ABSTRACT THE RELATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FACTORS OF Low SOCIO—ECONOMIC STATUS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS TO POLITICAL ORIENTATIONS OF FIFTH-GRADE STUDENTS By Alfred Samuel Arkley The objective of this study was to investigate the relation- ship of the factors of the organizational climate of low socio- economic status elementary schools to the political orientations and behavior of fifth-grade students. Four organizational climate factors were identified from a varimax rotational factor solution of the subtest scores of the Or- ganizational Climate Description Questionnaire, OCDQ, of Andrew W. Halpin and Donald B. Croft.1 These factors were identified after Halpin and Croft's original climates and factors did not appear in the OCDQ responses of 266 teachers in 18 inner-city elementary schools in two urban Michigan school districts. A shortened version of the Elementary School Student Political Orientation Questionnaire of Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney2 was administered to 1027 fifth-graders in the same 18 elementary schools. 1Andrew W. Halpin and Donald B. Croft, The Organizational Climate of Schools (Washington, D.C.: HEW, Office of Education, CRP-543, July, 1963). 2Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney, The Development of Basic Attitudes and Values Toward Government and Citizenship During the E1ementary_School Years, Part I. (Washington, D. C.: HEW, Office of Education, CRP-lO78, 1965). Alfred Samuel Arkley This questionnaire measured student orientations toward the political community, regime, and authorities and their political knowledge and behavior. A multivariate analysis tested the relationship between the school mean of student political orientations and behavior and the school factor score for each of the four organizational climate factors. The following school characteristics were used as controls in the calculation of the multiple correlation coefficient: mean fifth-grade student socio-economic status, proportion of non-White students in the class, proportion of boys in the class, proportion of students who were administered the questionnaire by a Black man, and proportion of students who had a male teacher. This study concluded that the four organizational climate factors were weakly related to student political orientations and behavior through a process of observational learning with either the individual teacher or the interaction pattern of the entire faculty serving as the model. Two factors were related to a teacher model: Factor II, Leadership Initiation, which describes the degree of latitude that teachers can initiate leadership acts and Factors III, Source of Social Cohesion, which describes the degree of integration that teachers have between the task goals of the school and their need to belong to a group. But only in the Factor II climate did the student transfer the teacher role model to the political system, Factor III could only ex- plain different student perception of the teacher's role. Two factors were related to a model of the interaction pattern of the entire school: Factor I, Sense of Organizational Attachment Alfred Samuel Arkley which describes degree of affective attachment the teacher feels to- ward the school and Factor IV, Administrative Structure, which de- scribes the organizational structure of the school in terms of role definitions and the locus of decision-making. Both of those factors were related to student political orientations. The most important predictor of student political orientations and behavior was school racial composition with all—Black schools hav- ing students with participant political orientations and behavior and all-White schools having students with subject political orientations and behavior. THE RELATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FACTORS 0F LOW SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS T0 POLITICAL ORIENTATIONS 0F FIFTH-GRADE STUDENTS By Alfred Samuel Arkley A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Political Science 1972 >-¢ To FRANK A. PINNER "A Great Teacher and Scholar" ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Without the cooperation of the fifth-grade students, their teachers and principals, this study could not have been conducted. I would like to thank them by name but I agreed to not identify the school districts involved. This study was supported in large part by Research Grant OEG-5-70-0024(509) from the Regional Research Program of the U.S. Office of Education and also by grants from the Political Science Department and the College of Social Science of Michigan State University. I want to thank at this time the faculty of the Political Science Department for providing me with the rich environment that allowed me to become a political scientist. Several department mem- bers were especially helpful: Charles Press, the Chairman, who pushed me when it was needed and supported me when that was needed; Cleo Cherryholmes who encouraged and urged me to study politics and education; and Frank Pinner who gave so generously of his time. Frank's warmth sustained me, his critiques stimulated me, and his advice encouraged me from the beginning to the end. He is an excel- lent teacher and scholar. Wilbur Brookover of Sociology and Educa- tion was especially helpful for it was in his stimulating class that the idea for the study was born. I want to thank Carol Krauss for editing the text and Katherine Lehman, Iris Richardson, and Sue Barnard for their secretarial and clerical help in administrating the Office of Education grant. My wife Harriet kept me going by praising the study at the right time. My son Andrew and I are really lucky to be associated with such an intelligent beautiful person. AOSOA. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES v CHAPTERS ONE INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH PROBLEM 1 TWO METHODS 25 THREE THE FOUR ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FACTORS 45 FOUR TEACHERS AND ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FACTORS 67 FIVE STUDENT POLITICAL ORIENTATIONS AND BEHAVIOR 79 SIX CONCLUSION 106 BIBLIOGRAPHY 112 APPENDIX A ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE 116 B OCDQ QUESTIONS THAT COMPOSE EIGHT SUBTESTS 125 C CIVIC EDUCATION QUESTIONNAIRE 128 iv Table 2-1 2-2 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 LIST OF TABLES SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS SIMPLE CORRELATIONS AMONG THE CONTROL VARIABLES CONTROL VARIABLES SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS PERCENTILE SCORES INDICATORS OF PARENT'S SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS RESPONSE RATE TO QUESTIONNAIRES THREE-FACTOR VARIMAX ROTATIONAL SOLUTION FOR SUBTEST SCORES BY SCHOOL FOURrFACTOR VARIMAX ROTATIONAL SOLUTION FOR SUBTEST SCORES BY SCHOOL SCHOOL FACTOR SCORES FACTOR I - DISENGAGEMENT AND ESPRIT RANK OF THOSE WHO TEACH THE STUDENT TO BE A GOOD CITIZEN TEACHER CITIZENSHIP INFLUENCE IN FACTOR II CLIMATE AND RACIALLY DIFFERENT CLASSES RANK OF BENEVOLENCE OF AUTHORITY FIGURES AND INSTITUTIONS RANK OF INFALLIBILITY OF AUTHORITY FIGURES AND INSTITUTIONS RANK OF PUNITIVE POWER OF AUTHORITY FIGURES AND INSTITUTIONS TEACHER INFALLIBILITY IN FACTOR II AND FACTOR III CLIMATES STUDENT EVALUATION OF THE POLITICAL REGIME STUDENT PERCEPTION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF LAWS TEACHER BENEVOLENCE IN FACTOR II AND FACTOR IV CLIMATES 33 35 37 40 53 55 56 57 68 7O 71 72 73 77 85 87 94 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH PROBLEM I started this research with two questions in mind: first, "Is there any relationship between an organizational climate and the political orientations of the organizational members?" and second, "If such a relationship does exist, can it be explained as a process of observational learning?" With these two general questions in mind I narrowed my focus upon fifth-grade students in low socio-economic status elementary schools. I used this focus for two reasons. First, there is evidence that the political orientations of low socio-economic status elemen- tary school students are more sensitive to the school environment than those of students of higher socio-economic status. Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney found that low socio-economic status elementary school students, "perceive their teacher as relatively more effective than their own parents in teaching citizenship."1 For students of a higher socio-economic status teachers were not perceived as influential in citizenship training. Yet in spite of this greater sensitivity to the school, "children in working class areas of the city are less completely socialized (in the sense of being prepared for political participation) than children from middle class homes."2 This would 1Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney, The Development of Political Attitudes in Children (Chicago: Aldine, 1967), p. 225. 21bid., p. 225. also seem to indicate that the (possibly unintended) effect of the elementary school is to generate orientations unfavorable to partici— pation in the political system among students of low socio-economic status. Second, I focused upon students of the same age because much evidence suggests that elementary school student political orienta- tions change as the child's age changes. Hess and Torney found that student political orientations change dramatically in conceptual com- plexity from second grade to eighth grade.3 Fred I. Greenstein found the same age-related differences for predominately White students from fourth grade to eighth grade,4 as did Edward S. Greenberg in comparing Black with White students from the third grade to the ninth grade.5 I decided to study fifth-grade students because as Hess and Torney found these students are able to respond to a wide range of survey questions.6 Also students of this age are still free of any significant peer group influence. At the elementary school level there is little evidence that the peer group influences student politi— cal orientations. Hess and Torney in their study of students from second to eighth grade conclude that, "participation in peer group organizations within the school or outside it does not have a 3Ibid. 4Fred I. Greenstein, Children and Politics (New Haven: Yale, 1965). 5Edward S. Greenberg, "Political Socialization to Support of the System: A Comparison of Black and White Children," (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1969). 6Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney, op. cit. significant effect upon the socialization process."7 David Lavin points out that, "elementary school students may not be sufficiently autonomous to develop peer group norms independent of their teacher's attitudes."8 Using the above evidence as a guide I decided to conduct an exploratory study9 that would have two objectives. First, I would try to find a relationship between the elementary school's organizational climate and the school's student political orientations.10 Second, if I achieved the first objective then I would see if this relationship could be explained by a process of observational learning. To achieve the first objective of finding a relationship be- tween the elementary school's organizational climate and student politi- cal orientations, I had to find this relationship independent of stu— dent race, sex, and socio-economic status. A review of the political socialization literature relating to the political orientations of low socio-economic status elementary school students indicates that student social characteristics such as race, sex, and socio-economic 7Ibid., pp. 218-219. 8David Lavin, The Prediction of Academic Performance (New York: Wiley, 1965), p. 137. 9Whenever I refer to student political orientations, I mean the average response of all the students in a particular elementary school. 10This study involved 1027 fifth-grade students and 265 teachers in eighteen low socio-economic status elementary schools in two urban school districts in MiChigan, Spring, 1970. Greater detail on the characteristics of the sample will be given in Chapter Two. status could explain a large proportion of the variance in student political orientations.11 Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney have found that an elemen- tary school student's political orientations are partially related to student age and sex. As the student grows older his orientations to- ward political objects become more specific and conceptually complex. Hess and Torney also state that, "boys acquire attitudes more rapidly than girls and they are more interested in political matters,"12 and that students of low socio-economic status participate in less politi- cal activity and feel, "less efficacious in dealing with the political system."13 Edward S. Greenberg has found that Black elementary school students hold different political orientations than White children and that lower class children are far less supportive of the political sys- tem than those of the middle class.14 But none of the above studies claim to explain completely elementary school political attitudes. Hess and Torney conclude that, "while it may be argued that the family contributes much to the socialization that goes into basic loyalty to 11No one has yet measured this proportion beyond the ordinal level for elementary school students. However, Kenneth P. Langton and David A. Kerns report the use of a promising technique described by James S. Coleman in Introduction to Mathematical Sociology (New York: Free Press, 1964), chp. 4. They were able to calculate separate per— centages for the relationship of the family, peer group, and school to secondary school student political efficacy. 9;, Kenneth P. Langton, Political Socialization (New York: Oxford, 1969), chp. 6. 12 RObert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney, Op. cit., p. 222. 13Ib1d., p. 224. 14Edward S. Greenberg, "Political Socialization to Support of the System: A Comparison of Black and White Children," (Ph.D. dis— sertation, University of Wisconsin, 1969), chp. 6. the country, the school gives content, information, and concepts which expand these early feelings of attachment."15 Greenberg does not speculate about the relationship of the elementary school environment to the political orientations of the students. The four schools he investigated were similar in terms of physical appearance and socio- economic environment.16 In reviewing the literature concerning the relationship of student political orientations to the organization of the elementary school, I decided that the organization of the school has been clas- sified in at least three ways: first by the formal organizational at- tributes that do not directly reflect human organizational interac- tions--content of curricula, per capita expenditures, number of library books, etc.; second by the social composition of the school-- race, sex, socio-economic status, ethnic group, etc.; and third by interpersonal relations prevailing within the school--mora1e, social needs satisfaction, authority patterns, etc. I have found no studies that discuss the relationship of the per capita expenditures, number of library books, and related data to elementary student political orientations. Many studies of school racial segregation have shown that predominantely black schools have lower per capita expenditures.l7 Since these schools do contain students whose political orientations differ from those of students 15Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney, op. cit., p. 217. 16Edward S. Greenberg, op. cit., pp. 259-261. 1?§§., Kenneth B. Clark, Dark Ghetto (New York: Harper & Row, 1965) and Charles E. Silberman, Crisis in Black and White (New York: Random, 1964). in the more affluent schools one might suppose that increased expendi- tures might change political orientations. No study has discussed the effect of increased expenditures upon political orientations, although many have shown that increased school expenditures do not affect stu- dent achievement.18 Another formal organization attribute is the school curriculum. Hess and Torney have reported the political education curriculum is uniform at the elementary school level for White urban schools. They concluded that for all the schools they examined, "compliance to rules and authority is the major focus of civics education in elementary schools."19 Instead of reporting school by school differences they merely summarized the teacher reports of civic education. Then they summarized all the student political orientations by grade and showed how the school influenced the student because there were changes from grade to grade. Hess and Torney used this procedure apparently be- cause they could not find a relationship between curriculum and student political orientations that occurred at the school level. Edgar Litt had the same problems with the formal curriculum when study- ing secondary schools, even when he discovered differences in the political content of the school's curricula.20 139§,, James S. Coleman, et a1., Equality of Educational Op— portunity (Washington, D. C.: G.P.O., 1966) and U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, Racial Isolation in the Schools (Washington, D.C.: G.P.O., 1967), and Christopher Jencks, et a1., Inequality - A Reas- sessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America (New York: Basic, 1972). 19 Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney, op. cit., p. 110. 20Edgar Litt, "Civic Education, Community Norms, and Political Indoctrination," American Sociological Review 28 (1963): 69-75. Since the formal attributes of school apparently do differ as do student political orientations, some intervening variable might pos- sibly explain the relationship between formal school organization and student political orientations. Perceptive teachers in elementary schools have speculated about this relationship and the possibly inter- Vening variables. The general conclusion of teachers like Jonathan Kozol,21 James Herndon,22 Herbert Kohl,23 and John Holt,24 that the at- tude of the teacher and hOW'WEII his position is supported by the rest of the faculty are important in determining what the student learns has been given some strong scientific backing in the research of Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson which showed that the attitudes of the teachers affect the achievement and measured intelligence of low socio- economic status elementary students.25 The second explanation of the relationship of the school organ- ization to student political orientations focuses on the social composi- tion of the school. This explanation examines the student's social context in relation to his political orientations and behavior. The school fulfills its role in political socialization by providing a meeting place for the students to socialize each other. At the 21Jonathan Kozol, Death At An Early Age (New York: Bantam, 1967). 22James Herndon, The Way It Spozed To Be (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1968). 23Herbert Kohl, 36 Children (New York: New American Library, 1967). 24John Holt, How Children Fail (New York: Delta, 1964) and John Holt, How Children Learn (New York: Pitman, 1967). 25Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson, Pygmalion in the Classroom (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968). secondary level there is much evidence that this has much influence but at the elementary level there is little evidence that the peer group influences elementary student political orientation. Hess and Torney conclude that, "participation in peer group organizations within the school or outside it does not have a significant effect upon the socialization process."26 David Lavin points out that, "elementary school students may not be sufficiently autonomous to develop peer group norms independent of their teachers' attitudes."27 All this suggests that the adult organization of the elementary school not the peer group organization, strongly effects a student's politi- cal orientations. The impressionistic reports of a ghetto teacher like Jonathan Kozol in Death At An Early Age, and the research of Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson in Pygmalion in the Classroom, suggest that the elementary school faculty's orientation toward the students is pos— sibly the intervening variable between the socio-economic status of the student and student political orientations. Per capita expendi— tures, curricula content, and socio-economic composition of the school, all correlate highly with the student's social position and thus cannot predict student political orientations once the student's socio-economic status is determined. So it would appear that orien— tations towards students by the teachers affects student orientations and behavior. 26Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney, op. cit., pp. 218—219. 27David Lavin, The Prediction of Academic Performance (New York: Wiley, 1965), p. 137. This leads us to a third way the school can influence student political orientations: through the interaction patterns and norms that occur within the school. Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba define school organization in terms of the patterns of interpersonal rela— tionships between the teacher and the students. They found that the school, so defined, did have an effect upon the political orientations of the students. Respondents who remembered participating in class discussions and debates and who remembered discussing unfair treatment or disagreements with teachers felt more efficacious in politics than did those who remembered no such participation. When Almond and Verba studied the effects of socio-economic status on political orientations they found that low socio-economic status students had fewer partici- patory experiences and felt politically less efficacious. They also found that having an opportunity to participate within the school raised the political efficacy levels of low socio-economic status students more than those of other students.28 Almond and Verba found that students of low socio-economic status were usually not allowed to participate in the decision-making process. This practice created an interaction pattern in which having few chances for participation led to the student's feeling inefficac— ious concerning political decision-making. When the practice and hence the interaction pattern changed, the student's political orientation also changed.29 The usual process of political 28Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, Civic Culture (Princeton: Princeton U.P., 1963), pp. 352—353. 29 the norm. It is also possible that the interaction pattern precedes lO socialization does not ordinarily result from a specific decision that, "We are going to teach low socio-economic status children that they are not to participate in decision—making." Rather it just happens because people act out their social roles. The many studies of American racism and sexism indicate the pervasiveness of this pattern.30 The effect upon the child is the same: a political orientation is learned. Each organization encourages interaction patterns and norms enabling the organizational member to achieve both his own goals and those of the organization at the least cost. Thus each organization is like a small society with its own culture that guides the members' behavior and values.31 a culture which has been named by organiza- tional theorists as "organicational climate."32 Andrew W. Halpin and Donald B. Croft developed a question- naire, the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ), to measure the organizational climate of elementary schools.33 They identified six organizational climates that they placed on a con- tinuum from Open to Closed. In essence the Open climate was one where authority was shared, communication was open, and a feeling of trust 39§£., Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch (New York: McGraw— Hill, 1971) and Charles E. Silberman, op. cit., "Consciousness rais- ing" is the way the women's liberationists make this process manifest. 3¥Qf., Chris Argyris, Integrating the Individual and the Organization (New York: Wiley, 1964) especially pp. 75-92. 32Renato Tagiuri and George H. Litwin (eds.), Organizational Climate (Cambridge: Harvard, 1968), section A. 33The Organizational Climate of Schools (Washington, D.C.: HEW, Office of Education, CRP, 543, July, 1963). 