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 4.0 5.4 4.7 1 .6 4.4  25 20 18 28 30 43 31 1 7 1 9 1 3 4 1 0  . 1 .3 .3 . 1 .8 .5 .8 .5 .3 .3 .5 .5  1 2 2 1 4 3 4 2 1 1 1 1  4 4 4 4 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2  4 4 2 4 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2  4 8 6 8 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4  2 2 3 1 1  2 2 3 1 1  4 4 6 2 2  Group 2 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1.1 .7 .9 1 .2 1. 1  4.0 4.0 2.0 4.5 2.6 3.8 4.9 4.5  4 4 2 19 1 3 17 1 1 9  1 1 1 .8 1 2 .5 1  1 1 1 3 5 4 1 2  1 28  Staff discrepancies respect  communication between  to  with  corroborates  the  some form  alternate results  of c o n t a c t  three  teachers  times  Student  per  week by  w e e k l y by the  to  phase  reintegration. students'  expressed Table  23  a regular basis.  of  contact  made  The with  teachers  and  intention  of  person.  students Table  regular c l a s s e s for students of  regular  class.  classes,  13 G r o u p  1 students  One  student,  reentered  teacher. in  any  is  Only  the the  school.  begin 24  to  lists  during their  to  three  enrolled illness  at  2  some  NJAP.  least  any was  one  regular  tutored  students  to t h e i r  they  enrollment  in at  and  Group  regular classes prior  the  in  As  study  time  were e n r o l l e d  not  r e m a i n e d a t home due  a visiting  It  reentry into  in regular classes.  Eleven  by  were  suspension  NJAP.  2. Number of The  with  questionnaires that  the a l t e r n a t e  support  no  Reintegration  subjects  from  outcomes  contact.  the p a r e n t  f o r t h e amount  were  Parents  program  of  make improvement, a l t e r n a t e  in  observed  i s i n d e e d made on  was  1. P h a s e d NJAP  There  communication.  most common r e s p o n s e regular  i n t e n d e d and  staff  satisfaction  disparities.  alternate  staff  students  reintegrated  and  a t NJAP s t a t e d t h a t t h e i r  suspended. intention  was  1 29  Table Number for  Group  Group  to  students  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  be  partially school another  school  Suspension support either  at  recommended completely  NJAP.  The  person. suspending  used  At  or  25  n  4 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0  that  t h e end of nine  that  of  the  13th  for  in  student an  was  includes  the  13  one  and  year,  Group  student  begin  to  alternate  suspensions  school  the  two s t u d e n t s  Reintegration Reports Table  2  reintegrated,  a n d be p l a c e d  and  students  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  students.  Criteria  2  ID  r e i n t e g r a t e d , and  year  3.  1 and  Classes  Group n  staff  Regular  1  ID  reintegrate a l l  alternate  of  24  be  the  next  transfer  to  class. reintegrations.  were c o m p l e t e d by criteria  reintegrating a student.  1  It  the  used  when  also  lists  1 30  Table Criteria  and  25  Those i n v o l v e d i n S u s p e n s i o n s Reintegrations  and  Criteria Reintegrations Reason  Suspensions Reason No change i n b e h a v i o u r Poor a t t e n d a n c e Poor c o - o p e r a t i o n R e f u s a l t o work D e f i n a c e towards the principal Aggressive behaviour towards the t e a c h e r  6 6 4 4 2 1  Student f e e l s c o n f i d e n t t h a t he/she i s ready Alternate 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 S t u d e n t works w e l l on own O t h e r - Has been i n t h e p r o g r a m l o n g enough. Needs a push i n t o the r e g u l a r system  7 6 5 4 4  Those I n v o l v e d Suspensions Person A l t e r n a t e Students Support Person Student S o c i a l Worker Parents Vice-Pr inc i p a l Head o f S t u d e n t S e r v i c e s  F 9 9 8 3 2 2 1  Reintegrations Person A l t e r n a t e Teachers Support Person Student Parents Head o f S t u d e n t S e r v i c e s P r i n c i p a l or S c h o o l D i s t r i c t where s t u d e n t i s t o be a d m i t t e d Vice-Pr inc i p a l  10 10 10 2 2 2 1  131  those  involved Poor  when a d e c i s i o n attendance  most common r e a s o n s reintegrated when  both  confident to  the  f o r suspending  that  alternate  h e / s h e was  suspend  most o f t e n  involved  or  behaviour  a student.  behaviours  teachers ready.  were  had d e c r e a s e d  and  and  reintegrate  were t h e  Students  the  student  When a d e c i s i o n  the a l t e r n a t e  a student,  teachers,  was  felt made  consultation  support  person  the student.  4. P e r c e n t a g e It  unimproved  when u n a c c e p t a b l e  either  and  and  i s made.  was  stated  students  by  the  of  program  reintegrated  was  By use of t h e C l a s s r o o m students school  reintegrated  students  increased  that  Checklist,  from  As shown 17.9%  in  each  the  to increase  f o r t h e 1979-80,  y e a r s were c a l c u l a t e d .  percentage  staff  expected  Records  reintegrated  number each  the  Table  of  year.  number  1980-81, and in  year.  of  1981-82 26,  the  1970-80, t o 21.0% i n  1980-81, and 22.2% i n 1982-83.  Student were at  reintegration disparities.  reintegrated.  Only  t h e end of t h e s c h o o l  Not a l l s t u d e n t s  10 of 22 s t u d e n t s were year.  reintegrated  1 32  Table  26  Number of R e i n t e g r a t e d S t u d e n t s  Year  Note.  n of s t u d e n t s reintegrated  %  28  17.9  1980- 81  8  38  21.0  1981- 82  10  45  22.2  Towards NJAP attitudes  toward  NJAP and i t s t e a c h e r s .  the post  interview sessions,  asked  whether  o r not t h e y  liked  alternate  students  the a l t e r n a t e  were  staff  and i f  they  liked  were d o i n g a good j o b . Thirteen  Teacher  o f 16 s t u d e n t s  A because  always a v a i l a b l e  she was  Fifteen friendly, relate  that  Three  she was a good  to talk  that  easy  to talk  disliked  and c o m p l a i n i n g .  o f 16 s t u d e n t s easy  responded  friendly,  when n e e d e d .  was a r g u m e n t a t i v e  students agreed  to  n  5  During  was  a t NJAP  1979- 80  Student  she  year  No s t a t i s t i c s were a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e 1978-9 y e a r , t h e f i r s t year of the program's o p e r a t i o n .  Attitudes  they  each  her,  stating  However, even  these  teacher.  liked  teacher B  to, available  t o , and f u n t o be w i t h .  t o and was  because  she  when needed,  easy  One d i s l i k e d  her  saying  1 33  she  was  argumentative.  All  agreed  that  she  was  a good  teacher. Alternate she All  was  friendly,  thought  her  Services  Three  of  because  getting  easy  liked  16 he  students  disliked  back  him  support  t o , and  person  always  because  available.  job.  students was  the  to t a l k  good a t her  Thirteen  in  students  liked  friendly, into  the  easy  Head  of  Student  to t a l k  to,  helpful  fun to  be  with.  s c h o o l , and  saying  he  was  neither  helpful  nor  understanding. All relations  alternate  with a l l a l t e r n a t e  The attitudes  School  toward  were u s e d  occurred  while  performed, 27  two-tailed subtests.  (Sx),  The  As significant  NJAP. i f an  also  used  Pretest  and  attitudinal a t NJAP.  sample  size  (n),mean  dependent  t-value  (prob.)  f o r the  of  in Table  difference  between  in  p r e t e s t and  t e a c h e r s and  to  good  assess  posttest change  had  A t-test  was  27,  there  attitude posttest.  s c h o o l had  not  (X) and (t),  equal  testing  i s not  a  towards The  changed.  and  22  the school  because  occurred. statistically teachers  student As  27.  standard  t e a c h e r and  s u b j e c t s does not  were s u s p e n d e d b e f o r e p o s t  shown  had  of w h i c h a r e d i s p l a y e d i n T a b l e  the  number  they  members.  were e n r o l l e d  probability  some s t u d e n t s  toward  results  that  Index was  to determine  i n c l u d e s the  deviation  school  Sentiment  students  the  agreed  staff  t e a c h e r s and  results  Table  students  or  attitude  mentioned  in  1 34  Table  27  Attitudinal Comparison  Attitude Test Pretest Posttest  Pretest Posttest'  Chapter  4,  of Means  Towards  Teacher  n  X  Sx  t  prob.  1 5  86.0 84.2  3.7 4.8  1.1  .28  Attitude Test  Change  Towards S c h o o l  n  X  Sx  1 5  49.9 50.4  4.0 3.3  student a t t i t u d e  t  prob.  -0.39  is fairly  low  .70  f o r both  of  these  subtests. S t u d e n t s were a s k e d R e a s o n s g i v e n and  accompanying  Teachers  are  friendly  Learning  has  improved  More  individual  Work  i s easier  Pressure  i f they  and  h e l p and  i s lower  Thirteen  s t u d e n t s had  liked  NJAP.  A l l agreed.  f r e q u e n c i e s were: nice  10 8  attention  3 3 2.  attended a regular  class  prior  1 35  to  attending  their  last  those  attended  mentioned  previous 13  NJAP.  school. above.  s c h o o l because  students  their  Eleven  agreed  of  these p r e f e r r e d  over  R e a s o n s g i v e n were t h e same Five  students  f r i e n d s had been  that  NJAP  they  preferred  left  as  their  behind.  All  l e a r n e d more a t NJAP t h a n a t  previous school. Three  prior  students attended  t o a t t e n d i n g NJAP.  learned  Two  another  of t h e s e  alternate  thought  that  program t h e y had  more a t NJAP.  Parent respondents  attitudes  said  a t t e n d NJAP.  that  attitude  a five  roles?'.  'are Overall  wanted  they  All their  and a c c o m p a n y i n g  was b e h i n d  12  parent  son/daughter  rating  was needed  9  i n school  6 2.  p a r e n t s gave a l t e r n a t e  (mean = 5) i n  knowledgable  to  f r e q u e n c i e s were:  s h o u l d be more p o s i t i v e  point scale,  the h i g h e s t p o s s i b l e question,  NJAP.  h e l p and a t t e n t i o n  son/daughter  3. s t u d e n t On  they  The r e a s o n s  1. i n d i v i d u a l 2. t h e i r  toward  and  s u c c e s s o f NJAP was a l s o  response skillful given  to  staff the  in their  the h i g h e s t  rating. Only  two  parents  sons/daughters,  attend  reason from  cited  their  i n responses  homes.  would  have  preferred program.  their  another  alternate  The  was t h a t  Newton J u n i o r was t o o f a r  1 36  Attitudes Regular about  teachers the  of the r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s were  asked  alternate  program?  aware o f what o c c u r r e d , failed yes  t o respond.  to  the  teaching  said  seven  were  Of t h e 18 t e a c h e r s ,  only  'would  three  classroom any  caused  effect  was  liked  having  Effect According  they  not, three  were  and  one  responded  date  only  occasional.  alternate  consider  students,  out-of-the alternate  students program  alternate  be e x p l a i n e d  within to  Two of  these  of  in their  in  the  class,  to respond.  had l i t t l e  the s e t t i n g  way p l a c e  However, t h e generated  students  T h i s may  problems  Thirteen  students  of NJAP on Newton J u n i o r  NJAP  school.  mentioned  by a l t e r n a t e s t u d e n t s .  to administration,  teachers,  regular  knowledge  said  you a t some l a t e r  regular teachers  f o u r d i d n o t and one f a i l e d  NJAP  their  Ten t e a c h e r s  said  NJAP.  a t an a l t e r n a t e p r o g r a m ? ' .  teachers  the  describe  they  item,  Only their  to  toward  Secondary. staff  effect  by t h e  of t h e program  and  regular  upon t h e r e s t o f small  number  i n an  essentially  t h e s c h o o l , and t h e t e n d e n c y  congregate  itself  had  of  of  together  in  groups.  effect  in  that  an  more work f o r t h e p r i n c i p a l ,  vice-principals,  it and  teachers. An  o n g o i n g p r o b l e m m e n t i o n e d by b o t h  the  principal  1 37  and to  his  predecessor  the P h y s i c a l  attire noted  into  as  their  to  the  classes.  unusual  behaviour.  classes  during  difficulty  saw  was  the  best  way  In  classrooms  students  and  to enter  Disparities 1. The  School  have  a  of  the of  these  arise  have  irregular  in attitudes  Sentiment favourable  Index  regular  be i n t e g r a t e d  with  of  regular  teachers  had  pressures,  the  regular  effort  to  alternate  teachers  know which  students  were f l e x i b l e  in  enough  times.  toward  shows  attitude  joined  year,  whose s c h e d u l e s at  amongst  students  gym  problem  a need t o be more t o l e r a n t  members made an to  proper  Another  s t u d e n t s might  problems  staff  would come  the  confusion  spite  t e a c h e r s were most w i l l i n g  for  teachers.  course  few  because a l t e r n a t e  their  P.E.  When a l t e r n a t e  adapting.  principals  without  Many f e l t  the  students  class  frustrating  the p r i n c i p a l s  teachers  that alternate  Education  thereby by  was  NJAP.  that  students  towards  school  do  not  and  the  teachers. 2. Many r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s were not in 3.  The  the a l t e r n a t e principals  students  had  alternate Conversely, can  have  little  students  little  aware of  activities  program. and  this  fully  teachers effect  s t a t e d t h a t the on  the  school  were a s m a l l g r o u p u n t o  isolation impact  on  means t h a t t h e alternate  alternate because  themselves.  regular  students.  school This  may  138  inhibit  reintegration.  Differences Students. likely  Between S u s p e n d e d and  Common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  to  be  helped  comparing Group  1 and  age;  level;  sex;  grade  guardianship; from  or  Age. of had  IQ;  school;  s t u d e n t s was  program  grades  the  and  behaviour  o n l y age  that  s t u d e n t s most o r  Group  from  following  pretest  problems;  variables:  scores; for and  by  legal  suspension reasons  for  NJAP.  difference 1 had  least  were d e t e r m i n e d  s e l f - c o n c e p t ; reasons  reintegration  The  the  2 s t u d e n t s on  attitude;  previous  suspension  by  of  Reintegrated  no  between t h e  13 y e a r  two  olds.  groups  Group  2  two.  Sex. females  Group  (3) and  both males  g r o u p s of  Group  (6) and  Grade  2  students  1 had  females  level.  The  s t u d e n t s was  Average  (110  to  fairly  more even  males  (6)  than  distribution  of  between t h e  two  (7).  only  that  s t u d e n t s w h i l e G r o u p 2 had  I.Q.  a  had  difference  Group  1  had  no  grade  seven  two.  