National Academies Press: OpenBook

Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve (1984)

Chapter: 7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years

« Previous: 6 The Peer Context in Middle Childhood
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 283
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 284
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 285
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 286
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 287
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 288
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 289
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 290
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 291
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 292
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 293
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 294
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 295
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 296
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 297
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 298
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 299
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 300
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 301
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 302
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 303
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 304
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 305
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 306
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 307
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 308
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 309
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 310
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 311
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 312
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 313
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 314
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 315
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 316
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 317
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 318
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 319
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 320
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 321
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 322
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 323
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 324
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 325
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 326
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 327
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 328
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 329
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 330
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 331
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 332
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 333
Suggested Citation:"7 School Children: The Middle Childhood Years." National Research Council. 1984. Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/56.
×
Page 334

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

- CHAPTER 7 School and Children: The Micldle Chitc~hooc! Years Edgar G. Epps and Sylvia F. Smith This chapter is primarily concerned with the effects of schools and schooling on children ages 6-12. However, because formal schooling in the United States and many other nations frequently begins between ages 4 and 5, some of the research and theory reviewed encompasses this earlier period as well. Throughout the world the most widely recognized function of elementary schools is to provide opportunities for children to acquire at least basic competencies in reading, writing, and computation. Less frequently discussed by educators, but of equal importance, is the fact that schools serve other less obvious societal functions, including ~ ~ ~ providing custodial care while parents work or pursue personal interests; (2) delaying children's entrance into the work force; (3) encouraging the development of social competencies; and (4) sorting and selecting for the purpose of impeding or maintaining established social roles, organizations, and institutions (Goodiad, 1973~. Thus, the schooling process has a significant impact on the development of children both academically and societally. The effects of schooling on children may not be obvious in societies in which the vast majority attend school. However, in countries in which smaller proportions of the population attend school, the effects are striking (Stevenson et al., 1978~. World Bank (1980) records indicate that 64 per- cent of the children ages 6-~! in developing countries attended school in 1977, compared with 94 percent of the same-age children in developed countries. Substantial differences in literacy and other cognitive skills appear' 283

284 DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD when persons who have attended at least elementary school are compared with those who have not been exposed to formal education (Sharp et al., 1979; Stevenson et al. 19781. In developing nations a major concern is expanding access to formal education to reach a larger proportion of school- age children. In cross-national comparisons of science achievement, secondary-level American students do not perform as well as students from Japan, Hungary, Australia, New Zealand, and the Federal Republic of Germany. However, data from the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (Walberg, 1981) indicate that American 10-year-olds are achieving at approximately the average level for developed nations (although still far behind Japan). There is some evidence that parental expectations may account for the achievement advantages of Japanese students (Hess et al., 1980~. During these important middle childhood years, children are thought to be functioning developmentally at what Piaget termed the concrete and formal operational stages (see Fischer and Bullock, in this volume). During this phase, basic literacy as well as computational and conceptual skills are acquired. Children also develop relatively permanent attitudes about schools and reaming, including study habits. A child's academic and social self- concepts develop incrementally with age (Benham et al., 1980), and the pressures of peer influence begin to emerge during the early school years (Hartup, in this volume; Minuchin and Shapiro, 1983~. Although varying in content and purpose across countries, the most uni- versally recognized function of schools is to impart knowledge and skills that will ertable the learner to participate successfully in the society's institutions. At this level schools are concemed with the development of reading, writing, speaking, and computational skills. In most instances teachers instruct chil- dren in groups at a given age or grade level, using a specified set of instruc- tional materials, and the academic outcomes of this overt function are assigned highest priority. With regard to socialization, schools by virtue of their structure also facilitate normative outcomes (Dreeben, 1968; Jackson, 1968~. Dreeben contends that schools provide children with the psychological capacities needed for participation in societal institutions by fostering independence, achievement, universalisms, and specificity. Bowles (1975) sees the school's function as more allocative and argues that its main purpose is to perpetuate society's economic and class structures. These themes recur throughout this chapter. Schooling occurs in the context of the society at large; therefore, its academic and normative functions are not independent of other societal

- SCHOOL AND CHILDREN 285 institutions. The interaction between the home or family and the school is the most obvious example of social-system interaction, especially because for children of this age much of the parents' monitoring and control functions is taken over by the school during the main part of the day, and even before and after school in some areas. This chapter discusses the school environment, the cognitive and affective effects of schooling, both manifest and latent, and schools and children in the context of family influence (socioeconomic background, home back- ground, and the like). Issues related to school desegregation and bilingualism are also discussed. Wherever possible, we point out methodological weak' nesses in the existing research and list issues for future investigation. We do not cover the literature on teaching methods in any detail, although instructional approaches that appear to be important conceptually and meth- odologically (e.g., Barr and Dreeben, 1983; Bloom, 1976) are discussed. And an issue of great current interest, mainstreaming of handicapped chil- dren, is not discussed (see Heller et al., 1982, and Johnson et al., 1983~. THE SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT In this section we briefly discuss issues related to children's lives in the context of the school, especially school climate and teacher expectations, from a number of research perspectives. Input,Output Analysis The work of Coleman et al. (1966) and Jencks et al. (1972), which are examples of input-output formulations, have generally been interpreted to mean that differences in school environments are minimal at best and largely ineffective in influencing outcomes. These conclusions are based primarily on research with secondary school students. Other studies of the same genre suggest that elementary schools do have differential effects on student out- comes (Brookover et al., 1979; Edmonds, 1979; Entwisle and Hay~uk, 1982; Murnane, 1975; Rutter, 1983; Rutter et al., 1979; Summers and Wolfe, 1977). Alternative interpretations have been suggested. For example, Heyns (1978) and McPartIand and Karweit (1979) suggested that the findings on school environments can be interpreted to mean that school environments provide similar educational experiences for all students and that schools are for the most part equally effective in influencing most learning outcomes. At any rate, school effects at the elementary level have been studied much less than those at the secondary level, although the organization and lo

286 DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD l cations of the two levels of schools differ in the extreme. In contrast to secondary schools, in elementary schools children often remain in one cIass- room with one teacher for most of the day. And in the United States, elementary schools are most often neighborhood schools, a circumstance that, for middle-cIass white students, leads to a high degree of concordance between home and school environments perhaps potentiating effects of both. For [ower-cIass and minority students, however, there is frequently a lack of congruence between home and school environments (see the section below on race and ethnicity). Social-System Variables From another perspective the school can be seen as a "cultural system of social relationships among family, teachers, students and peers" (Anderson, 1982:382~. Studies with this focus examine how the various components in the "cultural system" of school interact to influence both cognitive and normative outcomes. Focal variables include ability grouping, classroom organization, and teacher-student relationships. The effect of ability grouping on achievement remains debatable. While some studies report that no significant relationship exists, Brookover et al. ~1979), Almonds and Fredericksen ~1978), McDill and Rigsby ~1973), So- rensen (1970), and Weber (1971) indicate that the more homogeneous the group the higher the achievement. Barr and Dreeben (1983) studied the ways teachers organized first-grade classrooms for reading instruction. They found that the number of instruc- tional groups and the size of the groups were determined by such charac- teristics as class size and number of low-aptitude students in a classroom. Barr and Dreeben also observed that teachers moved children from group to group during the school year largely on the basis of how well they per- formed. The primary dete~inant of an individual's group placement was aptitude (reading readiness in this study). The average aptitude of the in- structional group was a major determinant of how much material was covered in reading texts and ultimately how much the children reamed. Beckerman and Good ( 1981 ) found that the ratio of high- to low-aptitude students in a classroom affected the achievement of both. High- and low- aptitude third- and fourth-graders had greater achievement gains in cIass- rooms in which more than one-third were high aptitude. Barr and Dreeben (1983) contend, however, that the number of low-aptitude students in a classroom is more important than the proportion. Studies by Ecler (1981), Leiter (1983), and Rowan and Miracle (1983) also indicate that grouping strategies and the distribution of abilities have profound effects on student achievement. This topic deserves much more attention.

SCHOOL AND CHILDREN 287 The degree and type of teacher-student interaction and the extent to which students interact in school activities and share in the decision-making process are related to positive effects. Despite these findings, Goodiad ~ 1983) noted that "above the primary level, students experience few classroom activities that involve their own goal setting, problem solving, collaborative reaming, autonomous thinking, creativity, and the like" (p. 305~. This absence of student-initiated learning tasks may provide one explanation for Harter's (1981) finding that children's mastery motivation declines from grade 3 to grade 9. Milieu Variables Other research indicates that strong relationships, both positive and new ative, apparently exist between the values and beliefs of various groups within a school and its climate and between values and student outcomes. Teacher commitment to and emphasis on students' academic achievement, rewards and praise, clear goal definition, peer norms, and group cooperation influ- ence both school climate and student outcomes (Brookover et al., 1979; Edmonds, 1979; Rutter et al., 1979~. Teacher characteristics (McDill and Rigsby, 1973; Rutter et al., 1979), teacher morale (Brookover and Lezotte, 1979; Ellett et al., 1977), student body characteristics (Brookover et al., 1979; Rutter et al., 1979), and student morale (Edmonds, 1979) are likely to act individually and in combination. While research denies significant relationships between teacher charac' teristics, such as teacher preparation or salary and student outcomes, positive correlations have been noted between school climate as perceived by ele- mentary children (Ellett et al., 1977) and student attendance and achieve- ment at both the elementary and secondary levels. Likewise, Brookover et al. ~ 1979) and Ecimonds ~ 1979) found positive relationships between student morale and achievement and between student morale and academic self- concept. Brookover et al. (1979) also reported that such student charac- teristics as race and socioeconomic status account for a smaller proportion of the variance in achievement than is accounted for by climate variables. The Ecological Perspective Ecological studies combine ecological elements from the input-output economists with social-system, culture, and milieu variables. Effects of both school (its physical characteristics) and schooling (the process) are at issue in suc ~ investigations. In general, studies investigating the effect of ecological variables on stu- dent outcomes have produced low or inconsistent correlations. Rutter et al.

288 DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD (1979) reported a positive relationship between decoration and care of the building and student achievement, but no relationship was found between the age of the building and achievement. Findings with respect to effects of class and school size are mixed. As expected, small schools have been found to have better student behavior (Anderson, 1982~. Although contrary to McDill and Rigsby (1973) and Rutter et al. (1979), Anderson (1982) reported that neither class nor school size affected reaming outcomes. This could be due to a lack of agreement over the definitions of size terms (e.g., what constitutes small or large) and inconsistencies in measurement. Glass and Smith (1978), from a statistical research synthesis of a large number of studies, concluded that differences in achievement are greatest in a range of class sizes between 10 and 20. Glass et al. (1982) reviewed and critiqued the literature on class size and provided recommendations for research and policy. Other important considerations include investigating the possibility of threshold effects for specific subgroups of students (e.g., those of lower ability) and possible connections between class size and instructional meth- ods. Rutter (1983) and Summers and Wolfe (1977) contend that it is likely that less-able students will benefit from significant reductions (classes con- sisting of fewer than 20 pupils) in class size. Further investigation into effective ways of making such changes without detrimentally affecting av- erage and above-average students is needed. Teacher Behaviors and Expectations Teacher behaviors and expectations, although not always systematically included, can be classified under the ecological approach. Although this research has a number of conceptual and methodological weaknesses, this continues to be an important line of investigation. During the 1960s and early 1970s, studies focusing on the influences of teacher behaviors and expectations on children's academic achievement and self-concept began to take shape. Studies such as those undertaken by Leacock ~ 1969), Rist ~ 1970), and Rosenthal and Jacobson ~ 1968) suggested that teacher expectations can strongly influence both the cognitive and the affective development of chil- dren. On the basis of observing a single classroom of black children, Rist noted that by the eighth day of kindergarten the teacher had assigned the children to tables that reflected social-cIass groupings. These groupings per- sisted into second grade, and throughout this period teachers tended to favor the more advantaged children. Much of the early expectancy research is thought to be flawed (see, for example, Elashoff and Snow, 1971), and a number of later studies have focused on whether teachers behave differently toward high- and low-achiev

- SCHOOL AND CHILDREN 289 ing students (e.g., Brophy and Good, 1974). Although differential behavior is often observed, its precise relationship to student achievement remains unclear. With a sample of 17,163 students representing 38 schools ranging in grade levels from elementary through high school, Goodlad et al. (1979) found that positive teacher behavior, such as praise, guidance, and encouragement, were strongest in the elementary years. By the senior year of high school, these encouraging behaviors declined as much as 50 percent in comparison to the early elementary school years (Benham et al., 19801. Entwisle and Hayduk (1982) examined teacher, student, and parent ex- pectations in three elementary schools (one middle-class and two lower' class schools). Their results raise many questions that should lead to further research. For example, they found that initial expectations of lower-class children were higher than those of middle-class children and that lower- class parents as well had overoptimistic expectations for their children's performance. There was a striking mismatch between lower-class parents' and children's expectations and the children's performance as assessed by teachers' marks. Furthermore, both parents and children in the middle-class school were more likely to change their expectations on the basis of feedback in the form of children's marks than were parents and children in the lower- ciass schools. The authors noted that far too little attention has been paid to what actually happens when marks are assigned. How do parents and children react? What is the effect on subsequent expectations and behaviors? Research on social climate and teacher behavior suffers from many prob- lems, especially a failure to conceptualize variables in terms of testable theory. Anderson ~ 1982) made a number of recommendations with which we concur: more longitudinal research, improved statistical analysis, a focus on variables that are causally relevant to outcomes, and consideration of multiple out' comes and their interrelationships, since nonacademic outcomes may be important in mediating the outcome of achievement. In general, a diversity of research methods is called for. The use of in-depth observation, for example, could compensate for the fragmentary evidence on school climate typically yielded by surveys. Experimental methods, when feasible, are of course optimal. As Rutter et al. (1979:180) noted, "The only way to be sure that school practices actually influence children's behavior and attain- ments is to alter those practices and then determine if this results in changes in the children's progress." EFFECTS OF SCHOOLING Research on the effects of schooling has been approached from several distinct perspectives that overlap those identified in the previous section on

