High school socioeconomic composition and college choice: multilevel mediation via organizational habitus, school practices, peer and staff attitudes

References

• Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, K. L., & Eckland, B. K. (1977). High school context and college selectivity: Institutional constraints in educational stratification. Social Forces, 56, 166–188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballou, D., Sanders, W., & Wright, P. (2004). Controlling for student background in value-added assessment of teachers. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 37–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11, 142–163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borman, G. D., & Dowling, M. (2010). Schools and inequality: A multilevel analysis of Coleman’s Equality of Opportunity data. Teachers College Record, 112, 1201–1246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73, 125–230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borman, G. D., & Rachuba, L. T. (2001). Academic success among poor and minority students: An analysis of competing models of school effects. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED451281
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. (1977). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In J. Karabel & A. H. Halsey (Eds.), Power and ideology in education (pp. 487–511). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., & McPherson, M. S. (2009). Crossing the finish line: Completing college at America’s public universities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chinn, S. (2000). A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 19, 3127–3131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choy, S. (2002). Access & persistence: Findings from 10 years of longitudinal research on students. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
   Google Scholar
• Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equal schools or equal students? The Public Interest, 4, 70–75.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, J. S., Campbell, C., Hobson, J., McPartland, F., Mood, F., Weinfeld, & York, R. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• College Board. (2004). Education pays 2004: The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. Washington, DC: College Board.
   Google Scholar
• Dreeben, R., & Barr, R. (1988). Classroom composition and the design of instruction. Sociology of Education, 61, 129–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engberg, M. E., & Wolniak, G. C. (2010). Examining the effects of high school contexts on postsecondary enrollment. Research in Higher Education, 51, 132–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1999). Tennessee’s class size study: Findings, implications, misconceptions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 97–109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2006). Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation models. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), A second course in structural equation modeling (pp. 269–314). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
   Google Scholar
• Freedman, L. S., & Schatzkin, A. (1992). Sample size for studying intermediate endpoints within intervention trials of observational studies. American Journal of Epidemiology, 136, 1148–1159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grodsky, E., & Riegle-Crumb, C. (2010). Those who choose and those who don’t: Social background and college orientation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 627, 14–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallinan, M. T., & Williams, R. A. (1990). Students’ characteristics and the peer-influence process. Sociology of Education, 63, 122–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harker, R., & Tymms, P. (2004). The effects of student composition on school outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 177–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, L. D. (2008). School strategies and the “College-Linking” process: Reconsidering the effects of high schools on college enrollment. Sociology of Education, 81, 53–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jencks, C., & Mayer, S. E. (1990). The social consequences of growing up in a poor neighborhood. In L. Lynn, Jr. & M. G. H. McGeary (Eds.), Inner-city poverty in the United States (pp. 111–186). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5, 602–619.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahlenberg, R. D. (2001). Learning from James Coleman. The Public Interest, 144, 54–72.
   Google Scholar
• Krull, J. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2001). Multilevel modeling of individual and group level mediated effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 249–277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1999). Social support and achievement for young adolescents in Chicago: The role of school academic press. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 907–945.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lippman, L., Burns, S., & McArthur, E. (1996). Urban schools: The challenge of location and poverty. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
   Google Scholar
• Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Mantil, A., Perkins, A. G., & Aberger, S. (2012). The challenge of high-poverty schools: How feasible is socioeconomic integration? In R. D. Kahlenberg (Ed.), The future of school integration: Socioeconomic diversity as an education reform strategy (pp. 155–222). Washington, DC: The Century Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Marsh, H. W. (1991). Failure of high-ability high schools to deliver academic benefits commensurate with their students’ ability levels. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 445–480.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mickelson, R. A., & Bottia, M. (2010). Integrated education and mathematics outcomes: A synthesis of social science research. North Carolina Law Review, 88, 993–1090.
   Google Scholar
• Mosteller, F. (1995). The Tennessee study of class size in the early grades. The Future of Children, 5, 113–127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., Stoll, L., & Russ, J. (2004). Improving schools in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas: A review of research evidence. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 149–175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University.
   Google Scholar
• Opdenakker, C. M., & Van Damme, J. (2006). Differences between secondary schools: A study about school context, group composition, school practice, and school effects with special attention to public and Catholic schools and types of schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17, 87–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palardy, G. J. (2008). Differential school effects among low, middle, and high social class composition schools: A multilevel, multiple group latent growth curve analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19, 21–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palardy, G. J. (2013). High school socioeconomic segregation and student attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 714–754.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paulsen, M. B., & St. John, E. P. (2002). Social class and college costs: Examining the financial nexus between college choice and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 73, 189–236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearl, J. (2005). Direct and indirect effects. In Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Joint Statistical Meetings (pp. 1572–1581). Minneapolis, MN: MIRA Digital Publishing. Retrieved from http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/r273-jsm05.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Perna, L. W. (2004). The key to college access: A college preparatory curriculum. In W. G. Tierney, Z. B. Corwin, & J. E. Colyar (Eds.), Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective outreach (pp. 113–134). Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Perna, L. W., & Titus, M. A. (2005). The relationship between parental involvement as social capital and college enrollment: An examination of racial/ethnic group differences. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 486–518.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 6, 77–98.
   Google Scholar
• Pustjens, H., Van de gaer, E., Van Damme, J., & Onghena, P. (2004). Effect of secondary schools on academic choices and on success in higher education. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 281–311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Reay, D. (1998). “Always knowing” and “never being sure”: Familial and institutional habituses and higher education choice. Journal of Education Policy, 13, 519–529.
   Google Scholar
• Rothwell, J. (2012). Housing costs, zoning, and access to high-scoring schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Metropolitan Policy Program.
   Google Scholar
• Rumberger, R. W., & Palardy, G. J. (2005). Does segregation still matter? The impact of social composition on academic achievement in high school. Teachers College Record, 107, 1999–2045.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://quantpsy.org/
   Google Scholar
• Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Strand, S. (2010). Do some schools narrow the gap? Differential school effectiveness by ethnicity, gender, poverty and prior attainment. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21, 289–314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thrupp, M. (1999). Schools making a difference: Let’s be realistic! Buckingham: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Ewijk, R., & Sleegers, P. (2010). The effect of peer socioeconomic status on student achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 5, 134–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells, A. S., & Crain, R. L. (1994). Perpetuation theory and the long-term effects of school desegregation. Review of Educational Research, 64, 531–555.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar