341,,

g 1;? '

‘If‘rl .'n.
.,.,‘u;‘.‘-

 

      

L I B R A R Y
Michigan State
University

‘ My 1293 1.0179 5973

 
   

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A Study of Relationships
Between Qelected Factors and the School Achievement
of Mexican-American Migrant Children

presented bg

Mary Alexander Cain

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D degree in Educational Psychology

Do“ QJLMOLM

Major professor

Date WM 11; “‘10

0-169

 

 

 

ABSTRACT
A STUDY OF RELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN SELECTED.FACTORS AND THE SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT
OF MEXICAN-AMERICAN MIGRANT CHILDREN
By

Mary Alexander Cain

This study investigated whether the factors of age,
sex, parent-child relations, or modes of response to
problems of frustration and failure, were related to the
school achievement of Mexican-American migrant children.
Typical patterns of parent-child relationships, as
perceived by these children, and typical means employed
in their problem—solving were also investigated.

‘Subjects of the study were 58 Mexican-American
migrant boys and.girls, ranging in age from seven through
13, who attended a summer.school program in southwestern
Michigan.

Standard scores in reading.and arithmetic obtained
by the school on the Wide-Range Achievement Test were
used as measures of achievement. Trend analyses were
rnade to determine whether standard achievement scores
dropped with age. Analysis of variance was employed

to discover possible differences in achievement

Mary Alexander Cain
between boys and girls. Perceptions of parent-child
relationships were measured by the Roe-Siegelman
Parent—Child Relations Questionnaire, and various
child—rearing practices were compared by rank analysis
of variance. A step—wise multiple regression analysis
was used to discover possible relationships between
patterns of child—rearing and achievement. Problems
of frustration and failure related to the Mexican-
American migrant child's life were introduced in five
incomplete stories. Children's story completions were
categorized by three judges, and chi-square analysis
was used to determine whether modes of problem-solving
were related to school achievement.

Arithmetic achievement equalled or excelled
reading achievement at each age level. All achieve—
ment decreased beyond the nine-year—old level. While
a quadratic relationship between reading scores and
age proved not significant, a linear relationship
between arithmetic scores and age was significant
at the .01 level. No difference was discerned between
the achievement of boys and of girls. Parent—child
relations were perceived as significantly loving and
protecting. The child—rearing dimensions of rejection
and neglect were significantly less prevalent than
other dimensions. Children saw themselves as more
rewarded than punished. Mothers were seen as more

protecting, more demanding, more rewarding and more

Mary Alexander Cain
punishing than fathers. Relatively lower reading
and arithmetic scores were significantly related to
mothers' rejection, neglect, and casualness. Fathers'
love was positively related to arithmetic achievement,
while their casualness was negatively correlated with
reading and performance.

Forty—one per cent of children's story completions
are goal—oriented, gratification-deferring, "middle—
class" solutions. Thirty-four per cent of the
solutions employed withdrawal from the problem. Appeals
to authority, use of fantasy, and anti-social aggression
made up only 25 per cent of the total responses.

Despite the notion that typically middle—class modes
of problem-solving.tend to produce school success, the
Isolutions produced by the subjects of this study bore
no relationships to their achievement.

The findings of the study suggested desirable
adult education practices, and the need for further
~research in the area of problem—solving. The discovery
of currently acceptable child—rearing practices and
typical "middle-class" problem solving among the Mexican—
American migrant families of this sample emphasizes the
need for further research to explore correlates of

achievement.

 

A STUDY OF RELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN SELECTED FACTORS AND THE SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT

OF MEXICAN—AMERICAN MIGRANT CHILDREN

By

Mary Alexander Cain

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Personnel Services
and Educational Psychology

1970

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author gratefully acknowledges the help of
her Guidance Committee in the preparation of this
thesis. Special thanks are due to Dr. Maryellen
Mc Sweeney for her patient advice concerning analysis
of the data, and to Dr. Don Hamachek for his constant

encouragement.

ii

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Problem
Need for the Study
The Problem of Cultural Values
Purposes of the Study
Procedures:

The Sample

Instruments and Methodology
of the Study

Limitations of the Study

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND HYPOTHESES
TO BE TESTED

Age as a Factor in Retardation of
Achievement

Sex as a Factor in School Achievement
Parent-Child Relationships and
Child—Rearing Practices as Factors in

School Achievement

School Achievement and Modes of
Response to Problems

Summary

PROCEDURES AND RESULTS OF THE STUDY

Age and Relative Achievement
Sex and School Achievement
Patterns of Parent-Child Relationships

111

\OVNONSN

lit
17

17

22

25

32

:42
an
an
1:7
us

TABLE OF,CONTENTS (con'd)

Parent-Child Relationships and Achievemeni 56
Modes of Response to Frustration and 60
Failure
Modes of Problem—Solving and Achievement 65
Summary of Research Findings 66
IV. INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS 69
Age and Achievement 69
Sex and School Achievement -‘ 72
Patterns of Parent-Child Relationships 72
*Parent-Child Relationships and 78
Achievement .
Modes of Response to Frustration 83

and Failure

Modes of Problem-Solving and Achievement 8“

Summary of Discussion 85

V. IMPLICATIONS FOR INSTRUCTION AND RESEARCH 89
BIBLIOGRAPHY 95
APPENDICES 103
Appendix A: PCR Questionnaire 103
Appendix B: Unfinished Stories 119
Appendix C: Instructions for Judges 122
Appendix D: The Wide-Range Achievement Test Data 12A
Appendix E: Results of the Step—Wise Multiple 126

Regression Analysis

iv

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

t—i

XII.

XIII.

LIST OF TABLES

Mean Reading and Arithmetic Achievement
Scores, by Age

Trend Analysis of Reading Scores, by Age

Trend Analysis of Arithmetic Scores,
by Age

Comparison of Achievement Scores, by Sex

Mean Scores of Parent—Child Relationships
as Perceived by Mexican—American Migrant
Boys and Girls

Analysis of Variance of Protection from
Mothers and Fathers, as Perceived by

Boys and Girls (An Example of Analyses
Performed for all Child-Rearing Dimensions)

Summary of Perceived Differences in
Child~Rearing Patterns, Computed by
Analysis of Variance

Analysis of Variance in Ranks of
Child—Rearing Practices

Comparison of Mean Ranks of Mothers'
Child—Rearing Practices

Comparison of Mean Ranks of Fathers'
Child—Rearing Practices

Correlation among Mothers' Child—Rearing
Practices and their Children's Reading
and Arithmetic Achievement

Correlation among Fathers' Child—Rearing
Practices and their Children's Reading
and Arithmetic Achievement

Interjudge Reliability for Five Story
Completions

AA

A6
A6

47

50

51

S2

53

5h

57

62

XIV.

XV.

XVI O

XVII.

LIST OF.TABLES (con'd)

Modes of Story Completion.bf Mexican—
American Migrant Children'

Chi—SQuares~Indicating'Relationship
of Problem—Solving Modes to Reading
and Arithmetic Achievement

'Frequency Distribution of Standard

Achievement Scores Attained on the WRAT
by Mexican-American Migrant Children

Multiple Correlation Coefficients and

Regression Coefficients for Perceived
Parent—Child Relations and Achievement

vi

63

65

I25

126

 

Mean Reading and Arithmetic Scores:
by Age

vii

l45

 

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Problem

A large part of America's food supply is harvested by a
population of migrant laborers who are estimated to number
between one-half million and one million. Tens of thousands
of children accompany their parents through life "on the
season", living under conditions of poverty, deprivation,

1 Estimates at the

disease, humiliation, and hopelessness.
beginning of this decade indicated that the average migrant
worker earned approximately $900 a year for his work in the
fields.2
The growers who hire migrant workers, beset by problems
of unpredictable weather conditions, federal legislation, and
social and labor organization, increasingly turn to mechan-
ization as a means of cultivating and harvesting their crops.3
It is estimated that within ten years the need for migratory
farm labor will disappear. Yet migrant workers are not
sufficiently educated to gain other employment. Without

effective education, they will remain in poverty, either in

the fields, or in rural or urban slums, where they may seek

 

1Descriptions of the conditions of migrant life may be
found in: Koos, E.L., They Follow the Sun, Jacksonville:
Florida State Board of Health, 1957, Moore, Truman E., The
Slaves We Rent, New York: Random House, 1965; Reul, Myrtle
E., Where Hannibal Led Us, New York: Vantage Press, 1966;
and Shotwell, Louisa R., The Harvesters: The Story of the
Migrant People, Garden City: Doubleday and Co., 1961.

 

 

 

 

2Moore, pp. cit., 1A0.

3Kelly, Clarence F., "Mechanical Harvesting." Scien-
tific American, 213 (August, 1967),50_59,

 

 

 

2

a precarious living on the fringes of an affluent society
in which they are not prepared to succeed.
Need for the Study

most migrant children attend school infrequently. Their
education lacks continuity, being constantly interrupted by
their travels, by their work in the fields, and by the reluc—
tance or inability of many school systems to accommodate
migrant children in on—going school programs. A number of
states have established temporary experimental plans for the
education of migrant children, yet no consistent program
for their education has been maintained. Consistent and
concerted attempts to educate migrant children, so that they
may find a place in society, are long overdue.

While there is general agreement that the migrant child
is an under-achiever who will profit from welcoming teachers
and individualized instruction,l little is known about the
possible effect of specific aspects of the migrant child's
culture or his family on his ability to achieve in school.
Nor is much known about the appropriateness of the school
program to which this child is exposed. In order to develop
a more adequate educational program for migrant children and
their families, specific information regarding many variables
is necessary.

A study recently conducted by the State of Florida
points up the recognized need for knowledge of psychological

and cultural variables:

 

lShotwell, 99. cit., 165—6; Sutton, Elizabeth, Knowing
and Teaching the Migrant Child. Washington: National Edu—
cation Association, 1960.

3

What kind of unique challenges and needs does
the migrant child have which result primarily from
his mobile pattern of life?

School personnel and lay peOple need to deepen
their understandings of migratory children and adults.
Little is known of the exact thought processes and
learnings from their social and economic environment,
or the variation in all of these which occurs within
and between ethnic groups. 'Stereotyped behaviors and
values which are associated with the term "migrant"
need to be replaced with factual information about
their characteristics and the unique and distinctive
needs, which primarily are the results of their life
patterns and the subculture from which they come.

Florida's attempt to improve migrant education on a
state—wide basis is seen in the work of the Chinsegut Hill
Workshop of the University of South Florida. Some important
recommendations coming from the workshop emphasize more
specifically the following needs:

The need for studies of the migrant culture.

The need to develop teaching strategies utilizing
the learning styles of migrant children.

The need to involve parents in their children's
education and to help them to a better under-
standing of school and of the contributions the
family can make to children's achievement.

The need to help the migrant child develop "posi-
tive attitudes toward himself, others, and school
learning; behavior patterns which evince: (a) the
ability to work for long range goals, (b) respect
for hard, productive work, (c) an awareness of
his responsibility for his progress or success."

 

1State of Florida, Planning Florida's Migrant Education
Ikrogram. Tallahasseez' Department—of Education, 1966, p. 30.

2Ironically, the educator's bias shows in this recom—
mendation. Probably no one knows more about "hard, productive
work" than the migrant farm laborer. What the author intends,
perhaps, is "hard, productive work" of an academic nature.

3State of Florida, 92: cit. 22—3.

 

A

The unique living conditions and subcultures of the
migrant stream make it important that the relationship
between subcultural variables and the migrant child's school
achievement be investigated.

One group of migrant workers-—distinct in customs, trad—
itions, language, values, and family pattern——is made up of
Mexican—Americans who travel north each spring from the
southwestern states;' These Spanish—speaking migrants repre—
sent the third largest minority group in the United States.
Their language and other cultural differences may compound
or alleviate learning difficulties encountered by other
migrant children. The present isolation from other American
citizens produces a unique culture whose general character—
istics and their effects on school achievement may be studied.
Those who work with migrant children have recognized the
need for an examination of some of the factors which make
the Mexican—American migrant child culturally different, and
the possible effects of these factors on school achievement.
The major attention of this study relates to some of these
factors.

The Problem of Cultural Values

Throughout the succeeding discussions of parent—child
relationships and modes of response to problems, contrasts
will be made between middle— and lower—class practices and
values as they relate to school achievement or achievement
xnotivation. Research shows that middle—class values and
behaviors are more likely to accompany school success. How-

ever, we do not intend to suggest that middle—class values

A

The unique living conditions and subcultures of the
migrant stream make it important that the relationship
between subcultural variables and the migrant child's school
achievement be investigated.

One group of migrant workers-~distinct in customs, trad—
itions, language, values, and family pattern——is made up of
Mexican-Americans who travel north each spring from the
southwestern states; These Spanish—speaking migrants repre—
sent the third largest minority group in the United States.
Their language and other cultural differences may compound
or alleviate learning difficulties encountered by other
migrant children. The present isolation from other American
citizens produces a unique culture whose general character-
istics and their effects on school achievement may be studied.
Those who work with migrant children have recognized the
need for an examination of some of the factors which make
the Mexican-American migrant child culturally different, and
the possible effects of these factors on school achievement.
The major attention of this study relates to some of these
factors.

The Problem of Cultural Values

Throughout the succeeding discussions of parent-child
relationships and modes of response to problems, contrasts
‘will be made between middle— and lower—class practices and
‘values as they relate to school achievement or achievement
xnotivation. Research shows that middle—class values and
behaviors are more likely to accompany school success. How—

ever, we do not intend to suggest that middle-class values

 

 

1"" ”5F 1

5
are in any sense the "right" values or "better” values, but
simply that, given the nature of our present schools and
society, they bring greater success to those who hold them.
The writer agrees with most current writers who suggest
that the way to achieve a meeting-ground between the school
and any "disadvantaged" child is to adjust school curriculum
and instruction to the culture, the values, and the attitudes
of the child, rather than unreasonably to expect the child
suddenly to adopt the modes of the school. Attempts to
"adjust" the child and thereby produce achievement have con—
sistently failed. Knowledge of cultures different from that
of the school could be used to help the school adjust to the
child.

The Mexican-American culture contains many elements
which can enhance human development and enrich human exis—
tence. Laughter, warmth, humor, color, imagination, gener—
osity, and honest relationships are evident in the Mexican—
American migrant culture, and in schools which accept migrant
children and have concern for their growth. Thes: elements
of the migrant culture need not be sacrificed for school
achievement.

If any personal bias, beyond that of concern for the
migrant child, influences this study, it is not that one set
of values is superior to another, but that there exists the
possibility of helping the migrant child to greater achieve—
ment without the cost to the person which the more rigid
middle—class values sometimes entail. It is the hope of this

writer that schools will come to understand, to accept, and

 

6
to use the cultural difference of minority—group children
in order to further their achievement and success. A fair
statement of the writer's preference would also include her
hope for a mixing of cultures and values as middle—class
schools become more acceptant of lower-class cultures and
thereby find ways for lower-class children to attain greater
success, without rejection of the beautiful or the valuable
in their heritage.
Purposes of the Study

Three cultural variables offer a beginning to the study
of the Mexican-American migrant child and his school achieve—
ment. The parent—child relationships typical of this
culture may, in other cultures previously studied, affect
the motivation, the aspirations, and the achievement of
the children of the culture. Typical modes of response to
the problems and frustrations of living may also affect the
child's approach to problems of school learning and achievement.
The purposes of this study stemmed from assertions regarding
the cumulative educational retardation of the migrant child
as he grows older, and from the three cultural variables
of sex-role expectations, parent—child relationships, and
modes of response to problems.

Specifically, this study investigated: (1) the possible
relationship between age and standardized achievement scores,
(2) the possible relationship between sex and school

achievement, (3) the parent—child relationships of the

7
Mexican—American migrant family and their possible relation—
ships with school achievement, and (A) the modes of response
to the problems of Mexican—American migrant children and
their possible relationship to school achievement.
'The purposes of this study were:

1. to discover whether the cumulative school
retardation found in earlier studies of Mexican—American
migrant children exists in this sample.

2. to discover whether the sex of the Mexican—
American migrant child is related to his school achievement.

3. to discover whether there is a typical pattern
of parent—child relationships within the Mexican—American
migrant culture.

A. to discover whether specific parent—child
relationships are related to SChOOl achievement in Mexican-
American migrant children.

5. to discover whether there are typical modes
of approach to the solution of problems among Mexican—
American migrant children.

6. to discover whether these modes of response
to problems are related to the Mexican—American migrant
Cllild'S school achievement.

Procedures
The Sample The subjects of this study were 58 Mexican—

Anusrican migrant boys and girls, ranging in age from seven

 

j - ,_. ,7

8

through 13,1 who attended at least part of an eight—week
school program in southwestern Michigan during the summer
of 1967. Children were chosen at random from a daily
enrollment which ranged from A5 to 109. Selection was
limited by the necessity to choose children who spoke English
and who attended the school with sufficient regularity to
make a program of testing possible. Although an effort was
made to choose at random equal numbers of boys and girls
representing various age groups, randomization was limited
by the nature of the school enrollment.

Migrant parents sent their children to school on a
voluntary basis. Many more migrant children stayed in the
fields and camps than attended school. Hence, this sample

represents only those children whose parents were willing

 

to rise earlier, to undertake extra washing and ironing of
children's clothes, and, in the case of older children, to
forego the income their children could have earned in the
fields. It is possible, therefore, that the subjects of
this study constitute a sample of a particular set of
Mexican—American'migrants. those vho are motivated to make
extra sacrifices for the sake of their children's education.
In summary, factors influencing enrollment and factors
influencing the feasibility of the testing program produced

limitations in the sample used in this study.

 

1Owing to the irregular school attendance and the
mobility of the children, and to the ensuing difficulties
in administering tests, not all of the children were included
in all phases of the study.

 

 

 

9

Instruments and Methodology of the Study

1. Measurement of Achievement Standard achieve-
ment scores in reading and arithmetic were obtained as part
of the summer school program. The Wide—Range Achievement
Test1 was used for this purpose, and the school's measures
were used in this study. The standard score of the WRAT
has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Because
performance on these tests relies upon a language which is
essentially foreign to the Mexican—American child, all
tests were un—timed and were administered individually,
giving subjects an advantage beyond that of the normal
administration.

'2. Age Differences in Achievement Each age
level for which there was a sufficient sample was compared
with other age levels by analysis of variance to determine
whether standard achievement scores drop significantly
with age.

3. Sex Differences in Achievement The mean
achievement scores for boys and girls in reading and in
arithmetic were compared to determine whether one sex was
Significantly superior to the other in reading or arith-

metic achievement.

 

lJastak, J. F., and Jastak, s. R.. The Wide—Range
Achievement Test. Revised edition. Wilmington, Delaware:
Guidance Associates, 1965. Further information concerning
the WRATg and scores of the subjects of this study, are
contained in Appendix D.

