Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effect of secondary consolidation upon achievement in fundamentals and unit cost Andrews, John Hobart Maclean 1954

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1954_A8 A63 E4.pdf [ 3.68MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106677.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106677-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106677-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106677-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106677-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106677-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106677-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106677-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106677.ris

Full Text

THE EFFECT OF SECONDARY CONSOLIDATION UPON ACHIEVEMENT IN FUNDAMENTALS AND UNIT COST by JOHN HGBART MACLEAN ANDREWS A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS In the School of Education We accept this thesis as conforming to the standard required from candidates for the degree ef MASTER OF ARTS. Members of the School of Education THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1954-Abstract of Thesis Entitled "THE EFFECT OF SECONDARY CONSOLIDATION UPON ACHIEVEMENT IN FUNDAMENTALS AND UNIT COST." Since large administrative districts were established in British Columbia in 194-5* the "revolution of consolidation" has been virtually completed. The present study analyzes the effects of this movement of consolidation upon pupil achievement in the fundamental subjects and per pupil cost in the secondary schools of School District No. 20. The study begins with a survey of pertinent literature. Studies relating the two factors "size of school", and "general quality of edu-cation" are reported to favour the large school overwhelmingly. When "size of school" and actual "achievement" are related, however, the result is found to be varied with approximately half the studies fa-vouring the large school and the other half finding no significant difference. It is noted that most of the latter studies are more closely controlled than the former. Studies relating the factors "size of school" and "cost per pupil" are also shown to be conflicting. Slightly more than half of these find the large school to be the more economical. The others find the reverse, but many of the latter point out that where such i s the case the large school is offering a higher quality of education. The achievement aspect of the present study proceeded by measur-ing the achievement of 308 transported students of the consolidated secondary school and 94- students of small rural secondary schools. A i i i group of 117 non-transported students of the consolidated school served as a control. The measuring device used was the Progressive Achievement Battery. The numbers shown are those remaining after the groups were matched on the basis of intelligence, socio-economic status, and per-centage grade composition. The principal s t a t i s t i c a l technique employed in the analysis of data was the standard error of the difference for matched groups and the t-test for significance. The financial study proceeded by a determination of the cost per pupil figures for current, capital, and total expenditures representing the transported students of the consolidated school and the secondary stWe of the small rural schools. A l l transportation expenditures of the consolidated school were charged to the transported students. The study found that there was no significant difference i n achieve-ment on fundamentals between the transported students of the consolidated school and those of the small rural schools. Individual grade compari-sons showed, however, a tendency toward superior achievement of the transported consolidated over the rural pupils i n the senior grades. The total rural school cost per pupil was found to be approximately two-thirds that of the consolidated school when transportation costs were included i n the l a t t e r . It was concluded that although the study did not show a marked superiority of the consolidated school i n achievement, i t did indicate at least i t s equality with the small rural schools. Since achievement i n fundamentals i s more nearly the main emphasis of the rural school than i t i s of the consolidated comprehensive school even °equality i n this area was held to be a notable accomplishment of the consolidated school. iv It was further concluded that two-thirds of the expenditure of the consolidated school was justified on the basis of equality in achieve-ment with the rural school, whether or not the remaining third was justified as paying for the other emphases of the comprehensive pro-gramme was left for further research in that area. V Acknowledgement 8 The author i s very grateful to his Faculty Adviser, Dr. J . Ranton Macintosh, for his help-f u l suggestions and criticisms. He also wishes to express his gratitude to Dr. Robert Jackson, University of Toronto, for his help i n the i n i -t i a l stages of the study. The author i s indebted to the Inspector of Schools, Mr. L. B. Stibbs, the Secretary of the School Board, Mr. R. W. Sladen, the principals of the d i s t r i c t secondary schools, and the tea-chers of the consolidated school, a l l of School Dist r i c t Number 20, whose friendly cooperation and tangible assistance made possible the collec-tion of data. The author wishes to thank the British Colum-bia Teachers' Federation for the honour and assistance implied i n their financial sponsorship of this study. Special acknowledgement i s due my wife, Doris D. Andrews, whose role as a consultant proved i n -valuable . C O N T E N T S ABSTRACT ACKNOVJLEDGEMENTS CHAPTER I . Introductory Statement  A. General Statement of the Problem B. Background I I . Related Studies  A. Classification B. Size of School and Quality of Education 1. Size of school and general quality of education 2. Size of school and academic achievement C. Size of School and Cost of Education D. Cost and Quality of Education E. Cost of Education, Quality of Education, and Size of School I I I . Definition of the Problem  A. Specific Statement of the Problem B. Delimitation of the Problem 1. Scope of comparison 2. Geographical scope C. Educational Hypotheses D. St a t i s t i c a l Hypotheses v i i 17. The Experimental Method  A. Experimental Materials 1. Measurement of intelligence 2. Measurement of socio-economic status 3. Measurement of achievement B. Experimental Groups C. Achievement Study Design 1. Controls (a) Intelligence (b) Socio-economic status (c) Grade percentages 2. Procedure D. Financial Study Design 1. Current Expenditure Items (a) General (b) Item classification used (c) Reducing items to school level (d) Splitting costs within a school (e) Assigning transportation costs 2. Capital Expenditure Items (a) General (b) Basis for property valuation (c) Basis for determining property l i f e 3. Procedure V. Analysis of Achievement Study Data . . . . A. Matching of Groups v i i i 1. Technique employed 2. Original data 3. Grade percentages Intelligence and socio-economic status B. Achievement Comparisons 1. Achievement data 2. Testing s t a t i s t i c a l hypotheses (a) Transported group versus rural group (b) Non-transported group versus rural group (c) Transported group versus non-transported group C* Summary of St a t i s t i c a l Results VI. Analysis of Financial Study Data 58 A. Current Expenditures 1. Current expenditures excluding transportation 2. Current expenditures for transportation 3. Total current expenditures B. Capital Expenditures 1. Consolidated school 2. Small rural schools C. Summary of Results VII. Conclusion 67 A. Summary of Findings B. Educational Implications of Findings C. Relation of the Study to Future Research T A B L E S I. Comparison of median scores of pupils in large and in small rural schools in eight states 9 II. Size of rural schools and number of pupils in Covert survey 10 III. Average grades and average points made by students according to size of high school 21 17. Comparison of urban and rural cost per pupil 21 V. Grade percentage composition matching data . . . . . 51 VI. Intelligence-socio-economic status matching data . . . 52 VII. Correlation of achievement and intelligence quotient . . 55 VIII. Comparison of achievement of transported consolidated and rural school pupils by grades 57 IX. School current expenditures, excluding transportation and teachers' salaries, for School District No. 20, 1952 59 X. Cost per pupil comparison of the consolidated and small rural secondary schools of School District No. 20, 1952 66 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT A. General Statement of the Problem The problem of this study i s the determination of the effects of the consolidation of schools upon pupil achievement and per pupil cost i n the secondary schools of British Columbia School District Number 20 (Salmon Arm). B. Background In his Report of the Commission of Enquiry into Educational  Finance^ In British Columbia, Cameron strongly recommended the formation of larger school administrative d i s t r i c t s . The B r i -t i s h Columbia Department of Education promptly accepted the re-commendation and obtained the legislation necessary to implement i t . School d i s t r i c t s were summarily enlarged and their admini-stration was completely reorganized to meet the new demands. As has been the case elsewhere, the reorganization of ad-ministrative d i s t r i c t s was followed i n British Columbia by a reorganization of attendance areas. Within a few years of dis-t r i c t reorganization, the consolidated school dominated the f i e l d of secondary education i n rural and semi-rural areas. 1 Cameron, Maxwell A., Report of the Commission of Enquiry Into  Educational Finance. Province of Br i t i s h Columbia, 1945. z One of the major deterrents to a consolidation programme i s the necessity of abandoning existing small school buildings and constructing others adequate for the needs of central schools. This deterrent was minimized, however, i n B r i t i s h Columbia because at this time many existing buildings were i n need of replacement following the war years and because the population increase was creating a heavy demand for new con-struction. The trend to consolidation was, therefore, given added Impetus by i t s coinciding with the post-war boom i n school construction. Rapid though the movement was, i t did not present the ap-pearance of being a headlong dash toward an educational fad made possible at la s t by the larger d i s t r i c t s . Experience i n other parts of Canada and i n the United States indicated that consoli-dation of schools presented at least part of the answer to B r i -t i s h Columbia's problem of sparse population. Nevertheless, the speed of the movement made i t impossible to study i t s growth as this growth occurred. It was necessary to assume that the ad-vantages of consolidation would be evidenced i n the peculiar circumstances of Br i t i s h Columbia as had been evidenced elsewhere. Now that the movement has abated and consolidation i s an accomplished fact, the question naturally arises, "Has this movement f u l f i l l e d our expectations of improved educational qua-l i t y and reduced educational cost?" The results of research carried on i n other parts of North America offers an invaluable 3 frame of reference within which to work. Nothing, however, can answer this question completely for Bri t i s h Columbia - indeed for individual school d i s t r i c t s i n Bri t i s h Columbia - other than local or regional research carried on under the many spe-c i a l local and regional conditions which defy generalizations. CHAPTER II RELATED STUDIES A. Classification Studies interrelating the three factors of size of school, quality of education, and cost of education can be classified for convenience into four categories. The f i r s t three categories are obtained by combining, two at a time, the three factors. The fourth i s obtained from considering the three factors simul-taneously. The four groups, then, are considerations "of the relationship of size of school and quality of education (includ-ing academic achievement); of size of school and cost of educa-tion; of cost and quality of education; and f i n a l l y , of size of school, quality of education and cost of education considered together. Since the three factors are at least suspected of being re-lated, i t could be said that their consideration, two at a time, without controlling the third, would be dangerous. In spite of this obvious danger, the practice may be j u s t i f i e d i n studies of broad scope where the uncontrolled factor i s judged to be relatively constant and where the relationship found between the two factors being considered i s sufficiently one-sided. The weight assigned to the relationship, nevertheless, must vary with the degree to which measured or judged control has been established. 