SOCIAL POLICY REPORT
Society for Research in Child Development
Volume XI, Number 1
1997
Schooling, the Hidden
Curriculum, and Children’s
Conceptions of Poverty
Judith A. Chafel
T
his Social Policy Report synthesizes several
streams of research bearing on the problem of poverty in the United States today.
Four themes are developed: (1) American society is characterized by rising income inequality;
(2) our schools provide an arena for reproducing, resisting, and reconstructing an inequitable
economic and social order; (3) a hidden (and
not so hidden) curriculum transmits dominant
ideological messages about society; and (4) children increasingly with age ascribe to societal
beliefs that perceive the poor as responsible for
their condition. These conceptions relate the
cause of poverty to individual deficiencies (that
is, they “blame the victim”), downplay other
more important factors, and as a result hamper
the design of antipoverty policy. A number of
implications drawn from the discussion pertain
to the conduct and funding of research on (1)
the messages conveyed to children by schools;
and (2) children’s beliefs about poverty derived
from other sources.
The various streams of research reviewed
here are merely suggestive inasmuch as they represent rather disparate, loosely related bodies of
work. The purpose of the discussion is to point
out the need for further research to establish their
connections. Socialization occurs via many path-
ways. Although none of the studies reviewed
examines the source of children’s ideas about
economic privation in our society, it is not unreasonable to propose that schools play a crucial
role.
Background
C H I L D A N D F A M I LY P O V E RT Y
Government reports substantiate the large
number of the U.S. population in poverty.
According to the Census Bureau, 36.4 million
individuals, or 13.8% of all Americans, were
poor in 1995 (Weinberg, 1996a [see Figure 1,
page 2]). A household is identified as “poor” if
its yearly pre-tax cash income drops below a
Also in This Issue ...
19
Presentations by SRCD
members to the media at the
biennial meeting in
Washington, DC.
©1997 Society for Research in Child Development. All rights reserved.
some segments of the population
(blacks, the elderly [Holmes,
1996; Weinberg, 1996a]), analy45
ses by Zedlewski, Clark, Meier,
40
and Watson (1996) of the Urban
36.4
35
million
Institute suggest the decrease
30
Number in poverty
32.4 million
may be short-lived due to recent
25
welfare reform. The new law
20
mandates work and strict time
Poverty rate
15
13.8%
limits for welfare eligibility and
10
13.1%
other income security programs.
5
Because it earmarks many of the
0
assistance programs for families
1959
1964
1970
1976
1982
1988
1995
with children, the economic
Recessionary periods
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, March Current Population Survey
well-being of that category of
persons is likely to be affected
threshold set by the federal government to vary
most. More children are expected to fall into
by family size and composition: to cite two
poverty, intensifying an already substantial child
examples from 1995 figures, $12,158 for a fampoverty rate of 20.8% (in 1995), the highest of
ily of three, $15,569 for a family of four
any age group (Weinberg, 1996a; Zedlewski et
(Weinberg, 1996a).
al., 1996). Representing 27% of the total popuWhile the proportion of people falling
lation, children comprise 40% of the poor
below the poverty line has recently declined
(Weinberg, 1996a).
(from 14.5% in 1994), reaching historic lows for
Fig. 1
Poverty: 1959–1995
Fig. 2
Share of Household Income: 1967–1995
Percent
60
Lowest 20%
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
1967
Highest 20%
60
*
1967
1995
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
1967
*
Middle 60%
0
1967
1995
*
1995
*
1995
Highest 5%
* Introduction of computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) and increased reporting limits for selected sources of income of 1993 affect comparability.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, March Current Population Survey
2
income quintile (from 43.8% to 48.7%); and a
declining share by the lowest (from 4.0% to
3.7%) and middle 60% (from 52.3% to 47.6%
[Weinberg, 1996a]). Between 1994 and 1995,
the bottom quintile gained in income distribution by 0.1%, a statistically significant change.
No significant changes appeared for any of the
other quintiles (“Money income,” 1997; Weinberg, 1996a). Figure 3 shows the share of aggregate household income by quintiles for three
time periods: 1975, 1985, and 1995 (“Money
income,” 1997), highlighting a long-term trend
toward greater income inequality.
Although the causes are not completely
understood, a number of factors are cited as
responsible for the rise in income disparity:
I N E Q U A L I T Y: T H E G A P B E T W E E N R I C H
AND POOR
Historical data compiled by the U.S.
Census Bureau reveal a long-term trend toward
increased income inequality for more than the
last quarter century. From 1947 to 1968, family
income inequality (measured by the Gini index)
declined by 7.4%, but then rose 22.4% during
the years 1968 to 1994 [Weinberg, 1996b]).
Between 1994 and 1995, overall income
inequality did not change (“Money income,”
1997). Figure 2 presents a number of historical
patterns in family income inequality (measured
by shares of aggregate income) worthy of note:
from 1967 to 1995, an increasing share of
household income possessed by the highest
Fig. 3
Share of Aggregate Household Income by Quintile: 1975–1995
(In percent)
48.7
45.3
43.2
24.8
17.1
24.6
23.3
16.3
15.2
4.4
4.0
9.7
9.1
15.9
17.0
21.0
3.7
1975 1985 1995
Lowest quintile
1975 1985 1995
Second quintile
1975 1985 1995
Third quintile
Middle 60 percent
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, March 1996 Current Population Survey
3
1975 1985 1995
Fourth quintile
1975 1985 1995
Highest quintile
Top 5 percent
10.5
(1) increasingly more unequal wage distribution resulting from a shift away from less- to
more-educated workers; (2) intensified global
competition and immigration; (3) a decline in
union membership; (4) the diminishing real
value of the minimum wage; (5) a heightened
need for computer skills; (6) an increased demand for temporary workers; (7) a shift away
from married-couple toward single-parent and
nonfamily households; and (8) the greater tendency for men with higher-than-average earnings to marry women of similar earning power
(Weinberg, 1996b).
Dewey conceived of the school as a place where
children and teachers alike might attain personal fulfillment and social well-being (Jackson,
1990). To quote him directly:
What the best and wisest parent wants
for his own child, that must the community want for all of its children.
Any other ideal for our schools is narrow and unlovely; acted upon, it
destroys our democracy. All that society has accomplished for itself is put,
through the agency of the school, at
the disposal of its future members. . . .
Here individualism and socialism are
at one. Only by being true to the full
growth of all the individuals who
make it up, can society by any chance
be true to itself. (Dewey, 1990, p. 7)
Schools and Society:
A Selective Review
C R I T I C A L T H E O RY
The next few sections of the report selectively review the writings of several people who
have commented on the relationship between
education and the economy: John Dewey, Samuel
Bowles and Herbert Gintis, Michael Apple, and
Henry Giroux. The latter four belong to a school
of thought loosely called critical theory. While
there may be no single “critical theory,” writings
under that rubric reflect an attempt in common
to critique capitalism and the social and economic inequality it has fostered, and to contemplate
possibilities for change (Giroux, 1983).
Dewey on democracy and education. One of
the most influential educational theorists of his
time, Dewey (1909, 1916, 1990) wrote extensively on the relationship of schools and society
in the early part of the 20th century, when the
capitalist system as we now know it was emerging. Briefly, he saw the school as a social institution capable of meeting the demands of the new
order for economic growth and social integration. According to Dewey, the school should
perform a profoundly democratic function: (1)
nurture the child’s individual capacities, (2)
inculcate a spirit of community among its members, and (3) prepare the young to adapt to as
well as “shape and direct” society (Dewey, 1909).
Any social organization assigning its young
a position based on parental status or wealth and
not ability was considered by Dewey to be undemocratic. Though he was aware that the economic system of his day was characterized by
inequity, he assumed that the progressive educational philosophy he articulated should (and
could) correct “unfair privilege . . . and deprivation.” In Dewey’s vision, schools transformed
rather than perpetuated the status quo (Dewey,
1916). Alteration of the status quo was desirable
so that diverse individual talents and abilities
might be better employed for the sake of the
common good.
Schooling: Reproducing, resisting, and reconstructing an unequal society. Writing much later,
Bowles and Gintis (1976) contended that
schools were not “the great engines of democracy” that Dewey imagined them to be. They saw
American society as politically autocratic and
believed that rigid patterns of domination and
subordination characteristic of capitalism could
be found in schools. Drawing upon Marxist
ideas and a variety of descriptive, historical, and
statistical sources, they argued that schools
reproduce the unequal distribution of power
4
that exists in society—a power that varies by
race, ethnicity, gender, and class. According to
Bowles and Gintis, schools cultivate forms of
personal development and consciousness consistent with this objective, and they promote
modes of social interaction similar to stratification in the workplace. Distinct social groups are
socialized differently: for instance, blacks and
other minorities experience coercive authority;
those of the working class compliance with
rules; and the more economically privileged
internal standards of control (Bowles & Gintis,
1988a). In this way, these groups are positioned
for their designated place in society and assigned
low, medium, or high status. Schools ostensibly
espouse equality of opportunity based on merit;
but, in fact, they draw upon the concept to
defend and reproduce economic disparity and to
perpetuate the status quo. Bowles and Gintis’s
theory (1976) has been criticized by some for
being too mechanistic and for neglecting the role
of human agency in opposing oppression
(Apple, 1995; Bowles & Gintis, 1988b; Giroux,
1983).
Apple (1990, 1993, 1995) claimed that by
imparting knowledge, dispositions, and values
that further the ideological superiority of certain
groups, schools act as agents in the construction
of a dominant culture that legitimates social and
economic inequality. He believed that a complex
power struggle between groups distinguished by
class, race, and gender occurs in society, decides
what’s legitimate, and results in “an organized
assemblage of meanings and practices . . . values
and actions which are lived” (Apple, 1990, p. 5).