 

 

 

 

 

10

N. Parent-Child Relationship; The Roe—Siegelman

 

Parent—Child Relations Questionnairel was chosen as a
measure of parent—child relationships in Mexican—American
migrant families, because of its simplicity of administra—
tion, the feasibility of.its use with children, the high
reliability coefficients reported for each category mea~
sured by the instrument, and the possibility of comparison
of the Roe—Siegelman factors with the findings of other
studies related to child-rearing and parent—child relation—
ships. The questionnaire was rewritten in simple language

2

for administration to Mexican-American children. (Appen—

 

dix A contains forms of the Roe-Siegelman instrument for
mothers and for fathers, as they were used in this study.)

The Roe—Siegelman PCR measures six treatments (e.g.,
”Demanding," ”Casual,” "Protecting”) and four reward—
punishment systems (e.g., "Direct—Object Reward," "Symbolic—
Love Punishment”) giving a total of ten scores which re—
flect responding children's perceptions of their relation—
ships with their parents. The PCR includes separate forms
for mothers and for fathers, since its authors found

some items more reliable for one parent than another. Since

 

lRoe, Anne, and Siegelman, Marvin, "A Parent-Child Re—
;atxions Questionnaire." Child Development, 35 (June, 1963),
55‘690

2Dr. Roe's permission to revise forms of the question—
na:iJ?e was granted through Barbara P. Brown, Executive Secre—
talfiy, Center for Research in Careers, Graduate School in
Education, Harvard University. Dr. Roe's kind permission and
M1353 Brown's assistance are gratefully acknowledged.

 

 

 

11
current theory holds that mothers may relate differ—
ently to their sons than to their daughters, and that
fathers, too, have differing relationships with children
of different sexes, the population of the present study was
treated when possible as four groups: (a) mothers and daugh—

ters, (b) mothers and sons, (0) fathers and daughters, and

 

(d) fathers and sons. Analysis of variance was used to dis-
cover possible major factors in the parent—child relation—
ships of the subjects. Means of child—rearing categories
were compared for each sub—group where warranted. Parent—
child relationship variables were compared in high- and

low-achieving subjects by multiple regression analysis.

 

5. Modes of Response to Problems of Frustration

 

and Failure It was assumed that Mexican-American migrant
children who achieve to a significant degree would respond
to frustration and failure in ways which are more typically
"middle-class," i.e., with greater goal orientation, more
deferment of gratification, more long—range planning, and
greater achievement motivation, than their peers whose
‘achievement is lower.‘ Therefore, five unfinished stories

concerning migrant children were constructed, after the

l 2

manner of Miller and Swanson and of Wallach and Kogan.

These stories are similar in purpose to the Rosenzweig

 

lMiller, Daniel R., and Swanson, Guy E., Inner Conflict
and Defense. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 19 0.

2Wallach, Michael A., and Kogan, Nathan, Modes of Thinking
in Young Children. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,
1965. Pp. 211—16.

 

 

12

Picture Frustration Studyl but, rather than concerning them—
selves with scooters, birthday parties, and the like, con—
tain items and events familiar to the migrant child. Separ—
ate forms were prepared for boys and for girls. Each set
of stories included the following problems:

a. school frustration and failure

b. frustration regarding a career

c. lack of desired material possessions

d. failure to live up to parental expectations

e. rejection by peers because of inappropriate
dress

Boys' and girls' forms were constructed to be as much alike

as possible and were, in some cases, identical except for

the sex of the ”hero." The stories were them submitted to
several persons with expert knowledge of the Mexican-American
migrant culture. On the basis of their reactions, the stories
were slightly modified in vocabulary.2 (Appendix B contains

the ten unfinished stories comprising the boys' and girls'

 

lRosenzweig, S., "Rosenzweig Picture—Frustration Study,
Children's Form.” In Projective Techniques with Children,
edited by A. I. Rabin and Mary Haworth. New York: Grune
and Stratton, 1960.

 

2Experts consulted were Mr. Manuel Alfaro, Migrant Con~
sultant to the Michigan State Department of Education;
Messrs. Harold Pena and Joe Sanchez, consultants with the
Texas Migrant Education Project; Dr. Joe L. Frost, University
of Texas, and Mrs. Frost, a teacher of migrant children; and
Dr. Myrtle Reul, University of Georgia, then of the Depart—
ment of Social Work, Michigan State University, who has spent
many months living and working as a migrant. Messrs. Alfaro,
Pena and Sanchez are former migrants. The writer gratefully
acknowledges the kind and willing assistance of these people.

 

 

13
forms of this instrument.)
It was assumed that children, in completing the unfin—
ished stories, would identify with the hero of the story,
and that the solution they chose for him would reflect their
typical modes of solution to similar problems. This assump-
tion has limitations and is, as are all projective techniques,

open to question.1 Riessman and Miller2

note that many
projective tests are inappropriate to working-class subjects.
In writing, examining, and revising the stories every attempt
was made to present a cultural context familiar to the Mex—
ican—American migrant child.

Children were tested individually. Each child was told
a simple unfinished story as an example before the test was
begun. If he finished the story in some way, it was assumed
that he understood the process expected of him. Enough time
was allowed to examine and to use the tape recorder to insure
that the child felt comfortable with it. Then the first
story was read to the child, and his completion was recorded
on tape. About A5 minutes to one hour were required for the
total procedure of completing all five stories. Story

completions were subsequently transcribed from the tapes.

 

lcr. Anderson, Harold H., and Anderson, Gladys, L., eds.,
An Introduction to Projective Techniques. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1951; and Murstein, Bernard 1., ed.,
Handbook of Projective Techniques, New York: Basic Books,
Inc., 1965.

 

 

2Riessmen, Frank, and Miller, S. M., "Social Class and
Projective Techniques.” In Murstein, loc. cit., 95—106.

 

 

a!

 

, , . _,,1

1A
Using stories of children's problems in a study of
fantasy and realism in children's story completions, Wallach

and Koganl

assigned numerical scores to solutions offered
by children, scoring '0' for ”fantasy” responses and 'l'
for "Realism" responses. Somewhat different responses were
expected in the present study. It was assumed that in
completing the stories children would produce: (a) goal-
oriented, gratification-deferring solutions, (b) reactions
of withdrawal or resignation, (c) reactions of hostility or

anti-social counter—aggression, (d) solutions relying upon

appeal to authority, and (e) fantasy solutions. Three

 

judges read and categorized each story completion.2 Percen—
tage of agreement was calculated for each pair of judges.
Categories of story completion and intervals of achieve—
ment were compared by means of Pearson's Chi-Square Test
of Association to determine whether possible relationships
existed between modes of response and achievement.
Limitations of the Study
The present study contains several limitations. Any
generalization which can be made from the study is limited
to the population from which the sample was taken: Mexican:
American migrant children between the ages of seven and 13

whose parents send them to summer school. The value which

 

lWallach and Kogan, 92. c t.

2Dr. Rachel Inselberg, Dr. Elizabeth Johnson, and
Mrs. Joan Madden, for whose time and patience the writer is
deeply grateful.

 

 

 

15
these parents put on school attendance, although it may be
assumed to differ within the sample, is reflected in the
special effort and sacrifice which a migrant parent must
make in order for children to attend a summer school program.
Migrant children from Appalachian white lr southern Negro
families represent separate cultures and the findings of
the present study cannot justifiably be generalized to these
groups.

All instruments used in this study were administered
in English. The greatest limitation of the study is the
achievement measure, which tested the child's ability to
perform school—related tasks in a foreign language. In
other measures, every attempt was made to simplify vocab—
ulary and to use concepts within the realm of these child—
ren's understanding. ‘However, some of the error of each
analysis must be assumed to be due to the use of a second
language.'

The use of English and of standard achievement tests
is justified, according to the assumptions of this study,
if the educator's concern is with helping migrants to
develop abilities which will enable them to leave the
migrant stream. This accomplishment demands that migrants
learn to succeed in the ways and with the language of a
culture which is relatively strange to them. The achieve—
ment test is one way of gaining some measure of how far
migrant children have progressed in the direction of this
success. The standard achievement scores obtained in this

study must not, however, be construed as an indication

 

 

16
of how well these subjects might perform under other cir—
cumstances or on other measures, but only as an indication
of how well they gig perform on limited achievement measures
expressed in the English language.

Use of the parent—child relationships questionnaire
presents a limited amount of information. A detailed,
lengthy interview or series of interviews and observations
with parents might, had they been possible, have yeilded
more information regarding parental attitudes and childmrearing
practices than did the questionnaire.

It may be argued that the child's responses to problems
of frustration or failure do not necessarily represent
what he would do in these situations. An assumption of
this study is that since the migrant child is limited by the
little he knows of the middle—class, English—speaking culture,
in his attempt to produce the "best” solution he can, in
his own terms, he will use whatever resources he can summon.
It is the assumption of this investigation that subjects'
modes of response to problems, therefore, reflect what their
families and their culture have taught them about problem—
solving.

In summary, this study is limited by the nature of the
sample studied, by the use of English—language instruments,

and by the assumptions underlying a projective story device.

 

 

 

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND HYPOTHESES
TO BE TESTED
Age as a Factor in Retardation or Achievement

Little is known about the cognitive abilities or
disabilities of migrant children, except that they are
retarded in achievement. Many believe that this retard—
ation is due solely to infrequent school attendance.

"The cause of retardation——sixty—seven

percent in our Colorado migrants—~13 centered

in lack of school attendance," states Alfred

M. Potts of the Colorado State Department of

Education. "It definitely is not due to lack

of scholastic ability. Studies show these

children to have about the same ratio of slow

learners, average—intelligence groups, and

potentially superior nhildren as other popu—

lation groups.”1

We may assume that achievement of Mexican—American
children will continue to decrease relative to their age
peers as these children grow older. In a study of 1709
children from 665 migrant families, Greene2 showed the
increase in school retardation as children progressed in

age. In the first year of school, no children were re—

garded as retarded. However, the percentage of retardation

 

lsnotwell, EB. cit., 163—4,

‘Greene, Shirley E., The Education of Migrant Child-
ren. Washington, D.C.: The Department of Rural Education,

5

EAJ 1954.
17

 

 

 

18
increased progressively from the second year of school
(35.5% retarded) to the twelfth (75.0% retarded). The
degree of school retardation likewise increased, from
one year in the second grade to from one to more than five

1 In 1935, Johnson2 found re—

years by the sixth grade.
tardation of migrant children in school to accumulate

with each added year of age, and the same sort of evi—
dence has appeared in subsequent studies conducted be—
tween 1939 and 1950.3 Frost found that, among 32 children
Venrolled in a summer school, the average degree of
retardation was three years.ll Murray, studying Mexican-
American children in San Antonio, found that while six

per cent had completed high school, thirty per cent of

the children had a maximum of three years in one school.5

 

lGreene, loc. cit., 77.

2Johnson, Elizabeth S., Welfare of Families of Sugar—
Beet Workers. Washington, D.C.: Children's Bureau Pub—
lication No. 247, U.S. Department of Labor, 1935.

 

3Greene, 92. git. 83.

“Frost, Joe E., "School and the Migrant Child.”
Childhood Education, 41 (1964), 129—32.

 

5Murray, Sister Mary John, "A Socio-Cultural Study
of 118 Mexican Families Living in a Low—Rent—Public Hous—
ing Project in San Antonio, Texas.” Studies in Sociology,
38, p. 8“. 'Cited in The Disadvantaged: Challenge to Edu-
cation, edited berario D. Fantini and Gerald Weinstein.
New York: Harper and Row, 1968, p. 28.

 

 

 

19
The factor of mobility is also cited as a cause of
school retardation. Continual mobility and instability
of school life are a prevailing part of a migrant child's
existence.
Coles and Huge provide a poignant report of the mi—
grant child's enforced mobility:

How did school go for him this year:
”Well, I didn't get there much. We moved
from place to place, and I helped with the
picking a lot, and the schools, when you go
to them, they don't seem to want you, and
they'll say that you're only going to be
there for a few weeks anyway, so what's the
use." What does he want to do when he gets
elder?: "I don't know. I'd like to stay
someplace, I guess, and never have to leave
there for the rest of my life, that's what.

Manis found that:

. . . both the number of moves made each year

as well as the total number of years in mi—

grancy persistently, though irregu§arly, in—

creases the degree of retardation.

The mobility of the migrant child, however, may not
be the sole or even a determining cause in the retardation
of migrant children. Americans live in a mobile society.

3

Approximately one in five Americans moves each year.

 

lColes, Robert, and Huge, Harry, "Peonage in Florida.”
The New Republic, 161 (July 26, 1969), 17—21, p. 19.

2Manis, Jerome G., A Study of Migrant Education:
Survey of Findings in Van Buren County, Michigan, 1957.
Kalamazoo, Michigan: Western Michigan University Press,
1958, p. l1.

 

3National Education Association, "America on the
Move.” NEA Research Bulletin, 36 (December, 1958),
99—102.

 

20
Downie found‘that children who had'moved‘made
scores on the Otis Self—Administering Test of Mental
Abilities which were comparable to those made’by'child-
ren who did not move.1 Similarly, Bollenbacher found
no difference in median reading level between mobile

2 while Evans found‘

and non—mobile school children,
that mobile fifth— and sixth—graders were slightly
better in reading and in science than their non—mobile
peers.3 However, in studying the possible effects of
mobility on the achievement of disadvantaged children,
Justman found that both IQ and reading scores decreased

with the number of moves a child had made from school

to school.“

 

1Downie, N. M., "A Comparison Between Childreanho
Have Moved from School to School with Those Who Have
Been in Continuous Residence on Various Factors of
Adjustment."‘ Journal of Educational Psychology, nu (Jan—
uary, 1953), 50—53. ‘

2Bollenbacher, Joan, ”A Study of the Effect of
Mobility on Reading Achievement.”" The Reading Teacher,
15 (March, 1962), 356—60.

3Evans, John w., Jr., ”The Effect of Pupil Mobility
on Reading Achievement." National Elementary Principal,
45 (April, 1966), 18-22.

“Justman, Joseph, "Academic Aptitude and Reading
Test Scores of Disadvantaged Children Showing Varying
Degrees of Mobility." Journal of Educational Measure—
ment, 2 (December, 1965), 151—5.

 

21

Apparently, mobility is a factor whose effects are
mediated by social class or by cultural differences. It
may be an oversimplification, then, to say that migrant
children are retarded because of the mobility of their
lives. Other factors in the child's culture or socio—
economic situation are probably.operating to make his
mobility an additional.disadvantage with respect to
his school achievement. In studies made up to the pre—
sent time, these factors appear to have cumulative effects
with the age of the child.

During recent years, greater Federal resources have
been devoted to special educational projects for migrant“
children. As this is written, the Michigan State Depart—
ment of Education is embarking on a state—wide migrant
education project for the third consecutive summer.

Other states with heavy migrant populations are also

making special efforts to improve the achievement of

migrant children. However, no : ULTCl can be exercised
over the regular attendance of migrant ;L;llren in sum—'
mer schools, where attendance is voluntary, and none of

these programs have been in effect for very long.
Given the additional fact that the older the Mexican—
American migrant child, the less likely he is to be

enrolled in school,1 this study would expect to find

lGreene, gp. cit., 83.

 

 

22

cumulative retardation as the migrant child grows older.
The evidence leads to the hypothesis that standarized
scores for both reading achievement and for arithmetic
achievement will decrease as age increases.

As is the case with other groups of children who
have recently been labelled "educationally disadvantaged,”
however, greater school attendance will not necessarily
improve performance if other retarding factor: are oper-
ating, and if the school program does not take these factors

into account.

Sex as a Factor in School Achievement

Girls often receive higher school grades than boys.1

Whether this fact reflects actual differences in over—
all achievement is doubtful. As Anastasi notes:

. girls were found to excel in school
grades, when compared with boys receiving
the same achievement test scores. Thus the
grades showed a far greater female superior-
ity than seemed to be warranted by peEfor—
mance on objective achievement tests.

The better school grades received by girls is more likely

 

lAnastasi, Anne, Differential Psychology. Third
edition. New York: The MacMillan Co., l95t. p. 492.
Italics are those of the author cited.

2loc. cit., H95.

 

 

 

 

23
attributable to their greater quietness and tractability
and to their relative lack of aggression——characteristics
which are often prized by teachers and which might be
reflected in the teacher expectancy which Rosenthal and

Jacobsonl

have discussed. These authors did not find sig-
nificant differences in gains due to higher teacher ex—
pectancy between the boys and the girls of their study.
The exception to this finding occurred when boys' achieve—
ment gains were correlated with the degree of "Mexican—
ness" of their faces, when the boys who looked most ”Mex—
ican” benefited most from their teachers' higher expec—
tancies, but girls' achievement was not affected by this
factor.2 Such a finding, particularly considering the
limitations of the study in question, may or may not
indicate original teacher prejudice in favor of girls.

In an examination of factors affecting A and B grades
assigned by teachers in reading, Wilson found that

belonging to the female sex had a positive effect, while

being male had a negative effect. Wilson remarks, ”Girls

 

lRosenthal, Robert, and Jacobson, Lenore, Pygmalion
in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inc., 1968. p. 176

2loo. cit., 177.

 

 

 

 

2A

also . . . are perceived as better students than their
test performances would warrant."1

Although teacher expectations appear, at least in
some cases, to differ with the sex of the student, there
is less evidence that parent expectations differ, at least
among lower—class children. For example, Cloward and
Jones2 found no difference in the percentage of poor parents
who mentioned education in connection with their expecta—
tions for a "good life" for their boys or girls. Nor did
3

Greene find a significant difference in migrant families'
educational aspirations for boys or for girls of the same
family. (Rather, educational aspirations for children
appeared to be a factor of the parents' own educational
attainment.)

The families of Spanish—speaking migrants are categor—

ized as patriarchalL4 and traditional.5 Pressures for adult

 

lWilson, Alan E., ”Social Stratification and Academic
Achievement.” In Education in Depressed Areas, edited by
A. Harry Passow. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers
College, 1963. pp. 229, 231.

 

2Cloward, Richard A., and Jones, James A., "Social
Class: Educational Attitudes and Participation." In
Education in Depressed Areas, gp. cit., 203-4.

3Greene, 92. cit., 115.

uReul, gp. cit.

5Burma, J. H., Spanish—Speaking Groups in the United
States. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press,
195 o

 

 

 

25
sex-roles come strong and early.1 Boys go to work in
fields and orchards as soon as they are physically able.
Nine and ten—year—old girls are expected to care fox "the
little ones" (often several younger children, including
a baby) for the entire day, while their parents and older
children work.

