xt7d513tx75n https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7d513tx75n/data/mets.xml Kentucky University of Kentucky. Center for Developmental Change 1968 Other contributors include Street, Paul. Photocopies. Unit 1, copy 2 is a photocopy issued by the clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information. Report of a study by an interdisciplinary team of the University of Kentucky, performed under Contract 693 between the University of Kentucky Research Foundation and the Office of Economic Opportunity, 1965-68. Includes bibliographical references. Part of the Bert T. Combs Appalachian Collection. books English Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Community Action Program (U.S.) Economic assistance, Domestic--Kentucky--Knox county. Poor--Kentucky--Knox County Community Action in Appalachia: An Appraisal of the "War on Poverty" in a Rural Setting of Southeastern Kentucky, August 1968; Unit 11: The Early Childhood Program text Community Action in Appalachia: An Appraisal of the "War on Poverty" in a Rural Setting of Southeastern Kentucky, August 1968; Unit 11: The Early Childhood Program 1968 2016 true xt7d513tx75n section xt7d513tx75n l C O M M U N I T Y A C T I O N IN A P P A L A C H I A An Appraisal of the "War on Poverty" A in a Rural Setting of Southeastern Kentucky (Report of a study by an interdisciplinary team of the University of Kentucky, performed under Contract #693 between the University of Kentucky Research Foundation and the Office of Economic Opportunity, l965—68) UNIT ll TH EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM _ il Paul Street and Linda Tomes .`S<> G~ z <;_» \ ·•· QQ Cj , *=~’ \.J <3 G Qi. - '· Contents of Entire Report: COMMUNITY ACTION TN APPALACHIA This is one unit of a report which includes the following units, each separately bound as is this one: Unit l--Paul Street, tntrodntttnn_and Synthesis ` Quality of Life in Rural Poverty Areas '. Unit 2——Lowndes P. Stephens, Econontc Progress in an Appalachian ` County: The Relationship Between Economic and Sottal Change Unit 3--Stephen R. Cain, n_§elective Desntiption of a Knox County Mountain Netghborhood Unit 4-—James W. Gladden, Family_Life Styles, Social Participation and Sntio—Cnttural Changg Change and Impacts of Community Action · A ` Unit 5——Herbert Hirsch, Poverty, Parttpipation, and Political J Socialization: A Study of the Relationship §ntween_Participation in the Community Action Progrnn and tng Political Socialization of the Appalachian Chiln. Unit 6--Morris K. Caudill, The Youth Development Progran · Unit 7--Lewis Donohew and B, Krishna Singh, Modernization of tite Styles » Unit 8-—Willis A, Sutton, Jr., Leadership and Community Relations · Unit 9——Ottis Murphy and Paul Street, The "image" of_the Knox County Community Antion Program Specific Community Action Programs l f Unit lO—-Ottis Murphy, Tne Knnn_County Qnonomic Opportunity Anti- ‘ Poverty Arts and_Qrafts Store Project ,_ , Unit ll——Paul Street and Linda Tomes, The Qnrly Childhood Program Unit l2——Paul Street, The Hnnith Enncation Ptogram , Unit l3--Thomas P, Field, Wilford Bladen, and Burtis Webb, Recent \ Home_Qnnstruttinn_in Twn Appalachian Counties I ABSTRACT THE EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM by L l Paul Street and Linda Tomes One—hundred forty children (68 boys, 72 girls) in the first grade for the years 1966-67 and 1967-68 who had participated the previous year in the Early Childhood Program conducted by an OEO com unity action group in a rural Appalachian county in southeastern Kentucky were matched with other first graders of their own classes respectively in terms of progress toward promotion to second grade and social adjustment (on the basis of rankings by their first- grade teachers during February of each year respectively) and then on grades at the end of first grade. Boys were matched to boys, girls to girls, so that matched pairs of groups were established respectively in terms of the three criteria, and these compared on the basis of each of the criteria, first with the sexes separately, then with sexes combined. The vari- ables used in the comparison were those related to home background of the youngstert, and to age of entering first grade. Differences sig- nificant at the .05 level were determined by t-test of differences between means of paired groups. V It appeared from the study that there were rather clear tendencies for the child in first grade who had had the Early Child- hood experience to be matched (on the basis of the three criteria · used in this study, and especially by grades at end of first grade) to a child who was slightly older and who came from a home in which: · l) The parents had measurably more interest in having the child go further in school. (Boys and combined sexes matched on grades.) 