What Are the Questions
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
What are the Questions? Race-Ethnicity and Educational Achievement
Richard R. Verdugo and A. S. Verdugo1
Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University
of Ghent, 19-21 September 2007
Abstract
In 1977, the eminent economist Joan Robinson published a paper entitled, “What Are the Questions?” (Robinson 1977). In the paper Robinson chastised her colleagues for not addressing important economic problems facing society. More importantly, Robinson takes her colleagues to task for not focusing on social structure in their theorizing about various economic topics. The research on race-ethnicity and academic achievement seems to have opened itself to a similar indictment, and such an indictment has at least two strands of thought. First, some scholars have argued that educational researchers have failed to adequately describe the mechanisms, linkages, and processes regarding schooling. For example, in the effective schools research, scholars consistently find that effective schools (determined by various measures of quality or effectiveness) do a better job than poor quality or ineffective schools in raising student achievement. However, critics point out that we don’t know how such schools accomplish these feats (Dreeben 2000). That is, this body of research fails to spell out the mechanisms and processes by which schools do or do not improve student achievement. A second strand of thought, which seems to us to take precedence over the first set of issues raised above, deals with social structure. By social structure we mean the regular and patterned forms of behavior, social relations, and social organization that characterize a social system. The purpose of our paper is to examine the current state of the race-ethnic educational achievement research employing the structural argument as our framework. Our general argument is that this vast body of research has generally focused on the wrong or incomplete set of questions and thus has failed to offer a complete description of the race-educational achievement nexus.
1 Richard R. Verdugo is a Senior Research Scientist, National Education Association, Washington, DC. A. S. Verdugo is a senior at the H-B Woodlawn School in Arlington, Virginia. Address all correspondence to Dr. Richard R. Verdugo, 4778 21st Road North, Arlington, Virginia 22207.
1 What are the Questions? Race-Ethnicity and Educational Achievement
Richard R. Verdugo and A. S. Verdugo
I. Introduction
In 1977, the eminent economist Joan Robinson published a paper entitled, “What
Are the Questions?” (Robinson 1977). In the paper Robinson chastised her colleagues for not addressing important economic problems facing society. Robinson goes on to argue that the prevailing orthodoxy dominating economics was ideological and really led nowhere important. What apparently disturbed Robinson was that prevailing theory (the orthodox of theory of value, perfect markets and the search for equilibrium surfaces of some xy variables, a buyers’ market, and the notion that prices were equal to marginal costs, etc.) did not nor could not account for the deep depression that enveloped the world in the 1930s. So other paradigms had to be constructed and yet were not fully explored:
“ Evading these difficulties, a great part of current teaching is conducted in terms of models that are evidently not intended to be taken seriously as hypotheses about reality, but are used rather to inculcate an orthodox ideology” (P. 1320).
What Robinson argued for was a paradigm or some acknowledgement in economic research about the context/societal structure/macro relations that affected the sort of economic issues then being studied. In attempting to make her point, Robinson cites Nobel Laureate, Kenneth Arrow:
2 “There are many other organizations beside the government and the firm. But all of them, whether political party or revolutionary movement, university or church, share the common characteristics of the need for collective action and the allocation of resources through non-market methods.” (P. 1323).
The research on race-ethnicity and academic achievement seems to have opened itself to a similar indictment, and such an indictment has at least two strands of thought.
First, some scholars have argued that educational researchers have failed to adequately describe the mechanisms, linkages, and processes that we all know as schooling. For example, in the effective schools research, scholars consistently find that effective schools (determined by various measures of quality or effectiveness) do a better job than poor quality or ineffective schools in raising student achievement. However, critics point out that we don’t know how such schools accomplish these feats (Dreeben 2000). That is, this body of research fails to spell out the mechanisms and processes by which schools do or do not improve student achievement. There are still many important questions to be raised about these linkages and processes.
A second strand of thought, which seems to us to take precedence over the first set of issues raised above, deals with social structure. By social structure we mean the regular and patterned forms of behavior, social relations, and social organization that characterize a social system.
There have been some interesting forays in how social structure affects education and schooling. The diversity in this literature is both horizontal and vertical. By horizontal we mean that diverse factors are examined, e.g., culture, power, stratification.
In contrast, by vertical discussions we mean the focus is on different levels of organization, e.g., societal, family, community, schools, the classroom. Though these discussions are diverse they still address regularity and patterns of behavior within
3 organizations and the role of ideology in maintaining such structures. For example, some scholars have shown that the degree of educational centralization (social organization) in a society has an important effect on student achievement (see Baker and Le Tendre
2000). Also, one of the more important findings involves the Heyneman/Loxely effect: that economic development has a strong educational effect (Heynaman and Loxelyl 1982,
1983).
The purpose of our paper is to examine the current state of the race-ethnic educational achievement research employing the structural argument as our framework.
Our general argument is that this vast body of research has generally focused on the wrong or incomplete set of questions and has thus failed to offer a complete description of the race-educational achievement nexus.
In pursuing our objective, we have organized our paper in the following manner:
We provide a brief statistical portrait of the problem.
We review the main themes dominating the research on the relationship between
race-ethnicity and education.
We provide and describe an alternative model that gives great weight to social
structure and then we discuss these issues in terms of social capital.
4 II. Background
A. Race, Ethnicity, and Differences in Educational Achievement
Educational achievement refers to school performance. The data presented in this section confirm what has been known for many years: minority students (with the exception of Asian/Pacific Islander students) do not perform nearly as well as White students. In addition, Black and Hispanic students, especially the former, are the poorest school performers.
We examine Math, Reading, and Science test scores from America’s National
Assessment of Educational Progress data set (NAEP). Data pertain to US students who were in the 12th grade at the time these exams were given.
1. Math Test Scores
Data displayed in Table 1, below, are the average Math test score for 12th graders by race and ethnicity for the year 2005. The highest math score was by Asian/Pacific
Islander students with an average score of 163. The next highest score was by White 12 th graders, 157.
Also as expected, the lowest scores are to be found among Hispanic (133) and
Black students (127).
5 Table 1. Average twelfth grade NAEP mathematics scores in 2005, by race-ethnicity Race-Ethnicity Math Score White 157 Black 127 Hispanic 133 Asian/Pacific Islander 163 American Indian/Alaska Native 134
Source: NAEP, www.natonsreportcard.gov
3. Science Scores
In 2005, the White and Asian/Pacific Islander 12 graders recorded the top science scores among the major race-ethnic groups. The White 12th grader score was 156,and the
Asian/Pacific Islander score 153. The lowest score was among Black 12th grade students,
120. (See Table 2.)
Table 2. NAEP Science Scores by Race and Ethnicity Among US 12th Graders, 2005 Race/Ethnicity NAEP Science Score White 156 Asian 153 American Indian/Alaska Natives 139 Hispanic 128 Black 120
Source: www.nationsreportcard.gov
6 3. Reading Scores
Regardless of which academic subject is being considered, arguably the most important is reading. One needs to be able to read well in order to pursue adequately other academic subjects.
The reading NAEP scores by race and ethnicity for the years 1992 to 2005 are displayed in Figure 1. These data, generally, continue the pattern we have observed in the previous two sections: Whites and Asian/Pacific Islanders have the highest scores, and Hispanics and Blacks the lowest scores.
Figure 1. Trends in Twelfth-Grade Average NAEP Reading Scores, By Race and Ethnicity
300 295 290 285 280 1992 1994 275 1998a 270 1998b 265 2002 260 2005 255 250 245 White Black Hispanic Asian/PI AI/AN
Source: NAEP: www.nationsreportcard.gov
7 B. Race, Ethnicity and Educational Achievement: What the Research Says
1. The Current Model
Most of the current literature on race and ethnic-based differences in education are based on a model that focuses on students, their families, communities, and the schools they attend. The focus is clearly not on social structure. Figure 2 depicts the model that seems to drive the bulk of research on minorities and educational.
Figure 2. Current Model of Race and Ethnic-Based Educational Differences (Fully Recursive)
Family Students Ac h School
Community
1. The Role of the Family in the Educational Achievement Process
Families have been a major component in the research on the educational performance of minority and non-minority students. Two broad research areas about families have been examined: family economic status, family climate and relations.
