HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-10-1998 - Attachment #11CHAPEL HILL - CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS
Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516
Telephone: 919- 967 -8211
Fax: 919 -933 -4560
Neil Pedersen, Superintendent
A4ckY"u1+ jj
Ann Y. Hart, Assistant Superintendent
for Instructional Services
Chester F. Preyar, Assistant Superintendent
for Support Services
To: Neil Pedersen
Superintendent alvl�
From: Ann Hart
Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Services
Re: Alternative School Evaluation Report
Date: August ,10, 1998
Accompanying this memo is the Alternative School Evaluation Report. This
information is submitted for your review and presentation to the Board of
Education at the meeting on August 20, 1998.
Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools' alternative school, Phoenix Academy,
welcomed students in February 1998. The school served twelve middle and high
school students. Dr. Mimi Chapman of the UNC -CH School of Social Work
designed and conducted an evaluation of the program. The evaluation consisted
of three components. The first is the School Success Profile -OL (SSP -OL) which
measures strengths and weaknesses in life areas known to impact school
performance. The second component is an archival analysis of student
performance and the third included a series of interviews with the school staff,
administrators, parents, students, and selected Lincoln Center employees.
Dr. Chapman found improvement in students' absenteeism and school
performance. Interviews indicate that the alternative school staff is committed
and has implemented a program that students and parents find to be valuable
and are willing to invest in its continued success. As the program expands, on-
going communication with parents and the home schools needs to continue.
Individual plans for students to transition to their home schools or other..
educational settings will need to be developed.
a
Dr. Chapman will present a brief overview of the evaluation at the Board meeting
on August 20 and, along with Burmadeane George, will respond to questions.
6K
Alternative School Evaluation Report
Mimi V. Chapman, M.S.W., Ph.D.
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
The School of Social Work
July 17, 1998
ff
Table of Contents
Introduction ______
Evaluation Methods
Findings__
------------ - - - - -- 3
------------ - - - - -- 3
------------ - - - - -- 4
Findings from the School Success Profile-01, - Time 1 _ W �4
Results from the Second SSP -01, Administration 5
Archival Findings 6
Interview Findings 7
Program Purpose and Functioning 7
Parent Involvement 7
Successes g
Challenges q
Conclusions & Recommendations
10
Appendix A - Interview Questions ______ ______ __________
__ ______ I 1
Appendix B - SSP Measures ______ ___ __________ _______________
_12
Social Environment Profile Measures
12
Neighborhood
12
School
12
Friends
12
Family
13
Individual Adaptation Profile Measures
14
Support
14
Self- Confidence
14
School Behavior
14
General well- Hein¢
15
Appendix C — Sample Profile
16
2
INTRODUCTION
Since 1993, the Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Schools have been implementing new programs
to meet the needs of disengaged learners at the middle and high school level. An on -going
part of this conversation has been the need for a free - standing alternative school to serve
youth that are severely disaffected from the educational process. During this period,
legislation was enacted that allowed for an increase in the number of long -term suspensions
and expulsions furthering this school district's concerns about students who find
themselves out of the educational system with few, if any, options for return. In addition
to students who have been long -term suspended or expelled, other students have
experienced school disruptions that, in effect, curtail their educational opportunities. The
Chapel -Hill Carrboro City Schools alternative school was proposed as a mechanism to
educate these students and to assist them in finding ways to maintain long -term school
success.
The Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Schools Alternative School, now known as Phoenix
Academy, opened its doors to students in February of 1998. Phoenix Academy is part of a
continuum of services for students experiencing school difficulties. For students who have
been- long-term suspended or expelled, Phoenix Academy represents their only public
school option. Other students who have experienced repeated difficulties, either
behaviorally or academically can be recommended to the program and may attend on a
voluntary basis.
The alternative school proposal, approved by the Chapel Hill- Cairboro City School Board
last year, contained an evaluation requirement. Dr. Muni V. Chapman of the UNC -CH
School of Social Work designed and carried out the evaluation plan. This report details
selected findings from that evaluation.
EVALUATION METHODS
This evaluation consists of three components. The first component included pre and post-
test measures on correlates of school success using the School Success Profile -OL (SSP -
OL), an on -line survey completed by student participants whose parents have given consent
for participation. The SSP, created by Drs. Gary L. Bowen and Jack M. Richman, is
designed to (a) describe students selected for program participation; (b) inform the process
by which each student is provided with a comprehensive program of services; (c) monitor
changes in program participants over time.