2) The parents had themselves had more schooling. (Boys and combined sexes matched on grades.) 3) The level of employment of the head of household was higher. V (Boys matched on progress toward promotion in February and on grades; girls on grades; combined sexes both on progress toward promotion, and grades.) 4) The family income, measured either in gross or adjusted in terms of size of the family and location, was higher. (Boys and combined sexes matched on grades.) Despite some vagaries which may variously be attributed to sampling or measurement errors, the Early Childhood Program product may be viewed, therefore, as having overcome such handicaps of background as these differences represent, as well as a slight age handicap, in "catching up" with those with whom he was matched in this study. Age was the most recurrently significant variable distinguishing the two groups. In all the pairings, it failed to emerge as significant only in compari· sons between the matched groups of boys and of girls on progress toward promotion, and of boys on grades. There was, however, a recurrent tendency--not clearly demonstrated, it is true, in any of the matches on grades, but appearing in matchings of boys and combined sexes on progress toward promotion and social adjustment and girls on social adjustment--for the Early Childhood Program product to come from homes where newspaper reading is more O commonly practiced. O ACKNOWLEDGM NTS V This study could never have been done without the generous support of the people of the schools in Knox County, particularly the administrative office staffs--but most especially the first grade teachers! It was they who exhibited the cooperative spirit and patience required to carry out our somewhat complicated in- structions and provide us the information we needed about their pupils--and most of them performed this task twice for us, once for 1966-67 and again for 1967-68. We are grateful. Others we should thank are the mothers of the children we studied--both those who had youngsters in the Early Childhood Program and those who, by fortuitous circumstance, happened to have youngsters in first grade who became match-mates to those in the Early Childhood group. Their willingness to answer questions that helped us do our study will, we hope, eventually contribute toward a better understanding of how to improve education, and life generally, for all children. C -—Paul Street, Principal Investigator Linda Tomes, Research Assistant ii O TABLE OF CONTENTS O Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................... ii LIST OF TABLES ......................... iv _ THE EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM Research Context .................... 2 Character of the Early Childhood Program ........ 5 The Sample ....................... 6 Rationale for Comparing Groups ............. 8 Comparisons Between Matched Groups-—Sexes Separated . . . l3 Comparisons--Sexes Combined ............... 22 Summary .................. . ...... 25 ADDENDA First-Grade Attendance ................. 27 Results in Second Grade ................. 28 Popularity of Early Childhood Program .......... 29 APPENDIX . ........................... 30 READINGS ............................ 34 {I. iii a LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Comparison Between Backgrounds and Ages of Groups of First-Grade Boys Matched on Basis of Student's Progress Toward Promotion to Second Grade During Sixth Month of 1966-67 and 1967-68 School Years ..... 14 2. Comparison Between Backgrounds and Ages of Groups of First-Grade Boys Matched on Basis of Social Adjustment During Sixth Month of 1966-67 and 1967-68 School Years . . 15 3. Comparison Between Backgrounds and Ages of Groups of First-Grade Girls Matched on Basis of Student's Progress Toward Promotion to Second Grade During Sixth Month of 1966-67 and 1967-68 ............ 16 4. Comparison Between Backgrounds and Ages of Groups of First-Grade Girls Matched on Basis of Social Adjustment During Sixth Month of 1966-67 and 1967-68 School Years . . 17 5. Comparison Between Backgrounds and Ages of Groups of Boys Matched on Basis of Grades at End of First Grade for 1966-67 and 1967-68 School Years ........... 19 6. Comparison Between Backgrounds and Ages of Groups of Girls Matched on Basis of Grades at End of First Grade for 1966-67 and 1967-68 School Years ........... 20 7. Comparison Between Backgrounds and Ages of Groups of First-Grade Boys and Girls Matched on Basis of Student's Progress Toward Promotion to Second Grade During Sixth Month of 1966-67 and 1967-68 School Years .............,............ 