11 and cooperation prevailed. In the Closed climate the opposite condi- tions prevailed, and the four other climates —- Autonomous, Controlled, Familiar, and Paternal -- fell in between.34 These organizational climates are quite similar to the classi- fications developed by Chris Argyris and Rensis Likert. Argyris identified four organizational structures that move from Structure 1, Pyramidal Structure, to Structure IV, Power According to Inevitable Organizational Responsibilities.35 The individual in the Pyramidal Structure is dependent and passive and develops a non-participatory political orientation. The individual in the fourth structure is independent and realizes both organizational goals and his own goal of self-actualization. The political orientation of such a person is participatory. Likert developed a similar scheme in which he identified four management systems, the Exploitive Authoritative, the Benevolent Authoritative, the Consultative, and the Participative Group.36 Again in the Exploitive Authoritative the employee is passive and has low participation in the decision-making process. At the other end of the continuum, the Participative Group, the employee is independent and has high participation in the decision- making process. Argyris and Likert discuss the impact of organizational struc- ture upon the behavior and norms of the organizational members. Their 34Andrew W. Halpin, Thepry and Research in Administration, New York: Macmillan, 1966), pp. 170—181. 35Chris Argyris, Op. cit., chp. 9. 36Rensis Likert, The Human Organization (New York: McGraw- Hill, 1967). 12 schemes of classification imply the organizational climates described above. Halpin and Croft directly measure organizational climate and imply the types of organizational structures described by Argyris and Likert. Since my concern is the child in the organization who ob- serves and interacts with the adults, the concept of organizational climate is the more useful to me because it summarizes the adult in— teractions and norms in terms of organizational members interacting with clients. In my case the teachers are the organizational members and the students are the clients. The vast majority of educational research that has used the Halpin-Croft OCDQ has been concerned with how it related to other measures of the adult school organization such as organizational characteristics, teacher and principal attitudes, and community en- vironment.37 Very few have attempted to relate the elementary school organizational climate to student orientations and behavior. The few studies that have attempted to find this relationship have found organizational climate related to student academic achievement. But none has attempted to explain the process by which the elementary school organizational climate is related to student academic achieve- ment. Harris E. Miller found a relationship between the elementary school organizational climate and student achievement as measured by the Longe Thorndike Intelligence Test and the Iowa Tests of Basic 37§£,, Harris E. Miller, "An Investigation of Organizational Climate as a Variable in Pupil Achievement Among 29 Elementary Schools in Urban School Districts," (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1968), p. 40. 13 Skills. He collapsed the six OCDQ climates into two categories, open and closed and he found that as the climate became more open student achievement dropped. Miller explained this by speculating that as teachers satisfied their personal needs they did not meet their task requirements.38 He also speculated that the open climate was more prevalent in the smaller schools and that small school size might explain lower student achievement rather than organizational climate. Having found this relationship Miller did not attempt to explain the process by which organizational climate was related to student achievement. J. Thomas Flagg trying to identify the factors in the school's organization that would contribute to greater achievement in students from low income families found little relationship between organiza- tional climate and student achievement. He found that in Closed organizational climates, student achievement was low but since his study did not deal with any other climates, these findings are of limited value. He also did not attempt to explain the process.39 Jack Hale in examining the eight subtests that compose the Halpin-Croft OCDQ could find no relationship between the subtests and student reading and arithmetic achievement. He did a relationship regarding student language achievement. Hale found the low language achievement was related to the OCDQ subtests of Esprit, Aloofness, and Production Emphasis and that high language achievement was related 38Ibid., pp. 163-165. 39J. Thomas Flagg, "The Organizational Climate of Schools: Its Relationship to Pupil Achievement, Size of School, and Teacher Turn- over," (Ed.D. dissertation, Rutgers, 1964). 14 to high Hindrance.40 However he did not explain or speculate why student language achievement would be related to the OCDQ subtests.41 Bernard E. Farber could only relate teacher dogmatism as measured by the dogmatism scale of Milton Rokeach to the OCDQ sub— test, Production Emphasis. What he found was the more dogmatic the teachers the more the principal used close supervision, i.e., as indi— cated by the OCDQ subtest, Production Emphasis. But no causal rela- tionship was found. Farber did not explore the implications of the finding regarding the role model that the teacher might display to the students.42 Using the reports of the ghetto teachers like Jonathan Kozol, the findings of Almond and Verba, the research of Rosenthal and Jacobson, and the OCDQ research I decided that there would be a good chance of finding a relationship between the elementary school organi— zational climate and student political orientations. I next searched the political socialization literature for models that would explain why this relationship might exist. My search of the literature re- vealed two basic explanations: a cognitive development model and a social learning model. Most of the current political socialization models can be classified using these two basic explanations. 4OThe OCDQ subtests are described in Chapter Three. 41Jack Hale, "A Study of the Relationship Between Selected Factors of Organizational Climate and Pupil Achievement in Reading, Arithmetic, and Language," (Ed.D. dissertation, University of Alabama, 1965). 42Bernard E. Farber, "Organizational Climate of Public Ele- mentary Schools as Related to Dogmatism and Select School and Commun- ity Characteristics," (Ed.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1968). 15 Those using the cognitive development model argue that the learning of political orientations and behavior is a function of the cognitive development of the individual. As Hess and Torney say: This model assumes that the capacity to deal with certain kinds of concepts and information sets limits on the under- standing that can be acquired of political phenomena. The child's conceptions of the political world are modified by his existing cognitive structure. Hess and Torney used this model to explain the age—related differences in elementary school students. They found that as children became older they begin to conceptualize government and laws in abstract terms rather than personal terms. Whereas children in the second and third grades saw the President as making the laws, in the fifth to eighth grades saw the Congress as making the laws, an ever in- creasing majority (from 57% to 85%).44 Hess and Torney also noted an age-related decline in the per- ception of the laws as just and unchanging. They saw this decline a function of the child's cognitive development, believed that this finding supported Lawrence Kohlberg's interpretation of Jean Piaget's theory of moral development. Hess and Torney noted: ...conceiving rules as sacred and unchangeable results from two cignitive defects in children: egocentrism (the inability to see moral values as related to persons other than oneself) and realism (the conception that rules are not subjective phenomena). 43Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney, op. cit., p. 21. 44Ibid., p. 35. 45Ibid., p. 52. 16 The research of Joseph Adelson and Robert P. O'Neil supports the findings of Barbel Inhelder and Jean Piaget and also Hess and Torney. Adelson and O'Neil found that students during the period of adolescence from the ages of 11 to 18 display a marked shift in their cognitive basis for political discourse: ...the e1even:year-old has not achieved the capacity for formal operations. His thinking is concrete and egocentric, tied to the present; he is unable to envision long-range social consequences; he cannot comfortably reason from prem- ises; he has not attained hypothetico deductive modes of analysis...the thirteenjyear-olds... are on the thresthold of mature modes of reasoning...the fifteen-year-old has an assured grasp of formal though. He neither hesitates nor falters in dealing with the abstract...the eighteen-year:old is, in other words, the fifteen-year-old, only more 30.56 Whereas according to Adelson and O'Neil, the eleven-year-olds are "in Piaget's sense, egocentric, in that they cannot transcend a purely personal approach to matters which require a sociocentric perspec— tive," the older students view politics from an abstract ideological perspective.47 Hess and Torney also saw intelligence as measured by IQ scores as an indicator of the cognitive development of the student. But intelligence has little effect that is independent of social class. Hess and Torney say: Basic attachment to the nation and the government, and the acceptance of compliance to law and authority are relatively unaffected by social class and by the mediation of intelli- gence in the learning process. 46Joseph Adelson and Robert P. O'Neil, "Growth of Political Ideas in Adolescence: The Sense of Community," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4 (l966):306. 471b1d., p. 297. 48Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney, op. cit., p. 171. 17 Although they argue that, "the acquisition of more active and initiatory aspects of political involvement (activities, efficacy, participation in discussion, interest) is strongly affected by IQ and by social status,"49 their own data does not seem completely to support this conclusion at least in terms of IQ. In the case of their measure of political activity where the students were asked whether or not they had worn a campaign button, read about a candidate, or had helped a candidate, it is quite clear that the higher the social status of the student regardless of IQ score, the greater the student political activity. Elliott S. White, in analyzing the same data using multiple regression analysis and making a controversial assumption50 that IQ and social class were independent variables concluded that IQ pre— dicted more of the variance in individual political efficacy than social class. But due to the questionable assumption he made about the independence of social class and IQ scores his findings should be viewed with some scepticism. The primary value of using the cognitive development model is that one can determine at what age different types of political orientations are likely to be learned by the students. Much of the political socialization research has merely documented the operation of this model by showing that as a child becomes older his perceptions and orientations toward the political system become conceptually more 49Ibid., p. 166. 50ChristOpher Jencks, et al., op. cit., p. 77—81. 18 complex and abstract. Assuming this all to be true one needs to know the process by which these political orientations and behavior are learned. Those using a social learning model argue that political orientations and behavior are learned through a process of imitation. The student reproduces "the actions, attitudes or emotional responses exhibited by real-life or symbolized models."51 Albert Bandura and Richard H. Walters have labeled this process of imitation observational learning. In observational learning deviant or conforming behavior are "changed as a function of observing the behavior of others and its response consequences without the observer's performing any overt responses himself or receiving any direct reinforcement during the acquisition period."52 According to Bandura and Walters observational learning is: highly prevalent among Homo sapiens, exceedingly efficient, and in cases where errors are dangerous or costly, becomes an indis- pensable means of transmitting and modifying behavior reper- tories. For example, one does not employ trial-and-error or operant conditioning methods in training children to swim, adoles- cents to drive an automobile, or in getting adults to acquire vocational skills. Indeed, if training proceeded in this manner, very few persons would ever survive the process of socialization. It is evident from informal observation that the behavior of models is utilized extensively to accelerate the acquisition process, and to prevent one-trial extinction of the organism in situations where an error may produce fatal consequences. 51Albert Bandura and Richard H. Walters, Social Learning and Personality Development (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963), p. 89. 52Ibid., p. 47. 53Albert Bandura, "Behavior Modification Through Modeling Pro- cedures," in Leonard Krasner and Leonard Ullman (eds.), Research in Behavior Modification (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965), p. 312. 19 Finally Bandura and Walters have noted that the responses learned via observational learning are generalized to other situations that are similar. Over time the person learns the appropriate extent of the generalization by learning to discriminate the relevant cues from the irrelevant ones.54 Several political socialization researchers have suggested that the observational learning process is an appropriate way to explain the learning of political orientations and behavior by elementary school students. Hess and Torney have developed a direct and indirect model both which use an observational learning process. In the direct model, the Identification Model, there is no generaliza- tion because political orientations and behavior are directly learned. In the indirect model, the Interpersonal Transfer Model, there is generalization because the learned orientations and behavior are not explicitly political. Hess and Torney's Identification Model, "stresses the child's imitation of the behavior of some significant other person -- usually a parent or a teacher."55 They found that this model explained why children adopted the same political party preference as their parents even when the children did not know the position of the political party on various issues. Identification also explained the child's feeling of political efficacy, i.e., his perception of his own ability to influence the governing process. The higher the family 54Albert Bandura and Richard H. Walters, op. cit., pp. 8—9. 55Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney, op. cit., p. 21. 20 social status the higher the child's feeling of political efficacy.56 According to Hess and Torney: The family's impact in this area is more likely to come from the child's observation of his parents' behavior and from identification with their pattern of participation and expressions of efficacy, than from the child's experience of effectiveness in influencing family decisions. The Interpersonal Transfer Model of Hess and Torney assumes that the child approaches explicit political social- ization already possessing a fund of experience in interper- sonal relationships and gratifications. By virtue of his experience as a child in the family and as a pupil in the school, he has developed multifaceted relationships to figures of authority. In subsequent relationships with figures of authority, he will establish modes of interaction which are similar to those he has experienced with persons in his early life.58 This model explains why Hess and Torney found that young children first viewed the government as personalized authority. The child according to them initially conceptualizes the family authority system as, "per- sons to whom the child can relate."59 This personalized conception of authority is transferred to the government which the child perceives as the President and to the origin of laws and government administra- tion which the child sees the President again as the lawmaker when given a choice betweenthe Congress and the Supreme Court. The Interpersonal Transfer Model also explains how the differ- ent sex roles of boys and girls are transferred to different role exPectations in the political system. Hess and Torney found that 56Ibid., p. 90. 57Ibid., p. 146. 58Ibid., p. 20. 591bid., p. 32. 21 boys, "are more interested in political matters than girls in grades four through seven."60 These different political roles are trans- ferred from the sex roles of their parents with men behaving more ag- gressive and independent and mother acting more passive and dependent. Herbert Hirsch used an observational learning model to explore the influence of the family, peer group, school, and mass media upon the political orientations of elementary and secondary school students in Knox County, Kentucky. Hirsch used Albert Bandura's concept of observational learning where the learner is exposed to symbolic or, "real—life models who perform, intentionally or unwittingly, patterns of behavior that may be imitated by others."61 The family, peer group, and school presented live models and the mass media symbolic models. The political content of these models was not conceptually complex and as a result most of the political content could not be classified as favoring a subject or participant political orientation. The parent model was classified according to political party identification and interest in politics, the school was classified as either teaching a civics class or not, and the mass media in terms of student exposure to news stories. The political orientations of the students were measured along three general dimensions: political party identification, interest in politics, and political knowledge. The political knowledge index was composed of six items relating to 60Ibid., p. 186. 61Herbert Hirsch, Poverty and Politicization (New York: Free Press, 1971), p. 22. The quotations are from Albert Bandura, op. cit., pp. 312-314. 22 the functions of government at the local, state, and national level.62 Hirsch did not attempt except at a very general level to see what kinds of political orientations were being transmitted primarily due to the general measures that he used on the models and the learners. Hirsch primarily tried to ascertain what factor influenced the observational learning process. He examined the following four factors identified by Albert Bandura:63 l. the child's perception of the model's orientation to political stimuli which was not related to the salience of the four agents; 2. the intellectual and voca- tional status of the model which also was not related; 3. the sex of the learner in which Hirsch found that, "the Appalachian female ap- pears to be more politically oriented than the Appalachian male";64 and 4. model contiguity: in this case, father absence from home, the mother, peers, and media all increase in rank as agents of information transmission and furthermore, when the father is absent the child is more likely to identify with the political party of his mother and peers. Hirsch concluded that the observational learning model when used to explain children's political orientations in Knox County, Kentucky could explain why some agents are more influential than others. "When the efficacy of one model is impaired, the child will look to alternative models who can provide him with cues or resources 62Herbert Hirsch, op. cit., p. 170. 63Ibid., p. 46. 64 Ibid., p. 140. 651bid., p. 140. 23 which he is seeking."66 In Hirsch's study the most important factors affecting the observational learning process were the sex of the learner and the contiguity of the agent. Both the Hess-Torney and Hirsch studies have indicated that the observation learning model can explain differences in student political orientations and behavior. Both hint that the models that the children observe can be related to the children's political thinking. The Hess-Torney study presents some evidence that indicates that low socio—economic students are being socialized into political orientations that predispose them toward subject behavior, i.e., low sense of political efficacy, high apathy, and low political activity. Even though the teacher provides a salient model for political learn- ing, Hess and Torney found that, in spite of the children's greater sensitivity to the influence of the school, "children in working class areas of the city are less completely socialized (in the sense of being prepared for political participation) than children from middle class homes."67 This indicates that the elementary school generates orientations unfavorable to participation in the political system among students of low socio-economic status. It would seem that the organizational climate of an elementary school might be source of models that the students observe and pos— sibly imitate. The student could either imitate the model as reflected by the individual teacher or the student could observe the interaction 66Ibid., p. 141. 67Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney,Op. cit., p. 225. 24 patterns of the entire elementary school staff. There are at least two ways the organizational climate could be related to student political orientations and behavior. What this exploratory study is trying to find out is whether the elementary school organizational climate reinforces a belief in these children that they are merely passive subjects, or are there factors of the school climate that reinforce the belief that the student can be an active participant in the American political system? f3 CHAPTER TWO METHODS A. RESEARCH DESIGN The purpose of this research design is to find the independent contributions of the various factors of the elementary school organiza- tional climate by controlling for the influence of the sex of the teacher and student, the race of the interviewer and student, and the socio-economic status and age of the student. Control was introduced in two ways: first, by selecting the elementary schools to be studied and second, statistically by using control variables in a multivariate analysis. For the reasons explained in Chapter One, the sample of elementary schools was selected so as to contain a predominance of low socio—economic status students. Fourteen of the schools selected were receiving State of Michigan financial support for the education of culturally and economically deprived students funded under Section 3 of Act. No. 312 of the Public Acts of 1957, as amended, of the State of Michigan. For a school to receive Section 3 aid it had to meet the following five criteria: 1. A high proportion of students who are recipients of aid from welfare and Aid to Dependent Children. 25 26 2. A high proportion of students who live in broken homes, "who are members of family units where one parent is not living in the home."1 3. A high proportion of "American Indian, Negro, or members of Spanish speaking groups...or other migrant Caucasians engaged in transient agricultural employment."2 4. A high proportion of students who reside in sub-standard housing, i.e., "Housing identifiable as sub-standard (clearance or rehabilitation) according to standards established by the federal government."3 5. A school attendance area which is characterized by a high density of school age population. Section 3 of Act No. 312 contains a point score schedule related to the school percentage of density level for each of the five criteria and the school which has the highest percentage or density level receives the most money. The point score schedule gives greater weight to two of the criteria: first, the school percentage regar-ding students who are recipients of aid from welfare and Aid to Dependent Children and second, the school percentage regarding non- White students. As a result the Section 3 schools contain a PredOminance of non-White students. Since I was also interested in examining schools that contained White students of low socio-economic \ " 1Michigan, Department of Education, State Board of Education, State Aid for Culturally and Economically Deprived Students," (Lansing: Secretary of State, August 29, 1969). 2Ib id . 