2008 - Ream Palardy Reexamining Social Class Differences

Reexamining Social Class Differences in the Availability and the Educational Utility of
Parental Social Capital

Author(s): Robert K. Ream and Gregory J. Palardy
Reviewed work(s):
Source: American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Jun., 2008), pp. 238-273
Published by: American Educational Research Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30069447 .
Accessed: 12/12/2012 21:44
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to American Educational Research Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
American Educational ResearchJournal
June2008,Vol.45,No.2,pp.238-273
DOI: 10.3102/0002831207308643
C 2008 AERA.http://aerj.aera.net
Reexamining Social Class Differences in

the Availabilityand the Educational
Utility of ParentalSocial Capital
Robert K. Ream
GregoryJ. Palardy
Universityof California,Riverside
Emergent ethnographic research disentangles "social capital" from other

components of social class (e.g., material and human capital) to show how
class-stratified parental social networks exacerbate educational inequality
among schoolchildren. Theauthors build upon this research by using survey
data to reexamine whether certain forms of parental social capital create
educational advantages for socioeconomically privileged students vis-a-vis
their less economicallyfortunate peers. By drawing a distinction between the
availability of social capital and its convertibility, the authors find that
whereas larger stocks of parental social capital accompany higher rungs on
the social class ladder, its educational utility is less clearly associated with
class status. A possible exception to this pattern pertains to the educational
utility of middle-class parents' ideas about the collective efficacy of influenc-
ing school policies andpractices. At issue is whether a more inclusive under-
standing of the material and sociological reasonsfor educational inequality
can spur educationally useful social exchange among parents across social
class boundaries.
KEYWORDS:middleschools, parentalnetworks,social capital,social class
urricaneKatrinaviolentlyexposed the yawninggap between America's

H havesandhave-notsbutalsobroughtto the surfaceformsof inequalitythat
were not only materialbut also sociological(Scheiber,2005).Althoughmate-
rialresources,such as an automobilewith a fulltankof gas, fueledthe engine
of escapeformanysurvivors,othersreliedon the resourcesembeddedin their
socialnetworksto facilitate,forexample,accessto cheaphotelroomsandinex-
pensiverentalpropertiesin the wake of the disaster(Wilgoren,2005).Whenit
comesto equationsof successandfailure,money,know-how,andfriendsplay
important,interrelatedroles. Such is true also for students'performancein
school, althoughthe pointhas not yet been stronglyemphasizedby research.

ParentalSocialCapital
Althoughthereexistsan extensiveschool financeliteratureon how education

dollarsare spent and to what effect,few studieshave investigatedthe educa-
tionalimplicationsofpeoplenetworksaspotentiallyusefulresources,andfewer
stillhavepursuedthe questionof how relationshipconfigurations contributeto
Witha nod to well-knowndebatesin school finance
educationalstratification.
about whetherand how money matters(Hanushek,1989;Hedges, Laine,&
Greenwald,1994),in this study,we ask whether"whoyou know"shouldbe
considereda resourcethatinfluencesstudentperformance,and if so, whether
the impactdiffersby socialclass.Specifically,we use surveydatato examine
whethersocialties thatare valuablebetween middleschools and parentnet-
works are actuallymoreavailableand educationallybeneficialto materially
advantagedstudentsin comparisonwiththosewhose parentsareless well off.
TheoreticalFramework
LinkingNotions of Embeddedness to EducationalPerformance

By makingthe assumptionthat economic behavioris only minimally
affectedby socialties, mainstreameconomicschemesoftenoverlookthe cen-
tralityof social relationshipsin economic action(Uzzi, 1996).A similarcriti-
cism might also be leveled in the field of educationresearch,and school
financein particular,in which socialnetworksand relationshipdynamicsare
often overlooked and underspecifiedin debates about school resources
(Cohen,Raudenbush,& Ball, 2003). Those who have linked economic and
sociologicalaccountsof businessbehavior(Granovetter,1985;Loury,1977)
find thatdeeply embedded within workplacetransactionsare relationship
dynamics that can grease the wheels of economic exchange (Zukin &
DiMaggio,1990) or bring them to a halt (Uzzi, 1996).1If discoveringlinks
betweeneconomicandsociologicalthoughthelpsexplainmarkettransactions,
we suggestthatfurtherdisciplinarybridgingcan shed lighton the embedded
value of social dynamicsin the field of education.Spurredon by ethnogra-
phers whose emergentwork links economic and sociological accounts of
students'performancein schools (Horvat,Weininger,& Lareau,2003;Lareau,
2000,2002,2003),we investigatethe correlativenotionthatsocialrelationships
help shape students'educationaltrajectories by eitherfacilitatingor derailing
ROBERT K. REAM is an assistantprofessorin the GraduateSchoolof Educationat

the Universityof California,Riverside,SproulHall2124,Riverside,CA92521;e-mail:
robert.ream@ucr.edu. He joinedthe facultyat UCRiversidein 2004afterpostdoctoral
fellowshipsat PrincetonUniversityandthe RANDCorporation. Hisresearchaddresses
educationalinequality,social capital,and Latinosocial demography.
GREGORY J. PALARDY is an assistantprofessorin the GraduateSchoolof Education
at the Universityof California,Riverside,SproulHall2105,Riverside,CA92521;e-mail:
gregory.palardy@ucr.edu. His researchaddressesmethodologicalissues as well as
how families,teachers,and schools affecteducationaloutcomesand opportunity.
239

Ream,Palardy
the exchangeof educationallyrelevantresources.2In this pursuit,social capi-
tal theory(Bourdieu,1986;Coleman,1988)guides our research.
SocialCapital:FunctionalVersusCriticalInterpretations
Arguablythe most influentialconcept to emerge fromeconomic sociol-
ogy the past 20 years,social capitalis reflectedin "thecapacityof individ-
in
uals to commandscarceresourcesby virtueof theirmembershipin networks
or broadersocialstructures" (Portes,1998,p. 12).Whereverinterpersonaland
communalsocialties areexploitedforthe accumulationandexchangeof eco-
nomicand culturalcapital(Bourdieu,1986)as well as humancapital(Becker,
1964; Schultz,1961), social capital is also at work (Coleman,1988). Thus,
the conversionof actualor potentialresourcesembeddedin social networks
into othermore tangiblekindsof capital,a conversionthatoccursvia social
exchange, receives considerableattentionfrom social scientistswho study
individualagency and social structurefroma networkperspective.
SociologistJamesColemanandFrenchsocialtheoristPierreBourdieuare
most commonlyrecognizedfor introducingfundamental,albeitmarkedlydif-
ferent,conceptionsof socialcapitalto the studyof socialphenomena(Portes,
1998;Smith& Kulynych,2002;Woolcock, 1998).WhereasColeman(1988)
emphasizedthe educationalutilityin norm-drivensocial networksand rela-
tions of trust(Schneider,2000),Bourdieu(1986)took painsto illuminatethe
reproductionof power and privilegethat accompaniesthe inequitabledis-
tributionand utilityof social capitalacross social classes (Baron,Field, &
Schuller,2000;Lin,2001;Stanton-Salazar, 2004). Coleman'sinfluentialfunc-
tionalistinterpretations have been most commonlyused to studythe benefi-
cial impactof social capitalon school-relatedoutcomes(Bryk& Schneider,
2002; Croninger& Lee, 2001; Putnam,2000). Yet Bourdieu'smore critical
insightsinto the manyways thatsocial interactionnot only facilitatesbut can
also obstructthe exchangeabilityof variouskinds of capitalare beginningto
capture the attentionof education researchers(Fuller & Hannum, 2002;
Noguera,2003;Ream,2003;Stanton-Salazar, 2001;Valenzuela,1999).In this
study, we consider both the functional(i.e., educationallyuseful) and the
propertiesof variousformsof parentalsocial
reproductive(i.e., class-stratified)
capital3through the lens of social class.
FieldResearchLinkingSocialCapitaland SocialClass
Amid the rapidlyexpandingliteratureon social capitalin educational
research(Dika & Singh,2002;Goddard,2003), school ethnographiesmerit
specialattentionfor revealinghow socialinteractionand the meaningmaking
between individualsandwithingroupsfacilitatefor some people, even while
inhibitingforothers,the accumulationand exchangeof variouskindsof edu-
cationallyuseful resources(Horvatet al., 2003; Lareau,2000, 2002, 2003).
These studies also indicate how social capital may function differently across
class groupings. Drawing on a well-established European tradition that
240

perceivessocialclasspositionas centrallyresponsiblefor the productionand
reproductionof educationalinequalities,4these field studies conclude that
linksbetweenschoolsandparentnetworksare moreavailableandeducation-
ally beneficialto upper- and middle-classstudentscomparedwith children
from lower-classfamilies.Collectiveeffortsof comparablywealthy parents
may, for example,influenceschool practicesin ways thatpurportedkinship-
based and go-it-aloneactionsof the workingpoor, howeverforceful,do not.
If linksbetweenactorsin socialgroupsare themselvesdyadicand communal
resourcesthatfacilitatethe interchangeability
of otherkindsof more tangible
resourcessuch as informationand money(Bourdieu,1986),thenthe thingsof
value thatsome individualslay claimto by way of group membershipmay
come at the expense of outsiderswho are often less effectivein makingsuch
claims.Accordingly,we investigatewhethersuch findingsfromthe field and
the complexinferencesdrawnfromthem can be builtupon to furthermea-
sure and quantifythe availabilityand the educationalutilityof parentalsocial
capitalrelativeto social class.
The CurrentStudy
Informingconcernsaboutinequitableschool fundingschemes(Berne&
Stiefel,1999)as well as more recentadequacy-basedschool finance(Odden
& Picus,2003),surveyresearchhasmadeextensivecontributions to the debate
on how money mattersin schools (Grissmer,Flanagan,& Williamson,1997;
Hanushek, 1989; Hedges et al., 1994). Yet few quantitativestudies have
addressedthe criticalsociologicalconcern illuminatedby the field studies
listedabove:specifically,how "whoyou know"contributesconcretelyto chil-
dren'seducationaltrajectoriesandwhetherthese contributionsdifferby social
class. Usingnationallyrepresentativesurveydataconcentratedon adolescent
eighth gradersand theirparents,we pursuetwo hypothesesto addressthis
oversight.The firstsuggeststhateducationallyvaluableparentalsocialties are
moreavailableamongsocioeconomicallyadvantagedstudentsin comparison
with those who are less well off. The second hypothesisdrawsan important
distinctionbetween the distributionof socialcapitaland its educationalutility
by consideringnot only whetherthe availabilityof parentalsocialcapitaldif-
fers acrossthe familiesof upper-,middle-or working-,and lower-classyouth
butalsowhetherthe rateof its convertibilityintostudents'trackplacementand
test-scoreperformancediffersby social class.We examinethese hypotheses
via the followingresearchquestions:
* Aretheredifferences(acrossupper-,middle-or working-,and lower-class

groupings)intheavailability
of variousformsof parental
socialcapitalas mea-
suredduringtheeighthgradeschoolyear?
* Is parentalsocialcapitalconvertible
intomeasurable educational
outcomes,
includingeighthgradetrackplacementandtestscores,and does its rateof con-
vertibilitydifferacrosssocial class groupings?
241

Ream,Palardy
Acknowledgingdisagreementover neo-Marxistand neo-Weberiancon-
ceptualizationsof social class (Wright,1997),we operationalizethree broad
classgroupingsin orderto speak directlyto the aforementionedfield studies.
Our approachtherebyconsiderswhetherparentalsocial capitalis available
in differentamountsand has unequalexchangevalue, which mightyield a
greatereducational"marginof profit"for studentswho are alreadyadvan-
taged by virtueof theirparents'combinedlevel of education,income, and
occupationalstatus.Itcouldbe, alternatively, thatthe threegroupsof students
have access to the same formsof parentalsocial capitalavailablein similar
amounts,except thatone groupprovesbettercapableof activatingnetwork
resourcesfor educationalbenefit,perhapsas a consequenceof differencesin
socialskill,or of specificopportunitiesfor usingsocialcapital,or of structural
or subtlecontextualfeaturesthatvaryamonggroups.
Althoughour investigativemethodsdifferfromthose used in the afore-
mentionedfield studies,our resultsat least partlysupporttheirs,specifically
insofaras we also concludethatfamiliessituatedon the higherrungsof the
class ladderpossess largerstocks of parentalsocial capital.This important
findingsuggeststhattangiblematerialresourcesas well as less recognizable
social networkconfigurations(such as parents'relationshipswith theirchil-
dren,with otherparents,andwith school personnel)contributeto the process
of educationalstratification. Be thatas it may, our dataindicatethatthe util-
of
ity parental socialcapitalmaynot neatlyadhereto the architecture of social
class. Studentsfrom familieson the lower rungs of the class ladderappear
less likelyto benefitfromparentalsocial capitalnot because it is of less edu-
cationalutilityto them but because theirparentstend to possess education-
allybeneficialformsof socialcapitalin smalleramounts.Especiallyillustrative
of this datapatternis the unequaldistributionof the informaland education-
ally useful exchange of resources(e.g., informationand school-orienteddis-
positions)between parentsand studentsaway fromschool. In an exception
to thispattern,parents'notionsaboutcollectiveefficacyin influencingschool
policies and practicesemergeas a particularly salienttest-scorepredictorfor
studentsin the middle-classgrouping.Thus,althoughclass-baseddifferences
in the availabilityof social capitalmatter,there may also be variationin the
educationalutilityof certainforms of parentalsocial capitalthatwork to the
particularadvantageof middle-classstudents.
Literature
Review
The EducationalUtilityof ParentalSocialCapital
Thereis by now a substantialliteratureon the educationalimpactof par-
ents' informalinteractionswith theirown children(Catsambis,2001;Clark,
1993;Epstein,2001;Park& Palardy,2004;Steinberg,2001),on parents'more
formally organized relationships with other parents (Carbonaro, 1998;
Coleman, 1990; Muller,1995), and with institutionalagents and school person-
nel (Chrispeels & Rivero, 2001; Comer, 1980; Delgado-Gaitan, 1991; Epstein,
242

