Abstract
Purpose. A survey was conducted by questionnaire of four hundred and twenty (420) Los Angeles County adults to determine the degree to which they perceived the fifteen mandated areas of the California School Accountability Report Card (SARC) as valuable to their understanding of teaching and learning conditions in schools. The study also sought to determine if there were any significant differences in value perceptions of the SARC components based upon age, employment, income, children in school, primary language and whether one had seen a SARC. Finally, the study attempted to delineate any significant differences in value perceptions between those who had seen a SARC and those who had not. Methodology. A questionnaire was sent to a random sample of Los Angeles County adults. Respondents were asked to rate the required items of the SARC on a five point scale from "not valuable at all" to "extremely valuable." Descriptive statistics were utilized to accomplish the first purpose of the study and a Student's t test was used for the latter purposes. Findings and conclusions. The respondents rated all but five of the fifteen SARC areas as "valuable" to their understanding of teaching and learning conditions in schools. There were no significant differences for any of the SARC areas between the five demographic pairs. Of the 250 adult respondents, only fourteen had seen a SARC. These individuals rated six SARC areas significantly more valuable than the remaining respondents. Recommendations. As a tool for informing the general public, the SARC areas appear generally valuable as quality indicators of school teaching and learning conditions. SARCs should be developed to fit the needs of the school community. Care should be used to distribute the SARC to all population groups since demography appears not to be responsible for SARC value ratings. Respondents apparently feel that the distribution of a school quality report is important. Since this study revealed the SARC reporting areas received no general public input in preparation, the following recommendations were made: (1) a bias-free search for what the public values in its schools should be undertaken, and (2) a study of public understanding of the meaning of existing school quality indicators should be made.