Employing various historical, ethnographic, economic, and cultural techniques and a neoMarxist framework, Apple progressed beyond
the correspondence principle of Bowles and
Gintis (1976) to conceive of the school as more
than a microcosm of the economy and an institution defined by it. He sought to explain the
mediations between the material conditions of
society and the consciousness of its members,
the mechanisms of domination, and their operation in the day-to-day life of schools. According
to Apple, cultural incorporation arises through
ideological transmission, but it represents a
dynamic (not static) process. Those situated in
schools (teachers, students) do not passively
take in societal messages; rather, they “resist,
alter, or mediate” them in some way (Apple,
1995, p. 144). And, these reconstructions possess transformative potential.
Giroux (1983) similarly asserted that
schools epitomize places where different cultural and economic groups vie for power. His conception of resistance distinguishes him from the
other theorists cited and assumes a number of
points: (1) a dialectical notion of human agency;
(2) power exercised both as a mode of domination and defiance, and of cultural and creative
expression; and (3) the possibility of radical
transformation. According to Giroux, those
experiencing repression do not always simply
submit; sometimes they oppose and even alter
school processes and practices. While the wider
society presents formidable challenges, “social
spaces” exist in schools (especially in classrooms) for opposition, although that opposition
is unlikely to be entirely successful (Aronowitz
& Bologh, 1983). He argued that earlier radical
conceptions of schooling failed to illuminate the
complex ways that various groups differing by
class, race, and gender resist mechanisms of
control. These conceptions epitomized a “blueprint for cynicism and despair” and neglected to
offer any hope of social change (Giroux, 1983,
p. 59). That was to be found in a radical pedagogy that encompassed both critical reflection
and social action.
Summary. In the views of these theorists,
the process of schooling can only be understood
by relating it to its broader socioeconomic context. Whereas Dewey saw that context as profoundly democratic in character and conducive
to upward social mobility, the others conceived
of it as just the opposite. For Bowles and Gintis,
Apple, and Giroux, schools represent places of
cultural and political subjugation, where children are taught certain ideological messages and
are socialized for a predetermined position in
5
society. These meanings shape the form and content of what’s transmitted and serve a number of
purposes: (1) they grant superiority to certain
groups, and (2) they sustain a capitalist economy characterized by social and economic
inequality.
ety of school-related messages, those pertaining to
work and play seemed to King to clarify best how
schools connect with their larger socioeconomic
context. Through observation and interviews focusing on a public school classroom thought to be
exemplary, she documented through ethnographic study numerous aspects of daily activity.
She found that the goals of learning “to share, to
listen, to put things away, and to follow the classroom routine” were emphasized by the teacher
from the very first weeks of school (Apple with
King, 1990, p. 53). The use of materials was controlled by the teacher, who defined the meanings
ascribed to them as “work” or “play.” Work constituted what children learned from the teacher,
whereas play consisted of free-time activities bestowed as a reward for completing assigned tasks,
with the former viewed as more important than
the latter by both teachers and children. King
pointed out that some of the meanings associated
with work included (1) that it requires following
instructions, (2) that it’s compulsory, and (3) that
it must be done according to a prescribed procedure that results in the same end product by all.
She equated the children’s experiences in this setting with the world of adult work, where one is expected to offer unquestioning obedience to authority and to exhibit qualities of diligence, cooperation, and perseverance, even though other attributes such as ingenuity and excellence may be
compromised.
Extending her research to the later years,
King (1983) investigated the criteria used by
children in grades 1 through 5 to distinguish
work from play, as well as the relationship
between the two constructs. Observations were
conducted in 10 classrooms situated in a single
school, and interviews were completed with 60
children (equally divided by gender) from predominantly white middle-class families. Invoking a personal standard, the children employed
the term “play” to categorize all those activities
not designated as “work”; King found the reverse
to be true for the kindergartners she studied.
The latter relied on the social context to define
an activity. By fifth grade, more activities were
THE HIDDEN (AND NOT SO HIDDEN)
CURRICULUM
Schools function as agents of socialization.
As such, they draw upon two forms of curricula: one overt, another covert. The first specifies a
formally articulated, explicit course of study; the
other an informal, tacit (or hidden) one. The
“hidden curriculum” may be defined as “those
unstated norms, values, and beliefs” that are
implicitly taught in schools (Giroux, 1983, p.
47). The concept has been assigned very different meanings and analyses, but that definition
characterizes them all (Giroux, 1983). A variety
of learnings may be imparted through the hidden curriculum. Some of these, drawn from six
case studies of elementary and high school classrooms, include “Science is important”; “Some
knowledge is objective; other has to be constructed”; and “Men can be caring parents”
(McCutcheon, 1995).
Empirical studies have also examined the
hidden curriculum from a critical theory perspective, documenting its use in schools as a
form of social reproduction and control. These
investigations have carefully examined the construct from the perspective of curricula-in-use,
teacher practices, and classroom relationships,
and to a much lesser extent their effects on student behavior (Mickelson, 1987). This research
has addressed diverse issues pertaining to class,
race, and gender. Only a few studies on the hidden (and not so hidden) curriculum from a critical theory perspective are highlighted here.
King’s ethnography of a kindergarten classroom.
Selecting the kindergarten because it represents a
“critical moment” in the socialization of children,
King examined those social meanings necessary
for success in school and later life (Apple with
King, 1990). While children are exposed to a vari6
named “play,” and children increasingly employed adult perspectives to distinguish the two;
that is, play was associated with something pleasurable, and work was devoid of it.
With respect to the relation between the
two, King found that play for the children in
grades 1 through 5 sustained the school’s work
orientation. Three forms of play present in the
children’s responses (instrumental, recreation,
illicit) provided opportunities for the extension
or continuation of work, compensation for it, or
opposition to the coercive rules and expectations of the classroom. From her findings she
concluded that play provided a diversion from
the monotony of work and permitted its
endurance. As the researcher explained, inasmuch as it occurred in a “workplace” and was
controlled by a teacher who limited its appearance to designated times and spaces, play represented “an escape from” and not “a confrontation” (King, 1983). Any promise play might
have held for social critique was lost through the
distortion of its capacity for autonomous personal expression. King’s work (Apple with King,
1990; King, 1983) has been criticized by Giroux
(1983) for its failure to adequately address the
complex interaction of culture and consciousness, and the ways that students differing by
class, race, and gender oppose social control.
Anyon’s content analysis of social studies texts.
In a study now considered by some to be seminal, Anyon (1979a) investigated whether United
States history textbooks presented an ideological
bias that favored certain political, economic, or
other groups. Seventeen well-known, secondary-school works served as the sample for
the study; the texts appeared on lists of “Books
Approved for Use” by boards of education in
two large, urban school systems of the Northeast
that were populated by large numbers of minority and white students from poor and workingclass families. Content selected for analysis consisted of economic and labor history from the
Civil War to World War I. Anyon reasoned that
the considerable conflict of interest and struggle
for power occurring during that period (1865 to
1917) permitted an examination of these important issues: (1) whose knowledge the texts sanctioned, and (2) whether the prerogatives of any
group more than another were privileged.
The researcher scrutinized such topics as
economic developments and solutions to economic problems, treatment of economic concepts and groups, industrialists and labor conflict, and labor unions. To cite only a few of her
many findings, all the texts stressed certain economic developments (e.g., new inventions,
expansion of the railroads) in a salutary fashion,
whereas other developments (e.g., the concentration of “big business,” workers’ problems)
were treated briefly and in a way supportive of
certain groups. Governmental reform as a means
of effecting economic change was underscored
by every text examined, while other more radical forms (e.g. the adoption of socialism) were
disavowed.
Various economic groups (e.g., workers,
managers, industrialists) were given disparate
coverage. Anyon emphasized that contributions
to economic development made by workers
were omitted, obscured, or downplayed. The
negative consequences of monopolies for some
(e.g., small business owners, consumers) were
described by all the texts, but effects on workers
(e.g., low wages, control over their lives) were
ignored by most books or given cursory treatment by a few. According to the researcher, the
acquisition of wealth was dealt with in an ideological way: the depiction of industrialists of the
period (e.g., Andrew Carnegie) by 12 of the
books skirted the methods used for accumulating power. She inferred from her findings that,
through the promotion of what might be characterized as a “rags to riches” success story, the
texts sanctioned hard work as well as the status
quo by implying that workers could achieve
similar good fortune.
Anyon also reported that the texts she
examined provided a narrow discussion of labor
history. The treatment cast more radical segments of the union movement in an unsympathetic light. Coverage in the books was brief, and
7
only a few of the more than 30,000 strikes
occurring during this period were described.
Fifteen textbooks discussed a successful strike;
and the ones selected by 14 of them exemplified
the failure of labor. The messages conveyed
respectively were that success ensued only
through government intervention, which is a
more appropriate form of recourse, and that
strikes were questionable as a valid approach to
change. She found that strikes were discussed in
such a way as “to avoid conflict and to facilitate
consensus” (Anyon, 1979a). Anyon concluded
from this analysis that business, as well as powerful labor unions empowered by business, profited from such a presentation; those whose circumstances were only marginally improved by
labor, or who might alter the distribution of
power, did not benefit.
In sum, Anyon determined that the 17 textbooks she examined were biased in their presentation. Through a variety of means (e.g.,
omissions, subtle distinctions and emphases,
distortions, and hidden assumptions), they predisposed the reader to the acceptance of certain
values and, as Anyon put it, provided “boundaries to social choice” (Anyon, 1979a). They
favored the interests, prerogatives, and points of
view of the wealthy and powerful, whereas those
of the working class and the poor were not represented. As she emphasized in summing up her
findings:
On a more sanguine note, she pointed out
that the school curriculum, although it served as
an agent of social control, could also be made to
promote a very different purpose, namely, social
change. Giroux (1983) has criticized Anyon’s work
for the same reasons as King’s writings (Apple with
King, 1990; King, 1983) cited earlier.
