m-unu-.mv..¢~uw .“._-H,.-,‘... .V- v». -m -.‘_.... --_-wr~.04.uy.”.I-..-

AN ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL CLIMATE VARIABLES IN- A
SCHOOLS WITH VAHYINO TBLAOII ANDfWHlTE ; T ‘
STUDENT COMPOSITION WHEN SOCIOECONOMIC:
STATUS AND ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS ARE CONTROLLED _ ‘ ‘

Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. 'D. -
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
SANGCHUL WANG
1974

 

   
 

LIBR A R i" 3
Michigan Sr 5;:
University

.3‘ Jun." .ww

 
  

HWWHIIMIWWIWWI

1074 1316

   

1
\ 5' ,
A .J
I‘ I
I (,7
1’ '
,, I. .
S .1 I
.1 I . ' - ~ "~
1 1, d A: . ‘
‘i . y ‘1'
D
4&3!“ , ,r l l
c.“

ABSTRACT

AN ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL CLIMATE VARIABLES IN SCHOOLS
WITH VARYING BLACK AND WHITE STUDENT COMPOSITION
WHEN SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND ACHIEVEMENT
CONTROLLED

BY

Sangchul Kang

It was postulated that controlling the mix of student characteristics
may affect climate, since the climate or culture of the school organization
depends to a significant degree on the nature of the entering students.

This study therefore focuses on the differences in social academic
climate in schools with varying racial composition in different community
settings. More Specifically, this study examines the perceptions of
school academic climate held by black and white students in schools with
similar levels of achievement and similar socio-economic composition, but
different types of racial composition. The teachers' opinions of the
academic norms and expectations are also examined in schools with varying
racial composition.

The theoretical foundation for this study was derived from a social
psychological theory of human behavior, as stated by Brookover and Erickson
(1969): symbolic interaction, reference group, role and expectation
theories.

Data were collected from 8 low SES and low achievement elementary

Sangchul Kang

schools, and 3 high SES and high achievement elementary schools. Schools
within each community type were selected on the basis of their mean
student achievement and mean student SES, as measured by the Michigan
State School Assessment Indexes.

The instruments employed in this study were designed to study
certain social psychological and structural variables constituting
normative academic climate within each of the schools. The instruments
used within each school consisted of a student questionnaire, which were
administered to 4th, 5th, and 6th grade students and their teachers.

A standardized procedure of data collection and subsequent coding of
the material was carried out by Brookover's research team. This
researcher participated in the coding stage.

A Varimax Rotation Factor Analysis identified clusters of variables
which combined to form meaningful factors, and reduced the number of
factors to manageable numbers for each set of data. Cattell's Scree Test
determined the number of factors by plotting the eigenvalues greater
than 1. Five student factors and four teacher factors were generated as
school climate variables in each set of data:

Student factors in low SES and low achievement schools;
Factor 1- Present evaluations-expectations.
Factor 2- Future evaluations-expectations.
Factor 3- Sense of futility.
Factor 4- Reward/feedback.
Factor 5- School norms.
Teacher factors in low SES and low achievement schools;
Factor 1- Push for competition.
Factor 2- Expectations.
Factor 3- Job satisfaction.

Factor 4- Press for achievement.

Student factors in high SES and high achievement schools;

 

vari

the

fol:

 

 

 

 

Sangchul Kang

Factor 1- Present evaluations-expectations.
Factor 2- Future evaluations-expectations.
Factor 3- Sense of futility.

Factor 4- Press for competition/push.
Factor 5- Role identity.

Analysis of Variance was used to determine which school climate

variables significantly differ in various types of racial composition in

the schools. The major findings of this study can be summarized as

follows:

1.

Predominantly urban black and rural mixed schools (62% black)
scored higher/more favorably in all of the student climate factors,
except school norms, than urban white and rural white schools.

Comparing student climate factors between white and black in
rural mixed schools, the black majority (62%) scored higher
in present and future expectations-evaluations and more
favorably in sense of futility than whites.

The black majority (62%) in mixed schools scored higher in reward/
feedback than segregated all-black schools.

There were no differences in four strata in the four teacher
climate factors. There were significant differences in the four
groups in all of the student climate factors, except school norms.

In two differently composed urban-mixed schools the black (70%)
scored higher in two student factors - present evaluations-
expectations and press for competition/push - than black
minority (15%).

In three differently composed urban mixed schools, the white
minority (30%) scored higher in two student factors - present
evaluations-expectations and press for competition/push -
than white majorities (85% and 100%).

In an urban mixed school, the black majority (70%) scored favorable
in sense of futility but the white minority (30%) scored higher
in press for competition/push.

The white minority (30%) in a mixed school scored higher in two
student factors - present evaluations-expectations and press
for competition/push - than did an all white school.

In an urban mixed school, the white majority (85%) scored favorable
in sense of futility and lower in press for competition/push
than blacks.

 

 

 

was

ten,

rac

sch

mix

 

rag

Sangchul Kang

10. Low SES and low achievement school teachers scored higher than
high SES and high achievement school teachers in all of the
factors, except press for competition.

The different sets of groups had different number of factors. In
both student and teacher data, the evaluations-expectations variable
was the most stable factor in the Factor Analyses.

In the mixed black and white school the majority racial group
tended to perceive the school climate more favorably than the minority
racial group. Interaction and communication between racial groups in
schools was emphasized. Social interaction is not merely a proximity
of bodies. When SES and achievement were controlled, there were fewer
mixed school effects than expected. As Wilson (1969) indicated, social
class mix appears to be more important to the children's behavior than
racial composition in these schools.

Implications derived from this study indicated that it is desirable
to design the teacher education and administrative policy to modify

the social climate in schools. Through this, the level of school outcomes

may be significantly improved for children in schools with the disadvantaged.

AN ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL CLIMATE VARIABLES IN SCHOOLS WITH
VARYING BLACK AND WHITE STUDENT COMPOSITION WHEN
SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS
ARE CONTROLLED

By

Sangchul Kang

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Sociology of Education

1974

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the members
of my dissertation committee: Drs. John Schweitzer, Frederick Waisanen,
Cole Brembeck, and the dissertation chairman, Dr. Wilbur Brookover.

A special and highly insufficient expression of gratitude must be given
to Dr. Brookover, who has provided me with four years of invaluable
training and encouragement without which this study could not have

been completed.

I wish to thank Dr. Andrew Porter's research consultants and
computer center for their helpful consultations.

I would also like to thank my collegues, Drs. Jeff Schneider,
Ki-Suck Chung, and Tai Sung Kim for their insightful conversations on
this study. I owe great gratitude to Mr. and Mrs. Edward and Nancy
Dixon for their proof reading and editing, and to Mr. Yoon Joong Kang
for his assistance in typing.

A special thanks to Dr. Han Been Lee, President of Soong Jun
University, who permitted me to take an extended leave of absence
from teaching duties for this study.

I would dedicate this dissertation to my father who was a
constant source of motivation for this study. Finally, my heartful
thanks go to Insook, Syngbom, and Songok who, in spite of the count-
less weekends, evenings, and holidays consumed in research and writing,

still claimed me as a member of the family.

ii

TAB LE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER Page

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . 1

Statement of the problem . . 1

Justification for the study 2

Statement of hypotheses . . 5

Concept of social climate of schools 7

Definition of organizational climate 8

II. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS . . . . . . 12

Symbolic interaction . . . . . 12

Reference group . . . . . . 19

Role expectations . . . . 37

Social-psychological theory of learning . . 48

III. REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH . . . . . 50

School climate . . . . . . . 50

Related researches . . . . . . 53

Interracial climate and achievement . . 69

IV. METHOD AND FACTOR ANALYSIS . . . . . 72

Procedures and methodology . . . . 72

Factor analysis . . . . . . 77

V. RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS . . . . . . 105

VI. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . 130
BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDICES

iii

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE

IV 1

LIST OF TABLES

Characteristics of schools selected for study: Race, SES,
Achievement, Urban-Rural, and Sample numbers of students,
and Teachers . . . . . . . . .

The differences in students' climate factor scores among
urban-white, urban-black, rural-white, and rural-mixed
schools with low SES and low achievement . . .

Rank order in students' climate factor scores among
urban white, urban black, rural white, and rural mixed
schools with low SES and low achievement . . .

The differences in white students' climate factor scores
in urban white, rural white, and rural mixed schools with
low SES and low achievement . . . . . .

The difference in climate factor scores between white
students (38%) and black students (62%) in rural mixed
schools with low SES and low achievement . . .

The difference in climate factor scores between white
students (38%) in rural mixed schools and students in
all white rural schools with low SES and low achievement

The difference in climate factor scores between white
students (38%) in rural mixed schools and white students

in urban all white schools with low SES and low achievement

The difference in climate factor scores between black
students (62%) in rural mixed schools and black students
in predominantly urban black schools with low SES and
low achievement . . . . . . . .

The differences in teachers' climate factor scores
among urban white, urban blac k, rural white, and rural
mixed schools with low SES and low achievement . .

The differences in teachers' climate factor scores
among predominantly white, predominantly black, and
mixed schools with low SES and low achievement . .

The differences in climate factor scores between black
students in predominantly white (85%) and predominantly
black (70%) mixed urban schools with high SES and high
achievement . . . . . . . . .

iV

Page

74

105

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

TABLE (continued) Page

10. The differences in climate factor scores among white students
in all white, predominantly white (85%) and predominantly
black (70%) urban schools with high SES and high achievement 116

11. The difference in climate factor scores between black
students (70%) and white students (30%) in an urban mixed
schools with high SES and high achievement . . . 117

12. The difference in climate factor scores between white students
in a predominantly black (70%) urban school with high SES
and high achievement . . . . . . . 118

13. The difference in school climate scores between white
students (85%) and black students (15%) in an urban mixed
school with high SES and high achievement . . . 119

14. The difference in teachers' climate factor scores between
high-SES-high achievement and low-SES-low achievement
schools . . . . . . . . . 120

15. The differences in students' climate factor scores among
classes in a rural mixed school with low SES and low
achievement . . . . . . . . . 121

15-1. Number of student in each classroom (school 7) . . 122

15-2. The differences in students' climate factor scores among
classes in a rural mixed school with low SES and low
achievement (school 8) . . . . . . . 123

15-3. Number of student in each classroom (school 8) . . 124

16. The differences in students' climate factor scores among
classes in a low SES and low achievement urban black
school in which classes are homogeneously grouped by
ability . . . . . . . . . 125

16-1. Number of student in each classroom which is homogeneously
grouped by ability . . . . . . . . 126

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The waste of human potential within the schools can no longer
be tolerated. Such educational theories as the genetic origin of
intelligence or the permanent effect of environmental deprivation can no
longer be used as excuses for the failure of schools to educate large
numbers of children, especially those from lower SES/culturally different
backgrounds.

Some exceptional schools demonstrate that low achievement is not
inevitable in schools composed of lower socio-economic status/minority
group children. The identification of such a typical schools provides
the opportunity to determine what characteristics of the school
environment account for the variation in achievement among schools.

Much research indicates that children from low SES families and certain
minority group families attending schools predominatly composed of such
children generally achieve at significantly lower levels than children
from middle-class families attending predominantly middle-class white
schools. A study of the impact of educational climate on academic perfor-
mance demonstrated that certain characteristics of the academic norms or

climate accounted for a significant proportion of the variation in math

3C

[I'll

an

to

pos

MI“
3

C012

of

 

wit

but

3C8

I'aC

3C8

dif

is
Cli
to
the
af 5

‘

Th

 

Sc,

ac}

achievement in a sample of high schools with similar family background
and social composition controlled (McDill et a1. 1967).

Since the climate or culture of the school organization depends
to a significant degree on the nature of the entering students, it was
postulated that controlling the mix of student characteristics may
affect climate. This study therefore focuses on the differences in social
academic climate in schools with varying racial composition in different
community settings. More Specifically, this study examines the perceptions
of school academic climate held by black and white students in schools
with similar levels of achievement and similar socio-economic composition,
but different types of racial composition. The teachers' opinions of the
academic norms and expectations are also examined in schools with varying
racial composition. If schools with various racial composition differ in
academic climate factors, educators should seek to determine how these

differences contribute to the achievement difference among students.

JUSTIFICATION FOR THE RESEARCH

 

Inquiry into the realm of racial/SE3 differences in school climate
is very important. If integrated and segregated schools differ in a
climate variable, educators should seek to determine how this contributes
to the achievement difference between black and white students. Many of
the tangible type~input variables which have previously been assumed to
affect the quality of education, do not significantly affect achievement.
There is intuitive appeal in the idea that there are differences among
schools in the extent to which normative pressures support academic

achievement and subsequent status achievement in the larger society.

There is also some relatively unsystematic empirical evidence that such
differences do exist, especially on the elementary school level, as
Johnson (l970:4) states regarding to this lack of research:
Most studies of organizational climate of schools have confined
themselves to the college level, a few have investigated high
schools, and practically none have dealt with elementary schools.

In view of Johnson's statement, this study will be significant
in that the thrust will be in an area in which limited research has been
done in social psychological aspects of the elementary school. The rural
mixed school is unique in terms of unintended, natural integration and
its latent consequences, since most of the integration problems are
concentrated on urban schools.

It is generally agreed that human behavior is learned or acquired
in association with other human beings. In this sense, the entire educat-
ional process involves the interaction of the individual with other persons,
groups, and complex organizations in his social environment (Brookover
and Erickson, 1969). Related with the above social context for learning,
there are few teaching theories in vague which take into account a
sophisticated understanding of how the social environment influences what
and how much is learned by students.

Although most studies identified the factors which contribute
significantly to academic achievement and to black and white schools,
their sample schools are limited to predominantly segregated cases, and/or
socio-economic status was not controlled. For example, in the Berkeley
studies (Lunemann, 1973) the fact that the city is unique in the highly
visible disparity in socio-economic levels which exists between the

upper-income white and lowerv-income non-white communities, obscures any

clear explanation of the relationship between ethnicity and achievement.

d.

8C

SC.

331-:

C1.

 

 

5t

 

 

Rodgers studied racial pride and his findings indicated that the students
in racially mixed schools manifested the highest racial pride. Neverthless,
there was no evidence whether it is racial mixing or social class which
accounts for the differences, since basically the students in the
desegregated/integrated schools are middle class and the students in the
segregated schools are lower class (1973: 62-63). Brookover and
Henderson's study on the comparative analysis of black and white school
climate scales (1973: 76-89) also is based on predominantly segregated
black and all-white schools only. Therefore, further investigations of
the effects of segregation/integration on school climate factors with socio-
economic status and achievement controlled are warranted.

This research, though limited, deemed the 20th anniversary
school desegregation ruling (1954) a suitable occasion for reviewing
and assessing the consequence of that decision and establishing a basis
for improved future efforts. For equality of educational opportunity,
strategies must be formulated which arrest the disfunctionality of
disadvantaged minorities, since no total integration of schools has come
close to this goal in educational outcomes.

Coleman (1967: 122-26) adds credence to this line of research
when he discusses equality of educational opportunity and equal schools.
What really is important, according to Coleman's theory, is the output of
the school, irrespective of the social origins of the input. In other
words, the output should be capable of competing on equal basis with other.
Thus, whether a school contains high and/or low socio-economic status

students, black and/or whites, the output should be same.

 

 

 

 

SEE

P53

311C

TLC

an;

 

 

STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESES

The major hypothesis formulated in this study is generally

stated as follows: There are significant differences in social

psychological school climate variables, between black and white students

and between integrated and segregated schools when the socio-economic status

and the achievement level are controlled. The measurable hypotheses for

analysis are listed as follows:

1.

Students' climate factor scores will differ significantly among
students in urban white, urban black, rural white, and rural
mixed schools with low SES and low achievement.

White students in urban white, rural white, and rural mixed
schools with low SES and low achievement will perceive school
climate differently.

White students (38%) and black students (62%) in rural mixed
schools with low SES and low achievement will perceive school
climate differently.

White students (38%) in rural mixed schools will perceive a more
favorable climate than students in all white rural schools with
similar low SES and low achievement.

White students (38%) in rural mixed schools will perceive

climate factors more favorably than white students in urban all
white schools with similar low SES and low achievement.

Black students (62%) in rural mixed schools will perceive climate
factors more favorably than black students in predominantly urban
black schools with similar low SES and low achievement.

Teachers' school climate factor scores will vary significantly

10.

ll.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

16.

among urban white, urban black, rural white, and rural mixed schools
with low SES and low achievement.

Teachers's perception of school climate factors differ significantly
among predominantly white, predominantly black, and mixed schools
with low SES and low achievement.

Black students in predominantly white (85%) and predominantly
black (70%) mixed urban schools with high SES and high achievement
will perceive school climate factors differently.

White students in all white, predominantly white (85%) and
predominantly black (70%) urban schools with high SES and high
achievement will perceive school climate factors differently.
Black students (70%) will perceive the school climate more
favorably than white students (30%) in an urban mixed school

with high SES and high achievement.

White students in an all white urban school perceive climate
factors less favorably than white students in a predominantly
black (70%) urban school with high SES and high achievement.

White students (85%) perceive the school climate more favorably
than black students (15%) in an urban mixed school with high SES
and high achievement.

Teachers' climate factor scores will differ significantly between
high-SES-high-achievement and low-SES-low-achievement schools.
There will be significant differences in students' climate factor
scores among classrooms in a rural mixed school with low SES

and low achievement.

There will be significant differences in students climate factor

scores among classrooms in a low SES and low achievement urban

 

 

Me. 1“ LI... L N I. a .1. .d LI .
W t t n .1 ..b .1 S. e a I a .
vb S .v nu r

 

 

black school in which classes are homogeneously grouped by ability.
With the following statement in mind, hypotheses 15 and 16 above
were formulated. McPartland suggested in his school integration study (1967)
that the classroom is more important than school integration. He found
that black students' achievement was increased with an increase in the
number of white classmates. With this importance of classroom as an
immediate environment for the students, the classroom as the unit of analysis
was proposed under the assumption that there are significant differences
in the climate factor scores among the sample school classes.
There are a number of reasons to analyze classrooms as the
fundamental unit, especially in elementary schools:
1) The classroom is the basic unit of school activities for the children.
2) The classroom as the unit of analysis is the most neglected in
educational researches (Mitra 1974: 41).
3) The school class as a social system is more relevant to classroom

teachers and to student peers for socialization (Parsons 1959).

THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL CLIMATE OF SCHOOLS

The social aspects of school environment can be analyzed in many
ways (Johnson 1970: 231-33; Boocock 1973; McDill 1973: 4-6). In this
study, two concepts referred to different aspects of the social environment-
structual variables and climate factors. The structual/organizational
variables, used as independent variables, were racial and SES composition
and school achievement levels. School climate or the school culture
referred to the attitudes, beliefs, values, norms that characterize the

social system of the school (Brookover 1974).

 

 

 

SE

 

 

 

 

in

The climate or culture was defined in this study as the aggregate
attitudes, beliefs, norms and role expectations of the members who make
up the school social system. These social-psychological variables are

subject to change through the reference group-teachers, parents and peers.

DEFINITION OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE

 

It is easy to identify the differences between the cultural
setting of Seoul National University and Michigan State University, or
among various colleges in a single country. Apparently, such differences
in culture have serious effects on student attitudes toward school, student
achievement, and later success. Each school has its own culture, which
in turn may be made up of a whole spectrum of subcultures affecting
student behavior and performance. This culture of an organization is a
combination of the organizational factors and of the personal characteristics
of the members of the organization. It is such a significant force that
it affects almost every activities in the organization.

The results of studies of school climates have revealed differences
in climates between schools, particularly in variables such as emphasis
on academic excellence, the intellectual, political, and social orientation
and aspirations of students.

Murry (1938) introduced a taxonomy for classifying both
environmental pressures and the characteristic ways in which an individual
strives to structure the environment for himself. Murry called the
external pressures "press" and their internal pressures "need". These
two terms serve a dual function in classifying self-directing personality

trends (needs) and externally controlling situational pressures (press).

Both BEESE and 25233 are inferred from characteristic activities and
events, the nggdg from things that the individual typically does and
the 25353 from things that are typically done to him in some particular
setting. Pace and Stern (1958) applied Murry's personality theory to
the climate of educational organizations. Thus, they conceptualized the
climate of an educational organization as consisting of the personality
characteristics and values (22212) of its members and the organizational
pressures on the students, administration, and faculty (23533).

In a statement of the climate of school organizations Astin and
Holland (1961) and Michael (1961) theorized that the major portion of
environmental pressures depends on the nature of the people within the
environment; organizational climate, therefore, was defined as the
personal orientations and characteristics of the majority of the students
within the organization.

Boyle (1965) conceptualized climate as consisting of both
structural characteristics of the school and the characteristics of
the students. Boyle reported that the students' aspirations for attending
college were jointly determined by the educational standards and practices
of high schools, the scholastic abilities of the students, and the peer-
group influences on values and attitudes.

Backman and Secord (1968) defined the climate as three factors:
(1) the personality characteristics, abilities, motives, values, career
and educational plans and past experiences of the students; (2) the norms,
values, role requirements and other characteristics-— such as the exercise
of authority, size, availability of facilities, and nature of setting:- of

the school itself; (3) the values and norms of the informal organization

 

 

 

 

 

vi

it

Of

rT‘

121'
it

f1.

 

 

10

within the school, that is, the traditions and collective feelings passed
from one generation of students to another.

These three factors, however, are not independent of each other,
but interact to some extent. For example, the quality of the entering
students is dependent on the characteristics of the organization, if
self-selection for students is possible. That is, intellectually-oriented
students enroll in colleges that have reputations for being intellectually
oriented schools. The interactive process is complicated by the fact
that incoming students react differently to the formal and informal aspects
of organization. The personal characteristics of the incoming students
interact with the formal and informal aspects of the organization to
influence the students' behavior. That is, unique characteristics make
a student receptive to certain types of influences and resistant to
others. This receptivity determines the extent to which he is influenced
by the organizational characteristics of the school and the traditions
and norms of the ongoing student boy. Thus, the climate of a school does
not affect all the students in a given school uniformly. The three
variables determining climate are not necessarily homogeneous. There are
subcultures present in all three variables within the organization,
the student body, and the incoming students, which differentially
influence the individual student. The structure of the school,
furthermore, is usually heterogeneous, so that students differ with
respect to their chances of encountering formal influences.

The climate in this review appears to be the environmental
pressures in an organization which exert an influence in shaping and
maintaining;the behavior of its members. By manipulation of the

variables in environmental pressures, human behavior can be modified.

ll

Operationally, school climate can be defined as student factors (5) and
teacher factors (4) generated by a Varimax Rotation Factor Analysis in

this study.

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

The present study is theoretically based on the current theories
of symbolic interaction, reference groups, and role expectations.

Brookover and Erickson (1969) stated a social psychological
conception of learning which is relevant to this study:

1. The social norms and expectations of others define the
appropriate behavior for persons in various social situations.

2. Each person learns the definitions of appropriate behavior
through interaction with others who are important and significant
to him.

3. The individual learns to behave in ways that he perceives are
appropriate or proper for him.

4. The individual also acquires conceptions of his ability to learn
various types of behavior through interaction with others whose
evaluations are important to him.

This social psychological frame of reference involves the

reference group and role expectations as well as symbolic interaction theory.

SYMBOLIC INTERACTION
Many sociologists and social psychologists use the term "symbolic
interaction" to emphasize that the basis of social behavior is communication.

Socialization appears to be a process in which an actor is trained to

12

 

3:20 ‘10]

-(g

--

3.1.0

ECO

0-.

‘J'J

.- ~r. '-
...3. .4-

\

 

 

___.—.h____ -___.___ ._ _ ______

 

Ci
If

M:

of

Vi

pe

ES;
110‘

in

D‘
D

 

0r

 

13

engage on any or all types of symbolic interaction or communication.
Social interaction is not merely a proximity of bodies. It involves for
each participant an awareness of others. Each participant interprets and
reinterprets the cues provided by those with whom he is interacting.

More than that, it involves on the part of each interacting individual

an awareness and interpretation of self. This leads to a process of
socialization.

School can be described as a system within which an interchange
of observation, reaction, and modification occurs in the environment
of which all the actors - teachers and students -— are a part. A student
will behave in a manner which he perceives as acceptable to "other"
persons who are "significant" to him.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, several British philosophers,
especially John Locke and David Hume, proposed that human nature consisted,
not of innate abilities, but of skills acquired in the course of men's
interacting with their fellows. Speculations about the exact process
by which human nature emerged in interaction continued in Europe and
the United States throughout the 19th century (Hughes 1958: 36). It was,
however, not until the early decades of the twentieth century that Cooley
(1909) and Mead (1934) provided a detailed and explicit account of the
origins of human nature as aspects of the rise of symbolic interaction.

The term symbolic interaction refers to the process by which

 

individuals relate to their own minds or the minds of others; the process,
that is, in which individuals take account of their own or their fellows'
motives, needs, desires, means and ends, knowledge, and the like. This

process was first labeled symbolic interaction by Blumer in his

 

sy

 

IlaITIIA-l
Ill-ll
'11

 

0r

14

Social Psychology (1937: 144-98). The view of group life in Blumer's

 

symbolic interaction is stated:

... human group life is that held by those social psychologists whom
we have termed the symbolic interactionists. They, also, recognize
that the life of human groups presents itself in the form of a body of
customs, traditions, institutions, and so on, but they do not regard
these forms of culture as consisting merely of so many different
individual ways of acting. Instead, they believe that these forms of
culture consist of common symbols, which are mutually shared and
possessed by the members of the groups. Individual ways of acting are
alike because these individuals are guiding their behavior by a symbol
which they share in common. Thus, individuals wear clothing, in
accordance with the custom of their group, because each of them shares
the common understanding that he isBUpPosed to wear clothing. In the
same way, any custom, folkway, or way of acting common to a group of
individuals is traceable back to their possession of a common symbol
or understanding (p. 158-59).

 

 

... the group setting into which the child is born is made up of
cooperative forms of activity that prevail because the people in the
group possess a set of common symbols or understandings. What is
important in the setting or milieu of the child is not primarily

the activities of the individuals account it, but the symbols and
understanding that guide these activities is symbolic. This, then,
is the view of the symbolic interactionalists (p. 159).

In the definition of symbolic interaction the word "mind" was
employed by C.S. Peirce, William James, John Dewey, and George Herbert Mead.
C.W. Morris in his Six Theories of Mind (1932) distinguished among mind
as substance, mind as process, mind as relation, mind as intentional act,
mind as substantive, and mind as function. For the pragmatic orientation
in his theory of the mind as function, Morris stated:

Certain phases of the functional approach to mind precede or fall outside
of the American pragmatic movement-— of these phases only a bare

mention will be made. A discussion of the functional view of mind as
appears in the thought of Peirce, James, Mead, and Dewey constitutes

the major task of the chapter VI: "Mind as Function". The central

place which Dewey holds in this development is justification for the
extended consideration of his views (p. 275).

Writers who shared Mead's position objected to the conceptions of

organized social life, particularly the cultural determinism which was

 

oi

es

at

to

to

in

th.

81‘

f0

 

 

15

prevalent in the literature of their time. By contrast, the interpretations
of social life as symbolic interaction conceived of actors as constantly
establishing and re-establishing their mutual relations, modifying or
abandoning them as the occasion demanded.

One branch of the pragmatist movement made a special contribution
to symbolic interaction theory, namely, that associated with Charles
Horton Cooley and George Herbert Mead, which eventuated in a special kind
of social psychology. According to Talcot Parsons, it was Cooley who first
took seriously the truly indeterminate character of the self as a structure
independent of others. This led to the idea that the self developed in
the process of interaction with others. As Mead said, to Cooley the
"other" belonged in the same field as the self and was just as immediately
given (Mead 1964: 293-307).

To Cooley, it was a structure and process which is particularly
found in the vehicles of communication, that is, everything that
interrelates the conduct of members of society, and which become therefore
symbols in their minds. Cooley presented the conception of the relation
of social mind to the organic structure and process of society:

By communication is here meant the mechanism through which human
relations exist and develop - all the symbols of mind, together with
the means of conveying them through space and preserving them in
time... All these taken together, in the intricacy of their actual
combination, make up an organic whole corresponding to the organic
whole of human thought; and everything in the way of mental growth

has an external existence therein. The more closely we consider

this mechanism the more intimate will appear its relation to the inner
life of mankind, and nothing will more help us to understand the latter
than such consideration. ... Without communication the mind does not

develop a true human nature, but remains in an abnormal and nondescript
state neither human nor properly brutal (Cooley 1962: 61-62).

a:

SE

a:

to

IE

"I 2
(1‘

 

 

l6

Mead, however, took the essential step of treating the individual
as being both subject and object at the same time and in the same inter-
personal system. Furthermore, he was clearer than Cooley in showing that
the personality of the individual emerges from the process we now call
socialization, precisely through the interplay between these subjective
and objective aspects.

Mead also contributed the most important conception in his idea
of the ggneralized other. Through symbolic interaction the individual
learns to use and develop generalized codes that can interrelate a conce-
ption of the particular other with generalized categories and collectivities.
This is the foundation, in the process of socialization, of the intern-
alization of cultural as well as social systems, which in turn came
to be differentiated from each other.

Social psychology demonstrated and analyzed the intimacy of the
relation between personality and social system by showing that the
personality cannot be understood independently of its articulation,
including its genetic involvement, with social interaction.

Parsons (1968: 435) stated that Mead also surpassed Freud in
beginning the exploration of truly symbolic processes and in building
a bridge between behavior theory and linguistics. There was certainly
impressive convergence between this version of "symbolic interaction"
theory and the ideas of both Freud and Durkheim on the internalization
of social objects.

Mead (1934) defined "self" as follows:

... the individual becomes a social object in experience to himself.
This takes place when the individual assumes that attitude or uses

the gesture which another individual would use and responds to it
himself or tends to respond. The child gradually becomes a social

it

51.

0f

 

 

 

17
being in his own experience, and he acts toward himself in a manner
analogous to that in which he acts toward others.

Cooley (1902: 184) earlier studied the self-other relationship
and developed the concept of "the looking-glass self". According to
him, a social self of this sort might be called the reflected or
looking-glass self:

" Each to each a looking-glass
Reflects the other that doth pass".

