See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304191346

Academic Performance, Effects of Socio-Economic Status on

Article · December 2015

DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.23054-7

CITATIONS READS
3 19,133

2 authors, including:

Carolyn B Murray
University of California, Riverside
23 PUBLICATIONS   408 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Carolyn B Murray on 18 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Author's personal copy

Provided for non-commercial research and educational use only.

Not for reproduction, distribution or commercial use.

This article was originally published in the International Encyclopedia of the Social
& Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, published by Elsevier, and the attached copy
is provided by Elsevier for the author’s benefit and for the benefit of the
author’s institution, for non-commercial research and educational use including
without limitation use in instruction at your institution, sending it to specific
colleagues who you know, and providing a copy to your institution’s administrator.

All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including

without limitation commercial reprints, selling or
licensing copies or access, or posting on open
internet sites, your personal or institution’s website or
repository, are prohibited. For exceptions, permission
may be sought for such use through Elsevier’s
permissions site at:
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial

From Carlisle, B.L., Murray, C.B., 2015. Academic Performance, Effects of Socio-Economic
Status on. In: James D. Wright (editor-in-chief), International Encyclopedia of the
Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Vol 1. Oxford: Elsevier. pp.
43–48.
ISBN: 9780080970868
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. unless otherwise stated. All rights reserved.
Elsevier
 Author's personal copy

Academic Performance, Effects of Socio-Economic Status on

Brandon L Carlisle and Carolyn B Murray, University of California Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to review the relationship between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. The
complexity of this relationship will be examined by discussing factors such as socioeconomic segregation, school funding,
teacher expectations, and academic climate. The effect that socioeconomic status can have on academic achievement is of
global importance to educators, researchers, and policymakers, as they continue to address disparities in academic
achievement and educational attainment. Efforts to ensure that all students receive an equitable educational experience are
also discussed, with particular emphasis placed on the importance of effective schools.

Introduction Consistent with Chapin’s definition, Mueller and Parcel (1981)

Accounting for differences in academic achievement among
individuals and social groups has received considerable global
attention from educators, researchers, and policymakers.
Efforts to understand and account for these differences have
involved an examination of individual student characteristics
and the characteristics of their school environment (e.g.,
Coleman et al., 1966; Marjoribanks, 2003; Palardy, 2013).
Socioeconomic status (SES) has been identified as one of the
most commonly used contextual variables within research on
academic achievement (Sirin, 2005). Research on SES and
academic achievement has revealed a consistent relationship
(Milne and Plourde, 2006); specifically, it is often the case that
high SES is associated with greater academic achievement.
Furthermore, the educational literature has provided evidence
that SES is one of the strongest predictors of academic
achievement and educational attainment (Reardon, 2011).
White (1982) outlined the most frequent applications of
SES found in the educational literature. First, SES may be used
as a covariate within quasiexperimental studies; in some cases,
SES may not be of interest, although it relates to variables of
primary interest, therefore researchers may choose to statisti-
cally control or adjust significant SES differences within a given
sample. Second, SES can be used to improve the precision of
experimental studies by controlling for it in analyses of
covariance. Third, researchers can assess potential interaction
effects, such as examining the possibility that a particular
teaching method may be effective among high SES students but
not among low SES students. Fourth, SES can be utilized to
provide additional demographic information, which can
facilitate efforts to determine external validity and accurately
generalize empirical findings. Finally, SES can be used as
a predictor variable when testing causal models of academic
achievement and educational attainment.
While most researchers are in agreement regarding the
importance of SES, White (1982) points out that SES has been
defined and subsequently measured in a variety of ways across
an abundance of empirical studies. Common indicators of
socioeconomic status include income, occupation, and
education (Sirin, 2005; White, 1982). Chapin (1928) defined
SES as “the position an individual or family occupies with
reference to the prevailing average of standards” (p. 99).
much later described SES as an individual’s or family’s position
in a societal hierarchy that dictates the degree to which the
individual or family has access to wealth and power. Although
the relationship between SES and academic achievement has
been studied for many decades, the social sciences are
continuing to address complex research questions pertaining to
student level factors, school level factors, and the nature of the
relationship within countries of developing or developed
status. The purpose of this article is to review the relationship
between SES and academic achievement and to discuss the
implications of this relationship on educational attainment.
Country Income
The relationship between SES and academic achievement has
been studied at a cross-national level as equitable education
persists as an international concern. Researchers have progres-
sively shown a strong interest in international comparative
studies (Wiseman and Baker, 2005). For example, Heyneman
and Loxley (1982, 1983) conducted a comparative study of
high-income and low-income countries in order to further
examine the nature of the relationship between SES and
academic achievement. In high-income countries, they found
evidence of a stronger association between individual student
SES and academic achievement and a relatively weaker asso-
ciation between school-level factors (e.g., school and teacher
quality) and academic achievement. However, their analyses
also indicated that within low-income countries, school-level
factors shared a relatively stronger association with academic
achievement than did individual student SES.
In the literature, these contrasting results are often referred
to as the Heyneman–Loxley Effect (HL Effect; Baker et al., 2002).
The nature of the HL effect challenged the perception that
weaker associations exist between school-level factors and
achievement and stronger associations exist between
individual student SES and achievement (Baker et al., 2002).
Heyneman and Loxley (1983) concluded that the quality of
schools and its teachers significantly influence the academic
outcomes of students and within poorer countries, this effect
seems to be more pronounced.
Several studies have been dedicated to replicating the HL
effect but the results have not always been consistent. For