The  percentage  119)  IQ  range  was  of  students the  same  in for  the  High  Groups  1  1 39  (2/9) fell  and  ( 1 / 6 ) , 20 p e r c e n t .  w i t h i n the Average range  included (80  2  only  one  Group  t o 89) c o n t a i n e d  range  (90 t o 109),  2 student.  t h e two  t h r e e Group 2 s t u d e n t s .  Most G r o u p  (70 t o 79) were t h e l a s t  had  a modal  letter  differences  between  illustrated. student  was  grade  two Group 2  two  Math,  (-.7)  on  Reading T e s t . on  the  the  f o r Group  2  had  (-1.7) on t h e N e l s o n  guardianship.  common  with  Group  totals  being Group  single  parent  students Group  1  1  1  1 students  and  students.  In  Figure  groups 4,  the  1 were and  t h e amount e a c h  grade l e v e l .  The  (-.95) on t h e (+.5)  on t h e  deviation  CTBS Nelson  scores  of  (-1.0) on t h e CTBS E n g l i s h ,  and  and  Two  students four,  students families.  came f r o m e i t h e r students  Average range  Reading T e s t .  Legal  nine  range  i n the b o r d e r l i n e  represent  median  CTBS Math,  (5)  g r o u p s on p r e t e s t s c o r e s a r e  CTBS E n g l i s h ,  Group  this  e n t r y both  above o r below h i s / h e r p r e s e n t  d e v i a t i o n scores  four  Upon  "fail".  The d e v i a t i o n s c o r e s  median  (-2.45)  of  the  Group  students  G r a d e s and p r e t e s t s c o r e s .  but  The Low  remaining  The o n l y  1 students  lived  parent than  families Group  respectively.  were  more  2 students; the The  remaining  and two G r o u p 2 s t u d e n t s came from The  remaining  three  g r o u p homes o r f o s t e r in  a  group  Group  2  parents.  No  home o r w i t h  foster  x  o  .  o  X mdr,  X  "X  tf.  -i '  -2.  "Ndr  CTBS  o oX" x "3  1  0  oo  o  * o x  *  *  -2  X X X x o  -I  / »Odn  CTBS  0  *  ~  w  _ Croup Z •= O  English  O  x  G>r-  Math  • G  0  *x  2. Nelson Reading  Figure  4.  Median  X  X  x  -I  x  XX r  x  I far I Test  d i f f e r e n c e s on t h e CTBS a n d N e l s o n R e a d i n g T e s t  f o r Groups  1 and 2  x  141  parents.  Attitude the  sample  the  two  size,  groups  t-value(t), subtests  of  students,  the  the  School  is  a  attitude attitude  general towards  toward There  between higher  Sentiment  i n four  issues. the  An  of f i v e toward  teacher.  in  self-concept  examination  f o r Group  fighting case  and  the  subtests. school,  There  a  Group  toward  more  1  peers,  favourable  i s no d i f f e r e n c e i n  significant  self-concept.  difference  Group  1  has  a  t h a n G r o u p 2.  of  T a b l e 29, shows t h a t  Poor 2.  classroom There  behaviour  were  1, t h e n o n s u s p e n d e d  t h e most  attendance i n the case was  twice  as  no c a s e s o f v a n d a l i s m ,  o r a l c o h o l / s m o k i n g f o r G r o u p 2.  f o r group  difference  f o r s u s p e n s i o n from t h e s t u d e n t ' s p r e v i o u s  both groups.  common  Index  G r o u p 2 has  common r e a s o n f o r s u s p e n s i o n was p o o r of  (prob) f o r a l l  significant  i s also a s t a t i s t i c a l l y  Reasons school.  pooled  learning.  t h e two g r o u p s school  independent  probability  statistically  t h e two g r o u p s  toward  the  two-tailed  a more f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e  and  includes  Inventory.  There  has  T a b l e 28 below  t h e mean(X) and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n ( S x ) f o r of  and  Self-Appraisal  between  and s e l f - c o n c e p t .  T h i s was  group.  not the  T h e r e were two  142  Table Attitude  28  and S e l f - C o n c e p t  Comparison  Scales  o f Means  Att itude Group  T  Sx  t  prob.  Teacher  1 2  85.3 90.6  4.0 7.7  -2.2  .04  School  1 2  50.8 45.9  3.3 4.9  2.8  .01  Peer  1 2  14.5 12.0  2.0 2.7  2.4  .03  Learning  1 2  16.7 16.1  2.1 1 .5  .7  .50  General  1 2  29.4 27.3  2.1 1 .8  2.5  .02  Self-Concept  Peer  1 2  37.6 32.9  4.2 7.7  1 .9  .08  Family  1 2  39.2 36.3  4.6 5.7  1 .3  .20  School  1 2  30.9 26.8  3.1 5.5  2.3  .04  General  1 2  38.8 35.6  4.6 5.5  1 .5  .10  Note, n f o r Group 1 = 13, n f o r Group 2 = 9 .  1 43  Table Reasons f o r I n i t i a l  29  Suspension  from  Group  Note.  of n e g a t i v e  Group  1.  school a t t i t u d e  Behaviour  Problems.  Inappropriate students  i n both  the  to  69.2 30.8 7.7 7.7 15.4  7 6 2 0 0  77 .8 66 .7 22 .2  0 1  2 0  22 .2  7.7  i n Group  Table  two  behaviour  the average  number  inappropriate Group  %  N  9 4 1 1 2  of  number  the p r i n c i p a l ' s  office.  observed  none  in  comparison  problems. f o r Group  of o c c u r r e n c e s  I t was p r e v i o u s l y  had a g r e a t e r number  but  was more common  students  behaviour.  2  30 p r e s e n t s a  t h e two g r o u p s o f s t u d e n t s on b e h a v i o u r  and  Group 2  N f o r G r o u p 1 = 13, N f o r G r o u p 2 = 9 . Totals will not add up to 100% b e c a u s e some s t u d e n t s had more than one r e a s o n f o r b e i n g s u s p e n d e d .  cases  of  1  %  N  Poor A t t e n d a n c e Poor C l a s s r o o m Behaviour Poor G r a d e s Fighting A l c o h o l / S m o k i n g on s c h o o l premises Negative School A t t i t u d e V a n d a l i sm  School  per c l a s s  displaying mentioned  o f d e t e n t i o n s and  2  the that  referrals  1 44  Table Classroom Suspended and  not  30 Behaviour  Suspended  Students  Group n  XF/class  1 .7 1 .7 .3 .8 2 .4 .2 .6 .7 .8 1 .2 .6 .8 0 .2 0 .3 .5  T a l k i n g to peers 1 1 T a l k i n g out l o u d 6 Swearing 3 Complaining 7 Not p a y i n g a t t e n t i o n 1 3 1 B o d i l y a g g r e s s i o n towards p e e r s Seeks p r a i s e 4 1 Shows w i t h d r a w a l A p p e a r s t o be w o r k i n g , but i s n ' t 5 Disturbs others 7 Makes n o i s e s 3 1 G i v e s up e a s i l y Uncooperat i v e 0 G e t s o u t of s e a t w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n 4 V e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n towards t e a c h e r 0 V e r b a l a g g r e s s i o n towards p e e r s 1 Sleeping in c a r r o l l 5 Note.  N f o r group  Reasons In  T a b l e 31,  be  seen.  1 = 13, N f o r g r o u p  for Suspension  a final Reasons  and  difference for  were  compared.  because  their  inappropriate  attitude  towards  work had  Reintegration  between t h e two  Group  1  b e h a v i o u r s had  changed,  and  Group 2 n "XF/class  3 .4 2 .4 .7 1 .8 4 .3 0 .3 0 1 .7 .7 .9 0 0 .5 .2 . 1 1 .0  6 4 2 4 6 0 1 0 5 4 2 0 0 2 1 1 1  2=6.  suspension  reintegration  1  from  NJAP.  groups  can  and  reasons  for  was  reintegrated  decreased,  their  grades  their had  1 45  Table Reasons  Reason  No change behaviour  for  in  for Suspension  students behaviours  had  inappropriate  Less inappropriate 6 behaviour i n c l u d i n g improved a t t e n d a n c e 6 4 2  was  to h e l p  problems favourable grade  in  not  not  level.  the  likely  those  students  class,  have an  case  because  c h a n g e d and  a t t i t u d e and  Reintegration  they  for their  refused  to b e n e f i t . who  Group  display  average  2.  4 4 4 3  These  inappropriate to  work.  NJAP  is  fewer  behaviour  intellect,  s e l f - c o n c e p t , and  n  6  1 4 Works w e l l on own 0 Higher grades R e i n t e g r a t e d f o r most subjects Needs a p u s h i n t o r e g u l a r class  suspended  S t u d e n t s most likely  Reintegration  n Reasons f o r  This were  or  Suspension  Nonattendance No c o o p e r a t i o n D e f i a n c e t o the p r i n c i p a l Aggressive behaviour to teacher R e f u s a l t o work Poor g r a d e s  improved.  31  are  most  have a more  near  expected  1 46  CHAPTER 6  CONCLUSIONS AND  Chapter study,  s i x begins with  followed  disparities,  summary  intended  to  are  for  future  (summarized  the  improve  the  The  based  were d e r i v e d  2).  on  that  arose  found  Junior  followed and  a  finally  suggestions  made  of s i m i l a r for  by  programs  future  i n the e v a l u a t i o n  from a r e v i e w  by  recommendations f o r  Implications  from weaknesses  Newton  of the e v a l u a t i o n  and on t h e s t u d y o f r e p o r t s i n Chapter  congruences,  by t h e e v a l u a t i o n .  presented  study.  t h e p r o g r a m were  respondents  of  revealed  next  of the l i m i t a t i o n s  implications  questions  a  Program  discussion  improving  by  a d e s c r i p t i v e summary o f t h e  and c o n t i n g e n c i e s  Recommendations Alternate  RECOMMENDATIONS  study o r from  of p e r t i n e n t  literature.  established  in  Summary  NJAP, assist  Newton,  students  unsuccessful  in  in  B.C.  was  grades  eight  the regular  schools.  14 t o 16 were u s u a l l y t h o s e  whose  had  from  of  resulted  provide  10  who  These  students,  inappropriate  aged  behaviour  an e v a l u a t i o n  would  a comprehensive a p p r a i s a l of the program which  would  thought  that  After  been  years  program s t a f f  school.  had  to  three  operation,  i n suspension  to  1978  1 47  assist  planning The  the  for future  overall  following  two  goal  years.  of  this  evaluation  major e v a l u a t i o n  was  to  answer  questions:  1. I s NJAP e f f e c t i v e i n m e e t i n g i t s s t a t e d g o a l s ? 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 s u c c e e d i n m e e t i n g any w h i c h a r e not f o r m a l l y s t a t e d ? The  following eclectic  other  definition  of  goals evaluation  was  adopted: E v a l u a t i o n i s a s e t of p r o c e d u r e s that define the utility of the p r o g r a m . These p r o c e d u r e s p r e s c r i b e sampling techniques and statistically approved methods of data c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s t h a t w i l l r e s u l t i n d a t a t h a t a r e b o t h r e l i a b l e and v a l i d . In those cases where a numerical analysis is not possible, 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 , reliable qualitative analysis is employed. An evaluation s h o u l d 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 u n s t a t e d 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. Finally, the evaluator is responsible for making recommendations as t o the outcomes of the program based on the evidence g a r n e r e d i n the e v a l u a t i o n s t u d y .  Evaluation  Design  The present the  study  program  descriptive the  was  evaluation  developed  intentions matrix  framework  Following the  eclectic  program  the  were  to permit  and  what  a  which  this  r a t i o n a l e of first  the  utilized comparison  actually  modelled a f t e r Stake  within  Stake,  design  goals  identified.  and  The  the  between  occurred.  (1967) was  comparison  in  used  was  as  made.  intents intents  A  of were  1 48  organized listed  i n the  Actual  The  first  so  program major  result  of  and  the  Disparities and  of  of  Services, duties,  second  the  extent  identification  of  intents  and  analysis  is  used  to  disparities  occurrence. goal achievement.  forward  location  later  of NJAP.  Junior is  The  was  in this  To  eliminate  the  purpose  of  chapter.  NJAP  one  into  has  one  consisted person,  Counsellor.  Science.  two  school's  t e a c h i n g E n g l i s h and  o t h e r M a t h e m a t i c s and  School.  a separate  the  support  the D i s t r i c t  NJAP i s l o c a t e d  Secondary  divided  NJAP s t a f f  teachers,  with  to  a  program f u n c t i o n .  i s the  contingent  inhibit  washrooms.  and  in  between  from t h e m a i n s t r e a m of  team  as  intended  comparison  actual  Newton  Staff. two  be made  f u r t h e r goal attainment  U - s h a p e d open a r e a  isolated  arranged  matrix.  NJAP  Physical  adjoining  can  Outcomes  descriptive  of p r o b l e m s t h a t have c a u s e d  r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s put  basement  similarly  Vertical  between d e s i r e d and  Description  the  disparities  origin  disparities  this  T r a n s a c t i o n s and  of  o p e r a t i o n matches  observations. identify  are  that a comparison  congruences  the  column  observations  columm that  i n t e r m s of A n t e c e d e n t s ,  The  of the  support  the  The  large  classrooms  with  entrance  and  is  activities.  five  members:  Head of  Teachers Social  in  Student  divided  S t u d i e s and person's  the the  tasks  1 49  included  recordkeeping,  students  and  assisting  teachers,  alternate  encouragement  to  acting  consulting  t e a c h e r s and students. the  NJAP.  screened  students student  also  for  placement  c o u n s e l l i n g and  provided  by  students  who  Enrollment  number  be  students  may  Behaviour  a t any  enrolled  problems  problems,  over  common  to  were  also  problems  from  inhibit  as  Learning  poor  study  performance  Admission  skills  i n the  procedures.  the  A student  from  a  much  larger  of a  students  peer-related  or gaps  also  in their  regular  classroom.  Suspension  from  usual c r i t e r i o n must be  as d r i n k i n g or are  for entry  referred  t o an  t o an  to  school.  p r o b l e m s d e a l i n g w i t h a u t h o r i t y , and  property.  program.  Weekly  is limited  these  behaviour,  on  established  Services  recommended  the c o u r s e  such  which  time  outflow  more s e r i o u s p r o b l e m s  resulting  and  supervised  training  one  some c a s e s school  support  programs.  teacher  and  n o n a t t e n d a n c e , poor c l a s s r o o m familial  and  have been p r e v i o u s l y s u s p e n d e d intake  year.  teachers,  Counsellor,  applicants  bi-weekly  parents,  Head of S t u d e n t  alternate  B e c a u s e of c o n t i n u o u s of  regular  p r o v i d i n g moral  District  in  between  the s u p e r v i s o r s .  Students. 20  with  The  w i t h a s s i s t a n c e from They  as a l i a s o n  full are and in  smoking common learning  school  is  alternate  alternate  program  150  by  the school  board.  S c h e d u l e o f NJAP. 2:30  P.M.  Monday  parental  C l a s s hours  through  consultation,  reviewing.  Group  r u n from 8:00 A.M.  Thursday. course  meetings  Fridays  planning  are  held  a r e used f o r and  Monday  to  student  mornings  and  Wednesday and T h u r s d a y a f t e r n o o n s .  Grading  and r e p o r t i n g .  The p a s s i n g  and a s s i g n m e n t s  i s s e t a t 70%.  Material  passing and  grade  Daily  n e g a t i v e behaviour, absence,  by program the  i s achieved.  