Appendix A.
Table A1
Importance of Education Compared to Other Goals (EdImport)
(Percentages)
Education Education Education (N) r
More As Less
Important Important Important
Choice Applied 1990-93
Having a Good Job 51 48 1 888 .43
Having Enough Money in the 42 56 2 879 .48
Family 29 59 12 878 .46
Maintaining Religion/Faith 34 61 5 877 .46
Maintaining Family Ethnic 33 64 3 879 .56
Tradition
Having a Good Place to Live
New Choice 1993
Having a Good Job 49 51 0 209 .44
Having Enough Money in the 60 39 1 208 .40
Family 30 61 9 207 .43
Maintaining Religion/Faith 30 65 5 208 .33
Maintaining Family Ethnic 29 67 4 208 .42
Tradition
Having a Good Place to Live
Choice Enrolled 1990-93
Having a Good Job 51 49 0 612 .41
Having Enough Money in the 43 56 1 606 .44
Family 31 58 11 606 .42
Maintaining Religion/Faith 36 59 5 605 .48
Maintaining Family Ethnic 34 63 3 604 .57
Tradition
Having a Good Place to Live
Choice Non-Select 1990-93
Having a Good Job 49 50 1 234 .50
Having Enough Money in the 41 57 2 231 .56
Family 22 61 17 230 .48
Maintaining Religion/Faith 27 66 7 230 .38
Maintaining Family Ethnic 29 67 4 233 .56
Tradition
Having a Good Place to Live
Attrition 1990-93
Having a Good Job 51 49 0 293 .35
Having Enough Money in the 43 55 2 290 .37
Family 30 58 12 288 .43
Maintaining Religion/Faith 35 59 6 287 .54
Maintaining Family Ethnic 33 64 3 289 .57
Tradition
Having a Good Place to Live
Choice Private School 1991-94
Having a Good Job 45 55 0 822 .52
Having Enough Money in the 37 61 2 819 .57
Family 25 63 12 814 .41
Maintaining Religion/Faith 31 64 5 813 .52
Maintaining Family Ethnic 31 66 3 819 .54
Tradition
Having a Good Place to Live
Non-Selected Choice 1991-94
Having a Good Job 39 59 2 208 .40
Having Enough Money in the 32 65 3 206 .45
Family 18 63 19 205 .44
Maintaining Religion/Faith 23 69 8 206 .45
Maintaining Family Ethnic 25 69 6 206 .52
Tradition
Having a Good Place to Live
Education Education Education (N) r
Table A1 Continued More As Less
Important Important Important
Low Income MPS 1991
Having a Good Job 54 45 1 1061 .46
Having Enough Money in the 44 52 4 1039 .54
Family 35 53 12 1031 .45
Maintaining Religion/Faith 41 52 7 1028 .51
Maintaining Family Ethnic 39 55 6 1046 .57
Tradition
Having a Good Place to Live
MPS Control 1991
Having a Good Job 47 49 2 1582 .44
Having Enough Money in the 41 54 5 1560 .53
Family 33 54 12 1553 .40
Maintaining Religion/Faith 42 51 7 1549 .43
Maintaining Family Ethnic 34 60 6 1566 .53
Tradition
Having a Good Place to Live
Question: "How would you rate education in your family compared to other goals?"
Table A2
Frequency of Parents Contacting Their Schools (PiParScl)
(Percentages)
0 1-2 3-4 5 or (N) r
More
Choice Applied 1990-93
Child's Academic Performance 14 25 27 34 728 .56
Class Your Child Took 35 28 21 17 722 .54
Doing Volunteer Work for the 43 28 15 15 728 .55
School 31 38 19 12 726 .50
Participating in Fund Raising 24 46 18 12 720 .51
Providing Info for School 27 25 17 31 731 .41
Records 48 26 13 13 723 .55
Child's Behavior
Helping in the Classroom
New Choice 1993
Child's Academic Performance 16 24 26 34 151 .56
Class Your Child Took 39 27 18 14 147 .55
Doing Volunteer Work for the 43 30 17 10 150 .47
School 38 31 25 6 149 .50
Participating in Fund Raising 28 44 17 11 149 .46
Providing Info for School 30 21 15 33 149 .43
Records 46 32 11 11 147 .38
Child's Behavior
Helping in the Classroom
Choice Enrolled 1990-93
Child's Academic Performance 13 26 28 33 492 .57
Class Your Child Took 36 26 21 16 489 .56
Doing Volunteer Work for the 42 27 15 17 490 .58
School 29 38 20 13 490 .56
Participating in Fund Raising 23 45 20 12 483 .52
Providing Info for School 26 25 18 31 491 .44
Records 49 25 14 12 488 .58
Child's Behavior
Helping in the Classroom
Table A2 Continued 0 1-2 3-4 5 or (N) r
More
Choice Non-Select 1990-93
Child's Academic Performance 16 20 26 38 212 .53
Class Your Child Took 31 30 23 17 209 .56
Doing Volunteer Work for the 45 30 15 10 214 .44
School 33 38 17 11 212 .35
Participating in Fund Raising 28 48 13 11 213 .49
Providing Info for School 27 24 16 33 216 .39
Records 48 27 10 14 211 .45
Child's Behavior
Helping in the Classroom
Attrition 1990-93
Child's Academic Performance 13 25 25 37 244 .56
Class Your Child Took 36 25 22 17 243 .51
Doing Volunteer Work for the 42 23 15 20 242 .58
School 30 37 18 15 242 .52
Participating in Fund Raising 25 43 19 12 239 .52
Providing Info for School 28 21 18 32 244 .40
Records 45 27 15 13 243 .62
Child's Behavior
Helping in the Classroom
Choice Private School 1991-94
Child's Academic Performance 25 28 34 16 826 .31
Class Your Child Took 20 28 30 22 826 .64
Doing Volunteer Work for the 24 34 22 20 829 .53
School 23 35 25 17 824 .46
Participating in Fund Raising 16 46 25 14 820 .56
Providing Info for School 25 35 24 17 821 .45
Records 35 32 15 18 827 .47
Child's Behavior
Helping in the Classroom
Non-Selected Choice 1991-94
Child's Academic Performance 37 32 22 9 212 .47
Class Your Child Took 20 23 33 25 208 .71
Doing Volunteer Work for the 12 11 32 44 210 .58
School 11 17 36 36 210 .46
Participating in Fund Raising 12 16 47 24 213 .59
Providing Info for School 26 22 30 22 212 .44
Records 14 10 31 45 210 .59
Child's Behavior
Helping in the Classroom
Low Income MPS 1991
Child's Academic Performance 26 32 24 18 1057 .58
Class Your Child Took 44 36 12 8 1051 .57
Doing Volunteer Work for the 68 19 6 7 1053 .53
School 58 29 9 4 1053 .46
Participating in Fund Raising 33 43 17 7 1050 .48
Providing Info for School 34 29 19 18 1060 .49
Records 68 19 5 7 1055 .54
Child's Behavior
Helping in the Classroom
MPS Control 1991
Child's Academic Performance 24 33 25 19 1596 .59
Class Your Child Took 45 36 11 7 1568 .55
Doing Volunteer Work for the 63 21 7 9 1579 .52
School 54 39 9 4 1577 .45
Participating in Fund Raising 32 45 16 7 1568 .46
Providing Info for School 36 32 17 16 1588 .47
Records 68 20 5 7 1584 .49
Child's Behavior
Helping in the Classroom
Question: "During your child's last year in school, how many times, did you (or someone in your household) contact the school about the following?"