International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.23054-7 43

International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 43–48
 Author's personal copy
44 Academic Performance, Effects of Socio-Economic Status on
example, Riddell (1989) critiqued the HL effect by addressing
an important methodological concern; specifically, analyses
that revealed the effect relied on ordinary least squares regres-
sion, which did not take into account the hierarchical structure
of the data (i.e., students nested within classrooms, classrooms
nested within schools). Years later, Riddell (1997) reviewed
16 studies that implemented multilevel modeling in order to
study academic achievement in developing countries and did
not find evidence of the HL effect. Baker et al. (2002) also did
not find evidence of the HL effect but posited that the effect
may have diminished over time due to the increased efforts of
poorer countries to invest in formal education as an economic
strategy.
Heyneman (2005) argued that any failures to replicate the
HL effect could be attributed to significant differences in
samples of countries across studies. Heyneman also stressed
that the influence of student SES is not consistent across
societies and that it may differ due to grade level of students,
gender composition of students, and how academic achieve-
ment is operationalized. While Baker et al. (2002) did not
find evidence of the HL effect, a more recent cross-national
study by Chiu (2010) found evidence that the association
between individual student SES and achievement was
stronger in richer countries, which is consistent with the HL
effect.
Ethnicity
Ethnicity and SES are closely related; so much so that it can
become difficult to disentangle the two constructs (Jussim
et al., 1996). Regarding the student characteristics of the
studies reviewed by White (1982) and Sirin (2005), it was
found that minority status moderated the relationship between
SES and academic achievement. Specifically, the mean effect
size for Caucasian students was significantly larger than the
mean effect size for minority students. This suggests that
parental education, income, and occupation may be less
related to achievement for minorities than issues such as the
environment, the neighborhood and/or the school SES
(Sirin, 2005).
When examining the relationship between SES and
academic achievement, it is often the case that researchers need
to consider the minority status or ethnicity of the student. The
educational environment in which students find themselves
can be extremely influential in their development. Unfortu-
nately, there is disparate access to affluent educational envi-
ronments; previous research has indicated that low-income,
minority students are often subject to ineffective teachers, low
teacher expectations, inadequate teaching aides, and defiant
peers (Conchas, 2001). In the US, African Americans and
Latinos are more likely to be members of low-SES families
and attend low-SES schools (Williams and Collins, 2001); it
is also the case that African Americans and Latinos tend to be
underrepresented in higher education (Oakes et al., 2004). In
Taiwan, Aborigines are a minority ethnic group that holds
a disadvantaged socioeconomic position; they also tend to
have lower academic achievements in comparison to
Taiwanese students (Sung et al., 2013). Findings such as
these illustrate the ecological validity of the relationship
between SES, academic achievement, and ethnicity.
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 43–48
The ethnicity of students is an important contextual variable
that can provide meaningful information about students; such
information is relevant to research and application. Ideally,
future research and metaanalytical studies will be able to code
for multiple ethnic groups rather than only code for minority
status. For example, it would be useful to determine if a specific
ethnicity is associated with significantly different outcomes in
comparison to other ethnic groups within a given country.
Immigrant Status
Similar to ethnicity, SES is an important factor when
accounting for differences in academic achievement between
native and immigrant students. Schnepf (2004) found a posi-
tive correlation between SES gaps between natives and immi-
grants and achievement gaps in reading scores. Relatedly,
Buhlmahn (2003, as cited in Sung et al., 2013) found that
students of immigrant status had lower academic achievements
than native German students. Similarly, in a comparison of
native students and low-SES, second-generation students,
Alba et al. (2011) presented data that depicts achievement
gaps in reading and mathematics within European countries
and the US.
Understanding the influence of immigrant status and its
relation to SES is a complex matter. The selection of an
appropriate measure of SES requires careful consideration. For
example, Schnepf (2004) argues that the SES indicator of
parental education is problematic when comparing native and
immigrant students because the quality of parental education
may not be equal across countries. Furthermore, Schnepf also
points out that it is important to consider an immigrant’s
