ABSTRACT
A growth-promoting environment may be the result of planned and carefully contrived conditions. Caldwell and Richmond (1964) , for example, describe the implementation of a specific conceptual model based on theoretical assumptions and a maximum of available research evidence; Gewirtz (1968) and others also have approached the issue of optimal environment from that direction. Obtaining a good environment for the young child in this manner is highly probable and economic providing the variables that underlie such a milieu are well defined, the optimal position on each and their interrelationships are known and are amenable to construction in a given society at a given time. Russian claims and actions notwithstanding (see Chauncey, 1969 ), many have asserted and some still would argue that such conditions do not yet obtain. In the circumstances the most likely route is variability and experimentation, which, given our very reasonable caution in regard to contrived social environments, will tend to exploit existing social situations that offer some (or most) of the milieu conditions known from research and/or clinical experience as exerting positive influence on the child. Skeels' work, a classic example of utilization of a naturally positive situation, is all the more instructive for having a serendipitous quality to it. While Skeels (in the 1930s) was surprised that placement in an institution with adult retardates should have promoted growth of children aged six months to four years, we ought not be if we compare the qualities of his program 182with Caldwell's (1967b) "characteristics of growth-fostering environments." Nor did Skeels remain puzzled after he examined what the institution for retardates offered the young children he placed there—despite its label and despite his obvious and understandable reluctance to make use of this facility.
