A COMPARISO NOF ACADEH I C ACHIEV EMENT Of ELEHENTAR YSTUDENTS INHULTI - GRA DE ANDSINGLE-GR ADE
RURALCLASSROOHSIN NEWfOUNDLA ND ANDLAB RADOR
by
AUBRE YJ. PENNEY
A thesis presented to the Schoolof Gra duate Studie s in pa r ti a l fuif il i lle nt ofth ere qu irement s for the degr e e
Mast er ofEdu c a t ion
fac u l tyof Edu c at i on He llori al Universityof Newfou nd l a n d
J:.:a l y 1992
St. John's New foun d lan d
.+.
Nationallibrary01Canada 8ibliOlh~ue nalionalc cucanaoa Acquisitionsand Directiondes acquisitionset Bibliographic ServicesBral'"lCh des sefVicosbibliographiques 395Wcklg\on SlrCC1 395,rooWeilingion
~AotPnlal", ~!A~\~lI"l
The author has granted an irrevocable non-exclu sivelicence allowing the National Library of
Canada to reproduce , loan,
distribute or sell copies of his/herthesisby any meansand in any form or format,making this thesisavailable toInterested persons.The author retains ownersh ipof the copyright in his/herthesis.
Neitherthethesis nor substantial extractsfrom
it
may be printed or otherwise reproduced without his/herpermission.L'auteura accordeune licence irrevocable et non exclusive permettant
a
la Biblictheque nationale du Canada de reproduire,preter,distribu erou vendre descopies desa these de quelque manler e et sous quelque forme que ce soltpour mettredesexemplair esde cette thesea
la disposition des personnestnteressees.
l'auteurconservelaprcprlete du droit d'auteur qui protege sa these.Ni la thesenldesextr aits substantiels de celle-cl ne doivent etre lrnprlmes ou autrement reproduits sansson autorisation.
ISBN 0-315-781 20-3
Canada
ABS TRACT
This study wa s cond uc te d to invest i g at e the effec ts of Ilul ti - g r ade classrooll or ga niz a ti on on st u de n ts' acade llic eemeveeen t . Students' score s re s ult ing fr o ll the 19B8 Cana dia n Test s of Ba s ic Skills ICTBS) obtai ne d fr oll the Departllent of Ed ucat io n were analy ze d to exaillne th e differenc e be t wee n the lIe a n score s of rural grade 6 st ude n t s enroll ed in sing l e - g rade eraeeee e .. 15 and ru ra l grade 6 students en r o l l e d inmulti~gradecl as sr o o ms.
The qu e s ti on n aire design ed for this study dist r i b u t e d to 58 randoilly selec ted ecb ccI pri ncipa ls throug h outthe provi nce so l ici t ing inforllationtodeter.in e se lecte d st u d e n ts' cl a .. typ e , teacher qualifi c ati on s, gender and se creee ene ere status . On l y stud en ts whowereenrolle din thei r speci f i ccl a s s ty pefor thre e or lIor e consecutive year s vereinvolve d in the study.
Thefinal sallple inclu ded 174 sin g l e-grad e and 137 lIu l t i- grade fora tota l of 311stu d e n ts.
Dat a frollthe CTas resu l ts andthe quest io n nair e cOll pleted by principals analyz e d by cOll putin g correlation coefficient s for the inde pendent variables (Cl a s s Type, reeeher Qualification s, Gender ood Socioe conomi c Status) and the score s of th e dependent va r i a bl e s (Vo cab u la r y , Reading Compre he n s i on, Lanqu ag e Arts, Work StudySki l ls, Hathelllati c sand Co mposi t e) . A
11
llIult1pl~ r eqre ssLcn ·",a.s ccsput.ed cc exeetne the Itlqni t u d e of th e relati on sh ip becve en the in dep e nd e nt and dep e nd ent;
vcrte ntea.
Th'! lnvestitjati"n ccnctud e d that there is no sltjnitieant diffe re nce in acade_ic echteveeen t, betwe e n students ot rura l lIIult1 -qra de ctas s rocas and st ude n t s of rural sinql~ - 9' r a d e ete s srece s.
The results cr this stu dy pro v i de scho ol
ad lllln i 5 trat or sree e ercn suppo r t e d tnreeee e ron onwhich to
ba se thei r decisions r'!q a rdinq qro u p i n q with in th e i r
sch o o l.
eieserc ee Qrqan iz<!lt ions should not cause ad.i nlst ra t o rs to que stt on t.he a c adee Lcecnieve ee ne ofst ud ents .
'"
To the lIIa ny pe o p le in vo lve d in t.hi s Study.
grati tude . ap preciati on and acknowledqment are expre s sed for th ei r ad v i c e. ene eue e e e eene and coope r a tio n. Aspecial not e of tha n k s isex pr e s s e d to Dr. De nnisTre s l a n tor hla end le s s su g-ges ti o n s and guidance thro ug ho u t his sup e r vi sio n of thillth e s is. The other Ile llb er sot the co.. .it-te e , Dr.V.
Sne l g rov e and Dr.G. A. Hic ka an, are: coa. en ded torthe i r patientdire ct io n.
This study wou ld not be po ssib le witho ut the into r.a t io n suppli e dbyDr. L. Pe r r y-Faganandherstat t at the Department of EdUcat ion, supe r i nte nden ts of the Provi n.~e ·s sc ho o l distr icts and the principals of the selec ted scho o ls . Thanks are alsoextend e d to Hi ch ele Shapter fo r her invaluable advt ee and computa tion s of the sta tis t i cs .
unc cureaesenc, ecv ac e, typi ng. p['ootre a d i nq and '.lnd e rst a n di ng we re wh ol eh eart ed l y gi ven by lIy Wif e, Ph y ll is. Th erefore, th i s thesi s ishereby dedicated to her andmy son , Bra d, forIly debt ot un relentino support that
receive d.
Finall y, ackno wl edqlllents are also elCte n d e d to lay pare nts, HeLen and Tho mas , for their elCtr'!l lllel y hi9hval ue on educa tion , exellplif1e dwor k !tabit s, in s t ille d aggr'!lss1ve achie v e a e n t at t i t ude andspi ri tual tr aining. Anexaa pleof
1v
che ir upbring ing18 dellons traced by a ca rd given to lie during thewri ting of this thesi s containing the following verse wri t tenbyan unknownauthor.
AWinnersCr e e d If yo u think you are beaten ,
you ar~;
If you chinkyoudare ncc, yo u don' t : It you'dlike to win, but think
you can't, It's allllosta cinchyouwon't. I tyou think you' l l lose , yo u're lo st ;
Fo r out in the world we find sueeeee beg i ns wi t h aper s on'swill ,
It ' s all in the st a t e of llli n d . Lite's battlesdon't al wa ysgo To the strongeror taster hand;
But soone r or late r The per s o n who wins IIIth e one who th i n k s -I e en'".
It 111the ir sp i r i t u a l training chat instigated II dependence on the following scripture through]ut this ent i r eproces s. -I f any of you lack Willdo ., he shouldask God, whogivesgener ouslyto all withoutfinding fault, anci it'1"11 1 be giventohll1.~ (Jalle ll1.51
TABLE:or CONTENTS
PAGe ABSTRACT .• .•. ..••.. .•• ..•...•..• .. .. . ... ..•...••.. 11 ACKNOW LEDGEMENTS..•..• . •.•... . . .. .. ••• .. ... . ...
LISTOFTABLES .•..••. ..•.•...••.••. • ....••. • •..• .. tx LIST OFFI GURES•• •...• •••• •• •..•.. .• • •. .•. ...•.•. • •
CHAPTER
THE PROBLEM...• . . •. . . .... •....•. . .. . . . •..
Int rod u c ti on.•• • • • .•...•... •• ••••.• •• ...• Purpo s e of th e Study..••.•..•...• ... •• • Conce p tu a l Fra . ewor k..•.• ••.•••.. .•••.••. Significa nce of the Study••.•••. ...• ••••. Delhli ta tions of the Study...•... .• •... 11 LiJlitationsof theStud y.... . . . .... ... ... 11 Def i n i t i onof Ter.s... ... 13
II REVI EWor RELATEDLITERATURE AND
RESE ARCH. . ... . ... .... .... . . . ... . .. . .. 14
Introd u cti on.. ... . .. ... . ... .. ... 14 Acadelllic Achieve ..ent Stu die s... .. . . .... 14 Ti .e-on -Task ... . . .... .... .... . .... .. 23 EffectiveSchool s••.••.• • •••..••.·.·••·.· 25
vr
CHAPT CR PAGE ct ber r ac t.o rs Th.-H.,. ! f ec t Act, h v '!III'!nt . . 33
Summary... 38
III
IV
IlETHODOLOGY •• • •• • •
De si9n<)f t.he Stu':!y . Sampl~
Da t a cctte ctron . rnstrueent •
ANALYSIS OF DATA..• • • .
4.
4.
