THE LEFTOUTS: DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN IN HETEROGENEOUS SCHOOLS Thesis for tha Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Sandra Ardah Warden 196.6 L1 1) £431 3". 1 Michigan State Up. 2 a": (SI ty 1'“ ESIS This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE LEFTOUTS: DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN IN HE‘I‘EROGFNEOUS SCHOOLS presented by Sandra Ardah Warden has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in 800101053 , v4 / I’/ // t]; A ,. / K ‘ / ‘ . 3 ,. " ' . 1 c _/ C 1") 7"‘-—r) / Major professor /* '7 / Date ‘77/7‘4/ '1"? 5 t/-‘ 0-169 ABSTRACT THE LEFTOUTS: DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN IN HETEROGENEOUS SCHOOLS by Sandra Ardah Warden A Leftout is defined as an organically normal, socio- culturally disadvantaged elementary-school child who attends a heterogeneous school, i.e., a school in which the majority of his age-mates are significantly better prepared than he is to meet the academic and social demands of the contempo- rary public school system. It is suggested that the Left- outs are culturally alienated and economically disadvantaged children who typically fail to adjust to the socially ap- proved academic and interpersonal demands of a heterogeneous school situation because of their deviation from the value orientations and behavioral expectations of their teachers and more advantaged age—mates. It is proposed that both academic and social mobility potential is greater for these children. However, their potential for academic and social maladjustment is also prOposed to be greater because they must daily cope with the demands of a school situation de- signed primarily for children who are well prepared. An extensive exploration of the literature related to socio-culturally disadvantaged school children yields a num- ber of relevant interrelated antecedent and consequent variables. These variables are identified and then Sandra Ardah Warden synthesized in an analytical effort to understand the causes and consequences of the Leftout‘s potential maladjustment in heterogeneous schools. The analysis is developed within a larger social psy— chological framework from which is derived the assumption that academic and social difficulties are interrelated-~and that difficulties in either or both of these dimensions are related to emotional maladjustment for the Leftout. Five interrelated Specific causes of the Leftout's maladjustment are suggested: (l) a relative lack of language facility, (2) relative deprivation in early interpersonal affiliations, (3) relative status deprivation among teachers and age-mates, (A) relative disadvantage in knowledge and/or acceptance of the values typical to the "middle-class core culture" of the heterogeneous school, and (5) relatively low levels of self-esteem. In the develOpment of the analysis, each of these indicated causes is analyzed separately and a series of interdependent consequences are suggested. From these, in turn, are derived suggestions for needed research and compensatory programs designed to ”cure" the Leftout’s disadvantage. THE LEFTOUTS: DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN IN HETEROGENEOUS SCHOOLS By Sandra Ardah Warden A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology 1966 To: Frank, Mike, Lynda, and Greg who cooked, cleaned, cajoled, and commiserated-—but never laughed! ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS David Gottlieb was instrumental in my undertaking this project but it was Denton Morrison who guided its compilation and completion. His encouragement and criticism are deeply appreciated. Although the ultimate responsibility for the quality of this work rests with me, I am indebted to Wibur Brookover, William Faunce, and Eugene Jacobson whose support and sugges- tions have been invaluable to the final product. I am also grateful to Lucy Rau Ferguson for her careful reading and thoughtful criticism of Chapter III. This investigation was supported in part by a Public Health Service fellowship # 5 Fl MH—QM, 016-02 (BEH) from the National Institute of Mental Health. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Chapter I. THE LEFTOUTS: WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, WHY, AND HOW? . . . . . . . . . . Who? . . . . . . . . . What, Where, When, Why, and How? II. THE ROLE OF ”SOCIAL CLASS” IN DIFFERENTIAL SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT Historical DevelOpment of Interest in Social Class and Education . Negro vs. White--A Special Case of Stratification Social Class and Achievement MOtivation. Social Class and the Bases of Achievement Patterns and Themes in the Social Class Literature III. THE DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESS AND THE ROLE OF THE FAMILY . . . . . . . . The DevelOpmental Process in Children The Role of Significant Others in the DevelOpmental Process. . The Family and Child— —Rearing Techniques as they Influence Personality Develop— ment . The Roles of the Mother and Father in the Socialization Process . Limitations of Parental Influence on othe DevelOpmental Proces IV. SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL ADJUSTMENT IN SCHOOL: THE ROLE OF PEERS AND SELF-CONCEPT Peer Relationships for the Leftout Processes of Peer Influence. I . The Influence of "Intelligence' and the Situation . Self— Concept in Relation to Total School Adjustment iv Page iii 12 22 MO 46 61 72 98 IO3 104 123 166 17A 185 210 Chapter Page V. ANALYSIS: CAUSES, CONSEQUENCES, AND ”CUREs” . . . . . . . 2A1 Analysis. 256 Postscript 324 BIBLIOGRAPHY 335 APPENDIX 3A7 III!) I a...» I“... CHAPTER I THE LEFTOUTS: WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN. WHY, AND HOW? The United States is philosophically devoid of class bias and has traditionally been a uniquely open and fluid society. It has been argued that in this century, notable for its rapid technological expansion, the social structure has exhibited a tendency toward becoming more rigid. This rigidity is seen to be based partly on such factors as regionality and occupational categories, but most particu- larly on educational categories. The contemporary social scene is being influenced by an emphasis on ideological liberalism and the increasingly large role which govern— ment agencies at several levels are playing in educational concerns. ”Equality of opportunity for all” is evolving from a philosophical tenet into a concrete goal and active efforts, supported in part by governmental financing, are being made to reduce educational barriers to social mobility Many social scientists, including the author, feel that the possibility of upward social mobility in the contemporary United States rests primarily within the educational system-- and specifically in the public school system. IIE'IN.{ In the United States, philosophical and educational tradition affirm the public school's task of unifying a diverse society without creating uniformity among its citi— zens. Whatever problems may be associated with such a com- plex demand and whatever the results of its efforts, the public school is most certainly a highly significant agency of socialization. With an ideological command to provide "education for all" and the task of socializing children of broadly divergent backgrounds, the public school system has done a highly admirable job. Historically, through repeated influxes of immigrants, the school system in the United States has done a commendable job of assimilating and acculturating children from many dissimilar cultural back- grounds while allowing for the preservation of distinctive cultural heritages. Today the problems faced by the public schools are somewhat different. The ”culturally disadvan- taged” child of our era is apt to be a native—born citizen, with at least nominal English as his native tongue, and without a deeply rooted cultural heritage. The threat of what has been called the "tyranny of conformism" hangs as the sword of Damocles over the social theorist who would argue that the problem can no longer be focused on main— taining cultural diversity but must focus on raising all citizens to a minimum level of literacy, competence, and even common value orientations—-conformity if you must! The ”culturally disadvantaged” child Of today most Often comes from the lower socio-economic strata. However, LA) large numbers of children from low sociO-economic back- grounds are able to adjust to school and classmates without giving evidence of being essentially different from other children. A full understanding of what is involved in the culturally disadvantaged child's adjustment, or lack of ad- justment, in the public school system requires an acquaint- ance with several lines of theory and research seemingly far removed from the central problem. This book represents an attempt to tie together these diverse endeavors and to elict from them, as parsimoniously as possible, a set of explanatory principles that may lead +——1 ct to further research. is fortunate that the literature related to this subject is extensive—-it is unfortunate that it is so widely scattered and so lacking in theoretical perSpective. The literature in this area of interest tends to be fraught with an abundance of mystical pronouncements and seemingly unrelated findings. The attempt here will be to critically review some of the major works extant, to synthesize a number of findings which relate to the problem, and to develOp clear analytical statements in a consistent way which will aid in understanding who the Leftout is, where, when and why he got to be that way, and how compen- satory measures may foster his successful adjustment to school. We will offer a framework which is at least poten- tially capable of dispelling some of the ambiguities surrounding the causes and consequences of children's "cultural disadvantage” as this term is understood in the mid-20th century. Borrowing the journalistic dictum that serves as the title of this introductory chapter does not imply a jour— nalistic approach. In the pages to come we shall explore together, in a scientific frame of reference, these ques— tions--who, what, where, when, why, and how-~as they relate to the Leftouts. The general area of concern here is that of the impact of the social system on personality-—as it develOps and as it must change to cope with the demands of the interpersonal environment. Of Special interest is the impact of the social sub- system of the public school on those children who have variously been termed ”deprived,” ”disadvantaged," ”with- out,” etc. Even more specifically our attention will be focused on the ”Leftout.” A Leftout is defined as an orSanically normal, socio—culturally disadvanted elementary- school child who attends a heterogeneous school, i.e., a school in which the majority of his age—mates are signifi- cantly better prepared than he is to meet the academic and social demands of the school situation. Our approach is social psychological, i.e., we assume that the majority of what any individual thinks and feels, and a great deal of how he acts and reacts, is the direct result of his interaction with other people. Our funda- mental theoretical assumption is that the most basic charac~ teristic of human life is its social quality. Because humans are inherently social——because they continuously live, work, and play together-~they come to share an under— standing of the meaning of a tremendous array of sounds, symbols, postural cues, and overt action in their inter— personal environment. The individual's interpretations of the meanings for himself of each of these things is the basis upon which he chooses his own actions and decides what he thinks and feels of himself, his situation, and other peOple. We assume, further, that the major sociological con- cepts relating the social system and personality are those Of socialization, social roles, cultural value systems, and reference groups. Each of these concepts will be considered in some depth in succeeding chapters, here our purpose is to lay the theoretical foundation on which later discussions are to be erected. The social psychologist's definition of personality is based on its being a social product, i.e., the result of social learning acquired during the socializa- tion process. This process is one of learning and internal— izing beliefs, values, attitudes, world views, and a conception of self from those with whom the neophyte inter- acts. Note the use of the term ”neophyte." Much of the psychoanalytically oriented thinking about socialization centers on the “992333) but for the social psychologist, socialization is an ongoing process which is not complete at puberty, adulthood, or any other point in time but con- tinues so long as new experiences do. Thus, the social (n II psychologist may speak of socialization" in as widely ontexts as toilet training an infant or the £111 of role learning required of a man who is today ”a a retiree." Social psychologists do Lot imply that early experiences are unimportant, but :ues are important tool F) ,__r .-+ :3“ 511 . 4 i (1 I) Ffi ('\ j T11 f f (N «La; psycioicgical view of socialization has been neavilr influenced by George Herbert Mead's thinking about the develOpment of the "social self” (Mead, 193A) and m, ynbcli: interactionism, the ”interpersonal" approach of Harry Stack Sullivan (l953), other neo-Freudian thinking, and learrzng theory” Mead emphasized the reciprocal nature Of human interaction on the basis of shared symbolic meanings and learned mutual expectations. Sullivan stressed the importance of interpersonal interaction to personality development durinC the process of socialization. Some of {:1 T (Q? I I?“ (I) t’s work on the development of intelligence (more thor- O C. I? I- u I treat V fl) :d in Chapter III), especially the importance of a stimulatirg environment, has also had a fairly direct in— fluence on contemporary social psychological thinking about . . . _~ . _ - I . g . ‘ n p . cutlalizaflon, Parson-s (1991) discusSIons of nxiety,” I and Merton s fl“57) of alienation,‘ follow fairly closely Karen .orney s IIQLS) conceptionscfi‘"basic anxiety,” i-€«; lZmd fear of separateness and aloneness. The I) a general interpersonal~social—learning approach to socialization and personality development is exemplified in the current work (D C» Fafxiurxi arm} DJ + 9.3 rid I'D rs (1963)—-a work which we will have occasion to cite several times in the ensuing discussion. This position might be described as a wedding of the ele— ments of classic learning theory (stimulus, response, rein- forcement) with notions of the specific importance of peOple, social rewards, and how the individual perceives and inter- prets the actions of those with whom he interacts. Those elements of Freudian psychoanalytic theory which have been retained in the contemporary social-psychologi- cally oriented view of socialization are: (l) a generalized conception of an internally organized personality structure [a 01 interrelated parts which have some bearing at least on overt behavior, (2) the importance of early experience, and (3) identification as the facilitating mechanism by which socialization attempts can successfully influence the inter- nalized personality develOpment. Social psychologists have added to these ideas: (1) the importance of later experi- ences; (2) the tremendous influence of other peOple, the situation, and social expectations, (3) the ideas of social learning through identification with role models and refer- ence groups; and (M) the great importance of communication in general (broadly defined) and language acquisition in particular. It would seem that the social psychological approach to the concept and content of socialization improves upon the psychoanalytic view because: (1) it is more nearly demonstrable by research, (2) it relies less heavily on introspective reports, (3) it accounts for both individual differences and individual similarities without postulating some biologically inherited social past, and, most impor- tartly, (4) it moves the whole area of interest into the realm of the conscious and observable and does not rely on untenable and untestable prOpositions about unconscious mo- tivations and unobservable defenses. Social psychologists ) : al o contributed the conception of man as an inherently :3 av (T (I) social animal and rejected the notion that "civilization" is merely a thin veneer painted over what is basically a Darwinian brute: We take as axiomatic that the values, beliefs, atti— tudes, etc., which are learned during the socialization process are, in a large part, consensually shared by the already existing group of which the neophyte is a new mem— ber. To some extent then, his value orientation and behav— ior will be like that of all other men (to paraphrase Kardiner). However, the group with whom any individual interacts in his lifetime is, necessarily, a sub—segment not only of the total human Species but also those who com— prise any particular society. Thus, the value orientations and behavioral prescriptions and prescriptions to which he is exposed may differ from those prevalent in some other sub-segment of those "modal” to the total system. There- fore, any individual's value orientation and behavior is, to some extent, like those of only some other men. And, Of course, some Specific experiences, and surely the com- binations of particular experiences, will be idiosyrcratic for any given individual. Thus, to some extent, his value (0 orientation and behaviors will be like those of_ng other man . Within any social system or sub-system each individual occupies one or more positions, i.e., roles, which are accompanied by normative expectations as to how a person in that position should think feel, and behave. One of the major products of the socialization process is that of knowl- edge of role expectations. Since any social system is com— prised of identifiable and interrelated positions, it is possible to talk of social ”structure." From the vieWpoint of the social system roles are differentiated and their expectations developed in keeping with what is regularly required for the maintenance of the structure qua structure. In much the same way, an individual may be said to possess a personality system and a cognitive structure. From the viewpoint of the individual, roles are delineated and ex- pectations accompanying them internalized and "fitted into" the develOping personality in a way which will help main- tain that structure qua structure. We might also speak analytically of a cultural structure-—a structure of inter— related normative regulations for beliefs, behavior, per- ception, etc., which must also seek to maintain itself as a structural whole and preserve a patterned "way of life." However, the individual is not wholly a product of the social or cultural structure of which he is a member. Pri- marily, the influence that the social or cultural system 10 may have on the develOping individual is most directly felt only at the point where the needs of the social structure, the cultural structure, and the personality meet. Not all tehavior is included in this area-—for a variety of reasons. Consider, for example, the degree of differentiation that can occur among social and cultural systems. In large, ccmplex, highly differentiated social and cultural systems and sub-systems the range of roles is wide-~and so too is the range of socialization practices. Thus, in anything as u, an t p '7 social class broad as a for instance, we would expect a wide range of possible personality orientations. A second kind of consideration is the degree of integration among the components of a system or sub—system. In a highly integrated system, where the roles are extensively inter- related, influence on the developing personality should be greater than in a situation where various roles are less — well integrated and, thus, no one alone has the power to influence that would an integrated whole. For example, consider the differential influence that a teacher in the sub—system of the public school might have among children who, on one hand come from families whose values and behav— Vioral expectations coalesce with those of the school and, on the other hand, those who come from families whose value orientations are antithetical to those of the school. This is a subject we shall explore more fully in subsequent chapters. 11 A third limitation to the influence of the social and cultural systems on personality is that of the degree of structuring per se, i.e., the number of normative rules setting behavioral limits which may be present in any system of roles. Some sub-systems and roles may be accompanied by more of such normative regulation than others. Thus, some may have a more clearly definable influence on developing personality than those which permit a wider range of behav— ior and interpretationo Consider, for example, the role of ”child” as opposed to that of ”student." Each permits a fairly broad interpretation, but the role of ”student" is accompanied by basic expectations concerning diligence, motivation, promptness, respect for teachers, and so on which are not included in the more loosely structured role of ”child.” We can conclude that the effectiveness of the social and cultural systems on the development or changing of personality systems is always modified by the degree to which these can influence the socialization process and main- tain control in the face of many eXperiences and situations. Reference groups which are selected by the individual have a mitigating influence on the development of personality. That is, those peeple in the interpersonal environment to Which the individual elects to attend may support and strengthen the general social and cultural structures or they may undermine and weaken their effects by devaluing those things which are valued in the larger system. It is 12 with these basic theoretical considerations that we approach the more Specific problem at hand. Who? During the last two decades, and particularly at present, there has been a burgeoning interest in the rela— tionship between socio—cultural disadvantage and school achievement, motivation, and general social and emotional adjustment among children. Adjustment is defined for our purposes as continual adaptive learning in the face of new experiences. A great deal of the literature in this area of interest deals with more or less geographically isolated ”poverty pockets,” e.g., urban slum areas and isolated rural areas, in which the vast majority of the children in a given school system may be designated as disadvantaged. Little attention has been directly focused on the even more common phenomenon of the disadvantaged minority who must attend school with age-mates who a£§_prepared. Rapidly increasing moves toward consolidation of rural schools and integration of racially and/or residentially segregated urban schools tend to expand this kind of situation even further. There- fore, we shall direct our special attention to the socio— culturally disadvantaged child who, in comparison with his more advantaged classmates, is disadvantaged. Concern will be centered here on those youngsters whose background suffers by comparison to their classmates in terms of adequate prior training and experience t0 prepare for the demands oi the school system. That is, those children whose sub-cultural socialization patterns have \ teer inadequate to equip them to successfully reach goals typical of *he ‘tations of their teachers and their (D m l more advantaged age-mates. The contemporary American public school system is the ‘ven in our consideration. CbViously individual schools differ from each other in many ways, e.g., teacher and/or classmate attitudes and behavior toward children of socio- raciai or religious minority groups may economic, ethnic, he negative, positive, or neutral, specific teacher’s methods and personality may aid or hinder the disadvantaged child c adjustment; and the particular social "climate" in any given school may foster academic achievement or impede it. Nevertheless, all public schools in our society exhibit basic similarities in that: (l) the students are separated by age ard into roughly equivalent grades or achieves 07 In ‘1 o up ment groups, (2) a variety of detailed cumulative records are kept concerning each child‘s academic rating, his scores on standardized intelligence and achievement tests, his (I) social adjustment to his clas mates, and his general physi— cal and emotional health--all of which serve as the basis for evaluation of his level of success and determine with which group he shall be placed; (3) the basic orientation of the instruction and testing is intellectualism, with a strong verbal focus, and (A) the primary content of the instruction centers on the development of unifcrm academic V la skills such as reading, writing, arithmetic, and on ac- ,uisition of Knowledge of the white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant historical heritage and the contemporary core-cultural values of ThiE group, These similarities are what we refer to when discussirs the scncol system, Thus, while we will have occasio: to discuss the specific adjustive/maladjustive factors in_a school system, we typically refer to the Left- out as disadvantaged in relation to the goals and practices f‘(’\ ,.+ J— Lis generalized scqool system: (‘3 i it has seen widely suggested that fundamental changes are required in this generalized system if it is to ade— quately cepe with educating the socio-culturally disadvan- r~+ 53) W) kl.) CL ( LT . J t_s Ll Trdeed this may well be the case. However, it does not seem feasible to attempt to effect changes until those variables which are maladjustive in this system have been identifiedt Tn order to identify the maladjustive variables 1n the system, an analysis of the causes and con- sequences cf the Leltout s disadvantage must be available, Schoo=s which serve heterogeneous for worse, dichoto- mous) student bodies often enhance the discrepancies in bajxgr dhd**LO the increased detriment of the child who is {0 laching, Cla s work in such schools is geared, necessarily, to the child who has had at least an average preparation fOr school, and who-~from teachers and in the family-- Y. J (D ceives, as a matter of routine, encouragement and support TOWard academic and social uccessl in this Kind of U7 15 setting, a child who is ill prepared and/or poorly motivated may indeed be left out. It should be noted that there is no intended implication that heterogeneous or integrated schools are inherently inferior to more homogeneous ones-— although it is postulated that the range and scope of both social adjustment problems and achievement potential in heterogeneous schools may prove greater. In such schools, problems require careful attention and tendered solutions demand skillful planning. For the disadvantaged minority, the discrepancy be- tween their own position and that of the majority of their classmates may create severe conflicts and frustrations, as we shall see in the succeeding chapters. While our dis- cussion will focus on those children who are most severely disadvantaged, we do not wish to exclude those whose dis— advantage is less extreme and those who might even be classified as ”advantaged” if they were compared to some other group than the one in which they are interacting. We are suggesting that socio-cultural disadvantage ranges along a continuum and this is the reason for our insistence on a definition of ”disadvantage” specifically in comparison with with those children with whom the Leftouts are actually in contact in a heterogeneous school system. It is possible, of course, for comparative disadvantage to take into account the larger society with whom the child will one day come to interact; so that the slum child in a homogeneous social setting where he is not now disadvantaged in comparison to 16 his classmates could be seen from the perSpective of his eventual contact with those whose ability, motivation, Knowledge, and experience are substantially greater than his own. However, we shall focus our attention on those children who are in daily contact with their more advantaged age-mates. Our primary objectives in the chapters to come are to examine how the Leftout differs from his age-mates and to analytically connect these variables of how and why the Leftouts get to be that way in their particular school situ- ation. It is clear from our definition of the Leftout as socio-culturally disadvantaged in comparison to his class— mates, that part of his potential adjustment problem in the school situation must center in his cultural alienation from the expectations of the majority group and/or in his eco- nomic disadvantage. 1 The term ”culturally deprived child,‘ which was preva— lent in the literature until recently is coming to be sup- planted by ”socio-culturally disadvantaged child" and related variants. In any attempt to define this cultural disadvantage or alienation from the cultural expectations of the majority group, it is necessary to consider the con- cept of culture. Several considerations help to clarify the concept. In the first place, "culture“--as social scientists employ the term--is a universal attribute of all social groupings, and variations among cultures cannot prOperly be interpreted as differences in amount or in value, 17 but only as differences in kind. Thus, no individual is ”deprived" of a culture, and cultural "disadvantage" or ”alienation” must be considered in relation to some other kind of culture than his own. In this case, ”culture” refers to the established pattern of norms and values of some group. Those who are "culturally alienated" are alien to (foreign, outside of) the mainstream of the "core” cul- ture of the majority group in any society and, by definition, are minority group members (sometimes in the more accepted use of that term too, but not always). Although all groups in our society share to some ex- tent in the prevailing ”middle-class core culture," there are many different patterns of culture, reflecting more or less distinct ways of life among particular nationality, religious, ethnic, social class, geographical, and other sub-groups within the pOpulation. These may be character- ized as ”sub-cultures.” Ethnic, racial, and other criteria for distinguishing sub—groups often do play a part in socio—cultural disadvantage, but "minority group status" in the usual sense is unsatisfactory alone for use as a crite— rion of those who are Leftouts. These sub—cultures vary in the extent to which their socializing influences, i.e., intra-family relationships, child—rearing practices, language patterns, intellectual pursuits, behavioral norms, values, outlooks, etc., equip children to adjust successfully to the middle—class core cultural patterns which prevail as the id@fl_in the larger 18 society and which are taught in the schools. Thus, children who are socialized in sub-cultures markedly different from the prevailing standard may or may not find themselves "core” cultural values ”disadvantaged” in the schools, where and behavioral patterns are commonly required for success- ful academic and social adjustment. The term ”culture" also has a second common meaning. In this sense culture relates to things such as experience with and appreciation of art, music, drama, and other such ”cultural” accouterments. The common denominator of those children whose socializing influences have been largely alien to the demands of middle-class norms of cultural appre— ciation is relative poverty and social discrimination. The children involved live mainly in urban and rural slums, in substandard housing, with poorly educated parents, and with little Opportunity to develOp an interest in things "cul- tural.” Thus, in this sense, those who are culturally alienated are also alien to the trappings of society which, given limited economic facilities, are foregone as un- attainable or unknown luxuries. From this perspective, and at a very common sense level, cultural alienation is linked to economic disadvantage. Economic disadvantage is not nearly as sticky a prob- lem as is cultural alienation as defined in the first instance, for it can largely be measured in terms of dollars and cents. The only real trick here is to avoid any kind Of rigid classification into Specific states of deprivation. 19 Again, each empirical instance must be measured in com— parative terms, i.e., in direct comparison to those with whom the individual interacts. For example, the federal government's definition of poverty relates to an annual in— come of approximately $3,000. While such an income may be adequate to avail a child of the cultural opportunities offered in Hazard, Kentucky or Bay Mills, Michigan, it is rwrdly adammte for minimum subsistence in Los Angeles or New York City. The kind and depth of compensatory programs offered by the schools to economically disadvantaged chil- dren must take into consideration the range and availa- bility of ”cultural" activities offered outside the class- room. We wish to emphasize that the concept of socio- cultural disadvantage is not used here as a stereotype for all children nutured in sub-cultures of poverty and/or ethnic discrimination. Although large numbers of such children find it difficult to cope with typical school tasks, this is by no means universally the case! Such children exhibit a wide range of individual differences-~and part Of our concern will be in suggesting answers to the question of why some of these children adjust successfully to typical school demands and why some do not. The following chap- ters seek to explore the bases of socio—cultural disadvan- tage among school children and draw implications concerning the impact of various kinds of deprivation of the develop- mental and adjustive process in heterogeneous schools. We 20 will examine deprivation in the areas of achievement moti— vation, general knowledge, Specific experience and training .! in arguage, and such disadvantage as may be inherent in the social situation in which the Leftout finds himself. The primary purpose of this study is to undertake a systematic systhesis of research findings and theory relating to the academic and social adjustment of the socio—culturally dis- advantaged child in the heterogeneous school situation. Our discussion will center on the particular age group found at the elementary school level. We limit our con- cern in this way for two reasons. The first of these is based on our belief in the hoary proposition that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Secondly, we believe that the influence of family and other adults, directed at molding behavior to accepted social standards, is greatest in the child's early years. A UJ we shall see, research indicates that problems in— tensify and multiply with increasing age. Research findings also suggest that feelings of isolation and social rejection arise from everyday experiences which indicate to the child that he is, indeed, alone and left out. If the child holds his teachers and classmates in the position of a reference group (and many elementary—age children do), then failure to establish successful interaction with teachers and class— mates may have crushing repercussions on the childis social and emotional adjustment to the heterogeneous school situ- ation. By the time the child reaches adolescence, after several years of frustration and unhappy experiences, it is quite possible that the Leftout may_not perceive his teachers and more advantaged age—mates as a reference group. It is evident both theoretically and by only super- ficial observation that the ”birds of a feather may flock together,” i.e., that Leftouts may form their own sub— culture within the school and look to each other as a refer— ence group. That this happens particularly in the adoles- cent period is beyond question. Thus, our concern will be specifically with pre—adolescent children among whom clique boundaries have not been as rigidly drawn and where it is U“: both po sible for the Leftout to gain acceptance (given the prOper compensatory eXperience and training in social and academic skills) by the majority group and probable that he wishes to do so. We are suggesting that by junior high school, and certainly by high school, programs aimed at academically and socially integrating the Leftout are extremely difficult to devise, if not doomed to failure. Not because his "per- sonality” is permanently formed and not amenable to change, but because the Leftout has by this time so radically altered his initial goals, self—concept, and reference group identification that only with extreme difficulty, great patience, and many rewarding experiences could he (0 po sibly be induced to revive the goals and interests with which he entered the social sub-system of the heterogeneous school. Our interest, then, lies with trying to understand-- 22 and perhaps suggest ways of ”short circuiting"-—the connec- tion between socio—cultural disadvantage and academic and social maladjustment among elementary—school children. What, Where, When, Why, and How? The ”what" of our interest is the dual concern with social and psychological perspectives and how they are in- terrelated in the comparatively disadvantaged child's personality develOpment, academic achievement, and social growth within the social sub—system of the heterogeneous school. Burton (l953) claims two challenges have been issued to American education, ”to develop a minimum liter- acy and simple fundamentals of citizenship" and "to develop cultural unity within a diverse society simultaneously with full development of individual talent.” Throughout our society, public school programs and curricula as they now exist appear to accomplish both of these goals relatively well for a large prOportion of American school children. It has been argued that approximately one-half of the chil— dren who enter the public school system successfully adjust to the current program and social climate and emerge as reSponsible, well trained young adults (Bloom, Davis, and Hess, 1965). By the same token, of course, approximately one-half of the children who enter school experience at least some difficulty or failure in successfully adjusting to the social and academic demands of the public school. Obviously the reasons for adjustment problems are many and 23 varied, and some of them lie outside our specific interest area. On the other hand, a large proportion of our Left— outs will eventually be numbered among those who fail to successfully complete high school. The successful completion of public school training through high school is ever more increasingly the deter- mining criterion Of status, economic Opportunity, and suc- cessful entry into the reSponsibilities and privileges Of adulthood in the larger society. In a nation such as ours, with a highly develOped technological economy and a highly literate, socially conscious populace, the youngster who does not complete secondary school training is denied ad- mission to an ever expanding sector of the occupational hierarchy and is increasingly more disadvantaged as a citi- zen. In the past, when there was sufficient Opportunity in the economic system for unskilled workers with a minimum of education and when even such daily-living requirements as driving an automobile, rearing children, voting on bonding and legislative issues, shopping for food and furniture, and the myriad of other tasks which face all modern families were less complex and demanding, the schools could Operate on the principle of weeding out the less able and selecting the most capable for advanced education and Specialized training. However, we are in the midst Of a time of far- reaching basic social changes which are affecting the entire society, and which will increasingly place pressures on all aSpects of the educational system. Our rapidly 24 develOping, complex, urbanized, industrial society requires that every functioning member be literate, responsive to rapid changes in every aSpect of life and work, and be capable of learning and relearning relatively complex skills and ideas as minimal prerequisites for economic security, social responsibility, and mature independence. The public school must bear the major burden of training children to be functioning members of such a society. The public schools, therefore, can no longer be selective, but must be particularly concerned with the life and career potentials of those youngsters who are adversely affected by the present school program and social climate. The contemporary focus of the educational system must emphasize raising both the aspiration and achievement levels of the group Of children who have been ignored, rejected, or placed in a marginal position relative to their more advantaged classmates. It is a happy commentary on our society to note that educational planning and concern is currently being directed toward precisely these kinds of goals. It is our feeling, however, that too little attention is being directed toward an analysis of where and when the disadvantaged child's troubles begin, why some children of apparently similar backgrounds and intelligence successfully adjust and achieve in school while others do not, and how compensatory programs may be designed to reduce the disadvantage Of the Leftouts. What we hOpe to accomplish in the body Of this work, is to raise some of the theoretical issues underlying the problem, 25 explore their interrelationships, and arrive at a reasonably If 7 sound analysis of the ”where, "when," ”why,’ and "how." Compulsory attendance laws bring into the school children who are poorly motivated, ill prepared, and have little concern for the goals of the school. Our interest will be largely limited to the particular concern of the child as he relates to the social sub—system of the school. However, the consequences of membership in the specific sub-system of the school are partly determined by pre—School and non—school related influences-—particularly those of the family and the child’s socio-economic sub—culture. Thus, it is necessary to consider the initial preparation, value— orientation, and motivation to achieve that the school-age child has develOped prior to and outside of school, and the amount of school—oriented support he may receive from other sources. While we may analytically discuss the problems perpetrated or perpetuated within the Specific sub-system of the school, there is in fact no clearly defined point of separation between school influences and those of parents, Peers, or general sub-cultural experiences. Therefore, non— school issues must be raised. The ”what" Of our objectives here is threefold: (l) to arrive at a clearly delineated picture of the Left— out’s social and academic problems, which entails discussion Of what is meant by the lack of academic and social adjust- ment and a look at how the Leftouts differ from other young- sters in apparently similar circumstances; (2) to garner 26 from the extant research and theoretical literature those variables relevant to an analysis of how and why the Left— out gets to be that way, and finally, (3) to systematically present a frame of reference which will account for the Leftout‘s academic and social maladjustment, and from which (I) uggestions related to both theoretical concerns and to practical problem—solving programs may be derived. Extensive, albeit somewhat impressionistic, experience already underlies our concern with socio-culturally disad— vantaged children's adjustment--or lack of it--to the heterogeneous school situation. For some eighteen months the author had the privilege and responsibility of setting up and administrating Michigan State University's Student Education Corps.* Exercising this reSponsibility required meeting at length with school administrators and teachers in some 30 heterogeneous schools in Michigan. Each of these schools is intimately concerned with how best to approach educating socio-culturally disadvantaged children. In addition, the author's experience has included personal observations of "problem" classrooms as well as contact with a minimum of 400 University student volunteers who were working directly with disadvantaged children. The author also had the privilege of participating in two in— tensive conference sessions which afforded contact with peOple from all over the nation who are concerned with variants of this problem. These experiences have pointed —_ *For discussion of the program, see Warden, 196A. 27 up the very real need for the type Of analysis we have under- taken here. As for the "where" and ”when" Of our problem, one of the sources of difference in school adjustment among chil- dren is that of the differential backgrounds they have as a result of membership in various sociO-economic strata. As a broad generalization, to be extensively qualified in Chapter II, upper and middle—class children adjust well to school while lower—class children in varying degrees tend toward maladjustment and failure. Part of the "where," then, is located in the sub-culture in which the child is reared, and part of the "when" Of the develOpment of disadvantage occurs prior to entry into the school. In our analysis we seek to examine the antecedants of particular kinds of value orientations, social behaviors, and communication skills among school—age youngsters. One obvious source of such antecedents is the child‘s socio—economic background-—and Chapter II is partially devoted to exploring the truth of Ehat prOposition. Already mentioned is a basic theoretical proposition which underlies this exploration--that value orientations, behavioral expectations, and symbolic systems are learned in social interaction. Another basic prOposition, as Speci_ fied in Homans‘ (1961) theoretical formulation, is that the more rewarding men find the results of an action, the more likely they are to take this action. Translated into our Specific interests, these two propositions suggest that if 28 there is acceptance of the teacher as a Significant other by the child, contingent on the teacher's acceptance of him, and if he finds the learning situation a rewarding one--then he learns. If he does not accept the teacher's values and goals, and if the learning situation is not rewarding-~then he does not learn. Thus, one of our con- cerns must be an examination of what factors influence mutual acceptance between teacher and student and how school situations, values, goals, etc. come to be perceived as rewarding by some students but not by others. In keeping with what we have said of the general re— lationship between the social system and personality devel- Opment, it is expected that there are individual differences in susceptibility to social influence. However, we must assume that it is possible to predict that certain rewards will be effective in the learning process for most members of a particular group Since these group members will share many common experiences. It is eSpecially useful to know something Of the sub-cultural, age, and sex differences among children in considering continuities in personality. Bandura and Walters (1963) noted that since children from diverse backgrounds experience different reinforcement con- tingencies and are eXposed to widely differing social models, there are marked group differences at any age level. There is often marked inter-individual variability due to biological, socio—economic, ethnic, and cultural differences and to variations in the child—rearing practices of families. 29 These factors are likely to remain relatively constant throughout much of the child's earlier lifetime, and one would expect a considerable degree of intra—individual con— tinuity in value orientation and behavior at successive age periods-~even if these change in the face of new demands from other socializing agents. Thus, social—learning ap- proaches to personality development lay stress on inter— individual differences and on intra-individual continuities. The subject of Chapter II will be an exploration of what is known Of the influence of ”social class” and sub-cultural differences on value orientations, perceptions of the reward value of school, and on social acceptance among children. This kind of approach to social learning relates to external stimuli in the form of behavioral examples and patterns of reinforcement for guiding and modifying the reSponses of the child. However, as we shall see, inter— nalized sanctions (conscience formation), the child's self- conception, his generalized conceptual schema, and other intra-individual factors play important roles in guiding and modifying his responses. This internalized discriminative activity is also socially develOped, largely within the in— fluence sphere of his primary family group through fear of significant others disapproval. Thus, the role of the fam~ ily as an agent of social influence and as prerequisite models to the development of internalized discriminative activity must be considered. In Chapter III the role Of the 30 family in the maladjustive development of socio-culturally disadvantaged children will be explored. The task of defining disadvantage in comparative terms demands eXplicating something of the general process of normal, i.e., typical of or acceptable to the larger social system, sociO—cultural growth. Maladjustive behavior pat- terns and value orientations cannot be defined nor evaluated independently of some description of a well-adjusted develop— mental pattern. Thus, theory and research aimed at general child development and personality develOpment within the family becomes not only relevant but crucial. We do not assume that we can cope with uwaobviously impossible task of explaining the behavior of every individual child. We d3 hope to develop an analytical framework which will ex- plain why large numbers of individuals placed in similar circumstances, having similar backgrounds, facing similar demands, and sharing similar social experiences are apt to behave in similar ways--and the consequences of this be- havior are likely to be similar! Thus, a major concern here must be with what constitutes "similarity." Some children Of apparently "similar” sub-cultural backgrounds adjust successfully to school while others do not. This indicates that sub-cultural criteria of similarity may be too broad for very accurate or reliable prediction and explanation of sociO—cultural disadvantage. Thus, in Chapter III, we will examine some of the variability among children which has its antecedents Specifically in the family and in such 31 individual develOpmental factors as language acquisition and the choice of role models. In discussing the social psychological development of the organically normal school-age child who is our primary focus of interest, it is important to note that at this age the child regularly spends 7 to 10 hours daily outside the home, away from his parents‘ direct influence, and is thus subject to influences from many sources. (Note that of the 1A to 17 hours the child does Spend at home, a minimum of 8 of these are given over to sleep, so hours of outside influence equal if not surpass hours of parental control.) The value orientations, behavioral expectations, and self- concept develOped in the family setting may or may not be reinforced by these other influences and, of course, the child may or may not hold these others in the position of a nfierake group, depending on whether or not he perceives that it is rewarding to do so. One possible source Of non- family influence is that of teachers and other adults, who largely fulfill the role of parental surrogates. However, many of the skills and values acquired during the sociali- zation process in our society are learned in peer groups which freely supply a variety of rewards for appropriate, i.e., approved, social behavior. The child has little or no incentive to deviate from the expectations of his peers-_ whose approval may be_more rewarding to him than that of his parents or other adults--unless he cannot fulfill their expectations and is rejected by them. A child's social 32 acceptability by his peers is an extremely important in- fluence in directing and modifying his value orientation and his behavior. The nature of his reception by his class— mates in school will undoubtedly influence his general attitudes and behavior. Similarly, the child's self-concept -—already partly determined by experiences prior to and Outside of school, as well as by teacher's attitudes and his level of academic success--will be further modified by his perception of social acceptability among his peers. The nature of this self-concept, in turn, will have consequences for the child’s total adjustment to school. Thus, in Chap- ter IV, we shall explore something of the character and con- sequences Of peer group influences, and examine the idea of self-concept and how it relates to maladjustment in school. We are taking the theoretical position that self-acceptance and social-acceptance are positively related, and that an adequate self-concept is a necessary prerequisite to suc- cessful adjustment in school. Our examination of sociO—culturally disadvantaged youngster's adjustment to heterogeneous schools suggests the necessity of a three—fold criterion of "adjustment to School." One dimension is relatively clearly defined in terms of academic performance--as measured by standardized tests, grade point averages, etc. A second dimension of adjustment, not as easily defined, relates to social accept- ance. This dimension is most often measured in terms of affective social relationships, sociometric rankings, 33 accessibility of participation in valued activities, etc. These two elements of adjustment, the cognitive and the social, might be termed "outer-directed" and be discussed in terms of relationships with Objects and peOple. A third dimension of adjustment, emotional adjustment, deals with the ”inner—directed" element of self-concept as held by the Leftout. Measurement of this dimension is typically done in terms of standard personality tests and clinical reports. A somewhat eclectic approach to the develOpment of our analysis seems indicated since no single extant theory or research effort takes into consideration aflfl or even the majority, of the many areas of maladjustment and disadvan- tage as we have defined it that are prevalent among the Leftouts. The basic theoretical framework employed here is the general social psychological one we have already dis- cussed. 