The present study asks whether there is reason to
expect that sex—role pressures and related cultural char-
acteristics have a differential effect on school achieve—
ment. From what is known about the patriarchal organi-
zation of Mexican-American migrant families and their
traditional sex roles, we might expect that boys would
llave learned stronger achievement motivation than girls.
On the other hand, because girls are expected to behave
irl more modest and submissive fashion, one might also
lxypothesize that girls, given greater rewards and
approval by teachers, would have higher achievement than
kHDys. Further study beyond the scope of this paper
WOLlld be required for knowledge of the mecnanisms producing
seJ( differences in achievement. The present study looks
fil?st for the existence of such differences.

Parent—Child Relationships and Child—Rearing
Practices as Factors in School Achievement

Child—rearing practices and parent—child relationships

haVe been shown to be important factors mediating between

 

lSutton, 2p. cit., 19—20; Moore, 92. cit., 52—65.

 

f

20

's cultural values and the child's achievement
wrtivation or achievement in school.

When cultural values, or attitudes toward school,
are no‘ appropriate to the middle—class school's concept
of achievement, the child‘s school performance suffers.
Davis,1 Davis and Havighurst,2 and Douvan3 have provided
illustrations of the ways in which middle—class schools
put lower—class children at a disadvantage, so that, given
the child—rearing practices and the circumstances of their
culture, it is nearly impossible for children who are
culturally different to achieve to a degree commensurate
with the achievement of middle-class children.

The need to achieve in school appears to be strongly
(zonnected with a middle—class socialization process.
I?inneyu found that achievement need was the strongest

(Harrelate of parents' status and education, but also that

true need to achieve was a product of maternal warmth and

1Davis, Allison, Social Class Influences upon Learning.
Ceunbridgc: Harvard University Press, 19U6.

LUavis, Allison, and Havighurst, Robert J., Father of
ttn3_Man. Boston: houghton Mifflin Co., 19A7.

3Douvan, Elizabeth, "Social Status and Success Striving."
flfylrnal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52 (1956),
r3 .
n91—323.

uFinney, Joseph Claude, ”Some Maternal Influences on
Children's Personality and Character.” Genetic Psychology

Mggggraphs, 63 (1961), 199—278.

27

nurturance. Separate studies by Douvan,l Hoffman,2
and Watson3 arrived at the same conclusions: in special
task situations, middle—class children work to achieve,
to do a job well, while the performance of lower-class
children is improved by the offer of extrinsic rewards.
Lower-class children, unable for whatever reasons to
perceive the rewards of academic industriousness, are not
motivated to achieve in school, according to these studies.

Rosen and D'Andradeu found that mothers ant fathers of
high—achieving boys set high but reasonable standards for
their sons. This conclusion would confirm the findings of
Baldwin and others;5 careless, overly—casual, indulgent,
or permissive parents do not create in their children a
significant desire to achieve. However, fathers of high—
achieving boys made significantly fewer decisions for their
sons, and gave them fewer directions. In a comparison of

parental behaviors, Baldwin found that "democratic” homes

 

lDouvan, op. cit.

2Hoffman, Martin L., et a1, "Achievement Striving,
Social Class, and Test Anxiety." Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 56 (1958), UOlu3.

 

 

3Watson, Goodwin, "Some Personality Differences in
Children Related to Strict or Permissive Parental Discipline."
Journal of Psychology, MA (1957), 227—”9.

 

“Rosen, B. C., and D'Andrade, R. G., "The Psychosocial
Origins of Achievement Motivation.” American Sociological
Review, 22 (1959), 185—218.

5Baldwin, Alfred L., et al, "Patterns of Parent Behavior."
Psychological Monographs, 58 (19U5), No. 3.

 

28
(homes in which authoritarian methods and punitive measures
were not evident) produced the greatest intellectual
development, and that children from these homes were
"significantly high on the variables of originality, plan—

fulness, patience, curiosity, and fancifulness."l

Mile32

showed that parents of the children who use
their capacities as leaders in school do not overprotect
their children, nor do they shield them from normal respon—
sibilities. Instead, they allow independence and encourage
children to experiment and to make decisions. Crandall

3 connected children's achievement behavior with

and others
their mothers' reward for independence.

A synthesis of studies of the child—rearing antecedents
of achievement—oriented behavior leads to the conclusion
that either highly authoritarian or highly permissive
practices discourage children's achievement. Fathers'
heavy-handed insistence on excellent performance destroys
achievement, but so does a careless lack of standards.

McClelland resolves some confusion by exposing child—rearing

patterns most likely to produce successful achievement:

 

lBaldwin, Alfred L., et al, 93, cit., 66.

 

2Miles, K. A., ”Relationship between Certain Factors
in the Home Background and the Quality of Leadership Shown
by Children." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer—
sity of Minnesota, 19A5.

3Crandall, Vaughn J., et al, "Maternal Reactions and
the Development of Independence and Achievement Behavior
in Young Children." Child Development, 30 (June, 1960),
243-51.

29
What lies in the middle of all these extremes

is reasonably high standards of excellence imposed

at a time when the son can attain them, a willingness

to let him attain them without interference, and

real emotional pleasure in his achievements short of

overprotection and indulgence.
High achievement need may be created by stimulation for
mastery, provided this stimulation is neither restricting,
nor authoritarian, nor rejecting.2

Child—rearing practices of a number of populations
have been studied, often in relationship to social class.3
If any generalizations can be made from a variety of
populations and methodologies, it is probably that lower—
class parents tend to be authoritarian and to use physical
punishment, while more middle—class parents are either

permissive or truly democratic, and are more likely to use

love-withdrawal techniques in the process of socialization.

 

1McClelland, David C., The Achieving Society. Princeton:
D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1961. p. 356.

2100. cit., 345.

3The following studies are among those which point to
the same general conclusions: Anders, Sarah F., "New
Dimensions in F‘thnicity and Child Rearing Attitud.s.“
American Journal of Nontal deficiency, 73 (November, 1968).
505—8. Bronfenbrenner, Brie, ”Soeializatien and Social
Class through Time and Space." In Readings in Sccial
Psychology, edited by Eleanor E. Maccoby, et al. New York:
Henry Holt and Co., 1958. pp. MOO—M25. Bronfenbrenner,
Urie, "The Changing American Child—-A Speculative Analysis."
Journal of Social Issues, 17 (1961), 6—18. Green, Arnold W.,
"The Middle Class Male Child and Neurosis." American_
Sociological Review, 11 (February, 19A6), 31—” . Hoffman,
Martin L., "Power Assertion by the Parent and its Tmpact on
the Child." Child Development, 31 (March, 1960), 129~U3.
Medinnus, Gene R., ed., Readings in the Psychology of Parent—
Cbild Relations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967.
Riessman, Frank, The Culturally Deprived Child. New York:
Harper and Row, 1962, pp. 38—48.

 

 

 

 

30
However, other factors influencing achievement moti-
vation have been found within the same social class.
Herriot suggests that socioeconomic status is not so rele-
vant to the student's educational plans as are the expecta—

l

tions of the parents as perceived by the students. Joiner

2 demonstrated that the student's perception of

and others
parent—child interactions had a greater effect on his
educational ambitions than did his social status, and
concluded, 8. . . these findings imply that more attention
might profitably be given to the study of differences in
interactions and norms within the social structure."3

Any attempt to predict from previous studies migrant
parents' child—rearing practices and their effects on
children's achievement results in a number of alternatives.
Mexican—American fathers are reputed to be the authori—
tarian leaders of patriarchal families—~a fact which may
not bode well for their children's achievement. However,
Mexican—American parents are also said to be warm, nurturant,
and caring. Yet migrant families lack democratic organization.

Certainly, the contingencies of their existence bring about

f/

 

1Herriot, R. E., “Some Special Determinants of Educa—
Eional Aspirations." Harvard Educational Review, 33 (1963),
53—77.

2Joiner, Lee M., Erickson, Edsel L., and Brookover,
Wilbur, B., "Socioeconomic Status and Perceived Expecta—
tions as Measures of Family Influence." Personnel and
Guidance Journal, A? (March, 1969), 655—9.

319g. cit., 659.

 

31
children's independence and responsibility. In some ways,
those same contingencies promote indulgence and somewhat I
careless lack of supervision of children's activities.
It is impossible, then, to predict with any degree of cer—
tainty the parent—child relationships and resulting achieve—
ment of Mexican-American families and their children.

From descriptions and personal observation of Mexicane
American migrant families, one might expect these children'
to perceive their parents as often loving and casual but
seldom rejecting. If, as is supposed, mothers play a more
important role in child—rearing than do fathers, then we
would expect mothers to receive higher scores on signifiu
cant child—rearing dimensions. If, however, sex roles
are taught in part through differential treatment of
boys and girls on the part of different parents, it is rea—
sonable to suppose that mothers may play a more important role
to girls, while fathers may play a more important role
to their sons. It remains for this study to categorize the
child—rearing practices of the Mexican—American family.

Research concerning child—rearing practices indicates
that those families whose child—rearing practices are
perceived as less authoritarian but still reasonably high
in expectation will produce children who achieve. In terms
of the child—rearing dimensions measured by the Roe—Siegelman
PCR, we might expect that Mexican-American migrant children
whose parents are perceived as more loving, casual, and
rewarding, and less demanding, protective, neglecting,

rejecting, indulgent, and punitive would show higher

32
achievement. This study investigates the predictive value
of the child—rearing practices for school achievement.

School Achievement and Modes of Reponse tc Problems

This section of the study is based on several assump-
tions which are, in turn, grounded upon research with
”disadvantaged" populations and on clinical observations
of society's institutions in interaction with the poor,

We assume, first of all, that behaviors and attitudes
often associated with the need for achievement are also
linked to success in a typical American school. The student
who succeeds holds aspirations toward goals approved by
the middle—class culture. He is able to defer gratification,
and to sacrifice immediate reward in order to reach his
goals. He values the possibilities inherent in long—range
planning. He possesses some model of successful achieve—
ment with whom he can identify and after whom he can
pattern his behavior.

Such attitudes are also assumed to be at work as he
solves the problems with which life confronts him, and t0'
influence the choices he'makes as he attempts to reach
his personal goals.

Straussl found that a deferred—gratification pattern

Was independent of social class but associated with the

 

lStrauss, Murray, A., ”Deferred Gratification, Social
Class, and the Achievement Syndrome." American Sociological
Review, 27 (June, 1962). 326—35. ff

 

33

need for achievement. Strodtbeckl found that adolescent
boys of the middle class believe that planning for the
future was a good idea, while lower-class boys (quite
possibly because of their concrete experience with the
world and its rejection of them) felt that the future was
unpredictable and planning, a waste of time.

When long—range planning, deferred gratification, and
goal orientation are ralued, achievement is supported.
But here the marked disparity between the culture of the
school and the cultures of the poor function to put poor
children at a disadvantage. For these children, goals
have rarely been attainable, basic needs are so great that
gratification can not be deferred, and long—range planning
has no payoff. The child of the fields, like the child
of the streets, has little or no opportunity to learn these
values. Indeed, given the conditions of his existence,
they are not valuable for him.

The patterns of physical growth and maturation
and the system of formal education in the public
schools are roughly the same for middle— and lower—
class Children; yet they grow up in different worlds
from a psychological point of view.

The public school gives little recognition to these
"different worlds," unless it is to condemn the difference.
The predominant values of family and subculture which

each child internalizes may or may not be appropriate

 

lStrodtbeck, F. L., "Family Interaction, Values and

 

Achievement.” In Talent and Society, D. C. McClelland et al.

 

Princeton: D. Van Nostrano Co., Inc., 1958. pp. 135-9”.

2Kluckhohn, Clyde, Culture and Behavior. New York:
The Free Press, 1962, p. 325

 

3H
for school success, when success is limited and restricted
by teacher values, and reinforced by a predominantly middle—
class community.

. . . it seems probable from life histories that
lower—class children remain "unsocialized" and
"unmotivated“ (from the view—point of middleuclass
culture) because (ll they are humiliated and pun—
ished too severly in the school for having the lower—
class culture WhiCH their own mothers, fathers, and
siblings approve, and (2) because the most powerful
reinforcements i learning, namely those of emotion—
al and social reward, are systematically denied

to the lower-class child by the systems of privilege
'existing in the school and in the larger society.

It is the school's tacit or stated expectation that
children will have a desire for academic achievement and
values approved by the middle class. Therefore, the
migrant child may be expected to play the game without
knowing the rules. He is ignorant of methods by which he
might improve his station in life.

To the degree that the Mexican—American migrant child
has opportunity to learn "the rules," or feels support
and reward from his family for adopting ways which bring
school success, his achievement may excel that of his peers.
Such opportunities, however, are limited by the very nature
of the migrant workers' existence. ‘

Like any other child the child from a lower—class
family views society within the limits of his
immediate family and neighborhood. But often behavior

which is sanctioned at home is seen as inappropriate
by the middle-class school society. ‘

lDavis, Allison, ”American Status Systems and the

SOCialization of the Child.” American Sociological Review,
6 (19141), 3145-514. .

35

. . . A family attempting to keep a roof over its
head and enough food on the table to sustain life
has little time or incentive to encourage and foster
inquisitiveness, experimentation, and evaluation.

Fewer Job opportunities make it extremely difficult
for the migrant child, or even for his parents, to perceive
the connection between education and new types of employ-
ment. Separation from the mainstream of American culture
and the depression, degradation, and exhaustion which
accompany the migrant life make such perceptions well—nigh
impossible:

What does he want to do when he gets older?

"I don't know, I'd like to stay someplace, I guess,

and never have to leave there for the rest of my

life, that's what. I could have a Job—-maybe it
would be where they make cars and trucks and planes.

I could make plenty of money, and bring it home, and

we'd all live on it, my brothers and my sister. But

my mother says someone has to pick the crops, and we
don't know what else there is to do, and they'll
come and beat you and throw you in the canal, the
crew leaders, if you cross them; and then you'd be
dead in one minute. So, we'd better stay with the

Crops; because my mother is probably right.

When asked "Do you think going to school does your
children any good?" 93% of one group of migrant workers
responded, "A great deal." Yet 73% of these same parents
thought that their ch.ldren have "just the right amount"

of schooling.3 As is the case with children of the urban

 

lPease, Damaris, "Family Forces Influence Child
Behavior." in Tne Disadvantaged Child: Issues‘and
Innovations, edited by Joe L. Frost and Glenn R. Hawkes.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1966; 382—9, p. 385.

2Coles and Huge, 92' cit., l9.

 

3Man1s, 92. cit., 15—16.

 

. .........._,rr.J; 1. a. ,_ , .1... .,. ..., n...
a. .4“, ##5‘. al-}flwl, i 114%.. . fl‘jv.fi.vi I.

 

36
poor, migrant parents may state high expectations for
their children's futures, without knowing or being able
to communicate to their children how to reach these
expectations:
The high percentage expected to achieve the

high status business, managerial and professional

vocations is in sharp contrast to the small num—

bers achieved by older children. This high level

of expectation exceeds the proportion in the

general population and reflects "The American Dream"

of education as a means to occupational mobility.l

We may conclude that the opportunities which education
presents for the solution of life's problems and for the
improvement of one's condition is often perceived by
migrant workers. But the intervening steps which carry
one through successful school experiences to the desired
vocation are unknown. In fact, the very process of a
continuum through time, during which one moves through a
series of steps toward a specific goal, is a process
unavailable to most of the poor in America. Certainly
the child whose life moves only from central Michigan
"in the strawberries," to the west coast of the state
"in the cherries," to Indiana, ”to the tomatoes” encounters
a deadening repetition which leaves the middle—class
stepping—stone process shrouded in mystery. The limitations
of a life in the fields make it impossible for most migrant

children to fulfill the dreams of their parents. As Taba

puts it, "The greater the variety of reality situations

 

lManis, 92. cit., 18.

37
with which the child has COped, the greater his ability

to cope with new stimuli."l

Migrant life offers the child
little variety, and little opportunity to deveIOp skill
in COping with a variety of life situations.

The ability to deal with life situations successfully
ii; also mediated Jy the behavior of adults with their
children. Hess and Shipman2 have clearly demonstrated the
difference in this mediation between middle—class and
lower—class mothers with their children. When young children,
accompanied by their mothers, were given cognitive tasks,
such as puzzle—solving, to perform, differences in children's
performance depended on the mother's verbal and cognitive
emphasis. The language of mothers of the lower socioeconomic
group was more vague, less discriminating, less relevant
to the task, and generally less helpful.

Differences in the kinds of language used with children .
in the middle and lower classes show that the middle—class
child, given an "elaborated" language which provides him with
a knowledge of structure of objects, a knowledge of interre—

lationships, a means of thinking deductively and inductively,

 

lTaba, Hilda, and Elkins, Deborah, Teaching Strategies

for the Culturally Disadvantaged. Chicago: Rand McNally
and Co., 1966, p. 7

 

2Hess, Robert D., and Shipman, Virginia 0., "Early
Experience and the Socialization of Cognitive Modes in
Children.” Child DeveIOpment, 36 (December, 1965),
869—86.

38
and an ability to perceive things and events in a matrix
of time and circumstance, is far better able to cope with
life's events than is the lower—class child who learn only
a ”restricted" language.1 We must surmise, then, that
the conditions of migrant life make it more difficult for
migrant parents to understand or to communicate to their
children the attitudes which would enable them to use‘
school experiences productively, and that these conditions
would also be reflected in the migrant child's approach
to real—life problems.

Other factors in migrant life are assumed to affect
the attitudes and values of migrant children and their
resulting approaches to the solutions of the problems of
living. Having little or no economic or political power,-
and therefore less control over their own destinies, the
poor may well see life as happening to them, rather than
seeing themselves as having some control over or responSi—
Vbility for the course of their existence. Mexican~American
migrants are accustomed to having decisions aboutZtheir
existence come from an ”authority" such-as the government,

the crew leader, the grower, the priest, or "fate." Such

 

lBernstein, Basil "Social Class and Linguistic
Development: A Theory of Social Learning." In Education,
Economy and Society, edited by A. H. Halsey, J. Gloud, and
C. A. Anderson. New York: The Free Press, 1961. See
also Gordon, John E., and Haywood, H. Carl, ”Input Deficit
in Cultural—Familial Retardates: Effect of Stimulus
Enrichment. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 73
(January, l9697——6OU— 10.

 

39
dependence may have considerable effect on school achieve—
ment and success. In a summary of cognitive functions of
disadvantaged children, gathered from a review of the

literature, Cliftl

notes that these children are generally
perceived as having little persistence in problem-solving,
dependent on external control, and passive in problem
situations. Other writers have described this attitude,
which would seem to be an inevitable accompaniment to the
condition of being poor. As Riessman describes it:
Frequently, the deprived individual feels alienated,

not fully a part of society, left out, frustrated in

what he can do. . . . He holds the world, rather than

himself, responsible for his misfortunes. . . . he

sees problems as being caused externally rather than

internally. 2

Such an attitude may be labeled ”irresponsibility"
and condemned by school teachers and other critics of the
poor. It should be remembered, however, that the poor really
are alienated, left out, and frustrated, and that society
and the school really have not given the poor an opportunity
to better or to control their own destinies. The result of
being poor, which is fostered by the general society, is
recourse to authority, to fantasy, or to a kind of sub—
missive withdrawal from what the middle class would see as

the major issues of their existence. Coles provides a

sensitive report of the prevailing attitudes of many poor

 

1Clift, Virgil A., "Curriculum Strategy Based on the
Personality Characteristics of Disadvantaged Youth." Journal
9f Negro Education, 39 (Spring, 1969), 9U—IOU.