As we see our face, figure, and dress in the glass, and are
interested in them because they are ours, and pleased or otherwise
with them according as they do or do not answer to what we should
like them to be; so in imagination we perceive in another's mind
some thought of our appearance, manners, aims, deeds, character,
friends, and so on, and are variously affected by it.

From a self-idea of this sort, Cooley classified three principal
elements: the imagination of our appearance to the other person; the
imagination of his judgement of that appearance, and some sort of self-feeling,
such as pride or mortification.

Johnson (1970: 85) summarized what he calls an excellent example
of a formal theory:

The actual responses of others to the individual will be important
in determining how the individual will perceive himself; this
perception will influence his self-conception which, in turn, will
guide his behavior. The way in which the responses of others affect
an individual's self-concept needs some further elaboration. The
responses of one's associates do not automatically form one's self-
concept. One must (1) accurately perceive how he is being responded
by others around him and (2) compare this reflection of self against
a standard, a set of expectations that he and his "reference groups"
hold as to how he should behave and what characteristics he should
have (Backman & Secord 1968).

In the theoretical tradition of symbolic interaction, each actor
is indeed a product of the interplay between the environment and himself.
A unique aspect of this theory is the inclusion of the parents with regard

to their input into the school environment and their subsequent behavior

 

 

CC

 

 

 

18

in return. The most prominent feature of this theory is that conceptuali-
zations of the school climate facilitate maximal or minimal student
performance. As McDill indicated earlier, the climate aspects were more
highly related to achievement than socio-economic status, even when the
effects of both intelligence and socio-economic status were controlled
the effects of climate still had some explanatory power with regard to
academic achievement. An important aspect of the current study is to
test the basic hypothesis that the academic behavior of black children

in biracial schools would be highest in integrated settings.

This hypothesis can be derived from the findings of extensive
laboratory research on black performance in biracial situations,
conducted over the past decade by Irwin Katz:

Katz has summarized and discussed his research in three papers,

the first of which is especially relevant to this study's hypothesis:
Irwin Katz, "Review of Evidence Relating to Effects of Desegregation

on the Intellectual Performance of Negroes", American Psychologist,

1964 Vol. 19:381:99; Irwin Katz, "The Socialization of Academic
Motivation in Minority Group Children", in D. Levine, Ed., Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation, 1969, Lincoln, Nebraska: University of
Nebraska Press, 1969: 133-91; and Irwin Katz, "A Critique of
Personality Approaches to Negro Performance, with Research Suggestions",
Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 25, 1969: 13-27.

Katz found in one experiment after another that black subjects
performed best in interracial situations free of stress and threat,
moderately well in all-black situations, and worst in interracial situations
characterized by stress and threat. Katz (1964) concluded:

The psychological evidence that I have presented is consistent with

a definition of racial integration which emphasizes the beneficial effects
to black pupils if genuine respect and acceptance prevails.

19

REFERENCE GROUP

 

Sociologists, social psychologists, and cultural anthropologists
have usually operated on the fundamental assumptions that an individual's
attitudes and conduct are shaped by the group in which he has membership
and that self-appraisal and the correlative feelings and behavior flow
from the individual's location in a particular group within a social
hierarchy. The evidence in support of such principles is abundant (Brookover
and Erickson, "Group norms and expectations" 1969: 64-98; Merton
"Contributions to the theory of reference group behavior" 1968: 279-440);
but, at times, faith in the principles becomes shaky in the face of
contradictory examples:

(1) Upper-class individuals with radical ideologies and revolutionary
allegiances,

(2) Those who feel deprived despite relatively advanced positions,

(3) The products of an orthodox milieu who end up as nonconformists,

(4) Social reformists, revolutionalists, and creative innovators and
enterprisers, etc.

In the process of self-appraisal, from many possible groups
available as a framework for school social comparison, students make their
own particular selections, thus reflecting the true complexities of their
social location in the class and school setting. In shaping their attitudes
students may orient themselves to groups other than their own. If their
peer groups to which students refer themselves (their reference groups)
are empirically determined, knowledge and predictions of attitude, self-
evaluation, and conduct will be enhanced; and an understanding of the complex

processes by which students relate themselves to their reference groups,

20

can be enriched. The fact that students may shape their attitudes by
reference to peer groups other than their own and may shape their self-
evaluations by the choice of unusual points of social comparison is
perhaps the most distinctive contribution of reference group theory (Hyman
1968: 354).

Unusual patterns of behavior may be understood without recourse
to this concept. Some members of a group may depart from the modal
pattern of behavior simply because of their simultaneous membership in
other groups. Some students in a particular status (e.g., leaders in
extra-curricular activities) may have an incongruent self image because .
they occupy other statuses as well.

It would then remain problematical to determine which of the
multiple memberships and multiple statuses weighs heaviest with the

student, and what weights best represent their respective contributions?

DEVELOPMENT OF THE REFERENCE GROUP CONCEPT

The term "reference group" was first used by Hyman, who elaborated
the concept and explored some of its properties. Merton (1968: 329-30)
stated in "Concepts Kindred to Reference Group Theory" that from allusions
scattered through the foregoing discussion, it is evident that certain
facts of reference group behavior were noted long before the term,
reference ggoup was coined by Hyman in his important study of Th;
Psychology of Status (1942). Kelley (1952: 410) also mentioned reference
group by noting that "... the term reference group, first used by Hyman,
has come into use to denote 521 group to which a person relates his attitudes".

At about the same time, Newcomb (1943/1957) searching to understand

 

'Y‘I

 

 

21

processes of attitude change, or lack or change, among individuals,
systematically explored in his Personality and Social Change: Attitude
Formation in a Student Communigy (1943/1957), by interview and repeated
testing, the various ways in which students at Bennington College
related themselves to the college community- that is, chose this community
as a reference group. These first systematic studies by social
psychologists stimulated a few others to study reference groups. One of
them is Sherif who emphasized reference groups in his An Outline of Social
Psychology (1948/56), which included a summary by Newcomb of his Bennington
study, rephrased in terms of the explicit concept reference ggggp:
Reference groups are those groups to which the individual relates
himself as a part or to which he aspires to relate himself psycho-
logically (p. 175).

Newcomb also defined membership group as "... One in which a

person is recognized by others as belonging..." (Social Psychology 1950:225).

 

Similarly, Stouffer and his associates were led in their study

The American Solidier (1949, Vol. 1) to the concept of relative deprivation,

 

a close relation to the concept of comparative reference group, as they
confronted the apparent contradictions between feelings of satisfaction
or deprivation and the objective situation among groups of soldiers. They
then invoked the interpretive principle that the soldier's sense of
deprivation was not dependent on any absolute level but was relative to
the perceived level in the groups with which he compared himself. These
ideas and concepts, became prominent when Merton and Kitt (1950)
synthesized and presented them in systematic form.

Merton discussed the concept of relative deprivation, noting that

the authors of The American Soldier have, on the Sflnle, centered their

 

 

at

of

Of

th

01

(“f

fl!

*4.

(7'

 

22

attention on the deprivation component rather than the relative component
of the concept. He also pointed out that it is in the very first instance
of such use, for example, that the authors refer to the nature of the
theoretical utility of the conception and to its possible kinship to
other, established concepts of sociological theory:
The idea "of relative deprivation" is simple, almost obvious, but its
utility comes in reconciling data, especially in later chapters, where
its applicability is not at first too apparent. The idea would seem
to have kinship to and, in part, include such well-known sociological

concepts as "social frame of reference", "patterns of expectation", or
"definitions of the situation"(American Soldier I, 125).

 

For social comparison, the soldier chooses a group so as to
enhance his self-regard or protect his ego. In the search for reference
groups such fundamental strivings play an important part. It seems
plausible that the institutional arrangements gave such sharp definition
and prominence to certain groups that the individuals' attention was drawn
to them as points of comparison. For example, Stouffer (1949) inferred
that the BEES advantaged soldiers felt deprived because they chose to
compare themselves with others who were even better off.

In the past, one can find pioneers of the ideas implicit in
reference group theory. William Graham Sumner's idea of in-groups and
out-groups is a distant relation; C.H. Cooley's discussion of selective
affinity to groups outside of one's immediate environment is an even
earlier and closer relative (Merton & Kitt 1950: 101-02; Merton 1957:
358-59). Cooley's notion of imaginary conversation with an "interlocutor"
(dialoguer) anticipates the concept of reference individual and has
inSpired recent research which applies reference group concepts to mass
communication (Bauer 1958). Cooley's remark that "people differ much in

the vividness of their imaginative sociability" (1902: 95) is suggestive

 

Of

re

SE

as

 

 

 

23

of later findings on individual differences in the use of multiple
reference groups. In 1890, William James, in his account of the "social
self", suggested that our potential social self is developed and inwardly
strengthened by thoughts of remote groups and individuals who function
as normative points of reference.

Taking as a comprehensive outline Merton's formulation that
"... reference group theory aims to systemize the determinants and
consequences of those processes of evaluation and self-appraisal in which
the individual takes the values or standards of other individuals and
groups as a comparative frame of reference" (Merton & Kitt 1950: 50-51),

the shortcomings of the reference group theory and the merit as well will

become clear.

DEFINITION/CLARIFICATION OF CONCEPTS

Kelley's distinction (1952) between comparative and normative

 

groups is basic; it corresponds to the two functions of reference groups
as standards of comparison for self-appraisal and as the source of the
individual's norms, attitudes, and values. These two functions of
reference groups may be conceived of as separate but equal in importance
for study, having only the common property that the individual's choice
of a point of reference is the key to understanding both the process of
self-appraisal and the formation of attitudes.

The concept "reference group" has been used by Kelley to describe

two kinds of relationships between a person and a group. The first usage

 

has been to denote a group in which the individual is motivated to gain

24

or maintain acceptance. The motivational aspects are emphasized in
Newcomb's distinction between positive and negative reference groups
(Kelley 1952: 411):
A positive reference group is defined as one in which the person is
motivated to be accepted and treated like a member. A negative
reference group is one which the person is motivated to oppose or in
which he does not want to be treated as a member.

Sherif's usage falls also into this category. He emphasized the
individual's striving to maintain his standing in his reference groups and
points out that the norms of the reference group become the person's
attitudes.

The second usage of "reference group" has been to denote a group
which the person uses as a reference point in making evaluations of himself
or others. From Kelley's discussion it is apparent that the term
reference group is used to describe two quite different kinds of groups.
In the first case the group is in a position to award recognition to the
person or to withhold it. In the second the group is merely a standard
or checkpoint which the person uses in making judgments. This dual
usage of the term suggests that reference groups can play different
functions in the determination of a person's attitudes.

The first of these is that of setting and enforcing standards

for the person. Such standards are usually labelled group norms, so we

 

may call this the normative function of reference groups. A group can

 

assume this function of norm-setting and norm-enforcement whenever it is
in a position to deliver rewards or punishments for conformity or
nonconformity. A group functions as a normative reference group for a

person to the extent that its evaluations of him are based upon the degree

it

g1

0

 

 

 

 

25

of his conformity to certain standards of behavior or attitude and to
the extent that the delivery of rewards or punishments is conditional
upon these evaluations.

The second of these functions is that of serving ii or being
a standard of comparison point against which the person can evaluate

himself and others. We may refer to this as the comparison function of

 

reference groups. A group functions as a comparison reference group for
an individual to the extent that the behavior, attitudes, circumstances,
or other characteristics of its members represent standards or comparison
points which he uses in making judgments and evaluations.

These two functions, the normative and comparison functions,
were frequently served by one and the same group as the case with
membership groups, which illustrated the integrated character of the two

functions. Examples are found in The American Soldier.

 

The distinction between the two functions suggested above is
important because it makes explicit the two main aspects of reference
group theory: the motivational and the perceptual. A comprehensive theory
of reference groups consisted of two parts, one having to do with groups
as sources and enforcers of standards and the other having to do with
groups as the standards themselves.

For the study of normative reference groups, Newcomb's distinction
between the positive and negative types (p. 23 in this paper) reminds us
that individuals may form their attitudes in opposition to the norms of
a group toward which they are negative. The concept of negative reference
groups helps this researcher to understand the affective tone and content
of an individual's attitude and the organization of his attitudes. There

are some examples in social life through which to oppose the norms of

26

a particular group-— for instance, the Republican party and the Democratic
party. But there are many other examples where social relations between
groups are not patterned in terms of polar opposites. Thus, to regard one's
parents or teachers as a negative reference group may provide no other
directive to the student than to choose from among the norms of the many
groups available.

According to Waller, the student subculture grew out of the fact
that socially homogeneous groups of children were drawn together through
compulsory mass education. Waller conceived, in his Sociology of Teaching
(1932), of the school as being not only a formal organization but a
miniature society as well, with teachers and students comprising two
subcultures which strive for power within the school society. The
teacher subculture, he argued, derived from common professional backgrounds
and perspectives. Some observers have challenged the idea of a teacher
subculture (Boocock 1972: 182; Bidwell 1969: 1252). Whether teachers
typically form a subculture in modern schools is less important for the
present study than whether the potential for it exists. Suggesting that
students participate in school as a way of life, with virtually total
involvement, he believed it inevitable that they would form a subculture
centered around values and interests that would be at cross-purposes with
those of teachers. The incipient conflict between students and teachers
growing out of their subcultural commitments-teachers attempting to maintain
order and scholastic motivation, students uniting to avoid or deflect
teacher demands-would strengthen and reinforce their respective commitments.
One of the hypotheses to be tested in this research is postulated that
individuals who form a group of attitudes under the negative reference

.groups will.show the consequences in terms of diffuseness of attitudes,

27

lack of crystallization, and inconsistency.

The concept referent power, employed by French and Raven (1959),
suggested many fundamentals of normative reference group processes.

The power of a nonmembership reference group inheres essentially in the
fact that the individual, by his sheer identification with the group,
willingly accepts what he perceives to be its norms. By contrast,
membership groups often have the power, even when the individual does not
take them as reference groups, to demand conformity in behavior through
brutish means or rewards. When referent power is joined to real power,
the combination is stronger. In general referent power will have the
broadest range (p. 165). From this distinctions another hypothesis was
produced that the attitude held reflects the reference group, whereas

the attitude expressed reflects the membership group (Smith et a1. 1956).

Merton's concept of anticipatory socialization is essential to
this discussion of reference group (Merton 1968: 319-20):

For the individual who adopts the values of a group to which he aspires
but does not belong, this orientation may serve the twin functions

of aiding his rise into that group and of easing his adjustment after
he has become part of it. That this first function was indeed served
is gist of the finding in The American Soldier that those privates

who accepted the official values of the Army hierarchy were more likely
than others to be promoted.

Students may take as a reference group a nonmembership group to
which they aspire to belong, and begin to socialize themselves to what they
perceive to be its norms before they are ever exposed to its influence.

The power of some reference groups thus inheres in the fact that they will

ultimately be membership groups - at least such is the belief of the

aspirant - and therefore can demand some conformity as the price of

admission or of more comfortable passage into their ranks. Similarly

those students who accept the teachers' values of the school hierarchy will

28

be more likely to be successful. This is one of the underlying assumptions
in this study. Eulau (1962) advanced and then twice tested an original
hypothesis: that anticipatory socialization may be an effective means

for learning attitudes, but not conduct, since the aspirant will have had
little real opportunity to practice the skills required and to be taught
the correct performance of the role.

Basic to reference group theory in school setting is the fact that
students often have multiple reference groups. There are some students
who have limited capacity to use many reference groups - who lack rich
"imaginative sociability". Others, however, in appraising the many facets
of the self, employ various reference groups, each specialized as a point
of comparison for one particular dimension (Hyman, 1942; Stouffer 35.31.,
1949: Turner, 1955).

The limited usage which Sherif and Shibutani prefer, referring to

the source of the individual's major perspectives and values, might
well be named the identification group. The identification group is
the source of values, since the individual takes the role of a member
while adopting the members' standpoint as his own. In general, then,
it appears that the concepts of reference group and role-taking are
closely related. The terms "reference group" and "relevant other"
refer to essentially the same phenomena. The reference group is a
generalized other which is viewed as possessing member roles and

attributes independently of the specific individuals who compose it
(Turner 1955: 328).

 

In forming the total constellation of attitudes, several reference
groups may be employed, each accorded a limited power over some specialized
attitude field. Studies of normative reference groups have found
differences in the rationale that students accord to group promulgating
norms in various spheres (Michigan, University of 1960). These studies
arrived at the general proposition that one fundamental determinant of

group identifications is the proportion of one's life spent in close

29

psychological contact with the group (Campbell 1960: 180). They also

measured group identification and the following hypothesis was supported:
The higher the identification of the individual with the group, the
higher the probability that he will think and behave in ways which
distinguish members of his group from nonmembers (1232:, p. 168).

There are also instances where multiple reference groups impinge
simultaneously on the same field of comparison or the same domain of
attitude, and then they may either reinforce the same outcome or produce
conflicting consequences for the individual student (Merton 1968: 295-304;
Patchen 1961). Similarly Form and Geschwender (1962: 228) proposed that
personal evaluations of life situations are relative to the precise '
social locations which people occupy in society and the specific groups
to which they commit their identities. This is consistent with the general
position of Inkeles, "Industrial Man: The Relation of Status to Experience,
Perception and Value", Hyman, ”The Psychology of Status", and Merton,
"Contributions to the Theory of Reference Group Behavior".

Over the life span of any person, there will have been a multiplicity
of reference groups. Some old reference groups which are long departed may
be carried over in memory. On the other hand, recent groups may be cast
out of mind in the eager adoption of a still newer reference group. The
relations of multiple reference groups within a sequence suggest many
interesting problems that tie into the processes of social mobility
(Merton & Kitt 1950: 84-95). Discussions of social mobility often assumed
that the past and future reference groups conflict, since the individual
presumably wishes to break his ties to the old, inferior group. Litwak
(1960), however, presented an interesting reformulation, using the concept

of the "stepping-stone" reference orientation. In a situation characterized

 

30

by ordered change, Litwak (1960: 72-72) described an illustration
relevant to this current study, "where integration into one group is
considered to be a prerequisite for integration into a second group...

it is possible for the individual to view both his current membership
group and his future membership group as reference groups, without risking
his integration into his current group and without preventing his joining
a different future group". Each group is valued by the individual as

a stepping-stone to help him in his advance.

SELECTION OF REFERENCE GROUPS

The concept of reference group has generally implied that one
cannot make arbitrary assumptions about the groups to which an individual
refers himself. Given the multiplicity of groups and the variability
among individuals and situations, must we then, as a Symposium (Foundation
...1956: 1) put it, "determine which kinds of groups are likely to be
refered to by which kinds of individuals under which kinds of circumstances
in the process of making which decisions...". There will usually be a
large amount of empiricism needed, and the development of simple instruments
to measure a person's reference groups is of great importance. But,
fortunately, research has already established certain regularities in the
choices individuals make and some major factors governing selection (e.g.,
Brookover and Erickson 1969: 68-76).

Theorizing about the choice of reference groups and reference
individuals is often based on simple assumptions about motivation. For
example, the individual chooses a normative reference group so that in

fantasy, or ultimately in fact, he can feel himself part of a more favored

31

group. Or, facing rapid social change, the individual locks onto a
reference group: thus anchored, he has a ready-made perspective to order

the distressing complexities of the environment (Shibutani 1955;

Eisenstadt 1954).

Shibutani hypothesized that the inconsistency in behavior as
person moves from one social context to another is accounted for in terms

of a change in reference groups:

The exploits of juvenile deliquents, especially in interstitial areas,
are being explained by the expectations of peer-group gangs (p. 562).

Modifications in social attitudes are found to be related to changes

in associations. Shibutani examined the conceptions of reference group

implicit in actual usage:

One common usage of the concept is in the designation of that group
which serves as the point of reference in making comparisons or
contrasts, especially in forming judgments about one's self (p. 562).

A second referent of the concept is that group in which the actor aspires
to gain or maintain acceptance. In the third usage the concept

signifies that group whose perspective constitutes the frame of

reference of the actor. Thus, Sherif stated of reference groups as
groups whose norms are used as anchoring points in structuring the
perceptual field (1953: 203-31), and Merton and Kitt discussed of

a "social frame of reference" for interpretations (1950: 49-50).

To Shibutani, culture as a continuing process is a product of
communication. Social norms are creatively reaffirmed from day to day
in social interaction. People in each cultural group are continuously

supporting one another's perspectives, each by responding to the others

in expected ways:

In his discussion of endopsychic social control Mead spoke of men
"taking the role of the generalized other", meaning by that that
each person approaches his world from the standpoint of the culture
of his group. Each perceives, thinks, forms judgments, and controls
himself according to the frame of reference of the group in which he
is participating (Shibutani p. 564).

 

32

Reference groups, then, arise through the internalization of norms;
they constitute the structure of expectations attributed to some audience
for vfiunn one organizes his conduct. It has been suggested further that
choice of reference groups rested upon personal loyalty to significant

others of that social world. Significant others, for Sullivan (Conceptions

 

of Modern Psychiatry 1947: 18-22), are those persons directly responsible
for the internalization of norms. Socialization is a product of gradual
accumulation of experiences with certain people, particularly those with
'whom we stand in primary relations, and significant others are those

actually involved in the cultivation of abilities, values, and outlooks.

NORMATIVE REFERENCE GROUPS

Spady (1973: 37-35) noted two distinct but related theoretical
frameworks of group influence in his recent review of the effects of

school resources on students.

The first framework is that of the reference group, which is
defined as a group to which the individual belongs or aspires to belong

and which influences his norms, attitude, values, and performances

(Merton 1968: 288). Kemper (1968) posits three different types of

reference group which shape individual performances:

... there are three important types of reference groups which act
together to foster achievement level striving. These are the normative
group, the role model and the audience. The normative group defines
the roles the individual is to assume, the model provides
exemplification of how the role is to be performed, at least
adequately, and the audience provides anticipation of rewards for
outstanding performance in the role (p. 31).

Kemper also contended that achievement is powerfully related to the

types of reference groups available to an individual, and that lacking

33

these groups, his achievement striving will be seriously hampered. Among

his three different types of reference groups, only two are relevant to

this study. The first is the normative group which provides a set of

guides, expectations, and sanctions for individual behavior.

The measures of the environment of the school derive their values

from various components of academic and social norms, values and sanctions

which impinge on the student.

Research on the selection of normative group is meager especially

in the school society. The proposition that students identify with

advantaged groups and thereby gain gratification must be qualified in terms

of the school social context. Such modes of selection may be characteristic

of societies with high rates of upward mobility (Merton 1968: 322).
Experimental research demonstrated that situational factors may heighten
the saliency of a membership group and increase the likelihood of its
being used as a reference group whose perceived norms then affect some
specific sphere.

Charters and Newcomb (1952) presented such evidence, but they
noted that the salient group sometimes functioned as a negative reference

group. That normative reference groups are chosen inIthe spirit of

identification perhaps also needs qualification. It may be true for

the student seeking a source of norms and values and attitudes. The
student mmy'then choose his reference group in terms of its authority

(yr expertness and with the full awareness that he has no bond of

identification. Systematic research on such determinants of choice is

open to investigation, since the effects of reference groups on cognitive

processes has been neglected.

34

There are significant relationships between particular behavioral
characteristics and the selection of reference groups. For example
Carlson (1952), demonstrated differences in the effectiveness with which
rural southern blacks dealt with syphilitic infections depended on their
reference group, and by the report of a seminar conducted by the Foundation
for Research on Human Behavior (1959), which shows that farmers who
adopted better practices chose particular reference groups. Farmers did
not want to be identified with innovation; they hesitated to adopt a new
product until it was known to be acceptable (p. 12).

Ruth Hartley's work on The Acceptance of New Reference Groups
(1956) represented a unique program of systematic research on psychological
factors that influence the selection of a membership group as a

normative reference group (1960a: 87):

In most discussions of the functioning of reference groups, the
assumption is made that the individual accepts as guides for his own
behavior the standards and norms characteristic of his reference

groups.
Hartley also found that the greater the compatibility between the

values of the individual and the perceived values of the new group, the ‘
more likely the individual is to accept the new group as a reference
group (1960c: 189). Using a large college community, Hartley measured
the degree to which students adopted their new community as a reference
group, and correlated such individual differences with other characterist-
Taking on a new reference group depends on possessing an acceptant

ics.

personality pattern. A particular regerence group is then likely to be

chosen if it is seen as fulfilling personal needs and if there is
congruity between the individual's personal values and norms and the norms

and values he perceives as characteristic of the group.

 

35

THE PRINCIPLE OF COMPARISON/SIMILARITY

The second type Kemper labeled the comparison group. He postulated
three subtypes of comparison groups, one of which, the role model group,
is relevant to this study for conceptualization of environmental
influences. This group differs from the normative in that it demonstrates
how something is done in the technical sense: "The essential quality of
the role model is that he possesses skills and displays techniques which
the actor lacks, or think he lacks, and from whom, by observation and
comparison with his own performance, the actor can learn" (p. 33).

Turner (1956) hypothesized that only those groups will be taken
as points of comparison which are relevant to a particular aspect of
self-appraisal: when a group's standing is so high or so low that it is
not meaningful to the individual, it will not be used as a comparative
reference group. The similarity principle derived by Festinger (1954) in
his theory of social comparison processes -— an individual chooses others
who are close to his level of ability - seems to be congruent with
Turner's "relevance principle", as was Merton's hypothesis, based on
findings in The American Soldier, the general hypothesis that some
similarity in status attributes between the individual and the reference
group must be perceived or imagined in order for the comparison to occur
at all (Merton 1968: 296).

An evidence in Hyman's interviews also suggested the operation of
the similarity principle, or what he called "affinity" in the choice of
reference group, but he also observed instances where contrast in status

made a reference group prominent:

36
Reference individuals chosen by virtue of Affinity of Contrast with
the subject. The reference individuals in many cases are chosen by
virtue of similarity to the subject, proximity to him in life
situation, or as the result of objective facts which facilitate such
comparison. The term affinity is used to cover such instances.
Other reference individuals are chosen for comparisons of status
by virtue of contrast with the subject's status (1942: 27).

College students, for example in Turner's Study (1955), seemed
to compare themselves with higher reference groups, probably to their
present discomfort, since they were future-oriented, desiring to surpass
such groups in their future lives.

Patchen (1961) also demonstrated, in his study of industrial workers,
systematic evidence on the variables affecting the choice of a reference
individual or reference group for economic comparison, and fundamentally
clarifies the motivational assumptions of reference group theory.
Individuals often choose reference groups which increase their present
sense of relative deprivation, because formal institutional arrangements
force such groups into attention, and also because informal social
influences make such groups salient, as Patchen provided in his theory
and hypotheses (p. 9-26). Individuals may choose groups above them at
the price of present dissatisfaction. They are future-oriented in their
claim. Their status will be higher and their relative deprivation
diminished. Comparisons along a particular dimension were made in a
cognitive consideration. Low rank, for example, on wages, may appear
justifiable in light of the low-ranking individual's and the reference
group's relatively high standing on other attributes, e.g. education or
age, thus reducing the grounds for dissatisfaction. However, greater
feelings of deprivation were created when reference groups were equal in

respect to the relevant attributes, but were higher on the demension of

appraisal. Thus the principle of similarity or comparison is specified:

37

If the direction of choice is upward, deprivation is likely to be contained
by choosing a group whose dissimilarity in other attributes legitimizes the
present inferior position of the person making the comparison. However,

if one selects reference groups similar in these attributes, the direction
of comparison is not likely to be upward.

The second frame of reference identified by Spady to which the
conceptualization and operationalization for this study can be related is
the interpersonal influence paradigm. Spady noted that all of the reference
group mechanisms of impact on individual students' behavior are based on
the assumption of individual responses to the visibility of trends in the
behavior and values of reference groups in the school (p.37). The
interpersonal influence paradigm, in contrast, involves a conceptualization
that impact from the reference groups of the school is trasmitted by part-
icipation in specific peer cliques. In examining sources of variation in
educational climates of schools, research may focus on a variety of
resources in the school studied - finances, curriculum, and teachers -
as well as economic and cultural resources and citizen commitment to
quality education in the communities served by each school.

In this context this research will present measures of behavior
and values of two different types of actors in the school setting who
serve as important role models for individual students, the peer group

to which the student belongs, and his teachers.

ROLE EXPECTATIONS

In accord with the theory of symbolic interaction and the

38

reference group, it may be postulated that the types of behavior learned
by students in school is affected by the expectations of the groups and
reference groups to whom the student refers in evaluating his own behavior.
Therefore, an understanding of the differences and/or the similarities in
behavior among students in part depends upon an identification of the
reference groupg and/or the significant others for the students and the
expectations which these persons and groups hold for the students. It seems
likely, however, that changes in achievement are most likely to occur

when all of the reference groups including parents, teachers, and friends
hold expectations for a high level of performance. The higher achievement
of lower class and disadvantaged black students in predominantly white
middle-class schools is an evidence of the impact of higher levels of
expectation by all parts of social system (Coleman Report and Racial

Isolation $3 the Public Schools). It seems possible that most of the dis-

 

advantaged students can get high levels of achievement if they are allowed
to go schools in which teachers, friends, and others in the school expect
them, as well as advantaged students, to learn quality academic behavior.
"The Hawthorne Effect" coined by Roethlisberger and Dickson
(1939) appears to be the another side of the expectation theory.
Students will respond well, if a program is introduced and students
like the idea of participating in the experiment. "The Hawthone Effect"
is apart from any intended effect of the program itself. It is analogous
to the placebo effect in medicine which is the relief given the patient
by a.pill or a treatment having no medicinal value. The existence of these
effects is well documented and at least in the case of the placebo has

lmeen frequently measured with repeatable results on many populations of

39

parents. Beecher (1959) reported about 35% of patients were satisfactorily
relieved of severe postoperative wound pain by a placebo. The Hawthone
Effect is an another example of the significance of perceived expectations
and is theoretically based on symbolic interaction.