Elsewhere, Anyon (1979b) has written that
social studies curricula in the United States have
highlighted five themes: (1) the manifestations
of democracy; (2) political freedoms and opportunity; (3) the autonomy, possibility, and
progress that the economy affords; (4) the
importance of political consensus and progress,
social harmony and compromise; and (5)
intense “Americanism” or patriotism. These
themes, according to Anyon, operate as curriculum organizing principles that legitimize social
inequality. As she put it, “Schools and school
knowledge are like they are because society is
like it is” (Anyon, 1979b, p. 55).
Sleeter and Grant’s study of elementary curricula. Sleeter and Grant (1991) examined four
aspects of diversity (race, class, gender, and disability), as represented by four subject areas of
the elementary school curriculum (reading and
language arts, social studies, mathematics, and
science). Forty-seven textbooks comprised the
sample. At the time of the study, these texts
(copyrighted between 1980 and 1988) were
employed in grade 1 through 8 classrooms
throughout the United States. An instrument
was devised for use that incorporated a variety of
techniques (e.g., picture, story, and language
analysis). Only findings pertaining to social class
are presented here.
The researchers scrutinized 15 reading and
language arts textbooks (by eight publishers)
and found that they showed little diversity by
class. They mainly highlighted people of middle-class; and they sometimes explicitly denied
the existence of inequality and injustice. For
example, a story appearing in a book featuring
predominantly white characters depicted white
and black figures of both genders in a variety of
equal roles. The message thus transmitted, that
The textbook reports of work, wealth,
and the problems of industrial workers imply that we should regard the
poor as responsible for their own
poverty: poverty is a consequence of
the failure of individuals, rather than
of the failure of society to distribute
economic resources universally. This
ideology encourages education and
other actions that attempt to change
the individual, while leaving the
unequal economic structures intact.
(Anyon, 1979a, p. 383)
8
“anyone can be anything,” obfuscated, according
to the researchers, the existence of discrimination as an important social issue (Sleeter &
Grant, 1991). In the texts, white and lower-class
characters of color were portrayed in a variety of
ways: either realistically (e.g., pursuing a lowpaying job), sympathetically (e.g., desiring to
make money and subsequently becoming more
successful), or stereotypically (e.g., being uneducated). Sleeter and Grant indicated that their
analysis of 14 social studies texts (by nine publishers) revealed that the treatment of socioeconomic diversity as an issue was virtually absent,
with people in poverty not explicitly discussed.
Eight mathematics textbooks (by five publishers) and a computer textbook were also
examined, and the findings showed all nine
works emphasizing middle-class characters; but
a few financially well-off figures (whites, blacks,
and Asians), and a few lower-class individuals
(usually of color) were also presented. The
researchers explained that the texts focused on
material consumption through the inclusion of
story problems involving the expenditure of
money. Most problems involved sums appropriate for an average budget, but a few required a
relatively large outlay. And finally, they reported
that their examination of 10 science textbooks
(by six publishers) disclosed that (1) the depiction of class in the pictures was difficult to ascertain; (2) the majority of the portrayals suggested
middle- or upper-class settings and artifacts; and
(3) those belonging to the under- or workingclass were rarely described.
In interpreting their findings, Sleeter and
Grant emphasized that the books imparted the
image of a society unstratified by class, which
was avoided by the texts and, as they pointed
out, overlooked by most textbook analyses.
They concluded that the texts they examined deemphasized or disregarded the interests of the
poor (as well as people of color, females, and the
disabled); depicted social constructions as
being, in their words, “natural”; and sanctioned
the status quo. And the books selectively incorporated some ideas (e.g., existing social relations
characterized by harmony and equality) into the
curriculum, while excluding others (e.g., the
causes of poverty, questions about the distribution of wealth).
Mickelson’s inquiry about student response to
the hidden curriculum. Extending empirical work
on the hidden curriculum and its role in social
reproduction, Mickelson’s study (1987) is distinguishable from those just reviewed in two
respects: (1) in considering how successfully
ideological messages are transmitted in schools,
and (2) in documenting empirically their link
with human consciousness. The previously
described studies examined curricula-in-use
without analyzing student behavior in response.
In Mickelson’s study, a questionnaire was administered to more than 1,800 seniors characterized
by family, racial, and ethnic diversity, who were
enrolled in over 60 social studies classrooms situated in nine comprehensive public high
schools of the Los Angeles area. Students were
asked to respond to forced-choice items requiring them to select one of two statements best
reflecting their beliefs; on one of the items, the
brackets for marking a reply were missing.
Mickelson observed a class-based and track-specific pattern of responses to the questionnaire.
He found that many working-class and lowertrack high schoolers (representing every race
and ethnic background) requested clarification
concerning the missing brackets; those of middle-class or higher-track status did not, but
rather resolved the ambiguity independently.
Furthermore, the latter challenged the forcedchoice format of the questions (by asking, “What
if I believe both”), while the former complied
without question.
Mickelson interpreted these findings in
terms of social reproduction theory, reasoning
that the students responded in ways that predicted their future place in society: middle-class
and upper-track students as professionals, managers, and future leaders, and working-class and
lower-track students as docile workers. He
reported that, although participation was voluntary, some students nonetheless displayed resis9
tance in ways that were class-based. Some middle-class or upper-track students demonstrated
their opposition by openly declining to take
part; some working-class students displayed
sabotage-like actions. Mickelson equated the latter’s behavior with the reactions of assembly-line
workers who resist monotony and oppression
through subversion.
Summary. Though this review covers only a
few selected studies, the empirical evidence
nonetheless documents the existence of a hidden (and not so hidden) curriculum, from
kindergarten through high school, that imparts
to children certain ideological messages about
society. The dispositions cultivated (e.g., conformity), the concepts emphasized (e.g., the value
of hard work), and the norms sanctioned (e.g.,
allegiance to the status quo) predispose the
recipient toward the acceptance, and reproduction, of a system characterized by social and economic inequality. Suppositions that should be
open to debate in a democratic society are presented as unquestioned truths. But, as
Mickelson’s work also suggests, students do not
always passively acquiesce to the messages that
schools impart.
(1) awareness of status differences between
rich and poor,
(2) causes of economic inequality,
(3) judgments about it, and
(4) sociodemographic variations in children’s and adults’ conceptions.
Although cultural comparisons might be
illuminating, this review is limited to studies
conducted in the U.S. The adult views described
come from comprehensive investigations with
national samples completed over the past quarter century; those of children come from studies
selected to coincide with the same time period.
A WA R E N E S S O F S TAT U S D I F F E R E N C E S
BETWEEN RICH AND POOR
An interview study of children, aged 5 to
18 and from a variety of socioeconomic groups,
shows a tentative developmental sequence of
perceptions of poverty. The children responded
to questions asking for their descriptions of rich
and poor and explanations about how the two
classes are alike and different. Their comments
revealed a progression toward decentration—
from peripheral, to psychological, to sociocentric conceptions. The youngest subjects (6 to 11
years) tended to focus on external, observable
qualities (e.g., appearances); those at the next
level (11 to 14 years) inferred internal states
(e.g., traits); and the oldest (14 to 17 years)
focused on relationships within society (e.g.,
class membership and its effect on class consciousness). With increasing age the children’s
observations exhibited a more multiple-classificatory framework; they could recognize similarities as well as differences between rich and
poor—“they’re both human beings” (Leahy,
1981, 1983b, 1990).
Other research has explored the ideas of
younger children. A study of white 3-, 4-, and 5year-olds (drawn from lower- and middle-SES
families) found that preschoolers could make
gross distinctions between rich and poor in
response to a request that they separate and
describe pictures of the two. A few of the children spontaneously commented on two class-
Societal Conceptions of Poverty
The few studies available on societal conceptions of poverty suggest that increasingly
with age children justify and explain economic
inequality as a matter of equity; they also regard
privation as legitimate and inevitable. These
beliefs reflect a capitalist ideology consistent
with adult notions and the perspectives of critical theory cited earlier. Inasmuch as these beliefs
attribute poverty to individual deficiencies, they
down play other more important causes, hamper the design of antipoverty policy, and preclude meaningful social change on behalf of the
poor. Earlier work by the author supporting
these conclusions is briefly presented here
(Chafel, 1995, 1997a, 1997b). Four themes
structure this part of the discussion:
10
related attributes—job and attire. The data
showed that the children in this study perceived
rich and poor to be more different than alike
(Ramsey, 1991).
living in a community experiencing hard times,
the results are consistent with other research
(Furby, 1979; Leahy, 1983a, 1983b, 1990).
In another study, white subjects from a middle- and upper middle-class locale cited equity
increasingly with age. The 11th graders in that
study drew upon the construct, “some people
work hard and achieve,” with moderate frequency as a reason for the unequal distribution of
wealth (i.e., ownership of more possessions). At
this age, subjects, however, also showed increasing awareness of the inevitability of economic
inequality arising from factors beyond individual
control (e.g., the environment or chance). Adults
in the study cited equity, circumstances beyond
individual control, and inheritance as causes of
inequality (Furby, 1979).
Other evidence corroborates a developmental pattern of conceptions about the causes
of inequality. At the stage of peripheral ideas (6
to 11 years), children were unable to think
causally; rather they drew upon definitional criteria (e.g., money, ownership of possessions) to
account for economic inequality. Those at the
stages of psychological and sociocentric conceptions (11 to 17 years) cited equity; they displayed a belief that economic inequality resulted
from differences in merit and cited a number of
factors as responsible—effort, education, intelligence, and work. But responses of some subjects
at the sociocentric level also revealed an awareness of class competition. Subjects rarely
referred to external, structural factors (e.g., race)
as causes of economic inequality (Leahy, 1983a,
1983b, 1990).
The tendency of older subjects to invoke
equity as an explanation led the author of the
above study to say that they believed in “a just
world where ‘the losers’ are viewed as obtaining
their just due” (Leahy, 1990, p. 119).
Increasingly with age, then, as confirmed by several studies, children employ equity as an explanation for economic inequality (Chafel, 1997b).
