A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY. or PROSPECTNE'TEACHERS' ’ : ATHTUDES TOWARD TEACHINGjN‘ DIFFERING ' r T socm- ECONOMIC-CLASS composmons ; Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY GREGORY G.’ KlRSCH 1976 lr'n’Anv’ M:'..j_y;t craze ' nivcrsity This is to certify that the thesis entitled A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS' ATTITUDES TOWARD TEACHING IN DIFFERING SOCIO-ECONOMIC-CLASS COMPOSITIONS presented by Gregory C. Kirsch has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in Edu0gtion Major professor I DateCZMZ/éQ/x/g7é i ( 0-7 639 .— ABSTRACT A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS' ATTITUDES TOWARD TEACHING IN DIFFERING SOCIO-ECONOMIC-CLASS COMPOSITIONS BY Gregory G. Kirsch The Problem The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the extent to which undergraduate education students have formed attitudes toward teaching in differing socio- economic-class compositions. A secondary purpose had application to teacher preparation programs in identify- ing socio-economic-class-composition preferences of pro- spective teachers. Methodology and Procedures The study sample consisted of four distinct groups of 50 members each: beginning prospective teachers prior to student teaching, terminal prospective teachers post- student teaching, in-service teachers, and noneducation majors. Eight research questions were stated with a description of the appropriate procedural analyses applied to each question. Procedures used were frequency distri- bution, chi-square, and multivariate analysis. A Gregory G. Kirsch simultaneous examination of 10 sources of cultural infor- mation that respondents considered important or unimpor- tant resulted from the multivariate analysis. The eight research questions and seven hypotheses were stated in null form. The level of significance selected to reject the null hypothesis was .05 (a = .05). Findings This study suggested that prospective teachers enter teacher preparation programs from backgrounds character- ized by middle- to upper-middle-socio-economic-class compositions, income positions, and occupational status. Once within a teacher preparation program, these prospec- tive teachers seem to reflect their past socio-economic- class composition in a like preference for a possible future teaching assignment. The data also suggested that the teacher preparation program has no effect on or does not consider prospective teachers' attitudes toward dif- fering socio-economic-class compositions. In addition, once students become in-service teachers they tend to be more attracted to teaching positions in higher socio- economic-class compositions and suburban, small city, town, or rural areas. Implications and Recommendations Evidence in this study suggested the perceptions held by both groups of prospective teachers were largely Gregory G. Kirsch negative toward teaching in a lower-socio-economic-class composition. This finding raises some serious questions, the most important being how to provide a meaningful and rewarding education to students in lower-socio-economic- class compositions when many prospective teachers hold negative attitudes toward this specific class composition. Another serious question is, do prospective teachers hold students in lower-socio-economic-class compositions in low esteem? The findings indicated, in fact, that prospective teachers perceive students in lower-socio- economic-class compositions as having very different values and as being discipline problems. The main diffi- culty deals not with personal experience but myths and stereotypes attributed to students in lower-socio-economic class compositions. The following recommendations are offered for teacher training institutions: 1. Teacher training institutions should try to provide prospective teachers with an opportunity to inter- act with peOple of diverse social classes, races, and value positions. 2. Increasing the representation of poor white and minority group students in colleges and universities should become a top priority of teacher training institu- tions. Gregory G. Kirsch 3. For prospective teachers to gain the ability to perceive differing socio-economic-class compositions positively, professors in teacher training programs must be able to understand their own attitudes as well as those of their students. Further, this understanding must help students realistically to perceive themselves and others around them. 4. Teacher training institutions should conduct seminars for public school administrators to assist them in dealing with negative socio-economic-class attitudes of in-service teachers. A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS' ATTITUDES TOWARD TEACHING IN DIFFERING SOCIO-ECONOMIC-CLASS COMPOSITIONS BY , 31:0 Gregory G?‘Kirsch A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1976 Copyright by GREGORY G. KIRSCH 1976 To Susan, a pillar of strength, inspiration, and admiration; and Jeremy, a most beautiful, warm, and intelligent son. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In the completion of a project of this nature the author wishes to express his appreciation to all who have helped to make this writing a reality. Special acknowledg- ment is due Dr. John Suehr, chairman of the author's doctoral committee, who has contributed to and encouraged the author's personal and professional growth. To Dr. I. Carl Candoli, Dr. Dale Alam, and Dr. Larry Lezotte, appreciation is expressed for their continued assistance, warm support, criticism, and interest. To William L. Selke, a neighbor and friend, grati- tude is expressed for personal support and professional expertise. Love is acknowledged especially to the author's father, who wanted me to become, and mother, who allowed me to be--a beautiful combination of encouragement and support. Last but in no way least, sincere appreciation and a special gift of gratitude to the author's beautiful wife Susan, who has endured faithfully to the end. WOrds can never express the feelings of appreciation the author has for her infinite patience and encouragement. To Susan and the author's son, Jeremy, the goals were accomplished and the task is complete! iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 General Statement of the Problem . . . . . . 1 Significance of the Problem . . . . . . . . 3 Research Questions . . . . . 8 . . . . . . . 7 The sample 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 9 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . 12 Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . .,. . . 13 Overview of the Study . . . . . . . . ... . 14 II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . 16 \ Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Teacher and Prospective Teacher Social- Class Backgrounds, Attitudes, and Their Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Teacher Expectations and Student ' Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . 25 Teacher Personality, Attitude, and ‘ Prejudice Toward Disadvantaged Students . 29 Innovations, Teacher-Training Programs, and Alternatives to Deal With Attitude Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 36 smary O O C O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 43 III. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . e . 46 The Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 46 Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Research Questions, Hypotheses, and Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .j. . . 54 iv Chapter IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . General Background . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Research Questions I-IV Research Question I . . . Research Question II . . Research Question III . Research Question IV . . Analysis of Research Questi and VII . . . . . . . . . . . Research Question V . . . . . . . Research Question VI . . . Research Question VII . . . . . Analysis of Research Question VIII . Research Question VIII . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ons V, II, V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Major Findings . . . . . . . . . . . Research Question I . . . . . . . Research Question II . . . . . . . Research Question III . . . . . . Research Question IV . . . . . . . Research Question V . . . . . . Research Question VI . . . . Research Question VII . . . Research Question VIII . . . Discussion of the Findings . . . Implications of the Study . . Recommendations for Teacher Tra'ning Institutions . . . . . . . . . Recommendations for Further Study . J. APPENDICES O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O A. ADDITIONAL DATA . . . . . . . . . . . B. INSTRUMENT: TEACHER CULTURAL PLACEMENT SURVEY O O O O O O O O O O I O I O O BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 105 110 113 114 116 117 120 133 LI ST OF TABLES Table Page 3.1 Summary Characteristics of Total Sample by Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 4.1 Frequency Distribution of Respondents' Rationale for Wanting to Teach in a Lower- Socio-Economic-Class Composition . . . . . . 59 4.2 Frequency Distribution of Respondents' Rationale for Not Wanting to Teach in a Lower-Socio-Economic-Class Composition . . . 61 4.3 Frequency Distribution of Ethnic Background Relative to a Possible Future Teaching ASSignment O I O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 62 4.4 Frequency Distribution of Social-Class Background Relative to a Possible Future Teaching Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 4.5 Frequency Distribution for Major Occupations of Heads of Respondents' Households . . . . . 66 4.6 Frequency Distribution of Type of Community Respondents Occupied as Youths . . . . . . . 67 4.7 Frequency Distribution of the Racial Composition of Respondents' Home Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 4.8 Frequency Distribution of the Desirable Racial Composition of the School in Which Respondents Prefer to Teach . . . . . . . . . 70 4.9 Summary Table of Tables 4.7 and 4.8 . . . . . . 71 4.10 Frequency Distribution of the Type of School in Which Respondents Received Their Secondary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.11 Frequency Distribution of Social Class Compo- sition of Respondents' High Schools . . . . . 72 vi Table 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.18 4.21 Frequency Distribution of Racial Composi- tion of Respondents' High Schools . . . . . . Frequency Distribution of Income Position of Respondents' Families at the Time of Their Graduation From High School . . . . . . Frequency Distribution of Parents' Opinion Toward ReSpondents' Desire to Teach in a Lower-Socio-Economic-Class Composition . . . Frequency Distribution of Friends' (Those You Talk With Openly) Opinions Toward Respondents' Desire to Teach in a Lower- Socio-Economic-Class Composition . . . . . . Frequency Distribution for Undergraduate Education Majors' (Groups 1 and 2) Prefer- ence Toward Socio-Economic-Class Composition in a Possible Future Teaching Assignment . . Frequency Distribution for Undergraduate Education Majors' (Groups 1 and 2) Prefer- ence Toward School Location in a Possible Future Teaching Assignment . . . . . . . . . Frequency Distribution for Undergraduate Education Majors' (Groups 1 and 2 Combined) and Undergraduate Noneducation Majors' (Group 4) Preference Toward Socio-Economic- Class Composition in a Possible Future Teaching Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency Distribution for Undergraduate Education Majors' (Groups 1 and 2 Combined) and Undergraduate Noneducation Majors' (Group 4) Preference Toward School Location in a Possible Future Teaching Assignment . . Frequency Distribution for Undergraduate Education Majors' (Groups 1 and 2 Combined) and In-Service Teachers' (Group 3) Prefer- ence Toward Socio-Economic-Class Composition in a Possible Future Teaching Assignment . . Frequency Distribution for Undergraduate Education Majors' (Groups 1 and 2 Combined) and In-Service Teachers' (Group 3) Prefer- ence Toward School Location in a Possible Future Teaching Assignment . . . . . . . . . vii Page 73 74 74 75 77 78 80 81 83 84 Table A1. A2. A3. Page Design Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 MANOVA Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 ANOVA Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 MANOVA Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Univariate ANOVA Table--Groups Univariate ANOVA Table--Groups 3/4 . . . . . . 91 Summary Table of Tables 4.26 and 4.27 . . . . 92 Observed Cell Means--Subgroup 2 (Other Than Lower-Socio-Economic-Class Composition) . . 93 Frequency Distribution of Subgroup l . . . . . 95 Observed Cell Means--Subgroup 1 (Lower- Socio-Economic-Class Composition) . . . . . 96 Frequency Distribution for Socio-Economic- Class Composition of the School in Which Respondents in Group Two Had Their Student Teaching Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Frequency Distribution for Racial Composition of the School in Which Respondents in Group Two Had Their Student Teaching Experience . 119 Frequency Distribution for Willingness of Respondents in Group Two to Accept or Not Accept a Position in the School at Which They Student Taught . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION General Statement of the Problem The primary purpose of this study is to investigate the extent to which undergraduate education students have formed attitudes toward teaching in differing socio-economic class compositions. A secondary purpose has application to teacher preparation programs in identifying socio-economic class composition preferences of prospective teachers. Students in a teacher preparation program are studied rela- tive to expressed class-composition preferences and stated rationale for these preferences. To help elucidate and .interpret the findings regarding undergraduate education students prior to student teaching, three other groups are also surveyed. These groups are: (1) post-student teaching education majors, (2) in-service teachers, and (3) nonedu- cation undergraduate students. Examining and comparing these four groups lends objectivity to the interpretation of findings of the study. In the past, institutions of higher education pre- pared teachers to deal mainly with white, middle-class students. Teachers of tomorrow will be forced, by legal and social change, to deal with more culturally diverse pupils. Studies conducted in the 1930's and 1940's deter- mined that 95 out of 100 teachers surveyed came from middle-class backgrounds.l Coleman, in Equality of Educa- tional Opportunity, stated that relatively few highly skilled future teachers will select teaching situations in which they can override the environmental deficiencies common to minority children.2 The application of this study to teacher preparation programs is that specific class-composition preferences of prospective teachers can be determined. Once such prefer- ences are determined, educators and institutions of higher education can plan teacher preparation programs that best reflect the socio-economic-class needs of the larger society. Student social-emotional behavior, as suggested by social scientists and teacher training institutions, is affected by teacher competence and modeling of conscious or unconscious attitudes.3 Hence the intent of the present 1W. Lloyd Warner, Robert J. Havighurst, and Martin B. Leob, Who Shall Be Educated? (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1944), PP. 102-103. 2James Coleman, Equaligy of Educational Opportuni§y_ (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, l966T, p. 27. 3Margaret Greer, "Affective Growth Through Reading," The Readipg Teacher 25 (January 1972): 336-41; Arthur T. Jersild, When Teachers Face Themselves (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1967), pp. 125-36; John E. LOpis, "Handbook for Interpersonal Process Laboratory Instructors," Education 200 (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1974), pp. 1-38; Carl R. Rogers, "Interpersonal Relationships: U.S.A. 2000," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 4 (1968). study is to examine one aspect of socio-emotional behavior-- attitudes of prospective teachers toward varying socio- economic-class backgrounds. Significance of the Problem Studies relevant to the state of social change in education, such as the Coleman report and the Repprt of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders have indicated a need for teachers who are qualified to cope with problems of the disadvantaged.4 This study should provide some understanding of socio-economic class compo- sition preferences of prospective teachers and add to the body of literature surrounding socio-economic-class bias of prospective teachers. A clearer understanding of the rationale on which prospective teachers base their class- composition preferences may help improve employment prac- tices of school districts lying within deprived areas. Finally, once trends in class-composition preferences are determined, educators and institutions of higher education can plan teacher preparation programs that best reflect the needs of the larger society. There can be no doubt about the importance of qual- ity education. The many pressures for accomplishment placed on the individual as well as on the entire educational 4Coleman, Equalipy; Report of the National Advisogy Commission on Civil Disorders (New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1968. system demand that each child receive the best possible education. With society's demands for high-achieving stu- dents, it is imperative to determine what has been or can be done to meet the pressing problem of achieving cultural understanding and acceptance of people of different races. For centuries cultural and racial misunderstanding, fear, and hatred have characterized the way in which people of different backgrounds relate to one another. Racism and discrimination in America have traveled a long and bitter path; our schools have not been excluded from this struggle. What started out in the 1600's as mere dis- crimination has resulted in unequal educational institu- tions (formerly segregated by law in some states), inade- quate housing, deprived environments, poor job opportunities, and low economic status for minorities. Centuries of nelgect can be cited as the primary cause of cultural mis- understanding in today's society. In its report on civil disorders, the National Advisory Commission wrote: What white Americans have never fully understood . . . but what the Negro can never forget . . . is white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto. White institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it. Race prejudice has shaped our history decisively; it now threatens to affect our future. 5Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, pp. 2-10. Throughout history the varieties of cultural dis- crimination can be likened to cancer. If one could find the cause, then a cure would soon follow. The problem is that many types of discrimination run wide and deep in American society, and little has been done thus far to effect a cure. Teacher attitude as it relates to pupil achieve- ment and self-image is critical. Many studies have shown that some of the most important factors affecting pupils are teacher attitude, student and teacher self-concepts, and teacher expectations. In 1967, Rosenthal and Jacobson found in a study of the effect of teacher attitudes on children's achievement that: . . . one person's expectations of another's beha- vior may serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy. When teachers expected certain children would show greater intellectual develOpment, those children did show greater intellectual develOpment. In a study by Skeels et al., it was shown that pseudo-retardation and alertness in children living in an orphanage could be manipulated through the children's environment. One of the authors' basic findings was that pseudo-retarded children became alert when communication and love were introduced within their environment.7 6R. Rosenthal and L. Jacobson, "Self-Fulfilling PrOphecies in the Classroom," paper presented at the American Psychological Association, September 1967. 7H. M. Skeels et al., "A Study of Environmental Stimulation; An Orphanage Pre-School Project," University of Iowa Studies of Child Welfare 15 (1938). In addition to teacher attitude, a student's self- acceptance is also a critical element in his achievement and emotional develOpment. If a child doesn't feel he is in control of his environmental and social forces, a crucial blow may be delivered to his ego-strength and self-confidence. Without self-acceptance, a child will probably not have a highly positive self-image and there- fore will not be able to deve10p high self-esteem without degrading others. ConverSely, self-accepting children demonstrate more positive achievement scores, educational aspirations, and acceptance of others. Trent, in 1957, found: Although the data of this study do not indicate whether perception of self determines perception of others or whether the reverse holds, clinical experience indicates that a child develops an aware- ness of "I" before an awareness of "we" or "they." Accordingly, the data suggest that if a child does not accept himself as a person of worth or value, he may tend to perceive groups, including his own, in a derogatory and hostile fashion. The present body of knowledge and research regard- ing attitudes seems to point to a need to help students develop positive attitudes about themselves and others. The relationship of the present study to the realm of educational progress is that specific socio-economic class preferences of prospective teachers can be determined. 