country of origin, migration motives, and integration into the
receiving country. Each of these factors may provide important
contextual information when understanding the interrelation-
ships between SES, academic achievement, and immigrant
status.
Teachers
The quality and effectiveness of teachers can be very influential
on student performance. The importance of teachers cannot be
overlooked as they can directly influence student achievement.
Teacher effectiveness and quality relate to SES because students
of low-SES, low achievement, and minority status are less likely
to be exposed to highly qualified, effective teachers (Lankford
et al., 2002). This is due, in part, to the tendency for more
qualified teachers to eventually seek employment in schools
that have high-achieving students, greater resources, and
strong administrative support (Hanushek et al., 2004;
Rumberger and Palardy, 2005).
Research investigating the effects of teacher quality on
academic performance has demonstrated that having access to
highly qualified teachers can have a significant impact on
student achievement. For example, in a cross-national study of
teacher quality and mathematics achievement, Akiba et al.
(2007) found that countries containing a higher percentage
of students taught by highly qualified mathematics teachers
(i.e., having earned a degree in mathematics, teacher
certification, and at least 3 years experience) achieved
a significantly higher national average mathematics score.
 Author's personal copy
Academic Performance, Effects of Socio-Economic Status on
They also examined opportunity gaps in access to qualified
teachers. Opportunity gaps were calculated by determining
the percentage of high-SES students that have access to
qualified teachers, determining the percentage of low-SES
students that have access to qualified teachers, then
calculating the difference between these two values. The
largest opportunity gaps between high-SES and low-SES
students were found in the countries of Syria, Chile, Taiwan,
the US, and Hong Kong. Any opportunity gaps in access to
qualified teachers can create a learning opportunity gap;
this is an added disadvantage for low-SES students who
may already experience a significant resource gap (Akiba
et al., 2007).
An additional factor relevant to the issue of teachers is the
influence of their expectations on student performance.
Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) demonstrated that teacher
expectations could have a definite influence on the academic
performance of students; specifically, if teachers have high
expectations of their students, this can translate into stronger
student performance. To further explore this outcome, Harris
and Rosenthal (1985) conducted metaanalyses on the effects
of teachers’ expectations on the intellectual functioning of their
students and discovered not only that these interpersonal
expectancy effects occur but that their magnitudes are of
substantial practical importance as well.
These metaanalyses supported the importance of behaviors
that teachers may exhibit (e.g., praise, encouragement, long
interactions, smiles) that mediate expectancy effects. In addi-
tion, these analyses provided support for a theoretical frame-
work involving the mediation of interpersonal expectancy
effects. Specifically, teachers who hold positive expectations for
a student will tend to display a warmer affect, express more
positive feedback, provide more input with regards to the
quantity and difficulty of material that is taught, and increase
the amount of student participation by offering more response
opportunities (Harris and Rosenthal, 1985).
This research is pertinent to the discussion of SES because
previous research has indicated that teachers hold higher
expectations and more positive attitudes for high-SES students,
in comparison to their low-SES counterparts (e.g., Auwarter
and Aruguete, 2008). Furthermore, in relation to SES, Jussim
et al. (1996) found that students of low-SES backgrounds
were more susceptible to expectancy effects. They posited that
low-SES students may have “reduced social and psychological
resources for combating erroneous teacher expectations”
(p. 371).
Academic Climate
The academic climate a student experiences can also have an
impact on the relationship between SES and academic
achievement. Evaluating academic climate may consist of
determining the types of messages students receive from their
peers, teachers, and administrators with regard to academic
achievement and educational attainment. It can also involve an
assessment of school safety, the average number of hours spent
completing homework per week, and the average number of
college prep courses taken (Rumberger and Palardy, 2005).
Additionally, a more comprehensive approach to under-
standing academic climate has considered factors both in and
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 43–48
45
out of school (e.g., home atmosphere, neighborhood unem-
ployment rate).
Lee et al. (1999) studied how academic achievement is
related to student social support and school academic press.
They defined student social support as the personal relation-
