IV‘ESI.) RETURNING MATERIALS:
PIace in book drop to
”pandas remove this checkout from
.-—c—. your record. FINES will

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

I I, v: ""
2'3. W
13%“? V" '

I _ ~-4‘.
‘ :W‘r‘fiuivg
J .

Ice A1633

 

 

A SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT:

AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

BY
‘Omar Otmishi-Bookani

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State university
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education
1983

 

©Copyright by
Omar Otmishi-Bookani

1983

’42 " .3874}

ABSTRACT

A SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT:
AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

BY

Omar Otmishi-Bookani

This is a sociological analysis of the state of equality
of educational opportunity, with a major focus on the status
of inequality of academic achievement among members of var-
ious social groups. The main purpose was to look analytical-
ly at the theory and research and determine the social corre-
lates of children's cognitive learning in societies around
the world. The assessment of the state of the research in
the field was the other major purpose.

The study is basically a historical and international
survey and examination of the existing theoretical litera-
ture and research evidence in the fields of sociology, edu-
cation, anthropology, psychology, and economics on the rela-
tionship between some family- and school-related social
factors and scholastic performance.

Chapter one includes descriptions of the investigator's
purpose in conducting the study, the study's significance,
the methodology, and the assumptions underlying the study.

Chapter II is a discussion of the individual's need for
and right to education, the importance of education in peo—

ple's lives, and criticism of education, and examination of

 

Omar Otmishi-Bookani

the evidence on the existence of worldwide inequality of ed-
ucational opportunity in terms of access to and success in
education as regards various social groups.

Chapter III is devoted to a theoretical discussion of
learning and academic achievement, particularly sociological
and social-psychological explanations of human learning with
focus on symbolic interactionism.

In chapter IV, international studies of social factors
and academic achievement of primary, intermediate, and
secondary school students have been examined, and in chapter
V, the same task has been undertaken for twenty selected
developed and developing countries of both, capitalist and
socialist, worlds.

In the last chapter, synthesis of the main conclusions
reached on social factors and academic achievement, discussion
of sociological research on achievement, and suggestions for
viewing the human's learning potential, for teaching practice,
for teacher training, for further research, and for education—
al-social policy, are given. A final comment concludes this
chapter and, thus, the dissertation.

Some of the major conclusions reached could be summar-
ized as follows:

(1) In essentially all countries, regardless of the
country's political and economic structure and cultural con-
text, children of lower socio-economic status groups, and of
those racial, ethnic, and religious minorities and majori-

ties who are politically powerless, females, and rural area

Omar Otmishi-Bookani

residents generally have less access to and success in educa-
tion.

(2) In most deve10ped countries, generally, a student's
family background has more influence upon academic achieve-
ment than school quality. However, the effect of school is
greater for students of lower social classes.

In less developed countries, the impact of school fac-
tors on scholastic performance is greater than in developed
ones. In many cases, the school's influence on achievement
has been found to be even stronger than that of family
background.

(3) In most countries, research on academic achieve-
ment is usually carried out within the traditional framework
of psychological theories of learning.' Sociological and .
social-psychological theories, particularly symbolic inter-
actionism, for studying school social systems' effect on
achievement, have been utilized to a noticeable measure only
for the past fifteen to twenty years and that mostly in the
few highly industrialized capitalist countries. Also, not
many longitudinal or ethnographic studies, even for the in-

dustrialized and capitalist countries, are available.

Dedicated to Mrem and Nishtmaan

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people have, at different times and in different
ways, contributed to the author's education, including this
work. It is impossible to name all of them here. Sincere
appreciation and gratitude are extended to every one of them.

Four people who were particularly involved while the
author was a graduate student at Michigan State University,
including the period during which this dissertation was
written, were Dr. Wilbur B. Brookover, the author's major
professor and doctoral guidance committee chairman, and
Dr. David K. Heenan, Dr. Walter F. Johnson, and Dr. Ruth
Hill Useem, members of the committee. They have been ex-
tremely supportive and helpful throughout. Everything they

have done is greatly appreciated.

iv

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O I O 0 O O O O O 1

A Preliminary Statement of the Problem . .
The Purposes in Conducting the Study ... .
The Need for and Significance of the Study
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . .
Delimitations of the Study . . . .
Definitions of Some Terms . . . .
Assumptions Underlying the Study .
Structure of the Dissertation . .

oooooooo
H
00

THE PROBLEM O O C O O O I O O O O O O O O O 28

Right to Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Aims of Education . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Equality of Educational Opportunity . . . . 30
Educational Demands . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Expansion of Educational Provisions . . . . 34
Effects of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Criticism of Education . . . . . . . . . 37

Inequality of Educational Opportunity
and its Persistence . . . . . . . . 38
Inequality of Educational Opportunity and
Social Class, Race, Ethnicity, Religion,
Gender, and Area of Residence . . . . . . 41
Evidence of Inequality of Educational Access,
Achievement, and Attainment in Relation to
Social Class, Race, Ethnicity, Religion,
Gender, and Area of Residence . . . . . . 45
The Chapter in Brief . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

SOCIOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL—PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES
OF LEARNING AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT . . . . 70

A Few Beginning WOrds . . . . . . . . . . . 7O
Psychological/Classical Theories of Learning 71
The Impact of Psychological Learning Theories
Upon the Teaching-Learning Process . . . 76
Theoretical Explanations of Academic Behavior 79
Characteristics of the Student (Personal
Attributes) and Academic Behavior . . . 83
Characteristics of the Student's Family
and Academic Behavior . . . . . . . . . 93

Chapter Page

Characteristics of the Community in which
the Student Lives and Academic Behavior . 96
Characteristics of the Society at Large
and Academic Behavior . . . . . . . .
Characteristics of the School which the
Student Attends and Academic Behavior . . 99
Sociological and Social-Psychological Theories
of Learning and Academic Achievement . . 102
The Concluding Observation . . . . . . . . 107

O O 97

IV. INTERNATIONAL STUDIES OF SOCIAL FACTORS
AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT . . . . . . . . . 110

Summary Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 145

V. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOME SOCIAL FACTORS
AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN TWENTY DEVELOPED,
DEVELOPING; CAPITALIST, SOCIALIST COUNTRIES 148

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Out-of-School Social Factors and

Academic Achievement . . . . . . . . . . 153
In—School Social Factors and

Academic Achievement . . . . . . . . . . 196
Summary Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS; DISCUSSION, LIMIT-
ATIONS OF THE STUDIES, STATE OF THE RESEARCH;
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEARNING THEORY, FOR
TEACHING PRACTICE, FOR TEACHER TRAINING,

FOR SOCIOLOGICAL-EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, FOR
EDUCATIONAL-SOCIAL POLICY, A FINAL WORD . . 223

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 223
Discussion, Limitations of the Studies,

State of the Research . . . . . . . . . . 229
Recommendations for Learning Theory . . . . 232
Recommendations for Teaching Practice . . . 233
Recommendations for Teacher Training . . . 234

Recommendations for Sociological-

Educational Research. . . . . . . . . . . 234
Recommendations for Educational-Social

POlicy O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O 235
A Final Word . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

REFERENCES 0 O C O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 38

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPl-IY O O O O C O C O O O O O O O O O 2 70

vi

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

A Preliminary Statement of the Problem

Education is viewed by many people as a basic human
need and equal access to it is considered by most people to
be a fundamental human right and a principle of social jus—
tice. The (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights has
specifically stated that every individual has equal right to
education and the Constitution of the United Nations Educa-
tional, Scientific, and Cultural Organization has included as
one of the Organization's objectives the provision of equal-
ity of educational opportunity for all. Today almost no gov-
ernment challenges this principle and essentially all govern-
ments give a high priority to education, politically and
also in national development plannings. A certain percent-
age of every country's annual budget is allocated to educa-
tion. This is in addition to the cost every individual get-
ting an education has to pay directly.

As a consequence, particularly since the end of WOrld
War II, there has been a worldwide educational expansion.

This expansion has helped many individuals, groups, and

societies.’

But equality of educational opportunity for all, not
only in terms of success in schooling, but also as regards
access to it, has not materialized anywhere in the world and
rate of expansion of educational opportunities, even in terms
of the provision of basic literacy and numeracy, varies
within countries significantly between and among regions,
and racial, ethnic, religious, urban-rural, and gender groups.
According to the existing research evidence, essentially
everywhere those who remain uneducated or undereducated most—
ly are members of lower socio-economic classes; politically
powerless, excluded, and oppressed racial, ethnic, and re-
ligious groups; females; and residents of rural and remote
areas; and poor communities.

It is claimed by many people, including many educators
and social scientists, that what accounts for inequal-
ity of educational achievement and attainment--that is, vast
differences in the level of cognitive performance and number
of years of schooling completed--between individuals and
groups is mainly the individuals' personal, family, and group
(social) backgrounds. Those who make such a claim believe

that in relation to these (nonschool) factors, the school

 

‘Also, the educational systems-—as one of the most im—
portant social institutions of every society--regardless of
their unique structures and properties, have been very suc-
cessful for the better or for the worse in nationalistic,
religious, and political indoctrination; in transmitting
certain cultural values from generation to generation; and
in contributing to the maintenance of the nation states.
(We are not dealing with these functions of educational
systems in this work, however.)

factors make little impact upon students' learning. They
contend that there is not much that schools can do to elim-
inate differential cognitive achievement of individuals and
groups or to reduce the level of inequality of such achieve-
ment.

Contrary to the claims mentioned above, there are some,
though relatively fewer than the group making those claims,
who maintain that schools do and could make academy: achieve-
ment, at least to a large extent, independent of students'
personal, family, and group backgrounds. The relative im-
portance of school and home has been a major topic in recent
research and discussions of determinants of scholastic achieve-

ment and inequality of cognitive outcomes.

The Purposes in Conducting This Study

 

This is a sociological analysis of the state of equality
of educational opportunity, with a main focus on the status
of the theory and research on the relationship between
social--school and nonschool--factors and academic achieve-
ment of primary, intermediate, and secondary school students
in different societies around the world. The purpose is to
determine what are the main deciding factor(s) and relative
contributions of school- and family-related variables to
student learning and inequality of academic achievement among
students, in countries with different social, political, and
economic structures.

The major purpose is to review, analyze, and synthesize

the available studies which have looked at the relationship

between family- and school-related factors (including, par-
ticularly, school social systems characteristics) and stu-
dent learning-~success or failure in school. The study is
basically a survey and critical assessment of the existing
literature and research studies in the fields of sociology,
education, anthropology, psychology, and economics which have
dealt with the question of in-school and out-of-school in-
fluences upon student scholastic performance. Of particular
interest here are those studies which have employed multi-
variate statistical techniques and regression analysis, and
experimental and ethnographic research designs and reported
the interrelationships between and relative effects of non-
intellectual and pedagogical factors on student learning.

The other purpose in doing this study is to evaluate
the studies in terms of their theoretical and methodological
orientations and point out the extent to which more recently
developed theories of school 1earning--sociological and
social-psychological learning theories--have been employed
by the studies under examination. This evaluation would
lead to the recommendations the investigator will make for
future studies of social factors and academic achieve-
ment.

It is also the purpose to make recommendations for new
thinking about the human potential for learning, for teach-
ing practice, for teacher training, and for educational-

social policy making.

5
‘Thngeeqffor and Significance of the Study

The need for this study and its significance lie in the
investigator's belief that the value of our knowledge of
social factors which influence academic achievement of stu—
dents depends to a great degree upon the extent to which we
have accumulated, analyzed, and synthesized the research evi-
dence in support or rejection of theories which are advo-
cated and assumptions which are held regarding school learn-
ing and differential achievement of students.

Particularly, increasing the level of student perform-
ance and decreasing the magnitude of inequality of schooling
outcomes through manipulating social factors, especially
school factors, appear to this investigator to have a much
greater chance of success if they are based on not only one
or just a few studies, or on conventional wisdom, or individ-
ual knowledge and experience, but on the results provided by
the integration of all or most available studies as well.

The findings provided by a comprehensive research review
could add an important new dimension to pedagogical decision
making.

Why is it important to be concerned with improving stu-
dent learning and reducing the level of inequality in aca-
demic achievement among students in the first place, and,
thus, why is it worthwhile to investigate what the research
says about factors influencing academic achievement of child-
ren? Some of the assumptions to be mentioned in the follow-

ing pages (in this chapter) and the argument (along with the

6

documentation provided) in the next chapter, will answer
this question in detail. Here it will suffice to say that:

In today's world, (1) academic achievement--in terms of
both learning and credentials (quality and quantity of
schooling)--is indeed important in the lives of individuals:
psychologically, socially, and economically; the amount and
type of one's education has tremendous impact upon an indiv-
idual's life chances, and (2) academic underachievement of
an individual is a great loss, not only to the individual
concerned but also to the society (particularly in less de-
veloped/more dependent societies). Then there is a need to
know what social factors, particularly what manipulatable
factors, influence the educational achievement of individ-
uals. Such a knowledge could help those involved and con-
cerned to increase the academic performance of students and
reduce the degree of variation in student achievement.

While some sociologists of education, sociologists of
knowledge, and curriculum theorists have begun to question
why and how it happens that some school subjects are offered,
the fact that what is offered is learned in varying degrees
by individual students and groups of students remains, if not
more than, at least as vital and important for study and
scrutiny as ever.

In addition to the importance mentioned above, there
are other important aspects in knowing particularly the im—
pact of some school factors on student achievement which re-

quire an increasingly greater use of national resources.

For example, is university education, or teacher training in
special subjects, which need a large percentage of public
funds, contributory to reducing inequality of educational
achievement? Or is smaller student-teacher ratio, which
means more cost to the country, conducive to higher school
achievement? Review and critical examination of knowledge
accumulated so far could help educational planners concerned
with enhancing the level of student achievement and reducing
inequality of learning among school populations make more
appropriate decisions.

For budget allocation purposes and for educational plan-
ning in general, the planners have to know not what one or
two or a few studies show as being efficient and effective,
but what all or most studies indicate. ,The present study's
significance is in providing such a knowledge base.

The other significant aspect of this investigation lies
in the fact that it has an international/mu1tinational scope.
Despite an apparent international concern for provision of
equal educational opportunity for all, there still exist vast
differences between content and levels of educational achieve-
ment of the children of the poor and the rich, of the minor-
ity and the majority, of rural residents and urban residents,
and achievement of females and males. '

If.societies accept that they have to deal with the
question of equal distribution of knowledge, then since no
society is racially, ethnically, religiously, and economic-

ally homogenous, it would be important to know what the re-

8

search indicates regarding the solution to the problem of
inequality of educational achievement in various countries.
Such a knowledge would be particularly valuable since we
assume that individuals, peoples, and societies are, despite
their unique characteristics, more or less similar as far as
the learning ability is concerned.

The knowledge of what social factors, particularly what
pedagogical factors, and to what extent they have been ef-
fective in a particular society(ies) in reducing the impact
of family background on academic achievement and in making
such achievement less dependent on one's economic, racial,
ethnic, and religious background, and gender and area of res-
idence could be of great importance for other countries.

In today's world, educational theories and practices are
transferred from industrially developed countries, mostly the
United States, the Soviet Union, England, France, and Germany,
to developing countries and in many of these countries the
policies and practices are accepted uncritically and without
knowledge of their effectiveness or lack of it in the country
of origin. Also teaching methods are adopted based on a sin-
gle or only a few studies' results carried out in merely one
or a few countries. The importance of the present survey is
that, due to its comprehensiveness and international cover-
age, it provides those interested with an examination and
synthesis of results of numerous studies carried out in every
part of the world--in more developed and less developed coun-

tries, and in capitalist and socialist-communist countries.

9

Knowledge of the kind of research carried out in other
countries could help one to make more informative decisions
with respect to research efforts. In some cases, particular-
ly for poor countries, this would reduce the research expend-
iture. These countries could gain tremendous insight from
research that has been done in countries with basically sim-
ilar economic and political structures, social and cultural
contexts, and with similar educational problems.

This study, the first of its kind, could be a signifi-
cant work for the following additional reasons also: (1) it
treats both the questions of equality in access to and equal-
ity of success in education; (2) it includes a fairly compre-
hensive theoretical discussion of learning and school achieve-
ment from psychological, anthropological, sociological, and
social-psychological perspectives; (3) it includes all avail-
able and attainable one- and multi-country empirical, ethno-
graphical, experimental; cross-sectional and longitudinal
studies; (4) it covers socialist-communist countries, usually
excluded from consideration in similar or other sociological-
educational works; (5) it has an international, as well as a
historical perspective; and (6) it also includes those inves-
tigations which have studied the effects of some components
of school social systems upon student achievement and the rel-
ative influences of school- and home—related variables.

The survey also provides the educational researchers,
policy makers, practitioners, and scholars in the sociology

of education and international and comparative education with

10
a comprehensive international bibliography and with know-
ledge on the availability of the research or lack of it and
the nature of what is available for different societies.
Finally, if anything, this work could challenge the gen-
erally taken for granted notion that the existence of wide
variations in learning and academic achievement among individ-

uals and groups is due mainly to heredity and family factors.

Methodology,

 

This dissertation is a descriptive and exploratory study
in sociology of education with an international perspective.
It is a sociological analysis of the state of the equality of
educational opportunity with a major focus on the status of
inequality of academic achievement as regards different eco-
nomic, racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, and residential
groups, and the two genders in societies around the world.

The study's main conceptual framework is sociological
and social-psychological learning theories. The research
method employed is historical review and qualitative analy-
sis. That is, the investigator utilizes the existing socio-
logical-educational literature including one-country and
multi-country emperical, experimental, and observational
studies (primary and secondary sources) and makes an analy-
sis from sociological, social-psychological perspectives to
answer the question: what is the nature of the relationship
between certain social factors and academic achievement?
Particularly, what are the relative influences of school-

related and family-related variables on student achievement?

11

Before dealing with this question, however, the nature of in-
equality of educational opportunity and the extent to which
it has been resolved within nation states is treated in a
separate chapter.‘

The data for the study, that is, the research evidence
for chapter II on the state of in/equality of educational op-
portunity, and for chapters IV and V on the relationship be-
tween social factors and academic achievement of primary, in-
termediate, and secondary school students were located and
collected through different means and from several sources.
Two ERIC computer searches were run at Michigan State Univer-
sity after a careful selection of appropriate descriptors;
and one computer search was done at the request of the re-
searcher at the International Bureau of Education in Geneva,
Switzerland.

Though these searches were somewhat useful, none of them
provided major help. The researcher's personal knowledge of
the field and his preliminary manual search done prior to the
computer searches convinced him that the searches might have
excluded many studies which could have altered the conclusions
reached when the study was completed. Thus an attempt to
gather the data through other information retrieval systems

was made with more rigor than originally had been planned.

 

‘As will be mentioned in The Structure of the Disserta-
tion section (last in this chapter), a historical and inter-
national perspective is also kept in mind in chapter III, where
psychological and sociological theories and conceptions of
learning and assumptions underlying academic achievement are
discussed.

12

An extensive and systematic library and bibliographic
search was conducted at Michigan State University and the
University of Michigan. This effort included going through
the arduous process of searching manually many indexes and
all volumes of many academic journals. Among these were:
Sogiology of Education Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts,
Psychological Abstracts, Education Index, Social Science
Cita§;pp_Index, Indexes of Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional (1861-1982), Sociology of Education, Comparative Edu-
cation, Comparative Education Review, International Journal
of Sociology, International Studies in Education, Interna-
gipnal Review of Education, Studies and Surveys in Compara-
tive Education, International Yearbook of Education, Igggg-
national Social Science Journal, World Survey of Education,
Prospects, Sociology and Social Research, Slavic and East
European Review, Journal of Developing Areas, Education in
Eastern Africa, West African Journal of Education, Education
in Asia and Oceania, European Journal of Education, Lgtig
American Research Review, Philippine Sociolggical Review,
Soviet Education, British Journal of Educational Studies,
Harvard Egpgational Review, Soviet Sociolggy, Australian and
'ygg Zealand Journal of Sociology, Review of Educational Re-
search, Chinese Education, Social Forces, American Journal
of Sociology, Polish Socioiggical Bulletin, Canadian and In-
tggnational Educatigg, Egonomic Development and Cultural

Change, Sociolpgical Quarterly, Interchangg, and Current

Sociology.

13

For certain materials and/or for any additional rel-
evant data (publications) and bibliographies they could pro-
vide, correspondence was carried on with many educational
organizations, associations, and agencies, among them:

World Council of Comparative and International Education
Society; International Sociological Association; Interna-
tional Bureau of Education; United Nations Educational, Sci-
entific, and Cultural Organization (and its Institute of Edu-
cation, International Institute for Educational Planning, and
its regional offices in Africa, Asia and Oceania, Europe, and
Latin America and the Caribbean); the Education Department of
the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the
World Bank); International Development Research Center (of Can-
ada); the university of Stockholm's Institute of International
Education; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop-
ment, East-West Center (in Hawaii).

Correspondence was also carried on with many scholars and
authorities in the fields of sociology of education and inter-
national-comparative education in different countries. Some
of these-—institutions and individuals--did reply and sent
useful materials. Others either replied but provided no help,
or did not reply at all.

The Interlibrary Loan Service of Michigan State Univer-
sity's library was used frequently for obtaining those re-
search reports and publications which had been selected by
the investigator in the search process as relevant but were

not available in the University's library. Also the same

14

service was used for those needed (relevant) studies which
were not available in the library and it was not possible to
obtain in the United States and could be provided only by
libraries of universities and institutions of other countries.

The time consuming search process and data collection
procedures mentioned above enabled the investigator to em-
bark on the long process of reviewing, analyzing, and inte-
grating the large body of research and information using a
variety of published and unpublished materials--books, jour-
nal articles, computer printouts, research papers, disserta-
tions, and study reports.

As was mentioned, this study is an international study.
Its geographical coverage is not confined to a particular
area of the world. But for two chapters-~IV and V--some ex-
planation should be made in this regard. Chapters IV and V
are devoted to the presentation, analysis, and synthesis of
the evidence on academic achievement of elementary, intermed-
iate, and secondary school students. In chapter IV, multi-
national studies of academic achievement will be examined.
Thus, this reviewer has made no selection of the countries
included in each of these studies; consequently there is no
balance as far as the representation of each region or con-
tinent, capitalist and socialist-communist countries.

However, for chapter V, the investigator purposefully
made an arbitrary selection and inclusion of the countries,
twenty in all, for more detailed examination of research

evidence on the relationship between some social

15

factors and student academic achievement. The main selec-
tion criteria, in addition to the availability of the data
(in the English language) were: (1) to have countries from
all parts (regions/continents) of the world, and to have
countries with markedly different economic and political
structures, religious outlooks, cultural contexts, sex role
prescriptions, and educational systems (with respect to mode
of control, financing, curriculum, pedagogical theories, and
the like).

Therefore, countries are included with different socie-
tal ideologies, at different stages of independence and devel—
Opment, and with different rates of illiteracy. We have devel-
oped countries and developing countries, countries with cap-
italist governments and countries with socialist-communist
governments, small countries and large countries (geographi-
cally and demographically), poor and rich countries, countries
with centralized educational systems and those with decentral-
ized educational systems, and countries with different patterns
of child socialization in the home and in the school. Final-
ly, and more importantly, countries are included in which
their government officials and scientific, research, and educa-
tion communities generally believe in individual differences
in ability to learn and those who reject individual differ-
ences and believe in basically equal possession of learning
potential essentially by all of their population.

It should be pointed out that some countries which the

reviewer had intended to include in this, the fifth, chapter

16

for having a better representation and balance of socialist
and capitalist countries, particularly because of their
unique characteristics (such as China, Cuba, East Germany,
and North Korea) were excluded from inclusion due to the lack
of data. For these countries (except North Korea), as was
also done for the twenty selected countries, letters were
sent to their respective embassies in Washington, D.C. for
any studies they could provide directly or through their
country's institutions. This effort resulted in receiving
some information from some of the countries, but no research
studies were provided. (In the case of North Korea, which
has no embassy in the United States, the letter was sent to
that country's Ministry of Education in the capital city of
Pyongyang. No answer was received, however.)

Also, it should be mentioned that the criteria for in-
clusion of the studies in chapters IV and V were for them to
seem to be a valid and well executed study, and to include
at least a family or school related independent variable and
at least one measure of the dependant variable -- student
academic achievement -- such as course grades, grade
point average, a result of performance on a test (such as
school leaving examination or college entrance examination).
There was not any restriction as far as the time period dur-
ing which the studies reviewed were carried out or published.

The social factors--the home and school related varia-
bles-~whose impact (absolute or relative) on the cognitive

achievement of students are under review and examination in

17

chapters IV and V are the following:

-- Out-of-school factors: The student's gender; the
student's language (mother tongue); the student's racial, eth-
nic, and religious backgrounds; the socio-economic status of
the student's family (parental occupation, parental income,
parental level of education); the student's parental judgment
of his/her learning ability; the student's parental expecta-
tion of him/her to achieve in school; the student's parental
encouragement for his/her academic achievement; and the stu-
dent's area and place of family residence (urban-rural, com-
munity type).

-- In-school factors: The teacher's socio-economic back-
ground, the teacher's level of (formal) education, the teach-
er's preservice training for teaching, the teacher's cogni-
tive ability and knowledge of special subject field, the
teacher's experience in teaching, the teacher's inservice
training (upgrading), the teacher's subjective evaluation of
student's learning ability, the teacher's expectation for
student's achievement, the teacher's use of "mastery learning"
techniques, the teacher's practice of ability grouping and cur-
riculum grouping, and the teacher-student ratio.

Finally, while no claim is made that all studies relevant
for chapters IV and V have been located, it should be empha-
sized that an attempt was made to exhaust all known possibil-
ities in collecting the data, and considering the search
strategy and data collection procedures mentioned above, it

seems unlikely that any important relevant study has been

18
omitted.

Delimitations of the Study

-- This is a study in equality of educational opportun-
ity, but more than that, it is a study in academic achieve-
ment. Thus other important--nonacademic/affective--influ-
ences of the family and of the school (such as social sensi-
tivity, self-confidence, creativity, critical thinking,
problem solving ability) are not dealt with here. Particu-
larly, the study does not deal with the effects of schooling,
as opposed to no schooling, upon individuals.

In short, the work is about the effects of some family
and school characteristics upon cognitive achievement of
students.

-- Even though in chapter II (the chapter on in/equality
of educational opportunity) and chapter III (the chapter on
theories of learning and school achievement) no specific age
group or school level and type is particularly excluded from
consideration, in chapter IV and V (the chapters on the aca-
demic achievement research) the examination is limited to
the children of primary, intermediate, and secondary schools,
and only for those of government (publicly funded) schools.

-— As was mentioned in the previous section, the review
is limited to English language materials obtainable through
search procedures described above.

-- The study is mainly a multinational one, not a com-

parative study; it is on disparities within countries, not

19

on differences between them. Thus, providing no firm inter-
societal generalizations is intended (or is possible in any
real sense due to existing differences between educational
systems as regards their school organizations, curriculum
offerings, teaching practices, their different systems of ex-
aminations and grading, and different forms of promotion and
so forth; and also because of different research methodolo-
gies employed and different concepts used in the studies in-
cluded in chapters IV and V). However, interpretations are
made and wherever characteristics and similarities of coun-

tries permit, some general conclusions are drawn.

Definition of Some Terms
Some of the terms used in this dissertation have a spe-
cific meaning. For an easier understanding of the discussion

they are defined below.

Education: By education, here, is meant formal educa-
tion, or what is also referred to as schooling, which is pro-
vided by organizations such as schools and colleges, institu-
tions of technical and professional training, and universi-
ties.

Primary school: Also called elementary school. First
level school-~an educational institution which usually pro-
vides five or six years of education (schooling) to children
of five years and older.

Intermediate school: Also called middle school or

junior high school. First level of secondary school

20
which usually provides three or four years of education to
those children who complete primary school.

Secondary,school: Also called (senior) high school.
Usually provides education to those who completed the ‘ first
stage of second level of schooling (i.e., intermediate school).

College: Third level educational institution. Normally
provides two or four years of education to secondary (high)
school graduates—-those who usually have completed twelve
years of schooling.

University: Third and fourth level educational institu-
tion. Its undergraduate school provides third level educa-
tion to (secondary) high school and two—year college gradu-
ates. Its graduate and professional schools provide fourth
level education to (4-year) college graduates.

Learning: The knowledge and academic skill acquired in
educational institutions.

Academic achievement: Also referred to in this study as
cognitive achievement, educational achievement, scholastic
achievement, school achievement, student achievement, aca-
demic performance, cognitive performance, learning, academic
learning, cognitive learning, school learning, student learn-
ing, academic outcomes, cognitive outcomes. Performance of
a student in academic subjects such as science, economics,
mathematics,and language, as measured or indicated by a
school mark, course grade, a test score, a teacher's sub—
jective evaluation, grade point average, or the like.

Educational_gttainment: Defined here as the number of

21

years of schooling and type and quality of education one has
received. In this sense educational attainment encompasses
educational (academic) achievement as well. (This defini-
tion for educational attainment is rather a narrow one since
it does not encompass achievement in the affective domain.)

Eguality of educational opportunity: Unless otherwise
specified, defined in this study as equality of educational
attainment (as defined above). Thus, two individuals would
be considered as having had equal educational opportunity if
they have had the same number of years of education and of
relatively the same type and the same quality. This would
apparently become possible if the two presumed individuals
could have equal chance of access to (enrollment in) school,
equal chance for staying (survival) in school , and equal
chance of participation in school's academic activities (in-
cluding curriculum offering).

Equal income and equal professional success are excluded
here as part of the definition for equality of educational op-
portunity.

DevelopedL developipg countries: Also called more devel-
oped, less developed countries. By a developed country, here,
is meant a scientifically, technologically/industrially, mil-
itarily, and economically (based on annual per capita Gross
National Product ) advanced country. Then, a developing
country would be a country, as compared to a developed one,
less advanced scientifically, technologically/industrially,

militarily,and economically. (Of course there are variations

22
and subcategories within the categories of developed and de-
veloping countries.)
No other dimensions of development other than those men-
tioned, particularly no classification with regard to human

intelligence and people's learning ability, are implied.

Assumptions Underlying the Study

The investigator has made certain assumptions in doing
this study. They are as follows:

-- An international study on the equality of educational
opportunity and factors which influence academic achievement
is, considering the following additional assumptions and the
role educational systems play in perpetuating social strati-
fication of the societies, a needed and worthwhile effort.

-- Education (learning in formal educational institu-
tions) is important in the lives of most individuals. It
could provide them with knowledge, skills, and attitudes and
values to have a healthier and happier life.

-— Education, as one of the important social institu-
tions of every society in the present age, contributes
through development of human minds to the development of soci-
eties and the world. Thus we assume that, derived from this
assumption, our answer to the question of knowledge for whggz
is for individual, societal, and world development.

-§ The importance of educational institutions--schools--
is because they are or should be, mainly places for learning
academic subjects.

-- In today's world, people's life chances depend to a

23

large degree on the educational chances they have. We as-
sume that in tomorrow's world this dependency will be even
greater.

-- Deschooling societies is not practically possible.
If it occurs at all, however, some educational institutions
will be established which will be basically the same thing--
schools.

-- Illiteracy, academic underachievement and unused tal-
ents of individuals (of any social group) are a loss to the
individual, to the society, and very possibly, in the final
analysis, a loss to the world.

-- Essentially all people have both need and desire
(motive) for learning in general and for formal education in
particular, not only for its social and economic advantages,
but also for its psychological and intrinsic values.

-- Essentially all people have the ability and merit to
learn. The individual's ability to learn and individual dif-
ferences in learning ability (and academic achievement) are
mainly shaped by social forces, events, and circumstances,
rather than by genetic inheritance (as is widely believed)-
We assume that it is the social systems of the society which
mainly determine one's success or failure in education and
other aspects of one's life.

-- Equality of educational opportunity for all, regard-
less of gender, language, economic status, social class,

race, ethnicity, and religion is a fundamental human right

24
and a principle of social justice.‘

-- If (formal) education sometimes and in some places
has led to or is associated with urban migration, unemploy-
ment and underemployment due to high number of diploma hold-
ers and surplus in manpower, and also if it has had other un-
desirable and unwanted individual and societal consequences,
first, there could be social causes which have created these
problems rather than the institutions of education, and sec-
ond, these would still not justify discrimination against
certain individuals and groups in having equal chance to edu-
cational opportunities. We assume that, at least on the
basis of "merit," all should have an equal opportunity (in

real terms) to all educational resources available in a soci-

 

ety and financed by public funds.

-- Regarding studies and reports used as background in-
formation, as research evidence, and as data for this study,
the assumption is that they are valid and reliable; that they
are accurate reflections of the situation reported. Partic—
ularly, it is assumed that figures mentioned are correct
measures of dependent variables (educational attainment in-

cluding educational achievement) and of independent variables

‘If some do not consider it as such they could ignore
this assumption and only look at the evidence presented in
this dissertation regarding the extent to which equality of
educational opportunity, despite claims by many people and by
virtually all governments that they consider it as a human
right and a principle of social justice, has been achieved.
If some have not given thought to it at all, then they may
take this opportunity and in light of the fact that consid—
eration of this--ethical--question is long overdue, evaluate
its achievement or lack of it as regards different individ-
uals and groups within countries of the world.

25

(socio-economic status, teacher ability, and so forth).

Structure of the Dissertation

The dissertation, as the table of contents indicates,
is organized into six chapters. Chapter I is coming to an
end by writing and completion of this overview section.

Chapter II is a historical and international discussion
of the questions of: right to education, demand for educa-
tion, educational expansion and the outcomes of this expan-
sion for individuals, groups, and societies, and criticism
of education. Also a critical assessment of the status of
equality of educational opportunity within countries is made
as regards different social groups.

In chapter III, theories and hypotheses of learning,
both psychological and sociological, are discussed, In par-
ticular social-psychological conceptions and models of school
achievement are described in the last section as a promising
addition to or substitute for the psychological explanations
of student failure and success. As in other chapters, here
too the discussion has international and historical per-
spectives.

Chapter IV is devoted to the description and analysis
of international empirical and review studies of school
achievement which have included one or more measures of fam-
ily and/or school characteristics in relation to one or more
measures of student academic achievement. The studies are
treated chronologically starting with the oldest one to show

the trend of educational-sociological research development

26

and the nature of the relationship between home-school and
achievement in historical perspective.

In chapter V a similar task is undertaken for national
studies of twenty selected countries, that is, studies which
have included one or more independent variables and the de-
pendent variable mentioned in the methodology section.

For each country in chapter V, each study is examined
wherever provided, by citing the methodological characteris-
tics of the study, the sample, the variables included, the
findings and main conclusions and unique feature(s) of the
study, if any. In every instance the investigator's own as-
sessment, analysis, and discussion is kept separate from con-
clusions and judgments of the author(s).

In chapter VI a summary of the main findings of chapter
IV and V's studies are presented; some general conclusions
are drawn, especially as they relate to the relative effects
of school and family on academic achievement in different
societies, particularly capitalist and socialist, and in-
dustrially advanced and less advanced countries.

A discussion and further analysis follow, with focus
on the limitations of the studies as they relate to their
theoretical framework, their research methods, and their
scope of coverage (of variables), pointing out the problems
and questions related to research on social factors and aca-
demic achievement which remain unanswered or unresearched.
This leads the researcher to make suggestions and recommend-

ations for necessary changes to be made in educational

27

thinking, particularly regarding human potential for learn-
ing, for pedagogical theories, for educational practice
(teaching), for teacher training programs, for social-educa-
tional policy making especially with respect to reducing the
inequality of educational achievement (and attainment) among
social groups, and for future research.

Some final comments from the investigator conclude the
dissertation followed by an extensive list of references and
a general bibliography.

Therefore we turn now to chapter II--the statement of

the problem--the question at hand and its nature.

CHAPTER II

THE PROBLEM

Right to Education

Education is viewed by many people to be a human need
and equal access to it is considered by most peOple and in
virtually all societies as one of the fundamental human
rights and a principle of social justice. The Universal Dec-
laration of Human Rights, adopted unanimously by the United
Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, whose first
article declares "all human beings are born free and equal
in dignity and rights" has stated explicitly that "education
is a universal human right." In addition to this basic
right, the Declaration stipulates other rights of individ-
uals: the right of everyone to freedom of thought, consci-
ence and religion, opinion and expression, association and
movement; the right to participate freely and actively in the
political life of the city, the region, the country, and the
world (either directly or indirectly, through freely elected
representatives); the right to equal treatment before the law;
the right to a guarantee of a decent standard of living; the
right to enjoy leisure; and the right to culture.

The principle that every citizen of every country-~re-
gardless of race, ethnicity, gender, language, religion,

national origin, socio-economic status, place of residence

28

29

or birth--has the right to become educated implies that edu-
cation enables the individual to become a truly mature per-
son and well prepared for exercising his/her other rights.
It is clear that practically it becomes impossible to ful-
fill other rights (and needs) without having access to a
proper education, one of the most important human necessi-

ties.‘

Aims of Education

The (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines
the aims of education--in addition to the full development of
the human personality-~as preparing people to have respect
for human rights and fundamental freedoms, to have a clear
and well informed civic sense, to value understanding and
friendship among all racial or religious groups and among all
nations, and to be concerned with the welfare of the nation
and world peace. Therefore, for any individual's right to

education (and his/her other human rights and needs) to be

 

'It should be pointed out that by referring to educa-
tion as a human necessity, a human need, we mean a "basic"
human need. As Galtung (1980:59-60) writes, it is a modest
claim and also it makes sense to talk about certain classes
of needs, such as 'security needs,‘ 'welfare needs,’ 'iden-
tity needs' and 'freedom needs,‘ as basic human needs. "The
term 'basic'...serves to further qualify the notion of a need
as a necessary condition, as something that has to be satis-
fied at least to some extent in order for the need—subject
to function as a human being" (ibid.:60). In today's world,
education--formal education (schooling)--could clearly be
considered a basic human need.

Two points should be added here, both also mentioned in
some form by Galtung; one is that some people may have some
needs (e.g., "need to dominate") which obviously are not
"basic," and, of course, such needs are excluded from our
discussion here. The other point is that no assumption is
made that all people are conscious of their needs.

30

recognized and respected, everybody should, by definition,
become educated.

To achieve the above mentioned aims, Article 26 of the
Declaration elucidates that education shall be free at least
in the elementary and fundamental stages, elementary educa-
tion shall be compulsory, technical and professional educa-
tion shall be made generally available, and higher education
shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.‘

Therefore, education as a right/end in itself and as a
means to achieve other human rights and needs, especially
since World War II, has increasingly been regarded as a
necessity for achieving a humane standard of living for in-

dividuals and for having a peaceful world."

Equalipy of Educational Opportunity
The Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Sci-
entific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) mentions the pro-

motion of equality of opportunity in education as one of the

 

‘It is our assumption and even our belief that essen-
tially everybody can have/acquire the merit to receive, even,
higher education if provided with educational opportunities
including proper learning conditions. In many countries,
social policies and societal arrangements including educa-
tional systems discriminate against certain individuals and
groups of individuals and do not give them a real equal
chance to receive education on the basis of their merit.

“It should be pointed out that the stand that everyone
has (should have) equal right to education is essentially a
moral one. Also, as it will be documented in the following
pages and in chapters IV and V of this dissertation, this
principle, like many other principles adopted by interna-
tional bodies, in this case the United Nations, has not
turned into administrative reality.

31

Organization's objectives (UNESCO, 1979:371). And in 1959,
with the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, clear state-
ments were voiced on the need of the child to education
throughout his life and for his right to free education on a
basis of equal opportunity (UNESCO:IBE, 1980:5-6). On Decem-
ber 14, 1960, the General Conference of UNESCO adopted a Con-
vention and a Recommendation Against Discrimination in Educa-
tion‘ which also dealt with the concept of "equality of op-
portunity" in education (JuVigny, 1962:17-18).“ According
to the Convention, situations which are not as a rule the
result of deliberate discriminatory intention on the part of
the state or of certain groups nor even due to the persistence
of prejudices concerning particular sections of the society
would be regarded as inequality of opportunity (ibid.:ZO).

In any country the provision of equality of educational op-
portunity would require the absence and abolition of both

discrimination and inequality of opportunity.

 

’The United Nations Conference on the Eradication of Pre-
judice and Discrimination had already adopted a number of
resolutions in 1955 with regard to eradication of discrimina-
tion, including and particularly discrimination in education
(Ammoun, 1957:154).

“For the (UNESCO) Conference, among the policies and
practices which would be considered discrimination (in edu—
cation) are any distinction, exclusion, limitation, or pre-
ference which, based on race, color, gender, language, relig-
ion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
economic condition or birth, has the purpose or effect of nul-
lifying or impairing equality of treatment in education and
in particular of, for example, (a) depriving any person or
group of persons of access to education of any type or at any
level or (b) limiting any person or group of persons to edu-
cation of inferior standard (JuVigny, 1962:17-18).

32

Finally, the General Conference of UNESCO in October
1981 adopted a resolution calling for guaranteeing the free
access of all to education and equality of educational Oppor-
tunity--in terms of education policies, content, methods, and
structures (United Nations General Assembly, October 6, 1981).
The significance of this resolution lies in the fact that it
goes beyond "free" access to (enrollment for) education and
calls also for equality in educational conditions and treat-
ment.‘

Today no country in the world challenges the basic prem-
ise of the idea of equal educational opportunity for all
(Deble, 1980: preface). In most countries the national con-
stitutions embody provisions for the education of all child-
ren and formal statements of the aims of education in most
countries throughout the world include the promotion of
equality of educational opportunity (see Lanford and Fiala,
1981). All governments, everywhere, give a high social and/

or political priority to formal education. And a growing

 

'In addition to equal right to education, in recent
years some educators and social scientists, especially soc-
iologists of education, have started calling for the provis-
ion of equal right to intelligence. As an example, one could
mention Luis Alberto Machado (Venezuelan Minister of State for
the Development of Human Intelligence, still the only such
minister in the world). Machado (1980) in his The Right to
be Intelligent, rejects the notion that intelligence is in-
nate and fixed and believes that the difference between a
primitive man and a civilized one is not biological, it is
educational. Also, Husen (1972:38) writes that there should
be equal chance in the preschool institutions or in the reg-
ular school for all children to acguire intelligence. (em—
phasis in original.)

Clearly, without having equal right to intelligence, it
is impossible to enjoy equal right to education, even if
equal education is offered.

33

percentage of Gross National Product is devoted to education,

particularly in developing countries (Carceles, 1979: 147).

Now, more than three decades have passed since the unan-
imous adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
including equal right of individuals to education. What has
been the result of this and other universal declarations and
national proclamations as regards demand for and provision of

equality of educational opportunity?

Educational Demands

 

Since the 19505, but especially since the beginning of
the 19605, millions of people throughout the world who have
been excluded historically from participation and involvement
in institutions which shape and in many cases even control
their lives have started claiming their rights, including the
right to education so that they could become prepared for
life in the new world system. As Elsasser and John-Steiner
(1977: 355) note, peOple have recognized that oral communica-
tion is inadequate to meet the requirements of the modern
world and that written communication is necessary for social
and economic well being.

It has become clear for people that in today's socie—
ties, which are rapidly changing and becoming modern, formal
education has become a prerequisite and a means for occupa-
tional mobility and wealth, for gaining a high social status,
and also a source of power.

Finally, people have come to the realization that they

34

have been manipulated mainly by most of those who have re-
ceived formal schooling; schooling has enabled many individ-
uals to impose their wishes on other peOple.‘

Therefore, it would appear, for peOple not to be of a
lower class, and have high prestige, and not to be controlled
and manipulated by others, they have to equip themselves with

proper and necessary education.

Expgpsion of Educational Proyggiong

It is clear that there has been, especially since the
19505, an educational expansion at the global level. (Of
course, depending upon the economic, social, and political
structure of each society, this expansion has had various
forms and degrees.)

Virtually all modern and traditional societies have made
efforts to provide education to more people. Now in most
societies, children start schooling at a younger age and the
time they spend in school has been expanded; in industrial-
ized/developed and in many developing countries, in both the
socialist-communist and capitalist worlds, there has also been
a continuous rise in the number of those attending institu-

tions of secondary and higher education. (The evidence in

 

‘This does not mean, however, that people are, have to,
or should become interested in education because it could en-
able them to manipulate or control other people's lives.
Rather, one assumes and only hopes that people want education
so that they could bring to an end a situation (of illiteracy)
which has provided some of the educated (the schooled) a
means to become manipulators. If not the only way, certainly
the best way to end oppression of some (the Oppressed) by oth-
ers (the oppressors) is for the oppressed to remove their con-
dition by becoming (truly) educated.

 

35
this regard is overwhelming. Only one source will be men-

tioned here: Nica and Birzea, 1973.)

Effects of Education

Educational expansion has had, in many countries, at
the individual level, at the group level, and at the societal
level, positive and enduring effects. (cfi Psacharopoulos,
1981; Ramirez and Meyer, n.d.--l981 or 1980; Colclough,
1980; Howe, 1980; World Bank, August 1980; Heyneman, 1979;
Jencks et a1., 1979; Musgrave, 1979; Slomczynski, 1978;
Bereday, 1977; Currie, 1977; Meyer et a1., 1977; Schultz,
1977; Silvert and Reissman, 1976; Vasil'eva, 1976; D'Aeth,
1975; Hyman et a1., 1975; Nollen, 1975; Petrovskii, 1975;
Court and Ghai, 1974; Jallade, 1974; Lowe et a1., 1973;
Szyliowicz, 1973; Blaug, 1972; Psacharopoulos, 1972; Nelson
and Besag, 1970; Eckstein and Noah, 1969; Coleman, 1965;
Harbison and Myers, 1965, 1964; Schultz, 1963).

At the individual level, education has in virtually all
countries, though in varying degrees, positively resulted in
individuals having a higher level of knowledge and cognitive
skills than their unschooled counterparts. It has also
helped many individuals to have a more scientific and ration-
alistic attitude toward life, gain political authority, and
achieve a higher social and economic status.

In all countries, including Latin American, Asian, and
African countries, education has resulted in enormous social,
economic, and political success for many individuals. And

it is clear that in the present modern and changing world,

36

in all societies with a few exceptions such as Tanzania, Sri
Lanka, and China (see Unger, 1980 and Dore, 1976a) where new
employment policie5--not so much dependent upon educational
degrees--have been introduced, and in which the final out-
comes of those policies remain to be seen, educational suc-
cess is increasingly becoming, if not the main condition,
certainly an important prerequisite for occupational and
social success.‘ Education is viewed by most individuals to
be a major factor affecting people's ability for access to
life chances.

At the group level, education has to some degree helped
lower socio-economic status groups, powerless national and
religious minorities, and women and rural populations. At
the national level it has resulted in increases in the rates
of economic growth and rapid progress of the scientific-
technological revolution, although the distribution of re-

wards, within and between countries, has been inequitable.

 

'"In order to become a member of the elite in most Afri-
can countries ten years ago, secondary-level studies were
sufficient; five years ago, a university degree became neces-
sary; the only studies that count today (1972) are post-grad-
uate ones" (Faure et a1., 1972:59 footnote).

Stimson and LaBelle (1971:335) write that in Paraguay at
all levels of the educational hierarchy, nepotism and favor-
itism form the foundation for the selection of educational
personnel and political alignment, and familial connections
outweigh knowledge and skill as criteria for the appointment
of teachers and administrators. What these writers point
out is practiced in many countries and not just in educa-
tional appointments but in other governmental, and in non-
governmental appointments as well. However, one must add,
this fact, while needless to say is unjust, does not dimin-
ish the importance of formal schooling as a prerequisite for
employment and occupational mobility in most cases. For the
poor and other disadvantaged groups, it is the only means to
social success.

37

Criticigm of Educatigp_

Of course there are many among educationists and other
social scientists, who criticize the formal educational
system and believe, for example, that formal education has
antieducational effects in that it stifles curiosity, en-
slaves people and limits their control over their own lives,
socializes people into apathy and political subordination,
and weakens the consciousness of peOple. They say education
certifies people rather than educates them, does not lead to
upward occupational mobility, and frustrates those schooled
who cannot find jobs or appropriate jobs. The critics claim
that education serves the ruling class and the elite and is
used by them to maintain the status quo; it is an obstacle
rather than a help to development and it functions as a mech-
anism for social differentiation rather than for social
equalization (see Altbach and Kelly, 1978; Iverson, 1978;
Barbagli and Dei, 1977; Bowles, 1977; Yanowitch, 1977; Dore,
1976a; Dube, 1976; Illich and Verne, 1976; Delgado, 1975;
Hanf et a1., 1975; Neelsen, 1975; Schafer et a1., 1975;
Boudon, 1974; Carnoy, 1974; Curle, 1973; Freire, 1973;
Raskin, 1972; Illich, 1971; Paulston, 1971; Young, 1971;
Freire, 1970; Anderson, 1961).

However, as was mentioned, education has helped many
individuals and groups, but it has also deprived many indiv-
iduals and groups. It is this question, i.e., the inequal-

ity of educational opportunity, in terms of access to and

38

success in school, but particularly inequality in learning,‘

that this investigator is mainly dealing with in this study.

Ineguality of Educational Opportunity and its Persistence

It should be pointed out and emphasized that while ed-
ucational expansion has had many advantages for many indiv-
iduals and higher social and economic classes, and somewhat
for some lower status groups, for excluded minorities and
majorities," for women, for those of rural and remote areas,
and for societies at large, it has not resulted in equality
of educational opportunity, even equality of access to edu-
cational provisions (enrollment in school and other educa-
tional institutions); and although there are substantial dif-
ferences and dissimilarities in different countries, the
problem of inequality of educational Opportunity--both in
terms of educational participation and educational outcomes--
has not been solved anywhere and remains a worldwide phenom-

enon, whatever the reasons--ideological, philosophical,

 

‘The sociologist Parsons (1951:203) defines learning
broadly as that set of processes by which the learner ac-
quires ”new elements of action-orientation, new cognitive
orientations, new values, new objects, new expressive inter-
ests." In the present work, as was mentioned in the Defini-
tion of Terms section of the previous chapter, by learning we
mean the student's cognitive achievement in school as indi-
cated by performance on a test, by a course grade, by Grade
Point Average, or by other measures of academic performance.

"Even though it is usually the minority groups of the
country which are oppressed, deprived, powerless and so
forth, sometimes and in some countries the majority (alone
or along with the minorities) are deprived, powerless, and
discriminated against. In this work our concern is not just
the minorities or only the majorities; rather it is all the
people, all groups of individuals, and everywhere.

39

conceptual, or practical.

Wastage in education—-the failure of a society to pro-
vide opportunity of access to education for all and on an
equal basis, in keeping children within its school system
until they graduate, and in effectively and efficiently
teaching all children enrolled in the school--is widespread
and pervasive in all societies (see Simmons, 1980; Tazi,
1980; Holmes, 1979; Goldstone, 1975; Schiefelbein, 1975;
Thomas, 1975; United Nations, 1974; Babansky, 1973; UNESCO-
IBE, 1972; Brimer and Pauli, 1971; Levy, 1971; Coombs, 1968;
Floud and Halsey, 1961).

Not even the two GermanyS (Germany was the first to
develop compulsory education in the first part of the eight-
eenth century (Brim, 1958:367) have eliminated the problem of
wastage in education by providing educational opportunities
(educational outcomes included) for all. In Dahomey, only
one pupil in five entering school reaches his fifth year; in
Zaire, 80 percent of children at primary school do not get
as far as the primary school-leaving certificate; in Belgium
the rate of failure and repetition is about 28 percent for
primary education as a whole; in France this proportion is
nearly 50 percent for the last two years of this (primary) ed-
ucational level (Thomas, 1975:21); in Brazil's poor rural
northeast region, in 1974, while the enrollment rate was 46%
(less than half the national urban average) nearly two-thirds
of the students dropped out before the second year and only

about 4 percent completed four years of schooling (WOrld

40

Bank, August 1980:47).

Even in the United States of America, the pioneer of
"mass schooling" which "is also foremost in the world in
total school enrollment" and which accommodates about one
half of its post secondary education age group--fully 10 per-
cent more than the nearest countries--Canada, the Soviet
Union, and Sweden--and fully 30 percent more than England
and Japan--there are two million children or 7 percent of
the school age population who do not attend any schools
(Bereday, 1980:193). And, according to a recent study sup-
ported by the U.S. Office of Education, 20 percent of adult
Americans are functionally illiterate (Gilbert, 1978:232).

A UNESCO (1955) study on the basis of data covering 109
countries and territories estimated that at least 50 percent
of the world's children of school age (5-14 year old's) were
not receiving any kind of formal education in the year 1952
(pp. 16-17). Today, three decades later, while the situation
has improved to a large extent in developed societies and to
some extent in developing ones, only a little more than half
of school-age children of the developing countries can enter
school; of those who do enter, only four out of ten complete
the elementary grades (UNESCO: IBE, 1980:6). Over 250 mil-
lion school-age children and 600 million adults of developing
countries lack basic education; they have had only limited
access or no access at all to formal schooling (World Bank,

1980:72).

41

Ipeqpalgtygof Educational Opportunitygand
Social Classngace, Ethnicity, Religion,
Gender, and Area and Place of Residence’

What is even more important and alarming, however, is
the fact that, in general, educational expansion or what is
referred to as ”democratization of education," "massifica-
tion of education," or "schooling explosion," as will be
shown in the pages which follow, has not, in group terms,
helped all people equally. It has helped those of lower
economic status, dominated racial, ethnic, and religious
groups (usually minorities), females, physically and "mental-
ly" handicapped, ”delinquent" children, and remote and rural
areas residents much less than it has helped those of higher
economic status, dominant racial, ethnic, and religious
groups (usually majorities), males, "normal" children, and
urban residents. In all societies, though of course in vary-
ing degrees, many individuals of the deprived groups have used
education to their advantage, but these groups have, as
groups, achieved less both in terms of access to educational
institutions and in terms of educational outcomes, and there

still exist great discrepancies in the amount and content of

 

‘The researcher's preference was to refer to the racial,
ethnic, religious, gender, and economic groups simply as human
populations to de-emphasize the importance of race, ethnicity,
religion, gender, and economic status in a discussion about
equality of rights for all individuals. However, by doing so
the specificity and explicitness of the important points of
the argument and the dimensions of the problem under consid-
eration would have been lost. By talking about racial, gen-
der, economic and other groups no superiority or inferiority
of any particular group with regard to any human quality (in-
cluding learning ability) is implied.

42

education their children receive and the amount and content
of education (higher education and education abroad in-
cluded) other children, those of the "advantaged" groups,
receive.‘

Where a child lives and in what family he/she grows up
makes a great difference as to what kind and how much educa-
tion he or she will receive. In France and in the Soviet
Union, for example, and in most countries where aim of equal-
ity of provision is central to the country's educational
system and educational policies are formulated, adopted, and
implemented to a considerable extent by the central govern-
ment, rural/urban differences and housing and economic poli-
cies influence the student's learning and result in unequal
schooling among the population (Holmes, 1980:6). Even where
inequality of educational opportunity is comparatively small,
as in the United States, the advantage of a higher-class
youngster with respect to eventually completing college edu-
cation can be as high as ten to one (Boudon, 1974:197)."

The existing evidence, to be presented in the following

 

'Difference in educational achievement and attainment by
individuals of "advantaged" and "disadvantaged" groups is
deplorable, not because the first group are achieving better,
rather because the latter are not doing as well. In fact it
is unfortunate that in many cases none of the two groups'
children are doing well enough, or as well as they could.

“Of course, there are some, but very few, exceptions
to this pattern. For example, several studies in sub-Sahar-
an Africa have shown that often the first pupils in the
schools have been drawn from groups somewhat marginal to or
subordinate within traditional status hierarchies (Foster,
1977:218).

43

section, indicates that everywhere the question of equality
of educational opportunity (achievement and attainment)
based on socio-economic class, gender, race and ethnicity,
religion and national origin and area of residence, has re-
mained unsolved. In almost all societies, whether their
educational system is characterized by "sponsored mobility"
or by "contest mobility" (see Turner, 1968), and whether
they favor particularistic ideology of legitimization or
universalistic ideology, concerning educational selection,
and whether they adhere to the individualistic form or col-
lectivistic form of these ideologies (for description of
these typologies see Hopper, 1968) and, finally, whether
their educational system's high priority is educational
function or selection function (see Laska's 1979 typology of
school systems), social class membership and other family
background characteristics, community and regional factors,
and gender are having major impact upon the quantity and
quality of schooling a school-age child receives.

In all societies those children who do not enter school,
or do enter but drop out or are pushed out (by the school) or
do stay in school and complete it but are not taught serious-
ly and learn less, usually and mostly are children of the
”disadvantaged" families. "Educational systems...are biased
against students of disadvantaged background” (Husen, 1974:
135). And "disadvantaged" groups in all countries tend to
be those of racial or ethnic minority status, those of low

socio-economic or impoverished status, immigrants and

44

in-migrants (Passow, 1971).'

True, "universal," "free," and "compulsory" schooling
have become a policy of most national governments and it
is the official and declared objective and apparent commit-
ment on the part of the governments to provide equal edu-
cational opportunity for all (and in practically every
country of the world, education-~even when it is not abso-
lutely free--is heavily subsidized by the state on grounds
of providing equal educational access for all citizens
[Psacharopoulos, 1977:697), but in practice governments
may not and they usually do not pursue those objectives. A
law of compulsory universal and free education does not nec-
essarily lead to equal educational provisions, to universal
enrollment in school, to universal school attendance, to
universal participation in the learning process, to uni-
versal utilization of learning opportunities, and finally
to equality of learning outcomes among all children, partic-

ularly among children of different social groups.

 

'In developing countries, "the disadvantaged are typi-
cally poor in all respects: income, health, housing, edu-
cation, possessions, occupations, life expectancy" (Kiros,
et a1., 1975:58).

45

Evidence of Ineguality_of Educational Access, Achieve-
ment, and Attainment in Relation to Social Class, Race,
Ethnicity, Religion, Gender, and Place of Residence‘

The International Bureau of Education (IBE, 1971) is-
sued a document--results of a global study based on reports
by UNESCO's member states-—on the social background of stu-
dents and their chance of success at school (for the Thirty-
Third International Conference on Education held in 1971
in Geneva). The report's conclusion was that in practice,
social background of students has a very real effect on
their access to education and academic success (and choice
of occupation).

A widely known international report by UNESCO (Faure
et a1., 1972) points to the injustice of educational sys-
tems which, according to the existing literature, still to
a large extent remains. According to the report, despite
worldwide educational expansion which has occurred since
the 19505, ”regional differences can reach such consider-
able proportions that figures relating to the educational
situation in two different geographic sectdrs, for example,
may vary by more than 50 percent in relation to the nation-
al average of the same item" (ibid.: 70). Concentration of
educational facilities in the major cities and towns to the

detriment of vast rural zones, and their concentration near

 

‘The studies and sources to be mentioned in this sec-
tion are only examples, given to illustrate the problem and
its nature. More evidence, some of the same studies re-
ferred to here, will be discussed, some in detail, in chap-
ters IV and V.

46

city centers and rich neighborhoods to the detriment of shan-
ty towns and poor districts makes it impossible for many of
the rural population and the poor to attend school (ibid.:7l).

The UNESCO report notes that there are numerous cases of
ethnic or racial inequality in equal access to educational op-
portunity, "which is sometimes outrageous," even in countries
with ample material means to remedy the situation. "Thus,
the universal right to education--in which contemporary civ-
ilization takes such premature pride-~is often refused, by a
complete reversal of justice, to the most under-privileged"
(ibid.:7l).

International studies of educational achievement (Walker,
1976) by the International Association for the Evaluation of
Educational Achievement--referred to as IEA studies-~tssting
the performance of 250,000 students in 9,700 schools in twen-
ty-one developing and developed countries around the world
(to be discussed in chapter IV), have consistently shown that,
though in varying degrees for the twenty-one countries and
for different subjects and different age groups within coun-
tries, children of disadvantaged/poor families achieve less
than those of nondisadvantaged/wealthier families.

The reports of the International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development (World Bank, August 1980, April 1980, 1980,
1975, December 1974) indicate that in developing countries,
irrespective of their level of development, educational sys-
tems and policies have a regressive character favoring urban
populations, middle- and upper—income groups, and males, and

sometimes certain ethnic and religious groups. Such a bias

47
appears to enable these groups to have a definite advantage

in terms of access to and pgomotion within the systems. This,

 

 

according to the Bank's reports, is seen in the socio-economic
profiles of the dropouts, the repeaters, and successful stu-
dents, and in the fact that middle and upper—income groups

are particularly over-represented in the institutions of high-
er education.‘ Thus, educational systems of developing coun-
tries not only fail to ensure mass participation in education,
they also practice discrimination in their process of selec-
tion and promotion (and future determination of careers)
(World Bank, December l974:33).“

As stated before, according to the existing literature,
essentially everywhere in the world, children of "disadvan—
taged" families, in general, learn less in school and attain
less years of schooling than children of the "advantaged"

families.“‘ This is true in all continents and regions and

 

‘Most of the over 250 million children of school-going
age and 600 million adults of developing countries who lack
basic education (referred to before--p. 40) comprise the
poor, the rural dwellers, and women (World Bank, 1980:72).

“There is additional evidence for developing countries,
and for developed countries as well, which indicates the ex-
istence of inequality of educational opportunity for child-
ren of certain groups (see for example Bereday, 1980; Levin,
1976; Kiros et a1., 1975; LaBelle, 1975; Lane, 1971).

“‘Among the few exceptions mention could be made of
some countries and areas where children of the lower classes
and deprived groups have, on the average, achieved high lev-
els of school achievement (equal to or even higher than the
achievement level of children of higher social classes and
dominant groups) such as: Malawi (Heyneman, 1980b), Finland
(Kyostio, 1980), Michigan (Brookover et a1., 1979); London
(Rutter et a1., 1979); Chile (Schiefelbein and Farrell,
1978a, 1978b); Indonesia (Ndapatondo, 1978) and India (Satya,
1969). Some of these studies, along with a few remaining ex-
ceptions, will be discussed in chapter V.

48

in virtually all countries--in socialist and capitalist,
and in technologically advanced and less advanced. Ig_A£g
£123) for example--where in most of its countries, the edu-
cational system is 'primary' for only 20 percent, or even
less, of all the children and is terminal for the others;
and less than 50 percent of those who start school complete
the course (Porter, l975)--social inequalities in education
are very great and visible and they occur early in the ed-
ucational process (Eliou, 1976:561).

In Africa, in both rural and urban areas, there exists
a relationship between a family's occupation, income, power,
and status and the education their children receive (Blake-
more and Cooksey, 1980:92). Children of small peasants,
pastoralists, landless rural and migrant laborers, the au-
thors write, have much less chance for educational achieve-
ment than those of the richer peasant farmers. Children of
semi- and unskilled workers and most petty artisans and
traders have virtually no chance of educational success.
Children of skilled workers and routine-level clerical and
other white-collar workers and those of medium-level traders
are somewhat better placed, as the authors note, but they
lag significantly behind the children of higher civil ser-
vants, professional cadres and big traders and businessmen.
Thus, Blakemore and Cooksey point out, there are privileged
minorities in both urban and rural areas. Class inequali-

ties and their educational consequences-~variations in

49

access and performance—-cut across the urban-rural division.

Ethnic and racial factors also influence a child's edu-
cation, and there is educational inequality between ethnic
groups (ibid.).‘ Certain (African) governments have at-
tempted to reduce ethnic inequalities in educational oppor-
tunity by creating a disproportionate number of educational
facilities in regions occupied by underprivileged ethnic
groups, but often such schools have been populated mostly
by students coming from already educated ethnic groups un-
able to succeed in the schools of their regions of origin
(Clignet, 1974:258).

In the case of gender differences in access to school-
ing, Blakemore and Cooksey (1980:92-93) report that girls in
Africa have not benefited as much as boys from the educa-
tional establishment. But what should be added is that
there are a number of overlaps between gender and class in-
equalities. According to the authors, girls from elite
backgrounds have better educational opportunities than boys
from all non-elite backgrounds; girls from under-represent-
ed regional and ethnic groups and from farming/urban back-
grounds have extremely low educational opportunities. In

other words, Blakemore and Cooksey add, gender inequalities

 

‘In the case of South Africa, with its official apart-
heid policy, Blakemore and Cooksey note (ibid.:92) that it
is race and the overlap between it and stratification which
is reflected in inequal education.

SO

in access to education are affected considerably by class
factors.‘

In Latin America, where education has developed remark-
ably as compared with other regions of the world, educa-
tional inequalities have been reduced only slightly
(Filgueira, 1978:332, 337). The great development of educa-
tion in the region, as Filgueira notes, has been accompanied
by a sizeable reduction of inequalities only in a few coun-
tries, such as Uruguay and Argentina--where there was rapid
educational development.

Although almost half the population of Latin America
lives outside the cities, there are no true rural schools,
and rate of retention of educational institutions is par-
ticularly low in the rural regions; the peasant majority is
especially affected by illiteracy and drop-out (Delgado,
1975).

In Asia, too, the literature indicates that, in general,
the children of the "disadvantaged" have less educational
success. Myrdal (1972: 418-419) reported that in South Asia
countries the mechanism of class bias operates in education-
al wastage: dropping out, repetition, failure to retain
children to the end of primary education and at higher lev-
els, and failures in examinations usually happen to the

children of the poor, and to the rural dwellers and the

 

‘Also "while rural students are at a disadvantage com-
pared to their urban counterparts, the relative importance
of such a disadvantage is minimal for the pupils coming
from the 'best families' of the rural environment" (Clignet,
1974:259).

51

girls. Myrdal updates his 1972 observation and writes three
years later (Myrdal, 1975) that (in South Asian countries)
formal education (still) serves the privileged few. He notes
that the resulting character of education at all levels has
not changed much in the independence era, least of all in
India, Pakistan, or even in Ceylon where perhaps to an ex-
tent the educational system has been "revolutionized." In
India, for example, "it is still true that minorities who
represent no more than 6 percent of the Indian population
are still much over-represented within the upper reaches of
the Indian educational system" (Foster, 1977:219).

In Thailand while, according to Fry (1981), nearly all
children, regardless of socio—economic or geographic back-
ground, have access to primary schooling, nevertheless, in-
equalities and inequities persist, particularly with regard
to the uneven quality of primary education in various regions
of the country. A major national assessment of primary
school achievement, Fry notes, revealed significant dispar-
ities in educational achievement of students of different
regions. Children in the capital city--Bangkok--scored on
the average twice as high as children from the poorer, remote
Northeast (p. 9). A high rank order correlation of .76 be-
tween provinces' wealth per-capita and extent of Opportunity
to continue to upper primary was shown.

In Indonesia, a study of educational achievement of
14,000 sixth graders, representing the ten major regions of

the country, in four school subjects indicated that rural

52

children had learned much less than urban children (Elley,
1976).‘

In China, where, according to some (e.g., Williamson,
1979:206) great success has been achieved, especially in
comparison with India, in bringing education to the country-
side and in achieving universalization of primary education
and rapid extension of secondary education, there appear to
be some real problems with regards-to the equality of educa-
tional opportunity. Chen (1981:227) reports that the col-
lege entrance examinations, reinstated in 1977, have disap-
pointed the rural youth because they give an advantage to
candidates from urban areas who have attended middle schools
teaching the subjects covered by the examinations, while
rural students could only attend middle schools offering no
specific instruction for these examinations. Also, as Chen
writes, the government has started discovering the "bright-
est" students and giving them the best possible training in
the shortest possible time which, some people say, tends to
discriminate against the "ordinary" students who do not at-
tain the highest scores in examination. "Teachers tend to
concentrate their efforts on the bright students and conse-
quently neglect those who are not considered the brightest"

(ibid.: 226). And Chen reports that according to regulation

 

‘In countries of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asia
Nations) Region--Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore,
and Thailand—~"those of the tOp tend to reserve favored
schooling opportunities for their own children so their child-
ren's position in the upper strata will not be threatened by
bright, ambitious youths from the lower levels" (Postlewaite
and Thomas, 1980:12).

53

of examinations for admission to higher education, the cand-
idate must support the leadership of the communist party
(p. 181).

In the Arab countries, according to a UNESCO re-

 

port (Tazi, 1980), 42 percent of children of both genders
from six to eleven years of age (that is, over ten million
children) were not attending school in 1975-76, and in all
countries there exists inequality of educational opportunity
as regards gender, and also between children of urban and
rural areas, girls and rural children being at a disadvan-
tage.

In Eastern European countries, the constitutions of

 

socialist governments guarantee citizens' equal right to
.lgggg, and this is to be secured through different means in—
cluding "widespread development of schools of all levels hav-
ing a sufficient number of places for those who want to
learn" (Kosakiewicz, 1980:174). However, the literature in-
dicates that while, like many other countries of the world,
there has been rapid educational expansion and reduction of
illiteracy and even to some extent, reduction of level of
inequality of education, according to Kosakiewicz, Professor
of Sociology at the Polish Academy of Sciences, statistical
and empirical data seem to prove that complete equality for
rural and urban youth, and for youth coming from various
social milieu have been achieved only up through compulsory
eighth-year education (ibid.: 177).

Hungarian research, Kosakiewicz writes, shows that only

54

37 percent of children of skilled workers, and scarcely 18
percent of children of farm workers go beyond primary school
as opposed to 83 percent of children of the managerial in-
telligentsia and 79 percent of children of office workers.
Children of manual workers four times less than children of
white-collar workers go to secondary schools (gymnasia) lead-
ing to higher education. And as in other Eastern European
countries, in Hungary , the majority of students in higher
education come from the managerial intelligentsia and white-
collar families.

In Poland, as Kosakiewicz reports, "around 1970, the
index of learning for sixteen-year-olds in rural areas in
proportion to the index of learning of sixteen-year-olds in
urban areas was 1:1.29, for seventeen-year-olds this amount-
ed to 1:1.58, and for eighteen-year-olds to 1:2.03."

In the Soviet Union, the government, like that of the
United States, contends that its system provides the best 0p-
portunities for real social equality (Andre Beteille, cited
in Flew, 1976:49) and according to the Russian author Kuzin
(cited in Kuzin et a1., 1972:15), there is "a real, not for-
mal, equal opportunity to receive an education, including a
higher education, for all citizens, irrespective of sex,
race, nationality or property status." But the issue of in-
equality in its (the Soviet Union's) educational system has
not been resolved. For example, still great differences ex-
ist between educational Opportunities of rural and urban

areas (Williamson, 1979:108). Kosakiewicz (1980:177)

55

writes that in the Soviet Union, though a very high level of
integration has been achieved for the first eight years of
schooling, and the social composition of the pupils corres-
ponds to that of the whole society, yet for grades nine and
ten, children of working-class parents are underrepresented
and children of white-collar workers and specialists are
markedly overrepresented. And the greatest differentiation
occurs at the level of universities and the other higher
educational institutions.

In the Soviet Union, as in the capitalist world, the
position of one's parents in the society has much influence
on the probability of one's school success and there is a
strong tendency for the children of the intelligentsia to do
better than other children in school (Chirot, 1977:237).

In Western European and other capitalist developed coun-
,t£;g§ (the United States, Australia, Japan and Canada includ-
ed), too, there is a lack of equality of educational access,
achievement and attainment. In these countries, children of
lower socio—economic status families and excluded ethnic
minority groups (whether they happen to be aborigines of
Australia, blacks of England, or natives of the United States
and Canada) achieve less than children of higher socio-
economic status parents. One valid evidence are the IEA
studies (Walker, 1976; Husen, 1967) in which eighteen indus-
trialized countries (most of them capitalist) participated.

Of course, prior to and after the IEA studies were car-

ried out, similar conclusions had been and were reached by

56

many researchers in many Western European and other capital-
ist developed countries. At the European Seminar on Sociol-
ogy of Education held in the Netherlands in September 1968,
it was declared that numerous investigations have indicated
the existence of a very strong correlation between the level
of achievement of children and the social class to which
their parents belong; there have been disproportionately few
achievers from lower social classes (Maris, 1969:67). Banks
(1976:55-58) reports that in Western European countries,
working-class children are less likely than middle-class
children to enter more academic types of secondary education
and even if they do so, they are less likely to complete the
course. There are also considerable social class differences
in access to and within universities, Banks notes. Those
from working-class families are less likely to enter higher
education; when they do, they are more likely to go to the
technological institutions rather than a prestigious univer-
sity; they are also less likely to go on into graduate edu-
cation.

Some (e.g., Boudon, 1974, and Boudon and Lagneau, 1980)
indicate that in most industrial societies, inequality of ed-
ucational opportunity has, in varying degrees, slowly but
steadily decreased in recent decades but unequal education
still exists. A number of reports and documents on the state
of inequality of educational opportunity in OECD (Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries (Hake,

1975; Emmerij, 1974; OECD, 1971a, 1971b) show that while

57

universal compulsory schooling has in all OECD countries, ex-
cept in Portugal and Turkey, been achieved and gender, social
class, and regional origin of children are no longer obstac-
les to school participation to the extent that the school
attendance is enforced, large inequalities persist between
social groups insofar as educational achievement is concerned.

At the educational levels beyond compulsory schooling,
according to these (OECD) reports, despite some slight im-
provement in the majority of the countries, there remains
considerable social selection; children of lower socio-eco-
nomic background show low achievement quite unrelated to
their measured ability, and despite a rather broad selection
of academic fields by students of all classes, these students
usually study a field closely related to their social back-
ground.

As an example of the state of inequality of educational
opportunity in Western European countries, a study of Irish
primary schools conducted yearly from 1973 to 1977 (Martin,
1980) could be mentioned which has shown that rank order of
students' mean reading scores has always been the same:

Group one, the children of professionals, white—collar work-

ers, and owners of large farms, consistently earned the high-
est mean scores; next came group two, the children of skilled
workers; children of unskilled workers, owners of small farms,
and the unemployed were always in third place. The study has

also given some indication of a progressively widening reading

gap between social class groups in Ireland.

58

Another example is West Germany. According to
Hearnden (1976:109), while those who are in favor of radical
changes do accept that the growth of the network of the
country's gymnasium (academic secondary school) and the real-
schulen (intermediate school) has brought a more equitable
representation of the various social groups into the early
classes of these schools, still a higher proportion of work-
ing-class pupils tend to leave the gymnasium early, general-
ly in order to transfer to vocational schools. Also "while
manual workers accounted for some 57 percent of the working
population, the proportion of university students from such
origins was 4 percent in 1950 rising to 7.5 percent in 1970"
(ibid.: 49).

In the case of the United States, a country where "the
principle of equal rights for all citizens is deeply embodied
in its ethos" (Tesconi and Hurwitz, 1974:2), and while its
"experiment in public schooling" is considered to be "the
most successful occasion of mass education in recorded his-
tory" (Edmonds, l981:1), it may also be considered "the most
indefensibly inequitable system of schooling among the great
nations of the world" (ibid.). In this country, too, those
who are born into the more affluent communities have a far
better chance of receiving a good education than do those who
are born among the poor and near poor (Tesconi and Hurwitz,
1974:16).

The pattern of class differences in the United States

is much the same as in Europe; high school completion,

59

college attendance and college graduation, and graduate ed-
ucation all are related to socio-economic status (Banks,
1976:58-59). In addition to social class, ethnicity also af-
fects academic achievement. It has been shown that American
Indians, Negroes, and Mexican Americans, for example, do, on
the average, poorly in school even when the effect of social
class is controlled for (Epstein, 1972:202).

The comprehensive study of Equality of Educational Oppor-
tunity (EEOS) of elementary and secondary schools (of the
United States) by Coleman and his associates (l966)--the
largest study of its kind--showed that the socio-economic
background variable was the most important variable in ac-
counting for academic achievement. The study also showed
that children of ethnic minorities-~native Americans, Orient-
al Americans, Blacks, Puerto Ricans, and Mexican-Americans--
scored, on the average, distinctly lower than white pupils.

Also, the EEOS results showed great differences for
children with different parental education level. For exam-
ple, according to calculations based on the data, it was
found that white high school seniors whose parents were in
the top education decile were, on the average, well over three
grade levels in measured scholastic achievement ahead of
those whose parents were in the bottom decile (Bowles and
Gintis, 1976:32).

There have been one hundred or more additional analyses
and new studies of the EEOS data and/or critiques of it--the

most important one Harvard Seminar (Mosteller and Moynihan,

60

1972); the general findings of the study have not been dis-
proved (Brookover, 1981:11).

The findings of EEOS have been shown to be supported by
numerous other studies at the national and district levels
and by studies on individual schools. For example, the Na-
tional Assessment of Educational Progress very recently re-
ported that the inequality of educational achievement be-
tween black and white students still remains (Burton and

Jones, l982:l9).‘

 

‘There is more evidence, for many other countries, in-
dicating the persistence of inequality of educational oppor-
tunity (in terms of access to school, staying in school, and
learning in school) as it relates to socio-economic status,
racial and ethnic background, religion, gender, and area of
residence than what has been so far presented. For the sake
of brevity they, particularly the most recent ones, will
only be cited here:

For Kenya, Nkinyangi (1980), Prewitt (1974), Olson
(1972); for Zaire, Lanzas and Kingston (1981); for Nigeria,
Balogun (1976); for Jamaica, MCLean Anderson (1977); for Mex-
ico, Estrada and LaBelle (1981); for Guatemala, Waggoner and
Waggoner (1971); for Paraguay, Winkler (1980); for Australia,
Rosier (1979), Bessant (1978), Broom and Jones (1977),
Willmott (1975); for the Philippines, Smith and Gheung (1981);
for Sri Lanka, Niles (1981); for India, Naik (1979), Seshadri
(1976), Naik (1971), Gusfield (1970); for China, Hawkins
(1981), Price (1977); for the Soviet Union, Dobson and Swaf—
ford (1980), Zajda (1980), Dobson (1977), Price (1977),
Yanowitch (1977), Ivanov (1976), Jacoby (1974), Matthews
(1972), Yanowitch and Dodge (1968), Figueroa (1963); for Yugo-
slavia, Juhas (1978); for Hungary, Andorka (1976); for Poland,
Liberska (1979), Zagorski (1977); for West Germany, Williamson
(1977); for France, Wanner (1974); for Britain, Bagley (1979),
Essen et a1. (1978), Banks and Finlayson (1973), Douglas et
a1. (1971), Peaker and C.B.E. (1971), Plowden Report (1967);
and for the United States, Wolf (1977), Cordasco et al.(l973).

Later in chapters IV and V, where the investigator will
be strictly dealing with the question and discussion of the
relationship between some in-school and out-of—school social
factors and academic achievement of students, more evidence
on inequality of educational opportunity--inequality in
learning-~for many more countries, will be presented.

61

In the preceding pages some references were made to the
existence of inequality of educational provision for and
academic achievement and attainment of females. The import—
ance of the issue warrants further treatment:

In 1970, an international report on the status of equal—
ity of access of women to literacy (UNESCO, 1970) concluded
that where-ever illiteracy prevailed, the percentage of il-
literate women was always higher than that of men. In 1975,
UNESCO's study for the occasion of the International Year of
Woman showed that although the law in most countries no
longer discriminated against women, and despite the advances
made towards improving their status, both subtle and overt
discrimination still existed in many forms and inequality of
educational opportunity (as well as other types of inequali—
ties) still characterized the position of women in most soci-
eties (UNESCO, l975:9, 103).

A recent report (Epskamp, l979:1) by the Center for the
Study of Education in Developing Countries in the Hague indi-
cates that women still form a socially disadvantaged group in
the field of education; women in developing countries still
have an unequal chance of access to education compared to
men. Also, the World Bank (April 1980:24) reports that ag-
gregate data for 1977 for developing countries as a group
show wide disparities between male and female enrollments,
females being at a disadvantage.

A few examples of individual countries indicate the

62

seriousness of the problem with which females of developing
countries are faced as far as educational opportunities. In
1976, of all the children enrolled in the first grade, the
percentage of females was 45 percent in Pakistan, 29 percent
in Chad, 22 percent in Nepal, and it was 16 percent in Afghan-
istan (World Bank, April, 1980: 24). Of course adding fac-
tors of socio-economic status of the family, ethnicity, re-
gional origin and so on to the picture would result in a rev-
elation of the existence of more inequity for certain groups
of individual females, those of lower socio-economic back-
ground, powerless ethnic groups, and those residing in rural
areas being at a disadvantage.

Carceles (1979), in his "DevelOpment of Education in the
World" based on data for 1960 and 1976 reports that although
the percentage of total girl enrollment increased at all
levels in all regions, the gap between the two genders meas-
ured in absolute terms increased in several cases, namely at
the third level in the developed countries, at all levels of
education in Africa and Asia, and at the third level in Latin
America (pp. 157, 165).

A descriptive and explanatory discussion of the partic-
ipation of women in education in the Third World (Bowman and
Anderson, 1980) indicates that although schooling of girls in
some sub-populations exceeds that of boys in others, girls
rarely have more schooling than boys and virtually without
exception, social selectivity into schools tends to be great-

er among girls, gender disparities being more pronounced at

63
higher levels of the education systems. Bowman and Anderson
point to the "relative sex equality in education over much
of Latin America" (p. 532).

Smock (1981) has looked at some differences in Opportun-
ities for schooling in five countrie5--Pakistan, Ghana, Kenya,
Mexico and the Philippines. She concludes that the data con-
firm the existence of considerable differences in opportuni-
ties for schooling in favor of men in the five countries, the
Philippines being the exception. Females' access to educa-
tion is most consistently a problem in Pakistan. In Ghana,
Kenya, and Mexico, gender differences in access to schooling,
as Smock notes, range from slight variations in enrollment
ratios at the primary level to far more significant dispari—
ties in entrance to secondary and higher education.

Generally, Smock reports, girls living in rural areas in
less deve10ped regions and who belong to poorer families tend
to have the lowest chance for access to secondary and higher
education. However, even females residing in urban centers
and from wealthy families have less opportunity to attend sec-
ondary and tertiary educational institutions than comparably
situated males. But in the Philippines, Smock points out, the
situation is different. Females, in the Philippines, have at-
tained parity of enrollment at all levels of the educational
system and recently have come to dominate registrations for

college and graduate education.‘

 

‘In Hungary, according to Kadar-Ffildp (1973:111), the
data for 1961-1971 period have indicated that the proportion
of girls in secondary schools has exceeded the value expected
from demographic data by approximately 10%; and even in higher
education the percentage of females hardly has fallen below
the proportion of women in the age cohort.

64

Also, according to Smock, in Mexico, Ghana, Kenya, and
Pakistan, a higher proportion of females than males drop out
of school within each cycle of the educational system. In
the Philippines, with lower rates of retention of its educa-
tional system, sex differences are not significant. (How-
ever, even in the Philippines, which-~as Smock reports--is
characterized by virtual equality between the two genders in
educational opportunities, there exist sex biases in the cur—
riculum, standards and program options offered, as there are
in the other four countries.)

The situation is, of course, better in developed coun-
tries. But in these countries too, females have had less
educational Opportunities and success than males. For exam-
ple, in the member states Of the European community, accord-
ing to a recent report (Byrne, 1978) on the equality of edu—
cation and training for girls (ten to eighteen years), in-
equality in the education (and training) of girls still ex-
ists. According to Byrne, the disquieting rise in female
youth unemployment and continuing inequalities between men
and women in employment are directly related to this inequal-
ity (in education and training). Byrne points out that it
is a fact that nine-tenths of those who govern and control
education at the higher levels in most, if not all, countries
are male (p. 6).

In the OECD countries, also, inequality still exists be-
tween females and males in terms of educational Opportunity.

An OECD report (Kotwal, 1975:33) shows that in all of these

65

(OECD) countries, except Canada, Ireland, and the Nether-
lands, women have less education than men with the most strik-
ing inequality being in higher education. At the primary lev-
el, according to the report, only the countries of Southern
Europe show a significant difference between the two genders.
In Canada, the Netherlands, the United States, and more par-
ticularly in Ireland, females have slightly more secondary
education than males. In Denmark, Italy, Germany, Greece,
Japan, and Turkey the male advantage at the secondary level
is the greatest.

With regard to higher education, the OECD report indi-
cates that while the difference in terms Of years between
the two genders is small, in the active population men have
four times as much higher education as women in Spain and
Turkey, three times as much in Germany, Italy, Japan, Nor-
way, and Portugal, and twice as much in Belgium, Denmark
and Greece, with the Netherlands having the smallest differ-
ence.

In the case of the United States, Hoffman (1975:110)
writes that despite the fact that in an absolute sense women
are more educated now than in the past, they are not more
educated in comparison to the educational levels of the
country as a whole. Hoffman adds that the education of Amer-
ican (U.S.) women has not kept pace with the trend of in-
crease in the educational levels Of the country.

Worldwide, with few exceptions, females in general are

still educationally at a disadvantage compared with males--

66

they have less Opportunities for access to schools and lower
level of educational achievement and attainment (Deble,
1980; Elliott and Kelly, 1980; Finn et a1., 1980; Barber,

1979; Finn et a1., 1979; Saunders, 1979; Walker, 1976).

As documented in the preceding pages, there exists in
every country Of the world inequality of educational Oppor-
tunity in terms of educational access and educational suc-

cess (achievement and attainment).

Why some do not enter school, or do so but drop out, or
are pulled out or_pushed outJ before they graduate: this
could occur for many reasons--economic (such as lack of fi-
nancial, physical, and human resources), social-cultural (in-
cluding religious beliefs), psychological, geographical, and
political (for example, ruling groups and the elite of the
country deliberately discriminate against "disadvantaged"
individuals and groups to prevent jeopardizing their child-
ren's or their own privileges). While it is very important
and valuable to carefully discuss these reasons and analyze
their relative influence upon individuals' and groups'
chances of entering school and completing it, it is not the

intent to deal with them in this investigation. The concern

 

here is: why among those who finally enter school and stay
there and complete their schooling--at least up to the end

of primary, intermediate or secondary education, certain in-
dividuals, and certain groups of individuals, do not learn as

well and as much as certain others do. In other words, what

67

are the forces which affect--what are the causes and corre-

lates of——students' academic achievement?

 

In the next chapter different theories and conceptions
of learning and school achievement will be presented. Here
it will suffice to say that factors which are theorized and
assumed to cause or influence students' performance could be
grouped as outside-school factors (such as student's personal
characteristics, student's family characteristics, student's
community characteristics, and society's characteristics——
political ideology and economic structure of the society) and
inschool factors (such as the school's physical characteris-
tics, the school's academic ethos, the school's student body's
characteristics, teachers' characteristics).

It is commonly believed, both in the developed and devel-
oping world, that the student's personal characteristics
(mainly his/her "intelligence," which is assumed by many edu-
cators and other social scientists and even by parents to be
mainly inherited and fixed) and the student's family back-
ground (mainly his/her family's socio-economic status) account
for most of the student's level of academic performance and
for differential achievement of students in school, and it is
concluded that inschool factors, in comparison with outside-
school factors, are Of lesser importance in the student's
learning independent of his/her personal and family character-
istics (see for example, Simmons, 1980; Alexander and Simmons,
1975; Tyler, 1977; Bowles and Gintis, 1976; Carnoy and Levin,

1976; Levine and Bane, 1975; Thomas, 1975; Boudon, 1974;

68

Jencks et a1., 1972; Peaker and C.B.E., 1971; Plowden Report,
1967; Coleman et a1., 1966).

As was mentioned in the previous chapter, it is the pur-
pose here, in doing this--international and historical--
study, by looking at and analyzing the available research, to
determine what are the relative influences Of some social fac-
tors (inschool- and outside-school—factors) upon students'
academic performance in primary, intermediate, and secondary

schools.

The Chapter in Brief:

-- Education is accepted by many people as a basic human
need.

-- Equal access to educationis considered by most peo-
ple and by virtually all governments as a fundamental human
right and a principle of social justice.

-- Since the 19505 many people have started claiming an
education and since the 19505 there has been a worldwide edu-
cational expansion.

-- Education has, in different ways--economically, psych-
ologically, and socially--and in varying magnitudes, helped
many individuals, groups, and societies.

—- Many individuals throughout the world, particularly
those Of lower socio-economic status, deprived religious,
racial, and ethnic groups, rural dwellers, females, and the
"handicapped"--all commonly referred to as the "disadvan-

taged"--have not had and still do not have access to schooling

69

in terms of entering school, survival in school, and learn-
ing in school. The inequality of educational opportunity,
in terms of both access to and success in school, persists
in all societies.

-— The reason why many do not enter school or do so but
drop out before they graduate could be economic, social-
cultural, political, geographical, physical, or psycholog-
ical.

-- Of those who enter school and complete the program,
some learn less than others. Many social scientists and ed-
ucators, even many parents, believe that the real causes for
this-~academic underachievement--are the students' personal,
family, and community backgrounds. The school is usually
excluded from having any responsibility for causing or en-

hancing low level of cognitive performance by these students.

