What is the Value Added by High-School Infrastructure and Teacher Qualities on Student Grades?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.312.2433Abstract
The assumption that high-school infrastructure and teacher quality have positive impacts on academic attainments was challenged when Massey and Fischer disclosed a double paradox. First, infrastructure quality has a negative effect on high school GPA (Massey, Charles, Lundy, and Fischer, 2003) and a positive effect on college GPA (Fischer, 2007). And second, teacher quality does not impact GPA, but teachers’ disciplinary practices do. How can the same infrastructure have opposite effects on grades when one looks at high school versus college? And why does teacher quality not matter, but disciplinary behavior does matter, to academic performance? Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Freshmen, this study analyzes particular measures of school infrastructure to ascertain their effects on grades in high school and college. Our results suggest that the aspect of infrastructure quality that positively affected freshman GPA was overall school quality, while the aspects that negatively affected high school GPA were library quality and school’s reputation in the community. Further, teacher quality was not found to be a positive and significant predictor of GPA at either the high school or university level. However, teachers’ disciplinary practices, when perceived as either “fair” or “strict” by students, did matter. When discipline was perceived as “fair”, there was a positive correlation with high school GPA, and conversely when it was perceived as being “strict” there was a negative impact on high school GPA. This research provides new evidence regarding how particular aspects of infrastructure and teacher qualities precisely affect GPA at both high school and college levels. Studies that do not work with these measures will misestimate the impact of school resources on outcomes.
References
Atkinson, Richard C. and Saul Geiser. 2012. “Reflections on a Century of College Admissions Tests.” Pp. 23-49 in SAT Wars: The Case for Test-Optional College Admissions, edited by J.A. Soares. New York: Teachers College Press.
Becker, G. S. (1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Blincoe, James M. “The Age and Condition of Texas High Schools as Related to Student Academic Achievement”. The University of Texas at Austin. 2008.
Burtless, G., Ed. (1996). Does money matter? The effect of school resources on student achievement and adult success. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press.
Coleman, James S. Equality of Educational Opportunity (COLEMAN) Student (EEOS), 1966. Ann Arbor, MI: Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research.
Coleman, J.S. (1982). High school achievement: Public, catholic, and private schools compared. New York: Basic Books.
"Colleges and Universities That Do Not Use SAT/ACT Scores for Admitting Substantial Numbers of Students Into Bachelor Degree Programs." FairTest. The National Center for Fair and Open Testing, Winter 2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2014.
Conley, D. (1999). Being black, living in the red: Race, wealth, and social policy in america. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Pres.
Cornwell, C. M., Mustard, D. B., & Van Parys, J. (2008, June 25). How well does the New SAT predict academic achievement in college? (Working paper). Athens: University of Georgia. Retrieved from http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/New%20SAT.pdf
Crouse, J. (1988). The case against the SAT. Public Interest, (93), 97.
Cuyvers, K. et al. (2011), “Well-Being at School: Does Infrastructure Matter?”. CELE Exchange, Centre for Effective Learning Environments, 2011/10, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10/1787/5kg0lkzc81vc-en
Fischer, Mary J. (2007). “Settling into Campus Life: Differences by Race/Ethnicity in College Involvement and Outcomes.” The Journal of Higher Education 125-160, 78(2).
Fordham, S. (1996). Blacked out: Dilemmas of race, identity and success at capital high. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hanushek, E. A. (1989). The impact of differential expenditures on school performance. Educational Ressearcher, 18(4), 45-62. Doi: 10.3102/0013189X018004045
Massey, Douglas S., Camille Z. Charles, Garvey F. Lundy, and Mary J. Fischer. The Source of the River: The Social Origins of Freshmen at America's Selective Colleges and Universities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2003. Print.
Parcel, T.L., & Dufur, M.J. (2001). Capital at home and at school: Effects on student achievement. Social Forces, 79(3), 881-911.
Picus, L., Marion, S., Calvo, N., & Glenn W. (2005). “Understanding the Relationship Between Student Achievement and the Quality of Educational Facilities: Evidence from Wyoming.” Peabody Journal of Education.
Roscigno, V.J., &Ainsworth-Darnell, J.W. (1999). Race, cultural capital, and educational resources: Persistent inequalities and achievement returns. Sociology of Education, 72(3), 158-178.
Soares, Joseph A. SAT Wars: The Case for Test-optional College Admissions. New York: Teachers College, 2012. Print.
Schultz, T.W. (1963). The economic value of education. New York: Columbia University Press.
Steinberg, L. (1996). Beyond the classroom. Why school reform has failed and what parents need to do. Simon & Schuster, Rockefeller Center.
Steinberg, L.D., Brown, B. B., & Dornbusch, S.M. (1996). Beyond the classroom: Why school reform has failed and what parents need to do. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Teachman, J.D. (1987). Family background, educational resources, and educational attainment. American Sociological Review, 52(4), 548-557.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2016 Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
