Cana da

1+1

NalionalUtKary 01Canada

6itJIiotMquenationale doCanada

CanadianThesesService Servicedesthesescanaoeeoes

The authorhas grantedanirrevocable non- exclusivelicence allowing theNationalUbrory of Canadatore prod uce .loan,distributeor sell copiesot hiS/hertheslsby any meansand in any fonn or format,m~~ingthisthesisavailable to interested persons.

The author re tains ownershipofthe copyright in his/her thesis.Neither thethesisnor substantialextractsfromIImaybeprintedor otherwisereproducedwilhout his/her per-

meson

L'auteur aaccoroeuna jcenceirrevocable at nonexclusivepermetten tataBibliotheQue nationale duCanadadereprooure.preter.

diStribuerou vendre des copiesde sa these dequelquemanier~etecue quelqueforme que ce soilpourmenredes exemoalres de cette these

a

ladisposition despersormes inleresse es.

L'sut eur conserveLaproprietedudroit d'auteur quiprotegesa these.Nilathese oi desextralls substantielsde ceae-cl ne coventetre imPl'"lmes ouautremeotreplOduitssans son autorisation.

ISBN0-31S ~61 a21-3

Cana da

A STUDYOFTHEORGANIZATIONAND ADMINISTRATION OFCLASSI FI CATIONWIT HINTHENEWFOUND LAND

LABRADORHIGHSCHOOL ATHLETIC FEDERATION

©

,.de Naf or, B.P .BYE., B. Ed.. B.Sc.

A thesis submittedto the School of Gra d ua t e Studie s tnpartial fulfill men t of the

requirements for thede gre e of

Mas t e r of Ed uc a t i o n

De p ar t me nt of Educationa l Admi n i s t r a t i on Facul ty of Education Memorial Univers ity of Newfoundland

July. 1986

St. Joh nIS Ne wfound' and

ABSTRAC T

Th isstudy examines the organizat ion and

administrationof the systemof classificatio n us ed by the Newfound land- labra dor High School At h le ti c Fede rat io nto determine competition di v i s i o ns. The study specifically utilized re s po n s e s fr omprovincial executive members, zone presidents and athletic directors in member schoo l s to examine theper c e i v e dfunc tio ns of the cLasstftc atton sy stem; classif ication criteria; admi ni st rative proce s se s for assigningclassificat ion; differe nces in response patter ns of thethreeta r ge t groups; perc eived mai n we a kn ess es and strengths of the present clas s ific atio n system; andrespo ndents' viewson how administrationof the system might be improved.

Aquest ion nai re was mailedto each memberof the three target gro ups inthe populuation, seeking thei r responses to various statements about the Federation's clas s ific a t i onsystem. An overall respons erate of 79.8 % was obt aine d. Questionnaireda tawer e analyzed us i n gbo t h Qua nti tativ e andqua1itat i v e methods wher e appropr 1 at e .

Ma j or conclus ionsof thisstudy su gge s t that the member shipviewed the primary fu nct io n of cle s stt tc attcn within theNe wf oun d l an d- labrador High School At hleti c Federatio nto be equ alizati o nof comp e t it i on with school

11

equitya seco nd aryfunction. Past performa nce, school populat ion , future pe r f or manc eand ge ogr aph ywe r e all cons idered impor tant classificati o ncrite ria with onl y slightdifferences in the ir rel a t i v e importance. Whi l e the me mber s hip indicated ade s ir e for chang eand clarificat i on in somespecific administrat ive processes us edto assign c l as stt tc atton , they did no t wishthe overal l proced ur echan ged. The r e we r eonl y sli ght differencesin the views of provincialexecutive membe rs , zone presidents andathletic direc tors toward the Fe de r a tion's class1fica tio nsystem. The qualita tive analysis of opene d-ended questions deali ngwith weakness es , st r engt hs and impr ove men t in the admini stra tio nof the class if ica tionsystem supp orte d find i n gs obtaine dthroug h thequantit a ti ve analysis.

iii

ACK NOWL EDG EMENTS

The writereck nc v 'l edqe s the assistan ce given by Or. DennisTr-e s l an , Sup e rvi s or of the thesis. His understanding , suggest ions and appro ac hab 11fty certainly aided in compl etionof the st udy.

Spe ci a l thanks ts alsoextendedto Dr. Philip Warren and Or. ColinHi ggs for their advice during the stu dy.

The cooperationand assistance given byGlen Stanford, GaryFurl ong, Roland Dawe and Walte r Crotty mu st be rec o g nized al on gwith the effor ts of all other members of the Newfou ndland - La brador Hi ghSc hool Athletic Fe der at io n who took time to complete questionnai res.

Finally, aspecia l "t h a n k- y o u" to mywif e Maur een for her encouragement andassistan ce.

"

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pa g e ABSTRACT ••••• • • •••••••••••••• ••••• ••••••••••• •••• ••• ;i ACKNOWLEDGEME NTS •••• • ••••• •••••• •• •• •••• • • •• •••••••• iv LIST OFTABLES ••••• ••• ••• ••• •••• •••••• • • •• • • •• • • • •• •viii LISTOF FI GURES •••• •••• • ••••• • • •••• •• ••• • •••••• • ••••

CHAPTER INTRODUCT I ON ••••• •• •• •••• • ••••••• ••• • Backg rou n d to the Pro ble m•••• •••

Statemen t of th e Prob lem•••• ••••

Theo ret ic.al Fr a mel'! o r k . Sign ifica nceof the Study .... . .. 13

Oe l i mi t a ti ons 13

Limita ti ons Defi niti ons

14 15

Ct'APTER2 REVIEWOF RELATED LITERATUnE ... •• •••• 17

Intro d uct ion 17

Int er s cho lasti c Athlet ics in To day 's Schools •••••••••••• 18 Hi g h Sch o ol Ath le tic Classif ica ti on

Systems .... . .. .. .... . ... 24 Develop me n t of N.L.H. S . A.F .

Class ificatio n Syste m . . . . .. 27 Summ a r y .. .. . . ... .. . ... . .. . . .. . 32

CHAPTER3

CHAPTER4

CHAP TER5

METHODOLOGy ... . . ..•• •••••••• ••• • 34 Populati on ••• ••• ••••• ••••••••••• 34 Instrument •••• •••••••••••••••• •• 34 Questionna i r e De vel opmen t and

Pilot Study .... .. ... .... ... 35

ReliabilityMeasur e s 36

Adminis t r ation"af Questionnaire. 38

Analysisof Data . 38

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSIONOFRESULTS 40 Intro duction . .. ... . . ... . .... .. 40 8ackgroun d Informa t i o n. •••• • • ••• 40 Funct ion sof the Class if icatio n

System . .. ... . .. . . 41 Clas sifi c ationCrit e r ia 43 Cl a s sifi cati o n Pr cces s e s ... . . 47 Respo nse Dif f er enc e s. . ... . . ... 55 Responde n t Percept ions ofWeakness

and St re ngth s in the

Cl assifica t io nSys tem ... 59 Respond ent Views onImpr oving the

Admi nist ra ti on of the ClassificationSystem ... 63 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCL USIONSAND

RECOMMENDATIONS... 65

Summaryof Find in g s 65

Conclusions ... . .. . ... 69 Recommend at ions . . . . ... ... ... 71

vt

BIQUOGRAPHY

... ... ... ...

"

APPENDIXA, CORRESPONDENCE

.. .. ...

80 APPENDIX B, QUESTIONNAIRE

.... ... ..

⁸⁷

APPENDIXC, PROPOSEDNEW SECTIONFOR N.L.H. S .A.F. HANDBOOK

...