0ur Specific analysis, develOped within this broad context, will synthesize formulations derived from many sources. However, no one but the author need be accused of reSponsibility for the end product which is detailed in Chapter V. It is perhaps necessary at this point to draw a dis- tinction between our analysis and our theoretical frame Of reference. The latter refers in this case to our gener- alized social psychological perspective, i.e., our particu- lar approach to the problem at hand which serves to suggest the kinds of variables which should be considered as rele- vant. 0n the other hand, our analysis is a series of 34 statements relating what is known or suSpected about the explicitly posed issue at this particular point in time. Our issue is represented by the Leftout, who is a particular kind of student in a particular type of school. What we ask of our analysis is to offer tentative suggestions concerning (1) the causes of the Leftout's disadvantage, (2) the con- sequences of his disadvantage, and (3) what variables seem to offer the greatest potential as a means to overcoming his disadvantage. In this case the frame of reference is extremely im— portant. The particular selection of means to approaching the problem directs the selection Of observations which will be utilized in the initial steps of the develOpment of the analysis. The frame of reference in this case represents a conscious effort to orient the direction Of problem ex- ploration in a meaningful way. For this reason we have taken the time to explicate our theoretical frame of refer- ence both at the beginning of this chapter and elsewhere as indicated in the body Of the work. in this case the term "analysis" refers to what we hOpe is a sound set of interrelated propositions, containing eXplicit definitions, and offering a tentative explanation Of the empirical phenomena we are examining, i.e., the Left~ out’S potential maladjustment in the heterogeneous school situation. Our analysis is developed inductively from the findings of prior empirical investigations that are assumed to logically relate to the potential theory on the basis of 35 our generalized theoretical perspective. The crucial role expected of our analysis is that of clarifying the nature and extensity of the problem under study. For example, our analysis (inductively compiled from research evidence and related theoretical formulations) argues that the academic, social, and emotional adjustment of an elementary—school child are all equally important in determining his total ad- justment potential in school. Furthermore, we argue, these three dimensions of adjustment are rather directly inter- related. The suggestions derived from this analysis indi— cate the most Obvious theoretical causes, consequences, and potential ”cures" for the Leftout's particular adjustment problems. At the same time, the general analytical frame- work should prove capable of extension to understanding the success or failure of any child's adjustment to any school situation. Although we have stOpped at this point, it is clear that the analysis may be put to test by further deducing research hypotheses, i.e., conditional statements which Specify the conditions which are to be taken as their dis- confirmation, testable in the empirical world, and which are subsequently accepted or rejected on the basis of empir- ical data. We did not take this step for two major reasons. The first of these centers in our concern with examining the very broad range of prior research we felt to be relevant to the Leftout's problems. Such a bringing together of diverse materials and their integration into a coherent 36 whole was felt to be a major undertaking in itself. Secondly, the very scope of the derived suggestions vir- tually precludes any empirical test by a single researcher, or the develOpment of any single "critical hypothesis" upon which the whole analysis might be seen to rest. In one sense the empirical evidence has already been collected-— for this is, after all, the basis for the develOpment of the analytical framework. What remains to be tested, of course, is the particular analytical combination of sug- gestions we have offered. It is hoped that our synthesis will generate a great deal of empirical research. Both the author's experience and a critical explora- tion of current theoretical and research literature, strongly suggest that one critical variable which is both antecedent to and a consequent of socio-cultural disadvan- tage in general--and the Leftout’s maladjustment to the social sub-system of the heterogeneous school in particular-- is lack of communication skill. Comparative ineptness in communication Skills required in the school and by the larger society is seen as a consequent of inadequate lan— guage acquisition based on stimulus deprivation, i.e., an environment which affords comparatively little Opportunity for constructive stimulation. Comparative lack of language Skill is also seen to be directly related to conceptual ability, measured intelligence, and difficulties in learning both formally taught academic skills and more informally taught social skills. Thus, in Chapter V we shall briefly 37 examine the theoretical and empirical contributions of the work of Martin Deutsch and Odnns who have directed their Special attention to the consequences of stimulus depriva— tion. Our analysis also indicates a number of other var- iables of crucial importance in any effort to understand nd explain the Leftout. Therefore, in Chapter V, we shall also be concerned with the final pulling together, from various theoretical and empirical works, those ideas which relate to the Leftout's deprivation in the areas of: (1) general knowledge of the "core" cultural expectations, (2) achievement motivation and functional anxiety, (3) ex- perience and training in social skills, (A) general ad- justive ability, and, (5) self-concept. We shall consider Wilbur Brookover's theoretical and empirical work as it relates to the antecedents and consequences of a low self- concept of ability. Our theory will deal with the three levels of concern which are analogous to the three dimen- sions of adjustment-—academic, social, and emotional--and how each Of these intra-personal areas are influenced by the social and value structures of the school as a sub- system of teachers and peers. The "what" of our work, then, is a systematic look at what is known about Leftouts and the organization and synthesis of this knowledge into a coherent whole which is presented in Chapter V. Our analy- 1 sis deals with the ”where," "when,' and "why" the Leftout gets to be that way. It also concerns itself with the 38 consequences of such deprivation for the disadvantaged child in a heterogeneous school. In the chapters to come we shall examine a number of contemporary research efforts which serve as the basis for the analysis. We have been primarily concerned with empiri- cal research reports which are relevant to the over—all problem area or some specific aspect of it, which hold im— plications for both theory and practice. We do not pretend to Offer a complete summary of all the research relating to socio—cultural deprivation and its impact on children or on the educational system. We have selected research for presentation in these chapters which seems to bear most directly on the development of an analytical framework. The ”truth” of the analysis can come only from extensive and in- tensive testing of the many interrelated prOpositions it presents. We suggest that the analysis can serve as a frame- work within which many otherwise nontheoretical studies can be subsumed, and as a beginning point for directing future studies at many levels. In Chapter V we shall also present the suggested directions for future research which are typical Of and almost Obligatory in an analysis such as this. However, our purpose in making such suggestions has something more than the usual fervor behind it because the need for directed, controlled research in this problem area is urgent and critical. The current pressure Of public concern and the ready availability of research funds for work in this area 39 (including great quantities of government money) have con- tributed to a proliferation of programs, many of which have something less than a fully adequate analytical and metho- dological basis. The issue of the socio-culturally disad- vantaged child's maladjustment to the heterogeneous school situation is pressing. Common humanity demands that quick solutions be found for what are highly complex problems. It is hoped that one significant contribution of our analy- sis will be to the understanding of the Leftout-~and that with understanding will come constructive ideas for correc- tive measures! CHAPTER II THE ROLE OF "SOCIAL CLASS" IN DIFFERENTIAL SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT In one sense, the Leftouts with whom we are concerned represent a ”class” of disadvantaged children. We are de- fining the Leftout in comparative terms. That is, in terms of comparison to others with whom the child must interact in the school system--and, eventually, the larger social system-~he falls at the bottom of any scale of those who have the ability, motivation, knowledge, prior social training, and financial resources to approximate the ideal behavioral values of his particular group. Note the phrase ”approximate the ideal." It suggests that go group of human beings lives up to the ideals they espouse in full measure. However, every group does develop norms of behavior which Specify more or less clearly the bounds of acceptable diver- gence--and it is these norms that the Leftout must learn and Observe if he is to successfully adjust to the inter- actional demands made upon him in the social sub—system of the school in its present form. In another sense, we are pot primarily concerned with social class in the usual meaning of the term. By the Left- outs is not meant those children whose ethnic identity, #0 Ml social class status, nor economic background falls into some standardized classification system. We are not addressing ourselves to the problems of social class per se but always as these, and other factors, relate to the development of social skills, acquisition of role—knowledge, develOpment of value orientation and achievement motivation. The concept of "social class” has played a large part in the historycfi‘social scientific concern with children's adjustment to the educational system in the United States. Unfortunately, this concept is probably one of the most mis- used and abhorred sociological cliches extant. It is, at one and the same time, abhorred because it implies the negation of a strong cultural ideal of equality for all men and misused because it is Often employed to rigidly, and sometimes artificially, stratify social groups. It is, at its best, an ambiguous concept virtually devoid of agreed- upon definable parameters and, at its worst, a rigid stereo- type which does grave injustice to the individuals pigeon— holed within "class" categories. Despite these drawbacks the notion of patterns of social stratification has been widely used--and not entirely uselessly. Properly employed the concept Of social class is an analytical tool for codifying data of individual and group differences. It is apparent to any interested Ob- server Of the world around him that ethnic, economic, educa- tional, occupational, and sub-cultural value differences_do exist among men. Furthermore, these differences may be A2 recognized as crucial variables in understanding the dynam- ics of many social situations. Therefore, while social scientists may not agree on the precise meaning of "social class," nor how it is best measured, there is general agree— ment in the literature-—and we concur--that relatively clear, relatively stable, relatively definable sub-group differ— ences do exist. And, moreover, that these differences will account for at least some Of the variation in human behavior insofar as they influence the socialization process. It is assumed that just as the attitudes, value orientations, beliefs, and behaviors of the individual members of the child’s family may have an important influence on the social- ization process, so too may the broader sub—cultural values typical of the particular socio-economic stratum in which the child is reared. This assumption leads us to the necessity of at least a brief consideration of the relation- ship between individual variables and broader social- systemic variables. Differences in individual acceptance of socialization attempts have been known and noted since Cain was cast out from Eden. However, efforts to observe, compare, and con— trast similarities and uniformities also have a long and distinguished history. The ancient Greeks differentiated among the structural characteristics and resultant member personalities of their several city—states by drawing com— parisons between Athenians and Spartans, for example. Thus, We take it as axiomatic that there are definable sets of 43 system-wide beliefs, values, and behavioral norms and that these sets vary between sub-cultures. One of the fundamen- tal attributes of any social system qgg system is that it is normative. That these norms are essentially arbitrary and differ not only between systems but within the same system over time is clear. Nevertheless, certain uniform— ities tend to persist and for this reason the reciprocal and interdependent interaction of individuals who are mem- bers may prOperly be said to constitute a social "System." And one of the primary functions Of a social system lies in providing the means and content of the socialization process through which neOphytes become full-fledged members. It is assumed that this process of socialization to system-wide beliefs, value orientations, etc. begins in the family and is strengthened by secondary contacts. This concept of value orientation, as used here, refers to the generalized theme which is representative of the complex Of an individual‘s beliefs concerning that which is to be valued and the means by which evaluations are to be made. It is a tacit or explicit theme which finds expression in each of the role and life—style choices an individual makes. This notion of social "choice" implies selection from among a perceived set of finite, concrete, and available alterna- tives. The social system influences individuals to the extent that it places limits on available alternative choices, that it supports and strengthens early family ex- periences, and that it offers alternatives in such a way A4 as to be perceived as choices by the individual. However, the role played by the social system in shaping and devel- Oping individual outlook may be overemphasized. Many fac— tors can influence the acceptance of influence attempts during the socialization process. The intensity and exten— sity of the interaction of social-systemic and individual psychological variables is always delimited, it seems to us, to the extent that the social unit is able to: (l) in- fluence the socialization of the individual while value orientations are develOping, (2) maintain some degree of control against change, through a system Of sanctions, once the individual has developed a value orientation; and (3) serve as the reference group for the individual and hence command his ego-involvement in internalizing commonly shared values. In much of the literature dealing with the interrela- tionships between social class and scholastic achievement, ”social class" is treated as a determinate of behavior. We postulate that "social class” as typically defined in this literature does not constitute an integrated social system which can Specifically define and delimit alternatives, control behavior, nor serve as a reference group. At best the social stratum of which the individual is a member can only imperfectly function in this way and have only a gener— alized influence. Thus, the_same social class may be ex— perienced in different ways by different individuals who are nominally members. 45 Neal Gross (1953) has expounded some Specific criti- cisms of using ”social class" as a determining variable in educational research. He argues that social stratification phenomena are but one important factor useful as a predic- tor or explanatory variable in educational research. He warns that social class is inadequate as the single eXplana- tory ”cause" of educational problems-~and specifically urges guarding against confusing causation with statistical asso— ciation. He notes the lack of agreement on the "proper" way of classifying the various social strata, e.g., race, income, education, occupation, ecological area, prestige, etc. (though it should be noted that many such factors co- vary) and emphasizes the importance of considering the con- ditions under which two factors are related. For example, if social class can be shown to be related to some educa- tional phenomena under condition A there is no reason to assume that the relationship will hold under conditions B, C, and D. Gross also notes that techniques employed to determine social class are often highly questionable on methodological grounds. For example, the way in which the questions are asked in highly influential on reSponses and, in addition, "social class" may have no generally recog— nized meaning among members of the sub—cultural group. Cross is not alone in his criticisms of the use of the concept of social class--and other criticisms could be mentioned, e.g., tendencies toward overgeneralization, un- critical acceptance Of research findings, confusing 46 value-prOpositions with validated research, and artificial forcing of evidence into prearranged class categories. We shall choose the line of least resistance and admit that research of this kind is prey to all of the evils we have discussed—~and probably more. This is why we have placed emphasis on relative, general, and comparative patterns, and the burden is on the reader to bear this in mind as we consider the influence of social class on the developmental and adjustive process. Historical DevelOpment of Interest in Social Class and Education At least four sociological "classics" have dealt with the relationship between social stratification and education in the United States. Major studies by the Lynds, Warner, Davis and Hollingshead have been widely read and have had an impact on critical thinking about the American educa- tional system. The Lynds (1929) in their extensive study Of ”Middletown” drew two major conclusions: (1) all Middle— town parents, regardless of social class level, recognize the value of education for their children; and (2) lower- class children are penalized within the school system since they do not come to school with experiential background Which adequately equips them to deal with the verbal symbols, attitudes, and behavioral characteristics most valued by the dominant middle—class group. Warner‘s (194A) conclu— sions were similar: (1) for all but the upper-class in the community, the school may serve as the means to upward 47 social mobility, by teaching those skills which are essen- tial for both high status occupational preparation and the acquisition of those socially rewarded values and attitudes typical of the middle class; but (2) the child with a lower socio~economic background is penalized in the social system of the school because he is not prepared to conform to the school's middle—class standards and eXpectations. Davis, in the 19MB Inglis Lecture delivered at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, briefly summarized Warner's data on middle—class and lower-class sub-cultures and urged that consideration be given to social class in- fluence on children’s learning. He argued that the schools currently existing had a built-in bias in curriculum, teaching methods, and intelligence tests based on linguistic apptitudes which favored the middle-class child-—to the detriment of the lower—class child. Hollingshead (19A9) also concluded that opportunities for attaining desired rewards varied positively with the child's position on the social class ”ladder." He prOposed that the socialization process typical to the working-class is not satisfactory preparation for the child‘s educational adjustment. He also argued that the middle—class adults in the school, i.e., teachers, supervisors, etc., force 32333 class values on the children in their care and that they reject or ignore those children who do not or will not conform to them. Davis (l9A8) emphasized basic differences in social- ization patterns as they are found in middle-class and A8 lower-class sub-cultures. His work--and that of other thinkers in this period—~has been the impetus for a great deal of research-—and the target of much criticism. 0n the positive side, in 1953 the Harvard Educational Review devoted an entire Special issue to research related to the impact Of social stratification on education. Loeb, writing in that issue, employed the concept of "core culture” to discuss the American class system and its implications for personal and social development. He characterizes the ”middle-class core culture" as the official culture of the society. He notes that its major features are: (1) an emphasis of "success" in the form Of upward social mobility, whiCh often requires severing established affective ties; (2) an emphasis on "prOpriety" in the form Of Observance to both overt and covert normative guides to behavior, (3) an emphasis on the ownership of material goods, clean- liness, avoidance of overt aggression--particularly physical aggression--active participation in organizations, etc.; and (A) an emphasis on delayed gratification of needs and desires. These cultural values have elsewhere been cari- catured as the ”Boy Scout virtues"—-and the reading of the Boy Scout "Laws” quite literally affords a clear insight into the ”core” cultural prescriptions which Loeb has sug- gested is the culture taught in American schools. For Loeb, the teacher serves as the mediator between the child, what- ever his specific background, and this established core culture. 1‘9 The basic ideas inherent in the concept of "social class" are that, first, people who share a common position in the economy are apt to be in prolonged interactional relationships which foster the develOpment of characteristic sub—cultural norms. These norms serve to guide behavior, perception, cognition and affective ties-—in short,a consen- sual value system develOps which differentiates sub-cultures. And, secondly, these behavioral patterns and value systems (sub—cultures) are differentially evaluated and hierarchi— cally ranked on a system-wide basis. Status is accorded in terms of this stratification. Upward social mobility refers to changes in behavior and value orientations required of those individuals who would seek to raise their status eval— uation. Loeb suggests that if there is a conflict between parental class culture and the core culture taught in the school, anxiety may result and the child may rigidly and dependently cling to established modes of behavior rather than exhibiting motivation toward social mobility. As we shall see in the next chapter, the child not only learns certain behaviors from significant others during the social— ization process, but comes to invest them with what Loeb refers to as positive feelings of "belongingness." Loeb argues that if the child lacks a feeling of sufficient so- cial security, he will cling to the affective ties with family and neighborhood, and the value orientations that are familiar and he will experience anxiety if he is forced to give them up for other people and other values. The 50 child is, in effect, incapable in this situation of changing his behavior or adapting his value orientation to new demands. This failure to seek upward social mobility in the school often results in his being characterized in the classroom as a non-learner. Or, if his behavior is highly deviant and rebellious or aggressive, he may be labeled a delinquent. Loeb suggests that the school system represents a major pathway to social mobility, but he argues that for lower—class children much of school learning falls under the headings of meaningless content, conflicting motivations (e.g., immediate vs. delayed gratification), and incompre- hensible goals. Burton, writing in the same special issue, argued that the schools have typically been geared to the aims, ambitions, moral, and ethical standards of the white, prosperous middle class, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon population. . . . The school is not or- ganized to capitalize upon the nonverbal types Of intelligence Often found among children who have not had access to or constant contact with books. The school often does not recognize the emergence of high intelligence and creative behavior in forms other than the abstract verbal type long fostered by the school (Harvard Educ. Review., 1953; p. 248). Loeb, with regard to this last comment also discussed the problem of testing. He noted that standard school-adminis- tered achievement and intelligence tests assume motivation on the part of the child to do his best. Unfortunately, this motivation may not exist at all for the lower-class child and, even if it does, such tests Often involve behav- ior which is neither familiar nor meaningful in his 51 evaluation. We will consider motivation and school achieve— ment at greater length in subsequent sections and chapters. Our purpose at this point is to explicate the historical generalization that American public schools support a domi- nant middle-class value orientation and are controlled by a middle-class administration. We have termed this approach ”historical” despite the fact that it is still found in the literature, because it gave rise to much criticism which has succeeded in modifying the social class approach. Such criticisms can be—-and have been--leveled at these studies for generalizing from research done in a few relatively small communities to all of American society. It has been argued that their data fail to fully support the hypotheses that curriculum selection, participation in extra—curricular activities, achievement levels, sociometric friendship patterns, school drop-out rates, etc. are wholly determined by social class position or unjust school policies which literally barricade the road to upward social mobility for the lower—class child. Among many others, Charters (1953), Brookover (1953), and Hernandez (l963), writing a decade apart and nearly thirty years after the initial work, indicate that the subject of social class and education is still far from being a dead issue. What has died--or, at least, suffered mortal wounds--is the uncritical acceptance of social class as a unitary eXplanatory princi— Ple. Charters questioned the assumption that all individ- uals internalize, to the same degree, the value orientations 52 of ”their“ social class. He notes that the impact of social class background may be profoundly altered by sub- sequent experience with other sub—cultural groups and by shifts in reference group identification. Implicit in Charters‘ argument is the theoretical position we have already explicated--that personality and value orientations are open to modification throughout life by changing social influences and new experiences. Charters analyzed the evidence for a dominant social class control of the school and concluded that such con- trol had not been demonstrated. Brookover (1953) also critically examined research evidence relating to the social class position of public school teachers and the impact of various social class teacher models on children's levels of aSpiration, general personality, and behavior. He argued that the evidence was not sufficient to allow conclusive generalizations about the teachers' position in the strati- fication system nor how this position might affect the chil- dren under their direction. In a later work, Brookover (1961) notes that research evidence indicates that teachers tend to encourage achievement and mobility of certain chil- dren not on the criterion of their measured social class per se but, rather, on the basis of the teacher's perceptions Of the child's behavior and value orientations in relation to the teacher's stereotypes of social class. Many thinkers have criticized the ”one factor” method Of analysis, which stops with the exploration of a single 53 variable such as social class, as being an inadequate ap- proach to a complex problem. Hernandez (1963) bluntly pro- claims that the concept of social class is being misused in the field of education and points to the dangers of pursuing social class as a fixed determinate of individual ”individual behavior cannot be values. He concludes that predicted from socio—economic status." Perhaps_that con- clusion is as broad an overgeneralization as is the concept he criticizes, but we would agree that knowledge of an in- dividual's position in the stratification system alone is not enough if we are to understand his values and attitudes. What appears to be the case is that sub—cultural variations in the socialization process produce a typical but not universal set of attitudes indicative of value orientations which are related to the demands of the school situation. These attitudes may or may not correSpond to the general value orientations of the sub-system of the school or those specific to particular teachers and administrators. It is important at this point to consider the defini- tion of ”attitudes”—-for it has significant implications for considering the interrelationship between individual outlook and behavior of both the school child and his teacher. The definitions of "attitude” are legion in the literature, but the point worth noting is that attitudes may be defined either in terms of cognitive organization, i.e., regularities in feelings and thoughts, or in terms of behavioral motivations, i.e., prediSpositions to act in 5a, a Specific way—-or both! The most fruitful approach to defining the concept of ”attitude” appears to be this last integrative one. For our purposes, then, attitudes are defined as ways of organizing and evaluating cognitions about peOple, experiences, physical objects, and ab- stract ideas which affect the likelihood that an individual will behave in a way which is consistent with these organ- ized evaluations given conditions which: (1) permit their expression, and (2) arouse the motive to do so. When at— titudes are defined in this way it allows for talking about generalized attitudinal value orientations which may or may not influence actual overt behavior depending on the nature of the situation. Thus, even if all members of a given social class category were socialized in an identical manner--which they are not, of course--and developed iden— tical value orientations, these attitudes would not neces- sarily be reflected in behavior. At best, we can speak only of ”general,” or ”typical” or ”usual” patterns. How- ever, to the extent thattimse generalized sets can be dis- tinguished, they are useful for providing some information about differences among and between peOple provided that they are not taken as the pnly explanatory variable. Thus, however cultural alienation and/or adjustment to school are evaluated, simple equation with social ”class” as defined by such criteria as father's occupation, level of family income, area of family residence, parent's level of educa- tional achievement, etc., is not the total picture but only one fragment-—but this fragment may yield important clues and guidaflhes to completing the entire puzzle. H H Ore element common to the descriptions of class differences we have noted is the theme of deviance from some norm taken as a standard. ”Deviation” has come to be a heavily value laden term connoting a general "badness," wiicq may or may not be accurate. Deviance, literally, means different from some standard, i.e., lack of conformity to some law, rule, value, attitude, or behavioral character- 1 tie held as ”proper” by a majority group. Whether or not CO this is “bad” is a matter of judgment. Some kinds of deviance are obviously ”had" in that they would be so FJ def ned by consensual agreement of all the members of a .ocial system, e g., murder of an in-group member. Other 70 kinds of deviance are consensually "good,” e.g., innovations which produce increased rewards for all members of the system. Most kinds of deviance have no such clearly con- sensual definition as good or bad. and ”bad for whom or whatc“ becomes the central question. The Leftouts with whom we are concerned may be defined as deviants, and in doing so it is explicitly assumed that such deviance is, for these children, ”had." That it is, in fact, bad for them becomes an empirical rather than a purely judgmental question when their goals are specified. In this Case we assume that_at least the initial goal of any individual~- including Leftouts-—in the school setting is twofold in that it involves some degree 0f personally defined SUCCQS UJ 56 in: (1) educational achievement, and (2) social acceptance. Thus, any deviation from the accepted means of achieving these goals within the group is bad, or, if you prefer, maladjustive. It has been shown that, in our society, at- tractive rewards are freely available to some members and denied to others. Some highly valued rewards are permitted only to those who have attained a certain status by reason of age, social position, prestige, ethnic background, etc. Barriers to attaining such rewards may arise from personal limitations, intellectual or physical factors, and other fortuitous factors over which the individual has little or no control. Lack of skill, knowledge, and opportunity may also lead to deviancy. This deviancy from the accepted paths to success is reflected in differential distribution of rewards. Abrahamson (1952) investigated the relationship between the child‘s social class level and the awarding of scholas— tic rewards. His sample of 705 students in the early Junior High grades was drawn from two urban, two suburban, and two rural schools. Rewards were defined in terms of selection for participation in extra-curricular activities, prizes received, and academic grades. In all cases he found that middle—class students received a disproportionate share of high grades, occupied the majority of class and school offices, and were the primary participants in extra-curricu— lar activities. Abrahamson did not consider the I.Q. scores Of the students, nor such factors as whether or not they 57 were required to work at home or elsewhere after school, thus limiting their ability to attain rewards. However, his research does permit the conclusion that more scholastic rewards are obtained by children of higher socio-economic background—-for whatever reason. As we have suggested earlier, one of the prominant features of the socialization process is the tremendous amount of variability that occurs within each of the social class levels. Normative behavior is not a simple concept. Much of the research literature has failed to distinguish possible sub—patterns within the lower axio-economic class. Cohen (196A) suggests that, while most human behavior is learned through experiences in a particular cultural setting which offers particularistic norms, in a complex urban industrial society such as ours alternatives are numerous enough and available enough to make predictions of individ- ual behavior hazardous. Some rural and/or geographically isolated sub-cultures with more narrowly defined populations afford more limited alternatives, but variations at the family and individual level are still wide. Added to this problem of variation in sub-cultural patterns, Cohen points Out that the cultural norms vary in their specificity. Some areas of behavior may be culturally undefined, or the social sanctions applicable to deviancy may be unclear—- thus increasing the opportunity for variation. Even when it is not possible to deal with idiosyneratic variations but patterns of response must be the basis of analysis, it 58 is important to distinguish how various aggregates within a social class reSpond. Cohen, among many others, notes that the interaction between personality and social struc- ture plays an important role in any behavioral picture and that circumstances nurturing particular kinds of develOp- ment must be identified. He distinguishes between two sub— cultures in the lower socio-economic strata—_a "lower- class culture of poverty” and a "working class." He argues that members of the "poverty-culture" have little opportunity for mastery of skills and that lack of skill is anxiety producing. A sense of shame is also seen to accompany limited Opportunity. Often this anxiety and shame act together to produce hostile aggressiveness, lack of trust in others, feelings of inadequacy, withdrawal, and a generally suSpicious and negative attitude toward the social environment. On the other hand, "working class" members have the opportunity for skill mastery, pride in achievement, and some social power (derived through labor union membership) which serve as anxiety-reducing functions. Cohen argues that "working class" life nurtures family cohesion and stability. Assuming, as we have, that children learn through contact with and observation of their social environment, this kind of psychological setting obviously would provide a qualitatively different kind of socializa- tion background for the school child than does that of the lower class "poverty—culture." 59 Miller (196U) has outlined an even more detailed analysis of sub—cultural patterns within the lower classes. He identifies four possible sub—groups using economic security and family stability as subdividing variables. Type I, the Stable Poor, is characterized by economic and family stability; where the principal wage-earner is regu- larly employed but in a low skill occupation. The majority of families falling in this class are white, rural, and southern. The aged and the downwardly mobile are over- represented in this group. Negro familes with higher social class than their white counterparts are also included. Chil— dren of these familes are those most likely to be upwardly mobile in the educational system. Type II, the Strained, is characterized by a secure economic pattern but an un- stable family one. This is a category more influenced by individual variation and is cross-sectional in terms of demographic variables. Children of these familes tend to be anxious and less easily adjust to school demands on the basis of their personal insecurity. Type III, the COpers, is characterized by economic insecurity and family stability. This group increases appreciably during periodscfi'economic contraction and contains the largest share of urban, north- ern, and Negroes. Children of these families are sometimes withdrawn from the school to help supplement family income, or because family finances are inadequate to provide appro_ priate clothing, lunch money, etc. These children do poorly in school because of frequent absences or residential 6o mobility engendered by a search for economic stability. Type IV, the Unstable, is characterized by economic insecu— rity and family instability. Miller points out that not every family in this category is a hard core case, but that even here there are degrees of strain and instability. In general, this category contains unskilled irregular workers, broken families, the physically handicapped and mentally disturbed poor. The families in this category are typically chronically dependent on some sort of welfare agency because [I Cl sickness, alcoholism, prolonged periods of unemployment, and/or high rates of illegitimacy. Children from these families are those least likely to successfully adjust to, or derive many advantages from, the educational system. Miller suggests that for Type IV a concentration of public assistance funds on compensatory education for children might be of more value than diffuse efforts to remedy family stability. It is clear that the historical develOpment of concern with the interrelationship between social stratification and education has shown a progressive and profitable modifica- tion, and every indication in the literature suggests that it will continue to do so. "Social class” is no longer the unitary concept it once was. With these modifications in mind, we shall turn to a review of some of the specific findings that have come out of social class research which help, at least in part, our attempts to understand the Left— out. 61 Negro vs. White—-a Special Case of Stratification The discussion of "color caste" in our contemporary society has been the central concern in a rather large body of separate literature. We have neither the time nor is this the place to review it. However, the special case of the Negro in our social system cannot be completely ig- nored. The central issue in this chapter is that of social ”class”-—which is not the same as that of "caste." The Negro in our society-—irrespective of his economic, occupa— tional, education, or other achievements--has been the object of discrimination. While other ethnic groups have successfully been assimilated in the "core culture" fol— lowing relatively short problem-frought periods, the Negro —-because of readily identifiable physical characteristics-- has been largely excluded and forced to remain as a separate ”caste." Within this color caste a somewhat parallel system of social ”class" categories have develOped which are recog- nized by other Negroes but, until very recently, have been given but occasional and scant recognition by whites. In the majority of studies we will review, when color distinc- tions are made, the Negro child is relegated to the lower— class categories. This is justifiable by and large because social discrimination functions as both a cause and a con- sequence. That is, social discrimination directed toward Negroes has caused nearly insurmountable barriers to gener- ally recognized means of upward mobility. These barriers, 62 in turn, result in keeping the typical Negro family in the lower socio-economic strata and preserving among them the behavioral characteristics and value orientations which serve as the rationale for discrimination against them. Neither the relatively few individual Negro families who have managed to escape this vicious circle nor recent anti- discrimination legislation have had far—reaching positive influence to date on the social evaluation of Negroes in general. Desegregation in the schools is not yet complete. Even in those schools where it is complete, or where segre- gation per se never existed, there is still something less than "integration" in the ideal sense between Negro and white students. Physical proximity is not equivalent to social acceptance and lack of segregation is not tantamount to integration. In the U.S. Department of Labor Report to the Presi- dent (1965) it is emphasized that the most difficult fact for white Americans to understand is that the circumstances of Negroes in our contemporary society have been getting worse, not better. The Report suggests that indices of average income levels, standards of living, and educational achievement levels are deceptive. Individually, Negro fam— ilies are reaching higher levels of social status than ever before achieved. Collectively, in a stratification system where a few get much and many get little, Negroes are among the lowest socio-economic strata. The Report argues that 63 the gap between Negroes and most other groups in American society is widening. The fundamental problem, in which this is most clearly the case, is that of family structure. . . . The evi- dence——not final, but powerfully pervasive—-is that for the Negro family in urban ghettos the fabric of con- ventional social relationships does not exist. . . . So long as this situation persists, the cycle of pov- erty and disadvantage will continue to repeat itself (U.S. Dept. of Labor: Report to the President, 1965). Moynihan (1965), addressing himself to this same point, postulates that the family structure is not only the product of social causes but is itself, as the primary socializing agent, a significant and dynamic element in the creation of culture, of social character, and of social structure. He argues that while there is no universal family pattern to be found among urban, poor Negroes, there is a tendency toward high incidence of broken homes dominated by women, where children never acquire any stable relationship with male authority, and never acquire any rational expectations about the future. These problems, as we shall see in the next chapter, are not exclusively "Negro" problems. We do not presume the problems of Negro children to be in any way different from those of white children except insofar as they are increased by the factor of a negatively evaluated skin color. It is this factor which constitutes an addi- tional social handicap—~and one over which the child has no possible control. Gottlieb (196M) argues that there is con- siderable evidence thaLboth white and Negro teachers respond differentially to white and Negro children as well as to 64 children of different social classes. This differential treatment takes the form of negative evaluation of children with dark skin color and/or perceived lower socio—economic status. In this context it is important to briefly consider whether there are objective differences to be found between groups on the basis of race. Several studies yield evidence to support a hypothesis that social structural factors are more significant in dif— ferentiating between Negroes and whites than is the variable of skin color. These studies would indicate that in many cases there is no particular reason for emphasizing race as a crucial variable. Dreger and Miller (l960) critically reviewed psychological studies of Negroes and whites pub— lished during the period of l943 to 1958. They found that, in general, there is a great deal of psychological similar— ity in the value systems of Negroes and whites. While religion was highly evaluated by Negroes-~in keeping with the prevalent racial stereotype--this element also ranked high with white females. They did find marked differences in self-concept among Negroes and whites, with Negroes‘ being less adequate. Related to this is the finding that there is a higher incidence of mental illness among Negroes than among whites. However, we would suggest that both of these findings could be explained on the basis of social structural differences which keep the Negro in a position Of inferiority, discrimination, and highly limited Oppor- tunity. Dreger and Miller found many reports of intelligence 65 differences--with Negroes ranking lower than whites—-and research evidence shows that educational achievement dif- ferences largely correlate positively with the pattern of intelligence test differences. They argue, however, that environmental rather than hereditary factors can explain these differencese—and that is precisely the view supported by our theoretical position. In reviewing studies of tem~ perament, Dreger and Miller found that differences have been noted but that evidence is insufficient to determine the cause. They also point out that cross—race similarities are more typical than cross-race differences. They conclude that differences found between Negroes and whites in leader- ship styles, family patterns, child-rearing practices, fertility rates, etc. all seem to conform to social struc- tural differences rather than to racial differences. Thus, in the areas of social psychological concern, social learning variations are shown to serve more clearly as the basis for differentiation among peOple than do racial dif- ferences. Lott and Lott (1963) also explored the value systems and goals of Negro and white high school children, particu- larly as there were relevant to their educational and voca- tional choices and plans. They found no significant differences among Negro and white children in the area of need for affiliation. The dominant goals for both groups were a desire for pOpularity, desire to attain security, and a desire to obtain knowledge and achieve success. The authors found that, despite their awareness of the problems of discrimination and prejudice, Negro children were gener- ally more optimistic about their futures than were white children. It could be argued, of course, that by this age, (late adolescence) the more pessimistic children would have eft*fin system. The authors indicate some evidence pointing F”. to the relatively high status in the school system of the ”successful” Negroes, i.e., those who had become school leaders. The socio-economic background of the Negro leaders was higher than that of their white counterparts. The parents of Negro leaders were better educated than the parents of most other Negro students and were at least as well educated as those of the white leaders. Negro leaders were found to be more motivated to achieve financial secu- rity and social reSpectability, while white leaders were motivated toward more idiosyneratic sources of success- Lott and Lott also found generally that white studerts have greater economic and home stability than do Negro students. It would appear to be clearly the case that racial differences per se do not play a major role, but that the social structural dynamics we have already men~ tioned—nof discrimination, economic disadvantage, and struc- tural instability in the family--are the variables which cause Negro vs. white differences. Thirty years or more ago Frazier was writing of the pattern of family disorgan— ization prevalent among Negroes and noting its results. He argued that the most important problem resulting from 67 family disorganization was the economic one of reliance on the meagre earnings of the mother or female head of the family. More recently Frazier (1950) points out that financial support programs such as Aid to Dependent Chil- dren (ADC) have alleviated the economic problem to some extent but left untouched the devastating social problem. As a result of family disorganization a large pro- portion of Negro children and youth have not under— grne the socialization which only the family can provide The disorganized families have failed to provide for their emotional needs and have not pro- Uided the discipline and habits which are necessary for personality development. Because the disorgan- ized family has failed in its function as a so— cializing agency, it has handicapped the children in their relations to the institutions in the com- minity. . . . Since the wideSpread family disor- ganization among Negroes has resulted from the failure of the father to play the role in family life required by American society, the mitigation of this problem must await those changes in the Negro and American society which will enable the Negro father to play the role required of him. (Frazier, 1950, p. 277). .Prazier goes on to draw an important distinction be- tween ”unorthodox” family patterns and ”disorganized” patterns which is applicable to our concern with under— standing tne psftout regardless of his skin color. He sug- gests th t “d;scrganized” patterns are especially prevalent among the lowest socio-economic strata--Miller's Type IV-- and are characterized by: (l) a lack of family traditions and kinship ties (2) a lack of discipline within the family unit; (3) a lack of ”familiness," e.g., eating meals to- gether, family forms of recreation, etc, and (A) a lack of ‘ " O socialization to specific values but, rather, superficial 68 H . - -H n , u admonitions to be gcod, honest, "sexually pure,” etc. N Fra ier points out that high rates of dissertion and illegit- :m racy are found among Negroes. However, these rates are not equivalent to disorganization if unmarried couples func- (4‘ in ion a a family unit or if children are absorbed into Ttl (P -< exi 1g family units, e.g., are reared by grandparents or other relatives. He points out that it is not the child from an unorthodox home but from a disorganized and inade- quate one who reaches the school, which teaches values not previously taught or at odds to those he‘s learned, and finds it dull, uninteresting, unintelligible, and anxiety producing. And, because of a general lack of discipline training, self control, and value training the child will seek to escape whenever possible. This escape may be either in the form of physical absence or psychological withdrawal. Jenkins (1958) specifically studied the relationship between illegitimate birth status and the school, personal, and social adjustment of Negro children. His study of A5 Negro children in grades A through l2 attempted to determine whether illegitimate children of economic status similar to their legitimate classmates differed significantly from them in adjustment to school. "Adjustment” was equated with a combination of I.Q. scores, age-grade placement, number of absences, teacher*s ratings, cumulative grade records, and scores on the California Test of Personality (CTP). Jenkins found that while illegitimate children tended to 69 rank lower than legitima.e children in every area except that of number of school absences, significart differences .1 of at least .05 were found only on teacher's ratings and \ 2.9 ~age correSpondence. CTP scores failed to show signi‘ ficant differences in any of its various areas, although the scores corsistently favored legitimate children. (T) W ,._J l f) (:1 / \ ;_.J S “ndes that his data suggest that birth status affects the school adjustment of Negro children. Jerkins argues against a belief, claimed to be preva~ lent among many social workers and other professional people (which may be derived from Frazier's position), that illegit— imacy is aetepted as.a normal status in the Negro sub— culture and that this acceptance preCludes stigma or social ostracism from Operating adversly on the personality of the illegitimate Negro child. Jenkins maintains that these assumptions are invalidated by his research. We would agree that these assumptions may have been called into question by lenkin‘s study~-but his evidence hardly serves as proof to the contrary since statistically significant differences were found in only two areas. The fact that teacher's ratings were found to exhibit significant differentiation particularly suggests that perhaps the teacher‘s personal values against illegitimacy may influence perception of the illegitimate child’s adjustment. We are not told whether or not the teachers were aware of the children‘s birth status, but, if birth status is to be an influence on social relationships at all we assume the status must first be 70 known, There would seem to be no theoretical or intuitive explanation for birth status differences in the case that Frazier suggests, i e., where the unmarried parents act as a family unit or the illegitimate child is taken into 51) x t—v—l (D >< P. I? (4 ,_. 'fng family unit unless the fact of his illegitimate ’0 (+ 53) r + C ch P (0 known to those who disapprove. Jenkih’s findings also indicate that younger illegit— imate children consistently rated higher in comparison to their l gitimate classmates than did older children, in (1) addition, there was found to be a significant negative cor- relation between age and IOQ. The author hypothesizes that this lower ranking is due to increasing social stigma that comes With increasing age, He offers no further eXplanation but we would suggest that the reasog pressures increase with age is that social contacts become wider with age--and that some of these social contacts lie outside of the Negro sub—culture which has accepted the fact of the child‘s illegitimate birth status, Thus, it seems plausible at least to consider Frazier‘s argument that unorthodox fam~ ilies and family disorganization are not necessarily equiva- lent in their consequences. This kind of argument again suggests the necessity of considering disadvantage and lack of adjustment in the light of multi—variable determination. Bloom, Whiteman, and Deutsch (1963) undertook a study to separately analyze the factors of race and social class among a sample of 292 pairs of parents and their first and “D ' "i\ ,-‘R l "+1 . «"rQ’g .t ‘ A ,— . ~.. , £1 ,- ' .-«' - ~“J-zlwx: children. The data were derived irom interviews 71 with the children and parents' response to questionnaires. Three social class groupings were used, on the basis of educational achievement level and occupational prestige ratings of the family's main wage—earner. There were simi- lar proportions of Negro and white children in each class level. The dependent variables considered in the study in— cluded housing conditions, educational and occupational aspirations, family life styles, and others. Bloom et_al found that by and large Negroes are similar to whites in the lowest class group. This group was characterized by a high frequency of residence in sub-standard housing and absence of the father from the home. In this study, where race and social class were inde— pendently treated, it was found that lower class Negro parents reported higher educational aSpirations for their children than did lower-class white parents, and that Negro children aSpired to higher levels of occupational prestige ghan did white children. It was found that for lower—class families housing is more crowded, mothers are more often employed outside the home in relatively menial tasks, and there is a tendency for mothers to be away during meal times (especially breakfast) and that children more often have inadequate breakfasts-—but Negro/white differences in these areas are non—significant. The authors of this study conclude a, as we have done, that general cultural, social, and economic handicaps that are associated with low pOSitiOfl 72 in the stratification system seem to be more influencial in predicting behavioral and attitudinal factors than is race, cial Class and Achievement Motivation As we shall see in the next chapter, children’s achievement motivation is heavily dependent on parental attitudes. if these attitudes are positive, and if they are supported by the child's secondary contacts in his more general social environment, these attitudes will support the child s motivation to achieve in the school situation. However, if parental attitudes and/or those of the sub- cultural environment are negative toward educational achieve— ment, the child may lack both initial motivation to achieve and subsequent support for any motivation which may be aroused by his teachers and classmates. Several studies have been aimed at differentiating value orientations toward educatioral achievement prevalent in various sub—cultures. Some of these issues have already been raised in connection with our consideration of the historical development of concern with social class and education. We turn now to some more specific findings that have contributed to knowl~ edge in this area. Hieroni ymus (1951) studied the nature of differences in social and economic expectations and attitudes toward education among different socio-economic strata. He admir- istered a battery of attitude, socio-economic, eXpectation, intelligence, and performance scales to old ninth grade students in four schools. Socialized anxiety for education was considered to be the major variable in both educational expectations and performance. Hieronymus concluded that perception of social class status is more closely related to levels of expectation than is tested intelligence or performance scores- He found a correlation of approximately .3d between socio-economic status and attitudes toward education. This correlation was in the expected direction, i.e , lower-class children held less positive attitudes toward education. I Employing Hieronymus‘ own concept of 'socialized anxiety for education,” we would suggest that this correla- tion between socio-economic status and attitudes toward education might have been higher and more useful had he separated out those children in the lower classes whose families were stable and supportive from those whose fam— ilies were disorganized and negative or indifferent toward educational achievement. A study by Kahl (1953) points out that lower class parents who are discontented with their own status tend to train their sons from the earliest years of School to take schooling seriously and to use educational achievement as a means for upward social mobility. However, Kahl notes that it is only those children who internalize such value orientations who are sufficiently motivated to overcome cultural, social, and economic handicaps, and 7M perceive the need for academic achievement who develOp what Hieronymus has termed "socialized anxiety for education." Rosen (1956) examined the idea that social class dif- ferences in attitudes toward and concern with achievement and upward striving for social mobility exist in our society. He hypothesized that there were class differences in two components of the achievement attitude: (1) an internalized personality factor termed "achievement motivation," and (2) value orientations which define and implement achieve- ment-motivated behavior. Note the closeness of his formu— lation to our definition of an attitude, in that it contains both internal organizational and external behavioral com- ponents. Rosen‘s sample consisted of 120 white boys, ages 14 to 16, with middle and lower social class backgrounds. Thematic Apperception Tests, scored for achievement motiva- tion, and a questionnaire to measure value orientation were administered. Responses which were future-oriented, activ- istic, and individualistic were taken to represent those values most likely to define and implement achievement motivation and striving for upward social mobility. Rosen found that lower—class boys scored lower on achievement motivation and were less likely to express achievement oriented values than were middle class boys. It was found that a personality factor of achievement motivation was Positively related to high academic grades, but achievement— oriented values per se were not. On the other hand, educa— tional aspiration was related to value orientation but not to motivation scores. In short, actual achievement--in this case high grades-~requires behavioral motivation, not just high attitudinal evaluation; it is necessary to work at it not just dream about it. Rosen has shown that achievement value and achievement motive are independent, though they often and ideally occur together. (We would further suggest that while values may not be accompanied by motivation to act on them, it is doubt- ful that a child who is motivated would lack the relevant value orientation.) For our interests this suggests that in order to produce motivation toward academic achievement, producing positive values toward education is not enough-— behavior aimed at goal achievement must be elicited. Thus, lower-class parents who place high cognitive value on educa— tion may still inadequately socialize their children if they fail to provide a role model or some other actual moti- vation training. Rosen suggests that achievement value orientations are conceptual and probably acquired through relatively complex verbal communication. On the other hand, motivation probably has its beginnings in parent-child interaction and identification, and is likely to be unver— balized yet internalized by the child. Middle—class chil- dren are more likely to be taught the motivation that makes achievement possible because middle—class parents are better able to serve as adequate role models. Whether or not lower class children actually do place a value on educational achievement and occupational mobility has been the subject of several research studies, and the findings are somewhat in conflict. We will briefly consider two studies as examples of the problem. Sewell, Haller, and Strauss (1957) examined the general hypothesis that children's levels of educational and occupational aSpiration are associated with the socio- economic status of their families. The subjects of their study were M167 randomly selected non-farm students, who were carefully controlled by level of intelligence. Data were gathered on the basis of a questionnaire which was designed to elicit information concerning present occupation of parent, level of educational aSpiration, and actual occupational plans. The reSponses were arranged in five equal—sized, rank-ordered categories on the basis of pres- tige of parental occupation and the level of student intel— ligence. Their findings support their hypothesis, and the authors conclude that for both boys and girls, when intel- ligence is controlled, there is a significant positive re- lationship between both educational and occupational aspira— tions and the level of parental socio—economic status. Contrary evidence is supplied by Bennett and Gist (1964). They studied the educational and occupational aspirations of 800 urban students in relation to their social class background and types of family influence. Social class was determined again on the basis of the pres~ tige ranking of the father's occupation. These researchers found that educational and occupational aspirations show 77 little variation among classes. Only Specific occupational plans varied significantly by social class. It should be noted, at this point, that both of these studies dealt with high school seniors who were above the age of compulsory school attendance—~a fact which suggests the possibility that poorly motivated students from the lowest and most un— stable socio-economic levels may already have been elimi— nated. We suggest that many children from Type II and Type IV families (in Miller‘s terms) have already drOpped out by the senior year of high school and, therefore, most of the lower class children represented in these studies have been socialized to and found support for high levels of achievement in their homes. Weiner and Murray (1963) attempt to account for these kinds of conflicting evidence about aspiration levels and social class in terms of the parents' ability to help their children attain desired goals. They suggest that parents from different socio-economic strata may have the same level of aspiration for their chil- dren, but that the higher status groups are more certain that their aspirations will be fulfilled. In a study in Westchester County, New York, these authors found that most parents and children, regardless of social class, aSpired to professional occupations. However, whereas 100% of the middle—class children were enrolled in college preparatory courses aimed at reaching this goal, only 37% of the lower- class children were taking such courses. In short, Rosens' distinction between achievement value—orientation and actual motivation would appear to be a significant one. The work of Sewell 33,21 suggests that controlling for intelligence is also an important factor. We shall see in the next chapter that measured intelligence reflects social stimulus and training. It could be hypothesized that those who receive the least stimulation, poorest training, and least support at home would also be those children in the lowest groups on the basis of tested intelligence—-and that very low socio-economic rating, low intelligence ranking, and low educational aspirations are not wholly independent but tend to vary together. However, this tend- ency may be mitigated by an unusually stimulating family background or a stable family which allows for and supports training for their child outside the home. By the same token, of course, high socio—economic status does not offer an unqualified guarantee of environmental stimulation or parental training and support. Thus, it is hardly sur- prising that low aSpiration and low socio-economic status go together in some cases but not in others. In this context it is important that Bennett and Gist considered types of family influence. They found that these types of influence varied dramatically with social class ranking. Maternal influence, relative to paternal, appears to be both stronger and more effective at lower class levels, regardless of race. Both Negro and white lower-class chil— dren attributed stronger attempts to influence their 79 Opinions to their mothers. The authors hypothesize that in the lower classes the low social prestige of father’s occupations will lead to matricentrism in the family. They suggest that mothers-—regardless of social class-—have nearly equal Opportunity to measure up to general societal expectations for their roles, but that lower-class fathers typically fall short of cultural criteria of success as reflected in the mass media and the value orientation prev- alent in the school. Bennett and Gist argue that the lower- class father's recognition of his own role failure causes him to renounce reSponsibility for influencing his children. This is to be expected in terms of the theoretical position on family roles which we will discuss more thoroughly in the next chapter. We shall also point out that when the mother devalues the father, as may well be the case in this situation, she will see her own role as the dominant one. This is, of course, also the case in father-absent families. Pressures toward motivation to achieve may have draw— backs unless they are accompanied by specific training to the socially approved means for attaining success. In the absence of clearly articulated means-training, the motivated child may attempt to employ normatively disapproved avenues to success or he may develop deep-seated anxiety because Of the lack of knowledge of the appropriate means to his ends. Either of these modes of achievement motivation are maladjustive in terms of our definition. Davis (lghh) has considered this particular problem of the difference between 80 adaptive competition and ambition, and maladaptive rivalry and aggression. In this theoretically-oriented work he postulates that successful socialization of the child to achieve depends upon the degree of adaptive anxiety to which he has been socialized. While this kind of concept is difficult to operationally define, the implication is that a certain level of anxiety is necessary to motivate achievement behavior--which leads to ambition and socially approved competition for rewards and concern lest these rewards not be obtained. On the other hand, over-anxiety leads to aggression and disapproved means of striving for rewards. Davis argues that children learn the consensual behavioral expectations and value orientations of the sub- culture to which they belong and in which they are social- ized. The middle-class child is better prepared for motiv— ation to achieve in the school setting than is the lower- class child because the middle-class sub-culture approves adaptive ambition and the lower—class sub-culture approves maladaptive aggression. The author concludes that the problem of American public education is to learn how to motivate lower-class children to socially adaptive anxiety and the generally acceptable means to achievement. He implies that lower—class children must be resocialized to these means, which often seem remote from their goals, and convinced of the reality of the end rewards. Bandura and Walters (1963) point out that achievement demands are highly variable among sub-cultural groups, but 81 in a society in which upward mobility is an ideal, great pressures are exerted on children to at least equal--and preferably surpass-—the attainments of their parents. How- ever, high degrees of social approval are contingent_pgth on achievement striving and on the observance of normative prescriptions and proscriptions designed to prevent this striving from having socially harmful consequences. Com- pliance with social eXpectations thus involves a consid- erable amount of discrimination learning and the exercise of self-control. Any radical change effort to correct the child’s anti—social behavior may threaten the social and material rewards associated with his deviant career unless he perceives that he will be provided with satisfying sub- stitute rewards. The persistence of deviant behavior can be accounted for in terms of social learning. Persistence of disapproved behavior appears to result from intermittent positive reinforcement, such as would be derived from those behaviors and value orientations rewarded by parents, peers, or sub-cultural group when they are in conflict with those taught in the school. However, if this conflict can be overcome, the principles of social learning can be used to foster socially approved reSponse patterns and establish self-control. The authors note that research evidence in- dicates that devaluation of goals that are not readily at- tainable is one learned way of maintaining self-control. An equally important means of learned self—control is 82 placing high evaluation on unpleasant means to a highly desired goal. Such a position clearly indicates that environmentally learned social behavior patterns must be considered when interest is directed toward understanding the acquisition of achievement motivation and self-control over the means employed. Again we caution that these patterns are not universal within any socio—economic status category-—indi— vidual differences as the result of socialization practices and experiences in specific families may obviate the pattern. Nevertheless, there is a tendency for lower-class children to be statistically more often socialized to a pattern of aggressive competition which is maladaptive as the basis for successful achievement motivation. Achievement motiva- tion implies active efforts on the part of the child to attain rewards. As we have noted, this differs from simply placing high evaluation on such rewards as academic success, social acceptance, occupational prestige, etc. Several other factors are related to achievement besides those of high evaluation and actual efforts. One of the most im- portant factors in educational achievement is intellectual ability. We will discuss, in the next chapter, the high theoretical relationship between language acquisition and the development of tested intelligence. A number of studies have dealt specifically with language and intellectual dif— ferences among the various social classes, some of which we will explore in the next section. Other factors in 83 achievement include actual mental capacity, time orienta— tion, and the use to which leisure time is put. Differences in each of these bases of achievement have been related to socio-economic level. We turn now to a brief consideration of each of these prerequisites to successful achievement. Social Class and the Bases of Achievement It would appear to be unlikely that the child who is severely handicapped in the area of language skill would be highly motivated toward educational achievement unless or until such a handicap was overcome. An element which recurs in almost all of the social class literature on educational achievement is that of the lower class child's relative dis- advantage in this area of communication skills. The lower- class child‘s cultural handicap typically includes the lack of books in the home, little emphasis on reading or verbal communication, and the dialect which he learns from his family and peers. Ample research evidence clearly indicates differential socialization to language exists at different class levels. Bernstein (l962) discusses two linguistic codes, the "elaborated" and the "restricted" which he sees as function of different social structures. He discusses differences in family structure and activities which relate to these particular types of language development and usage. We shall not consider here the specific origins of language disadvantage but will limit our concern to its consequences. 8A John (1963) in her study of language deprivation among Negro children studied the impact of early social environ- ment on the patterning of intellectual skills at three levels of socio-economic status. That this study dealt only with Negro children seems irrelevant to our concerns in keeping with the theoretical assumption we have expressed that social environment supersedes race as a crucial vars iable. She examined patterns of verbal and cognitive be- havior among a sample of 69 first grade and lO5 fifth grade children. Three major levels of language behavior were analyzed-—labeling, relating, and categorizing. Consistent social class differences in these language skills were found to emerge between children of different socio-economic levels. Some initial differences were noted but, by the fifth grade, lower class children were significantly less skilled in all communication areas. She found that middle- class children surpass their age-mates in that they possess a larger vocabulary and a higher non-verbal I.Q. in their ability to produce a best-fit response. She found trends toward this pattern at the first grade level, but points out that all children at that age are primarily occupied with the acquisition of language skills. The gap, however, grows wider with age so that by the fifth grade middle-class children are far better at tasks requiring precise and ab- stract language. Middle-class children are more skilled in such verbal behavior as the use of descriptive and integrative language 85 andthe use of language as a conceptual tool. John suggests that lower-class children, because of their relative poverty of language, may also experience difficulty in pooling and processing varied eXperiences. This is in keeping with the theoretical position explicated by Bruner that we shall dis- cuss more fully in the next chapter. John sees this as the source of the lower-class child's disability in the area of accepting delayed gratification. Several such studies show that children from lower socio-economic backgrounds employ shorter and more frag- mented sentences than do their middle—class age mates. Typically these children have both more limited vocabularies and poorer articulation. Newton (1962), as director of the Reading Skills Clinic at North Carolina College at Durham, has collected considerable evidence concerning the backgrund of the child who is deficient in language skills. She points out that the foundation for the child‘s verbal devel- Opment is laid subtly but inexorably in (l) the general cultural level of his home, (2) his parent's language pat- terns, (3) language patterns of his peers, (A) the general level of culture in his community, and (5) the educational resources available to him in school and outside of school. Thus, the standard English usage of teachers, textbooks, and more advantaged peers is virtually an alien tongue to the Leftout. If the child has not grown up in an environ- ment which affords both breadth and depth of educationally stimulating activities he will not have the background 86 concepts to which to relate verbal symbols. Newton cata- logues the socio-economic status, personal characteristics, and language patterns typical of the "verbally destitute" child. He is: I. usually a member of a family in which there is less than two full generations of literacy; 2. often the product of a small, sub-standard public school system located in communities barren of cultural Opportunities—-or of large, over-crowded, outmoded public schools in ghetto—like urban areas, 3. frequently a racial or cultural minority group member and/or resides in a geographically isolated place--or is a migrant; 4. during his formative years he communicated customarily through non-standard English, characterized by: (a) casual observance of standard inflections, (b) simple words, (c) frequently mispronounced and uncorrected words, d3 rare use of descriptive or qualifying terms, ée) simple sentences or sentence frag— mentation in both oral and written expression, and (f) Speech heavily infused with vernacular expressions; 5. usually performing two or more years below grade expectancy on verbal tests, but frequently demonstrating adequate scholastic potential on non-verbal tests; 6. generally disenchanted with all types of book- centered learning which he diSplays through aggressive, defensive, or indifferent attitudes in the classroom; 7. generally experiencing difficulty relating present activity to future goals. The author‘s own experience with disadvantaged chil— dren substantiates this view, but we regret that these studies are not derived from a theoretical approach to lan- guage and cognition. We will attempt, in the next chapter, 87 to bring some theoretical perSpective to bear on this problem. Luria, for example, has provided part of the explanation for cognitive deficit exhibited by Speech re— tarded children. Our general hypothesis is that this lack of language skill is created by restriction in the child‘s social environment-~either lack of educational stimulus and/or monotony of stimulus. Deutsch (l963) has outlined the main factors which affect the disadvantaged child‘s readiness for the demands of school. One such factor he cites is the lack of variety of visual, tactile, and auditory stimulation in the lower- class home. This position has been criticized by Reissman, and we shall consider his arguments and other theoretical positions in Chapter V. Here we simply want to note that Deutsch argues that the lower—class home contains few ob- jects which aid in the develOpment of visual discrimination skills and that lack of manipulatable objects reduces tac- tile development. He points out that lower—class environ- ment affords much ''noise," but little direct communication and feedback. In such circumstances the child is apt to learn skills of inattention in an effort to drown out in- discriminate noise. Thus, the lower—class child is deprived of meaningful experience and constructive feedback. Deutsch concludes that differences in life styles among various socio—economic strata provide different training patterns. If language acquisition is taken as the prerequisite to con- cept formation and problem solving-~as we suggest in the 88 next chapter—~then this deficit has a tremendous effect on intelligence and the capacity to successfully adjust to school achievement demands. In a later work, Deutsch (l96u) more extensively re- ports his data on language and cognitive variations among a sample of 292 white and Negro children in the first and fifth grades. He explored the interrelationships between socio—economic status, race, grade in school, and language skill. Comparative disadvantage was significantly cor— related with race more frequently among children in the fifth grade than in the first grade. The language variables of abstraction, verbalization, and eXperientially dependent enumeration are those found to be correlated significantly with race. The number of significant correlations with socio-economic level remained relatively constant at each grade level. The general language disadvantage evident by both social class and race standards reflect deficiency in abstract and categorical use of language as opposed to labeling and denotive usage. His data indicate that social class differences in perceptual abilities and general orientation to the environment decrease with age, while language differences tend to increase. Thus his data clearly support the ”cumulative deficit" hypothesis which he advanced in his previous work and which is also supported by the work of Vera John noted earlier. Deutsch argues that, even considering the disadvantaged child's initial inadequacies, the decline in his comparative performance 89 brings into question the adequacy of the school system. We would suggest that before all the blame for increasing comparative disadvantage is placed squarely on the shoulders of teachers and institutional administrators certain other factors should be considered. Undoubtedly poor school practices are partly responsible, but we suggest that other factors also play a part in cumulative deficit. Deutsch's own work suggests at least one supplemental hypothesis. He notes that social class differences remain relatively stable but that racial differences especially increase with age. This fact would appear to point up the fact that the role of social acceptance by peers plays an increasingly large role as age increases. (We are assuming that fifth grade teachers, on the average, are no more discriminatory in their practices than are first grade teachers.) One big change in social environment which does occur during the period between first and fifth grade is an increase in racial discrimination among children. Sev- eral studies have indicated that children of first-grade age, i.e., six or seven, make racial distinctions but are not highly discriminatory in their behavior. However, by age ten or eleven, peer groups are apt to be more sharply race divided. If the Negro child lacks social acceptance by his more advantaged peers then we would hypothesize that he also lacks positive significant interpersonal supe port and suffers from a lowered self-concept. Furthermore, he may also lack a role model for learning which keeps him 90 in a position of lower relative ability. Thus, the peer group may also be partly reSponsible for cumulative deficit. We will have more to say of this subject in a later chapter. The particular language pattern found in many disad- vantaged homes may also be a contributing factor. Many Negroes--and whites living in similar circumstances of cultural isolation--speak a non-standard English dialect with common characteristics: (1) slurring words, e.g., "smothertam" for "some other time", (2) certain letter sounds are omitted, e.g., "hep yo sef" for "help your self", (3) some letter sounds are tranSposed, e.g., "bofe" for "both"; as well as those features we have already noted of poor grammar, inadequate sentence formation, and a poverty of elaborate abstract and categorical terms. This kind of dialect can be so pronounced as to be tantamount to a foreign language. Disadvantaged children may lack support for "school English" in the home and neighborhood and thus in essence, be required to Speak and learn two languages. The problem is not confined to Negroes! Many Left- outs are in the position of having to learn two languages-— two languages which are not apt to be complementary. In Situations of mmuabilingualism the introduction of funda- mental educational material in the original language pro- vides the basis for developing competence in the new lang- uage. However, in this Situation at least three variables Operate to reduce the child's potential for true biline gualism: (I) because it is usually assumed that the child 91 Speaks English as a native language, little or no emphasis is given to initial teaching of formal language as func— tional but, rather, the emphasis is placed on "eXpanSion" and "correction"--which places the disadvantaged child in the position of being inferior, wrong, and often criticized; (2) rarely, if ever, are non-standard dialects employed in the school system as a teaching tool for developing Skill in formal language; and (3) much of the archaic language typically employed in schools, e.g., "wraps," "cloakroom," ”monitor," "pupils," etc. are terms which are employed no- where else and only detract from the child's efforts to learn more important things. In this Situation the disadvantaged child's alienation is also apt to be increased by the text and pictures typ- ically found in elementary readers. For example, Dick and Jane romp on their green lawn while Spot gambols off through the blooming rose bed to greet Father who, neatly dressed with brief case under his arm, stands near his automobile and smiles at Mother who is waving a welcome from the cool, screened veranda. The Negro child, the child who has never seen his father, the child who lives on the third floor of a deteriorating apartment building, the child whose "play- ground" is an empty warehouse, a rubbish filled vacant lot, or a city street cannot always identify these scenes let alone identify with the people in them. This problem with the intricacies of "foreign" words and pictures would clearly seem to contribute to his relative disadvantage. 92 Initially, at the first grade level, all children are rela- tively lacking in language skill, but the child who becomes as adept as his peers by the fifth grade must also have support for his formal school-taught English outside the classroom. And this may be absent in the home environment and unattainable from more advantaged peers who discriminate against the disadvantaged child——partly on the basis of the ”funny way he talks." Social distinctions among dialects are made not on linguistic grounds but in terms of status considerations. Thus, the family and general sub-cultural environment may also be partly responsible for cumulative deficit. A third non-school factor which may possibly contrib- ute to cumulative deficit lies largely in the realm of speculation at this point, though some limited research would indicate that it cannot be overlooked. We are assuming, in the bulk of this discussion, that the disadvan- taged child has, for all practical purposes, both the phys- ical and intellectual capacities needed for social and scholastic adjustment. Unfortunately this may not be the case. In the next chapter we shall rule out any practical effect on the basis of heredity but it must be recognized that environmental deprivation can conceivably also have physically limiting consequenceS--and the disadvantaged child may be the victim of irreparable damage which no amount of compensatory education can wholly overcome. We caution that this suggestion probably applies to a limited 93 segment of severely handicapped children and in no way is to be interpreted as a rationale for not providing compen- satory programs for disadvantaged children in general. We only suggest that these programs may also have to provide for non-academic training of those children who may not be capable of achieving successfully in the standard school program. Hunt (I961) has noted research evidence to Show that various deficiencies in maternal diet and care during preg- nancy that are associated with low socio-economic levels can produce complications of both pregnancy and parturition which result in intellectual retardation and behavioral disorders in children. Clearly severe retardation or be- havior problems exclude the child from our area of concern. However, we assume that these problems are arranged along a continuum of severity and insofar as the disadvantaged child is functioning adequately enough to be regarded as "normal" and enrolled in the public school, they may affect our Specific concerns. In addition to the factor of maternal diet and care during pregnancy, the disadvantaged child may himself be subject to inadequate diet and lack of medical care which result in health problems which carry over and influence social adjustment and academic ability. In January of 1966 the American Association for the Advancement Of Science held a two-day symposium on "Behavior, Brain, and Biochemistry." One major discussion question centered around whether learning and memory could be retarded or 94 improved by chemicals. Contemporary neurobiological theory of learning holds that memory depends on a process in which molecules of ribonucleic acid (RNA)-—a protein derivative—- are coded to record particular events and then become lodged in specific nerve cells in the brain to be summoned up when required. Experimental work with infra-human animals indi— cates that a relatively large supply of protein in the diet increases actual ability to learn., Protein derivative tests (in the form of administering a "smart pill" with the trade name of Cylert) are just beginning with human subjects. However, theoretically at least, protein rich diets could increase memory and ability to learn--and, presumedly, protein poor diets could restrict this ability. Probably hot—lunch programs and school Sponsored medical and dental clinics can help compensate, at least in part, for this kind of physically based deficiency. However, some even more disturbing physiological evidence was presented at this symposium. Experiments on rats by Mark Rosenzweig, a psychologist at the Berkley campus of the University of California, have Shown that rats reared in a richly stimulating environment are not only better off chemically (RNA level) but have a cortex--which controls voluntary action and thought--that averages u% heavier than do rats raised in an environment Of low stimulation. The researcher concluded that brains literally grow and improve with use. In short, with infra- human animals at least, it is possible to produce tangible, 95 measurable differences in actual brain size by altering environments. The limiting factor of a poor environment can place the organism in a position of relative disadvan- tage which it can never overcome, and which would only increase over time if environmental stimulation remained at a low comparative level. Rosenzweig himself translates his findings into human terms when he suggests that "the more richness an individual experiences, the more his brain expands (Newsweek Magazine, January 10, l966, p. #5)." We are taking the view that socio-economically disadvantaged children are apt to have a high potential for school mal— adjustment unless compensatory efforts are made. Contem- porary neurobiological research confirms this view and, in addition, by showing that the effects of a poor environ- ment effect the very structure and chemistry of the brain, suggests that the socio-economically disadvantaged child is not only less well socialized but is also less capable of learning and remembering. In this case, cumulative deficit is what would be expected quite apart from any inadequacy of the educational institution. We have been suggesting here that social class dif- ferences in evaluation of education and child-rearing prac- tices in fostering motivation, of socio—economically based factors of health, nutrition, and actual ability all play a role in the social and academic adjustment of the disad- vantaged child to school. Other factors associated with Socio—economic differences in life style, such as how 96 leisure time is used and attitudes of time—orientation, may also influence the child's motivation to achieve and his ability to do so. Several studies (Davis, l9A8; Mac- Donald et al., I9M9, Lewis, I959 and Schoor, I964) have shown evidence for socio—economic differences in the leisure time activities of children-—with higher status children being more active in formal organizations with construc— tive goals and lower—class children active primarily in non-goal directed leisure behavior. Significant socio- economic differences are also found in the amount of leisure time devoted to family-oriented activities. Again, the highest socio-economic strata engage inthe most family activity. The number of persons, both children and adult family members, who read books increases with increases in socio-economic level, while movie attendance and hours devoted to watching television decreases with increases in socio-economic level. These studies (and others, e.g., LeShan, 1952) also give evidence to support the view that individuals in the higher status levels are characterized by a deferred grati- fication pattern and, conversely, those in the lowest socio-economic strata are oriented toward an immediate gratification pattern. These studies argue that among the lowest classes, when it is impossible to satisfy basic needs in any adequate or dependable way, the Satisfaction of immediate goals becomes more important to both children and their parents. They develop a fatalistic attitude 97 which generalizes to alter their pattern of living in such a way that there is little energy available for long-range planning or for developing distant goals. Present-time orientation is more central in their conceptual schema than is future-time orientation. Their ability to cope with the environment and to plan for the future is impaimxl A gen- eral attitudinal orientation of passivity, defeatism, and hostility results. Since much of what goes into the adjust- ment demands of the school system requires a time-orienta- tion of deferred gratification, the child who does not possess and/or cannot develop such an orientation is again placed in a position of disadvantage. We would suggest that, while this kind of pattern may be statistically more prevalent among the children of the lowest socio—economic strata, it is certainly possible for any child to develOp such a maladjustive orientation in the face of unfulfilled basic needs. The lack of success- ful adjustment to school based on present-time orientation and a generalized pessimistic personal outlook can, over time, do much to present the child with a self-fulfilling prophecy in which he expects his basic needs to be frus- trated. His expectations, in turn, determine his view about himself and his relationships to his environment which, if repeatedly verified,kunmapersonality consequences in the form of a low or inadequate self-concept. In the succeeding chapters we will explore more thoroughly the influence of family and individual personality factors on school 98 adjustment and the interrelationship between these social structural, familial, and individual factors. Patterns and Themes in the Social Class Literature Our investigation of the theoretical relationship between socio-economic status and potential adjustment to the social sub-system of the school has been predicated on two assumptions: (1) children do not always reflect the value orientations and behavioral expectations of "their" social class and, therefore, (2) that knowledge of social class background alone will not allow for prediction about the attitudinal orientations held by Specific children. Social class per se is a poor criterion for prediction since between-family and within-family variations in interpersonal environment, as well as differences in individual orienta- tion, are found within the full range of social classes in our contemporary society. There is a difference between patterns that are statistically representative and actual individual behavior which must not be overlooked! However, statistically identifiable patterns can help us understand what there is apt to be in the child's socio-economic status background that could lead to disadvantageous variations in attitudes, values, and behavior. Social class is probably the best Single predictor of behavior currently available in the social sciences. Toby (I957) undertook an analysis of middle-class and lower-class orientations toward education in an effort to 99 determine the factors leading to lack of school success for the lower-class child. In this social structural approach to the bases of disadvantage the child is viewed as the passive victim of situations over which he has no personal control. Toby notes that one prevalent theme in the liter- ature is that teachers hold middle-class value orientations and penalize—-consciously and/or unconsciously——those chil— dren who do not or can not as a result of their pattern of socialization. This theme suggests that the child who is identified as a member of the lower socio-economic strata is handicapped in his chance for development because of stereotypic discrimination. A second theme prevalent in the literature relates directly to the social and economic disabilities of the child's family. We have illustrated each of these themes in our discussion. Toby points out that the middle-class parent not only expects his child to get an education but is in a position to help with studies, the environmental pattern is one of pressures toward aca- demic achievement and social acceptance. Toby notes environmental patterns support values and behavior which are maladaptive for achievement and acceptance in the general culture. The teacher is a good parent-surrogate for the middle-class child because parent/teacher roles are comparable in content. The middle-class child learns that scholastic competition is somewhat analogous to his social and preschool preparation for he is exposed to wider vocab- ularies and abstractions in everyday life. He achieves 100 higher status in school and exerts even further efforts to maintain it. The parents Of the lower-class child may not support the value orientation Of the school. Even if they do, the parents probably have less education and are less able to make school work meaningful for the child. Parents Of low sociO-economic status often lack.the incentive, training, and ability tO encourage and help their children. The child is thus disadvantaged and repeated failures may result in lack Of interest in school. Because school work is cumula- tive, (in a few years) the lower-class child is retarded in basic skills. The consequences Of a child's lack Of training, ability, or interest in school are not immediate. For those who have lost hOpe in social mobility, school is a symbol Of competition in which they believe they cannot succeed and their self—concept suffers. The lower—class child's verbal Skills are not highly developed. The lower—class parent is more adept in Operating concrete Objects than symbols in his occupational role and thus is a poor role model for the development Of complex verbal Skills. However, the school system gives an advan- tage tO those children who exhibit verbal skills and thus the lower—class child is at a disadvantage. Because verbally-oriented intelligence tests are geared tO higher sociO—economic groups they are not necessarily a good measure Of intellectual ability in the lower-class child; however, such tests are quite highly predictive Of academic IOI accomplishment and lower-class children do comparatively poorly on them. (We shall have more tO say Of testing intelligence in a later chapter.) The notion that the occupational role Of parents may influence their value-orientations and, hence, the manner in which the child is socialized is one which bears some brief comment. Kohn (I963) has argued that class differ— ences in parent/child relationships are a product Of differences in parental values, with middle—class parents' values centering on self-direction and working—class parents' values on conformity to external prescriptions and prO- scriptions. He suggests that these value differences stem from conditions Of life, particularly occupational condi— tions, with which the parents must contend. He notes that those occupations which are typically evaluated as "middle class" require a greater degree Of self-direction than do "working class" occupations, which more Often require that the individual follow explicit rules set down by someone else in a position Of authority. KOhn‘s interpretive model is, in essence: social class results in certain conditions Of life which, in turn, are reflected in value orientations and behavior. We would agree with this kind Of analysis as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough for our purposes. The sub-types tO be found within the lower classes, such as Miller has suggested, carry the analysis to a finer level Of abstraction. However, variations in reference 102 group orientation, in self-concept, in family patterns and expectations, and many other factors may account for some Of the school—related differences in achievement, social acceptance, and emotional adjustment which have been attribe uted to social class alone. In the following chapters we Shall explore some Of these "intervening variables.” We are suggesting that social class background is important if it can tell us something Of what the child's general at- titudes, value orientations, and behavior is apt to be. Patterns typically though not universally found among Negroes, unstable lower sociO-economic groups, compara- tively poorly educated or low income families, etc. can sug- gest what kinds Of disadvantage to lOOk for and what types Of compensatory programs are indicated. It is perfectly possible for lower-class children to be well adjusted in school and, Of course, for higher status children to be poorly adjusted. Social class is not regarded as a totally overwhelming influence on personal development. It is a rough guide not an alchemist's formula. CHAPTER III THE DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESS AND THE ROLE OF THE FAMILY The social sub-system represented in the school situa— tion, and its impact on the developing child, is the central focus of this book. However, the tremendous influence exerted by other social sub-systems to which the child is exposed cannot be ignored. Each child brings to school with him an already develOped collection Of values, beliefs, at- titudes, and behavior patterns through which these values and meanings are expressed. These cognitions and behaviors are based on preschool experiences gained largfly from the home situation. Thus, in order tO understand the background Of the Leftout, it is necessary tO know something Of how his early experiences and training influenced his present thinking and behavior. For this kind Of concern, the family is the critical focus Of attention, for it is the family which serves as the first agent Of socialization. This chapter, and to some extent the preceding one dealing with the influence of the social stratification system, consider the family and its strengths and weaknesses in influencing the develOping child. (g4 (v. Lu 104 The Leftouts with whom we are centrally concerned have experienced an abnormal and comparatively disadvantaged socialization pattern. The task of defining the particular abnormalities and disadvantage is the focus of Chapter V. However, the definition of comparative disadvantage demands explicating the general process Of normal sociO-cultural growth, Since maladjustive patterns cannot be evaluated in- dependently Of some criterion Of a normal develOpmental pattern and its consequences. Thus, the large body Of literature relating to child develOpment in general, and intellectual and personality develOpment in particular becomes not only relevant but crucial. The sections of this chapter will be devoted to a consideration Of some Of the more widely known theories Of the developmental process in children. The Developmental Process in Children For our purposes ”personality" is defined as an ana- lytical construct, based on the Observation Of overt behavior (including test—taking behavior), which is consistent with the hypothesis that internal, systematically (but not neces- sarily logically) organized cognitions and affective relationships influence many overt behaviors in a relatively stable manner. "Intellect" is defined, for our purposes, as the observable aSpect Of this internal cognitive ordering. Intellect is the result of the individual’s mental Operation upon information from internal and external sources in order 105 to change it into productive thinking aimed at problem solving, analytical and logical inductions and deductions, as well as creative actions. Our approach to the general developmental process is a social—psychological one, as dis— cussed in Chapter I, which conceives the basis Of person- ality and intellectual development to be social learning in an interpersonal environment. Human beings live in a social world—-a world that requires knowledge Of consen— sually Shared values, beliefs, meanings, and attitudes of its members. As the newborn infant develops into the mature adult an ongoing intensive and extensive process of social learning must occur. This Social development includes the learning of language, a vast body of empirical facts relating to the physical and social environment, a variety Of Specialized skills, the acquisition Of moral values and standards Of evaluation for self and others, and the nor- mative "rules” concerning ways and means Of relating to other peOple. This entire complex social learning process is subsumed under the rubric Of "socialization." The primary agents Of this process Of socialization are other persons--parents, teachers, siblings, peers, and others who are significant to the child. For the pre- school child, whose social contacts are apt to be limited, the family--particularly parents and siblingS--is the prin— cipal source for social learning. It is primarily the adults or Older siblings in the family who serve to stimu- late the child's early intellectual and social develOpment. 