DOCUMENT RESUME ED 066 705 CS 000 114 AUTHOR Counelis, James Steve TITLE The Hunters Point- bayview SEED Project: A Diagnostic Review of Reading Achievement in the First Three Grades. INSTITUTION San Francisco Univ., Calif. PvB DATE Jun 72 NOTE 11dp. EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$6.58 DESCRIPTORS *Beginning Reading; Class Attendance; Class Size; *Disadvantaged Youth; Educational Improvement; *Elementary Grades; Negro Students; *Program Evaluation; *Reading Achievement; Sex Differences IDENTIFIERS Hunters Point Bayview; *Project SEED; South East Educational Development Project ABSTRACT A diagnostic review of reading achievement in the first three grades of the South East Education Development (SEED) project is presented. Comparisons are made with the 1969-1970 SEED data, which is considered baseline. The finding3 indicated that: (1) no significant difference existed in the pooled attendance for each grade between two successive school years, (2) the reading programs moved children to progress at grade level, (3) reading rates tended toward normal development, (4) the 1970-1971 students in SEED earned significantly higher grades in reading on the whole than the 1969-1970 cohort of students in these grades, (5) the SEED children, as a whole, did not achieve reading scores at the national normed level, and (6) the stimulating use of educational funds collaterally spent by school community groups can work. Tables and appendices are included. (See also ED 052 905 for the first year report of the SEED project and CS 000 113.) (WR)
Transcript
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 066 705 CS 000 114
AUTHOR Counelis, James SteveTITLE The Hunters Point- bayview SEED Project: A Diagnostic
Review of Reading Achievement in the First ThreeGrades.
INSTITUTION San Francisco Univ., Calif.PvB DATE Jun 72NOTE 11dp.
EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$6.58DESCRIPTORS *Beginning Reading; Class Attendance; Class Size;
IDENTIFIERS Hunters Point Bayview; *Project SEED; South EastEducational Development Project
ABSTRACTA diagnostic review of reading achievement in the
first three grades of the South East Education Development (SEED)project is presented. Comparisons are made with the 1969-1970 SEEDdata, which is considered baseline. The finding3 indicated that: (1)
no significant difference existed in the pooled attendance for eachgrade between two successive school years, (2) the reading programsmoved children to progress at grade level, (3) reading rates tendedtoward normal development, (4) the 1970-1971 students in SEED earnedsignificantly higher grades in reading on the whole than the1969-1970 cohort of students in these grades, (5) the SEED children,as a whole, did not achieve reading scores at the national normedlevel, and (6) the stimulating use of educational funds collaterallyspent by school community groups can work. Tables and appendices areincluded. (See also ED 052 905 for the first year report of the SEEDproject and CS 000 113.) (WR)
U S Of PAMTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION WELFAMIOf Mt Of fOUCATION
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPROOUCE0 EXACTlv AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIOMATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED 00 NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF IOUCATION POSITION OR POLICY
THE UNIVERSITY O1' /+N FRANCISCO
THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION: EDHCATIMAL PLANNING LABORATORY
THE HUNTERS POINT-BAYVIEW SEED PROJECT:
A DIAGNOSTIC REVIEW OF READING ACHIEVEMENT
IN THE FIRST THREE GRADES
by
James Steve CounelisAssociate Professor of Education
FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY
San Francisco, California
June 26, 1972
THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Dean:
Program Directors:
Director:
School of Education
Dr. Edward J. Griffin
Sr. Mary Alma, P.B.V.M.(Library Science)
Dr. Katherine V. Bishop(Elementary Education)
Dr. John R. Devine(Teacher Education)
Dr. Robert G. Lamp(Administration)
Dr. Thomas D. McSweeney(Counselor Education)
NB
The Educational Planning Laboratory
Dr. Robert G. Lamp
Dr. James Steve Counelis
Director of Research:
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
President:
Vice President:
Members:
Board of Education
Dr. Zurctti. L. Goosby
Dr. David J. Sanchez, Jr.
John F. Crowley
Dr. Laurel E. Glass
Mrs. Ernest R. Lilienthal
Howard N. Nemerovski
Allan H. Nichols
Superintendent: Dr. Thomas A. Shaheen
Assistant Superintendent,Elementary Education: Dr. Donald A. Rhodes
Assistant Superintendent,Instructional DevelopmentServices: Dr. Raymond J. Pitts
Assistant Superintendent,Innovative Planning:
Director, Innovative Planning:
Acting Director of Researchand Program Evaluation:
Isadore Pivnick
Victor Rossi
Yvon 0. John.,on
THE SOUTH EAST EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT170 Hilltop Road
Lucille B. Schmidt (PrincipaFaire BarryJean KernisenCrace Tani
Alto C. Moorbrink (Principal).tte Durham
Sandra FischbachJuanita JohnsonSara SamuelAnna Wong
Martel Williams (Principal)Elizabeth CookJulia DixonBonnie HammondJanice KhalilDorinda KrivohlayekLonnie LebinErma Mc dlockClaudia PatasawSarrlra RudloffDiana ThomasonDorothy Williams
Kelly Husbands (Principal)Ethel BruceBetty HudsonVirginia MilesKenneth McGrewMary Louise NicholsLida OpalenikAlice RappaportSusan SanfordToni SinegalPatricia WilcoxDeanne Yee
ix
PREFACE
The first two SEED reports dealt with reading inthe schools of Hunters Point-Bayview during the academic year1969-1970. During that year, only the first grade studentswere afforded SEED funded project services and materials.
This report, concerned with the1970-1971 academicyear, presents a diagnostic review of reading achievement inthe first three grades. The 1969-1970 data is considered base -line; and hence some comparisons are presented.
The preface of the first report noted the following:
There is much to admire in the SEED project's effortsand educational progress in first grade reading educationas the reader will see for himself further in this diag-nostic review. However, the work of this diagnostic re-viewer was hampered by recent policies of the UnifiedSchool District of San Francisco in relation to the useof ability or so called I.Q. tests in the evaluationalwork of programs. Explicitly, Mr. Yvon 0. Johnson's mem-orandum of May 11, 1970 is the current embodiment ofthat policy. The complete text of this memorandum isfound in Appendix I. Its essence is the prohibition ofability tests for program evaluation purposes. Thoughthere are many reasons why this policy came into beingand effect, the accounting for variance in achievementtest results is not possible without external criterionmeasures of a standardized variety. This writer believesthat this policy is too stringent in character. He alsobelieves that this was not the original intent of theboard policy, viz., to hamper educational evaluation ofprograms. Allowance for ability tests in program evalua-tions is not only appropriate but needed. Ignorance isno substitute for science; and the argument from silenceis no argument at all.
In this report the same words obtain and the text of Mr. John-son's memorandum is found in the Appendix.
10
x
As in the two previous reports, I-am pleased to makemy gratitude known to the Reverend Charles H. Lee, SEED projectdirector, and the entire SEED staff for their aid which notonly was cooperative but unstinting in support. To Mr. RobertL. Fisher, SEED supervisor in education, I am grateful forhis sharing of knowledge, experience .end pragmatic' insightswith elementary education in the urban ghetto called HuntersPoint-Bayview. I am also grateful for his review of findingsin this report so as to check incongruities and errors thatmight have crept Into it inadvertently.
To my graduate student and research assistant Mr.Gregory D. Nelson, I am grateful for his aid in preparing thestatistical details of this report. I note with particularpleasure the computer programming work of Mr. Alvin S. Begun,graduate student in chemistry in the University of San Fran-cisco Department of Chemistry and Institute of Chemical Biol-ogy. He did conscientious and able work to which the qualityof this report is indebted. Also, I am most appreciative ofthe able services of Miss Diane Pederson, whose typing skillsmade this manuscript a reality.
To Dr. Robert G. Lamp, Director of the EducationalPlanning Laboratory and my colleague and friend in the newSchool of Education of the University of San Francisco, I owemuch. I am appreciative for the opportunity to learn fromthisservice to urban education; and the quality of that ex-perience is a gift for which I am grateful.
To my patient and loving family, Anna, Steven andGeorge, my affection is boundless for their understanding.
The results of this project report rest with me andthe responsibility for it is mine in its entirety.
JSC
June 26, 1972The University of San FranciscoSan Francisco, California 94117
xi
A LIST OF MAJOR FINDINGS
The findings presented below are the results of
this report in abbreviated form. The results are on the read-
ing achievement of students in the first three grades of the
eight SEED schools in San Francisco's Hunters Point-Bayview
area. The baseline data are from the 1969-1970 project year
of SEED in these same schools. Of course, these findings are
subject to the usual qualifications which arise from the vari-
ability found at the levels of the schools, the classroom,
the individual students and their numbers.
For the eight SEED project schools in the Hunters
Point-Bayview area, the following 1970-1971 findings have
been established:
1. On the average, the first grade students attend-ed about 82 percent of the school year; the second grade stu-dents attended about 88 percent of the school year; and thethird grade students attended about 90 percent of the schoolyear.
2. On the whole, the attendance patterns in 1970-1971 did not differ in a statistically significant sense fromthe baseline year of 1969-1970.
3. The mean stanine score of the first grade stu-dents was 4.42 which is approaching mid-range in the "AtGrade Level" category, that score being substantially above
441
2
the 1969-1970 first grade students' mean stanine score of3.52.
4. The mean stanine score of the second gradestudents was 4.00 which is at the first level of the "AtGrade Level" catei;ory, that score bring substantially abovethe 1969 -1.970 second grade students' mean stanine scoreof 2.69.
5. The mean stanine score of the third gradestudents was 2.58 which is in the upper third range of the"Below Grade Level" category, that score being barely abovethe 1969-1970 third grade students' mean stanine score of2.49.
6. The mean grade equivalent score achieved bythe first grade students was 1.76 which (when compared withthe normed expected grade level of 1.90) was estimated to beabout one school month below grade level.
7. The mean grade equivalent score achieved bysecond grade students was 2.36 which (when compared with thenormed expected grade level of 2.90) was estimated to be about5 school months below grade level.
8. The mean grade equivalent score achieved bythe third grade students was 2.63 which (when compared withthe .normed expected grade level of 3.90) was estimated to beapproximately 13 school months below grade level.
9. The reading growth rate of the first grade stu-dents was estimated to be 1.17, or about 17 percent above thenormal rate of 1.00, that is, one school month's reading a-chievement per each school month of instruction.
10. The reading growth rate of the second gradestudents was estimated to be 1.22, or about 22 percent abovethe normal rate of 1.00, that is, one school month's readingachievement per each school month of instruction.
11. The reading growth rate of the third grade stu-dents was estimated to be .82 or about 18 percent below thenormal rate of 1.00, that is, one month's reading achievementper each month of instruction.
12. For all schools and grades on the whole, boysand girls did not differ in a statistical sense in terms ofschool attendance.