Expectation theory becomes more informative when we discuss
the complimentary construct of aspirations. Individuals who experience
consistent positive reinforcement within a particular area will also
develop high aspirations concerning their future plans within the area of
effort. For example, a student who is expected by his reference groups
to be an achiever and experiences some satisfactions early in his education
will attain a high self-concept of ability. His level of future educational
aspirations will be quite high.

In line with the theoretical frame of reference, a researcher
could hypothesize that a relatively high level of academic outcomes could
be achieved if there were a high level of expectations held by the
reference groups for all students in the school. Just as in actuality
the students learn the general behavior of the expected cultural pattern,
they would learn academic types of behavior such as mathematics and
language if the reference groups held equally high expectations for
behavior in these areas.

This hypothesis is postulated on the basis of the performance of
students in schools and groups where equally high expectations are held
that most of the students would achieve commensurate academic performance
when such norms were commonly held by their reference groups.

Those students, for whom different reference groups hold differing

expectations, are likely to perform in accord with the expectation held

40

by the reference groups that is most important to the student. Changes
in the expectations of the friends, therefore, are unlikely to have
significant impact unless the friend is an important reference for the
student.

If all the reference groups with whom the student interacts
believe he can learn, and consider high achievement appropriate for the
disadvantaged as well as advantaged students, then he will learn.

In accord with the expectation theory, it is postulated that
the types of behavior learned by students in school is affected by the
expectations of his peer groups and teachers to whom the student refers
in evaluating his own behavior. It is also postulated that a more
uniformly high level of school performance would be achieved when
teachers and peer groups held this expectation for all students (Brookover
and Erickson 1969: 97).

The concept of role is also related to the symbolic interactionist
tradition of Cooley (1902) and Mead (1934). Krech, Crutchfield, and
Ballachey (1962: 338), who define role as:

The pattern of wants and goals, beliefs, feelings, attitudes, values

and actions which members of a community expect should characterize

the typical occupant of a position. Roles prescribe the behaviors
expected of people in standard situations. The various roles of a group
are interdependent.

Role behavior, like all other types of social behavior, is a
product of the interaction between those situational factors present
and such social-psychological factors as cognitions, wants, attitudes,
and interpersonal response traits of the individual.

Gross, Mason, and McEachern (1958) have studied the question of

how certain aspirations are developed among groups of people, from the

41

perspective of role theory. Their basic thesis is that individuals who
hold certain social positions (for example, a high SES student) will
develop high aspirations on the basis of the perceived expectations of
the reference groups.

The concept of role has a relatively long history in sociology
and has attracted interest from some of its best minds. For instance,
Park (1926: 137) in his "Behind Our Masks" (Survey(New York) 56:135-39),
noted that "everyone is always and everywhere, more or less consciously,
playing a role ..... It is in these roles that we know each other; it is
in these roles that we know ourselves". In this and most subsequent
usages, the following elements appear in the definition of role:

It provides a comprehensive pattern for behavior and attitudes; it
constitutes a strategy for coping with a recurrent type of situation;
it is socially identified, more or less clearly, as an entity; it is
subject to being played recognizably by different individuals; and

it supplies a major basis for identifying and placing persons in
society (Ralph H. Turner 1968: 552).

 

 

Mead's observation (1934) that in mature social behavior the
individual works out his own role by imaginatively taking the role of the
other soon led to the idea that articulation between the roles played by
partners in interaction determines whether interaction is harmonious and

productive.

ROSENTHAL'S ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF TEACHER EXPECTATIONS ON PUPIL
PERFORMANCE

As briefly stated earlier, much of the early work in the area of
expectations and learning is attributable to the work of Robert Rosenthal,
both in his study of animals (1966) as well as his highly important

collaborative study (Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1968), on elementary school

42

achievement.

Rosenthal and Jacobson's experiment was designed to test the
proposition that within a given classroom, "those children from whom the
teacher expected greater intellectual growth would show such greater
growth". The setting for the study was an elementary school in an older
section of San Fransisco, attended mainly by children from lower-SE3, but
not desperately poor, families. About one-six of the school's 650 students
were of Mexican parentage. Students were organized into three ability
tracks, based mainly upon reading performance. The lowest track classes
contained disproportionate numbers of Mexican-American and lowest-income
children. Another characteristics of the school was the relatively high
proportion of transfers; about 30% of the school population transfered in
or out during a given year.

As is appropriate in a study based upon a single school, Rosenthal
makes no claims for the representativeness of his sample. Rather, by
deliberately choosing a "difficult" sample - a school with a large
proportion of students from subgroups whose school performance is normally
lower than the population at large - he makes the findings of a limited
sample seem more convincing than they might otherwise be.

The basic components of Rosenthal's research design are an analysis
of the effects of teacher expectations upon pupil performance:

Sample All children (N=320) in grades 1-6 (18 classes) in 1 school.

Experimental and Control Grogps Exp. Group=20% of each class selected

 

randomly. Control group=all others.

Experimental Treatment Tell teachers to expect unusual intellectual

 

growth from children in experimental group.

Data collected Flanagan's TOGA (intelligence test) at beginning and

 

end of school year.

43

Here Rosenthal manipulated the classroom situation, by assigning
some of the children to a special treatment which was not accorded to
their classmates. Rosenthal's study illustrated the application of a
particular kind of research design, the classical experiment, to the
classroom situation. To the extent that a design meets the rigorous
requirements of the experiment: (including random assignment to the
experimental treatment, a matched group of subjects for purpose of
comparison, and measurement of all subjects before and after the experi-
mental treatment) the researcher is justified in drawing certain kinds of
conclusions that he could not draw in non-experimental research.

All children in grades one through six were given a nonverbal
intelligence test, "disguised as a test designed to predict academic
'blooming' or intellectual gain". In each class, about 20% of the
students, chosen by means of a table of random numbers, were assigned to
the "experimental" condition. "The names of these children were given
to each teacher who was told that their scores on the 'test for intellectual
blooming' indicated they would show unusual intellectual gains during the
academic year.... The experimental treatment for these children, then,
consisted of nothing more than being identified to their teachers as
children who would show unusual intellectual gains" (Rosenthal and Jacobson,
1966: 115-15).

For the school as a whole, the children from whom the teachers
had been led to expect greater gain did show such gain, the difference
between experimental and control group was statistically significant at
the .02 level. This difference was greatest for the first and second

graders; in fact, they accounted for most of the total difference, and

44

the differences were nonexistent or even in the opposite direction for
the older children.

In addition to grade level, Rosenthal controlled for ability track,
sex, and ethnic group. The tendency was for the middle track - the more
"average" children - to benefit most from the experimental treatment,
but the differences were not statistically significant. Sex differences
were similarly not large or clear. While girls who were expected to show
an intellectual spurt had slightly greater gains in total IQ than boys
similarly designated, the relationship was complicated in that girls
were overrepresented in the higher ability track, and the sex differences
were contingent upon the types of IQ. Rosenthal's summary of the findings
involving subjects' sex was that "girls bloom more in the reasoning sphere
of intellectual functioning when some kind of unspecified blooming is
expected of them. Furthermore, these gains are more likely to occur to a
dramatic degree in the lower grades" (Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1968: 81).
In other words, high teacher expectations seem to allow children to
increase their potential in the area that is not normally perceived as
"natural" to their sex, reasoning for girls, verbal skills for boys,
and the younger the child, the greater the chances of affecting these
abilities. From Rosenthal and Jacobson's study (1968) the most interesting
findings were those relating to ethnic groups:

"In total IQ, verbal IQ, and especially reasoning IQ, children of the
minority group were more advantaged by favorable expectations than
were the other children, though the differences were not statistically
significant. For each of the Mexican Children the magnitude of
expectancy advantage was computed by subtracting from his or her IQ
gain the IQ gain made by the children of the control group in his

or her classroom. The resulting magnitudes of expectancy advantage

were then correlated with the "Mexican-ness" of the children's faces....
For total IQ and reasoning IQ, those Mexican boys who looked more

45

Mexican benefitted more from teachers' favorable expectations than did
the Mexican boys who looked less Mexican. There is no clear explanation
for these findings, but we can speculate that the teachers' pre-
experimental expectancies of the more Mexican-liking boys intellectual
performance were probably lowest of all. These children may have had
the most to gain by the introduction of a more favorable expectation
into the minds of their teachers (p. 82)".
In evaluating the results of Rosenthal's study, the first point
is that while the findings are generally supportive of Rosenthal's
hypothesis, the differences are neither consistently in the direction
predicted, nor are they very large. The difference for the school as a
whole is mainly accounted for by large differences in two of the six
grades tested. The multi-variate analysis suggests complex patterns of
interaction among such variables as sex, ability level, ethnicity, and grade
in school, with no consistent overall effect of teacher expectations upon
all student subgroups. If one takes these various subgroups as replications
of the basic experiment, one can say only that the hypothesis is supported
in some but not all cases. It should also be noted that in almost all
the cases where the difference between experimental and control subjects
was significant, the differences were about half a standard deviation or
less in magnitude. Such a difference is moderately substantial but not
dramatic.
A second type of objection has to do with Rosenthal's choice of
measures. The dependent variable, performance on an intelligence test,
can be criticized on the grounds that it was a single test and like all
single tests, limited in its range. It would have been useful to test
also some of the more specific learning that took place. Some data of

this sort were undoubtedly available - for instance, results of standard

achievement tests or grades in various subjects.

46

Another objection about the dependent variable is procedural -
that is, that in some cases, especially in the younger classes where the
experimental treatment had the greatest effects, the post-test was given
by the classroom teacher, who had been subjected to the experimental
manipulation and who might thus, consciously or unconsciously, aid the
children who were "supposed" to bloom. Rosenthal reported that retest
resulted in groups tested by their own teacher did not differ significantly
from groups tested by a school administrator who did not know which
children were in the experimental group, but still one would like to see
further testing controlled for possible teacher effects on the post-
experimental instruments (note that this in itself would constitute
a further test of the basic Rosenthal hypothesis).

With respect to the experimental variable, Rosenthal's manipulation
of the teachers' expectations is dramatic, and his random selection of
bloomers, by, in a sense holding constant the personal peculiarity of
individual students, makes the point that this kind of treatment can
produce results with virtually any kind of child and in the absence of any
other stimuli to achieve. It does not, however, tell us anything about
the normal selection process by which teachers come to hold different
expectations for different students. A design alternative would be to
manipulate the presentation of students to teachers. Given that certain
kinds of children (white, middle-class, suburban) are preferred by many
teachers, if one could coach students so that they mere closely
resembled those youngsters who are favored by the schools, this might
lead to teachers' responding to these students differently. The success
of researchers prepping children for IQ and achievement tests, job

interviews, and so, indicates that this kind of strategy may not be as

47

difficult as it initially appears, that, indeed, it may be easier to
change the attitudes and behavior of children than those of adult educators.
Some of the weakness in the data and its interpretation arise
from the unavoidable limitations of any single-school study. Because the
total number of subjects was only about 320, or whom only about 65 were
in the experimental group, the researchers could say little about the
characteristics of children who are most affect by rising expectations.
The analysis controlling in turn for sex, ethnic group, and ability group
indicated complex patterns of effect, and Rosenthal did attempt to gather
some clues from detailed case studies of a small subsample of his subjects.
However, in the absence of enough to hold consistent a number of variables
simultaneously, understanding of the pattern of relationships is impossible.
Similarly, the limited number of classes (18) allows little analysis of
the kinds of teachers or teaching which are most responsive to manipulation
of expectations.
Lastly, Rosenthal himself raises an important missing element.
As he puts it in the summary chapter of his report, "we can only speculate
as to ppy teachers brought about intellectual competence simply by
expecting it". A number of possibilities are suggested - paying more
attention to these children, treating them in a pleasanter or more
encouraging fashion, using new or different teaching techniques, evaluating
them differently, demanding more of them. Even by "facial expression,
posture, and perhaps by her touch, the teacher may have communicated to the
children of the experimental group that she expected improved intellectual
performance" (Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1968: 180). The point is, though,

that these are simply speculations, and that in order to learn how

48

attitudes get translated into actual classroom behavior, the researcher
needs to pp in the classroom. Therefore an important characteristic of
the further study is suggested that the researchers do gather data,
from observation of ongoing classroom sessions, about what teachers
actually g3, for instance, Flanders' study of teacher behavior by
interaction analysis in his "Teacher Influence, Pupil Attitudes and
Achievements (1960)".

One of Boocock's analyses has indicated, however, is that apart
from its competition with other institutions, the school has the following
characteristics as a social system which prevent it from being as
effective as it might be:

"There is some reason to believe that students learn better when
their teachers know about them as individuals and expect them to
perform well. Unfortunately, in many societies, there are subgroups
or categories of children who are not expected to do well in school,
and school children, especially the poor and those from racial

minority groups, who have been fulfilling our low expectations for
them" (Boocock, 1972: 311).

A SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONIST FRAME OF REFERENCE/A SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL
THEORY OF LEARNING

The three theoretical concepts, symbolic interaction, reference
group, and role expectation, which have been discussed may be considered
as different aspects of the social-psychological theory of human behavior,
which provides the theoretical base for the present study. These social-
psychological concepts are found in a social interactionist theory dealing
with the method by which individuals operating within various social
situations and perceiving various expectations from "others" toward their

actions, develop the "appropriate" behavior in their academic role within

49

the school social system. A social interactionist theory of learning in
school is derived from this more general theory of human behavior in which
symbolic interaction, reference group and role expectation are integral
parts. The concept of "academic self" can be stated as an intervening
variable between the normative patterns of the social group and the role
expectations held by the reference groups on one hand and the learning of
the individual on the other. The expectations of others must be internalized
and become part of the person's conception of oneself in order to be
functional in one's behavior in the school learning situation. By taking
the role of other, the student acquires a perception of his ability as a
learner of the various types of skills and subjects which constitute the
school curriculum. If the student perceives that he can do well in school
if he works hard, this self-concept of his ability becomes the functionally
increasing factor of his school achievement. On the contrary, functional
limit is the term used to emphasize the perceptions of what is appropriate,
desirable, and possible for the person to learn rather than the genetic
organic limits on learning. Those perceptions actually operate, within
broader organic limits, in determining the behavior learned.

This theoretical perspective provides the rationale for assessing
the variation in school normative learning climates. The norms and
expectations which characterize a school social system within which students
interact are assumed to significantly affect the learning behavior of
the students.

This study will examine the extent to which these climates have
a relationship to varying racial composition of the school beyond the effect

of such structual variables as SES of the school population, urban-rural

community types, and the mean achievement of the student body.

CHAPTER III

REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH

SCHOOL CLIMATE

The origin of the assumption of school climate, according to
McDill and Rigsby (1973), can be traced to Willard Waller's classic study
(1932) one the sociology of school. The school was conceived by Waller as
being a formal organization and a small society with teachers and students
comprising two subcultures. The teacher subculture, Waller discussed,
derived from common professional backgrounds and perspectives. Boocock
(1972: 182) and Bidwell (1969: 1252) have challenged the idea of a
teacher subculture.

However, McDill and Rigsby (1973) argue that whether teachers typ-
ically form a subculture in modern schools is less important for the present
purposes than whether the potential for it exists. According to Waller,
the student subculture grew out of the fact that socially homogeneous
groups of children were drawn together through compulsory mass education.
Suggesting that students participate in school as a way of life, with
virtually total involvement, he believed it inevitable that they would form
a subculture centered around values and interests that would be at cross-
purposes with those of teachers. The conflict between students and
teachers growing out of their subcultural commitments-teachers attempting
to maintain order and scholastic motivation, students uniting to avoid or
deflect teacher demands - would strengthen and reinforce their respective

50

51

commitments.

As indicated by Boocock (1966: 27), the terms "adolescent society",
"youth society", and "adolescent subculture" are used interchangeably by
writers. The phenomenon to which they refer has been considered by
social scientists at several different levels, ranging from small
friendship cliques in schools to a distinct youth society at the national
level with its own recognizable "style of life". Regarding the amount of
published literature on youth, Jahoda and Warren (1965: 138) reported:

"the number of publications on adolescent behavior recorded in the
Ppychological Abstracts has almost trebled since 1930 in absolute terms
and, relative to the overall number of publications, more or less doubled".

Many explanations for the source and persistence of a youth
subculture have been offered. A substantial number of social scientists
tend to agree on two points:

First, that the youth subculture does exist, and has concerns
distinct from those of adult society (Gottlieb and Ramsey, 1964: 29-33;
Boocock 1966: 27); One must hasten to add, however, that there is controversy
on the point among researchers.

Second, that the adolescent peer group is an important force in
shaping the attitudes of individual students toward school, as well as
influencing their educational aspirations and achievement.

A position currently held by some scientists concerned with the
study of youth in school settings is that adolescents actually comprise
a semi-independent social system with distinct norms and values.

This separate system ranks its members according to criteria it

defines, and has a social structure or pattern of interaction which helps

52

shape its cultural content. The works of Gordon (The Social System of the
High School 1961) and Coleman (The Adolescent Society 1961) represent
the prototype of this position.

This adolescent society is seem as the product of the rapid
technological change characteristic of modern industrialized society-change
which has widened the gap between generations, made parental knowledge
outdated, and rendered the family incapable of adequately socializing the
child (Coleman 1961: 2). By extending the period of training necessary
for a child to take his place in the community, the modern industrial
society has forced the school to become a major socializing agency.

It controls an ever increasing amount of his time and assumes more and
more responsibility for developing conformity not only with norms of
scholastic achievement, but also of a much wider range of social behavior.
But the school is having trouble doing the job. Students often reject
many of these norms, especially scholastic ones, and fail to conform to
them.

Coleman's explanation of the teenager's lack of commitment to
education or outright rejection of scholastic norms is that the adolescent
society's interest is focused on matters far removed from education: that
is, adolescent systems often direct the flow of the participants' energies
into activities which conflict with achievement goals, often subverting
the efforts of the schools. This study attemptsto identify certain aspects
of adolescent society and the impact they have on the achievement of
individual students. The principal aspects of concern are the scholastic
and social "climates" of high schools.

This study takes as its starting point the results reported by

53

Coleman in the provocative work The Adolescent Society (1961). A number

 

of important ideas about the sources of variation in high school social
systems and their efforts on the academic attitudes of students emerged
from Coleman's research on ten midwestern high schools, but several of
them are either unsubstantiated or have been questioned, especially those
having implications for educational policy. As the school comes to play

a larger role, both in the adolescent's life and in the national development.

REVIEW OF THE RELATED RESEARCHES

 

McDill and Rigsby (1973: 6) pointed out that social scientists
engaged in research on students in school settings have tended to direct
their inquiries either toward (1) the relations between participants in
the institutions, through 2g_ppp descriptive studies (e.g., Hollingshead,

Elmtown's Youth, 1949); or (2) the relationships of individual attributes

 

such as family socioeconomic status, sex, intelligence, and motivation
to educational outcomes. The latter studies have largely been outside the
realm of problems concerned with the school as a social system (e.g., Sewell,

Haller, and Strous, Social Status and Educational and Occupational Aspirations

 

1957). Both of these lines of inquiry have ignored a promising research
strategy -— that of contextual analysis, which relates characteristics of

the social environment to attributes of individuals (Coleman, Relational

 

Analysis: The study of Social Organization with SurveyyMethods 1958).
Only in recent years has attention been directed to the influence of
educational and social climates on the academic behavior of students, but
there have been few serious attempts to identify those factors of the

school environment which are related to what and how much students learn.

54

Throughout this paper "behavior" is used in the broadest sense
to include attitudes, perceptions, values, orientaions, and aspirations
as well as overt performance.

The literature reviewed here represents research on both the
informal and formal aspects of school organization which are said to
influence the academic behavior of students from varying backgrounds.
Throuhout this chapter, research at the elementary, secondary, and college
levels is cited, despite the fact that the present study is restricted
to elementary school environments, because we believe there are certain
factors in all these environments which affect the behavior of students
regardless of the age group to which they belong. For example, Coleman's
research at the high school level (The Adolescent Society 1961) and
Wallace's work at the college level ("Institutional and Life-Cycle
Socialization of College Freshmen 1964", and "Peer Influences and
Undergraduates' Aspirations for Graduate Study 1965") show similar effects
of peer groups on intellectual orientation as well as McDill pp gl.'s
study at high school level and Brookover pp gl.'s study at elementary
level (1973) also showed similar effects of school climates on academic
achievement.

Other research on the effects of group atmosphere in schools
suggest that climate has its effect through providing social rewards for
certain activities and not for others. In turn, those activities which
are rewarded by the group are the ones in which there is strong competition
and high motivation (Coleman, "The Adolescent Subculture and Academic
Achievement" 1960). Such a formulation has some support among sociologists

and psychologists, who report that individual students tend to adopt

55

the scholastic norms of the majority group (Dittes and Kelly, "Effects
of Different Conditions of Acceptance upon Conformity Group Norms" 1956).

At the college level, Davis, employing a sample of students from
135 institutions, found an inverse relationship between college size
and student commitment to "intellectualism". This finding is consistent
with the assumption that the high intellectual commitment of student bodies
in small liberal arts colleges is partly the result of low student-faculty
ratios and opportunities for students to have frequent, personal contact
with teachers.

Newcomb argues that intellectual productivity is a function of
such factors as ability, motivation, work habits, and prevailing norms of
students and faculty rather than the commonly held hypothesis by both
college faculty and students that there is some magic in 'student-faculty'
contact ("Student Peer-Group Influence" 1962: 485).

It would seem obvious, however, that student input factors such as
sex ratio, ability level, and field of concentration and institutional
environments interact to produce variations in the academic behavior of
students. That is, outstanding institutions attract able students who,
in turn, contribute to and reinforce those aspects of the campus environment
conclusive to intellectual commitment and high achievement of all students.

Two of the more notable attempts to understand the social system

of a single school are Hoolingshead's study on Elmtown's Youth 1949,

 

done in a small Illinois community in the 19403, and Gordon's research
on The Social System of the High School (1957) in the 19508 of a larger
school of 600 students located in a suburban Indiana community with a

heterogeneous class structure. Hollingshead focused on the relationship

56

of a variety of student behaviors in the school setting to the class
structure of the community. He showed the extent to which both the school
staff and the student social structure reflected and reinforced that of
the larger community and the extent to which educational aspirations,
dating behavior, clique membership, and involvement in extracurricular
activities were a function of the student's family background. He also
concluded that teachers gave preferential treatment to students of
"privileged" backgrounds.

Gordon's study of "Wabash High" is the most comprehensive and
detailed case study of a single school society. He provided a wealth
of insights and supporting data on teacher-student relationships, the
adolescent subsystem of the school, and the consequences of participation
in this system for the student. He reported that the most important
prerequisite for boy's status was participation in athletics; for girls,
clothes, "personality", and puritan morality were most important. Among
both sexes, intellectual commitment contributed very little to enhancing
prestige. Prestige in the student structure did depend to some extent on
conformity to the teacher's demands because of the teacher's capacity to
disperse grades. However, the student subculture rewarded such achievement
mainly because it was a requisite for participation in nonacademic
activities, not because of any intrinsic value placed on learning. The
overall effect of the adolescent social system was to focus the student's
interests on matters removed from intellectual pursuits.

Wilson, in his "Residential Segregation of Social Classes and
Aspirations of High School Boys, 1959", studied the peer group norms of

boys in eight West Coast high schools. He showed that the socioeconomic

57

composition of the student body, which he interpreted as indexing

"value climate", affects academic achievement and aspirations, occupational
choices, and even the potential preferences of individual students. These
contextual effects were maintained when personal and social background
factors were controlled. His findings regarding climate effects on
educational aspirations have been supported by Michael, using a less
restrictive sample in his study on "High School Climates and Plans for
Entering Colleges, 1961".

Michael's data were drawn from a large number of senior in a
representative sample of more than five hundred high schools. He found
that the "educational milieu" of the high school had an impact on the
college plans of students, when both scholastic aptitude and socioeconomic
background of students were controlled.

Turner (1964), in an attempt to understand the social context in
which ambition develops, studied the effects of family background,
neighborhood, and socioeconomic context of the high school on educational
and occupational aspirations of high school seniors in Los Angeles. He
found that the socioeconomic context of the school was almost as important
as family background in accounting for variation in ambition.

Boyle (1966), in a review of four major studies of the effects of
high school climate on student behavior, stated that adolescents in high
school encounter experiences that have an important influence on their
aspirations for further education. When high schools are classified
according to the average socio-economic status of the student body, the
aspirations of the individual students are influenced in the direction of
the majority. Thus, working-class students attending predominantly middle-

class high schools plan to attend college much more frequently than those

58

attending predominantly working-class high schools. The reverse process
is evident among middle-class students attending working-class high schools.

Boyle goes on to discuss the importance of the effect of family
background. He concludes that, of the three variables-ability, social-
class background, and organizational climate-ability and social-class
background are probably the most important, but they are significantly
affected by the climate of the school. In those high schools with a
climate supporting college attenance, ability was the most important
predictor of educational aspirations, although social background also
influenced a senior's decision. In the least favorable climate, social
class was the more important variable.

More recently, Boyle (1966) investigated the effects of the socio-
economic context of the high school on the educational aspirations of
female seniors in seventy high schools in western Canada. He discovered
that the social composition of the student body has an important effect on
individual aspirations, but that its influence is stronger in large cities
than in small communities. His results suggest that a partial explanation
for this difference is the greater success of metropolitan high schools
in developing the scholastic aptitude of students.

Coleman (1961), in his research on ten midwestern high schools,
claimed to document the pervasive influence of adolescent social systems
on student academic values and performance and on their social activities.
According to McDill and Rigsby (1973: 12-13), this is one of the most
important and controversial studies of the relationship between adolescent
subcultures and educational outcomes conducted in the last decades.

Therefore, more important findings of the study will be reviewed here.

59

In each of the ten schools, Coleman found that scholastic achievement
was less valued by the students than other activities. On this point
Tannenbaum (1962) reported a similar finding:

"Athletic-mindedness was rated as a more desirable trait than its
absence. The students who stressed athletics received higher mean
scores than non-althletes".

Boys valued athletics most highly; girls favored "being popular"
and "being a leader in extracurricular activities". Furthermore, students
of high sociometric status were less favorable toward being remembered as
brilliant students than were the various student bodies as a whole, even
though these "elites" came from higher socioeconomic backgrounds and were
more likely to have college plans. Other comparisons between elite and
nonelites led to the conclusion that the latter valued scholastic success
more highly than the former.

The criteria for status in the adolescent social system were
determined for boys by comparing those chosen by their peers as "best
athletes" with those chosen as "best students". Girls, chosen as "best
students" were compared with girls chosen as "being most popular with boys".
The sociometric comparisons revealed that "athletes" were more likely to
be elites than were "scholars". Similarly, "popular" girls were much more
likely to have high status than were "scholars". The student body of the
most affluent suburban school - the institution in which the largest
proportion of students came from college-educated families and in which
the highest proportion planned to enroll in college - did not highly value
brilliance (it ranked seventh among the ten schools).

Unlike earlier studies in this area, Coleman attempted to show how

the content of peer norms affects both academic performance and valuation

60

of intellectual activities. His analysis revealed that, in the schools in
which grades were an important critedon for social status, students of high
ability were most strongly motivated to academic achievement. That is,
students of better average intellect were motivated to achieve when they
received social rewards from their peers. Otherwise, their talents and
energies were invested in non-scholastic activities. Coleman suggested
that, in the typical high school, adolescent social systems channel the
energy of teenagers in certain directions, and that they offer a set of
rewards and punishments which support athletics and extracurricular
activities and discourage intellectual activities.

Although Coleman's conclusion has supporters among some educational
researchers, it also appears to be an over-simplification of a complex
set of social-psychological processes operating in the high school and
does not square with evidence from other sources. For example, achievement
levels among high schools students on standardized tests are higher, on
the average, than they were two decades ago, and significantly larger
percentages of high school graduates are enrolled in college. These
facts do not support the notion that students in general are anti-
intellectual or that they typically oppress each other for intellectual
or scholarly pursuits. Instead, they strongly suggest that there are many
motivations for academic activities and that some of them may be non-
intellectual or even anti-intellectual - for example, a desire to "get
ahead in life", a desire to conform to parental pressures to achieve, or
the knowledge that to avoid "unpleasant" work, one mUst obtain advanced
education. Furthermore, "career" or job-oriented programs such as business,

engineering, and pre-professional curricula attract most students to

61

colleges and universities, especially to the developing institutions of
higher learning.

In sum, it seems unrealistic to claim that an "anti-intellectual"
school climate is the major influence on students' academic performance
and aspirations.

It was our proposition that students do influence each other both
inside and outside the high school, but that they do so more on short-term,
specific matters - e.g., music and clothes - than on long-term, general
ones such as college plans, achievement, and careers.

In Turner (1964: 138-47), the influence of the youth subculture is
segmental in impact and somewhat ritualistic in adherence; that is, it
has jurisdixional competence only over selected aspects of the values
and behavior of youth. In this light, Boocook's criticisms (1966: 28-29)
of the Adolescent society are relevant:

My own reservations can perhaps be summed up by saying that many of
the findings are inconsistent... For example, the members of leading
crowds tended to value academic performance less but get better
grades than the non-elites; the same was true of girls as compared to
boys; academic values were not high in schools in which the highest
proportions of students planned to attend college. That is, both on
the individual and system levels there seems to be an inconsistency
between the values of groups of respondents and their subsequent
behavior. Three possibilities are suggested: the validity of Coleman's
measures of value climate can be questioned; the peer culture may not
be the only, or the strongest, influence in certain areas, such as
academic performance; a lot of youngsters are under a lot of strain
as a result of inconsistency between their stated values and their
actual behavior.

Some of Coleman's data and conclusions regarding the existence of
adolescent subcultural effects on the academic behavior of students have
been challenged by other researchers and observers of adolescent behavior.