ships between a student and individuals (e.g., peers, parents,
and teachers) who are able to provide them with encourage-
ment and assistance in and out of school. Academic press was
defined as the extent to which school members (e.g., students,
teachers, and administrators) emphasize academic success and
satisfying standards of achievement. Their analyses revealed
that social support and academic press were positively corre-
lated with academic achievement in the subject areas of
mathematics and reading. Furthermore, the constructs of
academic press and social support were related to SES; specif-
ically, they found that students who attended low-SES schools
were least likely to experience the ideal combination of high
social support and high academic press.
Socioeconomic Segregation
Throughout the world, there are students belonging to affluent
families that receive a distinguished education and students
belonging to low-income families that receive a substandard
education. These disparate educational experiences contribute
to the academic achievement gap that has been a source
of concern for decades. The existence of socioeconomic
segregation should be of concern because of its relationship
to individual student performance (e.g., Bankston and
Caldas, 1996; Rumberger and Palardy, 2005). In their
analysis of cohort data, Duncan et al. (2013) found that the
familial income gap between low-SES children and high-SES
children accounted for significant amounts of the academic
achievement gap. According to Duncan and Murnane’s
(2011) conceptual model, high-SES children are more likely
to have greater access to high quality child care, schools, and
settings that enhance the development of important skills
related to education while low-SES children may have
parents who cannot afford such resources.
In reaction to the unequal educational experiences associated
with socioeconomic segregation, socioeconomic integration
(e.g., low-status immigrants attending more affluent schools,
low-SES students attending high-SES schools) has been
discussed as a potential means to reduce the achievement gap
and improve equity in education (e.g., Alba et al., 2011; Ryan
and Heise, 2002). Rumberger and Palardy (2005) conducted
a study to further investigate the effect of socioeconomic
segregation on academic performance. Their analyses were
conducted on hierarchical data that included students nested
within schools as they were followed from Grades 8 through
12. They found that the average SES of a student’s school had
a near equal influence on achievement as individual student
SES. Additionally, school SES had a similar influence on low-
SES students and high-SES students.
Further analysis revealed that the effect of school SES on
academic outcomes was no longer significant after controlling
for school policies and practices (e.g., teacher expectations,
academic climate). Based on these results, Rumberger and
Palardy concluded that socioeconomic integration may not be
 Author's personal copy
46 Academic Performance, Effects of Socio-Economic Status on
necessary, provided school policies and practices can be
reformed. It may be the case that improving low-SES schools
in this fashion would be more effective and realistic, in
comparison to mandated socioeconomic integration.
Disparate Funding
The inequity created by socioeconomic segregation is related to
the amount of funding a school district receives as well as the
amount of funding a school receives from their respective
district. Governing bodies are faced with the responsibility of
ensuring that schools receive sufficient funding so they can
provide equitable, effective education to all of its students
(Augenblick et al., 1997). This objective can become more
challenging for low-income countries; the amount of funding
schools receive can depend on the wealth of a nation and
how they disperse public expenditures on schooling
(Colclough and Al-Samarrai, 2000).
In their review of school funding equity, Augenblick et al.
(1997) demonstrate that SES is associated with school fund-
ing by providing evidence that school districts with wealthier
residents tend to receive significantly higher per-pupil funding.
It is also the case that disparities in funding can exist within
a school district. Condron and Roscigno (2003) conducted
a study that included urban elementary schools of diverse
racial and SES composition. They found that within districts,
instructional per-pupil expenditure and percentage of
students eligible for free or price-reduced lunch were
negatively correlated. Further, they found that operations and
maintenance per-pupil expenditure were also negatively
correlated with the percentage of students eligible for the free
or price-reduced lunch program. This provides evidence that
it may be insufficient to only address disparate school
funding between districts; disparate school funding within
districts is also worthy of close attention and resolution.
Augenblick et al. (1997) provided recommendations as to
how districts should proceed in funding its schools. These
recommendations include: districts establishing a base level of