 

2Riessman, Frank 92. cit., 27.

 

40
people whom he has interviewed:

For them it is a matter—~to use the words I
hear again and again—~of ”prayer," of "waiting and
hoping," of "seeing what will happen," or ”relying
on the next day when it will get better" or alter—
natively, of "preparing for tomorrow when the worst
will come." In psychiatry we use the word "passive"
to describe a certain psychological quality-—to
describe the kind of person who does not act, but
is acted upon, who does not initiate things but rather
waits for them to happen, who yields and submits and
does the "taking" in the "give—and—take" of life.1

The "Coleman Report" found this attitude to be an
outstanding deterrent to school success:

Of all the variables measured in the survey, the
attitudes of student interest in school, self—concept,
and sense of environmental control show the strongest
relation to achievement. . . . A pupil attitude
factor which appears to have a stronger relationship
to achievement than do all "school" factors together
is the extent to which an individual feels that he has
some control over his destiny.

 

Lacking this control, the poor are often forced to find
other ways of relieving frustration and enhancing self.
If one cannot in reality produce solutions, one can dream
them:
Casting out the poor and the Negro from white
society has resulted in a social life so saturated by

illusion that the fancy soon becomes the only
possible achievement.

 

lColes, Robert, and Clayton, Al, Still Hungry in
America. New York: World Publishing Co., 19 9, p. 35.
2U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,

Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, D. C.:
Office of Education, 1966, pp. 319—23. Italics supplied.

 

3Henry, Jules, "White People's Time, Colored People's
Time." Trans—Action, 2 (March—April, 1965), 31-“. p. 32.

41
Like the lower-class adolescents of Havighurst'sl
study, who chose the most prominent and glamorous persons
with whom to identify, and like the Negro youths studied
by Boyd2 and by Antonovsky3, migrant children may well
develop aspirations which, given the unjust conditions
of their existence, are highly unrealistic and probably
unattainable—-aspirations which they have no knowledge of
how to reach~~in short, dreams.

In characterizing the stories of first—grade, urban,
disadvantaged children, Taba adds evidence of withdrawal
in response to frustration:

The stories that the same children dictated about
their families included recurring examples of with-
drawal, or "running away” in the face of a conflict
of difficulty: when father gets mad he "goes away
and stays all night"; when brother gets mad "he goes
to a baseball game"; .u
One might expect, then, that customary responses of

poor children to frustration or failure would be resignation,
appeal to authority, fantasy, or withdrawal.
The values of the child's subculture, mediated by his

parents in their relationships with him, are reflected in

the way he attacks problems of daily living. The behavior

 

lHavighurst, Robert J., et al, "The Development of the
Ideal Self in Childhood and Adolescence.” In The Self in
Growth, Teaching, and Learning, edited by Don E. Hamachek.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, inc., 1965. 226-39.

2Boyd, George Felix, "The Levels of Aspiration of
White and Negro Children in a Non—Segregated Elementary
School." Journal of Social Psychology, 36 (1952), 191—6.

 

3Antonovsky, Aaron, and Learner, Melvin J., "Occupa-
tional Aspirations of Lower Class Negro and White Youth."
Social Problems, 7 (Fall, 1959), 132—8.

qTaba and Elkins, gp. cit., 5.

42
patterns which his family and his culture teach him, we
assume, will be reflected in his typical responses to
problems of frustration or failure. His success in a
middle—class school and a middle-class world will depend,
in part, upon whether he advances or retreats in the face
of new tasks, whether he foresees and plans for the future
or lives from day to day, whether he is resourceful in
finding ways out of difficulties or resigns himself to be
defeated by them, and whether he relies upon fantasy to
escape from frustration or makes an intelligent attack upon
his problems.

This study assumes that these behavior patterns will
be reflected in school achievement, and that children whose
modes of response to problems are typically withdrawal,
fantasy, or appeal to authority, would be significantly
poorer in school achievement than children in whom achieve—
ment—oriented, planful and resourceful responses pre-
dominate. If this should be the case, some of the mediating
factors in school retardation or success, expressed in
modes of response to problems, would be indicated. Such
findings would provide clues to ways in which parents could
be helped to provide a climate at home more conducive to
school achievement, as well as ways in which the school
could modify curriculum and instruction to promote achieve-
ment among children it has formerly "disadvantaged."

Summary
The present study investigated several traits in

Mexican—American migrant children and the possible relationship

1&3

of each of these traits to school achievement. It was

suggested that:

l.

achievement in arithmetic and in reading would
decrease with age

achievement would not be related to sex.
child—rearing practices would be perceived as
predominantly loving and casual

certain child—rearing practices would produce
greater reading and arithmetic achievement than
other practices

modes of solving problems, as reflected in
children's story completions, either would be
goal—oriented and planful, or would seek escape
from responsibility through withdrawal, fantasy,
or appeals tc authority

goaleoriented problem—solving would predominate in

children of relatively high school achievement.

 

CHAPTER III
PROCEDURES AND RESULTS OF THE STUDY
Age and Relative Achievement

Standard achievement scores in reading and arithmetic,
as measured by the Wide-Range AchievementTest,l were ob—
tained by the school for 55 Mexican—American migrant child—
ren. Administration was more advantageous than normal,
since tests were administered individually and were un-timed.
Subjects ranged in age from eight to 13 years. Table I
shows the mean achievement scores and the standard deviations
for each age grOUp in reading and in arithmetic.2 (See

Appendix D fer standard score distribution.)

TABLE I

MEAN READING AND ARITHMETIC ACHIEVEMENT SCORES, BY AGE

 

 

 

Age Reading Arithmetic
N M s N M s
8—0 to 9—0 ll 79.09 12.21 10 90.00 7.11
9—0 to 10—0 ll 90.09 12.28 ll 91.00 7.11
10—0 to ll—O 17 82.00 9.31 18 8A.78 6.86
ll—O to 12—0 ll 8A.O9 17.08 ll 84.27 5.71
12—0 to 13—0 5 73.00 9.82 5 75.60 10.20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lJastak, J. F., and Jastak, s. 3., 32. cit.

2In some cases, numbers in an age group differ between
reading and arithmetic, owing to the fact that some children
were not available for the completion of both reading and
arithmetic tests. Standard scores on the WRAT have a mean of
100 and standard deviation of 15.

MA

‘45
Figure 1., standard achievement scores for both reading
and arithmetic reached a peak at the nine—year old
level, and tended to decrease in subjects who were ten

years old or older.

 

 

 

B 90 —
E
£180-
m
E
370-
I l V 1 I
AGE 8—9 9—10 10-11 11—12 12-13
Reading
Arithmetic _______

FIGURE I. MEAN READING AND ARITHMETIC SCORES, BY AGE

In all age groups, mean arithmetic achievement
equalled or excelled mean reading achievement.

A trend analysis:L was employed to determine whether
the change in mean achievement scores between age groups
was significant. Tables 11 and III show this analysis

for reading and arithmetic scores, respectively.

 

1Coefficients for equal sample size were used to
compute trend analyses, although there was some differ-
ence in sample size across groups.

H6

TABLE II

TREND ANALYSIS OF READING SCORES BY AGE

 

Source of Sum of Mean
Variation Squares df Squares F

 

Between groups

 

 

 

Linear 81 1 81 .37
Quadratic 823 1 823 3.775
Remainder 70“ 2 352
Within groups 10919 50 218
Total 12527 5“
TABLE III
TREND ANALYSIS OF ARITHMETIC SCORES BY AGE
Source of Sum of Mean
Variation Squares df Squares F
Between groups
Linear 888 l 888 16.15 **
Quadratic 106 l 106 1.93
Remainder 153933 2 76967
Within groups 2766 50 55
Total 157693 5“

 

**Significant at <<.01 level.

 

Rpm—mew. 1%

 

 

flIIIIIII::7_____________________________________________""W"r ' "“’” ‘

47
The quadratic component for the relationship between
mean reading score and age did not meet the required
level of confidence. However, the linear relationship
between mean arithmetic score and age was significant
at less than the .01 level of confidence.

Sex and School Achievement

 

Table IV shows the mean achievement scores of boys

and girls in reading and arithmetic.

TABLE IV

COMPARISON OF ACHIEVEMENT SCORES, BY SEX

 

 

 

 

Variable Boys Girls

N M s N M s
Reading 30 82.5 12.37 28 85.0 15.52
Arithmetic 29 86.0 8.26 29 86.0 9.81

 

 

 

Since the number of cases in each age group
ranged from 0 (for l2—year-old boys) to 10 (for 10-year~
old boys), boys' and girls' achievement was not compared
at each age level. As can be seen from Table IV, mean
achievement in reading and in arithmetic did not differ

significantly between sexes.

 

A8
Patterns of Parent—Child Relationships
The Roe-Siegelman Parent—Child Relationships

Questionnairel

was rewritten in simple language for
administration to Mexican-American migrant children.
(Appendix A contains samples of the Questionnaire for
both mothers and fathers, as it was rewritten.)
These instruments were administered to small groups of
children. Each statement was read aloud to the children,
to eliminate the effect of reading difficulties on
children's scoring. Table V summarizes the mean scores
for all children on each dimension included in the
questionnaire, for each of four parent—child groups.
Table V reveals that despite differences across
parent—child relationships, the perceptions of Mexican-
American migrant boys and girls of the behavior of
their mothers and fathers toward them follow a con-
sistent pattern. Mexican—American parents from the
migrant stream are perceived by both their sons and
their daughters as more loving, protecting, demanding,
and casual than as rejecting or neglecting. They are
also perceived as tore rewa dixr than punishing.
Despite this consistent trend, there are inter-
esting differences among parents, children,and dimen-
sions of parent-child relationships. Analysis of
variance was employed to examine differences in

—__

1Roe and Siegelman, op. cit.

 

“9

 

 

 

 

Ha.om m~.mm mo.- mm.mm ea.mm om.mm semenmacse HH<
-.~N =w.mm om.mm ma.mm mm.am oz.mm esteemaczm ouo
ao.mm mm.~m ma.wm mm.mm m=.mm om.mm onesemecsm qum
pa.=m ms.mm mm.zm pa.mm wm.mm mm.mm epmzmm HH<
mm.:m mm.zm o:.:m om.sm oo.mm om.mm ehmzmm one
oo.mm mm.mm oe.sm mm.oe HA.H: mm.oe eeezom gum
ms.mm :e.:: ms.:m OH.me oo.oz om.:: oeneomawez
mo.fie 50.x: oa.mm HH.:: ew.e: mm.o: meepeommm
mm.e: em.w: om.m: oa.am mm.mm om.me Haemeo
ms.e: m:.am oo.e: ma.mm ow.om mm.mm meeeeeEeo
mo.m: mu.me om.om m>.om mm.om u.en uefleoepoem
ou.mm om.mm oe.en e..em ma.nu mm.um mee>oe
cpom whom wflhwo Spom whom mates
mhmflpmm mhmflpOE COHWCOEHQ

 

mquU DZ< mwom Bz<meE Z<OHEME<IZ<OHXMS

wm Qm>Hmommm m< mmHzmonB<qmm QAHmOIBzmm<m mo maroon Z<ME

> mqm<B

 

50
perceived child—rearing practices. (For this portion
of the study, subjects of each group numbered 13. To
achieve samples of equal size, six girl subjects were
randomly eliminated.) Table VI offers an example of
the analyses of variance which were performed for each

child—rearing variable.

TABLE VI

ANALYSIS‘OF VARIANCE OF PROTECTION FROM
MOTHERS AND FATHERS, AS PERCEIVED BY BOYS AND GIRLS
(An Example of Analyses Performed for all
Child—Rearing Dimensions)

 

 

 

 

Source of Sum of Mean
Variation Squares df Squares F
Between groups 3311.17 25
Boys and Girls 32.32 1 32.32 0.2“
Same—sexed groups 3278.85 24 136.62
Within groups 2015.50 26
Between parents 575.55 1 575.55 9.62 **
Interaction .35 l “.3“ .07
Residual 1435.61 2“ 59.82

 

** Significant at less than the .01 level.

An inspection of the means in Table V reveals the
direction of perceived differences in child-rearing
practices, while Table VII summarizes the nature and
significance of these differences as revealed by
analysis of variance.

To determine whether differences in ranks of
child-rearing practices were significant, Friedman's

test for analysis of variance of ranked data was

 

51

TABLE VII

SUMMARY OF PERCEIVED DIFFERENCES IN CHILE—REARING

PATTERNS, COMPUTED BY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

 

Dimension

Direction

 

P
Loving n.s.
Protecting Mothers more protecting than
fathers. ‘1 .01
Demanding Mothers more demanding than fathers. ‘3 .05
Fathers are perceived as more
demanding by boys than by girls,
while girls perceive mothers as more
demanding than fathers. ‘1 .05
Casual Girls see mothers as more casual
than fathers, while fathers appear
more casual to boys than to girls. <: ~05
Neglecting n.s.
Rejecting n.s.
D—O Reward n.s.
S—L Reward Mothers use symbolic—love
rewards more than fathers do. <1 .01
D-O Punishment Mothers use direct—object
punishment more than fathers do. ‘1 .01
S-L Punishment Boys are punished more than
girls. Mothers and fathers per— <:-.05
ceived as more punitive by boys
than by girls. <1..Ol
All Reward Mothers reward more than fathers. << .05
All Punishment Mothers punish more than fathers. <1 .01
Boys perceived mothers and fathers
as more punitive than did girls. <1 .05
Reward vs. Mothers are seen as more
Punishment rewarding than punishing. = -05

 

 

52
performed for both mothers' and fathers child-rearing
practices, as they were perceived by their children.
Table VIII shows that there were significant differences
in the ranking of child-rearing practices for both

mothers and fathers.

TABLE VIII

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE IN RANKS OF
CHILD—REARING PRACTICES

 

2

 

Par t
en xr p
Fathers 19.25“ ‘1 .01

 

Mothers “3.113 <:: .001 ,

 

The mean rank of each child—rearing dimension was
then compared with the mean ranks of all other dimensions
(using Friedman's test), for mothers' and for fathers' ‘ .
child—rearing practices, to determine which practices
significantly exceeded others in children's percep—
tions. Table IX gives the chi-square values for the
first significant difference in ranks of mothers'
child~rearing practices, while Table X summarizes these
comparisons for fathers. Child-rearing practices
are arranged in the order of their rank totals, and
chi~square values are given wherever one child-rearing
dimension significantly exceeds a dimension of lesser

rank. Obviously, the child—rearing practice of

 

53

greater prevalence will also exceed those of succes-
sively less important ranks. Thus, an inspection of
Table IX reveals that mothers are perceived as sig—
nificantly more loving than protecting, or than any
other child—rearing dimension. Similarly, mothers
are viewed as more protecting than demanding, casual,
rejecting, or neglecting; and as more demanding and

casual than they are rejecting or neglecting.

TABLE IX

COMPARISON OF MEAN RANKS OF
MOTHERS' CHILD—BEARING PRACTICES *

 

 

 

 

Rank: 2.Pro 3.Dem “.Cas 5.Neg 6.Rej
1. Loving 5.13 30.63
2. Protecting 23.63
3. Demanding n.s. 37.13
“. Casual 33.63
5. Neglecting n.s.
6. Rejecting

 

 

* All chi~square values are significant at less than
the .001 level.

5“

TABLE X

COMPARISON OF MEAN RANKS
OF FATHERS' CHILD-BEARING PRACTICES *

 

 

Rank: 2.Pro 3.Dem “.Cas 5.Rej 6.Neg
1. Loving 10.63
2. Protecting l“.13
3. Demanding n.s. 11.13
“. Casual 7-13
5. Rejecting . 15.63
6. Neglecting

 

 

* All chi—square values are significant at less than the
.001 level.

Comparison of Tables IX and X shows that mean ranks
of child-rearing dimensions are somewhat different be—
tween mothers and fathers. Nevertheless, roughly the
same trends in differences between mean ranks of child-
rearing practices are seen in fathers as are shown
in mothers. According to this comparison, fathers are
perceived as more loving than protecting or any other
relationship with their children. Fathers are also seen
as more protecting than demanding, casual, rejecting, or
neglecting; as more demanding and casual than rejecting

or neglecting; and as more rejecting than neglecting.

 

55

From the rank analysis of variance among child-
rearing practices, it is clear that the Mexican~Americani
migrant parent is seen by his children as a loving
and protecting parent. Parents are also, but to a
lesser extent, perceived as demanding acceptable per-
formance and as being casual about children's behavior.
Love, rather than things, is the dominant element in
the socialization process of these families. Rejecting
and neglect were the least typical of all child—rearing
practices. Both of these practices appeared signifi—
cantly less than all others in mothers and in fathers,
and fathers were also seen as significantly less
neglecting than rejecting. Despite the hardships of
migration and life in the fields, the children of this
study appeared to enjoy relationships with their parents
which were consistent with today's accepted child-
rearing practices. In this respect, the Mexican-
American migrant family bears a notable resemblance to
the middle~class democratic families described in the
literature cited earlier.

Despite the stereotype of the Mexican—American
migrant family as a patriarchy dominated by an influ—
ential father, it is apparent from the summary of
Table V11 that children perceived their mothers as
being more protecting, more demanding, and more casual.
The system of rewards and punishments would also

appear to be administered more by mothers than by

 

 

56

fathers. These significant differences tend to bear
out the contention made earlier in this paper that the
patriarchal family may give the father greater
dominance and influence in external affairs, while
allowing the mother to play a dominant role in inter—
nal affairs such as child—rearing. Evidently,
mothers were perceived as highly important figures
to the children of this study.

Consistent with the love and protection which
these subjects perceived in their parents is the

perception that the children are more rewarded than

 

punished by their mothers. Symbolic—Love techniques
of reward and punishment are used significantly more
than the granting or removal of direct objects, as
might be expected in families with meager financial
resources for buying rewards which can be removed
or withheld as punishment.
Parent—Child Relationships and Achievement

It was assumed on the basis of previous research
that particular child—rearing practices would be
significantly related to subjects' achievement. To
test this hypothesis, a step-wise multiple regression
analysis was computed for each set of parents, for
reading and for arithmetic achievement of thirty
children. Tables XI and XII show the correlations
among eight child-rearing practices and the dependent

variables of reading and arithmetic achievement.

