mgr

 

 

uwhd

“to

mamamua...

 

(it. v . .059
. xuy’tlsa.

f}.

..,A.0 .
iilhxatlsa
a u '1‘. 3’. 2
il

I9

nu. .a d

I

L . £53....
. .01...1}-...,Ll1 :2: 3?
o f:- {vz’Ll Pé.

 

 

ii

 

I. .;Vna..cl?l
.. X|t. If: .
. d ,4.

(33'.

Ht;

 

 

 

 

. . ‘ . . . ...r,u...‘n..o‘t...,..
.A Fag . . ¢ 2. $3.. , _ , 3.. ..
‘ E..-lm.§ .ihdfi... 1.1 ztriisilr TL. : , fiméfiu

.
... . ' .1 . .. in:

 

Kile-Irv»
‘ .';v .

 

ufikrf‘» . «rt—saintyh 4‘

...L.t‘ rut...

 

I [I'll l V ‘

[11533;

ICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Ilmnlml l llllllllllllllllllllllllllllfil

3 1293 00914 1056

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

INSIDE THE BARGAIN: HON LON ACHIEVERS AND THEIR
TEACHERS CONSPIRE TO AVOID SERIOUS AND SUSTAINED
ACADEMIC PURSUITS

presented by

Eugene Robert Shaw

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D. degree in Educationa]
Administration

 

 

%/%6

Major professor

Date /_~//h?3

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

___

W

*—

LIBRARY

Hickman State
University

 

*—

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or betore date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE ll
JUN 1 3 1994'" i

Bi V
7 #TI,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—‘—T l

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
cmmma-nt

 

 

INSIDE THE BARGAIN: HOW LOW ACHIEVERS AND THEIR TEACHERS

CONSPIRE TO AVOID SERIOUS AND SUSTAINED ACADEMIC PURSUITS

by

Eugene Robert Shaw

A DISSERTATION

submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

1993

ABSTRACT

INSIDE THE BARGAIN: HOW LOW ACHIEVERS AND THEIR TEACHERS
CONSPIRE TO AVOID SERIOUS AND SUSTAINED ACADEMIC PURSUITS
ose

The purpose was to describe and explain the norms in
classrooms that contain low achievers. Describing necessitated
that the researcher generate data. Explaining necessitated
that the researcher apply a theory through which to view and
explain the set of data. Both social systems and social
exchange theory operate under the premise of norms. Therefore,
it was reasonable to apply social exchange theory to the

classroom norms.

Sample and Method

The sample contained 21 participants. Thirteen white
students and 2 hispanic students, grades 9 through 12 were
selected using theoretical sampling. Six white teachers were
selected using the snowball method. Initial contacts were made
through the principal and a counselor.

The researcher used the theoretical framework to generate
a schedule of interview questions. The method used was the
tape-recorded interview and non-participant observation. The
researcher'conducted.21 interviews and used 105, one-hour’non-
participant observations to confirm, refute and/or extend the
interview data. Interviews and observations were tape

recorded. Subsequently, all tapes were transcribed. The data

Eugene Robert Shaw
were hung on the theoretical framework and explained in terms
of social exchange theory.

aim

The norms in these classrooms permit and even encourage
both sides to give minimal effort. In turn, each side expects
and accepts that the rewards for their effort will also be
minimal. The classroom norms are mutually gratifying, and
therefore, neither side seeks to change the status quo. The
behavioral norms which encourage respect for bureaucratic
status remain unchanged, and in fact cannot be bargained away.
However, the academic norms which regard achievement are
established at such a low level that even the organization’s
policies, which support achievement are subverted. Mutual
gratification explains why there is seldom conflict in
classrooms. Mutual gratification also explains why the norms
go unchallenged.

Recommendations

A theory is a lens through which a researcher views,
describes and explains a phenomenon. Further study should be
conducted with other students and/or other theories,
subsequently integrating the findings with this and previous
researches in.order to confirm, refute, and extend.the current

findings.

Copyright by

EUGENE ROBERT SHAW

1993

DEDICATION
To Paulina, who encouraged my serious and sustained pursuit

of philosophical education.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The researcher thanks Dr. Philip A. Cusick for chairing
the dissertation and serving as advisor. Dr. Cusick made it
financially possible for me to leave my high school
principalship by obtaining the New Graduate Recruit
Fellowship, the Julius Barbour Memorial Scholarship and an
assistantship with the MASSP. Dr. Cusick guided the
dissertation and certainly matched the researcher's level of
effort and direct involvement. The degree and dissertation
would have been beyond my reach without Dr. Cusick's personal
and professional assistance.

The researcher also thanks Dr. Cassandra Book, Dr. Gary
Sykes, and Dr. Keith Anderson, for their sincere assistance
and encouragement to make this dissertation meritorious of the
title Doctor of Philosophy.

The students and teachers who participated in this study
are due thanks for opening their classrooms to an outsider and
welcoming‘ me as just another' member of the class. The
researcher is indebted to too many people to list, and can
only say thank you to all who were helpful personally,

professionally and many times in both ways.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I: THE PROBLEM I
Introduction 1
Background 4
Theoretical Framework 7
What Schools Should Be 9
Purpose and Exploratory Questions 13
Methodology 16
Sample 19

CHAPTER II: RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH 22
Introduction 22
Review of Social Exchange Theory 22

Summary of Section One 32
Review of Qualitative Studies of Classrooms 32
Summary of Section Two 59
Chapter Summary 61

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY 63
Introduction 63
Theoretical Framework 63
Data Collection 65
Data Presentation 71
Sampling Techniques 72
Sample & Method 72
Data Analysis 75
Research Questions 76
Field Procedures 78
Chapter Summary 84

CHAPTER IV: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS 85
Sample 85
Research Questions 86
Research Findings 88
Section 1: Classroom Bargains 88

Initiating the Bargains 90
When the Bargains Begin 95
The Bargains 99
Mutuality of the Bargains 105
What Cannot be Bargained 112

Section One: Summary 114

Section 2: What Other Students Give and Receive 115

Comparing Self to Others 117
Distributive Justice 125
Section Two: Summary 133

Section 3: Balancing Effort and Reward 134
Opportunity Costs 137
Section Three: Summary 140

Section 4: What Low achievers Receive 140
Knowledge 141
Skills 145
Self-esteem 150
Extrinsic Reward 154
Intrinsic Reward 157
Enjoyment 161
Attention 164
Challenge 167
Preparation for Life and Work 170
Section Four: Summary 173

Section 5: What Teachers of Low achievers Give 174
Weekly Planning 175
Daily Planning 178
Correcting Papers and Tests 180
Lectures 185
Monitoring 189
Individual Help 193

Free Time 195
Section Five: Summary 199

Section 6: What Low achievers Give 199
Study Time 200
Effort 205
Compliance 209
Attention 215
Homework 218
Reading 222
Tests 224
Writing 228
Participation 232
Section Six: Summary 237

Chapter Four Summary 237
Conclusion 238
CHAPTER V: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 241
Purpose 241
Data Presentation 241
General Findings 242
The Logic 247
The Social System Norms 249
Norms Regarding Teachers 249
Norms Regarding Low achievers 250
Summary 251

vi

The Study’s Thesis
Reflections
Integration of Literature
Conclusion to The Study
Implications

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Interview Questions

APPENDIX B: Assent/Consent Form

BIBLIOGRAPHY

vii

252
252
253
259
259
263
265

268

270

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Intgggugtiog

A school is a social system. A social system may be
viewed as a set of reciprocal relations among participants.
This means that the participants have reached understandings
about what is to be received from and what is given to the
relationship. The established understandings among
participants constitute a set of norms under which the social
system operates. A school can be understood in terms of its
social norms, or set of reciprocal relations among its
participants.

Classrooms are also social systems in which participants
develop a set of reciprocal relations that solidify as social
norms. Some classrooms contain high numbers of low achievers
who, ostensibly at least, may not receive much from or give
much to academic endeavors. But, these classrooms are not out
of control, because there too a set of social norms exists.
Low achievers and their teachers know what each other expects
to receive and to give.

This research proceeded from Parson's (1968)
interpretation of norms. Parsons stated,

...the term normative will be used
as applicable to an aspect, part or
element of a system of action if, and
only in so far as, it may be held to
manifest or otherwise involve a sentiment

attributable to one or more actors that

1

2
something is an end in itself, regardless
of its status as a means to any other end
(1) for the members of a collectivity,
(2) for some portion of the members of a
collectivity or (3) for the collectivity
as a unit. (p. 75)

Regarding the social norms in classrooms, Cusick (1992)
wrote "The problem.for the classroom group or any group, is to
establish norms. Its participants have to agree on and then
submit themselves to some restraints" (p. 54). Students and
teachers establish a relationship based on reciprocity.
Initial tensions diminish as students and teachers legitimate
the social norms.

According to Feldman (1984) groups and individuals "try
to operate in such a way that they maximize their chances for
task success and minimize their chances of task failure" (p.
47). Hackman (1976) added that group norms "develop gradually
and informally as group members learn what behaviors are
necessary for the group to function more effectively" (p. 50) .
Blau (1964) believed that "Morality must rest not merely on
group pressure and long-run advantage but primarily on
internalized normative standards" (p. 18).

Feldman (1984) continued ‘that. group :norms generally
develop in one of four ways: (1) explicit statements: (2)
critical events in the group’s history: (3) primacy: or (4)
carry-over from.past situations. Although Feldman listed four
ways in which group norms develop, there may be more. Explicit

statements exhibit themselves as classroom teachers establish

a set of expectations for student conduct. Critical events

3

bringing about a normative behavior exhibit themselves when
members of the group are embarrassed. As a result, an
understanding would be reached to preclude recurrence. Primacy
is established in the first meeting of a group. Group members
expect that subsequent meetings will be conducted in a similar
fashion. As such, low achievers and their classroom teachers
may begin to establish the tone for their classes from the
first day. Carry-over from past experiences may be interpreted
that students and teachers bring expectations to the classroom
based on previous classroom experiences.

Feldman (1984) conveyed that groups enforce the
established norms when they (1) facilitate the group's
survival: (2) simplify or make predictable what behavior is
expected of group members: (3) help the group avoid
embarrassing interpersonal problems: or (4) express the
central values of the group and clarify what is distinctive
about the group’s identity. Norms and enforcement of norms
stabilize the group.

Ideally, the social norms in classrooms would encourage
effort and achievement by both students and teachers.
According to some researchers, students and their teachers
bargained down the time and effort that was expended in
classes and the degree to which the subject matter was
approached. According to Sedlak, Wheeler, Pullin, and Cusick
(1986) "there exists a complex, tacit conspiracy to avoid

sustained, rigorous, demanding, academic inquiry. A ’bargain'

4
of sorts is struck that demands little academically of either
teachers or students."

Sedlak et al. (1986) and Powell, Farrar, and.Cohen (1985)
indicated that in classrooms with low achievers, the social
norms permit and even encourage low achievement. Those
researchers contended that low achievers and their teachers
bargain down social norms in classrooms to a point where
orderly discourse is allowed to proceed, but where academic
expectations are reduced. The bargained-down expectations and
behaviors that have accumulated into social norms pose a
problem for students who may receive littLe in the way of
education.

Low achievement is a problem. The established social
norms in classrooms may themselves be a source of this
problem. 'Therefore, the social norms. in classrooms that
contain low achievers, and the way these social norms are
established were studied. This researcher investigated the
social norms.of classrooms that.contained low’achievers as the

norms related to academic endeavors.

W

Low achievers and their teachers reciprocate rewards and
efforts according to the social norms in their classrooms.
There is evidence that this bargain takes place at all levels,
from elementary classrooms through secondary classrooms.
Teachers have developed a means of accommodating what low

achievers can and will do. Kidder (1989) found that even in

5

elementary classrooms, teachers made bargains with students.
One student, Clarence, was a perpetual challenge to the
teacher and. to other students. As ZMrs. Zajac lectured,
Clarence punched other students and walked to the pencil
sharpener. As Clarence returned to his seat, went out of his
way to kick students, or to talk vulgarly to girls. In order
to conduct her classroom business in some orderly fashion,
Mrs. Zajac struck a bargain with Clarence: If Clarence would
leave other students alone, Mrs. Zajac would not ask much of
him.

Cusick (1983) found low-level bargains exist between
students.and teachers. Several teacherS‘were not interested in
the curriculum, but had to find some means of relating to the
students during the class period. He found that Mr. P., a
teacher, used his personal relationship and conversation time
to gain student compliance. In fact, Mr. P. was as bored as
the students in the classroom. On one occasion, Mr. P.
continued lecturing as students sat bored but compliant. It
appears that the bargain between Mr. P. and the students, was
mutual tolerance of boredom. Mr. P. gave minimal lecture, and
the students gave minimal tolerance. When questioned about the
situation, the students responded "He's a good guy" (p. 55).

Grant (1988) related scenes from a high school classroom,
in which Mr. Carnova, a teacher, used his good nature as a
trade for minimal compliance. Grant reported on one particular

class when Mr. Carnova was attempting to take attendance, that

6

the students bantered with him, and he with they. In a school
in which many students directly contested teacher authority,
the students received tolerance as Mr. Carnova repeated
answers for those who half listened. The students chided and
stalled him during non academic time. However, students gave
minimal compliance when he lectured. Students were allowed to
joke around when there was no lecture. There was to be order
during presentation time.

One bargain made between low achievers and their teachers
appears to be receiving a passing grade for giving minimal
effort. Willis (1977) reported of a student who joked about
the ease of school, saying that he was upset because he had to
do a writing assignment. His intention was to get through the
marking period and never have to write. The student remarked
that the last time he did any writing,

...was in careers, 'cos I writ ’yes’
on a piece of paper, that broke me heart.
I mean to write, 'cos I was going to try
to go through the term without writing

anything. 'Cos since we’ve cum back, I
ain’t dun nothing. [it was half term].

(p. 27)

Regarding the level of classroom commitment and the
general classroom happenings, Powell et al. (1985) remarked
that students and teachers accept mediocrity. They state that
most coursework was not intellectually demanding.

Classrooms are social systems which operate on a set of
accepted social norms. Several researchers suggest that the

social norms in classrooms ‘which. contain low' achievers,

7
institutionalized avoidance of academic rigor. It was said
that low achievers gave minimal compliance, neglected engaging
in class and failed to achieve. Teachers know what low
achievers can do and will do, and they bargain down their
expectations to the level that students can do and‘will do. It
appears that what the teachers get from this exchange is
reduced conflict that allows the teacher to conduct the class

in an orderly way.

Theoretical Framework

This section introduces and explains the concepts from
social exchange theory. This study applied the concepts of
reciprocity, comparison level, comparison-level alternative,
distributive justice and opportunity costs from social
exchange theory by Blau (1964), Homans (1961), Gouldner (1960)
and others, to an examination of the social norms of
classrooms that contain low achievers.

All relationships may' be 'viewed as being based on
reciprocity and as such may be thought of as a web of mutually
advantageous contracts. Blau (1964) described reciprocity as
the "voluntary action of individuals that are motivated.by the
returns they are expected to bring and typically do in fact
bring from others" (p. 91). Reciprocity suggests that people
in relationships are inter-indebted. Malinowski (1932) wrote
"People owe obligations to each other and that, therefore,

conformity with norms is something they give to each other"

8
(p. 39) . It may be said that reciprocity becomes a shared
value among relationship members.

Reciprocity solidifies into internalized values which are
used to compare the rewards that one receives, to the rewards
that others receive for a comparable amount of time, effort
and compliance. This process is known as the "comparison
level." Blau (1964) stated that comparison levels "serve as
standards of comparison and expectation, the average reward
received by their members becomes a baseline for evaluating
what is a relatively gratifying or a relatively depriving
experience" (p. 159).

People continually examine their comparison-level
alternative. The comparison-level alternative is a
relationship where a less gratifying reward may be obtained
with less effort. When an individual is content that the
reward received is proportionate to the effort given, she or
he remains in the relationship. If the reward received is less
than the effort given, the person will seek the comparison-
level alternative. The individual may obtain less reward, but
will do so for less effort.

Distributive justice is another concept that helps
elucidate exchange theory. Homans (1961) referred to
distributive justice as practical equilibrium. He stated that
people in relationships expect that the rewards received will
be distributed proportionately. Meeker (1971) said of

distributive justice that people ‘who Ihave established. a

9
relationship do not demand precisely equal rewards. Rather,
distributive justice is the comparable treatment of those that
are similar in ability and dedication. Individuals who give
more effort, maintain higher standards, or have higher status
receive proportionately more rewards than those who give
little.

Individuals in relationships assess their opportunity
costs. Opportunity costs are the rewards which may be received
by focusing effort in a relationship or activity other than
the present one. Individuals remain in relationships which are
mutually gratifying.

Exchange Theory offers us a way to talk about the
relationship between low achievers and their teachers. In
classrooms, the social norms solidify and become the baseline

for the individuals’ expectations of reward and effort.

What Schools Should Be

Education is a social process. The individual is born as
a very nearly tabula rasa. The single distinction between
mankind and other mammals is socialization. Individuals must
be socialized in order that she or he not be at odds with
society. Therein lies the purpose of education. Education
occurs whenever a younger generation is affected by an older
generation. The socialization process includes instilling a
set of ideals, values, and practices regardless of social
class. In addition, education prepares the individual to

assume a career of his or her own choice. The end of education

10

is a the process by which a being becomes a socialized.being--
a human being. As such, society ensures its own continuation.

Rousseau (1967) described education as a social process.
Rousseau stated that as such "man must be educated for
society, though not necessarily society in its present form"
(p. 221). Education begins "when the child becomes aware of
his relationship *with. other’ people" (p. 221). Education
instills "the fundamental principles which underlie the whole
of man's development" (p. 221). Rousseau (1967) maintained
that the individual is freed from his being through "social
experience of fraternity and equality with citizens who accept
the same ideal" (p. 223). Rousseau concluded that the
individual who accepts authority "not only belongs to a
collective, moral body but also achieves true freedom by
obeying a law which he has prescribed for himself" (p. 222).

Durkheim (1956) also treated education as a function of
social systems. He stated that education is "an eminently
social thing" (p. 28). The individual and society are not
opposed because "it is life in society that makes an
individual a truly human being" (pp. 20-21). Durkheim
maintained that education prepares the individual for society.
He stated that each society has an ideal of humankind and that
education instills this ideal in the individual. He continued
that to this end, education is the influence that an adult

generation exercises on youth.

11

Durkheim (1956) maintained that education develops in the
individual "the spirit of discipline, the spirit of
abnegation, and the spirit of autonomy" (p. 42). The
individual must be taught "our idea of the physical world, our
idea of life, our idea of man" (p. 47). Durkheim stated,

A good mind is one whose dominant
ideas, which govern the exercise of
thought, are in harmony with the
fundamental sciences as they are
presently constituted: thus equipped,
this mind can operate in the realm of the
truth as we conceive it. (p. 47)

Durkheim concluded that education is the "totality of
influences that nature or other men are able to exercise
either on our intelligence or on our will" (p. 61). As such,
education is the means by which "society prepares, within the
children, the essential conditions of its very existence" (p.
71) .

Newman (1951) too viewed education as a social process.
Education prepares the individual both socially and
academically. Newman stated that education is its own reward
because through, education the individual "profits by’ an
intellectual tradition" (p. 934). He added that "liberal
education and liberal pursuits are exercises of the mind, of
reason, of reflection" (p. 935). Newman elaborated that there
are three forms of knowledge, (1) "useful," (2) "liberal," and
(3) "religious." He asserted that "to»give undue prominence to

one is to be unjust to another" (p. 934). Newman continued

that "liberal" knowledge is not inferior to "useful"

l2
knowledge. Rather, it is "the distinct class of the useful"
(p. 935).

Newman (1951) stated that education is a possession. He
distinguished between "useful" and "liberal" when he stated
that "Of possessions, those rather are useful, which bear
fruit: those liberal, which tend to enjoyment. By fruitful, I
mean, which yield revenue: by enjoyable, where nothing accrues
of consequence beyond the using" (p 936).

Newman (1951) remarked that there are "two methods of
education: the end of the one is to be philosophical, of the
other to be mechanical: the one rises toward general ideas,
the other is exhausted upon what is particular and external"
(p. 936). Newman termed liberal knowledge "a treasure, and a
sufficient remuneration of years of labour" (p. 936) . He
concluded that liberal education is "simply the cultivation of
the intellect, as such, and its object is nothing more or less
than intellectual excellence" (p. 939).

The researcher included the reflections of John Goodlad
because he is a modern purveyor of classic ideas regarding
what students should receive via education. His reflections
regarding' education ‘were strikingly similar 'to those of
Newman, Rousseau, and Durkheim. Goodlad (1979) also referred
to education as "a process of the individual becoming" (p.
38). Through education, society assures its own continuation.
Goodlad stated that education plays "a major role in assuring

that the needs of the individual and society will not be at

13
odds" (p. 104). Regarding the end of educational preparation,
Goodlad stated that education,
...is eminently practical. It

prepares not for just one but many

vocations: it prepares not just for

society as it is but for a changing

civilization: it provides not merely for

present satisfactions but makes possible

a lifetime of enjoyment. (p. 35)

According to Rousseau (1967), Newman (1967), Durkheim
(1956) and Goodlad (1979) low achievers should receive some
degree of knowledge, skills, self-esteem, extrinsic and
intrinsic rewards, enjoyment, attention, challenge and
preparation for life and work. In turn, low achievers too
should give some degree of study time, effort, compliance,
attention, completed homework, reading, tests, writing, and
participation. Teachers should give some amount of weekly
lesson planning, daily lesson planning, correcting papers and
tests, lecturing, individual help to students, monitoring, and
free time. Teachers should receive ascendancy in the form of

some amount of effort, time, compliance, and enjoyment from

low achievers.

Pugpose and Exploratory Questions

The purpose of this study was to describe and explain the
social norms of classrooms that contain low achievers. The
researcher did so in terms of social exchange theory. The
product of the research was a set of propositions, stated in
terms of social exchange theory. The propositions explicated

the social norms.extant.in.such.classrooms. These propositions

14
provided direction to those who wish to further investigate
the phenomena.

Participants in classrooms share a reciprocal
relationship in which they receive and give. They assess the
value of what they receive, and give what they believe to be
a comparable amount. Low achievers and their teachers receive
something from classroom activities. However, it is not clear
what or how'much they receive and give. Therefore, the unit of
analysis was the low achievers’ and their teachers’ assessment
of the social norms in classrooms, including' what they
receive, what they give, and how they balance what they
receive against what they give.

The following questions ‘were designed. to jprovide a
framework for the study:

I. What hargains are eshgblished in
c as oms between low ach'evers and
ghei; teachers? This question addressed
what bargains existed, who initiated the
bargains, when the bargains began, the
mutuality of bargains, and what could not
be bargained.

II. What dg other students receive and
give in class? This area of questioning
dealt with how low achievers compare
themselves to students who exert more or

less effort in the classroom, the impact

15

of their effort on grades, and the low
achievers’ perception of the distributive
justice involved.
III. d w ' e n e w at

e r ceive a st what he ive?
Classrooms must be understood as a social
system, in which.participants receive and
give. This question sought information
regarding low achievers’ and their
teachers’ assessment of the value of what
low achievers receive in the classroom in
relation to their career goals, and how
they determine the appropriate balance of
what they receive against what they give.
IV. What do low achievers receive in the
classroom? This area of questioning
focused on the knowledge, skills, self-
esteem, external and internal rewards,
enjoyment, attention, challenge and
preparation for life and work that low
achievers receive.
V. What do teachers of low achievers give
in thef classroom? This area of
questioning dealt with the amount weekly
lesson planning, daily lesson planning,

correcting papers and tests, lecturing,

16

individual help to students, monitoring,

and free time that they give.

VI. do low chievers ve ' t e

gigggzggm? This area of questioning

concerned the amount of study time

effort, compliance, attention, completed

homework, reading, tests, writing, and

the participation that low achievers

give.

The preceding questions guided this qualitative study.

The questions were designed to guide the initial search for a
description and explanation of the social norms in classrooms
that contained low achievers. The respondents’ answers to
questions provided the basis to generate a set of

propositions.

Methodology

The intent was to gain knowledge of the social norms of
classrooms that contained low achievers. The method employed
was observation and interview. The researcher conducted
classroom observations and interviewed low achievers and their
teachers regarding social norms. The social norms in
classrooms and the nature of these social norms were
extrapolated from classroom observations and the interviews
with low achievers and their teachers. Regarding this method,

Cusick (1973) stated that an observer begins by locating

l7
himself by those that she or he wishes to study. This method
is useful because,
It can give the writer an answer of

what it means to gradually become one of

the subjects, and thus he can more

clearly explain that group’s perspective

against his own at various stages of his

assimilation into that society. (p. 5)
A.pilot study was conducted.during the winter term, 1992. Data
collection was conducted during the spring term, April and
May, 1992. Subsequent interviews and observations were
completed in the fall semester, 1992.

Schimidt (1991) stated that structured interviewing
involves using a schedule of questions when interviewing
participants. The schedule of questions is written based on
the information to be sought in the study. Questions are
typically open ended, thus allowing the respondent to
elaborate in detail, and to provide a broad range of
information. The same set of questions is used with all
respondents. The rationale for having a schedule of questions
is that it maintains a focus on the topic being studied, and
it reduces the potential for bias from the interviewer toward
the interviewees.

Gorden (1969, 1987) discussed the funnel format of the
interviewing process. The initial interview questions are
icebreakers which are designed to put the respondent at ease.
The next series of questions are related to the research

topic, but are broad based and general. A technique to verify

responses is to probe into inconsistent areas by seeking

18
additional information. The subsequent questions become more
focused, and draw on narrower, more specific information.
Funnel format referred to using initially broad to
subsequently narrow questions.

Schimidt (1991) stated that the structured interview
works well because (1) it uses a schedule of questions: (2)
the questions relate to the research topic: (3) questions are
based on patterned behavior: ( 4) the questions are open ended:
(5) the questions are in a funnel format: (6) the same
criteria are utilized with all interviewees; and (7) the
interview process is the same for all interviewees.

The researcher’s interest was in the social norms of
classrooms that contain low achievers. Low achievers and their
teachers were interviewed in private. The interviews lasted
one hour per participant. All respondents permitted the
interview to be tape recorded. Therefore, anecdotal notes were
not taken during interviews. These tape recordings were
transcribed, edited and collated into common tracts.
Exploratory questions were the basis of the interview. The
researcher conducted follow-up interviews with other low
achievers and classroom teacher(s) mentioned by the low
achievers. This process of selecting new participants is known
as snowball interviewing.

Other than introductory comments, and icebreaker
questions, the interviews were guided by the areas previously

presented. The interviewer permitted some flexibility to probe

19
into areas where there was inconsistency in responses, or
where more information was needed. Transcriptions and tapes
were examined according to each of the six areas. Actual
quotations and details of events were used to present the
research findings. The researcher did not alter the

respondents’ interpretations or perceptions.

Sa e
This is an exploratory study, and as such does not need
a random sample, but rather theoretical sampling. Glaser and
Strauss (1967) state that theoretical sampling,

...is the process.of data collection
for generating theory whereby the analyst
jointly collects, codes, and analyses his
data and decides what data to collect
next and where to find them, in order to
develop his theory as it emerges. This
process of data collection is controlled
by the emerging theory, whether
substantive or formal. The initial
decisions for theoretical collection of
data are based only on a general
sociological perspective. (p. 105)

Glaser and Strauss (1963) quote Zetterberg as stating that
random sampling is not necessary in generating theory.

The researcher who generates theory
need not combine random sampling with
theoretical sampling when setting forth
relationships among categories and
properties. These relationships are
suggested as hypothesis pertinent to
direction of relationship, not tested as
descriptions of both direction and
magnitude. Conventional theory claims
generality of scope; that is, one assumes
that if the relationship holds for one
group under certain conditions, it will
probably hold for other groups under the
same conditions. (p. 106)

20

The size of the sample group cannot be predetermined with
the use of theoretical sampling. All participants selected for
interviews were closely observed in their classes. The
researcher attended these students’ classes, in order to
verify that the information received was accurate.

There were concerns with generalizability. This study was
limited to a small group of low achievers and their teachers.
Few minority students and no special education students were
included. This researcher asserts the sociological assumption
that people are more alike than they are different. If’a group
of people behave in a certain way under certain conditions,
then one may assume that others will act the same way under
similar conditions.

The participants were full-time secondary students and
their teachers. The initial low achievers met the following
criteria: (1) freshman, sophomore, junior or senior'class: (2)
had under a 1.50 grade point average: (3) had a score above
twenty on the ACT or comparable standardized test: and (4)
demonstrated low' effort as reported by the high school
counselor and high school principal. The participants were
selected from academic, non-vocational classes.

The researcher explained to the respondents the study’s
purpose and the topics to be included. A consent and assent
form were signed by respondents, and by a parent or legal
guardian for participants under 18 years of age. The consent

form explained that the participants were not obligated to

21
take part in the research, and that they could.withdraw at any

time. Participants received no remuneration.

CHAPTER I I

RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH

Ingroductioh

This study’ 3 purpose was to describe and explain the
social norms of classrooms that contained low achievers. Two
literatures pertained to this research. The first body of
literature will be a review of social exchange theory. The
second. body of literature ‘will be a review of related
qualitative researches. The latter review will provide a
picture of the current knowledge of the bargains between

students and their teachers.

Review of Social Exchange Theogy

There are five concepts that combine to outline the
theoretical framework. The following are the five concepts:
(1) reciprocity: (2) opportunity costs: (3) comparison level:
(4) comparison-level alternative: and (5) distributive
justice.

The first concept from social exchange theory is
reciprocity. Homans (1961) stated that social association can
be conceptualized as "an exchange of activity, tangible or
intangible, and more or less rewarding or costly, between at
least two persons" (p. 13). Blau (1964) described social
exchange as "voluntary action of individuals that are
motivated by the returns they are expected to bring and
typically do in fact bring from others" (p. 91).

22

23
Meeker (1971) added,

The basic assumption here is that
human social behavior can be logically
derived or predicted from premises held
by the actor whose behavior is being
predicted. These premises include: (1)
his values, (2) his perception of the
alternative behaviors available to him,
(3) his expectations of the consequences
of these alternatives to himself and
others (consequences including the
probable responses from others), and (4)
a ’decision rule,’ which is a kind of
social norm telling him how the first
three premises should be combined to
yield the prescription of his behavior
(p. 485)

Blau (1964) stated that establishing a relationship,
...involves making investments that
constitute commitments to the other
party. Since social exchange requires
trusting others to reciprocate, the
initial problem is to prove oneself
trustworthy. As individuals regularly

discharge their obligations, they prove
themselves trustworthy of further credit.

(p. 98)

He continued that accepting reciprocity via a present or
favor is "the starting point of a budding exchange relation
and possibly a lasting friendship" (p. 107). Mauss (1954),
added that "To refuse to give, or to fail to invite, is--like
refusing to accept--the equivalent of a declaration of war: it
is a refusal of friendship" (p. 10).

Reciprocity exists in all associations, present and past.
Individuals learn normative values through associating with
family and friends. Gouldner (1960) believed that reciprocity
had its inception inmgenerations.past. He views reciprocity as

perpetuated through present social associations. Gouldner

24
stated that "Every social system of course has a history,
which means that it has had its beginnings even if these were
shrouded in antiquity" (p. 177).

Early social researchers such as Hobhouse (1906) referred
to reciprocity as the "vital principle of society" (p. 12).
Gouldner (1960) was more precise when he stated that
"reciprocity...is the mutually gratifying pattern of
exchanging goods and services" (p. 170). The term
"reciprocity" means that individuals ensure that all
interactions are ultimately equitable. Reciprocity is "the key
intervening variable through which shared social rules are
enabled to yield social stability" (p. 161).

Other social scientists shared Gouldner’s (1960)
interpretation that reciprocity yields a stable society.
Simmel (1950) stated that social equilibrium and cohesion
could not exist without "the reciprocity of service and return
service" and that "all contacts among men rest on the schema
of giving and returning the equivalence" (p. 387). Parsons
(1951) stated that if a social system is to be stable there
must always be some "mutuality of gratification" (p. 107).

Gouldner (1960) stated that reciprocity has two
functions: (1) stabilizing group functions; and (2) starting
relationships. Gouldner wrote that reciprocity as a norm
consists of minimal behavioral requirements to which all
people must adhere. Gouldner elaborated,

...a norm of reciprocity, in its
universal form, makes two interrelated,

25

minimal demands: (1) people should help
those who helped them, and ( 2) people
should not injure those who have helped
them . Generical 1y , the norm of
reciprocity may be conceived of as a
dimension to be found in all value
systems and, in particular, as one among
a number of ’Principal Components’
universally present in moral codes. (p.
171)

Reciprocity stipulates that people who have established
an association with one another in a dyad, triad, or larger
group are inter-indebted. Malinowski (1932) stated that
"People owe obligations to each other and that, therefore,
conformity with norms is something they give to each other"
(p. 39).

Gouldner (1960) stated that although people in
associations are inter-indebted, the rate of indebtedness is
not the same for all people. Individuals who possess high
status are entitled.tolgreater reward. Gouldner continued that
this is due to the potential value of their association.
Gouldner concluded that "Obligations imposed by the norm of
reciprocity may vary with the status of the participants
within a society" (p. 171).

Some social researchers have used the terms reciprocity
and rationality interchangeably. However, Meeker (1971)
addressed this issue and clarified that "The distinction
between rationality and reciprocity is that rationality uses
assessment of the purpose of maximizing the value received,

and reciprocity seeks to maintain a balance of exchange" (p.

486). Weber (1947) stated that there are four kinds of social

26

decisions: ( 1) tradition , (2) emotion , (3 ) rational
calculation of means and ends, and (4) evaluation of the means
without regard to ends (p. 115). While rationality is a
contributing factor in reciprocity as a conscious calculation
of the cost of association, rationality is not in itself
reciprocity. Reciprocity provides a non-critical means to view
classroom exchanges. The exchanges extant in classes are
gratifying to both low achievers and their teachers.

The second concept from social exchange theory is
opportunity cost. Homans (1957) equated cost in social
exchange to profit in economics. According to Homans, the cost
of action is equivalent to the foregone opportunity of an
alternative. The potential profit to be had in exchange
relations is dependent upon the cost not exceeding the reward.
He concluded that the profit is equal to the reward minus the
cost. The formula can be expressed as profit = reward - cost.

The value of a reward to be obtained is not interpreted
identically by all persons. Reward is weighed against the
perceived value and the relationship with the provider. The
individual who aspires to establish an exchange relation with
someone who has high social status will weigh the reward
different than someone who does not desire to establish and
maintain relations with the provider. Blau (1964) wrote,

The typical extrinsic benefits
socially exchanged, such as advice,
invitations, assistance or compliance,
have a distinctive significance of their

own that is independent of their
supplier, yet an individual’s preferences

27

for them are also affected by his
interpersonal relations with the supplier

(Po 94)

Time and subordination are not the only potential costs.
Blau (1964) stated that by making a commitment to a given
person or group results in losing potential opportunities with
other individuals or groups. Blau elaborated,

Commitments themselves constitute
opportunity costs, both ’actual’ and
’virtual’. The rewards obtained in the
social association or organizations
abandoned in favor of the present are
actual opportunity costs, and the rewards
not obtained from other affiliations that
could have been established are virtual
opportunity costs. (p. 160)

Expressing respect for a provider, complying with
requests, giving time, or passing up opportunities are all
cost factors in social exchange. Blau (1964) stated that, a
distinctive cost in social exchange was subordination by
expressing respect or giving compliance. Blau believed that
subordination was a reward given in the form of prestige or
power--moral ascendancy.

The next concept from social exchange theory is
distributive justice. Homans (1961) referred to distributive
justice as practical equilibrium. He believed that people in
social exchange relations expect.that the reward received from
the provider be distributed equally across the referent group.
He stated that individuals "will expect that the rewards of

each man be proportional to his costs--the greater the

rewards, the greater the costs--and the net rewards, or

28

profits, of each man be proportional to his investments--the
greater the investments, the greater the profit" (p. 75).

Homans (1961) stated that "The more to a man’s
disadvantage distributive justice fails of realization, the
more likely he is to display the emotional behavior we call
anger" (p. 75). Homans (1957) offered as evidence of
expectations and comparison of self and others in distributive
justice, through a conversation between two subgroups working

in a factory.

’We are getting the same pay as they
are. We ought to get just a couple
dollars a week more to show that our work
is more responsible.’ When you ask them
what they mean by ’more responsible, ’
they say that, if they do their work
wrong, more damage can result, and so
they are under pressure to take care. (p.
604)

Meeker (1971) addressed distributive justice saying that
individuals do not expect equal treatment across all groups.
Rather, distributive justice is the equal treatment of groups
similar in ability and dedication. Individuals who exert more
effort, maintain higher standards or have higher status should
be rewarded proportionately more reward. He wrote,

...a person with higher investments
deserves higher rewards: investments
include the values of acts, cost to the
actor, and external status
characteristics such as age and sex.
Status consistency or rank.equilibrium is
still another version of this principle,
in which it is assumed that people try to
distribute rewards proportionately to
status on an external dimension. (p. 487)

29

Blau (1964) referred to distributive justice as fair
exchange. He stated that "The concept ’fair exchange’ is
fundamentally similar to Homan’s rule of ’distributive
justice’" (p. 156). He continued to explain that in
distributive justice, norms exist. that. dictate the fair
exchange rate and.the going exchange rate. The first refers to
the actual rate based.on the effects of supply and demand. The
latter refers to the perceived equitable reward for similar
commitment and competence. Blau stated that there "are social
norms of fair exchange, and the going rate of exchange in a
group is not necessarily, or even typically, identical with
what is considered a fair rate of exchange" (p. 154).

The final two concepts from social exchange theory are
the comparison level, and the comparison-level alternative.
Reference groups establish an equitable rate of social
exchange. Blau (1964) stated that "In the course of social
exchange, a going rate of exchange between two social benefits
becomes established" (p. 151).

Group members compare the reward that.they receive to the
reward. which. their' referent. group receives. Blau (1964)
referred.to this as comparison level. He‘continued.that "Since
reference groups serve as standards of comparison and
expectation, the average reward received by their members
becomes a baseline for' evaluating' what is a relatively

gratifying or a relatively depriving experience" (p. 159).

30
The reward which one individual receives may not be the
same as the reward which she or he receives in another group.
When members make comparisons outside of their group, they
usually compare against like groups. Blau (1964) stated that
individuals,

. . .compare themselves with others
like themselves whom they know or whom
they know about, in their own groups and
sometimes also in groups to which they
aspire to belong, and their knowledge of
the rewards these others receive in
social life affect the level of social
reward they expect to be able to claim.
(p. 144)

While group members compare themselves against the
referent group and other similar groups, they remain aware of
the minimum acceptable reward. Blau (1964) referred to the
comparison as comparison—level alternative. Blau stated that
because people,

.. .belong to many groups, and
potentially to still others, which
constitute reference groups with which
they compare themselves. The members of a
group compare how profitable various
social experiences are not only among
themselves but each also compares the
returns he gets for his investments with
persons in other groups of which he is a
member or aspires to be one. Since the
various members of a given group compare
themselves with others in different
reference groups, whose investments they
consider similar to their own their
diverse expectations create differences
in satisfaction with the same rewards.
(p. 158)

Blau (1964) stated that when individuals assess the

comparison level in their own group, and comparison-level

31

alternative in other similar groups, the individuals calculate
what association costs. If their effort exceeds their reward,
the person. will experience. dissonance. Blau stated ‘that
"People whose standards of justice are violated feel angry as
well as dissatisfied and give vent to their anger through
disapproval of and sometimes hostility and hatred against
those who caused it" (p. 157).