5 For purposes of analysis, then, the review of the literature o has been divided according to the categories mentioned. B. Size of School and Quality of Education 1. Size of school and general quality of education The relation between size of school and general quality and efficiency of work has been the subject of considerable investigation. One volume of the National Survey of Secon-2 dary Education was devoted to a comparison of a total of 614 selected and unselected rural high schools of enroll-ment up to 300. Consideration was also given to the differences noted between the smaller and larger schools that were studied. Some pertinent conclusions were* (a) The selected schools were manifestly superior to the unselected schools. (b) The selected schools were found to be in larger districts than the unselected. (c) They more often provided transportation than did the unselected schools. (d) The size of the school is a more important factor in quality of education than i s selection among small schools. 2 Ferris, B. N., Gaumnitz, W. H., Brammell, P. R., The Smaller Secondary Schools. U. S. Office of Education, Bulletin No. 17, 1932, 236 pp. 6 Wiggans and Spaulding^ investigated 495 four-year high schools in Texas in which enrollments ranged between ten and one hundred f i f t y . When the results of this study are presented as a whole, i t appears (1) that schools able to employ eight or more teachers are not seriously handicapped with respect to administrative control over their staffs, (2) that the size of the teaching staff rather than the pupil enrollment tends to determine the number of different subjects assigned to each teacher, and (3) that schools em-ploying eight or more teachers exhibit no special handicaps with respect to the assignment of specific subjects to tea-chers who are qualified to teach those subjects. In summary, the study states that four-year high schools employing eight or more teachers are large enough to afford reasonably satisfactory conditions. Conversely, schools of fewer than eight teachers would seem to be too small. Similar to this study i s that of Breternitzf where eighty-seven high schools in Nebraska were classified as to type and size, ranging in enrollment from seventy-six to one thousand. The only real difference found to exist was between schools grouped as to size, in which case the large schools were uniformly superior in quality of edu-cation. 3 Wiggans, D. M. and Spaulding, F. T., When are High Schools Too  Small?. School Review No. 41» 1933, pp. 585-594. 4 Breternitz, Louis A., High School Organization in Nebraska. Nebra-ska Educational Journal No. 20, January, 1940, pp. 10-25. 7 Two comparable counties i n New York State were studied by Yaple5 to determine, nby acceptable research procedures", whether consolidated school services were superior to non-consolidated school services. Eleven centralized school areas were compared with seven non-centralized areas on the following aspects of the programmes:(Ustaff;, (2) plant, (3) curricular and extracurricular offering, (4) transport, (5) guidance service, (6) library service, (7) lunch pro-gramme, (6) health education, and (9) pupils. The consoli-dated school areas were found to provide better f a c i l i t i e s and better programmes. Superiority was pronounced i n plant, transport, guidance service, and lunch programme. Definite superiority was found to exist i n curricular and extracurri-cular offerings, library service, and health education. Staff of centralized schools was somewhat, but not markedly, superior. Non-centralized schools were superior i n some as-pects of pupils, notably, holding power. Academic achievement was, unfortunately, not among the aspects of pupils compared. 2. Size of school and academic achievement Although studies relating general quality of education to size of school are of interest i n this review of the literature, the more particular interest centres on the relation of that special aspect of quality, namely, aca-demic achievement, to the size of school. Seme attempts to establish such a relationship are described below. 5 Yaple, G. W., Centralized Schools and Better Schools. American School Board Journal No. 117, December, 1948, pp. 39-41. 8 Alves, Anderson, and FowlkesD reported on Ohio, where the state department of education annually conducts a state scholarship contest in which tests are given to pupils of a l l types of schools. For four years, 1930 to 1934, the composite scores showed direct correlation between pupil achievement scores and size of schools. For example, in 1933, the composite average score of pupilB in small rural high schools was 186, in somewhat larger village schools was 201, and in the s t i l l larger city high schools was 210. A large scale study by Covert? compares the achieve-ment in a number of subjects of elementary school pupils trained in one-teacher schools and those trained in large rural schools. In Figure 1 and in Table I, a summary is given of the results of the testing programmes in eight states. The sizes of rural schools and number of pupils included in each of the surveys are indicated in Table II. An explanation of Table I is given by the author as follows: In the Indiana survey report, three comparisons between the median reading abilities of pupils in large rural schools and those of the corresponding grades in one-teacher schools are shown. In each of these higher scores were made by pupils of the large schools. In a similar manner read across the page for results in each state on each subject and for the total results in each subject. 6 Alves, H. F., Anderson, A. W., Fowlkes, J. G., A Study of Local School Unit Organization in Ten States. U. S. Office of Education, Bulletin No. 10, 1938. 7 Covert, Timon, EducationAl Achievement of One-teacher and Large  Rural Schools. U. S. Bureau of Education, Bulletin No. 15, 1928. 9 TABLE I COMPARISON OF MEDIAN SCORES OF PUPILS IN LARGE AND IN SMALL RURAL SCHOOLS IN EIGHT STATES Number of instances in Percent of instances in Number which higher median which higher median Subjects of com- scores were earned scores were earned parisons Large Small Large . Small Rural Rural ' Rural Rural 1 2 3 4 5 6 Reading: Indiana 3 3 - 100 -Kansas 6 6 - 100 -Kentucky- 3 3 - 100 -New Tork 8 8 - 100 -Oklahoma 8 4 4 50 50 Texas 7 7 - 100 -Virginia 4 4 - 100 -West Virei " ;12 4 8 33.3 66.6 Total 51 39 12 76.5 23.5 Arithmetic: Indiana 6 6 - 100 -Kansas 22 21* - 95.4 -Kentucky 6 6 - 100 -New York 8 8 - 100 -Oklahoma 11 6 5 54.5 45.4 Texas 4 4 - 100 -Virginia 20 20 - 100 -W. Virginia 6 2 4 33.3 66.6 Total 83 73 9 87.9 10.9 Spelling: 100 Indiana 3 3 - — Kansas 3 3 - 100 -Kentucky 3 3 - 100 --New York 3 3 - 100 — Oklahoma 6 4 2 66.6 33.3 Texas 2 2 - 100 — Virginia 5 5 - 100 — W. Virginia 6 2 4 33.3 66.6 Total 31 25 6 80.6 19.4 *0f 22 comparisons between pupils' scores in the two types of schools in Kansas in arithmetic, the median scores in one case were equal. 10 TABLE II SIZE OF RURAL SCHOOLS AND NUMBER OF PUPILS IN COVERT SURVEY State No. of pupils i n 1-teacher schools Size of school No. of pupils Indiana 2,852 6 or more teachers 714 Kansas 1,232 c i t y schools 1,008 Kentucky 2,947 6 or more teachers 261 New York 2,050 4 or more teachers 2,835 Oklahoma 3,169 consolidated 2,527 Texas 643 5 or more teachers 2,430 Virginia 186 4 or more teachers 2,259 West Virginia 9 1-teacherj 6 3-teacher schools Higher scores earned i n : Arithmetic — s 87.9$ J0.5B 80.6$ 19^ 51 1.2$ of scores were equal large rural schools • one-teacher schools Figure 1. - Comparison of Median Scores of Pupils i n Large and i n Small Rural Schools i n Eight States. 11 Data presented i n Table 12 (Table I) show that pupils i n large rural schools made higher median reading scores i n thirty-nine of the fifty-one com-parisons and lower i n twelve than those of the cor-responding grades i n one-teacher schools. In terms of percentage the median scores were higher i n large schools i n 76.5 percent of the total number of comparisons made. In arithmetic and spelling, as i n reading, pupils i n large rural schools made a much larger percent of the higher median scores than those of corresponding grades i n one-teacher schools. In a total of eighty-three comparisons between arithmetic a b i l i t y of pupils i n the two types of rural schools included i n the sight surveys, seventy-three, or 87.9 percent, show higher, and nine or 10.9 percent, lower median .scores (in one comparison they were equal) f o r pupils i n large rural schools, grade for grade, than for those i n the one-teacher schools. In a total of thirty-one comparisons of writing abi-l i t y twenty-five, or 80.6 percent show higher, and six, or 19.A percent, lower median scores for pupils i n the large schools, grade for grade, than for those i n the one-teacher schools. Of the eight state survey reports, six show that a l l comparable median reading, arithmetic, and writ-ing scores were uniformly higher i n large than i n one-teacher rural schools. In two, the Oklahoma and West Virginia, studies, some scores were higher i n one-teacher schools. In Oklahoma, the median scores were higher i n four of a total of eight comparisons in reading, i n five of a total of eleven comparisons i n arithmetic, and i n two of a total of' six compari-sons i n writing for pupils i n one-teacher schools than for those of the corresponding grades of large rural schools. In West Virginia, the median scores were higher i n eight of a total of twelve comparisons i n reading, i n four of a total of six comparisons i n arithmetic, and i n four of a total of six comparisons i n writing, for pupils i n one-teacher schools than for those of the corresponding grades of large rural schools. Since the tests i n each survey were given to large numbers of pupils, they should be representa-tive. Assuming that pupils tested i n both types of rural schools were equally well classified, summaries shown i n Table 12 (Table I) indicate that pupils at-tending large rural schools i n various sections of 12 the U. S. learn to read, spell and solve arithmeti-cal problems decidedly better than those who attend one-teacher schools. Summaries of similar results on other subjects confirm the statement that pupils trained in large rural schools make higher compar-able scores on educational tests than those trained in one-teacher schools. To show the facts in Table 12 (Table I) graphi-cally, Figure 5 (Figure l) is presented. The per-centage distribution of higher median reading, arithmetic, and spelling scores shown in the table are represented in the respective .bars of the graph. The upper bar of Figure 5 (Figure 1) represents a l l one hundred percent of the comparisons made be-tween reading abilities of pupils in the two types of schools in the eight states; the light portion represents the percent of higher median scores earned in the large type rural schoolsj the shaded portion, that earned in the small type. Similarly, the middle bar represents comparisons in arithmetic abilities; the hatched portion of this bar shows the percent of scores which were equal, grade for grade, in the two types of schools. A study in New York State by Clem and Hovey^ compares high school students of 193 village schools and 196 rural schools on the Regents' Examination. Subjects covered were arithmetic, English, geography, reading, spelling, and United States history. This comparison showed that the mean marks of the village school pupils excelled those of the rural school group in every subject. The difference between the two groups was found to be statistically sig-nificant. 8 Covert, on. cit . . p. 11. 9 Clem, 0. M. and Hovey, C. W., •Comparative Achievement of Village School Pupils and Rural School Pupils", Elementary School Journal, vol. 34, December, 1933, pp. 269-272. 13 Similar i n many respects to the study just mentioned i s that of Mcintosh and Schramme!"^ who analysed the re-sults of 3,532 eighth grade entrants in a state-wide con-test. Pupils from graded schools i n villages and c i t i e s were classified as Division A whereas those from rural schools were classified as Division B. Subjects tested i n the contest were arithmetic, civic s , history, English, reading and spelling. In such a comparison the median scores were Division A, 198.7 and Division B, 186.7, lead-ing the authors to the conclusion that the "distribution of the scores of the 1,921 pupils i n graded schools and of the 1,611 pupils i n rural schools are somewhat the same except that the former are higher i n median."