41 43
"
"
49
Desc r Lpttv e s tettstt cs •. 49
Corr elat i onCoefficients. 53
Uul t i pl e Regression... . 57
5UHHARY, CONCLUS I ONSANDRECOlmENOATIONS. 79
Sum..ary .. . 79
Re su l t s andConclusi ons.. . .. 81 Rec o mmendations for Fur ther Study . 85 Reco mmen d a t i o ns forAc t i o n . . . .. ... . 86
BIB LIOGRAPHY.•••..••..,•••.•• •,.•• ••. •,•••• •• • • ••
vii
BB
P1.G£
APPENDIXA- Da t a Form.. .. ... .. . ... ... 97
APPENDIX B- Sta ndard Errorofaeeeuceeene
(SEH) and Reli ab i l it y. .. ... . . . . .. . 99
APPENDIX C- Co rresponden ce... ... .. .. ... 101
viii
TABLE
LIST OFTABLES
PAGE
1. seerce ecneerc St a tus of Stude nts. ... .. ... 50 2.
xe
ene, Stan dardDe vi ati ons (5 .0. 1, andVari a n ce for theDependentVa ri ab le s IN .. 3111.... ... ... ... . . .. ... 51 3. HeansandSta n da rdDevia t ions (S .D., for
the De pend ent Var i a b l e sCl a s s i fi ed as Hul ti-grade IH.G. )andSi ng le -g r a d e (5.G.I (H. G. N- 131 I B. G . N .. 114... . .... ... 52 4. CorrelationHatrixforIndepend~ntand
DependentVa r i a b les . .•..•...•..• •...• 54 5. Regres sion Coef f ic ien t s, Standardized
Regressi on Co e f f ic i e n t s , T-Valuesand Signifi c an ceLeve lsfo r the Vocabul ary Equation... ... ... ... ... S9 6. Regreuion Coeffi c ients , Stan dardiz ed
RegressionCoefficients , T-Values and Si gn i fi c a n ce Levels for the Reading COllprehensionEquation... . ... . . . 62 7. Re g ress i on Coeffici ent s, Standardized
ReqressionCoe f f icie r.ts, T-Value s an d SignificanceLevelsforthe Langu age ArtsEquation.... ... ... ... ... 65 B. Regressi on Co e ffi c i e n ts, Standa rdized
Regre ssionCoef fi c i e n ts , or-Valuesand Significa nc eLeve ls for the Work St u d y Skills Equation. . .. ... . .. ... . ... 68 9. RegressionCoe ff ic i e n t s, Standard ized
Regressi on Coet U c i e n t s, T-Values and Significan ce Level s forthe Hathematic s Equa tion.•• •• ..•.•.•••• ••• ..• • .••. •... 71 10. Regre ssi on Co e f f i c ie n t s, Standardized
Regress ion Coe f ficioe n t s , or-Valuesan d Si gn ifi cance Lev elstorthe Composite Equation. ... .... . . .. ... ... . . 14
FIGURE
1.
2.
3.
. .
5. 6. 7.
a,
LISTOFFIGURES
Cante xe-Inpue-Proc@ss-Out put-Outcome Hod el.,. ", ".., . A Hodel of Schoo l Effec tive ne ss
Variables, .
Path Di a g r am for Vocabulary Ho del . Pa th DiagralllforReadi ngCOllprehensio n
Ho del , , , .
PathDia g r amfo r Langu ag e Ar t s Hode l.. . ., Pat h Diagramfor Work StudySkillsHodel.
Pa th Di a g ram for Math e mati c s Mod e L . Pa t h Diagramfor Comp"s ite Hode L ., .
PAGE
31
6.
63 66
"
72 75
CHAPTER1
rneeeeue e rea
Rece n t. ly, wit.h de crease d st.ude nt. en rol_ ent. in the schools of Newfo un d l and and Labr ad or , adlli nist.r a to rs are faced wit.h t.h e edu ca t io na l di!ellll a of returni ng to .u l t i · gra decLee erece orga ni z a t ions, espe ciall y at the elementary le ve l. The sing le-g ra d e classr oom eme r ge d as the most pr ev ale n t adminis tr atlv e arra n geme nt during the pe riod of the ~ba byboo m- gener a t ion. Hu l t i-g ra d ecl as s r o o ms were th encra du rLnq the ini t i ation of for _ al educationwithin th ePro vince.
Hi sto r i c al l y , Ne wf o und la nd er s set t l ed alon g the coastlin e. Since the popu la tio n of Ne wf ou ndland grew slo wlyand fe w ro a ds wereavaila b leto transpor t stu d e n ts, a 811a1l school wa sbuilt in each tishinv village. Lat er , with the resett le_e n t of Newfoundl a nd e rs, illpro v e_e nt in transpo rt ati on infra st r u c tur e and the ~ba by bo o . -, so.e eence rebeceee centr al iz edand oth e rs wer e close d. Ru r a l ed uc ator s in Ne wf o un dl an dexperience d, for a sh o r t pe r i o d of tille, the luxur y of having singl e-g ra de cl assr 001l\II, Cu r r e n t l y, the Prov inc e 'li small sparsely distri b uted po pula tion cOllpo un de d by a deno lli na tio na l educa t i o nsys t ell, a shar p de cline in bir t h rate , and a populati o n shift towa r d s eo reurban cen t r es, has re sultedin slla l1 sinq le-
grade an d mult i- q r ade schoo ls.
The Pr ovi n c e' s deno min ational educat io n syst eMha s contributed to th e ma n yuall scho o lswi t hi n thePro v i nc e an d thus, is a contributing fact o r in the evol u tio n and rete n t i on of mu lti-grade cla s s r o o ms. Suc h a syste m ha s caus ed llIanycommunities vi thin the Pr o v ince to have two or more smal l achoo Le of different religious phil o s op h i es . The sig nifican c e of thisfac t o r is emine nt i fmu lci-gra de students donot achie veas high academical lyas sing le- gra de s t.udente, Should this be so, th e denominationa l edu c a t i o n system may be detri mental to the academic achie v e me nt of ourstude n ts.
En r o l men t pe a k e d in theProvince in 1971-72 at 162, 81 8 students (Pr e s s 19 9 0). It has been decli ni ng steadily , re s ul t i n g in an incr easein the number of Mu l t i- gradecl a s s r o o ms . Ad)ust ingfor the introduction of gra d e 12 in 1983-8 4 , thenet enrolmen t lo s s has approache d 44,0 00 students (27 .8\) since19 7 1-72. "c urre nt.Ly , en r ol men t s ha v e beende clin i n g by approxima tely 3, 0 0 0students pe r year~ (Press 19 901 24). The Depar tment of Education pro'ects that by the year 2000 total enrolment will drop to 100,000 stude nts with pr i ma ry and elem entary enrolm e n t droppinga furt her 22 percent (Pr e s s 199 0 ).
Birt h s in the Provi nce wil ldecre ase to fewerthan 6,000 per yea r and Kindergar ten enro lmentswill decrease tro m8,9 5 9 in 1988 -8 9 to re ver than7000 per year by the
'1~ar 2000 (Pre s s 19~0l. Evi d ently , th e population trend will ca u se small schools to become smaller , resulting in racr emulti-grad~ class roo ms within the Pro vin ce 'seducation syste m.
Disapproval of the multi-grade arrangemen t has been evLde nt, in t.he c cnsLee en t.Lynegativ e perceptio n s and at t i tu d e s or een dfsp La yed to wa r d s multi- l;jradeclassrooms by bot h parents an d educators. Parents often feel thatthe prce ress of their ch il d r e n in combined grade settingswi ll be stifled and thus, have adetrimental effect on their acade mic achieveme nt.
Purpos eof the Study
The major purpose of this studywe a to examine and determine the effec tsof mu lti - grade classrooms 011 st u de n t achieve a e nt in Newfoundl a nd and La brador. Ho r e specifically, this studyad dr e s s e dthe following questions,
1. Isthe r e asig ni f ican t di ffe ren ce in ac a d e mi c achievemen t betwe e nstudents of rural llIulti~
gra declassrooms andstud e ntsof ru r a l si ngle- grade classrooms?
_. \"lhat factors -- other than thesin9' le ~gradeor multi-grade factor -- affect the standardof educat io nand make schools ef fe c tiv e?
To exeeine the be rese archque st.tcns, th@ lIIajor hypo thes iswas that thotreis no significant differenc e in acade Jl i cecnteve eent. becv een s tudencsof ru raI ..ult l-grade ctas srco es and stud en ts of ru ral si n q l e~ 9 t""de ctas s rcc es•
Th ishy po th@ s i swa s exa llin ed by testing the foll owing, H' 1. The re isno signif ican t relatio nshi pbe twe e n
thelie anprofiles ofachievement inVo c.abular y Canad i anTest of Bas i cSk ills ICTaSI scores of rural grade si x st udents.\nd the classtype 1nwhich they are en roLled,mul tl-grade or single-grade ciaeerccas.
H '
2. Ther e isno signif ican t relationshipbetween th e!le an profiles of echLev eae nt, inReading COlllprehensi on eTaS score s of ruralgrad esix stude nt s an d the cl a ss typ e inuhich they are enr et tee,Ilulti ·gr ad eor single -']r a de ctes erco••.H' 3. Th e re isno signi fican t relatio n s h i pbetve e n thelIeanpr of il e s ofecht eveeent 1nL'ln g ua q e Art s CTBSsco resof rural qrat:le six :rt'Jt:l'i!! nts and theclass typ'l! in whichth e y ereenrciteu, mult i -qra d e or sin g1e-g t'ade ctee ercees . Hit 4. There isno si gn ific ant relation sh ip betveen
th emea npro file s ofachie ve men t 1nWorkStudy Skill s eTas scoresof rura l gra d e six stud e nts andtheclasstype in wh i ch th ~yar e eoeeitee,
.u l ti -g r(lldeor singl<e-gr ade eteserc ees . K' S. Th..re is nosiq n ifi can t relati on s h ipbetwe en
the lI'!an proti lesof ec nte veeen r.in Hath ua tics CTBSsc c res of rural 'Jrade si xstuden ts and the cl as s ty p O!tn whic ht.hey are enro l le d. multi- grade or stngle-!lra"'e e te seree e s.
