Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Equality of educational opportunity in British Columbia : a study of ethnicity and schooling Roth, Garry Bernard 1983

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_A2 R68.pdf [ 15.27MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055136.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055136-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055136-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055136-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055136-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055136-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055136-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055136-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055136.ris

Full Text

ITY  OF E D U C A T I O N A L O P P O R T U N I T Y A STUDY  IN BRITISH  OF E T H N I C I T Y AND  COLUMBIA  SCHOOLING  by GARRY BERNARD M.  ROTH  ED., W e s t e r n W a s h i n g t o n  B. E D . , U n i v e r s i t y A THESIS  University,  of B r i t i s h  Columbia,  1976 1969  SUBMITTED I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T  THE REQUIREMENTS DOCTOR OF  FOR THE DEGREE  OF  EDUCATION  in THE F A C U L T Y OF GRADUATE S T U D I E S DEPARTMENT We  OF C U R R I C U L U M AND I N S T R U C T I O N  accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to t h e r e g u i r e d standard  THE U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H December, ©  Garry  Bernard  COLUMBIA  1983 Roth,  1983  OF  In  presenting  requirements  this for  thesis  an  advanced  of  B r i t i s h Columbia,  it  freely  agree for  available  that  or  for  understood  that  financial  by h i s  at  the  of  the  University  the  Library  shall  reference  and  study.  I  for  extensive  may b e  or  fulfilment  that  her  copying or  gain  degree  agree  purposes  department  for  I  permission  scholarly  in partial  shall  copying of  granted  by  the  publication  not  be  of  further this  head  representatives.  It  this  allowed without  make  thesis  of  my  is thesis my w r i t t e n  permission.  Department  of  Cu^/CCHt"*  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 1956 Main M a l l V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1 Y 3  iE-6 (.3/81)  j  g:^cr^i4(l7^AC  Columbia  ^  u  i i  ABSTRACT  Equality  of Educational Opportunity A  The  Study  purpose  relationships  of E t h n i c i t y  of  among  this  and  study  ethnicity  in British  and  Schooling  was  to  Columbia. student  outcomes Two  the  demographic  and outcome.  initially  divided  English.  The  into  the  educational  of students  districts ethnic  of  while  British  composition  as w e l l as i n d i c a t o r s  of access,  Columbia  two e t h n i c c a t e g o r i e s : E n g l i s h a n d category  was  then  and  subdivided  was Noninto  F r e n c h , A b o r i g i n a l , L a t e r E u r o p e a n s and l a t e r  Minorities  Access  of  The p o p u l a t i o n o f B r i t i s h  Non-English  four c a t e g o r i e s :  school  variables,  p o p u l a t i o n , were used  treatment  Visible  in  determine  equality  o p p o r t u n i t y a c c o r d i n g t o a c c e s s and t r e a t m e n t considering  Columbia:  or A f r o - A s i a n s .  i n d i c a t o r s were r e p r e s e n t e d  by s c h o o l r e s o u r c e s as  they a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t e a c h e r q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and e x p e r i e n c e , student/teacher dollar  r a t i o at the elementary  expenditure  indicators education  were and  particular, percentage  as  to a  indicators  students  l e v e l and  resources.  Treatment  instructional  according  English  the of  for  and s e c o n d a r y  in  the  nature  Second  Language  used  the  for  of  the  programmes.  treatment  programmes,  the  were  total  expenditure  on t h e p r o g r a m m e s , t h e s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r r a t i o  programmes,  t h e number  of students  approved  special In the  dollar i n the  by t h e M i n i s t r y  of  Education  for English  expenditure outcome  on  special  indicators  students  in  as  i n each  were  Language  eight  school  and  materials.  t h e mean  districts  Science a t Grades four, graduates  Second  education  used  school  a  achievement  f o r Reading,  and t w e l v e p l u s  demographic indicators The tested  and  the  causal  the access  and t h e outcome  statistical  Mathematics  represented  research  the f i r s t  s e c o n d p h a s e was a among  the  produced  five  between the  distinct  model  and t h e  Descriptive  the  two  treatment  which  relationships  analysis.  The  of the relationships  analysis,  factors.  phases  a n a l y s e s o f raw  stage of s t a t i s t i c a l  Factor  underlying  and  to indicate the  indicators,  correlational analysis  indicators.  of  the percentage of  links  had four  among a n d b e t w e e n t h e i n d i c a t o r s . data  levels  indicators.  analysis  the theoretical  the  district.  weak  variables,  dollar  Finally,  A t h e o r e t i c a l r e s e a r c h m o d e l was d e v e l o p e d relationships  the  the  third  The demographic  phase,  variables,  e t h n i c i t y and s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n , remained u n f a c t o r e d w h i l e t h e access  indicators  had  two  characteristics  and  indicators  yielded  English the  also  underlying  student/teacher two  factors,  as a Second Language.  a  one  factor  ratios.  The  special  teacher treatment  education  Of t h e outcome i n d i c a t o r s ,  achievement score v a r i a b l e s  yielded  constructs,  solution.  were f a c t o r  analyzed  Therefore,  the  and only  and these  achievement  f a c t o r and t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f g r a d u a t e s r e p r e s e n t e d t h e outcomes. These f a c t o r s and o t h e r  i n d i c a t o r s were t h e n t e s t e d  i nt h e  i v  t h e o r e t i c a l model by t h e f o u r t h the  path  analysis.  theorized  causal  (ethnicity  This  step  technique  relationship  and  outcome  factor  (percentage The  and  12  procedures  conclusions.  First,  ethnic  to  treatment,  evaluate  demographic  a  and  an  (teacher  treatment  Second  the  variables  factors  ratios),  as  factors  Language),  outcome  one  variable  graduates).  outlined certain  access to theeducational teacher  English  (achievement),  of Grade  used  access  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r education  was  among  enrolment),  (special  of s t a t i s t i c a l  above  ethnic  resources  characteristics.  yielded  groups  have  three  differential  of student/teacher  r a t i o and  The second main c o n c l u s i o n  g r o u p s do have d i f f e r e n t o u t c o m e s .  main  Finally,  was  that  the study  f o u n d n o r e l a t i o n s h i p among t h e s p e c i a l t r e a t m e n t v a r i a b l e s a n d the  outcome The  study  reader  ( p p . 167  discussed. being  measures.  made  restricts  and  life  -  171)  where  I t i s important with the  investigation. neither  i s directed  the school  I t also  on l i m i t a t i o n s o f  limitations are t o be reminded district  generalizations  on t h e p r o c e s s styles  to the section  recognizes of school  comprehensively  that  as t h e u n i t  that  can  that  this  arise  analyses  of  analysis  from  study has  n o r on e t h n i c  or i n d i v i d u a l learning  the  family  styles.  this  focussed patterns  V  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I n a m a n ' s l i f e , many c h a l l e n g e s a r e p r e s e n t e d endure  and  overcome.  A l l are  not  significant  or  w h i c h he m u s t important  e x i s t a n c e b u t r a t h e r some a r e e s s e n t i a l t o t h e d i g n i t y a n d of  a man.  completed  resources without  Roth  and  life.  the help  I dedicate  Crin  -  this  a  and  minor  remarkable  life  of  intelligent  Jaime  Roth  -  a c a r i n g , dynamic - a master  of  not  have  others.  To  these  contribution:  young  young  lady  man  education  and  humanism  Brown - a m a s t e r o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l systems  Charlie  Ungerleider a master instructional dynamics  Conry  Jim  Carter  Lee  Herberts  Sharon Susanne  a master of formulations  Jeroski Love  conceptual  a master implementation -  -  a brother -  a  a  nurse  of  and  sister and  of  and  educational  and  leadership  Nelson,  B.C.  and  statistical  and  policy  colleague colleague  friend  as w e l l a s f o n d memories o f B r u c e , Lynn and t h e B l u e B e l l Fort  been  mate  a  Bob  could  scientific  -  D'Oyley  task  patience  Roth  Vicent  loving,  The  Jenny  Dan  spirit  S u c h a c h a l l e n g e was t h i s w h i c h p u s h e d i n t e l l e c t , human  endurance,  people,  to  Motel,  vi  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  Abstract  i i  Acknowledgment  v  List  of Tables  xi  List  of Figures  xiv  CHAPTER I.  OVERVIEW  OF  STUDY  INTRODUCTION  1  PURPOSE  4  OF  STUDY  SIGNIFICANCE  II.  1  OF  STUDY  5  EQUALITY  OF A C C E S S  6  EQUALITY  OF  9  TREATMENT  IMPLICATIONS  OF  EQUALITY  ORGANIZATION  OF  STUDY  REVIEW  OF  OF  OUTCOMES  LITERATURE  10 11  17  INTRODUCTION  17  ETHNICITY Conclusion  19 28  E Q U A L I T Y OF A C C E S S Instructional Indicators Student/Teacher Measures S t u d e n t / F a c i l i t y Measures D i s t r i c t Size Measures Quantity of S e r v i c e Measures  32 32 32 35 37 40  vii CHAPTER II.  III.  Summary Financial Indicators Operating Expenditures O p e r a t i n g Revenue Capital/Indebtedness Summary Staff Characteristics Indicators Salary Experience Qualifications Summary  E Q U A L I T Y OF TREATMENT Treatment I n d i c a t o r s Summary  56 56 57  OUTCOME I N D I C A T O R S Summary  58 63  CONCLUSION  65  RESEARCH  DESIGN  AND  METHODOLOGY  R E S E A R C H MODEL ON E T H N I C I T Y AND OF E D U C A T I O N A L O P P O R T U N I T Y  IV.  43 43 43 46 48 49 49 50 53 54 56  66 EQUALITY 66  RESEARCH QUESTIONS Model T e s t i n g Subsidiary Research Question Supplementary Research Questions  68 68 68 69  DATA C O L L E C T I O N PROCEDURES Demographic I n d i c a t o r s Access Indicators Treatment I n d i c a t o r s Outcome I n d i c a t o r s  69 69 71 73 75  S T A T I S T I C A L METHODOLOGY Preliminary Analyses Correlational Analyses Factor Analyses Path Analyses Path C o e f f i c e n t Analyses  77 77 80 80 82 82  RESULTS INTRODUCTION Ethnicity Indicators Access Indicators Treatment I n d i c a t o r s Outcome I n d i c a t o r s Normality Test  85 85 86 87 88 90 90  viii CHAPTER IV.  CORRELATIONAL ANALYSES E t h n i c i t y and E n r o l m e n t Access Treatment Outcomes E t h n i c i t y and A c c e s s E t h n i c i t y and Treatment E t h n i c i t y and Outcomes A c c e s s and Treatment A c c e s s and Outcomes T r e a t m e n t and Outcomes  91 92 93 94 95 97 98 99 101 102 104  FACTOR A N A L Y S I S Ethnicity Factors Access Factors Treatment Factors Outcome F a c t o r s Summary PATH  106 106 107 109 I l l 113  ANALYSIS  113  N O N - E N G L I S H AND A C H I E V E M E N T V A R I A B L E Path C o e f f i c i e n t Values Enrolment Ethnicity Access Treatment Summary N O N - E N G L I S H AND GRADUATE V A R I A B L E Path C o e f f i c i e n t Values N o n - E n g l i s h and G r a d u a t e s FRENCH AND A C H I E V E M E N T V A R I A B L E Path C o e f f i c i e n t Values Enrolment Ethnicity Access Treatment Summary FRENCH AND GRADUATE V A R I A B L E Path C o e f f i c i e n t Values F r e n c h and G r a d u a t e s  PATHS  PATHS  PATHS  PATHS  EUROPEAN AND A C H I E V E M E N T V A R I A B L E Path C o e f f i c i e n t Values Enrolment Ethnicity Access Treatment Summary  115 115 116 117 117 118 118 119 119 119 121 121 122 124 124 125 125 125 125 125  PATHS  127 127 128 I 128 130 130 2  8  ix CHAPTER IV.  EUROPEAN AND GRADUATE V A R I A B L E Path C o e f f i c i e n t Values European and Graduates  PATHS  A F R O - A S I A N AND A C H I E V E M E N T V A R I A B L E Path C o e f f i c i e n t s Values Enrolment Ethnicity Access Treatment Summary A F R O - A S I A N AND GRADUATE V A R I A B L E Path C o e f f i c i e n t Values A f r o - A s i a n and G r a d u a t e s  PATHS  PATHS  A B O R I G I N A L AND A C H I E V E M E N T V A R I A B L E Path C o e f f i c i e n t Values Enrolment Ethnicity Access Treatment Summary A B O R I G I N A L AND GRADUATE V A R I A B L E Path C o e f f i c i e n t Values A b o r i g i n a l and G r a d u a t e s  130 130 131  PATHS  PATHS  SUMMARY  133 133 133 135 135 136 136 136 136 136 138 138 140 140 141 141 141 142 142 142 14 4  V. SUMMARY, C O N C L U S I O N S  AND  IMPLICATIONS  148  SUMMARY Research Problem L i t e r a t u r e Review T h e o r e t i c a l Model Research Procedures  148 148 149 149 151  CONCLUSIONS Ethnicity Ethnicity Ethnicity Ethnicity Ethnicity, Ethnicity, Ethnicity, Ethnicity, Ethnicity,  153 153 155 156 157 159 161 161 162 163  and Enrolment and A c c e s s and T r e a t m e n t and E d u c a t i o n a l Outcomes Enrolment and A c c e s s Enrolment and Treatment A c c e s s and Treatment A c c e s s and Outcomes T r e a t m e n t and Outcomes  X  CHAPTER V. I M P L I C A T I O N S FOR P O L I C Y T e a c h e r C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and E t h n i c i t y S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n , ESL a n d Ethnicity E n r o l m e n t S i z e , R e s o u r c e s and E t h n i c i t y LIMITATIONS IMPLICATIONS  OF STUDY FOR  FURTHER  165 166 167  RESEARCH  REFERENCES APPENDICES 1. 2. 3.  164 164  171 173  Correlation Matrix f o r a l lVariables.... Sample forms D e s c r i p t i v e S t a t i s t i c s on V a r i a b l e s  179 180 182 221  xi List  of Tables  Table 1  2  3  4  5  6  Page Percentage o f Grade 9 Students S c h o o l s by P l a c e o f B i r t h  i n Toronto 26  Percentage o f Grade 9 Students i n Toronto S c h o o l s by P l a c e o f B i r t h and L e v e l of Study (1980)  26  P e r c e n t a g e a n d Rank o f G r a d e 9 S t u d e n t s i n T o r o n t o S c h o o l s by P l a c e o f B i r t h and L e v e l o f S t u d y (1980)  27  Total Population of British Five Ethnic Categories  70  Columbia  Percentage of the Average D i s t r i b u t i o n E t h n i c Groups i n School D i s t r i c t s Percentage o f the Average School D i s t r i c t s  Correlations Variables  among  9  Correlations  among  Access  10  Correlations  among  Treatment  11  Correlations  among  Outcome V a r i a b l e s  12  C o r r e l a t i o n s among Access Variables  16  86 in 87  8  15  of  Composition  Descriptive  14  Statistics  Ethnic  7  13  by t h e  on O u t c o m e V a r i a b l e s . . . .  Ethnic  and  91  Enrolment 92  Ethnic,  Variables  93  Variables  Enrolment  94 96  and 98  C o r r e l a t i o n s among E t h n i c , and T r e a t m e n t V a r i a b l e s  Enrolment  C o r r e l a t i o n s among E t h n i c , and Outcome V a r i a b l e s  Enrolment  99  100  C o r r e l a t i o n s among A c c e s s Treatment V a r i a b l e s  and  C o r r e l a t i o n s among Outcome V a r i a b l e s  and  Access  102  103  xii Table 17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Page C o r r e l a t i o n s among Outcome V a r i a b l e s  Treatment  105  P r i n c i p a l Components Variables  of  P r i n c i p a l Components Variables  of  P r i n c i p a l Component Access Variables  Ethnic 107 Access 108  Two  Factor  Solution: 108  Varimax Rotated Factor Access Variables P r i n c i p a l Components Variables P r i n c i p a l Component Treatment V a r i a b l e s  and  of  Matrix  Solution: 109  Treatment '.  Two  Factor  109  Solution: 110  Varimax Rotated Factor Treatment V a r i a b l e s  Matrix  Solution: 110  P r i n c i p a l Components o f Outcome Variables (Achievement Scores)  I l l  P r i n c i p a l C o m p o n e n t One F a c t o r Solution of Outcome V a r i a b l e s : A c h i e v e m e n t Scores  112  Factor Matrix Solution Achievement Scores  112  Correlations  29  C a l c u l a t i o n s of the E f f e c t C o e f f i c i e n t s ( C i j ) f o r S t u d e n t s o f N o n - E n g l i s h background and D i s t r i c t Achievement  117  C a l c u l a t i o n s of the E f f e c t C o e f f i c i e n t s ( C i j ) f o r S t u d e n t s o f N o n - E n g l i s h background and D i s t r i c t Graduates  120  C a l c u l a t i o n s of the E f f e c t C o e f f i c i e n t s ( C i j ) for Students of French Background and D i s t r i c t Achievement  123  C a l c u l a t i o n s of the E f f e c t C o e f f i c i e n t s ( C i j ) for Students of French Background and D i s t r i c t Graduates  126  31  32  Factors  Variables:  28  30  Among  o f Outcome  and V a r i a b l e s  114  xi i i Table 33  34  35  36  37  38  Page C a l c u l a t i o n s of the E f f e c t C o e f f i c i e n t s ( C i j ) f o r S t u d e n t s o f E u r o p e a n B a c k g r o u n d and D i s t r i c t Achievement  129  C a l c u l a t i o n s of the E f f e c t C o e f f i c i e n t s ( C i j ) f o r S t u d e n t s o f E u r o p e a n B a c k g r o u n d and D i s t r i c t Graduates  132  C a l c u l a t i o n s of the E f f e c t for Students of Afro-Asian D i s t r i c t Achievement  Coefficients (Cij) B a c k g r o u n d and 134  C a l c u l a t i o n s of the E f f e c t for Students of A f r o - A s i a n D i s t r i c t Graduates  Coefficients (Cij) B a c k g r o u n d and  C a l c u l a t i o n s of the E f f e c t for Students of A b o r i g i n a l D i s t r i c t Achievement  Coefficients (Cij) B a c k g r o u n d and  C a l c u l a t i o n s of the E f f e c t for Students of Aboriginal D i s t r i c t Graduates  Coefficients (Cij) B a c k g r o u n d and  137  140  143  xiv List  of  Figures  Figures  Page  1  I n p u t / o u t p u t model  2  T h e o r e t i c a l m o d e l on e t h n i c i t y of e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y  3  Theoretical educational Summary  5  E t h n i c i t y , enrolment for path analysis  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  and  equality 12  m o d e l on e t h n i c i t y and e q u a l i t y opportunity with indicators  4  6  12  of  of variables  67 78  and  equality  indices 113  Path a n a l y s i s f o r students of non-English b a c k g r o u n d and d i s t r i c t a c h i e v e m e n t  116  P a r s i m o n i o u s p a t h model f o r s t u d e n t s o f nonE n g l i s h b a c k g r o u n d and d i s t r i c t a c h i e v e m e n t  118  Path a n a l y s i s f o r students of n o n - E n g l i s h background and d i s t r i c t g r a d u a t e s  119  P a r s i m o n i o u s p a t h model f o r s t u d e n t s o f nonE n g l i s h b a c k g r o u n d and d i s t r i c t g r a d u a t e s  121  Path a n a l y s i s f o r students of French b a c k g r o u n d and d i s t r i c t a c h i e v e m e n t  122  P a r s i m o n i o u s path model b a c k g r o u n d and d i s t r i c t  f o r students of achievement  French 124  Path a n a l y s i s f o r students of French b a c k g r o u n d and d i s t r i c t g r a d u a t e s P a r s i m o n i o u s path model b a c k g r o u n d and d i s t r i c t  f o r students of graduates  126 French 127  Path a n a l y s i s f o r students of European b a c k g r o u n d and d i s t r i c t a c h i e v e m e n t P a r s i m o n i o u s path model b a c k g r o u n d and d i s t r i c t  for students of achievement  Path a n a l y s i s f o r students of European b a c k g r o u n d and d i s t r i c t g r a d u a t e s  129 European 130  131  XV  Figure 17 18 19 20  21  22 23 24 25 26  Parsimonious path model b a c k g r o u n d and d i s t r i c t  Page f o r students of graduates  European 132  Path a n a l y s i s f o r students of Afro-Asian b a c k g r o u n d and d i s t r i c t a c h i e v e m e n t  134  P a r s i m o n i o u s path model f o r s t u d e n t s of A f r o A s i a n b a c k g r o u n d and d i s t r i c t a c h i e v e m e n t  135  Path a n a l y s i s f o r students of A f r o - A s i a n b a c k g r o u n d and d i s t r i c t g r a d u a t e s  137  P a r s i m o n i o u s path model f o r s t u d e n t s of A s i a n b a c k g r o u n d and d i s t r i c t g r a d u a t e s  Afro138  Path a n a l y s i s f o r students of A b o r i g i n a l b a c k g r o u n d and d i s t r i c t a c h i e v e m e n t  139  P a r s i m o n i o u s path model f o r s t u d e n t s of A b o r i g i n a l b a c k g r o u n d and d i s t r i c t a c h i e v e m e n t . .  141  Path a n a l y s i s f o r student of A b o r i g i n a l b a c k g r o u n d and d i s t r i c t g r a d u a t e s  143  P a r s i m o n i o u s path model f o r s t u d e n t s of A b o r i g i n a l b a c k g r o u n d and d i s t r i c t g r a d u a t e s . . . .  144  T h e o r e t i c a l m o d e l on e t h n i c i t y and equality of educational opportunity  150  1 Chapter OVERVIEW  OF  1  THE  STUDY  INTRODUCTION Equality of educational opportunity i s widely as an i m p o r t a n t  acknowledged  v a l u e among w e s t e r n s o c i e t i e s . A s t h e s o c i e t i e s  e n c o u n t e r an u n p r e c e d e n t e d s t a t e o f s o c i a l change — to p l u r a l i s m —  i n p a r t due  t h e e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s w h i c h s e r v i c e them  face a predicament:  how  c a n p l u r a l i s m become f u n c t i o n a l and  purposive within the context of schooling values associated with equality As  of educational ethnic  1981; Martin, the  opportunity?  diversity  within  a society  increases  (Burnet,  1 9 7 8 ; Richmond and Lakshamana Rao, 1 9 7 6 ) ,  s o c i e t y moves  c l o s e r to the r e a l i t y  of a global  and as  community  (McLuhan, 1 9 6 4 ; V a l a s k a k i s , 1 9 8 2 ) , t h e v a l u e s o f t h e s o c i e t y a r e challenged the  and t h e dominant s o c i a l  pressures  associated society response  created  with  greater  challenged such  by  order  the v a r i e t y ethnic  of  to  to adjust to  values  diversity.  i n attempting  as a s s i m i l a t i o n  attempts  Not  ascertain  h i s values  1968).  Since  and b e l i e f s  or accommodation  the educational  society, education this  process  Regardless  (Bullivant, system  (Jones  effective  (Fuse, 1 9 7 7 ) a challenge  of the  as t o i t s r o l e i n  e t a l . , 1 9 7 8 ; McDonald,  o f how a s o c i e t y a t t e m p t s  as a value  i s the  i s a substructure  1979).  t o accommodate p l u r a l i s m ,  i t s e d u c a t i o n a l p o l i c i e s which support opportunity  only  1 9 8 1 ; Von B e r t a l a n f f y ,  i s continuously questioned  o f change  beliefs  an  b u t a l s o t h e i n d i v i d u a l who i m m i g r a t e s i s f a c e d w i t h to  and  (Garms, G u t h r i e  equality of educational & Pierce,  1 9 7 8 ) may  be  unable  to  attain  environment. schooling United  this  equality  In the United  and  States  States,  e q u a l i t y became  decision,  public attention shifted  desirablility  of  realization  the late raised  opportunity  (Bowles  and  1960's  t h e 1954  i t s compatibility  about  and G i n t i s ,  1970's  equality  1976; Coleman  B o w l e s and G i n t i s opportunity  that  with  a  a  of  number  of  educational  e t a l . ,1966; (1976)  concluded  was a b e l i e f ,  rather  They argued t h a t t h e e d u c a t i o n a l s y s t e m  itself  i s a prime force i n perpetuating to provide equal access inconsistencies Owen  . With  from c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e  and e a r l y  questions  equality of educational  Earlier,  with  p l u r a l i s t i c society to questioning  1 9 7 6 ; Owen, 1 9 7 4 ) .  than a r e a l i t y .  in  issue  of equality.  researchers  that  social  t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between  ( L e v i n e a n d B a n e , 1975)  equality  c u l t u r a l l y and e c o n o m i c a l l y  Jencks,  changing  Supreme C o u r t d e c i s i o n i n Brown v s . The B o a r d o f  o f Topeka, Kansas  During  the  a public  Education  the  in  t o educational resources, which  i n minimal  (1974)  i n e q u a l i t y through i t s f a i l u r e  levels  had reached  of learning  t h e same  results  outcomes.  conclusion:  . . . d e s p i t e e g a l i t a r i a n r h e t o r i c , the . . . " t r a d i t i o n " has i n r e a l i t y been one o f q u i t e s u b s t a n t i a l i n e q u a l i t i e s i n e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s (p. 7 ) . Owen t e s t e d h i s t h e s i s b y a s s e s s i n g t h e q u a l i t y a n d q u a n t i t y o f educational  resources  a v a i l a b l e to the schools  s t a t e s and c i t i e s i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s .  i n a number o f  Hisfindings  w i t h t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e 1946 s u r v e y b y t h e N a t i o n a l Association:  although  simple  access  to education  concurred  Educational exists for  the  majority  of  children,  equal  educational  p e r t a i n i n g t o q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y o f a c c e s s a child the  r e c e i v e s a good  community  i n w h i c h he  1974).  In  conclusion.  He  with  a varying  three  high  France,  degree  and  of  that  —  each  he  will  succeed  in  facility;  appropriate  Educational  society.  institutions  in  England  West  Indians  their  the  —  received  student  The  regardless  of  ability school  that  have  a  school  which  later  faced  similar  interim  report  —  evidence  particularly because  of  levels  concluded has  and  (1966)  the  differential  of e t h n i c background  has  system  argument  treatment  Committee  general  If a student  that students  creating  Rampton  having  E t h n i c M i n e f i e l d " , 1981),  differential  thereby  as  Committee's  which demonstrated  race,  achievement.  Rampton  defined  students  in  P a t h t h r o u g h an  presented  of  success  ("Explosive was  treatment  similar school  c u l t u r e and  (1966)  In  a  (Owen,  to  verbal  conclusion  criticism.  to  upon  comes  system.  Bourdieu's  i n e q u a l i t y of  raised  came  school.  Whether  largely  knowledge  the  legitimizes  and  student  school  Coleman's  individual  born  the  reinforces  influences  depends  capital"  s a t i s f a c t o r y knowledge of the general --  i s absent.  (1966)  "cultural  verbal  capital  t o be  Bourdieu  knowledge of  cultural  education  happens  maintained  components:  culture;  or poor  opportunity  of  that  a right  to a  to  every basic  education. In social  Canada, class  attainment.  and He  Porter both  (1965)  revealed  educational  observed  that  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between  attendance  although  and  Canada  educational espouses  the  democratic  ideal of equality a discrepancy  articulation estimates  exists  between t h e  o f t h e p r i n c i p l e and i t s implementation.  Canada  t o be  less  democratic  than  many  Porter Canadians  believe. The  extent  to which e q u a l i t y of educational opportunity i s  a r e a l i t y must be q u e s t i o n e d  not only  i n terms o f e q u a l i t y of  access as i n d i c a t e d by t h eq u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y o f r e s o u r c e s , b u t a l s o i n terms o f t h e e q u a l i t y o f treatment needs.  Murphy  (1979) summarized  this  according  situation,  to student noting:  . . . s o c i o l o g i s t s of education i n other twentieth century democracies have found s i m i l a r r e s u l t s i n t h e i r s o c i e t i e s but have drawn very d i f f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n s . They a l l r e j e c t theassumption that a fundamental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the school i n i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y i s t h e l i b e r a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l s f r o m a s c r i b e d i n e q u a l i t i e s ( p . 78) S u s t a n t i v e rather than formal e q u a l i t y o f e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y would r e q u i r e not merely s i m i l a r s t r u c t u r e s , p e d a g o g i e s and c u r r i c u l a a v a i l a b l e i n s c h o o l s f o r a l l s t u d e n t s , b u t r a t h e r t h a t t h e s e be e g u a l l y w e l l a d a p t e d t o students from different social class and cultural background, (p. 2 0 3 ) . Another  explanation  neither  the  resources  to  inequalities groups was  exists  not  system  to  has  opportunity  i s  goal,  that  the  schools  operational  seen  i n d i v i d u a l s or  groups  because  the  for  only  with  determine  society.  whether  the a b i l i t y but rather  potential  purpose  of  The  the  to ensure t o examine  the  study  as  structures  liberate  PURPOSE OF The  are  from  having  nor  ascribed  liberating  issue  the  in this  such study  society  or  the  equality  of  educational  i fequality  school  exists.  STUDY i s  to  determine  the  relationship opportunity  between  ethnicity  and  i n B r i t i s h -Columbia  based  r e s e a r c h examines i f the students' their access school  they  to  their  achieve  from  their  many w e s t e r n  educational  societies  data  research.  educational  Such  educational  for  1981.  needs  and  educational It  thus,  i s an  important  i t is a relevant  research  value  issue  in  not  only  investigates  o p p o r t u n i t i e s but a l s o s t u d i e s  life  opportunities  in less skills  demand and  are  higher  reguired  i s a concern of t h i s study  opportunity  the  schooling.  because i n advanced t e c h n o l o g i c a l c o u n t r i e s u n s k i l l e d increasingly  The  they are t r e a t e d i n  educational  opportunity  and,  of  e t h n i c background r e l a t e s to  special  E q u a l i t y of educational in  on  t o e d u c a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s , t h e way  according  outcomes  equality  does  not  exist,  and  for  minimal  levels  successful  in  of  is  basic  lifestyles.  that e q u a l i t y of that  labour  educational  fact:  There are i n d i v i d u a l s and g r o u p s whose c h a n c e s f o r a good life are being seriously and systematically curtailed by the low q u a l i t y of schooling that our s o c i e t y makes a v a i l a b l e t o them (Guthrie, Kleindorfer, L e v i n e and S t o u t , 1971, p. 2 ) .  SIGNIFICANCE Public founded  education  upon  assumptions. identify  Guthrie values  particular Writings  three  formulation: and and  systems  equality, Pierce  public  in  western  in  fundamental efficiency in  policy,  societies  values  research  (1978),  school  STUDY  cultural  and  concepts  OF  to and  their state:  or  these  are  ethical societies  education  policy  liberty.  Garms,  discussion  of  public  Equality, liberty and e f f i c i e n c y a r e viewed by an overwhelming majority as c o n d i t i o n s that government should maximize. These three values are considered "good", "just" and " r i g h t " . The b e l i e f i n them h a s h i s t o r i c a l r o o t s t h a t a r e d e e p l y i m b e d d e d i n o u r common heritage. This belief permeates the ideologies, promulgated by p o l i t i c a l parties, religions, schools and o t h e r s o c i a l i n s t i t u t e s . (P.18) Historically, and to  i t swestern maximize  efficiency  egalitarian emphasis  of  different educational  to  enter  and  over  Society levels  educational to  obtain  Simple  —  such  materials  so  levels  access  OF  their  refers  the  societies.  In  interpreted  as  - a concept and  to  and  among  within been  of  conceived  equal  outcomes  1982).  ACCESS  to the rights  to provide  as teachers,  of  these  pursuit  varied  the opportunity  that  and  implementation  has  has  liberty  Although  of equality of educational  responsibility  minimal  of  treatment  and t o have  of resources  in  time  and D a v i e s ,  of access  has a  system.  opportunity"  equal  facet  equality,  attempts  eguality  1975; Serow  school  -  values  access,  equality  attempted  cultural  policy,  first  have  school  EQUALITY The  Columbia,  success  of educational  equal  (Coleman,  these  as Canada  the  societies  "eguality  such  principles  such  values  public  made  societies,  British  cultural  i n their  have  democratic  province,  these -  societies  as:  new w o r l d  children  opportunity of  t o be  and e n s u r e  children educated. minimal  space,  and d o l l a r s f o r  have  the opportunity  education.  education  in  British  Columbia  is  guaranteed revised  by  legislation  School  Regulations. Section  Act  under  and  The r i g h t  the  the  School  corresponding  of a person  1(2) o f t h e S c h o o l  Public  Act,the  School  to attend  Act  i s outlined in  Act:  F o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s A c t and t h e r e g u l a t i o n s , r u l e s a n d o r d e r s made u n d e r i t , a p e r s o n i s d e e m e d o f s c h o o l age i n a s c h o o l y e a r , o n o r b e f o r e D e c e m b e r 31 i n t h a t s c h o o l y e a r , he h a s a t t a i n e d o r s h a l l h a v e a t t a i n e d t h e age o f 6 o r more y e a r s , and i f he h a s n o t o r s h a l l n o t have p r i o r t o September 1 i n t h a t s c h o o l y e a r , a t t a i n e d t h e a g e o f 19 y e a r s . and a  Section  school  the  155  board  school  (l)(a)(i) must  provide  district  155 (1) ( a ) ( i )  of the School  who  Act stipulates  schooling  are  that  for a l l residents  eligible  to  attend.  of  Section  states:  The b o a r d o f e a c h s c h o o l d i s t r i c t shall: (a) except as otherwise provided i n this Act, provide sufficient school accomodation and tuition, free of c h a r g e t o a l l c h i l d r e n o f s c h o o l age r e s i d e n t i n t h a t school district. To  ensure  provides  a  Education  of  school  formula  the  area  of  board  of  Columbia  amount  of  and an amount  Basic  guarantee  school  level  British  entitled,  The  each  minimum  year,  curriculum  school  that  a  "The B a s i c Education minimal  education  could,  through  programme. additional  in British  service, regulates time  to  the the be  Education  of on  according  is  the  level  per  f o r spending  these  recently,  taxation,  length  of the each to a  Programme".  Programme  Until  Columbia  Ministry  spent  of expenditures  expenditure  i s responsible  minimal  district  provincial pupil. dollars  a school  supplement  the  The on  a  board Basic  Education  Programme  Since minimal among  the  educational  the among  Stikine  School  District  spent  $  the  the  120,760  Delta  the  School  population  spent year.  per  operating  $  Such  goods  and  into level  as  education, services  service  alernative educational purchasing educational programme.  is  a  in  In  the  pupils)  close  Province  during  the  expenditures  quality  and  —  contrast,  community of  the  district  (twenty  budget.  centre  in  example,  northern  suburban  the  must  Stikine  in  this the  that  than  be  to --  same  may  well  quantity  high  remote  cost  may  in  quality  or  by  the  adequate  of  isolated  result  low  of  district be  an  per  is  per  or  minimal  such taken  inadequate  District  quality a  more  quantity.  Delta  though  providing  expenditure  providing  Even  considerably  end  the  in  recognized.  spends  the  either  services  1981  level  students.  resources less  its  disparities  once  consideration, of  isolated  For  a  differences  expenditure  Instructional Unit  possibilities such  pupil  defines  cost  Instructional Unit  one  a v a i l a b l e to  on  an  industrial  schooling  pupil  --  —  differences  district  considers  districts.  District  represent  a  nor  neither  school  one  regional  Various  Education  per  of  per  dollars.  actual  section  and  46,460  of  programme  greatly  in  additional  Ministry  districts,  varies  with  Another pupil  on  may  be  quantity  of  educational  EQUALITY Equality equal  of  Educational  educational  premise  that  genetically require  OF  treatment  students  different  or  Opportunity,  (Coleman,  have  determined  TREATMENT  a  wide  1975),  variety  abilities at  interpreted  of  as  on  culturally  the or  a  consequence  particularised  educational  Act  the  times  and  i s based  as  services. The  British  educational (1981)  Columbia  needs  of  School  particular  recognizes  students.  The  special  Regulations  read:  96. Special education programmes, including the establishment of special classes or other special p r o v i s i o n s f o r t h e s c h o o l a c c o m m o d a t i o n and t u i t i o n o f children with learning handicaps, shall be recognized for the purposes of c a l c u l a t i n g the c o s t of the b a s i c e d u c a t i o n programme i n a c c o r d a n c e with S e c t i o n 181 of t h e A c t o n l y i f t h e y a r e e s t a b l i s h e d and operated in accordance with this regulation and with the reguirements of the M i n i s t r y . and: 155. The number of approved instructional units for each school d i s t r i c t s h a l l b e c a l c u l a t e d on t h e b a s i s of (d) not more t h a n 0.8 o f one unit f o r each special class in the district approved in accordance with Section 96. Once  a  group  particular  of  form  students of  application  to  1981  3,000  over  (Schools are  examples 1.  of  been  educational  the  Finance  has  Ministry Special  Branch,  Special  learning programmes  identified  treatment,  of  Education  Class 1982).  Education  the  as  district  for  approvals The  assistance, f o r the g i f t e d  were  a  makes  approval.  following  Approvals  requiring  In  granted  programmes  made:  including student;  enrichment  The  2.  sight  3.  programmes f o r h o s p i t a l  4.  programmes  5.  programmes t o meet the I n d i a n c h i l d r e n , and  6.  programmes t o meet s p e c i f i c 1 9 8 0 , p. 2 3 ) .  Ministry  funds  for  of  such  large  numbers  immigrant  hearing  as  of  recognized  which  to  had  families as  a  and  Second  special  procedures  by  the  to ensure  the  grants  to  equality  relates  third to  facet  equal  of  appeared  early  and  contends  equality  of  Recently,  to  landed  Ministry  of  establish Special  high  these  English Education  grants  society  of  districts  children  with  to  are  provide  taxation  in  treatment.  OUTCOMES  educational  outcomes. of  special  school  Both  E Q U A L I T Y OF  equality  1970's  the  educational  educational  interpretation i n the  of  through  compensatory  districts of  provides  received  its  Columbia  I M P L I C A T I O N S OF The  or  also  Columbia  grants  Native  (Nichols,  Language".  of for  of  needs  Columbia  British  plight  British  local  refugees  programmes.  and  order  l e a r n i n g needs  Second  special  Language  assistance  a  education  Programmes  financial  as  the  instituted  homebound;  programmes  Vietnamese  provide  or  in British  i n Canada;  Education  programme;  autistic;  "compensatory" "English  status  impaired  f o r the  Education  other  grants  or  This  relatively  educational  ( M o s t e l l e r and  opportunity  opportunity  Moynihan,  t h a t e d u c a t i o n a l p r e p a r a t i o n has  new  1972),  become more  of  a  requirement  Porter,  for  Porter  association income  level  related  to  learning  outcomes  level  Although  the  I f personal education,  should  the  educational  third  occur  concept, given  ability  that  outcome  within  a  success  given  attained  level.  of  eguality may  have  will  time  as an of  differences  certain  i s an  egual  the logic  of students' a  i s  educational  some m e r i t  individual  obtain of  of  to support  of  and  in society  skills  regardless  period  systematic  at a basic  i t is difficult  a l l students  level  a  that  facet  To assume,  that  society.  argued  the d i v e r s i t y  in schools.  in  i t i s  e q u a l i t y of outcomes,  argument  found  of  success  (1973) m a i n t a i n  between  achieved.  opportunity,  individual's  and B l i s h e n  exists  theoretical  an  innate  level  of  incompatible  ideal.  ORGANIZATION This unique  study  employs  analytic  relationships factors describe  the  perspective  among  and s t u d e n t  OF  THE  STUDY  production that  attempts  school  resources,  outcomes.  Glasman  the research  function  method,  to determine  student  a  the  background  and B i n i a m i n o u  (1981)  method:  Based on the assumption that schools have systems' a t t r i b u t e s , these a n a l y s e s employ r e s e a r c h s t r a t e g i e s t o measure changes i n t h e system's outputs brought about by changes i n the systems' i n p u t s . Production functions are used t o r e f l e c t r e l a t i o n s between measures o f o u t p u t s and of i n p u t s (p. 509). The given  basic  in Figure  model 1.  of  the production  function  method  is  Student Background Factors  j  INPUT F i g u r e 1.  the  system.  which  The  resources which  in  can  outputs outcomes. the  are  not  model or  process  the  schooling  this The  in  the  input  be  case  model  Figure  cannot —  the  fixed be  be  was  --  the  the  used in  of  has  as  of the  school  attributes  of the  this  causal  by  system.  measures  evaluated  depicts  influenced  by  various model  attributes  application  activities  are  to 2  are  influenced  input-output  theoretical  diagram  in  generally  in  OUTPUT  model-  variables  system  Student Outcomes  J  INPUT P R O C E S S  Input/output  Input  School Resources  >  The  student basis  study.  for The  relationship  theor i zed.  Ethnicity  Access  Enrolment  Treatment  Schooling System Inputs  S c h o o l i n g System Process  Schooling Systems Outputs  F i g u r e 2. T h e o r e t i c a l m o d e l o n e t h n i c i t y a n d e q u a l i t y o f e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y  System school  f a c t o r s are  districts  control. process an  input  These  over input  inputs,  treatment direct  schooling  of  Since  1970,  completed  Judd  &  1975;  Moock, Glasmann  1975).  These  studies; error  and  six on  &  Centra  reviews  of  analytical  &  cover  they  at  Also,  factors inputs  outcome  and  factors.  of  the  and  have  a The  factors  opportunity:  d e t a i l e d reviews  function  (Bridge,  Cohn  Willman,  Katzman, of  Kasarda different  &  1971;  the  conceptual across  have  research  1980;  majority  the  and  results  or  system  treatment.  1981;  results  Bidwell  system  Potter,  the  make  access  of  little  factors.  educational  production  Biniaminou,  data.  comparison  of  has  schooling  constituted  comprehensive  comparing  aggregated  of  outputs is  board the  the  e q u a l i t y of  the  1979;  however,  of  system  demographics  treatment  types  equality  access  been  influence  between  process  with  school  f a c t o r s and  Both  the  system  associated equality  on  population  a  factors  exists  factors.  effect  which  access  interaction  the  Murnane,  input-output  and  statistical  various (1975)  levels contend  levels  of that  represents  error:  I n t r o d u c i n g m u l t i p l e l e v e l s o f a n a l y s i s i n t o t h e same m o d e l b r i n g s d i f f i c u l t i e s o f e s t i m a t i o n and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ( e g : the " e c o l o g i c a l f a l l a c y " ) . . . ( p . 63). Therefore, ensure  in  that  reviewing  comparison  different  data  students.  If  bases the  of  these of  studies  results  districts,  "ecological  does  i t  is  not  is  to  across  the  classrooms  and  occur  schools,  fallacy"  critical  to  be  avoided  in  research, will  be  the  the the  most  the  what  data  the  at  exists  scientific as  issues  variability  aggregated of  unit  determining  or  of  or  must of  the  an  dealt  be  consider By  eliminated.  Such  representative  school  which  between  or  conceptually  and  example,  described the  uses  by  reality as  the  data  schools  student  represent  productive  aggregating  substantial variation  analysis  For  represent  more  data  of  will  factor  level  i t  analysis?  unit  with.  access  district  to  which  conceptually  be  would  endeavour  district,  more  of  productive  theoretical  does  is  problem  student  across  and  a  students  variations  analytically  a  may  of  be  causal  relationships. Although using  school  Kasarda analysis  this  districts  (1975) in  may  be as  emphasized  their  the the the  situation unit  of  there  is  analysis.  importance  of  merit  Bidwell  school  in and  district  research.  On t h e o t h e r h a n d , i f we v i e w o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p h e n o m e n a a s means f o r t r a n s f o r m i n g e n v i r o n m e n t a l i n p u t s i n t o o u t p u t s , t h e n one p r i n c i p a l l o c u s o f t h e s e p h e n o m e n a may be the s c h o o l d i s t r i c t r a t h e r than the i n d i v i d u a l s c h o o l . There i s l i t t l e v a r i a t i o n between s c h o o l s i n the c e n t r a l i z a t i o n o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o n t r o l , more between s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s . Budget-making, which affects such things as the differential a l l o c a t i o n of resources between functions (e.g., t e a c h i n g v e r s u s non-academic s e r v i c e s ) or between schools, is a central-office and school board responsibility (p. 5 6 ) . Therefore,  the  unit  district  —  resource  allocation  Chapter of  the  the  I  study.  of  level  has The  analysis of  this  organization  decisions provided  in  an  are  study at  which  be  school  policy  and  made.  introduction  significance  will  of  the  and study  the  purpose  has  been  developed and  by  i t sapplication  definitions —  defining  have  of  been  to  equality  they  relate  of  to  Columbia  access,  opportunity  context.  treatment  the l i t e r a t u r e  In p a r t i c u l a r , student  student  overview  development  —  II reviews  with  an  educational  the B r i t i s h  equality  process.  provides  of  and  Three  outcomes  discussed.  Chapter schooling  eguality  of  access  outcomes  of  those and  ethnicity studies  student  lists  findings  dealing  and  with  and t h e  which  deal  treatment  are discussed.  research  variable  on  as  The  summary  leads  to the  ethnicity  and  questions  and  eguality. The  schooling  research groups  design  of  access,  student  analysis. the  one.  A  matrices for  the  sources  general  phase,  underlying  source  variables  to  analysis level  a  and then Chapter  findings  plus  V  outcomes.  the  of  by  four  t h e raw  statistics is  factor  variables  concludes  and  ethnic with  a  of  statistical  variable  on  trends  to provide  of  the  which  will  reduce  the  factors. first  the  f o r student  given  the model  implications  each  will  with  are described  analysis,  set  specific  phases  data  on  significant  to test  I I I along  and s t u d e n t  smaller  i s used  i n Chapter  indicators  discussion  describing  study  a r e t o be  outlines  descriptive  third  which  treatment  IV  The  model,  are outlined  variables  Chapter  with  research  along  in  phase  correlation the  base  determine number  Finally,  at a general  of path  ethnic  groups. summary  for policy  of  procedures  development  at  and the  Ministry  and  school  limitations  of  for  research  of  further  educational  the  study on  district  levels.  are addressed the topic  opportunity.  of  with  Finally,  the  recommendations  ethnicity  and  equality  17 Chapter REVIEW  OF  II  LITERATURE  INTRODUCTION A in  number  of  production  input  function  typically  classify  factors,  educational  (Glasman the  and  basis  district  of  the  the  provided  the  these unit  1981).  of  followed  consider  the  significance section  groups  be  included  to  The divided access  into  with  resource  the  required  variables  as  a  two  the of  variables  organized  context  the  on  school  and  of  a  to  and  resources  equality subdivided  of  are by  educational and  programming  human which  students.  access. into  is The  provided  an  reviews of  on  ethnic  which  material  special  II  of  process,  variables  are  needs  discussion  treatment.  institute  variables  which student  schemata  access  human  and  system  resource  background  studies  a  is  model.  schooling  and  rationale  student  theoretical  Chapter  is  a  with  special  with  a  review  associated with  t o meet  II,  concludes  order  treatment  affiliated  resource  by  those  in  Chapter  groups:  material  variables  Section  of  are  outcomes  utilizing  ethnicity  i n the  major  districts  programme;  is  two  is  of  category,  variables  associated school  Canadian  second  background  student  review  used  Researchers  student  and  ethnicity  is  the  as:  This  of  This  in  been  analysis.  including  ethnicity  have  education.  categories  section  The  in  resources,  variable.  achievement.  variables  variables  three  first  for  output  research  Biniaminou,  as  In  and  three  the  resource  This  category  major  areas:  instructional  indicators,  characteristics subdivided have  indicators.  into  related  four  those  of  service  and  expenditures, The  final  with  variable  is  rationale  number  Use  and  type  outlines  of  the  the variables  included  student  three  of  that  groups: of  each  particular  research. discusses  with  are  a  the  reviews  statement  t o be u s e d concludes  reviewed  statement in this  with  a  the appropriate model.  a on  retained  or excluded  procedure  followed  i s that  outlined which  i n the  on t h e  by  summary  factors  have  which  categories  i n each Jones  type  study.  In determining  a r e t o be  i s to a s c e r t a i n  associated  i n the study.  i s a summary  within  operating  indicators,  variables,  outcomes  i n the t h e o r e t i c a l  phase  district's  t h e end  Chapter  variables  first  are  At  in  and c o n c l u d e s  chapter  indicators  into  indicator  treatment  variables  and  variables  summary  this  t o be used  Included  outcome  Finally,  be  of studies  section.  student  of of  measures  captial/indebtedness.  are divided  and  indicators  topics:  and  further  measures,  school  three  staff  i s  characteristics  as an  section  indicators  the  qualifications.  for equality  treatment  fourth  and  critique  third  into  These  and i t s s u c c e s s  The  limited  a  size  administrative  staff.  experience  subsection  with  staff  and  area  Financial  revenue  area,  and  instructional  distict  divided  teaching'  major  The  measures.  operating  educational  salary,  of  are  indicators  student/teacher  affiliated  major  considers  topics.  measures,  variables  finances,  Each  subsections:  student/facility quantity  financial  to  which  domain, the (1981). been  used  The in  19  research second  for  representing  phase,  the  final  made  to  redundant it  or  or  eliminate  a  concept.  deletion  of  represents  appears in Chapter  i n measured  has l i m i t e d  or  t o which i t  phase, which retain  domain  retention  d e p e n d s on t h e d e g r e e the  a  a  variable  the domain.  In  I I I , a decision i s  variable  variance with  In the  i f i t i s  another  either  variable  or i f  variance. ETHNICITY  Research emphasized average  about  socioeconomic  family  parents' outlined  student  status  income,  occupation. by G u t h r i e ,  background  and r e l a t e d  parents'  There  factors  educational  Levin  generally  measures  i s , however,  Kleindorfer,  has  an  such as  level  and  alternative  and S t o u t :  An i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e t h a t c o u l d b e u s e d i n a d d i t i o n t o o r in place of 'socioeconomic status' i s race or minority g r o u p m e m b e r s h i p . . . M a n y o f t h e d i s p a r i t i e s we h y p o t h e s i z e as o c c u r r i n g a s a c o n s e g u e n c e o f an i n d i v i d u a l ' s b e i n g o f l o w e r s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s m i g h t a l s o be h y p o t h e s i z e d a s occurring as a c o n s e g u e n c e o f an i n d i v i d u a l ' s b e i n g a member o f a m i n o r i t y r a c i a l o r e t h n i c g r o u p ( 1 9 7 1 , p . 2 1 ) Glazer of  and Moynihan  (1975) a l s o  e t h n i c i t y a s an a l t e r n a t i v e  emphasize to class  t h i s new  awareness  structure:  ...there i s some l e g i t i m a c y t o f i n d i n g the forms o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n based on s o c i a l r e a l i t i e s as d i f f e r e n t a s r e l i g i o n , language,and n a t i o n a l o r i g i n a l l have something i n c o m m o n , s u c h t h a t a new t e r m i s c o i n e d t o r e f e r t o a l l o f t h e m - ' e t h n i c i t y ' . . . i t i s a l s o t r u e t h a t we m u s t a d d e t h n i c i t y a s a new m a j o r f o c u s f o r t h e m o b i l i z a t i o n o f i n t e r e s t s , t r o u b l e s o m e b o t h t o t h o s e who w i s h t o e m p h a s i z e t h e p r i m a c y o f c l a s s , a n d t h o s e who w i s h t o e m p h a s i z e t h e primacy of a nation (p. 1 8 ) . Hence, major  e t h n i c i t y as w e l l focus  ethnicity analysis  as s o c i a l c l a s s  of discussion;  or  social  class  i n education.  may  i t i s therefore i n doing  a  be v i e w e d feasible  production  as a  t o use function  The  major  student  performance  According be  purpose  this  i s , in  to Sebold  affected  of  and  fact,  Dato  in several  study a  to  test  function  (1981),  ways by  is  student  of  whether  ethnicity.  performance  can  ethnicity:  ...The e t h n i c and r a c i a l c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e s t u d e n t b o d y may a f f e c t s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s c o r e s v i a a n u m b e r o f p a t h s : f a m i l y a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d e d u c a t i o n a l a c h i e v e m e n t may d i f f e r a c r o s s e t h n i c a n d r a c i a l g r o u p s ; p e e r a t t i t u d e s may d i f f e r ; a n d , f i n a l l y s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s may b e b i a s e d i n f a v o u r o f the dominant ( m a j o r i t y ) subgroup o f s t u d e n t s (p. 9 6 ) . Four  studies using  considered (Bidwell Sebold by  performance and  and  Katzman  through six,  high  mathematics  Latin  of  High  percentage In  order  school -  %  and  one  variance  at  test  the  daily  four  7  Black  8  ethnicity  1978;  at  the  of  the  Latin  than  was  on  six  attendance,  c o n t i n u a t i o n and  significant  difference  favouring  the  students  who  Chinese applied  district. to  the  Boston  Also, Latin  the High  the  divided  the  districts  (50  (25 %  -  50  by  %  Caucasian), analysis  However,  mathematics  and  examination.  An  differences  in  elite  six,  25  and  level,  performance  reading.  (p>.05)  used  five  districts  (less  significant  the  white  district.  no  grade  Katzman  40  integrated  grades  School  race,  classes:  the  1971;  indicators  grade  Chinese  demonstrated  Katzman,  to  predominantly performed  race  two  end  districts  or  between  for admission  of  analysis  continuation  scores  the  of  attendance,  gain  effects  into  of  unit  s i x performance  reading  Caucasian) ,  Caucasian),  The  students passing  districts  100  Currie,  applications  of to  1975;  achievement  School  their  function  were  school,  as  a  1981).  (1971)  percentage  as  Kasarda,  Dato,  districts  of  indicators race there  was  in a  achievement, percentage School  of was  significantly categories result  lower  compared  occurred  to  the  for  the  White  Chinese  White,  Black  Given  these  the C h i n e s e d i s t r i c t  and  Integrated  and  Integrated  population.  f o r percentage of students  examinations, with the  (p>.05)  who  A  similar  passed the L a t i n  performing  better  than  populations.  f i n d i n g s , i t i s anomalous t h a t Katzman  (1971)  concluded: The a n a l y s i s r e v e a l s t h a t t h e r a c i a l c o m p o s i t i o n of school districts is not significantly related performance, c e t e r i s paribus (p. 6 2 ) . Katzman  did  achieved  by  Latin  not the  recognize Chinese  a p p l i c a t i o n and  the  results  population  Latin  pass  in  and  results  the to  mathematics  rationalized  the  describing  them  by  as: 1.  overachievement  2. a r e f l e c t i o n sub-culture Contrary  to  that  Bidwell  and  the  Chinese  of the value (p. 6 2 ) .  Katzman's  demonstrate  of  of  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , his research  performance Kasarda  in Colorado.  non-White  variable. reading  is a  (1975)  function  did  students; was  population  Nevertheless, residing  S t u d e n t p e r f o r m a n c e was  and  mathematics  in both cases,  i n v e r s e l y and Bidwell  and  and  of s c h o l a r s h i p i n the  not  r a c i a l / e t h n i c g r o u p i n t h e i r s t u d y o f one districts  students;  appears  any  h u n d r e d and  school  scores  by for  with  school  percentage  district  as  a  standardized high  the percentage of non-White associated  specific  four  they used the a  to  ethnicity.  define  represented  achievement  significantly Kasarda  in  of  Chinese  school  population  performance.  (1975) assumed a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n  ethnicity  and  a c h i e v e m e n t , and  "wished  to c o n t r o l  for  percent  n o n - W h i t e as a d i s t u r b a n c e t e r m when e s t i m a t i n g t h e e f f e c t s t h e o t h e r i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s on a c h i e v e m e n t l e v e l s "  ( p . 62) .  T h e y b a s e d t h e i r a s s u m p t i o n on t h e r e s u l t s o f r e s e a r c h w h i c h examined 1972;  ethnicity  Coleman et Sebold  and  at  the  a l . , 1966; Dato  and  Crain,  (1981)  depict ethnicity/race: as m i n o r i t i e s .  school  used  classroom  of  level  had  (Amour,  1981). a  generalized  the percentage  variable  of students  to  classified  T h e i r s t u d y u s e d t h e l a r g e s t one h u n d r e d s c h o o l  districts in California.  Ten s t u d e n t o u t p u t v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e d  t e s t s o f r e a d i n g , s p e l l i n g , w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n and m a t h e m a t i c s . No  significant  m i n o r i t i e s and  relationship  was  found  between  s p e l l i n g a t t h e s i x t h and  percentage  of  t w e l f t h grade l e v e l  or  w i t h m a t h e m a t i c s and w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n a t t h e g r a d e s i x l e v e l . However,  the  percentage  of  minorities  was  significantly  i n v e r s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h r e a d i n g a t g r a d e s two, twelve twelve.  and  with  mathematics  Although  Sebold  and  and  results across examinations,  t h r e e , s i x and  written expression Dato  (1981)  at  found  grade  differing  they were a b l e to r e p o r t t h a t  c o e f f i c i e n t s of t h e i r p r o d u c t i o n f u n c t i o n model e x p l a i n e d 85%  to  92%  of  the  variation  i n the  district  of  E n g l i s h and  non-English  as a v a r i a b l e .  (1978) a n a l y z e d i n t r a p r o v i n c i a l and i n t e r p r o v i n c i a l by s c h o o l d i s t r i c t four provinces ( n = 5 6 ) , New Edward  from  the  Currie  variations  i n the r e t e n t i o n of students i n s c h o o l i n the  i n the A t l a n t i c  Brunswick  Island  the  scores.  One C a n a d i a n s t u d y h a s c o n s i d e r e d g e n e r a l e t h n i c i t y b y proportions  and  (n=5).  Region of Canada:  (n=33), Newfoundland The  student  output  Nova S c o t i a  (n=36) and  Prince  v a r i a b l e s were  the  number o f s t u d e n t s  r e t a i n e d b e t w e e n g r a d e s e i g h t and e l e v e n ,  t h e number o f s t u d e n t s  r e t a i n e d b e t w e e n g r a d e s e i g h t and  Currie  a  did  not  S c o t i a , New  find  significant  B r u n s w i c k or  significant  (.05)  Prince  and  positive  p r o p o r t i o n o f E n g l i s h and and  i n the  total  Island.  