CHAPTER III

SOCIOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES
OF LEARNING AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

A Few Beginning_Words

Because this is a study in sociology of education, not
in psychology of education, and because the concern here is
why some students fail in school while others succeed, why
some learn less than others, and why some do not go as far
as others do in their educational careers, there is no need
to go into any detailed discussion of £33 13y learning occurs.
That is, the investigator will not deal with the questions:
what mental processes and developmental stages the student
goes through in the course of learning subject matter in
school; what are the specific biological mechanisms in human
learning process; what are the special functions of different
regions of the brain, the real influence of a human being's
physical condition, or the exact role of the nervous system
in learning; or, particularly, considering the importance of
the personality's role in influencing human behavior, how
this characteristic affects human learning as one of the basic
operations of the human mind. These questions are the domain
of neurobiology and physiological psychology.

However, there will be a brief discussion, in what fol-

lows and in general terms, Of some of the psychological

7O

71

schools Of learning theories which have had major impact on
the way the process of human learning and particularly learn-
ing of students in schools has been perceived. After that,
physiological, biological, psychological, sociological, and
anthropological explanations for student learning will be
given. And, in the last section of the chapter, sociologi-
cal and social-psychological theories and conceptions of

learning and academic achievement will be discussed.

Psychologigal/Classical Theories Of Learnipg

The two most influential schools of learning theory are
the behaviorist stimulus-response (S-R), also called connec-
tionist theories, and the cognitive theories.

The connectionist theories have tended to be inductive
in their approach to studying learning--they have directed
toward molecular study, that is, toward understanding the
lawful relationships between specific environmental stimuli
and responses of the organism when learning occurs (Galloway,
1976:77). The cognitive theories have tended to be deductive
in their approach and study learning on a molar basis. That
is, total behavioral acts, events, beliefs, and patterns are
considered as important in what happens within an organism
when learning takes place (ibid.).

The connectionists (behaviorists) stress the importance
of: active role of the learner and his responses, the fre-
quency of repetition and reinforcement, the practice in var-
ious contexts for generalization and discrimination, the

drive conditions, and the recognition and resolution of

72

conflicts and frustration in the learning situation.

The cognitivists consider it essential that: the know-
ledge be organized (as, for example, from simplified wholes
to more complex wholes), features of a problem be easily per-
ceived and learning be accompanied by understanding, and
goals be set by the learner to give direction and incentive.
They also see as important the critical role of convergent
thinking for logical conclusions and divergent thinking to
create the novel effect, and the role of feedback in confirm-
ing accurate knowledge and correcting faulty learning.

Among the leading behaviorists mention could be made Of
the following:

Pavlov (1849-1936), the well-known Russian physiologist--
and the first theorist of learning--who formulated the theory
of conditioning;‘ Watson (1878-1958) who was influenced by
Pavlov's work and generalized Pavlovian conditioning to human
subjects; Guthrie (1896-1959) who, like Watson, was interest-
ed in an interpretation of learning from an extension of Pav-
lov's work and believed "what we do is what we learn";
Thorndike (1874-1949), the American psychologist and the stu-
dent Of William James (the "father of American psychology")

who is known as the "father of educational psychology";

 

‘In addition to the theorists' own works, five other
sources (Shinkfield, 1981; Galloway, 1976; Packard, 1975;
Marsh, 1973; Travers, 1972) have also been helpful and used
in preparing the descriptions of pages 71-79.

The major works of the theorists, particularly those
more closely related to learning, are included in the list of
references (pp. 238-269).

73

Skinner (1904- - ), famous for his Operant conditioning,
and a controversial behaviorist who urges the adoption of
programmed instruction and teaching machines to give the
learner the opportunity "to proceed at his/her own pace" and
who believes that the outcome of learning is what can be ob-
served in the individual's behavior.

Among the cognitivists, these, who have had the great-
est influence, could be mentioned: Wilhelm Wundt (1832-
1920) who with his followers, coming from the medical profes-
sion and also with background in philosophy, established the
first psychological laboratory in 1879 in Germany (Galloway,
1976:78); William James (1842-1910) who, even though he never
studied the concept Of learning itself in his psychology lab-
oratory (the first of its kind to be established in North
America), had extreme interest in teaching and learning, and
whose pragmatism made a great impact upon the way learning
process was perceived; Max Wertheimer (1880-1943), whose
first use of the German term Gestalt (meaning pattern, struc-
ture, configuration, an integrated whole) resulted in his ap-
proach to psychology to be called "Gestalt psychology" refer-
ring to the interaction of many forces on a person's behavior
at any one time; Wolfgang KOhler (1887-1967) who (along with
his colleague Kurt Koffka, both of Germany), like Wertheimer,
became interested in Gestalt psychology and looked at learn-
ing as perceptions of problems as wholes, as gestalts; Jerome
Bruner (1915- -| ), well known for his learning-by-discovery
theory that combines an interpretation of Piaget's develop-

mental stages theory (to be mentioned in the following) with

74
the Socratic idea (that learning is primarily a matter of
reorganizing what one already knows) and one of the most
widely recognized figures Of cognitive-field theory (men-
tioned below), especially as it relates to school learning.

Bruner is one of those psychologists who have attempted
to break away from the classical motivation theories and the
theories Of learning association. His work as regards learn-
ing in school has had great impact on the daily teaching-
learning process in some classrooms, and especially on cur-
riculum construction, and has made significant advances in
research about concept formation and attainment.

Another authority who subscribes to the view that cog-
nitive development occurs in a sequence of stages (as does
Bruner), is Swiss psychologist Piaget. Piaget views the
Child as a developing organism passing through biologically
determined stages--sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete op-
erations, and formal operations. These stages, for Piaget,
are more or less age-related, though the rate of progress can
vary somewhat, depending upon the culture and the social en-
vironment. Piaget's developmental theory explains a child's
growth in mathematical ideas in terms of the child's own ac-
tion and the process of internalization of these actions.

As the principles derived from the work Of Skinner have
led to the powerful technology of token economics, a technique
which is extensively applied in schools--and in hospitals,
prisons, and therapy settings--(of the West), parts of Piaget's
theory, also, have become common practice in modern lower-

grade classrooms (Swanson, l980:9). However, Piaget's notion

75

of universal invariant stages has been experimented in over
one hundred cultures and subcultures in different parts of

the world and has yielded inconclusive and'often contradic-
tory findings (Ashton, 1975).

It should be mentioned that some Of the learning theor-
ists could be identified with both traditions and be called
cognitivist-behaviorists. Some theorists have attempted to
bridge the gap between the twO--cognitive and behaviorist--
approaches to learning theories. The two "giants of learn-
ing theory," Edward Chase Tolman and Clark Hull, and also
Robert Gagne (1916- - ) are such people (Galloway, 1976:94,
96). Gagne is engaged in finding an alternative to an either/
or interpretation of psychology of learning and in fact pro-
viding an answer to the question asked by John Dewey in 1938
and currently being asked again which is: "What are the al-
ternatives to an either/or interpretation of learning?"

(ibid.)

There are different ways of classifying learning theor-
ies, one which divides them by the two most influential fam-
ilies just mentioned. Another way of classifying them con-
sists of five main categories (Shinkfield, 1981: 57-62):
Stimulus-Response Association (Of which behavior modification
is a product), which emphasizes the importance of experience
in learning; field theories (the Gestalt—field, the cognitive-
field, and perceptual-field theories) which emphasize that

obtaining an overview as a whole is Often important in

76

learning; Freudian learning theories--which consider an
awareness of self - one's own thoughts and feelings - to have
a great importance in learning--(out of which many theories
Of learning have grown and are used freely by exponents of
S-R associationism, the perceptual field, and the cognitive
field theories); self-initiated learning theory (which in
many ways is the antithesis of traditional teacher-directed
learning and)which is based on the premise that self-initi-
ated learning leads to constructively gained knowledge and
to the joy of discovery; and motivation-for-learning theory
which is based on the assumption that if the promise and po-
tential are there, motivation brings development to fulfill-
ment.
The Impact of Psycholpgical LearningfiTheories
Upon the Classroom Teaching:Learningrocess

What has been the impact of learning theories mentioned
so far upon the teaching-learning process in the classroom?
Emeritus Professor of Educational Psychology at the Institute
Of Education, University of London, William Wall, who has pre-
pared an appraisal in this regard for a special issue of Ig-
ternational Review Of Education (Wall, 1979), says that
"classical theory of learning is Often said to be useless in
the complex situation of classroom learning"; and the neo-
behaviorism of Skinner and his followers also does not help
except marginally, in, for example, behavior modification
techniques and in "the now largely exploded hopes Of programmed

learning" (p. 372).

77

Wall writes that concepts such as 'need' and 'press'
and 'drive' and systematization like that of Gagne come some-
what closer to being directly applicable. About theories
similar to those Of Piaget and Bruner, Wall notes that, while
they help to systematize and to some extent explain cognitive
development and some of its aberrations, and while they
clearly set limits to the kind of expectations which are
built into curricula, they, however, do not provide us with
"a fully adequate armoury from which to derive an effective
approach either to groups Of children, or, still less, to
individuals" (p. 372).

Since Wall's assessment of Skinner's thoery was referred
to, it seems appropriate to mention the criticism which Carl
Rogers (1969), one of the leading exponents of humanistic
psychology, has made regarding Skinner, and Skinner's assess-
ment of Rogers. Rogers believes that Skinner has a very lim-
ited understanding of the human mind (Postman and Weingartner,
1973: 242). Skinner considers as nonsense Rogers' belief that
there should be less, not more, control in the classroom and
that anything you can 'teach' to another (in the traditional
sense of 'teach') is probably either trivial or harmful

(ibid. )0

Types Of Learnipgfin Schools

As to the typgg of school learning, the following class-
ifications can be mentioned here:

Gagne, first (Gagne, 1965) suggested eight types of

learning: Signal Learning, Stimulus-Response Learning,

78

Chaining, Verbal Association, Multiple Discrimination, Con-
cept Learning, Principle Learning, and Problem Solving, but
later (1971) he reduced them to only six types (Galloway,
1976: 112): Chains, Discrimination, Concrete Concepts, De-
fined Concepts, Rules or Principles, and Higher-Order Rules.
In Gagne's proposed typology, each type of learning is sup-
posed tO be prerequisite for the next higher category and
they primarily apply to cognitive learning and only indi-
rectly to affective or to psychomotor learning suggested by
Bloom (1956).

Bloom and his associates (Bloom, 1956), using Gagne's
theory of instruction, have suggested a different learning
hierarchy which includes, in addition to cognitive domain, as
just referred to, affective and psychomotor domains as well.
The cognitive domain has six major classes--knowledge, com-
prehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation--

and all classes except application have several subdivisions.‘

 

‘In addition to introducing the hierarchy of learning,
Bloom (1968, 1974, 1976, 1978, and Block, 1974, 1979), using
John Carroll's (1963) Model of School Learning (which empha-
sizes the quality of instruction and the amount of time the
student attends to the learning task) has developed a theory
of instruction--Mastery Learning. Bloom's major thesis is
that "what any person in the world can learn, almost all [95%
of] persons can learn if provided with appropriate prior and
current conditions Of learning" (1978:7).

Bloom contends that for inequality of learning among stu-
dents to reach a vanishing point, attention should be given to
student's entry skills, motivation, and learning conditions
(in the school). Thus it becomes essential, according to
Bloom, that teaching and remedial work be started at the ear-
liest possible time. p

This theory is a rejection of the widely accepted notion
of innateness of learning ability and individual diferences
and of the claim that the commonly used intelligence testing
measures learning ability. For criticism of Bloom's theory
see Cronbach (1971) and Anselmo (1981).

79

Watson (1930) who was mentioned earlier, has classi-
fied learning into three types: emotional learning (for
which fear, rage, and love are the basis), manual habits
(by which Watson is referring to the organization in the
arms, feet, and so on), and laryngeal habits (the phrase used
by Watson for thinking).

Lewin (1942) has suggested another form of classifica-
tion of learning: learning as a change in cognitive struc-
ture, learning as a change in motivation, learning as a
change in group belongingness, and learning as control of
body muscles.

Finally, another kind of school learning is learning of
norms suggested by sociologists and social psychologists.
Dreeben (1968), for example, says that school, through its
socialization process, contributes to the learning of many
norms, such as norms of independence, achievement, universal-
ism, and specificity. Dreeben believes because of the struc-

ture of the school, these norms are learned only in school.

In the preceding pages, some psychological theories of
learning, some classifications Of them, and some typologies
of school learning, mainly because of their relevance to and/
or influence on the teaching-learning processes, were men-
tioned. In the pages which follow, the main question--thg
theoretical explanations of academic behavior--will be dealt
with.

As has already been pointed out, educational knowledge

80

which is primarily provided by schools is not equally dis-
tributed in any country among individuals or groups, neither
in degree nor in kind. What are the theoretical explana-
tions for this, and especially, what is the role which schools
play in transmitting knowledge unequally? How is the distrib-
ution of academic knowledge actually controlled by schools?

If we define educability as the capability to receive an edu-
cation or as having ability to profit from schooling, what
factors--particularly, what social factors--influence and con-
dition this capability?

In all societies there are mainly two explanations for
failure and success and differential achievement of students
in school. A meritocratic explanation, according to which
those who have merit (presumably composed of "talent" and ef-
fort) succeed. Those who fail, it is argued, do so because
they are not "intelligent" and they do not work hard. (Those
sociologists Of education who adhere to the functional theory
of education are among those who give this explanation.)
Others, looking at the issue from an egalitarian standpoint,
say that student academic behavior is the result of the belief
system, value system, expectations, policies, and practices
of those who run the society and its institutions, including
schools. (Those sociologists of education who adhere to the
radical/conflict paradigm of education are among this group.)
The first explanation, of course, sees the victim at fault,
the second explanation considers the society, including the

school, as the cause of the problem.

81

In all capitalist countries, the prevailing view is the
"meritocratic" one, while in socialist countries, the egali-
tarian outlook prevails. (One should immediately add, how-
ever, that this in no way implies that socialist countries
have succeeded in abolishing the differential academic achieve-
ment Of students and student failure. Rather only that the
ruling authorities contend that they believe in an egalitarian
belief system and in egalitarian ideology.)

In academic and educational research communities, there
are usually three arguments with respect to factors associated
with or causing student failure and underachievement.

The psychologists, who have been the first to attempt to
provide scientific interpretations of school achievement, have
usually seen the reasons of success and failure in the indiv-
idual learner. They have approached the issue through their
conception of "native gifts"--"intelligence" and motivation--
and more recently, through theories of "developmental stages,"
learning patterns, and self-concept, most of which are assumed
to be individual/personal/internal and nearly fixed character-
istics. (Psychologists, as it is known, have been and still
are at odds on the question of relative influences of heredity
and environment upon the aptitude of individuals.)

Anthropolpgists typically believe that culture (of the
home, the community, and the society) is an important factor
in student learning. The home's child rearing practices and
the provision of Opportunity or lack of it for personality de-

velopment of the child could help or hinder the child to learn

82

in school. According to some anthropological explanations,
if a student fails, for example, it is the cultural depriv-
ation of his/her home and/or community which have caused it.
Also it is said that while in some societies cultural and
sub-cultural values encourage intellectual work and academic
excellence, in other societies such cultural norms are lack-
ing.

Sociologists, however, see the characteristics Of indiv-
idual students and the functioning of their intellect as, to
a large extent, arising out of interaction with the environ-
ment in which they live and learn. Thus they look at socio-
logical constructs such as minority Or majority status, eco-
nomic and political power, gender, and ethnicity affecting
school learning. Particularly, some sociologists of educa-
tion see the school--its academic atmosphere, its organiza-
tional-instructional arrangements, its policies and practices--
as the major cause and source Of school failure and differ-
ence in student academic performance.

Very possibly school success and failure are not caused
by any single factor or any single cluster of factors such as
"intelligence" or sociO-economic background of student or:
school characteristics. Rather, one could assume that school
performance is the outcome of many intellectual and non-
intellectual factors, many individual characteristics and
social (school, family, community, society) factors. In what
follows, physiological, biological, psychological, anthropo-

logical, sociological and social-psychological theories and

83

hypotheses of, and explanations for academic performance of
students will be discussed in more detail. To do that, the
investigator classifies factors which are theorized or as-
sumed to be causing or influencing student performance into
five groups:

-- Characteristics of the student (personal attributes)

-- Characteristics of the student's home (family back-
ground)

-- Characteristics of the student's community/neighbor-
hood

-- Characteristics of the larger society

-- Characteristics of the school (which student attends)

Characteristics of the Student (Personal Attributes)

The physical condition of the learner is assumed to be
an important factor in school succe55 or failure. It is said
that the brain is "the great organ of learning, but species
man learns with his entire body," and defects in the function-
ing of any aspect of the total organism may well impair the
child's ability to learn (Schwebel, 1968:90). However, as
Schwebel notes, not all the organs and bodily processes share
an equivalent role in learning, and the brain is clearly pre-
eminent, but the brain's dependence on the rest of the body
is dramatically evident.

It is believed that lack of proper prenatal and post-
natal care such as parental health, growth, nutrition, family
planning, Obstetrical supervision, malnutrition, illness,
lack of (proper) medical care (which are due to poverty, social

deprivation, and environmental inadequacy), result in brain

84

and neurological defects, auditory, visual and other sensory
deficiencies. These, in turn, result in hyperactivity and
inattentiveness, decrease in the child's learning ability,
particularly in cognitive areas and abstract thought, and
increase in the risk of school failure (Birch and Gussow,
1970, and see Clark, 1972:19).‘ It is also said that in de-
veloping areas, parasitic diseases affect children's 'pro-
ductivity,’ including school performance. (However, the
study findings have been conflicting and, in fact, a study
[Epstein and Weisbrod, 19747 has found little evidence be-
tween these diseases and school learning independent of
sociO-economic background characteristics.)

Another characteristic of the individual which is as-
sumed to greatly affect the student's performance is what is
commonly referred to as intelligence. Based on the theory Of
biological/genetic determinism, it is assumed that (a) an in-
dividual is born with a fixed level of intelligence (learning
ability) which remains entirely or almost entirely unchanged
throughout one's lifetime, and (b) there are wide variations
in intelligence level between individuals within groups and

between groups within societies, and even between the two

 

‘While the importance of the brain and sensory equipment
and the rest of the body in the learning process cannot be
denied, it should be pointed out, however, that physical hand-
icap or lack of adequate early sensory experience does not
necessarily and definitely disable the child for learning. The
case of American author Helen Keller (1880-1968), deaf and
blind since she was an infant, is a good example of the extreme
potential of an individual's ability to learn, even under se-
vere physical handicaps and under difficult circumstances.

85

genders.‘ School failure or low performance is hypothe-
sized to be due to intelligence-deficiency (Joncich, 1962;
Thorndike, 1903; Spencer, 1895; Glaton, 1869).

Based on this--intelligence-deficiency--theory, indiv-
iduals who belong to the lower socio-economic classes are
assumed to be less intelligent than those Of the upper socio-
economic classes (Herrnstein, 1973; Eysenck, 1971), and
children Of certain racial groups are viewed to be genetic-
ally inferior to those of other races (Jensen, 1969).“ Thus,
it is theorized by these that the student's failure is caused
by class and racial differences in intelligence. The theory
does not explain, however, the fact that many lower class
children and those of "inferior" racial groups have shown

high levels of academic performance, and many children of

 

‘The Greek philosopher, Plato, even though asserting in
his Republic that "woman is naturally fitted for sharing in
all offices..." and prescribing the same education for both
sexes, has speculated on possible serious female weaknesses
(Hunt, 1975: 282-283). Aristotle goes even further than
Plato and writes that "...the male is by nature superior, and
the female inferior...the inequality is permanent" (ibid.).
Also, "Plato developed a theory of educability, essentially
differentiating the social classes, that became a model from
which we have hardly deviated" (Schwebel, 1968:17).

According to John Reis, professor Of sociology at the
university of Warwick, UNESCO (and a group of social scien-
tists) have always recognized that there is ground for assum-
ing that there is a genetic component in measured intelli-
gence. (What they have disputed is that these differences
are so great that manipulation of the environment is incap-
able of fundamentally altering them.) (Cited in Flew, 1976:
67 .

“Jensen, who hypothesizes that 80 percent of any indiv-
idual's intelligence is hereditary, in his (Jensen, 1973) pg-
ucational Differences contends that there is a large number
of children with limited aptitude for academic achievement.
He recommends different educational goals and curricula for
(presumably) different students.

86

higher classes and "superior" racial groups have consistently
failed in school.‘

One explanation Offered for the presumed inheritance
basis of "intelligence," the term for which there is still
no consensus as to what it exactly means, and for its pre-
sumed unequal possession by individuals and groups, is based
on physical traits such as the color Of hair and eyes which
is believed to be genetically determined. But there exists
no scientific evidence to prove the existence of a connec-
tion between intelligence and the presence or absence of a
single or a group of genes. Bowen (1979), in his assessment
of educational theory for the International Review Of Educa-
tigg, writes that "even though psychologists still don't know
why but believe that minds vary in their endowment and so
speak of 'gifted' or 'disadvantaged' or 'deficient' children"
(p. 309).“

Another explanation is based on statistical measures ob-

tained from experimental studies of animals and humans. But

 

‘In India, for example, even though there still exist'
inequalities of academic (and status) achievement, "all castes
have produced persons of ample competence to acquire non-
traditional education (and to engage in non-traditional oppor-
tunities") (Dobzhansky, 1973: 31-32).

“And Beardmore (cited in Cox et a1., l975:2) writes that
"the progress of biology in the next century will lead to a
recognition of the innate inequality of man. This is today
most Obviously visible in the United States, where educational
ppportgnities are more widespread than elsewhere." (Emphasis
added.

Beardmore is simply missing the point. It is exactly the
lack of real educational Opportunities (that is, in terms of
egual access to and use of educational resources) which some
claim is creating or at least is enhancing the level of ine-
quality among individuals and groups.

87

it is not possible to control the experimental learning en-
vironment for human subjects as it is for experiments with
animals. Even in studies Of identical twins, it is impossi-
ble to control the social enviroments of the subjects com-
pletely. One other statistical reasoning given is the con-
stancy of I.Q. scores of students taking I.Q. tests. But,
despite claims that even enriched educational programs can-
not increase a child's I.Q. (Jensen, 1969), it has been pos-
sible to increase I.Q. scores of some "disadvantaged" child-
ren even dramatically (15-20 points on the average) (see
Gartner et a1., 1974:2).

Also, all I.Q. tests are measures of the student's know-
ledge Of something. Such an "I.Q." score is not an intelli-
gence measure, and its constancy does not prove the inheri-
tance of intelligence. In fact, Alfred Binet, the pioneer
Of intelligence testing, did not claim intelligence to be
fixed.

Above all, there are many arguments against and on the
fallacies of I.Q. testing (e.g., Bauernfeind, 1971; and see
Vandivier and Vandivier, 1979), and there are claims that
I.Q. testing is used for controlling people (e.g., Karier,
1972).‘ There are even reports that the work of Cyril Burt,
the first British psychologist, has been fraud and that

Jensen has misrepresented the facts when reporting the

 

‘Maslow, the founder of 'humanistic psychology'/psychol-
ogy's "Third Force," was deeply against any form of measuring
or statistically analyzing people for the purpose of classify-
ing and controlling them(Postman and Weingartner, 1973).

88

studies of identical twins (Taylor, 1980).

Hunt (1961), also, based on findings from experiments
with animals and studies of deprived children and Piaget's
work, concluded that the belief that intelligence is large-
ly predetermined and cannot develop regardless of environ-
ment is unfounded. And Kamin (1974, and Eysenck vs. Kamin,
1981b), like many, believes that intelligence is primarily
shaped by the environmental factors.

One other argument in support of the claim that "intel-
ligence" is inherited and more or less fixed is based on ob-
served differences in the levels of academic achievement
among individuals and between groups. But these differ-
ences in no way prove to be a basis for the presence of dif-
ferent learning abilities (intelligence) in individuals and
groups.

The danger Of biological-genetic explanations of learn-
ing and school success and failure is that they reject any
program or any kind of action to prevent school failure and
differential academic achievement among students as being
useless. The educational system, according to these theories,
can be made more efficient if it recognizes the inherent in-
dividuals' differences in ability and provides each person
with proper educational treatment specifically designed for
that person (Tyler, 1977: 81).

Some educators and other social scientists believe, on
the other hand, that there is no such thing as unchangeable

inherited intelligence and individual differences in learning

89

ability. They believe that virtually all students, provided
with proper learning conditions, can learn school subjects
just as virtually everybody who is taught to talk can learn
to talk and can learn to speak any language he is taught.
Bloom (1978, 1976) and Brookover (Brookover, 1981, and
Brookover and Erickson, 1975, 1969) are two examples of such
people.

Brookover and his associate Erickson (1969: 8) reject
what they call the "bucket" theory of intelligence, which
gives the notion that individuals have limited and varying
capacities, potentials, or qualities which can be measured
in terms of scales. Of course they do not claim that gen-
etic differences do not exist, but they say that such differ-
ences do not make a discernible difference in many cases (as
many people claim they do) (Brookover and Erickson, 1975:
265).‘

Enough evidence exists to lead one to maintain that, all
in all, intelligence testing and its results--I.Q. scores--
do not reveal anything of scientific importance about the in-
dividual's learning capacity that could justify the continua-
tion of their widespread use. Of course, intelligence test-
ing and I.Q. scores do serve societal-functional purposes,

but to the detriment of many certain individuals and groups.

 

‘For other critiques of the assumption that intelligence
is mainly inherited, on I.Q. testing and its fallacies, and
for related issues, see Block and Dworkin's (1976) compre-

hensive source.

9O

Racial, ethnic, religious, and linguistic character-
istics‘ Of the student also are assumed to affect the stu-
dent's level of academic achievement. For example, still
in many countries, certain racial, ethnic, and religious be-
liefs and values prohibit sending girls to school or send-
ing them for more than elementary education. In some cases
similar values discourage and prevent girls, and boys, from
learning certain school subjects. Despite acceptance by
most people, some families do not consider the education of
their daughters, and even their sons, a basic need. And,
some parents doubt that schooling will have any positive or
important effect upon their children's future job or their
present and future life (World Bank, April 1980:25).

Some religious families put emphasis on predestination,
but others on the individual's own control over his/her des-
tiny through hard work. Also, some religious groups put more
emphasis on the value of education and scientific work than
some other religious groups do. These beliefs could affect

the child's educational achievement (and attainment).“

 

‘These factors are all family related factors and as
such would be included and discussed further in the section
on family characteristics (pp. 93-96), but they are mentioned
here because they are also student characteristics.

“Clignet (1975) writes that it is hypothesized that a
religion's central values could be inconsistent with the re-
quirements of academic work (e.g., Catholicism's emphasis on
dependence could lower the student's chances of great educa-
tional success). Or, it is said, that low achievement of
certain (religious) groups could be primarily the result of
the relatively low positions they have (as an ethnic group)
in the larger society--the effect of religion on school
achievement could be 'culturally relative' (ibid.).

91

Also, linguistic background of the student--that is, the
quality of the language spoken at home, particularly as it
prepares the child for understanding the teacher and the
school materials, and the fact that whether or not the lang-
uage of instruction in school and/or the teacher's native
language are the student's first language (mother tongue or
language which is spoken at home)--is assumed to influence,
at least in some school subjects, student learning. In
fact the French cognitive sociologist, Basil Bernstein (1975,
1965, 1961), theorizes that the difficulties the lower class
children have in school are directly related to their langu-
age structure and usage.

Bernstein has developed a socio-linguistic theory of
social learning by essentially using ideas Of Durkheim and
Marx at the macro-level and George Mead at the micro-level,
which points to the importance of language and linguistic
forms in social and school learning. According to Bernstein's
theory, the process through which social and cultural factors
influence student achievement is linguistic. He says while
in the middle class families children learn an "elaborated
code of speech" or "formal language," in the lower class fam-
ilies children's socialization patterns and other cultural
aspects of the home enable them only to acquire the "restrict-
ed codes of speech" or "public language."

Thus, as Bernstein hypothesizes, where the school's organ-
izatiOnal structure and content is such that formal language

and elaborated codes of speech are used, a lower class child

92

has a handicap in learning the school material. (Obviously
if the student's mother tongue/home language is not the

same as the school's language, the student could have a more
serious problem in school learning.)

Another French sociologist, Bourdieu (1977, 1971, and
Bourdieu and Saint-Martin, 1974) also believes that language
(and other aspects Of the child's cultural background) in-
fluences--through school curriculum and pedagogy--his/her
school performance. According to Bourdieu's theory, indiv-
iduals of different social classes inherit different levels
of "cultural capital"--"linguistic and cultural competence."
This cultural capital and also "class ethos" affect the stu-
dent's performance in school--the children of lower classes
and up with a different (lower) level Of performance.

Schools, Bourdieu contends, by perpetuating and promot-
ing the culture of higher social classes, actually reproduce
the cultural inequality already existent among children when
they come to school and, thus, consequently produce differ-
ent levels of student achievement.

Another cluster of the student's personal characteris-
tics which may influence school performance are personality
characteristics. It is hypothesized, for example, that high-
er levels of academic achievement tend to be associated with
higher achievement motivation and achievement need (them-
selves, in turn, like general self-esteem and self-concept
of academic ability, self-control and some other personal

characteristics, are functions of family, neighborhood,

93

school, and societal factors).

It should be pointed out that personality characteris-
tics' influence upon the student's school performance is
hypothesized to depend on the situation and the social con-
,tgyt in which learning takes place.‘ The characteristics of
the student and the social setting interact and through this
mechanism they affect the student's learning. Also, the in-
fluence of the student's characteristics upon his/her aca-
demic (and other) performance assumingly depends on the stu-

dent's gender, age, and grade level.

Characteristics of the Student's Family

It is theorized that the student's living conditions and
culture of the home--in other words, socio-economic status of
the student's family--strongly affect his/her chance of suc-
cess in school. Because, it is said, that,for example, pre-
natal and postnatal care, which are in turn greatly influ-
enced by social class and income of the family, affect the
child's physical, mental, and health status. Also, it is
said that the number of books in the home, newspapers, and
other reading materials, and whether or not the child has to
work after school to supplement family income (which is the
case in many poor and/or rural communities), and other liv-
ing conditions--themselves affected by the socio-economic

status of the family--influence the student's learning.

 

‘It is important to note that human personality could
change, through changes in the individual's environment and
through psycho-social therapy.

94

Other family related factors which are assumed and hy-
pothesized to affect the amount and kind of schooling a
child receives are: the number of siblings of the child‘
and the intellectual capital and the resource persons in the
home, and whether or not the child is helped with the school-
work, the attitude Of the parents towards schooling, the par-
ents' evaluation Of the child's ability to learn and their
expectations Of him/her to achieve, the child rearing prac-
tices and relationship and interaction patterns (democratic,
laissez-faire, autocratic), and other cultural properties of
the home--all of which are, to a large extent, shaped and
indeed determined by the parents' education level, occupa-
tion and position in the social structure, and by religious,
racial, and ethnic factors.

In short, the child's family background, or simply put,
family socio-economic status, which is a derivative or sum-
marizing variable, is believed--through shaping the child's
characteristics such as physical, emotional, and mental con-
ditions, personality, and study habits--to influence the stu-
dent's academic performance. Based on this theory, if a
student fails, the blame is usually put on the student's fam-
ily background. Such an assumption is part of what consti-
tutes cultural-deficit or cultural-deprivation theory referred

to earlier. (The other part of the theory to be mentioned in

 

‘Also, it is believed that the child's gender, age, and
birth order in the family influence the family's attitude to-
ward and treatment of the child which could affect his/her
school (and nonschool) performance.

95

the following section regards community and neighborhood
variables.) Based on the cultural-deficit theory, the
child's family and home culture (and his/her neighborhood
and community culture) deprives him/her of having certain
"prerequisites" necessary for learning in school; if the
student fails, it is due mainly to his/her deprived cultural
background (see Hoggart, 1979:171-191; Hurn, 1978:132-136;
Persell, 1977:75-81; Nurcombe, 1976:51-76; Maehr and Stall-
ings, 1975; Schrag and Divoky, 1975; Maehr, 1974; Faure et
a1., 1972:72-73; Ryan, 1971:182-183; Stein, 1971).

The assumption that family background strongly affects
the child's school success or failure results in the conclu-
sion and the belief that to prevent the child from failing
and to provide him/her with the opportunity to succeed, the
child's home and family environment--its material and cul-
tural resources--should be changed and the school can do lit-
tle for the child. However, since, as documented in chapters
IV and V of this dissertation, it has become possible for
many students of lower social classes throughout the world
to achieve, even dramatically, while many students of higher
social classes have failed, it could be hypothesized that
the school itself is an important source of influence in stu-
dent learning.

True, in the majority of the schools of almost all soci-
eties proportionately more children Of lower social classes,
especially those of excluded groups, females, and rural resi-

dents underachieve or fail, but this in no way proves that

96

such level Of school performance is necessarily due to fam-
ily background, and also in no way does it disprove the
hypothesis that school itself has not caused such failure.
In fact, as it will be pointed out later in this chapter, it
is believed that certain children's low level of academic
(and other) achievement is due to the fact that they are per-
ceived in school to have social-psychological handicaps, be
"hyperactive" and "emotionally disturbed," lack motivation
to learn, and have low I.Q.s. It is said that students who
are viewed as such are treated and taught in such a way that
they self-fulfill the prophecy Of teachers and other school
personnel and fail. In other words, school failure due to
the school's deprivation becomes student failure.

In short, two characteristics, I.Q. deficiency and cul-
tural-deficiency (and I.Q. difference and cultural-differ-
ence) are presumed to be the most powerful factors causing
student failure (and differential school achievement). Ed-
ucational-deficiency is much less discussed and much less
considered as having anything to do in this process.

The Characteristics Of the Community/
Neighborhood in Which the Student Lives

It is hypothesized that the kind of community and
neighborhood where the student's home is located affects the
student's academic performance. It is said that communities,
which differ in their educational, cultural, and other social
resources (such as libraries, social clubs, sport facilities,

and health services) and in their type (urban-rural, rich-poor)

97

and the peer group they provide the children affect, in
varying degrees, the students' performance level in school.
As was mentioned in the previous section, part of the
blame for the student's failure and underachievement in
school is attributed, in addition to his/her personal and
family characteristics, to the community factors--by cultural
deprivation it is meant both: deprivation in the culture of
the home and in the culture of the community. There, this
argument (of cultural deprivation) was discussed by providing
a counter-argument. It is clear that the same reasoning ap-

plies here.

Characteristics Of the Society at Large

 

Cultures and societies are assumed to influence school
outcomes. Societies' economic struCture and political ideol-
ogies shape the way that human beings, their needs, and their
capacities for learning are viewed.

People learn whatever the society defines as appropriate
and provides for them to learn (Brookover and Erickson, 1969:
17). And our Observations tell us that societies define as
appropriate different things for various individuals and
groups.

Persell (1977) provides a thorough analysis of differ-
ential school achievement based on Marx and Weber's view of
educationw‘asinevitably bound up--indeed, dependent upon--
other institutions of society. Persell sees "structure of

dominance" and "legitimatizing ideologies" as well as

98

institutional level (educational structures and educational
ideologies and concepts), interpersonal level, and intra-
psychic level (consciousness), as factors affecting inequal-
ity of school outcomes.

Ogbu (1978, 1974) theorizes that the main reason for in-
equality Of academic achievement and low achievement level of
minorities is not biological or environmental; rather it is
the social structure of societies with 'castelike minority
groups.‘

In short, the influence of society's ideologies and
social and economic structures upon the quality and quantity
of each individual's learning is assumed to be strongly oper-
ating in all societies and working, particularly, against

powerless groups (including women and the dislocated).

In virtually every society, there is the assumption that
a child's low socio-economic status of the family, "inferior"
culture of the neighborhood and the community and low "I.Q."
cause the student's low achievement and, despite the fact
that still no causal relationship between social class, I.Q.,
and school achievement has been established, and despite the
existence of some evidence from different countries and re-
gions of the world to the contrary, it still is concluded and
accepted by many that schools cannot make any substantial dif-
ference in preventing school failure and affecting school out-
comes.

Schools are cleared Of the charge some make that it is

99

their (schools') fault that many students do not learn

even basic skills such as reading, writing, and mathemat-
ics; and they are relieved of any responsibility for creat-
ing and/or eliminating or reducing differential educational
achievement. Such a belief and conclusion--that schools can-
not reduce low level of student achievement--wou1d in effect
mean that children of the poor, of the powerless minorities
and majorities, of rural dwellers, of slum residents, and
also females -- who in most societies make up most Of the
failures and the underachievers, should have no hope that

the school will remedy the situation--that it provides equal-
ity of academic achievement or at least reduces the gap be-
tween the achievement levels of high achievers and low
achievers.

With this background provided, in the following section,
the theories of school achievement which deal with the effect
of the school's characteristics upon student achievement will
be discussed, and it will be concluded that it is possible to
assume that school--the school's ideological orientation, and
academic ethos, and other aspects of the school's social sys-
tems--may explain most or a major portion of the variance in
students' levels of achievement independent of the students'
"I.Q." and family and community backgrounds.

Characteristics of the School
Which the Student Attends
It is assumed that the kind of school the student attends

makes a difference in the student's level of achievement, and

100

there are many school factors which may positively or nega-
tively affect the student's academic performance, both in
kind and in degree. Among these factors mention could be
made of: the school's rural-urban location and the neighbor-
hood in which it is located, school's student body composi-
tion (school's composite socio—economic index and racial,
ethnic, religious mix of the school) and its size; whether
the school is located in a centralized or decentralized
school system; the school's building, and its physical re-
sources and facilities (library and its number and kind of
books and other materials, workshops, laboratories, sport
and other extra-curricular activities' equipment); school's
structure and instructional organization (traditional or
”open" structure, practice of differentiation of students or
lack of it such as ability grouping and tracking, availabil-
ity of curriculum options and elective courses, time spent
on teaching, teaching methods practiced, the arrangement of
examinations and evaluation, the patterns of reward and pun—
ishment employed, teacher-pupil ratio, the provision and na-
ture of school guidance and counseling); parental involve-
ment/school-community relations; teacher's characteristics
(teacher's gender, age, racial, ethnic, religious, and lin-
guistic backgrounds, socio-economic status, level of educa-
tion, teacher training, teaching experience, salary, emotion-
al state and physical health, and interest in teaching and
commitment to equality of learning among students).

Most of the above mentioned school characteristics have

101

been traditionally considered to influence student perform-
ance, in varying degrees, and throughout the world educa-
tional research on school's impact upon student learning has
been concerned mostly with the effect of these factors. And,
as has been mentioned previously, most of the studies have
concluded that what mostly accounts for student learning are
not school related factors, but characteristics of the stu-
dent.

In the past twenty years, however, some school related
factors have been viewed as having strong effects on what and
how much the student learns in school. They are generally
referred to as the school's social—cultural, social-psycho-
logical, social systems, and academic climate variables.
Specifically, these variables are: ,the belief system and val-
ue system of teachers and school staff--whether they believe
students are competent and able to learn or not-~that is,
their evaluation of students' academic ability; their expec-
tations of students with regard to achievement; the teachers'
commitment to students' learning and excellence and equality
in academic achievement for all; their actual time engaged in
direct instruction; the student's general self-concept or
self—regard, his self-concept of academic ability, and sense
of academic futility; the student's sense of powerlessness
and alienation; the student's peer groups in the school; the
nature of teacher-student, and student-student relationship

and interaction; and students' sub-cultures.

102

Sociological and Social-Psychological
Theories of Academic Achievement

Since psychologists (including some social—Psycholo-
gists) have always clung to the classical psychological posi-
tion emphasizing the "uniqueness" of the individual and
"innateness" of his/her learning ability and to the belief
that a considerable portion of the individual's social-
psychological makeup is unchangeable, theories explaining
the causes and correlates of the student academic achievement
have also been formulated, based on such a view of the indiv-
idual. However, sociologists, and most social psychologists,
view the individual as primarily social and reject the ear-
lier psychological theories (which explain personality on
the basis of individual characteristics and deterministic
principles) and emphasize the importance of quality of social
interaction in personality development, and individual and
group flexibility and capacity for change.

Such a notion, which views a human being as a growing
and changing creature with basically no personal traits which
could prevent him/her from learning and becoming an intellec-
tually developed person, is the main foundation of sociolog-
ical, social-psychological theories of school learning. Based
on these theories any situation has the resources for learn-
ing if the proper organizational structure, instructional ar-
rangement, and pedagogical process are provided. (Academic
learning is a complex social process—-a process of interaction

between the individual and the social context of the class-

room and the school.)

103

Because education is clearly one of the fundamental
social institutions of every society, in terms of the effect
it has on both the individual and the society, the social
process which operates in a school is of great importance;
any comprehensive theory of school learning has to be con-
structed by taking this dimension of schooling/learning pro-
cess into consideration, and by applying sociological, not
just psychological, analysis to structure and functions of
the school. In fact Durkheim, who along with Max Weber, is
considered by many to be the "father of sociology," regard-
ed "as the prime postulate of all pedagogical speculation
that education is an eminently social thing in its origin
and in its functions," and believed that ”therefore peda-
gogy depends on sociology more closely than on any other
science" (Durkheim, 1956:114).

In what follows, sociological and social-psychologi-
cal} theories, models, and conceptionsAof learning related
to achievement in school are briefly presented.

A major first work viewing the school as a social insti-
tution--"social organism"--has been written by Waller (1932).
Waller emphasized the importance of social and cultural
structure of the school and social roles of the individual
within formal and informal networks of human relationships

and the impact all these have had upon school outcomes.

 

‘It is appropriate to mention here that "it was especial-
ly this (social psyChology of education) which identified it—
self as consciously embodying a true sociology of education,
as a sub-discipline of sociology" (Shimbori, 1979:402).

104

After Waller's pioneering work, Brookover's book in 1955
constituted the first effort in more than a quarter of a cen-
tury to examine the school system from a consistently socio-
logical frame of reference (Gross, 1959:129). Later
Brookover (1959) wrote his Social-Psychological Conception
of Learning and further expanded it in Brookover and Gottlieb
(1964) and in Brookover and Erickson (1969, 1975).

The basis of Brookover and his associates' conception
of learning are four social psychological theories: symbolic
interaction theory, expectation theory, role theory, and
structural effects theory.‘ According to these theories the
social norms and the expectations of others define the appro-
priate behavior for persons in various social situations.
With rare exceptions, every individual learns the definitions
of appropriate behavior through interactions with others who
are important or significant to him/her. The school learning
model developed by Brookover derives from these theories and,
as the author points out, is based on the observation that
children learn to behave in the way that the peOple with whom
they associate behave. Of course, there may very well be
minor exceptions to this generalization, but the overwhelming

evidence verifies the claim that children in all societies

 

‘For descriptions of these theories by their original
developers and elaborations on them, and for description of
related concepts and constructs (such as self-fulfilling
prophecy, significant others, internal—external locus of con-
trol, school climate) and, finally, for further discussion on
the social-psychological conception of learning just mentioned
and other social-psychological learning theories, see sources
given at the end of this section (p. 107).

105

learn to behave, talk, and think much as their associates do.

In addition to these, and what is particularly relevant
to the schooling process, is the postulate that the individ-
ual also acquires conceptions of his or her ability to learn
various types of behavior (for example, taking certain
courses) through interaction with others whose evaluations
are important to him. (Such "others" then become "signifi-
cant others" or "reference groups.") This self-concept of
ability, while not sufficient, is a necessary factor in de-
termining the behavior which the individual will learn.

If these observations are valid, then, the variations
in individual behavior (e.g., school achievement) which oc-
cur within societies and groups and between societies may,
the authors say, be explained in terms of the variations in
the social-cultural environment (including of course the
social-cultural environment of the school).

In short, for Brookover and his associates,the charact-
eristics of the social system in which learning occurs (the
classroom and the school), including interactive processes
among students with peers, teachers and others, are at least
as important in understanding what students learn as are the
individual characteristics they bring to school.

In 1960 Getzels and Thelen (1971) wrote one of the first
systematic applications of social psychology to the teaching-
learning situation (MCMillan, 1980:4, 12-13). By examining
the individual behavior in the context of the group, these

two authors constructed a model which explains factors that

106

affect the student's learning behavior in the classroom.