For Example, Epperson (1964) has questioned his description of the conflict

relationships between adolescents and adults. He presented evidence

___-

 

 

 

62

based on data gathered from students in a large comprehensive high school
and using items selected from Coleman's original questionnaire. He also
gathered data on preadolescents in the same community to test the
hypothesis that, if adolescents have a distinct subculture, there should
be a difference between elementary and high school students in the extent
to which they are concerned about parental disapproval. His results
indicated adolescents were more concerned about parental disapproval of
their behavior than were preadolescents. He concluded that there is a
need for a conceptual scheme which takes into account the multiple
loyalties of the adolescent (e.g., to family, peers, and teachers) and the
relations of these loyalties to specific situations.
Britain, in an experimental study of parent-peer expectations of

adolescents, reached a similar conclusion:

"Choices of adolescents tend to derive meaning from either of two

general references groups, or both: the peer society in which many

status and identity needs are gratified, and the larger society in

which the status positions which one can aspire to as an adult are

found. When choices pertain to the latter, parents are perceived

as the more competent guides" (1963: 389).

A more fundamental criticism of Coleman's work has been made by

Berger (1963: 369) and by Jahoda and Warren (1965: 143), who take issue
with his assumption that a separate adolescent subculture exists.
Berger argues that "almost all of the values and interests of adolescents
revealed by Coleman's data seem to be derivative from and shared by the
great majority of their parents. It was noted that Coleman, in his most
recent writing (1970: 20), did not place heavy emphasis on a separate
adolescent subculture, focusing instead on adolescents' distinctiveness

from other age groups in several ways: for example, clothes, language,

political beliefs, and social values.

 

 

 

63

Neverthless, Coleman offers a rebuttal to writers such as Berger
(2963), who adhere to what he refers to as the "cultural derivation" model
to explain adolescent behavior. For example, Coleman argues first, that
the cultural de rivation mode of explanation fails to account for the fact
that many of the activities engaed in by adolescents are done in the
company of other adolescents and in the absence of adult; and, second,
that the model fails to account for New Left Political movements and
hippies, which have no analogues in the adult society.

Jahoda and Warren contend that Coleman and many other social
scientists studying adolescents assume the existence of such a subculture,
and select data to support their preconceptions, without even having a
clear definition of concept. According to the citations in Gottlib and
Ramsey (1964: 31) and in Jahoda and Warren (1965: 146-48), the Sherifs'
research strategy (1940) avoided the "adolescent subculture" pitfall.

They advocate approaching the study of adolescents in terms of specific
social settings, concentrating on the distinctveness of the status and
normative systems to which they belong, and determining how these peer
group norms and values are linked to those of the adult society.

McDill, McPartland, and Sprehe (1971) point out that the crucial
issue is whether or not there are any important consequences for advancing
the understanding of adolescent behavior by adhering to the view that
there is an adolescent subculture (p. 537):

The answer one gives to the question of subcultural existence is a
determinant of the kind of heuristic stance taken in research. To

see secondary school students as comprising a subculture is to choose
to study them as a relatively autonomous social system and to look for
the sources of individual behavioral differences within various

adolescent peer groups. To view adolescents as an age group in
continuity with adults is to attempt to locate sources of their

64

behavior in the transmission of values from parents. Depending on
the specific social setting under investigation - and this is a
crucial condition - either approach can be fruitful, for the
approaches represent basically a choice of intellectual strategies.
McDill and Coleman (1963 and 1965), employing a longitudinal design,
further investigated the effects of high school status on academic
behavior. Utilizing a freshman-to-senior-year panel analysis in six of
Coleman's orginal ten schools, they assessed the interdependent effects
of achievement orientation and school status upon college plans. They
discovered that students with high status were more likely to change to
a positive orientation toward college attendance and a negative orientation
toward achievement than lower-status students. Conversely, students with
college plans were more likely to achieve high status than those without
such plans. Finally, students with a negative orientation toward achieve-
ment were more likely to gain prestige in the eyes of their peers than
those positively oriented.
These results led to the inference that different socialization
processes operate in the social system of the high school for students
of different status. That is, for high status students, college plans
were a consequence of parental or peer group socialization, while for
students of lower prestige, they derived from an academic orientation
toward college. Furthermore, it was inferred that high status students
appeared to gain an interest in college because of the social activities
it required, not because of an interest in academic achievement.
In a second study, McDill and Coleman (1965) documented the
increasing effect of high school status on college plans from the beginning
to the end of the high school career and showed how this influence can

overcome the disadvantages of a low atstus family background. The study

_‘

 

 

 

 

 

65

also revealed the differential impact of family and school status on
college plans in school settings where the intellectual climate varied.

At the high school level, a limited number of researchers have
been concerned with the immediate interpersonal influences of friendship
cliques or peer groups on the educational and occupational aspirations
of students within the institution. Haller and Butterworth (1960) used
a sample of male students enrolled in a Michigan high school to test the
hypothesis that occupational and educational aspirations of reciprocally
chosen best friends should vary together. Their findings were inconclusive
but tended, overall, not to refute the hypothesis.

Alexander and Campbell (1964), using a balance model (Heider,
1958), studied friendship influences on the college aSpirations, plans,
and attendance of a large sample of male high school seniors in North
Carolina. They found that they were directly influenced by those of the
student's friends, regardless of his socioeconomic background. These
relationships were more pronounced when the friendship choices were
reciprocated. In a follow-up study (Campbell and Alexander, 1965), they
found support for the hypothesis that the association between the
educational climate of the high school and students' college plans could
be accounted for by the intervening variables of the "interpersonal influence"
of close friends. Thus, they concluded that an important interpretive link
between the larger social collectivity (as represented by the school) and
the educational orientation of the individual student is the influence of
his immediate peer group.

Several investigaors have documented the influence of immediate

peer groups on various measures of educational outcome at the college level.

 

66

One of the most creative of these is a longitudinal investigation of a

small midwestern liberal arts college by Wallace (1965). He found a high
rate of change in graduate school aspirations among freshmen during the

first two months of attendance, with the distribution of their aspiration
shifting toward those of upperclassmen. Of special importance, he discovered
that freshmen were more likely to move toward the prevailing upperclass
aspiration toward graduate school when a higher proportion of their
interpersonal contacts were non-freshmen.

Another article by Wallace (1964), from the same study, demonstrates
strong peer group effects on changes in the value placed on academic
achievement. One of the most important points in this article is his
conclusion that different parts of a student's interpersonal environment
have different influences on values relating to the future. He found that
the students in the freshman's environment with whom he spent most time
had more influence on his long-range goals (graduate school aspirations)
than on his short-range good (importance of good grades).

At the postgraduate level, the study of a medical school by Hughes,
Becker, and Geer (1962) provides further evidence of the impact of peer
groups on student performance and the role such groups play in aiding the
individual student to adjust to a highly competitive and threatening
environment.

From the review of related research, one of the most widely accepted
propositions is "the greater the degree of academic concern and emphasis
in a school, the higher the achievement and aspiration levels of individual
students". However, most of the research on specific aspects of school

climate has been conducted at the college and high school levels, with

67

such investigations in elementary schools being neglected. When

investigators do conduct contextual research at school, their tendency
('1)

is to use educational or occupational aspirations as the dependent variable

and the average socioeconomic background of the student body as the

(2)

contextual variable.

(1) On this point Wilson reached a similar conclusion: Since the 1964
decision of the Supreme court requiring racial desegregation of schools,
there has been a growing accumulation of social research exploring

the relationships between aggregative characteristics of schools and
the development of individual students attending these schools. The
great majority of these studies has documented the thesis that the
school environment has an independent effect molding the educational
aspirations and orientation of students. Until the publication of

the Coleman Report, however, these was little available evidence about
the effects' of school characteristics upon measured academic
achievement (1968: 80-81).

(2) These two points characterize each of the following well-known
studies reviewed in this chapter: Wilson (1959), Michael (1961),
Turner (1964), Campbell and Alexander (1965), and Boyle (1966).
Coleman's study is an exception in that he developed direct measures
of student value climates for his sample of ten schools. However, he
did not have a standardized measure of achievement available, relying
instead on grade-point averages as a criterion. There is a widespread
tendency to "measure" the differences (between academic and social
activities in the school) by merely comparing the average socioeconomic
level of students across schools. Whether more direct measures of
normative climates than the socioeconomic level of the neighborhood or
school would reveal a closer relationship with educational aspirations
must await new evidence based on actual assessments of these climates.
Such evidence was not available in this study, nor has it been
presented in any of the past studies" (Sewell and Armer, 1966a: 168).

This review of related studies emphasized the need for systematic
investigation of the two interrelated problems. First, this study attempts
to develop direct and systematic measures of the educational and social
climates of elementary schools. As noted by Bidwell (1965: 992),
researchers have concentrated too much on the student society, ignoring
the teacher colleague group and the degree of social integration of the
two components in the school society. This criticism applies to one of

the most widely known and often cited works in this area, Coleman's

68

The Adolescent Society, which focused almost exclusively on the student

 

social system of the school. In investigating the variations in dimensions
of climates across schools, this study includes specific academic and
social characteristics of the relationships among students and between
students and teachers.

Second, this research focuses on a search for the SOJrCES of
school climate effects by considering factors which earlier and speculative
writings have suggested are important in accounting for the variations in
the academic output of elementary school. The factors considered were
mainly social psychological variables.

It is necessary to know whether variation in the quality of
elementary schools has any effect on academic performance and aspirations
of students, and, if so, what specific components of the school make a
difference. It may be emphasized in this connection that the authors of
recent studies at both the high school (Hauser, 1969: 611) and college
(Astin, 1968: 688) levels have interpreted their data in such a way as to
raise questions regarding the validity of the proposition that school
quality per se is positively related to achievement of students.

It seems crucial that educational researchers systematically test
this proposition in a variety of institutional settings with diverse student
populations, for, if school quality makes little or no difference, radical
transformations are called for througout the entire educational system.

In addition, if characteristics of school environments produce either
everachieving or underachieving students, it is essential to locate their
causes so that educational policymakers can effectively change the
organization of school and community to enhance the academic commitment

and performance of students.

69

In investigating the first question, a greater emphasis will be
placed on aspects of the informal social organization of schools. The
first is the characteristic overall demands, features, or emphases of
the school in terms of relationships among students and relationship

between students and teachers.

INTERRACIAL CLIMATE AND ACHIEVEMENT

Interracial contact in schools can range from acceptance and
friendship to hostility; some schools are effective settings for intellectual
development and others are ineffective. Racially mixed schools can be
either "desegregated" or "integrated". A desegregated school includes
both black and white children, but contact between races is minimal and
tense; an integrated school also is interracial, but there is considerable
cross-racial interaction and friendship.

Moynihan, st 21. (1972) sought to investigate the notion that these
differences among biracial schools are systematically related to achievement.
Their basic hypothesis was that the academic achievement of Negro children
in biracial schools would be highest in integrated settings. This
hypothesis derived directly from the findings of extensive laboratory
research on Negro performance in biracial situations, conducted over the
past decade by Irwin Katz (1964, 1969a, 1969b). He found, in one experiment
after another, that black subjects performed best in interracial situations
free of stress and threat, moderately well in all-Negro situations, and
worst in interracial situations characterized by stress and threat. Katz
concluded:

The psychological evidence that I have presented is consistent with

70

a definition of racial integration which emphasizes the beneficial
effects to Negro pupils of attending racially balanced classes when
an atmosphere of genuine respect and acceptance prevails.

According to Moynihan £3 31. the Equal Educational Opportunity

 

survey presents the first opportunity to pursue Katz's findings outside
the laboratory. The questionnaires contain two items which may tap the
integration-desegregation continuum. The first item asked teachers to
judge the extent of racial and ethnic hostility in their schools; the
second item asked students to estimate the extent to which their friendship
groups were interracial. The latter serves as a direct measure of the
interracial climates of schools, as called for by their hypothesis.
Although it turned out that neither measure was really suitable for
analysis, it is worth briefly recounting the reasons for this.

Coleman's study shows the importance of the attributes of other
students. The educational background and aspirations of the majority
of students in a school account for most variation in improving achievement
patterns. He concludes that a disadvantaged child will probably not
improve if he attends school with similarly disadvantaged peers. However,
if the other pupils have better backgrounds and higher aspirations, he is
likely to improve significantly. By contrast, white pupils from homes
that value education highly who attend a school with a majority of lower-
ability pupils do as well as they would with peers sharing their aspirations.
These results confirm the important influence of a family background supp-
ortive of educational achievement. When this is lacking, attending a
school where one's peers are academically-oriented may be an adequate
substitute.

Coleman's study (1966) found that minority-group students in

integrated schools were somewhat more likely to feel that they could

71

control their destinies than did minority-group students in segregated
schools. It may be possible, therefore, to increase the internalization

of formal school norms and values in minority-group students by integrating
schools. By properly mixing the middle-class and lower-class students
within the classroom, it is possible to increase motivation of the lower-

class children.

CHAPTER IV

METHOD AND FACTOR ANALYSIS

This study examined the difference in school climate factors as
perceived by black and white students in schools with varying segregated
and mixed racial composition when SES and achievement controlled. The
hypotheses were tested using one way analysis of variance procedure.

Mean scale scores on student and teacher climate factors were used as the
dependent variables. The independent variables were race, SES, urban-
rural community types, and varying white and black student composition.

This study was made possible by the State of Michigan Department
of Education, statewide assessment program for elementary schools, in
1970. Under this program, each elementary school in the state administered
a battery of instruments to each.of its students in the fourth grade,
which included among its items, a standardized achievement test and an
index of socioeconomic status. The mean school data from every elementary
school in the state, on SES, race, and achievement were obtained from the
State assessment data. Thus, the following design factors, based upon
State Assessment Measurements, are applied to this research.

The structural variables, used as independent variables in this
study were racial and socio-economic status composition and school
achievement levels.

1. Socio-economic status Index
The index of SES, employed in this study for school selection,

was developed by "The Michigan State School Assessment SES Index 1969-70".

72

73

Its purpose is to measure differences in life style and consumption
patterns which, within the social structure of the United States, are
generally associated with differing SES levels. Items measuring amount of
family travel, parental education, stability of the home, and the students
educational aspirations were also included. Those schools having a mean
SES above 49.0 were considered to be high SES schools and those below

were designated as low SES schools.

2. Racial Composition

School racial composition information regarding the percentage of
black and white students was coupfled from school records available in the
Michigan State Department of Education. The chief criterion designating
a school as either black and white was a student body composition of at

least 70% for either race. The mixed schools in this study were 62% black.

3. Achievement Index

The standardized index of achievement is a composite score of
three separate achievement tests: reading, English expression, and arithmetic.
Identical tests were administered to all fourth grade students in the State.
The school means for the 1970-71 school year, upon which this analysis
was based, range from approximately 37.0 to 63.0. High-achieving schools

had a mean score of at least 49.0.

SAMPLE

The sample for this research consistsof eleven elementary schools
located in various parts of the State of Michigan. This sample originally

was selected non-randomly, on the basis of SES and achievement, within

74

three strata: predominantly white schools and predominantly black
schools in urban community; and predominantly white schools and
mixed schools in rural area. In order to facilitate some separate
analysis, both SES and achievement were classified into high and
low scoring schools.

Those schools having a mean SES above 49.0 were considered
to be high socioeconomic schools and those below were designated
as low SES schools.

TABLE IV-l CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOLS OF SELECTED FOR STUDY: RACE,
SES, ACHIEVEMENT, URBAN-RURAL, AND SAMPLE NUMBERS OF STUDENT AND TEACHER.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

School SES Achievement % White Student Teacher
1 2 3
1 44.9 Lower 44.6 Lower 100 (100) 53 (88) 3 (3) E
2 46.8 Lower 43.7 Lower 96 ( 95) 54 (81) 3 (3) g
44.2 (average) 107 (169) 6 (6) o
3 46.7 Lower 38.0 Lower 7.4 (13.8) 68 (105) 5 (6)
4 46.7 Lower 39.6 Lower 3.5 ( 5.3) 227 (384) 8 (11)
38.8 295 (489) 13 (17)
5 47.8 Lower 45.6 Lower 100 (100) 29 (40) 2 (2) g
6 37.8 Lower 42.5 Lower 100 (100) 6 ( 9) 1 (l) a
44.1 35 (49) 3 (3) '-
7 47.6 Lower 45.3 Lower 28.2 (38.3) 85 (107) 6 (6)
8 47.0 Lower 46.0 Lower 55.9 (38.6) 118 (146), 6 (6)
45.6 203 (253) 12 (12)
640 (960) 34 (38)

9 55.1 Higher 59.6 Higher 88.6 (85) 105 (140) 6 (6) :fi
10 58.2 Higher 54.4 Higher 100 (100) 211 (224) 8 (9) g
11 61.3 Higher 55.1 Higher 36 (30) 178 (276) 6 (6) o

494 (640) 20 (21)
Total 1134 (1600) 54 (59)

 

l),2),3) -- Original sample numbers, included missing data.

75

Data were collected from the students in these sample schools.
during the l970-7l school year. The final sample consisted of all students
as a group of each sampled school who were in the fourth, fifth, and some
sixth grades, although the SES and achievement used for sample selection
was based on data obtained from the fourth grade students the previous
year. Brookover, 35 31. stated the reasons for which this larger sample
was required:

First, this gave us the ability to check if the fifth grade population
was representative of the larger group within the school.

Secondly, this wider sample constitutes the "upper grades", composed
of those students in the school who could best read and understand

the questionnaire, as well as those having the greatest familiarity
with the school, thus better able to act as reporters of the normative
climate.

At that time, the rural schools closed earlier for the summer and
were therefore, surveyed during the 1971-72 school year. Their selection
was thus based on the fourth grade State Assessment results, Which the
sixth grade students had two years earlier. Their inclusion was allowed
only after a check that the most recently available State achievement
results had revealed no significant change to have taken place from one
year to the next (School-7-State Assessment Achievement results, 1969-70
=42.5; l970-7l=43.0).

Data were also collected from every fourth, fifth, and sixth

grade teachers in each sampled school.

INSTRUMENTATION

The instruments employed for the current analysis consisted of
two separate but interrelated questionnaires, one each for students, and

for teachers. These were originally developed in 1969, for use in the

 

 

 

 

76

study of school social environments, by Wilbur B. Brookover and Richard
Gigliotti. The two questionnaires are interelated in that they contain a

core of similar questions designed to elicit attitudes and beliefs or
perceptions of attitudes and beliefs of those individuals sampled. The
original instruments were pre-tested in a moderate size industrial city,

which the subjects were judged to have experienced difficulty in understanding

the intended meaning. The two instruments are attached in Appendices.

DATA COLLECTION

Student data were collected through the use of a group administered
questionnaire technique, as a part of Brookover E£.El-'3 U.S. Office of
Education Research Project No. 1-E-107 (1973). Depending upon student
literacy, the questionnaire may have been read to the students in its
entirety or students were asked, after a period of short instruction, to
complete the instrument on a self-administered basis. This method of data
collection was found to be both inexpensive and efficient.

The teacher questionnaire was strictly self-administered. It was
completed by the subject during the same time period that their students
were completing theirs. This allowed the research team maximum use out of
time spent in the building, and also reinforced the guarantee of anonymity

to the students by having their teacher out of the room.

ANALYSIS

One of the aims of this study is to analyze the differences and

similarities of certain social psychological attitudinal variables

77

within the group of schools in various socioeconomic, racial,and community
types.

To accomplish this goal, factor analysis of a varimax rotation
type was based upon patterns of variable inter-correlations, where on the
basis of the response patterns of subjects, the variables are given a
weighted loading score within a number of factors, which in turn are
judged by the researcher as to their theoretical sense. For the present
analysis, four separate varimax rotation factor analyses were performed.
The first used low SES and low achievement student subjects as individual
respondents and 71 items from the student questionnaire. A second analysis
used 30 teachers of this low SES and low achievement schools, also treated
as individuals, having their responses to 51 attitudinal items analyzed.
The third factor analysis was performed on high SES and high achievement
students. The fourth analysis was administered on all teachers for
comparing purposes between high SES and high achievement and low SES and
low achievement schools. Regarding the use of individual rather than
school mean scores, for the factors, Schneider (1973: 81-82) stated that
"... it added much greater stability and reliability to the results, the
decision to proceed in this manner did give much greater weight to the
larger schools". All individual subjects, from all schools, that had
completely answered all items analyzed were given equal weight in the

factor analysis.

2. FACTOR ANALYSIS

This section reports the findings, using a varimax rotation factor

analysis upon data from the samples of students and teachers. The

78

questions related to the factor analysis were as follows: 1) In the low
socioeconomic status and low achievement school setting, is the factor
structure identified by school social environment questionnaire the same

as the factor structure identified by the original large sample schools?

2) Would a factor analysis of responses from the low SES and low achievement
school sample identify the same factors in high SES and high achievement
schools? These questions were answered. The number of identifiable
factors was not the same as the number in the original study; this finding
was expected because of the difference in the character of the two samples.
In other words, factoranalysis depends on the population which has been
surveyed. Different populations did show different factors when responses
were analyzed. Determination of number of factors was also an important
problem. Kaiser (1960: 141-51) considered the closely interlocked

problem of the number of factors. It would appear that there have been
four distinguishable bases for determining the number of factors. In order
of increasing importance these are (1) statistical criteria of significance,
(2) algebraic criteria of necessity, (3) psychometric criteria of
reliability, (4) psychological criteria of meaningfulness. Kaiser discuss
these in detail. The principal component technique was used to extract

the factors, and the eigenvalue criterion suggested by Kaiser (1960) was
employed to determine the number of factors to be extracted. Using this
criterion, the number of common factors should be equal to the number of
eigenvalues greater than 1.0, if unities are used in the diagonals of the
correlation matrix. Harman (1960: 363) also pointed out that this is a
highly practical criterion.

The other similar way of determining the number of factors is to

 

 

 

 

79

plot the eigenvalues and examine the plot for breaks in the curve (Cattell's

Scree Test).

appendices.

The eigenvalues for the current data were presented in

When eigenvalues were plotted which showed a break after four

eigenvalues, in teacher data. Thus one possibility was a solution

consisting of four factors in teachers and five factors in student data,

according to Cattell's Scree Test.

II.

IN LOW

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

SCHOOL CLIMATE FACTORS

SES LOW ACHIEVEMENT SCHOOLS

4-

STUDENT FACTORS
Student perceptions of the present evaluations-expectations
of others in their school social system.

Student perceptions of the future evaluations-expectations
of others in their school social system.

Student perception about the level of feeling of futility
permeating the social system of the school.

Student perception about the level of feelings of reward/
feedback for their achievement from their parents and

social system.

Student perception of those school norms stressing academic
achievement which exist in their school social system.

 

TEACHER FACTORS

 

Teacher reported push for competition.

Teacher perceived expectations.

 

Job satisfaction/commitment.

Teacher reported community press for achievement.

IN HIGH SES HIGH ACHIEVEMENT SCHOOLS

.__-

 

 

80

STUDENT FACTORS

 

Factor 1- Student perceived present evaluations-expectations.
Factor 2- Student perceived future evaluations-expectations.

Factor 3- Student perceived sense of futility.

 

Factor 4- Reported student press for competition/push.

 

Factor 5- Importance of student role identity.

 

IN LOW SES AND LOW ACHIEVEMENT SCHOOLS

Factor 1- Student perceived present evaluations-expectations

The evaluations-expectations variable is divided into two separate
school climate factors on the basis of a varimax factor analysis. High
loading into the first of these variables were those items which
concentrated upon the expectations and evaluation of others (e.g., parents,
teachers, friends), as well as the students own "self-concept of academic
ability" from the present through the completion of high school. The items

which were loaded highly on this factor and their loading scores are below.

Proportion of Variance = .0901

Question # Factor Loading Score

65. How good of a student do your parents expect you to be -.6456
in school?

67. Would your mother and father say that your grades would -.6435
be with the best, same as most, or below most of the
students when you finish high school?

66. Think of your mother and father. Do your mother and -.6280
father say you can do your school work better, the same
or poorer than your friends?

44. Would your best friend say that your grades would be with -.6l75
the best, same as most, or below most of the students
when you graduate from high school?

59. Think of your teacher. Would your teacher say you can -.6159

do school work better, the same, or poorer than other
people your age?

37.

60.

33.

43.

58.

32.

38.

63.

35.

47.

31.

70.

42.

81

Forget how your teachers mark your work. How good do you
think your own work is?

Would your teacher say that your grades would be with
the best, same as most, or below most of the students
when you graduate from high school?

When you finish high school, do you think you will be one
of the best students, about the same as most of the
students, or below most of the students?

Think of your best friend. Would yourbest friend say
you can do school work better, the same, or poorer than

other people your age?

How good of a student does the teacherpyou like the best
expect you to be in school?

Think of the students in your class. Do you think you
can do school work better, the same, or poorer than
the other students in your class?

What marks do you think you really can get if you try?

What grades does your teacher think you can get?

If you went to college, do you think you would be one

-.5892

-.5777

-.5511

-.5369

-.5229

-.5210

-.5155

-.4950

-.4940

of the best students, about the same as most of the students,

or below most of the students?
What grades does your best friend think you can get?

Think of your friends. Do you think you can do school
work better, the same, or poorer than your friends?

What grades do your mother and father think you can get?

How good of a student does your best friend expect you
to be in school?

The present evaluation-expectations factor is operationally

-.4905

-.4864

-.4609

-.4442

defined as the mean of the summed factor scores for the students within

each of the sampled schools strata.

For clarity of interpretation, a

transformation was made on all of the resulting mean factor scores of the

school strata category, thus a higher score in this factor means a more

positive present evaluation-expectation.

evaluations-expectations are shown in Table l.

Strata factor scores for this

82

Factor 2- Student Perceived Future Evaluations-Expectations

The second factor related to the evaluations-expectations variable
of interest dealt with student perceptions of the beliefs of others (signi-
ficant reference group: parents, teachers, friends and principals) concerning
the subject's chances of future academic accomplishments. Also loading
highly on this factor were items related to the student's future "self-
concept of academic ability" and self evaluation. More specifically,
the high loaded items within this factor are those items related to the
reported beliefs and perceptions of beliefs about college attendance
and success. The items which loaded highly on this variable are as
follows. (Transformation was made on all of the resulting mean factor
scores, thus allowing a higher figure in this factor score to mean more
positive future evaluations-expectations. These factor scores are shown
in Table 1).

Proportion of Variance = .0674

Question # Factor Loading Score
41. How far do you think your best friend believes you .6312
will go in school?
68. Do they think you could finish college (mother & -.6032
father)?
64. How far do you think your parents believe you will .5905

go in school?
45. Does your best friend think you could finish college? -.5901
69. Remember you need more than four years of college to be -.5546
a teacher or doctor. Do your mother and father think

you could do that?

57. How far do you think the teacher you like best believes .5524
you will go in school?

61. Does your teacher think you could finish college? -.5197

83

46. Remember you need more than four years of college to -.5165
be a teacher or doctor. Does your best friend think
you could do that?

9. If you could go as far as you wanted in school, how .4836
far would you like to go?

62. Remember you need more than four years of college to be -.4656
a teacher or doctor. Does your teacher think you
could do that?

36. If you want to be a doctor or a teacher you need more -.4358
than four years of college. Do you think you could
do that?
34. Do you think you could finish college? -.4l76
14. If most of the students here could go as far as they .4134

wanted in school how far would they go?

75. How many students in this school do you think the -.3991
principal believes will finish college?

74. How many of the students in this school do you think -.3706
the principal believes will go to college?
Factor 3- Student Perceived Sense of Futility
The most important items within this factor are those which were

modification of the "sense of control" questions used by Coleman (1966).
There are several additional items, however, which loaded highly on
student perceived sense of futility. These items dealt with reported
student perceptions of teachers' press for competition and demand for
performance and to a lesser extent of other students, feelings of
hopelessness or lack of caring about academic achievement, as an existing

factor of school climate. The following are the high load items for this

factor.
Proportion of variance = .0507
Question # Factor Loading Score
27. People like me will never do well in school even though .5204

we try hard.

30. You have to be lucky to get good grades in this school. .5200

84

53. Of the teachers that you know in this school how many .5049
don't care how hard the student works as long as he
passes?

50. Of the teachers that you know in this school how many .4660
don't care if the students get bad grades?

52. Of the teachers that you know in this school how many .4570
make the students work too hard?

49. How many teachers in this school tell students to try .4437
and get better grades than their classmates?

29. In this school students like me don't have any luck. .4097

26. People like me will not have much of a chance to do .4091
what we want to in life.

54. If the teachers in this school think a student can't .4010
do good work how many will try to make him work hard
anyway?

55. Of the teachers that you know in this school, how many .3310
think it is not good to ask more work from a student
than he is able to do?

13. How many students in this school do more studying for .3118
weekly tests than they have to?

28. I can do well in school if I work hard. .2562

24. Think about the boys and girls you play with at recess .2371
or after school. How often do they read in their free
time?

25. When you and your friends are together after school or .2278

on weekends, how often do you talk about your school
work?

Factor 4- Student Perceived Rewards/Feed Back for their Achievement
Items high loaded in this student factor were those evaluating

the student perceptions about the reaction toward their achievement by

The high loaded items on this

parents, and social system and himself.

student perceived rewards/feed back for their achievement were as follows:

85

Proportion of Variance = .0382
Question # Factor Loading Score

77. If I do well in school, it will be easier for me to -.6l98
get the job I want when I graduate.

79. If you came hone with a good report card, what would -.6096
your parents most likely do?

80. If you came hone with a poor report card, what would -.5986
your parents most likely do?

76. When I do a good job on my school work, I am more -.5963
popular with other students.

81. Sometimes what you want to happen is not what you -.5887
think will happen. How far do you think you will go
in school?

78. My parents allow me greater freedom when I do well -.5778

in school.

Factor 5- Student Perception of School Academic Norms

Items high loading in this student factor were those assessing
the student perceptions about the amount of pressure placed upon
achievement by members of the school social system and school bureaucracy.
Within this factor, the student perception concerning the evaluation-
expectations of their principal, appears to be complexly interwoven into
the general normative academic push of the school environment. Other
variables which have combined to form student perception of school
academic norms were items designed to measure the amount of student
reported teacher press for cometition and demand for performance within
the environment, as well as the reported and perceived importance of the
student self identity or role. The following items were the high loading

questions for the student perception of school academic norms factor.

86

Proportion of Variance = .0564

Question # Factor Loading Score

 

17. If your parents told you that you were a poor student, .5094
how would you feel?

20. How do you think most of the teachers in this school .4932
react when one of the students does a bad job on
school work?

