School Failure and

Cultural Mismatch: Another View

Ana Maria Villegas
Recently, the school failure of minority students has been explained in terms of
incompatibilities in the ways that language is used at home and in school. This theory has
stimulated numerous studies. The research shows in detail how teachers and minority
students often misinterpret each other due to different assumptions about the appropriate
ways of using language in the classroom. This paper reviews the literature dealing with
home-school disjunctures in language use, and examines the theory critically. It argues
that the approach to school failure prevalent throughout the research in this area is
seriously flawed. By narrowing the focus of analysis to home-school connections, this line
of investigation diverts attention away from existing social inequalities that sustain the
widespread academic failure of minority students. Attention is given to the relationship
between school and society--a missing link in much of the sociolinguistic literature. The
paper further argues that culturally sensitive solutions to the school problems of
minority students that ignore the political link between school and society are doomed to
failure.

The widely documented poor school performance of minority students in the

United States has elicited concern and explanatory efforts. This disturbing
problem commands urgent public attention in view of the projected increase in
the minority population of the country, Within the next two decades, schools
will enroll an increasing proportion of minority students. The change in
demographic patterns exerts even more pressure on the school system to develop
creative solutions to the academic difficulties of this group of students.
Explanations for the academic failure of minority students abound, but
recently the theory of home-school incompatibility has gained credibility among
educators. In its broadest expression, this theory attributes the academic
problems of minority students to cultural disjunctures between home and school.
Several versions of the theory exist, each examining a specific area of
disjuncture. Attention has been paid to differences in dialects (Gay and
Abrahams, 1972; Labov, 1969; Piedstrup, 1973), and in cognitive style (Cohen,
1969; Ramirez and Castaneda, 1974). More recently, however, the focus of
empirical attention has turned to the subtle differences in the ways that language

Ana Maria Viltegas, Departmentof Language, Literacy, and Culture, School of Education,
Universityof Colorado,Denver, CO 80204.
The Urban Review

1988 Agathon Press, Inc.

Vol. 20, No. 4

253

254

THE URBAN REVIEW

is used at home and in school, and the resulting miscommunication from these
differences (Au and Mason, 1981; Cazden, John, and Hymes, 1972; Heath,
1983a; Jordan, 1985; Philips, 1983).
Proponents of this latest version of the theory"of incompatibility contend that
a better understanding of the use of language across the home and school
settings will enable educators to develop culturally sensitive solutions that will
remedy the communication problems and improve minority students' poor
academic performance. This paper reviews the literature concerning homeschool clashes in language use, and examines the theory of incompatibility
critically. An argument is made that by reducing the focus of analysis to the
home-school link, the theory diverts attention away from the social inequalities
that sustain the widespread academic failure of minority students. Attention is
given to the role that the language of the school plays in the reproduction of
inequitable social relations. Suggestions are offered for means by which
teachers can help minority students improve their future chances.

LANGUAGE USE AT HOME AND IN SCHOOL

Sometimes the things closest to us are the least apparent. Most social activity
is conducted through spoken language, yet most of us do not fully understand
how language influences our attempts to communicate with others. Spoken
language takes on added importance in classrooms because it is the prevalent
means by which teachers instruct their students, and students in turn display
their knowledge. Those who are interested in teaching and learning cannot
ignore how language is used in the classroom.
Students and teachers in a given classroom may speak the same language, but
they sometimes have different ways of using it. Sociolinguistic research shows
that communities vary in their use of language (Bauman and Sherzer, 1974;
Gumperz, 1972; Heath, 1983a; Hymes, 1974; Philips, 1983). Children whose
language use at home and in their immediate community corresponds more
closely to what is expected in the classroom have an advantage in terms of
opportunities for learning. For these students, prior experience transfers to the
classroom and facilitates their academic performance. This case seems to be true
for white, middle-class, Anglo-American students. In contrast, minority
children frequently experience discontinuity between home and school in ways
of using language. They are often misunderstood when applying prior
knowledge to classroom tasks. Of what use is prior experience to these children
if their established ways of using language and making sense of the world are
deemed unacceptable or prohibited in the classroom? This discontinuity has
often been identified as a source of academic problems for minority children
(see Au and Mason, 1981; Cazden, John, and Hymes, 1972; Florio and Shultz,
1979; Genishi, 1979; Heath, 1983a; Jordan, 1985; Philips, 1983).
What We Have Gained from Sociolinguistic Research