⁹²

vii

TABLE L

LISTOF TABLES

Que stio n nair e Reltabtltty

Pag e

37 2. Question na ire Respo nse Rates ••• • ••••.••••• •• 41 3. Impo rta n ce of Equita bl e Compet 1t lo nas a

Func tlonof N.L.H.S.A.F.

c

tasstttcat tcn System .. ... . . . ... ... . . .. 42 4. Importanceof Sch o o l Equit y as a Func ti on of

N.L.H.S. A.F . Classif ica t ion Syste m 1\2 5. Accept a bility of cjasstrtc etton crtterta

Cur rently Used •••• ••••• •• ••••••••••• ••••• • •• 45 6. Impo r t an c e Whic hShould be Attach e dto

Classificatio n Cr it e ri a 46

7. Classif icatio nRequests Should be Re v iew ed at Zone level •• ••••••••• ••• ••• ••••••••••• •••••• 48 8. Classif ic a t ion Req ue s t s Should be Re v iew e dat

Regional leve l •••••• ••••• •••• ••• •••• • •••• •••• 48 9. Cla s s if i c a t i on Appeals Shouldbe Revie we d at

ZoneLevel ••• ••••••••••••••••• • • • ••••••••••• 50 10. Cla s sifi c at i o n Appea l s Sho uld be Re v iewed at

Regional le vel ••• •• •• •••••••••• • ••••• • •••••• 50 11. AthleticOirec tors at Zon elev el are

Kno wledgeab le About Pr ovinc i al Le v elsof Play... ... ... . . . ... 52 12. Provinc i al Classifica tio nCommittee in Best

Pc stttonto Iden t ifyNe ed ed ttas stttc etvon Cha nges ••• •••• •••••••••••••••••• •••• •• •••••• 52 13 . Te a ms Whi ch Volunt a rilyCl assifyThe ms elv e s

Upwar dShould StayThere Un t il Reclass if ied Thr oug h Normal Proce du re.. .... . . . .•••••••.... 54 14. All Teams Within a School Sh ould have the

Same C1ass ifi ca tion •••• •• •••• •••••••• •• •• ••• 54

vi i i

15. Impo r tance of Zon e,Re gio na l andPr o v in ci a l Input in Class if i c atio n Deci s i on s ••••••••••• 56 16. One-Wa y Analys is ofVariance of Pr ov incial

Executive (GRP1) , Zone Pr e si dent s'( GRP2) and AthleticDirecto rsI(GRP3) Respo n ses •••• •• • • 58

"

r i

FIGURE

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

,.'-

1. Organizatio nal Str uc t u re of N.L.H.S . A. F • ••• 2. Con cept ualModel of Class ifi cati o n••• •••••• 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

The Newf o un d land· labrador HighSchool Ath le t ic Feder a tion (he r e aft e r referred to as the N.l. H. S.A.F . or th eFe de ra ti on ) wasformed in 1969thr ough the pr o v i nc ia l go v ernment ' s Department of Provinci al Affairs. The Direc tor of the Physi calFitness Division at that time recognizeda need for a provi ncial or g a n iz a t i o n to co o rdinat e and adminis t er in t e r s chol as t ic ath l e t ic s in Newfoundland andlabrador and co n seque ntly con ve ne d me e tin gs of inter ested personsto formsuch an or g an i z a t io n (Maxwell, 1982).

The N.L. H.S.A.F . wasfo unde d on the belfef that

"s chool athl eti cs made impor tant co n tr ibut i o nto the goal sof educati onand as suchwerean integral part of the total education al proce ss" (N. L. H.S.A.F . , 1973, p. 1). Following fromthatbe l i e f theob j ect i v es of the Fede rationwere develo ped, andthese subsequently became th e basis upon which theFede r ationdevel oped . One of th e key objectives of the Federation as out l ine d in the Memora nd umand Ar t i cle s of Ass ociat ion of Newfoundlan d- Labr ador HighSchool AthleticFederation(1975 )was to

"enc ourageparticipa tionin inter-school etbtettcs on the local and pr ovinci al le vels thr ough promotfonand sp onso r sh ip of z cne , regional and pr ovincia l athletic

programs· (p. 1). The arceottcn of int e r s cho lasti c athle ticccenett ttonhas r-eeetnee oneof thelIatn obj e c th e s of the PC.L.H.S.A. F••

The N. L.H.S.A.F. oper a t e s onthree distin ct or gan iza tio nal levels. At the first lev e l there are zo ne associationswhichcoor din ate activitieswithi naloc a l area. The reare 35 zone associa t i o ns'Nhich vere forme d by combi ni ngschools wit hf n small geograp hic are as. The 35 zone as s ocia ti onswere sub div i de dto for mthe secon d organiza ti o nal level, thatof the nf ne geograph ic regio ns inthe pr o vince . The thir dle v el inthe organizatio n of the Federati on is the pr-ovt nctetlevel. This level inc l udes th ePr o v incia l Offi c e. the Provin cial Exe cutive andthelegislatheCoun c il. Each organization !1 lev e l wit hi nthe N.L.H.S .A. F. is responsib le forcoor d i nat i on at that level. The basic or ganizationa lstructure of the N.L.H.S. A.F. is shownin Figure1.

Le g i s lativ e Council Pr ov inc ia l Exec ut iv e

Provincial Office

9 Regional Distr i ct s

Figure1. Organizational St ruc t ure of N.L.H.S.A.F.

The N.L. H.S.A. F. ha s expertenc e dtreme nd ousgrowth si nce its for mat io n . It ha s expa nd e dfromsponso ring one tou r na men t in 1969tosponso ri ng ove r 300 z coe to ur namen t s, some 200 regi on a l to urn a men t s and 31 provincial to ur namen ts in 1984- 8 5.' The incre ase in the sizeof the N.L.H. S. A. F . bro ught wit h it ma ny administrative prob l ems. One pr-obten created by the large numbe r of schoolswi s h in gtoparti cip a t e in int e r s ch ola s ti c ath leticcompetition, an dthe accompany in g variat i o ninsk ill le vel s , was that it became nec e s s a r y to est a b li sh somecr iteri ato determi nelevels of play.

The crite rio n usedto determine leve l s of playuntil 19 8 1 was schoo l popul ation. The ref o r e, schoo ls with a certain popula ti on compet e dagai ns t schoo ls wit h approx imate ly thesame numbe r of stude nts . The admi nistr at ive processes using thecriterio nof schoo l populationwere rela tive ly si mpl e si nce schoo l class ificat ions cou ld be eas ily assigne d aft e r the Septembe r registra t io nand seldo m ne e de dtobe cha nged.

In 1981 both the criteria and the admin i s tr a ti ve proce sse s for classify ing schools for competitio n purpos es wer e changed. The classifi cat i oncommit tee at that time introduceda classifica tio nsystemwhi ch us ed the criteria describ e d in th e foll OWin g statement:

Teams will be classified on performance duri ngthe year and on pr ojected pe rf orm a nc e inthe next year. Zones are in the bestposition to jud ge themse lves, andthe final meetingof the Annual General Meeting will enable the commissi oners to compare schools , zones an.dregions and make adj utt.ne nts if necessary .

(N.L.H.S.A.F. , A.G.M. Minutes, 1981, p , 4) The admin istra tive process usedto determine classifi cation is described in the 1986~of the Federa tion asfollows :

Schools will be classified in SectionsA, 2A, 3A, 4A, by sport, in the follol"ingman ne r:

A. Zon es 101111classify al l schools in their zone, by sport, at their regular spr ing meeting••••

B. At each Regio nal SpringMeeting ••••

the re g i on will exami ne the zone cl assificat ions andrea ssign classifications wher e necessary. c. Final approval ofall

classifications sha l l be made at the Fed er at ion Annual General Meeting by a separate me e t i ng of •••• (p. 6) The classification system implemente din 198 1 has caused some administra tiveproblems for the Federation.

Backgroundto the Problem

Since the adoptio nof the new classification system in1981, the r e have been a number of indica tors which sU,Jgest the system has not bee nas administratively

ef ficie nt,nor as fun ct ional ly effe ctive as it couldbe. In 1982 aresolut io n was ado pt ed at the Annua l Genera l Meetin9 whichatt e mpt e d to add re ss the prob l emcreated whe n zon e s andregions failed to class ifyteams accord ing to theestabl ished pro c e s s . In 198 4the A.G.M.passed a resolut ionwhic hstated that sc ho o l popul at io nshould be the maincriteri onused when det er min in g classificat ion, wi t hgeography andteamperformance giv e n "s ome consideration". The use of the term, somecons ideration, ha scr e at e d confus ion over how much wetqhttnq te am performa nce andgeograp hy should be given whe n maki ng class ifica tion deci si on s.

In1983 the re we re 60 classific ati oncha nges enacted, in 1984therewere 58 changes enacte d, and in 198 5the re were 58 changes enac ted bythe provi nc i a l cla ss ifica tio n committ e e at the spring classifica ti on me etings. Addit i onal ly. tn1985-86 ther e were 15 class if icat ion reques t s and/or appeals ma de to the provi ncial executive durin g the school ye ar. The s e la r ge numbersof cha nges ref lect the inab il ity of the present sys temto effectiv ely place teams at an optimal competit ion level and also 1llust rat ethe admi nist rat ive difficu lt ies in volve d.

Ano t he r1nd icato r of pro b lems within the

classif icat ion syste m is the number of comp la i nt s re c e i ve d by the Executive Direc to r . Herep o r t e d re c e i v in g"ab out a

dozen ve ry unp leas a n t pho ne call s regar d ing cla s s ificati on af te r the la s t A.G.M. " (Sta nfo r d , 1985 ). Someof thos e ca lls may have been fr om self - i nte re s ted pers ons upse t about beingforced to compete at a hi gh e r lev e l, bu t ot hers were from pe r s o ns wh o re all y felt they had be en unj us tly treate d .