The unique characteristics of classroom groups viewed
by Getzels and Thelen as important in learning are classroom
goals, participants, leadership,and relationship to other
groups. The classroom group is considered as a social sys-
tem and the personalities of the students as personal dimen-
sions of that system. Getzels and Thelen perceive learning
behavior as being influenced by the nature of role expecta—
tions and requirements of that social system (as do Brookover
and his associates) and by the individual student's personal-
ity and needs he/she brings to the learning setting.‘

There are, of course, other sociological, social-psych-
ological theories and models of learning and school achieve-
ment, generally based on some sociological, social-psycholog-
ical postulates and assumptions. For the sake of brevity the

investigator chooses to not discuss them here but, instead,

 

‘Freire (1970, 1973, 1978), a Brazilian educator, has devel—
oped a theory of learning--pedagogy of the oppressed (for
critical consciousness)--which he calls "conscientization"
which, although it is mainly for "oppressed" illiterate

adults (of the Third World), could have implications for
teaching nonadults and literates, including schoolgoing child-
ren (everywhere). The theory, which is basically a social-
psycholgoical, social-philosophical one, is based on the as-
sumption that any human being, no matter how "ignorant,"
could, if provided with a dialogical encounter and if respect-
ed, look at the realities around him--his personal reality

and the social reality. The dialogue--the teaching-learning
process--would be a human process using "generative terms"
(chosen previously by a specialized educator in an investiga-
tion of "minimal linguistic universe of the learner") and
giving attention to the immediate need of the learner,

For a critique of Freire's theory, and also for that of
Illich's proposal for "deschooling" society, critique of
Bernstein's works and, finally, of Marxist sociology of edu-
cation, see Demaine (1981).

107
to provide the following references-~a selection--of primary
and secondary resources which cover the major theories and
related concepts and ideas:

Cooley, 1902; Mead, 1934; Rotter, 1954; Gordon, 1957;
Parsons, 1959; Charters and Gage, 1963; Mansurov, 1966;
Rotter, 1966; Backman and Secord, 1968; Rosenthal and
Jacobson, 1968; Merton, 1968; Shipman, 1968; Blumer, 1969;
Getzels, 1969;Guskin and Guskin, 1970; Johnson, 1970;
Purkey, 1970; Rist, 1970; Getzels and Thelen, 1971; Boocock,
1972; Dale, 1972; Esland et a1., 1972; Boocock, 1973; MCDill
and Rigsby, 1973; Mischel, 1973; Edgar, 1975; Braum, 1976;
Bandura, 1977; Bar-Tal and Saxe, 1978; Barton and Meighan,
1978; Boocock, 1978; 1980; McMillan, 1980; Mercer and Covey,
1980; Lezotte et a1., 1980; Brookover et a1., 1982; Rogers,
1982.

What is important to note is that there is a strong like-
lihood that different learning theories define the curriculum
differently, and support varying pedagogical processes and
educational practices. In consequence, schools come out de-
livering different types and levels of academic achievement

for essentially similar-competent-students.

The Concluding Observation

In this chapter psychological, sociological, and social-
psychological theories of learning were discussed and the
academic achievement issue was examined from biological,
psychological, anthropological, sociological, social-psych-
ological, political, and economic perspectives. At this

point it is both necessary and useful to make the following

108

important points:

Despite the tremendous progress which has been made
in understanding the phenomenon and process of human learn-
ing, we do not know with precision how people learn, under
what conditions different kinds of learning take place, what
are the exact and relative influences of the causes, corre-
lates, and determinants of academic achievement. It is still
not possible to make a fully accurate prediction of academic
performance of all, or even most, students and to give a
complete explanation for differential achievement by stu-
dents.

Of course, we now know more than at any other time in
human history, even more than a decade ago, the way individ-
uals learn, and about the effects of societal forces and social
conditions, such as the social structure (for example,
through its effect on an individual's personality), groups
(primary and secondary), and the interactive processes, upon
learning. Sociological and anthropological, and even econo-
mic theories and analyses have made great contributions to
studying and understanding people's educability. But due to
the complexity of the human society, because we are dealing
with the human mind, and due to the fact that human beings
have inner thoughts and feelings, it is not possible-~and
might never be--to establish a completely accurate knowledge
of the learning phenomenon, a phenomenon as old as human
society itself.

However, this much is certain that an individual's

109

personal attributes, his/her unique life-history, family,
community, and society characteristics all have, depending
upon the circumstances under which learning takes place, in
varying degrees, important influences upon one's intellectual
performance. And (1) what is also, and even more certain--
and this is the most recent development in the field--is the
knowledge that social systems of the learning situation (for
example, school's various cultural properties) also could, to
a great extent, affect the academic performance of individ-
uals, and (2) our learning about the learning phenomenon and
the attempt to understand it better and to construct a more
precise educational theory is continuing. All this could
enable mankind to untap and make better use of learning

potentialities of essentially all human beings.

CHAPTER IV

INTERNATIONAL STUDIES OF SOCIAL FACTORS
AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

In this chapter international/multinational studies of
academic achievement (review studies included) will be exam-
ined.

As was mentioned in chapter I, only those studies of
primary, intermediate, and secondary school students which
have dealt with one or more of the following social factors

will be included.‘

Out-of—School Factors

The student's gender

The student's language/mother tongue (whether the same
or different from the teacher's language and/or language(s)
of instruction)

The student's racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds

The student's socio-economic status of the family/par-
ental occupation, parental income, parental level of educa-
tion)

The student's parental judgment/evaluation of his/her

 

‘The same selection criterion was employed in selecting
the studies which are examined in the next chapter--the chap-
ter on social factors and academic achievement in twenty
selected developed, developing; capitalist, socialist coun-
tries.

110

lll

learning ability

The student's parental expectation of him/her to achieve
in school

The student's parental encouragement for his/her aca-
demic achievement

The student's area and place of family residence

(urban-rural, community type)

In-School Factors

The teacher's socio-economic background

The teacher's level of (formal) education

The teacher's (pre-service) teacher training

The teacher's cognitive ability and knowledge of special
subject field

The teacher's experience in teaching

The teacher's in-service training (upgrading)

The teacher's subjective evaluation of student's learn-
ing ability and expectation for his/her achievement

The teacher's use of "mastery learning" methods in
teaching

The teacher's practice of ability grouping and curricu-

lum grouping

112

The teacher-student ratio (class size)‘

There are not many international studies of the rela-
tionship between in-school and out-of-school social factors
and students' academic achievement. Most international stud-
ies are usually two-, three-, and four—country studies which
have mostly dealt with issues such as organization of the
national educational system, the relationship between the ed-
ucation system and national (economic) development, enroll-
ment statistics, school expenditure, and graduation require-
ments. Very few studies with international perspective have
examined the school's social system variables and their im-
pact (absolute or relative to the home's) upon student
achievement, and those few have mainly been concerned with
socia1.input variables such as some characteristics of the
students and the school personnel. School organization has
also received some coverage. But social-cultural, normative—
psychological variables of the school, including school aca-
demic climate variables (such as academic norms and values
prevalent in the school) and their influence upon student

learning have been particularly neglected in international

 

‘Initially, for this chapter and for chapter V, the (in-
school and out-of-school) factors chosen were more than these
mentioned. Some of them were withdrawn from consideration
when the initial stage of the literature review revealed that
they had seldom been studied in most countries including the
twenty countries under review here. For example, teacher's
language, school staff's belief and value system with regard
to student ability for learning, student's prior achievement,
student's perception of teacher's subjective evaluation of
his/her academic ability and of teacher's expectation of him/
her to achieve, and student's self-concept of academic abil-
ity.

113

educational research (and also in national education re-
search, for that matter).

In what follows some international studies--which could
be considered, in one or more respects, related to our pur-

pose in this investigation will be examined.‘

In a review paper--Some Social Factors and School Fail-
gggr-John Blomqvist (1957) of Stockholm, Sweden reports on
some studies of social factors and student failure and suc-
cess in school. He writes that Boalt of Sweden had reported
in 1947 that in a comprehensive study he had found that (ed-
ucationally) retarded children (that is, those who had failed
or underachieved) had had more tendency to come from poor
homes than had regularly promoted pupils. The correlation
between retardation (underachievement) and income and social
group had been +0.28 and +0.17 respectively. The former cor-
relation had become +0.25 when the effects of report from
elementary school, sex, and social group had been partialed
out. The latter correlation had become -0.02 after partialing

out the effects of elementary school report, gender, and

 

‘Within the context of this investigation, some analyses
of studies' coverage of variables and their findings will be
made and limitations of the studies will be pointed out here.
A further treatment in this regard--particularly in light of
the fact that our concern in this investigation is the state
of knowledge on the relative impact of home-school factors
upon student achievement, and not just on the relation of one
or a cluster of home-school factors to it--will be provided
in the Discussion-Limitation of Studies section, in chapter
VI. There, also will be some general concluding observa—
tions and assessments across studies, countries, and world
regions.

114

income.

According to Blomqvist, Ribsskog of Oslo, Norway had
reported in 1948 that of the retarded children, only 5 per-
cent had been from homes of "good economic standing," while
as many as 44 percent had come from homes regarded as poor or
very poor.

Blomqvist says that in many other investigations an as-
sociation has been found between failure and low economic
standard, but the association between the two variables seems
as a rule to be rather weak. Some research workers, he adds,
have found no significant correlation between them. In com-
paring 86 failing students with 86 successful ones, Blomqvist
himself could find no significant difference between the two
groups as to the father's income, the mother's income, or the
parents' combined income, and, as he notes, in American stud-
ies by Anderson and Anspaugh (no date and no further informa-
tion given), no correlation between income and success or
failure in school has been found.

Blomqvist concludes that parents' income seems to be as-
sociated with the child's failure or success in school, but
sheer income appears to count relatively little; it is socio-
economic status of the home--a conception containing much
more than income and which also includes parents' education,
occupation, and cultural factors of the home--that has an im-
portant bearing on the student's achievement in school.

Most studies, Blomqvist notes, have produced results

that show pupils from lower social strata fail more often

115

than those from higher social strata. Busemann of Halle, in
Belgium, has reported in 1932 that he had found among boys
in elementary schools that the frequency of educational re-
tardation in the highest social group was 24 percent, in the
middle 32 percent, and in the lowest 50 percent. Frommberger
of Dortmund, West Germany has noted in 1955 that 72 percent
of the retarded pupils as against 50 percent of normal cases
had been from the lowest social group. Sost (not clear
where), Cavonius in Finland, Ribsskoy in Norway, Boalt and
Blomqvist in Sweden, all have found results similar to
Frommberger's findings.

In a great many studies, according to Blomqvist, it has
been found that pupils who leave secondary school without
completing the course and those who do not go to college come
more frequently from lower strata (than do those who graduate
or go to college). And, children in special classes for back-
ward pupils often come from lower-class homes. Also,
Blomqvist himself found that retarded pupils in the secondary
school were living in "what may be looked upon as intellect-
ually less stimulating environment" as compared with regular-
ly promoted pupils. The parents of retarded students had
'lower expectations' for the children's further careers, the
author adds.

In conclusion, Blomqvist writes, it may be said that many
studies have shown that failure in school is caused by many
factors among which the child's environment, especially the

home background, is of great importance.

116

Blomqvist does not report any study in his review on
the impact of some school factors upon the student's failure
or success and also none on the relative impact of home and
school factors. He also does not mention the studies' the-
oretical framework, methodology, target population and samp-

ling techniques, gender, age and grade level of students.

A pilot study of school achievement--Educational Achieve-
ment of Thirteen-Year Olds in Twelve Countrie52-by Foshay et
al. (1962) was carried out, under the sponsorship of the
UNESCO Institute of Education in Hamburg and with the coop-
eration of research agencies from and participation of twelve
countries: Belgium, England, Finland, France, the Federal
Republic of Germany, Israel, Poland, Scotland, Sweden, Switz-
erland, the United States, and Yugoslavia.

In this study similar tests of reading comprehension,
mathematics, science, geography, and nonverbal aptitude were
administered to about 10,000 13-13:ll year-old boy and girl
students of the twelve countries in November 1960 (except
for Scotland where they were administered in June).

The result most relevant to be mentioned here, keeping
in mind the difficulties the countries have had in drawing
representative samples, is that the average score on each of
the tests was quite clearly related to every father's level
of education, and to a somewhat lesser degree, to father's
occupation. Poland and Switzerland, however, were two ex-

ceptions. In Poland, the authors report, test scores showed

117

relatively little difference associated with level of father's
education, and the scores in Switzerland had relatively little
association with the father's occupation. As for achievement
of boys and girls, as Foshay et a1. note, on the average, over
all countries and tests, boys' scores fell about a fifth of a
standard deviation above the girls' scores. But the girls
did best, relatively speaking, on the reading test, and least
well on the test of science.

The study did not deal with the question of school var-

iables' influence upon the students' achievement.

After the pilot study, twelve countries, Australia,
Belgium, England, the Federal Republic of Germany, Finland,
France, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, Scotland, Sweden, and
the Uhited States (two of them different from those partici-
pating in the pilot study) participated in an empirical and
much more scientific study--International Study of Mathemat-
ics Achievement in Twelve Countries (Husen, l967)--conducted
in 1964 by the International Association for the Evaluation
of Educational Achievement (IEA).

The population for this study consisted of 133,000 pu-
pils, all 13:0-13:11 year-olds and all (mathematics and non-
mathematics) lB-year-olds (pre-university students), taught
in 5,450 schools by almost 19,000 teachers. Among the find-
ings, based on regression analysis, those relevant to the
present investigation are the following:

In all countries in both populations (l3:0-l3:ll year

118

olds and 18 year-olds) significant relationship between the
parent's characteristics (father's education, or father's
occupational status, and mother's education) and the stu—
dent's mathematics achievement was found.

In all countries and in both populations, girls achieved
lower than boys. The boys did consistently better, whether
the mathematics problems were largely of computational or
verbal type. Although the differences in (mathematics) a-
chievement between boys and girls in every country were not
always significant, there was hardly a higher achievement
level by girls. Girls did especially worse at the higher
grades.

The relation of students' place of family residence
(urban-rural) to achievement was as follows: Only in two
countries, the United States and Japan, did the students
from urban and town areas do better than the rural students
in all populations. The all-countries average for rural
students did not differ significantly from that of the town
and urban students. In some countries the rural students
tended to be superior to the other--urban--groups.

As far as the relationship between class size and math-
ematics achievement, at the country level, larger mean class
size was associated with higher achievement by 13-year-olds.
For lB-year-olds, the relationship was conflicting. Within
countries, however, there was, in most cases, no significant
relationship between the two variables (of class size and--

mathematics--achievement); while there was no evidence that

119

larger classes by themselves had negative effect upon achieve-
ment, the results suggested that "the relationship of class
size and student performance is not a simple one" (Husen,
1967, Vol. II:297).

Of the teacher variables, the length of the teacher's
post secondary education was shown to be associated with the
total mathematics score of the l3-year-olds and lB-year-olds
majoring in mathematics. Also, it was found that those 13-
year-olds taught by university trained teachers did better
than those 13-year-olds taught by teachers trained at other
institutions, if teachers had five years or more of train-
ing. However, it made no difference if teachers (from the
two types of institutions) had three or less years of train-
ing.

The correlation of inservice training with mathematics
scores (and with various student attitudes and interest
scores) had fifty signs supporting the hypothesis in favor
of useful inservice training and twenty-six signs nonconform-
ing, though the relationship was weak.

Finally, the regression analysis revealed that students'
family background had more influence upon achievement than
school-teacher variables. This was true for all populations
in all countries. In fact the teacher group variables were
shown to have relatively small contribution to student
achievement (in mathematics).

Teacher's subjective evaluation of student ability,

teacher expectation for student achievement, and some other

120

norms and values of the classroom and the school system have
not been included in the study for examining their possible

effect on mathematics achievement.

In 1966, IEA began work on a six-subject survey. These
six subjects were science, reading comprehension, literature,
French as a foreign language, English as a foreign language,
and civic education. In the survey--the largest international
educational research project ever undertaken--twenty-one coun-
tries participated: Australia, Belgium, Chile, England, Fin-
land, France, Hungary, West Germany, India, Iran, Ireland,
Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Rumania,
Scotland, Sweden, Thailand, and the United States. Not all
countries participated in all subjects, however. The highest
number of nations participating in any one subject area was
nineteen. (It is important to note that IEA did not sample
the countries included in the survey; the countries partici-
pated voluntarily, and they did so because an educational re-
search center from that country became a member of IEA and
participated in a particular subject. The research center of
each country assigned one of their senior reserchers to do
the day-to-day work of the IEA project in that country.)

In this IEA project (Six Subject Survey) (Walker, 1976),
258,000 students in 9,700 schools and 50,000 teachers were

tested.‘ The students could be grouped as lO-year-olds,

 

‘Not in all countries the sample was drawn from the na-
tional student population. In India, for example, it was
drawn from only four out of twenty-three states.

121

14-year-olds, lB-year-olds, and the group of specialized
secondary students.

The internationally validated evaluation instruments and
data collection procedures were developed. Data processing,
analysis, and reporting of the first three areas--science,
literature, and reading comprehension--was carried out in
1970 through 1972. The reports of these three subjects were
authored respectively by Comber and Keeves (1973), Purves
(1973), and Thorndike (1973). WOrk on the other three areas--
English as a foreign language, French as a foreign language,
and civic education-~was done during 1974 and 1975 and their
reports were published by the beginning of 1976 (Lewis and
Mussad, 1975; Carroll, 1975; Torney and Oppenheim, 1975;
Peaker, 1975; Passow et a1., 1976; Walker, 1976).

The primary analytical technique used was linear multi-
ple regression. The purpose of the main multivariate analy-
sis was to find the nature and magnitude of correlation be-
tween input factors and output factors as measured by tests
of cognitive (and non-cognitive) outcomes. There was also an
attempt to discover the input and major "process" variables
accounting for variation in a given population in and between
schools (within countries). No observation was made of the
classroom teaching-learning process. And the study, like all
IEA work, was cross-sectional and thus there was no pre- and
post-testing of students and their growth in learning.

The specific findings which are of concern to us here are

the following:

122

-- The student's gender and achievement: In most coun-
tries, boys did better in science and mathematics and girls
did better in literature, French as a foreign language, and
reading comprehension. In civics education, 18-year-old boys
did much better than 18-year-old girls in most of the coun-
tries; 14-year-old boys did better than l4-year-old girls in
many of the countries, and lO—year-olds (girls and boys)
achieved at the same level. In English as a foreign langu-
age, girls did slightly better than boys.

-- The student's language and achievement: performance
on tests of reading comprehension taught in the mother tongue
was closely shown to be a foundation for achievement in other
subjects..

-- The teacher's qualifications (education level, know-
ledge of special subject field), training, and experience and
student achievement: Few of these variables were shown to
have a sizeable effect on student achievement.

-- Teacher—student ratio and student achievement: In
five of the subjects no relationship was found between class
size and achievement. In the sixth subject--literature--the

l4-year-olds did better in larger classes than those in small

 

‘Fagerlind et al. (1978) looked at the existing empir-
ical evidence for many developed and developing countries
and concluded that students are severely handicapped when the
medium of instruction in the content fields of schooling is
not their mother tongue.

123

classes.‘

As to the impact of the student's socio-economic status
of the family and the relative influences of home and school
upon student achievement, while showing a positive relation-
ship between both sets of home and school variables to
achievement, the survey indicated that home background tend-
ed consistently (that is, in all countries) to account for
‘9253 of the variance in school achievement (in the six sub-
jects) than did the school and teaching variables.“ (The
same conclusion was reached by the mathematics--twelve coun-
try--study mentioned above.) As Peaker (1975:22) notes, "the
immediate evidence and the external evidence agree in attrib-
uting more variation in student achievement to the family

background than to the school factors."

 

‘Among other major findings of the IEA survey the follow-
ing should be mentioned here:

-- The emphasis given in the curriculum to a topic and
the time available to the student to study it--the opportun-
ity to learn--and the amount of time the teacher spends in
teaching are strongly associated with student achievement.

-- The student's expected education and expected occupa-
tion predict in most subjects the student's performance.

“However, Inkeles (1977:187—188) points out that when
the school variables were entered into the regression analy-
sis first, (before the home background factors), the school
variables consistently emerged as much more important than
the home background variables. Inkeles attributes this to
Carroll (1975) for making the issue so explicit in his anal-
ysis of the French test, and also, and particularly, to John
Schwille who, "working with the civics test, showed that when
home background entered first it produced an 18 percent in-
crement in variance explained, but when entered third or
fourth it added a mere 2 percent variance explained" (ibid.:
188).

124

One important finding of the IEA survey was that schools
do make a difference with regard to student achievement and
they do more so in less developed countries. Also, among the
developed countries, the contribution of family background
variables to achievement was shown to vary greatly. For in-
stance, in Sweden, these variables constituted only half as
much variance in student achievement as they did in the
United States.

The fact that these IEA researchers have dealt with the
question of the relative influence of home and school vari-
ables on student performance is in itself a significant as-
pect of the survey and an important progress in international
educational research. As will be shown in this chapter, not
many (international) studies have looked at this question.
However, the IEA studies, like the majority of national and
international studies of school achievement, indicated, as
was mentioned, that schools make less impact on students'
achievement relative to family background. This could have
resulted due to the theoretical framework of, research meth-
odology employed by, and school variables measured in these
studies.

Very possibly lack of proper proxies for measuring the
teaching-learning process and other related aSpects of the
school social system have produced such a finding. Consid-
ering the social-psychological theories of learning dis-
cussed in chapter III, the most appropriate item we can find

in the IEA survey for measuring school environment is this

125

(from their "school behavior scale," student questionnaire):
"Most of our teachers are very strict about homework.
A. Agree B. Disagree" (Peaker, 1975:215).‘

Within the context of social-psychological theories of
school achievement, questions with regard to teacher's judg-
ment of student's ability to learn, their expectation of
students to achieve, student's peer group influences, and
other related academic norms of classroom and school have
been neglected by IEA researchers and not included in their
school behavior scale. Had they been, it would probably, or
possibly, have given more weight to the school's effect upon

student learning.

Many reanalyses of the IEA data and many studies using
the same data have been carried out. Also, some have done
critiques of the survey. In the following, those related to
our work will be discussed.

-- Heyneman and Loxley (1982), in their Influences on
Academic Achievement Across High and Low Income Countries:

A Reanalysis of IEA Data criticize the (IEA) science achieve-

ment study which "put the data through a process of winnowing

 

‘Another question from the same questionnaire is this:
"There is a clear distinction made in our school between stu-
dents who are lazy and those who are talented. A. Agree
B. Disagree" (Peaker, 1975:216). From this question it ap-
pears, very clearly, that IEA researchers have accepted, like
most peOple in and outside the scientific community, the no-
tion that individuals are different in their ability (less
talented, more talented): an assumption whose validity was
questioned in the previous chapter.

126
to decide which variables to keep in the final regressions.”
Variables, they note, were allowed to enter the final re-
gressions if they met a minimum beta coefficient criterion
of 0.05 averaged across rich and poor countries alike. The
criterion, the authors add, was an average across all coun-

tries because the original idea was to identify those vari—

 

ables which were thought to be 'important' across all coun-

 

tries taken together. The question which Heyneman and

Loxley raise is whether this process tended to leave out
school variables which may have had strong effects within
one country but not across the average of many countries.

Heyneman and Loxley re-entered variables for l4-year-
olds of each of the eighteen countries participating in sci-
ence testing separately, using the same minimum entry criter-
ion of 0.05 as before, but within each country separately.
Using only variables which have been found to be 'important'
in that particular society, they produced different results.
The variance explained by school effects tended to increase
significantly and this increase tended to be greatest in the
'poorer' countries.

-- Inkeles (1977:187) did calculate the ratio of vari-
ance explained by the home background block as againstthat
explained by the educational milieu, for the science subject,
and found that to be generally 1:1. In other words, he notes,
even under the handicap of always following home background,
age, and sex in the regression, the school qualities still

accounted for propotions of the variance equal to that

127

accounted for by the background characteristics. Moreover,
Inkeles writes, when the school variables were allowed to be
entered into the regression analysis first, and thus appear
before the home background variables, the school factors con-
sistently emerged as much more important than the home back-
ground factors.‘

-- One study using the IEA data is Noonan's (1976)
School Resources, Social Class and Student Achievement: A
Comparative Study of School Resource Allocation and the So-
cial Distribution of Mathematics Achievement in Ten Coun-
EEEEE: Using the IEA data bank (of mathematics survey),
Noonan did an empirical study of the relationship between
the allocation of resources and mathematics achievement among
schools in ten countries: England, the Federal Republic of
Germany, Finland, France, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands,
Scotland, Sweden, and the United States.

Of the ten countries included in the study, four
(Israel, Japan, Scotland, and Sweden) did not exhibit a sig—
nificant relationship (in terms of the multiple correlation)

between expenditure per student and socio-economic background

 

‘Inkeles (1977) has also made some general criticisms of
the IEA--six subject--survey as related to its coverage and
reporting. The problems, he writes, are particularly shown
in four main forms: inconsistency from volume to volume,
failure to express results in accessible form, failure to an-
alyze separate social groups, and failure to evaluate the
national data gathered (which have been left seriously under-
analyzed).

Also Downing and Dalrymple-Alford (1974-75) believe that
the IEA reading survey (Thorndike, 1973) was not adequate for
developing countries. For another criticism of the IEA sur-
vey, see Eckstein (1977).

128

and level of student achievement. (That is, the allocation
of resources was independent of the socio-economic status and
of students' achievement.) These countries were classified as
having Egalitarian Resource Allocation. In the remaining
countries (England, West Germany, Finland, France, the Nether-
lands, and the United States), schools serving higher status-
higher achieving students tended to receive more resources
than schools serving lower status-lower achieving students.
These countries were classified as having Elitist Resource
Allocation.

Noonan found that in terms of the multiple correlation,
the relationship between home background and achievement was
no lower in countries with Egalitarian Resource Allocation
than in countries with Elitist Resource Allocation. Then,
Noonan notes, whether a school system is elitist or egalitar-
ian is not related to the level of student achievement or
variation in achievement. The author suggests that societal
factors have the dominating influence (on both: the school

system and school outcome).

In a paper--Psycho-social Environments of Learning: An
International Perspective--Marjoribanks (1973) made an exam-
ination of a set of studies (for four developed countries-—
Australia, Canada, England, and the United States) which had
gone beyond the use of "gross classificatory environmental
variables" such as social status characteristics (parent's
occupation, education...c1ass size, per pupil expenditure...)

and defined the environment in terms of "more refined and

129

sensitive psycho-social process vaiables such as parental
aspiration for the child, intellectuality in the home, lang-
uage models, academic guidance, and home-school relations."

Using a multiple regression model, the author found that
the results from the set of sub-environmental studies indica-
ted that in general a moderate to large percentage of the
variance in the cognitive scores was associated with the
sub-environment scores, and in general the sub-environment
scores did account for significantly more of the variance in
the cognitive scores than did the social status indices.

This study is important because it reports less influ-
ence of socio-economic status and more effect of the environ-

ment variables upon academic achievement.

In a review of research on the effects of schools upon
student achievement--How Effective is Schooling in Promoting
Learning? A Review of Research--Simmons (1975) has put to-
gether the conclusions reached by more than 500 studies done
in the United States and also in several European countries
(some of the IEA studies included) in the last twenty years
(1955-1975) for the developed (mostly the United States) and
also for some developing countries. He identifies six types
of or approaches to research (Input-Output Approach, Process
Approach, Organizational Approach, Evaluation Approach, Ex-
perimental Approach, and Non-Cognitive Outcomes Approach) and
classifies the studies reviewed based on the type of research

method they have used. The major relevant findings of Simmons'

130

review are as follows:

The studies which have used input-output approach:

 

Simmons notes that the socio-economic status of a student's
family--his parents' income, education, and occupation--
invariably proves to be a significant predictor of his edu-
cational outcome achievement. Overall, the author reports,
these studies provide very little evidence that school re-
sources in general, even in developing countries, have a pow-
erful impact upon the student's cognitive outcomes.

The studies which have used the process approach: Ac-

 

cording to Simmons, findings of studies which have used the
process approach indicate that teaching approaches, class
size, and the like show no consistent effect on student
achievement, as measured by standardized cognitive tests.
(And instructional methods, innovative or conventional, sug-
gest no difference in terms of affecting student achieve-
ment.)

The studies' overall findings, according to Simmons, in-
dicate that the research on the effectiveness of schools in
promoting learning has not identified a variant‘ of the ex-
isting (school) system that is consistently related to stu-
dents' educational outcomes; teachers' experience and teach-

ers' advanced degrees, though two basic factors that determine

 

‘"The term a 'variant' of the system," Simmons notes, is
used to describe the broad range of alternative educational
practices, which include changes in school resources, process-
es, organizations, and aggregate levels of funding (Simmons,
1975:63).

131

salary, are not closely related to student achievement; re-
duction in class size seems not to be related to student out-
comes; increasing expenditure on traditional educational
practices is not likely to improve educational outcomes
substantially.

In short, Simmons reports that research has found no-
thing (no variants of the school system) that consistently
and unambiguously makes a difference in students' cognitive
performance. He notes that he is not saying that School does
not affect student outcomes. In fact, Simmons points out that
the literature contains numerous examples of educational prac-
tices that seem to have affected student outcomes signifi-
cantly. But he says that there are invariably other studies,
similar in approach and method, that find the same education-
al practice to be ineffective. "And we have no clear idea of
why a practice seems to be effective in one case and is ap-
parently ineffective in another" (p. 5).

Two points made by Simmons warrant comments: Simmons
says that some studies find a practice effective in student
learning, but others "similar in approach and method" find
otherwise for "the same practice." One could hypothesize that
these practices may have appeared to be similar, but they may
in fact have been different--the academic atmosphere in which
these practices have been carried out may have been different.
This hypothesis also could apply to the related comment
Simmons has made--"We have no clear idea why a practice seems

to be effective in one case and is apparently ineffective in

132

another."

In a work--The Determinants of School Achievement: The
Education Production Function--Alexander and Simmons (1975)
reviewed nineteen studies for nine developing countries:
Chile,Congo, India, Iran, Kenya, Puerto Rico, Malaysia,
Thailand, and Tunisia.‘ They have included those studies
which have looked at the impact of school input (those sub-
ject to policy control) upon student achievement and used
multiple regression techniques. They report that:

—- Teacher certification and academic qualifications
are not important at primary and lower secondary grades.
They appear, however, to be important at upper secondary
grades.

—- Teacher's experience has a positive influence on

performance in primary and lower secondary grades, but not in

 

‘As it will be noted in the few review studies discussed in
this chapter, some countries have been included in more than
one review. It should be pointed out that in some cases a
new study(ies) for the same country has (have) been included
in the review, but in some other cases the same study(ies)
has (have) been included for the same country in the review.

133

the upper secondary grades.‘

Alexander and Simmons' overall conclusion, then, is
that factors which have traditionally been considered essen-
tial to better education, such as higher quality teachers and
more expensive facilities, do not seem to increase achieve-
ment at lower grade levels, even in the poorest countries.
(Indeed, the authors note, the greatest gains occur simply
because the student moved from the home into a school environ-
ment.) The authors also report that there seems to be general
consistency that the student's socio-economic background is
the major determinant of the student's academic performance
at all levels of schooling, though it becomes less important

in the upper secondary grades and in developing countries.

 

‘The authors also report that school expenditure does
not affect student achievement, but textbook availability at
the primary level is important in achievement.

The importance of textbook availability is also reported
by Neumann (1980). Neumann, after doing a survey for the
World Bank--Publishing for Schools: Tethooks and the Less
Developed Countries--concluded that (for primary and second-
ary school students) textbooks, teacher editions, and allied
materials are the most consistent factors in upgrading aca-
demic achievement, especially for poor schools with less qual-
ified teachers. He notes that a well prepared school book,
tailored to the needs of the child, is a powerful tool in pur-
suing the goal of equity, particularly in developing coun-
tries, where wide differences exist among different groups of
children (and for pursuing the educational goal of efficiency
in educational systems).

The author points to the lack of effective publishing
industries and of acceptable textbooks in practically all of
the developing nations. He writes that in a developing coun-
try the development, production, and distribution of textbook
materials should not be carried out in isolation and without
professional competence, institution building, teacher train—
ing, long-range government commitment and a total look at the
book industry of the country.

134
This could be interpreted to mean that, basically, schools
in developing countries, just as in developed ones, do not
make much difference, independent of students' family back-
ground, in reducing inequality of academic achievement among
students.

The fact that some studies have concluded that some
teacher variables, at least at some levels (and a school var-
iable, textbook availability), appear to have some impact up-
on school performance is promising. But the conclusion that
schools in developing countries seem to be basically the
same as in developed nations, that their impact on students'
achievement is less than the impact of student's socio-eco-
nomic background, could lead one to speculate, as was done
for the previous review, that this conclusion may have been
arrived at due to the research approach and the kind of school
variables included and excluded in the studies reviewed. The
authors have selected only those studies which have used the
production function approach (an economic model) and as such
no process variables and no school academic climate factors
have, as a possible source of effect on student achievement,
been included in the studies reviewed.

In fact, the (above) conclusion of Alexander and Simmons'
review (with respect to home-school effects on achievement)
has been challenged by Heyneman and Loxley (1981), to be men-

tioned later in this chapter.

A special issue of Education in Asia and Oceania--a pub-

lication of UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Asia and

135

Oceania (1978)-~15 a review of recent publications and stud-
ies on educational attainment in Asian primary schools.
Those conclusions which are related to this investigation
could be synthesized as follows:

-- Studies in the region reveal large differences in
achievement between students of varying family backgrounds
and from different localities. Much of what has been found
is consistent with findings elsewhere; in all studies, the
child with the material and human advantages of a prosper-
ous home tends to achieve well. There are, however, some im-
portant differences. The contribution of schooling to learn-
ing seems to be greater in Asia than in Europe and the United
States. For those who survive in school to the secondary lev-
el, the positive association of a prosperous home with
achievement is even less marked.

-- The surveys do not give much certain information on
differences of achievement that can be attributed to differ-
ences of schooling factors, such as the effect of teacher ed-
ucation (and increased expenditure on books) except that (1)
a number of studies have shown that children from larger
classes seem to be achieving higher academic levels; (2)
while, broadly speaking, better qualified and more experi-
enced teachers have students who attain higher academic
standards, in many countries the differences, especially at
the primary level, are not great; but (3) motivation and
teacher's "positive attitude" towards students is always as-

sociated with better achievement by the students; and (4)

136

there is evidence that inservice teacher education in assoc-
iation with the dissemination of new courses and learning
material is more effective than the sum of the two activi-
ties.

-- Finally, in many countries (of the Asian region) the
variation in levels of achievement between regions in the
country is quite large. In mathematics tests, children in
one region may score on the average less than half the score
in the capital city. However, although in general high
achievement is associated with greater expenditure on educa-
tion and with overall family prosperity, there are, in many
countries, areas where prosperity and expenditure are rela-
tively low, and yet achievement is relatively high. (The
greatest discrepancy between regions in these--Asian--coun-
tries, is often in the numbers of young people proceeding to
the tertiary level. There can be as much as a 100 to 1 var-
iation in the chances of tertiary education between regions.)

The review does not provide information on the studies'
methodologies, populations, and the like. Despite this, some
of the findings of the report are noteworthy and consistent
with a few promising conclusions mentioned earlier, which,
contrary to the general trend, have been reached. For exam-
ple, the finding that the contribution of schooling to learn-
ing in Asia seems to be greater than what has been widely re—
ported to be the case in Europe and the United States, and
that teacher's "positive attitude" toward students is always

associated with higher student achievement.

137

In a research review--Teacher Training and Student
Achievement in Less Developed Countries--Husen et a1. (1978)
did "critically" look at all available research in less de-
veloped countries which has investigated the effects of
teacher training variables CHI student achievement. Alto-
gether, thirty-two "legitimate and valid" empirical studies
were included for nineteen developing countries (Botswana
Chile, Congo, El Salvador, Ghana, Guatemala, Hong Kong,
India, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria,
Philippines, Puerto Rico, Sierra Leone, Thailand, Uganda).
For some of the countries, only studies of primary school
students, for some of them studies of secondary level, and
for some, studies of students of both school levels have been
included.

The reviewed studies are of three types: studies which
have used simple correlation using non-experimental data,
multi-variate studies using nonexperimental data, and exper-
imental studies.

The authors report of complex and mixed relationships
between teacher characteristics and student achievement. But
their general assessment of the thirty-two studies indicates
that trained teachers do make a difference in student achieve-
ment in less developed countries. In particular, it seems
clear that teacher qualifications (teacher's credentials),

experience, amount of education, participation in teacher

138

upgrading programs, and knowledge (of subject matter) are pos-
itively related to student achievement.‘

According to the authors, there has been only a slight
support for the notion that teachers from higher status back-
grounds are more successful than those from lower status ori-
gins. But certain attitudinal variables of teachers, espe-
cially their positive expectations of students, have been
shown to be highly important in overriding negative student

self-image, and in positively affecting students' performance.

Another study which reports the importance of teacher

expectations of students in school performance is A Review of

 

Teacher Effectiveness Research in Africa,_India, Latin Amer-
ica, Middle East, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand: Syn—

thesis of Results by Avalos and Haddad (1981).

 

This review itself is a synthesis of seven other region-
al reviews, done for the International Development Research
Center of Canada. In the original reviews correlational and
experimental country studies have been included, as well as
some case studies and observational ones; published and un-
published studies have been reviewed.

Among the countries represented in the reviews for which
studies of some teacher-student variables have been reported

are Brazil, Egypt, India, Iraq, Kenya, Malaysia, Paraguay,

 

‘As for the influence of teacher's gender and age, the
authors report that the studies' results have indicated mixed
effects, but the emergent patterns have suggested that older
teachers are more successful with secondary school students
and male teachers are more successful in science and mathe—
matics.

139

Philippines, and Thailand. The related findings could be
summarized as follows:

-- Teacher's socio-economic status: The results have
indicated the tendency for existence of association between
higher social background of teachers and student achievement.

-- Teacher's experience: Teaching experience of teach-
ers has emerged as a relatively important factor for pupil
outcomes. However, it interacts with other factors in its
influence. For example, in schools with less qualified staff
(staff with less formal education), the effect of experi-
enced teachers has been noticeable, while it has not been
so when teacher qualification has increased.

-- Teacher's education (qualifications): For some coun-
tries, there have been studies indicating the effect of high-
er level of formal education (graduate versus teacher college
certificate or number of years of study) at the secondary
level for science subjects, but not for the primary level in
some countries. The results of Latin American research, "all
of reasonably good quality," have shown a non-linear type of
relationship: negative effect--of teacher's education upon
student performance--in the first year of primary school, pos-

itive in the upper levels, but ceasing to have an effect

140

toward the end of secondary school.‘

-- Teacher's knowledge (of special subject matter): For
student achievement in some scientific subjects such as chem-
istry, biology, physics, and mathematics and for attainment
of some cognitive objectives, subject matter specialization
has appeared to be important.

-- Teacher training (certification): Teacher training
of teachers has been shown to have positive effects on stu-
dent outcomes, although it is not known how permanent this
effect is and what the optimum level of qualification is.

-- Teacher's expectations of students" The studies
have indicated that "positive teacher expectations provide
positive results in students." Several studies have shown
negative effect upon achievement of prejudgment of students,
previous knowledge of student's ability, subjective evalua-
tion of their intelligence, and other similar evaluations.

-- Teacher-student ratio: There has been inconclusive
evidence on the effects of this variable (upon student
learning).

The fact that this review reports a few studies which

 

‘The authors conclude that obviously other factors in-
teract with level of qualifications and produce differential
results; for example, experience as shown in a Malaysian
study, or school level (possibly different pupil character-
istics at different levels), as shown in the Latin American
studies. Or, they note, higher qualifications may produce a
higher level of aspiration in teachers that is not met by the
existing system of incentives or the social prestige of the
profession; this may contribute (as indicated in some of the
studies reviewed) to job dissatisfaction and to negative
teaching attitudes which in turn affect teaching behavior
and student performance.

141

have dealt with the question of the effect of teacher expec-
tations on student performance is important. However, as

was the case with most studies and reviews so far discussed
in this chapter, this--Avalos and Haddad's--review too re-
ports only studies that have sought merely to identify the
relationships between some teacher-school variables and stu-
dent achievement, and not any which have studied the inter-
relationships of school and home variables and their relative
influences upon students' academic achievement. Clearly, it
is important to know the nature of relationship or lack of it
between teacher-school characteristics and student achieve-
ment. However, what is also, and perhaps even more import-
ant, is to know what is the effect of those characteristics
relative to the effect of student's family characteristics on

student learning.

Schiefelbein and Simmons (l98l)--The Determinants of
School Achievement: A Review of the Research for Developing

Countries--reviewed twenty-six multivariate studies of cogni-

 

tive achievement for more than thirty--developing--countries
including Argentina, Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, Tunisia,
Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Paraguay, and Thailand. They have
drawn also upon recent reviews which have examined dimensions
of the school system such as the effect of class size (and
textbooks) on achievement.

The authors have divided the possible--theoretica1--de-

terminants of student performance into three categories:

142
school resources and processes, teacher attributes,‘ and stu-
dent traits. The major conclusions of the review, given the
scope of our investigation, are the following:

-- School resources and processes: In nine of fourteen
studies relating the effects of class size to student per—
formance, larger class size was associated with higher per-
formance or did not affect it.“

-- Teachers' characteristics: In nineteen out of thirty-
two studies, teachers without certificates in educational
training had students who scored as well as those who had
certificates. Teacher's experience was a significant de-
terminant of achievement in only seven of nineteen studies.
More years of training were not related to higher student
achievement in five out of six studies.

-- Student traits: Out of a total of thirteen observa-
tions, socio-economic status of the family was a significant
predictor in ten of them, favoring those of higher socio-
economic background. In several studies family background

was the single most important determinant of school outcome.“‘

 

‘This investigator believes that the "teacher attribute"
variable could simply have been included in the "school re-
sources and procedures" category.

“Of ten studies looking at the effect of textbooks on
student achievement, seven demonstrated a positive relation-
ship.

“‘Re1ated to socio-economic status of student's family,
the authors note, are malnutrition, body weight, and health
conditions which all have been shown to be associated with
student performance (in eight of eleven cases). Also, stud-
ies which had examined the relationship between student repe-
tition and achievement had concluded that the more repeating
a student did, the lower his score. Finally, kindergarten at-
tendance has been shown to have a significant impact upon stu-
dent performance measured six or twelve years later.

143

It is significant that this review includes studies
which have looked at the relative impact of some family—and
school-related factors on school learning. But since this
report was published in 1981, one would expect that some of
the studies, even a few, would have investigated the impact
of parental attitudes and some of the school's academic
norms and values upon achievement. But it appears that
school achievement studies in developing countries are still
heavily conditioned by traditional/classical theories of
student learning. This assessment, also referred to before
and which will be discussed in the discussion section (chap-
ter VI), is supported by other observations this investiga-

tor has made in the course of doing this research.

Heyneman and Loxley (1981) have drawn together as much
of the survey information as they have been able to on school
and teacher quality and science achievement of 13-and l4-year-
olds in twenty-nine high and low income countries (eighteen
of the twenty-nine countries have participated in the IEA
project mentioned before [pp. 119-124], and eleven others
were: Argentina, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt,
El Salvador, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and uganda). They have
put the results of their analysis in their paper, The Impact
of Primary Schoolpguality on Academic Achievement Across Twen-
ty-nine High and Low Income Countries. The measure of aca-
demic achievement has been science scores except for uganda,

Egypt, and Botswana, for which mathematics scores have been

144
used.

The important conclusions the authors reached which have
relevance to this investigation are two: (1) the power of
socio-economic status‘ to determine science achievement of
13- and l4-year olds included in the analysis is substantial-
ly less, the lower the (national per capita) income of the
country, and thus (2) the lower the income of the country,
the greater the power of school and teacher quality“ to de-
termine that achievement. For example, the authors report
that the prOportion of the explained achievement variance
due to schools and teachers is 90 percent in India; 88 per-
cent in Colombia, and 81 percent in both Thailand and Brazil.
This compares with 22 percent in Australia, 26 percent in
Scotland, and 27 percent in Sweden. Italy, Heyneman and
LOxley add, is the only industralized country on which data
are available where the major proportion of explained achieve-
ment variance (55 percent) is due to school and teacher qual-
ity.

The authors have not specified what they mean by teacher
guality and have not clarified if teacher expectations of stu-

dents are part of it, and if yes, what is the magnitude of its

 

‘In all the twenty—nine countries, the authors report,
these variables have been used as a measure of student socio-
economic status: mother's education, father's education, fa-
ther's occupation, the number of books available in the home,
and some other measures of consumption.

“By school quality the authors mean both monetary
(school budget/pupil, books/pupil, and the like) and non-mon—
etary elements (hours of homework, frequency of parent-
teacher conferences, and so forth).