57

.4o>o 4 MD. on» cwcp mmoa

 

 

 

.xv,.um . 1:) 2:1» mama
:*mow. .Uwom
mao.u mfia.l .zom
wwo.n mma.: moo. ”csm
$*mfim.| **Ns:.- one. mmeflo. .wmm
**:m:.x **mam.- Foo. soaz. mmmoa. wmz
*mam.v *mmm.n *mmwm.u 5mm. **mon. mama. .mwo
Nae :Hfi.) 05H. momm. *me. *zflm. mxsex. .Ema
wmo.| 0H0. NHH. **:m:. .mozz. How. *zmm. *ammm. .OLm
sec. QNH. sawoo. mam.a mm .| mmo.; magm. Haw. mmam. .>oq
.3pflh< .Uwom .zom .dzm .mvm .mun .mM) .EQQ .opm

 

 

azu2m>mHzo< OHBmszHm< Qz< UZHQ<mx 1.2meQHIO mHmmB QZ<
HHOHBO<mm Usz<£m|QqHzo .ochBOS OZOZ< 70H9<Hmmmoo

Hx mqm<E

58

.Ho>oH Ho. on» sags mama pm peacheficwfim *.
.Hm>mH mo. was ewes mama pm pcmoaefiewfim *

 

 

tcmmw. .vMom
sqfi. mm“. .Smm
0H0. QNH.I 3mm. .de
mmd... 3mm... 00).: -mmu .fimm
mom.l omm.: mmH.I ethx. *wmmw. .wmz
NNN.I *mmm.l Hut. mum . **Hw:. *ON:. .wmo
QHH. mmo.! *moo. *Nmm. **mmq. *omm. **moo. .Emo
omo.| mmo. **wmw. wmm. mma. mwa. **mm:. **Hm:. .opm
*Onm. mom. $$DNN. MAO. MHM.I Hmm.l 3mm. mmmom. **mm:. .>OA
.cpflhd .Udo: .ZOm .sz .nom .mwz .mmo .EmQ .ogm

 

 

Bzm2m>mHmo< OHBMEEBHK< 92¢ UZHQ<mm m_zmequo mHmmB Qz<
mmOHBo<mm UZHm<HmIQQHmo m.mmm8<h UZOE< ZOHB<AmmmOo

HHN mqm<9

59

From Tables XI and XII it can be seen that mothers'
rejecting, neglecting, and casualness were negatively
and significantly correlated with their children‘s
achievement scores in reading and in arithmetic. Fathers'
loving was positively correlated with higher arithmetic
performance, while their casualness was negatively correlated
with reading performance

As examination of the step-wise multiple regressir‘r
analysis (regression coefficients are given in Appendix E)
reveals that the combined child—rearing practiceS‘of mothers
which had the greatest effect on their children's reading
achievement were neglecting and rejecting, both of which
bore a negative relationship to achievement; and protection
and punishment, which were positively related. (The multiple
correlation coefficient for these factors in relation to
reading was .607.) Factors in mothers' behavior contributing
most to children's arithmetic achievement were rejecting
and neglecting (negatively related), and punishing
and demanding (positively related). (The multiple correlation
coefficient for these factors and arithmetic was .627.)

Among fathers, casualness was negatively related
to children's reading achievement, while loving bore a
positive relationship to reading performance. (The
multiple correlation coefficient between these factors
and reading was .520. Other child—rearing dimensions,

considered individually, did not greatly increase this

60
coefficient.) Fathers' loving, demanding, and rewarding
behavior was positively related to children's arith—
metic achievement, while fathers' casualness bore a
negative relationship to performance in arithmetic.
(Multiple correlation for these factors and arithmetic
achievement was .555.)

Mothers' and fathers' child—rearing practices
appeared to have somewhat different effects on children's
performance. Children appeared to respond most to
their mothers' demands, protection, and punishment,
while performing more poorly when they perceived their
mothers as neglecting and rejecting. The subjects
responded positively to fathers' loving, demanding,
and rewarding behavior, and negatively to their fathers'
casualness.

Modes of Response to Frustration and Failure

Five unfinished stories concerning migrant children
in situations of frustration and failure were con-
structed. Separate forms werr prepared for boys and
for girls. Each set of stories contained the following
problems:

1. school frustration and failure

2. frustration regarding a future career

3. frustration regarding material possessions

4. failure to live up to parental expectations

5. rejection by peers because of inappropriate dress

Stories were revised upon consultation with former

61
migrants and experts in the teaching of Mexican-American

migrant children. (Appendix B contains final forms
of boys' and girls' stories.)

Children were tested individually in quiet
surroundings. An initial sample story was told to
each child, and his completion was recorded on tape.
This assured that the child understood the process
of story completion and that he was somewhat accustomed
to speaking into the tape recorder. Each child then
completed a set of five stories.

Theoretically, it was assumed that children's
story completions would fall into five categories:

1. goal—oriented, gratification-deferring,

and problem-solving solutions (PS)

2. reactions of withdrawal or resignation (W)

3. solutions relying upon authority (A)

M solutions relying upon fantasy (F)

5. reactions of anti-social aggression or

hostility (AS)

Three judges were given identical instructions
for categorizing story completions. (Instructions
for Judges are to be found in Appendix C.) Only
those stories on which the judges reached a unanimous
or a majority Opinion were used in the study. Inter—
judge reliability was calculated by chi-square analysis.
All ratings were used in the estimation of reliability

coefficients. Table XIII summarizes interjudge

62

reliability for each story.

TABLE XIII

INTERJUDGE RELIABILITY FOR FIVE STORY COMPLETIONS

 

 

 

Judges Story

I II III IV V
l and 2 .51* '55* .80* .55* .63*
l and 3 .56* .56* .71* -35 .57*
2 and 3 .57* .69* .75* .u1* .53*

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Reliability significant at less than the .01

level

Fifty—five children completed the stories. (One
subject completed only the first two stories.) Of
these, 41 were available to complete achievement
tests. Table XIV shows the distribution of categories
of responses for all story completions upon which
judges agreed. When all three judges did not agree,
the majority position was used. When there was no
agreement, the child's story completion was not

used.

 

 

63

 

 

 

 

 

ooa :Hm ooa H: ooa o: ooa :: ooa z: ooa m: Hence
lllllll I I I IIIIJI I I I I I I I I I I T I I I I I I I I I T I I I I I I I

m x m H o o s m o o o o m<

0H mm 0H : m.s m m H Hm m Ha m m

ma sm Fm HH m.» m ma 5 w m w m <

am :5 mm mr om cm mm, NH pm ma a NH 3

H: am mm mm mm 3H m: am a: on x: mm mm

R z e 2 R z N 2 R z m z

> >H HHH HH H
soapoHQEoo

Hmpoe

 

 

 

Emmaquo Bz<mUHE :donmE<!z<Ome: mo :OHBmAmEOu MMQDU mo mmooz

>Hx mqm<B

6A

As can be seen from Table XIV, problem-solving

and withdrawal were the dominant modes of response
to problems of frustration and failure employed by
Mexican—American migrant children. Together, these
two modes comprised 75 per cent of all responses.
Appeals to authority were the third most common way
in which these children solved problems contained in
the stories, although these solutions amounted to
only 13 per cent of all responses. As modes of
problem—solving, fantasy and anti-social aggression
made up only 12 per cent of the total responses. Anti—
social aggression occurred In only four, or two per
cent, of the responses.

No particular story appeared to call forth
a unique set of responses. Although responses to
Story III and Story V, for example, show some
differences, chi—square analysis of the responses to
these two stories showed no significant difference.

Clearly, the Mexican-American migrant children
of this study tended to respond to problems in stories
in gratification—deferring, goal-oriented ways (the
ways which generally are attributed to the middle
class), or by withdrawal and resignation. The acting
out of hostile feelings through anti—social aggression
was rarely chosen by these children as a way of solving

problems.

65
Modes of Probl:w-Solving and Achievement
Pearson's Chi—Squire Test of Association was employed

to discover whether certain modes of response to problems
of frustration or failure were related to reading and
arithmetic achievement scores. Cases falling in the

upper and lower thirds of the achievement scores (IA

cases in each third) were analyzed in relation to methods
of solving problems. Table XV reveals the results of

this analysis.

TABLE XV

CHI—SQUARES INDICATING RELATIONSHIP OF
PROBLEM—SOLVING MODES TO READING AND ARITHMETIC ACHIEVEMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Story
Achievement
I II III IV V
Reading 3.86 6.1M 1.5“ 2.28 u.u2
Arithmetic 0.20 1.38 2.08 2.3“ 6.66

Critical values of chi-square with: 3 df (ex =
df (oc =

 

None of the chi—square values given in Table XV
reached the required level of significance. Whether the
student's mode of problem-solving was a ”middle—class"

strategy of goal—oriented, gratification—deferring

 

66
behavior, whether he withdrew from the problem, appealed
to authority to solve the problem for him, whether he
fantasized or acted out the hostility occasioned by his
frustration, his modes of problem—solving, as expressed
in completions of stories of frustration and failure,
bore no significant relationship to his school achieve—
ment in reading or arithmetic.

Summary of Research Findings

With regard to age and relative achievement, both
reading and arithmetic achievement reached a peak
at the nine—year~old level. A quadratic relationship
between reading scores and age proved not to be sig—
nificant, while a linear relationship between arith—
metic scores and age was significant at less than the
.01 level of confidence. Thus, the null hypothesis
that there was no significant linear decrease in
achievement scores cannot be rejected for reading,
but must be rejected in the case of arithmetic.

With regard to school achievement and the sex of
the subject, no significant difference was discerned,
and the null hypothesis that there is no difference
between the reading and arithmetic achievement of boys
and of girls cannot be rejected.

Prevalent child—rearing practices of Mexican—
American migrant parents showed a systematic pattern:
these parents loved, protected, demanded, and

were casual (in that order) more than they rejected or

 

67
neglected. They were seen as more rewarding than
punishing, and used symbolic-love techniques more than
they used direct—object techniques.

However, differences between parents and in inter-
actions among parents and children also occurred.
Mothers were seen as more protecting, more demanding,
more rewarding, and more punishing than fathers.
Fathers demanded more of their sons, and mothers
demanded more of girls than did fathers. Girls saw
mothers as more casual than fathers, while fathers
appeared more casual to boys. Boys were more often
punished than girls, and fathers punished their sons
more than their daughters.

Some dimensions on the Parent—Child Relationships
Questionnaire were shown to be significantly related
to school achievement. Relatively lower reading and
arithmetic scores were significantly related to mothers'
rejection, neglect, and casualness. Fathers' love was
positively related to arithmetic achievement, while
their casualness was negatively correlated with reading
performance.

Mexican~American migrant children's modes of
response to problems of frustration and failure, as
expressed in story completions, were predominantly
those of goal—oriented problem-solving, or of with—
drawal from the problem. Other modes of response

(appeal to authority, fantasy, and anti-social

6

OD

aggression) comprised only 25 per cent of all responses.
Analysis of a possible relationship between modes
of problem—solving and school achievement revealed
no significant effects. From this study, we cannot
reject the null hypothesis that there is no relationship
between the way in which these children solve their
day—to—day problems and the degree to which they achieve
in reading and in arithmetic.
Interpretations of these findings in the light of
other research and from the point of view of the
experimental hypotheses of this study, will be pre-

sented in Chapter IV.

CHAPTER IV
INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS

Analysis of the data of this study provides oppor—

tunity for a number of interpretations.
Age and Achievement

Previous studies showed an increase in school
retardation as migrant children grew older. "Retard—
ation” in these studies was measured by percentage of
retarded children, or by the average number of years of
retardation. The present study measured retardation
in terms of standard scores. The latter were considered
a more meaningful measure, since grade placement of
children on the move is often a matter of arbitrary
administrative decision, and since records of previous
school placement are seldom available.

Unlike the samples of earlier studies, the children
of the present study did not show an increase in arith—
metic retardation, on the average, until they had
reached the age of ten, and average reading scores
actually increased between ages eight and nine. While
standard scores in arithmetic showed a significant
linear and negative relationship with age, a quadratic
relationship between reading scores and age was not
significant at the desired level of confidence. Several
considerations may, in theory, help to explain these
discrepancies.

The children of this study came from families

69

70

whose parents were willing to make the considerable
effort involved in sending them to a non—compulsory
summer-school program. In many cases, these parents
also gave up the incomes which their children could
have produced by remaining in the fields and orchards.
These facts may indicate that the families of the
present sample hold somewhat different values than do
the families of other studies. Parents who make sac—
rifices in behalf of their children's schooling clearly
reveal to their children that they place a relatively
high value on education. Children of such families
are also likely to receive more support for school
achievement than children who are sent to school only
when it is convenient for their parents. Such values
and support may be reflected in higher achievement
(or less retardation) in reading and arithmetic.

However, regardless of possible family support
for school achievement, only eight children out of the
total group of 58 tested (or l3.8%) attained
standard scores at or better than the mean in
reading, while only five of this group (or 8.6%)
received a score of 100 or better in arithmetic
achievement. The great majority of the subjects of
this study were educationally retarded.

In every age group studied, standard scores in
arithmetic achievement equalled or excelled standard

reading scores. Such a finding may reflect the

71
contribution which concrete experience makes to the
achievement of the child. While the Mexican—American
migrant child has little opportunity to observe the
reading process, and little acquaintance with the
English language until he reaches school, his exper—
ience with arithmetic computations is considerable.
For example, he must be able to count how many lugs of
tomatoes he has filled during a day, and to calculate
the amount he will be paid for his work. He needs to
know for how long he must pick cherries or "chop pickles”
before he can earn enough money for a pair of shoes.
Indeed, the Mexican—American children enrolled in this
summer school program frequently made simple and
practical arithmetic computations with ease. Difficulties
arose when problems become more abstract, or when their
solution depended upon independence in reading.

The younger children's improvement in reading may
indicate that recent efforts to improve instruction for
Spanish-speaking children have borne fruit. Improved
achievement in the primary grades provides some evidence
that these children are capable of making reading gains,
and that subsequent retardation must be caused by
factors other than lack of ability. Such tentative
conclusions, however, must be tempered by the small sample
size of this study and by the fact that the study was

cross—sectional rather than longitudinal.

72
Sex and School Achievement

The boys and girls of this study did not differ
significantly in reading or arithmetic achievement.
This finding is consistent with evidence cited earlier1
that, while the grades which teachers allot may favor
the female sex, there is no difference in actual
achievement between males and females.

Patterns of Parent—Child Relationships

Definite patterns of parent—child relationships
were perceived by the Mexican—American migrant children
of this study. Among the dimensions measured by the
Roe—Siegelman PCR, these children saw their parents
as significantly more loving than in any other rela-
tionship. Following "loving" in rank was ”protecting,”
which children saw as significantly exceeding all other
relationships except ”loving.” To a lesser degree,
Mexican—American parents were perceived as "demanding”
and "casual”. Rejection and neglect figured least in
these children‘s perceptions of their parents' rela—
tionships with them, and scores for these two types of
relationships were significantly less than for any other
relationship measured by the questionnaire.

It is clear that warmth, nurturance, and concern
play a most important part in the parent—child rela—

tionships of this select population of migrant families,

 

lAnastasi, 9p. ci ., U92—3.

 

73

and that the children of our study felt loved, protected,
and generally accepted by their mothers and fathers.
Such parent—child relationships do not conform to cer—
tain sterotypic ideas concerning "disadvantaged"
populations. These Mexican—American children are cer-
tainly not ”disadvantaged" by virtue of the relation—
ships in which they engage with their parents. The
problems of poverty and a migratory existence do not
disturb the predominantly concerned and loving rela—
tionships found within their family circle, and school
failure cannot be excused by reference to a "regrettable
home—life.” If the Mexican—American child of this study
is "disadvantaged" his problems must proceed from some
source other than his parents.

The Mexican—American migrant family is reputed
to be strongly patriarchal, following the traditions of
Latin families everywhere. However, differences in
parent—child relationships between mothers and fathers
reveal that the mother is a strong and important figure
within these families. Both boys and girls perceived
their mothers as significantly more protecting, more
demanding, more rewarding, and more punitive than their
fathers. Achievement was affected by more of the
child-rearing practices of the mothers than of the
fathers of our study.

From such evidence, it might be inferred that the

reputation of the Mexican-American family is an

 

 

 

7M

erroneous one, and that the power wielded by the father
is insufficient for him to deserve the label of
patriarch. However, clinical experience with Mexican—
American migrant families points to the conclusion that
the father plays a decisive and responsible role in
family life. It is the father who decides which crew
to join. He takes responsibility for contracting for
other members of the family; he represents the family
to the crew leader, field boss, and grower. When a
decision is made to leave the migrant stream, it is
the father who makes this decision. Older males become
patriarchs in an almost Biblical sense when they
hire out the labor of an extended family—~which may
consist of several married sons and their wives and
children, as well as younger brothers and their families—-
and become crew chiefs in their own right.

An alternative interpretation of the importance
of mothers in the array of parent—child relationships
appears to this writer to be more appropriate. A
”patriarchy" is generally defined as "a form of social
organization in which the father or the eldest male
is recognized as the head of the family or tribe, descent
or kinship being traced through the male line.”1 While
this definition must be held to be accurate, it may

not be sufficiently inclusive to reveal the structure

 

1Webster's New World Dictionary of the American
Language. College Edition. Cleveland: The World
Publishing Co., 1964.

 

 

 

75

or function of complementary relationships within the
patriarchal family.

It should be noted that a patriarch maintains his
dominant role in the family structure through the’
support, the tacit cooperation, or the submission of
the woman of the family. His role as the authority
figure of the household is interpreted to the children
and reinforced by their mothers. Perceptions of the
role of patriarch are likely to include responsibility
for the provision of necessities and comforts for the
family, protection from danger, and representation
of the family in the forming of social contracts.
Child—rearing, however, is likely to be viewed as a
function of the female. Although the male retains his
position of authority in the world outside the family,
the female gains much power within the family structure
by virtue of her management of internal matters. It
is this structure which appears to operate among the
Mexican—American migrant fami‘ies of our study.

While the father is granted his superior position
by woman and children alike, the mother also
occupies a position of strength and influence through

her important child-rearing and home maintenance

76

functions.1 It may be that Mexican—American fathers,
like the working—class fathers studied by Kohn and
Carroll,2 define child—rearing as "women's work" and
thereby diminish their own influence over their children.

It is clear that mothers of Mexican-American
migrant families have a greater part in the punishment-
reward system than do fathers. The data of this study
tend to support the notion that these mothers occupy
a position of influence with their children.

We must notice too, that the fathers and mothers
of these families do not perform identical functions
with their sons and their daughters. Identification
witn, or heightened awareness of, the parent of like
sex is apparent in these children's perceptions of
their relationships with their parents. Fathers demand
more of boys than of girls, while mothers demand more
of girls than fathers do. Girls see mothers as the
more casual parents, while fathers appear more casual
to boys than to girls. Boys see themselves as more

punished by both mothers and fathers than do girls.