Being impoverished has important detrimental effects on schooling, including raising the risk of poor performance (Alexander et al 2001; Battin-Pearson et al 2000;
Cairns et al 1989; Lehr et al 2004; Rumberger 2001; Schrgel 2004; Wehlage and Rutter
8 1986). Economic status is a proxy for lack of resources, whether internal or external to the family. Such a lack of resources, and a lack of connections to an essentially middle- class institution, translates into poor experiences for children from impoverished backgrounds.
Family climate also has an effect on student achievement. For example, living in a non-Englsh-speaking home (Rosenthal 1998; Rumberger 2001), being in a single- parent household (Ekstrom et al 1986; Kaufman et al 1992; Lehr et al 2004; Rumberger
2001) exerts negative effects on student achievement. A number of other family climate issues have been found to be related to poor academic performance. Stress is one factor that has been associated with low student performance (Rosenthal 1998). Some common family stressors are substance use (Rosenthal 1998), conflict in the family (Catalano and
Hawkins 1995; Rosenthal 1998), health and financial problems (Rosenthal 1998), family mobility (Ensminger et al 1996; Lehr et al 2004), and such things as death, divorce, re- marriage (Alexander et al 1997; Alexander et al 2001). The type of relationships in the family can affect the dropout decision. For example, the quality of early child care
(Jimerson et al 2000), low parental monitoring (Janosz et al 1997; Rosenthal 1998;
Ensminger et al 1996; Ensminger and Slusarcick 1992), permissive parenting (Lehr et al.
2004; Rosenthal 1998), and even too much parental control (Janosz et al 1997) are all linked to lower academic performance. The expectations and behaviors exhibited in the family can have an important effect on lower academic performance. For example, low parental educational expectations can affect school performance negatively (Alexander et al 2001; Ensmiger and Slusarcick 1992; Kaufman et al 1992; Rumberger 1995). Other family factors linked to lower school performance include if parents are dropouts
9 (Catalano and Hawkins 1995; Elliott and Voss 1974), if one sibling has also dropped out
(Gleason and Dynarski 2002; Kaufman et al 1992), low parental contact with the school
(Jimerson et al 2000; Rumberger 1995), infrequent discussions with a child about school
(Gleason and Dynarski 2002; Teachman et al 1996), lack of involvement in the PTA
(Kaufman et al 1992), the lack of study aids at home (Ekstrom et al 1986), and the lack of homework monitoring by parents (Goldschmidt and Wang 1999).
2. The Role of the Community in the Educational Achievement Process
As part of a larger view of schooling, researchers have been looking at the community from which schools draw their student populations. It is argued, and rightly so, that the community influences the mind sets of students, school staff, and how school resources are allocated.
Higher rates of low achievers are located in urban areas (Lehr et al 2004; Schargel
2004). Balfanz and Legters (2004) found that 61 percent of urban schools had freshman classes with less than a 50/50 chance of graduating from high school. This compared to
20 percent of suburban schools, and 5 percent of rural schools. In addition, researchers have noted that certain regions of the country have higher dropout and low achiever rates(Ekstrom et al 1986; Lehr et al 2004; Rosenthal 1998; Schargel 2004); indeed, the
Western and Southern regions of the country have these traits.
High rates of low achievement are more likely to be found in high poverty areas
(Jargowski 1997; Rosenthal 1998; Rumberger 2001). Accordingly, areas with high percentages of ethnic/racial minorities and foreign-born also have higher rates of lower achievers (Rosenthal 1998). Communities with high percentages of single-parent
10 households (Rosenthal 1998), and with low levels of educational attainment
(Goldschmidt and Wang 1999) are also areas with high rates of low achievers. Another important community trait linked to higher rates or lower achievers are high levels of unemployment (Rumberger 2001).
The community environment may be linked to student achievement.
Communities that are unstable and that have highly mobile groups also are places with higher rates of low achievers (Catalano and Hawkins 1995; Rosenthal 1998).
3. The Role of Schools in the Educational Achievement Process
Schools play an important role in the schooling process. In fact, this relationship is so well known that a large body of “effective schools” research has emerged.
Researchers interested in how schools contribute to student achievement have looked at these factors. Three broad areas are examined: school structure, school policies, school climate.
Of course, one of the most often discussed structural factors about schools related to student achievement is public or private control. In particular, one important distinction that has been made involves Catholic and Public schools, where the former have larger percentage of poor academic achievers (Goldschmidt and Wang 1999; Ingels et al 2002; Rumberger 2001). Nonetheless, this research has yet to cull out school structure from the traits of students and their families and how they specifically affect students academic achievement (See, for instance, Rumberger 2001).
Two other important school structural features appear to be linked to lower academic achievement. First, there is the issue of school size: the greater the school size,
11 the greater the likelihood of lower achievement (Barro and Kolstad 1987; Lehr et al
2004), especially large schools that are also low socioeconomic schools (Rumberger
1995). A second structural feature that has a significant impact on achievement concerns large, urban, low income schools, where the academic achievement of students is considerably lower.
Still other school structural features that have received a considerable amount of attention include school resources, which has focused on teacher-student ratios and teacher quality. It should be pointed out that this topic is still hotly debated. High teacher-student ratios in low SES schools are linked to lower achievement (Rumberger
1995). Student body traits are other factors that appear to be related to achievement.
These traits may be seen as part of the larger school culture and climate (Rumberger
2001). Schools with high levels of low SES and minority students are also places with lower achievement levels (Goldschmidt and Wang 1999; Kaufman et al 1992; Rumberger
1995). One important trait of the student body is its general school performance. A student body with a high percentage of retainees (Goldschmidt and Wang 1999) and a high percentage of low achievers (Kaufman et al 1992) are also places with higher rates of lower achievers.
Negative school climates and environments are places with higher rates of lower achievers (Lehr et al 2004; Rumberger 2001). Other factors of the environment linked to low achievement include high rates of absenteeism or high rates of misbehaviorbeing part of a high-risk cohort (Goldschmidt and Wang 1999). Other climate factors linked to low achievement include feeling unsafe at school (Bekius 1995), high levels of violence and safety problems (Kaufman et al 1992), if students view their school safety policies as
12 unfair and in which they rate their teacher low in terms of support (Rumberger 1995).
Verdugo et al (1997) found that a substantial number of the 32 measures of positive school climate were related to teachers’ perceptions of student achievement.
Tracking, as a form of stratification, has also been found to have negative impact on the educational achievement of minority and lower-class students (see Oakes for a thorough review). There are at least two reasons why this might be the case. First, lower tracked students do not receive the same resources and teacher attention as those who are in higher academic tracks. Second, some educators hold low expectations of low-tracked students and this tends to affect how they interact with such students and leads to the
“Pygmalion Effect.”
School policies have a great deal to do with education and student achievement.
One clear factor concerns raising performance standards. For low performing students who have a difficult time meeting existing standards, such a policy may push them out entirely (Abrams and Haney 2004). Indeed, some research finds that accountability and high-stakes testing increases student retention (Allensworth 2004; Miller et al 2005), which is highly related to lower student achievement. One must be cautious about this because there is mixed evidence about the impact of exit exams have on dropping out and achievement (Beatty et al 2001; Center on Education Policy 2003; Rumberger 2004).
Never the less, the problem is not standards per se, but the fact that nothing is done to assist low performing students catch up and meet new standards (Lehr et al 2004; Miller et al 2005).
Other factors about school policies include the lack of a relevant curriculum (Lehr et al 2004), that courses are unrelated to work (Obasohan and Kortering 1999), that
13 classes are not interesting (Bridgeland et al 2006), and discipline policies such as zero tolerance policies (see Skiba et al 1997; Verdugo 2002).
4. Students’ and their Role in the Educational Achievement Process
Students also are faulted for their poor achievements. Certain types of student behavioral issues are related to achievement. Three areas are examined: behaviors, attitudes and demography.
Students who work at a job for more than some given hours per week are more apt to dropout (Barro and Kolstad 1987; Gleason and Dynarski 2002; Goldschmidt and
Wang 1999). The issue is the time spent at work and away from school work. It should also be noted, however, that some research finds that work might positively affect one’s school career. The crucial issues are a student’s academic skills and the time spent at work.
Early parenthood is also related to poor academic performance. Marriage and pregnancy greatly increase the likelihood of dropping out (Barro and Kolstad
1987;Gleason and Dynarski 2002)
Another set of student behaviors have to do with dysfunctional and risky behavior. Research has found that violence, substance abuse, and unlawful behavior are related to dropping out (Battin-Pearson et al 2000; Ekstrom et al 1986; Wehlage and
Rutter 1986). Other behaviors associated with dropping out include: early sexual involvement (Battain-Pearson et al 2000), having friends who are involved in anti- social/unlawful behavior (Battin-Pearson et al 2000; Cairns et al 1989; Catalano and
Hawkins 1995; Elliiott and Voss 1974).
14 Finally, while these factors are not behavioral, they are associated with students.
Research has found that race/ethnicity are linked to poor academic performance (Battin-
Pearson et al 2000; Ekstrom et al 1986; Rumberger 2001; Schargel 2004; Teachman,
Paasch, and Carver 1996), gender (Battin-Pearson et al 2000; Goldschmidt and Wang
1999; Rumberger 2001), immigrant status (Rumberger 1995), English language proficiency (Schargel 2004), and the level of one’s cognitive abilities (Lehr et al 2004;
Lloyd 1978; Wehlage and Rutter 1986).
Research has found that students who are not fully engaged or alienated from school or in the learning process are more apt to be low academic achievers (Alexander et al 1997; Rumberger 2001). A number of student behaviors are linked to student disengagement. Students who are absent from school, who cut classes, are truant, and/or who consistently fail to do their homework, and who consistently fail to come to class prepared are exhibiting a form of school disengagement and are more likely to be low achievers (Alexander et al. 1997; Bridgeland et al 2006; Ekstrom et al 1986; Gleason and
Dynarski 2002; Kaufman et al 1992; Rumberger 2001; Wehlage and Rutter 1986).
Students who misbehave in school are more likely to perform poorly (Alexander et al 2001; Ekstrom et al 1986; Kaufman et al 1992; Rumberger 2001; Wehlage and
Rutter 1986). School misbehavior can be seen as a type of school disengagement. And some studies (Jimerson et al 2000) have found that misbehavior as early as 1st grade is linked to be low achievers and to dropping out of school, as has getting into trouble with the police (Barro and Kolstad 1987; Ekstrom et al 1986; Wehlage and Rutter 1986).
Maintaining low educational expectations is linked to poor academic performance
(Gleason and Dynarski 2002; Rumberger 2001; Wehlage and Rutter 19896). Another
15 educational attitude linked to poor performance is not having educational plans beyond high school (Alexander et al 1997; Janosz et al 1997; Kaufman et al 1992).
Not being able to get along with peers or feeling socially isolated is linked to poor academic performance (Jimerson et al 2000; Cairns et al 1989). This is expressed vividly in the inability of potential dropouts, many of whom are poor performers, not to be involved in school activities, such as sports, clubs, etc (Elliott and Voss 1974; Ingels et al
2002; Wagner et al 1993).
A final individual trait linked to poor performance is mobility, by which we mean moving from one school to the next (Gleason and Dynarski 2002; Rumberger 2001;
Teachman et al 1996).
III. Social Structure, Capital, Racial Stratification and Education: An Alternative Explanation
A. Social Structure
The education of racial-ethnic minorities, we argue, is not merely contingent on their backgrounds or their individual traits. To a greater degree educational achievement is also driven by social structure. Social structure organizes the access, distribution and acquisition of capital, which is crucial for education.
The vast majority of research on race-ethnicity and education tends to avoid the role social structure has in creating the context for this these functions of students, their families, their communities, and the schools they attend. As a result, policies aimed at improving the education of racial-ethnic minorities tend to fail because they are driven by
16 a framework that is not correctly specified. We simply need to address the role social structure plays in the education of racial-ethnic minorities and the linkages by which their educational performance suffers. In this section, we undertake such an analysis by re- analyzing the literature and placing it within the context of social structure and the distribution of capital. Bear in mind that the primary tools by which social structure distributes capital is through stratification—ideology and segregation.
By social structure is meant the regular and patterned forms of social behavior.
Such patterned behavior is supported by a social organization and an ideological system that justifies a given structure. In terms of patterned behavior or social organization at the macro level, there is the persistent form of income inequality, the continuing pattern of ethnic-racial minorities occupying the lower rungs of the occupational structure, persistently high rates of unemployment among ethnic-racial minorities, the law-like proposition that ethnic-racial minorities have less of a chance of entering the most elite universities and colleges in the US. (Of course, one could make the argument that entrance to these institutions of higher education is based on such objective criteria as test scores and grades in high school. However, as many scholars have pointed out, there are several problems with using test scores that effectively create structural barriers for minority and lower-class kid. First, there is the bias toward middle and upper-class values and culture that favors students from these backgrounds. Second, tests are not good predictors of college success. Rather, grades, class rank, and motivation are better predictors. [Alon and Tienda 2007; Karabel 2005].)
If the organization of a system is such that it benefits one group over others, then the norms that hold sway in such a system are those of the dominant class (Karabel
17 2005). For example, a normative system that argues that certain groups lack the “right” attitudes to succeed and that justifies their living in inferior homes and neighborhoods comprises both an value/ideological system (beliefs) and a organizational system
(housing segregation). In this section we discuss and cite some literature on the role social structure has on achievement, not necessarily on educational achievement, but the implications are certainly that social structure affects achievement in general.
B. Social Structure and the Distribution of Capital
1. An Alternative Model
An alternative model is exhibited in figure 3. In this model, social structure takes a prominent role because it sets the context by which the three intervening domains influence students and their achievement.
Figure 3: An Alternative Model of Race and Ethnic-Based Education (Fully Recursive)
Family Student s Social School Structure Ac h Community
18 The primary difference between this model and the one presented in Figure 1 is the introduction of social structure. It is our argument that social structure is the primary determinant of how the three intervening domains affect student achievement. Social structure creates the normative and spatial parameters for the access and the distribution of capital. Important targets of this access are race and ethnicity.
2. Social Structure and Racial Stratification
Social structure defines the access and distribution of capital based on race and ethnicity by the existence of a system of racial stratification.2 Racial stratification is a system of structured inequality. It is a system predicated on the social and physical separation of racial groups and is justified by a ideological/normative system of values, beliefs, norms, and myths (Verdugo 1986).
a. The separation of groups: Racial stratification uses spatial separation of racial groups as a mechanism to guarantee lack of familiarity, heightened group differentials, the inequitable distribution and access of desired resources. Examples of group separation are housing and neighborhood segregation, school and classroom tracking, etc.
b. Ideological justification system: Ideology refers to various narrow world views based on group interests. They entail norms, beliefs, values, and myths about the world and how it should be ordered. But since ideologies are grounded in group interests, ideologies are used to justify a given social order and the processes and mechanisms that are used to maintain social order.
2 In fact, some definitions of social structure equate social stratification and social structure. This is not a farfetched idea.
19 In sum, systems of racial stratification are social structures that maintain a given
racial order by spatial separation and founded on an ideological system that justifies its
existence. Moreover, one’s place in the social structure determines access and the
distribution of capital. The better is one’s position in a system of structured inequality,
the greater the access to capital and the more likely are they to acquire such capital.
It should also be pointed out that while all groups have Capital, certain types are
more likely to help in the attainment process, e.g., academic skills, contacts for good jobs
and schools, etc. Moreover, we envision racial stratification to interact with the main
topics of social capital: access, acquisition, and effects. Table 3 presents such an
interaction, and after describing a number of key issues surrounding social capital, we use
this table to ask our questions.
TABLE 3. THE INTERSECTION OF THE MECHANISMS OF RACIAL STRATIFICATION AND SOCIAL CAPITAL Social Capital Racial Stratification Access Acquisition Effects Ideology Separation
20 C. Social capital and social structure
Social capital is not a new concept, though many might think it is. Its origins can be traced to the sociology of Emile Durkheim and his sense of “group life” as an elixir to individualism and anomie, as well as to Marx and his writings about “Klasse für sich selbst gegen eine Klasse in sich selbst” (class for itself versus a class in itself).
Some modern social theorists picked up the concept and added some refinements and twists, notably Pierre Bourdieu (1985), who defined social capital as “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquisition or recognition “(P. 248).
Bourdieu goes on to discuss three: (1) access and claims to resources, (2) the amount and quality of resources, and (3) that in the end, social capital reduces to economic capital and to cultural capital (through contact with experts). What is also evident from
Bourdieu’s analysis is the unspecified, common understandings about access to and the claims to social capitalthe norms surrounding claims, allocation, and reciprocity, are based on social sanctions if the process is violated. There is a strong sense of “bounded solidarity.”
Others also have taken up the call to define and examine social capital and have added a strong social structural dimension to their arguments. The economist, Glen
Loury (1979, 1981), used the concept to examine race-based income inequality. Loury argued that social capital created the context for achievement, or economic success; that is, the differential opportunities faced by minority and non-minority youth, that were based on social connections and that painted a climate for success or failure.
21 In the late 1980s and into the 1990s, sociologist James Coleman (1988, 1990) linked social capital to human capital; social capital creates human capital. Coleman defined social capital by its function as “…a variety of entities with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structure, and they facilitate certain action of actorswhether persons or corporate actorswithin the structure” (P. 588).
After these three re-introductions, other social theorists entered the discussion about social capital. Chief among this group were W. E. Baker (1990), M. Schiff (1992), and R. Burt (1992). Baker argued that social capital was a resource that was derived by actors from social structures and used for their interests. M. Schiff also linked social capital to social structure by arguing that social capital is part of social structure that affects social relations. R. Burt, however, offers a different view. Burt sees social capital as those individual contacts that are conduits to the opportunities that one utilizes. Burt also introduces the notion of “structural holes,” the absence of ties that help mobility.
Such a notion, it seems to us, is based on a fundamental theorem of entropy or information theory (see Shannon 1966; Verdugo and Mueller 2006): the greater the ties, the weaker the information.
Though there are subtle and not so subtle differences in definitions about social capital there is a clear consensus about what it means: access to resources as a result of membership in a social network/social structure.
There are two other tasks that we must address before getting to our question:
First, we must discuss the sources of social capital; second, we need to discuss its effects, both positive and negative. Each of these topics are briefly discussed and then we turn to our questions.
22 D. Sources of Social Capital: Altruistic and Egoistic
There are, essentially, two sources of social capital: altruistic and egoistic.
Altruistic social capital is a source of social capital when donors give/provide social capital to someone else because they are both members of a collectivity and the norms and identity are strong enough to warrant such giving. For example, we may write a letter of recommendation for a friend’s child’s college application because we are close friends.
We should also point out that that there are two types of altruistic social capital: introspective and projected, for lack of better terms. The example given above is a form of introspective social capital because the driving forces are the norms of the collectivity.
In contrast, projected altruistic social capital occurs when I donate social capital to a cause for a group that is not part of my collectivity. Instead, I project the norms of my collectivity and provide social capital to another group that needs assistance. As far as we can tell, such a distinction has not been made in the literature on social capital, and it should because of its theoretical and practical application.
A second form of social capital is egoistic. In this form of social capital, donors give because they expect some form of return on their giving. The return on giving is not economic, but can be such things as allegiance, group approval, or a feeling of self- satisfaction—it is individual and egoistic.
23 E. Effects of Social Capital
1. Positive Effects
Now that we have outlined, in general terms, the sources of social capital, we look at its effects. There appear to be three sort of functions of social capital. It is a source of social control; it is a source of family support; and it has benefits through networks beyond the immediate family.
Social capital, especially in tightly knit communities, is used for social control and rule enforcement. The norms and values that exist in communities exist so that actors do not need to be formally controlled. The norms are internalized to the extent that they are understood and followed. Norms, then, are a form of social capital.
Social capital is also a source of family and kin support. Two parent families have more social capital tan single-parent households. Children can benefit more when two parents are present (Coleman 1988; McLanahan and Sandefur 1994). In terms of education, McLanahan and Sandefur (1994) find that single-parent households are more mobile, which is a risk factor for children’s education (see also Hagan et al. 1996). In these examples, community bonds, as a form of social capital are severely restricted and have adverse effects on children’s education.
A third and final effect of social capital has to do with areas beyond the family.
The work of Bourdieu (1979, 1980) is useful because he suggests that capital beyond the family is based on membership in social networks. This particular effect of social capital, as a matter of membership in networks, is well used in labor market research. In these studies ones’ connections are important in finding work. The work of Loury (1979) is an
24 example. Granovetter (1974) also studied how an informal job information network was used to find jobs. There is also an important body of research in this area that is germane to our analysis. In studies of social capital it is clear that there is a dearth of social capital in certain types of communities. While some form of connections are important to survive in these communities, they rarely extend beyond the community (see Stack
1974), and deprive actors of a wider set of data about jobs outside the community (see
Wacquant and Wilson 1989; Wilson 1987, 1996). Moreover, because impoverished youth do not have access to others in positions of power and authority, their networks are much feebler (Sullivan 1989), and that in such dense by truncated networks in poor communities cut its members off from the outside world and tend to support alternate life styles that make access to mainstream society and jobs nearly impossible (see
Fernandez-Kelly 1995; Stanton-Salazar and Dornbush 1995; Valenzuela and Dornbush
1994).
2. Negative Effects
There are at least four negative effects of social capital that need to be raised.
First, it is clear because social capital is tied to the norms and bonding of a collectivity, it has exclusionary effects. That is, outsiders are not welcomed or the processes to be included are complex. Keep in mind that social capital contributes to the success of group members and is thus, generally, exclusive to the group (Waldinger 1995).
Second, social capital can lead to excessive claims by group members on the more successful of the collectivity. Such claims can, in effect, limit the further success of these members. Indeed, in tightly knit communities, there is the strong possibility of large
25 proportions of the community to be “free riding” on the success of a smaller number
(Geertz 1963; Granovetter 1995; Weber 1992 [1965]).
Third, social capital can place strong demands on its members to conform to group norms and values. The tighter knit the community, the greater stress on conformity. Studies have confirmed such a proposition. Boisevan (1974), for example, found that the high dense norms in a Malta village created immense pressure to conform, and limited the personal freedom of its members. Simmel ([1902] 1964) made a similar argument about the conflict between group demands and personal freedom. In 1977,
Rumbaut found that the hard family ties of recent immigrants had negative effects on their academic achievement.
Finally, social capital can contribute to what we call “the crab in the bucket” effects. Group norms call for conformity and because they do, there is pressure on members not to excel, but to remain very close to the rest of the collectivity. Significant success undermines group cohesion and solidarity. In the race and ethnic relations literature there is evidence that the pursuit of a middle class life is ridiculed by members of an oppressed ethnic-racial group (see Bourgois 1991; 1995; Stepick 1992; Suarez-
Orozco 1987; Matute-Bianch 1986, 1991). In the field of education, the highly charged issue of “acting white” has caused quite a stir. The proposition is that group ties among
Black and Hispanic youth put pressure on members not to excel in school because it is a form of “acting white” (for a review see Verdugo 200x).
26 F. What are the Questions?
In Table 3 we presented a diagram that would help us organize our thoughts about the intersection between social capital and the two components of racial stratification: ideology and spatial separation. This particular model can now be used to formulate what we believe are some important questions regarding the educational achievement of ethnic-racial minorities. Our focus is on how stratification and social capital create the context by which families, communities, and schools then influence students and their achievement. Table 4 replicates table 3, but includes some key points that are the foundation for our questions.
27 TABLE 4. THE INTERSECTION OF THE MECHANISMS OF RACIAL STRATIFICATION AND SOCIAL CAPITAL
Social Capital Racial Stratification
Access Acquisition Effects Ideology Positive: ethnic-racial minorities who acquire social capital use it to improve their SES or their ability to improve their SES , and the ability to assist their children’s achievement
Criteria are used to determine the Negative: Access and acquisition is Beliefs that paints negative or positive acquisition of social capital. Criteria are blocked and members of ethnic- pictures of ethnic-racial minorities and ideological because they have the racial minorities either develop their abilities, and thus limits or helps presence of being objective but they are oppositional cultures to mainstream their ability to join a collectivity or to merely standards that favor the culture or become alienated from have the ability to use its own or borrow collectivity with social capital and the mainstream society. social capital. ability to determine its acquisition. Separation Positive: Creates tightly knit collectivities that develop their own social capital.