^ 12 A study by Fulmar shows, i n i t s sociological setting, some results which are pertinent here. A survey of a ten-d i s t r i c t area i n South Carolina was conducted to determine conditions affecting the development of children and young people. Particular attention was given to the effect of tenancy on their status. The data also show, however, that the efficiency of the schools i s related closely to the en-vironment of the homes, rural or non-rural, and the taxable 10 Mcintosh, H. W. and Schrammel, H. E., "Comparison of the Achieve-ment of Eighth Grade Pupils i n Rural Schools and i n Graded Schools", Elementary School Journal vol. 31, December, 1930, pp. 301-6. 11 Mcintosh and Schrammel, op. c i t . . p. 305-12 Fulmer, Henry L., An Analytical Study of a Rural School Area. Charleston* South Carolina Agricultural Experimental Station, Bulletin No. 320, 1939, pp. 70-71. resources. Specifically, i t was found that the reading ability of rural grade seven pupils is three to four years lower, than in non-rural schools. Test scores of the grade eleven pupils in rural schools were lower than in grade eight in non-rural schools. An interesting feature of this study is that the dif-ference between rural-and non-rural schools is remarked upon not so much as a result of size of school but as a result of differing socio-economic status. Whereas many studies have found such a difference and have attributed i t to size of school without controlling socio-economic status, this study does the reverse. Another study by the same author^ Was conducted by means of personal interview and standardized testing of the pupils of fifteen rural school districts in central South Carolina. Children in the smaller schools were found to be lower in achievement than those in the nearest v i l -lage schools, and lower s t i l l than those in the nearest city schools. This difference is attributed to both size of school and socio-economic status as borne out by a con-clusion of Fulmer that "to raise the economic, social, and educational levels of the area, consolidated schools ... are recommended." 13 Fulmer, Henry L., A Rural School Area in Central South Carolina. Charlestoni South Carolina Agricultural Experimental Station, Bulletin No. 325, 1940. 15 In contrast to many of the studies mentioned i n this review i s that of Nelson 1^ who, i n a closely controlled study i n California, found few sizeable differences i n achievement between pupils i n large and small secondary schools i n the subjects measured by the Stanford Achieve-ment Test. Similar to the above study i n findings i s that con-ducted by Dreier 1^ i n Minnesota. The purpose of the study was to determine how well the rural child who attends an ungraded school achieves when compared with the rural child who attends a graded school. The criterion of achievement was s k i l l i n language, reading, arithmetic and spelling as determined by standardized achievement tests at the sixth, ninth, and twelfth grade levels. The study proceeded by the selection of forty-one rural counties i n Minnesota out of the eighty-five which agreed to participate. A random sample of twenty-two per-cent was taken of the schools i n each of the Categories. The following standardized tests were then administered: 14 Nelson, T. L., Comparison of the Achievement of Pupils i n Schools of One or Two Teachers with Pupils of Those of Eight or More Teachers. Doctor's thesis, Berkeley: University of California, 1932. 15 Dreier, William H., "The Differential Achievement of Rural Graded and Ungraded School Pupils", Journal of Educational Research. September, 1949, v o l . 43, pp. 175-189. 16 (a) Achievement Grade Six: Stanford Achievement Test, Inter-mediate Partial Battery. Grades Nine and Twelve: Progressive Achievement Tests, Advanced Battery. (b) Intelligence Otis Quick Scoring Mental Ability Tests, Beta and Gamma. (c) Socio-economic Status Sewell Farm Family Socio-economic Status Scale (Short Form) A careful analysis of the data shows that: (a) Rural grade six pupils from graded and ungraded schools do not differ significantly at the one percent level on the achievement measured. (b) Rural grade nine pupils with graded and ungraded ele-mentary school backgrounds do not differ significantly in arithmetic and spelling. Differences in mean language and reading favour graded backgrounds. (c) Rural grade twelve students with graded elementary school backgrounds made higher means than those with ungraded backgrounds* Rural elementary schools in Virginia were studied by Ingle 1^ for the purpose of answering the following questions: 16 Ingle, John Preston, "Subject Matter Achievement in Rural Ele-mentary Schools in Virginia", Education Abstracts, vol. 5, July 1940, pp. 239-240. 17 (1) Is the small rural school of one to three teachers pro-ducing learning results commensurate with larger schools? (2) How does the typical rural pupil compare with the typi-cal urban pupil in subject matter achievement scores and mental ability scores? (3) How do certain factors in the rural school compare with those in the urban school in their effect on pupil achievement? The primary data used in this study were the results of a three-year state-wide testing programme carried on from 1931 to 1934 inclusive. A total of 131,741 pupils were tested, only grades four to seven being represented. Point scores on subject matter were averaged accord-ing to school, type of school, and school division in the state, and these average scores converted into equivalent educational ages. The same procedure was used with point scores on mental ability tests. Mean educational age was the principal technique used in the study. The advantage of one type of school over another type of school was re-presented by the difference between the mean educational ages representing the schools. A difference, large or small, between mean educational ages that persisted in successive comparisons of the same groups was judged to be significant. Mean educational age and mean mental age of certain groups of pupils were compared with mean chrono-logical age and mean mental age respectively on successive tests and the progress of the pupils was observed. 18 Test scores for white pupils were tabulated and i n -terpreted separately from test scores for Negro pupils. The results of the study include the following points: (1) When chronological age was held constant and mean educational ages of pupils were compared, the larger school had a distinct advantage over the smaller school. (2) When grade was held constant, there was a s i g n i f i -cant difference between the educational ages i n favour of the larger school. (3) When grade and chronological age were held constant and mean educational ages of pu-p i l s were compared, there was a distinct and significant difference i n favour of the urban children over the ru-r a l school of one to nine or.more teachers. (4) When mean mental age was held constant and mean educational ages of pupils were compared, no significant differences between the different types of schools were observed. (5) Mean educational age and mean mental age for the same group of pupils i n successive tests over a period of three years fluctuated together. (6) Among the con-tributing factors to the differences between the rural and urban pupils, between the small rural school and the graded rural school, and between the small rural school and the urban school were shorter term of school i n the small rural school; young, inexperienced, and i n -efficient teachers i n the small school; low salaries paid 19 to the teachers in the small school; poor housing and inadequate equipment and supplies in the small school; and the effects upon both teacher and pupil of poor l i v -ing conditions and a static environment in rural commu-nities. It will be noted that most of these factors mentioned as contributing to the difference between rural and urban pupils are not inherent in the size of the schools but rather are products of a different level of educational expenditure and of a difference in socio-economic status. A study, similar in type to that of Dreier, was con-ducted by Thornberg^ to determine the efficiency of col-lege students as conditioned by the size of the high school from which they come. Achievement and size of school were therefore being related, with the criterion of achievement being future success at college. Grades were tabulated by size of high school for those students who entered the State College of Washington as freshmen in September of two consecutive years. The grades A, B, C, and K were assigned point value of 3, 2, 1, and G, respectively. It will be noticed from Table III that students from the smallest high schools have an average of only 4.92 hours of A grade, while the students from the largest 18 Thornberg, Lester H., "College Scholarship and Size of High School".School and Society, vol. 20, August, 1924, pp. 189-92. 20 high schools have an average of 9.95 hours of A grade. A comparison of the points made by each group shows a difference of 24?. 17 points between the largest and smallest high schools. According to this investigation, students from large high schools are superior in college work to those from small high schools. In general, the study shows that scholarship increases with the size of the high school, although the increments are not regular. The most marked difference in the quality of college work is found be-tween students coming from high schools of fewer than one hundred students. Thomberg adds that this does not seem to be due so much to difference in native capa-city as to difference in preparatory training. G. Size of School and Cost of Education Figures comparing the cost per pupil in urban and rural schools covering a l l of the United States were presented for the year 1933-34 by Herlihy. 1^ These figures, summarized in Table IV, show that on every item except coordinate activities the urban schools spent more than twice as much per pupil as did the rural. Although such material is pertinent in such a discussion i t is not directly to the point in that i t compares urban and rural schools rather than large and small schools. The ques-tion arises whether i t is the size of the urban school or its 19 Herlihy, L. B., "Urban and Rural School Expenditures", School  Life, vol. 21, June, 1926, pp. 272-4. 21 TABLE III AVERAGE GRADES AND AVERAGE POINTS MADE BY STUDENTS ACCORDING TO SIZE OF HIGH SCHOOL Size of school No. of A B C Points cases average 1-50 20 4.92 19.6 13.67 67.65 51-100 ' 54 5.86 18.32 19.19 73.22 101-200 79 9.24 20.93 13.36 82.94 201-300 60 6.91 20.49 18.60 80.34 301-500 19 9.71 25.44 12.94 92.97 501-1,000 40 9.93 22.07 18.76 92.72 1,000 up 153 9.95 23.23 16.16 92.46 TABLE IV COMPARISON OF URBAN AND RURAL COST PER PUPIL, UNITED STATES, 1933-34 Number of school systems Rural 440 Urban 145 General Control 1.43 3.02 Instruction 30.76 66.98 Operation 3.46 8.77 Maintenance 1.21 2.82 Coordinate activities & auxiliary agencies including transportation Fixed charges 5.52 .72 2.91 1.92 Total current expense 43.10 86.42 Per diem expenditure .28 .48 Expenditure on basis of 100-day school session 27.59 47.56 22 more generous instructional programme which causes i t s per pupil cost to be higher. In addition a rural-urban price differential is shown to exist in most areas. Bradshavj2^ in an analysis of the consolidation of schools in Eugene, Oregon in 1946, points out that when the Eugene tax levy was 43«9 mills, the tax levies in five other non-consoli-dated districts were 37.4, 36.8, 32.6, 52.5 end 42.5 mills. This comparison leads Bradshaw to conclude, "No matter how i t i s fi g -ured, better education was bound to cost more money....But these figures also indicate that in the consolidated district the. tax dollar i s buying more education than the tax dollar in the inde-pendent districts."^" In the face of extravagant claims for the financial advan-22 tages of consolidated schools, Gaumnitz concludes that consoli-dation does not always cost less money because consolidation is usually accompanied by an improvement in the level of the school programme. He adds, as did Bradshaw, "but i t should not be lost sight of that in these consolidated schools society buys a great 23 deal more for the money spent than before consolidation." 20 Bradshaw, R. W., "Effective Consolidation of Schools", American  School Board Journal, vol. 115, August, 1947, pp. 29-31. 21 Bradshaw, op. ci t . . p. 31. 22 Gaumnitz, W. H., "Small Schools-Large Costs", School Life, vol. 20, June, 1935, pp. 232-3. 23 Ibid., p. 232. 23 Cn the subject of unit costs of maintenance and operation of consolidated schools, however, Pace^A finds an inverse rela-tionship between these factors and the size of the school. This inverse relationship holds good, he finds, despite the fact that the small schools were not as well kept as the larger units. Another factor is introduced by the Rural School Survey 25 Committee of Indiana. . Its findings show that the cost of transportation is important in determining the most economical size for the rural consolidated unit. In particular, i t shows that increasing consolidation tends to increase the cost. Enlow^ conducts a study in the Atlanta Public School System which "attempts to get beneath the superficial treatment which so 27 readily yields large 'savings' by a mere transition to bigness." In answer to the statement that the per pupil cost of certain small elementary schools was large because of the size of the schools as measured by average daily attendance, Enlow shows that the school with the lowest cost per pupil is next to the smallest in size, and the largest school in terms of average daily attend-ance is by no means the smallest in cost. About forty percent of 24 Pace, Henry A., "School Building Costs in Utah", Review of Edu-cational Research, vol. 2, 1932, p. 14-5. 25 The Rural" School Committee of Indiana Report, Indianapolis: State Department of Public Instruction, 1926, cited in Review of Edu-cational Research, vol. 2, 1932. 26 Enlow, E. R., "Do Small Schools Mean Large Costs?", Peabody  Journal of Education, vol. 16, pp. 1-11, July, 1938. 27 Ibid., p. 1. 24 the schools were operated at less than the cost of the largest school. The correlation, however, between size, as measured by-average daily attendance, and per pupil cost was found to be -.431, indicating a tendency for larger schools to be operated at less cost. He concludes that i n per-pupil cost studies, other factors besides average daily attendance must be consid-ered. Illustrating the lack of a demonstrated superiority for a l l aspects of either the large or the small school i n the mat-ter of cost i s the group of three analyses of the Pennsylvania schools performed i n the same year. B a l l e n ^ found that the per-pupil cost for general control increased gradually as the o OQ school units decreased i n population. Davidheister 7 concluded that larger schools were more economical i n maintenance. The third study, by Helveston and Fetter,-^ 0 found, however, a grad-ual decline i n the per-pupil cost of operation as the average daily attendance decreased. 28 Ballen, L. R., A survey of costs of public education i n the commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the f i s c a l year 1933-34. Master's thesis, Temple University, cited i n Monroe, W. S., Encyclopedia of  Educational Research. 1950, p. 1050. 29 Davidheister, J . W., The cost of repairs and maintenance of  fourth-class school d i s t r i c t s in the state of Pennsylvania for the  f i s c a l year 1933-34. Master's thesis, Temple University, cited i n Monroe, W. S., Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 1950, p. 1050. 30 Helveston, H. W. and Fetter, J . M., The cost of operation i n  d i s t r i c t s of the f i r s t , second, third, and fourth class d i s t r i c t s i n  the state of Pennsylvania for the f i s c a l year 1933-34. Master's thesis, Temple University, cited i n Monroe, W. S., Encyclopedia of Educational Research. 1950, p. 1050. 25 D. Cost and Quality of Education Data were gathered from the 1943 Army-Navy Qualifying Test 31 for Civilians by Davenport and Remmers vhich enabled conclu-sions to be drawn as to the effect educational expenditures have upon educational achievement. The 316*000 subjects who wrote the test were at least high school graduates with ages from seventeen to twenty-one years. The test used contained sections on reading, verbal understanding, basic mathematics, and science. Mean scores were calculated for each state, other pertinent information was determined for each state, and corre-lat i o n coefficients were derived, presumably to show a cause-and-effect relationship. State means were found to correlate .63*.06 with state average teachers' salaries, .771.04 with state average total per-pupil cost, and .80*.03 with state aver-age current per-pupil cost. The conclusion arrived at i s , "In general, the more money the state spends on education, the more 32 the pupils achieve on such a test of basic subjects." This conclusion i s reinforced by L i t t l e - ^ who states, "This study reveals quite definitely that any increased cost that may have resulted from consolidated schools over the country 31 Davenport, K. S. and Remmers, H. H., "Educational Achievement as Compared with Money Spent on Schools", School and Society, v o l . 61, May 19, 1945, pp. 333-5. 32 Ibid., p. 335. 33 L i t t l e , H. A., "Do Consolidated Schools Cost More?", Nation's  Schools, v o l . 14, December, 1934, p. 24. 26 i s largely due to a better school program rather than to the consolidation of schools."-^-oc of. Many studies such as those of Powell, Grimm, and Mort 37 and Cornell show increased quality of education as expendi-ture level increases. Such studies generally proceed by c l a s s i -fying schools by expenditure into groups such as below average, average, and above average. The existence had been speculated, however, of a c r i t i c a l point beyond which further expenditure would yield no increase i n quality. It was i n search of such a c r i t i c a l point that Woollatt^ investigated the effect on quality as the expenditure level goes from high to higher. "The Growing Edge" refers to an instrument, developed by the Metropolitan School Study Council, used to differentiate the quality of high expenditure systems. Scores for t h i r t y -three school systems of the Metropolitan School Study Council were compared s t a t i s t i c a l l y with costs per pupil of the systems. 34 Loc. c i t . 35 Powell, Orrin E., Education Returns at Varying Expenditure  Levels. New York, Bureau of Publications, Teachers' College, Columbia University, 1933. 36 Grimm, Lester R., Our Children's Opportunity i n Relation to  School Costs. Springfield, 111.. Department of Research, I l l i n o i s Edu-cational Association, 1938. 37 Mort, Paul R., and Cornell, Francis G., American Schools i n  Transition. New York, Bureau of Publications, Teachers' College, Columbia University, 1941, PP. 167-95. 38 Woollatt, Lome Hedley, Cost-quality Relationships on the Grow-ing Edge; Study of Returns for Money Spent i n High Expenditure School  Systems. Metropolitan School Study Council, Research Studies, No. 4» 1949. 27 The instrument measures i n four areas: (l) teaching the basic s k i l l s , (2) teaching the areas of knowledge, (3) the discovery and development of special aptitudes of individuals through test and try out, and (4.) the development of gross behaviour patterns l i k e citizenship, character, and thinking. Dealing with each of the four areas i n turn, Woollatt con-cludes that there i s an improvement i n the teaching of basic s k i l l s from the high expenditure to the very high expenditure levels. He notes also an improvement i n the use of l i f e l i k e situations and of variety i n teaching these s k i l l s . The same conclusion i s found for teaching the areas of knowledge. He does find, however, a c r i t i c a l point at $150 per pupil where he found no improvement to take place i n this area. The plateau comes to an end at $170 per pupil and then continues to rise to the maximum expenditure of $220 per pupil. In the lower ranges of high expenditure, i t i s found that increasing returns i n special aptitude discovery are secured even under average staffing characteristics; but that, i n the upper regions of expenditure, increasing returns are accompanied by very favourable staffing characteristics. It i s found that schools spending from $155 to $170 appear, to be losing ground i n the discovery of special aptitudes because of reliance on classroom teachers without assistance from school specialists. 28 The trend for behaviour patterns i s similar to that de-scribed for special aptitudes. There i s less variation about the mean than i n the l a t t e r but the comment regarding staffing applies equally well. In general, Woollatt concludes, "Just as we have seen that there i s a general increase i n the quality of schools as cost increases, so i t i s evident that there i s a general increase i n s k i l l s , knowledge f i e l d s , special aptitudes, and behavior pat-terns.... In these specific phases there are variations between intermediate c r i t i c a l points of expenditure, but the general picture i s one of increasing expenditure accompanied by i n -•aq creasing quality."^ 7 E. Cost of Education. Quality of Education, and Size of School When the three variables, quality of education, cost of education, and size of school are a l l considered i n the same study any relationships found would seem to carry the addition-a l weight of being free from spurious effects which may be pre-sent when only two of the three are considered. Such a study i s that carried out i n the four-year high schools of California by Nanninga.^0 The c r i t e r i a for quality of education were number of conventional courses offered, num-ber of non-conventional courses offered, and number of extra-curricular a c t i v i t i e s offered. Seme conclusions that are de-rived from the s t a t i s t i c a l analysis are as follows: 40 Nanninga, S. P., "Costs and Offerings of California High Schools i n Relation to Size", Journal of Educational Research, v o l . 24, Decem-ber, 1931, pp. 356-64. 29 1. The relationship between cost per pupil for teachers1 salaries and size of high school is curvilinear, re-vealing an eta of -.4581.032. 2. The relationship between cost per pupil for current ex-penditures and size of school shows an eta of -.5881.027. 3. The curves for these two relationships show a steady de-crease in cost up to a school of approximately 500 in enrollment. 4. The cost per pupil remains approximately the same for schools of enrollment 500 to 1,400. 5. Some schools larger than 500 enrollment have a low per capita cost indicating that, in the larger schools, other factors besides size influence the cost of education. 6. The offering of conventional courses increases with size until a school of from five hundred to six hundred en-rollment is reached. The relationship between the num-ber of conventional courses offered and the size of school is eta equals .8201.013. 7. Schools of five hundred enrollment or more offer more non-conventional courses than the smaller schools offer. 8. The total number of extra-curricular activities offered increases from a mean of twelve, for schools having an enrollment under f i f t y , to twenty-five, for schools hav-ing approximately five hundred enrolled. 30 9. When the curves obtained from the "best f i t lines" repre-senting the cost and offerings of California high schools are presented on a single chart, i t i s evident that a school of from five hundred to six hundred i n enrollment offers more courses and provides more curricular and ex-tra-curricular a c t i v i t i e s and costs less than the smaller schools, and moreover, offers and costs approximately the same as the largest schools of the state. This study i s corroborated by that conducted i n the same state, three years later, by Dawson.^- The la t t e r study found that "the size of the student body i s a determining factor i n JO the efficiency of a school."^ His study also considered the relationship between cost and size, showing that per pupil cost i n average daily attendance i n schools having ten pupils or few-er was $205; i n schools having eleven to twenty pupils, $117; i n schools having 191 to 210 pupils, $74. Considering both educational efficiency and cost per pupil the study reports sharp losses when the school enrollment f a l l s below 210. Somewhat similar findings, with some qualifications i n achievement are presented by Riddle, whose data were obtained 41 Dawson, H. A., Satisfactory Local School Units. Field Study No. 7, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1934. 42 Ibid., p. 18. 43 Riddle, John I., The Six-year Rural High School. Contributions to Education, No. 737, New York. Teachers' College, Columbia University, 1937. 31 from small and large rural high schools i n Alabama. Ten schools i n each group were selected to obtain schools representative of communities similar as to type of population, industry and so-c i a l background. The mean enrollment of the small schools was seventy pupils and of the large schools two hundred seventy pu-p i l s . The major items considered i n the comparison were the staff, the buildings and equipment, the curricula, the charac-t e r i s t i c s of the pupils, and the cost. The data for pupil cha-racteristics and their achievement and advancement were based upon detailed study of Junior III and Senior III pupils of a l l the schools. The findings of the study led to the following conclusions i n substance: The average large school i s superior i n that i t has a superior staff, a superior building and superior equipment, a superior curriculum i n respect to wider range of electives for Senior III pupils and superior achievement of these same pupils i n English. No significant differences were found i n the pupil personnels at the junior-high level i n achievement i n English, algebra, and Latin. Achievement of Senior III pupils i n Ameri-can history and physics was practically the same for the two groups of schools. The progress of pupils through school was similar i n both groups. The per pupil cost, based on average daily attendance, was $45.49 less i n large schools, #34.19 of this differential being due to higher per pupil cost of instruc-tion i n the small schools. 32 F. Summary If an interrelation i s sought between the three factors, size of school, quality of education, and cost of education, evidence may be obtained from studies which deal with any two of these factors separately or which consider a l l three simul-taneously. Studies investigating the relationship between size of school and quality of education produce results which seem to depend somewhat upon the criterion of quality used. The two rather dis-tinct c r i t e r i a commonly used are (l) ratings on aspects of the total school programme which are judged to be significant of qua-l i t y and (2) scores on achievement tests. Use of the former c r i -terion almost invariably shows differences i n favour of the larger schools. It i s interesting, however, that one study finds smaller schools superior i n holding power. When achievement scores of pupils are used as the basis of comparison, superiority of the l a r -ger schools i s found i n about half the studies but no significant difference i s found i n the other half. It may be significant that, i n general, those studies of achievement indicating the superiority of the larger schools do not control intelligence while those find -ing no difference do. When the relationship between size of school and cost i s i n -vestigated, considerable disagreement develops. The principal technique used i s to compare schools by correlation or other statis-t i c a l means on the basis of average daily attendance and cost per 33 pupil. Some studies compare only certain aspects of cost, such as maintenance, with size of school. Although small schools are shown to be financially superior to large schools i n about half the studies summarized, i t i s often pointed out i n such studies that the larger schools are probably offering a better programme. This lack of control of quality of education seems to lead to much of the disagreement i n results. Particularly when transportation i s a factor, as i n con-solidated schools, there i s some evidence that an optimum size exists above and below which costs per pupil are higher. Quality of education compared to cost of education i s most often studied by the technique of classifying schools i n groups according to expenditure levels. These groups are then examined s t a t i s t i c a l l y for the quality they represent. Quality i s mea-sured by achievement test scores i n seme studies and by devices for rating the school programme i n others. In general the stu-dies show a positive relationship over a wide range of expendi-ture levels. Evidence exists that same aspects of school pro-grammes show decreasing returns as cost per pupil increases, but that this i s not the general situation. When quality and cost of education are both related to size of school i n the same study the pattern appears to corroborate the results of some of the previous studies. There i s a direct relationship found between quality and size and an inverse re-lationship between cost .and size. Both of these results are 34 heavily qualified, however. One study shows l i t t l e favourable change when the enrollment rises above five to six hundred. Another, i n a closely controlled setting, shows very l i t t l e difference i n the actual achievement aspect of quality between the large and small schools. In general, the evidence indicates a slight tendency for larger schools to cost less and to be superior i n achievement to small schools. This tendency i s far from invariable and the limits of size are not defined within which i t operates. CHAPTER III DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM A. Specific Statement of the Problem The small rural secondary schools i n this study typify un-consolidated schools. The consolidated school i s made up of two groups of students, those who are not transported to school, i.e., those who l i v e i n the city, and those who are transported to school. The l a t t e r group i s particularly important i n this study because i t consists of pupils who, had i t not been for consolidation of attendance areas, would probably be attending small rural second-ary schools. Answers are sought in this study to the following questions concerning these three groups. 1. Is the achievement of the secondary school pupils who are transported to the consolidated school superior to, infer i o r to, or the same as that of equivalent pupils who attend small rural high schools? '2. Does the achievement of either or both of these groups d i f -fer from that of town pupils who attended a sizeable second-ary school even before consolidation took place? 3. Is the per pupil cost for current and capital expenditures for the pupils who are transported to the consolidated school more or less than that for the pupils attending small rural high schools? 36 B. Delimitation of the Problem 1. Scope of comparison A complete consideration of the effect of consolidation would involve a very large number of factors, many of which are d i f f i c u l t , i f not impossible to assess adequately. Some of these factors are: (a) achievement of pupils i n fundamental subjects. (b) cost per pupil i n average daily attendance. (c) provision for individual differences, both curricular and co-curricular. (d) quality and experience of teachers. (e) practical a v a i l a b i l i t y of schooling. (f) holding power of the schools. (g) student body esprit de corps. (h) sociological effect on small communities. (i) personalization of instruction. (j) convenience to pupils and their families, (k) social adjustment of pupils. (l) pupil study habits, attitudes, and appreciations. (m) extent of cooperation between the home and school. (n) provision of extra services to pupils, such as medical, nutritional, and counselling services. Of these aspects only the f i r s t two w i l l be considered i n this study, namely, achievement of pupils i n fundamental subjects and cost per pupil i n average daily attendance. 37 2. Geographical scope The study includes a l l secondary school pupils i n School Dist r i c t Number 20 (Salmon Arm). Four schools are represented, three of them being small rural high schools and the fourth being a consolidated school. C. Educational Hypotheses 1. That the transported students i n the consolidated high school are superior i n achievement to the students of the small rural high schools. 2. That the non-transported students i n the consolidated secondary school are superior i n achievement to the students of the small rural high schools. 3. That the non-transported and transported students of the con-solidated secondary school do not d i f f e r in achievement. 4. That the cost per pupil i n average daily attendance i n the con-solidated high school i s less than the cost per pupil i n average daily attendance i n the small rural high schools. D. S t a t i s t i c a l Hypotheses The s t a t i s t i c a l hypotheses given below are numbered to correspond to the educational hypotheses above. 1. (a) Hypothesis W E > M R , where Mp = the mean achievement of the transported students of the consolidated school. M R 5 the mean achievement of the students of the small rural schools. 38 (b) Null hypothesis to be tested Mp - MjJ B 0 2. (a) Hypothesis > where MJJ = the mean achievement of the non-transported students of the con-solidated school. . (b) Null hypothesis to be tested MJJ - MJJ • 0 3. Hypothesis to be tested Mj - % = 0 4. Hypothesis to be tested C T < C R , where C<p = cost per pupil for the transported students of the consolidated school. C R 5 cost per pupil for the students of the small rural high schools. CHAPTER IV THE EXPERIMENTAL METHOD A. Experimental Materials 1. Measurement of intelligence (a) Otis Self-Administering Tests of Mental A b i l i t y , Inter-mediate Examination: Form C - administered to grades seven, eight, and nine. (b) Otis Self-Administering Tests of Mental Ability, Higher Examination: Form C - administered to grades ten, eleven, and twelve. 2. Measurement of socio-economic status Wrightstone Social Background Data Sheet^ was used. This sheet eliminates much of the subjectivity and labouriousness of scoring the Sims Score Card for Socio-economic Statusj yet i t measures essentially the same thing. The two instru-ments correlate r • .90. 3. Measurement of achievement (a) Progressive Achievement Tests, Intermediate Battery, Form B. - administered to grades seven, eight, and nine. (b) Progressive Achievement Tests, Advanced Battery, Form B. - administered to grades ten, eleven, and twelve. UU Wrightstone, Wayne J., "A Social Background Data Sheet", Journal  of Educational Sociology, v o l . 7, 1934, p. 525. AO B. Experimental Groups Although this study i s mainly characteristic of the survey type, i t involves i n a real sense an experimental variable. This variable i s the effect of consolidation upon students, who, had consolidation not been put into effect, would probably be attend-ing small rural high schools. The experimental group consists of the transported students of the consolidated secondary school, grades seven to twelve, numbering 308. One control group consists of the students of the three small rural high schools, grades se-ven to twelve, numbering 94- A comparison of these two groups w i l l test the effect of consolidation from the point of view of improvement, i f any, caused by consolidation. The second control group i s comprised of the non-transported students of the consoli-dated school, grades seven to twelve, numbering 117. A comparison of the experimental group with this group w i l l test the effect of consolidation from the point of view of the similarity of the ex-perimental group to semi-urban students. C. Achievement Study Design 1. Controls (a) Intelligence L i t t l e need be said here i n justification of the procedure of controlling intelligence when groups are being compared in achievement. Some researchers have found the community of function between standardized achievement tests and general intelligence tests to be as high as ninety percent.^ (b) Socio-economic status Although i t i s not general practice to control socio-economic status even in closely controlled achievement comparisons, the consideration of such a control was unavoidable here. The three experi-mental groups represent three points on a scale of rurality-urbanity. It was f e l t quite possible that the three groups might show three different levels of socio-economic status. That such a difference i n socio-economic status would influence an achieve-ment comparison i s indicated by research results. Chauncey,^ for example, tested a group of 113 eighth and 130 ninth grade pupils with the Sims Score Card for Socio-economic Status, the Stanford Achievement Tests, and the Otis Self-Administering Tests of Men-t a l A b i l i t y . He found correlations of r s .23,(Grade 8) and r « .30 (Grade 9) between socio-economic status and achievement with intelligence partialled out. 45 Kelley, Truman Lee, Interpretation of Educational Measurements. Yonkers, World Book Company, 1 9 2 7 , p. 2 0 8 . 46 Chauncey, M. R., "The relation of the home factor to achievment and intelligence test scores M, Journal of Educational Research, v o l . 2 0 , 1 9 2 9 , p p . 8 8 - 9 0 . 