University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Educational Expectations And Problems As Perceived By Headstart Parents And Teachers

(USC Thesis Other)

Educational Expectations And Problems As Perceived By Headstart Parents And Teachers

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content EDUCATIONAL EXPECTATIONS AND PROBLEMS AS PERCEIVED
BY HEAD START PARENTS AND TEACHERS
by
Guinevere Guy Norman
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Education)
January 1971
I
I
I
l : 71-16,430
i \
| NORMAN, Guinevere Gvy, 1915-
| EDUCATIONAL EXPECTATIONS AND PROBLEMS AS
i PERCEIVED BY HEAD START PARENTS AND TEACHERS.
f
1 University of Southern California, Ph.D.,
1 1971
Education, general
i University Microfilms, A XERQ\ Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan
i
i
© Copyright by
GUINEVERE GUY NORMAN
1971 :
THIS DISSERATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED ECACTLY AS RECEIVED
UNIVERSITY O F SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
Guinevere Guy Norman
under the direction of A . . 6 X ! . . . . Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Gradu
ate School, in partial fulfillm ent of require
ments of the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H IL O S O P H Y
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES....................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES..................................... v
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION................................. 1
The Problem
Scope
Limitations
Assumptions
Hypotheses
Definitions of Terms
Experimental Design and Methodology
Organization of the Remainder of
the Study
II. REVIEW OF THE LEGISLATION AND THE LITERATURE . 23
Federal Legislation
State Legislation
The Literature
Evaluative Reports and Summaries
Summaries and Articles
Selected Dissertations and Studies
Special Resources
III. PROCEDURES AND ANALYSIS....................... 46
Two Pomona Surveys
Locale of the Project Schools
Empirical Procedures
The Analysis
Analysis of the First Choices of PHAK
A Selected Example of Impressionistic Data
Non-Teaching Professionals
A Unique Response
The Nature of the Problems Stated by
the Respondents
Significant Differences of the Problems
Recognized
ii
Chapter Page
IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . 83
| The Problem Restated
| The Findings
Recommendations
Suggestions and Implications for
Future Study
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................... 91
APPENDICES......................................... 104
A. Specially Edited Resources ................... 105
B. Major Categories and Classifications of
Respondents' Answers ....................... 116
C. Numerical Condensation of the Findings .... 121
D. Chi Square Results Showing Frequencies and
Percentages of Problems as Stated by
Parents and Teachers....................... 128
E. Socioeconomic Census Tract Data of Head
Start Areas................................. 130
F. Spanish and English Versions of Interview
Letter and Questionnaire to Parents ........ 134
G. Selected Letter to Professionals ............. 139
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Pomona Unified School District Enrollment
Survey ..................................... 48
2. Educational and Income Levels from the 1960
Census Extract for Los Angeles County .... 49
3. Major Categories and Code Numbers of the
Responses ................................... 56
4. Group Identification Numbers of the
Participants ............................... 58
5. Abbreviations for the Occupation of the
Participants ............................... 60
6. Summation of Participants' Educational
Expectations ............................... 66
7. Summation of Chi Square Values for Educational
Expectations ............................... 67
8. Comparison of Answers of Non-Teaching
Professionals ............................... 70
9. Numerical Table of Disadvantaged Preschool
Children............ ...................... 111
10. Five Categories of Respondents' Answers .... 117
11. Numerical Condensation of Respondents' Answers 122
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1. Input/Output Design ...........................
2. Model of Chi Square Format for Respondents . .
3. Map Showing Location of Pomona City Schools . .
4. Head Start Enrollees .........................
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Head Start is an educational innovation designed to
help the disadvantaged preschool child. It is the consensus
of some educators that the middle-class home exercises
positive influence on the educational development of the
child. The same situation usually does not prevail in the
lower-class home. Any out-of-school learning that the
parent is able to give may be so inadequate that the child
will not be able to compete successfully with his more
advantaged classmates. A growing conviction among educators
seems to indicate that for the educationally disadvantaged
child, the social environs of the home and community may
actually work in opposition to the norms of the school.
Berelson (4:439) observed that the public school system is
operated primarily by adults with middle-class values; the
lower-class child is penalized not only on educational
grounds, but on broadly social grounds as well.
Since the schools have not yet succeeded in meta
morphosing everyone into the middle-class image--even if it
is considered desirable by some— perhaps it is time to
institute changes in educational patterns. That the
1
r i
deprived child does not discard, nor perhaps wish to
discard, certain elements of his subculture that may work
to his disadvantage when competing with more privileged
children does not alter the need for change.
School officials are now beginning to realize that
learning is not a two-way process between pupil and teacher,
but a three-way process between pupil, teacher and parent.
Thus in the more affluent communities educational goals will
parallel those of the school but the same phenomenon is
rarely true in the deprived areas. Most teachers in central
city areas are aware of the need for special teaching skills
for instructing deprived children. In November 1963
Frederick Shaw wrote that "the number one problem faced by
urban teachers today is how to offer culturally deprived
youth an education that meets their needs" (112:91). Today,
in 1969, most of these needs still exist, and extend down
ward into the home of the preschool child.
While inadequate education in the home and school
may indicate the need for social reconstruction, the
possibilities of initiating social action in order to
improve the scholastic attainments of deprived children are
not too promising. During the decade of the sixties commu
nication between various ethnic groups and economic classes
almost ceased. Perhaps the logical place to improve
communication is at the preschool level but this means
developing a closer relationship between home and school in
the disadvantaged segments of the community. In view of
the social situation and the growing awareness of the
paucity of educational opportunities in poor homes, this
study of the Pomona Head Start Program was more than
timely.
The Problem
The Pomona Head Start project like the national
Head Start program has as its basic purpose the closing of
the educational gap between the deprived child and the
affluent child. This purpose is reflected in one of the
general statements of the Project Titles:
A project to further the economic and cultural goals
of students by working in the community with parents
and other community members, and by promoting posi
tive and cooperative relations among school, home
and community. (134:8)
In addition to the national goals there are four specific
emphases in the Pomona Head Start project:
1. To help raise the academic achievement level
of the educationally disadvantaged children.
2. To improve the self-image of the children and
thereby, possibly, to help raise their
educational aspirations.
3. To evaluate the degree of improvement in these
areas.
4. To increase the degree of parental and teacher
4
awareness of the educational needs of the
disadvantaged child.
The last one cited is most relevant to this study.
Although both parents and teachers certainly recognize some
of the educational needs of the less fortunate child in our
society, little emphasis has been placed on the shared
teaching roles of parents and teachers of disadvantaged
preschool children.
Statement of the Problem
There were two major purposes to this study: (1) to
determine what Head Start parents and teachers expect each
other to teach the Head Start child; and (2) to determine
what parents and teachers see as their major problem in
relation to the Head Start program.
Significance of the Study
The interaction of the child with his parents
usually initiates the informal learning process. For the
poor child this process may be very inadequate because he
is a victim of a highly restrictive environment. In
addition, the deprived condition of the parents creates a
deprived condition for the child; thus the cycle of depriva
tion is a continuous one. Programs such as Head Start are
designed to break this cycle and bridge the gap between the
advantaged child and the disadvantaged one.
5
Should such a program as Head Start be necessary in
a society where the institutions of family and education are
traditionally separate? Perhaps these two institutions are
not as far apart as they may seem. Preschools have been a
part of the American educational system since colonial
times. For example, the existence of "dame schools" was
recorded in New Haven, Connecticut in 1691; the first
nursery school was opened in 1826 in New Harmony, Indiana;
and the first permanent public kindergarten was established
in St. Louis in 1873 (13:135). The Division of Kindergarten
Education was created in the U.S. Office of Education in
1913; and Nursery-Kindergartens were started by the Federal
Emergency Relief Act in 1933 (13:135).
The establishment of the Nursery-Kindergartens was
one of the earliest recognitions by the federal government
that poor children needed official help. This recognition
is again illustrated by the enactment of the Economic
Opportunity Act of 1964. This Act, commonly called the
0E0, provides for compensatory schooling inclusive of
pre-elementary education for the disadvantaged. One of the
summer projects, Operation Head Start, became a year round
program in the fall of 1965 (13:135).
The need to help the educationally disadvantaged on
all levels of education is a current theme, not only in
professional journals: it is also a topic of discussion in
civic meetings, social gatherings, and on mass media.
6
Explosive situations in cities too numerous to cite are
engendered pari passu by deficient educational programs,
denial of available employment, and the hostility and
resentment which are the obvious results.
The desirability of improving the educational level
of deprived children as well as to develop community aware
ness of this problem is almost too obvious to mention: yet,
controlled field observations in Pomona from August 1966
through April 1969 indicated that lines of communication
between majority and minority groups were almost closed.
Negroes and Mexicans in Pomona, as in other areas in the
United States, constitute a greater percentage of the
deprived families than Anglos; the children of these minor
ity groups also represent a greater percentage in the Head
Start program in Pomona. Although there were exactly fifty
each of Anglos, Mexicans and Negroes included in the sample,
such a distribution is misleading since the latter two
represent neither two thirds of the national population nor
two thirds of Pomona's population. In short, Negroes and
Mexicans are disproportionally represented on the lower
socioeconomic scale in Pomona.
Because social unrest is so often a result of some
of the aforementioned factors, Pomona is endeavoring to
work at the preventive level and is giving planned attention
to its poverty programs, which run the gamut from those
designed to help solve the educational and economic problems
7
of adults, to those of the preschool child. Thus, the
general purpose of Head Start--to raise the educational
level of the deprived preschool child--lends support to the
educational plans of the Pomona Unified District.
Scope
It is difficult to state exactly when this research
really began. The preliminary conferences were initiated
in August 1965 and continued intermittently until August
1966 via consultations, long distance calls, letters, and
communiques. Most of these contacts were concerned with
obtaining permission to initiate the study. Certain aspects
of the program, such as evaluation and measurement, were
proposed as being available for investigation; but these
areas were necessarily focused on the child and his individ
ual achievements rather than on the Head Start parents and
teachers and as such were not related to the intent of this
study.
Samnle Delineated
Permission to conduct an investigation about Head
Start parent and teacher educational roles was eventually
granted by Winston Nelson, Superintendent of the Pomona
Unified School District, and by the Head Start Project
Director, Dr. Clifford Nichols. The research population was'
definitely limited to the parents and professional staff of
the Pomona Head Start Project from 1966 to 1968; and was
8
composed of 75 parents, 10 Head Start teachers, 7 assistant
Head Start teachers, 19 kindergarten teachers, and 2 each
of social workers, registered nurses, and administrators,
comprising a total of 117 participants.
Limitations
This study is primarily intended for the profes
sional reader with some expertise in the fields of educa
tion, sociology, or social work. However, some adaptation
of empirical data was necessary out of respect for those
whose interest in the study may not be empirically oriented
or who may have a pragmatic interest in the results.
The major limitations of the study center on (1)
measuring instruments, (2) sampling deficiencies, (3) com
puter programming, and (4) individual versus group research.
These limitations are discussed in the order named.
The Measuring Instrument
Ideally, the questionnaire should have been admin
istered to all respondents at approximately the same time--
preferably at the beginning of the school year--but some
parent information was gathered during 1966 and 1967, while
that of the professionals was collected in the spring of
1967. Even if the data had been collected at the same
time, the use of only the questionnaire as an investigative
instrument is a limitation in itself and one that is
justifiably criticized by Webb as a one-method approach:
9
Today some 90 per cent of social science is
based on interviews and questionnaires. We lament
this overdependence upon a simple fallible method.
. . . The principal objection is that they are
used alone. Mo research method is without bias.
Interviews and questionnaires must be supplemented
by methods testing the same social science variables
but having different methodological weaknesses.
(38:1)
In an effort to corroborate the findings of this
study and to avoid the "one method" weakness, two other
measurements were also utilized: impressionistic (22:27)
and non-reactive (38:v-34). However, since the results
from the other two methods verified the results from the
questionnaires, the chairman felt that the analysis of the
findings should be focused on the results from the question
naires; therefore, this dissertation is also limited by
\tfiat seems to be a "simple fallible method."
Limited Male Population
It was impossible to determine how many of the Head
Start children had fathers in the home because this infor
mation was not made available.* Very few men were seen,
irrespective of the time of the interview, and few mothers
spoke of their husbands. This one-parent status was also
noted in a Pomona report (136). In addition to the limited
A study which preceded this one engendered some
community resentment because confidential information
released to a researcher from another institution had been
discussed with a community resident. As a result certain
files were restricted.
10
number of males in the parent group there were no male Head
Start teachers: thus there are none included in the study.
Computer Programming
Any sampling study is subject to the usual sampling
errors. However, this study was also limited in the kind
of design possible for the input-output process; or more
concisely, the restrictive controls of "package programming"
dictated the kind of statistical design that could be
processed. The cost of utilizing more than one "package
program" is prohibitive for the individual researcher;
consequently this design had to be tailored to match the
program rather than the reverse. The "package program" that
was most amenable to this study was So-Comp E and is
processed on a Honeywell computer (27:131, 151). Because of
this situation the reader is advised to examine the supple
mentary data in the appendices.
Individual versus Group Research
Perhaps the most challenging limitation was the
number of governmental and school officials with whom it
was necessary to work. Occasionally some item had to be
cleared simultaneously with Washington, Sacramento and
Pomona. Delays in the selection of the director, changes
in supervision and other such deterrents, erected almost
insurmountable barriers to acceptable research procedures.
Partly because cf integrity and professional ethics, and
FIGURE 1
INPUT-OUTPUT DESIGN FOR 117 PARTICIPANTS (CASES): POMONA HEAD START PROJECT
NON-PROFESSIONALS PROFESSIONALS
Registered
Nurses
Social
Workers
Head Start
Teachers
Kindergarten
Teachers
Assistant
Head Start
Supervisors Parents
One card per case (participant).
Data processed into Honeywell
800; program E two-way: So-Comp.
(Output from Major Categories)
and Problems (27:9,21,31,51).
Major System
Information
Final Statistical Output and Form
Problems and Choices
of Professionals
Choices and Problems
of Parents
FIGURE 2
j ,
MODEL FOR THE CHI SQUARE FORMAT FOR RESPONDENTS WHO SELECTED
SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT AS THE FIRST CHOICE FOR EACH OTHER FOR
THE EDUCATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE HEAD START CHILD*
Choices: First First First First
Occupation: PARENTS
HEAD START
TEACHERS
ASSISTANT
HEAD START
KINDERGARTEN
TEACHERS
PARENTS
HEAD START
TEACHERS
ASSISTANT
HEAD START
TEACHERS
KINDERGARTEN
TEACHERS
*The same format is used for second and third choices; and
for Body Care, Health and Safety; and Curriculum Emphasis.
In the interest of simplicity, lines showing educational
expectations for the group are not drawn.
13
partly because of a study that preceded this one, not even
non-confidentiel records of Head Start parents and teachers
were made available. One result of this limitation was the
impossibility of making a comparative analysis of the
various groups in the study.
The foregoing factors indicate that although the
investigation was an individual research effort, the
collection of the data was characterized by some of the
problems of group research described by Miller:
The individual researcher confronting group
research is asked to change many research habits
that he may value highly. The change in habits
may be experienced in a set of onerous restric
tions. He may find that he can not choose his
problems, and the problems assigned to him may
require collaborations with others that reduce
still further his area of free movement. . . .
The requirements of expense accounts, security
clearances, permission for entry into the
research fields, "logistic support" (empirical
data) and numerous matters of red tape are often
further irritations. (29:332)
This passage summarizes to an infinite degree many of the
limitations that affected this research. Undeniably many
of these hindrances were also beyond the control of the
project director. The lack of an administrative assistant,
very demanding schedules, plus mutual recognition that any
educational research, however desirable, must necessarily
be subordinate to the learning process of the child, also
limited the thoroughness of this investigation.
14
Assumptions
It is assumed that Head Start parents and teachers
share the responsibility for the preschool child's educa
tion. The home is properly concerned with such areas as
social adjustment, self-control and the ability to stay
reasonably neat and clean. Health and safety are usually
shared between home and school. Curriculum emphases such
as recognition of numbers, identification of colors, names
of objects and the like are assumed to be the just province
of the school: but parents are expected to assist the
school by the informal teaching of these subjects at home.
While there is tacit recognition that the initiation
of the socialization process of the preschool child is still
primarily a home responsibility, the Head Start teachers
stand in loco parentis even more so than is usual in our
society; and in this role they are expected to assume some
additional parental duties.
A final assumption includes the idea that part of
the formal and informal learning process of the Head Start
child could be determined by measuring the responsibilities
stated by those who teach him. Thus it seemed logical to
formulate hypotheses that could be used to investigate the
mutual role expectations and problems of Head Start parents
and teachers.
15
Hypotheses
The study tested the following null hypotheses:
1. There will be no difference in school adjust
ment, body care, and curriculum expectations
of Head Start parents and teachers.
2. There will be no difference in the degree of
recognition by Head Start parents and teachers
that both groups have problems connected with
the program.
Definitions of Terms
"Adjustment," "body care" and "curriculum" are
three of the terms used to categorize the answers from the
interviewees. The other two are "problems" and "no prob
lems." All categorical topics and sub-topics were derived
from the actual statements of the respondents and may be
examined on pages 107-111.
Adjustment. "Adjustment" refers to the general
pattern of school behavior, social adjustment and self-
control manifested by the child at school and at home.
Body care. "Body care" includes health and safety
in and around school and at home; as well as the ability to
handle the fastenings on clothes and shoes.
16
Curriculum. "Curriculum" designates such items as
numbers, colors, sizes, names of objects, activities and
other items that can be considered as subject matter for
‘ preschool children.
Experimental Design and Methodology
Three methods of gathering data for this study were
completed: impressionistic (22:27); unobtrusive or non
reactive (38:v-34); and the collection of information via
a questionnaire. Two impressionistic measures were taken.
The first was the study of the activities of three Head
Start teachers who felt that their parental and community
contacts were their strongest assets. Results were sub
jected to in-depth case analyses by the investigator, and
by two additional behavioral scientists, in order to extract
any information related to the Head Start problems verbally
expressed by these teachers. Cursory findings seemingly
indicated that more pressing problems were verbalized but
not recorded.
The second impressionistic method involved con
trolled observation. By using a system of random numbers
(2:142), thirty Head Start parents were selected from the
research population and subjected to a series of controlled
observations from August 1967 to May 1968. The purpose was
to note any identifiable patterns of informal teaching by
these parents to their preschool children. Correlation
techniques were applied and differences in permissiveness
were noted among three ethnic groups.
Non-reactive measures encompassed the comparison
and analysis of census tract data of the two most deprived
Head Start areas in Pomona (see page 49 and Appendix E).
Empirically treated data included responses to ques
tions regarding the educational expectations and problems of
Head Start parents and teachers. While all three methods
were completed, the major focus of the study (as noted on
page 7) was on the computerized data from the question
naires.
Search for a Suitable Instrument
Pilot studies were conducted in an effort to deter
mine the usefulness of one of the available sociological
scales or indices for this study. The "Minnesota Survey of
Opinion" and the "Community Attitude Scale" were adminis
tered to two groups but neither instrument proved to be
adaptable to this research. The use of a pretested scale
not only would have permitted immediate concentration on the
problem itself, but would have made it possible to avoid a
common weakness often found in social science research:
Too often researchers duplicate instead of
replicate. There are literally thousands of scales
and indices to measure social variables. Social
scientists have often elected to construct new
measures even while scales of high reliability and
validity have been available. This practice is
wasteful of time, energy, and money. (29:95)
18
Attempts to utilize other scales proved equally
unfeasible, so it was necessary to develop an instrument
specifically designed for this study. Additional tests
were made in order to determine the efficacy of using open
or closed ended questions. Results indicated that the open
ended questions best elicited information from the
respondents.
The Questionnaire
The questionnaire in its final form (see next page)
had to be of such a nature that it could be used in a
variety of data-gathering situations. For instance, the
wording had to be amenable to translation into both verbal
and written Spanish as it is spoken by Mexicans and by
Puerto Ricans. It had to be suitable not only for people
possessing a modicum of formal education, but also for
those with advanced degrees. These problems were resolved
by utilizing the same simply worded questionnaire and
prefacing it with a different version of the introductory
letter: thus it was necessary to have five different
letters, three for professionals and two for parents.
Completion of the questionnaire permitted the devel
opment of criteria to be applied to potential respondents
before including them in the sample. These were as follows:
Parents (1) must have had at least one child
enrolled in and attending one of the six Head Start
19
Directions: Check only that which applies to you.
Head Start Teacher ........
Head Start Assistant Teacher
Kindergarten Teacher ....
Parent .....................
Other (please specify) . . .
If you are a parent do you have at least one child
in the Head Start program? ... yes ( ) ... no ( )
Please list in order of preference (in other words your
first, second, and third choices) as to what you think each
of the following people should teach the preschool child
before he enters kindergarten.
PARENTS
1. __________________________________________________________
2 . __________________________________________________
3. _____________________________________________________
HEAD START TEACHERS
1. __________________________________________________________
2 . __________________________________________________
3.
HEAD START ASSISTANT TEACHERS
1. __________________________________________________________
2 . __________________________________________________
3.
What do you think Kindergarten teachers should teach the
children in Kindergarten? List three items.
1. __________________________________________________________
2 . _________________________________________________
3.
What do you consider to be your greatest problem as a parent
or teacher in relation to the Head Start program? _________
( )
(
*
( )
20
classes, (2) must have attended some of the weekly parent-
Head Start teachers meetings and/or maintained personal
contact with the Head Start teachers, and (3) must read,
speak, or write in either English or Spanish or be willing
to have their responses transcribed for them.
Professionals (1) must have had contact with the
children as Head Start or Assistant Head Start teachers; or
as immediate potential teachers in the case of kindergarten
teachers, and (2) if non-teachers, must have been in active
contact with the children and/or parents in the performance
of their professional duties.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
This chapter has given an overview of the general
problems of the educationally disadvantaged child and the
area specified for research treatment plus a cursory look
at the significance, scope and limitations of the study.
Also contained in the chapter is the experimental design
inclusive of the development of the questionnaire, criteria
for inclusion of participants, sampling techniques and
treatment.
Chapter II reviews the legal foundations and legis
lation at the federal and state levels; it surveys some of
the literature, i.e., reports, evaluations and studies,
about Head Start, inclusive of references to selections
from two special sources.
21
Chapter III presents and analyzes the responses of
the Head Start parents and teachers In respect to questions
about educational expectations for themselves and each
other. The chapter also contains a discussion of the Head
Start parents and teachers and the problems they encounter
in relation to the program; an interpretation of the
responses from the non-teaching staff; and the answers of
one group of parents whose replies were "different." The
questionnaire of one kindergarten teacher, whose reaction
to the Head Start program was totally negative, is presented
verbatim.
Chapter IV presents the findings and conclusions as
well as suggestions for future study.
Bibliographical entries are divided into books,
governmental publications, periodicals and unpublished
materials. Nearly all of the sources cited meet at least
one of the following criteria: publication after 1964 with
some recognition of the shared educational roles of Head
Start parents and professionals; or some acknowledgement of
the difficulties of trying to adapt measurement instruments
and techniques designed for more advantaged groups to a
disadvantaged one.
Appendices follow the format of the dissertation
and include special bibliographies extracted from the
Educational Research Investigation Center (ERIC) and from
The Dissertation Abstracts: a numerical model of the
respondents' answers plus maps, census tract data, and
photocharts.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LEGISLATION
AND THE LITERATURE
Embodied in the law and philosophy of American
education is the doctrine known as parens patriae, which,
in essence, means that the sovereign state serves as the
protective father.
Parens Patriae. Father of his country; parent of
the country. In England, the king. In the United
States, the state, as a sovereign— referring to
the sovereign power of guardianship over persons
under disability . . . such as minors and insane
and incompetent persons. (5:1269)
Head Start children are minors; and while Head Start parents
are not personally incompetent, their limited economic
resources, in addition to other factors, have made them
appear so.
In 1965, the state used its "sovereign powers" and
enacted specific legislation designed to counteract the
effects of inadequate preschool learning. This legislation,
known as the Elementary and Secondary School Act (ESSA),
included the establishment of Child Development Centers,
more popularly known as Head Start. "Head Start is an
outgrowth of the Johnson administration's 'War on Poverty'
23
sponsored jointly by the federal and state governments"
'(63:3). !
Federal Leeislation
The federal government has evinced interest in
education at least as far back as the Morrill Act of 1862
(7:62-67), which allocated certain tracts of land to the
states for the development of "land grant colleges" and
similar educational purposes (13:158). The interest in
education by the federal government has broadened to include
elementary and secondary schools.
The Elementary and Secondary
Education Act
The ESEA was signed into law on April 11, 1965 by
the 89th Congress. "It is an Act to strengthen and Improve
educational quality and educational opportunities in the
Nation's elementary and secondary schools" (50:29). The
states and territories may utilize federal resources in
order to improve school programs for educationally disad
vantaged children in low income areas. Funds granted may
be used to establish supplementary services and educational
centers; strengthen state departments of education; and
develop cooperative research projects. Head Start is
administered under the aegis of Title I.
25
Title I
Title I is defined in the federal statutes* as
"Financial Assistance to the Local Education Agencies for'
the Education of Children of Low Income Families ..."
(50:29). Funds and services available under Title I may be
used wherever there are concentrations of educationally
disadvantaged children in order to strengthen public school
programs. The application to the State by the local agency
must include plans for operation and development of the
program, and plans for evaluation and measurement.
While the State Educational Agencies have full
responsibility to see that the mandates of the Act are
carried out, control and administration of the program is
left to the local agency. A National Advisory Council on
the Education of Disadvantaged Children examines the
effectiveness of Title I programs each year, with special
attention to the educational improvement of disadvantaged
children.
Other Titles
Although Head Start operates under the provisions
of Title I, support for the program is also permissible
under five other Titles.
Title II gives "Financial Assistance to Local
*For legislative history of the Act, see page 1446
of Public Law 89-10; 79 Statute 27 (50:29).
26
Educational Agencies for the Education of Children of Low
Income Families" (50:29-43). This means that books and
library resources can be provided for Head Start programs
as well as for the compensatory education programs at higher
grade levels.
Title III permits "establishment of a variety of
'Supplementary Education Centers'" (50:43-49) such as educa
tional parks and specially programmed learning centers.
Title IV is focused on "Educational Research and
Training . . . and makes funds available to institutions,
agencies, organizations and school systems for both indi
vidual and group research" (50:49-52).
Title V allocates "Grants to Strengthen State
Departments of Education . . . for the improvement of
services at the State level of education . . . inclusive
of the exchange of personnel from the State Educational
Agencies and the Office of Education" (50:52-61).
Title VI contains "General Provisions of the overall
terms, . . . restrictions on federal control . . . and rules
regarding use of the funds" (50:61-63).
Federal programs such as those discussed in the
preceding pages are not the only ones designed to help
those at the lowest strata of society. State governments
assisted by grants from the national government also try to
improve the opportunities for the lower-class child.
27
State Legislation
A management study of California's system of
public education conducted by Arthur D. Little, Inc.
[1967] found that the problems and opportunities
facing education in the state were emerging at an
accelerating rate, and that California, as wealthy
as it is, could not meet all educational opportu
nities equally. (83:509)
Fortunately the legal framework of California law
permits the state to not only accept largess from the
national government but allows educational development
within the state itself.
The Education Code (42) is the legal foundation for
educational programs in California. Specific legislation
such as the McAteer and Unruh Acts were designed to
alleviate some of the causes and effects of poor education.
Under certain provisions in these and other acts California
was permitted to receive a grant of $77,886,286 in 1965 to
be allocated to school districts characterized by concen
tration of children from low-income families.
The McAteer Act
The statute for accepting and administering appro
priations for the State Board of Education is known as the
McAteer Act. Funds for initiating compensatory education
programs were also appropriated by California because some
federal grants require "matching" by the State: other
grants can be allocated only if the State has exhausted
its resources.
28
There is hereby appropriated from the General
Fund in the State Treasury for the 1965-66 fiscal
year two million dollars . . . to be expended for
research, development, dissemination of informa
tion, and other activities . . . [for] disadvan
taged minors. . . . The provisions of this Act
shall terminate on June 30, 1965. (42:206-207)
During this interim most preschool programs for disadvan
taged children experienced some budget difficulties until
funded by Title I in September 1965.
The McAteer Act also provided that a district must
have utilized all other sources of funds, both public and
private, and developed plans designed to assist deprived
children between the ages of three and eight to overcome the
handicaps of their environment. It further provides that
expenditures should be directed toward areas where English
is spoken as a second language and toward the use of staff
who are proficient in the primary language.
The Unruh Act
In 1965 the California Legislature appropriated
$2,075,000 which were matched with Federal funds and made
available for preschool programs. This Act, the Unruh Act,
provided intensive services for the young child between
three and seven in an effort to develop better social and
communication skills for successful participation in school
(42:6.450-6.499).
The Unruh Act also supports a growing trend toward
joint sharing of governmental responsibility for the victims
of poverty and poor education._______________________________
29
In 1967 the California State Legislature
authorized the State Department of Social Welfare
to enter into an inter-agency agreement with the
State Department of Education in order to provide
for a number of preschool educational programs
designed to serve disadvantaged children certified
by county welfare departments as eligible. (16:ii)
Summary of the Legislation
National, state and local governments are sharing
the financial and moral responsibilities of cultural and
economic deprivation of the poor, and are seeking to correct
the inadequacies of disadvantaged preschool children by such
programs as Head Start.* Philosophical and legal rationale
for such efforts may be found in the doctrine of parens
patriae, the State Education Code, the McAteer and Unruh
Acts, and the Elementary and Secondary School Act.
Title I of ESEA is particularly designed for
programs similar to Head Start; and Titles II, III, and V
may also be used to enhance this program. Some of the
research studies funded under Title IV have become a part
of the literature about Head Start and many less pretentious
articles and reports have been written about it.
The United States Office of Economic Opportunity
formerly administered Head Start. In 1969 Head Start was
transferred to the United States Department of Health,
Education and Welfare.
30
The Literature
Even though a great many articles and reports about
Head Start have appeared in a variety of professional
journals, much of this material can not properly be classi
fied as research (49:8; 68:591). Investigators collecting
data about Head Start are faced with examining incomplete
(122:3-5) or quasi-controlled studies often written to meet
a required evaluation or provide a rationale for refunding.
While periodic measurements and evaluations are both manda
tory and desirable, many do not offer the kind of methodol
ogy (127:23) appropriate for inclusion in a review of
controlled studies. Yet many of these evaluations and
reports are valuable for basic information about Head Start.
In view of the foregoing reasons, most of the
sources discussed in this section are characterized by at
least two of the following criteria: (1) some use of
scientific methodology, (2) published after 1964, and (3)
specifically focused on Head Start. Related literature in
the general areas of economic and social deprivation is not
included.
Guidelines for Staff
The meagerness of controlled studies about the Head
Start program does not indicate that there are no practical
publications available. Not only does the Office of
Economic Opportunity prepare and distribute publications,
31
but participating agencies also provide materials produced
by local centers. Most of these materials are necessarily
concerned with how to conduct or organize the program or to
present some specific strength or weakness. Some of the
instructional booklets issued by this office are designed
for both functional and theoretical usage. An example of
the theoretical approach is revealed in the following
passage from An Invitation to Hein:
. . . Children living in poverty are subject to
various risks to their health, education, and
welfare. Poverty has its impact on the growing
child from the time of conception. During the
pre-school years the toll becomes more apparent.
Health services are usually inadequate, immuni
zations are frequently incomplete, and physical
problems may go uncorrected, thus handicapping
the child in his adaptation to school. (43:11)
In a more functional vein, this same booklet
includes directions for initiating a Head Start program, the
need to conform to local requirements of health and safety,
staff recruitment and training, and the relation of the
center to the local school system. It is a governmental
mandate that Head Start programs must be evaluated period
ically. The federal law requires:
That effective procedures, including provision for
appropriate objective measurements of education
achievement, will be adopted for evaluating at
least annually the effectiveness of the programs
in meeting the special educational needs of educa
tionally deprived children. (126:B-1)
Therefore, most Head Start studies follow pragmatic research
methodology, and, as such, are usually concerned with
achievement and school readiness. Most of the governmental
32
publications are designed primarily for professionals. For
instance, Points for Parents and Parents Are Needed give
suggestions to the staff for securing parental participa
tion, and information regarding possible rejection or lack
of cooperation on the part of the parent:
Professional staff members contacting parents from
low-income areas for the first time must be prepared
to encounter suspicion, hostility, resentment or
indifference. An invitation to enter children in
the Center may in some way elicit lack of interest
or flat refusal. The only people who visit the
home may be school attendance officers, police, or
others whose missions are not happy ones. In the
face of such visitors, they are quite apt to shut
the door. (44D:7)
Points for Parents and other publications in the series are
also characterized by specific instructions on how to
involve parents in the program. In The Staff, the role of
the parent is stressed in the section captioned, "Work with
Parents":
An essential part of the Child Development Center
program is work with the parents of the young
children in group living. Mo group can take the
place of a child's family. A good group supple
ments family life and strengthens and supports it.
It is imperative that there be concern with, and
staff to make the good experiences of the child's
life in a group one integral part of good twenty-
four hour year-round living. (71-F:15)
In the affluent home, it is difficult to say just where
education begins; in the deprived home, education almost
invariably begins with the school. The middle-class parent
usually instructs his child in informal situations such as
shopping or while performing some home task. He exposes
33
him to more formal learning via private lessons, playground
classes, and camps. The opposite is true of the deprived
child. While education is the means by which the upper
middle class practices the deferred gratification pattern,
it is not true of the lower-class parent, who often views
the school with hostility and resentment but at the same
time recognizes the importance of school.
Nelson Aldrich summarizes the establishment of a
preschool for economically deprived children by describing
the differences in methods and equipment, and the way the
staff feels about parents:
. . . The most effective method of building produc
tive parent-school relationship is to listen to
what the parents themselves are concerned about.
And since the children are at the Center only one
hour a day, the educational program is more than
usually dependent on the cooperation of the parents.
Indeed, this cooperation is absolutely vital.
To date, nursery schools have been typically middle
if not upper class affairs, organized with private
funds and designed more for the needs of harassed
mothers than the intellectual growth of children.
. . . Therefore, at the Children's Center there are
no rest periods, no graham cracker and milk periods,
no prolonged dressing and undressing routines, no
tricycle riding. The focus is intensely and
uniquely on learning. But a corollary of this
emphasis is that the parents themselves must become
teachers, extending the educational "reach" of the
school to the home. (41:20)
In the Urban Review. Nelson Aldrich also noted that:
. .. In the culture of poverty, education occupies
as high a place as in the culture of affluence; but
to the poor, the school--the dispenser of education--
has become an alien institution, perhaps even an
agent of a vaguely hated "welfare imperialism."
34
There is today evidence that educational planners
appreciate the need for more community-oriented
scnools, especially at the preschool level. There,
child education is inseparable from parent education.
