Many districts are considering revamping the systems determining which schools students attend. These discussions are, inherently, about the fate of the neighborhood school. But this term has never been well defined. We develop a three-dimensional, theoretically, and empirically grounded definition of a neighborhood school. The authors’ two case studies demonstrate that these dimensions are independent and differentially related to academic achievement. The results suggest that youth in the authors’ samples have higher academic performance when they attend school with both the majority of youth in their neighborhoods and with students from other neighborhoods. Therefore, districts interested in promoting achievement gains and promoting within-school diversity may consider a policy in which all the youth from a number of neighborhoods are placed in a single school.
Allen, I. L. (1977). A retrospective note on urban “neighborhood school” ideology. Urban Education, 12(2), 205-212.
2.
Aneshensel, C. S., & Sucoff, C. A. (1996). The neighborhood context of adolescent mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 3(7), 293-310.
3.
Archbald, D. (1995). A longitudinal cohort analysis of achievement among elementary-magnet students, neighborhood school students and transfer students. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 28(3), 161-168.
4.
Belk vs. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 269 F.3d 305 (4th Circuit 2001)
5.
Bourdieu, P. (1985). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood.
6.
Caspi, A. (1995). Puberty and the gender organization of schools: How biology and social context shape the adolescent experience. In L. J. Crockett & A. C. Crouter (Eds.), Pathways through adolescence: Individual development in relation to social context (pp. 57-74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Supplement): S95-S120.
8.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What matters most: A competent teacher for every child. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(3), 193-201.
9.
Eaton, S. E., & Crutcher, E. (1996). Magnets, media, and mirages: Prince George’s County’s “miracle” cure. In G. Orfield & S. E. Eaton (Eds.), Dismantling desegregation: The quiet reversal of Brown v. Board of Education (pp. 265-290). New York: The New Press.
10.
Eckert, P. (1995). Trajectory and forms of institutional participation. In L. J. Crockett and A. C. Crouter (Eds.), Pathways through adolescence: Individual development in relation to social context (pp. 175-195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
Elliott, M. (1998). School finance and opportunities to learn: Does money well spent enhance students’ achievement?Sociology of Education, 71, 223-245.
12.
Epstein, J. L. (1996). Perspectives and previews on research and policy for school, family, and community partnerships. In A. Booth & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Family-school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 209-246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
Epstein, J. L., Coates, L., Salinas, K. C., Sanders, M. G., & Simon, B. S. (1997). School, family, community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
14.
Epstein, J. L., & Lee, S. (1995). National patterns of school and family connections in the middle grades. In B. A. Ryan, G. R. Adams, T. P. Gullotta, R. P. Weissberg, & R. L. Hampton (Eds.), The family-school connection: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 108-154). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
Furstenburg, F. F., Jr., & Hughes, M. E. (1997). The influences of neighborhoods on children’s development: A theoretical perspective and a research agenda. In J. Brooks-Gunn, G. J. Duncan, & J. L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood poverty, volume II: Policy implications in studying neighborhoods (pp. 23-47). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
16.
Gephart, M. A. (1997). Neighborhoods and communities as contexts of development. In J. Brooks-Gunn, G. J. Duncan, & J. L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood poverty, volume I: Contexts and consequences for children (pp.1-43). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
17.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
18.
Granovetter, M. S. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201-233.
19.
Greenstone, J. David (1991). Culture, rationality, and the underclass. In C. Jencks & P. E. Peterson (Eds.), The urban underclass (pp. 399-408). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
20.
Hermalin, A. I., & Farley, R. (1973). The potential for residential integration in cities and suburbs: Implications for the busing controversy. American Sociological Review, 38, 595-610.
21.
Jarrett, R. L. (1997). Bringing families back in: Neighborhood effects on child development. In J. Brooks-Gunn, G. J. Duncan, & J. L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood poverty, volume II: Policy implications in studying neighborhoods (pp. 48-64). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
22.
Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (Eds). (1998). The Black-White test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
23.
Johnson, V. C. (2002). Black power in the suburbs: The myth or reality of African American suburban political incorporation. Albany: State University of New York Press.
24.
Leventhal, T., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Kammerman, S. B. (1997). Communities as place, face, and space: Provision of services to poor, urban children and their families. In J. Brooks-Gunn, G. J. Duncan, & J. L. Aber (Eds.), Neighborhood poverty, volume II: Policy implications in studying neighborhoods (pp.182-205). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
25.
Lieberson, S. (1969). Measuring population diversity. American Sociological Review, 34(4), 850-862.
26.
Louis, K. S. (1998). “A light feeling of chaos”: Educational reform and policy in the United States. Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 127(4), 13-40.
27.
National Research Council. (Ed.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
28.
No Child Left Behind Act. (2001). Retrieved November 1, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg65.html
29.
Orfield, G., & Eaton, S. E. (1996). Dismantling desegregation: The quiet reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: The New Press.
30.
Payne, M. R., Sinha, V., & Cook, T. D. (April,2002). The joint effects of school and neighborhood influences on early adolescent development: A two-site replication. Paper presented at the biennial meetings of the Society for Research on Adolescence, New Orleans, Louisiana.
31.
Phelan, P., Davidson, A. L., & Yu, H. C. (1998). Adolescent worlds: Negotiating family, peers, and school. New York: Teachers College Press.
32.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1-24.
33.
Pride, R. A., & May, H. V., Jr. (1999). Neighborhood schools again?Urban Education, 34(3), 389-410.
34.
Report of National Research Council. (2001). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
35.
Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., Earls, F. (1999). Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review, 64, 633-660.
36.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918-924.
37.
Small, M. L., & Newman, K. (2001). Urban poverty after The Truly Disadvantaged: The rediscovery of the family, neighborhood, and culture. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 23-45.
38.
Smrekar, C. (1996). The impact of school choice and community: In the interest of families and schools. New York: State University of New York Press.
39.
Thornton, A., & Chunn, E. W. (1988). Desegregating with magnet and one-race elementary and secondary schools. Urban League Review, 2, 146-157.
40.
United States of America v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago (1980), No 80 C 5124 (N.D.Ill).
41.
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