H' 6. There is nosig nificantr e La t.Lcn ah rp betwee n the mean profILe sof achievement in Composi t e CTBSscores of rura l gra de six st ude nt s and the c Le ss type inwbLch th ey areen r o lled, multi- gradeor singl e -grad e e tess eeeee•
The fac t that clas sroom organ izati ons ar e .ulti- 'lra d e or single-grade could be a key asplct in the tuncttoning pro c e s s of a school systelll. It theeducational pro c e s s inmulti-gra d ecl a s s r ooms ts different fromthat of sin g le-g rade c1assro o Ds , then ac ade mic acn r eveeent lIIay dU te r between the etaes ee e e or gQni zati o ns.
"Educ at ion al indic ator s ar e st ati s t ic s tha t allow for valu e iudg ementsto be made eb eueke y aspectsot thefunctioning of educationa l systeru- (Sch e erens 1989.
:n.
Ac a d em ic achievement is an educa t iona l indic a tor or. as sOlle t ime s ter.ed , aper to raance tnd lca t or whteh descr ibestheperfc.:m a n cf!of the educ actcn.u syst em. Conceptua l1= in g the ed u ca tio na l syste m asJ.systelfl of edu cat i o n al ind icatorsis best at ta in e d through the cont.elCt-input - p roc e s s·o)utpu t - outcome mo del of sch co I Lnq , as depIcte d in Figure 1.
Fo r t.h epu rposes of t.h is study, the con te x t and input of the mult i-qra d e andsing le -g rad eclassroomsremai n Th e process and outp utstagp.s of the mo de l were analyzed. Th e major focus he r ei nves schoolorg a niz a t ion from the processcel lof t.hedi a g r a mand achiev e me n t fr o ~ theoutput cel l. ecoc ess ind i c a t o r s areli nk e d to ou tput indic a t or s and thus, have th e funct i on of offe r in g hypot hetical ex p l ana t ions on~I hy cer t ainschoo ls ef f ecti ve than oth e rs(Sc h e e r e n s 1989 ) .
"Proce s s Lnd t c e t.crs genera lly re fe r cba ract.e rtst.tc s of education eI system s that can be man ipul a te d- (S ch e er ens 1989, 41. Since a te e c herrs ctne and eff ort mus t be dividedbe tweent~1 0 grade le ve ls in d mu l ti-g radecl a s sro o m as compa r e d tc cnl yone qrad~Ie veI in a si n g l e · grad e clas sr oom , th e mult i - g r ad eor stn q le- grade scho ol org an i z a t i o n is ccnstce re d a man ip u l ,;,':in'1 factor inaca d emi c achtevee e nt;• The r efo r ~ , it is d k'!y as pec t, inthe processof sch ooling.
comb inin g two grade s into a singl e
cl a s s r o o m ismani pul a t in g the schoo l or g ani l:ation. Th~
process ca n be ecne vbet; di f f eren t in a muLt i-grade classroom than in a sing l e -g ra de e tas s rcc e. There ismuch
schoolenviroMlent.
policy mc asureslt hi gher 1dm1nisauive kwtl
tlode l ofSchooli nq jscheerena 19B9. 31
res e archsupport1nqthe fact that thereare shJni t1CJ.n t difference s in sc hool eli.at e of.u lti-qr a de schoolsa.n d si ngle-grad e schools . The atmosphere o)f mult i-gr ad e scho ols is much morepositiv e (For d 19 77, Wav 19 80,Hilburn 1981) ..,On the Otherhan d, in a sing h-gra deetees roeeth e teach eronlylI" s to contendwi th one grade ofst u de nt s.
If, in fact , the process var ies in mUlti-g ra de cl"saroolU as co:np ar edto sin gl e-gra d e eie ss r cese,thereis
8 11re e r possibil i tythl'ltthe output. ofthe rve Sy,tUIS veut ct be soul/ha t di f fere n t . The aC,ldelll1 c .lchl ~ n.~ nt• .3S aea su reJb~the co•• oneras orth e educati ona l indicator s, be an a l ys "!d 1ft0rdereo aa k e Jva lue }ud quent.ebout thi s key e s sece ofthe tunc-ti o Ri ng of the edu c o.'\tlon syste m.
Sin ce th e Provin .:e's edu c a tion sy st ea is
tha t lIIult i-grade clas s rool S may be eep erie ncin g
enro lm ent s , it
budget.ary constraints de ce-east"9
litre to stay.As th e enrolme nt ofstude n ts regist e red in eehoc l s \./lthi n the province of Newfoun d la n d and La br J d o r decee ases , tbe nuaber ~Jf mu lti- g r adt ctaesr cce Si t ua U" ns 1/111 pr o bab l y incr ease IPress 19 9 01. fhe schoo l orqani: at. lon wi l l l ikely , of neces s it y, cho\n g e rroe dng l lli! -9c a d eto lIult l- gu de. Stu d ~n ts froll Ino r e tllan one Il'ud e revei 10'111 tlloen ha ve to bO! tdu ll'h t In thO! sa.llle er ee src ee by cne Uac he r. lIa ny slI. l l school s in sp.rs oely popu lated ar~as had rou l t 1-gra de er assre ees 1nth O? pa st.
• cv, andmore~sp~C 1a llyIn the eoeeee, even f'H u r l j la[' '1~
sch o o ls ir. dens ely popul a ted e reas have insu ffic ient nll.b en of eeaeneese c arra nqe cLasse s Inte sinQ1 O? - '1 rad ~s.
80they tcoar e torc ed to ccemne chtLdr enfr~1lleve Qt!It>r '!!
grad esIntoa s ingleclassroom,
Teachers, pa r e nt s, boar dsand the Dli!partlient I)fEduca t i o n uy havetoacceptthe add" d cha llenge of the t)[I)C~SSand lear nto copeWi thth e educa tio na lorq a n 1utlo n. Edu'.:at o r s invol ved in the process lu t lIee t theneedsof alleeuuence
_w ac c e ler e ced,dven qe orr emedteI •• and in doing so, .epprce c h ee chchild as ind ividua l with stro:!n qths and weaknesses , reqard l e ss of tn eqrade-Lev e I li'lb e l of the clas s un it .
S11 nif ican~e of theStudy
Recent publicly st ated conc ernsto the media and to t.hll Royal Commiss i on ce Inqu iry int o the Delivery of Proq ramsand Se r vicesin Pr i ma ry, elementary andSeconda r y Ed uca t ion have si g n ifi e d tha t many educatorsand parents f~ el s tudents in mUlti-gr ade cles sr-c cesecr e de prived ofa dece nt stende rd of educa u Lon.
to dete r mi n e 1f the re
'rhls study has been designed signifi cant diffe re nc e s in academicachievement in multi -grade ctassr cces and sinqle- grade eies eec cee• The resul t s sh o uld be of interest to ed ucator s as a basis to lo b by sc hool boa r d s and the Departmentofseuee et cn toaddr ess theprobl em, should one exist.
If the resutte conclude that th e r e is s1q n1f icant differe nce between the ac ade mi c ach i e vementof studentswhoattend multi-grade classrooms and st uden t swho attend sinqle-gra dec La s e zecna, then administrato rsmay be eq ui pp e d with res e arch basedinforma t ionto educ a tepa rent s and teachers whofe e lthet,Ilul t i-qr a d e classrooms area
10 ba.;:o klla rd st e p. If theresults c oncludethatthere1s a 51 qn1ficant difhren c t beev een theec adee r c acnrevee eot of s tu de nts 111'10 ..ttend .ul tl-:jr.ll.de and stud.n ts who dttenJ si nq h-qr ad e elassr" c . s . the n this stud y should for ll .1 basis forthe ee vanc eeen c er joi n t schoo l serv ic esand eve n gre ater questio ning of t.hedeno_ina t io nal educ atIcn syst e.
Il h ir.h cont r ib ut e s t" an Increese in th e Iullbet of lIIult i- gra declas s r o oms vtctunthe Province.
In thepr actfeaI wor ld ofthe eleme nt ary princ ipal, jud qenent.s req ar d i n 9 qroup l ng He s.,lIe t ll11 es based upon indivi dual biases rath er than UP"" re sc ercn supp orted results . This stu dy provid e s of the ne e e ss ary tnrcre eeren to" u k / !such a eecretc n,
lIor e bpor tan t l y. in th is ag"! of ed uc atLcneI inqu i ry wi t hin th"! Provine "! vnere .any nl sti nq slIa11 schc cls co.inq under scrut iny an-:l: e etetetee, th e re su l t s of thi s stu d f rl!fut es cnese eettfetsas vaq"!d at called 511.3111, ineffec tive schools. civeo pee vt netal e ccnoerc co ndition s, d"!cli ni n q en reLe ents with in qeoqraph lcal areas, and ef! o rt15 Qf pa r'!nts ee coabat thO!
clos i ng of nneir local school, comb i n t n9 qrad~slIIay b ean appro p r ia te sol u t ion. Th eref ore, this study shQu l d aid Pro vi nci al educational policymaker s 1n d'!r.:1d1nq thez uture ot .ul t i ·qra de clas s ro oms.
11
Del1dtations of the Study
The fo llowi ng factors are acknowledgedas del1mi tat10RSot thest u d y ,
1. Th e study 15lie 11m!ted to students enrolled 1n rand omlysampled r ureI schools through outthe Provinceof Newfoundlandand Labr a dor.