1992; Fan & Chen, 1999; Hoover-Dempsey& Sandler,1997; Schneider&
Coleman,1993;Singh,Beckley,Trivette,Keith,& Keith,1995).5Althoughfew
of these studiesare couchedin the terminologyof social capital,they largely
reflectColeman's(1988)functionalistconceptionof parentalsocial capitalas
a network-basedresourcethatfacilitatesstudentachievement.In fact,educa-
tion researchershave begun to use the conceptof social capitalexplicitlyin
their inquiriesconcerningparentalinvolvementin children'slives, both at
home and in the formalschool setting(Parcel& Menaghan,1994).Suchstud-
ies use variablesthatreflectparent-childdiscussions,homeworksupport,and
parentparticipation in children'sschoolingas individualitemscontributingto
the operationalizationof compositeor "latent"measuresof familyandparental
social capital (McNeal, 1999; Ream, 2005; White & Kaufman, 1997).
Nevertheless,these distinctionsin terminology,say,betweenparentalinvolve-
ment and parentalsocial capital,may be more semanticthan substantive.
Indeed, many of the parentalinvolvementbehaviorsnoted above fit nicely
withinthe rubricof socialcapitalpreciselybecauseparents'interactionswith
theirchildren,otherparents,andschool personnelareall importantmeansby
which parentsbestow humancapital(e.g., informationand know-how)upon
theirchildren(Hao & Bonsteac-Bruns, 1998;McNeal,1999).
Informalparent-childrelations.Some researchon parentinvolvement

and social capital in the family domain addresses informal education-
orientedparent-childinteractionswithin the home, including,for example,
course selection or homeworkassistance(Clark,1983, 1993;Valenzuela&
Dornbusch,1994). Stillotherstudiestout the importanceof parent-initiated
educationaland culturalactivities,such as visiting museums or attending
concerts,thatexpose childrento wondersoutsidethe home (Kao& Tienda,
1998). In both lines of research,it is apparentthatwhen parentsuse inter-
active strategiesthat are warm yet consistentlyfirmto clarifyand enforce
developmentallyappropriateeducationalexpectations,theirchildrendo bet-
ter in school and end up eventuallyattendingbetterschools (Arvizu,1996;
Steinberg,2001).6In thisvein, Keithet al. (1998)measuredparent-childrela-
tionshipsat the 8th grade level to predict 10th grade school performance,
findingthat parentalsocial capitalmanifestedin parents'interactionswith
their childrenhad a positive impact on adolescents'school grades across
racialand ethnic groups.Anotherstudy used nationallyrepresentativesur-
vey data to demonstratethe benefit of parent-childinteractionsregarding
course selection and school programson children'sreadingand mathemat-
ics achievement(Sui-ChuHo & Willms, 1996). Beyond the constructive
results of healthy family-basedparent-studentrelationson individualstu-
dents, there is also the benefitto schools themselves.Not surprisingly,stu-
dent achievement rises collectively when students attend schools with
elevated levels of parental involvement (Pong, 1998). Yet parents of differ-
ent social classes tend to raise children differently. Research suggests that
among poor families and within working-class homes, deliberative "talk"and
verbal jousting between parents and children is relatively limited (Hart &
243

Ream,Palardy
Risley,1995).Poorandworking-classparentsaremorelikelyto issuebrusque
ordersinsteadof usingtactics,such as reasoningand explanation,commonly
used by economicallyadvantagedparents(Lareau,2003).Moreover,children
in poor and working-classhomes are,on average,less frequentlyreadto and
encouragedto read than are their middle-classcounterparts(Hoffereth&
Sandberg,2001). Althoughclass-baseddifferencesin parentingstyles and
involvementare not the rule-as therearemanyimpoverishedand working-
class parentswho use theirfundsof knowledge(Delpit,1995;Moll,Amanti,
Neff, & Gonzalez,1992;VWlez-Ibafiez & Greenberg,1992)to engage in cre-
ativeandinterpretive withtheirchildren,even as therearemiddle-
interactions
and upper-classparentswho do not-such patternsdo exist and can be
linkedto class-basedvariationin students'performancein school (Rothstein,
2004;Steinberg,2001).
Formalparent relationswith otherparents and schoolpersonnel. Of

course,parentsalso act as advocatesfortheirchildrenbeyondthe boundaries
of the immediatefamily,most obviouslywithinthe school system(Eccles&
Harold,1993;Epstein,2001;Epstein&Dauber,1991;Henderson&Mapp,2002;
Muller& Kerbow,1993).Parent-initiated contactwith otherparentsand with
school personnelsuggestsformsof parentalsocial capitalwherebyparents'
effectivesociabilityoftenbringsabouthigherlevels of academicachievement
and educationalattainmentin their children(Hoover-Dempsey& Sandler,
1997).Networkingwith the parentsof otherschoolchildrenmay providenot
only feedbackon effectivechild-rearingstrategiesbut also access to crucial
informationabout school policies,teachers,and students'peers (Carbonaro,
1998).Thismakesit possibleforparentsto workin unisonto keeptabson their
children(Coleman,1988)and to collaboratewith one anotherso as to influ-
ence schoolpersonnel(Teachman,Paasch,&Carver,1997).Horvatet al. (2003)
found that the middle-classparentsof elementaryschool childrenproved
uniquelyable to buildand drawon socialcapitalmanifestedin theircontacts
with otherprofessionals,effectivelyleveragingthe information, expertise,and
authority needed to contestthe judgments of school officials.
Indeed, upper-
andmiddle-classparentsoftenproceedfroma distinctclass-basedsense of enti-
tlement,usinga strategyof "concerted cultivation"
to influenceschoolpersonnel
on behalfof theirchildren(Lareau,2000,2002,2003).In exercisingthis strat-
egy, parentsaim to directlyfacilitatetheir children'seducationaland social
growththroughstrategicinstitutional Bothindividualandcollec-
interventions.7
tive social engagementwith institutionalagents at the school site pay off:
Studentswhose parentsparticipatein school activitiesand maintaincontact
with school personneltypicallydemonstrateelevatedacademicperformance
levels (Epstein,2001;Gutman&Midgley,2000;Stevenson& Baker,1987).Yet
a few studieshave reported,perhapscounterintuitively, thatparentinvolve-
ment can be negativelyassociatedwith grades and test scores (Catsambis,
2001). These findings may be partlyexplained by other researchobserving, for
example, that parentswhose children have academic or behavior problems are
more apt to get involved and to seek help from schools (Fan & Chen, 1999;
244

Shumow& Miller,2001).Thus,the benefitof parentinvolvementon student
achievementmaybe greatlyqualifiedby parents'reasonsforgettinginvolved,
specifically,by whethertheirinvolvementfollowsfromstrategicforethoughtor
frommerelyreactiveresponsesto flaggingperformance or misbehaviorof their
childrenat school.
Social Class in the Social Exchange of Resources

Whereasincreasingnumbersof scholarsof educationemphasizethe role
of race and ethnicityin the social dynamicsof resourceaccumulationand
exchange(Kao,2004;Ream,2005;Stanton-Salazar, 1997;Valenzuela,1999),8
ethnographicwork by Horvatet al. (2003) and by Lareau(2000, 2002, 2003)
has focusedto a greaterdegree on social class,particularly with regardto its
influenceat the primaryschool level.Thereis, of course,substantialevidence
showingthatrace and classcharacteristics are interwoven(Ortner,2006) in a
historicallyproblematicsociopoliticaltapestry(Bolgatz,2005;Roark,1978).To
this day,entrenchedand subjectivelyingrainedsocialdispositions(Wacquant,
1989)make it so thatracialstereotypes(Steele, 1997)and stigmas(Goffman,
1963;Loury,2002)affectespeciallyminoritychildren'slives(Gibson,Gindara,
& Koyama,2004;Van Ausdale& Feagin,1996).Moreover,insofaras objec-
tively observableopportunitystructuresthat are themselves economically
determined(Ehrenreich,2001;MacLeod,1995)producea highlydispropor-
tionatenumberof minoritystudentsamonglowersocioeconomichouseholds
(Roscigno,2000;Tienda&Jensen,1988;Valencia,2002),we perceivea stub-
borncorrelationbetweenraceandpovertythatseems almostinevitablylinked
to diminishedaccess to quality education (Berliner,2005; Bolgatz, 2005;
Bonilla-Silva,2003;Rothstein,2004).At the same time, in the aftermathof de
jure racialdiscriminationin the UnitedStates,some sociologistshave docu-
mented the decliningsignificanceof race, at least in comparisonwith the
importanceof socialclass,in determiningeducationalandemploymentoppor-
tunitiesas well as adultlife trajectories
(MacLeod,1995;Wilson,1989).9When
it comes to the educationalutilityof parents'socialconnections,for example,
Lareau(2003) leads us to conclude that social class overshadows race,
althoughher argumentis especiallyfocused on the familiesof elementary
school children.Bothshe andHorvatet al. (2003)situatedtheirworkon social
capitaland educationalreproduction(Bowles & Gintis,1976;Eckert,1989;
Willis,1977)withina neo-Marxist tradition(Giroux,1983)thatmaybe less than
strictlyapplicableto the increasinglycomplexarchitecture of socialclassposi-
tion in the UnitedStates.10Nevertheless,theirprimarypoint is persuasive:that
the socialcapitalof parents,in termsof bothits availability
anditsutility,is cir-
cumscribedby broadsocial class categoriesso as to benefitespeciallythose
who arealreadymateriallyadvantagedand sociallyconnected.
Such studies from the field teach us a greatdeal about the interactive
processes entailed in social capital accumulation and also about the agency and
meaning making involved in the exchange of resources via social interaction.
245

Ream,Palardy
All the same, Horvatet al. (2003)were carefulto note "theusualcaveatscon-
cerningqualitativeresearch,"including"itslimitedgeneralizability" (p. 346).
Becausethe mostvalidinterpretations of socialcapitalin its complexand var-
ied formsfollow fromdiversemethodologicalrepertoires(Baronet al., 2000),
we have used surveydatato commentspecificallyon ethnographicfindings
abouthow socialclassdeterminesthe distribution of socialcapitalamongpar-
ents and its educationalutilitywhen deployedby them.
In summary,whereasthesociologicaldeterminants of educationalinequal-
ity have often been overlooked,especially in the surveyresearchliteraturein
school finance,emergentethnographicresearchsituatessocialcapital,particu-
larlyresourcesinheringin the relationsbetween elementaryschools and par-
ent networks,squarelywithinthe stratifiedarchitecture of socialclass(Horvat
et al., 2003;Lareau,2000,2002,2003).To furtherinvestigatethesefindings,we
used surveydatato study,particularly, the effectof class-stratified social net-
works at the middleschool level amongparentsof adolescentsin the eighth
gradeduring1988.We asknotonlywhetherthe accumulation of parentalsocial
is
capital contingent on socialclassbut whether its convertibilityinto students'
trackplacementand test-scoreperformanceis delineatedalongclasslines.
Method
DataSource
Base-year(1988)datafromthe NationalEducationLongitudinal Studyof
1988(NELS:88), longitudinalpanelstudyof a cohort
a nationallyrepresentative
of approximately25,000 eighth graders,were used in this investigation."1
Accordingto the NELStwo-stagestratifiedsampledesign, schools were first
selected,andthen studentswithinschoolswere subsequentlysampled.12 NELS
includes informationfrom studentsand their parents,teachers,and school
administrators.We analyzeddatafromthe base-yearparentand studentsur-
veys becausesuch dataprovideextensiveinformationon familybackground,
includingsocioeconomicstatus(SES),familycomposition(i.e., the numberof
parentsin the householdandtheirrelationshipsto the children),and raceand
ethnicity.Students'eighthgradetrackplacementand achievementtest scores
are also documentedin NELS.Alongthese lines, NELSalso lends itselfto the
developmentof latentconstructsof parentalsocial capital,as numerousvari-
ablesin the studentquestionnaire measureschool-relatedinteractions
between
studentsand their parents,while many parentitems measurethe relations
between parentsand schools.To compensatefor nonrandomsamplingtech-
niques and unequalselectionprobabilities,we imputedsamplingweights.'3
Missingvalues were handledusing the full-information maximumlikelihood
estimatoravailablewith Mplussoftware.The degree of missingnesson our
observedvariablesrangedfrom0%to 13.6%,with an averageof less than3%.
Studentsin the samplewere retainedas long as they had valid observations
on at least one predictor in the model.
246