22 8. Comparison Between Backgrounds and Ages of Groups of First-Grade Boys and Girls Matched on Basis of Social Adjustment During Sixth Month of 1966-67 and 1967-68 School Years ................... 23 9. Comparison Between Backgrounds and Ages of Groups of Boys and Girls Matched on Basis of Grades at End of First Grade for 1966-67 and 1967-68 School Years ..... 24 I iv O THE EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM Both the goals and character of the OEO community action program (CAP) are so mixed with intangibles and its potential impacts so inter- twined with those of other programs that anyone attempting to appraise it should be alert to the hazard of committing a non-seguitur. These investigators should like first of all to declare that they have no illusion that the most important impacts of the CAP, and specifically in the case of the Early Childhood Program, are those measured here. They would be first to admit that any failure of data presented here to demonstrate a clear impact of the CAP should not be regarded as conclusive of its ineffectiveness. Some imponderables are obviously beyond the scope of any research methodologies now avail- able. Some essentially germane to the appraisal of the Early Child- hood Education Program appear to be: 1) How has the program affected the aspiration levels of youngsters, in ways that perhaps would be measurable _ i only in later, even adult, years and perhaps in only i some or even a few individuals? 2) Are there effects which, perhaps even in diminutive i degrees at first, may in the long run generate among { parents higher educational aspirations and ambitions 5 for their children? 3) Are there impacts in socialization of parents of children E l l O A l 2 in the program who may be drawn into neighborly contacts · and involvements that may extend their social and intellectual horizons? 4) Are there impacts upon education as an institution in the community, especially in the long run? 5) Are there impacts upon the health and physical growth of the youngsters in the program, especially in the long run? Weighing these against such counter-imponderables as the low living standards and very real and considerable disadvantages generally characteristic of the environment of children in the Early Childhood Program in Knox County, one may judge that any attempt to reduce the evaluation to immediately available objective data could result in a missing of the crucial value issues of the program entirely. Despite such concessions, the investigator herewith proceeds to deal with data which did appear available, in a sense groping toward some possibility of evaluation from such broad-framed perspectives while, at the same time, attempting to hold onto hard-data realities. - Research Context A review of the literature regarding pre-school programs for the disadvantaged child nets little germane to the problem of evaluating the Knox County CAP·in Early Childhood Education. Unless something has been overlooked in the review done by these l investigators, this study is of a distinctive pattern, both in the I 3 · logic of its design and, to some extent, in the pattern of variables with which it is concerned. The relationship between child gxnnb and environment, of course, E is generally recognized, as is the principle of maturation. Classical studies, such as the pioneer works of Binet in France and Termanl in the United States, in developing measures of intellectual growth calibrated by age (mental age in months), substantiate the relation between the child's inherent maturation tendencies and his age--and generalizations relating their measures of this development to success in school have been the starting point for multitudes of 2 studies. Relationship of the general environment of the child to his achievement level in school--and to his IQ-—has in recent years had considerable attention, both in research and debate. With regard to the child from the impoverished home, Deutsch observes ". . . that disadvantaged children, who have a meager environmental base for developing cognitive skills, are often unprepared to cope with the formal intellectual and learning demands of the school."3 1 , . Lewis M. Terman, The Measurement of Intelligence (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1916), p. 40. 2 D.R. Green and S. V. Simmons, "Chronological Age and School Entrance," Elementary School Journal, Vol. 63 (October, 1962), pp. 41-7. Paul Street, "How Old Should a First Grader Be?" School Service Report, Bureau of School Service, University of Kentucky, Vol. 1, No. 1,(May, 1968). 