Projects such as Operation Headstart, and within the
public school system itself, the new "self-help
clinics" being developed by the United Parents Asso
ciation, all endeavor to open and maintain effective
channels of communication between the classroom and
the home. (41:18)
Evaluative Reports and Summaries
Chula Vista. California
In the summer of 1967 the Chula Vista City School
District prepared an evaluation of its Head Start program.
While no pretense was made to utilize any special measuring
devices the Chula Vista study bears comment from the view
point of this study because the evaluation recognizes the
need to involve parents. It is a practical evaluation
testing the specific strengths and weaknesses and recommen
dation from parents, para-professionals and professional
staff. While tribute and praise are accorded to the
parents, there are no definite statements as to parental
expectations; yet the need to include the parent is revealed
in such objectives as this one: "To involve the parents and
families in order to strengthen and develop home-school
relationships in the best interest of the child" (16:2).
Sacramento. California
The Sacramento Unified District Evaluation indicated
that the children enrolled in the Public School Head Start
35
program (1966-1967) had an average gain of 10.2 between
their pre-test and post-test of the Pre-School Inventory.
However, at that time no meaning or standardization of this
gain had been established. The study also revealed a direct
relationship between the educational level of the mother and
the pre-test scores. The children with both parents in the
home apparently made greater gains than children from one
parent homes. These and other findings were tempered by the
need for further testing and evaluation before suggesting
even tentative norms. The staff felt that the Head Start
experience helped to level off wide variations in degree
of school readiness. The kindergarten teachers' comments
varied from no noticeable differences to marked differences
in social adjustment or kindergarten readiness. Parental
concern increased and home school relations appeared to be
less constrained than before (46:5).
In the 1966 and 1967 Sacramento evaluative reports
additional emphasis was placed on the role of the parent in
understanding the needs of the child; so a variety of
efforts were made to inform the parent of the goals of the
school. No part of either report focused on parental
expectations, but both teachers and parents did evaluate
the effects of the program; therefore some parental opinions
were indirectly included in the evaluations (46:39-43).
36
Los Angeles County
The Office of the County Superintendent of Schools,
under the direction of Robert Chamberlin, published an
evaluation of some behavioral changes in Head Start chil
dren* which indicated:
As has been demonstrated in prior research studies
dealing with children from the culture of poverty,
the results of standardized tests of intelligence
do not show consistent patterns of measurement
with this group . . . and that gross retardation
in verbal behavior is very pronounced. (9:21)
Pomona. California
Most of the early reports from Pomona were concemec
with applications for supplementary services, evaluations
and budget allocations. The Augmented Reading Implementa
tion Project is characterized by meticulous adherence to
governmental requirements. This report, which is really a
profile of efforts to broaden the program, contains appli
cations for supplementary services, financial analyses,
project components, and other governmental requirements.
The inclusion of material of this nature in the project
permits an overall view of the progress and status of the
program during its formative stages. One of the significant
parts in this report was the section entitled, "The Human
Agency 08 [Pomona Head Start Center] was consist
ently average to high in maturity, motor skills and recog
nition of pictures and words, but exhibited no unusual
growth patterns in any area inclusive of community
communications.
37
Relations Progress Report." This report was written in
response to a series of recommendations posed by minority
group parents who were incensed over what was described as
discriminatory practices* in the city schools (134:17B).
Another Pomona report, Parent Education for Low
Income Families, indicated a
. . . great and very special need for help and
support in handling the problems that confront them
daily. Most of these parents are single parents--
mothers— who in addition to resolving the hurt of
their own loneliness and coping with the problems
of raising their children single-handedly must
constantly deal with the frustrations of living on
a limited budget. (136:1)
In an effort to provide some help with these problems,
classes for Head Start parents were established at health
centers, churches and other suitable places. Parents were
enthusiastic about the classes but attendance was poor.
Taking cognizance of the risk of generalization they
noted that the women were characterized by [malaise],
were not meeting oriented, and had transportation
?
roblems. But the enthusiasm of the women and their
nitial efforts to cooperate indicated a better
method of contact was needed. Classes were trans
ferred to the Head Start schools and parents attended
regularly. (136:2)
*In 1968 Pomona was cited by the Feldman Report for
discrimination in the city schools.
38
Summaries and Articles
Head Start in Action is a pragmatic summary of how
to initiate and conduct a Head Start program. It makes no
pretense of being a controlled study but it does include
some interesting anecdotes about various Head Start pro
grams. In the part entitled "Welcoming Parents" (33:35),
there is some discussion concerning valuable contacts and
future involvement, training parents at home in language
improvements, and calling the parent in for conferences.
The section devoted to parent evaluation shows some aware
ness of the parents' role, yet even a school-oriented person
must feel that it is a one-way flow of directions and
questions to the parent with no feed-back to the school.
While this may not be the way Head Start personnel work with
parents, the book indicates otherwise. In brief, Head Start
in Action gives a summary of its program and its profes
sional and lay workers with possibly too much emphasis on
the structured program and professional credits. The sample
questionnaire of parent evaluation of Operation Head Start
(33:226) is very directive, with no open-ended questions
and rather limiting discrete categories. Apparently this
evaluation offered the parent virtually no opportunity to
express an unguided opinion.
Brazziel's article, "Two Years of Head Start,"
summarized the common components of the Head Start program
as____________________________________________________________
39
. . . similarity to nursery and kindergarten patterns
of learning, attention to nutritional needs, provi
sions for total health and efforts to actively
involve parents in the program. He noted that . . .
minimum academic gains from Head Start experience
are coming to be regarded as an increase of 5 to 10
points in I.Q. and 20 to 25 points on school readi
ness tests . . . but cautions that subsequent testing
indicates need for continued supportive programs.
(58:346)
The difficulty of evaluating educational gains of
the educationally deprived child with instruments developed
for the middle-class child has been noted by other research
ers (71:386; 49:8; 68:591) as obstacles to studying Head
Start programs. This situation has been of enough concern
to merit studies specifically focused on this problem (see
ERIC study 025 319 on page 110).
Richard Silberstein18 study, "Can Head Start Help
Children Learn?" conducted under the auspices of the Staten
Island Mental Health Center, concentrated its research
efforts on the development of a curriculum.
It was directed to three major areas: perceptual-
motor, cognitive, and behavioral achievement.
Batteries of tests were used to measure status and
growth in each major area. Tests were administered
at the beginning and at the end of the summer program.
Comparable test batteries were administered in the
fall to these Head Start kindergarten first grade
children and to control groups of Non-Head Start
children. The research was ready for publication in
the spring of 1966. (115:349)
Subsequent examinations of the findings indicate that the
attainment of these goals were somewhat successful. However
this work is strongly oriented toward the medical research
field and leaves some doubt as to the efficacy of its
40
educational value in terms of its Head Start educational
objectives.
Selected Dissertations and Studies
Chandler's comparative study, "Project Head Start
and the Culturally Deprived in Rochester, New York," is
unique in that unlike many researchers, he drew both experi
mental and control groups from the deprived children, thus
helping to guard against the sampling bias of comparing
gains of disadvantaged children with the achievement levels
of advantaged ones. His findings supported the thesis that
the Head Start program did not reach the more severely
culturally deprived families in the areas served (124).
This situation was also noted in a report from the United
States Office of Education (69:537).
Johnson and Palomares1 "A Study of Ecological,
Economic and Social Factors Influencing Parental Participa
tion in Project Head Start" found that lack of communication
was the primary reason for non-participation in the Head
Start program. They found that the use of Spanish-speaking
investigators from the community using a Spanish version of
their interview guide helped to establish better communica
tion (130).
Wolff and Stein's selection and treatment of their
sample in "Study I: Six Months Later" (140) is open to
question; thus the findings may be spurious. The sample,
41 !
drawn from four New York elementary schools on the basis of
"good and bad recruitment records," consisted of 150 Head
Start children who were "matched" with 150 non-Head Start
children. This procedure, plus the utilization of tests,
interviews, and questionnaires, is representative of the
usual research techniques; but closer examination of the
methodology indicates a weakness in the selection of the
Negro and Puerto Rican children. These two groups are
culturally different, and while it is true that all of the
respondents came from one area, it is fallacious to assume
homogeneity when working with Negro and Puerto Rican
children. Residential restrictions force very diverse
minority groups to live in the same neighborhoods. There
is no reason to suppose that the Wolff and Stein sample
represents homogeneity; yet the researchers treat the
sample as if this were true. Others noted similar methodo
logical weaknesses in this study (123, 127).
42
Special Resources
Education Research Information
Center (ERIC)
This title, usually abbreviated to ERIC, [is
the] clearinghouse on Early Childhood Education and
is located at the University of Illinois. This
ERIC was set up by the U.S. Office of Education as
a storage and retrieval agency for all aspects of
early childhood education. (69:389)
The service is a valuable research tool in that the use of
the "scanner"— Recordak: Easamatic Reader— permits rapid
review of materials about Head Start that are already
collected and coded.
The number of notations in ERIC about Head Start
seems to indicate that Head Start research has proliferated
since 1965, especially during the school year 1967-1968, but
analysis of the contents reveals that there is necessary
duplication of entries because of changes in the Head Start
title, joint research efforts and relation to similar
preschool programs. The ERIC "Subject Index" (51:345-346)
has 55 entries under Head Start, but this is an omnibus
listing of reports, evaluations, books, and studies.
The entries in the ERIC "Subject Index" (48:246)
show a clustering pattern around a few areas. Of the 55
studies listed, 14 are designated as evaluative research
reports with no other identifying title or subject. There
are 17 in educational and/or clinical psychology; with an
average of about 4 each in educational guidance,
administration, social work, health science, and method-
ology. There are 3 in sociology and possibly 1 can be
classified in the sociology of education. This rather
arbitrary grouping seems to indicate that few studies in
the sociology of education are available for listing. Yet
the Head Start program falls within the research scope of
this discipline.
Investigators interested in using the resources of
the Educational Research Information Center for information
about Head Start may opt to use either the ERIC-numbered
index of topics listed under "Preschool," or examine the
topics reviewed in the ERIC Abstracts.
The majority of the reports listed in ERIC are not
related to the major emphases of this study, but do provide
some information about a concern common to several of the
studies reviewed in this dissertation: namely, the diffi
culty of trying to adapt measuring instruments and method
ology designed for the more privileged members of society to
a Head Start population.
Dissertation Abstracts
Although Head Start was initiated in 1964 and
legally established in 1965, it was probably a year or more
before some programs were sufficiently organized to permit
research. A search of the Dissertation Abstracts (51)
indicated that the majority of the studies are in Volumes
28 and 29 and are primarily concerned with evaluation and
44
measurement. Reductions in refunding and fever appropria
tions in 1968 and 1969 are possibly reflected in the nature
of these investigations which seem to show a trend toward
applied research.
Summary of the Literature Reviewed
As previously stated, few controlled studies on
Head Start are available. Those that are available are
necessarily restricted in focus partly because of the
requirements for evaluation and partly because of the lack
of proper measuring instruments. Materials reviewed in
this chapter and elsewhere have some common findings.
1. Academic gains for Head Start children are
meager but some educational gaps do close; and there is
greater readiness for learning.
2. There is need to utilize innovative teaching
methods, especially for "subjects" to be inculcated in the
Head Start curriculum.
3. While parents are enthusiastic about better
chances for their children, there is a decided need to
increase parental participation in the learning/teaching
process, and to recognize that the child's interaction with
his family may counteract the advantages gained from Head
Start.
4. There is some resistance to the inclusion of
Head Start in the monolithic structure of the American
45
school system (127).
5. Several reports Indicated that too few private
and parochial school children from poverty backgrounds were
enrolled in Head Start (69:537; 45:5; 49:80).
6. "There is a tendency for interpreters to over
generalize from limited evaluative research on recent
education programs supported by federal funds" (68:591).
7. Finally, there is more than a little concern
over research procedures in relation to studies about Head
Start: improved research methodology must include recogni
tion that instruments and techniques developed for use with
advantaged groups have not proven to be amenable for use
with disadvantaged groups.
CHAPTER III
PROCEDURES AND ANALYSIS
The research methodology of this study embodied the
use of primary and secondary sources, computer processes,
and field study methods. Secondary sources and research
design were discussed in the previous chapters.
The first part of this chapter presents a very
limited amount of the information gleaned via field study.
It includes a list indicating the ethnic distribution in
the Pomona schools, a spatial distribution map of the
project schools, a socio-demographic photochart identifying
the children* of parents from this study, plus census tract
data showing some economic details about the Head Start
areas (also see pages 132-133).
The second, and most important, part of this chapter
covers the processing and interpretation of the data
gathered from the Head Start parents and professionals who
took part in this study.
*The Head Start children are the "shiny" pins in
the map on page 52.
46
47
Two Pomona Surveys
Prior to the establishment of the Head Start program
in Pomona, two surveys were made in an effort to determine
which communities in Pomona had the greatest need for a Head
Start program. The first survey was a joint effort of a
community group and a college group.
Survey No. 1
In a survey made in August 1965 by the Community
Witness Committee of the Claremont School of Theology and
the Pomona NAACP, residents were asked to tell which of the
community services listed on a questionnaire were badly
needed, and which ones were not necessary. The results of
the survey indicated that of the 51 services listed, 41
services were needed less than child care facilities; and
only 10 services were felt to be needed more than were
nursery and child care centers (133:1-10).
Survey Ho. 2
Before the Head Start program was initiated, the
Pomona Unified School District conducted a survey in
November 1965, in order to determine the percentage of
Anglos, Mexican-Americans, Orientals, and Afro-Americans
enrolled in the Pomona public schools. One of the purposes
of this survey was to determine which schools had the
highest percentage of deprived children.
r
48
TABLE 1
POMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT SURVEY
(November 15, 1965)
School
P e r c e n t a g e s of:
White
Mexican
American Oriental Negro Other
Ganesha 94.67 8.00 .33 7.00
Garey 66.00 22.00
-
12.00
Pomona 94.1 1.5 .2 4.2
Emerson 97.6 1.8 .2 .4
Fremont 67.5 21.6 .4 10.5
(Marshall) 83.0 7.7
- 9.3
Palomares 86.5 2.0 .5 11.00
Alcott 82.93 15.72 1.35
-
Allison 94.08 4.44 .89 .59
(Arroyo) 53.00 9.00 .5 37.5
Golden Springs 100.00
- - -
(Hamilton) 27.0 56.0
- 17.0
Harrison 93.1 6.38 .52
-
.34
Kellogg 88.3 7.46 .51 3.39
Kingsley
Lexington
Lincoln
96.28
35.96
3.0
13.88
.6
1.26
.12
48.9
96.55 3.23 .22
-
(Madison) 32.0 47.0 1.0 20.0
Montvue 97.16 2.0 .67 .17
(No. S.A.) 42.26 2.23 .56 54.95
Philadelphia 89.09 10.70 .21
-
Roosevelt 74.72 24.53
-
.75
San Jose 94.47 3.36 .79 .79 .59
(Washington) 66.28 32.57 .20 .95
Westmont 93.06 6.19 .75
-
Yorba 96.8 1.9 1.3
49
TABLE 2
EDUCATIONAL AND INCOME LEVELS FROM THE 1960 CENSUS EXTRACT
FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Census
Tract Head Start Whites Non-Whites
No. School Male Female Male Female
4021 NSA* 3120 3232 22 24
4022 Arroyo 1827 1941 15 5
4026 Washington 2807 3323 26 8
4025
4025
Hamilton
Madison
3470 263 277
4030 Lexington 1939 1972 85 52
Non-white population in Tract No. 4025 in 1960 - 540
Hamilton and Madison, two 9chool areas in 4025
Education: Md. 10.9 Financial
260 years of school completed 125 families
03 no school years 08 under 1000
09 1-4 17 1000 - 1999
35 5-7 07 2000 - 2999
48 08 21 3000 - 3999
55 1-3 years high school 22 4000 - 4999
78 4 years high school 22 5000 - 5999
22 1-3 column 13 6000 - 6999
10 4+ 07
04
• •
7000 - 7999
8000 - 8999
9000 - 9999
04 10,000 and over
*North San Antonio
50
On the basis of these two surveys, plus other
related socioeconomic information, six elementary schools
were designated for Head Start programs.
Locale of the Project Schools
While collecting data, parents and teachers often
verbalized about feeling geographically and socially
isolated. Parents in particular said they had difficulty
getting downtown; and one mother from a very isolated Head
Start area said she "wished the teacher would start a
mothers' club— or something." (This was prior to the estab
lishment of classes at the Head Start schools as discussed
in Chapter II.) Examination of the map of Pomona and the
locale of the Head Start schools reveals some support for
these feelings of isolation.
Arroyo School is located in a former war housing
development, surrounded by freeways and arterial highways,
and is cut off from the main life of the city. While the
area to the west contains the country club and golf ranges,
it is safe to assume that, because of economic and social
deprivation, this recreational area is not available to the
residents of Arroyo Village. All sights and sounds of this
low-income area are muffled by the constant hum of the
menacing San Bernardino Freeway and the green expanse of
the fairways. The isolation is completed by the conver
gence of Holt and Orange Grove Avenues. In short, Arroyo
FIGURE
MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF POMONA CITY SCHOOLS
POMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
• IT
Legend
Elementary
Jr. High S chool
High Schools
E ducation Center
1 « • !!•« •
2 G «**ik« N S
3 tta rtk a ll Jr H
I) Palaaaraa Jr
<3 Paaaaa H S
23 Garay H S
24 PM adelefcte IS Maatvaa 4 ia a ta » a lr
• Itacahi
* Saa Jeta
>4 K ia ftla y
• r E s ta te * Ceaier
n . y
2S. Galdea Sacra*'.
34 Cata Cafcea
2T Allitaa
24 Saaaat Jr . N $
39 Tarto
Ul
FIGURE 4
HEAD START ENROLLEES
53 j
is a "pocket poverty community."
North San Antonio is almost encapsulated by high
ways. Arrow Highway, Towne Avenue and the familiar San
Bernardino Freeway isolate it, not only from the main slip
stream of town life, but from other project schools as well.
The four other project schools are literally on the
"other side of the tracks." Three of these four schools lie
within the triangle made by the Corona Freeway, Garey Avenue
and the railroad. Lexington School is the farthest removed
from the informal areas of learning such as the main
library, but at least it is close to three other project
schools. Washington is almost as isolated as Arroyo because
of the business district, the park, and Towne Avenue. While
Madison and Hamilton are not too far removed from parks and
seats of learning, they too lie well within the aforemen
tioned triangle.
Empirical Procedures
To test the significance of some of the educational
expectations and problems informally stated by Head Start
parents and teachers it was necessary to examine them
empirically. Therefore, formal methodological procedures
were Initiated with the administering of the questionnaire.
Administering the Questionnaire I
The questionnaire with the appropriate letter
explaining the purpose of the study was administered to the
respondents in a variety of ways. Some parents were given
the material at one of their weekly meetings; others
received it at home or when they brought their children to
Head Start classes. Professionals received theirs at school
meetings or directly from the investigator. Most of the
teachers returned their questionnaires to the project
office; those of the parents and non-teaching staff were
personally collected by the researcher.
Although the responses to the interview questions
possibly could have been written in about twenty minutes,
nearly all of the parents, and some of the teachers, took
about an hour to answer. Quite often the interviewees said