per-pupil funding that is consistent with expectations of
academic achievement; governing bodies distributing funding
to districts and then districts distributing funding to schools,
which should be based on relative needs such as students
enrolled in high-cost programs, prevalence of students at risk
of failure, and the size of the school; and governing
bodies providing equal support for the construction and
maintenance of school facilities.
For example, within the United States, a potential solution
could involve states being encouraged to ensure more equi-
table funding through incentives provided by the federal
government; the establishment of a more significant federal
role in financing education is a matter of collective and
political will (U.S. Department of Education, 2013). Among
other recommendations, the U.S. Department of Education’s
Equity and Excellence Commission calls for new federal
funding that should be allocated to schools with high
concentrations of low-SES students and the expansion of the
government’s authority to ensure the equity of school
financing. Additional funding to schools with high
concentrations of low-SES students could facilitate efforts to
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 43–48
accrue new educational resources and, if necessary, reform
the policies and practices of these schools.
Intervention
Closing the achievement gaps has become an important issue
for many countries (Sung et al., 2013). Reform efforts have
been discussed and implemented throughout the world; these
efforts aim to improve the education practices believed to
influence learning for low-performing students, and thus
decrease the achievement gap (Feuer et al., 2002; Hargreaves,
2000; Pressley et al., 2004). One such program, developed by
the United States is the ‘no child left behind’ (NCLB) Act, which
was implemented in order to aid disadvantaged children. This
program expanded the federal role in public education by
rewarding schools that set high standards and established
measurable goals to improve individual outcomes in educa-
tion. While the U.S. Department of Education reported that
student achievement had improved in reading and math, critics
of the program argued that these statistics were misleading.
One criticism was that creators of the standardized tests were
accused of making the assessments less challenging so that it
was easier for schools to significantly improve.
While there is debate surrounding the effectiveness of
intervention programs, some interventions seem to have
narrowed the achievement gap between high and low socio-
economic groups. For instance, the Finnish government has
significantly invested in its country’s education and the
implementation of educational policies that include
comprehensive schooling with no tuition or book fees for its
students (Lavonen and Laaksonen, 2009). According to the
findings of the Program for International Student Assessment
(PISA), the achievement gap in Finland has significantly
reduced over time.
Still other interventions have not had a significant impact
on academic outcomes and disparities in performance. For
example, the French government implemented the Zone of
Education Priority program; this intervention established new
teaching projects and distributed more resources to schools in
low-SES areas (Sung et al., 2013). In their evaluation of the
effectiveness of this program, Bénabou et al. (2009) found
evidence to suggest that the program did not have
a significant impact on student success, which was measured
by several measures (e.g., obtaining a diploma, performance
on national examinations). In the United Kingdom, the
Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant was developed to reduce
the achievement gap between immigrant, minority students,
and native English students. An evaluation of its effectiveness
revealed that the intervention contributed to a partial
reduction in the achievement gap but significant differences
between ethnic minority achievement and national average
achievement remained (Tikly et al., 2005). In South Korea,
the government implemented an education welfare action
zone policy that was designed to provide educational
resources to low-income areas; this intervention was able to
increase positive educational activities among participating
schools (i.e., increased student usage of school libraries)
however their results did not reveal significant changes in
academic outcomes among low-SES students (Lee, 2008).
 Author's personal copy
Academic Performance, Effects of Socio-Economic Status on
For many intervention programs, the jury is still out. While
SES may complicate the ability to establish a standard of
education that prepares all students for success, the charac-
teristics of a successful school can be achieved if teachers and
administrators are willing to exert the necessary effort. See
Edmonds (1979) and other researchers (e.g., Purkey and
Smith, 1983) for a discussion. Although these researchers
acknowledge that family SES does indeed make a difference,
they were able to identify schools where the student pop-
ulations were comprised of low SES students who were