ApproximatingSocialClassGroups
Becauseour goal was to arriveat comparativeclass-basedanalyses,we
dividedoursampleof studentsintothreebroadsocialclassgroupings:upper,
middleandworking,and lowerclasses.The SEScomposite,whichis approx-
imatelynormalin distribution,consistsof five equallyweightedcomponents,
includingmother'sand father'seducationalattainmentand occupationalsta-
tus, as well as familyincome.We classifiedstudentswith SESscores of 1 or
more standarddeviationsabove the mean of the entire sample as "upper
class"(n = 4,227),studentswith SESscoresbetween+1 and-1 standarddevi-
ation as "middleand working class"(n = 15,822), and studentswith SES
scores falling1 or more standarddeviationsbelow the meanas "lowerclass"
(n = 4,192).Ouroverallsampleconsistedof studentswithvalidbase-yeardata
(n = 24,241).
DependentVariables
We used two educationaloutcomes: a latent constructof academic
achievementand an indicatorof students'trackplacement.Clearly,parents'
directinteractionswith theirown childrencan facilitatethe developmentof
skillsand capabilities,resultingin improvedtest scores,but parentsmayalso
use concertedstrategiesthroughwhich they attemptto influencekey institu-
tional personnel,who make decisions on matterssuch as trackplacement.
Accordingto our hypotheses,each of these outcomemeasuresis influenced
by parentalactivationof socialcapital.Fromthe resultsof 8th gradestandard-
ized testsin math,reading,science, and history(whichwere administeredin
the springof 1988,towardthe completionof the academicyear),we were able
to estimatean achievementconstruct.'4 The four-subject test compositepro-
vides a morecomprehensiveindicatorof achievementthanany single cogni-
tive test could. Additionally,we constructedthe trackingoutcome measure
from four NELSvariablesthat indicatewhether a studentwas enrolled in
advanced,enriched,and acceleratedacademiccoursesin math,English,sci-
ence, or social studies.Studentsenrolledin two or more such courseswere
classifiedas high track."'
BackgroundVariables
Thereremainssome debateas to whetherthe impactof socialcapitalon
educationaloutcomesis a functionof socialclass,raceand ethnicity,or some
combinationof the two (Lareau,2002;Stanton-Salazar, 2001).Althoughthis
study focuses mainly on socialclassdifferences, attemptto disentanglethe
we
effectsof classand raceby controllingfor raceand ethnicityin ourmodels.In
addition,we have controlledfor familystructureso as to isolatefurtherthe
degreeto whichsocialclassaffectsparents'abilityto convertsocialcapitalinto
educational outcomes. Moreover, we have also included controls for student
SESwithin each class category, because the impact of social capital on educa-
tional outcomes may covary by SESwithin each of the three class groupings.
247

Ream,Palardy
MeasuringParentalSocialCapital
Giventhe complexityof the social aspectsof resourceexchange,schol-
arshipon social capitaloften suffersfromconceptualincoherenceand a lack
of consistencyin the way its variousformsare measured(Baronet al., 2000;
Dika & Singh, 2002; McNeal,1999). With this in mind, we selected NELS
itemsthatapproximateboth informalinteractionbetween parentsand their
childrenandformal interactionsbetween parentsand otheradults.16 In this
way, we were able to measuresocial capitalacrossfamilialand extrafamil-
ial domains,accountingforquantity(i.e., the existenceof a relationship)and
quality(i.e., the natureof thatrelationship).Because behaviors,in contrast
to attitudes,are amenableto externalverification,we searchedthe data for
parentinvolvementin school-relatedactivities,takingsuch involvementas
a proxymeasureof social capital.Eventually,we developed fourlatentcon-
structspertainingto variousformsof parentalsocial capital:
* ParentsHelpStudent: a five-itemconstructincludingthefrequency of parent-

studentdiscussionsaboutcourseselection,schoolactivities,thingsstudiedin
class,andplanninghighschoolprograms.
* ParentsVisitSchool:a three-itemconstructincluding classvisits,atten-
parents'
danceat schoolmeetings,andattendance at schooleventssuchas concerts,
sportscompetitions,andso on.
* PTAInvolvement: a three-item constructincludingPTAmembership, atten-
danceat PTAmeetings,andparticipation in PTA-sponsored activities.
* ParentsInfluenceSchool:a two-itemconstructincludingparents'reportsas to
whetherparentshavean adequatesay in settingschoolpolicyandwhether
theyworktogetherto supportschoolpolicy.
Mostof the observedvariablesused in the social capitalconstructsare

ordinalin measurementscale.17Withinour statisticalmodels, all such vari-
ables were treatedas orderedcategoricalvariables,and this allowed us to
be as precise as possible in our parameterestimatesand model fit computa-
tions. Given this measurementissue and because NELSis a publiclyavail-
able data set, we felt that covariancematricesfor each groupwere not the
best way of presentingthese data.Instead,we providedescriptivestatistics
for each measuredvariablecategorizedby social class groupingand note
thatthe datacan be obtainedfromthe NationalCenterforEducationStatistics
(see http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/nels88/).
ConceptualFrameworkandStatisticalModels
We studiedthe educationalutilityof parentalsocialcapitalby socialclass
using structuralequationmodeling(SEM)techniquesto investigatethe time-
orderedpath modeled here by our conceptualframework(see Figure 1).
Althoughthe frameworkalso accountsforfamilybackground,we focusedpri-
marily on how various forms of parental social capital influence educational
processes and outcomes across upper-, middle- and working-, and lower-class
248

Throughout SthGrade
Kindergarten - 86 Grade End of 8th Grade I
Formal
SOCIAL CAPITAL
SchoolDomain
FAMILY Pa SI School Track

BACKGROUND
Informal Placement
SOCIAL CAPITAL otl Csads
Family Composition FamilyDomain
i
Socioeconomic
Patcn& Help SArdent PTA Invlvaeent
Status
Race/Ethnicity Test
Scores
8,A
FAMILY Parent JItence Scl)
BACKGROUND
Formal
SOCIAL CAPITAL
SchoolDomain
Figure1. Conceptualframework.
youth. Informal parent-student relations at home precede and may also be

conditioned by the information and resource exchange that takes place in
more formal institutionalizedsettings among parents who are actively involved
in their children'seducation.18Thus, in our framework,the latent constructPar-
ents Help Student is modeled as an antecedent to the more formal social cap-
ital constructs, as each influences eighth grade track placement and test scores
(note that all latent constructs appear in Figure 1, according to structuralmod-
eling convention, as ovals).
SEMis highly suitable for the purposes of this investigation for several
reasons. First, our framework includes measurement and structuralcompo-
nents that SEMcombines into a single model. The measurement component
estimates latent constructs of parental social capital and of academic achieve-
ment. By using multiple observed variables and accounting for measurement
error in the estimates of our latent constructs, SEMestimates tend to be supe-
rior to those provided by a single measured variable, a simple composite
score, or a factor score. SEMis also suitable for testing whether the hypoth-
esized measurement model fits the data adequately. The structural compo-
nent models the hypothesized association between latent constructs in a
multivariatefashion, allowing for both direct and indirect effects in the exam-
ination of causal pathways. The multiple-group structural equation model
249

Ream,Palardy
used in our study is specificallydesigned to test for group (social class)
differences in the estimated associationsbetween parentalsocial capital
and educationaloutcomes.By fittingthe model to the upper-,middle-and
working-,and lower-classsamplessimultaneously,we test whetherassoci-
ations (i.e., path coefficients)differacross groups. Statedanotherway, the
multiple-groupmodel enabledus to test,while controllingfor studentback-
groundcharacteristics, whetherthe impactof social capitalon trackplace-
ment and test scores differsacrosssocial class categories.
Results
The resultsare presentedin two main sections.First,descriptiveanaly-
ses offer class-basedcomparisonsof eighth grade students'family back-
ground characteristics,trackplacement, and test scores. We also test for
statisticaldifferencesin the availabilityof parentalsocialcapitalacrosssocial
class groupings.Last,we considerthe educationalutilityof variousformsof
parentalsocial capital,againby social class.
DescriptiveFindings
Backgroundcharacteristics.Descriptionsof the NELSdata show that
race and class characteristicsare interwovento the disadvantageof minority
groups. Blacks and Hispanicsconstitutenearlyhalf of the studentpopula-
tion in the lowest class category(24%and 23%,respectively)and just9%of
the upper-classgrouping,as seen in TableAl in the Appendix.Familystruc-
ture is also deeply relatedto social class, as fewer than half (48%)of the
studentsin the lowest class groupinglived with both parents,whereas 64%
in the middleclassgroupingand82%in the highestclassgroupingwere living
with both parents.
Trackplacementand testscores.It mustbe noted,however,thatthe data

do not unequivocallysupport the premise that social class disadvantage
accompanieslow trackplacement.19 Indeed,a greaterproportionof low-SES
eighthgraders(39%)thanof working-and middle-classstudents(32%)were
enrolledin two or moreadvancedacademiccourses.Yetstudentsin the high-
est class groupingwere most apt to enrollin high-trackcourses(42%).Even
thoughthe dataon trackplacementdo not unequivocallysupportthe notion
that social class exercisesa determinativeinfluenceon course placement,a
moreconsistentclass-basedhierarchyemergeswhen it comesto certainmea-
surableresultsin academicachievement.Averagetest scores among eighth
gradersin the lowest class groupingpaled in comparisonto those of the
workingand middleclass,whose scoresin turnfell shortof theirupper-class
counterparts(TableAl). In mathematics,for example,studentsin the lowest
classgroupingaveraged39 pointson the NELSmathtest,working-andmiddle-
class students averaged 44 points, and students from the highest SESgroup-
ing averaged 51 points. Similarstepwise test score patterns are borne out in
250

ParentalSocial Capital
Thus, althoughthe data on trackplacement
reading,science, and history.20
do not consistentlysupportnotions of educationalreproduction,test score
findingscorroborateresearchthatsimilarlydescribesstratifiedrace and class
demographics(vis-a.-viseducationaloutcomes)throughoutthe UnitedStates
(Jencks& Phillips,1998;Massey& Eggers,1990;Valencia,2002).
Thedistributionof parental social capital. Ethnographicresearchhas

effectivelydemonstratedthat middle-classsocial networksare more replete
with resourcesthan those of the economicallydisadvantaged.But survey
analyseshave yet to considerthe distributionof variousformsof social capi-
tal by socialclass.The resultsof an analysisof variance(depictedin Figure2)
suggest thataveragelevels of parentalsocial capitalwithinthe highestclass
groupingrisewell above the samplemean,whereassocialcapitalamongthe
lowest class groupingfalls below the mean of the sample,in fact by at least
0.5 standarddeviationsin the case of threeof the fourlatentconstructs,includ-
ing ParentsHelpStudent,ParentsVisitSchool,andPTAInvolvement.21 Among
familiesin the highestsocial class category,for example,the latentconstruct
ParentsHelp Studentaverages0.51 standarddeviationsabove the mean for
the entiresample,whereasthose in the lowest social class groupingaverage
0.50 standarddeviationsbelow the samplemean.ForParentsVisitSchool,the
discrepancyis even larger,as upper-classfamiliesregisterata sizable0.64stan-
darddeviationsabove the sample mean, even as the lowest class grouping
registersat -0.58 standarddeviation.And PTAInvolvementis reportedlyfar
more prevalentamong parentsin the highest class grouping(0.63 standard
deviations)than among the lowest (-0.50 standarddeviations).Amongthe
workingand middleclass,parentalsocialcapitalhoversaroundthe mean for
the entiresample.
On the whole, then, averagelevels of parentalsocial capitaldiffersig-
nificantlyacross the three social class groupings.22 Thus, the highest social
class grouping,in comparisonwith the middle-and working-classgrouping
and in particularthe lowest SESgrouping,is not only by definitionadvan-
taged in materialand humancapitalresourcesbut also possessed of a sig-
nificantedge in termsof the availabilityof the particularformsof parental
social capitalmeasuredin this study.
The Utilityof ParentalSocialCapitalby SocialClass

In attemptingto describethe educationalutilityof parentalsocial capi-
tal acrossthe social class groupings,we begin with three generalobserva-
tions derivedfrom the unstandardizedparameterestimatesdepicted in the
structuralmodels of Figure 3.23First, the positive associations between
ParentsHelpStudentandthe educationaloutcomessuggestthateven though
adolescence is a developmentalperiod that is characterizedby increasing
individuation from parents and their modes of control (Hartup & Stevens,
1997), students' outcomes improve when parents, regardless of their social
251

Ream, Palardy
0.70-
0.60-
0.50-
0.40-
0.30-
zero
of 0.20-
mean 0.10-
a
Upper
0.00
from Working/Middle
-0.10-
Lower
-0.20-
devilation
-0.30-
-0.40-
standard
-0.50-
-0.60-
Parents Help Parents Visit School PTA Involvement Parents Influence
Student School
Distribution of Parental Social Capital by Social Class
Figure2. Meansocial class differences pertainingto the availabilityof various

forms of parentalsocial capital.
Note.Resultsof an analysisof varianceindicatethatmeandifferences in the availability
of
significant(p < .01) acrossthe threesocialclass
parentalsocialcapitalare statistically
groups.Sampleweightedby base-yearsampleweight/meanbase-yearsampleweight.
Source.NationalEducationLongitudinalStudyof 1988, eighth grade studentsand
parentssurveyedin 1988.
class, engage in conversations with adolescents about what they do in school

and about the subjects they study. Second, even within social class group-
ings, there is considerable variation in the educational utility of the more for-
mal proxies of parental social capital (Parents Visit School, PTAInvolvement,
and Parents Influence School). Although certain links between formal social
capital and our two dependent variables seem insignificant, others prove to
be substantial and positive (e.g., the impact of Parents Help Student on test
scores), and still others prove surprisingly negative (e.g., the impact of
Parents Visit School on the test scores of adolescents in the lowest class cat-
egory). We address these divergent findings below.
Last, the educational utility (i.e., rate of convertibility) of parental social
capital is not marked by clear social class distinctions, with one exception
that is consistent with the field research findings noted above: The positive
252

Throughout 8th Grade

End of 8th Grade
L: .08'
M: .16"*
Parents Visit School U: .19
-, =3.12
L: .42':
M: .34- L: .04
U: .31" M: .06".
U: .08
A_2)=2.14 =0.54
Track
Placement
............
8th Grade
L:
.18
U:
-.04
M: -.02
X21 =1.46 L: .01

M: -.03'
L: .011
U: -.05;
Parents Help Student M: .04.
2_=3.28
.01 PTA Involvement
4
Uo 7.56
L: -.421'
M:-.24
L: .92 U: -.78
22=1.44
, =0.2
L: .14
M: .06.' L: 1.58
Test Scores
M: 1.65'. 8th Grade
U: .01
U: 1.64..
o =5.85'
S=0.91
L = lower, M = middle/working, U = upper.
L:-.09
+p < .10; *p <.05; **p < .01. Chi square test is M: .20*
of differences among the coefficients.
Influence U: .09
[Parents School) =
X,'2, 8.47
Figure3. The educational impactof parentalsocial capital by social class.

Note. Although the model controls for backgroundcharacteristics(SES,family structure,
and race and ethnicity) and estimates covariances between endogenous variables (per
Figure 1), these aspects are not centralto our thesis and are thereforeomitted to improve
the readabilityof Figure3. The path weights are presented as unstandardizedparameter
estimates. Individualitems that contributeto the latent constructs(depicted as ovals) and
all errorterms and correlationsare excluded from the figure. Tucker-Lewisindex = .95,
comparative fit index = .94, root mean square error of approximation = .04. Sample
weighted by base-yearsample weight/mean base-year sample weight.
Source. National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, eighth grade students and
parents surveyed in 1988.
impact of Parents Influence School is notable particularlyin the test scores

of middle-class children, who seem especially well situated to benefit from
their parents' collective, sometimes politicized, efforts to influence school
policy.24
Our goal here is to identify distinctions, insofar as they are particularto
social class, about the educational impact of parental social capital. In this
pursuit, we consider two questions about conditions of evidence: (a) whether
parameterestimates (i.e., path coefficients) might prove statisticallysignificant
in one social class group but not significant in at least one other group and
253

Ream,Palardy
(b) whetherthe magnitudesof the parameterestimatesin the cases we con-
siderdiffersignificantlyacrossthe socialclassgroupings(we use unstandard-
ized parametersas the appropriatemetricfor makingsuch comparisons).
Withvariousbackgroundcontrolsin place,we considerthe firstcategory
(Evidence Condition1) as it pertainsto data on trackplacement.Among
working-andmiddle-classadolescents,ParentsHelpStudentslightlyimproves
trackplacement(0.06,p < .01), per the trebledparametersin Figure3. In this
case, however,the placementbenefitsdo not prove significantfor the other
two groups, nor do the parametermagnitudesdiffer significantlyacross
groupings.So althoughwe are confidentthat ParentsHelp Studentslightly
improvestrackplacementfor adolescentsin the working-and middle-class
grouping(such thatEvidenceCondition1 is satisfied),the actualsize of this
effect(accordingto the standardof EvidenceCondition2) does not differsig-
nificantlyfromclassto class.In fact,our modelsdid not detectany significant
social class differencesin the magnitudeof associationbetween the latent
measuresof parentalsocialcapitaland trackplacement.In the formalschool
domain,ParentsVisitSchoolalso improvestrackplacementfor lower-(0.08,
p < .05)andworking-andmiddle-classstudents(0.16,p < .01),buthere again,
group-leveldifferencesin effect size prove not to be statisticallysignificant.
None of the linksbetween PTAInvolvementand trackplacementare signif-
icant(nor is PTAInvolvementsignificantlyassociatedwith eighthgradetest
scores), althoughParentsInfluenceSchool is in fact negativelyassociated,if
only slightly,with trackplacementfor working-and middle-(-0.03, p < .05)
and upper-class(-0.05,p < .01) students,a somewhatperplexingfindingthat
satisfiesEvidenceCondition1 but not EvidenceCondition2.
Consideringstudent achievement,the informalParentsHelp Student
constructemerges again as an especiallybeneficialform of parentalsocial
capital,one thatimproveseighthgradetest-scoreperformanceacrosslower-
(1.58,p < .01), working-and middle-(1.65,p < .01), and upper-class(1.64,
p < .01) students.In thiscase, all threeclassgroupssatisfyEvidenceCondition
1, althoughthe parameterestimatesare of similarmagnituderegardlessof
social class standing.Giventhatstudentsin the NELSsampleimprovedtheir
compositetest scores by approximately1 standarddeviationover 4 yearsof
high school, or about 0.25 standarddeviations per year (Rumberger&
Palardy,2005), the standardizedparametersin Table A3 shed light on the
magnitudesof these associations.In fact,an increaseof 1 standarddeviation
in ParentsHelp Studenthad an impacton test scores roughlythe equivalent
of 1 year'sworthof schoolingor nearly10 monthsof learning.Thiswas true
for all threestudentgroups(0.25, 0.23, and 0.25 standarddeviations,respec-
tively).In otherwords,even thoughparentsin lower social classeshave less
schooling and take-homepay than the wealthy,theirchildrenalso standto
gain a great deal from informalparental involvement, even when that
amountsonly to talkingaboutthe thingschildrendo in school and the sub-
jects they study in class.
254

Atthe same time,ouranalysisof the ParentsVisitSchoolconstructyields
some counterintuitiveresultssuggestingthat the reasonswhy parentsvisit
school are important.Forinstance,althoughthe parametersin questionare
negativein all cases, we are especiallyconfidentthatparentson the lowest
rungsof the class laddervisit school for reasonslinked to lower test scores
(-0.42, p < .01), and at leastsome researchindicatesthatthey visitto address
and mitigatebehavioralproblems (Fan & Chen, 1999; Shumow& Miller,
2001). In this case, then, we are remindedthat the educationalutility of
parentalsocial capitaldepends on a complexset of factors,includingwhich
of the manyformsof social capitalare in question,how they are measured,
and which outcomes are being considered.
Althoughdifferencesin the availability of parentalsocialcapitalmay(per
Figure2) be important,thereappearsto be littlevariationin the educational
utilityof parentalsocial capitalacross the three social class groupings(in
short,EvidenceCondition2 has yet to be satisfied).Thereis, however, one
exception to this patternin the data:The link between ParentsInfluence
Schoolandthe eighthgradetestscoresof middle-classstudents(0.20,p < .01)
uniquelysatisfiesboththe testforsignificance,accordingto ourfirstcriterion,
and the test for class-baseddifferencesin the magnitudeof association,
accordingto our second criterion.25 In this respect,our findingscorroborate
field studiespointingto the educationalutilityof especiallymiddle-classpar-
ents' collectivelystrategiceffortsto influence schooling practices(Horvat
et al., 2003;Lareau,2003).Yet ParentsInfluenceSchoolis no moreavailable
in the middle social class groupingthan among the lowest class grouping
(see againFigure2), which raisesanotherquestion:Whicharethe individual
and structurallevel factorsthat inhibitthe educationalutilityto be derived
frompoorparents'notionsof collectiveefficacyat influencingschool policies
(here the unstandardizedparameterfor the lowest class groupingis a nega-
tive, albeitstatisticallyinsignificant,0.09)?
Discussion
In ourview, the sociologicalreasonsforeducationalinequalityareoften
overlookedin equationsof adolescents'success and failurein schools. This
absence in the researchseems especiallynoticeablein the quantitativeliter-
atureon school finance.Addressingthis oversight,with an eye towardhow
the interchangeability of variouskinds of resourcesdepends on embedded
social processes that have traditionallybeen ignored (Granovetter,1985;
Loury,1977), we have used nationallyrepresentativesurvey data to build
upon field researchalreadyfocused on the ways in which parentalsocial
networksmay be implicatedin the reproductionof educationalinequality
(Horvatet al., 2003;Lareau,2000, 2002,2003).Again,our descriptiveresults
partlycorroboratepreviousobservationalfindings,as we find thatparentsat
higher rungs of the social class ladder are characterized not only by dispro-
portionate wealth and know-how but also by more bountiful stocks of what
counts for this study as parental social capital.
255

Ream,Palardy
Still,thereis a discernabledifferencebetweenthepotentialandthe actu-
alized resourcesinheringin social networks(Bourdieu,1986).The simple
availabilityof parentalsocialcapitaldoes not ensureits activationon behalfof
schoolchildren.Althoughvariousformsof parentalsocial capitalseem espe-
cially availablein the highest class grouping(per Figure2), its usefulness
amongthe social class elite is salientonly in the associationbetween Parents
HelpStudentandeighthgradetestscores(perFigure3). Conversely,although
ParentsVisitSchoolis not as readilyavailablein the lowestsocialclassgroup-
ing, this may be justas well, because it somewhatsurprisinglyimpingeson
test scores of studentsin thatclass grouping,a findingthatwe have conjec-
tured,however, may be attributable to the reasonssome parentsvisit class-
rooms and attendschool events. Perhapsthe greatesteducationalvalue in
parentalsocialcapitallies, then, in the nexus between its readyaccumulation
anditsbeing strategically putto use in ways thatareeducationallybeneficial.26
Too often, researchin the areaof socialcapitalhas overlookedthe mul-
tidimensionality of such capital.Withinsocialclassgroupings,variationin the
educationalutilityof formalmeasuresof parentalsocial capitalrevealsthe
extentto which utilityis conditionedby its forms.In otherwords,the useful-
ness of social capitaldepends highlyon the people who actuallypossess it
andthe "fields" (Bourdieu&Johnson,1993)whereintheyattemptitsexchange
(Ream, 2005). This is attributableto individualdifferencesof skillin accumu-
lating and activating social capital(as parentalpracticesvaryeven withinany
classgroupingof parents),to subtlecontextualfeatures,orto discerniblestruc-
turalfeaturesthatvarywithinand acrosssocial class groupingsboth in and
out of schools. Forinstance,the fact thatmany parentswho get involvedin
schooldo so only when theirchildrenactup is a contextualconsiderationthat
helpsexplainthe negativeassociationbetweenParentsVisitSchoolandeighth
gradetest scores for studentsin the lowest social class grouping.Or, also in
thisvein, thereis the consideration thatschoolsmayuse structural mechanisms
that neutralizeparentaldemands so as to implementa top-down agenda
insteadof developingone stemmingfromgrassrootsparentalinput(Comer,
1980).So it is thatmanyparent-teacher organizationsserveessentiallyas fund-
raisinggroupswherebyschoolsstructureparentalinteractionsmainlyto serve
schools'interests(Delgado-Gaitan, 1991;Hess, 1995).ThatPTAInvolvement
has no discernibleimpacton eithertrackplacementor test scoresis perhaps
understandable in this light.Althoughwe have consideredhere only thepar-
ent side of parent-schoolinteraction,it seems clearto us thatcompositional
differencesacrossmiddleschools (includingfinancialinequitiesin resource
inputs)accountforat leastsome variationin the educationalutilityof parental
social capital.In the future,we hope to see more school effects research
addressinghow social capitalaccumulationand exchangeare influencedby
linksbetweenschoolfinanceandthe programmatic designof middleschools.
The complexityof our findingschallengesus, then, to sortout what can
most confidently be reported about parental social capital, its availability,and
its utility across social class. Our results belie the notion that parental social
capital in the hands of the class elite is by definition more fungible than
256

parentalsocialcapitalamongthe less materiallywell off. Instead,we find that
the testscore impactof 1 standarddeviationincreasein ParentsHelp Student
approximates1 year'sworthof schoolingor nearly10 monthsof learning,and
these resultsoccur acrosssocial class groupings.Yet one cannot exchange
what one does not possess. Thus,studentsfromfamilieson the lower rungs
of the social class ladderare less likelyto benefitfromParentsHelp Student
not becauseit is less convertible,perse, butbecausetheirparentstendto pos-
sess it in lesser amounts.In the social dynamicsof educationalstratification,
the distributionof parentalsocial capitalmay both precede and supersede
class-baseddifferencesin its educationalutility.
Thereare exceptionsto this pattern.ParentsInfluenceSchool emerges
as an especiallysalientpredictorof eighthgradetest scores amongstudents
in the middle-classgrouping,yet as Figure2 shows, its availabilityis statisti-
cally indistinguishable fromthe lowest class grouping.One potentialexpla-
nation for the disutilityof ParentsInfluence School among the poor is a
mismatchbetween home and school cultures (e.g., in language, values,
and/or practicedifferences),which may limit the effectivenessof parental
influence(Drummond& Stipek,2004;Goldman& McDermott,1987;Valdes,
1996).Againstsuch a deduction,however,stronglinksbetweenParentsHelp
Studentand test scores acrossall threeclass groupingsseverelyhampersthe
applicabilityof the mismatchargument.A moreplausibleexplanationwould
seem to residein the factthatparentson the lowest rungsof the class ladder
prove less likelyto tap theirsocial networksfor the explicitpurposeof exert-
ingpoweroverschoolingpractices(Delgado-Gaitan,1991).Thisconclusionis
supportedespeciallyby emergentfield researchon the particularinfluence
of politicizedmiddle-classparentnetworks(Horvatet al., 2003) and also by
the relativelack of respectfor and responsivenessto poor parentsexhibited
by school authorities(Fine, 1993; Henig, Hula, Orr, & Pedescleax, 1999;
Noguera,2001).Addedto all of this is the considerationthatalthoughlower-
and middle-classparentsshare similareducationalgoals for theirchildren,
theirsocialnetworkstend not to overlap(Lin,2001).27
Ourfindingsentailperhapstwo other implicationsthatmeritrestating:
a firstthat reaffirmsthe importanceof informalparent-studentinteraction
during children'searly adolescence and a second that informs ongoing
debatesregardingthe allocationof resourcesin school reformefforts.First,
some researchsuggests that the impactof informalparent-studentinterac-
tion may taperoff as childrenmove into adolescence (CarnegieCouncilon
Adolescent Development, 1995). In her controversialbook TheNurture
Assumption,JudithHarris(1998) claimedthatto the extent that adolescent
developmentis influencedby social networks,most oftenpeers,not parents,
exercisethe strongestinfluenceon social behaviors.Nevertheless,our find-
ings suggestthatthe cumulativeeffect of parent-studenttalk,on topics such
as (a) course selection, (b) school activities, (c) topics studied in class, and
(d) planning a high school program, continues to have an educational impact
beyond the elementary school years. Whatever their social class position,
parents should continue to "talk school" with their kids, at least through
257

Ream,Palardy
middle school, as the results apparentlycontradictthe ostensible parent-
adolescentdivide(Arvizu,1996;Keithet al., 1998;Sui-ChuHo &Willms,1996).
As for resource allocationin school reformefforts,the "new school
finance"narrative(Grubb& Huerta,2001) largelyoverlooks the potential
resourcesthatinherein socialrelationshipsor socialcapital.Whereasmoney
and materialcapitalare necessarybut also insufficientresourceinputs for
school reform(Clune,1994),and whereasthe distributionof humancapital
(e.g., teacherquality)certainlycontributesto some students'advancementand
others'educationaldemise (Grissmeret al., 1997), neverthelessattemptsto
connectschool financeand school reformhave largelyoverlookedthe distri-
butionandthe utilityof variousformsof socialcapital(Odden&Clune,1998).
Ironically,researchersand policy makerscan most easily addresstangible
resources(e.g., moneyand facilities)perhapsless directlyassociatedwith stu-
dents'learningandareperhapsleastableto dealwithotherkindsof resources
(e.g., social networkconfigurationsthat facilitateor inhibitthe exchange of
educationallyimportantresources)perhapsmost directlyrelatedto learning
(Cohenet al., 2003). Hence, althoughthe school financeliteraturecontinues
to driftawayfromequityconsiderations thatshouldbe deemedabsolutelycru-
cial, social capitalresearchsimultaneouslytendsto ignoreconflictand equity
concerns (Horvatat al., 2003), falling altogethershort when it comes to
answeringthe proverbial"so what"questionso criticalto framingeffective
school reforms(for an importantexception,see Bryk& Schneider,2002).28
Conclusion
Althoughit has been suggestedthatthe educationalutilityof social cap-
italengagesthe attentionof policymakersbecause it representsa potentially
less costly, noneconomic solution to social problems (Portes, 1998), our
assertionsaboutthe educationalimportanceof socialcapitalarecertainlynot
intended to provide an excuse for policy makersto curtailmore spending
more efficientlyon schools and schoolchildren.On the contrary,it is our
contentionthatcurrentdisparitiesin educationalresourcesand in the devel-
opmentof social capitalrelevantto the educationalprocessconstitutea trou-
blingreality:Evenas some schools in our systemof publiceducation(mostly
the well-fundedones) performexceptionallywell, fartoo manyof ouryoung
learnerslanguishin underresourcedschools set amidalreadydisadvantaged,
impoverishedcommunities(Anyon,2005;Kozol, 2005). Ourresultssuggest
thatsome formsof parentalsocial capitalmay help compensatefor material
resourcedisadvantagebut thatparentsfromlower social class positionsstill
struggleto build and/or use formalsocial networksthatmightbe leveraged
on behalfof schoolchildren.So what is to be done to help realizeor develop
the forms of social capital,specificallythose availablethroughthe extrafa-
milialrelationshipnetworks,among the workingpoor?
If well-reasoned designs for incremental wealth redistributionhave not
proved to this point in time to be a politically palatable answer, then perhaps
policy makers might devote themselves to designing a social infrastructurefor
258

schoolingthatwould bolstersocial exchangebetween resource-richparents
and those who are economicallydisadvantaged.Schoolsofferan important
location for building social capitalbecause, as the evidentlymost reliable
source of social supportfor children,they are among the few stable institu-
tions throughwhich parentsconnectwith each other (Ream,2005;Saegert,
Thompson,& Warren,2001). A growing body of literaturehighlightsthe
extentto which effectiveschool reformis predicatedon a socialparadigmin
which relationshipswithin formalsettings are revealed to be dramatically
importantto low-status youth (Maeroff, 1998; Noguera, 2001; Ream &
Stanton-Salazar, 2007),in whichcase one of ourcentraltasksmustbe to bring
extantand developingsocial capitalto bear in such a way as to strengthen
those relationships.We have demonstratedthatthe social capitalof parents
does produceeducationalutility,if not alwaysin perfectlyconsistentpatterns,
and thisbenefitoccursacrossall classes.Thereis an opportunityhere, then,
for parentnetworksto functionacrossclass.Althoughno one has come up
with a reliableformulato producesolidarityamongparentsacrosssocialclass
boundaries-social ties are alwaysembedded"inthe contextof interlocking
class,race,andgenderhierarchies" 1997,p. 9)--the veryfact
(Stanton-Salazar,
that the role of parentsin theirchildren'seducationis not fixed (Chrispeels
& Rivero,2001)mightwell be encouraging.For,as our studybringsto mind,
social capital,with its educationalbenefits,can be alteredby criticallyreflec-
tive andpoliticallyactiveparents(Delgado-Gaitan, 1991),by progressiveinsti-
tutionalagents (Stanton-Salazar, 2001), and by creative-and not altogether
inexpensive--school programs(see Henderson& Mapp,2002) designed to
foster synergistic, empowered parental networks.29
259

or
or (continued)
selection
and
enriched, course
FIS92D) on
or
education,
advanced,
label) (BYS66A-D)
parents'
(F1S92A discussions
more
or
Description (BYSES) courses
(NELS:88 parentstwo (BY2XRTH) (BYS36A)
income, (BY2XSTH)
(BY2XHTH)
in (BY2XMTH)
Groups birth
prestige
family score score
academic score school
student-parent
1) 2) 3) 5) of q q q at
score of
= = = = both enrolled q
Class is IRT IRTIRT
with IRT
occupationalaccelerated programs
Social (BYRACE
(BYRACE
(BYRACE
(BYRACE Lives Student
Composite Reading
MathScience
History Frequency
by
(0.23)
(0.22)
(0.18) (0.25) (0.39) (0.49) (8.06)
(0.14) (8.13)
(7.97)
(7.92) (0.64)
1 Upper4,227
A 0.060.050.040.021.08 0.82 0.42 51.48
50.95
50.22
50.65 2.45
Variables
of
Table
Appendix Middle (0.18)
(0.32)
(0.27) (0.43) (0.48) (0.47) (8.29)
(0.21) (8.14) (8.45)
(8.31) (0.68)
Working 15,822
and 0.030.120.080.05-0.08 0.64 0.32 45.58 2.25
(SD) 44.08
44.60
44.47
Deviations
M
(0.16)
(0.43)
(0.42) (0.29) (0.50) (0.49) (7.22)
(0.22) (6.91)
(7.47)
(8.09) (0.71)
Lower4,192
0.030.240.230.05-1.26 0.48 0.39 40.50
38.77
39.46
38.85 2.03
Standard
and
(0.18)
(0.34) (0.77) (0.48) (0.48) (8.64)
(0.20)
(0.30) (8.63) (8.94)
(8.66) (0.69)
Total 24,241
0.030.130.100.04-0.13 0.64 0.35 45.52 44.07
44.48
44.34 2.24
Means
measures
latent
to capital
outcomes
track social
family courses
sizebackground
contributing
parental
Black
Asian SES
Naive
Hispanic Academic Science
Reading
Math History Discuss
of
Sample
Variable Student Educational
Traditional Items
260

of base-
HS (BYP74J) theory.
HS
activities
you've child (BYP74K)
weight/mean
(BYS37A) policy
planning
schoolthingsplanning response
where policy
on on on on year sampleitem
school
year =
this(BYS37C) school (BYP59C)
this IRT
label) year setting base-year
discussions
discussions discussions in (BYP59B)
(BYS36B) discussions meeting
thisevent by school;
activities
(BYP59A)
saysupporting
(NELS:88 you class in PTA high
to schoolschool meetings =
(BYS36C) a a in weighted
your adequate members HS
student-father
student-parent student-mother
student-parent (BYS37D) PTA
class
interest antogether
of of (BYS50B)
of in of (BYS50A) PTA
attended
attended
visited Statistics
havework participateBYP59C.
areattend
1988.and
studied
particular program participated
program in
Frequency
Frequency Frequency
Frequency Parent(s)
Parent(s)
Parent(s) Parents
Parents Parents
Parents Parents
BYP59B,
surveyed
(0.56)(0.58)(0.68)(0.62)(0.82)
(0.92)
(0.83)(0.73)(0.49)
(0.66) (0.50)
(0.50)
Upper
2.66 2.63
Description 1.34 1.53 1.55 1.45
2.33 2.27 1.40
2.06 1.53
1.56 BYP59A,
parents
(continued) and
1
A BYP74K,
Middle
(0.64)(0.68)(0.75)(0.68)(0.94)
(0.90)
(0.94)(0.73)
(0.67)
(0.46)
(0.48)
(0.43)
and 2.50 2.40 1.06 1.42 1.90 students
Table 2.371.71 2.39 1.69
2.21 1.651.75
(SD) BYP74J,
M grade
(0.72)(0.73)(0.75)(0.72)(0.92)
(0.87)
(0.97)(0.73)
(0.68)
(0.31)
(0.45)
(0.34)eighthBYS37D,
Lower
Working
2.26 2.22 0.80 1.30 2.16 2.432.12 2.31
2.171.89
1.71
1.87
1988,
of BYS37C,
(0.66)(0.69)(0.76)(0.68)(0.93)
(0.90)
(0.95)(0.73)
(0.67)
(0.47)
(0.48)
(0.44)(NELS)
Total BYS37A,
2.48 2.40 1.05 1.41 1.90 1.74 2.362.18
2.38 1.68
1.64
1.74
Study
coded:
event reverse
fathermother
say Longitudinal
class are
with with meetings
school
your items
studies together PTA Education
adequate
program
program in
attended
attended
visited weight.
activities
class work PTA
have following
member National
The
sample
Discuss
Discuss
Discussed
Discussed
Parent(s)
Parent(s)
Parent(s)
Parents
Parents
PTA Participate
Attend
Variable Source.
year
Note.
0\

.842
.855 .846 .696 .648
.848 .583
.696 .346
.767 .707 .654 .854 .877 .776
.772 .982
Factor
Loading weighted
Statistics
school?
courses 24,241).
=
grader's (n
selecting 1988
eighth in
parents your
honor
meeting. at
times) surveyed
Loadings with
more school
or a parents
Factor discussed organization
competition,
three and
disagree)
= you you?
3 attended
sports
to program.
have program.
twice, HS strongly students
organization?
HS no) = policy.
oroften interest = concert,parent-teacher
4
Standardized
Description 3 parent(s)
your a policy.
grade
scale your to organization?
A2 class? participated. school
and Item ta once
=
how
in
your play,
know a agree,
2 schooleighth
Table on year,particular year as YOU belongparent-teacher
planning of
all, planning a setting
of don't
at studied I= such of strongly
in
about =
notschool about2 school where no) parent-teacher
=
sample
(1 saysupporting
= the activities event
fair2 a
Descriptions you've this
yes, in
standardized (1 of of activities
father = of
mother scale entire
school? class. yes,
spouse/partner
(1 school = the adequate
Model score scorescale school
score at
things
your
your a science
(1 in 1988,
antogether
q score
variables q q to to scale your or your meetings of
beginning beginning part weight.
IRTq IRT IRTordinal and Likert-type
have
work
IRT the programs
discussedtalkedthevisited
discussed
talked attended attend take (NELS)
. . . . . . you. . sample
theory.
or . . . . . . ceremony. .
Continuous
Reading
Math Since . . . . Categorical
3-point
Science
History Since. . Do . . 4-point,
Dichotomous Parents
Parents
Study
Measurement
response
base-year
item
=
Longitudinal
IRT
weight/mean
Education School
and school;
Labelcomposite Student School sample
high
Item =
Help Visit Influence National
Construct HS
Involvement
BY2XSTHBYS36A
BY2XHTH
BY2XRTH
BY2XMTH BYS36B
BYS36C
BYS50A
BYS50B
BYS37ABYS37DBYP59A
BYS37C BYP59C
BYP59B BYP74Kbase-year
BYP74J
Latent Achievement Parents
NELS:88 Parents PTA Parents Source.
by Note.
262