290 DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD school environment. Because subtle differences in conceptualization are important, a few of the predominant perspectives are mentioned for the sake of clarity. Research on school production focuses on the relationship between the workings of schools and individual reaming (Barr and Dreeben, 1983~. More specifically, an attempt is made to identify what in the organization of schools leads to increments in individual reaming outcomes. Such analyses generally reflect an economist's formulation of productivity. Formulations predicated on this theoretical approach suffer several limitations, including disagree' ment among researchers on whether the productive unit is the educational organization or the individual and at what level in the organization pro- duction takes place. Other conceptual weaknesses in this approach include ~ ~ ~ confusion over who or what the productive unit is; (2) failure to explain details of the schooling process and, as a result, failure to show how various parts of the school as an organization are integrated; (3) little if any inter "ration of the processes that may occur at different levels (district, school, classroom, or individual); and (4) perhaps most important, failure to take into consideration characteristics of the reamer. The study of individual status attainment represents a second approach to research on the effects of schooling, very similar to school! production studies but with some subtle differences (Barr and Dreeben, 19831. Research in this tradition focuses on educational attainment as the penultimate, or often ultimate, endogenous variable. Because researchers on social mobility became involved in studies of educational attainment indirectly, only re- cently has attention been given to students' earlier histories of attainment. As noted in the section on input-output analysis earlier, there are serious problems in trying to apply findings from this body of research to children ages 6-12. Research classified under the process-product heading is concemed with instructional effectiveness. Studies are typically focused on identifying teach- ing behaviors and activities that increase reaming outcomes. Brophy and Evertson (1974), Dunkin and Biddle (1974), Gage (1972, 1978), and Ro- senshine (1971) are major contributors to this approach. The process var- iables include teaching behaviors, activities, and such characteristics as teacher explanation, demonstration, maintaining order, housekeeping, plan- ning, and years of experience as well as classroom and pupil contextual variables. As mentioned, the findings from such studies are largely incon- clusive or ungeneralizable. This is due to (1) the inclusion of an extensive number and range of teacher behaviors; (2) little agreement on which teacher behaviors are important; (3) failure to conceptualize adequately the instruc- tional process and, therefore, how these variables operate to affect reaming;

SCHOOL AND CHILDREN 291 (4) the overly simplistic univariate analysis of the relationship between these teaching variables and educational outcomes; and (5) failure to consider children's characteristics and initiatory behavior in the process. Recently researchers have attempted to deal with some of the inadequacies of this research by developing more sophisticated conceptual formulations, in which learning outcomes are purported to be influenced by intervening student characteristics, environmental variables, and instructional time. In his theory of educational productivity, Walberg ~ 1981 ~ specified the follow- ing variables: student ability and motivation, home environment and age, quality of instruction, quantity of instruction, and class environment. For- mulations of this type are significant because they acknowledge that events occur simultaneously within the classroom that might' influence learning outcomes, thus permitting us to study the possible interactive and mediating effects. The work of Bloom ~ 1976), Carroll ~ 1963), Fisher et al. ~ 1978), and Wiley and Harnischfeger (1974) also bears on instructional time schemes as a significant variable. Although most research on the effects of schooling has been confined to academic outcomes, some researchers have explored the influence of process variables on self-esteem and locus of control (Marjoribanks, 1979; Weiss, 1969) or academic expectations for the self (Entwisle and Hay~uk, 1982~. These efforts have tried to analyze and explain the development of self- esteem and locus of control considered as both an antecedent and a con- sequence of cognitive school outcomes. Achievement ! During middle childhood, children's ability to use images, symbols, con- cepts, and rules increases, as does their vocabulary. Middle childhood covers most of what Piaget termed the stage of concrete operations and the begin- ning of the stage of formal operations. It is a period when the child is expected to acquire a wide range of academic skills and to develop the ability to solve increasingly complex problems. Fischer and Bullock (in this volume) note that "competence is not a fixed characteristic of the child but an emergent characteristic of the child in a specific context." It is evident that the environment significantly affects cognitive development; however, there is a paucity of information on how the environmental context interacts with individual child characteristics to either facilitate or constrain development. Fischer and Bullock recommend an investigation into the collaboration between the child and the environment; we concur. Children's preschool experiences in the home, nursery school, and play' ground provide them, to some extent, with the cognitive and social skills

292 DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD required for success in school. Children from different social-cIass and ethnic backgrounds typically differ in the degree to which their preschool experi- ences prepare them for schoolwork. We discuss some of these differences in greater detail later. Here we note that early school ability (e.g., reading readiness), which is highly predictive of later school achievement, is strongly related to family background characteristics. As Barr and Dreeben (1983) noted, reading readiness determines reading group placement, and group placement determines pace of instruction and, therefore, reading achieve- ment. Reading achievement in first grade is highly predictive of reading achievement in second grade (r = .84~. For children in traditionally organized classrooms, achievement is re- markably stable during the school years. This is partly attributable to the high correlation between school achievement and general intelligence, which is usually between .50 and .60 (Lavin, 1965~. Cognitive competencies as- sessed by intelligence tests overlap with the competencies measured by achievement tests. Bloom (1976) estimated that about 75 percent of sub- sequent achievement is accounted for by general intelligence. Achievement measures are usually highly correlated with one another. For example, read- ing comprehension correlates about .70 with tests of language skills and literature. Within domains, test scores are even more highly correlated (e.g., .80 for prior and subsequent tests of the same type). In summarizing results of longitudinal studies, Bloom reported that measures of achievement after grade 3 yield a median correlation with achievement at grade 12 of .70. Maruyama et al. (1981) reported correlations of .75 to .79 for verbal achieve- ment between ages 12 and 15 and of .67 to .72 for verbal achievement between ages 9 and 12. In traditional instruction the best predictor of achievement at the end of the school year is achievement at the beginning of the year. A typical correlation is .80. Bloom (1976) reported that studies using high-quality instruction (tutor- ing, mastery reaming) have been able to substantially reduce the correlation between prior and later achievement in specific subjects. Anania (1981) reported a correlation of only .11 between prior achievement and final achievement in a course under tutorial conditions of instruction. More typical are the results reported by Froeme! (1980~. For students undergoing conventional instruction, the correlation between general intelligence and later achievement in a course was .45. For students in a mastery learning class, the correlation between measures of intelligence and measures of achievement at the beginning of the study was .46; after 3 months the correlation fell to .21; and after 6 months it was .11. Similar, though not always as dramatic, patterns of results have been consistent in studies of students from elementary grades through college (Bloom, 19761.

SCHOOL AND CHILDREN 293 The stability described above is based on the persisting effects of individual differences on achievement. Rutter (1983) contended that individual dif- ferences in academic achievement cannot be reduced without impairing the most advantaged pupils but did not provide any empirical support for this assertion. Bloom (1976), however, cited the results of research indicating that by using mastery reaming techniques the achievement levels of the slowest pupils can be improved without impairing the progress of the more able students. The stability between earlier and later achievement is not inevitable but is a pattern that, according to Bloom, is associated with schooling as it is traditionally organized. While Bloom and his associates have focused on tutoring and mastery learning, perhaps other organized instructional ap- proaches could also reduce this stability substantially, especially computer- assisted or other individualized modes of instruction. Subsequent research in this area is warranted. School-Related Affect There has been a proliferation of research on general self-esteem and academic self-concept during the past two decades. Yet numerous meth- odological and conceptual problems continue to perplex researchers (see reviews by Wylie, 1974, 1979~. There is little agreement on the meaning of the terms self-esteem and self-concept, and there is a paucity of knowledge about how a child's self-image changes during the middle childhood years (Markus and Nurius, in this volume). There is also a need to understand the dimensions or domains of self-concept (e.g., physical self, academic self, social self). Finally, the tendency to rely almost exclusively on self-report measures of self~evaluation is a major weakness of research in this area. Self-esteem and academic self-concept are both positively correlated with academic achievement (Dolan, 1978; Hare, 1980; Maruyama et al., 1981; Purkey, 1970~. However, there is little direct evidence that either self-esteem or academic self-concept has a direct causal influence on achievement. After reviewing research on primary-grade children and older students, Scheirer and Kraut (1979) concluded that the evidence does not support the view that positive changes in self-concept result in improved achievement. Rather, it is more likely that positive change in academic self-concept is an outcome of improved achievement (e.g., Kifer, 1975~. Entwisle and Hay~uk (1982), however, found this relationship to be reversed in the first grade, i.e., before children have much experience in school. Eclucational and psychological researchers have shown considerable in- terest in the relationship of locus of control to achievement. For example,

294 DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD Findley and Cooper (1983), from a synthesis of 98 such studies involving students ranging from first grade through college, concluded that more in- ternal beliefs are associated with higher academic achievement but at a modest level (r = .18~. The strength of the association was greatest at junior high school age (r = .35), was somewhat lower at grades 4 through 6 (r = .24), and weakest at the primary level (for grades 1-3, r = .041. These results are consistent with those of other reviews (e.g., Walden and Ramey, 19831. Walden and Ramey also reported that an experimental group of socially disadvantaged children who had participated in a 5-year preschool educational day care program had perceptions of control over academic successes equal to those of the middIe~cIass comparison group and, like the middle~cIass children, scored relatively tow on perceptions of control over general outcomes. Control beliefs predictec! achievement for the experi- mental and middIe-cIass comparision children but were unrelated to achieve- ment for the socially disadvantaged children who had not had the benefits of preschool intervention. The small sample (N = 65) and the typically low reliability of locus of control measures at this age lead us to view these results as suggestive only. Stipek and Weisz (1981) argued that new measures of children's percep- tions of locus of control are needed that would yield subscores for different reinforcement domains. They also recommend studies of developmental changes in locus of control, including information on when children develop beliefs regarding locus of control in achievement situations, how this de- velopmental process is affected by school experiences, and how attributions of failure affect mastery motivation. Harter (1978) suggested that failure perceived to be caused by a lack of competence could lead to anxiety, which interferes with subsequent performance. Harter and Connell (in press) report the development of several instru- ments that address some of the concerns expressed by Stipek and Weisz. Among these are a perceived competence scale (Harter, 1982) that measures self-perceptions in the cognitive, social, and physical domains and a per- ceived control scale that assesses the extent to which children attribute their successes and failures to "unknown" causes or to intemal or extemal causes. These instruments have been administered to hundreds of students in grades 3 through 9, and early analyses are beginning to shed light on developmental pattems. Harter (1981) also developed a scale that assesses intrinsic versus extrinsic mastery motivation in the classroom. Instruments for use with first and second graders are still badly needed, however, in part because these earliest years may be just the time when relationships among locus of control, academic expectations, and attributions are being worked out.

- - SCHOOL AND CHILDREN 295 Miller (1982), in a review of studies of children in grades K-3, found that self-esteem declines between kindergarten and the third grade. When Miller interviewed subjects in December of first grade and reinterviewed the same children 1 year later (N = 94) on measures of self-concept of attain- ment, children who were immature overused the very top self-ranking and showed little stability over the 1-year period. At the second interview, fewer children were immature, and there was a significant decline in self-esteem. Whether the reported decline in self-esteem was due to developmental changes in cognition, as Miller suggested, or to negative experiences in school is equivocal. (See Markus and Nurius, in this volume, for a more detailed discussion of the development of self-evaluation and self-regulation. ) Teacher behaviors may be related to changes in self-esteem (Anderson, 1982; Goodiad et al., 1979; McDill and Rigsby, 19?3; Miller, 1982), al- though the identification of the specific behaviors and how they produce positive or negative changes remains murky. Anxiety in school settings, a concern of researchers since the 1950s (Sar- ason et al., 1960), also may contribute to changes in children's self-esteem. For students at all grade levels through college, high anxiety is almost always associated with impairment in cognitive functioning (Gallery and Speilber- ger, 1971~. Anxious students apparently spend part of the total task time on irrelevant behaviors, which result in performance decrements. There is little consensus on the origins of school-related anxiety (e.g., the extent to which anxiety is developed at home before the child enters school), but there is general agreement that school reaming and evaluation processes affect the level and stability of children's school-related anxiety. More re- search in naturalistic settings is needed to determine the' aspects of the teaching/reaming/evaluation process that increase or reduce anxiety. Harter and Connell (in press) contend that children's understanding of the contingencies that govern success and failure is critical. Children in grades 3 to 9 who attribute control to "unknown" sources tend to have lower levels of achievement than children who accept personal responsibility for their successes and failures (Cornell, 1980~. Harter and Connell identified a predictive sequence that flows from perceived control to actual achieve ment to competence evaluation to competence affect and then to moti- vation to engage in further mastery attempts. Social Roles The role of the schools in preparing children to function appropriately as adults is an active area of research, mainly at the secondary level. To

296 DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD participate effectively in school and in societal institutions, children must leam (i.e., be socialized), to be independent achievers, to accept universal standards, and to function well as group members (Dreeben, 1968~. While instruction takes place in groups, rewards are allocated on the basis of individual competition. Children enter school with different capacities and with different levels of preparation for the school experience. Social class and ethnic differences in values and linguistic styles may be reflected in children's behaviors and attitudes and in the way teachers respond to them (Leacock, 1982~. Children from middle-cIass families typically exhibit values and behaviors that are relatively consistent with the norms of the school. Children from working-cIass backgrounds, especially if they are mem- bers of a racial or ethnic minority group, frequently display behaviors and values that are in conflict with those of the school. These initial differences in school "survival" skills are thought to be translated into instructional group placement differences, which lead to differences in reading achieve- ment. Since reading achievement is reflected in nearly all school subjects, this early placement has a lasting effect on achievement and subsequent attitudes toward school and educational attainment. Grouping in the primary grades and tracking in the intermediate grades and secondary school result in children being identified as academic winners or losers. These (unofficial) designations are associated with rates of staying in or dropping out of school, enrollment in academic or low-level classes, and going to college or entering the world of work. One might say that the process begins in the home, but it is institutionalized in the school (Rutter, 1983~. The opposing view emphasizes allocation. As Bowles and Gintis (1976) pointed out, children's experiences of segregation by group or track (or school) and of differential rewards in an educational setting with a meri- tocratic reward system could allocate them by preparing them to accept the reality of an adult work world characterized by hierarchical segmentation and unequal rewards. The outcome of school socialization in this view is a cohort of workers who believe that their place in society, either high or low, is deserved and is a function of their own abilities and efforts. In other words, one of the normative outcomes of schooling, resulting from a process that begins in elementary school, could be intemalization of the meritocratic myth. The debate between these views continues. The school's reinforcement of traditional societal roles may also occur in the different experiences of male and female pupils. Small-scale studies suggest that boys receive more attention, both positive and negative, from teachers than girls (Brophy and Good, 1974), that teachers react differently to black and white boys and girls (Grant, 1981), and that black teachers differ less in their treatment of girls and boys than do white teachers (Simpson

