4.4 Article

Low-Income Students and the Socioeconomic Composition of Public High Schools

期刊

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW
卷 74, 期 5, 页码 709-730

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/000312240907400502

关键词

-

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [R24 HD042849-08, R24 HD042849-04, R24 HD042849-09, R03 HD047378-02, R03 HD047378-01, R03 HD047378, R24 HD042849-10, R24 HD042849, R24 HD042849-05, R24 HD042849-09S1, R24 HD042849-06, R24 HD042849-07] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increasing constraints placed on race-based school diversification have shifted attention to socioeconomic desegregation. Although past research suggests that socioeconomic desegregation can produce heightened achievement, the frog pond perspective points to potential problems with socioeconomic desegregation in nonachievement domains. Such problems are important in their own right, and they may also chip away at the magnitude of potential achievement benefits. In this article, I report conducted propensity score analyses and robustness calculations on a sample of public high schools in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. As the proportion of the student body with middle- or high-income parents increased, low-income students progressed less far in math and science. Moreover, as the proportion of the student body with middle- or high-income or college-educated parents increased, low-income students experienced more psychosocial problems. Such patterns were often more pronounced among African American and Latina students. These findings suggest curricular and social psychological mechanisms of oft-noted frog pond effects in schools and extend the frog pond framework beyond achievement itself to demographic statuses (e.g., race/ethniciry and SES) perceptually linked to achievement. In terms of policy, these findings indicate that socioeconomic desegregation plans should also attend to equity in course enrollments and the social integration of students more generally.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据