2. The stu d y is futther de1111I1 ted to an investigation of grade 6 eLeae nt.a ry school studentswho have tak.en the cc e e o n cr a sexam during the 19 8 B schoolyear.
Lhitations ofthe Study
Thefo 11 ow 10 9 luHtatlo ns are inherent within the study,
1. Anattempt has been made toana Lyz...grade, gen der, soci oe c onomic statu s, cu ltura l ethos, and teacherqualifications in studyingthe effect, of multi-grade andsingle-gradecl a s s typeon academi cachi eve me nt, Howe ver, student-teacherratio, intelligencequotien t , stafftu r no ve r,pare ntalinvolv ement, order
10 and dis c i pl ine , expectatIons , UM: h in q eere eect es, cu r rtcute r "'(l l' r o .H~he sand the ava Lk abtLtt yof lear ning r e scu rces In t.ne tvo gr·, upscomp a r o!din the st ud y havenot beell ccntroHed.
A b astc pro b le m in.'l.st u dy such OISthis ftes1n the detintttcnof Ie v e I »teontcve eeut . teis ob v io u s that anyecbte vene n c test can o n Ly
ae a s u re a part; of d s t u d e n t's educatrc n aI
acnie vene nts . Thu s , a ny -j -ene raliz atLcn s made on thedata ha ve tobe in termsof the limitations<:If tho! test instruments used as d
3. The Lt a rte t.Lcn t)f ac a d eeIc ecnteveoenc is also reccqntce das beingneither theon l y acjor var iab le in det'!rminlng etrecc rvene ss of a school nor the onlystandardbyvbLc h ed u c a tion a l at ta inment s hc uLd he meaa ured . 4. The stateme ntof fa c t o rs affecting th e
standardoted uc a t io n and making sc hool s mQr~
etf e ctiveotherthan whether or notstude nts att e ndsing le-g r a deor mult i -g rade eiase eeee s is limited to those g! <;l a M d from the existing-litera tureand res e ar c h e vetLeb fe on :.h.,to p i c.
13
Defi n i t i onofTer ms
Aca de mi c Ac h l e vu en t, Tile atta i nmen t of thenarme d grade equival ents scores on theCana di an Test s of Ba sic Skill s teTeS)whic hco r re s pon dto thenumberof mont hs the studen t has been t n schoo l.
Class Typ er The typeofclassroomorganization1n which student s Were enrolled, mult i- qr ad e or s Lnq l e- grade.
Eff e c t i ve School, A schoo l th a t has consis t e nt l y hi gh lev e ls of acad e micach ievemen t.
tlulti- q r a de cjas ar cce , A classroom inwhi c hstuden tsfrolll two or ac r e grade level s are combine dfor lns truc t i ona lpurpo s es .
Rura l Schoo lI A school lo c a t ed in a eceaunLt ythathas a popu lation of 5000orles s(Ed uc ati on a l St at.is t i cs 199 0 , 115)
Single- g r ad e cfaesrcca, Acla s s roo min whichstude nts frOIll only one IIr ade lev elar e taught.
CHAPTERa
REVIEWOF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH
Introduction
The multi·gra de classro om, a classro om in which stude n ts fro m tvc or more grade leve l s are combine d for instr u c t i o nal purp o s e s , has r e c e Lve d ver y lit tl e attention in comp a r iso n to the single-grad e clas sroom. Host of the resea rc hconducted centers on the psyr:hosocia l developme nt of students edu c et ed in that set ting. Rela t iv ely few Ca nadi an st u dies have been co nd u c t ed on the cog nitive develop mentof students in multi-grade cte es rccns . It is ne ce s s a r y, the n, to reviewrel at e d li t er a tur e andrese arch associate d with academic acnievenent in multi- g ra de classroo ms . Th i s re viewisinten ded to lendsuppor t to the theore tic a l ba s i s of thi s st ud y and is orqa niz ed un derthe foll o wi n g he a di ng sl 1) acade mic achievementstud i es , 2) ti me on tas k, 3) effec ti vesc hoo ls, and 4) cthe r fact o r s tha t affec t achieve ment.
Acade mi c Achievemen t Studies
So me studi e s hav ebeen carried ou t todet e rmine th e effe cts of multi-grad e cl as s roo mson st ud e n t s' achievement.
15 Still,there is considerab le controve rsyabout the effects of llIulti-grade cla sse s on th e achievement ot children in the elemen t ary scn oc f. A reviewof the research inthis area shows conf l i c t i n g ceeuice. Some aut h o r s writing about
the topic enthusias t ic about the multi-grade
class r o o ms . "s ee n cl a irr.l as euser r o r academic achievement , enabling student.s to work at theirown level in subj e c ts, and dissolving of barriers of age and grade attitudes oc cu r cft.e n" (Bro wn 198 9, 11) . Howe ver, a numberof studies have conclu d e d that th ere 1s no si g n i f i c a n t difflHence between the achie ve mentof students of multi and slngle - grade cl ass e s. Still others, a small number ot studies, conc lu d e that stude nt s of single-grade classes acquire higher academicachievement than students of mu lti-g r a d e ctes ses.
Rule (1983) lo c a t e d fourteenstudies in theUn i t e d St at e s which investigated achievement erre cvs of elemen tary multi -grad '! classes . Data for all of the studies were co ll e c t e d using standardized tests as the ecbieveeent, measure. "Ni ne st u d i e s (Kni g h t, 1938: Drier, 1949; Adams, 1953; Ch a c e, 196 1 ; Way , 19 6 9;Harvey, 19 7 4: tlc Dona ld and Wurster, U741l Adair , 1978; Lincoln, 1981 ) sho wed no significant difference in the achievementof mul t i-g rade and si ngle-grade s t.uda nt.s" (Rul e 19831 30) . Hixed results were repor t e d by fo u r othe r mult i- grade studie s (Reh wol dt andHa milto n, 1957: Finley an d Thompson, 1963: Yerry, 19 64;
Hilburn, 198 1 1. 't he re s ul t s of the studi es sho w ie
si g n if icant dif f erence fo r somegr ades and tes ts, and fa v oured mul t i -g r a d e for ot he rs.
Fin l ey "n el Th omp son (1 9631 re ported res u l ts that fa 'aured si ng le -g ra d e cl ass e s and other s that favoured multi-grade cl a sses , but con clud e d that there significan t difference s . Rule (198 3) fo und only one stu d y (F o s ba y . 1948\ that rep or t e d si g nif i c a n tly different res u l t s in fa vour of si ng le- g ra declas s e s. A mor e in - dep th inv es t i g at. i on of Rule' s re s e a rc h and ot her stu d ies.
in c lu di n gtwo rec entC;;'. lad i~n studies , wil l pr ovid e a fo c us forthi s res e a r ch .
Hu ll (19 581 conc lu d e daf t e r a thr e eyear study that under the mul t i -g radecla ss roo mor gani za ti o n mor ele arni ng takes pla ce th a n und e r th e tra d iti o nal sy ste mof si n g le gr ades. In thetllr ee skillsubje cts , Rea ding, Lanq uag e and Hathe mat.i cs , 61. 6 percentof the 18 t.est. s Ln e e ch subject.
area fa v ouredmult.i- grade andonly 38.8per ce nt favou r ed single-qrade learnin g exp e rie nces.
Rehw oldt an d Hamilt. on (19 591 cond uct e da compa r ison of ga insin ac h ievem e n t. be twe e n mu l ti - g r a de cl as se s and s Lnq Le-cqr-ade classe s. Theirexperim ent sh o wed a cons iste nt patt.ern of greater gainson the pa r t of pupils whowerein mu l t i-g ra de cl as s e s. The stu dy cons i s tedof f'lrming seven eitperlment.al cl asse s of pupils frolll three or fo ur element.arygrade level sand conductln9 a c onpar Ls cn betwe en
,.
17 the multi-gradeclasses and single-gra d e classes. They conc ludedthat the fa ctor s whic h con t r ib u te totheenhan c ed lea rning env i ro n men t are:
1. Younger childre n ar e stimulated by workin g witholderchild r e n.
2. Ol d e r chil dr e n increase and str e n gthe n the ir ac a d e mican d soci al learningby wor ki ng with younge rchil d re n .
3. Grade st an da rd sare min imi zed whi ch resu l ts in a greater and bene fi c ial indi v i du a liz ationof instru ct i on.
The wide rangeof e xper Le nc ee, capa ci t y an din t e r e s t brings qrea t.ez-enr ichm ent tothecla ss r oo m program.
5. Le ss pe e rrivalry contr ibu tes to bettersocialand per sonal adju stmen t. (p. IS)
Finley an dThompso n (19 6 3) comparedthe achi e ve me n t of mUlti-gradeand si ngle -g r a d eru ra l schoolchildren. The hypothes i sin their studywas that"tne re is nodifference in the achievement in basic subject s of rural ch il dre n in mu lti - grad e d clas s r o oms- (p . 4711. Thesamples forthe st ud y were compr i sed of matchedpairs of 53 bo ysand 51 girlsat the third-gradelevel and62 boy s an d 46 girl15 at the fi f t h-gra d eleve l. The two groupswere matchedon the following bes Ler
1. Sex:
2. 1Q wi t h in five poin ts : 3. Chr on ol og ic al age within
re
three mo nth s l and 4. Pa rt ici pati o nrn theyearly
cc unt.y-w tde groupte stin g progr a m(pp . 1963 . 471) . The inv es t ig a to rs usedtheCalifo r n i aShort Form Test of He nta l Ma t.u r ityto tes t men t al abil i ty and the Ca li fo r n i a Achievemen t Bat te ry Fo r mW to test ac hi e v e me n t [p . 41 2).