He  relationship  did  into  the  1981; are  school  Education  of  M a e s t a s , 1981; discussed  population recent  or student Children  here because  information  a  the  Region.  on  Ethnic  report  on  Inquiry  Minority  Groups,  These  studies  a different ethnic  r e v i e w e d ; as w e l l ,  ethnic  district  (Committee of  Dhanota, 1981).  they  studies  level  from  W r i g h t and  than other  find  the r e t e n t i o n f a c t o r s i n Newfoundland  Atlantic  at the  Nova  between  Three recent s t u d i e s d i d not aggregate data at the l e v e l but  twelve.  relationship within  Edward  and  research  in  they  other  provide cultural  contexts. In the Mexican  United  American  American high categories community  States, Maestas high  school  by  seniors.  regions  and  large  —  The  area  Region did  not  and  203  Both populations medium —  and  sized  the  Skills  influence  and  student  In G r e a t B r i t a i n , 1977  Report  of  I m m i g r a t i o n on  the "The  were  assigned  city,  bedroom  differences  among  Iowa T e s t o f achievement,  s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d b e t w e e n e t h n i c i t y and  Committee  on  Race  on  Basic but  a  achievement.  the B r i t i s h Government responded to  Select  369  non-Mexican  dependent v a r i a b l e s were s c o r e s  Comprehensive Test of B a s i c  Skills.  seniors  rural,  urban  r e g i o n s were analyzed. the  school  (1981) used a sample o f  Relations  the and  W e s t I n d i a n C o m m u n i t y " by e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e  Committee of I n q u i r y i n t o the Education  of C h i l d r e n from  Ethnic  Minority  Groups  in  March,  interim report titled Rampton  Report)  on  tabled  its  "West I n d i a n C h i l d r e n i n o u r S c h o o l s "  (The  June  The Rampton R e p o r t Leavers  Survey  represented  during  particular  performance  examination  Examination  "A"  (GCE  (GCE  the  All  three  "A"  50%  minimum  given  to  populations GCE  "A"  to  of  A, The  level  which  ethnic minority  school  Authorities different the  (LEAs),  in a variety examination  measures grade  the  same  depending  and  "A" C  groups. of  State  of Examination  "0"  Examination  on  as  twelve age  the  represent  in subject  criteria.  career  but  battery  of s u b j e c t areas.  graduation  group,  a  to  aspirations  The  areas GCE  different and  designated  Committee's  using "0"  as  findings,  student  ability.  The  The CSE GCE  by l e t t e r g r a d e A t h r o u g h  "higher can  is  Both  f o r U n i v e r s i t y e n t r a n c e . The  l e v e l are graded  of The  certificate.  by l e v e l w i t h grade 1 b e i n g the h i g h e s t g r a d e .  B,  showed  ethnic  Certificate  Certificate  examination  of  the  " 0 " l e v e l a n d GCE with  year  the General C e r t i f i c a t e of  l e v e l are examinations  i s graded  academic  School  level).  competency  equivalent are  a  for:  General  levels  represents  the  among  were  comprehensive examinations CSE  of  trends  "0" l e v e l ) and  level  1978/79  Education  results  (CSE),  Committee  1981.  the  approximately in six Local  level  17,  The  i n d i c a t e d t h a t the r e s u l t s of the  population  The  1979.  be  E  grades". summarized  as  follows:  1. I n a l l C S E a n d GCE " 0 " l e v e l e x a m i n a t i o n s , 3% o f t h e W e s t I n d i a n s o b t a i n e d f i v e or more h i g h e r g r a d e s i n s u b j e c t s c o m p a r e d w i t h 18% o f A s i a n s ; 2. I n C S E E n g l i s h a n d GCE " 0 " l e v e l L a n g u a g e o n l y 9% o f W e s t Indians obtained higher grades c o m p a r e d w i t h 21% of A s i a n s and 29% o f a l l o t h e r l e a v e r s i n t h e s e L E A s ;  25  3. I n CSE a n d GCE " 0 " l e v e l i n M a t h e m a t i c s o n l y 5% o f W e s t I n d i a n s o b t a i n e d h i g h e r g r a d e s c o m p a r e d w i t h 20% o f A s i a n s and 19% o f a l l o t h e r l e a v e r s i n t h e s e L E A s ; 4. A t GCE "A" l e v e l o n l y 2% o f t h e W e s t I n d i a n s g a i n e d o n e o r m o r e p a s s c o m p a r e d w i h 13% A s i a n s and 12% o f a l l o t h e r l e a v e r s i n these LEAs; 5. O n l y 1% o f W e s t I n d i a n s w e n t o n t o u n i v e r s i t y c o m p a r e d w i t h 3% o f A s i a n s a n d 3% o f a l l o t h e r l e a v e r s i n t h e s e L E A s ; and 6.  These  O n l y 1% o f W e s t I n d i a n s w e n t o n t o f u l l t i m e d e g r e e c o u r s e s i n f u r t h e r e d u c a t i o n c o m p a r e d w i t h 5% o f A s i a n s a n d 4% o f a l l o t h e r l e a v e r s i n t h e s e L E A s .  results  l e d the Committee  to conclude  that;  . . . [ t h e r e w i l l ] a l w a y s b e some c h i l d r e n who w i l l u n d e r a c h i e v e and f o r v a r i o u s r e a s o n s w i l l f a i l t o r e a c h t h e i r full potential. H o w e v e r , t h e i s s u e t a k e s on a d i f f e r e n t t o n e and becomes a c o n c e r n when a d i s t i n c t e t h n i c g r o u p i s u n d e r a c h i e v i n g i n r e l a t i o n to t h e i r p e e r s , at l e a s t not o b t a i n i n g the e x a m i n a t i o n q u a l i f i c a t i o n s needed t o g i v e them e q u a l i t y o f o p p o r t u n i t y i n t h e employment m a r k e t and to e n a b l e them t o t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f t h e r a n g e o f p o s t - s c h o o l o p p o r t u n i t i e s a v a i l a b l e (p. 3 ) . The B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n f o r t h e C i t y o f T o r o n t o  investigated  t h e e t h n i c c o m p o s i t i o n and p r o g r a m m i n g o f g r a d e n i n e s t u d e n t s i n 1975  and  1980  ( W r i g h t and D h a n o t a , 1981) .  Two  aspects of  their  w o r k a r e r e l e v a n t t o t h i s s t u d y . F i r s t , a s s h o w n i n T a b l e 1, immigration that  the  Between  the  students  ethnic composition 1975  enrolled  p a t t e r n of  and  1980  i n Toronto  United  States  the  1975  i n a Canadian percentage  s c h o o l s who dropped  between  by  of  were born 7.7%,  and  city grade  1980  is  changing.  nine  the  is  the  analysis  aspect of the Toronto study which of programming  by  students  percentage  s t u d e n t s f r o m A s i a and A f r i c a h a s q u i n t u p l e d f r o m 1.1% The s e c o n d  verify  i n Canada, Europe  while  e t h n i c group.  the  to  and of 5.7%.  i s of  interest  The  Toronto  S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l s ' programme o f f e r s s u b j e c t s a t s i x  different  26  TABLE 1 Percentage o f Grade 9 S t u d e n t s i n T o r o n t o S c h o o l s by Place o f B i r t h 1980 62.0 16.2 1.4 8.4 5.1 5.7 1.3  1975 66.1 20.5 .7 6.7 3.1 1.1 1.7  Region Canada Europe United S t a t e s & Mexico Central £ South'America Far & Middle East Asia £ Africa No I n f o r m a t i o n  99.9  TOTAL A d o p t e d from i n f o r m a t i o n by W r i g h t a n d O h a n o t a ,  1  100.1  2  2  1981, p. 13.  Does n o t e q u a l 100% b e c a u s e o f r o u n d i n g .  levels  of  difficulty:  (vocational),  level  (general), level and  level  3  and  nine  with  students  6 (enriched) Level  2 and  or  basic),  5 (advanced) and l e v e l 6 ( e n r i c h e d ) .  place of birth  Level  (modified),  (occupational  6 are p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r admission  grade  1  were  to u n i v e r s i t i e s .  categorized  by l e v e l s  a s shown  i n Table  had v e r y  small populations  Level  5,  2.  Level  level  2  level  4  Levels 5 T h e 7,065  o f programming  1 (modified)  and  and were combined  respectively.  TABLE 2 P e r c e n t a g e o f G r a d e 9 S t u d e n t s i n T o r o n t o S c h o o l s By P l a c e o f B i r t h and L e v e l o f S t u d y ( 1 9 8 0 ) 1  Region o f B i r t h  Canada Europe United S t a t e s £ Mexico Central £ South America Far £ Middle East Asia £ Africa No I n f o r m a t i o n TOTAL  Modified £ Occupational Vocational  Gene r a l  Advanced £ Enriched  Total  1.8 5.3 0.0 4.9 1.6 2.2 3.9  14.7 25.6 1.0 23.0 5.3 10.6 18.0  27 .2 33 .3 6 .1 34 .5 23 .1 31 .2 30 .8  56.4 35.8 92.9 37.6 70.1 56.0 47.4  100.I 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.I 100.0 100.I  2.6  16.4  28 .6  52.4  100.0  A d o p t e d from i n f o r m a t i o n by W r i g h t a n d O h a n o t a , Does n o t e q u a l 100% b e c a u s e o f r o u n d i n g .  1981, p. 47.  2  2  2  If  levels  1,  2,  and  3  are  considered  to  indicate  low  a c h i e v e m e n t , a n d l e v e l s 4, 5, a n d 6 t o i n d i c a t e h i g h a c h i e v e m e n t , then shown  the a s s o c i a t i o n i n Table  of achievement  and  ethnicity  i s clear  as  3.  TABLE 3 P e r c e n t a g e a n d Rank o f G r a d e 9 S t u d e n t s i n T o r o n t o S c h o o l s by P l a c e o f B i r t h a n d L e v e l o f S t u d y ( 1 9 8 0 ) 1 Low Achievement  Region o f B i r t h  High Achievement  Total  United S t a t e s E Mexico  1.0  99.0  100.0  Far & Middle East  6.9  93.2  100.I  Asia £ Africa  12.8  87.2  100.0  Canada  16.5  83.6  100.I  27.9  72.1  100.0  Europe  30.9  69.1  100.0  No I n f o r m a t i o n  21.9  78.2  100.I  19.0  81.0  100.0  Central £ South  America  TOTAL  ^ A d o p t e d from i n f o r m a t i o n by W r i g h t a n d D h a n o t a , ^Does n o t e q u a l 100 %  The  2  because o f rounding.  i n f l u e n c e o f c u l t u r a l b a c k g r o u n d on s u c c e s s a t s c h o o l  a n d B o u r d i e u ( 1 9 6 6 ) , who h a v e s h o w n t h a t t h e s o c i a l a n d background  of  schooling.  different  2  1981, p. 4 7 .  has a l s o been d e m o n s t r a t e d by t h e r e s e a r c h o f B e r n s t e i n  students  2  a  s t u d e n t has  an  influence  on  the  (1971)  cultural  success  in  The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e c u l t u r a l b a c k g r o u n d o f  and in  industrialized  success Canada  in  schooling  than  that  should found  n a t i o n s such as t h e U n i t e d  be in  significantly other  western  States, Britain  and  France.  a l l i m m i g r a n t s as p e o p l e t o  be  a s s i m i l a t e d i n t o t h e m a i n s t r e a m ; Canada, however, has chosen  to  view  C o u n t r i e s have viewed  immigrants  characteristics different dominant  as  clusters  which  of  s h o u l d be  p e r s p e c t i v e may  unique  cultures  retained.  l i e i n the f a c t  reason  group  for  t h a t Canada had  f o u n d i n g n a t i o n a l i t i e s , t h e B r i t i s h and t h e F r e n c h ,  have a p a r t i c u l a r h i s t o r i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . Japan, Fuse nations  A  with  (1977)  with  confirmed this  two who  W r i t i n g from Kyoto ,  i n h i s comparison of Western  Canada  this  industrialized  distinction:  T u r n i n g now t o t h e C a n a d i a n s c e n e we f i n d t w o charter g r o u p s , t h e E n g l i s h and t h e F r e n c h , d e e p l y e n t r e n c h e d i n the e a r l y history of t h i s country. Eventually, the B r i t i s h a t t a i n e d hegemony o v e r t h e F r e n c h , w h i c h f a c t has l e f t a t r a g i c l e g a c y s t i l l p l a g u i n g us i n C a n a d i a n d o m e s t i c p o l i t i c s , i n c l u d i n g t h e O c t o b e r C r i s i s i n 1970 and t h e m o s t recent air controllers strike over the proposed i n t r o d u c t i o n o f F r e n c h (p. 1 7 ) . In  order  to protect  the  rights  of  became i m p e r a t i v e t o a c k n o w l e d g e linguistic that  ideology  D'Oyley Black  differences began  to  each  (1979), r e f l e c t e d  ideology.  extended  to  t h i s Canadian  S t u d i e s C o n f e r e n c e w h e r e he  culture,  the respect f o r c u l t u r a l  i n Canadian be  founding  other ideal  In  the  ethnic at the  i t and  1970s, groups.  Canadian  stated:  Official government policy in Canada supports m u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m ; h a r d l y does i t speak of a s s i m i l a t i o n . I n p r o m o t i n g e t h n i c i t y , e t h n i c d e v e l o p m e n t and t h e r e f o r e multi-ethnicity, the federal government gives the i m p r e s s i o n t h a t i t wishes the e v e n t u a t i o n whereby each ethnic strand attains i t s highest ethnic strength along clearly defined dimensions while acknowledging and c o n t r i b u t i n g t o the c o r p o r a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s which stem from the m a j o r i t y (p.122). Conclusion A l t h o u g h t h e r e has been l i m i t e d  r e s e a r c h i n C a n a d a on  i n t e r a c t i o n between e t h n i c i t y and s c h o o l s u c c e s s , P o r t e r  the  (1965)  did  find  a  relationship  attendance  patterns  distribution postulated occurred  related  among that  between  ethnic  ethnic  to  types  groups.  stratification  origin  Further,  of  ethnic  t h r o u g h c o n q u e s t and i m m i g r a t i o n .  conceptualized  a  parsimonious  of  and  school  occupational Porter  groups  in  D'Oyley  (1965) Canada  (1982) h a s  clustering of distinct  ethnic  groupings: . . . t h a t t h e hand o f C a n a d i a n s o c i e t y be p e r s u a d e d t o a r e c o g n i t i o n o f i t s f i v e f i n g e r s , each o f which i s i t s e l f a c l u s t e r , an a s s e m b l a g e o f s u b - g r o u p s . 1.  the  aborigines;  2.  the anglophone;  3.  the francophone;  4.  the later  European  and  5. t h e l a t e r v i s i b l e m i n o r i t y 126)  These  five  categories  Canadian context the  when a c c e s s  relationships  Canadian  among  aboriginals  p e o p l e were identity  interned  number.  It  acts  were  historical  groups,  conquered  on r e s e r v e s large  with  and  within  are  considered.  each person given  a band  bureaucracy,  the  t o watch over  them.  rationales:  1.  The a b o r i g i n e s were t o r e c e i v e goods and s e r v i c e s the government f o r t h e l a n d c a l l e d Canada; and  2.  The a b o r i g i n e s protection.  i s ironic  concentration  that  t o be  i n a western  reserves,  the  as  Their  was o r g a n i z e d  o n two b a s i c  had  the  subjugated.  government  Affairs,  based  validity  t o goods and s e r v i c e s , as w e l l  the major  were  A  Department of Indian These  have  ( i . e . ; A f r i c a n and A s i a n ) (p.  segregated  for their  democratic  society  identity  numbers,  from  own  i n 1983, t h e the  large  g u a r d i n g b u r e a u c r a c y , and t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l s u b j u g a t i o n still  exist.  The  concentration  reserves  excessive asocial drugs,  present  alcohol  ethos  of  the  majority  i s an a b n o r m a l l y h i g h  death  should of  the  rate  and  b e h a v i o u r by t h e a b o r i g i n a l such as t h e use o f  and  The A n g l o p h o n e  violence. i s t h e dominant r a c e and c u l t u r e i n Canada,  w h i c h s u c c e s s f u l l y c o n g u e r e d t h e A b o r i g i n a l and F r a n c o p h o n e and hence  has r e t a i n e d The  a h i s t o r i c a l pride  Francophone,  although  of place.  conquered  a n d t o some  subjugated by t h eAnglophone, forms the second dominant and e t h n i c g r o u p i n t h e C a n a d i a n s o c i e t y . the  Francophone,  because  of  c o n c e n t r a t i o n , has maintained The  relationship  has  given  rise  bicultural The  between  their  to the ideal  that  cultural  Over t h e c e n t u r i e s , population  a cultural  Anglophone  degree  size  and  and s o c i a l  identity.  and Francophone  i n Canada  Canada  is a  bilingual  and  country. later  opportunities  European  came  which existed.  to  Canada  Because  mainly  of the size  f o r the of  Canada,  they were a b l e t o b u i l d c u l t u r a l e n c l a v e s i n which t h e i r language and  culture  Alberta  remained dominant.  and Saskatchewan  The Germans and U k r a n i a n s o f  a r e examples  within  this  group.  The l a s t g r o u p , t h e l a t e r v i s i b l e m i n o r i t y , i s d i s t i n c t f o r three reasons: 1. t h e i r  relative  "newness"  t o Canada;  2. t h e i r d i s t i n c t i v e p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s a s c o m p a r e d dominant p o p u l a t i o n ; 3.  to the  t h e r a c i s m and a n t a g o n i s m w h i c h has been exhibited t o w a r d s t h e m b y t h e r e s t o f C a n a d a a t some p o i n t i n history, i . e . ; t h e b l a c k s h a v i n g been s l a v e s , t h e C h i n e s e h a v i n g i m m i g r a t i o n r e s t r i c t e d as w e l l as o v e r t  31  h o s t i l i t y i n the Vancouver r i o t s d u r i n g the e a r l y p a r t of the c e n t u r y , the i n t e r n m e n t o f J a p a n e s e d u r i n g the S e c o n d W o r l d War, the r e c e n t h o s t i l i t y towards East Indians i n the c i t y of Vancouver. Based  on  t h e work  of Bourdieu  (1966) a n d  Porter  (1972), a  h i e r a r c h y of e t h n i c groups according to student performance be  predicted.  with  Using  Bourdieu's  concept  t h r e e components -- v e r b a l f a c i l i t y ,  culture,  and  knowledge  of  the  school  of  cultural  capital  knowledge of  system  --  can  and  general Porter's  a r g u m e n t t h a t b e c a u s e o f a n i n d i v i d u a l ' s l i m i t e d r e s o u r c e s he she  i s unable  groups  which  cultural those  of  are  capital  ethnic  In  to maintain  1972,  more  groups  which  society.  His  —  social  order  contends  that  ethnicity  may  ethnicity  may  considered within  be  those  ethnic  components  achievement  in school  of  than  isomorphic.  is antithetical  argument  and  not  customs  was  be  react  two  five  considered  which  h i s own are  a  functional  first,  —  two  every  parallel  is impossible;  different  in  possiblities  to  positively  Bourdieu  D'Oyley's  twofold:  to t r y to maintain  other  related  interaction by  to  from  are o b s t a c l e s to s c h o o l success.  (1966) a n d ethnic  this  school  with  between  should occur d i f f e r i e n t i a l l y . will  Bourdieu's  t h e d o m i n a n t s o c i e t y and  dominant  the  to  less  l i m i t e d r e s o u r c e s and  language  If  are  i n Canada  second,  (1979)  isomorphic  cultures,  P o r t e r r e i t e r a t e d h i s concern t h a t the p e r p e t u a t i o n  industrial  societies  parallel  should have h i g h e r  multiculturalism  p e r s o n has  two  or  school  ethnicity Porter  groupings,  and  success and  (1972) student  Anglophone;  first, second,  (p.  78).  schooling is valid  as then  achievement  Therefore, six ethnic study:  Murphy  exist:  success  the  the  groupings general  e t h n i c c a t e g o r y o f NonMinority;  English;  Francophone;  and  l a t e r Europeans; l a t e r  Visible  Aboriginal.  E Q U A L I T Y OF  ACCESS  This s e c t i o n of the l i t e r a t u r e review examines the research on  the r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n d i c a t o r s of resource  student outcomes. attempt  to  both  i n resources  function  Potter,  resource i n d i c a t o r s are variables  measure  differences product  The  1980;  studies Glasman  quantitative  available (Bridge, &  to  and  1981)  into three conglomerates: and  Instructional The  which  Reviews  J u d d & Moock, 1979;  Biniaminou,  and  qualitative  students.  " r e s o u r c e s " i s an e x t r e m e l y b r o a d c a t e g o r y and  indicators  access  of  Centra  reveal  i s often  &  that divided  instructionalindicators, financial  staff characteristics.  Indicators  m o s t common s c h o o l d i s t r i c t  characteristics  included  i n r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s are those v a r i a b l e s which measure s e r v i c e to students. Student/Teacher are viewed are  the  more  Measures.  Pupil/teacher  ratio  variables  as an optimum i n d i c a t o r s f o r s e r v i c e t o s t u d e n t s  most  students  frequently a  teacher  used has,  instructional indicators. the  less  likely  i t i s that  t e a c h e r w i l l be a b l e t o meet i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t r e q u i r e m e n t s n e e d s , p a r t i c u l a r l y a s c l a s s s i z e e x c e e d s some o p t i m u m I f one student to  low  assumes t h a t  the s c h o o l i n g  process  i s b a s e d on  and The the or  level.  teacher-  i n t e r a c t i o n , a c h i e v e m e n t s h o u l d be p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d pupil/teacher  r a t i o s which  maximize  such  interaction.  Although achievement sound  t h e argument f o r a p o s i t i v e and  i t does  within sound  low  pupil/teacher  not consider  classrooms.  ratio  the variance  F o r example,  t o have a c l a s s  relationship  of student  i t i s more  abilities  instructionally level i s  w i t h i n one s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n t h a n i t i s t o have f i f t e e n  students  all  students  level  students  conceptually  whose a b i l i t y  whose a b i l i t y  of forty  seems  between  encompasses t h r e e standard d e v i a t i o n s .  were randomly  assigned  to classrooms,  If  the use o f  p u p i l / t e a c h e r r a t i o s as i n d i c a t o r s o f s e r v i c e would p r o b a b l y valid. by  be  However s t u d e n t s a r e o f t e n g r o u p e d h o m o g e n e o u s l y e i t h e r  chance  or choice  necessarily The  a valid  u s u a l means  and  therefore pupil/teacher ratio  i s not  indicator. of computing of p u p i l / t e a c h e r r a t i o  a s an  i n d i c a t o r o f s e r v i c e t o s t u d e n t s i s t o d i v i d e t h e t o t a l number o f students  by  Kiesling,  the  1969;  total  number  Kielsing,  of  teachers  1970;  Raymond,  (Currie, 1978).  r e s e a c h e r s have i n c l u d e d both t e a c h e r s and s p e c i a l i s t arguing  that the presence  service  to students  of s p e c i a l i s t s  increase  (Brown, 1972; Katzman, 1 9 7 1 ) . O t h e r s h a v e a r g u e d of  students  student In  these  enrolled  absences  i s not a v a l i d  reduce  studies, student  proxy  the teacher's  t h e number o f f u l l t i m e e q u i v a l e n t t e a c h e r s Bidwell  and K a s a r d a ,  1975; Cohn,  few  enhances  achievement  t h a t t h e number  for service  workload  d a i l y attendance  A  teachers,  i n the system  and t h e r e f o r e s h o u l d  1978;  because  considerably.  has been d i v i d e d  by  (Benson e t a l . , 1965;  1965).  R e s u l t s o f s t u d i e s o n t h e r e l a t i o n s among t h e p u p i l / t e a c h e r input  variables  inconsistent.  and t h e c o g n i t i v e o u t p u t Raymond  (1968)  did  not  variables find  have  been  significant  r e l a t i o n s h i p s among o u t p u t m e a s u r e s a n d s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r  ratios.  Kiesling  a  sample  (1969) c a l c u l a t e d  and  district  found  of the  the  regression equations  significance  characteristics  s a m p l e , 30 cases  no  54  54  and  between  student  ratio  (1970)  included three  was  127  pupil/teacher ratio  of  related  calculated  the  equations,  to outcome;  negative.  regression predictors  was  In h i s  urban in  and  eguations  which  ratio  variable. was  the  In  positively relationship  These r e s u l t s are not s u r p r i s i n g ; w i t h over  can  be  finding  attributed  (1971)  pupil/teacher  the  found  ratios  and  no  to  of  12  study,  independent  pupil/teacher  school  In another  regression an  rural  negatively  in three other equations  equations,  Katzman  as  the  were r e p o r t e d ;  s i g n i f i c a n t l y l i n k e d to c o g n i t i v e outcomes. Kiesling  of  outcomes.  regression analyses  teacher/student  any  on  isolated  100  significant  chance.  significant  a s s o c i a t i o n between  h i s s i x outcome v a r i a b l e s .  In  fact,  t h e p a t t e r n o f p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s i n h i s s t u d i e s was  inconsistent.  results;  Brown  (1972)  ratio  and  composite  n e g a t i v e s i g n i n t w o a n a l y s e s , a n d was et  a l .  student/teacher and  Cohn  (1965)  r a t i o and  (1968)  student/teacher twelfth  Katzman's  i n f i v e a n a l y s e s performed the c o e f f i c i e n t between the  student/teacher  Benson  substantiated  and  found  found  achievement significant  no  scores (.05)  relationship  significant  relation  a  i n none.  s c o r e s on r e a d i n g a c h i e v e m e n t no  had  between tests, between  composite g a i n score between the t e n t h  and  grade.  In C u r r i e ' s (1978) A t l a n t i c R e g i o n s t u d y , p u p i l / t e a c h e r r a t i o was  not  related  to student  r e t e n t i o n measures  i n Nova  Scotia,  Newfoundland, Region.  Prince  Edward  Island  and  the  total  In f a c t , f o r the t o t a l A t l a n t i c Region  coefficients  were  pupil/teacher relationship Kasarda  ratios.  Reading  and  and  found  direction:  f o r the  Only  positive  (1975),  negative  negative  a  as  in  two  significant  achievement  T h e m o s t common i n d e x u s e d  factors  Brunswick (.05).  (.05)  student/teacher  Mathematics  correlation  retention  New  significant  the  Atlantic  was  the  Bidwell  and  association  ratio  scores  and  in  increased,  a  the  decreased.  f o r p u p i l / t e a c h e r r a t i o was  the  t o t a l number o f s t u d e n t s d i v i d e d by t h e t o t a l number o f t e a c h e r s . Those  studies  total  number  workload  for  attendance. student  indicators  at  average  teachers  to  often  to  used  attendance  rather  weak  rationale  for  a  substantiate  the  the  daily  exact  opposite  classroom,  he  student  outcomes  ratios  retain  of s e r v i c e  two the  was  found their  use is  creates  reduced  of  true:  daily when  a  additional  to students.  measures  of  elementary  in  studies  conceptual  pupil/teacher ratio: level  reviewed, merit  Therefore, this study  level  as will  pupil/teacher  (kindergarten through  and p u p i l / t e a c h e r r a t i o a t t h e s e c o n d a r y grade  the  than  A l t h o u g h no s i g n i f i c a n t t r e n d b e t w e e n p u p i 1 / t e a c h e r  and  include  used  students  Quite  pupil/teacher  ratio  of  returns  workload. ratios  which  grade  (grade 8  7);  through  12). Student/Facility  occasionally  tried  to  Measures.  measure  the  Researchers quality  of  have instructional  s e r v i c e by i n c l u d i n g v a r i a b l e s t h a t r e l a t e t o t h e p h y s i c a l and c l a s s r o o m a r e a i n a s c h o o l d i s t r i c t . p e r c l a s s r o o m a r e a was  used by K i e s l i n g  plant  The number o f s t u d e n t s (1970) and Katzman  (1971)  as  an  indicator  of  learning  environment.  Both  postulated  that  f e w e r s t u d e n t s p e r c l a s s r o o m a r e a w o u l d h a v e a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on l e a r n i n g outcomes. of p h y s i c a l p l a n t achievement: per  w h i c h he  the  laboratory.  school  K i e s l i n g (1970) i n c l u d e d  district  as  influence  educational  safety  of p h y s i c a l p l a n t s  the  and  age  of  buildings  impact  obsolence  but  which  may  may in  not be  turn  have  a  as  influences  a  proxy  removed  from  that  renovations  no  for  educational the  in a  educational  reflects  outcomes.  causal  attitude  t h e age  which is  relationship postulated,  and  occurred  a  within  a  direct for  attitude  proxy  have  Such  He  surrogate  t o w a r d s e d u c a t i o n . I t d o e s n o t seem r e a s o n a b l e t o use building  a  of a  in  turn  too  far  assumes  building  and  that  "newness" i s the  " r i g h t " or p r o p e r environment f o r l e a r n i n g .  this  a  were  true,  number  educationally  unsound  Kiesling  (1970)  entering  pupils  significant outcome academic  their six  classroom  as  The  students the  be  age. regression  a  eguations,  predictor;  only  associated  with  number  students  per  ratio  and  of  laboratory  composite score  cognitive  relationship  achievement  scores  on  the  age  Mathematics.  one  student  were  t h Iowa T e s t  outcomes,  between in  If  designated  K a t z m a n (1971) a l s o f o u n d no r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n  negative and  found.  and  r e l a t e d to  student/classroom  buildings  of  calculated  was  classrooms  a  because  per  measures,  Basic S k i l l s .  find  u n i v e r s i t i e s would  coefficient, negatively  significantly  did  of  to and  a proxy f o r a t t i t u d e towards e d u c a t i o n .  that  general  academic classroom;  (1971) u s e d a g e  hypothesized on  other measures  f e l t s h o u l d be p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d  number o f p u p i l s p e r  Katzman  two  although of  per not of the he  school  The  s t u d e n t / f a c i l i t y measures  are  clearly  not  optimal  i n d i c a t o r s of s e r v i c e to s t u d e n t s i n the s c h o o l i n g p r o c e s s ; not  surprising  that  these  significant  findings.  included  the  in  Distr ict school  district  B i d w e l l and  would  district an  (1978)  Another  in  with  teachers'  district  declared  district  that  scale. Several  represent and  S e b o l d and  decrease  size.  size  students.  Bidwell  attendance  but  adjust  skewed  the  districts. per The  school  size.  Dato  Both  proxy The  s i z e has  considered  pupi 1/teacher  size  with  and  influenced  the  increase;  an  increase  (1972)  quality  and of  in with  Currie service.  s i z e to v e r i f y  have been used  Kasarda  employed  economies  i n these studies  a  logarithm  as  the  used  (log  1 0  by  total  representative v a r i a b l e was  )  average  a  few  large  variable  of  daily  transformation  to  school  students for  size.  u s e d by Brown (1972)  r e t u r n from the grade four  district  to  ( 1 9 6 5 ) , K i e s l i n g (1969)  (1975)  d i s t r i b u t i o n created  district  who  population  enrolment.  i n c l u s i o n of a v a r i a b l e a s s o c i a t e d with school merit.  size.  s i z e would  K a t z m a n (1971) s e l e c t e d t h e a c t u a l number o f  for  be  (1981) s e l e c t e d a v e r a g e d a i l y a t t e n d a n c e  weakest r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  a  The  Brown  Benson e t a l .  interpreted questionnaire as  not  q u a l i f i c a t i o n s w o u l d be h i g h e r  variables  district  will  population  district  Katzman (1971) i n c l u d e d s c h o o l d i s t r i c t of  consistent  commonly  s t r u c t u r e i n t h r e e ways.  i n t e n s i t y would  s i z e ; and  increase  Measures.  increase  administrative  yield  (1975) h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t d i s t r i c t  effect a district's ratio  not  study.  characteristic is  Kasarda  did  S t u d e n t / f a c i l i t y measures  present Size  measures  i t is  A n a l y s i s o f c o s t f a c t o r s on a p e r  district  student  basis  have  established  that  between d i s t r i c t  size  Pierce,  1978):  costs.  I t seems  a  curvilinear  and  medium  c o s t per  sized  reasonable  relationship  student  districts  does  exist  (Garms, G u t h r i e  have  to hypothesize  low  that  per the  and  student  resources  s t u d e n t s r e c e i v e as w e l l as t h e s i z e o f the community t h e y l i v e i n has  some  relationship  to  population  composition  and  student  achievement. Four an  input  of the seven variable  studies that considered d i s t r i c t  found  no  significant  a c h i e v e m e n t s c o r e s and c o g n i t i v e m e a s u r e s 1975;  Brown,  other  studies,  Dato,  1981),  divided  the  district.  1972;  Katzman,  (Benson the  into  small  middle  districts  on  district  was  equations  used  by  speculate  that:  Sebold  Benson  the  size  and  et  al.  Dato  of  negative.  provided  significant and  In  three  Sebold  relationship  were s i g n i f i c a n t  p o s i t i v e and  Kasarda,  1969). 1978;  size  The  by  average  led  to  The daily  i n s i x of the This  of  results  positive.  (1981).  and  (1965)  and  (.10)  as  with  c a t e g o r i e s according to s i z e  significant  size  coefficient attendance  three  ( B i d w e l l and  Currie,  mixed.  districts,  r e a d i n g a c h i e v e m e n t was for  were  relationships  Kiesling,  a l . , 1965;  results  sample In  et  1971;  size  them  ten to  .. . A p p a r e n t l y , t h e r e a r e some e c o n o m i e s t o s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s i z e over the range of v a l u e s observed i n the d a t a . These e c o n o m i e s seem t o be more s u b s t a n t i a l a t t h e t w e l f t h g r a d e l e v e l , a l t h o u g h no p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r o n g i n f e r e n c e s c a n b e drawn f r o m t h e r e s u l t s " (p. 97). The  number o f s t u d e n t s i n a d i s t r i c t p r o v e d  t o be one  consistently significant findings in Currie s 1  was  positive  between  grades  and  significantly  eight  and  twelve  associated in  o f t h e most  (1976) s t u d y . with  Newfoundland  It  retention and  Prince  Edward I s l a n d s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s  and p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h r e t e n t i o n between grades e i g h t and e l e v e n i n t h e total  Atlantic  Two  researchers  school  district  (1965)  have  size  included  districts. small  Region.  a  used  different  and p o p u l a t i o n measure  on  growth.  geographic  I fpopulation i sconstant,  school  district  i s less  representations  than  Benson area  of  the cost area.  growth  resources  of school  capitalize population.  t o measure t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p  districts  between  a  Also the level  on e c o n o m i e s o f s c a l e i n d i s t r i c t s w i t h c o n c e n t r a t e d  the  school  of operating  o f s e r v i c e t o s t u d e n t s may b e g r e a t e r s i n c e o n e c o u l d  (1969) a t t e m p t e d  a l .  the cost of operating a  d i s t r i c t encompassing a large geographic  Kiesling  et  of  1950 -  between  1958 and t h e  available to students.  W h i l e t h e i n t e n t o f these s t u d i e s had m e r i t , t h e v a r i a b l e s chosen were inadeguate.  For example, a d i s t r i c t ' s  area does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y correspond of  service within  the area.  geographic  t o an a c c u r a t e p r e s e n t a t i o n  I n some  school  districts,  the  s c h o o l s and t h e i r r e s o u r c e s , a r e c l u s t e r e d w i t h i n t h e g e o g r a p h i c area  of a d i s t r i c t .  In other d i s t r i c t s  a r e a , t h e s c h o o l s may b e s p r e a d not a good p r o x y considering Riesling's intended ability  the  geographic  throughout the region.  Area i s  f o r r e s o u r c e a v a i l a b l i l i t y and s e r v i c e w i t h o u t location  (1969) g r o w t h  t o measure of a  o f t h e same  of index  t h e demand  district  schools  also presents for limited  t o accommodate  population with educational resources? (1965) n o r K i e s l i n g  within  (1969) d i s c o v e r e d  the  district.  problems. resources  the increased  Is i t or the student  Neither Benson e t a l . a relationship  between  these  variables District  and s t u d e n t  size  outcomes.  measures as d e f i n e d  by p o p u l a t i o n  seem t o  h a v e some m e r i t i n r e p r e s e n t i n g s e r v i c e t o s t u d e n t s .  A number  of  outcomes  s t u d i e s have shown a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h  (Benson  et al.,  1965; C u r r i e ,  1978; S e b o l d  and D a t o ,  T h e r e f o r e s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s i z e as measured by t h e t o t a l enrolment w i l l district  be i n c l u d e d  size  influence,  i s not  a  the variable  exogenous  variable  i n the present study. factor will  in  which  be  the  school  classified  theoretical  1981). student  Since school districts  as  an  model  can  input  along  or with  ethnicity. Quantity instructional  of  Service  Measures.  resources includes  This  variables  category  which  attempt  of to  measure q u a n t i t y of s e r v i c e .  These have been used by a l i m i t e d  number o f r e s e a r c h e r s b e c a u s e  t h e c a s u a l l i n k w i t h outcomes i s  extremely tenuous.  Teacher  workload  i s one s u c h f a c t o r .  The  a s s u m p t i o n h a s b e e n made t h a t i f t h e t e a c h e r i s o v e r w o r k e d ,he h a s limited areas  e n e r g y and t i m e t o c o n c e n t r a t e on s t u d e n t s and s u b j e c t hence  student  attempted  to  number  of  semester  (1968)  and Cohn  assignments  achievement  substantiate hours  (1968)  this per  used  i s  assumption teaching  t h e number  (1968)  including  the  assignment.  Raymond  of d i f f e r e n t  subject  hours per teaching assignment  n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o s t u d e n t outcomes, (Cohn,  by  Cohn  per t e a c h e r as a measure o f t e a c h e r w o r k l o a d .  The number o f s e m e s t e r  level  reduced.  1968).  The f i n d i n g  was  but not a t a s i g n i f i c a n t  t h a t p r o v i d i n g more h o u r s o f  i n s t r u c t i o n i n a subject tended to decrease achievement d i dnot seem l o g i c a l  t o Cohn ( 1 9 6 8 ) .  One p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n  i s that  the  heavier  workloads  are  inexperienced teacher.  through  teachers. assignments negative  as  correlation  The  measured  of  or to  by  coefficient  credit  the  inexperienced  number  of  teaching  A l t h o u g h Raymond (1968) f o u n d a  a n a l y s e s , n o n e was  number  beginning  of contact w i t h  had m i x e d r e s u l t s .  regression  the  n o t be r e c e i v i n g b e t t e r i n s t r u c t i o n a l  i n c r e a s e d hours  Workload  to  If experience i s p o s i t i v e l y related  o u t c o m e s , t h e s t u d e n t s may service  assigned  in  seven  of  the  eight  significant.  units  o f f e r e d to  students  and  the  number o f l i b r a r y b o o k s i n e x c e s s o f t h e s t a n d a r d w e r e s t u d i e d by Cohn  (1968)  that  the  and  Raymond  quantity  of  (1968), courses  respectively. and  r e l a t e d to student achievement. was  statistically  reported  a  trend  in  resources  In  five  fact, of  the  averages  a c h i e v e m e n t t e s t s c o r e s and  were dependent  Finally, considered  an  positively measures  Raymond eight  a n a l y s e s w h e r e t h e n u m b e r o f l i b r a r y b o o k s was v a r i a b l e , and  was  reasoned  N e i t h e r o f t h e s e two  significant.  negative  They  the  (1968)  regression independent  freshman grade p o i n t  measures.  "administrative  i n four studies.  intensity"  measure  H y p o t h e t i c a l l y , the more  was  support  s e r v i c e s a v a i l a b l e t o t e a c h e r s , t h e more l i k e l y s t u d e n t g a i n s i n cognitive Bidwell  development would  and  Kasarda  staff/teacher staff  in  ratio  improving  occur.  (1975) to  test  student  Benson e t a l . (1965)  included  a  importance  professional of  achievement.  specialist Benson  support support and  c o l l e a g u e s as w e l l as B i d w e l l and K a s a r d a  obtained negative  positive  on  significance  respectively.  coefficients  this  and  his and  variable,  C a r e f u l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n must be u s e d b e c a u s e  the  Benson and  study  Kasarda  a  teacher/administrator  employed  Benson small,  used  and  an  his  middle  colleagues  and  middle size d i s t r i c t s ,  high  high  high  achievement and  was low  the  district they  found  low  sample  that,  In  size  into  Using in  the  small  and  associated with  achievement  intensity.  Bidwell  ratio.  size.  a c h i e v e m e n t was  i n t e n s i t y , and  administration  intensity  divided  large ratio,  with  while  administrator/teacher  teacher/administrator  administration  ratio  the  was  low  associated  larger  districts,  associated  with  high  administration  achievement  with  low  administration  intensi ty. In  the  Bidwell  and  Kasarda  study,  s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n appeared between r a t i o and  a c h i e v e m e n t v a r i a b l e s : low  with high administration administration distribution corrected  by  a  transformation "largeness",  by  a  have  ratio  was  in  significant  Quantity  of  too  direct  study,  large  (log-^)  school  distribution  r e s u l t s f o u n d by  test this of  his  on  student  was This  toward  Benson et a l . developed  hypothesis.  The  an  ratio  studies.  i n d i c a t o r s , s u c h as administrative  outcomes:  skewed  transformation.  the  low  districts  teacher  too  workload,  i n t e n s i t y measures,  f a r removed from the c a u s a l model of s c h o o l i n g effect  associated  the  K i e s l i n g ( 1 9 6 9 ; 1970)  either  service  this  very  the  to  number o f l i b r a r y b o o k s and are  but  administrator-teacher  a c h i e v e m e n t was  weighted  districts.  administrator/pupil not  few  substantiating  for large school  In  logarithm  may  negative  i n t e n s i t y and h i g h a c h i e v e m e n t w i t h  intensity.  caused  a  many  to have a  intervening  and  indirect the  factors  occur  inconclusive  i n the  and  inconsistent  reviewed, q u a l i t y of s e r v i c e the  present  1978)  results  indicators will  This  review  of  Hence  of  the  not  l i t e r a t u r e has  instructional indicators.  took  measures  process.  be  an  of  alternative  instructional  colleagues  obtained  factor  three  resources,  One  approach  in  devoted  to  been  study, to  resources.  special  related  mathematics. number  of  concepts units  (Jones et  including  Rather  The  resources  c l a s s s i z e was  Factoring  the  by  construct  well  twelve they  to average school  usually  nor  which  school  variables  underlying  analyzed  factors  three factors, only (.05)  including  and  class  general size.  These  and  Financial  district  scores  school  Of  these  in education  in reading  in order the  are  to  reduce  existance  methodological  review  at  size  variables  merit often  of  since not  and the an the  discrete  on  instructional  the  elementary  defined  will  be  as  level  total  included  in  and  student this  indicators research: secondary enrolment.  study.  Indicators  Operating operating  ratios  district  three  and  defined.  literature  student/teacher  and  p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y  ascertaining  involved  Jones  variables  labelled  indicators  has  input  a l .,  specific  than  i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h r e e v a r i a b l e s have m e r i t f o r f u r t h e r  level,  studies  included  numerous v a r i a b l e s which r e f l e c t e d p a r t i c u l a r i n p u t s , his  given  study.  Summary. specific  schooling  Expenditures.  expenditures  instructional  have  expenditures,  Researchers  frequently seeking  interested  examined to  indices  determine  in of the  relationship  between  achievement students  instructional  levels.  (Benson  Cost  et  per  a l .  variable  attendance  Conn,  1968;  Currie,  used  by  Goodman  and  by  Brown  student.  Raymond  teachers' salaries  averaged  the i n s t r u c t i o n a l expenditures over four years  —  the  procedure  increase  or  Cohn  decrease  (1968),  significant outcomes  and  and  inconsistent. expenditure  Katzman per  t o e l i m i n a t e any e x t r a o r d i n a r y  (1968),  association  between  (1971), daily  year.  and  Brown  (1972)  expenditures  direction  average  f o l l o w e d on  of  the  the  only  student  found  and  positive  relationship researcher  enrolment,  f o r reading, average d a i l y  between  studies obtained expenditures  and  significant student  Benson e t a l . (1965) i n s m a l l s i z e  was  to  use  found  no were  attendance,  r e t e n t i o n , and a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a d m i s s i o n t o L a t i n H i g h Four  no  student  s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s , a l t h o u g h t h e a s s o c i a t i o n s he o b s e r v e d consistently  Schools.  positive associations  outcomes:  Goodman  districts,  Sebold  (1959); and  Dato  (1981) ; and C u r r i e (1978) , i n t h e Nova S c o t i a s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s r e t e n t i o n b e t w e e n g r a d e 8 and for  two  retention  -  American College Testing scores  in a particular  the  (1957  his  Raymond  even  then  the  Freshman Grade P o i n t Average —  was  in  (1968)  i n c o m p u t i n g e x p e n d i t u r e s and  same a v e r a g i n g  outcome v a r i a b l e s  this  (1972)  excluded  The  1978;  A m o d i f i c a t i o n of  (1959)  c o m p u t i n g e x p e n d i t u r e as a r a t i o p e r  1961) .  of  has been most commonly used  for operating expenditure. was  student  daily  K a t z m a n , 1971; S e b o l d and D a t o , 1981) as a p r o x y  and  average  1965;  f  expenditure  11 a n d  the t o t a l A t l a n t i c  on  Region  measures.  Benson et a l . (1965), K i e s l i n g  (1969) and  Kiesling  (1970)  considered  five  colleagues  developed  divided  by  other  total  types two  of expenditures.  ratios:  expenditure;  Benson  instructional and  total  and h i s  expenditure  school  district  o p e r a t i n g budget d i v i d e d by average d a i l y attendance.  Kiesling  (1969;  into h i s  1970) i n c o r p o r a t e d t h r e e e x p e n d i t u r e v a r i a b l e s  analysis level:  which  related  directly  to services at the  district  e x p e n d i t u r e on a l l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f a s c h o o l  district  per s t u d e n t ; e x p e n d i t u r e on c e n t r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n p e r s t u d e n t ; and  expenditure  Expenditures  per  student  f o r books  and  on  books  supplies  per  and  supplies.  student  related  s i g n i f i c a n t l y but n e g a t i v e l y t o t h e dependent v a r i a b l e s i n t e n cases  out of  the thirty  administrative significantly twenty-seven variables The  expenditure related  per  thirty-six  regressions  yielded  appear  regression analyses. pupil  expenditure t o be  was  times  analyses.  no s i g n i f i c a n t  operating  researchers  reported  positively  i n one  The  other  hundred three  The and and input  associations. indicators  used  too comprehensive.  The  by  these  indicators  were b a s e d on g r o s s e x p e n d i t u r e s o r t o t a l o p e r a t i n g b u d g e t s f o r school  districts.  Such  expenditures  include  maintenance,  b u s i n g and j a n i t o r i a l c o s t s ; thus t h e c a u s a l l i n k between types  of d i s t r i c t  resources  and s t u d e n t  these  outcomes i s nebulous.  Any e f f e c t p r o d u c e d w o u l d be i n d i r e c t o r d i l u t e d b y t h e i n f l u e n c e of  other  factors.  S i n c e i t i s a common b e l i e f i n e d u c a t i o n t h a t m o r e m o n e y f o r resources w i l l increase will  purchase  student  better quality  outcomes,  be i n c l u d e d i n t h i s  s e r v i c e s and t h e r e f o r e  one s p e c i f i c  study:  expenditure  the per student  variable  dollar  amount  s p e n t on i n s t r u c t i o n a l s u p p l i e s i n a s c h o o l d i s t r i c t . expenditure  which  associated  with  directly  effects  the  educational  Revenue.  A  number  of  studies  o p e r a t i n g revenue from t h r e e p o s s i b l e sources provincial/state  included raised  of  of  locally  secondly,  rich  educational the  is  pay  ability tax  income  (Brown,  (1972).  and  to  student  Two  daily  value  not  district's  education; more  and  and  better will  the  richness  of  a  district  taxes  a l . , 1965)  and  raised local  as  a  taxes  i n two  ratio  s t u d i e s by s t a t e a i d  of  state  F e d e r a l a i d was by  Benson  a total  to  total  considered al.  (1965)  revenue f i g u r e  Benson e t a l . ,  in and  from a l l the  o b t a i n e d by d i v i d i n g t h e r e v e n u e by  the  Two  1975;  et  aid  In  attendance.  property  buy  is  Provincial/state assistance  the  s t u d i e s used  l a t t e r s t u d y , a r a t i o was  assessed  et  outcomes  s o u r c e s , B i d w e l l and K a s a r d a ,  average  total  represented  1972)  of  are  f o r e d u c a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s have  (Benson e t a l . , 1965).  relationship Brown  was  local  represent  (Brown, 1 9 7 2 ) .  to school d i s t r i c t s  are  students.  t o pay  (Benson  property  that additional dollars  to  r a t e and  to  and  a i d which  the  standard  Both imply  chosen  of  rate  These measures  firstly,  able  of  Taxation  wealth.  minimal are  aid.  considered  - local taxation,  residential  reasons:  standing  r a i s e d per student  revenues  a  indicators  total  pupil  and  indication  services.  been the d i s t r i c t  per  an  districts  school d i s t r i c t ' s  to  two  for  academic  Three  federal  commercial  for primarily  to  ratio  and  a school d i s t r i c t ' s  inability  raise  aid,  value  indicators  resources  learning.  Operating  assessed  I t i s one  broad  in a d i s t r i c t  indicators d i v i d e d by  1965.  used  were  average  the  daily  attendance of  (Benson e t a l . ,  property  per  Research  student  1 9 6 5 ) and  (Brown,  state equalized valuation  1972).  on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n o p e r a t i n g r e v e n u e  student  outcomes  has  revenue  indicators  related  to outcomes  been  inconclusive.  considered  only  ( B i d w e l l and  Out  three  Kasarda ,  of  were  the  eleven  sigificantly Brown,  1975;  and  1972).  The a m o u n t o f s t a t e a i d p e r s t u d e n t and t h e s t a t e e q u a l v a l u a t i o n o r p r o p e r t y p e r s t u d e n t w e r e b o t h s i g n i f i c a n t i n u r b a n and s t a t e samples but were n e g a t i v e  (Brown,  In other  1972).  words,  the  more s t a t e a i d or the g r e a t e r v a l u a t i o n of p r o p e r t y per  student  per  of  school  district,  students.  These  the  results  lower  the  l e d Brown  achievement (1972)  to  level  the  conclude:  . . . t h i s i s f u r t h e r evidence that achievement v a l u e d o u t p u t o f s c h o o l (p. 2 1 7 )  i s not  a  and ...We m u s t l o o k b e y o n d t h e T h r e e R's f o r w h a t m a k e s a g o o d s c h o o l g o o d , o r w h a t m i g h t make a p o o r one b e t t e r . Important contributions remain to be made in i d e n t i f y i n g and m e a s u r i n g t h e o u t p u t s o f s c h o o l s o t h e r t h a n c o g n i t i v e a c h i e v e m e n t (p. 2 1 9 ) I n t h e B i d w e l l and were  found  mathematics studies.  to  have  Kasarda  significant  achievement,  B i d w e l l and  (1975)  contrary  study, f i s c a l  effects to  Kasarda concluded  the  on  resources  reading  findings  in  and other  that the other s t u d i e s  failed . . . t o e x a m i n e d e p e n d e n c i e s among e n v i r o n m e n t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s o f s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s and consequences for student achievement of d e p e n d e n c i e s (p. 6 9 ) . and,  thus, obtained i n s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s s i n c e the e f f e c t s  and the the  are  indirect. The  l i m i t e d s u c c e s s o f o p e r a t i n g r e v e n u e as a p r e d i c t o r i s  m o s t l i k e l y due expenditure.  t o the f a c t t h a t r e v e n u e i s not synonymous w i t h A  authorities  number  affiliated  d i r e c t l y i n f l u e n c e how resources. of  revenue  decisions  with  the  are  made  educational  by  system  the  resources  which  directly  and  l e a r n i n g environment of students.  indicator  will  be  included  Captial/Indebtedness.  in this  relationship  eguipment  to  of  No  study  student  commitment buildings  to and  value  of  o u t c o m e s and  greater value of c a p i t a l  because  equipment  who  Thus, would  (1968),  Kiesling  (1969) and  furniture  of  Building  students Other  was  used  Cohn  r e s e a r c h e r s who  a  greater  expenditure  raise  the  of  level  Kiesling  study,  Kiesling  included  b u i l d i n g s as a r a t i o  of  student tests.  (1970) i n c l u d e d  the  students  attendance  a m o d i f i c a t i o n of the  capital  (1969) and Cohn ( 1 9 6 8 ) . I n h i s the  the  on  (1968).  used  v a l u e v a r i a b l e were K i e s l i n g  that  indicated a greater  v a l u e d i v i d e d by a v e r a g e d a i l y by  and  have h y p o t h e s i z e d  v a l u e of a s c h o o l d i s t r i c t ' s b u i l d i n g s as a r a t i o of the enrolled.  of  interested  p r o d u c t i v i t y a s m e a s u r e d b y h i g h e r s c o r e s on a c h i e v e m e n t Cohn  of  indebtedness  buildings,  items i n d i s t r i c t s  education.  operating  e x i s t with s e r v i c e to students.  C a p i t a l v a l u e and  the  quantity  indirectly  s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s h a v e been c o n s i d e r e d by r e s e a r c h e r s the  which  r e v e n u e i s t o be e x p e n d e d on e d u c a t i o n a l  t e n u o u s d i r e c t e f f e c t s w h i c h may  in  various  T h e s e d e c i s i o n s i n f l u e n c e t h e q u a l i t y and  educational  influence  of  value  student  of  a  school  p o p u l a t i o n ; Cohn  1969  districts employed  b u i l d i n g v a l u e d i v i d e d by a v e r a g e d a i l y a t t e n d a n c e  of students.  Kiesling  variables:  ( 1 9 6 9 ) i n c l u d e d two  other  capital  value  b u i l d i n g v a l u e i n d e x b a s e d on a p e r c l a s s r o o m u n i t ; and an  a  index  b a s e d on t h e v a l u e o f f u r n i t u r e and e q u i p m e n t p e r s t u d e n t . one  study produced  regression  analyses,  relationship student  statistically  between  b a s i s and  significant  Kiesling the  (1970)  value  r e s u l t may  variable.  In  a  two  negative  property  on  T h i s r e s u l t was  a f t e r t h i r t e e n a n a l y s e s were completed independent  found  of d i s t r i c t  student outcomes.  results.  Only  a  per  obtained  u s i n g c a p i t a l v a l u e as  an  G i v e n t h e number o f a n a l y s e s done s u c h a  be due t o c h a n c e , and  t h e r e f o r e s h o u l d be v i e w e d  with  caution. Another  i n d i c a t o r of a school d i s t r i c t ' s wealth  indebtedness. assessed  Two  the  student's  studies,  significance  achievement;  Cohn of  (1968)  this  neither  and  Kiesling  variable  study  i s bonded (1969)  in  determining  a  significant  obtained  relationship. Capital/indebtedness from  educational  i n d i c a t o r s a p p e a r t o be  resources  which  e d u c a t i o n a l process of students. included  in this  Summary. demonstrated purchase  have  an  impact  removed on  the  T h e r e f o r e , these w i l l not  be  study.  The  m a j o r i t y of  financial  indicators  a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h student outcomes.  have  not  Money does  r e s o u r c e s f o r e d u c a t i o n , i t seems c o n c e p t u a l l y sound t o  p o s t u l a t e t h a t t h e amount o f money a v a i l a b l e — availability study  too  will,  —  should  be  therefore,  related  to student  include  one  e x p e n d i t u r e on i n s t r u c t i o n a l s u p p l i e s . affects  the  material  educational  hence  resource  outcomes.  financial  indicator:  This variable resources  This  directly  available  to  students. Staff  Characteristics Indicators A  number  of  staff  quality  indicators  have  been  used  to  examine  the relationship  achievement. into  three  between  this  construct  and  student  These i n d i c a t o r s o f s t a f f q u a l i t y c a n be d i v i d e d categories:  salary;  experience;  and  formal  qualifications. Salary.  The  assumption  associated  with  examining  salary levels of i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t a f f holds that greater of  monetary  quality  reimbursement  staff,  which  will,  i n s t r u c t i o n , producing  f o r services will i n turn,  greater  common i n d i c e s o f t e a c h e r  student  1965;  Cohn, 1968; K i e s l i n g ,  1968).  Raymond  (1968)  f o r teachers  did a  Results  consistent. salaries  from  Benson  were  (1968)  this  and h i s c o l l e a g u e s  reported  and  o f t h e mean  v a r i a b l e were n o t  found  that  positively  significant  associations  f o r t h e mean  achievement.  When  i n t o two g r o u p s — elementary  salary  he d i v i d e d  elementary  teacher's  reviewed  1970 and Raymond,  of  (.05) teachers  h i s teacher  and secondary —  teachers'  related  achievement i n only the middle s i z e C a l i f o r n i a school Raymond  The most  a n d mean s e c o n d a r y t e a c h e r s '  studies using  significantly  of  (Benson e t a l . ,  f u r t h e r breakdown  t e a c h e r s a l a r y i n t o mean e l e m e n t a r y salaries.  achievement.  1969; K i e l s i n g ,  better  the quality  s a l a r i e s used i n the s t u d i e s  w e r e t h e mean a n d m e d i a n s a l a r i e s  amounts  attract  improve  the  districts.  and  positive  with  salary  to  student  population  only the average  s a l a r y was p o s t i v e l y a n d  significantly  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h achievement t e s t s c o r e s and freshman grade p o i n t averages. significant Cohn  Coefficients  f o r median  teachers'  salary  were  (.05) i n t h e t h r e e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s c o m p l e t e d b y  ( 1 9 6 8 ) who u s e d t h e I o w a t e s t s o f E d u c a t i o n a l  scores as t h e dependent v a r i a b l e .  Kiesling  Development  (1969; 1970) found  no  pattern  of association  achievement.  The  twenty-seven  regression  predictor  only  between  variable  nine  was  teacher  entered  equations  times,  salary in  and  eight  of  and  one  was  hundred  a  these  student and  significant  in  a  negative  direction. Several of  other  instructional  salary  indicators  quality.  Benson  have been used  as p r o x i e s  (1965) a n d K i e s l i n g  et a l .  (1969) a s s s e s s e d t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f t e a c h e r s i n the  highest  salary  respectively. quartile  was  The p e r c e n t a g e  (Benson e t a l . ,  Only  lowest  salary  highest  salary  decile,  of teachers i n the highest in  the  three  salary  population  b u t t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e r e s u l t s was m i x e d  1965).  In large  i n small  and  significantly related  samples o f d i s t r i c t s  positive.  quartile  I n b o t h s m a l l and medium d i s t i c t s ,  districts,  districts  was  the r e l a t i o n s h i p  the percentage  was  negative.  of teachers  q u a r t i l e s i g n i f i c a n t l y and n e g a t i v e l y  i t was  i n the  related to  achievement. These  results  between s a l a r y p a i d  suggest  that  some  relationship  t o t e a c h e r s and s t u d e n t  outcomes, b u t  must be c a r e f u l i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e s e r e s u l t s b e c a u s e a effect be  e x i s t s between s a l a r y  a proxy  f o r experience  Raymond concomitant might  and e x p e r i e n c e .  as w e l l  (1968) a t t e m p t e d  the salary  Salary  level  some  of the other  of teachers  other  e f f e c t o f m a r k e t f a c t o r s s u c h a s demand.  He i n c l u d e d  s a l a r y schedule, adjacent county  salary  county  weighted  average  salary  may  as f o r q u a l i t y .  t o accomodate  levels  one  concomitant  e f f e c t s on s a l a r y l e v e l s , i n c l u d i n g v a r i a b l e s  influence  contiguous  exists  schedule  which  than  the  a weighted  and an a d j a c e n t  as v a r i a b l e s ,  using  52  the  rationale  that:  The s a l a r y p a i d by a s c h o o l s y s t e m i s n o t t h e o n l y f a c t o r capable of a f f e c t i n g the q u a l i t y of teacher h i r e d . The l o c a t i o n a l p r e f e r e n c e s o f i n d i v i d u a l s may b e s u c h t h a t teachers' salaries in near-by counties w i l l have a g r e a t e r e f f e c t upon m i g r a t i o n than w i l l s a l a r i e s i n d i s t a n t c o u n t i e s (p. 4 5 4 ) . The for  regression equations  adjacent county  statistically Grade  Point Two  to  indexes  significant  Average  outcomes.  