3Ib1d. 27 status, I added four elementary schools to the sample that were not receiving Section 3 aid but were of low socio-economic status and had a greater predominance of White students. These were elementary schools numbers 4, l4, l7, and 18. A summary of the characteristics of the eighteen schools is shown in Table 2-1. The neighboring environment of the school was controlled in that each was located in the inner-city section of one of two urban school districts located in one of two medium-sized Michigan cities of approximately 100,000 population. Student age was controlled by having only fifth-grade students answer the Civic Education Questionnaire. The average age of the student respondents was 10.7 years with only slight variation among the schools. All but one sample classroom in the eighteen schools cooperated. A total of forty—four fifth-grade classrooms completed the Civic Education Questionnaire. Thus through sample selection it was possible to control for school socio-economic status and student age . Control was also introduced by selecting variables to use in the least squares equation when calculating the multiple correlation coefficient. Five control variables that could meet three conditions were selected. First, the control variable needed to be conceptually related to the dependent variable, i.e., the. student political orienta- tion. Second, the control variables needed to be related statistic- ally to variations in the dependent variable. Third, the control variables needed to be independent of each other so that a least squares equation could be used. manmflam>< uoz 28 N cmuwafino ucowammmn ou wH< “02 N canvases “assesses ou eHumuaH ucwpnum uamvaum >H HHH HH H «0 mo mo mo mo scuomm uouumm uouomm Houomm xom xom comm comm mum mmqm AOMHZOU mmH UZOZ< mZOHHHQUGH MO 006% UGOUSUW MO 00mm aneaum mo mum >H nouumm HHH uouomm HH Houomm H Houomm 32 Michigan but rather to enjoy each other's company. Thus when I find Factors II or III explaining the variance in student political orienta- tions it could also be explained by the sex and socio—economic status of the student. Conversely any explanation by the sex or socio- economic status of the student could also be explained by Factors II or III. Control variable one was student sex. Each school was assigned a percentage based on the number of boys in the fifth—grade class as shown in Table 2—3. Much evidence indicates that elementary school age boys view politics and the political system differently from girls. Fred 1. Greenstein found that boys were more political than girls, knowing more political information and more likely to suggest political solutions to societal problems.5 Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney concluded that, "boys consistently display more active involvement and politicized concern than girls, especially in partisanship and in polarization on political issues."6 Control variable two as shown in Table 2—3 was student race. Each school was assigned a percentage based on the number of Black students in the fifth-grade class. This percentage correlated -.97 with the school student racial proportion, .73 with the teacher racial proportion for the school, and .62 with the teacher racial proportion of the fifth-grade classes. The class student racial proportion was 5Fred 1. Greenstein, Children and Politics (New Haven: Yale U.P., 1965), pp. 115-118. 6Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney, The Development of Eglitical Attitudes in Children (Chicago: Aldine, 1967), p. 194. 33 TABLE 2-3 CONTROL VARIABLES Percentage Percent Percent Mean Percentage Non-White Mean Male Non—White 5th Boys in Students SES 5th Grade Interviewer Grade School Class in Class Score Teachers of Class Age 1 54.0 100.0 .6059 66.7 33.3 10.6 2 49.1 100.0 .5763 50.0 50.0 10.6 3 39.0 97.6 .5300 0 50.0 10.5 4 48.2 66.7 .5696 66.7 33.3 10.7 5 47.5 92.9 .4895 66.7 33.3 10.6 6 48.9 100.0 .4959 0 0 10.7 7 41.5 88.7 .5091 50.0 50.0 10.7 8 54.1 97.3 .4224 50.0 50.0 10.5 9 60.5 2.7 .4466 50.0 0 10.9 10 55.6 88.9 .4335 50.0 50.0 10.8 11 53.1 4.1 .3844 100.0 50.0 10.8 12 54.2 94.4 .4875 66.7 33.3 10.6 13 55.7 94.9 .4288 20.0 20.0 10.7 14 54.6 4.6 .5168 100.0 0 10.8 15 44.2 93.0 .4072 50.0 50.0 10.5 16 42.5 84.9 .5047 33.3 33.3 10.7 17 45.5 4.6 .5217 O 50.0 10.5 18 50.0 0 .5057 60.0 33.3 10.5 Mean 49.7 72.1 .4909 48.9 35.6 10.7 SU [30 fr Qu th 34 used because it is the racial measure most directly associated with the student political orientations. Edward S. Greenberg found much evidence to indicate that Black student political orientations differed from those of White students. He found that "black children seem to arrive at a 'subject' stance toward the political order, as opposed to a 'participant' stance" for White children.7 Greenberg concluded that "there are tendencies for Negroes and Whites to both see and evaluate the political community, the regime, and authority figures differently."8 For Greenberg a subject orientation is where the student views himself as a passive member of the political system, a participant orientation is where the student views himself as an active, influential member of the political system. Control variable three as shown in Table 2—3 was student socio— economic status, SES, for the entire school. This mean was calculated from the responses of the students to questions in the Civic Education Questionnaire9 concerning the occupations of their mother and father. An SES percentile score was assigned to each student on the basis of his responses to questions 28 and 29. Table 2-4 shows the SES percentile score for each occupation. Two SES percentile scores were assi ned to each student one for the father's occu ation, the g 9 P 7Edward S. Greenberg, "Political Socialization to Support of the System: A Comparison of Black and White Children" (Ph.D. disser- tation, University of Wisconsin, 1969), p. 228. 81bid., p. 247. 9Ef,, Appendix C. 35 TABLE 2-4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS PERCENTILE SCORESl Mbther - Question 28 Item Percentage Cumulative Socio-Economic Number N of Total Midpoint Percentage Status Score 5. 103 .1580 .0789 .1580 .0790 2. 278 .4264 .2131 .5844 .3712 3. 137 .2101 .1050 .7945 .6894 4. 134 .2055 .1027 1.0000 .8972 Father - Question 29 Item Percentage Cumulative Socio-Economic Number N of Total Midpoint Percentage Status Score 7. 34 .0468 .0234 .0468 .0234 1. 401 .5523 .2761 .5991 .3229 2. 135 .1859 .0929 .7850 .6920 3. 77 .1060 .0530 .8911 .8380 4. 24 .0330 .0165 .9242 .9076 5. 41 .0564 .0282 .9807 .9524 6. 14 .0192 .0096 1.0000 .9903 1Each student was assigned the highest of the two socio-economic status scores, the school mean was assigned to each school. The socio-economic status score correlated highly with all the cate— gories and is the single best predictor of the variation in Questions 28 and 29. 36 other for the mother's. The higher of these two scores was then assigned to the student. Only one score was assigned because some of the children had only one parent. Finally a mean SES score was assigned to each school. Table 2-5 shows the rank of the occupation choices contained in questions 28 and 29. Question 28 concerning the mother's occupa- tion had six items of which two do not indicate SES, "She stays home most of the time and has no job" and "I do not know what my Mother or ' The four remaining items were ranked from low to Guardian does.‘ high SES, then each item was assigned a percentile score derived from the remainder of the sample. The same procedure was applied to ques— tion 29 concerning the father's occupation. The elementary schools were selected so as to contain a pre- dominance of low socio-economic status students because these students are more sensitive to the influence of the school.10 However it was still necessary to control for the socio-economic status, variations among the schools because as can be seen from Table 2-1, there were important socio-economic differences among the schools. Fred I. Greenstein concluded that lower socio-economic status elementary school students "show a greater deference toward political leadership; unlike upper-status children they do not begin to display in sixth, seventh, and eighth grades a sense that political choices are theirs to make -- their judgments are worth acting upon."11 When Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney studied only white children they IOEE, Chapter One explains this point more fully. llFred I. Greenstein, op. cit., p. 106. Rank (1=1ow) 1. 2. W Ran 1. 37 TABLE 2-5 INDICATORS OF PARENT'S SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS Description and SES Rank of Mother's Occupation Occupation She is looking for a job. She works in a factory, laundry, restaurant, hotel, or house as a maid or waitress or some other job where she works with her hands. She works as a saleslady, clerk, or secretary. She owns a small store. She wears a uniform or nice clothes to work. She is a teacher, social worker, lawyer, nurse or some job like that. She has a college training for her job. Description and SES Rank of Father's Occupation (1=1ow) Occupation He is looking for a job. He works in a factory or mill, or as a truck driver, janitor, or some other job where he works with his hands. He works with his hands in a job that takes a long time to learn like a carpenter, an electrician, a plumber, a TV repairman, a machinist, etc. He works in an office, or store for somebody else. He works as a salesman, clerk, or bookkeeper. He owns a service station, laundry or small store. He is a fireman, soldier, policeman, or works for the government. He usually wears a uniform or a white shirt and tie to work. He works in an office as a manager or executive. He is a doctor, lawyer, teacher, engineer or some job like that. He owns a large business, like a factory or a big store. 38 concluded that social class differences in political orientations were minimal and measured intelligence could explain the differences better. Their data, however, reveals clearly that even students of low measured intelligence differ according to their social status. Politi- cal efficacy interest in government, and political participation are all lower for the low status fifth and sixth grade student who has low measured intelligence.12 Edward S. Greenberg also found that children of different social classes differed in their perception of the government. Lower class children viewed themselves as subjects of the government while middle class children saw themselves as participants in the government.13 Control variable four as shown in Table 2-3 was the sex of the teacher. Each school was assigned a percentage based on the pro- portion of male teachers in the fifth-grade classes. I found that when the students ranked the people who taught them the most about being a good citizen, the teacher was ranked above the parents. When I broke down this response by sex I found that the students ranked the mother first, followed by the female teacher, male teacher, and father. The minister, television, and books were ranked much lower. Given the sex-typing that creates different role models for American males and females, I decided to control for the sex of the teacher. 12 153, 155. 13 .14Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch (New York: McGraw-Hill, Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney, op. cit., pp. 150-1, Edward S. Greenberg, op. cit., pp. 159, 161. 1971). 39 Control variable five as shown in Table 2-3 was the race of the interviewer. Each school was assigned a percentage based upon the number of classes in which a Black man administered the Civic Educa- tion Questionnaire. In the rest of the classes the questionnaire was administered by a White man. Each interviewer was assigned an equal proportion of predominantly White and Black classes taught by either a Black or White teacher. I was controlling for a bias in the student response due to the race of the person administering the questionnaire. William Brick and Lou Harris found a significant difference in questionnaire responses due to the race of the interviewer.15 Also some psychological testing literature indicates a response bias due to interviewer race. B. QUESTIONNAIRES The Civic Education Questionnaire as shown in Appendix C was administered to 1027 fifth-grade students in 44 classrooms in 18 elementary schools during Spring, 1970. The questionnaire was read to the students who circled the appropriate response. The administration time was approximately 45 minutes. Table 2-6 shows the response rate for the students. 15William Brink and Lou Harris, The Negro Revolution in America (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1964). 16Irwin Katz, J. M. Robinson, E. G. Epps, and Patricia Waly, "The Effects of Race of Experimenter and Test Versus Neutral Instruc— tions on Expressions of Hostility," Journal of Social Issues 20 School 1 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Mean 40 TABLE 2-6 RESPONSE RATE TO QUESTIONNAIRES Percentage Students Civic Education Questionnaire 92.6 98.1 93.2 95.3 97.1 94.0 89.8 97.4 90.4 95.7 92.5 94.7 94.2 100.0 91.5 98.6 91.7 92.1 94.4 Percentage Teachers OCDQ 55.6 81.3 26.7 72.7 73.1 100.0 38.9 64.7 100.0 62.5 80.0 61.5 96.4 60.0 81.0 87.5 100.0 100.0 74.6 41 This questionnaire, a shortened version of the one developed by Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney, measured five sets of ques- tions relating to the student political self.17 The first three sets measured student political orientations toward aspects of the .American political system: political community, regime, and authori- ties. The fourth set measures student political knowledge and the fifth student political behavior. The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire, OCDQ, as shown in Appendix A was completed by 266 teachers in 18 elementary schools. The questionnaire required approximately 20 minutes to com- plete. Table 2-6 shows the response rate for the teachers. The OCDQ contains eight subtests as shown in Appendix B. The organizational climate of each school was measured by using the OCDQ developed by Andrew W. Halpin and Donald B. Croft.18 Replicating their method I obtained four factors and a factor score for each school on each factor. Fipgp, I calculated an average score for each teacher on each of the eight subtests.19 Second, using the average teacher scores, I calculated an average score for the school on each of the eight subtests. Third, I normatively standardized the eight subtest scores for the 18 schools using a mean of 50 and a 17Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney, The Development of Basic Attitudes and Values Toward Government and Citizenship during the Elementary School Years, Part I. Washington, D. C.: HEW, Office of Education, CRP-1078,(1965). 18Andrew W. Halpin and Donald B. Croft, The Organizational Climate of Schools, Washington, D. C.: HEW, Office of Education, CRP-543, July, 1962. 19OCDQ questions 6, 10, 27, 55, and 65 were scored negatively, C£., Appendix B. 42 standard deviation of 10 for each subtest.20 Fourth, I ipsatively standardized each of the 18 schools' eight subtest scores using a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10 for each school.21 Normative and ipsative standardization creates a double—centered matrix. When this matrix is factor analyzed each factor identified can be related simultaneously to each individual school and all of the subtests of the OCDQ. Halpin and Croft borrowed this technique from Donald W. Broverman.22 Fifph, applying a varimax rotational factor analysis to the eight double-standardized subtests scores, I identified four factors of the elementary school's organizational climate. Sixph, for each school a factor score was calculated for each of the four factors. Each factor score indicates at which end of the factor the school is located and how closely the school approaches the end of the factor.23 ONormative standardization standardizes one school's subtest score in terms of the mean of all the other schools' score on the same subtest. This method shows how one school's subtest score is related, either high, low, or the same, to the other schools' subtest scores. For a detailed discussion see Donald M. Broverman, "Normative and Ipsative Measurement in Psychology," Psychological Review, 69 (July, 1962): 295-305 and "Effects of Score Transformations in Q and R Factor Analysis Techniques," Psychological Review, 68 (January, 1961), 68-70. 21Ipsative standardization standardizes the eight school sub- test scores in terms of the mean of these eight subtest scores. This method shows how each of the eight subtest scores are related, either high, low, or the same, to each other. For a detailed discussion see Donald M. Broverman, op. cit. 22Cf. Andrew W. Halpin, Theory and Research in Administration (New York: Macmillan, 1966), pp. 167-168. 23R. J. Rummel, Applied Factor Analysis (Evanston: North- western U.P., 1970), pp. 150-155. 43 The unit of analysis was the elementary school. I used a least squares delete computer program, LSDEL,24 to assess the contri- bution of the nine independent school variables to the dependent variable, a student political orientation. The nine independent variables are: the four organizational climate factor scores and the five control variables -- teacher sex, interviewer race, student race, sex, and socio-economic status. The dependent variable is the school average response to a question from the Civic Education Questionnaire. For each student political orientation the LSDEL computer routine operated the following way: Figsp, a multiple correlation coefficient was computed between the orientation and the nine control variables. Second, the multiple correlation coefficient was tested for significance using an analysis of variance test. Thipd, for each control variable's contribution to the multiple correlation coeffici- ent a partial correlation coefficient was computed. Fourth, each partial correlation coefficient was tested for significance using an analysis of variance test. Fifph, assuming the deletion of one of the control variables, the percentage of variance explained by the rest of the control variables is calculated. Sixph, the routine stopped if all the partial correlation coefficients were significant at .05 or less. If there were partial correlation coefficients significant at .051 or greater then the control variable with the 24Mary E. Rafter and William L. Ruble, "Stepwise Deletion of Variables from a Least Squares Equation," (East Lansing: Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, STAT Series Description No. 8. LSDEL, 1969). 44 largest significance was deleted from the least squares equation. The routine was repeated until either all the control variables were deleted or those that remained had partial correlation coefficients that were significant at .05 or less. CHAPTER THREE THE FOUR ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FACTORS A. THE CONCEPT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE Even though all elementary school teachers are formally re- quired to perform the same task for each grade level due to a common curricula, they differ in the way they interpret this formal task. These differences are apparent when one visits the school and also when one visits the classroom. This research report in using the concept of organizational climate focusses upon differences among schools rather than the differences among classrooms within a school. Since this exploratory study assumes that the political role model of the individual teacher and the entire staff results from in- teractions with the rest of the members of the elementary school, understanding the school's organizational climate is important. In order to understand the model that the teacher or the entire staff displays to the children in the classroom or school one needs to know the organizational setting in which the teacher and staff interact. An organizational setting can influence the way the individuals perform given tasks as Renato Tagiuri points out ...climate and many related terms such as environment, situa- tion, conditions, and circumstances have been widely used to explain that a person or a group can behave in very different ways, even when faced with similar tasks and problems.1 1Renato Tagiuri and George H. Litwin (eds.) Organizational Climate (Cambridge: Harvard, 1968), p. 11. 45 46 The concept of organizational climate is especially useful according to Tagiuri "when it is desired to hold the task constant and to ex- press the character of an enduring situation."2 The character of an enduring situation can be specified by making qualitative distinctions among similar organizations. Quality is defined in terms of a set of variables, e.g., price, workmanship, ingredients, but it is not the set of variables, e.g., price, workmanship, ingredients. It is, rather, a con— figuration of values of such price, good workmanship, rare in— gradients.3 This configuration of values Renato Tagiuri calls organizational climate. Organizational climate is a relative enduring quality of the internal environment of an organization that (a) is experi- enced by its members, (b) influences their behavior, and (c) can be described in terms of the values of a particular set of characteristics (or attributes) of the organization. Chris Argyris in studying a bank of a period of three years used the concept of organizational climate to explain the bank's con- figuration of formal organizational patterns, personnel personality variables, and informal organizational patterns. He defined organiza— tional climate as, "the homeostatic state of an organization."5 Argyris predicted the organizational climate would remain stable over time until change occurred in the conditions in which the organization 2Ibid., pp. 22-23. 3Ibid., p. 27. 4Ibid. SChris Argyris, "Some Problems in Conceptualizing Organiza— tional Climate: A Case Study of a Bank," Administrative Science Quarterly 2(1958), p. 516. 47 operated and in the values of the personnel. Argyris in later studies has shown how organizational climate influences individual behavior and how the climate may be changed. Francis G. Cornell, working independently of Argyris, examined four school systems and found that no two were alike in their organi- zational climate and that these differences were more important in effecting teacher behavior than specific administrative acts related to the daily operation of the organization. Cornell defined organiza- tional climate as, "a delicate blending of interpretations by persons in the organization of their jobs or roles in relationship to others and their interpretations of the roles of others in the organiza- tion."7 Cornell did not relate teacher role interpretations to stu- dent role interpretations. Andrew W. Halpin and Donald B. Croft also viewed organiza- tional climate in terms of the quality of interpersonal interactions in an organization and describe organizational climate similar to the personality of an individual. Their major contribution has been to develop an operational definition of the elementary school organiza- tional climate with the Organizational Climate Description Question- naire, OCDQ.8 6Cf., Chris Argyris, Integrating the Individual and the Organ- ization (NEE York: Wiley, 1964) and Chris Argyris, Intervention Theory and Method (Reading, Mass.: Addison:Wesley, 1970). 7Francis G. Cornell, "Socially Perceptive Administration," The Phi Delta Kappan 36 (March, 1955), p. 221 8Andrew W. Halpin and Donald B. Croft, The Organizational Climate of Schools (Washington, D. C.: HEW, Office of Education, 48 The OCDQ characterizes the organization of an elementary school by measuring teacher and administrator perceptions of their mutual interactions. The OCDQ consists of eight subtests. Four of the subtests measure the teachers' perception of their interaction with other teachers in terms of Disengagement, Hindrance, Esprit and Intimacy. These four subtests are defined as follows: 1. DISENGAGEMENT refers to the teachers' tendency to be 'not with it.‘ This dimension describes a group which is 'going through the motions,‘ a group that is 'not in gear' with respect to the task at hand. It corresponds to the more general concept of anomie as first described by Durkheim. In short this subtest focusses upon the teachers' behavior in task oriented situation. HINDRANCE refers to the teachers' feeling that the principal burdens them with routine duties, committee demands, and other requirements which the teachers construe as unneces- sary busywork. The teachers perceive that the principal is hindering rather than facilitating their work. ESPRIT refers to 'morale.' The teachers feel that their social needs are being satisfied, and that they are, at the same time, enjoying a sense of accomplishment in their job. INTIMACY refers to the teachers' enjoyment of friendly social relations with each other. This dimension describes a social-needs satisfaction which $3 not necessarily as— sociated with task-accomplishment. - The other four subtests for Aloofness, Production Emphasis, Thrust, and Consideration, measure teachers' erce tions of the P P principal's behavior. These four subtests are defined as follows: 5. ALOOFNESS refers to behavior by the principal which is characterized as formal and impersonal. He 'goes by the book' and prefers to be guided by rules and policies rather than to deal with the teachers in an informal, face-to-face situation. His behavior, in brief, is 9Ibid., p. 40. group members is genuine." social needs satisfaction." 49 universalistic rather than particularistic; nomothetic rather than idiosyncratic. To maintain this style, he keeps himself--at least, 'emotionally'-- at a distance from his staff. PRODUCTION EMPHASIS refers to behavior by the principal which is characterized by close supervision of the staff. He is highly directive, and plays the role of a 'straw boss.‘ His communication tends to go in only one direc- tion, and he is not sensitive to feedback from his staff. THRUST refers to behavior by the principal which is characterized by his evident effort in trying to 'move the organization.‘ 'Thrust' behavior is marked not by close supervision, but by the principal's attempt to motivate the teachers through the example which he per— sonally sets. Apparently, because he does not ask the teachers to give of themselves any more than he willing- ly gives of himself, his behavior, though starkly task- oriented, is nonetheless viewed favorably by the teachers. CONSIDERATION refers to behavior by the principal which is characterized by an inclination to treat the teachers 'humanly' to try to do a little something extra for them in human terms. 0 Andrew W. Halpin and Donald B. Croft using a varimax rotational factor analysis on the eight subtest scores identified three factors of the elementary school organizational climate. These three factors they called Authenticity, Satisfaction, and Leadership Initiation. Authenticity refers to the degree in, "that the actions of the group members emerge freely and without restraint....the behavior of the 11 Satisfaction, "pertains primarily to the style of organizational behavior in respect to social-control versus 12 At one end of the factor, "there is a 10Ibid., pp. 40—41. 11Ibid., p. 99. 12 Ibid., p. 100. 50 a preoccupation with achievement; in the other, an overconcern with satisfying social needs."13 Leadership Initiation refers, "to the source of attempted leadership acts: whether they originate primarily 14 from the group or from the leader." After selecting those schools which loaded very high, either positively or negatively, on one of the factors and very low on the other two factors, Halpin and Croft derived six organizational cli- mates defined by a high loading on one of the factors. From Factor I, Authenticity, came the Open and Closed climates defined as follows: The Open Climate describes an energetic, lively organization which is moving towards its goals, and which provides satis- faction for the group members' social needs. Leadership acts emerge easily and appropriately from.both the group and the leader. The members are preoccupied disproportionately with neither task achievement nor social-needs satisfaction; satis- faction on both counts seems to be obtained easily and almost effortlessly. The main characteristic of this climate is the "authenticity" of the behavior that occurs among all members. The Closed Climate is characterized by a high degree of apathy on the part of all members of the organization. The organization is not "moving"; esprit is low because the group members secure neither social-needs satisfaction nor the satis- faction that comes from task achievement. The members' behavior can be construed as "inauthentic"; indeed, the organization seems to be stagnant.15 From Factor 11, Satisfaction, came the Controlled and Familiar climates defined as follows: The Controlled Climate is characterized best as impersonal and highly task-oriented. The group's behavior is directed toward task-accomplishment, while relatively little attention is given to behavior oriented to social-needs satisfaction. Esprit is fairly high, but it reflects achievement at some 13Ibid., p. 100. 14Ib1d., p. 102. 15Andrew W. Halpin and Donald B. Croft, "The Organizational Climate of the School," Administrators Notebook, 11 (March, 1963), pp. 1-2. 51 expense to social-needs satisfaction. This climate lacks openness, or "authenticity" of behavior, because the group is disproportionately preoccupied with task achievement. The Familiar Climate is highly personal, but uncontrolled. The members of this organization satisfy their social needs, but pay relatively little attention to social control in respect to task accomplishment. Accordingly, esprit is not extremely high simply because the group members secure lit- tle satisfaction from task achievement. Hence, much of the behavigr within the climate can be construed as "inauthen- tic." From Factor III, Leadership Initiation, came the Autonomous and Paternal Climates as defined below: The Autonomous Climate is described as one in which leader- ship acts emerge primarily from the group. The leader exerts little control over the group members; high esprit results primarily from social-needs satisfaction. Satisfaction from task-achievement is also present, but to a lesser degree. The Paternal Climate is characterized best as one in which the principal constrains the emergence of leadership acts from the group and attempts to initiate most of the acts him— self. The leadership skills within the group are not used to supplement the principal's own ability to initiate leadership acts. Accordingly, some leadership acts are not even attempted. In short, little satisfaction is obtained in respect to either achievement or social needs; hence esprit among the members is low.17 The problem of this method is that it uses only one of these three factors to characterize the school and ignores the other two. Examination of the Halpin-Croft data reveals that only one out of the seventy-one schools loaded high on one factor and near zero on the other two.18 The remaining schools loaded at various levels on all 16Ibid., pp. 1-2. 17Ib1d., pp. 1-2. 18Andrew W. Halpin, Theory and Research in Administration (New York: Macmillan, 1966), pp. 171-173. 52 three factors. This procedure discards a great deal of information which may be useful in explaining the influence of the organizational climate on the students. This may explain why John M. Andrews observed that "the overall climate does not predict anything that the subtests do not predict better."19 Andrews concluded that the OCDQ subtests "provide reasonably valid measures of important aspects of the leadership of the school principal in a perspective of interaction with his staff."20 Allan F. Brown and John H. House observed that of the over 100 studies using the OCDQ most have "uncritically accepted the instrument and the climates in the original form."21 Rather than uncritically accept the Halpin-Croft organizational climates as valid I replicated their method on my OCDQ data. My repli- cation did not reveal the same three factors they identified as can be seen in Table 3-1 where the subtests loaded differently. This is not surprising as the Halpin—Croft sample of schools was more White middle class and non-urban than was mine. In replicating the Halpin-Croft varimax rotational factor analysis I noticed a fourth factor with eigen value greater than 1.0. Since this was the criterion that Halpin and Croft had used in selecting factors, I used a four factor solution to 19John H. M. Andrews, "Some Validity Studies of the OCDQ," (Paper read at the American Research Association, Chicago, February 10, 1965), p. 37. 201bid., p. 38. 21Alan F. Brown and John H. House, "The Organizational Compon- ent in Education," Review of Educational Research, 37 (October, 1967), p. 401. TABLE 3-1 THREE-FACTOR VARIMAX ROTATIONAL SOLUTION FOR SUBTEST SCORES BY SCHOOL OCDQ Subtest 1. Disengagement 2. Hindrance 3. Esprit 4. Intimacy 5. Aloofness 6. Production Emphasis 7. Thrust 8. Consideration Percentage of Variance HALPIN—CROFT N = 71 ARKLEY N = 18 FACTOR II FACTOR III .50* .67* .79* -.73* .64* -.04 .08 —.86* -.47 h2 H—C A .85 .76 .38 .76 .71 .60 .77 .72 .66 .61 .61 .50 .64 .85 .73 .70 Total Variance .67 .69 54 the varimax rotational factor analysis. Because the original organi- zational climates as described by Halpin and Croft did not appear and because using a single dimension to define a school's organizational climate is too limited, I used a four factor description. As shown in Table 3-2 each of the four factors contains two of the subtests and the four factors account for 83% of the variance in the subtest scores of the eighteen schools. Table 3-3 shows the factor score of each school on each factor. A factor score indicates at which end of the factor dimension the school is located. Table 3-4 shows the relationship between the factor score and the school's subtest score for Factor I. I have not shown this relationship for Factors II, III, and IV because the pattern is the same. Factor I is characterized by a high loading of the subtests Disengagement and Esprit. At one end of Factor I, the subtest Disengagement is positive and Esprit is negative; at the other end the opposite occurs. The factor score indicates where an individual school is located on Factor I in terms of the high loading subtests. As can be seen the Disengage- ment subtest score is inversely related to the Esprit subtest score. The factor score is also influenced by other subtest scores to the extent that they load on Factor I which in this case was very low. The weight of the other subtest scores will cause the occasional lack of an inverse relationship between the subtests Disengagement and Esprit observed in Table 3-4.22 The subtests that best define Factor I are those which load highest on Factor I and do not load very high 22R. J. Rummel, Applied Factor Analysis (Evanston: North- western U. P., 1970), pp. 152-155. 55 TABLE 3-2 FOURrFACTOR VARIMAX ROTATIONAL SOLUTION FOR SUBTEST SCORES BY SCHOOL N = 18 FACTORS OCDQ Subtest I II III IV h2 1. Disengagement .91* .01 .06 .08 .84 2. Hindrance .50 -.21 .31 —.71* .89 3. Esprit -.81* .13 .06 -.14 .69 4. Intimacy —.43 .22 .73* -.09 .77 5. Aloofness —.05 -.94* -.13 .07 .91 6. Production Emphasis .27 —.21 .23 .85* .90 7. Thrust -.32 .32 -.81* .OO .86 8. Consideration -.23 .79* -.32 -.02 .78 Total Variance Percentage of Variance .27 .22 .18 .16 .83 56 TABLE 3-3 SCHOOL FACTOR SCORES FACTOR School I II III IV 1 .4493 1.3722 -.9955 .7845 2 -1.4948 —.4058 -.9218 .8068 3 -.7335 .4288 .4370 1.9905 4 .8539 -1.0001 -l.9183 .0071 5 1.5481 -.2992 .8228 .8157 6 -.2219 -.9810 -l.2597 -.l618 7 .8578 -1.2130 .7172 .1370 8 1.2882 1.4722 .1487 -.8611 9 -l.4604 .8665 1.0524 .2808 10 -l.7473 —.5424 .6312 .7396 11 .0551 -.2179 .6099 -1.9608 12 .1205 1.7553 1.2581 -.3185 13 1.5008 .1410 .7314 .6669 14 -.1586 .5556 -l.2235 -1.5159 15 .7271 -1.7375 .2293 .4301 16 —l.1308 -.1102 —.l777 —l.6727 17 -.4270 -l.1693 1.3258 -.8220 18 -.0205 1.0848 -1.4674 .5837 57 TABLE 3-4 FACTOR I -- DISENGAGEMENT AND ESPRIT School Factor Score Disengagement Score Esprit 5 1.5481 65.5 34. 13 1.5008 59.6 35. 8 1.2822 62.9 46. 7 .8578 57.6 48. 4 .8539 46.9 36. 15 .7271 59.1 45. l .4493 51.1 52. 12 .1205 51.5 43. 11 .0551 60.4 57. 18 -.0205 42.8 47. 14 -.1586 53.1 55. 6 -.2219 45.8 37. 17 -.4270 40.0 49. 3 -.7335 47.0 52. 16 -1.l308 34.4 55. 9 -1.4604 42.1 62. 2 -1.4948 34.5 64. 10 -l.7473 31.5 61. Score 58 on the other factors. Thus Disengagement and Esprit define Factor I better than the rest of the subtests and the factor score best describes the extremeness of the inverse relationship of the subtests. The further the factor score deviates from zero the more the two subtest scores are deviating from their mean of 50. This same method I used to define the other three factors. B. FACTOR I - SENSE OF ORGANIZATIONAL ATTACHMENT Factor I is best defined by the subtests Disengagement and Esprit as shown in Table 3-2. The relationship of the subtests is inverse. A positive factor score means that the teachers perceive Disengagement as very frequently occurring and Esprit as rarely oc- curring, a negative score means the opposite. Halpin and Croft have defined the subtests as follows: Disengagement refers to the teachers' tendency to be "not with it." This dimension describes a group which is "going through the motions," a group that is "not in gear" with respect to the task at hand. It corresponds to the more general concept of anomie as first described by Durkheim. In short this subtest focuses upon the teachers' behavior in task oriented situations. Esprit refers to "morale." The teachers feel that their social needs are being satisfied, and that they are, at the same time, enjoying a sense of accomplishment in their job. 23 In a negative factor score school, i.e., frequent Esprit and rare Disengagement, the teachers feel attached to the school. They perceive high morale and much school spirit as frequently occurring. Individually they spend time after school with the students, there is 23Andrew W. Halpin and Donald B. Croft, op. cit., p. 40. ccr III 161 sch sch snna aft tea side is j Cons occu defil mfint 59 considerable laughter when they gather informally, and they accomplish their work with great vim, vigor and pleasure. They rarely talk about leaving and the school has no small cliques and no isolated permanent minorities. Teachers rarely ask the principal for special favors.24 In a positive factor score school, i.e., frequent Disengage- ment and rare Esprit, teachers feel no attachment to the elementary school organization. Teachers frequently talk about leaving the school system, and the school has a permanent isolated minority and small cliques. Teachers stay by themselves and spend little time after school with students. Morale and school spirit are low and teaching is done with little pleasure.25 C. FACTOR II - LEADERSHIP INITIATION Factor 11 is best defined by the subtests Aloofness and Con- sideration as shown in Table 3-2. The relationship of the subtests is inverse. A positive factor score means that the teachers perceive Consideration as very frequently occurring and Aloofness as rarely occurring; a negative score means the opposite. Halpin and Croft have defined these subtests as follows: Consideration refers to behavior by the principal which is characterized by an inclination to treat the teachers "hu- manly," to try to do a little something extra for them in human terms. 24Cf., Appendix B for the OCDQ items that define Disengage- ment and Esprit. 25Ibid. 60 Aloofness refers to behavior by the principal which is characterized as formal and impersonal. He "goes by the book" and prefers to be guided by rules and policies rather than deal with the teachers in an informal, face-to-face situation. His behavior, in brief, is universal rather than particularistic; nomothetic rather than idiosyncratic. To maintain this style, he keeps himself -- at least "emo- tionally" -- at a distance from his staff. The climate that my Factor 11 identifies is the same as the third factor identified by Halpin and Croft, Leadership Initiation. I have used their name for the factor but have limited the scope of the factor to identifying one part of the school's organizational climate rather than characterizing the whole climate by one factor as they do. Leadership Initiation refers to "the latitude within which the group members can initiate leadership acts."27 A positive factor score, i.e., rare Aloofness and frequent Consideration, means that the school has an organizational climate where teacher latitude to initiate leadership acts is quite rare. Halpin and Croft have called this climate Paternal. The principal constrains the emergence of leadership acts from the group and attempts to initiate most of these acts himself. In this instance the leadership skills within the group are not used to supplement the principal's own ability to initiate leadership acts. Consequently some required leadership acts are not even attempted. In the Paternal school the principal is the "big daddy" who frequently helps teachers solve personal problems, does personal favors for them, stays after school to help them, settles their quarrels for them, and selects courses which they will teach. Formal 26Andrew W. Halpin and Donald B. Croft, op. cit., p. 40. 27Andrew W. Halpin, op. cit., p. 192. 28Ibid. 61 rules are rarely followed in interpersonal behavior, the faculty meetings seldom have a tight agenda, the teachers frequently question the formal rules but the principal rarely contacts the teachers for advice.29 This is a school where a benevolent, considerate autocrat rules. In this climate the principal's authority rests upon particu- laristic norms. Each teacher is dependent upon the principal and thus views this relationship as personal and special. Organizational prob- lems are resolved not in terms of formal procedures but rather through informal special procedures. The role model that the students would observe in such a situation is one of powerful centralized authority figures who will disregard formal rules in response to a personal pleading. A negative factor score, i.e., frequent Aloofness and rare Consideration, means that the school has an organizational climate where teachers have considerable latitude to initiate leadership acts. Halpin and Croft have termed this climate Autonomous: This latitude is wide, but the freedom that this latitude allows is not accompanied by sufficient direction and con- trol from the principal. (In other words, the principal has not defined the structure, or the limits which the members can feel free to attempt leadership acts.)30 Teachers have the opportunity to initiate leadership in the Autonomous school because the principal asserts his influence over the school through formal rules rather than informal procedures. The formal 29§§,, Appendix B for OCDQ items that define Aloofness and Consideration. 30Andrew W. Halpin, op. cit., pp. 191-192. 62 rules are rarely questioned and faculty meetings are organized accord- ing to a tight agenda and run in formal ways. However, the principal contacts the teachers daily in a formal manner. The principal rarely helps teachers solve personal problems, settles minor conflicts, or does personal favors for the teachers.31 The leadership pattern in the Autonomous climate instead of working through individualistic personal relationships with the principal works through universalistic rules that apply equally to all. All teachers are treated as equals and the principal is distant. Potentially the teachers have greater freedom within the classroom. D. FACTOR III - SOURCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL COHESION Factor III is best defined by the subtests Intimacy and Thrust as shown in Table 3-2. The relationship of the subtests is inverse. A positive factor score means that the teachers perceive Intimacy as very frequently occurring and Thrust as rarely occurring, a negative score means the opposite. Halpin and Croft have defined the subtests as follows: Intimacy refers to the teachers' enjoyment of friendly social relations with each other. This dimension describes a social— needs satisfaction which is not necessarily associated with task-accomplishment. Thrust refers to behavior by the principal which is character- ized by his evident effort in trying to "move the organiza- tion." "Thrust" behavior is marked not by close supervision, but by the principal's attempt to motivate the teachers through example which he personally sets. Apparently, because 3%9:., Appendix B for the OCDQ items that define Aloofness and Consideration. 63 he does not ask teachers to give of themselves any more than he is willing to give of himself, his behavior, though starkly32 task-oriented is nonetheless viewed favorably by the teachers. The climate factor that Factor III identifies is the degree of integration between the task goals of the school and the need of the teachers to be part of a group. As the Hawthorne experiments in the 1920's indicated it is possible for an organization member to satisfy his need to belong to a group independent of the organizational task goals.33 Frederick Herzberg has suggested that the two are indepen- dent in all organizations while Chris Argyris argues that the inde- pendence is due to organizational structure.34 Whether or not these factors are actually independent or just the result of organizational structure is an issue that needs no final settlement here. I believe however that Argyris' position explains the issue more fully. What I am interested in is the effect of the separation or integration of these factors upon the role model that the teachers display to stu- dents. In the school with a positive factor score, i.e., frequent Intimacy and rare Thrust, individual social needs satisfaction is seen by the teachers as independent of task accomplishment. This is a school where "hygienic factors" of Frederick Herzberg predominate: 32Andrew W. Halpin and Donald B. Croft, op. cit., p. 40. 33Charles Perrow, Complex Organizations (Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman, 1972), chp. 3. 3€Q£., Frederick Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man (Cleve- land: World, 1966) and Chris Argyris, Integrating the Individual and the Organization (New York: Wiley, 1964). 64 it is a pleasant place to spend time.35 The teachers frequently in- vite other faculty members to visit them at home, know much about the family background and personal life of the other teachers, and have frequent fun socializing together during school time. The principal rarely presses the teachers about their teaching jObs and rarely tells them of new ideas he has found or sets an example by working hard him- self. He is also unconcerned about the personal problems of the teachers as these are handled by the teachers as a group. In the school with a negative factor score, i.e., rare Intim— acy and frequent Thrust, the principal is the source of organizational cohesion. In this climate the principal frequently sets an example by working hard himself. The principal is in constant contact with the teachers, frequently telling them of new ideas, helping them, and us- ing constructive criticism. The cohesion that the principal creates is centered around the task of teaching. Teacher interactions are not very personal. It is rare that teachers invite each other to their homes, know each other's family background, and talk about each other's personal life. There is little fun socializing during school time. This is a climate that is all business and coolly profession- a1.37 35 Frederick Herzberg, op. cit. 36§£,, Appendix B for the OCDQ items that define Intimacy and Thrust. 37Ib1d. 65 E. FACTOR IV - ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE Factor IV is best defined by the subtests Production Emphasis and Hindrance as shown in Table 3-2. The relationship of the sub- tests is inverse. A positive factor score means that the teachers perceive Production Emphasis as very frequently occurring and Hind- rance as rarely occurring, a negative factor score means the opposite. Halpin and Croft have defined the subtests as follows: Production Emphasis refers to behavior by the principal which is characterized by close supervision of the staff. He is highly directive, and plays the role of a "straw boss." His communication tends to go in only one direction, and he is not sensitive to feedback from his staff. Hindrance refers to the teachers' feeling that the principal burdens them with routine duties, committee demands, and other requirements which the teachers construe as unnecessary busywork. The teachers perceive that the principal is hinder— ing rather than facilitating their work.38 Factor IV identifies the organizational structure of the elementary school in terms of role definitions and the locus of decision-making. In my sample of schools, diffuse roles are associated with central- ized decision-making and specific roles with decentralized decision- making. In a school with a positive factor score, i.e., frequent Production Emphasis and rare Hindrance, teachers' roles are not specified by formal rules and procedures. Teachers have few committee assignments, few routine duties, and little burdensome administrative paper work. The principal makes most of the decisions concerning the operation of the school. Frequently the principal makes all the 38Andrew W. Halpin and Donald B. Croft, op. cit., p. 40. rt (n 1.1 ‘ (‘1 .2 pa. 66 class scheduling decisions and schedules the work of the teachers. The principal frequently checks the subject matter ability of the teachers and makes sure that teachers work to their full capacity. In this school the teachers are controlled by the principal with few specified rules and procedures.39 In a school with a negative factor score, i.e., rare Produc— tion Emphasis and frequent Hindrance, teachers' roles are specified by formal rules and procedures. The teachers have many committee requirements, routine duties are seen as interfering with the teach- ing role, and they never seem to have sufficient time to prepare administrative reports such as student progress reports. Yet within this role specific organization, decision—making is decentralized with the principal rarely making all the class scheduling decisions. The principal rarely schedules the work for the teachers. The principal generally leaves the teachers alone. He infrequently checks upon the subject matter ability of the teachers and rarely attempts to see if the teachers are working to full capacity. The teachers are controlled through formal rules and procedures and the principal is personally non-directive.4O Rather than speculate about all the possible political role models in each of the four organizational climate factors I decided to first see what student political orientation and behavior were statistically related to the factors. 392:,, Appendix B for the QCDQ items that define Production Emphasis and Hindrance. 4oIbId. CHAPTER FOUR TEACHERS AND ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FACTORS One way the student can be influenced by the elementary school's organizational climate factors is through the behavior of their teacher. The elementary school teacher reflects the organiza- tional climate factors in her role behavior and the model that she displays before the students. I found the teacher is as important as the parent in teaching the students about citizenship as shown in Table 4—1. Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney present evidence that indicates that the parents teach their children political orienta- tions through a process of observational learning.1 Thus I would expect the school's organizational climate to be related to student political orientations via the teacher. First, I analyzed my data to see if there are any organiza- tional climate factors related to student perceptions of teacher citizenship influence. The least squares deletion routine revealed that only Factor II, Leadership Initiation, and student race could significantly explain the variance in the responses to the question "How much does your teacher teach you about being a good citizen?"2 The multiple correlation coefficient is .83 explaining 69% of the 1Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney, The Develppment of Political Attitudes in Children (Chicago: Aldine, 1967), pp. 20-21. 2Appendix C, Civic Education Questionnaire, question 41. 67 68 TABLE 4-1 RANK OF THOSE WHO TEACH THE STUDENT TO BE A GOOD CITIZEN "How Much Does the Following Person or Thing Teach You About Being a Good Citizen?" (1 = Teaches me an awful lot) (5 = Does not teach me at all) Rppk. Person or Thing Mean 1 Mother 1.73 2 Teacher 1.83 3 Mother and Father 2.04 4 Father 2.34 5 Minister 2.47 6 Books 2.99 7 Television 3.12 8 Friends 4.25 69 variance with a significance of <.0005. The partial correlations and their significance levels are: 1. Factor II, Leadership Initiation .61 at .009 2. Proportion of Black Students in Class -.77 at <.0005 Thus in a Factor 11 organizational climate the teacher is per- ceived by the students as influential in teaching them to be good citizens. The teacher in an Autonomous climate is perceived by the students as having more influence than the teacher in the Paternal climate. In the Autonomous climate the teacher is able to make more decisions independently of the Principal and power is more decentral- ized than in the Paternal climate. Also Black students are more sensitive to teacher citizenship influence than White students. So I can conclude that Black students in Autonomous climates are the group most influenced by the teacher and White students in Paternal climates are the least influenced as shown in Table 4—2. The students were asked to be more specific about their per- ceptions of the teacher's role. They were asked about three dimensions of the teacher's role: benevolence, infallibility and punitive power. As shown in Tables 4-3 and 4-4 the students rated the teacher at the same level as their parents in benevolence and infallibility. But as shown in Table 4-5 the teacher was perceived as having more punitive power than the parents. In terms of role attributes the students per— ceive the parents and the teachers as similar in terms of affective qualities but as dissimilar in terms of the power of the role occu- pants. The teacher was perceived as more powerful than the parents. Four variables were revealed by the least squares deletion roua tine that could significantly explain the variance in student perception 70 TABLE 4-2 TEACHER CITIZENSHIP INFLUENCE IN FACTOR II CLIMATE AND RACIALLY DIFFERENT CLASSES "How Much Does Your Teacher Teach You About Being a Good Citizen?" (1 = She teaches me an awful lot) (2 She does not teach me at all) Mean Score Racial Proportion of Class Black (40—lOO%) Black (O-40%) Negative Factor Score (Autonomous) 1.58 2.25 Factor 11 Leadership Initiation Positive Factor Score (Paternal) 1.86 2.33 71 TABLE 4-3 RANK OF BENEVOLENCE OF AUTHORITY FIGURES AND INSTITUTIONS (l = Always want to help me if I needed it) (6 = Would not usually want to help me if I needed it) Authority Figure or Institution M333 Mother 1.47 Teacher 2.05 Mother and Father 2.07 Policeman 2.38 Father 2.68 Supreme Court 3.21 Government 3.51 President 3.84 Rank 72 TABLE 4-4 RANK OF INFALLIBILITY OF AUTHORITY FIGURES AND INSTITUTIONS (1 (6 Almost never makes mistakes) Almost always makes mistakes) Authority Figure or Institution Mother Supreme Court Policeman Government Teacher Mother and Father Father President @351 2.65 2.73 2.88 2.90 2.90 3.03 3.41 4.20 Rank 73 TABLE 4-5 RANK OF PUNITIVE POWER OF AUTHORITY FIGURES AND INSTITUTIONS (l (6 Can punish anyone) Can punish no one) Authority Figure or Institution Supreme Court Policeman Government Teacher President 1 Mother Mother and Father Father E39. 3.24 3.27 3.51 4.00 4.16 4.68 4.83 4.98 74 of teacher benevolence. Students were asked to "Think of their teacher as she or he really is...from "Would always want to help me if I needed it" to "Would not usually want to help me if I needed it."3 The multiple correlation coefficient of the four variables is .92 explaining 84% of the variance with a significance of <.0005. The partial correlations and their significance levels are: 1. Factor III, Source of Social Cohesion .71 at .003 2. Socio—economic Status of Student .52 at .045 3. Proportion of Black Students in Class -.85 at <.0005 4. Proportion of Boys in Class .72 at .002 The potential for a teacher to serve as an effective role model is increased when the students perceive the teacher as benevo- lent. Several factors contribute to a student's perceiving benevo— lence in a teacher. According to my findings the optimum conditions in low socio—economic status elementary schools exist in those schools where teachers integrate the school task goals and the teachers' need to belong to a group. If this school also contains upper socio- economic status students who are Black and female, such students will be more likely to see their teacher as benevolent. The school with the lowest perception of teacher benevolence would be one where the teachers separate satisfaction of social belonging needs from school task goals. The student would be of lower socio-economic status, White and male. It would seem that Black, upper socio-economic status females are perceiving their teachers as helpful when the teachers have 3Ibid., question 44. 75 accepted the task goals of the school. White, lower socio-economic status males have the lowest perception of teacher benevolence when the teachers have not accepted the task goals of the school. When the teacher presents a role model of accepting the task goals of an organi— zation, the Black female of upper socio-economic status is the most likely to perceive the teacher as helpful. The task goal seems to be that of helping the Black female upper socio-economic status student and of not helping the White male lower socio-economic status student. The students in all the schools perceive the teacher and the parents as having the same level of infallibility. Students were asked to think of their parents and the teacher as he or she really is. If they thought them to be infallible they responded "Almost never makes mistakes," if fallible "Almost always makes mistakes."4 My research as shown in Table 4-4 indicates that the students perceive the teacher and the parents as having the same level of infallibility. A role model believed to make few mistakes is one more likely to be imitated. The least squares deletion routine revealed that two organiza- tional climate factors are related to student perceptions of teacher infallibility, Factor III, Leadership Initiation and Factor III, Source of Social Cohesion. The multiple correlation coefficient of these two factors is .66 explaining 44% of the variance with a signifi- cance of .013. The partial correlations and their significance levels are: 1. Factor 11, Leadership Initiation .51 at .036 2. Factor 111, Source of Social Cohension .55 at .023 4Ibid., questions 16, 45, and 70. (n 76 Table 4-6 indicates that in a Paternal climate school where need to belong to a social group is independent of the school task goals, the students perceive their teachers as making many mistakes. In an Autonomous climate where group belonging needs are integrated with organizational task goals, the students perceive their teachers as making few mistakes. Here we have some evidence that the organi— zational climate is related to the teacher model that the student ob— serves. In the Paternal and non—integrated climate the teachers probably make many mistakes in terms of the school because he has not integrated the school task goals into his own behavior. Also, because of this low integration the Principal needs constantly to supervise the teachers, though in a personal way since the rules of the school are not seen as relevant. The students in all the schools perceive the teacher as having more punitive power than their parents as shown in Table 4—5. Students were asked to think of their parents and teacher as he or she really is. If they perceived them high in punitive power they marked "Can punish anyone." If the students perceived little punitive power they marked "Can punish no one."5 These findings confirm that the student in low socio-economic status schools are more sensitive to the influ- ence of the school, as I discussed in Chapter One. However no organi- zational climate factor significantly explained the variance in stu- dent perceptions of the teacher's punitive power. One can assume that the organizational climate influences teacher behavior which in turn creates a model that the students 5Ibid., questions 17, 46, and 71. 77 TABLE 4—6 TEACHER INFALLIBILITY IN FACTOR II AND FACTOR III CLIMATES "Think of Your Teacher as He Really is..." (1 = Almost never makes mistakes) (6 Almost always makes mistakes) Mean Score FACTOR 11, Leadership Initiation Positive Factor Negative Factor Score (Paternal) Score (Autonomous) Positive Factor Score 3.08 2.96 (Non- integrated) Factor III Source of Social Cohesion Negative Fa°t°r 2.93 2.67 Score (Integrated) 78 observe. Using this approach, the only Factor II, Leadership Initia- tion and Factor III, Source of Social Cohesion can be considered as climates which would have a potential influence upon student political orientations. CHAPTER FIVE STUDENT POLITICAL ORIENTATIONS AND BEHAVIOR A. INTRODUCTION The political orientations and behavior that the elementary school student acquires will define his "political self." This con- cept, adapted by Richard E. Dawson and Kenneth Prewitt from George H. Mead's notion of the "social self," according to Dawson and Prewitt refers to the individual's "entire complex of orientations regarding his political world, including his views toward his own political role."1 Through a process of political socialization every individual acquires a political self in which he "acquires a complex of beliefs, feeling, and information which help him to comprehend, evaluate, and relate to the political world around him."2 Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba have identified three types of political selves: parochial, subject, and participant.3 They were able to relate subject and participant orientations to school authority patterns as discussed in Chapter One. Edward S. Greenberg very tentatively concluded that elementary student political orientations, "would appear to point to a kind of 'participant' 1Richard E. Dawson and Kenneth Prewitt, Political Socializa- tion (Boston: Little, Brown, 1969), p. 17. 2Ibid. 3Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture (Princeton: Princeton U.P., 1963), pp. 12-21. 79 8O orientation among white students and 'subject' orientation among black students."4 Having a subject political orientation means the individual views himself as a passive member of the political system, one who accepts all decisions as legitimate and never attempts to influence those who make the authoritative decisions for the entire society. An individual with a participant political orientation views himself as an active member of the political system. This person does not accept all decisions as legitimate and makes many attempts to influ- ence those who make the authoritative decisions for the entire society. A person with a parochial political orientation is most typically found in a traditional political system where political roles are not differentiated from other social roles. As a result little is expected from the political system as it is only dimly perceived. An individual's orientations toward the political system, "are uncertain or negative, and he has not internalized any norms to regulate his relations to it."5 Since I am studying American political orientations, I decided not to use the parochial political orientation because it was meant to be used in examining a traditional or transitional political system, e.g., the Ashanti in Ghana, etc. Thus I decided to classify the student political orientations as either subject or participant. 4Edward S. Greenberg, "Political Socialization to Support of the System: A Comparison of Black and White Children," (Ph.D. Dis— sertation, University of Wisconsin, 1969), p. 128. SGabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba, Op. cit., p. 19. 81 The Civic Education Questionnaire measures five sets of student political orientations. Sets one, two and three measure orientations toward the American political system, community, regime, and authorities. Set four measures student political knowledge. Set five measures student political behavior. All the responses to these five sets can be classified as either a subject or participant orienta— tion. If the school organizational climate factor is related to student political orientations, I would expect that the climates in which the teachers were subjects in their own school organization would create either a subject or participant model which the students would observe and transfer to political objects. This model could be either the individual teacher or the entire school. Factor I, Sense of Organizational Attachment, and Factor IV, Administrative Structure, were related to individual teacher models; while Factor II, Leadership Initiation, and Factor 111, Source of Social Cohesion, were related to school models. B. SET ONE - POLITICAL COMMUNITY David Easton and Robert D. Hess defined the political com- munity as, "the members of a society looked upon as a group of persons who seek to solve their problems in common through shared political structure."6 The relationship of the child's attachment to the political community through subject and participant political orienta- tions has never been directly examined. However those students who 6David Easton and Robert D. Hess, "The Child's Political World," Midwest Journal of Political Science 6 (August, 1962), p. 233. 82 will eventually become participants in the political process seem to have greater attachment, while those who will eventually become sub- jects in the political process seem to have less attachment. The Hess-Torney study compared to the Hirsch and Greenberg studies, found much higher and more persistent sense of attachment to the political community when examining predominantly White middle to upper socio- economic status students.7 The Hirsch and Greenberg studies of low socio-economic status students, both White and Black, found lower and less stable attachment to the political community. In my study the four organizational climate factors were not significantly related to student attachment to the political community as indicated by responses to the question, "America is the best coun- try in the world."8 The least squares deletion revealed that only the student racial proportion of the classroom could significantly ac- count for the differences among the schools. The correlation coef- ficient was .57 explaining 33% of the variance with a significance of\ .013. As the proportion of Black students increased in the class, the more negative the response to the question, "America is the best coun- try in the world." Socio-economic status was not significantly related to the student responses. My finding would support Greenberg's that Black student attachment to the political community was lower than White by the fifth-grade.9 7Cf., Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney, The Development of Political—Attitudes in Children (Chicago: Aldine, 1967), chps. 2, 3, Appendix B., Herbert Hirsch, Poverty and Politicization (New York: Free Press, 1971), and Edward S. Greenberg, op. cit. 8Appendix C, Civic Education Questionnaire, question 5. 9Edward S. Greenberg, op. cit., pp. 107-110. 83 I have concluded that school organizational climate does not affect the student's attachment to the political community but that the racial composition of the school does. Racial segregation has different effects depending on the segregated race. BlaCk segrega- tion is associated with a low feeling of attachment to the political community, while White segregation is associated with a high feeling of political attachment. C. SET TWO - POLITICAL REGIME According to Easton and Hess the political regime is: The slower changing formal and informal structures through which the decisions (of the political authorities) are taken and administered, together with the rules of the game or codes of behavior that legitimate the actions of political authorities and specify what is expected of citizens or subjects. A participation orientation to the political regime would perceive political structure and the related norms as allowing much citizen involvement in the decision-making process. A participant would also perceive rules and laws as flexible and would believe that individuals can influence the decision-making process, i.e., a sense of political efficacy. A subject orientation would be the opposite. Factor 1, Sense of Organizational Attachment, was the only organizational climate factor that showed a consistent but weak rela— tionship with the questions dealing with summary evaluations of the political regime. In both cases the greater the teacher's sense of 10David Easton and Robert D. Hess, op. cit., p. 233. 84 attachment to the elementary school the greater the student attachment to the political regime. Factor I and student socio-economic status best explained the variance in the question, "I think what goes on in the government is all for the best."11 The multiple correlation coefficient was .57 explaining 33% of the variance with an over-all significance of .051. The partial correlations and their significance levels are: 1. Factor I, Sense of Organizational Attachment .50 at .041 2. Student Socio-Economic Status .42 at .091 Thus in the schools where the teachers' sense of attachment to the school was high and where there was a predominance of low socio- economic status students I found the highest summary evaluation of the political regime as shown in Table 5-1. The low socio—economic status students are more sensitive to the organizational climate of the schools and thus they are most influenced by the school model that they observe. A possibly similar but non-significant relationship concerning Factor I was also found in the responses to the question, "All laws are fair."12 The partial correlation of Factor I to the question was .09 with a significance level of .77. Again where teachers' sense of attachment to the school was high the students perceived laws as being fair, another indicator of regime attachment. When the students ob- serve teachers who are attached to the school organization, they seem to pick this up and transfer it to the political regime. However 11Appendix C, Civic Education Questionnaire, question 18. 12Ibid., question 49. 85 TABLE 5-1 STUDENT EVALUATION OF THE POLITICAL REGIME "I think what goes on in the government is all for the best) (1 (5 Yes!! Yes!!) No!! No!!) Mean Score School Socio—Economic Status Low High (SES Score .38-49) (SES Score .51—.61) High (Negative Factor 2.59 2.69 Score) Factor 1, Sense of Organizational Attachment Low E:::::ive 2.82 2.96 Score) 86 Factor I was the only factor that had even a weak relationship to student political orientations. The two best predictors of the school differences in the student orientations to the political regime were the class racial proportions and the sex of the classroom teacher. The multiple cor— relation coefficient for student perception of the effectiveness of laws, whether "people who break laws get caught or get away,"13 was .88 explaining 77% of the school variance with a significance of <.0005. The independent effects of class racial proportions and sex of teacher will be discussed below. However as seen in Table 5—2 it is apparent that the students in the predominantly Black schools with male teachers perceive the laws of the regime as ineffective and those in the predominantly White schools with female teachers see the laws as effective. The greater the number of Black students the lower was attach- ment to the political regime. Black students thought it was true that "people who break laws usually or always got away," with a partial correlation of .87 with a significance of <.0005. They also believed that disobeying their parents was worse than disobeying the teacher or a policeman,14 with correlation coefficient of -.72 with a significance of .001. White students perceive political regime at- tachment in the opposite direction. When the proportion of White students increases a subject orientation appears in a feeling that all laws are enforced and that 13Ibid., question 21. 14Ibid., question 20. 87 TABLE 5-2 STUDENT PERCEPTION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF LAWS "What do you think is the most true?" (1 = People who break laws always get caught) (4 People who break laws always_get away) Mean Score Sex of Fifth Grade Teachers Female Male (67-100%) (67—100%) Black (40-100%) 2.25 2.60 Racial Proportion of Class Black (O-40%) 1.68 2.00 88 disobedience of non-family authority figures is bad. The predomin- antly Black classes seem to have some participant orientation in terms of a realization that all laws are not enforced and thus the regime is apparently sensitive to some pressures that result in differing policy responses. However Black students' feeling that the worst disobedience is failure to obey one's parents indicates a lack of attachment to the political regime. This lack of attachment plus the low regard for the efficiency of the legal system indicates possibly the growth of political cynicism, a different kind of subject orienta— tion in that it has the potential for political activism. The sex of the teacher also predicted the school variance in responses to two questions relating to an evaluation of the perform- ance of the political regime. The questions tapped perceptions of fairness of laws and whether or not people who broke the laws got caught. The sex of the classroom teacher was the only variable that explained school differences in perceptions of the fairness of laws,15 a correlation coefficient of -.49 significant at .049. The sex of the classroom teacher also explained along with the class racial propor- tion student perceptions of the effectiveness of laws,16 a partial correlation coefficient of .52 significant at .031. The male teachers seem to be teaching a subject orientation in that the students in their classes perceive laws as fair but that people who break these fair laws get away. The female teacher's students seem to have a more 15Ibid., question 49. 16Ibid., question 21. 89 participant orientation seeing laws as unfair and people being caught. All that I can conclude here is that the teachers differ in orientations according to sex and this is being transferred to political objects. But until a closer analysis of male and female teaChers is done, this is merely speculation. The students were also asked questions about the political efficacy,17 the meaning of democracy,18 the permanence of law,19 and how they would respond to a policeman who was doing something wrong,20 but none of the control variables nor the organizational climate factors could explain the differences among the schools. My finding indicates that as student orientations toward the political regime become more conceptually abstract the effect of the school becomes less. School organizational climate factors and school related factors such as racial proportion and the sex of the teacher could explain school differences only for relatively simple orientations toward the political regime. Yet for political efficacy, the meaning of democracy, the permanence of law, and response to a policeman who was doing something wrong, no school factor could explain the differences. It is possible that these orientations will develop later in age, or it is possible that these orientations are the result of the low socio-economic status environment of the entire sample and that the differences I am measuring are trivial. 17Ibid., questions 12, 30, 31, 72, and 73. 18Ibid., questions 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, and 60, 19Ibid., question 11. 20 Ibid., question 64. 90 D. SET THREE - POLITICAL AUTHORITIES According to Easton and Hess the political authorities are "the occupants of those roles through which the day-to-day formula- tion and administration of binding decisions for a society are undertaken."21 The political authorities represent the current government. The students were asked about the authorities seen as persons, like the President and the policeman, and about authorities seen as institutions, like the Supreme Court and the Government. Organizational climate factors are related to student perceptions of personal school authority, the teacher. Factor II, Leadership Initiation, and Factor III, Source of Social Cohesion, are related to student perceptions of teacher benevolence and infallibility as explained in Chapter Four. If interpersonal transfer is occurring then I would expect these role attributes to be transferred to political authorities, most likely the personal ones because they resemble the teacher, less likely the institutional authorities. Factor 1, Sense of Organizational Attachment, and Factor IV, Administrative Structure, would most likely be related to institu- tional political authorities because they are associated with school role models. 1. Benevolence Authority figure benevolence was measured by asking the student to think of an authority figure, either a person or an 21David Easton and Robert D. Hess, op. cit., p. 233. 91 institution, as it really is and how much it would help them if they really needed it.22 Students perceived their teacher as most helpful in a climate where the teachers had integrated their need to belong to a group with the job of teaching. But this feeling of benevolence was not transferred to political authorities. Although all the cor- relation coefficients were in the predicted direction not one signifi- cantly explained the school differences. Thus I would conclude that although Factor III, Source of Social Cohesion, will predict how students perceive teacher benevolence, this perception is only very weakly transferred to political objects. For orientations toward the President and Government no control variable nor organizational climate factor explained the school differences. Only class racial proportion explained student perceptions of policeman benevolence with a correlation coefficient of .61 significant at .007. As the number of Black students increased the perception of the policeman's benevolence increased. Edward S. Greenberg found that low socio-economic status children see the policeman as the representative of the political systems while higher socio-economic status children see the President in that role. Greenberg found that the low socio-economic status child, although more afraid of the political system, attributes the highest benevolence to the policeman, an authority who represents the political system.23 Thus it would appear that the Black students 22Appendix C, Civic Education Questionnaire, questions 8, 15, 32, 44, 52, 61, and 69. 23Edward S. Greenberg, op. cit., pp. 211-219. 92 in my study, rate the policeman high in benevolence because they fear this symbol of the American government: they feel vulnerable. In analyzing the meaning of a high benevolence rating, it is difficult to separate those perceptions in which the child is saying, "This authority figure really wants to help me," and those where the child is saying, "I am scared and I hope he will help me." In the case of the teacher I think the child sees the benevolence as the former because the child rates the parents at the same level of benevolence. In the case of the policeman, I would agree with David Easton and Robert D. Hess that: Confronted with the pervasive and inescapable authority of adults, and realistically aware of his own helplessness and vulnerability, the child must seek some congenial form of accommodation. . . By idealizing authority and by actually seeing it as benign, soliticious and wise, the child is able to allay the fears and anxieties awakened by his own dependent state. A potentially threatening figure is conveniently transformed into a protector. 4 Because of the two possible meanings of benevolence to the child I would expect the children who perceive a teacher to be benevolent to be less likely to rate political authorities as benevolent. An examination of my data found this to be true for the President and the policeman who are both negatively correlated with teacher and parent benevolence. But it is not true for the Supreme Court and the Government which are positively correlated. I would conclude that low socio-economic status students perceive the President and the policeman who are both negatively correlated with teacher and parent benevolence. But it is not true for the Supreme Court and 24David Easton and Robert D. Hess, Op. cit., p. 243. 93 Government which are positively correlated. I would conclude that low socio-economic status students perceive the President and police- man as threatening and the Supreme Court and the government as not. This may also indicate that these students are perceiving only personal authority figures but not institutional authority figures as threaten- ing. Perceptions of Supreme Court benevolence were explained by three variables as revealed by the least squares deletion routine. The multiple correlation coefficient is .67 explaining 45% of the variance with a significance of .034. The partial correlations and their levels of significance are: 1. Factor II, Leadership Initiative .53 at .037 2. Factor IV, Administrative Structure -.54 at .032 3. Proportion of Boys in Class -.56 at .025 The relationship between Factor II and Factor TV is that when the teachers are decentralized in their teaching function and central— ized in the support functions, the students perceive the Supreme Court as benevolent. The teacher is most likely to be perceived as benevo- lent in this climate as shown in Table 5-3, so there seems to be a transfer to the Supreme Court. However when the teachers are central- ized in their teaching, they probably have to follow a common curricu— la, and the school is administratively decentralized the students perceive the Supreme Court as less benevolent. The teacher is seen as less benevolent in this climate as shown in Table 5-3. Thus it would appear that teacher benevolence is only transferred to institutional political objects. (l (6 Factor IV Administrative Structure 94 TABLE 5-3 TEACHER BENEVOLENCE IN FACTOR II AND IV CLIMATES "Think of Your Teacher As She Really is..." Would always want to help me if I needed it) Would not usually want to help me if I needed it) Mean Score Factor II, Leadership Initiation Negative Factor Score (Autonomous Positive Factor 1.65 Score (Personal Control) Negative Factor 2.30 Score (Rule Control) Positive Factor Score (Paternal) 2.32 2.22 95 2. Infallibility Although Factor 11, Leadership Initiation and Factor 111, Source of Social Cohesion could predict student perceptions of teacher infallibility, i.e., the possibility of making mistakes, neither of these factors were associated with student perceptions of political authority infallibility. Instead the racial composition of the class predicted the school differences. As the proportion of Black students in the class increased the feeling increased that the Presi- dent, Supreme Court, policeman, and government made mistakes.25 The correlation coefficients and their significance levels were as follows: 1. President .63 at .005 2. Supreme Court .53 at .016 3. Policeman .76 at <.0005 4. Government .45 at .058 There was no relationship between the racial composition of the class and perceptions of teacher infallibility. Thus how the children perceived the teacher had no bearing on how they perceived political authorities: no observational learning is occurring. Instead I found that Black children saw the political authorities as making many mistakes and White children saw them as making few mistakes. 25Appendix C, Civic Education Questionnaire, questions 9, 33, 53, and 62. 96 3. Punitive Power The punitive power of political authorities was measured by asking the students about the number of people that the authority could punish, from no one to anyone. If observational learning was occurring one would expect that in those schools where the punitive power of the teacher was perceived as great this perception would be transferred to the political authorities. In no school were student perceptions of the teacher's punitive power explained by the school's organizational climate factors or the control variables. Thus there was no possibility for observational learning to occur. The correlation coefficients, only one of which is significant, showed a weak relationship between Factor IV, Administrative Structure to student perceptions of the punitive power of the President, Supreme Court, policeman, and government.26 The correlation coef- ficients and the levels of significance are as follows: 1. President .32 at .250 2. Policeman .28 at .282 3. Government .05 at .887 4. Supreme Court .57 at .021 The school where the principal was the boss was the school where political authorities were seen as having the ability to punish anyone. In the school where the authority of the principal was de- centralized, political authorities were seen as having less punitive power. This relationship was the strongest for the Supreme Court. Apparently what is happening here is that the students are observing the entire school as a model. The centralized model is seen as 26Ibid., questions 10, 34, 54, and 63. 97 having great punitive power, possibly because the principal makes all the administrative decisions. The basis for authority is not rule- based but personally based. Punitive power apparently is being per- ceived as based upon personal attributes rather than formal rules. The decentralized model is seen as having less punitive power because the principal is not personally involved in the control of the or- ganization, formal rules guide behavior. Thus rule-breaking is defined in impersonal terms and probably not perceived as personal punishment. Given the strong affective relationships that arise between teacher and student, any attempt by the teacher to enforce rules will probably be viewed by the student as personal punishment. But the school which uses formal rules probably reduces this feeling. Stu- dents who are in an organizational climate that uses formal rules for organizational control perceive political authorities as having less punitive power, while those in schools where organizational control is informal see all political authorities as having great punitive power, even the Supreme Court which epitomizes formal rule-making. The racial proportion in the class explained best the student perceptions of the punitive power of the Supreme Court, policeman, and government. No organizational climate factor or control vari— able significantly explained the President's perceived punitive power. The correlation coefficients and the levels of significance are reported below: 1. President .10 at .745 2. Policeman .47 at .047 3. Government .49 at .037 4. Supreme Court .63 at .010 98 The greater the proportion of Black students in the class the lower the perception of political authority's punitive power. The student's perceptions of the role attributes of political authorities resulted primarily from the student's race, with Black students seeing political authorities as more benevolent but more fallible and punitively weaker than White students. This combination of orientations indicates that the Black students may be taking a participant stance toward the political system. Although the high benevolence indicates that the students feel vulnerable as Easton and Hess point out,27 they apparently do not feel helpless about it as the low infallibility and punitive power ratings indicate. The White students' low benevolence rating indicates they do not feel vulner— able, but they do rate political authority high on infallibility and punitive power. This would indicate the possibility of a subject stance because authority is evaluated as being non-threatening and powerful. E. SET FOUR — POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE The political knowledge questions measured the salience of politics to the student and his information concerning political par- ties. Those students with a participant orientation would have a high-interest in politics and would see party politics as relevant and important. Those with a subject orientation would have a low interest in politics and would not see party politics as important or relevant. 27David Easton and Robert D. Hess, op. cit., p. 243. 99 As shown in Chapter Four, Factor II, Leadership Initiation, was related to how much influence the teacher had upon the student's citizenship training. In the Autonomous climate where the teacher was able to make many decisions independently of the principal, the stu- dents reported their teacher as having much influence concerning citizenship training. While in the Paternal climate where the princi- pal made all the decisions and the teachers obeyed, the students per- ceived their teachers as having little citizenship influence. The teacher in Autonomous climate is more a participant in the school organization while the teacher is more a subject in the Paternal climate. The subject and participant teacher models apparently are observed by the students who transfer them in terms of subject and participant political orientations. The students in the Paternal climate showed a subject orientation by reporting that politics was not very salient to them as compared to a higher salience by the more participant oriented students in the Autonomous climate. The salience of politics was measured by asking the students, "How much are you interested in reading or talking about current events, government, or other things going on in our country?"28 Factor II, Leadership Initiation and Factor IV, Administrative Structure had a multiple correlation coefficient of .64 explaining 41% of the variance significant at .019. The partial correlations and the levels of significance are as follows: 28Appendix C, Civic Education Questionnaire, question 19. 100 1. Factor II, Leadership Initiation .52 at .032 2. Factor IV, Administrative Structure —.49 at .044 Factor IV, Administrative Structure, also explained student perceptions concerning the salience of politics. However the factor was not related to student perceptions of the teacher's citizenship influence or role attributes, so apparently the students were observ- ing the entire school as a model as they did in their perceptions of the Supreme Court's punitive power. In the school where the principal personally made all the ad- ministrative decisions in an informal way the students perceived politics as very salient. Here the school is possibly a participant within the school district since the principal is able unmake many decisions specially adapted to the school's needs. This sense of participation could possibly be shared by all the staff in the building and the students could observe this participant behavior throughout the building and transfer this model to politics by seeing politics as very salient. In the school where administrative problems are decided by formal rules the principal is not in charge but merely carries out orders. Thus the school is a subject within the school district. This sense of being a subject could be shared by all the staff in the building and the students could observe this subject behavior throughout the building and transfer this model to politics by seeing politics as very salient. The factor climates that explain a high salience of politics seem to be in contradiction, for how can the teachers be autonomous in their leadership acts and yet have a principal who makes all the 101 I administrative decisions? What happens here is that the teachers are autonomous concerning their subject matter decisions and are central- ized in terms of coordination of their teaching activities. No one tells them what to do in the library but the principal does tell them when they can use the library. In both cases they are participants. Factor IV, Administrative Structure, not only significantly explained student perceptions of the salience of politics but also the importance of political party membership for adults. The students were asked, "How important do you think it is for grown-ups to belong to either the Republican or Democratic Party?"29 The students with participant political orientations would see party membership as very important and those with subject orientations would see membership as not important at all. Again the students in the participant school where the principal had personal control the students rated political party membership as important. The students in the subject schools where the school district rules prevailed, political party membership was seen as not very important. The variance in student perceptions of the importance of adult membership in political parties was explained by the student's socio- economic status and the race of the questionnaire administrators in addition to Factor IV, Administrative Structure. The multiple corre- lation coefficient was .81 with 66% of the variance explained signifi- cantly at .001. The partial correlations and the levels of signifi- cance are as follows: 29Ibid., question 78. 102 1. Factor IV, Administrative Structure -.62 at .011 2. Student Socio-Economic Status -.59 at .016 3. Race of Interviewer -.51 at .044 As student socio-economic status rose, the more the students perceived adult political party membership as being important. There was a weaker non-significant relationship between student socio- economic status and student perception of the differences between political parties,30 with upper socio-economic status students per- ceiving a greater difference than lower ones with a correlation of .21 at a significance level of .462. Both of these somewhat confirm the Greenberg and Hess—Torney research that the higher the student's socio-economic status the more likely he is going to have a partici- pant political orientation.31 In addition to organizational climate factors and student socio—economic status, three other variables also significantly ex- plained student perceptions of political parties. These were the proportion of Black students in the class, the race of the question- naire administrator, and the proportion of boys in the class. For student perceptions of the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans, the multiple correlation coefficient was .75 explaining 56% of the variance with a significance of .002. The partial correla- tion coefficients and significance levels are as follows: 1. Proportion of Black Students in Class -.52 at .034 2. Proportion of Boys in Class .60 at .011 30 Ibid., question 43. 31Edward S. Greenberg, op. cit., pp. 128, 156, 228, and Robert Hess and Judith V. Torney, op. cit., pp. 224-225. 103 The partial correlation coefficients and significance levels of student socio-economic status and race of interviewer in relation to student perceptions of the importance of adult membership in a politi— cal party are shown above. If a class contained a predominance of Black female students whose questionnaire was administered by a Black man, these students perceived more difference between the Democrats and Republicans and felt that political party membership was important for adults. The White male interviewed by a White man saw little differences between the political parties and felt that adult political party membership was not important. Thus it would seem that Black female students held the most participant orientations toward political parties and that White males had the most subject orientation. The salience of politics to the students could be explained by factors of the school's organizational climate but orientations toward political parties was explained in small part by the schools' over-all adminis- trative structure and in large part by the student's position in the social structure. F. SET FIVE - POLITICAL BEHAVIORS The political behavior of the students was measured by the indices developed by Hess and Torney, the Index of Participation in Political Discussion and the Index of Political Activity.32 Each index was composed of three questions from the Civic Education 32Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney, op. cit., Appendix C. 104 Questionnaire that could be answered "Yes" or "No." The questions composing the Index of Participation in Political Discussion are as follows: 1. I have talked with my mother or father about our country's problems. 2. I have talked with my mother or father about a candidate. 3. I have talked with my friends about a candidate.33 The questions composing the Index of Political Activity are as follows: 1. I have read about a candidate in newspapers or magazines. 2. I have worn a button for a candidate. 3. I have helped a candidate by doing things for him - such as handing out buttons and papers with his name on them. The greater the number of "Yes" responses on either index the student was considered to engage in more political discussion and activity. The student with a participant political orientation would engage in more political discussion and activity than the student with a sub- ject orientation. For each school I computed a mean from the individual student political discussion and activity scores. School differences in political discussion could not be explained by any of the organiza- tional climate factors or the control variables, although there is a weak relationship, a correlation of .38 significant at .121, between the class racial proportion and political discussion. As the proportion of Black students increases the amount of political dis- cussion increases, and as the proportion of White students increases, 33Appendix C, Civic Education Questionnaire, questions 24, 27 and 25. 34Ibid., questions 26, 22, and 23. 105 political discussion decreases. This same relationship held for political activity being statistically significant, a correlation of .57 significant at .014. Also none of the organizational climate factors were significantly related to school differences in student political activity. Thus I would conclude that the organizational climate of the schools has no effect upon the political behavior of the students. Rather it is the racial composition of the school in low socio- economic status elementary schools that is related to student political behavior, with racial segregation having different effects for different races. All-Black schools showing the greatest amount of participant political behavior and all-White schools showing the greatest amount of subject political behavior. CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION This exploratory study has revealed that the elementary school organizational climate can influence student political orientations and behavior by two processes. First, the teacher reflecting the or- ganizational climate of the elementary school presents a role model that the student imitates and then transfers this model to political objects. Second, the elementary school organization can present a role model that the student transfers to political objects. My factor analysis of the Organizational Climate Description Question- naire revealed four factors of the elementary school organizational climate. Factor II, Leadership Initiation, and Factor III, Source of Social Cohesion, were related to student political orientations and behavior via the teacher as a role model. Factor I, Sense of Organi— zational Attachment, and Factor IV, Administrative Structure, were related via the school organization as a model. Although the four organizational climate factors could predict the few school differences discussed below, I found that school racial proportions could explain many more school differences in student political orientation and behavior. My research indicates that the elementary school organiza- tional climate has less relationship to student political behavior and orientations than the racial composition of the school. Two organizational climate factors, Factor II, Leadership Initiation, and Factor III, Source of Social Cohesion, were related to student perceptions of the role model of teachers. But only in the 106 107 Factor II climate was there a transfer of the teacher role to the political system, Factor III could only explain different student per- ceptions of teachers' roles. Thus it would seem that when a school organizational climate changes in relation to Factor 11, one can ex- pect some changes in student political orientations, but not when the organizational climate changes regarding Factor III. Factor II, Leadership Initiation, was related to student per- ceptions of the teachers' influence upon them regarding the teaching of citizenship and the teacher role attribute of infallibility. When a school's organizational climate was Autonomous in that the students perceived their teacher as teaching them much about being a good citizen and viewed the teacher as making few mistakes. Students appar- ently transferred this participant view of the teacher in the school organization to the political system by reporting a higher interest in politics. However the students did not transfer their feelings of teacher infallibility to either political authorities or institutions. When the school's organizational climate was Paternal in that the principal makes all the decisions, the teacher role would be more of a subject in the school organization. The student's caught this by perceiving the teacher as not being very influential in teaching them about citizenship and being fallible. This apparently transferred to the political system in that the students reported a lower interest in politics. Factor III, Source of Social Cohesion, was only related to student perceptions of the teacher role attributes of benevolence and infallibility but neither of these were transferred to political 108 authorities or institutions. When the teacher felt that he was inte- grated into the school organization in that his need to belong to a social group was satisfied by being a good teacher, the students perceived their teacher as benevolent and infallible. When the teacher only came to school to socialize with his fellow teachers and that teaching was not the reason he came to school, the students perceived their teacher as less benevolent and more fallible. Since this organi- zational factor had no relationship to student political orientations and behavior, I would speculate that it might be related to student academic achievement with the benevolent and infallible teacher having students who achieve more. Finally, I noted that Black students were more sensitive to the two organizational climate factors in that they rated the teacher as having more citizenship influence, benevolence, and infallibility than White students in the same organizational climate factor. Factor I, Sense of Organizational Attachment, and Factor IV, Administrative Structure were related to student perceptions of the role model of their schools. Both factors were related to student political orientations and behaviors. Regarding Factor I, in a school where the teachers felt a sense of attachment to the school, this feeling was apparently picked up by the students who then re- ported that they felt attached to the American political system. When the teachers reported a low feeling school attachment, the students reported the same for the American political system. In the Factor IV, Administrative Structure, school where the administrative functions are centralized in the person of the 109 principal, the teachers are more threatened and vulnerable to the principal's authority. Thus the punitive power of the school organi- zation is great and the students show some transference of this to political authorities and institutions. The attributing of benevo- lence by the students to these authorities and institutions also indi- cates a feeling of vulnerability. However, the impact of this realiza- tion of the great punitive power of authority figures and institutions is to increase student interest in politics especially party politics. The school where the administrative structure is decentralized and formal, possibly rigid, the teachers are not threatened nor vulnerable to the principal's authority. This apparently is transferred to political authorities and institutions. Since no punitive power is perceived the interest in politics and the importance of party politics also declines. Although I was able to discover some relationship at the elementary school level between the four organizational climate fac- tors and student political orientations and behavior that was inde- pendent of the control variables, many of the relationships were weak and only explained a few student orientations and behavior. Thus if one is interested in changing the organizational climate of the low socio-economic status elementary school, one could expect few changes upon the entire student body. However it is possible that certain kinds of students might be more affected by organizational climate factors than others and this should be the focus of future research regarding the influence of school organizational climate factors upon student political orientations and behavior. 110 The most powerful predictor of the school differences in student political orientations and behavior was the racial composition of the school, holding all other variables constant: race of inter- viewer, socio-economic status and sex of student, sex of the teacher, and the four organizational climate factors. As can be seen from Table 2-1 practically all the schools were racially segregated, either all-White or all-Black. The political effects of racial segregation was different for each race. The all-Black schools reported political orientations that were non—supportive of the political system and political behavior that was activist, while the all-White schools were supportive in orientations and non-activist in political behavior. As the proportion of Black students increased in the low socio- economic status elementary schools the feelings of attachment to the American political community decreased, the laws were perceived as in— effective, the policeman was perceived as threatening, authority figures and institutions were seen as fallible and lacking in punitive power. However greater differences were perceived between the Demo- crats and Republicans and the students in the all-Black schools be— lieved that political party membership was important. This was indi- cated in their political behavior where they engaged in more political discussion and activity than the students in all-White low socio- economic status elementary schools. Those students in all-White elementary schools had higher at- tachment to the American political community, saw laws as effective, did not perceive the policeman as threatening, and authority figures were perceived as infallible and possessing great punitive power. As 111 the elementary school racial composition became more White, the stu- dents could not discern differences between the Democrats and Republi- cans and political party membership was not seen as important. Politi- cal discussion and activity was lower than that in all—Black schools. What all this indicates is that the apparent effect of racial segregation upon Black students as a group is to increase their politicization and to decrease it for the White students as a group. The over-all effect of segregation appears to be related to an activist or participant political orientation for the Black student body and to a non-activist or subject political orientation for a White student body of similar low socio-economic status. It would appear that the political effect of racial integration in terms of over-all student body political orientations and behavior is to decrease participant political orientations. As a future research problem I would suggest an examination of the individual effects of racial integration of elementary schools upon the individual student political orientations and behavior. It may well be that the political effect of racial integration is to deactivate low socio-economic status Black political behavior and to activate low socio-economic status White political behavior. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Adelson, Joseph and O'Neil, Robert P. "Growth of Political Ideas in Adolescence: The Sense of Community." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 4 (1966): 295-306. Almond, Gabriel A., and Verba, Sidney. The Civic Culture, Princeton: Princeton U.P., 1963. Andrews, John H. M. "Some Validity Studies of the OCDQ." Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, February, 1965, Chicago. Mimeographed. Argyris, Chris. Integrating the Individual and the Organization. New York: Wiley, 1964. Argyris, Chris. Intervention Theory and Method. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1970. Argyris, Chris. "Some Problems in Conceptualizing Organizational Climate: A Case Study of a Bank." Administrative Science Quarterly. 2 (1958): 501-520. Bandura, Albert. "Behavior Modification Through Modeling Procedures." Research in Behavior Modification, edited by Leonard Krasner and Leonard Ullman. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965. Bandura, Albert, and Walters, Richard H. Social Learning and Person- ality Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. Brink, William and Harris, Lou. The Negro Revolution in America. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1964. Broverman, Donald M. "Effects of Score Transformations in Q and R Factor Analysis Techniques." Psychological Review, 68 (1961) 68-80. Broverman, Donald M. "Normative and Ipsative Measurement in Psychol- ogy." Psychological Review. 69 (1962): 295-305. Brown, Alan F. and House, John H. "The Organizational Component in Education." Review of Educational Research. 37 (1967): 399-413. Clark, Kenneth B. Dark Ghetto. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. Coleman, James S. Introduction to Mathematical Sociology. New York: Free Press, 1964. 112 113 Coleman, James 8.; Campbell, Ernest Q.; Hobson, Carol J.; McPartland, James; Mood, Alexander M.; Weinfeld, Frederic D.; and York, Robert L. Equality of Educational Opportunity, Washington, D.C.: HEW, Office of Education, 1966. Cornell, Francis G. "Socially Perceptive Administration." The Phi Delta Kappan. 36(1955): 219-223. Dawson, Richard E., and Prewitt, Kenneth. Political Socialization. Boston: Little Brown, 1969. Easton, David, and Hess, Robert D. "The Child's Political World." Midwest Journal of Political Science. 6 (1962): 229-246. Farber, Bernard E. "Organizational Climate of Public Elementary Schools as Related to Dogmatism and Select School and Community Characteristics." Ed.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1968. Flagg, Joseph Thomas, Jr. "The Organizational Climate of Schools: Its Relationship to Pupil Achievement, Size of School and Teacher Turnover." Ed.D. dissertation, Rutgers, 1964. Greenberg, Edward S. "Political Socialization to Support of the System: A Comparison of Black and White Children." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1969. Greenstein, Fred I. Children and Politics. New Haven: Yale, 1965. Greer, Germaine, The Female Eunuch. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. Hale, Jack. "A Study of the Relationship Between Selected Factors of Organizational Climate and Pupil Achievement in Reading, Arith- metic and Language." Ed.D. dissertation, University of Alabama, 1965. Halpin, Andrew W. Theory and Research in Administration. N.Y.: Macmillan, 1966. Halpin, Andrew W., and Crofts, Donald B. The Organizational Climate of Schools. Washington, D.C.: HEW, Office of Education, CRP-543, July, 1962. Halpin, Andrew W. and Croft, Donald B. "The Organizational Climate of the School." Administrator's Notebook. 11 (March, 1963): 1—4. Herndon, James. The Way It Spozed to Be. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1968. Herriott, Robert E., and St. John, Nancy Hoyt. Social Class and the Urban School--The Impact of Pupil Background on Teachers and Principals. N.Y.: Wiley, 1966. 114 Herzberg, Frederick. Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland: World, 1966. Hess, Robert D., and Torney, Judith V. The Development of Basic Attitudes and Values Toward Government and Citizenship during the Elementary School Years, Part I. Washington, D.C.: HEW, Office of Education, CRP-1078, 1965. Hess, Robert D., and Torney, Judith V. The Development of Political Attitudes in Children. Chicago: Aldine, 1967. Hirsch, Herbert. Poverty and Politicization. New York: Free Press, 1971. Holt, John. How Children Fail. New York: Delta, 1964. Holt, John. How Children Learn. New York: Pitman, 1967. Inhelder, Barbel, and Piaget, Jean. The Growth of Logical Thinking From Childhood to Adolescence. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1958. Jencks, Christopher; Smith, Marshall; Acland, Henry; Bane, Mary Jo; Cohen, David; Gintis, Herbert; Heyns, Barbara; and Michelson, Stephen. Inequality - A Reassessment of the Effect of Family_ and Schooling in America. New York: Basic, 1972. Katz, Irwin; Robinson, J. M.; Epps, E. G.; and Waly, Patricia. "The Effects of Race of Experimenter and Test Versus Neutral Instruc- tions on Expressions of Hostility." Journal of Social Issues. 20 (1964): 54-590 Kohl, Herbert. 36 Children. New York: New American Library, 1967. Kohlberg, Lawrence. "Moral Development and Identification in Child Psychology." Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. edited by H. W. Stevenson. Chicago: Chicago U.P., 1963. Kozol, Jonathan. Death At An Early Age. New York: Bantam, 1967. Langton, Kenneth P. Political Socialization. New York: Oxford, 1969. Lavin, David E. The Prediction of Academic Performance. New York: Wiley, 1965. Likert, Rensis. The Human Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Litt, Edgar. "Civic Education, Community Norms, and Political Indoc- trination." American Sociological Review. 28 (1963): 69-75. 115 Michigan, Department of Education, State Board of Education. "State Aid for Culturally and Economically Deprived Students." Lansing: Secretary of State, August 29, 1969. Muller, Harris E. "An Investigation of Organizational Climate as a Variable in Pupil Achievement Among 29 Elementary Schools in Urban School District. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1968. Piaget, Jean. The Psychology of Intelligence. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1947. Perrow, Charles. Complex Organizations. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman, 1972. Rafter, Mary E., and Ruble, William L. "Stepwise Deletion of Vari- ables from a Least Squares Equation," East Lansing: Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, STAT Series Description No. 8 LSDEL, 1969. Rosenthal, Robert, and Jacobson, Lenore. Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968. Rummell, R. J. Applied Factor Analysis. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern U. P., 1970. Silberman, Charles E. Crisis in Black and White. New York: Random, 1964. Tagiuri, Renato, and Litwin, George H., eds. Orgpnizational Climate—- Explorations of a Concepp, Cambridge: Harvard, 1968. White, Elliott S. "Intelligence and Sense of Political Efficacy in Children." Journal of Politics. 30 (August, 1968): 710-731. APPENDICES APPENDIX A ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE Dear Full-Time Faculty Member at I would appreciate your cooperation in completing the enclosed ques- tionnaire, it should take you about 15 minutes to complete. DO NOT WRITE YOUR.NAME ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE. When you have completed the questionnaire, fold it in half, staple it closed, and return it to the school secretary. The items in this questionnaire describe typical behaviors or condi- tions that occur within an elementary school organization. Please in- dicate to what extent each of these descriptions characterize your school. Please do not evaluate the items in terms of "good" or "bad" behavior, but read each item carefully and respond in terms of how well the statement describes your school. Printed below is an example of a typical item found in the question— naire: 1. Teachers call each other by their first names. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. very frequently occurs. In this example the respondent circled (pencil or pen) alternative 3 on the questionnaire to show that the interpersonal relationship described by this item "often occurs" at the school. Of course, any of the other alternatives could be selected, depending upon how often the behavior described by the item does, indeed, occur in your school. The purpose of this questionnaire is to secure a description of the dif- ferent ways in which teachers behave and of the various conditions under which they must work. After you have completed the questionnaire I will examine the behaviors or conditions that have been described as typical by the majority of the teachers in your school. I will con- struct from this description a portrait of the Organizational Climate of your school which shall be made available to the entire faculty of the sChool. PLEASE BE SURE THAT YOU MARK EVERY ITEM. PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTIONNAIRE INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHER TEACHERS. Sincerely yours, Alfred S . Arkley Political Science Department Michigan State University 116 1-2. 3. 10. 117 School Number. Teachers' closest friends are other faculty members at this school. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs The mannerisms of teachers at this school are annoying. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs Teachers spend time after school with students who have individual problems. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs Instructions for the operation of teaching aids are available. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs Teachers invite other faculty members to visit them at home. . Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs H There is a minority group of teachers who always Oppose the majority. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs Extra books are available for classroom use. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs Sufficient time is given to prepare administrative reports. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 118 Teachers know the family background of other faculty members. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs Teachers exert group pressure on non—conforming faculty members. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs In faculty meetings, there is the feeling of "let's get things done." 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs Administrative paper work is burdensome at this school. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs Teachers talk about their personal life to other faculty members. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs Teachers seek special favors from the principal. I. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs School supplies are readily available for use in classwork. l. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs Student progress reports require too much work. . Rarely occurs . Sometimes occurs . Often occurs . Very frequently occurs wal-J 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 119 Teachers have fun socializing together during school time. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs Teachers interrupt other faculty members who are talking in staff meetings. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs Most of the teachers here accept the faults of their colleagues. . Rarely occurs . Sometimes occurs . Often occurs . Very frequently occurs wal-J Teachers have too many committee requirements. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs There is considerable laughter when teachers gather informally. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs. Teachers ask nonsensical questions in faculty meetings. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs Custodial services is available when needed. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs Routine duties interfere with the job of teaching. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 120 Teachers prepare administrative reports by themselves. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs Teachers ramble when they talk in faculty meetings. . Rarely occurs . Sometimes occurs . Often occurs . Very frequently occurs J-‘UONH Teachers at this school show much school spirit. 1. Rarely occurs . Sometimes occurs Often occurs Very frequently occurs J-‘UDN C e principal goes out of his way to help teachers. Rarely occurs Sometimes occurs Often occurs . Very frequently occurs e principal helps teachers solve personal problems. . Rarely occurs . Sometimes occurs . Often occurs . Very frequently occurs J-‘UJNl-‘g Teachers at this school stay by themselves. . Rarely occurs . Sometimes occurs . Often occurs . Very frequently occurs J-‘UJNH The teachers accomplish their work with great vim, vigor, and pleasure. . Rarely occurs . Sometimes occurs Often occurs . Very frequently occurs bWNH e principal sets an example by working hard himself. . Rarely occurs Sometimes occurs Often occurs Very frequently occurs FUND“; 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 121 The principal does personal favors for teachers. . Rarely occurs . Sometimes occurs . Often occurs . Very frequently occurs wal-H Teachers eat lunch by themselves in their own classrooms. . Rarely occurs . Sometimes occurs . Often occurs . Very frequently occurs «DUONH e morale of the teachers is high. Rarely occurs . Sometimes occurs . Often occurs . Very frequently occurs The principal uses constructive criticism. . Rarely occurs . Sometimes occurs . Often occurs . Very frequently occurs «L‘UNH The principal stays after school to help teachers finish their work. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs Teachers socialize together in small select groups 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs The principal makes all class-scheduling decisions. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs Teachers are contacted by the principal each day. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 122 The principal is well prepared when he speaks at school functions. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs The principal helps staff members settle minor differences. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs The principal schedules the work for teachers. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs Teachers leave the grounds during the school day. . Rarely occurs . Sometimes occurs . Often occurs . Very frequently occurs L‘WNH Teachers help select which courses will be taught. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs The principal corrects teachers' mistakes. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs The principal talks a great deal. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs The principal explains his reasons for criticism to teachers. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs The principal is in support of better salaries for teachers. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 123 Extra duty for teachers is posted conspicuously. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs The rules set by the principal are never questioned. l. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs The principal looks out for the personal welfare of teachers. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs School secretarial services is available for teachers' use. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs The principal runs the faculty meeting like a business meeting. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs The principal is in the building before teachers arrive. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs Teachers work together preparing administrative reports. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs Faculty meetings are organized according to a tight agenda. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs Faculty meetings are mainly principal-report meetings. 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs 4. Very frequently occurs 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 124 The principal tells teachers of new ideas he has run across. 1. 2. 3. 4 Rarely occurs Sometimes occurs Often occurs Very frequently occurs Teachers talk about leaving the school system. 1. 2 3 4 bLDNl—‘D‘ OI. wal-‘U‘ Rarely occurs Sometimes occurs Often occurs Very frequently occurs principal checks the subject—matter ability of teachers. Rarely occurs Sometimes occurs Often occurs Very frequently occurs principal is easy to understand. Rarely occurs Sometimes occurs Often occurs Very frequently occurs Teachers are informed of the results of a supervisor's visit. .1. #LAJN FWNHg Rarely occurs Sometimes occurs Often occurs Very frequently occurs e principal insures that teachers work to their full capacity. Rarely occurs Sometimes occurs Often occurs Very frequently occurs APPENDIX B OCDQ QUESTIONS THAT COMPOSE THE EIGHT SUBTESTS Subtests Relating to the Teachers' Behavior I. DISENGAGEMENT 4. 8. 12. 16. 20. 24. 28. 32. 40. 62. The mannerisms of teachers at this school are annoying. There is a minority group of teachers who always oppose the majority. Teachers exert group pressure on non-conforming faculty members. Teachers seek special favors from the principal. Teachers interrupt other faculty members who are talking in staff meetings. Teachers ask nonsensical questions in faculty meetings. Teachers ramble when they talk in faculty meetings. Teachers at this school stay by themselves. Teachers socialize together in small select groups. Teachers talk about leaving the school system. 11. HINDRANCE *6. *10. 14. 18. 22. 26. Instructions for the operation of teaching aids are available. Sufficient time is given to prepare administrative reports. Administrative paper work is burdensome at this school. Student progress reports require too much work. Teachers have too many committee requirements. Routine duties interfere with the job of teaching. III. ESPRIT 5. 9. 13. 17. 21. 23. 25. 29. 33. *Scored Teachers spend time after school with students who have individual problems. Extra books are available for classroom use. In faculty meetings, there is the feeling of "let's get things done." School supplies are readily available for use in classwork. Most of the teachers here accept the faults of their col- leagues. There is considerable laughter when teachers gather informal— 1y. Custodial service is available when needed. Teachers at this school show much school spirit. The teachers accomplish their work with great vim, vigor and pleasure. negatively. 125 IV. V. VI. VII. 126 INTIMACY 3. Teachers' closest friends are other faculty members at this school. 7. Teachers invite other faculty members to visit them at home. 11. Teachers know the family background of other faculty members. 15. Teachers talk about their personal life to other faculty members. 19. Teachers have fun socializing together during school time. *27. Teachers prepare administrative reports by themselves. 58. Teachers work together preparing administrative reports. Subtests Relating to the Principal's Behavior ALOOFNESS 36. Teachers eat lunch by themselves in their own classrooms. 42. Teachers are contacted by the principal each day. 46. Teachers leave the grounds during the school day. 53. The rules set by the principal are never questioned. *55. School secretarial service is available for teachers' use. 56. The principal runs the faculty meeting like a business meeting. 59. Faculty meetings are organized according to a tight agenda. 60. Faculty meetings are mainly principal-report meetings. *65. Teachers are informed of the results of a supervisor's visit. PRODUCTION EMPHASIS 41. The principal makes all class scheduling decisions. 45. The principal schedules the work for the teachers. 48. The principal corrects teachers' mistakes. 49. The principal talks a great deal. 52. Extra duty for teachers is posted conspicuously. 63. The principal checks the subject matter ability of teachers. 66. The principal insures that teachers work to their full capacity. THRUST 30. The principal goes out of his way to help teachers. 34. The principal sets an example by working hard himself. 38. The principal uses constructive criticism. 43. The principal is well prepared when he speaks at school functions. 50. The principal explains his reasons for criticism to teachers. 54. The principal looks out for the personal welfare of teachers. 57. The principal is in the building before teachers arrive. 61. The principal tells teachers of new ideas he has run across. 64. The principal is easy to understand. *Scored negatively. VIII. 127 CONSIDERATION 31. The principal helps teachers solve personal problems. 35. The principal does personal favors for teachers. 39. The principal stays after school to help teachers finish their work. 44. The principal helps staff members settle minor differences. 47. Teachers help select which courses will be taught. 51. The principal is in support of better salaries for teachers. APPENDIX C CIVIC EDUCATION QUESTIONNAIRE Michigan State University I and another person from Michigan State University are visiting all the 5th grade classes in this school and in other schools in Michigan to ask boys and girls like yourselves to answer the questions on the questionnaire I have given you. We would like to know what boys and girls think about the things men- tioned in the questionnaire. You should understand that this is a questionnaire. It is not a test. You cannot pass or fail. we are only interested in getting your opinion. Because we think when we ask people for their Opinions it is important to keep what they say pri- vate, your name will not be on the questionnaire. DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE. For each question you will circle on the questionnaire the answer you think comes closest to your opinion. Remember there are no right or wrong answers, we only want to know what you think--what your opinion is. I will read each question aloud while you read it silently. After each question is read, you should choose your answer and circle the number in front of the answer. Now turn the page and we will start together with question number 3. 128 129 1-2. Class Code. 3. You are a: 1. Boy 2. Girl 4. How old are you? 1. 8 years old or younger 2. 9 years old 3. 10 years old 4. 11 years old 5. 12 years old or older 5. America is the best country in the world. 1. YES!! YES}! 2. yes 3. no opinion 4. no 5. N03! N03! 6. What makes you the most proud to be an American? Americans are the most generous people in the world. America has beautiful parks and highways. Americans can vote for their own leaders. Americans have freedom. Our President. Our Black Leaders. @M-L‘WNH 0 Which one of these does the most to keep peace in the world? 1. United Nations. 2. United States. 3. I don't know. 10. 11. 12. 13. 130 Think of the President as he really is... C‘tU‘I-I-‘UJNH Would Would Would Would always want to help me if I needed it. almost always want to help me if I needed it. usually want to help me if I needed it. Would sometimes want to help me if I needed it. Would seldom want to help me if I needed it. not usually want to help me if I needed it. Think of the President as he really is... ChU‘J-‘LpNH Th 1 2. 3 4 5 6 Most LII-book)!“ Almost never makes mistakes. Rarely makes mistakes. Sometimes makes mistakes. Often makes mistakes. Usually makes mistakes. Almost always makes mistakes. ink of the President as he really Can punish anyone. Can punish almost anyone. Can punish many people. Can punish some people. Can punish a few people. Can punish no one. laws were made a long time ago. YES}! YESIX yes no opinion no N03! N02! is... I don't think peOple in the government care much what people like my family think. Ul-L‘UNH .0. YES}! YES!! yes no opinion no N01! N01! Voting is the only way that people like my parents can have any say about how the government runs things. Ui-L‘wNH YES!! YES!! yes no opinion no N03! N03! 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 131 If the President came to your town to give a prize to the grown—up who was the best citizen, which of the following grown-ups would he choose? (Choose one) (”NO‘U'IbUJNH Someone who works hard. Someone who everybody likes. Someone who votes and gets others to vote. Someone who helps others. Someone who is interested in the way our country is run. Someone who obeys the law. Someone who goes to church or synagogue. I don't know what citizen means. Think of Your Mother as she really is... 1. C‘U‘IbUJN Would always want to help me if I needed it. Would almost always want to help me if I needed it. Would usually want to help me if I needed it. Would sometimes want to help me if I needed it. Would seldom want to help me if I needed it. Would not usually want to help me if I needed it. Think of Your Mother as she really is... O‘UbWNH Almost never makes mistakes. Rarely makes mistakes. Sometimes makes mistakes. Often makes mistakes. Usually makes mistakes. Almost always makes mistakes. Think of Your Mother as she really is... O‘U'IJ-‘WNH Can punish anyone. Can punish almost anyone. Can punish many people. Can punish some people. Can punish a few people. Can punish no one. I think that what goes on in the government is all for the best. LnJ-‘wNH YES!! YES}! yes no opinion no N03! N03! How much are you interested in reading or talking about current events, government, or other things going on in our country? (choose one) 1. 2. 3. Very much Some Only a little 20. 21. 132 Disobey means to do something someone tells you not to do. Which of these is the most wrong? (Choose one) 1. To disobey your mather. 2. To disobey your teacher. 3. To disobey your father. 4. To disobey the policeman. Which do you think is the most true? (Choose one) 1. People who break laws always get caught. 2 3 4 . People who break laws usuallnget caught. . People who break laws usually get away. . PeOple who break laws always get away. In reading the next few things, you should know that every four years people run for office in our government, this is called an election; and the people running in it are called candidates. Things about government, politics, and candidates that you have done: 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. I have worn a button for a candidate. 1. Yes 2. No I have helped a candidate by doing things for him -- such as hand- ing out buttons and papers with his name on them. 1. Yes 2. No I have talked with my mother or father about our country's problems. 1. Yes 2. No I have talked with my friends about a candidate. 1. Yes 2. No I have read about a candidate in newspapers or magazines. 1. Yes 2. No I have talked with my mother or father about a candidate. 1. Yes 2. No 133 28. Choose the sentence which comes closest to telling what your Mother or Guardian's job is. l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. She stays home most of the time and has no job. She works in a factory, laundry, restaurant, hotel, or house as a maid or waitress or some other job where she works with her hands. She works as a saleslady, clerk, or secretary. She works in an office or store for somebody else. She owns a small store. She wears a uniform or nice clothes to work. She is a teacher, social worker, lawyer, nurse or some job like that. She has a college training for her job. She is looking for a job. I don't know what my Mother or Guardian does. 29. Choose the sentence which comes closest to telling what your Father or Guardian's job is. (If your Father or Guardian doesn't live at home anymore, circle answer 9.) l. 2. 3. \DGDNO‘ He works in a factory or mill, or as a truck driver, janitor or some other job where he works with his hands. He works with his hands in a job that takes a long time to learn like a carpenter, an electrician, a plumber, a TV re— pairman, a machinist, etc. He works in an office or store for somebody else. He works as a salesman, clerk, or bookkeeper. He owns a service station, laundry, or small store. He is a fireman, soldier, policeman, or works for the govern- ment. He usually wears a uniform or a white shirt and tie to work. He works in an office as a manager or executive. He is a doctor, lawyer, teacher, engineer or some job like that. He has a college training for his job. He owns a large business, like a factory or a big store. He is looking for a job. I don't know what my Father or Guardian does. My Father or Guardian doesn't live at home anymore. 30. What happens in the government will happen no matter what the peo- ple do. It is like the weather, there is nothing people can do about it. 1. YES!! YES!! 2. yes 3. no opinion 4. no 5. NO!! NO!! 31. 32. 33. 34. 134 There are some big powerful men in the government who are ruining the whole thing and they do not care about us ordinary people. LBJ-\UJNH YES!! YES!! yes no opinion no NO!! NO!! Think of the Supreme Court as it really is... l. O‘U‘IbWN Would always want to help me if I needed it. Would almost always want to help me if I needed it. Would usually want to help me if I needed it. Would sometimes want to help me if I needed it. Would seldom want to help me if I needed it. Would not usually want to help me if I needed it. Think of the Supreme Court as it really is... O\U'|-l-\L»JN|—' Almost never makes mistakes. Rarely makes mistakes. Sometimes makes mistakes. Often makes mistakes. Usually makes mistakes. Almost always makes mistakes. ink of the Supreme Court as it really is... Can punish anyone. Can punish almost anyone. Can punish many people. Can punish some people. Can punish a few people. Can punish no one. 135 Below are a list of people and things. For each person or thing, choose the sentence that shows how much they teach you about being a good citizen. 35. How much does ygur mother teach you about being a good citizen? 1. She teaches me an awful lot. 2. She teaches me a lot. 3. She teaches me some. 4. She teaches me a little. 5. She doesn't teach me at all. 36. How much does ypur father teach you about being a good citizen? 1. He teaches me an awful lot. 2. He teaches me a lot. 3. He teaches me some. 4. He teaches me a little. 5. He doesn't teach me at all. 37. How much do ypur friends teach you about being a good citizen? 1. They teach me an awful lot. 2. They teach me a lot. 3. They teach me some. 4. They teach me a little. 5. They don't teach me at all. 38. How much does your minister, priest, or rabbi teach you about being a good citizen? 1. He teaches me an awful lot. 2. He teaches me a lot. 3. He teaches me some. 4. He teaches me a little. 5. He doesn't teach me at all. 39. How much does television teach you about being a good citizen? 1. It teaches me an awful lot. 2. It teaches me a lot. 3. It teaches me some. 4. It teaches me a little. 5. It doesn't teach me at all. 40. How much do books, magazines, and newspapers teach you about being a good citizen? 1. They teach me an awful lot. 2. They teach me a lot. 3. They teach me some. 4. They teach me a little. 5. They don't teach me at all. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 136 How much does ygur teacher teach you about being a good citizen? 1. $.21wa She teaches me an awful lot. She teaches me a lot. She teaches me some. She teaches me a little. She doesn't teach me at all. How much difference is there between the Democrats and the Republicans? (Choose one) O‘U’IJ-‘LDNH A very hig_difference. A big difference. Some difference. A very small difference. No difference. I don't know. If the Democrats and the Republicans disagreed on important things: (Choose the sentence that is closest to what you think would happen.) 0.01»me It would be very bad for the country. It would be bad for the country. It would not matter. It would be good for the country. It would be very good for the country. I don't know. Think of Your Teacher as she really is... O‘Unl-‘UJNH Would always want to help me if I needed it. Would almost always want to help me if I needed it. WOuld usually want to help me if I needed it. Would sometimes want to help me if I needed it. Would seldom want to help me if I needed it. Would not usually want to help me if I needed it. Think of Your Teacher as she really is... O‘U‘IwaH O Almost never makes mistakes. Rarely makes mistakes. Sometimes makes mistakes. Often makes mistakes. Usually makes mistakes. Almost always makes mistakes. Think of Your Teacher as she really is... O‘UIJ-‘UDNH O Can punish anyone. Can punish almost anyone. Can punish many people. Can punish some people. Can punish a few people. Can punish no one. F 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 137 How much does your teacher teach you about being a good citizen? LII-L‘wNH He teaches me an awful lot. He teaches me a lot. He teaches me some. He teaches me a little. He doesn't teach me at all. How much difference is there between the Democrats and the Republicans? (Choose one) @MJ—‘LANH A very big difference. A big difference. Some difference. A very small difference. No difference. I don't know. If the Democrats and the Republicans disagreed on important things: (Choose the sentence that is closest to what you think would happen.) O‘U‘J—‘UJNH It would be very bad for the country. It would be bad for the country. It would not matter. It would be good for the country. It would be very good for the country. I don't know. Think of Your Teacher as he really is... O‘U’IJ-‘le-d O Would always want to help me if I needed it. Would almost always want to help me if I needed it. Would usually want to help me if I needed it. Would sometimes want to help me if I needed it. Would seldom want to help me if I needed it. Would not usually want to help me if I needed it. Think of Your Teacher as he really is... meWNH O Almost never makes makes mistakes. Rarely makes mistakes. Sometimes makes mistakes. Often makes mistakes. Usually makes mistakes. Almost always makes mistakes. Think of Your Teacher as he really is... O‘U‘lbU-JNH Can punish anyone. Can punish almost anyone. Can punish many people. Can punish some people. Can punish a few peOple. Can punish no one. M 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 138 If you could vote, where would be the best place to look for help in making up your mind who to vote for? (Choose one) . A friend my own age. My father. My mother. My mother and father. My teacher. My minister, priest, or rabbi. Television and radio. Magazines and newspapers. I would make up my own mind. I don't know. GOODVGUIJ-‘LONH O H If the President came to your school to give a prize to the pupil who was the best citizen and the teacher offered him one pupil, which of the following pupils would the teacher pick? (Choose one) 1. A pupil who helps others. 2. A pupil who does what he or she is told. 3. A pupil who gets good grades. 4. A pupil who is interested in the way our country is run. 5. A pupil who everybody likes. 6. A pupil who works hard. 7. A pupil who goes to church or synagogue. 8. I don't know what citizen means. A11 laws are fair. 1. YES!! YES!! 2. yes 3. no opinion 4. no 5. NO!! NO!! Do you belong to a school club, organization, or committee (such as student council, musical organization, or service committee)? 1. Yes 2. No In this school year I belong to some team (which meets after school hours) which plays baseball, basketball, volleyball, or some other sport. 1. Yes 2. No 139 52. Think of the Policeman as he really is... . Would always want to help me if I needed it. . Would almost always want to help me if I needed it. . Would usually want to help me if I needed it. . Would sometimes want to help me if I needed it. Would seldom want to help me if I needed it. . Would not usually want to help me if I needed it. Chm-Duh)?“ 53. Think of the Policeman as he really is... . Almost never makes mistakes. Rarely makes mistakes. Sometimes makes mistakes. Often makes mistakes. Usually makes mistakes. Almost always makes mistakes. (I‘M-#0352!“ O 54. T ink of the Policeman as he really is... . Can punish anyone. Can punish almost anyone. Can punish many people. Can punish some peeple. Can punish a few people. Can punish no one. O‘Ul-l-‘th-‘D‘ O What is a democracy? (In one) 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. Is a democracy where 1. Yes 2. No 3. I don't know. Is a democracy where 1. Yes 2. No 3. I don't know. Is a democracy where 1. Yes 2. No 3. I don't know. Is a democracy where 1. Yes 2. No 3. I don't know. Is a democracy where without getting into 1. Yes 2. No 3. I don't know. Is a democracy where should go along? 1. Yes 2. No 3. I don't know. 140 each of the following questions, choose the people rule? no one is very rich or very poor? all grown-ups can vote? everyone has an equal chance to get ahead? you can say anything against the government trouble? if most of the pe0ple agree, the rest 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 141 Think of the Government as it really is... . Would always want to help me if I needed it. . Would almost always want to help me if I needed it. . Would usually want to help me if I needed it. Would sometimes want to help me if I needed it. . Would seldom want to help me if I needed it. LBJ-\UJNH Think of the Government as it really is... 1. Almost never makes mistakes. 2. Rarely makes mistakes. 3. Sometimes makes mistakes. 4. Often makes mistakes. 5. Usually makes mistakes. 6. Almost always makes mistakes. Think of the Government as it really is... 1. Can punish anyone. 2. Can punish almost anyone. 3. Can punish many people. 4. Can punish some people. 5. Can punish a few peeple. 6. Can punish no one. If you think a policeman is wrong in what he tells you to do, what would you do? (Choose one) 1. Do what he tells you and forget about it. . Do what he tells you but tell your parents about it. . Do what he tells you but ask the policeman why. . Do what he tells you but tell the policeman he is wrong. bub.) Which is the most important for the policeman to do? (Choose one) 1. Make people obey the law. 2. Help people who are in trouble. 3. Catch people who break the law. If you could vote what would you be? (Choose one) (Optional) 1. A Republican. 2. A Democrat. 3. Sometimes a Democrat and sometimes a Republican. 4. I don't know which I would be. 5. I don't know what the words Democrat and Rppublican mean. When I heard Nixon won the election over Humphrey: (mark the 923. which is closest to the way you felt at that time) (Optional) . I was very happy. . I was happy. . I didn't much care one way or the other. . I felt bad. . I felt so bad I almost cried. UI-l-‘UJNH 142 68. (Completed by administrator after the questionnaire was returned.) Race and sex of classroom teacher. 1. Black Female. 2. Black Male. 3. White Female. 4. White Male. 5. Team. If your Father or Guardian doesn't live at home anymore, circle answer 7 for the next three questions. 69. Think of Your Father as he really is... . Would always want to help me if I needed it. . Would almost always want to help me if I needed it. . Would usually want to help me if I needed it. . Would sometimes want to help me if I needed it. . Would seldom want to help me if I needed it. . Would not usually want to help me if I needed it. . My Father or Guardian doesn't live at home anymore. \lO‘U‘l-L‘UONH 70. Think Of Your Father as he really is... . Almost never makes mistakes. . Rarely makes mistakes. . Sometimes makes mistakes. . Often makes mistakes. . Usually makes mistakes. . Almost always makes mistakes. . My Father or Guardian doesn't live at home anymore. \lGLfl-L‘UNH 71. Think of Your Father as he really is... . Can punish anyone. Can punish almost anyone. Can punish many people. Can punish some people. Can punish a few people. Can punish no one. My Father or Guardian doesn't live at home anymore. \lO‘U‘l-l-‘UJNH 72. My family doesn't have any say about what the government does. 1. YES!! YES!! 2. yes 3. no Opinion 4. no 5. NO!! NO!! 73. Citizens don't have a chance to say what they think about running the government. 1. YES!! YES!! 2. yes 3. no Opinion 4. no 5 . NO!! NO!! 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 143 How much did you learn from the last election for President? (choose one) 1. I learned a lot. 2. I learned some. 3. I learned very little. Which of the following is the best citizen? Choose the sentence that describes the best citizen. 1. He makes up his mind to be either a Democrat or a Republican and always votes the way his party does. 2. He doesn't join either the Democrats or the Republicans and votes for the man he thinks is best. 3. I don't know what the words Democrat and Republican mean. It is better if young people belong to the same political party as their parents. (Choose one) 1. Yes 2. No 3. I don't know. When should a person decide which political party to support? . Before he goes to high school. . Before he leaves high school. . After high school but before he is Old enough to vote. . After he is old enough to vote. «L‘wNH How important do you think it is for grown-ups to belong to either the Republican or Democratic Party? (Choose one) . Very important. . Important. . Not too important. Not important at all. . I don't know. VII-\WNI-J 0 makes the laws? Choose the one who does most to make laws. . Congress. . President. . Supreme Court. . I don't know. waH§ (Completed by the administrator after the questionnaire was returned.) Racial-Ethnic membership of student. 1. Black 2. White 3. Chicano 4. Oriental