Equity also appears in the thinking of
adults as a salient cause of poverty. Two investigations conducted several years apart found that
CAUSES OF ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
The preschoolers in the study of younger
children just described showed only a limited
understanding of the nature and causes of economic inequality. The few who were able to
reply to the problem as posed expressed ideas
reflecting concrete monetary transactions. In
reply to a question about “why some people had
more money than others,” the children indicated, for example, that those who were poor “forgot to go to the store to get their money”
(Ramsey, 1991).
In another study, 3rd- to 12th-grade children, from a largely black and somewhat skewed
working-class sample, were asked about their
notions of equality of opportunity, but not
directly about the causes of poverty. Of the elementary school–aged children able to reply, 70%
reacted negatively to the statement: “Do all kids
in America have the same chance to grow up
and get the good things in life?” The older children in the sample responded similarly. And
68% of the subjects able to distinguish the different types of children without equal opportunity specified that inequities were the result of
ethnic, racial, or socioeconomic disadvantage
(Simmons & Rosenberg, 1971). These findings
differ from those obtained in a study of adults.
In that study, adults communicated a belief that
“everyone who works hard can get ahead”
(Kluegel & Smith,1986). But this apparent discrepancy may be the result of different questions
rather than differences in underlying beliefs
(Chafel, 1997b).
In several other studies, equity (that is,
merit) was offered as an explanation for economic inequality. The construct was cited as the
cause for wealth, poverty, and unemployment by
many of the 8-, 11-, and 14-year-old middleclass children of one study (Harrah & Friedman,
1990). And although this particular sample was
11
subjects drawn from a variety of socioeconomic
status groups viewed economic privation as
emanating from individualistic factors, e.g., lack
of effort, more than structural ones, e.g., low
wages (Feagin, 1972, 1975; Kluegel & Smith,
1986). Using the same measure as the earlier
investigation, the later work found that the
ranking of reasons for poverty remained the
same despite more than a decade between the
two studies. The adult subjects in Furby’s study
(1979), described earlier, differed from these
findings in that they also highlighted external
factors. This inconsistency may have arisen from
the latter study’s more restricted sample (Chafel,
1997b). Viewed as a whole, the research cited
suggests considerable societal agreement about
the causes of poverty: to a large extent, the economically disadvantaged are blamed for their
plight (Chafel, 1997b).
others,” was the salient positive assessment for
the 11th graders. Adult responses were more
equally distributed between positive and negative evaluations. In their positive responses they
mentioned the legitimate accumulation of possessions along with differential work and ability.
They also expressed indifference to inequality
more frequently than did the younger children.
The findings on adults are consistent with other
research (Kluegel & Smith, 1986).
The way questions are phrased may explain
the distribution of negative and positive replies
in different studies (Chafel, 1995, 1997b).
Explicit phrasing, “Do you think it is fair that
some people own more things than other people?” evoked more positive replies in one study
(Furby, Harter, & John, 1975) compared to a
more general wording, “How do you feel about
some people having a lot more things than other
people?” in a later study, which resulted in more
negative replies (Furby, 1979). Phrasing may
also explain why subjects in the later study held
more negative attitudes than those in the work
about to be described (Leahy, 1983a, 1983b,
1990). The first study posed the query more
generally, the latter more explicitly (Chafel,
1997b).
In this next study, a developmental progression toward greater acceptance of economic
equality was evident in the children’s replies. At
the first level (ages 6 to 11), children expressed
concern for consequences (e.g., “Poor should
not suffer”) and used definitional criteria (e.g.,
“They should be rich because they have a lot of
money”); at the second level (ages 11 to 14),
children employed equity as a justification or
equality principles as a challenge; and at the
third level (ages 14 to 17) the respondents
invoked equity and fatalistic ideas (e.g., “There
will always be poorer people”) and class conflict.
Other trends were discerned: a conception that
the rich should help the poor declined with age
(beyond 11 years). And equality challenges grew
(at 14 years) and then decreased (at 17 years)
(Leahy, 1983a, 1983b, 1990).
The fatalism expressed about economic
JUDGMENTS ABOUT ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
Some of the investigations just described
report findings concerning children’s judgments
about economic inequality. Although judgments
were not directly assessed in the study of 3-, 4-,
and 5-year-olds, significantly more older than
younger children did display a norm of sharing
when questioned about “what rich and poor
people might do together.” Yet only a small proportion of the preschoolers responded in this
way (Ramsey, 1991).
Kindergartners and second graders in an
earlier study (Furby 1979) found it difficult to
respond evaluatively, i.e., positively or negatively, to the question, “How do you feel about some
people having a lot more things than other people?” Instead they disclosed various nonevaluative sentiments: for example, a norm of sharing.
Fifth graders gave more evaluative judgments,
although most of their replies were still nonevaluative. Eleventh graders provided even more.
For both age groups, negative assessments outnumbered the positive. To illustrate briefly, a
norm of equality appeared as a negative assessment for the 5th graders, and the idea of differential work, that “some people work harder than
12
inequality that increased by adolescence was,
according to the author, “not based on a view
that classes would actively resist change,” but
instead upon “a view that human nature and
complex society require stratification” (Leahy,
1990, pp. 116–117). The researcher concluded
that the weight of the evidence, if somewhat
mixed, was more indicative of subjects’ acceptance of the existing social system. Overall then,
the findings just reviewed confirm that over the
course of development children increasingly
draw upon equity in explaining and judging
economic inequality (Chafel, in 1997b).
Children’s ideas about social mobility and
change further substantiate the trend. A developmental progression in their thinking has been
observed, beginning with (1) a conception of the
wealthy helping the poor, which increased and
then substantially declined; then (2) notions of
equity (e.g., effort, work) became prominent,
and the idea of social change arising from a sharing of wealth appeared; and finally (3) increasing references to societal change, class conflict,
or its futility were communicated. Sociocentric
challenges to economic inequality were rarely
observed; equity characterized the responses of
the oldest children (Leahy, 1983a, 1983b,
1990).
Equity similarly appears in the thinking of
adults about the justice of economic inequality.
Whereas many of the adults sampled by Kluegel
and Smith (1986) supported greater economic
equality in fact, they did not in principle. In fact,
they believed in a minimum and maximum level
of income (in the case of the former, according
to “need” to some degree), but in principle they
ascribed to the following beliefs about economic inequality, that (1) it results from unequal
ability and talents, (2) it inspires hard work, (3)
human nature prescribes it, and (4) it is unalterable. Consistent with other research (Feagin,
1972), when subjects were asked about criteria
for justly allocating income in principle, very few
perceived strict equality as just. Substantially
more cited “need,” and a large majority mentioned equity.
These societal images of the poor affect
support for social welfare policy (Blank, 1989;
Chafel, 1997b; Cook & Barrett, 1992; Corcoran,
Duncan, Gurin, & Gurin, 1985; Feagin, 1975;
Hartman, 1984; Hendrickson & Axelson, 1985;
Kluegel & Smith, 1986). It has been found that
subjects who ascribed to structural views of
poverty were more inclined than those with
individualistic views to endorse measures to
assist the poor (Feagin, 1972; Kluegel & Smith,
1986). In another study, subjects expressed a
belief in a minimally acceptable standard of living for the poor, but levels of support were influenced by perceptions of deservingness. Greatest
support was accorded those whose problems
were characterized as extrapersonal or structural in nature (e.g., physical disability) and those
who were depicted as seeking to improve themselves (Will, 1993).
S O C I O D E M O G R A P H I C VA R I AT I O N S I N
C H I L D R E N ’ S A N D A D U LT S ’ C O N C E P T I O N S
The conceptions that children and adults
hold about poverty vary with subjects’ sociodemographic characteristics. These findings have
been summarized in detail elsewhere (Chafel,
1997b) and are only briefly described here. It
has been found that in the case of children
socioeconomic status does not have a large
effect. Across groups, children agree more than
they disagree (Leahy, 1981, 1983a, 1983b,
1990; Simmons & Rosenberg, 1971). Adults of
lower socioeconomic status are less sanguine
about the “system” than other groups, and
although sociodemographic factors influence
adults’ support for redistributive social policies
on behalf of the poor, they do so less than the
dominant ideology (Cook & Barrett, 1992;
Feagin, 1972; Kluegel & Smith, 1986).
A recently published study analyzed the
attributions that 7th- to 12th-grade children
from three communities (the inner city, the
urban ring, and wealthy suburbs) made about
poverty and other phenomena (Flanagan,
Ingram, Gallay, & Gallay, 1997). Inner-city
youth were more likely than those residing in
13
the urban ring or wealthy suburbs to attribute
poverty to personal/dispositional factors (e.g.,
“They did not save their money”), whereas those
from the urban ring and wealthy suburbs drew
more upon systemic/structural attributions (e.g.,
“There are not enough jobs”) or a combination
of the two. According to the researchers, the
youth in poor urban communities perceived
attenuated opportunities for success and so concluded that self-reliance provided a better way
out of poverty than community support. Other
findings confirmed that the study’s urban youth
received more intense parental messages about
the value of self-reliance and perceived a more
alienating school environment than did their
more privileged peers.
Analyses of the adolescents’ attributions did
not include results for the sample as a whole or
by age, so it is difficult to compare these findings
with the other research reviewed here. The frequency distribution does suggest, however, that
systemic/structural factors may have figured
more prominently than they did in earlier work
(Leahy, 1983a, 1983b, 1990). This later study
employed an adaptation of the earlier study’s
measure and relied on a more restricted sample
of subjects selected from a single metropolitan
area, whereas the former sampled three different
cities: New York, Boston, and Washington. It
also utilized a much smaller pool of subjects
encompassing a narrower age range. The finding
that inner-city youth were more likely to possess
personal/dispositional attributions than the
more privileged subjects conflicts with other
studies of adults showing a reverse pattern
(Feagin, 1972, 1975; Kluegel & Smith, 1986).