SCHOOL AND CHILDREN 297 and Erickson, 1983~. Dweck et al. (1978) reported that teachers criticize boys more than girls, that criticism of boys is directed toward conduct and neatness, and that teachers are six times more likely to attribute academic failure to a lack of motivation or effort for boys than for girls. This pattern of differential feedback may help explain sex differences in achievement expectations. These results have not been supported by recent studies (for a comprehensive review, see Meece et al., 19821. There is a clear need for additional research on how classroom experiences affect girls' achievement expectations. The role models provided by elementary school personnel may contribute to the reinforcement of traditional gender role expectations. Most elemen- tary school teachers are women, but most administrators are men. Thus, there is a sex-ranked hierarchy among school personnel that may reinforce traditional notions of male superiority. Research is needed on the effects of different types of leadership roles held by women on girls' achievement expectations. For example, how does it make a difference in girls' expec- tations of achievement if the principal is a woman rather than a man? Another interesting research question is the nature of the interaction be- tween maternal work roles, school leadership patterns, and girls' achieve- ment expectations. The role of peers in maintaining or changing stereotypes should also be explored. SOCIAL BACKGROUND AND SCHOOLING This section discusses the effects of socioeconomic status, Home environ- ment, and race and ethnicity on educational outcomes for children. The discussion includes the interface between families and schools. Unfortunately, most of the literature treats the learner conceptually as contributing little if anything to the schooling process. As a result, what is covered focuses largely on how families and schools influence the reamer. Although our stated purpose is to uncover effects, further investigation is needed into the nature of the learner as producer and beneficiary of learning. Family Influence and Eclucational Outcomes In the past several decades, researchers have studied questions related to the relationship of family life to educational outcomes. These investigations have focused primarily on the effects of parental involvement, socioeconomic status, and home environment on children's cognitive and affective func . . tlonlng.

298 DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD Socioeconomic Status and Achievement One of the most frequently studied aspects of the relationship between family and school as socializing environments is the effect of family back- ground on school achievement. In most of this research the measure of family background is occupation, education, or income of the head of house' hold, both parents, or some combination of these. The consistent finding is that the higher the family's social status, the more likely the child is to have high scores on achievement tests. Correlations between measures of socioeconomic status and standardized achievement test scores for individuals average between .20 and .25, while correlations based on aggregated scores (e.g., school or class means) average between .70 and .80 (Hess, 1970; White, 1982~. In multivariate analyses, social class has been found to be primarily implicated through its relationship to ability as measured by in- telligence tests (e.g., Maruyama et al., 1981~. Socioeconomic status is as' sociated with school grades in much the same fashion: the higher the status, the higher the grades. These relationships vary in strength for different populations and for different types of tests. For example, the relationship of father's occupation to achievement is typically weaker for minority group students than for whites (se Bord et al., 1977; Epps, 1969~. Interestingly, the correlation of socio- economic status and achievement has been found to be consistent among developecl countries; results similar to those in the United States have been found in England, France, Germany, and other European nations and in Japan and Israel. However, in developing nations, such as Uganda, the advantage of socioeconomic status does not appear to exist (Heyneman, 19761. Correlational data, however, cannot speak to the processes by which families inculcate differential preparation or motivation for school learning or performance. What are the specific characteristics of the home environ- ment that are associated with achievement? Home Environment Studies of home environments typically yield average correlations with intelligence for individuals of about .55 (Bloom, 1976; White, 1982~. Even when students live in comparable neighborhoods and do not differ on tra- ditional measures of socioeconomic status, home environment variables still explain a significant amount of achievement variance (Levine et al., 1972~. (See Maccoby, in this volume, for a discussion of family interaction pat'

SCHOOL AND CHILDREN 299 tems.) Dave (1963) examined the relationship between the family envi- ronment and academic achievement of children at age 11. He identified six process variables as characterizing the educational "press" of the family environment: (1) achievement press, (2) language models, (3) academic guidance, (4) activeness of the family, (5) intellectuality in the home, (6) work habits of the family. These indicators have now been widely used in this country, in Trinidad (Dyer, 1967), and in Dublin (KelIaghan, 1977) to assess the degree of parental influence on academic achievement of chil- dren ages 8 and 11, respectively (Marjoribanks, 1979~. The press variables accounted for much of the variance in achievement in academic subject areas and to a lesser degree were positively associated with measures of intelligence. R. Clark (1982) used a case study approach to distinguish between surface structure of families (traditional socioeconomic indicators such as income, occupation, and education as well as family intactness and ethnicity) and intemal structure of families (personality characteristics, communication pattems, and reaming opportunity structures). Three types of home activities seemed especially relevant for school achievement: (~) explicit literacy- nurturing activities, which include studying, reading, writing, topical dia- logues, and explicit social etiquette practices; (2) cultural literacy-enhancing activities that serve leisure needs, e.g., watching television, word games, and hobbies; and (3) home and personal health maintenance activities, e.g., chores, caring for children and other household members, and attending to one's own personal upkeep and well-being. Other important aspects of sup- portive family systems include interactive communication systems that pro- vide opportunities for direct instruction, feedback opportunities, and reinforcement opportunities. If this type of qualitative research can be rep- licated, an explanation may be closer of why some families provide better support for school achievement than others. There is some disagreement over the extent and direction of the interactive influences of home environment variables and individual child character- istics on achievement outcomes. How much influence does a child's intellect itself have on the nature of the home environment? Mercy and Steelman (1982) suggested that it is possible that bright children select intellectually stimulating activities or encourage their parents to provide such experiences. It is also possible that parents' aspirations for their child, parental concern for academic achievement, and other achievement "press" variables are based on parents' perceptions of their child's ability or potential. It is unlikely that the home environment effect represents a one~way flow from parent to child. The interactive approach seems to be more plausible and is consistent with

300 DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD the thrust of current research efforts, as detailed throughout this volume. Continued investigation following interactive formulations and using im- proved methodologies appears warranted in this area. Maternal Influence Among the maternal socialization variables, matemal educational back- ground is thought to be the strongest predictor of achievement (Hess and Shipman, 1967; Laosa, 1982), and, of the many effects, the impact on linguistic development appears to be the greatest (Carew, 1980; CIarke- Stewart, 1973; Slaughter, 1983~. Hess et al. (1980) reported that matemal behaviors such as reading to children and providing them with opportunities for verbal expression are positively related to early reading skills (e.g., letter recognition at age 51. Using a measure of matemal press for achievement that attempts to assess the mother's efforts to motivate her child to achieve in school, they found that both the mother's pressure to achieve and her tendency to request verbal statements from her child are significantly and positively related to 5-year-olds' letter recognition scores. A measure of the verbal environment of the home correlated at a significant level with IQ at age 6. The early work of Brophy (1970), Hess and Shipman (1965, 1967), and Stodolsky (1965) conceptualized the influence of matemal behaviors as representative of cognitive and affective structures that evoke certain in- tellectual and affective processes. These behaviors are thought to serve as models that strongly influence children's acquisition of specific cognitive and affective modes, which affect their subsequent reaming and affective responses. Hess and Shipman stated (1967:58-60) that: The mother's strategies are likely to have consequences for the child's ability to grasp a concept or learn a lesson in any specific teaching situation. The mother's strategies also have consequences for the cognitive structures (preferred response pattems) that emerge in the child and for his eventual educability in more formal, institutional instruction.... The styles of reaming established at home interfere with subsequent reaming and teaching processes in school.... This view ... suggests that the role of the school in disad- vantaged areas is not only to fill in deficits of language and specific cognitive skills but also to resoc~alize the child into more adaptable styles of learning. In direct contradiction to Claris argument in Dark Ghetto (1965), which held teachers responsible for underachievement, Hess and Shipman placed the burden of academic deprivation on matemal socialization. This position has critical implications for determining educational policy. One interpre- tation is that this deprivationist rationale relieves schools of the responsibility for change (Slaughter, 1983~. Unfortunately, the deprivationist position is thought to have resulted in many minority and lower~status students being

SCHOOL AND CHILDREN 301 labeled uneducable (Baratz and Baratz, 1970; Leacock, 1982; Rist, 1913; Tulkin, 1972~. Parental Involvement There is general agreement that children of parents who are more involved in their children's education adapt better to the demands of school than do the children of less-involved parents. However, as Epstein and Becker ~ 1982) pointed out, not all forms of parental involvement are equally effective or equally welcomed by school personnel. Participation in PTA councils and as classroom volunteers typically involve relatively few parents, but nearly all parents can be involved in educational activities at home: "Of all types of parent involvement, supervision of learning activities at home may be the most educationally significant" (Epstein and Becker, 1982:111~. And there is some evidence that intervention programs based on the principle of parental involvement, either as home educators of their own children or as teacher aides or tutors, have been relatively successful (Bronfenbrenner, 19741. In an effort to assess the impact of a number of home background variables on the reading ability of 7- and 8-year-olds, Hewison and Tizard (1980) and Tizard et al. ~ 1982) found a strong effect for parental assistance with reading; Children of parents who regularly heard their children read aloud ("coach- ing") had higher reading achievement scores than children whose parents did not listen to their oral reading on a regular basis. Child-parent centers that stress parental involvement have been partic- ularly effective in enhancing the achievement of low-inceme inner-city minority children (Fuerst, 19771. Combining a warm, supportive home atmosphere with a warm, supportive schooling setting was found to enhance the achievement of children in Project Head Start (Shipman et al., 1976~. Comer (1980) also stressed the importance of parental involvement in con- tributing to effective student outcomes. What of the interface between home and school? It is not clear that being active in school affairs has positive achievement outcomes for children unless parents are also providing the type of home environment that enhances achievement. Lightfoot (1979) pointed out that mothers and teachers may compete with each other in their efforts to influence children's development. If race and social-status differences are involved, these conflicts may take on chauvinistic characteristics. Lightfoot suggested that in cases in which parents and teachers, despite their differences, work cooperatively on behalf of the children, a creative tension may develop that will enhance their growth. Promising work on how teachers involve parents in the educational process is currently under way at Johns Hopkins University (Epstein and

302 DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD Becker, 1982), but the issue of how different types of parental involvement affect children's adaptation to school is one that requires additional research. Family and School Authority Patterns Educational researchers have devoted considerable attention to studies of person-environment interactions or interactions of aptitude (trait) and treat- ment (e.g., Como et al., 1981; Janicki and Peterson, 1981~. While few consistent interaction effects have been reported (see Cronbach and Snow, 1977), the search for better statistical analysis strategies (Hedges, 1981) and better conceptual strategies continues. Epstein (1983) pointed out that, while psychologists have focused on person-environment interaction effects, sociologists and political scientists have studied environment-environment interaction effects. She advocates a merging of the two approaches into a person-environment-environment model: "Is there one best organization for educating, or do different approaches optimize development on particular outcomes for different students?" (p. 105~. Epstein's model was applied to a study of the relationship of family and school authority structures (two environments) to junior high and high school students' satisfaction with school (the students varied on measures of independence and locus of control). The two environments could be congruent or incongruent with each other, and each environment could be congruent or incongruent with a particular student's background. The results indicate that "school environments were especially important for students from families that do not emphasize participation in decisions at home" (p. 121~.` This was especially true for students who were initially high in in- clependence and internal control orientation. Although the students in Ep- stein's study were beyond the elementary school level, it is reasonable to assume that the patterns exhibited by these students developed during the early school years. Additional research on the relationship offamily decision- making structures and school decision-making structures in the early grades may help us understand how student characteristics, home environment, and school environment affect student adjustment to school. Family Variables and Student Personality Dimensions Investigations into the relationship and influences of the family on leam- ing outcomes have not been confined to the cognitive-intellectual domain. Some research has focused on structural differences in childhood experiences that result in different achievement values, aspirations, and motivations. Conceptually, the achievement values here are much like the attitudes of "modemism" discussed by Inkeles (1968), self-direction versus conformity