they wanted to "think about what they wrote." Because the
language of the participants, with almost no editing, was
retained, responses were not classified and categorized
until all questionnaires were in. No one refused to take
part in the study and there were no incomplete question
naires, but there were some difficulties.
Seemingly all professionals and parents were cooper
ative, but inherent in the very nature of the sample were
components that apparently controlled the rate of returns.
One of these concerned the collecting of data from parents.
Early in the process of collecting data it became apparent
that the major difficulty would be in securing the necessary
{responses from the parents. Conversely, there was little
difficulty in getting answers from the professional staff, j
The higher the educational level taught, the sooner the
information was made available. Responses from kindergarten
teachers and Head Start teachers were returned immediately
or were easier to obtain than those of assistant Head Start
teachers. The parents were the last to answer and in some
cases follow-up was required. All but one of the non
teaching professional staff answered immediately and all
seemed more aware of the need for research than the teaching
staff. This same general pattern was manifested irrespec
tive of how the material was obtained.
Processing the Data
The questionnaires from the respondents were divided
into two major groups: parents and professionals, with the
latter further divided into teaching and non-teaching staff.
All of the answers were coded according to content, placed
in one of five categories and subjected to computer
processing (see Table 3).
J L
The elaborated set of categories and answers are
on pages 117-120.
! 56
i
TABLE 3
1 MAJOR CATEGORIES AND CODE NUMBERS OF THE RESPONSES
Code Category
100 or I School and/or Social Adjustment
200 or II Body Care, Health and Safety
300 or III Curriculum Emphases
400 or IV No Problem
500 or V Problem
The Five Categories Delineated
Category I or 100. School and/or Social Adjustment,
includes all numbers in the 100 series and designates some
form of desirable social behavior such as respect for
teachers and classmates, self-respect and feelings toward
society.
Category II or 200. Body Care, encompasses all of
the numbers in the 200 series and includes personal hygiene,
neatness, health and safety.
Category III or 300. Curriculum. Curiosity and
Creativity, covers the range of numbers in the 300 series.
These numbers itemized curriculum emphases and are focused
on the subject areas of arithmetic, science, social studies,
music and art forms, environment, and so on.
Category IV or 400. No Problem, refers to the
57
expression such as "none" or "nothing" written in answer to j
a question as to whether the respondent had a major problem
connected with the Head Start program.
Category V or 500 alludes to a description or iden
tification of a major Head Start problem written by an
interviewee.
All five categories were derived from the actual
statements of the respondents. All topics and sub-topics
are the results of pooling and classifying answers after
the data were collected, thus helping to guard against the
intrusion of ideas of others. Except for corrections in
spelling, the style and essence of the language of parents
and professionals were retained. Other than awkwardness in
grammatical structure there was little variation in the
choice of expressions between parents and professionals.
Difficulties in articulation stemmed from possible
embarrassment over language handicaps rather than inability
to express thoughts. For those of Mexican heritage who
hesitated in answering, a few words in Spanish helped the
person to feel more comfortable in using two languages
interchangeably. One father agreed to talk when he was
assured that his English was no worse than the investiga
tor's Spanish. Two parents, whose speech was characterized
by a heavy dialect, were able to respond more freely when
they realized that their "Charlestonese" was understood by
one of the research assistants. One lady from the Bayou,
58
i
whose speech patterns included a combination of Cajon French
i
and colloquial Spanish, agreed to have her answers recorded
once she understood that her language pattern posed no
particular difficulty to her interviewer.
Identification Numbers
Identification numbers were assigned to the partic
ipants as follows:
TABLE 4
GROUP IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS OF THE PARTICIPANTS
Group Number Occupation
Parents 001-075 Parents
Teachers 076-085 Head Start Teachers
086-092 Assistant Head Start Teachers
093-111 Kindergarten Teachers
Non-teaching Staff 112-113 Registered Nurses
114-115 Social Workers
116-117 Administrators
The coded answers from the two groups (parents and
professionals) were programmed for input data. Results or
output data were subjected to chi square limits; and null
hypotheses were accepted or rejected according to a confi
dence level of 5 per cent.
Condensation of the Data
Into a Numerical Chart
In addition to computer treatment the responses of
the interviewees, plus their vocational identification, were
inculcated into a numerical chart. The chart (pages 122-
127) is used in conjunction with the elaborated outline of
the five categories (pages 117-120), and permits quick
comparison of the answers from parents and professionals.
The Analysis
The analysis presented in the following pages is
based on the first, second and third educational choices
for each other, as expressed by the Head Start parents and
professionals. The latter part of the discussion covers
the major Head Start problems experienced by the partici
pants in this study.
For convenience and ease in reading, some results
have been put into tables; and abbreviations have been kept
to a minimum. Nevertheless, some abbreviations had to be
used and are identified below and also at strategic places
throughout the dissertation (see Table 5).
60
TABLE 5
ABBREVIATIONS FOR THE OCCUPATION OF THE PARTICIPANTS
Abbreviations Original Words
PAR or P Parent or parent surrogate
HST or H Head Start teacher
AHS or A Assistant Head Start teachers
HGT or K Kindergarten teachers
PHAK Parents, Head Start, Assistant Head
Start, Kindergarten teachers
The analysis of the responsibilities and problems
of parents and professionals is presented in three different
ways: those who prefer discourse with the simplest use of
figures would naturally read the pages immediately follow
ing; those who find simple numbers and symbols more
palatable would best concentrate on the previously mentioned
charts and outlines; and those more attuned to statistical
computations may wish to study the computer "print-outs"
which are available upon written request.
j Analysis of the First Choices of PHAK
i
< Respondents were asked to state their first, second,
and third choices for educational expectations for each
other. In other words, what did parents and teachers
expect each other to teach the Head Start child?
School Adjustment
Parents and teachers apparently are in agreement as
to areas of importance in regard to school adjustment, body
jcare, and curriculum. Irrespective of first, second or
third choices the majority of parents and teachers selected
social adjustment and curriculum emphases for each other and
themselves, almost to the exclusion of hygiene, body care,
health and safety. Out of 75 parents, 68 per cent selected
school adjustment as their first responsibility; 80 per cent
of the Head Start teachers and 57 per cent of the kinder
garten teachers selected this category as the number one
obligation for themselves. However, only 28 per cent of
the assistant Head Start teachers saw social adjustment as
their primary role. This same pattern— a penchant for
social adjustment and curriculum emphasis— also held true
when the parents and teachers were making selections for
each other.
Twenty-six per cent of the parents saw social
adjustment as the first responsibility of the kindergarten
teacher; 42 per cent gave it top priority for assistant
Head Start teachers; and 45 per cent saw it as the major
task of the Head Start teacher. Only 57 per cent of the
{Head Start teachers view school adjustment as a first choice
for kindergarten teachers; while 70 per cent of Head Start
teachers see it as the first responsibility for the assist
ant teacher. Forty per cent of the Head Start teachers
consider social adjustment as a number one responsibility
for parents and 42 per cent of the assistant Head Start
teachers selected this category for the kindergarten
jteacher. The remainder of the educational responsibilities
that the respondents expect each other to assume can be
easily compared by examining the charts on pages 122-127.
Curriculum
In the affluent homes most parents begin to help
their preschool children with beginning numbers, letters of
the alphabet, names of objects and phone numbers, and so on,
as soon as the children seem able to grasp the concepts.
The reverse is often true in the deprived home with few
parents seeing school work as part of the role of the
parent. A reversal of roles seems to have taken place
judging from the choices of the kindergarten teachers at
least as far as their choices for first educational respon
sibility is concerned. Of the 19 kindergarten teachers,
7 selected curriculum emphasis as their first responsibil
ity, while 53 parents out of 75 considered it as the
kindergarten teacher’s first obligation.___________________ _
63
Only 12 parents selected curriculum or subject
matter as first choice for themselves, 35 listed it as
j |
first for the Head Start teacher, and 39 said it was the |
responsibility of the assistant Head Start teacher. Only
12 other parents stated that curriculum emphases, such as
spelling and numbers, were a responsibility for themselves;
and only 2 Head Start teachers and 5 assistant Head Start
teachers gave subject matter as their top priority. The
other choices for curriculum emphasis may also be examined
in the appropriate sections of the condensation chart on
pages 117-120.
Patterns in Social Adjustment
and Curriculum Choices
In the social adjustment category selections for the
respondents per group allocating the responsibilities
indicate that social training and responsibility are areas
of decided emphasis by parents and professionals. A similar
pattern of emphasis emerged in curriculum emphasis except
the items in the curriculum are less concentrated. More
than 100 respondents selected business and community
environment as areas of prime responsibility for all
concerned, but when parental choices were separated from
professional choices a decided preference for English,
music, art, arithmetic and social studies emerged as the
preferred areas of emphasis that teachers should stress.
All of the subject matter areas were selected In
'some degree by parents, but business and community environ- :
! j
iment were cited least. A relatively high percentage of j
professionals listed business and community environment as
a major emphasis for teachers, but few parents thought of
these areas as a parental responsibility. In fact, compara
tively few Head Start parents see Informal education as part
of their responsibility. Only 51 parents (actually only 17
when first, second and third choices are considered) cited
i
such items as vocabulary, numbers and music as parental
responsibilities. j
Bodv Care
The most notable deviation from the societal view
point is that which appeared regarding the care of the body
inclusive of hygiene, health and safety. (The reader is
urged to review this category on page 118). While these
areas are generally accepted as being the province of the
hone, apparently the four groups (FHAK) either do not
consider it as anyone's prime responsibility or it is so
taken for granted this category received little attention.
Of 75 parents, only 12 gave body care as a first
choice, 12 considered it as second choice, and 18 as a
third choice in their selections for themselves. The Head
Start teachers selected body care only once for first choice
and none at all for either second or third choices. The
I 65 i
! \
assistant Head Start teachers did not give it a single vote .
for any of the three choices for themselves. This category
also drew a zero from the kindergarten teacher. In short,
out of a possible 1,404 choices, only 138 choices were made
in the body care, health and safety category for all
respondents combined. In relation to body care, the fre
quency distribution indicated two patterns: blurring of
parental roles and teacher roles in the area of social
adjustment; and the lack of stated emphasis on body care,
health, and safety.
In summation, while there may be some crossing or.
blending of roles in relation to social adjustment and
curriculum between parents and teachers, both groups agree
in their mutual disregard of the relative stated importance
of body care, health, and safety.
In essence, this means that the teachers, inclusive
of Head Start teachers, are assuming, or have had relegated
to them, more and more traditional parental roles. While
they themselves state social and/or school adjustment as
part of their major responsibility, Head Start parents do
not see curriculum emphasis as part of parental responsi
bility. In other words, while the parents are apparently
willing to have teachers accept social adjustment as a
first responsibility, they do not see any part of subject
matter as an obligation of the home. Assistant Head Start
teachers, who more than the Head Start teachers stand in
loco parentis, do not see themselves as close to the parent ,
as do the professionally trained Head Start teachers.
! Since the assistant Head Start teachers are partly selected
jfor their affinity with the community this finding may be
of some import to the Head Start staff.
TABLE 6
SUMMATION OF PARTICIPANTS' EDUCATIONAL EXPECTATIONS
Code Category Frequency Per Cent
100 School Adjustment 616 43.87
200 Body Care 138 9.83
300 Curriculum 650 46.30
1,404 100.00
These frequencies and percentages indicate the
close similarity between school adjustment and curriculum.
The chi square values in Table 7 show these choices to be
non-significant at the .05 level, thereby accepting
Hypothesis 1. Apparently there is agreement between
parents and teachers concerning educational expectations
for each other at least as far as school adjustment and
curriculum are concerned.
This hypothesis stated that there will be no
difference in school adjustment, body care, and curriculum
expectations of Head Start parents and teachers.__________
TABLE 7
SUMMATION OF CHI SQUARE VALUES FOR
EDUCATIONAL EXPECTATIONS
Role Choices Chi Square .05
PAR 1st 2.458 NS
PAR 2nd 1.328 NS
PAR 3rd 3.078 NS
HST 1st 2.615 NS
HST 2nd 4.946 NS
HST 3rd .987 NS
AHS 1st .227 NS
AHS 2nd .353 NS
AHS 3rd 3.617 NS
KGT l8t 7.122 NS
KGT 2nd .302 NS
KGT 3rd 2.282 NS
Educational expectations of PAR >67.6
Educational expectations of Prof •32.4
Degrees of freedom - 2
N - 111
68 ,
A Selected Example of Impressionistic Data
Impressionistic studies are informal descriptive
and analytic accounts based on observations which are
less fully controlled than in more formal studies.
. . . No matter how elaborate, carefully planned, and
systematically conducted a study may be, if the
recorded data consist of the impressions of the
observer, it is classed as an impressionistic study.
. . . Impressionistic studies are highly useful in
social science. They provide many hypotheses and
research leads, and suggest many insights which might
be overlooked by other methods. (22:z7)
Ethnic Variation
This group which was also included in the statis
tical processes was composed of six parents whose Spanish
conversation had a Puerto Rican accent and who identified
themselves as Mexican-Spaniards rather than the usual
Mexican-Americans. One father also described himself
verbally by saying in a mixture of Spanish and English:
"Remember I am poor but I am a Mexican Caballero." The
difference in accent was noted by an Anglo research assist
ant who had lived in Cuba until he was fourteen years old.
His observation was corroborated by his partner, a native
Puerto Rican college student who lives in the barrio in Los
Angeles, and who also recognized the Spanish as "different."
The answers from this small group of Puerto Rican parents
vary from those of most of the other parents.
These parents (refer to 042-048 on page 124) have a
response pattern that differs from the others in showing
more emphasis on religion, love, affection, and brotherhood
of man. Their answers also indicated that they felt that
the teachers manifested overt prejudice toward their
{cultural values but not necessarily toward the people them
selves. In addition, this group listed most of their
problems as being in the areas of conflicting behavior and
ethnic problems than did other small groups within the
sample. A final uniqueness: only one of the seven did not
list at least one choice in the body care category, and the
remaining six parents accounted for nine choices in body
care and health. In essence, this small group contributed
more than its "share" of the percentage of the body care,
health, and safety category.
Non-Teaching Professionals
The previously mentioned non-teaching professionals
are the two social workers, two public health nurses, and
two administrators. The responses of this small sub-group
are shown in columnar form for comparison of answers (see
Table 8). Remember that the word "administrator" does not
refer to the director of the project, but to the elementary
principal and the administrative supervisors who partici
pated in this study.
Recalling that the one hundreds refer to school
and/or social adjustment, the two hundreds to body care,
and the three hundreds to curriculum, it can be seen that
the two social workers are in disagreement. Their second
TABLE 8
COMPARISON OF ANSWERS* OF NON-TEACHING PROFESSIONALS
SOCIAL WORKERS NURSES ADM. SUPV.
PaIr”¥I Pair M Pair £3
1st 330 )( 132 110
(
130 112 ( 331
1st 113 )( 342 113
)
300 112 ( 230
1st 100 )( 342 110
(
113 112 ) 113
1st 360 () 330 300
)
113 110 ( 335
2nd 210 () 220 113
(
111 210
( 111
2nd 300 () 311 100
(
113 210 ) 220
2nd 362 () 361 113
(
122 210 ( 360
2nd 300 () 311 122
)
300 300 ) 300
3rd 221 )( 330 131
)
211 300 ( 230
3rd 331 () 341 122
)
370 300 ( 230
3rd 331 () 341 210
)
330 300 ) 311
3rd 360 () 340 110
)
370 300 ) 370
*0 ■ agreement of choices; )( ■ disagreement of choices.
100 School and social adjustment
200 Body care, health and safety
300 Curriculum
71 !
I
and third choices for all four occupations are either from
the curriculum or school adjustment series; with the actual
count showing five choices in curriculum, and three in
school adjustment. Four of their second choices for parents
and teachers are in curriculum and two are in body care;
with the third choices for parents, Head Start and kinder
garten teachers also showing a preference for curriculum and
body care. This indicates that the choices of the social
workers are oriented toward school adjustment and curricu
lum, thus showing the same preferences as the majority of
the parents and teachers.
Public health nurses, like the social workers, also
lean toward the social adjustment and curriculum categories.
While there are conflicting choices between these two
series, there is the usual pattern of exclusion of body
care, health and safety in favor of school adjustment and
curriculum. Out of a possible 24 selections only 2 of the
nurses were in body care and both of these came from public
health nurse number two, while 15 were in the area of school
adjustment. Since the contacts of the public health nurse
and the social worker are on a non-teaching basis, it should
be noted that their answers also indicate a preference for
school adjustment and curriculum. Apparently there is as
much consistency in educational expectancy for body care,
health and safety and curriculum among the non-teaching
professionals as there is in the sample at large.
A special word of caution is in order when examining)
the responses of the two administrators. One is a principal
interested in the Head Start program as part of the educa-
tive process who made himself available for both oral and
written interviews. This same principal was described by
the Head Start and kindergarten teachers, as well as other
school staff, as being particularly effective in his role as
an elementary principal.
The second administrator is better designated as a
supervisor in elementary education. For some reason she
seemed fearful of writing her exact title so the agreed-
upon term was "supervisor." Both administrators were more
positive in their statements about the importance of body
care, health and safety than were the teachers and parents.
However, the principal saw school adjustment as the major
duty for all concerned. For second choice the supervisor
selected hygiene for parents and Head Start teachers, and
curriculum for the kindergarten teachers. The supervisor
indicated at least one choice in the health series for all
four groups: parents, Head Start teachers, assistant Head
Start teachers and kindergarten teachers. There is less
agreement between the two administrators, who are not
actually "matched" in occupation or contact with the chil
dren, than there is between the nurses and social workers.
Neither the principal nor the supervisor were directly
concerned with the program, but unlike other administrators
" 73 i
I
encountered these two stated verbally that they were very
aware that the Head Start children would eventually be
enrolled in their schools.
A Unique Response
Of all of the respondents contacted, one kindergar
ten teacher's answers were so different that they could not
be classified with the others. However, she qualified for
inclusion in the study because she answered all of the
questions, and met the previously stated criteria. Her
responses varied from those of the other interviewees to a
marked degree. Although she did not state a specific prob
lem (she felt that the entire Head Start program was a
problem), the negative tone of her answers made it necessary
to add a new item to the "problem" category. Thus "complete
rejection of the program" was added to the responses.
Obviously she felt that only kindergarten teachers and
parents should be included in the educative processes of
the very young, and that the entire Head Start program was
a waste of time.
The reader is reminded that some of the Head Start
teachers have been kindergarten teachers and all are regis
tered California elementary teachers employed by the Pomona
Unified School District. If this kindergarten teacher
(respondent 118) were provided with additional help, it
would be interesting to know if her answers would be as
7 4 !
anti-Head Start as they were at the time of her interview, j
Respondent No. 118*s answers are recorded exactly
as they were stated on the questionnaire.
Directions: Check only that which applies to you.
Head Start Teacher
Head Start Assistant Teacher