U .95,
.13***
.10** .01 .25***.01 .02 base- = middle
-.16**-.08*** -.08
-.11***
and
index
Scores fit
W/M.20***
.02** .23***.03* .04***
-.01-.09*** -.03
-.13***
-.24***
Composite
Test weight/mean
Grade working
L =
Variables .14*** .03* .25***.03
-.11***
-.06***
-.22***-.07*** -.08*** -.02 sample comparative
Eighth W/M
of U .94,
.04.01.05**
.05*
.05**
.01 .08.13* = class;
End -.01 -.07**
Dependent base-year
W/M.01.00.04*** by index lower
Placement .16"**
.09*** .12***
.03*** .06***.01 =
-.04** L
TrackL .08***
.07***.10***
.24***.06** .03.09**
.04 .01 weighted
-.09*** design.
Class
are Tucker-Lewis
U .02.04.01.04.02 .01 - -
-.02
units.
Social sampling
Influence .04***
.02* .06***
.04***.06*** .04***- -
by W/M -.01
School Observations
deviation
L complex
Parents .13***
.13***.04
.08*** .09***- -
1988. for
Capital -.03
-.07***
in
standard
U .04.12 .09* .03 - - in
-.03 -.09**
-.03 adjusted
Social
A3 surveyedare
.19***
.12***.08***.02* .11***- -
W/M
Involvement -.03* -.02 presented
Table Grade parents errors
are
Parental PTA L .11*** .01
.01.01.08** .06* -
-.02 and
of Variables
Eighth standard
U .06* .16***.04 .45***- -
-.00
-.01 -.05* parameters
students and
Impact Visit
The
Endogenous .03.04** .00 .42***- - grade
W/M.14***
School
Throughout .13***
-.04***
Parents estimates
models.
L - - eighth
.08***
.01.14***
.08**
.02.02 .34*** the
Educational 1988, in Parameter
U - -
of
The .11***
.16***
.00 status.
-.04* -.02
-.05*** .036.
Help =
Studyestimated
.10o***.01 - -
not
W/M.17***
Student -.01 -.04***
-.04***
Parents are
L .13***
.03.01.07***.01 - socioeconomic
-.02 Longitudinal =
approximation
dashes
of SES.01.
<
with
capital
Student error***p
Education
School class;
variables: .05.
Variable marked <
weight.
socialVisit Influence
Help square
upper
composition American Involvement National = **p
EffectsU
Parents
Parents School samplemean.10.
<
parental PTAParents
Exogenous
SESFamilyBlack
Hispanic Native
Asian Endogenous Source.
year root
Note. class;
*p
tl
Ream,Palardy
Notes
The first author gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Spencer
Foundation.The data analyses and interpretationsexpressed in this articleare the authors'
and do not necessarilyreflectthose of the grantingagency. We are especially gratefulfor
the ideas and criticismsof LorraineM. McDonnell.Begofia Echeverria,R. CliftonSpargo,
and John S. Wills offered valuable support. The anonymous reviewers are also to be
acknowledged for their useful comments.
1Theliteratureon the "embeddedness"(Polanyi, 1957) of social networks in eco-
nomic behavior (Granovetter,1985) contradictspure marketnotions of economic action
that are founded on perhaps overly optimistic presumptions about open and equitable
informationexchange (Uzzi, 1996), hence the existence of sanctions against insider trad-
ing and nepotistic hiring practices(Ream, 2005).
2Thepotential for social exchange to affect educational inequalitymay be less dis-
cernible than the more obvious role that materialresourcesmight play in the stratification
process through inequitableschool funding schemes (Condron& Roscigno, 2003). Field
researchis demystifyingthe sociological underpinningsof educationalstratification,how-
ever, and survey researchcan build upon this work.
3Socialcapital is not a monolithic concept: There are variousforms of social capital
(e.g., trust,closure, norms of reciprocity)that enable the accumulationand exchange of
various kinds of resources(e.g., tangible goods, knowledge and information,dispositions
and powerful ways of acting). Formsof social capital conjurenotions of the strengthand
diversityof social networks, including relationshipdepth and levels of commitment;the
range of one's social "portfolio"across socioeconomic, racialand ethnic, and generational
borders; and the informal domains (e.g., family, peer) or more formal domains (e.g.,
school, community) in which useful relationshipsare made manifest(McNeal,1999).
4Neo-Marxistnotions of reproductionassume that differentlevels of education regu-
larly correspond to and may also predict differentlevels reached by laborerswithin the
workforce,so thatwe can also read the stratifieddivision of laborback upon the internally
organized differentialexperiences of students who are tracked in our education system
(Bowles & Gintis, 1976;Willis, 1977).
'Among these scholars,Joyce Epstein(2001) is widely cited for her six-partparental
involvement framework, which includes informal home-based components as well as
more formal school- and community-basedelements of parental actions that influence
children'sschooling.
6Psychologistsand educationalresearchers,for example, have carefullydocumented
the positive impact of "authoritative"parenting styles-characterized as warm and
involved, yet consistentlyfirmin clarifyingand enforcingguidelines and developmentally
appropriateexpectations-on children's development (Steinberg, 2001), including psy-
chological and social adjustmentand students' success in schools (Lamborn,Mounts,
Steinberg,& Dornbusch, 1991;Park& Palardy,2004).
:Illustratingwhat is functional about social capital, these ethnographersreveal the
concerted processes whereby middle-class parents draw on professionals within their
interpersonalnetworks (e.g., lawyers, members of the media) to collectively influence
school policy, sometimes converging on a school site en masse in orderto effect change.
Consideringthis same account from their more criticalperspective, social ties between
schools and middle-classparentnetworks often exclude working poor parents,who may
lack the schedule flexibility(Ehrenreich,2001) necessary for developing cooperative and
even politicized alliances (Delgado-Gaitan,1991) that might otherwise influence school
personnel on behalf of their children.
8Valenzuela(1999) called attentionto "subtractive" schooling processes thatfragment
Latinostudent networks in a manner that contributesto social decapitalization.Stanton-
Salazar(2001) showed how relationship development between adolescents and main-
streamschool personnel can be particularlyinfluential,yet markedlydifferentacross racial
and ethnic groups, in determiningthe extent to which studentsfind school to be welcom-
ing or alienating.Otherresearchlinkingstudenttransienceand social capital(Ream,2005)
illuminatesinter- and intraethnicaspects of the socializationprocess that can exacerbate
the achievement gap disadvantagingMexican-originyouth.
264

9This point is partially illustrated in The Black-White Test Score Gap, in which
ChristopherJencks and MeredithPhillips(1998) analyzed Black-Whiteearningsas a func-
tion of test performanceacross time. They did so by comparingthe Black-Whitetest per-
formance/earningsratio in 1964 and then again in 1993. Most tellingly, among men who
scored above the 50th percentile on the ArmedForces QualificationTest, Black average
earnings rose from 65%of White average earningsin 1964 to 96%of White average earn-
ings in 1993 (pp. 4-6).
10Diversity in contemporaryAmericahas erased some of what were once more obvi-
ous markers of social class. Ready access to money via more easily obtainable low-
interestlines of credit,for example, has made a multitudeof productsand services widely
availableto Americanconsumers.Religiousaffiliation,voting patterns,and even skin color
are much less clearly the class indicatorsthey once were (Scott & Leonhardt,2005). Yet
in spite of the reconfigurationand blending of what were once more distinctclass indica-
tors, social class remains a powerful and divisive force (Bowles, Gintis, & Groves, 2005;
Ehrenreich,2001; Phillips, 2002) that bears mightilyupon inequalitiesin schooling in the
UnitedStates(Berliner,2005;Brooks-Gunn& Duncan, 1997;Kozol, 2005;Rothstein,2004).
Thus, researchaddressingsocial structuralposition and social class often rejectsthe notion
of inequalityin Americanfamilies as a matterof fine gradations.Instead, broad categori-
cal analyses commonly group families into three more or less distinguishablesocial class
groups: the upper class, the middle and working classes, and the poor (Lamont, 1992;
Lareau,2003;Wright,1997). Forscholarsof this mind-set,the question is not whetherclass
categoriesfaithfully mirrorthe increasing complexityof the social world but whetherthese
categoriesare capable of advancing our knowledgeof specificproblems in class analysis
(Wright,1997).
"The field researchthat catalyzedthis investigation,in particularthat of Horvatet al.
(2003), considered parent networks by social class at the elementaryschool level, when
parents and school personnel typically have 6 or 7 years to get to know each other. To
study parentnetworks duringstudents'relativelybriefsojournthroughmiddle school, we
used NELSeighth grade data (ratherthan first or second follow-up high school data) to
investigatethe developmentalperiod when earlyadolescents begin to distancethemselves
from parents(CarnegieCouncilon Adolescent Development, 1995;Eccles& Harold,1993;
Hartup& Stevens 1997;Schneider& Stevenson, 1999).
12Becausethe NELSsamplingdesign resultedin students'being nested in schools, the
assumptionof the statisticalindependence of observationwas likely violated, which can
resultin a misestimationof standarderrors(Raudenbush& Bryk,2002). We used an Mplus
command ("complex")to adjustthe standarderrorsand model fit indices to account for
clustersampling (Muthen& Muthen,2004).
13TheNational Center for Education Statisticsoversampled certain subpopulations
(e.g., students from certain minority groups) to improve statisticalpower for analyses
focusing on those groups. The data set contains sample weights to correctfor oversam-
pling and other aspects of the sampling methodology that prevented the selection of a
nationally representativesample of students. We used the base-year sample weight to
attaina nationallyrepresentativesample of eighth graders.
14TheNationalCenterfor EducationStatisticsconstructedthe achievementscore using
the following procedure.The difficultyof each item on each test was estimatedusing item
response theory. Each student's item responses were then used to estimate his or her
achievement level, with correct answers being weighted on the basis of their estimated
difficulty.The distributionof each of the four achievementvariableswas then transformed
to a t scale standardizedon 10th grade scores (M = 50, SD = 10).
"1Althoughall elementary school students are expected to learn the same founda-
tional skills,the transitionto middleschool and juniorhigh school marksan abruptchange
when course sequencing and content differentiationsignal the formaltrackingand ability
grouping that begins in the middle grades (Dauber,Alexander,& Entwisle, 1996). Ample
evidence shows that lower trackplacementoften producesdeleteriouseducationaleffects,
especially on low-income students(Gamoran& Berends, 1987;Oakes, Gamoran,& Page,
1991).
16TheNELSsurvey instrumentsare not grounded in social capitaltheory or any other
single basic researchagenda, so inadequacies in the survey data inhibitwhat might have
265

Ream,Palardy
been a more comprehensiveoperationalizationof parentalsocial capital.Illustratively,nei-
ther relationsof trust(Hardin,2002) nor shared expectations and norms(Coleman, 1988)
are especially measurableusing NELSdata.
17SeeTableA2 in the Appendixfor item descriptionsand factorloadingsfor the latent
constructs.
"'Wealso modeled all four forms of parentalsocial capital as simultaneousand cor-
related predictorsof our two outcomes (track placement and test scores); this model fit
the data equally well. In Figure 1, we present the more theoreticallyplausible model,
although we leave to futureanalyses the question of whether some forms of social capi-
tal mediate the educational influence of others.
19Tothe degree that many middle schools have moved toward more heterogeneous
abilitygroupings of students and less trackingthan is still found in high schools, this find-
ing is not entirelysurprising.Moreover,if the forces that buttresstrackingare tied to each
school community'sunique context (Page, 1991;Yonezawa, Wells, & Serna, 2002), then
we can expect significant variation in tracking practices across local settings (Wells &
Serna,1996). It is difficult,however, to find reliabledataon the amountand kinds of track-
ing schools of any type do because schools use trackingpractices under different,per-
haps even euphemistic, names. And then, too, there is the question of what counts as
"tracking"--whether,for example, placement in Title I or vocational education is a form
of trackingis subject to varyinginterpretations.
20Previous users of NELShave noted thatstudentsgained an averageof approximately
2 points per year on the NELSachievement tests (Ream, 2005). Therefore, the average
eighth grade student from a low-social-classfamily is six grade levels behind the average
eighth grade student from a high-social-classfamily.
21Membershipin any particularsocial class group is associated with several factors
(e.g., familycomposition,race and ethnicity)thatare unaccountedfor in Figure2. Adjusting
the results of the analysisof variancefor such factorswould likely produce smallermean
social class differencesin the availabilityof parentalsocial capital.
22posthoc tests also revealthatall pairwisemeans differsignificantly(p < .01), with the
exception of ParentsInfluenceSchool, whose distributionamong the lower- and working-
and middle-classgroups is, on average, statisticallyequivalent (-0.04 and -0.06 standard
deviations,respectively).
23Forperhapsa clearerunderstandingof the magnitudeof the linksbetween variables
in the models, the parameterestimates are depicted in standardizedunits in Table A3 in
the Appendix.
24Horvatet al. (2003) asserted, "Thereis good reason to suspect that the forms of
parentalbehavior that we have documented are relevantto student outcomes"(p. 345).
25Theactual magnitude of the middle-class link between ParentsInfluence School
and eighth grade test scores is rathersmall, however, as is indicatedby the standardized
parameter(0.04 standarddeviations) in Table A3.
26Suchstrategiesentail complex social and interpretiveprocesses that may be more
thoroughly captured by field researchtechniques and then, too, by sophisticatedsurvey
designs that build upon ethnographic fieldwork. Coleman (1990) himself asserted in
Foundations of Social Theorythat the conceptual value of social capital "liesprimarilyin
its usefulness for qualitativeanalyses of social systems and for those quantitativeanalyses
that employ qualitativeindicators"(pp. 305-306).
27Housingand school resegregation(Orfield& Lee, 2007;Rumberger& Palardy,2005)
may partlyexplain parentalsegregationby social class. The impactof segregationon social
capital accumulationand exchange has not yet been thoroughly investigated;we hope
that future researchwill address this oversight.
28Thereremains a gap between sophisticatedtheoreticalclaims and weak empirical
data on social capital (Baron et al., 2000). Severalchanges in the development of future
survey instrumentswould enable a more thoroughand accurateinvestigationof the avail-
abilityand also the educationalutilityof social capital,includinginstrumentsthat facilitate
(a) both direct (person-to-person)and indirect (collective actions and affiliations)mea-
sures of various forms of social capital; (b) the examination of social capital across
domains, because interactiontakes place in informal(e.g., family) and also more formal
public social networks(e.g., school); and (c) the longitudinalexaminationof variousforms
of social capital, across various domains (Ream, 2005).
266