SCHOOL AND CHILDREN 303 as identified by Kohn (1969), and three achievement values identified by Strodtbeck (1958~: (~) a belief that the world is orderly and amenable to rational mastery, (2) a willingness to leave home to make one's way in life, and (3) a preference for individual rather than collective credit for work accomplished. Strodtbeck found that these values were a function of the balance of power between fathers, mothers, and sons within the family (mothers' dominance of their sons rather than father dominance). Major gaps in this research exist. One issue is whether it is valid to apply an Angio-American definition of achievement motivation on the basis of individualistic achievement efforts to those racial or ethnic groups that may place greater emphasis on group or family expressions of achievement and approval (e.g., Ramirez and Price-Williams, 19761. Laosa (1977) also pointed out that ethnic groups differ in the attributes that define optimal develop- ment or social competence in childhood. The evidence on the issue is somewhat inconsistent. RuhIand and Feld (1977) found that black and white working~ciass children did not differ in autonomous achievement motivation, which is presumably learned at home prior to school age; however, white students scored significantly higher than blacks on social comparison motivation, which is acquired during the ele- mentary school years. (Autonomous standards define excellence in relation to one's own past performance; social comparison standards are based on comparisons of one's own performance and that of others.) In contrast, a study (Moore, 1981) of black children adopted by black families and white families, found that black children adopted by white families were signifi- cantly more likely than black children adopted by black families to have high autonomous achievement motivation scores. The two. groups did not differ on social comparison motivation scores. The differences may be attributable to the fact that the children in Moore's study were all living in middIe-cIass families, while the children in the RuhIand and Feld study attended working-cIass schools. Moore's results call into question Banks and McQuater's (1976) contention that the roots of low achievement motivation among blacks are not located in family and early socialization experiences. One key intervening factor may be different determinants of locus of control in the home and at school. Neither the role of the family nor the role of teachers in determining locus of control has received sufficient re- search attention. Burie} (1981) found for grade~school Chicano children (but not for Anglo children) a positive relationship between students' per- ceptions of teachers' controlling behavior and intemal control for success and a positive relationship between students' perceptions of teachers' sup- porting behavior and intemal control for failure. Anglo and Chicano stu- dents were not different in levels of internal locus of control. Similarly,

304 DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD Holliday (1984) compared 44 black 9- and 10-year-olds on mother's reports of children's competencies at home and in the neighborhood and teacher's reports of school competencies. The two sets of competencies were not related at a statistically significant level. Neither school self-esteem (Coop- ersmith scale) nor locus of control (Bialer-Cromwell scale) were significantly related to either set of competencies. Only teacher-reported competencies were significantly related to school grades and achievement test scores. Holliday reported that teachers, in rating black students, tended to assign higher ratings to social activity than to academic activity. She suggested that teacher expectations may contribute to learned helplessness patterns in black children's academic behavior, similar to patterns of reamed helpless- ness described by Dweck et al. (1978) for girls. Evidence from several studies suggests that black students are less accurate than whites in estimating their own achievement levels (Brookover et al., 1979; Busk et al., 1973; Massey et al., 1975), although EntwisIe and Hayduk (1982) did not observe this in their sample in which children of the two races were of comparable socio- economic level. The type of teacher feedback may also contribute to the development of patterns among minority students that cause them to be slower than whites in developing a logical approach to the inference of ability from outcome and effort cues. Research on the relationship of home environment to social affect has concentrated on children ages 1 I-12, although one study of 8-year-olds in Dublin is reported (KelIaghan, 1977~. There is a need to study younger children in order to study developmental pattems. If the methodology could be developed, it would be of interest to know what type of achievement values,children bring from home upon entry in school. It would then be possible to determine how home-produced achievement values are enhanced or discouraged by the schooling process. Student achievement values mea- sured at entry into the ninth grade change very little by graduation from high school. It thus appears that high schools have little impact on students' values. Is this also true for elementary schools? Additional work is needed on the effects of various educational practices on parents' and students' expectations and the relationship of these to achievement and affective outcomes. The work of Entwisle and Hayduk (1978, 1982) is a good begin- ning and should stimulate additional research. Race and Ethnicity Since the publication of Equality of Educational Opportunity (Coleman et al., 1966), the racial and ethnic compositions of schools have been important variables both empirically and conceptually. Most studies find that achieve- ment varies negatively with the percentage of minority students in the school

- SCHOOL AND CHILDREN 305 population. To a large extent, this is attributable to the fact that minority students are likely to come from poverty-level homes with all of the stresses typically associated with poverty (see Maccoby, in this volume). However, Ogbu (1978) noted that low achievement is not found among all racial minorities in American schools. For example, Asian-American students' achievement is usually higher than that of AngIo-Americans. According to Ogbu (1978), immigrant minorities (Chinese, Filipinos, end Japanese) do not exhibit the patterns of school failure found among castelike minorities (blacks, American Indians, Mexican Americans, and Puerto Ricans); Cole- man et al. (1966) also reported this finding. Comparative research in six countries confirms the general pattem: im- migrant minorities did relatively well in school; nonimmigrant minorities experienced a high proportion of school failure. Ogbu ~ 1983) suggested that the differences in minority-group performance in schools are attributable to differences in perceptions of schooling in relation to the opportunity struc- ture, on one hand, and cultural inversion, on the other. The argument for perception of opportunity structure is more plausible for secondary school students than for elementary pupils, who are less likely to have well-formed ideas about societal barriers to social mobility. However, perceptions of the opportunity structure may influence how parents motivate their children for school achievement. Cultural inversion may result in linguistic, cognitive, and behavioral styles that conflict with the expectations of school staff. Slaughter ~1969, 1977) examined the relationship between selected home background variables and achievement development for a sample of Head Start children followed from nursery school through grade 6. Perhaps more important, she studied the interactions of parent, teacher,.and student per- ceptions of children's abilities and potential for development. While Slaugh- ter found several matemal socialization variables to be related to children's preschool {Q scores and reading-readiness scores, by grade 4 nearly all of these were nonsignificant. Slaughter (1977:128) concluded that "for this population the schooling experience is discontinuous with early childhood development." She also reported (1983:26) that "regardless of teacher feed- back differentiating mother and child perceptions of the child's achievement effort and performance between grades kindergarten through 5, the school's own criteria of academic success indicated no differences among the children: academic performances were almost uniformly substandard." There is a strong indication that neither children nor mothers were aware that the children's performance was substandard. This pattern of inaccurate feedback has been reported by others (e.g., Massey et al., 1975~. Some researchers contend that there are ethnic differences in "theories of success" that prepare children to develop different sets of competencies (Ogbu, 1981~. While social status as traditionally measured probably me

306 DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD diates these ethnic differences, it is likely that some ethnic "survivals" remain even when social status is controlled. Ogbu contends that the study of "native theory of success" provides important clues about what instrumental com- petencies people stress and what kinds of adults they want their children to be. It will also provide information on people's notions about how to succeed and about what constitutes a successful person. In a provocative article entitled "Afro-American Cognitive Style: A Var- iable in School Success?" Barbara I. Shade (1982:238) wrote: A review of the literature suggests that successful functioning within the current school context requires the cognitive strategies that are described as sequential, analytical, or object-oriented. An examination of the culture or lifestyle and world view of Afro- Americans, however, portrays strategies designed to foster survival and therefore tends to be rather universalistic, intuitive, and more than that, very person-oriented. It is postulated that an enhanced ability in social cognition may work to the detriment of the individuals within an object-oriented setting such as the school. To veri* these assumptions requires strong and methodologically rigorous empirical studies. These concerns about culturally different socialization goals and culturally specific cognitive styles require empirical verification, but in the meantime they should serve as cautions to theorists and researchers involved with universal developmental schema and stages. An early approach to studying the educational implications of cultural differences in reaming patterns has not been followed up (see Lesser et al., 1967; Stodolsky and Lesser, 1967), and new investigations of this type may prove fruitful. Research based on the Kamehameha Early Education Program (KEEP), a long-term research and development project designed to improve the school performance of educationally at-risk Hawaiian children, indicates that the performance of poor and minority children could be greatly enhanced if the home competence/school incompetence paradox could be resolved. These reseachers contend that nonmainstream children develop school-relevant cognitive strategies in the home environment before they enroll in school, but the school environment provides different types of cues for generating the use of these strategies. The children therefore exhibit a widespread inconsistency in the use of school-successful cognitive strategies. The KEEP reading program improved the reading achievement of Hawaiian children by providing "a bridging experience which encouraged and taught the chil- dren to perform at school at a level consistent with their home performance" (Gallimore and Au, 1979:34~. While the specific elements of the KEEP program may not generalize to other ethnic groups, the process by which the program was developed should prove useful (Tharp and Gallimore, 1982~. The basic assumption of the KEEP project is a two-cultural model. For the Hawaiian children, there is a highly organized culture of the home, the

SCHOOL AND CHILDREN 307 community, and the child. The school culture and the child/home/com- munity culture do not interact advantageously for effective teaching and reaming. This circumstance is found among other poor minority-group chil- dren when they encounter the culture of the school. To develop school programs that capitalize on the child's cultural learning, a careful knowledge of both cultures is required. In the KEEP project this involved several years of ethnographic and sociolinguistic research with Hawaiian adults and chil- dren to acquire knowledge of the children's culture. To acquire knowledge of the school culture the researchers created and operated a school in which intensive observations could be made. Only after several years of multidis- ciplinary research and repeated efforts at educational innovation was an effective mix of cultural accommodations developed. There is a need for additional work on the interface of family and school environments in the education process. How can education programs be designed so as to take advantage of the cultural values of students while still achieving the goals of literacy and computational competency as well as preparing young people for successful lives as adults? Slaughter (1981) dis- cussed three societal changes that have educational implications for the 1980s: the movement of mothers into the labor force, the quest for high- quality day care, and the increase in the number of dependent families. Research on how schools can best serve children encountering these new circumstances is needed. More qualitative studies of family life and school life are needed. SCHOOL DESEGREGATION The research generated by legal efforts to desegregate public schools has typically focused on three questions: ~ l ~ Do minority children have higher achievement in integrated schools than in segregated schools? (2) Do chil- dren's racial attitudes become more positive after desegregation? (3) Does the self-esteem of minority students improve following desegregation? Re- viewers of this research (e.g., St. John, 1975; Stephan, 1978) have con- cluded that most of the studies have been so poorly designed that it is nearly impossible to draw reliable inferences from them. The results of the research have been inconsistent, contradictory, and frequently null. Given the wide range of settings and conditions under which desegregation has occurred, it should not be surprising that it is difficult to assess the effect of desegregation as a "treatment." Despite the weak methodology and the differences in samples and measures used, a few generalizations are possible about the effects of desegregation on majority and minority children.

308 DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD Racial Attitudes and Peer Relationships Several reviews of the research (Cohen, 1975; St. John, 1975; Mc- Conahay, 1978) on racial attitudes have found that there are few true experiments, relatively few well-designed quasi experiments and longitudinal studies, and too much reliance on cross-sectional samples and correlational techniques. Nevertheless, there is general agreement that the existing re- search provides strong support for the "contact hypothesis." AlIport (1954) contended that contact between groups will result in improved intergroup relations only if the contact occurs in a setting that provides equal status for minority- and majority-group members as well as strong institutional support for positive intergroup interaction. The likelihood of positive in- tergroup relations is improved when there is cooperative interaction in- volving the achievement of shared goals. While few school settings incorporate all of the conditions that foster equal-status interaction, results are most positive for schools that provide approximations of these conditions. Gerard et al. (1975) found that very little positive change in elementary school children's sociometric choices occurred during 4-6 years of desegregation, but this can be explained by the fact that few classrooms approximated the equal-status conditions advocated by AlIport. These authors found teacher and student prejudice to be positively correlated. It is not likely that prej- udiced teachers would establish equal-status situations in their classrooms. One would therefore not expect contact to foster positive interracial attitudes and behaviors under their leadership. It was noted by Gerard et al. (1975), however, that a favorable social climate in the classroom appeared to have a positive influence on the well-being of the higher-achieving minority children. There is a need for additional research on school practices that improve racial attitudes and behaviors. Stavin and Madden ( 1979) found that having high school students of different races work together had positive effects but that few effects were found for teacher workshops or the use of multiethnic texts. Studies of this type at the elementary level would add considerably to our knowledge in this area. Schofield (1979), in an observational study of an integrated junior high school, found evidence that tracking students into different classrooms on the basis of ability or prior achievement resulted in resegregation and that resegregation leads to reduced cross-racial social interaction. Studies of the effects of ability grouping on interracial contacts and attitudes at the elementary school level would help clarify the effects of such school practices on children's attitudes and behaviors. There is promising work on team reaming (Stavin and DeVries, 1979) and cooper- ative learning strategies (J ohnson and J ohnson, 1 9 7 9 ~ .

SCHOOL AND CHILDREN 309 Several additional issues need to be clarified by further research. We know little about gender and age differences in response to desegregation. One study (St. John and Lewis, 1975) suggested that black girls lose popularity after desegregation but that white girls and boys of both races do not suffer such declines. Other research (Schofield and McGivern, 1978) found that black boys and white girls were more positive about the experience of de- segregation than either white boys or black girls. While it is generally ac- cepted that results are more favorable if desegregation takes place early in the school years, Scott and McPartIand (1982) found age to be positively related to racial tolerance. The nature of contextual and developmental effects on changes in racial attitudes awaits future research. Self-Esteem, Academic Self-Concept, and Racial SeIf-~dentity Efforts to determine the impact of school desegregation on the self-image and motivation of black children have been hampered by the use of many different self-esteem measures and by differences in the conditions under which desegregation has taken place. In addition, many studies are cross- sectional rather than longitudinal and attempt to assess effects after relatively short periods of time. To add to the confusion, there is little agreement on the meaning of such terries as self-image self-concept, and self-esteem (for a detailed discussion of such issues, see Markus and Nurius, in this volume). In this chapter, self-esteem refers to global self-evaluation; academic self- concept refers to self-evaluation with regard to schoolwork; and racial self- identity refers to racial self-evaluation. Several comprehensive reviews of research on the impact of desegregation on self-esteem have been published (Epps, 1975, 1978, 1981; St. John, 1975; Stephan, 1978; Weinberg, 1977~. The results have been mixed. Some studies have found black student self-esteem to be enhanced by desegrega- tion, others have found it to be reduced, and still others have found no effects. Several recent studies (Cicirelli, 1977; Hare, 1977, 1980; Hunt and Hunt, 1977) indicated that the self-esteem of black students in desegregated schools is equal to or higher than that of white students. However, some research (e.g., Hunt and Hunt, 1977) found black students' self-esteem to be higher in segregated schools than in desegregated schools, and a longi- tudinal study by Gerard and Miller (1975) found that both before and after desegregation black and Mexican-American children scored significantly lower on self-attitudes than Anglo children. Changes in self-esteem following desegregation seem to be relatively modest, and there is little support for the contention that desegregation enhances minority self-esteem. Most stud- ies report minority students scoring equal to whites in self-esteem.

