Does the SES of the School Matter? An Examination of Socioeconomic Status and Student Achievement Using PISA 2003

Abstract

Background/Context

It is well established in the research literature that socioeconomically disadvantaged students and schools do less well on standardized measures of academic achievement compared with their more advantaged peers. Although studies in numerous countries have shown that the socioeconomic profile of a school is strongly correlated with student outcomes, less is understood about how the relationship may vary if both individual student and school socioeconomic status (SES) are disaggregated.

Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study

This study examines the relationship between school SES and student outcomes in more detail by asking two research questions. First, how does the association vary for students of different socioeconomic backgrounds? In other words, is the association stronger for students from lower SES backgrounds than for students from higher SES backgrounds? Second, how does the association vary across schools with different socioeconomic compositions? In other words, are increases in school socioeconomic composition consistently associated with increases in student academic achievement?

Population/Participants/Subjects

This study uses data from the Australian 2003 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The sample includes over 320 secondary schools and more than 12,000 students from Australia.

Research Design

This study is a secondary analysis of data from the Australian 2003 PISA. Descriptive statistics are used to compare the average reading, mathematics, and science achievement of secondary school students from different SES backgrounds in a variety of school SES contexts.

Conclusions

The two main findings of the study are that increases in the mean SES of a school are associated with consistent increases in students’ academic achievement, and that this relationship is similar for all students regardless of their individual SES. In the Australian case, the socio-economic composition of the school matters greatly in terms of students’ academic performance.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Educational Research Association. (2003). Class size: Counting students can count. Research Points, 1(2), 1–4.

Anyon

(1981). Social class and social knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 11, 235–246.

Berliner

(2001). Our schools vs. theirs: Averages that hide the true extremes (No. CERAI-01-02). Milwaukee, WI: Center for Education Research, Analysis, and Innovation.

Blossfeld

H.-P.

, & Shavit

(1993). Persisting barriers: Changes in educational opportunities in thirteen countries. In Shavit

& Blossfeld

H.-P.

(Eds.), Persistent inequality (pp. 1–24). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Caldas

S. J.

, & Bankston

III. (1997). Effect of school population socioeconomic status on individual academic achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 90, 269–277.

Chiu

M. M.

, & Khoo

(2005). Effects of resources, inequality, and privilege bias on achievement: Country, school, and student level analyses. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 575–604.

Cohen

, & Cohen

(1983). Applied multiple regression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Coleman

, Campbell

, Hobson

, McPartland

, Mood

, Weinfeld

, . (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Darling-Hammond

(2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of “No Child Left Behind.” Race Ethnicity and Education, 10, 245–260.

10.

Edwards

(2006, July). Competition, specialisation and stratification: Academic outcomes of the government school system in Melbourne, Australia. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Comparative Education Society in Europe, Granada, Spain.

11.

Gandara

, Rumberger

, Maxwell-Jolley

, & Callahan

(2003). English learners in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11. Retrieved January 8, 2008, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n36/

12.

Hanushek

E. A.

, Kain

J. F.

, Markman

J. M.

, & Rivkin

S. G.

(2001). Does peer ability affect student achievement? Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18, 527–544.

13.

Jencks

, Smith

, Acland

, Bane

M. J.

, Cohen

, Gintis

, . (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books.

14.

Kahlenberg

(2001). All together now: Creating middle-class schools through public school choices. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

15.

Lamb

(2007). School reform and inequality in urban Australia: A case of residualising the poor. In Teese

, Lamb

, & Duru-Belat

(Eds.), Education and inequality (Vol. 3, pp. 1–38). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

16.

Lamb

, & Fullarton

(2002). Classroom and school factors affecting mathematics achievement: A comparative study of Australia and the United States using TIMSS. Australian Journal of Education, 46, 154–173.

17.

Lauder

, & Hughes

(1999). Trading in futures: Why markets in education don't work: Philadelphia: Open University Press.

18.

Lokan

, Greenwood

, & Cresswell

(2001). The PISA 2000 survey of students’ reading, mathematical and scientific literacy skills: How literate are Australia's students? Camberwell, Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

19.

Lubienski

S. T.

, & Lubienski

(2005). A new look at public and private schools: Student background and mathematics achievement. Retrieved January 24, 2008, from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k_v86/k0505lub.htm

20.

Marjoribanks

(1979). Families and their learning environments: An empirical analysis. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

21.

Matear

(2006). Equity in education in Chile: The tensions between policy and practice. International Journal of Educational Development, 27, 101–113.

22.

McGaw

(2007, November–December). Keynote speech. Annual conference of the Australia and New Zealand Comparative and International Education Society, Auckland, New Zealand.

23.

Nash

(2003). Is the school composition effect real? A discussion with evidence from the UK PISA data. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14, 441–457.

24.

Noel

, & de Broucker

(2001). Intergenerational inequities: A comparative analysis of the influence of parents’ educational background on length of schooling and literacy skills. In Hutmacher

, Cochrane

, & Bottani

(Eds.), In pursuit of equity in education: Using international indicators to compare equity policies (pp. 277–298). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

25.

Oakes

(2000). The distribution of knowledge. In Arum

& Beattie

I. R.

(Eds.), The structure of schooling: Readings in the sociology of education (pp. 224–234). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

26.

Opdenakker

M.-C.

, & Van Damme

(2001). Relationship between school composition and characteristics of school process and their effect on mathematics achievement. British Educational Research Journal, 27, 407–432.

27.

Orfield

(1996). Dismantling desegregation: The quiet reversal of brown v. Board of education. New York: New Press.

28.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2004). Learning for tomorrow's world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: Author.

29.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). School factors related to quality and equity: Results from PISA 2000. Paris: Author.

30.

Robertson

, & Symons

(2003). Do peer groups matter? Peer group versus schooling effects on academic attainment. Economica, 70(277), 31–53.

31.

Rumberger

R. W.

, & Palardy

G. J.

(2005). Does segregation still matter? The impact of student composition on academic achievement in high school. Teachers College Record, 107, 1999–2045.

32.

Ryan

, & Watson

(2004). The drift to private schools in Australia: Understanding its features (Discussion Paper No. 479). Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia: Centre for Economic Policy Research, Australian National University.

33.

Sirin

S. R.

(2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417–453.

34.

Sui-Chu

E. H.

, & Willms

J. D.

(1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade achievement. Sociology of Education, 69, 126–141.

35.

Tate

W. F.

(1997). Race-ethnicity, SES, gender, and language proficiency trends in mathematics achievement: An update. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 652–679.

36.

Teese

(1989). Australian private schools, specialization and curriculum conservation. British Journal of Educational Studies, 37, 235–252.

37.

Thrupp

(1995). The school mix effect: The history of an enduring problem in educational research, policy and practice British Journal of Sociology of Education, 16, 183–203.

38.

Thrupp

(1999). Schools making a difference: Let's be realistic. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

39.

Thrupp

, Lauder

, & Robinson

(2002). School composition and peer effects. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 483–504.

40.

Willms

J. D.

(1999). Quality and inequality in children's literacy: The effects on families, schools, and communities. In Keating

D. P.

& Hertzman

(Eds.), Developmental health and the wealth of nations: Social, biological, and educational dynamics (pp. 72–93). New York: Guilford Press.