Supply and demand affect how much reward a person might
expect to receive for effort. When suppLy is down, higher
reward might be expected. The inverse is also true. Blau
(1964) asserted that there is an actual rate of reward and a
hypothetical rate of reward. Because of supply and.demand, the
two may never be identical. Blau said,

The going rate at which advice is
exchanged for’ compliance and superior
status in a group depends on conditions
of supply and demand, but the continual
changes in these conditions, partly
produced by the changes in the exchange
rate they themselves have produced, make
it likely that the actual rate of
exchange never catches up with the
hypothetical rate toward which supply and
demand pull it. But the going rate sets
approximate standards of social
expectations that influence the actual
rates of exchange between particular
partners. (p. 153)

Individuals compare themselves to their referent group,
and to groups which they estimate are equal to their own
group. Individuals do not leave their group immediately if

rewards are fewer than expected. Gouldner (1960) explained,

These outstanding obligations, no
less than those already given compliance,

32
contribute substantially to the stability
of social systems. It is obviously
inexpedient for creditors to break off
relationships with those who have
outstanding obligations to them. It may
also be inexpedient for debtors to do so
because their creditors may not again
allow them to run up a bill of social
indebtedness. In addition, it is morally
improper, under the norm of reciprocity,
to break off relations or to launch

hostilities against those whom you are
still indebted. (p. 175)

Summagy of Section One

The concepts of :reciprocity, opportunity' costs,
comparison level, comparison-level alternative, and
distributive justice provide a useful way to describe and
explain the norms of classrooms which contain low achievers.
The benefit for using social exchange theory’s concepts is
that this researcher’ conducts the study' without. blaming
participants. Low achievers and their teachers are viewed as
participants engaged in a reasonable and mutually gratifying
relationship. Each side understands the norms. In addition,
each side abides by these norms and thus legitimates the
norms. Next, the researcher will present the related

qualitative studies.

Review of Qualitative Studies of Classgooms

The second literature review is intended to present to
the reader’what.is currently known regarding lowered classroom

standards. The researcher will include the following studies:

Cusick (1992) The Educational System: Its Nature and LOGIC:

33

Cusick (1983) The Egaliteziah Ideal and phe Amezicah High
Ssn2211_Studie§_2f_Three_§chggls: Cusick (1973) Inside_nish
W: Grant (1988) The Wozlg we Qzeeped
MM: Henry (1963) mm: McNeil
(1935) QQnIIQQiQIiQn§_QI.QQnII2lI_§QhQQl_§£IQQ£BI§_§nQ_§QhQQl
thglgflgg: Powell Farrar, & Cohen (1985) Ihe_§hpppihg_hgll
Hi 00 : W' e s se in the Educatiphal
Mapketplace: Sedlak Wheeler, Pullin, & Cusick, (1986) Selling
Sppdents Shopp; Classroom Bargains and Aeademic Reform in the

Amerigah High Schoo : Willis (1977) Learning to Labour: How
Wophing Class Children Get Working Class Jobs; and Neukom-Page

 

(1991) Low r- ack classrooms: A curr cular and ultural
Perspective.

Schatzman and Strauss (1973) described a study’s
perspective as "the angle:of observation" (p. 55). The authors
presented in this literature review have observed classrooms
and the phenomenon of lowered standards from various
perspectives, yet these studies are encompassed within the
view of classrooms as social systems.

Studies many times conflict in their interpretations. In
seeking a better understanding of the low achievement, the
researcher reviewed.major qualitative and literary studies of
classrooms. The literature illustrates that classrooms
bargains exist. and 'that. the Ibargains encourage. avoiding

rigorous academic requirements.

...... “A”

34

Neukom-Page (1991) indicated that research findings have
both consistencies and differences. In determining the focus
of this study, the researcher looked for both consistencies
purpose of research is to make a contribution by filling a
void in what is not known about lowered academic standards.
There was a consistent norm across these books, that
disinterested students and their teachers mutually accepted
lOW’ achievement. However, the explanations found in the
related literature did not elucidate how the disinterested
students and. their ‘teachers established. the norms 'which
permitted and encouraged low achievement.

Even though the authors used many different perspectives,
the reader will note that there are some consistent themes
across the works cited. Lower academic standards are
attributed to: (1) a conflict between control and teaching,
(2) weak academic policies, (3) inconsistent administrative
support, (4) broad-based curricula and (5) students choosing
their own courses. Furthermore, students who fail to achieve
have low educational aspirations and tend to regard education
as a means of attaining only entry-level jobs. As such,
lowered academic standards are also attributed to: (6)
students’ instrumental view of education, and (7) students
pursuing opportunities other than education.

This research is a response to Sedlak et al.’s (1986)
call for further investigation into classroom bargains.

Therefore, the researcher presents these authors’ study first.

 

 

 

35
Sedlak et a1. completed a literature review of classroom
bargains. The authors stated that there is a bargain struck
between students and teachers. The bargain is,
.. .a complex, tacit conspiracy to

avoid sustained, rigorous, demanding,

academic inquiry. A ’bargain’ of sorts is

struck that demands little academically

of either teachers or students. (p. 5)

Sedlak et al. (1986) argued that organizational policies
protect and exacerbate the bargains because those policies
"determine(s) what teachers can require of their students, and
shape(s) prevailing' academic standards" (p. 5). However,
policies in and of themselves do not lower standards. Teachers
interpret and act upon these policies. The authors believed
that along with teachers "students at any time have some
responsibility for the scope, character, and level of their
education." (p. 21) . According to the authors, classroom
bargains are,

...an adaptation that teachers and
students make to the institutions which
they occupy together. Each side brings to
the arrangement experiences, aspirations,
and options, both in and out of school,
that make their respective behavior
understandable and rational. (p. 5)

Sedlak et a1. (1986) also contended that students have
become increasingly disengaged because they are aware of their
other opportunities such as work and sports. Students prefer
to expend their energy on those opportunities rather than on

academic pursuits. Sedlak et al. noted that work and sports

reduce the time that students can expend on serious study.

36
Therefore, students enroll in less challenging classes and
"...appear to care less about their educational experience
and...invest their time, effort and attention elsewhere" (p.
2). In response to student disengagement, teachers reduce
academic requirements. In effect, the teachers have consented
to a bargain with their students.

Sedlak et a1. noted that at base,

...the bargain’s essential features
include: relatively little concern for
academic content: a willingness to
tolerate, if not encourage, diversion
from the specified knowledge to be
presented or discussed: the substitution
of genial banter and conversation for
concentrated academic exercises:
improvisational instructional adaptation
to student preference for or indifference
toward specific subject matter or
pedagogical techniques; the ’ negotiation’
of class content, assignments, and
standards: and a high degree of teacher
autonomy in managing the level of
academic engagement, personal
interaction, and course content. (p. 7)

Sedlak et al. (1986) wrote that students had an
instrumental view of education. Students are "motivated by the
extrinsic value of a high school diploma in the marketplace"
(p. 25). Few are "motivated by a love of education for its own
sake or the intrinsic interest of the subject.matter" (p. 25).
They seek the diploma, not knowledge. A diploma is not valued
for the knowledge presumably associated with it. The diploma’s
value does not exceed its usefulness to get into college or to

obtain a job.

37

Sedlak et a1. (1986) also attributed bargaining to a
diverse curriculum and to students’ autonomy to choose their
own courses. The authors stated that within the wide
curriculum there existed two tracks: (1) the high track or
college-bound: and ( 2) low track or employment-bound. Students
were free to select their own classes within each track.
Disinterested students could avoid academics altogether
through work-study programs.

Sedlak et a1. contributed the understanding that
expectations for achievement are reduced by mutually agreed
upon bargains. The authors believed that the following factors
contribute to the bargains: (1) students’ instrumental view of
education: (2) weak policy: (3) a broad-based curriculum: (4)
students’ autonomy to select courses: (5) and a conflict
between students’ out-of-class opportunities and education.

McNeil (1986) studied four schools to see how school
organization affects classroom knowledge. Her study’s purpose
was to explain how managing and controlling by administrators
coerces students and teachers to "take school less seriously"
(p. xviii). She argues that because "students are controlled
in school," they resist the knowledge which teachers offer (p.
14).

McNeil (1986) stated that in three of the four schools
she observed, there existed underlying tensions between
teachers and administrators. Administrators were attentive to

"attendance and discipline" (p. 91) or to "chronic offenders"

38

(p. 120). Teachers were attentive to instruction and did not
trust the administrators due to their past inconsistent
enforcement of discipline. Because of this distrust, the
teachers and administrators operated almost entirely separate
from one another. The author believed that academics suffered
because there was a conflict between the administrators’
concern with control and the teachers’ concern with
instruction.

McNeil (1986) also asserted that teachers taught despite
policy, not because of policy. She believed that policy was
weak: with regard. to .academics, and. discouraged academic
achievement by emphasizing control. She argued that a
contradiction between control and educating became manifest in
teachers’ "unease and lack of imagination" (p. 92) in
instruction. In effect, she believed that because of weak
academic policies the staff lowered their expectations of
students.

McNeil noted that teachers had slightly different styles,
but all used a defensive approach to teach in which they
omitted controversial content and lectured to ward off
interruptions. Defensive instruction. included. reducing' or
eliminating demanding exercises, creating fragmented lessons,
and expecting little student involvement. Teachers surrounded
information with mystification and smoothed over issues when
content was controversial or where their own knowledge was

weak. She asserted that teachers controlled the students via

39
controlling the course content, and by being the sole active
participant.

McNeil (1986) noted that the students whom she observed
also had an instrumental view of education and questioned the
value of knowing anything that they do not already'know. Their
skeptical attitude toward. content lead. students to «give
minimal effort to classes. Credit, and not knowledge, was the
important factor to students. McNeil said that the conflict
between what was taught and what students valued encouraged
negotiating between teachers and students which gave students
a "client mentality" (p. 78). Students were free to counter
negotiate with their teachers what they (the students) were
willing to give in classes. Coupled with students’
instrumental view of school knowledge and education in general
was the problem that students were free to elect their own
courses.

McNeil (1986) also noted that students had opportunities
other than education. Over half of the eleventh and twelfth
grade students held part time jobs, and were in school only
when they had to be. Work opportunities reduced the extent of
effort that students gave in classes. She noted that Mr.
Seager was a strong teacher. Even though Mr. Seager wanted
students to share his concerns, only a few students were
attuned. Other students listened passively and took no work

home, opting instead to pursue their other opportunities.

40
Outside opportunities worked both ways. Teachers too availed
themselves of outside jobs.

There was one school where McNeil’s control thesis failed
to hold. Administrators in Nelson High School considered
academics, not control, to be their priority. In that school
the administrators and the teachers were not opposed. McNeil
(1986) believed that most, but not all, teachers in Nelson
High School worked hard. But her description showed that even
in Nelson the same classroom bargaining occurred. Nelson
teachers too instructed defensively because students had an
instrumental view of education.

McNeil contributed to the understanding of lowered
standards by showing that there is seldom conflict in
classrooms Zbecause students and ‘teachers come to :mutual
understandings. Even in the ostensibly good schools teachers
and students agree to lower expectations. She held that
standards are lowered due to the following factors: ( 1) a
conflict between educating and controlling: (2) unsupportive
administrators: (3) weak policy: (4) students’ instrumental
view of education: (5) students’ choice of courses: and (6)
students’ other opportunities.

Cusick (1992) attempted to describe the whole educational
system, beginning with classrooms. In his review of
descriptive studies he found.that in every'classroom, students
maintain informal groups which reflect their social class

values. In informal groups, individuals give compliance to a

41

set of values and norms. Group values and norms often conflict
with the values and norms espoused by the teachers. Teachers
take the central role in the classroom to keep students from
returning to their informal groups. He noted that "Poor
teachers have out-of-control classes, but all teachers have
difficult students and potentially out-of-control classes" (p.
45) because all teachers face students who have norms and
values which are different than those espoused by the
teachers.

Cusick (1992) maintained.that "Students have to.adjust to
schools, but schools have to adjust to society’s classes" and
that "the two forces compromise" (p. 39) in the classroom
where teachers have two tasks--instruction and control. The
author noted that some student groups support the bureaucracy
by imposing the school’s behavioral standards on their members
in order to keep the members in school and therefore in the
group. In this way "The roles required by the (school) and by
the strongly normed peer groups are supportive and
overlapping" (p. 34). Because students impose the school’s
standards on their group, control, while always an issue, is
not always a problem.

Cusick (1992) wrote that "The overlapping of society as
manifested in students groups, within the teacher-led
classroom is the most important link in the educational
system" (p. 18). He contended that a common trait with the

working class and lower-class children was that they tend to

42
resist the school’s norms, remain in their peer groups and
participate in school through.the peer’group. Teachers did.not
push students beyond the level of effort that the groups
allowed. The problem for schools was to establish norms which
could coexist with the students’ norms.

Cusick (1992) believed that teachers gain control by
establishing norms to which students submit. Cusick argued
that there are two jparallel systems in the classroom--
instructing and control. The students have their own.norms and
expectations, and the school as an institution has its own
norms and expectations. The institution’ s norms and
expectations are taken by the teachers into the classroom--
where the institution meets the students. Teachers attempt to
ameliorate conflict and associated control problems by
bargaining between the institution’s norms and expectations
and the students’ norms and expectations. Lastly, Cusick
contributed the point that teachers and students are free to
conform with or to reject classroom norms. The consistent
theme across students and teachers is that each individual
decides how much effort and.compliance she or he is willing to
give to school activities.

Cusick (1992) argued that control is always an issue
because schools attempt to impose a set of norms that are
alien to low achieving (usually poor) students. Individuals

can choose to submit themselves to the norms or refuse to do

43
so. It follows that lowered standards are due to the
establishment of bargained norms.

Grant (1988) conducted a qualitative study of Hamilton
High School in which he traced the pattern of events over a
thirty' year' period. He Ibelieved. that. because of social
policies such as students’ rights, mainstreaming and
desegregation, that schools in general and Hamilton High in
particular had to constantly adapt. In the middle of all of
this adapting, teachers had to constantly attempt to keep up
with the latest change and did so by bargaining with students.

‘Bargains were partially attributable to the
administration not supporting teachers regarding classroom
discipline at a time when the students’ rights movement.was at
its peak and teachers had to use whatever means they might
arrange to maintain order. Bargaining encouraged lowered
classroom standards, but lowered standards encouraged good
behavior by students.

Grant (1988) also believed that bargains were made more
prevalent because the curriculum was so wide. Students had a
wide range of classes from which they could choose the least
challenging to the most challenging. Disinterested students
enrolled in easy classes where teachers reduced requirements
in order to maintain enrollment. Coupled with the wide
curriculum was a weak academic policy which stipulated that of

the 18 credits required to graduate, only 10 were mandatory.

44

Because of their instrumental view of education students
filled.their remaining credits with easy courses. This formlof
open enrollment forced teachers to be concerned with
maintaining numbers sufficient to offer their courses. Grant
concluded that if Hamilton High School had an unwritten
slogan, that it would be ”Let the students decide" (p. 65).
Students had near autonomy over their class selection, their
attendance, and their compliance.

Grant (1988) argued that classrooms are social systems in
which students and teachers reach agreements. Students and
teachers are most often mutually pleased with the agreements
which they havezestablished. Grant.believed.that teachers’ and
students’ agreements to lower academic standards in classrooms
were brought about by the following factors: (1) the constant
changes in educational policy: (2) administrators constantly
trying to keep up with the changes in educational policy; (3)
a broad-based curriculum which was the result of policy
changes designed to make schools more equal: (4) students’
instrumental view of education: and (5) students’ having free
choice of classes. In effect, the policy changes surrounding
students rights were based on the assumption that if the
curriculum were made more broad and if the students were free
to elect their courses, then students would use these
opportunities to acquire more knowledge. But the disinterested

students, particularly low achievers, used the freedom to

 

45
select easier classes and to pursue opportunities other than
learning.

Cusick (1973) completed a qualitative study of student
groups in school. He contended that during most of the day,
students have opportunities such as being in groups with their
friends and that these student groups are strongly normed.
Because there is not.a great deal for students to do in school
much of the students’ time is spent in these informal groups.
Disinterested students retreat to their groups and watch the
teacher and other students interact. Bargains to lower
standards occur not simply with individual students, but with
their strongly normed groups.

Cusick (1973) believed that good participation did not
depend.entirely on the teachers because the students were free
to accept or to resist the norms. As teachers attempted to
work with their classes, disinterested students retreated into
their small friendship groups. In one instance, a teacher
continued to discuss a worksheet, as students discussed their
hunting strategies. When the teacher engaged the disinterested
students, they resisted with "I don’t know, I’m.dumb" (p. 58).
The students continued their hunting strategies--the teacher
continued his discussion.

Bargains between teachers and students were mutually
accepted. A central norm of the bargain was that neither side
would force issues. Teachers received minimal effort and

behavioral compliance. Students were left to do what they

46

could and would.do. Teachers did not ask much.of disinterested
students and allowed them to pursue the more rewarding group
life. The agreement appeared to be gratifying for teachers who
were able to conduct their classes without disruption and for
students who were not pushed into uncomfortable situations.
When given assignments, students gave only the amount of
effort that they deemed necessary to pass. Students hurried to
complete assignments and returned to their individual
interests, such as reading the newspaper or reflecting on the
last football game.

Cusick’s (1973) students too had an instrumental view of
education. Students liked teachers who gave easy assignments,
allowed minimal effort and assured passing grades. However,
students did expect to learn something in their classes. As
Cusick sat with a student group, the boys discussed a bad
teacher. He inquired what the teacher instructed and the boys
responded "he doesn’t teach.a thing. Just a bunch of’bullshit"
(p. 98) . The statement illustrates that students were not
disinterested in learning, they were disinterested in school.
Many students expected to learn and resented teachers who fell
below what the students considered a fair amount of effort.

Cusick (1973) noted that because students had an
instrumental view of education, commitment to studies depended
on the course’s relevance to their future plans. As one
student told Cusick,

Not all kids fool around like this.
Some of the guys going on to college are

 

 

 

47

real serious about their grades and their

future and, let’s face it, if you want to

go to college, you have to have the high

grades. But me? Couldn’t care less about

going to college. You’ve probably

noticed, Phil, our' group is 'very

interested in music. I know if I could

spend my days taking guitar lessons, I

wouldn’t be here, I’d be there. (p. 123)
This comment illustrates that even the disinterested students
like to learn. However, they like to learn on their own terms-
-their own interests.

Cusick’s (1973) description illustrates that the bargain
has limits. The author noted that the students prepared their
assignments at the last.minute. Teachers accepted this minimal
effort and rewarded students with. a passing grade. The
exchange was fair because the students gave some effort.
However, when students added an individual’s name who had not
worked on the assignment, the teacher failed that individual.
That individual gave no effort, and therefore the individual
received no grade.

Students compared and assessed each other’s work. When
grades were issued, each student expected that his or her
grade would reflect the level of commitment and effort, so
even within the same group, grades varied. The students who
gave more effort expected and received higher grades than
students who gave less effort. As one student stated "You got
a higher mark because your log was better" (p. 115).

Cusick’s (1973) description also elucidated how students

compared their own effort against the teachers’ effort as

48
well. One student commented regarding a teacher that "he
teaches English once in a while, when he feels like it--which
isn’t often" (p. 148). Because many teachers appeared to be no
more committed to academic pursuits than were students, many
students believed that the process was a farce. The students
noted that they merely had to,
...fake their way through. You have
to know the little gimmicks, the little
tricks. And if you know them, you can get
through. Look at me. I might get shitty
grades, but I haven’t kept a notebook for
four years. (p. 148)

Cusick’s (1973) book adds to the notion that the bargains
encouraged students to seek personal, non academic pursuits.
Not all students were committed to serious and sustained
academics nor were all teachers. The institution created a
situation in which students were forced back into their own
social groups. It is from these social groups that the
students confront the teachers. Cusick contributes that the
following factors lead to lowered academic standards: (1)
strongly normed student groups: (2) students’ instrumental
view of education: (3) students’ opportunities for group
rewards: (4) students’ choice to accept or reject school
norms: and (5) teachers accepting students’ minimal effort.

Cusick (1983) described the teachers’, students’, and
administrators’ interactions in three urban high schools.
Cusick noted that the teachers’ and administrators’ paramount

concern in the urban, bi-racial schools during the 19705 was

student control. He wrote that the probability of violence in

 

49

those urban, bi-racial schools was so driving that control
took precedence over academics. As such, teachers used more
time and effort to develop positive student relations than to
instruct. Teachers who maintained classroom control were left
to their own devices and not monitored by the principal. In
turn, teachers did not monitor disinterested students so long
as they did not create disruptions.

Cusick ( 1983) revealed bargains between students and
teachers in these urban, bi-racial high schools. He found that
a number of teachers were not interested in teaching but, they
had to relate to students. Mr. P., a teacher, used his
personal relationship tolgain student compliance. In fact, Mr.
P. was as bored as the students. Mr. P. lectured as students
sat bored. but compliant, but when questioned about the
situation, the students responded with "He’s a good guy" (p.
55) .

Cusick (1983) wrote that the curriculum’s wide base also
presented problems. In completing their high school program,
students were free to select courses that interested them. The
teachers in turn were reduced to soliciting student
enrollments to maintain full schedules. This was a situation
that required compromise by both parties.

Cusick (1983) argued that both teachers and disinterested
students avoided academic pursuits by lowering expectations.
Lowered expectations maintained high enrollments and reduced

conflict. On the other hand, higher teacher standards may

50

lower enrollments and raise conflict, not only between
teachers and disinterested students but between teachers and
the administrators to whom these students might complain. Low
standards were then attributed to the following factors: (1)
a. broad-based. curriculum: (2) students having choice of
courses: (3) the concern with.control: and (4) the egalitarian
commitment to enroll, maintain and educate all students. The
latter element denoted the school’s basic obligation to take,
interest and succeed with all students regardless of their
effort or ability. That obligation forced schools into an
endless set of compromises with disinterested students.

Powell et al. (1985) studied how schools "...attempt to
entice and graduate the entire adolescent population, and
ensure that most are somehow the better for it" (p. 1). The
authors stated that students and teachers accepted mediocrity.
The authors believed that the treaties between teachers and
students "begin with courtesy and cooperation--no put-downs"
(p. 95). The treaties were "understandings about.theldegree to
which subject matter will be avoided or engaged" (p. 106).
They noted that the only way to fail was not to come to
school. The authors contended that the rationale was that
schools are like shopping malls because they offer something
for everyone. The authors argued that "The ’Mall’ wants your
good behavior and attendance, and for that alone, they will

sell you a diploma" (p. 65).

51

Powell et a1. (1985) argued that conflict seldom occurs
because ‘teachers and students reached. agreements. on Ihow
seriously each side worked. These agreements resulted in
classroom effort being reduced to worksheet routines that were
minimally demanding. Students complied with this norm and gave
descent behavior that was asked. Teachers were free from
administrators who otherwise might accuse them of being unable
to control their classes. In return disinterested students
were free from teachers’ intervention, while the more eager
and aggressive students were free to pursue an education that
would help them with their goals.

Powell et al. (1985) too said that students have out-of-
school opportunities. Because disinterested students had an
instrumental view of education, they enrolled in easy classes
within the broad-based curriculum. Students knew that they
could enter junior colleges with bad grades. Therefore,
students did not make a serious commitment to academics and
the teachers did not push for higher standards. Both sides
accepted mediocrity. As such, the authors concluded that
treaties exist in the classroom because learning "...is
voluntary" (p. 309).

Powell et al. (1985) contributed to the understanding
that there is seldom.conflict.because standards vary. Students
and their teachers came to an agreement about how seriously
education is taken. Willing and eager students find

intellectual challenge. Unwilling students find that they can

52

slide through high school with little or'no effort, unharrased
by teachers with whom they have struck treaties (bargains).
The bargains outlined how much each was to give to education
and the bargains constituted a set of norms. The authors
attributed lowered standards to the following factors: (1) a
wide-based curriculum: (2) students choosing their own
classes: (3) students’ instrumental view'of education: (4) the
treaties: and (5) schools trying to serve all students’
regardless of interest and ability.

Willis (1977) conducted a qualitative research of a group
of male working class students in England to describe how the
working class children obtain working class jobs, rather than
elevate to a higher class. The author maintained that working-
class cultural values run contrary to school values. The
working class lads took.their class values into the school and
acted them out. The lads pursued activities which were
reflective of the class and culture instead of pursuing school
opportunities for social mobility. In effect, the working
class boys (the lads) recreated their social class experience
in school. The lads behave in and toward the school in the
same manner that their fathers behave in and.toward.their work
in the factory.

Willis (1977) noted that the lads’ teachers had little
choice but to reduce requirements to what the lads would do.
The group norm was to avoid boredom and the lads did so by

pursuing entertainment wherever they went. One bargain made

53
Ibetween the lads and their teachers appeared to be receiving
a passing grade for giving minimal effort. The author reported
that students joked about the ease of school. One lad said
that he was upset because he had to do a writing assignment.
The lad’s intention was to get through the marking period and
never have to write. The lad remarked about the last time he
did any writing,
...was in careers, ’cos I writ ’yes’
on a piece of paper, that broke me heart.
I mean to write, 'cos I was going to try
to go through the term without writing

anything. ’Cos since we’ve cum back, I
ain’t dun nothing. [it was half term].

(p. 27)

According to Willis (1977) the lads had an instrumental
view of education and saw little value in academic work
because they had already set their sights on the factory and
therefore saw school knowledge as superfluous. The lads did
not accept delayed.gratification. As such, education which.was
not immediately applicable was rejected because it was not
necessary. Willis argued that the lads attempted to control
the time and the effort that they put into classes. When asked
to put in more than they wanted, they refused, seeking
entertainment rather than pursuing academics.

Willis contributed that there exists a working-class
culture, which. runs contrary' to ‘the school’s standards.
Working class students rejected education in lieu of
diversion. Willis attributed lowered standards to (1) the way

working class students recreated their own culture in school:

54
(2) students’ instrumental view of education: and (3)
students’ other opportunities.

Neukom-Page (1991) conducted a qualitative research in
which she used a cultural and curricular perspective to study
low academic standards in the Maplehurst School District. The
district contained approximately ten percent minority
students, and. was described. as Ihaving' good inter-racial
relations. She argued that educational institutions mediate
the conflict between the individual and community. The
institution is caught in the middle of educating to the
individual’s needs or integrating that individual with the
larger society by providing a common education.

The author argued that tracking’ was ceased in the
district in the early 19605 with the mandate for
desegregation. However, in the same motion, the school board
implemented a low track curriculum for the unable and the
disinterested students. In total, the curricula contained more
than 200 courses. The low-track curriculmm contained
Additional Needs classes for ‘the students who 'were not
qualified for special education but who were incapable or
unwilling to enroll in the college preparatory curriculum. In
the Additional Needs classes it was believed that students
would have their social and emotional needs met as opposed to
exposing these students to serious academics. In Additional
Needs classes "...academic progress (was) the least important

aspect" (p. 88) of classroom life.

 

55

Teachers recommended students’ placement into Additional
Needs classes, but students too were free to enroll in these
low-track classes in order to avoid serious academic pursuits.
In fact, disinterested students regardless of their academic
capability, were permitted to complete almost all of their
course program for graduation in the Additional Needs classes.
Disinterested and incapable students were thus able to
graduate having avoided any serious studies. Even though the
classes were completed in the low—track, the students’
transcripts showed the same courses as the high level
curriculum, and disinterested students thus believed the low-
track’s Additional Needs classes to be a good deal.

Neukom-Page believed that students’ "...socio-cultural
characteristics, become(s) the basis for" (p. 173) course
content. Most all students in the Additional Needs classes
scored in the third quartile on standardized tests. Some
scored as high as the 90th percentile on standardized tests,
but teachers still considered these students to be incapable
of academic success and believed that the students must be
learning disabled.

The.author'argued.that.the instruction.even in Additional
Needs classes reflected the conflict between the institutional
and cultural norms. This conflict became manifest in an over-
representation of blue-collar, low SES and minority students
in Additional Needs classes. Additional Needs teachers

believed that these children were either incapable and/or

56

unwilling to engage in serious studies. Therefore, teachers
reduced academics to worksheet routines, which allegedly
targeted students’ individual social and emotional needs.

Neukom-Page argued further that there was a constant
possibility of classroom disruption, which might bring about
intervention by administrators. In response, teachers in these
classes held the central role in all discussions and followed
a typical teacher question/student response/teacher follow-up
pattern. Students guessed the best right answer which the
teacher had in mind. Teachers believed that by limiting
students’ involvement, they were limiting disruptions.

Teachers attempted to avoid disruptions and gain
students’ compliance by offering subject content which the
students would need in daily life. But, such topics as drug
use and child abuse ran the risk of insulting these students.
In addition, teachers gave students individual seat work such
as worksheets and subsequently addressed the entire class to
solicit student questions. The contradictory combination of
individualized worksheets and questioning the entire class
confused students. The watered-down content and the teacher
centered instruction brought about classroom conflict first
because students were insulted and second they were confused
regarding their own classroom role.

Neukom-Page described the course content in Additional
Needs classes as skeletal. The same topics were presented in

the low-track classes, but in but less detail. Teachers in

57

Additional Needs classes stressed skills more than content.
Rather than stressing that students learn the subject matter,
teachers reduced such classes as English and history to
increasing students’ reading skills. Lastly, these teachers
presented relevant content. Teachers presented learning
material based on their oft-times biased opinion of what their
students would need.

Neukom-Page believed that the term "...’low-track
teacher’ is an oxymoron" (p. 109) because the teachers had
nothing to offer Additional Needs students. Teachers realized
that they had little to offer because the Additional Needs
students were either incapable and/or unwilling to do much in
the way of academics, and so teachers expected little either
of students or of themselves as teachers.

To Neukom-Page (1991) school is caught up in an array of
conflicts. First, between its commitment to the individual and
its commitment to the community. Having two instructional
tracks permits the school to address these two conflicting
commitments. However, teachers still face the conflict of
control and teaching in low-track classes in which many
students are disinterested or incapable of serious academic
pursuits. Furthermore, in these low-track classes teachers
face the conflict of instructing remedial or regular lessons.
All of this conflict coincides with teachers’ negative view of
Additional Needs students, and teachers attributing students’

ability to socio-cultural background. As such students’

58
"...socio-cultural (background), become(s) the basis for" (p.
173) reduced course content in the low-track curriculum.

Henry (1963) also studied the impact of culture on
students’ education. He believed that classroom culture and
home culture conflict. Schools are maintenance institutions
which transfer a national culture to students and as such
"...are the central conserving force of the culture" (p. 286).
He believed that drives belong to the occupational world,
values to the family and conserving culture to the school.
Values give direction but they lack the compelling power of
institutional drives. Henry stated that "American conformity
is a necessity: it is America’s intuitive effort to hold
American society together" (p. 148) and it is the school’s
primary task.

In relating his descriptive study of one school, Henry
(1963) selected the pseudonym Rome High School to
“...symbolize the disparity between reality and.hope" (p. 184)
in the school which he discusses. Henry believed that one of
Rome High School’s problems was its dedication to two
contradicting orientations--fun and scholarship. Regarding the
students’ decisions to not engage in challenging study, he
stated that students "see their hard-working daddies are
little at home and burdened with...work, why then should they
not conclude that hard work is for the birds?" (p. 172).

Henry (1963) believed that education "becomes unbearable

when it is rammed down the student’ 3 neck" (p. 176) . He

59
continued that "The function of the high school is not to
communicate knowledge, it is to oblige children finally to
accept the grading system. as a measure of their inner
excellence" (p. 178).

Henry (1963) contributed to the understanding of lowered
classroom standards by showing that the classroom culture and
the home culture conflict. Schools are 'maintenance
institutions which transfer a national culture to students.
Henry contributed an understanding that there is a conflict
between the school’s need to acculturate and the students
wanting to have fun. Students were content to accept a "C" and
thus be able to pursue entertainment, and teachers accepted
the students minimal effort and let them have their fun. Henry
attributed low standards to a conflict between acculturating

and students’ opportunities other than education.

Sppmapy of Section Two

Data presented in this section were drawn from
qualitative studies in which the authors entered into
relationships with students and groups of students, and/or
reviewed extant literary material in order to decipher the
happenings in classrooms that contain low achieving students.
The authors presented in this literature review have viewed
classrooms with more consistency than diversity. The authors
all described the interactions of teachers and.students within

classrooms as they agree to lower academic standards.

60

Cusick (1992) used the perspective of conflict between
the students’ norms which they expressed in groups and the
official school norms. Cusick (1983) viewed classrooms via
student groups which operated freely even while instruction
was taking place. Cusick (1983) used the perspective of
schools’ commitment to egalitarianism, accepting and educating
all students with no regard to the student’s ability or
interest. Grant (1988) described the conflicts by changes in
social policy as these changes were brought into the classroom
where teachers had to adapt. McNeil (1986) viewed the lowered
standards process as a conflict between educating and
controlling when the organization emphasizes control over
academics. Powell et al. (1985) viewed schools as
accommodating all students with no regard to ability or
interest. The school was obligated to make all students
successful, and so teachers struck treaties which allowed each
student to pursue an education according to his or her
interest. Similarly, Sedlak et al. (1986) said that teachers
and students meet in classroom and strike bargains which lower
academic standards. Lastly, Henry (1963), Willis (1977) and
Neukom-Page (1991) explained how cultural conflict lowers
academic standards. While the authors’ perspective differed,
all described norms that encouraged classroom bargaining which
lowered academic standards. It appears that the bargains
centered on a set of norms that established how seriously each

side endeavored in class. The bargains mediated between

61
students and their teachers. The norm was easy work for
disinterested students in exchange for minimal compliance and
effort.

Current research on the classroom bargains clearly
depicted that classroom norms permit low achievement. However,
current research does not present the manner nor origin of
these norms. In no studies did authors address the
establishment of the classroom norms which permit and
encourage low achievement. Therefore, this study investigated
how students and their teachers established the set of norms

under which their social system operated.

Chapter Summapy

The first section of this chapter described how
individuals establish relationships in which they receive
rewards for which they pay costs. Individuals give an amount
of effort equal to their rewards. In effect, individuals
establish a series of social systems in which they pay costs
and receive rewards as they move toward their goals. The
researcher will use the concepts and tenants from social
exchange theory to study the system of norms that low
achievers and their teachers establish in classes. Low
achievers and their teachers are mutually pleased with the
norms which they establish, and as the result there is seldom
conflict in classrooms. That low achievers and their teachers
remain in the classroom’s social system is evidence that each

side supports the classroom’s social norms.

62

This researcher will add to the previous findings by
viewing the phenomenon of lowered standards via a means
consistent with previous research, yet adding a new focus.
This study shares the view that schools are social systems.
Classroom norms are established, legitimated and subsequently
become manifest in the exchanges between low achievers and
their teachers. This researcher’ 8 study will focus on how
classroom norms are established and how low achievers and
their teachers interpret, and then act upon the set of norms.
By proceeding in this fashion, the researcher will study how
low achievers and their teachers established this mutually
gratifying set of norms. The researcher will fill a void by
studying what has remained unexplained--how teachers establish
their expectations, and how low achievers counter with how
much they are willing to give. The researcher'will explain the

set of norms in terms of social exchange theory.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Inppoguctipn

The researcher will use this chapter to present the
methodology which guides the study. The researcher describes
the data collection method and generating propositions. In
addition, a field procedures narrative and a chapter summary

are included.

Theoretical Framework

Okey (1990) stated that research progresses logically
and naturally when the theory that provides the conceptual
framework relates to the study’s purpose and assumptions. The
study’s purpose is to describe and explain the social norms of
classrooms that contain low achievers. The study’s fundamental
assumption is that low achievers and their teachers share a
reciprocal relationship. However, it is not clear what or how
much low achievers receive and give. The researcher studied
the social norms which were established between low achievers
and their teachers. Therefore, the study’s unit of analysis
was the low achievers’ and their teachers’ assessment of the
classroom’s social norms. The assessment includes what low
achievers receive, what they give, and how they balance what

they receive against what they give.
A theory should be related to the study’s purpose and
assumptions. The theory should be broad and general enough to

63

64
embody the concept that classrooms are social systems.
Schatzman and Strauss (1973) described the perspective as "the
angle of observation" (p. 55).

Social exchange theory relates to this study’s purpose
and assumptions. The theory lends itself to the concept that
the classrooms are social systems, and to the definition of
perspective. Social exchange theory is an ideal theory to
elucidate the interactions among low achievers and their
teachers as participants in a social system.

All associations may be viewed as being based on
reciprocity. As such, associations may be regarded.as a web of
mutually advantageous contracts. Blau (1964) described
reciprocity as the "voluntary actions of individuals that are
motivated by the returns they are expected to bring and
typically do in fact bring from others" (p. 91). Reciprocity
suggests that people are inter-indebted. Malinowski (1932)
stated that "people owe obligations to each other
and...conformity with norms is something they give to each
other" (p. 39).

The researcher will apply social exchange theory’s
concepts to the social norms of classrooms. This application
allows the researcher to extend beyond the allegations that
low achievers and their teachers are inept, or coerced into
classroom behaviors by outside groups such as their

administrators or by the organization.

65

Current research indicates that low achievers and their
teachers bargain educational expectations to a point where the
low achievers’ and the teachers’ needs and desires are both
met. The researcher views both sides as willful, knowledgeable
participants who actively seek to establish mutually
gratifying social norms. By adopting this theory the
researcher views low achievers and their teachers as persons
engaged in a mutually gratifying relationship. The theory
attributes reasonableness and dignity to the actions

undertaken.

Data Collection

In this section the researcher will present the method
and its benefits. The researcher will discuss the review
techniques.a5‘well as reliability and validity. The researcher
conducted both the pilot study and the primary study via the
interview, combined with extensive non-participant
observation. The researcher tape-recorded the interviews and
the observations.

Schimidt (1991) stated that the interview works well
because it: (1) uses a schedule of questions: (2) questions
relate to the research topic: (3) questions are based on
patterned behavior: (4) questions are open ended: (5)
questions are funnel format: and (6) the researcher utilizes
the same criteria with all interviewees.

The researcher may administer the interview individually

and employ open-ended questions. The following techniques may

66

be used to verify interview responses: (1) probing into
inconsistent areas to challenge responses: (2) seeking
additional information: and (3) conducting observations.
Interview questions are based on the participant describing
how she or' he currently handles or recently handled a
situation. The concept behind this question format is that
people develop behavioral patterns. Researchers refer to this
intervieW' format. as Patterned. Behavioral Descriptive
Interviewing (PBDI) or as Structured Interviewing. This
questioning format is consistent with Okey’s (1991) statement
that people are best understood word-by-word, act-by-act.