During the past two decades, numerous studies have examined sociolinguistic
discontinuities between children's home communities and the classroom. Two

SCHOOL FAILURE AND CULTURAL MISMATCH

255

research approaches are evident in the literature. Some studies compare patterns
of language use at home and in school (Heath, 1983a; Philips, 1983). Others
focus primarily on the classroom, comparing the communicative strategies of
teachers and pupils from different ethnic groups and social classes (Erickson and
Mohatt, 1982; Michaels, 1981; Van Ness, 1981). Research conducted by Heath
and by Michaels will be used to represent each approach for the purpose of
illustrating the sorts of insight gained from these lines of investigation.
Heath (1983a) conducted an extensive study of language use in different
communities in the Piedmont Carolinas. She lived and worked in the
communities for nine years. Her research was wide in scope, and an important
aspect of it was the role of questioning in language and socialization. The proper
handling of questions is critical because many teachers structure much of the
academic exchange through interrogatives. Heath became interested in why the
children from Trackton, a black working-class community, struggled with the
questions asked of them in classes. The teachers, who found the children's
behavior to be an obstacle to learning, were concerned and perplexed. Trackton
parents were frustrated by their children's school difficulties and attributed the
problems to the fact that "we [at Trackton] don't talk to our children as you
folks [in school] do." Findings of the study indicated that the parents were right.
Heath (1982) compared the role of questions in the homes and community of
Trackton and in the classrooms that its children attended. She found that
questions varied in proportion to other types of utterances across settings, and
that questions were used differently at home and in school. In Trackton, adults
did not regard children as legitimate sources of information. This cultural
assumption about the role of children was reflected in language. Generally,
adults did not attempt to engage young children in conversation until they were
considered competent conversational partners. Children were immersed in the
stream of language, but rarely were they asked questions. Directives occurred
with greater frequency. On the rare occasions when questions were asked, these
were generally of the unknown information type. That is, the respondent was
expected to provide information the questioner lacked.
The classroom represented a very different sociolinguistic environment for
Trackton children, in that their teachers expected them to be adept
conversational partners. Questions dominated classroom talk, and directives
were used far less frequently than in the community. Rather than asking for
information, the teachers most often asked display questions, that is, questions
that required students to display knowledge. They did this as a way of
monitoring what the students knew about the topic being discussed. From the
children's perspective, the teachers' questions seemed peculiar. They found it
difficult to understand why the teachers asked questions to which they already
knew the answers. In brief, Heath showed that the communicative demands
placed on the children in the classroom clashed with the rules that guided the use
of language in the community. Given the strangeness of the classroom
environment to Trackton children, it is no wonder that they were puzzled and
frustrated in school, and appeared academically incompetent.

256

THE URBAN REVIEW

A second example of ethnic differences in language use is provided by a

study conducted by Sarah Michaels. Michaels (1981) compared the narrative
styles of black and white children in a first grade class. She focused on
narratives during "sharing time," a recurrent classroom event in which
students were expected to tell their classmates and teacher about some past
experience. In primary classrooms, where sharing time is used most frequently,
it can serve as a bridge between the oral language that pupils bring to the
classroom and the literate discourse style of written text, which emphasizes
decontextualized language.
Noting that white students did better than their black classmates during
sharing time, Michaels set out to discover why. She found that black and white
students used different strategies to construct their narratives. Specifically, the
accounts produced by the white children were focused on a single topic and
organized sequentially. These students were more likely to name objects, and
they assumed less shared knowledged on the part of the listener. Michaels
provides evidence suggesting that the teacher's criteria for good narratives
correspond closely to the white students' "topic-centered" style. She contends
that this similarity enabled the teacher to work well with the white students in
constructing the stories.
In contrast, the accounts of the black children frequently contained a series of
implicitly associated anecdotes. When asked directly by the researcher, the
students were able to express a logical connection between the different topics in
their narratives, but rarely did they do so during sharing time. The
"topic-associating" narrative style of the black children clashed with the
teacher's criteria for good stories. Michaels argues that this sociolinguistic
mismatch prevented the teacher from collaborating successfully with the black
students during sharing time.
Both Heath and Michaels examined the role of language as a medium for
accomplishing classroom tasks. Based on their detailed descriptions of
questioning strategies and narrative styles, they make a convincing case that the
mismatch between home and school environments prevents black children from
using their own sociolinguistic competence successfully in the classroom. These
studies suggest how well-meaning teachers can contribute unwittingly to the
academic difficulties of students. Heath and Michaels make clear to us the
intangible yet powerful influence of the use of language in the classroom.
Toward Culturally Sensitive Solutions

After studying language use at home and in school for nearly two decades, we
have learned a great deal about the sociolinguistic clashes experienced by many
students, particularly those from minority groups. While acknowledging the
importance of this line of research, Cazden (1986) maintains that it would be
more useful for researchers to join with teachers in bringing about change. She
challenges us to go beyond providing explanations of school failure by finding
ways to reverse it.