achieving well academically. Edmonds identified the
following seven characteristics that these schools had in
common: (1) strong administrative leadership, (2) clear
school mission, (3) high expectations for student success, (4)
frequent monitoring of school performance, (5) focus on basic
skills, (6) safe and orderly environment, and (7) a focus on
home–school relations. These characteristics can serve as clear
tenets for an educational system that needs to remedy
disparities in academic experiences and outcomes.
Furthermore, if schools and faculty members are committed,
it is possible that these characteristics can be met without
significant changes to school funding. In the words of one
highly successful educator:
Effective schools do not attempt to eliminate the achievement gap
that separates low-SES children from high-SES children: they raise
the floor below which nobody falls.
Ronald Edmonds (1986: p. 101)
To date, globally the achievement gap between high- and
low-SES students still persists. This should not come as
a surprise since none of the countries attempting to reduce the
SES achievement gap have implemented all seven characteris-
tics of ‘effective schools.’
See also: Academic Achievement Motivation, Development of;
Behavioral Problems, Effects of Socio-Economic Status On;
Gender and Academic Motivation; Inequality, Social; Language
Development: Influence of Socio-Economic Status; Race and
Academic Motivation; Socioeconomic Status and
Social-Emotional Development of Children from Birth to
36 Months of Age: A Systematic Narrative Review.
Bibliography
Akiba, M., LeTendre, G.K., Scribner, J.P., 2007. Teacher quality, opportunity gap,
and national achievement in 46 countries. Educational Researcher 36,
369–387.
Alba, R., Sloan, J., Sperling, J., 2011. The integration imperative: the children of low-
status immigrants in the schools of wealthy societies. Annual Review of Sociology
37, 395–415.
Augenblick, J.G., Myers, J.L., Anderson, A.B., 1997. Equity and adequacy in school
funding. The Future of Children 7, 63–78.
Auwarter, A.E., Aruguete, M.S., 2008. Effects of student gender and socioeconomic
status on teacher perceptions. The Journal of Educational Research 101,
243–246.
Baker, D.P., Goesling, B., LeTendre, G.K., 2002. Socioeconomic status, school quality,
and national economic development: a cross-national analysis of the “Heyneman-
Loxley Effect” on mathematics and science achievement. Comparative Education
Review 46, 291–312.
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 43–48
47
Bankston, C., Caldas, S.J., 1996. Majority African American schools and social
injustice: the influence of de facto segregation on academic achievement. Social
Forces 75, 535–555.
Bénabou, R., Krammarz, F., Prost, C., 2009. The French zone d’education prioritaire:
much ado about nothing? Economics of Education Review 28, 345–356.
Chapin, F.S., 1928. A quantitative scale for rating the home and social environment of
middle class families in an urban community: a first approximation to the
measurement of socio-economic status. Journal of Educational Psychology 19,
99–111.
Chiu, M.M., 2010. Effects of inequality, family, and school on mathematics
achievement: country and student differences. Social Forces 88, 1645–1676.
Colclough, C., Al-Samarrai, S., 2000. Achieving schooling for all: budgetary expen-
diture on education in Sub-Saharan African and South Asia. World Development
28, 1927–1944.
Coleman, J.S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Mood, A.M.,
Weinfield, F.D., et al., 1966. Equality of Educational Opportunity. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Conchas, G.Q., 2001. Structuring failure and success: understanding the variability in
Latino school engagement. Harvard Educational Review 71, 475–504.
Condron, D.J., Roscigno, V.J., 2003. Disparities within: unequal spending
and achievement in an urban school district. Sociology of Education 76, 18–36.
Duncan, G.J., Kalil, A., Ziol-Guest, K.M., 2013. Increasing inequality in parent
incomes and children’s completed schooling: correlation or causation?
Unpublished manuscript presented at the California Population Research
Seminar Series. Retrieved from: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/inequality/
Seminar/Papers/Duncan13.pdf.
Duncan, G., Murnane, R., 2011. Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality
and the Uncertain Life Chances of Low-Income Children. Russell Sage,
New York.
Edmonds, R., 1986. Characteristics of effective schools. In: Neisser, U. (Ed.), The
School Achievement of Minority Children: New Perspectives, Lawrence Erlbaum,
Hillsadle, pp. 93–104.
Edmonds, R., 1979. Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership 37,
15–27.
Feuer, M.J., Towne, L., Shavelson, R.J., 2002. Scientific culture and educational
research. Educational Researcher 31, 4–13.
Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F., Rivkin, S.G., 2004. Why public schools lose teachers.
Journal of Human Resources 39, 326–354.
Hargreaves, D.H., 2000. Teaching as a research-based profession: possibilities and
prospects. In: Moon, B., Butcher, J., Bird, E. (Eds.), Leading Professional
Development in Education. Routledge-Falmer, London.
Harris, M.J., Rosenthal, R., 1985. Mediation of interpersonal expectancy effects: 31
meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin 97, 363–386.
Heyneman, S.P., 2005. Student background and student achievement: what is the
right question? American Journal of Education 112, 1–9.
Heyneman, S.P., Loxley, W.A., 1982. Influences on academic achievement across high
and low income countries: a re-analysis of IEA data. Sociology of Education 55,
13–21.
Heyneman, S.P., Loxley, W.A., 1983. The effect of primary-school quality on academic
achievement across twenty-nine high- and low-income countries. American
Journal of Sociology 88, 1162–1194.
Jussim, L., Eccles, J., Madon, S., 1996. Social perception, social stereotypes, and
teacher expectations: accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling
prophecy. Advances in Experimental Psychology 28, 281–388.
Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Wyckoff, J., 2002. Teacher sorting and the plight of urban
schools: a descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24,
37–62.
Lavonen, J., Laaksonen, S., 2009. Context of teaching and learning school science in
Finland: reflections on PISA 2006 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching
46, 922–944.
Lee, H.Y., 2008. A study on the effects of education welfare action zone policy in
Korea. Educational Research for Policy and Practice 7, 35–45.
Lee, V.E., Smith, J.B., Perry, T.E., Smylie, M.A., 1999. Social Support, Academic
Press, and Student Achievement: A View from the Middle Grades in Chicago.
Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Chicago, IL.
Marjoribanks, K., 2003. Family background, individual and environmental influences,
aspirations and young adults’ educational attainment: a follow-up study.
Educational Studies 29, 233–242.
Milne, A., Plourde, L.A., 2006. Factors of a low-SES household: what aids academic
achievement? Journal of Instructional Psychology 33, 183–193.
Mueller, C.W., Parcel, T.L., 1981. Measures of socioeconomic status: alternatives and
recommendations. Child Development 52, 13–30.
 Author's personal copy
48 Academic Performance, Effects of Socio-Economic Status on
Oakes, J., Mendoza, J., Silver, D., 2004. California opportunity indicators: informing
and monitoring California’s progress toward equitable college access. UCACCORD
Public Policy Series, Brekely, pp. 1–28.
Palardy, G.J., 2013. High school socioeconomic status segregation and student
attainment. American Educational Research Journal 50, 714–754.
Pressley, M., Duke, N.K., Boling, E.C., 2004. The educational science and scientifically
based instruction we need: lessons from reading, research, and policymaking.
Harvard Educational Review 74, 30–36.
Purkey, S.C., Smith, M.S., 1983. Source effective schools: a review. The Elementary
School Journal. Special Issue: Research on Teaching 83, 426–452.
Reardon, S., 2011. The widening achievement gap between the rich and the poor: new
evidence and possible explanations. In: Duncan, G.J., Murnane, R.J. (Eds.),
Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality, Schools and Children’s Life Chances.
Russell Sage, New York, pp. 91–116.
Riddell, A.R., 1989. An alternative approach to the study of school effectiveness in
third world countries. Comparative Education Review 33, 481–497.
Riddell, A.R., 1997. Assessing designs for school effectiveness research and school
improvement in developing countries. Comparative Education Review 41,
178–204.
Rosenthal, R., Jacobson, L., 1968. Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectation
and Pupils’ Intellectual Development. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York,
NY, USA.
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 43–48
View publication stats
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.
Ryan, J.E., Heise, M., 2002. The political economy of school choice. The Yale Law
Journal 111, 2043–2136.
Schnepf, S.V., 2004. How Different are Immigrants? A Cross-country and Cross-survey
Analysis of Educational Achievement. IZA Discussion Paper Series, No. 1398.
Sirin, S.R., 2005. Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: a meta-analytic
review of research. Review of Educational Research 75, 417–453.
Sung, Y.-T., Tseng, F.-L., Kuo, N.-P., Chang, T.-Y., Chiou, J.-M., 2013. Evaluating the
effects of programs for reducing achievment gaps: a case study in Taiwan. Asia
Pacific Education Review 15, 99–113.
Tikly, L., Osler, A., Hill, J., 2005. The ethnic minority achievement grant: a critical
analysis. Journal of Education Policy 20, 417–435.
U.S. Department of Education, 2013. For Each and Every Child – a Strategy for
Education Equity and Excellence. Washington, DC.
White, K., 1982. The relationship between socioeconomic status and academic
achievement. Psychological Bulletin 91, 461–481.
Williams, D.R., Collins, C., 2001. Racial residential segregation: a fundamental cause
of racial disparities in health. Public Health Reports 116, 404–416.
Wiseman, A.W., Baker, D.P., 2005. The worldwide explosion of internationalized
education policy. International Perspectives on Education and Society 6, 1–21.