42 A similar study using the same tests was carried out by Shaw^7 using pupils of grades four to eight. The correlation between socio-economic status and achieve-ment with intelligence partialled out was found to be r r .27. For the reasons outlined above socio-economic status is controlled in the achievement comparisons of this study, (c) Grade Percentages The percentage composition by grade of each experi-mental group has been controlled by equating the groups on this basis. For example, i f grade seven pupils make up twenty percent of one group, grade seven pupils must make up twenty percent of the other two groups as well. This technique must be employed because the achievement test scores for the grades ranging from seven to twelve can be lumped together in a group only i f they are ex-pressed as grade percentiles. Further, there is no gua-rantee of equivalence of percentiles from one grade to the next. 2. Procedure (a) Intelligence test scores were obtained for a l l members of the experimental and control groups. In about half , of the cases, recent Otis I . Q . scores were available 47 Shaw, D. C, "The relation of socio-economic status to educa-tional achievement in grades four to eight", Journal of Educational  Research, vol. 37, 1943, pp. 197-201. 43 from school records. Otherwise the tests were admini-stered . (b) Socio-economic status data sheets were administered to a l l pupils i n the four schools. (c) Achievement tests were administered to a l l pupils i n the four schools. (d) A short general questionnaire was completed by a l l pupils to provide general information which would lead to the elimination of newcomers to the d i s t r i c t . (e) A l l tests, data sheets, and questionnaires were marked and compiled. D. Financial Study Design 1. Current Expenditure Items (a) General A l l current expenditure items were obtained for the f i s c a l year 1952, that i s , from January 1 to December 31 of that year. A l l data i n this financial study were ob-tained from the Board Offices of School Dis t r i c t Number 20. Four schools are represented i n the comparison. Three of these are small rural schools and w i l l be re-ferred to as Falkland, Eagle River, and North Shuswap. The fourth i s the consolidated school and w i l l be refer-red to as Salmon Arm. 44 (b) Item Classification Used Current expenditure figures vere obtained for each of the four schools separately for the item c l a s s i f i c a -tion as used by the School Board Offices. The seven main divisions of this classification are as followst i . Administration i i . Instruction i i i . Operation i v . Repairs and Maintenance v. Transportation v i . Non-operating Expenses v i i . Debt Services The item "Repairs and Maintenance" i s considered to be a current expenditure since i t includes no major re-pairs or alterations. The item "Debt Services" includes interest but not repayment of capital. (c) Reducing Items to School Level Unfortunately for the purposes of this study, the re-cords from which financial data were obtained did not se-parate the expenses of the individual schools within the school d i s t r i c t . In most cases, however, the expenses could be reduced to school level by compilation from more fundamental records such as b i l l s and receipts. In a few minor cases, the total expense for the school d i s t r i c t was distributed pro rata among the schools of the d i s t r i c t U5 0 and i s shown as such for the particular schools under consideration. This technique effectively eliminates that item from a comparison of the schools but i t pro-vides a r e a l i s t i c cost per pupil figure for the schools. (d) Splitting costs within a school The three small rural schools, Falkland, Eagle River, and North Shuswap, actually contain pupils of the elemen-tary grades i n addition to their secondary-grade pupils. Since this study deals only with the secondary pupils, the problem arises of dividing expenses attributed to the whole school between the elementary and secondary parts of the school. An answer to this problem was sought by recourse to research on the subject. The most suitable basis obtainable for distributing school costs between the elementary and secondary sections of the schools was that supplied by the Vancouver School Board. In 1953 the ratio of secondary cost per pupil to elementary cost per pupil was 1.538. Figures for the year 1953 were chosen as they were the most free from the spu-rious influences of the post-war period. (e) Assigning transportation costs Where pupils other than those of the consolidated school i n Salmon Arm are transported i n the same buses the expense attributed to the consolidated school i s determined on the basis of the number of pupil miles per day. 46 2. Capital Expenditure Items (a) General Educational cost analyses seldom include capital expenditures i n cost per pupil figures. The reason for this omission i s not that i t should not be included but that, i n most cases, i t cannot be computed. In order to depreciate capital expenditures for use i n calculating cost per pupil there must, f i r s t , be an adequate method of determining value and secondly, be an adequate method of determining the l i f e of the object of expenditure. In most cases these two conditions cannot be met. The con-ditions are f e l t to be met i n this study, however, to a sufficiently high degree to j u s t i f y the use of capital expenditures. (b) Basis of property valuation School property valuation may be placed on one of three bases,^ original cost, replacement value, or pre-sent value. In actual practice the latte r two bases can seldom be ascertained with even loose standards of accu-racy. The former basis, original value, may be used i n a comparative study with accuracy only when the objects being compared originated at the same time. This, however, 48 Daly, R. L. "Fundamentals of pupil cost accounting", American  School Board Journal, v o l . 81, July, 1930, pp. 55-6. Ul i s the case with a l l the school buildings considered i n ' this study. Since they were built i n the same 'building programme their original costs are directly comparable. Valuation w i l l be placed upon buses also at o r i g i -nal cost since eight out of nine of them were purchased at the same time. Property within the schools, such as furniture and equipment, w i l l be valuated on the basis of appraised value. Fortunately a l l such property i n the school dis-t r i c t was appraised at the same time i n 1951* Although the appraised values may coincide with neither replace-ment values nor present values, they w i l l be valid for purposes of comparison, (c) Basis for determining property l i f e The basis for establishing l i f e expectancy of school buildings, furniture, and equipment i s appraisal. The basis used for buses i s appraisal on grounds of actual experience i n the school d i s t r i c t . 3. Procedure (a) Current expenditures for each of the four participa-ting schools were obtained. Totals for the three small rural schools were added together and the secondary pupils share was separated from the elementary pupils share by the procedure outlined i n section 1. (d). The costs per pupil i n average daily attendance for current expenditures 48 were then obtained for the transported pupils of the consolidated school and for the secondary pupils of the small rural schools. In this comparison a l l current transportation expen-ditures of the consolidated school were attributed to the transported pupils of that school and not to the school population as a whole. Capital expenditures for buildings, furniture and equipment, and buses, were obtained. Valuations and es-timates of l i f e expectancy were placed upon them. The costs per pupil i n average daily attendance for capital expenditures were then obtained for the transported pu-pi l s of the consolidated school and for the secondary pupils of the small rural schools. A l l capital transportation expenditures of the con-solidated school were also attributed to the transported pupils only of that school. Current and capital cost per pupil figures were add-ed to obtain total cost per pupil figures for the trans-ported pupils of the consolidated school and for the secondary pupils of the small rural schools. CHAPTER V ANALYSIS OF ACHIEVEMENT STUDY DATA A. Matching of Groups 1. Technique employed The principal technique employed i n the s t a t i s t i c a l analy-this technique groups are matched when they are made alike as regards mean and standard deviation i n some measure. The matching measure i n this study i s mean and standard deviation of intelligence. The three groups are, i n addition, matched i n grade percentage composition, and mean socio-economic status. In the matched groups method, the standard error of the d i f -ference between the two means being tested i s given by the f o l -lowing formula:5° where x s the function under study y s the matching variable rjjy • the correlation between x and y i n the population from which the sample i s drawn 49 Garrett, Henry E., Statistics i n Psychology and Education. Long-mans, Green, and Co., Toronto, p. 213* sis of the achievement study i s that of matched groups.49 in SE 50 Loc. c i t . 50 2. Original Data Data were gathered covering a total of 534 pupils. Of this number, 109 were pupils of small rural secondary schools, 308 were transported.pupils of the consolidated school, and 117 were non-transported pupils of the consolidated school. Where a l l the data was not present - a result of school absence dur-ing the administration of one or more tests - the pupil was eliminated. If a pupil had moved to the school district during that school year he was also eliminated. Before matching began, then, the original 109 small rural school pupils were reduced to 94. 3. Grade percentages Since matching was to proceed by eliminating cases, the group which contained the smallest number was selected as the model and the other two groups were matched to i t . This model group was the small rural school group. Table V shows in column 1 the number of pupils occurring in each grade in the model group, whereas column 2 shows these numbers converted to percentages. For the three groups to be matched with respect to grade percentage composition, the trans-ported and non-transported groups had also to conform to the percentages of column 2. The number in each grade required to meet this condition appear in columns 3 and 4« 51 TABLE V GRADE PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION MATCHING DATA Grade 1. Rural (Model) Group Number Present 2. Percentage present i n 1. and de-sired i n 3' and 4. 3. Transported Group Number Desired 4. Non-transported Group Number Desired 12 3 3$ 5 2 11 8 8* 13 6 10 16 17$ 27 13 9 19 20$ 31 15 8 21 23g 36 17 7 27 29$ 46 22 Total 94 100$ 158 75 4. Intelligence and socio-economic status The intelligence of the model group was calculated to be as shown i n Table VI. By t r i a l and error, pupils were elimina-ted from the other two groups so that the remaining group i n each case had the correct number of pupils i n each grade, had a mean I. Q. of 102.00, had a standard deviation I. Q. of 12.40, and had a mean socio-economic status of 39.60. As may be seen i n Table VI i t was possible to match the groups i n mean and standard deviation I. Q. exactly. It was also possible to obtain for the rural and transported groups 52 TABLE VI INTELLIGENCE - SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS MATCHING DATA Matching Item Rural (Model) Transported (Matched) Non-transported (Matched) Mean I. Q. 102.00 102.00 102.00 S.D. I. Q. 1 2 . 4 0 12.40 12.40 Mean S. E. S.* 39.60 39.41 47.05 *Socio-economic status. socio-economic status means which could be considered equivalent. The lat t e r mean for the non-transported group, however, was so much higher than the means for the other two groups that i t was accepted as necessary to leave this group unmatched i n this re-spect. If a match were forced for this non-transported group, the numbers of the group would be reduced to the point of insig-nificance . The effect of leaving mean socio-economic status of the non-transported group unmatched with the other two,groups i s not considered serious. Such a result i s to be expected since the pupils comprising this group are semi-urban i n character whereas those i n the other two groups are rural. Differences i n -herent i n the nature of the circumstances should be measured and recognized but perhaps i t would be meaningless to eradicate such differences by matching when they are as large as they are. 53 B. Achievement Comparisons 1. Achievement Data Mean and standard deviation of achievement grade percentiles of small rural secondary school group: MH = 47.75 OB - 23.35 Mean and standard deviation of achievement of transported students of the consolidated secondary school: Mp r 51.10 OT = 22.45 Mean and standard deviation of achievement of ndn-transported students of the consolidated secondary school: Mfl = 50.95 (f K = 23.95 Difference i n mean achievement between the transported group and the rural group: Mj = 51.10 - 47.75 = 3.35 Difference i n mean achievement between the non-transported group and the rural group: % - % = 3.20 Difference i n mean achievement between the transported group and the non-transported group: Mj. - % = 0.15 54 2. Testing S t a t i s t i c a l Hypotheaea (a) Transported group versus rural group The hypothesis as stated was: The null hypothesis to be tested was: Mr - MR = 0 Standard error of the rural achievement mean: <fl% = JO* = 23.35 = 2.41 Standard error of the transported achievement mean: OMp s <TT . 22^45 = 1.79 Correlation coefficient between the function under study (achievement) and the matching measure (intelligence): r^y = .73 (see Table VII) Therefore, standard error of the difference between the transported mean and the rural mean: % . % =<TD = 7«r^ • GIj ) & - £ > = 7[(1.79) 2 - (2.41)^ [ l - (.73)2] : 2.05 C r i t i c a l ratio, CR. - D - 3*35 = 1.63 O D 2.05 The null hypothesis must therefore be accepted, i.e., My - MR = 0 55 (b) Non-transported group versus rural group The hypothesis as stated was: The null hypothesis to be tested was* % - M R =0 The calculation i s similar to that above. MR = 2.41 % = 2.77 r^y r .73 0"D =y[(2.a) 2 * (2.77)2] [l - (.73)2] =2.51 C . R . = 3.20 . !.23 2T5T The null hypothesis must therefore be accepted, i . e . , MJJ - MR s 0 (c) Transported group versus non-transported group Hypothesis to be tested: Mrj. - % B 0 The calculation i s again similar to that above: Mp r 1.79 % = 2.77 rxy r .73 D . y [ ( l . 7 9 ) 2 t (2.77)2] [ l - (.73)*] = 2.25 C . R . • 0^12 = 0.07 2.25 The hypothesis must therefore be accepted, i . e . , Mj. - % r 0 Because of the lack of significance of the difference i n achieve-ment between the transported consolidated group and the rural group i t 56 was f e l t necessary to make comparisons between the two groups at the various grade levels. Table VIII shows the results of these comparisons. The grades being compared were not necessarily equi-valent i n intelligence so the mean intelligence for each grade i s shown. It i s noted that the differences i n achievement for Grades 7, 10, 11, and 12 are not significant at the .01 or .05 levels. In Grades 10, 11, and 12 the differences i n achievement are consist-ently i n favour of the transported consolidated group, even a l -though the means of intelligence for this group are consistently below those of the rural group. The Importance of this trend i s seen i n Grade 9 where a difference i n favour of the consolidated group i s significant at the .05 level despite the slightly unfavour-able mean intelligence. Although a significant difference i s found at the Grade 8 level i n favour of the transported consolidated group i t must be interpreted as meaningless since at that level the group had an advantage of 5.167 i n mean intelligence. C. Summary of St a t i s t i c a l Results When the three groups of pupils, those from small rural high schools, those transported to the consolidated school, and those of the consolidated school who are not transported, are compared two at a time on the basis of achievement scores no differences, signi-ficant at the .01 or the .05 le v e l , are detected. When the transported consolidated pupils are compared at the various grade levels with the rural pupils there i s a definite pat-tern formed, i n Grades 9 to 12, of differences i n favour of the 57 consolidated pupils. The pattern holds in spite of lover i n t e l l i -gence means for the consolidated group. In Grade 9, where the con-solidated group is at only a slight disadvantage in intelligence, the achievement difference in its favour rises to significance at the .05 level. TABLE VIII COMPARISON OF ACHIEVEMENT OF TRANSPORTED CONSOLIDATED AND RURAL SCHOOL PUPILS BY GRADES Grade Mean I. Q. Mean Achievement C r i t i - Significance of Differ-ences in Achievement Consoli-dated • Rural Consoli-dated Rural ' cal Ratio at .05 Level at .01 Level 12 112.400 117.667 79.200 73.667 2.298 no no 11 104.538 105.000 71.923 65.000 1.363 no no 10 103.148 105.750 67.444 63.938 1.024 no no 9 99.423 99.625 46.195 38.055 2.053 yes no 8 106.167 101.000 48.222 37.429 2.674 yes yes 7 97.870 100.170 41.890 48.850 1.959 no no CHAPTER VI ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL STUDY DATA A. Current Expenditures 1. Current expenditures excluding transportation The analysis of current cost figures, excluding those for transportation, i s shown i n Table LX. ' As has been previously noted, i t was impossible to break some items down to the indi-vidual schools. This was the case for the items "Administration 1 1 and "Janitor's Supplies". The former by i t s very nature could not be charged i n specific amounts to individual schools since i t represents the operating costs of the School Board offices. The l a t t e r could not be so charged because no records were kept of the actual distribution of supplies. In both cases the items were charged to the individual schools pro rata based upon ave-rage daily attendance. This practice effectively eliminates the items from comparison but maintains r e a l i s t i c cost per pupil figures. It i s to be noted that Table IX shows rural school costs which include the elementary sections of the schools. Subsequent calculations w i l l provide the costs for the rural secondary sec-tions. TABLE LX SCHOOL CURRENT EXPENDITURES, EXCLUDING TRANSPORTATION AND TEACHERS' SALARIES FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 20, 1952 Consolid'd Rural Schools (Elementary and Secondary) I t e m School Falkland Eagle River N. Shuswap Total Administration Salaries, Office Expenses and General $ 2,725.97 $ 855.34 $ 844.32 $ 368.52 # 2,068.18 Instruction School Clerical Salaries Teaching Supplies 420.24 2,818.42 607.76 518.02 158.02 1,283.80 Operation Janitors' Salaries Janitors' Supplies Light, Heat, Water Insurance 5,459.43 602.25 2,633.71 729.20 1,344.00 189.01 827.13 143.00 1,200.00 186.64 541.75 90.77 720.00 79.63 411.16 86.99 3,264.00 455.28 1,780.04 320.76 Repairs and Maintenance 1,010.56 232.21 1,353.36 309.89 1,895.46 Non-Operatins Expenses" 155.00 - - - -Debt Services 1,518.12 353,31 224.25 214.94 792.50 Total $ 18,072.90 $ 4,551.76 $ 4,959.11 $ 2,349.15 $ 11,860.02 60 The following calculations lead to current expenditure, ex-cluding transportation, cost per pupil figures being based on average daily attendance for the consolidated secondary school and for the small rural secondary schools. Weighted enrollments shown for the rural schools are necessitated by the previously established practice of considering secondary education to be more costly than elementary education by a factor of 1.538. Consolidated Secondary Schools Expenditure for teachers' salaries = $59,743.60 Current expenditures excluding transportation but including teachers' salaries = $77,816.50 Enrollment in average daily attendance & 426.2 Cost per pupil for current expenditures, excluding transportation = current expenditures average daily attendance $77,816.50 426.2 = $182.58 Rural Secondary Schoolsi Current expenditures excluding transportation and teachers' salaries = $11,860.02 Elementary enrollment in average daily attendance TS 208.6 Secondary enrollment in average daily attendance = 112.6 Weighted secondary enrollment z 112.6 x 1.538 . 173.2 Total weighted enrollment = 208.6 • 173.2 « 381.8 61 o Secondary share of current expenditures excluding teachers' salaries and transportation = $11,860.02 x ^ f f i ' i 381.8 = $5,380.18 Actual salaries of secondary teachers s $13,213.50 Total secondary current expenditures excluding transportation s $18,593.68 Cost per pupil for current expenditures excluding transportation . $18,593.68 112.6 - $165.12 2. Cfurrent expenditures for transportation School buses transport 299 pupils to the consolidated secon-dary school. These buses also serve, however.,- 339 pupils of ele-mentary schools located either i n Salmon Arm or along the bus routes. If transportation expenditures were distributed on the basis of number of pupils carried the consolidated secondary school would be charged with 0.47 of the t o t a l . Since secondary consolidation i s more advanced than elemen-tary consolidation, the pupil mile i s seen to be a more exact basis for distribution of costs. The following calculation uses this basis to arrive at a cost per pupil figure for current trans-portation expenditures for the transported students of the con-solidated school. ( A l l transportation costs of the consolidated school are charged to the transported students only.) Daily pupil miles of consolidated secondary students • 2238 Daily pupil miles of other students - 1401 62 Fraction of transportation expenditures to be charged to consolidated secondary students = £2J8 _ # £L Total current transportation expenditures = #20,564.05 Consolidated school's share = #12,544.07 Cost, per pupil = #41.94 In actual fact the three rural secondary schools considered in this study, although typical of rural, unconsolidated schools i n size and location, do transport pupils to school. Since the comparison of this study presumes to involve three typical uncon-solidated schools, these rural transportation costs are included for the record only and are not used i n the main comparison. The following calculation leads to a transportation cost per pupil figure for these rural schools: Total current transportation expenditures for rural schools = #13,425.75 Rural secondary students' share s #6,087.60 Cost per pupil r #54.07 3. Total current expenditures The total cost per pupil for current expenditures for the transported students of the consolidated secondary school i s found to be $224.52. That for the small rural secondary students i s found to be $165.12. Including actual transportation cost, which i s not done for purposes of comparison in this study, the l a t t e r figure becomes $219.19. 3 63 B. Capital Expenditurea 1. Consolidated school The procedure used in calculating capital cost per pupil figures is to calculate the cost per pupil based upon the depre-ciation of capital assets for the following: Building Expenditure: Building constructed during 1950 Building cost = $363,035.10 Estimated l i f e = 60 years Number of pupils served r 426 Cost per pupil per year = ffi,0^*l° = $14.20 oU x 4<do Furniture and Equipment: Appraised value (October 4, 1951) = $26,706.14 Estimated average l i f e r 10 years Number of pupils served r 426 Cost per pupil per year = 2 6 * 7 0 6 ; ] ^ r $6.27 10 x 4*b Transportation: Total original cost of seven buses a $54,227.16 Average l i f e of bus body s 10 years Average l i f e of bus chassis = 5 years Total cost of seven replacement chassis = $22,400 Total cost of buses and replacement chassis = $76,627.16 Number of transported pupils served = 299 Cost per pupil per year = ffi|f%£6 = $25-63 Total Capital Expenditure Total capital expenditure per pupil = $46.10 64 2. Small Rural Sohools Building expenditure: Buildings a l l constructed during 1950 Total building costs = 1130,383.22 Estimated l i f e - 45 years No. of elementary pupils served =. 208.6 No. of secondary pupils served = 112.6 Cost per secondary pupil per year z 130,383t22 x 173.2 45 x 112.6 x 381.8 = $11.65 Furniture and equipment: Appraised value (October 4, 1951) = $6,588.54 Estimated average l i f e = 10 years No. of elementary pupils served = 208.6 No. of secondary pupils served = 112.6 Cost per secondary pupil per year = wftu^xy&l.S = $2.65 Transportation: Total original cost of two buses s $12,374.00 " Total cost of two replacement chassis • $6,400.00 Total cost of buses and replacement chassis a $18,774.00 Number of pupils served r 321.2 18 77A 00 Cost per pupil (pro rata distribution) = io x 321.2 s $5.84 65 Total capital expenditure Total capital expenditure per pupil including trans-portation r $20.14-Total capital expenditure per pupil excluding trans-portation s 014-.3O C. Summary of Results Table ,X shows a summary of the cost analysis results. It may seem incongruous that whereas the two groups are approximately the same i n current transportation cost per pupil, they are considerably different i n capital transportation. This situation i s caused by the fact that one of the rural schools' bus routes i s operated on a contract basis. This enlarges current and reduces capital expendi-ture . 