23. How important do you think most of the students in .5062
this school feel it is to do well in school work?

16. How important is it to you to be a good student? .4677

15. If the teacher you like best told you that you were .4453
a poor student, how would you feel?

73. How many students in this school do you think the .4406
principal believes will finish high school?

22. How important do most of the students in this class .4405
feel it is to do well in school work?

11. How many students in this school will work hard to .4404
get a better grade on their weekly tests than their
friends do?

71. How many students in this school do you think the .4275
principal believes can get high grades?

18. If your best friend told you that you were a poor .4252
student, how would you feel?

48. Of the teachers that you know in this school, how many .4129
tell students to try hard to do better on tests?

10. How many students in this school try hard to get a .3879
good grade on their weekly tests?

51. Of the teachers that you know in this school, how many .3441
tell students to do extra work so that they can get
better grades.

72. How do you think your principal would grade the work .3153
of the students in this school, compared to other
school?

12. How many students in this school don't care if they -.3083

get bad grades.

19.

56.

21.

87

How do you think most of the students in this school
react when one of you does a bad job on school work?

Of the teachers that you know in this school, how
many believe that students should be asked to do only
work which they are able to do?

What do you think most students say when a student has
done good or better than he usually does in his school
work?

IN HIGH SES AND HIGH ACHIEVEMENT SCHOOLS

factors in low SES and low achievement schools which were mentioned

earlier.

.2881

.2422

-.O963

Therefore we do not need to repeat redundant explanations.

Factor 1- Student Perceived Present Evaluations-Expectations

Question #

67.

60.

58.

33.

37.

44.

The following three factors consist of similar items with the

Proportion of Variance = .1086

Would your mother and father say that your grades
would be with the best, same as most, or below most
of the students when you finish high school?

Would your teacher say that your grades would be with
the best, same as most, or below most of the students
when you graduate from high school?

How good of a student does the teacher you like the best
expect you to be in school?

When you finish high school, do you think you will
be one of the best students, about the same as most
of the students, or below most of the students?

Forget how your teachers mark your work. How good do
you think your own work is?

Would your best friend say that your grades would be
with the best, same as most, or below most of the
students when you graduate from high school?

Factor Loading Score

.6821

.6709

.6547

.6481

.6355

.6311

88

 

65. How good of a student do your parents expect you to -.6239
be in school?

59. Think of your teacher. Would your teacher say you -.6230
can do school work better, the same, or poorer than
other people your age?

66. Think of your mother and father. Do your mother and -.6142
father say you can do your school work better, the same,
or poorer than your friends?

43. Think of your best friend. Would your best friend say -.5890
you can do school work better, the same, or poorer
than other people your age?

35. If you went to college, do you think you would be one -.5604
of the best students, about the same as most of the
students, or below most of the students?

32. Think of the students in your class. Do you think you -.5563
can do school work better, the same, or poorer than
the other students in your class?

42. How good of a student does your best friend expect you -.5441
to be in school?

63. What grades does your teacher think you can get? -.5415

47. What grades does your best friend think you can get? -.5343

38. What marks do you think you really can get if you try? -.5307

31. Think of your friends. Do you think you can do -.4959
school work better, the same, or poorer than your
friends?

70. What grades do your mother and father think you can -.4646
get?

34. Do you think you could finish college? -.3499

Factor 2- Student Perceived Future Evaluations-Ecpectations
Proportion of Variance = .0743
Question # Factor Loading Score

41. How far do you think your best friend believes you .6723
will go in school?

89

64. How far do you think your parents believe you will go .6455
in school?

68. Do they think you could finish college (mother & -.6443
father)?
9. If you could go as far as you wanted in school, how .6356

far would you like to go?

 

69. Remember you need more than four years of college to -.6097
be a teacher or doctor. Do your mother and father
think you could do that?
81. How far do you think you will go in school? .5870
45. Does your best friend think you could finish college? -.5718
57. How far do you think the teacherpyou like best .5618
believes you will go in school?
61. Does your teacher think you could finish college? -.5395
46. Remember you need more than four years of college to -.5369
be a teacher or doctor. Does your best friend think
you could do that?
62. Remember you need more than four years of college to -.4936
be a teacher or doctor. Does your teacher think you
could do that?
36. If you want to be a doctor or a teacher you need more -.3819
than four years of college. Do you think you could do
that?
14. If most of the students here could go as far as they .3354
wanted in school how far would they go?
28. I can do well in school if I work hard. -.2317

Factor 3- Student Perceived Sense of Futility
Proportion of Variance = .0460
Question # Factor Loading Score

50. Of the teachers that you know in this school how many .6317
don't care if the students get bad grades?

30. You have to be lucky to get good grades in this school .4909

9O

27. People like me will never do well in school even .4875
though we try hard.

52. Of the teachers that you know in this school how many .4744
make the students work too hard?

53. Of the teachers that you know in this school how many .4352
don't care how hard the student works aslong as he
passes?

26. People like me will not have much of a chance to do what .3857

we want to in life.

29. In this school students like me don't have any luck. .3763
12. How many students in this school don't care if they get .3051
bad grades.

Factor 4- Reported Student Press for Competition and Push

It appears clear, from the research evidence which is currently
available, that in group climate of the two different conditions comparing
academic performance in cooperative and competitive situations, cooperation
creates a more pleasant environment. Deutsch (1962) theorized that when
a learning environment is cooperative, the goals of individuals are so
linked that they reinforce each other, creating a high correlation between
the goal attainment of group members. The outcome of this situation leads
to higher group achievement. Research concluding that a cooperative
climate is more advantageous to group situations was conducted upon college
students by Deutsch (1949), and Hains and Mckeachie (1967). While neither
study was able to show that a cooperative learning situation had a
significant impact upon academic achievement, they did find that cooperation
produced friendlier discussion groups, the memberships of which were more
satisfying, less anxious, less self-oriented, more respectful of others,

and displayed more apparent security. Johnson (1970) cites conflicting

91

evidence concerning cooperation and achievement through Gurnee's (1968)
findings that maze learning was significantly greater under instructions
to cooperate and Julian and Perry's (1967) findings that group members
were more motivated and productive under certain degrees of competition.
The short duration of two hours in Julian and Perry study, however, makes
it unfair to generalize to cooperative groups where members know one
another.

In cooperative situations, individuals have been found to imitate
others in the group (O'connell, 1965). This would appear to be important
to achievement and to grouping practices found within schools. Sexton
(1961) attributes the success Soviet education entertains at producing
higher achievement might be the result of using group cooperation rather
than competition. This conflicting evidence may partially be explained
by the findings of French, Israel, and As (1960) in their attempted
replication of the original Coch and French (1948) study, which had
concluded that members involved in group democratic participation are more
readily inclined to accept new group goals. The later study found that
positive and negative attitudes of workers directly related to their own
perceived legitimacy of involvement. It is therefore possible that
achievement under conditions of cooperation and competition might be related,
to the extent that students believe that it is "... right and proper to
engage in the decision making process" (Schneider 1973: 62). This factor
to emerge was based upon the following designated items: reported student
press for competition (3 items), reported teacher press for competition (3
items), reported principal's expectations for students (3 items), academic

norms of the school (2 items), reported teacher demand for performance (2

92

items), and reported principal's evaluations of all students (2 items).
The items which were loaded highly on this factor and their loading

scores are shown below.

Proportion of Variance = .0590
Question # Factor Loading Score
74. How many of the students in this school do you think .6993

the principal believes will go to college?

75. How many students in this school do you think the .6715
principal believes will finish college?

73. How many students in this school do you think the .6511
principal believes will finish high school?

71. How many students in this school do you think the .6130
principal believes can get high grades?

72. How do you think your principal would grade the work .4752
of the students in this school, compared to other schools?

10. How many students in this school try hard to get a good .4317
grade on their weekly tests?

23. How important do you think most of the students in .4202
this school feel it is to do well in school work?

22. How important do most of the students in this class .3812
feel it is to do well in school work?

13. How many students in this school do more studying for .3768
weekly tests than they have to?

11. How many students in this school will work hard to get .3700
a better grade on their weekly tests than their friends
do?

51. Of the teachers that you know in this school, how many .3687

tell students to do extra work so that they can get
better grades.

56. Of the teachers that you know in this school, how many .3682
believe that students should be asked to do only work
which they are able to do?

49. How many teachers in this school tell students to try .3450
and get better grades than their classmates?

93

54. If the teachers in this school think a student can't .3391
do good work how many will try to make him work hard
anyway?

48. Of the teachers that you know in this school, how many .3151

tell students to try hard to do better on tests?

Factor 5- Importance of student Role Identity

This variable was based on the concept that an individual who had
experienced previous success, would continue his efforts as a means of
self-esteem maintenance. This development of a self role variable is,
of course, tightly interwoven with both the expectations held by his
significant others and the norms present within his environment.

The original construct was developed by Brookover gt gl.(1965) as
part of the longitudinal study of self-concept of academic ability. It was
modified and placed into its present form by Gigliotti (1969, 1972) during
the preliminary phase of the present research. Although this variable
has not been the subject of extensive investigation, there is indication
that the importance of student role identity is positively associated with
the level of school achievement. The items which loaded highly on this
variable follow.

Proportion of Variance = .0416
Question # Factor Loading Score

15. If the teachergyou like the best told you that you .6855
were a poor student, how would you feel?

17. If your parents told you that you were a poor student, .6239
how would you feel?

18. If your best friend told you that you were a poor .5981
student, how would you feel?

19. How do you think most of the students in this school .4385
react when one of you does a bad job on school work?

94

25. When you and your friends are together after school .4082
or on weekends, how often do you talk about your
school work?

16. How important is it to you to be a good student? .3809
24. Think about the boys and girls you play with at recess .3113
or after school. How often do they read in their free
time?

TEACHER FACTORS

 

A third varimax rotation factor analysis was run on the basis of
the inner correlations of 51 items from the teacher questionnaire. The
procedure employed was exactly the same as that used in the analysis of
the student data. The teacher subjects were treated as individual
respondents, rather than using school mean scores of items as a basis for
factoring. This was again done in order to gain greater factor stability,
but again schools which had greater numbers of teachers had greater weight
than did the smaller schools in the sample. Only those teachers who had
no missing data were considered for analysis, thus decreasing the number
of subjects from 59 to 54. From the responses, four interpretable factors
eventually emerged, these factors were:

1. Teacher reported push for competition
2. Expectations
3. Job Satisfaction (commitment)

4. Community press for achievement.

Factor 1- Teacher Reported Push for Competition
Those items which loaded highly in this factor were those which

pertained to the amount of academic push which the teachers perceived to

95

be coming from sources other than school personnel. This, of course,

appears to be closely interwoven with those questions designed to assess

the perceptions of teachers about the educational values which were held

within the homes of the students attending their schools. Also the items

comprising this factor were those which were designed to measure the

amount of push that teachers were willing to exert upon individual students

in order to encourage performance greater than the teacher expectations.

The following questions are the ones which highly loaded in this factor.
Proportion of Variance = .1471

Question # Factor Loading Score

56. How many students in your class will seek extra work .7877
so that they can get better grades?

55. How many students in this school will seek extra work .7492
so that they can get better grades?

52. How many students in your class will try hard to do .6667
better on tests than their classmates do?

50. How many students in your class try hard to improve on .6648
previous work?

57. How many students in this school don't care when other .6613
students do much better than they do?

51. How many students in this school will try hard to do .6521
better on tests than their friends do?

58. How many students in your class don't care when other -.6519
students do much better than they do? 0

44. It is unfair to demand more work from a student than he -.6363
is capable of giving.

53. How many students in this school are content to do less .5885
than they should?

54. How many students in your class are content to do less -.5787
than they should?

46.

41.

49.

42.

45.

96

For most students you are careful not to push them
to their frustration level.

For those students who do not have the resources
which will allow them to go to college, you are

careful not to promote aspirations in them which
probably canot be fulfilled.

How many students in this school try hard to improve
on previous work?

The teacher in this school push students to work too
hard.

If you think a student is not able to do some of the
school work you won't try to push him very hard.

Factor 2- Teacher Evaluations of Student in Their School

.5273

.4271

.4741

-.4046

.3715

The items forming this factor are those which pertain to teacher

expectations of students from the immediate present and continuing through

high school to college.

nature, with the teacher both reporting for himself, and giving his

perceptions of the beliefs held by the school principal.

Question #

19.

18.

21.

34.

15.

35.

Some items are of a more general expectations

Proportion of Variance = .1389

What percent of the students in your class do you
expect to attend college?

What percent of the students in this school do you
expect to attend college?

What percent of the students in your class do you
expect to complete college?

What percent of the students in this school do you
think the principal expects to attend college?

On the average what level of achievement can be
expected of the students in your class?

What percent of the students in this school do you
think the principal expects to complete college?

Factor Loading Score

.8023

.7771

.7259

.6772

.6596

.6590

97
17. What percent of the students in your class do you .6444
expect to complete high school?

20. What percent of the students in this school do you .6341
expect to complete college?

39. Completion of college is a realistic goal which you set .6222
for what percentage of your students?

38. Completion of high school is a realistic goal which you .6166
set for what percentage of your students?

14. On the average what level of achievement can be expected .5616
of the students in this school?

16. What percent of the students in this school do you .5557
expect to complete high school?

22. How many of the students in this school are capable of .5527
getting mostly A's and B's?

Factor 3- Teacher Reported Feelings of Job Satisfaction
An unpure factor, as measured by the number of high load items
emerging from our factor analysis, consisted of a broad range of items,
designed to assess degree of teacher commitment with his present school,
reported principal evaluations-expectations, community press for achievement
and teacher press for performance. The following items are those high
loading within this factor.
Proportion of Variance = .0995
Question # Factor Loading Score
36. How many students in this school do you think the .7896
principal believes are capable of getting mostly
A's and B's?
37. How do you think the principal rates the academic .6221
ability of students in this school, compared with

other schools?

29. How much do you enjoy your teaching responsibilities .6094
in this school?

30.

43.

48.

31.

61.

40.

62.

33.

98

If someone were to offer you an interesting and secure
non-teaching-job for $1,000 more a year, how seriously
would you consider taking the job?

How many teachers in this school aren't concerned how
hard most students work as long as they pass?

How many teachers encourage students go seek extra work
so that the students can get better grades?

If someone were to offer you an interesting and secure
non-teaching-job for $3,000 more a year, how seriously
would you consider taking the job?

How many parents in this school service area expect their
children to complete high school?

How often do you stress to your students the necessity
of a post high school education for a good job and/or
a comfortable life?

How many parents in this school service area expect
their children to complete college?

What percent of the students in this school do you
think the principal expects to complete high school?

Factor 4- Community Press for Achievement

This factor also ranged broadly, from community press for

-.5468

-.5231

.4749

-.4085

.4026

.3727

.3523

.3377

educational achievement of students, reported aspirations of students,

to reported teacher press for student competition.

are those high loading within this factor.

Question #

24.

27.

32.

The following items

Proportion of Variance = .0956

How would you rate the academic ability of the
students in this school compared to other schools?

What percent of the students in this school would
you say want to go to college?

How often do you stay after school to help students?

Factor Loading Score

-.6158

-.6l38

-.5884

99

60. The parents of this school service area are deeply -.5854
concerned that their children receive a top quality
education.

25. What percent of the students in this school would you -.5475
say want to complete high school?

28. What percent of the students in your class would you -.5380
say want to go to college?

59. The parents in this school service area regard this -.5359
school primarily as a baby-sitting agency.

64. How many of the parents in this school service area -.5323
like feedback from the principal and teachers on how
their children are doing in school?

63. How many of the parents in this school service area -.5316
don't care if their children obtain low grades?

23. How many students in your class are capable of getting -.5293
mostly A's and B's?

47. How many teachers in this school encourage students to .4631
try hard to improve on previous test scores?

26. What percent of the students in your class would you -.4532

say what to complete high school?

In order to compare the teacher attitudinal climate difference
between high SES-high Achievement and low SES low achievement schools in
the same basis, the fourth factor analysis was run in all teacher data
(N=100), and similar four factors were emerged as the factors in the

low SES low achievement schools.

Factor 1- Teacher Evaluations-Expectations
Proportion of Variance = .1761
Question # Factor Loading Score

20. What percent of the students in this school do you .8179
expect to complete college?

35.

18.

21.

34.

19.

62.

39.

27.

22.

37.

28.

36.

23.

24.

26.

100

What percent of the students in this school do you
think the principal expects to complete college?

What percent of the students in this school do you
expect to attend college?

What percent of the students in your class do you
expect to complete college?

What percent of the students in this school do you
think the principal expects to attend college?

What percent of the students in your class do you
expect to attend college?

How many parents in this school service area expect
their children to complete college?

Completion of college is a realistic goal which you set
for what percentage of your students?

What percent of the students in this school would you
say what to go to college?

How many of the students in this school are capable of
getting mostly A's and B's?

How do you think the principal rates the academic
ability of students in this school, compared with other
school?

What percent of the students in your class would you
say want to go to college?

How many students in this school do you think the
principal believes are capable of getting mostly A's and
B's?

How many students in your class are capable of getting
mostly A's and B's?

How would you rate the academic ability of the students
in this school compared to other schools?

What percent of the students in your class would you say
want to complete high school?

Factor 2- Reported Student Press for Competition

.8100

.7991

.7987

.7975

.7821

.6876

.6625

.6312

.6246

.6011

.5924

.5880

.5460

.5384

.3458

101

Proportion of Variance = .1090
Question # Factor Loading Score

57. How many students in this school don't care -.7994
when other students do much better than they do?

58. How many students in your class don't care when other .7475
students do much better than they do?

52. How many students in your class will try hard to do -.7126
better on tests than their classmates do?

51. How many students in this school will try hard to do -.7049
better on tests than their friends do?

63. How many of the parents in this school service area don't -.5974
care if their children obtain low grades?

55. How many students in this school will seek extra work -.5415
so that they can get better grades?

60. The parents of this school service area are deeply -.5328
concerned that their children receive a top quality
education.

56. How many students in your class will seek extra work so -.5280
that they can get better grades?

54. How many students in your class are content to do less .5245
than they should?

53. How many students in this school are content to do less -.4801
than they should?

50. How many students in your class try hard to improve on -.4107
previous work.

40. How often do you stress to your students the necessity -.2623

of a post high school education for a good job and/or
a comfortable life?

Factor 3- Teacher Demand for Performance

Proportion of Variance = .0870
Question # Factor Loading Score

16. What percent of the students in this school do you .6770
expect to complete high school?

102

17. What percent of the students in your class do you .5880
expect to complete high school?

33. What percent of the students in this school do you .5823
think the principal expects to complete high school?

38. Completion of high school is a realistic goal which you .5437
set for what percentage of your students?

14. On the average what level of achievement can be expected .5317
of the students in this school?

61. How many parents in this school service area expect .5072
their children to complete high school?

15. On the average what level of achievement can be .4918
expected of the students in your class?

44. It is unfair to demand more work from a student than .4785
he is capable of giving.

45. If you think a student is not able to do some of the .4048
school work you won't try to push him very hard.

46. For most students you are careful not to push them to .3940
their frustration level.

41. For those students who do not have the resources which .3707
will allow them to go to college, you are careful not
to promote aspirations in them which probably cannot
be fulfilled.

43. How many teachers in this school aren't concerned how hard -.3678
most students work as long as they pass?

47. How many teachers in this school encourage students to .3370
try hard to improve on previous test scores?

42. The teacher in this school push students to work too .1999
hard.

Factor 4- Job Satisfaction (Commitment)

Proportion of Variance = .0817
Question # Factor Loading Score

30. If someone were to offer you an interesting and secure -.7432
non-teaching-job for $1,000 more a year, how seriously
would you consider taking the job?

103

31. If someone were to offer you an interesting and secure -.6757
non-teaching-job for $3,000 more a year, how seriously
would you consider taking the job?

29. How much do you enjoy your teaching responsibilities in .6217
this school?

59. The parents in this school service area regard this .4684
school primarily as a "baby-sitting" agency.

49. How many students in this school try to improve on .4658
previous work?

64. How many of the parents in this school service area .4118
like feedback from the principal and teachers on how
their children are doing in school?

25. What percent of the students in this school would you .3650
say want to complete high school?

48. How many teachers encourage students to seek extra work .3015
so that the students can get better grades?

32. How often do you stay after school to help students .1520

The factor analysis from the two sub-samples, low SES low
achievement and high SES high achievement schools, revealed quite similar
factors with minor differences. In both samples, factor 1- present
evaluations-expectations included 18 items and factor 2- future evaluations-
expectations included 14 items were exactly same. Factor 3- sense of
futility were also quite similar structures. Factor 3 consisted of 14 items
in low SES and low achievement schools, and only 7 of these items in high
SES and high achievement schools. Factor 4- reward/feedback did not
appear in high SES and high achievement schools. Factor 5 in low SES and
low achievement schools was identified as school norms. This consisted
of 18 items, which included 9 items dealing with press for competition or
push which made up a part of factor 4 in high SES and high achievement

schools, 5 items dealing with importance of student role identity which

104

were in factor 5 in high SES and high achievement schools, and 4 items
which did not appear in high SES and high achievement school factors.

The difference in last two factors may result from the different sample
structure: (1) higher vs. lower in school mean SES; (2) higher vs. lower

in school mean achievement; (3) urban population vs. urban-rural mixed
composition of population in low SES and low achievement schools. It

was found that the three major factors were quite similar, but the
differences indicated appeared in two factors. SES, achievement, community

types appeared to be not an important discriminator for factor structures

in these schools.

CHAPTER V

RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS

In this chapter the results of data analysis are reported.
The statistical hypotheses were tested using one way analysis of
variance procedures. Mean scale scores on student and teacher climate
factors were used as the dependent variables. The independent variables
were race, socio-economic status, and rural-urban community types.
The major analyses examined the difference in school climate factors
among varying racial groups when the socio-economic status composition
and achievement level in the schools were controlled. All hypotheses
were tested using the .05 alpha level with the appropriate degrees
of freedom. A summary of the data analysis is reported according
to the hypotheses.
HYPOTHESIS 1- Students' climate scores will differ significantly
among predominantly urban white, urban black, rural white, and rural
mixed schools with low SES and low achievement.
TABLE 1- THE DIFFERENCES IN STUDENTS' CLIMATE FACTOR SCORES AMONG

URBAN WHITE, URBAN BLACK, RURAL WHITE, AND RURAL MIXED SCHOOLS
WITH LOW SES AND LOW ACHIEVEMENT.

 

 

(1)
Factor Category Mean SD Probability
1. Present 1 -.249 .906 .0005 **
evaluations- 2 .135 1.019
expectations 3 -.433 1.190
4 .010 .946

105

TABLE 1 (continued)

—*
——*’

 

106

 

 

Factor Category Mean SD Probability
2. Future 1 .014 1.017 .039 *
evaluations- 2 .110 .974
expectations 3 -.146 1.082
4 -.142 1.004
3. Sense of l .236 1.082 .0005 **
futility 2 -.207 1.027
3 .182 .897
4 .144 .874
4. Reward/feedback 1 .237 .672 .005 **
2 -.244 1.266
3 .230 .625
4 .190 .609
5. School norms 1 -.203 1.004 .136
2 .056 1.052
3 .074 .929
4 .013 .926
*p<.05 **p<.01
(1) Category 1. Students in urban white schools N= 107
2. Students in urban black schools 293
3. Students in rural white schools 35
4. Students in rural mixed schools 203
Total 604

Hypothesis 1 was accepted except factor 5, there were signi-

ficant differences in students' climate factors except school norms

among urban white, urban black, rural white, and rural mixed schools

with low SES and low achievement.

107

TABLE 1 (A) - RANK ORDER IN STUDENTS' CLIMATE FACTOR SCORES AMONG
URBAN WHITE, URBAN BLACK, RURAL WHITE, AND RURAL MIXED SCHOOLS WITH
LOW SES AND LOW ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS.

 

 

Factos(1)
1 ** 2 * 3 ** 4 ** 5
Urban white schools 3 2 4 1 4
Urban black schools 1 l l 4 2
Rural white schools 4 4 3 2 1
Rural mixed schools 2 3 2 3 3

 

*p<.05 **p<.01

(1) Factor 1- Present evaluations-expectations.
Factor 2- Future evaluations-expectations.
Factor 3- Sense of futility.
Factor 4- Reward/feedback.
Factor 5- School norms.

Among three main factors; present evaluations-expectations,
future evaluations-expectations, and sense of futility, the rank order
from more favorable climate factor was as follows:

. urban black schools (N= 295).
. rural mixed schools (N= 203).

. urban white schools (N= 107).
. rural white schools (N= 35).

bWNp—a

Predominantly black schools and mixed schools in which
black students are majority (62%) scored more favorably in the three
main climate factor scores than predominantly white schools with

low SES and low achievement levels.

108

HYPOTHESIS 2- White students in urban white, rural white, and rural
mixed schools with low SES and low achievement will perceive school

climate differently.

TABLE 2- THE DIFFERENCES IN WHITE STUDENTS' CLIMATE FACTOR SCORES
IN URBAN WHITE, RURAI.WHITE, AND RURAL MIXED SCHOOLS WITH LOW SES

AND LOW ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS.

 

 

 

(1)
Factor Category Mean SD Probability
1. Present evaluations- l -.249 .906 .382
expectations 2 -.433 .190
3 -.l61 .993
2. Future evaluations- l .014 .017 .026 *
eXpectations 2 -.146 .082
3 -.381 .983
3. Sense of futility 1 .236 .082 .456
2 .182 .897
3 .382 .836
4. Reward/feedback 1 .237 .622 .995
2 .230 .672
3 .242 .625
5. School norms 1 -.203 .004 .230
2 .074 .929
3 -.033 .855
* p‘C.05
(1) Category 1. Urban all white students N= 107

2. Rural all white students
3. White students (38%) in
rural mixed schools

Total

232

In general, hypothesis 2 was rejected in factors 1, 3, 4,

and 5. Significant difference was found only in factor 2 among

three groups. The white students in rural mixed schools scored

lower than urban all white students and rural all white students

in future evaluations-expectations.

109

HYPOTHESIS 3- White student (38%) and black students (62%) in rural
mixed schools with low SES and low achievement will perceive school
climate differently.

TABLE 3- THE DIFFERENCE IN CLIMATE FACTOR SCORES BETWEEN WHITE STUDENTS
(38%) AND BLACK STUDENTS (62%) IN RURAL MIXED SCHOOLS WITH LOW SES
AND L04 ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS.

 

 

 

(1)
Factor Category Mean SD Probability
1. Present evaluations- 1 -.l61 .993 .022 *
expectations 2 .145 .889
2. Future evaluations- 1 -.381 .983 .002 **
expectations 2 .049 .983
3. Sense of futility l .382 .836 .0005 **
2 -.045 .861
4. Reward/feedback l .242 .564 .270
2 .147 .641
5. School norms l -.033 .855 .536
2 .049 .981
* p<.05 **p<.01
(1) Category 1. White students (38%) in rural mixed schools N= 90
2. Black students (62%) in rural mixed schools 113
Total 203

The hypothesis 3 was accepted except factors 4 and 5.
Significant differences between white and black students in mixed
rural schools with low SES and low achievement levels were found
in three main factors; present evaluations-expectations, future
evaluations-expectations, and sense of futility. The black majority
students (62%) scored more favorably in the three main factors 1,

2, and 3.

110

HYPOTHESIS 4- White students (38%) in rural mixed schools will perceive
a more favorable climate than students in all white rural schools
with low SES and low achievement levels.

TABLE 4- THE DIFFERENCE IN CLIMATE FACTOR SCORES BETWEEN WHITE STUDENTS
(38%) IN RURAL MIXED SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS IN ALL WHITE RURAL SCHOOLS
WITH LOW SES AND LOW ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS.

 

 

 

(1)
Factor Category Mean SD Probability
1. Present evaluations- 1 -.433 1.190 .196
expectations 2 -.161 .993
2. Future evaluations- 1 -.146 1.082 .245
expectations 2 -.381 .983
3. Sense of futility 1 .182 .897 .242
2 .382 .836
4. Reward/feedback 1 .230 .625 .918
2 .242 .564
5. School norms 1 .074 .929 .542
2 -.033 .855
(1) Category 1. All white students in rural schools N= 35
2. White students (38%) in rural mixed schools 90
Total 125

The hypothesis 4 was rejected, there were no significant
difference between all white students and white students in mixed
schools with low SES and low achievement levels in five student

climate factor scores.

111

HYPOTHESIS 5- White students (38%) in rural mixed schools will perceive
climate factors more favorably than white students in urban all white
schools with low SES and low achievement.

TABLE 5- THE DIFFERENCE IN CLIMATE FACTOR SCORES BETWEEN WHITE STUDENTS
(38%) IN RURAL MIXED SCHOOLS AND WHITE STUDENTS IN URBAN ALL WHITE
SCHOOLS WITH LOW SES AND LOW ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS.

 

 

 

(1)
Factor Category Mean SD Probability
1. Present evaluations- 1 -.250 .906 .513
expectations 2 -.161 .993
2. Future evaluations- 1 .014 1.017 .006 **
expectations 2 -.381 .983
3. Sense of futility l .236 1.082 .299
2 .382 .836
4. Reward/feedback l .237 .672 .952
2 .242 .564
5. School norms 1 -.203 1.004 .206
2 -.033 .856
** p‘<.01
(1) Category 1. All white students in urban schools N= 107
2. White students (38%) in rural mixed schools 90
Total 197

The hypothesis 5 was rejected. There were no significant
difference between all white students in urban schools and white
students (38%) in rural mixed schools in factors 1, 3, 4, and 5.
Significant difference was found only in future evaluations-expectations,
but the direction was reversed that all white students in urban
schools scored higher in factor 2 than white students (38%) in

rural mixed schools.

112

HYPOTHESIS 6- Black students (62%) in rural mixed schools will perceive
climate factors more favorably than black students in predominantly
urban black schools with low SES and low achievement.

TABLE 6- THE DIFFERENCE IN CLIMATE FACTOR SCORES BETWEEN BLACK STUDENTS
(62%) IN RURAL MIXED SCHOOLS AND BLACK STUDENTS IN PREDOMINANTLY
URBAN BLACK SCHOOLS WITH LOW SES AND LOW ACHIEVEMENT.