Whether these recent findings indicate a shift in
thinking about the poor warrants further
research; the weight of evidence reviewed here
suggests otherwise.
reform, and the inevitability and justice of
poverty are either explicitly or implicitly
expressed (Chafel, 1997b). But viewing economic want in terms of individual psychological
attributes exemplifies simplistic thinking
(Chafel, 1997b). Poverty arises from myriad
complex causes (Bianchi, 1993), and the dominant societal image of the poor as “less industrious” than the nonpoor is not supported by
demographic data (Blank, 1989). Whereas individual personal factors may explain why some
subset of the population is poor, a predisposition to “blame the victim” downplays other more
important social-structural causes of poverty
(e.g., barriers to opportunity), diverts attention
away from those factors, and hampers the design
of antipoverty policy (Blank, 1989; Chafel,
1997b; Feagin, 1975; Hendrickson & Axelson,
1985; Kluegel & Smith, 1986).
Children are socialized via many channels:
parents and siblings, schools, peers, books, the
media, and more. None of the studies cited
attempted to ascertain the source of children’s
ideas about poverty, but it is not unreasonable to
assume, from the diverse streams of research
reviewed here, that schools acted as important
agents of enculturation. Children enter schools
at a young, impressionable age and spend many
years there; the effect can be profound.
The final section that follows presents discourse on the conduct and funding of policy-relevant research relating to the themes developed
in this report. Such research would address (1)
the messages conveyed to children by schools,
and (2) children’s beliefs about poverty derived
from other sources.
S U M M A RY
The several broad directions of research
described here warrant funding initiatives by the
federal government or private foundations. By
examining existing assumptions about social
and economic inequality and by suggesting pos-
Implications for
Policy-Relevant Research
This review confirms the saliency of equity
in adults’ and children’s thinking about economic privation. Notions of individualism and work,
a perception of the poor as requiring moral
14
sible modes of intervention, research on these
themes should generate information useful to
policymakers (Chafel, 1995). From this work,
pragmatic action-oriented recommendations can
evolve.
School messages. What messages do schools
convey to children about social and economic
inequality? Do schools function as agents of
social control? In what ways, to what extent, and
with what effects? What is taught to students of
diverse groups, and how do they respond
(Apple, 1990, 1993, 1995; Giroux, 1983)? In
what ways are meritocratic values transmitted
via taken-for-granted classroom routines, e.g.,
grouping practices, the use of labels (Apple,
1995, Giroux, 1983)? Three aspects of school
life might be targeted for study: the basic day-today regularities of the classroom, the specific
forms of curriculum knowledge transmitted,
and the ideological perspectives implicit in educators’ pursuits (Apple, 1990).
Issues as complex as these require diverse
approaches. Empirical inquiries representative
of a variety of disciplines, ideological persuasions, and paradigms should be funded. Only by
viewing the above questions from different
points of view might the complexity of the phenomena under study be grasped and a balanced
picture of school life be obtained.
Beliefs about poverty from other sources.
Schools represent one avenue of socialization,
but there are others as well. How do these other
sources (e.g., peers, the media) mediate children’s understandings, and how do the latter
interpret the messages they receive (Chafel,
1997b; Ramsey, 1991)? For example, Hall and
Jose (1983) have asked “whether a child’s peers
corroborate, oppose, or exert little influence on
the acquisition of a coherent belief system about
equality from the adult culture” (p. 254). And,
to cite another example, what images of poverty
are conveyed by children’s literature? To what
extent do books for young people of different
ages promote stereotypes and cultural conformity (Chafel, 1997b)? And how do children
respond to these messages (Chafel, Fitzgibbons,
Cutter, & Burke-Weiner, 1997)?
And finally, in what ways do cognitive
development and socialization interact to affect
children’s knowledge (Chafel, 1997b; McLoyd,
1990)? For example, Leahy (1990) reported that
children from 6 to 11 years of age displayed a
norm of sharing, when thinking about rich and
poor, a conception that diverges from mainstream thinking about poverty. How might such
deviations from societal norms be explained
(Chafel, 1997b; McLoyd, 1990)?
Past work on children’s conceptions of
poverty is not only sparse but also limited conceptually and methodologically (Chafel, 1995).
Studies should be funded representing diverse
theoretical frameworks and approaches to
inquiry (Chafel, 1997b). Findings amassed from
these sources might provide a more complex
and up-to-date picture of child functioning than
is presently available. In this way, deeper
insights may emerge about issues having both
developmental and societal significance, and
steps may be taken to address conformist thinking (Chafel, 1995, 1997b).
References
Anyon, J. (1979a). Ideology and United States
history textbooks. Harvard Educational
Review, 49, 361–386.
Anyon, J. (1979b). Education, social “structure”
and the power of individuals. Theory and
Research in Social Education, 7, 49–59.
Apple, M. (1990). Ideology and curriculum. New
York: Routledge.
Apple, M. (1993). Official knowledge: Democratic
education in a conservative age. New York:
Routledge.
Apple, M. (1995). Education and power. New
York: Routledge.
Apple, M., with King, N. (1990). Economics
15
and control in everyday school life. In M.
Apple, Ideology and curriculum (pp. 43–60).
New York: Routledge.
Aronowitz, S., & Bologh, R. (1983). Introduction. In H. Giroux, Theory and resistance
in education (pp. xi–xii). New York: Bergin
& Garvey.
Bianchi, S. (1993). Children of poverty: Why are
they poor? In J. Chafel (Ed.), Child poverty
and public policy (pp. 91–125). Washington,
DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Blank, R. (1989). Poverty and policy: The many
faces of the poor. In C. R. Strain (Ed.),
Prophetic visions and economic realities (pp.
156–168). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman’s
Publishing Co.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1988a). Prologue: The
correspondence principle. In M. Cole (Ed.),
Bowles and Gintis revisited: Correspondence
and contradiction in educational theory (pp.
1–4). London: Falmer Press.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1988b). Schooling in
capitalist America: Reply to our critics. In
M. Cole (Ed.), Bowles and Gintis revisited:
Correspondence and contradiction in educational theory (pp. 235–245). London:
Falmer Press.
Chafel, J. (1995). Children’s conceptions of
poverty. In S. Reifel (Ed.), Advances in early
education and day care, (Vol. 7, pp. 27–57).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Chafel, J. (1997a). Children’s views of poverty:
A review of research and implications for
teaching. The Educational Forum, 61,
360–371.
Chafel, J. (1997b). Societal images of poverty:
Child and adult beliefs. Youth and Society,
28, 432–463.
Chafel, J., Fitzgibbons, S., Cutter, L., & BurkeWeiner, K. (1997). Poverty in books for
young children: A sociological analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Cook, F., & Barrett, E. (1992). Support for the
American welfare state: The views of Congress
and the public. New York: Columbia University Press.
Corcoran, M., Duncan, G., Gurin, G., & Gurin,
P. (1985). Myth and reality: The causes and
persistence of poverty. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 4, 516–536.
Dewey, J. (1909). Moral principles in education.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New
York: Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1990). The school and society, and the
child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Feagin, J. (1972). Poverty: We still believe that
God helps those who help themselves. Psychology Today, 6, 101–110, 129.
Feagin, J. (1975). Subordinating the poor.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Flanagan, C., Ingram, P., Gallay, E., & Gallay, E.
(1997). Why are people poor? Social conditions and adolescents’ interpretations of
the social contract. In R. D. Taylor & M. C.
Wang (Eds.), Social and emotional adjustment and family relations in ethnic minority
families (pp. 53–62). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Furby, L. (1979). Inequalities in personal possessions: Explanations for and judgements
about unequal distribution. Human Development, 22, 180–202.
Furby, L., Harter, S., & John, K. (1975). The
nature and development of possession and
ownership: A cognitive-attitudinal study of
5- to 21-year-olds. Oreg. Res. Inst. Res.
Monogr., 15(4).
Giroux, H. (1983). Theory and resistance in education. New York: Bergin & Garvey.
Hall, W., & Jose, P. (1983). Cultural effects on
the development of equality and inequality.
In R. Leahy (Ed.), The child’s construction of
social inequality (pp. 253-285). New York:
Academic Press.
Harrah, J., & Friedman, M. (1990). Economic
socialization in children in a Midwestern
American community. Journal of Economic
Psychology, 11, 495–513.
16
Hartman, R. (Ed.). (1984). Poverty and economic
justice. New York: Paulist Press.
Hendrickson, R., & Axelson, L. (1985). Middleclass attitudes toward the poor: Are they
changing? Social Service Review, 59,
295–304.
Holmes, S. (1996, September 27). U.S. census
finds first income rise in past six years. The
New York Times (National Edition), A1,
A11.
Jackson, P. (1990). Introduction. In J. Dewey,
The school and society, and The child and the
curriculum (pp. ix-xxxvii). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
King, N. (1983). Play in the workplace. In M.
Apple & L. Weis (Eds.), Ideology and practice in schooling (pp. 262–280). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Kluegel, J., & Smith, E. (1986). Beliefs about
inequality: Americans’ views of what is and
what ought to be. New York: Aldine De
Gruyter.
Leahy, R. (1981). The development of the conception of economic inequality: I. Descriptions and comparisons of rich and poor
people. Child Development, 52, 523–532.
Leahy, R. (1983a). Development of the conceptions of economic inequality: II. Explanations, justifications, and concepts of social
mobility and change. Developmental Psychology, 19, 111–125.
Leahy, R. (1983b). The development of the conception of social class. In R. Leahy (Ed.), The
child’s construction of social inequality (pp.
79–107). New York: Academic Press, Inc.
Leahy, R. (1990). The development of concepts
of economic and social inequality. New
Directions for Child Development, 46,
107–120.
McCutcheon, G. (1995). Developing the curriculum: Solo and group deliberation. White
Plains, NY: Longman Publishers USA.