teachers' Kiesling  salary  variable A  areas was  schools  related  has  been  better  and  analyses.  salaries  do  example,  the  not  daily  related has  to  hypothesized  that  for  w e l l be  stronger  between  as  with  for higher  teachers'  and  special Neither  differences  producing  better  exists  salaries:  better  districts.  guality.  and  teachers  and  the The  with  higher  quality.  administrator salaries  salaries  of  administrator  same p r o b l e m  purchase  in other  between  salaries  index  other  salary  administration,  necessarily  counterparts  an  and  achievement. used  The  trying  salary  outcomes.  have a s t r o n g e r b a r g a i n i n g u n i t with  their  in  attendance  and  to student  been  salaries  between  assistance  achievement.  reason  reseachers  exists  average  related  was  Freshman  t h a t the average s a l a r y of  quality  higher  to  a l . (1965) d e v e l o p e d  learning  rationale  administrators'  than  two  by  significantly  It  buy  in  w o u l d be  similar  salaries.  may  et  divided  involved  education  than  positively  a relationship  Benson  results  the weighted average s a l a r y  of  (1970) h y p o t h e s i z e d  were  t h e y may  and  significant  o t h e r v a r i a b l e s h a v e b e e n u s e d by  student  should  but  i n one  determine whether  who  y i e l d e d no  For  is that  school  boards  relationship  bargaining  strength  Both Benson et a l . (1965) a n d K e i s l i n g (1969) i n c o r p o r a t e d a mean a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' s a l a r y i n t h e i r r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s .  As  well,  of  Benson  and  his  colleagues  developed  an  index  a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a l a r i e s d i v i d e d by average d a i l y attendance i n order to see i f a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d with student outcomes, and a r a t i o between t e a c h e r s ' and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' s a l a r i e s . They hypothesized that the higher the r a t i o , the lower the q u a l i t y of administration,  and,  thus,  the  lower  student  outcomes.  K i e s l i n g (1969) a l s o i n c l u d e d the s a l a r y of the Superintendent of Schools.  A l l of these i n d i c a t o r s proved to be u n r e l a t e d to  outcome. Research on the a s s o c i a t i o n between s a l a r y i n d i c a t o r s and student  outcomes  is  inconclusive.  It  seems  reasonable  to  assume that f a c t o r s other than q u a l i t y i n f l u e n c e s a l a r y l e v e l s ; thus, more pay  i s not n e c e s s a r i l y r e l a t e d to b e t t e r q u a l i t y .  Other f a c t o r s such as i s o l a t i o n , b a r g a i n i n g power and wealth of a school  district  probably  have  as  great  an  influence in  determining s a l a r y l e v e l s as does the supply and demand market. T h e r e f o r e , t h i s study w i l l Experience. related  not i n c l u d e a s a l a r y  indicator.  A second s e t of v a r i a b l e s o f t e n assumed to be  to student outcomes i n v o l v e teacher experience.  r a t i o n a l e used  i s that a teacher with g r e a t e r experience  The will  know how to enhance the l e a r n i n g environment and produce higher l e v e l s of student achievement. Three s t u d i e s used the average number of years experience of teachers as an independent 1959; and K i e s l i n g , 1 9 7 0 ) .  variable  (Brown, 1972;  Goodman,  Katzman (1971) used the percentage  of teachers with over ten years of experience as a proxy f o r the  qual ity of instruction . hundred  and  Kiesling related and no  R e s u l t s were i n c o n s i s t e n t .  twenty-seven  (1970),  experience  t o achievement  analyses  was s i g n i f i c a n t l y  computed  and  i n e i g h t e e n cases and a l s o  negatively related significant  regression  trend  i n four cases. i n results.  Brown  Of t h e one  positively  signficantly  (1972) a l s o  I n Katzman's  by  study  found  (1971),  e x p e r i e n c e was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o r e a d i n g a n d n o t t o f i v e other  indicators  of  student  outcome.  Only  Goodman  (1959)  r e p o r t e d a c o n s i s t e n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between experience and  student  outcomes.  Kiesling variables:  (1970)  and Katzman  Kiesling  considered  (1971)  examined  the years  two  other  of experience  of  p r i n c i p a l s ; and Katzman c o n s i d e r e d t h eannual p e r c e n t a g e r a t e o f teacher  turn-over.  Kiesling  found  that  the  amount  e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s was n o t r e l a t e d s t u d e n t Katzman r e p o r t e d t h a t  the annual  percentage  of  outcomes.  of teacher  turn-  o v e r was s i g n i f i c a n t l y a n d n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o m a t h e m a t i c s b u t not  to attendance,  Latin  Schools  continuation, reading, application  or acceptance  into  the Latin  to the  Schools.  The e x p e r i e n c e i n d i c a t o r s p r o v e d t o b e s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h r e e of  the four studies  1970) .  (Goodman, 1 9 5 9 ; K a t z m a n ,  1971; K i e s l i n g ,  Two o f t h e s e s t u d i e s u s e d t h e mean y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e o f  teachers as t h e i r v a r i a b l e s . research  a r e tenuous,  experience  this  study  will  results of previous include  a  teachers  variable.  Qualifications. variables  Although the  relate  certificate level.  The  to  third  set of staff  qualifications  measured  characteristic by  degree  Three i n d i c a t o r s have been used t o  or  measure  degree  level:  average  degree  level  (Kiesling,  p e r c e n t a g e of s t a f f w i t h a M a s t e r s Degree ( B i d w e l l 1975;  B r o w n , 1972;  K a t z m a n , 1 9 7 1 ) ; and  w i t h f o u r or more y e a r s of u n i v e r s i t y obtained  no  significant  analyses  for  the  results  degree  level  of  and  Kasarda,  p r o p o r t i o n of  teachers  (Currie,  in  any  of  1978)  his  principals,  .  Kiesling  127  regression  and  found  s i g n i f i c a n t n e g a t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n s for degree l e v e l of Bidwell  and  Kasarda  relationship  between  performance Teacher  (1975) d i d  of  students  qualification  p r o v i n c e s s t u d i e d by and  Newfoundland Other  and  of  average l e v e l district  of  analyses  and  to  Atlantic  Qualification  K a s a r d a , 1975;  include  a  are  Currie,  significant, positive  the  of  Katzman  the  inconsistent, 1978;  four  positively Scotia,  have  reported  28  the  and  the  1971) in a  (1971)  was  been  that  school  found  positively of  and  121  regressions  h a v e some  relationship  studies reviewed three  Kiesling,  variable.  no  average  studies  1970)  have  here.  (Bidwell reported  associations. Therefore, this study  qualfications  the  one.  seem t o to  the  Nova  teachers  staff  in  in  used  to performance i n  indicators  results  by  (1970)  related  and  mathematics.  two  (Katzman,  Although  s t u d e n t outcomes a c c o r d i n g  A l t h o u g h the  for in  qualification  teacher  negatively  significant  Region.  certificated  of  not  four  teachers.  teachers  retention  Kiesling  related  but  and  ( 1 9 7 8 ) ; h o w e v e r , i t was  1970).  level  of  significant  c e r t i f i c a t e held  relationships,  significantly  and  of  level  reading  not  total  teachers  (Kiesling,  certificate  with  was  indicators  percentage  for  related  the  find a positive  degree  Currie  significantly  strong  the  1970);  will  Summary. access the  indicators  studies  have  Only  been  two s t a f f  characteristics  have y i e l d e d  reviewed. reported  as e q u a l i t y of  mixed y e t promising  Significant between  the  and p o s i t i v e two  staff  results i n  correlations characteristic  v a r i a b l e s ; t e a c h e r e x p e r i e n c e and t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g , and s t u d e n t outcome  variables  (Bidwell  and Kasarda,  1975; C u r r i e , 1978;  Goodman, 1 9 5 9 ; K a t z m a n , 1 9 7 1 ; K i e s l i n g , 1 9 7 0 ) . include  these  two measures  of staff  E Q U A L I T Y OF Equality education  of treatment  i s an  the  logic  and r a t i o n a l e  TREATMENT on  process  student learning disadvantages.  will  characteristics.  i s based  egualization  This study  the assumption  designed  to  that  overcome  G u t h r i e e t a l . (1971) o u t l i n e d  forequality  of  treatment:  C e r t a i n l y , t h o s e c h i l d r e n who b e g i n t h e i r s c h o o l i n g w i t h the g r e a t e s t d i s a d v a n t a g e must have d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y greater schooling resources i n order to equalize o p p o r t u n i t y a t a g e 16 ( p . 2 1 ) . Treatment educational least  Indicators.  tried  the three  opportunity, eguality  researched.  treatment  Of  Only  indicators.  to ascertain  three  interpretations  of treatment  reseachers  Both K i e s l i n g  of  has been t h e  have  considered  (1969) and Goodman (1959) of special  education  s t a f f was p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t .  Kiesling  found  no  discovered  whether the p r o v i s i o n  significance a  positive  between and  the  significant  two,  while  relationship  Goodman between  c o g n i t i v e m e a s u r e s a n d t h e number o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t a f f p e r student. A  third  study  which  included  treatment  indicators  hypothesized learning from  that  additional  disabilities  or  resources  other  achieving well in school  would  counteract  problems which hinder  (Sebold & Dato,  the  children  1981).  By  using  v a r i a b l e s w h i c h were r e l a t e d t o s p e c i a l programme e x p e n d i t u r e s , they  indexed  resources  underachievement, expenditures  per  instructional  required  measuring average  variables  outcomes and, to  Sebold  per  average  to  have  no  special  daily  Dato,  poorly  i t i s not  because  the  education  attendance  and  d a i l y attendance.  positive  surprising  such  for  programme  association  i n some c a s e s , t o o k on n e g a t i v e v a l u e s .  and  performed  proved  services  attendance,  s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n programme p e r a v e r a g e three  compensate  support  daily  expenditures  to  that these  A l l with  According variables  programmes:  ...may n o t b e a r t h e same d i r e c t r e l a t i o n t o d e v e l o p m e n t o f basic c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s as d o e s the g e n e r a l education programme; and s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n programmes a r e by t h e i r very nature designed to a m e l i o r a t e a v a r i e t y of s p e c i a l i z e d p r o g r a m m e s , many o f w h i c h , l i k e s p e e c h d i s a b i l i t i e s , are only indirectly related to the skills t e s t e d by the A s s e s s m e n t Programme (p. 9 9 ) . If  in  fact  there  exists  between s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n explanations implemented intended; improve  seem and  or,  other  with  For  variables  special  English  the  as  not  Second  the  a c h i e v i n g the are  outcomes purpose  will  education a  either  programmes  the  strong  i n d i c a t o r s and  likely:  student  Summary. treatment  are  a  be  and  used. a  programmes  are  two  poorly  goals f o r which they to  academic  this  This  are  influence  or  achievement.  study,  A general  specific  Language.  relationship  s t u d e n t outcomes  intended  than of  negative  two  groups  category  category  dealing  concerned  specific  i n c l u d e d because the p o p u l a t i o n of the study w i l l  of  category be drawn  with is from  v a r i o u s e t h n i c groups and, t h e o r e t i c a l l y , development  of  Non-English  groups  the E n g l i s h language  plays  a  major  role  in  achievement. The  special  education special  education  enrolment  education  enrolment,  teacher  supplies  English  as a Second  will  considered:  approvals divided the  by  special  t h e amount per  of special special  ESL  ESL e n r o l m e n t  by ESL s t u d e n t  enrolment divided  who  as  a  ESL  Within  four  of  dollar  on the  indicators of  total  Education  expenditure  and ESL e n r o l m e n t ESL  spent  percentage  total  student  education  dollars  by t h e M i n i s t r y  instruct  OUTCOME  of t o t a l  student.  (ESL) c a t e g o r y ,  enrolment;  of teachers  education  special  teachers,  per s p e c i a l  education  Language  are  education  as a percentage  t o r u n ESL programmes;  number  included  s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n money s p e n t  and  enrolment,  divided  enrolment  student  be  variables  divided  by  students.  INDICATORS  W i t h i n the c a t e g o r y of student outcomes, p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h has  utilized  variables  various  test  t o a c t as outcome  (1975) s u r v e y e d  Stanford  indicators.  contructed Bidwell  Achievement  Test,  three standardized  i n 1 9 6 9 - 1970 s c h o o l y e a r : the  Iowa  Test  Development, and t h e T e s t o f Academic P r o g r e s s .  a national  Kasarda  i n the State of Colorado at  did find  by s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s  t e s t were t r a n s f o r m e d  and  numerous  Although Colorado d i d not use state-wide  B i d w e l l and Kasarda  b e i n g used  and  105 s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s  the high school l e v e l . testing,  scores  of  tests the  Educational  Scores f o r each  by grade l e v e l f o r each s c h o o l d i s t r i c t t o  distribution  of performance,  yielding  a mean  grade  standardized percentiles high  level  according to nationally  i n r e a d i n g and mathematics  school  improved and  achievement  across  a l l three  comparability  Kasarda  noted  instruments.  between  that  a t each  school  such  a  extra-personal  school  districts  procedure  sources of v a r i a t i o n  i n achievement  Occasionally,  studies  This  districts,  c o n s e r v a t i v e e s t i m a t e o f t h e i r model because for  grade  normed  level i n procedure  but Bidwell  would  give  norming  a  corrects  such as community and  scores.  of the production function  model  were a b l e t o a r r a n g e t e s t i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r the purpose o f t h a t study.  Jones,  special  test  Reading  and  Owen, B a r o n  f o r grade  of  were  socioeconomic sample  s t u d e n t s from  from  from  stratified status  b e i n g drawn  (1978), constructed released  the National  a  items i n  Assessment  for  A c o m p o s i t e mean s c o r e w a s d e r i v e d f o r e a c h  t h e 27 d i s t r i c t s  districts  eight  Mathematics  Education Progress.  and Darrow  the testing  i n 1973.  according to size,  and g e o g r a p h i c  from  done  each  location  urban with  School status,  a  random  stratum.  Other r e s e a c h e r s have been a b l e t o o b t a i n o u t p u t v a r i a b l e s from e x i s t i n g  annual t e s t i n g programmes.  Katzman  (1971), f o r  e x a m p l e , s u r v e y e d 56 s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s i n t h e B o s t o n a r e a i n 1 9 6 5 , and  used  the difference  i n median  r e a d i n g s c o r e s between t h e  second and s i x t h g r a d e r s as a p r o x y f o r c o g n i t i v e g a i n . second grade  level,  t h e Gates  Primary Reading  Atthe  T e s t , Form 1  —  s e n t e n c e r e a d i n g a n d p a r a g r a p h r e a d i n g -- w a s u s e d ; a t G r a d e s i x level, word  t h e Standford Intermediate Achievement  meaning  achievement  and paragraph  reading —  v a r i a b l e was t h e f i f t h  T e s t , Form 2  was u s e d .  The  grade mathematics  —  second  s c o r e on  the  S t a n f o r d I n t e r m e d i a t e T e s t , Form 1 —  and  concepts  applications. In  addition  mathematics, used. of  computation,  t o t h e two c o g n i t i v e m e a s u r e s f o r r e a d i n g a n d  four  other measures  of student  performance  were  Two o f t h e s e w e r e r e l a t e d t o r e t e n t i o n o r " h o l d i n g p o w e r "  schools  within  a  district:  the  rate  of  average  a t t e n d a n c e ; and t h e r a t e o f c o n t i n u a t i o n o f e l e m e n t a r y through to high school graduation. idiosyncratic admission Boston  to  to e l i t e  area.  preparatory  the  Boston  Boys'  The f i n a l  system  and G i r l s '  application High  A c c o r d i n g t o Katzman, t h e L a t i n schools f o rpost secondary  t h e i r alumni attend c o l l e g e .  Schools  High  and  i n the  Schools are  institutions  The c r i t e r i a  graduates  two m e a s u r e s w e r e  —  Latin  daily  and 95% o f  for admission tothe  L a t i n High Schools i s the s u c c e s s f u l completion of a c o m p e t i t i v e examination a t the end o f grade s i x . in was  each a  school d i s t r i c t proxy  f o r post  percentage  of  indication  of  These  who w r o t e secondary  students  who  academic  i n Katzman's  Kiesling  (1969;  the Latin academic  passed  achievement  s i xmeasures o f performance  variables  The p e r c e n t a g e o f s t u d e n t s School  aspirations  the  and t h e  examination  among  were  Examination  then  production function  school used  was  an  districts.  as  dependent  analysis.  1970) o b t a i n e d outcome d a t a f r o m  existing  t e s t i n g p r o g r a m m e s i n New Y o r k S t a t e w h e r e t h e Iowa T e s t o f B a s i c Skills score  was g i v e n a n n u a l l y .  Kiesling  o f t h e Iowa T e s t a s w e l l  (1969) u s e d  as the a r i t h m e t i c  the composite and  language  s c o r e s , a n d c o m p u t e d t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e s i x t h g r a d e mean and  the fourth  district  grade  mean  i n those grades.  o f s t u d e n t s who  were  i n the school  T h e s a m p l e was t h e n d i v i d e d  into  five  sub-groups according classified  as  to father's occupation, non-urban.  Fifty-four  v a r i a b l e s were c o n s i d e r e d .  By l i m i t i n g  the study  received  in  their  controlled on  urban  or  and t h e d i s t r i c t s  education  a  single  Although  to those  district,  f o rthe influence of school d i s t r i c t  the achievement  dependent who  Kiesling  input variables  scores.  t h i s p r o c e d u r e h a s some m e r i t , p r o b l e m s o c c u r  gain scores are calculated.  when  S u c h a p r o c e d u r e t e n d s t o compound  i n t h e g a i n s c o r e t h emeasurement e r r o r o f t e s t s a t both t h e grade four  and s i x l e v e l s .  should of  Also  i n order  t o be a c c u r a t e ,  Kiesling  h a v e u s e d t h e same p r o c e d u r e o f m e a s u r i n g t h e d i f f e r e n c e  the  other  independent  variables  associated  with  the  resources. In h i s 1970  study,  Kiesling  used only  t h e mean  composite,  m a t h e m a t i c s a n d v e r b a l s c o r e s o n t h e Iowa T e s t o f B a s i c S k i l l s a t the  grade  sample  was  father's scores  five  Iowa  divided  education.  regression  his  then  a t each  Cohn  and e i g h t  levels into  seven  The dependent  grade  level  districts.  The  according  to  v a r i a b l e s were t h e a v e r a g e sub-sample  generating  42  analyses. (1968)  study  a l s o used of  377  Development once every  score  school  sub- samples  f o r each  the gain  school  i n academic achievement i n  districts.  schools are required to administer  score  i n 86  In  Iowa,  the  high  t h e Iowa T e s t s o f E d u c a t i o n a l the average  composite  a t t h e t w e l f t h grade i n 1963, minus the average  composite  at the tenth  composite  gain  score  "the average q u a l i t y  two y e a r s .  grade  Using  i n 1961,  f o r each  school  Cohn  obtained  district.  i n c r e m e n t t h a t was p r o v i d e d  an  T h i s he by  average termed  instruction  in  the  tenth  and  eleventh  grade  (p.  426)".  The  problem  with  C o n n ' s a n a l y s i s i s t h a t two d i f f e r e n t p o p u l a t i o n s a r e i n v o l v e d ; one  at  the  grade  compensation  or  ten  due  to  grade  and  grade  Goodman  a  second  consideration  migration ten  and  t r a n s f e r s or  is  at  made  grade  for  dropouts  twelve.  the  which  in  No  and  occurs  out  between  twelve.  ( 1 9 5 9 ) u s e d New  York  State  for h i s data  base  and  t h e r e f o r e had a v a i l a b l e t h e a c h i e v e m e n t r e s u l t s o f t h e Iowa T e s t of B a s i c S k i l l s scores  in  i n composite scores  these  calculated  two  f o r 98  areas  school  for  and  grades  programme,  seven  and  using  the  mean  on  score  in  C a l i f o r n i a has developed  programme under the C a l i f o r n i a O f f i c e of and  Research.  Each  Mean  eleven  were  the C a l i f o r n i a  C a l i f o r n i a Achievement Test at the grade f i v e school d i s t r i c t s .  scores.  districts.  B e n s o n e t a l . (1965) c a p i t a l i z e d testing  reading  year  state-wide  reading level  State on  the  across  249  i t s own  assessment  Programme  Evaluation  examinations  are  given:  r e a d i n g t e s t s i n t h e s e c o n d , t h i r d , s i x t h and t w e l f t h g r a d e s ; s p e l l i n g , w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n and m a t h e m a t i c s t e s t s a t t h e and  t w e l f t h grades.  scores  f o r the  State's  Sebold  and  academic year  Dato  1975  largest school d i s t r i c t s  (1981) used  - 1976 as  i n 100  their  the of  ten  and  sixth mean  California  dependent  variable.  A f o u r t h t y p e o f c o g n i t i v e m e a s u r e has been i n c o r p o r t e d by researchers  as a measure of  the q u a l i t y  of  school  instruction  which i s not d i r e c t l y a f f i l i a t e d w i t h the p u b l i c s c h o o l Raymond Virginia  (1968) r e c o r d e d graduates  from  the scores of approximately 49  school  V i r g i n i a U n i v e r s i t y , u s i n g an  district  who  system.  5,000 West  attended  o v e r a l l score from the  West  American  C o l l e g e T e s t i n g P r o g r a m m e (ACT) a n d F r e s h m a n G r a d e P o i n t A v e r a g e (FGPA) f o r s t u d e n t s b e t w e e n  the years  1963 and 1966.  Since the  s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n a t t e n d i n g W e s t V i r g i n i a U n i v e r s i t y was n o t a r a n d o m s a m p l e f r o m e a c h s c h o o l d i s t r i c t , t h e ACT a n d F G P A were a d j u s t e d t o e l i m i n a t e t h e b i a s .  An a n a l y s i s o f h i g h s c h o o l  grade p o i n t average f o r each school d i s t r i c t  showed a h i g h o f  3.50 t o a l o w 2.49 i n S e n i o r E n g l i s h , M a t h e m a t i c s , S o c i a l and N a t u r a l S c i e n c e s .  scores  Studies  The o v e r a l l t e s t s c o r e s on t h e A m e r i c a n  C o l l e g e T e s t i n g Programme and t h e Freshman Grade  Point  Average  were r e g r e s s e d upon t h e H i g h S c h o o l Grade P o i n t A v e r a g e f o r each school  district.  This  yielded  s i g n i f i c a n t a t the 1 percent random  sample  hypothesized for  student  achievement invariant  t h e 5,000  coefficients  o n a 10 p e r c e n t  observations.  stratified  Raymond  (1968)  t h a t t h e H i g h S c h o o l G r a d e P o i n t A v e r a g e was a p r o x y a p t i t u d e and t h a t t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n o f a p t i t u d e t o on  the overall  among  differences. for  from  level  regression  school  scores  on  districts  t h e ACT  and  indicating  FGPA  quality  Raymond's r a t i o n a l e f o r f o l l o w i n g t h e p r o c e d u r e  a d j u s t i n g mean s c o r e s i s v a l i d o n l y t o a c e r t a i n p o i n t .  High School  was  Grade  P o i n t A v e r a g e s c a n be c o n s i d e r e d  The  a proxy not  o n l y f o r t h e a p t i t u d e o f t h e s t u d e n t s b u t a l s o f o rt h e q u a l i t y of schooling  which  Currie success. eight  they  receive.  (1978) used o n l y r e t e n t i o n a s a measure o f a c a d e m i c  He d e f i n e d r e t e n t i o n i n t w o w a y s : r e t e n t i o n f r o m g r a d e  to grade eleven;  and r e t e n t i o n from g r a d e n i n e  t o grade  twelve. Summary. plague  Problems o f t e s t usage  the studies  which  used  and t e s t  standardized  interpretation  achievement  test  results,  raising questions  employed. (1975)  Questionable  norming  Katzman's Cohn's  (1968)  populations, test  scores  analyses  procedures,  across  (1971)  and  use  about the s t u d i e s i nwhich they  three  of  gain  and Raymond's  The most  standardized  (1969)  scores  on  but decrease  accurate  tests,  use of gain  scores,  different  (1968) p r o c e d u r e  c a n do n o t h i n g  used.  such as B i d w e l l and Kasarda  different  Riesling's  were  student  f o r adjustment of  the v a l i d i t y  representation  of the  of  student  outcome, i fs t a n d a r d i z e d  a c h i e v e m e n t t e s t s a r e t o be u s e d , i s a  common  given  achievement  specific  test  to a l l the subjects  within  a  time.  The  review of l i t e r a t u r e  substantiates theobservation of  A v e r c h , C a r r o l l , D o n a l d s o n , K i e s l i n g and P i n c u s  (1975) t h a t t h e  most  are  common  achievement mathematics the  results  measures tests, test  of  primarily  scores.  and s c i e n c e  level.  other  percentage population. ethos  of  12  graduates  a n d may  but also  student  district.  However  regardless  reflect  of graduates  the academic  tone  to  or  include  i n reading,  included:  total  the  secondary  i s a measure o f academic  reflect  not only  factors  of the reason districts,  i n a school  be  the  demographic  across  will  scores  will  indicator  district  reading  study  test  cognitive  f o u r , e i g h t , and twelve  o f outcome  commitment  percentages  this  a t the grades  The g r a d u a t i o n  i n a school  standardized  standardized  measure  grade  outcomes  Therefore,  of provincial  mathematics One  student  academic  in a  school  for differential the variable  district.  does  65 CONCLUSION The  critique  and  review  f u n c t i o n model has p r o v i d e d  of  research  using  the  production  i n f o r m a t i o n on i n d i c a t o r s w h i c h  m o s t l i k e l y t o be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e c o n c e p t s  affiliated  are with  e q u a l i t y o f a c c e s s and e q u a l i t y o f t r e a t m e n t as w e l l as o u t c o m e s . Additionally, pertains  to  a the  conceptual Canadian  literature  reviewed.  indicators  to  be  used  The  schemata context,  for was  following is a  i n the  ethnicity,  developed brief  as  from  summary  i t the  of  the  study:  1.  E t h n i c i t y has s i x c a t e g o r i e s : E n g l i s h , non- E n g l i s h , French, Later European, A f r o - A s i a n , A b o r i g i n a l ;  2.  School d i s t r i c t size student enrolment;  3.  E q u a l i t y of A c c e s s has f i v e m e a s u r e s : s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r r a t i o s a t t h e e l e m e n t a r y and s e c o n d a r y l e v e l , t h e p e r student capita dollar amount spent on educational supplies, teacher experience and teacher qualifications ;  4.  E q u a l i t y of Treatment has e i g h t m e a s u r e s : the s p e c i a l education student/teacher ratio, the percentage of s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s , d o l l a r amount s p e n t per s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t on s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s u p p l i e s total dollar amount per capita spent on special e d u c a t i o n programmes, E n g l i s h as a S e c o n d Language s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r r a t i o , the p e r c e n t a g e o f E n g l i s h as a Second Language s t u d e n t s , t h e E n g l i s h as a Second Language p o p u l a t i o n per M i n i s t r y of E d u c a t i o n a p p r o v a l f o r E n g l i s h as a S e c o n d L a n g u a g e programmes and t h e p e r c a p i t a a m o u n t s p e n t on E n g l i s h a s a S e c o n d L a n g u a g e programme p e r student;  5.  Outcome indicators have ten measures; achievement scores i n reading,mathematics and s c i e n c e a t t h e g r a d e 4, 8 and 12 l e v e l s and the percentage of grade 12 graduates to the t o t a l secondary p o p u l a t i o n .  i s t o be  repesented  by  the  total  66 Chapter I I I RESEARCH Chapter and  the  the  data  research  o f data  RESEARCH  will  MODEL  OF  among  questions  and s t a t i s t i c a l  f o ranalysis  The  also  ON  EDUCATIONAL  British  Columbia school d i s t r i c t s .  special  achieve Figure  from  model  inputs,  enrolment school  schooling.  outlines  process  districts  access  the  student  ethnicity  here  of the students'  to educational services, to and t o t h e outcomes  These  they  issues a r e schematized i n  the hypothesized  inputs  have  factors  and o u t p u t s . as demographic  limited  influence.  and t r e a t m e n t  outcomes.  It  i s  Within  i ti s further  relationships Both  These  also  the demographic theorized that  over  i n turn  with  affect  that  differential  and  which  interact  hypothesized  inputs  among  ethnicity  inputs,  f a c t o r s which  o f the student p o p u l a t i o n causes  outcomes.  inputs,  access  as  r e f e r e n c e t o outcomes i n The r e s e a r c h r e p o r t e d  the receive  are designated  both  of  their  opportunity  3.  The the  treatment  with  the relationship  ethnic backgrounds to t h e i r  to prepare  the relationships  of educational  and treatment  to determine  used  The  AND E Q U A L I T Y  i st o determine  and e q u a l i t y  answered.  OPPORTUNITY  by a c c e s s  was u n d e r t a k e n  be  outlined.  ETHNICITY  purpose o f the study  ethnicity  to  procedures  be  defined  the  METHODOLOGY  I I I w i l l d i s c u s s t h e c o n c e p t u a l model t o be t e s t e d  specific  collection  D E S I G N AND  the  levels  and t h e p r o c e s s  interactions  occur.  The  d i f f e r e n t e t h n i c groups and t h e p o p u l a t i o n s i z e o f a d i s t r i c t a r e  Demographic  Schooling  ENROLMENT  ACCESS  Outcomes  TREATMENT OUTCOMES  ETHNICITY  OUTPUTS  PROCESS  INPUTS Enrolment:  (l)  t o t a l student f u l l - t i m e  Ethnicity:  (l)  percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n of population across s i x ethnic categori e s : E n g l i s h , Non-English, French, European, A f r o - A s i a n and Aboriginal  Access:  (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)  teacher experience level of teacher training elementary student/teacher ratio secondary student/teacher r a t i o d o l l a r e x p e n d i t u r e p e r s t u d e n t on e d u c a t i o n  (1) (2) (3)  percentage of special education students special education student/teacher ratio d o l l a r e x p e n d i t u r e p e r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t on s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n programme d o l l a r e x p e n d i t u r e p e r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t on s p e c i a l education supplies percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n o f E n g l i s h as a Second Language students number o f E n g l i s h as a Second Language a p p r o v a l s E n g l i s h as a Second Language s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r r a t i o d o l l a r e x p e n d i t u r e p e r E n g l i s h a s a S e c o n d L a n g u a g e s t u d e n t on E n g l i s h a s a S e c o n d Language Programme  Treatment:  (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Outcomes:  (1) (2)  F i g u r e 3.  equivalent  supplies  achievement scores i n reading, mathematics and science a t the G r a d e 4, 8 a n d 12 l e v e l s p e r c e n t a g e o f G r a d e 12 g r a d u a t e s t o s e c o n d a r y e n r o l m e n t  T h e o r e t i c a l m o d e l on e t h n i c i t y indicators.  associated, considering may  settle in particular  are  influenced  by  and e q u a l i t y o f e d u c a t i o n a l opportunity  the f a c t that p a r t i c u l a r e t h n i c regions.  the access  Also  factors.  the treatment  with  groups factors  68  RESEARCH The  research questions 1.  model  2.  s u b s i d i a r y ; and  3. Model  QUESTIONS  are arranged  i n three categories:  testing;  supplementary  Testing The r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n r e l a t i n g t o model t e s t i n g  the  interactions  equality  of  the t h e o r e t i c a l  of educational  model  on  refers to  ethnicity  and  opportunity:  What are the relationships among the equality of e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y i n d i c a t o r s ; a c c e s s , t r e a t m e n t and o u t c o m e s , when t h e e t h n i c c o m p o s i t i o n a n d s i z e o f s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s are considered? Subs i d i a r y The  Research second  Question category  relationships  among  with  outcomes  and e q u a l i t y  and  treatment:  of  the three  guestions  groups  deal  of variables  with  the  associated  of educational opportunity;  access  1 . I s t h e a l l o c a t i o n o f e d u c a t i o n a l a c c e s s r e s o u r c e s among s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s r e l a t e d t o t h e e t h n i c c o m p o s i t i o n and enrolment of those districts? 2 . I s t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n programmes i n the school d i s t r i c t s r e l a t e d to the e t h n i c composition and e n r o l m e n t of those districts? 3.  A r e s t u d e n t outcomes r e l a t e d t o t h e e t h n i c and e n r o l m e n t of school d i s t r i c t s ?  4.  Is the a l l o c a t i o n of educational access related to the implementation of special programmes ?  resources treatment  5.  Is the a l l o c a t i o n related to student  resources  6.  Is the implementation of s p e c i a l r e l a t e d to student outcomes?  of educational outcomes?  access  treatment  composition  programmes  Supplementary  Research  Questions  T h e s u p p l e m e n t a r y q u e s t i o n s a s s e s s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the  indicators  eguality  of  enrolment, The A.  within  each  educational  of  Are there ethnicity?  groups  opportunity;  access, treatment  Supplementary  the  and  Questions  associated  ethnicity  with  including  outcomes. a r e as  relationships  follow:  among  the  indicators  of  B. A r e t h e r e r e l a t i o n s h i p s among t h e i n d i c a t o r s o f a c c e s s ? C.  Are there treatment?  relationships  among  the  indicators  of  D. A r e t h e r e r e l a t i o n s h i p s among t h e i n d i c a t o r s o f o u t c o m e ?  DATA For  each  district  The v a r i a b l e s  demographic, Demographic  French;  of the variables,  PROCEDURES  d a t a were c o l l e c t e d  by  school  and t h e n a v e r a g e d t o o b t a i n an a g g r e g a t e d s c o r e f o r e a c h  district.  The  COLLECTION  were grouped  access, treatment  and  within  four  categories:  outcomes.  Indicators  data  on  European;  s i x ethnic Afro-Asian;  f r o m t h e 1981 C a n a d a C e n s u s  groups  —  English;  and A b o r i g i n a l  Non-English;  -- were o b t a i n e d  ( A p p e n d i x 2) w h i c h d e f i n e d t h e c e n s u s  tracts within the seventy-five school d i s t r i c t boundaries. specific spoken first  Census  item asked  language, learned  o r mother  i n childhood  respondents to i d e n t i f y tongue: and s t i l l  What  their  The first  i s the language  you  understand?  When f i r s t l a n g u a g e s p o k e n i s u s e d a s a p r o x y f o r e t h n i c i t y , , the  c o n c e p t o f e t h n i c i t y a n d how i t i s d e f i n e d b e c o m e s a n i s s u e .  Does l a n g u a g e spoken  i n t h e home r e p r e s e n t t h e c o m p l e x  cultural  and  value  orientations  which  are  a  distinct  study that  language  group?  spoken  i s one o f t h e s t r o n g e s t f a c t o r s w h i c h d i f f e r e n t i a t e s  one  ethnic  group  the  group, which  or  from another. depth  of  A l t h o u g h i t does  characteristics  i t n o n e t h e l e s s i s a key listed  of this  with  ethnic  breadth  I t i s an a s s u m p t i o n  associated  which  indicator.  not represent define  Census  an  Canada d a t a ,  82 m o t h e r t o n g u e s b y s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s , was  d e t e r m i n e t h e t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n by s e v e n major g r o u p s : French,  Later  European,  Indian.  These  data  African  are  were combined,  as  Asiatic, presented discussed  the  French.  Aboriginal The  nationalities  Later  Category  affiliated  with  in  4.  and  Table  in Chapter  European  English  Asiatic  1,  the  English  countries.  Categories  As p e r c e n t a g e o f Total population 81.96  45,615  1.66  288,095  10.50  Afro-Asian  149,835  5.46  Aboriginal  11,440  .42  175  .01  Later  European  Other Total  Population  *0oes not equal  2,744,470 100% because o f r o u n d i n g .  and  included  2,249,310  French  to form  I n d i a n were combined  category  Population  English, and  TABLE 4 T o t a l P o p u l a t i o n o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a by t h e F i v e E t h n i c Ethnic Cagegories  to  Amerindian  excluding  European  used  African,  A f r o - A s i a n C a t e g o r y ; and A m e r i n d i a n and form  ethnic  100.01*  the to the  those  The groups  total were  districts. total  computed  population  hundred. values  of The  for  were  the  each  f o r each of  calculatd  school  resulting  for future  The  values  the  by  values  statistical  full-time  Ministry  ethnic  seventy-five  school  and  became  Form  I  by  of the  the  multiplying ethnicity  total  by  one  indicator  analysis.  equivalent  of Education  dividing  district  other demographic v a r i a b l e ,  total  of the f i v e  Once t h e s e v a l u e s were o b t a i n e d , p e r c e n t a g e s  population  the  population  enrolment,  student  (Appendix  was d e f i n e d a s  enrolment 2) d a t e d  as g i v e n i n S e p t e m b e r 30,  1980. Access  Indicators  Five  variables  educational  were d e v e l o p e d  services  for  each  as i n d i c a t o r s  of  the  of access  seventy-five  to  school  districts: 1.  t h e amount  2.  the l e v e l  3.  the d o l l a r  of teacher of teacher value  on  Statistical as t h e i r  30,  experience.  The  1980  For  statistic  educational supplies; a t the elementary  experience  where  each  were  Ministry  gives  teachers  district,  b y t h e number the  average  by s c h o o l d i s t r i c t  level;  at the secondary obtained  level. the  of Education, which  used  (Appendix  reported  years  of  of teachers total  for full  and  from  t h e t e a c h e r r e p o r t i n g Form J  and d i v i d e d  experience  ratio  S e r v i c e s Branch,  source  September  totalled  teacher  on  ratio  the student/teacher  Data  training;  spent  4. t h e s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r 5.  experience;  their  2)  dated  years  experience  of  were  i n the d i s t r i c t .  years  of  and p a r t time  teaching teachers.  The  indicator  information Ministry  f o r teacher  provided  by  of Education.  training  the The  was  Statistical  source  was  were  given:  from  Services  once  r e p o r t e d b y t e a c h e r s on S e p t e m b e r 30, 1980. certification  obtained  again  the  Branch,  Form  J  as  Three c a t e g o r i e s of  professional,  defined  as  teachers  with degrees;  s t a n d a r d , d e f i n e d as t e a c h e r s w i t h o u t a degree b u t  with  training;  teacher  teachers  with  used  the  in  certificated The dollar  degrees  teachers  in a school  indicator  The  the  used  per pupil  budgeting  supplies.  education expenditures expenditures. instructional  The  by  student  expended  on  District  subtracted  district for  on  was  This  school  amount  the  educational districts  r e p o r t t h e amount o f money included  education  This  and  yielded  spent  special  expenditure  a  dollar  supplies  (pp.  19  -  24).  the materials expenditure  projected  From  Data: this  provided  amount  B3)  per by  obtained  publication 1981  B3  for  amount  (Account  (1981) i n i t s a n n u a l Analytical  School  amount  i n the  was  Special  F o r m EDUC 1 0 0 1 , i s s u e d b y t h e S p e c i a l  Programmes B r a n c h d a t e d A p r i l , were  of each  access  T h e t o t a l B3 a m o u n t p e r d i s t r i c t was  P r o g r a m m e s Summary S h e e t ,  listed  professionally  district.  instructional  "Comparative Budgets"  of  as  statistic  s u b t r a c t e d and t h e r e m a i n i n g  from the S c h o o l s F i n a n c e Branch entitled,  The  for educational  special  the enrolment.  school d i s t r i c t .  percentage  defined  on s u p p l i e s a s w e l l a s r e g u l a r programme  s u p p l i e s was  divided  permission,  training.  procedure  that school d i s t r i c t s  instructional  of  or teacher  was  expenditure  required  letter  analysis  third  supplies.  on  no  and  1982.  f o r t h e 1982  Although fiscal  the expenditures  year,  the  Special  P r o g r a m m e s B r a n c h was u n d e r f i s c a l expenditures The the  should  be  similar  and t h e r e f o r e t h e  t o t h e 1981  level.  f o u r t h i n d i c a t o r was t h e s t u d e n t s p e r t e a c h e r r a t i o a t  elementary  level Form  per pupil  restraint  level.  by d i s t r i c t , I dated  grade  September  Services,  Ministry  enrolment  figure  equivalent September  The  of  was  teachers  total  one 30,  through 1980  the  was  as p u b l i s h e d  by  This the  from  by  Statistical  total  elementary  level  of Education  elementary  obtained  number  elementary  30, 1 9 8 0 b y M i n i s t r y  at the  seven,  Education. divided  at  enrolment  of as  full-time  reported  Form J .  The  on  ratio  o b t a i n e d was t h e n u m b e r o f s t u d e n t s p e r t e a c h e r a t t h e e l e m e n t a r y level.  The f i f t h  indicator, used  the  students per teacher  secondary  level,  same  source  calculated  i n t h e same m a n n e r a s t h e e l e m e n t a r y  ratio  documents  at the  and  was  student/teacher  ratio. Treatment The  treatment  special The  Indicators  education  special  associated learning  education with  the  divided  impairment;  following special educable  mildly  severe  and  physically learning  behaviour  problems;  distance;  job training  Education.  into  education  impairment;  trainable retarded;  residential;  autistic;  extremes  f o r moderate/severe  resources  programmes:  retarded; profoundly  groups:  indicators.  from  handicapped;  rehabilitation;  two  Language  i n d i c a t o r s were d e v e l o p e d  retarded;  hospital/homebound;  Indian  were  and E n g l i s h as a Second  disabled;  moderately  visual  variables  of  severe  climate  handicapped;  and and  The  first  receive number Sheet  i n d i c a t o r u s e d was t h e p e r c e n t a g e  special  education  of students  reported  on t h e S p e c i a l  a n d R e q u e s t F o r m , EDUC 1 0 0 1 , d a t e d  Form  I  dated  percentage. receive  special  The  September indicator  education  second  treatment district amount  The  The  S p r i n g , 1981, f o r e a c h  student population reported  30,  1980,  and  services in a affiliated  the t o t a l  Summary  expressed  of students  school with  dollar  as  a who  district.  the  cluster  expenditure  of  by s c h o o l  on s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n p e r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t . The  of dollars  enrolment dollar  district.  Programmes  i s the percentage  variable  v a r i a b l e s was  who  services in a school  d i s t r i c t was d i v i d e d b y t h e d i s t r i c t on  of students  from  amount  approved  the  same  f o r expenditure form,  expended  on  EDUC  was  1001.  special  divided  This  by t h e  yielded  education  per  the  special  e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t by e a c h s c h o o l d i s t r i c t .  T h e same s o u r c e a n d  procedure  were  indicator,  education  dollars  student  used  f o r each  The  final  personnel  to  spent school  on  the  third  materials  per  special  special education  district.  v a r i a b l e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n was a  indicator:  education  obtain  students  the  ratio  per special  the  education  teacher.  The obtain  same  resource  Request  documents  the f o u r E n g l i s h as a Second  the percentage students  and  Form,  EDUC  procedure  Language  total  the  total  per  1001. were  (ESL)  o f ESL s t u d e n t s by s c h o o l d i s t r i c t ;  in a district  by  The  o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s a s r e p o r t e d on t h e S p e c i a l and  divided  special  number  Sheet  was  of  of special  Summary  students  number  number  Programmes  education  of  used  to  indicators:  t h e number o f  ESL a p p r o v a l ; t h e amount o f d o l l a r s  75 per  ESL s t u d e n t e x p e n d e d  students Outcome  per  ESL  on ESL Programme; and t h e number o f ESL  teacher.  Indicators  The  last  equality  of  group  of  indicators  outcomes.  were u t i l i z e d  Four  i n the study:  was  distinct  that  affiliated  categories  of  Mathematics Achievement  with  outcomes scores at  grades  four,  eight  and  twelve; Reading  Achievement  scores  at  grades  four,  eight  and  twelve; Science  Achievement  scores  at  g r a d e s f o u r , e i g h t and t w e l v e l e v e l s and t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f g r a d e twelve  graduates  per  secondary  enrolment.  The  achievement  t e s t s were p a r t o f t h e r e g u l a r p r o v i n c i a l assessment The  1981 M a t h e m a t i c s A s s e s s m e n t  Mathematics According  to  assessment;  the  first  was  the second  was  programme. provincial  conducted  in  1977.  Robitailie(1981):  T h e M a t h e m a t i c s A s s e s s m e n t was c a r r i e d o u t i n e a r l y 1 9 8 1 . O v e r 9 0 , 0 0 0 s t u d e n t s i n G r a d e s 4, 8 a n d 12, a l o n g w i t h a s a m p l e o f 2,500 G r a d e 10 s t u d e n t s , c o m p l e t e d t e s t b o o k l e t s c o n t a i n i n g items designed to assess t h e i r mastery of f i v e content domains: Number and Operation, Geometry, M e a s u r e m e n t , A l g e b r a i c T o p i c s , and C o m p u t e r L i t e r a c y (p. 1) • A Ministry large  of Education p o l i c y  districts  to  entire population described  this  be  based  "allowed  on  samples  a t any g r a d e l e v e l "  assessment r e s u l t s f o r rather  (O'Shea,  than 1981)  upon  the  O'Shea  process:  As a f i r s t s t e p i n c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e sample, a c a l c u l a t i o n was made f o r e a c h d i s t r i c t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e m i n i m u m s a m p l e s s i z e r e q u i r e d t o p r o d u c e a 95% c o n f i d e n c e i n t e r v a l o f a t m o s t 5% o n e a c h i t e m . T h a t i s , i n t h e " " w o r s t " c a s e , f o r an i t e m w h i c h 50% o f t h e s t u d e n t s s a m p l e d a n s w e r e d c o r r e c t l y , one s h o u l d be "95% s u r e " t h a t , i f a l l t h e s t u d e n t s i n t h e d i s t r i c t h a d r e s p o n d e d t o t h e i t e m , b e t w e e n 45% and 55% o f t h e m w o u l d h a v e o b t a i n e d t h e c o r r e c t a n s w e r t o t h e i t e m . On the b a s i s o f t h i s c a l c u l a t i o n , s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s w h i c h were i d e n t i f i e d as b e i n g l a r g e enough to a l l o w s a m p l i n g i n the Assessment were then used t o p r o v i d e c l a s s e s f o r t h e p i l o t phase o f t h e s t u d y (p. 8 9 ) .  For  each  school  district,  an  average  total  score over the  c o n t e n t d o m a i n s b a s e d o n t h e i r s t u d e n t s a c h i e v e m e n t was by  the  Data  Services  Branch,  Ministry  of  four, eight school  These  at the grades  t w e l v e were used as outcome i n d i c a t o r s  f o r each  district.  The the  and  computed  Education.  a v e r a g e t o t a l s c o r e s o r mean s c o r e f o r M a t h e m a t i c s  five  s e c o n d g r o u p o f o u t c o m e i n d i c a t o r s was  Provincial  reading  Reading  skills  of  Assessment  nearly  of  1980  associated with  which  assessed  the  100,000 s t u d e n t s :  T h e R e a d i n g A s s e s s m e n t was c o n d u c t e d i n t h e S p r i n g o f 1 9 8 0 . S t u d e n t s i n G r a d e s 4, 8 a n d 12 r e s p o n d e d , t o t e s t i t e m s d e s i g n e d t o m e a s u r e r e a d i n g a c h i e v e m e n t i n f o u r a r e a s : Word Attack, Word Meaning, Passage Comprehension, Applied Reading/ Study S k i l l s (Tuinman & K e n d a l l , 1980, p.7) A total  s c o r e was  each s t u d e n t . eight  and  indicators The set  of  level  These in  1982  the four  was  o b t a i n e d f o r each  average  scores  were  Provincial  used  S c i e n c e Assessment  indicators.  evaluated  In  three  the  of as  the  75  the  Assessment  Summary  Report  provided  cognitive  areas:  K n o w l e d g e and H i g h e r L e v e l T h i n k i n g . Science  a r e a s or domains f o r four, school outcome  Reading.  outcome  assessment  across  T h e n , an a v e r a g e s t u d e n t s c o r e a t t h e g r a d e  twelve  districts.  computed  the  third  domain,  Science  Processes,  A c c o r d i n g t o t h e 1982 (Taylor,  the  B.C.  1982):  Three assessment forms (X,Y and Z) each containing d i f f e r e n t achievement i t e m s , were a d m i n i s t e r e d a t Grades 4, a n d 8, a n d two f o r m s (X a n d Y) w e r e a d m i n i s t e r e d a t G r a d e 12. A total of over 80,000 p u p i l s w r o t e the various a s s e s s m e n t f o r m s (p. 1 3 ) . Sampling  and  procedures outlined  participation  similar  the method  to as  those  i n the Science Assessment of  follows:  previous assessments.  followed Taylor  77 . . . o u t o f t h e 75 s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 63 d i s t r i c t s required f u l l p a r t i c i p a t i o n of a l lschools i n the main assessment (March,1982) and were therefore not a v a i l a b l e f o rsampling or f o rp a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the p i l o t phase o f t h e Assessment. I n t h e r e m a i n i n g 12 d i s t r i c t s , c a r e was n e e d e d t o e n s u r e t h a t i f s c h o o l s o r c l a s s e s w e r e used i n t h e p i l o t phase, then t h e r e had t o be r e t a i n e d a s u f f i c i e n t number o f s t u d e n t s f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e m a i n Assessment to ensure s t a b l e d i s t r i c t s t a t i s t i c s (p. 1 7 ) . The  student  yielding student of  results  a  composite  was t h e n  students.  per were  The twelve  1980  indicator  to the total  The sources  of graduates.  academic  ethos  Figure abbreviation  This  presents  analyses  1.  Preliminary  2.  Correlational  3.  Factor  4.  Path  Preliminary  levels.  These  was t h e p e r c e n t a g e  score scores  a  o f grade  i n a school  September 30,  Services Branch for the  variable represents  the degree o f  district. summary  (if applicable)  data  science  secondary population  and  STATISTICAL The  f o r each  student  o f d a t a were Form I , d a t e d  i n a school  4  score  domains  i n d i c a t o r s of achievement.  outcome  graduates  grade  f o r enrolment, and t h e S t a t i s t i c a l  number  the three  composite  was a n a v e r a g e  of the three  as outcome  district.  The  over  t o t a l l e d b y d i s t r i c t a n d d i v i d e d b y t h e number  a t each  final  totalled  score.  The r e s u l t  district used  were  have  of variables  by  category,  source.  METHODOLOGY  four  distinct  phases:  Analyses; Analyses;  Analyses; Analyses.  Analyses  F o r e a c h s c h o o l d i s t r i c t , a n a v e r a g e v a l u e was c o m p u t e d f o r  VARIABLE  ABBREVIATION/TERM  Ethnicity 1. E n g l i s h 2. French 3. European 4. Afro-Asian 5. A b o r i g i n a l 6. Other  English French European Afro-Asian Aboriginal Other  Enrolment  Enrolment  M i n i s t r y of Education, F o r m I , S e p t e m b e r , 1980  Experience  M i n i s t r y of Education, F o r m J , S e p t e m b e r , 1980 M i n i s t r y of Education, F o r m J , S e p t e m b e r , 1980 M i n i s t r y of Education, C o m p a r a t i v e and A n a l y t i c a l D a t a : 1981 S c h o o l D i s t r i c t Budgets M i n i s t r y of Education, Form I £ Form J , S e p t e m b e r , 1980 M i n i s t r y of Education, Form I £ Form J , Septemb e r , 1980  Canada Census,  Access 1. Y e a r s o f T e a c h e r Experience 2. L e v e l o f T e a c h e r Training 3. D o l l a r s p e r S t u d e n t S p e n t on E d u c a t i o n a l S u p p l i e s  4.  Elementary Ratio  5.  Secondary Ratio  Student/Teacher  Student/Teacher  Treatment 1. P e r c e n t a g e o f S p e c i a l Education Students 2. D o l l a r s p e r S p e c i a l Education Student Spent on S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n 3.  4. 5. 6.  7. 8.  D o l l a r s per S p e c i a l Education Student Spent on S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n S u p p l i e s Special Education Student/Teacher Ratio P e r c e n t a g e o f E n g l i s h as a Second Language Students Number o f S t u d e n t s p e r E n g l i s h as a S e c o n d L a n g u a g e Approval D o l l a r s per ESL S t u d e n t S p e n t on E S L P r o g r a m m e ESL S t u d e n t / T e a c h e r Ratio  F i g u r e 4.  SOURCE  Summary o f v a r i a b l e s  Training Budget  Elem. Ratio  Sec.  Ratio  Spec.  Stud.  Spec.  Budget  Spec.  Mats  Spec.  Ratio  ESL  Stud,  ESL  Approv.  ESL  Budget  ESL  Ratio  Ministry Form I, Ministry Form I,  June,1981  of Education, S e p t e m b e r , 1980 of E d u c a t i o n , S e p t e m b e r , 1980  M i n i s t r y of Education, F o r m 1 0 0 1 , S p r i n g , 1981 M i n i s t r y of Education, S p r i n g , 1981 M i n i s t r y of Education, F o r m 1 0 0 1 , S p r i n g , 1981 M i n i s t r y of Education, F o r m 1 0 0 1 , S p r i n g , 1981 M i n i s t r y of Education, F o r m 1 0 0 1 , S p r i n g , 1981 Ministry of Education, F o r m 1 0 0 1 , S p r i n g , 1981 M i n i s t r y of Education, F o r m 1 0 0 1 , S p r i n g , 1981  VARIABLE Outcome 1. R e a d i n g 4 2. R e a d i n g 8 3. R e a d i n g 12 4. M a t h e m a t i c s 4 5. M a t h e m a t i c s 8 6. M a t h e m a t i c s 12 7. S c i e n c e 4 8. S c i e n c e 8 9. S c i e n c e 12 10. P e r c e n t a g e o f G r a d e 12 Graduates t o Total Secondary Population  NOTE:  Summary o f v a r i a b l e s  variables  outcomes.  with e t h n i c i t y , access,  district  average  Sciences  subprogramme computed  continuous  interval-level  descriptive deviation,  statistics: variance,  the d e s c r i p t i v e data mean,  kurtosis,  A discussion  i s included  i n Chapter  statistics  variable  p r o g r a m m e UBC FREQ  tested  distribution  was  gave  f o r the  the  following  error,  standard  range,  minimum  on e a c h v a r i a b l e  and  associated  and outcomes and i t s  related  IV. using  the sub-  The p u r p o s e o f t h e programme  distributions  and t o a s c e r t a i n  statistics  for normality  ( K i t a , 1975).  f i t theoretical  distributions observed  was  and  skewness,  descriptive  to  as  ( N i e e t a l . , 1975) .  standard  treatment  was  v a l u e s were e n t e r e d  (SPSS) f i l e  with ethnicity, access,  Each  t r e a t m e n t and  i n t h e subprogramme CONDESCRIPTIVE i n t h e S t a t i s t i c a l  Package f o r the S o c i a l  maximum.  w i l l be used i n t h e r e s u l t s .  (cont'd)  associated  The s c h o o l  variables  This  Ministry of Education, Reading Assessment, Spring, 1980 Ministry of Education, Mathematics Assessment, S p r i n g , 1981 Ministry of Education, Science Assessment, S p r i n g , 1982 Ministry of Education, F o r m .1, S e p t e m b e r , 1 9 8 0 Ministry o f Education, Statistical Services B r a n c h , June, 1981  Reading 4 Reading 8 R e a d i n g 12 Math 4 Math 8 M a t h 12 Science 4 Science 8 S c i e n c e 12 E d . E t h o s 12  The a b b r e v i a t i o n s f o r each v a r i a b l e where a p p l i c a b l e  F i g u r e 4.  the  SOURCE  ABBREVIATION/TERM  with  the "goodness  the  observed  of f i t " .  significantly different  I f the  then  1  the  theoretical  n o r m a l d i s t r i b u t i o n (CHIPROB>.05), a d e c i s i o n  made a s t o w h a t s t a t i s t i c a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n to  s a t i s f y the assumptions  Correlational The  was r e q u i r e d  of regression  was  in order  analysis.  Analyses  P e a r s o n p r o d u c t moment c o r r e l a t i o n was u s e d t o t e s t t h e  s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h econcomitant v a r i a t i o n between t h e v a r i a b l e s associated  with  outcomes.  T h e c o m p u t e r s u b p r o g r a m m e PEARSON CORR a s o u t l i n e d  in  SPSS  e t h n i c i t y , enrolment,  (Nie e t  correlation  a l . ,  matrices  variable  as an  provided  the input  The ratio  provided  independent  i nvariable  represented  N  measure  t r e a t m e n t and  The  to analyze  of variance  for factor  resulting  as w e l l  = l  Li =  to the sguare  XiYi  -{*.  root  .  "Vi = l  Xi I  formula  M  '•'  n . .  as  used  as t h e  of the product  X and t h e v a r i a t i o n i n v a r i a b l e  by t h e f o l l o w i n g  each  analysis.  Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i n t (r) i sdefined  variation  Li  utilized.  an o p p o r t u n i t y  statistic  of covariation  V  1 9 7 5 ) was  access,  of  Y andi s  by SPSS:  . Yi  1  where X i = i t h o b s e r v a t i o n o f v a r i a b l e x Yi - i t h o b s e r v a t i o n of v a r i a b l e y N = number o f o b s e r v a t i o n s  Factor  Analyses  Factor  analysis  was e m p l o y e d  whether  patterns  of relationships  existed  so as t o p e r m i t  a t t h i s stage  to determine  within  of  "reduction"  groups  to a smaller  variables  s e t of source  v a r i a b l e s i n an a t t e m p t t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e o b s e r v e d r e l a t i o n s i n  the  data  (Nie e t a l . , 1 9 7 5 , p. 4 6 9 ) .  Subprogramme the  Social  Sciences  Specifically, principal  FACTOR  the  produced  (Nie  factor  component  f a c t o r i n g with  rotated solution.  ethnicity,  access,  input  data  values.  specified  for  was  technique  utilized.  performed  iterations  using  was  a  varimax  The c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i c e s  f o r the  the  analyses.  extracted  First,  on an e x p l o r a t o r y  T h e s e were a n a l y z e d  t o be  Pakages f o r  t r e a t m e n t and outcome v a r i a b l e s were used as  c o e f f i c i e n t s were e n t e r e d eigen  Statistical  a l . , 1975)  analytic  orthogonal  the  et  by  the  correlation  basis  to determine  a n d a number o f f a c t o r s w e r e  f o r each  original  variable  P r i n c i p a l component f a c t o r a n a l y s i s t r a n s f o r m s  list.  a given set  of v a r i a b l e s i n t o composite v a r i a b l e s t h a t are o r t h o g o n a l . first  'principal  accounts  for  combination. best  linear  component'  more The  of  the  second  combination  once the f i r s t  repeated  f o r the remaining  about  'principal  linear  than  composite  any  component'  accounts  component  i s removed.  