3Martin Deutsch, "Some Psychological-Social Aspects of Learning in the Disadvantaged," Teachers College Record, Vol. 67 (January, 1966), p. 261. p ‘ Q Obviously, environment and native ability are each clusters of Q T t variables most difficult to separate, since the inherently able are presumed to be able somehow to effect an environment congruent with their ability. The general relationship between home back- ground of the child (be it eaaee, effect, or bebb)a and his edu- cational growth is documented by many studies--mostly, however, for age groups above the pre-school level. This study is different, therefore, in that it examines into some variables presumably related to the general supportiveness of the home environment of the pre-school child intellectually and socially and to the variable of age, relating these to the variable which is the concern of this study--participation in the Knox County CAP Early Childhood Program. Two hypotheses set up in the original design for this study to be tested in evaluation of the Early Childhood Program are that: l) The program will change the environment in which children V are reared, not only in control of conditions in the centers where participating children of ages 3-5 spend some twenty hours per week but primarily (in a measurable sense) by influence upon attitudes and aspirations held for the children by their parents (with participating parents compared to others of like socio-economic background). . 2) The children who have participated in the Early Childhood ` Program, in comparison to a paired group who have not QA matter for further study might well be more incisive examin- ation into the dynamic relationships among the variables treated in · this study. ‘ 5 · participated, will demonstrate in first grade a greater reading and academic readiness and capacity to participate cooperatively but self-sufficiently in group activities, as indicated by a rating index applied by teachers. Some modifications of the original design have become necessary. Evidence of change in parents is to be indirectly inferred on the basis of data gathered for other phases of the study. The evidence here regarding the second hypothesis is, however, explicitly directed toward testing it. Character of the Early Childhood Program Characteristically, the Early Childhood Program is operated in a former school building which also serves as the Community Center under the OEO Community Action Program. It has been adapted by: l) Addition of a kitchen and serving facilities. 2) Addition of indoor plumbing and toilet facilities, if they did not previously exist. 3) Screening of windows and general rehabilitation. 4) Arrangement and furnishing of a room equipped generally as is a modern kindergarten, with children's furniture and play equipment. Typically, children are brought by motor car (a small "Scout" bus) about 9 a.m. four days per week. (The driver is usually a parent of a participating child.) They are given a variety of experiences roughly similar to those of kindergarten: playing, eating, napping, toilet, listening, general socialization, and I 6 I occasional field trips. They receive hot lunches at noon and are returned home about 3 p.m. Although in the beginning 22 children were accepted for each unit, the number has since been dropped to 17. In some areas, there are too few children to fill even this reduced quota. Efforts were made to employ qualified teachers in the program. Although there was no certification requirement for the teaching personnel, in each case of employment an effort was made to obtain either duly certified persons by Kentucky stmmards in the elementary education field (requiring the bachelor's degree with certain course patterns) or equally qualified personsin related fields such as social work or psychology. Teacher's aides were recruited from the available people in the community. These people, naturally, were not as qualified educationally as the teachers,but they were interested in helping in the program and were able to relieve the teachers of some of their routine duties. The program was opened and operated in time sequence as indicated in the table on page 7. The Sample Available population for the study is limited, of course, by the enrollment in the program. There were 94 who were in the program in 1965-1966 and were expected to enter grade 1 in fall of 1966. Then, 138 more were enrolled in 1966-1967 and 75 moved into first grade in fall of 1967. These represent the "pool" from which the sampling was necessarily drawn--and the drawing was of every one I . KE: ’ *““`““"" — = fulbtime TIME OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PRocRAM IN cENTERs