310 DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD Work on academic self-concept is also hampered by the limitations of the assessment instruments. The most frequently used measure is some variation of Brookover et al.'s (1962) self-concept of academic ability scale. This measure asks students to rate themselves on ability and grades compared with others in their classrooms or schools. Several general self-esteem scales include a school subscale (e.g., Coopersmith, 1967; Hare, 1980), which asks students how they feel about their schoolwork and their school expe- riences. Considering the typical gap between minority and white achieve- ment, one would expect academic self-concept to decline following desegregation. Green et al. (1975) used a measure called "need for school achievement" to assess a dimension similar to school self-esteem. They found that black and Mexican-American elementary school pupils scored lower than whites on this measure before desegregation and that scores declined for all three groups during their years of desegregated schooling. The authors noted that the changes are not attributable to ethnicity. Brookover et al. (1979) noted the surprisingly high academic self-concept scores of black students. There are at least three possible explanations for this phenomenon. First, black students may compare themselves only with other black students when responding to items such as "Compared to others in your class in ability, would you say you are among the best, above average, or below average?" Second, black students many not receive accurate feedback from teachers concerning their relative performance levels (see Massey et al., 1975, for evidence on this point). Third, children of relatively low socioeconomic level, irrespective of race, may have unrealistic self-concepts of ability (En- twisle and Hay~uk, 1978, 1982~. This issue should be the focus of further research. Research on racial self-identity has attempted to determine the extent to which black children or other nonwhite minority children develop racial self-hatred, dominant-group preference, or rejection of their own group. The most extensive study of racial identity in the context of desegregation was conducted in Riverside, California (Goodchilds et al., 1975~. This study used photographs of black, Mexican-American, and Anglo girls and boys to assess ethnic identity. The researchers found that a child's ethnic identity and self-attitude are not closely linked (nonsignificant correlations). McAdoo (1977) studied racial attitudes and self-esteem among black children in Michigan, Mississippi, and Washington, D.C. The Michigan children lived in a segregated neighborhood but attended biracial schools; the children in the other locations were racially isolated in the neighborhood and at school. While community setting is an important confounding factor, at age 10 only the desegregated Michigan children exhibited relatively high in-group pref

SCHOOL AND CHILDREN 311 erence as well as positive self-esteem. The other groups maintained high self-esteem but were less problack in their racial preferences. This study, like the Riverside one, seems to support the generalization that identification with one's own race increases with experience in interracial schools. The results of these studies also support Spencer's ~ 1976) finding that racial self- identity and self-esteem are not related (see Spencer, 1982, for a critique of research on racial self-identity and self-esteem among black children). Academic Achievement Much attention has been given to the effects of desegregation on academic achievement (see the reviews by Bradley and Bradley, 1977; St. John, 1975~. Despite the weak methodology of most of these studies, a few results seem to be fairly well supported. There is consensus among researchers that, with few exceptions, white children's achievement is not affected either positively or negatively by desegregation. However, some studies have found that black achievement is higher in schools and classrooms in which the staff's racial attitudes are more positive (Couison et al., 1977; Crain et al., 1981; Forehand et al., 1976~. There is little support, however, for the hypothesis that the number of white friends or the amount of interracial contact enhances minority achievement (e.g., Singer et al., 19751. Similar results have been found for secondary school students (Patcher, 1982~. Reviews using statistical research synthesis techniques have found a gen- eral positive effect of desegregation on minority achievement (Crain and Mahard, 1982, 1983; Krol, 1978~. Crain and Mahard (1982) reported that methodology had a strong effect on outcomes. "Eighteen of 21 samples (86 percent) taken from studies based on random assignment showed positive results, while at the other extreme, over half the studies that compared black performance with white performance or with national norms showed negative results of desegregation" (p. 15~. The Crain and Mahard study is the most extensive to date, covering 93 research reports that included 323 samples of black students. Among other important findings they noted that ~ 1 ~ studies of children who were deseg- regated at kindergarten or first grade are most likely to show positive results; (2) the typical study finds greater gains for {Q than for achievement test scores; (3) where achievement gains from desegregation are substantial, reading comprehension and language arts subtest scores show a greater in' crease than do other subtest scores; (4) where achievement gains are slight, the effect is lower for reading comprehension and language arts than for other subtest scores; and (5) metropolitan desegregation plans that result in

312 DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD classroom ratios of 10-30 percent black students are more likely to show achievement gains than are other types of plans. The need for additional research syntheses as well as closer attention to experimental design is clear. While the "lateral transmission" hypothesis has not been supported, it is not known why desegregation is beneficial. That the teaching of reading comprehension and language arts is a key factor in minority achievement clearly warrants further exploration. Most studies of desegregation have involved black students. However, many recent desegregation plans have been implemented in areas in which the Hispanic population is relatively large. Some locales also include sub- stantial numbers of Asians and American Indians among their populations. Future researchers should attempt to provide additional information on how other minorities are affected by desegregation. In fact, simultaneous ex- amination of three or more racial/ethnic groups would help untangle some of the perplexing strands in this area. SECOND-LANGUAGE LEARNING AND BILINGUALISM In areas where there are a substantial number of children whose proficiency in English is limited, school districts are required to provide some form of linguistic assistance (see Femandez and Guskin, 1981, for a discussion of implementation problems). This assistance may take the form of teaching English as a second language, or it may be provided through a bilingual or multicultural approach. The relative effectiveness of the different approaches is the subject of considerable controversy. In this section we examine some of the issues and research in the area of second-language learning and bit lingualism and discuss the implications of the research findings. . . . . . . Bilingual Instruction and Intellectual Development The majority of the studies conducted before 1962 found strong evidence for the contention that bilingual children, compared with monolingual chil- dren, were deficient in vocabulary, articulation, written composition, and grammar (Diaz, 1983:25~. Thus, it was widely believed that bilingualism was detrimental to children's intellectual and cognitive development. How- ever, the early studies suffered from many methodological weaknesses. Re- searchers frequently failed to control for socioeconomic status, degree of bilingualism, age at which the second language was reamed, whether the second language was reamed formally or acquired "naturally" or whether the child's first language had high or low status in the community. Peal and Lambert's (1962) study of 75 monolingual and 89 balanced bilingual 10-year-old Canadian children produced the first strong evidence

- SCHOOL AND CHILDREN 313 that bilingualism was positively associated with cognitive development. In this study, bilingual children performed better than monolingual children on tests of both verbal and nonverbal abilities. The bilingual children were superior in concept formation and cognitive flexibility and had a more diversified pattern of abilities than the monolingual children. While superior in methodology to most early studies, the results of the Peal and Lambert research may have been affected by sample selection bias. In attempting to ensure that their sample included only balanced bilingual children (those with age-appropriate abilities in both languages), less intelligent bilingual children with less English proficiency may have been eliminated from the sample, thereby creating an intellectual bias favoring the bilingual sample. Nevertheless, their focus on degree of bilingualism prompted later researchers to select bilingual samples with greater care, to measure respondents' actual degree of bilingualism, and to be alert to the possibility of situational influ- ences that might enhance or deter bilingual children's cognitive and intel- lectual development. Diaz (1983) concluded his review by noting that recent studies have presented evidence that bilingualism has a positive influence on children's cognitive and linguistic abilities. This evidence comes from studies of bal- anced bilingual children. "When compared to monolinguals, balanced bi- lingual children show definite advantages on measures of metalinguistic abilities, concept formation, field independence, and divergent thinking skills" (p. 48~. Cummins (1979) proposed a "threshold" hypothesis that emphasizes the importance of the child's level of competence in both lan- guages. When the child has low levels of competence in both languages, bilingualism is usually associated with negative cognitive effects. When the child has age~appropriate competence in one language but is less competent in another, bilingualism has little or no effect on cognitive development. It is in those instances in which the child has at least age~appropriate competence in two languages that positive effects of bilingualism, such as those described by Diaz, are most likely to be found. Bilingualism and Achievement It has consistently been reported that bilingualism among middle- and upper-cIass children is not associated with educational problems. Bilingual- ism among lower~cIass ethnic minority children, however, is frequently as- sociated with low levels of academic achievement. Recent research suggests that "semilingualism" may be implicated in the relatively low academic achievement of bilingual minority children in the United States. Cummins ( 1979) described semilinguals as children who have low levels of competence in both their first and second languages. They tend to perform poorly on

314 DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD tests that measure such cognitive aspects of language usage as understanding the meaning of abstract concepts and synonyms. Diaz (1983) described semilinguals as "children whose second language gradually replaces the native tongue. Therefore, at a given point, these children are neither fluent speakers of the first language nor have mastered the second language with age-ap- propriate ability" (p. 331. Cummins (1979) also contended that the level of second-language competence that a child attains is partially a function of the type of competence the child has developed in his or her first language at the time that second-language learning takes place. This thesis is supported by research on English-speaking Canadian children attending French-lan- guage schools (Macnamara et al., 1976; Swain, 1978, cited in Cummins, 19791. These studies reported that by grade 6, English-speaking children attending French-medium schools did not differ in English achievement when compared with English-speaking children attending English-medium schools, although children attending French-medium schools received no English instruction before the third or fifth grade. Children in immersion programs also acquire second-language skills equal to those of native speakers by the end of elementary school. Cummins concluded: "These data suggest that (i) the prerequisites for acquiring literacy skills are instilled in most middIe-ciass majority-language children by their linguistic experience in the home; (ii) the ability to extract meaning from printed text can be transferred easily from one language to another" (p. 234~. Cummins (1979) also noted that, compared with micIdIe-cIass children, lower-cIass minority-language children do not enter school with adequate linguistic skills. He contended that "some children may have limited access to the cognitive-linguistic operations necessary to assimilate [a second lan- guage] and develop literacy skills in that language" (p. 236~. Thus, lower- cIass minority-language children may be more dependent on the school to provide the prerequisites for the acquisition of literacy skills. However, Cummins also contended that such children's linguistic and academic growth is handicapped only when their functional literacy skills upon entry to school are translated into deficient levels of first- and second-language competence by inappropriate forms of educational treatment. Cummins hypothesized that "submersion" educational programs, which make no concessions to the child's native language or culture, are least likely to lead to positive achievement or motivational outcomes. Transitional bilingual programs, which use the native language as an instructional medium in the early grades while the child acquires proficiency in the second language, should result in the child's developing age-appropriate skills in the second language while competence in the native language fades away. Maintenance bilingual programs that provide instruction in two languages throughout the child's school career

SCHOOL AND CHILDREN 315 should produce an additive linguistic effect, leading to high levels of achieve- ment in both languages. Cummins's hypotheses have yet to be tested by empirical research; however, he does provide a conceptual mode! that could be used as a framework for future research. Most researchers agree that there is little hard evidence that one form of bilingual instruction is more effective than another. Many attempts to eval- uate bilingual programs in the United States are plagued by methodological weaknesses that could invalidate their results. Commenting on the American Institutes of Research (1977) evaluation of Title VIT bilingual programs, Cummins (1979) pointed out that "the AIR findings are uninterpretable since students whose language abilities are extremely varied and who have received a variety of educational treatments are aggregated for the purposes of data analyses" (p. 2431. Cummins contends that bilingual education is a research area in which the interaction of background characteristics and treatment effects should be explored in an effort to ascertain which types of programs are most appropriate for children with different levels of func- tional linguistic skills. Diaz (1983) noted two relatively neglected areas of research. He stated that there is a need for research on the effects of bilingualism on nonbalanced bilingual children (those with little knowledge of English). How many of these children (in which types of programs) will attain an effective balance between their two languages? How many will develop age-appropriate pro- ficiency in either or both languages? A second area identified by Diaz as requiring additional research is that of information processing among young bilingual children. There is a need to develop a process mode! of how bilingualism affects children's cognitive development. ~ A recent survey (O'Malley, 1982) estimated that only one~third of all children of limited English proficiency in the United States are receiving some form of bilingual education or English as a second language instruction. Most of the children receiving bilingual instruction are in the early ele- mentary grades. This suggests that most programs are not attempting to help children maintain their first language. A number of politically sensitive questions may be answered by future research. For example, at what age should bilingual instruction begin? Is achievement more likely to be enhanced when instruction is begun in pre- school, kindergarten, the primary grades, or the intermediate grades? What is the effect on the English achievement of bilingual children of including English-dominant or monolingual children in bilingual classes? How im- portant is the cultural aspect of bilingual education for English achievement, self-concept, and attitudes toward school of minority-language children.? Can maintenance bilingual programs for low-income minority-language children

316 DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD yield positive results similar to those reported for majority-language children . . · ~ In Immersion programs! Snow (1983) contends that children must acquire the ability to use lan- guage in a decontextualized manner if they are to be successful in school. MiddIe-cdass children acquire decontextuatization in the home, but many lower-class homes do not provide the types of linguistic experiences that lead to the development of decontextualized language usage. This suggests that lower-cIass minority-language children may need preschool bilingual instruction to prepare them for school tasks. Curriculum development efforts at the preschool level show promise (Sandoval-Martinez, 1982), and ad- ditional developmental and evaluation research should be continued. The areas of bilingual education and second-language acquisition have many research needs. The combination of strong political support for bi- lingual education from minority-language groups and support for improved foreign language instruction for English speakers should provide a climate conducive to vigorous research activity on language learning in the next decade. INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACHES TO REDUCING EDUCATIONAL INEQUALITY The primary objective of our education system is to assist children in realizing their maximum potential. Achieving this goal is in many ways contingent on the instructional method employed. In an effort to identify ways t,o maximize achievement and affective outcomes for the greatest num- ber of children, we discuss instructional approaches that seem to offer prom- ise. We provide a description of three alternative approaches to traditional instruction, discuss research findings from studies assessing' their effective- ness, and comment on areas that warrant further investigation. Open Education Open education, in contrast to traditional education, involves greater flexibility in the use of space, more student choice of activity, a greater variety of learning materials, and more individual and small-group learning. Compared with traditional instruction, there is more emphasis on encour- aging children's development of a sense of responsibility for their own learn- ing and a sense of honesty and respect in interpersonal relationships. Stallings (1975) studied first- and third-grade Follow Through classrooms representing "open" and "structured" models. She reported that teachers conformed to the instructional procedures prescribed by the sponsors and