Kindergarten Teacher
Parent
Other (please specify)
If you are a parent do you have at least
one child in the Head Start program?
Please list in order of preference (in other words your
first, second, and third choices) as to what you think each
of the following people should teach the pre-school child
before he enters kindergarten.
PARENTS
113 1. "Respect of other people's rights and property."
Ill 2. "How to behave and control himself."
360 3. "Many language enrichment experiences."
HEgD START TEACHERS
0 2. "Absolutely nothing."
0 3.
HEAD START ASSISTANT TEACHERS
0 1.
0 2. "Nothing— This program is another example of the
0 3. wasteful government spending of the taxpayer's
money."
What do you think kindergarten teachers should teach the
children in kindergarten? List three items.
100 1. "First of all, I think the age limit of the
kindergarten child in Calif. should be upped to 5
by Sept. 15th. They're pushing children in school
too young. With all the pressures in the world
today, a child needs to be a child as long as he
can.
300 2. Then we can give a broader reading, math and social
science readiness program.
130 3. Fine tune his social behavior and develop a love of
school and all the wonders it opens up for him."
|What do you consider to be your greatest problem as a parent
lor teacher in relation to the Head Start program?
i
| 527 "See above, waste of time of Head Start personnel!"
!
Apparently this kindergarten teacher sees the entire
Head Start program as a problem.
The Nature of the Problems Stated
bv the Respondents
The majority of the parents and teachers cited a
major problem related to the program. Only one of the Head
Start teachers expressed concern over the length of time
the program might be in existence. Either all other
respondents see the continuity of the program as a fait
accompli, or it is not a major problem with anyone else.
Two kindergarten teachers listed a need for additional
staff, inclusive of an assistant director and teaching
aides for kindergarten teachers as problems. While other
professionals indirectly stated the need for more staff in
some of the first, second, and third choices for educational
responsibility, these two teachers were articulate and
specific to this end. Other kindergarten teachers expressed
the need for an assistant director and/or a consultant who
could offer more in-service training for the Head Start
teachers.
Four kindergarten teachers, one parent, and one Head
Start teacher were concerned with intra-school articulation
and communication. Although the pressure of record keeping ,
was mentioned several times by teaching and non-teaching
i
staff during verbal exchanges, only two teachers listed
record keeping as a major problem. Of the problems which
seemed more or less isolated, possible rejection was cited
by only five parents and no professionals. This problem is
in the area of prejudice and/or lack of knowledge of sub
cultural differences. These five parents included one
Negro, one Anglo and three Mexicans. Only the Anglo mother
used the word "prejudice"; the other four mothers used a
variety of descriptive phrases such as "not approving of the
way we do things." However, their qualifying remarks
described a feeling of rejection of their social class
rather than an ethnic prejudice, or perhaps a lack of aware
ness on the part of the professionals of the sub-cultural
differences of the parents' life styles. All five parents
stressed in some way that the teachers, "and I also mean
the assistant teachers" as one parent wrote, "are teaching
them to do the right thing in school but we are teaching
them the wrong way at home." Three other parents said in a
variety of ways, "There should be classes for parents that
will teach us how they are teaching the children to behave
so we won't get after them when they come home for doing
what is right at school." These eight parents also
expressed in some way the idea that they were not criticiz
ing the teachers but themselves for not knowing the right
77
things.
Problems concerned with transportation and schedul-
t
ing were stated several times by both parents and profes
sionals. Nine parents described difficulties in getting
the children to and from school, and seven of these have
conflicting home-school schedules with other children.
This necessitated awakening babies and caring for them in
order that the Head Start child could be taken to school.
Other parents said that the time schedule conflicted with
the schedules of other children of school age. One Head
Start teacher and her assistant noted that the tardiness of
the parents in delivering the children required her to have
to repeat or omit some activity for a late arrival.
A kindergarten teacher felt that the scheduling isolated
the Head Start teacher from interaction with the other
teachers, thereby preventing exchange of professional
information even though the kindergarten teachers would
receive many of the Head Start children in their classes
the following semester.
Perhaps the problem about conflicting behavior
patterns should be considered in conjunction with possible
cultural prejudices previously discussed in connection with
lack of sub-cultural awareness. Fifteen parents, two
assistant Head Start and three kindergarten teachers listed
this area as their major problem. This also includes
conflicting behavior patterns of the child in relation to
78
school and home, the child's fear of being left alone with- |
out his mother, and both the child's and the mother's fear
of the school situation. One parent wrote that she was a
"little unhappy in the parents' meeting because the social
worker made her feel as ignorant as one of the Head Start
teachers did." Two parents said they "felt bad about leav
ing the children behind for strangers to raise," but knew
that the teachers "did the best they could for them."
The greatest degree of similarity of recognition of
problems between parents and teachers apparently fell in
the area of lack of parental support. Here the three groups
directly concerned with the Head Start child recognized this
as a major problem. Of the parents and professionals who
stated problems, 17.3 per cent of the parents, 50 per cent
of the Head Start teachers, and 42.9 per cent of the assist
ants listed such things as lack of parental support, poor
communication, weak articulation between home and school,
and the teacher's lack of recognition of the parental role
as major areas of concern. Six stated that the lack of
parental support was the greatest problem for teachers and
parents. These parents thought that if more parents
attended the meetings and got their children to school on
time the teachers could do more with the children. Four of
the five Head Start teachers and three of the assistant
Head Start teachers gave lack of parental support as their
major problem.
79 S
i
Three parents listed lack of recognition of the
parents' role as a problem but, like the teachers, felt
ithat it was best for the child. In other words, while
there was some recognition of the loss of parental function
inherent in the structure of the program, both parents and
teachers apparently recognize that to a great degree the
doctrine of parens patriae (the state is the father) must
necessarily prevail if the educational gap between the
{advantaged and disadvantaged child is to diminish.
Significant Differences of the
Problems Recognized
In summary, when lack of parental support, conflict
ing behavior patterns and the possibility of latent preju
dice are combined, a probable lack of awareness of sub
cultural differences emerges as a major problem for both
parents and teachers. This suggests a focal point for
initiating the solution to some of the parental and profes
sional problems in the Head Start Project. One way to
begin is to examine the differences in recognition of Head
Start problems by parents and professionals; and to ascer
tain if these differences are significant.
Differences in Recognition of Problems
The differences between kinds of problems stated
are sharpened when analyzing the answers of parents and
professionals separately. If the problems of parents and
professionals are examined group by group, the differences
do not seem as acutely delineated. Perhaps this may be due
to a kind of role continuity from parent to assistant Head
Start teacher to Head Start teacher. However, examination
of the answers of parents and professionals reveals a lack
of awareness of the problems faced by each other. Yet
parents and teachers are working with the same children
during their preschool years. Even the assistant Head Start
teacher, \dio may be considered the liaison person between
mother and Head Start teacher, sees herself as much closer
(
to the professional teachers than to the parent; and sees
her Head Start problems as school based rather than commu
nity based. This may mean that the chasm between home and
school is not being bridged in the area of program problems.
Comparison of the problems of the two groups—
parent8 and professionals— shows that problems specifically
related to poor communication are worthy of special note.
Of the 21 persons listing conflicts related to parent,
child and teacher as major problems, 61.9 per cent were
parent8 and 38.1 per cent were professionals. The same
pattern appears in weak parental support and fear of new
situations. Fifteen parents and three teachers evinced
concern over such things as poor communication, lack of
mutual support, recognition of roles, and conflicting
behavior patterns of the child.
81 i
Significance of the Differences
Hypothesis 2 stated that there will be no differ
ences in the degree of recognition by Head Start parents
and teachers that both groups have problems connected with
the program.
Figures show that 41.3 per cent of the parents and
22.2 per cent of the teachers indicated no problem; con
versely, 58 per cent of the parents and 77.8 per cent of
the teachers have a major problem connected with the
project. The difference of 19.1 per cent shows that more
professionals stated problems than parents. A chi square
value of 3.898 with one degree of freedom rejects the null
hypothesis at the .05 level (3.841 at .05 accepts). Hence
there is a difference at a slightly significant level
between parents and teachers in regard to whether they have
problems with the Head Start program. In addition, analysis
of the problems indicates that parents and professionals
are unaware of the nature of each other's problems; yet
these same problems directly affect the children with whom
each group is working.
It is to be expected that parents and teachers
would have different problems. Perhaps it is also to be
expected that they should have some awareness of Head Start
problems in general, if not the specific problems of each
other. However, when the difference between recognition of
Head Start problems by parents and teachers is tested for
significance at the .05 level with nine degrees of freedom
and a chi square value of 22.408, the difference is signif
icant: therefore hypothesis 2 is rejected.
Summarily stated, both professionals and non-
I
professionals are in general agreement about educational
expectations for each other even though this agreement
allocates more of the responsibility for rearing the child
to the teachers. Conversely, the majority of these two
groups not only are unaware of the nature of problems faced
by each other but in many instances do not know that prob
lems, inclusive of their own, even exist.
I
CHAPTER IV i
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Head Start is an educational innovation designed to
help the disadvantaged preschool child. The Pomona Head
Start Project, like the national program, has as its basic
purpose the raising of the educational level of the deprived
preschool child. It is axiomatic that parents and teachers
have some effect on the Head Start child. But no studies
which tended to clarify what the educational expectations of
parents and teachers were could be located.
The Problem Restated
The study presented in the foregoing chapters was
designed to test the null hypotheses that:
1. There will be no difference in school adjust
ment, body care, and curriculum expectations
of Head Start parents and teachers.
2. There will be no difference in the degree of
recognition by Head Start parents and teachers
that both groups have problems connected with
the program.
83
84 .
The hypotheses were tested by data collected from the Head
j
Start parents and professionals in the Pomona Head Start j
Project between 1966 and 1969. The group studied was
composed of 75 parents and 46 professionals, who were
actively working directly or indirectly with Head Start
children during the years of the study. Ninety-five per
cent of the professional staff and 80 per cent of the
parent staff were included in some phase of the study.
Empirical tests of the hypotheses embodied the
following: (1) selection and rejection of related socio
metric scales; (2) use of pilot studies culminating in the
development of the questionnaire; (3) administering this
instrument to the participants; (4) processing the data via
computer programming; and (5) analysis of the data to deter
mine if they nullified or verified the above hypotheses.
The rationale for the existence of the Head Start
program and the study design were presented in Chapter I;
Chapter II reviewed the federal, state and local legislation
about Head Start and surveyed the literature which is
primarily concerned with periodic evaluation and develop
mental plans; and Chapter III described the processing and
analysis of the data.
After it was determined that the study was desirable
and amenable to treatment, efforts were directed toward the
analysis of role expectations of the two sets of respond
ents. Chi square was the statistical tool chosen to test
85 :
i
the significance of the relationship between what parents
land professionals expected each other to teach; and if they i
recognized the nature and existence of each other's
problems.
The criterion of significance was set at 5 per cent.
The results from the chi square test revealed that there
was agreement at a significant level between parents and
teachers as to educational expectations. There was dis
agreement at a significant level about the existence and
nature of the problems of the parents and teachers. Thus
Hypothesis 1 that there will be no difference in school
adjustment, body care, and curriculum expectations of Head
Start parents and professionals was accepted. Hypothesis 2
that there will be no difference in the recognition of the
nature and existence of problems by Head Start parents and
professionals was rejected.
The Findings
The major findings are centered on or embodied
within the concept of communication, or, more specifically,
the lack of communication, and the changing roles of Head
Start parents and professionals.
1. In the opinion of the investigator, one of the
important results of this study is the apparent acceptance
by the parents and teachers of the increasing parental role
of the teacher. It might have been assumed that teachers
86
would consider such Items as self-control, politeness,
|social training and other such Items listed under social
|adjustment as the responsibility of the parent. Popular
thinking may have conditioned a belief that social training
is not a school-based obligation. That such was not the
case may be surprising.
2. Pomona Head Start parents saw teachers more and
more as substitute parents, especially in the area of social
adjustment. Conversely, the parents did not see any part of
the curriculum as part of their responsibility. No Head
Start parent interviewed listed any of the informal learning
patterns of, for example, learning to count, naming of
colors and objects, and so on (which is so much a part of
the middle-class parents' pattern of behavior), as part of
their parental expectations. Perhaps even more significant
is the number of Head Start teachers who listed social
adjustment as the first educational responsibility for
themselves.
3. While the term "parents" was often used by the
professionals, mothers rarely spoke of husbands or fathers;
yet directives, communiques, and plans for deprived children
are directed toward the idea that Head Start children come
from two-parent homes.
4. Body care, which also includes hygiene, health
and safety, and personal neatness, was not considered,
according to the results of the study, as the responsibility
87 i
of either parents or professionals. In comparison to social
adjustment and curriculum, it received little attention. j
5. The responses on the questionnaires and face- J
to-face interviews indicated that cultural plurality exists
not only among the Spanish-speaking groups in the sample,
but also among minorities usually designated as black or
Negro. Two distinct Puerto Rican sub-cultures were mani
fested, yet these people were labeled "Mexicans" by the
professionals working with them even though the question
naire revealed that their life styles, attitude toward
!
teachers, and language patterns were very different. The
questionnaires and interviews also revealed three different
"Negro" families whose patterns of behavior were so differ
ent they were called "foreigners" or "creoles" by their
black neighbors. The professionals working with these two
families also seemed unaware of cultural differences.
6. Problems stated by Head Start professionals
included the need for an administrative assistant, pressures
of required reports to the government, and lack of parental
support in terms of actively participating in the learning
process.
7. Parents said they were concerned with problems
of transportation, isolation and loneliness; and the fear of
counteracting the positive effects of the Head Start program
with some unknown negative behavior at home.
8. Both parents and teachers expressed verbally and
88
jin writing the need for additional counseling services.
^Teachers wanted help with problem children; parents wanted
help with the changing behavior patterns of the Head Start
children when they came home.
Recommendat ions
Perhaps this research effort will have some prag
matic value for those interested in closing the educational
gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged child. While
jit is true that certain aspects of the findings are partic
ularly applicable to the various persons who are working
with Head Start children, the findings have implications for
both laymen and professionals; hence all recommendations
presented in this last section are grouped according to the
occupational role of the respondents.
Parents
1. Help Head Start parents to realize that certain
areas of informal education in social adjustment, hygiene
and curriculum is also a parental responsibility.
2. Develop some kind of transportation plan for
mothers who have difficulty getting their children and/or
themselves to Head Start classes.
3. Recall that parent usually means mother or
mother-surrogate and specifically aim the program toward
mothers, but acknowledge fathers with special bulletins and
notices. _____________________________________________________
Head Start Teachers
1. Help assistant Head Start teachers to realize ,
that they stand in loco parentis more so than Head Start
teachers, and as such can help the child to adjust to school
norms.
2. Encourage teachers of deprived children to
realize, and accept, that the cultural norms in a deprived
home may be, and not always by choice, diametrically opposed
to school norms.
3. Offer special lectures or literature about
sub-culture groups within minorities; as well as courses
designed to help teachers develop the special skills needed
to successfully teach the disadvantaged child.
Administrators
1. Utilize the services of consultants, inclusive
of counseling services when problems arise beyond the area
of competence of the regular staff.
2. Devise a program designed to help the profes
sional staff to participate in some non-school community
activities.
3. Secure the services of an administrative
assistant to help with community problems.
90
Suggestions and Implications
for Future Study
The Head Start program, an innovation in itself,
has produced some innovations that may change certain
aspects of primary education; at least for disadvantaged
children, and possibly for advantaged ones, too. While the
focus and results of this study do not allow prediction in
these areas in the usual sense, some limited extrapolation
is permitted via suggestions for future studies. The ones
listed below seem particularly adaptable to group research
and have some implications for both professional and
academic education. Future investigators might examine the
possibilities that:
1. The Head Start program will be absorbed by, or
formally attached to, local school districts.
2. Some teachers will specialize in teaching Head
Start children just as other teachers now
specialize in teaching the mentally retarded or
gifted.
3. Both state and national levels of government
will continue to supplement the educative
efforts of local districts.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
91
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sources specifically concerned with the major areas
of interest of this study are marked with an asterisk.
Since one of the major reasons for initiating this research
was the apparent lack of focus on the educational expecta
tions and problems of Head Start parents and teachers, only
a few such sources are starred.
Books
1. Arkin, Herbert, and Raymond R. Colton. Tables for
Statisticians. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc.,
mr.-----
2. . Statistical Methods. New York: Barnes and
Noble, Inc., 1959.
3. Bereiter, Carl, and Siegfried Englemann. Teaching
Disadvantaged Children in the Pre-School.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,Inc., 1969.
4. Berelson, Bernard, and Gary Steiner. Human Behavior:
An Inventory of Scientific Findings"! New York:
Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1964.
5. Black, Henry Campbell. Black1s Law Dictionary. 4th ed.
St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1951.
6. Brembeck, Cole. Social Foundations of Education:
A Cross Cultural Approach.New York:JohnNiley
and Sons, Inc., 1966.
7. Brooks, Charlotte K. "Some Approaches to Teaching
English as a Second Language." In The Disadvantage*
Learner. Ed. S. W. Webster. San Francisco:
Chandler Publishing Co., 1966.
8. *Burgess, Evangeline. Values in Early Childhood
Education. Department of Elementary-Kindergarten-
Nursery Education. Washington, D.C.: National
Education Association, 1965.
92
9. Chamberlain, Robert D. Evaluation of Children’s
Behavioral Changes in Child Development Centers of
Los Angeles County. Los Angeles: Los Angeles
County Board of Education, 1966.
10. Clark, Kenneth B. Dark Ghetto; Dilemmas of Social
Power. New York! Harper and Row, 1^65.
11. Cressman, George, and Harold W. Benda. Public Educa
tion in America. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts, Inc., 1966.
12. *Delavan, Frank, et al. Evaluation of the Economic
Opportunity Act~Tor the Educationally Disadvan
taged . Sacramento, Calif.: Sacramento Unified
School District, 1966, 1967.
13. De Young, Chris A., and Richard Wynn. American
Education. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Co.'," M W .
14. Donahue, George T., and Sol Nichtern. Teaching the
Troubled Child. New York: The Free Press, 1965.
15. Fisher, Dorothy. A Montessori Mother. New York:
Henry Holt and Co., 1912.
16. Flores, Salvador E. Unruh Preschool Narrative Summary.
Chula Vista, Calif.: Chula Vista City School
District, 1967.
17. Forest, Use. Preschool Education: A Historical and
Critical Study. New York: The Macmillan Co.,
V P F T .
18. Fuller, Elizabeth Mechem. Values in Early Childhood
Education. Washington, D.C.: National Education
Association, 1960.
19. Goldberg, Meriam L. The Schools and the Urban Crisis:
A Book of Readings: Teachers for Disadvantaged
Children. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inc., 1965.
20. Havighurst, Robert J., and Bernice L. Neugarten.
Society and Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon,
Inc., 19577
21. Hechinger, Fred M. Pre-School Education Today.
New York: Doubleday and Co., 1064.
| ~ “ ” .... ’ 94 I
I
22. Horton, Paul B., and Chester L. Hunt. Sociology. j
2nd ed. San Francisco: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
1964.
i
23. Humphrey, Hubert H. War on Poverty. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1964.
24. Janowitz, Gayle. Helping Hands. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1965.
25. Jones, Mary G. The Charity School Movement. Hamden,
Conn.: The Shoe String Press, Inc., Archon Press,
1964.
26. Kawin, Ethel, and Carolyn Hoefer. A Comparative Study
of a Nursery School Versus a Non-Nursery School
Group. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
ini?
1 27. Larson, William L., et al. SOCOMP: A Series of
Automatic Statistical Programs.Los Angeles:
Computer Science Laboratories, University of
Southern California, 1967. Pp. 9, 121, 131, 151.
28. Martin, William E., and Celia Burns Stendler. Readings
in Child Development. New York: Harcourt. Brace
and Co.,1954. --
29. Miller, Delbert C. Handbook of Research Design and
Social Measurement. New York: David McKay Co.,
Inc., 1964.
30. Miller, Richard I. Education in a Changing World.
Washington, D.C.l National Education Association,
1964.
31. Moore, Vardine. Pre-School Storv Hour. New York:
The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1965.
32. Morales, Emilio Felipe. Como Dirgir Una Escuela
Primaria. Lima, Peru! 1965.
33. Riley, Clara, and Frances Epps. Head Start in Action.
West Nyack, N.Y.: Parker Publishing Co., Inc.,
1967.
34. Rose, Arnold M. Human Behavior and Social Processes:
An Interactionist Approach. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Co., 1962.
95
j35. Sanford, Terry. Is Education the Business of the
I Federal Government? Prepared In the Office of
Terry Sanford, Governor of North Carolina, 1964.
^36. Thompson, Merritt M. The History of Education.
| New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1^51.
|37. *Usdam, Michael, and Frederick Berlotaet. Development
I of School-Universitv Programs of Teachers for the
I Disadvantaged Through Teacher Education Centers.
Cooperative Research Project No. F 068.
Washington, D.C.: United States Department of
Health, Education and Welfare.
38. Webb, Eugene J., et al. Unobtrusive Measures: Non-
Reactive ResearcK~in the Social Sciences.Chicago:
Rand McNally and Co., 1966.
39. Wrightstone, J. Wayne, et al. Evaluation of the Higher
Horizons Program for Underprivileged Children.
Cooperative Research Project No. 1124.New York:
Board of Education Bureau of Educational Research,
1964.
Publications of the Government and
Learned Organizations
California State Government. Education Code. Sections
8000-8020, Register No. 20. Sacramento, 1965.
Center for Urban Education. The Urban Review.
New York City: November 1965.
Deering, James. Peering*s California Codes: Education
Code of the State of California! San Francisco:
Bancroft Whitney Co., 1$6^.
National School Public Relations Association. The
First Big Step. Washington, D.C.: 1966.
Office of Economic Opportunity. Community Action Pro
gram. Project Head Start. Washington, D.C.: 1965.
A. "An Invitation to Help."
B. "Daily Program."
C. "Equipment and Supplies."
D. "Parents Are Needed."
E. "Social Services."
F. "The Staff."
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
i45. Office of Education. National Conference on Education
! of the Disadvantaged. Washington, D.C.: United i
States Department of Health, Education and j
| Welfare, 1966.
i
46. Sacramento City Unified School District. An Analysis
of the Effectiveness of the Head Start Program.
Summer. 1965. in Terms of Factors Pertinent to
Kindergarten Readiness~ Sacramento, Calif., 1965.
47. United States Children's Bureau. Your Child from One
to Six. Publication 30, Social Security Adminis-
tration. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1945.
48. United States Department of Health, Education and
Welfare. Educational Research Information Center.
Selected Documents on the Disadvantaged: ERIC
Subject Index. 1966. 1967. 196$. Pp. 246, 247.
49. _____. Title I-Year II; The Second Annual Report
of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary School
Act of 1963. School Year 1966-57"! Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1967. Pp. 3,
5, 7, 8.
50. United States Government. U.S. Code Congressional and
Administrative News: Vol. I. Laws. Legislative
History. St. Paul. Minn.: West Publishing Co..
1969.
51. XEROX Company. Dissertation Abstracts. Vols. 25-29.
Ann Arbor, Mich., 1964-1969.
Periodicals
52. Aldrich, Nelson. "A Store Front School,” The Urban
Review. 1:18-21, May 1966.
53. Baker, Katherine R. "The Nursery School Fosters
Creativity,” Education. 84:467-473.
54. Becker, Ralph J., and Samuel Halperin. "Improvement
of Education of Children of Low-Income Families,"
The American School Board Journal. 151:5-7,
February 1966.
55. Blumenthal, Lassor A. "Art of Administering Pre-School
Centers," American School and University. 38:35-37,
_________ September 1 9 6 5 . ____________
56. Book, Margaret. "Parents Get Involved in Head Start,"
International Journal of Religious Education.
July" 1966 '. .........................
57. Bookbinder, Hy. "Is America Waking Up?" Childhood
Education. 42:476-478, April 1966.
58. Brazziel, William. "Two Years of Head Start," Phi
Delta Kanpan. 48:344-348, March 1967.
59. Broman, Billy L. "Parents1 Reaction to Head Start
Program," Childhood Education. 42:486-488, April
1966.
60. Butler, Annie L. "Will Head Start Be a False Start?"
Childhood Education. 42:163-166, November 1965.
61. Carleton, Charles. "Head Start or False Start,"
American Education. 2:20-22, February 1966.
62. Cohen, Wilbur J. "Need for Project Head Start is
Substantiated," Journal of Home Economics. 57:797,
December 1965.
63. Dellaquila, Stephen B. (ed.). "Operation Head Start,"
Research and the Classroom Teacher. 1:3-5. Februarv
TMT.---------------------
64. Dersch, Martin. "What We've Learned about Disadvan
taged Children," Nation's Schools. 75:50-51, April
1965.
65. Dershimer, Richard. "USOE Should Modify Policy on
'Sensitive Item' Research," Phi Delta Kannan.
47:113-114, September-June 1966.
66. Doherty, J. "Pupil-Teacher Ratio in Head Start
Centers," Childhood Education. 43:7-8, September
1966.
67. *Doty, Carol N. "Involving Parents in the Nursery
Program," Education. 87:451-456, April 1967.
68. Elam, Stanley. "A Study of Head Start," Phi Delta
Kannan. 48:591, June 1969.
69. . "Keeping Abreast in Education," Phi Delta
Kannan. 48:537, June 1969.
70. Ellinger, Bernice D. "Literature for Head Start
Classes," Elementary English. 43:453-459, May 1966.
j " ~ ' ' ' ' ~ ’ ‘...... 98
J71. *Fort, Jane G., et al. "Cultural Background and Learn-
| ing in Young cKTldren," Phi Delta Kannan. 50:369+,
March 1969.
!
|72. Foster, Florence P. "State Direction of Nursery
School Education," Education. 87:458, 1967.
73. Freeberg, Norman E., and Donald T. Payne. "Parental
Influence on Cognitive Development in Early Child
hood: A Review," Childhood Review. 38:No. 1,
March 1967.
74. Friedman, Norman L. "Cultural Deprivation: A Commen
tary in the Sociology of Knowledge," The Journal
of Educational Thought. 1:88-99, August 1967.
75. Frisco, Gene C. "These Mistakes Can Weaken Preschool
Programs," Nation's Schools. 75:55-56, April 1965.
76. Goff, R. "Promises Fulfilled: Progress under Title I
of the ESEA of 1965," The American Educators.
2:10-17, February 1966.
77. Granite, Harvey R. "Language Beacons for the Disad
vantaged," Elementary School Journal. 66:420-425,
May 1966.
78. Greer, Colin. "A Historical Note: Problems of the
Negro Child in the North, 1900-1913," The Urban
Review. l:No. 3, July 1966.
79. Hall, E. T. "Listening Behavior: Some Cultural
Differences," Phi Delta Kappan. 50:379-380, March
1969.
80. Hartman, Allan S. "How to Start a Preschool Program
Without Waiting," Elementary School Journal.
75:52-54, April 1 9 ^
81. *Harvey, 0. J., et al. "Teachers' Belief Systems and
Preschool Atmospheres," Journal of Educational
Psychology. 57:373-381, December 1966.
82. Hassell, Emerson Sneed. "Cultural Enrichment Program
Strengthened by Parents," The Chicago School
Journal. 46:363-369, May 1965.
83. Johnson, Donald W. "California's Concept of Regional
Educational Planning," Phi Delta Kappan. 48:509,
June 1967.
1 84. Kennedy, Robert, et al. "Ghetto Education," The Center
I Magazine. l:No. 77 November 1968.
I ' !
85. Knoll, Erwin, et al. "Preliminary Programs: Special
Report," Nation's Schools. 77:48-67, June 1966.
86. Kraft. Ivor. "Head Start to What?" Education Digest.
32:1-4, November 1966.
87. . "Integration, Not Compensation," The Educa-
tional Forum. 21:2:211-214, January 1967.
88. Lambert, Carroll, and Don Carter. "Impact on Family
Life of Project Head Start," Journal of Home
Economics. 59:28-30, January 1567.
89. *Lane, Mary B., et al. "Evaluation of the Head Start
Orientation Training Program," California Journal
! of Educational Research. 18:32-39, January 1967.
90. Lang, Charles M., and Jennifer Cross. "Head Start for
Parents, Too," Instructor. 76:28-29, November 1966.
91. Law, Norman. "What Are Nursery Schools For?" Education
Digest. 30:30-31, September 1964.
92. Levens, Dorothy. "A Look at Head Start," Childhood
Education. 42:481-482, 1965.
93. Loewe, V. L. "Project Head Start: A Chance at the
Beginning," California Teachers Association
Journal. 61:24-26, October 1965.
94. Marie, Jean. "Sumner School for Pre-First Graders for
Mexican American Children," Catholic School
Journal, 65:34-35, June 1965.
95. McClure, William P. "The Urgent Need for Education
Finance Reform in the Seventies," Phi Delta Kappan.
51:3:162-163, November 1969.
96. McGuinness, Louis J. "Operation Follow Through: First
Report on the 0E0 Plan to Follow-up Head Start,"
Instructor. 76:61, June 1967.
97. Mitchell, Mabel M. "Universal Opportunity for Early
Childhood Education," National Education Associa
tion Journal. 55:No. 8, November 1^66.
98.
I
99.
100.
101.
102.
I
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
100
Moore, Robert H., and Leslie Carlton. "Culturally
Deprived Children Can Be Helped," National Educa- j
tion Association Journal, 55:No. 6, September
1966.
Norton, M. Scott. "After Project Head Start--What
Next?" Elementary School Journal. 67:179-183,
J anuary 1967.
Olmstead, Cameron B. "Happiness is a Head Start,"
Arizona Teacher. 55:16-17, September 1966.
Omwake, Eveline, et al. "Head Start Reactions,"
Childhood Education. 42:479-486, April 1966.
Orton, Richard E. "We're Past the Trial Run," The
Instructor. 76:24-27, December 1966.
Osborn, D. Keith. "Some Gains from Head Start
Experiences," Childhood Education. 44:8-11,
September 1967.
Overfield, R. M. "Early Childhood Education in
California," California Education. 2:14-15, June
1965.
Park, Jean S. "Follow Through to Follow Head Start,"
The American School Board Journal. 155:No. 2,
August 196?.
Pritcher, Evelyn G. "Evaluation of the Montessori
Method in Schools for Young Children," Childhood
Education. 42:489-492, April 1966.
Richard, Francine. "Giving Them a Head Start,"
Illinois Education. 54:62-67, October 1965.
Richmond, Julius B. "Catch Up with Head Start," The
Instructor. 75:12-13, December 1965.
_______. "Communities in Action: A Report on Project
Head Start," Reading Teacher. 19:323-331, February
1966.
"Little People: What's Ahead for Head
Start?" An Interview, Grade Teacher. 83:72-74,
December 1965.
Ross, I. "Head Start is a Banner Project," The Parent
Teachers Association Magazine. 60:20-23. March
T X T .--------- ------ ------
112.
i
1113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
101 j
Shaw, Frederick. "Educating Culturally Deprived j
Youth in Urban Centers. Phi Delta Kappan.
45:91-97, November 1963.
Shedd, Mark R. "Federal Colossus in Education;
Curriculum Planning," Educational Leadership.
23:15-19, October 1965.
Shriver, Sargent. "After Head Start What?" Childhood
Education. 44:2-3, Summer 1967.
Silberstein, Richard M. "Can Head Start Help Other
Children Learn?" Reading Teacher. 19:347-351,
Fall 1966.
Silverman, Ronald H. "Art for the Disadvantaged,"
National Education Association Journal. 55:No. 4.
April" 1 9 " 6 ' 4 ‘ . ----------------------------
Stahl, Leroy. "Head Start, Flying Start," Montana
Education. 42:17-18, September 1965.
Stoca, Louis, and Glenn Reeling. "Better Speech for
Head Start Children," Elementary School Journal.
67:213-217, January 1967.
Van Bramer, Helen. "Music with Preschoolers: A Head
Start Feature," The Instructor. 75:30-31, May
1966.
White, Mary Alice. "Memo to a Future Superintendent,"
Phi Delta Kappan. 50:595-597, June 1969.
*Xavier, Mary. "Teachers* Reaction to Project Head
Start," Catholic School Journal. 65:41-43,
October 1965.
Unpublished Materials
Bates, Barbara. "Head Start Division of Research and
Evaluation Proposals Funded on Characteristics of
a Good Teacher." United States Government
memorandum, 1967. (Mimeographed.)
Bronfenbrenner, Urie. "Comments on the Wolff and
Stein Study," January 1967. (Mimeographed.)
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
I
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
102 |
]
Chandler, Marvin. "Project Head Start and the Cultur-;
ally Deprived in Rochester, New York." Council of!
Churches of Rochester, January 1966. (Mimeo
graphed .)
French, Verna McKinney. "Operation Head Start."
Unpublished Master's project, University of
Southern California, 1966.
Gallegos, Herman, Abbott et al. "Guidelines for
Compensatory Education Programs and Projects."
Sacramento: California Advisory Compensatory
Education Commission, 1965. (Mimeographed.)
Gordon, Edmond W. "Evaluation of the Wolff Report."
Washington, D.C.: Office of Economic Opportunity,
November 1966. (Mimeographed.)
"Head Start Evaluation." Chula Vista City School
District, Finney School Center, Loma Verde School
Center, 1967. (Mimeographed.)
Holmes, Douglas, and Monica Holmes. "An Evaluation
of Differences among Different Classes of Head
Start Participants. New York: Associated YMYWHA
of Greater New York, August 1966. (Mimeographed.)
Johnson, Henry S., and Uvaldo H. Palomares. "A Study
of Some Ecological, Economic and Social Factors
Influencing Parental Participation in Project
Head Start." University of California, Riverside
Extension Division, August 1965. (Mimeographed.)
Nelson, Winston. "Statement Made in Response to Your
Request for Action to Resolve Certain Problems at
Marshall Junior High School." Pomona, Calif.:
Pomona Unified School District, May 17, 1966.
(Mimeographed.)
Planning Meeting, American Mexican Title III Planning.
"Dealing with Prejudice in School." Pomona,
Calif.: Education Center, Pomona Unified School
District, May 1968. (Mimeographed.)
*Pomona Volunteers. "Results of a Survey of Negro
Families in Southwest Pomona." Community Witness
Committee of the School of Theology, Claremont,
and the NAACP, 1966. (Mimeographed.)
Pomona Unified School District. "Augmented Reading
Implementation Project/1 Pomona, Calif.: Pomona
Unified School District, 1966.____________________
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
103
Pomona Unified School District, District Library
Education Center. "Books Recommended on Cultural
and Minority Groups in the United States of
America." Pomona, Calif., 1968. (Mimeographed.) j
!
*Pomona Unified School District, The Department of
Public Health, and the Department of Public Social
Services in Pomona, California. "A Report of a
Program of Parent Education for Low Income
Families." A Cooperative Project of the Head
Start/Child Development Centers, February 1967.
(Mimeographed.)
Taylor, Ralph. "Sociology, Schools, Technology and
Change. Unpublished paper, Summer 1965.
Trillingham, C. C., and Calvin W. Hall. "Certifica
tion and Retirement Guidelines for Federal
Projects." Los Angeles: Office of the County
Superintendent of Schools, 1967. (Mimeographed.)
Walker, Donald L. "A Study into the Recommended
Improvements of Operation Head Start." Unpub
lished Master's project, University of Southern
California, 19 66.
Wolff, Max, and Annie Stein. "Study I: Six Months
Later: A Comparison of Children Who Had Head
Start, Summer 1965, with Their Classmates in
Kindergarten." New York: Yesheva University,
August 1966. (Mimeographed.)
I
I
APPENDICES
104
APPENDIX A
SPECIALLY EDITED RESOURCES
105
SPECIALLY EDITED RESOURCES
The information in this appendix was selected from
the Educational Research Information Center (ERIC) and The
Dissertation Abstracts. These two sources were scanned for
Head Start studies for the years 1964-1969, and where pos
sible into 1970. Material somewhat related to the emphasis
in this study is starred with an asterisk; otherwise the
notations merely provide supplementary information. The
i
number at the end of each entry is either the register
number or the reference number.
Because Head Start has been known by a variety of
titles and has been shifted from the Office of Economic
Opportunity to the Office of Health, Education and Welfare,
each of the above-named sources was checked for listings
under all of the following titles:
Child Development Centers
Education: Preschool and Special
Operation Head Start
Preschool
Project Head Start
Nursery Schools
United States Office of Economic Opportunity.
106
107
Special Selections from ERIC
*Adkins, Dorothy C., and Doris Crowell, Co-Investigators.
Development of a Preschool Language-Oriented
Curriculum with a Structured Parent Education
Program: Final Report^ Honolulu: University of
Hawaii, 1967.
Findings include the need for a special kind of
testing instrument designed for research of Head
Start children. ED 028-845
*Bell, Robert. A Study of Family Influences on the Educa
tion of Negro Lower-Class Children: Project I.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Temple University, 1967.
Developed and pretested a questionnaire specif
ically designed for Head Start interviewing; mothers
saw themselves as the "significant other" for the
Head Start child first and the teacher second.
ED 025 309
*Garfinkel Frank. Observational Strategies for Obtaining
Data on Children and Teachers in Head Start Classes.
Boston, Mass.: University of Boston, 1967.
With the ultimate purpose of obtaining data about
curricula, it was first necessary to have people
specifically trained in methods of interpreting
observation of Head Start activities. ED 022 559
*Hervey, Sarah D. Attitudes. Expectations, and Behavior of
Parent8 of Head Start and Non-Head start Children:
Report Number l" Merrill Palmer Institute, Detroit,
Mich. Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Mich. Sponsoring Agency 0E0-4118-R-1, August 1968.
Sees the child within the total environments of
home and school. Sought to determine if involvement
in Head Start affected behavioral and attitudinal
differences between the two groups of Negro parents.
Very little difference was found. ED 030 475
*Newton, Virginia S., and Dale E. Bussis. A Digest of
Research Activities of Regional Evaluation ana
Research Centers for Project Head Start.NewYork:
Institute for Educational Development,1968.
Contract No. OEO-1410 with the Office of Economic
Opportunity, Washington, D.C., 1968.
Section II is concerned with research on parents
and families necessary to develop an instrument
adaptable for obtaining data from lower-class
families. ED 030 475
The following studies from ERIC (48) include annual
'reports, developmental and evaluative studies, and specific
research topics. Entries somewhat related to the emphasis
of this study are marked with an asterisk.
Head Start
Annual Research Report of Completed and Incomplete Investi
gations for National Head Start Evaluation.
ED 025 320
Big Questions and Little Children: Science and Head Start.
ED 024 458
Cooperative, Trusting Behavior as a Function of Ethnic Group
Similarity-Dissimilarity and of Immediate and
Delayed Reward in a Two-Person Game. Part of the
Final Report. ED 025 322
An Evaluation of a Six-Week Headstart Program Using an
Academically Oriented Curriculum: Canton, 1967.
ED 026 114
Head Start CRIB. Childhood Research Information Bulletin:
Selected Resumes of Early Childhood Research
Reports. Bulletin No. 1. ED 025 318
Head Start Evaluation and Research Center. Progress Report
of Research Studies, 1966-1967. ED 021 612
Head Start Evaluation and Research Center, University of
Kansas. Final Report on Research Activities.
ED 021 614
Head Start Evaluation and Research Center. Progress Report
of Research Studies 1966 to 1967. Document 2,
Studies of the Social Organization of Head Start
Centers. ED 021 624
Head Start Evaluation and Research Center, University of
Kansas. Report No. Ill, Effects of a Language
Program on Children in a Head Start Nursery.
ED 021 636
j 109
jHead Start Evaluation and Research Center, University of
i Kansas. Report No. VIII, Physical Development of
i Children in the Head Start Program in the Central
United States. ED 021 644
;Head Start Evaluation and Research Center, University of
| Kansas. Report No. X, Enhancement of the Social
Reinforcing Value of a Preschool Teacher.
ED 021 646
Head Start Evaluation and Research Center, University of
Kansas. Report No. XI, Verbal Recall Research.
ED 021 647
Head Start Evaluation and Research Center, Boston Univer
sity. Report of Research, September 1966-August
1967. ED 022 529
Head Start Evaluation and Research Center, University of
Chicago. Report E, Comparative Use of Alternative
Modes for Assessing Cognitive Development in
Bilingual or Non-English Speaking Children.
ED 022 554
*Head Start Evaluation and Research Center, Boston Univer
sity. Report A-II, Observation of Teachers and
Teaching Strategies and Applications. ED 022 558
Head Start Evaluation and Research Center, Boston Univer
sity. Report A-III, Observational Strategies for
Obtaining Data on Children and Teachers in Head
Start Classes (OSOD). ED 022 559
Head Start Evaluation and Research Center, Boston Univer
sity. Report B-l, Primary and Secondary Prevention
Studying Clinical Process and Disturbance with
Preschool Children. ED 022 560
Head Start Evaluation and Research Center, Boston Univer
sity. Report C-I, Perception of Emotion Among
Children: Race and Sex Differences. ED 022 561
Head Start Evaluation and Research Center, Boston Univer
sity. Report D-I, Language Project: The Effects of
a Teacher Developed Pre-School Language Training
Program on First Grade Reading Achievement.
ED 022 563
Head Start Evaluation and Research Center, Boston Univer
sity. Report E-II, Teacher Seminar. ED 022 567
110
Head Start Evaluation and Research Center, University of
Chicago. Annual Report, 1966-1967. ED 023 445
Head Start Programs Operated by Public School Systems,
1966-67. ED 026 115
Language Ability and Readiness for School of Children Who
Participated in Head Start Programs. A Dissertation
Abstract. ED 025 299
Measurement of Motivation to Achieve in Preschool Children.
Final Report. ED 021 617
Methodological Considerations in Devising Head Start Program
Evaluations. ED 025 319
*Pilot Study of Five Methods of Presenting the Summer Head
Start Curricular Program. ED 021 622
Preschool Programs and the Intellectual Development of
Disadvantaged Children. ED 024 473
Project Head Start. Psychological Services Report, Research,
Summer 1968. ED 024 460
Project Head Start, Report on the Prekindergarten Program,
1965. ED 021 611
Project Head Start, the Urban and Rural Challenge. Final
Report. ED 022 527
*The Relationship Between Specific and General Teaching
Experience and Teacher Attitudes Toward Project
Head Start. Part of the Final Report. ED 025 323
A Study of Family Influences on the Education of Negro
Lower-Class Children. Project I. ED 025 309
Using Music with Head Start Children. ED 022 543
Head Start Evaluation and Research Centers
A Digest of the Research Activities of Regional Evaluation
and Research Centers for Project Head Start
(September 1, 1966 to November 30, 1967).
ED 023 446
TABLE 9 111
NUMERICAL TABLE OF DISADVANTAGED PRESCHOOL CHILDREN
Preschool Children
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1901 1353 1814 1815 1856 1247 1748 2129
2151 1583 2356 2677
2691
Preschool Clinics
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Preschool Curriculum
2217
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1811 1597
2151
Preschool Education
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1600 1091 1472 1103 1874 1655 1106 1107 1108 1549
1860 1461 1542 1113 1894 1895 1706 1537 1458 1629
2450 1781 1642 1813 2194 2195 2036 1597 1568 1809
2660 1811 1812 2053 2504 2315 2106 1897 1588 1859
1861 1892 2193 2514 2196 2067 1788 1899
2361 1932 2363 2574 2506 2147 2148 2059
2691 2362 2443 2536 2197 2358 2239
2482 2573 2576 2357 2438 2359
2632 2716 2617
Preschool Evaluation
0 i " T" 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Preschool Learning
2217
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Preschool Programs
1319
0 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1550 1471 1572 1053 1094 1455 1456 1037 1468 1579
1600 1561 1592 1453 1494 1495 1816 1467 1618 1609
1690 2151 1762 1563 2084 1505 2076 1747 1638 1769
1860 2281 1872 1813 2394 2615 1877 1898
1892 1873 2217 2298
Preschool Teachers
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1572 2685 1769
Preschool Tests
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Preschool Workshop
1897
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1766
SOURCE: Catalog of Selected Documents of the
Disadvantaged (48).
Selections from The Dissertation Abstracts*
Ambrose, Paul B. A Study of Selected Pre-Kindergarten
Programs for Culturally Disadvantaged Children.
Michigan State University, 1966. XXVII, 1568-A
Ametjian, Armistre. The Effects of a Preschool Program
upon the Intellectual Development and Social
Competency of: Lower Class Children. Stanford, 1966.
XXVI, 105-A
Anderson, James P. Some Behavioral Effect of a Methodolog
ical Change Tn~Home School Communication. Stanford
University, l$6fi. XXIX, 427-A
Baragona, R. The Relationship Between Certain Parental
Attitudes and Selected Personality Characteristics
in Nursery School Children.
*Bissell, Norman E. A Comparison of Elementary and Special
Education TeacKers1 Perception of Parents. Univer
sity of Alabama, 1968. XXIX, 1444-A
Block, Albert C. A Study of the Relative Effects of the
John F. Kennedy Preschool Program on First Grade
Readiness and Achievement of Culturally Disadvan
taged Children. University of Miami, 1968.
XXIX, 399-A
Boger, Robert P. Sub-Cultural Group Membership and Atti
tudes of Head Start Teachers. XXVIII-2062-A
Chertow, Dora S. Project Head Start: The Urban and Rural
Challenge. Syracuse University. 1966.
XXIX, 4082-A
Clarizo, Harvey. Maternal Attitude Differences Associated
with Involvement in Head StartI University of
Illinois, 1966. XXVII, 2063-A
Cobbs, Howard B. A Study of the Influence of Pre-Kinder
garten Experience on Concept Development of
Disadvantaged Children in the First Grade. Ohio [vantage______________________________
State, 1968. XXIX, 2879-A
*Dissertation Abstracts. Abstracts of Dissertations
and Monographs in Microform. Cumulated Subject and Author
Indexes to Vol. 29, 1968-1969. University Microfilms,
Ann Arbor, Mich.
113
ICoker, D. R. The Relationship of Readiness Test Scores to
! Selected Socio-Economic Factors of Lower Class
Families^ University of Arkansas, 1966.
j XXVII, 1196-A
.Cowling, D. N. C. Language Ability and Readiness for School
Children Who Participated in Head Start Programs.
XXVIII, 1727-A
Diehl, Mary S. Preschool Education for Disadvantaged
Children: An Evaluation of Project Head Start.
Trenton, N.J.: Rutgers, the State University, 1967.
XXVIII, 1729-A
Doherty, David J. An Evaluation of a Compensatory Pre-
School Program. University of Michigan, 1966.
XXVII, 2096-A
Fisher, Virginia L. Role Conceptions of Head Start
Teachers. Missouri University, 1967.
XXVIII, 1900-A
Harned, Barbara J. Relationships among the Federally Spon
sored Nursery"Schools or the 1930's, the Federally
Sponsored Day Care Program of the 1346's. and
Project Head Start. Rutgers, the State University,
1966. XXIX, 2101-A
Harris, Larry A. A Study of the Rate of Acquisition and
Retention of Interest Loaded Words of Low Socio-
Economic Kindergarten Children. University of
Minnesota, 19'67? XXVIII, 3556-A
Hayes, Ruth G. An Exploration of the Environmental Factors
Influencing a Child's Motivation for Learning. The
Catholic University of America, 1^68.
XXIX, 4559-A
Herbert, David Ames. The Relative Effectiveness of Project
Head Start to Prepare Children to Enter First Grade,
Mburn University, 1968. XXIX, 3419-A
Hodes, Marion R. A Comparison of Selected Educational
Characteristics of Culturally Disadvantaged Kinder-
f
arten Children Who Attended Project Head Start
summer program) 1965. University of Pennsylvania,
1967. XXIX, 62-A
j 114 i
Humley, Oliver I. A Study to Determine the Effect of Last- ;
ine Educational and Social Benefits Accruing to j
; Summer Head Start Program Participants. University
o£ South Dakota, 1967. XVIII, 1621-A
Jones, Katherine L. S. The Language Development of Head
Start. University of Arkansas, 1966.
XXVII, 1201-A
Mackey, Beryl F. The Influence of a Simmer Head Start
Program on the Achievement of First Grade Children.
East Texas &tate University, 1968. XXIX, 3500-A
*McIntire, Rosa I. An Investigation of a Preschool Child's
Understanding of Specific Words Selected from His
Spontaneous Oral Expressions: The Implications for
Classroom Teachers and Parents: A Case Study.
Vols. I and II. Penn State University, 1965.
i XXVI, 6559
i
Melvin, Leland D. A Study of Head Start Programs in
Indiana. Indiana University, 1966. XXVII, 3269-A
Mitchell, Ruth S. A Study of the Effect of Specific
Language Training on Psycholinguistics Scores of
Heaa Start Pupils! Florida State, 1967.
XVIII, 1709-A
Muse, Vernon C. An Assessment of "Head Start" Training on
Intelligence and Achievement of a Selected Group of
First Grade Students. Mississippi State University,
TSSJT XXIX, 1724-A
Phelps, D. W. Role Behavior and Attitude Change in Nursery
S c h o o l s " XXVI, 846
Pitts, V. L. An Investigation of the Relationships Between
Two Preschool Programs on the Adjustment and Readi
ness of Disadvantaged Pupils. Mot microfilmed at
the author'8 request. XXVIII, 4389-A
Porter, Jean T. An Evaluation of the Head Start Program in
Calhoun Countv. Michigan. Summer 1965, with Particu
lar Attention to School Readiness. Michigan State
University, 1967. XXIX, 418-A
*Rice, Roy R. The Effects of Project Head Start and Differ
ential Housing Environment upon Child Development.
Cornell University, 1967. XXVIII, 235S-A
115 i
i
Richards, P. Attitudes of Preschool Teaching Personnel
Concerning the Guidance of Children. XXV. 5249
Schmidt, Velma E. A Study of the Influence of Certain
Preschool Educational Movements on Contemporary
Preschool Practices. University of Nebraska. 1968.
XXIX, 4301-A
Smith, G. N. Inadequacies in a Selected Sample of Educa
tional Research Proposals. XXV, 205-A
i
APPENDIX B
MAJOR CATEGORIES AND CLASSIFICATIONS
OF RESPONDENTS' ANSWERS
116
TABLE 11
NUMERICAL CONDENSATION OF RESPONDENTS' ANSWERS
j The language of both parents and professional is |
retained. With the exception of minor spelling errors, i
almost no editing was necessary. In many instances the j
respondents often used identical phrasing. |
!
|
100— SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT (CATEGORY I)
110--Respect for classmates and teachers
111--self-control
sit down, be attentive, be quiet, don't
wiggle; be obedient, mind the teacher; no
horseplay, yelling, loud talking, loud
laughter; avoid tattling, name calling,
fighting; making silly remarks, asking silly
questions.
112 — responsibility
taking notes home and return to teacher;
pick up toys, put away materials, clean up
after themselves; be on time, follow
teacher's directions; do not destroy school |
property or personal property.
113— social training; character training, etc.
not touching the property of others; honesty
in admitting errors; truthfulness; politeness
and manners; sharing toys and materials;
getting along with other children; successful
group play; individual integrity, not cheat
ing in games.
120— Self-respect
121— bravery
non-fearful of teacher, school setting;
express self verbally without fear; to
achieve interest; develop feeling of
confidence.
122— Self-control (inner self-confidence),
emotional control, no temper-tantrums, little
crying; good self-image, positive self-
concept; personal awareness.
TABLE II (continues)
100— SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT (continued) i
I 130— Feelings toward society (deity, world, community, |
| home, school)
! 131— love and affection; love and family;
brotherhood of man; non-prejudicial; j
religion, about God. I
132--respect and love
love of country
respects for teachers and principals
respect for others: family friends, property
contributions of others.
1200— BODY CARE (CATEGORY II)
I
j 210— Hygiene
j 211— toilet training
212— use of tissues for nose and when coughing
213— no chewing on clothes and/or objects
214—-brushing teeth, combing hair, cleaning nails
215— washing hands, bathing, washing face
220— Aesthetic impressions and skills
221— keeping clothes clean and neat
222— fastening buttons, zippers, belts
223— table manners, not using others’ utensils,
CUD 8
224— politeness in general regarding body contact
230— Health and safety
231— care in crossing streets; knowing the way
home
232— no running in the rooms and halls
233— no pushing and shoving other children
234— remain on the grounds, supervised areas,
avoid strangers, don't get into cars
235— use care with scissors, sharp objects
236— not to put objects in mouth, ears, nose
237— proper sleep; good health habits
300— CURRICULUM, CREATIVITY, CURIOSITY (CATEGORY III)
310— Arithmetic
311— numbers, number concepts, counting
312— monetary system, shapes, forms, sizes
320— Science
321— names of animals, plants
322— moon, stars, planets
323— space, astronauts
324— names of parts of the body; five senses
TABLE 11 (continued) 119
300— CURRICULUM,
330— Social
CREATIVITY,
studies
CURIOSITY (continued)
331--own name, how to write and print own name;
address
332--phone number, parents' place of work
333-holidays inclusive of religious holidays
334--geographic terms, seasons, directions
335--train memory, follow direction in sequence,
solve problems
336-beginning attempts at leadership; be a good
follower
340--Music and art forms
341— nursery rhymes, songs, names of notes
342—-finger painting, use of crayons, names of
colors
343— playing children instruments, cymbals,
chimes
350— Practical arts
351— names and use of simple household tools,
make little things for home
352— names of kinds of food, good diets
360— English, language development, reading readiness
361— poems, stories, traditional tales, plays
362—-alphabet, names of articles, new word,
creativity
363— good speech habits, writing and reading
370— Business and community environment
371— kinds of transportation, dangers, advantages
372— mass media skills in use and handling radio,
TV
373— difference between advertisement, pictures
in newspapers, magazines
380— Recreation and physical education
381— traditional and childhood games
382—-proper use of free play time— group games
383— physical fitness, exercises
400— NO PROBLEM (CATEGORY IV)
TABLE 11 (concluded) 120
500— HOME/SCHOOL PROBLEMS (CATEGORY V)
510— Problems specifically related to parents, child,
teachers
511— Lack of parental support, or weak support;
poor communication and articulation between
parent and teacher; lack of recognition of
parental role.
512— Conflicting behavior patterns of child in
relation to school and home; child fear of
being left alone without parent; child and
adult fear of new situations.
513— Transportation and scheduling difficulties,
time conflicts with home routines.
514— Possible prejudice toward child; lack of
awareness of cultural differences; teacher's
unaware that school patterns of behavior
pose a problem in the home.
515— Need for more time to work in the program on
the part of parents and teachers.
520— Administrative problems
521— Demand of record keeping.
522— Intra-school articulation and communication.
523— Need for additional staff in the program and
also inclusive of teaching aides for kinder
garten teachers.
524— Need for assistant director and/or profes
sional consultant; need for more in-service
training of the Head Start teachers and other
staff.
525— Need for Head Start assistant teachers in
kindergarten (not necessarily teaching
aides).
526— Insecurity in relation to length of time
program will last in view of uncertainty of
funding.
527— Complete rejection of the Head Start program;
waste of time of staff, effort and money.
APPENDIX C
NUMERICAL CONDENSATION OF THE FINDINGS
121
TABLE 11
NUMERICAL CONDENSATION OF RESPONDENTS1 ANSWERS
200 3/0
P£ l U2-
u o i i q _
Ju&fefi
- 0 ^2
. & U * L
T Kb
m i m
TABLE 11 (continued)
_0_K-Q«L
- ! AD o yp
I Q . 3qjq
£L.!2tt
JL.'m
K'3oo
JBQL&&.
JLJ21L
kJ'32J
0-1,033.
TABLE 11 (continued)
y Q-~on
J 3 U L
J L H I
3Q0 KJ/M j u a s
- ! ! G£2_
125
TABLE 11 (continued)
ttim
Jsiaeg
CJ/ST
J U m
6
300
TABLE 11 (continued)
o yp
33/ 363
J L JOQ 3UL L2L. 2ML UL2 l
J L m
06 315//
'JRD
11L-L12.
06 V 52 2 Oft* Q0*(
3/0
mjaso. JL.2&J2.
V
3/0 x
V
-G-to*
c, j - / , 5. 7 ; .
m w
TABLE 11 (concluded)
QQtSU \ X y . \ J M L
' li/s? •MO D VP
3 .1 M U
J U M
ps*
m l l i m
DVD
kJLll.
j u m
V
u L . m
•tST n/rp
A , * * — * 1 * — .
APPENDIX D
CHI SQUARE RESULTS SHOWING FREQUENCIES
AND PERCENTAGES OF PROBLEMS AS STATED
BY PARENTS AND TEACHERS
128
CHI SQUARE RESULTS SHOWING FREQUENCIES AND PERCENTAGES
OF PROBLEMS AS STATED BY PARENTS AND TEACHERS
i
TWO-WAY TABLE NUMBER: 1 HORIZONTAL VARIABLE: 2
VERTICAL VARIABLE: 3
SUBJECT TO CONDITION
GROUP
PRO/NO
NONE
FREQUENCIES
-1.500
1.500
TOTAL
4.500
ROW PER
-1.500
CENTS
1.500
4.500
399.500 31 8 39 79.5 20.5 100.0
499.500 44 28 72 61.1 38.9 100.0
TOTAL 75 36 111 67.6 32.4 100.0
COLUMN PER CENTS TOTAL PER CENTS
399.500 41.3 22.2 35.1 27.9 7.2 35.1
499.500 58.7 77.8 64.9 39.6 25.2 64.9
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 67.6 32.4 100.0
CHI-SQUARE ■ 3.898 DEGREE OF FREEDOM - 1
APPENDIX E
SOCIOECONOMIC CENSUS TRACT DATA
OF HEAD START AREAS
130
131
INCREASE OF POPULATION IN
Census Year
Incorporated
Pomona Population
POMONA FROM 1890-1960
Increase Over
Previous Census
Number Per Cent
1960 67,157 31,752 89.7
1950 35,405 11,866 50.4
1940 23,539 2,735 13.1
1930 20,804 7,299 54.0
1920 13,505 3,298 82.3
1910 10,207 4,681 84.7
1900 5,526 1,892 52.1
1890 3,634
- -
Census of Population, Vol. 1, Characteristics of the Popula
tion, Part 6, California, United States Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1960. Pp. viii, 6-36, 6-20.
SUMMARY OF POPULATION CHARACTERISTIC FOR THE STATES FOR SMA, URBANIZED AREAS,
URBAN PLACES, AND COUNTIES: 1960 (POMONA) I
14 Years Old
and Over
Number
Per Cent
Increase
1950-1960
All Persons
67,157 89.7
Per Cent
Non-white
1.8
Per Cent
Under 18
37.4
Per Cent
18-64
53.4
Per Cent
65+
9.2
Male
Per Cent
Married
73.6
Female
Per Cent
Married
68.3
HOUSEHOLDS
Number of
Per Cent
Increase
1950-1960
Population
per
Household
Population in
Group Quarters
Number
Per Cent
of Total
18 Years
Old and
Over
Per Cent
Male
1
I
47.4
20,975 80.9 3.18 367 .05
United States Bureau of the Census: 1960.
I 133 !
j RACE AND COUNTRY OF ORIGIN OF TOTAL POPULATION (POMONA)
j TOTAL: 67,157 WHITE: 69,976 OTHER RACES: 880
WHITE WITH SPANISH SURNAMES: Native 6,349; Foreign Born 812j
POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD: 3.18 !
i
School Enrollment j
Total Enrolled, 5 to 34 years old: 18,060 j
Kindergarten 1,455
Public 1,384
Elementary (1-8 yrs.) 11,200
Public 9,607
High School (1-4) 3,828
Public 3,486
Colleges 1,577
Years school completed
persons 25 years old and older 36,491
No school years completed 356
Elementary (1-4) 919
5-7 3,175
8 5,089
High School 1-3 years 8,011
4 years 10,389
College 1-3 years 5,333
4 years or more 3,218
Median years school completed 12.1
Family Income 1959 All families 17,354
Under $1,000 532
1.000 - 1,999 886
2.000 - 2,999 1,034
3.000 - 3,999 1,174
4.000 - 4,999 1,607
5.000 - 5,999 2,152
6.000 - 6,999 2,208
7.000 - 7,999 1,900
8.000 - 8,999 1,620
9.000 - 9,999 1,194
10.000 - 14,999 2,490
15.000 - 24,999 553
25.000 and over 104
United States Bureau of Census: 1960.
APPENDIX F
SPANISH AND ENGLISH VERSIONS OF INTERVIEW LETTER
AND QUESTIONNAIRE TO PARENTS
134
March, 1967
i
iQueridos Padres:
Qulslera saber lo que ustedes plensan que los Head Start
imaestros, ayudantes a los Head Start maestros, y los
padres deben ensenar a los nlnos antes de entrar al
Kindergarten. En las proxima pajina hay espacla donde
pueden escribir sus respeustas. SI encuentran dificultad
escribiendo el Ingles pueden escribirlo en espanol.
i
Escrlba solamente las Ideas que vlenen a la mente. Lo
unlco que es necesarlo es que escrlba las Ideas en orden
de importancla. La mas importante primero, la slgulente
segundo y la Idea de menos Importancla tercero. Ustedes
pueden ayudar a la escuela y a los nlnos si toman parte
en esto actividad. Su partlclpaclon es muy apreclada.
SIncer amente,
Guinevere Guy Norman
Instrucciones: Marque solamente lo que le conviene.
Ayudante a un maestro de Head Start.......... ( )
Maestro de Head Start.........................( )
Maestro de Kindergarten
Padre .................
j Indique otro .........
| Si es usted padre, iTiene por lo menos a un nino en !
I el programa de Head Start? ... si ( ) ... no ( ) 1
! !
Por favor escriba en orden de preferencia (en otras palabras
su primera, segunda, or tercera eleccion) 10 cue usted cree !
las siguientes personas deben ensenarle a los ninos antes del
entrar al kindergarten.
I !
I Padres
■ ' 1. |
: 2. |
! 3 1
---------------------------------------------------------j
Maestros de Head Start
! i . ______________________________________________________________
2. ____________________________________________
3. _________________________________________________________:
Avudantes a un maestro de Head Start
1. ______________________________________________________________
2. ____________________________________________
3. ________________________________________________________
£Qu£ cree usted que los maestros de Kindergarten le deben
ae ensenar a los nifios?
1. ______________________________________________________________
2. ____________________________________________
3. ________________________________________________________
( )
£Qu£ considera usted su mayor problema como padre o maestro
en relacidn al prorama de Head Start? ______________________
137
f
i j
I I
j j
! March, 1967
Dear Parent: :
j
I would like to know what you think Head Start Teachers,
;Head Start Assistant Teachers and Parents should teach
! children before they enroll in Kindergarten. On the next j
page there is space for you to write your answers. If you ;
have difficulty writing in English you may write your
answers in Spanish. j
!
Do not try to write them in anyway except as the ideas come
to you. The only thing that is important in listing your
answers is to be sure to put the most important one first,
the next in importance second and the third in importance j
last. You can help both the school and the children by
taking part in this activity. Your participation is truly
appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Guinevere Guy Norman
Directions: Check only that which applies to you.
Head Start Teacher........................... ( )
Head Start Assistant Teacher .............. ( )
Kindergarten Teacher ....................... ( )
Parent ( )
Other (please specify) ..................... ( )
If you are a parent do you have at least one child
in the Head Start program? ... yes ( ) ... no ( )
iPlease list in order of preference (in other words your
jfirst, second, and third choices) as to what you think ei
of the following people should teach the preschool child
{before he enters kindergarten.
j PARENTS
1.
! 2. __
3. _
HEAD START TEACHERS
1.
2.
3. _______________
HEAD START ASSISTANT TEACHERS
1.
2.
3.
What do you think Kindergarten teachers should teach the
children in Kindergarten? List three items.
1. __________________________________________________________
2.
3. ____________________________________________________
What do you consider to be your greatest problem as a parent
or teacher in relation to the Head Start program? __________
APPENDIX G
SELECTED LETTER TO PROFESSIONALS
139
March, 1967
Dear Fellow Professional:
| I need your help in a project which in turn may help all
Head Start programs. The major purpose of this study is
to determine the extent of agreement about who should
teach what to preschool children. You are interested in
and/or involved in the Head Start program. It will take
only a few minutes of your time to fill out the attached
sheet.
Although you will check your proper classification, you
as an individual will not be identified. I do thank you
for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Guinevere Guy Norman