SCHOOL FAILURE AND CULTURAL MISMATCH

257

Different approaches to solving the problems associated with sociolinguistic

discontinuities between home and school have been tried. One proposed
solution calls for teaching strategies to be changed so that they resemble more
closely the ways in which language is used in the students' home communities.
This approach is exemplified in the Kamehanaeha Early Education Project
(KEEP).
KEEP is a reading program developed in response to the school problems of
Polynesian children in Hawaii. The program has been highly successful. Within
three years from its inception, the KEEP students improved their scores
dramatically on standardized reading tests (Au, 1980). Au believes that the
reading lesson is the key to the success of KEEP. The lesson incorporates ways
of organizing turns at talk that resemble the rules for participating in the "talk
story," a speech event in Hawaiian culture. Students are allowed to build joint
responses during story time, either among themselves or together with the
teacher. This strategy of collective turn-taking parallels the joint narration of a
story by two or more individuals, which is typical of the "talk story." Joint
turn-taking contrasts markedly with the one-speaker-at-a-time rule that prevails
in mainstream classes. This method constitutes a significant change in the
culture of the traditional classroom, and illustrates one way in which the link
between home and school can be strengthened.
A second solution to the difficulties resulting from clashes in the
communicative requirements of the home and the school entails modeling and
explaining to the children how to use the language of the classroom, and giving
them early and intensive practice with it. This solution also requires creative
changes in teaching strategies. A good example of this approach is found in the
work of Shirly Brice Heath. According to Heath (1983b), to succeed in school
students must be skilled in producing running narratives or ongoing
commentaries on events or objects. White middle-class children are immersed in
this type of discourse from infancy. Through interactions with their parents,
these children learn to focus on objects and events by giving them labels and
describing their features. They are provided with extensive practice in retelling
information and connecting their comments within the ongoing stream of
interaction. For them, the school experience is an extension of the home
experience.
Heath claims that children whose language socialization does not include
extensive practice with running narratives generally encounter academic
difficulties and find schooling to be a frustrating experience. To remedy this
situation, she worked with teachers of minority students to create classroom
activities that focused on talk. In these classrooms, the children were given
practice in labeling and naming the features of different objects and events.
They told stories, narrated skits, put on puppet shows, and gave slide exhibits.
On the basis of her research, Heath concludes that even when language is used
differently at home and in school, children can learn if they are given guided
practice in a variety of ways of expressing themselves in the classroom.
If we reflect upon the current educational literature and bring to mind

258

THE URBAN REVIEW

conversations with colleagues, we would probably agree that the home-school

mismatch hypothesis has gained credibility as a valid explanation for the
academic difficulties of minority children. From this perspective, it is argued
that if we could improve our understanding of the communicative demands of
classrooms and the problems that these demands present to students, it would be
possible to develop culturally sensitive solutions that will reverse the pattern of
academic failure. This position has great appeal in that it offers hope for
minority children, and reaffirms the teacher's capacity to influence students'
lives in a positive way.

ANOTHER LOOK AT THE THEORY OF INCOMPATIBILITY

However appealing these culturally sensitive proposals may seem, they are
seriously flawed in that they leave unexamined the social inequality underlying
the problem, while claiming to offer fundamental solutions to it. It is
irresponsible to limit the analysis of minority children's widespread educational
failure to the home-school connection and to isolate these two contexts from
society at large, as much current sociolinguistic research has done. By ignoring
the political nature of schooling and its relation to the dominant society, we help
to perpetuate a system of inequality, thus reducing our chances of effecting the
change we claim to seek. The remainder of this paper examines these charges in
greater detail.
The Role of Schooling in Society

A question seldom asked explicitly in the sociolinguistic literature is to what

extent should the language of the home and school be alike for the benefit of the
students. Most research studies and pedagogical proposals implicitly assume
that school practices should be modified to match the home situation. The call
for greater congruence seems pedagogically sound in that it allows students to
use background knowledge in their schooling. Additionally, it fosters respect for
cultural diversity and affirms the right of communities to be different. While this
position is attractive to many, it is questioned by some minority parents who
object to the continuity for fear that it will make it more difficult for their
children to become integrated into the mainstream of society. For these parents,
the proper goal of school is to prepare their children for the Anglo-American
way of life.
A second position less commonly advanced in the sociolinguistic literature
calls for a break in continuity with the home community. This break is achieved
by easing children into the language of the school in order to prepare them for
full participation in society. Parents who want their children to develop ethnic
pride and maintain their connection with the ethnic community object to this
approach. They consider the mainstreaming effect of educational practices to be
in opposition to this goal. They want their children to succeed in school and to
improve their socioeconomic positions, but they do not want success to come at

SCHOOL FAILURE AND CULTURAL MISMATCH

259

the expense of personal alienation from, and marginalization within, their own
ethnic community. For these parents, the role of school is twofold: to uphold the
ways of life of the community and to impart the skills needed to succeed in
society.
Embedded in every proposed solution to the educational problems of minority
students is a basic question about the purpose of education. Simply stated,
should schooling socialize children according to the established ways of
mainstream society, or should it promote cultural pluralism? An answer to this
question would allow us to decide whether to modify classroom practices
significantly by integrating the "different" ways language is used in ethnic
communities, or merely to use our knowledge of those differences as a stepping
stone to assimilation in the mainstream. However, the role of school in society
is rarely discussed in the home-school literature. Consequently, we have
developed a number of educational "solutions" that have profound implications
for the lives of students, with little attention given to the social implications of
those solutions. Perhaps the question about the role of the school is avoided out
of fear of social conflict that is likely to result from its discussion. However
threatening this fear might be, we must recognize that conflict is unavoidable in
socially stratified and ethnically diversified societies. From a more positive
perspective, conflict can be viewed as a healthy expression of differences, and it
can be used as a means by which members of different communities, especially
those from traditionally bypassed minority groups, gain access to participation
in our democratic way of life.
We shortchange ethnic communities when we propose "culturally sensitive
solutions" to home-school discontinuities without giving their members a say in
those decisions. Presently, we pay much lip service to the notion of parental
involvement in education, but in practice we continue to rely on "expert
solutions" to local problems. What we lack is a process by which problems are
identified and possible solutions are considered. Such a process must involve
parents as well as educators, and ought to provide opportunities for open debate
on the role of schooling in society, and teaching practices that would be
appropriate to this role.
The Political Nature of Language in School and Society

There is a fundamental problem with the research on sociolinguistic variation

among ethnic and social groups. Generally, it lacks a critique of the social
system in which linguistic interaction takes place. It fails to address why
differences exist in the first place. This issue is relevant in view of the fact that
the language of the white, middle-class, Anglo-American segment of the
populace has higher status in our society than do other varieties used by
minority groups. To assume that it is natural for there to be variation in language
between and among communities, yet not to question why certain varieties have
greater or lesser status, serves to perpetuate social inequities. The grave danger
of this position is that it masks inequality under the cloak of variety.

260

THE URBAN REVIEW

Differences in language are not neutral phenomena. Rather, the differences

play a major role in the competition for economic and political advantages
(Bemstein, 1971; Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977). The
manipulation of language in the struggle for power is evident in school. We are
told that school provides a neutral ground for proving individual talent. We are
also told that because everyone has an equal opportunity to prove his or her
talent, those who succeed in school will have earned the better positions in
society, while those who fail will be denied access to these rewards. However,
in spite of our rhetoric about equal opportunity and respect for cultural
differences, the educational system continues to evaluate students on the basis
of white, middle-class ways of using language. As the home-school literature
reveals, the language of the classroom capitalizes on the sociolinguistic
competence that middle-class students bring to school, placing minority children
at a decided disadvantage in the learning situation. Furthermore, students'
progress within the educational system is measured by the results of
standardized tests that have been shown to favor those who come to school with
middle-class language varieties (Cole, 1977; Gay and Abrahams, 1973; Houts,
1977; Mercer, 1973; Scarr, 1981), In brief, bias toward the language of the
middle class is built into our teaching and evaluation practices. This bias
legitimates the privileged position of the dominant groups in society, and
confirms the inferiority of minority groups.
School is a political institution that contributes to the perpetuation of the
existing class structure (Bowles and Gintis, 1976; Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu
and Passeron, 1977; Collins, 1974; Levitas, 1974). In this conservative process,
language serves as an important medium through which dominant and
dominated groups compete for power. If dominant groups have the power to
impose their own language variety on the educational system, it is to be
expected that subordinate groups, whose language varieties are accorded less
prestige, witl encounter difficulties in school. It is no accident that minority
students experience linguistic gaps between home and school, while
middle-class students have a smoother transition between the two. The school is
not a neutral ground for proving talent, as some would have us believe. As the
educational system is currently organized, it functions to maintain the advantage
of the socially powerful.
It is simplistic to claim that differences in the languages used at home and in
school are the root of the widespread academic problems of minority children.
Admittedly, differences do exist, and they can create communication difficulties
in the classroom for both teachers and students. Even so, those differences in
language must be viewed in the context of a broader struggle for power within
a stratified society. To explain the academic failure of minority students in terms
of a language mismatch between home and school, without discussing the
political nature of language in school and society, is to provide the system with
an excuse for institutionalized inequalities.
School is an instrument of society, and as such, it contributes to the
perpetuation of the status quo; however, there is some slack in the system

SCHOOL FAILURE AND CULTURAL MISMATCH

261

(Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977; Giroux, 1983, 1988). Within the limits of our
historical moment, it is possible to work toward social change, if that is what we
choose to do. We can proceed by modifying the ways language is used in the
classroom. Much can be done to reduce miscommunication with students, and
the home-school literature offers numerous suggestions for dealing with this
problem. However, we must go beyond the home-school link and assist students
to make connections between themselves and society, In this regard, Sleeter and
Grant (1988) suggest that teachers need to help students understand how their
group's material and political position in society affects its language and
culture.
For this process to occur, teachers need support from teacher educators.
With the introduction of multicultural education into their curriculum, teacher
education programs have generally promoted an appreciation of cultural
diversity and have encouraged teachers to use aspects of that diversity in the
classroom. But, teacher education must go beyond the acceptance of differences
and help teachers analyze the sociopolitical system that gives rise to those
differences, and then assign greater or lesser status to them. Additionally, both
teachers and teacher educators must become reflective about classroom practices
in order to gain insight into how the social relations that we foster in our
classrooms serve to perpetuate and/or challenge existing social inequities.
Ultimately, significant social change can be initiated only by those who are
most adversely affected by the inbalance of power in society. But as teachers
and teacher educators, we can support this process of social change by
promoting the development of sociopolitical awareness on the part of our
students as well as ourselves. After all, teaching is a political activity.
An Alternative Explanation of "School Failure"

What is lacking in the home-school literature is attention to the relationship

between school and the wider society. Ogbu (1985, 1987) has examined this
missing link, particularly in efforts to explain the consistent pattem of school
failure on the part of certain minority groups. In brief, he argues that the
language differences observed in schools are a medium for acting out the
political and economic conflict between dominant and dominated groups in
society. This alternative explanation sheds new light on the home-school
incompatability theory of academic failure, and merits consideration.
Ogbu calls attention to the wide variation in the school performance of
minority students. His research shows that "immigrant" groups--that is, groups
that have migrated to the United States more or less voluntarily--tend to do well
in school after being given time to settle in. However, "castelike" minorities, or
groups that have become part of this country involuntarily through slavery,
conquest, or colonization, experience continued academic failure. In this latter
category are Native Americans, Black Americans, Mexican Americans, and
Puerto Ricans. The differences between immigrant and castelike minorities
observed in school led Ogbu to challenge the theory attributing academic failure

262

THE URBAN REVIEW

to language mismatch between home and school. If the explanation is accurate,

it should apply to immigrant and castelike minorities alike, as the languages and
cultures of both groups often clash with what is expected in school. Why is it,
then, that the home-school disjuncture affects castelike minority students more
adversely?
According to Ogbu, the poor school performance of castelike minority
students is an adaptive response to a history of limited opportunities in society at
large. The racist practices they have encountered have led castelike minorities
to believe that academic success will not improve their lot in life. Ogbu argues
that given their history of oppression, these individuals distrust society and its
institutions, including school. The distrust results in "oppositional behavior,"
that is, active resistance to the white, middle-class ways of the school for fear of
toss of their own identity. Stated more broadly, the linguistic and cultural
differences that these students bring to the classroom become identity markers to
be maintained rather than obstacles to be overcome. Viewed in this manner, the
persistence of "differences" represents a political statement against oppression
on the part of castelike minority students.
Ogbu's interpretation of school failure has recently attracted much attention.
Research conducted by Gibson (1987), Matute-Bianchi (1986), and SuarezOrozco (1987) provides empirical support for the theory. In light of the growing
evidence, questions are raised about the efficacy of "culturally sensitive
solutions" that are limited to styles of teaching and learning. The problem of
academic failure is much more complex than differences between the language
and culture of home and school. The differences that create difficulties for both
teacher and pupils stem from the struggle for power in society. In this conflict,
both dominant and dominated groups play significant roles. Dominant groups
maintain their position by using power to define what is valued in school and
society. Conversely, dominated groups exert their power by actively resisting
the oppressive authority of the dominant groups. Solutions to the school
problems of minority students require political action.
Politically, teachers can help students raise questions not only about the
source of their oppositional behavior, but also about its consequences (Giroux,
1983; Sleeter and Grant, 1988). For example while dropping out of school may
be a conscious or unconscious form of resistance to oppressive conditions in
society, the behavior itself is probably counterproductive in that it can function
to disempower minorities further. This issue ought to be raised with the students
in order to help them seek ways of converting their resistance into constructive
political activity.
CONCLUSIONS

In this country, a person's standing in society is usually related to his or her

performance in school. "Achievers" are promised access to positions of higher
status in society, while "nonachievers" are told that they must be satisfied with
the lower status positions. As long as school performs this sorting function in

SCHOOL FAILURE AND CULTURAL MISMATCH

263

society, it must necessarily produce winners and losers. Success and failure are
both ingrained in the current organization of education. Furthermore, the criteria
for school success continues to favor middle-class students. Therefore,
culturally sensitive remedies to the educational problems of oppressed minority
students that ignore this political aspect of schooling are doomed to failure.
Worse still, they give the illusion of progress while perpetuating the academic
problem, and by extension, the social inequities they mask.
I fear that the community of educators is embracing simple solutions to a
complex social problem, only to meet with disappointment after these culturally
sensitive remedies undergo a trial period. When this trial period passes, I
suspect that we will once again place the onus of failure upon minorities rather
than on the institutional structure where it rightly belongs.

REFERENCES
Au, Kathryn H. (1980). Participation structures in a reading lesson with Hawaiian children:
Analysis of a culturally appropriate instructional event. Anthropology and Education Quarterly
11: 91-115.
Au, Kathryn H., and Mason, Jana M. (1981). Social organizational factors in learning to read: The
balance of rights hypothesis. Reading Research Quarterly 1:115-151.
Bauman, Richard, and Sherzer, Joel (eds.) (1974). Exploration in the Ethnography of Speaking.
London: Cambridge University Press.
Bernstein, Basil (1971). Class, Codes, and Control. New York: Schocken Books.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1977). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In Jerome Karabel and
A. H. Halsey (eds.), Power and Ideology in Education, pp. 487-510. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre, and Passeron, Jean-Claude (1977). Reproduction in Education, Society and
Culture. Beverly Hills: Sage Publication.
Bowtes, Samuel, and Gintis, Herbert (1976). Schooling in Capitalist America. New York: Basic
Books.
Cazden, Courmey (1986). Classroom discourse. In C. Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of Research and
Teaching, pp. 432-463. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Cazden, Courtney B., John, Vera P., and Hymes, Dell (eds.) (1972). Functionsof Language in the
Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cohen, R. A. (1969). Conceptual styles, cultural conflict, and nonverbal tests of intelligence.
American Anthropologist 71: 824-856.
Cole, Michael (t977). Culture, and IQ testing. In P. L. Houk~ (ed.), The Myth of Measurability, pp.
116-123. New York: Hart Publishing Company.
Collins, Randall (1974). Where are educational requirements for employment highest? Sociology of
Education 47: 429-442.
Erickson, Frederick (1987). Transformation and school success: The politics and culture of
educational achievement. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 18: 335-356.
Erickson, Frederick, and Mohatt, Gerald (1982). Cultural organization of participation structures in
two classrooms of Indian children. In George Spindler (ed.), Doing the Ethnography of
Schooling, pp. 132-175. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Florio, Susan, and Shultz, Jeffrey (1979). Social Competence at home and at school. Theory into
Practice 18: 234-243.
Gay, G., and Abrahams, R. (1973). Does the pot melt, boil, or brew? Black children and white
assessment procedures. Journal of School Psychology 11: 330-349.

264

THE URBAN REVIEW

Gay, G., and Abrahams, R. D. (1972). Talking black in the classroom. In R. D. Abrahams and
Rudolph Troike (eds.), Language and Cultural Diversity in Education, pp. 200-208. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Genishi, Celia (1979). Young children communicating in the classroom: Selected research. Theory
Into Practice 18: 244-250.
Gibson, Margaret A. (1987). The school performance of immigrant minorities: A comparative view.
Anthropology and Education Quarterly 18: 262-275.
Giroux, Henry A. (1988). Teachers as Intellectuals. Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey Publishers,
Inc.
Criroux, Henry (1983). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education.
Han,ard Educational Review 53: 257-293.
Gumperz, John J. (1972). The speech community. In P. P. Giglioti (ed.), Language and Social
Context, pp. 219-231. Middlessex, England: Penguin Education.
Heath, Shirley B. (1983a). Ways with Words'. Cambridge University Press.
Heath, Shirley B. (1983b). A tot of talk about nothing. Language Arts 60: 999-1007.
Heath, Shirley B. (1982). Questioning at home and at school: A comparative study. In George
Spindler (ed.), Doing the Ethnography of Schooling, pp. 102-131. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Houts, P. L. (1977). A conversation with Banesh Hoffmann. In P. L. Hours (ed.), The Myth of
Measurability, pp. 197-217. New York: Hart Publishing Company.
Hymes, Dell H. (1974). On ways of speaking. In Richard Bauman and Joel Sherzer (eds.),
Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, pp, 433-452. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Jordan, Cathie (1985). Translating culture: From ethnographic information to educational program.
Anthropology and Education Quarterly 16: 105-123.
Labov, William (1969). The logic of non-standard Negro English. In James E. Alatis (ed.),
Linguistics and the Teaching of Standard English. Monograph Series on Language and
Linguistics, No. 22. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Levitas, Maurice (1974). Marxist Perspective in the Sociology of Education. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Matute-Bianchi, Mafia E. (1986). Ethnic identities and patterns of school success and failure among
Mexican-descent and Japanese-American students in a California high school: An ethnographic
analysis. American Journal of Education 95: 233-255.
McDermott, Ray, and Gospodinoff, Kenneth (1981). Social contexts for ethnic borders and school
failure. In Henry Tmeba, Grace Guthrie, and Kathryn Au (eds.), Culture and the Bilingual
Classroom, pp. 212-230. New York: Newberry House.
Mercer, J. R. (1973). Implications of current assessment procedures for Mexican American
children. Journal of the Association of Educators 1: 25-33.
Michaels, Sarah (1981). Sharing time: Children's narrative styles and differential access to literacy.
Language in Society 10: 30-34.
Ogbu, John U. (1987). Variability in minority school performance: A problem in search of an
explanation. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 18: 312-334.
Ogbu, John U. (1985). Cultural-ecologicai influence on minority school learning. Language Arts
62: 211-219.
Philips, Susan U. (1983). The Invisible Culture. New York: Longman.
Piedstrup, Ann (1973). Black Dialect Interference and Accommodation of Reading Instruction in
First Grade (Monograph No. 4). Berkeley, CA: Language Behavior Research Laboratory.
Ramirez, Manuel, and Castaneda, Amado (1974). Cultural Democracy, Bicognitive Development,
and Education. New York: Academic Press.
Scarr, S. (1981). Testing minority children: Why, how, and with what effect? In S. Scarr (ed.),
Race, Social Class, and Individual Differences in 1Q. Hiltsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associate.
Steeter, Christine E., and Grant, Carl A. (1988). Making Choices for Multiculturat Education.
Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Company.

SCHOOL FAILURE AND CULTURAL MISMATCH

265

Suarez-Orozco, Marcelo M. (1987). "Becoming somebody": Central American Immigrants in U.S.

inner city schools. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 18: 287-299.
Van Ness, Howard (1981). Social control and social organization in an Alaskan Athabaskan
classroom: A microethnography of getting "ready" for reading. In Henry Trueba, Grace Guthrie,
and Kathryn Au (eds.), Culture and the Bilingual Classroom, pp. 120-138. New York: Newbury
House.