SCHOOL AND CHILDREN 317 that the more structured approaches contributed to higher reading and math scores. However, she stated that "children taught by these methods tend to accept responsibility for their failures but not for their successes" (Starlings, 1975:106~. The more open and flexible approaches are associated with lower absence rates and higher scores on a nonverbal problem-solving test of reasoning. The different approaches, according to Stallings, thus bring dif- ferent strengths to their pupils. Cohen and De Avila ( 1983), citing Stallings, pointed out that structured or direct instruction approaches tend to con- tribute to achievement on a mathematics computation subtest to a greater extent than to achievement on a concepts and problem-solving subtest. Cohen and De Avila suggested that direct instruction contributes to the {earning of tasks requiring memorization (e. g., computational skills) but that conceptual reaming and problem-solving skills may be more effectively en- hanced by other approaches (e.g., an approach that uses peer interaction and focuses on the teaching of problem-solving skills). Recent reviews of research on open education (Hedges et al., 1981; Mar- shall, 1981) have found that programs labeled open education produce a variety of effects (Giaconia and Hedges, 1982:580~: Some open education programs produced particularly large, positive effects for student outcomes such as self~concept, reading achievement, creativity, locus of control, math- ematics achievement, and favorable attitude toward school. Yet other open education programs yielded larger negative effects for these same student outcomes. Differences in outcomes are attributable to differences in the specific components of open education that are implemented in different classrooms. The programs that produce superior effects on nonachievement outcomes have the following characteristics: ( 1 ) an active role for the child in guiding the learning process, (2) diagnostic evaluation rather than norm-referenced evaluation, (3) the presence of diverse materials to stimulate student ex- ploration and reaming, and (4) individualized instruction. It should be noted, however, that the programs that produce superior nonachievement outcomes tend to produce smaller than average effects on academic achievement (Gia- conia and Hedges, 1982:586~. However, traditional education appears to be only marginally more effective than open education for the traditional academic achievement measures. Giaconia and Hedges reported that "for many student outcomes, there are near zero differences between open and traditional education" (p. 586~. Additional research on open education should attempt to further explain the features that produce different achievement and nonachievement out- comes. There is also a need to look at differential effectiveness for student populations of different social compositions.

318 DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD Lazar and Darlington (1982) conducted a study of the long-term effects of early childhood intervention programs. They did not address the structured versus open instruction controversy but rather assessed the average effect of program participation across the various models or programs. They concluded that "programs can be structured in a variety of ways, responding to complex and diverse needs of local communities, and still be potentially effective" (p. 65~. Specifically, this research showed that children who attended pro- grams were significantly more likely to meet their school's basic requirements. For example, they were less likely to have been retained in grade or to have been placed in special education classes than nonparticipants. Early edu- cation programs had a positive effect on {Q scores that lasted for 3 or 4 years, and program graduates did somewhat better on achievement tests than control subjects. In addition, program graduates had more positive attitudes toward achievement and school at the time of the follow-up. Finally, early education programs appear to have had a positive effect on children's families: Mothers of participants were more satisfied with their children's school performance than were mothers of controls, and they had high occupational aspirations for their children. Perhaps the most important lesson to be gained from this study is that instructional philosophies that differ drastically along the dimensions of openness and directedness can in the long run enhance children's educational competencies. Cooperative Small Group Instruction The typical classroom goal structure is either competitive or individual- istic..~lassrooms organized on these principles encourage students to view their peers either as competitors for scarce rewards (teacher praise or grades) or as persons whose actions are unrelated to their own achievement. Most educators view cooperation as a desired outcome of schooling, but few efforts are made to organize instruction in ways that foster cooperation. Johnson end Johnson (1979) have undertaken research on cooperative goal structures, which foster interdependence among students. Students achieve their goals only if other students with whom they are linked achieve their goals. According to these authors, cooperative goal structures can be set up in classrooms without great difficulty. The research results promise both achievement gains and more positive attitudes toward teachers, peers, school, and self. The major obstacle to the implementation of such strategies is currently parental, teacher, administrator, and political leadership attitudes. Slavin and DeVries (1979) presented considerable evidence that reaming in teams can produce the type of cooperative reaming effects described by Johnson and Johnson (1979~; however, these authors make a distinction

SCHOOL AND CHILDREN 319 between the games approach and the cooperative technique used with ex' perimental groups at the University of Minnesota (Johnson and Johnson, 1979~. The cooperative experimental groups have not demonstrated greater effects on achievement than standard techniques used with control groups. The team techniques that have been most successful in increasing academic performance require individual accountability on the part of students (e.g., Teams-Games-Toumaments; Jigsaw). To raise the achievement levels of minority children, therefore, it is not enough to set up a cooperative reward and task structure and wait for achieve- ment to increase. One reason for this is subcultural differences in response to different learning structures. For example, Lucker et al. (1976) found that Anglo children performed equally well in interdependent (using games) and traditional classes, but black and Mexican-American children performed significantly better in the interdependent classes. In interdependent classes the achievement level for minorities and AngIos did not differ; in traditional classes, however, Anglo children performed significantly better than mi- nority children. Compared with those in traditional classrooms, students in interdependent learning groups increased in self-esteem, decreased in pref- erence for competitive behavior, and viewed their classmates as learning resources. A second constraint on the effectiveness of cooperative reaming structures for increasing minority students' achievement has been noted by Cohen (1980) and Schofield and Sagar (1979~. The reservations are based on observed effects of status differences in socioeconomic background and read- ing ability on patterns of interaction in interracial classroom groups. Since these status differences usually favor whites, patterns of dominance and friendship selection usually favor whites as well. Consequently, careful at- tention must be paid to organizing classroom reaming groups so that they do not reinforce already existing patterns of status association and compe- tence expectations. Cohen stated that "combining racial groups with similar levels of academic achievement makes it much easier to produce equal status relationships" (1980:273~. Cohen also recommended reorganizing cIass- rooms so as to minimize the continued use of reading competence as the major source of students' expectations about competence in general. This involves attention to multiple skills in the curriculum and the use of small groups in instruction. As Slavin and DeVries (1979:136-137) concluded: If a school wants to promote positive race relations, to increase students' academic performance, to encourage mutual concem, and to develop self-esteem, team techniques may be a means to accomplishing those goals. They are practical and inexpensive, require no special training, and generate enthusiasm. Further, they have been extensively re- searched and fieldtested in hundreds of classrooms.

320 DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD There is ample evidence that school environments are often less congenial to minority children than to middIe-cIass white children. For example, Mercer et al. (1974) found that third- and sixth-grade teachers rated Anglo children as significantly more competent and sociable than black or Mexican- American children. As tong as these kinds of teacher attitudes exist, we are a tong way from achieving the goal of effective integrated education. Re- structuring schools so that they use cooperative reaming structures and team techniques should help to overcome some of these problems. It will also be necessary, however, to change teachers' and administrators' attitudes about instructional processes as well as about the reaming potential of minority students. Mastery learning Mastery reaming is an instructional technique based on Bloom's theory of school reaming (19761. This technique is purported to ensure that 80- 90 percent of the students receiving instruction under this method can achieve as high as the top 10 percent of the students in conventional classes. One of the most salient aspects of mastery reaming is a corrective feedback procedure. It makes provisions for students to receive corrections and thus to some extent achieve mastery prior to proceeding to the next level or skill. Findings from studies designed to assess this method's effectiveness support this claim. Block and Bums (1977) reported that 89 percent of the time mastery reaming classes achieve at higher levels than students in classrooms using traditional methods. Bloom (1976) reported that the average student in mastery reaming classes realized a level of achievement as high as students ranked at the 80th percentile in conventional classes. Furthermore, variation in achievement also tends to decline under the mastery reaming technique. Although Bloom estimated that the mastery reaming approach is second only to tutoring in increasing educational achievement, it is not without problems. It is difficult to convince teachers and administrators that ability is not distributed along a normal bell-shaped curve. Bloom construes ability in terms of the amount of time it takes the student to leam a given unit, rather than in terms of how much a student can eventually ream. Conse- quently, Bloom (1982:13) urges researchers to spend less time classifying and predicting humans and more time and energy on the variables, processes, and concepts that can make a vast difference in teaching and reaming. Bloom also contends that human potential for reaming is best estimated under optimal conditions for reaming. Therefore, the limits of human po- tential for reaming should not be bound by estimates based on traditional methods.

SCHOOL AND CHILDREN 321 Research Needs Research on improving the quality of instruction is important and should continue to be a major force. The work of "master developers" (Rosenshine, in press), such as Bloom (mastery learning) and Slavin (student team leam- ing), promises to have a direct effect on instructional practice. Implemen- tation processes as well as theoretical developments should be stressed in future research on such instructional programs. In particular, there is a need for careful studies of the effects of various forms of within-class ability group- ing on student achievement, attitudes, and behavior. There are no exper- imental studies of this critical dimension of classroom organization. Research of this type has been proposed by Slavin and Karweit. In addition, instruc- tional pacing (Barr, 1974) has been found to have an important effect on learning. The emphasis of research should be on how pacing interacts with grouping to enhance or impede reaming for different types of students (e.g., of high or low ability). The use of statistical research synthesis (Burstein, 1980; Glass, 1978; Hedges, 1982; Lazar and Darlington, 1982) is increasing and should help cIari* research results in areas in which a substantial body of research has conflicting conclusions. There is still a need, however, for studies that go beyond comparisons of program effects or the effects of student and teacher characteristics. A major focus of research should be on the processes of teaching and reaming as they take place under specific conditions. Direct observations of classroom processes in conjunction with well-designed ex- periments are needed to improve our understanding of educational processes. The research should be guided by carefully constructed causal models that can be tested empirically in classrooms and schools. The emphasis should be on alterable variables that are amenable to manipulation by educators and policy makers (see Bloom, 1980~. CONCLUSION This review has many gaps. For example, gender differences have been discussed primarily in the context of studies of other phenomena, yet a large portion of this chapter could have been devoted to that topic. Issues such as school desegregation and bilingual education, which appear to be fertile areas for research, are treated in greater detail. Eve chose to focus on what we perceive as the cross-cutting issues: the role of schooling, models of research on the effects of schooling, what happens to children in schools, and societal influences on schooling.

322 DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD Children ages 6-12 exhibit tremendous physical growth and cognitive and emotional development. The graded structure of the schools attempts to provide reaming settings and tasks appropriate to the children's devel- opmental levels. The match is often less than perfect because knowledge of developmental progressions is at best fragmentary, and developmental pro- gression itself is not static. As with other institutions, schools are slow to change. Next to spending time with the family, children ages 6-12 spend most of their time in school. The type of reaming and affective environment provided by the school can have a profound impact on children's intellectual and social development. Ecological research in classrooms suggests that chil- dren from different socioeconomic backgrounds experience schooling in dif- ferent ways. There is lack of agreement among researchers with regard to the effects of different patterns of classroom organization and the way teacher attitudes and student characteristics interact to influence learning. We need to know more about how students perceive their classroom experiences and how these perceptions influence their achievement, attitudes, and behavior. It is probable that students perceive teacher behavior and instructional practices in different ways. We do not know much about how student perceptions interact with teacher behavior to produce motivation to leam or to avoid learning. Student diversity continues to be a major issue. Not much is known about the relationship of various classroom management strategies to outcomes for students with different personal and social characteristics. There is a need to focus research on the quality of instruction and study the way students of different levels of ability and students from different cultural backgrounds react to different ways of presenting instruction. There is much current activity involving children ages 6-12 in the school setting. Some of this research promises to expand our understanding of the impact of school on children. The linguistic approach to studying teaching- leaming processes may help to explain how language is used to construct contexts of education and the meanings within those constructs. Integrating new developments from the study of cognition into research on classroom instruction may also increase our understanding of how schools influence children. Finally, far too little attention has been paid to outcomes of education other than academic achievement. To gain a better perspective on school influences, researchers should also focus on social development, attitudes, and values.

- - SCHOOL AND CHILDREN 323 REFERENCES Allport, G. 1954 The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. American Institutes of Research 1977 Evaluation of the Impact of ESEA Title VII Spanish/English Bilingual Education Pro grams. Palo Alto, Calif.: American institutes of Research. Anania, J. 1981 The Effects of Quality of Instruction on the Cognitive and Affective Learning of Students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago. Anderson, C.S. 1982 The search for school climate: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research 52:368-420. Banks, C., and McQuater, G. 1976 Achievement motivation and black children. IRCD Bulletin 11:4 (entire issue). Baratz, J., and Baratz, S. 1970 Early childhood intervention: The social science base of institutional racism. Harvard Educational Review 40:29-50. Barr, R.C. 1974 Instructional pace differences and their effect on reading acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly 9:526-554. Barr, R., and Dreeben, R. 1983 How Schools Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Becke,l~`an, T., and Good, T. 1981 The classroom ratio of highs and low aptitude students and its effect on achievement. American Educational Research Jourr~l 18:317-327. Benham, B.]., Giesen, P., and Oakes, J. 1980 A study of schooling: Students' experiences in schools. Phi Delta Kappa 61:337-340. Block, ]., and Bums, R. 1977 Mastery learning. In L. Schulman, ea., Review of Research in Education. Vol. 4. Itasca, Ill.: Peacock. Bloom, B.S. 1976 Human Charactenstics and School Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1980 The new direction in educational research: Alterable variables. Phi Delta Kappa 61:382- 385. 1982 The future of educational research. Educatiorml Researcher 11:6, 11-19. Bowles, S. 1975 Unequal education and the reproduction of the social division of labor. In M. Carnoy, ea., Schoolmg in a Corporate Society. Second ed. New York: David McKay. Bowles, S., and Gintis, H. 1976 Schooling in Capitalist Society: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life. New York: Basic Books. Bradley, L., and Bradley, G. 1977 The academic achievement of black students in desgregated schools. Review of Educanonal Research 47:399-499. Bronfenbrenner, U. 1974 Is early intervention effective? Teachers College Record 76:279-303. Brookover, W.B., and Lezotte, L.W. 1979 Changes in School Characteristics Coincident with Changes in Student Achievement (Executive Summary). Occasional Paper No. 17, Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching, May.

