DOCUMENT RESUME UD 011 901 ED 057 118 Ed. AUTHOR McMurrin, Sterling M., CED The Conditions farEducational Equality. TITLE Number 34. Supplementary Paper, Development, New York,N.Y. INSTITUTION Committee for Economic Research and PolicyCommittee. PUB DATE Jul 71 NOTE 208p. Development, 477 Madison AVAILABLE FROMCommittee for Econattic Avenue, New York,N.Y. 10022 ($4.00,paperback) EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$9.87 Cognitive Development;Compensatory Education; DESCRIPTORS *Educational Opportunities; *Disadvantaged Youth; Intervention; *Mexican *Equal Education;Inner City; Americans; *NegroStudents; Relevance(Education); Research Problems;Self Concept; SelfEsteem; Socialization; UrbanSchools ABSTRACT Paper are an The contents ofthis Supplementary the meaning of the commonconcept of equalityof attempt to refine of opportunity. The followingpapers areincluded: ',The Meanings Jarrett; uPovertyand Childhood,u JeromeS. Equality,fl James L. Classroom, Staten W.Webster; Bruner; ',TheCrucible of the Urban Opportunity: ResearchProblems and Results,,, ',Increasing Educational in the Urban School, James S. Coleman;',Relevance and Self-Image and Ronald C. Bigelow;and, ',The SpecialEducation Larry L. Leslie Knowlton. (JM) Problems of theMexican-Americansfir-Clark S. OTHER TITLES the CED Series on URBAN EDUCATION FUNCTIONAL EDUCATION FOR DISADVANTAGED YOUTH Supplementary Paper Number 32 RESOURCES FOR URBAN SCHOOLS: Better Use and Balance Supplementary Paper Number 33 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. 'PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISCOPY EDUCATION & WELFARE RIGHTED MATERIAL HAS BEENGRANTED OFFICE OF EDUCATION BY THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO- Committee for ECOAQ-- DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG- N.Y.C. INATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN- min Develnpmont IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY TO ERIC AND019GANIZATIO,NS OPERATING UNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THEU.S. OFFICE REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU- OF EDUCATION. FURTHERREPRODUCTION CATION POSITION OR POLICY OUTSIDE THE ERIC SYSTEM REQUIRESPER. MISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER." The CONDITIONS for EDUCATIONAL EQUALITY Edited bySterling M.McMurrin James L. Jarrett Jerome S.Bruner Staten W.Webster James S.Coleman Larry L. Leslieand RonaldC. Bigelow Clark S.Knowlton Cra .42004 Committee for EconomicDevelopment Supplementary PaperNumber 34 f=:) COPYRIGHT 0 1971 by the Committee for Economic Development. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, re- cap:ling, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Com- mittee for Economic Development. Printed in the U.S.A. First printing, July 1971 Editorial Supervisvr: Carl Rieser Cover Design: Harry Carter COMMITTEE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 477 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 77-158987 A CED SUPPLEMENTARYPAPER Research and Policy This Supplementary Paperis issued by the Committee of the Committeefor EconomicDevelopment in con- formity with the CEDBylaws (Art. V, Sec. 6),which authorize the publication of a manuscript as aSupplementary Paper if: Director of a a) It is recommended forpublication by the Project subcommittee because in hisopinion, it "constitutes animportant contribution to the understandingof a problem on whichresearch has been initiated bythe Research andPolicy Committee" and, publication by a majority of anEditorial b) It is approved for analysis which is a significant Board on the groundthat it presents "an contribution to theunderstanding of the problemin question." following Statements on This SupplementaryPaper relates to the National Policy issued bythe CED Researchand Policy Committee: Through Improved Education(1965); Innovation Raising Low Incomes School (1969), and in Education: NewDirections for the American Education for the UrbanDisadvantaged: From Preschool toEmploy- ment (1971). publication of thi The members of theEditorial Board authorizing Supplementary Paper are: Members of the Research and PolicyCommittee John M. Burns Development Philip M. Klutznick of the Committee for Economic Member, CED Research AdvisoryBoard Mitchell Svirldoff Advisory Board J. Douglas Brown Associate Member, CED Research Alfred C. Neal President of the Committee for Economic Development Sterling M. McMurrinProject Director of the CEDSubcommittee on Education for theUrban Disadvantaged This paper lies also beenread by the ResearchAdvisory Board, the members of which underCED Bylaws may submitmemoranda oi comment, reservation, ordissent. While publication of thisSupplementary Paper is authorizedby CED's Bylaws, except as notedabove its contents have notbeen approved, disapproved, or actedirp