A long line of research has empirically examined the effects of social context on child and adolescent well-being. Scholars have paid particular attention to two specific levels of social context: the school and neighborhood. Although youths occupy these social contexts simultaneously, empirical research on schools and neighborhoods has largely been conducted independently of one another.
Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study
This study reviews neighborhood and school effects studies conducted between 2005 and 2013 to determine the degree to which these research domains have exclusively examined a single context. The study then uses nationally representative data to compare estimates of school and neighborhood effects across a variety of youth outcomes. The comparison reveals how much estimates of school and neighborhood effects change after accounting for both levels of context.
Research Design
Cross-classified random effects models are used to estimate the effects of school and neighborhood disadvantage on a variety of youth outcomes. For each youth outcome, I compare the effects of concentrated disadvantage and the percent of variation explained at the school and neighborhood levels across two models: a single context effects model that includes only the school or neighborhood and a model including characteristics of both contexts.
Findings/Results
Of the 238 school and neighborhood effects studies examined in the review, only 46, or 21%, account for both neighborhoods and schools in the analysis. The multivariate regression results indicate that excluding a level of context has greater consequences on the estimates of neighborhood effects than on school effects. However, ignoring the neighborhood obscures its independent effects on key adolescent outcomes.
Conclusions/Recommendations
An empirical analysis of context effects on youth well-being should account for both neighborhoods and schools in order to minimize bias in parameter estimates. Furthermore, simultaneously analyzing schools and neighborhoods will move the study of school and neighborhood effects forward by illuminating policies and strategies in which neighborhoods and schools can work together to increase the overall well-being of children and adolescents.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AinsworthJ. W. (2002). Why does it take a village? The mediation of neighborhood effects on educational achievement. Social Forces, 81(1), 117–152.
2.
ArumR. (2000). Schools and communities: Ecological and institutional dimensions. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 395–418.
3.
BayohI., IrwinE., & HaabT. (2006). Determinants of residential location choice: How important are local public goods in attracting homeowners to Central City locations?Journal of Regional Science, 46(1), 97–120.
4.
BoardmanJ. D., & Saint OngeJ. M. (2005). Neighborhoods and adolescent development. Children, youth and environments, 15(1), 138–164.
5.
BormanG., & DowlingM. N. (2010). Schools and inequality: A multilevel analysis of Coleman's equality of educational opportunity data. Teachers College Record, 112, 1201–1246.
6.
BowenG. L., & RichmanJ.M. (2002). Schools in the context of communities. Children and Schools, 24(2), 65–72.
7.
BriggsX., FerrymanK. S., PopkinS. J., & RendónM. (2008). Why did the moving to opportunity experiment not get young people into better schools?. Housing Policy Debate, 19(1), 53–91.
8.
BronfenbrennerU. (1979). Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects. American Psychologist, 34(10), 844–850.
9.
BronfenbrennerU. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In HusenT. & PostlethwaiteT. N. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1643–1647). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
10.
BronfenbrennerU. (2005). Making human Beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
11.
BrunnerE., & SonstelieJ. (2003). Homeowners, property values, and the political economy of the school voucher. Journal of Urban Economics, 54(2), 239–257.
12.
ClarkW. A. (2008). Reexamining the moving to opportunity study and its contribution to changing the distribution of poverty and ethnic concentration. Demography, 45(3), 515–535.
13.
Cohen-VogelL., GoldringE., & SmrekarC. (2010). The influence of local conditions on social service partnerships, parent involvement, and community engagement in neighborhood schools. American Journal of Education, 117(1), 51–78.
14.
ColemanJ. S., CampbellE. Q., HobsonC. J., McPartlandF., MoodA. M., WeinfeldF. D. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
15.
CondronD. J. (2009). Social class, school and non-school environments, and Black/White inequalities in children's learning. American Sociological Review, 74(5): 685–708.
16.
CookT. D., HermanM. R., PhillipsM., & SetterstenR.A.Jr. (2002). Some ways in which neighborhoods, nuclear families, friendship groups, and schools jointly affect changes in early adolescent development. Child Development, 73(4), 1283–1309.
17.
DietzR. D. (2002). The estimation of neighborhood effects in the social sciences: An interdisciplinary approach. Social Science Research, 31(4), 539–575.
18.
DreebenR. (1994). The sociology of education: Its development in the United States. In Research in the Sociology of Education and Socialization (Vol. 10, pp. 7–52). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
19.
DuncanG. J., DowsettC. J., ClaessensA., MagnusonK. A., HustonA. C., KlebanovP., … & Brooks-GunnJ. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428–1446.
20.
DupereV., LeventhalT., CrosnoeR., & DionE. (2010). Understanding the positive role of neighborhood socioeconomic advantage in achievement: The contribution of the home, child care, and school environments. Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 1227–1244.
21.
FletcherA., BonellC., & HargreavesJ. (2008). School effects on young people's drug use: a systematic review of intervention and observational studies. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42(3), 209–220.
22.
GalsterG. C., & SantiagoA. M. (2006). What's the 'hood got to do with it? Parental perceptions about how neighborhood mechanisms affect their children. Journal of Urban Affairs, 28(3), 201–226.
HarrisK. M., FloreyF., TaborJ., BearmanP. S., JonesJ., & UdryJ. R. (2003). The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health: Research design. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Carolina Population Center.
25.
HustonA. C., & RipkeM. N. (2006). Developmental contexts in middle childhood: Bridges to adolescence and adulthood. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
26.
JencksC., & MayerS. E. (1990) The social consequences of growing up in a poor neighborhood. In LynnL. E.Jr. & McGearyM. G. H. (Eds.), Inner city poverty in the United States.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
27.
JohnsonO. (2008). Who benefits from concentrated affluence?: A synthesis of neighborhood effects considering race, gender and education outcomes. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, 14(2), 85–112.
28.
JohnsonO. (2010). Assessing neighborhood racial segregation and macroeconomic effects in the education of African Americans. Review of Educational Research, 80(4), 527–575.
29.
JohnsonO. (2012). A systematic review of neighborhood and institutional relationships related to education. Education and Urban Society, 44(4), 471–511.
30.
KirkD. S. (2009). Unraveling the contextual effects on student suspension and juvenile arrest: The independent and interdependent influences of school, neighborhood, and family social controls. Criminology, 47(2), 479–520.
31.
KuncelN. R., CredeM., & ThomasL. L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade point averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 63–82.
32.
LeeV. E., & BurkhamD. T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin school. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
33.
LeventhalT., & Brooks-GunnJ. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: the effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 309–337.
34.
MasseyD. S., & DentonN. A. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35.
MoerbeekM. (2004). The consequence of ignoring a level of nesting in multilevel analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 129–149.
36.
OgbuJ. U. (1974). The next generation: An ethnography of education in an urban neighborhood. New York, NY: Academic Press.
37.
OgbuJ.U. (1978). Minority education and caste: The American system in cross-cultural perspective. New York, NY: Academic Press.
38.
OwensA. (2010). Neighborhoods and schools as competing and reinforcing contexts for educational attainment. Sociology of Education, 83(4), 287–311.
39.
ParkR. E., & BurgessE. W. (1921). Introduction to the science of sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
40.
RadloffL. S. (1977). The CES-D scale a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401.
41.
RaudenbushS. W. (1993). A crossed random effects model for unbalanced data with applications in cross-sectional and longitudinal research. Journal of Educational Statistics, 18, 321–349.
42.
ReissA. J. (1995). Community influences on adolescent behavior. In RutterM. (Ed.), Psychosocial disturbances in young people: Challenges for prevention. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
RendonM. G. (2013). Drop out and “disconnected” young adults: Examining the impact of neighborhood and school contexts. The Urban Review, 1–28.
44.
RumbergerR. W. & PalardyG. J. (2005). Test scores, dropout rates, and transfer rates as alternative indicators of high school performance. American Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 3–42.
45.
SampsonR. J. (2001). How do communities undergird or undermine human development? Relevant contexts and social mechanisms. Does it take a village? Community effects on children, adolescents, and families, 3–30.
46.
SampsonR. J. (2008). Moving to inequality: neighborhood effects and experiments meet social structure1. American Journal of Sociology, 114(1), 189–231.
47.
SampsonR. J., MorenoffJ. D., & Gannon-RowleyT. (2002). Assessing “neighborhood effects”: Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 443–478.
48.
SaporitoS., & SohoniD. (2007). Mapping educational inequality: Concentrations of poverty among poor and minority students in public schools. Social Forces, 85(3), 1227–1253.
49.
SkinnerC. J., HoltD., & SmithT. F. (1989). Analysis of complex surveys. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
50.
SykesB., & MusterdS. (2011). Examining neighbourhood and school effects simultaneously what does the Dutch evidence show?Urban Studies, 48(7), 1307–1331.
51.
TeitlerJ. O., & WeissC. C. (2000). Effects of neighborhood and school environments on transitions to first sexual intercourse. Sociology of Education, 73(2), 112–132.
52.
UdryJ. R.2003. The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), Waves I & II, 1994–1996; Wave III, 2001–2002 [Machine Readable Data File and Documentation]. Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Population Center. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
53.
Van den NoortgateW., OpdenakkerM. C., & OnghenaP. (2005). The effects of ignoring a level in multilevel analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16, 281–303.
54.
WarrenM. R. (2005). Communities and schools: A new view of urban education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 75(2), 133–173.
55.
WhiteH. (1984). Asymptotic theory for econometricians.San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
56.
WilsonW. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