145

effect on learning. Despite this, what they have found--
the more the influence of school-teacher quality on student
achievement, the lower the country's level of income--is sig-
nificant. Especially, the authors' conclusion that in some
countries, schools have even a greater effect upon student
performance than family background is indeed important and
promising for policy decisions. We reported in the previ-
ous pages the contradictory conclusions reached by some
(e.g., Husen, 1967; Simmons, 1975; Noonan, 1976; and
Schiefelbein and Simmons, 1981) for both developed and de-
veloping countries, indicating less impact of school varia-
bles on student cognitive performance relative to family

factors' impact.

SummaryVConclusions

The conclusions reached by (empirical and review) stud-
ies examined in this chapter are summarized as follows:

Out-of-school factors and academic achievement:

-- Male students usually do better than female students
particularly in mathematics and science and especially in
higher grades. In reading, literature, and sometimes in the
second language, however, females usually do better.

—- Instruction in the student's mother tongue has a
poSitive influence upon student learning.

—- Family socio-economic status has almost always posi-
tive and in many cases strong relationship to student per-

formance.

146

-- Parental eXpectation of the child and encouragement

affect, positively, the child's cognitive achievement.

In-school factors and academic achievement:

-- Teacher's socio-economic status has in some cases
no relationship to student achievement. Sometimes, the
higher socio-economic status of the teacher has appeared to
be associated with higher student learning.

-- Teacher's education is either insignificant or has
positive impact on the achievement of students of higher
secondary school.

-- Teacher's training has been shown to be inconsistent
in its effect on student's cognitive achievement.

—- Teacher's knowledge of subject matter is particular-
ly important for some subjects and for higher grades.

-- Teacher's teaching experience has either no impact,
or has positive impact,on the achievement of primary school
students.

-- Teacher's inservice training (upgrading) is usually
positively related to student achievement.

-- Teacher's attitude toward student and expectation
of him/her is always associated with higher achievement.

-- Class size has either no relationship to student
achievement or a larger class is associated with increased
achievement. Its effect appears to interact with the kind
of subject matter taught, amount of instruction, and stu-

dent's family socio-economic status.

147

Relative influences of home and school on achievement:

The student's family background has been shown to
have, in most cases, more impact upon academic achievement
than school quality. Some studies have found this effect to
be less in developing and in low-income countries. In some
cases, particularly in less developed countries, school fac-
tors have emerged as having equal or even more impact than
family factors even when school factors have, as is usually
done, been entered into the regression analysis after home

and other student variables.

CHAPTER V

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOME SOCIAL FACTORS AND
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN TWENTY SELECTED DEVELOPED,
DEVELOPING; CAPITALIST, SOCIALIST COUNTRIES

Introduction

In this chapter the relationship between some social
factors and academic achievement of primary, intermediate,
and secondary school students derived from the available
research will be critically examined for twenty selected
developing, developed; capitalist, socialist-communist coun-
tries. The factors (mentioned before in the methodology

section, chapter I) and the countries are as follows:

Out-of—School Factors

The student's gender

The student's language/mother tongue (whether the same
or different from the teacher's language and/or language of
instruction)

The student's racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds

The student's socio-economic status of the family (par-
ental occupation, parental income, parental level of educa-
tion)

The student's parental judgment/evaluation of his/her
learning ability

The student's parental expectation of him/her to achieve

148

149

in school

The student's parental encouragement for his/her aca-
demic achievement

The student's area and place of family residence

(urban-rural, community type)

In-School Factors

The teacher's socio-economic background

The teacher's level of (formal) education

The teacher's (pre-service) teacher training

The teacher's cognitive ability and knowledge of spe-
cial subject field

The teacher's experience in teaching

The teacher's in-service training (upgrading)

The teacher's subjective evaluation of student's learn-
ing ability and expectation for his/her achievement

The teacher's use of "mastery learning" methods in
teaching

The teacher's practice of ability grouping and curricu-
lum grouping

The teacher-student ratio (class size)‘

 

‘As previously mentioned, the (in-school and out-of-school)
factors which had been chosen were more than these mentioned.
Some of them were withdrawn from consideration when the in-
itial stage of the literature review revealed that they had
seldom been studied in most countries including the twenty
countries under review here. For example, teacher's language,
school staff's belief and value system with regard to stu-
dent's ability for learning, student's prior achievement,
student's perception of teacher's subjective evaluation of
his/her academic ability and of teacher's expectation of him/
her to achieve, and student's self-concept of academic ability.

150

The Twenty Selected Countries
Botswana, Cameroon, Kenya, Uganda
India, Iran, Japan, Australia
Hungary, Poland, Rumania, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia
France, Sweden, West Germany

Chile, El Salvador, Paraguay, the United States

In the previous chapter, where the international/multi-
national studies of academic achievement were examined in
the context of theoretical framework of this investigation,
some of the twenty countries in relation to some of the var-
iables were covered. In Blomqvist's (1957) paper the rela-
tionship between some social factors, such as family income
and social class, and school failure and underachievement
were discussed for, among other countries, Sweden and West
Germany.

In Foshay et al.'s (1962) study of educational achieve-
ment of 10,000 l3-l4-year-old students of both genders, the
relationship between father's occupation and education and
student performance on tests of reading comprehension, math»
ematics, science, geography, and nonverbal aptitude were
reported for twelve countries, including Poland, Yugoslavia,
France, Sweden, West Germany, and the United States.

The impact of parental education and occupational sta-
tus on the achievement of all (133,000) pupils of 1320-13:ll
year-old and pre-university mathematics and nonmathematics
students of twelve countries (Husen, 1967) was discussed.

Some of the twelve countries--Japan, Australia, France,

151

Sweden, and the United States--are among the twenty coun-
tries under review in this chapter.

Of the twenty selected countries, eleven--India, Iran,
Japan, Australia, Hungary, Rumania, France, Sweden, West Ger-
many, Chile, and the United States-~have participated in the
six-subject survey of International Association for Evalua-
tion of Educational Achievement (IEA studies) for some school
age groups in some subjects. In reviewing the survey in
chapter IV, the relationship of some of the out-of-school and
in-school factors under consideration here to students'
(boys' and girls') achievement were examined. Also, Noonan's
(1976) study of the effects of school resources upon student
achievement, using IEA data, was discussed in the same chap-
ter for ten countries including four countries of our twenty
countries--Japan, Sweden, West Germany, and the United States.

Also, Marjoribanks' (1973) examination of some studies
of psychosocial environment of learning for, among other
countries, Australia and the United States, was discussed.

Simmons' (1975) review of research on the effects of
schools upon student achievement covered more than 500 stud-
ies done in the United States from 1955 to 1975 for the de-
veloped countries, mostly the United States, and for some
developing countries including India. This review, too, was
discussed in chapter IV. There, the influence of some fac-
tors such as socio-economic status of the student's family,
teachers' experience and advanced degrees, and class size

upon student achievement was reported.

152

In Alexander and Simmons' (1975) review of nineteen
studies for nine developing countries, including Kenya, India,
Iran, and Chile, mentioned in the previous chapter, the ef-
fects of students' family background (SES), teachers' aca-
demic qualifications and experience on students' academic
performance were analyzed.

Husen et a1. (1978) have critically looked at the
available (and attainable) research on the effect of teach-
er variables such as socio-economic status, education level,
teacher training, and teacher's experience upon student per-
formance in elementary and secondary schools of nineteen
developing countries, among them Botswana, Kenya, Uganda,
India, Iran, Chile, and El Salvador. The conclusions of the
study (review) related to the present investigation were pre-
sented in chapter IV.

The effects of teacher's education level, teacher train-
ing, teacher's expectation of students, and teacher-student
ratio for some countries including two of our twenty selected
ones—-Kenya and India--reported by Avalos and Haddad (1981)
were discussed.

Schiefelbein and Simmons (1981) have put together the
results of thirty-eight research studies on the effects of
some factors such as socio-economic status of the family,
teacher's characteristics and class size upon student achieve-
ment for about twenty developing countries, among them Kenya,
Uganda, India, Iran, Chile, and El Salvador. The results of

this study were also reported in the previous chapter.

153

Finally, the study by Heyneman and Loxley (1981) men-
tioned in chapter IV was an analysis of as much of the sur-
vey information as these authors have been able to draw to-
gether, including IEA data on science achievement. There,
the impact of socio-economic status of students' family and
"school and teacher quality" upon students' science achieve-
ment for twenty-nine countries including Botswana, Uganda,
India, Iran, Japan, Australia, West Germany, Hungary, Chile,
El Salvador, and the United States was reported.

In this chapter national studies of the relationship be-
tween the above mentioned social factors and student cogni-
tive achievement for the twenty selected countries will be

examined.

Out-of-School Social Factors and Academic Achievement

The student's gender

In a study of secondary school entrance examination of
students in Cameroon, Cooksey (1981) studied about 7,000
pupils attending Class 6 in primary schools of Yaounde, the
capital of Cameroon and of the Centre-South province, in
1974-75. Yaounde and the Centre-South, the author notes, are

areas of high primary school enrollment.

 

‘It should be mentioned that not all social factors we are
concerned with in the present investigation have been covered
by (included in) all national/country studies, and that not
all country studies are country studies in the sense of being
national. As it will be noted many of the studies, in fact
most of them, even the IEA studies discussed in chapter IV ,
have drawn their samples from one or some areas/regions of
the country only.

154

Cooksey made a 50 percent random sample of the 130
classes, and all pupils in sampled classes completed ques-
tionnaires on their home, social, and educational back-
grounds. In all, information was collected from 3,197 pu—
pils, that is, 46 percent of the Class 6 population under
study. The author contends that there was little doubt that
this was a highly representative sample of the classes and
pupils. At the end of the school year the pupils took sec-
ondary school entrance examination consisting of equally
weighted papers in French and mathematics.

The examination scores indicated that, with very few
exceptions, boys outperformed girls. Girls constituted 54
percent of both the Class 6 sample and those who actually sat
for the exam, and although the sexes were almost identical
on all major background characteristics, the pass rate for
boys was over twice that for girls, suggesting that, as
Cooksey adds, being female there constitutes a major educa-
tional disadvantage. However, somewhere else Blakemore and
Cooksey (1980:64-65) report on the same study and note that
the study showed that sex was closely related to social back-
ground: girls from farming families performed very badly,
whereas girls from elite and large trading families had high—
er pass rates than all the boys. In this case, the authors
note, the disadvantage of being a girl was outweighed by the
advantage of coming from a "privileged" background.

In a study of the relationship between (academic self-
concept), the teacher's perception, and pupil's background

variables and grade attainment (academic achievement) in

155

rural Kenya, Arap-Maritim (1979) computed t-test, zero-order
correlations, partial correlations, and stepwise multiple
regression program for 432 seventh graders from 13 rural
primary schools serving a highland tribe of Western Kenya.
It was found that (self-concept and) the teacher's percep-
tion were the strongest predictors of grade attainment.

Of interest to us here is the relation of gender to
student's grade attainment. According to Arap-Maritim, among
the selected background variables, sex was the only variable
showing a consistent relationship with (pupil's self-concept,
teacher's perception) and pupil's grade scores in English,
mathematics, and general paper (knowledge). The significant
differences found between boys and girls showed that girls did
not do as well as boys did in all the achievement variables.

In Uganda, according to Heyneman (1980a: 131), for the
2,293 primary-school students sitting for national Primary
Leaving Examinations in 1972, gender was by far the most pow-
erful predictor of performance on the examinations. The ex-
amination results showed that males were doing better than
females. Also, William Cummings reports that among Japanese
students taking university entrance examination in 1970, gen—
der was the most important of the measured background varia-
bles favoring males, having influence even more than that of
parental education or income (cited in Heyneman, l980azl3l).

In a study of Indian (and Chilean) students, Husen et
a1. (1978: 66a-92),using IEA 1970 science data (for 14-year-

olds), found that girls showed lower achievement levels than

156

boys.

A report of Australian surveys of primary school achieve-
ment (Western Australian Education Department, 1976) given
every five years from 1955 to 1970 to approximately 1,000
fifth-grade and 1,000 seventh-grade students, as representa-
tive sample, indicates that girls have outperformed boys on
a majority of tests, overall scores for all years being high-
er for girls. But Cuttance (l980a) found contradictory re-
sults: Australia, as mentioned in chapter IV, is one of the
countries where all its students of 14:0 to 14:11 year-old
participated in IEA six subject survey for science, the re-
sults showing boys generally doing better than girls. Two
years after this survey (carried out during 1970), the Aus—
tralian Council for Educational Research which had collected
the data for IEA, conducted a follow-up study of those who
had participated in the IEA project. Both groups were in-
cluded: those who were still in school and those who had left
school. Cuttance (l980a) reports the results for those who
were still in full-time schooling at the time of the follow-up
study which indicates, again, the general superiority in per-
formance for boys.‘ (Cuttance's finding confirms those of the
initial IEA survey.)

Academic achievement of girls in Hungary appears to
match that of boys (Kadar-Ffilbp, 1973). But the author

points out that the system of achievement evaluation is

 

‘Cuttance believes this is because of social attitudes
toward the role of women in Australian society (ibid.: 93).

157

suspected to bias the picture in favor of girls because
school progress is reported in averages of subject semester
marks and conformity to daily school requirements such as
doing homework regularly, good behavior during class, and

so on, which are highly appreciated in awarding semester
marks. Thus girls, who tend to conform better in adoles-
cent years, are often awarded higher average school progress
marks than the "equally gifted" male peers.

In the Soviet Union, according to Kashin (1966), the
materials obtained from a large number of schools of RSFSR
(Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic--the biggest
republic of the Soviet Union with a population of more than
130 million) for the 1953-54, 1958-59, and 1963-64 school
years indicate that the proportion of boys among the stu-
dents left behind for a second year is about 70 percent,
though this percentage is not the same for different grades.
In the first and second grades the number of repeating stu—
dents among boys and girls is generally the same. Beginning
with the third grade, the author notes, the predominance of
boys among the students having to repeat grades becomes even
more marked and more so in the fifth and sixth grades. In
the upper grades, however, there is practically no difference.

Vasil'eva (1976) put together data from three surveys
for Russia's Leningrad--two surveys carried out in 1967 and
1968 of nearly 5,000 pupils in grades three through ten in
seven schools and more than 4,000 young people who had grad-

uated from secondary schools between 1963 and 1967, and a

158
third survey conducted in 1970 of more than 1,000 young
workers employed in seven machine-building plants. In
comparing girls' and boys' performance at various stages,
the author found that the girls outperformed the boys in
academic (and other school) behavior.

A single factor analysis of reasons for failing per-
formance of 3,000 pupils, 2,000 grade repeaters, and 1,000
pupils who had failed during one school quarter, in 260
urban and rural schools in four districts of the Rostov Re-
gion of the Russian Republic was carried out (Babansky, 1973).
The analysis--based on "systematic investigation" (observa-
tion, talks, checking work, home visits, and so forth) by
the school principal, the deputy principal for curriculum,
the senior grade-level teacher, and the teacher of the cor—
responding subject during the school year-—indicated that
"among the serious failures" in the schools, 79 percent were
boys and only 21 percent were girls.

According to Babansky (ibid.:48), approximately the
same picture (of more failure among boys than among girls of
the Rostov Region) has been found in the proportions of fail-
ure of boys and girls in other regions and throughout the
Russian republic and the Soviet Union as a whole. Based on
the figures for the 1969-70 school year, up to 70 percent of
the grade repeaters (due to failing in performance) in grades

five through eight throughout the nation have been boys.‘

 

‘As Babansky points out, the trend toward a higher inci-
dence of failure among boys as compared with girls has also
been evidenced in data on the performance of school children
in some of the other socialist countries, such as the German
Democratic Republic, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, and Bul-
garian People's Republic (ibid.).

159

For Sweden, Bulcock (1977) using data on 2,490 l4-year-
olds randomly selected as representative of the national pop-
ulation in this age cohort, originally collected by the
Swedish National Center for IEA as part of the stage two sur-
veys in reading, literature, and science conducted in 1970-
73, found that boys had net advantage in science and girls
had net advantage in literature.

In the study using IEA 1970 science data for l4-year-
olds, Husen et a1. (1978) found for Chilean (and Indian) stu-
dents, girls achieving less than boys (in science). Also,
Schiefelbein and Farrell (1978a, 1978b, 1980), who did a na-
tional longitudinal study (from 1970 to 1977) of 3,469 stu-
dents of 353 eighth-grade classrooms of Chile, selecting
from each classroom a random sample of ten students, found
girls scoring, on the average, about two points lower than
boys on primary school leaving national achievement test of
verbal and mathematics knowledge. But the authors note that
in regression analysis on test scores, gender did not show
to be a significant predictor and did not survive "prelimin-
ary screening to identify the 12 best predictors to include
in a final regression equation" (1980:5166). When the authors
specified the analysis by social status, they observed no im-
portant changes in this pattern. Then the authors concluded
that sex factor had no significant independent effect on
achievement at the end ofgprimary schoolipg.

However, the authors report that, even though gender was

shown not to be a powerful independent predictor of university

160

entrance, females scored significantly lower than males on
the university admission test administered at the end of

secondapy schooling. Thus, the authors point out, this is

 

the first point at which a noticeable 'negative' educational
result among females is found.‘

In El Salvador, according to Heyneman (l980a:131), re—
sults of national achievement examinations in basic education
have indicated that male students have had higher test per-

formances.

 

‘Schiefelbein and Farrell speculate that since there was
"no difference between the sexes in educational 'quality' var-
iables such as class size and textbook availability during
secondary school" and between the academic ability of females
and males (based on their own estimate and the extent of en—
joyment of various academic subjects by males and females),
thus the evidence does not suggest that women have been pro-
vided with a "systematically inferior quality of education"
at the secondary level. A plausible explanation for the low
average test scores among females, the authors suggest, "re-
lates to anticipatory socialization, to a perceived low need
to achieve high test scores in order to be admitted to those
university programs in which most women enroll" (1980:5168).
Based on other data the authors note that there is a clear
tendency for lower admission standards to be associated with
those fields which enroll mostly women, such as education
and nursing.

This investigator, while not arguing the authors' point
with respect to the importance and negative effect of the
"anticipatory socialization," does point out, however, that
there could also have been some other factors of school qual-
ity, other than class size and textbook availability, which
have caused low score levels of girls on the admission test;
for example, the school's academic climate variables such as
teachers' subjective evaluation of girls' ability to do well
on the test. Class size and textbooks, while very important,
particularly for some students (perhaps of lower socio-eco-
nomic class) and in developing countries, could result in
different learning outcomes for individual students depending
upon the kind of classroom (and school) academic ambience
within which textbooks and classrooms are used.

161

For the United States, Ahmann (1976) reports the re-
sults of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).‘
He writes that female respondents generally achieve at high-
er levels than male respondents in many learning areas with
the exception of science and mathematics. There has been
little difference in citizenship and social studies. In
some areas, Ahmann notes, the female superiority in achieve-
ment has been more pronounced at the school ages than for
young adults.

In science, according to the author, male respondents
have achieved at a consistently higher level, the advantage
increasing with age. In mathematics, females have had a bet-
ter command of the computational aspects of arithmetic at age
thirteen, but have failed to achieve as well as men when young
adults. In consumer mathematics, the level of achievement of
males has surpassed that of females at all ages, with the
smallest difference at age 13 and increasingly larger differ-
ences at ages 17 and young adult.

Boocock (1980:85) writes that, in the United States, each

 

‘The specific goal of NAEP is to obtain census-like data
on the knowleges, skills, concepts, understandings, and atti-
tudes of 9-year-old, 17-year-old, and young adult (26-to-33-
year-old) Americans in reading, writing, mathematics, science
social studies, citizenship, music, art, literature, aareer
and occupational development, and to measure the growth or
decline of those achievements that occurs over time. Since
1969-70 school year, NAEP has drawn annually national samples
of most or all of these age groups and measured their levels
of achievement in one or more of the learning areas mentioned
(ibid.).

"National Assessment does not develop or use scores for
individual respondents. Rather. it determines how each age
level performs on specific exercises and, within each age lev-
el, how groups of individuals (based on demographic and soci-
ological variables) perform" (Martin, 1979:2).

162

gender tends to outperform the other at some phase of the
school career. Girls have the tendency to have an initial
academic advantage. At the elementary level, girls tend to
do better than boys in almost all academic areas, and boys
are six times as likely to have reading problems. Girls,
at least through the high school years, achieve, on the
average, better grades and are more likely to gain academic
honors.

However, looking at achievement in different subjects,
it appears that there are some male advantages right from
the beginning, adds Boocock. While girls do better than boys
in reading, writing, literature, and music, boys have higher
performance level in mathematics and science from the begin-
ning of school, and the sex differences increase with age
(National Center for Education Statistics, 1976:42-49, cited
in Boocock, ibid.). Similar results were shown by the Inter-
national Study of Mathematics Achievement of students in

twelve countries (Husen, 1967).

The Student's Language

A study has been carried out in 1976 for the Botswana
National Commission of Education (Husen, 1977) of that coun-
try's educational system. The performance on mathematics and
reading comprehension of 1803 seventh graders and students of
third and fifth year in secondary school was evaluated and
information on 72 school physical resources, 373 teachers and
principals were gathered (the instruments all were adapted

from the original IEA scales). Here we deal with the

163

relationship between the student's (home) language and the
school's language and the student's school performance.‘

The study indicated that language spoken at home and
the frequency with which it was spoken, had a significant
relationship to student's achievement. It was found that in
homes where English was spoken, the student's mean reading
score was higher than score of students from homes where
Setswana was spoken. Also, for those from homes where Eng-
lish was spoken, the higher the achievement, if English was
spoken habitually. Finally it was found that at least for
the first five years of schooling, acquiring a certain mas-
tery and self-confidence in reading and writing the mother
tongue would help to learn the second language.

The results of Cooksey's (1981) study of students taking
secondary school entrance examination in Cameroon indicated a
positive relationship between the most frequently used lang-
uage in the home--the French--and its quality and passing the
examination.

In Australia, a study of early school leavers looked at
the social processes implicated in the transition from school

to work or to further education (Williams et a1., 1980). Data

 

‘About eighty percent of the peOple of Botswana communi-
cate orally in a single language, Setswana, which is consid-
ered a national language, twelve-fifteen percent use Kalanga
and the rest speak other languages. English is the second
national language; it is the dominant language of the elite,
and is used for official and business transactions and also
is the language of instruction from Standard 3 on in the pri-
mary school (Husen, 1977:12, 1-45).

164

were obtained by mail questionnaire during 1978-79 from an
Australia-wide sample of 4,919 individuals of 17:00-17:11
year-olds. About half of the sample had left high school
before year twelve and the rest were in their final year of
high school.

The study revealed that, among other things, students
from migrant families whose native language was not English--
the national language, and, of course, the language of in-
struction--were also disadvantaged in academic achievement.‘

An experimental study of Finnish immigrant children in
Sweden was conducted at the preschool level and at the junior
level of elementary school between 1972 and 1980 (Lofgren,
1981). The initial group size varied between eleven and fif-
teen, and the objective was to make children functionally bi-
lingual in an educational context equivalent to that provided
for Swedish children.

The results indicated that instruction in the first lang-

uage did not have a negative effect on proficiency in Swedish.

 

‘In Nigeria, Ehindero (1980) did an experimental study
of 120 elementary school children randomly selected from eight
elementary schools of Oyo state. The two experimental and
control groups were taught science; the experimental group in
the mother tongue, Yoruba, and control group in the English--
second-~1anguage. The author found no significant difference
between the two groups in their performance on a test of sci-
ence concepts which required "low-level (recall) cognitive
skills." But students in the experimental group score signif-
icantly higher means (p < .001) than students in the control
group on tests of science concepts which required the use of
"high-level cognitive skills."

The author concluded that "science instruction in the
mother tongue, advocated and currently being operationalized
in some primary schools..., is an efficient tool for bringing
Nigerian primary school children closer to the reality of the
world as it is presently constituted" (p. 288).

165

The student's racial, ethnic, and
religious backgrounds

In Cameroon, Cooksey's (1981) study of primary school
children discussed before, showed that the ethnicity factor
had very little independent effect and was not significantly
correlated with performance on secondary school entrance ex-
amination.‘

For Uganda, Heyneman (1976c, 1977) did a study using
Primary Leaving Examination (PLE) scores from a random sample
of 67 schools in five economically diverse districts of the
country(North and South Karamoja, West Buganda, Bugisu, and
Toro) and the three largest urban areas (Kampala/Entebbe,
Mbale/Tororo, and Jinja). The 67 schools represented 10.7
percent of all the schools and 12.6 percent of all the pupils
from the sample districts. With respect to the achievement
of different ethnic groups, he found a non—uniform tendency.
Using Currie's (1974) secondary school selectivity ratios
(in Uganda) as a proxy measure of the Opportunities for pri-
mary schooling available to the five Ugandan ethnic groups,
Heyneman found that the Batoro ethnic group which had the same
secondary school selectivity ratio as the Buganda group, aver-
aged more than ten points higher in mean PLE achievement. The
two ethnic groups most poorly represented in secondary schools

(Bakonjo and the Karamojong) had markedly higher levels of

 

‘This finding and the one which follows--on Uganda--and
a few others to be mentioned later are in contrast to findings
reported by Foley (1977) and by others as well, indicating that
recent anthropological studies are increasingly finding that
schooling in developing countries reinforces ethnic, linguis-
tic, and class inequalities of the society.

166

performance on the PLE test. The author concluded that the
higher an ethnic group's proportional representation, the
lower the average examination performance.‘

In an Australian survey (De Lemos, 1980), 1244 aborig-
inal students, about 80 to 90 percent of all aboriginal
children enrolled in the primary and secondary schools of
Victoria (in South Australia), were tested. Seventy-five
percent of students who were attending state schools were
schooled in rural areas. The students' attendance was reg-
ular but they had more extended absences than non-aborig-
inal students. The study found that at the primary level
these (aboriginal) students performed consistently lower
than non-aboriginal students on academic achievement tests.
At the secondary level, lower achievement by aboriginals
was especially evident in mathematics and reading.

Marjoribanks (1978a) studied the relation between family
environment and measures of academic achievement of 800 11—
year-old children from different Australian social groups--
children of lower social status families from Anglo Austral-
ian (250), Greek (170), recent English immigrants (120),
Southern Italian (120), and 140 children of middle social
status families from Anglo-Australian social group. The
author found, among other things, that the Anglo-Australian

and English groups scored higher on the achievement measures.

 

‘Perhaps some would interpret this as being the conse-
quence of some "low ability" students or students of low
socio-economic status entering the population while, in fact,
it could very well be due to teacher-school inadequacies.

167

Max Weber, following his thesis on Protestant Ethic and
the Spirit of Capitalism, claimed that educational conduct
was in line with his general thesis (Halevy and Etzioni-
Halevy, 1974: 193). Weber's thesis--in the area of educa-
tion-~was expanded and elaborated on by Nicholas Hans (ibid.).
Hans claimed that Protestants lead in the level of education,
Catholics were second, the Orthode lagged considerably be-
hind, and last were the Muslims. Applying this theory to
the Soviet Union, according to these authors, Hans had said
that the Protestants take first place in educational develop-
ment and are followed in order by the Orthodox, the Catholics,
and the Muslims.

Halevy and Etzioni-Halevy (1974) examined the validity
of Hans's theory, using the Soviet Union as an example. For
their examination they used the data for the early years of
the Soviet regime and also the latest data as revealed in
the U.S.S.R. census of 1970 for the largest nationalities
(according to the 1970 census). They did not include the
Jews and the Armenians because their religions would not fit
into Hans's theory, they say, and the Germans because there
were insufficient data on them for 1970. Literacy rates and
rate of university attendance for 1926, and rate of secondary
and university attendance (rate of graduates in each group
and rate of scientists in each group) for 1970 were used;
rate of literacy for 1970 would not serve to distinguish be—
tween groups, since nearly universal literacy had been

achieved.

168

The authors concluded that data from 1926 indicated
that Hans, and Weber,seem to have been correct, since Prot-
estants were indeed found to exceed all other groups examined
in educational achievement. Catholics followed, the Ortho-
dox came next, and the Muslims a poor fourth. In 1970, how-
ever, there were considerable changes and the situation was
no longer as outlined by Hans. The Protestants (Latvians
and Estonians) fell to places three and four. The Orthodox,
some moved up and some fell. Among Catholics there was an
abrupt fall; and the greatest rise was amongst the Muslims.

In the United States, Strodtbeck (1958, and cited in
Lavin, 1965:131) compared a group of Jewish high school stu-
dents with their Italian Catholic counterparts, both groups
residents of the United States for the same length of time,
and found the Jewish students to outperform the Italian Cath-
olics. However, the achievement difference between these two
groups disappeared when the effect of socio-economic factor
was partialed out.

With respect to the relationship between racial and eth-
nic factors and academic performance in the United States, the
widely known Equality of Educational Opportunity Survey
(Coleman et a1., 1966), the largest sociological study of ed-
ucation in this country, has indicated that children of dif-
ferent racial and ethnic groups differ in their academic per-
formance. Coleman and his associates studied more than
645,000 students of lst, 3rd, 6th, 9th, and 12th grades in
about 4,000 public schools throughout the country. All teach-

ers, principals,éuxidistrict superintendents in these schools

169

did participate also and the information about the students'
socio-economic and other family background and school facil-
ities and programs were also obtained. The data were gath-
ered in September and October of 1965. Standardized achieve-
ment tests of reading, writing, calculating, and problem solv-
ing were administered to all students, and sophisticated re-
search design and statistical techniques, mostly regression
analysis, were employed.

The study specifically indicated that with some excep-
tions--particularly Oriental Americans--the average student
from minority groups-~black, Indian Americans, Mexican Amer-
icans, and Puerto Ricans--scored distinctly lower on all the
tests at every level than the average white pupil. What is
significant is that, as the study indicated, the minority
children, while having a serious educational deficiency at
the start of school, had an even more serious deficiency at
the end of school; they regressed in academic performance while
'attending school. Despite this, the authors note that the
vast differences between academic achievement of minority
students and middle class children were not due to school
factors; rather they were largely contributed by the stu-
dents' family background.

Coleman et al.'s study received much attention in the
United States and in many other countries. An entire issue

of the Harvard Educational Review was published about the
study and a year-long faculty seminar at Harvard University

was devoted to the reanalysis of the data with the results

170

published as a book edited by Mosteller and Moynihan (1972).
More than a hundred other reanalyses of the data have also
been carried out. However, the basic conclusions of the
survey have not been repudiated. In fact Smith (ibid.: 230-
243) found that an error which had been made in the study's
calculations, due to incluSion of wrong variables and mixing-
up of several variables by accident, had actually under-
estimated the significance of the family background varia-
bles and over-estimated the importance of school character-
istics. (There will be more discussion of the Coleman et a1.
study, particularly on criticism of it.)

Mayeske et a1. (1973), using Coleman et al.'s data, did
a study of student achievement and found that the race/eth-
nicity variable accounted for 24 percent of the variance in
achievement if socio-economic variables were not controlled.“
But when socio-economic factors were controlled, race/ethnic-
ity accounted for only one percent of the variance.

In a review of the literature of student performance in
the United States for the State Education Department of New
York (University of the State of New York, 1973), almost 100
studies, most of them published since the middle 19505, have
been reviewed. Race has been a significant variable in all of
the cognitive output studies in which it has been used. (A-
mong the ten non-cognitive output studies it has been signif-
icant 60 percent of the time.) The larger the proportion of
white students in the school, the higher has been the level

of school output.

171

The results of National Assessment of Educational Pro-
gress (NAEP) (Ahmann, 1976), referred to earlier, indicate
that achievement levels for blacks typically fall below the
national average, while those for whites are above. This
pattern, Ahmann reports, is very pronounced in science, writ-
ing, reading, literature, social studies, and mathematics,
less extreme but still notable in citizenship and music.
Burton and Jones (1982),based on previous and most recent—-
1979, 1980, l981--NAEP data,report the achievement of 9- and
lB-year-old white and black students in five learning areas--
reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies.
According to the authors, the differences between black and
white students are decreasing, but whites in general still
outperform blacks.

The student's socio-economic status of
the family (parental occupationy_parenta1
income, parental education level)

The study of Botswana's national evaluation of primary
and secondary schooling (Husen, 1977) indicated that stu—
dents' family background had strong relationship to school
achievement. Students whose parents were in administrative
and professional occupations did significantly better than
those with parents in agriculture. Children of parents with
more than seven years of education scored better than those
of parents with less than seven years of education. Overall,
however, the relationship between home background and stu—
dent's achievement was not shown to be as strong as has been

found in highly industrialized countries.

172

The study of 7,000 primary school pupils in Cameroon
(Cooksey, 1981) indicated that elite children outperformed
all others, and children from white-collar and trading back-
grounds had better pass-rates than those from farming and
manual backgrounds, with the exception of small farmers'
children who had the third-best pass-rate overall. None of
the children from unskilled manual backgrounds passed the
exam.

The study also showed that with the exception of other
white-collar workers' and small farmers' children, perform-
ance on the examination improved with father's education, in
all occupational groups.

Olson (1972) did a comparative study of nearly all Kenyan
students of form-four (grade 12) in 1961 and form—four (now
grade 11) in 1968 and concluded that the same general pattern
regarding the relation of father's education to student's
achievement holds for both 1961 and l968--the higher the edu-
cational level of a student's father, the more likely a youth
was to reach form four of secondary school. However, another
study of Kenyan primary schools (Mwaniki, D., 1973), found no
relationship between mother's education and achievement
scores of pupils in tests of English, mathematics, and gen-
eral knowledge (cited in Heyneman, l980a:136).

Mwaniki, M. (1973) also did a study of Kenyan students
with the sample population of 208, 51 males and 35 females
from two rural schools and 82 males and 40 females from two

urban schools; the four schools representing the basic

173

population were located in predominantly Kikuyu communities
with similar vernacular—linguistic backgrounds. The author
found father's occupation correlating positively with school
achievement for the two urban schools; the finding suggested
that "the home background of the subjects has a substantial
influence on subsequent activities of students." Court and
Ghai (1974) write that although the Kenyan school system has
been a remarkably open one in that the bulk of students have
come from illiterate peasant backgrounds, "family background
factors and preschool experience appear to be having an in-
creasing influence upon recruitment and subsequent perform-
ance" (p. 18). But Olson (1975) reported low or random corre-
lation between socio-economic status and Kenyan Cambridge
School Certificate Performance (Heyneman, l980a:135).

In a small Ugandan study, Silvey (1963, cited in
Heyneman, 1976a:43) found a 'marked tendency for sons of high
socio-economic parents to perform well on a test of mental
alertness.‘ However, Silvey asserted that parental educa-
tion was not related to scholastic achievement performance
in 'any meaningful way.‘ Somerset (1968) reported of a study
in progress which indicated that "in Uganda low socio-eco-
nomic status is not consistently correlated with poor aca-
demic achievement as it is in Britain and America" (p. 65).

Also, Heyneman's (1976a) study of Ugandan primary school
children found no relationship between any of a child's socio-
economic background factors (parents' education, father's oc—

cupation, and the number of possessions of "modern" consumer

174

items at home) and student's total academic achievement
score on the National Primary Leaving Examination. Accord-
ing to Heyneman, the correlation between academic achieve-
ment and paternal educational attainment was only .07; be-
tween achievement and maternal educational attainment .02;
with paternal occupation only .06.‘

Currie (1974) found the relationship between the family
socio-economic status and academic achievement of Ugandan
secondary school students to be nearly random for years 1954,
1959, and 1964. But Durojaiye (1974), who studied 540 girls
and boys of rural and urban secondary schools (of Uganda),
found that children from low socio-economic level did better
than children from high socio-economic level. This was more
so for rural than for urban subjects, and for boys than for

girls.

 

‘Blakemore and Cooksey (1980:64) and Cooksey (1981:404)
question the validity of Heyneman's findings by arguing that
first, Heyneman had no information on class background of the
pupils, and second, comparing the examination results of pu-
pils coming from areas of "highly varying enrollment levels"
constitutes a serious methodological error. They say that "it
is mainly the able children who manage to survive the primary
course in areas of low overall enrollment and children from
often atypically high social backgrounds who go to school in
these areas in the first place." The authors point to their
own Cameroon study (Cooksey, 1981), discussed previously, and
say that where enrollment levels are high and dropout levels
low, family background has a very marked effect on examina-
tion performance.

However, it appears that Heyneman himself has dealt with
this question (Heyneman, 1976a:45 f.n. and l980a:135). He
notes, "because less than 10 percent of the age cohort reach-
es grade seven in the Karamoja Districts and more than 90 per-
cent in the capital of Kampala, one might wonder if this
wouldn't influence the findings. But no relationship (be-
tween performance and SES) emerges either within Karamoja or
within Kampala."

175

In India, Mathur (1963) has found the family socio-
economic status of secondary school students to be signifi-
cantly correlated with educational achievement (Dave, 1974:
319).

Chopra (1964) studied a sample of 1359 secondary school
students of Class 10 with the age range from 14 to 27 (sic),
studying in 19 urban and 16 rural schools of Lucknow district.
Multiple correlation and analysis of covariance method were
used. With measured intelligence held constant, the author
found, on the basis of father's education and occupation, fam-
ily income,(type of lodging, size of the family,and"cultural
level of home"), students belonging to the highest categories
showed significantly higher mean achievement than students
coming from lower categories. Student academic achievement
for different castes was significantly different at the .05
level.

Rao (1965), too, studied the relationship of a number of
variables including socio-economic status with academic achieve-
ment of 500 boys of 12 high schools of Delhi (sic) in India,
and found, while the intelligence, study habits, and atti-
tudes of pupils towards school accounted for 66 percent of the
predictability of scholastic achievement, socio-economic sta-
tus came out to be not significantly related. And Barial
(1966), studing two different samples of 503 and 1005 students
of 14 years of age in the Indian city of Patna, controlling for
the effect of intelligence, found no significant differences in

the educational achievement of students belonging to various

176

social classes.

In another Indian survey, a sample of 433 grade 10 sci-
ence students (age range 15-17) randomly selected from 16
boys' secondary schools (in Lucknow), was studied by Chopra
(1969). The author found that the mean marks scored by stu-
dents in the higher socio-economic group were significantly
higher than those of the students from the middle and the
lower socio-economic groups. However, there was no signifi-
cant difference between the achievement of students from
middle and lower socio-economic groups.

In a study of 575 boys studying in Class 9 of 32 Delhi
higher secondary schools, Metha (cited in Satya, 1969:VII)
found the 'n' achievement level of the children of parents be-
longing to semi-professional groups to be consistently higher
than achievement of those belonging to any other group. The
study also found that sons of fathers having low education and
those of fathers doing some kind of skilled or unskilled work
appeared to have higher 'n' achievement than those whose fa-
thers had secondary education and those whose fathers were
petty shop-keepers. The students from the upper middle class
(semi—professional occupations) and those from the working
class (skilled and unskilled workers) were the highest in 'n'
achievement. The boys from the upper class and the lower mid-
dle class (clerical occupations) were at the lower level of
achievement.

Finally for India, Samue (1975) reports the results of

three Indian studies--Trivandrum, 1965; Bennur, 1966; Pavitran

177

and Ferose, 1968—-a11 indicating positive relationship be-
tween higher socio-economic status and academic achievement
of high school students.

Cummings (1980) has studied and witnessed the Japanese
schools and reports that while the findings of an impressive
body of research in advanced societies indicates a signifi-
cant association between a child's family socio-economic sta-
tus and his achievement in school, and although some of the
available research suggests similar associations for Japan,
the strength of that relation (in Japan) is often weaker (p.
77). Cummings (ibid.: 161-162) writes that there exists not-
able equality of cognitive achievement of Japanese pupils at
primary level. Only as Japanese young people advance in their
school careers, "variables of home circumstances become more
predictive of differential performance," and "studies show
significant class effects for high schoolers" (ibid.). These
conclusions support the IEA findings for Japan which showed a
significant class effect for fifth graders and for eighth
graders.

Cummings notes that in the early years of schooling in
Japan, the curriculum is not demanding and the child does not
need that much Help from his parents when he reviews each
day's lessons. But by the latter years of the primary school,
a "well educated mother" who is concerned with her child's
school performance proves to be an indispensable aid in the
daily study routine. Providing such help is most common in

middle- and upper-class families; "It is not surprising that

178

class background begins to have a stronger relation to cogni-
tive achievement" at the latter years of primary schooling
(ibid:l63). As students go beyond the primary school level,
Cummings adds, the curriculum becomes so difficult that most
mothers find that they are no longer able to provide direct
assistance to their children and many families, for example,
find special tutors to provide instruction at home; and,
needless to say, the higher a family's class position, the
more it is likely to be able to spend on this and other in-
structional aids. Thus, the author concludes, after the early
years of primary school, class position becomes a factor in
cognitive achievement;‘ in Japan, class effects on academic
achievement appear to increase with grade level.“

In Australia, the Cuttance (l980a) study of 14:0-14:11
year-olds found socio-economic status of the family (as
measured by employment of family head) to have only a small

influence on cognitive achievement of students at time 1

 

‘The increase in the effect of class position on achieve-
ment in the upper grades could also be due to the increasingly
different treatment these children receive in higher grades--
based on their increasingly different family status.

“In contrast to what Cummings reports for--developed--
Japan, Alexander and Simmons (1975) found that in developing
countries class effects on school achievement tend to be
stronger in the lower grades. One could speculate that this
could be due to more variation in family background of primary
school students and, thus, varying degree of intellectuality
and help they receive with school work. However, in the
upper grades, in these (deve10ping) countries, students be-
come more similar, in comparison with Japanese students, in
their family background and,thus they receive increasingly
less different intellectuality and academic help in the home.

179

(1970); but parental education was found to have a moderate
influence on achievement. Both socio-economic status and
parental education were found to have no significant influ-
ence on achievement at stage 2 (l972--follow-up study) once
the enabling conditions and achievement at time 1 were con—
trolled for.

In another Australian study, mentioned before, De Lemos
(1980) found the father's occupational ranking to be the most
important factor affecting academic achievement of both abor-
iginal and non-aboriginal students.

For Poland, Wisniewski (1970), based on marks of 7587
secondary school graduates who had taken competitive college
entrance examinations for the school year 1965-66, found that
the largest proportion of students assessed as "being well pre-
pared for higher education" were among those from the intelli-
gentsia, whereas the "worst prepared" ones were in the peasant
category (pp. 143—144).

Rumania was one of the countries which participated in
the IEA shrvey (Walker, 1976), but only its l4-year-olds and
specialized secondary education students and that only for the
subject of French as a foreign language. The survey concluded
that "student background factors" were a relatively large con-
tributor (to students' achievement in French) (p. 188).

In the Soviet Union, as Lane (1971) reports, schools are
unstreamed and comprehensive, and in theory, the intention is
to raise all children's achievement up to a common average
standard" (p. 115). Therefore, it might be thought that child-

ren from poorer home backgrounds would benefit most from the

180

system. But, as Lane writes, there is considerable difference
in the attainment of children. The author adds that
Aganbegyan et a1. (1966) have shown that success at school is
correlated with parents' education and social position, and
Musatov (1967) has found the offspring of parents with "high-
er educational qualifications" to have done much better than
those of other social groups (ibid.:ll6).

Also, Jacoby (1974:137) writes that the top two Soviet
classes--a tiny top class consisting almost entirely of the
most important (communist) Party members, and a second class
of managers, bureaucrats, technicians, and intellectuals-~are
much more likely to produce young people who succeed in the
Soviet educational system than the bottom two classes--the
class of white-collar and skilled blue-collar workers, and the
class of unskilled farm laborers and urban workers.

Vasil'eva (l976:xiii) reports that the Soviet children
from "socially advantaged families" get higher grades; (not
only that, they are also as a rule more likely to go on to the
next step on the educational ladder than are lower status
youth with comparable levels of performance. This clearly has
been seen, the author adds, at two important junctures--the
point of graduation from the eighth grade and following comple-
tion of the tenth grade.) Also, Yanowitch (1977:65) points
out that there is abundant evidence in the Soviet literature
that in the early grades (through grade 8) pupil performance
among children reared in intelligentsia families is superior

to that of working-class children.

181

Finally, Dobson and Swafford (1980) did a case study of
the educational attainment process in the Soviet Union. For
their analysis, they made use of data on 15,000 eighth and
tenth graders in general education schools in a city of about
170,000 inhabitants located in Central Russia. The authors'
analysis indicated that social background plays a role in the
educational attainment process; it was found, among other
things, that children of "high-status origin" earn higher
average grades in school than the "less advantaged" (p. 267).