29Havingsuggested the wisdom in structuralreformsdesigned to improve the socio-
economic prospectsof the workingpoor, and in educationalreformsthatlead to more sub-
stantivesocial integrationamong school parents,we also wish to addresssome caveatsand
to recognize potential limitations of our research. First, students in the NELSsample
attended middle school in 1988; subsequent reformefforts and educational adaptations
have since altered students'and parents'schooling experiences as well as the education
policy climate.And to the degree thatself-selectioninfluencesthe demographicsof parental
involvement,the NELSdata are not amenable to true experimentalresearch,by the stan-
dard of which students would be randomlyassigned to differenttypes of parents across
social class categories. Moreover,controllingfor prior achievement in our models would
have improvedour effort to isolate the impact of parentalnetworks duringthe relatively
short period of time when NELSstudents were in eighth grade. Unfortunately,an earlier
(priorto eighth grade) achievementmeasure is not availablein the NELSdata set. Finally,
we acknowledge and supportthe notion that policy solutions are most wisely undertaken
in the context of a cumulativebody of findingsratherthan in response to the resultsof any
single study (McDonnell,2000).
References
Anyon, J. (2005) Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new
social movement. New York: Routledge.
Arvizu,S. (1996). Family,community and school collaboration.InJ. Sikula,T. Buttery,&
E. Guyton(Eds.),Handbookof researchon teacbereducation (2nd ed., pp. 814-819).
New York:Simon & Schuster.
Baron, S., Field, J., & Schuller, T. (Eds.). (2000). Social capital: Criticalperspectives.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Becker, G. (1964). Human capital. New York:National Bureau of Economic Research.
Berliner, D. (2005). Our impoverished view of educational reform. Teachers College
Record, 108(6). Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=
12106
Berne, R., & Stiefel, L. (1999). Concepts of school finance equity: 1970 to the present. In
H. Ladd,R. Chalk,&J. Hansen (Eds.), Equityand adequacy in educationalfinance:
Issues and perspectives(pp. 7-33). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bolgatz, J. (2005). Talking race in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Bonilla-Silva,E. (2003). Racism without racists: Color-blindracism and thepersistence
of racial inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson(Ed.). Handbook of theory
and researchon the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York:Greenwood.
Bourdieu, P., & Johnson, R. (1993). Thefield of cultural production. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. New York: Basic
Books.
Bowles, S., Gintis, H., & Groves, M. (2005). Unequal chances: Family background
and economic success. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. TheFuture
of Children, 7, 55-71.
Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resourcefor improvement.
New York: Russell Sage.
Carbonaro,W. (1998). A little help from my friend's parents: Intergenerationalclosure
and educational outcomes. Sociology ofEducation, 71, 295-313.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1995). Great transitions, preparing
adolescents for a new century. New York: Carnegie Corporation.
Catsambis,S. (2001). Expanding knowledge of parental involvement in children's sec-
ondary education: Connections with high school seniors' academic success.
Social Psychology ofEducation, 5, 149-177.
267

Ream,Palardy
Chrispeels,J., & Rivero,E. (2001).EngagingLatinofamiliesfor studentsuccess:How
parenteducationcan reshapeparents'sense of place in the educationof their
children.PeabodyJournalof Education, 76, 119-169.
Clark,R. (1983). Familylife and schoolachievement:Whypoor Blackchildrensuc-
ceed orfail. Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
Clark,R.(1993).Homework-focusedparentingpracticesthatpositivelyaffectstudent
achievement.In N. F. Chavkin(Ed.),Familiesand schoolsin a pluralisticsoci-
ety (pp. 85-105). Albany:StateUniversityof New YorkPress.
Clune,W. (1994). The shiftfromequityto adequacyin school finance.Educational
Policy,8, 376-394.
Cohen,D., Raudenbush,S., & Ball,D. L.(2003).Resources,instruction,and research.
EducationalEvaluationand PolicyAnalysis,25, 119-142.
Coleman,J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creationof human capital.American
Journalof Sociology,94, S95-S120.
Coleman,J. S. (1990).Equalityand achievementin education.Boulder,CO:Westview.
Comer,J. (1980). Schoolpower.New York:FreePress.
Condron, D., & Roscigno, V. (2003). Disparitieswithin: Unequal spending and
achievementin an urbanschool district.Sociologyof Education,76, 18-36.
Croninger,R., & Lee, V. (2001). Social capital and dropping out of high school:
Benefitsto at-riskstudentsof teachers'supportand guidance.TeachersCollege
Record,103, 548-581.
Dauber,S.,Alexander,K.,&Entwisle,D. (1996).Trackingandtransitionsthroughthe
middle grades:Channelingeducationaltrajectories.Sociologyof Education,4,
290-307.
Delgado-Gaitan,C. (1991).Involvingparentsin the schools:A processof empower-
ment.AmericanJournalof Education,100, 20-46.
Delpit, L. (1995). Otherpeople'schildren:Culturalconflict in the classroom.New
York:New Press.
Dika,S., & Singh,K. (2002).Applicationsof social capitalin educationalliterature:A
criticalsynthesis.Reviewof EducationalResearch,72, 31-60.
Drummond,K., & Stipek,D. (2004). Low-incomeparents'beliefs abouttheirrole in
children'sacademiclearning.ElementarySchoolJournal, 104, 197-213.
Eccles,J., &Harold,R.(1993).Parent-schoolinvolvementduringthe earlyadolescent
years. TeachersCollegeRecord,94, 568-587.
Eckert,P. (1989).Jocksand burnouts:Socialcategoriesand identityin thehighschool.
New York:TeachersCollegePress.
Ehrenreich,B. (2001).Nickeland dimed:On (not)gettingby in America.New York:
HenryHolt.
Epstein,J. (1992). Schooland familypartnerships.In M. C. Alkin(Ed.),Encyclopedia
of educationalresearch(6th ed., pp. 1139-1151).New York:FreePress.
Epstein,J. (2001).School,family, and communitypartnerships: Preparingeducators
and improvingschools.Boulder,CO:Westview.
Epstein,J., & Dauber,S. (1991). School programsand teacherpracticesof parent
involvementin inner-cityelementaryand middle schools. ElementarySchool
Journal,91, 289-305.
Fan,X., & Chen,M. (1999).Parentalinvolvementand students'academic achieve-
ment:A meta-analysis.Arlington,VA:NationalScience Foundation,National
Center for EducationStatistics.(ERICDocument ReproductionService No.
ED430048)
Fine, M. (1993). (Ap)parentinvolvement:Reflectionson parents,power, and urban
schools. TeachersCollegeRecord,94, 26-43.
268

Fuller,B., & Hannum,E. (Eds.).(2002). Schoolingand social capitalin diversecul-
tures.New York:Elsevier.
Gamoran,A., & Berends,M.(1987).The effectsof stratification in secondaryschools:
Synthesisof surveyand ethnographicresearch.Reviewof EducationalResearch,
57, 415-435.
Gibson,M., Gaindara, P., & Koyama,J. (Eds.).(2004).Peers,schoolsand the educa-
tionalachievementof U.S.-Mexican youth. New York:TeachersCollegePress.
Giroux, H. (1983). Theoryand resistance in education. London: Heinemann
Educational.
Goddard,R.(2003).Relationalnetworks,socialtrust,and norms:A socialcapitalper-
spectiveon students'chancesof academicsuccess.EducationalEvaluationand
PolicyAnalysis,25, 59-74.
Goffman,E. (1963). Stigma.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Goldman, S., & McDermott,R. (1987). The culture of competition in American
schools. In G. Spindler(Ed.),Educationand culturalprocess:Anthropological
approaches(2nd ed., pp. 282-300). Chicago:Waveland.
Granovetter, M.(1985).Economicactionand socialstructure: The problemof embed-
dedness.AmericanJournalof Sociology,91, 481-510.
Grissmer,D., Flanagan,A., & Williamson,S. (1997).Does money matterfor minority
anddisadvantagedstudents?Assessingthe new empiricalevidence.In W. Fowler
(Ed.),Developmentsin schoolfinance (pp. 15-30). Collinsdale,PA:Diane.
Grubb,N., & Huerta,L. (2001). Strawintogold, resourcesinto results:Spinningout
the implicationsof the "new"schoolfinance (WorkingPaper Series 01-1).
Berkeley:PolicyAnalysisfor CaliforniaEducation.
Gutman,L.,& Midgley,C.(2000).The role of protectivefactorsin supportingthe aca-
demicachievementof poorAfricanAmericanstudentsduringthe middleschool
transition.
Journalof Youthand Adolescence,29, 223-248.
Hanushek,E. (1989).The impactof differentialexpenditureson school performance.
EducationalResearcher,18, 45-51, 62.
Hao, L.,& Bonsteac-Bruns, M.(1998).Parent-childdifferencesin educationalexpec-
tations and the academic achievement of immigrantand native students.
Sociologyof Education,71, 175-198.
Hardin,R. (2002). Trustand trustworthiness.New York:RussellSage.
Harris,J. (1998). Thenurtureassumption:Whychildrenturn out the way they do.
New York:Touchstone.
Hart,B., & Risley,T. (1995).Meaningfuldifferences.Baltimore,MD:Brookes.
Hartup,W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendshipsand adaptationin the life course.
PsychologicalBulletin,121, 355-370.
Hedges, L., Laine,R., & Greenwald,R. (1994). An exchange:PartI: Does money
matter?A meta-analysisof studiesof the effectsof differentialschool inputson
studentoutcomes.EducationalResearcher, 23, 5-14.
Henderson,A., & Mapp,K. (2002).A new wave of evidence:Theimpactof school,
family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX:
NationalCenterfor Family& CommunityConnectionsWithSchoolsSouthwest
EducationalDevelopmentLaboratory.
Henig, J., Hula, R., Orr,M., & Pedescleax, D. (1999). Thecolor of school reform.
Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Hess, G.A.,Jr.(1995).Restructuringurbanschools:A Chicagoperspective.New York:
TeachersCollegePress.
Hoffereth,S.,& Sandberg,J. (2001).How Americanchildrenspendtheirtime.Journal
of Marriageand theFamily,63, 295-308.
269

Ream, Palardy
Hoover-Dempsey,K.,&Sandler,H. (1997).Whydo parentsbecome involvedin their
children'seducation?Reviewof EducationalResearch,67, 3-42.
Horvat,E., Weininger,E., & Lareau,A. (2003).Fromsocialties to socialcapital:Class
differences in relations between schools and parent networks. American
EducationalResearchJournal,40, 319-351.
Jencks,C., & Phillips,M. (Eds.).(1998). TheBlack-Whitetestscoregap. Washington,
DC:BrookingsInstitution.
Kao, G. (2004). Socialcapitaland its relevanceto minorityand immigrantpopula-
tions. SociologyofEducation, 77, 172-175.
Kao, G., & Tienda,M. (1998). Educationalaspirationsof minorityyouth.American
JournalofEducation, 106, 349-384.
Keith,T. Z., Keith,P. B., Quirk,K.J., Sperduto,J., Santillo,S., & Killings,S. (1998).
Longitudinaleffects of parentinvolvementon high school grades:Similarities
and differencesacrossgenderand ethnicgroups.Journalof SchoolPsychology,
36, 335-363.
Kozol,J. (2005). Theshame of the nation: Therestorationof apartheidschoolingin
America.New York:Crown.
Lamborn,S., Mounts,N., Steinberg,L., & Dornbusch,S. (1991). Patternsof compe-
tence and adjustmentamongadolescentsfromauthoritative, authoritarian,indul-
gent, and neglectfulhomes. ChildDevelopment,62, 1049-1065.
Lamont,M. (1992). Money,morals& manners:Thecultureof the Frenchand the
Americanupper-middleclass. Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
Lareau,A. (2000).Homeadvantage:Socialclassandparentalintemrvention in elemen-
taryeducation.Lanham,MD:Rowman& Littlefield.
Lareau,A. (2002). Invisibleinequality:Socialclass and childrearingin Blackfamilies
and Whitefamilies.AmericanSociologicalReview,67, 747-776.
Lareau,A. (2003). Unequal childhoods:Class, race, and family life. Berkeley:
Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Lin,N. (2001).Socialcapital:A theoryof socialstructureand action. Cambridge,UK:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Loury,G. (1977). A dynamictheory of racialincome differences.In P. Wallace&
A.Lamond(Eds.),Women,minorities and employment discrimination (pp. 153-186).
Lexington,MA:LexingtonBooks.
Loury, G. (2002). The anatomy of racial inequality. Cambridge,MA: Harvard
UniversityPress.
MacLeod,J. (1995). Ain't no makin' it: Aspirations& attainmentin a low-income
neighborhood.Boulder,CO:Westview.
Maeroff,G. (1998). Altereddestinies:Makinglife betterfor schoolchildrenin need.
New York:St. Martin's.
Massey,D., & Eggers,M. (1990).The ecology of inequality:Minoritiesand the con-
centrationof poverty,1970-1980.AmericanJournalofSociology,95, 1170-1184.
McDonnell,L.(2000).Fromresearchfindings topolicyadvice:AguideforAERAmem-
bers.Washington,DC:AmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,Government
RelationsCommittee.
McNeal,R. (1999). Parentalinvolvementas social capital:Differentialeffectiveness
on science achievement,truancy,and droppingout. SocialForces,78, 117-144.
Moll,L.,Amanti,C., Neff,D., & Gonzalez,N. (1992).Fundsof knowledgefor teach-
ing:Usinga qualitativeapproachto connecthomes and classrooms.TheoryInto
Practice,31, 132-141.
Muller,C. (1995). Parentalties to the school and communityand mathematics
achievement.In P.W.Cookson,Jr.,& B. Schneider(Eds.),Transforming schools
(pp. 57-79). New York:Garland.
270