8R. D. Trent, "The Relation Between Expressed Self-Acceptance and Expressed Attitudes Toward Negroes and Whites Among Children," Journal of Genetic Psychology_ 91 (1957): 30. Once such preferences are determined, educators and insti- tutions of higher education can plan multi-Option teacher preparation programs. Carrying such programs to an effec- tive conclusion, prospective teachers and future teaching situations can be more closely matched to facilitate the personal growth of both teacher and student. In this way socio-economic-class misunderstandings, fears, and hatred in our educational structure can be dealt with in a more systematic manner. Research Questions The specific problem of this research is to inves- tigate the following research questions and their related hypotheses: Research Question I: What are the respondents' most frequently stated rationale for a lower-socio-economic- class-composition preference? Research Question II: What are the respondents' most frequently stated rationale for not selecting a lower- socio-economic-class-composition preference? Research Question III: What is the ethnic background of respondents in Groups 1-4 (Group l--beginning pro- spective teachers prior to student teaching; Group 2-- terminal prospective teachers post-student teaching; Group 3--in-serv1ce teachers; Group 4--undergraduate noneducation majors), relative to socio-economic-class- composition preference? Research Question IV: What is the social-class compo- sition of the home communities of respondents in Groups 1-4 relative to socio-economic-class-composition preference? Research Question V: What is the extent to which pro- spective teachers (Groups 1 and 2) have formed attitudes toward teaching in differing socio-economic-class compo- sitions and schools? Null Hypothesis 1: There will be no significant difference between undergraduate education majors who have had student teaching and undergraduate education majors who have not yet had student teaching based on preference for socio-economic- class composition. Null Hypothesis 2: There will be no significant difference between undergraduate education majors who have had student teaching and undergraduate education majors who have not yet had student teaching based on preference for school location. Research Question VI: What are the similarities and differences between undergraduate noneducation majors (Group 4) and undergraduate education majors (Groups 1 and 2) based on preference for socio-economic-class composition and school location? Null Hypothesis 3: There will be no significant difference between undergraduate education majors and undergraduate noneducation majors based on socio-economic-class composition preference. Null Hypothesis 4: There will be no significant .difference between undergraduate education majors and undergraduate noneducation majors based on school location preference. Research Question VII: What are the similarities and differences between undergraduate education majors (Groups 1 and 2) and in-service teachers (Group 3) based on socio-economic-class composition preference and school location? Null Hypothesis 5: There will be no significant difference between undergraduate education majors and in-service teachers based on socio-economic- class-composition preference. Null Hypothesis 6: There will be no significant difference between undergraduate education majors and in-service teachers based on school location. Research Question VIII: What are the sources of cultural information for Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 relative to socio- economic-class-composition preference? Null Hypothesis 7: There will be no significant difference among the four groups of undergraduate and post-graduate respondents at Michigan State University on ten different sources of cultural information. The Sample Four distinct groups composed the total sample for this study. Group 1 comprised 50 reSpondents enrolled in Education 200, "The Individual and the School," offered to s0phomores and juniors at Michigan State University. Education 200 is a required teacher education experience that focuses on self-help and helping others, as well as on personal and professional growth and change. The per- sonal demands of teaching are taught through Interpersonal Process Labs; the task demands of teaching are taught through reading materials, individual carrel activities, and tutorial sessions. Group 2 consisted of 50 respondents enrolled in Education 450, "School and Society," at Michigan State University; all senior education majors must take this course upon completion of student teaching. Education 450 is the last professional course offered to prospective teachers at the university, and is designed to meet certain State Department of Education requirements for teacher cer- tification. Group 3 consisted of 50 respondents who, at the time of the study, were in-service teachers. Levels of instruction represented in this group included early 10 and late elementary, middle school, junior high school, high school, and university. The kinds of schools ser- viced by respondents encompassed inner city, suburban, rural, small town, and college. Respondents' teaching experience ranged from 1 to 20 years. Group 4 consisted of 50 respondents enrolled in T.C. 310, "Basic Telecommunication Policy," a required course offered to SOphomores and juniors in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State Uni- versity. The course deals with essentials of U.S. public communication policy treated through rigorous methodologi- cal analysis of case and statutory law, public documents, and related primary materials. The following list sum— marizes the composition of the sample according to group number and type: Group l-—EducatiOn 200 (beginning prospective teach- ers prior to student teaching) Group 2--Education 450 (terminal prOSpective teachers post-student teaching) Group 3--In-service teachers Group 4--T.C. 310 Telecommunications (noneducation majors) Definition of Terms . The following terms are defined in the context in which they are used in this study: ll Attitude: "A delimited totality of behavior with respect to something."9 For example, the attitude of a person toward blacks or whites could be said to be the totality of acts that a person has performed with respect to the Opposite race. Culture: In A Dictionary of the Social Sciences, six major categories of "culture" are examined and defined: (1) enumeratively descriptive, (2) historical, (3) norma- tive, (4) psychological, (5) structural, and (6) genetic. This study employs the "structural" definition, which states: "A culture is an historically derived system of explicit and implicit designs for living, which tends to be shared by all or specially designated members of a group."10 Disadvantaged: Primarily low-income people. Inner-cigy school: Schools existing in lower- socio-economic-class compositions located in the core of a city.11 Lower-socio-economic-class compositions: Areas with high male unemployment, a high percentage of functional 9L. Guttman, "The Problem of Attitude and Opinion Measurement," in Measugement and Prediction, ed. S. A. Stouffer (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950), p. 51. 10A. Kroeber and C. Kluckhorn, in A Dictionary of the Social Sciences, ed. Gould and Kolb (New York: The Free Press, 1965), pp. 160-70. 110.8. Bureau of the Census, Census ofgppulapion: 1970, Detailed Characteristics, Final Report,IK:(l)-Dl, U.S. Summary (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1973). 12 illiterates, low family income (below poverty level), substandard housing, low property values, and a high to~ moderate crime rate.12 Middle-socio-economic-class compositions: ‘Stable areas of a city or fringes of a city with moderate to high male employment, moderate to high literacy, moderate fam- ily income (above poverty level), above-standard housing, and educational attainment.13 53531: Areas well removed from cities, with low concentrations of people; primarily agricultural. Suburban schools: Schools located in middle- socio-economic-class compositions on the fringes of a city. Upper-socio-economic—class compositions: Areas well removed from access of the majority of people, pri- marily through economic barriers; conspicuous for high family income, high educational attainment, high property . 14 values, and an overall low cr1me rate. Limitations of the Study The following points were considered to be limi- tations of the study: 1. The present investigation was limited to the four selected sample groups. Results of the study can be applied only to this pOpulation. 12Alan Gilpin, Dictionary of Economic Terms (New York: Philos0phical Library, Inc., 1970). 13Ibid. 14Ibid. 13 2. The pOpulation mixture of race, sex, and socio-economic-class background may vary from term to term. 3. The characteristics of the respondents within the two prospective teacher groups may differ greatly from those of prospective teachers attending other colleges and universities. Instrumentation The General Educational Survey was develOped to obtain information about prospective teacher placement preferences and the rationale for these preferences. This instrument was used to collect descriptive data. The original form of the questionnaire was used in an exploratory study in 1968. The questionnaire form used in the present study was revised, edited, and expanded in 1969 by the Michigan State University Office of Research Consultation.15 The questionnaire, which was designed primarily to collect descriptive data, consists of three segments: Part I--general, descriptive-information questions designed to allow the respondent to outline his socio-economic background and preferences in future teaching situations; Part II--questions for respondents preferring not to teach 15Ray Bettinghaus, Office Of Research Consultation, Michigan State University, assisted in the development of the questionnaire. 14 in low-socio-economic areas or with disadvantaged students, and possible reasons for their decision; and Part III-- questions for respondents choosing to teach in low-socio- economic areas or with disadvantaged students, and possible reasons for their decision. The first section of the questionnaire was based on the National Principal's Study_questionnaire from the 15 The last section of the Harvard Principal's Study. questionnaire was based on a short-form teacher question- naire develOped by the Unified School District in Racine, Wisconsin.16 Overview of the Study This study is organized into five chapters. The statement of the problem, its significance, and possible limitations were presented in Chapter I. Chapter II contains a review of literature in four areas that have specific relevance to the present study: (1) Teacher and Prospective Teacher Social-Class Back- grounds, Attitudes, and Their Effect; (2) Teacher Expec- tations and Student Performance; (3) Teacher Personality, Attitude, and Prejudice Toward Disadvantaged Students; and 15Robert E. Herriott and Nancy Hoyt St. John, Social Class and the Urban School (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966). PP. 217-73. 16Milton Hillery, Director of Research for the Unified School District, Racine Wisconsin, unpublished teacher questionnaire. 15 (4) Innovations, New Teacher Training Programs, and Alter- natives to Deal With Attitude DeveIOpment. The methodology and procedures of the study are described in Chapter III. Included is a discussion of instrumentation and procedures used in data analysis, and a description of the sample. I Presented in Chapter IV is an analysis of the data, with particular attention to the research questions out- lined in Chapter I. In Chapter V, the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations for further study are presented. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction The purpose of the review of related literature is to survey investigations upon which the present research was based and to provide background material for the study. Throughout the research studies, professional journals, books, and reports surveyed herein, one crucial element-- the teacher--seems to tower over other concerns. Schools are charged with the responsibility of providing our chil- dren with a relevant and adequate education. Achievement of this responsibility depends upon what happens when student and teacher interact. Since teachers are the pri- mary educational agents dealing directly with students, the transfer of adequate and relevant education depends greatly on the educators' effectiveness. Gertrude Noar pointed out that: . . . Teacher candidates need to understand not only what makes the children tick but also what motivates himself. Somewhere, sometime, during his years in college, he should experience a self-confrontation. . . . There is no longer any doubt that the very nature of our culturally pluralistic society imposes on the college the necessity of so preparing teachers that they are free of irrational prejudices and can 16 17 see their responsibility for helping children to become peOple free of racial, religious, and social class bias.1 In speaking to the needs of minority, low-social- class, and disadvantaged students, Kontos and Murphy emphasized the need for institutions of higher education to explore different kinds of training programs: The critical agent for breaking the vicious cycle of poverty that children are victims of, is the teacher. But teachers are not trained to meet the needs of large-city school children. Basically, teacher training institutions are oriented toward an aca- demic, traditional school setting. Teacher train- ing patterns do not emphasize the needs or urban youth and new strategies for their teachers. . . . Now that the urban poor have been discovered, such terms as "experimentation" and "innovation" have become catchwords of urban education. Projects and experiments multiply, yet visible changes in the Operation and quality of inner-city schools remain imperceptible. And that lack of visible change will continue unless the training of the classroom teacher --the real agent of educational change--improves. For the purpose of investigation related to pro- spective teacher social attitudes and effect, the review of related literature has been divided into four cate- gories: (1) Teacher and Prospective Teacher Social-Class Backgrounds, Attitudes, and Their Effect; (2) Teacher Expectations and Student Performance; (3) Teacher Person- ality, Attitude, and Prejudice Toward Disadvantaged Students; 1Gertrude NOar, Teaching and Learning the Demo- cratic Way (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1963). pp. 119-21. 2Peter G. Kontos and James J. Murphy, Teaching Urban Youth (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967), pp. 7, 73. 18 and (4) Innovations, New Teacher Training Programs, and Alternatives to Deal With Attitude DeveIOpment. Teacher and Prospective Teacher Social-Class Backgrounds, Attitudes, and Their Effect Many recent studies have been concerned with the state of attitudes of in—service and/or prospective teach- ers. The research cited in the following pages represents what was felt to be most applicable to the present study. Teacher attitude as a variable that affects chil- dren's learning process is a significant concern. Delving into the relationship between teacher attitude and effects upon learning, Davis found: 1. All school-learning is stimulated or hindered by the teacher's feelings toward the student. Each must have faith and trust in each other. 2. All school-learning is influenced by the cul- tural attitudes which the teacher has toward the stu- dent and which the student experiences toward the teacher. In rejecting the student's cultural back- ground, the teacher often appears to reject the student himself as a human being. In return, and as early as the first grade, the student may reject the culture of the school and of the teacher. Both teacher and pupil must learn to respect the ability and position of the other. Menninger emphasized the effect teacher attitudes have on students' develOpment: Most teachers are acquainted with what psychiatrists call the three basic parts of the personality--the conscious, the unconscious, and the conscience. The 3A. Davis, "Changing the Culture of the Disadvantaged Student," in Working With Low Income Families, Proceedings of the AHEA WorkshOp (Washington, D.C.: American Home Economics Association, 1965), pp. 22-23. 19 unseen energy drives or forces generated in these parts of the personality anatomy make us the peOple we are. . . . Some of our automatic responses and behavior patterns are the result of attitudes formed in early childhood. Relationships with our parents, our brothers, and sisters, and our teachers have all played a part in the develOpment of our personality --just as, in turn, our personality and attitudes toward our students are affecting their development. . . . Since your students may be affected by your 4 patterns, it is important that you understand them. Through an investigation of teacher attitudes toward inner-city children, the Michigan Study Research Center at the University of Michigan found that teachers' attitudes toward minority groups were negative. Other significant findings of this study were that (1) teachers held negative attitudes toward their pupils in classes with a larger prOportion of black pupils than white pupils, and (2) the higher the number of black pupils in a class, the lower the teachers' rating of their pupils' academic ability and motivation.5 The findings of a study by Mildred Smith indi- cated that teachers' expectations and students' perception of these expectations were significantly related to years of school attendance and grades. Smith's investigation pointed out that teachers have different expectations for different students and that most students accurately 4William Menninger, "Self Understanding for Teach- ers," National Education Association Journal 15 (1953): 332. 5First Michigan Public School_§ocial Census (Lansing: Michigan Department of Education, 1967). 20 perceive these expectations.6 The Report of the Detroit High School Study Commission pointed out that attitudes of most teachers reflected frustration, deSpair, and low expectations of their students and of themselves, and that this has been one of the most significant problems facing the Detroit school system.7 In exploring teachers' attitudes and their effect on students, Brookover develOped a theory of "significant 8 He theorized that each individual in society others." learns certain types of behavior--those he considers appropriate for himself. The apprOpriateness of his beha- vior is defined for him by the internalization of the expectations of "significant others," i.e. those people who are important to him. Further, the theory of "sig- nificant others" states that the individual also takes on the attitudes of "significant others," and behaves in accordance with his conception of how he feels his "sig- nificant others" see him. 6Mildred B. Smith, "Interpersonal Relationship in the Classroom Based on the Expected Socio-Economic Status of Sixth Grade Boys," The Teacher College Journal 36 (January 1962): 190-210. 7Edward Cushman and Keith Damon, eds., Report of the Detroit High School Study‘Commission (Detroit, Michigan, June 1968). 8Wilbur B. Brookover, "Some Social Psychological Conceptions of Classroom Learning," School and Society 87 (1959): 84-87. 21 Well within the range of becoming "significant others" to children are teachers. The bridge between Brookover's theory and actual practice is that the teacher can be an effective agent of change in students' atti- tudes, providing the student perceives the teacher as being important to him. If the teacher is unimportant to a student, it does not matter to that student what the teacher thinks or expects of him. However, if the stu- dent perceives the teacher as being an important person to him, the student will be influenced by a teacher's attitudes and expectations. A 1968 study by Rosenthal and Jacobson Continued work examining teacher expectancy as a crucial teaching and learning variable.9 Children at Oak School in San Francisco, California, were pretested using a nonverbal test of intelligence. Teachers were told this test would predict intellectual "blooming" or "Spurting." At the beginning of the school year following the pretesting, the teachers of grades one through six were given the names of 20 percent of their students who would show dramatic intellectual growth in the coming academic year. In actuality, the names given the teachers were chosen by a random number selection process. Post-tests were given to all the students after one semester, after a full 9Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson, Pygmalion in the Classroom (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968). 22 academic year, and after two full academic years. The researchers found marked expectancy advantage was sig~ nificantly greater among children in the first and second grades. A two-year follow-up test reported that the young students had lost their expectance advantage, whereas the students in the upper grades showed an increased expec— tancy advantage. Of particular importance was the teacher rating of the students who had been expected to bloom intellectually. These students were rated by their teachers as being more intellectually curious, happier, and, especially in the lower grades, less in need of social approval. Stated in summary, the researchers' findings were: . . . It is the teacher to whom we should direct more of our research attention. If we could learn how she is able to effect dramatic improvement in her pupils' competence without formal changes in her teaching methods, then we could teach other teachers to do the same. If further research shows that it is possible to select teachers whose untrained interacting style does for many of her pupils what our teachers did for the special children, it may be possible to combine s0phisticated teacher selection and placement with teacher training to optimize the learning of all pupils. Other researchers have agreed with Rosenthal and Jacobson that teacher training should be optimized to 11 The social-class orien- increase all pupils' learning. tation of the teacher and its effect on his successful teaching of disadvantaged youth and on his attitude toward 10 11 Ibid. Ibid. 23 pupils, parents, and teaching assignment in lower-class urban areas have been well documented in the literature. In studies of various groups of teachers and prospective teachers, Havighurst found considerable varia- bility in social-class origin according to the region of the country and the size and type of college attended. He concluded that a large group of teachers is still drawn from business and professional families, but that increas- ingly more are coming from lower-middle and upper-working- class backgrounds.12 Considering that acquiring a teaching certificate depends upon obtaining a college degree, and further understanding that admission to many colleges requires both academic and social skills in conjunction with a middle-class financial base, many researchers have con- sidered the resulting teacher to be middle class and to teach the middle-class way of life. Davis, in looking at beginning teachers, found that emotional trauma often besets the new teacher who finds himself in a lower-class teaching situation: Many (new and experienced) teachers find it impos- sible to understand the attitudes and values of these pupils; they are puzzled by the students' reactions to the material and to the instructor and by their often sullen, resentful behavior. Such teachers, coming from middle-class backgrounds and possessing highly academic training from colleges and universi- ties, experience a cultural shock owing to the great 12Robert J. Havighurst, Education in Metropolitan Areas (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1966i, pp. 198-99. 24 difference between their own training and academic goals and those of most of their students. The result in many cases is bewilderment, followed by disillusionment and apathy.13 In a study of Chicago public school teachers, Becker found that teachers felt the nature and intensity of problems varied with the social-class background of the pupils. Teachers perceived the lower-class pUpil as being ". . . difficult to teach, uncontrollable and violent in the sphere of discipline and morally unacceptable on all scores, from physical cleanliness to the spheres of sex and 'ambition to get ahead.'" Children from better neighborhoods were viewed as "quick learners, easily taught, easy to control and most acceptable" to teachers on the moral level.l4 New teachers typically begin their careers in lower-class schools and either apply for a transfer to a better school as soon as possible or adjust resignedly over the years. A further change in the ethnic composi- tion of the neighborhood or in the school's administrative structure finds the teacher seeking a transfer to a higher social class school.ls 13Allison Davis, "Society, the School and the Cul- turally Deprived Student," in Improving English Skills of Qulturally_Different Youth in Large Cities, ed. Arno Jewett, Joseph Mersand, and Doris V. Gunderson (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1964), p. 15. 14Howard S. Becker, "Career Patterns of Public £3chool Teachers," The American Journal of Sociology 57 CMarch 1952): 472. lsIbid., pp. 474-76. 25 In studying the competency of teachers, Israel found that better teachers seemed to understand the cul- ture of the disadvantaged child. They were more aware of the patterns of living in the subculture and viewed them with greater empathy than did the less effective teachers. Israel recommended that those prospective teachers who seem to show a more positive attitude toward and an understanding of the poverty culture be assigned to schools in disadvantaged areas.16 Teacher Expectations and Student Performance Many conditions are necessary for quality educa- tion, but foremost among them is educational personnel who are aware of community attitudes and their own atti- tudes toward students. Many times racism and social-class bias are very much a part of the curriculum in schools serving various communities. This hidden curriculum is conveyed covertly to students in inferior schools through low expectations, assignment to tracks, vocationally oriented counseling, rigidly controlled classroom behavior, and, most insidiously, in diSparaging references to intel- lectual limitations, family background, and values. 16B. L. Israel, "The Relationship Between Teachers' Expressed Attitudes, Opinions and Beliefs Regarding Minority, Ethnic, and Racial Groups and Their Effectiveness as Class- room Teachers in Elementary Schools in Disadvantaged Urban Areas" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1967). 26 Research relevant to teacher attitudes, expecta- tions, and behavior toward disadvantaged youth has demon- strated how cultural bias produced by the socialization process has been stronger than professional responsibil- ity. Becker and Clark both used the interview as a research tool to identify teachers' perceptions of inner-city stu- dents. Their findings were similar, in that sampled teachers believed inner-city children were difficult to teach, uncontrollable, violent, and morally unacceptable on all criteria.17 In an experimental examination of teacher expec- tancy, Flowers found indications that teacher expectancy is a crucial educational variable;18 the main support for this position came from Rosenthal, Jacobson and Fode. Postulating the possible importance of expectations on performance, Rosenthal and Fode constructed an experiment in which one group of experimenters was led to believe their group of rats was from a maze-bright strain, whereas the other group of experimenters was led to believe their rats were from a maze-dull strain. In reality, all the l7Becker, "Career Patterns," pp. 470-77; Kenneth B. Clark, "Clash of Cultures in the Classroom," in Learnin To ether, ed. M. Weinberg (Chicago: Integrated Education Assoc1ates, 1964). 18Charles E. Flowers, "Effects of an Arbitrary Accelerated Group Placement on the Tested Academic Achieve- ment of Educationally Disadvantaged Students" (Ph.D. dis- sertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1966). 27 rats were from the same strain. When the rats were run through an elevated T-shaped maze, the animals believed to be brighter showed a daily improvement in their per- formance, whereas those believed to be dull improved only to the third day and then showed a decrease in performance .19 Carrying findings of the experimental rat maze test one step further, Rosenthal and Jacobson began studying teacher expectations. They found that teachers' expecta- tions of student performance are present in the teacher's behavior and thus affect the student's eventual achieve- ment. When a teacher responds to a youngster in a way that implies the student has little ability, the student is likely to accept that evaluation and thus decrease his motivation for achievement. Low achievement then rein- forces the teacher's initial presumption, encouraging similar behavior on the student's part.i Thus pupil and teacher may collude in establishing a self-fulfilling cycle of low expectation, failure, and rejection. In sup- port of their study, Rosenthal and Jacobson stated that teacher attitudes can affect student achievement: . . . One person's expectations of another's behavior may serve as a self-fulfilling prOphecy. Whenteachers expected certain children would show greater intellec- tual develOpment, those children did show greater intellectual develOpment. 19R. Rosenthal and K. L. Fode, "The Effect of Experimenter Bias on the Performance of the Albino Rat," Behavioral Science 8 (1964): 183-89. 20Rosenthal and Jacobson, "Self-Fulfilling Prophecies ." 28 Gottlieb found that teacher attitudes regarding students differed. White teachers typically selected adjectives indicating that black students are talkative, lazy, high—strung, rebellious, and fun loving.21 Attitudes held by prospective teachers have not been found to differ markedly from those of experienced teachers. Grambs found that undergraduate education stu- dents expressed positive, tolerant attitudes toward chil- dren of all groups in our society, but that the degree of acceptance dropped drastically if the personal lives of the future teachers became involved.22 Arthur Combs, Carl Rogers, and Meyer Weinberg stated the belief that education will change in important ways only as teachers change.23 Institutions are made up of people, and it is the classroom behavior of teachers that will finally determine whether schools fail or 2J'David Gottlieb, ”Teachers and Students: The Views of Negro and White Teachers," Sociology of Educa- tion 27 (1964): 345-53. 22Jean Grambs, "Are We Training Prejudiced Teachers?" School and Society 71 (1950): 196-98. 23Arthur W. Combs, "A Perceptual View of the Ade- quate Personality," in Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming (Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Cur- riculum Development, 1962); Carl R. Rogers, "Humanizing Education: The Person in the Process," ASCD New Exchange 4 (1967): 2; Meyer Weinberg, "Techniques for AchieVing Racially Desegregated, Superior Quality Education in the Public Schools of Chicago, Illinois," paper presented at the conference of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Washington, D.C., 1967. 29 whether they meet the challenge of our times. These three writer/educators stressed that emphasis must be more directly placed on a need for teachers to be genuine instead of institutions of higher learning ignoring the tendency of teachers to put on a front. Teacher Personality, Attitude, and Prejudice Toward Disadvantaged Students In a research study on the assessment of atti- tudes of inexperienced teachers in lower-class schools, Herriott and St. John stated there is a disproportionate number of new teachers to experienced teachers. In schools of highest socio-economic status only one teacher in 25 is in his first year of teaching, whereas in schools of the lowest socio-economic status, more than one teacher in 10 is in his first year of teaching.24 The Commission on Civil Disorders found in a simi- lar study that: . . . Schools attended by disadvantaged Negro chil- dren commonly are staffed by teachers with less experience and lower qualifications than those attended by middle-class whites. For example, a 1963 study ranking Chicago's public high schools by the socio-economic status of surrounding neighborhoods found . . . the median level of teaching experi- ence was 3.9 years. In three of these schools the median level was one year. Four of these lowest ranking schools were 100 percent Negro in enrollment and three were over 90 percent Negro. 24Herriott and St. John, Social Class and the Urban School, p. 57. 25Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, p. 428. 30 Throughout much of the recent research regarding years of teaching experience and status of teaching situation, the assumption has been that as the number of years of experience increases so does teacher quality. In terms of teacher attitude toward the learning ability of students, this assumption may not be the case. More- over, it seems that problems of race and poverty asso- ciated with disadvantaged children lead to the development of an attitude of hopelessness among teachers serving these children, particularly if the teacher does not have a cognizance of the student's environment. Attitude is one of the most widely researched abstract tOpics in education literature. Prominent in the field of attitude researchers is Gordon Allport, who con- sidered the concept of attitude to be multi-faceted. Attitudes are never directly observed, but, unless they are admitted, through influence, as real and substantial ingredients of human nature, it becomes impossible to account satisfactorily either of the consistency of an individggl behavior or of the stab111ty of any SOO1ety. Allport also emphasized the need for a positive teacher attitude when he wrote: An attitude characteristically provokes behavior that is acquisitive or overtive, favorable or unfavorable, affirmative or negative toward that object or class of objects with which it is related.27 26Gordon W. Allport, "Attitudes," in Handbook of Social Psychologxy ed. C. M. Murchison (Worcester, Mass.: Clark University Press, 1935), p. 801. 27Ibid. 31 Allport also illustrated the need for teachers to have positive rather than negative attitudes because of the effect of attitudes upon student achievement. Furthering his study of attitude, Allport wrote, "One always has an attitude toward something or someone and the attitude is usually identifiable as either positive or negative."28 Attitude has a tendency to fluctuate in relation to personal involvement in an issue or problem. The degree of involvement and perception of the issue or problem also relates to attitude development. Sherif et al. found that: The problem of whether an individual will change his attitude depends, therefore, on how he categorizes a communication and communicator. To the extent that an individual is highly involved in a stand toward the object of communication, his own stand will serve as an anchor for his evaluations and his placements will reveal assimilation--contrast effects relative to his reference scale.29 In a study of 250 undergraduates in teacher edu- cation, Brim found that the students' mean scores on the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory were higher with 28Gordon W. Allport, Pattern and Growth in Person— ality (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), p. 347. 29Carolyn W. Sherif, Muzafer Sherif, and R. E. Nebergall, Attitude and Attitude Change (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders and Company, 1965), p. 12. 32 each level of progression through the teacher education 30 program. Brim's study corroborated an earlier state- ment by Graff: Attitude change should occur as a result of the dis- crepancy between student's expectations of concepts and his subsequent perception of these same concepts as he moves from teacher preparation institutions to the new experience of student teaching. In studying student teachers, their attitudes, quality of supervision, and COOperation of the supervising teacher, Corrigan and Grisswold arrived at the following findings: 1. The same student might have a high positive change with certain supervisors and negative with others. 2. Student teachers in lower grades had a positive change as compared to a low positive or negative change for those in the upper grade levels. 3. Student teachers having one placement had a high positive change and students working with more than one cooperating teacher were less positive or negative. 4. Students with background other than psychology and sociology had a high positive change. 5. Lower grade student teachers had higher initial positive attitudes. 6. .Younger students had a slightly higher initial positive attitude. 7. There was no relationship of change with type of school, city, suburban, or private. 8. There was no correlation between attitude change and high or low initial scores. 9. Greater positive change was present where harmony and cooperation between faculty and administration 30Burl J. Brim, "Attitude Change in Teacher Edu- cation Students," Journal of Educational Research 58 (July 1966): 56-60. _ 31F. J. Graff, "Dissatisfactions in Teaching the Child," Phi Delta Kappan 45 (November 1963): 76. 33 were perceived rather than contradiction and dis- agreement or noncooperation. Teacher personality, as indicated by numerous research studies, has a tremendous influence on student achievement. Amatora wrote, "The prominence of personality as the number one quality of the teacher is no longer a disputed topic. The fact that the personality of the pupil is influenced by the personality of the teacher is main- tained by many educators."33 The primary instrument used in evaluating person- ality traits is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Another pOpular personality instrument is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. In looking at personality theory and the ways people direct their energies, Isabel Myers stated: A modern personality theory must take into account the fact that individuals are the unique product of their particular heredity and environment, and are therefore different. It is difficult, however, to con- struct an economical theory for explaining the prin- ciples on which individuals accept or reject certain elements of their environment, the way they act and react, the bases on which they reason, or the highly individual differences in interest, values, and sat- isfactions that motivate them. The merit of the personality theory presented here is that it accounts for many of the differences which other theoretical frameworks leave to random 32Dean Corrigan and Kenneth Grisswold, "Attitude Change of Student Teachers," The Journal of Educational Research 57 (October 1963): 93-95. 33Sister Mary Amatora, "Similarity in Teachers' Per- sonality," Journal of Psychology 48 (January 1954): 45-50. 34 variation; yet, the theory has the merit of unusual simplicity, and indeed, is not incompatible with most other approaches. Briefly, the theory is that much apparently random variation in human behavior is actually quite orderly and consistent, being caused by certain basic differences in mental func- tioning. 4 In the Handbook of Research on Teaching, Jackson and Guba found interesting differences between high school teachers and norm groups of liberal arts students. In terms of "deference and heterosexuality" there were significant differences between all four teacher groups and the norms. This research also found that teachers exhibited higher scores (with the exception of male elementary teachers) On "order and endurance" than did the norm group, but scored lower on "exhibition." These five needs were found to be typical, in general, of the needs of teacher groups as compared to those of liberal arts students, using the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule.35 Both ethnic prejudices and racial attitudes are Often defined in much the same manner. In an effort to distinguish between attitude and prejudice, various authors and researchers have defined these terms in the following ways. 341. B. Myers, The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Manual (Princton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1962), p. 51. 35N. L. Gage, ed., Handbook of Research on Teach- ing (Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally and Company, 1963), p. 546. 35 Simpson and Yinger defined prejudice as . . . an emotional, rigid attitude (a predisposition to respond to a certain stimulus in a certain way) toward a group of people. . . . Prejudices are thus attitudes, but not all attitudes are prejudices. They both contain the element Of prejudgment, but prejudiced attitudes have an affective or emotional quality that not all attitudes possess.36 According to Allport, prejudice is An avertive or hostile attitude toward a person who belongs to a group, simply because he belongs to that group, and is therefore presumed tO have the Objectionable qualities ascribed to the group. Guttman defined attitude or prejudice as "a delim- ited totality of behavior with respect to something."38 Buttelheim and Janowitz, Ackerman and Jahoda, and Lowenthal and Guterman reported their findings in three separate studies regarding the state of ethnic prejudice. These authors concluded that subjects showed a tendency to be "ethnically-centered," and to be rigid in their acceptance of the culturally "alike" and in their rejec- tion of the culturally "unlike."39 36G. E. Simpson and J. M. Yinger, Racial and Cul- tural Minorities (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1953), p. 26. 37G. W. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (New York: Doubleday and Company, 1954), p. 3. 38Guttman, "Problem of Attitude," p. 47. 39B. Buttelheim and M. Janowitz, Dynamics Of Prejudice: A Psychological and Sociological Study pf Veter- ansiTNew York: Harper, 1950); N. Ackerman and M. Jahoda, AHEi-Semitism and Emotional Disorder (New York: Harper and Row, 1950); L. Lowenthal and N. Guterman, PrOphets Of Deceit: A Study Of the Techniques of the American Agitator (New York: Harper, 1949). 36 Innovations, Teacher-Training Prggrams, and Alternatives to Deal With Attitude Develgpment Because few colleges provide special training programs that deal successfully with cultural, racial, or social-class diversity, first-hand contact by prospec- tive urban teachers becomes critical. The Urban Educa- tion program at Syracuse University makes extensive use of direct experiences intended to provide first-hand contact 40 All available for prospective inner-city teachers. research suggests the develOpment Of different kinds Of training programs for prospective teachers Of inner—city children. Proposals have been made prescribing ingredi- ents for new education innovation programs. Colleges and universities, in general, have not instituted Special study programs that depart from the traditional course Of study--1ectures, books, and distance between students and schools. New programs are usually located within the inner- city core area and provide direct experience with disad- vantaged students within a school setting. PrOSpective teachers who participate in the Urban Education Program have experiences that are expected to develop skill in performing the tasks involved and to develop a positive attitude toward teaching in an inner- city area. Students are placed in the classroom situation 40Ernest J. Milner, "Preparing Teachers for Urban Schools: The Syracuse Program," Clearinghouse on Urban Teacher Education Report 2 (Spring 1966). 37 during a summer orientation session. The demonstration school, which is organized and Operated by the program, is housed in Croton Elementary School--a neighborhood school located in a predominantly disadvantaged area. The students spend each morning during the summer orien- tation session in their assigned classrooms under the guidance Of selected, experienced teachers who compose the demonstration school faculty. This provides the students with the Opportunity to Observe and experience directly the kinds Of pupils and instructional problems they will encounter as interns in their classrooms during the regular school year that follows.41 In a comparative study of two groups of prospec— tive teachers, Freedman and Langberg contrasted one group - composed entirely of those who volunteered for Harlem and Bronx schools to a second group made up Of students who did not volunteer but were assigned according to regular administrative procedures. The authors commented: SO unyielding have been the problems Of administra- tive selection Of teachers to schools serving disad- vantaged areas that it may be worthwhile to consider alternative proposals for staffing. One such alter- native is recruitment based upon volunteer or self- selected applicants. . . . There is virtually a complete lack of information concerning the4sonse- quences of such a self-selection procedure. 411bid. 42Philip I. Freedman and George Langberg, "Self- Selection of Student Teachers," Integrated Education, August-November 1965, p. 40. 38 Both groups were evaluated using the F Scale, the 22 Gough-Sanford Rigidity Scale, a 30-item scale randomly selected from the final E Version of the Rokeach Dogma- tism Scale, a self-rating scale that pertained to personal history and trait characteristics, a projective scale designed to gauge the perceptions of student teachers with respect to the difficulties of teaching in depressed- area schools, and a scale designed to measure the relative importance Of those factors that induced student teachers to volunteer for special school assignments.43 The significant test results showed that volun- teers were, as a group, less authoritarian, less dogmatic, and less rigid than the nonvolunteers. Examination of personal history and trait characteristics based on the pattern Of volunteer responses indicated backgrounds char- acterized by striving for autonomy, theearly acceptance Of childhood challenges, and a relative freedom from symp— tomatic signs Of diffidence and fearfulness. Freedman and Langberg concluded that self-selection can accomplish the fitting of student teachers to the demands of a par- ticular school and school situation. They also indicated ‘that although many students were attitudinally ill-equipped to teach the disadvantaged child, many of the volun- teers did present positive Characteristics but were 43Ibid.. pp. 39-40. 39 distinguishable from volunteers primarily because Of a superficial fearfulness of the special school situation.44 Reddick conducted a project at Coppin State Col- lege in Baltimore, Maryland, to determine if cultural mis- understanding in inner-city schools could be eliminated by seeking out prospective teachers from among the ethnic and cultural groups served.45 The students selected for this one-year experimental program were those perceived to have the academic and personal characteristics neces- sary for high-quality teachers. These students were given courses in "The Sociology Of the City," "Minority Peoples," "The History of the Negro in America," and "Education Of the Culturally Different"; field experiences were also provided. The program featured a curriculum designed to increase understanding Of the values of American subcul- tures. Members of minority groups lectured at seminars held for the prospective teachers. Inner-city parents and leaders were also invited to the lectures. The super- vising teachers who participated in the program were enrolled in a summer institute that addressed itself to their attitudes and behavior toward inner-city youth. Students who completed their training during the academic 44Ibid. 45L. D. Reddick, Better Teachers for Inner-City Schools (Baltimore, Maryland: Coppin State College, 1967). 40 year were assigned to inner-city schools and appeared to be working successfully. In Missouri, the Cooperative Urban Teacher Edu- cation Program (CUTE), a self-selective program, was instituted to provide prospective teachers with a general set of concepts pertinent to the develOpment Of teaching skills, with special attention to the problems of teaching in the inner city. During the fall Of 1967, 22 seniors in teacher education began a 16-week field experience in Kansas City.46 An assortment of measurement instruments was incorporated to collect the data relevant to classroom teaching behaviors of CUTE students; these instruments included the D Scale, a measure of Openness of one's belief-disbelief; the Teaching Situation Reaction Test, which requires the examiner to rank alternative solutions to various classroom situations posed as being in an inner-city classroom setting; the Brown Self-Report Inven- tory, which yields attitude scores on eight distinct factors; the Semantic Differential, which yields informa- tion about the meaning respondents attach to various tOpics; the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory, to sample Opinions about teacher-pupil relationships; the Cultural Attitude Inventory, to estimate an index Of teacher 46Grant Clothier and James H. Lawson, Innovation in the Inner-City (Kansas City, Missouri: Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory, 1969), pp. 23-25. 41 compatibility in culturally deprived schools; the Pensacola Z Scale, a forced-choice questionnaire designed to measure personal autonomy; and the McRel Interaction Analysis. A comparison group of students who were not par- ticipants in the CUTE program was established the second semester. A summary of important findings follows: CUTE students were more indirect, more pupil-oriented, more Objective, and more experimental than the com- parison group. A favorable change reflected by the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory gave evidence that CUTE students improved and also scored signifi- cantly higher from middle semester testing to end semester testing and also significantly higher than the comparison group. This indicated CUTE students were more compatible with teaching in culturally deprived schools. Results of the McRel Interaction Analysis indicated the CUTE students were less direct in statement and classroom control than the compari- son group. The amount Of pupil talk was greater in the CUTE students' classrooms. Probably the most convincing evidence that the CUTE program was a success is the fact that 31 of 40 graduates taught under contract in urban settings during the 1968-69 school year. During the past few years several additional pro- gram innovations have had particular relevance for the preparation of inner-city teachers. Seminars are being used to bring together the practical and theoretical com- ponents of teacher education programs, to promote analysis 47Ibid., pp. 44-45. 42 of teaching, to plan programs, and to develop rationale for teaching procedures.48 Haubrich discussed another promising program for preparing personnel to work with disadvantaged youths. Teacher Corps candidates are college graduates who are not trained in teaching. The two-year program emphasizes experience with the disadvantaged. A paid internship may be an added inducement. The imporance Of the program is its major thrust toward the education of disadvantaged youth.49 One Of the more recent innovations in teacher education has been the establishment of training programs for auxiliary personnel (paraprofessionals or teacher aides). KIOpf and Bowman stated that during the summer of 1966, ll demonstration training programs were in Opera- tion in New York. These prOgrams provided Opportunities for professionals and nonprofessionals to study and work together to increase the effectiveness of auxiliary per- sonnel in various school situations.50 The importance Of the paraprofessional in inner-city schools cannot be 48American Association Of Colleges for Teacher Education, Teacher Productivity--l966 (Washington, D.C.: AACTE, 1967). 49Vernon F. Haubrich, "The Teacher of the Disadvan- taged," in Racial Crisisin American Education, ed. RobertIn Green (Chicago: Follett Pfiblishing Company, 1970). 50Gordon J. KIOpf and Garda W. Bowman, Teacher Education in a Social Context (New York: Mental Health Materials Center, 1966). 43 overestimated. Auxiliary personnel programs have a tre- mendous potential for improving instruction and other services, particularly when paraprofessionals are selected to serve in their own communities. Summary The literature reviewed in this chapter was divided into four sections. These four areas represent the devel- Opment of the theoretical foundation of this study. The hesitation of teachers to accept assignments in inner- city schools and the reasons why so many leave can be partially attributed to the middle-class background Of most teachers. Research conducted by Havighurst, Gottlieb, and Becker found a social-class influence on innerécity teachers' performance.51 Focusing on the relationship between teacher attitudes and student attitudes and behavior, Rosenthal and Jacobson found significant relationships between teacher expectations and Observed student-teacher relations. The teachers who had high expectations for their students were found to be more positive and encouraging than teach- ers who had lower expectations.52 Brookover found the student's self-concept of academic ability correlates significantly with school achievement. He viewed teachers “ 51Havighurst, Education in MetrOpolitan Areas; Gottlieb, "Teachers and Students"; Becker,wCareer Patterns)‘ 52Rosenthal and Jacobson, "Self-Fulfilling Prophe- cies." 44 and parents as being highly important in the develOp- ment of a student's self-concept of his ability.53 The importance of teachers having positive, favor- able attitudes was found tO be paramount in having a threat-free, comfortable classroom environment. Grambs extended teacher attitude research to prospective teachers in a study that found the attitudes Of prospective teach- ers toward lower-socio-economic children did not differ significantly from those held by experienced teachers. Further, Grambs found these attitudes revolved around class prejudice as well as color prejudice.54 The research review regarding innovations and training programs supported the belief that pre-service education activities are important and can result in pro- spective teachers improving their attitudes toward inner- city schools. Freedman and Langberg demonstrated effec- tiveness of different approaches to teacher training. They also found that teachers who volunteered to work with dis- advantaged youth were less authoritarian, less rigid, more Objective, more pupil oriented, and less direct in state- ment of classroom control than teachers who did not vol- unteer.55 53Brookover, "Social Psychological Conceptions." 54Grambs, "Are We Training Prejudiced Teachers?" 55 Freedman and Langberg, "Self-Selection Of Student Teachers." 45 The literature demonstrated a need for teachers, prospective teachers, school personnel, and educational institutions to understand and adjust social-class atti- tude. Approaches could include revised recruitment pro- cedures, pre-service and in-service seminars, and teacher training institutions preparing prospective teachers to understand and deal with diverse cultures. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES The primary purpose Of this study was to investi- gate the extent tO which undergraduate education students have formed attitudes toward teaching in differing socio— economic-class compositions. A secondary purpose has application to teacher preparation programs in identifying socio-economic-class composition preferences of prospec- tive teachers. Personal characteristics, background, and certain other variables of undergraduate education students, in-service teachers, and undergraduate noneducation majors were examined to determine whether there are differences among these study groups based on the variable of expressed socio-economic-class composition preference. The Sample Four distinct groups composed the total sample for this study. Group 1 comprised 50 respondents enrolled in Education 200, "The Individual and the School," Offered to SOphomores and juniors at Michigan State University. Education 200 is a required teacher education experience that focuses on self-help and helping others, as well as on personal and professional growth and change. The 46 47 personal demands of teaching are taught through Interper- sonal Process Labs; students learn the task demands of teaching through reading materials, individual carrel activities, and tutorial sessions. Group 2 consisted Of 50 respondents enrolled in Education 450, "School and Society"; all senior education majors must take the course upon completion of student teaching. Education 450 is the last professional course Offered to prospective teachers at Michigan State Univer- sity, and is designed to meet certain State Department Of Education requirements for teacher certification. Group 3 consisted of 50 respondents who, at the time of the study, were in-service teachers. Levels Of instruction represented in this group included early ele- mentary, late elementary, middle and junior high school, high school, and university. The kinds of schools ser- viced by respondents encompassed inner-city, suburban, rural, small town, and college. Respondents' teaching experience ranged from lrto 20 years. Group 4 consisted Of 50 respondents enrolled in T.C. 310, "Basic Telecommunication Policy, a required course Offered to sophomores and juniors in the College Of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State Uni- versity. The course deals with essentials Of U.S. public communication policy treated through rigorous methodologi- cal analysis Of case and statutory law, public documents, 48 and related primary materials. The following list sum- marizes the composition of the sample according to group number and type: Group l--Education 200 (beginning prospective teachers prior to student teaching) - Group 2--Education 450 (terminal prospective teachers post-student teaching) Group 3-—In-service teachers Group 4--T.C. 310 Telecommunications (noneducation majors) During winter term, 1976, 200 questionnaires were distributed to four groups of 50 respondents each; responses were anonymous. All of the questionnaires were returned for analysis. Table 3.1 is a tabulation of the descrip- tive data for all respondents included in this study. Table 3.l.--Summary characteristics of total sample by group. . . Gnmq>l Gnmr>2 Gnmm>3 Gnmm>4 Tuna maCterlsuc (N=50) (N=50) (N=50) (N=50) (N=200) .Male 16 (32%) 19 (38%) 26 (52%) 39 (78%) 100 (50%) Famale 34 (68%) 31 (62%) 24 (48%) 11 (22%) 100 (50%) AanJmemflxni (N ) 7 (14%) 2 (4%) 4 (8%) 5 (10%) 18 (9%) Amghrémmon (White) _ 41 (82%) 45 (90%) 45 (90%) 39 (78%) 170 (85%) Jewish 2 (4%) l (2%) 0 (0%) 5 (10%) 8 (4%) American Indian 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) l (2%) l (.5%) Latin American 0 (0%) 2 (4%) l (2%) 0 (0%) 3 (1.5%) Tbtal 200 (100%) 49 Instrumentation In 1968 a preliminary form of the General Education Survey was developed and administered to a group of 80 SOphomore education majors in an exploratory study. In 1969, Bettinghaus, Of the Office of Research Consultation at Michigan State University, expanded and edited a final form of the questionnaire. The instrument employed in the present study, the Teacher Cultural Placement Survey, is an adaptation of the General Education Survey. The Teacher Cultural Placement Survey was adapted and developed to Obtain specific infor- mation pertaining to teacher placement preference and rationale for specific preferences of prospective teachers. This instrument was designed to collect descriptive data, and was used for that purpose. The questionnaire consists Of three segments: Part I--genera1, descriptive information questions designed tO allow the respondent to outline socio- economic background and preferences in future teaching situ- ations; Part II--questions for respondents preferring to teach in a lower-socio-economic-class composition (also included in this section is a selection Of possible rationale for a respondent's decision to teach in this area); and Part.III—-questions for respondents choosing not to teach disadvantaged students in lower-socio-economic-class compo- sitions, (included in this section also is a selection Of 50 possible rationale for a respondent's decision not to teach in a lower-socio-economic-class composition. The first section (Part I) of the questionnaire was based on the National Principal's Study questionnaire from the Harvard Principal's Study.1 The second and third sections (Parts II and III) were designed to Obtain ration- ale for either wanting to teach in a lower-socio-economic- class composition or rationale for not wanting to teach in such a situation. In an attempt to determine sources of cultural information and relative influence upon each Of the study groups, 10 possible sources were listed at the end Of Part II and Part III. The respondents were asked to rank on a five-level scale, ranging from "very important" to "very unimportant," each separate source that might have influenced their decisions. Research Questions, Hypotheses, and Analysis Procedures An Optical Scanning Reader 100, located at the Scoring Office at Michigan State University, was used to score response forms. The scoring information was placed on tape and sent to the Computer Center at Michigan State University, where the raw data were analyzed by an IBM 370/ 155 computer. 1Herriott and St. John, Social Class and the Urban School. 51 Analyses Of the data for the following eight research questions were conducted by means of three separate procedures. Research Questions I-IV are reported as fre- quency distributions by numbers of respondents and percent- age Of response. Research Questions V-VII were analyzed by means of the chi—square test for independence.2 Chi-square is fre- quently used as a test of significance in survey research. It is based on the null hypothesis--the assumption that there is no difference between the two variables in the total population. Given the Observed distribution of val- ues on the two separate variables, the researcher computes the conjoint distribution that would be expected if there were no difference between the two variables. The result of this Operation is a set of expected frequencies for all the cells in the contingency table. A comparison of this expected distribution with the distribution of cases actually found in the sample data determines the probability with which the discovered discrepancy could have resulted from sampling error alone. Research Question VIII was analyzed by means Of a multivariate analysis of variance, covariance, and 2Gene V. Glass and Julian Stanley, Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970): pp. 229-38. 52 regression.3 Although this research study was aimed, at least in part, at description, it had an additional Objec- tive of making explanatory assertions about the population. An explanatory Objective explains why part of a sample responded in one manner whereas the remainder did not. An explanatory objective almost always requires multivari- ate analysis--the simultaneous examination of two or more variables. The research questions pertaining to analysis of data by frequency distributions are as follows: Research Question I: What are the respondents' most frequently stated rationale for a lower socio-economic- class-composition preference? , Research Question II: What are the respondents' most frequently stated rationale for not selecting a lower socio-economic-class-composition preference? Research Question III: What is the ethnic background of respondents in Groups 1-4 (Group l--beginning pro- spective teachers prior to student teaching; Group 2-- terminal prospective teachers post-student teaching; Group 3--in-service teachers; Group 4--undergraduate noneducation majors), relative to socio-economic-class- composition preference? Research Question IV: What is the social-class composi- tion of the home communities Of respondents in Groups 1-4 relative to socio-economic-class-composition pref- erence? Analyses of the data for Research Questions V-VII were conducted by means of a chi-square test for independence,4 3Neil H. Timm, Multivariate Analysis With Applica- tions in Education and Psycholggy_(Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing CO., 1975), pp. 115-19. 4Glass and Stanley, Statistical Methods. 53 a frequently used test Of significance of the differences between two variables in a given population. The level of significance (a) chosen for the null hypotheses in Research Questions V-VII was .05. Research Question V: What is the extent to which pro- spective teachers—TGroups l and 2) have formed attitudes toward teaching in differing socio-economic-class compo- sitions and schools? Null Hypothesis 1: There will be no significant difference between undergraduate education majors who have had student teaching and undergraduate education majors who have not yet had student teaching based on preference for socio-economic- class composition. Null Hypothesis 2: There will be no significant difference between undergraduate education majors who have had student teaching and undergraduate education majors who have not yet had student teaching based on preference for school location. Research Question VI: What are the similarities and differences between undergraduate noneducation majors (Group 4) and undergraduate education majors (Groups 1 and 2) based on preference for socio-economic-class composition and school location? Null Hypothesis 3: There will be no significant difference between undergraduate education majors and undergraduate noneducation majors based on socio-economic-class-composition preference. Null Hypothesis 4: There will be no significant difference between undergraduate education majors and undergraduate noneducation majors based on school location preference. Research Question VII: What are the similarities and differences between undergraduate education majors (Groups 1 and 2) and in-service teachers (Group 3) based on socio-economic-class-composition preference and school location? Null Hypothesis 5: There will be no significant difference between undergraduate education majors and in-service teachers based on socio-economic— class-composition preference. 54 Null Hypothesis 6: There will be no significant difference between undergraduate education majors and in-service teachers based on school location. Analysis of the data for Research Question VIII was conducted by means of a multivariate analysis of vari- ance,5 a test used to examine two or more variables simul- taneously. The level Of significance (a) chosen for the null hypothesis in Research Question VIII was .05. Research Question VIII: What are the sources of cul- turalfinformatiOn for Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 relative to socio-economic-class-composition preference? Null Hypothesis 7: There will be no significant difference among the four groups of undergraduate and post-graduate respondents at Michigan State University on ten different sources of cultural information. Summary In this chapter the primary and secondary purposes of the study were restated and the methodology and data- analysis procedures were discussed. The study sample con- sisted Of four distinct groups Of 50 members each: begin— ning prospective teachers prior to student teaching, terminal prospective teachers post-student teaching, in- service teachers, and noneducation majors. Eight research questions were stated with a des- cription of the apprOpriate procedural analyses applied to each question. Procedures used were frequency distribution, Ibid 0 55 chi-square, and multivariate analysis. A simultaneous examination of 10 sources of cultural information that respondents considered important or unimportant resulted from the multivariate analysis. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA General Background The primary purpose of this study was to investi- gate the extent to which undergraduate education students have formed attitudes toward teaching in differing socio- economic-class compositions. A secondary purpose has application to teacher preparation programs, in identify- ing socio-economic-class preferences of prospective teachers. In addition, eight research questions were established to elicit descriptive data and determine whether there were any differences between certain vari- ables Of respondents' environment and their choice Of teaching assignments. In this chapter research questions are evaluated in the order of their presentation in Chap- ter III. A discussion of the findings appears in Chapter V. The descriptive and statistical data presented in this chapter were collected by a questionnaire administered to four distinct groups Of 50 members each: Group l--Education 200 (beginning prospective teachers prior to student teaching) Group 2--Education 450 (terminal prospective teachers post-student teaching) 56 57 Group 3--In-service teachers Group 4--T.C. 310 Telecommunications (noneducation majors) Two hundred questionnaires (N=50 per group) were analyzed; no variation was found in sample size because all response sheets were valid. Analysis Of Research_guestions I-IV Analyses of the data for the following eight research questions were conducted by means of three separ- ate procedures. Research Questions I-IV are reported as frequency distributions by number of respondents and per- centage Of response. Research Questions V-VII are analyzed by means Of a chi-square statistic. Research Question VIII is analyzed by means Of a univariate and multivariate analysis of variance, covariance, and regression. The following descriptive data section presents the frequency distributions and percentages on a group-by-group basis and for the total population responding to Research Questions I-IV. Research Question I What are the respondents' most frequently stated rationale for a lower-socio-economic-class compo- sition preference? Out of a possible N Of 200, a total of 18 respon- dents chose to teach in a lower-Socio-economic-class composition. These respondents were asked to choose from 58 a list of 10 statements the first, most major reason for wanting a teaching assignment in a lower-socio-economic- class composition. Respondents preferring a lower-socio- economic-class composition selected as their first most major rationale: "Good teachers are needed more in a lower- socio-economic culture" (3.5%); "I want to teach where I can make a real contribution in helping children learn" received a total of 2.5 percent. Both "teaching in a lower-socio—economic culture will be more challenging" and "there is more professional satisfaction in teaching where the need is greatest" received 1.5 percent. None of the other statements was chosen (see Table 4.1). Research Question II What are the respondents' most frequently stated rationale for not selecting a lower-socio-economic- class-composition preference? Out of a possible N of 200, a total of 182 respon- dents chose net to teach in a lower-socio-economic-class composition. These respondents were asked to choose from a list of 10 statements the first, major reason for not wanting a teaching position in a lower-socio-economic-class composition. Respondents net preferring a lower-sOcio- ‘ economic-class composition selected as their first major reason: "discipline problems are more frequent in lower— socio-economic schools" (26.5%). Next in order of impor- tance were: "teaching in lower-socio-economic schools is more difficult because Of parents' attitudes" (15.5%), .oocouommwc mapped >Ho>fiumummsoo mo omsmoon pocflnEoo mum .muonomou o>auoommoum onwnommu uswosumlumom can loam .N ch H mesouwm 59 Amo.mv ma Hmuoe . .cumoH soundwco mcwmao: ca :Owusnwuucoo Lem my m Lace 0 Lame H have a away 6 oxms emu H muons some» on name H .OH . .OHOE muonomou mo muHOmmo may mumwooummm Awo ov o Awov o Awov o Awov o mousuaso OHEOCOOOIOHOOmiuosoH cw mucoumm .m . .umoumouo we now: may muons magnomou Awm av m Amov o Awmv a Awmv m cw coauowmmflumm HOGOflmmmmoum OHOE ma muons .w Awo.ov o Awov 0 Race 0 Awov o .Ooumowomo Duos on Haws muonomou soaaom .h . .ousuaao oaeocOOOIOHOOmIHoon m CH Awo ov o Amov o Awov o Awov o ucoEoocm>Om How unassuuommo ONCE we chose .w . .sumoa ou msofixcm Duos Ohm Awo QC 0 Awov o Awov o Amov o convawso OHOMHDOIOHEOCOOOIOAOOmluosoa .m . .mcwpumzon adamcomuom OHOE on Haas Awm av m Awov o Awov o Awmv m ousuaso OHEOCOOOIOHOOmiuo3OH m :w mafinomoa .w . .mswmcoaaono Duos on HHw3 Awo QC 0 Awov o Awov o Awov o ousuaso owEOCOOOIOHOOmIMOsOH m cw mcflsomoa .m . .ousuaso OflSOOOOOiOwOOm Awm mv n Awmv a Awov o Awmv m iuozoa m CH OHOE cocoon OHM muonomou 0000 .m . . .suuuou Op ucm3 can w A o ov o Awovlo Awov o Awov o ousuaso OHsocoomlofioomnuoon m Bonn an H .H Hmuos Aomuzv Aomuzv Aooauzv OHMCOAHMM .mucoocommom v msouo m moose cmwa mmsouw .sowufimomsoo mmmHOIOHEOGOOOIOflOOm Iuozoa m :w nomou Ou mafiucm3 How Damcowumu .mucopcommou mo sowusnfluumflo hocosqoumii.a.v manna 60 "values Of lower-socio-economic children are in conflict with my values" (11.5%), "teaching in the lower-socio- economic culture tends to destroy a teacher's enthusiasm" (11%), "teaching in lower-socio-economic cultures is too difficult for beginning teachers" (10.5%), "teaching in lower—socio-economic cultures is dangerous" (9%), "chil- dren in lower-socio-economic schools have a lower poten- tial for effective learning" (6.5%), and "the race of children in lower-socio-economic schools would bother me" (.5%). Other statements were not chosen (see Table 4.2). Research Question III What is the ethnic background Of respondents in Groups 1-4 (Group l--beginning prospective teach- ers prior to student teaching; Group 2--termina1 prospective teachers post-student teaching; Group 3--in-service teachers; Group 4--undergradu- ate noneducation majors), relative to socio- economic-class-composition preference? Respondents were asked to indicate their predomi- nant ethnic background in Question 2 and their socio- economic-class composition preference in a future teaching assignment in Question 17. Question 17 is reported herein as either a choice Of a "lower-socio-economic-c1ass compo- sition" or "gther than a lower-socio-economic-class-compo- sition" preference. As shown in Table 4.3, the majority of respondents in each Of the four groups came from predominantly Anglo- Saxon (Caucasian) ethnic backgrounds. Of the 169 Anglo— Saxons (Caucasians) in the sample, 156 (78%) chose other Awo.Hmv Nma HMUOB 61 .mcwcumoa Awm.mv ma Awmv v Awmv v Awmv m O>Huoommo How aneucouom Ho3OH m o>ms mHoonom owEOGOOOIOHOOmiuoon aw soupaficu .OH .mocmHmn Hmwomu you nonpafino Dawns Awo.ov o Awov o Awov 0 Lace 0 nomou Oasonm H doom new Oumoz m an H .m . o . o Hegemony”RENEE .. Awmov H AwOv O AMOV O AWHV H UflEOCOUQIOflUOWIHUbPOHoM” “MMWMMSWHMMWémMMMOMMM on. lam.oflc Hm lwmv 4 leads 6 Isaac Ha .mpmgummp manaaammp pom uflaoamoae oou ma mousuaso OHEOGOOOIOwOOmIHosoH sfl mcwnomoe .o .msonomcmo ma Awo.mv ma vaHV 5 Awmv m Awmv m mousuaso OHEOGOOOIOHOOmIHo3OH Ca mcwnomoa .m . . .mosam> we saw: uowawcoo ca Awm HHV mm Awov m Awomv OH Awoav OH mum coupawno anOsOOOIOHOOquo3OH mo mosHm> .w . .mopsuwuum .mucoumm mo omsmoon UHDOHMMHO Duos Awm may Hm Ammav m Awomv 0H Amev ma ma maoonom OweosOOOiOflOOmluosoH cw mcwnomoa .m Awm.© V m Aw v A V .maoonom OflEOCOOOIOflOOmIHO3OH m m mm Ha wvm NH 363 Om cfl ucosvoum whoa mum wEOHnoum mcwamwomfla .N .mcanomou Awo.HHv mm vaNV NH Awov m Awhv b How Emmflmsnuco m.nonomou m monumop Op mocou OHDOHOO OHEOGOOOIOAOOmiuoon on» a“ mcflnoooa .H Aomnzv Aomuzv Aooauzv Hmuoa oams0flpmm .mucopcommom v msouw m msouo mwa mmsouo .GOHUHmOQEOO mmmHOIowEOGOOOIOflOOm (MUSOH M GA zoom» 0» mcflucmz no: How mamcowumn .musopcommou MO sowusnwuumwo Mocosqoumli.m.v manna 62 .ucoecmHmmm mcHnomou manusm OHnHmmom m mm coHuHmomEOO mmMHOIOHEocooo IOHOOmIHDBOH m :mnu Hosuo ochooso musoocommou mOOMOHOCH :O: .ucoecmHmmm qunomou oususm OHnHmmom o no cOHuHmOmEOO mmmHOIOHEOCOOOIOHOOquosoH m mchoono mucoccommou mucomoumou :H: “ouoz HROOHV oom Awm.Hv m me.v N vav m Lame mH Hem.vmvaH Hmuoe Hmev NmH Awm.HV m me.v N wav m Awm.ov mH Hemp v mmH o Hmuoa Ammo mH Hwov o Hwov o Hwov o Hem.Nv m Ham.ov mH H pcpuo omnz mo ANOOHV om Hwov o ANOOHV H ANOOHV m ANOOHV m ANOOHV mm Hmuoe omnz mo Hwomv we Hwov o ANOOHV H ANOOHV m Hwomv v Hwhmv mm 0 omnz mo Hmvv N Hwov o Hwov o Hwov o IRONS H Ham C H H v macho omnz mo HwooHv om HHOOHV H Hwov o Hwov o ANOOHV v ANOOHV mv Hmuoe omuz mo vamv he ANOOHV H Hwov o Hwov o ANOOHV v memv Nv o omnz mo Heme. m Hwov o Hwov o Hwov o _Hwov o Aw» I m H m msouo omuz mo HHOOHV om HAOOHV m HHQOHV H HROOHC H HHOOHC N HwOOHV we Hence omnz mo wamv mv ANOOHV N HEOOHV H ANOOHV H Hwomv H mewv mm o omnz mo vaHv n Hwov 0 Lace 0 Hwov o Hwomv H HweHv O H N msouo omnz mo ANOOHV om Hwov o Hwov o ANOOHV N ANOOHV h ANOOHV Hv Hmuoa omnz mo wamv we Hwov o Hwov o ANOOHV N wamv v memv mm o omuz mo LHNHV 6 Laos 0 Laos o Amos 0 Immac m Awe V m H H ozone HmuOB GMOHHofid cmHOcH aneon Houmozv .HcmHmmosouv :HumH GMOHHoad EMOHMOadloumm coxmmIOHmcd .ucoficmHmmm mcwnomou oudpsm OHnHmmom m on O>HuwHOH pqsoumxoon OHcsuo mo coHuanuumHO hocosvoumli.m.v OHQMB 63 than a lower-socio—economic-class composition and 13 (6.5%) chose to teach in a lower-socio-economic-class composition. Table 4.3 breaks the responses down further according to respondent group. Eighteen respondents across all four groups were from an Afro-American (Negro) ethnic back- ground. Thirteen Of these 18 respondents chose other than a lower-socio-economic-class composition for a future teach- ing assigment. Five others in the Afro-American group thought they would prefer a lower-socio-economic setting. Research Question IV What is the social-class composition of the home communities of respondents in Groups 1-4 relative to socio-economic-class-composition preference? Respondents were asked to indicate their predomi- nant social class background in Question 5 and their socio-economic-class-composition preference for a future teaching assignment in Question 17. Question 17 is reported herein as either a choice of a "lower-socio- economic-class composition" or "ether than a lower-socio- economic-class-composition future teaching preference. The majority of respondents in each group (1, 2, 3, and 4) came from predominantly middle or upper-middle social-class-composition communities. One hundred fifty- eight respondents or 79 percent of the entire population came from upper, upper-middle, or middle social-class composition communities. (See Table 4.4 for a further break- down according tO group.) 64 .usoasmHmmm mcHnomou oususm OHnHmmom m mm COHuHmOmEOO mmmHo iOHEOHOOOIOHOOmiuo3OH m can» Hosuo OGHmoonO mucopcommou mOHMOHocH :0: .ucoficmHmmo mcHnomou mHQHmmOQ H mm COHUHmOQEOO mmMHOIOflEOSOOOIOflUOmIH03OH .m mafimOOSU mucwflcamwu mucmmmummu ....H.. "wuoz HHOOHV OON Ham.v H Ham.mv HH meHv om mevv om HHNNV Om Heme m Hpuoe HHHNV NmH Ham.v H Ham.vv m Ham.NvaN 1mm.qaomm HHGNC Nm Heme p O Hence Hams mH Hwov o HHHV N Ham.Nv m Ham.mv N ANNE q Hwov o H pcmuo omuz mo HHOOHV om Lace 0 Amos 0 HNOOHC oH HHOOHV ON HHOOHV NH HHOOHV H Hence omuz mo Hmomv me Laos 0 Lace 0 Hwome m Amway mN HHOOHV NH HHOOHV H o omuz mo Have N Hwov o Hwov o ANOHC H Have H Laos o Hwov o H e msouo omuz no HHOOHV cm Amos 0 HHOOH. v HwooHe m HHOOHV mN HwooHo NH HHOOHV H Hmuoa omuz mo Isaac he Ayes 0 HHOOHV v Hwomo v Hwomv FN HHNNV HH HHOOHC H O omuz «0 Ham. m Ayes 0 Hwov o HwoNv H Haw. H Hams H Hwov o H m msouo omuz mo HHOOHV om HHOOHV H HHOOHV H ANOOHV HH HHOOHV oN HwooHo mH HHOOHV N Hmuoe omuz mo Hwomv me HHOOHC H HHOOHC H menv m Hwomv NH Hmemv NH HHOOHV N o omuz «o vaH. N Amos 0 Hwov o HHBNV m HHOHV N HHNHV N Hwov o H N msouo omuz no HNOOHV om Lace 0 HHOOHV o HHOOHV v ANOOHV NN HwooHv pH ANOOHV N Hmuoa omuz mo HNNNV we Hwov 0 Hence a HNOOHV v Hammv NH vamv mH HNOOHV N o omuz mo HHNHV p Hwoo o Hammv N Amos 0 HHHHV m Heme H Ayes 0 H H ozone Hmuoa hHmmm Ho3OH \MMWMME OHOOHS WMWWW” Home: UGO .50 OH . .50 OH .50 OH 2 p a .Hsoo p m .Hsoo p m .ucoficmHmmm OCHnomou oudusm OHQHmmom m on o>HumHOH onsonmxomn mmmHOIHwHOOm mo :OHuanHumHO >OGODUOHMII.V.O OHQOB 65 Of the total population of 200 respondents, 11 (5.5%) came from lower-class backgrounds and 30 (15%) came from a com- bination middle-/lower-c1ass background. The 18 respon- dents in the entire sample who said they would be willing to teach in a lower-socio-economic-class composition were from the following types of communities: seven (3.5%) from a middle-class composition, five (2.5%) from a combi- nation middle-/lower-class composition, four (2%) from upper-middle, and two (1%) from lower-class compositions. Throughout all social-class community-composition back- grounds, only the predominantly upper class showed no response tO a lower-socio-economic-class composition teach- ing preference. The questionnaire elicited additional descriptive data, which are reported in the following pages. As shown in Table 4.5, a majority of the respon- dents (79%) came from homes in which the occupations Of the heads of households were manager, executive, proprietor of large business, or commissioned Officer (26.5%); pro- fessional (other than education) or scientific (17%); skilled worker, foreman,cnrnoncommissioned Officer (15%); education (11.5%); or small business owner or-manager (9%). The other 21 percent comprised 7 percent semi-skilled workers, unskilled workers, or farm laborers; 5.5 percent clerical or sales workers; 4.5 percent farm owners; and 4 percent unemployed. 66 HwooHv ooN Hmuoe Hmo.vv m ANNV H HwNV H mev m COMOHQEOGD . HOHOQOH show no OOHHmecs . HOOHmmO OocOHmmHEEOOcoc me.mv HH ANNHV m ANNV H vav v mOHMm HO HMOHHOHU me.av m Amps m Hams a INNS N House summ Hwo.mv mH AmoHv m ANOHV m Hmmv m Hommcma no Hoc3o mmochsn HHmEm HOOHmmo pocowmmHafioo HO me.oNv mm ANNNV SH HNHHV A Hwomo om .mmmaHmsH mmHMH mo noumHum Iona .O>Husooxm .HMHHommcmz . OHMHHGOHOm HO HcOHumosoo Hmo NHV vm ANNNV HH meHv m meHv mH smnu Hmsuov HMGOHmmOMOHm Hmm.HHv MN ANNV H ANONV 0H ANNHV.NH :OHumosom Hmuoe v msouw m msouo NHH mmdouo cowummsooo .moHonmmson .musoocommou mo momma mo chHummsooo Honda How coHuanuumHO mosmsvmumli.m.v OHQOB 67 Table 4.6 shows that 45 respondents (22.5%) spent the major part of their youth in small cities (lo-50,000 pOpulation), 41 (20.5%) in suburban areas near a city, 31 (15.5%) in a city of 51-500,000 pOpulation, and 30 (15%) in a village or town (under 10,000). The remaining 26.5 percent spent the major part of their youth in a metrOpOlis (500,000 population), in a suburban area near a metrOpOlis, or on a farm. Table 4.6.--Frequency distribution of type Of community respondents occupied as youths. . (3xmpslfi2 Gnmr>3 Gummi4 : WW Type (N=100) (N=50) (N=50) “‘31 Faun 4 (4%) 10 (20%) 4 (8%) 18 (9.0%) Vangecm'qui (under 10,000) 10 (10%) 7 (14%) 13 (26%) 30 (15.0%) SmflJ.city (ll-50,000) 23 (23%) 13 (26%) 9 (18%) 45 (22.5%) City (SI-500,000) 13 (13%) 10 (20%) 8 (16%) 31 (15.5%) Sdmnbanauea city 28 (28%) 7 (14%) 6 (12%) 41 (20.5%) .Metropolis (500,000+) 15 (15%) 1 (2%) 4 (8%) 20 (10.0%) Sdmniananma ~- :mel 113 8 (8%) 1 (2%) 6 (12%) 15 (7.5%) Total 200 (100%) 68 Eighty-one respondents (81%) from Groups 1 and 2, prospective teachers, reported the racial composition of their immediate home community to be 50—75 percent white, 76-99 percent white, or 100 percent white. Forty respon- dents (80%) from Group 3, in-service teachers, responded that their immediate home communities were 50-75 percent white, 76-99 percent white, or 100 percent white. Thirty- eight respondents (76%) from Group 4, noneducation under— graduates, reported their immediate home communities to be 50-75 percent white, 76-99 percent white, or 100 percent white. The remainder of the population in each group reported their immediate home community to be 50 percent nonwhite/50 percent white, 50-75 percent nonwhite, 76-99 percent nonwhite, or 100 percent nonwhite (see Table 4.7). Seventy respondents (70%) from Groups 1 and 2, prospective teachers, reported the desirable racial compo- sition of the school in which they prefer to teach would be 50-75 percent white, 76-99 percent white, or 100 percent white. Thirty-nine respondents (78%) from Group 3, in- service teachers, re3ponded that the desirable racial composition of the school in which they prefer to teach would be 50-75 percent white, 76-99 percent white, or 100 percent white. Thirty-five respondents (70%) from Group 4, noneducation undergraduates, reported their preference Of a desirable school relative to racial composition would be 50-75 percent white, 76—99 percent white, or 100 percent 69 white. The remainder of the population in each group reported the desirable racial composition of the school in which they would prefer to teach as 50 percent nonwhite/ 50 percent white, 50-75 percent nonwhite, 76-99 percent nonwhite, or 100 percent nonwhite (Table 4.8). Table 4.7.--Frequency distribution Of the racial composition of respondents' home communities. . . . (hommsl&2 Gnmm>3 Gnmr>4 Rama mam“ (N=100) (N=50) (N=50) Tbtal 100% nonwhite 5 (5%) 1 (2%) 7 (14%) 13 (6.5%) 76-99% nonwhite 7 (7%) 6 (12%) 1 (2%) 14 (7.0%) 50-75% nonwhite 5 (5%) 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 6 (3.0%) 50%1xmmhihw’ 50% white 2 (2%) l (2%) 4 (8%) 7 (3.5%) 50—75% white 13 (13%) 1 (2%) 9 (18%) 23 (11.5%) 76-99% white 43 (43%) 24 (48%) 17 (34%) 84 (42.0%) 100% white 25 (25%) 15 (30%) 13 (26%) 53 (26.5%) Total 200 (100%) 70 Table 4.8.--Frequency distribution Of the desirable racial composition of the school in which respondents prefer to teach. Chomxsl82 Gnmm>3 Gnmn>4 Rac1a1.Cbnpos1tion (NelOO) (N=50) (N=50) Total 100% white 6 (6%) 5 (10%) 2 (4%) 13 (6.5%) 76-99% white 47 (47%) 27 (54%) 26 (52%) 100 (50.0%) 50-75% white 17 (17%) 7 (14%) 7 (14%) 31 (15.5%) 50% nonwhite/ 50% white 23 (23%) 8 (16%) 8 (16%) 39 (19.5%) 50—75% nonwhite 4 (4%) 1 (2%) 6 (12%) 11 (5.5%) 76-99% nonwhite 2 (2%) l (2%) 1 (2%) 4 (2.0%) 100% nonwhite 1 (1%) 1 (2%) O (0%) 2 (1.0%) Total 200 (100%) In comparing the data from Tables 4.7 and 4.8, pre- sented in Table 4.9, the majority Of respondents (80%) came from home racial compositions Of 50-75 percent white, 76-99 percent white, or 100 percent white. The majority Of respondents (72%) reported their racial com- position preference in a future teaching assignment as 50-75 percent white, 76-99 percent white, or 100 percent white. 71 Table 4.9.--Summary table of Tables 4.7 and 4.8. Four Groups Community Racial Racial Composition Combined comPos1t1on Preference (Table 4.7) (Table 4.8) 50-75% white ' 76-99% white 160 (80%) 144 (72%) 100% white Table 4.10 shows that 163 (81.5%) Of the respon- dents received their secondary education in public schools. Thirty-one (15.5%) attended secondary parochial schools and six (3%) attended private secondary schools. All four groups had similar percentages across public, parochial, and private school types. Table 4.10.--Frequency distribution of the type of school in which respondents received their secondary education. School Groups 1&2 Group 3 Group 4 Type (N=100) (N=50) (N=50) T°ta1 Public 83 (83%) 41 (82%) 39 (78%) 163 (81.5%) Parochial 14 (14%) 6 (12%) 11 (22%) 31 (15.5%) Private 3 (3%) 2 (4%) l (2%) 6 (3.0%) Total ‘ 200 (100%) As shown in Table 4.11, 148 respondents (74%) attended high schools that had either upper-class, upper/ middle-class, or middle-class compositions. Fifty-two 72 respondents (26%) attended middle/lower-class or lower- social—class high schools. Table 4.11.--Frequency distribution of social class compo- sition Of respondents' high schools. Gnmqrsl&2 Gnmm>3 Gnmm>4 S°°ial Class (N=100) (N=50) (N=50) Tbtal Upper class 5 (5%) 3 (6%) 26 (52%) 34 (17.0%) Upper/middle class 26 (26%) 3 (6%) 12 (24%) 41 (20.5%) Nfiddle class 46 (46%) 26 (52%) 1 (2%) 73 (36.5%) Middle/lower class 20 (20%) 16 (32%) 1 (2%) 37 (18.5%) lower Class 3 (3%) 2 (4%) 10 (20%) 15 (7.5%) Tbtal 200 (100%) One hundred forty-two respondents (71%) attended high schools with a racial composition Of 100 percent white or 76-99 percent white. Twenty-eight respondents (14%) went to 50 percent white/50 percent nonwhite or 50-75 percent white schools, and 31 (15.5%) attended high schools that were 50-75 percent nonwhite, 76-99 percent nonwhite, or 100 percent nonwhite (Table 4.12). 73 Table 4.12.--Frequency distribution of racial composition of respondents' high schools. . . . Gnmnx;1&2 Gnmr>3 Gnmn>4 Rac1al Compos1tion (N=100) (N=50) (N=50) Tbtal 100% nonwhite 2 (2%) 0 (0%) 3 (6%) 5 (2.5%) 76-99% nonwhite 12 (12%) 6 (12%) l (2%) 19 (9.5%) 50-75% nonwhite 6 (6%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (3.0%) 50%rpnmfite/ 50% white 6 (6%) 5 (10%) 2 (4%) 13 (6.5%) 50-75% white 6 (6%) 4 (8%) 5 (10%) 15 (7.5%) 76-99% white 39 (39%) 17 (34%) 26 (52%) 82(4l.0%) 100% white 28 (28%) 18 (36%) 14 (28%) 60(30.0%) Total 200 (100%) One hundred seventy-nine respondents (89.5%) reported their families' income position to be in the highest, second highest, and third highest 25 percent Of their community at the time Of their high school gradua- tion. Twenty-one re3pondents (10.5%) said their families' income position was in the lowest 25 percent Of the commu- nity upon high school graduation (Table 4.13). As seen in Table 4.14, 47 respondents (23.5%) said their parents would think their desire to teach in a lower- socio-economic-class composition was a very good idea or a good idea. Sixty-two respondents (31%) thought their parents would feel their desire to teach in a lower-socio- economic-class composition was a bad idea or a very bad 74 idea, and 91 (45.5%) said their parents would be unaf- fected by their desire to teach in a lower-socio-economic- class composition. Of the 100 prospective teachers, 79 (79%) gained no or negative support from their parents toward a possible teaching assignment in a lower-socio- economic-class composition. Table 4.13.--Frequency distribution Of income position of respondents' families at the time Of their graduation from high school. (homx31&2 Gumm>3 anm>4 Income POSltlon (N=100) (N=50) (N=50) Total Highest 25% 21 (21%) 7 (14%) 16 (32%) 44 (22.0%) Second highest 25% 48 (48%) 15 (30%) 23 (46%) 86 (43.0%) Third highest 25% 20 (20%) 20 (40%) 9 (18%) 49 (24.5%) Lowest 25% 11 (11%) 8 (16%) 2 (4%) 21 (10.5%) Tbtal 200 (100%) Table 4.14.--Frequency distribution Of parents' Opinion toward respondents' desire to teach in a lower-socio- economic-class composition. Parents' Opinion. G?E:§30%&2 7::§§)3 figggg)4 Total Very good idea 8 (8%) 0 (0%) 5 (10%) 13 (6.5%) Good idea 13 (13%) 9 (18%) 12 (24%) 34 (17.0%) Unaffected 40 (40%) 32 (64%) 19 (38%) 91 (45.5%) Bad idea 33 (33%) 9 (18%) 12 (24%) 54 (27.0%) Very bad idea 6 (6%) 0 (0%) 2 (4%) 8 (4.0%) Tbtal 200 (100%) 75 Fifty-seven respondents (28.5%) said that their friends would think their desire to teach in a lower- socio-economic-class composition was a very good or a good idea. Forty-one respondents (20.5%) thought their friends would feel their desire to teach in a lower-socio-economic- class composition was a bad or a very bad idea, and 102 (51%) said their friends would be unaffected by their desire to teach in a lower-socio-economic-class composi- tion. Of the 100 prospective teachers, 69 (69%) gained no or negative support from friends toward a possible teaching assignment in a lower-socio-economic-class compo- sition (Table 4.15). Table 4.15.--Frequency distribution of friends' (those you talk with Openly) Opinions toward respondents' desire to teach in a lower-socio-economic-class composition. Friends' Opinion 333303;” ((33513) 3 1:25” Total Verygood idea 7 (7%) 2 (4%) 4 (8%) 13 (6.5%) Good idea 24 (24%) 11 (22%) 9 (18%) 44 (22.0%) Unaffected 4s (45%) 27 (54%) 30 (60%) 102 (51.0%) Bad idea 22 (22%) 10 (20%) 7 (14%) 39 (19.5%) Verybad idea 2 (2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (1.0%) Tbtal 200 (100%) 76 Analyses of Research Questions V, VI, and VII Analyses of the data for the six null hypotheses derived from Research Questions V-VII follow. A chi— square statistic was computed for the hypotheses to deter- mine whether differences exist. The chi-square values were obtained by using the crosstabs subroutine of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. The accep- tance level of significance (a) for all hypotheses was the .05 level. Research Question V What is the extent to which prospective teachers (Groups 1 and 2) have formed attitudes toward teaching in differing socio-economic-class compo- sitions and schools? Null Hypothesis 1: There will be no significant dif- ference between undergraduate education majors who have had student teaching and undergraduate education majors who have not yet had student teaching based on preference for socio-economic—class composition. Since the chi-square value with five degrees Of freedom did not indicate a significant difference at the .05 level (p = .7684), it was not possible to reject Null Hypothesis 1. There was no significant difference in the frequency distribution Of responses toithis item between Groups 1 and 2. The two groups were not differ- ent in their preference for particular socio-economic- class compositions as possible future teaching assignments (Table 4.16). 77 Table 4.16.--Frequency distribution for undergraduate edu- cation majors' (groups 1 and 2) preference toward socio- economic-class composition in a possible future teaching assignment. Preference Group la Group 2b Total Predominantly upper- socio-economic/class 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 1 ( 1%) Combination upper/middle socio-economic-class 7 (14%) ll (22%) 18 (18%) Predominantly middle- socio-economic-class 20 (40%) 17 (34%) 37 (37%) Combination middle/lower- socio-economic-class 9 (18%) 8 (16%) 17 (17%) Predominantly lower- socio-economic-class (12%) (14%) 13 (13%) NO preference (16%) (12%) 14 (14%) Total 50 (50%) 50 (50%) 100 (100%) x2 = 2.553 d.f. = 5 p > .05 aBeginning prospective teachers. bTerminal prospective teachers. Null Hypothesis 2: There will be no significant difference between undergraduate education majors who have had student teaching and undergraduate education majors who have not yet had student teach- ing based on preference for school location. Since the chi-square value with six degrees Of freedom did not indicate a significant difference at the .05 level (p = .6908), it was not possible to reject Null Hypothesis 2. There was no significant difference in the frequency distribution of responses to this item 78 between Groups 1 and 2. The groups were not different in their preference for particular school locations in possible future teaching assignments (Table 4.17). Table 4.17.--Frequency distribution for undergraduate edu- cation majors' (groups 1 and 2) preference toward school location in a possible future teaching assignment. Preference Group 1a Group 2b Total Inner city 6 (12%) 4 (8%) 10 (10%) Outer city 2 (4%) 2 (4%) 4 (4%) Suburban 13 (26%) 14 (28%) 27 (27%) Rural 2 (4%) l (2%) 3 (3%) Small city or town 15 (30%) 17 (34%) 32 (32%) College 2 (4%) 6 (12%) 8 (8%) NO preference 10 (20%) 6 (12%) 16 (16%) Total 50 (50%) 50 (50%) 100 (100%) x2 = 3.895 d.f. = 6 p > .05 aBeginning prospective teachers. bTerminal prospective teachers. Research Question VI What are the similarities and differences between undergraduate noneducation majors (Group 4) and undergraduate education majors (Groups 1 and 2) based on preference for socio-economic-class com- position and school location? Null Hypothesis 3: There will be no significant dif- ference between undergraduate education majors and undergraduate noneducation majors based on socio- economic—class composition preference. 79 Since the chi-square value with five degrees of freedom indicated a significant difference at the .05 level (p = .0104), Null Hypothesis 3 was rejected. There was a significant difference in the frequency distribution of responses to this item between Groups 1 and 2 combined and Group 4. This difference possibly can be attributed to 14 percent of Group 4 preferring a predominantly upper- socio-economic-class composition as a possible future teaching assignment, compared to 1 percent of Groups 1 and 2 making the same selection. Also, 13 percent Of Groups 1 and 2 combined preferred a lower-socio-economic-class compo- sition, whereas 4 percent Of Group 4 made that choice (Table 4.18). Null Hypothesis 4: There will be no significant dif- ference between undergraduate education majors and undergraduate noneducation majors based on school loca- tion preference. Since the chi-square value with six degrees Of freedom indicated a significant difference at the .05 level (p = .0007), Null Hypothesis 4 was rejected. There was a significant difference in the frequency distribution Of responses to this item between Groups 1 and 2 combined and Group 4. This difference can possibly be attributed to the fact that 32 percent of Groups 1 and 2 compared to 18 percent Of Group 4 selected rural schools as a possible future teaching location. Also, 8 percent Of Groups 1 and 2 80 chose college as their preference, whereas 38 percent of Group 4 selected college as the kind Of school setting they would prefer in a possible future teaching assignment (Table 4.19). Table 4.18.--Frequency distribution for undergraduate edu- cation majors' (groups 1 and 2 combined) and undergraduate noneducation majors' (group 4) preference toward socio- economic-class composition in a possible future teaching assignment. Preference Groups 1&2a Group 4b Total Predominantly upper socio-economic-class l (1%) 7 (14%) 8 (5.3%) Combination upper/ middle socio-economic 18 (18%) 6 (12%) 24 (16.0%) class Predominantly middle socio-economic-class 37 (37%) 20 (40%) 57 (38.0%) Combination middle/ lower socio-economic 17 (17%) 6 (12%) 23 (15.3%) class Predominantly lower socio-economic-class 13 (13%) 2 (4%) 15 (10.0%) NO preference 14 (14%) 9 (18%) 23 (15.3%) Total 100 (66.7%) 50(33.3%) 150 (100%) x2 = 14.982 d.f. = 5 p < .05 k aBeginning and terminal prOSpective teachers. bNoneducation major undergraduates. 81 Table 4.19.--Frequency distribution for undergraduate edu- cation majors' (groups 1 and 2 combined) and undergraduate noneducation majors' (group 4) preference toward school location in a possible future teaching assignment. Preference Groups 1&2a Group 4b Total Inner city 10 (10%) 3 (6%) 13 (8.7%) Outer city 4 (4%) 2 (4%) 6 (4.0%) Suburban 27 (27%) 11 (22%) 38 (25.3%) Rural 3 (3%) 3 (6%) 6 (4.0%) Small city or town 32 (32%) 9 (18%) 41 (27.3%) College 8 (8%) 19 (38%) 27 (18.0%) NO preference 16 (16%) 3 (6%) 19 (27.7%) Total 100 (66.7%) 50(33.3%) 150 (100%). x2 = 23.382 d.f. = 6 p < .05 aBeginning and terminal prOSpective teachers. bNoneducation major undergraduates. Research Question VII What are the similarities and differences between undergraduate education majors (Groups 1 and 2) and in-service teachers (Group 3) based on socio- economic-class-composition preference and school location? Null Hypothesis 5: There will be no significant dif- ference between undergraduate education majors and in-service teachers based on socio-economic-class- composition preference. Since the chi-square value with five degrees Of freedom did not indicate a significant difference at the .05 level (p = .0864), it was not possible to reject 82 Null Hypothesis 5. Although Groups 1 and 2 combined and Group 3 did not differ at the .05 level, there could be practical significance at the .0864 level. At that level, group difference could possibly be attributed to 37 percent of Groups 1 and 2 compared to 62 percent of Group 3 prefer- ring a predominantly middle-socio-economic-class composi- tion as a possible future teaching assignment. Moreover, 13 percent of Groups 1 and 2 combined preferred a lower- socio-economic-class composition, compare to 6 percent of Group 3 making the same choice; and 17 percent Of Groups 1 and 2 combined preferred a combination middle- and lower- socio-economic-class composition whereas 8 percent Of Group 3 madeaimiddle/lower-class selection (Table 4.20). Null Hypothesis 6: There will be no significant dif- ference between undergraduate education majors and in-service teachers based on school location. The chi-square value with six degrees of freedom indicated a significant difference at the .05 level (p = .0128); therefore Null Hypothesis 6 was rejected. There was a significant difference in the frequency distri- bution Of responses to this item between Groups 1 and 2 com- bined and Group 3. This difference possibly can be attrib- uted to the fact that 27 percent of Groups 1 and 2 combined compared to 42 percent Of Group 3 selected suburban schools as a possible future teaching location. Also, 3 percent Of Groups 1 and 2 chose rural schools as their preference, 83 whereas 14 percent of Group 3 said they would prefer teach- ing in rural schools; 32 percent of Groups 1 and 2 com- bined and 20 percent of Group 3 preferred a small city or town as a possible future teaching assignment (Table 4.21). Table 4.20.-—Frequency distribution for undergraduate edu- cation majors' (groups 1 and 2 combined) and in-service teachers' (group 3) preference toward socio-economic-class composition in a possible future teaching assignment. Preference Groups 1&2a Group 3b Total Predominantly upper socio-economic-class l (1%) 0 (0%) l ( .7%) Combination middle/ upper socio-economic 18 (18%) 8 (16%) 26 (17.3%) class Predominantly middle socio-economic-class 37 (37%) 31 (62%) 68 (45.3%) Combination middle/ lower socio-economic 17 (17%) 4 (8%) 21 (14.0%) class °Predominantly lower socio-economic-class 13 (13%) 3 (6%) 16 (10.7%) NO preference 14 (14%) 4 (8%) 18 (12.0%) Total 100 (66.7%) 50 (33.3%) 150 (100%) x2 = 9.632 d.f. = 5 p > .05 aBeginning and terminal prospective teachers. b . In-serv1ce teachers. 84 Table 4.21.--Frequency distribution for undergraduate edu- cation majors' (groups 1 and 2 combined) and in-service teachers' (group 3) preference toward school location in a possible future teaching assignment. Preference Groups 1&2a Group 3b Total Inner city 10 (10%) 5 (12%) 16 (10.7%) Outer city 4 (4%) 2 (4%) 6 (4.0%) Suburban 27 (27%) 21 (42%) 48 (32.0%) Rural 3 (3%) 7 (14%) 10 (6.7%) Small city or town 32 (32%) 10 (20%) 42 (28.0%) College 8 (8%) 3 (6%) 11 (7.3%) NO preference 16 (16%) l (2%) 17 (11.3%) Total 100 (66.7%) 50 (33.3%) 150 (100%) x2 = 16.179 d.f. = 6 p < .05 aBeginning and terminal prospective teachers. b . In-serv1ce teachers. Analysis of Research Question VIII Research Question VIII What are the sources Of cultural information for and 4 relative to socio-economic- class-composition preference? Groups 1, Null Hypothesis 7: There will be no significant dif- ference among the four groups Of undergraduate and post-graduate respondents at Michigan State University on ten different sources of cultural information. Within the four sample groups existed two common subgroups, termed Subgroup l and Subgroup 2, which can be distinguished by means Of the following designations: 85 Subgroup l--Those respondents in all four sample groups who chose a lower-socio-economic-class com- position as a future teaching assignment in Question 17, response 3. Subgroup 2--Those respondents in all four sample groups who chose any other response than a lower- socio-economic-class composition as a future teaching assignment in Question 17. Subgroup l comprised 18 respondents from a total sample of 200. Subgroup 2 comprised 182 respondents. Data for Research Question VIII were analyzed in two ways: Subgroup 2 was analyzed using a multivariate analysis of variance, and Subgroup l was analyzed using a descriptive procedure. Data for Subgroup 2 are analyzed first; descriptive data for Subgroup 1 appear second. The factor (independent variable) in the design was "group," which had four levels: Gl--Education 200 (beginning prospective teachers prior to student teaching) G2--Education 450 (terminal prospective teachers post- student teaching) G3--In-service teachers G4--T.C. 310 Telecommunications (noneducation majors) The 10 dependent variables, Items 39-48, dealt with the importance or unimportance of the following sources Of cultural information in respondents' choice of other than a lower-socio-economic-class composition as a future teach- ing preference: 139 = personal experience I40 = lectures in education courses I41 = reading materials in education courses I42 I43 I44 I45 I46 I47 I48 The 86 conversations with school personnel you know conversations with friends conversations with family articles in magazines articles in newspapers television programs including the news radio programs including the news design matrix for the study is shown in Table Table 4.22.--Design matrix. 8'8 139 I40 I41 I42 I43 I44 I45 I46 I47 I48 G1 n=43 G2 n=43 G3 n=47 G4 n=48 Total n=181 A multivariate analysis of variance was used to analyze the design matrix. The result of the analysis is shown in Table 4.23. Table 4.23.--MANOVA table. Source of Variation d.f. F p less than Grand mean Group Error 1 3 1.9685 .002 7 Total 181 87 On the basis of the multivariate analysis of vari- ance statistic and the acceptance level of significance (0) set at .05, this test showed a significant difference among the four groups. In conclusion, the null hypothesis was rejected. There was a significant difference among the four sample groups on 10 items analyzed simultaneously. Since the null hypothesis was rejected and there was a significant difference across the four groups, the data were analyzed further by means Of a univariate analy- sis Of variance on the dependent variables (see Table 4.24). Table 4.24.--ANOVA table. 3::iggigt Means Square Univariate F p less than 1. 139 6.6891 3.6414 .0140* 2. I40 3.9533 4.1469 .0072* 3. I41 2.4164 1.9208 .1279 4. I42 2.2480 1.2069 .3088 5. I43 3.8432 2.4696 .0636 6. I44 11.7355 7.9615 .0001* 7. I45 9.6021 6.8403 .0003* 8. I46 12.1130 8.3032 .0001* 9. I47 10.2244 6.5971 .0003* 10. I48 5.6870 3.8078 .0112* *Significant at .05. Key: 139 = personal experience I40 = lectures in education courses I41 = reading materials in education courses I42 = conversations with school personnel you know I43 = conversations with friends I44 = conversations with family I45 = articles in magazines I46 = articles in newspapers I47 = television programs including the news I48 = radio programs including the news 88 On the basis Of the univariate analysis of variance on the dependent variables and with the significance level set at .05, the test showed a significant difference across the four groups. Therefore, with a 95 percent level of confidence, the four groups were significantly different on variables 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Since the null hypothesis was rejected and a signifi- cant difference across the four groups was found, the data were analyzed further to specify the contrast across the groups. A post-hoc procedure was employed to investigate the group differences. For reasons of comparison, Group 4 (noneducation undergraduates) was contrasted with the other three groups (Groups 1 and 2 were prospective teachers and Group 3 were in-service teachers) to determine sources Of cultural information differences on variables 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 (see Table 4.25). Table 4.25.--MANOVA table. Source Of Variation d.f. F p less than Group 1/Group 4 1 1.9700 .0395* Group 2/Group 4 l .9440 .4946 Group 3/Group 4 1 3.1678 . .0010* Error 177 Total 180 *Significant at .05 level. 89 With the significance level set at .05, the analysis showed a significant difference between two group combina- tions. It was concluded that Groups 1 and 4 and Groups 3 and 4 were significantly different on 10 dependent variables simultaneously, but Groups 2 and 4 were not significantly different. Again a univariate analysis of variance was employed to find the specific dependent variables that demonstrate a significant difference in Groups 1 and 3 from Group 4. Table 4.26 shows a univariate ANOVA of 10 variables in com- paring the significant difference between Group 1 (undergradu- ate prospective teachers prior tO student teaching) and Group 4 (noneducation undergraduates). Table 4.27 shows a univariate ANOVA of 10 variables in comparing the significant difference between Group 3 (in-service teachers) and Group 4 (noneducation undergradu- ates). A summary Of the findings presented in Tables 4.26 and 4.27 is shown in Table 4.28. With the significance level set at .05, Table 4.28 shows Group 1 and Group 4 were significantly different on variables 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Group 3 and Group 4 were significantly different on vari- ables 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Group 2 and Group 4 did not show a significant statistical difference at the .05 acceptance level. 90 Table 4.26.--Univariate ANOVA table--groups 1/4. Variable Means Square Univariate F p less than 1. I39 16.3123 8.8828 .0033* 2. I40 .0060 .0063 .9367 3. I41 .3294 .2615 .6098 4. I42 2.2453 1.1987 .2751 5. I43 .9889 .6342 .4269 6. I44 6.4884 4.3948 .0375? 7. I45 9.5786 6.8192 .0098* 8. I46 10.0655 6.8615 .0096* 9. I47 9.3337 6.0039 .0153* 10. I48 3.6007 2.3974 .1234 d.f. = 1 error = 112 Total = 177 Key: I39 I40 I41 I42 I43 I44 I45 I46 I47 I48 *Significant at .05 level. personal experience lectures in education courses reading materials in education courses conversations with school personnel you know conversations with friends conversations with family articles in magazines articles in newspapers - television programs including the news radio programs including the news Table 4.27.--Univariate ANOVA table--Groups 3/4. Variable Means Square Univariate F p less than 1. 139 .1702 .0927 .7612 2. I40 7.7553 9.1405 .0049* 3. I41 1.7979 1.4274 .2339 4. I42 4.2553 2.2719 .1336 5. 143 7.1915 4.6123 .0332* 6. I44 24.5106 16.6021 .0001* 7. I45 14.5638 10.3683 .0016* 8. I46 21.5426 14.6852 .0002* 9. I47 16.1809 10.4083 .0015* 10. I48 11.5851 7.7135 .0061* d.f. = 1 error = 176 Total = 177 *Significant at .05. Key: 139 = personal experience 140 = lectures in education courses I41 = reading materials in education courses I42 = conversations with school personnel you know I43 = conversations with friends I44 = conversations with family I45 = articles in magazines I46 = articles in newspapers . I47 = television programs including the news I48 = radio programs including the news 92 Table 4.28.--Summary table Of Tables 4.26 and 4.27. variable Gigggli/ifggi 4 Giggglg/iiggi 4 1. I39 .0033* .7612 2. I40 .9367 .0049* 3. I41 .6098 .2339 4. I42 .2751 .1336 5. I43 .4269 .0332* 6. I44 .0375* .0001* 7. I45 .0098* .0016* 8. I46 .0096* .0002* 9. I47 .0153* .0015* 10. I48 .1234 .0061* *Significant at .05 level. Key: 139 I40 I41 I42 I43 I44 I45 I46 I47 I48 Ta personal experience lectures in education courses reading materials in education courses conversations with school personnel you know conversations with friends conversations with family articles in magazines articles in newspapers television programs including the news radio programs including the news ble 4.29 shows the Observed cell means of the 10 dependent variables, Items 39-48, which pertained to the importance or unimportance of various sources Of cultural information in the respondents' choice of other than a 93 lower-socio-economic-class composition as a future teaching preference. Table 4.29.--Observed cell means--subgroup 2 (other than lower-socio-economic-class composition). Variable Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 l. 139 2.4651 2.0232 1.6808 1.5957 2. I40 .7674 1.0232 .3829 .9574 3. I41 1.0930 1.2790 .7234 1.0000 4. I42 1.8604 1.6511 1.3617 1.7872 5. I43 1.9767 2.0232 1.4255 1.9787 6. I44 2.0000 1.7906 .9361 1.9574 7. I45 2.1395 1.8604 1.0851 1.8723 8. I46 2.3720 2.0930 1.2127 2.1702 9. I47 2.3953 2.1395 1.3191 2.1489 10. I48 1.9302 1.7674 1.1702 1.8723 Key: 139 personal experience I40 I41 I42 I43 I44 lectures in education courses reading materials in education courses conversations with school personnel you know conversations with friends conversations with family I45 I46 I47 I48 articles in magazines articles in newspapers television programs including the news radio programs including the news In examining the mean scores for individual items and individual groups, the closer a score is to 0.0 the more unimportant that particular source Of cultural infor- mation was to respondents within a given group. The closer a mean score is to 4.0 the more important a particular source Of cultural information was to respondents within 94 that group. Possible responses for items 39-48 were as follows: 0. not important at all 1. very unimportant 2. unimportant 3. important 4 very important Group 1 (prospective teachers prior to student teaching) said that personal experience was their most important source of cultural information and education courses were the least important; Group 2 (prospective teachers post-student teaching) responded that television programs including the news were their most important source of cultural information and that education courses were the least important; Group 3 (in-service teachers) thought per- sonal experience was their most important source of cultural information and education courses were the least important. Group 4 (noneducation undergraduates) felt that articles in newspapers were their most important source of cultural information and education courses were the least important in the decision not to choose a lower-socio-economic-class composition teaching assignment. Initially it was decided that the sources of cul- tural information would be analyzed by means of multivari- ate analysis of variance for two specific subgroups within the four groups: (1) those respondents choosing a lower- socio-economic-class composition as a future teaching assignment in Question 17 (subgroup 1) and (2) those 95 respondents choosing other than a lower-socio-economic- class composition as a future teaching assignment in Question 17 (subgroup 2). The data presented thus far for Research Question VIII have pertained to the latter sub- group. The ensuing discussion is concerned with subgroup 1. Since the number of respondents in subgroup l was very small (18 out of 200), a descriptive procedure is more desirable to analyze the data for that group. The information that follows is reported in terms of frequency distributions and observed cell means. As shown in Table 4.30, six respondents (12%) from Group 1, seven (14%) from Group 2, three (6%) from Group 3, and two (4%) from Group 4 chose a lower-socio-economic-class composition for a future teaching assignment. Table 4.30.--Frequency distribution of subgroup 1. Group Frequency Gl--Beginning prospective teachers (n=50) 6 (12%) G2-—Termina1 prospective teachers (n=50) 7 (14%) G3--In-service teachers (n=50) 3 ( 6%) G4--Noneducation undergraduates (n=50) 2 ( 4%) Table 4.31 displays the observed cell means of the 10 dependent variables (Items 26-35), which dealt with the importance of 10 sources of cultural information in 96 respondents' preference for a lower-socio-economic composi- tion as a future teaching assignment. Table 4.31.--Observed cell means--subgroup 1 (lower-socio- economic-class composition). Variable Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 l. 126 2.3333 3.4285 3.0000 2.0000 2. I27 .3333 1.0000 1.0000 .4444 3. 128 .1666 .2857 1.3333 .7777 4. 129 .6666 1.4285 2.0000 1.5000 5. I30 1.3333 1.8571 2.3333 2.5000 6. I31 .8333 1.4285 2.0000 3.0000 7. I32 1.3333 1.7142 2.0000 .6666 8. I33 1.6666 1.7142 2.0000 1.5000. 9. I34 2.6666 2.0000 2.0000 2.5000 10. I35 1.8333 1.7142 2.0000 1.0000 Key: I26 = personal experience I27 = lectures in education courses I28 = reading materials in education courses I29 = conversations with school personnel you know I30 = conversations with friends I31 = conversations with family I32 = articles in magazines 133 = articles in newspapers I34 = television programs including the news I35 = radio programs including the news In examining the mean score for individual items and individual groups, the closer a mean score is to 0.0 the more unimportant that source of cultural information was to respondents within a given group. The closer a mean score is to 4.0, the more important that source of information was to respondents within that group. Possible responses for items 26-35 were as follows: 97 0. not important at all 1. very unimportant 2. unimportant 3. important 4 very important Group 1 (prospective teachers prior to student teaching) said that television programs including the news were their most important source of cultural information and education courses were the least important; Group 2 (pro- spective teachers post-student teaching) responded that personal experience was the most important source of cultural information and reading materials in education courses were the least important; Group 3 (in-service teachers) thought personal experience was the most important source of cul- tural information and education courses were the least important; and Group 4 (noneducation undergraduates) felt that conversations with their familieswere the most impor- tant source of cultural information and education courses were the least important in the decision to teach in a lower-socio-economic-class composition assignment. Summary Eight major research questions were stated and analyzed in this chapter. Descriptive data of the four sample groups were presented. The rationale for socio- economic-class composition preference was discussed and major sources of cultural information were computed. 98 The descriptive and statistical data in this chap- ter were collected by a questionnaire administered to four separate sample groups (n=50 per group): beginning pro- spective teachers prior to student teaching, terminal pro- spective teachers post-student teaching, in-service teachers, and noneducation undergraduates. Eighteen respondents (9% of the entire population of 200) preferred a lower-socio-economic-class composition as a possible future teaching assignment. Their main reasons for this choice were "good teachers are needed more in a lower-socio-economic culture" and "I want to teach where I can make a real contribution." One hundred eighty-two respondents (91% of the entire population) preferred not to teach in a lower-socio- economic-class composition. The reasons they gave for not choosing a lower-socio-economic-class composition were: "discipline problems are more frequent," "teaching is more difficult because of parents' attitudes," and "values of lower-socio-economic children are in conflict with my values." The majority of respondents in all four groups came from predominantly Anglo-Saxon (Caucasian) ethnic back- grounds. Of the 169 Anglo-Saxons, 156 (78%) chose other than a lower-socio-economic-class composition and 13 (6.5%) chose to teach in a lower-socio-economic-class composition. Eighteen Afro-Americans (Negroes) were represented in the 99 four groups. Thirteen of these 18 respondents chose other than a lower-socio-economic-class composition for a pos- sible future teaching assignment. The majority of respondents in each group came from predominantly middle-an:upper-middle-social-class-composition communities. Eleven respondents came from lower-class backgrounds, 30 came from a combination middle/lower-class background, and 11 came from lower-class backgrounds. Of the latter, two said they would be willing to return to lower-class compositions to teach. One hundred forty-seven respondents (73.5%) grew up in a small city, a suburban area near a city, or a vil- lage or town. Fifty-three (26.5%) came from a metropolis, a suburban area near a metropolis, or a farm. A majority of the sample came from homes in which the occupation of the head of the household was manager, executive, proprietor of a large business, commissioned officer, or professional (other than education). One hundred seventy-nine respondents (89.5%) reported their families' income position to be in the high— est, second highest, or third highest 25 percent of their home community upon high school graduation. Research Questions V, VI, and VII were concerned with analyzing possible differences among the four sample groups based on preference for socio-economic-class compo- sition and school location in a possible future teaching 100 assignment. No significant difference was found between Group 1 and Group 2 on either preference for socio-economic- class composition or school location in a possible future teaching assignment. A significant difference did exist between Groups 1 and 2 combined and Group 4 on both socio- economic-class composition and school location in a possible future teaching assignment. In analyzing possible differences between Groups 1 and 2 combined and Group 3, the findings did not indicate a difference in preference of socio-economic-class composi- tion but did indicate a difference in their choices of school location in a possible future teaching assignment. Research Question VIII was concerned with analyzing differences in sources of cultural information. The statis- tical analysis indicated there was a significant difference among the four sample groups on 10 sources of cultural information. In investigating which groups accounted for the difference, it was found that Groups 1 and 4 and Groups 3 and 4 were significantly different on 10 dependent vari- ables simultaneously, but Groups 2 and 4 were not signifi- cantly different. Across all four groups the most commonly identified important sources of cultural information were personal experience, television programs including the news, and articles in newspapers. The most consistently identi- fied unimportant sources of cultural information were edu- cation courses and educational reading materials. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The primary purpose of this study was to investi- gate the extent to which undergraduate education students have formed attitudes toward teaching in differing socio-economic-class compositions. A secondary purpose had application to teacher preparation programs in identifying socio-economic-class composition preferences of prospective teachers. In addition, eight research questions were established to determine descriptive data and whether there were any differences between certain variables of respondents' environment and their choice of teaching assignment. A review of literature relevant to socio-economic- class orientation and preference of teachers and prospec- tive teachers supported the assumption that teacher attitude is a critical factor in determining the success or failure of educational programs in public schools. There was general agreement that many teachers now teach- ing in lower-socio-economic-class compositions hold nega- tive attitudes toward this class composition. Teachers 101 102 are reluctant to accept assignments in lower-socio- economic-class compositions and if assigned there, fre- quently they refuse the assignment or leave after a short teaching experience. Previous research supported the belief that expectations of teachers for their students are directly related to teacher attitude toward the socio-economic-class composition of the teaching assign- ment. Further, it was shown that teacher expectations for student performance tend to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Herriott and St. John stated, in a research study of the assessment of attitudes of inexperienced teachers in lower-class schools, that there is a dispro- portionate number of new teachers to experienced ones. In schools of highest socio-economic status only one teacher in 25 was in his first year of teaching, whereas in schools of the lowest socio-economic status, more than one teacher in 10 was in his first year of teaching.1 Both the literature reviewed and the present research illustrated the importance of prospective teachers and in-service teachers having positive, favor- able attitudes toward their students. The hesitation of prosPective teachers to accept assignments in lower- socio-economic-class-composition schools and the reason why so many in-service teachers leave can be partially lHerriott and St. John, Social Class and the Urban School, p. 57. 103 attributed to the middle-class background of most pro- spective teachers. The design of the present study included the selection of the sample, collection of the data, analy- sis of the data, and the formulation of implications and recommendations that could appropriately be drawn from the research results. The data gathered through the use of a questionnaire were analyzed by means of three dif- ferent procedures: descriptive frequency distributions, chi-square, and multivariate analysis of variance. To determine whether prospective teachers have formed attitudes toward teaching in differing socio- economic-class compositions, eight research questions were investigated. The major findings regarding the research questions are reported in the following section. Major Findings Research Question I The reasons of prospective teachers, Groups 1 and 2, for choosing a lower-socio-economic-class compo- sition reflected attitudes of helping, contributing, and professional satisfaction. Research Question II The reluctance of prospective teachers, Groups 1 and 2, to choose a lower-socio-economic-class composition 104 reflected the respondents' negative perceptions toward discipline problems, parents, student values, and student potential for learning. Research Question III The vast majority of respondents in all four groups came from predominantly Anglo-Saxon (Caucasian) ethnic backgrounds. Also, the overwhelming majority of respondents in each group preferred not to have a lower-socio-economic- class composition as a possible future teaching assignment. Research Question IV _ The vast majority of respondents in each group came from communities with predominantly middle- or upper? middle-social-class compositions. Also, the majority of respondents in each group preferred to return to a like environment for a possible future teaching assignment. Research Question V Undergraduate education majors who had had student teaching (Group 2) and undergraduate education majors who had not yet had student teaching (Group 1) did not differ significantly in their preference for a possible future teaching socio-economic-class composition or school lOca- tion. 105 Research Question VI Undergraduate education majors (Groups 1 and 2 combined) and undergraduate noneducation majors (Group 4) differed significantly in their preference for a possible future teaching socio-economic-class composition and school location. Research Question VII Undergraduate education majors (Groups 1 and 2 combined) and in-service teachers (Group 3) did not differ significantly in their preference for a possible future teaching socio-economic-class composition but did differ significantly in their preference of school location. Research Question VIII The four groups of undergraduate and post-graduate respondents did differ significantly on 10 different sources of cultural information. Groups 1 and 4 and Groups 3 and 4 were significantly different on the 10 variables analyzed simultaneously, but Groups 2 and 4 were not significantly different. Discussion of the Findings At present, the recruitment and preparation of prospective teachers is the responsibility of teacher training institutions. This study indicated that rela- tively few prospective teachers prefer a possible future 106 teaching assignment in a lower-socio-economic-class compo- sition. The few prospective teachers who do favor a lower- socio-economic-class composition are handicapped by inadequacies within teacher training programs, their own middle- or middle/upper-class backgrounds, and a lack of personal experience with people from diverse racial back- grounds. Data collected by questionnaire from 200 under- graduate and post-graduate respondents revealed that a majority came from homes where the head of the household had an occupation within the range necessary to support the expense of a college education. Little difference existed among the four groups of respondents in the type of secondary schools they had attended. The majority of respondents in each group had attended public secondary schools. A much smaller number had attended parochial secondary schools, and a very small number had attended private secondary schools. Respondents differed from group to group in terms of the social-class composition of the high schools they had attended. The noneducation undergraduates generally had attended high schools that were of higher social-class composition than those attended by either the prospective teachers or the in-service teachers. This finding could not be attributed to anything specific other than the 107 media (communications) orientation of the noneducation undergraduate group. In investigating the income position of the respon- dents' families at the time of their high school graduation, the data suggested that noneducation undergraduates dif- fered from undergraduate education majors and in-service teachers. Undergraduate noneducation majors tended to have more members within the highest and second highest 25 per- cent income positions of their home communities and fewer members within the lowest 25 percent. One finding of this study suggested there is a group of students who prefer a lower-socio-economic-class composition as a possible future teaching assignment. Thirteen percent of the undergraduate education majors chose such a composition. In all four groups the majority of respondents came from and preferred to return to a middle- or upper- middle-socio-economic-class composition. The data sug- gested the tendency was to prefer to return to a similar or higher socio-economic environment, not to a lower one. As a result of statistical analyses, the findings indicated there were some statiStically significant dif- ferences among the four sample groups. Undergraduate edu- cation majors seemed to differ from noneducation undergradu- ates on preference for socio-economic-class composition. This difference may be attributed to a general trend for 108 noneducation majors to prefer higher socio-economic-class compositions than do undergraduate education majors. The data suggested that the majority of undergradu- ate education majors came from small cities, towns, or suburban areas and that they desired a school location similar to that of their home community. Evidence in this study suggested that in-service teachers differed from prospective teachers in both prefer- ence for socio-economic-class composition and school loca- tion. In-service teachers exhibited a stronger attraction to suburban, small city, town, and rural areas than did the prospective teacher groups. The data indicated there was a significant differ- ence among the four sample groups on 10 possible sources of cultural information. In investigating which groups accounted for the difference, it was found that Groups 1 and 4 and Groups 3 and 4 differed significantly on 10 depen- dent variables analyzed simultaneously. The most commonly identified important sources of cultural information were personal experience, television programs including the news, and articles in newspapers. The most consistently identi- fied unimportant sources of cultural information were edu- cation courses and educational reading materials. This study suggested that beginning and terminal education students did not differ in their preference of socio-economic-class composition or location of school. 109 Terminal education students had completed their student teaching assignment, the objectives of which are to pro- vide Opportunities to experiment with teaching styles and gain a first-hand knowledge of classroom management. The data suggested that this first-hand knowledge and experi- mentation had little effect upon the socio-economic-class composition preferences of prospective teachers. The data also suggested that little change in attitudes toward lower-class compositions is being brought about by the educational course experiences provided students between the beginning and terminal stages of teacher training. In summary, this study suggested that prospective teachers enter teacher preparation programs from back- grounds characterized by middle- to upper-middle-socio- economic-class compositions, income positions, and occupa- tional status. Once within a teacher preparation program, these prospective teachers seem to reflect their past socio-economic-class composition in a like preference for a possible future teaching assignment. The data also sug- gested that the teacher preparation program has no effect on or does not consider prospective teachers' attitudes toward differing socio-economic-class compositions. In addition, once students become in-service teachers they tend to be more attracted to teaching positions in higher socio-economic-class compositions and suburban, small city, town, or rural areas. 110 Implications of the Study Increasingly, providing an adequate supply of teachers for lower-socio-economic-class compositions has become a problem. School administrators and teacher training institutions have developed and implemented various types of programs in an attempt to maintain or increase this supply, but have had little success. The major difficulty encountered in supplying teachers to lower-socio-economic-class compositions has been low expectations and attitudes of the prosPective teachers toward lower-socio-economic-class compositions. In light of an inadequate supply of prospective teachers who have positive lower-socio-economic-class attitudes, the current investigation has major implications for prospective teacher training programs. Evidence in this study suggested the perceptions held by both groups of prospective teachers were largely negative toward teaching in a lower-socio-economic-class composition. This finding raises some serious questions, the most important being how to provide a meaningful and rewarding education to students in lower-socio-economic- class compositions when many prospective teachers hold negative attitudes toward this Specific class composition. A possible solution to this problem involves identifying prospective teachers who want to teach in lower-socio- economic-class compositions. A desire or willingness to 111 teach in a lower-socio-economic-class composition is not a total requisite for improving the education of students in these environs, nor is it the single manner of providing the numbers of teachers needed. However, willingness and desire to teach in a lower-socio-economic—class composi- tion are certainly advantageous. Another serious question is, do prospective teachers hold students in lower-socio-economic-class compositions in low esteem? The findings indicated, in fact, that prospec- tive teachers perceive students in lower-socio-economic- class compositions as having very different values and as being discipline problems. The main difficulty deals not with personal experience but myths and stereotypes attribu- ted to students in lower-socio-economic-class compositions. An appropriate alternative might be teacher preparation programs providing students with value-awareness training or comprehensive coverage of socio-economic-class differ- ences. It would seem that although the search for pro- grams that will modify or change the attitudes of prospec- tive teachers toward lower-socio-economic-class composition schools must be continued, the priority should be shifted to recruiting prospective teachers who are willing and desirous to teach in a lower-socio-economic-class composi- tion. Since this study suggested that beginning or ter- minal prOSpective teachers differ little in their choice 112 of a possible future teaching assignment with regard to socio-economic-class composition or location of the school, the implications to teacher preparation programs and per- sonnel within these programs seem clear: 1. Greater energy and interest should be applied to identifying prospective teachers who prefer lower— socio-economic-class compositions. 2. The urgency of providing teachers for lower- socio-economic-class composition students suggests a greater emphasis should be placed on providing an applicable education to prospective teachers and in particular those desiring to teach in a lower-socio-economic—class composi- tion. 3. A framework and design should be developed to temper prospective teacher resistance toward teaching in a lower-socio-economic-class composition. Comprehensive coverage of differing socio-economic-class compositions could be included within existing teacher preparation pro- grams. 4. Teacher preparation programs should include the development of a strong self-concept in teachers. This would enable lower-socio-economicfclass composition teach- ers to convey more positive attitudes to their students, toward themselves, and to other diverse groups. The major implication of this study is the finding that various socio-economic-class composition preferences 113 existed within the two groups of prospective teachers. Further, it seems they are being educated as if there were no differences. This strategy of sameness in the educa- tion of prospective teachers and in leaving teacher atti- tude toward differing socio-economic-class composition to chance should be discontinued immediately. Teacher prepara- tion programs and the personnel therein should recognize that significant statistical differences exist between prospective teachers who prefer lower-socio-economic-class composition teaching assignments and those who prefer other compositions as teaching assignments. Recommendations for Teacher Training Institutions 1. It is suspected that many teacher preparation institutions show little interest in develOping programs in which a prospective teacher has contact with the kinds of class compositions he might encounter upon entering the classroom. An experience using real or simulated con- ditions might be instituted, which would sensitize the prospective teacher to situations he might encounter. Not only would these experiences alert the student to the feelings he might have when encountering the real situa- tion, but they might also improve his attitude and result in a better classroom experience for students and teacher alike. 114 2. Teacher training institutions should try to provide prospective teachers with an opportunity to inter- act with peOple of diverse social classes, races, and value positions. 3. Increasing the representation of poor white and minority group students in colleges and universities should become a top priority of teacher training institu- tions. 4. For prospective teachers to gain the ability to perceive differing socio-economic-class compositions positively, professors in teacher training programs must be able to understand their own attitudes as well as those of their students. Further, this understanding must help students realistically to perceive themselves and others around them. 5. Teacher training institutions should conduct seminars for public school administrators to assist them in dealing with negative socio-economic-class attitudes of in-service teachers. Recommendations for Further Study 1. This study should be replicated at other col- leges and universities where teacher training occurs, to determine the size of the population preferring a lower- socio-economic-class composition as a possible future teaching assignment. 115 2. Considering the importance of teachers' atti- tude toward their students in any classroom situation, it is important that a variety of experiments be conducted in this area to help clarify what these attitudes are, the ways they are conveyed to students, and the effect the student's perception of his teacher's attitudes has on his classroom behavior. 3. For the sake of comparison, it would be inter- esting to study the effects of various incentive variables relative to socio-economic-class composition preference. In this case a study might seek to determine if prospec- tive teachers would become more willing to teach in a lower-socio-economic-class composition if they were offered a higher salary, smaller class size, and/or more fringe benefits. APPENDICES 116 APPENDIX A ADDITIONAL DATA 117 APPENDIX A ADDITIONAL DATA Table Al.--Frequency distribution for socio-economic-class composition of the school in which respondents in group two had their student teaching experience. Class Composition Group Twoa Predominantly upper 3 ( 6%) Predominantly middle 10 (20%) Predominantly lower 13 (26%) Combination upper/middle 4 ( 8%) Combination middle/lower 20 (40%) Total 50 (100%) aTerminal prospective teachers following their student teaching experience. 118 119 Table A2.--Frequency distribution for racial composition of the school in which reSpondents in group two had their student teaching experience. Racial Composition Group Twoa 100% white 11 (22%) 75-99% white 18 (36%) 50-74% white 3 ( 6%) 50% white/50% nonwhite 2 ( 4%) 50-74% nonwhite 4 ( 8%) 76-99% nonwhite 9 (18%) 100% nonwhite 3 ( 6%) Total 50 (100%) aTerminal prospective teachers following their student teaching experience. Table A3.--Frequency distribution for willingness of respondents in group two to accept or not accept a position in the school at which they student taught. Accept or Not Accept Group Twoa Accept 40 (80%) Not accept 10 (20%) Total 50 (100%) aTerminal prospective teachers following their student teaching experience. APPENDIX B INSTRUMENT: TEACHER CULTURAL PLACEMENT SURVEY 120 APPENDIX B ’ INSTRUMENT: TEACHER CULTURAL PLACEMENT SURVEY Instructions This survey is divided into three sections; all re5pondents shall answer Section One, Questions 1-22. Please note, on page 5, instructions for completing the remainder of the survey. Some of you will answer Questions 23-35 and others, Questions 36-48. (This is dependent on your response to Question 17, page 3.) Please be very sure question number and answer key number correspond. If eat any time during the survey you have a question, please don't hesitate to ask. Thank you for your time. 121 122 TEACHER CULTURAL PLACEMENT SURVEY What is your sex? 1. male 2. female What is your predominant ethnic background? Afro-American (Negro) Anglo-Saxon (Caucasian) Jewish American Indian Latin American U'Iwal-J no... What is the major occupation of your father or other person who is the head of your family? (If you are the head of your family, then specify your father's major lifetime occupation.) 1. education 2. professional (other than education) or scientific 3. managerial, executive, proprietor of large business, or commissioned officer 4. small business owner or manager 5. farm owner 6. clerical or sales 7. skilled worker or foreman, noncommissioned officer 8. semi-skilled or farm laborer 9. unemployed In what type of community did you Spend the major part of your youth? 1. farm 2. village or town (under 10,000) 3. small city (ll,000-50,000) 4. cith (51,000-500,000) 5 . suburban area near city 6. metrOpolis (500,000+) 7. suburban area near metropolis What is the social-class composition of your immediate home community? . predominantly upper-class . predominantly middle-class . predominantly lower-class . combination upper-middle class . combination middle-lower class UlobWNH 10. 11. 123 What is the racial composition of your immediate home community? 100% nonwhite 76-99% nonwhite 50-75% nonwhite 50% nonwhite/50% white 50-75% white 76-99% white 100% white \JO‘U‘IbUNI-J o o o o o I o In what type of school did you receive most of your elementary education? 1. public 2. parochial 3. private (other than parochial) What was the social-class composition of your elementary school? 1. predominantly upper-class 2. predominantly middle-class 3. predominantly lower-class 4. combination upper- and middle-class 5. combination middle- and lower-class What was the racial composition of your elementary school? 1. 100% nonwhite 2. 76-99% nonwhite 3. 50-75% nonwhite 4. 50% nonwhite/50% white 5. 50-75% white 6. 76-99% white 7. 100% white In what type of school did you receive most of your secondary education? 1. public 2. parochial 3. private (other than parochial) What was the social-class composition of your high school? . predominantly upper-class . predominantly middle-class . predominantly lower-class . combination upper- and middle-class . combination middle- and lower-class Ulabwwl‘ 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 124 What was the racial composition of your high school? . 100% nonwhite 76-99% nonwhite 50-75% nonwhite 50% nonwhite/50% white 50-75% white 76-99% white 100% white \lO‘U‘labUJNI“ O O C C I 0 What was the income position of your family at the time of your graduation from high school? 1. highest 25% of our community 2. second highest 25% of our community 3. third highest 25% of our community 4. lowest 25% of our community What is your present college grade point average? 1. 3.5-4.0 2. 3.0-3.49 3. 2.5-2.99 4. 2.0-2.49 5. under 2.0 What is your teaching preference? early elementary (K-3) late elementary (3-6) junior high (7-9) senior high (10-12) grade level does not apply in my major £51.5me no... In what kind of a school do you prefer to teach? l. inner city 2. outer city 3. suburban 4. rural 5. small city or town 6. college 7. no preference What is the desirable socio-economic-class composition of the school you prefer to teach in? l. predominantly upper-socio-economic class predominantly middle-socio-economic class predominantly lower-socio-economic class combination upper— and middle-socio-economic class combination middle- and lower-socio-economic class no preference 0501wa o O o o 0 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 125 What is the desirable racial composition of the school you prefer to teach in? 1. 100% white . 76-99% white . 50-75% white . 50% white/50% nonwhite . 50-75% nonwhite . 76-99% nonwhite . 100% nonwhite #031!!wa If, after signing a contract in a school district, you were assigned to a lower-socio-economic school, would you accept the assignment with certainty accept the assignment with uncertainty refuse the assignment accept the assignment only if you were promised a school in a better neighborhood in the near future QWNH .000 If you expressed a desire to teach in a lower-socio- economic school, would your parents think it was a very good idea think it was a good idea be unaffected think it was a bad idea think it was a very bad idea 01.5me no. 0 o If you expressed a desire to teach in a lower-socio- economic school, would your friends (those you talk with openly) think it was a very good idea think it was a good idea be unaffected think it was a bad idea think it was a very bad idea UI-bUONH o o o 00 Think about a friend in teacher education. In what kind of school would you perceive this friend would choose to teach? l. inner-city 2. outer-city 3. suburban 4. rural 5. small city or town 6. college 7. no preference 126 READ CAREFULLY If you selected a lower-socio-economic area as your teaching preference in Question 17, res onse 3, please begin on this page and answer Questions 23 through 35. Then STOP. If you did not select a lower-socio-economic area as your teaching preference, please g9 ahead toguestions 36 through 48. Then STOP. REMEMBER: USE CORRESPONDING NUMBER OF QUESTION TO SAME ON ANSWER SHEET. ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS ONLY IF YOU CHOSE TO TEACH IN A LOWER- SOCIO-ECONOMIC CULTURE (IN QUESTION 17, RESPONSE 3 ONLY). Below are ten statements that are often listed as rationale for wanting to teach in a lower-socio-economic culture. Please use these statements in answering questions 23, 24, and 25. l. I am from a lower-socio-economic culture and want to return. 2. Good teachers are needed more in a lower-socio- economic culture. 3. Teaching in a lower-socio-economic culture will be more challenging. 4. Teaching in a lower-socio-economic culture will be more personally rewarding. 5. Lower-socio-economic culture children are more anxious to learn. 6. There is more Opportunity for advancement in a lower- socio-economic culture. 7. Fellow teachers will be more dedicated. 8. There is more professional satisfaction in teaching where the need is greatest. 9. Parents in lower-socio-economic cultures appreciate the efforts Of teachers more. 10. I want to teach where I can make a real contribution in helping children learn. 23. Select from the statements given above the major reason you want to teach in a lower-socio-economic culture. 24. Select from the statements given above the second most important single reason you want to teach in a lower- socio—economic culture. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 127 Select from the statemente given above the third most important single reason you want to teach in a lower- socio-economic culture. How important was personal experience in your decision to teach in a lower-socio-economic culture? . no importance at all very unimportant unimportant . important . very important U'IuwaH O 0 How important were lectures in education courses in your decision to teach in lower-socio-economic cultures? 1. no importance at all . very unimportant . unimportant important very important ()1wa How important were readipg materials in education courses in your decision to teach in lower-socio- economic cultures? . no importance at all . very unimportant . unimportant . important . very important (11¢.me How important were conversations with school personnel ypu know in your decision to teach in lower-socio- economic cultures? 1. no importance at all . very unimportant . unimportant . important . very important U'lnhUJN How important were conversations with friends in your decision to teach in lower-socio-economic cultures? 1. no importance at all . very unimportant . unimportant . important . very important (11wa 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 128 How important were conversations with your family in your decision to teach in lower-socio-economic cultures? 1. no importance at all . very unimportant . unimportant . important . very important U'l-wa How important were articles in magazines in your deci- sion to teach in lower-socio-economic cultures? 1. no importance at all 2. very unimportant 3. unimportant 4. important 5. very important How important were articles in newspapers in your deci- sion to teach in lower-socio-economic cultures? . no importance at all . very unimportant . unimportant . important . very important muwaI-J How important were television programs including the news in your decision to teach in lower-socio-economic cultures? ' 1. no importance at all . very unimportant . unimportant . important . very important Ul-wa How important were radio programs including the news in your decision to teach in lower-socio-economic cultures? . no importance at all . very unimportant . unimportant important very important UlubUJNH STOP HERE. 129 ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS ONLY IF YOU CHOSE NOT TO TEACH IN A LOWER-SOCIO-ECONOMIC CULTURE (IN QUESTION 17). Below are ten statements that are often listed as rationale for not wanting to teach in a lower-socio-economic culture. Please use these statements in answering questions 36, 37, and 38. 36. 37. 38. 39. 1. Teaching in the lower-socio-economic culture tends to destroy a teacher's enthusiasm for teaching. 2. Discipline problems are more frequent in lower- socio-economic schools. 3. Teaching in lower-socio-economic schools is more difficult because of parents' attitudes. 4. Values of lower-socio-economic children are in con- flict with my values. 5. Teaching in lower-socio-economic cultures is too difficult for beginning teachers. 7. The race of children in lower-socio-economic schools would bother me. 8. I am from a lower-socio-economic culture and do not want to return. 9. I am a Negro and feel I should teach white children for racial balance. 10. Children in lower-socio-economic schools have a lower potential for effective learning. Select from the statements given above the single major reason you chose not to teach in a lower-socio-economic culture. Select from the statements given above the second most important single reason for not choosing to teach in a lower-socio-economic culture. Select from the statements given above the third most important single reason you chose not to teach in a lower-socio-economic culture. How important was personal experience in your decision not to teach in a lower-socio-economic culture? 1. no importance at all 2. very unimportant 3. unimportant 4. important 5 very important 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 130 How important were lectures in education courses in your decision not to teach in a lower-socIo-economic culture? 1. no importance at all . very unimportant . unimportant . important . very important U'lanN How important were reading materials in education courses in your decision not to teach in a lower- —‘_—I—_ o soc1o-economic culture? . no importance at all . very unimportant . unimportant . important . very important UlubWNH How important were conversations with school personnel on know in your decision not to teach in a lower-socio- economic culture? . no importance at all . very unimportant . unimportant . important . very important mwaI-d How important were conversations with friends in your decision not to teach in a lower-socio-economic cul- ture? 1. no importance at all 2. very unimportant 3. unimportant 4. important 5. very important How important were conversations with your family in your decision not to teach’in a lower-socio-economic culture? 1. no importance at all 2. very unimportant 3. unimportant 4. important 5 very important 45. 46. 47. 48. 131 How important were articles in magazines in your decision not to teach in a lower-socio-economic culture? no importance at all very unimportant unimportant . important . very important mbWNH o How important were articles in newspapers in your decision not to teach in a lower-socio-economic culture? . no importance at all . very unimportant . unimportant . important . very important UlawaH How important were television programs includingpthe news in your decision not to teach in a lower-socio- economic culture? 1. no importance at all . very unimportant . unimportant . important . very important U'lubWN How important were radio programs including the news in your decision not to teach in a lower-socio-economic culture? 1. no importance at all 2. very unimportant 3. unimportant 4. important 5 very important STOP HERE. 132 ONLY ED. 450 STUDENTS ARE TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING THREE QUESTIONS. 49. What was the socio-economic-class composition of 50. 51. the school in which you had your student teaching experience? 1. predominantly upper-socio-economic class 2. predominantly middle-socio-economic class 3. predominantly lower-socio-economic class 4. combination upper- and middle-socio-economic class 5.‘ combination middle- and lower-socio-economic class What was the racial composition of the school in which you had your student teaching experience? 1. \IO‘U'lthN o o o o o 100% white 76-99% white 50-75% white 50% white/50% nonwhite 50-75% nonwhite 76-99% nonwhite 100% nonwhite If offered a teaching position in the school at which you student taught, would you: 1. 2. accept not accept BIBLIOGRAPHY 133 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Ackerman, N., and Jahoda, M. Anti-Semitism and Emotional Disorder. New York: .Harper and Row, 1950. Allport, Gordon W. "Attitudes." In Handbook of Social Psychology. Edited by C. M. Murchison. Worcester, Mass.: Clark University Press, 1935. . The Nature of Prejudice. New York: Doubleday and Company, 1954. . Pattern and Growth in Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. Buttelheim, B., and Janowitz, M. Dynamics of Prejpdice: A Psychological and Sociological Study_of Veterans. New York: Harper, 1950. Clark, Kenneth B. "Clash of Cultures in the Classroom." In LearninggTogether. Edited by M. Weinberg. Chicago: Integrated Education Associates, 1964. Combs, Arthur W. "A Perceptual View of the Adequate Per- sonality." In Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming. Washington, D.C.: Association for SuperviSion and Curriculum Development, 1962. Gage, N. L., ed. Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963. Gilpin, Alan. Dictionary of Economic Terms. New York: PhiloSOphical Library, Inc., 1970. Glass, Gene V., and Stanley, Julian C. Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970. Guttman, L. "The Problem of Attitude and Opinion Measure- ment." In Measurement and Prediction. Edited by S. A. Stouffer. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. 134 135 Haubrich, Vernon F. "The Teacher of the Disadvantaged." In Racial Crisis in American Education. Edited by Robert L. Green. Chicago: Follett Publishing Company, 1970. Havighurst, Robert J. Education in Metrppolitan Areas. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1966. Herriott, Robert B., and St. John, N. H. Social Class and the Urban School. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966. Jersild, Arthur T. When Teachers Face Themselves. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1967. Klopf, Gordon J., and Bowman, Garda W. Teacher Education in a Social Context. New York: Mental Health Materials Center, 1966. Kontos, Peter, and Murphy, James. Teaching Urban Youth. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967. Kroeber, A., and Kluckhorn, C. In A Dictionarypof the Social Sciences. Edited by Gould and Kolb. New York: The Free Press, 1965. Lopis, John E. Handbook for Interpersonal Process Labora- tory Instructors. Education 200. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1974. Lowenthal, L., and Guterman, N. Prophets of Deceit. A Study of the Techniques of the American Agitator. New York: Harper, 1949. Myers, I. B. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Manual. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1962. Noar, Gertrude. Teaching and Learning the Democratic Way. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1963. Reddick, L. D. Better Teachers for Inner-City Schools. Baltimore, Maryland: COppin State College, 1967. Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Dis- orders. New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1968. Rosenthal, Robert, and Jacobson, L. Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968. 136 Sherif, Carolyn W.; Sherif, Muzafer; and Nebergall, R. E. Attitude and Attitude Change. Philadelphia, Pa.: W. B. Saunders and Company, 1965. Simpson, G. E., and Yinger, J. M. Racial and Cultural Minorities. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1953. Timm, Neil H. Multivariate Analysis With Applications in Education and Psychology. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1975. Warner, W. Lloyd; Havighurst, Robert J.; and Loeb, Martin B. Who Shall Be Educated? New York: Harper and Brothers, 1944. Reports and Periodicals Amatora, Sister Mary. "Similarity in Teachers' Personality." Journal of Psychology 48 (January 1954): 45-50. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Teacher Productivity. Washington, D.C.: AACTE, 1967. Becker, Howard 8. "Career Patterns of Public School Teachers." The American Journal of Sociology 57 (March 1952): 472. Brim, Burl J. "Attitude Change in Teacher Education Stu- dents." Journal of Educational Research 58 (July 1966): 56-60. Brookover, Wilbur B. "Some Social Psychological Conceptions of Classroom Learning." School and Society 57 (1959): 84-87. Clothier, Grant, and Lawson, James H. "Innovation in the Inner-City." Kansas City, Missouri: Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory, 1969. Coleman, James. Equality_of Educational Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1966. Corrigan, Dean, and Grisswold, Kenneth. "Attitude Change of Student Teachers." The Journal of Educational Research 57 (October 1963): 93-95. 137 Davis, A. "Changing the Culture of the Disadvantaged Student." In Working With Low Income Families. Proceedings of the AHEA WorkshOp. Washington, D.C.: American Home Economics Association, 1965. . "Society, the School and the Culturally Deprived Students." In Improving English Skills of Culturally Different Youth in Large Cities. Edited by Arno Jewett, Joseph Mersand, and Doris V. Gunderson. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1964. First Michigan Public School Census. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Education, 1967. Freedman, Philip I., and Langberg, G. "Self-Selection of Student Teachers." Integrated Education, August- November 1965, pp. 39-40. Gottlieb, Daniel. "Teaching and Students: The View of Negro and White Teachers." Sociology of Education 27 (1964): 345-53. Graff, P. J. "Dissatisfactions in Teaching the Child." Phi Delta Kappan 45 (November 1963): 76. Grambs, Jean. "Are We Training Prejudiced Teachers?" School and Society 71 (1950): 196-98. Greer, Margaret. "Affective Growth Through Reading." The Reading Teacher 25 (January 1972): 336-41. Menninger,VL "Self Understanding for Teachers." National Education Association Journal 15 (1953): 332. Milner, Ernest J. "Preparing Teachers for Urban Schools: The Syracuse Program." Clearinghouse on Urban Teacher Education Report 2 (Spring 196671 Rogers” Carl R. "Humanizing Education: The Person in the Process." ASCD News Exchange 4 (1967): 2. . "Interpersonal Relationships: U.S.A. 2000." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 4 (1968). 138 Rosenthal, R., and Fode, K. L. "The Effect of Experimenter Bias on the Performance of the Albino Rat." Beha- vioral Science 8 (1964): 183-89. Skeels, H. M.; Updegraff, R.; Wellman, B. L.; and Williams, H. M. "A Study of Environmental Stimulation: An Orphanage Pre-School Project.” University of Iowa Studies of Child Welfare 15 (1938). Smith, Mildred. "Interpersonal Relationship in the Class- room Based on the Expected Socio-Economic Status of Sixth Grade Boys." The Teacher College Journal 36 (January 1962): 190-210. Trent, R. D. "The Relation Between Expressed Self- Acceptance and Expressed Attitudes Toward Negroes and Whites Among Children." Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1957, p. 30. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population: 1970, Detailed Characteristics. Final Report. PCiTl)-01. United States Summary. Washington, D.C.: Govern- ment Printing Office, 1973. Weinberg, Meyer. "Techniques for Achieving Racially Deseg- regated Superior Quality Education in the Public Schools of Chicago, Illinois." Paper presented at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Conference, Washington, D.C., 1967. Unpublished Materials Bettinghaus, Kay. "The General Education Survey." East Lansing, Michigan: Office of Research Consulta- tion, Michigan State University, 1969. Cushman, E., and Damon, K. "Report of the Detroit High School Commission." Detroit, Michigan: Board of Education, 1968. Flowers, Charles E. "Efforts of an Arbitrary Accelerated Group Placement on the Tested Academic Achievement of Educationally Disadvantaged Students." Ph.D. dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1966. Hillery, Milton, Director of Research for the Unified School District, Racine, Wisconsin. Unpublished Teacher Questionnaire, 1966. 139 Israel, B. L. "The Relationship Between Teachers' Expressed Attitudes, Opinions and Beliefs Regard- ing Minority, Ethnic, and Racial Groups and Their Effectiveness as Classroom Teachers in Elementary Schools in Disadvantaged Urban Areas." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1967. Rosenthal, R., and Jacobson, L. "Self-Fulfilling Prophe- cies in the Classroom." Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, September 1967. "Illlllllllllllllll