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The Concept Of "Disadvantagement" And Its Implications For American Education

PDF

Ideological Conflict In Contemporary Ghanaian Education: 1957-1971

PDF

Toward intercultural effectiveness: development of a rationale and strategy for second culture learning

PDF

Teacher Characteristics And Their Relationship To Student Marking In Selected Junior High Schools, United States Dependents Schools, European Area

PDF

Teaching As A Dramatic Performance: An Inquiry Into The Application Of The Stanislavski Method To The Classroom

PDF

An Analysis Of The Philosophical Beliefs Implicit Within General Semantics And Their Relevance For Educational Theory

PDF

A Critical Analysis Of An Intercultural Institute For Personnel And Curriculum Development On India

PDF

A Study Exploring Two Different Approaches To Encounter-Groups: The Combination Of Verbal Encounter And Designed Nonverbal Activity Versus Emphasis Upon Verbal Activity Only

PDF

A Study Of Philosophy Curriculum Dissonance In Selected Colleges And Universities In California

PDF

A study of personality factors affecting cultural adjustment of American teachers overseas

PDF

Black Power And Education: A Comparative Study Of Student-Administrator Views

PDF

Capillary Pulse Pressure As A Means Of Discriminating Flaws And Involvement Between Cognitive And Affective Test Questions

PDF

Achievement In Junior College As Related To Eligibility Level On Entrance

PDF

Nietzsche'S Philosophy Of Education: A Critical Exposition

PDF

All But The Dissertation: A Study Of The Factors Of Attrition In Graduateeducation

PDF

The Transfer Purpose Of The Public Community Junior College In Californiahigher Education: A Study In Purpose And Development

PDF

The Educational Philosophy Of Horace Mann

PDF

Stimulus-Approach Tendencies Of Learners As A Factor In Evaluation Of Instructional Films

PDF

Toward a paradigm of educational change: the role of management information systems

PDF

An Exploratory Study Of A Measure Of Internal-External Control Of Reinforcement As A Significant Predictor Of Success For A Self-Pacing Study Program

Asset Metadata

Creator Norman, Guinevere Guy (author)

Core Title Educational Expectations And Problems As Perceived By Headstart Parents And Teachers

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education, general,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor O'Neill, William S. (committee chair), Hamovitch, Maurice B. (committee member), Sklar, Bernard (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-468248

Unique identifier UC11362421

Identifier 7116430.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-468248 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7116430

Dmrecord 468248

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Norman, Guinevere Guy

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA