James S. Coleman , et al, Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1966.
2.
As examples, the report states that when socioeconomic "factors are statistically controlled... it appears that differences between schools account for only a small fraction of differences in pupil achievement;" "... one implication stands out above all: That schools bring little influence to bear on a child's achievement that is independent of his background and general social context; and that this very lack of an independent effect means that the inequalities imposed on children by their home, neighborhood, and peer environment are carried along to become the inequalities with which they confront adult life at the end of school." Ibid., pp. 21-22, p. 325.
3.
Occupational Ratings Based on W. L. Warner's Rating Scale of Occupations, unpublished paper prepared for the Committee on Human Development of the University of Chicago (n.d.).
4.
It is true, however, that the equal opportunity study showed that, with regard to student achievement, Negro students are more "sensitive" to school environment than are white pupils, even when such family background variables as parents' education and structural integrity of the home are controlled. If a smilar conclusion were shown to hold true for student perceptions of the impact of their school, then the greater apparent impact of School A could be attributed to the racial composition of its student body, and Schools A, B, and C could be equally "good" schools. Such an interpretation, on the other hand, would not explain why School A appeared to be exercising more impact (as measured by student perceptions) than School B on pupils of working class but not middle class origin.