Table A3
Parents Frequency of Being Contacted By Their Schools (PiSclPar)
(Percentages)
0 1-2 3-4 5 or (N) r
More
Choice Applied 1990-93
Child's Academic Performance 42 32 16 10 727 .50
Child's Behavior 41 29 16 14 735 .36
Doing Volunteer Work for the 55 24 11 9 724 .47
School 45 34 12 9 728 .45
Participating in Fund Raising
New Choice 1993
Child's Academic Performance 37 33 21 9 147 .47
Child's Behavior 43 27 14 16 148 .41
Doing Volunteer Work for the 52 26 15 7 145 .43
School 47 32 16 5 148 .42
Participating in Fund Raising
Choice Enrolled 1990-93
Child's Academic Performance 40 33 16 11 492 .52
Child's Behavior 40 28 17 15 495 .38
Doing Volunteer Work for the 55 23 11 11 492 .49
School 44 33 11 11 491 .49
Participating in Fund Raising
Choice Non-Select 1990-93
Child's Academic Performance 44 30 17 9 211 .43
Child's Behavior 44 28 12 16 216 .31
Doing Volunteer Work for the 57 25 13 5 208 .41
School 47 33 15 6 213 .33
Participating in Fund Raising
Attrition 1990-93
Child's Academic Performance 39 32 15 13 246 .41
Child's Behavior 39 26 18 17 247 .30
Doing Volunteer Work for the 57 22 7 14 246 .37
School 43 36 9 13 245 .37
Participating in Fund Raising
Choice Private School 1991-94
Child's Academic Performance 38 33 18 12 827 .46
Child's Behavior 37 31 18 13 828 .51
Doing Volunteer Work for the 37 34 17 13 824 .52
School 31 34 21 13 824 .48
Participating in Fund Raising
Choice Non-Select 1991-94
Child's Academic Performance 12 16 34 38 213 .48
Child's Behavior 19 20 32 29 211 .40
Doing Volunteer Work for the 8 14 24 54 211 .48
School 6 17 29 48 212 .40
Participating in Fund Raising
Low Income MPS 1991
Child's Academic Performance 46 31 15 8 1060 .55
Child's Behavior 45 29 13 13 1067 .43
Doing Volunteer Work for the 69 21 6 4 1050 .43
School 63 26 7 3 1052 .43
Participating in Fund Raising
MPS Control 1991
Child's Academic Performance 49 30 14 7 1591 .51
Child's Behavior 48 29 12 11 1600 .39
Doing Volunteer Work for the 64 23 8 5 1581 .41
School 60 28 8 4 1581 .42
Participating in Fund Raising
Question: "During your child's last year in school, how many times, not counting report cards, did someone at your school contact you about the following?"
Table A4
Parental Organizational Involvement, Choice and MPS Parents (PiSclOrg)
(Percentages)
Yes No (N) r
Choice Applied 1990-93
Attend Parent/Teacher Conference 90 10 714 .24
Belong to a Parent/Teacher Organization 22 78 702 .53
Attend Meetings of Parent/Teacher Organization 54 46 708 .52
Take Part in Activities of Parent/Teacher 49 51 708 .58
rganization 24 76 704 .47
Belong to Other Organizations Dealing With
School Matters
New Choice 1993
Attend Parent/Teacher Conference 89 11 140 .23
Belong to a Parent/Teacher Organization 21 79 141 .45
Attend Meetings of Parent/Teacher Organization 56 44 140 .52
Take Part in Activities of Parent/Teacher 48 52 140 .56
Organization 21 79 141 .50
Belong to Other Organizations Dealing With
School Matters
Choice Enrolled 1990-93
Attend Parent/Teacher Conference 90 10 479 .23
Belong to a Parent/Teacher Organization 23 77 474 .54
Attend Meetings of Parent/Teacher Organization 55 45 475 .52
Take Part in Activities of Parent/Teacher 49 51 478 .58
Organization 26 74 474 .50
Belong to Other Organizations Dealing With
School Matters
Choice Non-Select 1990-93
Attend Parent/Teacher Conference 92 8 212 .27
Belong to a Parent/Teacher Organization 21 79 205 .52
Attend Meetings of Parent/Teacher Organization 52 48 207 .52
Take Part in Activities of Parent/Teacher 50 50 207 .58
Organization 21 79 207 .38
Belong to Other Organizations Dealing With
School Matters
Attrition 1990-93
Attend Parent/Teacher Conference 89 11 242 .17
Belong to a Parent/Teacher Organization 22 78 238 .52
Attend Meetings of Parent/Teacher Organization 50 50 238 .53
Take Part in Activities of Parent/Teacher 48 52 241 .53
Organization 27 73 238 .55
Belong to Other Organizations Dealing With
School Matters
Choice Private School 1991-94
Attend Parent/Teacher Conference 74 26 829 -.10
Belong to a Parent/Teacher Organization 58 42 820 .09
Attend Meetings of Parent/Teacher Organization 56 44 824 .15
Take Part in Activities of Parent/Teacher 71 29 826 .41
Organization 47 53 820 .32
Belong to Other Organizations Dealing With
School Matters
Non-Selected Choice 1991-94
Attend Parent/Teacher Conference 83 17 213 -.05