Community Oct.'65 Jan.'66 July'66 Jan.'67 July'67 Jan.'68 June'68 Center Program Barbourvillc Berhe 1 In--I C &¤¤¤¤ I I II - I mac Lick ! Fount I---- \I Grays Gm _ - II Jackson _ _ Kay Jay V Messar - I C _ U · R ¤S€¤ WM - L I L -n--I 8 I . . available. (Eighteen of these were from the Barbourville and 8 from the Rosenwald center, in areas comparatively more urban than would have fit the purposes of the study, ideally.) Furthermore, only 76 of the total of the 1965-66 group were found to be enrolled in first grades of the county. In 1966-67, also, only 75 of the l966-67 group were so enrolled in 1967-68. Of the first group, two were the only first-graders in a one-room school, so that they had no classmates with whom to be compared. Also, a few moved before their parents could be interviewed so that they could not be included in the sampling for some purposes. Other obstacles eliminated a few (the atypical cases of children ' reared in an orphanage, for instance) so that eventually only 69 could be included as the "experimental" group for all phases of this report in the first group and only 7l of the second group for all phases. Rationale for Comparing Groups The design for this study is unusual in that instead of matching paired groups at a "starting point" the matching was done at the "finish line"; that is, the groups were paired on the basis of achievement in first grade, then tests applied to see whether or not the home backgrounds and ages of the two groups, in terms of characteristics presumed to be related to success in school work generally, differed. That is, achievement was treated as though it · were the independent variable, potential (as measured by home back- ground and age) as though it were the dependent variable. O 9 The procedure was: 1) During February 1967,and again in 1968,first-grade teachers in the county who had in their classes any youngsters who had had the Early Childhood Program experience the previous year were asked to rank all their students in two bases separately: A) Success toward promotion to second grade. B) Success in adjustment independently and cooperatively in group activities. 2) Two paired groups of males and two paired groups of females were selected by alternately pairing each child who had been in the program with onecf the same sex who had not,and who alternately ranked either immediately above or below him.6 This was done separately for the two criteria-- 6 . . Some impasses were encountered where, for instance, two or more of the same group were ranked consecutively. Consequently, choices were made, "above" or "below," to balance the rankings as nearly as possible. Even so, the Al group (see table, page ll ) had a cumulative ranking of 6 points above (actually lower ranking) its cohorts: B1 of 9 points; C1 of l point; D1 of -11 points; E1 of -2 points; F1 of 3 points; Gl of 5 points; H1 of 9 points; ll of -14 points; J of -14 points; K of -18 points, and L1 of 23 points. The means of all rankings (though obviously rankings were of differing values because of differences in class size--as well as of teacher judgments) were respectively: For A , 6.74; for A2, 6.57. For B1, 6.86; B2, 6.60. For C1, 7.51; C2, 7.51. For D1, 6.13; D2, 6.41. For E1, 8.80; E2, 8.85. For Fl, 10.25; F2, 10.25. For G , 7.71; G2, 7.57. For H , 7.94; H2, 7.62. For I1, 6.19; I2, 6.97. For Jl, 6.41; J2, 6.83. For K1, 9.14; K2, 9.67. For Ll, 11.69; L2, 10.50. Obviously, the advantage, accidentally, falls to the control groups except for D2, H2, and L2 where the mean ranking turns out to be lower (a higher figure) than for D1 (in comparison of girls on the basis of social adjustment), H1 (in comparison of boys on the basis of social adjustment), and L1 (in comparison of girls on the basis of grades). The differences are presumed, however, to be slight. Actually, among the combined 27 · class groups) (14 from 1966-1967 and 13 from 1967-1968) from which 10 · success toward promotion and success in group activities-- and then on the basis of final grades in the three "fundamenta1s," reading, writing, and arithmetic, at the end of the school year.7 The result was the pattern for classifying the subjects exhibited on the page which follows. Actually, the groups for both years were combined, first with sexes separated, but finally with boys and girls combined.(Using matched pairs preserved the balance between the A paired groups, Of cOurS€_) Assumptions underlying this pattern were: l) That girls are gegerally more mature than boys at entry _ 8 to first grade. samples were taken, we were able to have rankings exactly balanced by class groups of boys and girls separately in 57 of the 154 groups, with the greatest difference being 8 ranking points between two groups. Cohorts were selected individual by individual, not simply to balance the total rankings between matched groups. This was done so that when a sample had to be discarded for any reason his cohort could be dropped also and the balance between groups adequately preserved. 