 

 

 

(1)
Factor Category Mean SD Probability
1. Present evaluations- l .135 .928
expectations 2 .145
2. Future evaluations- l .110 .578
expectations 2 .049
3. Sense of futility 1 -.207 .139
2 -0045
4. Reward/feedback 1 -.244 1.267 .002 **
2 .147 .641
5. School norms l .056 .949
2 .049
** p < .01
(1) Category 1. Black students in predominantly black urban schools N=295
2. Black students (62%) in rural mixed schools 113
Total 408

In general, hypothesis 6 was rejected except factor 4.
There were no significant difference between black students in pre-
dominantly black urban schools and black students (62%) in rural
mixed schools with low SES and low achievement in factors 1, 2,
3, and 5. Significant difference was found only in reward/feedback,
in which black students (62%) in rural mixed schools scored higher

than black students in predominantly black urban schools.

HYPOTHESIS 7- Teachers' school climate factor scores will vary signifi-

113

cantly among urban white, urban black, rural white, and rural mixed
schools with low SES and low achievement.

TABLE 7- THE DIFFERENCES IN TEACHERS' CLIMATE FACTOR SCORES AMONG
URBAN WHITE, URBAN BLACK, RURAL WHITE, AND RURAL MIXED SCHOOLS WITH
LOW SES AND LOW ACHIEVEMENT.

 

 

 

Factor Category Mean SD Probability
1. Teacher reported 1 -.070 1.496 .602
push for 2 -.424 1.301
competition 3 .260 1.327
4 .288 .992
2. Expectations 1 .664 1.567 .545
2 -.154 1.266
3 -.298 .221
4 -.143 1.165
3. Job satisfaction/ 1 .467 1.013 .351
commitment 2 -.210 .828
3 .507 .482
4 -.202 1.023
4. Community press 1 -.379 .741 .132
for achievement 2 .554 .993
3 -.180 .219
4 -.181 .780
(1) Category 1. Teachers in urban white schools N= 6
2. Teachers in urban black schools 9
3. Teachers in rural white schools 3
4. Teachers in rural mixed schools 12
Total 30

The hypothesis 7 was rejected, there were no significant
differences among four groups in four teachers' climate factors.
It is limited to generalize, since the numbers of teachers in each

category are very small.

114

HYPOTHESIS 8- Teachers' perception of school climate factors differ
significantly among predominantly white, predominantly black, and
mixed schools with low SES and low achievement.

TABLE 8- THE DIFFERENCES IN TEACHERS' CLIMATE FACTOR SCORES AMONG
PREDOMINANTLY WHITE, PREDOMINANTLY BLACK AND MIXED SCHOOLS WITH
LOW SES AND LOW ACHIEVEMENT.

 

 

 

(1)
Factor Category Mean SD Probability

1. Teacher reported 1 .040 1.366 .418
push for 2 -.424 1.301
competition 3 .288 .992

2. Expectations 1 .344 1.334 .619
2 -.154 1.267
3 -.143 1.165

3. Job satisfaction/ 1 .480 .829 .189
commitment 2 -.210 .828
3 -.202 1.023

4. Community press 1 -.312 .604 .061
for achievement 2 .554 .993
3 -.181 .780
(1) Category 1. Teachers in white schools N= 9
2. Teachers in black schools 9
3. Teachers in mixed schools 12
Total 30

The hypothesis 8 was rejected, there were no significant
differences in four teachers' climate factors among predominantly
white schools, predominantly black schools, and mixed schools with
low SES and low achievement. It is limited to generalize since

the small number of teachers in each category schools.

115

HYPOTHESIS 9- Black students in predominantly white (85%) and predominantly
black (70%) mixed urban schools with high SES and high achievement
will perceive school climate factors differently.

TABLE 9- THE DIFFERENCES IN CLIMATE FACTOR SCORES BETWEEN BLACK
STUDENTS IN PREDOMINANTLY WHITE (85%) AND PREDOMINANTLY BLACK (70%)

MIXED URBAN SCHOOLS WITH HIGH SES AND HIGH ACHIEVEMENT.

 

 

 

1
Factor Category( Mean SD Probability
1. Present evaluations- l -.247 1.072 .035 *
expectations 2 .358 .920
2. Future evaluations- 1 -.354 1.047 .157
expectations 2 .035 .884
3. Sense of futility 1 -.355 1.053 .583
2 -.545 1.151
4. Press for l -.885 .897 .026 *
2 -.157 1.080
5. Importance of 1 .337 1.132 .260
role identity 2 -.051 1.127
* p4(.05

(1) Category 1. Black students (15%) in predominantly white school N= 12
2. Black students (70%) in predominantly black school 114

Total 126

In general, hypothesis 9 was rejected except factors 1

and 4. There were no significant difference between black students

(N= 12) in predominantly white (85%) and predominantly black (70%)

mixed urban schools with high SES and high achievement in factors

2, 3, and 5. Significant difference was found in present evaluations-

expectations and press for competition/push, in which black majority

students scored higher than the black minority students.

116

HYPOTHESIS 10- White students in all white, predominantly white
(85%) and predominantly black (70%) urban schools with high SES
and high achievement will perceive school climate factors differently.

TABLE 10- THE DIFFERENCES IN CLIMATE FACTOR SCORES AMONG WHITE STUDENTS
IN ALL WHITE, PREDOMINANTLY WHITE (85%) AND PREDOMINANTLY BLACK
(70%) URBAN SCHOOLS WITH HIGH SES AND HIGH ACHIEVEMENT.

 

 

 

Factor Category(1) Mean SD Probability
1. Present evaluations- 1 -.159 .981 .0005 **
expectations 2 -.393 .888
3 .504 .973
2. Future evaluations- 1 -.00005 1.085 .570
expectations 2 -.O71 .976
3 .107 .943
3. Sense of futility l .117 .848 .236
2 .300 .902
3 .214 .947
4. Press for 1 .037 .912 .005 **
competition 2 -.O65 .881
3 .419 1.152
5. Importance of 1 -.O34 1.020 .380
role identity 2 -.011 .699
3 .155 1.050
** p< .01
(1) Category 1. All white students N= 211
2. White students (85%) in predominantly white school 93
3. White students (30%) in predominantly black school 64
Total 368

Generally, hypothesis 10 was rejected except factors 1 and 4.
Significant differences among white students in all white, predominantly
white (85%) and predominantly black (70%) urban schools with high SES
and high achievement was found in present evaluations-expectations and
press for competition/push. White students (30%) in predominantly
black school scored highest and white students (85%) in predominantly

white school scored lowest in the factors 1 and 4.

117

HYPOTHESIS 11- Black students (70%) will perceive the school climate
more favorably than white students (30%) in an urban mixed school
with high SES and high achievement.

TABLE 11- THE DIFFERENCE IN CLIMATE FACTOR SCORES BETWEEN BLACK
STUDENTS (70%) AND WHITE STUDENTS (30%) IN AN URBAN MIXED SCHOOL
WITH HIGH SES AND HIGH ACHIEVEMENT.

 

 

 

1
Factor Category< ) Mean SD Probability
1. Present evaluations- 1 .504 .973 .320
expectations 2 .358 .920
2. Future evaluations- 1 .107 .943 .613
expectations 2 .035 .884
3. Sense of futility 1 .214 .947 .0005 **
2 -.545 1.151
4. Press for 1 .419 1.152 .001 **
competition/push 2 -.157 1.080
5. Importance of 1 .155 1.050 .234
role identity 2 -.051 1.127
** p<'.01
(1) Category 1. White students (30%) N= 64
2. Black students (70%) 114
Total 178

In general, hypothesis 11 was rejected except factors 3 and 4.
There were no significant difference between white and black students in
an urban mixed school with high SES and high achievement in factors 1,2,
and 5. Significant difference between white and black students in this
urban mixed school was found in sense of futility and press for competition/
push. It was exceptional that black students (70%) scored favorably than
white students (30%) in sense of futility. In press for competition/push,

white students scored higher than black students.

118

HYPOTHESIS 12- White students in an all white urban school perceive
climate factors less favorably than white students (30%) in predominantly
black urban school with high SES and high achievement.

TABLE 12- THE DIFFERENCE IN CLIMATE FACTOR SCORES BETWEEN WHITE STUDENTS
IN AN ALL WHITE URBAN SCHOOL AND WHITE STUDENTS (30%) IN A PREDOMINANTLY
BLACK URBAN SCHOOL WITH HIGH SES AND HIGH ACHIEVEMENT.

 

 

 

Factor Category(1) Mean SD Probability
1. Present evaluations- l .504 .973 .0005 **
expectations 2 -.159 .981
2. Future evaluations- 1 .107 .478
expectations 2 .00005
3. Sense of futility 1 .214 .437
2 .117
4. Press for 1 .419 1.152 .006 **
competition/push 2 .037 .912
5. Importance of 1 .155 .200
role identity 2 -.034
** p< .01
(1) category 1. White students (30%) in predominantly black school N= 64
2. White students in all white urban school 211
Total 275

Generally, the hypothesis 12 was rejected except factor 1 and 4.
Significant difference between white students in an all white urban school
and white students (30%) in a predominantly black urban school with high
SES and th achievement was found in present evaluations-expectations
and press for competition/push. White students (30%) in a predominantly
black urban school scored higher in present evaluations-expectations
and press for competition/push than white students in an all white

urban school.

119

HYPOTHESIS 13- White students (85%) perceive the school climate
more favorably than black students (15%) in an urban mixed school
with high SES and high achievement.

TABLE 13- THE DIFFERENCE IN SCHOOL CLIMATE FACTOR SCORES BETWEEN
WHITE STUDENTS AND BLACK STUDENTS (15%) IN AN URBAN MIXED SCHOOL
WITH HIGH SES AND HIGH ACHIEVEMENT.

 

 

 

(1)
Factor Category Mean SD Probability
1. Present evaluations- l -.393 .888 .600
expectations 2 -.247 1.072
2. Future evaluations- l -.071 .976 .351
expectations 2 -.354 1.047
3. Sense of futility 1 .300 .902 .022 *
2 .355 1.053
4. Press for l -.065 .881 .003 **
competition/push 2 -.885 .897
5. Importance of 1 -.011 .699 .137
role identity 2 .337 1.132
* p< .05 ** p< .01
(1) Category 1. White students (85%) N= 93
2. Black students (15%) 12
Total 105

Generally, hypothesis 13 was rejected except factors 3 and 4.
Significant difference between black and white students in an urban
mixed school with high SES and high achievement was found only factors
3 and 4, sense of futility and press for competition/push, in which
white students (85%) scored favorably than the black students (15%).
There were no significant difference between white and black students

in this urban mixed school among factors 1, 2, and 5.

120

HYPOTHESIS 14- Teachers' school climate factor scores will differ
significantly between high-SES-high-achievement and low-SES-low-
achievement schools.

TABLE 14- THE DIFFERENCE IN TEACHERS' SCHOOL CLIMATE FACTOR SCORES
BETWEEN HIGH-SES-HIGH-ACHIEVEMENT SCHOOLS.

 

 

 

Factor Category(L) Mean SD Probability
1. Teacher evaluations- l -.439 1.044 .0005 **
expectations 2 .604 .888
2. Reported press 1 -.074 .875 .872
for competition 2 -.023 1.266
3. Teacher demand 1 -.405 .945 .004 **
for performance 2 .403 940
4. Job satisfaction 1 -.450 .640 .044 *
2 .087 1.089
* p< .05 ** p<.01
(1) Category 1. Teachers in high SES and high achievement schools N= 22
2. Teachers in low SES and low achievement schools 30
Total 52

The hypothesis 14 was accepted except factor 2.

difference in teachers'

Significant

school climate factors was found in evaluations-

expectations, demand for performance and job satisfaction, in which

teachers in low SES and low achievement schools scored higher than

teachers in high SES and high achievement schools.

Because of the

small number of sampled teachers, generalization is limited.

121

HYPOTHESIS 15- There will be significant differences in students'
climate factor scores among classes in a rural mixed school with
low SES and low achievement levels.

TABLE 15- THE DIFFERENCES IN STUDENTS' CLIMATE FACTOR SCORES AMONG
CLASSES IN A RURAL MIXED SCHOOL WITH LOW SES AND LOW ACHIEVEMENT (SCHOOL 7).

 

Factor Classes Mean SD Probability
1. Present evaluations- l .298 .829 .078
expectations 2 -.104 .881
3 .156 .826
4 -.454 1.064
5 -.659 .871
6 .116 1.095
2. Future evaluations- 1 .121 .975 .035 *
expectations 2 -.737 1.140
3 -.710 1.124
4 -.212 .958
5 -.741 .730
6 -.00003 .828
3. Sense of futility l .728 .455 .001 **
2 -.227 .939
3 -.135 .662
4 -.214 .990
5 -.342 1.041
6 -.086 .768
4. Reward/feedback 1 .375 .514 .536
2 .056 .763
3 .165 .321
4 .378 1.011
5 .198 .482
6 .051 .671
5. School norms 1 .089 .649 .0005 **
2 .758 .868
3 -.735 .786
4 -.114 .808
5 .412 .797
6 .179 .720

 

* p< .05 ** p< .01

122

TABLE 15-1

NUMBER OF STUDENT IN EACH CLASSROOM (SCHOOL NO. 7/25).

- —_
-' _

 

Class White student Black student Total
1 6 16 22
2 2 6 8
3 5 10 15
4 4 6 10
5 3 7 10
6 4 16 20

Total 24 61 85

 

Hypothesis 15 was accepted except factors 1 and 4. Significant
difference in school climate factors among classes in a rural mixed
school (No. 7/25) with low SES and low achievement was found in
future evaluations-expectations, sense of futility, and school norms.
There were no significant difference in present evaluations-expectations
and reward/feedback among the classes in the same mixed school with

low SES and low achievement level.

TABLE 15-2

123

THE DIFFERENCES IN STUDENTS' CLIMATE FACTOR SCORES AMONG CLASSES

IN A RURAL MIXED SCHOOL WITH LOW SES AND LOW ACHIEVEMENT (SCHOOL 8).

1
-

 

Factor Class Mean SD Probability
1. Present evaluations- l .216 .960 .016 *
expectations 2 -.402 .924
3 -.419 .889
4 .118 .991
5 .264 .863
6 .342 .806
2. Future evaluations- 1 -.058 1.062 .872
expectations 2 -.131 .880
3 -.178 1.127
4 -.112 1.177
5 -.023 .974
6 -.201 .853
3. Sense of futility 1 .541 .891 .031 *
2 .320 .861
3 .480 .718
4 .293 .842
5 ~.155 1.055
6 -.l38 .715
4. Reward/feedback 1 .021 .636 .014 *
2 .384 .671
3 .328 .509
4 .417 .694
5 .129 .552
6 -.157 .404
5. School norms 1 .380 1.010 .278
2 .008 .872
3 -.219 .800
4 .244 1.012
5 -.242 .865
6 -.087 1.263

 

* p<f.05

124

TABLE 15-3

NUMBER OF STUDENT IN EACH CLASSROOM (SCHOOL NO. 8/26).

 

 

Class White student Black student Total

1 12 7 19

2 14 5 19

3 13 8 21

4 8 7 15

5 12 ll 23

6 7 14 21
Total 66 52 118

 

Hypothesis 15 also accepted except factors 2 and 5 in a similar
rural mixed school (No. 8/26) with low SES and low achievement.
Significant differences in climate factor scores among classes in
this rural mixed school with low SES and low achievement was found in
present evaluations-expectations, sense of futility, and reward/
feedback. Therewere no significant differences among classes in
this rural mixed school in future evaluations-expectations and

school norms.

125

HYPOTHESIS l6- There will be significant differences in students'
climate factor scores among classes in a low SES and low achievement
urban black school in which classes are homogeneously grouped by ability.

TABLE 16- THE DIFFERENCES IN STUDENTS' CLIMATE FACTOR SCORES AMONG
CLASSES IN A LOW SES AND LOW ACHIEVEMENT URBAN BLACK SCHOOL IN WHICH
CLASSES ARE HOMOGENEOUSLY GROUPED BY ABILITY.

 

- m
-

 

Factor Class Mean SD Probability
1. Present evaluations- l .452 1.202 .0005 **

expectations 2 .273 1.237
3 .319 .767
4 .104 .965
5 -.183 .894
6 -.034 .730
7 .156 .956
8 .069 .867
. Future evaluations- l .258 .903
expectations 2 .413 1.058
3 .797 .623
4 .019 .925
5 .195 .926
6 .373 .865
7 .390 .790
8 -.350 .711
. Sense of futility 1 -.609 .482
2 -.117 .756
3 -.244 .781
4 .022 .942
5 .014 1.112
6 .022 .966
7 .645 .946
8 -.026 .803
. Reward/feedback 1 -1.853 2.732
2 -.359 1.624
3 -.241 .760
4 -.183 .509
5 -.341 1.512
6 -.227 .866
7 .072 .622
8 -1.379 2.472
. School norms l -.198 1.174
2 .381 1.036
3 -.413 .652
4 -.254 .982
5 .009 1.201
6 .025 .704
7 -.178 1.009
8 -.047 1.105

126

** p<:.01
TABLE 16-1

NUMBER OF STUDENT IN EACH CLASSROOM

—
1

 

Class Student

1 10

2 19

3 18

4 40

5 39

6 17

7 16

8 18
Total 178

 

Hypothesis 16 was accepted except school nous. Significant
differences among classes in a low SES and low achievement urban
black school in which classes are homogeneously grouped by ability
was found in present evaluations-expectations, future evaluations-
expectations, sense of futility, and reward/feedback.

These results, classes have significantly different climate
factors, which tell us that classes can be used as an independent
unit of analysis in the rural mixed schools with low SES and low
achievement and the low SES and low achievement urban black school

in which classes are homogeneously grouped by ability.

127

We can not infer or do not know the cause of the difference
in students' climate factors from this data.

In many schools, the nature of the school climate or culture
is closely related to the composition of the student body. Thus,
the aggregate attitudes of both students and teachers are typically
related to the socioeconomic or racial composition of the student
body. For example, the educational expectations of students are
generally related to the socioeconomic or racial composition of the
student body. Coleman Report and other studies demonstrated that
the proportion enrolled in college preparatory curricula, the percentage
of white classmates, and the proportion of a student body from higher
socioeconomic status background are associated with higher achievement.

These structural variables may be the causes of the differences
in student factors. Variant attitudes, beliefs, norms, and expectations
which reference groups hold for students may also independently
account for the differences in student factors.

The difference of climate in the mixed schools tells us
that it gives support to the research findings of lower-class students
in mixed schools were somewhat more likely to feel that they could
control over their environment or destiny than did minrity/lower-class
students in segregated schools (Coleman 1966).

Since the influence on the attitude/value structure of the
school organization is dependent on the attitudes of the members
who make up the school social system, one strategy of modifying
the school climate is to control the mix of the members' characteristics.
It may be possible, therefore, to increase the internalization of the

climate of a school in lower-class students by integrating schools

128

and thus they become more academically motivated. Furthermore,

it may postulate that by properly mixing the student composition-

racial mixing and middle-class and lower-class mixing- within the
classroom it appears to be possible to increase motivation of the
lower-class children. It also related with the finding of exceptional
schools that low academic motivation is not inevitable in schools

composed of lower-class children. Properly mixing the student composition-
race and social class- increase motivation of the minority children

and it may make a difference in school climate and achievement.

When SES and achievement were controlled, there were fewer
mixed school effects, much similar in climate factors between mixed
school and predominantly white/black schools. This can be explained
that the three variables- SES, achievement, and climate factors-
are highly correlaed each other. It also supports the conventional
research findings that the family background and aspirations of the
majority of students in a school is one of the most important factor
in improving academic motivation of pupils especially for the dis-
advantaged minorities. A disadvantaged child will probably not
improve if he attends school with similarly disadvantaged peers.
However, if the other students have better backgrounds and higher
aspiration, he is likely to improve significantly, that is, children
from lower SES families attending school predominantly composed
of such children generally achieve at significantly lower levels

than children from middle class families attending predominantly

middle class white schools. Poor motivation produces poor performance
in the school and increases the probability of the student dropping

out altogether. Motivation is largely determined by family background.

129

Furthermore, for most disadvantaged students, this lack of adequate
motivation is reinforced by peers with similarly deficient motivation.
The influence of this deficient family background can be overcome

by involving parents in the problems of the school and enlisting

their aid in increasing the motivation of their children.

It also interpreted that social class mix appears to be
more important to the children's behavior than racial composition
in these schools.

Interracial contact was emphasized. In mixed schools,
interracial contact in students can range from acceptance to hostility.
Considerable cross-racial interaction and friendship are desirable
for social climate of the racially mixed schools rather than contact

between races is minimal and tense.

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY

Some exceptional schools demonstrate that low achievement is not
inevitable in schools composed of low socio-economic status or minority
group children. The identification of such atypical schools provides
the opportunity determine what characteristics of the school environment
account for the variation in achievement among schools. Much research
indicates that children from low SES families and certain minority group
families attending schools predominantly composed of such children
generally achieve at significantly lower levels than children from middle-
class families attending predominantly middle-class white schools.

Since the climate or culture of the school organization may depend
to a significant degree on the nature of the entering students, it was
postulated that controlling the mix of student characteristics may affect
climate.

This study therefore focuses on the differences in social
academic climate in schools with varying racial composition in different
community settings. More specifically, this study examined the
perceptions of school academic climate held by black and white students
in schools with similar levels of achievement and similar socio-economic
composition, but different types of racial composition. The teachers'
opinions of the academic norms and expectations are also examined in
schools with varying racial composition.

130

_‘

 

131

Data were collected from a selected sample, 1134 students and
100 teachers in 8 low SES and low achievement elementary schools in
rural and urban areas, and 3 high SES and high achievement elementary
schools located in urban areas. Schools within each stratum were selected
on the basis of their mean student achievement and SES, as measured by
the Michigan State School Assessment Indexes.

The instruments employed in this study were designed to study
certain social psychological and structural variables constituting
normative academic climate within each of the sampled schools. However,
for purpose of the current analysis, only the social psychological
variables were examined. The instruments used within each school
consisted of a student and a teacher questionnaire with interrelated value,
in that they contain similar questions designed to elicit attitudes
and beliefs or perceptions of attitudes and beliefs of those individuals
sampled. These instruments were administered to fourth, fifth, and
sixth graders, and the teachers of the sampled students, in the selected
schools. All participants were requested to answer the questionnaires
both for themselves and as expert observers of the school's environment.

In order to identify clusters of variables which combined to form
meaningful factors, and through this to reduce the number of factors to
manageable numbers, a Varimax Rotation Factor Analysis was applied. Five

student factors and four teacher factors emerged from this analysis:

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

II. IN

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

Factor

132

SCHOOL CLIMATE FACTORS

LOW SES AND LOW ACHIEVEMENT SCHOOLS

STUDENT FACTORS

 

Student perceptions of the present evaluations-expectations
of others in their school social system.

 

Student perceptions of the future evalustions-expectations
of others in their school social system.

 

Student perception about the level of feeling of futility
permeating the social system of the school.

 

Student perception about the level of feelings of reward/

feedback for their achievement from their parents and

social system.

Student perception of those school norms stressing academic
achievement which exist in their school social system.

 

TEACHER FACTORS
Teacher reported push for competition.

Teacher perceived expectations.

 

Job satisfaction/commitment.

 

Teacher reported community press for achievement.

HIGH SES AND HIGH ACHIEVEMENT SCHOOLS

N
l

w
I

STUDENT FACTORS
Student perceived present evaluations-expectations.

Student perceived future evaluations-expectations.

 

Student perceived sense of futility.

 

Reported student press for competition/push.

Importance of student role identity.

 

133

FINDINGS
The major findings of this study can be summarized as follows:

There were significant differences (p<'.039) among

urban white,

urban black,

rural white, and

rural mixed schools
with low SES and low achievement levels, in four student climate
factor scores,

Present evaluations-expectations,

Future evaluations-expectations,

Feelings of sense of futility, and

Perception of reward/feedback.

The rank order from higher/favorable climate factor scores was:

urban black schools,
rural mixed schools,
urban white schools,and
rural white schools.

J-‘ri-a

There were significant differences (p<:.026) among
all white urban schools,
all white rural schools,
white students (38%) in rural mixed schools
with low SES and low achievement levels, only in future evaluations-
expectations. The rank order from higher climate factor scores:
1. urban white schools,
2. rural white schools, and
3. white students in rural mixed schools.
There were significant differences (P<f.022) on student climate
factor scores,
Present evaluations-expectations,
Future evaluations-expectations, and
Feelings of sense of futility,

between white students (38%) and black students (62%) in rural mixed

schools with low SES and low achievement levels.

134

Black students scored higher in present and future evaluation-
expectations, and favorably in sense of futility.
There was no significant difference between all white rural school
students and white students (38%) in mixed schools in five student
factors.
All white urban school students scored higher significantly (p< .006)
in future evaluations-expectations than white students (38%) in
rural mixed schools.
Black majority students (62%) in rural mixed schools scored higher
significantly (p<_.002) in perception of reward/feedback than
students in all black urban schools with low SES and low achievement
levels.
There were no significant differences among

urban white,

urban black,

rural white, and

rural mixed schools
in four teachers' climate factor scores.
There were no significant difference in teachers perceptions of school
climate among

teachers in white schools,

teachers in black schools, and

teachers in mixed schools
with low SES and low achievement levels.
There were significant differences (p<(.035) in two student factors,
present evaluations-expectations and press for competition/push,

between black minority students (15%) and black majority students (70%)

in two mixed urban schools with high SES and high achievement levels.

10.

11.

12.

l3.

14.

135

Black majority students (70%) scored higher in both factors than
black minority students (15%).
There were significant differences (P< .005) in two student factors,
present evaluations-expectations and press for competition/push
among

all white students,

white majority students (85%), and

white minority students (30%)
in urban mixed schools with high SES and high achievement.
The rank order from higher scores was,

1. white minority students (30%),

2. all white students, and

3. white majority students (85%).
In the high SES and high achievement predominantly black school, black
students (70%) scored more favorably (p<:.0005) than white students
(30%) in sense of futility. In press for competition/push, white
students scored higher (p<I.001) than black students.
White students (30%) in an urban mixed school scored higher
significantly (p< .006) in two student factors, present evaluations-
expectations and press for competition/push, than all white urban
school students.
There were significant difference (p<f.022) in two student factors,
feeling of sense of futility and press for competition/push, between
white students (85%) and black students (15%) in an urban mixed
school. White students scored favorably in sense of futility but
perceived less press for competition/push than black students.

There were significant differences (p<f.035) among 6 classrooms in

each of two low SES and low achievement rural mixed schools on:

136

present evaluations-expectations,
future evaluations-expectations,
sense of futility,

perception of reward/feedback, and
schools norms.

15. There were significant differences (p<;.008) among 8 homogeneously
ability grouped classrooms in a low SES and low achievement urban
black school on:

present evaluations-expectations,
future evaluations-expectations,
sense of futility, and
perception of reward/feedback.

In both student and teacher data, the evaluations-expectations
variable was the most stable factor in the factor analysis. In the mixed
black and white school the majority racial group tended to perceive the
school climate more favorably than the minority racial group.

Interaction between racial groups in schools may be emphasized.
Simply mixing of racial groups in student body appears not to be enough.
The basis of social behavior is communication. Socialization in schools
may be described as a process in which students are trained to engage
in any type of symbolic interaction or communication. Social interaction
is not merely a proximity of bodies. It involves for each participant
an awareness of others. Each participant interprets and reinterprets the
cues provided by those with whom he is interacting. Social interaction
involves on the part of each interacting individual an awareness and
interpretation of self.

When SES and achievement were controlled, there were fewer mixed
school effects than expected. As Wilson (1969) indicated, social class

mix appeared to be more important to the children's behavior than racial

composition in these schools.

137

For further study, the following points should be kept in mind:

1. Using data both from student and teacher questionnaires gives
more comprehensive measures of school climate than relying on data from
a single source.

2. Using aggregative properties of the schools, such as scale scores
and class means, rather than individual responses, produces more reliable
measures because random response errors and distortions are reduced.

3. Continual refinement of the instrument is recommended, e.g.,
informant data rather respondent data appeared to have greater validity.

4. Classrooms can be used as the unit of analysis in racially mixed
schools with low SES and low achievement.

5. This study also suggest the value of comparison on a cross cultural

basis.

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

On the basis of substantive findings this research makes the
following recommendations:

1. Schools can no longer justify the low achievement of their students
strictly upon the basis of low socio-economic status, race, or their urban-
rural community. Attention must focus on creation of the learning
environmental climates within the school social system.

2. As some climate factors relate similarly to all types of schools,
other climate factors relate to varying types of schools differently.
Therefore, there is more than just one uniform method in which high
achievement can be encouraged. It is desirable that each school must have

a clear understanding of its unique community and the values that

138

community perceives as important. It follows, then, that each member of
the school bureaucracy must have a clear definition of its function in the
service of the school community.

3. Various attempts by the school to promote dialogue and interaction
among racial student groups should be implemented. Implications derived
from this study indicate that it is desirable to design the teacher
education and administrative policy to modify the social climate in
schools and to encourage a positive atmosphere in the school through
the selection of personnel, such as principals whom students feel free to
approach, and teachers who generate expectations for academic achievement
and a sense of "I can" in the classroom. Through this, the level of
school outcomes may be significantly improved for children in schools with

the disadvantaged.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, C. Norman; and Campbell, Ernest Q.
1964 "Peer Influences on Adolescent Educational Aspiations
and Attainments." American Sociological Review 29:568-75.

Backman, C. W. and Secord, P. F.
1968 A Social Psychological View of Education. New York:
Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.

Ballachey, E. L.
1962 Individual in Society: A Texbook of Social Psyphology
New York: McGrow-Hill Book Co. Inc.

Battle, E. S. and Rotter, J. B.
1963 "Chidren Feelings of Personal Control as Related
to Social Class and Ethnic Group." Journal of
Personality, 31: 482-90.

 

 

Bauer, Raymond A.
1958 "The Communicator and the Audience.” Journal of Conflict
Resolution 2: 62-77.

 

Beecher, Henry K.
1959 Measurement of Subjective Responses New York: Oxford
University Press, 66-67.

Beez, W. B.

1968 "Influence of Biased Psychological Reports on Teacher
Behavior and Pupil Performance," Proceedipg of the
76th Annual Convention of the American Psychological
Association, 605-606.

 

Bennis, W. G. et a1.
1958 Reference Groups and Loyalties in the Out-patient
Department. Administrative Science Quarterly 2: 481-500.

Berger, Bennett M.
1963 "Adolescence and Beyond: An Essay Review of Three
Books on the Problems of Growing Up." Social Problems
10: 394-408.

Bernstein, B.
1961 "Social Class and Linguistic Development: A Theory
of Social Learning." In A. H. Halsey, J. Floud and
C. A. Anderson (eds.) Education,yEconomy and Society
New York: The Free Press, 288-314.

Berstein, B.
1965 "A Socio-Linguistic Approach to Social Learning,"
In J. Gould (ed.) Penguin Survey of the Social Sciences
1965 Middlesex, England: 110-121.

139

140

Bettelheim, Bruno
1964 Review of 8.8. Blooms "Stability and Change in Human
Characteristics." New York Review of Books 3(Sept. 10):1-4.

Bidwell, Charles E.
1965 "The School as a Formal Organization." In Handbook
of Organizations Ed. James G. March. Chicago: Rand
McNally and Co., 972-1022.

 

Bidwell, Charles E.
1969 "The Sociology of Education." In Encyclopedia of
Educational Research ed. Robert Ebel. New York:
Mcmillan, 1241-54.

 

Blake, Judith, and Davis, Kingsley
1964 "Norms, Values and Sanctions." Handbook of Modern
Sociology ed. R.E.L. Faris. Chicago: Rand MCNally & Co.

 

Blau, Peter M.

1960 "Structural Effects." American Sociolpgical Review
25:178-93 (April).

Blau, Peter M.
1962 Formal Organizations San Francisco: Chandler Publishing
Company.

Bloom, Benjamin S.
1966 Stability and Change in Human Characteristics:
Implications for School Reorganization. Educational
Administration Quarterly 2: 35-49.

 

Blummer, Herbert
1937 Social Psychology, Pages 144-198 In Emerson P. Schmidt
(ed.), Man and Society New York: Prentice-Hall.

Boocock, Sarane
1966 "Toward a Sociology of Learning: A Selective Review
of Existing Research." Sociology of Education 39: 1-45.

Boocock, Sarane
1972 An Introduction to the Sociology of Learning Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.

Boyle, Richard P.
1966a "CausalTheory and Statistical Measures of Effects:
A Convergence" American Sociological Review 31: 843-51.

Boyle, Richard P.
1966b "The Effect of the High School on Students Aspirations."
American Journal of Sociology 71: 628-39.

141

Boyle, Richard P.
1969 "Functional Dilemmas in the Development of Learning."
Sociology of Education 42: 71-90.

 

Brembeck, Cole S.
1973 New Strategies for Educational DevelOpment: The Cross-
Cultural Search for Nonformal Alternatives Massachusetts:
Lexington Books.

 

Brookover, Wilbur B. and Erickson, Edsel L.
1969 Society, Schools and Learning Boston:Allyn & Bacon, INC.

Brookover, Wilbur B. et a1.
1973 Elementary School Social Environment and School Achieve-
ment Final Report of Cooperative Research Project
No. l-E-107 (U.S.O.E.).

Brookover, Wilbur B.
1974 "School Social Context and School Climate." In his
A Sociology of Education (mimeograph) pp. 5-7.

Brittain, Clay V.
1963 "Adolescent Choices and Parent-Peer Pressures."
American Sociological Review 28: 385-91.

Campbell, Angus; Gurin, Gerald; and Miller, Warren E.
1954 The Voter Decides Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson.

Campbell, Donald T.
1951 "On the Possibility of Experimenting with the
'Bandwagon' Effect." International Journal of Opinion
and Attitude Research 5: 251-60.

 

Campbell, Ernest Q.; and Alexander, C. Norman
1965 "Structural Effects and Interpersonal Relationships."
American Journal of Sociology 71: 284-89.

Carlson, Robert 0.
1952 The Influence of the Community and the Primary Group
on the Reactions of Southern Negroes to Syphilis.
Ph. D. dissertation. Columbia University.

Centers, Richard (1949)
1961 The Psychology of SOcial Classes: A Study of Class
Consciousness New York: Russell.

Centers, Richard
1953 "Social Class, Occupation, and Imputed Belief."
American Journal of Sociology 58: 543-55.

Charters, W. W.

1952

Chowdhry, Kamla

1952

142

Jr.; Newcomb, Theodore M.

Some Attitudinal Effects of Experimentally Increased
Salience of a Membership Group. Pages 415-420 in
Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues,
Readings in Social Psychology Rev. ed. Edited by
Guy E. Swanson, Theodre M. Newcomb, and Eugene L.
Hartley. New York: Holt.

; and Newcomb, Theodore M.

The Relative Abilities of Leaders and Non-leaders

to Estimate Opinions of Own Groups. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology 47: 51-57.

Coch, L. and French, J. R. P.

1948

Coleman, James
1958

Coleman, James
1960

Coleman, James
1961a

Coleman, James
1961b

Coleman, James
1964

Coleman, James

1967

Coleman, James
1970

Coleman, James
1966

Overcoming Resistance to Change Human Relations 1,
512-32.

 

S.
Relational Analysis: The Study of Social Organization
with Survey Methods. Human Organization 17: 28-36.

S.
The Adolescent Subculture and Academic Achievement.
American Journal of Sociology 65: 337-47.

S.
Comment on Three 'Climate of Opinion' Studies. Public
Opinion Quarterly 25: 608-10.

 

S.
The Adolescent Society New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

 

S.
Introduction to Mathematical Sociology New York:
Free Press of Glencoe.

S.

Research Chronicle: The Adolescent Society. In
Sociologists At Work ed. Phillip E. Hammond. Garden
city, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 213-43.

S.

Interpretations of Adolescent Culture. In The Psycho-
pathology of Adolescence, eds. Joseph Zubin and Alfred
M. Freedman. New York: Grune and Stratton, 20-29.

 

S., et a1.
Equality of Educational Opportunity Washington, D. C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office.

143

Cooley, Charles Horton
1902 Human Nature and the Social Order New York: Charles
Schribner's Sons.

 

Corwin, Ronald G.
1965 A Sociology of Education New York: Appleton Century,
Crofts.

 

Davis, James
1963 Intellectual Climates in 135 American Colleges and
Universities: A Study in Socio-Psychological Physics.
Sociology of Education 37: 110-28.

Deutsch, Morton
1949 An Experimental Study of the Effects of Cooperation
and Competition Upon Group Process. Human Relations
2: 199-231.

Deutsch, Morton; and Gerard, Harold B.
1955 A Study of Normative And Informational Social Influences
Upon Individual Judgment. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology 51: 629-36.

 

Deutsch, Morton
1962 Cooperation and Trust: Some Theoretical Notes.
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln, Nebraska,
University of Nebraska Press.

Ditts, J. E.; and Kelly, H.H.
1956 Effects of Different Conditions of Acceptance upon
Conformity to Group Norms. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology 53: 100-107.

 

 

Duesenberry, James S.
1949 Income, Saving and the Theoryyof Consumer Behavior
Harvard Economic Studies, 87 Vol. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.

Duncan, Otis D. and et a1.
1972 Socio-economic Background and Achievement Washington:
U.S. Dept. of HEW, 1968.

 

Dyer, Henry S.
1972 Some Thoughts About Future Studies. On Equality of
Educational Opportunipy Eds. Frederick Mosteller
and Daniel P. Moynihan. New York: Random House, Inc.

 

Eisenstadt, Shmuel N.
1954 Studies in Reference Group Behavior. 1. Reference
Norms and the Social Structure. Human Relations 7:
191-216

 

144

Epperson, D. C.

 

1964 A Reassessment of Indices of Parental Influence in
'The Adolescent Society.‘ American Sociological Review
29: 93-96.

Etzioni, Amiti
1964 Modern Organizations Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.

 

Eulau, Heinz
1962 Class and Party in the Eisenhower Years: Class Roles
and Perspectives in the 1952 and 1956 Elections.
New York: Free Press.

Festinger, L.
1950 Informal Social Communication. Psychological Review
42: 271-82.

Finn, Jeremy D.
1972 Expectations and the Educational Environment.
Review of Educational Research 42: 387-410.

 

Festinger, Leon
1954 A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations
7: 117-140.

Form, William H. and Geschwender, James A.
1962 Social Reference Basis of Job Satisfaction: The Case
of Manual Workers. American Sociological Review
27: 228-37.

Foundation for Research on Human Behavior
1956 Group Influence in Marketingyand Public Relations:
Report of a Seminar. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Foundation.

 

Foundation for Research on Human Behavior
1959 The Adoption of New Products: Process and Influence.
Ann Arbor, Mich.: The Foundation.

French, John R.P.; and Raven, Bertram
1966 The Bases of Social Power. Pages 150-67 in Dorwin
Cartwright ed. Studies in Social Power Research
Center for Group Dynamics, Publication No. 6. Ann
Arbor: Univ. of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.

Gigliotti, Richard J.
1972 The Expectation Pattern: An Analysis of Elementary
School Social Environments. PH.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University.

Gross, Neal; Mason, W. S.; and McEachern, A. W.
1958 Explorations in Role Analysis: Studies of the School
Superintendency Role New York: John Wiley & Sons.

 

145

Gumpert, P. and Gumpert C.
1968 On the Psychology of Expectations in the Classroom.

The Urban Review 3: 21-26.

Gordon, Wayne.
1957 The Social System of the High School Glencoe, Ill.

The Free Press.

Gottlieb, David; and Ramsey, Charles.
1964 The American Adolescent Homewood, Ill.: The Dorsey.

Haines, D. B. and Mckeachie, W.J.
1967 Cooperative Versus Competitive Discussion Methods
in Teaching Introductory Psychology. Journal of
Educational Psychology 58(December): 386-90.

Haller, A. O. and Butterworth C. E.
1960 Peer Influence on Levels of Occupational and Educa-
tional Aspiration, Social Forces 38: 289-95.

Halpin, A. W. and Croft D.
1962 The Organizational Climate of Schools. U.S.0.E. Research
Report. Salt Lake City: Utah University.

Harman, Harry H.
1960 Modern Factor Analysis Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.

 

Hartley, Eugene L.
1951 Psychological Problems of Multiple Group Membership.
Pages 371-87 in Conference on Social Psychology at
Crossroads, University of Oklahoma, 1950, Social
Psychology at the Crossroads Edited by John H. Rohrer
and Muzafer Sherif. New York: Harper.

 

Hartley, Ruth E.
1956 The Acceptance of New Reference GDUpS. Technical
Report No. 3. U.S. Office of Naval Research (manuscript).

Hartley, Ruth B.

 

1957 Personal Characteristics and Acceptance of Secondary
Groups as Reference Groups. Journal of Individual Psychology
13: 45-55.

Hartley, Ruth E.
1960a Norm Compatibility, Norm Preference, and the Acceptance
of New Reference Groups. Journal of Social Psychology
52: 87-95.

Hartley, Ruth E.
1960b Personal Needs and the Acceptance of a New Group
as a Reference Group. Journal of Social Psychology
51: 349-58.

 

146

Hartley, Ruth E.
1960c Relationships Between Perceived Values and Acceptance

of New Reference Group. Journal of Social Psychology
51: 181-90.

Haskell, Martin R.
1960-1961 Toward a Reference Group Theory of Juvenile Delin-
quency. Social Problems 8: 220-30.

Heider, Fritz.
1958 The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Henderson, Ronald D.
1972 A Comparative Analysis of Social-Psychological School
Climate Variables in Whites and Black Elementary
Schools with Socio-Economic Status and Achievement
Controlled. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Univ.

Herriott, Robert E.
1963 Some Social Determinants of Educational Aspirations.
Harvard Educational Review 33(Spring): 157-77.

Herriot, Robert E. and John, Nancy Hoyt
1966 Social Class and the Urban School New York: John
Wiley & Sons.

Herriott, Robert E. and B. J. hodgkins
1973 The Environment of Schooling: Formal Education as
an Open Social System

Holland, John L.
1961 Creative and Academic Performance among Talented
Adolescents. Juornal of Educational Psychology 52: 136-47.

Hollingshead, A. B.
1949 Elmtown's Youth New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

 

Howe, Frederick Charles
1970 Teacher Perception Toward the Learning Ability of
Students from Differing Racial and Socio-Economic
Backgrounds. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Univ.

Hughes, E. C. and et a1. 1962
Student Culture and Academic Effort. In The American College
ed. N. Sanford. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 515-30.

 

Hunt, J. McV
1968 Environment, Development and Scholastic Achievement.
In M. Deutsch, A. Jensen and I. Katz eds. Social Class
Race and Psychological DevelOpment New York: Rinehart
and Winston.

147

Hyman, Herbert H.

1942 The Psycholory of Status. Archives of Psychology No.
269.

Hyman, Herbert H.

1960 Reflections on Reference Groups. Public Opinion Quarterly
24: 383-96.

Hyman, Herbert H. and Singer, Eleanor eds.
1968 Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research New
York: Free Press.

Jahoda, Marie and Warren, Neil
1965 The Myths of Youth. Sociologyyof Education 38: 138-49.

Jencks, Christopher
1968 Social Stratification and Higher Education. Harvard
Edcational Review 38(Spring): 277-316.

Jencks, Christopher et a1.
1972 Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family
and Schooling in America. New York: Basic Books.

Jensen, Arthur
1969 How Much Can We Boost I. Q. and Scholastic Achievement.
Harvard Educational Review 39: 1-123.

 

Johnson,
David W.
1970 The Social Psychology of Education New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.

 

Johnson, David R.
1971 School Impact on Educational Aspirations of U.S.
Public High School Seniors: A Methodological and
Causal Analysis. Ph.D. Dissertation, Vanderbilt University,
Nashville, Tennessee.

Julian, James and Perry, Franklyn A.
1967 Cooperation Contrasted with Intra-Group and Inter-
Group Competition. Sociometry 30: (March): 79-90.

 

Kaiser, Henry F.
1960 The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor
Analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement
20: 141-51.

Kaplan, Norman
1955 Reference Group Theory and Voting Behavior. Ph.D.
dissertation, Columbia University.

Kelley, Harold H.
1952 Two Functions of Reference Groups. Pages 410-14
in Society for the Psychological Study of Social
Issues, Readings in Social Psychology. Rev. ed.

148
Edited by Guy E. Swanson, et al. New York: Holt.
Kelley, Harold H.

1955 Salience of Membership and Resistance to Change of
Group-anchored Attitudes. Human Relations 8: 275-89.

 

Kemper, Theodore D.
1968 Reference GrOUps, Socialization, and Achievement.
American Sociological Review 33: 31-45.

 

Kenney, James B. and Rentz, R. Robert
1970 The Organizational Climate of Schools in Five Urban
Areas. Elementarnychool Journal 71: 61-69 (November).

 

Kinch, John W.
1963 A Formalized Theory of Self-Concept. American Journal
of Sociology 68 (January): 481-86.

Krech, David, et a1.
1962 Individual in Society New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc.

 

Lewin, Kirk, et a1.
1944 Level of Aspiration. In J.M.V. Hfint (ed.) Personality
and the Behavior Disorders New York: The Ronald Press
Company, 333-78.

 

 

Little, Kenneth
1958 A State-Wide Inquiry into Decisions of Youth About
Education Beyond HighySchool Madison, Wisconsin:
School of Education, University of Wisconsin.

Litwak, Eugene

 

1960 Reference Group Theory, Bureaucratic Career, and
Neighborhood Primary Group Cohesion. Sociometty 23:
72-84.

Lunnemann, Alan
1970 Desegregation and Achievement: A Cross-Sectional
and Semi-Longitudinal Look at Berkeley, California.
The Journal of Negro Education 42 (Fall): 346-49.

Mayeske, George W., et a1.
1969 A Study of Our Nations Schools Washington, D.C.:
U. S. Dept. of H. E. W. Office of Education.

 

McDill, Edward L. and Coleman, James S.
1965 Family and Peer Influences in College Plans of High
School Students. Sociology of Education 38: 112-26.

 

McDill, Edward, et a1.
1967 Institutional Effects on the Academic Behavior of
High School Students. Sociology of Education 40:181-99.

 

149

McDill, Edward L., et a1.
1971 Adolescent Subcultures. In The Encyclopedia of Education
Vol.8. New York: The Macmillan Company and The Free
Press, 536-43.

McDill, Edward L. and L. C. Rigsby
1973 Structure and Process in Secondary Schools: The Academic
Impact of Educational Climates Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.

 

McPartland, James
1967 The Relative Influence of School Desegregation and of
Classroom Desegregation on the Academic Achievement
of Ninth Grade Negro Students. Baltimore: Johns HOpkins
University, Center for the Study of Social Organization
of Schools.

MCPartland, James
1970 Should we give up on school desegregation? Johns
HOpkins Magazine 21: 20-25.

Mead, George H.
1934 Mind, Self, and Society Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

 

Mead, George H. 1964
On Social Psychology; Selected Papers. Edited and with an
intro. by Anselm Straus. University of Chicago Press.

Melikian, Levon H., and Diab, Lutfy N.

 

1959 Group Affiliations of University Students in the
Arab Middle East. Journal of Social Psychology 49:
145-59.

Merton, Robert K.

1957 Continuities in the Theory of Reference GrOUps and
Social Structure. Pages 281-386 (1968: 279-440) in
his Social Theory and Social Structure Glencoe,
111.: Free Press.

Merton, Robert K. and Kitt, Alice S.
1950 Contributions to the Theory of Reference Group Behavior.
Pages 40-105 in his (ed.) and Paul F. Lazarsfeld,
Continuities in Social Research: Studies in the Scope
and Method of the American Soldier Glencoe,Ill.:Free Press.

Michigan, University of, Survey Research Center
1960 The American Voter by Angus Campbell et al. New York:
Wiley.

Michael, John A.
1961 High School Climates and Plans for Entering College.
Public Opinion Quarterly 37(Winter): 585-95.

150

Mitra, Shib K.
1974 Brief Note on American Educational Research. America
Educational Research Journal 11 (Winter): 41-49.

Mosteller, F. and Daniel Moynihan (ed.)
1972 On Equality of Educational Opportunity New York:
Vintage Books.

Mulford, Harold A. and Salisbury, W. W.
1964 Self-conceptions in General Population. Sociological

Quarterly 5: 35-46.

Murray, H. A.
1938 Explorations in Personality New York: Oxford University
Press.

 

Newcomb, Theodore M. (1943)
1957 Personality and Social Change: Attitude Formation
in a Student Community New York: Dryden.

 

Newcomb, T. M.
1946 The Influence of Attitude Climate Upon Some Determinants

of Information. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology
41: 291-302.

Newcomb, T. M.

1951 (A Book Review of) Continuities in Social Research:
Studies in the Scope and Method of The American Soldier
edited by Robert K. Merton and Paul F. Lazarsfeld.
American Journal of Sociology 57: 90-92.

Newcomb, T. M. (1958)
1952 Attitude DevelOpment as a Function of Reference Groups:
The Bennington Study. In Reading in Social Psychology,
eds.E1eanor M. Maccoby .et al. New York:Holt, 265-75.

Newcomb, T. M.
1962 Student Peer-Group Influence. In The American Collegs
ed. N. Sanford. New York:John Wiley & Sons, 469-88.

 

Newcomb, T. M.
1964 Deviant Subcultures on a College Campus University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor: U. S. Office of Education
Cooperative Research.

 

Nesbit, J. D.
1961 The Family Environment and Intelligence. Education,
Economy, and Society Edited by A.H. Halsey, et al.
New York: The Free Press, 273-87.

 

O'Connell, E. J. Jr.
1965 The Effects of Cooperative and Competitive Set on
the Learning of Initiation and Non-limitation.
Journal of EXperimental Social Psychology Vol.1,l72-83.

Orth, C. D.
1963

151

Social Structure and Learning Climate: The First
Year at the Harvard Business School, Boston:

 

Harvard Business School.

Pace, C. R., and Stern, G. G.

1958

Pace, C. R.
1963

Pace, C. R.
1964

"An Approach to the Measurement of Psychological
Characteristics of College Environments”. Journal
of Educational Psychology, Vol. 49, 269-277

"Differences in Campus Atmosphere". In W. W. Carters
Jr. and N. L. Gage (eds.) Reading in the Social
Psychology of Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

 

The Influence of Academic and Student Subcultures in
College and University Environments. University of
California, Los Angeles: US Office of Education and
Social Science Research Council Cooperative Research
project.

Parsons, Talcott

1955

1959

1962

1968

Family,Socialization and Interaction Process. Glencoe,
111.: Free Press.

"The school class as a social system: some of its
functions in American society". Harvard Educational
Review 29: 297-318.

"Youth in the context of American society". Daedalus
91: 97-123.

The Structure of SocislyAction; a Study in Socialytheory
with Special reference to a group of recent European
writers. New York: Free Press.

Riessman, Frank

1962

Rigsby, Leo C.
1972

Rist, Ray C.
1970

The Culturally_Deprived Child. New York, Harper & Row.

; and McDill, Edward
"Adolescent Peer Influence Process: Conceptualization and
Measurement". Social Science Research, Vol. 1 (September):

305-321.

 

"Student Social Class and Teacher Expectations: The
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in Ghetto Education".
Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 49 (August): 411-451.

 

152

Roethlisberger, F. J., and Dickson, W. J.
1939 Management and the Worker. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

 

Rodgers, Harrell R. Jr.
1973 Racial Pride and Black Children, Integrated Education
11: 62-63.

Rosen, B. C.
1956 "The Achievement Syndrome: A Psycho-Cultural Dimension
of Social Stratification." American Sociological
Review, Vol. 21, 203-211.

 

Rosenthal, Robert, and Jacobson, Lenore
1968 Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston, Inc.

Rothbart, M.; Dalfen, S.; and Barrett, R.
1971 "Effects of Teacher Expectancy on Student-Teacher
Interaction." Journal of Educational Psychology,
Vol. 62, 49-54.

Rubovitz, P. C., and Maehr, M. L.
1971 "Pygmalion Analyzed: Toward an Explanation of the
Rosenthal-Jacobson Findings." Journal of
Personality and Social-Psychology, Vol. 19, 197-204.

 

Sadker, David, and Sinclair, Robert L.

1972 ”Dimensions of the Elementaty73chool Educational
Environment: A Factor Analytic Study.” Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois,

 

(April).
Sarbin, T. R.
1954 "Role Theory." Handbook of Social Psychology.
Edited by G. Lindzey, Vol. 1, Cambridge Mass.:
Addison-Weley.

Scarr-Salapatek, Sandra
1971 "Race, Social Class and I.Q." Science, Vol. 174
(December): 1285-1295.

Schrank, Wilburn R
1968 "The Labeling Effect of Ability Grouping." Journal
of Educational Research, Vol. 62 (October): 51-52.

Schmuck, R.
1966 "Some Aspects of Classroom Social Climate."
Psyphology_in the School, Vol. 3, 59-65.

153

Schneider, Jeffrey M.
1973 "An Investigation of Social-Psychological Variables
Comprising School Normative Academic Climate in
High-and Low-Achieving White-Urban, Black-Urban
and Rural Elementary Schools with School Mean
Socio-Economic Status Controlled." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University.

Seashore, S. E.
1954 Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Gropp.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Survey Research
Center, Pub. No. 14.

Selvin, Hanan, and Hagstrom, Warren
1963 "The Empirical Classification of Formal Groups."
American Sociological Review, Vol. 28 (June):
399-411.

Sewell, William H.; Haller, A. 0.; and Straus, M. A.
1957 Social Status and Educational and Occupational
Aspirations. American Sociological Review 22: 67-73.

 

Sewell, William H., and Armer, Michael
1966 "Neighborhood Context and College Plans." American
Sociological Review, Vol. 31 (April): 159-168.

Sewell, William H., and Shah, Vimal P.
1967 ”Socio-Economic Status, Intelligence, and the Attain-
ment of Higher Education." Sociology of Education.

Vol. 40 (Winter): 1-23.

 

Sexton, Patricia Cayo

 

1961 Education and Income. New York: The Viking Press.
Shaw, M. C.
1961 "Definition and Identification of Academic Under-

Achievers." Guidance for the Under-Achiever with
Superior Ability, Vol. 8, 15-30.

 

Shaw, M. C., and Alves, G. J.
1963 "The Self-Concept of Bright Academic Under-Achievers."
Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 42, 401-403.

 

Sherif, M.
1936 The Psychology of GroupyNorms. New York: Harper
and Row Publishers.

Silberman, Charles E.
1970 Crisis in the Classroom. New York: A Vantage Book.

 

154

Silberman, M. L.
1969 ”Behavioral Expression of Teachers' Attitudes Toward
Elementary School Students." Journal of Educational
Psychology, Vol. 60, 402-407.

 

Sinclair, Robert L.
1970 ”Elementary School Educational Environments: Toward
Schools that are Responsive to Students." Its
National Elementary School Principal, (April): 53-58.

Smith, Marshall S.
1972 "Equality of Educational Opportunity: The Basic
Findings Reconsidered." On Equality of Educational
Opportunity. (ed.) Frederick Mosteller and Daniel P.
Moynihan. New York: Random Hourse, Inc.

 

Smith, Mildred B., and Brahce, Carol 1.
1963 "When Schools and Home Focus on Achievement."
Educational Leadership, Vol. 20, (February): 314-318.

 

Snow, R. E.
1969 "Unfinished Pygmalion." Contemporary Psychology,
Vol. 14, 197-200.

Soares, A. T., and Soares, L. M.
1969 "Self-Perception of Culturally Disadvantaged Children."
American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 6, 31-45.

Spady, William

 

1973 The Impact of School Resources on Students. In Review
of Research in Education, Vol. 1, ed. Fred N. Kerlinger.
Forthcoming.

Spilerman, Seymour
1971 "Raising Academic Motivation in Lower Class Adolescents:
A convergence of Two Research Traditions." Sociology
Of Education, Vol. 49 (Winter): 103-150

Stein, Annie
1971 "Strategies of Failure." Harvard Educational Review,
Vol. 41 (May): 158-204.

Stern, G. G.
1964 Studies of College Environments. Syracuse University,
Syracuse, New York: U.S. Office of Education and
Social Science Research Council Cooperative Research
Project.

Tannenbaum, Abraham J.
1962 Adolescent Attitudes Toward Academic Brilliance. New
York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College,
Columbia University.

155

Tannenbaum, Arnold S.; and Bachman, Jerald G.
1964 Structural versus Individual Effects. American
Journal of Sociology 69: 585-95.

 

Thibaut, J. W., and Kelley, H. H.
1959 The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.

Thomas, Shailer
1964 "An Experiment to Enhance Self-Concept of Ability and
Raise School Achievement Among Low Achieving Ninth
Grade Students." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University.

Thorndike, R. L.
1968 "Review of R. Rosenthal and L. Jacobson, Pygmalion
in the Classroom." American Educational Research
Association Journal, Vol. 5, 708-711.

 

Turner, Ralph H.
1964 The Social Context of Ambition. San Francisco:
Chandler Publishing Company.

 

1968 "Role: Sociological Aspects." in Sills, David L. (ed.)
International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences
(Vol. 13), MacMillan Co. & Free Press, 1968.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,
1967 Racial Isolation in the Public Schools, Vol. 1 and 2
(Appendices), U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.

Wallin, William H.
1969 "Strategies for a Good School Environment." Instructor,
(August/September): 58-59.

 

Webster, Murray, Jr.
1969 "Sources of Evaluations and EXpectations for Performance."
Sociometry, Vol. 32 (September).

 

Willis, Bill J.
1969 "The Influence of Teacher Expectations on Teachers
Interactions with Selected Children," Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, George Peabody College for
Teachers.

Willmon, Betty
1969 "Parent Participation as a Factor in the Effectiveness
of Head Start Programs." The Journal of Educational
Research, Vol. 72 (May-June): 9.

156

Wilson, Alan
1969 The Consequences of Segregation: Academic Achievement
in a Northern Community. Berkeley, California: The
Glendessary Press.

Zirkel, P. A., and Moses, E. G.
1971 "Self-Concept and Ethnic Group Membership and Mixture
Among Public School Students," The American Educational
Research Journal, Vol. 8, 253-265.

General References

 

Cooley, Charles H.
1962 Social Organization: A Study of the Larger Mind, New
York: Schochen Books.

Hughes H. Stuart
1958 Consciousness and Society: The Reorientation of
European Social Thought, 1890-1930. New York: Knopf.

Rotter, Julian B. et a1.

1972 Applications of a Social Learninngheory of Personality
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

APPENDICES

157

 

. p"
:1 .. Ti

APPENDIX A

STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE

158

159

SCHOOL SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT STUDY
STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Sponsored by

Michigan Department of Education
and
Michigan State University

Dr. Wilbur Brookover, Professor of Sociology and Education, Project Director

DIRECTIONS: We are trying to learn more about students and their work in schools.
We would, therefore, like for you to respond to the following ques-
tions. This is not a test of any sort and will not affect your work
in school. Your teacher and your principal gii}_pot_see your answers.
There are no right or wrong answers, we simply want you to tell us
your answer to each question.

 

PLEASE A}; ‘

SEER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS BY CIRCLIHG THE NUHSER ON TH“
BEST AHSHER T

E RIGHT OF YOUR
0 THE QUSSTICN. PICK ONLY ONE ANSNER FOR EACH QUESTION!

2. How old were you on your last birthday?

9 years old ...... l.
10 years old ...... 2.
11 years old ...... 3.
12 years old ...... 4.
13 years old ...... S.
3. Are you a boy or girl?
boy ...... 1.
girl ...... 2.
4. What grade are you in?
3rd grade ...... 1.
4th grade ...... 2.
5th grade ...... 3.
6th grade ...... A.
7th grade ...... S.

