Bad Neighborhood, Bad Academic Outcomes?

1. Bad Neighborhood, Bad Academic Outcomes? The Effects of Neighborhood Environment and Socioeconomic Status on Academic Participation Brandi Renee Beard California State University, Northridge

2. Purpose • To assess the effects of socioeconomic status and crime in a neighborhood on academic participation and performance. • To add to the sociology of education knowledge base concerning the role of non school factors on academic achievement and performance • To influence policy that will reform the public education system to better address factors that increase or help to maintain the achievement gap

3. Theories The theory of capital deficiency Disorganization theory Collective socialization theory

4. The Theory of Capital Deficiency • Financial Capital • Human Capital • Social Capital • Cultural Capital

5. Financial Capital • monetary resources that can be used to provide children with comfortable living situations, good schooling, private tutors, extracurricular activities, good nutrition and other intellectual stimuli.

6. Human capital • Refers to the skills, abilities, and knowledge possessed by specific individuals. Parents with high education can usually offer large amounts of human capital to their children • “… [parents] invest in children in the same way that entrepreneurs invest in a company, seeking to maximize their ultimate payoff- in this case happiness, productivity, SES, and prestige of their descendants in society” Massey (2003:5)

7. Social Capital • a network of resources given to people as a virtue of inclusion in a certain social structure

8. Cultural Capital • knowledge of norms, styles, conventions, tastes that help individuals to navigate specific social settings that better their odds at success. • “Exposure to prior knowledge of the social conventions can be critical in preparing students for achieving success in a school environment” Massey (2003:6)

9. Social Disorganization Theory • Originally linked crime in neighborhood to ecological characteristics. • This theory is commonly used in criminology and deviance studies– however sociologists of education also use this to link neighborhood environments to academic achievement • This theory argues that “place” matters! • Explains street level crime at the neighborhood level

10. Collective Socialization Theory • Lack of role models in poor and minority communities • Students living in inner city ghettos endorse the American ideologies (hard work yields success) however their experiences in their neighborhood does not exemplify this ideology • A lack of opportunity may cause these students to develop an oppositional culture • Students develop adaptive behaviors and attitudes that discourage success in school • Poor and minority students lack exposure to the correct attitudes and behaviors that lead to academic achievement

11. Methods Population and sample Modes of data collection Variables used Factorial MANOVA

12. Sample • Education Longitudinal Study 2002 (ELS) was accessed via ICPSR • A stratified probability proportional to size was used to select a nationally representative sample • The ELS identified 1,221 eligible schools from a population of 27,00 schools containing 10th graders. The eligible schools included public, catholic and other private schools. Of those eligible schools, 752 participated in the study. The schools selected 26 sophomores to participate in the study from each school. • The ELS collected data from 20,000 sophomore students

13. Data Collection • Researchers used the following modes of data collection: • self-enumerated questionnaire • computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) • mail questionnaire • cognitive assessment test.

14. Factorial MANOVA • Assumptions • The observations within each sample must be randomly sampled and must be independent of each other • The observations on all dependent variables must follow a multivariate normal distribution in each group • Homogeneity of covariance • The relationships among all pairs of DV’s for each cell in the data matrix must be linear

15. Variables • Dependent Variables • BYS43- the amount of hours per week that a student reads outside of school • BYS34B- the number of hours per week that a student spends on homework • BYTXCSTD- Standardized test composite score-math/reading • Independent Variables • SES1- socioeconomic status (parents occupational prestige, income, and parent’s highest level of education) • BYP67 - level of crime in neighborhood

16. Hypotheses

17. Research Hypotheses • The level of crime in a neighborhood will have an effect on the number of hours per week a student spends reading outside of school • The level of crime in a neighborhood will have an effect on the number of hours per week a student spends on homework outside of school • The level of crime in a neighborhood will have an effect on the students composite standardized test score • Socioeconomic status will have an effect on the amount of hours per week a student spends reading outside of school • Socioeconomic status will have an effect on the amount of hours per week a student spends on homework outside of school • Socioeconomic status will have an effect on the students composite standardized test score

18. Research hypotheses-interaction effects • The interaction between socioeconomic status and crime in a neighborhood will have an effect on the number of hours per week a student spends on homework • The interaction between socioeconomic status and crime in a neighborhood will have an effect on the number of hours per week a student spends reading outside of school • The interaction between socioeconomic status and crime in a neighborhood will have an effect on the composite standardized test scores of students

19. Results and Discussion

20. Results: Tests of Between Subjects Effects

21. Interpretation: SES • Socioeconomic status has a significance of .000 for the number of hours spent per week on reading and homework and on the students standardized test score. Therefore I can conclude that SES has an effect on academic participation and performance. I reject my null hypothesis and find support for my first, second, and third research hypotheses.