on by theCommittee for Economic Development, Research and Policy Committee,the Research the Board of Trustees, the board or Advisory Board, the RecearchStaff, or any member of any committee, or any officer ofthe Committee for EconomicDevelopment. CED RESEARCH ADVISORYBOARD-1970 FREDERICK C. MOSHER Chairman Woodrow Wilson Departmeni of CHARLES L. SCHULTZE Government and Foreign Affairs The Brookings Institution University of Virginia WILBUR J. COHEN Dean, School of Education DON K. PRICE The University of Michigan Dean, John Fitzgerald Kennedy School of Government OTTO ECKSTEIN Harvard University Department of Economics Harvard University ELI SHAPIRO WALTER W. HELLER Sylvan C. Coleman Professor Department of Economics of Financial Management University of Minnesota Graduate School of Business Administration Harvard Unh cnity LAWRENCE C. HOWARD Dean, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs MITCHELL SVIRIDOFF University of Pittsburgh Vice President, Division of National Affairs The Ford Foundation CHARLES P. KINDLEBERGER Department of Economics and Social Science PAUL N. YLVISAKER Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor, Public Affairs and Urban Planning Woodrow Wilson School of Public and JOHN R. MEYER International Affairs President National Bureau of Economic Research. Inc. Princeton University Foreword In recent years aconsiderable effort has beenmade to with .the task ofestablishing educationalequality come to terms has been faltering in the United States.But this effort, which and uneven and stillshows few signs of success,has encountered than most had expected.These difficulties far more difficulties associated with equitable are not simplythe familiar problems of integration, or eventhe cultivation of finance, the mechanics just and decent the human dispositionsand attitudes essential to treatment in the schools.I have in mind, forinstance, issues concerned with themeaning of equality, whichhave theoretic subtleti(-- that demand themost carefulphilosophic examina- tion, and ;hose relatingto the sociopsychologicalfoundations not be fully resolveduntil our scientific of learning that will have moved research and experimentationin the arts of teaching state. far beyond their present the impera- We are accustomed tospeak rather casually of equality of oppor- tive of educationalequality, usually meaning tunity but recognizingthe hazards of theegalitarianism that if he were a duplicateof every other. treats every person as show, that But it has become clear, asthe papers of this volume it is not a simpletask to refine themeaning of the common concept of equalityof opportunity. Moreover,the material vii viii FOREWORD issues attending the achievement of the equal treatment of individuals are so dependent upon our knowledge of human development and behavior that a continuing extension of that knowledge, as well as more skill and wisdom in interpreting its practical values, are urgent demands. The celebrated Coleman report exhibited the extent of inequality in. American education and revealed grounds for that inequality which had been nidden from most of us. It did this by identifying the social and psychological conditions that attend scholastic success and failure through correlating environmental and other circum- stances with the degree of a child's achievement. Obtained on a massive scale, the findings, while subject to controversial inter- pretation, have pointed up much of our problem. liere it must be remembered that we can no longer judge the issue of equality in education simply by school inputs described in such terms as money, buildings, equipment, or even the preparation of teachers. The primary consideration must be outputs measured in terms of actual achievement in literacy and other skills, knowledge, or motivation. And even the con- ception of inputs must be enlarged to include such social and psychological factors as a child's home cultural environment and the economic status of the families of his classmates. The question of equality of education becomes immensely complicated when it is considered in relation to all these factors and with a concentration especially on the issue of poverty and matters of social and racial discrimination, whether overt or subtle. But unless this more difficult approach is taken, involving the full spectrum of the conditions relating to a child's learning, we will fail to get at the root of the matter, both in our attempt to define and understand the problem of equality and in our effort to resolve it by concrete decision and action. Among many other things, this requires a thorough ex- amination of various programs regarded as reformative or compensatory, with particular attention devoted to the worth of early or preschool education. It is now commonly held that FOREWORDix than was children can