end  staff. of  supplement  Individual  each  day  the r e g u l a r  by  reports  from t h e p r o g r a m  defiance, constant of  arguing,  lack  interruption,  defiant  It integration acceptable  is of  the the  discussed  at  of c o - o p e r a t i o n ,  rule,  such  school, as  may  be  to directions,  refusal  t o work,  or the v i o l a t i o n  fighting  or  being  or v i c e - p r i n c i p a l .  objective  of  the program  student  into  regular  performance  positive  are prepared  Students  f o r : not l i s t e n i n g  from  to the p r i n c i p a l  is  a  evaluation.  absence  an i m p o r t a n t s c h o o l  tests  and s u p p o r t p e r s o n t o  Suspensions or r e i n t e g r a t i o n s . suspended  including  and t a r d i n e s s  teachers  on  i s reviewed u n t i l  performance  Friday  grade  i s reached  i n each  t o phase t h e classes  subject.  After  as a  151  student  has  English, few  functioned well  Social  weeks, he/she  i s permitted  to take  are  regular  classes  when  ready  s u c c e s s f u l and  the for  end  of  school  Evaluation  cells  the  elective  the  see  workload.  then  such other  they  were  I f s c h o o l work  have  students  regular classes  for a  courses  that  behaviours  description  of  formulated  and  of t h e d e s c r i p t i v e  Altogether  1, p.  i n the program  decreased are  at  recommended  beginning  with  the  Questions  q u e s t i o n s were t h e n  model.  (Math,  year.  From  the  teachers  to handle  into  subjects  gradually reintegrated into  school year,  reintegration  next  then  disruptive  the  core  Science)  Students  is  the  S t u d i e s , and  as P.E.  academically  in  NJAP, s e v e r a l e v a l u a t i o n categorized according  matrix  used  to  i n the e v a l u a t i o n  10 q u e s t i o n s were f o r m u l a t e d  (see  Table  46) .  Methodology In o r d e r were  collected  to adequately from  the v a r i e d  methods t o a v o i d t h e b i a s with  single  collected regular  method  from  22  teachers,  Differences  and  and  address sources error  approaches.  students, three  these q u e s t i o n s , by  a multiplicity  sometimes  Information  t h r e e program s t a f f administrators,  similarities  between two  data  and  of  associated  and  data  members, 12  g r o u p s of  were 18  parents. students  1 52  were in in  examined  i n an a t t e m p t t o a s c e r t a i n who  the program. the  program  consisted program  Group for  of nine  1 c o n s i s t e d of the  full  students  who  during  the e v a l u a t i o n  Both  qualitative  collected  from  interviews,  the  data  percentages,  were  summarized  who  suspended  were  Group from  quantitative  samples  questionnaires,  were  13 s t u d e n t s  2  the  period.  using  observation  a c h i e v e m e n t and a t t i t u d e t e s t s . and  successful  evaluation period.  and  above  was  The  in  terms  and where a p p r o p r i a t e ,  by  were  semi-structured checklists,  obtained of  data  information  frequencies  means  and  and  and  standard  deviat ions.  Congruences  The evaluation  congruences are  Transactions,  organized  and  and in  Disparities  disparities terms  of  and Outcomes, a r e summarized  identified the  i n the  Antecedents,  in Table  32.  1 53  Table C o n g r u e n c e s and  32 Disparities  Antecedents Question Demographic Characteristics  Behaviour Problems  Congruences Students t o 16.  were aged  Disparities 13  Common b e h a v i o u r p r o b l e m s were t a l k i n g to p e e r s , not g e t t i n g along with teachers and f a m i l y , h i g h a b s e n t e e i s m , and n o t listening in class.  C r i t e r i a f o r student p l a c e m e n t was n o t met. A l t h o u g h designed f o r grades 8 t h r o u g h 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. S i x of 15 s t u d e n t s w i t h a v a i l a b l e IQ s c o r e s were below average (<90). T h i r t e e n of 22 s t u d e n t s had failing letter g r a d e s upon e n t r y t o NJAP. E i g h t e e n s t u d e n t s were below t h e i r p r e s e n t grade l e v e l (below t h e t o l e r a n c e band) on a t 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 R e a d i n g T e s t , CTBS E n g l i s h , CTBS Math). S i x students were below g r a d e l e v e l on a l l t e s t s (below t h e t o l e r a n c e band).  1 54  Table  32  continued  Antecedents Quest i o n Learning  Congruences  Disparities  P r o b l e m s Common l e a r n i n g p r o b l e m s 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 , s t u d y i n g and l i s t e n i n g to t h e t e a c h e r .  Admi s s i o n Procedures  The main c r i t e r i o n f o r e n t r y was t h e students' previous s u s p e n s i o n from school.  Seven s t u d e n t s were on t h e 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 l o n g e r than t h r e e weeks. O n l y t h r e e of t h e s e s t u d e n t s were on the w a i t i n g l i s t l o n g e r than a month.  Staff Training and E x p e r i e n c e  One t e a c h e r had extensive experience and t h e o t h e r p r a c t i c a e x p e r i e n c e . 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 .  Neither alternate teacher held a Special Education Degree. The s u p p o r t p e r s o n met t h e 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 a s a counsellor.  1 55  Table  32  continued  Transact ions Quest ion  Congruences  Physical Facilities  The t h r e e s t a f f members were s a t i s f i e d w i t h the p h y s i c a l fac i l i t i e s .  Teaching Guidelines  The p r o g r a m t e a c h e r s used the g u i d e l i n e s s e t by t h e M i n i s t r y of E d u c a t i o n f o r Mathematics, E n g l i s h , S c i e n c e , and S o c i a l Studies.  Teaching Act i v i t i e s  The p r o g r a m s t a f f reviewed student p r o g r e s s d a i l y and maintained d e t a i l e d and t h o r o u g h r e c o r d s .  Disparities B e c a u s e NJAP students segregated themselves from other students, p r i n c i p a l s and teachers stated t h a t the program had l i t t l e e f f e c t on t h e s c h o o l . Conversely, this segregation l i m i t s t h e e f f e c t of t h e s c h o o l on alternate students. T h i s may inhibit reintegration.  Staff teachers agreed that student c o n f l i c t s were s o l v e d by c l a s s involvement. However, t h i s was not t h e c a s e i n Individualized t e a c h i n g a c c o u n t e d f o r 11 i n s t a n c e s d u r i n g t h e 30 t h e m a j o r i t y of e a c h c l a s s e s observed. t e a c h e r ' s time w i t h What o c c u r r e d i n 76% f o r T e a c h e r A and t h e s e c a s e s was a 54% f o r T e a c h e r B. private consultat ion The two t e a c h e r s and between t h e s u p p o r t p e r s o n worked d i s r u p t i v e student w e l l as a team. and t h e t e a c h e r .  1 56  Table  32  continued  Transact ions Quest ion  Congruences  Disparities  The team a p p r o a c h One of t h e t e a c h e r s was out of the room 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 , 24% of t h e time as compared t o 10% f o r the o t h e r t e a c h e r . The a l t e r n a t e s t a f f A b s e n c e c o u l d be provided close f or d i s c u s s i n g s u p e r v i s i o n of a l t e r n a t e students students. with regular c l a s s teachers, checking t h e w h e r e a b o u t s of students, d i s c u s s i n g students with the vice-rincipal, telephoning parents a b o u t s t u d e n t s , or t a k i n g a break. The v a s t m a j o r i t y of t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s c o u l d have been p e r f o r m e d by t h e support person. Support Person Activity  The s u p p o r t p e r s o n p e r f o r m e d her many t a s k s on a r e g u l a r b a s i s.  The j o b d e s c r i p t i o n f o r the support p e r s o n p r e p a r e d 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 n o t p r e s c r i b e duties that should be p e r f o r m e d d a i l y . Counselling is 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 t h e time or t r a i n i n g necessary to provide proper counselling.  Table  32  continued  Transact ions Question  Congruences  Disparities  Head o f S t u d e n t The Head of S t u d e n t Services A c t i v i t y Services provided effective counselling t o s t u d e n t s and support t o a l t e r n a t e s t a f f members. Principal P a r t i c ipat ion  The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of t h e p r o g r a m s h o u l d be made c l e a r t o the p r i n c i p a l . The p r i n c i p a l was required to report on t e a c h e r s but do so w i t h i n a s u p e r v i sed framework n o t of h i s own d e v i s i n g .  S u p p o r t and Staff Services  A v a i l a b l e S u p p o r t and s t a f f s e r v i c e s were w e l l u s e d by b o t h s t a f f members and students.  Ongoing  S t a f f members participated regularly in ongoing t r a i n i n g sessions.  Training  Parental Involvement  P a r e n t s were s a t i s f i e d with involvement.  their  1 58  Table  32  continued  Outcomes Quest ion Achievement  Congruences  Disparities  At t h e f i n a l i n t e r v i e w , 10 s t u d e n t s l i k e d b o t h Math and E n g l i s h and f e l t t h a t an improvement had been made. E i g h t o f 10 G r o u p 1 p a r e n t s n o t e d an improvement i n E n g l i sh.  T h e r e was no sign i f icant g a i n between p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t scores for seven of e i g h t s u b t e s t s f o r Group 1 students. Posttest scores f o r G r o u p 2 were h i g h and s i m i l a r t o t h o s e o f Group 1. Regular teachers T h i s was a r e p o r t e d t h a t of the noticeable gain 12 s t u d e n t s 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 o v e r t h e low were l e a r n i n g s t e a d i l y p r e t e s t s c o r e s of G r o u p 2. This i n a t l e a s t one o f g a i n c o u l d be their regular classes. a s c r i b e d t o simple r e g r e s s i o n towards t h e mean. On f i n a l r e p o r t c a r d s , 10 o f 13 G r o u p 1 students passed. E i g h t made n o t i c e a b l e improvements: t h r e e a d v a n c e d two g r a d e levels.  The s i x Group 2 students stated at the f i n a l interview that t h e i r performance had i m p r o v e d i n b o t h Math and English. T h e r e was however, l i t t l e improvement i n grades.  1 59  Table  32 c o n t i n u e d  Outcomes Quest ion S k i l l s Necessary f o r S c h o o l , Home and Social Activities  Congruences Group 1 s t u d e n t s learned coping skills. E i g h t o f 10 p a r e n t s n o t i c e d improvement a t home. At t h e i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w , 10 o f 13 students reported f a m 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 o f t h e s e ment i o n e d improvement.  Disparities The c o p i n g skills taught d i d not g e n e r a l i z e t o the homes o f Group 2 students. T w o - t h i r d s of the students reported home p r o b l e m s : none m e n t i o n e d improvement.  At t h e i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w , t h r e e Group 1 students reported personality conflicts w i t h T e a c h e r A, one w i t h T e a c h e r B. Two of t h e c o n f l i c t s w i t h T e a c h e r A were s i l l outstanding at the f i n a l i n t e r v i e w as was one w i t h T e a c h e r B. Peer p r o b l e m s were m e n t i o n e d by seven s t u d e n t s i n i t i a l l y but o n l y f o u r a t t h e end. At t h e i n i t i a l At t h e i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w , two G r o u p 2 G r o u p 2 i n t e r v i e w , students reported none m e n t i o n e d problems with Teacher p r e v i o u s peer A, t h r e e w i t h B a n d one p r o b l e m s , b u t two with the support had d e v e l o p e d person. At the f i n a l p r o b l e m s by t h e i n t e r v i e w , one second i n t e r v i e w . r e p o r t e d problems w i t h T e a c h e r B a n d one w i t h the support person,  1 60  Table  32  continued  Outcomes Quest i o n R e l a t i v e Change of I n a p p r o p r i a t e Behaviour  Congruences Eighteen inappropriate b e h a v i o u r s were r e c o r d e d by t h e checklist. Thirteen behaviours decreased f o r b o t h G r o u p s 1 and 2.  Disparities Alternate teachers r e p o r t e d t h a t Group 2 b e h a v i o u r had not improved. Group 2 r e f e r r a l s and d e t e n t i o n s increased in three cases.  Regular c l a s s teachers expressed satisfaction with behaviour. E i g h t of 13 p a r e n t s reported a reduction in behaviour problems. Alternate teachers Alternate teachers r e p o r t e d improved r e p o r t e d t h a t Group b e h a v i o u r f o r G r o u p 1, 2 b e h a v i o u r had w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of not i m p r o v e d , attendance. By o b s e r v i n g s t u d e n t r e c o r d s , i t was found t h a t G r o u p 1 d e t e n t i o n s and o f f i c e referrals decreased.  Group 2 r e f e r r a l s and d e t e n t i o n s increased in three cases, A t t e n d a n c e was p o o r f o r b o t h g r o u p s of students. Thirteen of 20 s t u d e n t s m i s s e d more t h a n a q u a r t e r of a l l school days. A t t e n d a n c e improved for f i v e .  161  Table  32 c o n t i n u e d  Outcomes Question  Reinforcement Acceptable Behaviour  Disparities  Congruences of  Appropriate behaviour was r e i n f o r c e d a t t h e counselling sessions and e n c o u r a g e d by t h e s u p p o r t p e r s o n and lunch a t MacDonalds.  Acceptable behaviour i s not defined. Reward f o r improved behaviour i s not consistent.  Students reported that a l l t h r e e s t a f f members p r o v i d e d encouragement and r e i n f o r c e m e n t f o r improved p e r f o r m a n c e . Staff Communication w i t h P a r e n t s and Teachers  The a l t e r n a t e s t a f f communicated w i t h p a r e n t s on a r e g u l a r b a s i s . C o n t a c t was on a w e e k l y or b i - w e e k l y b a s i s f o r 10 o f 12 p a r e n t s . A l t e r n a t e t e a c h e r s and t h e s u p p o r t p e r s o n made at l e a s t weekly c o n t a c t w i t h 10 of 17 r e g u l a r teachers.  Student Reintegration  C r i t e r i a used Unimproved b e h a v i o u r for Suspensions was t h e most common or R e i n t e g r a t i o n s r e a s o n f o r s u s p e n s i o n , Reintegration occurs when s t u d e n t s a n d s t a f f agree t h a t b e h a v i o u r s and s c h o o l work have improved.  