Belong to a Parent/Teacher Organization 39 61 211 .23
Attend Meetings of Parent/Teacher Organization 39 61 211 .33
Take Part in Activities of Parent/Teacher 50 50 212 .52
Organization 31 69 211 .45
Belong to Other Organizations Dealing With
School Matters
Table A4 Continued Yes No (N) r Low Income MPS 1991 Attend Parent/Teacher Conference 81 19 1061 .28 Belong to a Parent/Teacher Organization 16 84 1061 .49 Attend Meetings of Parent/Teacher Organization 36 64 1061 .50 Take Part in Activities of Parent/Teacher 30 70 1063 .47 Organization 15 85 1059 .41 Belong to Other Organizations Dealing With School Matters MPS Control 1991 Attend Parent/Teacher Conference 84 16 1593 .27 Belong to a Parent/Teacher Organization 21 79 1579 .52 Attend Meetings of Parent/Teacher Organization 64 36 1587 .48 Take Part in Activities of Parent/Teacher 35 65 1585 .51 Organization 16 84 1573 .38 Belong to Other Organizations Dealing With School Matters
Table A5
Parents Participation In Educational Activities at Home (PiChild)
(Percentages)
0 1-2 3-4 5 or (N) r
More
Choice Applied 1990-93
Help With Child's Homework* 8 20 25 47 468 --
Read With or To Your Child 5 23 35 38 883 .59
Work on Arithmetic or Math 11 27 29 33 877 .52
Work on Penmanship or Writing 12 28 29 31 869 .64
Watch Educational Program on T.V. With 11 37 29 22 883 .50
your Child 22 37 23 17 873 .42
Participate Together in Sports
Activities
New Choice 1993
Help With Child's Homework 10 23 22 45 204 --
Read With or To Your Child 8 28 27 37 206 .59
Work on Arithmetic or Math 20 32 20 28 203 .48
Work on Penmanship or Writing 18 24 28 30 202 .59
Watch Educational Program on T.V. With 11 31 34 24 206 .44
your Child 22 36 24 18 203 .37
Participate Together in Sports
Activities
Choice Enrolled 1990-93
Help With Child's Homework* 8 20 28 45 271 --
Read With or To Your Child 5 21 35 38 606 .58
Work on Arithmetic or Math 10 25 32 33 603 .50
Work on Penmanship or Writing 10 29 28 33 600 .63
Watch Educational Program on T.V. With 12 37 28 23 605 .48
your Child 19 39 24 17 600 .41
Participate Together in Sports
Activities
Choice Non-Select 1990-93
Help With Child's Homework* 7 22 21 50 173 --
Read With or To Your Child 3 24 38 35 234 .60
Work on Arithmetic or Math 11 29 23 37 232 .56
Work on Penmanship or Writing 12 27 31 30 226 .64
Watch Educational Program on T.V. With 9 40 30 21 235 .52
your Child 28 30 24 18 231 .47
Participate Together in Sports
Activities
Table A5 Continued 0 1-2 3-4 5 or (N) r
More
Attrition 1990-93
Help With Child's Homework* 10 23 26 41 104 --
Read With or To Your Child 6 21 32 40 293 .60
Work on Arithmetic or Math 10 23 31 37 293 .53
Work on Penmanship or Writing 11 28 29 32 290 .63
Watch Educational Program on T.V. With 12 41 23 24 293 .48
your Child 20 40 22 18 290 .39
Participate Together in Sports
Activities
Choice Private School 1991-94
Help With Child's Homework* 4 19 31 46 833 --
Read With or To Your Child 6 23 30 42 829 .65
Work on Arithmetic or Math 10 22 32 36 828 .64
Work on Penmanship or Writing 11 36 24 29 826 .60
Watch Educational Program on T.V. With 16 40 23 21 829 .49
your Child 14 27 25 34 830 .40
Participate Together in Sports
Activities
Non-Selected Choice 1991-94
Help With Child's Homework* 54 23 16 7 210 --
Read With or To Your Child 43 33 16 8 212 .61
Work on Arithmetic or Math 40 22 27 11 210 .57
Work on Penmanship or Writing 32 30 26 12 212 .55
Watch Educational Program on T.V. With 26 25 37 13 211 .54
your Child 27 20 29 24 209 .44
Participate Together in Sports
Activities
Low Income MPS 1991
Help With Child's Homework* 11 25 24 40 1063 --
Read With or To Your Child 18 27 26 29 1067 .73
Work on Arithmetic or Math 19 28 22 31 1059 .68
Work on Penmanship or Writing 28 29 19 24 1055 .72
Watch Educational Program on T.V. With 22 35 21 22 1068 .62
your Child 32 32 17 19 1056 .53
Participate Together in Sports
Activities
MPS Control 1991
Help With Child's Homework* 13 26 24 37 1562 --
Read With or To Your Child 20 26 25 29 1596 .70
Work on Arithmetic or Math 20 30 23 27 1587 .66
Work on Penmanship or Writing 33 29 19 20 1575 .73
Watch Educational Program on T.V. With 23 39 20 18 1603 .59
your Child 30 36 17 18 1577 .50
Participate Together in Sports
Activities
Question: "How many times in a normal week did you participate in the following activities with your child?"
*Not asked in 1990 or 1991.