McLoyd, V. (1990). The impact of economic
hardship on black families and children:
Psychological distress, parenting, and
socioemotional development. Child Development, 61, 311–346.
Mickelson, R. (1987). The case of the missing
brackets: Teachers and social reproduction.
Journal of Education, 169, 78–88.
Money income in the United States: 1995 (with separate data on valuation of noncash benefits)
(P60–193). (1997, February 6) [on line].
Available on Netscape: http://www.
census.gov/hhes/www/income95.html
Ramsey, P. (1991). Young children’s awareness
and understanding of social class differences. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 152, pp.
71–82.
Simmons, R., & Rosenberg, M. (1971).
Functions of children’s perceptions of the
stratification system. American Sociological
Review, 36, 235–249.
Sleeter, C., & Grant, C. (1991). Race, class, gender, and disability in current textbooks. In
M. Apple & L. Christian-Smith (Eds.), The
politics of the textbook (pp. 78–110). New
York: Routledge.
Weinberg, D. (1996a, September 26). Press
briefing on 1995 income, poverty, and
health insurance estimates [on line]. Available on Netscape: http://www.census.
gov/hhes/www/income95.html
Weinberg, D. (1996b, June). A brief look
at postwar U.S. income inequality [on
line]. Available on Netscape: http://www.
census.gov/pub/hhes/www/img/p60191.pdf
Will, J. (1993). The dimensions of poverty:
Public perceptions of the deserving poor.
Social Science Research, 22, 312–332.
Zedlewski, S., Clark, S., Meier, E., & Watson, K.
(1996). Potential effects of Congressional welfare reform legislation on family incomes.
Unpublished manuscript, The Urban
Institute, Washington, DC.
17
Acknowledgement
I would like to express my appreciation to Landon E. Beyer, Eric Bredo, Jesse Goodman, Aletha
Huston, and Gail McCutcheon, for their helpful comments on this work. Special thanks are due to
Nancy Thomas for her skillful editorial assistance.
About the Author
Judith A. Chafel is associate professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction in the
School of Education at Indiana University, Bloomington. In 1989–90 she was an SRCD congressional science fellow with the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means. She is the
editor of Child Poverty and Public Policy, published by the Urban Institute Press, and author of numerous other publications dealing with young children’s social cognition, child and family policy, and
child poverty.
18
SRCD Presentations to the Media
R
Research on Adolescence) to prepare a series of
“research briefs” of relevance to pending legislative debates. Research was summarized, and
implications for policy were described in five
key areas: teenage pregnancy, poverty and welfare, child care, nutrition, and violence prevention. The briefs were disseminated to program
staff, program evaluators, policymakers, funders, and the general public. The goal was not to
affect the legislative process but to assure that
legislators and lay people understand current
research findings.
For the 1997 biennial meeting in Washington, DC, the Committee worked with Program
Committee Cochair Nora Newcombe to plan
media coverage of the conference. Media consultant Melissa Ludtke worked closely with Nora
to identify topics, themes, and specific presentations of interest. Press packets were sent out,
and a breakfast was held for journalists. On
Friday morning of the meeting, five SRCD members were invited to present meeting highlights
to the press. This briefing drew 35 to 40 reporters, including six television stations. Following
are the comments of four of the five presenters:
esearch on child development provides
information about parenting and family
decision-making that is critical to the
design and evaluation of programs and policies
serving children and families. Yet too frequently
such information is relegated to academic journals and fails to reach the public, the staff of programs serving children, evaluators of such programs, policymakers, or funders and others who
work on children’s behalf. Better dissemination
has the potential not only to improve these
efforts but to help maintain the nation’s commitment to the funding of developmental research.
In response to this need and to the
expressed concerns of SRCD members at the
1995 biennial meeting, the Committee on Child
Development, Public Policy, and Public Information has been developing a dissemination
strategy. To this end the Committee has secured
grants from the Packard Foundation, Foundation for Child Development, and Kaufmann
Foundation.
The Committee has identified three goals:
(1) To make research available to the public and to policymakers that is relevant
to pending policy decisions;
Aletha Huston
(2) To promote the importance of research,
both basic and applied, to the public
and to policymakers in order to maintain its funding base; and
My assignment today is to tell you briefly
about research being presented at the conference
on two topics: child care and television. These
topics may seem unrelated, but they have two
important things in common:
(3) To instill a general public interest
in developmental research by disseminating new and especially intriguing
findings.
(1) they are among the most important risk
factors for young children’s development
and, at the same time, they are socializing
influences with enormous potential for
promoting healthy development;
As a first effort, the Committee joined in
the spring of 1995 with three other professional
associations (Division 7 of the American
Psychological Association, the International
Society for Infant Studies, and the Society for
(2) the basic message about both is similar:
It’s not how much but what kind.
19
On Child Care
On Television
Later today, the National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development [NICHD]
Study of Early Child Care1 will present research
showing that the quality of child care in the first
three years of life matters for children’s cognitive
and language development and for the sensitivity of mothers’ interactions with their children.
The study followed over 1,300 children
from birth to age 3 in ten locations around the
country. Children who were in nonmaternal care
were observed in their child care settings. The
study is distinctive not only because of large
numbers but because family and child characteristics were taken into account in evaluating
the importance of child care. There were two
basic questions:
Evidence has been accumulating for some
time that children learn academic and social
skills from educational TV and they learn aggression from violent TV. What is new in the
research being presented tomorrow is that these
effects last over many years into adolescence and
adulthood.3
In one investigation, children who were frequent viewers of educational TV in preschool had
higher high school grades in English, math, and
science than infrequent viewers. They also had
higher academic motivation and creativity. These
patterns were not due to differences in parent
education or early language ability between children who watched educational TV and those
who did not.
On the other hand, there were lasting relationships between watching violent TV in childhood and aggression. Children who watched
violent TV as preschoolers and who carried TV
themes into their play and conversation were
more aggressive in high school.
Another study in the same symposium
found that aggressive attitudes engendered by
watching violent TV in childhood carried over
into adult life.
Many stations are searching for educational
programs in response to the new rule requiring
them to broadcast at least three hours of informative programs for children every week. A discussion on Sunday morning4 makes it clear that
effective educational programs don’t just happen
from good intentions. Programs like Sesame
Street, Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood, and Gulla Gulla
Island are carefully planned to achieve measurable educational goals by a team that includes
expertise in child development and early education. They are based on research testing not
only viewers interest but what children learn
from them.
Does the amount of child care matter?
Does the quality of care matter?
The amount of care did not predict cognitive and language development. There were no
differences associated with the average number
of hours in care; that is, children in no child care
and children in full-time care were similar.
Quality did matter. The important feature of
quality was sensitive, responsive behavior by the
caregiver and, more specifically, the amount of
language stimulation—talking to and listening to
the child—which predicted scores on tests of cognitive development and language as early as 15
months of age and on school readiness at age 3.
The study also investigated the relation of
child care to sensitive maternal interaction in a
play session. In this case high amounts of care,
especially during the first 6 months of life, were
associated with slightly lower levels of sensitivity. But for children in care, quality was slightly
associated with higher maternal sensitivity.
Another symposium2 contains studies of
school-age child care showing that the quality of
care and after-school programs continues to be
important after children enter school.
20
Nathan Fox
child’s social and emotional development. The
researchers at the SRCD meeting have gone to
great lengths to document these effects with an
eye toward affecting public policy.
We will hear reports10 on a long-term project documenting exposure to violence and its
effects among elementary school children in a
New Orleans housing project.
Differential effects of exposure in elementary and preschool children, depending upon
whether the child was a witness or victim of the
exposure will be presented.11
One symposium12 includes the first reports
on a self-report measure for children that allows
the child to report on the frequency with which
he or she has been exposed to aggressive and
violent acts. The VEX questionnaire provides
information on whether the child was a witness
or victim of the violence and important data on
the context (home, school, or neighborhood) in
which the violence takes place.
In all the papers presented on this topic at
the meeting, the theme is clear: Exposure to violence or trauma is bad for children’s physical and
psychological health.
On the Brain
A good deal of research on the relation
between brain development and behavior is
being presented at the meeting of the Society for
Research on Child Development. One of the
invited speakers, Michael Posner,5 will discuss
the different ways in which the brain encodes
information. He will illustrate how certain areas
of the brain are important in learning a task,
whereas different areas are activated when this
same task is initiated later on. He will address
issues of brain plasticity and how the brain
changes with development.
Among the other work on brain development are studies of the effects of atypical environments on children, including work on the
effects of maternal depression, trauma, and
deprivation. One study6 illustrates the negative
effects of maternal depression on infant’s brain
activity; another7 reveals the negative effects of
growing up in Romanian orphanages.
An investigation of fetal neural development8 showed that activity level in utero is a
strong predictor of temperamental difficulty in
infancy. As well, maternal emotional state and
stress seem to affect fetal responsivity in adverse
ways.
According to yet another report,9 inhibited
children exhibit a specific pattern of brain electrical activity (EEG), which may reflect their
inability to regulate negative affect. Numerous
other papers at the meeting examine the intricate relations between brain activity and behavior with the message that context and environment greatly affect brain development.
Jacquelynne Eccles
On Middle Childhood
It is much harder to intervene successfully
in children’s lives to improve their chances during middle childhood:
• More often than not, individual differences in school achievement
increase over the elementary school
years—so that discrepancies in performance linked to family and neighborhood income widen.
On Effects of Exposure to Violence
• More often than not, gains made by
successful interventions in the preschool years disappear.
Much of what is reported at the meeting
with regard to the effects of exposure to violence
on young children is self-evident. There is no
doubt that being exposed to acts of violence or
aggression leave a lasting mark upon the young
• This is a time when trajectories of children’s lives begin to crystallize—for
21
in managing their children’s lives:
instance, academic failures in this period predict subsequent school failure
and mental health problems, and the
likelihood of a child who is having
problems in elementary school shifting to a more positive pathway decreases dramatically as children move
through this age period.