22. Interpretation-Level of Crime • Level of crime in the students neighborhood has a significance of .003 for the number of hours per week a student spends on homework outside of school. Therefore I conclude that the level of crime in a neighborhood has an effect on the number of hours a student spends on homework outside of school. I can reject my null hypothesis and find support for my second research hypothesis. • Level of crime in the students neighborhood has a significance of .011 for the number of hours per week a student spends on reading outside of school. Therefore I conclude that the level of crime in a neighborhood has an effect on endorsing the value of reading. I can reject my null hypothesis and find support for my first research hypothesis. • Level of crime in a neighborhood has a significance of .000 when testing for its effects on the students composite standardized test scores. This permits me to conclude that crime level in the students neighborhood has an effect on his/her standardized test score. Therefore, I can find support for my third research hypothesis.

23. Interpretation Continued • The p-value for the interaction effect of SES and crime in the neighborhood is .632 when testing for the number of hours per week spent on homework outside of school. This permits me to conclude that the interaction between SES and crime in the neighborhood is not significant. Therefore, I accept my null hypothesis and reject my first interaction research hypothesis • The p-value for the interaction effect of SES and crime in the neighborhood is .016 when testing for the number of hours per week spent on reading outside of school. Therefore, I can conclude that this interaction effect is significant. In final I find support for my second interaction research hypothesis and reject my null hypothesis. • The p-value for the interaction effect of SES and crime when testing for the students composite standardized test score is .021. Therefore, I can conclude that this interaction effect is significant I can I find support for my third interaction research hypothesis.

24. Discussion • The level of crime in a students neighborhood and the students socioeconomic background are important factors when assessing students academic participation and performance in school. However, the interaction between SES and crime in the neighborhood does not have an effect on the amount of hours per week a student spends on homework. The results support the theory of capital deficiency insofar as SES had an effect on all dependent variables. Additionally, crime had an effect on all the DV’s used in the present study thus supporting social disorganization theory as it applies to education. However, other factors would have to be tested to find support for collective socialization.

25. Future Research and Policy Suggestions

26. Policy Reform • Policy makers interested in closing the achievement gap should address social issues in the community as well as inequalities in the school • Community based programs should be tailor to each community with a goal of addressing the unique issues within that neighborhood while providing academic support for youth • Education reformers should adopt a “model of contamination” as exampled by the Harlem Children’s Zone in high crime neighborhoods

27. Future Research • Future research should • identify the types of crime that has the highest effects on academic achievement and participation • Identify the differences in the effects presented in the current study by race and ethnic background • Include variables that assess how many people in the neighborhood works, are good role models, and can offer helpful resources to the youth in the community to better test collective socialization theory

28. References • Ainsworth, James W. 2002. “Why Does it Take a Village? The Mediation of Neighborhood Effects on Educational Achievement” Social Forces. 81(1): 117-152.  • Buchman, Claudia, Dennis J. Condron and Vincent J, Roscigno. 2010. “Shadow Education, American Style: Test Preparation, the SAT, and College Enrollment. Social Forces 89 (2):435-461  • Condron, Dennis J. and Vincent J. Roscigno. 2003. “Disparities Within: Unequal Spending and Achievement in an Urban School District”. Sociology of Education. 76 (1):18-36. • Lareau, Annette. 2000. Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental Intervention in Elementary School. Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers INC. • Massey, Douglas S., Camille Z. Charles, Garvey F. Lundy and Mary J. Fischer. 2003. The Source of the River: The Social Origins of Freshman at America’s Selective Colleges and Universities. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Chapter 1: “The Puzzle Minority of Underachievement”. • Reardon, Sean. 2012. “The Widening Academic Achievement Gap between the Rich and the Poor.” Community Investments 24(2):19-39.