Table A6
Choice and MPS Parent Dissatisfaction With Prior (or Private) School (DisPrScl)
(Percentages)
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very (N) r
Satisfied Satisfied Dis-satisf Dis-satisf
ied ied
Choice Applied 1990-93
Textbooks 25 57 12 5 643 .65
Location of School 34 44 10 12 723 .40
Opportunities for Parent 32 47 15 6 704 .69
Involvement 36 39 16 9 720 .68
Teacher's Performance 28 46 20 7 700 .78
Program of Instruction 29 43 19 9 675 .64
Principal Performance 31 32 23 15 726 .76
Amount Child Learned 25 38 25 12 716 .76
Discipline in the School
New Choice 1993
Textbooks 31 52 11 6 122 .70
Location of School 36 39 9 16 147 .43
Opportunities for Parent 42 36 20 2 146 .71
Involvement 43 39 11 7 147 .66
Teacher's Performance 34 43 17 6 144 .84
Program of Instruction 31 46 19 4 134 .61
Principal Performance 37 32 21 9 149 .78
Amount Child Learned 30 38 21 11 151 .74
Discipline in the School
Choice Enrolled 1990-93
Textbooks 28 56 12 4 444 .67
Location of School 36 42 9 13 495 .43
Opportunities for Parent 34 45 15 6 482 .73
Involvement 38 37 16 8 492 .69
Teacher's Performance 30 45 19 6 482 .79
Program of Instruction 32 39 19 11 461 .67
Principal Performance 34 28 21 16 497 .78
Amount Child Learned 28 34 26 12 491 .77
Discipline in the School
Choice Non-Select 1990-93
Textbooks 18 61 14 7 178 .62
Location of School 30 49 11 10 204 .32
Opportunities for Parent 24 56 15 5 199 .58
Involvement 28 44 19 9 204 .64
Teacher's Performance 21 49 21 10 195 .73
Program of Instruction 24 49 20 7 192 .57
Principal Performance 22 40 26 12 205 .69
Amount Child Learned 18 46 24 12 203 .74
Discipline in the School
Attrition 1990-93
Textbooks 27 58 12 3 220 .64
Location of School 35 42 10 13 244 .48
Opportunities for Parent 35 44 15 7 239 .75
Involvement 37 37 18 7 242 .65
Teacher's Performance 28 43 22 7 236 .77
Program of Instruction 33 37 19 12 233 .63
Principal Performance 32 25 26 18 244 .79
Amount Child Learned 28 31 33 8 242 .76
Discipline in the School
Table A6 Continued Very Somewhat Somewhat Very (N) r
Satisfied Satisfied Dis-satisf Dis-satisf
ied ied
Choice Private School
1991-94
Textbooks 45 45 7 3 793 .76
Location of School 51 41 5 3 822 .56
Opportunities for Parent 51 40 5 4 822 .63
Involvement 39 34 19 7 717 .23
Teacher's Performance 46 43 7 5 818 .76
Program of Instruction 48 40 6 6 817 .63
Principal Performance 50 39 7 4 814 .77
Amount Child Learned 44 42 8 6 798 .73
Discipline in the School
Choice Non-Select 1991-94
Textbooks 32 46 13 9 200 .47
Location of School 41 39 10 10 207 .74
Opportunities for Parent 39 43 11 7 202 .77
Involvement 31 42 18 9 192 .82
Teacher's Performance 30 43 17 10 198 .79
Program of Instruction 40 37 14 8 203 .75
Principal Performance 33 36 20 11 203 .78
Amount Child Learned 30 43 13 14 200 .51
Discipline in the School
Low Income MPS 1991
Textbooks 30 62 6 2 944 .65
Location of School 42 42 10 6 1030 .36
Opportunities for Parent 35 55 8 2 991 .63
Involvement 41 47 9 3 1032 .60
Teacher's Performance 33 57 8 2 989 .71
Program of Instruction 38 48 9 5 997 .58
Principal Performance 36 47 13 4 1025 .68
Amount Child Learned 28 49 16 7 999 .61
Discipline in the School
MPS Control 1991
Textbooks 29 63 6 1 1441 .62
Location of School 41 44 10 5 1585 .30
Opportunities for Parent 36 54 8 3 1527 .62
Involvement 40 48 9 3 1588 .62
Teacher's Performance 33 56 9 5 1536 .70
Program of Instruction 37 48 9 5 1519 .58
Principal Performance 36 47 13 4 1576 .68
Amount Child Learned 27 48 17 8 1542 .62
Discipline in the School
Appendix B.
Description of the Choice Schools
(Appended from the Third Year Report)
History of Participation. In the summer of 1990, 10 private schools expressed interest in and notified the Department of Public Instruction of their intent to participate. Seven schools enrolled students. The majority of students (317 of 341) were in five prekindergarten-to-eighth grade schools: Bruce Guadalupe Community School, Harambee Community School, Juanita Virgil, Urban Day School, and Woodlands School. The other two schools (Lakeshore Montessori and SER Jobs For Progress) had fewer students and served different educational purposes.
In the first year of the program, one school, Juanita Virgil Academy, went bankrupt and disbanded. It had enrolled 71 choice students, most of whom ended up in MPS. The problems with that school were documented at length in the First-Year Report and will not be repeated here.
In the second year of the Choice Program, no additional schools admitted students. Beginning in the fall of 1992, five additional schools admitted a total of 47 students. Three of those schools are Montessori schools and one school is a Waldorf school. All serve elementary students with the Montessori schools primarily serving students ages 3 to 6. The Waldorf School of Milwaukee is four-year old kindergarten through grade six. The other school, Learning Enterprises, provided alternative education for at-risk high school age students much like SER Jobs. Another school, Messmer High School, applied to participate, but was denied by the Department of Public Instruction because it was not considered to be nonsectarian. That denial of certification was appealed and subsequently upheld by hearing examiner. In 1993-94 an additional alternative high school, Exito, joined the program.
Finances and Facilities. When the Choice Program began in 1990, four of the original seven schools were in serious financial difficulty. One had declared bankruptcy the year before and had reorganized. Another, Juanita Virgil Academy, went bankrupt during the first year of the program. Two others were rumored to be on the verge of closing in the spring of 1990. With the exception of Juanita Virgil Academy, all of these schools are in better financial condition today¾and without exception, their facilities have improved.
The eleven private schools in the program in 1992-93 received their funding from a range of sources. Nine of the schools had tuition-paying students in addition to choice students. Five schools also had contracts with MPS to serve the needs of pre-school or at-risk children. All the schools but one also engaged in fundraising of one form or another. Parental involvement was required in most schools, connected to fundraising and other activities such as chaperoning trips, helping with materials, and working on facilities projects.
Tuition and fees varied enormously among schools. Most schools base their charges on a 10-month year. The range in 1992-93 was from a low of $680 dollars to a high of $3,800. Two schools charged under $1,000 for the first child, three were in the $2,500 to $3,000 range, and four were over $3,000. One school had a sliding scale based on ability to pay that ranged from $50 to $4,000. Most schools have some scholarship money to defray tuition costs for poor families and all but one have sibling reductions. Increases in 1993-94 ranged from 0% to 66% for the lowest tuition school in 1992-93. Tuition and fees ranged from $1,080 to $4,000 in 1993-94.
For five of the tuition-charging schools, the choice voucher of $2,987 is at least a breakeven amount relative to tuition charges. For three schools the voucher represents a net loss compared to tuition. For the two schools with only MPS contract and choice students, the choice students generate several thousand dollars less than the contract students. For the school with variable tuition, it is not clear where the voucher fits.
The buildings in which these schools are housed also vary considerably. One school, Bruce Guadalupe, has just completed and moved into a new building constructed with the aid of and attached to the United Community Center. The close-to-$3 million dollar building is beautifully designed and has all the necessities of a modern K-8 school. They moved from a very poor building, with small broken-up classrooms, poor gym and lunch facilities, and cramped administrative spaces. Conditions have obviously improved considerably.