that  other  linear  i s the  second  f o r t h e most  components u n t i l  i s expended.  the underlying  variance  that  variance  the o r i g i n a l data  i s the best  The  residual  This process  is  a l l the variance i n  I n i t i a l l y , no a s s u m p t i o n i s made  structures  of the v a r i a b l e s .  The s t a t i s t i c a l model f o r p r i n c i p a l component a n a l y s i s i s : Z j = aj-^F-L w h e r e Zj = Fi = Aji =  + Aj F + ... + A j n F n variable j i n standardized form hypothetical factors standardized multiple regression coefficient v a r i a b l e j on f a c t o r i ( f a c t o r loading) 2  2  Each o f the n observed v a r i a b l e s i s d e s c r i b e d l i n e a r l y i n t e r m s o f n new u n c o r r e l a t e d c o m p o n e n t s F-^, F 2 - . . , F , e a c h of w h i c h i s i n t u r n d e f i n e d as a l i n e a r c o m b i n a t i o n o f the n o r i g i n a l v a r i a b l e s (Nie e t a l . , 1 9 7 5 , p. 4 7 1 ) . n  Path  Analyses Wright  (1934,  1921, 1960) d e v e l o p e d  path  analysis  as a  method f o rt e s t i n g both t h e d i r e c t and t h e i n d i r e c t e f f e c t s o f a causal  model.  causal  relationships  theoretical with  In other words, path a n a l y s i s does n o t e s t a b l i s h  causal  associated  assumption analysis  method  of  verification  linear  and  on  of  that  that  four  causal.  premises  assumptions  The  unique  i s that  As with  with  aspect  any o t h e r  errors  the relationships  among  other  of  statistical  The second  and  assumption —  i n the model,  are not n o r among  T h e r e f o r e , a l l v a r i a b l e s c o n s i d e r e d t o be r e l e v a n t  a r e t o be i n c l u d e d  i nt h e t h e o r e t i c a l model so t h a t a l l dependent  v a r i a b l e s a r e a l i n e a r combination of theindependent dependent v a r i a b l e s  plus  variables  model  assumptions  forms o f  curvilinear  in prediction  variables  variables first  interaction,  --  among  with  the  relations are excluded.  the residuals  affiliated  the relationships  analysis  variance,  multiplicative  themselves.  t h e common  additive.  i s also  correlated  (1973) a s s e r t  w i t h t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f p a t h a n a l y s i s . The f i r s t  f o r path  analysis  that  supported.  of variance:  variables  in  the  are that  their residual remain  an u n i d i r e c t i o n a l  the variables  flow  with  Path C o e f f i c i e n t Analyses.  term.  unanalyzed.  i n t e r v a l s c a l e s , and t h a t t h e c a u s a l of  of a  In t h e event t h edata a r e c o n s i s t e n t  and Pedhazur  i s based  assumption  is  model.  i s empirically  Kerlinger  are  is a  t h e e x p l a n a t o r y model, t h e t h e o r y has n o t been proven b u t  rather  are  but  and o t h e r  The independent The  are expressed  last  in ratio  two or  r e l a t i o n among v a r i a b l e s i s  no r e c i p r o c a l  causation.  When t h e a b o v e a s s u m p t i o n s a r e  reasonably  met,  regression  path  the o r d i n a r y  regression  regression  than  one  d e p e n d e n t and be  The and  with  a  is  being  variable require declared  i t on a l l o t h e r v a r i a b l e s  Therefore,  the  path  from the  that  assumed  c o e f f i c i e n t s are  the  independent v a r i a b l e s  to  A the  variables.  b e t w e e n two effects. the  difference  path analysis  variable  Another purpose of path a n a l y s i s  is  important  partial  w h e r e a s p a t h a n a l y s i s may  then r e g r e s s i n g  : values for paths leading dependent  standardized  a n a l y s i s regresses a dependent  regression  independent.  are  analysis  a l l independent v a r i a b l e s  more  to  (y^'s).  coefficents  between o r d i n a r y  on  coefficients  i s to p e r m i t the  variance  v a r i a b l e s t o be p a r t i t i o n e d i n t o d i r e c t and  indirect  Path c o e f f i c i e n t s are w r i t t e n  dependent v a r i a b l e  variable.  " j "  i s the  change i n X i g i v e n a u n i t change i n Xj w h i l e o t h e r v a r i a b l e s  are  adjust  represent among  to  total  the  c o e f f i c i e n t s , C i j , which  independent the  to  effect  subscript  " i "  measures  free  The  and  P i j where s u b s c r i p t  changes  In  c o v a r i a t i o n b e t w e e n X i and  -  Pij).  To  calculate  the  et  (Nie  Once  the  al.,  path  had  value  either (Pij)  path  indirect  Pij's  Cij's  covariation  equal  coefficients,  Statistical  the  direct  covariation  >  (Cij  subprogramme  Package f o r the  Social  1975).  c o e f f i c i e n t s were  parsimonious  that  effects  The  e f f e c t c o e f f i c i e n t minus the d i r e c t c o v a r i a t i o n  Sciences  paths  calculated.  Xj w h i l e i n d i r e c t c a u s a l  used from the  a  were  a l l cases,  R E G R E S S I O N was  model,  Xj,  e f f e c t s , b o t h d i r e c t and  variables.  e q u a l s the  in  model a  was  total .17.  computed  constructed  effects  value  for  using (Cij)  each only  or  a  path those  direct  84 Two  models are t h e o r i z e d , a g e n e r a l model of e t h n i c i t y  specific  models  ethnicity,  of  ethnicity.  non-English  with enrolment, variables,  a c c e s s and t r e a t m e n t  designated  as  Under  specific  and  outcome  ethnic  indicators  there  two  In  and  specific  total,  ten  each  path  path  of  along  outcome  independently path  models.  coefficients  enrolment  are  access  indicators,  indicator.  Therefore,  f o r each  Afro-  are  separate  outcome  models  and  in  models,  treatment  European  model  i n d i c a t o r s and b o t h  indicators  f o r each e t h n i c group,  Aboriginal,  general  graduates,  computed,  are  the  i s the e t h n i c category c o n s i d e r e d  achievement  the  Under  and  e t h n i c group;  French,  Asian.  analyses  were  tested;  i ) two g e n e r a l e t h n i c m o d e l s w i t h n o n - E n g l i s h a s t h e i n p u t v a r i a b l e a n d t h e two o u t c o m e v a r i a b l e s , a c h i e v e m e n t a n d g r a d u a t e s , as outcome i n d i c a t o r s ; ii)  eight specific e t h n i c models with the four ethnic categories, European, French, Afro-Asian and A b o r i g i n a l , a s t h e i n p u t v a r i a b l e s a n d t h e two o u t c o m e variables as separate outcome indicator for each ethnic category.  Using and  the  were  X  X  l 2 3  x4 X  X  X  5 6 7  calculated  E  =  E  = = =  E  2 3  + E4 + E5 + 6 + E7 +  P  P  P  P  P  e t h n i c model  indicator by  regression  =  +  general  outcome  through x  the  3 ,1 1 1 1 4 5 1 1 6 1 1 7 1 1 X  X  X  X  X  ( F i g u r e 6) o f n o n -  achievement,  estimating  the  the  path  coefficients  following linear  equations  analysis:  + + + + +  P 3,2 2 P 3,2 2 P5 , 2 2 P6 2 2 P7,3 3  Ei = latent variable Xi = variable Pij = path c o e f f i c i e n t  X  X  X  X  X  + P  +  +  5.3 3 5,4 4 6,3 3 * 6,4 4 7,4 4 7,5 5 X  P  P  value  + P  X  X  X  P  +  P  X  X  +  P  English  7,6 6 X  Chapter  IV  RESULTS INTRODUCTION Each of for  the  four  analytic  phases  in Chapter  IV  was  chosen  i t s s t a t i s t i c a l a b i l i t y e i t h e r to p r e p a r e d a t a or to t e s t  particular Chapter  relationships  outlined  by  the  issues  raised  in  III.  Phase stage  as  the  One,  which  variable  and  preliminary  analyses,  was  descriptive  a  data  preparation  considered  the  statistics  for  each  ascertained  whether or not d a t a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n  was  c o r r e l a t i o n a l analyses which tested  for  necessary. P h a s e Two  included  concomitant  variation  between  specific  a n a l y s e s examined the  relationships  Q u e s t i o n s A, B,  D as w e l l  4,  5  and  6,  indicators  C,  and  searching for  for  among t h e  access,  and  by  as S u b s i d i a r y  access,  then r e l a t i o n s h i p s treatment  outlined  relationships  ethnicity,  indicators.  Supplementary  Q u e s t i o n s 1,  within  treatment  the  and  2,  3,  groups  of  outcomes  groups of i n d i c a t o r s of  indices  for  necessary well  as  within  each  Phase  to  outcomes.  reduce  the  group  Four,  v e r i f y the  of  path  indicators  analyses.  existence  number  of  F i n a l l y , path analysis  of  These  the  for  procedures  the  causal  constructs path  systems  treatment  path  general  ethnicity,  First,  Non-English,  one was  tested.  model  new were as  analysis.  with ethnicity,  outcomes.  source  developed  underlying  variables tested  and  among t h e g r o u p s o f v a r i a b l e s a s s o c i a t e d and  and  ethnicity,  Phase Three, f a c t o r a n a l y s e s , determined u n d e r l y i n g variables  These  proposed access,  concerning  Then each  of  four  p a t h models w i t h i n t h e N o n - E n g l i s h Groups were t e s t e d : European,  Afro-Asian  Ethnicity In  and  French,  Aboriginal.  Indicators  the i n i t i a l  percentage districts  descriptive  composition  analysis  of the ethnic  of data,  variables  the  across  mean  school  was:  TABLE 5 Percentage o f the Average D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Ethnic Groups i n School D i s t r i c t s  English  85..008  French  1. .720  European  9..622  Afro-Asian  2,.600  Aboriginal  1..224  .002  Other  It  i s apparent  English  composition  therefore groups.  will  Also,  accurate  from  of school  overpower  proxy  asked  learned  in  for English  generation of  their  language is  British ethnic  spoken  indicating  districts  that  first,  i s extremely of  of English Origin.  the other  i s too high  The p r o b l e m  "What  and  i s the  still  ethnic t o be an  lies  Columbians would background  in British  since  answer English  Columbia.  assimilation  of  language  understand"?  ethnic  is  Therefore, groups  i n the Census  you  Most  English  the  l a r g e and  used as the e t h n i c i t y i n d i c a t o r .  the question, childhood  statistics  the v a r i a t i o n  the percentage  mother tongue q u e s t i o n Canada  these  first first  regardless  the  dominant  the v a r i a b l e into  Canadian  society  as  Because of high  for  as  this  extremely  measuring  dynamic  English,  eliminated  total  well  the  and  the  English  from the a n a l y s i s . small  values  population  excluded.  Five  analysis:  Non-  size  and in  ethnic  fact as  that  an  is  groups  are  French,  origin.  category  is  so  will  be  "Other" category  has  insignificant  and  left  English  percentage  ethnic  therefore study  of the  Second, the  the  English,  individuals  hence to  be  also  included  European,  to  the  will  be  in  the  Afro-Asian  and  Abor i g i n a l . New  values  population the  and  remaining  were computed f o r the e t h n i c groups w i t h the "Other" c a t e g o r y removed. four  Percentage  The  second  school  9%  to  98.3%  Access On  TABLE 6 Ethnic Composition  i n School  12.4  European  63.4  Aboriginal  7.7  Afro-Asian  16.6  showed low  from  t o 52.2%  (Appendix  that of  9% and  to  French  0%  new  values  for  were:  French  from a  varied  v a r i e d f r o m 1.4%  groups  o f the Average  analysis  districts  composition  ethnic  The  English  composition  to a h i g h  94.5%;  Districts  of  29.5%;  Afro-Asian  varied  in  European  composition  Aboriginal composition varied  from  3).  Indicators the  Access  Variables  (Appendix  3),  the  mean  years  of  t e a c h e r e x p e r i e n c e b y d i s t r i c t was  10.56  y e a r s w i t h a low o f  5.9  y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e and a h i g h o f 14.0 y e a r s o f t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e . No s c h o o l d i s t r i c t h a d l e s s t h a n 6 6 % o f t h e t e a c h e r s  certificated  with  the  degrees.  percentage average on  were  Treatment  student  19.279  ratios  variables  with  representing confounded labelled  the  by  had  as  the  provincial  amount o f money  c o n s i d e r a b l y between  spent school  per student, a student. and  low The  secondary  respectively.  number  the  of  fact  receiving  district special  than  in  impaired  a very  education services.  who  and  high  the  a  mildly  service  is  who  is  r e t a r d e d may  be  of r e p o r t i n g y i e l d s  percentage The  from  are  were  indicator  student  of  students  percentage  a low  w i t h a mean o f 2 8 % .  students  special  which  The  receive  reporting  as  o f 9.5%  of to a  In  essence,  receiving  special  When t h e n a t u r a l d e m o g r a p h i c s , s u c h a s  p e r c e n t o f s t u d e n t s who  the  s h o u l d have s p e c i a l p r o b l e m s i s compared  reported percentage, categorize  model.  services.  for three d i s t r i c t s  used  relations  services varies  of  3)  This procedure  education  one-third  and  students  that  with  r e c e i v i n g such  h i g h o f 100%  (Appendix  theoretical  three students.  some s c h o o l  districts  The  with a  at the elementary  values  native, hearing  the  90.2%  a h i g h o f $ 238.00 per  16.884,  indicators  inconsistent  with  and  and  treatment  education  less  was  highest  Indicators  The  students  districts,  77.67%.  supplies varied  student/teacher  counted  school  w i t h t h e mean e x p e n d i t u r e a t $ 9 0 . 9 1  $ 38.00 p e r  levels  75  school d i s t r i c t  instructional  average  the  of teachers with degrees  per  districts of  Of  students  the  validity  as  special  o f how  some  education  school  students  must  be  questioned.  The  same  district  pattern  on  i s evident  special  when  education  s p e c i f i c a l l y , are examined.  in  the  dollars  total  and  spent  per  materials,  A l a r g e v a r i a n c e e x i s t s w i t h i n the  t o t a l f u n d s s p e n t p e r s t u d e n t as w e l l as f o r m a t e r i a l s i n s p e c i a l education.  The  $120.00 per  total  student  dollar  spent  varies  between  a  low  of  t o a h i g h o f $ 7 3 5 . 0 0 p e r s t u d e n t w i t h a mean  of $239.00; w h i l e s p e c i f i c m a t e r i a l e x p e n d i t u r e s v a r i e d between a  low  of  $2.00 per  $10.73.  It  is  student  obvious  to  from  a high these  of  $53.00 w i t h  expenditure  a  mean  patterns  special education obtains considerably greater funding districts The  than last  Although  the  students through  student/teacher  the  per  exceedingly  They  students over typically The  high  ratios  in  come  a  contact  as  student  A l s o , the r a t i o s  with  Learning  of 152  housed  Assistance  a year than teachers of the m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d ,  who  in self-contained  group  of  treatment  a  25  of  housed  into  such  of  are  number  second  who  excess  t h e a c t u a l number  greater  classrooms.  indicators  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h E n g l i s h as a Second L a n g u a g e . students  teacher  be c r e a t e d by p r o g r a m m e s w h i c h a r e n o t classrooms  their  education.  of l a b e l l i n g  have c o n t a c t w i t h a t e a c h e r .  self-contained  teachers.  are  for special  t e a c h e r m u s t be an a r t i f a c t  t o 1 o r 1 4 1 t o 1 may in  ratio  v a r i o u s c a t e g o r i e s thus i n c r e a s i n g  s t u d e n t s who  i n some  v a r i a b l e d e a l t w i t h p e r s o n n e l and  t h e s m a l l e r r a t i o s b e l o w 25 s t u d e n t s t o o n e  appropriate,  that  others.  treatment  utilization,  of  were  classified  as  E n g l i s h as  were  those  The p e r c e n t a g e a  Second  of  Language  s t u d e n t s v a r i e d f r o m 0% t o 1 1 % o f t h e t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n o f a s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t a n d t h e mean was 1.3%. classified  as E n g l i s h  considerably, a  Second  English  Second  Language  students  approvals.  as a Second because  This  Language  could  students  of immigration  be  the r e s u l t  clustering  patterns.  The  of  i n certain l o w was  a p p r o v a l f o r 411 s t u d e n t s a n d t h e h i g h was o v e r 11,394 per  varied  s o d o e s t h e number o f t o t a l s t u d e n t s p e r E n g l i s h a s  Language  locations  as a  J u s t as t h ep e r c e n t o f students  an  students  approval. The e x p e n d i t u r e o f d o l l a r s p e r E n g l i s h a s a S e c o n d L a n g u a g e  s t u d e n t was r a t h e r  l o w on t h e a v e r a g e .  Although  t h e amount o f  f u n d s e x p e n d e d v a r i e d f r o m $ 3.00 t o $ 7 2 . 0 0 p e r s t u d e n t , t h e m e a n per  school d i s t r i c t The  with  was $  14.95.  i n d i c a t o r o f E n g l i s h as a Second Language which  s t a f f i n g , an E n g l i s h as a Second Language  r a t i o , showed e x t r e m e v a r i a t i o n . and  how t h e E n g l i s h  either would  as a Second  dealt  student/teacher  The d i f f e r e n c e i n p r o g r a m i n g Language  teacher  i s utilized  i n a s e l f - c o n t a i n e d c l a s s r o o m o r as an i t i n e r a n t t e a c h e r c r e a t e such  Outcome  7 outlines the basic descriptive s t a t i s t i c s  outcome v a r i a b l e s  The  i n the student/teacher  ratio.  Indicators  Table  Normality  difference  f o r school  f o r the  districts.  Tests d i s t r i b u t i o n o f e a c h v a r i a b l e was a s s e s s e d  f o r normal  d i s t r i b u t i o n b y t h e s u b p r o g r a m m e UBC FREQ ( K i t a , 1 9 7 5 ) .  Several  e t h n i c and treatment v a r i a b l e s had observed d i s t r i b u t i o n s which were  significantly  distribution  different  (CHIPROB> . 0 5 ) .  than  the  theoretical  normal  -91  TABLE 7 D e s c r i p t i v e S t a t i s t i c s on O u t c o m e V a r i a b l e s Low  High  Mean  Standard Deviation  Reading 4  61. ,3  83. ,0  77. ,1  3.,5  Reading 8  54..5  74..8  67. .6  3.,9  R e a d i n g 12  54..0  75. .0  67, ,0  3..3  Math 4  45. .2  65. .4  57, ,3  3..4  Math 8  39. .3  65, .5  53, .8  4..5  M a t h 12  42..8  73. .0  57, .9  4..8  Science 4  36..3  71. .8  62..3  5..3  Science 8  42,.3  59. .7  53..9  2..8  S c i e n c e 12  41. .7  67. .4  53..3  4,.0  7,.5  19..8  13..7  2..5  values  which  E d . E t h o s 12  The Asian  ethnic  and  variables Second  Aboriginal. associated  Language were  needed  transformation  A l l distributions  with  special  for  education  significantly  the  and  different  were  Afro-  treatment  English  from  normal  as a and  hence r e q u i r e d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i fthe assumption of a d d i t i v i t y of e f f e c t s was t o b e t e n a b l e . skewed,  a  logarithmic normal  S i n c e t h e v a r i a b l e s were  transformation  variables.  The  distribution  preparation  for statistical  product  u s i n g t h e subprogramme the  variables  moment  completed  on the  the data  with  ANALYSES  correlations  PEARSON CORR  associated  test  performed  analysis.  CORRELATIONAL Pearson  was  positively  were  calculated  ( N i e e t a . , 1 9 7 5 ) among a l l  ethnicity,  enrolment,  access,  treatment  and  correlational  outcomes analyses  Ethnicity district  size  (Appendix  are discussed  and E n r o l m e n t .  and  four  European, Afro-Asian  results  Associations  the  school  —  French,  a r e shown i n T a b l e  TABLE 8 Among E t h n i c a n d E n r o l m e n t European  8.  Variables  Afro-Asian  Aboriginal  -10  Afro-Asian  04  -41**  Aboriginal  .19  -62**  Enrolment  -19  -06  *signi ficance ^  -08 40**  ^ .01  -30*  **significance  < . .001  C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s w i l l be r e p o r t e d a s two v a l u e p l a c e s a n d w i t h o u t decimals.  When  the total  Non-English  population  was d i v i d e d  s p e c i f i c e t h n i c g r o u p s c e r t a i n t r e n d s became e v i d e n t settlement  patterns  surprisingly, was  of  among  i n d i c a t o r s of e t h n i c i t y  French European  The  by s e c t i o n .  and A b o r i g i n a l —  Correlations  NOTE:  1).  not  among t h e s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s ,  the settlement  significantly  by  school  i n ethnic  although, not  p a t t e r n of the French  different  into  population  district  size.  F r e n c h a l o n g w i t h E n g l i s h i s one o f t h e f o u n d i n g e t h n i c g r o u p s o f Canada; hence, French probably British  confounded Columbia  ethnicity  as i n d i c a t e d by language  by t h e p r o c e s s  culture.  A  significant  among t h e o t h e r t h r e e e t h n i c g r o u p s . is  relatively  populations  larger  while  of assimilation  i n school  larger i nlarge population centres.  the  d i d emerge  The A b o r i g i n a l p o p u l a t i o n  districts  the Afro-Asian  pattern  into  was  with  population  small i s  student  relatively  The E u r o p e a n p o p u l a t i o n i s  relatively  larger  proportion and  which  have  o f A b o r i g i n a l s nor A f r o - A s i a n s .  English,  ethnic  substantiating analogy  i n communities  groups  tend  the mosaic analogy  of ethnic  to  neither  a  large  Excluding, French  settle  in  clusters  r a t h e r than the a s s i m i l a t i o n  settlement.  Access The  correlation  concomitant and  matrix  variation  material  presented  among t h e a c c e s s  resources  available  i n Table  9 d i s p l a y s the  variables  to school  —  t h e human  districts.  TABLE 9 C o r r e l a t i o n s Among A c c e s s V a r i a b l e s Budget  Training  Experience  Training  -06  Experience  -20  31*  Elem.  -39**  04  09  -31**  23  19  Sec.  Ratio Ratio  expenditure  districts  was  significantly  student/teacher The the  of dollars  associated  t h e amount  supplies.  This  purchasing  power  district  since  < .001  supplies  with  the  i n school elementary  r a t i o and t h e s e c o n d a r y s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r  smaller the student/teacher greater  on s t u d e n t  Ratio  44**  ** s i g n i f i c a n c e ^  * s i g n i f i c a n c e O<^.01  The  Elem.  trend or the  a  r a t i o was  o f money may  was  reflect  compensating amount  of  i n a school  being  spent  economies attitude teacher  of in  ratio.  district,  on  student  scale the  experience  in  school and  q u a l i f i c a t i o n , both high cost f a c t o r s , are n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d expenditures  in  e x p e r i e n c e was  student  p o s i t i v e l y and  gualifications.  The  appeared  between  the  ratios.  The  to  be o b s e r v e d  a  district.  supplies.  only  The  amount  significantly other  elementary  of  related  significant  and  secondary  same p a t t e r n o f s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r at both the elementary  to  teacher  to  teacher  relationship student/teacher  r a t i o s was  and s e c o n d a r y  likely  levels within  Treatment T a b l e 10 p r e s e n t s t h e c o n c o m i t a n t treatment  variables,  education while Second  four  the other  Language  of  which  v a r i a t i o n among t h e e i g h t were  related  f o u r were d e v e l o p e d  from  to  special  E n g l i s h as a  (ESL)programmes.  T A B L E 10 C o r r e l a t i o n s Among T r e a t m e n t V a r i a b l e s Spec. Stud.  Spec. Budget  Spec. Mats.  Spec. Budget  -33*  Spec. Mats.  -47**  36**  Spec. Ratio  84**  -47**  -60**  Spec. Ratio  ESL Stud.  ESL S t u d .  -16  02  19  -04  ESL A p p r o v .  -17  02  08  01  58**  14  -.08  -11  01  -68**  -05  08  20  04  72**  ESL B u d g e t ESL  Ratio  * s i g n i f i c a n c e ^ ( K .01  **significance^  S i m i l a r r e s u l t s appeared and  the  percentage  ESL of  indicators. students  ESL Approv.  in  ESL Budget  K. . 0 0 1  w i t h i n both the s p e c i a l  In  particular,  school  districts  the who  education  greater  the  gualify  for  e i t h e r o f t h e s e programmes t h e fewer r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e t o each student.  As  the percentage  increased  i na d i s t r i c t ,  of  special  the special  education  education  students  student/teacher  ratio  i n c r e a s e d and fewer d o l l a r s p e r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n  student  were  spent  special  on  the special  education materials. per and Also  when  increased,  the fewer  A similar Language increased  in  p e r s t u d e n t were spent  education  student/teacher  special dollars  education per student  t r e n d was o b s e r v e d  variables. a  programmes  or  When s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n f u n d i n g i n c r e a s e d  s t u d e n t , more d o l l a r s the special  education  As  the  district,  on  materials  ratio  was  lower.  student/teacher  ratio  were s p e n t  on m a t e r i a l s .  among t h e E n g l i s h a s a S e c o n d percentage  the  ESL  of  ESL  students  student/teacher  ratio  i n c r e a s e d , t h e number o f s t u d e n t s p e r E S L a p p r o v a l i n c r e a s e d a n d fewer d o l l a r s  p e r ESL s t u d e n t  When E S L f u n d i n g p e r s t u d e n t per  ESL a p p r o v a l  were spent  on t h e ESL programme.  i n c r e a s e d , fewer s t u d e n t s  and t h e ESL s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r  ratio  A l s o , t h e n u m b e r o f s t u d e n t s p e r E S L a p p r o v a l was and  positively  associated with  existed  was  lower.  significantly  t h e ESL s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r  ratio:  t h e more ESL s t u d e n t s p e r a p p r o v a l , t h e more ESL s t u d e n t s p e r ESL teacher.  Apparently,  t h e same  both groups of v a r i a b l e s :  dynamic  was  occurring  within  an i n c r e a s e d s t u d e n t demand f o r f e w e r  r e s o u r c e s a s t h e s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n became l a r g e r  i na d i s t r i c t .  Outcomes Table variables:  11 p r e s e n t s  the correlation  matrix  f o r t h e outcome  average student test scores perd i s t r i c t  grade l e v e l s i nR e a d i n g , M a t h e m a t i c s , S c i e n c e , and ethos,  the percentage  o f Grade  12  students.  over  three  educational  T A B L E 11 C o r r e l a t i o n s Among O u t c o m e V a r i a b l e s  Reading 4  Reading 8  R e a d i n g 12  Hath 4  Hath 8  M a t h 12  Reading 8  58**  Reading  38**  63**  Math 4  57**  67**  65**  Math 8  63**  73**  48**  70**  M a t h 12  26  26  46**  31*  37**  Science 4  48**  52**  40**  52**  43**  24  Science 8  64**  49**  46**  59** .  54**  21  04  11  52**  20  Science  12  12  E d . E t h o s 12  -13 38**  -11  -05 54**  *significance ^( ^  36**  .01  -01 42**  * * s i g n i f icance  Science 4  33* -02 37**  ^  .001  Science 8  Science  12  97  All  outcomes  except  mathematics  12 s c o r e s  and s c i e n c e  s c o r e s , were p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o each M a t h e m a t i c s 12 s c o r e s w e r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h o n l y r e a d i n g mathematics related  4 and 8 s c o r e s ;  to  any  other  science  outcome  12 was  not  variable.  The  12  other. 12, a n d  significantly results  for  m a t h e m a t i c s 12 s c o r e s a n d s c i e n c e 12 s c o r e s may b e a t t r i b u t e d t o one  of three  factors:  1.  t h e e x a m i n a t i o n s may h a v e b e e n c o n s t r u c t e d t o m e a s u r e some c o n s t r u c t o t h e r t h a n t h a t m e a s u r e d b y t h e o t h e r achievement t e s t s measured; or  2.  they were p o o r l y c o n s t r u c t e d and hence d i d n o t p r o v i d e v a l i d measure o f achievement; or  3.  a l l secondary students are reguired to take E n g l i s h / R e a d i n g c o u r s e s u p t o a n d i n c l u d i n g t h e G r a d e 12 level, but not Mathematics or Science. Many high school students take t h e i r l a s t Mathematics or Science c o u r s e d u r i n g Grade 10. H o w e v e r , a l l G r a d e 12 s t u d e n t s were required to write the provincial assessment examinations; therefore, the results on these standardized tests may be an a r t i f a c t of student programming r a t h e r than a measure o f achievement.  Generally, c o r r e l a t i o n sacross examinations arehigh i nspite of the  fact  that  different three  student  year  within  i n each  Apparently, a  school  and  were  given school  the dynamics  district  to  completely  district which  are f a i r l y  over  a  influence  stable  over  time.  and Access  Bivariate enrolment,  analysis  and t h e a c c e s s  percentage  populations the  populations  populations  Ethnicity  The  examinations  period.  achievement student  the  of  of  the  ethnic  variables,  variables i s presented French  and  percentage  were n e g a t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y  percentage  of teachers  who  had d e g r e e s .  student  i n Table  12.  of Aboriginal associated While  with  teachers  98  T A B L E 12 C o r r e l a t i o n s Among E t h n i c , E n r o l m e n t a n d A c c e s s  Variables J  Ethnic/ Enrolment  Access  Variables  Budget  Training  French  -10  -35**  European  -20  -03  Afro-Asian  -29*  25  Aboriginal  19  -28*  Enrolment  -10  48**  * s i g n i f i c a n c e 6^ ^  experience European  was  i t  significant  relationship  between  the  Afro-Asian  student  supplies.  with  teachers  and  Ethnicity  and  04  19  09  22  20  -49**  -06  -20  33*  15  -02  significantly  was  negatively  29*  involving  Student three  of  associated  ethnic less  only group  monies  variable  was  eight  treatment  four  ethnic  treatment The  ethnicity  on  signif-  percentage  of  of  experience  of  ratio.  Treatment  educational  among t h e  appeared spent  P o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n e t h n i c g r o u p s and of  other  the  years  student/teacher  with  significantly  The  variables:  number  secondary  and  enrolment  access the  an  .001  and  ethnicity.  ethnicity  degrees, the  11  45**  Aboriginal  to  Sec. Ratio  **significance ^  with  related  Elem. Ratio  -13  p o s i t i v e l y and  ethnicity,  teachers  Experience  .01  associated  icantly  Variables  were  examined  categories,  variables  are  student  shown  next.  Correlations  enrolment,  in Table  equality  and  the  13.  number o f s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s u n c o v e r e d b e t w e e n and  treatment  was  limited.  Strongest  assocations  between  a  treatment  indicator  and  the  ethnicity  appeared f o r the percentage of of s p e c i a l education school  district.  associated the  with  European  Aboriginal also  Two  the  percentage  population  population  significantly  special  ethnic  was  but  education  was  only other  French  Spec. Budget  05  -13  08  -22  22  -07  01  -01  19  -24  15  12  -32*  03  06  -12  •01  students  ethnicity  54** -01 28*  <  ESL Ratio  .001  the  percentage  of  w h i c h was  positively  r e l a t e d to  and  English  as  a  both  enrolment.  Outcomes  next analyses composition the  ESL ESL Approv . Budget  **significance  was  was  Treatment Variables  "11  -06  variables,  treatment v a r i a b l e which  04  -01  ethnic  smaller  -18  33*  and  in  -06  -06  The  greater  03  10  and  were found  a  -02  06  Ethnicity  that  -08  -16  Afro-Asian  of  -01  Afro-Asian  Language  percentage  -09  -20  Second  was  -21  importance  the  Enrolment  ESL Stud.  14  statistical  while  Spec. Ratio  06  of  to  students:  Spec. Mats.  *significance  in a  V a r i a b l es  -36**  Enrolment  related  implies  T A B L E 13 E n r o l m e n t and  European  Aboriginal  education  related  students  students  significantly  related.  This  Treatment Spec. Stud.  special  negatively  C o r r e l a t i o n s Among E t h n i c ,  were  negatively  education  p o p u l a t i o n c e n t r e s . The  Ethnic/ Enrolment Variables  of  positively  students.  percentage of s p e c i a l  categories  variables  four  examined r e l a t i o n s h i p s between of  school  ethnicity  districts.  v a r i a b l e s , and  The  ten  school  outcomes outcome district  TABLE  14  C o r r e l a t i o n s Among E t h n i c , E n r o l m e n t a n d O u t c o m e  Ethnic/ Enrolment Variables French European  Variables  Outcome V a r i a b l e s :  Reading 4 -01 56**  Reading 8  R e a d i n g 12  Math 4  Math 8  M a t h 12  Science  01  05  01  05  06  -03  61**  56**  55**  51**  29*  47**  07  11  12  09  Afro-Asian  -01  -05  -06  Aboriginal  -64**  -56**  -39**  -50**  -51**  Enrolment  17  25  13  21  35*  * s i g n i f i c a n c e b(  .01  -22 26  * * s i g n i ' f i c a n c e 0<^  4  11 55** -17  -48**  -39**  23  <^  Science  -03  .001  8 '  Science -05 -10 -18 15 -05  12  E d . Etihos 12 -16 50** -09 -45** 18  101 enrolment  were  correlation A  and  the  percentage  of  o u t c o m e s was  of  input  coefficients  definite  groups  was  the  appeared  Europeans  in  and  a  of  district  scorces,  of  As  two  school  10%  strong.  and the  Pearson  14.  association  f o r a l l outcomes except  25%  the  The  extremely  and  obtain  between  p r e d i c t e d between  graduates.  to  in Table  outcome measures.  significant  achievement  shown  pattern  positive  Europeans  variables  36%  of  student  12; the  proportion variance  in  validity  Grade of  other  seven  outcome  was  considered.  significant  with  Mathematics Access  and  The  and  among  relationship  outcome  was  variables  negative  except  and  Grade  12  matrix the  shown  five  in  access  Table  15  variables  presents and  the  the  eight  variables. with  previous  variables,  both  percentage  o f ESL  variance.  The  significantly five  o b s e r v e d when t h e A b o r i g i n a l  Treatment  relationships  As  with  Science.  correlation  treatment  The  a l l  12  measures.  E x a c t l y t h e o p p o s i t e t r e n d was group  in  Science  12 t e s t s c o r e s m u s t b e q u e s t i o n e d s i n c e i t d i d n o t c o r r e l a t e the  the  relationship  variance  p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d , the  ethnic  between and  The  Science  the  the  analysis  percentage  ratios  access  student/teacher  of  included  special  of  special  education  education  negatively associated with  variables: ratio;  treatment  s i g n i f i c a n t l y e x p l a i n e d t h e amount  percentage and  which  and  teacher secondary  In o t h e r words, as the p e r c e n t a g e  the  experience;  students three of  and of was the  elementary  student/teacher  of s p e c i a l education  ratio. students  102  T A B L E 15 C o r r e l a t i o n s Among A c c e s s a n d T r e a t m e n t Treatment Variables  Variables  Spec. Stud.  Spec. Budget  21  02  -11  09  Training  -23  -04  13  -04  Experience  -40**  -07  15  -15  Elem.  _44**  -02  11  -30*  -05  -05  Budget  Sec.  Ratio Ratio  Spec. Mats.  Spec. Ratio  ESL Stud.  ESL Approv.  ESL Budget  ESL Ratio  -21  -19  20  -21  17  -21  28  -07  14  -09  03  -31*  21  23  -29**  13  -06  30*  27  -23  19  * s i g n i f i c a n c e K ^ .01  in  a school d i s t r i c t  elementary  29*  **signi ficance  and s e c o n d a r y  when t h e p e r c e n t a g e  increased, the percentage and t h e s e c o n d a r y  The o n l y o t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t access between  and  treatment  the elementary  ratio  of teachers  student/teacher  with  ratio  r e l a t i o n s h i p uncovered  variables  was  and  o f ESL  As t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f ESL  the negative  student/teacher  ratio  degrees  increased. between t h e  and  amount p e r s t u d e n t s p e n t on ESL programmes i n s c h o o l  Access  a t both  levels.  s t u d e n t s i n a d i s t r i c t was c o n s i d e r e d .  increased  < .ooi  as d i d t h e s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r  A d i f f e r e n t t r e n d was o b s e r v e d  students  U  i n c r e a s e d , t h e number o f y e a r s o f t e a c h e r  experience decreased the  Variables  association the  dollar  districts.  Outcome  Covariation  between  p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 16.  access  and  outcome  variables  In essence, d i d the observed  i s  variance i n  the f i v e access v a r i a b l e s correspond to the observed variance i n  T A B L E ' 16 C o r r e l a t i o n s Among A c c e s s a n d O u t c o m e V a r i a b l e s  Outcome V a r i a b l e s  Access Reading 4  Reading 8  Budget  02  -27*  Training  13  27  Experience  50**  Elem. Ratio Sec.  Ratio  R e a d i n g 12  Hath 8  M a t h 12  Science 4  Science 8  S c i e n c e 12  E d . E t h o s 12  -37**  -34*  -31*  -29*  -09  -01  -25  15  18  17  11  27*  07  -02  21  56**  32*  57**  58*  18  53**  35**  -12  62**  -01  20  25  20  14  12  24  -07  -05  -04  14  22  17  29*  19  05  30*  -02  -09  -03  *significance  -26  Hath 4  .01  significance  .001  104  the  t e n outcome v a r i a b l e s ? Two  the  significant  outcome  associated  the  less  variables with  materials:  t r e n d s were o b s e r v e d :  the  amount  the scores  spent  on  one h a l f o f  and  negatively  significantly  dollar  the higher money  were  first,  per  on t h e s e  supplies.  student  spent  achievement  Secondly,  on  tests,  except  for  M a t h e m a t i c s 12 a n d S c i e n c e 12 s c o r e s , a l l o u t c o m e v a r i a b l e s w e r e significantly experience. from  and  positively  This particular  associated  teacher  r e l a t i o n was s t r o n g i n a c c o u n t i n g  1 0 % t o 38% o f t h e c o n c o m i t a n t  analysis,  with  variance.  At this  stage of  i t w o u l d seem t h a t t h e amount o f t e a c h e r e x p e r i e n c e i s  d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o h i g h e r a c h i e v e m e n t s c o r e s and t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f G r a d e 12 g r a d u a t e s outcome  variables,  i n school d i s t r i c t s .  Mathematics  4 scores  Finally,  two  and S c i e n c e  4 scores,  were p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e student/teacher  ratio.  This  result  d o e s n o t seem  secondary  to have  o b v i o u s e d u c a t i o n a l r a t i o n a l e a n d may b e a s t a t i s t i c a l Treatment The variables  and  outcomes  of  special  are presented.  artifact.  on  the  treatment  and  outcome  17, where r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n t h e education  Nearly  programmes  and  a l l significant  student  correlations  a n d o u t c o m e v a r i a b l e s w e r e n e g a t i v e ; o n l y two  variables  relationship special  matrix  i s shown i n T a b l e  between treatment treatment  an  Outcome  correlation  implementation  other  with  seemed  to  t h e outcome  education  some  variables. was  substance The  strongly  in  their  percentage  of  and  negatively  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h seven o f t h e t e n outcome v a r i a b l e s .  Once a g a i n  the a s s o c i a t i o n s with  students  have  the Mathematics  12 a n d S c i e n c e  12  scores  TABLE  17  C o r r e l a t i o n s Among T r e a t m e n t a n d O u t c o m e V a r i a b l e s  Treatment Variables  Outcome V a r i a b l e s Reading 4  Spec. Stud.  -28*  Spec. Budget  Reading 8  R e a d i n g 12  Math 4  Math 8  -49**  -42**  -48**  -47**  -03  12  08  10  09  Spec. Mats.  09  20  35*  19  23  Spec. R a t i o  -07  -26  -32*  -28*  -27*  ESL S t u d .  -10  -12  -07  -16  ESL A p p r o v .  02  11  19  ESL B u d g e t  09  -02  ESL R a t i o  -14  -06  *signi'f icance  Math  Science 4  Science 8  S c i e n c e 12  Ed. Ethos  -34*  -01  09  01  -02  -06  -03  -05  11  08  07  -08  14  -06  -12  12  02  -15  -01  09  10  -09  -16  -02  04  05  -01  07  05  -13  05  -07  01  06  03  -21  12  06  07  06  -07  -21  02  27  -13  -13  -08  .01  -18  12  significance  .001  -30*  12  106  were  not  significant.  Special  education  student/teacher  r a t i o was n e g a t i v e l y a n d s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o t h r e e  outcome  variables:  8.  The  materials  was  dollar  Reading  amount  12, Mathematics  spent  on  s i g n i f i c a n t l y associated  4 and M a t h e m a t i c s  special  education  w i t h R e a d i n g 12 s c o r e s b u t t h e d o l l a r  a m o u n t s p e n t p e r s t u d e n t o n s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n p r o v e d t o h a v e no significant association with the  English  related  as a Second  t h e outcome measures.  Language v a r i a b l e s  was  Not one o f  significantly  t o outcomes.  FACTOR The  correlation  ANALYSIS  coefficient  matrixes  for ethnicity,  a c c e s s , t r e a t m e n t and achievement outcomes were f a c t o r a n a l y z e d for  underlying  components  or  structures  s u b p r o g r a m m e FACTOR ( N i e e t a l . , 1 9 7 5 ) discussed  under  the appropriate  .  by  utilizing  Each f a c t o r a n a l y s i s i s  heading  i n the  following  sections. Ethnicity The  Factor first  factor  analysis  included  v a r i a b l e s -- E u r o p e a n ; F r e n c h ; A f r o - A s i a n the  intent of detecting  parsimonious  a pattern  arrangement  of  the  ethnic  a n d A b o r i g i n a l -- w i t h  which would  the  four  ethnic  i n d i c a t e a more data.  A l l four  v a r i a b l e s w e r e e n t e r e d w i t h o u t s p e c i f y i n g t h e number o f f a c t o r s to  be  extracted. A  statistical  criterion  often  used  for  factor  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s t h a t t h e e i g e n v a l u e b e 1.0 o r g r e a t e r .  Using  t h i s c r i t e r i o n , a n a n a l y s i s o f T a b l e 18 i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e f o u r  107  T A B L E 18 P r i n c i p a l Components o f E t h n i c  Ethnic Variables  Estimate o f Communality  Factor  Variables  Eigenvalue  Percent o f Variance  Cumulated Percent  European  .5902  1  1.7596  44.0  44.0  French  .0430  2  1.1016  27.5  71.5  Afro-Asian  .3541  3  .9191  23.0  94.5  Aboriginal  .5244  4  .2198  5.5  100.0  Note:  more t h a n 2 5 i t e r a t i o n s  ethnic  variables  required.  would  yield  v a r i a n c e o f 94.5 p e r c e n t .  three  factors  with  a  S i n c e t h e r e were o n l y f o u r  cumulative variables  w i t h t h r e e f a c t o r s , e a c h o f t h e f o u r e t h n i c v a r i a b l e s was u s e d a s an  exogenous  Access  input  variable  f o r the path  analyses.  Factors  The s e c o n d f a c t o r a n a l y s i s i n v o l v e d t h e f i v e v a r i a b l e s u s e d as  access  indicators:  the d o l l a r  amount  spent  on s u p p l i e s p e r  s t u d e n t ; p e r c e n t o f t e a c h e r s w i t h d e g r e e s ; mean n u m b e r o f y e a r s experience  of teachers;  secondary  student/teacher  components  analysis  In  Table  variance factor  elementary ratio.  a r e shown  a  two-factor  scores, a two-factor  Results  i n Table  19, t h e e i g e n v a l u e s  indicated  student/teacher the  and  principal  19.  and t h e p e r c e n t solution.  solution with  r o t a t i o n was s p e c i f i e d . T a b l e s  of  ratio;  of explained  Thus,  a varimax  20 a n d 21 p r e s e n t  to  obtain  orthogonal  the r e s u l t s of  1Q8 T A B L E 19 P r i n c i p a l Components o f Access V a r i a b l e s Access Variable  Estimate of Communality  Budget  .1946  1  1.9366  38.7  38.7  Training  .1320  2  1.1704  23.4  62.1  Experience  .1325  3  .7806  15.6  77.8  Elem. Ratio  .2688  4  .6024  12.0  89.8  Sec.  .2640  5  .5100  10.2  100.0  Ratio  Note:  Factor  Eigenvalue  Percent o f Variance  Cumulative Variance  more t h a n 25 i t e r a t i o n s r e q u i r e d .  this  procedure.  TABLE 20 P r i n c i p a l C o m p o n e n t Two F a c t o r S o l u t i o n : Access Variables  Estimate o f Communality  Budget  . 2687  1  1.3544  70.3  70.3  Training  .4136  2  .5720  29.7  100.0  Experience  .2432  Elem. R a t i o  .0691  Sec.  .3918  Ratio  A  study  reflected emphasized  a  of  factor  student/teacher a  T h e r e f o r e , two labelled  the  Factor  Access Variables  teacher  Eigenvalue  loadings ratio  Percent o f Variance  indicated  weighting  characteristics  Cumulative Percentage  that while  weighting  Factor  1  Factor  2  (Table  a c c e s s f a c t o r s were used i n the p a t h a n a l y s i s  student/teacher  characteristics  (Factor  2).  ratios  (Factor  1)  and  21). and  teacher  109  T A B L E 21 Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix S o l u t i o n :  Access Variables  Access Variables  Factor 1  Factor 2  Budget  -.5035  -.1233  Training  .0445  .6416  Experience  .1481  .4703  Elem.  .7804  -.0071  .5582  .2831  Ratio  Sec. Ratio  Treatment The  Factors next group of v a r i a b l e s  variables analysis  associated did  Results  not  appear  with  specify in  Table  f a c t o r a n a l y z e d were the  e q u a l i t y .of the  treatment.  number o f  factors  t o be  The  initial  extracted.  22.  T A B L E 22 Pr i n c i p a l Components o f T r e a t m e n t  Variables  Treatment VaViables  Estimate of Communality  Spec. Stud.  . 7529  1  3.4138  42.7  42.7  Spec. Budget  .2785  2  2.4614  30.8  73.4  Spec.  Mats.  .4430  3•  .7420  9.3  82.7  Spec.  Ratio  .8063  4  .6162  7.7  90.4  ESL S t u d .  . 5764  5  .4266  5.3  95.8  ESL  Approv.  .8829  6  .1679  2:1  97.9  ESL  Budget  .9180  7  .1218  1.5  00.4  ESL  Ratio  . 7834  8  .0502  0.6  100.0  The factor  first solution  1actor r  stage  Of  (eigen  eight  Eigenvalue  the  factor  values  >  Percentage of Values  analysis 1.0)  among  Cumulative Percentage  indicated the  a  two  treatment  iao.'.' variables obtain  which  factor  Results  accounted scores,  are presented  Examination patterns labelled Education  of  underlying  a  f o r 73.4% two-factor  i n Table  2 ) , and  solution  and  as  show  was  (Factor  input  Thus, t o executed.  24. two  variables.  Language  used  Table  loadings  treatment  E n g l i s h as a Second (Factor  23  the factor the  of the variance.  distinctive These  1 ) , and  indices  were  Special  f o r the  path  analysis. TABLE 23 P r i n c i p a l C o m p o n e n t Two F a c t o r Factor  S o l u t i o n ::  Eigenvalue  Treatment Variables  Percentage of V a r i a n c e  Cumulative Percentage  Treatment Variables  Communality  Spec. Stud.  .6641  1  3.1837  59.5  59.5  Spec. Budget  .2239  2  2.1695  40.5  100.0  Spec.  Mats.  . 3909  Spec. Ratio  . 9990  ESL S t u d .  .5212  ESL  Approv.  .7851  ESL  Budget  .9596  ESL  Ratio  .8095  T A B L E 24 Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix  Solution:  Treatment Variables Factor 2  Treatment Variable  Factor 1  Spec. Stud.  -.0913  .8098  Spec. Budget  .0304  -.4722  Spec.  Mats.  .1187  -.6139  Spec. Ratio  .0660  .9973  ESL S t u d .  .7151  -.0991  ESL  Approv.  .8848  -.0471  ESL  Budget  -.9777  .0610  ESL  Ratio  .8990  -.0352  Ill Outcome  Factors  The  t e n outcome  variables  groups: nine scores r e l a t e d  c o n s i s t e d o f two  distinctive  to academic achievement  tests  and  o n e s c o r e r e l a t e d t o t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f G r a d e 12 g r a d u a t e s . Graduate  indicator  analysis. analyzed  The to  other  obtain  identify possible Table  was  used nine  a  as an o u t c o m e achievement  reduction  index  scores  in variables  underlying constructs.  The  i n the were  as  well  path  factor as  to  R e s u l t s a r e shown i n  25. T A B L E 25 P r i n c i p a l Components o f Outcome V a r i a b l e s (Achievement  Factor  Cumulative X  Outcome Variables  Estimate o f Communality  Reading 4  .5948  1  4.4633  49. .6  49.6  Reading 8  .6833  2  1.0932  12. ,1  61.7  R e a d i n g 12  .6163  3  .9189  10. .2  71.9  Math 4  .6688  4  .7111  7.,9  79.9  Math 8  .6805  5  .5840  6..5  86.3  M a t h 12  . 3235  6  .5060  5..6  92.0  Science 4  .3468  7  .3192  3..5  95.5  Science 8  .5318  8  .2396  2,.7  98.2  S c i e n c e 12  .1466  9  .1648  1..8  100.0  Although  Eigenvalue  Scores)  % o f Variance  t w o e i g e n v a l u e s w e r e g r e a t e r t h a n 1.0  suggesting  a two f a c t o r s o l u t i o n , t h e e x t r e m e e i g e n v a l u e o f t h e f i r s t (4.4633 a c c o u n t i n g factor solution. 1 achieved  f o r 49.6% o f t h e v a r i a n c e ) suggested A t w o f a c t o r s o l u t i o n was a t t e m p t e d :  an e i g e n v a l u e  o f 4.105  accounting  factor a one Factor  f o r 87.7% o f t h e  v a r i a n c e w h i l e F a c t o r 2 had an e i g e n v a l u e o f . 5750 a c c o u n t i n g f o r 12.3%  of the variance.  Therefore,  a one-factor  solution  was  112  executed  to  achievement.  obtain  a  factor  score  Results  are presented  reflecting  i n Tables  26  academic  and  27.  T A B L E 26 P r i n c i p a l Component One F a c t o r S o l u t i o n o f Outcome V a r i a b l e s :  Outcome Varialbes  Estimate o f Communality  Reading 4  .5213  Reading 8  .6789  R e a d i n g 12  .4862  Math 4  .7210  Math 8  .6704  M a t h 12  .1642  Science 4  .3333  Science 8  .4474  S c i e n c e 12  .0006  Factor  Eigenvalue  1  Achievement Scores  % o fVariance  4.0234  100.0  Cumulative %  100.0  T A B L E 27 F a c t o r M a t r i x S o l u t i o n of Outcome V a r i a b l e s : Outcome Variables  Factor 1  Reading 4  . 7220  Reading 8  .8240  R e a d i n g 12  .6973  Math 4  .8491  Math 8  .8188  M a t h 12  .4052  Science 4  .5773  Science 8  .6689  When t h e f a c t o r  loadings of Mathematics  a l l other  achievement  v a l u e s i n t h e one f a c t o r s o l u t i o n the  path  analysis,  the  factor  Scores  -.0249  S c i e n c e 12  are excluded,  Achievement  variables  ( T a b l e 27) .  was  designated  — -a n- d  12  Science  had h i g h  12  loading  For the purpose of Achievement.  113 Summary Factor associated yielded  analyzing with  ethnicity,  mixed r e s u l t s .  possible  for  ethnicity  indicators  constructs  5  i.  Non-English  ii.  French  iii.  European Afro-Asian  v.  Aboriginal 5:  access, shared  treatment limited  summarizes  the  variables  and  outcomes  into factors  was  outcomes.  The  and  variance;  Table  path  Access  i . Enrolment  i . Student/teacher ratio (Factor l )  no  variables  variables  underlying  Treatment i.  Outcomes  Special Education (Factor 2)  the correlation 5)  factors  E n g l i s h as a i . Achievement Second Language (Factor l ) ( F a c t o r 1)  Teacher Characteristics (Factor 2)  (Figure  and  analyses.  and e q u a l i t y i n d i c e s f o r path  28 p r e s e n t s  and  input  Enrolment  E t h n i c i t y , Enrolment  factors  of  treatment  Reduction of variables  ii.  iv.  groups  access,  f o r use i n subsequent  Ethnicity  Figure  only  various  emerged.  Figure selected  the  ii.  analysis.  coefficients  t o be  Graduates  utilized  among t h e  i n the  path  analyses. PATH The Figure  2 with  indirect and  following their  effects,  a summary  sections  ANALYSIS present  coefficients,  path  models  calculation  similar  of direct  t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a more p a r s i m o n i o u s  of the r e s u l t s .  In a l l path  models,  to and  model  the ethnic  T A B L E 28 C o r r e l a t i o n s Among F a c t o r s ENR ACCFAC1 ACCFAC2 TRTFAC1 TRTFAC2 0UTFAC1 EE12 EUROPEAN FRENCH AFRO/ASIAN ABORIGINAL  19 52** 23 -10 27 18 -06 -10 .40** -30*  ACCFAC1  ACCFAC2  TRTFAC1  TRTFAC2  0UTFAC1  11 24 -29* 28* 03 2213 26 -14  22 -01 45** 41** 15 -31* 19 _44**  04 -02 -07 -11 -04 23 -02  -22 -18 -20 -01 -10 11  54** 68** 03 02 -63**  *signficance ENR ACCFAC1 ACCFAC2 TRTFAC1 TRTFAC2 0UTFAC1 EE 12  and V a r i a b l e s  .01  Enrolment Student/Teacher Ratio (Factor l ) T e a c h e r C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( F a c t o r 2) E n g l i s h as a S e c o n d L a n g u a g e ( F a c t o r l ) S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n ( F a c t o r 2) Achievement (Factor l ) Graduates  EE12  EUROPEAN  50** -16 -09 -45**  . .10 -41** -62**  **signficance  .001  FRENCH  04 19  AFRO/ASIAN  -08  115 variable  and e n r o l m e n t  student/teacher each  model  Second  r a t i o and t e a c h e r  with  either  models  were  treatment  Coefficient Figure  6  achievement  model  factors,  f o r each  AND  of  ACHIEVEMENT  presents  with  the path  the  direct  (Ci,j) associated with  are presented  i n Table  to the d i r e c t  outcome  and  significant Special positive  VARIABLE  model  PATHS  f o r Non-English  effect  coefficients  The p a r t i t i o n i n g  the Non-English 29.  English  effects  interactions  indirect  (P6,l)  English  and a c h i e v e m e n t the total  teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  Second  than  the d i r e c t  Language  29)  of teacher  (Cij) into  uncovered  some  N o n - E n g l i s h and  effect  o f -.04 b u t t h e  characteristics  (-.02) a n d S p e c i a l  (.04);  Education  (.02)  a n e f f e c t c o e f f i c i e n t o f -.23 b e t w e e n Non-  and A c h i e v e m e n t .  stronger  (Pi,j)  by adding t h e i n d i r e c t  (Table  had a d i r e c t  influence  out leaving  and  of the t o t a l  Where a p p l i c a b l e ,  among t h e v a r i a b l e s .  as a Second Language  cancelled  —  effects.  indirect  Education  variable,  indices  The p a r t i t i o n i n g o f t h e t o t a l e f f e c t c o e f f i c i e n t direct  as a  graduates.  e f f e c t s c o e f f i c i e n t s have been c a l c u l a t e d effects  English  Values  p r e s e n t e d between each v a r i a b l e . effects  factors,  F o r each e t h n i c  and p e r c e n t a g e  NON-ENGLISH  access  E d u c a t i o n , o r one o f t h e t r e a t m e n t  constructed  scores,  Both  characters, are contained i n  d e p e n d i n g on t h e p a t h m o d e l .  achievement  Path  both  Language and S p e c i a l  factors path  a r e exogeneous.  (.03).  The t o t a l  indirect  and s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r effect With  a  effects  r a t i o proved  of enrolment positive  (.11) o f  on E n g l i s h  effect  t o be as a  coefficient  116  value  o f .19, t h e r e l a t i o n  between e n r o l m e n t and E n g l i s h as a  Second Language became s i g n i f i c a n t . the student  population  In other words, the l a r g e r  i s i n a school d i s t r i c t ,  the greater the  p r o b a b i l i t y o f E n g l i s h as a Second Language programming. other  i n d i r e c t e f f e c t w h i c h had a s t r o n g i n f l u e n c e on t h e e f f e c t  c o e f f i c i e n t between e n r o l m e n t and s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n .11)  was  the influence of student/teacher  Enrolment.  When  within the context and  the  schooling  process  correlated the  of the proportion of Non-English  population  variables —  ( p < .01) :  larger  the  (.07). considered  the enrolment size of a school d i s t r i c t  exogenous  ratio  ( F i g u r e 6 and F i g u r e  Enrolment and Non-English  were p o s i t i v e l y  and  the larger the school d i s t r i c t  proportion  of  the  which  i n f l u e n c e d achievement  Non-English  was c o n c o m i t a n t w i t h t e a c h e r turn  strongly  influenced  (p < . 1 0 ) .  characteristics  achievement Student/Teacher  Enrolment  Teacher  levels  --  significantly population population.  E n r o l m e n t s i z e was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r .10)  (P6,2 = -  was  7) c e r t a i n t r e n d s b e c a m e e v i d e n t . the  The  Also,  ratio  (p <  enrolment  ( p < .01) w h i c h i n (p < . 0 1 ) .  Ratio  Characteristics  r=.32 1 Non-English  12 English as a Second Language  Special  F i g u r e 6.  Education  P a t h a n a l y s i s f o r s t u d e n t s on n o n - E n g l i s h b a c k g r o u n d a n d d i s t r j . c t _ a c h i e v e m e n t  117.  TABLE 29 C a l c u l a t i o n s o f the E f f e c t C o e f f i c i e n t s ( C i j ) f o r S t u d e n t s o f N o n - E n g l i sh B a c k g r o u n d a n d D i s t r i c t A c h i e v e m e n t Effect Coefficient Cij  Direct Effects  Total Indirect  C3,l  P3.1  C4,l  P4.1  C5,l  P5,l .14  +  P6,l -.04  +  C6,l  C7.1  P7.1  .08 +  +  +  .12  [(P6 4)(P4,l)+(P6,3)(P3,l)] [(.0l)+(.04)]  .01  [(P7,3)(P3,1)+(P7,4)(P4,1) (P7,5)(P5,1)+(P7,6)(P6,1)] [(-.03) (.04) (-.02) (.01)]  -.23  +  t  +  +  +  P3,2  =  .23  C4,2  P4,2  =  .49  C5,2  P5.2 .08  +  P6,2 -.07  +  P7,3 .20  +  C7,3  +  +  +  [(P5,4)(P4,'2) + ( P 5 3 ) ( P 3 , 2 ) ] [(.06)+(.05)]  .19  [(P6,3)(P3,2)+(P6,4)(P4,2)] [(-.07) (.03)]  -.11  I  +  [(P7,5)(P5,3)+(P7,6)(P6,3)] [(-.03)+(.05)]  .22  C6,3  P6.3  =  -.29  C5,3  P5,3  =  .22  C7,4  P7,4 .51  + +  [(P7,5).(P5,4) + (P7,6)(P6,4)] [(-.02) (-.0l)]  .48  +  C6,4  P6,4  C5,4  = ' P5,4  C7,5  P7,5  -  -.13  C7,6  P7.6  =  -.16  Ethnicity. significantly Access. and  +  [(P5,4)(P,4,1) (P5,3)(P3,1)] [(.01M-.03)]  C3,2  C6,2  and  -.13  =  +  -.23  Cij Value  Effects  .12  P r o p o r t i o n o f N o n - E n g l i s h was associated  with  only  negatively  achievement.  E n g l i s h a s a S e c o n d L a n g u a g e ( p < . 1 0 ) was  significant  Education  .07  =  (p>.05)  with was  student/teacher negative  and  ratio  while  significant.  positive Special  118  S t u d e n t / t e a c h e r r a t i o was a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t w i t h a c h i e v e m e n t (p < .10):  the  level  larger  of  the  student/teacher  achievement.  characteristics  and  significant  but  achievement  (p <  the  teacher  Treatment.  The  ratio,  paths  treatment  the  greater  between variables  characteristics  the  teacher were  not  were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  .01). Neither  treatment  index  was  associated with  achievement. Summary. district  is  The  proportion  significantly  of  and  negatively  achievement r e s u l t s of students. districts, factors — The  two  h a v e an  this  in  a  related  school to  In l a r g e r student p o p u l a t i o n access  t e a c h e r C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r  ratios.  facators,  i n f l u e n c e on  i s mediated  ESL  and  Special  by  the  E d u c a t i o n , do  achievement.  E n g l i s h as a Second Language \2-  Special Education  3— Student/Teacher Ratio Enrolment r=.32 1  \  1  Non-English ***P  F i g u r e 7.  the  two  treatment  relationship  Non-English  -=.01  Teacher  4 Characteristics  -.23** **P  -= .05  7 Achievement *p  -=.io  P a r s i m o n i o u s path model f o r s t u d e n t s o f n o n - E n g l i s h b a c k g r o u n d and d i s t r i c t achievement  not  119  NON-ENGLISH Path  Coefficient The  those  VARIABLE  i n Figure 8 tested  i n Figure 6 except  coefficients  GRADUATE  PATHS  Values  p a t h model  substituted  AND  that  percentage  f o r achievement given  causal paths  as  in Figure  8  the  of graduates  outcome  are path  T a b l e 30 c o n t a i n s t h e e f f e c t c o e f f i c i e n t s  30 s h o w e d  insignificant  F i g u r e 8.  that  indirect  and d i d n o t i n f l u e n c e  coefficients  from  and Graduates.  Figure  8  is  shown  The (Pij);  (Cij) associated  with  An a n a l y s i s o f  e f f e c t s were s m a l l and  the d i r e c t  effects.  P a t h a n a l y s i s f o r s t u d e n t s o f n o n - E n g l i s h b a c k g r o u n d and d i s t r i c t  Non-English derived  the total  has been  variable.  the outcome v a r i a b l e , p r o p o r t i o n o f g r a d u a t e s . Table  similar to  The p a r s i m o n i o u s i n Figure  9.  graduates  path  model  Non-English  120  p o p u l a t i o n was n o t c o n c o m i t a n t nor  was  teacher  student/teacher  ratio.  characteristics  percentage proportion treatment  of degrees, of  in was  graduates.  factors  with the percentage The  terms  second  of  As  in  the  were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  although  special education  In  words, the e x i s t e n c e of s p e c i a l  other  tended  to vary inversely  access  years  significantly  of graduates; factor,  experience  related  (p<.01)  previous related  to  education  to  analysis, graduates  (P7,6 = -.18) had a n e g a t i v e  with the percentage  and  trend.  programmes  of graduates  in a  school d i s t r i c t .  TABLE 30 Calculations of the Effect Coefficients ( C i j ) for Students on.Non-English Background and D i s t r i c t Graduates' Effect  Coefficient •Cij  Direct Effects  C7,l  P7.1  Total Indirect + +  C7,3 C7,4  .01  +  P7.3 -.03  +  P7,4 .44  +  +  +  Effects  Cij Value  [(P7,3)(P3,2) (P7,4)(P4,1) (P7,5)(P5,1) (P7,6)(P6,1)] [(.00)+(.04)+(-.02)+(.02)]  .04  [(P6,5)(P5,3)+(P7,6)(P6,3)] [(..04)+(.05)]  -.02  [(P7,5)(P5,4) (P7,6)(P6,4)] [(-.02) (-.0l)]  .41  +  +  +  +  C7,5  P7,5  -.16  C7,6  P7,6  -.18  ^ E f f e c t c o e f f i c i e n t s w e r e c a l c u l a t e d o n l y f o r t h o s e p a t h s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e new o u t c o m e v a r i a b l e , G r a d u a t e s . The o t h e r e f f e c t c o e f f i c i e n t s h a d b e e n c a l c u l a t e d i n T a b l e 2 9 .  121  English as a Second I anguaqe  Special  Student/Teacher  Education  -.18  Ratio  Enrolment r=.32*1 j  Teacher  Characteristics  7 Graduates  .44***  Non-English ***p < . o i  F i g u r e 9.  P a r s i m o n i o u s path model f o r s t u d e n t s o f n o n - E n g l i s h b a c k g r o u n d and d i s t r i c t graduates  FRENCH Path  Coefficient  AND  ACHIEVEMENT  factor,  i n F i g u r e 10 c o n s i d e r e d t h e c a u s a l  the s p e c i a l education treatment achievement.  influenced  ratio  As  the d i r e c t  influence of teacher  shown  effects  i n three  (-.05) c o u n t e r a c t e d  the relationship  from  31, i n d i r e c t cases.  direct  ( P 6 , l = .04) c h a n g i n g to negative  The i n d i r e c t e f f e c t s on t h e p a t h b e t w e e n F r e n c h weakened C6,l  the d i r e c t  = .07.  influence  Of p a r t i c u l a r  correspondence  (P4,l =  The  -.11)  indirect  was  between  effect  of  the direction  (C5,l =  -.03).  and achievement  c o n s i d e r a b l y from  importance  effects  (-.02) a n d s t u d e n t / t e a -  the p o s i t i v e  positive  two a c c e s s  f a c t o r and t h e outcome  i n Table  characteristics  s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n on F r e n c h of  PATHS  r e f l e c t i n g the French e t h n i c group, enrolment,  factors,  cher  VARIABLE  Values  The p a t h model p r e s e n t e d paths  *P < . 1 0  **P ^ . 0 5  P 6 , 1 = .16 t o  the strong French  and  negative teacher  122 characteristics effects effect  which counteracted  (P6,l = (.04)  .16).  Finally,  the i n i t i a l  special  positive  education's  indirect  i n c r e a s e d the i n f l u e n c e of student/teacher r a t i o  a c h i e v e m e n t t o .24. T h e r e m a i n i n g e f f e c t c o e f f i c i e n t s relatively  direct  unchanged  from  the  direct  effects  on  ( C i j ) were  coefficients  (Pij) .  Enrolment.  The  "trimmed"  path  the s t r o n g i n f l u e n c e of enrolment size  of  school  district ratio  characteristics  (p  districts,  to have l a r g e r  experienced  tended  <  qualified  (p  <  .01).  (Figure  11)  showed  on t h e a c c e s s v a r i a b l e s .  enrolment  student/teacher  model  was  .10) In  not but  other  only  a predictor  also  words,  The  of larger  of  teacher school  s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r r a t i o s and more  t e a c h e r s on  staff.  The  path  testing  the  123  T A B L E 31 C a l c u l a t i o n s of the E f f e c t C o e f f i c i e n t s ( C i j ) f o r S t u d e n t s o f F r e n c h B a c k g r o u n d and D i s t r i c t A c h i e v e m e n t Effect  Cij  Direct Effects  C3.1  P3.1  .17  C4,l  P4,l  -.22  C5.1  P5,l .04  +  P6.1  +  .16  +  Coefficient  C.6,1  Total Indirect  +  Effects  [(P5,4.)(P4,1) + (P5,3)(P3,1)] [(-.02 M-.05 )] [(P6,5)(P5,1) (P6,4)(P4,1) (P6,3)(P3,1)] [ ( - . 0 1 M - . l l ) ( .03 ) ]  Cij Value  -.03  +  +  .07  C3.2  P3,2  .22  C4.2  P4.2  .48  C5.2 =  P5,2 -.08  C5,3  P5.3  C6,3  P6,3 .20  +  [(P5,4)(P4,2)+(P5,3)(P3,2)] [( ) (-06 )] +  C6,4 =  P6,4 .51 P6,5  -.10 -.29  +  [(P6,5)(P5,3)]  +  [(.04  )1 .07  P5,4  C5,4  C6,5  +  + +  t(P6,5)(P5,4)] [(-.01 )]  .50 -.15  124 relationship  between  enrolment  and  special  education  was  insignificant. Ethnicity.  The o n l y s t r o n g  proportion  of  covariation  with  percentage  French  and  student/teacher ethnic  group  less ratio  special  was  significant.  education  Access.  population  characteristics  qualified tended .17),  was (p <  the .05):  with  this  result  particular  nor t h a t between French  characteristics  supported  the  between a c c e s s and t r e a t m e n t  and  special not  student/teacher education  affiliated  * * * P <C.01 F i g u r e 11.  less  larger French  was  not  French  achievement  student/teacher ratio  (p <  . 0 1 ) , when  t h e o r i z e d model.  The  tested  (p < with  association  was s u b s t a n t i a t e d o n l y i n t h e c a s e  ratios  programmes.  with  large  to  the  o f s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r r a t i o f a c t o r , w h e r e i t was n e g a t i v e Larger  a  Although,  t o be a f f i l i a t e d  the  negative  corresponded  teachers.  Both access v a r i a b l e s ,  teacher  achievement  associated with  F i n a l l y , n e i t h e r path c o e f f i c i e n t between  and  and  the  in a school d i s t r i c t  (P3,l =  significant.  .10)  teacher  of French  experienced  in  relation  were Teacher  the treatment  associated  (p < . 05) .  with  characteristics  fewer were  variable.  * * * P * .05  * P — .10  P a r s i m o n i o u s path model f o r s t u d e n t s o f F r e n c h background and d i s t r i c t a ^ chievement  125  Treatment. was  The  not related Summary.  not  have  an  negatively lowered  to  treatment  variable,  special  education,  achievement.  The p r o p o r t i o n o f F r e n c h i n a s c h o o l d i s t r i c t d i d  effect  on  student  significant achievement  achievement.  with  teacher  results.  The  However,  i t was  characteristics  which  other  access  factor,  s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r r a t i o , was p o s i t i v e l y a n d s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d with  achievement  Education,  results.  h a d no  influence  FRENCH Path  Coefficient In  The  AND  or  VARIABLE  PATHS  the e f f e c t c o e f f i c i e n t s  influence  (Figure  (Cij) f o r the path  12) , t h e i n d i r e c t  o n two p a t h s .  For the path  F r e n c h and g r a d u a t e s , t h e n e g a t i v e d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e was i n c r e a s e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y special  education  student/teacher (C6,2)  from  relation education  graduates. or  teacher  (-.01)  a negative .02)  effects  involving  (P6,l=-.03)  by t h e n e g a t i v e i n d i r e c t e f f e c t s o f  The s t u d e n t  (C6,3 =  characteristics  t o an  effect  teacher  relation because  ratio  (-.10) a n d  coefficient and g r a d u a t e  (P6,3 = -.03) t o a of  the  value  influence  path  positive  of  special  (.05).  French relations  (-.01),  ratio  o f -.15.  changed  Special  Values  calculating  a profound  factor,  achievement.  GRADUATE  m o d e l on F r e n c h and g r a d u a t e s had  treatment  and Graduates.  between French  t h e outcome  F i g u r e 13 s u c c i n c t l y  the various  variables  as  was n o t d i r e c t l y a s s o c i a t e d  measure,  graduates.  The  outlines  they with  strong  related  the to  treatment  influence  of  126  F i g u r e 12.  P a t h a n a l y s i s f o r s t u d e n t s o f F r e n c h b a c k g r o u n d and d i s t r i c t  T A B L E 32 C a l c u l a t i o n s of the E f f e c t C o e f f i c i e n t s ( C i j ) f o r S t u d e n t s o f F r e n c h B a c k g r o u n d and D i s t r i c t G r a d u a t e s  graduates  1  i  Effect  Coefficient C6,2  Direct Effects P6,l  Total Indirect + +  C6,3 C6,4 C6,5  -.03  +  P6,3 -.03  +  P6,4 .44  +  P6,5  +  +  Cij Value  Effects  [(P6,5)(P5,l)+(P6,4)(P4,l) (P6,3)(P3,1)] [(-.0l)+(-.10)+(-.0l)  -.15  [(P6,5)(P5,3)] [(.05)]  .02  [(P6,5)(P5,3)] [(-.01)]  .43 =  -.18  ^ C a l c u l a t i o n s w e r e n e c e s s a r y f o r o n l y t h o s e e f f e c t c o e f f i c i e n t s a f f i l i a t e d wi t h t h e outcome v a r i a b l e b e c a u s e t h e o t h er c o e f f i c i e n t s had been c a l c u l a t e d i n T a b l e 31.  new  127 teacher was  characteristics  mediated  by  the  (p <  .01) on t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f g r a d u a t e s  population  size  of  the  school  district  (p<.01).  Special  -.29*;! Student/Teacher Ratio  .22*  .18  V  Enrolment  r — . 191  * Teacher  .22**  1  Characteristics  A3***  French  Graduates  ***.?/ -<T .01 Figure 13.  **P  Coefficient The  ethnic  *P  .05  ^  .10  P a r s i m o n i o u s p a t h model f o r s t u d e n t s o f F r e n c h b a c k g r o u n d a n d d i s t r i c t uates  EUROPEAN Path  Education  path  AND  ACHIEVEMENT  VARIABLE  grad-  PATHS  Values  model  g r o u p and  shown  in Figure  achievement.  Of  14  involved  a l l path  the  European  models t e s t e d ,  this  2 model accounted f o r the l a r g e s t of  the  effect  effects. and  minor (.02)  education  was the  teacher  ( C i j ) were  direct  negative  ( P 5 , l = -.17)  was  e f f e c t of student/teacher  netted  direct  of  strong  indirect  between  .58)  The  special  negative  coefficients  total variance  positive  an  effect  European  and  relationship further indirect  coefficient  special between  strengthened effects  characteristics  of  and  ( C 6 , l = .70)  and  by  indirect  between  European  by t h e  (-.06) .  teacher to The  indirect  This plus  the  characteristics -.21  f o r the  strong  through the  (P6,l  =  influence  education  student/teacher  path  positive  achievement  special  Three  by  confirmed  education.  created (.07)  effect  equal  European  = 60) .  influenced  ratio  influence  (R  ratio  (.02), (.03).  128 An  interesting  effects path. was  interaction  affiliated  with  The p o s i t i v e completely  the enrolment  influence  ratio  by  (-.05)  (C5,l=-.12)  between  the i n d i r e c t  and s p e c i a l  education  of teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  counteracted  student/teacher coefficient  occurred  equal  the  which  negative  resulted  to the direct  (.05)  effect  in  effect  an  of  effect  coefficient  (P5,2=-.12). Enrolment. ethnicity strong  The  and a c h i e v e m e n t  influence  (p<.01).  No  population  ratio  size  variables,  population  was  (p<.10).  (C5,l)  (C6,l=.70)  in this  between  European  Access.  The a c c e s s  was  The  with  when  achievement  was  effect i n the  and a c h i e v e m e n t  and  the  teacher European  Education effect  coefficient relationship  (p<.001).  had mixed c a u s a l l i n k s Student/teacher  relationship  education but teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s true  yet  of  Special  largest  obtained  variables  and s i g n i f i c a n t  between  and  (p<.05)  proportion  s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n and a c h i e v e m e n t . negative  existed  (P5,l=-.17) and had a t o t a l  of -.21.  ethnicity  variables;  characteristics  (r=-.06)  ratio  significant  study  the access  the  s i z e was s i g n i f i c a n t w i t h t h e  The  p r o g r a m m e s b u t i t was s t r o n g coefficient  illustrated  teacher  size  of d i s t r i c t  not  European  o f t h e E u r o p e a n p o p u l a t i o n was  student/teacher  characteristics  on  and  district  concomitant v a r i a t i o n  again  for  education.  Concentration with  15)  model  relationship  and s p e c i a l  associated  path  size  (p<.10)  significant  Ethnicity.  access  (Figure  of d i s t r i c t  student/teacher  not  parsimonious  (p <  with  r a t i o had a  .05) w i t h  special  d i d n o t . The c o n v e r s e  considered:  student/teacher  was  ratio  129  F i g u r e 14.  Path a n a l y s i s f o r students of European  TABLE  background  and d i s t r i c t  achievement  33  C a l c u l a t i o n s of the E f f e c t C o e f f i c i e n t s ( C i j ) f o r S t u d e n t s o f E u r o p e a n B a c k g r o u n d and D i s t r i c t A c h i e v e m e n t  Effect  Cij  Coefficient  Direct Effects  C3.1  P3,l  .23  C4,l  P4.1  ' .18  C5.1  P5,l -.17  +  P6,l  +  .58  +  C6.1 =  Total Indirect  +  Cij Value  Effects  t(P5,4)(P4,l)+(P5,3)(P3,l)] [(.02 M-.06 )]  -.21  [(P6,5)(P5,1) (P6,4)(P4,1) (P6,3)(P3,1)] [ ( . 0 2 )+(. .07 ) + (.03 ) ] +  .70  C3,2  P3.2  .20  C4,2  P4,2  .53  C5.2 =  P5,2 -.12  +  [ ( P 5 4 ) ( P 4 , 2 ) + (P5,3)'(P3.2)] [(.05 )+(-,05 )] t  C6.3 =  P6,3 .11  C5,4  P5,4  C6,4  P6,4 .36 P6.5  -.12 =  P5,3  C5,3  C6,5  +  + +  [(P6,5)(P5,3)] [(.02 )]  . -.24 .13 .10  +  [(P6,5)(P5,4)]  +  [(-•oi  )]  .35 -.07  130 was  not  significantly  characteristics  were  Treatment.  The  was  positively Access  The  related  factor,  treatment  Coefficient The  path  of  special  European  achievement  teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,  achievement  but  teacher  education,  achievement.  to student  between  population  i n school  is  districts.  increased the strength  the proportions  of Europeans  and  scores.  EUROPEAN Path  achievement,  variable,  proportion  the relationship  student  to  (p < . 0 1 ) .  not associated with  Summary.  of  related  AND  GRADUATE  VARIABLE  PATHS  Values  model  (Figure  proportion of graduates  16)  outlined  f o r European  ethnicity  the tested causal  among E u r o p e a n e t h n i c i t y , e n r o l m e n t ,  and  connections  access variables,  special  131  education As  and  the  shown i n T a b l e  outcome v a r i a b l e , 33,  the d i r e c t  p r o p o r t i o n of  graduates.  coefficients  ( P i j ) were  path  f a i r l y s t a b l e w i t h the t o t a l e f f e c t c o e f f i c i e n t s  (Cij) .  In o n l y  one c a s e d i d t h e i n d i r e c t e f f e c t s show a s u b s t a n t i a l i n f l u e n c e on the  direct  graduates,  effects: the  for  net  the  path  indirect  defined  influence  (.02), t e a c h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  (.07)  of  European  and  Graduates.  ethnicity  identical  to  achievement  that  and  in  14).  the  shown  path  ratio  was  was not  European related  to  ethnicity  education  in  16  was  European  and  (p < .01)  (p < . 0 1 ) .  Figure on  to the  were  graduate  Student/teacher  of graduates path  nor  education  remained  u n c h a n g e d f r o m t h e p a r s i m o n i o u s m o d e l on E u r o p e a n (Figure  other  Path a n a l y s i s f o r s t u d e n t s o f European  background  2  was  coefficients  15).  R  F i g u r e 16.  .50.  between  special  achievement  The  to  characteristics  the percentage  associated.  and  of e f f e c t s  model  Teacher  s i g n i f i c a n t l y and p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d outcome as  special  ( C 6 , 3 ) f r o m .44  pattern  graduates  found  (Figure  The  European  and s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r r a t i o  (-.03) i n c r e a s e d t h e e f f e c t c o e f f i c i e n t European  by  = 40  and d i s t r i c t  graduates  and  132  TABLE  34  C a l c u l a t i o n s of the E f f e c t C o e f f i c i e n t s ( C i j ) f o r S t u d e n t s o f E u r o p e a n B a c k g r o u n d and D i s t r i c t G r a d u a t e s i  Effect  Coefficient Cij  Direct Effects  C6,l  P6.1  Total Indirect + +  C6,3 C6,4  .44  +  P6,3 -.13  +  P6,4 .37  +  +  [(P6,5)(P,5,1) (P6,4)(P4,1) (P6,3)(P3,1)] [(.02)+(.07)+(-.03)] +  [(P6,5)(P5,3)] [(•03)]  .50 =  -.10  [(P6,5)(P5,4)] [(-.01)]  .36 =  P6,5  C6,5  Cij Value  Effects  -.12  ' • C a l c u l a t i o n s w e r e o n l y n e c e s s a r y f o r t h o s e e f f e c t c o e f f i c i e n t s a f f i l i a t e d w i t h t h e new o u t c o m e v a r i a b l e . The o t h e r e f f e c t c o e f f i c i e n t s w e r e i d e n t i c a l t o t h o s e c a l c u l a t e d i n T a b l e 33.  5 Education  Special  ***P < Figure  17.  .01  Parsimonious graduates  **P  < .05  path model f o r s t u d e n t s of European  *P < background  and  .10 district  133 AFRO-ASIAN Path  ACHIEVEMENT  Coefficients  Values  This  presents  section  F i g u r e 18, and  AND  the  The  moderated  or  particular between  effects ratio  total  path  to  a  The  teacher In  effect  and  the =  effects and  and  the  group  and  to  .16.  a  (C5,l  =  .19)  and  as  effects  three (C5,l) was  indirect  considerably along  a  by  with  Second  the the the  Language  (-.01),  ( C 6 , l ) e q u a l t o -.08. the  the  35,  student/teacher  influence,  English  in  achievement,  characteristics  of  Table  Language  by  and  moderated  the  direct  coefficient  Second  (.02)  netted  Indirect  coefficient  a  effects on  the  E n g l i s h as a Second L a n g u a g e ; t e a c h e r  indirectly increased  equal  g i v e s o n l y the  of  value  student/teacher  coefficient  as  This  in  relationship  effect  in  ethnicity  were  shown  Afro-Asian was  teacher  p a t h b e t w e e n e n r o l m e n t and characteristics  of  (.07).  coefficient  more t h a n d o u b l e d  the  level  -.12)  minor  (-.02),  of  English  case  ratio  .07  outlined  listed  as  of  characteristics  (P6,l  indirect  effects, degree  value  student/teacher  total effect  the  significant  (.04).  factor  relations  coefficients  indirect  increased  cases.  of  direct  The  Afro-Asian  increased  causal  PATHS  p a t h model which c o n s i d e r e d A f r o - A s i a n  achievement.  effects.  the  VARIABLE  ratio The  by  the  effect  .02  coefficient  netting  p a r s i m o n i o u s model  s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p a t h s of the  an  by  effect  (Figure  19)  Afro-Asian  achievement.  Enrolment.  The  exogenous v a r i a b l e s ,  e n r o l m e n t and  Afro-  A s i a n , were h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d  ( r = . 40) , s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e p<.  01  level.  Afro-Asian  to  settle  In in  other the  words,  larger  the  school  districts  population of  the  tended  province.  The  134  F i g u r e 18.  Path a n a l y s i s f o r students of A f r o - A s i a n Background  and d i s t r i c t  achievement  TABLE 35 C a l c u l a t i o n s of the E f f e c t C o e f f i c i e n t ( C i j ) f o r S t u d e n t s o f A f r o - A s i a n B a c k g r o u n d and D i s t r i c t Achievement  Effect  Coefficient Cij  Direct Effects  C3,l  P3,l  C4,l  P4,l  C5.1  P5.1 .13  +  P6.1  +  [(P6,5)(P5,1) (P6,4)(P4,1) (P6,3)(P3,1)]  +  [{-.02M-.10 ) + (.07  C6.1  -.12  Total Indirect  Cij Value  Effects  JIZ _ -.02  +  [(P5,4)(P4,1) (P5,3)(P3,1)] [(•02 ) (.04 )] +  .19  +  +  -.08  )]  C3.2  P3.2  .10  C.4,2  P4,2  .53  C5.2  P5.2 .07  C5,3  P5.3  C6,3  P6,3 .30  C5.4  P5.4  C6.4  P6,4 .47  C6.5  P6,5  +  [(P5,4)(P4,2) (P5,3)(P3,2)]  +  [(.07  +  ) (.02 +  .16  )]  . + +  + +  [(P6,5)(P5,3)] [(-.03 ) ]  [(P6,5)(P5,4)] [(-•02 ) ]  =  _  Al .27 .T4"  .45 -.17  - -  135 enrolment  v a r i a b l e was  other v a r i a b l e —  only  teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  student/teacher  ratio  associated  enrolment.  with  Ethnicity. that  only  effect.  the  significantly  nor  English  as  a  associated with (p = < . 1 0 ) .  Second  Neither  Language  student/teacher  A f r o - A s i a n was  the  total  calculated  the  were  The a n a l y s i s o f t h e A f r o - A s i a n p a t h s r e v e a l e d ratio  not r e l a t e d  had  a direct  to teacher  significant  characteristics  or to a c h i e v e m e n t or to E n g l i s h as a Second Language. when  one  effects value  f o r E n g l i s h as  of  the  a  coefficient  Second  However,  Language  (C5,l =  .19)  were  became  important.  .17  Special  Education  Student/Teacher Ratio  r  .17  Enrolment  _.40*f*L  Teacher  Characteristics  1 **P  * * * P < .01 F i g u r e 19.  Achievement  C5J_=_.l?  Afro-Asian  *P  < .05  <  P a r s i m o n i o u s path model f o r s t u d e n t s o f A f r o - A s i a n background achievement  Access.  Both access  variables,  student/teacher  .10 and  district  ratio  and  t e a c h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , were p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o a c h i e v e m e n t (p  <  .01).  student/teacher higher  This ratio  achievement  characteristics  relationship and  better  results.  and  English  The as  implies  a  larger  teachers  yielded  c o v a r i a t i o n between  teacher  qualified  a  Second  that  Language  was  not  136 statistically  significant.  Treatment. treatment  =  negative  variable,  achievement, (P6,5  A  English  b u t i t was  too small  The p r o p o r t i o n  significantly factors,  influenced  relationship district  related  to  student/teacher  positively  a  Second  between Language  t o be p r o v e n  variable  of Afro-Asian  student ratio,  and  population  teacher  i snot  The  access  characteristics  of Afro-Asians  i n a school  achievement.  AND  GRADUATE  VARIABLE  PATHS  Values  graduate  variable  was  in Figure  2 0 , a n d new  substituted  path  as  the  coefficients  outcome  calculated.  total indirect effects modified theeffect coefficient  very, l i t t l e . (C6,3)  influence. Language  (Cij)  Only i n t h e c a s e o f t h e g r a d u a t e s and achievement d i d the t o t a l While  Afro-Asian  teacher  ratio  coefficient  indirect  the indirect  (-.02),  student/teacher effect  and  statistically  achievement.  and  between t h e p r o p o r t i o n  Coefficient The  path  the  s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t and s t r e n g t h e n e d t h e  AFRO-ASIAN  The  as  existed  -.17).  Summary.  Path  association  effects  have  small  an  of English  characteristics  (.01) w e r e  value  effects  they  important  as a (-.01)  Second and  d i d increase the  t o -.18.  and Graduates.  The p a t h  tested  between  Afro-  A s i a n and g r a d u a t e s a l t h o u g h n o t s i g n i f i c a n t had a d i r e c t  effect  value  (C6,l)  ( P 6 , l ) o f -.16 a n d a t o t a l e f f e c t c o e f f i c i e n t  value  137  Figure 20.  Path a n a l y s i s f o rstudents o f A f r o - A s i a n background and d i s t r i c t  of -.18. school  Hence, as t h e A f r o - A s i a n p o p u l a t i o n districts,  the percentage  of graduates  increased  graduates  i n the.  decreased.  T A B L E 36 Calculations of theEffect Coefficients (Cij) for Students o f A f r o - A s i a n Background and D i s t r i c t Graduates Effect  Coefficient Cij  Direct Effects  C6,l  P6,l  Total Indirect  C6,3 C6,4 C6,5  -.16  +  P6,3 .06  +  P6,4 .47  +  P6,5  +  +  '  Cij Value  Effects  [(P6,5)(P5,1)+(P6,4)(P4,1) (P6,3)(P3,1)] [(-.02)+(-.01)+(.0l)]  + +  1  =  -.18  [( P 6 , 5 ) ( P 5 , 3 ) ] [( - 0 3 ) ]  .03  [(P6,5)(P5,4) [(-.02)]  .45 =  -.15  C a l c u l a t i o n s w e r e o n l y n e c e s s a r y f o r t h o s e e f f e c t c o e f f i c i e n t s a f f i l i a t e d w i t h t h e new outcome v a r i a b l e . The o t h e r e f f e c t c o e f f i c i e n t s were i d e n t i c a l t o t h o s e c a l c u l a t e d i n Table 35.  138 One teacher was  o t h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p was characteristics  similar  to  that  found  b e t w e e n g r a d u a t e s and English  as  a  Second  and  the  s u b s t a n t i a t e d i n the path model:  graduates  (p  <  .01).  in previous models.  This  The  result  covariation  s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r r a t i o or g r a d u a t e s  L a n g u a g e was  the A f r o - A s i a n model t e s t e d  not  d i d not  significant.  Generally,  produce s i g n i f i c a n t  • 3 Student/Teacher  and  results.  5 E n g l i s h as a Second Language  -17 ,  Ratio  2 Enrolment  r=.40**V I  Teacher  1 Afro-Asian  Graduates  C i j _=_-.: IJj **P  *P < .10  < .05  P a r s i m o n i o u s path model f o r s t u d e n t s o f A f r o - A s i a n b a c k g r o u n d and d i s t r i c t graduates  ABORIGINAL Path  47*** B  * * * P < .01 Figure 21.  Characteristics  Coefficient The  path  relationships and  indicated  were  ACHIEVEMENT  VARIABLE  PATHS  Values model  among t h e  education  coefficients  AND  shown  Figure  Aboriginal,  achievement direct  (Cij)  in  were  outlined  enrolment, access,  variables.  effects  22  (Pij).  decomposed  into  The The  the  special  coefficients total  direct  and  effects indirect  139  effects  (Table  indicated  3 7 ) . An  several  coefficient.The Aboriginal  analysis  meaningful  negative  and  achievement  was  and  influences  the  effect  between  result that effect  effect  by  between  the  indirect  ratio  (-.01).  These  enrolment  and  special  When t h e  education  each other —  (.04) a n d s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r r a t i o  (-  indirect  i n c r e a s e d the e f f e c t c o e f f i c i e n t t o -.59.  characteristics  was  teacher  (-.04) —  with  t h e e f f e c t c o e f f i c i e n t (C5,2=-.07) e q u a l l e d t h e coefficient  indirect influence  ratio  indirect  reaffirmed  effect (p<.10).  (P5,2=-.07).  One  other  important  was t h e e f f e c t o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n  student/teacher  effect  the  (P6,l=-.50)  reinforced  considered, the i n d i r e c t effects cancelled  direct  on  effects  (-.01),teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  student/teacher  relationship  the  indirect  influences  direct  effects of special education .07)  of  and  achievement the  already  (.03) o n  (P5,2=.15). significant  This direct  140 TABLE 37 Calculation o fthe Effect Coefficients ( C i j ) f o r S t u d e n t s o f A b o r i g i n a l Background and D i s t r i c t Achievement  Effect  Cij  Coefficient  Direct Effects  C3.1  P3.1  -.09  C4,l  P4,l  -.31  C5.1  P5.1 10  +  [(P5,4)(P4,1) (P5,3)(P3,1)]  +  [ ( - . 0 3 )+(.02  P6,l  +  -.50  +  [(P6,5)(P5,1) (P6,4)(P4,1) (P6,3)(P3,1)] [(-.01) (-.07 ) (-.01)]  C6,l  C3,2  P3,2  C4.2  P4.2  C5,2  P5,2 -.07  Total Indirect  +  +  +  .43 [(P5,4)(P4,2) (P5,3)(P3,2)] [(.04 )+( -.04 ) ]  +  +  +  +  [(P6,5)(P5,3)]  .15  +  [(.03  C6.5  P6.5  Enrolment.  The  +  Pearson  model  was  statistical  shown  The  (p < .01) .  student/teacher  ratio  and  or  Values  was  in  with  was  characteristics  achievement  .20  Correlation  significant  Figure districts  only enrolment  significance  Ethnicity.  Product  Aboriginal  associated  student enrolments.  .10  =  negative population  .18  )]  [(P6,5)(P5,4)] [(-.01 ) ]  +  and  the  -.27  =  between enrolment in  -.07 =  P6,3  P6,4 .21  .16  =  C6,3  C6,4  -.59  +  P5,3  P5,4  .09  )]  C5,3  C5.4  Cij Value  Effects  the  22.  -.12  (r  (p <  The  which  =  -30)  .01)  and  Aboriginal had  smaller  r e l a t i o n s h i p which  path  considering  teacher  No c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n e n r o l m e n t special  e d u c a t i o n was  apparent.  for paths  between both  the access  v a r i a b l e s and e t h n i c i t y p r o v e d s i g n i f i c a n t  n e g a t i v e . In e s s e n c e ,  less  qualified  had  and  and  (p<.01)  t e a c h e r s worked  with  141 Aboriginal  populations  significantly Aboriginal  lower  with  Access.  related  characteristics,  I t should  out of  at  student/teacher  ratio  Treatment. isolated  from  significance  were  populations with  large  indicator  or s p e c i a l  the  and  p<.10 that  variable,  and  r a t i o and  significantly p<.05  levels,  student/teacher special  because  no  not  education.  student/teacher  positively  model  was  ratio  education, path  had  connected  to the model.  O n c e a g a i n t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n v a r i a b l e was  the rest with  Summary.  ratio  be n o t e d  the causal  scores  Aboriginal  were  t h e r e f o r e the treatment  dropped  achievement  variables,  achievement,  respectively. and  The  student/teacher  The a c c e s s  to  the  f o rschool d i s t r i c t  populations.  associated  teacher  and  The  negatively related  o f the model  the achievement proportion to student  of  having  no c a u s a l  link  of  variable. Aboriginal  population  achievement i n a school  is  district.  T h i s n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p i s f u r t h e r i n f l u e n c e d by t h e n e g a t i v e and  significant  Aboriginal  relationship  population  and  between the  the  access  proportion  factor,  of  teacher  characteristics.  -.27**  Special  3 Student/Teacher Ratio  5 Education  —  2  Enrolment  .43*** Teacher  1 Aboriginal. ***P Figure 23.  < .01  4 Characteristics  •21*\ ———3  -.50*** * * P K .05  P a r s i m o n i o u s path model f o r s t u d e n t s o f A b o r i g i n a l achievement  6 Achievement  \  * P < .10 background and d i s t r i c t  142  A B O R I G I N A L AND Path  Coefficient The  path  coefficients of  values  model  in a  listed  shown  indirect  were d i r e c t  i n Figure  district. effects;  o f -.10 i n t h e n e t v a l u e  (C6,l).  The  greatest  indirect  (-.09).  and l e s s  experienced  education  path  percentage  the c o e f f i c i e n t  the i n d i r e c t  effects  are  were i n f l u e n c e d by  and v a l u e  of the path  of the effect  influence  Aboriginal  their a b i l i t y to graduate. special  the  a n d g r a d u a t e s was s t r e n g t h e n e d b y a n  increase  of  tested  Again,  The d i r e c t i o n  coefficient for Aboriginal  qualified  24  Two e f f e c t c o e f f i c i e n t s  effects.  characteristics  PATHS  w i t h t h e outcome v a r i a b l e ,  school  g i v e n i nT a b l e 38. the  VARIABLE  Values  affiliated  graduates  GRADUATE  came  coefficient from  populations  had  t e a c h e r s , and t h i s  Also, the positive moderated  the  teacher less  influenced  indirect  influence  effect between  s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r r a t i o and t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f g r a d u a t e s from P 6 , l = -.10 t o C6,3 = - . 0 5 . Aboriginal causal model  and Graduates.  significance  The o n l y p a t h s w h i c h  with Aboriginal  i n the parsimonious  ( F i g u r e 26) w e r e t e a c h e r c h a r a c t e r - i s t i c s  percentage  of  graduates  (p  retained  <  path  (p < . 0 5 ) a n d  .01). Although  the  s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r r a t i o w a s n e g a t i v e l y a n d s i g n i f i c a n t l y (p < . 0 5 ) associated  with  relationship  special  education  which  ( P 6 , 5 = .17) w i t h g r a d u a t e s ,  had  a  t h e c a u s a l p a t h was  b r o k e n b e c a u s e s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r r a t i o was n o t r e l a t e d exogeneous  variable  i n the model.  positive  to either  1.43  Path a n a l y s i s  for students of Aboriginal  TABLE  b a c k g r o u n d and d i s t r i c t  graduates  38  Calculations of the E f f e c t C o e f f i c i e n t s ( C i j ) f o r S t u d e n t s o f A b o r i g i n a l B a c k g r o u n d and D i s t r i c t G r a d u a t e s ! Effect  Coefficient Cij  Direct Effects  C6,l  P6.1  Total + +  C6,3 C6,4 C6.5  -.32  +  P6,3 -.10  +  P6,4 .28  +  P6,5  +  +  Indirect  Effects  Cij Value  [(P6,5)(P5,l) (P6,4)(P4,l) (P6,3)(P3,1)] [(-.02)+(-.09)+(.0l)]  -.42  [(P6,5)(P5,3)] [(•05)]  -.05  +  [(P6,5)(P5,4) [(--02)]  .26 -.17  C a l c u l a t i o n s w e r e o n l y n e c e s s a r y f o r t h o s e e f f e c t c o e f f i c i e n t s a f f i l i a t e d w i t h t h e new outcome v a r i a b l e . The e f f e c t c o e f f i c i e n t s were i d e n t i c a l t o t h o s e o t h e r s c a l c u l a t e d i n T a b l e 37.  144  -.27*;!  Special  Education  Student/Teacher Ratio -.17 .30  Enrolment  ^  Teacher  -.30***.  1 Aboriginal  .28** Graduates  -.32***  *P < . 1 0  **P < .05  * * * P K .01 Figure 25.  Characteristics  P a r s i m o n i o u s path model f o r s t u d e n t s o f A b o r i g i n a l graduates  background and d i s t r i c t  SUMMARY The for  study  results  Non-English  indicated  ethnicity  and  t h a t the path model  achievement outcome a c c o u n t s  35% of the v a r i a n c e w h i l e the s i m i l a r of  graduates  accounts  for  developed  22%  of  path model  the  for  variance.  percentage Non-English  p o p u l a t i o n s s e t t l e d i n l a r g e r s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s and l a r g e r districts  had  While  the  Non-English  tests  than  did  better  the  trained  and  population  more scored  experienced lower  E n g l i s h p o p u l a t i o n , the  w e r e a f f e c t e d b y t h e two  access  on  school  teachers. achievement  achievement  factors, higher  for  scores  student/teacher  r a t i o s and b e t t e r t r a i n e d and more e x p e r i e n c e d t e a c h e r s .  Also,  h i g h e r s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r r a t i o s e x i s t e d where E n g l i s h as a Second L a n g u a g e P r o g r a m m i n g was  i n c r e a s e d w h i l e lower  student/teacher  145 ratios  were  usually  associated  education  programming.  increased  the  with  Finally,  percentage  of  an  as  increase  teacher  graduates  in  special  characteristics  also  increased  in  a  district. When t h e p a t h s a f f i l i a t e d w i t h t h e F r e n c h e t h n i c g r o u p w e r e tested,  the  amount  of  variance  F r e n c h / A c h i e v e m e n t model and and  22%,  school  respectively. districts  was  accounted  for  the French/Graduate  Once a g a i n , associated  in  m o d e l was  increased enrolment  with  higher  of French  32%  among  student/teacher  r a t i o s and b e t t e r t r a i n e d and more e x p e r i e n c e d t e a c h e r s . proportion  the  population increased in school  As  the  districts,  t h e t r a i n i n g and e x p e r i e n c e o f t e a c h e r s d e c r e a s e d .  Conversely,  b e t t e r t r a i n e d and more e x p e r i e n c e d  achievement  scores. with  The  the  i n c r e a s e d a c h i e v e m e n t s c o r e s were a l s o a s s o c i a t e d  higher  relationship outcome the  between  graduates.  model  student/teacher The  student/teacher  existed  index,  French  was  the  ratio  European  path  achievement  40%  variance,  within  the  this  model  ratios.  teacher  The  special  models and  same  positive  characteristics  education  affiliated  path  between  the  accounted  Higher  two  significant E u r o p e a n s was  The  relative  i n four of the  for  student  with  an  60%  A  the  larger  and  enrolment increased teacher  p r o p o r t i o n of Europeans proved five paths.  in  outcome  s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r r a t i o and a more e x p e r i e n c e d , q u a l i f i e d population.  the  programming.  tested  graduates,  and  significant  correspondence  which  respectively. was  The  only other  negative  and  variables, of  teachers raised  to  be  proportion  of  associated with larger student/teacher ratios  and  146 more  experienced,  European  qualified  presence  in  school  with  scores  increased percentage  outcome  variables  qualified er  outcome v a r i a b l e s :  were  teachers.  ratio,  both  The  increased  progammes  an  was  significantly  increased  of graduates. related  to  as  achievement  Further,  more  other access v a r i a b l e , significantly  increased  these  experienced, student/teach-  special  education  decreased.  The  Afro-Asian  o u t c o m e and  graduate  path  models,  testing  outcome, accounted  v a r i a n c e , r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h i s m o d e l was The  Also,  districts  associated and  both  teachers.  proportion of Afro-Asians  the  f o r 30%  achievement  and  22%  of  the weakest i n the  in school d i s t r i c t s  study.  increased in  l a r g e r s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n c e n t r e s w h i c h had b e t t e r q u a l i f i e d more e x p e r i e n c e d Asians  increased  student/teacher better  teachers.  student/teacher  larger  ratios  population  increased.  experienced  ratios  were  Both  centres,  access  teachers  affiliated  achievement scores i n a d i s t r i c t . c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , was  and  A l s o , s i n c e the p r o p o r t i o n of A f r o -  with  qualified,  the  the  factors,  and  larger  with  increased  The a c c e s s v a r i a b l e ,  teacher  s t r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e d with the percentage  of  graduates. The  final  two  models  depicting  Aboriginal  outcome v a r i a b l e s , a c h i e v e m e n t and g r a d u a t e s , and  29%  of  population negatively  the  total  was  the  variance,  only  associated  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f a c t o r was corresponding  with  accounted  respectively.  e t h n i c group  to  enrolment.  be  and  The  the for  the  between  Aboriginal  and  and  teacher  a f f i l i a t e d with larger d i s t r i c t s ,  relationship  47%  Aboriginal  significantly Since  two  the  teacher  147 characteristics  was  negative.  The  Aboriginal  associated with less q u a l i f i e d experienced  population  teachers.  Further,  a n i n c r e a s e d p r o p o r t i o n o f A b o r i g i n a l s was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h achievement increased  scores  through  student/teacher teachers. the  The  outcome  existed  of  a  a l l the  better  qualified,  The  variable,  factor only  analyses  were  negatively  and  special  population  was  significantly  variable.  In  and  negatively Also,  achievement  and  were  positively  and  The  school  ratio,  was  related  a  trends,  proportion  district  was  district.  positively  and  achievement, but to  access  the  treatment  factor,  and p o s i t i v e l y  teacher  populations.  and  was  teacher  related  to  t h e a c h i e v e m e n t f a c t o r and t h e g r a d u a t e  Aboriginal  European  for  of the school  The second  addition,  significantly  which  education,  compared  in a  significantly  outcome v a r i a b l e s ,  influenced  relationship  t o t h e outcome f a c t o r ,  education.  higher  experienced  also  occurred.  student/teacher  related  was  ratio.  to the student population size factor,  variables,  special  consistently  ethnic  characteristics, both  path  relationships  access  factor,  access  graduates.  lower  Achievement  of both  characteristic  the treatment  significantly was  and  teacher  particular  related The  ratio  graduates.  i n the student/teacher  When certain  fewer  the e f f e c t s  variable,  with  decrease  and  was  graduates,  Aboriginal  related both  to  the  outcome  significantly  populations,  i n the l a t t e r  characteristics  case  in  negatively.  French  and  variables,  related  the  were  former  to the case  148 Chapter SUMMARY, This 1)  chapter  a summary  CONCLUSION  has f i v e  V AND I M P L I C A T I O N S  sections:  o f the problem  and  procedures;  2) a n o u t l i n e o f t h e s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s a n d c o n c l u s i o n s ; 3)  a presentation  of policy  i m p l i c a t i o n s o f the study;  4)  a discussion of the limitations  5)  an o u t l i n e o f i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r  o f the study;  and  research.  SUMMARY Problems and procedures the  research  framework Research  problem,  a r e summarized  the literature  and t h e i n v e s t i g a t i v e  i n four  review,  the conceptual  procedures.  Problem The  purpose  of this  study  was  to determine the  r e l a t i o n s h i p s among e t h n i c i t y a n d t h e t h r e e c o n c e p t s of  sections:  educational  districts.  In  opportunity order  to  in  assess  British these  ofe g u a l i t y  Columbia  relationships,  school three  c o n s t r u c t s o f e q u a l i t y o f e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y were d e f i n e d : eguality  of access,  outcomes. variations  These in  equality  concepts school  seem  of  treatment  t o be  and e g u a l i t y o f  related  district  populations  of ethnic  groups;  to the ethnic along  dimensions: 1.  the distribution  2.  the d i s t r i b u t i o n of resources districts i n p r o v i d i n g simple  3.  the distribution of specialized treatment through a d d i t i o n a l resource requirements in meeting s p e c i a l student needs;  4.  the d i s t r i b u t i o n of student achievement r e s u l t s among s c h o o l districts.  among s c h o o l access;  four  149 Three to  categories  investigate  and  subsidiary  3.  four supplementary questions ships within each concept indicators.  indicators This  theoretical  within  The  this  production  organized treatment  into  model  were  function  four  major  and outcomes.  Access  and s t a f f g u a l i t y was  into  instructional  indicators,  indicators.  developed  the designated  theoretical  model  production  or exogeneous demographic  from  the analysis  variables  f o r each  of con-  analyzed.  and  category,  variables  and  process their  developed  function  factors  Access  schooling  districts  in  variables  Model  typical  influence.  access,  model  and  used  was  classified  indicators  Theoretical  Inputs  review  ethnicity,  literature  struct  i d e n t i f i e d meaningful  previously  further  A  addressed the r e l a t i o n and their affiliated  Review  l i t e r a t u r e reviewed  financial  last  model,  s i x subsidiary research questions addressed the relationships among t h e c o n c e p t s a n d t h e i r associa t e d i n d i c a t o r s ; and  was  the  research  developed  2.  sections:  were  dimensions:  were  r e s e a r c h model questions assessed the interaction among e t h n i c i t y , e n r o l m e n t , t r e a t m e n t a n d o u t c o m e s ;  research.  the  questions  1.  The  the  research  supplementary.  Literature  or  these  of  —  model  were  were measures  and e t h n i c i t y  some  which  under school  control.  of student  —  cannot  considered  over  had  of  inputs/outputs.  districts  variables  factors  modification  of  school  administrations  outputs,  a  enrolment  which  treatment  was  The  outcomes.  150  c  H  ACCESS  ENROLMENT  TREATMENT OUTCOMES  ETHNICITY  INPUTS  INPUTS PROCESS  OUTPUTS  T h e o r e t i c a l model on e t h n i c i t y and e q u a l i t y o f e d u c a t i o n a l  Research indicators fulltime  questions  t o be  the  distribution  determined  tested.  equivalent  Representing  of  students  in  summation  of  the  groups:  French,  Equality  of  experience;  level  student/teacher dollar  was  Student  specialized  dimensions: Language. dimension.  special Four  of  ratio;  expenditure  by  per  of  five  treatment  Education  percentage  district  the  Afro-Asian  other  and  ethnic  variables:  divided  associated  teacher elementary  was  English  the  Aboriginal.  education  was  across  was  on  were  total  the  training;  and  of  district.  student/teacher  student  type the  percentage  teacher  education  as  European,  Afro-Asian  secondary  variables  Special  school  French,  defined  and  school  was  f o r each  European,  number  in a  Non-English  percentages  access  each  opportunity  defined  category  population  The  was  enrolled  ethnicity  Aboriginal.  the  Enrolment  ethnic groups:Non-English,  and  Outcomes T  Figure 26.  five  Schooling  Demographic  ratio  and  supplies. into  as  a  Second  with  represented  two  by  each the  151 percentage  of  special  student/teacher education  education as  a  per  Second as  programme a  Second  English  per  as  construct,  graduates  scores  to  Research  Second  outcomes,  Grades  in  8  the  total  a  reading,  and  12  and  ten  plus  English dollar  student  Programmes.  level  Ministry  the  Language  The  in  final  variables:  mathematics  secondary  of  taking  Language;  ratio;  by  special  students  Second  represented  dollar  for English  number  Second  Language  was  4,  were  districts  in  collected  British  data,  information  forms  I,  J,  Analytical  and  the  the  science  percentage  at of  enrolment.  1001;  information analysis first with  using  School  results  (1982) then the  and  phase  assessed  each  variable,  distribution  and  where  to  the  report  1981  were  necessary  of  the  then the  school the  Budgets",  and the  Mathematics Census.  four unit  raw  Education  "Comparative  Canada  descriptive  which  obtain  (1980),  through as  a l l 75  Ministry  i n Reading  district the  for  Districts  processed  school  order  from  financial  1981  was  variable In  collated  its  assessment  Science  f o r each  Columbia.  was  Data:  provincial  ated  a  and  Procedures  Data  The  the  student/teacher as  of  special  on  selected  percentage  i n E n g l i s h as  per  student  variables  Language;  English  a  achievement  four  education  programmes  education  were:  Language  expenditure  (1981),  The  special  expenditure  education  special  approvals  students,  dollar  special  Language a  Second  the  on  supplies.  English  as  ratio,  student  expenditure  education  phases of  of  analysis.  statistics tested  The  for  variables  associnormal were  152 transformed. The  second  relationships access,  phase,  within  the group  treatment  supplementary A.  correlational  and  questions  of  outcomes  A , B, C  C.  Are there treatment?  indicators as  searched f o r  for ethnicity,  outlined  by  the  a n d D:  Are there relationships e t h n i c i t y and e n r o l m e n t ?  B. A r e t h e r e r e l a t i o n s h i p s  analyses,  among  the  indicators  of  among t h e i n d i c a t o r s o f a c c e s s ?  relationships  among  the  indicators  of  D. A r e t h e r e r e l a t i o n s h i p s among t h e i n d i c a t o r s o f o u t c o m e ? Also,  this  relationships access,  phase  among  treatment  research  questions  examined  the groups  and outcomes 1 through  by c o r r e l a t i o n a l of  indicators  as o u t l i n e d  analysis  the=  for ethnicity,  by t h e  subsidiary  6:  1.  I s t h e a l l o c a t i o n o f e d u c a t i o n a l a c c e s s r e s o u r c e s among s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s r e l a t e d t o t h e e t h n i c c o m p o s i t i o n and enrolment of those d i s t r i c t s ?  2.  I s t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n programmes i n s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s r e l a t e d t o t h e e t h n i c c o m p o s i t i o n and enrolment of those d i s t r i c t s ?  3.  A r e s t u d e n t outcomes r e l a t e d t o t h e e t h n i c and e n r o l m e n t o f s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s ?  4.  Is the a l l o c a t i o n of educational access related to the implementation of special programmes.  resources treatment  5.  Is the a l l o c a t i o n related to student  resources  6.  Is the implementation of s p e c i a l r e l a t e d to student outcomes?  The factor  third analysis  phase which  of educational outcomes?  of the s t a t i s t i c a l was  s m a l l e r number o f v a r i a b l e s  required  composition  access  treatment  programmes  procedures  to reduce  involved  the data  f o rthe fourth phase, path  to a  analysis.  153 Factor  analysis  yielded  student/teacher (Factor a  2) ;  Second  and  ratio  Language  path  interaction access  (Factor  f o r the access  1) a n d t e a c h e r  variables:  characteristics  two f a c t o r s f o r t h e t r e a t m e n t v a r i a b l e s : E n g l i s h a s  one f a c t o r A  two f a c t o r s  (Factor  1) a n d s p e c i a l  f o r the achievement  analysis among  factors,  tested  graduate variable.  (Factor 2);  scores.  the theoretical  the ethnic treatment  education  variables,  factors,  model  enrolment  outcome  and t h e variable,  factor  Two m o d e l s w e r e c o n s t r u c t e d  and  the  f o reach of the  f i v e e t h n i c groups which had e i t h e r t h e achievement f a c t o r or t h e percentage  of graduates  analyses tested in  order  as t h e outcome.  the relationships  t o answer t h e r e s e a r c h  A  total  of ten path  among t h e v a r i o u s  question  related  indicators  to the model:  W h a t a r e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s among t h e a c c e s s , t r e a t m e n t a n d outcome indicators when the ethnic composition and population size of a school d i s t r i c t are considered?  CONCLUSIONS The  following  research among  model  question  the various  population Ethnicity  size and  conclusions which  indicators  of school  are  related  considers  when  ethnic  districts  to  the  the  general  relationships  composition  and t h e  are considered.  Enrolment  Conclusion  One:  C e r t a i n e t h n i c p o p u l a t i o n s a r e u n e v e n l y and d i s t i n c t l y distributed i n t h e P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a by enrolment s i z e of school districts. An  analysis  o f t h e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s between  two  exogeneous v a r i a b l e s  the  population  size  -- the p r o p o r t i o n  of school  districts  —  the  o f e t h n i c groups and i n the path  models  154 indicates areas  of  that the  different province.  population  in a school  percentage  of  larger  student  the  district  was  This  Aboriginal  population within  districts  finding  opposite was  a  trend  was  smaller  A  district student  student  population  A continuous  size  debate  of  a  results  of  this  certain  ethnic  environments settlement  pattern  populations,  substantiating Of 1978;  the  four  e t h n i c i t y - as other  not  studies  the  do  the  percentage  associated  exist occur  on  French  1977). Although  relate  to  to  settle  size.  Since  between within  the  achievement.  ethnic  districts  Kasarda,  they  particular  school  and  rather  the  district  (Bidwell  or e t h n i c c o m p o s i t i o n  —  school  settlement.  Dato,  or  issue,  this  of  and  this  in  1981)  1974;  Currie,  reviewed  of school  that  districts,  composition  used both  independent v a r i a b l e s to estimate  variables  with  r e l a t e d with  pattern  Sebold  but  The  of  district.  r e l a t i o n s h i p between e t h n i c  size  when  of immigrants i s mosiac  tend  a  observed  populations.  directly  population  mosiac  race  district  by  also  1971;  the  none examined school  the  Katzman,  considered  did  does  i t may  with  i n the Canadian s o c i e t y i s whether  populations  defined  the  the  large  or a s s i m i l a t i o n (Fuse,  study  larger  also true for  was  school  not the p a t t e r n of c u l t u r a l s e t t l e m e n t cultural clusters —  Non-English  the  and E u r o p e a n e t h n i c g r o u p s were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y the  different  associated  was  considered.  school  with  was  in  of  considered,  enrolment. An  settled  proportion  population  group.  school  When  groups  Non-English  Afro-Asian  Aboriginals  ethnic  - enrolment the e f f e c t s  and and of  155  Ethnicity  and  Access  Conclusion  Two:  Ethnic groups have differential access to the e d u c a t i o n a l r e s o u r c e s as d e f i n e d by student/teacher r a t i o and t e a c h e r characteristics. The  two a c c e s s  characteristics,  factors,  student/teacher  had d i f f e r e n t  results  ratio  when  and  teacher  the proportion of  e t h n i c p o p u l a t i o n s were c o n s i d e r e d by s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s . proportion  of  increased  French,  in  increased.  school  varied  ratio  value  Afro-Asian  the  was f o u n d  ethnic  category  factor,  teacher  characteristics,  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c factor decreased  school  increased.  words,  teachers  taught  European  population  was f o u n d  among t h e a c c e s s  of  Non-English  The  results  factors  increased i n  When t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f E u r o p e a n s  district,  In other  The v a l u e s  s i g n i f i c a n t l y as  the p r o p o r t i o n o f F r e n c h and A b o r i g i n a l p o p u l a t i o n s  a  i n school  the  teacher  districts No  increased  characteristic  t h e more q u a l i f i e d  increased.  when  and  between  value  experienced  the proportion  significant  of  relationship  f a c t o r s and t h e g e n e r a l e t h n i c  or the Afro-Asian obtained  o f Non-  population.  of the second  a school d i s t r i c t .  ratio  between t h e  s u b s t a n t i a l l y among t h e e t h n i c p o p u l a t i o n s .  of the teacher  in  populations  student/teacher  relationship  and t h e g e n e r a l  or the A b o r i g i n a l  The  and  districts,  No s i g n i f i c a n t  student/teacher English  European  As the  group  population.  the e t h n i c i t y  s u b s t a n t i a t e s the f i n d i n g s of other  and  the  access  s t u d i e s which d i d  not u s e s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s as t h e u n i t o f a n a l y s i s (Coleman e t a l . , 1966;  Owen,  1974) .  156  Ethnicity  and  Treatment  Conclusion  Three:  E t h n i c g r o u p s do n o t r e c e i v e d i f f e r e n t i a l e d u c a t i o n a l t r e a t m e n t as d e f i n e d by S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n programmes and E n g l i s h as a Second Language Programme. The  treatment  factors,  special  e d u c a t i o n and  Second Language, were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y ethnic categories. programmes  is  qualifying  for  correspond  to  purpose This  and  Although  appropriate  educational  e t h n i c background,  intent  since  students  treatment  should  Second  Language  the  Programme.  relationship  coefficients and  statistical  coefficent  value  possibilities relationship  populations  Non-English  i f no  ESL  Another  treatment  criteria  this  programme  statistical  and  populations  implementing  effects  (.19)  between  r e p r e s e n t an  trend.  administrative  ESL  A review of the t o t a l  t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f A f r o - A s i a n p o p u l a t i o n may  Several  need,  statistically.  i n d i c a t e s o n l y one  instructional  ethnic  specifically  with  not  p o p u l a t i o n s a n d y e t f o r some r e a s o n t h e a n t i c i p a t e d not confirmed  developed  education  i t is inconsistent a  the  Non-English  ESL  was  E n g l i s h as  of  a  for  was  programme  of  r e l a t e d w i t h any  this finding for special  conceptually specialized  E n g l i s h as  exist  was  not  as  found  programming.  than  the  may  be  programme.  need  why  between  ESL  a  stronger  the  different  First,  f o r ESL  some  For  example,  other  instruction  i n t e r v e n i n g i n the  teachers are a v a i l a b l e is  to  process  r e g a r d l e s s of  for instruction,  then  for of the no  implemented.  possibility analysis,  the  is  that,  in  variables  the  first  affiliated  f a c t o r s were not n o r m a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d .  phase with  of  the  the  two  In f a c t , a  few  157 of the s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s  had  reported  i n s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n as 100%. in  reporting special  used  by  districts  special  information  and  D a t o , 1981)  in special  the  r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n e t h n i c i t y and  f o c u s o f t h e i r s t u d i e s was between  special  Ethnicity  and  i n the  criteria  K i e s l i n g , 1969;  education,  none  Sebold  considered  special education.  The  to research the p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p  education  and  Educational  Conclusion  or  education.  O f t h e t h r e e s t u d i e s (Goodman, 1 9 5 9 ; reviewed  students  Such i n f o r m a t i o n i n d i c a t e s a f l a w  education  for  the p r o p o r t i o n of  outcomes.  Outcomes  Four:  E t h n i c g r o u p s do a c h i e v e d i f f e r e n t i a l o u t c o m e s f r o m schooling process. Although educational groups,  relationships  outcomes  they  increase  the  did  i n the  were  yield  not  the  proportions  between  significant largest  of  across  path  Non-English  ethnicity  and  a l l ethnic  coefficients. and  the  A higher  e x a c t l y the o p p o s i t e e f f e c t .  the  factor  significant factor  and  relationship either  of  increased  was  the  found  remaining  score  p r o p o r t i o n of Europeans i n  a s c h o o l d i s t r i c t had achievement  An  Aboriginal  p o p u l a t i o n s i n a s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s i g n i f i c a n t l y lowered the on t h e a c h i e v e m e n t f a c t o r .  the  The  score  substantially.  between ethnic  the  groups;  on No  achievement French  and  Afro-Asian. On increase  the  percentage  o f g r a d u a t e s as an  o u t c o m e v a r i a b l e , an  i n the p r o p o r t i o n of A b o r i g i n a l p o p u l a t i o n  district graduates.  corresponded The  to  opposite  a  decrease  f i n d i n g was  in  the  evident  in a  school  percentage  when t h e  of  European  158 population  was  considered.  An  increase  Europeans s u b s t a n t i a l l y increased The  other  Asian  —  ethnic were  variable  categories  not  —  significant  of graduates.  Although  c o e f f i c i e n t on A f r o - A s i a n s h a d a v a l u e o f -. 18 percentage  of  Porfer  not  be  (1972) p o s t u l a t e d  that  two  related  to  p o s i t i v e l y with groups,  the  French with the  and  outcome  total  effects  i n r e l a t i o n to  interact  success;  success.  Porter's  or,  this  Murphy  exist:  may  is  proportion  supports  may  interact ethnic  a l l  substantiated  of  of  (1979)  ethnicity  ethnicity  study  position  the  culture  D e p e n d i n g on t h e p a r t i c u l a r  of  positively  Asian  with  school  t h a t e t h n i c i t y may  is supported  Aboriginal  success.  n o t be  three by  the  population  ethnicity  Murphy's  r e l a t e d to school  by t h e r e s u l t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  second success  t h e F r e n c h and  Afro-  populations. B i d w e l l and K a s a r d a  found  significantly  particular the  the  different  f i n d i n g s of t h i s on  may  study  achievement  Chinese  ethnicity  (1975) as w e l l as S e b o l d  outcome v a r i a b l e s .  differently of  the  the outcome i n d i c a t o r s w h i l e the p r o p o r t i o n of Europeans i n a  proposition  by  Afro-  the  s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s u b s t a n t i a t e s Murphy's a s c e r t i o n t h a t may  of  graduates.  l a n g u a g e and  possibilities  school  between  t h a t the  to school  schooling.  propositions.  and  other  results  relationship  proportion  graduates.  e t h n i c g r o u p s were o b s t a c l e s suggested  the  the percentage of  Non-English,  statistically  percentage  in  population  interact  and  results  for  Such r e s u l t s that  ethnic are  supported with  (1981)  groups  perform  Katzman's study the  on  substantiated  i s e t h n i c groups  variables.  positively  and D a t o  proposition  schooling.  (1971) that  159 Ethnicity,  Enrolment  Conclusion  and  Access  Five:  The s i z e and d i r e c t i o n o f t h e s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n o f a school district determines the direction of its e d u c a t i o n a l r e s o u r c e s s u c h as s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r r a t i o and teacher characteristics. Within school the  the  context  district  access  was  of  ethnicity,  consistently  factors.  The  and  teacher  the  characteristic  o t h e r words, more e x p e r i e n c e d  were  associated  relationship  was  one  student/teacher three  of  the  European.  the  in  factor  relationships  population  ratio  the  is  school  two  supported  access  teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,  district,  a  three  The  French  ethnic  in and  groups  district,  the  increased.  Five,which  among  of  This  significant  Non-English,  these  to  teachers  i n t h i s study. and  a  score  districts.  positive  of  of  district.  better qualified school  was  proportion  the  Conclusion  school  larger  factor  of a school  of the s t r o n g e s t found  ratio  student/teacher  r a t i o and  and  five ethnic categories:  As  increased  with  size  significantly related  i n c r e a s e d w i t h an i n c r e a s e i n t h e e n r o l m e n t In  enrolment  supports  and  Bidwell  by  factors;  the  particular  student/teacher  the enrolment and  s i z e of the  Kasarda s  findings  1  (1975) . It  was  access,  an  lower  assumption  of  this  student/teacher  study ratio  that  both  factors  and  higher  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , had a s t r o n g and p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p schooling second  process.  factor,  significantly  higher related  In  this  teacher  production  function  characteristics,  to a higher percentage  of  teacher with  model,  d i d prove  of graduates  the the  to and  be a  160 higher lower  achievement  factor  student/teacher  indicator  of  score.  ratio,  resource  However, the  must  access  be  and  first  questioned  as  i t s ability  outcomes because e x a c t l y the o p p o s i t e  factor, a  to  viable  influence  t r e n d emerged, a  higher  s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r r a t i o was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i n c r e a s e d a c h i e v e m e n t scores  but  had  no  i n f l u e n c e on  the  percentage  of  S u c h r e s u l t s c o u l d l e a d one t o e r r o n e o u s l y c o n c l u d e student/teacher An  alternate  r a t i o has a n e g a t i v e possibility,  student/teacher resource measure  ratio  allocation of  the  —  and  i n f l u e n c e on  however,  i s not is  too  instructional  an  is  environment.  lower  Factor  appropriate a  that a  achievement.  that  simplistic  graduates.  1  indicator  construct One  of  of  as  the  a key  dynamics t h a t occurs i n a classroom i s the a b i l i t y of a teacher to i n s t r u c t at a l e v e l commensurate w i t h the student a b i l i t y In a l a r g e r  population center, students  tend  t o be  grouped  a b i l i t y l e v e l n o t o n l y by s c h o o l b u t a l s o by c l a s s r o o m . situation,  the d i v e r s i t y  limited  the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the  by  of  student  in a classroom  is  population.  In  student  centers,  ability  level  classroom  classes  u n s u c c e s s f u l l y t r y to compensate f o r the d i v e r s i t y  student  ability  which  student/teacher  ratios  In  order  to  does  dynamic  not  of  occur;  hence  The  are  the achievement l e v e l  further  compensate  is  restricting  exists. less  result  for  by  this  population  less.  a  In  smaller  in a  such  ability  level.  the  that  smaller of  although is also  diversity  of  s t u d e n t a b i l i t y i n t h e s m a l l e r e n r o l m e n t d i s t r i c t , more s t u d e n t s are  classified The  as  smaller  special enrolment  education school  pupils.  districts  second problem of teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  are  faced  with  More q u a l i f i e d  a  and  161  experienced  t e a c h e r s who p r o d u c e b e t t e r a c h i e v e m e n t r e s u l t s a s  w e l l as g r a d u a t e more g r a d e t w e l v e s t u d e n t s l i v e i n l a r g e s t u d e n t population apparent exist  centers.  that  two  From  completely  i n l a r g e and s m a l l  Ethnicity,  the results  Enrolment  different  school  and  of  this  study,  educational  i t is  dynamics  districts.  Treatment  Conclusion Six: The s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n s i z e o f a s c h o o l d i s t r i c t i s not related to the s p e c i a l i z e d programme treatment of students. When special  the r e l a t i o n s h i p  treatment  factors  each e t h n i c category, other  words,  programming  the  was  purpose  and  existance  of such  None o f t h e s t u d i e s and  Dato,  1981)  and t h e  student  no s i g n i f i c a n t t r e n d was d i s c o v e r e d . of  Special  to the student  This result  intent  enrolment  was c o n s i d e r e d w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t o f  not related  school d i s t r i c t .  between  is logically  Education  and  ESL  enrolment  size  of a  consistent with the  programming.  (Goodman, 1 9 5 9 ; K i e s l i n g  reviewed  In  in  the  area  of  1969;  special  Sebold  education  c o n s i d e r e d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n s i z e o f a school  district  Ethnicity,  and s p e c i a l i z e d  Access  Conclusion  and  treatment  of  students.  Treatment  Seven:  The e d u c a t i o n a l r e s o u r c e f a c t o r , s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r r a t i o , i s significantly related to the s p e c i a l i z e d treatment of students. Consideration ratio  and  factors; yielded  teacher  special different  o f t h e two a c c e s s characteristics,  education results  factors;  two  treatment  and E n g l i s h as a Second  Language,  among  the  with  the  student-teacher  various  ethnic  groups.  162 First,  the  teacher  either  treatment  factor  student/teacher education school  was  was  In  in a  the  ethnic  words,  school  in student/teacher  i n c r e a s e i n ESL  to  an  increase The  an  related  ratio.  to  the  The  was  special  in  of  programming  of  with  other  in  a  1981)  Ethnicity,  reviewed  Access  Conclusion  and  in special  district  outcome  the  was  not Seold  education.  Outcomes  Eight:  relationships  student/teacher  on  K i e s l i n g , 1969;  Differential access to educational a s s o c i a t e d with d i f f e r e n t i a l outcomes. The  ratio; related  programming  school  c o n s i d e r e d by t h e r e s e a r c h (Goodman, 1959; Dato,  a  ratio.  education  resources  a  relationship  i n a s c h o o l d i s t r i c t was  special  in  special  related  opposite  to The  composition  increase  district  in student/teacher  effect  allocation  two  not  f o u n d b e t w e e n ESL p r o g r a m m i n g and t h e s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r  an  and  was  of the e t h n i c c a t e g o r i e s .  of  other  programmes  factor  negatively related  regardless  district.  decrease  f o r any  factor  factor  education  characteristics  among  r a t i o and  indicators;  the  two  resources  access  factors;  the teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , achievement  factor  and  is  and  percentage  the of  g r a d u a t e v a r i a b l e , were g e n e r a l l y c o n s i s t e n t a c r o s s a l l e t h n i c categories.  The  student/teacher  f a c t o r was  p e r c e n t a g e o f g r a d u a t e v a r i a b l e b u t i t was  not r e l a t e d  to  positively related  the to  the achievement f a c t o r f o r the d i f f e r e n t e t h n i c groups e x c l u d i n g the  p r o p o r t i o n of  was  associated with higher  French,  Europeans.  A f r o - A s i a n and  A  higher  student/teacher  achievement scores f o r  Aboriginal  ratio  Non-English,  populations while  the  in  the  163  case  o f E u r o p e a n s no The  teacher  had  on  significance  characteristic  positively related groups.  statistical  to both  factor  was  was  found.  consistently  outcome i n d i c a t o r s a c r o s s a l l e t h n i c  In f a c t , t h i s a c c e s s f a c t o r w i t h t h e outcome the average  and  the highest  path  coefficients  indicators  found  i n the  study. Although factor  was  result  cannot  qualified  a greater  strongly be  value  related  i n the teacher to  interpreted  teachers  scores or values.  the  that  are associated It i spossible  outcome  teachers  scores  values.  or  Conclusion consistent student  with  tiate  the  outcome  Kiesling,  1969;  are associated  Eight  in  Katzman,  (Bidwell 1971;  Ethnicity,  findings  Kiesling,  Conclusion  1970;  and K a s a r d a ,  Treatment  and  on  and  i n outcome  relationship  t h e most e x p e r i e n c e d  with  a decrease  reviewed,  Raymond,  are  not  ratio  and  (Currie,  1978;  but  substan-  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s found  i n other  1975; C u r r i e ,  1978)  and  i n outcome  findings  student/teacher  studies  of teacher  Kiesling,  increase  i t s particular  other  the importance  reseach  and  an  this  experienced  fora curvilinear  t o e x i s t b e t w e e n t h e two s c o r e s i n t h a t qualified  indicates,  t h e most  with  characteristics  1978; Goodman, 1959;  1970). Outcomes  Nine:  In t h i s s t u d y o f d a t a a t t h e d i s t r i c t l e v e l , no r e l a t i o n s h i p was f o u n d b e t w e e n s p e c i a l i z e d t r e a t m e n t s o f s t u d e n t s i n E S L and in special education programmes and t h e outcome m e a s u r e s o f a c h i e v e m e n t t e s t s and t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f G r a d e 12 g r a d u a t e s . Both treatment  f a c t o r s d i d n o t p r o v e t o be r e l a t e d t o e i t h e r  outcome i n d i c a t o r f o r any o f t h e f i v e e t h n i c g r o u p s c o n s i d e r e d i n  164 t h i s study.  T h e s e r e s u l t s seem t o i n d i c a t e  that the f u n c t i o n  specialized services  f o r s t u d e n t s i s f o r some o t h e r p u r p o s e  the  student  improvement  of  outcomes.  Since  these  seem t o  s u b s t a n t i a t e t h e p r e v i o u s o b s e r v a t i o n by S e b o l d and D a t o that  such  special  than  treatment  f a c t o r s were not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , the r e s u l t s  in  of  (1981)  programmes:  ...may n o t b e a r t h e same d i r e c t r e l a t i o n t o d e v e l o p m e n t o f b a s i c c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s as t h e g e n e r a l e d u c a t i o n programme (p. 99)... Although icant  Goodman  relationship  student,  the  between  results  other  researchers  that  is  no  (1959)  of  (Kiesling,  1969;  and  statistical  relationship  by  exists  increased  was  Sebold  and  Dato  and  school  policy  to  student/teacher two  treatment  Teacher  factors,  FOR  Conclusion  Two  and  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f a c t o r and  and  education  Although the  to the  for  the  the  no co-  results  Ministry  Columbia  Four major  two  have  access  the  education  and  of been  implications factors  t e a c h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s -- and  on  of  POLICY  in British  special  Characteristics  similar  of  1981)  occasionally  implications  to  r a t i o and  special  per  (1981).  districts  ethnicity,  staff  Dato,  outcomes.  found,  signif-  the f i n d i n g s  and  between  d e r i v e d from the r e s u l t s of t h i s study. relate  and  education  Sebold  n e g a t i v e v a l u e s w h i c h was  following  Education  positive  supports  cognitive  IMPLICATIONS The  a  special  study  programming  obtained  his  this  relationship  e f f i c i e n t s had  found  to  the  ESL.  Ethnicity significance  i t s influence  of  the  on t h e a c a d e m i c  teacher success  165  of  students  (Goodman, Kasarda,  substantiates  1959;  the  the French  Kiesling,  This result  resource  is  other  1970, merits  research  Bidwell  some f u r t h e r  and S c h o o l  unevenly  and  by e t h n i c groups and i n p a r t i c u l a r  and  Boards.  inequitably  as i tr e l a t e s t o  and A b o r i g i n a l p o p u l a t i o n s , i t becomes e d u c a t i o n a l l y  imperative overcome  of  by t h e M i n i s t r y o f E d u c a t i o n  teacher  distributed  results  1971;  1975; C u r r i e , 1 9 7 8 ) .  consideration Since  Katzman,  the  that  this  an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e d u r e  be implemented  to  discrepancy.  Implication  One:  T h a t t h e M i n i s t r y o f E d u c a t i o n and S c h o o l B o a r d s r e v i e w h i r i n g and t r a i n i n g p r a c t i c e s f o r t e a c h e r s and t h a t p r o c e d u r e s be implemented w h i c h e n s u r e t h e F r e n c h and Aboriginal populations o b t a i n more e x p e r i e n c e d and qualified teachers. S e v e r a l p o s s i b i l i t e s e x i s t o n how t o a c h i e v e t h e s e e n d s .  A  t e a c h e r secondment programme f o r d i s t r i c t s w i h a h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of French school and  and A b o r i g i n a l p o p u l a t i o n s c o u l d be i n s t i t u t e d .  system  i t would  already  supports  be an e a s y  matter  exchanges with t o make  other  t h e same  b e t w e e n s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s s o t h a t more e x p e r i e n c e d teachers  would  be  require  their  Special  Education,  The  The  treatment the  school  profound  ESL and  arrangements and q u a l i f i e d  districts  which  Ethnicity  research  (Kiesling,  ethnic  under  ESL programming,  o f such  factor  and which a r e  1979; S e b o l d  and  i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the educational  that  purpose  countries  expertise.  by other  have fact  i n those  two c o n c l u s i o n s o n t h e t r e a t m e n t  supported 1981)  available  The  groups  do  programming.  not  receive  Conclusion  Dato,  system.  differential  Three,  questions  166  Implication  Two:  T h a t t h e M i n i s t r y o f E d u c a t i o n and S c h o o l B o a r d s r e v i e w ESL programmes to ensure that such programmes are meeting s t u d e n t needs f o r which they are intended. A s e c o n d c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g i n t h i s s t u d y was special  education  factor  and  the  ESL  factor did  c o g n i t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t as measured by they Two  influence  possibilities  programmes a r e for  the  reasons  percentage exist  for  inadequately  other  than  Implication  of  achievement  graduates  the  lack  of  a  that both not  the  influence  t e s t s nor  (Conclusion  did  Nine) .  relationship.  The  implemented or the programmes e x i s t  academic  improvement.  Three:  T h a t t h e M i n i s t r y o f E d u c a t i o n and S c h o o l B o a r d s r e v i e w t h e p u r p o s e and i n t e n t o f S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n and ESL programmes w i t h i n the s c h o o l i n g process. Enrolment  Size,  Both  Resources  the  and  teacher  student/teacher  ratio  Ethnicity  characteristic factor  were  factor  consistently  and related  e n r o l m e n t s i z e o f a s c h o o l d i s t r i c t when t h e p r o p o r t i o n population verifies  was other  implications school  specific  for  as  districts  have  Possibly, districts  t r y new  i t  and  may  Another  pursued  directions  to  Kasarda,  ineguity be  the  In o t h e r resource  possibility  equality in order  to  as  of  to  ethnic  This r e s u l t which  educational  the  a district. pertains  ideal. not  (Bidwell  a l l o c a t i o n of  needs w i t h i n  inappropriate  should  the  between  equality  (Conclusion Five) .  research  districts.  allocation  of  considered  the  1975)  resources of  result  of  meeting concept  allocation that  described  for  resource  words, the  is  has  the  is  school  herein  achieve better  an  and  results.  167  Implication  Four:  T h a t t h e M i n i s t r y o f E d u c a t i o n and S c h o o l B o a r d s r e v i e w t h e a l l o c a t i o n o f r e s o u r c e s and w h e r e a p p l i c a b l e e n s u r e t h a t a more e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s o u r c e s occurs in school districts.  LIMITATIONS R e s e a c h e r s who been  troubled  M o o c k , 1979; Glasman The  by  several and  analytical  Potter,  Biniaminou,  1981;  most s e r i o u s l i m i t a t i o n  searching  for  educational districts  a  outputs.  1980;  (Bridge,  Cohn  Katzman,  and  1971;  in a district  Judd  Millman, Murnane,  study  of t h i s  educational  or  discrepancies  student when  o u t c o m e s and  reseachers  in  the  student  attempt  student  outcomes  argument  that  variables  units all  is  i n and  the  t h e m s e l v e s nor  important  involved these  of  the  measures  (Hanushek  and  deficiencies,  variables  used  as  current  achievement"  (Spady,  function between  Kain,  not  the  to  inputs  to  the  analyze  school 1973,  flaws  analysis  and  p.  resources  such  trying and  discrete include  of  factors  Because  a definition of  inputs,  The  of  of the  non-school and  current  133).  in using then  multiplicity  resource  school  background.  measures  of The  Thomas, 1 9 8 0 ) .  crude  and  background.  conceptually  l e d to  is  school  allocation  sets of v a r i a b l e s  the  1972;  "only  specific  school  are  do  due  student  the p r o b l e m has  environment,  The  and  1975;  type  r e l a t i o n s h i p s among t h e s e t s o f v a r i a b l e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h resources,  and  1975).  I t i s p o s s i b l e t o a s c e r t a i n among  inequality  exits  f u n c t i o n a n a l y s i s have  issues  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  school resources, problem  STUDY  have used p r o d u c t i o n  Centra  and  OF  to  variables  in  production  interpret relationships  achievement  are  the  unit  of  168 a n a l y s i s , q u a l i t y of resources, p s y c h o l o g i c a l t r a i t s , differentiation historical The  of  effects,  time  effect  discrete  distinction  and  context.  limitation  of  using  school  a n a l y s i s i s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t s may  districts  as  the  unit  be t o o g e n e r a l a c a t e g o r y  of  from  w h i c h t o draw m e a n i n g f u l c o n c l u s i o n s about s t u d e n t  achievement  and  a  school  resources.  substantial  variation  By  aggregating  between  data  school  across  differences  district,  and  student  differences are excluded. Variation within a school d i s t r i c t be  as  important  educational Using  o r e v e n more i m p o r t a n t  theory  than  the  the s c h o o l d i s t r i c t  variation  as  the u n i t  may  t o t h e s e o u t c o m e s and among  school  to  districts.  of a n a l y s i s does not  take  i n t o account the i n d i v i d u a l students i n t e r a c t i o n with the s c h o o l resources.  One  school d i s t r i c t  books per student than another 25%  h a v e t w i c e a s many  show h i g h there  resource  exists  low  library  s c h o o l d i s t r i c t but y e t have  o f t h e b o o k s on t h e l i b r a r y s h e l f f o r c i r c u l a t i o n .  would fact  may  allocation  utilization  in library of  that  A  books  only  survey  while  resource.  The s e c o n d i s s u e i s t h a t p r o d u c t i o n f u n c t i o n s t u d i e s do c o n s i d e r the q u a l i t y of the school r e s o u r c e s . do n o t a s s e s s t h e q u a l i t y o f g o o d s r e l a t e d dollars. may  A school d i s t r i c t  a low  per  For example,  not they  to the expenditure student  of  expenditure  be p u r c h a s i n g l i m i t e d h i g h q u a l i t y g o o d s and s e r v i c e s w h i l e a  school d i s t r i c t purchasing  low  w h i c h has h i g h per s t u d e n t e x p e n d i t u r e s quality  Q u a l i t a t i v e and are  with  in  often  not  g o o d s and  quantitative  services in great  may  be  quantities.  i s s u e s as t h e y r e l a t e t o  resources  evaluated.  A principal  limitation  o f t h e p a r a d i g m , and  one  which  may  169  have  profound  influence  psychological are  traits  associated with  traits  are plagued  theory  sees  in  such  with  them  leads  as  them  learning  and, t h e r e f o r e ,  contends  that  students  who  unmotivated The  to  are both  Although  operational important incomplete student  than  and a c a d e m i c a l l y  of  independent  effect  of  of  these  learning  constructs.  Failure  explanations  of  achievement.  and  The  a  to  student argument  population  intelligent  of  will  a p o p u l a t i o n o f s t u d e n t s who a r e slow.  i sthat the sets of variables  variables.  the interaction  exclusion  measurement  are equivalent,  as s c h o o l r e s o u r c e s and s t u d e n t and  the  difficulties,  highly motivated  level  fourth concern  is  as i n t e l l i g e n c e and m o t i v a t i o n which  i f resources  at a higher  results,  learning.  consider  achieve  on  b a c k g r o u n d may  Spady  designated  n o t be  discrete  (1973) d e s c r i b e d t h e p r o b l e m  thus:  The typical input-output study attempts to detemine whether d i f f e r e n c e s i n s c h o o l r e s o u r c e s a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t when o t h e r i m p o r t a n t v a r i a b l e s are a l s o taken into account. Major m e t h o d o l o g i c a l and i n t e r p r e t i v e e r r o r s may r e s u l t b y f a l s e l y a s c r i b i n g t h e school resources with those e f f e c t s that are a c t u a l l y due t o o t h e r v a r i a b l e s . Because f a m i l y socioeconomic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and s c h o o l r e s o u r c e a l l o c a t i o n s a r e associated, much of the variability in student achievement cannot be exclusively or 'uniguely' a s c r i b e d t o e i t h e r one (p. 1 3 5 ) . The is  fifth  assumed  issue related  that  to limitations  the resources  measured  i s that o f time. I t  in a particular  r e l a t e to the achievement of students i n that p a r t i c u Little  consideration i s given  to the h i s t o r i c a l  r e s o u r c e s and t h e achievement o f s t u d e n t s . this  effect,  achievement  the measures utilizes  used  inadeguately  l a r year.  analysis  of  By n o t c o n s i d e r i n g  f o r resources the  year  and  influence  of  student school  170 resources  i n p r e v i o u s y e a r s on  s t u d e n t s who school  w h i l e i n G r a d e 3, may  environment,  but  now  unable  Grade  h a v e had an e x t r e m e l y  have  p o o r l y on G r a d e 4 a c h i e v e m e n t . be  s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t The  a  rich  environment  deprived may  and  yet  scored  low  A l s o , the study d i d not  in  to  P o r t e r , 1965)  student  i n c l u d e a measure of  has proven  achievement.  The  high in  achievement. socioeconomic  s t a t u s w h i c h i n o t h e r r e s e a r c h ( C o l e m a n e t a l . , 1966; B a n e , 1975;  may  i n Grade 3  a n d y e t t h e s u r v e y w o u l d s h o w t h a t t h e G r a d e 4 g r o u p was resources  score  The r i c h r e s o u r c e s o f G r a d e 4  to compensate f o r the r e s o u r c e d e p r i v a t i o n  4  Levine  t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y  omission  of  a  and  related  socio-economic  i n d i c a t o r a s an i n p u t v a r i a b l e i n t h i s p r o d u c t i o n f u n c t i o n m o d e l may  be  criticized  A  final  historical  as  a major  limitation  context  in  limitation  particular  which  i t  of  to  took  this  this  study. study  place.  The  is  the  data  and  and  1982  i n f o r m a t i o n i s b a s e d on w h a t e x i s t e d i n t h e y e a r s o f 1981 in  British  elected which  Columbia.  Social will  Credit  have  administrative system.  A  a  major  total  dollar  which  in turn w i l l  to  government profound  T h r o u g h a new  Boards  and  July  of  1983,  i n t r o d u c e d major  effect  on  behind  the  newly  legislation  policies  Columbia the  the  and  educational  legislation  is  f i n a n c i n g f o r m u l a and management  the M i n i s t r y of Education w i l l c o n t r o l  expenditures effect  levels  and  i n the B r i t i s h  in education  of  their  at  the  district  l e v e l s of s e r v i c e while School  l o n g e r have the a b i l i t y  influence  School  June  principle  i n f o r m a t i o n systems,  no  of  procedures  centralization.  will  As  to i n c r e a s e or d e c r e a s e  service.  The  autonomy  administrators will  be  and  the  level Boards  budgets roles  of  restricted  by  171 this legislation.  S u b s e q u e n t l y , such changes i n t h e powers and  a u t h o r i t i e s w i t h i n the e d u c a t i o n a l system w i l l  i n f l u e n c e some o f  the f a c t s and i s s u e s o u t l i n e d i n t h i s s t u d y and i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o ascertain  at this  changes w i l l service  time  what  the s p e c i f i c  have on t h e e d u c a t i o n a l  FOR  system and t h e e d u c a t i o n a l  FURTHER  Several of the conclusions for further research. c u l t u r a l enclaves  in this  RESEARCH  study  have i m p l i c a t i o n s  The f i r s t c o n c l u s i o n i m p l i e s t h a t e t h n i c do e x i s t  i nB r i t i s h Columbia.  t h i s were s u b s t a n t i a t e d , i t would have s i g n i f i c a n t for  Federal  and  Provincial  multiculturalism. cultural  these  to children.  IMPLICATIONS  and  ramifications  The  and  hopefully  would take combat  implications  on  biculturalism  and  of  cultures  the  understanding  integration process  meaning  policy  If i n fact  and  on g r e a t e r e m p h a s i s and  ignorance  and  racial  misunderstanding. The  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  from C o n c l u s i o n be  expanded  background concept with  validate and  exogenous  values  the values  beliefs  literature both  include  socioeconomic variables.  (1966) o f t h e s c h o o l  unique  exist suggests  socioeconomic  population  and s t u d e n t  outcomes  Four s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e t h e o r e t i c a l model  and as  ethnicity  with in a that  as p r e d i c t o r s  i t may  ethnicity school there  status of  Referring  system being  and b e l i e f s ,  status  to  has been and  and  religious  to  Bordieu's  a distinct  subculture  be p o s s i b l e  to  d e t e r m i n e what  system.  Also,  should  cross values  the  research  some s u c c e s s  i n using  religious  achievement.  ,background  of  172 Both  Conclusion  Seven  - on  a c c e s s f a c t o r s and t h e t r e a t m e n t on t h e i n t e r a c t i o n indicators  - raise  instructional researched  between  further  interaction  This  between  o f how  factors resources  causal  so t h a t a p p r o p r i a t e  and  the  relationship policy  these The  times  of f i s c a l  and  must  studied  Columbia.  The  classroom  was  results  levels  be  educational resources  restraint.  g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of  population  outcome  compliment the  p r o c e d u r e s c a n be i n s t i t u t e d t o m a x i m i z e t h e l i m i t e d in  the  f a c t o r s - and C o n c l u s i o n E i g h t -  the access  the issue  process.  the  the study  a l l school should  in a variety  be  i s limited  districts  verified  at  of comparable  since  within  the  British  the school populations.  and  173  REFERENCES  Armour, D.J. School and family effects on black and white achievement. I n M o s t e l l e r , F . a n d M o y n i h a n , D. ( E d s . ) On e q u a l i t y of e d u c a t i o n a l opportunity. New Y o r k : Vintage Books, 1972. A v e r c h , H. , C a r r o l l , S., D o n a l d s o n , T. , K i e s l i n g , H. a n d P i n c u s , J. How effective i s schooling? Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, 1974. B e n s o n , C.S., S c h m e l z l e , W.K., Gustafson, R.H. and L a n e , R.A. S t a t e and l o c a l f i s c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n p u b l i c education in C a l i f o r n i a . Sacramento, C a l i f . : Senate of the S t a t e of California, 1965. In Averch, H.A., Carroll, S.J., Donaldson, T.S., Kiesling, H.J., and Pincus, J. How effective is schooling? Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Educational Technology P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1974. B e r n s t e i n , B. C l a s s , c o d e s a n d c o n t r o l . towards sociology of language: R o u t l e d g e & Kegan P a u l , 1971.  Theoretical volume 1.  studies London:  B i d w e l l , C.E., and K a s a r d a , J.D. School d i s t r i c t organization and a c h i e v e m e n t . A m e r i c a n S o c i o l o g i c a l R e v i e w , 1975, 40, 55 70. Bourdieu, P. L'ecole conservatrice: Les i n e g a l i t i e s devant l'ecole et devant la culture. Revue francaise de sociologie, 1966, 1_, 325 347. In Murphy, R. Sociological theor i e s of e d u c a t i o n . Toronto; McGrawH i l l Ryerson L i m i t e d , 1979. B o w l e s , S. a n d New York:  G i n t i s , H. Schooling B a s i c Books, 1976.  B r i d g e , R.G., Judd, CM., and educational outcomes. 1979.  in  M o o c h , P.R. Cambridge,  capi t a l i s t  Amer i c a .  The d e t e r m i n a n t s o f Mass.: Ballinger,  B r o w n , B.W. Achievement, costs and the demand for public education. W e s t e r n E c o n o m i c s J o u r n a l , 1972, 1_0, 198 219. B u l l i v a n t , B.M. The p l u r a l i s t dilemma George A l l a n & Unwin, 1981.  in education.  Sydney:  Burnet, J. The social and historical context of ethnic r e l a t i o n s . I n G a r d n e r , R. a n d K a l i n , R. ( E d s . ) , A C a n a d i a n s o c i a l psychology of e t h n i c r e l a t i o n s . Toronto: Methuen Publications, 1981. C e n t r a , J . A . , a n d P o t t e r , D.A. S c h o o l and t e a c h e r e f f e c t s : An interactional model. Review of Educational Research, 1980, 5 0 , 273 291.  174  Cohn,  E. E c o n o m i e s o f s c a l e i n Iowa h i g h s c h o o l operations. The J o u r n a l o f Human R e s o u r c e s , 1 9 6 8 , 4_, 422 - 4 3 4 .  Cohn,  E . , a n d M i l l m a n , S.D. I n p u t - o u t p u t a n a l y s i s i n p u b l i c education. Cambridge, Mass.: B a l l i n g e r , 1975.  C o l e m a n , J . , C a m p b e l l , E . , H o b s o n , C . , M c P a r t l a n d , J . , Mood , A . , Weinfield, F. and York, R. E q u a l i t y of educational opportunity. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n , a n d W e l f a r e , O f f i c e o f E d u c a t i o n , U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1966. Coleman, J . S . The concept of equality of educational opportunity. I n L e v i n e , D.M. a n d B a n e , J . ( E d s . ) T h e "inequality" controversy: Schooling and d i s t r i b u t i v e justice. New Y o r k : B a s i c Books Inc., 1975. Committee o f I n q u i r y i n t o the e d u c a t i o n o f c h i l d r e n from e t h n i c minority groups. West i n d i a n c h i l d r e n i n o u r s c h o o l s : a b r i e f guide to the interim report. British Government P u b l i c a t i o n s , CMND 8 2 7 3 HMSO, J u n e , 1 9 8 1 . C r a i n , R.L. S c h o o l i n t e g r a t i o n and t h e a c a d e m i c a c h i e v e m e n t a c r o s s r u r a l and urban d i s t r i c t s . Educational Research Quarterly, 1 9 8 1 , 3, 236 - 2 6 3 . Currie, A.B. An i n t e r p r o v i n e i a l c o m p a r i s o n of educational investments and outcomes i n A t l a n t i c Canada. Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f T o r o n t o , 1978. D'Oyley, V. Emerging Canadian i n t e r e t h n i c issues and Canadian black studies. In Pachai, B. (Ed.) C a n a d i a n black studies. Halifax, Nova S c o t i a International Education C e n t r e , S a i n t Mary's U n i v e r s i t y , 1979. D'Oyley, V. Beyond the E n g l i s h and F r e n c h r e a l i t i e s i n Canada: The p o l i t i c s o f empowerment o f m i n o r i t i e s . In Shapson, S.M., D ' O y l e y , V . , a n d L l o y d , A . ( E d s . ) B i l i n g u a l i s m a n d m u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m in Canadian education. V a n c o u v e r , B.C. : C e n t e r f o r C u r r i c u l u m a n d I n s t r u c t i o n , U.B.C., 1 9 8 2 . E x p l o s i v e path through an e t h n i c m i n e f i e l d . Times S u p p l e m e n t , L o n d o n , E n g l a n d , May 5, 1 9 8 1  Educational  F u s e , T. Race r e l a t i o n s i n Canada: Implications for schooling and society; observations of a Japanese- Canadian. In D ' O y l e y , V . (Ed.) T h e i m p a c t o f m u l t i e t h n i c i t y o n C a n a d i a n education. T o r o n t o : The Urban A l l i a n c e on Race R e l a t i o n s , 1977. G a r m s , W. , G u t h r i e , J . and P i e r c e , L. School finance: The economics and p o l i t i e s of public education. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1978.  175  G l a s m a n , N.S., schools. 539.  and B i n i a m i n o u , I . Input-output a n a l y s i s of R e v i e w o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 1 9 8 1 , 5JL, 509 -  Glazer, N. and M o y n i h a n , D. (Eds.) E t h n i c i t y : Theory and experience. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Univers i t y Press, 1975. G o o d m a n , S.M. The a s s e s s m e n t o f s c h o o l q u a l i t y . S t a t e Department of Education, 1959. Guide  to core curriculum. M i n i s t r y of B.C.: Queen's P r i n t e r f o r B r i t i s h  Albany,  Education. Columbia,  N.Y.:  Victoria, 1977.  G u t h r i e , J . , K l e i n d o r f e r , A., L e v i n e , H. a n d S t o u t , R. Schools and inequality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1971 H a n u s h e k , E.A. and Kain, J.F. On the value of e q u a l i t y of e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y as a g u i d e t o p u b l i c p o l i c y . In M o s t e l l e r , F. and M o y n i h a n , D. (Eds.) On e q u a l i t y of educational opportunity. New Y o r k : V i n t a g e B o o k s , 1972. Jencks, C. Inequality: family and/schooling 1976.  A reassessment in America. New  of the affects of York: B a s i c Books,  J o n e s , T. E q u a l e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y r e v i s i t e d . Education Finance, 1981, 6^, 471 484.  Journal  of  Jones, T., Owen, S., B a r o n , J . , and D a r r o w , A. Toward a definition and measurement of equal educational opportunity. U n i v e r s i t y of Connecticut, Storrs, C.T., 1978. Katzman, M.T. Cambridge, 1971.  The political Massachusetts:  economy Harvard  of urban schools. University Press,  K e r l i n g e r , F. and P e d h a z u r , E. M u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n i n b e h a v i o r a l research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1973. K i e s l i n g , H.J. The r e l a t i o n s h i p of school input to p u b l i c s c h o o l p e r f o r m a n c e i n New Y o r k S t a t e . W a s h i n g t o n , D.C. : Department of Health, Education and W e l f a r e , O f f i c e of Education, 1969. K i e s l i n g , H.J. T h e s t u d y o f c o s t a n d q u a l i t y o f New Y o r k s c h o o l districts: Final report. W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.: Department of Health, Education and W e l f a r e , O f f i c e of Education, 1970.  176  Kita,  S. UBC FREQ: Goodness of f i t t e s t s . University B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a : C o m p u t i n g C e n t r e , 1975.  L e v i n e , D.M. and B a n e , M.J. The "inequality" Schooling and distributive justice. New B o o k s , I n c . , 1975.  of  controversy: York: Basic  M a e s t a s , L.C. E t h n i c i t y and h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t achievement a c r o s s r u r a l and u r b a n d i s t r i c t s . Educational Research Q u a r t e r l y , 1 9 8 1 , 3_, 274 - 2 9 1 . M a r t i n , J . J . The m i g r a n t U n w i n , 1978.  presence.  Sydney:  George  Allan  &  M c D o n a l d , N.G. D a v i d J . G o g g i n : Promoter of n a t i o n a l s c h o o l s i n Jones, D.C, S h e e h a n , N.M. a n d S t a m p , R.M. Shaping the schools of the Canadian west. Calgary: Detselig E n t e r p r i s e s L t d . , 1979. M c L u h a n , M. Understanding media: T o r o n t o : M c G r a w - H i l l Book Co., Mosteller, F. and Moynihan, educational opportunity.  The extensions 1964.  of  man.  D.P. (Eds.) On equality of New Y o r k : V i n t a g e B o o k s , 1972.  Murnane, R.J. The i m p a c t o f s c h o o l r e s o u r c e s on t h e l e a r n i n g o f inner city children. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger, 1975. Murphy, R. Sociological theories of education. McGraw-Hill Ryerson L i m i t e d , 1979.  Toronto:  N i c h o l s , A.D. A g u i d e t o t h e s c h o o l a c t o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ( 2 n d . e d . ) V a n c o u v e r , B.C.: B r i t i s h Columbia School Trustees Association, 1980. N i e , N. , H u l l , C , J e n k i n s , J . , S t e i n b r e n n e r , K. a n d B r e n t , D. S t a t i s t i c a l p a c k a g e f o r t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s . New York: M c G r a w - H i l l Book Co., 1975. O ' S h e a , T. I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n and s a m p l i n g . I n R o b a t a i l l e , D. (Ed.) The 1981 B.C. mathematics assessment: General r e p o r t , V i c t o r i a , B.C.: M i n i s t r y of E d u c a t i o n , 1981. Owen,  J.D. School ineguality and the welfare Baltimore: John H o p k i n s U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1974.  Porter, J. The vertical mosaic. T o r o n t o , P r e s s , 1965.  Toronto:  state.  University  of  Porter, J. Dilemmas and contradictions of multi-ethnic society. Toronto: Royal S o c i e t y of Canada, T r a n s a c t i o n s S e r i e s , 1 9 7 2 , 1 0 , 192 - 2 0 5 .  177 P o r t e r , M., P o r t e r , J . a n d B l i s h e n , B. D o e s money m a t t e r ? Toronto: Institute f o r Behavioral Research, York U n i v e r s i t y , 1973. P u b l i c School A c t . Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Queen's P r i n t e r f o r B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1958.  Victoria:  Raymond, F . J . D e t e r m i n a n t s of the quality of primary and s e c o n d a r y p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n i n West V i r g i n i a . Journal of Human R e s o u r c e s , 1 9 6 8 , 3_, 4 5 0 - 4 7 0 . Report o f t h es e l e c t committee on r a c e r e l a t i o n s and i m m i g r a t i o n on " t h e West Indian community". British Government P u b l i c a t i o n , H o u s e o f Commons, HC 1 8 0 , I - I I , F e b r u a r y , 1977. R i c h m o n d , A . H . a n d L a k s h a m a n a R a o , G. Recent developments i n immigration t o Canada and Australia. International J o u r n a l o f C o m p a r a t i v e S o c i o l o g y , 1 9 7 6 , 17_, 186 - 1 8 9 . R o b i t a i l l e , D.F. T h e 1 9 8 1 B . C . m a t h e m a t i c s a s s e s s m e n t summary report. M i n i s t r y o f E d u c a t i o n , V i c t o r i a , B.C., 1 9 8 1 . School Act. Printer  Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, f o r B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1980.  Victoria:  School Act Regulations. Province of British Victoria, B.C.: Queen's P r i n t e r f o r B r i t i s h 1981.  Queen's  Columbia, Columbia,  S c h o o l D e p a r t m e n t C i r c u l a r #144. The a d m i n i s t r a t i v e handbook. V i c t o r i a , B.C.: M i n i s t r y o f E d u c a t i o n , 1981. Schools Finance Branch, Province of British Columbia. Comparative and a n a l y t i c a l d a t a : 1981 s c h o o l d i s t r i c t budgets. V i c t o r i a , B.C.: M i n i s t r y o f E d u c a t i o n , 1982. Sebold, F.D., and Dato, W. School funding and achievement: An empirical analysis. Public Q u a r t e r l y , 1 9 8 1 , 9, 91 - 1 0 5 .  student Finance  S e r o w , R.C. a n d D a v i e s , J . J . R e s o u r c e s and outcomes o f minimum competency t e s t i n g as measures o f e q u a l i t y o f e d u c a t i o n a l opportunity. American Educational Research Journal, 1982, 4, 529 - 5 3 9 . S p a d y , W. The impact of school resources on s t u d e n t s . I n K e r l i n g e r , F . (Ed.) R e v i e w o f R e s e a r c h i n E d u c a t i o n , H a s c a , Illinois: F . E . Peacock P u b l i s h e r s I n c . , 1973. S u m m e r s , A . a n d W o l f e , B. Equality of educational opportunity quantified: A production function approach. Philadelphia: Department o f R e s e a r c h , F e d e r a l R e s e r v e Bank o f P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1975.  178 Taylor, H. British Columbia report. V i c t o r i a , B.C.:  science Ministry  assessment: Summary o f E d u c a t i o n , 1982.  Thomas, J.A. Issues i n educationalefficiency. In G u t h r i e ,J . (Ed.) S c h o o l f i n a n c e p o l i c i e s and p r a c t i c e s . Cambridge, Massachusetts: B a l l i n g e r P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1980. Tuiman, J . and K e n d a l l , J.R. T h e B.C. r e a d i n g assessment: Summary r e p o r t . V i c t o r i a , B.C.: Ministry of Education, 1980. Valaskakis, G. Chinese journalism on tour: A Canadian perspective. Montreal: C o n c o r d i a U n i v e r s i t y , 1982. Von  Bertalanffy, L. George B r a z i l l e r ,  General 1968.  systems  theory.  New  York:  W r i g h t , E.N. a n d D h a n o t a , A . S . The g r a d e n i n e s t u d e n t s u r v e y . Toronto: Research Department, the Board of Education, 1981. W r i g h t , S. C o r r e l a t i o n and c a u s a t i o n . J o u r n a l o f t u r a l R e s e a r c h , 1 9 2 1 , 2 0 , 557 - 5 8 5 . W r i g h t , S. Theory of path c o e f f i c i e n t s : A reply criticism. G e n e t i c s , 1 9 2 3 , 8_, 2 3 9 - 2 5 5 .  Agriculto  Niles'  Wright, S. Path coefficients and path regressions: a l t e r n a t i v e or complementary concepts? B i o m e t r i c s , 1960, 16, 189 - 2 0 2 .  179  APPENDICES  APPENDIX  Correlation  Matrix  1  for  a l l  Variables  m o_  CO  CO O  n  a  r-> • a>  o •  mrT  13  O ft>  rr o  O fD  1— ro  CO  a> 3  3"  r-r  IS O)  3  JO  JO  JO  CD  zr  cT  zr  Qi  fD CD  fD CD O-  Qi  rl-  1— ro  O fD  CO  1  3 SD  (->•  a>  3  o  CO •  cp  1  -F-  o_  Q_  t-> •  3  3  LQ  -f>  CQ  1— ro  m  CO  i—  1-" * 3  JO  -t>  o  CO {—  m  m  i—  i—  CO cz o_  3=» XJ XJ  CO  CO  CO  1  m  rit~"  CO fD  CO  CO  CO  TD  fD O  •  CO rT  UD  rz  fl)  rT \-"  O-  "3  o <  rr  o  CO  XJ fD  o  3: CD rr  co  CO •o CD  CO  TD  CD O  o  •  CO cz o_  CO  <-t-  EZ Q_  LQ CD  CO CD O * JO  CO  rr J-"  o  m i—>  —i  m X XJ  CD  3  CD  • JO  "3  •  ED  fD  O  O CD  3  rT \-> •  CO c:  ~~i  cu  QCQ CD  3  l->>  rT  3  m 3  "3  O  1—> 3  ft>  I—•»  CO  h- • 1  3  CO  35* cr o ~3 3 ID  rT  D> -b ~3  m  c: "3 o  O 1  TD  CO K"  3  3=*  t—•  &3)  1—'  O  -n "3 CD  3 O  3~  CD fi)  ro 1  1  i— cn  1  CO  1  O  •Fco !—'  1—• 1—' 1—*  ro  1  cn  •o  ro  to to cn  l  1  O  4> * * —  CO  <o CO  cn cn CO  —1  * — * —  CO  o o  -p~  o -F* 4;  1  i—  1  CO  o  O  -»J  1—* CO  OO -F--J  1  o  cn -J> cn  o  o  cn  o --J  i— CO  1  CO  O  -F-  CO 4>  o  o CD CO  o  o ro -F-  I o CD  1  1  1  1  1  o  o  o  o  o  O CO  •P-  CO  ro o  --J  ro  1—  CO  -F~  CO  1  CO  1  ro to -Fro *  i—• i—•  CO  cn  cn cn ro cn  o-o  CO *  *  I—  o  1  CD cn  o -^J  CO  cn cn CO cn  CD 1—  1" 1  i* o  *  o  cn cn  1  I—  1  cn  cn cn en  cn  --j  I—' CO  1—'  ro --j  CD *  i  1  1—' cn  l  o -F-  CO ro  O  CO  -P-  o -f>  o  ro ro o i—  r—•  ro  CO  i—' CO CO  1  CO  ro  o O  cn  o  k  CO CO  CO  cn  o  cn cn CD  o  CO  1 4>  o  o  CO  cn cn  CD  ro  CD * —  —  1  ro  •Fcn cn  1  1  o  O  o CO CO -F-  I I—'  O  ro  ^  •^j  CO  -p> cn ro cn  --J  --J  CD  .  o CO CO  o CD  CO  CO  cn -—i cn  1—' -F> Cn to  1  1  1  CO CO  -pco  ro i—  1—' cn * *  *  4>  l—• * *  1  CO  1—  1  1  l  l  i  l  cn O CO cn  -F~  CO  CO  --j  cn cn --o to  cn -F-  CO  CO  * *  * *  cn  CO  cn *  CO  to * *  *  *1  1  o o CO CO  o o CO  o CD  --J  o  CD  CD 1—• 1—> -F-  1  i—•  i—• cn CO  o en  CO  cn  1  o  CO  CO  CD  t—'  ro cn *  o  1—  1  1  o  1—  cn ro  CO  o * *  o ro CO -»j  CO  -P-  co  ro ro i—• CO  CD  ro  (——• 4>  ro cn CO CO  1  1  i  t—1  o cn  -P~  ro  CO cn  --J CO  CO  co cn O * *  o  *  1—  1  CO  CO  -Fto  1  1  i—•  o  cn  -F-  cn  i— CO  CO CO  cn 1  i—•  cn  i— O O  1  i—  1  *  *  ro CO  cn CO *  CO1  1— CO  i  CO CO  cn ro *  H*— i ro co CO -F-  o•—i cn CO  •  CO  o  • O o  0  0  00  cn -F-  1  CO 0  CO CO 1 0  -F-  00  -F~  CD  CO CD cn 1  O  CO  ro CO  ro CO -F-  ro to CO  0  cn -p1—>  1—1  CO cn  1—1  1  [  O O h—' cn  CO -F~  1  --J  cn  cn  cn cn cn  0  0  *  —1  1  1  O cn 1— -F-  O  0  CO CO  cn CO  1  1—•  0  Budget  Training  ro CD 0  *  1—' 00 .  cn CO  ro ro  CO  O  CD  1  1  1  1  1  4>  -F~  -Fi—• cn CD  -FCO CO 1—•  ro CO CO  0  1—' 1—'  0  cn ro  0  -F~  * *  * *  CO ro  1—• O CO cn  4>  * *  CO CO CO  * *  0  CO CO  ro ro -~j  1 0  ,  1—1 1—•  *  0  cn  -F-  00  O  0  O OO ro  *—•  4>  l  CO  I—  ro CD cn CO  CO O O "-F-  1  1  CO 1—  cn cn ro  CO —t  * *  * *  0  0  -F--J -Pco  CO cn -—t ro  1  00  ro O  CO  1  o o  Experience  *  0  cn cn CO 00  1—•  Elem. Ratio O -Fcn CO  1— CO CO  1  0  -F~ CO  1  1  -F~ --J O  CO CO CO -F-  1  ro i— cn  o  I—'  1  CO  p-  I—' I—1  *  ro to CO  1—*  Sec. Ratio  •  0 0  -•  Spec. Stud.  0 0  Spec. Budget  1—  1  > CD  <—• 1—• CO  CO ro  0  0  0  1— --j  0  00 00  0  1—• }—•  00  1  --j  0  "1 1—> 4>  CD --J  1—• cn to  1  1  O  i—• cn  (—•  CO cn  1 0  i—• 1  1  cn CO cn  CO ro ro  0  0  i  1—•  0  ro  ! ,  to CO 1—  00  1  cn  ~ 1*'  0 1—•  0  1—'  0  O  1—'  CO  CD 1—>  ro  ro ro  1—• to t—•  ro en CO O  *  *  O  0  -Fcn  1  cn CO -F-  0  1 0  -0  -0 .— h  cn  •—•  ro  cn -F1—>  0  cn cn CO  0 0  O  0  -F-  1—• CO —1  cn  CO  O  O  0 0  (-^  1  1  O  ro  0  cn CO  1—1  -Fco  ro cn  l  I 1— CO ro CO  ro :cn en CO  CD CO cn  -FCO i—• cn  0  CD CO ro  1  CO cn CD  CD O —1  O  CO CO CD  CD cn  1— cn  1  --  0  0  CD cn  -FO CO  1—*  1  1— ro CO cn  , 1— i  4>  ro cn  0  1  ro cn  1  0  cn  i—• -F~  00  * *  cn  CO CO  cn CO ro  1—>  CO  * cn -F~ ro  CO ro CD  0  --j  *  l  *  *  0  cn 1—  1  CO cn  cn ro 1—•  ro CD 0  00  1—'  to  00  ro CO  cn CO  CO•ie  *  CD ro CO  CO  0 0 --J.  O -Fco CO  cn  -  cn O 1—• j—> * *  1 0 0  00  cn l CD CO ro CO  * *  ro cn CO 1—  1  1—  1  • 0  1—'  • 0 0  Spec.' Mats.  1—1  •  CD  O  • --  —  Spec. Ratio ESL  * *  CO ro CO 00  * *  1—  1  •  O O  1  O  CO -FCO cn  CO to CO  *  1— *  1  0 0  ESL Budget  » 0  0  ESL  1  CO CO  * * 0  ,  cn CO i—• -F-  0  ro CO ro  1  cn J>  1  O  1—' CO CO  cn CO -F~  1— CO  0 CO CD CO  1  1  O cn CO CO  CD  O i—• CD  1 0  CO CO  ro  1  0  1  ro  1—•  CO ro  *  cn  1  ro cn O ro  1—•  1—• CO CD  CD CO CO  1  1  0  1—• CO CO  j  1  CD cn CO  to *  ro CO CO ro ro ro cn . -P-  1  CO to  CO 4> OO  1  " T  0  AfroAsian  I—•  1  CO  CO -F~  European  Enrolment  •p-p-  0 CO  French  o  o I— I— CO '  I—  o o  0 0  Aboriginal  ho  I—'  t—• CO  *  ro  ho  1— O  1  CO  1  1  1  CO  oo cn  1 1  CO  *  CO -p-  Co  1  CO  l  1  *  1 -P-P-  O CO  • 0 0  n 1.: -, r  heading 4  * 1—•  • 0  Reading 8  R e a d i n g 12 o  •  CO CO  O * *  CO CO  cn * *  CO CD CD  cn * *  J—  1  1.00  -F~  6991*"'  0  ro  cn  3081*  "  — •  -P*  5234*'  1—•  cn t cn  0134  4158* cn  cn CO CO  Math 4  Math 8  0 0  l a t h 12  Science 4  Science 8  S c i e n c e 12 Educ. E t h o s 12  182  APPENDIX  Sample  2  Forms  -Census Canada- M i n i s t r y of Education  Forms-  183  f _r .  Statistics Canada  Stanstique Canada  1 9 8 1  C e n s u s  o f  C a n a d a  please complete your questionnaire on Wednesday, June 3,1981  Prov.  FED No.  i  "%  1  j Hhld. No. i i  VN  Doc. j No. ot persons type 1 1  Quest. ft^_^  f  i _S/M  3 DTR  i  A u x francophones: Si ce questionnaire anglais vous a et£ remis par erreur et si vous desirez un questionnaire francais, veuillez appeler le Service auxiliaire telephonique. Les numeros a composer figurent sur ce questionnaire. On vous remettra un questionnaire dans la langue de votre choix.  Please complete address or^caot location:  L 7  Street and No. or lot and concession City, town, village, municipality  Legal requirement  L  The census of Canada is taken under the authority of the Statistics Act, which requires everyone to provide the information requested.  Province or territory  Postal code  Telephone number:  Confidential when completed The information you will give will be kept confidential and used only for. the production of statistics. No one will see the answers you give except for persons sworn to secrecy under the Statistics Act. These persons are subject to prosecution and legal penalties if they disclose personal census information.  T o Temporary Residents If all members of this household are Temporary Residents (i.e., persons staying here temporarily who have a usual home elsewhere in Canada), enter the total number of temporary residents in this box and do not complete this questionnaire. Follow the return instructions indicated on the envelope which contained this questionnaire.  T o Foreign Residents If all members of this household are Foreign Residents (see below), mark this box and do not complete this questionnaire. Follow the return instructions indicated on the envelope which contained this questionnaire.  Q  Foreign Residents (any person in the following categories): • government representatives of another country attached to the legation, embassy or other diplomatic body of that country in Canada, and their families;  NOTE: Please mark  all your answers clearly with a dark pencil  or pen. The Question Guidelines on this questionnaire should provide the answers to any problems that may arise. If not, don't hesitate to call our Telephone Assistance Service. The numbers to call are listed on this questionnaire and all calls are free of charge.  TBS - B10220I  • members of the Armed Forces of another country, and their families; • students from another country attending school in Canada, and their families; • workers from another country in Canada on Employment Visas, and their families; and • residents of another country visiting in Canada temporarily.  ftfilf  184  A message to all Canadians . . . . Every five years Canada takes a census — a national stock-taking of its people and their housing. From the information it provides, we, as a nation, are better equipped to meet the many challenges facing us at every level, national, regional and local. The answers you give, when compiled into statistics, are used in determining economic and social policies, planning industrial development, and estimating needs for schools, roads and many other public services. Population figures are used to determine electoral district boundaries, and to calculate per capita grants to provinces and municipalities. For every person who does not initially respond, additional funds must be spent on follow-up procedures. The failure to count yourself in could result in the loss of revenue to your own community. The Statistics Act, under which the census is carried out, not only defines your obligation to co-operate, but ensures that the information you provide will be kept confidential and used only for the purposes of that Act. Your co-operation is essential. Please do your part by completing this questionnaire promptly, as of June 3, 1981, in accordance with the instructions provided. Thank you for your co-operation.  Question Guidelines Question 1. Refer considering whom hold. If you have enter the person's Question 9.  to the instructions adjacent to Question 1 when to (or not to) include as members of your housedoubts as to whether a person should be listed, name and the reason in the space provided in  If there are more than six persons in your household and you do not have a second questionnaire, note this in the "Comments" section of your questionnaire, complete the questionnaire for six persons in your household and return as instructed. A Census Representative will contact you later with an additional questionnaire. Question 2. To enable us to identify family groups within the household, it is necessary to select a reference person (Person 1), and to state the relationship of each household member to that person. For example, if John Smith lives with his father Thomas Smith, and Thomas Smith has been entered as Person 1, John Smith would mark "Son or daughter of Person 1". There may be a member or members of your household whose relationship to Person 1 is not described in Question 2. In such cases, mark either "Other relative of Person 1" or "Other non-relative", and also print the exact relationship to Person 1 in the space provided. "Other relative" includes persons such as uncles, aunts, cousins, grandfathers, grandmothers, and so on. "Other non-relative" refers to household members who are not related to Person 1 by blood, marriage, adoption or common-law. Some examples are employee's wife, employee's daughter, room-mate's son, landlord, and so on. The term "common-law", as used in "Common-law partner of Person 1" or as may be used to describe any other such partnership in the household (for example, "Lodger's common-law partner"), should be interpreted as applying to any case of a couple living together in this type of union.  Note that stepchildren, adopted children, and children of a commonlaw partner should be considered as sons and daughters. Foster children, wards and guardianship children who are not related to Person 1 by blood, marriage, adoption or common-law should be listed as lodgers.  j ! >  Question 5. Mark "Now married" if you have a husband or wife who is now living, even if you are temporarily living apart because one of you is employed away from home, hospitalized, etc., but not if you are actually separated or have obtained a divorce.  i  For census purposes, couples living in a common-law type of arrangement are considered as "Now married", regardless of their legal marital status.  '  Mark "Separated" if you are separated from your husband or wife due to causes such as desertion or marriage breakdown, or because you no longer want to live together, provided that no divorce has been obtained. Mark "Divorced" if you have obtained a divorce and have not remarried. Question 6. You must still understand the language you report in this question. For infants, report the first language they are or will be learning.  i  Question 8. If your household has more than six persons you will require more than one questionnaire. Please see the guideline for Question 1. . '  '. j ,  If you are using more than one questionnaire, please answer this question on the first questionnaire only.  ;  Question 9. If you have difficulty determining if a person should be included on your questionnaire, please refer to the WHOM T O INCLUDE item in the column adjacent to Question 1.  i j  Question 11. Special cases Mark "Owned" if the dwelling you occupy is owned or being bought by you and/or a member of this household even if (a) it is situated on rented or leased land or (b) it is part of a condominium (whether registered or unregistered). For census purposes, a condominium is a multi-unit residential complex in which dwellings are owned individually while land is held in joint ownership with others. Mark "Rented" in all other cases even if the dwelling you occupy is (a) provided without cash rent or at a reduced rent, such as a clergyman's residence, a superintendent's dwelling in an apartment building, etc., or is (b) part of a co-operative. For census purposes, in a co-operative all members jointly own the co-operative and occupy their dwelling units under a lease agreement.  i j I j s l:  \  Question 12. Single and semi-detached house  (  If you live in what is referred to as a "linked home" (a single house which is not attached to any other dwelling above ground, but is attached below ground), mark "Single house".  • j  Duplex and apartment  ,  Two dwellings, one above the other, attached to other dwellings are to be considered as apartments and not as duplexes.  j  Apartment Do not count as storeys floors that are used solely for parking, storage or laundry and recreation facilities.  ' i  If you are in doubt concerning the number of storeys in an apartment building, mark "Apartment in a building that has five or more storeys" if there is at least one passenger elevator in the building. If there is no passenger elevator in the building, mark "Apartment in a building that has less than five storeys".  t • • [  185  TELEPHONE  ASSISTANCE  SERVICE  INSTRUCTIONS  If, after referring to the Question Guidelines, you require further assistance to complete your questionnaire, our Telephone Assistance Service is available from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. from Thursday, May 28 through Friday, June 5 (excluding Sunday). 1  If you live within the local calling 8rea of one of the cities listed below, dial the number shown opposite the name of the city. SERVICE AUXILIAIRE  ORDER  OF  FOR  QUESTION  LISTING O F H O U S E H O L D  1  MEMBERS  To ensure that all persons in the same family group are listed together, the following order should be used when entering the names of all members of the household in Question 1: (a) Person 1; choose one of the following as Person 1:  TELEPHONIQUE  Si, apres avoir consult^ les instructions, vous avez encore besoin d'aide pour remplir votre questionnaire, vous pourrez vous adresser a notre Service auxiliaire telephonique de 9 heures a 21 lieures, entre le jeudi 28 mai et le vendredi 5 juin (sauf le dimanche). Si vous habitez dans le secteur de service local d'une des villes suivantes, composez le nume>o indiqug.  — either the husband or the wife in any married couple living here — either partner in a common-law relationship — the parent, where one parent only lives with his or her never-married son(s) or daughter(s) of any age. If none of the above applies, choose any adult member of this household.  ST. J O H N ' S (NFLD.)  737-2100  HALIFAX  426-8500  MONTREAL  283-1981  OTTAWA  996-3128  (e) other relatives of Person 1 (whether related by blood, marriage, adoption or common-law), and their families;  TORONTO  868-1981  (f) persons not related to Person 1, and their families.  WINNIPEG  949-2010  WHOM  EDMONTON  420-3699  VANCOUVER  683-5521  (b) husband or wife (or common-law partner) of Person 1; (c) never-married children or stepchildren of Person 1; (d) other children of Person 1, and their families;  TO  INCLUDE  T o make certain that every resident of Canada is counted in the census (and that no one is counted more than once), thefollowing guidelines should be used when deciding who should be included on this questionnaire. Include  In all other areas, call the long distance operator and ask for Z E N I T H 0-1981. You will be connected to the nearest Telephone Assistance Service, without charge. Si vous habitez dans un autre secteur, demandez a la teTephoniste de vous donner Z E N I T H 0-1981. Elle vous mettra en communication, sans frais, avec le Service auxiliaire telephonique le plus rapproche.  • all persons who usually live here, even if they are temporarily away (such as on business or at school); • any persons staying or visiting here who have no other usual home; • persons who usually live here but are now in an institution (such as a hospital, correctional institution), if they have been there for less than six months; • unmarried persons who have a home elsewhere but stay in this dwelling most of the week while working; • infants born on or before June 2,1981; • deceased persons who were alive at midnight between June 2 and June 3, 1981. Do not include • persons who are now in an institution and have'been there for the past six months or longer; • infants born on or after June 3,1981; • persons permanently away in the Armed Forces; • post-secondary students who are financially independent and who live elsewhere; • unmarried sons or daughters who live elsewhere most of the week while working, even if they return home on the weekends • foreign residents (see front cover). H O U S E H O L D S WITH M O R E T H A N  SIX  PERSONS  If there are more than six persons in this household, enter the first six on one questionnaire and continue with the seventh person on a second questionnaire, starting in the row marked "Person 2". If you need additional questionnaires, see the guidelines for Question 1.  186  Paoe 2 Using the instructions given on the left, print below the names of alt persons usually living here as of Wednesday, June 3, 1981.  RELATIONSHIP TO PERSON 1 For each person in this household, mark K one box only to describe his or her relationship to Person 1. If you mark the box "Other relative" or "Other non-relative", print in the relationship to Person 1. Some examples of the "Other" relationships are: f  grandmother uncle  room-mate's daughter employee's husband  For further examples and special cases, see guidelines.  Person 1  01 IS Person 1  Given name and initial TJ2  Person 2  Given name and initial  Person 3  Last name Given name and initial  02 LD Husband or wife of Person 1 03 LD Common-law partner Df Person 1 04 LD Son or daughter of Person 1 05 LD Father or mother of Person 1 06 LD Brother or sister of Person 1 07 | I Son-in-law or daughter-in-law of Person 1 08 ED Father-in-law or mother-inlaw of Person 1 04 Q Son or daughter of Person 1 05 LD Father or mother of Person 1 06 LD Brother or sister of Person 1 07 LD Son-in-law or daughter-in-law of Person 1 08 O Father-in-law or mother-inlaw of Person 1  Person 4  Given name and initial  04 LD Son or daughter of Person 1 05 LD Father or mother of Person 1 06 LD Brother or sister of Person 1 07 LD Son-in-lew or daughter-in-law of Person 1 08 D Father-in-Jaw or mother-inlaw of Person 1  Person 5  Last name Given name and initial  04 LD Son or daughter of Person 1 05 LD Father or mother of Person 1 06 LD Brother or sister of Person 1 07 LD Son-in-4aw or daughter-in-law of Person 1 08 LD Father-in-law or mother-inlaw of Person 1  Person 6  Last name Given name and initial  04 O Son or daughter of Person 1 05 D Father or mother of Person 1 06 LD Brother or sister of Person 1 07 LD Son-in-law or daughter-in-law of Person 1 08 LD Father-in-faw or mother-inlaw of Person 1  09 LD Brother-in-law or sister-inlaw of Person 1 10 LD Grandchild of Person 1 11 LD Nephew or niece of Person 1 D Other relative of Person 1 (print below)  12 LD Lodger 13 LD Lodger's husband or wife 14 LD Lodger's son or daughter 15 LD Room-mate 16 LD Employee LP Other non-relative (print below)  09 LD Brother-in-law or sister-inlaw of Person 1 10 LD Grandchild of Person 1 11 LD Nephew or niece of Person 1 LD Other relative of Person 1 (print below)  12 • Lodger 13 O Lodger's husband or wife 14 LD Lodger's son or daughter 15 LD Room-mate 16 LD Employee LD Other non-relative . (print below)  09 LD Brother-in-law or sister-inlaw of Person 1 10 LD Grandchild of Person 1 11 LD Nephew or niece of Person 1 LD Other relative of Person 1 (print below)  12 • Lodger 13 LD Lodger's husband or wife 14 LD Lodger's son or daughter 15 LD Room-mate 16 LD Employee LD Other non-relative (print below)  'LD 09 LD Brother-in-law or sister-inlaw of Person 1 10 [D Grandchild of Person 1 11 ,LD Nephew or niece of Person 1 LD Other relative of Person 1 (print below)  12 LD Lodger 13 LD Lodger's husband or wife 14 LD Lodger's son or daughter 15 LD Room-mate 16 LD Employee LD Other non-relative (print below)  •LU 09 LD Brother-in-law or sister-inlaw of Person 1 10 LD Grandchild of Person 1 11 LD Nephew or niece of Person 1 LD Oth""- relative of Person 1 (print below)  12 LD Lodger 13 LD Lodger's husband or wife 14 LD Lodger's son or daughter 15 LD Room-mate 16 LD Employee LD Other non-relative (print below)  187  ALSO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ON PAGE 4  DATE Or BIRTH int day, month and year. Example: you were born on the 10th of ,'bruary, 1945, you would enter  4. S E X  5. M A R I T A L  21 • Now married (excluding separated) 2 2 •Separated 23 • Divorced 24 • Widowed 25 • Never married (single)  i 9 • Male 20 • Female  Month  Year  19 O M a l e  Day  20 • Female Month  Year  19 • Male  Day  1 ; I  20 • Female  18  Month  Year  19 D M a l e  Day  20 • Female Month  Year  19 Q M a l e  Day  2 0 • Female Month  Year  19 • Male  Day  20 • Female Month  Year  6. What is the language you first learned in childhood and still understand? m  (See guidelines for further information./ Mark one box only  [£i£J exact date is not known, enter .•st estimate.  Day  STATUS  What is vour marital status?  I  OFFICE USE ONLY  Mark one box only  57 58 59 60 61  • • • • •  63  64  62  D A  •  F  65 •  M  63 •  A  64  F  Other (specify)  2 1 • Now married (excluding separated) 22 Q Separated 2 3 • Divorced 24 • Widowed 25 [~1 Never married (single)  • English • French • German • Italian 1 I Ukrainian  21 • Now married (excluding separated) 22 n Separated 23 • Divorced 24 •Widowed . 25 • Never married (single) 21 • Now married (excluding separated) 22 •Separated 2 3 • Divorced 24 • Widowed 25 • Never married (single) 21 • Now married (excluding separated) 22 • Separated 23 • Divorced 24 • Widowed 25 • Never married (single) 21 • Now married (excluding separated) 22 •Separated 23 • Divorced 24 • Widowed 2? I I Never married (single)  • English Q French 1 I German • Italian • Ukrainian  A LSO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ON PAGE 4  t  English French German Italian Ukrainian  65  •  D M  •  % !A r: i•  Other (specify)  mi.  63 •  !.. 64  D  F  r"  !"  j  es D M  Other (specify)  • English I I French • German Q Italian • Ukrainian  ml  A  63  D A  64  D F  6S  D M  l i[.:;  Other (specify)  English French German Italian Ukrainian  'i'.-f 63 •  A,  64  F  •  English French German Italian Ukrainian  M :  1  63 •  A  64  F  D  ! 65 D !  Other (specify)  K 1  65 •  Other (specify)  j;  M  i  %  i  IM  i  $  1 L'  188  A dwelling is a separate set of living quarters with a private entrance from the outside or from a common hallway or stairway inside the building. This entrance should not be through someone else's living quarters.  Enter The name of the person (or one of the persons) who lives here and is responsible for paying the rent, or mortgage, or taxes, or electricity, etc., for this dwelling. i  01  Last name  Given name and initial  This person should answer the following Questions about this dwelling. NOTE: If no one living here makes any such payments, mark here • ond answer the dwelling questions yourself. 8. How many persons usually live here (according to the WHOM TO ~ INCLUDE item in the INSTRUCTIONS FOR QUESTION 11? Number of persons Did you leave anyone out of Question 1 because you were not sure whether he or she should be listed? For example, a student, a lodger  who alto has another home, a new baby still in hospital, or a former occupant of this household who has become a patient in a hospital or sanatorium within the past six months.  • Yes ONO If "Yes", print the name of each person left out and the reason.  12. Is this dwelling a: Mark one box only  05 • single house — a single dwelling not attached to any other i--' - -'=5 lonrrsg. 1 building and surrounded on all sides by open space? 06 1 I tarni-detachad or double house — one of two dwellings attached side by siae but not attached to any other building and surrounded on all other sides by open space? 07 • duplex — one of two dwellings, one above the other, no: attached to any other building and surrounded on all sides by open space? 08 • row house — one of three or more dwellings joined side by side but not having any /other M dwellings either abo«veor JM£ below?  —w ;  OO  • kiI l D  D  09 •apartment in a building that has five or more storeys — for example, a dwelling unit in a high rise apartment building?  £ ^ • I JRi -J 112  10 •apartment in a building that has less than five storeys — r „ for example, a dwelling unit ^jJL^aAj00 0 0 l 0 ^ 1 in a triplex, quadruplex or a fo XTE ^ ci]p*j30 dwelling unit in a non-resi- jej^g ^D|j§"S ^ LS£L dential building or in a House -*-' that has been converted?  Name I  S  Reason  r Reason  DB:=  1 I house attached to a non-residential building — a single dwelling attached at ground level to another building ^ (such as a store, etc.) but P separated from it by a com- t M^ mon wall running from ground to roof? o 3  L  J  D  If you require more space, please use the Comments section.  12 •mobile home (designed and constructed to be transported on its own chassis and capable jyj^j^p^jf^ , r ,^, of being moved on short """" ^ '" ' notice)? uLJ  10. How many persons who have a usual home el*ewhere in Canada are staying or visiting here temporarily (as of Census Day, June 3)? • None OR  11. Is this dwelling: Mark one box only  03 • owned or being bought by you or a member of this household? 04 • rented (even if no cash rent is paid)?  I-Vvi' j i  1 3 I 1 other movable dwelling (such _ ju _ > , —-\ j as a tent, travel trailer, rail- / A Q B-P'M -'Bf ^ 1 road car or houseboat)? fVY a\ VV? -rr -S 1 l-r-M—1> ^ 3  Number of persons  LiU  A  L  m  OFFICE USE ONLY J Trans. ..si Coll. 16 LJRef. n CZJ Miss. 14  JIC - A 1?  JIC - 6  3  Staistiis Canada Canada  i p g j ^ C ^ ^ u s  of  C a n a d a  QBMASlot^  Please c o m p l e t e ^ u r q u i ^ ^ ™ ^ Wednesday, June 3,1981  ] Prov.  Hhld. No.  Doc. type  No. of persons  3  O N L Y  VN  EA No.  FED No.  f  Quest. No.  :  of -4 0S/M ." 3 O TR 1 1 -j i | i - r M  Aux francophones:  Please complete address or exact location:  Si ce questionnaire anglais vous a ete remis par erreur et si vous desirez un questionnaire francais, veuillez appeler le Service auxiliaire telephonique. Les numeros a composer figurent sur la couverture arriere. On vous remettra un questionnaire dans la langue de votre choix.  Street and No. or lot and concession  Legal requirement The census of Canada is taken under the authority of the Statistics Act, which requires everyone to provide the information requested.  City, town, village, municipality  L  Postal code  Province or territory Telephone number:  Confidential when completed The information you will give will be kept confidential and used only for the production of statistics. No one will see the answers you give except for persons sworn to secrecy under the Statistics Act. These persons are subject to prosecution and legal penalties if they disclose personal census information.  T o Temporary Residents  ..»'-'  If all members of this household are Temporary Residents (i.e., persons staying here temporarily who have a usual home elsewhere in Canada), enter the total number of temporary residents in this box | and do not complete this questionnaire. Follow the return instructions indicated on the envelope which contained this questionnaire.  T o Foreign Residents If all members of this household are Foreign Residents (see below), mark this box and do not complete this questionnaire. Follow the return instructions indicated on the envelope which contained this questionnaire. Foreign Residents (any person in the following categories): • government representatives of another country attached to the legation, embassy or other diplomatic body of that country in Canada, and their families; • members of the Armed Forces of another country, and their families;  NOTE: The guide should provide the answers to any problems that may arise. If not, don't hesitate to call our Telephone Assistance Service. The numbers to call are listed on the back cover of this questionnaire and all calls are free of charge.  TBS - B1O2201  • students from another country attending school in Canada, and their families; • workers from another country in Canada on Employment Visas, and their families; and • residents of another country visiting in Canada temporarily.  •  A message to all Canadians .  Every five years Canada takes a census — a national stock-taking of its people and their housing. From the information it provides, we, as a nation, are better equipped to meet the many challenges facing us at every level, national, regional and local. The answers you give, when compiled into statistics, are used in determining economic and social policies, planning industrial development, and estimating needs for schools, roads and many, other public services. Population figures are used to determine electoral district boundaries, and to calculate per capita grants to provinces and municipalities. For every person who does not initially respond, additional funds must be spent on follow-up procedures. The failure to count yourself in could result in the loss of revenue to your own community. The Statistics Act, under which the census is carried out, not only defines your obligation to co-operate, but ensures that the information you provide will be kept confidential and used only for the purposes of that Act. Your co-operation is essential. Please do your part by completing this questionnaire promptly, as of June 3, 1981, in accordance with the instructions provided. Thank you for your co-operation.  Census statistics tell us that:  • In 1976 the population of Canada was 22,992,604, an increase of almost one and a half million since 1971. • Between 1971 and 1976 the percentage of married women who were in the labour force increased from 37% to44%. • Between 1971 and 1976 the under 30 population decreased to 53.8% of the total from 55.5%. • Between 1971 and 1976 the number of children in Canada under 10 years old decreased by 450,000. At the same time, Canadians 50 years of age and over increased by 618,000. • In 1976, 1,205,000 Canadians were living alone, an increase of almost 400,000 since 1971. More than one third (429,000) were 65 years of age and over.  How to Fill Out This Questionnaire  Please mark K l all your answers clearly with a dark pencil or pen. Answer the questions on pages 2 through 5. Then, starting with page 6, fill three pages for each person in your household, using the same order as you used in Question 1. For example, information for Person 2 will be entered on pages 9, 10, 11; information for Person 3 on pages 12, 13 and 14, etc.  INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  QUESTION  1  O R D E R O F LISTING O F H O U S E H O L D M E M B E R S  ,  To ensure that all persons in the same family group are listed together, the following order should be used when entering the names of all members of the household in Question 1: . (a) Person 1; Choose one of the following as Person 1: — either the husband or the wife in any married couple living here — either partner in a common-law relationship — the parent, where one parent only lives with his or her never-married son(s) or daughter(s) of any age. If none of the above applies, choose any adult member of this household. (b) husband or wife (or common-law partner) of Person 1; (c) never-married children or stepchildren of Person 1;  . .  (d) other children of Person 1, and their families; . (e) other relatives of Person 1 (whether related by blood, marriage, adoption or common-law), and their families; .-' . (f) persons not related to Person 1, and their families. WHOM T O  INCLUDE  To make certain that every resident of Canada is counted in the census (and that no one is counted more than once), the following guidelines should be used when deciding who should be included on this questionnaire. Include • all persons who usually live here, even if they are temporarily . away (such as on business or at school); • any persons staying or visiting here who have no other usual home; . .. •. • persons who usually live here but are now in an institution (such as a hospital, correctional institution), if they have been there for less than six months; ~" • unmarried persons who have a home elsewhere but stay in this dwelling most of the week while working; . • infants born on or before June 2,1981;• deceased persons who were alive at midnight between June 2 and June 3,1981. . Do not include • persons who are now in an institution and have been there for the past six months or longer; • infants born on or after June 3,1981; • persons permanently away in the Armed Forces; • post-secondary students who are financially independent and who live elsewhere; • unmarried sons or daughters who live elsewhere most of the week while working, even if they return home on the weekends; • foreign residents (see front cover). H O U S E H O L D S WITH M O R E T H A N SIX  PERSONS  If there are more than six persons in this household, enter the first six on one questionnaire and continue with the seventh person on a second questionnaire, starting in the row marked "Person 2". If you need additional questionnaires, see the instructions for Question 1 in the Guide.  Page 2 1. NAME Using the instructions given on the left, print below the names of all persons usually living here as of Wednesday, June 3, 198V  2. RELATIONSHIP TO PERSON 1 '~ For each person in this household, mark KI one box only to describe his or her relationship to Person 1. If you mark the box "Other relative" or "Other non-reiative", print in the relationship to Person 1. Some examples ol the "Other" relationships sre: grandmother room-mate's daughter uncle employee's husband For further examples and special cases, see Guide.  Person 1 01 [S Person 1 Given name and initial Person 2  Given name and initial Person 3 Last name Given name and initial  02 D Husband or wife of Person 1 03 Q Common-law partner of Person 1 04 D Son or daughter of Person 1 05 LZI Father or mother of Person 1 06 LZI Brother or sister of Person 1 07 QZI Son-in-law or daughter-in-law of Person 1 08 Q Father-in-law or mother-inlaw of Person 1 D Son or daughter of Person 1 D Father or mother of Person 1 D Brother or sister of Person 1 \ I Son-in-law or daughter-in-law of Person 1 08 D Father-in-law or mother-inlaw of Person 1  04 05 06 07  Person 4 Last name Given name Bnd initial  LZJ Son or daughter of Person 1 D Father or mother of Person 1 D Brother or sister of Person 1 D Son-in-law or deughter*in4aw. of Person 1 08 LZ Father-in-law or mother-inlaw of Person 1 04 05 06 07  Person 5 Last name Given name and initial  LZI Son or daughter of Person 1 Q Father or mother of Person 1 LZI Brother or sister of Person 1 [~J Son-in-law or daughter-in-law of Person 1 08 LZ) Father-in-law or mother-inlaw of Person 1  04 05 06 07  Person 6 Lest name Given name and initial  04 05 06 07  O Son or daughter of Person 1 LZ) Father or Mother of Person 1 [ZD Brother or sister of Person 1 I I Son-in-law or daughter-in-law of Person 1 08 LZI Father-in-law or mother-inlaw of Person 1  09 LZI Brother-in-law or sister-inlaw of Person 1 10 D Grandchild of Person 1 Jl • Nephew or niece of Person 1 Q Other relative of Person 1 (print below)  12 Q Lodger 13 EZI Lodger's husband or wife 14 D Lodger's son or daughter 15 L"_]Room-mate 16 D Employee 1 I Other non-relative (print below)  09 D Brother-in-law or sister-inlaw of Person 1 10 O Grandchild of Person 1 11 D Nephew or niece of Person 1 D Other relative of Person 1 (print below)  12 Q Lodger 13 Q Lodger's husband or wife 14 D Lodger's son or daughter is [ 1 Room-mate .... 16 D Employee - \I \ Other non-relative (print below)  09 LZI Brother-in-law or sister-inlaw of Person 1 10 D Grandchild of Person 1, .. 11 D Nephew or niece of Person 1 [~1 Other relative of Person 1 (print below)  12 • L o d g e r v.- 13 Q Lodger's husband or Wife 14 LZI Lodger's son or daughter 15 1 I Room-mate 16 D Employee ~ • r~l Other non-relative (print below)  09 LZ) Brother-in-law or sister-inlaw of Person 1 10 LZ) Grandchild of Person 1 11 L_3 Nephew or niece of Person 1 | I Other relative of Person 1 (print below) "03 09 D Brother-in-law or sister-in- . law of Person 1 10 LZ1 Grandchild of Person 1 11 LZ1 Nephew or niece of Person 1 (Z1 Other relative of Person 1 (print below)  :  . 12 • Lodger 13 LZI Lodger's husband or wife 14 LZI Lodger's son or daughter 15 Room-mate 16 O Employee | I Other non-relative (print below) 12 13 14 15 16  • Lodger O Lodger's husband or wife LZI Lodger's son or daughter LZ Room-mate LZ) Employee (Zl Other non-relative (print below)  193  Page 3 3. DATE OF BIRTH Print day, month and year. Example: M you were bom on the 10th of February, 1945, you would enter  4. SEX  5. MARITAL STATUS What is your marixa! status?  6. What is the language VDU first learned in childhood and still understand? m  OFFICE USE ONLY  (See Guide for further information.)  QUI  Mark one box only  Mark one box only  II exact date is not known, enter best estimate. 19 DMale  Day  20 D Female Year  Month  19 D M a l e  Day  20 • Female Month  Year  1 9 ' • Male  Day  20 O Female  »»l ;  Month  1  1!  i : 1  Year  19 D M a l e  ! 1  Day  • »l  l  Month  1 M •! : 1 Year -  ! 1  Day  IS | : | | : : : | Month Year  ! 1  Day  •  20 D Female  19 D M a l e 20 D Female  19 D M a l e 20 D Female  ••LU-  Month  ! ; ; M  Year  .21 D Now married (excluding separated) 22 D Separated 23 D Divorced 24 D Widowed 25 D Never married (single) 2 J D Now married (excluding separated) 22 D Separated 23 D Divorced 24 D Widowed 25 D Never married (single) 21 D Now married (excluding separated) 22 | I Separated ' 23 D Divorced 24 D Widowed 25 1 1 Never married • (single) . 21 D Now married (excluding separated) 22 D Separated •• 23 D Divorced 24 D Widowed 25 D Never married (single) 21 D Now married (excluding separated) 22 D Separated 23 D Divorced 24 D Widowed 25 D Never married (single) 21 D Now married (excluding separated) 22 D Separated 23 D Divorced 24 D Widowed 25 D Never married (single)  5? 58 59 60 61  O English • French D German D Italian D Ukrainian  " CD 57 58 59 60 '61  • • O • D  L  Other (specify) English French German Italian' Ukrainian  63  Other (specify) /.SI • English .58'L~DFrench . 59 D German 60 O Italian -• 61 D Ukrainian  «E3 L 57 58 59 60 61  D D D D D  Other (specify) English French German Italian Ukrainian  «LHL 57 58 59 60 61  Other (specify)  65 • M  J  66 • U  63 D A 64 • F 65 • M 66 • U  "•MSS •  Other (specify)  A  -V«4 • F •565 • M ?66 • U  J  -«3 • A 64 • F 65 B M 66 • U  J  J 63 El A  , 64 • F j 65 • M  J.  • English • French • German • Italian Oukr.inian  L  A  64 • F  "llt________J Other (specify I 57 • English . 58 • French -.SyDGerman • 60 • Italian 61 O Ukrainian  «E0L  D  i  I 66 • U !  US  ! 6? • A  j 64 • F ! 65 • M  J  i 66 • U  EMS  Page 4  A dwelling is a separate set of living quarters with a private entrance from the outside or from a common hallway or stairway inside the building. This entrance should not be through someone else's living quarters.  Enter the name of the person (or one of the persons) who lives here • and is responsible for paying the rent, or mortgage, or taxes, or elec. . tricity, etc., for this dwelling. hSZJ  12.  is this dwelling a: Mark one box only  05 •  single house — a single dwelling not attached to Bny other building and surrounded on all sides by open space?  3 ID  7. B  Last name  Given name and initial  06 •semi-detached or double house — one of two dwel I ings attached side by side but not attached to any other building and surrounded on all other sides by open space?  This person should answer the following questions about this dwelling. NOTE: If no one living here makes any such payments, mark here • and answer the dwelling questions yourself.  8. How many persons USUBIV live here (according to the WHOM TO ~ INCLUDE item in the INSTRUCTIONS FOR QUESTION 11? .  07 Qduplex — one of two dwellings, one above the other, not attached to any other building and surrounded on all sides by open soace?  06 •  Number of persons  DidVou leave anyone out of Question 1 because you were not sure whether he or she should be listed? For example, a student, a lodger who also has another home, a new baby still in hospital, or a former occupant of this household who has become a patient in a hospital or sanatorium within the past six months.  •  •  Yes  row house — one of three or more dwellings joined side by side but not having any other dwellings either above or below?  aoi_  DJfODQl  I5loJ13  * •apartment in a building that has five or more storeys — for example, a dwelling unit in a highrise apartment building?  No  If "Yes", print the name of oach person left out end the reason. 10 •apartment in a building that has less than five storeys — for example, a dwelling unit in a triplex, quadruplex or a dwelling unit in a non-residential buildingorinehouse that has been converted?  Name !  • Reason  If you require more space, please use the Comments section on the back cover.  10.  12 •  How many persons who have a usual home elsewhere in Canada c staying or visiting here temporarily (as of Census Day, June 3)? •  house attached to * non-residential building — a single dwelling attached at ground level to another building ' (such as a store, etc.) but separated from it by a com-. mon wall running from ground to roof?  mobile home (designed end constructed to be transported on its own chassis and capable „\ , of being moved on short notice)?  None OR  13 • Number of persons  other movable dwelling (such as a tent, trailer, rail- tA road car ortrave, houseboat)?  ..  f^\^J^SQ(SMS).  OFFICE USE ONLY 11.  Is this dwelling: Mark one box only  03 •  owned or being bought by you or a member of this household?  04 •  rented (even if no cash rent is paidl?  14 [3 Trans. 15 [ T j  Coll.  16 QRef. 17 O M i s s .  19  .  •  When was this dwelling or the building containing this dwelling originally built? (To the best of your knowledge, mark the period in whic:h the building was completed, not the time of any later remodelling,i ] additions or conversions.) j I 08 Mark one box only 01 • 1920 or before 05 • 1971-1975 02 • 1921-1945 06 • 1976-1979 03 • 1946-1960 07 01980 04 • 1961 -1970 08 • 1981 14. How long have you lived in this dwelling? Mark one box only "  09 10 11 12 13  LD Less than one year LD One to two years LD Three to five years LDsix to ten years D More thBn ten years  ow many rooms are there in this dwelling? (Include kitchen, bed15. H rooms, finished rooms in attic or basement, etc. Do not count bathrooms, halls, vestibules and rooms used solely for business purposes.) 14  Number of rooms  16. How many bathrooms arc there within this dwelling? (See Guiae for further information.)  15 QNone OB '  J Number of complete bathrooms Number of half bathrooms 17. What is the main type of heating equipment for this dwelling? • Mark one box only  18 19 20 21 22  LD Steam or hot water furnace. LD Forced hot air furnace LD Installed electric heating system D Heating stove, cooking stove, space heater • Other (fireplace, etc.)  18. (a) Which fuel is used most for heating this dwelling? 27 Owood 23 Q Oil or kerosene 24 O Piped gas, e.g., natural 28 • Coal or coke gas 29 • Other fuel 25 O p Bottled g a s , e.g.. ropane 26 • Electricity (b) Which fuel is used most for water heating in this dwelling? 34 Dwood 30 DOil or kerosene 31 D Piped gas, e.g., natural 35 Qcoal or coke gas 36 • Other fuel 32 O Bottled gas, e.g.. propane 33 D Electricity 19. Is this dwelling in need of any repairs? (Do not include desirable * remodelling or additions.) 37 LD No, only regular maintenance is needed (painting, furnace cleaning, etc.) 38 • Yes, minor repairs are needed (missing or loose floor tiles, bricks or shingles, defective steps, railing or siding, etc.) 39 LD Yes, major repairs are needed (defective plumbing or electrical wiring, structural repairs to walls, floors or ceilings, etc.)  Answer Questions 20 to 22 for only the awelling that you now occupy, even if you own or rent more than one dwelling. If exact amount is not known, please enter your best estimate. NOTE: If you are a farm operator living on the farm you operate, mark here 40 LD and go to page 6. 20. For this dwelling, what are the yearly payments (last 12 months) for: • (a) electricity? 41 LD None, or included in rent or other payments, OR Dollars Cents 42 j 001 per /ear (b) oil, gas, coal, wood or other fuels? 43 LD None, or included in rent or other payments, OR Dollars Cents 44 00 per year (c) water and other municipal services? 45 LD None, or included in rent, municipal taxes or other payments, OR Dollars Cents V 46 00 P«r Vear ^21. For RENTERS only: What is the monthly cash rant you pay for • ' this dwelling? -v\ 4*7 LD Rented without payment of cash rent j OR Go to page 6 .. Dollars Cents I 00 jper month 48 22. For OWNERS only: i • > > . . . (B) What are your total regular monthly mortgage (or debt) pay--' ments for this dwelling? 49 LD None • Go to Question 22(c) OR Dollars Cents 50 f 00 | per month (b) Are your property taxes (municipal and school) included in the amount shown in Question 22(a)? 51 •  Yes •  Goto Question 22(d)  52 LDNO  (c) What are your estimated yearly property taxes (municipal and school) for this dwelling?  53 LDNone 54  OR Dollars  Cents 00 . per year  (d) If you were to sell this dwelling now, for how much would you expect to sell it? 00 (e) Is this dwelling part of a registered condominium?  56 • Yes 57 D N O  196  Page 6 28. What language do you yountelf speak at home now? * (If more than one language, which language do you speak most often?)  N A M E OF PERSON 1  Given name and initial  1 !  23. Where were you born? (Mark according to present boundaries.) IN C A N A D A OUTSIDE CANADA Mark one box only  Mark one box only  01 DNfld.  13 CI United Kingdom 14 • Italy' 15 • U.S.A. 16 Owest Germany 11 D East Germany 18 • Poland  02 • 03  P.E.I.  • N.S.  04 D N . E . 05  CH Que.  Ont. 0? [ZlMan. 06 D  Mark one box only  57 • English 58 LD French 59 LD German 60 LD Italian 61 LD Ukrainian «LHL J Other (specify) Can you speak English or French well enough to conduct a conversation? (See Guide for further information.) Mark one box only  08 CDSask.  63 64 65 66  Other (specify)  09 • Alta. 10 • B.C. 1 1 - D Yukon 12 D N . W . T .  LD English only LD French only LD Both English and French LD Neither English nor French  30. Were you born before June 3, 1966? • No • END HERE FOR THIS PERSON  Of what country are you a citizen? . , Mark as many boxes as apply  Yes •  20 D Canada, by birth • Go ro Question 26" 21 Q Canada, by naturalization Go to 22 O Seme as country of birth {other than Canada) • Question 25 23 D Other  Continue with Questions 31 to 46  31. What is the highest grade or year of secondary (high) or elementary • school you ever.attended? (See Guide for further.information.)  67 LD No schooling or kindergarten only *!: OR ..V Highest grade or year (1 to 13) of secondary or elementary school  25. In what year did you first immigrate to Canada? Print year below  If exact year is not known, please enter best estimate. 24  32. How many years of education have you ever completed at university? 69 CD None : . To which ethnic or cultural group did you or your ancestors belong 70 LD Less than 1 year (of completed courses) > " • on first coming to this continent? ISee Guide for further information.) Number of completed years 25 D French Native Peoples How many years of schooling have you ever completed at an 37 D Inuit 26 D English institution other than a university, secondary (high) or elementary 38 ED Status or registered Indian 27 • Irish school? Include years of schooling at community colleges, institutes of technology, CEGEPs (general and professional), private 39 D Non-status Indian 28 D Scottish trade schools or private business colleges, diploma schools of 40 O Metis 29 D German nursing, etc: 30 D Italian (See Guide for further information.) 31 D Ukrainian 72 LD None 32 D Dutch (Netherlands) 73 LD Less than 1 year (of completed courses) 33 • Polish 34 O Jewish 74 J Number of completed years 35 • Chinese What degrees, certificates or diplomas have you ever obtained? o r (See Guide for further information.) Other (specify} Mark as many boxes as apply  What is your religion? Mark one box only  41 Q Roman Catholic 42 LD United Church 43 O Anglican 44 LD Presbyterian 45 LD Lutheran 46 LD Baptist 47 LD Greek Orthodox 4 k LD Jewish  75 76 77 78  49 LDukrainian Catholic 50 LD Pentecostal 51 LD Jehovah's Witnesses 52 LD Mennonite 53 LD Salvation Army 54 Q Islam 55 LD No religion Other (specify)  JL  LD None LD Secondary (high) school graduation certificate fD Trades certificate or diploma LD Other n on-university certificate or diploma (obtained at community college, CEGEP, institute of technology, etc.) 79 D University certificate or diptoma below bachelor level 80 LD Bachelor's degree(s) (e.g., B.A., B.Sc, B.A.Sc, LL.B.) 81 LD University certificate or diploma above bachelor level 82 LD Master's degree(s) (e.g., M.A., M.Sc, M.Ed.) S3 LD Degree in medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine or optometry (M.D., D.D.S., D.M.D., D.V.M., O.D.) 64 LD Earned doctorate (e.g., Ph.D., D.Sc, D.Ed.)  pBpe 7 • QUESTIONS FOR PERSON 1 - CONTINUED 35. Have you attended a school, college or university at any time since last September? (Include attendance at elementary or secondary schools, business or trade schools, community colleges, institutes of technology, CEGEPs, etc.) : L_1°J  j ! !  (d) Did you look for work during the past four weeks? For example, did you contact a Canada Employment Centre, check with employers, place or answer newspaper ads? Mark one box only 19 O  DNO " 02 • Yes, full-time 03 Q Yes, pan-time, day or evening  No  •  Goto Question 40  2 0 LZ Yes, looked for full-time work 21 LZ) Yes, looked for part-time work (less than 30 hours per week)  Mark one box only 01  •  (e) Was there any reason why you could not start work last week? Mark one box only  36. Where did you live 5 years ago on June 1,1976?  22 23 24 25 26 27  Mark one box only If your place of residence 5 years ago was a municipality within a large urban area, be careful not to confuse suburban municipalities with the largest city. For example, distinguish between Montreal-Nord and Montreal, Scarborough and Toronto, West Vancouver and Vancouver.  NOTE:  04 Q This dwelling ^ 05 Q Different dwelling in this city, town,* Go to Question 37 village, borough, or municipality 06 Q.Outside Canada V 07 Q Different city, town, village, borough, or municipality in Canada (specify below) -  40. When did you last work, even for a few days (not including housework or other work around your home)? a  Mark one box only  28 Din 1981 |k •,—, v Answer Questions 41 to 46 Qln 1980 r 30 • Before 1980 k •- ' r—, m Go to Question 31 ! I Never worked in lifetime V  29  City, town, village, borough, or municipality County  Province or territory  Number of children  38. For ALL PERSONS who are married or have ever been married: What were the month and year of your first marriage?  Include: • working for wages, salary, tips or commission, • working in your own business, farm or professional • working without pay in a family farm or business. 12  D None ^ OR  (a) For whom did you work?  ._..._______... •••• L _ _ _ _ _  -U _ _ A  Name of firm, government agency, etc.  '  .4,.  fj.  _ J Give full description. For example, paper box manufacturing, road construction, retail shoe store, secondary school dairy farm.  42. At what address did you work? If no usual place of work, see Guide. Mark one box only  practice,  Continue with Questions 39(b) to 46  Hours (to the nearest hour) ^  33 D Worked at home (includes living and working on the same farm) 34 Q Worked outside Canada 35 O W orked at address below (please specify) —  L  Go to Question 41  (b) Last week, were you on temporary lay-off or absent from your job or business?  Number  J  Street  If street address is not known, give the building name, shopping centre or street intersection, etc.  J  Mark one box only  • No J 5 O Yes, on temporary lay-off 16 O Yes, on vacation, ill, on strike or locked out, or absent for other reasons (c) Last week, did you have definite arrangements to start a new job within the next four weeks? 14  17 16  . .  . (b) What kind of business, industry or service was this?  M i l l  Year Month 39. (a) Last week, how many hours did you work (not including housework or other work around your home)?  . .  Department, branch, division, section or plant  If exact month or year are not known, enter best estimate.  n m  46  41. NOTE: Questions 41 to 44 refer to your job or business last week..If none, answer for your job of longest duration since January"1, 1980. If you held more than one job last week, answer for the Job at which you worked the most hours. ;3-  37. For WOMEN who are married or have ever been married: How many * children were ever bom to you? (Count all children including those who may have died since birth or who may now be living elsewhere. However do not include stillbirths.) 09 • None OR ' r* 'L  D No, could have started work Q Yes, already had a job Q Yes, temporary illness or disability Q Yes, personal or family responsibilities D Yes, going to school Q Yes, other reasons  City, town, village, borough, township or other municipality Important: If you worked in a suburban municipality within a  large urban area, specify that municipality, not the main city.  J  QNO  • Yes  County  1 i 11 j III  36  Province or territory  j  \  :  31  38  Mi;;!  It  Page 8  QUESTIONS FOR PERSON 1 - CONCLUDED  (46.; During the year ending December 31, 1980, did you receive any income m  or suffer Bny loss from the sources listed below?  43. (a) What kind of work were you doing?  — H yes, please check the "Yes" box and enter the amount; in case of a loss, also check the "Loss" box. — If no, please check the "No" box and proceed to the next source. — Do not include family allowances. For example, accounting clerk, sales representative, civil engineer, — Piease consult the Guide for details. secondary school teacher, chief electrician, metal worker. AMOUNT  (b) In this work, what were your most important activities or duties?  (a) Total wages and salaries includ- 13 • ing commissions, bonuses, tips, etc., before any deductions 14 •  cm  For example, verifying invoices, selling electrical tools, managing the research department, teaching mathematics, supervising construction electricians, operating lathe. (If in the Armed (b) Net non-farm self-employment Forces give rank.) 15 • income (gross receipts minus expenses) from unincorporated business, professional practice, 01 i 17 • etc., on own account or in partnership  44. (a) In this job were you mainly: 02 D working for wages, salary, tips or • commission? 03 D working without pay for a relative in a family farm or business? 04 O self-employed without paid help? 05 D self-employed with paid help?  Go to Question 45  Continue with Question 44(b)  (b) If self-employed, was your farm or business incorporated? 06  (c) Net farm self-employment  YesH  No  YesK No  16 D Loss  jg p~j yes^  income (gross receipts minus expenses) from agricultural operations on own account ,20 D or in partnership  id) Old age security pension and guaranteed income supplement  21 • from federal government only,  DNO  Cents  Dollars  •  Loss  28 •  Loss  33 •  Loss  No  YesK  and benefits from Canada or 22 • No Quebec Pension Plan (Provincial  07 Dves 45. (a) In how many weeks did you work during 1980 (not including * housework or other work around your home)?  income supplements should be reported in (fj). . :  Include those weeks in which you: • worked full-time or part-time; • were on vacation or sick leave with pay; • were self-employed.  08 D None ^  23 • Yes^L (e) Benefits from Unemployment Insurance , 24 Q No  Go to Question 46  OR  (f) Other income from government sources including provincial ' Jf income supplements and social 25 l_l Yes^L assistance, co., veterans' pen1—1 sions, workers'compensation, ^ ,welfare payments (Do not include family allowances) 2  (b) During most of those weeks, did you work full-time or part-time?  6  Mark one box only  10 D Full-time 11 O Part-time CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 46 OFFICE USE ONLY •  in.  (g) Dividends and interest on bonds, 27 Q Yes^L deposits and savings certificates, and other investment income, e.g., net rents from real estate, 29 D No interest from mortgages  (h) Retirement pensions, superannuation and annuities -and other money income, e.g.,  alimony, scholarships (Do not include family allowances)  •  YesH  •  No  32 • YesH  (i) Total income from all of the above sources (Do not include family allowances) 34 •  No  END OF QUESTIONS FOR PERSON 1 PERSON 2 - CONTINUE  199  Paoe 9 NAME Or PERSON 2  What language do you yourself soeak at home now? (If more than one language, which language do you speak most often?)  Mark one box only Last name Given name and initial 57 LD English 23. Where were you born? (Mark according to present boundaries.) 58 LD French OUTSIDE CANADA IN CANADA 59 LD German 12 i Mark one box only Mark one box only 60 LD Italian 13 LD United Kingdom 01 • Nfld. 02 • P.E.I. 14 LD Italy 61 LD Ukrainian 03 LDN.S. 15 LDu.S.A. Other (specify) 04 LDN.B. 16 CD West Germany 2 9 . C a n y o u s p e a k English or French well enough to conduct a conver05 • due. 1 7 LD East Germany • sation? 06 LDont. 18 LD Poland (See Guide for further information.) 07 LDMan. Mark one box only Ob LDSesk. 63 LD English only Other {specify) 0° ED Alta. 64 LD French only 10 LDB.C. 65 LD Both English and French 11 Q Yukon 66 LD Neither English nor French 12 • N.W.T. 30. Were you born before June 3,1966? 24. Of what country are you a citizen? . •No • END HERE FOR THIS PERSON Mark as many boxes as apply 20 LD Canada, by birth • Co to Question 26 QYes • Continue with Questions 31 to 46 21 l"H Cpnada. bv naturalization 31. W h a t is the highest grade or year of secondary (high) or elementary 22 D Same as country of birth (other than CanaGo da)ro '.* .school you ever attended? ^ Question 25 23 • Other "(SeeGuide forfurtherinformation^) •. Cv-.r" Sk 67 D No schooling or kindergarten only • 25. In what year did you first immigrate to Canada? OR Print year below ~| Highest grade or year (1 to 13) of secondary If exact year is not known, please enter best estimate 68 _i or elementary school . •  24  32. How many years of education have you ever completed at university? YeBr - • 69 I I None *s~ . . . •• *_ ^ ' • To which ethnic or cultural group did you or your ancestors belong 70 D Less than 1 year (of completed courses) on first coming to this continent? {See Guide for further information.} ' ~ Number of completed years 25 • French Native Peoples ow many years of schooling have you ever completed at an 33. H 26 LD English 37 LD Inuit institution other than a university, secondary (high) or elementary school? Include years of schooling at community colleges, insti38 LD Status or registered Indian 27 • Irish tutes of technology, CEGEPs (general and professional), private 39 LD Non<status'lndiBn 28 LD Scottish t rade schools or private business colleges, diploma schools of 40 LD Metis . nursing, etc. • < 29 ED GermBn (See Guide for further information.) .-' *" 30 LD Italian 31 O Ukrainian 72 LD None ' / 32 • Outch (Netherlands) 73 LD Less than 1 year (of completed courses) 33 • Polish 34 LD Jewish Number of completed years 35 LD Chinese What degrees, certificates or diplomas have you ever obtained? ,rn L (See Guide for further information.) Other (specify) Mark as many boxes as apply What is your religion? 75 LD None Mark one box only 76 LD Secondary (high) school graduation certificate 41 D Roman Catholic 49 LD Ukrainian Catholic 77 LD Trades certificate or diploma 42 • United Church 50 LD Pentecostal 78 LD Other non-university certificate or diploma (obtained at 43 LD Anglican 51 • Jehovah's Witnesses community college, CEGEP, institute of technology, etc.) 44 O Presbyterian 52 LD Mennonite 79 LD University certificate or diploma below bachelor level 45 O Lutheran 53 •Salvation Army 80 • Bachelor's degree(s) (e.g., B.A., B.Sc., B.A.Sc., LL.B.) 54 • Islam 46 O Baptist 81 CD University certificate or diploma above bachelor level 55 O No religion 47 • Greek Orthodox 82 • Master's degree(s) (e.g. M.A., M_Sc.. M.Ed.) 48 • Jewish 83 ED Degree in medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine or - m L J optometry (M.D., D.D.S., D.M.D., D.V.M., O.D.) Other (specify) 84 LD Earned doctorate (e.g., Ph.D., D.Sc, D.Ed.) (  200  Pagt 10  * (d) Dio vou look tor work during the Dast four weeks? For example.  QUESTIONS FOR PERSON 2 - CONTINUED  .  Have you attended a school, college or university at any time since last September? (Include attendance at elementary or secondary schools, business or trade schools, community colleges, institutes , of technology, CEGEPs, etc.)  I  i Mark ona box only  35.  LD No 02 • Yes, full-time 03 LD Yes, part-time, day or evening  did you comact a Canada Ernaroyment Centre, check with employers, olace or answer newspaoer ads? Mark one box only  19 •  No  •  Go to Question 40  20 LD Yes, looked for full-time work 21 LD Yes, looKed for part-time work (less than 30 hours per week)  01  *  (e) Was there any reason why you could not start work last week? Mark one box only  Where did you live 5 years ego on June 1,19767  22 23 24 25 26 27  Mark one box only  NOTE:  H your place of residence 5 years ago was a municipality within a large urban area, be careful not to confuse suburban mimicipalities with the largest city. For example, distinguish between Montrdal-Nord and Montreal, Scarborough and Toronto, West Vancouver and Vancouver.  04 [ZJTh.s dwelling k 05 LD Different dwelling in this city, town.E-V . to Question 37 'i Co vitlags, borough, or municipality i 06 p Outside Canada V 07 LD Different city, town, village, borough, or municipality in Canada (specify below/ ^  40. m  No, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes,  could have started work already had a job temporary illness or disability personal or family responsibilities going to school other reasons  When did you last work, even for a few days (not including housework or other work around your home)? Mark one box only  28 • In 1981 W • In 1980 ^V 30 • Before 1980  City, town, village, borough, or municipality  Answer Questions 4 J to 46  W  ,—.  y  31 LJ Never worked in lifetime V 41.  Province or territory  County  CD D CD LD LD LD  „  Go to Question 46  NOTE: Questions 41 to 44 refer to your job or business last week. If none, answer for your job of longest duration since January 1, 1980. If you held more than one job last week, answer forthe job at which you worked the most hours. .  For WOMEN who are married or have ever been married: How many children were ever bom to you? (Count all children including those who may have died since birth or who may now be living elsewhere. However do not include stillbirths.) . . . 09 O None OR .' " 10 38.  ' •  .  L__.E_____._____-_.1-J Name of firm, government egency, etc.  Number of children  -••  , , -  Department, branch, division, section or plant (b) What kind of business, industry or service was this?  If exact month or year are not known, enter best estimate.  -.______.______.___.__.I._J  Include: • working for wages, salary, tips or commission, • working in your own business, farm or professional practice, • working without pay in a family farm or business.  LD  None • OR  ^ '  42.  At what address did you work? If no usual place of work, see Guide. Mark one box only  3 3 LD Worked at home (includes living and working on the same farm) 34 LD Worked outside Canada 35 f"l Worked at address below (please specify)  Continue with Questions 39(b) to 46  Hours (to the nearest hour) ^ Go  to Question 41  (b) Last week, were you on temporary lay-off or. absent from your job or business?  Number  Street  // sfreer address is not known, give the building name, shopping centre or street intersection, etc.  Mark one box only 14  DNO  City, town, village, borough, township or other municipality Important: tf you worked in a suburban municipality within a  15 LD Yes, on temporary lay-off 16 LD « on vacation, ill, on strike or locked out, or absent for other reasons Y  (c) Last week, did you have definite arrangements to start a new within the next four weeks? 17  DNo  16  • Yes  i  Give full description. For example, paper box manufacturing, road construction, retail shoe store, secondary school, dairy fami.  Year  (a) Last week, how many hours did you work (not including housework or other work around your home)?  12  i  L__________._________iL.J  For ALL PERSONS who are married or have ever been married: What were the month and year of your first marriage?  Month 39.  (a) For whom did you work?  large urban area, specify that municipality, no t the main city.  job Province or territory  County  J3  a s d Z L  in  201  *»ge 11 (46.; During the year ending December 31, 1980, did you receive any income QUESTIONS FOR PERSON 2 - CONCLUDED or suffer any loss from the sources listed below? 43. (a) What kind of work were you doing? — If yes, please check the "Yes" box and enter the amount; in case of a loss, also check the "Loss" box. — If no, please check the "No" box and proceed to the next source. — Do not include family allowances. For example, accounting clerk, sales representative, civil engineer; — Please consult the Guide for details. secondary school teacher, chief electrician, metal worker. m  AMOUNT Cents D o l l a r s (b) In this work, what were your most important activities or dutie( s? a) Total wages and salaries includ-• YesK 13 ing commissions, bonuses, tips, etc., before any deductions 1 4 • No 14  For example, verifying invoices, selling electrical tools, managing the research department teaching mathematics, supervising construction electricians, operating lethe. (If in the Armed Forces give rank.)  (b) Net non-farm self-employment income (gross receipts minus 15 • YesK  • Loss  expenses) from unincorporated business, professional practice, etc., on own account or in partnership  17 • No  44. (a) In this job were you mainly: 02 Q working for wages, salary, tips or (c) Net farm self-employment -16 • Yes^ Go to Question 45 commission? income (gross receipts minus expenses) from agricultural 03 D working without pay for a relative operations on own account 20 • No. or in partnership in a family farm or business? 04 • self-employed without paid help? * Continue with rity pension and 0b 5) O ta hspayiodurheflapr?m orVbusQuestion t If s seellff--eemmppllooyyeedd,wiw iness inc44(b) orporated? (d)guOalrdantaegeed sienccuo me supplement , . - _ from federal government only, 2 1 LJ Y e s^ 06 • No and benefits from Canada or . r—i Quebec Pension Plan (Provincial ° .07 • Yes income supplements should be - ,..- ^\ *"*" A (a) In how many weeks did you work during 1980 (not including reported in (f)) - , , housework or other work around your home)?  > •  2 2  • Loss  N  v  :  Include those weeks in which you: • worked full-time or part-time; • were on vacation or sick leave with pay; • were self-employed.  08 Q None ^ OR  r  Go to Question 46  .t 23 • Ye$M_ (e) Benefits from Unemploymen Insurance 24 • No .  '.' „-'  :  (f) Other income from government sources including provincial 25 '• Yes^C income supplements and social assistance, e.g., veterans' pensions, workers'-compensation,26 • No welfare payments (Do not ,  (b) During most of those weeks, did you work full-time or part-time? include family allowances) Mark one box only  10 •Full-time 11 • Part-time CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 46 12 Din.  OFFICE USE ONLY  "  (g) Dividends and interest on bonds, 27 Q Yes^L - deposits and savings certificates, and other investment income, - • e.g., net rents from real estate, 29 D No interest from mortgages  28 • Loss  (h) Retirement pensions, superannuation and annuities and 30 • Y e s H other money income,. e.g., 31 • No alimony, scholarships (Do not include family allowances)  32 • YesK (i) Total income from all of the above sources (Do not include family allowances) 34 • No  33 • Loss  END OF QUESTIONS FOR PERSON 2 PERSON 3 - CONTINUE  202  Page 12 What language do vou yourself sDeak at home now? (If more than one language, which language oo you speak most often?)  NAME OF PERSON 3  Mark one box only  Given name and initial  57 58 59 60 61  23. Where were you born? (Mark according to present boundaries.) OUTSIDE CANADA . , IN CANADA  L_IJLJ  Mark one box only  Mark one box only  01 DNfld. 02 • P.E.I.  13 14 15 16 17 18  03 04  DN.S. DN.B.  05 •Que.  06  Oom.  07 IZlMan.  • United Kingdom • Italy OU.S.A. D West Germany D East Germany • Poland  «LT3 L  63 64 65 66  Mark as many boxes as apply  20 D Canada, by birth •  Go to Question 25  Highest grade or year (1 to 13) of secondary or elementary school . . )jQ  If exact year is not known, please enter best estimate. Year  26. To which ethnic or cultural group did you or your ancestors belong on first coming to this continent?  32. How many years of education have you ever completed at university? • -69 DNone • .;. ' " . fr 70 .O Less than 1 year (of completed courses) .' - ~- ffi -  Native Peoples 37 .• Inuit 38 D Status or registered Indian 39 Q Non-status Indian 40 Q Metis  Number of completed years ' v  33. How many years of schooling have you ever completed at an • institution other than a university, secondaiy (high) or elementary school? Include years of schooling at community colleges, institutes of technology, CEGEPs (general and professional), private • trade schools or private business colleges, diploma schools of nursing, etc. (See Guide for further information.)  -  72 • None •'- .73 O Less thBn 1 year (of completed courses)  74  . J Other (specify)  • •  Number of completed years  What degrees, certificates or diplomas have you ever obtained?  -  (See Guide for further information.) Mark as many boxes as apply  27. What is your religion?  75 76 77 78  Mark one box only  Roman Catholic United Church Anglican Presbyterian Lutheran Baptist Greek Orthodox Jewish  f  :  (See Guide for further information.)  D O D D D CD D •  Continue with Questions 31 to 46  '(See Guide for further information.)  Print year below  French English Irish 1 Scottish 1 German 1 Italian Ukrainian Dutch (Netherlands) Polish 1 Jewish Chinese  Yes •  What is the highest grade or year of secondary (high) or elementary school you ever attended? "67 'Q No schooling or kindergarten only  25. In what year did you first immigrate to Canada?  41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  • '  LZ) English only O French only D Both English and French O Neither English nor French  O  Co to Question 26  21 O Canada, by naturalization 22 O Same as country of birth (other than Canada) 23 • Other  36 • J L I.  .•  30. Were you born before June 3,1966? • No • END HERE FOR THIS PERSON  24. Of what country are you a citizen? •  O • • i 1 1 D • • 1 O  _Jv  (See Guide for further information.)  11 • Yukon 12 CjN.W.T.  25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  Other (specify)  29. Can you speak English or French well enough to conduct a conver* sation?  Other (specify) 1  DB.C.  24  English French German Italian Ukrainian •  Mark one box only  08 -D Sask. 09 DAIta.  10  • O D Q D  49 50 51 52 53 54 55  f~l Ukrainian Catholic DPentecostal D Jehovah's Witnesses QMennonite Q Salvation Army • Islam Q No religion  -mL  J Other (specify)  79 80 81 82 83 B4  • None LZ3 Secondary (high) school graduation certificate D Trades certificate or diploma * 1 I Other non-university certificate or diploma (obtained at community college, CEGEP, institute of technology, etc.)Q University certificate or diploma below bachelor level O Bachelor's degree(s) (e.g., B.A., B.Sc, B.A.Sc., LL.B.) D University certificate or diploma above bachelor level D Master's degree(s) (e.g., M.A., M.Sc, M.Ed.) D Degree in medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine or optometry (M.D., D.DJS., D.M.D., D.V.M., O.D.) O Earned doctorate (e.g., Ph.D., D.Sc. D.Ed.) F  Page 13 (d) Did you look for work during the past four weeks? For extrude, did you contact a Canada Employment Centre, check with employers, place or answer newspaper ads?  QUESTIONS FOR PERSON 3 - CONTINUED 35. Have you attended a school, college or university at any time since last September? {Include attendance at elementary or secondary schools, business or trade schools, community colleges, institutes j of technology, CEGEPs, etc.) _I§J  Mark one box only 19 d l No ^ Y  01 D N O 02 • Yes, full-time 03 Q Yes, part-time, day or evening  (e) Was there any reason why you could not start work last week? Mark one box only  Where did you live 5 years ago on June 1, 1976?  22 23 24 25 26 27  Mark one box only If your place of residence 5 years ago was a municipality within a large urban area, be careful not to confuse suburban municipalities with the largest city. For example, distinguish between • Montreal-Nord and Montreal, Scarborough and Toronto, West Vancouver and Vancouver.  NOTE:  04 Q This dwelling ^ 05 Q Different dwelling in this city, town,| Go to Question village, borough, or municipality E 06 O Outside Canada f 07 Q Different city, town, village, borough, or municipality i Canada (specify below)-  37  mmmm  Province or territory  37. For WOMEN who are married or have ever been married: How many • children were ever bom to you? (Count all children including those who may have died since birth or who may now be living elsewhere. However do not include stillbirths.) 09 O N o n e OR 10 I ) Number of children 38. For A L L PERSONS who are married or have ever been married: What were the month and year of your first marriage? If exact month or year are not known, enter best estimate. Month  m  39. (a) Last week, how many hours did you work (not including housework or other work around your home)? Include: • working for wages, salary, tips or commission, • working in your own business, farm or professional practice, • working without pay in a family farm or business,  13  Continue with Questions 39(b) to 46  Hours (to the nearest hour)  >  Mark one box only  28 29 30 31  • In 1981 Answer Questions 41 to 46 Din 1980 I • Before 1980 " I Go to Question D Never worked in lifetime I  46  41. NOTE: Questions 41 to 44 refer to your job or business last week. If none, answer for your job of longest duration since January 1, • 1980. If you held more than one job last week, answer for the job'. at which you worked the most hours. (a) For whom did you work?  V  .-  •L _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ Name of firm, government agency, etc.  •  -  ?  1  >..  *  J  Department, branch, division, section or plant (b) What kind of business, industry or service was this?  L__  ,_-<-  ... .....J  .  Give full description. For example, paper box manufacturing, road construction, retail shoe store, secondary school dairy farm.  Year  12 Q None • OR  D No, could have started work f~1 Yes, already had a job Q Yes, temporary illness or disability LD Yes,personal or family responsibilities D Yes, going to school D Yes, other reasons  40. When dirt you last work, even for a few days (not including housework or other work around your home)?  City, town, village, borough, or municipality County  Go ro Question 40  20 I 1 Yes, looked for full-time work 21 Q es, looked for part-time work (less than 30 hours per week)  Mark one box only  Y  3-FTP]  '  .'  :  42. At what address did you work? If no usual place of work, see Guide. Mark one box only  1  33 O Worked at home (includes living and working on the same farm) 34 D Worked outside Canada 35 Q Worked at address below (please specify) —  j  Go to Question 41  (b) Last week, were you on temporary lay-off or absent from your job or business?  Number  Street  // street address is not known, give the building name, shopping centre or street intersection, etc.  J  Mark one box only  14 O N O 15 O Yes. on temporary lay-off 16 O Yes, on vacation, ill, on strike or locked out, or absent for other reasons (c) Last wee'.:, did you have definite arrangements to start a new job within the next four weeks? 17 • No 18 • Yes  City, town, village, borough, township or other municipality Important: If you worked in a suburban municipality within a  L  J  large urban area, specify that municipality, no t the main city.  County  »«rr r i r m  Province or territory  »»M ; J M  204  Page 14 ^46^) During the year ending December 31, 1980, did you receive any income or surfer any loss from the sources fisted below? 43. (a) What kind of work were you doing? — If yes, please check the "Yes" box and enter the amount; in case of e loss, also check the "Loss" box. — If no, please check the "No" box and proceed to the next source. — D o not include family allowances. For example, accounting clerk, sales representative, civil engineer, — Please consult the Guide for details. secondary school teacher, chief electrician, metal worker. AMOUNT Dollars Cents lb) In this work, what were your most important activities or duties? (a) Total wages and salaries includ]! 13 • YesH ing commissions, bonuses, tips, etc., before any deductions 14 • No QUESTIONS FOR PERSON 3 - CONCLUDED  m  For example, verifying invoices, selling electrical tools, managing the research department, teaching mathematics, supervising construction electricians, operating lathe. (If in the Armed Forces give rankJ  LH3  (b) Net non-farm self-employment income (gross receipts minus15 • Yes^ expenses) from unincorporated business, professional practice, etc., on own account or in partnership  •  17 • No  (a) In this job were you mainly: 02 • working for wages, salary, tips or Co to Question 45 commission? 03 • working without pay for a relative Continue with in a family farm or business? Question 44(b) 04 O self-employed without paid help? 05 • self-employed with paid help? (b) If self-employed, was your farm or business incorporated? 06 DNo 07 • Yes  (c) Net farm self-employment jg r~\ Ves^" income (gross receipts minus expenses) from agricultural operations on own account or in partnership  Include those weeks in which you:  •/  ' *<•  K  08 • None • OR  Goto Question 46  • •' .  Jj  :  .. V. -  ;  L  12  Dm.  OFFICE USE ONLY  !  M  income supplements should be . reported in (f))  ^3 • Y e s K (e) Benefits from Unemployment ~ . Insurance, , .24 • No  (f) Other income from government sources including provincial '  (b) During most of those weeks, did you work full-time or part-time? Mark one box only  19 • Loss  2 1  _  -j  _  income supplements and social L-l Yes assistance, eg., veterans' pen- „1 r—i sions, workers' compensation, , *—* welfare payments (Do not include family allowances) 2  10 • Full-time " 11 •Part-time CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 46  No ,'  td) Old age security pension and _ guaranteed income supplement _ . { from federal government only, LJ Yes^u. and benefits from Canada or r~*i Quebec Pension Plan (Provincial -  45. (a) In how many weeks did you work during 1980 (not including • housework or other work around your home)? • worked full-time or part-time; • were on vacation or sick leave with pay; • were self-employed. . • } • -. .\';"* -*.  20 •  Loss  5  (g) Dividends and interest on bonds, 37 • Yes^l deposits and savings certificates, and other investment income, e.g., net rents from real estate, " . 2 9 f l No interest from mortgages  1  J  I  28 • Loss  (h) Retirement pensions, superannuation and annuities and 30 • Y e s K other money income, e.g., 31 • No alimony, scholarships (Do not include family allowances)  i  1 t-  (i) Total income from all of the32 • Y e s K above sources (Do not include family allowances) 34 • No END OF QUESTIONS FOR PERSON 3 PERSON 4 - CONTINUE  33 • Loss  '.'age 15 What language do you yourself speak at home now? (If more than one language, which language do you speak most often?)  NAME OF PERSON A Last name  Mark one box only  Given name end initial  23. Where were you born? (Mark according to present boundaries.) OUTSIDE CANADA IN CANADA  LU]  Mark one box only  Mark one box only  01 •Nfld. 02 • P.E.I. 03 • N.S. 04 • N.B. 05 •Que. 0 6 O Ont. 07 • Man. 06 DSask. 09 • Alta.  13 O United Kingdom 14 • Italy 15 • U.S.A. 16 • West Germany 1 7 Q East Germany 16 • Poland  10  57 58 59 60 61  Other (specify) 29. Can you speak'English or French welt enough to conduct a conver• sation? (See Guide for further  information.)  Mark one box only  Other (specify)  DB.C.  63 64 65 66  D Canada, by birth • Go ro Question 26 21 O Canada, by naturalization 2 2 O Same as country of birth (other than Canada) • 2 3 • Other  D  20  Go to Question 25  •  Continue with Questions31  to4€  information.)  ;  If exact year is not known, please enter best estimate. Year  26. To which ethnic or cultural group did you or your ancestors belong • on first coming to this continent?  4  Yes  31. What is the highest grade or year of secondary (high) or elementary • school you ever attended? . 6 7 Q No schooling or kindergarten only , ..- "OR '-• . , . • :" ''• - . - . . Highest grade or year (1 to 13) of secondary or elementary school -  Print year below  2 5 D French 2 6 • English 27 • Irish 2 8 • Scottish 29 D German 30 O Italian 31 D Ukrainian 32 • Dutch (Netherlands) 3 3 • Polish 34 • Jewish 35 • Chinese  English only French only Both English and French Neither English nor French  (See Guide for further  25. In what year did you first immigrate to Canada?  (See Guide for further information.)  D O D L3  30. Were you born before June 3,1966? • No • END HERE FOR THIS PERSON  Of what country are you a citizen? Mark at many boxes at apply  DL  .  ~  11 • Yukon 12 • nf.W.T.  24!  O English D French Q German O Italian [D Ukrainian  *  . 32. How many years of education have you ever completed at university? '• ~y 69 L J None "" 7 0 O Less than 1 year (of completed courses) Number of completed years  v  Native Peoples 37 O Inu.it 38 D Status or registered Indian 39 O Non-status Indian 4 0 • Metis .  33. How many years of schooling have you ever completed at an institution other than a university, secondary (high) or elementary school? Include years of schooling at community colleges, institutes of technology, CEGEPs (general and professional), private trade schools or private business colleges, diploma schools of nursing, etc. ,„ ^• „ (See Guide for further  information.)  72 Q None • * 7 3 Q Less than 1 year (of completed courses) Number of completed years What degrees, certificates or diplomas have you ever obtained?  Other (specify)  (See Guide for further  27. What is your religion? Mark one box only  41 D Roman Catholic 4 2 O United Church 4 3 D Anglican 4 4 LZ) Presbyterian 4 5 D Lutheran 46 • Baptist 4 7 • Greek Orthodox 4 8 O Jewish •  information.)  Mark as many boxes as apply  4 9 D Ukrainian Catholic 50 D Pentecostal 51 O Jehovah's Witnesses 52 ED Mennontte^ 53 O Salvation Army 54 • Islam 5 5 Q N O religion Other (specify)  75 76 77 78  79 80 81 82 83 84  QNone CD Secondary (high) school graduation certificate O Trades certificate or diploma D Other non-university certificate or diploma (obtained at community college, CEGEP, institute of technology, etc.) Q University certificate or diploma below bachelor level D Bachelor's degree(s) (e.g., B.A., B.Sc, B.A.Sc., LL.B.) CD University certificate or diploma above bachelor level • Master's degree(s) (e.g., M.A., M.Sc, M.Ed.) O Degree in medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine or optometry (M.D., D.D.S., D.M.D., D.V.M., O.D.) D Earned doctorate (e.g., Ph.D., D-Sc, D.Ed.)  206-  Page 16 Id) Did you look for work during the oast four weeks? For example, did you contact a Canada Employment Centre, check with employers, place or answer newspaper ads?  QUESTIONS FOR PERSON 4 - CONTINUED Have you attended a school, college or university at any time since lest September? (Include attendance at elementary or secondary schools, business or trade schools, community colleges, institutes of technology, CEGEPs, etc.)  Mark one box only 19 D No •  01 DNo 02 • Yes, full-time 03 D Yes, part-time, day or evening  (e) Was there any reason why you could not start work last week? Mark one box only  Where did you live 5 years ago on June 1, 1976?  22 Q No, could have started wo-k 23 D Yes, already had a job 24 O Yes, temporary illness or disability 25 CD Yes, personal or family responsibilities 26 D Yes, going to school 27 D Yes, other reasons  Mark one box only NOTE: If your place of residence 5 years ago was a municipality , within a large urban area, be careful not to confuse suburban municipalities with the largest city. For example, distinguish between Montreaf-Nord and Montreal, Scarborough and Toronto, West Vancouver and Vancouver.  04 Q This dwelling L 05 Q Different dwelling in this city, town, E ' Go to Question 37 village, borough, or municipality I 06 • Outside Canada f 07 Q Different city, town, village, borough, or municipality in Canada (specify below) —  L L  .  40. When did you last work, even for a few days (not including house„ work or other work around your home)? Mark one box only  28 29 30 31  J  City, town, village, borough, or municipality  ,  Province or territory  Number of children  "  (a) For whom did you work?  Year Month 39. (a) Last week, how many hours did you work (not including housework or other work around your home)? Include: • working for wages, salary, tips or commission, • working in your own business, farm or professional practice, • working without pay in a family farm or business.  Hours (to the nearest hour) ^  :  Name of firm, government agency, etc.  „ V 2V  Department, branch ^division, section or plant . (b) What kind of business, industry or service was this?  tf exact month or year are not known, enter best estimate.  Continue with Questions 39(b)  - . £  .^ ' '  38. For A L L PERSONS who are married or have ever been married: What were the month and year of your first marriage?  12 O None • OR  Din 1981 | Answer Questions 41 to 46 Din 1980 i • Before 1980 I Go to Question 46 C3 Never worked in lifetime I  NOTE: Questions 41 to 44 refer to your job or business last week. If none, answer for your job of longest duration since January 1, 1980. If you held more than one job last week, answer for the job at which you worked the most hours.  J  County . 37. For WOMEN who are married or have ever been married: How many ' • children were ever bom to you? (Count all children including those who may have died since birth or who may now be living elsewhere. However do not include stillbirths.) 09 O None OR . *".," 10  Go ro Question 40  2 0 D Yes, looked for full-time work 21 ED Yes, looked for part-time work (less than 30 hours per week)  Mark one box only  Give full description. For example, paper box manufacturing, road construction, retail shoe store, secondary school, dairy farm.  42. At what address did you work? If no usual place of work, see Guide. Mark one box only ' *  33 Q Worked at home (includes living and working on the same farm) 34 | I Worked outside Canada 35 • Worked at address below (please specify) —  to 46  Go to Question 41  (b) Last week, were you on temporary lay-off or absent from your job or business? Mark one box only  14 DNo 15 Q Yes, on temporary lay-off 16 Q Yes, on vacation, ill, on strike or locked out, or absent for other reasons (c) Last week, did you have definite arrangements to start a new job within the next four weeks? 17 • No 16 • Yes  -  L . . . - . : ' . „ . - . — J  Number  Street  If street address is not known, give the building name, shopping centre or street intersection, etc.  ••••L„....„.:......„.„„J City, town, village, borough, township or other municipality Important: ffyou worked in a suburban municipality within a  large urban area, specify that municipality, no t the main city.  L.„: County  36 !••-.• ] H R I  J Province or territory  I 31 M 36 [ : \ ! '.! . .'  Page 17 (*S)  QUESTIONS FOR PERSON 4 - CONCLUDED  a  43. (a) What kind of work were you doing? For example, accounting clerk, sales representative, civil engineer, secondary school teacher, chief electrician, metal worker.  (b) In this work, what were your most important activities or duties?  During the year ending December 31, 1980, did you receive any income or suffer any loss from The sources listed beiow? — If yes, please check the "Yes" box and enter the amount; in case of a loss, also check the "Loss" box: — If no, please check the "No" box and proceed to the next source. — Do not include family allowances. — Please consult the Guide for details. AMOUNT Dollars Cents (a) Total wages end salaries includr—i y « ^ . 1  ing commissions, bonuses, tips, etc.; before anv deductions  20 1  For example verifying invoices, selling electrical tools, managing the research department, teaching mathematics, supervising construction electricians, operating lathe. (If in the Armed Forces give rank.}  — 14 •  No  15 •  YesH.  (b) Net non-farm self-employment income (gross receipts minus expenses) from unincorporated business, professional practice, etc., on own account or in partnership  (a) In this job were you mainly: 02 • working for wages, salary, tips or commission? Go to Question 45 03 • working without pay for a relative in a family farm or business? . - Continue with 04 • self-employed without paid help? Question 44(b) • 05 • self-employed with paid help? * (b) If self-employed, was your farm or business incorporated? 06 D N O 07 • Yes (a) In how many weeks did you work during 1980 (not including housework or other.work around your home)? Include those weeks in which you: • • •  worked full-time or part-time; were on vacation or sick leave with pay; were self-employed.  08 • None ^ OR  (c) Net farm self-employment ' i g Q YesP income (gross receipts minus expenses) from  agricultural  .  operations on own account or m partnership  '20  •  No  J j • Loss  •  (d) Old age security peWion and guaranteed income supplement •> - . . j from federal government only, 21 L J Yesl^L and benefits from Canada or r—i ' Quebec Pension Plan (Prov/ncia/ . income supplements should be reported in (f)) •  IE  1N o N  22  .  .. *"  (e) Benefits from Unemployment ^ ^ Yesl^ Insurance 24 •'No 3  . » , -  Go to Question 46  (f) Other income from government sources including provincial  Weeks (b) During most of those weeks, did you work full-time or part-time? Mark one box only  10 • Full-time 11 • Part-time CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 46 OFFICE USE ONLY 12 • i n .  16 • Loss  17 • No  income supplements and social assistance, e.g., veterans'pensions, workers' compensation, welfare payments (Do not include family allowances) .  j 25 L J Yes-^L  :  (g) Dividends and interest on bonds, deposits and savings certificates, and other investment income, e.g., net rents from real estate, interest from mortgages  -1—» - L J nio w  2  6  .  27  Q Yes^L 28 •  29 •  Loss  No  (h) Retirement pensions, superannuation and annuities and 30 • Yes •! other money income, e.g., 31 • No alimony, scholarships (Do not include family  (i) Total income  allowances)  from all of the above sources (Do include family allowances)  not  32 •  Y e s H  54 •  No  END OF QUESTIONS FOR PERSON 4 PERSON 5 - CONTINUE  .—.  33 — I I Loss  208  Page IB What language do you yourself speak at home now? (If more than one language, which language do you speak most often?)  NAME OF PERSON 5 Last name  Mark one box only  Given name and initial  57 D English 58 • French 59 D German 60 D Italian 61 C3 Ukrainian 62 1 [ Other (specify)  23. Where were you born? (Mark according to present boundaries.)  UL!  IN CANADA  OUTSIDE CANADA  Mark one box only  Mark one box only  01 • N f l d .  13 •  02 • P.E.I. 03 D N . S . 04 D N . B . 05 •Que.  14 • Italy  United Kingdom  ZJ  15 • U.S.A. 16 Qwest Germany 17 •  06 Dont.  Can you speak English or French well enough to conduct a conversation?  East Germany  18 • Poland  07 •Man. 08 •Sask. 09 QAIta. 10 • B . C 11 • Yukon  (See Guide for further information.) Mark one box only  Other (specify)  63 D 64 Q 65 D 66 Q  12 • N . W . T . 30.  Of what country are you a citizen? Mark as many boxes as apply  20 • 21 • 22 • 23 •  Canada, by birth • Go to Question 26 Canada, by naturalization Same as country of birth (other than Canada) • Other  English only French only Both English and French Neither English nor French  Were you born before June 3, 1966? • No • END HERE FOR THIS PERSON D Yes •  Go to Question 25  Continue with Questions 31 to 46  31. What is the highest grade or year of secondary (high) or elementary • school you ever attended? (See Guide for further information.)  67 Q No schooling or kindergarten only _ 1^" OR . fl Highest grade or year (1 to 13) of secondary • 68 or elementary school  In what year did you first immigrate to Canada?  J  Print year below  If exact year is not known, please enter best estimate.'. 24 j  32. How many years of education have you ever completed at university? 69 DNone . '"["A. * , . ;  26. To which ethnic or cultural group did you or your ancestors belong on first coming to this continent?  • 70 C3 Less than 1 year (of completed courses)'. 71  (See Guide for further information.)  25 • French 26 • English 27 • Irish 28 • Scottish 29 • German 30 • Italian 31 • Ukrainian 32 • Dutch (Netherlands! 33 • Polish 34 • Jewish 35 •Chinese  -mL  Native Peoples 37 • Inuit 38 1 1 Status or registered Indian 39 i~l Non-status Indian 40 • Metis  (See Guide for further information.)  "  Number of completed years  J  34. What degrees, certificates or diplomas have you ever obtained? •  49 Q Ukrainian Catholic 50 • Pentecostal 51 1~71 Jehovah's Witnesses 52 Q Mennonite 5 3 [Zl Salvation Army 54 • Islam 5 5 O No religion 56 !  (See Guide for former information.) Mark as many boxes as apply '  Mark one box only  41 Q Roman Catholic 42 • United Church 43 QAngl ican 44 f"J Presbyterian 45 • Lutheran 46 • Baptist 47 • Greek Orthodox 48 • Jewish  How many years of schooling have you ever completed at an institution other than a university, secondary (high) or elementary school? Include years of schooling at community colleges, institutes of technology, CEGEPs (general and professional), private trade schools or private business colleges, diploma schools of nursing, etc. - • ^ 72 DNone *- * \ 73 Q Less than 1 year (of completed courses) -»  Other (specify)  27. What is your religion?  33.  £*  Number of completed years  L  J  Other (specify)  75 DNone' 76 O Secondary (high) school graduation certificate 77 Q Trades certificate pr diploma 8 D Other non-university certificate or diploma (obtained at community college, CEGEP, institute of technology, etc.) 79 D University certificate or diploma below bachelor level 80 • Bachelor's degree(s) (e.g., B.A., B.Sc., B.A.Sc., LL.B.) 81 C3 University certificate or diploma above bachelor level 82 • Master's degree(s) (e.g., M.A., M.Sc., M.Ed.) 83 Q Degree in medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine or optometry (M.D.; D.D.S., D.M.D.. D.V.M., O.D.) 84 • Earned doctorate (e.g., Ph.D., D.Sc, D.Ed.) ?  QUESTIONS FOR PERSON 5 - CONTINUED 35. Have you attended a school, college or university et any time since lest September? (Include attendance at elementary or secondary schools, business or trade schools, community colleges, institutes , of technology, CEGEPs, etc.) 01 • No 02 • Yes, full-time 03 D Yes, part-time, day or evening  Mark one box only  Mark one box only  NOTE: //  your place of residence 5 years ago was a municipality within a large urban area, be careful not to confuse suburban municipalities with the largest city. For example, distinguish between Montreal-Nord and Montreal, Scarborough and Toronto, West Vancouver and Vancouver.  04 • This dwelling k 05 CD Different dwelling in this city, town, Go to Question 37 village, borough, or municipality I 06 (""Iputside Canada f 07 ED Different city, town, village, borough, or municipality in Canada (specify below) City, town, village, borough, or municipality  .  Province or territory  J  37. For WOMEN who are married or have ever been married: How many * children were ever bom to you? (Count all children including those who may have died since birth or who may now be living elsewhere. However do not include stillbirths.) 09 O None OR . i, 10  Number of children  Go ro Question 40  (e) Was there any reason why you could not start work last week?  Where did you live 5 years ago on June 1, 1976? -  County  Mark one box only 19 L D No •  20 LD Yes, looked for full-time work 21 LD Yes, looked for part-time work (less than 30 hours per week)  Mark one box only  L  (d) Did you took for work during the past four weeks? For example, did you contact a Canada Employment Centre, check with employers, place or answer newspaper ads?  . . -  22 LD No, could have started work .23 LD Yes, already had a job 24 LD Yes, temporary illness or disability 25 LD Yes, personal or family responsibilities 26 ED Yes, going to school 27 LD Yes, other reasons When did you last work, even for a few days (not including housework or other work around your home)? Mark one box only  >  28 • In 1981 Answer Questions 41. to 46 29 Din 1980 | 30 CDBefo.e 1980 . I Go to Question 31 ED Never worked in lifetime I  46  41. NOTE: Questions 41 to 44 refer to your job or business last week. If none, answer for your job of longest duration since January;.!, 1980. If you held more than one job last week, answer for thejob at which you worked the most hours. . (a) For whom did you work? Name of firm, government agency, etc.  •  38. For ALL PERSONS who are married or have ever been married: What were the month and year of your first marriage?  Department, branch, division, section or plant •J •'- . (b) What kind of business, industry or service was this?  f ~"  If exact month or year are not known, enter best estimate. Month  Give full description. For example, paper box manufacturing, road construction, retail shoe store, secondary school, dairy farm.  Year  39. (a) Last week, how many hours did you work (not including housework or other work around your home)? Include: • working for wages, salary, tips or commission, • working in your own business, farm or professional practice, • working without pay in a family farm or business.  1! D None • OR  Continue with Questions 39(b) to 46  Hours (to the nearest hour) •  Go to Question 41  (b) Last week, were you on temporary lay-off or absent from your job or business? Mark one box only  14 DNo 15 LD Yes, on temporary lay-off 16 D Yes, on vacation, ill, on strike or locked out, or absent for other reasons (c) Last week, did you have definite arrangements to start a new job within the next four weeks? 17 DNo 16 • Yes  At what address did you work? If no usual place of work, see Guide. Mark one box only .  33 LD Worked at home (includes living and working on the same farm) 34 ED Worked outside Canada . . 35 ED Worked at address below (please specify) -  I  Number  :  Street  l  If street address is not known, give the building name, shopping centre or street intersection, etc.  City, town, village, borough, township or other municipality Important: If you worked in a suburban municipality within a large urban area, specify that municipality, not the main city. 1  County "!  Province or territory  1 I—-  ' •  3*1 j I i j  210  Page 20 QUESTIONS FOR PERSON 5 - CONCLUDED  (46.) During the year ending December 31, 1980, did you receive any income _ or suffer any loss from the sources listed below?  P  43. la) What kind of work were you doing?  J  For example, accounting clerk, sales representative, civil engineer, secondary school teacher, chief electrician, metal worker.  (b) In this work, what were your most important activities or duties?  — If yes, please check the "Yes" box and enter the amount; in case of a loss, also check the "Loss" box. — If no, please check the "No" box and proceed to the next source. — Do not include family allowances. — Please consult the Guide for details. AMOUNT Dollars Cents (a) Total wages and salaries includ- • YesH ing commissions, bonuses, tips, etc., before any deductions  For example, verifying invoices, selling electrical tools, managing the research department, teaching mathematics, supervising construction electricians, operating lathe. (If in the Armed Forces give rank.}  13 14 •  (b) Net non-farm self-employment income (gross receipts minus  15  expenses) from unincorporated business, professional practice, etc., on own account or in partnership  (a) In this job were you mainly: 02 D working for wages, salary, tips or " commission? Go to Question 03 D working without pay for a relative in a family farm or business? Continue with 04 O self-employed without paid help? Question 44(b) 05 Q self-employed with paid help?  45  45. (a) In how many weeks did you work during 1980 fnot including • housework or other work around your home)? Include those weeks in which you:  • were self-employed.  08 QNone ^ Go to Question OR  ~ 46  Mark one box only  OFFICE USE ONLY  12  • In.  2  B>  (—  2  income supplements should be J • • reported in (f)) * . ^" .  V  ;  $,  23 24  \ ••' ""  J  N  :  c  • Yes^ • NO  (f) Other income from government including provincial income supplements and social assistance, e.g., veterans'pensions, workers' compensation, welfare payments (Do not include family allowances)  2 5 I—I i—i —'  2  6  7  and other investment income, e.g., net rents from real estare, interest from mortgages  "*1  Yes N  -  1  (g) Dividends and interest on bonds, j Q deposits and savings certificates,  CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 46  . . .1 I—I Yes L i—i  21  V.'^'-.-V-  (b) During most of those weeks, did you work full-time or part-time? 10 D Full-time 11 Q Part-time  from federal government only,  and benefits from Canada or Quebec Pension Plan Provincial  • Loss  20 • No  (d) Old age security pension and guaranteed income supplement  (e) Benefits from Unemployment Insurance.  •• worked full-time or part-time; * were on vacation or sick leave with pay;  16 O Loss  • No  (c) Net farm self-employment 18 • YesK income (gross receipts minus expenses) from agricultural operations on own account or in partnership  (b) If self-employed, was your farm or business incorporated? 06 • No 07 • Yes  YesH.  •  17  No  29 Q  Yes^L No  28 • Loss r -  (h) Retirement pensions, superannuation and annuities -and 30 • YesH other money income, e.g., 3) . . • No alimony, scholarships (Do not . include family  (i) Total income  "it '  allowances)  from all of the above sources (Do not include family allowances)  32 • YesH 34 • No  END OF QUESTIONS FOR PERSON 5 PERSON 6 - CONTINUE  33 • Loss  28. What language do you yourself speak at home now? • (If more tnan one language, which language oo you speak most often?)  NAME OF PERSON 6  Mark one box only  Given name and initial  Lest name  23. Where were you born? (Mark according to present boundaries.) IN CANADA OUTSIDE CANADA Mark one box only  Mark one box only  01 02 03 04 05  13 d United Kingdom 14 • Italy 15 C.U.S.A. 16 Dwest Germany 1 7 East Germany 18 • Poland  06 07 08 09  DNfld. • P.E.I.  ON.S. • N.B.  Doue.  OOnt. CDMan. •sask. QAIta.  Can you speak English or French well enough to conduct a conversation? (See Guide for further information.) Mark one box only  Other (specify)  10 DB.C  11 • Y"kon  12 ON.W.T.  63 64 65 66  Q English only Q French only O Both English and French CD Neither English nor French  30. Were you born before June 3,1966?  Of what country are you a citizen?  . CJNO • END HERE FOR THIS PERSON  Mark as many boxes as apply  20 21 22 23  57 • English 58 • French 59 Q German 60 • Italian ' 61 D Ukrainian . 62 Other (specify)  birth • Co to Question 26 L~D Canada, by naturalization O Same as country of birth lother than CanadaGo ) ro Question 25 • Other  D Yes | V Continue with Questions 31 to 46  CD Canada, by  25. In what year did you first immigrate to Canada? Print year below  If exact year is not known, please enter best estimate!  31. What is the highest grade or year of secondary (high) or elementary • school you ever attended? . ^..• (See Guide for further information.)  67 Q No schooling or kindergarten only ;-..-OR  68  • •  ... .. ...  ... -  Highest grade or year (1 to 13) of secondary or elementary school  241 i M I  32. How many years of education have you ever completed at university? 69 QNone ; ' -" , . 26. To which ethnic or cultural group did you or your ancestors belong 70 O Less than 1 year (of completed courses) on first coming to this continent? (See Guide for further information.! } "Number of completed years 25 • French Native Peoples 33. How many years of schooling have you ever completed at an 37 • Inuit 26 • English • institution other than a university, secondary (high) or elementary 38 Q Status or registered Indian 27 • Irish school? Include years of schooling at community colleges, institutes of technology, CEGEPs (general and professional), private 3 9 CD N o n s t a t u s I n d i a n 28 • Scottish trade schools or private business colleges, diploma schools of 40 • Metis 29 D German nursing, etc. .•30 D Italian YSee Guide for further information.) 31 D Ukrainian . 72 • None ..-..T, 32 Q Dutch (Netherlands) 73 Q Less than 1 year (of completed courses) '.:>•-• 33 • Polish 34 • Jewish Number of completed years 35 D Chinese What degrees, certificates or diplomas have you ever obtained? /See Guide for further information.) Other (specify) . Year  0L  Mark as many boxes as apply •  What is your religion? Mark one box only  41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  D Roman Catholic • United Church O Anglican Q Presbyterian [Zl Lutheran Q Baptist • Greek Orthodox • Jewish  49 [~i Ukrainian Catholic 50 O Pentecostal 51 O Jehovah's Witnesses 52 Q Mennonite 53 Cj Salvation Army 54 • Islam 55 Q No religion  • • m L . '  Other (specify)  •75 76 77 78  DNone - ' • - " • " • ' D Secondary (high) school graduation certificate Q Trades certificate or diploma | I Other non-university certificate or diploma (obtained at community college, CEGEP, institute of technology, etc.) 79 Q University certificate or diploma below bachelor level 80 C Bachelor's degree(s) (e.g., B.A., B.Sc, B.A_Sc., LL.B.) 81 Q University certificate or diploma above bachelor level 82 • Master's degree(s) (e.g., M.A., M.Sc., M.Ed.) 83 Q Degree in medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine or optometry (M.D., D.D.S., D.M.D., D.V.M., O.D.) 84 • Earned doctorate (e.g., Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Ed.)  212  Pax  22  QUESTIONS FOR PERSON E - CONTINUED ve you attended a school, college or university at any tme since 35. lHaa st September? (Include attendance at elementary or secondary schools, business or trade schools, community colleges, institutes of technology, CEGEPs, etc.) ;  Mark one box only  01  DNO  02 • Yes, full-time 03 0 Yes, part-time, day or evening  20 Q Yes, looked for full-time work 21 D Yes, looked for part-time work (less than 30 hours per week) Mark one box only  Mark one box only If your place of residence S years ago was a municipality within a large urban area, be careful not to confuse suburban municipalities with the largest city. For example, distinguish between Montreal-Nord and Montreal, Scarborough and Toronto, West Vancouver and Vancouver.  NOTE:  22 O No, could have started work 23 O Yes, already had a job 24 O Yes, temporary illness or disability 25 [3 Yes, personal or family responsibilities 26 D Yes, going to school 27 | I Yes, other reasons  hen did you last work, even for a few days (not including house40. W work or other work around your home)?  City, town, village, borough, or municipality County  Mark one box only 1 9 Q No Y Go to Question 40  (e) Was there any reason why you could not start work last week?  36. Where did you live 5 years ago on June 1, 1976?  04 Q T h i s dwelling I 05 Q Different dwelling in this city, town, Co to Question 37 village, borough, or municipality I 06 O Outside Canada J 07 Q Different city, town, village, borough, or municipality in Can_.dc (specify below) '' .  (d) Did you look for work during the Dast four weeks? For example, did you contact a Canada Employment Centre, check with employers, place or answer newspaper ads?  Province or territory _l_J  Mark one box only  28 • In 198mW 1 k Answer Questions 41 to 46 • In 1980 V 30 • Before 1980 aV to Question 46 _ 31 ,—.| .,1 Never worked in liW fetimGo e¥ NOTE: Questions 41 to 44 refer to your job or business last week. If none, answer for your job of longest duration since January.,1, 1980. If you held more than one job last week, answer for the job at which you worked the most hours. ,  37. For WOMEN who are married or have ever been married: How many (a) For whom did you work? • children were ever born to you? (Count all children including those who may have died since birth or who may now be living elsewhere. However do not include stillbirths.) 09 O N o n e 1 0  L : _ . . _ _ . . . „ _ _ _ _ . . : ' _ . . _ _ i j  O R  38. For ALL PERSONS who are married or have ever been married: ' What were the month and year of your first marriage?  Year Month 39. (B) Last week, how many hours did you work (not including housework or other work around your home)? 42. Include: • working for wages, salary, tips or commission, • working in your own business, farm or professional practice, • working without pay in a family farm or business.  12  13 •  • None • Continue with Questions 39(b) to 46 OR Hours (to the nearest hour) • Go to Question 41  Department, branch, division, section or plant . ;  r  \  ' •  ;  ;/:]  L _  .  Give full description. For example, paper box manufacturing, road construction, retail shoe store, secondary school, dairy farm.  3-l_r:-.^{-v ; . : At what address did you work? If no usual place of work, see Guide. L  Mark one box only •  33 O Worked at home (includes living and working on the same farm) 34 • Worked outside Canada 35 CD Worked at address below (please specify)—  L  Number  (b) Last week, were you on temporary lay-off or absent from your job or business? Mark one box only  :_____._.._J Street  If street address is not known, give the building name, shopping centre or street intersection, etc.  :_____  DNO 15 O Yes, on temporary lay-off 16 O Yes, on vacation, ill, on strike or locked out, or absent for other reasons  City, town, village, borough, township or other municipality Important: tf you worked in a suburban municipality within a  large urban area, specify that municipality, not the main city.  (c) Last week, did you have definite arrangements to start B new job within the next four weeks? 17 D N o i f • Yes  .  (b) What kind of business, industry or service was this?  14  •  :  Name of firm, government agency, etc;  Number of children  If exact month or year are not known, enter best estimate.  '".Si"''  36  County [ID [ T ] [ Z D  37 •  Province or territory 33 | :l ig^H  213  Page 23 QUESTIONS FOR PERSON 6 - CONCLUDED  (46^) During the year ending December 31. 1980, did you receive any income or suffer any toss from the sources listed below? 43. (a) What kind of work were you doing? — If yes, please check the "Yes" box and enter the amount; in case of a loss, also check the "Loss" box. — If no, pleese check the "No" box and proceed to the next source. — Do not include family allowances. For example, accoun ting clerk, sales represen ta tive, civil engineer, — Please consult the Guide for details. secondary school teacher, chief electrician, metal worker. m  (b) In this work, what were your most important activities or duties?  Dollars  (a) Total wages and salaries includ-  13 • ing commissions, bonuses, tips, etc., before any deductions 14 •  For example, verifying invoices, selling electrical tools, managing the research department, teaching mathematics, supervising construction electricians, operating lathe. (If in the Armed Forces give rank.)  •o.[T 44. (a) In this job were you mainly: 02 D working for wages, salary, tips or commission? Go to Question 45 03 D working without pay for a relative in a family farm or business? Continue with Question 44(b) 04 LT3 self-employed without paid help? • 05 D self-employed with paid help? (b) If self-employed, was your farm or business incorporated? 06 D N o 07 • Yes  Include those weeks in which you:  expenses) from agricultural operations on own account 20 or in partnership  08 D None • OR  Go to Question 46  . • .  income supplements should be reported in (f))  -  'f-v -  Weeks  box only  10 CD Full-time 11 ELD Part-time  •  19 • Loss  No  \i '• j^.l  -  vj.  :  "T.'  '  (e) Benefits from Unemployment 23 .• YesK Insurance 24 • NO : (f) Other income from government sources including provincial  ' income supplements and social 25 L-J Yes assistance, e,g., veterans' penr—i sions, workers' compensation, '—' welfare payments (Do not include family allowances) .  (g) Dividends and interest on  *L  N N o  37 Q Yes^L  and other investment Income,  OFFICE USE ONLY Qln.  Yes*  bonds, deposits and a vings cent fice res,  CONTINUE WITH QUESTION 46 12  16 D Loss  No  2 6  ib) During most of those weeks, did you work full-time or part-time? Mark one  •  •L  (d) Old age security pension and 'guaranteed income supplement - . . j from federal government only, 21 L_J Yes^L and benefits ffom Canada or r-i Quebec Pension Plan (Provincial 22 L J No ..  ' '• >-\.  Yes  (c) Net farm self-employment - 18 • income (gross receipts minus -  45. (a) In how many weeks did you work during 1380 (not including • housework or other work around your home)? • worked full-time or part-time; • were on vacation or sick leave with pay; • were self-employed. • •  Y e s H  No  ib) Net non-farm self-employment income (gross receipts minusISD expenses) from unincorporated business, professional practice, 17 etc., on own account or in partnership  AMOUNT  e.g., net rents from real estate, 29 interest from mortgages  (h) Retirement pensions, superannuation and annuities and 30 • other money income, e.g., 31 • alimony, scholarships (Do not  f l  No  18 O Loss  YesH No  include family allowances)  (i) Total income  from all of the above sources (Do not include family allowances)  31 • Yes K 34 •  No  END OF QUESTIONS FOR PERSON 6  33 CD Loss  214  TELEPHONE  ASSISTANCE  SERVICE  SERVICE  AUXILIAIRE  TELEPHONIQUE  If, after referring to the Guide, you require further assistance to complete your questionnaire, our Telephone Assistance Service is available from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. from Thursday, May 28 through Friday, June 5 (excluding Sunday).  Si, apres avoir consult, le Guide, vous avez encore besoin d'aide pour remplir votre questionnaire, vous pourrez vous adresser a notre Service auxiliaire telephonique de 9 heures a 21 heures, entre le jeudi 28 mai et le vendredi 5 juin (sauf le dimanche).  If you live within the local calling area of one of the cities listed below, dial the number shown opposite the name of the city.  Si vous habitez dans le secteur de service local d'une des villes suivantes, composez le numero indiqu..  ST. JOHN'S (NFLD.)  737-2100  HALIFAX  426-8500  MONTREAL  283-1981  OTTAWA  996-3128  TORONTO  868-1981  WINNIPEG  949-2010  EDMONTON  420-3699  VANCOUVER  683-5521  In all other areas, call the long distance operator and ask for ZENITH 0-1981. You will be connected to the nearest Telephone Assistance Service, without charge.  Si vous habitez dans un autre secteur, demandez a la t-lephoniste de vous donner ZENITH 0-1981. Elle vous mettra en communication, sans frais, avec le Service auxiliaire t-lephonique le plus rapproch..  215 FOB MINISTERIAL USE ONLY DO NOT COMPLETE  FORM I: PRINCIPAL'S REPORT OF ENROLMENT September  30,  •  1978  By the last school day in September each principal or head teacher of a school is to complete FOUR copies of this form for the school: one copy for the school files, and three copies to be sent to the School District office O N S E P T E M B E R 29. After checking the District Office will send TWO forms, the original and one copy, to Educational Data Services, Ministry of Education, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B . C . V8V 2M4 by O C T O B E R 6.  S C H O O L IDENTIFICATION  AH!  Nolo: If there are any errors or changes in the school identification shown on the left please enter the corrected identification on the lines below.  School Olstrlct Number and Name _ Mr.  Mrs.  Miss  Or.  Ms.  (Chriatian Nama & Initial)  School . Pnona No:(73-80)  1.  E N R O L M E N T — T H E A C T U A L NUMBER O F PUPILS FOR WHOM AN A T T E N D A N C E R E C O R D IS REQUIRED TO B E K E P T ' A S O F T H E REPORTING D A T E . DO N O T INCLUDE PUPILS WHO.- DURING THIS S C H O O L Y E A R , H A V E :  or 2.  (A) (B) (C) (D)  T R A N S F E R R E D T O A N O T H E R B . C . PUBLIC S C H O O L G R A D U A T E D FROM G R A D E XII G O N E T O S C H O O L OUTSIDE T H E B.C. PUBLIC S C H O O L S Y S T E M (E.G. T O A S C H O O L IN A N O T H E R CANADIAN C E A S E D TO A T T E N D ANY S C H O O L  PROVINCE)  R E P O R T T H E NUMBER OF PUPILS (I.E. PERSONS) IN KINDERGARTEN. DO N O T R E P O R T T H E NUMBER O F FULL-TIME-EQUIVALENTS, E.G. IF 49 PUPILS A R E E N R O L L E D FOR KINDERGARTEN C L A S S E S , THEN A T O T A L O F 49 PUPILS (NOT 24.5) S H O U L D B E R E P O R T E D .  3. UNDER " S P E C I A L E O U C A T I O N " INCLUDE ONLY T H E FOLLOWING G R O U P S O F PUPILS WHO A R E IN S E L F - C O N T A I N E D , SPECIFIC C L A S S E S , FULL-TIME: (A) (B) (C) (D)  TRAINABLE M E N T A L L Y R E T A R D E D (TMR) NON-ENGLISH-SPEAKING PUPILS PUPILS IN SPECIAL E D U A C T I O N OR O C C U P A T I O N A L - T Y P E C L A S S E S PUPILS IN REHABILITATION C L A S S E S  Kindergarten  T O T A L E N R O L M E N T FOR THIS S C H O O L I • VII + VIII • XII + Elementary Secondary Special Special  Total GRADE RANGE  CERTIFIED CORRECT: PRINCIPAL OR MEAD TEACHER  216  —  3 — FOR MINISTERIAL USE ONLY DO NOT COMPLETE  [2-4)  (5-9)  110)  ENROLMENT BY AGE, GRADE AND SEX, SEPTEMBER 30, 1978 1  MALE 4 years and less  Age as ol Sept. 30, 1978 Kindergarten  5  6  7  8  9  .10  11  12  13  14  15  16 •  • •:. T  '01 .  Grade I  •'  -  Rt  18  19  IB  HI  W  Grade II  ' ->  17  •  20 years and over  Total  s*c  •  Grade III  04  Grada IV  - •  Grade V  Mb *"*  Grade VI  -OS;)  Grade VII Elementary' Special Education  riisf  BP •«*  %  tfsk  JAM?*  Hi  Secondary Special Education  IS fl  -5X1  it  1  Grade VIII Grade IX  IIP  Grade X  >.108<  Grada XI  ,1  ?  •)  Wl  ?/<*•'  ^•>£-.  V/'M  y.  Grade XII'  c Total..  11i f f ii 11 HP« s i pi P?  8$  v ••, V'.*.  ;£".'- - "tl  «^  '.'..V-'-,.'  «1 least  ' A student is considered to be in Grade XII if he is taking at 3 courses numbered 12, courses for which he is enrolled; otherwise, he is in Grade XI. •~ j -j  I  j  2  or is eligible to graduate upon successful completion of the  Under "special education" include only the following groups of pupils who are in self-contained, specific classes, (A) Trainable mentally retarded (TMR) (B) Non-English speaking pupils (C) Pupils in special education or occupational-type classes, (0) Pupils in rehabilitation classes.  full time:  217 - 5 — FOR MINISTERIAL USE ONLY DO NOT COMPLETE  •  ENROLMENT BY A G E , G R A D E  1  A N D SEX, SEPTEMBER  30,  1978  FEMALE 4 years and less  Age as ol Sept. 30, 1978 Kindergarten  Grade I  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  *• .  12  •  14  13  m  0 3 r  »0*">  Grade VI  ft-*" 06-  -  •  Secondary' Special Education  f t If  m  V  *,""> •*  HI  m <iC.i  18*  a- v  pit  Grade VIII  08"  Grade IX  ra  Grade X  .10* V  Grade XI  -11  Grade XII'  v12.'  Total  Total  iA  eg  Grade VII Elementary' Special Education  20 years and over  19  18  T# -  .'''J  ft  >  Grade IV  17  'fell | ' ^ * HP!• •' •  f* 5 > ;-  »  16  lit &*  Grade II Grade III  15  >  -  >\  -  "*  Hi  r v -.~/v-t  v.*'-' .>  40 '  1  A student is considered to be in Grade XII if he is taking at l e a s t 3 courses numbered 12, courses for which he is enrolled; otherwise, he is in Grade XI.  1  Under "special education" include only the following groups of pupils who are in self-contained, specific classes, (A) Trainable mentally retarded (TMR) (B) Non-English speaking pupils (C) Pupils in special education or occupational-type classes. (D) Pupils in rehabilitation classes.  or  is eligible to graduate upon successful completion of the full  time:  t PROGRAM  ttj  PROGRAM  (Jtll^tl STATUS  NEW  DISCON- C0NTINriNUING UED  Province of  Ministry of  SPECIAL P R O G R A M S S U M M A R Y S H E E T A N D R E Q U E S T F O R M  NAME OF SUPERINTENDENT  NAME OF SECRETARY-TREASURER  Columbia Education STAFFING NEEDS (F.T.E.) NUMBER OF STUDENTS TO RECEIVE SERVICE SPECIAL PROGRAMS BRANCH HOMEBOUND INDIAN EDUCATION  SPECIAL PROGRAMS CONTACT IN SCHOOL DISTRICT  DATE OF PREPARATION  DISTRICT NO.  B r l t l s h  PROFESSIONAL  NON PROFESSIONAL  TOTAL  SUSPENS/ DISMISSAL  OTHER  101 LEARNING ASSISTANCE (K-7)  STATUS  J  102 LEARNING A55I STANCE (8-11)  > ».  201 LEARNING DISABLED (SEVERE)  TOTAL  HON STATUS  >  FINANCE: GIVE COSTS TO NEAREST DOLLAR SALARIES AND BENEFITS PROFESSIONAL  NONPROFESSIONAL  MATERIALS AN0 EQUIPMENT  TRAVEL AND IN-SERVICE  .  A0MINISTRAT/ SUPERVISION (MAX. 12%)  SPEC. PROG, USE TOTAL EXPENSES REQUESTED  -  TOTAL EXPENSES - APPROVED  SUMMARY NUMBER OF APPROVALS REQUESTED  '  INCREASE/ DECREASE FROM PREV.YR  SPEC. PROG. USE -; • INITIAL APPROVAL  REVISED 1 APPROVAL I  ' '.I  1  '"''Si -  :  t  r  202 MILDLY RETARDED |E MR)  y  *_.  ->  203 MODERATELY RETARDED (TMR)  *_ \  * 1  204 SEVERELY AND PROFOUNDLY RETAROED  1*"  205  — *»  HOSPITAL206  H  HOMEBOUND  UN  207  i  PHYSICALLY 208  =*/•**  RESIDENTIAL 209 VISUAL IMPAIRMENT  -.L /U  '  -_4-  •_  1 .  { I  210 HEARING IMPAIRMENT  .£-->»»*  211  ill , .V  AUTISTIC 212 SEVERE BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS 300 REHABILITATION  A  / _"* t *> !  • 401 EXTREMES OF CLIMATE/ DISTANCE  _.r__. . . . . 502 INDIAN EDUCATION  @  l"*i*-• i-/• f"«  i  4  *V  ESL.  .  -  f  501  „  '.t-  1  402 JOB TRAINING FOR MOOERATEJ SEVERE HAND.  '!  1 •r"  -J  1  r  TOTAL STAFFING NEEDS  SIGNATURE QF SUPERINTENDENT  TOTAL STUDENTS RECEIVING SERVICE  SIGNATURE OF SECRETARY-TREASURER  1 •i  i  TOTAL FINANCES, REQUESTS AND APPROVALS DATE OF SUBMISSION  FINAL APPROVAL, SPECIAL PROGRAMS BRANCH 1.SIG. OF PROGRAM SUPT >  EDUC 1001  Original (While) and Copy J (Ytttow) lo Special Programs Branch; Copy 2 [Pink) retained for District Files.  INITIAL APPROVAL DATE AUTHORIZATION. REVISEO  REVISED APPROVAL DATE  11 S E C O N D A R Y C L A S S S I Z E ( p l e a s e r e a d i n s t r u c t i o n s c a r e f u l l y )  o  S E C O N D A R Y C L A S S SIZE I N S T R U C T I O N S 1. T h i s item is to be a n s w e r e d by all t e a c h e r s of regular s e c o n d a r y c l a s s e s . I N C L U D E all regular c l a s s e s ( i n c l u d i n g G u i d a n c e a n d S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n ) but E X C L U D E any c l a s s e s involving t e a m t e a c n i n g . a s s i g n e d tutorial, l e a r n i n g a s s i s t a n c e , library a n d c o u n s e l l i n g . 2. U s i n g t h e c o d e s below, e n t e r for e a c h c o u r s e taught on a regular b a s i s a s of the time y o u are c o m p l e t i n g this form. Next to t h i s enter the c o u r s e n a m e . If t h e s c h o o l is s e m e s t e r e d , enter o n l y t h o s e c o u r s e s y o u are p r e s e n t l y t e a c h i n g .  .'J  3. If y o u t e a c h a C O M B I N E D C L A S S (e.g. Art 9/10) d o not e n t e r e a c h s e p a r a t e grade in the c l a s s . U s e c o d e 90 for the grade c o d e for e a c h c o m b i ned class.  o •  4. Enter t h e e n r o l m e n t of E A C H S I N G L E C L A S S . D O N O T G R O U P C L A S S E S T O G E T H E R . R e m e m b e r if it is a c o m D i n e d c l a s s to enter the T O T A L e n r o l m e n t , not e a c h g r a d e e n r o l m e n t . If t e a c h i n g S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n , a v e r a g e the n u m b e r of p u p i l s taught throughout the d a y if e n r o l m e n t varies. 5. Enter t h e per c e n t of y o u r s c h o o l w e e k d e v o t e d to e a c h c l a s s . R E M E M B E R T O R O U N D T O N E A R E S T W H O L E N U M B E R . If y o u d e v o t e 1 0 0 % of y o u r t i m e to o n e c l a s s , e n t e r 1 0 0 % e v e n t h o u g h there are o n l y two b o x e s .  Course Code (See list be!ow>  N a m e of Course • (e.g.: ENGLISH. MATH)  level  Grade (use GradeCodes)  r  Enrolment of Each Single Class All teachers complete "Total". Distribution by sex is only completed for some subject areas  I—>  Total  Males  % pi your timetable week assigned to this class  Females  Grade Coae  The male/female distribution lo be completed lor the following classes only:  08 lot Gr. 809iorGr.9 10 for Gr. 10 11 lor Gr.! 1 12torGr. 12 21 for Special 90 lor tomtoed  Home Economics .. Industriaf Edue — Physical Educ Business Education . Special Education .. Programs for Particular Occ'ns. .,  .51800 . 13000 ."13900 .10900 . 12100  0  Iv  ©  i  . U500  S E C O N D A R Y C O U R S E S CODES, CODE  SUBJECT  50300 40300 81200 20400 50900 10900 81500 13900  Agriculture Anthropology Arithmetic (Mathematics) Art Biology B u s i n e s s Education (Commerce) Chemistry Community Recreation (Physical and Health Education)  •  -  •X"'<-f] 80602 Computer S c i e n c e 20900 D r a m a or Theatre 81800 Earth Science (Geology) 42700 E c o n o m i c s 31802 English 31804 French  CODE  SUBJECT  142t4  General Science (Science) Geography Geology {Earth Science) German Guidance History "  - 43000 81800 31806 15000 30900 51800 ' 12700 31810 -» 13000 11802 3030S 43300 , 31200 81200  CODE  \  Home Economics Human Lite Sciences (Health) Italian f Industriaf Education Language Arts (Reading) Latin Law Library  '  Mathematics (Arithmetic)  All other locally developed school-board approved courses are to be coded  SUBJECT  22400 Music. Chorus. B a n d 13900 Physical and Health Education (Community Recreation) 83000 Physics 44300 Poimcal Science 14500 Programmes for Particular Occupations 44600 Psychology 11802 Reading (Language Arts) 31822 Russian 14214 Science (General Science) 14209 Social Studies 45200 Sociology •"31814 Spanish 12100 Soecial Education 20900 Theatre or Drama  0  0  ©  0  0  99900  .32 T E A C H E R ' S S I G N A T U R E I certify that the information g i v e n herein is c o m p l e t e a n d a c c u r a t e  Completion Date  S i g n a t u r e of T e a c h e r  0  ©  S3 S A L A R Y T h e items below are to be completed by the Secretary-Treasurer's office unless the teachers are specifically instructed to complete them.  0 13b increment Step  13a Salary Category Placement d-*)  1 2  3  4  5  13c Part-time Teachers only  ' 0t FuiMirne Emcloyed a  O  31 13d A n n u a l salary (TO N E A R E S T  D O L L A R ) at rate a p p l i c a b l e this S e p t e m b e r e.g.: $20,367.50 is to be reported as: S20.3C8. Administrative Allowance  Basic Salary  +  L  Other allowances  Total Salary  0  220 7 POSITION 7a  C H E C K (>*") O N E O N L Y 33 Regular Classroom Teacher, including head teacher (teaching class groups including Home E c . I.E.. Phys. Ed. etc.) Relieving T e a c h e r assigned to a specific school  O  Principal of one school  •  "..  Principal of more than one school Vice-Principal Department H e a d  ©  Other School Instructional Staff (e.g. School Librarian. School Counsellor, Learning Assistance, etc.) District-Wide Supervisor or Administrator (e.g. Director. Supervisor,,Coordinator, etc.)  O  District-Wide Instructional Position (e.g. Special Counsellor, District Librarian, etc.)  7b SPECIFY POSITION if you checked head teacher, other school instructional staff, district-wide administrator or instructional position in 7a above (e.g. head teacher, librarian, counsellor, director of instruction, supervisor etc.) Department heads should specify subject area (e.g. Math, English, etc.)  8 ASSIGNMENT 8a  8b E M P L O Y M E N T  SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT  STATUS  "30'.  (check one only)  O  One school only  Full-time  More than one school but not district-wide  Part-time  ®  District-Wide '  If y o u have responsibilities at B O T H the elementary and secondary levels, indicate the % of time spent at the S E C O N D A R Y level. 3  7  More than one district  ft ©  Y  8d INDICATE THE PERCENTAGE OF YOUR TIMETABLE WEEK YOU ARE ASSIGNED TO:  - . %  *  38 Round.. • to'- 29 Nearest' Whole Number 39  o  ,%  T E A C H I N G (include team teaching and assigned tutorial instruction but exclude special education) TEACHING SPECIAL EDUCATION LIBRARY  1  SUPERVISION O F STUDY PERIODS  40  COUNSELLING.  41 42  ©  %  43  2a  .  ,-_  • •' .  %  ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION O F INSTRUCTION  .•'  %  O T H E R D U T I E S (including general supervision, and other duties assigned to you during the regular timetable week) T I M E F R E E O F . O U T I E S ( i n c l u d i n g p r e p a r a t i o n t i m e a n d u n a s s i g n e d time.)  "'  % %  0  TOTAL  ( N O T E : T h e % reported here should equal the time for which you are paid. That is it you are a halftime teacher, your total % reported in this iiem would b e 5 0 % )  9 ELEMENTARY CLASS SIZE If you register a Kindergarten to Grade VII class, enter the E N R O L M E N T of the class in the boxes below. N O T E : if you have morning and afternoon Kindergarten classes, please enter the two classes separately in Kindergarten A M and PM. If you have a S P L I T G R A O E C L A S S , please be careful to enter the enrolment for E A C H G R A D E in your r e g i s t e r e d c l a s s in the a p p r o p r i a t e b o x e s . 30 31 Kinde garten AM  01  PM  02  03  04  05  20 Elem. Special  07  06  Q 45  10 GRADES TAUGHT AND SUPERVISED  10a G r a d e s you teach  K  N O T E :  01  02  see noie below  03  04  05  07  06  08  10  09  11  12  entary SDecial  ondary Special  G r a d e s T a u g h t i s t o b e a n s w e r e d b y a l lt e a c h e r s w h o t e a c h o r g i v e i n s t r u c t i o nt o ap a r t i c u l a r g r o u p o f s t u d e n t s o n ar e g u l a r b a s i s ( i n c l u d e s l i b r a r i a n s a n d c o u n s e l l o r s . )  10b G r a d e s y o u s u p e r v i s e iy) s e e n o t e b e l o w 00 K  01  02  03  04  05  |  06  |  07  08  09..  i  10  „  !  12  s n t a r y i o n d a r y Special j Special  NOTE: G r a d e s S u p e r v i s e d i s t o b e a n s w e r e d o n l y b y p r i n c i p a l s , v i c e - o r i n c i p a l s . h e a d t e a c h e r s , d e p a r t m e n t h e a d s a n d d i s t r i c t - w i d e s u p e r v i s o r y a n d a u m i r f i s t r a t i v e p e r s o n s .  j  APPENDIX  Descriptive  3  Statistics  on  Variables  VARIABLE  PER  MEAN VAR]ANCE RANGE SUM VALID  PEU  MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM  0.613 0.748. 0.0  MISSING  POP  - EN  63.347 288.630 94.50O 4 751.000 75  POP  EN  1 . 962 1 . 246 O 0  16 989 -0.750 94.500  Aboriginal 1 . 700 20.375 0.050  MISSING  75  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  OBSERVATIONS -  100  STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM  OBSERVATIONS  5 . 309 0.462 29.500  European  MISSING  - AB DIV BY  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  OBSERVATIONS  "100  STD ERRDR KURTOSIS MINIMUM  7 . 651 216.693 98 .250 573 .850  MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM VALID  75  = EU DIV BY  PAB  * 100  STD ERROR KURT0S1S MINIMUM  OBSERVATIONS -  VARIABLE  POP - EN  12.433 28 . 182 29.500 935.500  OBSERVATIONS -  VARIABLE  VALID  = F R DIV BY  14 . 720 4.019 98.300  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  OBSERVATIONS  Afro-Asian VARIABLE  DIV BY  POP  OBSERVATIONS  EN  100 1 . 400 O. 252 1 . 400  STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM  16.557 146.958 50.800 124 1.800  MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM VALID  =AA  PAA  MISSING  75  12.123 0.913 52.200  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  OBSERVATIONS  Enrolment VARIABLE MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM VALID  TOTAL  ENR  STD ERROR ICUR10SIS MINI MUM  6800.600 55053.000 510045.000  OBSERVATIONS -  ENROLLMENT  75  1000.290 13.198 4 86.000  MISSING  OBSERVATIONS  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  8662.768 3 092 55539.000  Elem. VARIABLE  VARIABLE  NEWB3  MEAN VAR1ANCE RANGE SUM VALID  VARIABLE  90.907 516.707 200.000 6818.000  MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM VALID  2.135 0 . 64 1 26.100  OBSERVATIONS  Budget  MATS STD ERROR KURI05IS MINIMUM  75  2 . 625 23 . 4 3 0 38.OOO  MISSING  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  22.731 3 . 562 238.000  OBSERVATIONS  Training  77 .672 27.836 24.200 5825.400  OBSERVATIONS  VARIABLE  MISSING  Ratio  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  0.246 4.610 1 1 .500  DEGREES  MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM VALID  =B3 MINUS SPED  OBSERVATIONS -  Sec.  STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM  75  OBSERVATIONS -  OBSERVATIONS  ENR DIV BY SEC TEACH  16.884 4 . 556 14.600 1266.300  MEAN VAR1ANCE RANGE SUM VALID  SEC  2.221 -0.679 2 3.000  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  0. 256 0. 530 12.600  MISSING  75  RSEC  Ratio  TEACH  STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM  OBSERVATIONS  VARIABLE  ENR DIV BY ELEM  19.279 4 . 933 10.400 1445.900  MEAN VAR]ANCE RANGE SUM VALID  = ELEM  REL  STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM  75  0.609 -O.568 66.000  MISSING  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  5 . 276 0. 207 90.200  OBSERVATIONS  YRS  Experience 10.560 4.218 B . 100 792.000  OBSERVATIONS -  O. 237 -O 567 5 . 900  STD ERROR kURTOSIS MINIMUM  75  MISSING  OBSERVATIONS -  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  0  2 . 054 -O. 179 14.000  VARIABLE MEAN VAR1ANCE RANGE _UM VAi.  RSEST  = SPED  VARIABLE MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM  ME AN VAR!ANCE RANGE SUM  MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM  040 498 000 000  MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM  SPED  RSET  SPED  DIV BY  40.144 618.982 140.100 3010.800  SPED  Spec.  =ESL  ENR  30.437 1028.853 245.000 1948.000  2 . 873 8 . 590 12.000  G4  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  Kats. 59 . 12 1 3 . 109 298.000  Ratio 24.679 2 . 66 1 152.100  OBSERVATIONS  ESL APPS STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM  46 1.200 1 . 347 3 125.000  -  Spec.  MISSING  R DIV BY  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAX I MUM  TEACH  75  -  6 . 827 10.282 3 .000  STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM  Budaet  OBSERVATIONS  MISSING OBSERVATIONS ENR  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  ENR  75  -  53.255 5 . 084 0.0  STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINI MUM  -  RE SAP  Soec.  MISSING  20.746 2.373 100.000  OBSERVATIONS  ENR  STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM  = SPED MATS DIV BY  OBSERVATIONS  SPED  75  RMATS  OBSERVATIONS  VARIABLE  VALID  -SPED MONEY DIV BY  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAX I MUM  2 . 395 5 . 678 9 . 500  MISSING  49.173 3495.253 295.000 3688.000  VARIABLE  VALID  RFUNDS  OBSERVATIONS  * 100  75  -  1014 212705 3125 76053.  ENR  STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM  OBSERVATIONS  VARIABLE  VALID  DIV BY TOTAL  28 . 051 430. 399 90. 500 2 1C3 .800  D OBSERVATIONS  VALID  ENR  _._!.!:_._.££_;_:.__. 4.009 35.498 5.000  MISSING OBSERVATIONS  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  -  11  32.076 5.355 250.000  VARIABLE  RE SL  MEAN .VARIANCE RANGE SUM VALID  = ESL  DIV  BY  TOTAL  ENR  *  MONEY DIV  BY  ESL  VALID  OBSERVATIONS  -  STD ERROR KURI0S1S MINI MUM  75  OBSERVATIONS  0. 406 4 . 294 61.300  MISSING  OBSERVATIONS  10  VALID  eadin  OBSERVATIONS  STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM  75  0. 4 5 0 1 . 668 54.500  MISSING  OBSERVATIONS  Q  4 3.512 -1.443 83.000  -  Read in 67 632 15 . 159 20. 300 5072 . 400  11 10.24 1 1 . 926 6000.000  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  .'• R 1 A B L FREG ME AfJ VARI ANCE' RANGE SUM  Budget  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  137 70B 4 597 145 0 0 0  R  77. 1 12 12.336 21.700 57B3.400  1 . 935 3 . 797 1 1 . 100  OBSERVATIONS  RE 4  MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM  Stud,  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  ESL  MISSING  30.016 7.149 250.000  1 1  ENR  OBSERVATIONS -  VARIABLE  -  O. 223 16.298 0.050  STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINI MUM  5855 .000 1 13668 .000 •  OBSERVATIONS  ESL  MISSING  Ratio  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  100  STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM  1748 . 738  MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM VALID  ENR  75  =ESL  3 .752 54.7 1 7 3 .000  MISSING  1 . 301 3 . 745 11.050 97.600  RESFUNDS  ESL  ESL TE ACH  64  OBSERVATIONS  VARIABLE  BY  STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM  = ESL  RESST  ME AN VARIANCE RANGE SUM VALID  DIV  22.281 900.936 247.000 1426.000  OBSERVATIONS  VARIABLE  ENR  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  -  Q  8 3 . 693 -1.147 7 4.800  VARIABLE  RE12  MEAN VAR1ANC E RANGE SUM VALID  67.011 10.661 21.000 5025.799  OBSERVATIONS -  VARIABLE  62.333 27.567 35.500 4675.000  VALID  OBSERVATIONS  O 606 7 . 97 1 36.300  MISSING  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  4 5 . 250 -2.122 71.800  OBSERVATIONS  STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM  MISSING  75  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  0.319 3 .059 42.300  I  2 . 765 -0.756 59.700  OBSERVATIONS  S c i e n c e 12  SC12  -  MISSING  75  OBSERVATIONS  -  MA4  Math 57.263 1 1 . 820 20.200 4294.7O0  OBSERVATIONS  STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM  75  0. 397 1 . 201 4 5.200  MISSING  OBSERVATIONS  3 . 97 1 0. 548 67 400  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  0 .459 2 . 409 41.700  STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINI MUM  53.332 15.770 25.700 3999 .900  V A L I D OBSERVATIONS  ML AN VARIANC E RANGE SUM  3 .265 -0.733 7 5.OOO  Science 53.863 7 . 643 17.400 4039.699  ME AN VAR1ANC E RANGE SUM  VARIABLE  STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM  75  OBSERVATIONS  VARIABLE  MISSING  12  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  SC8  MEAN VAR1ANCE RANGE SUM VALID  75  0. 377 3.161 54.000  Science  OBSERVATIONS  VARIABLE  STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINI MUM  Reading  SC4  MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM VALID  '  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAX 1 MUM  -  4 3 . 438 -0.5 16 65.400  VAR1 ABLE MEAN VAR1ANCE RANGE SUM VALID  53 . 7B9 20.248 26.200 4034.200  OBSERVATIONS  VARIABLE  -  STD ERROR KUR10SI S MI NI'MUM  75  O. 520 1 . 565 39.300  MISSING  OBSERVATIONS  57.856 22 .978 30.200 4339.200  STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM  75  0. 554 2 . 270 42.800  MISSING  OBSERVATIONS  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  ;  EE12  GRADS DIV  SEC  ENR  75  E t h o s 12  100 STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  0 292 -0 4 14 7 400  STD ERROR KURTOSIS MINIMUM  13.720 6.408 12.400 1029.000  VALID OBSERVATIONS -  BY  4 .794 -0.291 73.000  -  Ed  MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM  4 . 500 -O.654 65.500  Math 12  OBSERVATIONS  VARIABLE  6  STD DEV SKEWNESS MAXIMUM  MA12  MEAN VARIANCE RANGE SUM VALID  Math  MA8  MISSING  OBSERVATIONS  -  2 .531 O. 161 19.800  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share