The tes t area s investig a t ed to acqu i r e th e subye ct achi eve mentrecords ve re ,
1. Reading vocab u l a r y:
2. Read in g compre hens io n:
3. Arithmet ic funda ment al s : Arit h me tic rea s oni ng ; 5. Heeh an i ,;of En g li sh ; 6. Spe l li n g: and 7. Bat t e ry (p. 472 ).
T-val ue s an dee an di f feren ces wer e compu ted for boys, girls andthe totalgroup . The leve l of statistic a l sig n i f icanc e us ed was .05.
Findings of the stu d y sup po rt ed the st a ted hypothesi s th a t the re areno si gn 'ficant. dif f e r~nc es inthe ac nteveaent. of ru ra l sc hool ch ild re n, whether they are educated in si n gl e-gra.de m'Jlti-grad e sch oo l environmen t (F i n ley&Thomp son196 3).
Way (19 80) studied subur ban ch i l d r e n ranging 1n age fr<;lmsix to ten years to ex p lo re the ef f e c tsof mul t i - gr a d e
cLae ercc na on achie vement .
19 The stu d y in clud ed thre e schoolswith lIulti- q rad e clas s roo ms tota li n g 131 stude n t s and twosi n g l e- g r a d e scho ol s tota ling 231child r en . Dat a
for the study colle cte d by admin1s te ri nq
Compre he nsiveTe8ts of Bas i c Skil ls. Af te r an analys isof varian c e of theme a ns, the au tho r conclud e d tha t th e r e were no sig nificant di f f e r en ce sbetwe e n childr e n in mult i-grade and sinql e-q rade classrooms on any of the achievement lIleasuresexa mined.
Rule (1983) conducted a compr ehe nsive stu d y to det ermin e the effec t s of llIu l ti - q rade cla s s e s on student achiev eme n t in Rea d in g andMath e mati c s . Th e inv es tiqat ion of the impact of multi-gra de class rooms stu d e nt achievem e n t was conducted to ana we r questions rai s ed co n ce rnin gthe use of mul t i -g r ade clas ses.
The sample of thestudy includ e d 3,360mu lti-g r a d e and sing l e- g r a de students fromgrades threeth ro uqh six.
Da t a wer e coll e cted fr o lJlthe ava ilable 198 2 Califo rn ia Ac t. 1.ev emen t Tests (CATl scores . One - way an a l ysis of varia nc e usi ng a po s t-t e s t onlydesiqn was used to ana lyz e thedata .
On ly one of the twelve on e-way ana l y si s of varian c e tests reading achieve me n t eeve ai ee a sign ifican t dif fe re nce, ~hi9h achievin g studen ts ingrade fou r in lIlu l t i - grade clas ses sco re dsign if ica n t ly hi g h er than hig h ach i e ving fo urth -g rade stu d e n ts in si ng l e - g r a d e cLa e ses "
(Rule 1983. vU il.
ac Howev er . ·1gn or 1ng statl stL eal sign i fi c a nc e, the .eansc o re s 1n re adin g for studentll in au l t i -q r a d e clas s e s we r e higherthan th o s e foreightot the twe l v eco.p a r 1s o ns~ (Ru le 19831 vU il .
Hathe . atica results weresl i g h t l y different with fiveoutof twelv eanalys es co.pa ri n ggr ou p sonHa the ma t ic.
showi n q significantdifferencesl
High e r achiev ing third·qraJers in
single -grad e classes score d
significantly hig her th an hi gh·
ach ieving third -grader!! in llIulti-g rad e clasl5e ll J average-a,chiev1.n g third, fifth, and si x t h graders in si n gle- gr a d e cl ass es not in aUl t i- q r a d e s·; ho ols cut.a c c red average third.
fifth,and sixt h graders 1n aUl t i-q r a d e cla s s esI averag e/high ac hieving sh th- graders inlIult i-g r a d e clas s e s sco r e d higher tha n averag e /h igh ac h 1ev1n g si xth·grader s 1n si n g le -g rade cLe ese s
(p. vii).
Conclus i o ns drawn tro. t.h e results of the stu dy in d1 cate t.h a t no detri.enta l effect s in Read i ng or Hathe lla ti cs ac hi ev e.e n t oc c ur w1th the use ot ..ulti- grade cl a s s es. Howe ver therewallon e exception:Hathell" t ic s eeru eve e ene of average studen ts inmu l t i -gra d e class es was slightly !.oW'e[' t.han the singl egrad e stu d ent s (Rule 19B31.
Brownand Har tin (19 8 6) cond ucteda st udy of eight elellle n t a ['y schoo ls in Ne w Br unsw ick having si ng le and mu l ti -g r a de classe s at the samegrade levels . Ea c h student in the lIlulti-grade class es was matc h e d ce a si n gle - g ra de peer in the salle sc hoo l on the basis of lex, age andgrade
21 le vel. TheJunefinal repo rt car d of academic ac h ievements ot st u den ts 1nthesa mp l e were an alysedaswell as CTBS
Conc lu s i on s dr a wn from the st udy reveal e d tha t there are difference s in achievement bet wee n students in multi- gra de s and the ir matched co u n t e r p a r ts in sl n q l e- grade s . Usin g the fina l report card,80 per ce nt of the comp arisons were equ iv ale nt to or fa v oured the lIu l ti-gra d e class esan d only20 perce n t favoured thesi ng l e -g ra d e. Th e CTBS sco res rev e a l e d even greater findings favour i ng mu l t i - g ra d e s, 87 perc ent and 13 percent res pe c t iv e ly . Howev er , they foundthat the ac hi ev e me nt s in eitherclas s
setting not significantl y different an d th us,
conclud e d that the r e are no signifi cant differences in ac hi evementbetwe e n si n g l eand multi-gradecla ss e s.
Gaja dh a rs in ghand Melvi n (198 7 ) condu c t e da st ud y sp e c if ica lly de sign ed to le a r n about the effect s of cl ass type, multi-grade andsin g l e - gra d e, on the ac h i eve me nt of stu d e n ts in gr a des three throughsix. The sa mp l e usedin the study con s iste d of 4,4 0 7 sub j e ct s frO ID cit y, town, vil l a g e and hamlet sc hoo l s in Sas ka tc h e wa n who had written the Canadi a n Te sts of Basic Skill s. The CTBS te st score s in Englis h and Mathemati cs taken from st u de n t s' re c o rd s sup p lied by Sask a tch e wa n Scho ol an d Divisio n admini strato r s. The six variable s te s t e d we r eVoca bu l a ry , Read ing Compre hen s i on, rotal Langu ag e, Pr oblem So lv i n g, Con c e ptsan dTot a l Mathema t ics .
"
The relults ot the st u d y cl e a r l y indicate that the achievellent of students in lIul ti-9l'~dec!assrooll. was siqniflcant ly hig her than that ot:
studentsin single- g rade e rees ee e e e in t.ne Vocabulary , Readinq, Mathellatics Concepts, Hathellatics. Problen Solving and Hathe. a t i csTota l testa (p. 231.
th e s e re sul t s con f l rlled Rehwoldt o. (1 9511find i n g s whi c h lu q g e ll t e d -t h a t the ac ade lllc achievelle n t of st u de n ts 1n lIul t ! - g r a d e classr o o Dls in Re a din g, Arlth. etic and Lanquage e xc eeded those of st u de n t s en r o lle d in si n g le - g ra d e cLaee rcc ms" IGllj a d h a rsinqh &Melvin1987, 23).
In liqht of the st u d i es cond u c t e d in eeme ve eenc , the lIaj o r l ty of rec e nt resea r c he rs con c lude that there 1s no signif i cant differenc e in eebteveeen c betw e en stude n t s ot .ul t l - g r ade and si n g le-g r ade eteeereeas . However.
withinstudies. SOlli e va r ia t i on hasbeen found in certain subject ar eae and/or grade le v e ls , sceeereee fa v ou rin g lIu lti - g r a d e and soaetilles fa vouri ng
classroo ll s. Inea r l i e r research stud ie s, Hull 11958 ) and Rehwo ldtand H••Utan {19 591, re po r te d resul t s in favou rot the IIUl t i - grade elassroo ll. andone study , Foa b ay 119481 . re p o r ted si g n i f i c a n t lydif fe r e nt re s u lts infa vour of the si ngle-grade classroom.
23 Time- cn-Ta sk
Ti lle- a n- t a s k hasbeen documentedasa definite factorcontribut in q tostudent ac h i e ve me n t . Th e effective us e of learni nq tIme1s co ns i de r ed an impo r tan t fact or tor ac h i e v e me n t and thu s, isan ess en t ia l element in learning- and a poten t.ia llyuse fu l instru c t io na l variable. In th e Netherlands in the earl y 19 80 ' s, Vee nman, Lem an d Wi nkel mol en rese arched ti me- cn-ta sk and achi e v e men t 1n mllCed age class es. They defined le arning tim e ~as th e amoun t oftime apupdL 1s de f initel y 'o n tas k ' · IVeen ma n et a1. 19B7, 771. The literaturedefines t illle- cn- t a skaa enq a q e d t ime or active lear ning ti me. Veen ma n e e a!.
11 9 B7 )define steacherinstructi onal time "a s the amount of ti me the eeecber spends on inst r uc t io na l act i vi tie s suc has supe r vi sion , manage me nt andgivinginf ormati on" (p. 77).
