It was hypothesized in this study that there would be significant differences between perceptions of socially disadvantaged and other student and teacher groups on each subtest of the SRA Junior Inventory. Although the hypothesis was rejected, it was found that teachers have a better understanding of the needs and problems of disadvantaged youth than might be expected. Teachers, however, differed markedly with students by suggesting that the home rather than the school was the source of student frustration. Other discrepancies are noted, and implications are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckerH. S.The teacher in the authority system of the public school.Journal of Educational Sociology, 1953, 27, 128–141.
2.
BloomB. S., DavisAllison, and HessR.Compensatory education for cultural deprivation.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965.
3.
BrottmanM. A.Teaching the culturally disadvantaged pupil. In BeckJ. M., and SaxeR. W. (Editors), Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas, 1965.
4.
ConantJ. B.Slums and suburbs.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.
5.
CurryR. L.The effect of socio-economic status on the scholastic achievement of sixth grade children.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1963, 32, 46–49.
6.
DaleR. R.A brief comment on the effect of socioeconomic status on the scholastic achievement of sixth grade children, by Robert Curry.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1963, 33, 84.
7.
DavisAllisonAmerican status systems and the socialization of the child.American Sociological Review, 1941, 6, 345–356.
8.
DeutschM.Minority group and class status as related to social and personality factors in scholastic achievement.Society for Applied Anthropology, 1960, Monograph No. 2.
9.
GordonM. M.Social class in American sociology.Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1958.
10.
HavighurstR. J.The public schools of Chicago.Chicago: Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 1964.
11.
HavighurstR., and DavisAllisonChild socialization and the school.Revew of Educational Research, 1943, 13, 20–27.
12.
HickersonN.Education for alienation.Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1966.
13.
HillE., and GiammateoM.Socio-economic status and its relationship to school achievement in the elementary school.Elementary English, 1963, 40, 265–271.
14.
HowardD. P.The relationship between the needs and problems of socially disadvantaged urban children as perceived by the children and by public school personnel. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1966.
15.
JohnsonG. O.Organizing instruction and curriculum planning for socially disadvantaged.Journal of Negro Education, 1964, 33(3), 254–263.
16.
KellerSuzanneThe American lower class family.Research Document, New York State, 1965.
17.
KvaraceusW. C.Delinquent behavior: culture and the individual.Washington: National Education Association, 1959.
18.
MussenP. H.Differences between the TAT responses of Negro and white boys.Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1953, 17, 373–376.
19.
NcugartenBernicc L.Social class and friendship among school children.American Journal of Sociology, 1946, 51, 305–313.
20.
RemmersH. H., and BauernfeindR. H.Manual for the SRA Junior Inventory-Forms (Revised edition). Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1957.
21.
RiessmanF.The culturally deprived child.New York: Harper and Row, 1962.
22.
SextonPatricia C.Education and income.New York: Viking Press, 1961.
23.
WarnerW. L., HavighurstR., and LoebM. B.Who shall be educated.New York: Harper and Brothers, 1944.