13. For all grades on the whole, the girls general-ly earned higher grade equivalent scores in reading than did
3
the boys; and on a pooled basis, the first and third gradegirls earned statistically significant higher grade equiva-lent scores in reading than did the boys.
14. For all schools and grades, the 1970-1971 co-hort of students earned significantly higher grade equivalentscores in reading than did the previous 1969-1970 cohort ofstudents in the same SEED schools.
INTRODUCTION
Two reports have been written evaluating the first
full year of SEED project work during the academic year of
1969-1970.1
This third report covers the work of the first
three grades under the SEED project for the academic year of
1970-1971. The SEED data became available late October 1971.
The material work culminating in this report was completed by
March 1972.
Like the two previous reports, this is a post hoc
description. The consultants were able to get pre-test and
post-test data on the second and third grade students. Data
were collected on the relation between instructional time and
achievement, but the labor on that aspect must be left to
another report. As a post hoc report with no prior control
over design beyond the implementing of pre-testing for the
second and third graders in reading, much must be left unsaid
because to assert more than data warrant is merely to assert
arguments from silence.
The SEED project schools are eight in number: The
seven public schools are: (1) Bayview; (2) Bret Harte;
(3) Burnett; (4) Fremont; (5) Hunters Point II; (6) Jedidiah
Smith; (7) Sir Francis Drake. All Hallows, a Roman Catholic
school, was the eighth institution.
This report provides a descriptive analysis of 1,617
students'in three grades which is 95 percent of the 1,706 stu-
dents in the program. For details on number of students in
study, see Tables Nos. 1-4 which provide data on a school and
sex basis.
'These reports are: (1) James Steve Counelis, FirstGrade Students in the Hunters Point-Bayview SEED Project: ADiagnostic Review (San Francisco: University of San Francisco,Educational Planning Laboratory, August 15, 1970); (2) JamesSteve Counelis, Second and Third Grade Students in the HuntersPoint-Bayview SEED Project: A Diagnostic Review (San Francisco:University of San Francisco, Educational Planning Laboratory,October 26, 1971).
THE EMPIRICAL BASIS FOR THIS DIAr;NOSTIC REVIEW
Through the cooperation of the education profession-
als in the schools and SEED Office, a set of empirical meas-
ures were collected on students in the first three grades.
These student data were: (1) student's name; (2) student's
birthdate: month and year; (3) student's sex; (4) the num-
ber of full days in program attendance/student; (5) student's
test reading scores/student: GES and stanine for the second
and third grades only; (9) post-test reading scores/student:
GES and stanine for all three grades. Though there was a
third grade mathematics test, only reading is being considered
in this report.
Every evaluator expects to find partial records.
As noted before, partial and full records are available on
1,617 students out of 1,706 students present in the SEED pro-
gram's first three grades. This is a 95 percent return. How-
ever the degree of partial records must be described in other
terms. Table No. 5 provides data. On the variables of birth-
date, attendance, sex, and pre and post scores, Table No. 5
6 "17
7
indicate--; variability of percent return. With the exception
of first graders' birthdays and sex, all other variables vary
from 61 percent to 82 percent. Though a higher percentage re-
turn would be desirable, the percent of partial records for
those variables is not insignificant on a pooled basis.
Tables Nos. 6-8 provide the school and class sources for the
missing data. It must be noted that no reading pre-test for
first graders is available and hence no data is expected in
these cells.
The reading tests used in this project were those
selected by the San Francisco Unified School District. These
were:
(1) Grade One: Post-test only -- Stanford Achieve-ment Test: Primary I for Grades 1 -- Reading, Form W;.
(2) Grade Two: Pre-test and Post-test -- StanfordAchievement Test: Primary II for Middle of Grade 2 toend of Grade 3, Form W;
(3) Grade Three: Pre-test and Post-test -- StanfordAchievement Test: Primary II, for Middle of Grade 2 toend of Grade 3, Form X.
The pre-tests were given in late October 1970 and the post-
tests were given in late May 1971. Both grade equivalent
scores (CES) and stanine scores were recorded for use in this
study.
As indicated in the previous diagnostic review
studies, no attempt will be made to assess the effectiveness
of the several curricular approaches to reading which the sev-
eral facilities opted to use. These evaluational problems are
not amenable to lost hoc educational analysis. Though these
complex problems are amenable to systematic inquiry, this was
not atteMpted here. Hence, the second full year of education-
al experimentation in curriculum cannot be described or evalu-
ated. Only gross educational growth numbers can be calculated.
NON-ACADEMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SEED PROJECT STUDENTS
The racial/ethnic composition of the SEED project
schools typified the neighborhood housing patterns in San
Francisco's industrial slum, Bayview-Hunters Point prior to
court order integration of these elementary schools. In the
official estimates of the San Francisco Unified School Dis-
trict, blacks constituted the largest group, 92 percent (92.3 %).
Spanish surnamed students constituted almost 3 percent (2.6%)
and Orientals made up another 2 percent (2.0%). It appears
that Sir Francis Drake was almost completely black (97.0%),
and Fremont had almost 9 percent Spanish surnames (8.5%), and
Bayview had almost 7 percent (6.67) Oriental. Table No. 9
records these official data.
Tables Nos.10-12 provide the sex distribution for
all schools at each grade level. On the whole, each of the
three grades has roughly a sex distribution of 52 percent boys
and 48 percent girls. The particular schools vary by grade
level and their data are seen in these tables.
The mean ages of these students seem quite in line
9
10
with the expectation. The mean age of boys and girls in the
first grade was 7.1.4 years. The mean age of boys and girls
in the second grade was 8.20 years. The mean age of the third
grade boys and girls was 9.12 years. Sec Tables Nos. 13-15
for datal details.
ATTENDANCE PATTERNS
School attendance is an empirical indicator of the
child's availability for his or her opportunity in instruction.
Of course, the lower the attendance records, the lower the op-
portunity to learn.
But attendance in lower schools is also an empiri-
cal indicator of the degree of rapport, cordiality, and coop-
eration between the parents and the schools. The reasoning
is, the closer the cooperation between parent and school, the
higher the attendance of the child, and thus, the greater the
opportunity for the child to learn.
Comparative mean attendance figures are available
for the three grades for academic 1970-1971 and 1969-1970.
These are presented below in this order:
(1) First Grade: 146.09 days/151.83 days;
(2) Second Grade: 157.16 days/157.27 days;
(3) Third Grade: 160.45 days/160.19 days.
Two academic years in the row provide mean attendance figures
in the same neighborhood. Tables Nos. 16-18 contain Czese
11 404r)e.do
12
comparative data by school and academic year.
Another way to look at attendance is in terms of
mean percent attendance. Tables Nos. 19-21 provide the fol-
lowing for 1970-1971:
(1) First Grade: 81.62 mean percent of days inattendance;
(2) Second Grade: 87.80 mean percent of days inattendance;
(3) Third Grade: 89.64 mean percent of days inattendance.
These statistics, plus the data on specific schools, indicate
a good level of attendance, although childhood susceptibilit
to disease is known to be high for these age/grade students.
Tables Nos. 22-27 provide two statistical tests as
to whether there was any statistically significant differenc,2
on the attendance in the same schools and grade levels betwec.
1Q70-1971 and 1969-1970 academic years. Tables Nos. 22-24
record the Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance Test
by Ranks, H, for each of the first three grades. In each
grade, there was no statistically significant difference
found in the mean attendance of the several schools taken col-
lectively. Tables Nos. 25-27 present the record of the Wil-
coxon Matched Pairs Signed Ranks Test for the first three
grades. This test statistic measures whether the matched
schools' mean attendance was significantly different. Here
an expected statistical significance was found to exist for
all three grades when the attendance of the two successive
school years for each school is compared. Consult the Tables
Nos. 25-27 for the direction of those differences.
Thus two sets of facts emerge: (1) the attendance
for all three grades was above 80 percent for all schools
pooled; (2) there was no statistically significant difference
in the pooled attendance for each grade between two succes-
sive school years, 1969-1970 and 1970-1971, though differences
for each school and grade did exist on a paired basis.
READING ACHIEVEMENT
In May 1970, the first three grades in the SEED
schools were given th. Stanford reading achievement tests.
The specific forms given each grade were noted above. Tables
Nos. 28-30 provide overall and specific school results in
terms of mean grade equivalen:: scores (GES).
The grade equivalent score (GES) represents the
level of competence and achievement anticipated, such antici-
pation based upon normed populations. The grade equivalent
score (GES) is designated on a ten month academic year. It
is a decimal number, like 6.3. The whole number "6" repre-
sents the sixth grade; the decimal number ".3" represents the
achievement of a student completing the third month of in-
struction in a given subject matter during the ten month aca-
demic year in the sixth grade.
For the first three grades, it was hoped that each
student would achieve the GES equivalent to his grade and
month of instruction. Below are given the actual mean grade
equivalent scores and their anticipated levels of achievement.
14
15
(1) First Grade: Achieved Mean CES - 1.76;Estimated Mean CES - 1.90;
(2) Second Grade: Achieved Mean GES - 2.36;Estimated Mean GES - 2.90;
(3) Third Grade: Achieved Mean CES - 2.63;Estimated Mean GES - 3.90.
As a group, it is quite apparent that these students lag be-
hind the estimated norm. Only the first grade students at
the Bret Harte School (Mean GES = 1.99) and the Burnett School
(Mean CES = 2.14) were within the "nomad" ballpark. For all
SEED schools, see Tables Nos. 28-30.
Another way to look at these test results is
through the stanine score. This score is defined as follows:
(1) Above Grade Level: 7, 8, 9;
(2) At Grade Level: 4, 5, 6;
(3) Below Grade Level: 1, 2, 3.
Given a particular subject and its grade level defined,
achievement tests are scored with stanine scores to see wheth-
er the students are achieving within very broadly defined
categories for each grade level. The mean stanine scores per
grade level for 1970-1971 and 1969-1970, respectively are:
(1) First Grade: 4.42/3.52;
(2) Second Grade: 4.00/2.69;
(3) Third Grade: 2.58/2.49.
16
It appears that the first and second grades are working at
grade level; but the third grade students are below level.
Slie Tables Nos. 31-33 for data.
In cmparing the stanine scores of the 1970-1971
students to these students in 1969-1970, some interesting
findings arc to be found but these must be related to the SEED
program's timing.
Instruction under the SEED program's funding com-
menced in October 1969. Using the 1969-1970 mean stanine
scores as baselines, the first grade children in 1970-1971
earned a mean stanine score that is .90 above the 1969-1970
first graders, or nearly 1. stanine score improvement. The
1970-1971 second graders, who were in SEED program instruc-
tion as first graders in 1969-1970, earned an increase of 1.31
stanine points over 1969-1970 second graders who were first
graders taught in the standard reading curriculum of the San
Francisco Unified School District. The third grade students
of 1970-1971, who had been in tuition under the standard
reading curriculum of the San Francisco Unified School Dis-
trict for their first two years, had a very poor improvement
and remained in the "Below Grade Level" category. It appears
that the SEED project reading programs moved children to pro-
gress at grade level, though they all began at different lev-
els of reading readiness.
READING GROWTH RATE
There are two statistical approaches taken here to
determine and validate reading growth. Both approaches in-
volve the pooled comparison of pre-test and post-test data.
No pre-testing for reading readiness was done on the first
grade children.
At the end of October 1970, the pre-testing of read-
ing achievement levels for the second and third graders oc-
curred. The post-test time for the San Francisco Unified
School District was mid-May 1971. These data were collected
by the SEED staff from faculty and they are the basis of
this finding.
For both the second and third grade students, a
Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance H statistic was
calculated. Tables Nos. 34-35 record the fact that as groups,
the second and third grade students reading improved between
October 1970 and May 1971. These findings were statistically
significant at the one percent level.
17
18
The second approach is simpler. It is to calculate
the monthly reading achievement rate (R) as follows:
R =tr2 T1)/6.5.
T2
repressents the mean GES for the post-test in reading; and
T1represents the mean GES for the pre-test in reading. The
6.5 represents the number of months of instruction between T2
and Tl'
viz., the pre-test given at the end of October 1970
and the post-test given in the third week of May 1971.
Tables Nos. 36-38 provide the data and generated statistical
differences.
In calculating the monthly achievement rate (R) for
the first grade pupils, it was assumed that all or most of
the first graders entered with a normal level of reading read-
iness. This assumption is not empirical because no reading
readiness pre-test was given the first graders in October
1970. The positing of this assumption is done in the interest
of pragmatics and candor; and this assumption is a severe lim-
itation on the data generated on first grade reading achieve-
ment and reading achievement rates. I do not believe that
even a majority of the students entering the first grade in
the Bayview-Hunters Point school come with first grade read-
ing readiness. That is also the experience of the teachers
in these schools. Hence, the convenience and convention of
accepting the assumption reservedly is indulged in at this
19
point.
Tables Nos. 36-38 record the reading achievement
rates for each grade, by sex and school. Table No. 36 re-
cords the data on first graders. Keeping our reservation in
mind, Frsemont, Jedidiah Smith, and Sir Francis Drake first
grade students were below the normal reading achievement rate,
R, of 1.00. On the whole, the pooled first graders progressed
normally at one month's reading achievement for each month's
instruction. In fact, the Burnett girls progressed twice the
normal rate, and the Burnett boys progressed at one and one-
half times the normal rate.
The second grade students on the whole progressed
at an R = 1.22, or about 22 percent faster than normal. With
the anomalous exception of the Hunters Point II children,
this rate of achievement is excellent. We are reminded that
these children are in the second year of specially funded
SEED reading programs.
The third grade students' reading achievement rate
was below the normal expected, viz., R = 1.00. On a pooled
base for all SEED schools, the reading achievement rate (R)
was found to be .82. These third graders were exposed to the
standard curriculum of the San Francisco Unified School Dis-
trict for their first two years. The SEED project resources
went into the second and third grade levels for the first
20
time during 1970-1971. Hence the below average reading
achievements reflect the cumulative effect of the standard
curriculum. Only All Hallows, Jedidiah Smith, and the child-
ren at Hunters Point II reflected on a pooled basis anything
in normal range of growth.
The facts on reading achievement rates indicate
that reading rates under SEED project programs tended toward
normal development. What appears to be the fact is that the
students, individually, start reading at different levels of
readiness. Also, there is little knowledge as to the "rhythm"
of learning reading. I suspect the rates measured between the
pre-test in late October 1970 and mid-May 1971 were those aver-
aged.out on the middle to upper slope of the standard learning
curve.
TWO COMPARISONS
Two types of comparisons are to be set forth in
this section. These are: (1) sex-linked differences in
school attendance and grade equivalent score in reading; (2)
a Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance H statistic corn-_
parison of 1969-1970 and 1970-1971 students' mean grade equi-
valent scores.
Tables Nos. 39-41 contain the Mann-Whitney U test
statistics on whether SEED boys and girls differed signifi-.
cantly as to mean attendance. As found in the previous SEED
reports, the boys and girls did not differ on the attendance
variable by grade or school. A one percent level criterion
was used.
Tables Nos. 42-44 contain the Mann-Whitney U test
statistics on whether SEED boys and girls differed signifi-
cantly as to mean GES's. Only the first grade girls
at Burnett School and third grade girls at the Fremont School
were found to have significantly higher grade equivalent
scores. Tables Nos. 31-33 note that girls exceeded the boys'
mean grade equivalent scores on a pooled basis. However, on
21
a pooled basis, the Mann-Whitney U statistic cited only the
first and third grade girls being significantly higher in
grade equivalent scores than boys. This was held at the one
percent level. See Tables Nos. 42-44 for specific data. This
finding tends to support previous research in this area.
The second type of comparison being made here
through the Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance N sta-
tistic is: Is there a significant difference in the per-
school mean grade equivalent scores in reading earned by the
1969-1970 cohort of students in the SEED program and the 1970-
1971 cohort of students in the SEED program? Tables Nos. 45-
47 present the statistical result of that question. The an-
swer is that for all three grades, the 1970-1971 students in
SEED earned significantly higher grade equivalent scores in
reading on the whole than the 1969-1970 cohort of students
in these grades. These findings were significant at the one
percent level.
23
OVERVIEW OF SEED'S TWO YEARS OF WORK
In this summary note, the following can be asserted
about the SEED project's stewardship in Hunters Point-Bayview:
(1) On the whole, the SEED children did not achievereading scores at the national normed levels.
(2) On the whole, the reading achievement rates werenormal, though the beginning levels of readiness (nottested) are probably low. This probably accounts forlower reading scores than the national norms.
(3) The 1970-1971 cohort of children in the SEEDon a pooled school basis achieved higher reading scoresthan the 1969-1970 cohort of children, this being truefor each of the three grades.
These three facts of the SEED project's program in
the San Francisco Unified School District schools (including
one Roman Catholic school) are encouraging. The normal and
above normal rates of achievement and the higher reading a-
chievement of the second cohort of children in the SEED
schools are happy facts. There is no doubt that the charac-
ter of these reading programs under SEED needs to be detailed
and examined to learn from them. But more importantly, the
obvious need of earlier educational intervention in the lives
of ghettoized children is a necessity. Early childhood edu-
24
cation centers at the pre-nursery, nursery and kindergarten
levels, along with parental education programs, are needed now.
The learning lives of these children need stimulating begin-
nings in order to grow to their natural potentials.
The stewardship of the SEED project's school-com-
munity structure has made a significant contribution to the
notion that close school-community relations can aid to pro-
duce better education. And the stimulating use of educating
funds collaterally spent by school-community groups can work,
given the goodwill to do so.
26
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTDivision of Research and Program Evaluation
May 11, 1970
MLI4ORANDUM
To: All Evaluators of Special Programs
From: Yvon O. Johnson, Acting DirectorResearch and Program Evaluation
Subject: Use of Ability (IQ) Tests in Program Evaluation
Inasmuch as the primary intent of all special instructional programspresently carried on in the San Francisco Unified. School District is to increasestudent achievement in subject-matter content and skills;
And, inasmuch as the employment, if any, of ability (IQ) tests is onlyto attempt to describe the learning ability of the participating students and isnot an integral part of the evaluation of student achievement;
And, inasmuch as there exists concern as to the validity of presentability (IQ) tests in measuring the learning potential of ethnic minority and/orlow-socioeconomic-status students, and that there is a concern that a self-ful-filling prophecy can result when program personnel use these ability (IQ) scores.as an indication of student learning potential;
Therefore, the Division of Research and Program Evaluation hereby directsall inhouse and contract evaluators of special programs that; as of this date, thefollowing statements apply to all present and future special instructional programs:
1. No ability (IQ) tests other than those mandatedby the State of California are to be administeredto program students.
2. No ability (IQ) test scores, including thoseobtained from State-mandated testing, are to bemaintained in the special program's data bank orrecords. Existing IQ scores in the program's databank or records are to be removed or blanked out.
3. Program evaluators will not furnish ability (IQ)scores to program personnel or others.
4. Program evaluation reports will not contain ability(IQ) scores.
This directive does not preclude any studiesor experiments that attemptto develop culture-free or culturally relevant tests of learning ability, profi-ciency, or potential. Permission for such studies must, of course, be obtainedthrough this office.
YOJ:eh
,
.TABLE NO. 1:
EXTENT OF PARTIAL RECORDS FOR ALL SEED SCHOOLS AND ALL GRADES, BY SEX, 1970-1971
1
TOTAL STUDENTS IN
PROJECT
TOTAL STUDENTS IN.
STUDY
TOTAL STUDENTS
WITHOUT DATA
ALL SCHOOLS
N%
N7
N7
FIRST GRADE
Boys
302
100
265
88
37
12
Girls
265
100
242
91
23
9
Boys and Girls
.567
100
507
89
60
11
I
SECOND GRADE
Boys
279
100
266
95
13
5
Girls
258
100
251
97
73
Boys and Girls
537
100
517
96
20
4
THIRD GRADE
I
Boys
312
100
306
98
I
6.
2
Girls
290
100
287
99
31
Boys and Girls
602
100
593
98
92
.
.
1.
i
il1
!
TABLE NO. 2:
EXTENT OF PARTIAL RECORDS ON SEED PROJECT FIRST GRADE
STUDENTS, 1970-1971
SCHOOLS
TOTAL STUDENTS IN
PROJECT
TOTAL STUDENTS IN
STUDY
TOTAL STUDENTS
WITHOUT DATA
N%
N%
N%
ALL SCHOOLS
Boys
302
100
265
88
37
12
Girls
265
100
242
91
23
9Boys and Girls
567
100
507
89
60
11
ALL HALLOWS
Boys
28
100
21
75
725
Girls
30
100
27
90
310
Boys and Girls
58
100
48
89
10
11
BAYVIEW
Boys
48
100
42
87
613
Girls
24
100
24
100
00
Boys and Girls
72
100
66
91
69
BRET HARTE
Boys
49
100
40
82
918
Girls
57
100
47
82
10
18
Boys and Girls
106
-100
87
82
19
18
]-
I
TABLE NO. 2:
CONTINUED
SCHOOLS
TOTAL STUDENTS IN
PROJECT
N
BURNETT
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
FREMONT
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
HUNTERS POINT II
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
JEDEDIAH SMITH
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
6053
113
11
1324
10 8
18
4742
89
100
100
100
100
100
100
TOTAL STUDENTS IN
STUDY
N 494897 11 1223
82
9186
100
92
96
100
100
10
100
.100
17
99
100
477
100
100
42
100
100
89
100
99
I
TOTAL STUDENTS
WITHOUT DATA
11 516 1 1 1
18 9 8 4 1 1
TABLE NO. 2:
CONTINUED
SCHOOLS
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
TOTAL STUDENTS IN
PROJECT
N0
493887
100
100
100
TOTAL STUDENTS IN
sTOTAL STUDENTS
STUDY
WITHOUT DATA
N'1
0
4535
80
7,
91
i4
92
f3
91
17
9 S 9
.TABLE NO. 3:
EXTENT OF PARTIAL RECORDS ON SEED PROJECT SECOND
GRADE STUDENTS, 1970-1971
SCHOOLS
TOTAL STUDENTS IN
I
TOTAL STUDENTS IN
PROJECT
STUDY
A
TOTAL STUDENTS
WITHOUT DATA
N70
iN
1
%1
N
ALL SCHOOLS
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
51
49
100
_
266
251
517
26
3359
26
29
55
43
42
85
95
9796
96
I
100
i
98
1
96
9796
94
95
95
1
13 7
20 1
-- 1 1 1 2 3 2 5
5 3 1.- 4 2 4 g
I
5 5
i ; i
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
ALL HALLOWS
279
258
537
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
BAYVIEW
2733
60
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
BRET HARTE
273057
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
464490
de:
TABLE NO. 3:
CONTINUED
SCHOOLS
TOTAL STUDENTS IN
PROJECT
TOTAL STUDENTS IN
STUDY
TOTAL STUDENTS
WITHOUT DATA
NN
BURNETT
523082
63
37
100
52
30
82
100
100
100
- -
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
FREMONT
Boys
23
52
23
100
Girls
21
48
20
95
15
Boys and Girls
44
43
98
12
HUNTERS POINT II
Boys
25
100
17
68
832
Girls
17
100
14
82
318
Boys and Girls
42
100
31
74
11
26
JEDEDIAH SMITH
Boys
42
100
42
100
AM
, WO
Girls
41
100
41
100
Boys and Girls
83
100
83
100
:71;
7Z
VI;
."-1
4
TABLE NO. 3:
CONTINUED
TOTAL STUDENTS IN
TOTAL STUDENTS IN
PROJECT
STUDY
N
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
37
4279
100
100
100
37
4279
e0I
100.
100
100
TOTAL STUDENTS
WITHOUT DATA
--
TABLE NO. 4:
EXTENT OF PARTIAL RECORDS ON SEED PROJECT THIRD GRADE
STUDENTS, 1970-1971
SCHOOLS
ALL. SCHOOLS
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
ALL HALLOWS
12')
Boys
cl
Girls
Boys and Girls
BAYVIEW
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
BRET HARTE
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
TOTAL STUDENTS IN
TOTAL STUDENTS IN
TOTAL STUDENTS
PROJECT
STUDY
WITHOUT DATA
312
100
290
-100
602
100
37
4683
4136
77
51
43 94.
100
100
100
100
100
306
98
287
99
593
98
1
37
100
46
100
I
83
100
1
38
36
74
100
4
93
96
51
100
43
100
94
100
j.L
6 3 9 3 3
2 1 2 7 4
_ _
TABLE NO. 4:
CONTINUED
1.4
SCHOOLS
TOTAL STUDENTS IN
PROJECT
N
BURNETT
Boys
32
100
Girls
48
100
Boys and Girls
80
100
FREMONT
Boys
41
100
Girls
29
100
Boys and Girls
70
100
HUNTERS POINT II
Boys
18
100
Girls
17
100
Boys and Girls
35
100
JEDEDIAH SMITH
Boys
44
100
Girls
30
.100
Boys and Girls
74
100
,`"
TOTAL STUDENTS IN
STUDY
11
.
N7.
32
100
48
100
80
100
39
95
28
97
67
96
17
94
16
94
33
94
44
100
30
100
74
100
TOTAL STUDENTS
WITHOUT DATA
N 2 1 3 1 1 2
5 3 4 6 6 6
t
TABLE NO. 4:
CONTINUED
SCHOOLS
TOTAL STUDENTS IN
PROJECT
N
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE
Boys
48
100
48
100
Girls
41
100
40
98
Boys and Girls
89
100
88
98
cz,
TOTAL STUDENTS IN
TOTAL STUDENTS
STUDY
WITHOUT DATA
NN
I
12
12
TABLE NO. 5:
FREQUENCY AND PROPORTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF SEED STUDENT RECORDS
FOR ALL SCHOOLS AND GRADES, PER VARIABLE
SCHOOL, TEACHER, AND
CLASS SIZE
BIRTH
DATE
NUMBER
OF FULL
SEX
DAYS
ALL SCHOOLS
Grade 1:
567
(100%)
Grade 2:
537
(100%)
Grade 3:
602
(100%)
254
(45)
346
(64)
465
(77)
345
.(61)
376
(70)
415
(69)
PRE-TEST
'POST-TEST
GES
567
(100)
537
(100)
ON
O =
II A
IM
304
(72)
602
517
(100)
(86)
STANINE
GES
382
(71)
516
460
(81)
441
(82)
460
STANINE
460
(81)
440
(82)
460
(76)
TABLE NO. 6:
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION. OF SEED FIRST GRADE STUDENT RECORDS
BY SCHOOL AND VARIABLES
SCHOOL, TEACHER, AND
CLASS SIZE
BIRTH
DATE
NUMBER
OF FULL
DAYS
SEX
ALL HALLOWS
NO
NM
I
17
.
20
18 9
14
I ')
28 A
la
21 A
la
23 A
la
1624 A
la
00 O
N.
1520
.30
28
2722
23 27
2727
25
26
15
(1)
30
(2)
28
BAYVIEW
(1)
27
(2)
22
(3)
23
4) BRET HARTE
(1)
27
(2)
27
'(3)
27
(4)
25
BURNETT
(1)
26
(2)
15
(3)
30
b
PRE-TEST
GES
STANINE
POST-TEST
GES
STANINE
29
29
19
19
20
20
21
21
21
21
20
20
23
23
24
24
13
13
20
20
10
10
TA
BL
E N
O. 6
:C
ON
TIN
UE
D
SCH
OO
L, T
EA
CH
ER
, AN
DC
LA
SS S
IZE
BIR
TH
DA
TE
NU
MB
ER
OF
FUL
LD
AY
SSE
X
PRE
-TE
STPO
ST -
TE
ST
GE
SST
AN
INE
GE
SST
AN
INE
FRE
MO
NT
(1)
24
HU
NT
ER
S PO
INT
II
(1)
18
JED
ED
IAH
SM
ITH
(1)
23(2
)22
(3)
22(4
)22
SIR
FR
AN
CIS
DR
AK
E
(1)
3(2
)13
(3)
25(4
)20
(5)
26
15 11 23 22 22 19 4 5 9 9
1824 18
2323
2222
2222
2122
33
1213
2225
1720
22.
26
23 21 18 19 2 12 22 18 21
20 16 23 21 18 19 212 22 18 21
TABLE NO. 7:
FREQUENCY. DISTRIBUTION OF SEED SECOND GRADE STUDENT RECORDS
BY SCHOOL AND VARIABLES
SCHOOL, TEACHER AND
CLASS SIZE
BIRTH
DATE
NUMBER
OF FULL
DAYS
SEX
PRE-TEST
POST-TEST
GES
STANINE
GES
STANINE
HALLOWS
)32
)28
IEW
)29
)28
HARTE
)26
)28
)11
)25
ETT
(1)
28
(2)
28
(3)
26
24
24 25 11 3
25
2625
30
.32
26
28
2729
2428
10 22
26 28'1125
2228
2428
2026
28 26 23 22 25 25 25 25
28g.
23i
2622 25 ea
, 25 25 25
25 24 21 8 24 2323
19
26 21 26 25 24 21 8 24 2323
19
TA
BL
E N
O. 7
:C
ON
TIN
UE
D
SCH
OO
L, T
EA
CH
ER
, AN
DC
LA
SS S
IZE
BIR
TH
DA
TE
NU
MB
ER
OF
FUL
LD
AY
S
FRE
MO
NT
(1)
28(2
)16
HU
NT
ER
S PO
INT
II
(1)
26(2
)16
JED
ED
IAH
SM
ITH
C.r
f.1
/4j
(1)
22(2
)24
(3)
25(4
)12
SIR
FR
AN
CIS
DR
AK
E
(1)
11(2
)22
(3)
24(4
)22
20 13 16 21 24 25 12
110 21 20
23 13
8 5 21 23 25 11 20 22
I
SEX
GE
S
.28
1216 26
1716
6
22 24 25 12 11 22 24 22
PRE
-TE
ST STA
N I
N E
10 17 6
1919
2222
2323
2323
1111
1010
2020
2222
POST
-T
EST
GE
SST
AN
IN
E
22 13
9 7
21 13
9 7
2121
2121
2525
201111
1111
2020 20
21
1
21
TABLE NO. 8:
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SEED THIRD GRADE STUDENT RECORDS
BY SCHOOL AND VARIABLES
SCHOOL, TEACHER, AND
CLASS SIZE
BIRTH
DATE
NUMBER
OF FULL
DAYS
SEX
PRE-TEST
POST-TEST
GES
STANINE
GES
STANINE
ALL HALLOWS
(1)
56
45
34
.56
44
44
32
32
(2)
27
20
11
27
i21
21
BAYVIEW
(1)
25
22
24
25
21
21
22
22
(2)
28
14
22
28
18
18
23
23
(3)
24
17
20
24
19
19
17
17
RET HARTE
(1)
25
25
25
25
24
24
25
25
(2)
26
(3)
27
24
22
OD 27
2627
2423
2423
2324
23
24
(4)
16
16
16
16
16
16
13
13
BURNETT
(1)
27
26
23
27
26
26
23
23
(2)
27
23
24
27
24
24
23
23
(3)
26
25
24
26
25
25
20
20
TA
BL
E N
O. 8
:CONTINUED
SChO
OL
,TEACHER, AND
CLASS
SIZ
EBIRTH
DATE
Ni.,NBER
OF FULL
DAYS
SEX
PRE-TEST
GES
STANINE
22 61611
FRE
MO
NT
18 7 19 11
278
23 12
237
16 10
23 7 16 10
(1)
27(2
)8
(3)
23(4
)12
HUNTERS POINT II
(1)
14
111r
714
1414
(2)
2114
2118
18
JEDEDIAH SMITH
CP. (1)
10
910
99
(2)
1919
_19
1616
(3)
23
23
2323
2020
(4)
2222
2222
2020
SIR
FR
AN
CIS
DRAKE
(1)
24
2122
2419
18(2
)20
1615
2017
.17
(3)
2313
--
2321
21(4
)22
1821
2222
22
POST
-TE
ST
GE
SST
AN
INE
I
2121
77
181
s_,
.10
10
66
9 17 22 21 23 15 17 21
9 17 22 21 23 15 17 21
r
TABLE NO. 9:
SEED PROJECT SCHOOLS:
ETHNIC COMPOSITION, ALL GRADES
FOR 1970 -1971 ACADEMIC YEAR
SCHOOLS
BLACKS
AMERICAN
INDIAN
or
NATIVE
AMERICAN
ORIENTAL
SPANISH
SURNAME
OTHER
WHITE
OTHER
TOTAL
aMO
NI.
ALL SCHOOLS
ALL HALLOWS
BAYVIEW
0
BRET HARTE
N 0
BURNETT
N
FREMONT
0
321692.3
460 88.8
56291.7
53993.9
31483.5
3.09
OM
MD
3
.5
68 2.0 NOD
34 6.6
12 2
101.7
9 2.4
89
60
2.6
1.7
TA AVAILABLE
14 2.7
63.6
15
17
2.4
2.8
16
62.8
1.1
32
21
8.5
5.6
491.4
7 1.3
7 1.1
3485
1_00
518
100
613
100
574
100
376
100
.....
.111
111 ua
,am
mie
MM
INnw
omm
o,
.
TABLE NO. 9:
CONTINUED
AMERICAN
INDIAN
SCHOOLS
BLACKS
or
NATIVE
ORIENTAL
SPANISH
SURNAME
OTHER
WHITE
OTHER
TOTAL
AMERICAN
HUNTERS POINT II
N225
--
--
32
19
249
%90.4
--
--
1.2
7.6
100
JEDEDIAH SMITH
N571
--
16
69
593
%96.3
--
.2
1.0
1.0
1.5
100
.
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE
N545
a*N
D2
35
7562
%97.0
--
.4
.5
.9
1.2
100
VI
.9;
Source:
William L. Cobt
(Assistant
Superintendent
fo
Human Re
ations),Eacial
Estimates
report;
of Pupils Attendin: San
rancisco
'ublic Schools:
Setember 23
1970 (Mimeographed
San Francisco:
San Fra
.
isco Uniiie.
Schoo
District,
.
1
TABLE NO. 10:
SEED PROJECT FIRST GRADE STUDENTS' SEX:
.
FREQUENCY AND PROPORTIONAL DISTRIBUTIONS BY SCHOOL
SCHOOLS
,
BOYS
GIRLS
TOTAL
N%
N%
N%
-1
ALL SCHOOLS
302
53
265
47
567
100
ALL HALLOWS
28
48
30
52
58
100
1
BAYVIEW
48
67
24
33
72
100
1
BRET HARTS
49
46
57
54
106
100
BURNETT
60
53
53
47
113
100
C.1
FREMONT
11
46
13
54
24
100
HUNTERS POINT II
'10
56
844
18
100
JEDEDIAH SMITH
47
53
42
47
89
100
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE
49
56
38
44
87
100
.
.
.
TABLE NO. 11:
SEED PROJECT SECOND GRADE STUDENTS' SEX:
FREQUENCY AND PROPORTIONAL DISTRIBUTIONS BY SCHOOL
SCHOOLS
BOYS
GIRLS
TOTAL
N%
N%
N%
ALL SCHOOLS
279
258
48
537
100
ALL HALLOWS
27
45
33
55
60
100
BAYVIEW
27
47
I30
53
57
100
BRET HARTE
46
51
44
49
90
100
BURNETT
52
63
30
37
82
100
VT.
(..:10
FREMONT
23
52
21
48
,. 4
.100
HUNTERS POINT II
25
.60
17
40
42
100
JEDEDIAH SMITH
42
51
41
49
83
100
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE
37
47
42
53
79
100
TABLE NO. 12:
SEED PROJECT THIRD GRADE STUDENTS' SEX:
FREQUENCY AND PROPORTIONAL DISTRIBUTIONS BY SCHOOL
SCHOOLS
BOYS
ALL SCHOOLS
ALL HALLOWS
BAYVIEW
BRET HARTE
BURNETT
FREMONT
HUNTERS POINT II
JEDEDIAH SMITH
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE
312
52
37
41
51
32
41
18
44 48
45 53
54
40
59
51
59
54
GIRLS
N
290
48
602
46
55
83
36
47
77
43
46
94
48
60
80
29
41
70
17
49
35
30
41
74
41
46
89
TO
TA
L
100
100
100
co
100
100
100
100
100
100
TABLE NO. 13:
SEED PROJECT FIRST GRADE STUDENTS' DECIMAL AGES:
MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, FREQUENCY AND PROPORTIONAL DISTRIBUTIONS BY SCHOOL AND SEX
SCHOOLS
TOTAL
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
DECIMAL AGE CATEGORIES
5 -5.9
Yrs!6-6.9 Yrs17-7.9 Yis
8-8.9 Y.-
9-9.9 Yrs
i
%N
%%
NI
%N
%
ALL SCHOOLS
Boys
132
7.14
.37
11
39
30
89
67
32
--
--
Girls
122
7.14
.35
11
24
20
94
77
32
--
--
Boys and Girls
254
7.14
.36
21
63
25
183
72
62
--
--
ALL HALLOWS
Boys
NO DiliTAAhAILApLE
Girls
NO DATA AnAILA'pLE
Boys and Girls
miMYVIEW
NO D' TA A-AILN3LE
0Boys
NO D\TAALAILA
LE
Girls
NO D TA A AILA LE
Boys and Girls
NO MIA
A/AI
LE.
BRET HARTE
".
Boys
24
7.17
.36
--
625
17
71
14
--
Girls
29
7.15
.30
--
517
24
83
--
-- i
Boys and Girls
53
7.16
.32
--
11
21
41
77
12
--
1
TABLE NO. 13:
CONTINUED
SCHOOLS
TOTAL
MEAN
JEVIATION
7.19
7.10
7.15
6.89
7.05
6.95
6.90
7.14
7.01
7.19
7.17
7.18
STANDARD
.29
.39
.34
.57
.20
.45
.26
.15
.24
.41
.40
.40
.
DECIMAL AGE CATEGORIES
5-5.9 Yrs
6-6.9 Yrs
7-7.9 Yrd8-8.9 Yni
9-9.9 Yrs
N ----
1 --
1 ----
1 1
%J_
----
--
11
-- 7
3 1
N%N ,
%NI%IN
I%
BURNETT
-f
31
31
62
7 815 3 1 4 --
12 8
20
232624
33
1726
83
--
45
262023
2422
46 5 510 1 5 6
3229
61
777174
56
8367 17
100
55
707371
1 1 --
--
--
----
2 2 4
3 2 ----
--
--
--
4 5 5
--
----
------
--
----
____--
------
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
FREMONT
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
,HUNTERS POINT II
9 6
15
.:'
Boys
I:
Boys and Girls
JEDEDIAH SMITH
6 511
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
4640
86
TABLE NO. 13:
CONTINUED
SCHOOLS
TOTAL
MEAN
STANDARD
DECIMAL AGE CATEGORIES
5-59 Y:s1
6-6.9 Yrd
7-7.9 Yr:
8-8.9 )ts119-9.9 Yrs
N --
-- --
7N 6 2 8
7
11
371830
N%1N%N%
10 9
19
63
83 70
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE
1611
27
7.07
7.22
7.13
.27
.31
.29
.
--
----
--
-- --
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
TABLE-NO. 14:
SEED PROJECT SECOND GRADE STUDENTS' DECIMAL AGES:
MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, FREQUENCY AND PROPORTIONAL DISTRIBUTIONS BY SCHOOL AND SEX
SCHOOLS
TOTAL
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
DECIMAL AGE CATEGORIES
6-6.9 Ym
7-7.9 Yrs
8-8.9 Y.-s19-9.9
Y0-10.9
'
N%
NI%
N%
N%
N
4539
84
19
! 10
19
VAIIABLE
VAI
VAI-
7
--
----
--
--
ALL SCHOOLS
183
163
346 21
27
48 1821
39
8.22
8.19
8.20
7.88
7.93
7.91
8.07
8.16
8.12
_-
,.50
.45
.48
.53
.49
,50
.14
.42
.32,
1 1 2 1 1 2 NO
NO
NO
------ .
1 1 1 5 4 4
DATA
DATA
DATA
2524
24
4337
40
BLE
BLE
11
24
18
120
111
231
11
1526
161430
6668
67
52
5554
896777
15
12
27
--
1 1 2 2
8 7 8 4 2 --9 5
2 0 2 --
--
-- --
--
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
ALL HALLOWS
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
BAYVIEW
_
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
BRET HARTE
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
TABLE NO. 14:
CONTINUED
SCHOOLS
TOTAL
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
DECIMAL AGE CATEGORIES
6-6.9 Yt
7-7.9 Yrs] 8-8.9 Yrs
9-9.9 Yr4.0-10 9
-
%N
%[
N%
1N
%N
BURNETT
Boys
49
8.36
.52
--
11
23
30
61
816
--
--
Girls
27
8.20
.43
--
829
18
67
14
--
--
Boys and Girls
76
8.30
.49
--
19
25
48
63
912
--
--
FREMONT
Boys
17
8.23
.57
--
635
10
59
----
1Girls
16
8.02
.27
--
531
11
69
I--
--
--
--
Boys and Girls
33
8.13
.45
--
11
33
21
64
I--
--
1
HUNTERS POINT II
Boys
10
8.64
.71
--
110
53
30
10
Girls
68.52
.73
--
117
iiii
33
Boys and Girls
16
8.59
.70
--
213
6
JEDEDIAH SMITH
Boys
42
8.25-*
.44
819
30
71
4I
10
--
Girls
40
8.32
.36
--
38
33
82
410
,
--
Boys and Girls
82
8.29
.40
--
11
13
63
77
810
i
--
.
I
i 1
i i 1
WI"
TABLE NO. 14:
CONTINUED
SCHOOLS
TOTAL
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
DECIMAL AGE CATEGORIES
6-6.9 YrsI7-7.9 Yrs
8-8.9 Y:'s19-9.9 Yr40-10.9 Y
N%N%
N
4
%IN
1
%N%
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE
26
26
52
8.09
8.29
8.19
.38
.43
.41
--
----
8 7
15
31
27
29
18
1735
6965
67
I
0 2 2
0 8 4
--
--
------
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
t
K CC
TABLE-NO. 15:
SEED PROJECT THIRD GRADE STUDENTS' DECIMAL AGES:
MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, FREQUENCYAND PROPORTIONAL DISTRIBUTIONS BY SCHOOL AND SEX
SCHOOLS
TOTAL
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
DECIMAL AGE CATEGORIES
ALL SCHOOLS
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
ALL HALLOWS
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
crj3AYVIEW
c6
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
BRET HARTE
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
244
.
245
489 2738
65
242953'
45 42
87
9.19
9.06
9.12
8.96
9.08
9.03
8.98
8.87
8.92
.50
.42
.47
.26
.33
.31
.54
.39
. 46
9.30
..57
.46
3:13
.52
-7.9 Yrfl 8-8.9 YrI, 9-9.9Y410-10.9 Y:
is
N%
N1
%N
%
0 3 3 0 1 1
0 1 1 2 1
63
79
142
1313
26 91524
1011
21
26
[1_59
32
156
29
t315
48
14
34
24
40
38
3852
45 22
2624
141428
272855
65
22
64
7
64
29
63
152
58
1
58
1
4853
1
60
67.
63
8 2
10
18 511
TABLE NO. 15:
CONTINUED
SCHOOLS
TOTAL
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
DECIMAL AGE CATEGORIES
6 -6.9 Yr
7-7.9 Yr1j8-8.9 Yi%t9-9.9 Y40-10.9 Y
N%
N%
N%N
%N%
18
26
44
20
16
36 4 4 8
3318
51
13 9
11
12 0 7
--
---- 5 0 3
BURNETT
30
4474
32
2325 6 8
14
4330
73
9.22
9.11
9.15
9.28
9.03
9.17
8.92
8.84
8.87
-9.21
8.98
9.12
.55
.49
.51
.48
.37
.45
.69
.50
.56
.44
.37
.43
----
--
------
--
--
--
----
----
--
------
--
--
0 1 1 0 1 1
--
----
2 1 0 4 2
----
81321 8 6
14 2 4 6 8
12 20
2730
28
2526
25
3350
43 18
4027
3
60
59
60
6370
66
6750
57
77
60 70
4 4 8 4 0 4
-- 2 0 2
!
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
FREMONT
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
H NTERS POINT II
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
JEDEDIAH SMITH
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
TABLE NO. 15:
CONTINUED
TO
TA
LMEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
3731
68
9.28
9.18
9.24
.46
.37
.42
11
DECIMAL AP: CAT7GORTES
6-6.9
Yd)
7 -
7.9
Yr1
3 -8
.9YtA 9-9.9 Y14[0-10.9
Y-i=
N%
v I.%
1!
N....,
N7,
N
- -
--
--
514
29
78
38
- -
__
_-
516
26
8::.
00
--
--
10
15
55
01
13
4
,1 i r 1 , 1 I
TABLE NO. 16:
SEED PROJECT FIRST GRADE STUDENTS' ATTENDANCE, BY SCHOOLS,
1969-1970 AND 1970-1971
SCHOOLS
MAY 1971
(TOTAL SCHOOL DAYS:
188)
NMEAN
STANDARD
DEVIAT EX'
MAY 1970
(TOTAL SCHOOL DAYS:
181)
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATIT:
ALL SCHOOLS
ALL HALLOWS
BAYVIEW
BRET HARTE
BURNETT
'4..REMONT
HUNTERS POINT II
JEDEDIAH
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE
345
28
44
40
51
18
88
76
146.09
35.61
168.04
6.22
155.55
34.53
143.67
30.06
155.57
31.16
70.11
15.72
149.18
34.62
141.87
29.39
437 56 27
68 80
47
47 20
104
151.83
35.01
168.84
5.76
163.00
24.58
153.72
32.L3
155.11
32.19
151.72
39.22
132.27
41.83
161.55
14.97
140.47
42.12
TABLE NO. 17:
SEED PROJECT SECOND GRADE STUDENTS' ATTENDANCE, BY SCHOOLS,
1969-1970 AND 1970-1971
SCHOOLS
MAY 1971
(TOTAL SCHOOL DAYS:
188)
MAY 1970
(TOTAL SCHOOL DAYS:
181)
NMEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
NMEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
ALL SCHOOLS
ALL HALLOWS
BAYVIEW
BRET HARTE
BURNETT
FREMONT
HUNTERS POINT II
JEDEDIAH SMITH
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE
376
56
51
32
66
36
13
69
53
157.16
26.68
166.89
6.93
150.76
37.83
158.78
28.63
158.56
20.28
146.92
41.65
158.85
16.17
168.38
16.08
142.25
22.90
457
64
62
61
77
52
37
104
157.27
29.47
166.84
7.48
165.65
21.08
154.38
30.93
153.12
38.02
156.62
29.60
144.19
38.25
156.14
28.25
TABLE NO. 18:
SEED PROJECT THIRD GRADE STUDENTS' ATTENDANCE, BY SCHOOLS,
1969-1970 AND 1970-1971
SCHOOLS
MAY 1971
(TOTAL SCHOOL DAYS:
188)
NSTANDARD
MEAN
DEVIATIW
I
MAY 1970
(TOTAL SCHOOL DAYS:
181)
MEAN
STANDARD
DEVIATION
ALL SCHOOLS
ALL HALLOWS
BAYVIEW
BRET HARTE
BURNETT
FREMONT
HUNTERS POINT II
JEDEDIAH SMITH
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE
415
45
66 68
71
55 7
45 58
160.45
19.91
167.93
6.16
162.23
14.39
164.47
18.69
157.03
27.09
158.24
16.89
161.57
16.51
162.51
27.69
152.47
16.05
559
70
71
73 89
72
41
38
105
160.19
25.23
168.09
9.08
170.58
9.01
154.38
32.93
162.67
25.24
159.51
24.54
146.93
37.08
159.00
21.96
155.90
25.39
TABLE NO. 19:
SEED PROJECT FIRST GRADE STUDENTS' PERCENT OF FULL DAYS IN PROGRAM:
BY SCHOOLS AND SEX
SCHOOLS
NMEAN
%
STND.
DEV.
%
PERCENT OF FULL DAYS IN PROGRAM
1-69
70-79
80-89
90-100
N%
N7
N%
N%
SCHOOLS
3oys
176
82.36
19.52
36
20.46
10
5.68
44
25.00
86
48.86
;iris
169
80.84
20.38
36
21.30
20
11.83
37
21.89
76
44.98
loys & Girls
345
81.62
19.93
72
20.88
30
8.70
81
23.48
162
46.96
HALLOWS
Ioys
12
93.11
3.42
--
--
--
--
216.67
10
83.33
;iris
16
94.45
3.52
--
--
--
--
212.50
14
87.50
Ioys & Girls
mow
28
93.87
3.48
--
--
--
--
414.29
24
85.71
Ioys
26
89.00
11.46
27.7.0
27.69
726.92
15
57.69
;iris
18
83.86
27.05
316.67
211.11
13
72.22
loys & Girls
44
86.90
19.29
511.36
24.55
920.45
28
63.64
'T HARTE
14
82.12
19.86
321.43
--
642.86
535.71
loys
;iris
26
79.27
15.23
726.92
519.23
726.92
726.92
Ioys & Girls
40
80.27
16.79
10
25.00
512.50
13
32.50
12
30.00
.,
TABLE NO. 19:
CONTINUED
-
SCHOOLS
NMEAN
STND.
DEV.
PERCENT OF FULL DAYS IN PROGRAM
1-69
70-79
80-89
90-100
NI
°.
N,
N
;NETT
koys
25
86.48
19.69
312.00
14.00
5.
20.00
16
64.00
;irls
26
87.32
15.29
415.39
27.69
311.54
17
65.38.
oys & Girls
51
86.91
17.41
713.72
35.88
815.69
33
64.71
MONT
..
oys
841.27
8.22
8;100
--
--
--
--
--
--
iris
10
37.49
9.28
10
100
--
--
--
--
--
--
oys & Girls
18
39.17
8.78
18
100
--
--
--
--
--
--
TERS POINT II
oys
NO DA
A AVAILABLE
-
irls
NO DA
A AVAILABLE
oys & Girls
.NO DA
A AVAILABLE
EDIAH SMITH
47
82.97
19.39
12
25.54
12.13
10
21.27
24
51.06
oys
iris
41
83.77
19.51
614.64
614.63
819.51
21
51.22
oys & Girls
88
83.34
19.34
18
20.46
77.95
18
20.45
45
51.14
TABLE NO. 19:
CONTINUED
NMEAN
STND.
DEV.
PERCENT OF FULL DAYS IN PROGRAM
1-69
70-79
80-89
90-100
7,
4432
76
80.07
78.14
79.26
18.26
13.69
16.42
8 614
18.18
18.76
18.42
6 7
13
13.64
21.87
17.11
14 15
29
31.82
46.87
38.16
16 420
36.36
12.50
26.31
TABLE NO. 20:
SEED PROJECT SECOND GRADE STUDENTS' PERCENT OF FULL DAYS IN PROGRAM:
BY SCHOOLS AND SEX
.CHOOLS
NMEAN
STND.
DEV.
PERCENT OF FULL DAYS IN PROGRAM
1-69
70-79
80-89
90-100
N0
Nao
N%
N,
SCHOOLS
.ys
194
89.41
11.83
11
5.68
13
6.70
50
25.77
120
61.85
rls
182
86.08
17.47
21
11.54
12
6.59
45
24.73
104
57.14
ys & Girls
376
87.80
14.90
32
8.51
25
6.65
95
25.27
224
59.57
HALLOWS
ys
24
93.92
3.69
--
--
--
--
416.67
20
83.33
rls
32
92.72
3.97
--
--
--
825.00
24
75.00
.ys & Girls
56
93.24
3.87
--
--
--
12
21.43
44
78.57
IEW
ys
25
87.96
10.92
14.00
28.00
936.00
13
52.00
rls
26
80.64
27.41
519.23
--
--
519.23
16
61.54
ys & Girls
51
84.23
21.13
611.77
23.92
14
27.45
29
56.86
HARTE
15
86.70
17.32
213.34
16.67
426.66
853.23
ys
rls
17
90.47
15.04
15.88
211.77
--
--
14
82.35
ys & Girls
32
88.70
15.99
V
39.38
39.38
412.50
22
68.75
TABLE NO. 20:
CONTINUED
SCHOOLS
NMEAN
STND.
DEV.
PERCENT OF FULL DAYS IN PROGRAM
1-69
70-79
80-89
90-100
OO
TC
N7.
NETT
42
90.38
8.78
12.38
24.76
11
25.19
28
66.67
oys
.iris
24
85.43
14.46
312.51
312.50
625.00
12
50.00
oys & Girls
66
88.58
11.33
46.08
57.57
17
25.75
40
60.60
1 1ONT
21
84.62
20.48
419.04
14.76
29.53
14
66.67
oys
iris
15
78.51
27.04
320.01
16.66
426.66
746.67
oys & Girls
36
82.08
23.27
719.46
25.56
616.67
21
58.33
TERS POINT III
ys
990.75
5.31
--
--
--
--
333.33
666.67
iris
484.22
14.55
125.00
250.00
125.00
.ys & Girls
13
88.74
9.03
17.69
--
--
538.46
753.85
DIAH SMITH
34
95.20
7.51
--
--
38.82
411.77
27
79.41
oys
iris
35
92.96
10.20
12.86
12.86
617.14
27
74.14
.ys & Girls
69
94.07
8.98
11.45
45.80
10
14.49
54
78.26
-
TABLE NO. 20:
CONTINUED
HOOLS
NMEAN
STND.
DEV.
PERCENT OF FULL DAYS IN PROGRAM
1-69
70-79
80-89
90-100
0N
1.
N.
N1
%1
ANCIS DRAKE
24
2953
81.91
77.44
79.47
10.96
14.54
12.79
3 710
12.50
24.14
18.87
4 5 9
16.67
17.24
16.98
1314
27
54.17
48.28
50.94
4 3 7
16.67
10.34
13.21
s is s & Girls
h
,
TABLE NO. 21:
SEED PROJECT THIRD GRADE STUDENTS' PERCENT OF .FULL DAYS IN PROGRAM:
BY SCHOOLS AND SEX
STND.
PERCENT OF FULL DAYS IN PROGRAM
,
:FOOLS
NMEAN
DEV.
1-69
70-79
80-89
90-100
,J
N,
N7,
N7.
;CHOOLS
rs
208
90.39
9.27
11
5.29
10
4.81
57
27.40
130
62.50
.1s
207
88.88
12.70
15
7.24
13
6.28
47
22.71
132
63.77
rs & Girls
415
89.64
11.13
26
6.25
23
5.54
104
25.06
262
63.14
[ALLOWS
19
93.59
3.72
--
--
--
--
421.05
15
78.95
rs .1s
26
93.98
3.29
--
--
--
--
27.69
24
92.31
rs & Girls
45
93.82
3.44
--
--
--
--
613.33
39
86.67
EW
's
32
89.65
10.34
39,37
13.13
825.00
20
62.50
ls
34
91.55
4.99
--
--
13
38.24
21
61.76
's & Girls
66
90.63
8.04
34.55
11.52
21
31.82
41
62.12
HARTE
's
35
91.06
12.69
38.58
12.86
411.43
27
77.14
ls
33
92.75
7.46
--
412.12
515.15
24
72.73
s & Girls
68
91.88
10.44
34.41
57.35
913.24
51
75.00
..,_
TABLE NO. 21:
CONTINUED
PERCENT OF FULL DAYS IN PROGRAM
OLS
& Girls
& Girls
POINT II
& Girls
H SMITH
& Girls
NMEAN
27
44 71
32 23
55 4 3 7
28
17
45
91.64
85.32
87.73
89.30
87.15
88.40
86.17
95.72
90.26
93.68
86.03
90.79
STND.
DEV.
1-69
9.62
17.36
15.14
7.26
11.88
9.43
10.79
1.62
9.22
5.43
23.87
15.47
13.70
511.36
3
68.46
3
- -
ma.
2 3
417.39
17.27
5
11.76
6.66
1 1 - -
70-79
80-89
90-100
7o
NI
%
7f25.93
6.82
9i
20.45
4.23
16
i
22.54
12.50
11
34.38
4.35
521.74
9.09
16
29.09
25.00
1
14.29
9 211
25.00
14.29
32.14
11.76
24.44
1927
46
171330
70.37
61.36
64.79
53.13
56.52
54.55
250.00
3100.00
571.43
19
67.86
12
70.58
31
68.89
TABLE NO. 21:
CONTINUED
,
NMEAN
%
STND.
DEV. %
PERCENT OF FULL DAYS IN PROGRAM
1-69
70-79
80-89
90-100
12.90
11.11
12.07
N1
%IrIN 11 8
19
ES DRAK2
31
2758
86.07
84.15
85.18
8.78
9.23
8.96
4 3 7
3 5 8
9.68
18.52
13.79
1311
24
1
41.94
40.74
41.38
...
35.48
29.63
32.76
Girls
TABLE NO. 2: SEED PRWJECT GRADE STUDENTS'
MEAN IM!,);R OV FUEL W1YS P ATTE.;NCE:
KRUNAL-WAELIS ONE WAY AALYKIS OF VARIANCE TEST BY RANKS, 1!
SCHOOLS
1969-L970
181 DAYS
1970 -1971.
188
RANK
DAYS
RANKMEAN
ATTLNDANCEMEAN
ATTZNDANCE
ALL HALLOWS 1_ :168.811 2 168.04
BAYVIEW 3 163.00 6 155.55
BRET IIARTE 8 153.72 11 143.67
BURNETT 7 155,11 5 155.57
FREMONT 9 151.72 14 70.11
HUNTERS POINT II 132.27
jEDEDIAH SMITH 4 161.55 10 149.18
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE 13 1/10.47 12 141.87
TOTAL RANKS 4.5 60
RANKS SQUARED 2025 3600
H = .91 Ho=X2
= 6.64 (1 df, a = .01)
Not Statistically Significant
/J.
TABLE NO. 23: SEED PROJECT SECOND CP,ADE STUDENTS'
MEAN NUMBER OF FULL DAYS IN ATTFNDANCE:
KRUSKAL-WALLIS ONE WAY ANALYSIS OF VARI,..,:cr, TEST BY RANKS, E
SCHOOLS
1969-1970
181 DAYS
1970-1971
188 DAYS
MEANATTENDANCE RANK MEAN
ATTENDANCE
ALL HALLOWS
BAYVIEW
BRET HARTE
BURN ETT
FREMONT
HUNTERS POINT II
JEDEDIAH SMITH
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE
2
3
9
10
7
13
8
166.84
165.65
154.38
153.12
156.62
144.19
156.14
1
11
5
6
12
4
OM MO
I 14
166.89
150.76
158.78
158.56
146.92
158.85
168.38
142.25
TOTAL RANKS
RANKS SQUARED
52
2704
53
2809
H =.- .99 Ho= X2 = 6.64 (1 df, a= .01)
Not Statistically Significant
Ez
TABLE NO. 24: SEED I'UO.IECT THIRD GRADE STUDENTS'
MEAN NUMBER OF FULL MYS IN ATTENDANCE:
KRUSKAI,-WALMS ONE WAY ANALYSIS OF \rid:TA:XI: TEST BY RANKS, H
1969 -197() 1970-1971
181 DAYS 188 DAYS
SCHOOLS -
i RANKMEAN
AlIENDAI:CERANK
MEANATTE1;DANCE
...._ ____J
ALL nALLows 2 168.09 3 167.93
13AYV1EW 1 170.58 7 162.23
BRET IIARTE 13 154.38 4 164.47
BURNETT 5 162.6/ 12 157.03
FREMONT 9 159.51 11 158.24
HUNTERS POINT II 16 146.93 8 161.57
JEDEDIAII SMITH 10 159.00 6 162.51
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE 14 155.90 15 152.47
/
TOTAL PANKS 70 66
RANKS SQUARED 4900 4356
H= .04 Ho= X
2'' 6.64 (1 df, a = .01)
Not Statistically Significant
23
I _5
TABLE NO . 25: TILE mi,coxoN MATCHED- s ic,t ED -WKS TEST
FOR THE F). RST GRA DE
MEAN NUMBER OF FULL DA YS 1.N PROGRAM
SCHOOLS
IAN NUMER OFFULL DAYS IN PRoGRAM
1969-1970181
xDAYS
1970-1971188 DAYS
Y
ALL HALLOWS
BA YV I EW
BRET IIARTE
BURNETT
FREMONT
HUNTERS POINT II
JEDEDIAH SMITH
SIR FRANC IS DRAKE
168.84
163.00
153.72
155.11
151.72
132.27
161.55
140.47
168.04
155.55
143.67
155.57
70.11
149.18
141.87
DT FFERENCE RANKY - X
.80 -2
- 7.45 -4
-10.05 -5
.46 1
-81.61 -7
-12.37 -6
1.40 3
T a o To
6 2 (N 7, a .05)
Statistically SignMnant
74
TABLE NO. 26: THE WILC0XON 1,1ATCHED-PAIRS SIGNED-RANKS TEST
FOR 111E SECoND GRADE:
MEAN NUMBER 01' FULL DAYS IN PROGRAM
SCHOOLS
MEAN NUMBER OFFULL DAYS 1N PROGKAM
1969-1970181 DAYS
X
1970-1971188 DAYS
DIFFERENCE- X
RANI:
ALL HALLOWS
BAYVIEW
BRET HARTE
B URN ETT
FREMONT
HUNTERS POINT II
JEDEDIAII SMITH
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE
166.84
165.65
154.38
153.12
156.62
144.19
MO.
156.14
166.89
150.76
158.78
158.56
146.92
158.85
168.38
142.25
.05
- 14.89
4.40
5.44
- 9.70
14.66
- 13.89
1
- 7
2
3
-4
6
- 5
T = 16 To
fi 2 (N = 7, a = .05)
Statistically Significant
/!)
TABLE NO. 27: THE WILCOXON MATCHED-PAIRS SIGNED-RANKS TEST
FOR THE THIRD ( RADE:
MEAN NUMBER OF FULL DAYS IN PROGRAM
SCHOOLS
ME\N NUMBER OFFULL DAYS IN PROGRAM
1969-1970181 DAYS
X
1)70-1971188 DAYS
Y
DIFFERENCEY - X
RANK
ALL HALLOWS
BAYVIEW
BRET HARTE
BURN ETT
FREMONT
HUNTERS POINT II
JEDEDIAH SMITH
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE
1.)8.09
170.58
154.38
162.67
159.51
146.93
159.00
155.90
167.93
162.23
164.47
157.03
158.24
161.57
162.51
152.47
- .16
- 8.35
10.09
- 5.64
- 1.27
14.64
3.51
- 3.43
1
6
+7
5
2
+8
+4
3
T = 19 To
= 4 (N = 8, a = .05)
Statistically Significant
TABLE NO. 28 : SEED PROJECT FIRST GRADE STUDENTS:
READING ACHIEVEMENT GRADE EQUIVALENT SCORES , BY SCHOOLS AND SEX
SCHpOLS
ALL SCHOOLS
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
ALL HALLOWS
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
BAYVIEW
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
BRET HARTE
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
BURN ETT
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
FREMONT
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
N
237233460
212748
392362
344680
413778
91120
MEANSSTANWRD
DEVIATIONS
1.691.841.76
1.731.791.76
1.631.551.64
1.842.111.99
1.992.322.14
1.521.571.55
.49. 60. 55
.49
. 44
.46
. 34
. 36
.34
.66
.75
.72
.58
.72
.67
.36
.27
. 31
77
TABLr NO. 28: CONTINUED
sclions N MEANS
HUNTERS POINT II
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
JEDEDTAH SMITH
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
9
7
10
423981
423375
1.731.791.76
1.523.511.51
1.511.591.55
.4
. 3!
. 2:
ig
TABLE NO. 29: SEED PROJECT SECOND GRADE STUDENTS:
READING ACH,EVEMENT GRADE EQUIVALENT SCORES, BY SCHOOLS AND SEX
SCPOOLS
ALL SCHOOLS
BlysGirlsBoys and Girls
ALL HALLOWS
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
BAYV1EW
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
BRET HARTE
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
BURNETT
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
FREMONT
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
N MEANS STANDARDDEVIATIONS
234207441
202747
262551
413677
422365
201535
2.282.462.36
2.562.502.53
1.902.462.18
2.212.442.32
2.552.842.65
2.262.552.39
. 74
.85
. 80
.46
. 53
. 50
. 491.06
. 86
1.001.021.01
.67. 96.79
. 62. 72.67
/9
TABLE NO. 29: CONTINUED
SCHOOLS
HUNTERS POINT TI
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
JEDEDIAH SMITH
BoysBirlsBoys and Girls
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
N
11.
5
16
403878
343872
MEANSSTANDARD
DEVIATIONS
1.731.961.80
2.432.442.44
2.192.252.22
. 44
. 57
. 47
.82
.83
. 82
. 5a
. 70
.64.
tiU
TABLE NO. 30: SEED PROJECT THIRD GRADE STUDENTS:
RADING ACHIEVEMENT GRADE EQUIVALENT :)CORES, BY SCHOOLS AND SEX
scpus
ALL SCHOOLS
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
ALL HALLOWS
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
BAYVIEW
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
BRET HARTE
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
BURNETT
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
FREMONT
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
N
......,
MEANSSTANDARD
DEVIATIONS
235225460
102232
303262
483785
273966
322456
2.512.762.63
3.553.653.62
2.382.842.62
2.532.552.54
2.752.792.78
2.222.602.38
.81
.77
.80
.96
. 62
.73
.61
. 77
.73
.77
. 59
.69
.80
.66
.7/
.47
.64
.57
81.
TABLE NO. 30: CONTINUED
SCHOOLS N
HUNTERS POINT II
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
JEDEDIAH SMITH
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
MEANSSTANDARDDEVIATIONS
6
814
412869
413576
2.332.372.36
2.652.852.73
2.262.402.33
.91
.88
.86
1.06.99
1.03
. 59
.53
. 56
62
TABLE NO. 31: SEED PROJECT FIRST GRADE STUDENTS'
READING ACHIEVEMENT STANINE SCnRES: BY SCHOOLS AND SEX
SCHOOLS
0,
ALL SCHOOLS
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
ALL HALLOWS
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
BAYVIEW
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
BRET HARTE
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
BURNETT
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
FREMONT
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
N MEANSSTANDARD
DEVIATIONS
237223460
212748
392362
344680
413778
91120
4.154.704.42
4.434.704.58
3.904.133.98
4.625.575.16
5.396.385.86
3.443.733.60
1.862.152.02
1.991.921.93
1.501.791.60
2.132.412.33
1.772.051.96
1.591.421.47
83
TABLE NO. 31: CONTINUED
sqloas
=dmee.. 4.1N
HUNTERS POINT II
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
JEDEDIAH SMITH
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
97
16
423981
423375
MEANSSTAN'DMA
4.564.864.69
3.453.413.43
3.433.823.60
1.011.351.14
1.921.731.32
1.3.5
1.3G1.37
231-4
TABLE NO. 32: SEED PROJECT SECOND GRADE STUDENTS'
READING ACHIEVEMENT STANINE SCORES, BY SCHOOLS AND SEX
SCHOOLS N
,MEAN
STANDARDDEVIATIONS
ALL scnoms
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
ALL HALLOWS
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
BAYVI EW
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
BRET IIARTE
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
BURNETT
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
FREMONT
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
234206440
202747
26.2551
413677
422365
201434
3.874.154.00
4.554.334.43
3.123.923.51
3.632.083.84
4.484.874.62
3.904.364.09
1.551.641.60
.891.111.02
1.311.611.50
2.114.082.09
1.291.941.55
1.211.281.24
8 5
TABLE NO. 32: CONTINUED
SCUOOLS
,11,010..
N MEAN STANDARDDEVIATIONS
HUNTERS POINT Ti
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
JEDEDIAII SMITH
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE
BoysGirlsBoys and Girls
115
16
403878
343872
2.553.202.75
4.054.184.12
3.793.793.79
1.041.301.13
1.651.641.64
1.251.421.33
tSV
TABLE NO. 33: SEES) PROJECT THIRD GRADE STUDENTS'
READING ACHIEVEMENT STANINE SCORES, BY SCHOOLS AND SEX
smous N MEANDASTAN R')
DEVIATIONS
ALL SCHOOLS
Boys 235 2.33 1.52Girls 225 2.84 1.51Boys and Girls 460 2.58 1.54
ALL HALLOWS.
Boys 10 4.30 1.42 ,
Girls 22 4.73 1.03Boys and Girls 32 4.59 1.16
RAYVIEW .
Boys 30 2.20 1.06Girls 32 2.91 1.47Boys and Girls 62 2.56 1.33
. .
BRET IIARTE
Boys 48 2.29 1.52Girls 37 2.41 1.19Boys and Girls 85 2.34 1.38
BURNETT
Boys 27 2.93 i.69Girls 39 2.79 1.36Boys and Girls 66 2.85 1.49
FREMONT.
Boys 32 1.72 .85Girls 24 2.54 1.35Boys and Girls 56 2.07 1.16
1:7
0/
TABLE NO. 33: CONTINUED
SCHOOLS N MEANS TANDARDDEVIATIONS
......_ _
HUNTERS POINT II
Boys 6 2.17 1.60Girls 8 2.25 1.49Boys and Girls 14 2.21 1.48
JEDEDIAU SMITH
Boys 41 2.56 1.94Girls 28 3.14 1.92 '
Boys and Girls 69 2.80 1.94
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE
Boys 41 1.88 1.14Girls 35 2.17 1.01Boys and Girls 76 2.01 1.09
.
.
f:Ei3
88
TABLE NO. 34: SEED PROJECT SECOND GRADE STUDENTS'
GRADE EQUIVALENT SCORES:
KRUSKAL-WALLIS ONE WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TEST BY RANKS, H
.0111111=10
SCHOOLS
PRE-TESTOCTOBER 1970
POST-TESTMAY 1971
RANK
MEAN GRADEEQUIVALENTSCORE
RANI:
MEAN GRADEEQUIVALENT
SCORE
ALL IIALLOWS 8 1.96 2 2.53
BAYVIEW 13 1.56 7 2.18
]3RET UARTE 16 1.28 5 2.32
BURNETT 10 1.72 1 2.65
FREMONT 11 1.65 4 2.39
HUNTERS POINT II 12 1.61 9 1.80
JEDEDIAH SMITH 15 1.37 3 2.44
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE 14 1.42 6 2.22
TOTAL RANKS 99 37
RANKS SQUARED 9801 1369
H = 10.60 Ho= X
2= 6.64 (1 df, a = .01)
Statistically Significant
TABLE NO. 35: SEED PROJECT THIRD GRADE STUDENTS'
GRADE EQUIVALENT SCORES:
KRUSKAL-WALLIS ONE WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TEST BY RANKS, 11
SCHOOLS
PRE -TESTOCTOBER 1970
POST-TESTMAY 1971
RANKMEAN GRADEEQUIVALENT
SCORESRANK
MEAN GRADEEQUIVALENTSCORES
. _
ALL HALLOWS
BAYVIEW
BRET HARTE
BURNETT
FREMONT
HUNTERS POINT II
JEDEDIAH SMITH
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE
6
12
13
9.5
11
16
14
15
2.46
2.08
2.07
2.33
2.21
1.76
1.95
1.85
1
4
5
2
7
8
3
9.5
3.62
2.62
2.54
2.78
2.38
2.36
2.73
2.33
TOTAL RANKS
RANKS SQUARED
96.5
9312.25
39.5
1560.25
H = 8.96 Ho
E. X2= 6.64 (1 df, a= .01)
Statistically Significant
0. c -
TABLE NO. 36:
SEED PROJECT FIRST GRADE STUDENTS' MONTHLY ACHIEVEMENT RATE
SCHOOLS
NPOST-TEST
MAY
1971
ASSUMED
ENTRANCE
LEVEL
DIFFER-
ENCE
ALL SCHOOLS
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
ALL HALLOWS
Boys
NGirls
I")
Boys and Girls
BAYVIEW
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
BRET HARTE
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
237
233
460 21
27
48 3923
62 34
4680
1.69
1.84
1.76
1.73
1.79
1.76
1.63
1.65
1.64
1.84
2.11
1.99
'
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
.69
.84
.76
.73
.79
.76
.63
.65
.64
.84
1.11
.99
MONTHLY
MONTHS:
N
ACHIEVE-
[INSTRUC-
lATE
MENT
I ICI:X
Y /
X
6.90
8.40
7.60
7.30
7.90
7.60
6.30
6.50
6.40
8.40
11.10
9.90
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
1.06
1.29
1.17
1.23
1.22
1.17
.97
1.00
.98
1.29
1.71
1.57
TABLE NO. 36:
CONTINUED
SCHOOLS
N..
POST-TEST
MAY
1971
ii
ASSUMED
ENTRANCE
LEVEL
DIFFER-
ENCE
MONTHS:
NMONTHLY
'L:I.'"
ACHIEVE-
MENTY
INSTRUC-
TIONx
RATv
'V/ X
BURNETT
41 37
78 91120 9 7
16
423981
1.99
2.32
2.14
1.52
1.57
1.55
1.73
1.79
1.76
1.52
1.51
1.51
.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
.99
1.32
1.14
.52
.57
.55
.73
.79
.76
.52
.51
x.51
9.90
13.20
11.40
.
5.20
5.70
5.50
7.30
7.90
7.60
5.20
5.10
5.10
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
1
1.52
2.03
1.75
.80
.88
.85
1.12
1.22
1.17
.80
.79
.79
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
FREMONT
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
vHUNTERS POINT II
.Boys
Girls
-
Boys and Girls
JEDEDIAH SMITH
Boys.
Girls
Boys and Girls
TABLE NO. 36:
CONTINUED
.
SCHOOLS
NPOST-TEST
MAY
1971
R
ASSUMED
ENTRANCE
LEVEL
DIFFER-
ENCE
,
MONTHS:
NMONTHLY
ACHIEVE-
ACHIEVE-
MENT.f
INSTRC-
TIONS'71ENT
RTE
Y 1
X
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE
4233
75
1.51
1.51
1.55
1 1 1
.51
.51
.55
5.10
5.10
5.50
6.5
6.5
6.5
.78
.78
.85
Boys
Girls
Boys and Girls
F, 0 r..i
.
TABLE NO. 37:
SEED PROJECT SECOND GRADE STUDENTS' MONTHLY ACHIEVEMENT RATE