• Parents of children in middle childhood who beat the odds spend a lot
of time making sure their children
get positive opportunities at school
and in their communities.
• They also work with the schools to
help the school get the resources they
feel their children and other children
need.
Understanding why these characteristics
are true has been a central question for developmental psychologists for some time now. Several
papers at this biennial meeting provide much
richer answers and offer programs to change the
patterns.
As a society we have looked to the schools
as our equalizing institution. Children from all
backgrounds are suppose to get the kinds of
training needed to give them all an equal chance
at succeeding in this society. But this is not happening. The papers presented at this conference
suggest why:
First, schools can not do it alone—although several promising new curricular programs are reported, other papers document the
impact of inequality in educational experiences
across social class and ethnic group lines. In and
of itself this is not new. But most importantly the
papers highlight the interaction between school,
family, and community influences. For example,
papers reporting on the Baltimore Longitudinal
School Study13 provide good evidence that
school performance differences due to social
class result more from out-of-school summertime experiences than from differences in learning rates during the school year. This work
points to the importance of schools, families,
and communities in supporting their children’s
education all year long.
Second, with regard to families, several pa14
pers highlight the ways in which parents facilitate school achievement through their impact on
motivation and through the kinds of educational
experience they provide in the home.
But even more importantly, papers at this
convention15 document the key role parents play
• And if necessary, they actively resist
school practices and decisions that
are not in the best interest of their
children.
• They also seek out opportunities in
their communities that will improve
their children’s lives.
Such family practices are especially important for poor and/or immigrant families.16 But
they are also especially difficult for such families
to actualize because of the other stresses in these
families lives and because of insufficient knowledge about this culture, including where to find
the opportunities that they think their children
need. In addition, accessing these resources is
made doubly difficult by discriminatory practices and poor information dissemination. Finally, such families have the added burden of having to socialize their children about prejudice
and discrimination.
Several papers17 addressing these concerns
make it clear how critical a good connection
between schools, families, and communities is
for children in this age period. Programs like
after-school day care can play especially important role in this connection if they support
• the parents’ work involvement,
• the school’s educational efforts, and
• the children’s and family’s efforts to
gain access to other community
resources.
22
tions—the romantic relationship. A paper in this
session19 reports that kindness and reciprocity
come to surpass physical appearance and status
in adolescents’ romantic relationships.
In one study20 it was found that 8th-grade
friends are more similar to one another than 6thgrade friends. Thus if the 8th grader’s friends
have acting out problems, then the adolescent is
likely also to have acting out problems. In
another study21 it was concluded that for some
adolescents social networks are “stepping
stones” to more deviant groups. This is a twoway process—some adolescents both reject and
are rejected by other adolescents and institutions—which occurs not just at the individual
level but for stable peer groups. In yet another
study,22 it was found that victims are often rejected by their peers—moreso than are aggressive
students. Young adolescents appear to believe
that victims bring their problems on themselves:
they are “show-offs,” they ”bad mouth” others,
and they “started it first.”
Delinquent, drug-using peer groups may
become organized street gangs, which are
assessed in the Rochester Youth Development
Study.23 The Chicago Youth Development
Study24 reports that exposure to violence in the
community has cumulative deleterious effects
on both aggression and internalizing disorders.
Most studies of delinquency focus on urban adolescents. But a study25 of delinquency in rural
Iowa makes an important contribution. And in
addition, another investigation26 of job loss in
the sugar production industry in rural Hawaii
found that delinquent activity is largely a function of age but also poor coping strategies, negative community climate, and family economic
strain.
Studies of delinquency have typically
focused on males; studies of adolescent pregnancy have tended to focus on females.
Prevention is the foremost goal in research on
unplanned adolescent pregnancy. Toward that
goal, President Clinton launched a national campaign in May to prevent early childbearing. A
current report27 from a landmark 30-year follow-
Some of the best such programs actively involve the adolescents from these families and
communities as positive resources, doing such
things as cross-age tutoring, mentoring, and problem-solving. Such programs provide very effective support for the healthy development of children in both middle childhood and adolescence.
In contrast, family policies and programs
that make it difficult for parents to play this managerial role in their children’s lives contribute to
the widening gap in educational outcomes across
social class and ethnic group lines.
In sum, papers presented at this conference
document programs that work—programs that
can both sustain the gains made during early intervention programs, reduce the gaps in achievement that develop during this period, and increase the chances of positive outcomes for all
American children. Such programs focus on coordinating efforts across family, school, and community resources. Such coordinated efforts are
both especially important and maximally likely to
be successful during this age period.
Diane Scott-Jones
On Adolescence
Adolescence is a time of extraordinary
change. In our society, when children reach biological or reproductive maturity, we place these
newly mature persons in a holding pattern
called adolescence, where they wait on the
threshold of adulthood, preparing for a successful transition into adult life. The SRCD biennial
program includes a number of studies of adolescent development, many of them longitudinal,
that provide a window on normal developmental trajectories and also a view of events that
might jeopardize adolescents’ movement into
adulthood. I’ll mention briefly a few of these
studies.
Typically, peer relationships are a large part
of adolescents’ social world. One symposium18
considers an understudied aspect of peer rela23
up of adolescent childbearers in Baltimore tells
us that the adolescent mothers in this sample
valued education greatly and often continued
their education at the same time their children
begin formal schooling.
Adolescent childbearing influences not
only the children but also the adolescents’ parents, who may be thrust into grandparenting earlier than they anticipated. One study28 of the
relationship between adolescent mothers and
their own mothers found the affective quality to
be closer and warmer than when the adolescent
was growing up. As with delinquency, studies
typically focus on urban adolescent childbearers.
But much needed data29 on childbearing in rural
adolescents are also being presented.
Attention to adolescent childbearing has
increased in the recent past, although the highest
rate of births to adolescents occurred during the
1950s. The meeting program includes a report30
on the history of adolescent pregnancy programs
in the 20th century. Some high schools provide
on-site child care to help adolescent childbearers
stay in school. Reports from my own research
program31 provide data from adolescents in these
programs in Chicago and in Philadelphia. The
prevention of early unplanned pregnancies and
the prevention of HIV infection need to be considered in tandem. One symposium32 focuses on
mothers’ and adolescents’ communication about
sexuality and AIDS. Adolescent mothers have
been singled out in current welfare reform; however, a study33 of mothers in low-income urban
communities found that mothers’ age at first
birth was not related to dependence on public
assistance. Large percentages of both women
who delayed childbearing until the early adult
years and the adolescent childbearers did not
fare well economically.
Our meeting highlights many positive
aspects of adolescence. Your fellow journalist,
Mike Males, author of The Scapegoat Generation,
points out that we tend to blame adolescents for
society’s problems. But adolescents are much
more than the sum of their problems—they are
more than delinquents, more than adolescent
parents. As developmental researchers and as
concerned citizens, we can use the research findings reported at this meeting to increase the likelihood that children will move successfully
through the second decade of life and become
productive, responsible, and fulfilled adults.
Notes
1
Owen, M. T., chair, “Mother-child interaction and cognitive
outcomes associated with early child care: Results of the
NICHD study.” Poster symposium, session 2-210.
Marshall, N. L., & Friedman, S., chairs, “The impact of
school-aged children’s after-school experiences on their socioemotional adjustment.” Poster symposium, session 2-162.
2
3
Wright, J. C., chair, “The long-term effects of television
viewing.” Paper symposium, session 3-097.
Santomero, A., & Wilder, A. A., chairs, “The role of child
development knowledge and theory in the design and
production of children’s television.” Discussion hour, session
4-066.
4
Posner, M. I., Cognitive neuroscience and the development of
attention. Invited address, session 1-096.
5
Dawson, G., Frey, K. S., Panagiotides, H., Self, J., Hessl, D.,
& Yamada, E. M. Atypical frontal brain activity in infants of
depressed mothers: The role of maternal behavior. In poster
symposium 1-020.
6
Carlson, M., Earls, F. T., & Gunnar, M. R. Cortisol levels associated with physical, mental, and motor development in institutionally and home-reared Romanian children. In poster symposium 1-020.
7
DiPietro, J. A. Maternal affect and fetal neurobehavioral development. In paper symposium 1-059.
8
Schmidt, L. A. A multiple psychophysiological measure
approach to understanding childhood shyness. In paper symposium 3-055.
9
Osofsky, J. D. The impact of community and domestic violence
exposure on children. In invited paper symposium 2-002.
10
Shahinfar, A. Patterns of violence exposure and symptomatology: The effect of variations in context of exposure on preschool
children’s behavior. In paper symposium 1-069.
11
Fox, N. A., & Leavitt, L. A., chairs, “Measuring children’s
exposure to violence: Cross-national and cross-cultural use
of the Violence Exposure Questionnaire (VEX).” Paper symposium, session 4-054.
12
Dauber, S., Alexander, K. L., & Entwisle, D. R. To college or
not to college? The construction of early educational expectations.
13
24
poster session 3-039. Schulz, M. S. Parental work conditions and
children’s school adaptation: Identifying familial moderators and
pathways. In poster session 3-039.
In paper symposium 1-109.
Grolnick, W. S., Gehl, K., & Manzo, C. Resources and school
performance. In paper symposium 1-110. Cowan, P. A., &
Heming, G. A. Family factors in children’s school adaptation:
The development of a “mega-model.” In poster session 3-309.
Brody, G. H., & Flor, D. Parenting efficacy beliefs, development
goals, parenting, and competence among rural African American
children. In paper symposium 2-005. Molfese, V. J., chair,
“Environment, parenting social conditions: Family variables
influence cognitive and social development of risk and normal children.” Paper symposium, session 4-013. Halle, T. G.,
Kurtz-Costes, B., & Meece, J. L. Influences of parents and family on academic skills and achievement. In poster session 2218. Ellenberger, K. M., Wisdom, J. M., & Killian, C. M.