The researcher should ask open-ended questions regarding
present. or .recent. past. occurrences. Open-ended. questions
elicit more information than closed ended questions. This
method has.high validity and.reliability because responses are
based on patterned behavior. The responses are based on
participants’ actual experiences, not on supposition. As low
achievers and their teachers are classroom participants, they
are able to respond to interview questions on a factual basis.
This interview format provides a more reliable answer than
would be obtained from person outside the relationship, such
as administrators or parents.

Wright, Lichtenfels, and. Pursell (1989) stated. that
interview data are valid. Validity is attained because the
questions elicit responses based on behavioral patterns. The

responses are verifiable. The researcher can return to

67
information attained in previous questions, probe into
inconsistent or scarce areas, and can verify through
observation.

The interview process safeguards interviewees’ equal
treatment by using a question schedule. The question schedule
helps the interviewer’ to consistently question all
interviewees. Without a question schedule, the researcher may
inadvertently ask questions which.do not relate to the study’s
purpose.

Probing enables the interviewer to obtain in-depth
answers and to better assess the interviewee’s consistency.
The concept behind using the funnel-format questioning is to
start with broad questions/responses and end with narrow
questions/responses. The questions used to open the interviews
are broad-based and less specific than the major data
collecting questions. Researchers sometimes refer to these
questions as ice-breakers. Ice-breaker questions allow the
interviewee to become relaxed by sharing less crucial
information.

Using the same question schedule with all interviewees
allows the interviewer to seek patterns and to categorize the
data. The interview process provides equality and consistency
across interviewees. Treating all interviewees equally reduces
the risk of bias or’ prejudice by the interviewer. The
interview does have limitations. This approach may be too

structured. Overly structured interviews do not permit an

68
interview to progress developmentally within the question
schedule.

McCall and Simmons (1969) discuss the distinction between
informants and respondents. The researchers stated that
"Informant interviewing is often the technique chosen to seek
information on event that. . .are not open to direct observation
by the scientist for whatever reason" (p. 62). The researcher
could not observe the low achievers’ or the teachers’
cognitive processes of deciding how to balance what they give
against what they receive. In this sense, the low achievers
and their teachers are informants.

The low achievers and their teachers are also
respondents. McCall and Simmons (1969) stated,

If one is seeking information on
external events by treating the

interviewee as an indirect or ’deputized’
observer, the interview process takes the

form of respondent interviewing,
especially if the information sought
concerns the personal feelings,
perceptions, motives, habits, or

intentions of the interviewee. (p. 62)

The researcher' tape-recorded. the interviews and
observations during the pilot study. The researcher used this
same method for data collection during the spring term, April
and May, and during the fall semester of 1992. In addition to
interviewing, the researcher conducted extensive non-
participant observations to confirm or refute responses, and
to extend the information collected. Ives (1980) said of tape-

recorded interviews that the tape-recording is a secondary

69
document. The interview is the primary document source. Ives
stated that the tape is the best available record of an
interview. The researcher utilizes the interview and
observation tape-recordings or notes as primary documents. The
interview and classroom observation transcriptions are
secondary documents.

According to Cusick (1983) the interview combined with
observation is recognized as an acceptable field research
method (p. 131). It allows the researcher to interact face-to-
face with the respondents and informants. It provides a
richness and personal touch that is unapproachable with such
data collection methods as the questionnaire. Gorden (1969)
stated that the interview offers five advantages over
questionnaires. An interview: (1) provides opportunity to
motivate ‘the respondent. to supply' accurate and. complete
information: (2) provides opportunity to guide the
respondents’ interpretation. of «questions: (3) allows
flexibility to question the respondent: (4) allows control
over the interview situation: and (5) provides opportunity to
evaluate the validity by observing the respondent’s attitude
toward supplying the information.

The interview has specific limitations. The researcher
had to learn the respondents’ and informants’ language. In
addition, the researcher has to explore matters which
interviewees are unable or unwilling to discuss. In addition,

the researcher has to be attuned to the interviewees’ biases.

7O

Reliability is the study’s consistency and repeatability.
The interview method ensures reliability because it connects
the observer to the events and situations being studied. The
researcher studied the method and established a question
schedule for interviews. The researcher’s preparation also
increases the study’s reliability. Tape-recording the
interviews and subsequently conducting classroom observations
provides reliability.

Validity is established when the responses plausibly
explain the phenomenon. Gorden (1980) stated that "Validity
refers to the extent to which the data conform to the fact"
(p. 40). In addition, Cusick (1973) listed six adequacy
indices which give the researcher "some assurance that his
findings reach an acceptablezdegree of validity" (p. 232). The
following are Cusick’s indices: time, place, social
circumstances, language, intimacy, and consensus.

The researcher structured interviews with neutral, open-
ended questions. The same questions were used with both low
achievers and their teachers. (Questions in appendix A). In
total, the researcher conducted.21 interviews and 105 one-hour
non-participant observations. The researcher used the non-
participant observations to confirm, refute, or extend the
interview information. The researcher transcribed each
interview and observation on the same day on which it was
conducted. In addition, the researcher obtained administrative

permission to review CA60 files to verify interview data.

71

There will be concerns with generalizability. This study
was limited to 15 low achievers and 6 of their teachers. Only
two minority students were included. No special education
students were included. This researcher asserts the
sociological assumption that people are more alike than they
are different. If a group of people behave in a certain way
under certain.conditions, then one may assume that others will
act the same way under similar conditions. The researcher
includes all participants in presenting the data. The
researcher presents the low achievers’ and their teachers’
perceptions as a plausible explanation to norm establishment

process in classrooms which contain low achievers.

nape Presentetion
Durkheim (1956) said that by "leaving aside everything

that has been, we have only to ask ourselves what should be."
(p. 65). He wrote that "through comparison, by abstracting the
similarities and eliminating the differences from them, one
can establish the generic types of education which correspond
to the different types of societies" (p. 96). This study
presents what should be in classes and abstracts the
similarities in the perceptions of low achievers and their
teachers. What should be according to the philosophers is
posited against the perceptions of low achievers and their
classroom teachers. The data are presented as an instance of
the case, to support an argument that is a plausible

explanation for low achievement.

72
SW

The study’s purpose was to describe and explain the
social norms of classrooms that contain low achievers. A
theory explains a phenomenon. The researcher does not claim to
generate a formal low achievement theory. However, the
description and explanation derived may provide the foundation
for a subsequent formal theory. The explanation for any
phenomenon emerges as the researcher gathers information. This
conception requires that a researcher utilize a sampling
technique which is consistent with field research’s emergent
and generative nature. The researcher used Glaser and

Strauss’s (1967) theoretical sampling method.

a Method

The sample contained 21 participants. There were 15 low
achievers including male and female, Anglo and Hispanic, in
grades 9 though 12. The school district contained no other
ethnic ‘minority groups. The sample contained no special
education students. In addition, the researcher interviewed 6
teachers. The researcher used fictitious names to represent
the individuals.

The initial participant selection was made in cooperation
with the high school principal and a high school counselor. A
high school counselor and the researcher generated a low
achiever list. The researcher in cooperation with the
counselor selected four low-achieving seniors--two male, two

female. These students suggested that two teachers be added

()1

Si

73
for interviews. The low achievers maintained that they
bargained with these teachers.

The researcher' and. the counselor' based. the initial
selection on there existing a discrepancy between the
students’ standardized test scores and their cumulative grade
point.average. These four students scored above 20 on the ACT,
and had a grade point average below 1.5. Thereafter, the
researcher used the snowball procedure to select low achievers
and their teachers.

In the snowball procedure, the researcher asks each
interviewee to whom the interviewer should speak. to in
subsequent interviews. The researcher then contacted the
counselor to determine if the students had a discrepancy
between their standardized test scores and their grade point
average. The researcher selected six teachers for interviews
based on the low achievers’ recommendations. Low achievers
maintained that they currently had classroom bargains with
these teachers.

Using theoretical sampling, the researcher asserts the
sociological assumption that. people are :more alike than
different. If the situation.is similar, then reactions will be
similar. Glaser and Strauss (1967) stated that theoretical
sampling is,

...the process of data collection for
generating theory whereby the analyst jointly

collects, codes, and analyses his data and

decides what data to collect next and where to

find them, in order to develop his theory as
it emerges. This process of data collection is

74

controlled by the emerging theory, whether

substantive or formal. The initial decisions

for theoretical collection of data are based

only on a general sociological perspective.

(p. 105)

The researcher uses the criterion that the low achievers
and.their teachers are an instance of the case. The researcher
generates the phenomenon’s explanation as each instance is
added. Each addition to the sample revises, extends, and
alters ‘the jphenomenon’s explanation. ‘When ‘the researcher
discovers a negative instance, she or he revises the
explanation to account for the negative instance.

Glaser and Strauss (1967) quote Zetterberg that random
sampling is not necessary when generating theory.

The researcher who generates theory need

not combine random sampling with theoretical

sampling when setting forth relationships

among categories and properties. These

relationships are suggested as hypothesis

pertinent to direction of relationship, not

tested as descriptions of both direction and

magnitude. Conventional theory claims

generality of scope: that is, one assumes that

if the relationship holds for one group under

certain conditions, it will probably hold for

other groups under the same conditions. (p.

106)

The assumptions which the researcher sets forth regard
the direction of the relationship between classroom norms and
low achievement. The relationship between classroom norms and
low achievement are not tested for both direction and
magnitude. The researcher does not need to use random sampling

because no theory is tested for magnitude.

75
D ta s's

The researcher ensures reliable data analysis through two
criteria. First, the data collection method must be accurate.
The researcher transcribed the interviews carefully to ensure
accuracy. Second, the researcher' must. use techniques to
categorize relationships. The researcher employed four
techniques to analyze tapes and transcriptions. The researcher
designed a frequency table to categorize low' achievers'
classroom experiences and behaviors. The researcher wrote a
one-page summary about each low achiever and each teacher. The
researcher collected copies of all worksheets, quizzes, tests,
or other assignments in order to verify that information
regarding these areas was accurate. The dissertation chairman
read the transcripts and provided reactions to the
transcriptions.

Using a tape recorder increases the researcher's
involvement and attentiveness because she or he need not take
notes. It is an advantage for the researcher to transcribe and
edit.his or'her own tape-recordings and notes. By transcribing
and editing one’s own tape-recordings and notes, the
researcher carefully reviews and recalls the interviews and
observations. The researcher benefits by being closer to his
or her data. In addition, tape recording interviews and
observations provides a complete record. The researcher can
use the interviews’ and observations’ exact. wordings as

citations.

76
The tape-recorded interviews coupled.with tape-recorded,
non-participant classroom observations provides benefits
without unreasonable liabilities. The researcher utilized the
tape-recorder in order to listen attentively, closely observe
the respondent, to maintain a complete and accurate record,

and to give an accurate description.

Researc s

The study’s purpose was to describe and explain the
social norms in classrooms that contain low achievers. The
researcher set forth propositions that explain the social
norms in classrooms that contain low achievers. These
propositions will be stated in terms of social exchange
theory. The propositions provide direction to future
researchers who wish to further investigate low achievement
and classroom bargains. The researcher designed the following
questions to provide the study’s tentative framework:

I. What hargains are esteblished in classrooms

hetweeh low achievers and their teachers? The

researcher uses this questioning to present

the bargains that exists, who initiates the

bargains, when the bargains begin, the

mutuality of bargains, and what cannot be

bargained.

II. What do other students receive and give in

ass? The researcher uses this question to

present how low achievers compare themselves

77
to students who exert more or less effort than
they, the effort’s impact on grades, and the
low achievers’ and their teachers’ perception

of the distributive justice involved.

III. How do low achievers halapge wher rhey
regeiye egains; what they giye? This question

is perhaps the most crucial. Classrooms must
be understood as a social system, in which
participants receive and give. The researcher
uses this question to present how low
achievers assess the value of what they
receive, and how they determine the
appropriate balance of what they receive
against what they give.

IV; What do low achievers receive in the
glassroom? The researcher uses this question
to present the knowledge, skills, self—esteem,
external and internal rewards, enjoyment,
attention, challenge and preparation for life
and work that low achievers receive.

V. Whet do teachere of loyrachievers give in
the classroom? The researcher uses this
question to present the weekly lesson
planning, daily lesson planning, correcting

papers and tests, lecturing, individual help

I-‘_

78
to students, monitoring, and free time that
teachers give.

VI. What do low eghievers give ih the
glessroom? The researcher uses this question

 

to present the study time, effort, compliance,
attention, completed homework, reading, tests,
writing, and the participation that low

achievers give.

Field Procedures

The researcher will use this section.to present.the study
plan and the field procedures. The researcher will explain.how
he conducted the field research. The researcher will describe
sampling techniques and searching for explanations for low
achievement.

Federal law requires that field work completed at
Michigan State University be approved before the researcher
conducts the study; The researcher sought approval through the
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
(UCRIHS). (See appendix C for approval letter.) The
committee’s .requirements illustrate 'that field. research’s
participants are susceptible to unforeseen repercussions. The
application process compels the researcher to present the
study’s purpose, procedures, risks and benefits.

The researcher used his educational contacts to gain
access for the study. These educational contacts are referred

to as special respondents. Serving as what Gorden (1987) terms

79
special respondents, local administrators and a local high
school counselor assisted the researcher in developing a low
achiever list. The researcher obtained permission to review
the low achievers’ CA60 files to confirm accuracy.

The researcher scheduled interviews through telephone
contacts and through in-person meetings at the high school. In
order to conduct the pilot study and the primary study the
researcher: (1) used a private setting: (2) greeted
interviewees: (3) explained the study: (4) completed the
consent/assent form: (5) recorded interviews and observations:
(6) transcribed tapes from interviews, and tapes from
observations.as well as notes: and (7) reviewed transcriptions
for common themes.

The researcher uses demographic data to provide the
greatest possible variety. The researcher includes both male
and female low achievers and their teachers. The sample
contains Anglos and Hispanics. The school district contained
no other minority populations. The researcher selected low
achievers in grades 9, 10, 11, and 12, in academic, non-
vocational courses.

The interviewer contacted low achievers and their
teachers to gain their permission and participation. The
researcher requested the low achievers’ and their teachers’
recommendations in order to select subsequent interviewees.
This sampling technique is called the snowball procedure. The

researcher analyzed the data as the sample grows. The

80
researcher prepared a one-page summary for each low achiever
and classroom teacher.

The data collected by adding each new low achiever or
their teacher expanded the information which fits into
categories. When the categories are filled, the researcher
concludes that categories are saturated. The researcher
concludes that saturation is reached when common themes
develop across the interviewees’ responses. Saturation
concludes the data collection. When the data collecting is
complete, the researcher analyzes the data around the six
categories which guide the study.

The researcher conducted 105 one hour non-participant
observations to confirm, refute, or extend the information
gathered during interviews. There is a challenge to conduct
credible observation. The researcher in joining up with a
group must not act like the group. Rather, the observer must
not act different than the group. The researcher by acting
like the group would collude in legitimating the very norms
which she or he wishes to study, thereby leading the research
in a predetermined direction. On the other hand, to enter the
group and act different would violate the norms. If the
researcher violates the group’s norms, he‘would.be rejected in
the classroom and in students’ groups. The challenge then, is
for the researcher to remain neutral--neither supporting nor

violating the classroom’s norms.

81

The researcher entered high school classrooms not dressed
like students, rather’he.did.not dress different than they. To
enter the classroom in a suit and tie would draw attention to
the researcher and away from the normal daily activities. The
researcher placed himself at the back of classrooms. During
interviews, teachers stated that they allow the low achievers
to become invisible if they want. The researcher attempted to
become as invisible as the low achievers whose behavior he
wished to study.

Many happenings affirmed that the researcher’s presence
did not alter the students’ nor their teachers’ behavior.
First, students and teachers seldom directed attention to the
researcher. That the researcher seldom was the focus of
attention indicates that he was simply another person in the
classroom. The researcher’s behavior was not consistent with
the students, rather is ‘was not different. Second, the
students asked the researcher if he would like to skip school
with them. This request indicates that the students were not
intimidated by the researcher and in fact trusted him. The
students invited the researcher into their’ out-of—school
world. Third, teachers asked.the researcher to attend.a.School
Board meeting after conducting the study and present the
study’s findings to the School Board. (Presumably in their
defense). This request illustrates that the teachers were not
intimidated by the researcher and that his presence did not

alter classes. The implication was that the researcher had

82

seen classes as they truly are, and that this should be
relayed to the Board. The fourth point which illustrates that
the researcher blended into classrooms, is that a substitute
teacher admonished the researcher for being not being in a
student group. The researcher presents this instance. On April
27, the government teacher was absent. The substitute was Mr.
Johnson, a former' big 10 assistant football coach. The
substitute was standing near the classroom’s heater. The
substitute attempted to shut off the heater. The following
discussion occurred.

12:35,
Substitute: (To the researcher) How do I
shut this heater off?

Researcher: I don’t know-~I’ve never
turned one off.

Substitute: (To the researcher) I
thought you high school kids knew how to
do all these tricky things.

12:40, the students sat and talked. The
substitute teacher stood with the
attendance book, and closed the door.

Substitute: Can I have your attention
please. Shhh! My name is Mr. Johnson.
I’ve had the privilege of substitute
teaching before. I haven’t taught for 8
years now. Most recently, I was an
assistant football coach for (a big 10).
Now, I substitute teach 20 days per year
just so I can keep my health insurance
active.

Student: So, you’re telling us you’re
not here for us--you’re in it for the
money!!

Substitute: You don’t understand--my
wife and I pay $500.00 per month to keep
active health insurance.

83

12:43, the students talked quietly with
each other. The substitute continued to
take attendance.

12:44,

Substitute: Okay, your teacher has asked
me to get you ready for a quiz tomorrow.
Honestly though, you have me at a
disadvantage. So, I’ll count on you to
go to your seats and do this hour as you
always do, fair?

Student: Oh yeah--current events time.

12:46, the students moved into their
regular groups. There was no misconduct.

Substitute: (To the researcher) Excuse
me young man, that means you too. I
expect the entire class to participate.
You get to your group. (The students
were ostensibly surprised that the
substitute teacher mistook the 31 year
old researcher for a senior. The entire
class went along with the
misunderstanding.)

Student: (To the researcher) Come on
man--what you are doing back there?
You’re supposed to be in the group for
current events. (The researcher sat with
the group.)

Researcher: (Quietly to the group) But,
I don’t know what to do.

Student: Just do like us--don’t do
nothing. If he asks you a question, you
just gotta try. You don’t have to get
the right answer--just say anything.

Researcher: Okay.

Student: You wanna see what goes on in
class with teachers, Dude--here’s your
chance--he thinks you’re a senior.

12:49,

Substitute: As I read each of these,
I’ll read it slowly enough that you can
write it down. Remember that these may

84

appear on your pop quiz tomorrow. The
first question goes to the left group.

Substitute: Number 1--Perot is willing

to spend how many millions of dollars of

his own money for a campaign if he runs

as an independent candidate?
The aforementioned occurrences and this observation
illustrate that the students and their teachers accepted the
researcher’s presence not only in their classrooms but also
in their more private student groups, and in their out-of-

school life. The indication is that the researcher’s

presence did not alter the norms.

Chapter Summary

In this chapter, the researcher presented the
methodology which he used to conduct the study. The tape-
recorded interview method, the structured interviews, and
non-participant classroom observations were discussed. In
addition, the researcher discussed the theoretical sampling
technique, and the data review techniques have been

discussed.

CHAPTER IV

SEN ON S

The purpose of this study was to describe and explain the
social norms of classrooms that contain low achievers.
Participants in classrooms share a reciprocal relationship in
which they receive and give. Individuals assess the value of
what they receive in classes and give what they believe to be
equal effort. Low achievers and their teachers receive
something from classroom activities. However, what or how much
they receive and give is not clear. Therefore, this chapter
describes the low achievers’ and their teachers’ classroom
behavior and their assessment of norms, including what is
received, what is given, and how what low achievers balance

what they receive against what they give.

Sample
The researcher selected Market High.School for the study.

The school district is located south of Lansing. There are 30
teachers and 588 students in grades 7 through 12. The social
relations in the school are generally calm. Students are
familiar with the former teacher turned principal. Students,
for the most part, abide by the school rules.

The researcher, a local administrator and a local
counselor generated a list of low achievers. A sample of
fifteen was selected. The sample contained male and female,

Anglo and Hispanic students. The school district contained no

85

86
Black students. Administrative permission was given to review
cumulative records to help verify interview data. The six
teachers selected for interviews were suggested to the
researcher by students when discussing existing classroom
bargains.

This study’s sample contained 15 low achievers and 6
teachers. Low achievers did not participate in sports unless
otherwise stated. Low achievers did not intend to pursue a
post-secondary degree. Low achievers and their teachers
referred to two other student groups: (1) "brownnosers" and
(2) "trouble makers" or "low lifes." The researcher will use
the terms "hard-working students", and "trouble makers"
respectively. The researcher finds these terms to be less

personally attacking.

Research Questions

Durkheim (1956) said that by "leaving aside everything
that has been, we have only to ask ourselves what should be"
(p. 65). He‘wrote that "through.comparison, by abstracting the
similarities and eliminating the differences from them, one
can establish the generic types of education which correspond
to the different types of societies" (p. 96). Therefore, in
this chapter the researcher presents what should.be.in classes
and abstracts the low achievers’ and their teachers’ similar
perceptions. What the philosophers say should be, is posited
against the low achievers’ and their teachers’ perceptions.

The reader will quickly discern similarities and/or

87
overlapping between the educational elements discussed. Newman
(1952) said of the whole of education’s elements,
...all taken together form one

integral subject for contemplation, so

there are no natural or real limits

between part and part: one is ever

running into another: all, as viewed by

the mind, are combined together, and

possess a correlative character one with

another. (p. 164)
The contrasts will be followed by a summary. The researcher
will also describe and explain the affect on classroom
exchanges which result from the established norms.

The researcher used six questions to seek information
regarding the social norms of classrooms that contain low
achievers.

I. What bargains are established in
classrooms between low achievers and
their teachers?

II. What do other students receive and
give in class?

III. How do low achievers balance what
they receive against what they give?

IV. What do low achievers receive in the
classroom?

V. What do teachers of low achievers give
in the classroom?

VI. What do low achievers give in the

classroom?

88

To understand the norms that affect low achievers’ and
their teachers’ behavior, the reader has to understand the
process by which low achievers and their teachers become
equals and then negotiate, as equals, the classroom norms.

This chapter focuses on the way low achievers and their
teachers reduce education to what is useful (marketable) in a
market economy. This reduction places low achievers and their
teachers on an equal level because with only usefulness as a
criterion, low achievers are as knowledgeable as or more
knowledgeable than their teachers. Because low achievers and
their teachers have equal status, the teacher no longer has
the status and natural ascendancy associated with being a
content-area expert. In the norm setting process, teachers
have at best status equal to their students. Teachers must of
necessity bargain with low achievers regarding establishment

of classroom norms.

Research Findings

Section 1: Cleesroom Bargains
The researcher will use section one to present how the
bargains are established between low achievers and their
teachers. Section one is divided into five sub-sections: who
initiates the bargains, when the bargains begin, what bargains

exist, mutuality of the bargains, and what can not be

bargained.

 

 

 

89

It will be argued that the bargaining process begins on
the first day of classes. It will be argued that the teachers
initially offer the bargains. After the bargaining process is
legitimated, whomever desires something offers the bargain. It
will be argued that teachers reduce education to preparing
students for a job--marketability. In addition, it will be
argued.that teachers elevate the students’ status to their own
professional level, thus removing the teachers’ natural
ascendancy over their classes.

Further, it will be argued that students know as much as
or more than their teachers regarding what should be
instructed in order to make students marketable. It will be
argued that the bargains are mutually gratifying to both low
achievers and their teachers. It will also be argued that the
low achievers and their teachers chose not to pursue:a greater
commitment to education because the opportunity costs are too
high. It will be argued that what can not be bargained is the
set of social values which assure society’s continuation.

Lastly, it will be argued that the whole of the
bargaining process is a set of norms which permit and even
encourage low achievers to bargain as their teachers’ equals.
Low achievers are free to assess, in terms of marketability,
the education that their teachers offer. Low achievers are
free to give effort in return that is equal to the perceived

marketability of their classes.

90
I in th a ains

Durkheim (1956) stated that students should be in a near
hypnotic state of "exceptional passivity" (p. 85). Teachers
should have natural ascendancy over students due to their
superior experience.

However, Mrs. Selenski removed the natural ascendancy by
stating that low achievers were "professional by this age."
This acknowledgement elevated the low achievers’ status to
being their teachers’ equals in the norm setting process.
During the first class days, teachers elevate the low
achievers’ status to their own professional level. Therefore,
low achievers bargain as their teachers’ equals.

Low achievers deserved a reward because they were
compliant. Low achievers were not difficult or demanding in
their bargaining. Rather, low achievers appealed to their
teachers’ compassion. When asked who initiates the bargains,
Tammy stated,

...the students do because they feel
we’re being good. So, we feel we deserve
it. Whoever wants something makes the
bargain, but I think usually it’s the
students. If the teacher needs more time
to do her work, she’ll make a deal for us
to have free time and she does what she
needs to do.

Teachers offer the bargains to students to gain
compliance. Frederick agreed that "the teachers offer it so
they can keep the trouble-makers quiet." Patricio concurred

that "the teacher usually offers it on the first few days of

school." Evangelina also stated that "It’s kinda both...it’s

(2

IT

f,“

CE

Co:

91

who wants something offers the bargain." Doug stated that
"Whoever wants something--If the teacher wants us to be quiet,
he’ll make the deals. If the kids want free time or less work,
we’ll make the deals." Mapi also responded that "teachers
offer those deals to the kids. But sometimes the students will
offer the deal that...if we’re good, can we not have
homework?" Claudia stated "whoever wants something will make
the deal. Like if the teacher is really busy and wants to get
caught up, she’ll make a deal for free time...if the students
are tired they might make the deal."

Teachers’ perceptions paralleled low achievers’
perceptions. Mr. Hansen stated that "the students will try to
make deals with the teachers that, we’ve been good all hour,
how about no homework. " Both low achievers and teachers wanted
bargains. Low achievers realized.that teachers too needed time
to complete papers and correct tests.

Teachers also wanted time to sit and socialize. If the
teacher wanted free time, the teacher offered the bargain. If
low achievers wanted free time, low achievers offered the
bargain. Ms. Selenski stated "I feel that the student does in
the sense of approaching me. I guess I do in that I can
suggest for example the contract."

Mrs. Copucha replied that students "talk.me into things,
but I don’t like to get in the mode of them thinking that they
can sway me. I use these bargains as a reward." Mr. Howard

conveyed that "it’s a little bit of both sides. Sometimes the

92
students and sometimes the teacher." However, Mr. Floh
maintained "I definitely say the teacher. I set the way from
day one. This is the way it happens." Mr. Jones explained that
"there are kids who will initiate the bargain...What’s
difficult is striking a bargain with 25 kids, and having
everyone of them getting what they want."

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions. During English 11, Ms. Selenski
gave the following introduction and requirements for her
class. Ms. Selenski advised students that all they needed to
do was "put in their time." Ms. Selenski’s class did not
require serious and sustained effort. In addition, Ms.
Selenski termed the students "professional." This statement
places both the students and their teachers as equals
regarding status. By the end of the hour, Ms. Selenski also
established free time for students to sit and talk. Free time
was mutually beneficial to the teacher as well. Ms. Selenski
sat at her desk and completed her own work.

10:00,

Selenski: Okay, when I call your name,
raise your hand.

10:02,

Selenski: This is required class.
Fortunately or unfortunately, I’m the
only ball game in town.

Selenski: Last year we had 12 seniors who
failed. Do your work. That’s the bottom
line. You will be successful if you do

that. All you have to do is try.

Selenski: Every day you have to put in
your time. Get to know me. Talk to me if

93

you are having any concerns of problems.
I need to know. If you need some help I
can work with you once per week or set
you up with the student council tutors.

Selenski: Take out a sheet of paper. Put
your name and the date in the upper right
hand corner. That is what I expect to see
on every sheet you write. Also, put
English 11.

Selenski: I consider you professional by
this age. I do not have classroom rules.
I only have five things that I expect
from you.

Number one, be in your seats when the
bell rings. Number two, follow directions
the first time. Number three, bring book,
paper, and pen. Number four, raise your
hand to speak. Number five, keep hands,
feet and objects to yourself.

Selenski: This is the grading scale:

100-90 A
89-80 B
79-70 C
69-60 D.

Selenski: Remember these things.
Everything is just like last year.
Nothing new. Same expectations. Also,
same as last year, if your grade drops, I
have to send notification to your
parents.

Selenski: The next issue, show courtesy.
Remember, you are a reflection of me. I
don’t like to make threats, so just do
it.

Selenski: Get a notebook to write in as a
journal. Also, I want you to keep your
notes in chronological order. I will
collect them each marking period.

Selenski: Take out a sheet of paper. Put
on the heading. Now, draw a rectangle
around the edges of your paper. (PAUSE)
Now divide the rectangle into six evenly
sized areas. (PAUSE) In the areas you

94

will use graphics to depict what I tell
you. Number the areas one to six. (PAUSE)
In number one, draw the symbol of your
greatest accomplishment. (PAUSE) In
number two, draw the symbol of your
family’s greatest accomplishment. (PAUSE)
In number three, draw three things you
will have accomplished by age 65. (PAUSE)
In number four, draw what you are the
most ashamed of. (PAUSE) In number five
draw five things you do well. (PAUSE) In
number six, you may write in words. Write
three things you would like people to say
about you if you died today. (PAUSE)

Selenski: My sister is a head hunter--a
personnel recruiter. She uses this to
decide if she wants to hire somebody. I’m
impressed, I didn’t have to repeat a
single direction. Now, bring that to me,
and well lock them in the closet. I’ll
have you do this at the end of the year.
Then, I’ll give this one back to you.

10:45,

Selenski: Okay, here’s you assignment.
Bring this to me tomorrow. You may talk
for the rest of the hour. (The teacher
sat and worked on papers at her desk).

The following day Ms. Selenski elevated the students’ status
above her own level. At 10:03, Ms. Selenski took attendance.
Channel I played. After watching Channel I, the teacher gave
the following introduction for the day’s lesson. The day’s
objective was that the low achievers should tell Ms. Selenski
what to teach.

10:15,

Teacher: Okay, take out a sheet of paper.
You had to write to about your English
experiences. I’ll use these to know what
I should teach in here. You know better
than I do what it is that you want to do
in life, and what you already know. My
responsibility is to teach you what you
need.

Fr
student
day Ms
stated
low ach
bargain
process
somethi
gratify
classr0<
low ach

Selenski

m

L01
bargainj
us on tl
can tall
ACCordir
beginnir
Be Wiet
of the h

95

From. the first and second days, Ms. Selenski gave
students equal status--professional. In fact, by the second
day Ms. Selenski had given low achievers ascendancy. She
stated that low achievers needed to tell her what to teach--
low achievers knew better than she. Ms. Selenski initiated the
bargains on the first class days. However, with the bargaining
process accepted by both sides, thereafter, whoever wanted
something offered the bargain. Bargains were mutually
gratifying in immediate terms, because they assured orderly
classrooms, free time, and in-class preparation time for both
low achievers and their teachers. As students talked, Ms.

Selenski completed her own work.

When rhe Bargains Begin

Low achievers and their teachers were asked when the
bargaining process begins. Troy stated "They (teachers) tell
us on the first few days what we gotta do to pass...when we
can talk." The bargains were manifest in cflassroom rules.
According to Frederick, the bargains began "right at the
beginning of the year. You see them in the rules in classes.
Be quiet during class time and you’ll get free time at the end
of the hour." Tammy stated that the bargains form,

At the beginning of the year. But
first, you have to get to know the
teacher. Some teachers you just know they
won’t bargain, they just won’t give in.
You just know that some teachers just

won’t get talked into this, but sometimes
we’ll sneak one in.

96

Betty responded that bargains begin "the first day of school,
the kids say, oh, come on, it’ s the first day of school.
You’re going to give us homework?!" Claudia agreed that the
bargains form "the first day of school and they go all year."
Doug concurred that the bargains begin "when the students walk
into the classroom at the beginning of the year." Patricio
concluded that "the teachers explain all this to us--it’s what
they expect."

Teachers’ perceptions reflected the low achievers’
perceptions. Mrs. Copucha stated that the bargains "form as
the semester goes on. I guess that because I initiate the
bargain, I can give it as a reward for compliance with the
rules and for showing respect." Mr. Jones added that "The
first thing I do each year is give them the opportunity to
negotiate. I know how interested they are, and I don’t push
too much." Each side blamed the other side for their own low
commitment to education.

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions. During general mathematics, Mr.
Jones gave the following introduction and requirements for his
class. From the first session, Mr. Jones reduced education to
making students marketable.

8:00,

Teacher: My name is Stan Jones. You can
call me by my first name--mister. There
are a lot of things changing in our
world, and you have to be prepared. You
have to develop some skills. The purpose

of this class is to provide you with some
skills and be able to pass the Michigan

97

Skills Test so you can receive an
endorsed diploma and get a job. Now the
rules are on the wall. I would like you
to understand these rules. Take a few
minutes and discuss them with your
friends. Rule number one, follow
directions. Rule number two, do not
prevent teaching or learning. Rule number
three, work cooperatively with others.
Rule number four, handle materials and
equipment in a safe and respectful
manner. Rule number five, be in your
seat, quiet and your area clean prior to
the dismissal bell.

These are some of the things you need to
be able to get a job. That’s why we do
these things and have these rules--so you
can get a job. I also expect that
everyone be courteous and not embarrass
anyone in here. If some time I need your
attention, I’ll raise my hand. That means
I want your attention. I want you to
raise your hand also. Pretty soon the
people talking will see someone’s hand up
and get the hint.

I’ll keep all explanations to the minimum
in here. I don’t think we need to spend a
lot of time on rules. We should get it
right the first day and then do it that
way all year. Everything should be the
same in here as it was on the first day.

I want you to practice your one-foot
voices. That means as you talk to your
groups partners you should be no farther
than one foot. Practice that now. (The
students stayed where they were--about
three feet apart and talked. The teacher
forgot about personal space-~one foot is
too close).

8:36, the students are talking loudly.
Teacher DID NOT raise his hand as
indicated.

Teacher: Okay, quiet down. I’m trying to
explain this to you. I just said I want
you to use your one foot voices. That
doesn’t sound like a one-foot voice to
me. When I say a one-foot voice I don’t

98

mean scream it all the way across the
room, I mean be one foot away. (The
teacher approached a male student. The
teacher talked about one foot from the
student’s face. The student leaned back
in his desk to create distance between
himself and the teacher. The students did
not accept the one-foot voice as a norm.
It violated their private space.)

Teacher: Okay, let’s go on. I want you to
be in your own seats when you are in
here. I am responsible for you during the
time that you are in this classroom. If
the bell rings at the end of the hour and
I’m still talking, I expect that you sit
and wait. I’ll dismiss you when I’m
finished.

Next, there are three group rules. (The
teacher placed a transparency on the
overhead projector). Copy these down and
know them. The first group rule is that
you. are responsible for' your' own
behavior. The second group rule is that
you must be willing to help anyone in
your group who asks. The third group rule
is that you may not ask the teacher a
question for help unless all four of you
in the group have the same question.
(This explained why students did not ask
questions).

Now, I put you in groups for only one
reason. You have to develop social
skills. You need to be able to get along
with people in order to get a job.

8:55, the dismissal bell rang. The
students all stood to leave.

Teacher: Hey, sit down! I said you wait.
(The students sat).

Teacher: Okay, you’re dismissed.
Mr. Jones used the entire hour to reiterate the classroom
rules. The observation illustrates that teachers reduce

education to getting a job--marketability. Mr. Jones stated

99

that students needed tijass a state test. However, the end of
passing the test was to have an endorsed diploma and get a
job--marketability. Lastly, Mr. Jones added that students gain
social skills via group‘work. The end of social skills too was
to get a job--again marketability. Mr. Jones’ mathematics
class was not about mathematics--it was about making students
marketable. The bargains were established during the initial
class sessions. The bargains were both implicit and sometimes
explicit. They were manifest in classroom rules and continued
over the entire year.

The observation also illustrates why low achievers do not
ask questions. Students are expected to use their groups to
teach each other. Unless all students in the group have the
same question, students 'may not request their 'teachers’

assistance.

The hargains

According to Newman (1951), students should develop a
sense of commitment to serious and sustained academic
pursuits. Durkheim (1956) stated that students should focus
their energies to a greater cause than a commitment to self.
Students should pay attention to gain more knowledge and
increase their skills. Students and their teachers should
establish classroom. norms ‘which encourage: a serious and
sustained commitment to academic pursuits. The consistent
theme.across the referent.philosophers is that.students should

commit themselves to education--not to their self.

100

However, the bargains permitted and even encouraged low
achievers ‘to ‘commit ‘themselves to serious and sustained
diversion--not academic pursuits. When low achievers were
asked to explain what classroom bargains exist, Betty stated
that the bargains included "deals like keep your mouth shut
and I’ll pass you. Or if you.behave all hour, you can have the
end of the hour as free time. Listen to lecture and you don’t
get homework." Evangelina added,

If we go by the rules we get less
work, more time to do our work or more
free time. If you try, the teacher will
pass you with a ’D-’ to a ’C-’. Some of
the teachers will say, ’Hey, you’ve been
good all hour, so you can talk the rest
of the hour’. It’s like if you’re quiet
and do what they want, most times they’ll
feel like they gotta do something for you
’cause you were nice to them.

Tammy stated that in the child development class "last
week we were going to make cookies on Friday because we were
good all week. Then, we got to class and were ready to make
cookies and nobody brought supplies. So, she gave the whole
hour to talk because we were good."

Alicia added that "if we behave we get free time at the
end of the hour. Or when our work is done, we can talk." Troy
added that "we pass the class if we put in some effort and
don’t cause problems." Frederick agreed that "if you put in
the effort you’re going to pass." Mapi noted that "if you do

all your homework but don’t pass tests, you’ll pass--that

happened with my boyfriend in Mr. Floh’s class." Brad also

101
concurred that "if you turn all your homework.in, but fail the
tests, they’ll still pass you no matter what.”

The bargains assured that low achievers and their
teachers did.not harass each other. Andy responded.that."I had
a couple of teachers told me that if I didn’t cause trouble
for them, they wouldn’t cause trouble for me." George agreed
that "the teachers, like Mr. Roberts, make bargains with the
students, like don’t cause me trouble and I won’t cause you
trouble."