Of the other ten schools, four are located in former parochial schools. The buildings are large, with spacious rooms and corridors, the high ceilings reflecting the period in which they were built. Two of the Montessori schools have been housed for many years in old, very large houses. A third school is located in the building built for it thirty years ago. None of these schools complain about their facilities.
Of the remaining schools, two were actively searching for other facilities last year. One has just moved. In both cases, space was a problem, and for one the layout of the building was also a detriment. The final school has facilities located in a remodeled department store. Extensive remodeling over the last two years has improved the spaces, which are used for a wide range of educational activities, including extensive adult education.
Students. Students in the Choice Program range in age from 4 to 19 years old. Most of the students are in four K-8 schools. Of the 620 students enrolled in September 1992, 531 (86%) were in these schools. In 1993, the number rose to 612 of 742, but the percentage declined to 82%. Forty-six students were in the two alternative high school programs in 1992-93 and 80 students enrolled in the three alternative programs in 1993-94. The remaining students were in the four Montessori and the one Waldorf school.
The racial composition of choice students by school is mixed. Four of the schools in 1993-94 were almost all African American. Four others are predominantly African American (above 70%). One school is 91% Hispanic, and the remaining three schools are more evenly integrated. This pattern is partly the result of conscious specialization on the part of schools (for example, African-American cultural schools and a bilingual school); and partly the result of location. One well-integrated school has a formal policy of insuring that its student body matches its carefully defined community area in terms of race, ethnicity, gender and economic class. Several of the schools with relatively high tuition expressly entered the Choice Program to provide some cultural diversity in their student body.
Staffing. The staffing of the schools was examined in the First-Year Report and several issues were raised. One problem was turnover¾of both teachers and administrators. Associated with that problem was the number of relatively new teachers in the schools. As indicated in Table 9a, staff turnover in 1991-92 continued to be a problem, and the number of new personnel increased. A third of the new personnel, however, were filling expansion positions. Both turnover and new personnel rates for 1992-93 were down substantially indicating some personnel stability in these five schools. In 1993-94, based on changes in eleven schools, the turnover rate remained constant at 18%, but the new personnel rate increased to 29% based on the creation of 10 new positions in addition to 16 replacements.
Seniority of teachers in the schools added since 1991 indicates more stable staffing in those schools. The average teacher seniority in these schools was 6.5 years, compared to 4.2 years in the original five schools studied in 1991. Twenty-six percent of the teachers had 10 or more years of experience in their current schools. Obviously this still differs considerably from the seniority achieved in most public school systems. Again, as in 1991, pay and benefit levels were the most often cited reasons for considering leaving their current schools.
Certification is also different in private schools. In 1991, in the original five schools studied, 62% of the teachers had state certification. In the additional six schools, only 54% were state-certified. Another 43% had specialty certification, however, and 21% were both state- and specialty-certified. The high percentage of specialty certification is due to the addition of four Montessori programs and a Waldorf school. These schools have national and/or internationally recognized certification programs for their relevant pedagogical specialties.
The racial composition of teachers has fluctuated as schools replace teachers and expand, and as new schools enter the program. As depicted in Table 9c, in the first year, the staff in these schools was predominantly white (75%) and female (89%). In the subsequent year, the teaching faculties became more diverse. In 1991-92, 71% were women and 38% were minority teachers (27% African-American, 11% Hispanic). In 1992-93, for the eleven schools, 82% were women and 30% were minorities. For 1993-94, based on all twelve schools, there was a slight increase in the number of men (up to 23%) and the minority percentage remained constant at 30.
Turnover of administrators was also high in the earlier period, but has stabilized somewhat recently. In 1990-91, in two of the schools, the principals or executive directors had been in their positions for only two years. In one school, the principal had been with the school for 16 years and had been principal for 13. In another, a new principal came in 1990 and resigned partway through the year. For 1991-92, for the six participating schools, there were new principals or directors in three of the schools (one of the appointed principals had been a teacher in the previous year). For the continuing schools in 1992-93, there were two new directors or principals, although one of the previous principals remained with the school as executive director.
For the twelve schools participating in 1993-94, the average seniority of 15 school administrators was 3.7 years in their respective schools as the year began. Two were beginning their first year, 3 were beginning their second year, and 3 more their third. The longest tenures were 8, 14, and 15 years.
With a few exceptions, staff turnover was not connected with dissatisfaction, but with pay and benefits. During our case studies in 1991 and 1993, teachers and administrators went out of their way to describe how they enjoyed the small class sizes they taught, the autonomy they had in the classroom, the usually congenial atmosphere in the schools, and the administrative support they received in disciplinary matters.
In 1990-91, several of the schools were suffering from recent changes in affiliation and location. One had moved into its existing building in September 1990 (as had Juanita Virgil Academy). Another had moved two years earlier, but many of the parents were not happy with the location of the building. An unsuccessful effort to acquire adequate funds to build a new building was abandoned during the 1990-91 year. Both of these schools were historically affiliated with religious organizations. Being on their own created financial hardships. Moving meant a loss of students, teachers, and administrators, as well as the normal difficulties associated with changing facilities.
These problems stabilized in 1991-92. One school was able to open up a new facility in addition to its existing school. The other schools remained in their same locations. The new schools that joined the Choice Program in 1992-93 were generally more affluent schools, with higher tuition. And although small in size, they have had very little turnover. They also tend to have more female and white teachers. Thus while staff turnover seems to be stable, the early advances in recruiting males and minority teachers have reversed since the second year.
Curriculum, Pedagogy, and Classes. The Choice Program, limited to independent, secular private schools, has attracted an eclectic set of schools. Four are pre-kindergarten or kindergarten through eighth grade schools. Four are Montessori, primarily pre-school programs. One is a K-8 Waldorf School. And three are alternative high schools for at-risk high-school-aged students. There is obviously considerable curriculum and pedagogical diversity.
The four K-8 schools are quite distinct. Two, with almost all African American students, have an African American cultural emphasis. That emphasis is conspicuous in the corridors and classrooms in a way that instills pride. The schools seem also to have adopted some of the aspects of their prior subcultures as Catholic schools. Students wear uniforms (with students routinely complaining and everyone else approving); the classroom discipline is clear; the corridor and communal conduct monitored closely.