Also, for the Soviet Union, Dobson (1977) reports the
results of a 1967 survey of 2,417 pupils in grades 7 through
10 in 20 schools in the towns of Ufa and Beloretska and in
the neighboring rural districts in the Russian Republic. He
writes that children from "culturally more well-endowed famil-
ies are more likely to get good grades in school, while being
less likely to repeat grades because of poor performance" (pp.
257-258).

Yugoslavia was among the twelve countries which partici-
pated in the study of educational achievement of l3-year-olds
(Foshay et a1., 1962). The total sample of students (of
Yugoslavia) was 685 girls and boys of rural and urban areas.
The results of the study showed that the average score on each
of the tests-~reading comprehension, mathematics, science,
geography, and nonverbal aptitude--was clearly related to
every father's level of education, and to a lesser degree, to
father's occupation. Poland, too, participated in Foshay et

al.'s survey. The student population selected to take the

182

test consisted of 1,000 boys and girls of urban and rural
schools. The results for Poland were different, however. In
Poland, the test scores showed relatively little difference
assoicated with the father's level of education.

In France, as Halls (1976:162-165) writes, "it is more
acknowledged that the preponderant determinant in educational
attainment is the quality of the home background"; it has
been shown that children of industrial workers are more fre—
quent "grade-repeaters" than others. One survey, Halls adds,
has reported (in 1965) that by the end of primary school 35
percent of such children had already been kept down at least
one year, and 16 percent two years. "Indeed, the success of
pupils at the end of primary education correlates highly with
social class" (p. 163).

French research, Halls points out, has also established
that the extent of parental income as such affects a child's
educational success less than does the "cultural or educa-
tional qualifications of the parents." The child's level of
attainment, the author adds, depends on the help he can re-
ceive in the home--not so much upon the amount of help, as
upon its quality, which, of course, is dependent upon the
level of parents' education.

In Sweden, according to Blomqvist (1957:71-72), the fre-
quency of working mothers was almost the same for successful
and unsuccessful students of age 11 years or more. The mo-
thers of the failures have, however, been working womewhat
more before the child became seven years old. Blume-

Westerberg (ibid.) compared achievement of 322 children of

183

working mothers with 1023 children of nonworking ones. The
first group had worse achievement in lower grades, equally
good in middle grades, and significantly better than the
second group in higher grades.

A fairly large-scale study of the reading and writing
abilities of 2,600 Swedish students of comprehensive and up-
per secondary years, aged 7 to 19, was conducted from 1971 to
1975 (Grundin, 1977). The findings of the study showed that
there was a substantial correlation between socio-economic
status of a pupil's family and the pupil's reading and writ-
ing performance. For example, the working-class children
seemed to lag three academic years behind the upper-middle-
class children in terms of reading performance.‘

A longitudinal study of patterns of educational inequal-
ity in the eleven states of Germany was carried out by
Williamson (1977), the state being the unit of analysis. The
results of simple correlation analysis indicated a very strong
relation between the "measures of social class background" and
the "attainment measures" (apparently including academic
achievement as well).

The Schiefelbein and Farrell (1978a, 1978b, 1980) nation—
al longitudinal study of 8th graders (random sample drawn in
1970) found a positive, though not strong, association between

social class (father's occupation and education) and performance

 

‘Grundin says "to what extent this is a genuine handicap
in reading ability and to what extent it reflects the fact
that middle-class values and norms largely dominate the (Swed-
ish) school system cannot be determined on the basis of the
test data available [to him?" (p. 7).

184

on tests of verbal and mathematics achievement. However, in
multivariate analyses of factors affecting test performance,
it was found that "socio-economic status was not the most
powerful predictor" (1978a: 333).‘ The authors note that "it
appears that children who do well in school at the primary
level are highly likely to continue to do well at the second-
ary level, independent of the effect of socio-economic sta-
tus" (1978b: 71).

In a nationwide survey of pupils in El Salvador conduct-
ed in 1973 (Loxley and Heyneman, 1981), fifty percent of all
students--some 55,000 in all (drawn from about 20 percent
stratified sample of all urban and rural schools)--were test-
ed in science, reading comprehension (in Spanish), mathemat-
ics, and social studies. Loxley and Heyneman used the data
on a five percent representative sample of the 55,000 students
(about 2,500 from 140 schools) and collected some first-hand,
additional information on parental income, occupation, and
education,(amount of money spent on children's education and
other family information). The authors note that the sub-
sample chosen was representative of the nation and also pre-
cautions were taken to ensure that comparable numbers (a min-
imum of 200) of pupils had been drawn for each grade in urban

and rural schools.

 

‘Schiefelbein and Farrell found that "other variables
measuring personal characteristics of the student not related
to SES, and characteristics of the student's immediate peer
group, were better predictors, and several clearly pedagogi-
cal variables (such as teacher characteristics and textbook
availability) had standardized regression coefficients very
nearly as large as that associated with SES" (ibid.).

185

Loxley and Heyneman then calculated the effect of pre-
school and inschool variables upon students' achievement
through regression analysis by first regressing preschool
factors. They found that the influence of the set of pre-
school variables (consisting of student's age, sex, parental
education, annual expenditure on child's education, number
of rooms and books found in the home) seemed to increase as
a child progressed through the school cycles and from rural
to urban settings (from 1 percent to 11 percent). But there
was a tendency for the effects of preschool characteristics
to be consistently outweighed by the influence of school-
teacher quality, whatever its particular combination in a
given cycle or geographical area.

For the United States, Rossi (1961) did a review of
studies of social factors and academic achievement of element-
ary and secondary schools. His survey of a large number of
studies concluded that while "between 40 and 60 percent of the
variation among students' achievement could be accounted for
by variations in IQ levels" (p. 269), part of the remaining
variation was taken up by socio-economic status of the stu-
dents. The higher the occupation of the breadwinner in the
student's family, the greater was his level of achievement.
And, after reviewing studies of student academic performance
at all educational levels (300 studies in all), almost all
published during the period 1953 through 1961, Lavin (1965)
reported that thirteen studies of elementary and secondary

schools (and colleges) had concluded that socio-economic

186

status of the family had been positively related to student's
performance. (A few studies comparing college performance of
graduates of public and private schools had found inverse re-
lationship between socio-economic status and academic achieve-
ment.)

The Equality of Educational Opportunity Survey (Coleman
et a1., 1966), discussed previously, found the family back-
ground variables, particularly economic status and educational
level of the parents, to be the only factors to explain the
variation in cognitive achievement within each racial, ethnic
group. The family background influence accounted for much
more variation in achievement than did school differences.
What is significant, as pointed out before, is the fact that
according to the authors the strong relationship between fam-
ily economic and educational background and cognitive achieve-
ment did not diminish over the period of school, and even in-
creased over the elementary years. And this suggests that
school could be, at least partially, responsible for and con-
tributing to the increment in the gap between the achievement
of students of different backgrounds.

It should be pointed out, however, that while strong in-
fluence of family background on achievement was particularly
true for northern whites, was true to a lesser degree for
southern whites and northern blacks, it was actually reversed
for southern blacks. For blacks in the south the character-
istics of the school accounted for more of the variance in

achievement than family background variables, another

187

indication that schools could indeed have impact (a positive
one, in this case) upon students' achievement.

Among the criticisms that Coleman et al.'s study has
received is on the way they put the family background vari—
ables into the regression equation which the critics claim
did not allow for school characteristics to account for their
actual influence. McPartland and Karweit (1979) write that
Coleman et al. have assumed that the nonschool (family back-
ground) factors were causally prior to the school factors.
Thus in estimating the relative importance of school and non-
school variables, all of their shared or confounded variation
was assigned to the nonschool factors and this resulted in
estimates of the amount of variance attributable to school
factors to be conservative. This problem, MCPartland and
Karweit write, was recognized and the subsequent reanalyses of
the original data employed alternative techniques for attrib-
uting the shared variance and used different assignments of
the confounded variation. However, as these authors also
point out, and, as we mentioned previously, none of the rean-
alyses of the data have been successful in altering the gen-
eral picture of weak school effects relative to nonschool ef-
fects (on academic achievement).

Coleman et al.'s study was not a longitudinal one,
neither was it an experimental study with control groups who
had not attended school at all. Above all, the authors gath-
ered little data on the social systems (including academic

climate) of the schools, and did no observation of actual

188

teaching-learning processes going on in the classrooms. Thus,
the studies' findings could be not completely accurate.
Karabel and Halsey (1977:20) write that the structure of the
survey did not permit adequate explanation of inequalities of
performance between classes and races despite the imaginative
analyses of those quantifiable variables that were included.
These authors believe that collection of qualitative data on
interaction in the school might have been needed.

Jencks and his associates (1972), using data collected
by others at different times, including Coleman et al.'s (1966)
data, did an analysis of the impact of student and school char-
acteristics on student achievement and also summarized many
previous studies, and concluded that family background charac—
teristics of the students, mainly socio-economic status of
their family, is more important than school characteristics
in their school achievement:' They say that variations in what
children learn in school depend largely on variations in what
they bring to school, not on variations in what schools offer
them (p. 98).

It should be mentioned that Jencks et a1., like Coleman
et a1., have not reviewed and analyzed data on the internal
working of the school which could have indicated possible
school effects upon student's academic achievement. In fact,
the authors themselves write (p. 13) that their study did not

look at the attitudes, values, and "internal life of schools."

 

‘Later in this chapter, in the section on teacher's ef-
fect on student achievement, some evidence will be presented,
for some countries including the United States, indicating the
greater importance of some school variables over family back-
ground variables in student's academic achievement.

189

Averch et a1. (1972) did a review of the literature for
the United States and synthesized the research findings. They
concluded that the student's socio-economic status of the fam-
ily--parental income, education, occupation--proved to be sig-
nificant predictors of his or her educational outcome. (But
Averch et a1. say (p. 148) that the studies reviewed have
failed to show that school resources g9 [emphasis in original]
affect student achievement.)

The review of the State Education Department of New York
(University of the State of New York, 1973) revealed that
socio-economic status of students appeared to have been a con-
sistent affector of school output. Overall, socio-economic
status was found to be a significant variable in 88 percent of
the 67 (correlational and regression) studies in which it had
been included.

A component of family background is parents' education.
The United States National Assessment of Educational Progress
(Ahmann, 1976), mentioned before, has shown that the education
level of the parents of the students is clearly an influential
factor in the students' level of achievement--the higher the
parents' education level, the higher the achievement of the
students (particularly in the basic skills in mathematics,
writing, and reading).

White (1976) did a meta—analysis of about 100 studies of
socio-economic status and academic achievement for the United
States. The results of the analysis indicated that there ex-
ists a "definite relationship" between the family's socio-

economic status and academic achievement, with frequently

190
obtained correlations ranging from about .10 to .70.
The student'sgparental evaluation,
expectation, and encouragement

Only for the United States and two other countries,

Uganda (Durojaiye, 1974) and France (Hout and Garnier,
1979), of the twenty selected countries, have the effects
of variables of parental evaluation, expectation, and en-
couragement upon student's achievement been reported. Both
Ugandan and French studies report positive and strong influ-

ence of these variables upon student's academic behavior.

For the United States, a careful study of mathematical
talent found that young students who showed "unmistakable
evidence of superior mathematical abilities" had parents who
would carefully supervise 'their children's study habits and
require or lovingly encourage the Students to complete their
assignments well in advance of each class meeting' (Stanley
et a1., 1974, cited in Grambs, 1978: 39).‘

Kaminski and Erickson (1979) write that the fact that ap-
proximately 10 percent of American scientists are women is
in part the result of females' under-representation in elect-
ive high school science courses. This is, as suggested by the

evidence provided by the authors' analysis of longitudinal

 

‘Brookover and Erickson (1975),who write that parents'
(positive) evaluation of their children's learning ability and
their (high) expectation for the children's high school per-
formance positively influence children's academic achievement,
point out that parental evaluation and expectation per se
might not be enough, and it should be accompanied by class sur-
veillance of students' academic work and school behavior
(pp. 309-311).

191

data on 548 high school students, at least partially the
result of earlier socialization in the family--parents' dif-
ferential expectation of and encouragement for their child-
ren, based on the child's gender.

In another analysis of longitudinal data on a cohort of
500 students of junior- and senior-high schools, Kaminski etefla
(n.d.) concluded that one of the reasons fewer females than males
concluded that one of the reasons fewer females than males
elect (take) high school mathematics courses (an important pre-
requisite for entry into many careers) is the result of early
socialization in the family-~during the time of middle school
years females tend to perceive low parental evaluations of
their mathematical ability and expectation for their mathe-

matical achievement.

The student's area of residence

 

The study of Botswana's schools (Husen, 1977) found a
lower level of achievement for rural children compared to that
for children of urban areas.

The result of Cooksey's (1981) study of Cameroon's child-
ren indicated that while small farmers' children did pass sec-
donary school entrance examination, none of the children from
unskilled manual backgrounds managed to pass, suggesting that,
in Cookey's words, "lowly urban origins constitute a greater
educational handicap than rural origins" (p. 407). However,
all other rural children did worse on the test than all other
urban students taking the test.

For Kenya, Mwaniki, M. (1973) found, in his study of 51

192
male- and 35 female-rural pupils and 82 male- and 40 female—
urban pupils, significant performance differences between
rural and urban pupils on tests of English, mathematics, and
general knowledge, urban pupils having higher scores than
rural pupils.

In his already discussed Ugandan study, Heyneman (1977)
defined those schools located within a town of 10,000 people
as urban (which included 12 schools in all), those schools
situated within a lO-mile radius of a town of 10,000 as semi-
rural (these were 16 schools altogether), and those schools
located more than a lO-mile radius from a town were designat-
ed rural (which were 39 schools). Heyneman found that the
mean achievement on the Primary Leaving Examination (153.8),
to be highest in rural schools and lowest (139.1) in urban
schools. Semi—urban schools ranked in the middle (with mean
achievement of 147.7 on the examination). The author notes
that this pattern was not limited to 1972 and examination
scores of the sample schools for the previous years had yield-
ed similar results.

In India, Chopra (1964) studied the achievement of 1,359
secondary students studying in 19 urban and 16 rural schools
of Lucknow district, and found, among other things, that the
percentage of failures among children of the professional, ad-
ministrative, executive, and managerial groups (presumably,
the urban children) to be 27, while for the children of agri-
culturalists (apparently the rural children) (and of skilled

workers) to range between 59 and 61.

193

Also in India, Aaron et al. (1969), using a combination
of systematic area sampling, stratified sampling, and cluster
sampling, studied 394 boys and 118 girls from rural areas and
216 boys and 138 girls from urban areas. The students were
studying in medium sized, favorably new schools and those
which were not run by religious organizations. The authors
found no significant difference in achievement scores of rural
and urban boys of the same socio-economic status. The authors
do not mention the differences, if any, between rural- and
urban-girls' achievement, or between achievement of boys and
girls, or those of different socio-economic status in urban
and rural areas.

For Australia, the study of 1,000 fifth-grade and 1,000
seventh-grade students selected as a representative sample of
Australian school children (Western Australian Education De-
partment, 1976) revealed that overall scores for all years
were higher for students of metropolitan areas. But for the
1970 year group, according to the test performances, there
did not, in general, exist a clear and consistent pattern of
results favoring either metropolitan or country students.

In a 1976 conference of educationists, politicians,
farmers, and rural townspeople held in Victoria, Australia
to discuss problems in small rural high schools, one of the
many problems specifically mentioned under the title of
'country disadvantage' was "low levels of literacy and numer-
acy" (Bessant, 1978: 129).

In Poland, 2. Kwiecinski (in Kosakiewicz, 1980: 179),

194

studying a large sample of 7,000 pupils, found that in a test
of the Polish language, while 30.7 percent of the pupils of
urban areas achieved 'low and very low' results, 56.3 percent
of the children of the countryside achieved such results.
Also, while 15 percent of those in towns obtained 'good, very
good, and excellent' results, only 4.9 percent of pupils of
the village achieved such results. The results were similar
in biological, mathematical, and other tests.

A study of grade repeating (presumably due to low level
of academic achievement) of students of grades one through
eleven in the Russian Republic of the Soviet Union (Kashin,
1966) revealed no great difference in the number of students
left behind in the schools of the city and the countryside,
with the exception of students of lower grades of the rural
schools who were left behind in higher numbers compared with

their counterparts in the city.

Williamson (1979: 108) writes that Mervyn Matthews has
reported that Soviet sources have expressed "great concern at
the state of rural schooling in the Soviet Union." One such
source, Williamson adds, has, according to Matthews, reported
that "a significant number of children taught in rural eight-
and ten-year schools, in their level of development, breadth
of outlook, and depth and quality of knowledge, are still be-
hind urban school learners." And "a markedly lower level of
school knowledge on the part of rural school pupils was also
found by Soviet sociologists"(Kosakiewicz, 1980: 179).

The performance of 2,476 sixth grade students of 150

19S

classes (of compulsory schools) in 7 small towns and 21 rural
municipalities of Sweden on standardized achievement tests of
reading, writing, mathematics, and English, and Uppsala tests
in history, geography, and nature studies was studied
(Marklund, 1969). For each school the performances of all
students for all subjects were taken together. It was found
that in small classes (16-20 students), the rural schools at-
tained as good results as urban schools. The same was the
case in the somewhat larger classes (21-25 students). How-
ever, with a further rise in size of class, the urban schools
were superior. The conclusion the author has reached is that
"with small classes, students' intelligence, the curricula
timetables of the schools and, to a certain extent, the teach-
er factors being equal, rural schools provide as good an en-
vironment for the students' acquirement of knowledge as urban
schools" (p. 311).

A study of the relation of social, economic, and cultural
factors and national achievement examination results in El
Salvador indicated that in that country, rural schools and
rural children outperformed those from urban areas (Heyneman,
l980a: 143).

In Paraguay, as Winkler (1980) reports, while, in con-
trast to 48 percent of grade one pupils in urban areas who
completed grade six, only 15 percent of grade one pupils in
rural areas did so; for those pupils in grade six, reading
achievement of urban pupils was double that of rural pupils.

In the United States, the results of the Coleman et a1.

196

(1966) study indicated that with few exceptions, all children
of urban groups scored higher than all children of country
groups of similar race/ethnicity and religion.

The most recent results of the (United States') National
Assessment of Educational Progress (Martin, 1979) indicate
that the performance of rural students in subsequent assess-
ments of the same learning areas appear to be narrowing the
gap between them and the national level of performance at
each of the age levels. However, their performance is still

generally below that of the nation.

In-School Social Factors and Academic Achievement

The teacher's socio-economic background

In his ugandan study of 2293 seventh graders, Heyneman
(1976b) found that the educational level of the teacher's
mother and father combined and averaged by school, had zero-
order correlation coefficient of -.135, a weak but statis-
tically insignificant relationship,vddflimean school achieve-
ment. Farrell and Schiefelbein's (1974) study of Chilean
eighth graders concluded that there was a small positive but
significant relationship between the teacher's aggregate
socio-economic background and individual student achievement
in mathematics and language.

In the U.S. Equality of Educational Opportunity Survey
(Coleman et a1., 1966), it was found that teacher's level of
parental education was one of the most important correlates

of student performance. The parents of teachers of minority

197

students, who, as mentioned before, achieved less than
children of ethnic majority, had a lower level of education
than parents of teachers of white majority students.

The review of the University of the State of New York
(1973) revealed that of the more than 100 studies of student
performance (of the United States) six studies had used
teacher socio-economic variable, generally defined in terms
of teacher's parental level of education. According to the
results of these studies, teacher socio-economic status has
been significantly and positively related to student cognitive

(and non~cognitive) level of achievement.

The teacher's level of formal education

The teacher's formal schooling was not found to be sig-
nificantly related to reading achievement of (869) seventh
graders in Botswana, but to have a significant relationship
with their mathematics achievement (Husen, 1977).‘

A study of 3,405 students of 89 Kenyan primary schools
(a 20 percent random sample of all primary schools of two
counties of Central and Eastern provinces) concluded that the
formal qualifications of the teaching staff appeared to have
no significant effect on students' performance on the Kenyan
Preliminary Examinations in English, mathematics, or general
papers in 1967 (Thias and Carnoy, 1972: 147-172). Thias and
Carnoy aggregated and analyzed the data for their study at

the level of the individual school.

 

‘Husen et a1. (1978) believe that "this distinction seems
to support the notion that skills such as science and mathe-
matics may be more related to teacher ability than reading,
which in turn may be more related to background factors" (p.
20).

198

Also for Kenya, Sifuna (1978) found that there was no
significant relationship between the degree of schooling of
teachers or their performance in academic and educational
subjects and achievement of primary school pupils (reported
in Avalos and Haddad, 1981: 29).

For Uganda, in his study of seventh graders, Heyneman
(l976b) summed the total years of schooling for each teacher
and then calculated a school mean. He found the zero-order
correlation between that figure and mean level of pupil
achievement to be actually a negative (-.112) but statisti-
cally insignificant.

In India, according to Lulla et a1. (1966), "inadequate
knowledge of teachers /has been/ responsible for pupil back-
wardness in mathematics," and according to Dhian Chand (1970)
there has been a positive relationship between teacher quali-
fications (teacher educational attainment and knowledge) and
pupil academic achievement at both primary and secondary
school levels (cited in Avalos and Haddad, 1981: 29-30). In
El Salvador, teacher education was shown to have a positive
impact on the achievement of first, second, and third graders
in rural areas (Loxley and Heyneman, 1981).

According to Babansky (1973) of Russia, the assessment
of the work of 821 teachers by school principals in the Rostov
Region and the observation of the quality of teachers in two
other regions of the republic of Russia--Mi11erovo and Sal'sk--
have indicated that insufficient scientific training (apparent-

ly low level of educational level) of teachers is associated

199

with school children's poor school performance (school fail-
ure).

In Paraguay, there is a partial support for the hypothe-
sis that "if the teacher-student bond weakens along the
school cycle, the teacher qualification variable (teacher ed-
ucational attainment and knowledge) fails to stay as a de-
terminant of educational performance at the end of secondary
school" (Rivarola and Corvalan, 1976, cited in Avalos and
Haddad, 1981: 29).

For the United States, the Coleman et al.(l966) surveY
found teacher's level of education to have, after teacher's
verbal ability, the strongest, though small, positive rela-
tionship to pupil achievement.

A United States review of teacher effectiveness research
(Guthrie, 1970) includes 19 studies which have been done, using
a variety of sample subjects, input and output measures, and
control for what are commonly presumed to be out-of-school
influences upon pupil performance. Fifteen of the studies have
shown that, among other teacher characteristics, "academic
preparation" and "degree level" are significantly associated
with one or more measures of pupil performance.

The review of about 100 research studies published since
the mid 19505 on student performance (The University of the
State of New York, 1973) was reported before. This review's
findings indicate that "the more highly educated the teacher
was, or the higher the average level of teacher education in
a school, the more impressive was student performance" (p.

100). All of the correlational cognitive output studies (and

200
all of the noncognitive output studies) supported this find-
ing. In the regression cognitive output studies, this con-
clusion has been reached 67 percent of the time.

After a review and reassessment of the research on
school effectiveness, Madaus et a1. (1980) concluded that
teacher qualifications (presumably including teacher's educa-
tion) have not been found to explain consistently much of
the variance between schools in scholastic achievement as

measured by students' performance on standardized tests.

The teacher's (preservice) training

Three negative findings have been reported regarding the
impact of teacher training upon student achievement for
Uganda: Somerset (1968), Silvey (1972, mentioned in Husen et
a1., 1978: 23), and Heyneman (1976b).‘

The empirical study of the effect of teacher training on
student science achievement in India (and Chile) was done by
Husen et a1. (1978), using the IEA 1970 data. The authors
edited the sample for their study and it included 2760 stu-
dents of 14:00-14:11 age who were above the fifth grade in
156 public schools. The number of teachers included was about

151. The student was the unit of analysis and the effect of

 

‘In the case of Heyneman's findings, it should be point-
ed out that Heyneman does not contend that teacher training
is unrelated to student achievement. He believes that the
reason for no significant (null) relationship in his study
(at the school level) lies in the fact that the teacher
quality between schools has been distributed evenly, and
leaves little difference between schools with regard to
teacher training and, as such, the teacher training factor
does not show a significant relationship to student achieve-
ment (Heyneman, 1976b: 49).

201

other than teacher training variables was controlled. The
study results suggested that if the mean level of formal
teacher training in India were raised to "the level of the
most highly trained 50 percent of teachers today," mean stu-
dent science achievement, as measured by the IEA test scores,
would rise from 8.3 to 8.7 (p. 67). Stating it differently,
"if investment was made in teacher training programs, there
will be a return on the investment in terms of increases in
the level of student cognitive outcomes of schooling" (p. 68).

Another Indian study (Raijiwala, 1975) indicated better
achievement in physics by secondary school students when
taught by trained teachers (as compared to teachers without
specialized training) (Avalos and Haddad, 1981: 30).

For Rumania, for l4-year-olds and specialized secondary
students, the IEA survey (Walker, 1976) showed that the amount
of teacher's university training did not appear to make any
difference in achievement in French as a foreign language
(p. 197).

Babansky (1973) reported for three regions of Russian
Republic of the Soviet Union that low level of pedagogical
training of teachers such as little "knowledge of educational-
psycholggical principles of instruction and scientific prin-
ciples, operational management of the education and upbring—
ing of schoolchildren" to be strongly associated with failure
of schoolchildren.

In Chile, Schiefelbein and Farrell (1978b) found that

level of previous training was not associated with academic

202

achievement of eighth graders. Teacher training was found,
however, to have an important effect upon students' chance

of completing secondary schooling. Husen et al.'s (1978)
empirical study of science achievement in Chile (and India),
mentioned above, indicated results for Chile similar to those
for India-~positive impact of teacher training upon students'
science achievement. The (Chilean) sample (taken from IEA
data) was 1250 students of 14:00-14:11 age studying in 147
primary or secondary schools above the fourth grade. The
teachers numbered about 302.

The review of research on the relationship between
social factors and academic achievement of American element-
ary and high school students (Rossi, 1961) indicated the ex-
istence of a small correlation between student achievement
and "quality and amount of teacher training." Some of the
studies reviewed had indicated that the more hours of college
training a teacher had had, the higher had been the levels of
his students' achievement (p. 270). Katzman (1971), after
reviewing about ten major studies of educational production,
concluded that, among a substantial number of other school
measures, teacher training may have significant effects on

student achievement.

Teacher's ability and knowledge.
of special subject field

In the ugandan study of seventh graders, Heyneman (l976b)
found that of the six measures of teacher characteristics,

among them total years of schooling, teacher training, teaching

203

experience, and parental education, the teacher's English
language ability had an association stronger than all other
teacher characteristics combined. Mean scores of teachers'
English competence (each teacher's response to a seven ques—
tion multiple choice test) for each school, when compared

with mean school achievement, resulted in a zero-order corre-
lation of 0.307 (P .01). Similarly, in India, Husen et

al.'s (1978) empirical study found the teacher's "verbal IQ"
to show "by far the strongest total effect on student achieve-
ment" (p. 67).

A study of the relation of educational resources to
scholastic outcomes of 797 second grade students attending 66
rural public schools in three governorships of Iran was car-
ried out by Ryan (1974). The conclusion was that zero-order
correlation between teacher ability (measured by the average
of results of official secondary examinations) and pupil
achievement, based on the first and second grade reading and
arithmetic textbooks, to be 0.14, and as such, not impressive
(cited in Husen et a1., 1978: 25). However, when multiple re-
gression analyses were performed on the separate regions cov-
ered by the study, it was found that the importance of teacher
ability was most pronounced in the most rural and poorest
areas (ibid.).

The relationship between teacher's "verbal IQ" and stu-
dent achievement in Chile is similar to that mentioned for
India. It showed the strongest total effect on student

achievement (Husen et a1., 1978: 67).

204

For Rumania's l4-year-olds and specialized secondary ed-
ucation students, the IEA survey (Walker, 1976) indicated
that teacher's competence in French, as measured by the teach—
er's self-rating, "proved a good predictor of student scores"
(in French as a foreign language) (p. 196).

The Equality of Educational Opportunity Survey in the
United States (Coleman et a1., 1966) found, among those teach-
er characteristics measured, teacher's verbal ability (score
on the verbal skills test) to have the highest relationship
to pupil achievement. This teacher characteristic as a com-
ponent of teacher quality had stronger input upon the achieve-
ment of children of minorities than on that of the children
of the majority.

Guthrie's (1970) review of 19 studies, previously dis—
cussed, also concluded that fifteen of the studies reviewed
indicated strong (positive) relationship between teacher's
verbal ability and one or more measures of pupil performance.
And Katzman's (1971) review concluded that teacher's verbal
ability has been one of the school resources that may have
significantly--positively--affected student performance. Fi-
nally, the review of the university of the State of New York
(1973) found that the few studies which had measured teach-
er's verbal ability ("may be a proxy for a combination of the
teacher's socio-economic background and intelligence," (p. 104)
had found significant positive relationship between this var-
iable and the student's cognitive (and noncognitive) achieve-

ment.

205

The teacher's experience in teachigg

The Botswana study of seventh graders (Husen, 1977)
showed teaching experience to be an important and positive
factor in student achievement in mathematics and reading.
Mean scores in mathematics came out to be consistently ris-
ing with increasing number of years of teaching experience.
In Reading Comprehension, however, in spite of a significant
relationship, there was less consistency.

In Kenya, according to Thias and Carnoy (1972), consid-
ering seniority for experience, it (experience) was found to
be even more influential than teacher's formal qualifications
upon the performance of primary students on final leaving ex-
amination.

In the Ugandan study, Heyneman (1976b) found a zero-order
correlation of -.03 (not significant) between mean school
teacher experience and mean school achievement. In the case
of Chile, Schiefelbein and Farrell (1978b) point out that age
can be read as a proxy for experience; they found teacher's
age to have important (positive) effects on test scores of
eighth graders.

For the United States, Rossi's (1961) review concluded
that "indexes of teaching experience correlated with student
academic achievement around +0.2 at the maximum and are often
zero or slightly negative" (p. 270). Coleman et al. (1966)
found that teacher experience benefits children of minorities
in high school but has little influence upon achievement of

children of the white majority.

206

Guthrie (1970) found in his review of nineteen U.S.
studies of teacher effectiveness that fifteen of the studies
reviewed had found teacher's amount of experience, like some
other teacher characteristics (for example, degree level),
to be strongly associated with one or more measures of pupil
performance. And Katzman's (1971) review of about ten major
studies, also, found that teacher's experience may signifi-
cantly affect student achievement. However, the University
of the State of New YOrk (1973) review of about 100 studies
showed inconclusive results. Altogether twenty three of the
studies had included this teacher variable which fourteen of
them had investigated the relation between teacher experience
and students' cognitive achievement. In 43 percent of the
regression studies and in 50 percent of the correlation stu-
dies, a positive significant effect of teacher experience

upon student achievement had been found.

Teacher's in-service training (upgrading)

The more participation in in-service programs by
Botswana's teachers, the higher the achievement of the stu-
dents in reading and mathematics (Husen, 1977). In India,
Dave (1974) investigated the effects of a short task-oriented
training programme in the mother tongue, with emphasis on spe-
cific objectives and detailed activities (cited in Avalos and
Haddad, 1981: 31). He found that compared to those teachers
who had not participated in the programme, those who had par-
ticipated had produced improvement in pupils' language skills

that affected overall achievement. According to Avalos and

207

Haddad, another similar study by Dave (1976) with physics
teachers resulted in "improved pupil achievement in recogni-
tion and recall (and to a limited extent, in higher mental
processes)."

However, Avalos and Haddad (1981: 31) report that in
Chile, Schiefelbein and Farrell (1971) found a negative cor-
relation between teacher's attendance of in-service courses
and performance of eighth graders in Spanish and mathematics.
The Chilean study of those eighth graders who had reached the
secondary school, by the same researchers, revealed the vari—
able 'in-service training' to be tenth in importance among
more than one hundred variables, but to be the sixth in sig-
nificance for students of high socio-economic status (ibid.).

Using data of the 1970 science survey of IEA, Wilson
(1977) studied the performance of students of 36 Australian
junior secondary schools to examine the effects of school var-
iables upon science achievement for six schools rating highest
"above expectation" and six schools rating lowest "below ex—
pectation." The author found the former schools appeared to
have, among other things, science staff with less post-second-
ary training but more in-service training and felt a greater
need for further refresher courses than did the staff in

schools with achievement below expectation.

The teacher's subjective evaluation of
students' learning ability and his ex-
pectation for students' academic achievement
A study of the role of noncognitive factors in school

learning of 540 boys and girls of rural and urban secondary

208

schools of Uganda was carried out by Durojaiye (1974) which
was discussed before. Durojaiye found that zero-order corre-
lation coefficient between Teachers' Rating of Pupil Behav-
ior, including projected academic progress, and a composite
variable of school performance (measured by a Scholastic Ap-
titude Test) to be 0.162 (significant at the 0.05 level of
confidence) for rural boys, 0.140 for rural girls, 0.113 for
urban boys and 0.146 for urban girls.

In Japan, teachers "are confident in the learning poten-
tial of all children" (Cummings, 1980: 159-161). In other
words, teachers' subjective evaluation of students' ability
to learn is positive and they expect all students to achieve
in high school. According to Cummings, the teachers' belief
and expectation influences students' achievement positively.
He reports that a large proportion of Japanese pupils perform
very well academically and there is a high average level of
cognitive achievement with little variation around the mean.

In Australia, Wilson's (1977) study concluded that in
the six schools rating highest above expectation, teachers
were demanding "high academic standards."

For France, Halls (1976: 163) notes that statistics have
shown that the success of more fortunate pupils (with fathers
employed in the liberal professions and the intermediate and
higher cadres) confirms strikingly the "teacher's opinion of
such children's abilities." Also, Hout and Garnier (1979)
report a strong effect of teachers' expectations on "curric-

ulum placement upon the completion of primary school" and note

209

that "curriculum teaching in France increases the variance
of educational outcomes." Hout and Garnier's conclusions
are based on analysis of data on 15,601 students of a strat-
ified sample of all primary schools (1,805 in all) collected
by the Institut National d'Etudes Demographiques (INED) of
Paris.

In Chile, Bravo and Salas (1976) found a close correla-
tion between teachers' subjective evaluation of pupil intelli-
gence and the number of failures (mentioned in Avalos and
Haddad, 1981: 26). Also, "teachers' opinion about parents,
projected on students and vice versa" was found to affect stu-
dents' failure.

In the United States, the widely known experimental study
of Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) of elementary school child-
ren, concluded, particularly for first and second graders,
that geacher's expectations (in this case based on prior and
subjective knowledge of students' IQ) affect students' achieve-
ment. While this study's validity has been challenged by
some (e.g., Thorndike, 1968 and Elashoff and Snow, 1971),
other studies, while not totally supporting the findings of
Rosenthal and Jacobson, have indicated similar results. Rist
(1970) observed a class of ghetto children during their kin—
dergarten, first grade, and second grade years and found that
teacher's expectation of students affected student achieve—
ment; "the child came to act out within the class the very
expectations defined for him by the teacher" (p. 446). Rist
also reviewed the research on teacher's expectation and stu-

dent achievement and concluded that it does influence student

210
performance (ibid.).

Also, Brookover and his associates conducted a study of
24 high and low achieving elementary schools, attended by
white and black students from high and low socio-economic
families of urban and rural communities in Michigan (Brook-
over and Schneider, 1975). The researchers collected their
data during the 1970-71 school year. The results of the
linear regression analysis indicated that after controlling
for the effects of socio-economic status, race, and urban-
rural community type (by putting them into the regression
equation first), among other school variables, higher teacher
perceived future evaluation—expectation was significantly re-
lated to the variance in school achievement.

Also, Hess (1974) studied a sample of 481 native Ameri-
can children enrolled in grades three through eight of five
elementary schools located on a large reservation on the Plains
of the United States. (The sample included the total enroll-
ment of these grades in the five schools.) The five schools
represented the three types of schools attended by reservation
native American children--two mission schools, two day
schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and one pub-
lic (county) school. The theoretical framework of Hess's
study was symbolic interactionism. Hess found significant
positive correlations between perceived expectations and
evaluations of teachers (and others) and (self-concept of
academic ability and) academic achievement.

After an extensive review of the research, Persell (1977)

concluded that, in the United States, teacher expectations

211

(for pupil achievement) affects students' cognitive perform-
ance even when pupil I.Q. and (prior) achievement are con-
trolled.‘ Persell further notes that teachers are more like-
ly to hold negative expectations for lower-class and minority
children than for middle-class and white children.“ Thus,
"given the less powerful position of lower-class and minority
children in (American) society, they appear to be more influ-
enced by teacher expectations" (ibid.: 132).

A review of within-school explanation of differences in
school performance of American students was also done by Hurn
(1978). The author concluded that it simply cannot be said
"that if schools had higher expectations for the performance
of lower class students that the performance of such students
would improve" (p. 163).

In another Michigan study, of 91 randomly selected high-
and low-achieving elementary schools, Brookover et al. (1979)
found that school learning climate, a measure of evaluation
of students' learning ability, teachers' expectations for high
academic performance,(the students' perception of teachers'
expectations and evaluation, and the consequent "student sense

of academic futility"),explained mean school achievement as

 

‘Persell (ibid.) points out that personality character-
istics of pupils, including sensitivity to verbal communica-
tion of emotions, internal locus of control, and self-expecta-
tions, seem to interact with teacher expectations with attend—
ant consequences for cognitive gains.

“According to Persell, "teacher expectations are affect-
ed by testing and tracking, procedures which are themselves
biased against lower-class and minority children..." and "it
is precisely such negative information that...is more potent
in its consequences than positive expectations" (ibid.: 132).

212

much as did the school's racial mix or socio-economic status
of the school's student body. This study, similar to what
Persell (1977) found, showed that teacher expectation has
greater effect on low income and/or minority students than
on middle-class students.

An ethnographic study of "carefully selected" 21 pairs
of elementary schools of California from a population of
4,000 schools was carried out (Law, 1981), to identify school
factors which are significantly related to students' school
success. The schools were, according to Law, virtually iden-
tical in size, type of location, racial makeup and students'
parental income. The schools were different "in that students
in one pair had sixth grade achievement tests very signifi-
cantly higher than those that would normally be predicted for
them, while the other schools had scores significantly lower"
(p. 4). Each school was visited by a four-person team who
observed, interviewed and recorded in a "fairly classical
ethnographic way what was occurring in the school."

The study indicated that teachers' expectations for and
beliefs about the children they were teaching often seemed

to influence pupils' performance.‘

 

‘Law writes (ibid.: 10) that teachers' expectations of
their pupils were reflected in various ways: in the teach-
ers' perceptions of the students and their abilities, in
their selection of curricular material for the pupils, and in
the standards the teachers would set for performance. For
example, in schools where the teacher viewed the students as
having poor oral language skills and many problems, the stu-
dents did poorly; while in a school where the teacher re-
ferred to non-English speaking children as being bright and
learning quickly, the students performed well.

213
Finally, for the United States, after reviewing the re-
search on the self-fulfilling prOphecy and teacher expecta-
tions, Brophy (1982) concluded that a minority of teachers

have major expectation effects on their students' achievement.

The teacher's use of "mastery learning" techniques

Among the twenty selected countries, the only country
about which research on the effects of "mastery learning"
techniques on student achievement is available is the united
States where, as mentioned in chapter III, the formal theory
of mastery learning was initially formulated. The (U.S.)
research indicates that the application of this theory re-
sults in improved and positive student attitudes toward
learning and higher cognitive achievement (Block, 1974;

Bloom, 1976; Block, 1979; Lezotte et al., 1980).'

 

’The present researcher has been able to locate research
on the effectiveness of mastery learning techniques for only
one developing country (not among our twenty countries)--
South Korea (Kim, 1975).

The Korean Project was initially started with only one
subject--mathematics--in the seventh grade in a middle school
in the capital city of Seoul in 1969. As of 1974, it has been
used for teaching mathematics, English, and science to about
600,000 7th to 9th graders (one third of the total student en-
rollment in the middle schools of Korea) and has been shown to
be effective for most students, of both "below-" and "above-
average I.Q."

Also, Fedigan and Gay (1980), after reviewing fifty-one
studies for Alberta Department of Education (of Canada) on the
effects of educational and environmental factors on student
achievement in Britain, Canada, and the United States, found
that mastery learning is "conducive to student success and
efficient learning."

It should be pointed out, however, that putting the in-
structional techniques of mastery learning into practice needs
more time (10 to 20 percent --Bloom, l976:5) over the class-
room scheduled time. And also it requires additional prepar-
ation and work (see Horton, 1979). Of course this does not
diminish the importance and usefulness of this method, and
certainly considering the long term objectives of student
learning, it is worth utilizing.

214

The review and observation of Japan's educational
system by Cummings (1980), discussed before, led him to
reach the conclusion that the way Japanese teachers teach--
working as best they can to help all the students complete
the curriculum--is actually the application of mastery the-
ory. Cummings writes that the (mastery learning) theory
helps "to explain why Japanese school children do so well in
mastering the curriculum" (p. 146).

Cummings points out (ibid.: 150-151) that mastery learn-
ing as such has not been introduced in Japan, but traditional
Japanese educational philosophy shares many precepts with mas-
tery learning; Japan's educators have never paid much atten-
tion to the innate abilities of learners and have shown al-
most no interest in the currently popular American books that
examine the heredity-intelligence-school achievement link.

The teacher's_practice of ability
grouping and curriculum grouping

Of the twenty selected countries it was possible for this
investigator to locate only for two developed non socialist-
communist countries, Australia and the United States, and for
no developing and no socialist countries, studies which in-
cluded the grouping practices as a variable affecting academic
achievement of students.

For Australia, the results of the Australian Survey of
Primary School Achievement (Western Australian Education De-
partment, 1976) indicated no consistent gain of higher test

scores on average for pupils in classes streamed according to

215

"general ability" than for those in unstreamed classes. For
the United States, the available research generally supports
the conclusion that ability grouping and curriculum grouping
(tracking) is not effective in teaching and raising the level
of academic achievement of all or even most students; it may
even be detrimental for the students of "average" and "low"
ability groups; and that heterogeneous grouping may help
children of average and low ability without lowering "high
ability" students' level of academic performance (Coleman et
al., 1966, and see Johnson, 1970: 184-186; Jencks et al.,
1972; Brookover and Erickson, 1975: 330-339; Rosenbaum, 1976;
Persell, 1977: 85-99; Hurn, 1978: 155-157; Bryson and Bentley,
1980; Cuttance, 1980b: 47—48; Rosenbaum, 1980: 361-401;

Brookover et al., 1982: 109-121).

The teacher-student ratio (class size)

The study of Kenyan education by Thias and Carnoy (1972)
indicated that the teacher-pupil ratio in primary schools ap-
parently had no impact upon the students' performance on ex-
aminations, "not even when disaggregated into partial ratios
based on teacher qualifications" (p. 171).

In Australia, the results of that country's surveys of
primary school achievement given every five years from 1955
to 1970 (Western Australian Education Department, 1976) indi-
cated that overall scores for all years were higher for
classes of 40 or more students--pupils in the larger classes
gained on average higher scores than pupils in smaller class-

es (p. 38). However, Keeves (1972) found for the lower level

216

of secondary schooling in Australia, class size to be a sig-
nificant influence on changes in both mathematics and sci-
ence achievement (reported in Cuttance, l980b: 58).

A study of "size and homogeneity of class as related to
scholastic achievement" in Sweden by Marklund in 1962 has in-
dicated that class size has not been an important factor in
student achievement (cited in World Bank, l978:6). And, as
it was mentioned before (pp. 194-195), where rural-urban dif
ferences in achievement for Swedish students were discussed,
in Sweden, in the small classes (16-20 students), the rural
schools had attained as good results as urban schools
(Marklund, 1969: 310-311). The same conclusion applied to
somewhat larger classes. However, the urban schools were
shown to be superior as the size of the class rose.

The results of the longitudinal study of appterns of
educational inequality in Germany (Williamson, 1977), dis-
cussed before, indicated smaller classes and lower teacher-
pupil ratio (suggested, according to the author, by high
teacher expenditure) were correlated with high student per-
formance on all the "attainment measures," presumably includ-
ing some measure of academic achievement as well.

For Chile, Farrell and Schiefelbein's (1974) study of
eighth graders, using the average size of an 8th grade class
in each school as a measure of class size, found that stu-
dents of larger classes tended to perform better on the (na-
tional) test than students of smaller classes. The authors

also found that for students whose parents had only basic

217

education or less, class size had a stronlgy positive im-
pact on achievement. The impact upon the achievement of
other children (with other parental background) was in most
cases random.