Teachers reiterated the same bargains as the low
achievers. Mrs. Copucha stated that in her 55 minute child
development class "if they have behaved...I’ll let them bake
cookies...I’ll say to them, okay you guys gave me 25 minutes
of hard work, so you can have rest of the time to sit and
talk." Ms. Selenski extended the bargains to include
subverting the sports eligibility policy when students were
ineligible. She responded,

They can talk when they’re finished
with their work. If they fail the first
marking period, then they fail the next
marking period, if they are in sports,
they’re ineligible. I make a deal with
them that if they do all work, I’ll still
mark them eligible. I have about 5 of
these deals running right now.

Mr. Floh stated,

...they get time at the end of the
hour is a given. When it’s time to work,
it’s time to work. When it’s time to
play, you can play. That’s a given. When

I lecture you listen. Pass the tests and
you’ll be alright.

102
Mr. Hansen elaborated that the bargains included passing
classes based on the students’ behavior. Mr. Hansen said,
. . .the deals that I make with the

kids are not verbalized, like if they

behave, I give them more free time, and

will pass them even if they failed all

tests. I normally give them the last 10

to 15 minutes that I back off and let

them sit there and just talk.
Mr. Jones responded that he used bargains to avoid conflict.
He replied,

I realized that he (a student) would

be a leader in the class. I called him

out in the hall, and told him that we can

either get along or work separately. So,

I struck a deal with the kid, if he could

put in effort, behave, follow the

classroom rules, and make an effort, he

won’t have to pass tests, and I think we

can get you through here.
Mr. Howard also bargained to receive academic compliance. He
stated that "I give them free time at the end of the hour to
talk if I’m done with lecture. They understand these things
because we establish all of this in the first couple weeks of
school, then they don’t push it anymore."

The classroom norms permit low achievers to bargain as
their teachers’ equals. Each side conspires to reduce the
commitment required to pass classes. Mr. Howard lowered his
standards to the minimal level to pass. The bargain stopped
the students from pushing Mr. Howard and established well—

understood classroom rules.

103
Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions. Mr. Howard gave the following
introduction and requirements for his class government class.

12:30, The students were seated. They
talked quietly as the teacher (who was
also the athletic director) worked on
papers for the athletic program.

12:35, The teacher took attendance.

12:40,
Teacher: Dan, hang this in the hall.
Extra credit already.

Teacher: Okay, hopefully you’ll be in
here for one semester. You have to be
here--it is required by law. As you get
older and into the real world, you’ll
develop more interest in government.

Teacher: Each day, bring a pen, book, and
paper. You’ll turn your notes at the end
of each semester.

Teacher: My rules are easy: I expect that
you.participate. No radio, cards, talking
or horseplay.

Teacher: You’re seniors--you know'when to
talk and when to keep your mouth shut.
I’ll move you one time. The second time
I’ll move you out.

Teacher: I expect you to take notes, and
to not cheat. You have news quizzes once
a week. (None of the students write down
what the teacher says.) I grade on a
curve.

Teacher: Tests are almost always fill-in-
the-blank. You will have two term papers,
and a debate.

Teacher: I’ve never failed a student who
tried. The only way you can fail this
class is to not care.

Teacher: I don’t believe in the welfare
system. You give effort--I give you a

104

grade. (3 of 23 students payed attention.
The remaining students whispered,
doodled, or had their head down.)

Teacher: You have to become informed. It
will help you to be a good citizen.

Teacher: The unit tests are long. They
are fill-in-the-blank. The best way to
test your knowledge is essay, but they
take too much time to correct. Maybe it’s
that or maybe I’m too lazy. So, we have
fill-in-the-blank.

 

Teacher: We’ll discuss extra credit
tomorrow. You can talk for the rest of
the hour. I’ll try to give you this time
to talk each day. Usually you will have
the last 5 to 10 minutes to talk. You can
have the rest of the hour to talk.
(Teacher removed athletic papers and
worked as the students sat and talked).

Mr. Shaw: Tammy, what does your teacher
get out of these deals in the classroom?

Tammy: I guess time to do things, the
same as Mrs. Copucha. They all sit and
work on things or talk when we have free
time.

Mr. Shaw: What else?

Tammy: Well, they get time to talk to
students and teachers, or like Mr. Howard
is the athletic director so he has a lot
of things he has to do for football.

The observation illustrates that teachers bargain down
their requirements during the first class. It was the teacher
who initiated low expectations. Mr. Howard assured a passing
grade for effort alone. He stated that students gave effort
and he gave a grade.

The classroom norms permitted and even encouraged

students to ibecome low' achievers. The bargains and the

105

bargaining process legitimate low achievement as a mode of
school participation. Bargaining was beneficial for both low
achievers and their teachers. The bargaining was manifest in
seven exchanges between low achievers and their teachers: (1)
free time: (2) passing classes even when all work was failed:
(3) receiving less or easier work: (4) receiving in-class
study time: (5) teachers and students not causing each other
trouble: (6) receiving candy for perfect test scores: and (7)
receiving sports eligibility even when ineligible. The reader
can discern six of the seven bargains in the first hour of Mr.
Howard’s class: bargain numbers 1 through 6. The bargain for
sports eligibility even when ineligible, occurred in Ms.
Selenski’s and Mrs. Copucha’s classes.

The norm to bargain was so powerful that the school
district’s policies were subverted by the process. The
district’s athletic eligibility policy was established to
assure high educational achievement among the district’ 5
athletes. The student athletes were required to maintain a 1.5
grade point average and not fail any classes. The policy was
disregarded.and bargained away by both low'achievers and their

teachers.

Mutuality of the Bargains

Simmel (1950) stated that social equilibrium and cohesion
could.not exist.without "the reciprocity of service and return
service" and that "all contacts among men rest on the schema

of giving and returning the equivalence" (p. 387). He

 

106
continued that, accepting reciprocity via a present or favor
is "the starting point of a budding exchange relation and
possibly a lasting friendship" (p. 107).

Parsons (1951) added that if a social system is to be
stable there must always be some "mutuality of gratification"
(p. 107) . Gouldner (1960) was more precise when he stated that
"Reciprocity...is the mutually gratifying pattern of
exchanging goods and services" (p. 170). The term reciprocity
means that individuals ensure that all interactions are
ultimately equitable. The consistent theme across the referent
social theorists is that reciprocity exists in all
relationships. Reciprocity stabilizes the relationship and

assures mutual gratification to all individuals.

As per the referent social theorists’ indications, the
bargains are mutually gratifying for low achievers and their
teachers. The bargains motivate the low achievers to be
compliant. George stated that teachers,

...want their classes to be quiet
and get along with the kids--they like
them. I think it’s that they want us to
graduate. Like Mr. Howard, we get along
really good. He told me that if I did all
of my work, he’d make sure I passed--I’m
passin’.
Betty explained that bargains were mutually gratifying because
they enabled teachers to complete their own work. Betty said,
The deals are good for the teachers
too. Like when we see a movie, the
teacher corrects papers. It’s like if we
have homework, and no time to complete it

in class, the teacher has homework too
because she can’t correct it in class.

107
Almost every teacher here does that. It’s
like the teachers’ study and preparation
time too, not just the students’ study
time.
Frederick revealed that the bargain "motivates you to hold on
for just a couple of minutes more then you have free time--
it’s a reward. It makes the teachers’ job easier, and gives
the kids free time." Evangelina clarified that the bargains
are mutually gratifying because they,
...guarantee that the teacher gets
his way. It’s like it benefits the
teacher and the students. The teacher
gets his way and the kids get free time.
The teacher gets hard-working quiet
students--the students get free time.
(Claudia also explained that the bargains were mutually
gratifying. She stated "the bargain is good for teachers and
students. When the students had free time, so did the
teacher." Troy concurred that "If the teacher’s real far
behind on work, he’ll give us free days. We get to sit and
talk and he does his work all hour. We try to make deals from
t:r1¢3 first day, but it’s like it goes on all year." Alicia also
Stated that the bargain was,
...good for the students and
teachers. But, I don’t think the low
lifers stop and think that it also
guarantees that they have to work harder
to get the free time. They think they’re
getting away with something, but they’re
not.
Patricio also contended that "The bargains are good for both
teachers and students. While the kids have free time to talk,

‘:11€3 ‘teacher grades papers."

achievers

108

Teachers’ perceptions were parallel with the

low

achievers’ perceptions. Ms. Selenski was also the junior class

sponsor.

According to Ms.

their teachers,

Mr.

. . .give and take. They know they
won’t get anything for nothing. If you
want something from me, you’ll give me
something. I have so many deals. See the
bulletin board and the prom decoration? I
made a deal with two boys to make those
for me and I’m giving them extra credit.
That’s pretty good, because in my class
prom things carry a lot of extra credit.

Selenski, both low achievers and

Howard said. that "it’s something that. benefits

everyone. People know what to expect because that determines

*what’s acceptable and what’s not." Mr.

Floh added that low

and their teachers are equals. The bargains

iiastitutionalized what each side should give to and receive

from education. He detailed,

111?

- Hansen also indicated that the bargain

Everything’s equal. I state that
explicitly to the students. In here all
things are equal. I’ll treat you the same
way you treat me. If you’re not rude to
me, I’m not going to be rude to you. It’s
contractual. I think the bargains are
implicit in that the bargains set up a
certain way that classrooms ought to be
run. Then it’s explicit in that when they
violate those ways, they’re seeing if
you’ re going to enforce what everybody
already knows is the way it should be.

was

an

institutional phenomenon. He elaborated that the bargain

e)K—ists at all levels. Bargains were a means of,

...keeping the class half way decent
as far as discipline, and they realize
that kind of thing. With the lower grade

109

level kids, 7th and 8th grade, you have
to be explicit about the bargains. By the
time the kid is a junior or senior, he or
she has been socialized and have matured.
They know the bargains, and they just do
it. They complete their work, they
behave, and the end of the hour is
theirs. The bargain with the upper
classmen is implicit, but it’s at all
levels, and in all classes, the
difference is, is the bargain implicit or
explicit, that usually depends more on
the grade level of the kids, and their
maturity. But usually the bargain comes
from the teacher.

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions. During English 10, Mr. Floh gave
the following introduction and requirements for his class.
.After completing his brief introduction, Mr. Floh used the
Imour to complete non-educational tasks. The students entered

tune classroom, and sat where they chose. At 9:00, the tardy
laeell sounded. Mr. Floh entered the classroom and sat at his
desk. He removed a roster and took attendance. Mr. Floh hung
tztlee attendance slip in the hallway.

Floh: Anyone anticipate a change in their
class schedule? (No students responded).

Student (Alan) That means does any one
plan to make a change.

9:05,

Floh: Shut up.Mullin! Turn around.Mullin!
You listen. I talk. You really don’t want
to start this way Mullin! (Alan turned
around and sat quietly).

9:06,
Floh: When I call your name, come up and
get a book.

9:08,

110

Floh: Okay, turn to page 2. "The Monkey’s
Paw." Read this to yourselves. Tomorrow
be certain to bring a pen, paper, your
book. We quite often will do the
discussion questions at the end of the
readings during class. (The students sat
quietly and read. The teacher sat at his
desk and opened his mail. He sorted
through the letters.

9:15, The teacher filled his stapler, and
posted the school’s calendar and sports
events calendar.

9:20, The teacher read the mail. Students
read silently.

9:25, The teacher read the mail. Students
read silently.

9:30, The teacher read the mail. Students
read silently.

9:34, The principal entered the
classroom. He watched the class for about
one minute, smiled and walked out. The
teacher continued reading the mail, and
the students continued to read silently.

9:37, Some students completed the
reading. They sat and talked quietly.

9:39, Mr. Floh called a female student to
his desk.

Floh: Here, take these (papers) to the
typing room. If the teacher is there,
give them to him. If he’s not in the
room, leave them on his desk.

9:44,

Floh: Raise your hand if you need a sheet
of paper. Put your name and the date in
the upper right hand corner. Number one:
Tell me about the setting. Number two:
Who are the five principal characters?
Number three: what creates the action?
Number four: what was the first wish?
Numbers five and six: what was the second
and third wish? Number seven: what
country did the object come from? Number
eight: Who died? Number nine: Was this

is

achi

susta

to st

comp] j

social

Costs.

School,

during .
The

equals 1

111
coincidence or fate? Number ten: What was
the result of the second wish? (Students
did not have time to write down the
questions or the answers. However, this
"test" was not a test--the teacher showed
students what test format to expect).
9:45,
Floh: Okay, this is the kind of tests
you’ll have: who, what, when, where, why.
Got it? (The students sat and talked. The
teacher sat at his desk.)

Shaw: Doug, tell me what Mr. Floh gets
out of the bargains?

Doug: Look at him. He isn’t doin’
anything. He reads his mail, talks to
teachers.

Shaw: Is that all he gets?

Doug: He gets a check.

The observation illustrates that the bargains are
mutually gratifying for both the low achievers and their
teachers. Each side legitimates the norm to bargain because it
is mutually gratifying in immediate terms. Neither low

achievers nor their teachers submit themselves to serious, and
Sillsstained academic pursuits. Low achievers receive free time
t1<> study or socialize and a passing grade. Teachers receive
compliance, free time to correct tests or papers, and time to
Sc><—‘—ialize. The bargains allow both sides to forego opportunity
coSts. Required activities which should be completed out-of-
S<3171001, during conference periods or study halls are completed
during in-class time.

The right for low achievers to bargain as their teachers’

e I O I O
quals 1s a norm. The norm 15 to barga1n down requ1rements:

ha
rig

etc

cert

proc

what

"Chea
barge;
replie
the te
Alicia
leaying

112
the phenomenon is unidirectional--always down. The bargain is
a set of agreed upon norms established between low achievers
and teachers. The agreement establishes the way classes are be

run--what each is to give and what each is to receive.

Wher Cepnot be Bargained
Durkheim (1956) stated that to a certain point all

education is the same. All education rests upon.a common base.
Durkheim stated that among all people there are consistent
ideas, attitudes and. procedures. Education. imparts these
ideas, attitudes and procedures in children regardless of
social class. Durkheim stated "In the course of history, there
have been established a whole set of ideas on human nature, on
ziight and duty, on society, on progress, on science, on art,
etc., which are the very basis of our national spirit" (p.
7 O) . The referent philosopher’s theme is that there are
(zealctain values which are not subject to the bargaining
‘531rcacess.
When low achievers and teachers were asked to describe
What can not be bargained in their classes, Tammy stated that
"Cheating, lying, talking all hour" are not available as
bargains. Betty added that "cutting people down." Claudia
replied that teachers did not bargain "swearing, but I notice
the teachers pretend like they don’t hear the swearing."
I‘1-5L<=ia stated that "most teachers won’t make any deals about
lea.‘ring class." Evangelina stated "if it’s not in the

classroom, like going to the bathroom, we can’t bargain going

f?

be

"Cl

the

non
socj
barg
Stea;
thoug
the j
C0119:
Ihich

they m

113
to the bathroom." Troy responded that teachers "won’t let us
talk all hour, unless he wants to talk all hour, or if the
teacher’s behind on work." Patricio added that "If you don’t
do your work you won’t pass."

Teachers concurred with the low achievers. Ms. Selenski
stated that she will not bargain regarding "Cheating. Leaving
school. Drinking or drugs, smoking. I won’t bargain these. No
ridiculing. No talking about another teacher or student. No
talking about who slept with whom. The courtesy norm can not
be violated." Mrs. Copucha also stated that students "know
that the bargain is on my terms. I say what goes. I won’t
bargain anything that is abusive." Mr. Floh added that "No
talking during tests. . .No damaging property. No talking while
I talk. These can’ t be bargained." Mr. Howard concluded that

" Cheating is an absolute not. Leaving class to horse around in
the hall. Talking when I’m talking. Arguing or ridiculing."

There are two trains of thought. First, certain social

norms can not be bargained, because they are vital to
Society’s survival. The social norms which may not be
ba rgained include cheating, lying, stealing, ridiculing,
SWearing, drug use, and passing with no effort. The second
thonght is that what is outside of the classroom is outside of
the bargain. What could not be bargained was society’s
col lective ethos. As Durkheim (1956) said, these are the areas
which are imperative to society’s continued survival--as such

they may not be bargained.

du.
the
is

acac

low a
norm

FedUce
their

114
ne'

Teachers de-expertise themselves in their students’
presence. Teachers remove their natural ascendancy over low
achievers. In addition, teachers elevate the low achievers’
status to a point where they in fact had ascendancy over
teachers. Low'achievers are expert regarding what is useful in
a market economy. This view of students places teachers at
best as their students’ equals in status regarding academic
matters. As professionals, low achievers know as much as, or
more about market economy than their teachers.

Teachers’ statements illustrate that education is reduced
to preparing students for jobs--marketability. Teachers convey
that minimum effort is acceptable and that in return low

achievers will receive a minimum grade--a passing grade.

.Idastly, teachers engaged in personal, non-academic endeavors
cillring class. As low achievers are their teachers’ equals,
they too are free to do likewise. Teachers legitimate that it
is acceptable to engage in personal pursuits in lieu of

academic pursuits.

As the result of aforementioned statements and actions,
10W achievers and their teachers are equals with regard to the
r‘C33E1n establishing process. Low achievers and their teachers
17€3<3J1ce education to marketability. Neither low achievers nor
their teachers commit themselves to serious and sustained

ac=e<iemic pursuits .

fi.

alt

rewg
refe
"Sin
expel
becon

grati

Compar
aItem
what as

115

The bargaining process begins on the first day of
classes. The bargains are offered initially by teachers.
Subsequently, the bargains are offered by whomever desires
something. The whole of this process establishes a set of
norms which permit and even encourage low achievers to bargain
as their teachers’ equals. As such, low achievers are free to
assess the marketability that their classes provide. Low
achievers are free to give effort that is equal to their

classes’ marketability.

Section 2: What Other Students Give and Receive
The researcher will use section two to present the
findings regarding the comparison level, comparison-level
alternative, and distributive justice.

Group members compare the reward that they receive to the
reward which their referent group receives. Blau (1964)
referred to this as the comparison level. He continued that
"Since reference groups serve as standards of comparison and
eXpectation, the average reward received by their members
becomes a baseline for evaluating what is a relatively

gratifying or a relatively depriving experience" (p. 159) .
Blau (1964) stated that when individuals assess the
Comparison level in their own group, and comparison-level
alternative in other similar groups, the individual calculates
what association costs. If their effort exceeds their reward,

the person will experience dissonance.

be
hi
gra
att
on:

Piar

USEfl
will
not (
market
Studen
Preetig

i’ill be

116

Homans (1961) referred to distributive justice as
practical equilibrium. He believed that people in social
exchange relations expect that the reward received from the
provider be distributed equally across the referent group. He
stated that individuals "will expect that the rewards of each
man (or woman) be proportional to his or her costs--the
greater the rewards, the greater the costs--and the net
rewards, or profits, of each man be proportional to his
investments--the greater the investments, the greater the
profit" (p. 75).

In this section it will be argued that low achievers
compare themselves to other student groups. Further, it will
be argued that low achievers accept that one group receives
higher grades than they, while another group receives lower
grades than they. It will be argued that low achievers
attribute this variance as a just distribution of grades based
on students’ commitment to education and to college or career
plans.

Low achievers and their teachers refer to education as
useful or marketable when it prepares students for a job. It
will be argued that the education offered to low achievers is
not useful. Low achievers’ education does not make them
marketable as they understand marketability. However, for
students who intend to pursue higher education or attain
prestigious jobs, it is beneficial to study hard. Last, it

will be argued that.low'achievers were knowledgeable regarding

117
what is useful in a market economy. Because low achievers are
their teachers’ equals, low achievers were free to accept or

reject what teachers offered.

Cppperihg Self to Others

Blau (1964) wrote that comparison levels are social
standards. The reward that one individual receives for time,
effort, and compliance is the base for evaluating what is
gratifying or depriving. Blau stated that individuals and
groups maintain the status quo in relationships. To ensure
that reciprocity endures, individuals compare rewards they
receive, to rewards that others receive for equal amounts of
time, effort and compliance.

Gouldner (1960) stated that although people in
associations are inter-indebted, the rate of indebtedness is
not the same for all people. Individuals who possess high
status are entitled to greater reward. Gouldner continued that
this differentiation is due to the potential value of their
association. Gouldner concluded that therefore "Obligations
imposed.by the norm of reciprocity may vary with the status of
the participants within a society" (p. 171).

Blau (1964) concluded that when individuals are
discontented with their current relationship, they seek the
comparison-level alternative. The comparison-level alternative
is a relationship in which the individual would receive more
or less reward with more or less effort. When effort exceeds

reward, the individual leaves the current relationship to seek

Lu!
rel
0th
rev

ind

hard.
work
than
Patr:
gene}
that

thin}

than
StUde
and s
equal

ACCQr

118
the alternative relationship. The consistent theme across the
referent theorists’ is that individuals assess their own and
other individuals’ effort. and. status. Individuals. expect
rewards to be distributed equally and according to
individuals’ effort and status.

When low achievers were asked.if their effort is the same
as.other students’ effort, Frederick responded that "There are
a lot of people who have their head.down and do just enough to
get by because they aren't getting much if anything from these
classes." According to Claudia "there are some who do work
harder than me. There are some who work less than me too. I
guess I’m about in the middle."

Betty stated "I don’t think any of the students work too
hard. I guess I do about the same, some work harder, and some
work less." Troy agreed and stated "I work a little bit less
than some, and maybe a little bit more than some others."
Patricio also agreed that he works "harder than some in
general science, but less than others." Evangelina clarified
that "some people like the subject, or the teacher. Or they
think the class is more useful, so they work harder."

Low achievers gave equal commitment to education--more
than the trouble makers, but less than the hard-working
students. Low achievers assessed what other students received
and gave in order to assure that each individual received
equal reward for equal effort. Low achievers gave effort

according to the marketability they received.

brosn
less
achie
Alici
know,
becau
state.
teach.
Troy 1
those
work
attent
really
He st.
Colleg
includ
they 9
"Want
G
do wel
They v
grades
"Drona:

198$.n

119

Low achievers referred to the hard-working students as
brownnosers. Low achievers referred to the students who worked
less than they, as the low lifes or trouble makers. Low
achievers compared their effort to other student groups.
Alicia referred to hard-working students as "the brownies, you
know, brownnoser. . .They brownnose the teachers. It’s funny
because the teachers know that they’re doing that." Evangelina
stated "We call them brownnosers. They’ll suck right up to the
teachers. Some teachers like that, so they get higher grades."
Troy extended the concept of hard-working students to being
those who were "in sports or they wanna go to college...They
work real hard. They study. They' participate. They' pay
attention." Felicity also stated that "some students work
really hard ’cause they want to go to college." Doug agreed.
He stated that the hard-working students "want to go to
college." Tammy agreed and extended the understanding to
include that hard-working students "want a really good job so
they go for it." Betty also stated that hard-working students
"want big pay and good jobs."

George added that "Their'parents.push.them.really hard to
do well, or they want to go to big universities and colleges.
They volunteer a lot, they do all their work, they get good
grades on tests." Patricio agreed the hard-working students
"probably get all 4.05 because their parents won’t accept

less."

to st
said
somel
are ‘
colle
chilc
colle
"want
Hanse
harde
befue
effor

eithe

hard.
teach
colle
Daren

attit

the t
edUCa‘
effOri
AOthiI

gradeE

120

Teachers too used the term "brownnosers" when referring
to students who worked harder than low achievers. Mr. Howard
said "The brownnosers...think. they’re getting away with
something. I guess they think I like my back scratched. These
are the kids who stand in the spot light. They’ll go on to
college." Mrs. Copucha stated "I have three students in the
child development class that work incredibly hard. They’re all
college-bound. " Ms. Selenski agreed that hard-working students
"want to go to college. Their parents are involved." Mr.
Hansen stated that the hard-working students "work a lot
harder. I have some who if they don’t get an ’A’, they’re all
befuddled." Mr. Jones attributed the hard-working students’
effort to "they’re motivated, but I don’t lecture in there
either."

Both low achievers and their teachers referred to the
hard-working students as brownnosers. Low achievers and their
teachers stated that hard-working students wanted to go to a
college or university, obtain high-paying jobs, and their
parents demanded success. Low' achievers had. a realistic
attitude about students who worked harder than they.

Low achievers also referred to a student group known as
the trouble makers. Trouble makers were less committed to
education than low achievers. Regarding the trouble makers’
effort, Frederick. responded "These are the kids who do
nothing; I don’t think.they’ll go anywhere in life...I keep my

grades at least to passing--these kids do nothing. " Evangelina

fa
an
tr:
do:
she
rem
The}
Pat:

bein

Cepuc
achie-
Stude;
”Othin

"do pr

Pass. 1

121

echoed this thought. She stated that "in Jones’s general math
class there is this group that doesn’t do anything-~they’re
low lifes." Mapi added the comparison that "They’re just
trouble-makers. They pay less attention even than I do. They
sleep a lot more than I do." Alicia replied that "We call them
the low lifers. They cause trouble--you see themlin our class.
They’re the one’s who always cause trouble for the teacher."
Doug agreed and added that "They let farts, cause trouble,
throw things, talk back to the teacher."

Tammy said that the trouble makers "do nothing--they
fail." Claudia asserted that the trouble makers "don’t do
anything. I mean nothing! They flunk." George added that
trouble makers lose credit in their classes. He said "They
don’t do anything! Like my cousin, he doesn’t do anything. He
should be a senior, but he has like two credits." Brad
remarked that the trouble makers "just sit and do nothing.
They don’t pay attention or do assignments. They flunk tests. "
Patricio clarified that the trouble makers "don’t need what’s
being taught. They’ll never go to college."

Trouble makers had no commitment to education. Mrs.
Copucha stated the trouble makers "put in very little. The low
achievers put in just enough to get a passing grade. The
students who do less than the low achievers do absolutely
nothing!" Mr; Hansen agreed.and stated.that the trouble makers
"do practically nothing in class. They don’t care if they

pass. They sleep, and do nothing." Mr. Jones stated trouble

122
makers "don’t do anything at all. They get in trouble, and if
they don’t get kicked out, they flunk."

Mr. Floh added that the trouble makers were the dropouts.
Mr. Floh stated "These kids get squeezed out. The system
finally smothers them and they’re gone--they quit." Mr. Floh’s
comment indicated that the trouble makers were also the
dropouts. Mr. Howard also stated that "These kids usually
don’t get to my level. By the time they hit government they’re
going to make it though unless they really mess up. There are
some who do absolutely nothing--they flunk out or drop out."
Ms. Selenski also agreed that the trouble makers "vegetate in
my class, but they drop out of school because they are
failing."

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions. Trouble makers caused trouble in
classes. When the trouble makers acted out, the entire class
was punished. During general science, Mr. Hansen delivered a
lecture on waves. As Mr. Hansen lectured, the trouble makers
caused trouble. Patricio.and Doug were low’achievers. Gill and
Jerry were trouble makers.

11:48,

Teacher: Hopefully by the end of the hour
I’ll be able to give you your test
grades. Because some people still have to
take it, I’ll wait until they are done. I
won’t give you the actual test back until
everyone has taken the test--what I will
do is give you the score. Let’s review--

yesterday we discussed measuring waves.
How do we measure waves?

123

Patricio: With a ruler, and great
difficulty, Dude.

Teacher: (Teacher chuckled) By the wave
length.

Teacher: Okay, if the wave length is 15
feet, how deep would the wave base be?

Patricio: Ah, let’s see--about 7 1/2
feet, Dude.

11:56: Two students passed a wallet. One
removed some money.

Teacher: Put the wallet away and listen
up.

Gill: He stole my wallet. (Gill stood
up.)

Teacher: Sit down and act like a senior.

Gill: But.

Teacher: That’s it--you have a detention-
-one hour tomorrow after school.

Gill: But.

Teacher: Would you like to try on 200
sentences too? (Gill sat down.)

Teacher: A Tsunami is a series of 14
waves that have joined force as one wave.

Patricio: What if there are only 13 or
maybe 15 waves joining force, is it still
a Tsunami?

Teacher: I don’t know, I guess it can
only be a Tsunami when 14 waves have
joined force. That’s what the book says,
so it must be right.

12:00, the teacher passed out the daily
worksheet. A student asked "Why are we
getting so much work? You never give us
this much work." The teacher did not
answer.

124

12:03, students sat quietly. Gill and
another student talked and threw papers.

12:05, the teacher wrote, VOCABULARY on
the chalkboard.

Patricio: Hey--chill out Dude! I haven’t
even got my name on the last sheet you
gave us. Chill on the assignments, Dude.
Why are we getting so much work, Dude?

Jerry: It’s ’cause some cheeser had to
throw paper.

Gill: When is all this due?

Teacher: Probably at the end of the hour.
Gill: At the end of the hour?

Teacher: Probably.

Gill: Probably?

Teacher: Probably.

Gill: Wow, Dude--like I can’t do all this
by the end of the hour.

Teacher: Then do this too--page 408,
numbers 1 and 2. (Students were silent).

12:10, Students worked on assignments.
The teacher walked around the room and
helped students individually when they
requested assistance.

12:11,
Patricio: Mr. Hansen--there are three
questions on page 408.

Teacher: Oh , okay . Do all three . (The
teacher wrote the change on the
Chalkboard).

Student: (Jerry to Patricio) We already
had two questions to answer, now we have
three. God you’re stupid.

Patricio: Yeah? I’m stupid? I have a 3.2
in this school cheeser. What’s your
G.P.A.--a 1.0? I know where you’ll be in

125

5 years asshole--you’ll be the next
parking lot cart-pusher at Meijer.

Doug: He’s not that smart-—he’ll probably
have to settle with sorting cans at K-
Mart.

The observation illustrates that Gill and Jerry, the
trouble makers, did less work and created more trouble than
Patricio and Doug, the low achievers. Trouble makers disrupted
lecture, threw paper and talked back to the teacher. The class
received extra work because the trouble makers caused trouble.
The low achievers prodded the trouble makers for not
committing themselves to education. The best job trouble
makers would get would be pushing shopping carts for Meijer or
sorting pop cans for K-Mart.

There exists a clear understanding among students about
the effort they give and the rewards they receive. Students
were aware of their own place in the system. The students who

worked less than the low achievers were trouble makers or low
1 i f es. Low achievers compared their own educational commitment
to the trouble makers’ educational commitment. The trouble

It“alters did nothing. Therefore, trouble makers received a lower

grade or flunked .

\Dislributive Justice
Individuals in relationships expect that their rewards be
equal to their effort. Homans (1961) referred to balancing
reV'Iards against effort as distributive justice. He stated that

inciividuals expect rewards to be distributed equally.

Dis
equ
for
ind
hig.
Ind.

love

shor
thei
thei
gett

it."

Mapi
I dor

be,"
h€re
dOn't

EOre

Said,

10w bf

126

Distributive justice means rewarding individuals equally for
equal amounts of time, effort and compliance while accounting
for ability and status. The referent theorist’s theme is that
individuals who give more time, effort, compliance, or have
higher abilities and status, should receive more reward.
Individuals who give less time, effort, compliance, or have
lower abilities and status should receive less reward.

In keeping with the concepts of social exchange, students
should perceive that grades are fair when weighed against
their effort. When low achievers were asked.if they think.that
their grades are fair Tammy stated "Oh yeah. I could be
getting an ’A’ if I wanted to work harder but I don’t need
.it." Evangelina added,

I have about a 1.20, but I don’t

work too hard. I’m doin’ better now than

I did before. I guess if I get at least

’C5’ in my classes that’s fine. I know I

can get 4.05. I don’t really want a 4.0--

I do, but it’s not worth the extra work.

I don’t think I want to put in the effort

for the extra grade.
Mapi added "I have about a 1.3--I’m not being cheated, because
I don’t study. I guess my grades are right where they should
1>ee.. " Betty stated that her grades are fair, because "When I’m
here is all the time I put in." Claudia agreed and said "I
(1"!) ’t put in a lot of time, so I don’t get ’As’. If I put in
mOre time, I’d get better grades."

Troy responded that "I don’t hardly ever study. Like I

said, I put in my time." Alicia expressed that her grades were

143‘? because "like general science, I don’t like it so I don’t

er
fa

st

the
the
fai
a 1

d0

grade

127

study. Since I don’ t study, I get lower grades." According to
Doug "I don’t hardly ever study for his (Hansen’s) class. I
sleep a lot in there. I don’t usually study for it at home
either, so if I get a ’D’ like on the last test, that’s good
enough--It’s fair." George stated "I get about a 1.4. . .it’s my
fault for not doing my work. If I did all of my homework and
studied, I know I could do a lot better."

Low achievers weighed the grades which they received
against their commitment to academic pursuits. The grades
which low achievers received were fair, because low achievers
did not exert themselves.

Low achievers and their teachers were asked to describe
the fairness of hard-working students receiving higher grades

than low achievers. Tammy stated that the higher grades were
fair because "They do everything for class. They participate
a lot. They do all their assignments. They pay attention. They
do a lot more than I do, so it’s fair." Frederick also stated
"I think so. I’d want a higher grade if I put in the kind of
efIEcrt they are putting into classes." Betty replied that
"Yeah, they earn it." According to Troy hard-working students
"work real hard. . .They earn the grade--the teachers say
no‘thin’ for nothin’." Claudia stated that "Of course it’s
fair--they work really hard."

Evangelina clarified that "If they get a higher grade

beCause they work harder that’s fair, but if they get a higher

grade because they suck right up to the teacher, no that’s not

h.

pE

ea]
on
pie
wori
ohvi
beca
"the,

it’s

their
Corr 6(
qUiZze
distri
effort
grades .

and Ann

128
fair." Alicia also compared the hard-working students’ effort
to her own. She replied that the hard-working students’ grades
were fair because "they work harder than I do." Doug agreed
and added "they do the work. They hand in the worksheets and
I don’t." Brad stated that the hard-working students "study
harder than I do, so they get higher grades."

Low achievers and their teachers’ had parallel
perceptions. Mr. Howard responded that hard-working students
"understand nothing for nothing. They get the grade they
earn." Mr. Floh laughed and commented "Heck, I’ve never been
on a job where they didn’t pay on production. You put out more

pieces you get more wages." Mrs. Copucha concurred that hard-
working students received higher grades "because they are
obviously doing more." Mr. Jones believed that "it’s fair,
because they earn better grades." Mr. Hansen responded
"they’re working harder, doing more. Oh, you’re darned right
it ’ 5 fair."

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
the ir teachers’ perceptions. During government, Mr. Howard
corrected tests with the students. As Mr. Howard returned the
quizzes, the students compared their grades. The grades were
distributed fairly because they reflected the students’
effort. The students who gave more effort, received higher

grades. Andy, Brenda and Frederick were low achievers. Brenda
and Anne were hard-working students.

1:16,

129

Teacher: Three more minutes. (1 more
student carried up the quiz).

1:17, 8 students carried up the quiz.

1:18,
Sharri: How many can you miss and still
get an ’A’?

Teacher: Bring up your quizzes.

1:18,

George: (Looked at the researcher) Man,
it’s easy to remember these. We started
with 15 countries the first week, then 10
in the next week, and we add 5 each week.

1:19, the teacher carried the quizzes
around to students.

Teacher: Put your name on the back of the
person’s quiz. I’ll read through the
answers. Do not interrupt me. Listen
close. If you don’t. hear one of the
answers, I’ll repeat them individually
after the quiz is corrected. (The teacher
read down the list of answers).

1:23, the students compared their quiz
scores.

Frederick: How many did you miss?
Anne: Awesome, man, I missed just 1.

Frederick: I missed 8, but I only studied
last hour.

Anne: Yeah--I studied about 3 hours last
night.

1:24,
George: (Looked at the researcher) See, I
missed 4.

1:25,

Teacher: Here’s the deal--if you missed
less than 21 or less, you aren’t required
to take it over. Remember, you have to
get a 70, or I won’t pass you. If you had
one of those zero wrong refrigerator
quizzes--free trip to the candy shop.

130

(The teacher has an in-school candy
shop). This morning we had a young lady
in 2nd hour government get a 1 wrong
quiz. She’s taking it over next week to
refrigerate the quiz, and get her trip to
the candy shop. I lost 8 candy bars this
morning in 2nd hour to refrigerator
quizzes.

1:26,
Andy: How’d you do?

Brenda: I missed 6.
Andy: So did I.
Brenda: Yeah, but I didn’t study.
{the observation illustrates that low achievers compare the
taffort that other students give, to the grades that other
students receive. Low achievers accept that other students
Jreaceive higher grades than they, when the other students gave
mncxre effort. It was fair that hard-working students received
11:1§;her grades, because they were more committed to education
tillain low achievers.

Low achievers and their teachers were asked to tell about
tT-he fairness of the trouble makers receiving lower grades than
tllle low achievers. Trouble makers received low grades because
t1hey were not committed to education. Frederick stated that
tr~‘Ouble makers "do nothing but screw around and cause trouble
all the time. That’s just the way it is--nothing is free. If
‘Y‘itl want to pass you have to give some effort." Doug also

Stated that "I think they should get ’Es’. They don’t do
n(31::hing, and then they cause trouble. When they cause trouble

then we have to do more work."

ec
"t
ma

de

gra

fau

Mrs.

get t
Hothir
nothin

resPon

131

Patricio added that "If they wanted to do better they’d

work as hard as somebody who’s getting a ’C’." The indication
by Patricio was that the trouble makers were also capable of

receiving higher grades. However, grades must be distributed

equally for equal commitment to education. Claudia stated

"they get what the earn. " Tammy replied that the trouble

makers "don’t do anything. They make themselves flunk. They
deserve it." Troy attributed the trouble makers’ grades to,

...the way they act. It’s the way
they feel-~they wanna cause problems and
they flunk. They deserve it. Like me, I
pay attention, and wanna pass, but they
just fool around, and don’t do nothing.
Evangelina said that the trouble makers earned lower

grades "because they’re disturbing the class...it’s their
fault. They also don’t do their work." Alicia agreed that

trouble makers received lower grades because "they cause

trouble and don’ t do anything. Then we get in trouble and have

to do extra work." George also responded that trouble makers

deserved lower grades "because they don’t do their work." Mapi

concluded that the trouble makers "don’t do ANYTHING!!!

( el'ltlphatic) They deserve what they get."

Teachers’ and low achievers’ perceptions were parallel.

Mrs . Copucha stated that "If I don’t get the work, you don’t
get the grade--that’s the way life is--it’s give and take.
NCDthing for nothing!" Mr. Howard concurred that "nothing for

h01::hing. They do nothing; they get nothing." Ms. Selenski

lTesponded that trouble makers received lower grades "On the

132
rationale that you can’t get something for nothing. If you
want something, you have to give something." Mr. Hansen
clarified that "it is fair. They have the ability--they simply
don’t use it." Mr; Jones questioned "How can they pass if they
didn’t do anything, right?"

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions. During general science, Patricio
entered the classroom and bragged to Jerry that he did not
study the quiz materials. The students took the quiz on the
(day prior to the following conversation. Jerry commented that
Ire studied the hour prior to the quiz. Jerry usually did not

artudy--he was one of the trouble makers. Patricio and Doug
tvtare low achievers. The researcher did not know Jodi. As Mr.
Hansen returned quizzes to the students, the following
discussion transpired.

12:20,

Teacher: Okay, hold up on your questions

as I pass back your quizzes. The number

at the top of your quiz divided by 34

will give you a percentage grade.

Jerry: Jodi, divide 22 by 34.

Jodi: It’s 64.7.

Jerry: Awesome, Dude—-I passed.

Patricio: You got 22 right? I only got a
20.

Doug: Me too--I got a 20.

Jerry: (To Patricio) Fuck you Cheeser--
you didn’t even study. I got a 22 because
I studied. (Patricio said nothing).

Doug: Jodi, what’s 20 divided by 34?

Th.
un;
efi
an

rec
nor

gav.

make
trou
noth

effo.

U)

(D
O
('f

Under
reCei.
thEir

that J

Commit;

133

Jodi: That’s a 58.8.

Doug: Mr. Hansen, what’s 58 percent?

Teacher: That’s a ’D’ Doug.

Doug: 000! I passed. (Relieved).

Jerry: Awesome, Dude. You study?

Doug: Just the last hour before the quiz.

Jerry: Me too, Dude.
The observation illustrates the norms are well-established and
universally accepted. Students’ grades should be equal to
effort. In this case, Jerry did study for his quiz--a1beit.but
an hour before. Patricio became indignant that a trouble maker
received a higher grade than he. However, Jerry asserted the
norm--you receive as much as you give. In this case, Jerry
gave more effort. Therefore, Jerry received a higher grade.

Grades are distributed equal to effort. The trouble

makers receive what they give--nothing. It is fair that
trouble makers received nothing because trouble makers did
nothing. It is also fair that when trouble makers do«give more

effort, their grades are higher.

Se 'on o: Summa

Low achievers and their teachers have established well-
understood norms concerning the effort given, and the reward
received. To this end, the comparisons which low achievers and
their teachers make serve two purposes: (1) comparisons assure
that rewards are distributed proportionately to students’

cOmmitment, compliance and effort; (2) comparisons legitimate

and
rec
dis
edt
ca:
Lo:
a c
ac]
pu:
be.

ju

ac
Th
be
is
SC

a;

as

134
low achievers’ are free to assess what was useful in a market
economy. Low achievers’ comparisons justified their limited
effort, because they will not attend a college or university,
and because they will not attain more prestigious jobs.

In addition to assessing what low achievers receive from
and give to the relationship, they also assessed what others
receive and give. The rewards across these relationships were
distributed equally. Low achievers justify their lack of
educational commitment by comparing their own educational and
career goals to other students’ educational and career goals.
Low achievers explain that hard-working students will attend
a college or university. Therefore, they work harder than low
achievers. Trouble makers will never experience success beyond
pushing carts at Meijer, or sorting pop cans at K-Mart,
because they do nothing. Low achievers use comparisons to

justify their own effort.

Section 3: Balancing Effort and Reward

The researcher will use section three to present how low
achievers balance what they give against what they receive.
This was perhaps the most crucial question. A classroom must
be understood as a social system. Participants understand what
is to be received and what is to be given. The researcher
Songht information regarding how low achievers determined the
appropriate balance between giving and receiving.

It will be argued that low achievers.ba1ance their effort

against their future marketability. Education is a commodity.

135

Marketability is the value that education is given in the job
market. Further, it will be argued that low achievers have
opportunities other than academic pursuits. It will be argued
that low achievers receive little marketability from their
studies, so they pursue opportunities other than education.

When Betty was asked how she determined how hard to
study, she stated "I really don’t get a lot here, and so I
don’t try too ‘much." Claudia agreed that "I don’t get
much...I’ll study just enough to make it through." Alicia
clarified that what low achievers do not receive is useful
education. Alicia responded "if I think that the class is
going to be useful, then I’ll study." Doug concurred that "I’m
not gettin’ much in this class and I’m not puttin’ much into
it. It’s not going to help me...I do just enough to pass."
Brad also replied "It depends on if I think I really need that
class." Brenda stated that she balanced her effort against
"the career that I want to do." George elaborated,

It’s if I like the class and it’s
useful...I put in just enough to pass the
class-—just get by. I need the diploma,
and so I do enough to get by...The
classes that I just try to get by on, I’m
not gonna use later in life, like
English, we study poetry. I do a little
homework--just enough to pass.

According to Patricio his decision is based upon,

Whether I think I’m going to get
something out of the class. I know what I
want to be. I’m not going to waste my
time on a class that won’t give me
preparation for my life and my career.

Being a police officer you have to know
that if there are 20 hostages and

OP

the.
Cam

USEf

136

somebody tells you 1/4 of them are
killed, I mean you gotta know that stuff.
You can’t be sitting there saying, ah,
ah, let me figure this one out first.

Teachers stated that life is a give and take process. Students
must give something’ in. order to receive something. The
implication here is that life in the classroom and life in
society are the same. The same norms exist in each setting.
Teachers added that low achievers did enough to pass and then
pursued.other'activitiesu Mrs. Copucha said that.low'achievers
do not want to feel indebted to teachers. She explained,

I see them doing just enough to get
by. I don’t think they see a need to get
more, and they don’t see a need to give
more. I think that they feel they’ re
giving as much as they’re getting. They
don’t want more because they would have
to give more, and they don’t want to have
to give more.

Ms. Selenski added that low achievers had many
opportunities that they would rather pursue. She said,

If they are interested, they study.
Now the new kid, Claudia, she’s a good
example. She’s a smart kid, but she’s
lazy. She didn’t even show up for her
tutoring. Her boyfriend is coming home
from the ndlitary. Other students have
jobs, cars, friends, MTV. They have all
sorts of things to do that take precedent
over studying. If they are passing the
class with a ’D-’ to a ’C’, that’s good
enough for them.

Observations were consistent with low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions. During general mathematics class,
candi scoffed that what she learned about polygons was not

Useful to obtain a job.

10
f0
Ble
cos
C011.

aCtJ

137

Teacher: Who wants to be next? (Patricio

went back to the overhead projector. He

completed #5, showed the teacher and

turned off the overhead projector).

Candi: Don’t shut it off--I don’t have it

copied down, you queer! (Patricio turned

the overhead projector back on).

Candi: Right, when am I going to need

this? Okay, I’ve got it--I’ll walk into

an interview and they’ll say to me, build

me a polygon before I hire you--NOT!!!
Candi’s effort was the minimum to pass the class. In fact, her
effort did not exceed copying answers as other students
completed the polygons.

Low achievers could obtain higher grades. However,
because low achievers receive little marketability, they are
content to pass. They do not dedicate more time than is
necessary to pass. Low achievers have other opportunities that
take precedent over education. What best elucidates
reciprocity are the statements that low achievers do not

receive much marketability. Therefore, low achievers do not

give much effort.

Opporrunity Costs

The researcher will use this sub-section to present the
low achievers’ opportunity costs. Individuals incur costs by
foregoing alternative activities or alternative relationships.
Blau (1964) referred to foregone opportunities as opportunity
cOsts. According to Blau opportunity costs are rewards which
C=0uld be received by focusing effort in other relationships or

‘aCtivities. As an individual remains in.a relationship, she or

El

th

Va t
TV

ire:

Stat

138
he incurs opportunity costs. The referent theorist’s theme is
that students have other things to do. Students incur cost
when they do not pursue activities other than education.
However, the costs were too high when accounting for the
marketability which low achievers received. Therefore, low
achievers pursued opportunities other than education. When low
achievers were asked what kept them from studying, Betty
stated that "I go to see my friends. I go out and party."
Alicia added "I watch TV. I like to read books, not study
though. Or I visit friends. I ride bike with Evangelina."
According to George,
I have a lot to do. I work, and I

have a girlfriend, but if I’m not workin’

or with my girlfriend, I’m hangin’ out

with the guys. I hang out every day. We’d

go play pool, or go to the Arcade. You

know, if I have to do the homework, I do

it in class.
Patricio stated that he preferred to "go to the lake and ride
my jet ski. Sometimes.I hang out with friends." Claudia stated
"my boyfriend. He just came home from boot camp. Or I write
letters to my friends--I write a lot of letters!" Tammy added
"I work at...McDonald’s...That slows me down quite a bit over
the weekends--I don’t have time to do my homework."

Mapi responded "I’m with my boyfriend. We just go home,

‘watch TV, eat. If I’m not with my boyfriend, I’d rather watch
TV} or be on the telephone. I watch TV all day and all night."

Frederick added that he created his own anti-drug program. He

stated "I started my own drug program as the result of a

 

C4

tc

0P}
fox
don
fro:
The}

that

Satis:
as dI
PleaSu
EGUCat;
right 1
achiev

Callin

139
contest that I won with 95 FM--WVIC in Lansing...I put almost
all of my time and effort into that."

Evangelina replied "in school it’s like I talk with my
friends. Out of school I watch TV, or call friends. I ride
bike." Troy stated "I go to my cousin’s body shop and work on
cars. Me and him bought a car, and we’re trying to put it
together. Sometimes we play basketball."

Teachers had an accurate understanding of low achievers’
opportunities. According to Mr. Howard, low achievers opted
for "TV, friends, telephone, work. But again, remember they
don’t have a lot of homework. These opportunities keep them
from studying their tests, more than not studying homework.
They study in class just before the test." Mr. Hansen added
that,

They watch TV, go out with the gang,
see girlfriend/boyfriend, go to sports
events. They work, in fact, I’d say
that’ s the majority of what they do.
Anything other than homework, will take
precedent over homework.

Low achievers have opportunities which give them more
satisfaction than education. Low achievers perceive education
as drudgery. They receive little marketability and no
pleasure. Therefore, the low achievers’ minimal commitment to
education ends when the class ends. Teachers do not have the
right to assign out-of—school assignments which impede low
achievers’ opportunities. Low achievers are busy working,

Calling or visiting friends and relatives, seeing or writing

to a boyfriend/girlfriend, watching television, riding

140
bike/motorcycle/jet ski, playing sports with friends, partying

or reading.

ec o hre : S mma

One classroom norm is that low achievers are their
teachers’ equals. Education is reduced to making students
marketable. The norms permit low achievers to weigh the
marketability they receive against the effort they give. Low
achievers receive rewards that were equal to their commitment.
Hard-working students receive more reward than low achievers,
because they give more effort than the low achievers. The
trouble makers receive fewer rewards than low achievers,
because they give less effort than low achievers.

The same perception which provides the impetus for hard-
working students to study also provides the legitimate excuse
for low achievers to not study. Low achievers know what is
useful in. a :market economy. Because IOW' achievers have
professional status, they are free to assess what teachers
offer. Low achievers are also free to reject education which
is not useful in a market economy. Low achievers choose not to
pursue a greater commitment to education because the

opportunity costs are too high.

Section 4: What Low achievers Receive
The researcher will use section four to present what low
aChievers receive. According to Durkheim (1956), Newman

(1951), Rousseau (1967) and Goodlad (1979) students should

141
receive the following elements from education: knowledge,
skills, self-esteem, extrinsic and intrinsic rewards,
enjoyment, attention, challenge, and.preparation for life and
work.

It is a norm that low achievers and their teachers are
equals. It is also a norm that low achievers are free to
assess their education in terms of marketability. It will be
argued that low achievers and their teachers reduce education
to marketability. It will also be argued that low achievers
assess their education’s worth in terms of marketability, and

that they receive little marketability.

Knowledge

The first element that students should receive from
education is knowledge. Durkheim (1956) termed knowledge the
"fundamental prerequisite for efficacious action" (p. 22). He
stated that "through scientific inquiry, knowledge is
acquired, which is then applied in practice" (p. 22). Newman
(1951) , extended this concept to include three forms of
knowledge: (1) "useful" knowledge, (2) "liberal" knowledge,
and (3) "religious" knowledge. Newman maintained that the
knowledge which has only its possession as the end reward is
liberal knowledge. Newman continued that liberal knowledge is
:not.inferior to useful knowledge. Rather, liberal knowledge is
"the distinct class of the Useful" (p. 935). Newman concluded

that liberal knowledge "is desirable, though nothing come of

th
th.

Hing

YIvias

142
it, as being of itself a treasure, and a sufficient
remuneration of years of labour" (p. 936).

Goodlad (1979) described gaining knowledge as
accumulating a general fund of knowledge. He included
information and concepts in mathematics, literature, natural
science, and social science. He stated that civilization has
become complex and that individuals have to rely on their
rational abilities. The consistent theme across the referent
philosophers is that all knowledge is worth possessing. Useful
knowledge benefits the individual in marketability. Liberal
knowledge benefits the individual philosophically.

However, low achievers did not value the notion of
liberal knowledge. The knowledge which the low achievers
valued was that which had immediate application to daily life
or contributed to a career--useful knowledge or marketability.
Troy stated that most of the knowledge was not useful.

Sometimes you don’ t need what you
learn. Sometimes you get good
information. Like if we’re learning how
to do interviews that’s fun. I can always
use that. Mostly, reading is what helps
me. I’ll always need to know how to read
instructions. Most of what I learn isn’t
useful.

Low'achievers did.not reject all knowledge received, only
that which was not useful in a market economy. George stated
that "for English, all we do is read poems. We don’t learn
much. I don’t think it’s valuable for now or even in later

life--I won’t ever use it." In fact, what George diminished

was the value of liberal knowledge. Frederick stated that

143
"math classes are going to help me, but I don’t see how
biology will help me much." Evangelina concurred and added
that mathematics could be used on a daily basis.
The general math class has been

pretty useful for me...I learn a lot of

things that I need to know how to do.

Like when I’m shopping I know if

someone’s giving me the correct change.

Or if something is on sale, I can figure

out the percentage of the discount.

Felicity stated that she received useful knowledge in
senior life skills because "We learn about checking, and
interviewing." Brenda also stated that senior life skills was
useful because she learned "how to fill out applications, how
to do a lot of the things that I didn’t know before. For a job
interviews we had an Army sergeant come in." Brad added that
in senior life skills he learned "how to get a job, how to
keep track of our money." In each response the underlying
theme was consistent. Low achievers perceived that classes
which offered useful knowledge were valuable. Low achievers
wanted knowledge which they would use in their daily life, to
obtain and keep their job. However, low achievers did not look
very far into the future.

Teachers’ and low achievers’ perceptions coincided.
Teachers stated that low achievers did not need the same
knowledge as college-bound students. Therefore, teachers
provided low achievers with knowledge that could be used in

everyday life. Regarding knowledge, Mrs. Copucha stated,

I try to structure the information
so that it’s complex enough to challenge,

1:!
re
an:
tee
StL‘
eng

dif

144
but not overwhelm. For a lot of low
achievers this class is exactly what they
need. They won’t attend college or
universities, so what they need are daily
skills.

The knowledge to which Mrs. Copucha referred as daily
skills included learning to cope with family conflicts and
child care. Low achievers and their teachers did not negate
the value of having an education. Rather, they indicated that
the knowledge should be useful in the job market. Mr. Howard
realized the low achievers’ dilemma and stated that he hoped
to provide knowledge that low achievers needed to function in
society. He responded,

I don’t think that they feel that
they receive much. What I hope they
receive is enough skills to interact in
society when someone talks with them
about someone, some place, or some
political activity.

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions. During English 10, the class was
reading a short story about an ex—actor, who awoke one morning
and discovered that his name was in the obituary section. The
teacher sat at his desk and read his personal mail, as the
students read the story out loud. The teacher concurrently
engaged students in a discussion of their existence making a

difference in someone’s life.

Teacher: Has it made a difference that
any of you have lived?

Student: No.

Teacher: It has made a difference that
Alan has lived. He has brought happiness

145

to many lonely women’s lives (The class
laughed).

Student: (Alan) I’ve saved animals and
fed them with eye droppers.

Teacher: So it makes a difference that
you have lived.

Teacher: It makes a difference that I’m a

teacher. Well, maybe not much in

literature, but in psychology. Literature

isn’t going to change society...It won’t

change your life. I don’t think I’ll give

you much in here.
Mr. Floh demeaned the value of literature. In fact, what Mr.
Floh reduced was what Newman’s referred to as liberal
knowledge--the value of which should be its possession.
Liberal knowledge is not useful in a market economy. As such,
the teacher’s assumption was that students did not receive
much from his literature class.

Low achievers and their teachers reduced the potential

knowledge from liberal and useful to merely useful knowledge.

There was no mention of liberal knowledge by either low

achievers or their teachers.

Skills

The second element that students should receive from
education is skills. Durkheim (1957) said that students should
develop a set of skills which would enable them to pursue a
life-long education. Newman (1951) stated that students should
develop a philosophical habit. A philosophical habit means to
enjoy learning for its own end. Students should. derive

enjoyment from their education. As such, possessing skills

146
would allow students to use their existing useful and liberal
knowledge to expand their current skills. In addition, the
skills which students received should have potential use for
their daily lives and for their future occupation. These
skills would give students the potential to expand knowledge
through out their lives.

Goodlad (1979) also addressed skills. He stated that in
a technical civilization, an individual’s ability to
participate in society is contingent upon mastering
fundamental processes. He stated, that language and
mathematical literacy enable individuals to apply and use
basic skills. Individuals who lack basic skills are limited in
their ability to function effectively. The consistent theme
across the referent philosophers is that skills should be
useful to pursue both employment and life-long learning.

However, low achievers and their teachers acknowledged
skills only for marketability. George stated that "At career
center I develop skills that I’ll use. But here at the high
school, I don’t develop any skill that would make me
marketable."

Other respondents stated that they received useful skills
in the senior life skills class. These skills included
maintaining checking accounts, interviewing and budgeting.
These skills were valuable because low achievers would use
them. In addition, low’ achievers said that English and

mathematics offered valuable skills. However, students stated

147
that they did not need to know mathematics beyond addition,
subtraction, division, and multiplication. Doug replied that
he did not need to know English beyond reading instructions.
He said,
I sure don’t see how I’ll use what

I’m learning in general science. I want

to be a police officer--how is knowledge

of wave lengths going to help me? No, I

don’t think that beyond some basics from

other classes like math and English that

I get much. I guess for students who are

going on to college, they need this

stuff, but not me.
Evangelina said that the skills she received from her classes
were social. She stated that she learns "how to work with
students. We have to have good social skills, so the teacher,
Mr. Jones, makes us work in groups."

Low achievers had specific career plans and they wanted
their education to make them marketable for their chosen
profession. Claudia added that she learns "to read, we get our
basic math, but we don’t really get much that’s going to help
me for a ndlitary career." Troy agreed that reading was a
useful skill but that "other than reading I don’t develop
skills-~I just put in my time." Alicia concurred that reading
was a useful skill. She stated "I get reading skills. I guess
that I don’t get a lot out of general science that I’ll
use...I feel like--duh--what will I use this for?" Patricio
added that mathematics was useful because,

I can use what I learn in general
math when I’m police officer. Like we’re

studying square centimeters, well I could
use the calculations to determine the

148
surface area of a set of tracks, to
compare a set of track to a set of tires
to see if they’re the same.

Felicity replied.that "in senior life skills‘we learn how
to balance checkbooks, make investments...and we learned how
to interview for jobs." Brad concurred that senior life skills
provided "most of what I need to know once I graduate. We
learn about checkbooks and balancing, interviews." Brenda
agreed that "checkbooks and balancing...helped me a lot,
because I want to be a retail store teller...I want to do all
that stuff, so I need to know it."

Teachers shared the low achievers’ perceptions regarding
skills. Mr. Howard stated that "the skills that they receive
are those that I feel that they’re going to use for the rest
of their lives." Mr. Jones, the general mathematics teacher,
elaborated,

...what we’re trying to work on
right now is social skills--cooperative
learning. I just started doing that last
year in my math classes. We give them
information on how to work together. We
try to develop their social skills--how
to get along with each other.
Mrs. Copucha stated that low achievers are knowledgeable with
regard to daily life skills. As such, it is difficult to tell
low achievers how to handle daily life situations for which
they believe they are already prepared. She said,
We do things that they can do right
here in class. They learn to discuss
issues that will confront them. It’s hard
to sit here and tell them, no that’s

wrong, you can’t discipline a child that
way, or you can’t speak to a child that

149

way. As long as they respond in a common
sense way, their answers are correct.

Mrs. Copucha’s statement was indicative of the whole process.
Teachers reduced skills to a commodity that low achievers
exchanged for an entry level job. By this reduction, Mrs.
Copucha elevated the low achievers’ status to her own level.
As such, low achievers and their teachers had equal status.

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions. During general mathematics, the
teacher had the students engaged in an exercise creating
polygons. He was using an overhead projector. Each student had
a set of pflastic figures (tangrams). The teacher gave the
students a handout with various polygons. The assignment was
to replicate these polygons using the tangrams. The teacher
asked volunteers to use the overhead projector and demonstrate
how to reconstruct each polygon.

Teacher: Who’s next? (Frank went back to
the overhead projector).

Terry: Frank’s back.

Candi: Frank, you’re such a queer. (Frank
completed #4 and smiled).

Candi: Good job, Frank. (Candi and Terry
copied down Frank’s example).

Teacher: Who wants to be next? (Patricio
went back to the overhead projector. He
completed #5, showed the teacher and
turned off the overhead projector).

Candi: Don’t shut it off--I don’t have it
copied down, you queer! (Patricio turned
the overhead projector back on).

150
Candi: Right, when am I going to need
this? Okay, I’ve got it--I’ll walk into
an interview and they’ll say to me, build
me a polygon before I hire you--NOT!!!

Candi used sarcasm, and the currently popular "NOT!!!"
from the movie Wayne’s World to express her view that knowing
how to create polygons was not useful. Knowing how to create
polygons is not useful because Candi will never use polygons
to obtain a job. Low achievers desired only those skills which
were useful as a commodity to make themselves marketable.

Low achievers and their teachers reduced skills from
being useful in marketability and in life-long learning to
pursuing skills only for an entry level job. Low achievers
desired only useful or marketable skills. Low achievers and
teachers did not distinguish knowledge from skill. There is no

notion of low achievers using their skills to continue

attaining useful and liberal knowledge after graduation.

Self-esteem

The third element that students should receive from
education is self-esteem. Durkheim (1956) stated that students
should develop self-esteem and become independent, autonomous
human beings via their education. Students should free
themselves from the being which existed as a very nearly
tabula rasa at birth. As such, students should derive self-
esteem via attaining control over the self. He continued that

students should make a commitment to a greater cause than love

151
of self. The commitment to education should be a life-long
development of the self.

Durkheim (1956) stated that education teaches students to
contain their natural egoism--to subordinate themselves to
higher ends. He continued.that students should learn to submit
their desires to the control of their will. Students should
confine their desires within proper limits. He concluded that
the child must exercise strong self-control. Self-esteem is
the attitude of a will that accepts rules.

Rousseau (1967) had a similar conception of self-esteem.
He stated that stated that "amour de soi (love of self) is
always good and, in its purest state, quite spontaneous
because it expresses the real essence of human existence. It
is an absolute feeling or passion which serves as the source
of all genuinely natural impulses and emotions" (p. 220).
Rousseau concluded that all passions are. good when the
individual controls them. All passions are bad when they
control the individual.

Goodlad (1979) added that self-esteem is the individual’s
self-concept. Self-esteem is a referent point for the
student’s activities. Individuals should develop personal
goals and ambitions via their self-concept as a feedback
mechanism. Goodlad added that no one has found a direct way to
teach a positive self-concept. He concluded that schools can
provide a positive environment. The consistent theme across

the referent philosophers is that self-esteem is the autonomy

152
gained by controlling the self. Self-esteem cannot be taught--
it must be intrinsically derived.

However, low achievers seek self-esteem via their
teachers’ attention and compliments. Brenda stated that "I
have family living, that has a lot to do with it. . .If I’m down
one time about a problem at home, we talk a lot about the
family...it helps me out a lot to talk about it."

Doug derived self-esteem by being "able to help each
other--it makes me feel good." Felicity stated that she
received self-esteem "when my teachers tell me that I’m doing
a good job." Andy agreed that self-esteem was derived when
"teachers tell me that I’m doing well...that makes me feel
good."

Teachers stated that low achievers received self-esteem
via positive, non-punitive comments. Ms. Selenski responded,

I think they get self-esteem from
the poetry notebook we do in the last six
weeks. Their books are displayed. When
they get a good grade, they feel good.
Also, I try to hone in on each student
and say something personal about their
poetry. Also we go through in class
discussions and quizzes I try to give
lots of positive comments. I tell them
’good job-—nice answer’.

Mr. Floh added,

...group work is where they get the
greatest amount of self-esteem. They’ll
be part of the group--the group receives
the same grade for all in the group.
Everyone gets an equal grade. Then,
there’s the social process of being in a
group. They are part of a group--the
group brings them in. If they were to
have performed the activity alone, they

153

might not have performed as well as with
the group if they even did the work at
all.

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions regarding self-esteem. During
English 11, Ms. Selenski used a quiz to prompt an in-class
discussion regarding Lord of the Flies.

Ms. Selenski: Okay, what I want you to do
is to read the question. Then tell us if
it’s true or false. After you tell us
true or false, tell us why. Let’s begin
with the last row to my left.

Student #2: Number 2. Piggy assures Ralph
that he will eventually return to ’Where
you came from’. True?

Ms. Selenski: Is that true, Farrel?
Student #2: No.

Ms. Selenski: Okay, then why is it false?
What occurs is that the boys pass over
the mountain, and there is a prophesy by
Simon that Ralph will go home. Good
answer.

Student #1: Good answer.

Student #3: Number 3. While the group is
pig hunting, they decide to interrupt
their activities with a hunt for the
beast. True.

Ms. Selenski: Why' is ‘this one false,
Brian?

Ms. Selenski: It’s the other way around.
Exactly. What were they hunting for? They
were hunting for the beast. Good answer.

Student #1: Good answer, Brian.

Student #4: Number 4. Ralph daydreams
about his comfortable childhood.

Ms. Selenski: Excuse me I can’t hear.

154

Student #4: True.

Ms. Selenski: Good. This on page 104. I
think his memories were very comfortable.
He thinks about the days at home, eating
Corn Flakes. I think that’s very
comfortable. Good answer.

Student #1: Good answer.

Low achievers obtained self-esteem when the teachers gave
them attention. The observation illustrates why low achievers
did not believe they received self-esteem via compliments. In
each instance, the teacher gave the answer herself. She
consistently directed the praise for her own good answer to
students. The students were cognizant of this phenomenon.
Students prodded each other each time the teacher told them
"good answer."

Self-esteem was reduced from autonomy to dependence on
teachers’ attention. Low achievers sought self-esteem through

extrinsic means. This phenomenon was the antithesis to the

philosophers’ reflections.

Extrinsic Reward

The fourth element that students should receive from
education is extrinsic rewards. According to Newman (1951),
students should receive extrinsic reward via a liberal
education. Possessing a liberal education has as a reward its
own end.

Goodlad (1979) stated. that the extrinsic reward. of
education is its possession. Education should be extrinsically

motivating. Goodlad. added 'that. this extrinsic :motivation

155
includes developing a positive attitude toward learning.
Goodlad stated. that it should. be considered normal for
individuals to pursue education for their entire life. The
consistent theme across the referent philosophers is that both
liberal and useful education are their own extrinsic rewards.

However, low achievers did not see education as valuable
for its own sake. Therefore, low achievers did not receive
much extrinsic reward. Low achievers stated that grades and
extra credit might possibly be considered a reward, but their
grades were not good. Low achievers considered free time and
teacher compliments as extrinsic rewards. Claudia stated "the
grades I guess would be a reward, or if teachers would write
back to us on assignments. That doesn’t happen. You’ve seen
what we do, we read and take quizzes." Frederick agreed that
"The only external reward I see is maybe the grades. I guess
if the grade is low it’s not very rewarding."

Evangelina extended extrinsic reward to include "My
parents telling me that I’ve done a nice job. I think it’s
rewarding to be in groups and help each other." Troy extended
the extrinsic reward to having "a good news letter sent home
by Mr. Floh. He wrote a letter that says I’m doing better."
According to Alicia "going to class really isn’t rewarding. I
guess the most rewarding part of class is being with my
friends."

Extrinsic rewards were contingent upon low achievers’

compliance. Doug stated that "When we’re good, he’ll let us

 

fr
be:
In
but

the

156
talk. But when the kids are bad, we get extra work, or less
time to work. We’re allowed to talk at the end of class."
Andy’s response was that teachers "give us...extra credit."
Felicity’s answer encompassed many of the extrinsic rewards
which have already been stated. She responded,
. . .my grades are a reward. But my

grades aren’t very good. I like it when

they give me a compliment. Sometimes they

give us free time to sit and talk with

our friends or they give us time to work

on our homework in class.

Teachers also believed that students’ extrinsic rewards
came from teachers’ attention. Teachers noted that with 30
students, it was difficult to get around to each student. Mr.
Jones added that the rewards were,

Probably not the type of rewards
that they would expect. I think we as
teachers, try to develop rewards that we
think are important to high achievers,
and these low achievers are looking for
something else. Most teachers are
probably too structured to give them the
rewards that they want, like individual
attention.

Mr. Howard said that there was little reward to be had
from classes. He stated "I’m not so sure sitting in classes
bored is in any way rewarding. These kids can get good grades.
In fact, I think they are perfectly capable of getting 4.0,
but.I can’t give it--nothing for nothing." Mr. Hansen extended
the extrinsic reward of education to,

...compliments, I try to say things
to them like nice job, but with 30 kids

in a room, it’s hard to contact all of
them, especially when you’re trying to

157

discipline some of them. You tend to let
the low achievers slide.

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions. During English 10, Mr. Floh
stated,

It makes a difference that I’m a
teacher. Well, maybe not much in
literature, but in psychology. Literature
isn’t going to change society...It won’t
change your life. I don’t think I’ll give
you much in here.

Both liberal and useful education should be the extrinsic
rewards which low achievers receive. However, Mr. Floh
diminished the value of liberal education. His comment is
indicative of low achievers’ and their teachers’ whole
perspective of education. Low achievers and their teachers
misinterpreted education’ 5 extrinsic reward as being those
rewards which others could give.

Low achievers and their teachers reduced extrinsic
rewards from possessing an education, liberal and useful, to
receiving free time, little homework, teachers’ compliments
and a passing grade. Respondents did not acknowledge that
possessing an education is a reward in itself. Low achievers

and their teachers did not differentiate between extrinsic

reward and intrinsic reward.

Intrinsic Reward

The fifth element that students should receive from
education is intrinsic reward. According to Newman (1951)

students should develop a sense of self-gratification from

158
education. The reward of education should become self-
motivating--intrinsic. The internal reward coupled with
education should instill a desire for more learning.

Durkheim (1956) added. that. the intrinsic reward of
education is the freedom associated with.becoming socialized.
Students should commit themselves to a purpose higher in life
than self-love. The intrinsic reward is having become a
socialized being. Durkheim added that this intrinsic
motivation is at the same time the foundation for students’
self-esteem.

Goodlad (1979) stated that education is a process of the
student becoming. He stated that the aim of education is to
have this process flourish. The process takes place in the
individual and the development has individual significance.
Goodlad stated that education should have rich meaning and
create desire to continue growing.

Goodlad stated that society is complex and not absolute.
That society is not absolute, places demands on students. Our
society is specialized. Therefore, there is no common body of
informationwwhich all students can learn past basic skills and
normative values. The only way to meet future demands is to
develop people who assume responsibility for their needs, via
developing intrinsic motivation. The consistent theme across
the referent philosophers is that education instills a sense
of intrinsic reward. Education becomes life-long, self-

motivating and thus intrinsically rewarding.

159

However, low achievers did not seek an education which
would contribute to their self-esteem and autonomy. Low
achievers sought praise as a reward. Low achievers stated that
classes were not rewarding. Doug stated that "teachers don’t
say much about papers. I’ll show my work to my friends and
they tell me good job...I don’t get much of internal reward
from classes." Frederick added that classes are merely
tolerated. He stated that "It’s just that I have to put in the
time. Some teachers like Mr. Floh say, ’Good job’. But look at
Mr. Howard, he gives out candy bars for getting good grades--I
don’t even like candy."

Alicia offered an interesting clarification. According to
her, low achievers understand the cost and reward of
education. She stated that "I don’t think.that.my classes give
a lot of internal reward. It’s like I get out of it what I put
into it. So, maybe the more effort I would put in the more
reward I’d get."

Low achievers sought teachers’ recognition as intrinsic
reward. Betty stated that "The teachers tell you good job."
Felicity agreed and added that "It makes me feel good when I
do well and my teachers say something about it." Brad also
stated that he receives intrinsic reward when "Mr.
Jones...tells me I’m doing a good job."

Teachers stated that low achievers did not receive much
intrinsic reward. Attending classes was the way to get a

diploma--the price the low achievers had to pay in order to

160
graduate. Mr. Hansen stated "I don’t think that they get a
lot. . .most of them perceive the work as drudgery. . .there is no
reward there. The attitude is that we’ve gotta do this."
However, Ms. Selenski surmised that "a lot of the reward comes
from the strokes I give to them as we have discussions. I tell
them good job or good answer." Mr. Floh added that if low
achievers,
...don’t see a relationship between

what they study and what they want to do,

I guess it’s hard to be internally

motivated. If the internal motivation

isn’t there, there certainly won’t be any

internal reward.

Mrs. Copucha concluded that "The reward should be self-
motivation. Unfortunately they don’t seem to have much." Mr.
Howard agreed that "the reward has to come from the student’s
interest and.motivation. If they don’t see value in what we’re
doing, they don’t get much."

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions regarding intrinsic reward. During
government, the students completed an in-class quiz. The
students exchanged and corrected each other’s quizzes. The
teacher recorded the grades. Mr. Howard referred to 100% on
quizzes as refrigerator quizzes. As he called the students to
retrieve their quiz he stated,

Here’s the deal—-if you missed less
than 21 or less, you aren’t required to
take it over. Remember, you have to get a
70, or I won’t pass you. If you had one
of those zero wrong refrigerator quizzes-

-free trip to the candy shop. (The
teacher has an in-school candy shop).

161
This morning we had a young lady in 2nd
hour government get a 1 wrong quiz. She’s
taking over next week to refrigerate the
quiz, and get her trip to the candy shop.
I lost 8 candy bars this morning in 2nd
hour to refrigerator quizzes.
Low achievers and their teachers misinterpreted intrinsic
reward with the reward which others could provide.
Low achievers and their teachers reduced intrinsic
rewards to the compliments derived from their relationships.
Low achievers and their teachers did not acknowledge that the

intrinsic reward should be the initiative to seek continued

education.

Enjgynent

The sixth element that students should receive from
education is enjoyment. According to Newman (1951), students
should receive enjoyment from education as its own end.
Students should desire more education which enables them to be
independent thinkers.

Goodlad (1979) stated that enjoyment is needed within
society because an individual will spend a large portion of
his time working. He continued that an individual’s
satisfaction would be related to satisfaction with his job.
Goodlad stated that to make an wise career decision, students
need to ‘know' their' aptitudes and interests relative to
careers. Goodlad asserted that this included but is not
limited to marketable skills and specialized knowledge. The

consistent theme across the referent philosophers is that

162
enjoyment is to be derived through possessing an education and
a suitable career.

However, students interpreted enjoyment as being
entertained and avoiding boredom. Low achievers stated that
teachers were not boring when they joked around and made the
class fun. George responded "The only thing I like about
classes are the people in them...it’s that I like going to
school to be with my friends...teachers joke around with us,
that’s fun." Alicia stated that there was enjoyment to be had
when "We get to work in groups. I don’t enjoy general science
as much because we can’t work in groups. That makes it
boring." In fact, what Alicia did not add was that working in
groups made classes social-~not academic.

Andy also stated that he enjoyed classes "when we have
free time...he gives us time to talk with my friends." Betty
added that "the only fun I get is I can sit and talk anytime
I want as long as I don’t interrupt the teacher." Troy
extended enjoyment to teachers allowing low'achievers to "just
talk and joke around all hour." Frederick enjoyed education
that.he could use. He stated that he received.useful education
in "the senior life skills class...The other classes give us
a lot of material that I’m not going to use."

Teachers’ and low achievers perceptions were parallel.
Teachers also avoided boredom. Ms. Selenski stated "I try to
make class fun. We do a lot of group work...I like to have fun

in class." Mr. Floh also stated that "The enjoyment is

163
definitely social. They (low achievers) enjoy being with their
friends and in their groups." Mr. Hansen explicitly extended
enjoyment to entertainment. He responded,

I use the theory with a lot of these
kids that they want to be entertained. If
you can show them a movie, or demonstrate
something, they may not get an awful lot
of learning out of it, but it keeps them
quiet, and they appear to be learning
something. So, the class is such that
it’s tolerable for everybody in there.

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions regarding enjoyment. As the
students entered the child development classroom, they talked
to the teacher about having an easy day. Tammy was a low
achiever. The researcher did not know the other two students.

Sally: Can we walk down to the dairy
freeze?

Tammy: We already tried that deal--she
can leave campus but we can’t so she
can’t take us for ice cream.

Alice: Can we do something fun today?

Teacher: Okay, easy’ day. Today, I’ve
brought you a video--Adam. It’s about a
little boy who gets kidnapped. Thursday,
we’ll finish seeing Adam (Title of the
video). Then, on Friday, I’ll bring in
the video tape of my wedding.

Tammy: Can we make cookies, please?
Teacher: Yeah, and we’ll make cookies.
I’ll bring everything but the chocolate
chips--you have to bring the chocolate
chips.

Alice: Did you rent this?

Teacher: No, it came from the ISD. (The
teacher leaves the classroom carrying a

164

stack of papers. The students sit and
watch the video).

When the teacher returned, she combined correcting tests with
watching the video. Low achievers and their teachers
interpreted enjoyment as diversion and reduced education to
obtaining diversion.

Low achievers and their teachers reduced enjoyment to
being amused and pursuing social relationships. Low achievers
and their teachers did not associate liberal or ‘useful

education with enjoyment.

Attention

The seventh element that students should receive from
education is attention. Durkheim (1956) noted that education
should develop in each individual all the perfection of which
he is capable. He stated that making a person is the end of
education. Durkheim continued that to educate is to socialize.
Therefore, it is possible to individualize while socializing.
He maintained that students should receive attention that
would meet their needs.

Rousseau (1967) also believed that attention should be
individualized. He stressed the importance of a progressive
education. He stated that each stage must be adapted to the
individual’s developing needs and follow "the natural progress
of the human heart" (p. 220).

Regarding attention, Goodlad (1979) said that humankind’s

most intriguing characteristic is that a single species can

165

vary. He noted that individuals have varying interests, ways
of thinking and ways of responding. Goodlad stated that the
good teachers have a goal. However, the goal is not that a
particular objectives are attained. Rather, the individual
should derive meaning from the lesson. The consistent theme
across the referent philosophers is that students are
individuals. Students should receive individual academic
attention. Without this individual academic attention, the
student will not develop all the perfection of which she or he
is capable.

However, low achievers perceived attention was social--
not academic. Low achievers did not desire academic attention
and tuned out when bored. Brad stated that "In Algebra, Mr.
Jones pays attention to us. He talks with us. . .Mr. Dobson pays
attention to us. . .but he doesn’ t joke around too much."
Evangelina extended the understanding to "any attention I get
in class is because I ask for the attention." Claudia agreed
and added that "The teacher only talks to me if I raise my
hand and ask for help."