324 DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD Brookover, W.B., Patterson, A., and Thomas, S. 1962 Self-Concept of Ability and School Achievement. U.S. Office of Education, Cooperative Research Project No. 845. East Lansing: Office of Research and Publications, Michigan State University. Brookover, W., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer, J., and Wisenbaker, J. 1979 School Social Systems and Student Achievement: Schools Can Make a Difference. New York: Praeger. Brophy, J. 1970 Mothers as teachers of their own preschool children: The influence of socioeconomic status and task structure on teaching specificity. Child Development 41:79-94. Brophy, J.E., and Evertson, C.M. 1974 Process Product Correlations in the Texas Teacher Effectiveness Study. Report No. 74-4. Austin: University of Texas Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. Brophy, J., and Good, T. 1974 TeacheT-Student Relationships: Causes and Consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Burstein, L. 1980 The analysis of multilevel data in educational research and evaluation. In D.C. Berliner, ea., Review of Research in Education. Vol. 8. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association. Buriel, R. 1981 Relation of Anglo- and Mexican-American children's locus of control beliefs to parents' and teachers' socialization practicies. Child Development 52:104-113. Busk, P., Ford, R., and Schulman, J. 1973 Effects of schools' racial composition on the self-concept of black and white students. Journal of Educational Research 67:57-63. Carew, J. 1980 Experience and the development of intelligence in young children at home and in day care. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 45(6-7, Serial no. 187). Carroll, J.G. 1963 A model of school learning. Teachers College Record 64:723-733. Cicirel~ V. 1977 Relationship of socioeconomic status and ethnicity to primary grade children's self- concept. Psychology in the Schools 14:213-215. Clark, K. 1965 Dark Ghetto. New York: Harper & Row. Clark, R. 1982 The Quality of Family Pedagogic Life: What Is That? Unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Clarke-Stewart, K.A. 1973 Interactions between mothers and their young children: Characteristics and conse quences. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Developrrient 38(6-7, Serial no. 153). Cohen, E. 1975 The effects of desegregation on race relations. Law and Contemporary Problems 39:271 299. 1980 Design and redesign of the desegregated school: Problems of status, power, and conflict. In W. Seephan and I. Fegin, eds., School Desegreganon: Past, Present and Future. New York: Plenum Press. Cohen, E., and De Avila, E. 1983 Indirect Instruction and Conceptual Leaming. Unpublished paper, Stanford University.

SCHOOL AND CHILDREN 325 Coleman, ].S., Campbell, E.Q., Mabson, C.]., McPartland, ]., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F.D., and York, R.L. 1966 Equality of Educational Opportunity. 2 vols. Washington, D.C.: Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Comer, dames P. 1980 School Power. New York: Free Press. C`~nnell, ].P. 1980 A Multidimensional Measure of Children's Perceptions of Control. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Denver. Cc~opersmith, S. 1967 The Antecedents of Self-Esteem. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. Cc~rnc', L., Mitman, A., and Hedges, L. 1981 The influence of direct instruction on student self-appraisals: A hierarchical analysis of treatment and aptitude-treatment interaction effects. American Educational ResearchJour- na1 18:39-61. Cc~ulson, ]., Hanes, S., Ozene, D., Bradford, C., Doherty, W., Duck, G., and Hemenway, ]. 1977 The Third Year of Emergency School Aid Act (ESAA) Implementation. Santa Monica, Calif.: System Development Corp. Crain, R., and Mahard, R. 1982 Desegregation Plans That Raise Black Achievement: A Review of the Research. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corp. 1983 The effect of research methodology on desegregation-achievement studies: A meta- analysis. American Journal of Sociology 88:839-854. Crain, R., Mahard, R., and Narot, R. 1981 Making Desegregation Work: How Schools Create Social Climates. Cambridge, Mass.: Bal- linger. Cronbach, L., and Snow, R. 1977 Aptitude and Instructional Methods. New York: Irving Productions. Cummins, ]. 1979 Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Re- view of Educational Research 49:222-251. Dave, R. ; 1963 The Identification and Measurement of Environmental Process Variables That Are Re- lated to Educational Achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago. DeBord, L., Griffin, L., and Clark, M. 1977 Race and sex influence in the schooling process of rural and small town youth. Sociology of Education 50:85-102. Diaz, R. 1983 Thought and two languages: The impact of bilingualism on cognitive growth. In E. Gordon, ea., Review of Research in Education. Vol. 10. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association. Dolan, L. 1978 The affective consequences of home support, instructional quality, and achievement. Urban Education 13:323-344. Dreeben, R. 1968 On What Is Leamed in School. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Dunkin, M.J., and Biddle, B.]. 1974 The Study of Teaching. New York: Hole, Rinehart & Winston. Dweck, C., Davidson, W., Nelson, S., and Enna, B. 1978 Sex differences in reamed helplessness: II. The contingencies of evaluative feedback in the classroom. III. An experimental analysis. Developmental Psychology 14:268-276.

326 DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD Dyer, P. 1967 Home Environment and Achievement in Trinidad. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta. Eder, D. 1981 Ability grouping as a self-fulfilling prophecy: A micro-analysis of teacher-student inter- action. Sociology of Education 54:151-161. Edmonds, R. 1979 Some schools work and more can. Social Policy (March/April):28-32. Edmonds, R.R., and Fredericksen, J.R. 1978 Search for Effective Schools: The Identification and Analysis of City Schools That Are Instruc- tion~lly Effective for Poor Children. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, Center for Urban Studies. Elashoff, ]., and Snow, R. 1971 Py~nakon Reconsidered. Worthington, Ohio: Jones. Ellett, C.D., Payne, D.A., Master, }.A., and Pool, ].E. 1977 The Relationship Between Teacher and Student Assessments of School Environment Characteristics and School Outcome Variables. Paper presented at the twenty-third annual meeting of the Southeastem Psychological Association, Hollywood, Fla., May. Entwisle, D.R., and Hayduk, L.A. 1978 Too Great Expectations: The Academic Outlook of Young Children. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1982 Early Schooling Cognitive and Affective Outcomes. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Uni versity Press. Epps, E. 1969 Correlates of academic achievement among northern and southern urban Negro students. ]OUTTIa1 of Social Issues 25(3):55-70. 1975 Impact of school desgregation on aspirations, self-concept, and other aspects of person- ality. Law and Contemporary Problems 39:300-313. The impact of school desegregation on the self-evaluation and achievement orientation of minority children. Law and Contemporary Problems 42:57-76. Minority children: Desegregation, self evaluation, and achievement motivation. In W. Hawley, ea., Effective School Desegregation: Equity, Quality, and Feasibility. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage. Epstein, ]. 1983 Longitudinal effects of family-school person interactions on student outcomes. In A. Kerckhoff, ea., Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization. Vol. 4. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press. Epstein, J., and Becker, H.]. 1982 Teachers' reported practices of parent involvement: Problems and possibilities. Elementary School Journal 83: 103- 113. Femandez, R., and Guskin, J. 1981 Hispanic students and school desegregation. In W. Hawley, ea., Effective School Deseg regation: Equity, Quality, and Feasibility. Beverly Hills, Calif.:Sage. Findley, M., and Cooper, H. 1983 Locus of control and academic achievement: A literature review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44:419-427. Fisher, C.W., Filby, N.N., Maliave, R., Cohen, L.S., Dishaw, M.M., Moore, J.E., and Berliner, D.C. 1918 Teaching Behaviors, Academic Leaming Time and Student Achievement. Final report of Phase III-B, Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study. Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, San Francisco. 1978 1981 J I

SCHOOL AND CHILDREN 327 Forehand, G., Ragosta, M., and Rock, D. 1916 Corrections and Processes of Effective School Desegregation. Princeton, Ad.: Educational _ . ~ 1 estlng Service. Froemel, I. 1980 Cognitive Entry Behaviors, Instructional Conditions, and Achievement: A Study of Their Interrelationships. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago. Fuerst, ]. 1977 Child parent centers: An evaluation. Integrated Education (May-]une):17-20. Gage, N.L. 1972 Teacher Effectiveness and Teacher Education. Palo Alto, Calif.: Pacific. 1978 The Scientific Basis of the Art of Teaching. New York: Teachers College Press. Gallimore, R., and Au, K. 1979 The compeeence/incompeeence paradox in the education of minority culture children. The Quarterly Newsletter of the laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition 1(3):32-37. Gaudry, E., and Spielberger, C., eds. 1971 Anxiety and School Achievement. Sydney, Australia: John Wiley & Sons. Gerard H., and Miller, N. 1975 School Desegregation. New York: Plenum Press Gerard, H., Jackson, T., and Conolley, E. 1975 Social contact in the desegregated classroom. In H. Gerard and N. Miller, eds., School Desegregation. New York: Plenum Press. Giaconia, R.M. and Hedges, L.V. 1982 Identifying features of effective open education. Review of Educational Research 52:579- 602. Glass, G.V. 1978 Integrating findings: The meta-analysis of research. In L.S. Shulman, ea., Review of Research in Education. Vol. 5. Itasca, Ill.: Peacock. Glass, G.V., and Smith, M. 1978 Meta-Analysis of Research on the Relationship of Class Size and Achievement. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development. Glass, G., Cohen, E., and Smith, M. 1982 School Class Size: Research and Policy. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage. Good, T.L. 1983 Classroom research: A decade of progress. Educational Psychologist 18:127-144. Goodchilds, J., Green, I., and Biksen, T. 1975 The school experience and adjustment. In H. Gerard and N. Miller, eds., School De- segregation. New York: Plenum Press. Goodlad, J.I. 1973 The elementary school as a social institution. In J. Goodlad and H. Shane, eds., The Elementary School in the United States. Seventy-second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1983 Individuality, commonality, end curricular practice. In G. Fenstermacher and]. Goodlad, eds., Individual Differences and the Common Curriculum. Eighty-second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Goodlad, J.I., Sirotnik, K.S., and Overman, B.C. 1979 An overview of a study of schooling. Phi Delta Kappa 61:174-178. Grant, L. 1981 Race, Sex, and Schooling: Social Location and Children's Experiences in Desegregated Classrooms. Unpublished dissertation, University of Michigan.

328 DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD Green, D., Miller, N.s and Gerard, D. 1975 Personality traits and adjustment. In H. Gerard and N. Miller, eds., School Desegregation. New York: Plenum Press. Hare, B. 1977 Racial and socioeconomic variation in preadolescent area-specific and general self-esteem. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 1 :31 -51. 1980 Self-perception and academic achievement: Variations in a desegregated setting. Amer- ican ]OUTnal of Psychiatry 137:683-689. In Harter, S. 1978 Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model. Human Development 1 :34-64. 1981 A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom: Moti vational and informational components. Developmental Psychology 17:300-312. 1982 The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development 53:87-97. Harter, S., and Connell, J.P. A model of the relationship among children's academic achievement and their self press perceptions of competence, control, and motivational orientation. In ]. Nicholls, ea., The Development of Achievement Motivation. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press. Hedges, L.V. 1981 Appendix note: Illustrating two-aptitude treatment interactions: A methodological note. American Educational Research JOUTr~1 18:57-61. 1982 Estimating effect size from a series of independent experiments. Psychological Bulletin 92:490-499. Hedges, L.V., Giaconia, R.M., and Gage, N.L. 1981 Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Open and Traditional Instruction. Stanford University Program on Teaching Effectiveness Meta Analysis Project, Final Report, Vol. 2. Heller, K., Holtzman, W., and Messick, S., eds. 1982 Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Panel on Selection and Place- ment of Students in Programs for the Mentally Retarded, Committee on Child Devel- opment Research and Public Policy. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Hess, R. 1910 ~ Social class and ethnic influences on socialization. In P. Mussen, ea., Carmichael's Manual of Cluld Psychology. Vol. 2. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hess, R., and Shipman, V. 1965 Early experience and the socialization of cognitive modes in children. Child Development 36:869-886. 1967 Cognitive elements in maternal behavior. In ]. Hill, ea., Minnesota Symposia on Cluld Psychology. Vol. 1. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Hess, R., Holloway, S., Price, G., and Dickson, W. 1980 Family environments and the acquisition of reading skills. In L. Laosa and I. Sigel, eds., Families as Learning Environments for Children. New York: Plenum Press. Hewison, ]., and Tizard, J. 1980 Parental involvement and reading attainment. The British Journal of Educational Psychology 50:209-215. Heyneman, S. 1976 A brief note on the relationship between socioeconomic status and test performance among Ugandan primary school children. Comparative Education Review 20:42-47. Heyns, B. 1978 summer Learning and the Effects of Schooling. New York: Academic. Holliday, B.G. 1984 Towards a structural model of teacher-child transactional processes affecting black chil- dren's academic achievement. In M. Spencer, G. Brookings, and W. Allen, eds., Be