In the United States, Rossi's (1961) review found a com-
plicated relationship between class size and student achieve-
ment. In some subjects students had done better in small
classes than in larger classes, but in some other subjects
the larger classes had been more conducive to student achieve-
ment. According to Coleman et al.'s (1966) study, after con-
trolling for racial and socio-economic background of students,
teacher-student ratio—-like many other inschool factors--was
shown to have no significant impact upon student achievement:
smaller classes seemed to be slightly more effective.

After studying 18,258 elementary and secondary school
classrooms at all grade levels of the United States, Olson
(1970) concluded that in both elementary and secondary
schools, smaller classes result in higher student achievement
than large classes. However, after a review of the research,
Lindbloom (1976) reported that the studies of class size and
pupil achievement have been conducted over a very short per—
iod of time, and reveal inconclusive results. In terms of
educational process, the review indicated that small classes
have been superior to large classes.

The review of the University of the State of New York
(1973) found class size not to be a significant affector of
student performance. In about fifteen studies which had

tested cognitive performance, class size (or teacher-student

218
ratio) had been found to be significant less than half the
time. Extremely small or large classes may have made more
difference, however.

Also in the United States, according to the Educational
Research Service of Virginia (1978), within the mid-range of
about 25 to 34 pupils, class size seems to have little if any
decisive impact on the academic achievement of most pupils in
most subjects above the primary grades (p. 69). But Glass
and Smith (1978), after doing a meta-analysis of fourteen
studies of class size and academic achievement, concluded that
it can be expected that small classes clearly increase stu-
dents' academic achievement.‘

Finally, Glass and others (1982) reviewed and synthe-
sized the results of many books, dissertations, and research
reports on the relationship between class size and academic
achievement (in the United States) and concluded that class
size does, in fact, affect student achievement. The authors

write that smaller classes improve pupil performance.

 

'Glass and Smith's analysis has been criticized by Edu—
cational Research Service (ERS) of Virginia (l980a). Glass
(1980) has rebuttled ERS's critique and conceded no points.

ERS (l980b) has responded to Glass's rebuttal and indicated
that it remains convinced that Glass and Smith's meta-analysis
contains no new evidence on class size, and it would be a mis-
take for educational decision-makers to rely on Glass and
Smith's conclusions when formulating class size policy.

219

Summarngonclusions

 

The relationship of home and school social factors to
student learning for the twenty selected countries, derived
from the research evidence examined in this chapter, could be
summarized as follows:

Out-of-school factors and academic achievement

-- Student's gender and achievement: In most countries,
both developed and developing, boys do better than girls,
particularly in subjects such as science and mathematics, and
at the upper school levels. In socialist countries, however,
girls generally do better or as well as boys in most academic
subjects.

—- Student's language and achievement: In almost all
countries, students taught in their mother tongue do better
in other subjects, including the second language.

-- Student's racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds
and achievement: These variables, in almost all developed
countries, are usually associated with achievement-~being
from a racial-ethnic majority is positively related to
achievement. In less developed countries, while the same
relationship exists, the evidence is not as consistent as it
is in developed countries.

-- Student's socio-economic status of the family and
achievement: In most countries,being from a higher socio-
economic status family is usually associated with higher
achievement. Some evidence from some developed countries

and more evidence for some developing countries, indicate

220

that family background is not associated with achievement.
Some studies have even found higher achievement levels by
children of lower socio-economic status families than those
of children of higher socio-economic status families. In
either case, the relationship of family background to achieve-
ment is weaker in less developed countries than in developed
ones; the relationship is also weaker for children of lower
socio-economic and other disadvantaged groups (in both de-
veloped and developing countries).

-- Parental expectation and encouragement and achieve-
ment: These factors have been shown to be almost always as-
sociated with achievement: the higher the parent's expecta-
tion and the greater his/her encouragement, the higher the
child's school achievement.

-- Rural-urban factors and achievement: In most coun-
tries, being from an urban area is, generally, assoCiated

with higher achievement.

In-school factors and academic achievement

-- Teacher's socio-economic status and achievement:
Higher socio-economic status of the teacher is usually as-
sociated with higher student achievement.

-- Teacher's education level and achievement: This
factor either has no effect on student achievement or, the
higher the education level, the higher the student achieve-
ment.

-- Teacher's training and achievement: Almost the same

relationship pattern for this factor and achievement has

221

been found as for teacher's education and achievement; it
either has no effect on achievement or has positive influ-
ence. (In some cases it has been shown to be more important
than teacher's education level in student achievement, how—
ever.)

-- Teacher's verbal ability and knowledge of subject
matter: These two factors are usually associated with in-
creased student learning.

-- Teacher's teaching experience and achievement:
Teacher's experience has been found to be important in stu-
dent learning, particularly for some subjects (e.g., science
and mathematics). Some studies have found it to not have
any effect, however.

-- Teacher's inservice training and achievement:
Teacher's upgrading is associated most of the time with im—
proved student learning.

-- Teacher's evaluation of the student and expectation
for his/her achievement: In most studies, particularly for
less developed countries, these factors have emerged as be-
ing positively associated with achievement; the more posi-
tive the teacher's evaluation of the student's learning abil-
ity and the higher the teacher's expectation of him/her, the
higher the student's achievement level.

-- Teacher's practice of "mastery learning" techniques
and achievement: This practice has been shown to have pos-
itive influence upon achievement level of all students.

-- Teacher's practice of abilityiand curriculum—

222

grouping and achievement. Homogeneous grouping of students
and tracking have been found to have negative and sometimes
no effect on student's (perception of his/her learning abil-
ity and) achievement. Heterogeneous grouping has been shown
to have either no effect or to have positive effect on
achievement.

-- Teacher-student ratio and achievement: This factor's
relationship to achievement is conflicting. It usually does
not affect student learning. In some studies, the higher
class size has been found to be associated with improved
achievement, and in other cases smaller classes have result-

ed in increased student learning.

The Relative Influences of Home and School to Achieve-
ment: In all countries, in most cases, home-related variables
explain more of the variance in achievement than do school
factors. However, it is less so in developing countries, and
less so for lower social classes (in developed and in devel-
oping countries as well). Thus, the school's characteristics
are usually more important in developing countries, and for
lower social class children. In some cases in developed
countries, and in more cases in less developed ones, school
quality is even more important than family background in

student achievement.

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS; DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS OF THE
STUDIES, STATE OF THE RESEARCH; RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
LEARNING THEORY, FOR TEACHING PRACTICE, FOR TEACHER

TRAINING, FOR SOCIOLOGICAL-EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH,
FOR EDUCATIONAL-SOCIAL POLICY; A FINAL WORD
Summary and Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to make a sociological
analysis of the state of equality of educational opportunity
with a major emphasis on the status of inequality of academic
achievement. The other purpose was to examine the research
evidence on the relationship between some family and school
related social factors and academic achievement of primary,
intermediate, and secondary school students in societies
around the world. Also it was the purpose to assess the sta-
tus of sociological-educational research in academic learn-
ing.

The methodology employed was historical review and qual-
itative analysis. An extensive library (manual) search was
conducted and other information retrieval methods, such as
computer search, international interlibrary loan service,
correspondence with scholars in the field and research or-
ganizations, were utilized. 'Only English language materials
were included in the investigation and there was no restric-
tion as far as the time period during which the studies had
been carried out or published.

223

224

In the first chapter, a preliminary statement of the
problem, the researcher's purposes in conducting the study,
the rational for and importance of the study, the methodol-
ogy, the procedures used for collecting the data, the delim-
itations of the study, some definitions of terms, the assump-
tions underlying the study, and the structure of the disser-
tation were stated.

In the second chapter, the argument was made and document-
ed that, despite the fact that most peOple and essentially all
governments accept education as a basic human need and a hu-
man right, and despite an apparent international concern for
the provision of equality of educational opportunity, at
least in terms of access to (enrollment in) formal educational
institutions, and finally, despite worldwide educational ex-
pansion, still in every country, though in varying degrees, a
great many individuals remain uneducated (unschooled) or un-
dereducated. These are mostly members of lower social class-
es and politically powerless racial, ethnic (including lin-
guistic), and religious groups, and those who live in poor
neighborhoods and in remote and rural areas, and the physical-
ly handicapped and females; many of the school-age children
of these groups remain out of school. It was concluded that
the question of inequality of educational opportunity has
not been solved anywhere in the world. In fact it was argued
that the education system itself is contributing to educa-

tional inequality (and'thus to social inequality).

In chapter III,the theories and assumptions of learning

225

were presented and some psychological, sociological, and an-
thropological, economic, and medical explanations for academic
behavior were discussed. Also in chapter III, some relatively
recent sociological and social-psychological conceptions and
models of learning and school achievement were discussed. It
was learned that many, or perhaps most, peOple (including ed-
ucators and educationists and parents) still believe in in-
nateness of "intelligence" and individual genetic differences
in learning ability; clinical-psychological theories of human
learning are still having an overwhelming impact upon educa-
tional thinking and pedagogical process in most societies,
though less so in the socialist countries.

It was also found that despite the tremendous progress
in the development of learning theories, particularly socio-
logical theories, and although we now know more than at any
other time in human history, even more than a decade ago, but
perhaps due to the complexity of the human being and human
society, we still lack a powerful theory of the learning phe-
nomenon.

Chapter IV was devoted to a review and examination of
international-multinational studies of school achievement
which had looked at the relationship between some social
factors of concern to us and academic performance of students.
The major conclusion of chapter IV was that, except in some
rare cases, and to a lesser degree in developing countries,
the family background of the student is found to be the main

factor affecting learning and to be more influential than

226

school variables. In a few less developed countries, school
characteristics have emerged as more powerful in explaining
student learning than family characteristics.

In chapter V, an extensive body of research was critical-
ly reviewed and analyzed for twenty selected countries. While
some exceptions were found, particularly for less developed
countries, the kind of factors studied and the general con-
clusions reached for these twenty countries did not differ
in any significant way from what was just mentioned for stud-

ies reviewed in chapter IV.

The major conclusions reached from the examination
of studies in chapters IV and V and from the examination

of other evidence can be synthesized as follows:

Out-of—school factors and academic achievement:

-- Student's gender and achievement: Male students usual-
ly outperform female students, particularly in some school
subjects such as science and mathematics, and in upper sec-
ondary grades. However, female students outperform male
students in certain subjects such as reading and language.

In socialist countries, girls generally do better than or
as well as boys in most school subjects.

-- Student's language and achievement: Learning the
mother tongue and instruction in it greatly influence (pos-
itively) school learning, including learning the second lang-
uage. Teaching in the second language has been shown to
handicap the student's ability to learn.

-- Student's racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds

227
and achievement: In almost all developed countries and in
most developing countries, these factors explain variance in
student learning; generally, being from a racial-ethnic
majority is associated with higher achievement. In a few
less developed countries, children of ethnic minority groups
have done better.

-- Student's socio-economic background (intellectuality
in the home included) and achievement: In most countries of
the world, regardless of the country's political and eco-
nomic structure and cultural context, and whether they be-
lieve or do not believe in individual differences in learn-
ing ability, higher socio-economic status of the family is
associated with higher achievement. However, some studies
for some developing countries, and a few studies for some
developed nations, have found children of lower social class-
es to achieve more than those from higher social classes.
But in any event, social class has less effect on achieve-
ment in less developed and poor countries than in more
developed and rich ones.

-- Parental positive attitude toward student's learning,
high expectation and encouragement, and achievement: These
factors virtually always affect, positively, student per-
formance.

-- Urban-rural location and achievement: In most coun—
tries,students living in a rural area have, in general,
achieved less than those of urban areas.

-- The student's prior achievement, the help which the

228

child receives with schoolwork in the home, the amount of
homework done after school, and achievement: Most of the
time, the higher degree of each of these factors is associ-
ated with higher performance.

In-school social factors and student achievement:

-- Teacher's socio-economic status and achievement: In
most cases, the higher socio-economic status of the teacher
has been found to be associated with improved academic per-
formance of students.

-- Teacher's education level and achievement: In some
studies, teacher's (formal) education has been found to have
no influence on student learning. Other studies have found
it to be positively related to achievement.

-- Teacher's training and achievement: A non-linear re-
lationship has been found for teacher's (preservice) train-
ing and student learning.

-- Teacher's verbal ability and knowledge of subject
matter and achievement: These two teacher factors have been
found to be usually associated with higher student achievement,
particularly for some subjects and for higher grades.

-- Teacher's experience and achievement: In some stud-
ies, teacher experience has emerged as having no effect on
learning. However, in other cases it has been found to be
important, especially for teaching some subjects such as
mathematics.

—- Teacher's inservice training and achievement:

Teacher's participation in upgrading programs has been shown

229

to positively affect student learning.

-- Teacher's positive evaluation of student's ability
and expectation of him/her, and achievement: In almost all
oountries, in most cases, these factors have positive, some-
times strong, effects on student learning.

-- Teacher-student ratio and achievement: This factor
either does not affect learning, or the larger class size is
associated with higher achievement. In some cases a smaller
class has resulted in higher achievement.

-- Textbook availability, time devoted to direct instruc-
tion, opportunity available to student for academic partici—
pation, and achievement: Each of these factors usually re-
sults in higher student achievement. Textbook availability
has been shown to be particularly important for children of

lower social classes, and in develOping countries.

The relative influences of family and school:

In most developed countries, family characteristics have
a stronger effect on student's achievement than school char-
acteristics. For lower social class children, and in devel-
oping countries, the relationship of family related factors
to learning is not as strong as it is for higher social class
children, and in developed countries. In some cases, family
factors have emerged as equal to or even less powerful than

school factors in their effect on performance.

Discussion, Limitations of the Studies, State of the Research
The reason why school factors are more important in stu-

dent achievement in developing countries than is the case

230

in most developed countries, or why the school's effect is
in some cases even stronger than that of family socio-eco-
nomic status, could be due to less variation in the status
of the families (home conditions and qualities such as read-
ing materials) and more variation in school qualities. It
could also be due to the importance of other factors such as
culture of the society, or racial-ethnic—religious subcul-
tural values which could diminish the effect of socio-eco-
nomic status on children's achievement. These factors--eth-
nicity, race, religion, and cultural values--have not been
studied, particularly in developing countries; their effect
and interrelationships with other factors in affecting
learning remains to be investigated.

Also, almost everywhere, studies of school achievement
have dealt with the effect of traditional factors such as
teacher's salary, class size, and per pupil expenditure.

Only in the last ten to fifteen years in the developed, most-
ly capitalist, countries, particularly the United States, Eng-
land, and, to some extent, Canada and Australia, studies of
academic achievement have sought to identify the relationship
of some variables of school social systems (such as academic
norms and values prevalent in the school) to student achieve-
ment. Based on the available evidence, it appears that the
developing countries and socialist developed ones have just
started employing such a research approach.

Additionally, except for the developed countries men-

tioned above, particularly the United States, not many

231

multivariate, experimental, and longitudinal studies, and
ethnographic ones (which examine the real teaching-learning
situation and processes) are available, especially for less
developed and for socialist countries. Even though we now
know that studying the process of schooling and measuring
the academic outcome is the best way to learn about the ef-
fectiveness of a school, it has not been possible to develop
a complete scientific, universal or national, instrument to
assess a school's quality and to identify with enough pre-
cision those school characteristics which produce high or
low student performance. Thus,the findings reported and con-
clusions reached here should be viewed and interpreted with
caution and with the consideration of the fact that applica—
tion of a research result could have a strong effect upon
people's lives.

If most studies, particularly for developed countries,
have found home factors to explain more of the variance in
student achievement, it could be due to the research method-
ology and the kind of proxies they have used to measure
school quality. Even the comprehensive international studies
of academic achievement (IEA work) have not examined, for
example, the effect of students' perception of teacher's
evaluation of their learning ability'(on achievement). Study-
ing school culture remains a real lack of possible source of
explanation for the relative effects of school-home factors
on achievement. If, for example, class size, teacher train-

ing, and some other school factors do affect learning in some

232

cases, but not in other cases, it is caused, perhaps, by the
way these qualities are utilized in teaching-learning situa—
tions. (For example, a larger class could result in higher
achievement if there is cooperation between students and
students tutor each other. Class size and other school-
teacher properties could affect student learning if the
proper learning atmosphere is established, not just in the
classroom, but also in the school and even in the whole edu-
cational system.) Also a student's academic achievement, as
it is known at this time, is a function of the interaction
of all personal, family, school, and societal factors; no
factor or cluster of factors independently determines stu-

dent's academic and other behavior.

Recommendations for Learning Theory

Obviously, the necessary physical conditions for learn-
ing have to be provided. Indeed, in developing nations--
apparently at least until the difference of home and school
in physical conditions diminishes as in the developed coun-
tries-nthe school facilities, including library, study hall,
and reading materials are very important and needed. But
what is as much as or even more important are the school's
academic values and norms, role expectations, teacher-stu-
dent and student-student interaction patterns, communicative
factors, educational belief systems and the like, that inter-
act with material factors and influence student learning.

Provision of learning materials is not enough. What is

also important and necessary is change in educational

233

thinking, in viewing learning potential of students. The
strong and one-sided adherence to classical/psychological
learning theories should be re-evaluated and the belief in
innateness of learning ability and individual differences

in such ability has to be reconsidered. Teachers and other
school people should view and judge the student as inherent-
ly able to learn, and believe in the strong effect of "sig-
nificant others" and other social forces on student's per-

formance.

Recommendations for TeachingiPractice

Derived from the above recommendations, and based on
the findings of the available research, it could be suggested
that in the school a general academic climate of positive
evaluation of students' learning ability and expectations
for high achievement by all students should be established.
This is particularly important for students of lower socio-
economic background who usually have little or no academic
help at home, and not even proper living conditions. Under
such circumstances, a teacher's confidence in the learning
ability of these students and high expectations for their
achievement could be a great psychological help and result

in higher performance.

A school's teachers should not label students as slow
learners, low ability children, and the like, and should
avoid homogeneous ability grouping. Using mastery learning
techniques and cooperative learning methods could greatly

improve achievement of students. Also, students should be

234

instructed in their mother tongue (as suggested by the
available research evidence).

What is very important is not only belief in the learn-
ing ability of all students and high expectations of them,
and commitment to excellence and equality in learning, but
also the teacher's involvement in direct instruction. In
other words, learning environment should be provided in all

its dimensions.

Recommendations for Teacher Training

In teacher training programs everywhere, perhaps even
more so in those countries with not enough school facilities
and instructional materials, the importance of nonmaterial,
contextual-cultural-social properties of learning environ-
ment, and use of mastery learning techniques, should be em-
phasized in the curriculum. It is necessary that psyco-
logical theories of learning and belief in the existence of
a wide variation in the aptitudes of students be de-emphas-
ized, particularly in light of the recently emerged power-
ful sociological, social-psychological explanations of learn-
ing supported by empirical evidence. It is important that
sociological theories of learning also be given a place in

the curriculum of teacher training institutions.

Recommendations for Sociological-Pedagogical Research
Research on factors affecting student learning should

(more than before) apply social-psychological theories of

235

school learning discussed in chapter III. This in no way is
saying or implying that other (psychological) theories
should not be used. It means, however, that the social
learning theories also should be employed in educational re-
search as a means to some possible source of explanation for
school failure and the persistence of inequality of academic
achievement. The school's academic climate variables should
be identified and their contribution to learning should be
studied.

Ethnographic, experimental, and longitudinal research
methods should be employed. Studying the influence of self-
concept of academic ability; parental evaluation, expectation,
and encouragement; ethnicity; and mastery learning techniques
on achievement are indeed necessary. In fact, for all home
factors examined in this work and for all countries, more

research is needed.

Recommendations for Educational-Social Policy

It is very important that the suggestions given for
change in educational thinking, in teaching practice, and in
teacher training programs be implemented. However, because
of the impact of home conditions on achievement, and since
many, or most, people (including teachers and parents) still
believe in the importance of family background in student
learning (higher social class, higher achievement), and

since this usually affects children of low social classes

236

and results in lower achievement by them, thus educational-
social policy is needed to prevent such achievement levels.
Perhaps this could be accomplished through temporary posi-
tive discrimination policies such as, for a period, admit-
ting proportionately more children of lower social classes
to higher education and providing them with financial aid.
Members of "disadvantaged" families should have equal chance
of entering into the job market and real opportunity to
occupy high social positions. These families need to be
provided with economic well-being and proper social-educa-
tional arrangements which could result in high level of

academic performance by their children.

True, the society (any society!) needs different func-
tions to be performed by "different" people (and this affects
the society's ideology about people's learning ability and
results in certain educational policies and practices) and
the educational system itself contributes to the allocation
of individuals to occupations. But why should only individ-
uals of certain (lower) social groups end up doing low-
paying jobs? If a society believes in the principle of
social justice, the least it should do is to distribute in-
equality equally among various groups.

Teachers, also, should be given financial incentives.
Even though teachers may not be able by themselves to lower
the level of inequality of learning among students very
much, they could at least lower it to a certain point.

However, they need and deserve social recognition and enough

237

material support to become interested and remain interested

in teaching for equality of learning by essentially all stu-

dents.

A Final Wbrd

(1) While academic learning is very important, other

-- affective -- learnings in school (as a social institution)

are at least as important.

(2) If strong emphasis on equality and excellence in
academic achievement for all has undesirable consequences
(for example, suicide as reported for some Japanese students),
if supported by hard research evidence, then the question of
excellence and equality in learning has to be reconsidered.

(3) Finally, while the student's equal right to learn
should be respected, even more importantly the student him—
self/herself should be respected as a human being. This
could result in self-confidence and even help the student to

perform better academically.

REFERENCES
AND

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

REFERENCES

Aaron, P. G. et al. The Rural and Urban Schools: A Compar-
ative Study of the Socio-Psychological Conditions of the
Pupils and the Teachers (1969). In A Survey of Research
in Education. Buch, M. B. (Ed.). Baroda, India: Center
of Advanced Study in Education, 1974.

Ahmann, 8. How Much Are Our Young_People Learning? The
Study_of the National Assessment (Phi Delta Kappa Fastback
68). Bloomington, Indiana: The Phi Delta Kappa Educa-
tional Foundation, 1976.

Alexander, L. and Simmons, J. The Determinants of School
Achievement in Developing Countries: The Educational Pro-
duction Function (International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development Working Paper No. 201). Washington, D.C.: The
World Bank, 1975.

Altbach, P. G. and Kelly, G. P. Education and Colonialism.
New York: Longman, 1978.

Ammoun, C. D. Study of Discrimination in Education. New
York: United Nations, August 1957.

Anderson, C. A. A Skeptical Note on Education and Mobility.
In Education, Economy, and Society. Halsey, A. H. et al.
(Eds.):* London: Collier-Macmillan, 1961.

Andorka, R. Social Mobility and Education in Hungary: An
Analysis Applying Raymond Boudon's Models. Social Science
Information, 1976, 25(1), 47-70.

Anselmo, S. Bloom's Human Characteristics and School Learn-
ing in Perspective. Educational Researcher, 1981, 10(10),
29-30.

Arap-Maritim, E. K. The Academic Self-concept and the Teach-
er's Perception: Their Relationships to Pupil's Grade At-
tainment in Rurgl Kenya. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard
University, 1979. Dissertation Abstracts International
40, 3180-A. '

Ashton, P. T. Cross-Cultural Piagetian Research: An Exper-
imental Perspective. Harvard Educational Review, 1957, 45
(4), 475-505.

Avalos, B. and Haddad, W. A Review of Teacher Effectiveness

238

239

Research in Africa, India, Latin America, Middle East, Ma-
laysia, Philippinesi and Thailand: Synthesis of Results.
Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Cen-
tre, 1981.

Averch, H. A. et al. How Effective is Schooling? A Critical
Review and Synthesis of Research Findings. Santa Monica,
California: The Rand Corporation, 1972.

Babansky, I. K. Optimization of the Teaching Process (Pre-
venting Failing Grades Among Schoolchildren). Soviet Ed-
ucation (A Journal of Translations), 1973, 15(12), 3-93.

Backman, C. W. and Secord, P. F. A Social Psychological View
of Education. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1968.

Bagley, C. A Comparative Perspective on the Education of
Black Children in Britain. Comparative Education, 1979,
15(1), 63-810

Balogun, I. O. B. The Intellectual and Residential Correlates
of Reading Achievement in Nigerian Secondary Schools.
West African Journal of Education, 1976, 20(2), 245-255.

Bandura, A. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1977.

Banks, 0. The Sociolggy of Education (Rev. ed.). New York:
Schocken Books, 1976.

Banks, 0. and Finlayson, D. Success and Failure in the Sec-
ondary School: An Intradisciplinary Approach to School
Achievement. London: Methuen and Co., 1973.

 

Barbagli, M. and Dei, M. Socialization into Apathy and Polit-
ical Subordination. In Power and Ideology in Education.
Karabel, J. and Halsey, A. H. (Eds.). London: Oxford
University Press, 1977.

Barber, E. G. Some International Perspectives on Sex Differ-
ences in Education. Si ns: Journal of Women in Culture
and Society, 1979, 4(3 , 584-592.

Barial, R. N. P. An Investigation into the Impact of Social
Class Background upon Educational Achievement and Motiva-
tion (1966). In A Survey of Research in Education. Buch,
M. 8. (Ed.). Baroda, India: Center of Advanced Study in
Education, 1974.

Bar-Tal, D. and Saxe, L. (Eds.). Social Psychology of Educa-
tion: Theory and Research. New York: Wiley, 1978.

 

Barton, L. and Meighan, R. (Eds.). Sociological Interpreta-
tions of Schooliggand Classrooms: A Reappraisal. Driff-
ield, England: Nafferton Books, 1978.

240

Bauernfeind, R. H. The Four Major Fallacies of Group I.Q.
Testing. School Counselor, 1971, 18(3), 156-164.

Belandria, L. C. A Cross-National Study of the Multilevel
Effects of Social Background on Achievement. Paper pre-
sented at the annual meeting of American Educational Re-
search Association, Los Angeles, April 1981.

Bereday, G. 2. F. Social Stratification and Education in In-
dustrial Countries. Comparative Education Review, 1977,
21 (2 & 3), 195-210.

Bereday, G. 2. F. The Law and Exclusion from Schools in Com-
parative Perspective. Comparative Education Review, 1980,
24(1), part 1, 192-205.

 

Bernstein, B. Social Structure, Language, and Learning. pg-
ucational Research (NFER), 1961, 3.

 

Bernstein, B. A Socio-Linguistic Approach to Social Learning.
In Social Science Survey. Gould, J. (Ed.). Middlesex,
England: Penguin, 1965.

Bernstein, B. Class, Codes, apd Control (Vol. III). London:
Routledge and Kegan, P., 1975.

Bessant, B. Rural Schooling and the Rural Myth in Australia.
Comparative Education, 1978, 14(2), 121-132.

 

Birch, H. G. and Gussow, J. D. Disadvantaged Children. New
York: Harcourt, Brace, and Wor d, 1970.

Blakemore, K. and Cooksey, B. A Sociology of Education for
Africa. London: Allen and Unwin, 1980.

Blaug, M. The Correlation between Education and Earnings:
What does it Signify? Higher Education, 1972, 1(1), 53-
76.

Block, J. H. (Ed.). Schools, Society, and Mastery Learning.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1974.

Block, J. H. Mastery Learning: the Current State of the
Craft. Educational Leadership, 1979, 37, 114-117.

Block, N. J. and Dworkin, G. (Eds.). The I.Q. Controversy.
New York: Random House, 1976.

Blomqvist, J. Some Social Factors and School Failure. Inter-
national Review of Education, 1957, 3, 165-173.

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Hand-
book I: Cognitive Domain). New York: McKay, 1956.

241

Bloom, B. 5. Learning for Mastery. Evaluation Comment
(Center for the Study of Evaluation of Instructional Pro-
grams, University of California at Los Angeles), 1968, 1,
1-12.

Bloom, B. S. An Introduction to Mastery Learning. In
Schools,,Society, and Mastepy Learning. Block, J. H.
(Ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1974.

Bloom, B. S. Human Charactepigtics and School Learning.
New York: McGraw Hill, 1976.

Bloom, B. S. New Views of the Learner: Implications for
Instruction and Curriculum. Educational Leadership, 1978,
35, 563-576.

Blumer, H. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1969.

Boocock, S. S. An Introduction to the Sociology of Learning.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.

Boocock, S. S. The School as a Social Environment for Learn-
ing: Social Organization and Micro-Social Process in Ed-
ucation. Sociolggy of Education, 1973, 46, 15-50.

Boocock, S. S. The Social Organization of the Classroom.
Annual Review of Sociology, 1978, 4, 1-28.

Boocock, S. S. Sociology of Education: An Introduction.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1980.

Boudon, R. Education, Opportunity, and Social Inquality.
New York: Wiley, 1974.

Boudon, R. and Lagneau, J. Inequality of Educational Oppor-
tunity in Western Europe. Prospects, 1980, 10(2), 181-
188.

Bourdieu, P. Systems of Education and Systems of Thought.
In Knowledge and Control: New Directions for the Sociol-
ggy of Education. Young, M. F. D. (Ed.). London:
Collier-Macmillan, 1971.

 

Bourdieu, P. Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction.
In Power and Ideolpgy in Education. Karabel, J. and Halsey,
A. H. (Eds.). New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.

 

Bourdieu, P. and Saint-Martin, M. de. The Scholastic Excel-
lence and the Values of the Educational System. In Con-
temporapy Research in the Sociolqugof Education. ‘_——
Eggleston, J. (Ed.). New York: Harper and Row, 1974.

Bowen, J. Toward an Assessment of Educational Theory: An
Historical Perspective. International Review of Education

242

(Special issue: Contemporary Educational Theory: An An-
alysis and Assessment), 1979, 25 (2-3), 303-323.

Bowles, S. Unequal Education and the Reproduction of the
Social Division of Labor. In Power and Ideolqugin Ed-
ucation. Karabel, J. and Halsey, A. H. (EdST). London:
Oxford University Press, 1977.

 

Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. Schooliggin Capitalist America:
Educational Reform and the Contributions of Economic
Life. New York: Basic Books, 1976.

Bowman, M. J. and Anderson, C. A. The Participation of
Women in Education in the Third World. Comparative Edu-
cation Review, 1980, 24(2), part 2, $13-$32.

Braum, C. Teacher Expectation: Socio-Psychological Dynam-
ics. Review of Educational Research, 1976, 46(2), 185-
213.

Bredemeier, M. E. and Bredemeier, H. C. Social Forces in
Education. Sherman Oaks, California: Alfred, 1978.

Brim, O. 6., Jr. Sociology and the Field of Education. New
Ybrk: Russell Sage Foundation, 1958.

Brimer, M. A. and Pauli, L. Wastage in Education: A World
Problem. Geneva: International Bureau of Education

(IBE), 1971.

Brookover, W. B. A Sociology of Education. New York: Amer-
ican Book, 1955.

Brookover, w. B. A Social Psychological Conception of Class-
room Learning. School and Society, 1959, 87(2148), 84-
87.

Brookover, W. B. Sociology of Education. Mimeographed, 1981.

Brookover, W. B. School-Classroom Climate and Student Behav-
ior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New York, April 1982.

Brookover, W. B. and Erickson, E. L. Society, Schools, and
Learning. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State Univer-
sity Press, 1969.

Brookover, W. B. and Erickson, E. L. Sociolqu of Education.
Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1975.

Brookover, W. B. and Gottlieb, D. A Sociology of Education.
New York: American Book, 1964.

Brookover, W. B. and Schneider, J. M. Academic Environments

243

and Elementary School Achievement. Journal of Research
and Develqpment in Education, 1975, 9(1), 82-91.

Brookover, W. B. et al. School Social Systems and Student
Achievement; Schools Can Make a Difference. New York:
Praeger, 1979.

Brookover, W. B. et al. Creating Effective Schools: An In-
service Program for EnhancingSchool Learning,Climate and
Achievement. Holmes Beach, Florida: Learning, 1982.

Broom, L. and Jones, F. Opportunity and Attainment in Aus-
tralia. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press,
1977.

Brophy, J. E. Research on the Self-Fulfillipg Prophecy and
Teacher Eggectations. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, New
York, March 1982.

Bruner, J. S. The Process of Education. Cambridge, Massa-
achusetts: Harvard University Press, 1960.

Bryson, J. E. and Bentley, C. P. Ability Grouping_of Public
School Students: Legal Aspects of Classification and
Tracking Methods. Charlottesville, Virginia: Michie,1980.

Bulcock, J. W. Evaluating Social Facts Related to School
Achievement in Sweden and England. Scandinavian Journal
of Educational Research, 1977, 21, 63-96.

Burt, C. The_Backward Child. London: University of London
Press, 1937.

Burton, N. W. and Jones, V. Recent Trends in Achievement

Levels of Black and White Youth. Educational Researchgg,
1982, 11(4), 10-14.

Byrne, E. M. E ualit of Education and Training for Girls
(10-l8years§ (Collection Studies Education Series No. 9).
Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, 1978.

 

Carceles, G. Development of Education in the World: A Sum-
mary Statistical Review. International Review of Educa-
tion, 1979, 25(2-3), 147-166.

Carnoy, M. Education as Cultural Imperialism. New York:
McKay, 1974.

Carnoy, M. and Levin, H. M. The Limits of Educational Re-
form. New York: McKay, 1976.

Carroll,J.B. A Mbdel of School Learning. Teachers College
Record, 1963, 64, 723-733.

244

Carroll, J. B. The Teaching of French as a Foreign Language
in Eight Countries. Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist and
Wiksell, and New York: Wiley, 1975.

Charters, W. W. and Gage, N. L. (Eds.). Readings in the
Social Psychology of Education. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul, 1963.

 

Chen, T. Hsi-en. Chinese Education since 1949: Academic and
Revolutionary Mbdels. New York: Pergamon, 1981.

Chirot, D. Social Change in the TwentiethiCentury. New
York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1977.

Chopra, 5. L. A Study of Relationship of Socio-Economic Fac-
tors with Achievement of the Students in the Secondary
Schools (1964). In A Survey of Research in Education.
Buch, M. B. (Ed.). Baroda, India: Center of Advanced
Study in Education, 1974.

Chopra, S. L. Cultural Deprivation and Academic Achievement.
The Journal of Educational Research, 1969, 62(10), 435-
438.

Clark, K. B. A Possible Reality: A Design for the Attain-
ment of High Academic Achieyement for Inner-City Students.
New York: Emerson Hall, 1972.

Clignet, R. Liberty and Eguality in the Educational Process:
A Comparative Sociology of Education. New York: Wiley,
1974.

Clignet, R. The Liberalizing and Equalizing Functions of
Schools: An Overview. Comparative Education Review,
1975, 19(1), 88-104.

Colclough, C. Primary Schooling_and Economic Development: A
Review of the Evidence (World Bank Staff Working Paper No.
399). Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 1980.

Coleman, J. S. (Ed.). Education and Politicgl Development.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965.

Coleman, J. S. et al. Eguality of Educational Opportunity.
Washington, D.C.: U. 5. Government Printing Office, 1966.

Comber, L. C. and Keeves, J. P. Science Education in Nine-
teen Countries: An Empirical Study. Stockholm, Sweden:
Almqvist and Wiksell, and New York: Wiley, 1973.

Cooksey, B. Social Class and Academic Achievement: A Camer-
oon Case Study. Comparative Education Review, 1981, 25
(3), 403-418.

245

Cooley, C. H. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York:
Scribner's, 1902.

Coombs, P. H. The World Educational Crisis: A Systems Anal-
ysis. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968.

Cordasco, F. et al. The Egpality of Educational Opportunity:
A Bibliography of Selected References. Totowa, New Jer-
sey: Littlefield, Adams & Co., 1973.

Court, D. and Ghai, D. P. (Eds.). Education, Society, and
Development: New Perspectives from Kenya. Nairobi,
Kenya: Oxford University Press, 1974.

 

Cox, P. R. et al. Egualities and Inequalities in Education:
Prooeedings of the Eleventh Annual Symposium of the Eugen-
ics Society (London, 1974). London: Academic Press, 1975.

 

Cronbach, L. Comments on Mastery Learning, and its Implica-
tions for Curriculum Development. In ConfrontingCurric-
ulum Reform. Eisner, W. (Ed.). Boston: Little, Brown,
and Co., 1971.

Cummings, W. K. Education and Equality in Japan. Princeton:
Princeton university Press, 1980.

Curle, A. Education for Liberation. London: Tavistock,
1973.

Currie, J. Stratification in Uganda: Schooling and Elite
Recruitment. Greyland Educational Journal, 1974, 9, 26-
42.

Currie, J. Family Background, Academic Achievement, and Oc-
cuptational Status in Uganda. Comparative Education Re-
view, 1977, 21(1), 14-28.

Cuttance, P. F. Social Background, Aspirations, and Academic
Achievement: An Analysis Based on Longitudinal Data for
Australia. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research,
l980a, 26(2), 85-95.

Cuttance, P. F. The Influence of Schooling on Student Aca-
demic Outcomes: A Critical Assessment of Findings Pro-
duced in the Nee-Classical Paradigm of Schooling Effects
Research. Canadian andggnternational Education, l980b,
9(2), 43-70.

D'Aeth, R. Education and Developmenttin the Third World.
Westmead, England: Saxon House, 1975.

Dale, R. The Culture of the School. London: Open Univer-
sity Press, 1972.

246

Dave, P. N. Correlates of Achievement: A Trend Report. In
A Survey of Research in Egucation. Buch, M. B. (Ed.).
Baroda, India: Center of Advanced Study in Education,
1974.

Deblez I. The School Education of Girls: An International
Comparative Study on School Wastage Among Girls and Boys
at the First,and Second Levels of Education. Paris:
UNESCO, 1980.

De Lemos, M. M. Aboriginal Students in Victoria (ACER Re-
search Monograph No. 3). 1980. ERIC No. ED 175619.

Delgado, C. Education Today Blocks Change in Latin America.
In Education on the Move. The Ontario Institute for Stud-
ies in Education. Ontario, Canada, 1975.

Demaine, J. Contemporary Theories in the Sociology of Edu-
cation. London: Macmillan, 1981.

Dewey, J. The Child and the Curriculum & The School and So-
ciety. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1902 &
1915.

Dobson, R. B. Social Status and Inequality of Access to
Higher Education in the U.S.S.R. In Power and Ideology.
in Education. Karabel, J. and Halsey, A. H. (Eds.).
New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.

Dobson, R. B. and Swafford, M. The Educational Attainment
Process in the Soviet Union: A Case Study. Comperative
Education Review, 1980, 24(2), Part 1, 252-269.

Dobzhansky, T. Genetic Diversityand Human Equality. New
York: Basic Books, 1973.

Dore, R. P. The Diploma Disease: Education, Qualification,
and Development. Berkeley: university of California
Press, 1976a.

Dore, R. P. Human Capital Theory, the Diversity of Societies
and the Problem of Quality in Education. Higher Educa-
tion, 1976b, 5(1), 79-102.

Douglas, J. W. B. et al. All Our Future: A Longitudinal
Study of Secondary Education. London: Panther Book, 1971.

Downing, J. and Dalrymple-Alford, E.C. A Methodological Cri-
tique of the 1973 IEA Survey of Reading Comprehension Edu-
cation in Fifteen Countries. Reading Research Quarterly,
1974-75, 10, 212-227.

Dreeben, R. On What is Learned in School. Reading, Massa-
chusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1968.

247

Dube, S. C. Theories and Goals of Education: a Third World
Perspective. Prospects, 1976, 6(3), 349-363.

Durkheim, E. Education and Sociology (Fox, D., Trans.).
Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1956.

Durojaiye, M. O. A. The Role of Non-Cognitive Factors in
School Learning of Ugandan Secondary School Pupils. The
West Africanggournal onggycational and Vocational Meas-
urement, 1974, 2(1), 35-39.

Eckstein, M. A. Conparative Study of Educational Achieve-
ment. Comparative Education Review, 1977, 2, 345-357.

Eckstein, M. A. and Noah, H. J. (Eds.). Scientific Investi-
getionsin Comparative Education. London: Macmillan, 1969.

Edgar, D. G. (Ed.). Sociology of Education. Sydney, Aus-
tralia: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

Edmonds, R. R. Testingyand Educational Equity: The Status
Quo and Prospects for the Future. Paper presented at the
Educational Testing Service Invitational Conference, New
York, October 1981.

Educational Research Service (Virginia). Class Sizei A Sum-
mary of Research. Arlington, Virginia: ERS, 1978.

Educational Research Service (Virginia). Class Size Research:
A Critique of Recent Meta-Analysis. Phi Delta Keppan,
l980a, 62(4), 239-241.

Educational Research Service (Virginia). ERS Response to the
Glass Rebuttal. Phi Delta Kappan, 1980b, 62(4), 244.

Ehindero, O. J. The Influence of Two Languages of Instruction
on Students' Levels of Cognitive Development and Achieve-
ment in Science. gournal of Research in Science Teaching,
1980, 17(4). 283-288.

Elashoff, J. D. and Snow, R. E. Pygmalion Reconsidered: A
Case Study in Statistical Inference: Reconsideration of
the Rosenthal-Jacobson Data on Teacher Expectancy. WOrth-
ington, Ohio: Jones, 1971.

Eliou, M. Educational Inequality in Africa: An Analysis.
Prospects, 1976, 6(4), 558-571.

Elley, W. B. National Assessment of the Quality of Indo-
nesian Education. Studies in Educational Evaluation,
1976, 2(3), 151-166.

Elliott, C. M. and Kelly, G. P. Perspectives on the Educa-
tion of WOmen in Third Wbrld Nations. gomparative Educa-
tion Review, 1980, 24(2), Part 2, 51-512.

248

Elsasser,N. and John-Steiner, V. P. An Interactionist Ap-
proach to Advancing Literacy. Harvard Educational Review,
1977, 47(3), 355-369.

Emmerij, L. Can the School Build a_New Social Order? Am-
sterdam: Elsevier Scientific, 1974.

Epskamp, C. Inequality in Female Access to Education in De-
velpping Countries: a Bibliography. The Hague: Center
for the Study of Education in Developing Countries, June
1979.

Epstein, E. H. Social Class, Ethnicity, and Academic Achieve-
ment: 'A Cross-Cultural Approach. In The Education of Dis-
advantaged Peoples in Comparative Perspective (Yearbook of
the Journal of Negro Education). West, E. H. (Ed.).
Washington, D.C.: Howard university Press, 1972.

Epstein, E. H. and Weisbrod, B. A. Parasitic Diseases and
Academic Performance of Schoolchildren. Social and Eco-
nomic Studies, 1974, 23(4), 551-570.

Esland, G. et al. The Social Organization of Teaching and
Learning. London: Open University Press, 1972.

Essen, J. et al. Long-Term Changes in the School Attainment
of a National Sample of Children. Educational Research,
1978, 20(2), 143-151.

Estrada, L. J. and LaBelle, T. J. Mexican Education. In
Comparative Educational Systems. Ignas, E. et a1. Itasca,
Illinois: Peacock, 1981.

Eysenck, H. J. The I.Q. Argument. New Ybrk: Library Press,
1971.

Eysenck, H. J. versus Kamin, L. J. Intelligence: the Battle
for the Mind. London: Pan Books, 1981b.

Fagerlind, I. et al. Science Achievement when the Instruction-
al Medium is the Student's Second Language. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Toronto, Canada, March 1978.

Farrell, J. P. and Schiefelbein, E. Expanding the Scope of
Educational Planning: The Experience of Chile. Inter-
change, 1974, 5(2), 18-30.

Faure, E. et a1. Learning to Be: The World of Education
Today and Tomorrow. Paris: UNESCO,and London: Harap,
1972.

Fedigan, L. and Gay, G. School-Based Elements Related to
Achievement and Elements Related to Student Success in
Schoolin and Education (Executive Summary). 1980. ERIC

ho‘. is?) 181042.

249

Figueroa, J. J. Selection and Differentiation in Soviet
Schools. In Communist Education. King, E. J. (Ed.).
Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill, 1963.

Filgueira, C. Educational Development and Social Stratifica-
tion in Latin America (1960-70). Prospects, 1978, 8(3),
332-344.

Finn, J. D. et a1. Sex Differences in Educational Attain-
ment: A Cross-National Perspective. Harvard Educational
Review, 1979, 49(4), 477-503.

Finn, J. D. et al. Sex Differences in Educational Attain-
ment: The Process. Comparative Education Review, 1980,
24(2), Part 2, 533-552.

Flew, A. Sociology,Equality, and Education: Philosophical
Essays in Defense of a Variety of Differences. London:
Macmillan, 1976.

Floud, J. and Halsey, A. H. Introduction. In Education,
Economy, and Society: A Reader in the Sociology of Edu-
cation. Halsey, A. H. et al. (Eds.). New York: Free
Press, 1961.