5. Please write your teacher's name.

 

6. Please write the name of your school.

 

7.

160

How many years have you been at this school?

Less than 1 year
2 years

3 years

4 years

5 years

6 years

7 years or more

If your father does not live with you or if he is not alive, please
answer this question for the person in your house who makes the
most money.

8.

What type of work does your father do? (Give a short description

of his job)

 

 

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE TO BE ANSWERED BY CIRCLING THE NUMBER ON THE
RIGHT OF TiE COXRLCT ANSWER.
THOSE OF US FIOM MICHIGAN STATE UNIVELSITY, SO PLEASE TELL US JUST WHAT

YOU THINK.

9.

10.

ll.

12.

(Pick only one answer for each question)

If you could go as far as you wanted in school, how far would you

like to go?

How many students in this
their weekly tests?

How many students in this
grade on the weekly tests

How zany students in this

Finish grade school

Go to high school for a while
Finish high school

Go to college for a while
Finish college

school try hard to get a good grade on

Almost all of the students
Most of the students

Half of the students

Some of the students

Almost none of the students

school will work hard to get a better
than their friends do?

Almost all of the students
Most of the students
Half of the students
Some Of the students
Almost none of the students

school don't care if they get bad grades

Almost all of the students
Most of the students

Half of the students

Some of the students

Almost none of the students

I-LUZELVC'IER, NO ONE WILL SEE YOUR NJSI‘JERS EXCEPT

00.... l.
...... 2.
...... 3.
0....- 4.
...... 5.
...... 6.
...... 7.
...... l.
...... 2.
...... 3.
...... 4.
...... S.
...... l.
...... 2.
0.0.00 30
. . . 4.
... . S.
...... 1.
...... 2.
...... 3.
.. ... 4.
...... S.
?

.... . l.
...... 2.
.... . 3.
...... 4.
...... S.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

How many students in this school do more studying for weekly tests
than they have to?

161

Almost all of the students
Most of the students
Half of the students
Some of the students
Almost none of the students

If most of the students here could go as far as they wanted in
school how far would they go?

Finish grade school

Co to high school for a while

Finish high school
Co to college for a while
Finish college

If the teacher that you like the best told you that you were a

-.. - -___. _—_.—.—

 

poor student how would you feel?

I'd feel very bad

I'd feel somewhat bad

It wouldn't bother me very much
It wouldn't bother me at all

How important is it to you to he a good student?

It's
It's
It's
It‘s

If ynur 12152111
you feel?

the most important thing I can do

important, but other things are just as important
important, but other things are more important
not very important

told you that you were a poor student, how would

I'd feel very bad

I'd feel somewhat had

It wouldn't bother me very much
It wouldn't bother me at all

If your best friend_told you that you were a poor student, how

_____ - --.—.—

would you feel?fia—

How do you think most of the students in this class react when one

I’d feel very bad

I'd Feel somewhat bad

It wouldn't bother me very much
If Wouldn't bother me at all

of you does a bad job on school work?

f

-__Th0yfbel badly and want to help him (her) do better
They feel sorry, but don't say anything
They really don't care
They are secretly happy that it happened

00-...

......

00....

.00...

......

mauve—o
O

awn—-
0..

IN)“
0 O

;- I»!

..‘J H
o o c

._. ’JJ

4—
.

:ANU

.8

20.

21.

23.

162

How do you think most of the teachers in this school react when one
of the students does a bad job on school work?

They feel badly and want to help him (her) do better ......
They feel badly, but don't really help him (her) ......
They get mad and tell him (her) to start working harder ......
They get mad but don't say anything ......
They really don't care ......

What do you think most students say when a student has done good
or better than he usually does in his school work?

He was just lucky, he won't do that good next time ......
Anyone could do it if they studied ......
I wish I could do as well as he did ......

I'm glad for him I hone he does as well next time ......

How important do most of the students in this glass feel it is to
do well in school work?

Almost everybody thinks it is the most important

thing you can do. ......
Most students think it is quite important to do well ......
Doing well in school work is a good thing but other

things are important tea. . ......
Most students don't Seem to care howxnsilthey do,
but it's okay for others to do well. ......
Most students don’t seem to care how good they do,
but they don't like other students to do good.

How important do you think most or the students in this school
feel it is to do well in school work?

Almost everybody thinks it is The most important

tiling: yrui c:n1 'lo. ... ...
lost students think it it quite important to do well ......
Doing well in school work is a good thing but other

thinps are iflprrtint too. ......
Most students don't fieem to ca:e how well they do,
but it's okay {Tn (tiarrs to do well. ......
Most students don‘t seen to care how good they do,
but they don't like other students to do good. ......

PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING OUESTICRS FY CIRCLIVG THE NUMBER WHICH BEST
ANSWERS THE QUESTION FOR YOU. PICK ONLY Ni ANSWER FOR EACH QUSSTICN.

24.

Think about the boys or girls you play with at recess or after
school. How often do they read in their Free time?

V013'13ftcn ......
', (hxite {llllt ......
Sometimes , but not very much . . . . . .
Seldom ......

Almost never ......

mbunr—

111:5ri-

bump-

 

25.

26.

27.

28.-

29.

30.

31.

32.

163

When you and your friends are together after school or on week-
ends, how often do you talk about your school work?

Very often
Quite a bi

t

Sometimes, but not very much ......

Seldom

Almost never

People like me will not have much of a chance to do what we want

to in life.

Strongly
Agree

Disagree
Strongly

agree

disagree

People like me will never do well in school even though we try

hard.

I can do well in school if I work hard.

In this school, students like me don't have an

You have to be lucky to get good grades in this school.

Think of your friends.
better, the same, or poorer than your friends?

Think of the students in your class.

Strongly
Agree

Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
Agree

Disagree
Strongly

y luck.

Strongly
Agree

Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
Agree

Disagree
Strongly

agree

disagree

agree

disagree

agree

disagree

agree

disagree

Do you think you can do school work

Better
The same
Poorer

Do you think you can do

school work better, the same. or poorer than the students in

your class?

Better

The same

Poorer

0000..

00....

éuNp—n

.atnrova

59am!—

AuNy-I
O.

:thr-a

N

 

164

33. When you finish high school, do you think you will be one of the
best students, about the same as most of the students, or below
most of the students?

 

One of the best ...... l.
About the same as most of the students ...... 2.
Below most of the students ...... 3.
34. Do you think you could finish college?
Yes, with no difficulty at all ...... 1.
Yes, as long as I work hard ...... 2.
Yes, but I will probably have a lot of difficulty...... 3.
No, it will be too difficult ...... 4.
35. If you went to college, do you think you would be one of the best
students, about the same as most of the students, or below most of
the students?
One of the best ...... l.
About the same as most of the students ...... 2.
Below most of the students ...... 3.
36. If you want to be a doctor or a teacher, you need more than 4
years of college. Do you think you Could do that?
Yes, with no difficulty at all ...... 1.
Yes, as long as I work hard ...... 2.
Yes, but I will probably have a lot of difficulty...... 3.
No, it will be too difficult ...... 4.
37. Forget how your teachers mark your work. How good do ygu_think
your own work is?
Excellent ...... 1.
Good ...... 2.
About the same as most of the students ...... 3.
Below most of the students ...... 4.
. Poor ...... S.

38‘ What marks do you think you really can get if you try?
Iostly A's ...... 1
Mostly B's ...... 2
Mostly C's ...... 3.
Mostly D's ...... 4
Mostly E's ...... 5

NOW WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO ANeHER SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT PEOPLE THAT YOU KNOW.
ANSWER THESE .UESTI NS BY CIRCLING THE NUMBER AS YOU DID IN THE OTHER
QUESTIONS. (Pick only one answer)

39. When you do good work in school who do you most

want to know about it? mother ...... 1.
father ...... 2.
brother or sisiter...... 3.
teacher ...... 4.
friend ...... 5.
other ...... 6.

 

(Specify)

40.

NOW W.

STOP
QUEST

165

Who is the most interested in your work in school?

 

Mother ......

Father ......

Brother or sister ......

Teacher ......

Friend ......

Other ......
(Specify)

WOULD LIKE YOU TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR BEST FRIEND.
FOR A MINUTE A30 THINK WHO YOUR BEST FRIEND IS. ANSWER THESE
IONS BY CIRCLING THE NUMBER AS YOU DID IN THE OTHER QUESTIONS.

REHEVYERL_YOUR PEST FRIEND WILL NOT SEE YIUR ANSWERS. (PiCk only one

 

{UlS'h'C

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

I)

How far do you think your best friend believes you will go in
school?

Finish grade school ......
Go to high school for a while ......
Go to college for a while ......
Finish college ......

How good a student does your best friend expegt you to be in
school?

One of the best ......
Better than most of the students ......
Same as most students ......
Not as good as most students ......
He doesn't really care ..... .

Think of your best friend. Would your best friend say you can

do school work better, the same, or poorer than other people your

age?
Better ......
The same ......
Poorer ......

Would your best friend say that your grades would be with the best,

same as most, or below most of the students when you graduate from

high school? '
With the best ......
Same as most ......
Below most ......

Does your best friend think you could finish college?
Yes ......
I-IflYbC o o 0 o o o

No ......

Remember you need more than four years of college to be a teacher
or doctor. Does your best friend think you could do that?

Yes ......
Maybe ......
No ......

001:3{3'90‘

burgh-a

mamwy—a
.0...

mNu—o

UN“

H
C

l.
2.

3.

 

47.

166

What grades does your best friend think you can get?

Mostly A's
Mostly B's
Mostly C's
Mostly D's
Mostly E's

NOW WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK SOME QUESTIOVS ABOUT THE TEACHERS IN THIS

SCHOOL.
CIRCLINC THE hUMBER.

BE AS HONEST AS YOU CAN.

48.

49.

52.

ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS AS YOU ANSWERED THE OTHER ONES BY
REHENBER, EQ_TEACHER WILL SEE YOUR ANSWERS SO

Of the teachers that you know in this school how many tell students

to try hard to do better on tests?

Almost all of the teachers

Most of the
Half of the
Some of the
Almost none

teachers
teachers
teachers
of the teachers

How many teachers in this school tell students to try and get

better grades than their classmates?

Almost all of the teachers

Most of the
Half of the
Some of the
Almost none

Of the teachers that you know in this school how

if the students get bad grades?

teachers
teachers
tchherS
of the teachers

many don't care

Almost all of the teachers

Most of the
Half of the
Some of the
Almost none

teachers
teachers
teachers
of the teachers

Of the teachers that you know in this school how many tell students
to do extra work so that they can get better grades?

Almost all of the teachers

Most of the
Half of the
Some of the
Almost none

teachers
teachers
teachers
of the teachers

Of the teachers that you know in this school how many make the

students work too hard ?

Almost all of the teachers

Most of the
Half of the
Some of the
Almost none

teachers
teachers
teachers
of the teachers

{11>me

MbMNb-d

.3wa—

Ulo'inH

01:5me

'J‘l

 

 

53.

54.

SS.

56.

S7.

58.

0f the teachers that you know in this school how many don't care

167

how hard the student works, as long as he passes?

Almost all of the teachers
Most of the teachers
Half of the teachers
Some of the teachers
Almost none of the teachers

If the teachers in this school think a student can't do good
work, how many will try to make him work hard anyway?

Almost all of the teachers
Most of the teachers
Half of the teachers
Some of the teachers
Almost none of the teachers

Of the teachers that you know in this school, how many think it
is not good to ask more work from a student than he is able to do?

Almost all of the teachers
Host of the teachers
Half of the teachers
Some of the teachers
Almost none of the teachers

Of the teachers that you know in this school, how many believe
that students should be asked to do only work which they are

able to do?

Almost all of the teachers
Most of the teachers
Half of the teachers
Some of the teachers
Almost none of the teachers

How far do you think the teacher you like the best believes you

will go in school?

 

Finish grade school

0.0...

0.0...

Go to high school for a while ......

Finish high school
Go to college for a while
Finish college

How good of a student does the teacher you like the best expect

you to be in school?

 

One of the best

Better than most of the students
Same as most students

Not as good as most students

She :iesn't really care

00....

DINH

ma.

(1112.98th

U'léaUNi-i

 

168

59. Think of your teacher. Would your teacher say you can do school
work better, the same, or poorer than other people your age?

Better
The same
Poorer

60. Would your teacher say that your grades would be with the best
same as most, or below most of the students when you graduate
from high school?

With the best
Same as most
Below most

61. Does your teacher think you could finish college? Yes
Maybe
No
62. Remember you need more than four years of college to be a
teacher or doctor. Does your teacher think you could do that?
Yes
Maybe
No
63. What grades does your teacher think you can get?
Mostly A's
lostly B's
Mostly C's
Mostly D's
Mostly F's

HOW, WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR PARENTS.
ANSWER THFM THE SAME WAY YOU ANShERED THE OTHLR ONES.

64. How far do you think your Parents believe you will go in school?

Finish grade school

60 to high school for a while
Finish hiph school

Go to college for a while
Finish college

65. How good of a student do your parents expect you to be in school?

One of the best

Better than most of the students
Same as most of the students

Not as good as most of the students
They don't really care

66. Think of your mother and father. Do your mother and father say
you can do school work better, the same, or poorer than your
friends?

Better
Same as most
Poorer

......

“NH
00.

MwaH

MbuNt-I

l.
2.
3.

 

169

67. Would your mother and father say that your grades would be with
the best, same as most, or below most of the students when you

finish high school?

The best ......
Same as most ......
Below most ......

68. Do they think you could finish college?

Yes ......
Maybe ......
N0 0.0...

69. Remember, you need more than four years of college to be a
teacher or doctor. Do your mother and father think you could

do that?

Yes ......
Maybe ......

NO 00.00-

70. What grades do your mother and father think you can_get?

MOStly A's .00...
MnStly 8'5 .00...
Mostly C's ......
MnStly D's .00...
Mostly E's ......

new we won TO ASK you some QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRINCIPAL OF THIS
SCHOOL. REHL)?~€BER, YOUR PRINCIPAL h’lLL :19: SIzI‘a YOUR ANSWERS.

71. How many students in this school do you think the principal

believes can get high grades?

Almost all of the students ......

Host of the students ......
Half of the students ......
Some of the students ......

Almost none of the students ......

72. How do you think your principal would grade the work of the
students in this school, compared to other schools?

Would grade it much better ......
Would grade it somewhat better......
Would grade it the same ......
Would grade it somewhat lower ......
Would grade it much lower ......

73. How many of the students in this school do you think the principal

believes will finish high school?

Almost all of the students ......

Most of the students ......
Half of the students ......
Some of the students ......

Almost none of the students ......

UN

mtht—n‘

“NH

U1;-
0 c

MbuNr-a

MAMNH
0.. O

170

74. How many of the students in this school do you think the principal.
believes will go to college?
Almost all of the students ......

Most of the students ......
Half of the students ......
Some of the students ......

Almost none of the students ......

75. How many of the students in this school do you think the principal
believes will finish college?

Almost all of the students ......

Most of the students ......
Half of the students ......
Some of the students ......
Almost none of the students ..... .

76. When I do a good job on my school work, I am more popular with
other students.

Yes O O O O I O
NO 0 O I O O 0
Doesn't make any difference ......

77.' If I do well in school, it will be easier for me to net the job
I want when I graduate.

Yes ......
No . .....
Doesn't matter ......

78. My parents allow me greater freedom when I do well in school.

‘

 

Yes . .....
No ......
Doesn't matter ......
79. If you came home with a good report card, what would your parents
most likely do?
Nothing in particular
Praise me ......
Give me special privileges . .....
Give me money or some Special reward ......
Other ......
(specify)

80. If you came home with a poor report card, what would your parents
most likely do?

 

Nothing in particular ......

Scold we ......

Take away privileges ......

Punish me severely in some way ......

Other ......
(specify)

81. Sometimes what you want_ to happen is not wlat you think will happen.
How far do you think you will $0 in school?

Finish grule school
Co to high school tor a while

Finish hi chool
(.o to col Ilene {01 2 while

linish college

U'Iéri-I U'IhoaNo-o

. Fifi
' L-

NH

’J-JKQH

73;.-
O O

MAD-IN“

U'lwafi-d

 

APPENDIX B

TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE

171

011'"

A O

C L10.

7“

S:

172

Teacher Questionnaire
(Revised Draft)

School Social Environment Study

Sponsored by

Michigan Department of Education
and
Michigan State University

This research proicct is being
carried out under the supervision of

Dr. 1111er R. Brookover
P‘of:sscr of Sociolopy and hdurrtion, an«
Associate Director, Center for Ur urn A11; airs
Michigan State Inivcrsity
East L-fJQSiMZ, Hi Chiral:
Tel. 517 SSS-9'106

Any questions should he directed to Dr. Brookover

The inf01m'tion which you give us on this quc stionnniie is
complete y cerr11e1t‘"l. N1 on' will see yrxr .nSLeis .\:ept

-.-—..— “w— --.—...-

the memocrs of our 105C arch Stail Reports will be made with
aggregate data, and no one per.en1will he idtntiiied with his
or her data. .After your questicauaire has been CU'..plvtcly
coded and pun.he' on IBM ca ids (witmlo yon~ name), )0»)
que:lionna31e \5lliredcsireycd.(of_1le'n cun11r"~*1“"t1 is

.---o “--.—‘Q wt..-----

assu1:(u2.. It .is \n .y' 111‘()*. £111: tlutt )(.1 Ln: an; C(dluiL: us

”'0‘- -—.-—-

possible in your 3.. «\ers.

 

173

-7 ' lease do Not
vrite on this
ide of the

6.

\’
O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

line.
Name T '5
Sex (Please check unpreprinte line) 3'

female
male

Please write the ntme of this school 2' 3'
How long have you taught in this school? 3' 7
(Include this year)
How long have you taught school? fi"§
What grade level are you teaching? 3??
How mueh formal preparation do you have? (circle the number of ii.
the correct answer)
1. less than a Ruehelors degree
2. Bachelors degree
3. some graduate work but less than Masters degree
4° Hastcis degree
5» more than Masters degree but not Doctorate
6. Doctor's degree
How did you feel about this school before coming here? (give 1;
general attitude)

 

174

 

 

 

92. Has your attitude changed since? (circle number of correct 13
answer)
1. yes
2. no
9b. If so, how?
We would like to ask you some questions about grouping practices and
use of standardized tests in this school. Please feel free to write
any additional comments after each question.
10. In general, what grouping procedure is practiced across Sections 14
of particular grade levels in this school?
1. homogeneous grouping according to ability
2. heterogcncons grouping according to ability
3. random sampling
4. no intentional grouping
5. other (indicate) -
11. In general, what grouping procedure is practiced within your 15
class?
1. homogeneous grouping according to ability
2. heterogeneous grouping according to ability
3. random grouping
4. no intentional grouping
5. other (indicate) A
12. low important do you think the standardized test scores of your 16
stucents are?
1. very inportant -
2. somewhat important
3. not very important
4. not important at all

 

175

13. How often do you use the standardized test scores of your students? 17

1. very often
2. often

3. somtimes
4. Seldom

5. never

Please answer each of the following questions by encircling the
letter before the choice which most nearly answers the question for you.

 

14. On the average what level of achievement can be expected of the 15
students in this school?

~-.—.-—-—.

1. much above national norm
2. slightly above national norm
3. approximately at natienal norm
4. slightly below national norm
5. much below national norm
15. On the average what level of achievement can be expected of the ”E5

Students in your class?

much above national norm
slightly above national norm
approximately at national norm
slightly below national norm
much below national IKUTX

(DAMN—0

16. What percent of the students in this school do you expect to comv 20
plete high school?

90% or more
70% or more
50% or mere
30% or more
less than 30%

Mmev—O

 

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

176

What percent of the students in your class do you expect to complete
high school?

1. 90% or more
2. 70% or more
3. 50% or more
4. 30% or more
5. less than 30%

What percent of the students in this school do you expect to attend
college?

90% or more
70% or ROTC
50% or more
30% or more
less than 30%

U‘ch‘NNh-d

What percent of the students in your class do you expect to attend
college?

1. 90% or zero
2. 70% or worC
3

. 50% or more
4. 30% or more
5. less than 30%

What percent of the s‘udcnts in this schOol do you expect to complefrja

College?

1. 90% or more
2. 70% or more
3. 50% or more
4. 30% or more
5. less than 30%

What percent of the students in your Slflfih do you expect to complete
college? ,

l. 90% or more
2. 70% or more
3. 50% or more
4. '30% or more
5. less than 30%

“l

r)?

 

 

22.

23.

25.

26.

177

How many of the students in this school are capable of getting mostlyYE

A's and 8'5?

90% or more
70% or more
50% or more
30% or more
less than 30%

'fiwai—o

How many of the students in your glass are capable of getting mistlyl

A's and h's?

1. 90% or more
2. 70% or more
3. 50% or more
4. 30% or more
5. less than 30%

How would you rate the academic ability of the students in this
school compared to other schools?

ability here is much higher
ability here is somewhat higher
ability hcre is ahout the same
ability here is somewhat lower
ability here is much lower

Ulwap-a

hhat peacent of the students in this school would you say Want to
complete high school?

. 90% or more
70% or more
50% or more
30% or more
less than 30%

MAwNH

l‘fimt percent of the students in your class would you say want to
complete high school?

. 90% or more_
70% or more
50% or more
30% or more
less than 30%

gfitho—o

2o

'0.

y...“-

 

 

178

27. What percent of the students in
go to college?
1. .0% or more
2. 70% or more
3. 50% or more
4. 30% or more
5. less than 30%
28. What percent of the students in

to go to college?

1. 90% or more
2. 70% or more
3. 50% or more
4. 30% or more
5. less than 30%

x.

I

this school would you say whnt to

your class would you say want

Please rencnher, your answers to all of these questions is completely

ccn1fit1n1t1:.l.

o..-”

 

he one but our research staff will see your answers.

29. How much do you enjoy your teaching responsibilities in this

school? .

1. very much
2. much

3. avcnuage

4. lltll(r

5. not at all

30. If someone were to offer you
teaching job for $1,000 sore

consider taking the job?

an

very seriously
somewhat seriously
not Very seriously
not at all

.Sri-I

interesting and secure non—

a year, how seriously would you

i’Ji

U:
Q:

 

(I.
’d

Le!
l\‘
O

--)

'J'

35.

179

If someone were to offer you an interesting and secure non-
teachinn job for $3,000 more a year, how seriously would you
consider taking the job?

very Seriously
somewhat seriously
not very seriously
not at all

AMNH

How often do you stay after school to help students?

1. very often
2. often

3. sometimes
4. seldom

5. never

What percent of the students in this school do you think the
principal expects to cowaege high school?

. 90% or more
70% or more
50% or were
30% or more
less than 30%

MAL/aw»:

What percent of the students in this school do you think the

--—.~.—

1. 90% or more
2. 70% or more
3. 50% or more
4. 30% or more
5. less than 30%

What percent of the students in this school do you think the
principal CXpects to eggplg£g_college?

90% or more

. 70% or more

50% or more

. 30% or more

less than 30%

MACANH

 

...—~-

36

 

38

b:
0')

I

O.

180

low many students in this school do you think the principal believes
are capable of getting mostly A's and 8'5.

1. 90% or more
2. 70% or more
3. 50% or more
4. 30% or more
5. less than 30%

low do you think your principal rates the academic ability of the
students in this school, compared to other schools?

1. rates it much better

2. rates it somewhat better
3. rates it the same

4. rates it somewhat lower
5. rates it much lower

Completion of high school is a realistic goal which you set for
what percentage of your students?

1. 90% cnsxnore

2. 70% or more .
3. 50% or more

4. 30% or more

5. less than 30%

Completion of college is a realistic goal Which you set for what
percentage of your students?

1. 90% or more
2. 70% or more
3. 50% or more
4. 30% or more
5. less than 30%

How often do you stress to your students the necessity of a post
high school education for a good job and/or a comfortable life?

1. very often
2. often

3. ScnnetiJnes
4. seldom

5. never

3.x
0

41

43

 

41.

42.

43.

44

45.

181

For those students who do not have the resources which will allow
them to go to college, you are careful not to promote aspirations
in them which strongly can not he fulfilled.

. strongly agree
agree

not sure

disagree

strongly disagree

MAva—o

The teachers in this school push students to work too hard.

1. strongly ahree

2. agree

3. not sure

4. disagree

5. strongly disagree

How many teachers in this school aren't concerned how hard most
students work, as long as they pass?

. almost all of the teachers
most of the tearhers
llnlf‘tif tin: tezuflitrs
some of the teachers
almost none of the teachers

U1.\;NNH

It is unfair to demand more from a student than he is capable of
giving.

1. strongly agree

2. agree

3. not sure

4. disagree

5. strongly disagree

If)mnithinkzlstUMquis notzdfle to(hesomo¢d'the sduxd work
you won't try to push him very hard.

strouply aprec
flffl‘C'C

not sure

disagree

strongly disagree

(flauwl—I

 

46

 

u

’
v

0

f0.

50.

182

For most students you are very careful not to push them to their
frustration level.

1. strongly agree
2. agree

3. not sure

4. disagree

5

strongly disagree

How many teachers in this school encourage students to try hard to
improve on previous test scores?

1. alnmx;t all (if the txvudiers

2. most of the teachers

3. about half of the teachers

4. some of the teachers

5. almost none of the teachers -

How many teachers encourage students to seek extra school work so
that the students can get better grades?

1. almost all of the teachers
2. most of the tenche‘s
3. ahout half of the teachers
4. some of the teachers
S. almost none of the teachers

How many students in this school try hard to improve on previous
"JO-r}: ?

]. almost all of the students
2. most of the students
3. about half of the students

some or the Students
almost none or the students

U15-

How many students in your class try hard to improve on previous
work?

almost. all of the students
most of the students
ahoutlmll~ of the students
some of the students
almost have of the students

(11.5me

m;
‘J‘.

..-”

 

l‘

.3.

.1.

r

'Jlb

How many students in this school will try hard to do better on tests

183

than their friends do?

“NH

almost all of the students
most of the students
about half of the students
some of the students
almost none of the students

lhnlinany stiuhurts in )qur clzuu:\cill t13’1l3rd tc>thw hettcufrni tests
than their classmates do?

(Mammy-o

almost all of the students
most of the students
about. half of the students
some of the students
almost none of the students

H’u-I many Student?» in this SChtw] are C(llltCllt t0 do 1058 than they
should?

'J'l

.\

WNW

almost all of the students
NV)st ()f tlie st inlelitzz
about half of the students
some of the students
almost none of the students

How many students in your Class are content to do less than they

should?

1. alnost all of the students
2. most of the studtnts

3. about half of the students
4. some of the students

5.

almest none of the Students

How many students in this school will seel; extra. work so that. they
can get better grades?

MAwNv—o

-.——-.——--

almost all of the students

most of the students

a:nut half rf the students

Some of the students

almost none of the students

86

fig

 

56.

60.

184

How many students in your glass_will seek extra work so that they can
get better grades?

almost all of the students
most of the Students
about half of the students
some of the students
almost none of the students

(nae-”vh-
D

..__-.o-

much better than they do?

5. almost all of the students
4. most of the studpnts
3. about half of the students
2. some of the students
1. almost none of the students

How many students in your class don't care when other students do
much better than they do?

almost all or the students
Inost ()f tlub Slluhntts
about half of the studtrts
some of the students
almest none of the students

macaw»-

The parents in this school service area regard this school primarily
as a ”baby—sitting” agency.

strongly agree
agree

not sure

disagree

. strongly disagree

wazm

The parents of this school service area are deeply concerned thnt
their Children receive a top quality education.

. strongly agree
‘ngree
nntAsure

dlsngree

l—;—
1)”

av.

_
o1

 

'J'IA'JQNH

. strongly disagree

185

61. How many of the parents in this school service area expect their 65
children to complete high school?

almost all of the parents
most of the parents
about half of the parents
some of the parents
. almost none of the parents

MAWNH

62. How many of the parents in this school service area expect their 66
children to conpletc college?

1. almost all of the parents
2. most of the parents
3. :dnnit haltirrf th(:1n1rents
4. some of the. parents
5. almost none of the parents
63. How many of the parents in this school service area don't care if 67

their children ehtain low grades?

5. almost all of the parents
4. most of the Parents
3. about half of the parents
2. some of the parents
1. almost none of the parents
64. How many of the parents in this school service area like feedback 08
from the principal and teachers on how their children are doing in
Scduao]?
1. almost. all of the parents
2. most of the parents
3. ah0ut half of the parents
4. SONG Of lllC Pilrcnts
5. almost none of the parents

 

 

APPENDIX C

STATE ASSESSMENT SES INDEX QUESTIONS

186

187

SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS QUESTIONS USED IN STATE
ASSESSMENT TEST 1969-1970

General Information Questions
Does your family have a dictionary?

(A) YCS
(B) No
(C) I don't know

Does your family have an eneyelepedia?
(A) YBS

(B) No

(C) I don't know

Does your iamily have a vacuum cleaner?

Does your lazily have a typewriter?

(...) Yes
(ll) 1:0

((3) 1 don't know

Does you: family nave a dishwashing machine?

(:i‘.) Yes
(ll) LO
(C) l. daiz‘z' - 111102.?

how many curs does your family have? (Don't count trucks.)
(L) One
(C) Two or more

Do you have your own wrist watch?

(A) Yes
(B) NO

Has

(A)
(B)
(C)

How

(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)

How

(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)

H ow

188

anyone in your family traveled in an airplane in the last year?

Yes
No
I don't know

much Education does your father have?

Grade school—-Grades 1-8

High school-~Grades 9-12

College or Special training after high school
I don't know

much education does your mother have?
Grade school--Grades 1-8
High school—~Gradcs 9-12

College or Special training after high School
I don't know

many different schools have you gone to since you started first

grade? Count only the schools which you went to during the day.

(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)

Cne—-only this one
Two

Three

Four

Five or more

What is the highest grade you want to finish in school?

(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)

Are

(A)
(B)
(C)

I don't want to go to school any more

I only want to finish high school

I want to go to a special school, like a nursing or business school
I want to go to college

you planning to go to college?
Yes

No
7" v-
.n. m not sure