Early parental aspirations, home environments, and children’s
intelligence: A developmental model of academic achievement. In
poster session 2-218.
14
Furman, W. C., chair, “Emerging perspectives on adolescent
romantic relationships.” Paper symposium, session 4-001.
18
Laursen, B., & Jensen-Campbell, L. A. The nature and function of social exchange in adolescent romantic relationships. In
paper symposium 4-001.
19
Buhrmester, D., & Yin, J. A longitudinal study of friends’
influence on adolescents’ adjustment. In poster session 2-227.
20
Cairns, B. D. Adolescent networks: Affiliation, rejection, and
aggression. In paper symposium 1-115.
21
Graham, S. H., & Juvonen, J. Ethnicity, perceived control, and
peer victimization: A view from middle school. In paper symposium 3-050.
22
15
Kerns, K. A., & Gentzler, A. L. Parent-child supervision in
middle childhood. In paper symposium 2-907. Slaughter
Defoe, D., Howard, E., & Cooper, R. Parent education and
ethnicity as cultural mediators of school adaptation. In paper
symposium 1-112. Ramey, S. L., Gaines, K. R., & Webb, M.
B. The family ecology from an insider’s view: Intergenerational
perspectives on helping children succeed in school. In paper symposium 1-112. Blair, C. B. School adjustment: Risk and
resilience in the early elementary grades. In poster session 2089. Nadon, I., & Normandeau, S. Can parents’ involvement
with homework moderate the relation between children’s cognitive
abilities and school achievement? In poster session 2-218.
Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. The impact of association
with delinquent peers and of membership in street gangs on violent delinquency. In paper symposium 4-017.
23
24
Richards, M. H., chair, “Dangerous neighborhoods, family,
and psychosocial adjustment of urban minority youth.”
Paper symposium, session 3-017.
Scaramella, L. V., & Bryant, C. M. Parental protective influences and gender-specific increases in adolescent delinquency.
Chao, W. Family structure, economic pressure, community effect,
and adolescent adjustment. Both in paper symposium 2-065.
25
DeBaryshe, B. D. Resiliency factors in youth affected by
parental job loss: Coping strategies, parenting practices, and
social support. In poster session 3-041
26
Garcia-Sellers, M. J., chair, “School adaptation of Hispanic
immigrant children.” Poster symposium, session 2-020.
Cardenas, A. M., & Minnett, A. M. Mexican American parents’
expectations: Possible predictors of parental school involvement
and children’s academic attitudes. In poster session 2-030.
Serpell, R., Sonnenschein, S., & Baker, L., chairs, “Patterns
of emerging competence and sociocultural context in the
early appropriation of literacy.” Poster symposium 2-163.
Mueller, D. P., & Gozali-Lee, E. M. Early school performance
of Hmong children in comparative context. In poster session 2092. Wang, B. Family environment, motivation, and self-perceived competence of American and Chinese children. In poster
session 2-218.
16
Furstenberg, F. F., & Weiss, C. C. Schooling together: Mutual
influences on educational success of teenage mothers and their
children. In paper symposium 1-109.
27
Caldwell, C., & Brown, E. Relationship affect among teenage
mothers and grandmothers: A test of the intergenerational stake
hypothesis. In paper symposium 1-010.
28
Scaramella, L. V., & Conger, R. Early parenthood in a rural
cohort of adolescents. In paper symposium 2-194.
29
Rupert, M. L., & Rubovits, D. S. A history of adolescent pregnancy programs in the twentieth century. In paper session 4-067.
30
Marshall, N. L., & Friedman, S., chairs, “The impact of
school-aged children’s after-school experiences on their socioemotional adjustment.” Poster symposium, session 2-162.
Furstenberg, F. F., & Weiss, C. C. Schooling together: Mutual influences on educational success of teenage mothers and their children. In paper symposium 1-109. Neuman, S. B. “Getting books
in children’s hands”: A study of access to literacy. In paper symposium 1-108. Christian, K. Predicting kindergarten academic performance: Interactions among time in child care, SES, and family
literacy environment. In poster session 2-218. Brooks, H. S.
Promoting academic and social competence in low-income AfricanAmerican children: An after-school intervention project report. In
17
Sangster, N. A. Family support and financial responsibility as
predictors of adjustment in adolescent mothers. In poster session
2-040. Sangster, N. A. Adolescent-child care provider relationships as sources of support for adolescent mothers. In poster session 1-140.
31
Sigman, M., chair, “Mother-adolescent communication
about sexuality and AIDS.” Paper symposium, session 2-155.
32
Dannhausen-Brun, C. A., Shalowitz, M. U., & Berry, C. A.
Challenging the assumptions: Teen moms and public policy. In
poster session 2-047.
33
25
About Social Policy Report
Social Policy Report (ISSN 10757031) is published four times a year by
the Society for Research in Child Development. Its purpose is twofold: (1) to
provide policymakers with objective
reviews of research findings on topics of
current national interest, and (2) to
inform the SRCD membership about
current policy issues relating to children
and about the state of relevant research.
PROCEDURES FOR SUBMISSION AND
M A N U S C R I P T P R E PA R AT I O N
Articles originate from a variety of
sources. Some are solicited, but authors
interested in submitting a manuscript
are urged to propose timely topics to the
editor. Manuscripts vary in length ranging from 20 to 30 pages of doublespaced text (approximately 8,000 to
14,000 words) plus references. Authors
are asked to submit hard copy and a
disk, including text, references, and a
brief biographical statement limited to
the author’s current position and special
activities related to the topic.
Three or four reviews are obtained
from academic or policy specialists with
relevant expertise and different perspectives. Authors then make revisions based
on these reviews and the editor’s queries,
working closely with the editor to arrive
at the final form for publication.
The Committee on Child Development, Public Policy, and Public Information, which founded the Report,
serves as an advisory body to all activities related to its publication.
CONTENT
The Report provides a forum for
scholarly reviews and discussions of
developmental research and its implications for policies affecting children. The
Society recognizes that few policy issues
are noncontroversial, that authors may
well have a “point of view,” but the
Report is not intended to be a vehicle for
authors to advocate particular positions
on issues. Presentations should be balanced, accurate, and inclusive. The
publication nonetheless includes the
disclaimer that the views expressed do
not necessarily reflect those of the
Society or the editor.
26
Past Issues
Volume VII (1993)
No. 1
Canadian special education policies: Children with learning disabilities in a bilingual and multicultural society. Linda S. Siegel & Judith Wiener
No. 2
Using research and theory to justify and inform Head Start expansion.
Edward Zigler & Sally J. Styfco
No. 3
Child witnesses: Translating research into policy. Stephen J. Ceci & Maggie Bruck
No. 4
Integrating science and ethics in research with high-risk children and youth.
Celia B. Fisher
Volume VIII (1994)
No. 1
Children’s changing access to resources: A historical perspective. Donald J. Hernandez
No. 2
Children in poverty: Designing research to affect policy. Aletha C. Huston
No. 3
Developmental effects of lead exposure in children. Johanna Rich Tesman &
Amanda Hills
No. 4
Resiliency research: Implications for schools and policy. Marc A. Zimmerman &
Revathy Arunkumar
Volume IX (1995)
No. 1
Escaping poverty: The promise of higher education. Erika Kates
No. 2
The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child: Its relevance for social scientists.
Susan P. Limber & Målfrid Grude Flekkøy
No. 3
Children who witness violence: The invisible victims. Joy D. Osofsky
Volume X (1996)
No. 1
Latin American immigration and U.S. Schools. Claude Goldenberg
Nos. 2 & 3
Is the emperor wearing clothes? Social policy and the empirical support for full inclusion of
children with disabilities in the preschool and early elementary grades.
Bryna Siegel
Inclusion at the preschool level: An ecological systems analysis.
Samuel L. Odom, Charles A. Peck, Marci Hanson, Paula J. Beckman, Ann P. Kaiser,
Joan Lieber, William H. Brown, Eva M. Horn, & Ilene S. Schwartz
No. 4
Building research and policy connections: Training and career options for developmental
scientists. Amy R. Susman-Stillman, Joshua L. Brown, Emma K. Adam, Clancy Blair, Robin
Gaines, Rachel A. Gordon, Ann Marie White, & Sheri R. Wynn
No. 5
A reconceptualization of the effects of undernutrition on children’s biological, psychosocial, and
behavioral development. Ernesto Pollitt, Mari Golub, Kathleen Gorman, Sally GranthamMcGregor, David Levitsky, Beat Schürch, Barbara Strupp, & Theodore Wachs
Volume XI (in press)
No. 1
Schooling, the hidden curriculum, and children’s conceptions of poverty. Judith A. Chafel
No. 2
Fathers’ involvement with children: Perspectives from developing countries.
Patrice L. Engle & Cynthia Breaux
No. 3
Investigating child care subsidy: What are we buying? Helen Raikes
No. 4
Training the applied developmental scientist: Three current models.
Celia B. Fisher, Joy Osofsky, Rachel A. Gordon, & Lindsay Chase-Lansdale
27
Social Policy Report is a quarterly publication of the Society for Research in Child Development.
The Report provides a forum for scholarly reviews and discussions of developmental research and
its implications for the policies affecting children. Copyright of the articles published in the Report
is maintained by SRCD. Statements appearing in the Report are the views of the author and do
not imply endorsement by the Editor or by SRCD.
Editor: Nancy G. Thomas
phone: (970) 925-5516 · fax: (970) 544-0662
e-mail: ngthomas@umich.edu
Subscriptions available at $12.50 to nonmembers of SRCD, single issues at $4.00,
and multiple copies at reduced rates. Write or phone:
SRCD Executive Office • University of Michigan • 505 East Huron, Suite 301 • Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1522
(313) 998-6578
SRCD Executive Office
University of Michigan
300 N. Ingalls, 10th Floor
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0406
SOCIAL POLICY REPORT
Nonprofit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAID
Permit No. 587
Ann Arbor, MI