Foley, D. E. Anthropological Studies of Schooling in Devel-
oping Countries: Some Recent Findings and Trends. Com-
parative Education Review, 1977, 21(2-3), 311-328.

Foshay, A. W. et al. Educational Achievement of Thirteen-
Year-Olds in Twelve Countries. Hamburg: UNESCO Insti-
tute for Education, 1962.

Foster, P. Education and Social Differentiation in Less De-
veloped Countries. Comparative Education Review, 1977,
21(2-3), 211-229.

Freire, P. Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Ramos, M. 8., Trans.).
New Ybrk: Seabury Press, 1970.

Freire, P. Education for Critical Consciousness. New Ybrk:
Seabury Press, 1973.

Freire, P. Pedagogy in Process (Hunter, C. S. J., Trans.).
New York: Seabury Press, 1978.

Fry, G. Empirical Indicators of Educational Eguity: A Thai
Case Study. 1981. ERIC No. ED 204477.

Gagne, R. M. The Conditions of Learning. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, 1965.

Galloway, C. Psychology for Learning and Teaching. New
Ybrk: McGraw-Hill, 1976.

250

Galton, F. Hereditarnyenius. London: Macmillan, 1869.

Galtung, J. The Basic Needs Approach. In Human Needs: A
Contribution to the Current Debate. Lederer, K. (Ed.).
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Oelgeschlager, Gunn, and Hain,
1980.

Gartner, A. et al. (Eds.). The New Assault on Equality:

I. Q. and Social Stratification. New York: Harper and
Row, 1974.

 

Getzels, J. W. A Social Psychology of Education. In The
Handbook of Social Psychology (vol. 5, 2nd Ed.). Lindzey,
G. and Aronson, E. (Eds.). Reading, Massachusetts: Addi-
son-Wesley, 1969.

Getzels, J. W. and Thelen, H. A. The Classroom Group as a
Unique Social System. In Social Interactions in Educa-
tional Settings. Yee, A. H. (Ed.). Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1971.

Gezi, K. I. (Ed.). Education in Comparative and Interna-
' tional Perspectives. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Wins-
ton, 1971.

Gilbert, T. Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Perform-
ance. New York: McGraw Hill, 1978.

Glagoleva, F. (Trans.). Education in the USSR. Kuzin, N. P.
and Kondakov, M. I. (Eds.). Moscow: Progress, 1972.

Glass, G. V. On Criticism of our Class Size/Student Achieve-
ment Research: No Points Conceded. Phi Delta Kappan,
1980, 62(4), 242-244.

Glass, G. V. and Smith, M. L. Meta-Analysis of Research on
the Relationship of Class Size and Achievement. San
Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research
and Development, September 1978.

Glass, G. V. et a1. School Class Size: Research and Policy.
Beverly Hills, California: Sage, 1982.

Goldstone, L. A Summary Statistigel Review of Learning in
the WOrld. Paris: UNESCO, 1975.

Gordon, C. W. The Social System of the High School: A Study
in the Sociology of Adolescence. Glencoe, Illinois: Free
Press, 1957.

Grambs, J. D. Schools, Scholars, and Society (Rev. Ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1978.

Gross, N. The Sociology of Education. In SociologyiTodey:

251

Problems and Prospects (Vol. 1). Merton, R. K. (Ed.).
New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1959.

Grundin, H. U. The Reading and Writing Abilities of Swedish
Pupils: A Survey_of the Development from Grade 1 to Grade
12. 1977. ERIC No. ED 134977.

 

Gusfield, J. Educational and Social Segmentation in Modern
India. In The Social Sciences and the Comparative Study
of Educational Systems. Fischer, J. (Ed.). Scranton,
Pennsylvania: International Textbook, 1970.

Guskin, A. E. and Guskin, S. L. A Social Psychology of Edu-
cation. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1970.

Guthrie, E. R. The Psychology of Learning (Rev. Ed.). New
York: Harcourt, Brace, 1952.

Guthrie, J. W. A Survey of School Effectiveness Studies. In
Do Teachers Make a Difference? A Report on Recent Research
on Pupil Achievement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of
Education, 1970.

Hake, B. J. Education and Social Emanoipation. The Hague:
Martinus Nijhoff, 1975.

Halevy, Z. and Etzioni-Halevy, E. The 'Religious Factor' and
Achievement in Education. Comparative Education, 1974, 10
(3), 193-199.

Halls, W. D. Education,_Culture,and Politics in Modern France.
Oxford, England: Pergamon Press, 1976.

Hanf, T. et al. Education: An Obstacle to Development? Some
Remarks about the Political Functions of Education in Asia
and Africa. Comparative Education Review, 1975, 19(1), 68-
87.

Harbison, F. and Myers, C.A. Education, Manpower, and Eco-
nomic Growth: Strategies of Human Resource Development.
New York: McGraw Hill, 1964.

Harbison, F. and Myers, C. A. Manpower and Education: Coun-
trdetudies in Economic Development. New York: MCGraw
Hill, 1965.

Hawkins, J. N. Chinese Education. In Comparative Education-
al Systems. Ignas, E. et a1. Itasca, Illinois: Peacock,
1981.

Hearnden, A. Education in the Two Germanies. Oxford: The
Pergamon International Library, 1974.

252

Hearnden, A. Education,_Culture, and Politics in West Ger-
many. Oxford: The Pergamon International Library, 1976.

Herrnstein, R. I.Q. in the Meritocracy. Boston: Little,
Brown, 1973.

Hess, D. J. The American Indian and Academic Achievement:
Toward a Processual Model. Doctoral dissertation, Michi-
gan State University, 1974.

 

Heyneman, S. P. A Brief Note on the Relationship between
Socio-Economic Status and Test Performance among Ugandan
Primary School Children. Comparative Education Review,
1976a, 20(1), 42-47.

Heyneman, S. P. Relations between Teachers' Characteristics
and Differences in Academic Achievement among Ugandan
Primary Schools. Education in Eastern Africa (a journal
published for the Regional Council for Education), 1976b,
6(1), 41-50.

Heyneman, S. P. Influences on Academic Achievement: A Com-
parison of Results from Uganda and More Industrialized
Societies. Sociology of Education, 1976c, 49, 200-211.

 

Heyneman, S. P. Relationships between the Primary School
Community and Academic Achievement in Uganda. The Jour-
nal of Developing Areas, 1977, 11, 245-259.

 

Heyneman, S. P. Investment in Indian Education: Uneconomic?
(World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 327): Washington, D.C.:
The World Bank, 1979.

Heyneman, S. P. Planning the Equality of Educational Oppor-
tunity between Regions. In Regional Disparities in Edu-
cational Development: A Controversial Issue. Carron, G.
and Chau, T. (Eds.). Paris: UNESCO International Insti-
tute for Educational Planning, 1980a.

Heyneman, S. P. The Evaluation of Human Capital in Malawi
(World Bank Staff WOrking Paper No. 420). Washington,
D.C.: The World Bank, l980b.

Heyneman, S. and Loxley, W. The Impact of Primary School
Quality on Academic Achievement Across Twenty:nine High
and Low Income Countries. Paper presented at annual
meeting of the American Sociological Association, Toronto,
August 1981.

Heyneman, S. and Loxley, W. Influences on Academic Achieve-
ment Across High and Low Income Countries: A Re-Analysis
of IEA Data. Sociology_of Education, 1982, 55(1), 13-21.

253

Hoffman, L. W. The Employment of Women, Education and Fer-
tility. In Women and Achievement: Social and Motivation-
al Analyseg. Mednick, M. T. S. et al. (Eds.). New York:
Wiley, 1975.

Hoggart, R. The Uncertain Criteria of Deprivation. In Edu-
cation for Uncertainty. King, E. (Ed.). London: Sage
Publications, 1979.

Holmes, B. International Guide to Education Systems. Paris:
UNESCO, 1979.

Holmes, B. (Ed.). Diversity and Unity in Education: A Com-
parative Analysis. London: Allen and Unwin, 1980.

 

Hopper, E. I. A Typology for the Classication of Educational
Systems. Sociology: The Journal ogrthe British Sociolog-
ical Association, 1968, 2(1), 29-45.

Horton, L. Mastery Learning: Sound in Theory, But.... Edu-
cational Leadership, 1979, 37(2), 154-156.

Hout, M. and Garnier, M. A. Curriculum Placement and Educa-
tional Stratification in France. Sociology of Education,
1979, 52, 146-156.

Howe, M. J. A. The Psychology of Human Learning. New York:
Harper and Row, 1980.

Hunt, J. M. Intelligence and Experience. New York: Ronald
Press, 1961.

Hunt, M. P. Foundations of Education: Social and Cultural
Perspectives. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston,
1975.

Hurn, C. J. The Limits and Possibilities of Schooling: An
Introduction to the Sociolpgy of Education. Boston: Massa-

chusetts:Allyn and Bacon, 1978.

Husen, T. (Ed.). International Study_of Achievement in Math-
ematics: A Comparison of Twelve Countries (2 volumes).
Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist and Wiksell, and New York:
Wiley, 1967.

Husen, T. Social Background and Educational Career: Research
Perspectives on Equality thEducational Opportunity.
Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop-
ment, 1972.

Husen, T. Talent, Equality, and Meritocracy: Availability
and Utilization of Talent. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff,

1974.

254

Husen, T. Pupils, Teachers, and Schools in Botswana: A
National Evaluation Survey of the Primary and Secondary
Education. In Kagisano Ka Thuto (Education for Kagisano:
Report of the National Commission on Education). Gaborone,
Botswana: Government Printing Office, 1977.

Husen, T. et al. Teacher Training and Student Achievement in
Less Develpped Countries (World Bank Staff Working Paper
No. 310). Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1978.

Hyman, H. H. et al. The Enduring Efggcts of Education.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1975.

IBE. The Social Background of Students and their Chance of
Success at School. In Final Report of Interngtional Con-
ference_on Education, 33rd Session (Geneva,r15-23 Septem-
ber, 1971): Geneva: IBE, 1971.

Illich, I. Deschooling Society. New York: Harper and Row,
1971.

Illich, I. and Verne, E. Imprisoned in the Global Class-
room. London: Writers and Readers, 1976.

Inkeles, A. The International Evaluation of Educational
Achievement (9 vols.): A Review. Proceedings of The
National Academy of Education, 1977, 4, 139-200.

 

Ivanov, I. Attainments and Tasks of the Soviet School.
Soviet Education, 1976, 19(1), 29-42.

 

Iverson, K. Civilization and Assimilation in the Colonized
Schooling of Native Americans. In Education and Colon-
ialism. Altbach, P. G. and Kelly, G. P.5(Eds.). New
York: Longman, 1978.

Jacoby, S. Inside Soviet Schools. New York: Hill and Wang,
1974.

Jallade, J.-P. Public Expenditures on Education and Income
Distribution in Colombia. Baltimore, Maryland: The
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974.

James, W. Talks to Teachers on Psychology; and to Students
on Some of Life's Ideals (Lecture I, Psychology and the
Teaching Art, and Lecture III, The Child as a Behaving
Organism). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1899.

 

Jencks, C. et a1. Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect
of Familytend Schooling in America. New York: Colophon
Books, 1972.

Jencks, C. et al. Who Gets Ahead? New York: Basic Books,
1979.

255

Jensen, A. R. How Much Can We Boost I.Q. and Scholastic
Achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 1969, 39, 1-123.

Jensen, A. R. Educational Differences. London: Methuen,
1973.

Johnson, D. W. The Social Psychology ofzgducation. New
YOrk: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1970.

Joncich, G. M. (Ed.). Psychology and the Science of Educa—
tion: Selected Writings of Edward L. Thorndike. New
York: Teachers College Press, 1962.

 

Jowett, B. (Trans.). Aristotle's Politics. New York: The
Modern Library, 1943.

Juhas, M. Educational Reform in Yugoslavia. In Yugoslav
Survey: Education, Science, and Culture. November,
1978, 75-98.

JuVigny, P. Towards Equality in Education. Paris: UNESCO,
1962.

Kadar-Ffilop, J. Women's Education in Hungary. International
Review of Education, 1973, 19(1), 109-115.

Kamin, L. J. The Science and gglitics of I.Q. Potomac, Mary-
land: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1974.

 

Kaminski, D. M. and Erickson, E. L. Why Do So Few Females
Take Science in High School? The Influence of Parents Dur-
ing Early Adolescence. Mimeographed, 1979.

 

Kaminski, D. M. et al. Why Females Don't Like Mathematics:
The Effect of Parental Expectations. Mimeographed, n. d.

Karabel, J. and Halsey, A. H. (Eds.). Power and Ideology in
Education. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.

Karier, C. J. Testing for Order and Control in the Corpor-
ate Liberal State. Educational Theory, 1972, 22, 154-180.

Kashin, M. School Failures. Soviet Education, 1966, 8(4),
18-32.

Katzman, M. T. The Political Economy of Urban Schools.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1971.

 

Kim, H. Emperimentation in Education: Mastererearning in
Korea. Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educa-
tional Planning, 1975.

 

Kiros, F. G. et al. Educational Outcomes Measurement in

256

Developing Countries. Washington, D.C.: Public Services
Laboratory, Georgetown University, 1975.

Knight, T. Powerlessness and the Student Role: Structural
Determinants of School Status. The Australian_and New Zea-
land Journal of Sociology, 1974, 10(2), 112-117.

Koffka, K. Principles of Gestalt Psychology. New York:
Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1935.

Kohler, W. Gestalt Psychology (Rev. Ed.). New York: Live-
right, 1947.

Kosakiewicz, M. Equality in Education in Eastern European
Countries. Prospects, 1980, 10(2), 174-180.

Kotwal, M. Ineqaulities in the Distribution of Education Be-
tween Countries, Sexes, Generations, and Individuals. In
Education, Inequality, and Life Chances (Vol. 1). OECD,
1975.

Kuzin, N. P. et al. Education in the U.S.S.R. Moscow:
Progress, 1972.

Kyostio, O. K. Development of Reading Skill During Element-
ary School in Finland. Reading Teacher, 1980, 33(5), 519-
526.

LaBelle, T. J. (Ed.). Educational Alternatives in Latin
America: Social Change and Social Stratification. Los
Angeles, California: UCLA Latin American Center, Univer-
sity of California, 1975.

Lane, D. The End of Inequality? Stratification under State
Socialism. Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1971.

Lanford, A. G. and Fiala, R. A. Educational Ideology in the
Modern World System. Paper presented at the annual meet-
ing of the American Sociological Association, Toronto,
August 1981.

Lanzas, A. and Kingston, W. P. English Achievement in Zaire:
The Effect of Family Status and Residential Disruption.
Comparative Education Review, 1981, 25(3), 431-441.

Laska, J. A Typology of School Systems. Com are, 1979, 9

Lavin, D. E. The Prediction of Academic Performance: A
Theoretical Analysis and Review of Research. New York:
Wiley, 1965.

Law, A. I. The California Study on Educational Productivity.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Ed-
ucational Research Association, Los Angeles, April 1981.

257

Levin, H. M. Equal Educational Opportunity in Western Eur-
ope: A Contradictory Relation. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Political Science Associ-
ation, Chicago, September 1976.

Levine, D. M. and Bane, M. J. The Inequality controversy:
Schooling_and Distributive Justice. New York: Basic
Books, 1975.

 

Levy, M. B. Determinants of Primary School Dropouts in De-
veloping Countries. Comparative Education Review, 1971,
15(1), 44-58.

Lewin, K. Field Theory and Learning. In The Forty-First
Yearbook of the National Society for the Study_of Educa-
tion (part II). Bloomington, Illinois: Public School
Press, 1942.

Lewis, E. G. and Massad, C. E. The Teaching of Engiish as a
Foreign Language in Ten Countries. Stockholm, Sweden:
Almqvist and Wiksell, and New York: Wiley, 1975.

Lezotte, L. W. et a1. School Learning:Climate and Student
Achievement: A Social Systems Approach to Increased Stu-
dent Learni_g. Talahassee, Florida: The SSTA Center,
Florida State University, 1980.

 

Liberska, B. Education and YOuth Employment in Poland.
Berkeley, California: Carnegie Council on Policy Studies
in Higher Education, 1979.

Lindbloom, D. Class Size: Is it an Effective or Relevant
Variable? In Handbook on Contemporary Education. Goodman,
S. E. (Comp. Ed.). New York: R. R. Bowker, 1976.

Lofgren, H. Models for the Bilingual Instruction of Immi-
grant Children. 1981. ERIC No. ED 196529.

Lowe, J. et al. (Eds.). Education and Nation-Building in
the Third WOrld. Ibadan, Nigeria: Onibonoje Press, 1973.

Loxley, W. and Heyneman, S. The Influence of School Resources
on Learning Outcomes in El Salvador. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of Comparative and International Educa-
tion Society, Tallahassee, March 1981.

Machado, L. A. The Right to be Intelligent (Wheeler, M. C.,
Trans.). Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1980.

Madaus, G. F. et a1. School Effectiveness: A Reassessment
of the Evidence. New Ybrk: McGraw-Hill, 1980.

Maehr, M. L. Socio-Cultural Origins of Achievement. Mon-
terey, California: Brooks/Cole, 1974.

258

Maehr, M. L. and Stallings, W. W. Culture, Child, and
School: Socio-Cultural Influences on Learning. Mon-
terey, California: Brooks/Cole, 1975.

Mansurov, N. S. Social Psychology of Education. Soviet
Education, 1966, 8(4), 33-42.

Maris, A. Family Influences on the Development of the Abil-
ity to Achieve in Primary Education. In Education in
Europe: Sociological Research (Proceedings of the Europe-
an Seminar on Sociology of Education, 1968). Matthijssen,
M. A. and Vervoort, C. E. (Eds.). The Hague: Mouton,
1969.

Marjoribanks, K. Psychological Environments of Learning: An
International Perspective. Comparative Education, 1973,
9(1), 28-33.

Marjoribanks, K. Ethnicity, Family Environment, School Atti-
tudes and Academic Achievement. The Australian Journal of
Education, l978a, 22(3), 249-261.

Marklund, S. School Organization, School Location, and Stu-
dent Achievement. International Review of Education,
1969, 15(3), 295-318.

Marsh, L. Alongside the Child: Experiences in_the English
Primary_School. London: Harper Colophon, 1973.

 

Martin, M. 0. Reading Attainment in Irish Primary Schools--
A Progressive Achievement Gap. 1980. ERIC NO. ED 178869.

Martin, W. H. Students in Rural Schools: A Review from
the National Assessment Data. 1979. ERIC No. ED 172980.

Mathur, K. Effects of Socio-Economic Status on the Achieve-
ment and Behavior of Higher Secondary Schools (1964). In
A Survey of Research in Education. Buch, M. B. (Ed.).
Baroda, India: Center of Advanced Study in Education, 1974.

Matthews, M. Class and Society in Soviet Russia. London:
Allen Lane, Penguin Press, 1972.

Mayeske, G. W. et al. The Achievement of our Nation's Stu-
dents. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1973.

McDill, E. L. and Rigsby, L. C. Structure and Process in
Secondary Schools: The Academic Impact of Educational
Climates. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity Press, 1973.

 

McLean Anderson, K. V. An Analysis of Certain Factors Affect-
ing the Scholastic Achievement of Lower Socio-Economic as

259

Compared with Middle Socio-Economic Children in Jamaica.
Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, 1977. Dis-
sertation Abstracts International, 40, 3180-A.

McMillan, J. H. (Ed.). The Social Psychology of School
Learning. New York: Academic Press, 1980.

 

McPartland, J. M. and Karweit, N. Research on Educational
Effects. In Educational Environments and Effects: Eval-
uation,Policy, and Productivity. Walberg, H. 3.7(Ed.).
Berkeley, California: Cutrhan, 1979.

Mead, G. H. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: The Chicago
University Press, 1934.

Mercer, B. and Covey, H. C. Theoretical Frameworks in the
Sociology of Education. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Schenkman, 1980.

Merton. R. K. The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. In Spcial Theory
and Social Structure (Rev. enl. ed.). Merton, R.K.

New York: Free Press, 1968.

 

Metha, P. Level of 'n' Achievement in High School Boys. In-
dian Educational Review, 1967, 11(2), 1967.

Meyer, J. W. et al. The World Educational Revolution, 1950-
1970. Sociology of Education, 1977, 50(4), 242-258.

Mischel, W. Towards a Cognitive Social Learning Reconceptu-
alization of Personality. Psychological Review, 1973,
80, 252-283.

Mosteller, F. and Moynihan, D. P. (Eds.). On Eguality of Ed-
ucational Opportunity. New York: Vintage Books, 1972.

 

Musgrave, F. School and the Social Order. Chichester, Eng-
land: Wiley, 1979.

Mwaniki, D. N. Education and Socio-Economic Development in
Kenya: A Study of the Distribution of Resources. Doc-
toral dissertation, Stanford university, 1973.

Mwaniki, M. K. The Relationship between Self-Concept and
Academic Achievement in Kenyan Pupils. Doctoral disserta-
tion, Stanford University, 1973. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 34, 1138-A.

Myrdal, G. Asian Drama: An Inguiry into the Poverty of
Nations (Abridged Ed.). New York: Vintage Books, 1972.

Myrdal, G. Formal Education Serves the Privileged Few. In
Education on the Move. The Ontario Institute for Studies
in Education. Toronto, Canada, and Paris: UNESCO, 1975.

 

Naik, J. P. Education of the Scheduled Castes: 1965-66.
New Delhi: Indian Council of Social Science Research,
1971.

260

Naik, J. P. Equality, Quality, and Quantity: The Elusive
Triangle in Indian Education. International Review of
Education, 1979, 25(2-3), 167-185.

Ndapatondo, M. M. School Quality and Educational Achievement:
A Study on Educational Achievement of Ninth Grade Students
in Indonesia in 1976. Doctoral dissertation, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, 1978. Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional, 40, 1699-A.

Neelsen, J. P. Education and Social Mobility. Comparative
Education Review, 1975, 19(1), 129-143.

Nelson, J. L. and Besag, F. P. Sociological Perspectives in
Education: Models for Analysis. New York: Pitman, 1970.

Neumann, P. H. Publishing for Schools: Textbooks and the
Less Developed Countries (World Bank Staff Working Paper
No. 398). Washington, D.C.; The World Bank, 1980.

Nica, I. and Birzea, C. Educational Innovation in European
Socialist Countries: A Comparative Overview. Interna-
tional Review of Education, 1973, 19(4), 447-458.

Niles, S. F. Social Class and Academic Achievement: A Third
World Reinterpretation. Comparative Education Review,
1981, 25(3), 419-430.

Nkinyangi, J. A. Socio-Economic Determinants of Repetition
and Early School Withdrawal at the Primary School Level
and their Implications for Educational Planningrin Kenye.
Doctoral dissertation, Stanford university, 1980. Dis-
sertation Abstracts International, 41, l943-A.

Nollen, S. D. The Economics of Education: Research Results
and Needs. Teachers College Record, 1975, 77 (1), 51-77.

Noonan, R. D. School Resources, Social Class, and Student
Achievement: A Comparative Study of School Resource Allo-
cation and the Social Distribution of MathematicsIAchieve-
ment in Ten Countries (IEA Monograph Studies No. 5).
Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist and Wiksell, and New York:
Wiley, 1976.

Novak, J. D. A Theory of Education. Ithaca, New York:
Cornell University Press, 1977.

Nurcombe, B. Children of the Dispossessed. Honolulu,
Hawaii: The University Press of Hawaii, 1976.

OECD. Equal Educationalrgpportunity (1). Paris: Organiza-
tion for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1971a.

OECD. Group Disparities in Educational Participation and
Achievement. Paris, 1971b.

261

Ogbu, J. U. The Next Generation: An Ethnogrsphy_of Educa-
tion in an Urban Neighborhood. New York: Academic
Press, 1974.

Ogbu, J. U. Minority_Education and Caste: The American
System in Cross-Cultural Perspective. New York: Aca-
demic Press, 1978.

Olson, J. B. Secondary Schools and Elites in Kenya: A Com-
parative Study of Students in 1961 and 1968. Comparative
Education Review, 1972, 16(1), 44-53.

 

Olson, M. N. IdentifyinggPredictors of Institutionalyguality;
An Examination of Eleven Internal Classroom Variables in
Relation to a School System Criterion Measure. Doctoral
dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1970.

Packard, R. G. Psychology of Learning and Instruction.
Columbus, Ohio: Merrill, 1975.

Parsons, T. The Social System. Glencoe, Illinois: Free
Press, 1951.

Parsons, T. The School Class as a Social System: Some of its
Functions in American Society. Harvard Educational Review,
1959, 29(4), 297-318.

Passow, A. H. Research and Development in Compensatory Educa-
tion Abroad. 1971. ERIC No. ED 052265.

Passow, A. H. et al. The National Case Study: An Empirical
Comparative Study of Twenty-one Educational Systems.
Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist and Wiksell, and New York:
Wiley, 1976.

Paulston, R. G. Educational Stratification and Cultural Heg-
emony in Peru. Journal of Developing Areas, 1971, S, 401-
415.

Pavlov, I. P. Conditioned Reflexes. London: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 1927.

Peaker, G. F. An Empirical Study of Education in Twenty-one
Countries: A Technical Report. Stockholm, Sweden:
Almqvist and Wiksell, and New York: Wiley, 1975.

Peaker, G. F. and C. B. E. The Plowden Children Four Years
Later. London: National Foundation for Educational Re-
search, 1971.

Persell, C. H. Education and Inequality: A Theoretical and
Empirical Synthesis. New York: The Free Press, 1977.

Petrovskii, A. V. Only the School Can Impart Systematic Know-
ledge. Soviet Education, 1975, 17(3), 93-97.

Peyre, C. Regional Variations in Educational Opportunity in
France. International Journal of Comparative Sociology,
1961, 2(2), 167-175.

262

Piaget, J. The Language and Thought of the Child. New
York: Harcourt, Brace, 1926.

Piaget, J. The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New
York: International universities Press, 1952.

Piaget, J. Science of Education and the Psychology of the
Child. New York: Viking Press, 1971.

Plowden Report/Central Advisory Council for Education. Child-
ren and their Primary Schools (2 volumes). London: De-
partment of Education and Science, 1967.

Porter, A. T. Adapting Education to African Realities. In
Education on the Move. The Ontario Institute for Studies
in Education. Ontario, Canada, 1975.

Postlethwaite, T. N. and Thomas, R. M. (Eds.). Schooling in
the ASEAN Region: Primary and Secondary Education in Indo-
nesia, Maleysia, the Philippines, Singepore,and Thailand.
Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1980.

 

Postman, N. and Weingartner, C. The School Book. New York:
Delta, 1973.

Prewitt, K. Education and Social Equality in Kenya. In
Education, Society, and Development: New Perspectives
from Kenya. Court, D. and Ghai, D. P. (Eds.). Nairobi:
Oxford University Press, 1974.

Price, R. F. Education in Russia and China. London: Croom
Helm, 1977.

Psacharopoulos, G. Rates of Return to Investment in Educa-
tion Around the World. Comparative Education Review,
1972, 16(1), 54-67.

Psacharopoulos, G. The Reverse Effects of Public Subsidiza-
tion of Education; or How Equitable is Free Education?
Comparative Education Review, 1977, 12(1), 69-88.

Psacharopoulos, G. Returns to Education: An Updated Inter-
national Comparison. Comparative Education, 1981, 17(3),
321-341.

Purkey, W. W. Self-Concept and School Achievement. Engle-
wood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1970.

Purves, A. C. Literature Education in Ten Countries: An
Empirical Study. Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist and
Wiksell, and New York: Wiley, 1973.

Ramirez, F. O. and Meyer, J. W. Comparative Education: The
Social Construction of the Modern World System (Program
Report No. 80-B15, Organizational Training Program, Stan-

ford University). Mimeographed, n. d.--1980 or 1981.

263

Rao, D. G. A Study of Some Factors Related to Scholastic
Achievement (1965). In A Survey of Research in Education.
Buch, M. B. (Ed.). Baroda, India: Center of Advanced
Study in Education, 1974.

Raskin, M. G. The Channeling Colony. In Schooling in a
Corporate Society: The Political Economy of Education
in America. Carnoy, M. (Ed.). New York: McKay, 1972.

 

Rist, R. C. Student Social Class and Teacher Expectations:
The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in Ghetto Education. Har-
vard Educational Review, 1970, 40(3), 411-451.

Rogers, C. A Social Psychology of Schooling: The Expectancy
Process. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982.

 

Rogers, C. R. A View of What Education Might Become: Free-
dom to Learn. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1969.

Rosenbaum, J. E. The Hidden Curriculum of High School Track-
1 g. New York: Wiley, 1976.

Rosenbaum, J. E. Social Implications of Educational Grouping.
In Review of Research in Education (Vol. 8). Berliner, C.
(Ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research
Association, 1980.

Rosenthal, R. and Jacobson, L. Pygmalion in the Classroom.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968.

Rosier, M. J. Early School Leavers in Australia: Famiiy,
School, and Personal Determinants of the Decision of 16-
year-old Australians to Remain at School or to Leave.
1979. ERIC No. ED 164253.

Rossi, P. H. Social Factors in Academic Achievement: A
Brief Review. In Education, Economy, and Society: An
Introduction to Sociology of Education. Halsey, A. N. et
al. (Eds.). New York: Free Press, 1961.

Rotter, J. B. Social Learning and Clinical Psychology.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1954.

Rotter, J. B. Generalized Expectancies for Internal versus
External Control of Reinforcement. Psychological Mono-
graphs, 1966, 80, 1-28.

Rutter, M. et al. Fifteen Thousand Hours: Secondary Schools
and Their Effects on Children. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1979.

Ryan, J. W. Educational Resources and Scholastic Outcomes:
A Study of Rural Primary Schooling in Iran. Doctoral
dissertation, Stanford University, 1974. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 34, 7644-A.

264

Ryan, W. Blaming the Victim. New York: Vintage Books,
1971.

Samue, R. Equality of Opportunity in Education: Problems
in Applicability. In Educational Challenges in Socialist
India. Satya, P. R. (Ed.). Delhi: Kalyani, 1975.

Saunders, F. E. Discrimination and Inequalities between the
Sexes at School. Prospects, 1979, 9(2), 233-243.

Schafer, W. E. et al. Programmed for Social Class: Tracking
in High School. In The Sociology of Education: A Source-
book (3rd ed.). Stub, R. (Ed.). Homewood, Illinois:
Dorsey Press, 1975.

Schiefelbein, E. Repeating: An Overlooked Problem of Latin
American Education. Comparative Education Review, 1975,
19(3), 468-487.

Schiefelbein, E. and Farrell, J. P. Selectivity and Survival
in the Schools of Chile. Comparative Education Review,
1978a, 22(2), 326—341.

Schiefelbein, E. and Farrell, J. P. Social and Pedagogical
Factors Influencing Survival in the Schools of Chile.
Canadian and International Education, l978b, 7(1), 59-86.

Schiefelbein, E. and Farrell, J. P.‘ WOmen, Schooling, and
Work in Chile: Evidence from a Longitudinal Study. Com-
parative Education Review, 1980, 24(2), part 2, $160-$179.

Schiefelbein, E. and Simmons, J. The Determinants of School
Achievement: A Review of the Research for Developinngoun-
tries. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research
Centre, 1981.

Schrag, P. and Divoky, D. The Myth of the Hyperactive Child
and Other_Means of Child Control. New York: Pantheon
Books, 1975.

Schultz, T. W. The Economic Value of Education. New York:
Columbia university Press, 1963.

Schultz, T. W. Investment in Human Capital. In Power and
Ideology in Education. Karabel, J. and Halsey, A. H.
(Eds.). New York: IOxford University Press, 1977.

 

Schwebel, M. Who Can Be Educated? New Ybrk: Grove Press,
1968.

Seshadri, C. Equality of Educational Opportunity...Some
Issues in Indian Education. Comparative Education, 1976,
12(3), 219-230.

265

Shimbori, M. Sociology of Education. International Review
of Education, 1979, 25(2-3), 393-413.

 

Shinkfield, A. Australian Education. In Comparative Educa-
tional Systems. Ignas, E. et al. Itasca, Illinois:
Peacock, 1981.

Shipman, M. D. The Sociology of the School. New York:
Humanities Press, 1968.

 

Silvert, K. H. and Reissman, L. Education, Class, and Nation:
The Experiences of Chile and Venezuela. New York: Else-
vier, 1976.

 

Simmons, J. How Effective is Schooling in Promoting Learning?
A Reyiew of the Research (International Bank for Recon-
struction and Development Staff WOrking Paper No. 200).
Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 1975.

Simmons, J. (Ed.). The Education Dilemma: Policy Issues
for Developing Countries in the 19805. New York: Per-
gamon Press, 1980.

Skinner, B. F. Science and Human Behavior. New York: Mac-
millan, 1953.

Slomczynski, K. The Role of Education in the Process of
Intragenerational Mobility. International Journal of
Sociology, 1978, 7(3-4), 102-121.

 

Smith, P. C. and Cheung, P.P. L. Social Origins and Sex-
differential Schooling in the Philippines. Comparative
Education Review, 1981, 25(1), 28-44.

 

Smock, A. C. Wbmen's Education in Developing Countries: Op-
portunities and Outcomes. New York: Praeger, 1981.

 

Somerset, H. C. A. Predicting,Success in School Certificate:
A Uganda Case Study. Nairobi, Kenya: East African, 1968.

Stein, A. Strategies for Failure. Harvard Educational Re-
view, 1971, 41(2), 158-204.

Stimson, J. and LaBelle, T. J. The Organizational Climate
of Paraguayan Elementary Schools: Rural-Urban Differ-
entiations. Education and Urban Society, 1971, 3(3), 333-
349.

Strodtbeck, F. L. Family Interaction, Values, and Achieve-
ment. In Talent and Society. McClelland, D. C. et al.
(Eds.). Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand, 1958.

 

Swanson, L. C. Theories of Learning: Traditional Perspect-
ives/Contemporary Developments. Belmont, California:
Wadsworth, 1980.

266

Szyliowicz, J. S. Sducation and Modernization in the Middle
East. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1973.

Taylor, H. F. The I.Q. Game: A Methodological Controversy.
Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1980.

Tazi, A. Education in theJArab States in the Light of the
Abu-Dabi Conference, 1977. Paris: UNESCO, 1980.

Tesconi, C. A., Jr. and Hurwitz, E., Jr. Education for
Whom? The Question of EguaiiEducational Opportunity.
New York: Dodd, Mead, and Co., 1974.

 

 

Thias, H. H. and Carnoy, M. gest Benefit Analysis in Educa-
tion: A Case Studynof Kenya. Baltimore, Maryland: The
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972.

Thomas, J. World Problems in Educationig A Brief Analytical
Survey. Paris: The UNESCO Press, 1975.

Thorndike, E. L. Educational Psychology. New York: Lemcke
and Buechner, 1903.

Thorndike, E. L. The Fundamentals of Learning. New York:
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1932.

 

Thorndike, R. L. Review of "Pygmalion in the Classroom."
American Educational Research Journal, 1968, 5, 708-711.

Thorndike, R. L. Reading Comprehension Education in Fifteen
Countries: An Empirical Study. Stockholm, Sweden:
Almqvist and Wiksell, and New York: Wiley, 1973.

Torney, J. V. and Oppenheim, A. N. Civic Education in Ten
Countries: An Empirical Study. Stockholm, Sweden:
Almqvist and Wiksell, and New York, Wiley, 1975.

Travers, J. Learning: Analysis and Application (2nd ed.).
New York: McKay, 1972.

Turner, R. H. Sponsored and Contest Mobility and the School
System. In The Sociology of Education. Bell, R. R. and
Stub, H. R. (Eds.). Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press,
1968.

Tyler, W. The_Sociology of Educational Inequality. London:
Methuen, 1977.

UNESCO. The Use of Vernacular Langueges in Education (UNESCO
Monograph on Fundamental Education, Vol. VIII). Paris:
Paris University Press, 1953.

UNESCO. World Survey of Education (Vol. 1). Geneva: United
Nations, 1955.

267

UNESCO. Eguality of Access of Women to Literacy. Paris:
UNESCO: August 31, 1970.

UNESCO. Women,_Sducation, Equality: A Decade Of Experiment.
Paris: The UNESCO Press, 1975.

UNESCO. International Conference on Education: Recommenda-
tions 1934-1977. Paris, 1979.

UNESCO-IBE. 5 Statistical Study of Wastage in School. Paris:
UNESCO, 1972.

UNESCO-IBE. Family, Community, and Media in the Education of
the Disadvantaged Child. Educational Documentation and
Information (No. 214). Geneva: IBE, 1980.

 

UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Asia and Oceania. Ed-
ucational Attainment in Asian Primary Schools. Education
in Asia and Oceania: Reviews, Reports, and Notes, 1978,
(13-14), 15-22.

Unger, J. Bending the School Ladder: The Failure of Chinese
Educational Reform in the 19605. Comparative Education
Review, 1980, 24(2), Part 1, 221-237.

United Nations. A Compilation of Internationel Instruments
of the United Nations. New York: UN, 1967.

United Nations. World Population Conference: Educational
Development; World and Regional Statistical Trends and
Projections until 1985 (Annex II). Paris: UNESCO, 1974.

United Nations General Assembly. Report of the Economic
and Social Council: The Right to Education. Mimeographed,
October 6, 1981.

University of the State of New York. What Research Seys
About Improving Student Performance. Albany, New York:
University of the State of New York Press, March 1973.

Vandivier, P. L. and Vandivier, S. S. A "Nonbiased Assess-
ment" of Intelligence Testing. The Educational Forum,
1979, 54(1), 97-108.

Vasil'eva, E. K. The Young People of Leningrad: School and
Work Options and Attitudes. White Plains, New York: In-
ternatiOnal Arts and Sciences Press, 1976.

Waggoner, G. R. and Waggoner, B. A. Education in Central
America. Lawrence, Kansas: The University Press of
Kansas, 1971.

Walker, D. A. The IEA Six Subject Survey: An Empirical
Study of Education in Twenty-one Countries. Stockholm,
Sweden: Almqvist and Wiksell, and New York: Wiley, 1976.

268

Wall, W. Psychology of Education. International Review of
Education, 1979, 25(2-3), 367-391.

 

 

Waller, W. The Sociology of Teaching. New York: Wiley,
1932.

Wanner, R. E. Some French Initiatives in Educating the
Socially and Culturally_Disadvantaged. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Office of Education, 1974.

Watson, J. B. Behaviorism (Rev. ed.). New York: W. W.
Norton, 1930.

Western Australian Education Department. The Western Aus-
tralian Surveys of Primary School Achievement, 1955,1970,

m:

1976. ERIC No. ED 163605.

White, K. R. The Relationship between Socio-economic Status
and Academic Achievement. Doctoral dissertation, Univer-
sity of Colorado at Boulder, 1976. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 37, 5067-A.

Williams, T. et a1. School, Work, and Career of Seventeen-
Year-Olds in Australia. 1980. ERIC No. ED 189377.

Williamson, B. Education, Social Structure, and Development;_
A Comparative Analysis. New York: Holmes and Meier, 1979.

Williamson, W. Patterns of Educational Inequality in West
Germany. Comparative Education, 1977, 13(1), 29-44.

Willmott, E. Aboriginal Education in Australia. Education

Wilson, A. F. The Effects of Schools in Victoria on the Sci-
ence Achievement_of Junior_Secondary Students (IEA Aus-
tralia Report 1975:2). 1977. ERIC No. ED 132039.

Winkler, D. R. The Distribution of Educational Resources in
Paraguay: Implications for Equality of Opportunity. Com-
parative Education Review, 1980, 24(1), 73-86.

Wisniewski, W. The Academic Progress of Students of Differ-
ent Social Origin. The Polish Sociological Bulletin,
1970, (1), 135-144.

Wolf, R. M. Achievement in America: National Report of the
United States for the IEA ProjeCt. New York: Teachers
College Press, 1977.

WOrld Bank. Education (Sector WOrking Paper). Washington,
D.C.: World Bank, December 1974.

World Bank. The Assault on World Poverty: Problems of Rural

269

Development, Education, and Health. Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975.

World Bank. Educational Effects of Class Size (prepared by
Haddad, W. D.). Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1978.

World Bank. World Bank Annual Report, 1980. Washington,
D.C.: World Bank, 1980.

WOrld Bank. Education (Sector Policy Paper). Washington,
D.C.: World Bank, April 1980.

 

WOrld Bank. World Development Report,_1980. Washington,
D.C.: World Bank, August 1980.

Yanowitch, M. Social and Economic Inequality in the Soviet
Union: Six Studies. White Plains, New York: M. E.
Sharpe, 1977.

Yanowitch, M. and Dodge, N. Social Class and Education:
Soviet Findings and Reaction. Comparative Education Re-
view, 1968, 12(3), 248-267.

Young, M. F. D. (Ed.). Knowledge and Control: New Direc-
tions for the_Sociology of Education. London: Collier-
Macmillan, 1971.

Zagorski, K. Urbanization and Resulting Changes in Class
Structure and Education. International Journal of Sociol-
ogy, 1977, 7(3), 48-60.

Zajda, J. I. Education in the USSR. New York: Pergamon
Press, 1980.

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barrow, R. Plato, Utilitarianism, and Education. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975.

Comenius, J. A. The Great Didactic. In Three Thousand Years
of Educational Wisdom. Ulich, R. (Ed.). Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts: Harvard University Press, 1947, 1954.

 

Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. The Biological Unity of Mankind: Human
Ethology, Concepts, and Implications. Prospects, 1977,
7(2), 163-183.

Elvin, L. The Place of Commonsense in Educational Thought.
London: Allen and Unwin, 1977.

Fishman, J. A. (Ed.). Readings in the Sociology of Language.
The Hague: Mbuton, 1968.

Francois, L. The Right to Education: From Proclamation to
Achievement, 1948-1968. Paris: UNESCO, 1968.

 

Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. W. (Trans.). From Max Weber:
Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press,
1946.

Giroux, H. A. Ideology,,Culture, and the Process of School-
1 g. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1981.

Goel, B. S. and Saini, S. K. Mother Tongue and Equality of
Opportunity_in Education. India: National Council of Ed-
ucational Research and Training, 1972.

Hamilton, P. Knowledge and Social Structure: An Introduc-
tion to the Classical Arguments in the Sociology of Know-
ledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974.

Hansen, J. F. Sociocultural Perspectives on Human Learning:
An Introduction to Educational Anthropology. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1979.

Kneller, G. F. Educational Anthropology, An Introduction.
New York: Wiley, 1965.

Lacey, C. The Socialization of Teachers. London: Methuen,
1977.

Lewis, E. G. Bilingualism in Education: A Cross-National

Research. Linguistics: An International Review, 1977,

270

271

Luecke, D. F. and McGinn, N. F. Regression Analyses and Ed-
ucation Production Functions: Can They be Trusted? Har-
vard Educational Review, 1975, 45(3), 325-349.

Mackay, R. Children's Intellectual Rights. Interchange,
1977-78, 8(1-2), 109-118.

Marjoribanks, K. Teacher Perceptions of Student Behavior,
Social Environment and Cognitive Performance. The Jour-
nal of Genetic Psychology, l978b, 133, 217-228.

Marques, A. D. A Study of Educational Problems of the Third
World. In Diversity and Unity in Education. Holmes, B.
(Ed.). London: Allen and Unwin, 1980.

Monoszohn, E. I. and Szarka, J. Educational Research in
Socialist Countries. International Review of Education,
1972, 16(3), 357-366.

Myers, R. G. Connecting Worlds: A Survey of Developments
in Educational Research in Latin America. Ottawa, Can-
ada: International Development Research Centre, 1981.

Nettleship, R. L. The Theory of Education in_§lato's Repub-
lic. London: Oxford university Press, 1935.

Scrimshaw, N. S. and Gordon, J. E. (Eds.). Malnutrition,
Learning and Behavior. Cambridge: Massachusetts Insti-
tute of Technology Press, 1968.

Simon,.J. and Simon, B. (Eds.). Educational Psychology in the
USSR. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1963.

Spindler, G. (Ed.). Education and Culture: Anthropological
Approaches. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1963.

Spindler, G. (Ed.) Doing the Ethnography ofSchooling: Educa-

tional Anthropology in Action. New York: CBS Collage
Publishing, 1982.

Sultanbekov, A. A Pedagogy for "Problem" Children or "Prob-
lematic Pedagogy"? Soviet Education, 1979, 22(1), 133-135.

Tomlinson, S. A Sociology of Special Education. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982.

UNESCO-IBE. Evaluation of Achievement in Socialist Countries
of Eastern Europe. Educational Documentation and Informa-
tion (No. 191). Geneva: IBE, 1974.

Wexler, P. The Sociology of EducationrirBeyond Eguality.
Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill, 1976.