SCHOOL AND CHILDREN 329 "innings: The Social and Affective Development of Black Children. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hunt, 1., and Hunt, L. 1977 Racial inequality and self-image: Identity maintenance as identity diffusion. Sociology and Social Research 61:539-559. Inkeles, A. 1968 Social structure and the socialization of competence. In Socialization and Schools. Reprint Series No. 1, Harvard Educational Review. Jackson, P.W. 1968 Life in Classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Janicki, T., and Peterson, P. 1981 Aptitude-treatment interaction effects of variations in direct instruction. American Ed- ucationa1 Research Journal 18:63-82. Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., Heyns, B., and Michel- son, S. 1972 Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America. New York: Basic Books. Johnson, D.W., and Johnson, R.T. 1919 Cooperation, competition, and individualization. In H.J. Walberg, ea., Educational En- vironments and Effects. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Maruyama, G. 1983 Interdependence and interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: A theoretical formulation and a meta~analysis of the research. Review of Educational Research 53:5-54. Kellaghan, T. 1977 Relationships between home environment and scholastic behavior in a disadvantaged population. Journal of Educational Psychology 69:754-760. Kifer, E. 1975 Relationship between academic achievement and personality characteristics: A quasi- longitudinal study. American Educational Research Journal 12: 191-220. Kohn, M. 1969 Class and Conformity: A Study in Values. Second ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Krol, D.F. 1978 A Meta-Analysis of School Desegregation and Achievement. Unpublished doctoral dis- sertation, Westem Michigan University. Laosa, L. 1977 Socialization, education, and continuity: The importance of the socioculture context. Young Children 32:21-27. 1982 School, occupation, culture and family: The impact of parental schooling on the parent child relationship. Journal of Education Psychology 74:791-827. Lavin, D.E. 1965 The Prediction of Acerbic Perfonnance: A Theorems Analysis and Review of Research. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Lazar, I., and Darlington, R. 1982 Lasting effects of early education: A report from the consortium for longitudinal studies. Monographs for Research in Child Development 47 (2-3, Serial no. 195.) Leacock, E. 1969 Teaching and Leaming in City Schools. New York: Basic Books. 1982 The influence of teacher attitudes on children's performance: Case studies. In K. Borman, ea., The Social Life of Children in a Changing Sociery. Hillsdale, N.~.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

330 Leiter, ]. 1983 Classroom composition and achievement gains. Sociology of Education 56:126-132. Lesser, G., Fifer, G., and Clark, D. 1967 Mental abilities of children in different social and cultural groups. In ]. Roberts, ea., School Children in the Urban Slum. New York: Free Press. Levine, D., Lachowicz, H., Oxman, K., and Tangeman, A. 1972 The home environment of students in a high achieving inner city parochial school and a nearby public school. Sociology of Education 45:435-445. Lightfoor, S. 1979 Families and schools. In H. Walberg, ea., Educational Environment and Effects. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan. Lucker, G., Rosenfeld, D., Sikes, J., and Aaronson, E. 1976 Performance in the interdependent classroom: A field study. American Educational Re- search Journal 68:588-596. Macnamara, ]., Svarc, J., and Homer, S. 1976 Attending a primary school of the other language in Montreal. In A. Simoes, Jr., ea., The Bilingual Child. New York: Academic Press. Marjoribanks, K. 1979 Family environments. In H. Walberg, ea., Educational Environments and Effects. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan. Marshall, H.H. 1981 Open classrooms: Has the term outlived its usefulness? Review of Educational Research 51:182-192. Marnyama, G., Rubin, R., and Kingsbury, G. 1981 Self-esteem and educational achievement: Independent constructs with a common cause. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40:962-975. Massey, G., Scott, M., and Dornbusch, S. 1975 Racism without racists: Institutional racism in urban schools. The Block Scholar 7:2-11. McAdoo, H.P. 1977 The development of self-concept and race attitudes in black children: A longitudinal study. In Report of the Third Conference on Empirical Research in Black Psychology. Wash- t ington, D.C.: National Institute of Education. McConahay, I. 1978 The effects of school desegregation upon students' racial attitudes and behavior: A critical review of the literature and a prolegomenon to future research. Law and Con- rempora7y Problems 42:77-107. McDill, E.L., and Rigsby, L.C. 1973 Structure and Process in Secondary Schools: The Acad~nic Impact of Educational Climates. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. McPartland, ].M., and Karweit, N. 1979 Research on educational effects. In Hal. Walberg, ea., Educational Environments and Effects. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan. Meece, ].L., Parsons, J.E., Kaczala, C.M., Golf, S.B., and Futterman, R. 1982 Sex differences in math achievement: Toward a model of academic choice. Psychological Bulletin 91 :324-348. Mercer, J., Coleman, M., and Harloe, ]. 1974 Racial/ethnic segregation and desegregation in American public education. In C. Gor- don, ea., Uses of the Sociology of Education. 73rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mercy, J.A., and Steelman, L.C. 1982 Familial influence on the intellectual attainment of children. American Sociological Review 47:532-542. DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD

SCHOOL AND CHILDREN 331 Miller, A. 1982 Changes in Self-Eseeem in Early School Years: Cognitive Development or Declining Self-Affect. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, March. Minuchin, P.P., and Shapiro, E.K. 1983 The school as a context for social development. In P.H. Mussen, ea., Handbook of Child Psychology. Fourth ed. E.M. Hetherington, ea., Social Development, Vol. 3. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Moore, E.G. 1981 Ethnicity as a Variable in Child Development. Unpublished paper, Arizona State Uni- versity. Murnane, R.J. 1975 The Impact of School Resources on the Learning of Inner City Children. Cambridge: Ballinger. Oghu, J.U. 1978 Minority Education and Caste: The American School System in Crc~ss-Cultural Perspective. New York: Academic Press. 1981 Origins calf human competence: A cultural~ecological perspective. Child Devek~pment 52:413 429. 1983 Crossing Cultural Boundaries: A Comparative Perspective on Minority Education. Un- published paper f`,r a Symposium fin Race, Class, Socialization, and the Life Cycle, University calf Chicago, October 21-22. O'Malley, ].M. 1982 Instructional services f`'r limited English proficient children. NABE ]ot~rnal 7:21-35. I3atchen, M. 1982 Black-White Contact in Schools: Its Social and Academic Effects. West Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue University Press. Peal, E., and Lambert, W. 1962 The relation `,f bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs 76(546):1-23. Turkey, W. 1970 Self-C`'ncept and School Achievement. Englew<~od Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Ramirez, M., and Price-Williams, D. 1976 Achievement m`~tivati`'n in children `,f three ethnic groups in the Llpited States. Journal `'f Cr`'ss-CultuTal Psychology 7:49-60. Rist, R.C. 1970 Student special class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education. Harvard Educational Review 40:411-451. 1973 The Urban School: A Factory f<'r Failure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. R`,senshine, B.V. 1971 Teaching Behaviors and Student Achievement. L`'nd<,n: National Foundation f`,r Educational Research in England and Wales. The master teacher and the master developer. In M. Wang and H. Walberg, eds., Adapting Instructicm to Student Differences: A Synthesis of Theory, Research and Practice. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan. Rosenthal, R., and ]ac<,hs<,n, L. 1968 Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Runway, B., and Miracle, A.W., ]r. 1983 Systems `,f ability grouping and the stratification elf achievement in elementary schools. S<,ciol`'gy elf Education 56(]uly): 133- 144. Ruhland, D., and Feld, S. 1977 The development `,f achievement m`~tivatic~n in black and white children. Child Devel- `'pment 48: 1362- 1368. In press

332 DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD Rutter, M. 1983 School effects on pupil progress: Research findings and policy implications. CIuld De- velopment 54:1-29. Rutter, M., Maughn, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J., and Smith, A. 1979 Fifteen-Thousand HOSTS: Secondary Schools and Their Effects on Children. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Sandoval-Martinez, S. 1982 Findings from the Head Start bilingual curriculum development effort. NABE journal 7:1-12. Sarason, S., Lighthall, F., Waite, R., and Ruebush, B. 1960 Anxiety in Elementary School Children. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Scheirer, M., and Kraut, R. 1979 Increasing educational achievement via self-concept change. Review of Educational Re- search 49:131- 150. Schofield, J. 1979 The impact of positively structured contact on intergroup behavior: Does it last under adverse conditions7 Social Psychology Quarterly 42:280-284. Schofield, J., and McGivern, E. 1978 Who Likes Desegregated Schools? The Effect of Sex and Race on Students' Attitudes. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, March. Schofield, J., and Sager, A. 1979 The social context of learning in an interracial school. In R. Rist, ea., Desegregated Schools: Appraisals of an American Experiment. New York: Academic Press. Scott, R., and McPartland, J. 1982 Desegregation as national policy: Correlates of racial attitudes. American Educational Research Journal 19:397-414. Shade, B. 1982 Afro-American cognitive style: A variable in school success. Review of Educational Re- search 52:219-244. Sharp, D., Gale, M., and Lave, C. 1979 Education and cognitive development: The evidence from experimental research. Mon' ographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 44(1-2, Serial no. 178). Shipman, V., Boroson, M., Bridgemen, B., Cant, J., and Mikovsky, M. 1976 Disadvantaged Children and Their First School Experiences: Notable Early Characteristics of High and Low Achieving Black Low-SES Children. (PR-76-21 ) Princeton, N.].: Educational Testing Service (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 138-340). Simpson, A., and Erickson, M. 1983 Teachers' verbal and nonverbal communication patterns as a function of teacher race, student gender, and student race. American Education Research Joumal 20:183-198. Singer, H., Gerard, H., and Redfern, D. 1975 Achievement. In H. Gerard and N. Miller, eds., School Desegregation. New York: Plenum Press. Slaughter, D. 1969 Matemal antecedents of the academic achievement behaviors of Afro-American Head Stare children. Educational Horizons tFall):24-28. 1977 Relation of early parent~teacher socialization influences to achievement orientation and self-esteem in middle childhood among low-income black children. In J. Glidewell, ea., The Social Context of Leaming and Development. New York: Gardner. 1981 Social policy issues affecting infants. In B. Weissbourd and J. Musich, eds., Infants: Their Social Environments. Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

SCHOOL AND CHILDREN 333 1983 Education and family. In B. Bloom and C. Mathis, eds., The Schools, Schools of Education and Major Changes Affecting Education: The Crises of Our Time. Unpub- lished manuscript. Slavin, R.E., and DeVries, D.L. 1979 Learning in teams. In H.]. Walberg, ea., Educational Environments and Effects. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan. Slavin, R., and Madden, N. 1979 School practices that improve race relations. American Educational Research Journal 16:169- 180. Snow, C.E. 1983 Literacy and language: Relationships during the preschool years. Harvard Educational Review 53: 165- 189. Sorensen, A.B. 1970 Organizational differentiation of students and educational opportunity. Sociology of ED Cation 43:355-376. Spencer, M.B. 1976 The Social-Cognitive and Personality Development of the Black Pre school Child: An Exploratory Study of Developmental Process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni- versity of Chicago. 1982 Personal and group identity of black children: An alternative hypothesis. Genetic Psy- chology Monographs 106:59-84. St. John, N.H. 1975 School Desegregation: Outcomes for Children. New York: John Wiley & Sons. St. John, N., and Lewis, R. 1975 Race and the social structure of the elementary classroom. Sociology of Education 48:346- 368. Stallings, ]. 1975 Implementation and child effects of teaching practices in Follow Through classrooms, with commentary by M. Almy, L. B. Resnick. and G. Leinhardt. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 43( 165). Stephen, W. 1978 School desegregation: An evaluation of predictions made in Brown v..' Board of Education. Psychological Bulletin 85:217-237. Stevenson, H.W., Parker, T., Wilkinson, A., Bonneveux, B., and Gonzalez, M. 1978 Schooling, environment, and cognitive development: A cross cultural study. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child De`~el<,pment 43(3, Serial no. 175). Stipek, D.~., and Weisz, J.R. 1981 Perceived personal control and academic achievement. Review of Research in Education 51:101-137. Stodolsky, S. 1965 Maternal Behavior and Language and Concept Formation in Negro Pre-school Children: An Inquiry Into Process. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago. Stodolsky, S., and Lesser, G. 1967 Learning patterns in the disadvantaged. Harvard Educational Review 37:546-593. Strodtbeck, F. 1958 Family interaction, values and achievement. In D. McClelland et al., eds., Talent and Society. New York: Van Nostrand. Summers, A.A., and Wolfe, B.L. 1977 Do schools make a difference? American Economic Review 67:639-652.

334 DEVELOPMENT DURING MIDDLE CHILDHOOD Swain, M. 1978 French immersion: Early, late or partial' The Canadian Modem Language Review 34:557- 585. Tharp, R., and Gallimore, R. 1982 Inquiry process in program development. Journal of Community Psychology 10:103-118. Tizard, I., Schofield, W.N., and Hewison, J. 1982 Collaboration between teachers and parents assisting children's reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology 52:1-15. Tulkin, S. 1972 An analysis of the concept of cultural deprivation. Developmental Psychology 6(2):326- 339. Walberg, H.J. 1981 A psychological theory of educational productivity. In F. Parley and N. Gordon, eds., Psychology and Education: The State of the Union. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan. Walden, T., and Ramey, C. 1983 Locus of control and academic achievement: Results from a preschool intervention program. Journal of Educational Psychology 75:347-358. Weber, G. 1971 Inrush City Children Can Be Taught to Read: FOUT Successful Schools. Occasional paper 18. Washington, D.C.: Council for Basic Education. Weinberg, M. 1977 Minority Students: A Research Appraisal. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Edu- cation. Weiss, J. 1969 The Identification and Measure of Home Environmental Factors Related to Achievement Motivation and Self-Esteem. Unpublished dissertation, University of Chicago. White, K.R. 1982 The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Psychological Bulletin 91:461-481. Wiley, D.E., and Harnischieger, A. 1974 Explosion of a myth: Quality of schooling and exposure to instruction, major educational ,' vehicles. Educational Researcher 3:7-12. World Bank 1980 Education Sector Policy Paper. Third ed. W.D. Haddad, A. Liable, and M. Hulein. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Wylie, R. 1974 The Self-Concep`. Rev. ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 1979 The Self-Concepr: Theory and Research on Selected Topics. Vol. 2. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Next: 8 Ecocultural Niches of Middle Childhood: A Cross-Cultural Perspective »
Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $125.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

For the first time, a report focuses specifically on middle childhood--a discrete, pivotal period of development. In this review of research, experts examine the physical health and cognitive development of 6- to 12-year-old children as well as their surroundings: school and home environment, ecocultural setting, and family and peer relationships.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!