Interv ie ws with a numberof per s on s invo lv ed in the admi nistr a tio n of th e Federationat the provincia l le vel re v e a l e d a perceptionof other problems such as disagreemen t ove r the c rtterte used, incons istenc ies in the interp retati o nof the criteria and alack of ad he re nce to the class ification process. Also pe r s on s at the zone level , while in the best posit i o ntomake cl ass if ication changes based on lo ca l sta ndards , may not be famili a r wit h pr o vi nc i a l stand ards and, in somecases , the limit e d inf or mati on upon whic h decisions must be made (Sta nfo r d , 198 5 ; Furlong, 1985j Dawe, 1986 ).

Sta te ment of the Pro blem

The majorpurpo s e of this study wa s to examine the system of classi fic a ti onutilized by theN.L.H . S.A. F. and, i f warran t e d , make recommend ations forchang e. More specif ic all y , this study uti l iz e d resp ons e s fromathl et ic dir e ct or s tn the member SCho o ls, provinc ia l executtve members an dzone presi de n t s to ans werthe fol lowi ng

questions:

1. What functi on ( s ) dore sp ond ent s feel the clrs stf tcetfon systemuse d bythe N.l.H.S.A.F.

should serve?

2. Howacceptab l e to respo nde n ts ar ethe cr i t eria upon whic hthe presentclassificatio nsystem15 based?

3. How much importancedores ponden t s feel should be att a c hed to eachcompone n t of the c rtterta used?

Il. How ac c ep t ab 1e to respo nden cs are the admini strat ive proce s sesforassigning cl assificat ion?

5. Are the r e signif ica nt differences in responses obtainedfromprovincial execut ive members , zone pr esi den ts and athlet ic di r e ct or s in membe r schoo l sregar di ng theclassificati on system?

6. What do responde nts pe r ce i ve as themai n we a kne s s e s andstre ngths of the present classif i cat io nsystem?

7. Fromthe vie wpo i nt oftherespo nde n t s , how mig ht the admin istrat i o nof the cl assif ica tion system be improved?

- - - ---- - -

Theo re tica1Framework

Someof the ea r lie st re c or di ngs of his t or y show man engaged in wrestling andotherspo rt ip. g type activities.

Scott (1951) suggests tha t from the.begin n ing of civiliza t ion . games and spor t s have been used to trai n the youn gin war lik e and surv iva l ac ti v iti e s . On eof the earliestorganizedsportingevents, the Ta l lt ea n Games, is believed to have been held at the Fair of Ta11tein Tar a, Irel an dabo ut 2000 B.C. (Encyclopaedia Britannica , 1972 ). Oth er ex ampte s of early s~ortin9events and con tests can befoun dinthewritings about theGreek andRoman civilizations. The popu lar Greek festivals are believe d to be the fore r u nne rs of the prese nt OlyrntJlc Games.

While the OlympicGames are stil l conside red to be the singlemost impor tantat hletic event inthe world, ther e has beena phenc mena l growthin other sporti ng activ it i e s . Inmodern society, games and ot her compe t 1ti vespo r ti ngeventsaffect near lyeveryo ne.

Pr of e s s i on al sports, via themed i a , havebe come immens ely pop ular wi t h large numbe r s of spectato rs. Asin the Greek and Romandays, man y professio na l athletes are viewe d as public heroes. Amateu r sportsand re cr e a t i on al type activities have becomeincr e a sin gl ypop u l ar asman'!>

per so nal wea lth and lei sure timehas increa sed.

Accompany i ng the ge ne r;;.; grow th of spo rt i n g activ it ies in soci ety , the re has be e na paral le l gro wt h andacceptanceof spor t in the scho o ls. Such sport ing acti v ities inc lude tho s e offe red as part of re gul ar phy s i c al edu c ation progr ams , intra mura l programs and int er s ch ol a s tic prog rams. Wh i leal l thr e e as pec t s of the spor tsprog r amare very importa nt , the onewhich often rec ei ve s the most pub l ic att e nti on and suppo rt is the in t er s ch ol a st i c program. In most provinces and states in Nor t hAmerica, int e r s ch ol a s ti c athlet i c competition has expand ed such tha t prov inc ia l or state athletic associa t ions have been form e d to admin iste r sunhpr ogr a ms.

One of themain functio nsof those athle tic as s oc i a t i on s 1s to spons or andregu late athle ti c competit ion . Thiscompe ti t io nmust be admi n iste red in a manner cond ucive to maximizingstudent be nefit. As a re sult of thelarge numbers of schools with differe nt programs, facilit iesand pe r s on nel, the r eare wide varia tio ns inthe sk1l1 levels of differen t teams. Sin ce ther e is a beliefthat i t is not beneficial to have st ude nts with great diffe re nces inskil l le vels compete agai ns t eachothe r , itis ne c es s a r y to estab l is h various levels of play. T"e systemwhich atte mpt s to esta blis h those levels of pla yin hig h sch oo l athletic associa t io ns is nor ma ll y referred to as a "cla ss i f ic at i on system ".

In order togai nsome unde rs tand i ngof clas sifi c a- ti o nsystems in gene ral . it is use fu l toexamine tho s e systems in ter msof thepur pos eor functi on, the crite ri a used toestab lis h div i s ion s desi g ned to fulfill the tun ctton , and the pr o c e s se s nec es s a r y to impl e me n t the crite r ia. Aswith othe r systems. class if ica tio nmust opera te within the geograp hic andresource restr ict i ons imposed by its env i r on ment. Anex ami n a t i on of compo ne nts common to classificatio nsystems used by at hle t ic org an i z atio ns thr ou gh o ut the wcrfd can be port rayed as in Figur e 2.

, ,- - - Envi r onment

- - - --7\

Classif ica tio nSystem

Fu n c ti on

J J 1

Cr1te rta

11 ^J

Pr oc e s se s

Fig ur e2. Conce pt ual Model of Classifica tio n

10

11

In te r ms of hi gh school ath letics,cl assifica tion systems are commonly used to serve twomain functions. The fi r s t funct io nis tha t of enSUrlog equ itable competition. Playersor teams are s e l ec tec 1namanner whi chensures that the ski ll levels ofthevarious players or teams are si milar. Inorder tofulfill this function, classificat ion systems use thecriteria of ability. When using atJil ity criteria, pl ay er s or te ams ofs1lll11ar ability compete agains t each othe r. The processes used to implement a classif icatio nsystem based on ab i lityare numerous. One of th e mostcommonlyusedis the rank-order system. Playersor teams are rankedin relat i on to each other. One of the mainadvantages of ranki ngsystems ts tha t it ensures competition betweenpla ye r s or te a ms of equitable abili t ies. A majordis advantage of the system is the administrative compl e xiti e s involvedingroup in g players or te a ms ac c ord in g to ability. This disadvan tage becomes exagger ated when one of the envi ronmental influences is a voluntee r organi zation with limited re s ou r ce s wit hi nwh ichthesystem must opera te.

The second ru ucttcn of hi gh schoo l ath l et i c classificati o nsystemsis topr o vi de for a deg ree of equity among competingschoolsor indivi duals. The concernis for the equ al i zat ion of the bases fromwhic h teams or indivi duals emerge, or st a t e ddifferen tly, equal ityof oppor tunity . Thecriteria necessary to

12

achieve the funct ionof equality of opport unity are different fro mthat necessary to achieve equitable compet i tion. Schoolsmust be grouped eccordtnq to simire r phys ica l character istics usingcrtte rtasuch as school popul a t i on, size and access to competitio n. Indiv idua ls are commonly groupedaccording to physical ch aracteristics of age or weight. The processes used to implemen t classif ication systems based on physical charac teristics are relative lysimpl e. Once the specific criter ia are decided, schools can be easily categorized accord i ngto the set criteria. The ease of admin isteri ng the proce s s after the crtterta ha ve been established ts one of the mainadvantages of these types of classificatio ns systems.

A major disadvantage is that there is no guarantee that the criteria selected wl1l provide equa lity of opportunity .

In summary, the main component in the proposed conceptual model of classification is the funct ion of the system. Stemming from the function are the criteria, which are designed to complementthe function. The criteriawill, intur n , directly influence the process required to impleme n t the ent ire system. All three components of the system are inf luencedby the environment within whi c h the system must oce r ete ,

13

519"1ficance of the Study

Th isstudy will hOpefullyresult in the improvement of the classificati o nsystem wit h in the N.L.H.S .A. F •• Specifically, this studyshou ld have significance for the fol lowing groups:

1. Students andcoaches by providinga system which can effective ly classify schools/ teams us; n9the crt terta e steb Iished.

2. Admi nistrators of athletic programs in the schools by pr OVi d i ng a degreeof stabi l ityin the system thus facilitating long-ra nge plann1ng.

3. Zone , regional andprovinc ia lexecutive members whohaveto make decisions regarding classificatio nby pr o v i din g clear crite r i aand procedures tc follow.

4. Provincial office pe r son nel who deal with problems and complaints rel atedto the classifica tionsystem byre du ci ng the incidence of suchproblems andcomplaints.

Oelim itatio ns

Thi s st u dyis delimitedto the organ izat ion and admi nist rat io n of the sys t em of classificat io n utilizedby

14 the N.L.H.S.A .F••

limitations

Theresults,conclusionsand recommendati ons of this st udy should be cons idered interms of thefoll owing 1imitat1ons:

1. This studyis concernedwith classific atio n within theN.L.H.S.A.F. andany findings recommendat ions are rest rictedto that orga ni z a tion.

2. This studyassumes the re s pons es givenby athleticdirectors 1n the member schools accur ately reflectsthe opinionsof the memher schools about the cle sstttc ettonsystem utilizedbyth e N.L.H.S.A.F••

3. Th1s studyispartially dependent on the at hletic directors ' un ders t a nding of the classif icationsystemutilizedbythe N.l . H.S . A.F ••

4. Thi s studyisparti al ly depe nde nt onthe re t ur n of mailed questio nnaires.

15

Def; niti o n s

Ne wfou ndland-labrado r HighSchool Athletic Federat;on (N.L .H.S.A.F./Th e Fede ratio n1: The or ga niz ationwhic hadministe rs, o r-qentae s andpromotes highschoolintersc ho las tic sports activiti es within the province of Newfoundland an d labr a dor.

Zone Associatio ns: Localorgani z a ti on s formed by schools within a small geographic area whi ch

responsiblefor organizing andadmtnfste rtnqN.l.H.S . A. F.

spo nsored athletic competition in thetr-ar eas. Regi onal Associatio ns: Combinationsof Zone Associati ons within a geograph ic regi onwho are responsiblefor organi zi ng andadminister ing N.L.H.S.A.F.

sponsored int e r s c hol ast ic athleticswith in tha t region.

Each regionelects a Reglonal Direc to r whobecomes pa r t of the Prov inci al Executive•

Provinci a l Executive: The ni ne Regional Directors and the Past-Pres iden t joi n witha President, thr ee Vice-Presidents anda Finan c ia l Directorwho are elected at the Annua l General Mee ti09 to form thePr ov i nci al Executive. Thisgroup isresponsiblefor direct ing and ma k i ng all dec i s i ons concerning the Fede ration between An n ua lGeneral Meetings.

Classificatio nCommi t tee: This groupinclude s a Class1ficationChai rma n ,whois usua lly one of the

Vice-Pres i d e nts ap poin t ed to that po s it i on bythe President , and theRe gion a lD1rector s. The Class ifica t ion Comm i t tee r evt ews all classifi c a t io n requests and autho r izes any cha nge s.

Extracur r1cu ladeD-CUrl'"1 cu' a;; Ac tivitie s pro gram s carrie d out inor by a schoo l whtch are not cons i d e re d pa r t of the presc r i bed curr i c ul um.

Inter schola sticlInt e r-schoo l Athletics: At hlet i c compe titi o n betwee nsc hoo ls.

Intramu r a llIn tra ws ch ool At hletics: Athl e ti c competition with;naschool .

Class if i cat io nSys tem : Thesystemuse d by ath le t i c org a n iz a tio ns todeterm i ne which teams /ind ividualsma y compe te at each level of competit ion.

16

17 CHAPTER 2

REVIEWOFRELATEDUTERATURE

Int roductio n

At th e conceptual level there has been very 1 ittle written about classificationas 1t relates to high school athletic competition. There is, however, a substantial amount of material about other aspects of interscholastic athletics wh i c h providesan overview of the setting in which interscholastic competitio n occurs in today's schools . The first sectionin the reviewof lit e r a t ur e provides this overvtew by discussi ngthe de vel opme n t of interscholastics, a rationale for them, and somele gal and administrative concerns.

While the r e is lit tl e of a conceptu a lnature about athletic classificatio n, most high school athletic associat ions in NorthAmerica address the practical aspects associa tedtherewith . Th e secon dsection in this chapte r re vi e ws the classifica tio nsystems used by many such organiza t ionsin No r t h America, excl uding Newfou nd land . The thir dand fin al sectio nin the review of literature reviews the de ve l o pme n t of the N.L. H. S.A.F . classification system from its in c e pti o n up to the present.

i

Inte rsc holastic Athletics In Today'sSchools Extracurricular activities ha vebe come an integral part of most modernschool programs. Raub i nger, Sumption and Kamm (1974) write, "te d ay i t would be hard to imagine 18

a secondaryschoo l withou t a varied program of student activit ies " (p, 204). However, such extracurricular programs are re l a tive l y ne w in the educat ional setting.

Keller (1982) ind i c a t e s the time of acceptance of sporting activities tn schoolswhen he writes, "schools officially assumed moreres pons i bil i t y over fnt e r s chc ct games during the first two decades of the 1900 ' s" (P. 23). Frederick (1959 ) , writingabout student activit ies inAmerican schools, states:

It can beconcl ude dtha t at the end of the fi rstquarterof the twentie th century theide a that inf o r ma l student activities hadeduca tive val ue and should be the dir e ct concer nof teachers andadministrators wa s

1

e n e r a l throughout the country.

p.25)

In Newfoundland schools, extrac urricular activit ies ha ve onlygai ned widespread acceptance inthe last twenty years. The Reportof the Royal Commission onEducatio n

~(Government of Newfou nd land andLabrador, 1967 ) recognized the importance of extracurricular activities insc hool s but stated, "it seems to the Commission that thi s aspect of the curr iculum has beenneglected in many Newfound la nd schools" (p, 171). The Commissio n

19 sub s e quent ly recomme nd e dth at all sc hool sde ve lo p co-curr i cular pr ogrammes suited to the loca lcondit ions.

Since the report of the Commis sio n ther e ts evi de nce to suggestthat many Newf ound l and schools have devel oped extracu r r icular progr ams. A st udy

by

Crocker (1 973) of the co-curric ula r pr o gr a ms in theRe gi on al HighSchools of Ne wf oundland andlabra dor re vea l ed tha t all schools who responded to his questionna ire hadsome formof extracurricular ac ti vit i e s. The rapid growth in the numbe r of schoo ls par ticipa ting inN.l. H.S .A.F . sponsored act ivit iesfurther attest to the invol ve me n t of Newfoundlandstudents in extrac urric ula r activ ities .

Extracurr i cular act i vitie sha ve become acceptedtn schools as are su lt of cha n ge sinthephi losop hy about the function of schools. Thewri t i ng s of JohnDewey (1938) about the educative value of experienc es in the school had a si gnif icant impact oneducation. Fr edertc k (1959) illustratesthisphilosophica l chang e by sta ti ng:

Where playwa s once thoug ht to be a waste of precious hours anda sure road to a pauper's grave. if not to the pit of hell, play is nowthoug ht to be not on l y the right and pr i vilege of yout h, but anessential and vital phase of the ir education. (p. 20) The import a nce of extracurr icular activit ies in general , and in terscholast icat hlet ics inparticular, have beenaddressed by many write r s. Since this partic ular stu dyis pr i marily concernedwit h int e r s c ho la s t i c

20

athletic s, only literatu re releva nt to that ar-eaw111be d1sc US5:".1.

Host write rs enc have addr es s ed the issue of the impor ta nce of int ers c ho la s ti c at h letics haveconc l ude d tha t the r e areIla nybenef i ts as s ocia t e d wi th good int er s c holas tic prog ralls. Thesebenef it s acc rue to the student, theeduc ational institut ion andthe communit y . Broy les andHay(1979 ) li st the foll owing as stude nt be nefit s of intersc holas tic athl eti cs : he alt h, disci pline. development ofmor al va l ues, recogn it io n, soc 1al compe t ence . and emoti onal maturity. Oa nnehl and Razor (1971) discuss addit i o nal st u de nt bene f its to inc lu de: athleticsbeing fun ; athle tic s teach self-discipline , spcrts eanshtp, self-rel ia nc eand coep er attcm and, ath l eti c s ca n pro v i de schola rs hips for some athle te s.

Many of the student benefits liste d areco nside re d desirable obj ectiv es of the educ ationalsystem. The..a!.!!!l ofPubli c Ed uc ation for Ne wfo undlandand Labrado r (l984) list anumbe r of aims of educa tio n wh ichmaybe met thro ugh int e r s ch olast ic athletic programs. These include:

(1) to help st udent s to matur e mentellyj

(2) to help pupils to matur e emotio nally;

(3) to help pupils to make thebe s t of the i r leisure ti me;

21 (4) to helpst ud e nts unde r s ta nd the

human body andpracti ce the pr i nci p l es ofgoo d health, and, (5) to seek ou t anddeveloppupt1s'

spec i a l ta l e nt s and potent i alHies andto as si stthe min develo ping the i r strengt hs and in overc omingor adj usting toha ndi c a p s and we akne s s e s. (pp. 6, 7)

Keller (1982) offe rs the follo wi ng as outcomes of in terscho las tic athl eti c programswh i c h compleme nt the aims andobjectives of educat ion:

(1) men ta l,physical and emotiona l developm e n t of individual st u de nts ; (2 ) enhancemen t of the educational

objectiv es of the school, providing expertences not ot her wise prov;ded;

(3) provi si on ofwholesome re cr eat i on andenter tai nment to studen t s and spec tato rs;

(4) fosteri ng school spirit; and, (5) gaini ngcommunitysupport"or the

schoo l. {p , 33)

The impo rta nce of at hlet ics to Newfo und la nd schoo ls is ref lected 1n a sta temen t made bycr-oc ke r (l973). He repo rt e dthat princ ipa lsjudged int r a-s c hool and int e r-schoolsports as being the best co-curricular act iviti es for meeting the ne ed s and int ere s t s of stude nt s.

Along withthe ben ef its whichaccru eto st ude nts and schools, thec oram unt ty-atclar-qebe nef it s from

tnters c hotasttc spor ts activities. Ma xwe ll (1982)

22 discusses two ways tn which school ath letic programs to benefit society. He states: -the schools are serving as tetsure delivery agencies by pro v i d i n g wncle s cne activities fo r leisure tirae fulfillme nt , andare also educatingyoungcttteens tn lifetime leisure concepts and sktl ls " (c, 6). Consideri ng theimpo rtanc e attache dto amateur sport and the deve l opme nt of sound lei sur e pursuit s 1ntoday' s society, the school at hletic program serves a very importan t function.

Themost visib le part of scho ol athle tics , the intersc ho lasticprogram, als o serv e s the comm unityin other ways. It 1s oftenthe most visiblemeans by whicha community can identH y with its scho ol. The publ ic ina communityis invited to various sportingactivities whic h provide both asource of entertai nmentandcomlllunity pride.

While the re are manywidely rec ogn iz e d benefits associated with intersc holast ic ath le t ic pro grams. the re canalso be some ne ga t iv e effe cts. SOl1e writers have cha llenged tr adition a l values as so ciatedwith sport on grouuds that the "winn i ng" aspec t hasta ken over. Oa nne hl andRaz or (19 71)tooka cr itical loo k at SPO rt; in some Americanscho o ls and concl ude d that:

Athl eticscan be of great valu e to th e educati o na l , psychological, and social gro wth of student s , but mode ra tio n is the key to tha t val ue. Compet ition onthe athletic

2J field tends tolos e its educational

value when vic t or y t s theultimate go al. (P. 65)

Maxwell (19 82) emphas i zed the impo r tanc e of ensuringthat at h l e tic goals and out c omes were inharmony wi th thos e of education andthat the ath l e t ic programdi d not be c ome dominantove r other wort hwh il e progra ms.

Inte rs c ho l esttcathlet i cs , as with any othe r progr ams, mu s t be ef f ec t iv e l y adminis t ered in order to be succ ess fu l. Oft en , in a scho o l . theinters ch ol a stic pr o gr amis ver y vis i b le andthere f o r e ope n to publi c sc r ut i ny. Tr u mp and Mille r (1979) write "be ca u s eof the potential for cont r ov er sy and the magnit ud e of the pr ob lems invol v ed, athletic pr og r a msmust be dir ec te dby those who are willingtomake jud g ements bas e don sound principles" (p. 310). Recent dev elo pments, particularly inthe United St at es, indicat e that spo rt s-re l ate d litig ati on is increasing . In a recent arti cle, Cle a r (1 9 8 2) reviewed se v e r al court cases andof fe r ed some sugge stions for admin is t r a t o r s of athleti c as s o ciat i ons to ke ep 1nmind when devel oping or impl e menti q rule s and re gul a t i o n s. He sug ge st s tha t legally:

L Pa r tic i p a t ionis more tha nan unre gu l a te d pri vil ege butis not a fully pr o te c te d right.

2. St u den t s havea reco gniz e d

"significant" inte res t in partlc ipat i on.

3. Rul es must be rati onall y and reasona bl y rel ated toa legitimate educati ona l pur pos e.

4. Incer t a i n circumst a nce s , rule s '11111 besubje ct tostr i c t judie;al scrutin y, req uirin gthat a compelling sta te int erestbe shown.

5. Appe als must be handled wit hout bias. (170)

The s e typ es of legal devel op me nt s cl e ar l y illustr at e the nee dfor ath le t ic as s o c ia t io n s toha vewelI-deftne d , jus t if iablerules and regulatio ns whi ch areappli e d thro u gh sound ad mi nistrat ive pr oc e dur e s .

Hig hSc hoo lAth l e tic Clas s ific a tio nSys tems

Almo s t everysta t eand provin ce inNor t hAmerica ha s ahig hsch oolathletic as so c ia ti on . Inorde r todevel op anovervi e wof th efunct i on s, criter i a and pro cess es rela t ive tocla ss ifica tion , ea chath le t ic as s o c i a ti o nwa s as kedtoprov i d e infor mat ion about ttsclas s ifi c a ti o n system. A copy of the lette r us e d to requ e s t inf o rma t i on is included in Ap pend i x A. Thi s se c t i on ofthe paper rev ie wsth ecla s sific a t ion sys t ems us e d by the 40 high school at h let ic asso ciation s wh ichrespond e dto this reque s t for inf o rm atio n. The cl a ss if i c atio nsystem use d by the Ne wf ound landandLabrad or High Sc hool Ath l e tic

24

25 Fe de r a ti onwil l be treatedseparat e lyand re vie we d in a later section.

Are v i ew of the class if ica t ion sy s te ms us e d bythe various athl'"!tlc associations revealsthatonly the Miss ouri State High School Activ iti es Assoc iat io nstate the functions of their classification system. The) indicatethe pri mar y objectives of classifying schools to be:

1. to providefor more equitable compet ition inte am activit ies; 2. to providefor more equityamon g

schools compe tingin team andgrou p activit; es;

3. topr o t ect the physical we lf ar e of students engaged in contact sports;

and,

4. to expedite the administ ra t ionof district and state eventswith' mi nimum of conflictwiththe academic program;

Most other athletic associations have only written classificationpolicy about the cl a s s if i c ati oncriteria and processesused.

The only criterion used in the vast majority of athletic associations is school populatio n (33 out of 40).

In the remai n ing seven assoc iati ons, two de not classify schools for competitionpurposes, three use school populationas the ma i nfactor with some consi deratio nof ge ogr a phy, and the re ma in "ingtwo use sch ool popu lation wit h some consideratio nof team performanceand geography.

26

Itmust be noted that nearly all associa t ions us ing sch oolpop ulatio nas themain crite r ion also have defined seasons ofplay andmaximum numbersof allowabl egamesor matchesfor each spor t. The cri terion of sch o ol popula ti oncombi ned with seasons of pla y ensure sthat the cl ass if i ca t io n syst em canlargely fulf i ll the functi on of equalizat i onof opoortcntty,

In athleti c as so ciation susing school popul ati onas themai nclass if ic a t io ncrite r io n,the r e are twomain proc es ses us ed to de te r mi nethe numbe r of st u d en ts in the schoo l s in dif f e re nt classif i cati o ndivi sion s. In app r oximat ely one thtrd of thesys t ems re vi ewe d , sc hools er e div id e d proportionally. To illustrat e, in New Je r s ey : the top 25%of thescho ol s inte r ms of enrollment, are cl as stf tcd4A; the nex t25% ar e3A;the ne xt 25%are2A;

and, the lcve r 25% are class ifiedasA.

The sec ond procedu r e us ee! to determine clas sif ic ation division susespre- s e t limit s . To illustrate, in Nova Scotia all scho olswhi ch have populati on sgreater than 449 are classifiee! as 3A, sc hools with popula ti on s bet we e n 200and449 are cl ass ifi e d 2A and schoolswith population s les s tha n200are classified A.

The actual proc e s s es usedto impleme nt the cl a ss ifi c a ti on systemvaries fr om association to ass oc iat i on. inNew Ha mpshir e,clas s ifi ca t ions are set

27 onc e ever yfiv eyears,whil e inAlberta class ifi cations are determi ned eac hyear bas e d on the Se pt ember 30th enrollme nt. Inathle tic as s ociatio ns whic hus e school populat i on as theonlyclassif1cat1 o ~ criter io n, the proc e s s e s 'involve dwith impl e ment in g the classifica tion sys te m arerelat ivelysim ple. Once the popula ti o nin each school has beendetermined ,the cent ra l of f i ce staff assignclassif i cat ions to schoo ls acco r di ng tothe esta blis hed crite r i a. Since in the case of school population the criterio n can be objectivelyassessed, the assignment process is easy .

In syst ems usi ng a combi na t io nof crite ria, the as s oc ia ti on's executive is responsib le for classificatio n of schools . Itmust aga i nbe emphas i zed that the mai n crit e r i onus edis school popu l at i oneve nwhe r e the re is

conside ration of ot he rfac tors.

Deve lo pmen t of ILl.H.S.A.F . Classlfleat l on Syst e m

The founding meeti ngof theN.l .H.S.A.F. wa s held on Febr uary 15, 1969 . Atth a t raeettngthe followi ng By-law

appr ove d:

§~~~~~~~dtAct; vlH~ ~lS for N.l.H .S.A.F.

(; ) sh all rea d : "A~Schoo ls are thos e having a tot a l enr oll ment of JOI andover tnGra de s 9, 10 and 11. "8 " Schoo ls are

28 those having IIto t a l enrol lmen t of 300 or le s s in Grades9, 10 and 11.

(h) Aschool may req uest to pl ay in a high er or lower classifica tio n.

(N.l.H.S .A.F••196 9 ) Thi s By-laYl of the Federation initiated what is nowknown as the "c la s s ifi cati on system".

The f'rst indicat io nof concern about the classificatio nsystem came at the 1971Annual Gene ral Meeting when II question was askedconcer ning the basi s uponwhich schools were c1e s s trte c, The response to that questio n indicated that , "i t was an executive decisio n based onschool popula tionandsubjective ana lysis"

(N. L.H .S.A.F., A.G.M.minutes , 1971). Later in that same mee ti nga discussion washel d concern i ngschoolswhowon divis io n "B-, automaticallymovingin div is i o n-A".

At the1972 A.G.M. the fi rst major changein the cl assificatio n sys t e m was intro d uced. Theexecutive classif i cat ioncommittee init i a t e d the concept of zon e cl assif icatio ns. Therefore, azonewas classifie das either MA" or "B"with all schools in that zonereceiving the same classification. During the same meeting amotion was passe dgivi ng the pr-cvtnctal council power to classify zonesat the An nual General Meeti ng.

In1973, tile delega tes atthe A.G.M.passed a motion

wh ichspl itthe sport of Basketba ll into three divisions.

Ther e f o r e, in Basketba l l , a zonecould be classif ie das

29 eithe r "A" , "B" or "C". This syste mdid not work ve r y well and res ulted in major chang'"' ';beingmad e at the 1974 A. G.H. Thenew clas s if i c ati o nsy_~emprovi de dforthe cl ass ify in gof ind ividual sch ool s usi ng thecriterio n of school po pulat io n. Schools with enr ollme nt s gre a t er than 350were class ifi ed "A" , sch oo ls with 201to350 st u dents wer e classifie d"B" , andschools withle s s tha n 201 st udents we r e classified

·e".

Schools could volunta r i ly moveint o anhighe r classificati o nfor oneyea r but not move down war d . The classification proc e s s was simple with schools bei ngassig ned classif ica t io ns basedonthe April schoo l retur ns.

At the19 75 A.G.M.a motion.... as passed enab li n g schools to move into a lowe r classificati onthan that det e r mined bythe i r school popula t io n, if such was approved by the A.G.M•• Des pitestudyby two diff e r en t committees , the thr e ele vel classi fi cat i onsystem usi ng school popul at io n as the maincriterio n remain e d in effect un t il the 1981 A.G.M•• At thattimea class if icatio n commit tee, act ing ondir ectio n from the previo us A.G.M. , in tr oduce d the lat e s t "ne w class i f icatio nsystem". Thi s lat e s t sys t e m was radica lly dif fer e nt frompr ev ious cl as s i fic at io n systems us ed in Ne wfou nd landandfrom those classif icatio nsystems used in most other pa rt s of No rt h America.

30 Und er the lat e st classif ic atio nsystem a differen t lett er gr a dewa s introduce d. The "A" classificati o nwas cha nged to"AAA". -B"to "AA", and

·e"

to "A" . Ins t ead of schools be in g cla s sifi ed, indivi du al.teamswithin the sch ool s we r eclassifie d . The criter ionuponwhic h class ificat i on decisionswe r e mad echa nged from school populat i ontotea mperf ormance ,bothpas t andpredicted.

In orde r to ut i li ze the new crfterta, the administ r ative pl"OCeSS wa sals o changed. The onusfor makingclassi - fication dec i sions was given to thezon e and regi on al associations . Theprovin cial class ificat ion committee would on lygive fi nal approval to classification changes andmake adj us t ment s when theyfeltsuc hwere necessary.

Inaddi tionto the change s already disc us s ed, teamscould volunta r ilymove into anhigh e rcl as sifica ti onfor one ye ar and. special classifica t i on cases could be referred to theexecutive for cons iderati on.

The c l asstftc atton system intr odu c edin1981 is st i ll utilized by the N.l .H.S.A.F•• Incr der to develop some unders tandingof why this typ e of systemwas int r oduc e d and why1t has continuedinuse, pe r s ona l inter view s were conducted wit h Pr eside n tand Exec utiv e Director of the Fede ra t i on for the yea r 19B1.

Dawe (198 6),Feder a tionPres ident in 1981, suggested that the classif ic at io n sy st e mwas chan ge ddue to ine qua11t y of compe t it io n , dominance by some SChools, and

31

the inab i l it yof some scho ols to co mpe te at the ir classificationlevel whic hre s u lted tn dis c ouragement and la ck of pr o gram de ve l o p me nt. Inhis vie wthe classif ic a- tio n systemhas continued to be use d because1t does pro v i de for a degree of equality of competition. Teams gettheop portunH y to compete at a le ve l wher e they experience some success, and the system is basica ll y good whenthe presc ri bed pr o c e s s es are fo llowed.

crcte, (1986), Fede ra t io n Executive Direc tor in 1981, indicated th a t the systemCha nged in order to provide for mor e equita b l ecompe tit i on at thediffer ent le v el s . Using thi s system, peop le saw an inc r easedchance of their te a m winn ing. Oe s pite pr o blems associated with th i s type of syste m, he stil l views i t as superior to the old one. He attri bu t e s the manyclass if icatio nchangesto humanchar a c t eri s tics wher e bypers on s try to move their ownte ams int oa divis ionwherethey can compet eat the provinc i al leve l .

While the ba s i c classifica ti onsystemtntrcduce d in 1981is sti l l bein g used at presen t, the r e have beensome changes. In198 2, af-ur thdivisio n wa s added to the classifi ca ti onsystem tcrthe sports of ba s ke tb all and volley bal l. Atthe 198 4A.G.M. amot i onwaspas s ed sta tingthat "school pop ul a tion be cons i de r ed themain factorfor class ifying schools .... and that geog raphyand teamperfor manc es also beconsid e re d" {p, 12).

32

The re v i e w of literature indica tes tha t despite r-ec ent cr it i ci sm of in t ersc holastic athletics, such programs are verymuch a part of most North American schools . Howeve r. the r e1s an increasing awareness of the le g a l and adminis t rative re s po ns ib i l it i e s of h1gh school athletic associa t ions. These associations mus t ensure that all rules ar erationallyand reasonablyrel ate dto le giti ma t e educ atio na lpurposes.

Within thisoveral l se t tin g , athletic associations establish specificru le s and proced uresconcern i ng the class if ica t ion of schools for competit io n pur po s e s . A revie wof cla s sifi c at ionsystems us e d in mar " par ts of Nor t hAmerica re ve al that most high schoo l at hl e t ic associations use schoo l populat io nas the on ly classificatio n crit er i on. This criterion. when coupled with seasonsof pla y, provide for a degreeof equ ityamong schoolsbut does not direc tly address equa l ity of compe t it i on. Inthe s e type of systems, it woul dappear that the admin ist r a t iv e processes are relettvely sfmple , The question which remains unan s we r ed is whe t her this ty pe of systemis be ing used bec a us e it ts the best methodof classifyi ngschools orbecause i t is admin is t ra tive ly con ve nie nt .

Theclassification system us e d by the N.L.H. S. A. f. has evolved from a systemof classifyi ngschools us in g only schoo l population to a perfor mance basedsystem.

This type of system attemptsto equalize compe titio nby having teams of appro x i ma t e l y equal caliber compete against each ot her. Because a per formancebased system, whic h in realityclassifies teams for future competitio n, is basedon people's perceptions of howwell a teamwill performat some future time, i t is ine vit a bl e th a t some teams will be incorrectly classified. This system is difficultto admin isterbecause of thena t ure of the classificationprocess used,disagreemen ts over what divisio na particu la r team shou l d be in , and the paper work ne ed e d toupdatethemany team classification changes. While the systemis dif f i cu l t to administe r, i t does address equali tyof competiti on and it does att empt to plac ete a ms ina divis ion where the y can best compete.

33

J4 CHAPTER3

METHODOLOGY

Th e populatian for this st udy 1ne lu de d persons involved with the N.L.H.S. A.F. and ha vi n g decisio n-making au th orit y. Thi s group cons isted of pr ovtnctal executi ve members (16). zone pre s i d en t s (33), and athletic directors (144) inmember schools. Si nce the numbe r of people in each groupwas relative lysmal l , the entire populatio n was stu d ied.

Aque s t i o nn a ir e designed to asce rta i nthe viewsof provinc ia l execu tive members, zone pre s identsand ath l e t1c di r e ct or s toward the classif ica t ion sys temcurre n t ly ut il izedby th e Federat io n wa s admini s tered. The questio n n a i re , entitle d "Ne vf c undland -La br edc r Hig hSchool At h l e ticfedera tio n Cl a s s ifi c at i o n Sur vey " , conta ined sixtee n it ems . A copyis inclu ded in Appendix. B.

The firs': ni ne items in the ques tio nnair e were st ateme nts con c er nin g classificatio n proces s e s to whic h the re ci pient swere asked to indicat ethe ir de gr e e of agr e ement or disa gre ement . usinga Like r t scale. The fi ve

- 1

responses appearingon the que s ti o nn ai r e were: St ro ng ly Agree (SA) , Agree (A) , Disagree (0), Str on gl y Di sag ree

(SO) and Undecided (UN). Item ten was a multi p le choi c e

question wherereci pi e nt swer e asked to ind ic at e which le vel 1nthe hierarchicalstruct ureshould havefinal authorit y for classification decisions. It ems eleven, twelve andthtrteenre qu i r edreci p ien ts to rate IIset of optio ns in re s pon s e to statemen ts abutthe func tion. in put and crite ria asssociate dwith the classificat ion system. Theopti ons appea r ing onthe Questionnairewere : Es s ent ia l . Of Great Importance, OfSome Importance ,Of Littl e Impor t an c e and Of NoImpor ta nce. The s e options were re pre s en t e d by numerical valuesrang i ng from four to zero . Items four teen, fift.een andsixtee nwere open -e nded questions whe r e recipie nts we r e asked teo discuss their perceptions of weaknesses, strengt hs , andsuggest io ns for improvement in the classificat ion systemut il i ze dby the Federation .

QuestionnaireDeve lo pment and Pi lot StU dy Duri ngtheconstru ct io nphase of the ques tio nnai re, interv iews were conducted withthe Prestdent, Executive Director and Past-Presidentof the N.L.H.S.A.F•• These indi v i dual s were asked to comment onthe appropriateness of the propos edquestions. Thi s re sult ed in subsequent

35

item revisions. Thequesttonnafrewas alsosubmit ted to studentsina grad uatestatisticsclass who were asked to comment on theclarity andprecisionof the instrume nt.

Their responses led to additional mo dif icat io nof the questionnaire.

A pilot s tudywas condu ctedwithfour persons on leavefrom their sch ool systemswhower efamll i ar w1th the N.L.H.S.A.F.classificat ion sys tem, none of the per-t tctpent s involved inthepilot study reported any diff i c u lt i es read ing or interpretingthe questionnai re f tens ,

Rel iabllityMeasu res

Prior to bei ng administ e r ed to zone presidents and at hletic dir ecto rs, the questionnaire wasadministered to thesixtee n membersof the pr ovinc ial exec ut i ve. These same ind iv idualswerethe nre t e s t e d at the sameti metha t the remainde r of the quest ionnaireswere admin istered. Whe n the second groupof questtcnnetr-e s completedby the executivegrou pwere retu rned , the reliability for each item wascal c u la te dus i ng Perr s ontsr , TIle instrument 's overall re lia bil it y wascalc ula t ed by findingtheMeanr , usi ngFIsher ' s Zrtra ns f or ma t i on proce dure. The results of ther elfabtlLt y testingare showninTable 1. It sho u ld be noted thatwhi le the overall rel ia bil it y

36

TABLE 1 QUESTIONNAIRERELIABI LITY

37

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II<

! l ' 12a 12.

12c 13a 13.

13c 13d

Reliabil it yCoeff ic i e nt .8 3 .68 .22 .13 .8 0 .5 5 .92 .91 .8 3 1.00 .8 3 .7 5 .75 .69 .5 8 .95 .95 .8 8 .74

Overall r .. .90 **

Probab ilityLevel

** p<.01 , *p <'05

38

(r :::.90 ) is hig!'!, it emsthree and fo ur which de a l with ap pe a lprocedu res are no t stattsttc atty relia ble.

Admi nistra t ionof Que s t i o n n ai re

The init i a l adminis t ra tio nof the questio n na ires to provinci a l executivemembers occurre d at anex e cuti v e me e tin g hel d all Febr uary20 and 21, 1986. Du ringth e fi rst we e k inMarch, ea c h member of the populat io n wa s sen t a covering lett e r,que s ti onna i r e and stamped, self- addr es s ed envelope . All que s t i onn aire s wer enume ri c ally co de dtoassist in iden t if y i ngres ponden t s for possibl e fo ll ow-up . Dur in gthe th i rd we e k in Mar ch , a re mind er let t er was se n t to tho s epeop l e whohad not re t ur ned their que st i on na ir e. Duri ng the secondweek inApril, a se cond copyof the ques t io nna ire , comple t ewahcover letter and stampe d, s ettvedd re sseo er:vel ope, wassen t to all pe r so ns

whose"ques tio nnaire ha dnotbee n received. Cop i es of the

covering lettersare included inAppend ix A.

An a ly s is of Oat,!

Dat a obtai ned from thefirst thirteen items in the que st i onnair e s were ana ly zed primari ly thr ough theus e of descrip t ive statis t i cs . Dat a conce rn i ng thos e itemswer e ent er ed intothecompu ter system at Memori a l Univ ersit yof

39 Ne wf o undl a nd. Computer programs werethe nde velo pe d vhtch provided for recodingandanalyz in g thedata usingthe SPSS:X (Statis·t ical Packagefor Socia l Science) program.

TI'erespon s e s to the first ni neitems 11'1 the questionnaire were assigned numer ica l values ran gi n g from five, represent ing strongly agree, to one, re pr e s e nt ing st r ongly disagree. Responses to items eleven, twelve and thirteen were also assig ned numerical values ranging from five, essential, to one,of noimport an c e . Missingdatafor any item was assig ned a valueof zero.

The data analys isconsisted of calc ul a t i ng ; freq uencies, percentages , means andsumsof responses to each Hem; ranking order of the respons e sto each section inite ms elev en, twelve andth irteen ; T-t e s t s tode t e r mi ne

»hether dif f er ence sin themeans of specific re sp o ns e s were statistica lly significant; and F-test s to determfne stetisttc al differ en c e s inthe responses pr ov i de d byea ch group. Thi~ ana lysispro vidednec.essa ry infor mat i o n to answer all of the re s e a r ch questions, except numbers six andsev e n,tnthe stat ementof the problem.

Respo nses to items fo urt e en, fifteen and sixtee n were qual it a t i ve l y ane l yzed andused to provide info rmation ne e de dtoanswe r researc hquestio ns six and

40

CHAPTER 4

PRESENT ATION ANDDISCUSSI ON OFRESUL TS

Intr oduc tion

In thi5 chapte r, the results obt ai ned fr omthe analysisof questi o nnaire da t a are di s c us sed and presented under the followi ng headin gs: functions of the classifi ca t ion syst em,class ifica t io ncriter ia, class if icationprocesses, responsediff er e nc es , re sp on de nt s' percep t ions of weaknesses and st re ngt hs in the cl a s s if i c a tion systemand responde n t s' vie wson impr oving the administrat io nof theclassification sy ste m.

Back grou n d In fo rm a tio n

Ther ewere 193que s ti onna i r e s dist ribute d, witha to talof 154 ret ur ne d . As showninTab l e 2, each of the thre e gr o ups in the popul a t ion ret urn ed a high perce ntage of the questionnai res , contributing to theoverall re spons erat e of 79.8%. Since this study include dthe en t i re dectston> making populationof the

N.l.H.S. A.F. andhad ahighrespons e rate, re sult s of the st udy should refl e c t the viewsof theFe de r a ti on membe rship .

41

TABLE 2 QUESTI ONNAIRERESPoi,SERATES

Number Number

~ ~ ~ Pe r ce nt age

Provi ncial 16 16 100

Execut ive

Zone 33 26 78.8

Pr eside nt s

At hle t i c 144

11'

^77.8

Directors

Total 193 15 3 79.8

Func tions of theCla ss if i c a t io nSystem

Que s t i o n One: Whatfunct i on( s)do responden ts feel the class if i c a ti onsystem used by the N.L.H.S.A.F. should s ervet

Questionnaire recipients were asked to ra t e the impo r t a nc e which should be atta ched to two commo n funct i ons of classification systems 1nte a m sports, na me l y

"equitabl e competit ion" and"s cho ol equity". Ta bl e s 3 and 4present thefr e q ue ncydistributi onsof responsesto questionnaire itemsdealingwith thi s issue. The tables showthat 90.2%of respondents rated equitable competition as bei ngessential or of great importance whi l e only 45.8%

of the respondentsrated thefunctionof school equity as essential or of great 1mpor t a nc e.

TABLE 3

IMPORTANCEOF EQUIHBlE COMPETITI ON ASAFUNCTIONOF N.l .H.S.A.F. CLASSI FICATION SYSTEM

Response ~ Fr e que ncy ~m

Ess e nt 1al 100 64.9

Of Great Importan ce 39 25.3

Of Some Importance 11 7.1

Of Litt l e Impor ta nce 2 .6

Of No Importa nce

Misstn gCas e s

1 1..:1

154 100

Mean 4. 58

TABLE 4

IMPORTANCE OF SCHOOL EQUITY ASA FUNCTION OF N.l-H.S .A.F . CLASSIFICATIONSYSTEM

Response ~ Fr equenc y Percentage

Es se nti al 36 23.4

Of Gre at Impor ta nce 33 21.4

Of SomeImpor t ance 47 30. 5

Of Littl e Impo rtanc e 2 24 15.6

Of NoImp ort anc e 3.2

MissingCases .2-

1&

154 100

Mea'!3.4 9

42

43

Ano ther indication of the relat ive hportance of thesetwo classification functions.was obtained frOIll a compar iso nof the i r rank order . Th1s comparisonshowed tha t 60.3%of re s ponde nts ranked equ itable competit ion ahead of school eq..l1ty. 21.41ran ke dtheilllequal and12. 21 ranked sc hoo l equit yahead of equita bl e cceoe tt ttcn, Theseres ult s clearly indicate that amajo r ity of respondentsconsider the main funct io nof IIclassif ica t ion sy s t emto beprovisio n of equit abl e competition .

Cla s s if i c at io n Criterh

Ques tio n1'11 0:

Questio n threer

How ac cep tabletoresp ondentser-e tha crtte rta upon which thepresent cla ss if i cat i on system 1sbas e.H How much fmpor tanc e do responden ts feel should beat t ach ed to each compo nentof the crite r i a us e d?

Questionnair erec ip ientswere as ked to rate the existingclassifi cationcrtrerte (s choo l population,pa st performance,future per f o r mance andgeography) interns of how muc h importanc e shou ld be attached to each . Respo nde nt s whoindi cate d that a part icu l ar criter i on shcu ldbe "Ess e ntia l "or "OfGreat Iep crtanc e"wereviewed as considering that criterio naccepta ble. Res ponde nt s indicating thatisparticularcriterion sho ul " toe·Of SOllieImpor t ance-wereviewedas not haVing strong feelings

44 about the impor t an ce of that criter i on andwere conseque ntlyconsidered neutral. Respondents indicating that a particula r crtterton should be "Of No Importance "

or "Of little Impcrtance" were viewed as consideringthat criterion unacceptable . Table 5 shows the distributionof acceptable, neutral, andunacceptab leresponses gr oupe d according to the definitionsestablished. It can be seen from this table that thenumber orres ponden t s indicating that each criterionwas acceptable was greaterthan the number tndtc ettnq tha t the criterionwas unacceptable.

In addition to determiningthe acceptabi lity of existingcriteria, frequency distributionsof criteria ra ti ngs ver e usedto indicate theamount of tnpc rtan-e whic hrespondents feltshould be attachedto each criterion.Table6 presents those frequency distributi ons along withthemea ns,sums and proport iona l values for each criterion. This table shows that the greatest de gr ee of importance was attac hedto past performance (mean 3.93), with school population and future performance rated equal ly (means 3.61) and geography ra t edle as t important (mean ],09).

Table6 also indi c a t e s there la ti veimport a nc e of each criterion. Whenthe amount of impo rtance attache dto each criterion ts expressed as a proportionof the tota l impor t anc e att ached to all criteria, there does not appeal

=

~ •46 e-

N ~

-

^~

j

^{~ ~}

< ~ ~ ~ ~

::: -

~

I

^ee

Q

·

^{N ~ N}

- -

~ ;; ~

-e

·

^{~ ~}

< ~ ::'.

:::

~

u

e

~

E

·

^{N ~ N M}

-

<

~ ~

< ~ ^~ N

::: . :; ::;

~

Q

2

!

^~

<

·

^{N N M N ~}

Q ~ ~

E ^{~ ~}

· ^;:

^~

^{::: :::}

· .

E

.

.

^E U E

~ E

;.; ;.;

E E e,

47 tobe meani ng f ul differences be tw e e n them. The proportio ns range fromahigh of 28'l for pa stperfo rmance to a lowof 22%-fcr geography.

ClassificationProcesses Question Four :How acceptable to re sp on dents are the

adminis trative prcces s e sfor assigning classification.

Inorder to address thisre s e arch problem, data fr om questio nnai re it e ms oneto ten and itemtve lvewere analyzed. It e ms one to five along wit h seven and eight propo sed changes in the admin ist rativeprocesses currently utilizedan d asked r espc nd e nt s toind ic ate their degreeof agreement ordisagreement. Quest io nnaireitem six stated an administ rative pr ocesscurrently us ed while itemni ne di r ec t l yas ke d responde nts toind ic at e thei r desir e for change,in classi ficationproced ures. Itemte n asked the re sp ondent s to ind icatewhich level (zone, regional or pr ovin cial ) shou ld have the final au t hor it y for classification decis ions, whil e itemtwelve de a ltwith the amount of inp ut eachof those le ve ls shou l dhave in classif ica tiondecisio ns.

,Bequest Proce dures

Questionnaire recipi e nts were asked whe ther all cla s s if ication re qu es t s should be rev iewed at zone and

48 regio na l le vel s before reachi ng theprovinc ia l

cl ass i f ica t i o ncommitt ee. AsTabl e s 7 and Breve a l, responde nts cle ar l yindic ate d general agreeme nt wit h th ese statements . Table 7 showsthat 95.5% of re sp onden t s agree dor st ro ngly agr eed that allc1assi f icatio nrequests sho ul d be reviewe dat the zone le vel, whil e Table 8 shows that88.9% of the re s pond e nt s ag reed or st r onglyagree d that allcl assifica tion requests shou ld be revi ewe d at the regional le v el beforebei ng presented at theprov incial le ve l .

Ap pea l Proce d ure

Questionn a i r e recipients wer e e sk ecwhe t her al l classif icationappeals sho ul d be revi e wed at zone and region al lev e l s befo r ereachingthe provi n ci al c l a s st f tc atio n commit tee. The fr equen cy distrib u t ions of r-es ponses are shown inTable s 9 and10. Eve ntho ugha majorit yof re s pond en t s agreed or str ongly agreed that all classif i ca tionappealsshould be reviewedat zone and regional le vel s ,tho s e respo nses canno t be considered reliable. The two questi onn a i r e items (numbe rs 3and 4) deali n gwith thi s is s uewere not stat istica llyreliable . Thi sla ck of reliab il ity may be anin dica t i onof confusion over the appeal procedu re.