Cited by 267School Choice and PerformanceIntergenerational and Educational Inequality StudiesCritical Race Theory in Education

Schools and Inequality: A Multilevel Analysis of Coleman's Equality of Educational Opportunity Data

Borman, Geoffrey D., Dowling, Maritza·2010·Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education

Abstract

Background/Context The Equality of Educational Opportunity study is widely recognized as one of the most important studies on schooling ever performed. The findings from the report have shaped the field of education, national education policies, and wider public and scholarly opinion regarding the contributions of schools and schooling to equality and productivity in the United States. Despite past reanalyses of the data and decades of research on the effects of schools as organizations, the report's fundamental finding—that a student's family background is far more important than school social composition and school resources for understanding student outcomes—still retains much of its currency. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study: Using the original Equality of Educational Opportunity data, this study replicated Coleman's statistical models but also applied a two-level hierarchical linear model (HLM) to measure the effects of school-level social composition, resources, teacher characteristics, and peer characteristics on ninth-grade students’ verbal achievement. Research Design HLM allows researchers to disentangle how schools and students’ family backgrounds contribute to learning outcomes. The methodology offers a clearer interpretation of the relative effects of school characteristics, including racial/ethnic composition, and family background, including race/ethnicity and social class, on students’ academic outcomes. Findings/Results Our results suggest t…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/016146811011200507

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The same HSGPA may signal stronger underlying preparation for students from better-resourced schools than for those from less advantaged schools, who may arrive at college with fewer supports despite equivalent grades.

    “As a result, the same HSGPA may signal stronger underlying preparation for students from better-resourced schools than for those from less advantaged schools, who may arrive at college with fewer supports despite equivalent grades.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Borman, G. D., & Dowling, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison
Venue
Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education
Published
2010-05
Volume
112
Issue
5
Pages
1201-1246
ISSN
  • 0040-0475 (ISSN-L)
  • 0161-4681
  • 1467-9620
OpenAlex
W1513915378
Cited by
267
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 20
FWCI
93.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Teachers College Record The Voice of Scholarship in Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Intergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Race Theory in Education
Keywords
school influence, educational inequality, school social composition, school resources, family background, racial and ethnic segregation, social class, teacher bias, educational tracking, verbal achievement, ninth grade students, African American students, poverty, variance decomposition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review