Only t e n students were r e i n t e g r a t e d a t t h e end of t h e s c h o o l year. Nine s t u d e n t s were suspended.  Table  32 c o n t i n u e d  Outcomes Question  Congruences  Percentage of The p e r c e n t a g e of Students s t u d e n t s who were R e i n t e g r a t e d e a c h r e i n t e g r a t e d a t 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 ic ipants t o w a r d 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.  Di s p a r i t i e s  1 63  Cont i n q e n c i e s  A contingent been  noted  analysis  between an  observed  determine  the  reason  occurred,  the  corresponding  that  w h i c h were s u p p o s e d t o l e a d for  i s begun a f t e r and  a  an  intended  desired  outcome.  outcome  transactions  and  has  has To not  antecedents  t o d e s i r e d outcomes a r e  examined  possible explanations. An  coping home.  intended  skills  outcome of  at  school  the  program  For Group 2 s t u d e n t s ,  2 students arguing  this  students  failing  (four  unchanged  at  transaction,  behaviour. 2  six)  the  reporting  final  outcome  family  A l t e r n a t e t e a c h e r s d i d not  see  students.  This  feeling  of d e t e n t i o n s and  throughout  the  educational  transaction  behaviour  encouragement  enrollment  change. to  was  period.  established The  fighting,  to  an  Here  was  occur.  improve  to  to  Group  educational  student  improvement  born  referrals  of  problems  failed to  at  p r o p o r t i o n of  The  was  teach  observed.  as  The  s k i l l s , had  continuation  desired  such  interview.  intended  not  ( s i x of n i n e )  communicate.  teaching coping  Another  Group  of  to  to  a i d students  outcome was  reported family d i f f i c u l t i e s ,  and  was  which c o u l d a l s o  When i n i t i a l l y i n t e r v i e w e d t w o - t h i r d s  and  a disparity  out the  the  principal  there  bring  by  in  was  about  no the  program p r o v i d e s c o u n s e l l i n g  improve b e h a v i o u r  but  has  no  specified  164  code  of a c c e p t a b l e o r u n a c c e p t a b l e  incentives  instituted  behaviour.  N e i t h e r were  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  office  referrals. Student was  intended.  enrolling  identified showed again  These  Neither  an  did  improved  punished  greatly had  those  in  that  which  attendance  before  did  students  Only  five  attendance  attendance.  from  poor  students  attenders.  improvement  reinforced  was  not not  of  20  students  to  Here bring  were n o t c o n s i s t e n t l y they  consistently  f o r not a t t e n d i n g s c h o o l .  reintegrate i s that  major  failure  Criteria  into  desired  by  t h e p r o g r a m was t o  the r e g u l a r s c h o o l .  9 o f 22 s t u d e n t s were s u s p e n d e d may may  for  was d e s i g n e d  outcome  students  Transactions  have  failed,  placement  f o r average  observed  below  average.  (below  t h e t o l e r a n c e band) on a t l e a s t  achievement seven.  following:  students  subtests,  and  Failure  t o meet  four  students  two  school.  grade  students  entry  Whereas  NJAP  eight,  nine  IQ s c o r e s were  were below g r a d e one  of  the  level  pretest  were e n r o l l e d i n  criteria  below a v e r a g e  that  antecedents.  were n o t met.  o r above a v e r a g e  Eighteen  disparity  b u t i t i s more l i k e l y  be a s c r i b e d t o t h e  student  The from  ten students, s i x students with a v a i l a b l e  grade  previously  established  Students  improve  w h i l e a t NJAP.  f o r a t t e n d i n g s c h o o l n o r were  The  this  students  NJAP.  a s poor  varied  no e d u c a t i o n a l t r a n s a c t i o n  about  here  Many  at  attendance.  and  attendance  led  IQ were  to  the  suspended,  1 65  eight and  students  both  who s c o r e d  grade  seven  below g r a d e l e v e l  students  Limitations  1. The (February could  of t h e Study  evaluation  to A p r i l )  concerned  only  o f one s c h o o l y e a r .  be p r e t e s t e d upon e n t r y  t o the  three  program.  were f i r s t  enrolled.  contribution  These s t u d e n t s  before that  the  n o t be a s s e s s e d .  permit  a greater  to  This  calculations  of improvement.  absense,  classes  decreased  alternate attenders  would  were n o t o b s e r v e d  observations  were t a k e n .  their  unequal.  were  classes.  achievement  greater  validity  and e n r o l l m e n t  were  observed  students This  also  to  i n the  unequal.  before  and  i n regular  as o f t e n as other expelled  would  pretest  Poor  students. many o r any  Because t h e e v a l u a t o r  alternate class,  regular  between  Observations  students  the  their  t h e number of s t u d e n t s  Resuspended  only  give  resuspensions,  class.  learning in  evaluation period  elapse  posttest.  Student  some  e v a l u a t i o n , t h e r e f o r e the f u l l  A longer  time  In  the students  had been  t h e p r o g r a m made t o  could  months  Not a l l s t u d e n t s  t h e e v a l u a t i o n began months a f t e r  program  suspended,  suspended.  instances,  the  2.  were  were  observed  were n o t o b s e r v e d i n made  observations  1 66  3. P o s t t e s t This  data  was  restricted  missing  the s i z e  f o r some g r o u p 2  of  what  already  students.  was  a  small  sample.  4. Ten  parents  restricted  did  the s i z e  5. The e v a l u a t o r analyzer  of  designed there  not  respond  to questionnaires.  This  of t h e sample.  was  the  data.  sole  Also,  collector, instruments  o r s e l e c t e d by t h e e v a l u a t o r .  were no e x t e r n a l c h e c k s a g a i n s t  collator,  and  u s e d were e i t h e r This  means  that  the i n t r o d u c t i o n of  bias.  Recommendat i o n s  Not  withstanding  the  the  agreement among t h e v a r i o u s  the  following  1. The p r o g r a m grade  the  written  data  described  above,  s o u c e s and forms l e d t o  recommendations:  should  seven  enrolled.  limitations  serve  nor  the  below  average  I f , below a v e r a g e entry  criteria  intended  students  should  group.  students will  be  be r e d e f i n e d .  Neither should  be  enrolled,  167  Efforts  s h o u l d be made by s t a f f  the u n d e r l y i n g c a u s e s were  sent  school.  to  of  t o determine  student  NJAP b e c a u s e t h e y  suspension. had been  Too many were s u b s e q u e n t l y  without  any i n t e r v e n t i o n  Techniques  should  inappropriate observed,  be  being  procedures  taken  prescribed  behaviours.  Since  been e f f e c t i v e programs.  to  reduce  A. H u r t  High  School  Washington,  D.C,  (Whipples,  1977),  (Dept. all  techniques training  an  is  success  a technique  at the  improving  that  Street  found  behaviour  economies  1975),  William Network,  Alternate  Florida,  behaviour  have  alternate  Alternate  County  using  School School  1976)  have  modification  Parent  effectiveness  t o produce  a reduction in  Academy  practitioner  attendance  t o ensure  Resource  (Bournazos,  s e s s i o n s of group and i n d i v i d u a l  experienced  1980).  Dade  t o improve a t t e n d a n c e .  absenteeism Regular  and  o f P l a n n i n g and E v a l u a t i o n ,  experienced  was  i n other  (Bournazos,  Granite  specific  Basic  (National School  1980),  NJAP  attendance  token  attendance  Academy  from  from  place.  poor  including  at improving  The S t r e e t  suspended  s h o u l d be d e v e l o p e d  techniques  Students  suspended  more s t u d e n t s a t t e n d s c h o o l more o f t e n . modification  and c o r r e c t  have  counselling  been  at the L i v i n g s t o n  1975).  successful  School  with in  (Rothman,  168  Acceptable should  behaviour  s h o u l d be  written  definition  be  unacceptable. be  of  teaching handled  teachers periods.  by  absent  the the  periods. other  teachers  not  teacher  not  hour  timetable  per  support  to  prescribe  Should  take discuss  week s h o u l d  the  left  time.  for  be  be  person  nonteaching  to parents,  classes.  The  during  should support  alternate  the  Alternate  students  with  need e x i s t s  for  regular teachers.  scheduled  job d e s c r i p t i o n  daily  duties.  time-table l i s t i n g  which  they  are  should  be  to  d e l e t e d from the  should  i n each  teacher's  purpose.  person's  of  be  both  have a d a i l y  description  duties  t o communicate w i t h  for this  The  punishment  needs t o speak  teachers during class teachers  considered  l e a v e the c l a s s r o o m  person.  should  should  alternate One  one  or  there  behaviours.  extra duties should  If  Similarly,  behaviour  Administrative  support  teacher  regular  should  of  reward  established for specified  Alternate  be  Standards  defined.  be the  support  The  support  d u t i e s and  performed. the  should  list  person.  The  be  rewritten  person the  should  times  at  term c o u n s e l l o r  of d u t i e s i n t h e  job  1 69  7. A  professionally  available  8. R e g u l a r and  teachers  procedures  should of  familiar  alternate  of the program g o a l s  make p r e s e n t a t i o n s  the  be more  the  a v a i l a b l e to regular  9. A t  counsellor  should  t o t h e a l t e r n a t e p r o g r a m one f u l l  description be  qualified  time  of  staff.  at school  the  with  principal  two y e a r s School  this  Board  principal's  procedures  Alternate  teachers  meetings.  evaluation,  supervision  defined  10.  The the  However, t h e  should  to  write  a  clear A copy  to inform  him/her.  principals.  Fritz  This  description should  program  al  (1979)  should  and documented p r o c e d u r e s " .  regular  is  of  the  would be a v a i l a b l e f o r  et  implementation  of  be l e f t a t  the p r i n c i p a l  o f a l t e r n a t e p r o g r a m s recommended  school.  that  be a p r o b l e m .  no l o n g e r  responsibilities.  program  Now  may  for  alternate  of the  Secondary f o r  expectations  review  could  Newton J u n i o r  Secondary  future  should  has been w i t h  Newton J u n i o r  any  goals  A written  p r o g r a m was n o t made c l e a r t o t h e p r i n c i p a l . the  week.  the  program.  and  staff  day a  be  that  in  their  successful  include  "clearly  (P. 1)  p h y s i c a l l y segregated  from t h e r e s t o f  I f the i n t e n t i o n i s to r e i n t r o d u c e c l a s s e s , the a l t e r n a t e c l a s s should  students be  more  170  closely  11.  The of  i n t e g r a t e d with  support student  person  the rest  should  detentions  and  of the s c h o o l .  keep s i m p l e  accurate  visits  the  to  records  principal's  off ice.  12.  Evaluation  should  constantly  be  a s s e s s i n g program  Implications  This desriptive initial  study  matrix  study  observed proposed  has  studies  instructional  could  subjects.  the  Studies  (1967).  problem  same  model  Now  using the that  areas, to  this  succeeding  concentrate  or  be compared  Surrey  focus  a combination i s more  Behaviour  for their  on s p e c i f i c  Individualized  effectiveness training  Further other  goals.  by S t a k e  could  t o determine which  basic  parent  a s a means o f  a l l program o p e r a t i o n s  techniques.  team-games-tournament  the  NJAP  on  problems. Other  compared  the  into  f o r Future  identified  e v a l u a t i o n s c o u l d use specific  built  or  instruction,  o f t h e two might be  effective  in  teaching  modification, counselling,  or combinations  of  c a p a c i t y t o improve  studies could  behaviour  invoke  the  three  behaviour.  a comparison  o f NJAP t o  programs or t o a l t e r n a t e programs o r s c h o o l s i n  Lower M a i n l a n d  o f B.C.  171  Reference  Notes  1. K a r r , M., Miller, 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 S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l , 1981.  1 72  References  Amove, R.F., & Strout, 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 R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 162413) Block, J . Effects of a rational-emotive mental program on poorly achieving, disruptive high students. J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1978, 61-65.  health school 25(1),  Borich, G.D. & Madden, S.K. Evaluating Classroom I n s t r u c t i o n : A Sourcebook of I n s t r u m e n t s . Philippines: A d d i s o n - W e s l e y P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1977. Bournazos, Kimon: And Others, Information Services, 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 R a p i d s P u b l i c S c h o o l s , 1975 (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 112461) C o f e r , 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 education: what does i t do f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of S c h o o l P s y c h o l o g y , 1977, 21(4), 358-361. C o r n e t t , J . & Swanson, M. A guide f o r implementing Deep ( D i v e r s i f i e d E d u c a t i o n E x p e r i e n c e s Program): a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s guide. Wichita, Kansas: Wichita S c h o o l s , 1979. (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n Service 184272)  Project Public No. ED  Department of Planning and Evaluation. Impact and o p e r a t i o n a l f e a t u r e s of programs d e s i g n e d t o modify d i s r u p t i v e b e h a v i o u r i n t h e Dade C o u n t y P u b l i c S c h o o l s . M i a m i : Dade C o u n t y P u b l i c Schools, 1976. (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 013371) Edwards, J . An e v a l u a t i o n o f h e a l t h p r o m o t i o n w o r k s h o p s f o r nurses. Unpublished master's t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f 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 e d u c a t i o n : r e s u l t s from a c l a s s r o o m o b s e r v a t i o n r a t i n g s c a l e and a t e a c h e r questionnaire. Newton, Mass.: E d u c a t i o n D e v e l o p m e n t C e n t e r , I n c . , 1971. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 058160) Fagan, B.M. & H o r s t , 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 R e p o r t i n g System T e c h n i c a l Paper No. 4. M o u n t a i n View, C a l i f o r n i a : RMC R e s e a r c h C o r p . , 1976. F l a n d e r s , N.A. Analyzing Teaching Behaviour. A d d i s o n - W e s l e y P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1970.  Philippines:  H a n n a , G . , S c h e l l , L.M., & S c h r e i n e r , R. The N e l s o n R e a d i n g S k i l l s Test. 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. H o r s t , D.P. & Fagan, B.M. Common E v a l u a t i o n H a z a r d s . ESEA T i t l e 1 E v a l u a t i o n R e p o r t i n g System. T e c h n i c a l Paper No. 14. Mountain View, California: RMC Research Corp., 1975. H o r s t , D.P., T a l l m a d g e , G.K. & Wood, C.T. A P r a c t i c a l Guide t o M e a s u r i n g P r o j e c t Impact on S t u d e n t A c h i e v e m e n t . Number 1 i n a s e r i e s of Monographs on E v a l u a t i o n i n R e s e a r c h . M o u n t a i n V i e w : RMC R e s e a r c h C o r p . , 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. - 12 (Rev. e d . ) . Author, 1972.  A t t i t u d e Toward S c h o o l  I n s t r u c t i o n a l O b j e c t i v e s Exchange. K - 12 (Rev. e d . ) . Author, 1972.  M e a s u r e s of  K  Self-Concept  J o r d a n , J.B., S a b a t i n o , D.A., & Sarri, R.C. Disruptive y o u t h i n s c h o o l : a r e p o r t from t h e CEC I n v i s i b l e C o l l e g e C o n f e r e n c e on e d u c a t o r ' 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, Virgina: The Council for Exceptional Children, 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 188367) King, E.M. (Ed.). C a n a d i a n T e s t s of B a s i c S k i l l s . Manual f o 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 . (Level E d i t i o n Forms 3 & 4)~ Thomas N e l s o n & Sons ( C a n a d i a n L t d . ) , 1 976. King, E.M. & Hieronymus, A.N. (Eds.). C a n a d i a n T e s t s of Basic S k i l l s . Manual f o r T e a c h e r s . ( L e v e l E d i t i o n Forms 3 & 4). Thomas N e l s o n & Sons ( C a n a d i a n L t d . ) , 1976.  174  Kirk, R.E. Introductory S t a t i s t i c s . Wadsworth P u b l i s h i n g Company, I n c . , 1978. Kita, S. UBC SPSS S t a t i s t i c a l S c i e n c e s V e r s i o n 8.00 (Under MTS). U n i v e r s i t y of B.C., 1980.  Belmont,  Ca.:  Package f o r the S o c i a l Computing Centre,  N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of S c h o o l Security Directors. Model M i d d l e S c h o o l A l t e r n a t i v e E d u c a t i o n Program. Workshop I I . P r e v e n t i o n programs and f u n d i n g . Fort Lauderdale: Workshop presented a t the A n n u a l M e e t i n g of the N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of School Security Directors, 1980. (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 193781) National School R e s o u r c e Network. A l t e r n a t i v e s c h o o l s and programs: f i v e d e s c r i p t i o n s . Technical Assistance Bulletin 37. Washington, D.C: D e p t . of Justice, 1980. (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 199882) N a t i o n a l S c h o o l R e s o u r c e Network. The School Behaviour M o d i f i c a t i o n C l i n i c . B u l l e t i n 36. Washington, D.C: Dept. (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No.  W i l l i a m A. Wurt H i g h Technical Assistance of Justice, 1980. ED 199881)  Nelson, L.R. G u i d e t o LERTAP Use and D u n e d i n , New Z e a l a n d : U n i v e r s i t y of O t a g o ,  Interpretation. 1974.  Newman, D.G. An a p p r o a c h t o combat s t u d e n t m i s b e h a v i o u r a t 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 ( C O . R . E . )". U n p u b l i s h e d doctoral dissertation, Nova U n i v e r s i t y , 1979. (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 193766) Northwest Evaluation  Regional Education Laboratory, Hawaii R e p o r t 1976-77. P o r t l a n d , Oregon: Author,  3 on 2 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 h i g h s c h o o l s . J o u r n a l of R e s e a r c h and D e v e l o p m e n t i n E d u c a t i o n , 1978, 7 ( 4 ) , 78-91. Provus, M. Publication  Discrepancy Corp., 1971.  Evaluation.  Berkeley:  McCutchan  Reid, J.I. & Lindstrom-Rogers, M. English Skills: A F u n c t i o n a l Approach. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd., 1 979. Rutman, L. ( e d . ) . E v a l u a t i o n Research Methods: A Guide. Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s , I n c . , 1977.  Basic  1 75  Simon, A. & B o y e r , E.G. (eds.). M i r r o r s for Behaviour I I I : An A n t h o l o g y of O b s e r v a t i o n Instruments. Brophy, J.E. & Good, T.L. Teacher-Child Dyadic Interaction. Wyncote: Communication M a t e r i a l s C e n t e r , 1974. Slavin, R.E. A student team approach to a d o l e s c e n t s w i t h s p e c i a l e m o t i o n a l and behavioural P s y c h o l o g y i n the S c h o o l s , 1 977, J_4 ( 1 ) , 7 7 - 8 3 . Stake, R. The Teachers College  countenance of educational Record. 1967, 68(7), 523-540.  Tallmadge, G.K. The R e g r e s s i o n E v a l u a t i o n and R e p o r t i n g S y s t e m . M o u n t a i n V i e w : RMC R e s e a r c h C o r p . ,  Effect. Technical 1976.  teaching needs.  evaluation. ESEA T i t l e 1 Paper No. 3.  Tallmadge, G.K., & Horst, D.P. A P r o c e d u r a l Guide 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 Education. M o u n t a i n V i e w : RMC R e s e a r c h C o r p . , 1976.  for  Whipple, W.S. Changing a t t i t u d e s through behaviour modif i c a t i o n . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t the A n n u a l M e e t i n g of the National Association of Secondary S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s : New Orleans, Louisiana, 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 d e c a d e : 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 y o u t h : s e l e c t e d p a p e r s b a s e d on p r e s e n t a t i o n s from t h e CEC:CCBD N a t i o n a l T o p i c a l C o n f e r e n c e on the S e r i o u s l y E m o t i o n a l l y Disturbed. Minneapolis: Council for Exceptional Children, 1981. Worthen, B.R., Owens, T.R., & Anderson, B. E v a l u a t i o n of t h e A l t e r n a t i v e T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n Programs of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , F a c u l t y of E d u c a t i o n . Portland, Or.: Northwest Regional Education L a b o r a t o r y , 1975. Worthen, B.R. & Sanders, J.R. Educational Evaluation: T h e o r y and P r a c t i c e . B e l m o n t , C a l i f . : Wadsworth P u b l i s h i n g Company, I n c . , 1973. Y a t e s , J.B. A new a l t e r n a t i v e s c h o o l : 1979, 52(6) , 2 6 5 - 2 7 1 .  CEEC.  Clearing  Y a t e s , M.R., S a u n d e r s , R., & W a t k i n s , J . F . A program on Maslow's hierachy helps students in t r o u b l e . Phi Kappa n, 1980, 6J_(10), 7 1 2 - 7 1 3 .  House, based Delta  APPENDIX A  NJAP PARENT/GUARDIAN STUDENT INTERVIEW SCHEDULE  1 77  APPENDIX A NJAP PARENT/GUARDIAN I . 1.  STUDENT INTERVIEW SCHEDULE  Background What s c h o o l s o r p r o g r a m s have you a t t e n d e d i n t h e l a s t two y e a r s ? How many months were y o u i n a c t u a l attendance?  2. What a r e t h e b e h a v i o u r s t h a t in school? 3. What s p e c i f i c school? 4. How 5.  incident  d i d y o u f e e l about  have c a u s e d  resulted being  i n your  problems  suspension  from  suspended?  I s a t t e n d a n c e o r g e t t i n g t o s c h o o l on t i m e a p r o b l e m f o r you? I f s o , what do y o u p l a n t o do about i t t h i s t i m e around?  6. What c h a n g e s do y o u have t o make so t h a t suspended a g a i n ? 11.  you  you don't get  Commitment  7. A r e y o u w i l l i n g t o a c c e p t o u r s u p p o r t i n c h a n g i n g t h e b e h a v i o u r s t h a t have c a u s e d p r o b l e m s f o r you? 8. How much r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a r e y o u w i l l i n g t o a c c e p t f o r y o u r homework and a t t e n d a n c e ? How much r e s p o n s i b i l i t y do y o u e x p e c t y o u r p a r e n t s t o t a k e ? 9. What do y o u e x p e c t  from  being  in this  10. When do y o u t h i n k y o u w i l l be r e a d y c l a s s e s on a p a r t t i m e o r f u l l t i m e 11.  III.  program?  to take basis?  regular  I s i t y o u r d e c i s i o n t o be i n t h e A l t e r n a t e Program? I f n o t , why a r e y o u h e r e ? What would y o u r a t h e r be d o i n g ? What o t h e r o p t i o n s a r e t h e r e a v a i l a b l e f o r you? School Information  12. A r e t h e r e any major c o n c e r n s y o u have i n coming t o Newton J u n i o r S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l , ( i . e . p r o b l e m s h a n d l i n g school rules? r e l a t i n g to teachers? other students?) 13. Do y o u have any f r i e n d s  in this  school?  1 78  14. What c o u r s e s do y o u need 15. What c o u r s e s have  t o complete?  c a u s e d you problems?  16. What p e o p l e , s u c h a s s o c i a l y o u r l i f e now? 17. W i t h whom a r e y o u l i v i n g  workers, a r e i n v o l v e d i n  now?  18. What a r r a n g e m e n t s have been made r e g u l a r s t u d y t i m e a t home?  f o r y o u t o have a  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  D a t e of E n t r y Date of I n t e r v i e w Name I.D. Code Sex Male 1.  How  2.  Do  Female  o l d a r e you? you l i v e yes no Who  do  you  live  with?  Where do  4.  Which s c h o o l d i d you Jun i o r ?  5.  Were you s u s p e n d e d from s c h o o l or d i d you d r o p o u t ? suspended d r o p p e d out Why were you s u s p e n d e d or why d i d you d r o p o u t ?  6.  live?  parents?  3.  How  you  w i t h your  l o n g have you  (Probe go  - West W h a l l e y ,  t o b e f o r e coming  been out  of  Newton) t o Newton  school?  Do you t h i n k any of t h e s e b e h a v i o u r p r o b l e m s a p p l y t o you? Would you p l a c e a checkmark b e s i d e any t h a t do? (The i t e m i s on a s e p a r a t e s h e e t . ) swearing i n c l a s s t a l k i n g back t o t h e t e a c h e r 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 in class making f u n of t h e t e a c h e r Do you have any o t h e r b e h a v i o u r p r o b l e m s ? P l e a s e them?  list  181  7. Do y o u t h i n k t h a t any of t h e s e l e a r n i n g p r o b l e m s a p p l y t o you? P l a c e checkmark b e s i d e any t h a t do? (The i t e m i s on a s e p a r a t e s h e e t . ) Do y o u have p r o b l e m s reading writing 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 l o n g time Do y o u have any o t h e r l e a r n i n g p r o b l e m s ? them? 8. How  9. How  10.  o f t e n a r e y o u away from s c h o o l ? A r e y o u away from s c h o o l more t h a n l e s s t h a n 10x b u t more t h a n 5x l e s s t h a n 5x b u t more t h a n 1x never often are late for school? A r e y o u l a t e f o r s c h o o l more o f t e n l e s s t h a n 10x b u t more t h a n 5x l e s s t h a n 5x b u t more t h a n i x never  Please  list  10 t i m e s a y e a r ?  than  10x a y e a r ?  In y o u r l a s t s c h o o l d i d y o u have any t r o u b l e a l o n g w i t h your t e a c h e r s ? yes no classmates yes no  getting  11. Do y o u have any t r o u b l e g e t t i n g a l o n g w i t h y o u r parents? yes no b r o t h e r s and s i s t e r s yes no What k i n d s o f p r o b l e m s do y o u have a t home? (Probe do you f i g h t w i t h y o u r f a m i l y . )  12. A t y o u r l a s t s c h o o l , how w e l l the f o l l o w i n g s u b j e c t s ? Poor English Mathematics Social Studies Sc i e n c e  d i d you u n d e r s t a n d Fair  Good  182  13. D i d y o u l i k e  these  English yes Math yes Social Studies Science yes  subjects? no  no yes no  no  14. Do y o u know what an a l t e r n a t e yes no What i s i t ?  program i s ?  15. I s t h i s t h e f i r s t a l t e r n a t e p r o g r a m t h a t y o u have attended? yes no How many a l t e r n a t e p r o g r a m s have y o u a t t e n d e d ? What a r e t h e s e p r o g r a m s ?  16. A r e y o u happy t h a t yes no I f y e s , why? 17. Would y o u p r e f e r yes no I f y e s , why?  y o u a r e back a t  t o be i n a r e g u l a r  school?  classroom?  18. When do y o u t h i n k t h a t y o u s h o u l d be p l a c e d back i n a r e g u l a r c l a s s r o o m ? ( P r o b e - When t h e t e a c h e r s t h i n k t h a t y o u a r e r e a d y ? o r when y o u t h i n k t h a t you a r e r e a d y ? o r f o r b o t h r e a s o n s ?  1  APPENDIX POST INTERVIEW Date of  SCHEDULE FOR EVALUATION  B STUDENTS BEGAN  ENROLLED  AFTER  Interview  Name I.D. Code 1. Do you t h i n k any o f t h e s e b e h a v i o u r p r o b l e m s a p p l y t o you? Would you p l a c e a checkmark b e s i d e any t h a t do? (The i t e m i s on a s e p a r a t e sheet.) swearing i n c l a s s t a l k i n g back t o t h e t e a c h e r 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 yelling in class making f u n o f t h e t e a c h e r Do y o u have any o t h e r b e h a v i o u r p r o b l e m s ? P l e a s e them?  list  2. Do you t h i n k t h a t any o f t h e s e l e a r n i n g p r o b l e m s a p p l y t o you? P l a c e checkmark b e s i d e any t h a t do? (The i t e m i s on a s e p a r a t e sheet.) Do y o u have p r o b l e m s reading writing remembering t h i n g s studying l i s t e n i n g f o r a l o n g time c o n c e n t r a t i n g f o r a long time Do you have any o t h e r l e a r n i n g p r o b l e m s ? P l e a s e them?  list  3. Do y o u l i k e Newton J u n i o r A l e r n a t e program? y e s Why? (Probe - I s i t b e c a u s e you l i k e t h e t e a c h e r s ? or ar you doing w e l l ? ) no Why? (Probe - Do y o u d i s l i k e or a r e y o u d o i n g p o o r l y ? )  the teachers?  4. How d o e s t h e a l t e r n a t e p r o g r a m d i f f e r from t h e r e g u l a r c l a s s ? (Probe - I s i t more f l e x i b l e ? I s t h e r e more f r e e d o m ? A r e your c l a s s e s more i n d i v i d u a l i z e d ? )  83  184  5.  Do y o u p r e f e r Newton J u n i o r o v e r t h e l a s t r e g u l a r s c h o o l you went t o ? y e s , Why? ( P r o b e - A r e you d o i n g b e t t e r ? A r e y o u r t e a c h e r s more understanding?) no Why? ( P r o b e - I s t h e p r o g r a m more d i f f i c u l t ? Can you n o t f o o l a r o u n d a s much? A r e t h e t e a c h e r s n o t as n i c e ? ) Is t h i s y o u r f i r s t a l t e r n a t e program? yes no ( I f y e s ) Have y o u l e a r n e d more i n t h e a l t e r n a t e program? ( I f no) Do y o u p r e f e r Newton J u n i o r o v e r t h e o t h e r a l t e r n a t e programs t h a t you have a t t e n d e d ? yes Why? ( P r o b e - I s Newton J u n i o r more flexible? or does i t o f f e r more freedom? o r a r e t h e t e a c h e r s better? In w h i c h a l t e r n a t e program have y o u l e a r n e d Newton J u n i o r other  6. Do y o u l i k e Mary? y e s , Why? no Why? Is she a good t e a c h e r ? yes no What a b o u t Sue? Do y o u l i k e h e r ? Is  she a good  teacher?  yes  yes  more?  Why?  no  What does C a r o l do? Do  you l i k e no,  her?  yes  Why?  Is she good a t h e r j o b ? What does Mr. L e e do? Do y o u l i k e Why? 8.  Why?  him?  no  yes  no  yes  Do y o u l i k e E n g l i s h ? yes no How do y o u t h i n k y o u ' r e d o i n g i n E n g l i s h ? poor fair good Do y o u t h i n k y o u ' r e d o i n g b e t t e r now t h a t y o u a r e a t t e n d i n g Newton J u n i o r ? no yes What a b o u t math? Do you l i k e i t ? yes How do y o u t h i n k y o u ' r e d o i n g i n Math? poor fair good  no  185  Are  you  doing  b e t t e r than  before?  yes  How How Are  a b o u t S o c i a l S t u d i e s ? Do you l i k e i t ? a r e you d o i n g i n i t ? poor fair you d o i n g b e t t e r t h a n b e f o r e ? yes  no yes good no  Do you l i k e S c i e n c e ? yes no How do you t h i n k y o u ' r e d o i n g i n i t ? poor fair good A r e you d o i n g b e t t e r t h a n b e f o r e ? yes 9.  you have any p r o b l e m s a t home? no y e s , Who w i t h ? y o u r p a r e n t s brother What k i n d s of p r o b l e m s do you have? (Probe  no  Do  Is  10.  no  Do  i t any no yes,  & -  sisters fightingT  b e t t e r a t home s i n c e coming t o Newton J u n i o r ? How  is i t better?  you g e t a l o n g w i t h Mary & Sue? yes no, Why not?  classmates? no, Why  yes not?  11.  S i n c e coming t o t h i s s c h o o l , how o f t e n have you been away? p e r week p e r month A r e you a b s e n t as o f t e n a s a t y o u r l a s t s c h o o l ? yes no, Why not?  12.  How Are  13.  Does Does What Does What  o f t e n a r e you l a t e ? p e r wk p e r month you l a t e as o f t e n as a t y o u r l a s t s c h o o l ? yes no Mary e n c o u r a g e you t o work h a r d ? yes no she t e l l you when you a r e d o i n g w e l l ? yes a b o u t Sue? Does she e n c o u r a g e you? yes no she t e l l you when you a r e d o i n g w e l l ? yes about C a r o l ? yes no  no no  186  14. Do y o u 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 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 a r e t h e s e ? 1. 5. 2. 6. 3. 7. 4. 8. 15. Do you want t o a t t e n d yes Why no Why  any r e g u l a r  the a l t e r n a t e  classes?  16. Do y o u t h i n k t h a t any improvements s h o u l d be made a t Newton J u n i o r ? ( P r o b e - t e a c h e r s , s u b j e c t s , h o u r s ) no yes What improvements? 17. What  do you l i k e  a b o u t Newton  Junior?  187  APPENDIX B SHORT INTERVIEW SCHEDULE Date  of I n t e r v i e w  Name ID Code 1.  (show c a r d ) Do you t h i n k any of t h e s e b e h a v i o u r p r o b l e m s a p p l y t o you? (Check any t h a t do.) Have any o f t h e s e p r o b l e m s d e c r e a s e d s i n c e b e i n g a t Newton J u n i o r ? no y e s , w h i c h ones  2.  (show c a r d ) Do you t h i n k t h a t any of t h e s e l e a r n i n g p r o b l e m s a p p l y t o you? ( c h e c k any t h a t do.) Have any o f t h e s e p r o b l e m s d e c r e a s e d s i n c e b e i n g a t Newton J u n i o r ? no yes, which  ones?  3. How  do you t h i n k y o u ' r e d o i n g i n E n g l i s h now? poor fair good Do you t h i n k t h a t you have improved s i n c e t h e l a s t t i m e I a s k e d you? yes no Do you l i k e E n g l i s h ? yes no  What a b o u t math? How a r e you d o i n g i n i t ? poor fair good Have you improved? yes no Do you l i k e Math? yes no Do  you  like  Science?  yes  no  How  do you t h i n k y o u ' r e d o i n g i n S c i e n c e now? poor fair good Have you improved? yes no What a b o u t S o c i a l S t u d i e s ? Do you l i k e i t ? yes no How do you t h i n k y o u ' r e d o i n g i n i t ? poor fair good Have you i m p r o v e d any? yes no 4. Do  y o u have any p r o b l e m s a t home? no y e s Who w i t h ? your p a r e n t s b r o t h e r s and What k i n d s of p r o b l e m s do you have?  sisters (probe -  fighting)  Has i t improved you? no  a t home s i n c e t h e l a s t t i m e I a s k e d y e s , how i s i t b e t t e r ?  Do y o u have any t r o u b l e g e t t i n g a l o n g no y e s , what k i n d of p r o b l e m s ?  w i t h Mary?  Do y o u have any t r o u b l e g e t t i n g a l o n g no y e s , what k i n d of p r o b l e m s ?  w i t h Sue?  What a b o u t C a r o l ? no y e s , what k i n d  of p r o b l e m s ?  Do y o u g e t a l o n g w i t h y o u r c l a s s m a t e s ? yes no, why n o t ? How  often  were you away t h i s  Were you away more yes no, why n o t ? How  last  last  month?  month?  many t i m e s were y o u l a t e  Were you l a t e more yes no, why n o t ?  past  this  past  month?  month?  Does Mary e n c o u r a g e y o u t o work h a r d ? yes no Does she t e l l y o u when y o u a r e d o i n g w e l l ? yes no What a b o u t Sue? yes no yes no What a b o u t C a r o l ? yes no yes no  189  APPENDIX B POST INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR STUDENTS ENROLLED PRIOR TO EVALUATION Date Date  of E n t r y of Interview  Name I.D. Code Sex Male  Female  1. How o l d a r e you? 2. Do you l i v e w i t h y o u r p a r e n t s ? yes no Who do y o u l i v e  with?  3. Where do y o u l i v e ?  Whalley)  4. Which  school  ( P r o b e - West  d i d you l a s t  attend?  5. Were y o u s u s p e n d e d from s c h o o l o r d i d y o u d r o p o u t ? Suspended, Why were y o u s u s p e n d e d ? Dropped How  long  have  o u t , Why d i d y o u d r o p o u t ? y o u been  out of school?  6. (Show c a r d ) Do y o u t h i n k any o f t h e s e b e h a v i o u r p r o b l e m s a p p l y t o you? (Check any t h a t do.) Have t h e s e p r o b l e m s d e c r e a s e d s i n c e b e i n g a t Newton Junior? no y e s , Which o n e s ? 7.  (Show C a r d ) Do y o u t h i n k t h a t any o f t h e s e . l e a r n i n g p r o b l e m s a p p l y t o you? (Check any t h a t do.) Do y o u t h i n k any o f t h e s e p r o b l e m s have improved? no y e s , Which o n e s ?  8. Do y o u l i k e Newton J u n i o r A l e r n a t e program? y e s , Why? ( P r o b e - I s i t b e c a u s e y o u l i k e t h e t e a c h e r s or i s i t because you a r e doing better i n school?) no" Why? ( P r o b e - Do y o u d i s l i k e t h e t e a c h e r s or a r e you doing p o o r l y ? )  190  9. How does t h e a l t e r n a t e p r o g r a m d i f f e r from the r e g u l a r s c h o o l ? ( P r o b e - I s i t more flexible? more i n d i v i d u a l i z e d ? more f r e e r ? ) 10. Do y o u p r e f e r Newton J u n i o r t o t h e l a s t r e g u l a r r e g u l a r school you attended? y e s , Why? ( P r o b e - A r e y o u d o i n g b e t t e r ? ) no, Why? In  (Probe - A r e you doing  w h i c h c l a s s have y o u l e a r n e d alternate regular  worse?)  more?  11. I s t h i s t h e f i r s t a l t e r n a t e p r o g r a m t h a t y o u have a t t e n d e d ? yes no How many a l t e r n a t e p r o g r a m s have y o u a t t e n d e d ? What a r e t h e s e p r o g r a m s ? 1. 3. 2. 4. Which a l t e r n a t e p r o g r a m do y o u p r e f e r ? Why? In w h i c h a l t e r n a t e Newton J u n i o r  p r o g r a m have y o u l e a r n e d more? o t h e r , Which program?  12. Do y o u l i k e Mary? y e s , Why? no, Why? I s she a good t e a c h e r ? What a b o u t Sue? Do y o u l i k e  yes her?  no y e s , Why?  yes  no  no, Why? Is  she a good t e a c h e r ?  13. What does C a r o l do? Do y o u l i k e  her?  y e s , Why?  no, Why? I s she good a t h e r j o b ? What does J u n g L e e do?  yes  no  191  Do y o u l i k e Why?  14.  him?  no  yes  Do y o u l i k e E n g l i s h ? yes no How do y o u t h i n k y o u ' r e d o i n g i n E n g l i s h ? Poor Fair Good Do you t h i n k y o u ' r e d o i n g b e t t e r t h a n b e f o r e you a t t e n d e d Newton J u n i o r ? no yes What a b o u t math? Do y o u l i k e i t ? yes How do y o u t h i n k y o u ' r e d o i n g i n Math? Poor Fair Good A r e y o u d o i n g b e t t e r than b e f o r e ? yes  15.  no  How a b o u t S o c i a l S t u d i e s ? Do y o u l i k e i t ? yes no How a r e y o u d o i n g i n i t ? Poor Fair Good Are you d o i n g b e t t e r than b e f o r e ? yes  no  Do y o u l i k e S c i e n c e ? yes _no How do y o u t h i n k y o u ' r e d o i n g i n i t ? poor fair good A r e y o u d o i n g b e t t e r than b e f o r e ? yes  no  Do y o u have any p r o b l e m s a t home? no y e s , Who W i t h ? parents brothers/sisters What k i n d s o f p r o b l e m s do y o u have? (Probe - f i g h t i n g ) Is  16.  no  i t any b e t t e r a t home s i n c e coming t o Newton J u n i o r ? no y e s How i s i t b e t t e r ?  In y o u r l a s t s c h o o l d i d y o u have any p r o b l e m s g e t t i n g a l o n g w i t h your t e a c h e r s ? no y e s , What k i n d s o f p r o b l e m s ? classmates? y e s , What Do  no kinds of problems?  y o u g e t a l o n g w i t h Mary & Sue? yes no, Why n o t ?  classmates? no, Why  yes not?  1 92  17.  S i n c e coming t o t h i s s c h o o l , how o f t e n have y o u been absent? p e r week p e r month Are you away a s o f t e n a s a t y o u r l a s t school? yes no, Why n o t ?  18.  per wk How o f t e n a r e y o u l a t e ? Are y o u l a t e a s o f t e n a s a t y o u r l a s t yes no, Why?  19.  Does Mary e n c o u r a g e y o u t o work h a r d ? yes Does she t e l l y o u t h a t y o u a r e d o i n g w e l l ? yes no What a b o u t Sue? yes no yes What a b o u t C a r o l ? yest yes no  p e r month school?  no no  20  Do y o u 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 t h e a l t e r n a t e program? yes no How many r e g u l a r c l a s s e s ? Which s u b j e c t s a r e t h e s e ? 1. 5. 2. 6. 7. 3. 8. 4.  21.  Do y o u want t o a t t e n d yes no Why?  22.  When do y o u t h i n k t h a t y o u s h o u l d be p l a c e d i n a r e g u l a r c l a s s r o o m ? (Probe - When t h e t e a c h e r s t h i n k t h a t y o u a r e r e a d y o r when y o u t h i n k t h a t you a r e r e a d y ? - o r b o t h ? )  23.  Do y o u t h i n k t h a t any improvements s h o u l d be made a t Newton J u n i o r ? ( P r o b e - t e a c h e r s , c l a s s e s , hours) no yes What improvements?  24.  What do y o u l i k e  any r e g u l a r  a b o u t Newton  classes?  Junior?  no  APPENDIX B PROGRAM TEACHERS  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 A l t e r n a t e Program? 2  Where d i d you work p r i o r  3.  I s NJAP y o u r f i r s t t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e a l t e r n a t e program? yes no, p l e a s e expand?  4.  What  Did the  t o Newton  Junior  Junior? a t an  t r a i n i n g do y o u have? 1 y e a r t e a c h i n g t r a i n i n g program B.Ed 5th y e a r S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n B.A. M.A. S o c i a l Work Program Courses i n Psychology Courses i n Sociology 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 a l t e r n a t e program? no yes, please elaborate.  5. What  work e x p e r i e n c e do y o u have? regular classroom teacher o t h e r a l t e r n a t e programs other s p e c i a l ed. c l a s s e s Please specify? related experience Please specify?  6. Who was t h e p r o g r a m d e s i g n e d 7.  length length length  of time of time of time  length  of time  for?  F o r what g r a d e l e v e l and i n t e l l e c t u a l was t h e p r o g r a m d e s i g n e d ?  level  1 94  8.  What b e h a v i o u r  p r o b l e m s do  9. What l e a r n i n g  10.  p r o b l e m s do  the  the  students  students  A r e t h e r e any s u p p o r t and s t a f f a v a i l a b l e f o r Newton J u n i o r ? y e s , What a r e t h e y ? Which of t h e s e  s e r v i c e s are  used  have?  have?  services no by  the  program?  11. What s t a n d a r d s must be met i n o r d e r f o r a s t u d e n t t o be a d m i t t e d t o Newton J u n i o r ?  12. D e s c r i b e  13.  the p r o c e s s  for admitting a  student?  Can s t u d e n t s be a d m i t t e d t o t h e program w i t h o u t b e i n g r e f e r r e d by t h e s c h o o l b o a r d ? 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 s t u d e n t i s t o be r e i n t e g r a t e d ?  when a  Do you c o n s u l t t e a c h e r s a t t h e r e g u l a r s c h o o l where t h e s t u d e n t i s t o be e n r o l l e d ? no 15.  To  yes  what d e g r e e a r e p a r e n t s i n v o l v e d i n t h e program? a s s e s s m e n t and p l a c e m e n t parental contracting home p r o g r a m s reassessments r e i n t e g r a t i o n and d i s m i s s a l I s t h e r e enough p a r t i c i p a t i o n from p a r e n t s ? yes no, Why not?  16. What o n g o i n g Do  training  is available  you make use of t h i s yes no  ongoing  for  staff?  training?  195  17. What c r i t e r i a i s u s e d  i n determing  whether  or n o t a s t u d e n t i s r e a d y t o r e t u r n t o t h e r e g u l a r program or i s l i a b l e t o be s u s p e n d e d ?  18.  What e f f e c t does t h e a l t e r n a t e program have on the r e g u l a r s c h o o l ? Do y o u r e c e i v e s u p p o r t from t h e r e g u l a r yes no, p l e a s e e l a b o r a t e ? principal central  office  yes  no, p l e a s e yes  teachers?  elaborate?  no, p l e a s e  elaborate?  Is i t d i f f i c u l t t o g e t m a t e r i a l s and s u p p l i e s f o r t h e a l t e r n a t e program? yes no 19.  What p e r c e n t a g e o f y o u r t i m e r e c o r d k e e p i n g and r e v i e w ?  20.  A r e any g u i d e l i n e s f o l l o w e d yes no What a r e t h e s e  i s devoted to  forinstruction?  guidelines?  21.  I s the i n t e n t i o n of the program t o r e i n t e g r a t e a l l of the students students? yes no  22.  A r e t h e number o f r e i n t e g r a t e d s t u d e n t s to i n c r e a s e each year? yes no  23.  What do y o u t h i n k o f t h e p h y s i c a l f a c i l i t i e s ? Do y o u l i k e t h e o p e n - a r e a c l a s s r o o m ?  24.  What do y o u t h i n k o f team t e a c h i n g ? A r e t h e r e any c o n f l i c t s between t h e two o f you? Are t h e r e any c o n f l i c t s w i t h C a r o l ?  expected  1 96  25. What a r e t h e s t r e n g t h s o f t h e program?  26. What a r e t h e w e a k n e s s e s ?  27. What s u g g e s t i o n s do you have improvement of NJAP?  f o r the  28. Do y o u want t o c o n t i n u e t e a c h i n g a l t e r n a t e program? yes no, Why n o t ? Where would you l i k e  to  teach?  i n the  1 97  APPENDIX SUPPORT  B  PERSON I N T E R V I E W  SCHEDULE  Name Code 1.  When d i d y o u b e g i n w o r k i n g Alternate Program?  2.  Where  3.  Is  4.  What  d i d you  NJAP y o u r yes  Did the  prior  Newton  t o Newton  Junior  Junior?  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 no, p l e a s e expand?  t r a i n i n g do you h a v e ? 1 year c h i l d care program B.A. B.S.W. B.S. S o c i a l Work P r o g r a m Courses in Psychology Courses in Sociology you r e c e i v e any s p e c i a l t r a i n i n g a l t e r n a t e program? no yes, please elaborate.  5.  What  6.  Who w a s  7.  For was  8.  What  9. W h a t  work  at  work  e x p e r i e n c e do you  for  have?  the program designed  for?  what g r a d e l e v e l and i n t e l l e c t u a l the program designed? behaviour  problems  l e a r n i n g problems  do  do  the  the  level  students  students  have?  have?  program?  198  10.  A r e t h e r e any s u p p o r t and Newton J u n i o r ? no What a r e t h e y ? Which of  these  staff services available yes  s e r v i c e s are used  11. What s t a n d a r d s must be s t u d e n t t o be a d m i t t e d  the p r o c e s s  by  the  program?  met i n o r d e r f o r a t o Newton J u n i o r ?  12.  Describe  13.  Can s t u d e n t s be a d m i t t e d t o t h e p r o g r a m w i t h o u t b e i n g r e f e r r e d by t h e s c h o o l b o a r d ? 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 s t u d e n t i s t o be r e i n t e g r a t e d ?  for admitting a  student?  when a  Do you c o n s u l t t e a c h e r s a t t h e r e g u l a r s c h o o l where t h e s t u d e n t i s t o be e n r o l l e d ? no 15.  To  16.  What o n g o i n g  for  yes  what d e g r e e a r e p a r e n t s i n v o l v e d i n t h e program? a s s e s s m e n t and p l a c e m e n t parental contracting home p r o g r a m s reassessments r e i n t e g r a t i o n and d i s m i s s a l I s t h e r e enough p a r t i c i p a t i o n from p a r e n t s ? yes no, why not?  Do  training  is available  you make use of t h i s yes no  17. What c r i t e r i a  i s used  ongoing  for  staff?  training?  i n determing  whether  or not a s t u d e n t i s r e a d y t o r e t u r n t o t h e p r o g r a m or i s l i a b l e t o be s u s p e n d e d ?  regular  199  18.  What e f f e c t does t h e a l t e r n a t e p r o g r a m have on the r e g u l a r s c h o o l ? Do y o u r e c e i v e s u p p o r t from t h e r e g u l a r yes no, p l e a s e e l a b o r a t e ? princial central  yes office  no, p l e a s e yes  teachers?  elaborate?  no, p l e a s e  elaborate?  Is i t d i f f i c u l t t o g e t m a t e r i a l s and s u p p l i e s f o r t h e a l t e r n a t e program? yes no 19.  What p e r c e n t a g e o f y o u r t i m e r e c o r d k e e p i n g and r e v i e w ?  20.  What  21.  I s the i n t e n t i o n of the program a l l of t h e s t u d e n t s s t u d e n t s ?  22.  A r e t h e number o f r e i n t e g r a t e d s t u d e n t s to i n c r e a s e each year? yes no  23.  What do y o u t h i n k o f t h e p h y s i c a l f a c i l i t i e s ? Do y o u l i k e t h e o p e n - a r e a c l a s s r o o m ?  24.  What do y o u t h i n k of t h e team Are t h e r e any c o n f l i c t s ?  25.  What a r e t h e s t r e n g t h s  26.  What a r e t h e w e a k n e s s e s ?  i s your  role  i s devoted t o  i n t h e a l t e r n a t e program?  to reintegrate yes no  approach?  o f t h e program?  expected  200  27. What s u g g e s t i o n s do you have improvement of NJAP?  f o r the  28. Do you want t o c o n t i n u e w o r k i n g a l t e r n a t e program? yes no, Why n o t ? Where would you l i k e  t o work?  i n the  201  APPENDIX PRINCIPAL  B  INTERVIEW  SCHEDULE  1.  Is  t h i s your f i r s t experience w i t h S p e c i a l yes 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.  Did was  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 i n t h e s c h o o l b e f o r e y o u came t o N e w t o n J u n i o r ? yes no H a d y o u k n o w n , 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 If  y o u want t h i s y e s , Why?  If  no,  program  Have y o u c o n s i d e r e d of t h e program?  5.  Were y o u teachers What  to  be  here?  yes  no  Why?  4.  6.  Education?  role  or attempted to yes no  get  i n v o l v e d i n the s e l e c t i o n of f o r the a l t e r n a t i v e program? do y o u  play  in  the  alternate  rid  the yes  no  program?  Are  you i n v o l v e d i n the s u p e r v i s i o n of t h e program? yes no - s u p e r v i s i o n of t e a c h e r s ? yes no - s u p e r v i s i o n of s t u d e n t s ? yes no - Are you i n v o l v e d in d i s c i p l i n i n g a l t e r n a t e students? yes no Would you p r e f e r t o have more c o n t r o l o v e r t h e p r o g r a m ? yes 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 ? Is the t e a c h e r of the s c h o o l where the 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 regular -  the  -the -  the impact school?  of  the  a l t e r n a t e program  regular  classroom  teachers?  yourself?  the  alternate  Are there teachers?  9.  10.  11.  the  students?  I s t h e r e c o o p e r a t i o n among and r e g u l a r teachers? Do  on  teachers  conflicts  teachers with  are  the  strengths  What  are  the  weaknesses?  you  of  the  have  you?  a l t e r n a t e and  interact socially lunch hour, a f t e r  What  do  cooperate  between  Do a l t e r n a t e t e a c h e r s regular teachers (eg. yes no  What s u g g e s t i o n s the program?  alternate  with school)?  program?  for  regular  improving  203  APPENDIX B PREVIOUS PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 1. Was Newton J u n i o r y o u r f i r s t 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  experience  p r o g r a m end up i n y o u r  D i d y o u want t h e a l t e r n a t e yes no  program  3. D i d you e v e r c o n s i d e r o r a t t e m p t of t h e program? yes no  school?  i n Newton J u n i o r ?  to get r i d  4. 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 e program? yes no 5. What  role  d i d you p l a y  i n the a l t e r n a t e  program?  Were 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 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 y o u i n v o l v e d w i t h 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 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 or s u s p e n s i o n p r o c e s s ? Who was i n v o l v e d ? Was t h e r e g u l a r t e a c h e r a t t h e s c h o o l where t h e a l t e r n a t e s t u d e n t was t o be e n r o l l e d i n v o l v e d ?  7. What was t h e impact o f t h e a l t e r n a t e on t h e r e g u l a r s c h o o l ? - the teachers? -the  regular classroom  - yourself?  teachers?  program  204  Was t h e r e u n d e r s t a n d i n g and c o - o p e r a t i o n r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s and a l t e r n a t e s t a f f ?  amongst  Were t h e r e any c o n f l i c t s ?  8. D i d t h e 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 with r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s (eg. l u n c h hour, a f t e r 9. What were What were  the s t r e n g t h s of the  program?  the weaknesses?  10. What s u g g e s t i o n s t h e program?  do y o u have  f o r improving  school)?  205  APPENDIX B HEAD OF STUDENT SERVICES INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 1. What t r a i n i n g and work e x p e r i e n c e a r e t e a c h e r s employed a t NJAP e x p e c t e d t o have? A r e t h e y g i v e n any t r a i n i n g b e f o r e t h e a l t e r n a t e program? ) no yes, please specify? 2. What t r a i n i n g and work e x p e r i e n c e support person e x p e c t e d t o have?  teaching at  i s the  3. A r e t h e r e any s u p p o r t 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 a r e t h e s e ?  4. What o n g o i n g  training  5. What d i s t r i c t s u p p o r t Newton J u n i o r ? Are Who 6. Who  i s available  for staff?  do y o u r e c e i v e f o r  you g e t t i n g adequate do y o u r e p o r t t o ?  support?  was t h e p r o g r a m d e s i g n e d  yes  for?  7. F o r what g r a d e l e v e l and i n t e l l e c t u a l was t h e p r o g r a m d e s i g n e d ?  level  8. What s t a n d a r d s must be met i n o r d e r f o r a s t u d e n t t o be a d m i t t e d t o Newton J u n i o r ? 9. D e s c r i b e  the process  for admitting a  student?  no  206  10. Can s t u d e n t s be a d m i t t e d t o t h e program w i t h o u t b e i n g r e f e r r e d by t h e s c h o o l b o a r d ? no yes, Please elaborate. 11. How  long  should  the waiting  p e r i o d be?  12. Who i s i n v o l v e d i n t h e d e c i s i o n when a s t u d e n t i s t o be r e i n t e g r a t e d ? Do y o u c o n s u l t t e a c h e r s a t t h e r e g u l a r where t h e s t u d e n t i s t o be e n r o l l e d ?  school yes  no  13. To what d e g r e e a r e p a r e n t s i n v o l v e d i n t h e program? Are t h e y i n v o l v e d i n - a s s e s s m e n t and p l a c e m e n t ? yes - parental contracting? yes - home p r o g r a m s ? yes - reassessments? yes - r e i n t e g r a t i o n or d i s m i s s a l ? yes I s t h e r e enough p a r t i c i p a t i o n from p a r e n t s ? yes no 14. What e f f e c t does t h e a l t e r n a t e program have on on t h e r e g u l a r s c h o o l ? 15. I s t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h e p r o g r a m a l l of t h e s t u d e n t s ? yes no  to reintegrate  16. A r e t h e number o f r e i n t e g r a t e d s t u d e n t s expected t o i n c r e a s e each year? yes no 17. What a r e t h e s t r e n g t h s  of t h e program?  18. What a r e t h e w e a k n e s s e s ?  19. What s u g g e s t i o n s Newton J u n i o r ?  do you have  f o r t h e improvement o f  no no no no no  208  APPENDIX C REGULAR TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE 1. F o r what s u b j e c t s do y o u have  2. Who  are these  3. How  do t h e s e  alternate  students?  s t u d e n t s behave  i n the r e g u l a r  4. What c a t e g o r y b e s t d e s c r i b e s e a c h h a r d worker a v e r a g e worker nonworker  students take part  class?  student?  5. How much a r e t h e s e s t u d e n t s l e a r n i n g ? one c a t e g o r y f o r e a c h s t u d e n t ? s t e a d i l y improving s m a l l amount o f 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 discussions?  students in?  Please  select  i n classroom  7. Do a l t e r n a t e s t u d e n t s c o n t i n u a l l y the c l a s s r o o m ?  disrupt  8. A r e t h e s e s t u d e n t s w i t h d r a w n classroom?  while  9. Do y o u want t o have s t u d e n t s program i n your c l a s s r o o m ?  from t h e a l t e r n a t e yes no  10. What e f f e c t classroom?  on y o u r  do t h e s e  students?  s t u d e n t s have  i n your  on y o u r  209  11. What r o l e do y o u p l a y i n t h e d e c i s i o n t o r e i n t e g r a t e a student?  12.  Do you p l a y any r o l e i n t h e d e c i s i o n t o suspend a s t u d e n t ? no yes, please elaborate?  13. How would y o u r a t e t h e amount of c o n t a c t t h a t t a k e s p l a c e between y o u and a l t e r n a t e t e a c h e r s ? daily 3 t i m e s p e r week . weekly biweekly monthly 14.  How o f t e n does t h e s u p p o r t about a l t e r n a t e s t u d e n t s ? daily 3 t i m e s p e r week weekly biweekly monthly  15. A r e you aware of what a l t e r n a t e classroom? yes no  person  c o n t a c t you  takes p l a c e i n the  16. Would y o u a t some l a t e r d a t e 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 y o u p r e f e r t h a t t h e a l t e r n a t e was n o t a t y o u r s c h o o l ? yes Please elaborate? 18. What a r e t h e  program no  s t r e n g t h s of the a l t e r n a t e  program?  19. What a r e t h e w e a k n e s s e s ?  20.  What s u g g e s t i o n s do y o u have f o r i m p r o v i n g t h e a l t e r n a t e program?  210  APPENDIX PARENT 1.  C  QUESTIONNAIRE  How l o n g h a s y o u r s o n / d a u g h t e r b e e n Newton J u n i o r A l t e r n a t e Program?  at  2. D i d y o u w a n t y o u r s o n / d a u g h t e r t o a t t e n d a l t e r n a t e program? y e s , why? no,  why  an  not?  3. W e r e y o u c o n s u l t e d when y o u r son/daughter was t o be p l a c e d i n N e w t o n J u n i o r A l t e r n a t e Program? yes no 4. W e r e y o u i n v o l v e d son/daughter?  in the assessment yes no  of  your  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 Newton J u n i o r A l t e r n a t e Program? no yes  in  6.  A r e t h e r e a n y home p r o g r a m s f o r y o u r 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 ?  son/  7.  Have y o u been i n v o l v e d i n any reassessments of your s o n / d a u g h t e r ' s b e h a v i o u r or l e a r n i n g capabilities? no yes, please elaborate?  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 between you-and the a l t e r n a t e program? ( P l e a s e c i r c l e one o n l y ) Less than adequate 1 2 3 4 5 Very Adequate  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 knowledge of E n g l i s h , M a t h , S c i e n c e , and S o c i a l S t u d i e s has improved s i n c e a t t e n d i n g Newton J u n i o r ? yes no In what s u b j e c t a r e a s has y o u r son/daughter's knowledge improved? (Check a l l t h a t a p p l y ) English  21 1  Math Social Studies Science 10.  Has y o u r s o n / d a u g h t e r l e a r n e d any s k i l l s t h a t have h e l p e d h i m / h e r t o c o p e b e t t e r a t home? no yes, p l e a s e g i v e examples.  11. Has t h e r e been a r e d u c t i o n i n unwanted b e h a v i o u r s , s u c h as s w e a r i n g , f i g h t i n g , yes no Does y o u r s o n / d a u g h t e r going to school? yes no  13.  Has  14.  Do e i t h e r t h e t e a c h e r s or s u p p o r t p e r s o n communicate w i t h you a b o u t y o u r s o n / d a u g h t e r a regular basis? yes no  son/daughter's no  forward  shouting?  12.  your yes  look  or  attendance  to  improved?  on  15.  A r e you s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e amount of c o n t a c t t h a t t a k e s 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 o n l y ) 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 a r e you c o n t a c t e d ? daily weekly bi-weekly monthly have not e x p e r i e n c e d  (Check one  only)  212  17. How would you r a t e t h e Newton J u n i o r A l t e r n a t e Program w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e f o l l o w i n g ? ( C i r c l e one number f o r e a c h ) The t e a c h e r s and s u p p o r t p e r s o n a r e k n o w l e d g e a b l e and s k i l l f u l i n t h e i r roles. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly  agree  My s o n / d a u g h t e r ' s b e h a v i o u r p r o b l e m s have d e c r e a s e d s i n c e e n r o l l i n g a t Newton J u n i o r Alternate Program, strongly disagree 1 2 3 4  5  strongly  agree  My s o n / d a u g h t e r ' s l e a r n i n g p r o b l e m s have d e c r e a s e d s i n c e e n r o l l i n g a t Newton J u n i o r Alternate Program, strongly disagree 1 2 3 4  5  strongly  agree  My s o n / d a u g h t e r ' s a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s c h o o l has i m p r o v e d s i n c e b e g i n n i n g a t Newton Junior. strongly disagree 1 2 3  4  5  strongly  agree  My s o n / d a u g t e r ' s b e h a v i o u r a t home h a s i m p r o v e d , strongly disagree 1 2 3  4  5  strongly  agree  I am g l a d t h a t my s o n / d a u g h t e r is attending the a l t e r n a t e program. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5  strongly  agree  18. How would you r a t e t h e o v e r a l l s u c c e s s o f Newton J u n i o r A l t e r n a t e Program? Poor 1 2 3 4 5 Excellent 19. Would y o u p r e f e r t h a t y o u r s o n / d a u g h t e r a t a n o t h e r a l t e r n a t e program? no y e s , Which one a n d Why?  was  20. What a r e t h e s t r e n g t h s  program?  of the a l t e r n a t e  213  21. What a r e t h e w e a k n e s s e s ?  22. What s u g g e s t i o n s do y o u have f o r i m p r o v i n g 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  Addition 1.  7 0  2.  8 9 2 6  3.  36 98 65 18  4.  479 894 273 686  Subtract ion 5.  763 464  6.  4730 4041  7.  3001 485  Mult i p l i c a t ion 789 67  10.  945 308  11.  820 40  Divi sion 12.  4T0  13.  14.  96)76801  15. 42)8526  Change  16.  to i t s simplest  6/10 =  Change  17.  3)2830  (Write remainders i f any, a s common fract ions.)  form.  3 4/8 =  18.  14 3/3 =  21.  2/3 -  t o a m i x e d number.  19.  19/8 =  22.  7 i s what  20. 2 3/4 = part  o f 28?  /4  /6  216  Addition 23.  39 5 7/12  24.  15 3/4 12 1/2  25.  3/4 4 1/3 5 5/6  28.  23 1/4 8 2/3  Subtract ion 26.  1/2 1/3  27.  For its  i t e m s 29 t h r o u g h s i m p l e s t form.  29. 31.  1/2 o f 1/3 = 2/3X5=  15 6 3/4  36, e a c h answer s h o u l d be w r i t t e n i n 30.  24 X 3/4 =  Mult i p l y 32,  1 5 X 3 2/3 =  33. 2 1 / 2 X 3  3/4 =  Divide 34.  1/2 7 2 =  36.  6 r 2/3 =  37. W r i t e  35. 4/5 '- 4/5 =  15 t h o u s a n d t h s a s a d e c i m a l .  38. Which o f t h e f o l l o w i n g (six-tenths)  i s t h e way y o u w o u l d  r e a d .06?  ( s i x ) (six-thousandths) (six-hundredths)  R e a r r a n g e t h e numbers i n t h e n e x t two p r o b l e m s so t h a t the l a r g e s t number i s f i r s t a n d t h e s m a l l e s t i s l a s t . 39.  .7  41.  Change  42.  .007  .08  .9 t o a common  40. .043  .23  .3  fraction.  Change 1/9 t o a d e c i m a l . ( L e a v e t h e r e m a i n d e r a s a r e m a i n d e r a s a common f r a c t i o n a f t e r t h e s e c o n d d e c i m a l  place.) 43.  .7 + .8 + .9 =  45.  $73.80 - $7.17 =  46.  Take $8.11  47.  $5.47 X  from  44.  .$5.76 + $25.90 +  $.49  $10.00. The r e m a i n d e r i s  10 =  48. .35 d i v i d e d  by  10 =  P l a c e the d e c i m a l p o i n t c o r r e c t l y i n the answers t o the f o l l o w i n g p r o b l e m s . Add any z e r o s t h a t may be n e e d e d . 49. 5 0  -  53.  .06 X  .9 = 54  50. $3.75 X  37 25J9.25 75 175 175 000  52. 25  37 .25)925 75 175 ,17 5 000  54.  Change t h e f o l l o w i n g 56.  .6 = $2250  37 ).925 75 175 175 000  37 2.5)9.25 75 175 .175 . 000  decimal  numbers  55.  .04 =  .025 =  58.  Write  8% a s a d e c i m a l .  59.  Write  1/2% a s a d e c i m a l .  60.  Write  105% as a d e c i m a l .  61.  Change  1/3 t o a p e r c e n t .  62.  Change  40% t o a common  63.  How  much i s 2% o f $3.50?  64.  How  much i s 12 1/2% of $160?  65.  How  much i s 150% o f $50?  to per c e n t s . 57. 1.2 =  fraction.  66.  $5 i s what p e r c e n t  o f $50?  67.  What p e r c e n t  68.  H a r r y J a c k s o n l o a n e d $500 t o James S m i t h f o r s i x months. He c h a r g e d Mr. S m i t h i n t e r e s t a t t h e r a t e of 6% p e r y e a r . How much was t h e i n t e r e s t on t h e l o a n ?  (Do  P a r t A o r a l l y . P a r t B on b o a r d )  o f $100  i s $300?  W r i t e i n s h o r t form t h e numbers numerals, ( s a i d o r a l l y ) ie ten (said 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  f o r the f o l l o w i n g  Part  B  From t h e n u m e r a l s w r i t t e n on t h e b o a r d f o r t h e numbers i e . 10 ( w r i t t e n on b o a r d ) = t e n 1 . 708 2.  12,629  3. 28.2 4.  12.12  5.  1.001  6.  1,001,001.001  write  t h e words  APPENDIX E  CLASSROOM RECORDS CHECKLIST  APPENDIX E CLASSROOM  Number Number How How How How  How How How How  o f s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d September t o J a n u a r y of females Number o f m a l e s  many many many many  Number Number  RECORDS CHECKLIST  of t h e s e s t u d e n t s were s u s p e n d e d ? withdrew? were r e i n t e g r a t e d ? were t r a n s f e r e d ?  o f s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d F e b r u a r y 1 t o M a r c h 31 of females Number o f m a l e s  many many many many  o f t h e s e s t u d e n t s were s u s p e n d e d ? withdrew? were r e i n t e g r a t e d ? were t r a n s f e r e d ?  Number of s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d 1980-81. Number of f e m a l e s Number o f m a l e s How many o f t h e s e s t u d e n t s were s u s p e n d e d ? How many w i t h d r e w ? 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 Number How How How How  of s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d 1979-80. of females Number o f m a l e s  many many many many  Number Number  31  of t h e s e s t u d e n t s were s u s p e n d e d ? withdrew? were r e i n t e g r a t e d ? were t r a n s f e r e d ?  o f s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d 1978-79. of females Number o f m a l e s  How many o f t h e s e s t u d e n t s were s u s p e n d e d ? How many w i t h d r e w ? 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 ?  APPENDIX  F  CLASSROOM O B S E R V A T I O N  SCHEDULE  APPENDIX F ROOM OBSERVATION  Comments  Category Class  takes  place  i n Sue's  Class  takes  place  i n Mary's  Students  work  individually.  Students  work  in  SCHEDULE  area. area.  groups.  S t u d e n t s move o u t s i d e t h e c l a s s perm i s s i on.  without  The e n v i r o n m e n t 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 t h e t e a c h e r s . Students talk while 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 . Students  with  s p e c i f i c needs a r e  Ready a c c e s s i b i l i t y A) M a t h b) E n g l i s h c) S o c i a l Studies d)  grouped.  of m a t e r i a l s .  Science.  Individual  Instruction.  Group  Instruction.  Class  Instruction.  T e a c h e r t a k e s 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 h a v i o u r w i t h o u t i n v o l v i n g the group. The  teacher  is in  charge.  Teacher  i s working/marking.  Teacher  leaves  room.  VjO>  APPENDIX  TEACHER * S  G  QUESTIONNAIRE  APPENDIX TEACHER'S  G  QUESTIONNAIRE  Strongly  Disagree  D i sagree  Agree  Strongly  Sometimes  students  work  i n d i v i d u a l 1y.  2  3  4  Sometimes  students  work  i n groups.  2  3  4  More o f t e n s t u d e n t s  work  individually.  2  3  4  More o f t e n s t u d e n t s  work  i n groups.  2  3  4  S t u d e n t s c a n move o u t s i d e t h e c l a s s without permission. The e n v i r o n m e n t includes 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 . Students  are allowed  to t a l k  while  Students with s p e c i f i c needs a r e grouped. Math m a t e r i a l s a r e r e a d i l y accessible t o the c l a s s . English materials are readily accessible to the c l a s s . Science materials are readily accessible t o the c l a s s . Social Studies materials are readily accessible to the c l a s s . The c l a s s Individual  i s t a u g h t by Instruction.  The c l a s s i s t a u g h t Group Instruction.  by  The c l a s s i s t a u g h t as a l e c t u r e .  by  working.  Disagree  APPENDIX G  continued  Strongly  Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly Disagree  S t u d e n t c o n f l i c t s and d i s r u p t i v e behaviour are taken c a r e of without involvi the group.  1  2  3  4  The  1  2  3  4  teacher  i s i n charge.  The t e a c h e r s p e n d s p a r t o f t h e c l a s s p e r i o d w o r k i n g on h e r own work. The t e a c h e r s o m e t i m e s g o e s o u t o f t h e room d u r i n g t h e class period.  APPENDIX H  TEACHER-CHILD  DYADIC INTERACTION  CHECKLIST  APPENDIX TEACHER-CHILD  DYADIC  H  INTERACTION  CHECKLIST  Teacher Class Period Date  Teacher asks a question  S T U D E N T I D  Teacher Pra i ses answers behavi our question  Pra i ses work  Ignors i napprop. behav i our  Pun i s h e s i napprop. behav i our  Prov i des pos i t i v e feedback  Works on an i nd i v bas i s  Works on a group bas i s  Teacher 1ectures  Teaches skills used o u t s i de class  Teacher marks  APPENDIX I  THE REID BEHAVIOUR CHECKLIST  APPENDIX I THE REID BEHAVIOUR C H E C K L I S T S t u d e n t ID Subject Date of o b s e r v a t i o n Observor  Category  T a l 1 y Marks  Total  Tal1ies  %  T a l k i n g to peers (when i t i s n o t p e r m i t t e d ) T a l k i n g out loud * ( t o t h e t e a c h e r o r t o no o n e 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 t o w a r d s p e e r s * ( 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 ( b i t e s , pushes, h i t s )  towards peers  *  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 ( h i t s , pushes) Not (not  paying  towards  teacher  *  attention  listening,  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 teacher, working q u i e t l y ) Makes n o i s e s o t h e r t h a n 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) Disturbs (pushes,  o t h e r s when t h e y a r e w o r k i n g t a k e s a n o t h e r ' s book, p o k e s , t a l k s )  Swears * Yells in class  *  No O  APPENDIX  I  continued  Category Makes f u n (micmics,  Ta11y  Marks  Tota1  Tallies  %  of the teacher 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  praise *  (asks  teacher  i f he/she  Seems t o be w o r k i n g , but n o t (doodling, writing a letter,  producing reading)  is doing  well)  Uncooperative * ( r e f u s e s t o work) G i v e s up (doesn't  eas i1y * really try)  Sleeping  in  Complains Gets out  carrol1  to of  the seat  teacher f o r no  * reason  *  S c o r i ng Some  items  occur.  are  Those  checked items  o f f at  marked by  t h r e e minute an  asterick  intervals, are  checked  as d e s c r i b e d in this  in Chapter  3.  However,  some  items  are  checked  as  they  fashion.  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 t a s k Amount  o f work  completed  Completed  Mostly  Half  Slightly  Not  completed a t a l l completed  Percentage  Correct  100%  correct  50% c o r r e c t None  completed  correct.  75% c o r r e c t 25% c o r r e c t  completed  APPENDIX K  STUDENT CHECKLIST FOR  RECORDS  APPENDIX K STUDENT CHECKLIST FOR RECORDS Student Name ID Code Address  Age Bi rthdate Grade l e v e l when admitted Standing coming i n IQ Standardized Test Scores 1 .  2. 3.  4. 5.  Knowledge Math English  of core s u b j e c t s Standing coming i n  Previous School Suspension Withdrawal  yes yes  Pretest  Score  no no  Reason:  Number of days absent the l a s t 3 months Number of times l a t e the l a s t 3 months  (at p r e v i o u s school) d u r i n g (at p r e v i o u s school) d u r i n g  Number of days absent from date of entry to end of observation period average/week average/month Total Number of times l a t e observation period  from date of entry to end of  236  average/week  average/month  Total  V i s i t s t o t h e p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e from d a t e o f e n t r y t o end o f o b s e r v a t i o n period. average/week average/month Total Reasons  I s s t u d e n t on p r o b a t i o n ? D a t e p l a c e d on p r o b a t i o n Reason  How many r e g u l a r What a r e t h e s e  classes  regular  P a r e n t a l Involvement o r i g i n a l interview parental contracting home p r o g r a m s yes reassessments yes reintegration yes suspension yes  yes  no  i s the student  enrolled in?  classes?  yes yes no no no no  no no  Communication w i t h p a r e n t s phonecalls average/wk average/mon. Total letters average/wk average/mon. Totalal report cards average/wk average/mon. r e p o r t c a r d s from r e g u l a r c l a s s average/wk average/mon. Total Visits average/wk average/mon. Total  Total  APPENDIX L  STUDENT SUSPENSION CHECKLIST STUDENT REINTEGRATION CHECKLIST  APPENDIX  L  \  STUDENT SUSPENSION  CHECKLIST  ID No. Date of Suspension Who  i s involved i n suspension d e c i s i o n ? parents principal regular 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 i n b e h a v i o u r Other reason  239  APPENDIX L STUDENT REINTEGRATION  CHECKLIST  ID No. D a t e of R e i n t e g r a t i o n Who  i s involved in reintegration decision? parents principal regular classroom teachers alternative teachers support person Jung Lee student t e a c h e r of s c h o o l where s t u d e n t i s t o 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 less inappropriate behaviours c h i l d f e e l s c o n f i d e n t t h a t 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 t e a c h e r s f e e l t h a t 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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054377/manifest

Comment

Related Items