Negative: Limits quality of social Being separated from other collectivities capital, and the kind that can be used Separation effectively bars or severely with social capital greatly reduces the outside the collectivity; leads to limits members of ethnic-racial groups ability of members of ethnic-racial groups subcultures that does not mesh with from access to social capital. from acquiring social capital. mainstream culture.
28 1 .Ideology, Access, Acquisition, and Effects
Ideology is a collection of view and beliefs that justifies a given social order as well as the practices for maintaining such an order. Ideology, thus, justifies access to, the acquisition of, and the therefore the effects of social capital or lack of social capital on the status of families, communities, and schools how they influence the academic achievement process of children. In honor of parsimony, we have three questions.
Q1: What sorts of ideologies are present in society that affects access, acquisition, and the effects of social capital among the three intervening domains?
Q2: How, exactly, do ideologies affect access, acquisition, and the effects of social capital among the three intervening domains?
Q3: Why do some ideologies paint positive pictures of certain ethnic-racial groups, while others do not? And do these different ideologies have effects on access, acquisition, and effects among the three intervening domains?
2. Spatial Separation, Access, Acquisition and Effects
It is not clear which is the more egregious practice of any stratification system: the ideological system that creates a belief system about groups, or the practice of isolating or separating such groups from those with desired resources. On the one hand, while separation of ethnic-racial groups has its negative effects, it might also have positive effects. By this is meant that under some conditions, isolated ethnic-racial minorities then can use their own social capital in the achievement process. Asian immigrants are one group where such isolation can have positive effects (see Portes and
Rumbaut 2001).
29 The questions we have are:
Q4: How, exactly, does separation influence the access, acquisition, and effects of social capital among the three intervening domains?
Q5: Regarding question 4—how, exactly, does this lead to the formation of subcultures that are oppositional to mainstream educational processes?
Q6: Regarding question 4—how exactly does this lead to the formation of positive subcultures where the three intervening domains actually exert positive effects on achievement?
IV. Conclusion
Current research on the academic achievement of ethnic-racial minorities focus on three important domains: the family, the community, and the schools. Research has asked many questions as to how each of these domains assists the educational achievement and attainment of ethnic-racial minority students. While the research is high competent and in many instances very rigorous, it fails to focus on the really important questions regarding social structure. Social structure creates the context under which these domains function. Our focus has been to use the concept, social capital, an element of social structure, as an example as to how social structure creates the context as to how each of these domains function.
By social capital we mean a network of contacts that can be used by actors in these domains to help their children do well in school. While there are two other forms of capital, human and cultural, it appears that social capital is the most important and indeed research by Bourdieu (1985) and Coleman (1988) seems to confirm our
30 proposition. Both human and cultural capital are those things that actors have in their heads, but social capital involves contacts, networks and social relations.
The crucial questions, then, revolve around social capital: sources, access, and effects. These are important questions because they focus on the role social structures take in the education of ethnic-racial minority children. Moreover, there are two benefits from such a focus. First, it contributes to a body of research that has generally ignored the role social structure plays in the achievement of ethnic-racial minorities. It should be clear that social structure sets the stage by which families, communities, and schools influence the education of minority children. A second benefit, would be that once these linkages are specified and understood, progress can be made to better develop policy and programs toward improving the educational achievement of all students. To a great extent looking at the role of social structure is both theoretically relevant and practically significant.
In conclusion, the questions that need to be asked and answered revolve around social structure not about families, communities, schools, and certainly not students.
Social structure is that great missing link in the research about minority student achievement.
31 References
Abrams, L., & Haney, W. (2004). Accountability and the grade 9 to 10 transition: The impact on attrition and retention rates. In G. Orfield, (Ed.), 2004, Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Alon, S. and M. Tienda. 2007. Diversity, Opportunities, and the Shifting Meritocracy in Higher Education, American Sociological Review, 72: 487-511.
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Horsey, C. S. (1997, April). From first grade forward: Early foundations of high school dropout. Sociology of Education, 70(2), 87- 107.
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Kabbani, N. S. (2001, October). The dropout process in life course perspective: Early risk factors at home and school. Teachers College Record, 103(5), 760-822.
Allensworth, E. M. (2004). Graduation and dropout rates after implementation of high- stakes testing in Chicago’s elementary schools: A close look at students most vulnerable to dropping out. In G. Orfield, (Ed.), 2004, Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Baker, P. (Ed.), with D’Amico, R., Kim, C., Wielgosz, J., Carpenter, S., Crowley, J. E., & Morgan, W. R. (1984, April). Pathways to the future, Volume IV. A report on the National Longitudinal Surveys of Youth Labor Market Experience in 1982, Revised. Columbus, OH: Center for Human Resource Research, Ohio State University, and U.S. Employment and Training Administration.
Baker, W. W. 1990. Market networks and corporate behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 96: 589-625.
Balfanz, R. & Herzog, L. (2006, May). Keeping middle grades students on track to graduation: Initial analysis and implications. PowerPoint presentation. Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia Education Fund and Johns Hopkins University with support from the William Penn Foundation.
Balfanz, R., & Legters, N. (2004). Locating the dropout crisis. Which high schools produce the nation’s dropouts? Where are they located? Who attends them? Baltimore, MD: Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University.
Barrington, B. L., & Hendricks, B. (1989, July/August). Differentiating characteristics of high school graduates, dropouts, and nongraduates. Journal of Educational Research, 82(6), 309-319.
32 Barro, S. M., & Kolstad, A. (1987, May). Who drops out of high school? Findings from High School and Beyond. Washington, DC: Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
Battin-Pearson, S., Newcomb, M. D., Abbott, R. D., Hill, K. G., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (2000). Predictors of early high school dropout: A test of five theories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 568-582.
Beatty, A., Neisser, U., Trent, W. T., & Heubert, J. P. (Eds.). (2001). Understanding dropouts: Statistics, strategies, and high-stakes testing. Committee on educational excellence and testing equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Beebe-Frankenberger, M., Bocian, K. M., MacMillan, D. L., & Gresham, F. M. (2004). Sorting secondgrade students: Differentiating those retained from those promoted. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 204-215. Retrieved November 9, 2005, from http://sys.lib.clemson.edu:2048/login?url=http://sys.lib.clemson.edu:2609/login.aspx? direct=true&db=pdh&an=edu962204.
Bekuis, T. (1995). Unsafe public schools and the risk of dropping out: A longitudinal study of adolescents. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, MA, March 29-April 2. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 3888907)
Blackorby, J., Chorost, M., Garza, N., & Guzman, A. (2003). The academic performance of secondary school students with disabilities. In M. Wagner, C. Marder, J. Blackorby, R. Cameto, L. Newman, P. Levine, & E. Davies-Mercier (with M. Chorost, N. Garza, A. Guzman, & C. Sumi), The achievements of youth with disabilities during secondary school. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Boissevain, J. 1974. Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulators, and Coalitions. New York, NY: St. Martins Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1979. Les trios etats du capital culturel. Actes Rech. Sci. Soc., 31: 3-6.
______. 1980. Le capital social: notes provisoires. Actes Rech Sci Soc, 31: 2-3.
______. 1985. The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Pp. 241-58. New York, NY: Greenwood.
Bourgois, P. 1991. Search of respect: The new service economy and the crack alternative in Spanish Harlem. Paper presented at the Conference on Poverty and Immigration, Urban Marginality Avd. Soc., Maison Suger, Paris, France, May 10-11.
33 ______. 1995. In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio. New York,NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bridgeland, J. M., Dilulio, J. J., & Morison, K. B. (2006, March). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of high school dropouts. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises, LLC, in association with Peter D. Hart Research Associates for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., & Neckerman, H. J. (1989). Early school dropout: Configurations and determinants. Child Development, 60, 1437-1452.
Caplan, J., Hall, G., Lubin, S., & Fleming, R. (1997). Pathways, family programs, program focus or features. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory and Learning Point Associates. Retrieved May 22, 2006, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/pidata/pi0focus.htm.
Catalano, R., Berglund, M., Ryan, J., Lonczak, H., & Hawkins, D. (1999). Positive youth development in the U.S.: Research findings on evaluations of the positive youth development programs. New York: Carnegie Corporation. Retrieved December 21, 2005, from http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/PositiveYouthDev99/index.htm.
Catalano, R., & Hawkins, J. D. (1995). Communities that care: Risk-focused prevention using the social development strategy. Seattle, WA: Developmental Research and Programs, Inc.
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. (n.d.). Effective Substance Abuse and Mental Health Programs for Every Community, SAMHSA Model Programs Web site. Washington, DC: National Registry of Effective Programs, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available online at http://www.modelprograms.samhsa.gov/template_cf.cfm?page=model_list.
Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. (n.d.). Blueprints for Violence Prevention Web site. Boulder, CO: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder. Available online at http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints.
Center on Education Policy. (2003, March). Effects of high school exit exams on dropout rates: Summary of a panel discussion. Panel of experts convened by the Center for Education Policy on March 15, 2003. Washington, DC: author.
34 Child and Family Center. (1997). Best practice, preventing drug use among children and adolescents. Eugene, OR: Adolescent Transitions Program Web site, University of Oregon and National Institute on Drug Abuse, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. Available online at http://cfc.uoregon.edu/atp2.htm.
Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital, American Journal of Sociology, 94: S95-121.
______. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cortez, J. D. (n.d.). Big Ideas: Dropout prevention strategies. Clemson, SC: Clemson University and Intercultural Development Research Association. Retrieved October 3, 2006, from http://www.ndpc-sd.org/practices/models.htm.
Croninger. R. G., & Lee, V. E. (2001, August). Social capital and dropping out of high school: Benefits to at-risk students of teachers’ support and guidance. Teachers College Record, 103(4), 548-581.
D’Amico, R., Baker, P., Kim, C., Wielgosz, J., Carpenter, S., Crowley, J., & Morgan, W. R. (1984). Pathways to the future, Volume IV: A report on the National Longitudinal Surveys of Youth Labor Market Experience in 1982. Revised. Washington, DC: U.S. Employment and Training Administration. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 261 107)
Duncan, A. N., Stephens-Burden, S., & Bickel, A. (1996, March). Effective comprehensive prevention programs: A planning guide. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved June 19, 2006, from http://www.nwrac.org/pub/library/e/e_effective.pdf.
Ekstrom, R. B., Goertz, M. E., Pollack, J. M., & Rock, D. A. (1986). Who drops out of high school and why? Findings of a national study. Teachers College Record, 87, 3576- 3730.
Elementary and Middle Schools Technical Assistance Center. (n.d.). Programs and strategies for positive behavior: Early intervention programs & strategies: Anger coping program. Elementary and Middle Schools Technical Assistance Center Web site. Available online at http://www.emstac.org/registered/topics/posbehavior/early/anger.htm.
Elliott, D. S., & Voss, H. L. (1974). Delinquency and dropout. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, D. C. Heath and Company.
Ensminger, M. E., Lamkin, R. P., & Jacobson, N. (1996). School leaving: A longitudinal perspective including neighborhood effects. Child Development, 67, 2400-2416.
35 Ensminger, M. E., & Slusarcick, A. L. (1992). Paths to high school graduation or dropout: A longitudinal study of a first grade cohort. Sociology of Education, 65, 95-113.
Fashola, O. S. (October 1998). Review of extended-day and after-school programs and their effectiveness, Report No. 24. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk, Johns Hopkins University.
Fashola, O. S., & Slavin, R. E. (1998). Effective dropout prevention and college attendance programs for students placed at risk. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 3(2),159-183.
Fernandez-Kelly, M. P. 1995. Social and cultural capital in the urban ghetto: implications for the economic sociology of immigration. In A. Portes (ed), The Economic Sociology of Immigration. Pp. 213-47. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Finn, J. D. (1993, August). School engagement and students at risk. (NCES 93-470). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
Finn, J. D. (1989, Summer). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59(2), 117-142.
Garnier, H. E., Stein, J. A., & Jacobs, J. K. (1997). The process of dropping out of high school: A 19-year perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 395-419.
Gaustad, J. (1991). Identifying potential dropouts. ERIC Digest. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Identifier ED339092)
Geertz, C. 1963. Peddlers and Princes. Chicago,ILL.: University of Chicago Press.
Gleason, P., & Dynarski M. (2002). Do we know whom to serve? Issues in using risk factors to identify dropouts. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7(1), 25- 41.
Goldschmidt, P., & Wang, J. (1999). When can schools affect dropout behavior? A longitudinal multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 36(4), 715- 738.
36 Gottfredson, D. (1998). School-based crime prevention. In L.W. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, & S. Bushway, Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising, A report to the United States Congress. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice and University of Maryland Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, NCJ 165366. Available online at http://www.ncjrs.org/works/wholedoc.htm or http://www.preventingcrime.org.
Granovetter, M.S. 1974. Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
______. 1995. The economic sociology of firms and entrepreneurs. In A. Portes (ed), The Economic Sociology of Immigration. Pp. 128-65. New York,NY: Russell Sage.
Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C., & Bumbarger, B. (July 1999). Preventing mental disorders in schoolage children: A review of the effectiveness of prevention programs. Greenberg, State College, PA: Center for Mental Health Services and the Prevention Research Center for the Promotion of Human Development, College of Health and Human Development, Pennsylvania State University. Available online at http://www.personal.psu.edu/dept/prevention/CMHS.html#preface.
Griffin, B. W. (2002, April). Academic disidentification, race, and high school dropouts. High School Journal, 85(4), 71-82. Available online at http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IACDocuments& type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&docId=A87079131&source=gale&src prod=EAIM&userGroupName=clemson_itweb&version=1.0 .
Hamby, J. V. (1989, May). National dropout rates: Sources, problems, and efforts toward solutions. Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center, Clemson University.
Hammond, C., & Reimer, M. (2006). Essential elements of quality afterschool programs. Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center/Network, College of Health, Education, and Human Development, Clemson University.
Harvard Family Research Project. (n.d.). Out-of-School Time database Web site. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education. Available online at http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/afterschool/evaldatabase.html.
37 Hauser, R M., Simmons, S. J., & Pager, D. I. (2004). High school dropout, race/ethnicity, and social background from the 1970s to the 1990s. In G. Orfield, (Ed.), 2004, Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2003). Investing in your community’s youth: An introduction to the Communities That Care system. South Deerfield, MA: Communities That Care, Channing Bete Company, Inc.
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64-105.
Heyneman, S. and W. Loxley. 1982. Influences on academic achievement across low and high income countries: A re-analysis of IEA data, 1982, Sociology of Education, 55: 13-21.
______. 1983. The effect of primary-school quality on academic achievement across twenty-nine high and low income countries. American Journal of Sociology, 88: 1162-1194.
Hess, R. S., & Copeland, E. (2001). Students’ stress, coping strategies, and school completion: A longitudinal perspective. School Psychology Quarterly, 16(4), 389-405.
Hess Jr., G. A., Lyons, A., Corsino, L., & Wells, E. (1989, June). Against the odds: The early identification of dropouts. Chicago, IL: Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance.
Ingels, S. J., Curtin, T. R., Kaufman, P., Alt, M. N., & Chen, X. (2002). Coming of age in the 1990s: The eighth-grade class of 1988 12 years later. (NCES 2002-321). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
Iowa Department of Education. (2005). State definition of “at-risk” and dropout prevention annual evaluation checklists/factors). Available online at www.state.ia.us/educate/ecese.
James, D. W. (Ed.). (1997). Some things DO make a difference for youth: A compendium of evaluations of youth programs and practices. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum. Available online at http://www.aypf.org.
38 James, D. W. (Ed.) with S. Jurich. (1999). MORE things that DO make a difference for youth: A compendium of evaluations of youth programs and practices, Volume II. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum. Available online at http://www.aypf.org.
James, D. W., & Partee, G. (2003). No more islands: Family involvement in 27 school and youth programs. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.
Janosz, M., Le Blanc, M., Boulerice, B., & Tremblay, R. E. (2000). Predicting different types of school dropouts: A typological approach with two longitudinal samples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 171-190.
Janosz, M., Le Blanc, M., Boulerice, B., & Tremblay, R. E. (1997). Disentangling the weight of school dropout predictors: A test on two longitudinal samples. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 733-762.
Jerald, C. D. (2006, June). Identifying potential dropouts: Key lessons for building an early warning system. Washington, DC: American Diploma Project Network, Achieve, Inc.
Jimerson, S., Egeland, B., Sroufe, L. A., & Carlson, B. (2000). A prospective longitudinal study of high school dropouts examining multiple predictors across development. Journal of School Psychology, 38(6), 525-549.
Jordan, W. J., Lara, J., & McPartland, J. M. (1994, August). Exploring the complexity of early dropout causal structures. Report No. 48. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students, Johns Hopkins University.
Jordan, W. J., McPartland, J. M., & Lara, J. (1999, Fall). Rethinking the causes of high school dropout. The Prevention Researcher, 6(3), 1-4.
Karabel, J. 2005. The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Kaufman, P., Bradbury, D., & Owings, J. (1992, August). Characteristics of at-risk students in the NELS:88. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
Kerr, K. A., & Legters, N. E. (2004). Preventing dropout: Use and impact of organizational reforms designed to ease the transition to high school. In G. Orfield, (Ed.), 2004, Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Kortering, L. J., & Braziel, P. M. (1999, March/April). Staying in school: The perspective of ninth-grade students. Remedial and Special Education 20(2), 106-113.
39 Kumpfer, K. L., & Alvarado, R. (1998, November). Effective family strengthening interventions, Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. Available online at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/171121.pdf.
Kurdek, L. A., & Sinclair, R. J. (2000, September). Psychological, family and peer predictors of academic outcomes in first- through fifth-grade children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 449-457. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 620 989)
LeCompte, M. D., & Dworkin, A. G. (1991). Giving up on school: Student dropouts and teacher burnouts. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press Inc.
Lehr, C. A., Johnson, D. R., Bremer, C. D., Cosio, S., & Thompson, M. (2004, May). Essential tools. Increasing rates of school completion: Moving from policy and research to practice. Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota.
Linton, D., Moser, L., Holden, C., & Siegel, S. (2006). Communities In Schools: 2004- 2005 results from the CIS network. Alexandria, VA: Communities in Schools.
Lloyd, D. N. (1978, Winter). Prediction of school failure from third-grade data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38(4), 1193-1200.
Loury, G. C. 1977. A dynamic theory of racial income differences. In P.A. Wallace and A.M. La Mond (eds.), Women, Minorities, and Employment Discrimination. Pp. 153- 186. Lexington, MA: Heath.
______. 1981. Intergenerational transfers and the distribution of earnings. Econometrica, 49: 843-67.
MacMillan, D. L. (1991). Hidden youth: Dropouts from special education. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
Mann, D. (1986). Can we help dropouts: Thinking about the undoable. Teachers College Record, 87(3), 307-323.
Matute-Bianchi, M.E. 1986. Ethnic identities and patterns of school success and failure among Mexican-American and Japanese American students in a California high school. American Journal of Education, 95: 233-55.
______. 1991. Situational ethnicity and patterns of school performance among immigrant and non-immigrant Mexican-descent students. In M.A. Gibson and J.U. Ogbu (eds.), Minority Status and Schooling: A Comparative Study of Immigrant and Involuntary Minorities. Pp. 205-47. New York, NY: Garland.
40 Mc Lanahan, S and G. Sandefur. 1994. Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts? What Helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McWilliams, A. E., Everett, P. C., & Bass, M. L. (2000, Summer/Fall). A model of underlying influences on students’ decisions to drop out. The Journal of At-Risk Issues, 7(1), 42-50.
Mendel, R. A. (2000). Less hype, more help: Reducing juvenile crime, what works—and what doesn't. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum. Available online from http://www.aypf.org.
Midwest Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools and Communities (MRC). (1994a). Study focuses on successful prevention programs. Midwest Forum, 4(1). North Central Regional Educational Laboratory and Learning Point Associates. Retrieved May 24, 2006, from http://ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/drugfree/4-1study.htm.
Midwest Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools and Communities (MRC). (1994b). MRC philosophical foundations for prevention. Midwest Forum, 4(1). North Central Regional Educational Laboratory and Learning Point Associates. Retrieved June 9, 2006, from http://ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/drugfree/4-1phil.htm.
Mihalic, S. F. (2005). The Matrix of Prevention Programs. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder. Retrieved June 23, 2006, from http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/matrix/overview.htm.
Mihalic, S. F., & Aultman-Bettridge. (2004). A guide to school-based prevention programs. See W.T. Turk, (Ed.), 2003, Policing and school crime, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Publishers.
Miller, J., Ross, T., & Sturgis, C. (2005, November). Beyond the tunnel: Addressing cross-cutting issues that impact vulnerable youth. Briefing Paper #2 Redirecting youth from the school-to-prison pipeline: Addressing cross-cutting issues in youth services. A Briefing Paper Series of Youth Transition Funders Group in partnership with the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Mitchel, M. (Ed.). (1996, November). School completion rates for children with disabilities: The role of economic and demographic factors. A Project Align Issue Brief. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 408 771)
41 Montes, G., & Lehmann, C. (2004, January). Who will drop out of school? Key predictors from the literature. Technical Report and Works in Progress Series: Number T04-001. Rochester, NY: Children’s Institute, Inc. Available online at http://www.childrensinstitute.net/images/T04-001.pdf.
Morgan, W. R. (1984). The high school dropout in an overeducated society. In R. D’Amico, P. Baker, C. Kim, J. Wielgosz, S. Carpenter, J. Crowley, & W. R. Morgan, Pathways to the future, Volume IV: A report on the National Longitudinal Surveys of Youth Labor Market Experience in 1982 (Chapter 6, pp. 215-273). Revised. Washington, DC: U.S. Employment and Training Administration. (( Document Reproduction Service No. ED 261 107)
National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities (NDPC/SD). (n.d.) Effective models. Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities (NDPC/SD Web site). Retrieved September 14, 2006, from http://www.ndpc- sd.org/practices/models.htm.
National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA). (2004, February). Lessons from prevention research. NIDA InfoFacts. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available online at http://www.drugabuse.gov/pdf/Infofacts/prevention04.pdf.
Neild, R. C., & Farley, E. (2004). Whatever happened to the class of 2000? The timing of dropout in Philadelphia’s schools. In G. Orfield (Ed.), 2004, Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Obasohan, A. N., & Kortering, L. (1999, Winter/Spring). Dropping out of school: Comparing the perceptions of teachers and dropouts. The Journal of At-Risk Issues, 5(2), 19-26.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). (n.d.). Effective & promising programs guide. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Dept. of Justice. Retrieved April 13, 2006, from http://www.dsgonline.com/MPG25_Local/MPGSearch/WebForm2_Demo.aspx.
Office of the Surgeon General. (2001). Youth violence: A report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services under the direction of the Office of the Surgeon General. Available online at http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence.
Owens, B. R., Morris, J. D., & Lieberman, M. G. (2001, Fall). A model to predict high school dropouts in a rural Florida district. The Journal of At-Risk Issues, 7(3), 12-17.
Orfield, G. (Ed.). (2004). Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
42 Pallas, A. M., Natriello, G., & E. L. McDill. (1989, June-July). The changing nature of the disadvantaged population: Current dimensions and future trends. Educational Researcher, 18(5), 16-22. Retrieved February 20, 2006, from http://links.jstor.org/sici? sici=0013- 189X%28198906%2F07%2918%3A5%3C16%3ATCOTD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q.
Payne, B. D., Payne, D. A., & Dagley, P. (1989, March). The ability of teachers to identify at-risk elementary students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Plank, S., DeLuca, S., & Estacion, A. (2005, October). Dropping out of high school and the place of career and technical education: A survival analysis of surviving high school. St. Paul, MN:
Portes, A. and R. G. Rumbaut. 2001. Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. New York, NY:Russell Sage.
National Research Center for Career and Technical Education, University of Minnesota and distributed by the National Dissemination Center for Career and Technical Education, The Ohio State University. Available online from http://www.nccte.com.
Posey, R., Wong, S., Catalano, R., Hawkins, D., Dusenbury, L., & Chappell, P. (2000). Communities That Care prevention strategies: A research guide to what works. Seattle, WA: Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. Available online at http://www.preventionscience.com/ctc/CTC.html.
Riccomini, P. J., Bost, L. W., Katsiyannis, A., & Zhang, D. (2005, August). Cognitive behavioral interventions: An effective approach to help students with disabilities stay in school. Effective interventions in dropout prevention: A practice brief for educators, Volume 1, Number 1. Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities, Clemson University.
Robinson, J. 1977. What are the Questions? Journal of Economic Literature, 15,4: 1318-1339.
Rosenthal, B. S. (1998). Nonschool correlates of dropout: An integrative review of the literature. Children and Youth Services Review, 20(5), 413-433.
Rumbaut, R. G. 1977. Ties that bind: immigration and immigrant families in the United States. In A.Booth, A. C. Crouter, and N. Landale (eds.), Immigration and the Family: Research and Policy on US Immigrant. Pp. 3-45. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rumberger, R.W. (1987, Summer). High school dropouts: A review of issues and evidence. Review of Educational Research, 57(2), 101-121. Available online at
43 http://www.links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0034- 6543%28198722%2957%3A2%3C101%3AHSDARO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C.
Rumberger, R.W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of students and schools. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 583-625.
Rumberger, R.W. (2001, January). Why students drop out of school and what can be done. Paper prepared for the conference, “Dropouts in America: How Severe is the Problem? What Do We Know about Intervention and Prevention?” Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Retrieved January 7, 2002, from http://www.law.harvard.edu/groups/...ublications/dropout/rumberger.html.
Rumberger, R.W. (2004). Why students drop out of school. In G. Orfield (Ed.), 2004, Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Safe, Disciplined, and Drug-Free Schools. (2001). Exemplary & promising safe, disciplined, and drug-free schools 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Safe and Drug- Free Schools. Available online at http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/exemplary01/exemplary01.pdf.
Schargel, F. P. (2004). Who drops out and why. In Smink, J. & Schargel, F. P. (Eds.), Helping students graduate: A strategic approach to dropout prevention. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Schiff, M. 1992. Social capital, labor mobility, and welfare. Ration. Soc., 4: 157-75.
Schinke, S., Brounstein, P., & Gardner, S. (2002). Science-based prevention programs and principles, 2002. DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 03-3764. Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Charles E. Shannon. 1963. The mathematical theory of communication. In Claude E. Shannon and Warren Weaver (eds.), The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press
Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., M acKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1998). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising, A report to the United States Congress. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice and University of Maryland Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, NCJ 165366. Available online at http://www.ncjrs.org/works/wholedoc.htm or http://www.preventingcrime.org.
44 Simmel, G. 1964 [1902]. The metropolis and mental life. In K. H. Wolff (ed. & translator), The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Pp. 409-24. New York, NY: Free Press.
Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Thurlow, M. L., & Evelo, D. L. (1994, April). Are we pushing students in special education to drop out of school? Policy Research Brief. Minneapolis, MN: Research and Training Center on Residential Services and Community Living, Institute on Community Integration, College of Education, University of Minnesota.
Slavin, R. E. & Fashola, O. S. (1998). Show me the evidence! Proven and promising programs for America’s schools. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 421488).
Smink, J., & Schargel, F. P. (Eds.) (2004). Helping students graduate: A strategic approach to dropout prevention. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Stack, C. 1974. All Our Kin. New York, NY: Harper and Row
Stanton-Salazar, R.D. and S. M. Dornbush. 1995. Social capital and the reproduction of inequality: information networks among Mexican-origin high school students. Sociology of Education, 68: 116-75.
Stepick, A. 1992. The refugees nobody wants: Haitians in Miami. In G. J. Grenier and A. Stepick (eds.), Miami Now. Pp. 57-82. Gainesvill, FL: University of Florida Press.
Strengthening America’s Families. (n.d.) Effective Family Programs for Prevention of Delinquency, Strengthening America’s Families Web site. Washington, DC: the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in collaboration with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service's Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP). Available online at http://www.strengtheningfamilies.org/html/model_programs.html.
Suarez-Orozco, M.A. 1987. Towards a psychosocial understanding of Hispanic adaptation to American schooling. In H.T. Trueba (ed.), Success or Failure? Learning and the Languages of Minority Students. Pp. 156-68. New York, NY: Newbury House.
Sum, A., Harrington, P., Bartishevich, C., Fogg, N., Khatiwada, I., Motroni, J., Palma, S., Pond, N., Tobar, P., & Trub’skyy, M. (2003, February). The hidden crisis in the high school dropout problems of young adults in the U.S.: Recent trends in overall school dropout rates and gender differences in dropout behavior. Boston, MA: Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern University, prepared for The Business Roundtable.
45 Sutherland, M. B., & MacMillan, R. C. (2001). Preventing high school dropout among students with mild disabilities: A literature review. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 456 610)
Tanner, D. E., Newbold, B. L., & Johnson, D. B. (2003). Academic achievement as a drop out predictor. Project report. Fresno, CA: California State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 478 173)
Teachman, J. D., Paasch, K., & Carver, K. (1996, August). Social capital and dropping out of school early. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 773-783.
Thurlow, M. L., Sinclair, M. F., & Johnson, D. R. (2002, July). Students with disabilities who drop out of school: Implications for policy and practice. Issue Brief: Examining Current Challenges in Secondary Education and Transition, 1(2). Minneapolis, MN: Institute on CommunityIntegration, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, University of Minnesota.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 468 582)
U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Publications and resources: Information and research on dropoutand dropout prevention strategies. Retrieved February 6, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/print/programs/dropout/dropoutprogram.html.
U.S. Department of Education. (1995). The Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program in Educational Programs that Work--1995, archived information. Retrieved June 9, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EPTW/eptw3/eptw3b.html.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Mental health: A report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Available online at http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/pdfs/c3.pdf.
Valenzuela, A. and S. M. Dornbush. 1994. Familism and social capital in the academic achievement of Mexican origin and Anglo adolescents. Social Science Quarterly, 75: 18- 36.
Verdugo, R. R. 1986. Educational stratification and Hispanics. In M. Olivas (ed.), Latino College Students. Pp. 325-47. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
______. 2002. Race-ethnicity, Social Class, and Zero Tolerance Policies: The cultural and structural wars. Education and Urban Society, 35: 50-75.
Verdugo, R. R., N. M. Greenberg, R. S. Henderson, O. Urbe, and J. M. Schneider. 1997. School governance regimes and teachers’ job satisfaction: bureaucracy, legitimacy, and community. Educational Administration Quarterly, 3: 38-66.
46 Verdugo, R. R. and C. Mueller. 2006. Is Education an Integrating Factor? Education, Social Embeddedness, and the Integration of the Turkish Community in Germany. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Comparative Education Society of Europe, Granada, Spain.
Wacquant, L. J. D. and W. J. Wilson. 1989. The cost of racial and class exclusion in the inner city. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 501: 8-26.
Waldinger, R. 1995. The “Other Side” of embeddedness: A case study of the interplay between economy and ethnicity, Ethnic Relations Studies, 18: 555-80.
Wagner, M. (2005). Youth with disabilities leaving secondary school. In Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., & Levine, P. Changes over time in the early postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLST2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International for the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Available online at http://www.nlts2.org/reports/str6_report.html.
Wagner, M., Blackorby, J., Cameto, R., Hebbeler, K., & Newman, L. (1993, December). The transition experiences of young people with disabilities. A summary of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International for the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Available online at http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/24/5 a/ac.pdf.
Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., & Levine, P. (2006). The academic achievement and functional performance of youth with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Walker, H.M., & Sprague, I. R. (1999). The path to school failure, delinquency, and violence: Causal factors and some potential solutions. Intervention in School and Clinic, 35, 67-73.
Weber, J. M. (1988). An evaluation of selected procedures for identifying potential high school dropouts. Columbus, OH: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, Ohio State University for the U. S. Office of Vocational and Adult Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 311 348)
Weber, M. 1965 [1922, 1947]. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York, NY: Free Press.
Wehlage, G. G., & Rutter, R. A. (1986, Spring). Dropping out: How much do schools contribute to the problem? Teachers College Record, 87(3), 374-392.
47 West, L. L. (1991). Introduction. In L. L. West (Ed.), Effective strategies for dropout prevention of at-risk youth (pp.1-42). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc.
West, L. L. (Ed.). (1991). Effective strategies for dropout prevention of at-risk youth. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc.
Wilson, W.J. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner-City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
______. 1996. When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York, NY: Knopf.
Wolman, C., Bruininks, R. H., & Thurlow, M. L. (1989). Dropouts and dropout programs: Implications for special education. Remedial and Special Education, 10(5), 6- 20.
Worrell, F. C. (1996, August). The risk resiliency paradigm in research on dropping out. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
48