The other two K-8 schools are as different from the other two as from each other. One, a primarily Hispanic school, emphasizes a bilingual curriculum, with Spanish required for all students. The rationale is that although some Hispanic students come with a solid command of Spanish, not all do, and most of the other students have little Spanish training. The final school is primarily White, but has an increasing percentage of minority students, partly as a result of the Choice Program. The school is modeled on an English day school with a focus on individual learning and responsibility, and on common values.
All four of these schools operate with standard classroom organization. The majority of the instruction is group instruction, with teacher-led learning and discussion. Each of the schools allows considerable variation among classrooms based on what the teacher believes works best for his or her children. Although teachers meet regularly and the schools are small enough that informal contact is continuous, only two of the schools have formally established curricula plans. Teachers expressed consistent satisfaction with their independence and with the administration that was there to aid them, not control them.
The four Montessori schools are all relatively small. All of the Montessori schools followed the basic patterns of student responsibility for setting up activities, cleaning up, and replacing learning aids are stressed. There was an emphasis on individually selected and paced activity. All of the schools used many of the traditional Montessori learning devices and aids. The atmosphere was generally quiet and restrained with an emphasis on the child, not the teacher.
There were variations, however. Some of the schools emphasized stricter discipline and more rigor in terms of timing of activities (characteristic of the European Montessori movement). Schools also varied in terms of the amount of group activity. In one school, for example, activity was essentially split between individual student activities and group activities such as story telling and singing. One school used the traditional Montessori bell ceremony to end class, others did not.
Montessori education, structured around diverse learning areas and individual student actions, was not always implemented effectively, however. One of the schools was quite chaotic when we observed it. Time on task was judged to be very low. In most Montessori classes we observed, individual activities (such as number games, painting, working on word "notebooks," etc. were approximately 15 minutes including meticulous clean-up and returning objects to their proper place. In this school, attention spans were 5 to 10 minutes, and teachers often were doing the replacement and cleanup. Rather than facilitating, encouraging, and asking students about activities, the teacher and aide were often trying to keep order.
Waldorf schools are based on the philosophy of Rudolph Steiner. We are not experts of any sort in that philosophy. Several of the principles which seemed operative in the Waldorf School of Milwaukee were: 1) A holistic conception of education that does not separate children's "traditional" educational activities (e.g. readings, math tables, writing) from other learning and skill development (e.g.: music, art, working with one's hands, cooking, and eating); 2) Teachers combine intellectual, physical and spiritual activities to assist learning; 3) Children should not be made to enter the adult world prematurely, thus play and childhood activities play a major role in child development; 4) Teaching is individual and child-centered, with teachers guiding students; 5) Teachers remain with their students throughout their years in the school.
The Waldorf school structures its learning around traditional classrooms. Classroom activity is varied between group practices and individual work. Art and music are pervasive in each classroom. Art work often matches stories and other more traditional educational activities throughout the year. Exercises often combine an aspect of the physical with the intellectual - such as the teacher calling on a student to provide an answer to a multiplication table by throwing the student a ball.
Food is also part of the educational experience, with some types of foods (e.g.: red meats) frowned upon or forbidden, and others (such as cooked carrots) exalted. The meals served at the school follow traditional Steiner teachings and are seen as another extension of the holistic education process. Families are encouraged to follow such practices at home, although the staff understands there will be diversity in this.
Although the Waldorf philosophy places considerable importance on individual development, the theories also are quite precise in the evolution of children's skills across the full range of experiences. Teachers often told us that by the end of this year, children should have mastered certain educational skills as well as progressed to an ability to use different types of art forms and materials, and physically to have achieved proficient levels of motor skills, etc. The evolutionary development also includes social relationships, changes in play habits, etc.
Staff organization and interaction is an essential ingredient of the Waldorf school. The school is "teacher run." The administrator responds to teacher decisions, and primarily handles administrative issues (enrollment, advertising, finances, supplies, etc.). The staff meets once each week from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. The meetings include a common meal and cover whatever topics are necessary. Because the school was only reorganized in its present form several years ago, they have not had to face the traditional Waldorf practice of granting a teacher a year sabbatical when their class graduates. The Waldorf staff readily admits that Waldorf education is not for everyone. The most common complaint is that the holistic approach does not permit enough concentration on basic educational skills. Because families are brought into the Waldorf school only after group meetings to explain the philosophy, tours of the school, and discussions with teachers and staff, parents generally understand the methods and practices before they enroll their child. Thus attrition from the school is mostly due to moving or inability to pay the relatively high tuition and fees, and not to pedagogical disagreements.
The two alternative high schools participating in the Choice Program differ considerably from each other. One of the schools initially ran one large high school class for students on the verge of dropping out of public school. In 1991-92, they also added a middle-school classroom for at-risk students. In 1993-94, they have decided to focus on the middle school, and the high school choice students transferred to the other alternative choice high school. In both schools, grades are given in courses, but the emphasis is on obtaining high school equivalent credits.
The second alternative school has a range of students, but focuses on teenage mothers. There is a large, well-equipped day-care facility connected to the school, located on the premises. Mothers are able to drop off their children, attend classes, but never be far away if needed.
The first school essentially runs a single class, with the teacher covering a range of topics. There has been a new teacher each year, and each time we have visited attendance has been very small (5 to 8 students with fall enrollments of 25 to 30). Instruction focuses on basics. There is considerable use of individually guided computer and non-computer instruction.
The second school is considerably larger (6 teachers in 1992-93) and is organized more as traditional high school with specialized-subject teachers and classrooms. In a number of classes we observed, there was a conscious emphasis on relating the material to the lives of the students. For example, in one science classroom, we observed a hands-on, lecture/discussion focusing on toxicity, with continuous reference to problems faced by and hazards to the children of the student mothers.
The school had a friendly and laid-back atmosphere. Teacher-student relationships seemed as important as what was being learned in terms of education skills. Everyone was involved in counseling that included sex education, problems of future pregnancies, and discussion of sometimes very difficult home relationships. The staff seemed to have high morale and there was clearly considerable communication among them. There was no turnover between 1992 and 1993 and four new positions were added to the school.
Both of these alternative schools have, by some standards, obvious deficiencies. Instruction is considerably below grade level; overall attendance is not nearly as high as normal MPS high school attendance; and there is major attrition from the Choice Program. These schools, however, are working with specialized student populations. In one sense, for one of the schools at least, any attendance and any accumulation of credits could be considered an advance over students being out of school completely. In the other, external home and family responsibilities create at best a unique high school environment.
The most important conclusion to be drawn about the schools in the Choice Program is that they are diverse. They serve different student populations; their approach to education varies considerably; their classroom and staff organization is not uniform; and their systems of governance are unique. In other words, these independent schools represent a range of different choices for parents and students.
Relationships Between Private Schools and MPS. One interesting feature concerning these schools, and other schools which might qualify for the Choice Program, is their relationship with the Milwaukee Public School System. The degree of cooperation and coordination that exists between public and private schools is often overlooked in the heated controversy over choice. There are a number of formal and informal connections between public and private schools in Milwaukee. For example, private schools may enroll a student who has undiagnosed special needs or learning disabilities. The schools often coordinate with MPS to determine the best educational course for the student. That might mean enrolling in an MPS school, enrolling in a specialized private school, or simply acquiring extra services from MPS while continuing to be enrolled in the private school.
In addition to these instances of informal cooperation, MPS has for many years contracted with private, nonsectarian schools to provide services for specific student populations. In accordance with state law, these contracts are limited to services for either preschoolers or at-risk students. In 1991-92, three of the choice schools had contract arrangements with MPS; in 1992-93, 4 of the 11 schools also had contract students; and in 1993-94, the number increased to 5 out of 12 schools. These yearly contracts seem to be beneficial to both parties. Although MPS offers as wide a range of choices of different forms of schools as any district in the country, and is constantly touted as an example of public school choice, specific students in individual schools may need programs and attention that are not available in that school. Contract arrangements provide an added alternative to serve the needs of these students.
There are several potentially negative aspects of the contracting arrangements from the perspective of the private schools. First, MPS controls the yearly contracts and schools could become financially dependent on them. Second, following an agreement with the Milwaukee Teachers Association, at least one MPS union teacher must be on site. Several schools cited instances where the MPS teacher did not fit in with the style or work arrangements in the schools. This created animosity and conflict because the schools had no real authority over the teacher.
The effect of contract arrangements on the Choice Program may be relevant to our understanding of the program. The contract with MPS is based on a per-student charge and is contingent on curricular approval and performance criteria. It also provides private schools with approximately $2,000 more revenue per student than the choice payments. This difference may lead choice schools to limit the number of choice students in favor of contract students. The price differential was also cited as one of the reasons some qualifying schools have chosen not to participate in the Choice Program.
Summary. The student bodies of the participating schools vary from schools that are almost all one minority race, to racially integrated schools, to schools that have used the Choice Program to diversify their almost all White student bodies.
There is also considerable diversity in the financial arrangements within the schools. Tuition and fees vary from slightly over $1,000 to approximately $4,000. Tuition and fees have increased since the Choice Program began. With the exception of one school which went bankrupt in the first year, the schools are better off financially than they were when the Choice Program began. There have also been improvements in facilities, with one school opening a newly built school this fall.
The most serious institutional problems noted in 1990-91 were high staff turnover and dealing with recent changes in location and affiliation for several of the schools. These problems continued in the second year, but appear to be less serious in the third and fourth years of the program. Schools have generally remained in their 1990 locations, and staff turnover declined and then stabilized at 18%. There is also evidence in the second and third years of the program that the teaching staffs are more diverse in terms of gender and race than they were in the first year. In the fourth year, however, with the addition of new schools, the percentage of white teachers (77%) is higher than it was initially (75%). There are more male teachers in the 12 schools in 1993 (23%) than there were in the 5 schools reported in 1990 (11%).
In terms of pedagogy and school and classroom organization, there is enormous diversity in the choice schools. They differ in students being served, educational philosophies, classroom organization and activity, approaches to discipline, and school governance. They also differ in their relationship to MPS. Five of the twelve schools in 1993 have contract as well as choice students. Of those, three are alternative middle or high schools which have no tuition paying students.
Appendix C. Recommendations
Legislative Changes
A basic issue in this program is the idea of accountability. Put simply, there are two approaches to educational accountability. One is state and district regulated accountability in which legally responsible authorities require schools and/or districts to adhere to specified practices, standards, and reporting of outcome measures. The other is that parents can best exercise accountability and determine the adequacy of educational outcomes by making free choices among schools. The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program was premised on the latter theory. Although we recommend for consideration modest additional regulation, this should not be interpreted as a suggestion that the legislature abandon parental accountability as the main principle of this program.
The operation and closing of Juanita Virgil Academy was the most troublesome aspect of the first year of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. There are those who would argue that the failure of that school is to be expected in a market system of education. Whether one believes that that expectation outweighs the fact that approximately 150 children essentially lost a year's education is a value issue that we cannot resolve. Whatever one's values are, the price was high for those families involved.
We believe that very simple regulations requiring a formal governance structure, financial reporting, and further accountability in terms of outcomes would greatly reduce the likelihood that schools would close mid-year. These regulations are premised on the theory that parental choice remains the mechanism of accountability. The additional regulations are meant to provide enhanced information with which parents can make choices and exercise that accountability.
We recommend three sets of provisions for certifying new private schools in the Choice Program. The ideas for these regulations came from our case studies of the current choice schools. All of the six choice schools currently in the program meet almost all of these suggested requirements; Juanita Virgil did not meet any of them.
Governance. All schools participating in the Parental Choice Program should have a formal governance structure including a board of directors (school board). The board can be structured by the schools as they see fit, but must include a specified and formal process for selection and terms of members. It should also include at least some members who have no proprietary interest in the school. It should also include parents. We also recommend that the school have formal bylaws. The board should have the authority to promulgate and amend the bylaws and establish whatever additional governing structure is seen as appropriate. Board meetings should be held in accordance with state open meeting laws.
Financial Reporting. All schools participating in the Parental Choice Program must conduct an annual financial audit which meets the accounting standards for private, nonprofit organizations. The report should be a matter of public record and be filed annually with the Department of Public Instruction.
Added Accountability. Schools should be required to meet all current and future state outcome requirements, including statewide tests, dropout reporting, and a school report card when it is required. [See the text for an amendment to this recommendation.]
Review Accountability Standards. We recommend that the legislature review the current standards of accountability as specified in the statute. At present, schools may meet any one of four standards (attendance, achievement, grade advancement, or parental involvement). We suggest that the schools meet more than one of these standards. We also suggest flexibility in the standards based on the level of the school. For example, 90 percent attendance is adequate for elementary schools, but would be very high for high schools, especially alternative high schools (MPS high schools, including specialty high schools average 82 percent attendance.)