7Grade matching involved summation of final grade "scores" in reading, writing, and arithmetic, counting: A=5, B=4, C=3, D=2, F=1. The pupil, therefore, could score as high as 15, as low as 3. 8This assumption was actually given a rather superficial testing on the basis of the data on the experimental group. For the first-year group (1966-1967) in 7 of the 11 classes in which both sexes had been in the program, the girls had a median ranking above that of the boys on the basis of progress toward promotion to second grade, with a tie in one. On the basis of social adjustment they ranked higher in 7 of the 11. On the basis of grades the girls outranked the boys in 7 out of 11 classes and tied in 2. For the second-year group (1967-1968) in 6 of the 10 classes in which both sexes had been in the program, the girls again had a median ranking above that of the boys on the basis of progress toward promotion to second grade, with a tie in 2. On the basis of social adjustment the girls ranked higher in 4 of the 10 and tied in~2. Of some interest,Ta1so, is the ranking of the experimental group, boys and girls combined, in comparison to the · total of the entire classes rin which they were ranked. Although the GROUPING PATTERN OF STUDY Experimental Control Experimental Control (Those who had Early (Those of matched (Those who had Early (Those of matched Childhood Development rankings who were Childhood Development rankings who were Experience in 1965-66) not in program) Experience in 1966-67) not in program) Al Boys on basis of A2 Boys on basis of G1 Boys on basis of G2 Boys on basis of progress toward progress toward progress toward progress toward promotion promotion promotion promotion B1 Boys on basis of B2 Boys on basis of H1 Boys on basis of H2 Boys on basis of social adjustment social adjustment social adjustment social adjustment l··* I—* Cl Girls on basis of C2 Girls on basis of Il Girls on basis of I2 Girls on basis of progress toward progress toward progress toward progress toward promotion promotion promotion promotion D1 Girls on basis of D2 Girls on basis of J1 Girls on basis of J2 Girls on basis of social adjustment social adjustment social adjustment social adjustment E1 Boys on basis of E2 Boys on basis of Kl Boys on basis of K Boys on basis of grades grades grades 2 grades Fl Girls on basis of F2 Girls on basis of Ll Girls on basis of L2 Girls on basis of grades grades grades grades 12 2) That teacher judgments of the youngsters within a single class group are expressed with acceptable realiability and validity through rankings according to the two criteria-- though judgments between teachers of different groups might not have been assumed to be acceptable. 3) That the measures selected for evaluating the initial potential of each subject to do first—grade work were within acceptable limits of reliability and validity when applied to the groups. 4) That if the groups paired on achievement on either of the two criteria differ significantly in the measures of their home backgrounds or of age it is reasonable to conclude that the Early Childhood Program has had a significant impact. The null hypothesis to be tested in comparisons between each of the paired groups was that: The home backgrounds and/or ages of the experimental and of the control groups do not differ significantly. The data appear to lend themselves to very simple statistical initial assumption was that the former,being drawn from disadvantaged backgrounds, would compare unfavorably on the basis of mean rankings, such did not turn out to be the case. Indeed, by an insignificant margin the experimental group showed an advantage above the group of which they were a part. Among the lh classes in which the first—year group were scattered, the experimental groups had a slightly higher median ranking in wiuevement toward promotion to second grade in 6 of them and tied in another. On basis of social adjustment, they led in 6 and tied in 2. On the basis of grades, they led in 6 and tied in A. For the second-year group of the 13 classes of which the experimental group were a part, on the basis of progress toward promotion to second grade and on,the basis of social adjustment, in 12 cases they were above the class median and tied in l. On the basis . of grades, they led in 2 and tied in 8. 