 

lStolz cites a study by Hoffman which points out
that as the family moves from a relatively authoritarian
structure to a structure of shared responsibility, in
which fathers take over more of the child-rearing
functions, mothers lose power in the eyes of their
children. Stolz, Lois Meek, "Effects of Maternal Employ-
ment on Children." Child Development, 31 (1960), 7U9—82.

 

2Kohn, Melvin L., and Carroll, Eleanor E., "Social
Class and the Allocation of Parental Responsibilities.”
Sociometry, 23 (December, 1960), 372—92.

77

On casual and demanding child—rearing dimensions,
then, there is a correspondence of sex between parent
and child. Expectations communicated to children may
be connected with sex roles, so that fathers concen—
trate their efforts on what they expect their sons to
become, while mothers emphasize the behavior they
consider appropriate for daughters. Such a correspond-
ence would explain why children perceive the parent of
the same sex as more demanding. It appears incongruous,
however, that these children also see the like—sexed
parent as more casual. This perception may, however,
reflect the expectations of the children themselves,
with daughters expecting more attention from mothers
and sons expecting more from fathers. In comparison
with the children's expectations, then, like—sexed
parents' behavior might appear to be more casual. Oh
the other hand, high scores in the casual dimension may
reflect the parents' press for independence and initia—
tive from children of their own sex. The data of our
study do not provide sufficient evidence on which to
base more than a tentative and theoretical analysis
of these findings.

The perception on the part of boys that they are
more punished than girls quite possibly reflects a
sex-role difference in the Mexican—American migrant
family. Since boys are expected to be responsible,

income—producing family members at an early age, pressures

78
on them to conform to adult needs and desires may very
easily be greater than similar pressures on girls. If
boys are punished more, this fact may also be due to
their greater adventUIousness and rougher play, which
parents (especially mothers, who are seen as punishing
more) may feel a greater need to curb through punish—
ment.
Parent—Child Relationships and Achievement

Research cited in Chapter II points out that cer—
tain child—rearing practices lead to greater school
achievement than do others. A synthesis of available
evidence leads to the conclusion that the families of
high achievers are democratic, with reasonable but high
expectations for their children. The parents of such
families avoid an excess of interference in their
children's activities, provide warmth and nurturance,
and communicate through parent—child interactions a
faith in the child's ability and an expectation that
he will achieve.

Certain findings of the present study were con—
Sistent with previous research. Children's achievement
is diminished to the degree that they perceive their
mOthers as ”neglecting," ”rejecting," or "casual.”
Neglect undoubtedly communicates to the child that he
is unworthy of attention from his parents. If this is
his perception, the child may well be unable to perceive

himself as competent. In like manner, rejection

 

79
signifies to the child that he is not an approved family
member and that his mother does not expect him to meet
reasonably high standards. Children with relatively
high scores on the ”neglecting" and "rejecting" dimen-
sions are less likely to feel warmth, nurturance, or
support from their mothers. These children are deprived
of factors in achievement which are available to other
Mexican~American migrant children. ”Casualness" may
represent to the child a lack of concern about his
achievement, or an absence of high expectations for
him. ,

The casualness of fathers was also negatively
correlated with children's reading achievement, once
again indicating, from the point of view of school
achievement, that the "casual” dimension on the PCR
Questionnaire represents an overly permissive or care—
less parent-child relationship. The "loving" behavior
of fathers, as perceived by their children, was the
only parent—child relationship positively correlated
with achievement. Fathers' loving behavior was found
to correlate significantly with children's arithmetic
performance. This positive effect of parental support
and approval is consistent with the findings of previous
research.

When parent—child relationships are analysed in
a step—wise fashion in relation to achievement, mothers'

protection and punishment made the greatest positive

8O
contributions to reading performance, while their neglect
and rejection bore a negative relationship to this
achievement. Mothers' punishment and demanding made
large and positive contributions to arithmetic achieve—
ment, while neglect and rejection once again were nega—
tively related.

We may conclude that neglect, rejection, or casual—
ness from Mexican-American migrant mothers has a
significantly undesirable effect on their children's
achievement, while such mother-child relationships as
demanding or punishing, which communicate higher stan—
dards and defined expectations for behavior, contribute
significantly to school achievement.

The multiple regression analysis showed fathers'
loving to make a great contribution to their children's
achievement, while fathers' casualness was significantly
and negatively related to school performance. It would
appear that, to achieve relatively well in school, the
Mexican-American migrant child responds positively to
his father's approval and concern regarding his success.
Mexican—American fathers who do not make their approval
clear, or who do not communicate their high expectations
to their children, do not produce children who achieve
well in school in relation to other Mexican—American
migrant children.

While differences in parent—child relationships

among Mexican—American migrant families have effects

81
upon achievement which correspond to those found in the
families of other populations, the data of this portion
of the study leave unanswered a cluster of interesting
questions. Why are there so few positive relationships
between parent-child interactions and school achieve—
ment? 'Since "loving" is the relationship perceived
significantly more than all others, why does it bear a
positive and significant relationship to achievement
only in the case of fathers and arithmetic? Why do these
children respond significantly to punishment, but not
to reward?

In so far as the results of this limited study may be
valid, it appears that relatively favorable perceived
parent—child relationships are not sufficient of them—
selves to produce high achievement in school. Additional
factors such as social class, economic condition,
mobility, school conditions, teacher expectations, or
language factors may, separately or in combination,
create disadvantages which even advantageous parent—
child relationships cannot overcome. For despite the
generally loving, caring families perceived by the
children of our particular sample, their achievement, as
a group, was not distinguished. Since the prevailing
perceived aarent—child relationships of Mexican—

American ”amilies who are willing to send their child—
ren to summer school are essentially healthy and con—

ducive to achievement, further research is necessary

82
to determine possible correlates of high and low school
achievement.
Modes of Response to Frustration and Failure

When Mexican—American migrant children completed
stories in which they were asked to solve problems of
frustration or failure, u1% of their solutions were
categorized as goal—oriented and gratification—deferring.
That is, these were typically "middle—class" solutions.
Solutions of withdrawal appeared in 3A% of the responses,
appeals to authority made up 13% of the solutions, a
solution was found in fantasy in 10% of the responses,
and 2% of the solutions relied upon anti—social aggression.

The high percentage of ”problem—solving" solutions
could not be predicted from the general literature
concerning the disadvantaged. One of the distinct
differences frequently cited between middle— and lower—
class cultures is the ability of the former to defer
gratification and to plan for goals in the future. Within
the limitations of the assumptions underlying the projec—
tive technique of story completion, the children of this
study may differ from the children of other poverty
populations in the.frequency with which they are able
to produce solutions which employ realistic self~determin—
ation and planning for the future. Nevertheless, nearly
as many solutions involved withdrawal, or a fatalistic
"giving up," in the face of problems. Such solutions

may be indicative of the defeat and helplessness which

83
these children may experience in their daily lives.

Appeals to authority as solutions to problems
appeared less than might have been predicted from
published descriptions of the Mexican—American society.
Although their culture is reputed to be authoritarian,
the Mexican—American children of this study used author—
ity in only 13% of their responses, showing a much greater
inclination to solve their own problems when a self-
determining solution appeared available to them.

Although some members of disadvantaged populations
may escape the dreariness and despair of poverty through
fantasy, the Mexican—American children studied here
typically used realistic solutions far more than they
resorted to fantasy. The prevalence of "problem—solving"
solutions and the relatively few "fantasy” solutions
may well indicate that, although'these children may
lack information concerning the mainstream culture, they
are capable of a realistic approach to life.

It is interesting to note that anti—social aggres—
sion was almost never used to complete the problem
stories. Despite the growing popularity of militant
"brown power," more aggressive tactics had not become
a possibility for the majority of our young subjects-—
or else they responded to a wish to please the examiner
and other authority figures and therefore inhibited
"disapproved” responses. Their responses, however

appeared generally open, spontaneous, and uninhibited.

84

In general, children's solutions to problems of
frustration and failure were not as might have been
predicted on the basis of many descriptions of the
Mexican—American migrant culture. These children were
more goal—oriented, more self—determining, less author—
itarian, less fanciful, and more realistic than might
have been expected.

Modes of Problem—Solving and Achievement

Because the public schools reflect a middle—class
milieu and tend to reward those who hold middle-class
values, it was predicted that children whose completions
of problem stories were typically goal—oriented and
self-determining would be relatively high achievers in
reading and arithmetic. Our findings, however, did not
confirm this prediction. Chi~square analysis revealed
no significant relationship between any type of story
completion and achievement in readiné or arithmetic.
Practical use of middle-class values (which are gener—
ally thought to give children greater advantages for
school achievement) has no effect on the reading or
arithmetic performance of the children of our study.

These results, it must be cautioned, are only
Valid to the degree to which children's story com—
pletions reflect their actual values and modes of
Solving problems. If, however, children's responses to
problems reveal their approach to problems which they

might encounter in classrooms, with adults, and with

85
the institution of the school, then some Mexican—'
American migrant children do not profit from advan-
tages which apparently work to the benefit of middle—
class children in the same situations. Educators
often contend that disadvantaged children would
encounter greater school success if they were acquainted
with middle—class values. From the findings of this
study, however, this thesis cannot be defended.
Other factors may be operating to prevent the school
achievement of Mexican—American migrant children,
even when they espouse the prevailing values of the
school.
Summary of Discussion

A number of the findings of this study, insofar
as they are valid, tend to destroy some of the myths
and stereotypes which prevail concerning the Mexican-
American migrant child. Others provide implications
for instruction or research which will be discussed in
Chapter V.

1. Academic retardation among the subjects
of this study was not so great as that of previous
studies. This may be due to a special value placed
on education among families of our sample, or to
improved instruction over a period of time. \K1
2. Arithmetic achievement at all ages equalled

or excelled reading achievement, probably reflecting

the influence which the migrant child's experience has

86
on his school performance.

3. Boys and girls did not differ signif—
icantly in achievement.

4. The present study revealed a definite
pattern of parent—child relationships among Mexican—
American migrant families. Children perceived their
interactions with their parents in the following order:
loving, protecting, demanding, casual, rejecting, and
neglecting. They also saw themselves as more rewarded
than punished. Although ”disadvantaged" in other
ways, Mexican-American migrant parents and children
appeared to have warm, nurturant, caring, rewarding
relationships.

5. Mothers of this study were perceived as
more important than fathers on the protecting, demanding,
punishing, and rewarding dimensions. More of mothers'
behaviors than fathers' were significantly correlated
with school achievement. Despite the reputed patriar—
chal organization of the Mexican—American migrant
family, mothers of this study appeared to possess
strength and influence in the eyes of their children.

6. Some sex—role divisions among parent—
child relationships were observed. Parents of either
sex were perceived by like—sexed children only as
being more demanding and more casual. It was speculated
that these findings might reflect tasks of child—

rearing associated with the sex—role of parents and

87

children, with parents demanding more from children of
their own sex, and children expecting more attention
than they received from like—sexed parents.

7. Differences in sex—roles also appeared
in the finding that boys see themselves as more punished
than girls do.

8. Neglect and rejection were the two inter—
action dimensions which most consistently influenced

school achievement, the relationship being a negative

one. Casualness also was associated with relatively
low achievement. Fathers' loving and mothers' demanding
and punishment had significant and positive effects on
achievement. Despite low scores on neglect and rejection,
high scores on the loving dimension, the relatively .
high scores for ”demanding,” the children of our study
were still largely underachievers. It was tentativelyi)
concluded that factors other than parent—child inter— §~
actions were interfering with the Mexican—American
migrant child's school performance.
9. When completing stories of frustration
and failure, Mexican—American migrant children used
”middle—class," gratification—deferring, goal-oriented r‘fl"
solutions more often than could have been predicted
from the literature concerning disadvantaged children.
Their solutions were also less authoritarian than
expected.

10. Children who produced ”middle—class"

88

solutions achieved no better in reading or arithmetic
than children who produced other types of solutions.
The notion that an orientation to "middle—class" values \“~m
produces greater school success was not substantiated
by this study of Mexican-American migrant children. As
in the case of desirable parent—child relationships,
other factors may be working to mitigate any advantage
which a particular value system might give to these

children.

CHAPTER V
IMPLICATIONS FOR INSTRUCTION AND RESEARCH

The consistent underachievement of the Mexican-
American migrant child points to the need for further
attempts to improve the quality of his education. Like
the child of the ghetto, the Mexican—American child,
by his brightness, his spontaneity, and his curiosity,§
becomes a living indictment of the school, which is S
presently unable to eradicate his failures. While
this study did not concern itself with curriculum or
instruction, several results may point to clues for
the improvement of the instruction of migrant children.

Since the arithmetic achievement of the children
of the present study was always equal to or better than
their reading achievement, we may speculate that a (“'7
greater relationship between curriculum and the child's
practical experience might lead to greater achievement.
Certainly there is nothing innovative about this con-
clusion, since cries for a more relevant curriculum are
today heard on every side, from students as well as
from educators. The results of this study merely add
another voice to the general plea that children be
educated in a context which is related to their lives.

The reading retardation of the Mexican-American
migrant child is indicative of the difficulties en—
countered by children who are expected to learn to read
a language or dialect which differs from the one they

89

90

speak. Several solutions may be offered for the improve—
ment of the migrant child's achievement. He could, as
he is in some schools, be taught by Spanish—speaking
teachers, dealing with most subject matter in his native
tongue and learning English as a foreign language.
Expectations for reading in English could be delayed
until the child speaks the language fluently. Greater
emphasis could be placed on the systematic ”dc-coding"
of printed and written words. Or the child could first
learn to read in Spanish. Unfortunately for the
Spanish—speaking child, however, English is the language
of the prevailing American culture, and English is the
language in which he must learn to read and write if
he is to enjoy his share of America's affluence.
Obviously, public schools are not yet employing adequate
means for teaching the Mexican—American migrant child~
what he needs to know to become a productive and com—
fortable member of his society.

in so far as the results of this study are valid,
parent—child relationships which contribute to children's
athievement may offer valuable clues for parents from
DOVerty populations. If child-rearing practices can he
assumed to effect school achievement (an assumption
implied by some studies previously cited), adult education
PPUgrams can teach parents how to encourage their
Children's success. Alternative interpretations of

the data, however, present the possibility that

 

 

 

91
child-rearing and achievement are both caused by a
third factor not considered in this study, or that
school success itself stimulates more satisfactory
parent—child relationships.
Further investigation of parent—child relation—
ships, using the Roe—Siegelman PCR, could profitably

be made with the children of other ”disadvantaged”

groups. Evidence that Mexican—American migrant families
provide desirable parent—child relationships would
tend to dispel the myth that ”poor homelife” is the
cause of children's failure in school. The parent-
child relationships of families of the urban ghetto,
the Indian reservation, the Appalachian hillside, or
the Eskimo village, might yield interesting answers

to similar questions concerning these populations.
Present—day research concerning the children of the
poor could profitably focus upon the factor of human
relationships in the home. Where good relationshipsr
exist, the school can no longer use ”undesirable home ‘
life" as an excuse for children's academic failure.
Certainly the concern for children's education
recently expressed in the drive for community control
of ghetto schools and in parent participation in

Head Start and similar programs, indicates that here,

too, parents care about their children. Judging from

92
the results of this study, when parent—child interactions
are of a desirable nature, responsibility for satis-
factory academic achievement must be sought in some
other, or additional, quarter.

Prejudices of teachers may constitute another
factor which may operate to deny the Mexican—American
migrant child the educational opportunities he deserves.
Human relationships laboratories and‘similar attempts ~
to help teachers accept, understand, and appreciate
children who are culturally or racially "different"
may be a most important step toward the improvement of
instruction.

While interesting, the method used here for investi—
gating "problem—solving" has decided limitations. It
reveals only whether the child already has information,
or can invent methods, which will lead him to a par—
ticular goal. However, it does not investigate the
thought processes involved in problem—solving. As a
simulation technique, the story—completion method is
also limited by the assumption that techniques used in the
child's story will also be employed in his daily life.

Other means of investigating children's problem—
solving techniques in relation to their achievement make
a fruitful field for further research. The teaching
of problem-solving processes such as gathering data,
constructing and evaluating hypotheses, categorizing

ideas, and producing alternative solutions, ought,

 

93
in theory, to reduce children's predilection for responses
of withdrawal or fantasy, and appeals to authority. The \)
real—life problems confronting the migrant child, and 8.
related problems in the sciences and social sciences, I
should provide the material for a problemhsolving cur— -”
riculum. An increase in problem—solving ability, in
a school where such ability is valued and rewarded,
should be reflected in higher achievement. Where, as in
the case of the present study, problem—solving and
achievement are unrelated, one might conclude that the
school does not reward the problem—solving process, or
that other factors inhibit the Mexican—American child's
capacity for self-determination, and that changes in
curriculum and instruction are sorely needed. Providing
that a knowledge of problem—solving processes can be made
to transfer to the student's daily life, improved problem—
solving might greatly enhance the quality of the migrant
child's existence. In the opinion of this writer, the
school is obligated to provide the migrant child with the \l
tools for removing himself from the migrant stream if he
wishes to do so. Hence, a curriculum which helps him ’
to apply problem—solving processes to the problems of
his own existence is highly desirable. This curriculum
could center around such questions as:
1. How does one use effort economically?

2. How does one use time economically?

9A

3. What is the nature of prejudice?

A. How can prejudice be overcome?

5. What are the problems involved in finishing

high school, and how can they be solved?

6. What are some of the ways in which students

with low incomes can get to college?

7. What is the effect of automation on man's

physical labor?

8. What are some other human resources besides

labor?
9. What are various ways of calculating a
man‘s ”worth”?

10. What plans could we develop for providing
a quart of milk a day for all the children
in our camp?

Only 41 per cent of the responses of children in
the present study involved planning for a goal or pre—
dicting what might happen in the future. While this is
a greater number of responses of this type than was
predicted, the advantages of planfulness which have
been rewarding to the successful middle class in America,
are still a mystery to many Mexican—American migrant
children. Research which centers around problem—solving
methods and attitudes, and the actual problems of the
migrant child's existence and future, might constitute

a Valuable contribution to the lives of these children.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anastasi, Anne, Differential Psychology. Third edition.
New York; The Macmillan Co., 19587

 

Anders, Sarah F., "New Dimensions in Kthni‘ity and
Child Rearing Attitudes. Americe‘ aurnal of
Mental Deficiency, 73 (November 1968), 505—8.

 

 

Anderson, harold M., and Anderson, Gladys L., eds.,
An Introduntinn to prniective Techniques; Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice—Hall, lnc., 1951.

Antonovsky, Aaron, and Lerner, Melvin J., ”Occupational
Aspirations of tower-Class Negro and White Youth."
Sociaerroblems, 7 (Fall, 1959), 132—8.

Baldwin, Alfred L., et al, “Patterns of Parent Behavior."
Psychological Monographs, 58 (19U5), No.