Program Information. To facilitate parent knowledge of the program and the choice schools, we suggest that the legislature consider making information on the Choice Program available through the extensive school selection process in MPS. Specifically, information on the Choice Program and schools should be displayed along with other MPS specialty school and program options, and the Chapter 220 program. If this is not acceptable, at a minimum, the schools should be allowed to display brochures in the pupil assignment and school information rooms at MPS headquarters. MPS should not bear any costs or be held accountable in any way for the private schools. [This recommendation was approved by the legislature in 1993, but the amount of money allocated may need review.]
Selection Procedures. Currently the statutes require schools to collect applications through June 30, and then apply random selection if there are more applications than slots. This means that schools are not able to guarantee parents a position for a new student until after June 30. In contrast, assignments are made in MPS in the early spring. To avoid this problem, it may be advisable to have an "early enrollment" period (ending, for example, on March 30) that avoids random assignment for a portion of the seats anticipated in a school.
Explicit language could be added to the statute forbidding schools from using achievement or behavioral records or information in making their enrollment decision. The remaining seats would follow the existing timetable, but the restrictions on admission criteria would continue to apply. Schools would, however, be allowed to enroll students up to one week prior to the first class day if positions remained open and total choice enrollment did not exceed the 49 percent limit. In addition to the current monitoring of this process by the Department of Public Instruction, the school board for each school should be required to verify that the procedures were followed.
Administrative Changes
Selection. A series of administrative decisions concerning selection that were made during the first year should be added to the formal administrative rules. For example, oversubscription was defined by grade, not by a school as a whole. In addition, siblings of already admitted choice students are not required to be subject to the random selection process. Finally, students admitted in one year were automatically readmitted, with the only condition being that their household income had not gone above the required limit. Finally, waiting lists were established in oversubscribed schools based on the random selection process.
Transportation. Currently, schools must choose either to provide busing, for which the school is reimbursed, or parents must provide transportation, for which the parents are reimbursed at the end of the year. There are numerous problems with these arrangements. First, forcing all students into one or the other of these patterns does not meet varying family needs. Some families can provide private (or public) transportation, some cannot. Reimbursement for private transportation also causes financial hardships because it comes in one payment at the end of the year. Semester payments would improve this situation. Finally, the paucity and expense of yellow buses makes for very long bus rides for some, and a short instructional day. This is a more difficult problem to solve, but alternative arrangements should be analyzed.
Summer School. One of the schools was partially reimbursed for choice students attending summer school. That practice should be added to the rules, along with a simplified method of computing reimbursement.
Reporting. Schools should be explicitly required to submit the names, grade, gender, and race of choice students following the third-Friday counts in September and January. For administrative and evaluation purposes, they should also be required to submit a similar list following the end of the school year. It would also be very helpful for administrative and evaluation purposes if the schools would provide the reasons a student left the school year. If the information is available, a similar list would be useful of students who completed the year, did not graduate, but did not return to the schools the next year. [This has been implemented.]
Other Issues
Learning Disabled and Emotionally Disturbed Students. Several schools currently put in their school literature that they are not equipped to teach learning disabled (LD) or emotionally disturbed (ED) students. Because it is not always easy to detect these conditions in students, the schools end up working with more LD and ED students than their literature indicates. Non of the current choice schools, as presently configured, however, can adequately teach ED students and they would not be able to teach large numbers of LD students effectively. The legislature may wish to consider a higher per member payment if schools are willing to accept LD students and applicable state standards. Differential reimbursement could be computed based on the costs of providing public school education for LD students.
Second-Semester Admission. The legislature may also wish to consider whether students should be allowed to enter the program during the year, or at the beginning of the second semester. All other rules would apply. If the school was filled, but students have left, providing new openings, new positions would have to be offered first to those on school waiting lists. [This has effectively been implemented by allowing students to enter the program off the waiting lists after initial enrollment.]
Administrative Costs. The choice schools report considerable added administrative costs for the program. The legislature may wish to study this problem over the current school year for future consideration in adjusting payments to cover these costs.
The Mobility Problem in Public and Private Schools. It is clear from our study that student mobility is high in Milwaukee schools, especially among low-income students, and presents a major problem in providing educational services. That problem potentially affects student learning and other aspects of education (belonging, self-esteem, friendships, etc.). It also has important ramifications for how districts structure curriculum and how the state and district school-level assessment might be designed. The legislature may wish to consider this problem independently of the Choice Program, especially as it affects larger-city school districts.
Appendix D.
Survey Sample Sizes and Response Rates
Surveys Surveys Not Surveys Response
Mailed Delivered Returned Rate
MPS Parents 5/91 5475 224 1598 30.4%
Choice Parents Wave 1, 10/90 349 31 149 46.9%
Choice Parents Wave 2, 6/91 360 33 166 50.8%
Choice Parents Wave 1, 10/91 453 29 207 48.8%
Choice Parents Wave 2, 6/92 531 38 219 44.4%
Choice Parents Wave 1, 10/92 318 17 132 43.9%
Choice Parents Wave 2, 6/93 656 35 238 38.3%
Choice Parents Wave 1, 10/93 349 17 154 46.4%
Choice Parents Wave 2, 6/94 732 63 273 40.8%
Appendix E.
Race and Income Response Rates (Percentages)
Race Actual Accepted Choice Actual MPS MPS Responded
in Choice Responded to Control Group to Survey,
1990 to 1993 Survey, Oct. 1991 May 1991
1990 to 1993
African 71.5 75.5 55.3 42.5
American
Asian American 0.4 0.3 3.8 6.0
Hispanic 20.6 16.3 4.7 10.1
Native 0.8 1.1 0.9 0.5
American
White 5.9 6.2 29.3 40.3
Other 0.9 0.6 1.0 0.8
(N) (1517) (611) (5365) (1541)
Income
Low Income NA NA 63.9 59.5
Non-Low Income NA NA 36.1 40.5
(5438) (1541)
Appendix F.
Models to Estimate "Total Math" from "Problem Solving"
Beginning in 1993, MPS tested some students on only one part of the three part ITBS Math test. There is a very high correlation between that part and Total Math as measured by all three tests. Therefore we regressed Problem Solving on Total Math to estimate the latter for students taking only Problem Solving. The relevant models and data are:
1993: MNCE93 = 3.7405 + .9136 * MATHPRBNCE93
R = .88
R2= .77, F=8646 (df=2601,1), p<0.0000
1994: MNCE94 = 3.249 + .9224 * MATHPRBNCE94
R = .88
R2= .77, F=7731 (df=2246,1), p<0.0000