66 TABLE X COST PER PUPIL COMPARISON OF THE CONSOLIDATED AND THE SMALL RURAL SECONDARY SCHOOLS OF SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 20, 1952 Expenditure Consol. School Cost per Trans-ported pupil Rural School Cost per pupil Current, excluding transportation $182.58 $165.12 Current, transportation 41.94 54.07 Total current 224.52 219.19 Capital, buildings 14.20 11.65 Capital, furniture and equipment 6.27 2.65 Capital, transportation 25.63 • 5.84 Total capital 46.10 20.14 Total current and capital 270.62 239.33 Study comparison (total for consolidated school, total excluding transportation for rural schools 270.62 179.42 CHAPTER VII CONCLUSION A. Summary of Findings This study; has sought to determine the effect of the consoli-dation of secondary schools upon achievement of the pupils and upon cost per pupil. The transported pupils of the consolidated school have been considered pupils who, but for consolidation, would be attending small rural schools. These pupils have been compared with pupils who are actually attending typical small rural schools. The non-transported pupils of the consolidated school have been used as a control for the achievement comparisons. The groups were matched with respect to mean and standard deviation intelligence and were controlled i n mean socio-economic status and percentage grade com-position. The main findings aire as follows: 1. Although the mean achievement of the transported consolidated group was 51.10 compared to 4.7.75 for the rural group, there was no significant difference i n achievement at the .01 or .05 l e v e l . 2. The mean achievement of the transported consolidated group and the non-transported consolidated group was practically the same, 51.10 and 50.95 respectively. 68 3. When the transported consolidated pupils are compared at the various grade levels with the rural pupils there is a definite pattern of differences formed in Grades 9 to 12 in favour of the consolidated pupils. This pattern holds despite the lower intelligence means of the consolidated group. In Grade 9, where the consolidated group is at only a slight disadvantage in in-telligence, the achievement difference in its favour rises to significance at the .05 level. 4. When a l l transportation expenditures of the consolidated school are charged to the transported pupils of that school, the cur-rent cost per pupil is $224-.52 compared to $165.12 per pupil for the small rural school (excluding transportation for the latter to increase the typicality). 5. The capital cost per pupil for the consolidated school is found to be $46.10 compared to $14.30 for the rural schools (excluding transportation for the latter). 6. The total cost per pupil considering transportation as above is $270.62 for the transported consolidated pupils and $179.42 for the rural school pupils. B. Educational Implications of Findings No attempt is made to generalize the findings of this study to the broad educational seene. Interpretive conclusions or education-al implications will be drawn, however, applying to the educational system within which the study was performedj namely, School District Number 20. These implications are as follows: 69 1. It cannot be said that consolidation i n this setting has i n -creased academic achievement to any great extent as i t can be measured by standardized achievement tests. This does not necessarily constitute a disparagement of consolidation, how-ever. The effect of consolidation, i n this setting as elsewhere, has been to produce the comprehensive school i n which achieve-ment i n the fundamental academic subjects i s but one of several important emphases. To a large extent the small rural school, unable to support a comprehensive programme, has retained such achievement as i t s single most important emphasis. To say that the consolidated school i s equal or only slightly superior to the small rural school i n achievement i n fundamentals i s to af-firm at least equal strength i n an aspect of i t s programme which would l o g i c a l l y be considered most vulnerable. 3. It has been shown that the non-consolidated school costs a total of $91.20 per pupil less than the consolidated school. If the two types of school were producing the same total educational returns, consolidation would obviously be poor economy. The ques-tion of interpreting the meaning of the difference i n cost per pupil depends, therefore, upon whether or not the consolidated school produces total educational returns superior to the non-consolidated school to the extent oP$91.20 per pupil or approxi-mately one-third of i t s total expenditure. At least two-thirds of the consolidated school expenditure i s ju s t i f i e d on the basis of i t s equivalence or slight superiority i n achievement over the non-consolidated school. Assuming equal efficiency of operation, 70 the other third pays for the comprehensive programme that i s offered. For example, some aspects of the consolidated school programme which are unavailable to pupils of the small rural secondary schools are: (a) specialist counselling services (b) extensive library services (c) extensive extracurricular programme (d) commerce courses (e) agriculture courses (f) specialist art and music courses (g) Industrial Arts and Home Economic courses (h) extensive science laboratory equipment. C. Relation of the Study to Future Research The demands of a section of the general public for an examina-tion of the cost of consolidation and of the modern comprehensive school w i l l make further research i n this area highly desirable. More accurate and verified information must be available before these educational practices can be interpreted adequately to those who support them financially. Less demanding than this reason, but more fundamental, i s the need for intelligent progress to be o based upon a thorough knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the established system. This study has dealt with only two aspects of consolidation and has done so i n a restricted area i n the province of B r i t i s h 71 Columbia. It has shown that the results of research carried on i n other parts of North America may not necessarily be applied to this educational system where, among other things, consolidation i s often obtained at a high price because of unfavourable geogra-phy. Future research directly suggested would be i n the area of the effect of a larger number of aspects of consolidation carried on sufficiently extensively to be representative of B r i t i s h Colum-bia. B I B L I O G R A P H Y Alves, H. F., Anderson, A. W., Fowlkes, J. G., A Study of Local School  Unit Organization In Ten States. U. S. Office of Education, 1938, Bulletin No. 10. Ballen, L. R., A survey of costs of public education in the common-wealth of Pennsylvania for the fiscal year 1933-34. Master's thesis, Temple University, cited in Monroe, W. S., Encyclopedia of Educa-tional Research. 1950. Bradshaw, R. W., "Effective Consolidation of Schools", American School  Board Journal. Vol. 115, pp. 29-31, August, 1947. Breternitz, Louis A., "High School Organization in Nebraska", Nebraska  Educational Journal. Vol. No. 20, pp. 10-25, January, 1940. Cameron, Maxwell A., Report of the Commission of Enquiry into Educa-tional Finance. Province of British Columbia, 1945. Chauncey, M. R., "The relation of the home factor to achievement and intelligence test scores", Journal of Educational Research. Vol. 20, pp. 89-90, 1929. Clem, 0. M. and Hovey, C. W., "Comparative Achievement of Village School Pupils and Rural School Pupils", Elementary School Journal, Vol. 31, pp. 301-6, December, 1930. Cornell, F. G., "Comparing costs for high schools and elementary schools", American School Board Journal. Vol. 89, pp. 24-25, Septem-ber, 1934. Covert, Timon, Educational Achievement of One-teacher and Large Rural  Schools. U. S. Bureau of Education, Bulletin No. 15, 1928. Daly, R. L., "Fundamentals of pupil cost accounting", American School  Board Journal. Vol. 81, pp. 55-6, July, 1930. Davenport, K. S. and Remmers, H. H., "Educational Achievement as Com-pared with Money Spent on Schools", School and Society. Vol. 61, pp. 333-5, May 19, 1945. Davidheister, J. W., The cost of repairs and maintenance of fourth-class school districts in the state of Pennsylvania for the fiscal- year 1933-34. Master's thesis, Temple University, cited in Monroe, W. S., Encyclopedia of Educational Research. 1950, p. 1050. Dawson, H. A., Satisfactory Local School Units. Field Study No. 7, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1934. 73 Dreier, William H., "The Differential Achievement of Rural Graded and Ungraded School Pupils", Journal of Educational Research. Vol. 43, pp. 175-189, September, 1949. Enlow, E. R., "Do small schools mean large costs?", Peabody Journal of  Education. Vol. 16, pp. 1-11, July, 1938. Ferris, E. N., Gaumnitz, W. H., Brammell, R. R., The Smaller Secondary  Schools. U. S. Office of Education, Bulletin No. 17, 1932. Fulmer, Henry L,, An Analytical Study of a Rural School Area. Charlee--ton, South Carolina Agricultural Experimental Station, Bulletin No. 3 2 0 , pp. 70-71,« 1939. Fulmer, Henry L., A Rural School Area in Central South Carolina. Charles-ton, South Carolina Agricultural Experimental Station, Bulletin No. 3 2 5 , 1940. Garrett, Henry E., Statistics in Psychology and Education. Longmans, Green, and Co., Toronto, p. 2 1 3 . Gaumnitz, W. H., "Small Schools - Large Costs", School Life. Vol. 20, pp. 232-3, June, 1935. Grimm, Lester R., Our Children's Opportunity in Relation to School Costs. Springfield, 111., Department of Research, Illinois Education Asso-ciation, 1938. Helveston,'H. W. and Fetter, J. M., The cost of operation in districts  of the f i r s t , second, third, and fourth class districts in the state  of Pennsylvania for the fiscal year 1933-34. Master's thesis, Temple University, cited in Monroe, W. S., Encyclopedia of Educational Re-search. 1950, p. 1 0 5 0 . Herlihy, L. B., "Urban and Rural School Expenditures", School Life. Vol. 21, June, 1926, pp. 272-4. Ingle, John Preston, "Subject Matter Achievement in Rural Schools in Virginia", Education Abstracts. Vol. 5, pp. 239-40, July, 1940. Kelley, Truman Lee, Interpretation of Educational Measurements. Yonkers, World Book Company, 1927. Little, H. A., "Do Consolidated Schools Cost More?", Nation's Schools. Vol. 14, p. 24, December, 1934* Mcintosh, H. W. and Schrammel, H. W., "Comparison of the Achievement of Eighth Grade Pupils in Rural Schools and in Graded Schools", Ele-mentary School Journal. Vol. 31, pp. 301-6, December, 1930. Mort, Paul R., and Cornell, Francis G., American Schools i n Transition. New York, Bureau of Publications, Teachers 1 College, Columbia Uni-versity, 1941, pp. 167-95. Nanninga, S. P., "Costs and Offerings of California High Schools i n Relation to Size", Journal of Educational Research. Vol. 24, pp. 356-64, December, 1931. Nelson, T. L., Comparison of the Achievement 0of Pupils i n Schools of  One or Two Teachers with Pupils of Those of Eight or More Teachers. Doctor's thesis, Berkeley, University of California, 1932. Pace, Henry A., "School Building Costs i n Utah", Review of Educational  Research. Vol. 2, p. 145, 1932. Powell, Orrin E., Educational Returns at Varying Expenditure Levels. New York, Bureau of Publications, Teachers' College, Columbia Uni-versity, 1933. Riddle, John I., The Six-Year Rural High School. Contributions to Edu-cation, No. 737, New York, Teachers' College, Columbia University, 1937. The Rural School.Committee of Indiana Report. Indianapolis, State De-partment of Public Instruction, 1926, cited i n Review of Educational  Research. Vol. 2, 1932. Scates, D. E., "Unit costs of increasing high school enrollments", Ame-rican School Board Journal. Vol. 100, May, 1940, pp. 39-40. Shaw, D. C , "The relation of socio-economic status to educational achievement in grades four to eight", Journal of Educational Research. Vol. 37, pp. 197-201, 1943-Thornberg, Lester H., "College Scholarship and Size of High School", School and Society. Vol. 20, August, 1924, pp. 189-92. Wiggans, D. M., and Spaulding, F. T.,"When are High Schools Too Small?", School Review No. 41, 1933, pp. 585-94. Wrightstone, Wayne J., "A social background data sheet", Journal of  Educational Sociology. Vol. 7, Apri l , 1934. Woollatt, Lome Hedley, Cost-Quality Relationships on the Growing Edge; a Study of Returns for Money Spent i n High Expenditure School Systems, Metropolitan School Study Council, Research Studies, No. 4, 1949. Yaple, G. W., Centralized Schools and Better Schools. American School Board Journal, No. 117, December, 1948, pp. 39-41. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0106677/manifest

Comment

Related Items