 

Bernstein, Basil, ”Social Class and Linguistic Develop-
ment: A Theory of Social Learning." In Education,
Economy, and Society, edited by A. N. Halsy, J. Gloud,
and C. A. Anderson. New York: The Free Press, 1961.

 

Bollenbacher, Joan, "A Study of the Effect of Mobility
on Reading Achievement." The Reading Teacher, 15
(March, 1962), 356-60.

 

Boyd, George Felix, ”The Levels of Aspiration of White
and Negro Children in a Non—segregated Elementary
School.“ Journal of Social Psychology, 36 (1952),
191—6.

 

Bronfenbrenner, Urie, ”Socialization and Social Class
thro" h Time and Space." In Readings in Social
Psychology, edited by Eleanor E. Maonnhv at nw
New York: Henry Holt and Co., 195?, “00-25

 

-_m, "The Changing American Child-~A Speculative
Analysis.” Journal of Social Issues, 17 (1961), 6-18.

 

Burma, J. H., Spanish—Speaking Groups in the United
States. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University
Press, 1954.

95

96

Clift, Virgil A., "Curriculum Strategy Based on the
Personality Characteristics of Disadvantaged Youth."
Journal of Negro Education, 38 (Spring, 1969), 9H—10U.

Coles, Robert, "Some Children the Schools have Never
Served.” Saturday Review, 49 ('une 18, 1966), 58—60.

, and Clayton, A1, Still Hungryyin America.
New York: World Publishing Co., 1969.

 

and Huge. Harry, "Peonage in Florida."
The New Republic, 161 (July 26, 1969), 17—21.

Crandall, Vaughn J., et al, ”Maternal Reactions and
the Development of Independence and Achievement
Behavior in Young Children.“ Child Development,
30 (June, 1960), 293—51.

 

Davis, Allison, "American Status Systems and the
Socialization of the Child." American Sociological
Review 6 (1961), 3u5_5u. '

 

, Social Class Influences Upon Learning.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996.

, and Havighurst, Robert J., Father of the
Man. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 19'7.

Douvan, Elizabeth, “Social Status and Succesn Striving.”
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52 (1956),
219—23.

 

Downie, N. M., "A Comparison Between Children Who Have
Moved from School to School with Those Who Have
Been in Continuous Residence on Various Factors of
Adjustment.” Journal of Enuentionul Psychology,
4“ (January, 1953), 50—53.

 

Evans, John W., Jr., "The Effsct of Pupil Mobility
upon Academic Achievement." National Elementary
Principal, 45 (April, 196m), 18-22.

 

Fantini, Mario D., and Welnstein, Gerald, The Disad—
vantaged: Challenge to Education. New York:
Harper and Row, 1968.

 

Finney, Joseph Claude, ”Some Maternal Influences on
Children's Personality and Character.“ Genetic
Psychology Monographs, 63 (1961), 199-27 .

 

Frost, Joe L., "School and the Migrant Child." Childhood
Education, 41 (196“), 129—32. >

 

97
Gordon, John E., and Haywood, H. Carl, ”Input Deficit
in Cultural-Familial Retardates: Effect of
Stimulus Enrichment." American Journal of Mental
Deficiency, 73 (January, 1969), 603—10.

 

 

Green, Arnold W., ”The Middle Class Male Child and
Neurosis.” American Sociological Review, 11

(February, 1936), 3llfi1.

Greene, Shirley E., The Education of Migrant Children.
Washington, D.C.: National Education Association,
195“.

 

 

Havighurst, Robert J., et al, "The Development of the
Ideal Self in Childhood and Adolescence.” In
The Self in Growth,_Teaching, and Learning, edited
by Don E. Hamachek. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1965, 226~39. '

 

Henry, Jules, ”White People's Time, Colored People's
Time." Trans—Action, 2 (March—April, 1965), 31—3.

 

Herriot, R. E., "Some Special Determinants of Educa—
tional Aspirations.” Harvard Educational Review,
33 (1963), 153—770

 

Hess, Robert D., and Shipman, Virginia C., "Early
Vvoerience and the Socialization of Cognitive Modes
in Zhildren.” Child DeveIOpment, 36 (December, 1965),

 

Hoffman, Martin L., et al, "Achiev ment Striving,
Social Class, and Ta t Anxiety." Journal of
abnormal and Social Psy;hology, 56 (1958) “01-3.

 

"Power Assertion by the Parent and its
Impact on the Child.” Child DeveloPment, 31 (March,
1960), 129-43.

 

 

Joiner, Lee M., et al, "Boole—economic Status and
Perceived hxpectations an JcaHJPkl of Family
influence.” Personnel and Guidance Journal, A?
(March, 1969), 655-9.

 

Johnson, Elizabeth 8., Welfare of Families of Sugare
Beet Workers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Labor, Children's Bureau Publication No. 937, 1935.

 

Justman, Joseph, "Academic Aptitude and Reading lest
Scores of Disadvantaged Children Showing Varying
Degrees of Mobility." Journal of Educational
Measurement, 2 (December, 1965), 151—5.

 

~(t

1..

Kelly, Clarence H., ”Men h.¢1nica] strvesting.” Scientific
American, 217 (August, 1967), 50— 59.

 

Kluckhehn, Clyde, Culture and Behavior. New York: The
Free Press, 1962.

Kohn, Melvin L., and Carroll, Eleanor H., "Social Class
and Allocation of Parental Responsibilities."
Sociometry, 23 (December, 1960), 372-92.

 

Koos, E. L., They Follow the Sun. Jacksonville: Florida
State Board of Heath, 1957. - ‘

Manis, Jerome G., A Study of Minrant Education. Kalamazoo:
Western Michigan University Press, 1958.

 

 

McClelland D. G., The AChiLVng Society. Princeton:
Van Nostrand and Co., Inc., 1961.

Medinnus, Gene H., ed., Readings in the Psychology of
Parent—Child Relations. New York: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., 1967 ,

 

 

Miles, K. A., ”Relationship between Certain Factors in
the Home Background and the Quality of Leadership
Shown by Chiltren." Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Minnesota, 19MB.

Miller, Daniel H., and Swanson, Guy E., Inner Conflict

and Defense. New York: Henry Holt amt Co. ,1960.

Moore, Truman E., The Slaves We Rent. New York: Random
House, 1965.

 

Murstein, Bernard 1., ed., Handbook of Projective
Technigues. New York: Basic Hooks, Inc., 1965.

 

National Education Association, ”America on the Move."
NEA Research Bulletin, 36 (December, 1958), 99’102.

 

Passow, A. Harry, ed., Education in Depressed Areas.
New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College,
1963. -

 

Pease, Damaris, "Family Forces Influence Child Behavior."
In The Disadvantaged Child: Issues and Innovations,
edited by Joe L. Frost and Glenn R. Hawkes. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1966, 382-9.

 

Reul, Myrtle E., Where Hannibal Led Us. New York:
Vantage Press, 1966.

 

fi—_r -1,

99

Riessman, Frank, The Culturally Deprived Child. New.
York: Harper and Row, 1962.

 

___ and Miller, S. M., "Social Class and Projec—
tive Techniques." In Handbook of Projective
Techniques, edited by Bernard 1. Murstein. New
York: Basic Books, Inc., 1965, 95-106.

 

Roe, Anne, and Siegelman, Marvin, "A Parent—Child
Relations Questionnaire." Child Development, 3“
(1963), 355—70.

 

Rosen, B. C., and D'Andrade, R. G., ”The Psychosocial
Origins of Achievement Motivation." American
Sociological Review, 22 (1959 , 185—218.

 

Rosenthal, Robert, and Jacobson, Lenore, Pygmalion in
the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc., 1968.

Rosenzweig, S., ”Rosenzweig Picture—Frustration Study,
Children's Form." In Projective Techniques with
Children, edited by A. I. Rabin and Mary Haworth.
New York: Grune and Stratton, 1960.

 

Shotwell, Louisa H., The Harvesters The Story Of the Migrant
People. Garden City: t.ubieuay and Co., 1961. 6

State of Florida, Planning Florida's Migrant Bducation
Program. Tallahassee: Department of Education, 1966.

 

Stolz, Lois Meek, ”Effects of Maternal Employment on
Children." Child Development, 31 (1960), 799—82.

 

Strauss, Murray A., "Deferred Gratification, Social
Class, and the Achievement Syndrome.” American
. r . ’—\ ~7--7--‘
Soc1ological Review, 2] (June, 1963), 32o~33.

 

Stodtbeck, ”Family Interaction, Values and Achievement."
In Talent and Society by D. C. McClelland et al.
Princeton: Van Nostrand and Co., in.., 1956.

Pp. 135—9”.

 

Taba, Hilda, and Elkins, Deborah, Teaching Strategies
for the Culturally Disadvantaged. Chicago:
Rand McNally and Co., 1966.

 

 

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington,
D.C.: Office of Education, 1960.

 

Wallach, Michael A., and Kogan, Nathan, Modes of
Thinking in Young Children. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965.

 

100

Watson, Goodwin, "Some Personality Differences in
Children Related to Strict or Permissive Parental
Discipline." Journal of Psychdlogy, an (1957),

 

GENERAL REFERENCES

Ausubel, David P., et al, "Perceived Parent A‘titudes
as Determinants of Children's Ego Structure.‘
Child Development, 25 (195”), 173—83.

 

Brookover, Wilber E., et al, SelfuConcept of Ability
and School Ability and School Achievement. East
Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1965.

 

 

 

Coles, Robert. Children of Crisis. Boston: Atlantic-
Little, Brown, 1967.

Colorado State Department of Education, Providing
Education for Migrant_phildren. Denver: Office
of Instructional Services, 1961.

 

Combs, Arthur W., and Snygg, Donald, Individual
Behavior. New York: Harper and Bros., 1959.

 

Cronbach, Lee J., Essentials of Psychological Testing.
Second edition. New York: Harper and Row, 1960.

Fink, Martin E., "Self—concept as it Relates to
Academic Underachievement." In The Self in Growth,
Teaching, and Learning, edited by Don E. Hamachek.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1965.

Pp. U86-92.

 

 

McClelland, D. C., et al, Talent and Society. Princeton:
Van Nostrand and Co., Inc., 1958.

 

Mead, George H., Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1934.

 

Quillen, I. James, et al, ”The Value Orientation of
Teacher Education." Ninth Yearbook of the AACTE,
1956, pp. 11—19. ‘

Radke—Yarrow, Marian, et al, ”Social Perceptions
and Attitudes of Children." In The Self in Growth,
Teaching, and Learning, edited by Don E. Hamachek.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1965.

 

 

101

 

102

Sarason, Seymour 8., et a1, Anfij;tywin_:lgmentary

School Children. New York: duhn Wiley and Sons,
Inc., 19 0.

Sears, Pauline S., and Sherman, Vivian 8., In Pursuit
of Self-esteem. Belmont, California: Wadsworth
Publishing Co., 196”.

Sears, Robert R., ct a1, Patterns of Child Rearing.
Evanston: Row, Peterson, and Co., 1957.

Sutton, Elizabeth, Knowing and Teaching the Migrant
Child. Washington, D.C.: National Education
Association, 1960.

Winterbottom, Marian R., "The Relation of Childhood
Training in Independence to Achievement
Motivation." Unpublishri doctoral dissertaion,
University of Michigan, 1953.

 

APPENDICES

 

APPENDIX A

PCR QUESTIONNAIRE - MOTHERS

Roe-Siegelman

Let's practice marking one of these questions. Put an X on the

line that fits you best. If none of the lines seem quite right, you

may put the X between the lines.

VERY SORT OF SORT 0F VERY

TRUE TRUE UNTRUE UNTRUE

My Mother

1. Objects when I am late for
meals.

2. tries to get me everything I
want.

3. complains about me to others
when I do not listen to her.

4. pays no attention to how old I
am when she asks me to do things.

5. lets me spend my money any way
I like.

6. tells me what is good about
what I do.

7. punishes me hard enough when I
misbehave to make sure I won't
do it again.

8. takes away my playthings when
I am naughty.

9. is really interested in my life.

10. keeps forgetting things she is
supposed to do for me.

11. takes me places (trips, shows,
etc.) for being good.

12. spoils me.

103

PCR QUESTIONNAIRE
VERY SORT OF SORT OF VERY
TRUE TRUE UNTRUE UNTRUE
My Mother

13. makes me feel ashamed when I
do things that are wrong.

14. lets me know I'm not wanted
15. makes very few rules for me.

16. tells me I_am better than
other children when I do well.

17. makes it clear that she is
boss.

18. slaps or hits me when I do
something wrong.

19. makes me feel wanted and
needed.

20. is too busy to answer my
questions.

21. doesn't make me follow rules
when I am good.

22. is very careful about protect-
ing me from accidents.

23. nags or scolds me when I am
bad.

24. thinks it is my own fault if
I get into trouble.

25. lets me dress any way I please

26. tells me how proud she is of me
when I am good.

27. thinks I should always be busy.

28. takes away some money when she
wants to punish me.

29. makes me feel what I do is
important.

30. doesn't care if I get into trouble..

10“

PCR QUESTIONNAIRE
VERY SORT OF SORT OF VERY
TRUE TRUE UNTRUE UNTRUE
My Mother

31. gives me new books or
records when I am good.

32. can't stand to punish me

33. punishes me by leaving me
alone.

34. doesn't spend any more time
with me than she has to.

35. lets me off easy when Ihdo
something wrong.

36. treats me more like a grownyup
when I behave well.

37. pushes me to be very good in
everything I do.

38. won't let me play with other
children when I am bad.

39. wants me to do things on my own.

40. pays no attention to what I am
doing in school.

41. lets me stay up longer when I
have been good.

42. keeps protecting me from teasing
or bullying by other children.

43. makes me feel she doesn't love
me if I misbehave.

44. doesn't want me to bring friends
home. ‘

45. gives me the choice of what to
do whenever she can.

46. praises me in front of playmates.

47. tells me how to spend my free
time o

48. spanks me as punishment.

105

PCR QUESTIONNAIRE
VERY SORT 0F SORT 0F VERY
TRUE TRUE UNTRUE UNTRUE
My Mother

49. talks to me in a warm and
loving way.

50. doesn‘t think about me when
making plans.

51. lets me off some regular jobs
when I have been good.

52. doesn't want me to play rough»
outdoor games for fear I might
be hurt.

53. shames me before my playmates
when I misbehave.

54. doesn't like my friends.
55. lets me eat what I want to.

56. shows more love for me when
I am good.

57. punishes me quickly when I
misbehave.

58. gives me extra jobs as a
punishment.

59. tries to help me when I am
scared or upset.

60. doesn't care whether I get the
right kind of food.

61. gives me candy or ice cream or
fixes my favorite food for me

when I am very good.

62. teaches me not to fight at any
time.

63. frightens me when I do wrong.

64. goes out of the way to hurt my
feelings.

65. lets me do as I like with my
time after school.

PCR QUESTIONNAIRE

VERY SORT OF SORT OF VERY
TRUE TRUE UNTRUE UNTRUE
My Mother

66. pays special attention to me
when I have been good.

67. makes me respect and mind her
without asking questions.

68. punishes me by sending me out.
of the room or to bed.

69. doesn't try to tell me every-
thing, but wants me to find
things out for myself.

70. lets somebody else take care
of me.

71. lets me go to parties or play
with others more than usual
when I have been very good.

72. teaches me to go for help to
my parents or teacher rather
than to fight.

73. tells me how ashamed she is
when I misbehave.

74. makes fun of me.
75. lets me choose my own friends
76. praises me when I deserve it.

77. always tells me exactly how to
do my work.

78. takes away my things as a
punishment

79. thinks my ideas are important
and wants me to talk about them.

80. acts as if I don't exist.

81. gives me more money when I am
good.

82. wants to have me play at home
rather than to visit other
children.

PCR QUESTIONNAIRE

VERY SORT OF SORT OF VERY

TRUE TRUE UNTRUE UNTRUE

My Mother

83. says other children are better
than I am when I have done
something wrong.

84. complains about me.

85. lets me work by myself

86. makes me feel proud when I do
well.

87. pushes me to do well in school

88. punishes me by being more strict
about rules.

89. lets me do things I think are
important, even if it causes her
some trouble.

90. pays no attention to me.

91. hugs me, kisses me, pets me
when I am good.

92. doesn't let me go places because
something might happen to me.

93. explains why I shouldn't do
wrong things.

94. says other children are better
than I am, no matter what I do-

95. doesn't care if I loaf or day-
dream.

96. praises me to others.

97. won't let me argue with her ideas.

98. punishes me by not taking me on
trips or visits etc. that I have

been promised.

99. tries to help me learn to live
happily.

100. ignores me as long as I don't
do anything to bother her.

108

PCR QUESTIONNAIRE
VERY SORT OF SORT 0F VERY
TRUE TRUE UNTRUE UNTRUE '
My Mother

101. gives me new things as a
reward, such as toys.

102. hates to refuse me anything.

103. thinks it's bad for a child
to be given love and tenderness

i 104. doesn't tell me what time to be
home when I go out.

105. wants to have complete control
over my ac t ions .

106. will talk about rules with me,
and listens to my ideas about
them.

107. doesn't care who my friends are-

108. worries about me when I am away.

109. doesn't want me around at all
when she has company. '

110. doesn't care when I am late for
meals.

111. teaches me that she knows best
and that I must agree with her
decisions.

112. wants me to bring friends home,
and tries to make things nice
for them.

113. leaves me alone when I am upset.

114. won't let me try things if there
is any chance I will make a mis-

take or not do well.

115. expects children to be bad if
they are not watched.

116. is easy with me.

117. expects me to mind her quickly
without asking any questions.

109

PCR QUESTIONNAIRE
VERY SORT 0F SORT OF VERY
TRUE TRUE UNTRUE UNTRUE
My Mother

118. teaches me what I want to
learn.

119. doesn't try to help me learn
things.

120. wants to know all about every-
thing I do.

121. believes a child should be seen
and not heard.

122. doesn't bother much about rules.

123. keeps the house nice by having
a lot of rules for me.

 

124. makes it easy for me to tell her
how I feel and what I do.

125. forgets my birthday.
126. doesn't want me to grow up.
127. keeps away from me.

128. doesn't check up on whether I do
my homework.

129. lets me decide only about things
that aren't important

130. says nice things about me.
131. doesn't care whether I have the

same kind of clothes as the
other children.

 

PCR QUESTIONNAIRE - FATHERS

Roe—Siegelman

Let's practice marking one of these questions. Put an X on the line
that fits best for you° If none of the lines seem quite right, you may

put the X between the lines.

VERY SORT OF SORT OF VERY
TRUE TRUE UNTRUE UNTRUE
My Father

1. never lets me off easy when I
do something wrong.

 

2. tries to get me everything
I want.
3. complains about me to others '

when I do not listen to him. '

4. pays no attention to how old
I am when he asks me to do
things.

5° lets me spend my money any
way I like.