Alicia interpreted attention to being left alone except
when she sought attention. She stated "I raise my hand if I
want something. Other than that, the teachers leave me alone."
Doug agreed with this point, stating "the teachers leave me
alone. Mr. Hansen never wakes me up if I want to sleep...He

helps when we ask for help." George concurred that teachers

"1e

bug

tha.
ach.
recs
they
how

I’ll

low a
each
last

parti

their
devel

not c

with

Compl.
Seate<
to pr
H0Wev;
end 0

After

166
"let me do what I want to do. It’s like a bargain, you don’t
bug me, I won’t bug you."

Teachers stated.that.they left low achievers,alone rather
than deal with potential conflict. Teachers stated that low
achievers wanted to be left alone. Regarding the attention
received, Mr. Floh stated "they don’t wish to read, so long as
they’ll be quiet, I’ll allow them to just sight read along. So
how much attention do they get? Hey, if they’ll keep quiet,
I’ll let them become invisible."

Teachers used time at the end of the hour to talk with
low achievers. Mrs. Copucha stated "I try to pay attention to
each and every one of the students. I’ll frequently take the
last 10 minutes and talk with the students who don’t
participate and see what’s happening in their lives."

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions regarding attention. During child
development, Tammy had her head on the desk. The teacher did
not call on her.

At 2:16, Mrs. Copucha sat at Tammy’s table and talked
with her until 2:25. During this time, the other students
completed their assignments and talked quietly. Tammy was
seated across the room. Therefore, the researcher was unable
to present the dialogue between Mrs. Copucha and Tammy.
However, the researcher did confirm that the teacher used the
end of class to consult students who did not participate.

After class, the teacher approached the researcher and stated

167
that she was concerned that Tammy may have had problems at
home. The attention low achievers received was reduced from
academic attention, to attention for the low achievers’ social

and emotional needs.

C 1e

The eighth element that students should receive from
education is challenge. Newman (1951) stated that teachers
should challenge students to push beyond their basic useful
and liberal knowledge and their current skills.

Goodlad ( 1979) added that through challenge, students
would be motivated and learn to deal with new problems in
original ways. Students should learn to be flexible and
improve skills. He stated that students should be challenged
to see any one object from many different perspectives.
Through challenge, students should develop the ability to
create new and meaningful things and to appreciate other
individuals’ creations. The consistent theme across the
referent philosophers is that students should be challenged to
expand their education and their mind. Expanding education
should include the students’ liberal and useful knowledge as
well as their skills.

However, low achievers were not challenged. They stated
that classes were boring and did not relate to what they
needed to learn. Regarding challenge, Patricio stated "I
really don’t have a class that’s a challenge. Mr. Jones’s

class is challenging only in that you have use proofs to

168

demonstrate something. Opinion doesn’t mean anything." Tammy
stated "I don’t think the class is challenging--I could.get an
’A’ if I tried harder. If you want a good grade you just have
to do your work and pay attention." Betty added that classes
"are extremely easy. Do the minimum and you’ll pass."
Frederick responded that the reason classes were not
challenging was that "teachers don’t prepare for
classes...they just use last year’s lesson plans. The classes
aren’t hard--if you just attend, you’ll pass."

Claudia stated "we read and take a true false quiz.
That’s not challenging--that’s boring." Troy clarified that
"When it’s hard it’s that I haven’t really studied. He goes
over everything that’s gonna be on the test, then you study
that material." Doug attributed the lack of challenge to "We
learn usually about 5 words a day. What makes it challenging
is that it’s boring."

When teachers were asked about challenge, Mr. Jones
stated that classes "can be challenging. I think we have to
get away from the teaching just basic skills. They want the
challenge of classes, but they want it on their terms." Mr.
Howard extended challenge to students challenging themselves.
He stated "I don’t think that they feel challenged because
they don’t challenge themselves. They sit content with a ’C’
instead.of pushing themselves for an ’A’." Ms. Selenski stated

that low achievers "dropped out cognitively. These kids don’t

ma

th

90

on

a pg
maps

to I

need

169
care if the class is a challenge or not. They just want to
make it through with as little pain as possible."

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions regarding challenge. During
government, the teacher set forth his expectations for effort
on term papers.

Teacher: Last issue to discuss today, is
there will be vocabulary and map quizzes
in here. You must receive at least a 70%
on these or you do not graduate.
Teacher: You have to know these things to
be successful and to be able to get jobs.
Make sure you study for them. I give you
five chances to take these tests, you
have to get at least a 70.

Teacher: Okay, we’re about at the end of
the hour. You can have the rest of the
hour to talk.

Mr. Howard established the minimum challenge to receive
a passing grade. The teacher targeted expectations of world
maps and political vocabulary at the minimal acceptable level
to receive a passing grade--70 percent.

In addition, the teacher’s statement that the students
needed to "know these things to be successful and to be able
to get jobs," legitimated the perception that minimal
education is sufficient for marketability. Marketable is the
minimum required to obtain an entry level job. As such,
without at least 70 percent, students would not be marketable.

The challenge was further reduced by allowing students to

repeat the identical quiz five times.

educ
achi
shOL

thei

EEEE

educ
stat
stat
atta
shou

them

shou
Symb
into
soci
Soci.
0f u
of t:
<<Su:
must
assuH
is t}

life

170
Low achievers and their teachers reduced the challenge of
education to passing easy classes with minimal grades. Low
achievers and their teachers did not acknowledge that students
should be challenged to further expand their education and

their minds.

Preparnrlon for Life and Work

The ninth element that students should receive from
education is preparation for life and work. Newman (1951)
stated that there should be preparation for life and work. He
stated. that students receive this preparation ‘via their
attaining an education. The education which students receive
should prepare them not only for’work, but also should prepare
them to enjoy a liberal education.

Durkheim (1956) stated that preparation for life and*work
should be the whole of education. Social preparedness is
symbolized by graduation. The student has been transformed
into a fully human.being. As such, the student can work within
society’s confines. Durkheim said that education varies across
social class and locale. The education of the city is not that
of the country. The education of the middle class is not that
of the workers. He stated that each occupation, is an area
<<sui generis>> which requires particular knowledge. Education
must prepare the student for the role that she or he will
assume. The consistent theme across the referent philosophers
is that education should prepare students for work, social

life and life-long learning.

p1
ma
so
th
in

m01

reat
it c
adde
seni
futu

we n

for

teac

and

lear
that
"111*

REed

171

However, low achievers and their teachers regarded
preparation for life and work as making low achievers
marketable. Low achievers stated that the preparation was
social. George responded "I don’t think the classes here at
the high school prepare me for a job. The classes here help me
in the sense that it teaches me to always be prepared. It’s
more social preparation, but not in so far as skills."

Low achievers wanted a marketable education. Alicia
stated "Math and English prepare me for my future job because
I’ll use the knowledge that I’m gaining. We use math and
reading every single.day. Science--I don’t think I’ll ever use
it on my job. Some people will use it, but not me." Felicity
added that education should be immediately useful and that "in
senior life skills we learn things that we can use in the
future. In fact, I can use it right now. These are the things
we need to know for life."

Tammy responded that.what she learned.did.not.prepare her
for life and work because "I want to be an elementary school
teacher. . .my classes don’t prepare me. . .we learn about babies-
-I want to teach lst through 5th grades." Frederick concurred
and stated "I plan to>go into the Army, but I don’t think I’ve
learned much here that will prepare me." Claudia also stated
that her education does not prepare her "to go into the
military...I have most of the skills that I already

need...what we do isn’t going to prepare me for work." Doug

172
also responded was that the education he received "doesn’t
help me for becoming a police officer."

There were low achievers who valued what they learned.
Evangelina responded,

I think.the math and English classes

definitely prepare me. I’ll have to work

with other people. I have to have my

number skills--how to do calculations.

Also, English helps me with developing

reading skills. These are things that

I’ll use for the rest of my life.
Troy agreed that reading was valuable because "I want to be
work in a body shop. It prepares me by teaching me to read
instructions--like how to put on a certain part, or the
specific way to spray a certain kind of paint." Brad added to
this that "senior life skills helps me learn how to look for
a job, how to act in interviews, how to keep my job, and use
my money wisely." According to Patricio "general math is
preparing me, but that’s all. The other classes don’t help me
for criminal justice."

Mapi’s perception was not that the education she received
was valuable or not valuable. Mapi merely desired a high
school diploma. Mapi stated that "when I graduate I have a
diploma, and with a diploma I have a better chance of getting
a job." She did not see value in the education. Rather, she
found value in the diploma which would make her more
marketable.

Teachers echoed the low achievers’ perceptions. Ms.

Selenski stated that "The writing is definitely preparing

the:
thei

love

gett
That
for

repl

devej

equaal
asseS
achie-
knowl.
Neith¢
Of a f

aSpect

173
them. I don’t think that they feel that the reading improves
their skills in any way. I don’t think these kids develop a
love of learning."

Mrs. Copucha responded that "It’s more that they’re
getting prepared for life. Responsibility has to be learned.
That’s number one." Mr; Howard added.that class "prepares them
for social life not merely work life." However, Mr. Hansen
replied,

If they go at the rate that most are
going, I don’t think that they’re going
to get an awful lot, because they’re not
really trying very hard, and that is
going to show up when they apply for
work. It’s not a lack of ability, it’s a
lack of effort.

Preparation for life and work was reduced from the full
development of the self to acquiring the minimum proficiency
to attain a diploma and thus be marketable. Low achievers and
their teachers did not acknowledge any other purpose for
education.

Segtion Four: Summary

It is a norm that low achievers and their teachers are
equals. It is also a norm that low achievers are free to
assess their education in terms of marketability. Both low
achievers and their ‘teachers reduce education to ‘useful
knowledge and the minimum skills needed to be marketable.
Neither low achievers nor their teachers acknowledge the worth

of a full socialization via education, nor education’s liberal

aspects.

enj
aca
edu
wel
con‘

thrc

maki
the}
mark
use

and

math
desc

make

TEac]
tEac}

litt]

174

Neither low achievers nor their teachers acknowledge that
enjoyment is developing the self through serious and sustained
academic pursuits. There was no notion that the end of
education is be possessing liberal and useful knowledge as
well as skills. Knowledge and skills would allow students to
continue to develop their self into more fully human being
throughout their lives.

Low achievers and their teachers reduce education to
making students marketable. Low achievers do not perceive that
they receive much marketability. Classes were not void of
marketable education. Courses which have overtones for daily
use were useful--marketable. Child care, financial planning,
and checking, as well as basic language, reading and
mathematics are marketable. Low achievers and their teachers
described these skills as both necessary and sufficient to
make one marketable.

Each side of the relationship blames the other side.
Teachers say "That’s all kids want." Students say "That’s all
teachers,give." In terms.of reciprocity, low'achievers receive
little marketability.

Segtion 5: What Teachers of Low achievers Give

The researcher will use section five to present what
teachers give. According to Durkheim (1956), Newman (1951),
Rousseau (1967) and Goodlad (1979) teachers should give the

following elements to education: weekly planning, daily

 

plat

indi

redu
will
sust
away
thei
thei;
such)
them:
educe
Commi
achie
subje

minim

is we
Shoul
Shoul
which
added
of Coy

influ<

175
planning, correcting papers and tests, lectures, monitoring,
individual help to students, and free time.

It will be argued that low achievers and their teachers
reduce what teachers give to education to the lowest level. It
will be argued that teachers do not give a serious and
sustained commitment to academic pursuits. Teachers bargained
away their natural ascendancy over students. Low'achievers are
their teachers’ equals--they know as much as, or more than
their teachers about what is needed for an entry level job. As
such, teachers are unable to compel students to submit
themselves to a greater than a minimal commitment to
education. Lastly, it will be argued that this minimal
commitment is beneficial to teachers as well as to the low
achievers. Neither low achievers nor their teachers are
subjected to excessive out of school costs, because what

minimal commitment is required, is completed during classes.

Weekly Planning

The first element that teachers should give to education
is weekly planning. According to Durkheim (1967), teachers
should know their students’ interests and needs. Teachers
should complete sufficient planning to provide an education
which is useful for daily life and employment. Goodlad (1979)
added that teachers should develop and use a guiding framework
of concepts, principles, and.methods that appear'tijositively

influence learning. The consistent theme across the referent

ar

rat

tim

Han;

wor]
eXpe
deci
They
too]
They
Can't

Works

Updat;

1eSSor

176
philosophers is that teachers should plan classes which
challenge students.

However, teachers did little weekly planning. Teachers
merely decided which worksheets to use for the upcoming week,
and which pages to read. According to Frederick,

I don’t think the teachers plan. I
mean look at Mr. Howard--his notes are
old. You can look at the paper and see
that he uses them from year to year. Not
only that, he didn’t even know the name
of our Lt. Governor--and he’s teaching
Government!

Low achievers explained that teachers used worksheets
rather than conduct experiments because experiments were too
time consuming. According to Doug "I don’t think he (Mr.
Hansen) puts in a lot of planning. He’s gotta cut down on the
worksheets. But they’re easy to make--easier than
experiments." Evangelina responded that teachers "have to
decide what worksheet to give us. They have to make copies.
They have to plan a lecture. But, I don’t think that it takes
too:much.time." Claudia stated that teachers "don’t.plan:much.
They use the same thing over and over." Alicia responded "I
can’t see where Hansen does too much. I mean, he plans
worksheets--then he has to make copies, but that’s it."

Teachers affirmed the low achievers’ perceptions.
Teachers stated that their planning was minimal and included

updating old material. Mrs. Copucha replied "I do all of my

lesson plans on Thursday for the up coming week. Child

177
development doesn’t take a great deal of planning time. All I
have to do is update what I use." Mr. Floh commented,
I don’t do extra for the low

achieving kids. I try to plan for
activities that are open-ended
activities, that if they try they can’t
fail. You, know, make a family tree,
write an autobiography. They have to not
do the assignments and tests to not make
it through.

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions. During government, Mr. Howard sat
at his desk. He delivered a lecture about state government.
Anne was a hard-working student. Gill was a trouble maker.

Anne: Who is our Lt. Governor?

Teacher: I don’t know--it’s a lady--in
fact the past two have been ladies.
Lately, we have more females electing to
go into politics.

Anne: I think if we had a female
president we wouldn’t have as many wars.

Teacher: I think you’re right--women are
less aggressive than men.

Gill: Not some of them that I’ve dated!
Teacher: Okay. We aren’t going to vote on
this. And let’s keep this to a relevant
discussion.
The observation illustrated that the teacher did not update
his notes from previous years. The teacher did not know the
Lt. Governor’s name.
Weekly lesson planning was reduced from creating classes

which challenged students and met their individual needs, to

designing activities which filled time.

178
Warning

The second element that teachers should give to education
is daily planning. Teachers should adjust their plans to meet
the students’ progress. According to Durkheim (1956) planning
would have adjustments to fit the students’ needs. Goodlad
(1979) stated that teachers should develop weekly plans.
Teachers need to adjust those plans to meet the students’
individual needs. The consistent theme across the referent
philosophers is that teachers should modify their plans to
meet students’ needs and daily progress or lack of progress.

However, low achievers stated that their teachers’ daily
planning involved deciding during class what to do each hour.
Teachers did not do much daily lesson planning. As Doug stated
"how hard can it be to photocopy worksheets? He’s got it all
mapped out. Lecture, worksheet, free time. It’s kind of like
the Army--go in, shut up, listen, work, relax."

Low’ achievers stated. that teachers. did their' daily
planning during class, including preparing or correcting
papers and tests. According to Betty, teachers "do most of
their planning right in class. While the students do homework
in class, the teacher corrects papers and.prepares what little
they have to do." Evangelina stated teachers "get a conference
period, but they grade papers and tests here in class as we do
our work." Patricio added,

...on a daily basis, the students
work harder than the teachers. The

teacher prepares for most classes
immediately before class--I mean we know

179

it because we see it happen. I don’t feel
I owe these teacher too much.

Frederick stated,
I don’t think they plan even on a
daily basis above setting a lecture or
test. Even the tests are the same from
year to year. When we took the unit test
he told us not to write on these tests
because he reuses them from year to year-
-that’s not planning.
Troy concluded that "I don’t think teachers have to do a lot.
Like in English, we read novels. We read ’em in class--I don’t
think he has to plan at all."
Teachers concurred that they did little daily planning.
Ms. Selenski described her daily lesson planning as "Almost
none. I plan on Sunday evening in 2 to 4 hours. I can’t do
much during the week." Mr. Floh stating that his daily lesson
planning amounted to "Nothing. Just here we go--keep up. You
have to keep the kids at the top moving, or you’re going to
have trouble at the other end." Mr. Howard stated that daily
planning "is where I get most of my planning...I don’t always
have a lot to do, just when quizzes come up." It is
interesting to note that teachers prepared for quizzes in much
the same way as low achievers--just before the quiz.
Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions. During child development, the
students took a quiz. At 1:56, Mr. Floh entered the child

development class, carrying his daughter’ s beauty pageant

video. Mr. Floh handed Mrs. Copucha the video.

180

1:56, the students continued writing
their quizzes.

2:00,

Teacher: Okay, we have a surprise today.
Did you know about this tape, Anne? (The
teacher is holding the tape of Anne Floh
in a weekend beauty and talent contest.
It is the same tape that Mr. Floh showed
in English 10 this same day).

Anne: Who brought that?

Teacher: Your father.

2:02, the teacher approached the
researcher.

Teacher: (To the researcher) This is our
break. I didn’t have this video in the
lesson plan, but I want to see it--so do
the kids, so we’ll watch it.

2:25, the bell rings and the students
leave.

The observation illustrates that teachers do little daily
planning. Daily lesson planning was reduced from adjusting
weekly plans to meet students’ needs to deciding in class how

to fill each day.

Correcting Papers and Tests

The third element that teachers should give to education
is correcting papers and tests. Durkheim (1967) stated that
teachers should provide non-punitive feedback to students.
Teachers should.give sufficient feedback to students that they
understand their errors and are able to subsequently complete
assignments correctly.

Goodlad (1979) wrote that good teachers do not overuse

drill and workbooks. Teachers should involve students in

Pa;
C01
fee

iv'ro]

181
complex and compelling activities. Goodlad stated that
students receive and strengthen their knowledge and skills
through the teachers’ attentive diagnoses. The consistent
theme across the:referent.philosophers is that teachers should
provide feedback so students gain better understanding.
However, teachers did not provide feedback through
correcting papers and tests. Teachers collected assignments
which they frequently did not return to students. The papers
and tests that were returned to students had been exchanged
and corrected during class by other students. According to
Patricio,
Teachers don’t correct hardly
anything. Most of the time, students
correct each other’s papers. Like these
teachers have a planning period to
correct papers. They (teachers) correct
them in class when they correct them at
all.
Troy added,
The teachers collect a lot of
papers, but we don’t get ’em all
back...when we get the papers back they
just got marks on ’em. They don’t usually
write in the right answers or tell us why
we got it wrong. Most of the assignments
we don’t never get back--I don’t know
what they do with ’em.
Teachers did not give much commitment to correcting
papers and tests. Evangelina stated that teachers "do the
correcting right in class as we do our work...They never give

feedback.in writing. All we ever get is a red line through the

wrong answer."

Alicia stated that "of the about 15 papers we’ve turned

in, we’ve

in class.

work. Hansen does it as we do our work or as we sit and talk."

Frederick

students do. We exchange the tests andjpapers. we correct them

182

gotten back about 2 or 3. Mr. Hansen corrects that

I don’t think he ever takes his time to correct

concluded that teachers "don’t correct papers--the

in class and he records the grade." Claudia added,

The only thing the teacher corrects
is the optional essay that only about
five students answer. And, she corrects
that as we have free time or movies.
That’s what I mean that the free time is
good for the teacher too.

Mr. Howard stated that quizzes,

Mr. Floh stated that his correcting amounted to "Very little.
I don’t have tons of time for this." The amount of correcting

Ms. Selenski completed depended on how busy she was.

responded,

...are corrected in class. They put
their name on the back of the person’s
quiz and we go at it. Most of the
correcting that I have to do is the term
papers, but again, I don’t grade for
spelling, structure, etc. I grade them on
do they have a cover page, bibliography,
etc.

I try not to correct any of the
objective tests myself. I have two
seniors who do the objective for me. I do
the essay or short answer. If I’m really
swamped, I’ll tell the kids, ’I’m not
grading anything but your ideas.’ Or I’ll
say, ’Your grammar and punctuation will
be included in this grade.’ It depends on
how much time I have.

thei
PreF

quiz

183
Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions. During government, Mr. Howard
prepared the students to take a current news quiz. After the
quiz, the students corrected each others’ quizzes.

Teacher: Okay, yesterday’ you. received
your questions from the substitute. Let’s
have people in their own seats--we have
to take this quiz. Good. What I’m going
to do, is read the question to you. I
will not repeat the question during the
quiz. After the quiz, I will return to
ask if you missed any.

12:45,
Teacher: Okay, everything off your desk
tops. Number your paper 1 to 16--1 to 16.

Teacher: Okay, number 1--Perot is willing
to spend how many millions of dollars of
his own money for a campaign if he runs
as an independent candidate?

Teacher: Number 2--This month marks the
80th anniversary of what historic event?

Teacher: Number 3--What famous South
African couple recently announced the end
of their 34 year marriage?"

Teacher: Number 4--Why can a horse run
only once in the Kentucky Derby?

Teacher: Number 5--Who is in charge of
running the Bush/Quayle campaign for re-
election?

Teacher: Number 6--How much is the cash
prize of winning the Pulitzer Prize?

Teacher: Number 7--The space shuttle
which was recently tested will replace
which shuttle?

Teacher: Number 8--The world’s largest
fungus was recently discovered. It is
located on the borders of what two
states?

184

Teacher: Number 9--Who was the multi-
millionaire owner of the chain of stores
who recently died?

Teacher: Number 10--A horse which wins
the three major races including this
weekend’s upcoming Kentucky Derby is said
to have won what?

Teacher: Number 11--What large
corporation recently threatened to fire
and replace approximately 13,000 union
strikers?

Teacher: Number 12--The President’s
grandson recently threw out the first
ball in this stadium.

Teacher: Number 13--The United kingdom
and Argentina went to war 10 years ago
over these islands?

Teacher: Number 14--Which country in
Europe has the largest economy?

Teacher: Number 15--Presidential
Candidate Brown has selected whom as his
running mate?

Teacher: Number 16--The leader of the PLO
this month narrowly escaped death in a
plane crash in the dessert of what
country?

Teacher: Okay, pass your papers to me.
(The teacher passed the quizzes to the
students.)

Teacher: Put your name on the back.
Teacher: Number 1, $100,000,000.00.
Teacher: Number 2, Titanic.

Teacher: Number 3, Mandela.

Teacher: Number 4, 3 year olds only.

Teacher: Number 5, Rudman.

Teacher: Number 6, $3,000.00.

185

Teacher: Number 7, Challenger.

Teacher: Number 8, Wisconsin/Michigan.

Teacher: Number 9, Sam Waldon.

Teacher: Number 10, Triple Crown.

Teacher: Number 11, Caterpillar.

Teacher: Number 12, New Orleans.

Teacher: Number 13, Falkland.

Teacher: Number 14, Germany.

Teacher: Number 15, Jesse Jackson.

Teacher: Number 16, Libya.

Teacher: Okay, pass your quizzes forward.

If your want to see your quiz you can

come up and see it, or I’ll read your

score when I call your name.
Teachers do not correct quizzes--students do. The students
exchanged and corrected quizzes. Teachers reduced correcting

papers and tests from an opportunity to give non-punitive

feedback to a time-filler.

Lectures

The fourth element that teachers should give to education
is lectures. According to Durkheim (1956) , lectures should
provide a base of knowledge that students need to complete
assignments. Teachers should provide information which the
textbook; does not. provide. Durkheim. continued. that both
students and teachers should be actively involved. The
referent philosopher’s theme is that teachers should inspire

students by supplementing textbook information.

Teac
inf <
thej
som

and

bec
Fre

lik

sle
ho:
to

box

Pa
1e

10

186

However, lectures were reiterations of textbook material.
Teachers did not use lecture as an opportunity to provide
information not contained in textbooks. Evangelina stated that
they tell "us exactly what’s in the textbook. And if we ask
something that wasn’t in their lecture plan, they get upset
and tell us to just hold up and not rush things."

Lecture time was when the trouble makers caused problems,
because the lectures were boring. Regarding lectures,
Frederick stated that teachers "aren’t usually'well prepared--
like Mr. Howard not knowing who the Lt. Governor is when he’s
a government teacher. It really don’t bother me because I
sleep through. his lectures." Claudia added "It’s. pretty
boring...they go off on some topic that doesn’t have a thing
to do with the lesson." Doug clarified why classes were
boring. He stated that teachers,

...won’t discuss anything we
want. . .We get lecture, worksheet, free
time. Lecture is when most people cause
trouble, because the lectures are so
boring. Ya, see--we know how the game is
played. We listen to lecture. We do a
worksheet. We’ re quiet while we do the
worksheet. After we’re done, we can talk.
So the lecture holds us up. The faster we
get the worksheet, the faster we get free
time.

Patricio concluded "I don’t know that it can be called

lecture, I mean it’s straight from the textbook. . .we get about

10 minutes of lecture then we get our worksheets."

discw

the :

Mrs.
lect
loos

some

thei
Hans
achi

invc

187

Ms. Selenski added an interesting thought when she
discussed interest in lectures. The interest was her’s--not
the students’. She stated,

I can talk 50 minutes non-stop, and

I’m going--history is my major and first

love. I know a great deal about it.

English is different--some of it’s real

dry and it’s not my first love.
Mrs. Copucha stated "I don’t lecture every day, but if I do
lecture, I stop after 20 minutes. As soon as I feel that I’m
loosing them, I stop. I let them do their work, and I do
something on my own."

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their ‘teachers’ perceptions. During'lgeneral science, IMr.
Hansen delivered a lecture about tides. Patricio was a low
achiever. When low achievers attempted to become actively
involved, teachers discouraged them.

Teacher: We will have a test over this
material next Tuesday or’Wednesday. Today
we will discuss tides.

Patricio: How do tides work?

Teacher: The tide, as I have already
pointed out, has to do with the moon. The
water, as it is liquid, will respond to
the moon’s gravity. There is a tide on
small inland lakes as well as on the
oceans. On the inland lakes the tide is

so small that it can’t be measured.

Patricio: Does that mean that the wave
crests can’t be measured?

Teacher: No, now let’s just hold up here.

Patricio: If there is no moon, is there
still a tide?

188

Teacher: Yes, well, sometimes it’s
different. Once a month there is a neap
tide. That’s when the sun and the moon
are aligned. In this case the tide is
stronger. This occurs once a month. Next
I want to discuss the shape of the basin.
If the basin is shallow, the tide will be
stronger. If the basin is deep, the tide
will be weaker.

Patricio: But, why does the water always
move?

Teacher: Probably because of the current
or the tide moving out. Sometimes it’s
the wind. Just slow down with your
questions. Next, the shape of the
shoreline. If the ocean floor is angled,
not flat, the water will pile up. That’s
why the tide appears higher. Local storms
and wind also effect tides. The winds
prevent the water from rising as much.
Now, if people want, they can purchase
charts to tell them when the tides will
arrive each day.

Patricio: If you have a 50 yard peninsula
that’s all sand, will the water cover it?

Teacher: It may. Especially if it’s
totally sand. No plant life would
probably indicate that the area it under
water a good deal of time. Okay, today,
we’ re going to do a worksheet on wave
heights. When we talk about fetch, we
refer to how far the wind can blow
without obstruction.

Patricio: Is it bigger on Lake Superior
than on Center Lake?

Teacher: Yes, therefore, the waves on
Lake Superior are larger than the waves
on Center Lake. That’s because there is
less obstruction on Lake Superior,
correct?

Patricio: Correct.
11:58,

Teacher: Okay, go through these. Remember
the wave period is the time that it takes

rn

189

the wave crest to move one wave length.
(The teacher passed out a worksheet.)

12:01, the teacher wrote the assignment
on the chalkboard.

Patricio: You’re not giving us questions
are you? Man, come on man, no.

Teacher: Okay, let’s get busy. Matthew,
let’s get busy.

Patricio: Mr. Hansen, are you collecting
these?

Teacher: Yes. Do the questions on page
411 and 419.

The observation illustrates that when students asked questions
regarding topics that interested them, teachers discouraged
them. Teachers encouraged low achievers to not ask questions.
Teachers preferred attenders not participants during lectures.

Lecture was reduced from supplying information not
contained in the textbook to a time-filling activity. Teachers

talked and discouraged low achievers from asking questions.

Monitoring

The fifth element that teachers should give to education
is monitoring. According to Durkheim (1956) teachers should
monitor the students’ assignments and should assist students
who need help. According to Goodlad (1979), the most
productive methods combine interaction models with social
system models. This includes providing reassurance to
students, and redirecting students when the classroom activity
is going off track. According to Goodlad "in order to plan and

readjust the lessons, teachers would have to monitor the

190
students’ on-going progress" (p. 92). The consistent theme
across the referent philosophers is that teachers should
monitor and redirect students to assure maximum learning.

However, teachers monitored the classroom only to assure
that no students cheated. Alicia stated that teachers "watch
to see that you don’t cheat, but most sit up at their desk and
correct papers as you do your assignment." Low achievers
clarified why teachers did not monitor to see who needed help.
When low achievers completed assignments in class, teachers
completed their own work. According to Tammy,

...when we get time to do things in
class it’s because she has things she has
to do. We know why she gives us work time
because we always see her sitting at her
desk working or studying something, so we
understand why we get free time, it’s
good for her too. Usually the teacher
sits at the desk and does his or her own
work.

Frederick stated that "The only monitoring they do is to
make sure we don’t cheat--they aren’t monitoring to see who
needs help." Claudia concurred that teachers "don’t monitor
too much. I see a lot of cheating. I think they don’t want to
catch the kids cheating, so they ignore it." Troy added that
the teacher "sits at the desk and watches. They don’t much
walk around except to see that they’re doin’ somethin’."
Patricio concluded that teachers "just watch to see that
you’re doing--doing anything."

Teachers stated that they did a minimal monitoring. Ms.

Selenski stated that monitoring "depends on the students--some

classe
Third
was th
become
with m«
stated
For th
get ca
C
their
had w
studel

did n.

191

classes have to be watched closely, others hardly at all.
Third hour would never stay on task." Mr. Floh’s perception
was that if the students were well-behaved he would "let them
become invisible...They usually learn right from the start
with me that things have to go a certain way." Mr. Howard
stated that he monitored to assure "that they aren’t cheating.
For the most part they can be trusted. They can’t afford to
get caught cheating."

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions. During English 11, Ms. Selenski
had work which she needed to complete, so she gave the
students free time. Claudia.was.a lowtachiever; The researcher
did not know the other student’s name.

10:01,

Teacher: Alright, you have to be through
reading chapters 1, 2, 3, & 4 by Monday.
On Monday, I’ll review these chapters and

then give you a quiz over them.

Student: Why don’t you just let us chill
today?

Teacher: What does it mean to ’chill’?
Student: Relax.

Teacher: Okay, I don’t care what you do,
but I suggest you read. (The students sat
and talked. The teacher sat at her desk
and corrected papers).

Teacher: You apparently aren’t taking my
advice to read. That’s okay, I don’t mind
if you just sit and talk all hour today.
But, I don’t want to hear about booze,
sex and drugs. You can talk about
anything else that you.want. (The teacher
continued to work on papers).

192
Student: Who mentioned drugs?
Teacher: Nobody, yet.

Student: Oh, okay. (The students
continued talking. The teacher worked on
the papers).

10:12, Claudia put her head down and
slept briefly. When she awoke, she looked
around, removed a pen and paper and began
to write a letter.

10:28, The students sat and talked. Only
Claudia read or studied. The teacher
remained at her desk and corrected
papers.

10:40, The teacher sat at her desk and
worked on papers. The students sat and
talked. Claudia wrote to her boyfriend.
10:50, The teacher went to the closet and
took out her lunch. She carried her lunch
out of the room.

10:51, The Skill Center students left for
lunch.

10:54, The teacher returned to the
classroom.

The observation illustrates that teachers do little
monitoring. When students receive free time to relax or
complete work, teachers too receive free time to relax or
complete work. Teachers do not mind that the students sleep or
talk.all hour. However, there are topics which are off—limits.
Monitoring becomes controlling students’ behavioral standards.

Monitoring is reduced from the teacher assisting and
redirecting students who have difficulty to being a behavioral

controller.

193
Ingivldual Help

The sixth element that teachers should give to education
is individual help. According to Durkheim (1956) teachers
should give individual assistance to assure each student’s
success. Goodlad (1979) added that the most intriguing human
characteristic is that a single species can vary so much
across individuals. Students vary in interests, thinking, and
the ways they respond. According to Goodlad, teachers should
recognize individual differences in learning rate and style.
Teachers should employ various approaches to the same concepts
or skills and.assist individual students. The:consistent.theme
across the referent philosophers is that teachers should
assist individual students.

However, teachers left students alone unless they
requested help. Teachers helped students only when a they
raised.a hand. Frederick stated that teachers "don’t offer any
help. If a student raises a hand in class, they’ll help then,
but like if you need after school help...most won’t do it."
Evangelina stated that when low achievers need help after
school teachers "send us to the counselor to get connected
with the Student Council tutors."

Tammy responded that teachers "don’t offer' to Ihelp
students unless the student asks." Betty added that teachers
"don’t do much in way of helping. If I raise my hand, they’ll
help, but only when kids ask.for help." Claudia perceived that

"The teachers leave us alone unless we ask for help." Troy

194
concluded that "The teachers usually wait ’til someone raises
a hand, then the teacher helps the student."

Mr. Howard stated "I help who ever wants help. At the
last 5 to 8 minutes of class today, you saw Frederick come up
for help as the others sat and.talked." Ms. Selenski stated "I
try to tutor one day per week. We also have a tutor program by
Honor Society. The new student, Claudia, is going to be
getting assistance two days per week for the next four’weeks."
Mrs. Copucha stated "I leave it up to them to request it." Mr.
Floh added "They come up and ask. I try to be as helpful as I
can."

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions. During general science, Mr.
Hansen completed the following lecture. As the low achievers
completed their worksheet, the teacher stood at his desk. He
left students alone until they requested assistance. Patricio
was a low achiever. The researcher did not know Fran.

Teacher: Okay, with that said, let’s get
on to our worksheet.

Patricio: Worksheet?!

Teacher: Oh--you poor things. This
diagram shows what we just discussed.

12:05,
Patricio: When is the worksheet due?

Teacher: For now we’ll say the end of the
hour.

Patricio: Do you want us to turn these in
when we’re done?

195

Teacher: There’s more. Do the questions
on pages 441 and 443.

12:14,
Fran: Mr. Hansen, will you help me?

Teacher: Yes. (Teacher helped Fran
individually).

Fran: Is this the ox bow lake?
Teacher: Yes.
Fran: Thanks.

Alicia: Mr. Hansen, will you help me too?
(Mr. Hansen helped Alicia.)

The observation illustrates that teachers provide individual
help to students only when students request help. Teachers
reduced individual help from the teacher being an educational
mentor to consultant only when low achievers requested help.

Teachers did not monitor low achievers’ individual progress.

Free Time

The seventh element that teachers should give to
education is free time. According to Newman (1951), students
and their teachers should meet and consult each other. They
should challenge each other to strengthen their useful and
liberal knowledge and their skills. The referent philosopher’s
theme is that teachers and students should discuss educational
issues and each side challenge the other.

However, free time was given to engage in social
pursuits, not academic pursuits. Low achievers received the

last 10 to 20 minutes per class to talk. According to Troy,

196

We usually get the last 15 minutes.
We get a choice, they usually tell us we
can read or talk, whatever we want. If
the teacher wants to talk all hour, like
if the teacher’s tired or behind on work,
then we get the whole hour to just sit
and do whatever we want to do.

In reality the entire hour was be free time if the low
achievers did not disturb the teacher. Claudia responded,
There’s a lot of free time--more
than. most students think. Really the
whole hour can be free time--all you have
to do is not cause trouble and you can do
whatever you want. Ms. Selenski even says
it in class. She told us, she doesn’t
care what we do as long as we don’t

disturb her. Really the whole hour can be
free time.

Tammy stated "we get free time or study time because the
teacher needs time to do stuff, or because the teacher wants
free time to relax also." According to Evangelina "if the
class is really good, the teacher will let us work.on our work
right then. As soon as we finish we can talk-~that’s free
time." Doug agreed that "The faster’welget through‘worksheets,
the more free time we have." Alicia agreed and concluded,

We get free time after we get our
work done. That’s the other reason we
don’t like the lectures. We like to get
through lectures, get our worksheet and
get it done. Once we get done we can
talk.

Teachers stated that when low achievers completed their
assignment, that. they could sit and. talk. However, low

achievers talked all hour. Ms. Selenski stated "I give the

last couple of minutes to talk if we’re finished. They usually

197
get the last 5 to 10 minutes." Mr. Floh did not deny the
existence of free time or free days. Rather, he stated,

Sometimes we are covering a short
story. Some can be completed in 25
minutes. If it’s been a good 25 minutes,
I may be done. I may give them the rest
of the hour on their own. I don’t call it
free time, and never free day. That’s
dangerous language. I just tell them,
okay, that’s it. I’m done. And the they
can sit and talk. They understand.

Mr. Howard’s description was interesting. He referred to the
phenomenon as a norm, which at times is violated. He stated,

...they get the last 5 to 8 minutes
as free time. They never get free days, I
just don’t.believe in that. Even the norm
that they get 5 to 8 minutes of free time
gets violated a lot! But they understand
that I’m going to lecture until I’m done
and then the hour is theirs to talk.

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions. During English 10, two hard-
working students had just given their oral book reports. Troy
and Trent were low achievers. Tiffany was a hard-working
student. When the second student completed his oral book
report, the teacher stated,

9:27,
Teacher: Okay, we’re done.

9:37, Troy sat and talked to Trent. Two
students reviewed The Pearl for the final
examination.

9:42, Tiffany worked on her vocabulary
words from her psychology class.

9:44, Mr. Andrade arrived at Mr. Floh’s
door. He signaled Mr. Floh to the
hallway. Mr. Floh stood.

198

Teacher: Looks like Andrade is done. Come
on Shaw, let’s go mess around in the hall
with Andrade. (The students sat and
talked as Mr. Floh and the researcher
stood in the hallway and talked to Mr.
Andrade).

Andrade: What in the fuck are you doing
here anyway, Shaw? These classes are as
boring as hell!

Teacher: (Floh) Do you really get
anything from these classes? Nothing ever
happens. We always do the same old thing-
-nothing!

 

Teacher: (Floh) You ought to save your
gas money, sit in your house up on campus
and just write the same old thing for
each day. This is how the kids are all
year--then I’ll call if things ever
change. (Floh laughed).

Teacher: (Floh) I have to make a call,
but I can’t leave the kids alone.

Andrade: Let Shaw watch ’em for you.
Mr. Shaw: Yeah, I can watch them.

Teacher: Will you watch them? Thank you!
I’ll be back.

9:54, Mr. Floh returned. He knocked on
Mr. Andrade’s door. Both teachers stood
in the hallway and talked. The students
sat in the classroom and talked.

The observation illustrated that free time was mutually
gratifying for both low achievers and their teachers. Low
achievers used free time to talk ‘with friends. As low
achievers sat in the classroom and talked, teachers used free

time to correct papers, to talk with students or to talk.with

other teachers. Free time was reduced from an opportunity to

pursue

relati

Sectio

 

T
to ac
during
planni

or tes

 

 

past sl
achiev
educat
much m

l
Studer
know ;
eConon
Smeit
Minime
low ac
SUblec

minima

achieve

 

199
pursue academic interests to an opportunity to pursue social

relations.

S io 've° Summa

Teachers do not give a serious and sustained commitment
to academic pursuits. Teachers plan immediately before, or
during classes when they plan at all. In fact, the only
planning evidenced is for quizzes or tests. Planning quizzes
or tests involves reusing last years’ tests, or combining the
past several weeks’ handouts. Teachers do not attend to low
achievers’ individual differences, needs, or interests. The
education that teachers‘give to low achievers does not.provide
much marketability.

Teachers bargain away their natural ascendancy over
students. Low achievers are teachers’ equals. Low achievers
know as much as, or more than their teachers about market
economy. As such, teachers are unable to compel students to
submit themselves to a greater than present commitment.
Minimal commitment is beneficial to teachers as well as to the
low achievers. Neither low achievers nor their teachers are
subjected to excessive out-of—school costs, because what

minimal commitment is required, is completed during classes.

Section 6: What Low achievers Give
The researcher will use section six to present what low
achievers give. According to Durkheim (1956), Newman (1951),

Rousseau (1967) and Goodlad (1979) students should give the

200
following elements to education: study time, effort,
compliance, attention, completed homework, reading, tests,
writing, and participation.

It is a norm that low achievers are their teachers’
equals. As their teachers’ equals, low achievers are free to
assess their education’s marketability. Low achievers are also
free to assess their teachers’ commitment. It will be argued
that low achievers are free to give effort equal to their
teachers’ effort and equal to their education’s marketability.

Low achievers and their teachers reduce what low
achievers give to education to passing classes. It will be
argued that teachers’ commitment and education’s marketability
are not sufficient to instill a desire for serious and
sustained academic pursuits. It will be argued that low
achievers give effort proportionate to the marketability they

receive.

Study Time

The first element that students should give to education
is study time. According to Newman (1951), students should
develop a philosophical habit--a love of learning, and a
desire to continue to learn. As such, students should desire
touexpand.their'useful and liberal knowledge and their skills.

With regard to studying, Durkheim (1956) added that a
social being is not fully formed in the crude charter of man.
He continued that the social being does not result through

spontaneous development. Durkheim concluded that students are

201
not inclined to submit themselves to self-sacrificing
(abnegation). The consistent theme across the referent
philosophers is that students. do not. possess an innate
inclination to study. Through education, students should
develop a sense of abnegation and commitment.

However, low achievers did not desire to expand their
useful and liberal knowledge merely out of a love of learning.
Study time was deduced to passing classes. Low achievers
wanted to attain the credits needed to graduate. The
motivation to study was receiving a good grade--a passing
grade. Claudia stated that the extent of her studying was
"enough to get by." When failing classes, low achievers
increased their study time enough to pass. Evangelina said,

I just study in class. If my grade
is down I have to study more. Then I have
to study in class and at home. I really
don’t study much at all. It’s that the
class is so easy. I know I can get all
’As.’ But, it’s not worth the extra
effort. I study for my tests just before
the test.

Classes were so easy that they did not necessitate study
time outside school. Tammy responded that "It’s not really
necessary to study--just pay attention in class and you’ll
pass." Betty agreed and added that she studies "just before a
test. The only thing I’ve studied all year has been the
vocabulary and map quiz in Government." Frederick also
confirmed that studying was not necessary and that "I haven’t

taken a book home in 18 weeks. The assignments are so easy

that we can get them done right in class."

 

202

George also responded that "I study in class. I don’t
study at home. The teachers give us time at the end of the
hour to talk or study if we want." Andy’s response indicated
that teachers encouraged low achievers to study only in
school. He did not study at home because teachers "give us 10
or 15 minutes in class to look over our notes before the
test." Patricio’s response added an interesting clarification
that "If the teacher is going to assign the work, they better
give us the time in class to do the work. My after-school time
is mine."

Teachers also indicated that low achievers studied very
little, and usually only in class. Teachers provided the last
10 to 15 ndnutes for low achievers to study. However, low
achievers often used the time to converse. According to Mr.
Jones,

I have cooperative learning in.here.
Some work all hour, some don’t work at
all. I don’t expect any work to be done
outside of class. I used to give
homework, but it never got done. It was
just a bad experience all the way ’round,
so I try to achieve most of the study
time in class.
Mrs. Copucha stated "I don’t see evidence of studying other
than immediately before the tests." Mr. Howard concurred
replied,
I truly doubt that they put in any
time whatsoever outside of school. I try
to get some involved in sports or other
activities. They have jobs, friends, TV,

telephone. They have a lot of things to
distract them.

203
Low achievers’ commitment to studying was minimal. Mrs
Selenski stated that low achievers "don’t study more than a
couple of minutes just before the test-~that’s it." Mr. Hansen
provided insight regarding why low achievers study only in
class.

I give them time at the end of the
hour to read, study and or talk. If they
don’t finish it in class, they can finish
it at home. In fact, I encourage them to
do it in class to assure that it gets
done. Otherwise it’s going to come back
just the way it was carried out--not
done.

Teachers encouraged low achievers to study during class time
to assure that the assignments are completed.

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions. During government, the teacher
entered the classroom and took attendance. The students
studied for their pending quiz.

12:38

Teacher: Everyone listen--watch.Channel I
or study. Other than that, I expect
silence. (Channel I came on. Students
studied with friends. Some students were
just conversing instead of studying.)

Teacher: Okay, we’ve got an option on
this--we watch this or start the quiz
right now. Which do we do?

Student: (Many students responded in
unison) Study. None of the students
watched Channel I. Students talked
quietly as they studied. At 12:42, the
teacher sat at his desk. He had the
quizzes in hand. He put the quizzes down
and continued to watch Channel I. He was
the only person watching Channel I.

12:51,

204

Teacher: Okay, put everything away. You

need to move around the classroom. Sandy,

you sit here. You, put a space between

yourselves.
The observation demonstrated that Mr. Howard accepted that
students did not study at home. Mr. Howard honored the norm
that students studied immediately before the quiz. The
students violated the norm when they merely talked. The
teacher enforced the norm when he presented an ultimatum--
study or quiz.

By providing in-class study time, teachers exacerbated
the problem that students did not study out-of—school.
However, in-class study time was gratifying for teachers as
well. Mr. Howard received time to sit and watch Channel I. In
fact, he was the only person watching Channel I. That the
teacher gave students study time in class legitimated the low
expectation for out-of-class study. In-class study time
permitted students to forego costs by allowing them to use
school time, not personal time to complete their studies.
However, study time was beneficial for teachers as well. The
time which low achievers studied in class, reduced the time
that the teacher had to instruct.

Low achievers and their teachers reduced study time from
exercising a philosophical habit (studying for enjoyment) to
studying enough during classes to pass. Respondents did not

use study time to extend their useful and liberal knowledge,

or to extend their skills.

205
Effort

The second element that students should give to education
is effort. Newman (1951) wrote that students should have a
serious and sustained commitment to academic pursuits. Through
their effort, students should expand their useful and liberal
knowledge as well as challenge and extend their skills.

Durkheim (1956) added that students should submit
themselves to serious and prolonged academic effort. Durkheim
continued that what the child received from his parents are
very general faculties: some force of attention, a certain
amount of perseverance (effort), sound judgement, and
imagination. The common theme across the referent philosophers
is that students should exert serious and sustained effort in
classes. Serious and sustained effort would allow students to
expand their education.

However, low achievers did not submit themselves to
serious and sustained.effort. LoW'achievers and their teachers
acknowledged that the low achievers were capable of attaining
higher' grades. Low’ achievers. had. other' opportunities to
pursue. Opportunities, included seeing a boyfriend or
girlfriend, working, watching TV, or hanging out. Low
achievers admitted that their effort was minimal. According to
Andy,

I don’t think I’m putting much
effort in. I mean I’m putting in some. I
could take my books home and study and do
better, but I’m getting a decent grade.

I’m getting some where in the range of
’C-’. I get an ’A’ in gym. I’m getting a

 

206
’D+’ in English. I try to make more study
time, but sometimes I can’t ’cause I have
to work. I work about 20 to 25 hours per
week as a pizza chef. This is my third
pizza job.

Low achievers had career plans and they gave enough
effort to pass. Low achievers equated passing classes with
marketability. Tammy stated "I don’t really have to put much
in. Some people don’t put in any effort and they flunk--they
aren’ t going anywhere." Betty added that in order to pass
classes "All you have to do is basically pay attention."

Low achievers admitted that their effort was minimal.
However, Frederick presented an interesting comparison between
himself and his teachers. He stated "I’m.putting in as much as
anyone else--not much. I guess I’m doing as much even as the
teachers." Claudia also compared low achievers’ effort to
teachers’ effort. She stated "I do about enough to get by--I
think that most of the kids work as hard as the teachers--not
much."

Low achievers studied during class in order to avoid out-
of-school studying. Evangelina stated that she studied in
class "so I don’t have to take it home with me. Also we get to
sit and talk after the assignments are done. The teachers
usually give us at least 20 to 30 minutes to do our work." Low
achievers gave enough effort to pass their classes. Troy
concluded that his effort was enough to "pass the class. All

I want is to pass." Doug realized that he "definitely could do

better. But, I don’t need science. Why should I put in the

207
effort for a 4.0. I just want to put in enough effort to get
through." George reiterated this same point "I don’t really
work hard in class. I guess maybe I should work harder. The
others work harder than I do. But all I want is to pass and
graduate."

Mapi explained that she considered opportunity costs when
deciding how much effort to give. She stated that she had
opportunities which made studying outside-of—school
prohibitive and therefore "I don’t put much effort in classes.
I don’t like to take the time out to do it. I watch TV, go out
with my boyfriend." Patricio extended effort to being
contingent on the classes’ usefulness.

I don’t put much into English
because I don’t get out of the class what
I need for my life and career. I’m not
going to waste my time with it. Now, in
general math, I do all I can do in there-
-I volunteer a lot every day.

Low achievers’ effort was also contingent upon interest.
According to Ms. Selenski "If they like it or think it’ s
useful, they work harder. If they don’t like it they tune
out." Mr; Hansen clarified that low achievers put forth effort
"If it’s something that they’re interested in, they might put
a little more effort into it. But they have to be definitely
interested.in it." Mr; Jones concluded that "The low achieving
students give minimal effort. Most if anything they do is‘done
in class."

Mr. Howard stated that the effort given by low achievers

was so insignificant that low achievers "have to work harder

208
at not working than.if they actually sat.down and reviewed.the
questions Monday evening for the current news quiz. . .the
questions are the same." Mr. Floh concurred. He said that low
achievers "give the minimum to get by. By the time they’re in
the 10th grade, they’re tired. They see the light at the end
of the tunnel, and they do just enough to get out."
Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions. During child development, Mrs.
Copucha completed attendance and collected the students’
assignments.
Teacher: Okay, you need a piece of paper.
While your getting out a piece of paper,
I need your articles.

Teacher: Hank, where’s your article.

Hank: I didn’t do it--it’s only 10 less
points. Who cares.

1:42,

Teacher: Alright, listen up. I’m
considering this a quiz. You have enough
information to complete the quiz. There
are no ‘wrong' answers as long' as you
answer reasonably.

1:46, the students whispered and compared
their answers. Hank wrote his quiz
answers very quickly and then sat and
watched the others.

1:56, the students continued to write
their quizzes.

The observation illustrated that low achievers exerted enough
effort to pass. Hank indicated, the assignment was only worth
10 points. He was passing the class. Therefore, he opted to

not complete the article. In fact, he opted to not take the

209

quiz seriously. As the teacher stated "There were no wrong
answers." Any answer’was correct so long as it was not.written
intentionally incorrect. Therefore, Hank took 4 minutes to
complete the quiz that other students took 14 minutes to
complete. Hank gave enough effort to obtain a passing grade.
That Mrs. Copucha did not confront Hank regarding his actions
indicated that indeed his behavior was acceptable under the
classroom norms.

Low achievers reduced effort from expanding their useful
and liberal knowledge and their skills to meeting the minimal
standard to pass. The minimal standard did not even involve
completing all work. Rather, minimal meant to give enough
effort to pass the class withta decent grade--a passing grade.
Low achievers and their teachers did not acknowledge that
effort given to classes was beneficial to expand the self, or

doing so to enjoy learning.

Compliance
The third element that students should give to education

is compliance. Students should be compliant with classroom
policies. Durkheim ( 1956) stated that in most instances,
policies reflect what the community perceives to be socially
acceptable. He wrote that the word education has sometimes
been used "for a very broad sense totdesignate the totality of
influences that nature and men are able to exercise on our

intelligence or on our will" (p. 61).

 

210

Durkheim continued that authority is neither violent nor
repressive. Authority consists entirely of moral ascendancy.
Therefore, liberty and authority are not opposed. Durkheim
stated that liberty is not to be free to do as one pleases.
Rather, liberty is to be master of their self and to know how
to act reasonably. Durkheim stated that when an individual
receives chastisement, she or he suffers because the authority
is legitimate. Durkheim concluded that true liberty is to
become compliant.

Durkheim continued that compliance is "The sentiment of
rule, of discipline, internal as well as external--it is
society that has established it in our consciences" (p. 76).
Thus students have to acquire power of control over their
inclinations. Power of control over their self is a
distinctive human trait. Durkheim added that the more
developed the control, the more fully human we are. Durkheim
concluded that, education is concerned with limiting the
dangerous effects of a too-intense intellectual culture. He
stated that "Even the qualities which appear to be
spontaneously desirable, the individual seeks only when
society invites him to, and he seeks them in the fashion that
is prescribed for him" (p. 75).

According to Rousseau ( 1967) , properly controlled freedom
lets the human being exercise his power within the limits
prescribed to him. Rousseau stated that the truly free man

wishes to do no more than this. Well-regulated freedom thus

211
provides the only valid basis and aim of sound education. The
consistent theme across the referent philosophers is that to
become compliant is to become free. Students owe compliance to
their self and to society. The end of compliance then is
freedom.

However, low achievers and their teachers did not view
compliance as an obligation to the self and to society.
Rather, low achievers and their teachers viewed compliance as
a way to receive free time, less homework, and a passing
grade. Claudia stated,

I go by the rules. I like my
teachers. The rules aren’t unreasonable.
When I moved here the other kids told me
what to expect and how to get through my
classes. They said to sit and listen. If
you don’t want to listen, sleep, or do
whatever you want, but don’t cause
trouble for the teacher and everything
will be okay.

Regarding compliance, Betty stated "I go by the rules. If
I don’t like what’s being taught, I sleep." Frederick extended
compliance to a social obligation to his teachers. He
responded "I never break the rules. I don’t dislike my
teachers—-they’re nice people. I just don’t feel I get a lot
here...I go by the rules, but I don’t owe them much." Troy
added to the understanding that.he complied.because he did not
want to suffer the teachers’ reprisals. He stated "If you

cause trouble you get kicked out of class and sent to study

hall. Then you get an ’E’ in the class."

212
Felicity stated that she goes by the rules in order to
receive free time. She stated that she complied because if
class has "been really good, he’ll let us goof around."
Patricio elaborated that low achievers are sometimes jokingly
non-compliant in order to hurry the teacher through the

lecture. He stated,

I go by the rules, whether I like
the teacher or not. When the students
push, sometimes it’s just to pick on the
teacher, or if they don’t like the
lecture. That happens in general science.
Mr. Hansen knows we’re quiet during
worksheet time because we want to finish
so we can sit and talk. If we push him,
he’ll stop lecturing, give us the
worksheet and we’re quiet.

Brenda clarified that compliance was well—understood under the
classroom norms. She stated.that low achievers knew'"what.time
there is to joke around, what time there isn’t. When he’s up
there talking, it’s not time to joke around. Usually he gives
us ten minutes at the end of the day to just relax."
Low achievers had transformed compliance into a game.
According to Mr. Howard,
These kids have the best social
skills. They are courteous, cooperative.
They don’t break the classroom rules.
They know from the first couple of weeks
what to do, and they do it. Oh, I know
some of them think that they can
brownnose and still pass, but that’s all
a part of their game.
Low achievers were not compliant with regard to class

assignments. Rather, low achievers were compliant only with

regard to behavior. Mrs. Copucha stated that low achievers

213

"avoid conflict. They don’t give many confrontations. These
are the kids who say give me a ’D-’ and pass me, that’s all I
want. They say that exactly, explicitly! I have several kids
who say that."

According to Ms. Selenski "they (low achievers) comply.
If they feel that they’re cheated, they speak up. But that is
very rare. These kids have remarkable social skill." Mr. Floh
added that he gained low achievers’ compliance because,

The last thing they want to do is
read out loud in class. If they’re
messing around in class, I’ll wait the
whole hour. I’ll call on them and show no
mercy. I do that early. I’ve seen the
sweet pour off them. Very quickly they
learn that I don’t want to do this again.
I think I’ll do it the teacher’s way.

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions. During English 11, Ms. Selenski
was busy with prom activities. There were papers on her desk

which she needed to grade.

10:01, the bell sounded and the teacher
entered the classroom. As the teacher
took attendance, the students sat and
talked.

10:04,

Teacher: Will you quiet down please. Does
anyone need to turn it their book? I want
your money or your book tomorrow.
(Claudia had her book Lord of the Flies.)

10:05,
Teacher: Okay, remember you need to be
reading chapters 1, 2, 3, & 4 for your
quiz on Monday. Remember that the story
is being narrated through the character
Gene. (Claudia sat and read a letter from
her boyfriend).

214

Teacher: Okay, take out your books and
read. You have this time to read the
first four chapters for Monday’s quiz.
Student: (Jerry Stone) Can we take a nap?
Teacher: Okay, if you’re not going to
read, just take a nap. I don’t care-~just
don’t bother anyone else.

Student: (Jerry Stone) Bob, what ya’
doing?

Teacher: Jerry--I mean it, read or take a
nap--just don’t bother me.

10:24, the teacher sat at her desk and
graded papers. The students sat and read

their new novel, A Separate Peace.
Claudia had her book open and read page

1. Daniel stood in the back of the

classroom and painted a mural on an old

chalkboard. He is the student who

received extra credit for painting the

prom backdrop. He now received extra

credit for painting this mural.
The observation illustrated a mutually gratifying exchange
Ibetween low achievers and.their‘teacher; The exchange was free
time for compliance. As the teacher stated the students could
do whatever they wanted so long as they did not disturb her.
The teacher received compliance from the students. The
students received free time from the teacher. This exchange
enabled Ms. Selenski to correct papers and log the grades. In
addition, this exchange provided time for Daniel to earn extra
credit by painting the teacher’s bulletin board.

Low achievers and their teachers reduced compliance from

an obligation to their self and society to a means of

receiving study time, free time, less homework, extra credit,

and a passing grade. Respondents did not acknowledge the

215
freedom associated with breaking away from the unsocialized
being which, at birth, existed as a very nearly tabula rasa.
Low achievers and their teachers did not associate compliance

as a social obligation or the result of having become fully

socialized human beings .

Argentign

The fourth element that students should give to education

is attention. According to Newman (1951), students should
develop a sense of dedication to serious and sustained

Having a sense of abnegation, students

academic pursuits.
should focus their energies, as Rousseau and Durkheim stated,
to a greater cause than commitment to self. Students should

give their attention to gain more knowledge and increase their

Durkheim ( 1956) added that students should be in a

skills.
(p. 85) . By

near hypnotic state of "exceptional passivity"
Durkheim meant that students should be as

this statement,
as if they were

attuned to their teachers’ instruction,

hypnotised. Teachers should have a natural ascendancy due to

their superior experience. The consistent theme across the

referent philosophers is that students should exercise their
abnegation. By being attentive, students should gain knowledge

and skills . Students would thereby acknowledge their teachers’

natural ascendancy over they.

achievers did not acknowledge their

However, low
teachers ’ natural ascendancy, and the teachers did not assert
their natural ascendancy. The attention that low achievers

216
gave was not to attain more knowledge and skills. By paying
marginal attention, low achievers avoided having to commit
themselves to education outside of school, avoided more
homework, attained free time and a passing grade.

Low achievers assessed what they received and gave an
equal commitment to education. Low achievers stated that they
gave as much as they received. According to Betty "I pay
enough attention to pass the class. I don’t feel I’m getting
much and I don’t feel I’m giving much. I guess I give as much
as I get."

Regarding the attention which low achievers gave,
Frederick stated "I really haven’ t paid attention all year and
I’m passing all of my classes. Like in.Government, just do the
16 page report paper and you’ll pass. Mine is due today, so I
wrote it last night." Evangelina also minimized the attention
which she gave. She stated "I don’t pay more attention than I
have to. The class is so easy that we really don’t need to pay
attention. That’s why the students get in trouble--they get
bored."

Doug added "I pay enough attention to get through the
worksheet." Alicia stated that she payed "a lot of attention.
I don’t want to take my assignment home with me, and I don’t
want extra work. Also, if I pay attention, I don’t have to
study as much." Andy also stated that "I pay as much as I can
in class so I don’t have to take it home." Low achievers gave

attention when they were interested in the subject. Ms.

217

Selenski stated that attention depended "on their interest. If
they’re interested, they pay attention. If they’re not
interested, they drop out mentally." Mr. Floh added that low
achievers "seem to pay attention. They don’t want to have to
work harder, and read out loud because of horsing around in
class. They pay attention, or at least don’t disturb the class
too frequently."

Low achievers compared the attention that they gave to
the attention which other students gave. Mr. Hansen believed
that low achievers’ comparisons caused problems. He stated
that low achievers,

...are masterful at looking like
they’re paying attention, but nobody’s
really home. I lot of times I like to say
oh well, let him alone and he won’t
disturb the class, but that too causes
problems because the other students see
Johnny doing nothing, and then they want
the same thing. They compare themselves
to each other, and I’ve had them then say
to me, Well, you didn’t say anything to
so and so, why are you saying something
to me.

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions. During English 10, the students
entered the classroom, and sat where they chose. At 9:00, the
tardy bell sounded. Mr. Floh entered the classroom and sat at
his desk. He removed a roster with student names and called
attendance.

Teacher: Anyone anticipate a change in

their class schedule? (No students
responded).

218

Student: (Alan talking to the class) That
means does any one plan to make a change.

Teacher: Shut up Mullin! Turn around
Mullin! You listen. I talk. You really
don’t want to start this way Mullin!
(Alan turns around and sits quietly).

Teacher: When I call your name, come up
and get a book.

The norm which was violated illustrated that students are to

pay attention while the teacher addressed the class. Alan

should have been giving his attention. When Alan violated the
norm, the teacher enforced the expectation.

Low achievers and their teachers reduced the attention

from a commitment to a expand knowledge and skills to being

attentive only while being entertained. Low achievers did not

develop a sense of what Durkheim referred to as abnegation.

Meat
The fifth element that students should give to education

is homework. According to Durkheim (1956) , homework should be
related to the students’ daily lessons and serve both as
reinforcement and review. The students should complete and
submit all assignments in a timely manner.

Goodlad (1979) added that teachers should assign a
variety of reinforcing material as homework, not simply
workbook or drill book material. This approach would not teach
less material. Rather, it would teach the same material via
many approaches. Goodlad argued that this process increases

the chance that all students grasp the material. The

219
consistent theme across the referent philosophers is that
students should complete homework to reinforce and increase
their knowledge and skills.

However, low achievers and their teachers perceived
homework as routinely completing the textbook questions and
completing worksheets. Mapi stated that "there are assignments
after the readings. Read the section and answer the questions.
Or we have worksheets. " Evangelina concurred that homework was
"worksheets in classes, or questions in the back of the
chapters. They’re easy." Claudia added that "the homework is
done right in class."

Troy explained that assignments were easier when student
groups worked together. He stated that "We just get a couple
of questions at the end of each section--we can do those in
class. . .I do them with my friends. We share the answers so we
don’t have to do all the questions." Alicia concurred and

added that,

...we always do worksheets in
General Science. We do a lot of

worksheets in all the classes, but in
other classes we get to do our
assignments in groups and help each
other. If we don’t have worksheets, we do
questions at the end of the chapters.

George stated that "I do just enough to get by, I mean
like to pass the class." Betty clarified the reason that low
achievers do not complete homework. She stated that the
material was not worth studying--it was not useful. She

replied "I guess I could go home and study each night and get

220
an ’A', but it’s not worth learning all this stuff that isn’t

going to help me. "
When teachers addressed this question, Mr. Floh stated

that,

If it’s homework, it’s usually
questions from the back of the chapter.
If they do the assignment, you get it. If
they don’t do it you don’t get it. In my
English 10 class, I have approximately
2/3 of the students who do not do their
homework, and they get a zero.
Mr. Floh demonstrated that reciprocity exists in classes. He
stated that when low achievers gave no homework, they received
no grade--a zero. Mrs. Copucha stated that low achievers "do
all work in class because they simply will not do it at home."

Mr. Howard concurred that low achievers,

...don’t do homework, that’ s their
problem. I give mostly quizzes, and every
2 weeks a unit test. The closest they
come to homework is the term paper that
they write. But that is not a formal term
paper in essay format. I expect them to
take 16 pages of research notes and use
the notes to defend their debate.

Ms. Selenski concluded that low achievers "don’t do
homework. They submit homework, but they copy or cheat." Mr.
Hansen added that "the homework that they do is worksheet type
material. It’s busy work.. .And I give them time in class."

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions. During child development, Mrs.

Copucha collected a worksheet which she assigned.

Teacher: Hank, turn in your worksheet.

221
Hank: I didn’t do it.

Teacher: What do you mean you didn’t do
it?

Hank: I didn’t need to do it--I’m
passing.

Teacher: Betty, I don’t mind if you have
your pictures out as long as you’re
working.

Teacher: Where’s your book?

Betty: Home.

Teacher: Come here--you can use one of
mine.

Betty: I also need to borrow a pencil and
paper.

Teacher: Betty--no :more bargains! You

know what I expect to receive if you want

a passing grade. Meet the expectation or

fail. (The teacher told the researcher

after class that she had made a bargain

with Betty that if she came to class

prepared every day, completed all

homework, and gave effort that the

teacher would mark her eligible for

track).
The observation provided two insights regarding homework.
First, lOW’ achievers were free to complete just. enough
homework to pass classes. Second low achievers arranged
bargains with teachers in order to maintain sports
eligibility; When Betty ‘violated. the norms, the teacher
enforced it. The fact that the teacher did not admonish Hank
for not completing his assignment legitimated that doing the

minimum to pass was acceptable.

222
Low achievers and their teachers reduced homework from
increasing students’ educational base to meeting the minimal

standards to pass.

Leading
The sixth element that students should give to education

is reading; As INewman (1951) indicated, students should
develop a love of learning. They should pursue readings both
in class and outside of class. The reading material should be
challenging and extend their useful and liberal knowledge and
their skills. The referent philosopher’s theme is that
students should complete readings to challenge and extend
their knowledge and skills.

However, low achievers did not complete readings unless
the assignments were interesting and could be completed during
class. Low achievers admitted that they pursued activities
other than reading.

Evangelina stated "We read in class and almost never as
homeworkm" Alicia agreed. She stated that "The teacher assigns
us pages to read and we do it." George added that "We read a
loud in class, then do the questions." Tammy stated that the
extent of reading that low achievers did in class was
"articles from the teacher that go along with the worksheet.
We read it and do the worksheet." Troy replied that he reads
"most of the material. If I’m tired or not interested, I’ll
just look it over and do the questions." However, Patricio

explained that because "The teacher lectures direct from the

223
textbook--you don’t have to read. That or they read it out
loud in class. I don’t read at all." Frederick concurred and
added that "that’s why I don’t do the reading."

Students did not read unless the material were read in
class. According to Mr. Hansen "The readings are right on
target for grade level, and we don’t read much. Almost
everything they read, is read in class. If I don’t read it
with them in class, they won’t read the material." Mrs.
Copucha responded that low achievers do not read. She stated
that low achievers are "masterful at skimming. They can find
the answers incredibly quick." Mr. Jones concluded that "Most
of the reading is done in class. I don’t assign out-of—class
reading, and I don’t make them read out loud."

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions. During English 11, Ms. Selenski
started reading a story with the students.

10:00,

Teacher: Okay, open your books to page
156. The assignment is to read the story.
I want to begin it with you, and then you
can finish it on your own. (Teacher reads
the first paragraph).

Teacher: What does it mean to score a
tree? Doesn’t it mean to mark?

Student: To mark.
Teacher: Good, good answer.

Teacher: What is a foible? It is a human
characteristic (mannerism).

10:05,

224
Teacher: Okay, read this to yourselves.
The teacher sat at her desk and looked
through papers.

10:30, the students continued to read.
The teacher continued to do paperwork.

10:37,

Teacher: I want you to read this story
for tomorrow. We’ll have a quiz after we
discuss it. Right now'I want you to write
in your journals. Take the topic "What
laws I would break if nobody ever found
out."

10:40, The students wrote in their
journals. The teacher sat at her desk and
looked through a book.

10:45, The students stopped.writing. They
sat and talked.

10:55, The bell rang and the students
left.

The observation illustrated that low achievers completed their
reading during class. Their teachers completed whatever they
needed to complete during class. Therefore, in-class reading
time benefitted both low achievers and their teachers. In-
class reading allowed the participants to forego out-of—school
costs.

Low achievers and their teachers reduced reading from an
opportunity to expand students’ knowledge and increase skills

to an activity which had to be completed during class time.

Tests
The seventh element that students should give to
education is tests. According to Durkheim (1956) , tests should

challenge students to use a variety of skills. As such, tests

 

225
should be a mixture of types, including essay, true or false,
multiple choice, completion, and analogies.

Goodlad (1979) stated that tests should not inhibit
students demonstrating all they know. He continued that tests
should not limit the possibility to give new answers. Goodlad
likened multiple-choice tests to the industrial screening
processes--the candidates select the best possible answer.
Goodlad stated that test questions should require open—ended
answers. This allows students to expand the pool of responses
perceived to be correct. The consistent theme across the
referent philosophers is that tests should be challenging and
encourage creativity.

However, tests consisted of true/false, multiple choice,
fill-in-the-blank, but usually no essay questions. Patricio
responded,

We take a test about every week and
a half. We have different kinds of tests.
Like in English the tests are harder,
fill-in-the-blank. We don’t usually get
essay tests. In Senior Life Skills we get
true and false or matching.

Evangelina explained that the tests are "fill-in-the-
blank." She continued that "for the test we’re taking today in
general science, I still haven’t studied. I’ll study's minutes
before the test." Doug did not study for tests because the
tests are "just like the worksheets...I pass them and all I
study is what I do in class."

Patricio stated that "The tests are a joke--if you study

at all they’re easy. Most of them are true and false. They’re

226
just another worksheet." Betty also concluded that "The tests
are a joke--they’re almost all true/false, or multiple
choice." Frederick added that "They’re pretty simple. I can’t
understand how anyone can fail the tests or the class for that
matter."
According to George, the tests are easy because,

...the teacher goes over the exact
questions that are going to be on the
tests, but mostly we get quizzes. In
English, the tests are hard, because a
lot of the questions are fill-in-the-
blank, or essay. They’re a lot harder
than true/false, or multiple choice. If
you don’t read the material, you don’t
know the answer, but with.multiple choice
or true false, the answer is still there,
and you can at least still guess.

Teachers stated that tests involved merely memorizing the
answers and questions. Teachers provided review sheets with
the exact questions that were on tests. Then teachers allowed
15 minutes before the tests for students to review; Mr. Hansen
described the tests that low achievers took as,

...multiple choice, true/false,
fill-in-the-blank. They are not overly
taxing. I give them review sheets that
have all of the answers. The material
they receive to review, is the test. If
they know that, they can get an ’A’ on
the test.

Mrs. Copucha stated that tests are "very short answer
questions. They’re about a paragraph, but remember these are
common sense answers." Mr. Howard added that low achievers,

...should get a refrigerator test
every time (100%). They know the

questions ahead. of 'time. They' take a
vocabulary and world map test 5 times.

227

That is they have 5 times to pass it...If
they can’t pass that with a 70%, I refuse
to pass them...They also take a current
news quiz every week. They should get an
’A’ because they have the questions the
day before.

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions. During government, the students
entered the classroom and began to study for their pending
test. George and Frederick were both low achievers.

12:35,
George: Big test today.

Frederick: Yeah, I studied about 10
minutes last night.

George: I’ll study when I sit down.
(George sat and studied).

12:36, The students continued to enter.
They sat and began to study. Most of the
students talked about the test.

George: What’s the vocab?

Frederick: Here, quiz me. Give me the
words the way he does-~don’t change them.

George: Okay, gerrymander’

Frederick: I said don’t change the words.
You’re changing them. He didn’t give us
that. It’s supposed to be gerrymandering.
Stop dicking around. Give me the words
the way he does.

George: GerrymanderING! (Stressing
II ing" . )

Frederick: Okay , that ’ s better--that ’ s
when you mess around with the jury.
( Gerrymandering means to manipulate
unfairly so as to gain advantage).

George: Jurisdiction.

228

Frederick: That’s when you got control
over something.

In fact, the low achievers simply memorized the questions
and answers which their teachers gave to them on the day prior
to the test. The teachers did not change questions or answers
between what was given as a study format and what was tested.
This was reaffirmed by the Frederick’s indignation when George
changed the words as they studied for the government quiz.

Low achievers and their teachers reduced the tests from
an opportunity for students to demonstrate their ability to
orchestrate all of their skills, knowledge and cognitive
ability, to memorizing or guessing the most likely correct

response .

Writing

The eighth element that students should give to education
is writing. According to Goodlad (1979) , students should
receive sufficient writing assignments to hone their writing
skills. He stated that the writing should be related to the
assignments. The referent philosopher’s theme is that students
should receive and complete writing to reinforce their
knowledge and skills.

However, low achievers rarely received writing
assignments. Formal writing was reserved for term papers in
government and book reports in English classes. However, book
reports were limited to one or two pages. These book reports

were in a fill-in-the-blank.format. The students read the book

 

229
and filled in the worksheet. Regarding writing, Andy stated

that,

We do most of our writing in
English. We have to write a book report
every six 'weeks. The teacher’ doesn’t
really say how long it has to be. She has
this form that we fill out, you just like
answer the questions. It’s not like you
have to make it up yourself.

Betty stated "We don’t have to write much, except for
government class. Most of the'writing’IidO'the day before it’s
due." Frederick concurred and added "We have to write reports
for government like mine is due today, so I wrote it last
night. It had to be 16 pages, but we don’t have to do
quotations or footnotes." Brenda added that she considered
taking notes as writing. She said,

I write a lot because I take a lot
of notes. We have a writing assignment
every day. There are questions in the
book that we have to do. They can be
answered as short answers but he will not
accept short answers. He wants it all
written out, explained all the way. Then
we have glossary words--usually seven.

Patricio added an interesting concern. He conveyed,

We almost never have to write. My
sister comes home from college and tells
me I better practice my writing ’cause
I’m going to have to write a lot in
college--that scares me ’cause these
teachers aren’t preparing us for college.

Doug provided insight regarding why teachers do not have
students write more frequently. He stated that "the teacher
doesn’t want to grade it. It’s easier for him to grade

worksheets and worksheet type tests."

 

230
Mr. Floh stated that writing was a skill that low
achievers will not use. He stated that technology was such
that writing was becoming unnecessary. Mr. Floh described the

writing completed as,

Very little. Probably because
teachers don’t want to spend the time to
correct it. It’s a skill that they don’t
use. They use the phone. They use the TV.
They use tape recorders and calculators.
Computers. English and writing is going
to become another Roman numeral--
obsolete.

Mr. Howard related,

The only writing typically that they
do is the notes that they take for
debate, or classroom.notes. Their'writing
isn’t good. When I grade the term paper,
I grade it for essay structure only--does
it have a cover page, does it have an
outline, does it have a bibliography? If
is does, they get an ’A’, if it doesn’t
they lose 1 letter grade ’A’ to ’B’,
etc., for each thing that they missed. I
look purely at structure.

Ms. Selenski added that the low achievers’ written work
has "No sentence structure, few capitol letters, few periods,
no depth, no critical thinking--just rudimentary." Mr. Hansen
stated that low achievers "don’t do much writing, and the
writing they do complete is more like ’cause instead of
because...They shorten all the words, and have a lot of
mistakes in their writing."

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions. During government, Mr. Howard was

delivering a lecture.

231

Teacher: Next, term papers. During the
first and second.marking periods you will
write term papers. In the third marking
period you will do a debate.

Teacher: You start out with an ’A’. You
take it down by not doing what you are
supposed to do. First thing to do, put a
title page. The title page should have
the name of the paper, the date, my name,
the class name, your name.

Teacher: If you are sick or in the
hospital, you better have someone bring
the paper in to me. No excuses other than
if you’re dead. If you’re out of town,
you can mail it to me, or give to me
early. No title page you lose one letter
grade.

Teacher: The body of the paper has to be
6 pages typed double space or 12 pages in
writing. Remember that this is the
minimum. I used to give what it took to
pass the class with an ’A’, but then
people failed because they didn’t do
enough to pass. So, now I give the
minimum.

Teacher: Also, provide an outline. If you
don’t you lose one letter grade. I also
want your first draft. I also want your
second draft. Last I want your note
cards. If I don’t get these you lose a
letter grade. We’ll select topics next
week.
Writing involved the minimal effort necessary to pass.
Mr. Howard allowed minimum effort. Mr. Howard’s statement
legitimated that students were free to pursue the minimum and
would.be assured.a passing grade. All students received an "A"
for submitting a complete research paper. Low achievers lost

points.only'for not providing the required sections, including

a title page, bibliography, etc.

232
Low achievers and their teachers reduced writing from a
challenging cognitive process in which low achievers could
demonstrate their full ability, to routinized set of forms

such as fill-in-the-blank book reports.

Bartisinetieu

The ninth element that students should give to education
is participation. Students should actively participate in
lecture and discussion. Durkheim (1956) stated in education,
there is a generation of adults and generation of youth. The
twolgenerations interact, and.an influence is exercised by the
first on the second. Durkheim stated that both teachers and
students should be actively engaged in the endeavor. The
referent philosopher’s theme is that students should be eager
and willful participants.

However, students indicated that they were not called on
unless they volunteered. Low achievers could not tune out
completely. They had to make the teacher think that they were
giving some effort. Evangelina remarked,

The teachers like you to
participate. It’s like ‘we jparticipate
just enough to make the teacher think
that you’re trying. If you don’t they
might mark you down. It depends a lot on
what they’re doing—-like lecture is
boring, so I just listen, but if it’s
group work then I’ll participate a lot.

Low achievers stated.that.they'put forth enough.effort to
make their teachers think that they were trying. Betty stated

"I do just enough to pass. I answer the questions that the

233
teacher asks me, and that’s it." Doug explained why low
achievers had to give at least minimal participation. He
stated that "I participate just enough to make the teacher
think I’m trying." Low achievers did not pass when they
refused to participate.

Troy clarified that low achievers were free to
participate or tune out whenever they choose to do so. Troy
stated "I participate when I want to. Usually I just sit there
and watch what’s happenin’. I guess I really don’t do no more
than I have to do to pass the class." Felicity also confirmed
that low achievers participate only when they chose to do so.
She stated that teachers "call on me if I raise my hand, but
if I don’t they leave me alone." George also responded "I
really don’t participate and the teacher doesn’t make me. . .the
teacher knows I don’t like to get up in front of the class,
and so she leaves me alone."

Patricio, provided the insight that teachers discourage
low achievers’ participation.

I participate a lot in general math
because I enjoy it. In English I don’t
participate unless I’m called on. In
general science, I participate sometimes.
But, you see in Mr. Hansen’s class he
discourages students from participating
too much because if he’s talking about
waves crests and you want to ask a
question about wave length, he’ll bite
you head off. That’s not good. It
discourages people from participating
much.

Teachers’ perceptions parallelled low achievers’

Perceptions. Mr. Howard stated low achievers,

234

. . .participate when they want to.
They don’t cause problems. If I let them,
they’ll just sit there and not do a whole
heck of a lot. They take notes, they
answer some questions, but not more than
they have to do. It’s like they know what
the minimum is--I establish my minimum
expectations in the first few weeks of
school, and we go by it.

Ms. Selenski added that low achievers "don’t participate
any more than they have to. They will answer a question
without caring if it’s right or wrong--just show effort." Mr.
Floh said that low achievers "give just enough to get by. But
I guess that enthusiasm breeds enthusiasm. In 10th grade
English, we’re all going though the process." According to Mr.
Jones "Their participation is the only thing saving a lot of
these kids. If I tell them that part of their grade is
participation, then they participate; it helps to pull up
their grade to passing."

Observations were consistent with the low achievers’ and
their teachers’ perceptions. During English 10, Mr. Floh
arrived late to class. Troy was a low achiever. Timm, Daniel,

and Marcela were hard-working students.

9:05, The bell rang. The students stood
in the hall waiting for the teacher.

9:10, The teacher arrived and took
attendance.

9:12, Marcela entered Mr. Floh’s
classroom to say good-bye and to give him
an invitation to her open house.

Marcela: I didn’t forget you Mr. Shaw--I
hope you come to it. (Marcela handed the
researcher an invitation).

 

235

9:14,
Teacher: Book reports. . .who wants some
extra credit? (Troy had his head down.)

Teacher: Troy...Troy...I hope this won’t
disturb you.

Troy: Huh?

Teacher: Would you like to do a report
for extra credit?

Troy: No.
Teacher: Do you mind if we do reports?
Troy: No.

Teacher: We don’t want to keep you awake,
Troy.

Teacher: Daniel...The Outsider.

Daniel: Okay, these people like the boy
had two older brothers who had to quit
school to take care of them, so they
could go to school. Anyway his parents
were murdered. Or they died. They got hit
by a train or a car, and anyway. These
kids get attacked, some people try to
murder or drown them. So, they run away
to this old church. The one guy always
said he’d like to pull a gun on somebody
just to bluff when somebody was going to
beat him up. When he pulled out the gun,
the cop shot him. That’s how it ended. It
was a pretty good story.

Teacher: Thank.you. (Teacher wrote ’A’ on
the book report form).

Teacher: Timm Floh...Evil Come Evil Go.
Teacher: Where’s it take place?

Timm: Um, in Hollywood. It’s about a real
famous singer.

Teacher: What’s his name?

Timm: I don’t know. He’s got a little kid
named Andy. He’s got a wife too. Everyone

236

thinks they’re happy, then they start
talking about a divorce, and she’s gonna
take all his money. And, ah--then they’re
in the divorce and someone steals their
baby. On, and, ah, the nanny gets killed.
And so this guy ends up killin’ himself.
So, the police aren’t doing much to help
find Andy. They think it’s someone who
knows the parents.

Teacher: Where did Andy wait for the
train?

Teacher: You don’t know?
Timm: Where’d he go?

Teacher: Okay, that’s good enough, have a
seat. (Teacher wrote ’A’ on the book
report worksheet).

9:27,

Teacher: Okay, we’re done. (The teacher
sat at his desk and relaxed as the
students talked.)

9:43,

Teacher: (To the researcher) Look at him!
(Troy) He’s flunking right now and he
refuses to do a book report. I’ve offered
him at least twice to do a report--it’s
not like the reports are demanding. Now
watch, he’ll be right in here begging and
groveling for a passing grade--he’s
hoping social promotion is still alive
and well and that I’ll pass him. I can’t
pass him--he hasn’t even tried. If he’d
at least have made an effort.

In fact, Troy did not pass Mr. Floh’s English 10 class. He did
not meet the teachers’ expectation for minimal participation.
Realistically, the students who delivered presentations did
little more than Troy, who did nothing. Herein lies the
difference--the hard-working student participated--Troy did

not. The grade difference was an "A" versus an "E".

 

237
Low achievers and their teachers reduced participation
from willful participant who was eager to engage in learning
to attender who participated only enough to pass. In fact,
participation was reduced to attendance and minimal

compliance.

S c ' S' : Su

Low achievers weigh what they give against the
marketability they receive. Low achievers give as much as they
receive. Reciprocity exists in these classrooms. Low achievers
do not receive much marketability. Therefore, they do not give
a serious and sustained commitment to academic pursuits. This
was not to say that low achievers give nothing. Rather, low
achievers give what they believe is equal to their
marketability. Low achievers give more in classes when they
believe the education is useful in a market economy. As per
the concept of reciprocity, low achievers give equal to what

they receive.

Chapter Four Sunnnry

In this chapter the researcher argued that low achievers
and their teachers established a set of mutually gratifying
norms. This process began on the first day of classes.
Teachers reduce their classes to making students marketable.
Teacher elevate low achievers’ status to a professional level.

Teachers subordinate their knowledge to that of low achievers.

238

Low achievers are their teachers’ equals, and as such are
free to assess what teachers offer to them in marketable
education. The low achievers assess what other student groups
receive and. give. Low' achievers also. assess 'what ‘their
teachers give to serious and sustained academic pursuits.
Because low achievers received little marketability, because
teachers gave little commitment to academic pursuits, and
because low achievers had opportunities which gave them more
gratification than academic pursuits, low achievers gave what
they felt was an equal balance to what they received--just

enough to pass.

Mien

As humankind does not naturally and willingly submit
itself to deprivation and serious, sustained academic
endeavor, it is not surprising that low achievers and their
teachers strike bargains regarding the commitment which side
must give to education.

Reciprocity exits in classrooms in the form of a bargain
between low achievers and their teachers. The bargain assured
that individuals on each side receive a mutually gratifying
contract. Low achievers received little marketability.
Therefore, school was boring. Because low achievers received
little marketability, they gave just enough effort to pass.

Because low achievers and teachers were equals, teachers
realized the potential for classroom disruptions. Low

achievers and their teachers established bargains. Low

239
achievers received easy assignments, free time, no homework,
little lecture time, and a passing grade. The low achievers
reciprocated compliance and refrained disrupting teachers. The
bargain was more than assurance for compliance--the teachers
found the bargain to be mutually gratifying. It assured
adequate time for teachers to prepare, correct papers, or
simply socialize with students or teachers during class time.

The bargaining' process begins on the first day' of
classes. The bargains are offered initially by teachers.
Subsequently, the bargains are offered by whomever desires
something. Teachers reduce education to preparing students for
a job--marketability. In addition, teachers elevate the
students’ status to their own level, thus removing their
natural ascendancy over their classes.

Teachers relate to students that students know more than
their teachers about what should be instructed in order to
prepare students for chosen entry level jobs. The whole of
this process establishes a set of norms which entitle low
achievers to bargain as their teachers’ equals. As such, low
achievers are free to assess the marketability that their
teachers offer. They are free.to give effort in return that is
equal to the perceived marketability of their classes.

The bargain protected low achievers and their teachers
from incurring excessive opportunity costs. The bargain
institutionalized the commitment which each side was to give

to and receive from education. In addition, the bargain

240
assured that rewards were distributed justly. Bargaining
legitimated that low achievers were free to accept or to
reject education based on the perceived contribution it would

make to increase their marketability.

CHAPTER V

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

harms

The study’s purpose was to describe and explain the
social norms of classrooms that contained low achievers. The
investigation was divided into six questions: (1) what
bargains were established between low achievers and their
teachers; (2) what did other students receive and give; (3)
how did low achievers balance what they received against what
they gave: (4) what did low achievers receive; (5) what did
teachers of low achievers give; (6) what did low achievers
give.

In previous chapters, the researcher presented the
problem’s description, reviewed related literatures, explained
the methodology, and then presented and analyzed the data. The
researcher will use the fifth chapter to answer the research
questions, to present the study’s logic, to present the
classroom norms, and to integrate this study’s findings with
literature reviewed in chapter 2. The researcher will explain

the implications.

Data Presentation
Durkheim (1956) said that by "leaving aside everything
that has been, we have only to ask ourselves what should be"
(p. 65). Durkheim wrote that "through comparison, by
abstracting the similarities and eliminating the differences

241

242

from them, one can establish the generic types of education
which correspond to the different types of societies" (p. 96) .
What should be according to the philosophers was matched
against the low achievers’ and their teachers’ perceptions.

Schools and classrooms are social systems. The
participants understand what each individual should receive
from and give to the relationship. The classroom, as a social
system, operates under a set of mutual understandings. This
research applied social exchange theory to the classrooms
norms among 6 teachers and 15 low achievers in a single high
school. Blau (1964) argued that all relationships in social
systems are based on reciprocity. This means that participants
have a mutually gratifying contract. Blau said individuals’
actions are motivated by rewards which they anticipate.
Malinowski (1932) stated that one reward people give to each
other in social systems is conformity with group norms.
Reciprocity becomes a norm within relationships. A key aspect
of reciprocity is the trust that others will maintain the
status quo for effort and reward. Reciprocity is a social, not
legal contract. Viewing classrooms as social systems which
operate under a set of mutually gratifying norms, gives

reasonableness to the study’s findings.

General Findings

In this section, the researcher will present the general

findings from chapter four. The section is divided into six

243
sub-sections. It is here that the researcher will answer the
tentative research questions.

In section one, the researcher presented the bargains
that existed between low achievers and their teachers. As was
argued, teachers reduced education to what is useful in a
market economy in order to obtain entry level jobs. The entry
level jobs to which low achievers aspire require little
knowledge, and low achievers already knew most of what they
need.to knew for these.entry-level jobs. Because low achievers
already know'most of what they need to know, low achievers and
their teachers are equals in the norm setting process. As
their teachers’ equals, low achievers are free to assess the
marketability they receive from their classes, and to give a
level of effort equal to the marketability.

In section two, the researcher presented what other
students received and gave. Low achievers compared what they
received with what other students received in order to assure
that the school’s overall reward system was reasonably
equitable. In addition, low achievers used these comparisons
to legitimate their own commitment. Low achievers explained
that the hard-working students gave more effort because they
plan to seek post-secondary education and/or prestigious jobs.
The trouble makers would not be marketable because they gave
even less effort to education than the low achievers.

Low achievers compare their own effort against other

students’ and their teachers’ effort, and give effort

244
comparable to other students’ their teachers’ effort. The
comparison process reinforced the misconception that
education’s worth is determined more or less valuable
according to the students’ educational and career goals and
the knowledge and skills required to attain those goals.

In section three, the researcher presented how low
achievers balanced what they received against what they gave.
Students received rewards that were equal to their educational
commitment. Hard-working students received more rewards than
low achievers, because they gave more effort. The converse was
also true that trouble makers received fewer rewards because
they gave less effort to education. In keeping with
distributive justice, low achievers compared their own effort
to other students’ effort, and expected that their reward be
equal. Low achievers balanced their own effort plus their
foregone opportunities against the marketability required for
their educational and career goals. The low achievers’
marketability was minimal. The sum of effort plus opportunity
costs could exceed marketability, or cost would be negative.
When low achievers’ education cost is negative, education as
an experience is negative.

In section four, the researcher provided the findings of
what low achievers received. The researcher used Durkheim,
Newman, Rousseau, and Goodlad as referent philosophers. The
referent philosophers’ reflections serve as a benchmark of

what education should provide. The researcher posited the

245

referent philosophers’ reflections against the low achievers’
and their teachers’ responses in order to elucidate possible
rewards that could come from education and further to
elucidate the discrepancy between what should be and what is
in these classrooms. The philosophers all indicated that
education consisted of two processes: (1) the full socializing
of a younger generation, and (2) teaching the whole of
academic knowledge. The referent philosophers argued that
through education the being is transformed into a human being.
Students should develop a sense of abnegation, and desire
life-long learning for its own end. With such goals in mind,
students and their teachers should make a serious and
sustained commitment to academic pursuits.

However, low achievers and their teachers do not
naturally and willfully submit themselves to serious and
sustained academic pursuits. Neither low achievers nor their
teachers expressed a sense of abnegation. Low achievers and
their teachers reduced education from full socialization and
accumulating the whole of academic knowledge, to obtaining
minimal useful knowledge and minimal skills for marketability.
Respondents did not acknowledge that education is above all
socialization. Respondents did not acknowledge the enjoyment
of developing one’s self through serious and sustained
academic pursuits. As such, low achievers and their teachers
did not perceive that low achievers received much

marketability. Classes were not void of useful education. Low

246
achievers received knowledge and skills which they would use
on a daily basis. Useful knowledge and skills included child
care, financial planning, checking, and basic competency in
reading, English and mathematics. These topics were perceived
both as necessary and sufficient for entry-level jobs, and
therefore for education.

In section five, the researcher presented what teachers
gave. Teachers did.not give much.effort.to education. Teachers
reduced their commitment to completing class preparations
shortly before or during classes. Teachers discouraged student
participation, and lowered both expectations and rewards.
Because students did not receive much.marketability, teachers
did not expect that students give much effort to their
classes. In addition, teachers pursued personal, non-academic
tasks such as reading their personal mail, writing checks and
talking with students or other teachers during class time.

In section six, the researcher presented what low
achievers gave. Low achievers were their teachers’ equals. As
equals, low achievers were not indebted.to their teachers. Low
achievers knew as much as, or more about usefulness in market
economy than their teachers. Low achievers justified their
lack of commitment by arguing the subject material’s lack of
usefulness for entry-level jobs. Low achievers gave effort
that they' believed. was equal to the marketability‘ they
received. Low achievers gave more in those classes which

provided useful education, but classes which were not useful

247
were simply tolerated in order to receive a passing grade.
What was given to education was reduced from a serious and
sustained commitment to academic pursuits to attaining minimum
useful knowledge, minimal skills, a passing grade and
receiving a diploma.

In sum, both low achievers and their teachers were
mutually uncommitted to academic pursuits. Bargains assured
adequate time for teachers to prepare, correct papers and
socialize with students or other teachers during class time.
Students received time to study or talk during classes,
avoided out-of—school studies, and received less work. Through
their bargains, both low achievers and their teachers forego
opportunity costs.

The researcher will use the general findings to generate
the study’s logic. The logic will then be used to introduce

the set of social system norms.

The Logig
The logic is a brief explanation of how the norms develop
in classrooms.
1. Low achievers and their teachers view
and assess education as a commodity to be
exchanged in the marketplace for an
entry-level job.
2. The entry-level jobs to which low

achievers aspire and for which teachers

248
prepare low achievers do not require much
knowledge or skill.
3. Low achievers already know as much as
or more than their teachers regarding the
knowledge and skills required for entry
level jobs.
4. Since the agreement is that low
achievers do not need to know much and
that they already know most of what they
need to know, low achievers and their
teachers are on equal footing regarding
academic matters.
5. However, the school organization
demands that status differences and
compliance with the bureaucratic
regulations be followed.
6. Going back to points 2, 3 and 4, which
state that low achievers and teachers are
on equal footing because they agree that
there is not much to be known and that
low achievers already know most of what
they need to know, the bargaining is
unidirectional--always down.
7. The classroom norms encourage
organizational compliance and respect for

status differences but permit, and even

 

249
encourage low achievers to bargain
academic content on an equal basis with

their teachers.

The Social Systen Norms

Given the logic, the researcher will now present the
social system’s norms, the elucidation of which was this

study’s original purpose.

 

Norms Regarding Teachers

1. Teachers will give low achievers free
time for minimal effort and behavioral
compliance.

2. When teachers need to complete their
own work, they will give low achievers
free time.

3. Teachers will give low achievers study
time for minimal effort and behavioral
compliance.

4. Teachers will not push low achievers
beyond a comfort level.

5. Teachers will allow students to
interact in their student groups during
classes.

6. Teachers will give low achievers a
passing grade for minimal effort and

behavioral compliance.

250
7. Teachers will give low achievers less
work for minimal effort and behavioral
compliance.
8. Teachers will give low achievers more
work when they are not behaviorally
compliant.
9. Teachers will not demand that low
achievers participate more than necessary
to pass.
10. Teachers will not assign out-of-
school work.
11. Teachers will pursue personal, non-
academic opportunities during classes.
12. Teachers will ignore the low
achievers’ copying each others’
assignments, because low achievers are

compliant.

Norms Regarding Low achievers

1. Low achievers will not do more
studying in classes than necessary to
pass.

2. Low achievers will not participate
more than necessary to pass.

3. Low achievers will not study outside

of classes.

251
4. Low achievers will give behavioral
compliance.
5. Low achievers will not impede classes
by talking too loudly during lectures.
6. Low achievers will pursue personal,
non-academic opportunities during
classes.
7. Low achievers will expect a passing
grade for, attendance, behavioral
compliance and minimal effort.
8. Low achievers will copy each others’
assignments to get a passing grade.
9. Low achievers will compare their
effort to others’ effort and expect
comparable rewards.
10. Low achievers will balance their

effort against their marketability.

Summary

The norms which low achievers and their teachers
established, permit and even encourage both sides to give
minimal effort. In turn, each side expects and accepts that
the rewards for their effort will also be minimal. The
classroom norms are mutually gratifying, and therefore,
neither side seeks to change the status quo. The behavioral
norms which encourage respect for bureaucratic status remain

unchanged, and in fact cannot be bargained away. However, the

 

252
academic norms which regard achievement are established at
such a low level that even the organization’s policies, which
support achievement are subverted. Mutual gratification
explains why there is seldom conflict in classrooms. Mutual

gratification also explains why the norms go unchallenged.

The Study’s Thesis

Low achievers and their teachers conspire to establish a
mutually gratifying set of classroom norms which permit and
encourage both sides to avoid serious and sustained academic

pursuits.

Reflections

This researcher described the logic and the norms
regarding how low achievers balanced what they received
against what they gave. The addition which this researcher
rendered is the set of norms which permit and encourage low
achievement. This researcher also rendered the understanding
of how these norms were established and legitimated by both
sides. The researcher discussed the general findings. The
researcher will now integrate his findings against the nine
qualitative studies reviewed in chapter II. By comparing this
study’s findings with.the other nine qualitative studies, this
researcher adds support and credibility to his own findings.
The researcher' will present. where ‘this study’s findings
support, contradict, or extend the previous researchers’

findings.

 

 

253
MW

Low achievement coupled with good teacher/student
relations has.been noted in studies over several years. Cusick
(1983) stated that it was amazing how teachers and students
established such good relations. Powell et al. (1985) called
the phenomena treaties. Willis (1977), McNeil (1986), Cusick
(1973), Henry (1963) and Grant (1988) referred to the process
as lowering standards. Sedlak et al. (1986) stated that a
bargain‘was struck which required little of either students or
teachers. Most recently Cusick (1992) stated that the problem
for any group was to establish norms to which all individuals
willfully submit themselves. Previous researchers all referred
to the same classroom phenomenon. Low achievers and their
teachers mutually establish and legitimate norms which permit
and encourage low achievement.

McNeil (1986), Sedlak et al. (1986), Henry (1963) Cusick
(1973), Cusick (1983), Willis (1977), Cusick (1992), Powell et
al. (1985) and Grant (1988) found that students and their
teachers accept lowered.standards. Powell et.al. (1985) stated
that students and teachers agree "about the extent to which
classes will seriously be confronted" (p. 4). Sedlak et al.
(1986) stated that the norm setting process "is not an
agreement between parties of equal power" (p. 5). However,
this researcher found that low achievers and their teachers
did bargain as equals. Teachers initiated the bargains.

Subsequently, low achievers and their teachers bargained

 

254
classroom norms which were mutually gratifying. The norms were
understandings which permitted and encouraged low achievers
and their teachers to avoid serious and sustained academic
pursuits. Mediocrity existed because low achievers and their
teachers established classroom norms which permitted and
encouraged low achievement (mediocrity).

Sedlak et al. (1986), McNeil (1986), Cusick (1973),
Willis (1977), Powell et al. (1985) and Henry (1963) found
that the minimum effort required to pass classes became the
maximum effort. Cusick ( 1992) noted that individuals were free
to pursue their own course of action, including how much
compliance to give. Lowering standards brought about
behavioral compliance. However, one can also discern from
these studies that lowered standards Ibrought about only
minimal academic compliance. The norm regarding classroom
effort consisted of worksheet routine that was minimally
demanding. The only way to fail was not to attend, or to not
try at all. This researcher too found that behavioral
compliance and attendance merited a passing grade. The maximum
effort expended consisted of fill-in-the-blank book reports.
Low achievers compared their effort against the effort of
others. When the norms were violated, so were reciprocity and
distributive justice violated. In keeping with reciprocity and
distributive justice, teachers failed low achievers only when

low achievers violated the classroom norms.

 

255

Previous researchers attributed lowered standards to both
organizational and cultural factors. This researcher will
present the organizational factors, followed by the cultural
factors. The first organizational factor was a conflict
between instructing and controlling students. McNeil (1986),
Grant (1988), Cusick (1973), Cusick (1983), Cusick (1992) and
Neukom-Page ( 1991) found that control is always an issue.
Teachers have two duties: control students and instruct and
these two objectives conflict. However, Henry (1963) stated
that while control is an issue, control is also necessary for
social stability. This researcher found that control existed
in two forms: (1) behavioral compliance, and (2) academic
compliance. Behavioral compliance stemmed from the
organization’s bureaucratic structure. Academic compliance
stemmed from the classroom norms. There was a difference
between the hard-working students, low achievers and the
trouble makers. Hard-working students gave both behavioral
compliance and academic compliance. The low achievers gave
behavioral compliance but minimal academic compliance. The
trouble makers gave neither behavioral compliance nor academic
compliance.

McNeil (1986), Sedlak et al. (1986) and Grant (1988)
noted that weak policy or inconsistent enforcement by
administrators exacerbated control problems. However, Cusick
( 1992) noted that students impose the organization’s

behavioral standards such as policies upon their student

 

256

groups. Therefore, policies and student groups reinforce each
other. Previous researchers mis-attributed the problem with
policy and enforcement of policy. This researcher found that
low achievers and their teachers bargained in spite of strong
organizational policy and consistent administrative support,
not because of organizational policy or lack of administrative
support. The athletic eligibility policy was designed to
promote academic achievement among athletes. In fact, it was
teachers who were weak. Teachers inconsistently enforced a
strong athletic policy. Teachers bargained.minimal behavioral
compliance for a passing grade and athletic eligibility.
Teachers and students alike approved of the administrator who
was fair and consistent. However, despite strong policy and
consistent administrative support, both sides still bargained.

The last two organizational factors to which the previous
researchers attributed lowered standards were (1) a wide
curriculum, and (2) students choosing their own courses.
Sedlak et al. (1986), Grant (1988), McNeil (1986), Cusick
(1983), Cusick (1973), Powell et a1. (1985) and Neukom-Page
(1991) noted that there existed a wide curriculum and that
students selected their own courses. Therefore, teachers
reduced standards in order to maintain high enrollments.
However, Cusick ( 1992) noted the most important aspect of
student choice. Cusick (1992) noted that individuals are free
to choose their own course of action. Therefore, even when

students are placed into classes by the organization’s

 

257

officials, students still choose to accept or to reject.norms.
This researcher found that the high school’s curriculum was
not wide. Even in stated-mandated classes such as government,
the bargains still existed. In fact, students’ choices were
monitored by parents and counselors who approved the students’
selections. The norms encouraged low standards in spite of a
narrow curriculum and controlled or non-existent student
choice.

Previous researchers also attributed lowered standards to
two cultural factors. The first cultural factor was that
students had an instrumental view of education. McNeil (1986) ,
Sedlak et al. (1986), Willis (1977) and Cusick (1973) and
Powell et al. (1985) maintained that there exists a conflict
between the education that students needed or desired and the
education that teachers wanted to give students. Students
believed that they could enroll in junior colleges or obtain
jobs even with bad grades. Therefore, students did not make a
serious commitment to studying. This researcher added to the
previous researchers’ findings that both low achievers and
their teachers had an instrumental view of education. Both
teachers and studentsibelieved.that.lOW'achievers.could.obtain
an entry-level job even with bad grades. In addition, low
achievers did not aspire to higher education. Therefore, low
achievers did. not. pursue serious and sustained. academic

pursuits, nor did their teachers push them.

 

258

The final cultural factor again deals with students’
choice. However, this choice deals with a conflict between
pursuing academics or pursuing opportunities. Henry (1963),
McNeil (1986), Sedlak et al. (1986), Powell et al. (1985) and
Cusick (1973) noted a conflict between academic pursuits and
students’ opportunities. The school had no claim to students’
out-of—school time. Students pursued diversion in classes and
worked outside of school. These in-school and out-of—school
opportunities reduced the students’ time available to pursue
academics. Sedlak et al. (1986) noted that students’
opportunities produced more monetary and social reward than
did academic pursuits. However, McNeil (1986) noted that
teachers too had out-of—school opportunities such as jobs, and
that these jobs took their toll on teachers. This researcher
added to the previous researchers’ findings that the school
had no claim to either low achievers’ or their teachers’ out-
of-school time. Lowwachievers and their teachers.completed.all
school-related activities shortly before or during classes.
Low achievers and their teachers had opportunities which gave
more economic and social gratification than academic pursuits.
Both sides welcomed norms which permitted and encouraged low
standards.

Powell et al.’s (1985) conclusion was consistent with
Cusick’s (1992) statement that individuals have free choice.
Powell et al. concluded that the treaties existed because

"Learning is voluntary" (p. 309). This researcher extended

 

259
individual choice to include teachers as well as low
achievers. Both sides were mutually gratified by their
choices. As Durkheim (1956) explained, individuals are not
inclined to submit themselves to self-sacrifice. Both low
achievers and their teachers would incur costs by submitting
themselves to serious and sustained academic pursuits. The
norms which low achievers and their teachers established
permitted and encouraged both sides to reduce effort and

pursue their opportunities, thus reducing cost.

Conclusion to The Study

Current classroom research depicted clearly that bargains
exist, but not the bargains’ manner nor origin. No researchers
to date addressed the creation of the classroom norms which
permit and encourage low achievement. The addition which this
researcher rendered was the set of norms which permitted and
encouraged low achievement. This researcher also rendered an
understanding of how these norms were established and

legitimated by low achievers and their teachers.

lnplications
That reciprocity exists ‘within classrooms is not. a
problem--in fact it is the basis of stability. Reciprocity
could exist at any point on a ‘vertical continuum. The
continuum ranges from minimum effort to maximum effort by both

low achievers and their teachers. What is problematic, is that

260
low achievers and their teachers have bargained down academic
attainment to a minimum level.

Bargaining to a minimal level in classrooms poses
problems not only for low achievers and their teachers, but
also for the country as a whole. An article in.Tng_§ggngn1§r’s
(1992) December issue presented the problems facing education.
There are fewer jobs available which require low levels of
education, therefore there exists higher unemployment for low-
educated workers. Low-educated workers are also experiencing
pay decreases against.the rising cost of living. As technology
increases, high-technology positions are remaining in this
country, and the low technology, low-pay jobs are being
exported. The new high-technology positions require serious
and sustained education. Low achievers do not aspire to such
education or positions.

A serious and sustained change is needed within
classrooms, and teachers are the key. Teachers need to change
the way they instruct, and students need to change the way
they learn. This change can come only if classroom norms are
changed. Educational reform and educational improvement are
not mutually exclusive. In fact, schools can be reformed
without making improvement, and/or schools can make
improvement without being reformed. Educational improvement
must come in the form of re-norming classrooms. Low achievers
and their teachers must establish classroom norms which permit

and encourage high-achievement from both students and their

261
teachers. This re-norming of American classrooms must be based
on a reciprocal relationship. When either students or their
teachers are displeased with the re-norming process,
dissonance occurs. The re-norming process will be mutually
gratifying if, and only if both students and their teachers
mutually agree to the new classroom norms.

The problem in the classroom norm-setting process is that
educators have permitted and encouraged discourse about
educational goals to be dominated by the pragmatic-sounding
talk about preparation for the workplace. Educators have
turned away from the broad philosophical goals and admitted to
students that.we have only entry-level knowledge and skills to
offer. Because students know as much as or more than their
teachers about such knowledge and skills, the schools and
teachers have little or nothing to offer. As such, it is
little wonder that the norms described in this study prevail
in these classrooms.

The current teacher-empowerment.movement seems as likely
to fail as all other educational reform movements of the past
sixty years. In fact, teachers already have autonomy,
bureaucratic status, and should have natural ascendancy. The
empowerment lacking in classrooms is teachers’ natural
ascendancy (moral authority) which teachers themselves have
bargained away. Teachers must recapture their ascendancy not
from administrators, school boards nor from policy, but from

students. When teachers reclaim their ascendancy over

 

 

262
students, they will be in a position to bargain as teachers,

not as the low achievers’ equals.

 

 

APPENDICES

263

APPENDIX A

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

264

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

I) T ass .Ofl b:_-ai s be w--n . -. 1 -v- - .12 -. 1e =.
A) Do you have any deals with your teachers?

B) Who initiates the deals between low-achievers and teachers?
C) What else can you tell me about these classroom deals?

D) What kinds of things can not be bargained?

E) When do these bargains begin?

II) Whar do other students receive nnd give in glnsg?

A) Do you think the grades your receive are fair for the
amount of time you put in?

B) Do you do about the same amount of work as everyone else?

C) Tell me about students who put forth more effort than you.

D) Do they receive higher grades than you?

E) Is it fair that they receive higher grades than you?

F) Tell me about students who put forth less effort than you.

G) Do they receive lower grades than you?

H) Is it fair that they receive lower grades than you?

III) How do you balance what you receive against.wnnr ygn gen?

A) How do you decide how hard to work in your classes?
B) What kinds of things do you have to do that would keep you
from doing your homework?

 

IV) What do you receive in the classroom?

A) Tell me about the knowledge you receive.

B) Tell me about the skills you receive.

C) Tell me about the self-esteem you receive.

D) Tell me about the external rewards you receive.

E) Tell me about the internal rewards you receive.

F) Tell me about the enjoyment you receive.

G) Tell me about the attention you receive.

H) Tell me about the challenge you receive.

I) Tell me about the preparation for life and work you
receive.

V) What do teachers of low-achievers give in the classroom?
A) Tell me about the teachers’ weekly lesson planning.

B) Tell me about the teachers’ daily lesson planning.

C) Tell me about the teachers’ correcting papers and tests.
D) Tell me about the teachers’ lecturing.

E) Tell me about the teachers’ individual help to students.
F) Tell me about the teachers’ monitoring.

G) Tell me about the free time that they give.

VI) What do you give in the classroon?

A) Tell me about the amount of time that you study.
B) Tell me about the effort you give.

C) Tell me about the compliance you give.

D) Tell me about the attention you pay.

265

 

Tell
Tell
Tell
Tell
Tell

me
me
me
me
me

266

about the homework you do.
about the reading you do.
about the tests you take.
about the writing you do.
about the participation you give.

APPENDIX B

ASSENT/CONSENT FORM

267

CONSENT FORM
To Whom It May Concern:

The purpose of this study is to gain better knowledge of
what happenings in high school classrooms. I will ask
questions regarding how you determine what you will do in
your classes. I will ask questions regarding how students
interact with their classroom teachers. In addition, I will
ask for names of other students or teachers who can provide
information. This interview will not exceed two hours.
Following the interviews, I will conduct observations of the
students and teachers interviewed.

All results from the research.will be confidential. Your
name will not be used anywhere in the study. A fictitious name
must be used. If you so choose, you may select your own
fictitious name, so that at a future date you may refer to
your participation in this research.

Participation is voluntary. You do not have to
participate, and may elect to quit at any time. You may elect
not to answer any question which you choose not to answer. If
you would like to have a copy of the general findings, one
will be provided for you.

By signing this form, you indicate that you understand
the purpose of this study, and agree to interview and
observation. It is also understood that you may drop from the
study at any time that you wish.

 

GUARDIAN IF UNDER 18 (PARTICIPANT MUST ALSO SIGN).

 

PARTICIPANT

268

BI BLIOGRAPHY

269

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Blau, P. M. (1964). Erchangs snd pgysr in sgcisl lirs, New

York: John Wiley & Sons.

Cusick, P. A. (1973). Inside hign ssngol: Ins srndenrs’

world. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Cusick. P- A- (1983). MW

nigh ssnogl: Studies of rhrss sgnggls. New York:
Longman.

Cusick, P. A. (1992). The edncsrionsl systen; I§§ narure
and logis. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Durkheim, E. (1956). Education and sociology. Translated by
Sherman D. Fox. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

Durkheim, E. (1979). Durkheim: Essa 5 :mo als d .
Edited by W.S.F. Pickering, Translated by H.L. Sutcliffe.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Edwards, P. (1967a). Emile Durkheim. In Encyclgpedis pf
Ehilgsophy. Vol. 1. New York: Collier MacMillan
Publishers. 437-439.

Edwards, P. (1967b) . Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In Encyglopedia of
Philosophy. Vol. 1. New York: Collier MacMillan
Publishers. 218-225.

Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of

group norms. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, No.
1, 47-53.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of
grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Goodlad, J. I. (1979). What schools ars for. Bloomington,
IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.

Gorden, R. L. (1969). Interviewing: Strategy, rechnignes,

and tactics. Homewood, Il: The Dorsey Press.

Gorden, R. L. (1975). Intsrviewinq: Strategy. tschnigues,
and tactics, 2nd ed. Homewood, 11: The Dorsey Press.

Gorden, R. L. (1980). Interviewing: Strategy, technignes,
and tactics, 3rd ed. Homewood, 11: The Dorsey Press.

Gorden, R. L. (1987). Interviewing: Strategy, technignes,
and tactics, 4th ed. Homewood, 11: The Dorsey Press.

270

271

Gouldner, A. W. (1960) . The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary

statement. WW. Vol- 25. No. 2-
Grant, G. (1988). e w we eated am' 0 ' .

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hackman, J. R. (1976). Group influences on individuals. In
M. Dunnette (Ed.),

W
grganizstipnal psysnolggy. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Henry, J. (1963). Cultnre againsr nsn. New York: Random
House.

Hobhouse, L. T. (1906). Morals in evolurion; A study in
comparative ethics. London: Chapman 8 Hall.

Homans, G. C. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt,
Brace & World.

Homans, G. C. (1957, July). Social behavior as exchange.
American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597-606.

Homans, G. C. (1961). social behavior. New York: Harcourt,
Brace & World.

Ives, E. D. (1980). The tape-recorded interview: A manusl

for field yorkers in folklore and oral history.
Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Katz, D, & Kahn, R. L. (1966). Ihe social psychology pf
organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Kidder, T. (1989). Among school gnildren. New York: Avon

Books.

 

Mauss, M. (1954). The gift. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Malinowski, B. (1932). Crime and custom in savage society.
London: Paul, Trench, & Trubner.

 

Marshall, Catherine & Rossman, B. Gretchen, (1989) Designing
gnalitative research. Newbury, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.

McCall, G. J., & Simmons, J. L. (Eds.) (1969). Issues in

participant observation: 5 text and readsr. Reading,
MA: Addision-Wesley.

Meeker, B. F. (June, 1971). Decisions and exchange,
American Sociological Review, 36, 485-495.

272

Neukom-Page, R. (1991). - 8 °
Wflfi- New York: Teachers College.
Columbia University.

Newman, J. H. (1952). ' ea 0 b r at °

e c 'o t e s o e a . London: Harrap & Co.

Okey, T. N. (1990). Ihe ramily perspesrive on rns
individusl’s decisign ro drgp on; pf nigh ssnggl.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University.

Parsons, T., & Shils, E. A. (1951). e a e

of action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Parsons, T. (1968). The structure of socisl action: A study

in social theory with special reference to a group or
recent European writers. (Vol. 1). New York: The Free

Press.

Powell, A. G., Farrar, E., & Cohen, D. K. (1985). The

shopping mall high school: Winners and losers in rne
educational narketplace. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

 

Rousseau, J. J. (1950). Emile. Translated by Rosalie
Feltenstein. Great Neck, NY: Barron’s Educational
Series, Inc.

Rousseau, J. J. (1962) . he minor educat'o a wr 'n 5 Jean
Jacgnes Rousseau. Translated by William Boyd. New York:
Teachers College, Columbia University.

Rousseau, J. J. (1969). Rousseau on education. Edited by
Leslie Claydon. London: MacMillian.

Rousseau, J. J. (1974). Emile. Translated by Barbara Foxley.
New York: Everyman’s Library.

 

Sedlak, M. W., Wheeler, C. W., Pullin, D. C., & Cusick, P.
A. (1986). Selling students short: Classroom

bargains and academic reform in the American high
school. New York: Teachers College Press.

 

Schimidt, N. (1991, May). Personal interview. Michigan State
University, Department of psychology.

Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A. L. (1973). Field research:

Strategies for a natural sociology. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel. Translated
and edited by Kurt H. Wolff. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

273

Smart, B. D. (1983). S lectio i terview n ° a e t

psycnolggisr’s recommendsd approacn. Chicago, IL: John
Wiley & Sons.

Smith, L. M., & Geoffrey, W. (1968). om x' 'es 0 an
nrpsn glsssrggn: An analysis roward s gsneral pneory of

resching. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The sosial
psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.

Weber, M. (1947). h t eo of so a1 0
organization. New York: Oxford Press.

Witherspoon, A. M. (1951). John Henry Newman. gollege

Survey of English Literature. New York: Harcourt,
Brace, & Company. (pp. 932-945).

Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labour: How working glass

children get working class jobs. Farnborough, Eng.:
Saxon House.

Wright, P. M., Lichtenfels, P. A., & Pursell, E. D. (1989).
The structured interview: Additional studies and a

meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology,
62, 191-199.

RIES

"uuhuu