The survey is informed by an ecological perspective and was created after a comprehensive
review of the literature related to school success. The SSP -OL measures strengths and
weaknesses in life areas known to enhance or detract from school performance:
neighborhood, family, friends, and school. It is designed for use with middle school and
high school age students (10- 18 years of age). Each student who completes the SSP
receives an individualized summary report that includes two profiles: (1) The Social
Environment Profile, which includes 11 sub - dimensions and (2) The Individual Adaptation
Profile, which includes 12 sub - dimensions. Student responses are compared to a national
random sample of students. The national sample was conducted by Louis Harris and
Associates, Inc. between October 31 and February 15, 1997. Yielding a nationally
representative sample of 2099 in grades 6 to 12, the Harris methodology involved a
stratified two -stage sampling design.
3
The second component included archival analysis of student performance outcomes.
Attendance records for the semester prior to the students' entry into the alternative school
was compared with attendance records following their transfer to Phoenix Academy.
Grades before and after enrolling in the alternative school were compared. Finally, end -of-
grade and end -of- course test scores were examined to document proficiency and the ability
to progress to the next level in a particular subject.
The third component consisted of a series of interviews with alternative school staff, home -
base school principals and administrators, parents, students, and Lincoln Center
employees. These stakeholder getups were chosen with in -put from the lead teacher and
assistant superintendent. Structured interview guides were used to facilitate conversation
about the alternative school. Please see Appendix A for a list of the questions used.
This triangulated evaluation approach has proven a useful means for understanding
program functioning. Looking at only one aspect, such as archival comparisons on grades,
neglects the richness and intensity of staff and student investment revealed by the interview
data. In addition, difficulties encountered by the alternative school are clearly illustrated
providing guidance for future change and improvement.
The report is organized into sections documenting findings from each of the three
evaluation methods. The report concludes with a section summarizing major findings and
giving recommendations for the future. All findings are best interpreted as a profile of
current services and as a basis for monitoring future progress.
FINDINGS
During the spring of 1998, 25 students were recommended to Phoenix Academy. Twelve
were accepted for program participation and eleven were participating at the time this report
was compiled. One student left the program in favor of the Tar Heel Challenge program,
largely because of his age. Phoenix Academy staff facilitated that transfer. Of the 11
students, six were African- American, four were white, one was multiracial. Students
ranged from 13 to 18-years of age. Seven girls and five boys participated. Four home -
base schools were represented in the program.
Phoenix Academy employs four permanent staff members - a lead teacher, who provides
administrative oversight and vision for the program; a vocational counselor, who has
worked with students around work -study plans, as well as provided supportive counseling
and case management services; a teaching assistant; and a special education teacher. School
begins at 9 am and ends at 3:30. Transportation and lunch are provided to students.
Findings from the School Success Profile-01. - Time 1
Students completed the SSP -OL upon entry into the program. Parent consent was obtained
for each student at the initial screening visit. The second administration occurred in June.
This time frame is quite short. Based on previous research with the SSP, minimal change
would be expected during this time flame. Eight out of eleven possible students took the
SSP at the first administration. Of these eight students, five provided completed surveys at
Time 2. An additional student provided partial survey data at the second administration.
(Appendices B and C provide scale definitions and a sample individual profile at Time 1
and Time 2.)
4
• At the time of the first administration, all students had at least one score on the "below
average" range on the neighborhood scales. Four students had two or more
neighborhood scales in the "below average" or "much below average" range.
• Seven out of eight students had two or more of the school attitude scales in the "below
average" or "much below average" range.
• Six out of eight students were "below" or "much below" average on the peer acceptance
and satisfaction scales.
• Seven out of eight students scored in the "much below average" range on at least one of
the family scales.
• All students scored "below average" on at least one of the support scales.
• Seven out of eight students scored "much below average" on one of the self - confidence
scales.
• Six out of eight students scored "below" or "much below average" on two or more of
the school behavior scales.
• Five out of eight students had scores of "below" or "much below average" on two or
more of the general well-being scales.
The SSP findings at the time of the first administration support the selection process for
admission to the alternative school. The students selected appear to be experiencing
significant risks both at school and in other social environments. Coupled with poor
school performance, these multiple ecological risks make these students appropriate
candidates for Phoenix Academy.
Results from the Second SSP -OL Administration
• At the time of the second administration, four out of six students had moved into a
higher range on three or more scales related to school satisfaction, home - school
connections, or school behaviors.
• Two students had moved into a higher range on at least one of the family scales.
• One student showed improved self - esteem.
• A fifth student whose Tune 1 profile indicated risk in virtually every area did show
improvement, although his scores did not change from one range to another. His
scores were higher but remained in the "much below average' range.
The results of the second administration are compromised by the missing data from some
students. However, based on the available information, it appears that students are making
progress both in school and other life domains. It is particularly encouraging that positive
change was documented in such a short time span. Of note is the lack of change or decline
5
for some students on the general well -being scales. Physical health, in particular, is a
concern at both administrations for five out of six students. Four out of six'students were
below average on the happiness scales at both administrations. Family issues were of
concern to three out of the six students at both administrations and had surfaced as a
problem for one student by the second administration. In order to address the multiple
needs of these students, the alternative school may want to consider targeting interventions
toward health and family. This may require additional staff with expertise in these areas or
linking with other community resources that could provide these services.
Archival Findings
Three types of archival data were examined: attendance, grades, and standardized
test scores. Attendance data was available for all students for both the first and second
semesters of the 1997 —1998 school year. All figures in the archival analysis have been
rounded to the nearest whole number.
Substantial improvement can be seen in absenteeism. The average number of
absences per student in the first semester of the school year was 29 days. The average
number of absences during the second semester decreased to 13 days. These figures
include data from three students who did not enter the alternative school until late April.
These students had excessive absences documented in both the first and second semesters.
When this data is removed from the analysis, the average number of days missed in the
first semester changes to 27 days missed The second semester average then decreases to 7
days missed.
Improvement can also been seen in Phoenix Academy students' grades. Complete
data was available for nine out of eleven students. Of these students, 8 out of 9 showed
improvement in their academic subjects. One student showed no change in grades between
the first and the second semester. Generally, the changes made were modest but
consistent. For instance, if a student had been earning mostly D's and F's during the first
semester at the home -base school, that student had likely improved to earning C's and D's
after a semester at Phoenix Academy.
With regard to standardized testing, three students were required to take end -of-
course proficiency tests in reading and mathematics. Although none of these students
achieved proficiency in these areas, one student improved one level in the reading area and
one student missed proficiency in mathematics by only one point.
All eligible students took at least one end -of -grade test. Courses taken that required
testing included Biology, Physical Science, English I and II, Algebra I and II, ELP, and
U.S. History. Data was not available for students who took end -of- course tests in English
II. Table 1 provides a summary of student achievement on end -of -grade tests.
Table 1— End -of- Course Test Summary
Course Title
Pace
Fail
Total
Al ebra I or ll
3
1
4
U.S. History
1
0
1
ELP Civics
3
1
4
Physical Science/
Biology
2
4
6
English I
4
0
14
6
The available data shows that 19 end -of- course tests were given. Of these, .13 were passed
and 6 were failed. The greatest number of failures occurred in science courses, while the
greatest number of passes occurred in English courses and the social sciences.
These findings indicate that Phoenix Academy students are beginning to make progress on
academic outcomes. As expected, the most dramatic gains have been in attendance.
Improvement is beginning to show in both grades and standardized test scores. To see
progress in archival outcomes in the first four months of the school's existence is
encouraging.
Interview Findings
Program Purpose and Functioning
All involved with Phoenix Academy appeared to have a clear vision of the program's
purpose: to provide students having extreme difficulties in the home school environment
with a second chance at school success. One administrator described the goals this way:
"Kids have to learn self - determination and that actions have consequences. We help them
figure out where they want to go and what they need to do to get there." Parents described
the school as a place that "accepts a child where (s)he is and fills in the gaps." Students
stated that Phoenix Academy allowed them to "realize your strengths and weaknesses and
make the weaknesses stronger." They described the school as a place to "get caught up"
and to compete "against yourself, not a bunch of other people." Students described the
school as more flexible than their home -base schools saying, "this school is all about us!"
A typical day at Phoenix Academy begins at 9 a.m. Students sometimes participate in a
group discussion in response to a newspaper article or finish work from the previous day.
After this, students begin their individualized instruction using the Plato computer system.
This curriculum covers all required subject areas: history, English, mathematics, and
science. Students work at their own pace and can continue working on a particular subject
for several hours at a time. They must average at least 30 minutes per day on each required
subject. Lunch is delivered to the school. In the afternoon, students continue studying
sometimes working in groups. In addition, the afternoons provide time for enrichment
activities. This spring students have had exposure to an artist, a steel drum musician, and
health department programs directed at STD prevention and self- esteem enhancement. All
of these individuals worked with students on a voluntary basis. Teaching fellows from the
UNC -CH School of Education also tutored students throughout the semester.
Many students at Phoenix Academy were involved in work -study experiences. Two
students worked with the Paul Green Theater building sets and learning about stage
lighting. Both of these students have been invited to audit UNC drama classes in the fall.
Other students have participated in job- shadowing experiences in Lincoln Center.
Parent Involvement
Parents have been an integral part of Phoenix Academy. Parents became involved at the
initial screening with the student and contact was maintained throughout the semester.
Parents were called with any disciplinary issue that arose during the school day. For
instance, if a student were to speak disrespectfully to a staff member, they would be told to
call their parents and describe their behavior. If students were late to school, a parent was
required to escort them into school. Parents were involved in providing treats for students,
helping with computer activities, and most parents attended the end -of- school breakfast and
awards ceremony.
W
Staff reported that parents were appreciative of the efforts the school made. The school
counselor routinely attends juvenile court proceedings with students and their families. She
said that parents were appreciative of this effort and were surprised to learn that she would
make the effort to attend hearings that would be held during the summer months.
Parents reported feeling highly connected to the school. They described dramatic contrasts
between their experiences with school personnel at the home school and personnel at the
alternative school. A parent stated, "My child's had an IEP his whole life and it's never
made a difference. At this school, an individualized plan really means something." One
parent stated that it took three months to receive a return phone call from someone at the
home -base school. Another said that only when her child got in trouble at mid- semester
did she learn that her child was regularly skipping classes. All parents valued the constant
contact they have with Phoenix Academy staff. One said, "There's a lot of real love for
kids in that classroom." Another commented, "The teachers here treat me with respect. Up
until now, the school treated me like 'why listen to her, she's only his mother. "'
Successes
In the short time it has been in existence, the alternative school is already experiencing
success. Students reported that their grades and their attitudes toward school have
improved A student stated that she "never thought I'd make A's and B's again." One
parent stated that her child wanted to go to school again and routinely told her about
interesting events that occurred during the school day. Another parent said, "I was ready to
have my daughter quit school; here she's beginning to feel successful again." Some staff
members from the students' home -base school have also heard success stories; one
guidance counselor reported that she knew of one student referred to Phoenix Academy that
"just blossomed" in the program.
The staff is also seen as highly responsive. The lead teacher received praise from virtually
everyone interviewed Students and parents point to her as the person that makes the
program work. Students said, "Ms. George would do anything in the world for any of us
and she'll call your parents if you're not doing what you should." "She cares about us as
individuals; you can tell this job is more than just a paycheck to her." Members of the
wider Lincoln Center community stated that Ms. George made the presence of the program
in Lincoln Center easier to adjust to. They reported that she was open with staff, modeled
patient, yet firm, interactions with the students, and provided a sounding board for Lincoln
Center staff with questions or concerns.
This openness may have contributed to an unintended, but highly valuable, consequence of
the program's Lincoln Center location. When the program was originally designed, one
hope was that students would have exposure to environments that would "slingshot" them
out of their identities as "problem" students into more productive identities. For this
reason, the school was planned as a community-based school surrounded by businesses
and community agencies. The school was placed at Lincoln Center because of resource
constraints. However, the "slingshot effect" seems to be happening in this setting. Adults
in the building, who were originally concerned about the presence of the alternative school,
became involved with students. They occasionally taught classes, brought treats for the
students, formed individual mentoring relationships with students, and provided job -
shadowing experiences. Both students and staff benefited from these encounters. Lincoln
Center staff became much more comfortable with the program as they got to know the
students and students received the benefit of adult attention and encouragement. One staff
member said, "For some kids this is the first time an adult who didn't have to care about
8
them, took an interest. They thrive on that." Being accepted by the Lincoln Center staff
means something to students. They reported being concerned that people "thought we
were serial killers" and were "always watching us." They now speak of individual Lincoln
Center staff members with affection, describing their sense of humor or other positive
attributes.
Finally, most people interviewed saw the school as benefiting both the students and the
home -base school. One principal said clearly, "when the program is running properly, it
should be a win -win situation for everybody." When asked who benefited most from the
presence of the alternative school, some stakeholders replied the home school benefits from
having more options for students who are not being successful. Others replied that Lincoln
Center staff benefited by being able to experience kids on a regular basis. But the most
encouraging comment came from students who answered by saying in unison, throwing
their arms in the air, "US!"
Challenges
Despite the many successes, Phoenix Academy faces substantial challenges as it begins the
new school year. As the program expands, these challenges will need to be addressed to
ensure on -going success. The first major challenge facing the school is communication
with the referring schools. Throughout the first months of Phoenix Academy,
communication with the home schools has been informal. Principals from these schools
often dropped by when they were at Lincoln Center for other reasons. Some staff
members regularly saw members of the home -base school staff outside of work and
communicated on those occasions. However, no formal mechanism exists for
communicating student progress back to the home school. Indeed, there was confusion as
to whether home -base schools were responsible for giving grades or whether Phoenix
Academy does this directly. Similarly, some members of the home -base school teams felt
uninformed about the school's functioning. One person stated, "I didn't even know they'd
re-named the school until I read it in the paper."
Presently, students who have not been expelled or long -term suspended must consent to
attend the program. There is a great diversity of opinion as to whether this policy makes
sense. Several principals and other stakeholders believe that students do not generally have
the foresight to make decisions of this kind. They believe the policy forces administrators
to long -term suspend students in order to ensure that Phoenix Academy is their only public
education option. Examples were given of students who were recommended to the school
but refused Two of these students were sent to training school because of legal
difficulties. Some administrators believed that this outcome might have been prevented if
these students had been required to attend the alternative school earlier. Others involved
with these children did not feel that attendance at Phoenix Academy would have affected the
outcome. Other principals and program staff support voluntary participation. They believe
that without it the program will become "like a prison" and that students must be open to
trying the school in order for them to be invested in making change. One principal stated
that leadership was the key to making the voluntary policy work saying "If the alternative
school is presented as a positive and attractive option, students and their parents will be
asking to go. Another believed that the policy served a good purpose in that it prevented
the school from becoming a place where " over - zealous principals sent their problematic
kids."
Transitioning students out of Phoenix Academy is another challenge on the program's
horizon. Currently, all students that have attended the alternative school this year will be
returning in the fall. No one is eligible to leave until January of 1999. However.. from the
9
comments of students and parents, it is clear that the majority do not want to return to their
home -base schools. Parents stated that they were "scared to death" of having their children
return. One stated, "She'll be swallowed up. The focus there is on survival; they don't
help her see the possibilities that come with education." Another said, "I refuse to send
him to the high school and see all of Ms. George's work go down the drain." When asked
about whether they wanted their student to be able to cope to the "real world," one parent
replied that Phoenix Academy was much more like the real world than the average high
school. "You come in, sit down at a computer, and do your work. You don't have
someone standing up lecturing to you and 25 other people all day in the working world."
Students, too, expressed strong feelings about returning to the home -base school. Several
said it would be difficult to go back because they will have their same reputations as "bad
kids," a label which is difficult to change. One stated, "I'll drop out if I go back there. If
they send me back, then it's a waste of the program." Although a few students expressed a
desire to return, most did not.
The Phoenix Academy counselor is actively working to connect with other educational
alternatives for students that may be more appropriate than returning to the home -base
school. But, if the goal is for most students to successfully return to their home -base
school, significant effort must be put in place to convince students and parents that success
can be had in the environment where they were previously unsuccessful. This will require
significant thought and collaboration with the home -base schools to make successful
returns a reality.
Next year, Phoenix Academy will move from inside Lincoln Center to two mobile
classrooms on the Lincoln Center grounds. This will alleviate the program's need for
increased space and private areas for interviewing and phone calls. It will also allow the
program to accept greater numbers of referrals. However, staff and some principals
reported that they believe this move will increase the isolation of the program. As
mentioned earlier, students have developed many positive relationships with Lincoln Center
staff. These may be lost when they move to the mobile classrooms. In addition, Phoenix
Academy staff have found support in having uninvolved colleagues available throughout
the day.
Also related to growth is the need for more staff. Another full-time teacher is needed to
allow the lead teacher to fulfill all the administrative duties. One principal suggested that
the lead teacher's title be changed to "principal" so that she is able to participate in
principal's meetings and other leadership forums.
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
• Phoenix Academy has made a great start in providing educational services to
disengaged students.
• Archival findings indicate that students' grades and attendance are improving.
• The majority of end -of- course tests taken were passed
• Students attempting to achieve proficiency in reading and math have made progress but
are not yet proficient.
• A group of committed staff has been hired who share a common vision for the
program.
• Students and parents are finding the program valuable and are invested in its continued
success.
10
• Principals appear to have a common vision of the school's purpose, although some
would like to see the purpose altered to allow more BEH students and a wider range of
middle school students to attend.
• The SSP -OL findings indicate the students referred to the program were experiencing
risk in a wide range of ecological life domains. This would indicate that appropriate
students have been targeted for intervention.
• The SSP -OL findings show significant positive changes, particularly in school- related
measures. It is unusual to see such significant change in such a short time span.
• The SSP -OL findings indicate that more attention should be paid to students' physical
health and family concerns.
• Communication between Phoenix Academy and the home schools should be
formalized, so that all interested parties can be well informed regarding student
progress.
• As the program changes its physical location, efforts should be made to maintain the
positive relationships that have developed between students and Lincoln Center
employees.
• Steps must be taken to help students become invested in the transition from Phoenix
Academy to other educational alternatives. Another option is to begin thinking of
Phoenix Academy as a school from which students could graduate.
• Maintain the voluntary nature of the program. The policy appears to facilitate
appropriate selection criteria for students entering the school.
APPENDIX A - INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. As you see it, what is the purpose of the alternative school?
2. What, if anything, is different about the alternative school as compared to other schools
you've been involved with.
3. What types of students come to the alternative school?
4. How are parents involved in the school?
5. What is a typical day like at the altemative school?
6. What has been the best part of being involved with this school?
7. What would you like to change about the alternative school?
ff
11
APPENDIX B - SSP MEASURES
Social Environment
Profile Measures
(Student Evaluation of Situation)
NOTE: Item number references are for the paper copy of the SSP.
Neighborhood
Neighborhood Satisfaction (Q21a, c -g): Assesses the degree of cohesion, encouragement, and
support that students perceive in their neighborhood. Items include the interest neighboring
adults show in the behavior of young people in the neighborhood, available activities, network
support between neighbors, and the respondent's happiness with the neighborhood are
examples. Six items define this sub - scale, and students are asked to "agree" or "disagree" with
each item. Positive responses are counted to produce a summary score ranging from 0 to 6.
Peer Culture (Q22a -g): Determines the likelihood that youth living in the neighborhood who
are about the same age as the respondent will avoid negative behaviors and interactions (e.g.,
get in trouble with the police, use drugs, join a gang, drink alcoholic beverages) and engage
in prosocial outcomes (e.g., graduate from high school, make good grades in school). Seven
items define this sub - scale, and students respond to each statement as "likely" or "unlikely."
Positive responses are counted to create a summary score ranging from 0 to 7.
Neighborhood Safety (Q23a -1): Measures student perceptions regarding the safety in their
neighborhood. It asks about specific incidents of violence and illegal activity that have
occurred within the last 30 days in students' neighborhood (e.g., "you heard gunshots,"
"someone tried to sell you. illegal drugs," "a person was murdered," "a fight broke out between
two gangs "). Students respond either "no" or "yes" to 12 items, with "no" being the positive
response. A count score ranges from 0 (unsafe) to 12 (safe).
School
School Satisfaction (Q37a -d, f): The five items on this scale assess student perceptions of the
general academic and social climate at school. Example items include "I enjoy going to this
school, "I am getting a good education at this school," "Student needs come first at this
school," and "Every student is important at this school." Students respond to each item as
either "true" or "false." "True" responses are summed to create a scale ranging from 0
(negative working conditions) to 5 (positive working conditions).
Teacher Support (Q39a -d, f -i): Students respond either "true" or "false" to a series of eight
statements that describe various feelings about teachers at their school (e.g., "I get along well
with my teachers," "My teachers care whether or not I come to school," "I receive a lot of
encouragement from my teachers," "My teachers understand racial and cultural differences ").
All statements are worded in a positive direction, and "true" responses are summed to create a
scale ranging from 0 to 8.
School Safety (Q45d, f -n): This summary scale captures student perceptions of the school's
climate for learning and positive social interaction. Ten problem behaviors at school are listed
and students respond to each as either "A Big Problem," "A Slight Problem;" or "Not a
Problem." Example items include student fights among students, student use of illegal drugs,
students carrying weapons, and racial tension. Responses are coded to range from negative to
positive and summary scores range from 10 (low safety) to 30 (high safety).
Friends
Peer Satisfaction (Q48a -e): Perceived friend satisfaction is measured by five items that
examined various aspects of peer support: loyalty in times of trouble, ability to talk over
problems together, support for attempting new and different activities, responsiveness to
feelings, and spending time together. A true /false response dichotomy is used with the
number of "true" responses counted to form a summary index. Scores range from 0. (low) to
5 (high).
12
Peer Acceptance (Q53a -c, a -k, m, n): The relative standing of students in their peer group,
their ability to be themselves, and to resist pressure from peers is assessed by 12 items that
described various aspects of peer relations (e.g., "I am afraid to do things my friends won't
approve of," "I find it difficult to be myself when I am with my friends," "I wish my friends
would show me more respect"). Each item is evaluated on a three -point response continuum:
"A Lot Like Me," "A Little Like Me," "Not Like Me." Scores may range from a low of 12 to a
high of 36.
Family
Family Satisfaction (Q56a -e): Perceived family satisfaction is measured by five items that
examined various aspects of family support: loyalty in times of trouble, ability to talk over
problems together, support for attempting new and different activities, responsiveness to
feelings, and spending time together. A "true" /"false" response dichotomy is used, with the
number of "true" responses counted to form a summary index. Scores range from 0 (low) to
5 (high).
Family Integration (Q57a -g). This seven -item summary scale assesses the feelings of
emotional connection and bonding among members of the student's family (those who reside
with the student). Example items include "Support one another during times," "Give each
other plenty of time and attention," "Do things together," and "Work together to solve
problems. Each item is rated on a three -point response continuum: "A Lot Like Us," A Little
Like Us," and "Not Like Us." Scale scores range from 7 to 21, with higher scores indicating a
more cohesive family interaction.
Parent Support (Q63d, g, h, j, o -r): This eight -item summary scale asks about specific
supportive parental behaviors occurring in the past 30 days. Behaviors such as "provided you
with loving support," "made you feel appreciated," and "spent free time with you" are
examples. A three -point response continuum is provided, including "Never," "Sometimes,"
and "Often." Summary scores range from 8 to 24 with higher scores indicating a more
positive response.
13
Individual Adaptation
Profile Measures
Support
Social Support (Q92a -h): This summary scale assesses students' general level of social
support by asking if there are people the student can turn to at least weekly who listen,
express appreciation, comfort, talk about feelings, and help with concrete needs. A
dichotomous "no "/"yes" response choice is provided. "Yes" responses are counted to give a
score with an empirical range of 0 to 8, with higher scores indicating higher levels of
perceived support.
Home Academic Climate (Q65a -f): Six items are used to define a summary scale that reflects
the degree to which parents show an interest in the student's courses at school and plans for
the future. Students are asked whether they have discussed during the past 30 days such issues
as things they have studied in class with any adults who live in their home. Positive responses
are counted to create a summary score ranging from 0 to 6.
Parent Education Monitoring (Q66a -d, f, g): Six items define this summary scale that
assesses the extent to which adults in the student's home have had contact with the student's
school during the past 30 days and provided the student with structure and encouragement to
do well at school. Sample items include "Attended a meeting at school on your behalf,"
"Checked on whether you did your homework," "Encouraged you to do well in school," and
"Limited the amount of time you could spend watching TV." A dichotomous "yes'Tno"
response choice is provided and affirmative responses are counted to yield a summary score
ranging from 0 to 6.
Self - Confidence
Self- Esteem (Q83a -h): This eight -item scale measures a student's sense of self - worth.
Statements relating to feelings of failure, self - respect, self - satisfaction, and recognition of
one's own positive qualities are answered on a three -point scale: "A Lot Like Me," "A Little
Like Me," and "Not Like Me." Responses are recoded to range from negative to positive, and
a summary score is created that ranges from 8 to 24.
School Coherence (Q36a -i): A nine -item scale is used to assess the degree to which students
find events at school comprehensible, meaningful, and manageable. Example items include "I
find school fun and exciting," "I look forward to learning new things at school," and "I am
able to overcome difficulties at school," Each item is rated on a three -point continuum from
"A Lot Like Me" to "Not Like Me." A summary score from 9 to 27 is created, ranging from
low to high sense of coherence.
School Influence (Q40a -e): Students' perception of their influence over events at school is
measured by this five -item summary scale. Feeling validated for ideas in class, ability to get
the attention of the teacher in class, and being able to get help from a teacher when needed
are example items. Students respond to each item as either "Difficult" or "Easy," and the
number of "Easy" responses are counted to create a summary score from 0 to 5.
School Behavior
Attendance (Q31a -e): Five items are used to determine the attendance behavior of students
over the past 7 days. Items include cutting at least one class, cutting the entire school day, and
missing school because of sickness. Students respond either "No" or "Yes," and no responses
are counted to create a response continuum ranging from poor attendance (0) to good
attendance (5).
Trouble Avoidance (Q32a, c, d, e): Students are asked to respond to four items that assess
how often during the past 30 days they got into trouble at school or failed to turn in their
schoolwork. Items include being sent out of class for misbehavior, fighting with another
student, and being suspended or expelled from school. Students respond either 1 (Never), 2
(Once or Twice), or 3 (More than Twice). Responses are recoded to range from negative to
positive and a summary score is created ranging from 4 to 12.
14
Grades (Q27, Q28, Q30): Three items are combined to assess students' academic
performance. This first item asks students to report the kind of grades that they made on their
most recent report card. Responses are recoded to range from 1 (Mostly D's and F's) to 5
(Mostly A's and B's). The second item ask students to report the number of D's and F's that
they made on their most recent report card, recoded from 1 (None) to 4 (Three or More).
The last item asks students to compare their grades to other students in their classes with
responses recoded from 1 (Worse than Most) to 3 (Better than Most). These items were
combined to form a summary scale that ranges from 3 to 12, with higher scores indicating
higher academic performance.
General Well -Being
Physical Health (Q77c -g, i -k): Students are asked to indicate how many days over the last 7
days they have experienced a range of problems or difficulties, such as, loss of appetite,
trouble going to sleep, upset stomach/stomach ache, headache, nausea or vomiting, and
trouble with nerves. Students are given three response choices: 1 (None), 2 (1 -2 Days), 3 (3 or
more Days). These health indicators yield a summary scale that ranges from a low of 8 to a
high of 24. Higher responses indicate better physical health during the index period.
Happiness (Q84a- d,g,h): A summary scale of six items taps into students' general feelings of
well- being. Feelings such as successful, pleased with self, sad, and lonely are listed. Students
are asked to indicate how often during the past 7 days they have experienced that feeling: 1
(Never), 2 (Sometimes), 3 (Often). Responses are all coded from negative to positive and
summed to create a scale ranging from 6 to 18.
Adjustment (Q87, Q88, Q89). Three items are used to create a count scale for assessing the
overall adjustment of students. The first item asks whether the student has seriously thought
about running away from home during the past 30 days. The second inquires about whether
the student has felt at times during the past 30 days that no one cared about him/her. The
third item asks if, in the past 30 days, the student at times felt lost or confused. Responses are
recoded to range from 0 (poor adjustment) to 3 (good adjustment).
15
APPENDIX C - SAMPLE PROFILES
m
16
S Ant
S Rece4a
Social Environment Profile
Ica its
Individual Adaptation Profile
Neighborhood Support
Neighborhood Satisfaction Social Support
Peer Culture Home Academic Culture
Neighborhood Safety 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Parent Education Monitoring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
School Self - Confidence
School Satisfaction Self Esteem
Teacher Support School Coherence
School Safety School Influence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Peers School Behavior
Attendance
Peer Satisfaction Trouble Avoidance w=
Peer Acceptance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Family General Well-Being
Family Satisfaction Physical Health
Family Integrator Happiness
Parent Support Adjustment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Reference Information Interpretation Key
1- 3 i,Muchbel6w, avera e
School �ALTERNAf7VE _ - Student ID 'Date g
Dix&ict >CHAPEWILL—CAkKA0R6 ; ;Age Lender w average
.. ... � .._.. - `Belo v
State N� _ grade - -• :Race =5 9:Averageorbetter
Copyright O 1997 Dr (an W,.wn and lk. Jack Itid,111, - itt , ! �)f S. , is l -ll ork t I m -(11) Chapel Hill, NC 27599 -3550 (919) 962 -1225
SAMPLE PROFILE - TIME 1
R
17
seked succe6a ptalits `�'^ .,F;
Social Environment Profile
Neighborhood
Individual Adaptation Profile
Support
Neighborhood Satisfaction Social Support
Peer Culture Home Academic Culture
Neighborhood Safety 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Parent Education Monitoring
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
School Self - Confidence
School Satisfaction Self Esteem
Teacher Support School Coherence
School Safety 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 School Influence .
1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9
Peers School Behavior
Attendance
Peer Satisfaction Trouble Avoidance
Peer Acceptance Grades
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Family General Well -Being
Family Satisfaction Physical Health
Family Integraton Happiness
Parent Support 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9�� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Reference Information Interpretation Key
School AALTRNAT WE Student W .Date it 1-31M uch Below averag
District ;CHAPP- LHILL_CARRBORG'- ;Age ! Gender!] d... ;Below average
State :NC : ; __... ;fie S - 9 ;Average or better
Copyright O 19971 r t ian ll3o%t n and Or Jg..1. Kiouuan - �_n • d • n_ti• ill %1 ork t 1 Chapel Hill, NC 27599 -3550 (919) 962 -1225
SAMPLE PROFILE - TIME 2
H
18