In thei r res e ar ch , vee ne e n et ei . (1987) stud ie d the us e of learning and instruct i on a l time during Mathema ti c s and Lanqua g e instru c ti on in mUl t l~ 9 rade and si n q l e -g r a d e classr o oms eepu r s ue an s we rs to the fo llowi ng fourque stion s,
1. Howdo pupils and te a chers in af xe dage clas sessp e n d their learni n g and instru ct ional tillleduring rea d i n q/l a n gllSg e and mathemati c s instru ct ion ? 2. In what wa y do stude n ts with dif fe r e n t abilit y levelsuse the i r learning time?
24 3. What isth e relationsh ip
bet wee ngro upi ng arrangements of pupils and their learning time?
4. What is the relati on sbip bet weenactive le aril i n ~t i ..e and acedeatc ach ievemen t in mixed age and single age clas s es? (pp. 77-18)
Trainedobserv er scoll e c t e d datafrolll 12 mixed ag e classe s and 12 single age cl a s s es in primary schools. Four achievement te sts were also administered at dif feren t intervals throug houtthe year.
The results of the research concluded th a t "nc sign ificant differenceswere found betweenobserved time spent incontent areasbetween mixedage and si ngle age clas s e s" tveeneenet 011. 1987, SO). In mixed age classes , stud ents sp e ntmor e ti lleworking independently, while 1n single -grade classesinstru ction wa s more lecture oriented, directedat the wholeclas s tve ene e n et al.). In ecedeerc achievement, the researchers conc ludethat the type of class organization, multi -g rade or single-grade , ie not assoc iated with pup il achieveme nt. Th ei r data did not suppo rt the common ly held view tha t pu pils in mixed aqe classes have lower le v e l s of on- taskbehaviour and ac hie ve lessthanpupils insi n gle agecl a s ses. Since st udentsin multi-g rade classrooms spend as much time-o n -task as stu d e n ts in single -gradecieee eccwe , this var iable ahould not ca u s e variationin academic achievement in multi -g rade
2S ver sus singl e- g rade classrooms.
Effe ct i v eSch ool s
An a ly s i s of th e effec t ive scho o ls li te ra tu re presents ver y littl e evidence that multi-gra de cla s sro oms ac e less eff e c t iv e tha n slng le- qra d e class rooms. While the stud i es con du c t e d do not dea l dire ct l y wit h multi -gra de class roo mor qan! za t !ons, the fact.. thatnon eot the factors presented as co ntr i but in gto schoo l ef fe c t ivene ss have to be excludedfrolA a mul ti - g r a d e sit uat i on , spe a ks volum es.
Th i s st udy is main l yconc e r n e d wi th che ac.lde mi c achieve men t ofstudents. The Tlla jo ri t y of the effe cti ve schoo ls re seac ch has def ined ef fective sch ool exclusiv e ly 1n te r ms of st uden t aca demi c achi eve ment measure don stand a rd i zed ach ie vem entcea t s • Th e re f ore , an alysis of t.he eff e ct. iv e scho ol s' li t.er at.u r e is pe rtLnent; ,
si nce it.sma jo rcon c e rnof acad e micachie v e men t. is rel evant.
t.o this st.udy.
Effect.ive schoo ls' res earch bega nwit.h t.he 9ro winq con c ern fo r acc ount.a bilit.y which result.ed in st.u d i e s by Col e ma n et. a1. (1966) and Jen cks ee al. (1972) conc l u d ing t.hat.sch o ols had l it.tle effe c t. on st.u d ent. ach ie vement an d that var i a ti o ns inachieve ment aremor e like l yt.o be the res u l t of ba c k9 rou n d factors rat.her than scho o li n 9 (Down e r
2.
198 8). In reaction to Col e ma n and Je ncks' st ud i es, lIIan v resea rc hers have cha l le nge d the concl us ions and ha ve pr e s e nte d evi de nce sugges ti ng that some schoo ls hav e powerfuleffe c t s upon the ir stude n ts .
flutter (1 9 7 9) an d hi s ass o c i ate s reeeercne d ou t c omesof 12 inn er -cityschoo l s in Lon don to r five ye ars an did en t i fi ed seve ncharac t er istics underthe control of tea c hers and admi nistrators th at accou nt e d fo r ob s erv e d diffe r en c e s (S t elle r 1988). These were; 11 eea.teeu e empha s is, 2) skillsof teach e rs , J) teachers' Instru c Uvl1a l beha vi o u r, 4) rewa r ds and punLa herent;, 5) st uden tcl i ma te, 6}stud en t re s po nsibil i tyan d part icipatio n, an d 7) staff responsibi l i tyand par t ic ipat io n.
Ed mon d s (197 9; 19 81) id en t i fi ed a list of fi ve chara ct erist ics of effec t ive sch o o l. strong ad mini str a tive le ader shi p , high expectat i o n for studen t achi eveme nt, an ord er ly at mos p h ere cond uc i veto lear n i n g, an emp hasis on bas ic-sk i ll acquisition an d fre qu e n t mo n i toringof pupil pr ogress (Oakley 1988).
Ina comp r e h ens i v e re view of the effective ecnocte' rese a rc h , Perk e y and. Smi th (198 3) present ed a"p or t rai t" of an eff e cti v e school whi ch inc l u d es conte nt variebLee and pro c ess varia bl es. In their stud y, "con te n t re fer s tosuc h thin g s as the or qa n i z at io na l struct u re , rol es, ncrsa , valu es, and ins tructi ona l tec hn iques of a schoo land the information taugh t in the eu r rteuIue" {p• 440 ) . The
27 t:ontp.n t o r I')rgan1zat!"nal s c ruct.u ee ve rrebj esue r e .
1. Scho ol -sitellIa n a g ellle nt;
2. rcstruc er co eI lead e r sh i p;
3. Sta ffsta bili ty;
4. Curri culu marttcute ctcn and orga niz a tio n:
5. Schoo lw i de sta f f deveLcpmentr 6. Par e nt al invo lvem e nt and suppor t;
1. Sch o olwid e re c oqn Lt.Lon ofaca demi c: success;
a. lla:dmized Le a rntnqt ime; and 9. Distric t supp ort.. (pp. 442- 44 5 ) The c ro c e c s ve rtabie s vere ,
1. Coll abor a t i ve plannin gand colleg ia l relat io n sh ip s ;
2. Sen se of communi t y;
3. Clea r go al s and hig h expec t ati on s cOllmon l y sh a r e d ; and
4. Orderand discip li ne. (p p , 445- 44 6 1
\l'lt h re f ere nc eto the processvar ia b les, Pur key and Smith (1983) oce e, "Th e s e va ri a b l e s arethe dyna mi c sof the sc hool, that is, th e y se e m respo n sibl e fo r atmospherethat leads to increasedstudent ac hi e ve ment"
{p• 245).
Sammonsand t!ort illlore(19 80) conducted a fou r- yea r st ud y in Lon d on th at res u l te d in the compi l a t i on of twelve fa c t or s th a t dis tinguish effect i v e eren en e eev schoo ls ft'om le sseffective one s. They "fou ndthatalt hough some
28 sch oo lsar e1II0teadvantage din terms of the ir size, status, env Lrone e nt, and stability of teach1 nq staff, the se favorable charac teristics do not, by themse l v e s, effeetiven"!ss~ (p. 61. These factors only provide the su pp ort inc; r r anevoex wi t h i n which the st a ff can pr omo t e ec adee
re
acn reve aenv. The cr uci a l factor s are the pol1c1es and process with in the control of the princi pal and teachers, which can be changed and iKlproved. Thetwelve key factors of ef f e c t i ve n~s s , most of Whichare under the controlof the principal and te a c her s , a r er1. Purl'osefu::'leadershipof t.he staffby thO!:
principal,
2. Involvemen t of theas si s t a nt principal: 3. Involvementof teachers,
4. Consistencyamongteachers, 5. stc acuu ree seasrons r
6. In tel lectu all y challe n gingt@aching', 1. Work. cente redenvircne enc r 8. Limi t ed focus withi nsessio ns; 9. Ma x i mum cOlnlllunicatio nbetwee nteachersand
st u d e nt s, 10 . Re cor dkeep in'il' l 11. Parenta l involvement: and 12 . Positive climate.
(pp. 1- 8 )
Thes etwelv e key fa ct o r s tha t paint apic t ure otvnee
as constitut e s an effectiveelementary school are more process oriented than cf as e r cceorgani zationoriented.
The most persuasive ef fecti ve schools re s ea r c h suqgests that students' academi c performance is strong ly af f e c ted by sohool culture (S a c:kne y 19S6). Cul t ure is "an in f o r ma L understa ndingof the 'wa y we do things around here'~ IS a c kney 1986, 16}.
Sackney identified thr e e major dime nsi o n s of a schoolculture that enhanc e studentle a rn in g'I "a common mission. an emphasis enLear n in g, and a cli mate conducive to Learning" {19 B61 16 1. In his schematicprese ntation, the thr ee dimensions are conpcs ed of eleven att r ibutes or variables that differentiate
ef f e c t i v e schools {F i g u r e 21.
e z reeerve fr om le s s
In the lllodel, "a co mmon mis sion"consists of cneee ancrtbuee er
Purpose-clearly enun c i a t ed go a l s an.Iobjectivesthat are subscribe d to bystaff and community.
School Me t h o sM-an ag r e emen t on t.he norms and valuesthat are important 1n cr e at ing a cu lture con duc i veto le a r n ing. In st r u c tio nal leadership- t h e principal emphasizes inst.ructional le a der s h i pas opposed to manageme nt. Lp, i i )
'D
The "emph asis on 1~.!rn in 9 dimension " .:-,)n5 1 3t.5 ,'f the fourattribu t es.
PracticalIlonitor i n q -st ud e n t work 1sregularly e onItor-ed and resultslirerepo rt e d pro llpt ly.
Hi g h exp e ctettonset e acher s h,;,ld hi gh expect.ctr cns foral students : the ybeLf e ve th a t all students can learn.
Effe cti ve tea c h in g sk i ll s - cLe e s ro c eteachersexhibit err ectrve t.eac h i n g skill s and oonatant.I yst riv e to Leprove , Instruc t i o nalfocus- theclas sroom fo cu s isettecttve use of instruc tio n- i nte r lu of appr op r i a te cu rri cu lull, high ecedeetc l'! a rninq ti.e,an d l!lIp hasison mast e r y learning_ Lp p• 16-11)
The fou r attributes of the di men sion "e cl imat e cond u civetc lea r n i n g" ere,
Consist ency - e lllphasis is on con s i stency1ndealingwith problellls an d issu es. Re~l arclsandpraise-effect iveuse of rew ards andpra i se; ther e is"
clear reward syst e m.
Appe a r an c e and calltortof the sc h ool envr een eenc- th e scho ol i&
cleanand tidywit h auch student wor kdisplayedon eLe s src ee wa ll s.
Stu de n t partici p atio n-s tuden ts arealloweda hig h de 1re e of re sp on si b i l i t yfor their learning. Students actively par ticipate in a varie tyot schoolecttvtt res• (p o 18)
A Modd 0/ School Elfet:tiw.tltssVQ~·ab/tS
31
Fi g ur e 21 A Hod elot School Eff e c ti ven e s s Variables (s ac k ney 1986. 171
Sack ney's mode l of schoolef f e c t i vene s s va riab les pres ents the attribut es of an effective school. Th e culture of a multi-grade classroom orga n ization en c o mpa s s allof these ef f e c t i v e n e s s varia bles. Ther ef o r e , a lIlulti - gradeclassroom organizatio ncan be asef f e c t i v e as a singl e -grade.
Th e followi n g' summa ry list of characte ris ticsof effective schoo ls extrapolatedfroll the li t erat ur e are the central fe a tu r e s in an effective school as supported by numerous research investigationsl
1. High expectations for studentachieveme nton the part of sta ff membersl
2. Strong instru ctional lead e r shi p on the part of the principalor anot herstaff member;
3. Clea rlyarticulated school goals and objectiv es;
4. Fr e qu e n t monitoringof student achievement, 5. Constant academic eaphes La particu larlyof
basic ski lls;
6. Posi tiv emotivatio na l stra teg ies inthe form of suitable re wa r d s and praise fo r s tudents and staffl
1. A safe and orderly school climate ; 8. A vigorous staff developrtent pr o g r a m:
9. A high levelof pa re n ta l and communityccnt ect , 10. Qua l i tyins t ructiona l strateg ie s;
11. Low sta f f turno ve r; and
12. Clear sc ho ol lIill&10 n that bri nQsa co- operativ e atllosph e r e aa onQthe teachingstaff.
Th ese char a cteristics of an effec ti ve sch oo l are variables that wo ul dinc rease the ecede afc een rev e eent; of the stu d e nt s within the sc hool systelll wheth er it is a lIulti-gradeor a sing le-gra d e. Non e of the characteri stic s shoul d beun at tainable by any school sys t e m and en e ee acre, should be the focus of the vision of any sc ho o l administ ra t ionandsta f f .
Oth e r fa ct ors that Affect Achle""Qaent
The litera tu r e reveal s .any fa c t or s that affect the ac adelli c ac hie ve a e nt of stude n ts inaUl t i -g ra de cl a ss ro oas.
II br ief re vi ewof 1I0lU of th e s e fact. o r s illre l e v antto th i s study .
Many sc hools have gone thro u gh the pattern of mu l t i -grade to si ng le - gra d e within the Provi nce. It is Assu med that suc h a patte r n ee p resen ee progr es s. 'rne t.end en c ytola bel all th i ngS of the past as"back'Ward" has causedlIul ti- qradl! cie s src casto be perceiv ed as ba c kwar d (Bi s h o p19 8 21 . I fee ucet.c re , paren tsand st u d ent s pe reeLve Mul ti- g r a d eclassroollls as beingba c kward, that attitudeaa y
34
det rimentally affectacademi cachie vemen t.
It has bean assumed by educatorsand parents th a t a single gradebeing tau g h t by a teacher is an ideal situationsince thete ach e r had to ad d resson ly one gr oup of stud ents. Evidence from per s o n al obse rv a tions of cl ass roo m practice and from infor ma l inte rv i ews with te ach er s indicate that in such a situa tion, teacher directed instruct.i on 1s thep redoetna nt,meansof assistin q students to acquire the de s i r e d objectives of a specifi c
Tl\ls s evte of tea chi ng and le a r n i ng ca ndeprive elementa ry students of the opport unity to th ink for themse lves and devel op work.habit$ thatwil l enable th emto workin d e pen d e nt l y (Gaj a d h a r s i n g h andMelv i n 1961).
The styl e of teachingin a mu lti-grade eiass eec e is characterizedby direct teach ing of conceptsto one grade in th.e classro om fol l owed by imme d i a t e reinforcement through anindiv id ualor group activi t ybecause the teecb e r must mo v e on to teachthe ne xt grade. Students are therefore enco u raged to wo rk indepe ndentl y and take res pon si b il ityfo r t.he timethat theteacher is unavailable to thelll. Stude ntsknow that the tea cherwill be teaching the ot h er grad e and tha t th e y will have to work ind ep e n d en t l y . Thus, th e y will develop cr i s p e r lis t en in g ski lls . The p rocedu r e of dire ct tea ch er Lnetructtcn foll owe d by immediate practice may account fo r st ud e n t gains in deve lopinggreater in depend e n c e and more effe c tive
,.
35 stud yhabi ts IGaJ adh a r s lnghand Melv in 1987 ).
Hulti- g r a de te achi n g, by natu re , le nds its e l f to sma ll group teaching. Inte a chi ng a si ngle - g ra d e within a multi -grade cl ass roo m, the teac h eris teachinga small number of stu den t s, The eye contac t and the indiv i dua l attent ion given to stude n t s to ke e p themcue d intowhat 1s being tau ght isgreat l yen ha nc e din sma ll group tea c h in g.
Child re n in mul ti-grade cl a s sroo ms have advant ag e ove r students insi ng le - g rad e clas srooms in that theycan lis t en to th e te ac hi ng ta k i ngpl a ce in the other gradean d re ap the benefits raee 19 81 1. If they are listening to ins tru c ti on bei n g giv en to a higher grad e level , the yare bei ngsti mul a t ed; i ftheyare listeningto alo we r qrade leve l. they are re cei vin grevi e w.
On ma ny occasions, in a si ngl e-grad e or mul ti- gra de si tua t ion, studentshav e to wa i t fortheir peers . In a si ng le- g r ad e situati o n , elementary students may use the ti me to re a d, While primary stude nts may ju s t expl o re pictures or gameswhile they arewa i t i ng . In th e lIu lti - c r-ade situat ion, the wait ingtime can be spent li s t e nin gto instructi on being qiven to anot h er grade le ve l.
HUlt i-grad e cla s s ro oms allow forbe t t er plac e me nt of st u d entsacc ordi ngto their abil ity . In Newf oun dland and Labra d or, au t.oaet repro mo t io nin the pr i mar yan d elez enta ry grad e s is the norm. Th~ refore . stu dent s ma ybe plac e din sin g le -g ra de cl assroo mswhere the ylIa y experienc e
36 difficulty. In the .ult i - g ra d e clasar oaa, there 15 an ad va n t a g e in assign. ent ot st u d e n ts to III gra de but not necessar ily ha v in g the a workonthat grad e lev el inall SUb j ects (Bis hop 19821.
In the sing !e-q r a de ereee reee , there 1sa IIl1c h grea t er po ssi bil ity of a student being plac ed accord ing to convenience ra t tler than ac co rdinq to rea lcce pe ee nc e and ab i li t y.
AllIulti-g rade situa t ion1slIIuc h mor e flex i b l e and allows fo r groupi ng according toac:t.ual acnteve e ent. re th e r than onthe bas isof age and gradealone IB l sh o p 19821 35).
In a dulti - qnlde si t ua t ion, student s need no t work lev els wh i ch do not. cor r e s pond to agesor to the"q r a df!·
whichtheylIa y be assigned.
Haslow' s th e or y of hierarch ical needs i.pUesthat.
stUdentswho fe el soci ally, ellot i onally and psyc holo gic a lly secure vi I I inde ed per f o rll acadellically. Acc ordi ng Hyc: ock 119 1 2 1.th e r ear e a va r ie t yof af fective qainsfor ch i ld re n in !lu l ti -gra d e cLaesrc cae• Th e literature sug ges ts th a t stu d ents in lIIu l t i ·gra de cl a s s ro o ms have a greate r senseot belongi ng , suppor t,eeeu r rev and confi dence tha n pupils in sin9le ~ g r ll d e classroom s. Si nce the children canstay with the sa me teach er for at le a s t twoyears, teachers see m to be able t,c devel op aqreater se n s e ofra p portwiththeir pupils. The re sultinq se ns e of
37 sec u r i t y and stability promotesand en ha nc e s a relaxed sens eof confidence in the students. One majorco nf i dence builder 1s theuse of student hel p ers to assist peers of lowe r grades. Ol de r children becomemore receptive tothe needsof you ng er ch il d r e n and are ee a e r to help. Children de ve lo p a co-o pera t i v e spirit with the ol d e r child ren devel op ingself- e st eem as th e y realizethey can help and have a chance to be ahe r o to a youngerch i l d. HUlti-grade cIae s rcoe s "o f f e r a slig h t but cons i s t e n tly positive adva ntage in personality and so c i al dave Lopae nt;" (Ford 1971, 1521.
Way (19601 ex p lo r e d the effects of mUlti-grade cr as erooes oneerr-c e nee pc as well as achievement. She mea sured se lf-conc e pt using the Piers-Harris Children's Self-concept sca le. Theself-concept mea s ure produc ed a significantdi fference between ch il d r e n in lIul t i-g r a de an d single-grade cl a ssroo mson the factors la b el e d happiness and satisfa cti on, with the multi-grade clas sro oms having a higher me an score on this factor. However, sh e did co nc l ude that whilechildren in multi-grade cte seeeee e had consistentlyhighermean sc o re s thansi ng l e - g ra d ecj aser cce children on each of the other fact o r s and on the total self - co n cep t score , the differen ce was not sig nif i cant.
Way's find in gs of higher sco r e s fo r ch il d r e n in multi-grade cl as s r ooms on the ha pp i ness and satisfa ction fa c to r appe ar to indic a t e that multi-grade cl a s sro o ms
J.
prov i de an atll o s ph er e of ccnt.entee ne. She says that. th e lIu lti-g r a d e elassrao. provide s l,uge bene fi t s in th e affec tiv e dOlla in; ~children do no t learn,.ore bu t lea r ni ng 1seee u e erna1n a happie r env trcn ee ne. Joy 1n the proce ss of lea rn ing 1s cert.ainly a wor t hy qoal for educatlon~
11 9 8 0, 161.
Hilburn (19 8 1) sugges t.s tnat children of lIIul t i - grade cIe s s rcce s hav ea moreposit iv e atti t u d e toward sc h o o l than their cou nt er p a r t s 1n tradi tional sinqie -grad e cl ass r o oms. It is obv i o u s that stu de nts who exhibit a posi t i Ve attitUd e to wa rd sch o ol willde vel o p enh a n c e dwork habit sand, enoe, p~r fo rmbet te r ac a de il l c al ly .
SUll lia ry
The litera turepre se n t s a nu.ber <:If st udies on the effe ct s of .u l tl~qradeeiass ec c e a on stude nt.aca d ellic aehievee ent• Recent studi e s have found no si g n i fic<lnt difference between tl·,e acad e llli c acnreveeew eQ( st u d e n t s in lIult i - qrade and st n g le -g ra d e ctasereeae . One major variable tha t has sparked interest. tillie-a n-task, sho u ld no t negative ly affec t ac a d e mi c aenieveaent, 1n the multi- grade cla ssroom, si nce there is no sign i f icant dif f ere n c e betwe en tille-o n -t a sk in lIul t i -g rade an d si n gl e -';I ra de ctees eecae. Th eef f e ct i ve sch o o l s l i ter at ure has not
3' revea l ed anych a ra ct e r istics of an ef fec t iv e sc h o o l th a t ca nnot be pre se nt 1na mu l t i -g rade d class roo m. Ot h er fact o r s gleanedfrom th e li t er atu r e tha t ha v e potent ial to iJ.ffec t ac ad emi c achieve men t, such as qrea te r sel f-c o nc e p t, more inde pen de nce and an incre a s e d sense of secu r i t y . portr ay many positive at t r ib u te s of the mUl ti -grad e class room.
CHAPTER 3 UETHOOOLOGY
Des i gn of theStudy
The purpo s e of thi s stu d y was to determ i n e the effect s of multi-grade cl ass e s on stude nt s' ac ad e mi c achi e v e ment in rura l sc h o ol s of Newf ou n dland and Lab r ad or . rne res ear chquest i o n s addres sedwere,
1. Is the re a signi f ica n t differ e nc e in aca d e mic ac hie ve ment betweenstudents ofruraleuicr- gr a de cl a s s roo msan d studentsof rural si n g lp. - gr ad e classro oms ?
2. lIha t fac t or s --ot he r thanth esi n gle-gr a d eor mu l t i -gra d e fa c t or~- affe ct the stand ar d of educ atio n andmak e sc h o o lseffec t ive?
Th e design of thi s study is descript i v e ces ear cn. The purpo s e of de sc ript i ve re s e arch 15 "t o col lec t de t a ile d factualin fo rMa t io n thatdesc rib e s existi ng phen omena "and
"to make compar i s o ns and eval uat io ns" (Isaac 1911 , 18) . The stu d yreportsCTBS results 1n randomly selec te d schools through out the prov i nce of Newf oundland andLab r a dor. Th e analysis of tnese results is of benefit to educa to rs 1n making future plan s an d de ci sions.
41 Sallple
The popu l ati On of th is st.udy cons isted of grade 6 ele.entary st u dents enrolled 11'1 ru ral schools dlspers ec1 t.hro u9ho ut the provi nce. Criteri a used for select i n g the sa. pIe were as fol lows .
1. Al l students involved in the study were enrolledin single-grad e class rooJls or.ul tl- grad e classroo ms at the qrade 6level in the ir res pe c ti vesch ools .
2. Allstudents involved in the studyhav ebeen enrolledin th e spec i fic: type of elas .r oo.
Islnq l e·9r ade or lIIul ti- q radeonly) for at lea s t thr e e consecutive year s inc lUd ing theyear of th e dAtAco ll e c t io n.
3. Allstudents in volved in the studywroteth e CTBS achie v e _ e nt tes t in 1988 .
4. Al l studen t-awere enrolledin rural ele . entar y or all-qra d e schools .
The super i nten de ntsof all th ePro vince ' s 29school di s tr ict s, whi ch covere d the 32 school districts in 1988 , wereccnt.eeeed requestinq perllli s si o n toconduc t the st udy wi thi n their di str icts. A10n q with pe rmiss i on, each boardwas re q u estedto senda lis t of the .ul tl-q r ade an da list of the sin q l e- q r a d e classroomschool s in its district.
Twe n t y-f o u r ot th e 32distr ictsreplied to the
42 request. Alldistr i ctsuper i ntend ents wh o replied gran ted permissionor con d i tio n a l per mis sion except one who stated tha t the yhad nomulti ~gradeclassroom situati ons.
Ev en th o ug h all sch o oldis t rict s didnot re ply, th e thirty schoo l boar ds that had sch o oh loc a ted 1n rural communi t i es within theProvi nc e were inclu d ed in the st u d y, Two rur al sch oo l s we re randomly se le c te d from eac hsch o ol board, with theex c e ptio n of selectingonlyone scncci fro m twoboa rdswh ic h ha d on lyone sc hoo l in a rura l commu ni ty. Therefo re, 58 schools were se l ected tobe in v ol v ed inthe study.
'l'he 198 8 grade6 CTBS sc ores and stud e nts' were ob t a i n e d fr oll th e sele cte d school s ' su mma ry she e t recordsu pp l i e d bythe Department of Educa t ion. Rando lil y selec te dst u d e nts' naee e fr o mea ch sc hoo l were l isted ona forI! desig nedto solicitthe infor ma ti on needed for the st u dy (See AppendixAI Data Forml. Tha t form cont a i n i n g the list of randomlysele cted stud e n ts' neaes was sentto ea c h scho ol princip al for co mp l e t ion ea rlyin Dec emb er, 1991. The forlll wasdesi gnedto soli cit in f o rmat i on on the listed students' cla ss type for three consecu t ive ye a r s , teacher qualifi cation s , gender, and acct ce ccncatc st atus .
Are mi nde r was se ntto eac h prin c i pa lWho ha d not returned the que s tionn a i r e within two vee ks, Fif tythree ques t i o nn aire s were ret u r ned , with 23 multi-gradeand 18 si n g l e - g ra d e cla s sroo..or ga ni z a t ions us e d inthe study.
43 Five question na ires woe re no t returned and 1) of th e re tur n e d questionna ireswere excluded; one pr i ncipa l state d that; th e Board did no t gr a n t permissio n for th e study:
thre eque et.tonnetce s were comp l ete d inc o rre ctly ; fourforms ha d th ein c o r r ect students list e d ; final ly, fo ur gro upsof st.u d e nts wer e 1n their class ty pe torles s tha n three consecuti ve years.
Theeventual s arap Le tota le d 311 gr a de 6 st u den ts, which co ns i s t e d of 137 stude nts enroll e d in mu l t i - g r a de cla ssroo ms and 114 studen ts enro lled in single-g rad e classrooms.
Dat a Co llec t i o n
Dat.a to an swer research ques t i o none were coll e c t e d from the CTBS summa ry records of re sult s attai ne d by stu de nts of th e re spe c t ive schoo ls. The resu l t s of the sub te sts of the CTBSare recor d e d as grll.d e equivalen t scor es. Th e gradeequivale nt subt estsc o re s in Vocab ul a ry, Re adin gComp nh ens ion, Lan g ua g e Ski ll s , Wor k St u d ySki lls , Hathemat1 c s an dCOllposite for each stude n t we re ascertained fro m the su mllary re c o r d s obtaine d fr o mtheDepartm ent of Educati on.
The for m de s i gn e d to col l ec t data for thestudy wa s sen t to th e selected schoo ls. It so l i ci t ed tea cher