Muller,C.,& Kerbow,D. (1993).Parentinvolvementin the home, school, and com-
munity.In B. Schneider&J. Coleman(Eds.),Parents,theirchildren,and schools
(pp. 13-42). Boulder,CO:Westview.
Muthen,L.,& Muthen,B. (2004).Mplususer'sguide (3rd ed.). LosAngeles:Muthen
& Muthen.
Noguera,P. (2001). Transformingurbanschools throughinvestmentsin the social
capitalof parents.In S. Saegert,J. Thompson,& M.Warren(Eds.),Socialcapi-
tal andpoor communities(pp. 189-212).New York:RussellSage.
Noguera,P. (2003).The troublewith Blackboys:The role and influenceof environ-
mentaland culturalfactorson the academicperformanceof AfricanAmerican
males. UrbanEducation,38, 431-459.
Oakes,J., Gamoran,A., & Page,R.(1991).Curriculum differentiation:
Opportunities,
outcomes,and meanings.In P.Jackson(Ed.),Handbookof researchon curricu-
lum (pp. 570-608). New York:Macmillan.
Odden,A., & Clune,W. (1998). Schoolfinancesystems:Agingstructuresin need of
renovation.EducationalEvaluationand PolicyAnalysis,20, 157-177.
Odden, A., & Picus, L. (2003) Schoolfinance: A policy perspective.New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Orfield,G., & Lee, C. (2007). Historicreversals,acceleratingresegregation,and the
needfor new integrationstrategies.Los Angeles:Universityof California,Los
Angeles,CivilRightsProject/Proyecto DerechosCiviles.
Ortner,S. (2006).Anthropology and social theory:Culture,power,and theactingsub-
ject. Durham,NC:Duke UniversityPress.
Page, R. (1991).Lower-track classrooms:A curricularand culturalperspective.New
York:TeachersCollegePress.
Parcel,T.,&Menaghan,E. (1994).Earlyparentalwork,familysocialcapital,andearly
childhoodoutcomes.AmericanJournalof Sociology,99, 972-1009.
Park,E., & Palardy,G. J. (2004). Impactof parentalinvolvementand authoritative-
ness on academic achievement:A cross ethnic comparison. In S. Paik &
H. Walberg(Eds.),Advancingeducationalproductivity: Policyimplicationsfrom
nationaldatabases(pp. 95-122). Greenwich,CT:InformationAge.
Phillips,K. (2002). Wealthand democracy.New York:Broadway.
Polanyi,K. (1957). Thegreat transformation.Boston:Bacon.
Pong, S. (1998).The school compositionaleffectof single parenthoodon 10th-grade
achievement.Sociologyof Education,71, 23-42.
Portes,A. (1998). Social capital:Its origin and applicationsin modern sociology.
AnnualReviewof Sociology,24, 1-24.
Putnam,R. (2000).Bowlingalone: . Thecollapseand revivalofAmericancommunity.
New York:Simon& Schuster.
Raudenbush,S. W., & Bryk,A. S. (2002). Hierarchicallinear models:Applications
and data analysismethods(2nd ed.). NewburyPark,CA:Sage.
Ream,R. K. (2003). Counterfeitsocial capitaland MexicanAmericanunderachieve-
ment.EducationalEvaluationand PolicyAnalysis,25, 237-262.
Ream,R.K.(2005).Towardunderstandinghow socialcapitalmediatesthe impactof
studentmobilityon MexicanAmericanachievement.SocialForces,84, 201-224.
Ream, R. K., & Stanton-Salazar, R. (2007). The mobility/socialcapital dynamic:
Understanding MexicanAmericanfamiliesand students.In S. Paik& H. Walberg
(Eds.),Narrowingthe achievementgap: Strategies for educatingLatino,Black,
and Asianstudents(pp. 67-89). New York:Springer.
Roark,J. (1978). Masterswithoutslaves: Southernplanters in the Civil Warand
Reconstruction.New York:Norton.
Roscigno, V. (2000). Family/school inequality and African-American/Hispanic
achievement.SocialProblems,47, 266-290.
271

Ream,Palardy
Rothstein,R. (2004). Classand schools: Usingsocial, economic, and educational
reformto close the Black-Whiteachievementgap. New York:TeachersCollege
Press.
Rumberger,R. W., & Palardy,G.J. (2005). Does segregationstillmatter?The impact
of socialcompositionon academicachievementin high school. TeachersCollege
Record,107, 1999-2045.
Saegert,S., Thompson,J., & Warren,M. (Eds.).(2001).Socialcapitalandpoor com-
munities.New York:RussellSage.
Scheiber,N. (2005, September19). Povertyline. TheNewRepublic.
Schneider,B. (2000).Socialsystemsand norms:A Colemanapproach.In M.Hallinan
(Ed.),Handbookof thesociologyof education(pp. 365-385).New York:Kluwer
Academic.
Schneider,B., &Coleman,J. (Eds.).(1993).Parents,theirchildren,and schools.Boulder,
CO:Westview.
Schneider,B., & Stevenson,D. (1999).Theambitiousgeneration:America'steenagers,
motivatedbut directionless.New Haven,CT:Yale UniversityPress.
Schultz,T. (1961).Investmentin humancapital.AmericanEconomicReview,51, 1-17.
Scott,J., & Leonhardt,D. (2005, May 15). Classin America:Shadowylines that still
divide. TheNew YorkTimes.Availableat http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/
15/national/class/OVERVIEW-FINAL.html?_r=-1&oref=slogin
Shumow,L., & Miller,J. (2001). Parents'at-homeand at-schoolacademicinvolve-
ment with young adolescents.Journalof EarlyAdolescence,21, 68-91.
Singh,K., Beckley, P., Trivette,P., Keith,T., & Keith,P. (1995). The effects of four
components of parentalinvolvement on eighth-gradestudent achievement:
Structural analysisof NELS-88 data.SchoolPsychologyReview,24, 299-317.
Smith,S., & Kulynych,J. (2002).It maybe social,butwhy is it capital?The socialcon-
structionof social capitaland the politics of language.Politics& Society,30,
149-186.
Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A social capitalframeworkfor understandingthe social-
izationof racialminoritychildrenand youths.HarvardEducationalReview,67,
1-40.
Stanton-Salazar, R. (2001). Manufacturinghope and despair:Theschool and kin
support networks of U.S.-Mexican youth. New York:TeachersCollegePress.
Stanton-Salazar, R. (2004). Socialcapitalamong working-classminoritystudents.In
M.Gibson,P. Gandara, &J.Koyama(Eds),Schoolconnections:U.S.Mexicanyouth,
peers,and schoolachievement(pp. 18-38).New York:TeachersCollegePress.
Steele, C. (1997).A threatin the air:How stereotypesshape intellectualidentityand
performance.AmericanPsychologist,52, 613-629.
Steinberg,L. (2001). We know some things: Parent-adolescentrelationshipsin
Retrospectand prospect.Journalof Researchon Adolescence,11, 1-19.
Stevenson,D., & Baker,D. (1987).The family-schoolrelationsand the child'sschool
performance.ChildDevelopment,58, 1348-1357.
Sui-ChuHo, E., & Willms,D. (1996). Effectsof parentalinvolvementon 8th grade
achievement.Sociologyof Education,69, 126-141.
Teachman,J., Paasch,K., & Carver,K. (1997). Socialcapitaland the generationof
humancapital.SocialForces,75, 1343-1359.
Tienda,M., &Jensen,L. (1988). Povertyand minorities:A quartercenturyprofileof
color and socioeconomic disadvantage.In G. Sandefur& M. Tienda (Eds.),
Divided opportunities: Minorities,poverty,and socialpolicy (pp. 23-61). New
York:Plenum.
272

Uzzi, B. (1996).The sourcesand consequencesof embeddednessfor the economic
performanceof organizations: The networkeffect.AmericanSociologicalReview,
61, 674-698.
Valdes, G. (1996). Con respeto:Bridging the distances betweenculturallydiverse
families and schools.New York:TeachersCollegePress.
Valencia,R.(Ed.).(2002).Chicanoschoolfailureand success:Past,presentandfuture
(2nd ed.). London:Routledge.
Valenzuela,A. (1999). Subtractiveschooling:U.S.-Mexican youth and thepolitics of
caring.Albany:StateUniversityof New YorkPress.
Valenzuela,A., & Dornbusch,S. (1994). Familismand social capitalin the academic
achievement of Mexican-originand Anglo high school adolescents. Social
ScienceQuarterly,75, 18-36.
Van Ausdale,D., & Feagin,J. (1996). Using racialand ethnic concepts:The critical
case of very young children.AmericanSociologicalReview,61, 779-793.
Vdlez-Ibafiez,C., & Greenberg,J. (1992). Formationand transformation of funds
of knowledge among U.S.-Mexicanhouseholds.Anthropologyand Education
Quarterly,23, 313-335.
Wacquant,L. (1989). Inside the zone: The social art of the hustler in the Black
Americanghetto. Theory,Culture,and Society,15, 1-36.
Wells, A., & Serna,I. (1996). The politics of culture:Understandinglocal political
resistanceto detrackingin raciallymixedschools.HarvardEducationalReview,
66, 93-118.
White,M.,& Kaufman,G. (1997).Languageusage,socialcapital,and school comple-
tion amongimmigrantsand nativeborn ethnicgroups.SocialScienceQuarterly,
78, 385-398.
Wilgoren,J. (2005,September5). Stormandcrisis:The economicdivide;In taleof two
families,a chasmbetween haves and have-notes.TheNew YorkTimes,p. Al.
Willis,P. (1977).Learningto labor.Aldershot,UK:Gower.
Wilson,W. J. (1989). The decliningsignificanceof race:Revisitedbut not revised.
In C. V. Willie(Ed.), Casteand class controversyon race andpoverty(2nd ed.,
pp. 22-36). New York:GeneralHall.
Woolcock,M. (1998). Socialcapitaland economic development:Towarda theoreti-
cal synthesisand policy framework.Theoryand Society,27, 151-208.
Wright,E.(1997).Classcounts:Comparative studiesin classanalysis.Cambridge,UK:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Yonezawa,S., Wells,A., & Serna,I. (2002).Choosingtracks:"Freedomof choice"in
detrackingschools.AmericanEducationalResearchJournal,39, 37-67.
Zukin,S., & DiMaggio,P. (1990).Structuresof capital:Thesocial organizationof the
economy.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.
ManuscriptreceivedJuly 12, 2006

RevisionreceivedJuly 2, 2007
AcceptedAugust19, 2007
273


2008 - Ream Palardy Reexamining Social Class Differences

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2008 - Ream Palardy Reexamining Social Class Differences

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Reexamining Social Class Differences in the Availability and the Educational Utility of

Parental Social Capital

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

Reexamining Social Class Differences in

Emergent ethnographic research disentangles "social capital" from other

KEYWORDS:middleschools, parentalnetworks,social capital,social class

urricaneKatrinaviolentlyexposed the yawninggap between America's

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

Althoughthereexistsan extensiveschool financeliteratureon how education

LinkingNotions of Embeddedness to EducationalPerformance

ROBERT K. REAM is an assistantprofessorin the GraduateSchoolof Educationat

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

* Aretheredifferences(acrossupper-,middle-or working-,and lower-class

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

Informalparent-childrelations.Some researchon parentinvolvement

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

Formalparent relationswith otherparents and schoolpersonnel. Of

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

Social Class in the Social Exchange of Resources

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

* ParentsHelpStudent: a five-itemconstructincludingthefrequency of parent-

Mostof the observedvariablesused in the social capitalconstructsare

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

FAMILY Pa SI School Track

youth. Informal parent-student relations at home precede and may also be

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

Trackplacementand testscores.It mustbe noted,however,thatthe data

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

Thedistributionof parental social capital. Ethnographicresearchhas

The Utilityof ParentalSocialCapitalby SocialClass

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

Distribution of Parental Social Capital by Social Class

Figure2. Meansocial class differences pertainingto the availabilityof various

class, engage in conversations with adolescents about what they do in school

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

Throughout 8th Grade

X21 =1.46 L: .01

Figure3. The educational impactof parentalsocial capital by social class.

impact of Parents Influence School is notable particularlyin the test scores

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

This content downloaded on Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:37 PM

ManuscriptreceivedJuly 12, 2006