6. tells me what is good about
what I do.

7. punishes me hard enough when I

misbehave to make sure that I
won't do it again.

8. takes away my playthings when
I am bad.

9. is really interested in my life.

10. keeps forgetting things he is
supposed to do for me.

11. takes me places (trips, shows,
etc.) when I have been good.

12. spoils me-

13. makes me feel ashamed when I
misbehave.

PCR QUESTIONNAIRE
VERY SORT OF SORT OF VERY
TRUE TRUE UNTRUE UNTRUE
My Father

l4. lets me know I'm not
wanted.

15. sets very few rules for me.

16. says I am better than other
children when I do well.

17. makes it clear that he is
boss.

18. slaps me when I do wrong
things.

19. makes me feel wanted and needed.

20. is too busy to answer my I
questions. I

21. doesn't make me follow rules
when I am good.

22. is very careful about protect- -
ing me from accidents.

23. nags or scolds me when I am
bad.

24. thinks it is my own fault if
I get into trouble.

25. gives me as much freedom as I
want.

26. tells me how proud he is of me
when I am good.

27. never lets me get away with
breaking a rule.

28. takes away some money as a
punishment.

29. makes me feel what I do is
important.

30. doesn't care if I get into
trouble.

PCR QUESTIONNAIRE
VERY SORT OF SORT OF VERY
TRUE TRUE UNTRUE UNTRUE
My Father

31. gives me new books or records
when I am good.

32. believes I should have no secrets
from my parents.

33. punishes me by leaving me alone.

34. doesn't spend any more time with
me than he has to.

35. lets me off easy when I do some-
thing wrong.

36. treats me more like a grown-up
when I behave well.

 

37. pushes me to be very good in
everything I do.

38. won't let me play with other 1
children when I am bad. '

39. wants me to do things on my
own.

40. pays no attention to what I am
doing in school.

41. lets me stay up longer as a
reward.

42. protects me from teasing or
bullying by other children.

43. makes me feel I am not loved
any more if I misbehave.

44. doesn't want me to bring friends
home.

45. gives me the choice of what to
do whenever he can.

46. praises me in front of my play
mates.

47. tells me how to spend my free
time.

PCR QUESTIONNAIRE

VERY SORT OF SORT OF VERY
TRUE TRUE UNTRUE UNTRUE
My Father

48. spanks me as punishment.

49. talks to me in a warm and
loving way.

50. doesn't think about me when
he makes plans.

51. lets me out of some jobs when
I am very good.

52. doesn't want me to play rough
outdoor games for fear I might
be hurt.

53. shames me before my playmates
when I misbehave.

 

54. doesn't like my friends.

55. wants me to take everyday
disappointments.

56. shows more love for me when
I am good.

57. punishes me quickly when I do
something wrong.

58. gives me extra jobs as punish~
ment.

59. tries to help me when I am
scared or upset.

60. doesn't care whether I get the
right kind of food.

61. gives me candy or ice cream or
fixes my favorite food for me
when I am good.

62. makes others give in to me.

63. frightens me when I do wrong.

64. goes out of the way to hurt my
feelings.

PCR QUESTIONNAIRE

VERY SORT OF SORT OF VERY
TRUE TRUE UNTRUE UNTRUE
My Father

65. lets me stay up as late as
I like.

66. pays special attention to me
when I have been good.

67. expects me always to mind him
without asking questions.

68. punishes me by sending me out
of the room or to bed.

69. doesn't try to tell me every-
thing, but wants me to find

things out for myself.

70. leaves me for somebody else to
take care of.

71. lets me go to parties or play
with others more than usual as
a reward.

72. teaches me to go for help to my
parents or teacher rather than

to fight.

73. tells me how ashamed he is when
I misbehave.

74. makes fun of me.

75. lets me do pretty much what I
want to do.

76. praises me when I deserve it.

77. always tells me exactly how to
do my work.
78. takes away my things a punishment.

79. thinks my ideas are important
and wants me to talk about them.

80. acts as if I don't exist.

81. rewards me by giving me money.

VERY
TRUE

‘—~_'—

_.—' u——--.

‘_I. wad...

.#--——-.

SORT OF

TRUE

”urn—n,

SORT OF
UNTRUE

.4. M”).

oar—q...—

VERY

UNTRUE

PCR QUESTIONNAIRE

My Father

82. wants me to have at least
as mudh money as my friends.

83. says other children are better
than I am when I do wrong things.

84. complains about me.

85. lets me work by myself.

86. makes me feel proud when I
do well.

87. pushes me to do well in school-

88. punishes me by being more strict
about rules.

89. lets me do things I think are
important, even if it causes him
some trouble.

90. pays no attention to me.

91. hugs me, kisses me, pets me when
I am good.

92. tries to keep me out of things
that might be unpleasant and
embarrassing or make me feel bad.

93. explains what might happen if I
do the wrong things.

94. says other children are better
than I am, no matter what I do.

95. doesn't object when I loaf or day-
dream.

96. praises me to others.

97. won't let me argue with his ideas.

98. punishes me by not talking me on

trips, visits, etc. that I have
been promised.

 

VERY
TRUE

u.-_—.

"—n—_.-x.;_

—...-.—a__..

u—JI-m-l-ac

SORT OF

TRUE

SORT OF
UNTRUE

.- .a—u

VERY

UNTRUE

PCR QUESTIONNAIRE

My Father

99. tries to help me learn to
live happily.

100. ignores me as long as I do
not do anything to bother him,

101. gives me new things as a reward,
such as toys.

102. hates to refuse me anything.

103. thinks it is bad for a child to
be given love and tenderness.

104. doesn't tell me what time to be
home when I go out.

105. wants to have complete control
over everything I do.

106. will talk about rules with me,
and uses my ideas when he makes
rules.

107. doesn't care who my friends are.

108. worries about me when I am away.

109. doesn't want me around at all
when he has company.

110. doesn't care when I am late for
meals.

lll. teaches me that he knows best
and that I must follow every-
thing he decides.

112. wants me to bring friends home,
and tries to make things nice
for them.

113. leaves me alone when I am upset.

114. worries a great deal about my
health.

115. thinks children will be bad if

they are not watched.

 

PCR QUESTIONNAIRE
VERY SORT OF SORT OF VERY
TRUE TRUE UNTRUE UNTRUE
My Father

116. is easy with me.

117. expects me to mind quickly
without asking questions.

118. teaches me what I want to
learn.

119. doesn't try to help me learn
things.

120. wants to know all about every-
thing I do.

121. believes a child should be seen
and not heard.

122. doesn't bother much about enforc-
ing rules.

123. is always giving me advice about
everything I do. .

124. makes it easy for me to tell him
how I feel and what I think.

125. forgets my birthday
126. doesn't want me to grow up.
127. stays away from me.

128. doesn't check up on whether I
do my homework.

129. only lets me decide about things
that are unimportant.

130. says nice things about me.
131. doesn't care whether I have the

same kind of clothes as other
children.

APPENDIX B

UNFINISHED STORIES

 

Girls' Form

 

Rosa had not been able to go to school very much. She had not
been able to learn to read like some other children at school.
When the teacher called on her in class, her heart would beat
faster, and she couldn't remember the answers that she once
knew. Then the other children laughed at her.

Rosa knew she could learn to read if she had the books and some
help. Her teacher let her take books home and she'practices
reading to her family in the evening. Rosa was really beginning
to learn how to read well.

One day, the teacher brought some new books to the school. She
asked who would like to read one of them to the whole class.
Rosa was sure she could do it. She raised her hand and the
teacher called on her. Rosa took the book and stood in front

of the whole class. Suddenly, her mouth became so dry she could
hardly open her lips. When she looked at the page, the words
began to blur and jiggle before her eyes. She was so scared she
could not read. She opened her mouth to say something, but all
that came out was a squeak. The children were giggling at Rosa.
Then they began to laugh. Rosa put the book down and went back
to her seat. Nobody believed she could read. All the children
in the room were laughing at her.

Josefina is eleven years old. She has traveled around the country
nearly all of her life. Sometimes the places she lives in are
pretty good, and sometimes they are not so good. For a long time,
Josefina had been looking at the houses people live in when they
do not travel to work in the fields. She had decided that when
she grew up she wanted to stop traveling and live in a nice house.
She thought about it and thought about it. She told her friends
what she wanted to do. But they all laughed at her. "How will
19g ever get one of those houses?” they asked. ”Where will you
get the money to buy a house?“ Josefina wondered what she could
do to earn enough money to buy a fine, large house for herself

and all of her family.

One day a teacher came to the camp. She came to teach the children
who had not gone to school very much. She helped the children
learn, and she made the mothers and fathers proud. "That's it!"
Josefina said to her friends; ”I am going to be a teacher. I will
be able to buy a house, and I will be able to help children learn."

Josefina's friends laughed so hard they fell down and rolled on the
ground. ”You!” they shouted. ”You can never be a teacher.
Teachers have to go to school for years and years. Teachers have

' 1 n

 

 

2.

120

to know everything." Josefina wanted so badly to become some-
thing, and she was very hurt by the other girls' teasing. She
was about ready to turn and run away so they wouldn't see her
tears.

In Rita's life there had never been anything more beautiful than
the red sweater she had seen in a store window in Michigan. The
sweater was soft and warm, and white flowers were stitched here
and there on it to make it even more beautiful. It had taken
much courage for Rita to go into the fancy store to look at the
red sweater. She told the woman in the store that she wanted

to see the sweater that was in the window. The woman let her
look at it, but Rita was afraid to ask to try it on, because

she knew she had no money to buy it with. But she could tell
when she touched it with her fingers how soft and warm it was.

Rita thought and thought about the red sweater. She thought
about how warm it would be on cold Michigan nights. She thought
about how warm it would keep her when riding in the back of the
truck. She told her mother how much she wanted the sweater, but
her mother scolded her for dreaming about things that the family
didn't have enough money to buy. She told her best friend,
Alicia, about the sweater. Alicia laughed and laughed. "You're
crazy to think about such things," Alicia said. "where would
you even get enough money to buy such a sweater?” But Rita kept
on thinking about it. She wanted that sweater more than any-
thing.

Linda could hardly wait to be old enough to work in the fields
and help her family. But Linda is what her family calls a clumsy
ox. She was always forgetting things, or dropping things, or
breaking things, or bumping into things. Everybody said, ”That's
always the way with you, Linda; you are the world's greatest
clumsy ox.” Linda pretended to laugh as though she didn't care
when people said these things. But she really cared very much.
She wanted her family to be proud of her. She wanted her mother
to say to the other women, "My daughter, Linda, is a good girl.”

One day there were many tomatoes to pick. The farmer wanted
everyone who could, to pick tomatoes. Linda knew she could do well
and that this was her chance to make her father proud of her. She
begged and begged to be allowed to pick tomatoes. Finally, her
father said that she could, but warned her to be careful, and not
to be a clumsy ox.

At fll t, everything went well. Linda learned to look under the
vines to get the tomatoes that might rot on the ground. She
learned to tell when the tomatoes were just red enough to pick.
Linda picked two baskets of tomatoes. She was hot, but happy.
From the next row, her mother and father smiled at her. Linda
began to pick faster and faster. She picked so fast she picked
some tomatoes that were too green. "Look out!" her father
shouted. Linda jumped, stumbled, and fell-~right into the lugs

 

121

of tomatoes! Nearly all the tomatoes were squashed, and Linda
was covered with red juice and tomatoes and seeds. Linda's
father was very angry. Linda's mother looked cross. The
farmer was very angry. He said Linda's father would have to
pay for the tomatoes Linda had ruined. Linda was very unhappy.

Maria and her mother were anxious to get her ready for her first
day at a new school. They thought it was important how Maria
looked at school. It was important that her family be proud of
her. Maria and her mother had saved for a long time. They saved
enough money to buy the cloth for a beautiful red dress. Maria
and her mother could sew well. They worked late at night to make
her dress. All the family was proud of how beautiful Maria
looked as she started off on the bus for school.

But when Maria got to school, things didn't turn out right at all.
None of the other girls was wearing a dress like Maria's. They
thought she looked funny. The skirt of her dress was very full,
while theirs were more straight. All the girls were laughing at
Maria. Her best dress was no good. Maria had to walk all the
way down the long hall to class, while all the girls looked at
her and giggled and whispered about her. When she got to her
room, she was ready to burst into tears.

Boys' Form

Story is identical to (l) of the Girls' Form, except the hero is
called Luis.

Identical to (2) of the Girls' Form, except the hero is Juan,
and the teacher is male.

Story is essentially the same as (3) of the Girls' Form. The
hero is called Pablo, and his best friend is Ernesto. Pablo
is interested in a beautiful black jacket, which was warm and
soft inside and had big shiny zippers on all the pockets.

The same as story (4) of the Girls' Form. This story is about
Ramon, who wanted his father to say to the other men, "My son,
Ramon, is a real boy.”

Except that this story is about Miguel, whose mother made him
baggy pants and a funny—looking shirt, this story is the same
as (5) of the Girls' Form.

fit

APPENDIX C

INSTRUCTIONS FOR JUDGES

Attached you will find five stories (forms for boys and girls are
given) and the completions provided for them by Mexican-American migrant

1.

2.

 

children.
using this system:

You are asked to sort the story completions into five categories,

Use one of the enclosed index cards for each child.

Put the child's name on the card, and mark the first story
completion with the symbol which represents the category you
think is appropriate. For example, suppose you think a child's
completion to story 1 uses more fantasy than anything else.

You will mark the card like this:

 

 

gal/f. figmgl, 7 M2 ‘
.1 r 1

Judge all the completions to Story 1, then all the completions
to Story 2, and so on.

If you are puzzled about the category in which to place a
particular story completion, it may help you to leave that
completion for a while and return to it after you have
categorized several others.

In some cases a particular completion may appear to contain
elements of more than one category. To pick the category that
is most influential, look for the way in which the child tries
to solve the problem or reach the goal. Settle on the behavior
that has the most influence in resolving the problem.

 

The Categories

1. ”Withdrawal,” or ”resignation.“ Mark with the symbol W.

Use this category when the child's story contains no real solution to
the problem. Here, the child gives up, resigns himself to Fate, or replies
as though saying, ”That's just the way life is." He may think about his
goal, but he never finds a way to attain it.

129

123
2. ”Appeal to Authority.” Mark with the symbol, A.

Use this category when the child does not solve the problem himself,
but relies upon or asks an authority figure to take care of the problem
for him. Examples of authority figures would be teachers, parents, or
older brothers or sisters.

3. "Fantasy." Mark with an F.

Use this category when the child resolves the problem by inventing
a highly improbable or unlikely "solution." For example, he might meet
a man on the street who gave him a hundred dollars, or a person of
influence might suddenly undergo a change of personality. Fantasy answers
have the quality of day-dreams, or of magic.

4. ”Anti-Social Aggression, Hostility." Mark AS°

Put stories in this category when the child strikes back, takes
revenge, or commits some other anti-social act in order to reach his
goal. Examples would be stealing or the use of illegal force to attain
what the child wants.

 

5. "Problem-Solving.” Mark PS.

 

Use this category when the child presents the goal as reached by
reasonable means which involve any or all of these behaviors:

a. deferring gratification

b. aiming toward long-range goals and taking realistic steps to get
there.

c. assuming responsibility for his own actions.

d. effecting change through his own efforts, but not through
authorities or anti—social aggression.

APPENDIX D

THE WIDE-RANGE ACHIEVEMENT TEST DATA

The Wide-Range Achievement Test contains two levels, with
three subtests (reading, spelling, and arithmetic) in each lev-
el. Measures on the reading and arithmetic subtests of Level I
were obtained by the schools for the children of the present
study. Administration favored these subjects, since tests were
administered individually and time limits were not observed.

The normative population for Level I of the revised WRAT con-
sisted of 5868 children and adults from seven states. Children
were selected from schools of known socio-economic levels, and a
representative distribution of IQ's was attained in the samplings
of eadh normative age group. Split-half reliability for the read—
ing sUbtest ranges from .986 to .990. Reliability coefficients
for the arithmetic subtest range from .942 to .966. No other re—
liability coefficients are given in the 1965 Manual of Instructions,
although the authors cite one study1 which showed only small and
statistically insignificant variations in scores of the same indi-
viduals over five successive administrations of the WRAT.

Standard scores (with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of
15) and percentile scores are given for age and grade. The children
of this study attained standard scores on the arithmetic subtest
ranging from 65 to 106. The mean of the distribution of arithmetic
scores was 86 and the standard deviation, 8.92. Standard scores on
the reading sUbtest ranged from 60 to 128, with a mean of 84 and a
standard deviation of 13.89. Table XVI shows the distribution of
standard scores obtained by the subjects of the present study.

 

lDeLong, A. R., "The Limits of Accuracy of the Test Scores of Edu-
cable Mentally Retarded Individuals." Journal of the Association for
Research in Growth Relationships, 3 (1962), 26-44. Cited in Jastak
and Jastak, 22..gi£., 14-15.

 

 

124

 

125
TABLE XVI

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF STANDARD ACHIEVEMENT SCORES
ATTAINED ON THE WRAT BY MEXICAN-AMERICAN MIGRANT CHILDREN

 

 

Standard Scores Reading Arithmetic
6O - 69 9 3
70 - 79 13 7
80 — 89 23 29
90 - 99 5 14
100 - 109 5 5
110 - 119 1 O
120 - 129 2 O

 

APPENDIX E

RESULTS OF THE STEP-WISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS

TABLE XVII

MULTIPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AND REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS
FOR PERCEIVED PARENT-CHILD RELATIONS AND ACHIEVEMENT

 

 

Variables Dimensions Mult Cor Coef Reg Coef
MOthers' perceived Neglecting .519 - 546
parent-child rela- Rejecting .542 - 644
tions and reading Protecting .590 .439
achievement Punishing .607 390
Rewarding .612 - 202
Demanding .613 - 080
Loving .613 049
Casual .613 - 036
MOthers' perceived Rejecting .513 - 684
parent-child rela— Punishing .595 464
tions and arithme- Demanding .619 205
tic achievement Neglecting .627 - 111
Loving .633 - 264
Rewarding .642 .246
Protecting .644 075
Casual .644 - 007
Fathers' perceived Casual .333 - 749
parent-child rela- Loving .520 .596
tions and reading Rejecting .524 306
achievement Punishing .530 — 224
Demanding 535 - 147
Protecting .538 222
Rewarding .541 - 218
Neglecting .544 - 132
Fathers' perceived Loving .339 323
parent-Child rela- Casual .506 - 421
tions and arithme- Demanding .537 186
tic achievement Rewarding .555 - 237
Neglecting .572 - 249
Rejecting .596 .165
Punishing .597 074
Protecting .597 - 021

 

126

 

'::",'x-:‘:-7:. '- " - _ "'7 1' - V. ' MICHIGON STATE UNIV

1 Ill/l

" w l
312l‘l'l’101795