Glenn D. Israel, University of Florida Lionel J. Beaulieu, Southern Rural Development Center

1. The Influence of Social Capital On Test Scores: How Much Do Families, Schools & Communities Matter? • Glenn D. Israel, University of Florida • Lionel J. Beaulieu, Southern Rural Development Center • February 2002

2. Why Study Test Scores? • Common measure for assessing students’ educational outcomes (e.g., FCAT, SAT) • Increasingly used to measure performance of schools (e.g., Florida’s School Performance Grades) • Key factor in setting educational policies, including resource allocations (e.g., President Bush’s ‘No Child Left Behind Act of 2001’)

3. Simplified Model of Educational Achievement Background Attributes • Student’s ability • Parent/student attributes • School resources • Community resources Family Social Capital • Structural attributes • Process attributes Educational Outcomes • Test scores • Grade average • High school completion School Social Capital • Structural attributes • Process attributes Community Social Capital • Structural attributes • Process attributes

4. Elements of Family Social Capital Structure • Parental structure, number of siblings, and climate (sibling who dropped out) affect opportunities for interaction Process • Nurturing activities, e.g., assisting with homework, discussing school plans, encouraging college • Monitoring activities, e.g., limiting TV time, checking on homework, present after school

5. Elements of Community Social Capital Structure • Local capacity, inequality; isolation; and instability affect opportunities for structural differentiation and integration Process • Linkages between youth and others in the community, e.g., member of a church group, involved in other youth groups, number of moves • Closure in networks, e.g., parents know friends parents

6. Elements of School Social Capital Structure • Composition of student body, school size and resources, quality of teachers and staff, and school climate influence opportunities for relationships among students, teachers and parents Process • Nurturing activities, e.g., student and teachers talk, student perceive teachers to be nurturing • Monitoring activities, e.g., amount that student’s parents contact the school

7. Data & Analysis Methods Data Source • National Educational Longitudinal Survey (NELS) surveyed 8th grade students, parents, teachers, and school administrators in 1988 • Follow-up surveys conducted in 1990 & 1992 • NELS data supplemented with data from School District Data Book, UDSA-ERS & ICPSR Analysis Methods • Descriptive statistics and factor analysis used for selecting variables and data reduction • Hierarchal Linear Models using student-level and school/community-level variables used to estimate parameters for 8,756 students and 577 public schools

8. R2 by Community Type

9. Family Structural Attributes: Predicted Change in Test Scores Number of Siblings 1 2 3 4 5 6 No of Sib Dropouts 1 2 3 4 5 6 1P 2P Ot Parent Structure

10. Family Process Attributes: Predicted Change in Test Scores 0x 1-2x 3x+ Discuss school w/ parents 0 1 2 No of parents expecting college N R S O How often TV time limited

11. Family Process Attributes: Predicted Change in Test Scores Parents check homework Metro core N R S O Metro other N R S O Adjacent nonmetro N R S O Non-adjacent nonmetro N R S O

12. Family Process Attributes: Predicted Change in Test Scores Time alone after school Metro core N <1 1-2 2-3 >3 Metro other N <1 1-2 2-3 >3 Adjacent nonmetro Non-adjacent nonmetro N <1 1-2 2-3 >3

13. Community Structural Attributes: Predicted Change in Test Scores Percent living in the same county 10 25 50 75 90 10 25 50 75 90 Percent of voter Participation, ‘88 10 25 50 75 90 Socio-economic capacity: metro other

14. Community Process Attributes: Predicted Change in Test Scores No of Non- religious groups 0 1 2 3 4 5 Number of moves 0 1 2 3 4 5 No Yes Involved in a religious group

15. School Structural Attributes: Predicted Change in Test Scores Percent of free & reduced price lunch: Metro core 10 25 50 75 90 Percent of free & reduced price lunch: Non-adj. Nonmetro 10 25 50 75 90 1 25 50 75 99 Expenditures Per student

16. School Structural Attributes: Predicted Change in Test Scores 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Extent of school problems 10 25 50 75 90 Positive school atmosphere 10 25 50 75 90 School emphasis on academics

17. School Process Attributes: Predicted Change in Test Scores Teachers talk w/ outside of class 0 1 2 3 4 .3 1 1.7 2.3 3.3 How much teachers nurture 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Number of sch. clubs student in

18. School Process Attributes: Predicted Change in Test Scores Student’s parent contact school N 1 2 >4x No Yes Involved in other school organizations 0 1 2 3 4 How much parents do in PTO

19. Conclusions & Implications • Background and family variables account for most of the explained variance in test scores – between 19 and 24% • Process social capital variables for families, communities and schools have significant influences on test scores & these are malleable • Reliance on standardize test scores as the performance measure for schools is not supported by research