106 Social learning theories, supported by a great deal Of research, pinpoint the elements Of the family environ— ment which appear to be most Significant in influencing the general social learning of the child as well as such more specific factors as measured intelligence, school achieve- ment, social acceptance, and so on. In very general terms these elements may be delineated as: (1) providing the tools, stimulation, Opportunity, and reinforcement for general learning; (2) providing role models for social learning; (3) providing help and guidance in language devel— Opment; and (A) providing stimulation, concern, and support for achievement and learning outside the home, especially at school. Theoretical analyses and empirical investigations help to reveal the dynamics Of the process Of interactional learning between the develOping child and his social en- vironment. Development refers to change that occurs over time and there are a wide range Of theories extant in the literature concerning the process Of intellectual and per- sonality develOpment-—not all Of which are as emphatically social in orientation. The central controversy found among these theories relates to the question Of whether or not development proceeds in a sequential and invariant order, I i.e., in "stages" or "levels,' and the role played by her dity and physical maturation in the develOpmental proc- ess. While the work Of Piaget exemplifies the position that the developmental process is sequential, invariant, and 107 biologically based there is much Of value to be learned from his work which has bearing on a more social orienta— tion. The theoretical analyses Of Jean Piaget reflects the detailed Observations Of his own three children plus thirty years Of work with his collaborators at the Rousseau Insti- tute in Geneva, Switzerland. Piaget has devoted a profes— sional lifetime tO studying the develOpment Of intellectual functions and logic in children, thus it is with his work that we shall begin. For Piaget, intelligence is a Special case Of general interactive adaptation to the environment. Two complementary processeS-—"assimilation," corresponding to internal cognitive organization and "accomodation" cor- reSponding to external behavioral adaptation-—are seen as basic to the develOpmental process. Assimilation occurs whenever the child incorporates anything from his environ- ment into his cognitive framework. Piaget assumes that the child always acts in terms of a Gestalt—like centrally organized structure mediated by any memories he may have Of previous eXperiences with the same or similar events and/or Objects in his environment. Accomodation is the complementary process and occurs whenever the existing cog- nitive structure must be modified to meet the demands of variations in environmental circumstances. It is in these two ways that the environment is seen to influence the child. Piaget describes the develOpment Of the behavioral aspects Of intelligence in terms Of stages. These stages 108 are seen as sequential and the order in which they appear as fixed. He analytically separates the stages in terms Of transition points but repeatedly emphasizes that the development of intelligence is a process Of continual change. Since the child is in continuous interaction with his en— vironment he must constantly adapt to external environmental demands and progressively modify his internal cognitive organization. Thought processes are seen to develop through gradual internalization Of action, are "decentered," and eventually come to dominate over both direct perception and action. This is made possible by the concomitant develOp- ment Of the central neural system. Piaget argues that with- in the limits imposed by the genetic capacity for develop- ment Of the central neural system, intelligence is capable Of indefinite extension into time and Space. Note that this formulation Of environment-child inter- action through accomodation and assimilation considers both heredity, through limits on the development of the central nervous system, and environment. Hunt (l96l)in reviewing Piaget's work, points out that several principles may be derived from his formulation. Especially important, for our purposes, is the principle that apprOpriate environ- mental stimulation and the Opportunity to exercise devel- Oping thought processes are required if the thought process is to survive. Equally important is the idea that new ac— comodative modifications and new assimilative cognitive combinations are sources Of pleasure to the child. In 1 1"". l 9 other words, new experiences are seen as inherently rewarding to the child, Another important derived principle is that continuous and progressive changes take place inthe struc- tures Of behavior and thought, but the nature of this ac— comodation (adaptive change to environmental circumstances} implies that the rate of development is largely a function of the diversity the child encounters in this environment. On the basis of these principles, Hunt derives the hypothe- sis that the more new things a child has seen and heard, the more he is interested in seeing and hearing, Ir addi- tion, the more variation in environment with which he has had to cope, the greater his capacity for cOping. Hunt modifies this latter hypothesis with a warning that the child may be presented with too much too fast, become be~ wildered, and fail to cope at all: Thought processes are conceived to originate through o a process Of internalizing actions. Intelligence, fc *i Piaget, increases as thought processes are lccsened from their bases in direct perception and action axd, thereby, have the capacity to become reversible, transitive, asso- ciative, and symbolic. The impact of language and the development of conceptual thinking becomes cruCial at this point. The develOpment of conceptual thinking is of vast importance for creating order out of perceptual and environ- mental chaos. "Conceptual thinking" refers to thought processes which employ symbols and categories of classifi- cation for ordering information. This kind of thinkin CO m F4. 110 a critical link between the environment and the individual since these concepts are learned. Language acquisition provides the basic tOOl, both facilitating and directing the learning process. The learning of concepts and the development Of conceptual thinking is a complex dynamic involving basic processes of perception, discrimination, tranSpOSition, and generalization——all Of which are mediated and facilitated by language in the form Of consensually Shared symbols. Bruner (l96u) takes the position that the development Of human intellectual functioning is directed by a series Of "technological" advances in the use Of the brain--by mastery Of techniques which are transmitted, with varying efficiency and success, by the culture or sub-culture Of which the child is a member. For Bruner, language acquisi- tion is the primary technique employed in intellectual development. This is so because children, as they grow, must acquire ways Of representing the recurrent regularites of their environment (representation), and must learn to transcend the events Of the moment by develOping means Of linking past, present, and future (integration). For children in the age group we are considering-- roughly five to twelve years-—language comes to play a powerful role as a technique for knowing, representing, and integrating. Language serves the function of integrating intellectual activity into coherent, organized sets. Lan- guageis internalized as a program for ordering experience. 111 Thus, if the child is deficient in his experience with language skills or has had inadequate language training he is disadvantaged indeed. The importance Of language acquisition to intellectual functioning raises some questions concerning a fixed level Of intellectual potential based on biological characteris- tics for the physically normal child. The conception of a fixed level Of intellectual development potential is based on, and receives supplemental support from, the assumption Of genetically predetermined develOpment which may be traced rather directly to Darwin's theory Of natural selection and other such theories prevalent in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This kind of orientation is seen in Freud's work, in Piaget's formulations, and culminates in Thorn- dike‘s conceptions Of trial and error learning and stimulus— reSponse theories Of problem solving. However, it is with both the order Of "stages" of transition, as well as the invariant nature and physiological basis of this order that other thinkers have disagreed with Freud and Piaget. There is a wealth Of support for the conception that stage theories of developmental sequences are not theoretically adequate—-nor is a conception Of normal intelligence poten- tial as biologically predetermined under the environmental circumstances available to the vast majority of people. The critics Of this position oppose the view that various inherited abilities unfold along a growth continuum in ordered stages of biological maturation with modification 112 by environmental circumstances given only a secondary and relatively minor position Of influence. These thinkers hold that the child’s personal and intellectual develOpment is the product Of learning experiences, i.e., differential levels of ability, knowledge, and skills are a function Of these experiences. In these formulations "stages" are not to be regarded as universal but, rather, particular to particular classes of situations. A "stage" theory is not necessarily contradictory to a theory of environmental in— fluence, although the assumption that developmental se- quences are biologically determined is. Experience can function to move the individual from one stage or level to the next. For Hunt (I961), intelligence is conceived Of as a central neural Operation for the processing Of information which is develOped in the course of encounters with the environment. He presents the findings Of a large number Of research studies which quite clearly support the position that experience with the environment is the major influence on the develOpment of tested intelligence and conceptual thinking. He emphasizes that it is environment-interaction which affords the Opportunity for genetic potential to be achieved. He points out that only rarely, if ever, is the eXperiential environment so rich and stimulating that hereditary limits are reached for the normal child. Thus, in effect, heredity 15.223 an influencing factor in fixing the level Of intelligence as it is commonly measured. 113 Many studies have confirmed the fact that deprivation of experience affects the rate and extent of intellectual development. Hunt reviews a large number of such studies with both infra—human and human subjects which relate to the role of experience in shaping intellectual development. Typical of those he mentions is the Berkeley Guidance Study which found variations of 30 or more I.Q. points in a period of six to sixteen years among 10% of a sample of 222 chil- dren. In 3 to 4% of the cases, positive changes of a mag- nitude of three standard deviations (60 I.Q. points) occurred! Developmental curves of this range would suggest unequivocably that measured intelligence is modifiable through experience. Hunt concludes that perceptual capacity demands a background of conceptual experience which is then generalized to new experiences. Experience continually adds to the developing child's intellect a hierarchy of Opera— tions for processing information and for coping with and adjusting to new or changing environmental circumstances. It is clear from the evidence surveyed by Hunt that early impoverishment of experience can retard the development of tested intelligence. In terms of the traditional measure— ment of intelligence this means a reduction of I.Q. scores for the disadvantaged child. With this kind of a conception of intelligence, the assumption that intellectual develOp- ment is fixed and predetermined by genetic factors is un- tenable. Assuming the absence of any gross organic defect, inadequate intellectual develOpment is relatively permanent only insofar as there is failure to take active measures to compensate for early deprivation. Hunt argues that a number of externally manipulable factors participate in controlling the depth and permanence of the negative influence of deprivations in childhood ex— perience. He notes that one crucial element appears to be the duration and frequency of the deprivation. On the basis of research evidence he finds that another important ele— ment is the Opportunity available for experiences alculated F) to correct for early disadvantages and deficiencies. These are important points for our concerns. Hunt suggests that a third critical factor is the cp~ portunity for verbalization in the home. He cites evidence to support our view that conceptual thinking and such school- oriented dimensions of intellect as reading—readiness are a function of language experience. Thus, the impact of language skill-—develOped through interpersonal interaction—— and its basic relationship tothe very processes of thought and intellectual development, has clearly come to the fore as a major theoretical concern in our analysis of the dis— advantaged child. We take the view that language acquisi- tion is more than just a tool to be used in conceptual thinking. Watson (1960) points out that language development in early childhood clearly demonstrates that both egocentric and socially oriented functions are served by its acquisi- tion. Any uniformity in the "real world” is known only 115 through the experience of those who observe, and "objectiv— ity" may be defined as uniformity of observation. The at- tainment of the common perSpective essential to the estab- lishment of observational uniformities relies on the sym- bolic equipment, i.e., language and normatively consensual signs, of the observer—-and on the possibility of cummuni- cation between observers. Thus, symbolic systems serve a dual role. First, from the perspective of the individual, systems of shared symbols serve as objectscfi‘orientation for, and as internalized components of, personality systems. Secondly, from the perspective of the socialusystem, symbols appear as institutionalized patterns in the form of language and serve as the vehicle for the transmission of shared value and be- lief systems. Complementarity of eXpectations and perceived reactions is necessary for human interaction--a complementar- ity which would not be possible without relative stability of shared meanings made possible through symbolization. Thus, Symbolic systems provide the basis for the maintenance and elaboration of human interaction and it is necessary to exam— ine the function of language in studying any aspect of the development of human behavior. Watson points out that not only does the size of the vocabulary normally increase during the early developmental years of childhood, but this same period is typically charac- terized by changes in clearness of articulation, in the inte- gration of words into sentences, in the length of sentences, 116 in the relative increased use of grammatical parts of Speech, and in the develOpment of introspective and time oriented re~ sponses. These external signs of develOping language skill are normally found to show greater elaboration and maturity with increases in chronological age. For Watson, as for other thinkers we have mentioned, the develOpment of Under- standing is viewed in terms of concept formation and language skills and Speech rests firmly on the social learning proc- ess. He points out, however, that this leads to the expecta— tion of individual, group, and sex differences in language skill and intellectual development on the basis of diversity in environmental experience. Luria and Yudovitch (1959) have intensively inves- tigated the relationship between deprivation in language training and the development of the child's mental processes. They report the findings of an experimental investigation into the Speech and productive thinking develOpment of a set of identical twins. The theoretical position underlying the study--stripped of its overtones of Russian political ideology—-closely follows that which we have been examining. They argue against reducing the complex forms of children's mental activity to a combination of elementary motor habits and sequential steps of physical maturation. They postulate instead that intellectual develOpment relies on three fundamental prOpositions: (1) all mental processes are complex functional formations which are built up as a result of concrete forms of interaction between the child and his 117 environment; (2) development is in stages only insofar as changes in these concrete forms of activity made possible by physical maturation present the child with new problems and new demands which, in turn, necessitate the develop- ment of new forms of action or cognition for adjustment; and (3) the child's mental activity is the outcome of manipulable social circumstances such as Opportunity for communication with the members of his interpersonal environ— ment. Luria and Yudovitch hypothesize that in infra-human animals the development of higher nervous processes in each species is the outcome of individual eXperience but, for humans, language is essential to intellectual develop- ment. The child acquires from adults the experience of many generations through intentional instruction (Speech) and incidental learning acquired through imitating role models (consensual symbols). They argue that for the child language is crucial for both the transmission of knowledge and the formation of concepts-~the latter being the central process of the child's intellectual development. Inter- personal communication is seen as of decisive Significance because the acquisition of language allows for abstraction, isolation, generalization, and perceptions of relationships among Objects in the external environment--a systematization Of experience. Language introduces forms of analysis and synthesis into the child's perception which he would be 118 unable to develOp by himself in the absence of consensual symbols. With this theoretical basis, Luria and Yudovitch set out to test its implications in the situation where lan- guage development was abnormal, i.e., retarded and inade- quate for the demands of the social situation. They selected for study a set of 5—1/2 year old identical twins whose Speech development was severely retarded. The twins were able to communicate with each other and make their needs known to their parents, but were quite inadequately prepared to COpe with the communication demands of the school situation which faced them. Their pre-test behavior indicated poor mental structuring in terms of a generalized inability to plan their actions, direct them toward abstract or future goals, or to detach words from Objects and actions. In keeping with their theoretical formulations, the re- searchers experimentally separated the twins and established conditions such that it became necessary for them to em- ploy language. Concurrently, a program of intensive lan— guage training was instituted with one of the twins. Within a three month period both twins had developed nearly normal Speech for their age group (with only minor problems of a grammatical nature). For the twin who was intensively language-trained there was also evidence of cog- nitive restructuring in depth. His Speech came to reflect narrative and planning elements, he could formulate the aims of his activity verbally, he engaged in goal-directed 119 play and other productive and constructive activities. In addition, he evidenced the new—found ability to carry through a series of intellectual operations to solve a prob- lem and there was evidence of discursive thinking—-all significant changes in the structure of his cognitive activ- ity. This experiment not only demonstrates that language acquisition is important to more complex mental processes but, also, that while intellectual develOpment is handi— capped by deprivation in the area of language skills it is possible to induce rapid and deep seated changes in a rela- tively short period of time given: (1) the necessity of employing speech, and (2) training in its use. Thus, per— ception and attention, memory and imagination, consciousness and action, are not regarded as simple, innate mental properties but as the product of complex social processes which directly influence the formation Of complex human activity. Bruner (1961) has examined the long-term cognitive consequences of early eXperiential deprivation. He presents a probabilistic metric for understanding the develOpment of normal, i.e., environmentally apprOpriate cognitions, beliefs, values, or attitudes. He suggests that it is neces- sary to take into consideration: (1) the set of environ- mentally possible stimulating states that might occur at any given time, and (2) the degree of bias in their like- lihood of occurrence. He argues that the basic learning problem for a child is to reduce the complexity of his 120 environment to the level where he is able to COpe with it, i.e., to match his cognitive programming to the likelihood and the significance of particular experiences in his en- vironment. Bruner's formulation reflects a contemporary shift in psychological studies of perception away from a rigid model of neural activity to a functional emphasis, wherein perception is seen as directly related to the on- going activities of the individual in interaction with his environment. The implications of this kind of approach for our con- cerns with the effect of sensory deprivation are many. In general, Bruner's findings support others we have cited, that an impoverished background--one with little heterogenity of experience, and with little Opportunity for situational manipulation and diverse experience with discrimination—- produces a child with: (1) reduced abilities to discrimi- nate; (2) with dysfunctional modes of COping with problems requiring complex or future-oriented solutions; (3) with little interest in exploratory, creative behavior; and (A) with a notably reduced tendency toward cognitive organ- ization aimed at coalescing diSparate elements in his en- vironment. Thus, a certain amount of differentiated sensory stimulus seems necessary for normal orientation to his environment and even for mental adjustment in the child. Bruner concludes that to Operate effectively in, and suc- cessfully adjust to, his environment the child must develOp during the socialization process an adequate implicit model 121 of that environment--for two reasons. In the first instance this implicit cognitive model of the environment—-this "world view"--functions to conserve information in the form of concepts or universals. Secondly, it serves as the basis for extrapolating or interpolating from partial infor- mation and incomplete experiential cues. Without such a model, learned in early childhood—-and one adequate for the adjustive demands made by later environmental contacts-- the control functions of the central nervous system are without a basis for predicting that certain events are more likely than others (or preclude others), i.e., there is no basis for selectivity among stimuli. The unhampered operation of this evaluation process is essential to the adjustment, i.e., continuing adaptation of the child. This is true for both the long-range develOp- ment of adequate cognitive and social functioning, and for directing here-and-now behavior. Bruner suggests that one of the prime sources of anxiety lies in the individual being placed in a state in which his conception and per- ception of environmental demands do not ”fit" into his previously learned conceptual model. Thus, he has no basis for prediction of the environment in a manner that makes reasoned action possible. It follows that when an organism is prevented from monitoring the fittingness of his percepts and his cognitive structure, he is cut off from one of his principle sources of maintaining adjustment (Bruner, 1961, p. 207). 122 This kind of division between what is familiar and what is novel is precisely the situation which faces the school-aged child who has been inadequately socialized to the demands of the school situation. Early experiential deprivation prevents the formation of adequate models and means of coping with the environment of the school. The problem is one which centers on the transferability of learning-—especially nonspecific transfer of experiential learning, e.g., the establishment of generalized models, constructs, or concepts that represent the environment in such a way that when a new task or Situation is encountered it is possible to cope with it as an exemplar of familiar concepts that are already associated with socially appro- priate responses. Such model formation involves the learning of normative ways and means for dealing with rela- tively common features of the child's environment. Early eXperience with a comparatively rich perceptual environ- ment is needed for such learning, and experiential depri- vation prevents it. This kind of learning is seen to be a kind of continuous—feedback evaluation process by which children learn to guide their own develOpment by inter- nalizing a program for perceiving, cognizing, ordering, and manipulating their environments. We have seen that this process of internalization depends on interaction with others and has its basis in a need to develOp corresponding categories and conceptions for communal action. We must conclude, therefore, that it 123 is misleading to view the course of the human developmental process independently of the experiential and educational Opportunities which make that develOpment possible. It is clearly evident that the Opportunity for verbalization, and the kind of language training available to the child in his family setting will have a significant impact on his intel- lectual development. The intellectual model that he develops of the world around him will serve to guide the child‘s general patterns of cognition and perception. In keeping with this interpersonal approach to human develOpment, let us next turn to the consideration of how the interpersonal environment of the child may foster or hinder his develOp- ment in other ways as well. The Role of Significant Others in the Developmental Process Our over-all theoretical position is one of the impact of the social system on personality. This sociologically oriented social psychology of human develOpment assumes that the basic learning processes involved in general over- all personality development, including the development of a conception of self, affective reSponses, internalization of socially prescribed and proscribed behavior expectations, and cognitive learning, are all dependent on the individual ordering his experience in keeping with rewards and cues from significant others. Thus, social learning (socializa- tion) is the major factor in both intellectual develOpment and in more general personality develOpment which also 12A includes such dimensions as internalization of role ex- pectations, conscience formation, and the develOpment of a self-conception. Cooley and Mead spoke of the "other" and "taking the role of the other" as important to the socialization process and the development of personality. Sullivan introduced the idea of "significant" other in order to refine the concept and add a dimension of selectivity. Individuals are not affected by, influenced by, nor even aware of all_of those other persons in their interpersonal environment. It is only the reSponses of selected others which are of major importance in personality develOpment. Thus, significant others are defined as those persons whose Opinions, values, judgments, sentiments, and attitudes are important in shaping the direction of the develOping per- sonality. "Reference group" refers to the multiple version of significant other. Hyman introduced the term reference group and has argued, along with many others, that the term is not necessarily synonymous with "membership" group. That is, the individual may be influenced by the values, beliefs, opinions, and attitudes of a group of which he is not a member but with whom he identifies. Significant others and reference groups are seen to serve two functions for the individual. In the first instance they set the normative standards which the individual adopts as his own, and secondly they serve as the models for comparative eval- uation of self and of others. For the young child, with a limited range of social contacts, these significant others 125 are most certainly found among the members of his fam- ily. The family attempts to exert influence over the child's development in most cases. That is, the socialization process that occurs within the family setting is usually a direct attempt to exert social influence. Kelman (1960) has formulated a useful distinction between types of response to social influence attempts which points up the kind of power required and the likelihood of long-range success. He delineates three distinct consequents-—compliance, iden— tification, and internalization. Compliance refers to a surface level of obediance to the demands of the inter- personal environment in keeping with a fairly direct sur- veillance by the influencing agent whose source of power is means control. Identification refers to a somewhat deeper level of conformity to social expectations in keeping with a need to maintain a rewarding relationship with the influencing agent whose source of power is attractiveness. Internalization refers to a deep seated level of value orientation in personality developed in keeping with the relevance of these values to maintaining cognitive and affective congruency. At this level the conditions for performance of reSponses no longer require the presence of an influencing agent but are mediated through the individ- .ual's own cognitive structure. We are suggesting that this kind of distinction demon- strates the successive develOpment of personality as it is 126 socially influenced. That is, first the child complies to the demands of those in his interpersonal environment because they deliberately maintain a close surveillance over his behavior and place restrictions on his choice be- havior. In addition, the persons in his interpersonal en- vironment, most usually his mother during early childhood, have direct power to control the means of satisfying his personal needs for food, warmth, tactile stimulation, and so on. Secondly, if his social relationships are per- ceived as satisfying to him, the child comes to view those in his interpersonal environment as attractive and com— pliance with their demands as rewarding. He becomes aware of their expectations of him and concerned that he fulfill these expectations in order to maintain the rewarding re- lationship. At this point, identification, in the sense of associating his own behavior and self conception with the demands and evaluations of significant others, has occurred. As the next step in the development of person— ality, the child comes to assume those values, beliefs, evaluations, and role expectations of his significant others as his own. These are incorporated into his world view and direct his future activities even in the absence Of the sig- nificant others who have been instrumental in shaping his personality. At this point, internalization of social ex- pectations, values, conceptions, and beliefs occurs and the conscience (morality guide), the conceptual structure l2? (cognitive guide), the role expectations (behavioral guide), and the self-conCEpt have begun to develop. We must make two cautionary notes. First, we have spoken of "successive develOpment" as though the develOp- mental process occurs in some Specifiable time sequence--a thing we do ngt intend to imply. It is assumed that inter— nalization is the goal of all influence attempts, but it is quite clearly the case that this goal is not always successfully reached by all those who might attempt to in— fluence the direction of a child's develOpment. It is pos- tulated that compliance is always the starting point and that identification must precede internalization--but nothing is said of when, or even if, each of these levels will be reached. Furthermore, it would appear to be pos- sible for the child to return to a previous level if for some reason the object of his identification loses its attractiveness or the values he has internalized are brought into question. Secondly, we have Spoken of the end products of in- fluence attempts as though some developmental limit is reached at which point no further changes occur. Again this is Q93 the implication intended. We agree that the early years of childhood are of great importance to the develOp— ment of personality. However, socialization is viewed as an ongoing process which does not stop at age five, or puberty, or adulthood, or at any other specific chronologi— cal point but continues as long as new experiences do. As 128 social learning continues, continual personality adjust- ments must be made in reSponse to new perceptions and experiences. Personalities change over time in response to new experiences or reinterpretations of old ones in light of changed perceptions which demand reorganization in beliefs, values, and attitudes. Thus, we do not postu- late that adult personality is wholly dependent upon early experiences, nor do we postulate that early experiences are unimportant. We argue only that personality is also modi— fiable, at least to some extent, by experiences which occur after the period of early childhood. Nevertheless, certain aSpects of personality remain stable enough over time to permit investigations with personality as an independent variable. It is assumed, in keeping with Rokeach's (l960) formulation of personality systems, that the various components of a personality system are organized along a centrality-peripherality continuum and, thus, some aSpects are more salient to the individual and more stable than others. When we speak of the child's personality development in this chapter we are specifically addressing attention to those aspects of personality which are normally developed by early experiences in the family. We have used the term "normal" in several instances-—a term that many writers have found objectionable on the grounds that it represents a value judgment. That is not our intention. Normal, for our purposes, is defined as in conformity to the apprOpriate socially consensual evaluative 129 standard found in whatever social system is under consider— ation. The work of Bandura and Walters (1963) exemplifies the social learning approach to personality develOpment that has been described here. They discuss both intentional instruc— tion and incidental learning as methods of social learning. That is, social learning is achieved through two broadly de- fined interactional processes which Operate jointly in actual situations. The first Of these, intentional instruction, refers to formal institutionalized ways of socialization to value orientations and behavioral eXpectations. The second, incidental learning, refers to processes of identi- fication with, or emulation of, role models in the imita- tor‘s behavioral field. Bandura and Walters place strong emphasis on the concept of "vicarious reinforcement” as it influences social learning, i.e., learning from observation of behavioral models without direct personal participation. New responses may be learned or the characteristics of existing reSponses may be changed as a function of observing the behavior of others or its reSponse consequences without the observer's performing any overt reSponses himself or receiving any direct re- inforcement during the acquisition period (Bandura and Walters, 1963, p. #7). They cite research evidence to confirm the idea that social response patterns, both normal and deviant, can readily be transmitted through the influence of a model, and that imitation of the model's behavior is facilitated if the model receives rewards. On the other hand, if the model is Observed to receive punishments, the Observer may refrain 130 from making new deviant reSponses or even be restrained from making deviant responses he has already learned. Bandura and Walters employ the single term "imitation" to cover concepts which have been variously called "imita- ' and "role practice." They note tion," ”identification,’ that attempts have been made in the literature to differ- entiate these concepts, but they conclude that any or all of these terms may be defined as behavior which observably reproduces the actions, attitudes, or emotional reSponses of some real or symbolic model without any formal instruc— tions being given as to how the observer should behave. Accordingly, for our purposes, these terms will be used interchangably and with the assumption that they are synonymous. The content of this behavior depends, of course, on what is taught and who is selected as the model for identification. In our contemporary society there is a broad range of cultural, sub-cultural, and individual- family differences in ”normal" socialization practices. In the next section we will briefly consider some fairly typical differences in child-training techniques and some generalizations based on research concerning personality develOpment in reSponse to them. The Family and Child-Rearing Techniques as They Influence Personality DevelOpment Watson (1960) notes that for the infant, considered in relation to a matrix of other persons, the mother-- Serving as the first agent of socialization--is the most 131 significant of other persons in the development of the child's personality. He cites research evidence, however, to support the contention that specific practices in maternal behavior have not been found to show invariant relationships with consequent personality develOpment. . . . [Gener- alized] maternal attitudes were found to be much more closely related to behavior in children. Both attitudes and patterns . . . [of maternal behavior] . . . allow one to see maternal propen- sities to behave in general ways which are then related to later adjustment in their children. Maternal attitudes and patterns of behavior were found to be interrelated (Watson, 1960, pp. 277— 278, emphasis ours). This conclusion has been borne out by other researchers. Sewell (1952) empirically tested the relationship between mother's reports of their specific child—rearing practices and subsequent personality adjustment on the part of their children. The child's personality adjustment was measures in terms of scores obtained on a battery of standard paper-and-pencil and projective personality tests, ratings by teachers, and behavioral information gained from interviews with the mothers. Sewell's general hypothesis (stated in the null form), that "the personality adjustment and traits of children who have undergone varying specific infant-training experiences do not differ significantly from each other," could not be rejected. Of the 460 possible interrelations between specific infant—training practices and theoretically derived hypotheses concerning their effect on subsequent character and personality develOpment which he examined, only eighteen were statistically significant 132 at or beyond the 5% level. Of these eighteen, eleven were in the expected direction and seven were contrary to the relationship eXpected on the basis of theory. This kind of evidence would seem to rule out any direct link between certain Specific child-rearing practices such as breast vs. bottle feeding, age and abruptness of weaning, age and severity of toilet training, etc., and subsequent specific personality adjustments. However, children d9 differ measurably on standard personality tests, and their exper- iences in early childhood do seem to be linked with general personality development. Sewell follows the theoretical position that we have noted above as eSpoused by Watson, that it is entirely possible that the significant and crucial matter is not the practices themselves but the whole personal-social situation in which they find their ex— pression, including the attitudes and behavior of the mother (Sewell, 1952, p. 159). One Of the sources of differences in maternal attitudes appears to be social class--an idea which was extensively explored and modified in the preceding chapter. Social class differences in child—rearing practices have been the subject of a number of empirical studies. Perhaps the best known of these is the work by Sears, Maccoby, and Levin (1959). Sears and his associates investigated patterns of child rearing and found reported differences among mothers of differing socio-economic strata and differing levels of formal education. They draw some general conclusions re- garding the differences in socialization practices as 133 employed by ”working—class” and ”middle-class" parents. (The subjects ranged from scores of l to 5 on Warner‘s 7 point scale of occupational status, with the two lowest categories entirely missing from the sample.) Generally they found that working-class mothers re- ported themselves to be less permissive and more rejecting of dependency behavior than were middle-class mothers. Children of working-class parents were reported to exper— ience more severe sex training, i.e., their mothers were more strict in the areas of modesty training, masturbation, and social sex play. Working-class mothers reported that they were more punitive about aggression directed toward parents while being less punitive than were middle—class mothers regarding aggression toward neighborhood children. Sears_et_al. found no class differences among mother's attitudes toward sibling aggression. Working-class mothers reported more restrictive and demanding attitudes about noise in the house, care of clothing, table manners, etc. These mothers, as Opposed to middle-class mothers, were also reported to give their pre—school children less freedom to cross streets or leave the immediate neighborhood to play. (The authors note, in connection with this point, that the area of residence for working-class children was apt to be physically less safe for such freedom than were middle-class neighborhoods-- Suggesting that this particular attitude may be a reasonably Objective function of the area of residence.) Working-class 131; mothers also reported placing more pressure on their chil— dren to achieve in school than did middle-class mothers while, at the same time, holding fewer aspirations toward higher education for their children. Since effective socialization is seen as the result of its reward value for the child, a concern with parental attitudes toward rewards and punishments is an important consideration. Rewards and punishments are not always easily distinguishable. Bandura and Walters point out that punishment may have very diverse effects depending on its timing and intensity, its nature, and on the perceived status of the punitive agent. They also note that non—reward following reward is typically perceived as punishment while non-reward following punishment is seen as positive rein- forcement. Sears et_al. found some important differences among mothers' general attitudes toward punishment. They discuss two categories of reward/punishment techniques-- love oriented and object oriented. Love—oriented techniques involve verbal praise as a means of rewarding desired be- havior, social isolation as a punishment, and withdrawal of love as the principle punishing technique. The ef- fectiveness of this technique depends on a close personal and ”warm” relationship between parent and child, a relation- ship which is perceived as rewarding by the child who will, thus, feel punished at the threat of a disruption in the relationship. The parent's source of power in this case is the attractiveness of the relationship. Object-oriented 135 techniques, on the other hand, involve diSpensing tangible objects as incentives and rewards, with deprivation of privileges and physical punishment as the primary punitive techniques. The effectiveness of this technique is largely limited to the parents' ability to maintain control of the child by wielding means/ends power or by physical force. Sears et al. found that working-class mothers reported they were more punishing in general than middle-class mothers and, at the same time, their punishment techniques were more often object—oriented. Working-class mothers reported that they punished mainly by physical means and deprivation of privileges. The researchers found no class differences in the use of isolation and withdrawal of love as punishment techniques; these would appear to be individual-family differences. However, they did find that working-class mothers more frequently reported employing ridicule as a punishment technique. There were no reported class differences in the kind of reward technique most frequently used, although working—class mothers reported being slightly less demonstrative toward their children in general. The family setting which was experienced by the child of working-class parents appeared to be generally less stable than that of middle-class children insofar as working- class mothers reported more Open quarreling between them- selves and their husbands and were typically more critical of their husbands than were middle-class wives. In a number 136 of cases it was found that the mother's educational level alone—-regardless of socio—economic status, age, size of the family, etc.--was the determining factor in her atti— tudes toward socializing her child. After an extensive factor analysis it was found that the two social classes studied could be significantly differentiated only on the general attitudinal factors of (l) permissiveness/strict- ness, (2) general family adjustment, (3) warmth of mother— child relationship, and (A) aggressiveness and punitiveness. This particular study by Sears and his associates, being fairly typical in design, exemplifies some problems related to our concern with disadvantaged children. In the first instance, the data was gathered by means of retro- Spective interviews with the mothers only—-all data on fathers' attitudes included-—who were being asked to recall how they had treated their children from early infancy to current attitudes toward the child who was entering kinder- garten at the time of the investigation. The authors do note that ”the interviewing of mothers about their child- rearing practices and attitudes provides a limited descrip- tion of those phenomena (Sears_e£_al., 1957, p. A48).” It is at least possible that such studies do not document actual behavior so much as the middle-class mother's superior knowledge of socially acceptable reSponses to questions about their child—rearing practices! Quite apart from any suggestion of intentional misrepresentation of her attitudes, there is also the reasonable possibility that 137 the mother may simply fail to accurately recall her prior behavior and attitudes toward the child, eSpecially if she has had other children. Secondly, the sample of mothers interviewed was drawn from a fairly narrow sub—segment of the pOpulation. Criteria of selection demanded that the child be living with both natural parents, that neither parent be foreign born, that the child must neither be a twin, physically handicapped in any way, nor mentally handicapped, a Negro, nor a pupil in attendance at anything other than a public school. Each of these criteria effectively eliminates from study a fairly wide segment of those children who might reasonably be expected to be most severely disadvantaged. Even with these rigid requirements, another 10% of the original M81 target families were eliminated because they refused to participate in the investigation. Apparently nothing is known of the reasons for their refusal. Bronfenbrenner (1958, 1961) has given serious and scholarly attention to reports of differences in Specific child-rearing practices among parents of varying socio- economic status.' His extensive review and analysis of a wide range of studies led him to some conclusions that are relevant here. He notes, among other things, that for methodologically sound interpretation of reports of child- rearing practices it is essential to distinguish between the time the data are gathered and the actual period to which this information refers. This is important because 138 it is a well known phenomenon that child—rearing practices change over time. By comparing generalized changes in trends with the Specific information gathered in the various empirical studies (reinterpreted according to the actual period of time they refer to) Bronfenbrenner concludes that these changes in general trends in socialization of the child occur over time irreSpective of the social class level Of the parents. Evidence of changing trends in child— rearing are found in standard infant—care manuals as they are offered in continuously revised editions. Bronfen- brenner's analysis points to the fact that mothers not only read these manuals and take them seriously, but that their behavior toward their children is affected accordingly. Bronfenbrenner's own general hypothesis about changes in specific child-rearing practices extends beyond the con- fines of social class. Child-rearing practices are likely to change most quickly in those segments of society which have closest access and are most receptive to the agencies or agents of change, e.g., public media, clinics, physicians, and counselors (Bronfenbrenner, 1958, p. All). In this connection he reports that middle-class urban mothers, in general, are more apt to be in a position to read and hear advice than are lower class or rural mothers. He also notes that the data support the conclusion that lower—class parents, as a function of increasing income, education, and exposure to the body of child-rearing liter- ature, are gradually reducing their "cultural lag." For 139 our concerns this suggests that training programs designed to acquaint the parents of disadvantaged children with effective child-rearing practices are indicated and should prove helpful. Bronfenbrenner's extensive analysis of child—rearing studies does support much the same kinds of general atti- tudinal conclusions about socialization and social class that Sears E312}: have suggested. The data depict the middle-class parent as more permissive in general, having higher levels of achievement expectations, and being less apt to use physical punishment as a disciplinary technique but resorting more to reasoning, isolation, and love- oriented techniques. These differences appear to remain constant as a description of the attitudinal polarity of socialization differences among social classes. In his later work, Bronfenbrenner (1961) examines the data as it applies to the effects on children of the consistencies and changes in patterns of child rearing. He draws several generalizations from the literature, in- cluding the fact that increased movement over time away from techniques of physical punishment toward reliance on psychological techniques of discipline is Shown to be a powerful and positive force for bringing about desired changes in the child's behavior. He finds that girls are more likely to be disciplined by love-oriented techniques than are boys and, as a result, are found to be more obe— dient, more COOperative, and generally better socialized IMO than boys. Girls, however, tend to become "oversocialized" and susceptible to the detrimental influences of over— protection while boys are more subject to the detrimental effects of insufficient parental discipline and support. Boys are more apt to receive inadequate discipline in the lower socio-economic strata than are boys in the upper classes. Other indications of class differences are found in studies which report that in the higher socio—economic levels, girls excel boys in acceptance of responsibility and social acceptance while, in the lower classes, boys excel girls in assuming leadership, their level of aspira— tion, and in competitiveness. For all sociO—economic levels it is found that mothers primarily employ love-oriented disciplinary techniques regardless of the sex of the child. This is true, across class levels, for father's disci- plinary techniques toward girls. However, all fathers tend toward using more direct kinds of discipline toward their male children, with fathers in the lower socio-economic classes generally employing more physical punishment as a disciplinary technique regardless of the sex of the child. Bronfenbrenner points out that evidence indicates boys tend to be better socialized when the father is the princi- pal disciplinarian and girls profit most when the mother is the primary authority figure. He notes that boys from father-absent homes tend to be more highly dependent and concludes that the absence of the father is especially 1’41 critical for male children. This is a point which we will discuss more completely in the next section. Bandura and Walters point out, in this connection, that the normative develOpmental process requires a gradual modification of dependency responses for boys, which is a more marked devel- Opmental change than is required of girls. For this reason, the presence in the home of atypical parental sex—role models, or the absence of a male model, during early social- ization experiences may make subsequent emotional adjust— ment outside the home situation particularly difficult for boys. Bronfenbrenner suggests that emphasis on intellectual achievement is becoming the dominant force in redirecting the aims and practices of socializing the child in the con- temporary United States. He also notes that while specific practices and general attitudes toward achievement training may well successfully produce high achievement motivation in children, this same training may also give rise to such normatively undesirable personality characteristics as ex— treme aggressiveness, cruaMy, domineering attitudes, and anxiety. For our concerns this suggests that in planning practical programs designed to foster achievement motiva- tion the planners must be willing to accept the full responsibility for undesirable consequences. The obvious conclusion that can be drawn is that it is wise to be cautious about predicting the effects of Specific child-rearing practices on children's subsequent 1U2 personality development. However, insofar as socialization is defined as the process by which personalities are in- fluenced by the experience of living-—and especially by early experiences in family living-—the general parental attitudes toward warmth and dependency, permissiveness/ strictness, reward/punishment, and achievement training do seem to have a farreaching impact on personality develOpment. Furthermore, these attitudes are, at least in part, dif- ferentially distributed among the various social classes as they are distinguishable in our contemporary society. It should be equally obvious that not all the families within a given socio—economic status subscribe to the typi- cal pattern-—a subject which has been more thoroughly dis- cussed in Chapter II. Several of the works we have considered have noted sex differences in both parental attitudes and in children's responses to them. Most developmental studies treat the mother's role extensively. In the next section we shall consider the influence of the mother and the father Specif— d role «T! ically-—with Special attention to the often neglect of the father in the developmental process. The Roles of the Mother and Father in the Socialization Process Bronfenbrenner's analyses indicate something of the importance of family structure to the child's personality development. The particular problems created by observing the differential effects of varying child-rearing practices la? ‘J and their general ineffectiveness as a predictor of long- range personality development, raises the issue of the relative influence of such efforts at intentional instruction as opposed to incidental learning from parental attitudes and behavior. In this section we shall be interested par— ticularly in the effects of incidental learning accomplished through identification with the parents as role models. The concept of ”identification” is employed here to describe the process which accounts for the selection of one role model rather than another. Mussen, Conger, and Kagan (1963) define identification as a belief that some of the attribuZea of a role model belong to the self. They postulate that the motivation for identification is provided by the child's desire to command the attractive goals possessed by the chosen model. Many other possible motivating influences on identification have been postulated in the literature, including observation reinforced vicariously (secondary re- inforcement as exemplified by the thinking of Bandura aLO Waters), dependency as the primary motivating mechanism (as exemplified by Sears), status-envy, secial power, simi- larity to self, and others. There seems to be agreement that children learn many things by COpying the behavior of models, and each of the various theories of the underlying motives which induce identification finds some experimental support. It is most probably the case that several or all of these mechanisms may Operate simultaneously Or at different times in different situations ts produce libs identification with a chosen model. We will take the position that identification is multi—determined and go on to consider its effects rather than its causes. In current child development literature incidental learning through identification is most often cited as in— I—t, I‘luent.1al in the areas achievement motivation, aggres— sive behavior, and in the area of adult role modeling-— especially sex-role identification. There is, in the majority of the develOpmental literathre, a strong and con— sistent emphasis on the importance for personality devel- Opment of a warm and satin V112 relatl ship between mother and child in the early years of socialization. We do not deny that the mother is assuredly a most import ant iigure Ln the child s interpersonal matrix, especially during infancy and very early childhood. However, only recently has the role of the father in the developmental process been 11/en much att tjion Kohn and Carrc ll (l900l reflect this fairly new emphasis in their study cf social class differ- ences in the perception of the preper allocation of pareuia, res pc.t10111t1e' in “11 re ari mg. Their purtose we: ’0 H3 examine the ef ects of varying socio—economic class attitudes toward the division, between mother and father of responsibilities for training and disciplining their children. Their sample consisted of 20” white middle-class and 200 white working —clas families of fifth grade chil- dren. The data were obtained by interviews with all of the mothers and slightly Over a feurth at the fathers eni 145 children. The findings indicate that middle-class mothers emphasize the equality of the mother/father roles in training the child, while the fathers‘ role as discipli- narian was given only secondary importance. Middle—class fathers generally agreed with this assessment of their responsibility, though they were stronger in their agree— ment as to their proper role in relation to sons than to daughters. Working—class mothers eXpected their husbands to be firm disciplinarians but expected little from them in terms of supportive training. Working—class fathers were found to feel that child—rearing, in all its aspects, is properly the mother's responsibility. it would seem reasonable to assume that the parents‘ perception of their role responsibilities would have an important influence on the developmental process in children. Earlier references to the father‘s role were made largely in terms of his influence as a sex-role model for boys. In more recent works has come consideraoly more emphasis on the general role or the father. Sears, Rad. \ and Alpert tlQoS} tested a series of hYtoLheaeg derived — A from a theory of ‘dentification motivated by dependency which concerned child—rearing antecedents of certain he- haviors in children, e.g., attention seeking, prosocial (J , Q afigres-ion, sex typing, emotional upset, etc. which were :T ( presumed to be learned through this process of i entifica— tion. Little theoretical support was founu-—perhaps be a, Of their unidimensional approach to identification 146 motivation-—but some general conclusions, particularly con- cerning the father‘s role, are of interest to us. They found, among other things, that the level of permissiveness of 30th parents is an important factor in the socialization of boys and girls. The father is seen to be important not only as a male sex—role model, but as he is perceived to be the source of power in the family, to be an agent of morality training, and to set high achievement standards. Studies have been done which Specifically deal with the parental role in the development of achievement motivation. Rosen and D'andrade (l959) examined the origins of achievement motivation among ten-year-old boys in light of their training in the family setting. Forty white boys, matched by group on the factor of measured intelligence, i.e., I.Q., were assigned to ”high need achievement” and ”low need achievement" groups of twenty boys each on the basis of Thematic Apperception Tests (TAT) procedures. The subject groups were further controlled so that there were ten middle—class and ten lower-class boys in each of the two ”need achievement” groups. However, no differences by social class were found so it is possible to disregard this division. The parents of the forty boys also participated in the experiment. Each boy, in the presence of both his mother and father, was given a series of tasks to complete which allowed his parents the opportunity to interact with the child while being observed by the experimentors. From these observatipn; lfl7 it was concluded that parents do provide achievement and independence training, but fathers contribute more to train- ing for boys than do mothers. However, it was found that mothers of boys with high achievement motivation gave more emphasis to achievement training, were more dominant, and rewarded their sons with approval and punished them by hostility more often than did mothers of boys with low achievement motivation. In short, these mothers were be— having more typically like fathers than in the more common love-oriented mother role. The study concluded that for high need achievement to develOp the boy needs both more autonomy from his father than from his mother and, at the same time, a strong model for achievement motivation--most usually his father. Thus, we suggest that parental pres- sures for and reward of early achievement, when coupled with a high ratio of successes to failures for the child, results in high need for achievement in the school situation, pro- vided that the child identifies with his supportive parents. In the Sears et al. study the size and direction of the correlations among findings do not allow for many Specific conclusions about the effects of parental influence, but a general indication is that in the socialization process, the mother's influence is more significant for girls while the father's influence has the greatest impact on boys. They state the general principle that ”when the parent of the opposite sex rewards dependency, the child develops behavior qualities characteristic of that sex l48 t8ears, Rau, and Alpert, 1965, p. 255)." They add, however, that the converse of this principle is not so clearly sup- ported. They also found that there is little support for a dependency-motivated theory of identification account of the development of masculinity in boys, though such a theory does appear to account for the development of sex-appropriate roles for girls and sex—inappropriate behavior among boys who have not had a strong masculine role model. Kagen (l958) has suggested that sex-role identity plays a central role in directing the child's personality development because this identity sets boundaries on sub— sequent behavioral choices. He notes that sex-role in— fluences are felt in several behavioral areas, including general stability of behavioral responses over time and differential mastery of academic skills, in addition to sexual behavior toward love objects. He cites research evidence to support the position that boys typically have higher levels of academic achievement with respect to tasks involving spatial and mechanical reasoning, science, and mathematics than have girls. Furthermore, boys are typi— cally more autonomous and persistent in their orientation to problem-solving tasks than are girls—~in response to differential sex-role socialization. These pervasive as- pects of sex-role identity on personality development make concern with sex-role identification an important one in our consideration of the causes of the Leftout's maladjust- ment to school. 1249 Kagan defines a sex—role standard as a learned asso- ciation between selected characteristics, behaviors, and attitudes with concepts of male and female. Early sex-role discrimination by the child is in reSponse to a desire to make his behavior and attitudes conform to his perception of the sex-role standard. Kagan points out that the sex— role standard applies to two distinct kinds of response in the child: (1) as an internalized part of his selfeconcept, and (2) as knowledge of a set of culturally consensual behavioral eXpectations. Sears has made an important dis— tinction between sex-role "preference” and "identification.” Sex-role preference refers to sex—linked behavior which the individual would like to adept or which he perceives as the preferred or more desirable behavior. This preference may differ from his sex-role identification which refers to sex-linked behavioral proscriptions and prescriptions which the individual internalizes as appropriate for those of his biological sex. It is interesting to note that psychoanalytic theory postulates that the girl is expected to experience greater difficulties in assuming her feminine role than is the boy in assuming his masculine role because Of ”penis envy," i.e., masculine sex-role preference. This is diametrically Opposed to the social learning theory offered here which assumes lgss difficulty in learning the feminine sex—role since girls typically have more and closer contacts with their mothers, who act as role models, than do boys with their fathers. We assume that sex-role preferences which differ from the apprOpriate sex-role iden- tification of the child are abnormalities produced by in- adequate socialization. For adequate socialization and subsequent personality adjustment, the child needs to acquire a sex-role identity which matches his biological sex. This learned identity is acquired by differential identification-—whatever its motivating force-—with the same—sex parent, parental sur- rogates, older siblings, and significant others. Unfor- tunately, for the children who are the center of our concern, abnormal family structures and inadequate sex-role models, e.g., father-absent or mother-dominated, both parents ab- sent, etc., are an all too typical occurrence. Lynn and Sawrey (1959) examined the effects on both boys and girls reared in father-absent families. They selected forty father-absent and forty father-present Norwegian families of equalsocio-economic levels. The ab- sent fathers were sailors--typically away for an average of nine monUwseach year. Their data were gathered on the basis of interviews and doll play situations with the early elementary school age children of these families. It was found that more father-absent boys than father-present boys showed signs of immaturity, stronger striving toward mas- culine identification, and had poorer peer adjustments. Father-absent girls were better able to make peer adjustments than were father-absent boys, though their problems in this area were more pronounced than were those for father-preser? lBl children regardless of sex. Father-absent girls also evi- denced more dependency on their mothers than did father— present girls. This would suggest that an important part of developing sex-role identities includes the opportunity to observe and interact with complementary-sex models as well as same-sex models. Lynn and Sawrey concluded that the absence of the father affectsijm personality development of both boys and girls, although boys seemed to be more severely disadvan- taged by their father's absence. They also suggest that other factors may also have influence, e.g., the personality and attitudinal orientation of a woman who would marry a sailor. Others have suggested, as we have seen, that mothers' attitudes toward the father's role reSponsibilities differ. Thus, presumably, if the mother is content with the family structure-~whatever it may be——there is less apt to be strain associated with a situation which demands that she fulfill the typical aSpects of both parental roles. How— ever, this assumption does raise the question that if developmental inadequacies can be found among children of father—absent families when the mother willingly accepts the situation, what more severe problems might lie in wait for the child of a father-absent family when the mother is more apt to resent the situation, such as the case where the father is in jail or has deserted the mother? 152 The U.S. Department of Labor Report (1965) reviewed in the previous chapter, concerns itself with this kind of situation among Negro families in our society. In this report to the President it is emphasized that the fundamen— tal problem among Negroes in general is that of a dis— organized family structure. The report points out that for vast numbers of the unskilled, poorly educated, urban Negro working-class the fabric of conventional family rela- tionships is all but absent. The Report notes that nearly a quarter of urban Negro marriages are dissolved,ealarge and growing number of births are illegitimate, and that more than a quarter of Negro families are dominated by females, whether or not the males are actually absent they have be— come socially emasculated in many cases. We have discussed in the preceding chapter, the Special case of Negroes in the contemporary social structure--the point we wish to make here is that Negro families are not the gnly families to suffer from structural disorganization, nor are Negro chil— dren alone the victims of the effect of personality develop- ment this kind of disorganization spawns. While the specific role of the father in influencing developing personality is far from crystal clear, it is clearly an important one and deserves the attention that is slowly becoming focused on it. Nash (1965) has recently reviewed the literature re— lating to the father's role in personality develOpment—- which he notes to be meagre compared to that directed toward 153 the mother's role. It is not entirely incidentally that we point out that he specifically criticizes the common but methodologically unsound practice of investigating father attitudes indirectly by way of his wife's reports concerning them. He cites evidence that independent interviews with both mother and father yielded only small agreement between them on either their perceptions of their children's be- havior, or their own statements about attitudes toward and interactions with their children. (Independent outside criteria tended to support the father's reports as being more accurate than the mother's!) Nash concludes from his review and analysis of the literature that the general opinion among sociologists today is that American society in particular, and Western indus- trial society in general, is "mother-centered" in its philos- Ophy of child care. The development of this philosophy can be traced to the economic history of industrial civilization in which the traditional family c00perative economy has been supplanted by an economic pattern in which the father is typically engaged in economic activity away from the home. This pattern, in turn, forces him to delegate his child- rearing reSponsibilities to his wife. Some psychologists have accepted this generalized cultural phenomenon so un— critically as to come to the assumption, as evidenced by their theoretical writings, that the rearing of children is an exclusively feminine responsibility. However, Nash cites research evidence from clinical studies and lBM investigations of delinquents which suggest that father— child relationships—-especially those between fathers and sons-~may be of considerable etiological importance to both social and psychological maladjustments. He points out that psychosexual problems apparently result when the child's major identification is with the Opposite-sexed parent. Thus, a mother-centered family structure-~as is reasonably common for the children with whom we are particularly con— cerned--is peculiarly unsuited to the needs of boys. Nash concludes that evidence supports the View that identification of the child with his same-sex parent is not only signifi- cant in sex-role development but in general personality development as well. He notes that this identification can be understood in terms of social learning theory, i.e., warm, affectionate relationships and prolonged associations (in contrast to the hostility assumed in the oedipal theory), and that these kinds of relationships are essential require— ments of successful identification, adequate socialization, and well-adjusted personality development. Since we are interested in children who suffer dis- ruptions of one sort or another in family relationships it becomes important to look at the body of literature specif- ically relating to deprivation in the area of these relation- ships. Nearly all such studies are found classified under the rubric of "maternal deprivation." While we do not wish to be accused of underestimating the mother's role, we do suggest that the evidence strongly indicates that 155 deprivation of one parent has different effects for boys and girls-—depending upon which parent is absent or inade- quate-—and, for boys at least, paternal deprivation may be as serious as maternal deprivation. In all fairness, it should be pointed out that many of the studies of maternal deprivation have been, in reality, concerned with the effects on children who are deprived of both parents. Since few, if any, of the authors of these studies have made any attempt to separate the differential effects of maternal vs. paternal deprivation Nash has suggested that the term "parental deprivation" would be more accurate. Consequently, we shall treat the findings of this body of literature as relating to a more general disruption in the social struc- ture of the family rather than to the Specific loss of a close personal relationship with the mother alone. Limitations of Parental Influence on the Developmental Process The general over-all conclusion that can be drawn from our examination of the developmental process is the hardly surprising one that a verbally oriented, close, warm, supportive, and continuous relationship with both parents is the best possible family setting in which both boys and girls may develop. Concomitantly, any disorganization in this family pattern will deprive the child to some extent of a chance for adequate socialization. Or, at least, limit the influence thatiim family has over the develOpmental prOCGSS. 156 While we accept these basic premises, Yarrow (196H) among others, has pointed out that the differential impact on personality development between good parental care and the adverse effects generated by parental deprivation is not a simple and straightforward problem. He suggests that the terms "deprivation" and "separation" need to be dis— tinguished-—despite the fact that they are typically employed synonymously in the literature. Furthermore, he notes that there are several possible varieties of separation exper- iences, e.g., single brief separation with reunion, single permanent separation, repeated permanent separation (such as when the child is shuttled about among relatives or a series of foster homes), and others. He suggests the need to examine the effects of these various types of separation. He also postulates that the age of the child at separation, i.e., before or after the development of a meaningful focused relationship with Specific significant others, has an important influence on the consequences of separation. Yarrow suggests the need for considering several other factors as well. Among these is the quality of the rela- tionship between the child and his parents prior to separa- tion. For example, if the family setting is such that there are distortions in the parental attitudes, separation may be preferable to highly deviant conditions. In short, it is assumed that separation will have differential meanings for the child depending upon whether it represents a break in a meaningful, satisfying, intimate, protective 157 relationship or simply is the culmination of parental in- difference or overt rejection. Other factors such as the nature of the relationship with parents during temporary separation, the duration of the separation experience, the nature of subsequent parental care following separation with reunion, and reinforcing ex— periences outside the family setting must also be considered. Yarrow concludes that accumulated evidence supports the view that the effects of deprivation in the areas of sensory, social, and emotional stimulation which are frequently con- current with parental separation are more harmful than is parental separation per se. This kind of stimulus depriva— tion would appear to be clearly linked to inadequate intel- lectual development, as was seen in the first section of this chapter, and to more general inadequacies of personality develOpment as we have discussed above. Casler (1961) also undertook to summarize the major findings of the maternal deprivation literature. He reviewed a wide variety of studies which employed the in— stitutional, cultural, animal-experimental, and neuro— anatomical approaches to the problem. His central proposi- tion was that sensory reinforcement sf many kinds bridge the gap between physiology and social learning for the child. Such sensory stimulation may be tactile, visual, or auditory. He concludes, as does Yarrow, that there is no real proof that the absence of the mother (or parents) per se accounts for the observed problems of deprived children, but that 158 stimulus deprivation in general is a more useful concept-- and a more precise one--for accounting for their problems. He argues that deprivation of maternal love can have ill effects only after Specific affective reSponsiveness has been achieved by the child. This normally occurs in the last six months of the first year of life. However, we postulate that this affective bond may occur much later or not at all in a child/parent relationship characterized by hostility, rejection, or Severe structural disorganization. Ill effects found among children who have not established this affective bond probably has some other cause than that of separation from one or more of his parents. This "other cause” being perceptual deprivation, i.e., the absolute or relative absence of tactile, verbal, visual, or emotional stimulation. Evidence indicates that this kind of stimulus depriva— tion may be produced by either social isolation, environ- mental sameness, or both. In this connection Casler points out that ”it is hot the stimulus itself, but rather the reSponse to the stimulus which provides the perceptual or sensory stimulation.” In Short, stimulation without benefit of contrast may not be perceived and stimulation that does not fit the socially learned cognitive structure may be ignored. Casler postulates a causal relationship between per— ceptual stimulation and intellectual, emotional, and physi— cal functioning. In light of our earlier discussion of the 159 importance to intellectual develOpment of language acquisi— tion, it is interesting to note that he cites studies by Brodbeck and Irwin of the verbal behavior of institution- alized children, who were found to be consistently less vocal than those raised in families. He points out, however, that those forms of social stimulation necessary for proper language develOpment can be provided in an institutional setting if the need for doing so is recognized. In addition, he notes that recent evidence indicates that there is no relation between the relative extent of early vocalization and later verbal facility if sensory reinforcement later occurs. . . . Perhaps the most conclusive support for the contention that social reinforce- ment, not mother love, plays a dominate role in the develOpment of vocalization comes from a study by Rheingold, Gewitz, and Ross. Three—month-old babies showed increased vocalization after visual, auditory, and tactile reinforcements; and extinction was demonstrated when the reinforcement was withdrawn (Casler, 1961, pp. 6 and 28). For our purposes, these kinds of findings, along with others we have discussed,suggest the feasibility of programs in the school designed to compensate for early stimulus deprivation. In addition to the limitations of parental influence on the developmental process among children which we have already discussed, e.g., separation and role—model inade— quacies, other factors are particularly relevant to the culturally and socio-economically disadvantaged children with whom we are primarily concerned. In the first instance, we are centrally focusing on the school-age child: Mussen, 160 Konger, and Kagan (1963) prOpose that development during middle—childhood, i.e., elementary school age of approxi— mately five to twelve, is normally characterized by an expansion of the social environment. Bandura and Walters (1963) point out that innovations in social behavior may occur, as the child gets older, because of increased oppor— tunity for contact with role—models provided by peers and adults other than his parents. They suggest, however, that the degree of innovation is likely to be a function of the diversity of available models. They cite Schachter's con— clusion that in homogeneous groups, individual deviant behavioral patterns are likely to elicit social rejection from other members of the group. Bandura and Walters sug- gest that in a heterogeneous group, behavior and values acquired in the family situation will govern the choice of role-models outside the home. In this connection, we sug- gest that this selection may be made either on the basis of similarity, if family relationships have been satis- factory, or dissimilarity (i.e., rejection of familial values), if the child's relationship with his family has been unsatisfactory. In any case, the influence of the social sub—system represented by the school is an important one for any school-age child. Watson (1960) points out that children of this age group in general are ina.great deal of contact with adult role-models outside the home. These adults, e.g., teachers, recreation leaders, religious instructors, etc., I61 are as intent upon bringing about in the child those be- haviors, attitudes, and values that they consider prOper as are the child's parents. He quotes Havinghurst‘s view that the school systems in our contemporary United States go far beyond minimal instruction in academic subjects—- and that it is necessary for them to do so. It is suggested that there is no area of the developmental process in children which the school may safely ignore and still ac- complish its goals. In the social sub-system of the school teachers are required to perform a wide variety of social- izing tasks and, in successfully doing so, employ much the same methods that are effective for parents in the sub— system of the family. It is important to note again, in this context, the fact that the child is typically in school for seven to nine hours a day, five days a week, nine months a year. Of the remaining time available to him daily, he Spends eight to twelve hours in sleep, and from one to several hours outside the home engaging in a variety of recreational activities. The parents are fortunate to have personal contact with the child for more than three to six hours a day during the normal school year--and often have little more during vaca— tion periods. Hence, the direct influence of the parents over the develOpmental process in apy child is severely time—limited for this age group. It is also worthwhile to briefly consider the influence that peers and older siblings may have on the socialization 162 of the child. The role of peers will be examined in more detail in Chapter IV, but by way of an example of their im— portance to the developmental process consider Sutton's findings. Using the scores of 90 fifth grade children on the Syracuse Scale of Social Relations plus socializing records kept by their teachers, Sutton (1962) concluded that school-age children select their same-sex peers as sources for both academic and social help more frequently than they select either teachers or family. We are sug- gesting that, for the school-age child at least, the peer group is a significant influencing agent for personality development. There is some research evidence to support the view- point that for socio-economically disadvantaged school-age children particularly, parental influence is quite dras- tically limited. Lewis (1961) found evidence to support the hypothesis that among low income families, unguided, unplanned influences outside the family are relatively more important and affect the socialization of the child rela- tively earlier than among higher income families. An effect of this outside influence is the early appearance (at ages five or six) of the point at which the parents cannot or will not attempt to control their children. One reason for this limitation of parental influence among low-income families is the fact that the mother and the father (if there is one) are often both employed out- side the home. A reasonably typical pattern among low 163 income families leaves much of the responsibility for child—rearing to older siblings. In the case of actual separation from the parents where the child is raised by a married (or at least considerably older) sibling the sibling's influence on the develOpmental process probably differs little from that of the parents. However, Rosen- baum (1963) has suggested that the psychological effects on a child who is largely reared by a Sibling who is only slightly older than himself may be extreme and severely maladjustive. He postulates that this is the case because the older sibling who is not biologically or psychologically prepared to c0pe with child-rearing is apt to have negative attitudes toward his premature reSponsibility which will, in turn, have negative consequences for the personality develOpment of the younger sibling left in his care. Rosen- baum also points out that such codeterminates as parental illness, separation or rejection, social and economic depri- vation, and physical abuse often accompany the situation in which an older Sibling becomes responsible for the rearing of younger members of his family. We may conclude that parental influence on the develop— mental process, particularly among disadvantaged school- age children, may be limited by several factors. Some of these are a normal part of the develOpmental process for this age groug i.e., wider social contacts which allow for diversity of identification with non-family adult role—models and the increased influence of the peer group. Other 1614 factors are more directly related to socio-economic dis— advantage and parental inadequacies. Disruptions or dysfunctional relationships in the family structure create intellectual and general personality maladjustments in the developing child. Families of low socio-economic status, in addition to exhibiting a greater tendency toward broken homes and inadequate financial means or educational skills for offering a rich and stimulating environment, may also place their children in the position of being the object of social discrimination and possible rejection. This discrim- ination reduces the child's chances of develOping satis— factory extra—familial social relationships with other adults or peers. Families of low socio-economic status are often charac— terized by a high rate of residential migration in a search for Opportunities for economic and social betterment or to escape liabilities. This frequent moving from one neighbor- hood or community to another also tends to limit the child's potential for develOping long-term satisfying interpersonal relationships outside the family setting. If these social structural factors of poverty, discrimination, and residen- tial mobility are coupled with a broken home or inadequate parental relationships, then the chances that the child will be adequately socialized or develOp normally are slim indeed. Even if but one of the many dysfunctional factors we have considered in these chapters is present during the develOp- mental process, it seems reasonable to conclude that the 165 child will be disadvantaged to some extent--and that com- pensatory measures are required for fully adequate intellec- tual and emotional development. While we do not regard the school as a panacea for either the personality maladjustments of individual children or the social ills of society in general, we do regard the school as a powerful influencing agent for the learning of attitudes and values. The schools d2, therefore, have a socializing reSponsibility not unlike that of the parentS-~ and the learning environment the school provides must allow .Ell children to learn under as nearly ideal conditions as is possible. This means that school personnel must be aware of the background and developmental experiences to which the children in their care have been eXposed, and some com- pensatory adjustments must be made in curricula, social climate, and teaching techniques when this background has inadequately prepared the child for the demands of the school situation. Some suggestions concerning how the school might compensate for children's disadvantage will be, in part, the subject of our final chapter. CHAPTER IV SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL ADJUSTMENT IN SCHOOL: THE ROLE OF PEERS AND SELF—CONCEPT The Opinions, values, beliefs, and attitudes of the particular significant others who are our peers are of great importance to all of us--and children are apt to be eSpecially influenced by social pressures from peers. The child is simultaneously pressured by adults and his age- mates and these pressures may be directed toward anti— thetical value orientations and behavioral expectations. The child is automatically excluded from certain kinds of rewarding associations with adults because of his age and immaturity. It is only from his age-mates that he may derive such things as prestige and hierarchial status, and with whom he may develOp friendships based on equality. An acceptable social status is an important requisite for satisfactory social and emotional adjustment at any age. Our view of man as inherently a social being implies strong needs to form significant and meaningful relationships with others. Thus, social isolation, real or threatened, is a powerful motivating force for producing behavioral changes in keeping with the perceived requirements of social acceptance. 166 167 The means of initiating and maintaining close personal relationships are learned during the developmental process. This learning is, in part, based on perceptual awareness of others emotional needs, value orientations, and behavioral expectations. Horrocks and Buker (1951) have shown that the capacity for enduring friendships is gradually acquired during childhood and adolescence, and that the social skills necessary for developing satisfying friendships are teach— able. For learning children's social Skills the "teachers" are other children. That the peer group is the most common social reference group for school-age youngsters is a well documented fact. Only one study will be cited here for illustrative purposes for its findings are typical of many such studies. Much of the research on the impact of the peer group has been done with adolescent subjects; this study was chosen Specifically because it deals with pre- adolescent youth. Sutton (1962) conducted research with 90 fifth grade children using the Syracuse Scale of Social Relations, supplemented by socializing records kept by teachers. His results Show that children tend to select their peers as sources of help—-for ppth social and academic goals—-more frequently than either teachers or parents. We are proposing that a good deal of what children learn is taught by other children. Thus, one critical dimension in the study of adjustment to school is the impact of the peer group. 168 The impact of peers is to some extent inherent in the structural system of the school where large numbers of children are brought into daily contact in a setting which has both a social group orientation and a task group orien- tation. A general principle of our theoretical perspective is that the more individuals associate with one another under conditions of equality, the more they come to share value orientations and behavioral norms, and the more they come to like one another. For the Leftout, the problem centers in the fact that the "conditions of equality" por- tion of that principle may not prevail in the actual situ— ation. There is an indiSputable difference between physical and social propinquity. The child in the group is part of a complex network of relations with other children. Each child observes and evaluates the events around him, reSpondS with feelings of liking or disliking, acts in the situa- tion, and is the recipient of actions of others. Through such processes the role and status of each child becomes established and the particular nature of his relationship to the peer group emerges. Homans (1950, 1961), among many others, notes that the closer their normative orienta— tion, the more frequently will individuals interact. And when people are forced into physical proximity from which they cannot withdraw, e.g., a work group or, in this case a schoolroom, maximal general interaction will result from positive sentiments while neutral or negative sentiments will tend to restrict interaction to minimal, formal, or 169 problem solving situations. Homans prOposes that inter- action, i.e., the communication of sentiment in the form of rewarding activity, must be mutually rewarding or it will cease. Schachter (1951) supplies some evidence that when a deviant is present in the group there is an initial up- surge Of communication in his direction, probably aimed at bringing him into line but, if these efforts go unrewarded, communication will diminish. The deviant is still present but is ignored——effective social isolation. An important factor, very much related to peer group influence, is that of the quality of the interpersonal com- munication among individuals in the same behavior field. McClosky and Schaar (1965) point out the importance Of com- munication to the develOpment of anomic, i.e., left out, reSponses to social situations. One does not learn values and norms in precisely the way one learns facts: one is "socialized" into them through numerous interactions--living, working, and talking to others--repeated over time and in a variety of contexts. Opinions and values have a con— siderable effect on the way he is received by a com— munity or group. . . . Partial acceptance of the rules will get one into the club; once inside, the processes of indoctrination and absorption can be carried much farther. . . On the other hand, persons who fail tO learn the dominant values of a group, or who hold beliefs and Opinions not widely shared, are not likely to be well received by group members. This in turn reduces communication and makes socialization into A deviant lacks the the group even more difficult. vital experience Of participation which is intimate, essential to full appreciation Of the group's norms and values. His knowledge of those norms may be ab- " insensitive to subtle stract and "theoretical, shadings of mood and meaning-—a caracature rather than an accurate portrait (pp. 21—22). 170 This, in essence, is the problem of the Leftout because he has not had the prior training or experience to allow him tO develop the appropriate value orientation, internalize the "prOper" behavioral expectations, nor learn the accepted means Of communication which would allow him easy access to the more advantaged peer group and gain for him their ac— ceptance as an equal. The broad environmental contexts of culture, sub- culture, and family examined in the earlier chapters need to be viewed as an integral part Of peer relationships since these variables have important consequences for the impact of children's associations with age-mates. These environ— mental variables help determine the nature Of the peer relationship by providing, or failing to provide, adequate training in requisite social skills and by setting the para- meters for the sphere of peer group influence. General cultural, sub-cultural, and family influences serve to es- tablish the framework within which peer relations Operate, and within which‘mwapeer group becomes yet another agent of the socialization process. Thus, we may view the peer group as a determinant Of stability and acceptance in social relationships, as a contributor to the child's develOping self-concept, and as another force contributing to the form and substance Of the child's value orientation toward the world around him. The extent of the peer group's influence is delimited by such factors as the characteristics Of the Situation itself, individual variations in susceptibility 171 to influence, the characteristics of the children doing the influencing, and the impact of adults (such as teachers) on children's peer groups. One of the most important and enduring functions Of peer relationships is their influence on the develOpment of the child's self-concept. This notion Of "self" is a key concept in sociology for the interpretation of person— ality. Mead (1934) regarded the develOpment of "self" as "in the process Of social dependent on language and arising eXperience and activity. . . . The self, as that which can be an object to itself, is essentially a social structure, and it arises in social experience . . . (pp. 135-1AO)." Self—concept has been used in sociology as the equivalent of the self: that is, one's self is the way he conceives himself, or his self-concept. Central to an individual's self—concept is his identity, that is, his generalized position in society deriving from his statuses in the groups of which he is a member, the roles which attend these sta- tuses, and the social categories which he comes to accept as "his," e.g., age, sex, race, social class, etc. Thus, self—concept is defined as the individual's view Of himself, derived from taking the role of significant others in social interaction, by means Of which he organizes his personality and directs his action to reciprocate the perceived expec- tations of others. The self-concept consists Of: (1) a view of identity, (2) attitudes which express personal interests and aversions, (3) a "world view" frame of 172 reference, (A) knowledge Of goals and degree Of past success in achieving prior goals, and (5) some kind Of self- evaluation on the basis of comparison of self with others and their perceived evaluation. Early in his group experiences a child becomes aware that his peers evaluate him along particular lines and, as the develOpmental process continues, he learns proficiency in interpreting his own status in the eyes of other children. High status in the group is a source of a positive self— concept; lack Of status and social acceptance becomes a source Of dissatisfaction with himself which produces either: (1) a rejection Of the group and status seeking elsewhere, (2) high motivation to change in the direction Of the group's eXpectations, or (3) a lowering Of the self-concept. It is clearly an oversimplification to suggest that acceptance by peers directly determines the extent Of the child's self evaluation. Family influences, success Or failure in non—social experiences (e.g., academic tasks), perceptions Of teacher's and other adults' evaluation, etc. also play important roles in shaping the self-concept. Nevertheless, the peer group remains an extremely important source of self-evaluations. It is perfectly possible, of course, that an adequate self—concept leads to social ac- ceptance while an inadequate self-concept leads to social rejection. It is probable that the causal relationship between self-acceptamxaand social acceptance works BEER ways. That is, an adequate self-concept is a prerequisite for 173 social acceptance, and social acceptance increases the like- lihood of positive self—evaluations which, in turn, raise the level of the self-concept. And, conversely, an inade- quate self-concept leads to social rejection, social re- jection increases the likelihood Of negative self—evaluations and tends to lower the self—concept even more. We are pos- tulating that self-acceptance and social—acceptance are positively related (regardless of the causal sequence), and that an adequate self—concept is a necessary prerequisite to successful adjustment in school. In our interrelated three-fold criterion of adjustment to school (academic, social, and emotional dimensions) the social acceptance dimension is an important one. It is probably best to regard the affective and cognitive dimen- sions Of learning as interacting aSpects of a single process. In certain task oriented situations, formalized teaching aimed at the perceptual—cognitive dimensions gains ascend- ancy and emphasis is directed away from the self—social reference features of the learning experience. In other school situations where the focal point is the social group, the social-emotional dimensions are predominant and greater emphasis is given to personality needs, value orientations, motivation, social status, and the conception of self in relation to others. In both types of learning Situations some aSpects Of all the dimensions of adjustment are present, although primary emphasis may be given to one rather than 174 another. These considerations, and OUst we have indicated, will be the subject of the remainder Of this chapter. Peer Relationships for the Leftout For the Leftout who is the Special Object of our con- sideration, peer relationships are Of particular signifi- cance. Evidence cited in the last chapter (Lewis, 1961) suggests that by school age the socio—culturally disad- vantaged child is apt to experience comparatively little concern, attention, or support from his parents. Con- comitantly, we suggest that the peer group takes on added importance for such a child. Campbell (l96u), in his com— prehensive review of peer relationships in childhood, points out that there are sub-cultural variations in the relevance of the peer group for children. His data supports our view that parents in lower sociO—economic strata Show less con— cern about their children's activities outside the home than do parents of higher sociO-economic levels, and lower—class parents typically exercise less control and supervision over their school-age children. As we have seen, middle-class child rearing practices give more emphasis to self—direction and the develOpment of internal standards of conduct while lower-class parents tend to emphasize conformity to external proscriptions. Given such differences in background and training, it seems reasonable to suggest that one conse- quence is to allow greater Opportunity for the peer group to assume an important socializing role in the development 175 of the lower-class child. Ausubel (1958) claims that ”it is mostly in heterogeneous urban cultures that values during preadolescence tend to acquire a wider base and peers tend to replace parents as interpreters and enforcers of the moral code (p. 393)]' From ethnographic comparisons Eisen- stadt (1962) concludes that peer group.pressures are greatest "in those societies in which the family or kinship unit cannot ensure . . . the attainment Of all social status on the part of its members (p. 3A)3' As we have seen, these are the types of social systems of which the Leftout is typically a member. It is also suggested that children's overt dependent behavior increases in the case where there is parental rejection and/or lack of cohesion in the family. Both the objective structural characteristics of the commu- nity and the family--such as the degree of integration/ disorganization, degree of differentiation, and degree of financial security—-help to shape the unique nature Of the child's relations with his peers and his value orientation to the social world around him.’ Our Leftouts are disadvan- taged in these areas, coming typically from the poorer urban areas and from families whose interpersonal processes are apt to be disorganized. Thus, for the Leftout, the peer group and their acceptance of him becomes extremely impor- tant. At the same time, variations in sociO-economic back— ground have been found to be associated with differences in children's value orientations and their aspirations to 176 achieve in school. Such differences in training and ex- perience create for children different "world view" frames of reference which, when translated into behavior, have consequences for peer relationships. Values and aSpirations asserted in the home, as well as the quality Of interaction within the family, contribute to the nature of peer relation— ships. Parents help to provide the child with knowledge of social expectations and to crystallize his value orien- tation. Middle-class parents eSpecially influence peer group relationships by intentionally or unintentionally con— trolling contacts and by teaching their children discrimina- tory life styles. The middle-class child's relationship to his parents is apt to be far closer than is that of the lower-class child and hence he is apt to be particularly influenced by parental views. There is a well documented tendency for peOple to gravitate into groups or sub-groups with the effect of maxi— mizing their shared values. Children as well as adults, feel more comfortable when they are associating with others similar to themselves. Thus, when the Leftout is brought into contact with his more advantaged peers in the sub- system Of the school he may find that he does not share the values necessary for social acceptance among these children. A child typically learns quite early in life, usually by his first years in school, what social class he belongs to: not what name to give it, but how his value orientations and behavioral expectations distinguish him from others, 177 who is above and below him, and with whom to be friends. Stendler (1949) found that in a midwestern community chil- dren at the first grade level were largely unaware of class- status symbols but that by the fourth grade they were par- tially aware and by the eighth grade they were as aware of the meaning Of such symbols as adults——and could identify their own class position. Even at the preschool level, children are aware Of ethnic and racial differences (Clark and Clark, 1952; Goodman, 1952; Stevenson and Stewart, 1958; and others). The hypothesized age at which these recog- nized differences are found to be actually reflected in children's social selection ranges from four to ten years on the basis Of several studies. The point worth noting here is that sub-cultural differences_dp play a part in social acceptance among elementary-age school children. Information on the extent to which friendship ties are related to socio-economic status criteria is slightly contradictory but there is reasonable support for the gen— eralization that socio-economic status criteria are at least partially responsible for friendship choices. Neugarten (19A6), using a modified sociometric procedure, found that both elementary school children and high school students discriminated along class lines in their selection of friends. In addition, among the younger children, social status was also clearly linked to rejection of peers. Bonney (19H6) reported that sociO-economic status criteria plays a small but consistent part in determining children's 178 friendships. Hollingshead (1949) concluded that clique membership tended to be established on the basis Of class. Both Neugarten (1946) and Elkins (1958) found significant correlations between sociometric preference and socio- economic status. Other factors which may counterbalance a low socioveconomic status for the Leftout in his chances for social acceptance by his more advantaged peers will be discussed in the next section of this chapter. The peer group with whom any child associates tends to be of the same sociO-economic strata as his own because of residential proximity, school location, family friend— ships and preferences, etc. Thus, like-classed children are apt to be in close association which results in identi- fication of the characteristics they hold in common. How— ever, the impact Of status differences on peer relationships is not based on such ecological segregation alone. Mac- Donald, McGuire, and Havinghurst (1949) found that children living even in the same heterogeneous urban neighborhood and attending the same schools but having different social class backgrounds, use leisure time in quantitatively and qualitatively different ways. We have noted in earlier chap- ters this and other differences which might be assumed to influence peer relationships. For example, social class- linked differences in aggressive behavior have been noted. Tuma and Livson (1960) found that among early adolescent bOyS there is a strong negative relationship between socio- economic status and conformity to authority. When children 179 of such diverse socio—economic strata, eXperience, and training are brought into contact in the school situation, the mingling of divergent value orientations and behavioral eXpectations may become a source of disturbance tO each group of children. On the positive side, however, such culture contact becomes a source Of knowledge about "how the other half lives” for children from each sociO-economic strataenxiopens a potentially important avenue for social tolerance and understanding on the one hand and upward social mobility for the lower—class child on the other. We have postulated that the more eager an individual is to become a member Of a group, the more he will conform to its norms of behavior. Unfortunately, while the upwardly aspirant Leftout is eager for social acceptance he may well be at a loss to know what norms to conform to! He may be subject to pressure toward some norms at home, others from his teachers, and still others from his peers. When the child is caught in cross pressures between the norms Of dif- ferent groups of which he is simultaneously a member, he is apttn mflfier some emotional strain: such that if conflicts are both severe and pervasive the resultant strain may become incapacitating, and even moderate amounts Of strain will create some anxiety. The closer the correSpondence between the value orientations and behavioral expectations Of socializing agents (parents vis-a-vis teachers, or home viS-a-vis peers, etc.) the more adequately and the more rapidly socialization takes place. Conversely, the more 180 conflicts between the various agents Of socialization, the slower and more inadequate the process. It is possible, Of course, that the child may not be aware of conflicts because he may not be aware Of his more advantaged peer's group norms. We have suggested earlier that individuals are more likely to attend to those aSpects of their environment they anticipate than those they do not, and they are more likely to anticipate those things with which they are familiar. It seems Obvious that frequency Of contact, ecological separation, and differences in value orientations and behavioral expectations fostered in the home or sub-cultural group all play a part in whether or not a child is aware of the socially acceptable norms. The more interaction the more similar become norms and values; the less communication or interaction the greater the like— 1ihOOd of conflict and, the more conflict the less the interaction and communication of normative expectations. Thus, it appears equally Obvious that the Leftout's poten- tial social rejection by his more advantaged classmates is yet another reinforcing aspect of his disadvantage. The Leftout may have problems of both acculturation and social assimilation. "Acculturation" refers to the process of learning the value orientations and behavioral expectations of a group different from the one in which the individual was originally socialized. "Social assimilation" refers to the process by which an "outsider" is accepted as a genuine member Of a group, with full responsibilities 181 and privileges accorded to any member. We anasuggesthwgthe Leftout is culturally alienated. By this we mean that he has neither been acculturated to nor socially assimilated by his more advantaged age—mates. Furthermore, he does not know the apprOpriate norms, the content of much of what he sees and hears is meaningless to him, he is powerless to make changes in either the system or himself without Special help, and as a result of these problems, he is socially isolated from the more advantaged peer group. It is postu— lated that the more contact the child has with apprOpriate role models the faster and more complete his acculturation, and the more complete his acculturation the more complete his social assimilation. Thus, the Leftout who is brought into daily contact with his more advantaged agedmnes hastie best chance Of learning the norms essential for academic and social success. It is necessary, however, to remember our earlier qualification of this simplistic model: that the nature Of the contact is extremely important. It is possible for the Leftout to be acculturated without being assimilated-—and vice versa. Either one in the absence Of the other is more difficult, less frequent, and the process is apt to be eSpecially costly to those being influenced (costly both psychologically and socially) than in the case where acculturation and assimilation go hand in hand. The Negro in our society, especially the educated urban Negro, is a good example of acculturation without assimilation. The child from a "middle-class" Negro home 182 may have all or more of the advantages in his family back- ground that contribute tO academic and social success than his white peers have, yet continue to be socially and even academically disadvantaged because he is not assimilated into the advantaged peer group or he is the Object of dis- criminatory behavior by teachers. Children of religious Or ethnic minorities may serve as the example for assimila- tion without acculturation. Such children may be fully assimilated members Of the peer and student groups while yet maintaining widely divergent ideological and normative patterns. It is probably more Often the case, however, that the child with a different but strong cultural back— ground is socially tolerated but not fglly accepted by all Of his peers or his teachers. He too may become the object of academic disadvantage and mere social toleration--a kind Of partial assimilation, accepted in some situations but not in others. This is the position in which children Of Indian, Jewish, Puerto Rican, Mexican, Amish, etc. fam- ilies find themselves in certain communities, certain schools or classes, or in certain activities. The kind Of disadvantage associated with ethnic or racial discrimination is far more difficult to overcome and differs qualitatively and quantitatively from the kind of disadvantage based on sociO-economic criteria. We suggest that the adverse consequences of the various causes Of dis- advantage are cumulative. Thus, for example, a child raised in a lower—class cultural environment is less disadvantaged 183 than one who also comes from a disorganized family——and the latter, in turn, is less disadvantaged than a lower- class child Of a disorganized family who is also a Negro. The more ”strikes" against the child the poorer the prog- nosis for successful adjustment in the school situation. The balance is most favorable when all children meet on personal terms, on a common task, with shared interests, and on terms of social and academic equality. Davis (1957) has summarized the situation in terms Of the educational system and ethnic and racial minorities. It does not seem illegitimate to generalize his conclusions to include apy disadvantaged child or group. In general, both the acculturation Of the subordinate group and its social assimilation with the dominant group in public schools are found to be most successful when: (l) the minority group is of approximately the same social-class level as the dominant group; (2) the minority is relatively small, constituting at the very most not more than 25% Of the school population (3) the minority group comes from a middle-class background; (4) the minority group has been in the United States a relatively long time; and, (5) the minority group comes from the same kind of community (i.e., rural or urban) as that in which it now attends school (Davis, 1957, pp. 446-449). We have suggested that, even in the case where pp barriers are inherent in the social situation itself, the child who is ill prepared to understand and cope with the 184 value orientations and behavioral expectations Of his more advantaged age—mates and his teachers will have a slow, dif- ficult, and conflict-ridden time Of socialization in the school situation. W. I. Thomas wrote that if men define situations as real, they a£e_real in the consequences. Thus, whatever the cause of his lack Of social success with his more advantaged age-mates—-racial, ethnic, or class discrim- ination, inadequate preparation, personality problems, or some combination Of all Of these--the Leftout feels rejected, withdraws and becomes more ingrown and isolated or seeks support and acceptance from others like himself who suffer status deprivation and, as a result, is more left out by the majority group. However, several things can "short- circuit" this maladjustive downward Spiral. The Leftout may possess some valued talent or Special skill, he may be particularly intelligent, he may be highly adaptable tO changes in his social environment, he may be fortunate enough to be in a classroom where the teacher consciously attempts to influence the social integration Of_all the students, or he may simply have fewer strikes against him in terms Of his family relationships, his racial and ethnic identity, and his own personality stability. In the next section Of this chapter we will examine the "how" Of the acculturation/assimilation process and the bases on which social status is awarded in children's groups. 185 Processes Of Peer Influence Tuddenham (1952) points out that "the influence Of other children constitutes a major component of the social milieu to which the child must adapt (Monograph I, p. 1)." He assumes that a child's reputation with his peers is of central importance in assessing his social adjustment t2- his peers. Roles are learned through interaction with others. AS a part Of this learning process the child ac— quires expectations Of how others in the group will behave, he learns to predict what others expect Of him, and how they will react to him. Bandura and Huston (1961) have studied the influence Of peers on role learning. They hypothesized that identification with a reference person or group is a process of incidental learning and children will more read- ily adOpt the behavior Of others with whom they identify. In their experiment a reward was hidden in one Of two boxes in a playroom. The subject child was allowed to observe the behavior of a "role model" through a one-way mirror. He was then allowed to gO into the playroom with the role model under "model friendly/model cold" conditions. It was found that children conformed to the behavior of the friendly model in several task situations including verbal tasks. There was no conformity to the behavior of the "cold model" except in aggressive reactions. Since interaction leads to assimilation of roles, and friendly, rewarding social situations produce more interaction, it follows that friendly accepting situations would stimulate incidental role 186 learning. This is, essentially, a restatement Of Homans' liking—interaction hypothesis which we have already noted. We will return again to the subject of the relationship between the attractiveness of the agent Of influence and the extent of his ability to influence. Fjeld (1961), in a thesis concerned with the relation- ship Of communication variables to the process of social interaction among freshmen women college students, found that the nature Of the interpersonal relationships formed tended to fit the pattern Homans suggests exists between communication and interaction. It was hypothesized that the values which individuals hold are important in deter— mining the success of communication with others and, thus, the subjects' preferences for each other. It was also hypothesized that social preferences are initially based on simple indices of value agreement but that continued interaction necessitates more complex indices Of agreement, and if there is failure to establish value agreement, inter- personal relationships will disintegrate. By comparing sociometric choice ratings over an eight month period, Fjeld found strong support for both hypotheses. We are suggesting, in short, that the bases Of social acceptance change over time. Later in this section we will examine the criteria by which children establish status with their peers and the sex and age differences among these criteria. The notion of incidental learning is an important one for considering the process of peer group influence. In 187 Chapter III we suggested that the learning Of new roles, such as the culturally disadvantaged child faces in the school situation, is accomplished through two broadly de- fined, jointly Operating, interactional processes: (1) in- tentional instruction, referring to deliberate and formal role socialization; and (2) incidental learning, referring to processes Of identification with or emulation of role models in the imitator's behavior field. It is postulated that different goals will correSpond to different social- ization processes. Thus, a goal such as academic achieve- ment will be primarily obtained through intentional in- struction. Social goals, on the other hand, are more in- formally achieved. It is logical to suggest that in the school situation the teacher primarily provides intentional instruction for attaining achievement goals, while peers primarily provide a role model for learning social skills. However, the attitude Of the teacher toward the social aspects of the school situation, as well as the attitudes of his peers toward the academic aSpects, also influence the Leftout's adjustment potential. Campbell (1964) suggests that at least five different types of situational factors exert some degree Of influence over peer group processes Of influence. First, the physi— cal setting itself influences the group process. For example, there has been much experimental work done with the relationship between the structure of the environmental setting and communication potential. We have argued that 188 interpersonal communication is a prerequisite to interaction and social influence, but when children are in a typical classroom setting, i.e., seated in chairs or at desks ar- ranged in ordered rows, each child has only limited access to the others in the group and no child can exert much direct influence over any other. On the playground, where physical movement is maximally free, the potential for direct influence is much greater. This kind Of considera- tion leads to another situationally limited factor suggested by Campbell: that different activities lead to differences in behavior and behavioral expectations. Yet another situ- ational factor which has an impact on the influence process is that Of group size. Evidence is abundant to support the notion that the smaller the group the greater the communi- cation potential, the higher the rate Of participation for each individual member, and, therefore, the greater the in- fluence potential. Campbell points out a fourth situational factor, that of the clarity of the task and associated expectations, which affects the nature Of the child's response to in- fluence attempts. We have postulated that the Leftout lacks knowledge of and experience with the behavioral expectations of his more advantaged age-mates. Ambiguity is apt to lead to deviance and the Leftout's deviance, and consequent rejec- tion by the group--especially in a situation such as that Of the school where he cannot physically withdraw--may make him anxious. Parsons (1951) notes that insecurity in social 189 relationships, and inadequacy in achievement oriented per— formance are the primary foci of anxiety. In an environ- ment where the value pattern places a special emphasis on achievement in many forms-—as in the school—-the problem is accentuated. That anxiety may have a crippling effect on the cognitive process is not only established in numerous experiments but is apparent as well from everyday observa— tion. Intense anxiety sometimes leads its victims to with— draw from reality, or at least to retreat from contacts of a social nature. Obviously, this reduces the possibility for communication, which leads in turn to a reduction in socialization and learning potential. Duffy (1961) gives some insight into the incidental learning process among sixth graders as it is affected by anxiety. In his study subjects were chosen on the basis Of experimentally induced anxiety extremes (high and low ex- tremes on the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale) and randomly assigned to two groups. The experiment involved two situ- ations. The task for both groups was presented as a series of line discriminations, but one group was presented with easy choices and the other group with more difficult choices. During the experiment both groups heard a taped recording of the names Of twelve cities--Offered as a "distraction" but really serving as the focus of the study. After com- pleting the line discrimination task, recall scores for the ”incidental" material were Obtained. Duffy found that anxiety was increased by perceived status differences, by 190 the ambiguity Of instructions given, and by the difficulty Of the task. However, regardless of the difficulty of the task, high-anxious children directed their attention to the assigned "relevant" task, i.e., intentional instruction and learned significantly less ”incidental" material than did the low-anxious children. It doesn't seem too far fetched to generalize Duffy's work to suggest a negative relationship between high anxiety levels and incidental role learning potential. Thus, if the Leftout feels status deprivation and his academic tasks are both difficult and ambiguous for him, he is apt to experience high levels Of anxiety. High levels of anxiety, in turn, hinder the Left- out's ability to profit from incidental role learning-- which has negative consequences in terms of his potential for social acceptance among his more advantaged age-mates. Kitano's (1962) research findings indicate support for such a suggestion. He found that in Specifically struc- tured situations, where role expectations are clear, where there is consensus, and where role expectations are readily enforceable (such as in the formalized structure Of the classroom) there is a relatively high degree of adjustment on the part of all children. However, where the situation is such that role expectations are not highly structured and there is ambiguity and a lack of consensual norms (such as in more informal peer group relationships) some children will be anxious and fail to adjust. 191 A fifth situational factor noted by Campbell, the nature of the reward system, relates to the cohesiveness Of the group and the degree Of influence exerted by peers. It is assumed that the more cohesive the group the greater influence they can exert and the greater the reward power they have with any individual member. We are postulating that the Leftout minority aSpires to academic success which iS typically rewarded by the formalized school system-~but has difficulty in achieving and thus are apt to be left out of the formal reward system.‘ From the child's point of View, teachers distribute approval and disapproval in a consistent but unfair manner. In one illustrative study de Groat and Thompson (1949) examined teacher's attitudes as perceived by sixth grade children and found that "Guess Who" nominations were consistent in showing that a few children received the bulk Of the teacher's approval, and another small group bore the major burden Of disapproval. These perceptions remained quite consistent over time. There was a correlation of .80 between the original test and a retest taken five weeks later. The children receiving the greatest teacher approval were the most intelligent (as measured by standard tests), showed the highest academic achievement (as measured by grades), and had the best over— all personality adjustment (as measured by a personality questionnaire administered by the researchers). Whether these results are cause or effect is Of less importance for our purposes here than the fact that rewards are perceived 192 to be differentially distributed with some consistency and that this disparity in the reward system probably has con- sequences for peer relationships, academic achievement, and such personality factors as the child's self—concept. Our Leftout is not apt to be among the better students in terms Of either measured intelligence, academic performance, or well adjusted personality measures and, thus, is not apt to be found among those who are reaping the rewards of the formal system. Hence the Leftout's social acceptability by his peers takes on added importance to him for its reward value. But he isn't likely to receive school—Sanctioned rewards until or unless he views his more advantaged age- mates as a reference group, i.e., when he seeks to conform to their behavioral eXpectations. Thus, conformity to his advantaged peers' expectations becomes especially important for the Leftout elementary-age child who is at least ini— tially eager to succeed in school. Conformity depends on several factors which may create variations in children's susceptibility to influence. NO over—all generalizations can be made but, on the basis Of evidence we have cited, several factors appear to be asso- ciated with susceptibility to influence. Age and sex are two important considerations. Younger children, such as those who are the focus Of our concern, are more susceptible to influence than Older children; girls are more inclined to yield to social pressure than are boys. Status is another important factor. The Leftout, whose status is apt 193 “to be precarious, must rigidly conform to group expectations if he is to be socially accepted. His more advantaged peers, who are more apt to become or already are firmly es— tablished as accepted members Of the group, are far more free to deviate from group norms to some extent--especially if they are group leaders. Wilson (1960) found that boys with indefinite status, i.e., those who were neither rated as fully accepted nor rejected, conformed most closely to group norms. Thus, status striving among Leftouts who feel that they 22228 be accepted into the advantaged peer group helps to account for some Of that group's influence on con— formity behavior. We have also suggested that dependency needs and moderate (but not high) levels of "functional” anxiety contribute to susceptibility to influence. We are ppt suggesting that conformity is a maladjusted response. Conformity to social expectations is a perfectly healthy reSponse for any child and is highly desirable as an element of adjustment to school. Conformity is only maladjustive in the situation where the child becomes com- mitted to deviant role behavior or value orientations which are dysfunctional for school—oriented success. Conformity to deviant roles is most apt to be found among those Left— outs who have experienced social rejection by their more advantaged peers and who feel that they cannot gain accep- tance. 194 While we do not intend to imply that deviancy and delinquency are the same thing,* some of the research done in the area of delinquency offers some clues for our con- sideration of the causes and consequences Of deviation-- which is the other side Of the coin of conformity. The work Of Gold (1963) is particularly relevant for our interests Since he deals with forces exerted toward deviant behaviors and values which are not necessarily legally delinquent. His sample includes boys who were merely police ”contacts," e.g., truants and runaways, in addition to those boys who were actually arrested. His data also compares deviant reSponses to reSponses Of a matched control Sample of boys who had had no police contacts at all. The latter group will be referred to here as ”non-deviants.” Gold employed two criteria to select the behavior items on which to com- pare deviants and non—deviants. First, the items included only the boy's own behavior and attitudes--rather than gen- eral sociO-cultural variables--to be consistent with our theoretical position and Gold's orientation that ”the causes Of deviancy are to be found in the provocations *Delinquency is a legal term, usually referring to arrests made for behavior which violates some duly consti- tuted law. As we noted earlier, deviance is a generic term referring to behavior which is different from some standard. Thus, the delinquent is always a deviant, but a deviant is not necessarily a delinquent. The Leftouts with whom we are concerned are deviants-—whether or not they are also delinquents is of no concern for our pur— poses. Since we are dealing with elementary-age youth who are not usually regarded as reSponsible under the law, their behavior—-whatever it may be--is not apt to be defined as delinquent in any case. 195 and social controls created in the boys themselves by these and other factors (Gold, 1963, p. 176)." Secondly, they include only those factors which distinguish deviants from non—deviants. Among his major findings Gold notes: 1. Data based on self-report of deviant behavior suggest that proportionally more lower status boys exhibit deviant behavior and attitudes than higher status boys (p..6); When the relationship between quality of neigh- borhood recreation facilities and boys' attitudes toward aSpects of their community is examined, more attitudes toward neighborhood are negative in those school districts with poorer recreational facilities (p. 112); Deviants tend to regard their community and neighborhood less favorably than matched non- deviants (p. 113); The poorer the quality Of recreational facilities in an elementary school district, the higher the deviancy rate is likely to be in that district (p- 114); Teachers are better paid in elementary schools surrounded by neighborhoods with high property values; schools are newer in areas where greater proportions Of people own their homes (p. 116); Newer schools and schools in which teachers are on the average earning higher salaries are located in neighborhoods with lower deviancy rates (p. 120), Deviants are more likely to have negative atti— tudes towards school than are matched non—deviants (p. 121); Deviants, especially in the lower sociO—economic strata, less often report doing things with either parent than do non—deviants (p. 130—131), Fewer deviants than non—deviants feel they can take their personal problems to adults; they would more likely go to a peer or to no one (p. 132); 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 196 Deviants report less agreement with their parents concerning standards for their behav- ior than do non-deviants (p. 133); Fewer deviants than non-deviants regard their fathers as ideal-typical adult models (p. 136); Deviants perceive their chosen models to be less disapproving of deviant acts than non- deviants do, the parents Of deviants do in fact eXpress less disapproval of these acts than do the parents of non—deviants (p. 143); More fathers of deviants than of non—deviants punish their son' misbehaviors physically or by depriving them Of privileges; differences in discipline among mothers tend in the same direction (p. 145); Compared to the parents of non-deviants, parents Of deviants do not believe their sons' chances are as good to eventually get the kinds of jobs they would like them to get (p. 157), Parents of deviants believe their sons will need less education for their future jobs than do parents of non-deviants (p. 158); Both deviants and non-deviants think Of schooling mainly as a path to future opportunities (p. 168); Deviants are likely to have earned lower grades in the fifth and seventh grades than their non— deviant matches (p. 163); Boys' attitudes toward school are more positive when their grades are higher and when they think they have better chances to eventually get the jobs they want (p. 169); Deviants less Often feel that their teachers take a great deal of interest in their future than do matched non-deviants (p. 170); An index composed of items which distinguished the attitudes and behaviors of deviants from those of non-deviants proves to be related to social status (p. 177). In one sense much of Gold's research contributes yet more evidence for the consequences of disadvantage in l9? sociO—economic areas that we have discussed. Proportion— ately more lower-class boys commit deviant acts than do their higher-class age-mates. Disorganized family structure, unfavorable perceptions Of community, school, and teachers, and lack Of social acceptance by peers are among the provoking factors in deviant behavior. In a second sense this work is especially valuable because it deals with the value orientation of deviant boys and implies the great importance of conformity to behavioral norms of the peer group-—for both deviants and non-deviants. Gold concludes that the controlling forces in behavior consist most importantly Of attractions to norm- supporting individuals and organizations. The greatest potential for control is Shown tO be the family group and within it, the attractiveness of the father is most crucial (Gold, 1963, p. 181). The next greatest source Of control lies with the peer group, and if the family fails in its control function the peer group will assume the most prominent role. Gold hypothesizes that the provocation force peculiar tO deviant behavior is perception Of status deprivation, i.e., feelings that there is little or no hOpe Of achieving positions Of social acceptance with more advantaged age-mates or eventually achieving positions of wealth and power which are considered prestigeful. This notion of status depriva- tion in relation to deviant behavior is explored more fully in the work Of A. K. Cohen. Cohen (1955) argues that deviant behavior is an ideal solution for status deprivation problems because such behavior: (1) repudiates the value 198 orientations of the reference group which serves as the basis for self-evaluation of failure, and (2) rewards the child with status among any peers who may share his status problems. Children who suffer status deprivation are quite synonymous with those who we have been calling Leftouts. Children of the lower socio-economic strata tend to be over- represented among these Leftouts because several of the problems Often associated with lower-class styles of life that we have mentioned tend to weaken adult controls and the control potential of the more advantaged classmates and, simultaneously, to strengthen the provocation to deviant behavior. As we have suggested, it is expected that the same conditions can and do appear, but less frequently, among children from the higher sociO-economic strata. It is important to consider the non—deviants, for many of the children from "essentially Similar” backgrounds are not and do not become deviants. The peer group again comes tO the fore as a significant agent of socialization for the Leftout who is successfully acculturated and assim- ilated by the more advantaged majority. We have assumed that peer group acceptance is a strongly felt goal among all children, and that conformity to peer expectations is the primary means Of gaining social acceptance. Thus, situations where conformity is instrumental to social accept- ance Should have the greatest impact on the child's suscep- tibility to influence. Walker and Heyns (1962) have examined the relationship Of conformity to social acceptance. 199 They tested Festinger's principle that the more attractive the group the more cohesive the group, and the more cohesive the group the more conformity. Under one experimental con— dition conformity was instrumental to being liked, while under another condition it was not. Under the condition where conformity was instrumental to being liked (i.e., socially accepted), the degree Of conformity was greater in high-cohesive groups than in low-cohesive groups. In the second condition, where conformity was not stressed as being instrumental to liking, conformity was slightly greater in the low-cohesive groups. The work of Tiktin and Hartup (1964) provides further substantiation for this latter point. They found that in the case where "conformity" refers to task—oriented behavior and social acceptance by peers is not a major consideration, i.e., is not an instru- mental goal, then unpOpular or disliked peers may be more effective in eliciting conformity than are popular or liked peers. The apparent discrepancy between these findings and Festinger's theoretical principle may be resolved by con- sidering the factors of instrumentality, as Walker and Heyns suggest, as well as that of time. It must be noted that the empirical findings Of both Walker and Heyns and of Tiktin and Hartup were derived from short-term labora- tory experiments. ESpecially in the conditions where con- formity was not instrumental to social acceptance, the fact that the children were not at that particular time BOO conforming to pOpular or liked peers may be more a function of the Specific situation than Of long-term modes of reSponse. These kinds Of findings do suggest several derived hypotheses: l. Task-oriented conformity and socially-oriented conformity are not necessarily complementary processes in any given Situation. 2. In any Specific Situation, if task-oriented con- formity (e.g., academic achievement) is the only goal it may best be influenced by rein- forcement supplied by unpOpular or disliked peers. 3. However, in the total school Situation, social acceptance by more advantaged age-mates and academic achievement are both initial goals for the individual. 4. In the total school situation social acceptance is one condition necessary for an adequate self-concept which, in turn, is prerequisite for over—all adjustment to school-—including academic success. 5. Total adjustment may best be developed through conformity to the behavior and value orienta- tions of achievement-oriented peers. 6. Such conformity is best influenced by the situation in which it is instrumental to social acceptance by the child's more advantaged age- mates who are achievement oriented. Thus, it becomes crucial to our consideration to ex- amine those things which are instrumental in offering potential avenues of social acceptance by the advantaged peer group to the Leftout. The theoretical and empirical research literature indicates a number Of factors associated with the awarding of status and prestige among children. Among these sex and age, socio-economic background, physi— cal skills, personality factors, intelligence, and verbal 201 ability appear to be the most influential criteria for peer group acceptance. Overriding all Of these is the general principle that social rejection is primarily asso- ciated with lack of knowledge of and/or conformity to the values and eXpectationS of the majority group into which the upwardly aSpirant Leftout seeks to be assimilated. Conversely, social acceptance can be attained by learning the socially acceptable values and subscribing to the ap- prOpriate behavioral expectations. From preschool age until adolescence, sex homogeneity is a principle determining factor in friendships and clique memberships. Next to sex, age is the most important factor in the formation Of peer groups (Tuddenham, 1952). Such segregation by sex and age is associated with differential interests and activities, and serves the function of teaching and strengthening differential sex roles. Children who learn and adopt the behavior prescribed for their sex and age group are rewarded with peer acceptance. White (1948) argues that the crucial arena for the develOpment Of self-esteem is to be found among the child's age-mates. He notes that in the home the child must be love-worthy: this may include being competent, but is heavily weighted on the side of being good, obedient, and affectionate. On the play-ground the values are different: he must be reSpect—worthy, able to command respect because he shows competence and handles himself with ease. . . . He must now Show what he has in the way of physical prowess, courage, manipulative skill, outgoing friendliness, all in direct comparison with other children Of his age. The penalties for failure are humiliation, ridi— cule, rejection from the group (White, 1948, pp. 144-145). 202 Investigators in this area Of social acceptance have referred to "reputation," "pOpularity," ”social success," ' and "prestige” in their specific works. ”social status,’ In all cases these terms seem to be synonymous with what we have been calling social acceptance. Typically this fac- tor is measured by a variety Of sociometric techniques, em- ploying the "Guess Who” and ”Who Am I" tests extensively. In the elementary—school situation the child's degree of social acceptability has been found to remain fairly con— stant Over periods of up to three years between studies, with increasing constancy found among Older age groups (Bon- ney, 1943, Horrocks and Buker, 1951; Singer, 1951). The evidence is clear that, once elementary—age children have been brought together as a group: (1) in general, EEEEE patterns of relationships are quickly established and remain stable over time; (2) there is little or no ggppp difference in friendship fluctuation between boys and girls at any Of the various age and grade levels; (3) there are considerable individual variations in the stability of dyadic friendships at all age and grade levels; (4) the criteria by which ac— ceptability is judged is similar within groups but changes between age, sex, and sociO—cultural groups; thus, the so— cially acceptable child has as his primary characteristic social adaptability (Tuddenham, 1952; Watson, 1960). These findings are important for the Leftout's social acceptance potential. In the first place, they indicate that the earliest school years are most important in terms 203 of gaining social acceptance by his advantaged peers. As we suggested earlier, clique boundaries are less rigid in the earliest years and thus the child has the greatest chance Of acculturation and assimilation when the group is newly formed-~and his chances in general decrease the longer the group has been established, the older are his age—mates, and the more stable existing patterns Of accept— ance/rejection have become. Secondly, these findings sug— gest that all is not lost if social adjustment to the expectations of the advantaged peer group is_pgp successful in the earliest years. Since criteria for acceptance change over time the Leftout may possess or develOp skills, talents, or personality characteristics which serve to reduce or overcome his disadvantage at a later date. Compensatory measures which fOster his acculturation and eventual assim- ilation--whether they are the product of intentional instruc- tion or incidental 1earning-—also become important. Research evidence (Campbell, 1964) indicates that those personal characteristics most important to social acceptance are: (1) social adaptability, (2) high intelli- gence, (3) well developed motor skills (eSpecially for boys), (4) biologically apprOpriate sex-role identification, and (5) friendliness and sociability. The criteria asso- ciated with differential sociO—economic backgrounds which are most important to social acceptance are:, (l) verbal skills, (2) general core cultural value orientation toward lack of physical aggressiveness, scholastic achievement, 204 cleanliness, and grooming; (3) stylish mode of dress; and (4) time for or interest in participating in a variety Of organized extra-curricular activities. POpe (1953) has found definite contrasts to exist between children's peer group prestige values among differ— ent socio-economic levels in the same school. In his study of twelve-year-Olds a variation Of the "Guess Who” technique yielded a ”reputation" score for each child (a combination of 25 traits). Cluster analysis of these scores Showed characteristic social behavior patterns by social class. For lower—class boys, mpsp prestige among his peers was awarded on the basis Of aggressive, belligerent, domineering leadership; those who were happy, sociable, and "able to take a joke” were socially acceptable; but those who were studious, conformed to teacher's expectations, and were ”siss " were rejected by the lower—class peer group. For middle-class boys, those with mggt prestige were active and skilled in competitive games, friendly, personable, good looking, but not aggressive; those who were "classroom in- tellectuals" were acceptable; but those who were "sissy,” bossy, unkempt, or physically aggressive were rejected by the middle—class peer group. In other words, middle—class children accept boys who are either athletically or academ- ically competent but reject aggressive behavior, while lower-class children award prestige to boys' aggressive be- havior but reject academic competence and are not eSpecially concerned with athletic ability (as Opposed to sheer physical 205 strength). Both groups value friendly, sociable person- ality characteristics but middle-class peers emphasize these as more prestigeful than do lower-class peers. POpe found that for girls, social acceptance is based mainly on personality characteristics and academic ability. Little or no emphasis is given to motor skills in awarding prestige to girls. For lower—class girls, the most widely accepted traits among the lower-class peer group were friendliness, "goodness,” tidiness, and academic ability. The socially accepted lower-class girls were not leaders nor did they associate with boys. A second lower-class pat— tern among girls, less frequently found but most prestige- ful among lower-class peers, were those who were somewhat ”rowdy,” highly talkative, attention-getting in behavior and dress, aggressive, and associated with boys. Only one acceptable pattern for middle-class girls was found: those who were good looking, friendly, tidy, vivacious but not "rowdy," good students, and likely to associate with boys in limited but friendly competition. The middle-class peer group rejected those girls who were aggressive, bossy, or "tomboys." In short, prestige among the lower-class peer group tended to follow the general cultural stereotype of dividing girls into those who are "good" and those who are ”exciting," awarding prestige--but of a different kind-- for each pattern. The middle—class peer group limited pres- tige to only one acceptable pattern for girls but allowed a wider and more sex—equal range of behavioral norms within 206 that pattern. For both lower—class and middle-class girls, academic ability is a source of prestige. These findings indicate that the lower-class boy who would seek both academic and social prestige must do so through acceptance by the middle-class peer group, and to gain_ph§i£ acceptance he must give up the rewards Offered by the lower—class peer group--a situation apt to be fraught with cross pressures and consequent anxiety. For the lower- class girl whose goals include both academic and social success,the road to successful school adjustment is not apt to be such a difficult one, eSpecially if she subscribes to the ”good girl” pattern acceptable to both her lower- class and middle-class age—mates. For girls, relatively minor factors such as mode of dress and specific interests are more apt to be decisive in determining what particular place she occupies in her peer relationships. And, although such ”minor” factors can have devastating consequences for social acceptance/rejection, they are more readily amenable to maturational change and/or compensatory training than are more pervasive characteristics such as aggressiveness or degree Of physical ability. Watson (1960) points out that, eSpecially for boys, the social-psychological significance of motor skills is greatest in the early school years. A high premium is placed upon motor skills by age-mates in the early elementary grades. The poorly developed child may be discriminated against-~leading to the possibility of adverse consequences 207 such as withdrawal, depression, hostility, etc. Smith (1950) found that social indifference, withdrawal, rebelliousness, and hostility are attributes Of low—status or rejected chil- dren. Thus, one vicious circle which can contribute to the Leftout's disadvantage is rooted in motor skills. If he has had little training in or Opportunity for the development of motor skills, e.g., bicycle riding or ball playing (because Of limited family finances or poor recreational facilities in his neighborhood), or if improper diet and/or lack of medical care have restricted his potential for mus- cular develOpment and control, the prognosis for his early social acceptance is not good. On the other hand, the child adept in motor abilities is not only more accepted by his peers, but because of these Skills is more apt to be chosen a leader--which may generalize to leadership nomi- nations essentially independent Of motor Skills, and most certainly will aid in the develOpment of a more adequate self-concept. McGraw and Tolbert (1953), in a study of 438 boys concluded that sociometric status and athletic ability are significantly related. Both athletic skill and willing- ness to participate in athletic events play an important part in making the child among the best-liked of the peer group. Thus, if the young Leftout boy dp§§_possess some degree of motor ability this may serve as one important ave- nue for social acceptance. Schurr (1964) studied 289 children in grades one through six to determine the relationship between objective 208 scores on three motor skills (running, throwing, and jumping) with peers' judgments of their ability in these skills. She found that judgments were accurate at all grade levels and that teammate choices were made in relation to objective skills. However, Schurr's data tends to refute that of McGraw and Tolbert in that She found no statistically significant relationship between choice of friends and choice Of teammates. While it may be the case that Watson is wrong, and McGraw and Tolbert's research merely an idiosycratic finding, it would appear more reasonable to suggest that Schurr's contradictory findings are a result Of: (1) combining boys and girls, i.e., girls may be as accurate as boys in judging motor ability and selecting teammates but they give such ability less weight in the selection Of friends; and, (2) combining age groups, i.e., motor abilities are more important as a source of prestige and social acceptance to younger children than to older children. Watson notes that by the sixth grade, research evidence shows that qualities desired in a friend have shifted in emphasis to personal characteristics such as friendliness, cleanliness, cheerfulness, and tidiness-- showing an increase in socialization to the core-cultural norms. We shall, therefore, postulate that motor skills are one means available to the Leftout--especially younger males-~for overcoming some Of his other disadvantages and gaining at least a modicum of social acceptance. 209 As we have noted, ability to fulfill behavioral expec- tations may get the child "into the club" but, once in, he must subsequently learn the apprOpriate value orientations Of his more advantaged peers during his association with them because the criterion Of his initial acceptance will not suffice alone for long—term assimilation. Homans (1950, 1961) and Watson (1960) have both emphasized that in order for friendships to endure they must be mutually satisfying. If one or the other gets nothing from it the interaction will cease. Thus, when increasing age brings socialization development away from according prestige on the basis Of motor skill alone, the child must have adapted his social abilities to fit the changed requirements of friendship with his advantaged peers or find himself again left out. There are other sources of potential prestige Open to some children who might otherwise be left out in terms Of what appears to be Similarity in backgrounds. We have seen that lack of physical aggressiveness is one valued characteristic among the members Of the more advantaged peer group and in the formal school system. Thus, if the Left- out is disadvantaged in many sociO—cultural areas but happens to have been reared to devalue and/or avoid physical aggression, his chances for social acceptance by peers and rewarding associations with teachers are enhanced. 210 The Influence of "Intelligence” and the Situation In the same way, ”high intelligence” may compensate for socio—cultural disadvantage among those who would typically be Leftouts. Measured intelligence is statis- tically related to socio—economic background. Substantially lower average I.Q.'s are consistently found among members of the lower sociO-economic strata. For example, Cronbach (1960) found the mean I.Q. of children from low income urban or rural areas to be 90, while the mean I.Q. of children from white—collar and skilled-labor homes was 115. Siller (1957) also found that children Of the higher sociO-economic strata outscored those of the lower socio—economic strata on all teSts Of conceptual ability. However, when his Sub- jects were matched on non—verbal concept tests dealing with the same kinds Of conceptualization as the verbal tests, lower-class cnildren scored more highly than did middle- class children. It is important to note that these findings represent averages—-and that any given cnild from a partic— ular socio-cultural background may deviate widely from these averages. It Should also be pointed out that the largest absolute numbers Of people with high I.Q.'s are from the numerically larger lower—classes. However, as we noted in the preceding chapter, lack of educational stimulus is Often associated with lower sociO— economic environments, as well as poor language training and develOpment. Both Of these things may foster the 211 formation of general modes Of perception and problem—solving which, though successful in the home/community situation, may stand in the way in the school situation where they are not apprOpriate and where they hinder the child's measured intellectual ability. Thus, while the Leftout is most Often a product of this kind of background, not all children from the lower socio—economic strata are Leftouts. Some of them eXperience more adequate stimulation in their homes, some of them receive morelanguage training (which aids in concept formation and adaptability), and some of them are more secure in their social relationships (which allows for less anxiety, more acceptance Of self, and greater ease in learning) which is, in turn, reflected in increased levels Of measured in- telligence. Wolf (1964) found that thirteen variables could be employed to describe the background interactions between parents and children insofar as this interaction concerned the development of measured intelligence. These variables were classified into three major groups: (1) press for achievement motivation, (2) press for language development, and (3) provision for general learning. Wolf interviewed the mothers of 60 fifth-grade children in a midwestern com- munity. Each family or home was rated on each Of the thirteen variables. He found a multiple correlation Of +.76 between these ratings and Henmon-Nelson I.Q. scores. This correlation may be contrasted with correlations of +.40 or less between measured intelligence and the variable 212 of sociO-economic status as measured by parent occupation or parent education. Watson (1960) contends that "intelligence" is a noun which Shoukibe a verb. A child is intelligent insofar as he acts intelligently, stupid insofar as he acts stupidly. For Watson, intelligence is: (1) always eXpressed in some behavior, (2) not an entity but a construct inferred and indirectly measured, (3) related to cognitive functions and learning. Many research studies concerned with intellectual development of school-age children employ the Stanford-Binet Tests of Intelligence as their basic measuring instrument. Factor analysis of the items in this test Show it to be most heavily weighted on verbal factors. Thus, major in- tellectual differences between individual children reduce largely to differences in facility in dealing with such con- ceptual thinking as can be most readily measured by the use of verbally—oriented tests. Experience and training can have a major impact on "intelligence” as it is thus measured. Environmental factors such as prior schooling, socio—economic status (interpreted in terms of differential reinforcement Of verbal learning), and social-emotional factors such as anxiety may significantly influence measured intelligence. Nevertheless, the standardized tests, however ”culture bound" and however weighted in favor Of the more advantaged child, d9 reflect efficiency of adjustment to the culture for which they are designed--the formal core- culture taught in the public schools. While it is true that 213 children from certain subcultures typically do not do as well on conventional intelligence tests as their more advantaged peers, these tests g2 predict academic success in the higher grades (Lavin, 1965). Thus, the otherwise disadvantaged child who is atypical in terms of his verbal experience and language training (and thus is more "intelligent”), will be less likely to be left out either academically or socially. The child of a disadvantaged background who does do well on intellectual performance is socially rewarded in that his chances of academic success are greatly increased and, thus, he is more acceptable in the eyes of his teachers. In addition, the more intelligent and creative children are generally more accepted by their advantaged age-mates, while slow learners are less well accepted (Campbell, 1964, p. 305). Thus, comparative ineptness in communication skill is related to maladjustment not only for formally taught academic goals but to informally taught social goals as well. Commoss' (1961) study substantiates this point among second— grade school children who scored in the top and bottom quarters in sociometric ranking among their peers. She found strong positive relationships to exist between social status and (l) certainty Of the appropriate values in inter- personal relationships, and (2) ability to communicate ver- bally. In a sociometric study of three classes in an elementary school, Potashin (1946) set up Special discussion sessions for "friends" and ”non-friends," i.e., those who had and had not made reciprocal sociometric choices. He 214 found that for friendly pairs, uninterrupted discussions were significantly longer than among non-friendly pairs. He also found that for non-friendly pairs, there were sig— nificant differences between the members in the amount Of talking each did and the number Of initiations of interaction made by each child. Friendly pairs were much more likely to share equally in the interaction process than were non- friendly pairs. Taken together, these studies and many others like them indicate the reciprocal process between communication Skill-interaction and interaction-social acceptance. We are postulating that there is a high correla- tion between verbal aptitude and other abilities. It is assumed that general intelligence both stems from and con- tributes tO this verbal ability. In their survey Of research, Berelson and Steiner (1964) have shown that communication Skill develOps earlier and better: (1) the healthier the child, (2) the greater the opportunity to learn (from family, books, peers, etc.), (3) the higher the sociO-economic level of the family (es- pecially related to parental educational level), (4) in girls than in boyS--and this difference increases with age, (5) in financially secure family environments as Opposed to financially insecure or structurally disorganized families, (6) the fewer the number of Siblings--each child has more chance for individual attention and educational stimulation, (7) if the child is learning only one language. Much of our examination has substantiated these points. We have 215 also seen that the Leftouts with whom we are concerned characteristically are disadvantaged in all or the majority Of these areas, but the more of these favorable factors any child possesses or experiences the less likely he is to be comparatively disadvantaged along a continuum of potential for school adjustment. Thus, when Speaking Of "similarity" in background among those who are Leftouts and those who are not, it is essential to consider carefully the way in which ”similarity" correSponds ip‘fgpt to a point by point analysis Of family, sub—cultural, and individual differences! Another important element which may have a significant influence on the Leftout's potential for successful social adjustment in the school situation is his teacher. We sug- gest that the classroom teacher is apt to be a significant other for the elementary-age child, not only because she is in close contact with him and possesses the power to reward him academically, but because she may also reward him socially. If she accepts him herself, and is neither prejudiced nor discriminatory in her interpersonal relations with him, this has important positive consequences for his self-evaluation. She may also influence and guide peer re- lationships. Trager and Yarrow (1952) found that among first and second grade children, substantial changes in both attitude and behavior toward age-mates who were of ethnic and racial minorities could be brought about through the teacher's influence. Their study covered a period of four- teen training sessions, with before—and—after projective 216 tests and systematic Observations as the source of the data. Two groups Of children were selected. In the experimental group the adult leader Openly accepted sociO-cultural dif— ferences among‘flwachildren and worked consciously toward creating an atmOSphere of inter-group participation, under- standing, and social acceptance. A control group met in a comparable situation but without the Specific efforts Of the teacher to foster inter-group unity. The data showed major changes in the children's reSponses in the direction of the atmOSphere established by the adult leader. Thus, for the Leftout, a warm receptive teacher who makes con- scious efforts tO influence his acceptance by his more ad- vantaged peers is a very valuable asset. It is not only what the teacher teaches that is impor— tant-—important tOO is the manner in which it is taught. Watson (1960) points out that the teacher helps individual children in the school group by a variety of consciously recognized devices-—by creating situations in which it would be possible to cast a previously Objectionable child in a new role, getting a previously ignored child to contribute a talent which the other children have not recognized, helping a child accept her by accepting him as a person of worth, hoping this will lead to peer acceptance (p. 565). The extent to which an adult can influence sociometric status of Specific children was experimentally verified by Flanders and Havumaki (1960). They brought seventeen groups of children together for a single discussion session with a teacher unknown to any of the children. The teacher gave praise only to those seated in Odd-numbered seats. 217 Subsequently, sociometric data were obtained which indicated that the praised students received the greatest number Of choices. The relevance of this finding becomes more impor— tant still in light of the evidence we cited that teacher's reSponses to high status children differ from their responses to those with low status. This leads to the possibility of another vicious circle, in which: (1) the child may be negatively evaluated by teacher and peers alike, (2) such negative evaluations mutually reinforce one another, (3) the child may become aware Of his own rejected status in the eyes of significant others, and (4) he may reSpond in such a fashion that his behavior serves to further re— inforce his rejection from the group. We suggest that this kind of vicious circle may lead to a lowered self-concept which, as we shall see, has consequences for academic malad- justment as well. While increased awareness of group processes and personal evaluations would not alone be suf- ficient to permit the teacher to circumVent this sort of situation, her awareness could constitute a reasonable step toward the creation Of a positive environment for the social, emotional, and academic develOpment of the Leftout. There is at least one other important situational influence on the Leftout's potential for successful school adjustment, i.e., the "value climate" most prevalent in the school he attends. Coleman (1959, 1960) found that in each School he investigated there was a similarity in those things for which prestige was awarded by peers, e.g., 218 athletic skill and physical attractiveness, irrespective of the size of the community, the type Of school, or the sociO—economic backgrounds of the children. However, his investigation also made it clear that schools do differ in Specific value climates-—which can alter a child's previous value orientations and behavioral expectations. The peer group social climate in the sub-system Of the school not only helps to determine the general behavior pattern Of age-mates outside the classroom but has a strong influence on academic achievement as well. We have suggested that, at least initially, the Leftout is apt to seek social ac- ceptance by his more advantaged age—mates. Mobile individuals identify-—in norms, values, behavior, and appearance-—with the upper level to which they aSpire (anticipatory social- ization). The upwardly mobile child is not apt to cling strongly to value orientations and behavior patterns not currently associated with prestige and achievement among his more advantaged peers--except in those cases where he is clearly socially rejected by them. Thus, if the Leftout finds himself in a value climate where academic achievement is highly valued by his peers, his chances for successful academic adjustment are enhanced. According to one extensive study, conducted by Rogoff (1961) among 35,000 high school seniors, regardless Of their socio-economic background seniors at least doublg their chances Of scoring in the tOp 25% in college aptitude tests if they attend a school where the majority Of their 219 classmates come from the upper sociO-economic strata. In other words, the more advantaged students there are in a high school the higher the college potential of all students —-advantaged and disadvantaged alike. We suggest that this is true because Of differences in value climates prevalent among more or less class-segregated schools. Even consid— ering the measured intelligence of the students, these class—linked differences remain. Kahl (1953) has noted that the higher the social class background Of the student, the more value that is placed on formal education as both an end in itself and a means to future goals. He found that the college plans of boys from different socio- economic strata indicate that the low-I.Q. sons Of upper- class fathers arequigg as likely tO gO to college as the high—I.Q. sons Of lower-class fathers. Of course, this kind of finding can be interpreted in terms of relative financial ability on the part of upper and lower-class families to send their sons to college. However, in light of the proliferation of junior colleges and other small schools (particularly in urban areas), the increased pres- sure for college attendance which has been brought to bear in the last five to ten years, and the relative availability of scholarship aid and loans to financially disadvantaged youth it would appear that much of this difference is still centered in differential value orientations. We assume that these value climates do not Spring up full-blown at the high school level but are representative 220 Of value orientations that develOp in the elementary school years with which we are concerned. Thus, we hypothesize that differential value orientations in various school settings also influence our Leftout's potential for school adjustment. These findings, coupled with what we have said of the dynamics of the social learning process, lend credence to our position that while the range and scOpe of social adjustment problems may be greater in heterogeneous schools the Leftout's achievement potential is also greater-- particularly in the kind of school setting in which the socio-culturally disadvantaged child is in the statistical minority. We have seen that the school child's concept of him- self and his place among his peers and teachers are in- fluenced by a great many variables: (1) his family's socio- economic status and type of structural organization, (2) the value orientations and behavioral expectations of the sub-cultural group with which he identifies, (3) the edu- cational background and language skill Of his parents, (4) his ethnic and racial identification, (5) his sex-role identity, (6) his knowledge of the value orientations and behavioral expectations Of his age—mates and teachers, (7) his degree of social acceptance and adaptibility, and (8) his own eXperiences with success or failure--socially and academically. In short, an individual's self—evalua- tion is strongly influenced by the social system's ranking of himself and Of whatever group he is a member. It seems 221 likely that those children who are upwardly mobile are more subject to emotional disorders and to decreases in self—esteem level than those who are stationary-—partly because Of the cross—pressures in value orientation and behavioral expectations to which they are subject. It is important to distinguish between perceptions and feelings in this context. Any given child may have ex- tensive and accurate perceptions of differences between himself and others, but feelings and attitudes about these differences may be absent, confused, positive or negative! It is only when he fppl§_left out that the Leftout's environ- mental and Situational disadvantage adversely affects his self-concept. However, if he does feel left out, a lowered self-concept is almost sure to be the consequent. This inadequate self-concept can and does have important ramif- cations for social adjustment (as we have suggested) as well as for academic and emotional adjustment in the school situ- ation. In the next section we Shall examine some of the adverse consequences Of an inadequate self-concept. Self-Concept in Relation to Total School Adjustment This period of the elementary school years which is of primary concern to us is one of social and self discovery. We have assumed that the initial goals of gpy child in the school system involve some degree of personally defined suc- cess in: (1) academic achievement, and (2) social 222 acceptance. Thus, we postulate that failure, particularly repeated failure, in either Of these areas will have nega- tive consequences for the child's self—concept, and failure in pppp of these areas at the same time will foster serious emotional maladjustment. For defining adjustment to the school situation there must be a twofold criterion, analo— gous to the twofold goal of the child assumed above. In the first sense, failure to adjust to demands for scholastic achievement centers in the restricted background of the cul- turally alienated and socio-economically disadvantaged child. The Leftout, when he is confronted with a formal communication-oriented curriculum which assumes that he has certain verbal skills and a relatively sophisticated awareness Of the world beyond his immediate neighborhood, will have difficulty. Our schools Operate, for the most part, in terms Of norms which Specify that the "good” stu— dent is not only expected to be capable in learning academic materials, but he is also supposed to already possess a variety of social skills and attributes. Within the first few years Of his formal educational training, the Leftout, unless he is exceptionally intelligent or there is a con— centrated effort on the part Of the educational system to broaden his experiences, {nay fail to adjust academically. Unfortunately, the Leftout is the one who is most likely to eXperience a lack Of adequate compensatory experience from his teacherS--and Often lacks the support of his parents and more advantaged age-mates as well. 223 It has been noted that from the perspective of the social system, symbols emerge as institutionalized patterns in the form of language. The learning of language skills, then, is one Of the most important areas Of educational achievement for any school child, and eSpecially so for the culturally alienated child whose verbal skills are apt to be severely delimited. However, the very lack of facility with the manipulation of symbols may strongly influence scholastic achievement and trap the Leftout in yet another vicious circle. The youngster who comes from an impoverished background is no less eager to learn and to discover than are other children. However, whatever his initial motivation and de— sires, the Leftout will be the first to experience a dis- enchantment with formal schooling as he falls behind his age- mates who come from more advantaged backgrounds. This dis- enchantment leads to diminished chances for successful ad- justment. Malpass (1953) found significant correlations between 92 disadvantaged eighth grade students' perception of their school situation and their mean semester grades. He concludes that there is a positive relationship between the attitudes revealed by the Leftouts toward school situa- tions and their academic success. This is true because, over time, as failure to achieve continues and he encounters repeated failures and disappointments the Leftout is apt to experience a change in his self-concept. He nmur become 224 convinced that he can do no better and that he is destined to fail in whatever he attempts. Fink (1962) investigated the relationship between self-concept and academic achievement among elementary school pupils. He hypothesized that an adequate self— concept (as measured by independent analysis of the data by three psychologists) is related to high academic achieve- ment and that, conversely, an inadequate self-concept is related to low achievement. His findings support these twin hypotheses at the .01 level for boys and at the .10 level for girls. (This sex-linked difference will not be treated here but Obviously bears investigation.) Of particular interest for our purposes is the area Of this underachieve- ment. Curry (1962) found that the sociO—economically dis— advantaged child was particularly prone to failure to achieve in the area of language skills. In his investigation Of 360 randomly selected sixth grade children Curry found that as intellectual ability decreases from high to low, the effect of social and economic background conditions on scholastic achievement increases greatly--not surprising in light of our discussion Of verbal skill influences on measured intelligence—-but, importantly, this effect is most severly felt on the subsequent learning of language. In Curry's study the California Test of Mental Matur- ity was used to determine the "intellectual ability level"; the California Achievement Test (Elementary Battery) was used as the measure of "achievement"; and the basis for 225 assigning "sociO—economic level" was questionnaire responses from the children's parents. Among his conclusions, he notes: 1. SociO—economic status seems to have no effect upon the scholastic achievement of sixth-grade students when the students have high intellec- tual ability. High intellectual ability Off- sets any deficiency which may be created by lower sociO—economic conditions. 2. Social and economic factors have a significant effect upon language achievement in the medium intellectual ability group. The upper and middle socio—economic groups both achieve a greater amount than the children of lower socio-economic levels. Likewise, in total achievement, the upper sociO—economic group achieves a greater amount than does the lower group. 3. In the low intellectual ability group, social and economic factors have a negative effect on achievement in reading, language, and total achievement. In language especially the upper socio-economic group achieves more than the middle and lower sociO-economic groups. Thus, as has been suggested, unless the Leftout is highly intelligent he finds himself caught in a downward spiral from which there is little hope Of escape. His initial lack of verbal facility works to his disadvantage in aca- demic achievement efforts; lack Of achievement over time negatively effects his self-concept; a low self—concept is related to continued lack of achievement; and, for the lower sociO-economic child especially, this lack Of achieve- ment is felt primarily in the area of language skills. Thus, the Leftout is indeed apt to be left out in the dimension Of academic adjustment to the school situation, which may re— duce the level of his self-concept Of ability. 226 Brookover p£_§l. (1965) have studied the relationship Of self—concept of ability to school achievement. They define "self-concept Of ability" as "those definitions a student holds of his ability to achieve in academic tasks as compared with others (p. 13)." Their longitudinal re— search, designed to follow a group of students during a Six year period from grades seven through twelve, is still in progress. This 1965 interim report details the findings of three experimental efforts to enhance self-concept of ability among low achieving students. Their basic postu- late is that, among potentially successful students, aca- demic achievement is artificially limited by the child's self-concept Of his ability to achieve. They argue, as we have done, that this inadequate self-concept is a consequence of perceived negative evaluations by significant others. Their initial research (Brookover p£_§l., 1962) clearly showed that self-concept of ability functions quite independently of measured intelligence in influencing academic adjustment, and is a better predictor of achieve- ment potential. This is in keeping with our theoretical position, but Brookover's latest work supplies evidence that positive changes in significant other's evaluations will raise the child's self-concept of ability and positively influence academic achievement. In this study, three groups of low-achieving students were selected and each group was treated with a different experimental method in an effort to raise the student's 227 self-concept of ability. For one group the significant others were their parents (who actively COOperated in the experiment), for a second group the effort was made by the school counselor, and for the third group an outside "expert" from a university made conscious efforts to enhance the student's self-concept Of ability. Only in the parent- centered group were any significant positive changes in self—concept Of academic ability and achievement found. Neither frequent sessions with the counselor nor efforts by the "expert" were successful, although the authors note that some long-range effects may yet appear. While Brook- over_pp_§l. did successfully induce changes in the expected direction through COOperative parental efforts, they found that simply ”involving" parents was not enough. The parents' attention had to be directed toward their responsi- bility for raising their evaluations and eXpectationS of their children. Obviously, supportive parents are an extremely help- ful asset to the Leftout. However, as we have suggested in Chapter III, the parents of at least some of the Leftouts who might be expected to have inadequate self-concepts of ability are apt to be somewhat less than wholeheartedly interested and fully cooperative in attempts to effect posi- tive changes. In these instances the classroom teacher might be a quite reasonable source of conscious efforts to raise the Leftout's self—concept of academic ability. Brookover's experimental work did not include the cooperative 228 participation Of regular teachers. There are complex difficul— ties inherent in designing an experimental situation in which the teacher's directed efforts to raise a student's self— concept of ability do not contaminate the results of such efforts. If a workable program could be designed, we suggest that in the elementary school situation the teacher is apt to be a Significant other for the child's self—concept of academic ability, and her early help in efforts to raise an inadequate concept could be most influential. We have also cited evidence that the role of peers can be Significantly influential in determining over—all self-concept, and, therefore, they might be expected to be extremely helpful in raising a child's self- concept Of academic ability if their support were prOperly elicited by the teacher‘s efforts. We have cited evidence that failure to achieve academ- ically may result in a lowered self—concept, and that an inadequate self-concept of academic ability placed func- tional restrictions on achievement. Our second criterion of school adjustment relates to the Leftout's goal Of social acceptance. We have suggested that social failure also results in lowered self-concept. Research evidence supports this viewpoint (Wilson, 1960; Horowitz, 1962). While school adjustment is thus seen to be strongly in— fluenced by self-concept Of academic ability, total self- concept is dependent upon several other interrelated variables. We are suggesting that these variables include: (1) the importance to the individual Of the specific area 229 Of focus of others' evaluations. (2) the individual's knowledge of others' expectations and evaluations, (3) his perceptions Of the quality Of these evaluations, and (4) his attraction to those doing the evaluating. When the area of evaluation is interpersonal relationships and the child accurately perceives what is expected Of him by the age- mates to which he is attracted, but he perceives that he has failed to gain social acceptance among them, he may come to evaluate himself in a less favorable way. Berelson and Steiner (1964) cite evidence that as a result Of prejudice and discrimination, members of ethnic and racial minority groups particularly tend to suffer some deterioration of personality; especially self-doubt, self- hate, impulsive and superstitious behavior, resigned ex- ploitation of their inferior status, deviant behavior and even mental illness. It has been noted that, from the perSpective of the individual, systems Of shared symbols also serve as objects of orientation for personality systems. It is postulated that social learning is vital to the formation Of person- ality and that some degree of social acceptance is crucial to a healthy personality adjustment. Prejudice and dis- crimination against minority groups (racial, ethnic, or socio-economic) are maintained by a reinforcing Spiral Of cause and effect: those who are disapproved are deprived Of social contacts with approved others and, as a result, fail to learn the acceptable values and behavioral 230 expectations and are further disapproved. It is clearly an oversimplification to suggest that acceptance by his more advantaged peers directly determines the extent of the Leftout's self-esteem. Nevertheless, the likelihood is that a Leftout's more advantaged age-mates may make major contributions to his developing identity and, if they re- ject him because he deviates from their value orientations and behavioral expectations, his low social status and isolation from the majority group can adversely affect his emotional adjustment. The problem of social deviance and isolation from the advantaged majority is also circular: social isolation leads to a lack of knowledge Of acceptable norms, which leads to probable deviation from those norms, which reduces the likelihood Of communication and interaction with the majority group, which restricts the Opportunity for learning the acceptable norms, which leads to social isolation. Lest we be accused of placing tOO much emphasis on peer group interrelationships and their impact on the Left- out's personality, consider the evidence that has already been cited concerning the influence Of peers, especially their influence among disadvantaged children. Carlson (1963) has also examined the relative role of identification with parents and peers in the development of the child's self-concept among 43 sixth grade youngsters. Children who identified with supportive parents were consistently more self—accepting, less dependent upon current social 231 relationships, and more accepted by peers. However, Carlson also found that, for the children in this sample, self— ideals were closer to modal peer group ideals than to those of either parent-~suggesting that for pll_children models outside the family may be important as sources Of self- ideals at this developmental level. When self-esteem is defined as the amount Of agreement between the child's self- description and his description of an ideal self this kind Of finding places crucial significance on the relationship Of peers to the develOpment of an adequate self—concept. Especially so for Leftouts who are Often disadvantaged in that they do ppp identify with supportive parents. In a consensus Of several studies, Hovland and Janis (1959) found evidence to support the contention that indi- viduals low in self—esteem are more persuasible, more field dependent, and more conforming than those with a high level of self—esteem. This relationship between self-esteem and orientation toward the social environment has implications for behavioral change under social pressure--implying that prediSpositions to social influence are built into the self- concept structure Of an individual with low self-esteem. For the Leftout, whose self-esteem is apt to be low, this means that he is likely to be eSpecially susceptible to social pressures which may, Of course, be adjustive or mal- adjustive in content. 0n the positive side, it means that pressures toward conformity by his advantaged peers may be very effective in influencing his adjustment to the demands 232 Of the school situation. 0n the negative side, it means that he is also highly susceptible to social pressures from other status-deprived children and to any cross pressures that may exist. As has been noted, we postulate that if these pressures are both severe and pervasive, the Leftout may experience emotional maladjustment. That social acceptance in the school situation may be a significant influence on emotional adjustment and mental health is indicated by the findings Of Bedoian (1953). He tested 743 ”socially over-accepted" (on the basis of a multi-criteria sociometric test) and "socially under- accepted” sixth grade pupils, using Thorpe, Clark, and Tieg's Mental Health Analysis (Elementary Series, Form A). He found that the socially over—accepted children had a significantly better average mental health score than did the socially under-accepted children. It must be noted that what is defined as emotional maladjustment ranges con— siderably from one social system to another and even from one sub-segment Of the same system to another. Trained professionals in the field of mental health disagree on the symptoms, the classification, and the appropriate treatment of emotional problems. We shall not be concerned here with an effort to rectify these difficulties. For our purposes "emotionally maladjusted" is defined as any case in which the individual concerned seeks or is referred for Special help to any professional outside of the regular classroom, e.g., school counselors, visiting teachers, child guidance 233 clinicians etc. We also include any child placed in a Special school class designed to Specifically serve dis- turbed children (as Opposed to retarded children). In addition, we include any child who would be classified as emotionally maladjusted by psychologists or psychiatrists if they were tested by them. Between teachers in the public schools and profes— sional clinicians there is apt to be disagreement on the characteristics rated most maladjustive. Schrupp and Gjerde (1953) found that teachers rated as most serious: (1) impertinence and defiance, (2) impudence and rudeness, (3) writing Obscene notes, (4) disobedience, (5) disorder- liness, (6) heterosexual activity, (7) masturbation, and (8) untruthfulness--in that order. On the other hand, pro- fessional clinicians rated as most seriously maladjusted: (l) shyness, (2) suspiciousness, (3) dreaminess, (4) fear- fulness, (5) sensitiveness, (6) being overly critical Of others, (7) imaginative lying, and (8) nervousness--in ppgp Order. Two obvious conclusions can be drawn from their findings. First, teachers are apparently primarily con- cerned over behavior which is disruptive in the classroom and they tend to overlook the emotional maladjustment Of the quiet withdrawn child. Secondly, there is no agreement whatsoever between teachers and clinicians about the symp- toms Of serious emotional distrubance. It may be hypothe- sized that the practical consequence Of this difference in Opinion may be that, from the vieWpOint Of the professional 234 clinician, the children who are most in need of help are least apt to be referred to sources of outside aid by school personnel. Conversely, those most Often referred are least in need Of professional help. This is particularly important in considering the Leftouts because their behav- ior is not apt to fully meet the demands Of the core- cultural norms expected in the classroom and they are es— pecially likely to behave in a way that could be described by the teacher as rude, impertineht, disorderly, etc. It is important to note that the perceptions of teachers and counselors who are reSponsible for evaluating school children's emotional adjustment may be unintention— ally influenced by the child's sociO-economic level. McDermott 33311. (1965) present the data obtained from psychiatric evaluations Of 263 children of "blue—collar" families who were referred to the University of Michigan's Childrens Psychiatric HOSpital during the year Of July, 1961 to July, 1962. These children were further divided into two groups on the basis Of their father's occupational status and are referred to in their report as ”Skilled" (n — 115) and "unskilled" (n - 148).* McDermott et a1. give Special emphasis to the clinical and social questions which are raised as the result of differential diagnoses between the two groups. They found significantly more Often *The "skilled" group were chosen on the basis Of occu- pations such as machinist, self-employed farmer, etc. The "unskilled" group was comprised of children whose father's occupations were such things as janitor, assembly-line worker, etc. 235 (p < .05 in each case) the "unskilled" group were seen to exhibit overt hostility, impulsivity, paranoid reactions, affective disturbances, and withdrawal while the"skilled" group were seen to exhibit anxiety, obsessive compulsive behavior, and somatic complaints. "Unskilled" children were characterized as coming from unstable, conflict—ridden homes Significantly more Often than "skilled" children (p < .005). Nevertheless, families Of both groups rates their children alike with respect to adjustment at home-— 30% of both groups claimed their children were "doing well at home." However, marked differences in the children's adjustment to the academic standards Of the school were noted. The upper end of the scale, i.e., "doing very well at school," was assigned to the skilled group significantly more often (p < . 02) and the lower end of the scale, i.e., ”doing very poorly in school, failing grades" to the ”unskilled" group (p < .025). In fact, general school mal- adjustment most frequently was considered the primary reason for referral to the clinic among children in the ”unskilled" group. It was also found that there was a sig— nificantly longer delay in referral of the "unskilled" children to the clinic from the time their problems first became apparent (p < .01). As we have seen, it is hardly surprising that children with backgrounds typically found among the lower socio- economic strata should be having difficulty with the academic demands of the schools, with affective relationships RD LA) Ox and with conflicts created by a disorganized home life. However, McDermott pp_pl, note that the heterogenity of the blue-collar group made class distinctions difficult to iden- tify and follow. They also suggest that unskilled peOple, in our complex and rapidly changing social system which is based on technical competence are increasingly more socially and culturally isolated and, therefore, less able to help their children adjust to the demands of the core—culture taught in the schools. They contend that teachers and counselors who appraise behavior as normal or abnormal un- wittingly view the "unskilled" group differently because of their own values. The authors point out that paranoid thinking, withdrawal, hostility, and impulsivity are, at least in part, the reaction Of a perfectly normal child who is totally foreign to the setting and uncomfortable-~a child who Simply does not know how to communicate and inter— act with teachers and more advantaged peers! Again we see the significance for adjustment Of communication skills and the tremendous advantage the verbally and socially facile child has over one who is inept in these areas. There is evidence to suggest that some of the emotional difficulties of Leftouts may center in self-concepts of sex— role identity--especially among boys. As we have suggested, the family life of Leftouts is prone to disorganization. This disorganization Often takes the form of father-absence or Of inadequate male-role models. However, the total blame can not be put on the structure Of the boy's family. Lynn 237 (1959) found that the identificationgflocess differs for boys and girls in that the girl identifies with a particular feminine model while the boy identifies with a general cul- tural or sub-cultural stereotype Of a masculine model. Hartley (1959) offers impressive bibliographic and empiri- cal evidence that stereotypic male-role demands contribute to serious adjustment problems for boys. He notes that the higher rates Of referral Of boys over girls to child guidance centers indicates the markedly greater incidence of failure in social functioning in boys as compared to girls. In addition, males are more apt to engage in deviant behavior and, among the intellectually gifted, boys are more apt to be underachievers than are girls. Through a sifting of this kind of evidence, and through interviews with 41 eight tO eleven-year—Old boys, Hartly concluded that there are at least five major adjustment problems asso- ciated with the demands Of the male sex-role: (1) lack of adequate models, (2) extensive supervision by women, (3) the conflicting nature Of multiple demands within the male role, (4) lack of clear positive definition Of the male sex— role during socialization, and (5) the rigidity of role demands. Teachers, eSpecially women, may compound the difficulty for Leftout boys. The quality Of the interpersonal rela- tionship between a teacher and her student is significantly important in determining the effects of the school situation on a child's psychological develOpment and adjustment. The 238 teacher, because of her position of authority, possesses a great deal Of reward power. Her judgment of what con— stitutes good/bad, prOper/improper behavior determines which behaviors will elicit her approval and to whom she will dispense rewards; even though she may not even be aware of the basis for her evaluations. Davis and Havighurst (1947) have discussed at length the divergence of cultural norma- tive eXpectationS between lower-class children and middle- class teachers. Their work may be summarized in the asser- tion that the goals defined by the middle—class teacher do not receive reinforcement from the lower-class child's peer group or from his family. Sub-cultural definitions of acceptable male and female behavior are particularly diver- gent-—especially with reSpect to physical aggression among boys. Several investigators have suggested a sex-typing hypothesis in connection with teacher-student interrelation- ships, i.e., the behavioral tendencies of girls (irrespective of social class background) is in closer agreement with teachers expectations than is that Of boys--eSpecially lower- class boys who are more apt to be aggressive. These more "masculine” boys are the ones who receive the greater share Of the teacher's disapproval. This teacher disapproval, in turn, is apt to generate anxiety and have an adverse affect on the general personality adjustment of boys--especially, again, on boys reared in a lower socio—cultural milieu. Although some degree of aggressiveness is a normal part Of the masuline sex-role, the Leftout who typically lacks a 239 strong sex—role model and who is the subject Of consistent disapproval from his teachers, may find that the conflict only increases his own anxiety and has negative consequences for his self—esteem. We are postulating that such factors as anxiety, in- adequate sex—role identity, social rejection, cross pres- sures On upwardly mobile children, and repeated academic failures will certainly tend to create emotional maladjust— ments of some kind for Leftouts in the school situation. However, there is a paucity Of evidence concerning the na— ture and extent Of this maladjustment--and the little evidence that dpp§_exist is beclouded by such issues as the nature of the developmental antecedents of various Specific symptoms as well as their prOper identification and classi- fication. The whole difficulty is even further compounded by the influence that socio-economic and sub—cultural vari- ables might have on the recognition, diagnosis, and appro— priate treatment of emotional maladjustment among school children. This is obviously an area which demands and deserves some immediate theoretical and experimental atten- tion. In the next chapter we shall briefly review a few of the major works intended to give an over-all picture of the causes and consequences of disadvantaged children's malad- justment to the social sub-system Of the school. We will then proceed to the task of putting together the various 240 interrelated findings and suggestions we have discussed and building an analytical framework with them, designed to illuminate the particular consequences Of socio- cultural disadvantage for children in heterogeneous schools. CHAPTER v ANALYSIS: CAUSES, CONSEQUENCES AND "CURES" There have been several recent major works directed at a comprehensive overview of the causes of socio~ culturally disadvantaged children's maladjustment to the school system. Reismann (1962) sought to describe the general characteristics Of disadvantaged school children and to suggest Specific remedial approaches to their edu- cation on the basis of general principles derived from current knowledge. He postulates that disadvantaged chil— dren Often do not have experience with and do not accept such school-centered things as books, formal language, and many other aSpects Of the educational system. He suggests that the "culturally deprived" are ambivalent toward edu- cation, i.e., they value "education" as an abstraction but are often antagonistic towards the goals and practices of teachers and schools. The basis Of this ambivalence is proposed by Reismann to be a strong negative attitude toward intellectualism coupled with an equally strong positive attitude toward vocational training. Reismann points out that the contemporary school system lacks transitional techniques for assimilating the socio-culturally disadvantaged child into the existing 241 242 academic mainstream. He notes in the manner Of teachers and counselors a ”discrimination without prejudice"*--a devasting albeit inadvertent lack Of reSpect for the disad- vantaged child based on failure to recognize and accept differences in value orientation. He argues that the ”underprivileged" not only possess a culture but one which has some values which are both utilitarian and worthy Of emulation. This may well be the case, although the sub— ject is surely a controversial one. Certainly some sub— cultural, ethnic, and religious groups among those who could be defined as "underprivileged" in our social system do have fully developed cultural heritages that Simply are different from the core culture taught in the school system. At the same time, we have suggested that a number Of the children with whom we are principally concerned lack such a clear and unambiguous religious and/or ethnic heritage and devel— Op instead in a "culture Of poverty" in which a sense Of low status, lack Of power, cultural alienation, economic deprivation, and limited Opportunity are its principle characteristics (Lewis, 1966, Will and Vatter, 1965). In any case, we do not wish to confuse lack of "conformity" per se with school maladjustment. Conformity to certain norms is prerequisite to successful school adjustment, but total conformity to an ideal typical core cultural pattern *President Mary Bunting Of Radcliffe has termed such peOple "the hidden dissuaders." 243 is both irrelevant to our concerns and probably impossible in practice. Reismann points out Specific aSpectS of the socio- culturally disadvantaged child's value orientation which make him deficit in school know—how. The normative culture Of the sociO-culturally disadvantaged is typically strongly masculine in value orientation while the school system is seen as strongly feminine in orientation. Furthermore, Reismann argues, families in the lower socio-economic levels typically employ physical discipline which conditions the child to expect physical violence for infractions of rules and to react with physical violence when he feels wronged. The tendency is for teachers to use the same bland control measures irrespective of the severity of the misbehavior. When mild and severe problems are handled alike it is dif— ficult for ppy child to distinguish between what is a grave trespass against the person or rights of others and some relatively harmless infraction. For the child who antici— pates physical punishment for severe infractions, the disciplinary measures he encounters in the school situation may be meaningless to him and hence he continues to break rules until he is in grave difficulty-—at which time he feels wronged and is apt to react with what is interpreted (by his teachers and counselors) as unwarranted and un- acceptable violence. Reismann contends that the family background of the disadvantaged child is also significant in that the "lower class" tend to discourage individualism 244 and self—concern in the child's development of self. He argues that far more emphasis is given to compulsive con— formity tO external demands and COOperation in such families while the school expects individual achievement striving in competition with others and injects fear Of personal failure as a motivating device. Reismann's major argument centers around the disad- vantaged child's "Achille's heel" of ineptness in formal communication skills. This relative lack of skill shows up in intelligence testing and in an unfamiliarity with core-cultural Speech which is Often translated into a designation Of the child as a "Slow learner." He notes that it is Often contended that the disadvantaged child is non-verbal and cannot conceptualize, but he argues that this is not true--the disadvantaged child is seen by Reismann as merely unfamiliar with formal English as it is used in the school system. He argues that the disadvan— taged child usually possesses a well developed symbolic communication system but this system fails to correlate highly with the system he is expected to employ at school. No data is supplied to substantiate this position, which disagrees with several works we have cited (Luria and Yudovitch, 1959; Bruner, 1961; John, 1963, Deutsch, 1964) that offer ample empirical evidence that communication skill is not merely equivalent to Speech patterns. For example, Gussow (1965) points out that sociO—culturally disadvantaged children watch TV as much or more than their 245 advantaged age—mates, and are able to reproduce whole units of formal language which they have heard. Never- theless, this rote reproduction is non—functional in that such standard speech is not subsequently employed as a language variant in situations unrelated to TV. We do not argue that the disadvantaged child is non-verbal in the sense that he does not possess speech patterns (although he may suppress these in the school situation if he is ridiculed or criticized). We 333 suggesting that he lacks knowledge of and experience with broad communication skills, including abstractions and formal language, which is mal— adjustive for the develOpment of complex conceptualizations required in the school situation. We agree with Reismann insofar as it is possible to say that every mentally and physically normal child acquires speech. What we question, in Opposition tO Reismann, is its adequacy among disad- vantaged children for full intellectual develOpment. Com- munication skills are functional for the disadvantaged child in his interpersonal environment in those situations where they are applicable and needed--but we argue that these situations are fewer, more monotonous, and hence less edu- cationally stimulating for the disadvantaged child. Language skill is not only related to the way a child Speaks but also to the way he thinks. A low status dialect may hamper social mobility but a restricted language develop- ment places limits on intellectual potential. Thus, socio- culturally disadvantaged children may begin school with a 246 deficit not only in using formal language but in concep- tualizing as well. We have seen evidence that this deficit is cumulative and that it has negative consequences for the Leftout's ability to adjust to the academic and social demands of the integrated school system. The need to develop curricula aimed Specifically at fostering formal verbal skills among children who lack training and experience in this area is a very clear one. Whatever non-formal verbal skills the disadvantaged child may have are largely irrelevant for his school adjustment (which correlates highly with future oc- cupational potential and his adult social status) unless he also develOps communication skills in keeping with the ex— pectations and requirementscfi‘the school system. The Speech patterns, the symbols, and the conceptual ability a dis- advantaged child Spontaneously acquires may be a major barrier to his potential for achievement of intellectual and social equality in the school system. Reismann has been criticized for his lack Of a con— sistent educational theory or any over-all conceptual frame— work with which tO unite his "diagnosis" to his prOposals for treatment. His syncretism of "educationally deprived," ' "lower sociO-economic ”disadvantaged," ”underprivileged,' group," ”lower class" and just about anyone else who is not defined as middle-class allows for sweeping generalizations which are Simply not true Of all children from such back- grounds. We sympathize with his problem because these are 247 the global terms employed in the literature, but we cannot condone his lack Of probing into the specific variables Of "lower class," "underprivileged," etc. backgrounds in more detail to point out those which provoke social and academic deviancy among some "lower class" children but not others. For example, while much of his discussion concerns racial and ethnic minorities he fails to consider the import of social acceptance/rejection of such children. We suggest that his work is an oversimplification of the problem and is not adequate alone to give insight into the causes Of school maladjustment among socio-culturally disadvantaged children. He gppp_suggest that differences in sub—cultural and family value orientations play a part, and he gives emphasis to the importance of ineptness in communication skills as a significant variable in school maladjustment. In doing this much Reismann Offers at least two keys to understanding the Leftout's problem of social and academic maladjustment in the school system. Passow (1963) edited a compendium of contemporary re- search and theory bearing on dwaproblems Ofthe disadvantaged. His volume contains articles relating to five different though interrelated, aSpects of school disadvantage: (l) the schools themselves as they are found in depressed areas, (2) the psychological aSpects of education in depressed areas, (3) the sociological aSpects of education in de- pressed areas, (4) the quality Of teachers in depressed areas, and (5) school programs in depressed areas. Much 248 of the material to be found in this volume relates to more or less class-segregated schools in which the disadvantaged are the majority group and, because our concern is aimed at understanding the problems of the disadvantaged child who attends school with advantaged age—mates, we will not review it in any detail here. However, Deutsch has con— tributed an article to this work which emphasizes the inter- action Of social and develOpmental factors which have an impact on the intellectual growth and school performance of the Leftout. He Offers the theoretical framework sur— rounding language deficiency and its consequences that Reismann failed to supply. Deutsch's thesis is that the child lacking in language facility enters the school situation so poorly prepared to produce what the school demands that initial failures are almost inevitable and the school experience becomes nega- tively rather than positively reinforced over time. These children are seen to have a qualitatively different prepara- tion for school arising from a background of stimulus deprivation. Deutsch centers his discussion on the causes and consequences of stimulus deprivation. He argues in terms Of Piaget's develOpmental theory, that the disadvan- taged child has had access only to a limited segment Of the Spectrum Of stimulation potentially available and the seg- ments that have been made available to him tend to have poorer and less systematic ordering of stimulation sequences, and thereby prove less useful to the developmental growth 249 and activation Of cognitive potential. This deprivation does not, necessarily, limit eventual cognitive capacity provided the initial handicaps can be overcome. Deutsch postulates that the culturally disadvantaged home is not verbally oriented, which implies a restriction on the Oppor- tunity for the develOpment of auditory discrimination skills. He argues that in order for the disadvantaged child to suc- cessfully adjust tO school he must have special help. He argues that the community, family, and school share the blame for the child's disadvantage but the school, as the institutionalized receptacle for and pervayor of social values, must accept the major responsibility for correcting the situation. He contends that the school must be willing to engage in productive eXperimentation and innovation. Deutsch notes that stimulus deprivation does ppp necessarily imply a restriction on quantity but, rather, a restriction in quality and variety. When he is placed in a position of competition with other children who have had broader and constructively stimulating experiences, the child whose language training has been inadequate has a greater potential for failures and frustrations. As we have seen, repeated failures have consequences for the child's evaluation of his own ability. Brookover's work with the notion of "self-concept Of ability” has been reviewed and shown to Offer yet another key to understanding the Leftout's problem. 250 Reismann's work suggests something Of the complexity of the antecedents of school maladjustment among socio- culturally disadvantaged children. Deutsch helps by Offering a theoretical cause and effect explanation Of one Of those areas of disadvantage. Brookover eXplains how an inadequate self—concept Of ability can in and of itself place functional limits on the child's academic potential in later years if it is not overcome by compensatory meas- ures. We have argued that the apprOpriate time to begin compensatory measures is in the child's earliest school years when his cumulative academic deficit is not so large and when, for the Leftout, he is most likely to be accepted by his more advantaged peers and most amenable to their influence and that Of his teachers. We are particularly concerned with this elementary- age group because many Of the most severely maladjusted will leave school at the earliest possible Opportunity and thus they become difficult to reach if not entirely lost to later compensatory programs. Lambert (1964), reporting the results Of an intensive five-year follow up study of chil- dren rated in elementary school as potential dropouts, found that those children who experience the most difficulty in academic and social school adjustment in the elementary years are the ones who become delinquent earlier and drop out of secondary schools sooner. Her data reveal that aca- demic and social vulnerability wmifailure in the early school years is a significant predictor Of greater 251 vulnerability and likelihood of failure in the child's later years. "The path of the vulnerable student from ele- mentary school on is not a level one, it is nearly always downhill (p. 63)." The Leftout is a "vulnerable" student. 0n the one hand he is Open to criticism and attack in the school sys— tem and in interpersonal relationships with his more ad— vantaged peers because he lacks social and academic Skills derived from prior knowledge, eXperience, training, and motivation. We would suggest, on the other hand, this very vulnerability also makes liim potentially very responsive to pressures exerted toward conformity to expectations Of teachers and more advantaged age—mates. Most Of the liter- ature we have examined has dealt Specifically with the socio— culturally disadvantaged child--as defined in one way or another. Whatever the definition employed in each work, the clearly common element these children share is vulner- ability to a situation with which they are unfamiliar and for which they are inadequately prepared. We argue that for the Leftouts, i.e., those disadvantaged children who must attend classes with youngsters who 33p prepared and for whom the school situation has many elements of familiar- ity, the adjustment problem is apt to be more severe while, at the same time, their potential for successful adjustment is also greater. Title VI Of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that Federal aid shall not be available for programs 252 involving racial discrimination. Federal aid to educational programs is an important source of financial support for public schools. Francis Keppel, U. S. Commissioner Of Edu- cation, has interpreted Title VI to mean that not only racially segregated schools in the southern United States but schools in the North which evidence de facto racial or social class segregation because Of the way in which school- districting lines are drawn, are not eligible for Federal monies. For example, in October of 1965 the government suspended payment of a $30 million aid program for Chicago public schools under this ruling. This payment was even- tually made despite a lack Of appreciable change in the system, but the challenge has been issued and may well indi— cate the direction of future interpretations of civil rights legislation. In Massachusetts a new (1965) state law requires schools to correct any discriminatory practices or forfeit the state funds that supply a major source of incomeka‘Operation. And the city of Boston has an "Open enrollment" policy which permits any child to transfer to any school Of his choice so long as there is room. These are but a few examples of the kind of legal changes that are occurring which will most certainly have repercussions on what are now largely segregated schools-~segregated either racially or in terms Of social class and area Of residence. Add to this the number Of separate rural schools which are closing their doors in favor of consolidation with the nearest urban center or largest semi-rural school and the 253 likelihood of bringing together numbers of children who are ill prepared for the academic and social demands of an integrated school system with those who are adequately pre— pared increases. Thus, the problem of the Leftout is very large in scOpe and growing larger. In our exploration Of some Of the relevant theoretical and empirical literature we have discovered and discussed a large number of antecedent and consequent variables which have been shown to have a significant impact on the disad— vantaged children's maladjustment to school. NO one Of them is sufficient alone. Some are unique to maladjusted chil- dren—-most are not. These variables must all be taken into account in a comprehensive analysis of the Leftout and his special problems. Even for understanding disadvantaged children in general singular concepts such as "stimulus I deprivation," "language deficiency,’ "low self-concept Of ability," "delayed gratification pattern vs. immediate I gratification pattern,’ and so on are insufficient alone. So too are such glittering generalities as "socio-cultural disadvantage" or "status deprivation." It is necessary, for example, to Specify the theoretical consequences of "stimulus deprivation" or "status deprivation" and how both relate to "low self-concept Of ability." Other considera- tions are also important. For example, given an apparently similar background of socio-economic deprivation all chil- dren do pp; fail to adjust to the contemporary school system. "Lower class" children can and do successfully 254 adjust to the school system——academically, socially, and emotionally. This variation, and others, suggests a multi— dimensional "cause" Of school maladjustment. "Disadvantaged" children have a wide variety of socio- economic, cultural, and personal experiences both prior to school and in the classroom. This variation suggests a continuum of disadvantage in school adjustment potential, ranging from very little trouble to severe maladjustment problems. We would suggest that the greater the number of areas Of disadvantage any disadvantaged child experiences, the more severe is his maladjustment to the school system likely to be. The unique thing which separates Leftouts from other disadvantaged children is the nature of the particular social Situation in the heterogeneous school and the impact this has on the consequences of his general disadvantage. We have argued that these consequences are in some ways Similar to those experienced by any disadvantaged child in any school. We have also suggested that for Leftouts the consequences may, at the same time, be more severe and yet offer a more favorable setting for overcoming his disad- vantage. We have discussed a number of "vicious circles." Taken in the broad sense, the entire problem Of socio- cultural disadvantage is a vicious circle! Disadvantaged backgrounds produce children who are disadvantaged in relation to others when they begin school; comparative 255 disadvantage portends early school maladjustment which tends to become cumulative over time, school maladjustment is reflected in limitations of potential and restrictions on future adult status; low status and comparative lack of education produces disadvantaged parents whose children suffer comparative disadvantage in background knowledge, eXperience, training, and motivation--and thus it continues from generation to generation. The problem is to break into this vicious circle and stop its downward Spiral. The Leftout must be recognized and compensatory measures taken to influence positive changes in his academic,social, and emotional adjustment to school. To do this it is necessary that a theoretically oriented analysis be available which allows for an under- standing of the interplay of sociO-economic, cultural, social interactional, and personal forces and how they com— bine to influence the Leftout's potential for school mal- adjustment. An analysis that improves the power to under- stand human behavior also makes it possible to more effectively plan compensatory programs for behavioral change. The next section is devoted to how the variables explored in our earlier discussion may be synthesized into a coherent picture of the causes and consequences Of the Leftout's problems. 256 The Analysis Let us begin with a bnkfi‘restating Of some of the more important concepts which influence the analysis. We have defined the Leftouts as socio-culturally disadvantaged elementary—school children who attend a heterogeneous school in which the majority Of their age-mates are significantly better prepared than they are to meet the academic and social demands Of the school situation. Their general dis- advantage, Shared with all disadvantaged children, centers in cultural alienation and economic disadvantage—~a com- bination which increases the Leftout's Specific potential for maladjustment to the socially approved academic and interpersonal demands Of a heterogeneous school system because of the resultant deviation from the normative ex- pectations of the majority group. Cultural alienation is defined as foreign to or out— side Of the core culture Of the majority group; neither ac— culturated to nor assimilated by the majority group and, therefore: (1) lacking knowledge of appropriate norms, (2) the content of the norms, if known, seem meaningless, and (3) lacking in power to make changes in the norms or his own behavior. The core culture represents the "official" culture taught in the public schools. It's major features are: (1) an emphasis on "success" in the form of upward social mobility which is seen to be achieved by (a) ambition (as Opposed to aggression), (b) honesty, (c) thrift, (d) hard work, (2) an emphasis on "prOpriety" 257 in the form Of conformity to both overt and covert normative guides to behavior which demands (a) courtesy to all people, (b) loyalty to friends and family, (c) Obedience to legiti— mate authority, (d) avoidance of overt aggression, es- pecially physical aggression, (e) cleanliness in thoughts as well as in body; (3) an emphasis on delayed gratification Of needs and desires which requires (a) impulse renuncia- tion, (b) patient hard work toward future goals, (c) aSpir- ations toward future goals and rewards, (4) an emphasis on the ownership Of material goods, (5) an emphasis on active citizenship which demands (a) participation in organizations, (b) exercising the right and reSponsibility to vote; (6) an ideological belief in the "American creed" which demands subscription to the principles of (a) freedom, equality and justice as the right Of all citizens, (b) democracy as the ideal—typical form of government, and (c) free enter— prise as the basis Of the economy. Adjustment refers to continual adaptive learning in the face of new experiences or modifications in the environ- ment. Academic adjustment is exemplified by the successful performance of required academic tasks in the school situa- tion, as measured by age-grade placement, grade-point averages, and scores on standardized tests. Social adjust- ment is exemplified by social assimilation and acceptance by teachers and more advantaged age-mates, as measured by sociometric techniques. Emotional adjustment is exemplified by over-all personality stability as measured on standardized 258 personality tests or as defined by his teachers and counse— lors in the school situation. The Leftout's failure to adjust, or maladjustment, refers to a lack of ability to COpe with new experiences or modifications in the environment and learn from them. Academic maladjustment is exemplified by repeated difficulty or failure to achieve at a level or rate commensurate with his age—mates. Social maladjustment is exemplified by the Leftout's discriminatory exclusion from the social activities Of his more advantaged age-mates on the basis of prejudice, i.e., unreasonable bias founded in unfavorable preconcep- tions, and by his teachers' prejudically discriminatory behavior toward him. Emotional maladjustment is exemplified by undue anxiety or other symptoms, especially (a) rigidity, (b) anti-social behavior, (c) depression, or (d) withdrawal. Maladjustive refers to any value orientation, belief, or behavior which for the Leftout contributes to maladjustment in the school Situation. The Leftout's deviation Simply refers to his being different from some standard, and when this standard is taken to be his more advantaged age-mates who are familiar with and conform to the core cultural norms Of the school system, the Leftout is--by definition-—a deviant. We have suggested that the Leftout's potential for successful adjustment to school is equally dependent on: (1) academic success, (2) social acceptance, and (3) emo- tional adjustment. These factors are seen to be 259 interdependent and failure in these dimensions of adjustment to school as the consequences of the Leftout's disadvantage. Our examination Of the literature suggests that the Left- out's lack of general knowledge of and conformity to the value orientations and behavioral expectations of the core culture represented in the heterogeneous school situation results in: (l) maladjustment to the academic demands of the school situation, and (2) maladjustment to the social demands of the school situation Since deviation from core cultural means of achieving academic and social success is maladjustive. We have argued that at least the initial goals Of any child, including Leftouts, in the school situ- ation are some degree of personally defined success in academic achievement and social acceptance. Thus, failure—— particularly repeated failure--in either of these areas will have frustrating and anxiety-provoking consequences; and failure in both Of these areas at the same time will foster emotional maladjustment. Our examination of the literature has suggested at least five interrelated Specific causes Of the Leftout's academic, social, and emotional disadvantage and potential for failure to adjust to the heterogeneous school situation. These stem in part from his SociO-cultural background and in part from his position in the school Situation. The Leftout's disadvantage, then, is typically based on some or all of the following interrelated problems: 26C 1. relatively low socio—economic background, with attendant learned deviant values and behavioral expectations, 2. relative lack of language facility, 3. relative deprivations in early interpersonal affiliations, 4. relative status deprivation among teachers and age—mates; 5. relatively low levels of self-esteem. The adverse consequences of these various causes Of disad- vantage are suggested to be cumulative, such that the more 51222 of disadvantage any particular Leftout experiences, the poorer his prognosis for successful adjustment to the heterogeneous school situation. Let us examine, within a social psychologically oriented frame of reference, the processes which connect the causes of the Leftout's disadvantage to their maladjust- ive consequences in the heterogeneous school Situation. Relatively Low SociO—Economic Background Theoretical Framework.--A fundamental attribute of any social system qua system is that it is normative. PeOple who are in prolonged interactional relationships because of relatively Similar sociO-economic position develop characteristic consensual value orientations* and *Value orientation—-the generalized theme of attitudes represented by the entire complex of the individual's ex- pressions regarding that which is to be valued and the means by which evaluations are to be made; value orientations find observational expression in each Of the behavioral and cog- nitive choices an individual makes. 3 261 sub-cultural* normative expectations which serve to guide perception, cognition, affective relationships and general behavior. There are definable sets of system-wide beliefs, values, and behavioral norms which are idealistically defined and known to the members. These sets vary between sub— cultures and conformity to these sets of normative ideals varies within sub—cultures. However, the majority Of what any individual thinks and feels, and a great deal of how he acts and reacts, is the direct result of his interaction with others in his sub-cultural environment. Behavioral expectations, value orientations, and sym— bolic systems are learned in social interaction. The more individuals associate with one another under conditions Of equality, the more they come to Share value orientations and behavioral expectations. The more individuals associate with one another under conditions of equality the more they come to like one another. Internalized sanctions (conscience formation), an individual's self-conceptfi* sex-role identity, generalized *Sub—cultural—-refers to those behavioral norms and value orientations which are reflected in more Or less dis- tinct ways Of life among some sub-segment within the total pOpulation of a social system. **Self-concept--the individual's view of himself, derived from taking the role Of Significant others [those selected persons whose opinions, values, judgments, senti- ments, and attitudes are influential in shaping the direction of an indivual's self-concept, behavioral expec- taions, and value orientations] in social interaction, by means of which he organizes his personality and directs his actions to reciprocate the perceived eXpectations of 262 conceptual schema, and other intra—individual factors such as achievement motivation* are also developed in social interaction. The characteristic value orientations and be- havioral expectations of various socio-economic strata are hierarchically evaluated and differentially rewarded on a system—wide basis. SynthesiS.-—The Leftout is disadvantaged in his poten- tial for school adjustment in that he Often has a lower social class** background which is less likely to have ade- quately socialized him to the social and academic demands of the heterogeneous school situation. Social classes vary in the extent to which their characteristic socializing in— fluences, i.e., intra-family relationships, child-rearing others. An individual's self-concept consists of: (l) a View of identity, (2) attitudes which express personal interests and aversions, (3) a generalized conceptual schema for viewing the environment, (4) knowledge of personal goals and degree of success in achieving prior goals, and (5) a self-evaluation on the basis of comparison with others and their perceived evaluations. *Achievement motivation--an internalized personality need which gives impetus to actual achievement-oriented behavior; implies active, goal-directed efforts (as Opposed to achievement-oriented values which merely define and give high evaluation to achievement); motivation and value ideally occur together, but high evaluation on achievement may occur without the motivation which is the basis of actual achieve- ment. **Social claSS--(sociO-economic class) the hierarchical ranking Of persons in a social system into groups with relatively clear, stable, and definable sub-cultural dif- ferences in life styles including value orientations and behavioral expectations; most usually measured on the basis of criteria such as: (1) prestige of own or parental occu— pation, (2) family income level, (3) level of own or parents' educational attainment, (4) area Of residence or type of dwelling, etc. 263 practices, language patterns, intellectual and leisure time pursuits, behavioral norms, and value orientations equip a child to adjust successfully to the core cultural expec— tations of the school situation. However, there appear to be a number of relatively stable social class differences in the statistical probability of certain generalized atti- tudes and behaviors affecting child rearing. Parents in the lower socio-economic strata (in relation to middle-class parents): (1) more often employ object- oriented rewards/punishments; (2) are more apt to physically punish the child, (3) are more rejecting of dependency be— havior, (M) are apt to be less able to provide the bases of achievement motivation, (5) are less apt to have the educa— tional or experiential background to offer Specific help in attaining school success, (6) are less likely to provide a verbally—oriented environment, (7) are less likely to place a value on intellectual accomplishment per se (as opposed to valuing occupational training), and (8) are more likely to be separated or to be inadequate sex-role models. Thus, one of the sources of difference in school adjustment potential among children is that of the differential back— grounds they bring into the school situation as a result of membership in various sub—cultural socio-economic strata. The programs and teaching methods in contemporary public schools are typically geared to the aims, ambitions, moral, and ethical standards of the core culture represented by the white, prosperous middle class, Protestant, 26M Anglo—Saxon population. Thus, heterogeneous schools often enhance the discrepancies in children's backgrounds, to the increased detriment of the lower class Leftout, by: (l) discrimatory practices of teachers; (2) inflexible teaching and testing methods, (3) inadequate counseling, especially at the elementary school level, (M) such school policies as separate classes for "slow learners", (5) re- jection of deviants by the majority group of age-mates, and (6) allowing for coalition of deviant peer groups. The Leftout from a lower socio-economic background is also disadvantaged in that he statistically more often lacks: (l) achievement motivation, (2) functional anxiety, and (3) a future-time orientation. Thus, socio-economic background differences will account for some of the Left— out's disadvantage in the heterogeneous school situation. Social classes, by definition, differ in the behavioral eXpectations and value orientations typical to their members. However, the intensity and extensity of the interaction of social systemic and individual personality variables is delimited to the extent that the social unit is able to control against conflicts created by new experiences and situations. No individual is wholly a product of the social class of which he is a member because a social class does not constitute an integrated, structured social system which can specifically define norms, control behavior, and serve 265 as a reference group.* A social class can have only a generalized or statistically representative influence on individual value orientations and behavior. Thus, the same social class may be experienced in different ways by dif- ferent individuals who are nominally members. Social class background may be, for any individual, profoundly altered by subsequent experience with other sub-cultural groups, and/or shifts in reference group identification. Thus, Leftouts do not invariably reflect the value orientations and behavioral expectations of "their" social class and, therefore, knowledge of social class background_alone will not allow for prediction about the adjustment potential of specific Leftouts. Social class is useful as a concept when eXploring gross between—group differences, but must be modified to include within-group differences if we are to fully under- stand the nature of the Leftout's potential for maladjust- ment in the heterogeneous school situation. Thus, when concern lies with explaining why some lower class (or Negro, or immigrant, or Indian,or....) children adjust to the school situation and some from apparently "similar" back- grounds do not adjust, it is necessary to consider within— Sroup differences. *Reference group--a selected group of persons in the interpersonal environment to whose beliefs, value orienta— tions, and behavioral expectations the individual elects to attend and with whom he identifies or seeks to be identified. (The multiple version of significant other.) 266 It is suggested that within the lower socio-economic strata family differences have differential effects on the child’s potential for school adjustment, such that: (1) if the family structure and economy are both stable, the child is more likely to be upwardly mobile and adjust more readily to the school situation; (2) if the family structure is unstable but the family economy is stable, the child is apt to evidence some personal insecurity in family affiliations that is maladjustive in the school situation, especially as relates to interpersonal experiences; (3) if the family structure is stable but their economy is in— secure, the child is apt to eXperience difficulty in aca— demic adjustment because of frequent moves, absences, etc., (A) if the family structure and economy are both unstable, the child is least likely to successfully adjust to the academic and social demands of the heterogeneous school situation. Upper and middle class children in general ad- just well to the social and academic demands of the school situation while lower class children in varying degrees tend toward maladjustment and failure. Academic Consequences of Low Socio-Economic Background Sub-cultural value orientations include differences in Specific attitudes toward education, and concern with academic achievement and upward social mobility. These differences affect the adjustment potential of the child in the school situation. In general, the lower the social 267 class background of the student, the less value he places on formal education as an end in itself and as a means to future goals. The middle class child is statistically more often better prepared for motivation to achieve than is the lower class Leftout because: (l) the middle class sub—culture approves adjustive competition while the lower class sub— culture approves maladjustive aggression; (2) middle class parents are better able to serve as role models for ambition and achievement; and (3)middle class parents foster independ— ence and internal controls while lower class parents tend to foster obedience to external authority. Obedience to authority is, of course, not maladjustive in the school sit- uation except insofar as normative expectations are not in- ternalized and this obedience requires direct surveillance by the agent of authority. The successful adjustment of the lower class Leftout to the demands of the heterogeneous school situation depends, in part, upon the degree of "functional anxiety" to which he has been socialized. Functional anxiety ("socialized anxiety for education," "adaptive anxiety") is an internalized state related to a need for academic achievement as a means of upward social mobility which gen- erates sufficient motivation for the child to seek to over- come any existing cultural, social, economic, or intellec- tual handicaps. Lower class sub-cultures are less likely to socialize the Leftout to the kind of anxiety which leads 268 to ambition and socially approved competition for rewards and concern lest these rewards not be obtained. Functional anxiety is opposed to both a lack of anxiety or extreme anxiety--both of which are maladjustive in the heterogeneous school situation. For the lower class Leftout, much of school learning represents meaningless content, incomprehensible goals, and conflicting value orientations and behavioral expecta- tions. Insofar as he is not motivated to achieve and he does not understand what is expected of him (or the expec— tations conflict with what he expects) then his lower socio- economic background is maladjustive for the academic demands of the heterogeneous school situation. A great deal of what goes into the adjustment demands of the school system requires a future-time orientation (delayed gratification pattern). For lower class children a present-time orientation (immediate gratification pattern) is statistically more often central in their conceptual schema. This is maladjustive for the academic demands of the school situation. It has been shown that measured intelligence* is sta- tistically related to socio-economic background such that *Measured intelligence--the comparatively measured overt aspects of intellect. Intellect refers to the observ- able aSpects of internal cognitive ordering hypothesized to result from the individual's mental Operations upon raw stimuli from internal and external sources to change these into productive thinking aimed at problem solving, analyti- cal and logical inductions/deductions, as well as creative cognition. 269 substantially lower average I.Q.'s are consistently found among children from the lower socio-economic strata. Chil- dren of higher social classes outscore those from the lower classes on all verbally—oriented tests of intellectual ability. The lower class child's lack of verbal skill and motivation produces low scores on standard achievement and intelligence tests. Very low socio-economic status, low intelligence ranking, low educational aspirations, and low levels of academic achievement tend to vary together statis- tically. Thus, a low socio—economic class background is maladjustive for the academic demands of the school Situa- tion. However, for any individual this tendency may be mitigated by: (1) an unusually stimulating background, (2) a financially secure and structurally stable supportive family, (3) high need for achievement, (4) association with achievement-oriented peers, and/or (5) compensatory training at school. Children from the lowest socio—economic strata are apt to be found as a large proportion of those who lack facility with formal language, come from broken or inadequate homes, and suffer status deprivation among their teachers and age-mates. However, not all lower class children share these problems, and these problems are not necessarily the product of low socio-economic status. Thus, these Specific factors will be discussed separately in the next sections. n‘\ 270 Social Consequences of Low Socio—Economic Background Again, insofar as a low socio—economic class background fosters problems of language facility, inadequate affilia- tions with parents, and status deprivation the social conse- quances will also be discussed in the next sections. Let us here consider those elements statistically related to socio-economic background that have adverse consequences for the lower class Leftout's potential for social adjustment in E the school situation. 1 General socio-economic, sub-cultural, and family in- h fluences on the develOping child's personality serve to ‘ establish the framework within which peer relations operate and within which the peer group becomes yet another agent of socialization. Status deprivation problems are statis- tically more likely to occur among children of the lower socio-economic strata because social failure in the hetero— geneous school situation is presaged by the lower class Leftout's lack of background training and eXperience with core cultural value orientations and behavioral expectations. The lower class Leftout is disadvantaged in social relation- ships with teachers and his more advantaged age-mates as a consequence of his lack of the social skills which are a prerequisite to their acceptance of him. Sub-cultural differences are one basis for determining social acceptance potential among elementary—age school children. Socio-economic status criteria are at least par— tially responsible for friendship choices, such that lower 271 class children tend to be rejected by middle class age— mates—~and the division increases with age. Status and prestige is awarded among children's peer groups on the basis of: (l) Similarity of age, (2) similar— ity of sex, (3) Similarity of socio-economic background, (4) physical skills, (5) adaptive, pleasing personality, (6) verbal ability, and (7) intelligence. The lower class Leftout may be disadvantaged in all of these areas-- including those of age, which could differ if he has failed often, and sex, which could present adjustment problems for him if he has failed to develop an appropriate sex—role identity. The socio-economic status criteria which have the most influence on peer group selection and relationships in the heterogeneous school Situation have been shown to be: (I) use of leisure time (which differs quantitatively and qualitatively by social class), (2) social class-linked differences in attitudes toward education, (3) social class- linked differences in physically aggressive behavior, and (4) social class—linked differences in Speech patterns, grooming, mode of dress, and other readily identifiable var- iables. Thus, a lower class background may be maladjustive for the social demands of the heterogeneous school situation. Leftouts who fail to learn the dominant values of their teachers and more advantaged age—mates, or who cling to beliefs and values not widely shared, are not likely to be well received in the heterogeneous school situation. This lack of acceptance, in turn, reduces communication 1 272 potential and makes acculturation and social assimilation more difficult for the Leftout. If there is a conflict between parental-class culture and the core culture prevalent in the school, moderate anxiety which is adjustive for social mobility may result. So too may extreme anxiety, antagonism and rejection, with- drawal, or rigid and dependent clinging to established modes of behavior. These latter consequences are all maladjustive for the social demands of the school situation. Lack of academic and social skill is apt to be anxiety producing for the lower class Leftout. It has been shown that a sense of shame often accompanys limited Opportunity for skill development. Taken together these maladjustive factors are likely to produce: (1) hostile aggressiveness, (2) lack of trust in others, (3) feelings of inadequacy and a lowered self-concept, (4) withdrawal, and (5) generally suSpicious and negative attitudes toward the social environ- ment in the school situation. This is maladjustive for the academic, social, and emotional adjustment demands of the school situation. As a result of prejudice and discrimination, lower class Leftouts of ethnic and racial minority groups particu— larly tend to suffer some deterioration of personality, ESpecially: (l) self—doubt, (2) self—hate, (3) impulsive and superstitious behavior, (4) resigned exploitation of their inferior status, and even (5) mental illness. J . 273 Love-oriented techniques of discipline have been found to be a more powerful and positive force for bringing about desired changes in children's behavior than are object- oriented techniques of reward/punishment. Thus, children in the upper socio-economic strata are apt to be more ade- quately socialized than are children with lower class back- grounds. Lower class boys especially are more apt to receive inadequate discipline and parental support. These E inadequacies are maladjustive for the social demands of the g school Situation because: (l) inadequate discipline allows for deviant behavior which may serve as the basis for dis- crimination, and (2) inadequate support from family affilia- tions may increase the Leftout's dependency on supportive relationships outside the family. "Cures" for a Lower Socio—Economic Class Background When children are given the opportunity to proceed at their own Speed individual differences in academic achievement increase. In such an environment those who lag behind soon drOp out with feelings of failure. On the other hand when classes are regimented, the well prepared, bright child gets bored and loses out from lack of interest or comes to feel he does not like school. The way to maximize both achievement potential and the freedom of the environ- ment is to individualize the encounters each child has with the school situation. To do this it is crucial that as much as possible be known of the child‘s unique prior 274 eXperiences and training. Knowledge of social class back— ground is a beginning point. However, Since intra—class differences have been shown, there needs to be extensive research conducted to thoroughly explore within—group dif— ferenceS—-with particular attention being given to those variables which have been suggested to have maladjustive consequences for the lower class Leftout's academic, social, and emotional adjustment potential. Compensatory programs of the kind especially designed to foster verbal facility and abstract conceptual reasoning, and to foster early acculturation and social assimilation with teachers and more advantaged peers, Should also aid in overcoming the Leftout's social class-linked disadvantage. Taken collectively, our examination is provocative and suggests that many, if not all, Leftouts can and Should be offered much more cognitive stimulation than they are receiving. The advantages of utilizing the now relatively untapped preschool years for compensatory education are mani- fest. The crucial probability exists that conceptual learning, interest areas, value orientations, and behavioral patterns are more favorably established during the early years of the developmental process. The Educational Policies Commission, which is sponsored Jointly by the National Education Association and the Amer- ican Association of School Administrators (but is autonomous of both organizations), in June of 1966, prOposed that free public schooling Should be available to and mandatory for 275 every four and five-year—old child in the United States. This kind of major change in the structure of the educa- tional system is supported by our analysis of the Leftout's problems. It also reinforces the urgency of COOperative research among social scientists and educators aimed at the development of programs effectively designed to overcome the lower class Leftout's social psychological problems. For example, qualitatively we know almost nothing about language among lower class populations. Only a very few studies have attempted to analyze dialect patterns in the urban United States. We know little of the influence of the peer group on language development, although this in- fluence is likely to be considerable among the early inde- pendent lower class Leftouts. Further research is required to identify those particular aspects of language develop— ment and dialect Speech patterns which are maladjustive to the academic and social demands of the heterogeneous school situation, this research to subsequently serve as the basis for designing effective compensatory programs. Hunt (196l) argues that compensatory schooling for young children has been repeatedly shown to have a positive effect on tested intelligence. Even those children rated as retarded have Shown rates of intellectual growth ranging from lO to 30 I.Q. points after special nursery-school experience. Moreover, he points out, children retain their accelerated rate of gorwth during experimental follow-up periods of from three to five years. This, taken with what 276 we have said of the predictive efficiency of standardized tests are related to potential for future academic achieve- ment, suggests that compensatory measures designed to raise the Leftout's I.a. level should aid in overcoming part of his social class—linked disadvantage. However, measures of norms of cognitive develOpment which fail to take into account differences in the lower class Leftouts' life histories are meaningless as valid measures of their cognitive functioning. The need for re- search to develop new tests or modify old ones to probe the cumulative limits of cognitive learning is clear. The notion of ordinal scales of intelligence implies a homogeneous level of intellectual functioning which belies research evidence on the Side of asymmetries or heterogen- ity in talent, i.e., intra-individual differences. Compen- satory programs can force accomodative modifications only when there is an apprOpriate match between the environmental circumstances and the prior experiences the child has already assimilated into his cognitive repertoire. Dis- crepancies between present programs and past experiences Which are too large constitute a source of maladjustive an- xiety and negative motivation for the Leftout. On the other hand, discrepancies of a lesser order are a source of ad- justive curiosity and positive interest. Thus, research designed to answer the question of "how much is too much?" is urgently needed and essential to effective compensatory programs. r.; a. 277 Pre-school compensatory education is not alone suf- ficient to overcome the lower class Leftout's academic and social disadvantage potential. The school environment must continue to offer: (l) appropriate role models, (2) com— pensatory training, and (3) chances for positive evaluation, rewards, and affiliations with teachers and more advantaged age—mates. Both preschool and ongoing compensatory programs should consider the interrelationships of academic, social, and emotional adjustment. There is a need for research de- signed to integrate social and academic programs in the school Situation. Revising the preparatory education of teachers to include intensive training in group dynamics and extensive objective exploration of socio—cultural dif- ferences among children should help to overcome the Left- out's class—linked maladjustment potential in the school situation. Eglative Lack of Language Facility Theoretical Framework.—-Man is inherently a social animal, and complementarity of expectations and perceived reactions is necessary for social interaction. Socialization* ¥ *Socialization--a complex social learning process in Which culturally approved value orientations and behavioral expectations are inculcated in the neophyte; including: (1) the acquisition of language, (2) learning a vast body Of empirical facts relating to the physical and social en— vironment, (3) developing a variety of specialized skills, 4) the acquisition of moral values, beliefs, and standards Of evaluation of self and others, and (5) learning the normative "rules” concerning the appropriate ways and means of relating to other peOple. 278 is a prerequisite to complementarity of eXpectations and interpersonal communication in the form of symbolic systems is a prerequisite to socialization. Symbolic systems pro- vide the basis for the maintenance and elaboration of human interaction. Both egocentric and socially oriented functions are served by symbolic systems. From the perSpec- tive of the individual, systems of symbols serve as objects of orientation for, and as internalized components of_per- sonality* systems. From the perSpective of the social system, systems of symbols appear as institutionalized patterns in the form of consensual language and serve as the vehicle for the transmission of shared value orienta— tions and behavioral expectations. The acquisition of lan- guage for any individual occurs within a probabalistic metric which includes the set of environmentally possible stimulating states that might occur, and the degree of bias in the environmental likelihood of their occurrence. As we have seen, the Leftout is apt to be disadvantaged in this *Personality--an analytical construct, based on the observation of overt behavior (including test-taking be- havior), which suggests that internal, systematically (but not necessarily logically) organized cognitions and affec— tive relationships influence many overt behaviors in a relatively stable manner. ‘5: mt M" 279 area of language skills because he is less likely than his age—mates* to experience constructive (educational) stimula— tion.** Synthesis.--This dimension of disadvantage has aca- demic and social consequences which are maladjustive in the heterogeneous school Situation. Language acquisition is the primary technique employed in intellectual develOpment--for abstracting, isolating, representing, integrating, organ- izing, and perceiving relationships among objects, events, and ideas--for the general systematization of experience. A background which affords little heterogenity Of ex- perience, little Opportunity for situational manipulation, and lacks diversity of discrimination experience produces a child with: (1) reduced abilities to discriminate, (2) little interest in eXploratory or creative behavior, (3) maladjustive modes of coping with problems requiring complex or future-oriented solutions, and (A) a notably reduced tendency toward conceptual organization. However, it is not the stimulus itself but rather the response to the stimulus which provides the perceptual or sensory F *Age-mateS—-refers to all those children of approx— imately equivalent age with whom the child is in contact in the school Situation--as opposed to peers. Peers refers to the sub-segment of age—mates who serve as Significant others and as a reference group for the child, and with Whom he elects to interact when he is free to make a choice. **Constructive (educational) stimulation——visual and auditory stimuli which is ordered, goal directed, allows for interactional feedback, and which aids learning either With or without intentional instruction. cw 280 stimulation. Thus, stimulation without contrast may not be perceived, and stimulation which does not fit the socially learned cognitive structure may be ignored. For the sociO-culturally disadvantaged child, early experiential deprivation prevents the formation of adequate cognitive models and the learning of normative means Of COping with the unfamiliar environment Of the school. The Leftout's problem in this area centers on the nonspecific transfer of experiential learning in that he has not estab- lished the generalized models, constructs, or concepts that allow him to cognitively represent the school environment in such a way that when new academic tasks or social situa- tions are encountered it is possible for him to cope with them as exemplars of familiar concepts that are already associated with normatively appropriate responses. One of the primary sources of maladjustive anxiety for any individual seems to lie in being placed in a state in which his conception and perception of environmental demands do not fit into his previously learned conceptual model. He has no basis for prediction of the environment in a manner which makes reasoned action possible. We have argued that extreme anxiety may have a crippling effect on the cognitive process which is malad— justive for academic and social learning. Anxiety is based on lack Of knowledge, experience, training, skill, or ability. Anxiety has been found to be increased by: (l) perceived status differences, (2) ambiguity of 281 expectations, (3) the difficulty of the task, and (A) lack of Skill to cope with the task at hand. Extreme anxiety can be incapacitating for apy_learning, including both in- tentional and incidental learning. A lack of language facility greatly reduces cognitive, perceptual, and learning potential. In the school situa- tion where communication, basically through language, is a central part of both academic and social learning a lack Of language facility may create extreme anxiety. Anxiety, in turn, may reduce learning even further or preclude it altogether. Thus, comparative lack of experience with sym— bolic systems, eSpecially lack Of language skill, is directly and positively related to difficulties in ability to learn both formally taught academic skills, and more informally taught social skills. Academic Consequences of Inadequate Language Facility The bases of academic achievement include tested in— telligence and motivation. Individuals are more likely to be motivated to attend to those aspects Of their environment they anticipate than those they do not. Individuals are more likely to anticipate those things with which they are familiar. If the Leftout's background has afforded little constructive stimulation, in such circumstances he learns to be skillful in the art of inattention develOped in the effort to drown out indiscriminate noise* and thus he may L *Noise-—a potpurri of visual and auditory stimuli lacking in order, goal, feedback Opportunities, and educa— tional intent or value. 282 subsequently have difficulty in focusing his attention. This is maladjustive for the academic demands Of the school Situation. Experience with the environment is the major influence on the development of measured intelligence and conceptual thinking. Only rarely, if ever, is the experiential environ- ment so rich and stimulating that hereditary limits on in- tellectual ability are reached for the organically normal individual. Thus, in effect, heredity is not considered to be an influence in fixing the level Of the Leftout's intellectual potential. The learning of concepts and the development of con- ceptual thinking involves basic processes of perception, discrimination, tranSpOSition, and generalization. Standard achievement and intelligence tests are based on such con- ceptual thinking. They are verbally oriented and assume motivation on the part of the child to do his best. Thus, the Leftout lacking verbal facility is apt to score Sig- nificantly lower than his more advantaged age-mates on in- telligence and achievement tests. Standardized tests, however ”culture bound” and weighted in favor of the child with an advantageous back- ground, do reflect efficiency Of adjustment to the culture for which they are designed and do predict the child's potential for academic success in the higher grades with a reasonable degree of accuracy. The typical public school program is not organized to capitalize on non-verbal types 283 of intelligence. Therefore, any non-verbal skills the Left— out may have are of little value for adjustment to the academic demands Of the school situation. The Leftout who is inept in core cultural communica- tion skills is faced with learning what is tantamount to a "foreign” language--with the difference that he lacks solid grounding in a comparable "native" language. This is maladjustive for the academic demands of the heterogeneous school Situation, which assumes a certain degree Of initial facility with formal English. Initial lack of verbal facility works to the Leftout's disadvantage in academic achievement efforts. As we have seen, this lack of achievement is primarily felt in the area of develOping language skills and verbal facility. Thus, the Leftout is apt to become more disadvantaged in this dimension of academic adjustment over time. Lack of achieve- ment over time negatively effects his self-concept of abil- ity.* A low self-concept of ability has been shown to place functional limits on academic achievement potential. _§gcial Consequences of Inadequate Language Facility As we have seen, children who are perceived as intel- ligent and creative are generally more accepted by their advantaged age—mates, while ”Slow learners” are less well k *Self-concept of ability—~"those definitions a student holds of his ability to achieve in academic tasks as compared with others (Brookover et al., l965)." 2824 accepted. Thus, the Leftout's relatively low level of meas— ured intelligence is maladjustive for the social demands of the heterogeneous school situation. The Leftout may be discriminated against by teachers and age-mates alike because Of his general lack of communi- cation skill and his particular dialect-—not