13 I treatment: The mean scores of the respectively paired groups were compared, with tests applied for significance of difference between means. The results are in the tables which follow in which parallel groups for both years are combined. Comparisons Between Matched Groups--Sexes Separated Assuming that the .05 level of significance is an acceptable one, the table following may be interpreted as showing that the boys who had had the CAP Early Childhood Program experience before entering first grade, by comparison to others ranked equally with them academically, came from homes in which more newspaper reading (pre- sumed to be related to participation in other mass media) took place-- a fact which suggests an unexpected advantage in the background of the Early Childhood Program youngster. This is offset by the dis- advantage of coming from a home in which the father is of a lower level of employment. As will be seen shortly, these conclusions get modification as the sex groups in the sampling are combined so that the N is enlarged. It may be noted that some items had comparatively high levels of significance--representing tendencies too "weak" to be measured as significant with so small a sample but emerging as the N is enlarged, as appears to be the case when the two sexes are combined. (The two are kept separate here so that it can be judged whether or not there is a difference in the impact of the program between the sexes.) O l4 I Table l (Al-Gl versus A2-G2) COMPARISON BETWEEN BACKGROUNDS AND AGES OF GROUPS OF FIRST—GRADE BOYS MATCHED ON BASIS OF STUDENT'S PROGRESS TOWARD PROMOTION TO SECOND GRADE DURING SIXTH MONTH OF l966-67 AND l967-68 SCHOOL YEARS Early Level of Childhood Matched Significance Group Gr¤¤v of Differences Mean Mean Between Means Years of schooling parent feels son 29.46 30.40 .l2 and daughter should have Years of schooling both parents had ll.93 l3.l4 .20 Employment level of breadwinner 2‘76 3*70 ‘O5 Newspaper reading index Score 3.39 2.39 .04 Gross family income level 5.0l 5.56 .l3 Number in family 6.49 6.7l .57 Ad' d ' .J“St€ famlly 2.69 2.9l .45 income level Age in months at entering first grade 7Q·89 76'O4 '33 N of each group 70 70 Table 2 does demonstrate a significant difference between groups in age——with Early Childhood boys younger--but no other of the tendencies quite reached the .05 level. Either the instruments used were too crude to detect the trends or the sample was too small-- or the trends did not exist. Again, as the N is enlarged as the boys and girls are combined, some of these tendencies become · statistically verified. The difference in mean age between the 15 · two groups, significant at only .33 for the boys, is, for example, more strongly demonstrated when the groups are combined. It appears here, of course, as significant. Table 2 (Bl-H1 versus B2-H2) COMPARISON BETWEEN BACKGROUNDS AND AGES OF GROUPS OF FIRST-GRADE BOYS MATCHED ON BASIS OF SOCIAL ADJUSTM NT DURING SIXTH MONTH OF 1966-67 AND 1967-68 SCHOOL YEARS Early Matched WE? of Childhggd Gfou Significance Group Meanp of Differences Mean Between Means Years of schooling parent feels son 29.42 30.38 .12 and daughter should have Years of schooling both parents had 12.07 12.77 .47 Employment level of breadwinner 2‘75 3‘32 ‘O8 Newspaper reading . 3.39 2.04 .004 index score Gross family income level 5.06 5.14 .80 1 * Number in family 6.49 6.46 .94 ""“T”`”""""T""“"“'”"—""“"‘"“""`“""`”`“"““‘”“”"""”`”‘_"" Adjusted family 2.80 2-74 .84 income level ' ge in months at entering first grade 74'74 77'OO 'OO5 N of each group 69 69 In the table above two items appear significant at(.05, and a third one approaches doing so--employment level of parent (.08). (All three of these emerge as recurrently more significant as the groups of · boys and girls are combined.) 16 Table 3 (C1-I1 versus C2-I2) A COMPARISON BETWEEN BACKGROUNDS AND AGES OF GROUPS OF FIRST—GRADE GIRLS MATCHED ON BASIS OF STUDENT'S PROGRESS TOWARD PROMOTION TO SECOND GRADE DURING SIXTH MONTH OF 1966-67 AND 1967-68 Early Level of Childhood Mgtchéd Significance Group Mroup of Differences Mean Gan Between Means Years of schooling parent feels son 30 OO 29 78 72 and daughter ' ° ° should have Years of schooling both parents had 13.19 13.24 .96 Employment level of breadwinner 3'O6 3`57 'll Newspaper reading 3 OO 2 25 10 index score ' ' ' Gross family 5 66 5 91 48 income level ` ` " Number in family 6.99 6.58 .36 Ad' ' l Justed family 2.97 3.33 .28 income level Age in months at entering first grade 73‘94 75'52 ·O5 N of each group 67 67 • " Table 4 (D1-J1 versus D2-J2) COMPARISON BETWEEN BACKGROUNDS AND AGES OF GROUPS OF FIRST-GRADE GIRLS MATCH D ON BASIS OF SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT D