Afterword

All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

It has been slightly over a decade since Home Advantage was first published. Since
that time there have been important changes in families and schools. There also
have been developments in social science research on family-school relationships.
Compared to earlier decades, when the field seemed to be dominated by the
"black box" of schooling (Karabel and Halsey 1977), we have gained ground. We
have made an important shift from thinking in terms of "family effects" on school-
ing to conceiving of this relationship in terms of the interaction of family practices
and school practices. Still, problems remain. Research results are highly specialized
and fragmented. We need to embed our understanding of family-school interac-
tions in the broader context in which these relationships are situated. In addition,
there is a persistent problem with seeing middle-class practices as "appropriate"
or "good," while working-class and poor families' actions are seen as deficient.
The structural influences on family practices, and the role of the state in unevenly
legitimizing family practices, do not get sufficient attention. In this brief essay, I
offer a short comment on some of the most important research results, and re-
search problems, that remain. 1 I also share reflections on methodological issues.

What Have We Learned?

A number of authors, often drawing on notions of human capital, have conceptu-

alized family life as a "background" force in shaping school experiences. They
argue that the family transmits important qualities, such as knowledge, aspirations,
and ability, to the child. The child enters school bolstered by this background.
Differential school success is then attributed to the individual child's actions.
Copyright 2000. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Recently, however, a host of studies have challenged the logic of this ap-
proach. Critics have noted that intertwined with these "background" factors is a
difference in the ways in which mothers and fathers oversee the process of their
child's schooling. Moreover, studies have found differences in parent involvement
by family social background, particularly as it relates to customizing children's
school experiences. 2 Middle-class parents with children in middle school actively

187
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 2/15/2021 6:54 AM via UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL
AN: 611963 ; Annette Lareau.; Home Advantage : Social Class and Parental Intervention in Elementary Education
Account: s1125698.main.ehost
 Home Advantage

intervene in selecting courses; for example, they pressure teachers to accept their
children into advanced math courses for which they do not formally qualify
(Useem 1992; Spade, Columba, and Vanfossen 1997). Highly educated parents,
seeking to provide "the gift of time" are more likely to withhold their children
from kindergarten than are less-educated parents (Graue 1993). Working-class
families are eager to see their children do well in school, but what these parents
defme as being helpful (e.g., "drilling" children on facts; see Goldenberg and Gal-
limore (1995) is not always supported by teachers (see also Holloway et al. 1997;
Valdes 1996; and Rosier 2000). In selecting a college, middle-class parents can
use a wide repertoire of resources, including hiring the services of educational
consultants to identify appropriate schools and prepare admission applications
(McDonough 1997). Reardon (1998) found that these class differences were part
of general childrearing strategies in which working-class families granted adoles-
cents more autonomy in educational decision-making than did middle-class fami-
lies. Studies of private schools, magnet schools, and charter schools also continue
to fmd that parents' participation is far from random. More privileged parents are
more likely to participate (Fuller et al. 1996).
Racial factors also have been found to playa role. African-American parents
have the added concern (not faced by whites) that their children receive poor
treatment on the basis of their race (Lareau and Horvat 1999). Yet, class mediates
how this concern is expressed. Middle-class African-American families monitor
schooling closely in ways similar to white parents. African-American working-
class and poor parents often tum over responsibility for education to the school.
In some cases, parents are confrontational. Since educators generally insist on
seeing the family-school partnership as collaborative, efforts by African-American
parents to criticize or challenge educators' insensitivity to racial issues are not
enthusiastically received. Thus, African-American parents may find it especially
difficult to comply with educators' definitions of "appropriate" parental involve-
ment.
Despite the clear importance of class, it is not determinant. There are multiple
pathways to school success. Some children, particularly immigrant children, are
very successful even though their parents' involvement in their schooling is lim-
ited (Hao and Bonstead-Bums, 1998; Steinberg et al., 1996; Portes and MacLoud,
1996). 3 Alternative strategies that depart from the approaches common among
white middle and upper-middle class parents may produce equally positive results.
Yozenawa (1997) showed how parents with restricted social resources often rely
on older siblings to mediate the family-school relationship. Wells and Crain (1997)
provide examples of energetic working-class and poor African-American parents
who actively monitor their children's schooling. In addition, in their book Con-
structing School Success (1996), Hugh Mehan and colleagues describe school pro-
grams where teachers distribute college applications, take students on tours, and
provide guidance throughout the college application process. Joyce Epstein (1991)
has shown that "teacher leaders" and certain school programs can be quite success-
ful in engaging parents and guardians traditionally not active in schooling. Studies
of Catholic schools have concluded that these institutions are more effective than

188

EBSCOhost - printed on 2/15/2021 6:54 AM via UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 Afterword

public schools, but issues related to the self-selection of parents into these schools
have not, in my view, been addressed satisfactorily (Bryk, Lee, and Holland 1993).
Of course, within social class some children, and some parents, are shyer than
others. These variations in the temperament of individuals, in learning styles, in
the presence or absence of learning disabilities, and in individual family processes
also mediate family-school relationships. Thus, focusing exclusively on the role of
class in determining patterns of parent involvement in schooling is misguided.

Conceptual Issues

While there is widespread agreement on the importance of "context" in shaping

school experiences, our understanding of context remains fragmented. Many in-
vestigations highlight only one or two dimensions. These studies often lack theo-
retical integration; it is difficult to see how the various threads, taken together,
form a whole. When researchers have studied relationships in individual institu-
tions, particularly schools, they often have suggested that social linkages among
families and between families and institutions have positive consequences for shap-
ing children's lives (Phelan et al. 1998; Booth and Dunn 1996; Epstein 1991).
These advantages include, for example, intergenerational closure (Coleman 1985,
1988), social cohesion and collective efficacy (Sampson 1998; Sampson et al.
1997), and institutional integration (Bronfenbrenner 1974).
Yet, these models underestimate the role of structural inequality in the distri-
bution of resources, especially power. As Pierre Bourdieu would suggest, the stan-
dards and criteria for sorting are always changing. Elite members of the society,
however, comply more quickly and completely to important shifts in standards
than do less-privileged groups. The social location of privileged families provides
different (and more favorable) opportunities for building tighter connections with
institutions and with other families in the school community than does the social
location of less privileged families (Heath 1983; Lareau, Forthcoming; Useem
1992; see also Brantlinger 1993). Bronfenbrenner (1966) showed that middle-class
parents are more sensitive to changes in parenting advice by professionals than
less-privileged parents. There also is no question that elementary and secondary
schools playa crucial role in this sorting of students and allocating credentials in a
highly stratified society. If anything, the importance of schooling has increased
(Hout 1988. There are limited places "at the top" in terms of college admission
(e.g., Harvard) and elite occupations.
Thus, somewhat contradictorily, in any given historical moment a specific
practice of families could be useful in assisting children in school (e.g. reading to
children or talking to children) (Hart and Risley 1995). In other words, specific
practices could offer a form of cultural or social capital (see Lamont and Lareau,
1988 and Portes, 1998 for reviews). A number of empirical studies have assessed
specific practices yielding mixed results (e.g., see Carbonaro 1998; Kalmijn and
Kraaykamp 1996; Farkas 1996; Farkas et al. 1990; Stanton-Salazar and Dornbusch
1995).

189

EBSCOhost - printed on 2/15/2021 6:54 AM via UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 Home Advantage

Many social scientists seize on a specifIc practice (e.g., attending school events
or drawing out children's verbal abilities) and then suggest that it is "good" for
parents to undertake this practice if they wish to promote school success. Families
who do not come to school, talk to children as conversational partners, or read to
them are deemed defIcient. In my view, focusing exclusively on a specifIc practice
is a mistake. As Bourdieu would suggest, if a given educational practice spread
in a universalized fashion, it would lose the distinctive character that offered an
advantage. To disconnect a specifIc family-school practice from the broader strati-
fying role of schools is to offer an incomplete and distorted picture of stratiflCation
processes.
This means that research should not be framed too narrowly. In addition to
Bourdieu's concept of capital, there are the important concepts of habitus and fIeld
(see Swartz 1999 for a particularly strong overview of Bourdieu's work; other
useful works include Calhoun et al. 1993 and Robbins 1991). Many studies, as
Wacquant (1992; 1993) has pointed out, have distorted Bourdieu's key ideas by
failing to address the bigger picture. Bourdieu himself, however, did not suffl-
ciently stress the role of professionals in institutions as "gatekeepers" in the strati-
fIcation process. In addition, even for middle-class parents, possessing a certain
class resource is not the same as using it. Bourdieu and other scholars have not
been sufficiently attuned to this crucial difference. At times, parents have resources
in their repertoire that they do not activate. Thus, we need more studies offamily-
school interaction that show how parents go about marshalling resources as well
as investigations of the outcomes of the process. Such studies have the potential
to illuminate "moments of reproduction" and moments of contestation in schools
(Lareau and Horvat 1999) and in other institutions.
Similarly, researchers often mistakenly portray s.chools as benign or neutral
institutions. Professionals are a key resource for alerting authorities to abused chil-
dren. Working-class and poor families correctly view school personnel with suspi-
cion, fearing that they will "come and take my kids away" (Lareau, forthcoming).
But standards for what constitutes proper care for children, as well as defmitions
of childhood itself, are time and culture specifIc. In an earlier historical period,
children in both working and middle-classes were disciplined using corporal pun-
ishments. Today, hitting children with a belt is a practice more likely to occur in
poor and working-class homes than in middle-class ones (Halloway et al. 1997;
Lareau, forthcoming; Valdes 1996 but, see also Hays 1996). This difference can
lead working-class and poor parents to be at risk for institutional intervention if
they send children to school with visible red marks on their skin. Middle-class
parents who engage in verbal abuse are less likely to be sanctioned by case workers.
These class-speciflC realities lead some working-class and poor families to be pre-
occupied with schools as "arms" of the state. Thus, it is critical that sociologists
factor this into any conception of the dynamics of family-school interaction. The
dominant approaches in the family-school literature do not sufflciently capture
these enduring tensions.

190

EBSCOhost - printed on 2/15/2021 6:54 AM via UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 Afterword

Methodological Issues

In the years since Home Advantage was published, I have moved from being a new,
young, untenured professor to being a middle-aged, tenured faculty member. I
continue to do work using ethnographic methods as well as teach methods
courses. I also continue to find doing qualitative research scary and difficult. It
remains hard at all stages: to begin, to get into a setting, to write fieldnotes, to exit
a setting, to analyze data, to write manuscripts, and to get the work published. I
don't make the same mistakes I did in my first work; I make different ones.
One thing has changed, however. Now, I have more books to keep me com-
pany as I pursue my work. In particular, there has been an explosion of books
about the process of doing research using qualitative methods. Robert Emerson
and his colleagues wrote a fme book titled Writing Ethnographic Fie/dnotes (1995).
The Crqft if Research (Booth et al. 1995), although not on ethnographic methods
per se, is also a valuable resource. It provides useful guidance regarding the process
of framing a research question. In terms of theoretical issues, The Craft if Inquiry
(Alford 1998) gives a good, broad overview. Ethnography Unbound (Burawoy et al.
1991) contains chapters providing an honest appraisal of the entire process written
by graduate students.
In some ways, the process of doing qualitative work today is fraught with
more rather than less occasions for anxiety. Compared to a decade ago, positions
are taken more fervently; lines are drawn more bitterly (see the encyclopedic
Handbook oj Qualitative Research for an overview). There has been a flurry of works
about the researcher's standpoint, perspective, and position in the field. Smith
(1987) offers a classic statement of some of the issues involved. One of my favorite
books, however, is A Thrice- Told Tale (1992) by Margery Wolf The challenges
implicit in standpoint continue, and may even enlarge, in the writing process.
Geertz (1988) makes a bold claim for presence in the text. Briggs (1970) has dem-
onstrated that it is possible to smoothly interweave authorial presence with careful
analysis. In a somewhat different vein, Jeff Shultz and I edited a collection of emo-
tionally tinged essays about the process of doing fieldwork,Joumeys through Ethnog-
raphy (1996).
Debates about the role of computers and software, just beginning in the late
1980s, continue (see Miles and Huberman 1994; Tesch 1990). 4 New programs
keep coming on the market and existing ones are constantly being changed and
upgraded. Most require a substantial investment of time to learn. The programs
are useful simply as systems for storing and retrieving data. Additionally, though,
they allow the user to quickly search large numbers of flies for specific informa-
tion, such as a quote or a descriptive statistic. Most standard word-processing pro-
grams can accomplish these same feats, but the specialized programs have fancier
techniques; they also make it possible to mark a quote (using such tags as the code
name, race, age, and gender of the respondent). This is a potentially handy feature.
Still, in my experience, software programs do not help much with thinking or
analysis. They do not dispense with the need to read, reread, and read again every

191

EBSCOhost - printed on 2/15/2021 6:54 AM via UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 Home Advantage

fieldnote and every interview transcript. It is still necessary to examine the data
alone and in context. For such tasks, the computer screen is a constraint.
Repeatedly reading and thinking about research data is as time consuming as
it is essential. For that reason alone, it is wise to have research projects that are
intensive and small in scope. It is very difficult to mentally review and assess any
more than fifty interviews. Plus, it takes ten to twelve hours to transcribe each
interview. Finally, because subjects need time to become accustomed to the pres-
ence of the interviewer/observer, multiple observations are required. This, too,
increases the amount of time that must be invested in the research.

Where Do We Go from Here?

In a recent essay in The New York Times Book Review, the sociologist Todd Gitlin
reflected on the way in which David Riesman's book The Lonely Crowd (1950)
caught the imagination of the American public a half-century ago. Gitlin sees the
book as having avoided the trap Max Weber called "specialization without spirit."
The range ofRiesman's work is impressive and, Gitlin suggests, sorely lacking in
the profession today:

Sociology ought to be news that stays news, but few sociologists today
extend their imaginations beyond narrow milieus to the biggest ques-
tions of social structure, culture, and conflict. (January 9, 2000, pg. 35)

Gitlin's observations about the field as a whole are no less apt when applied to the
sociology of education. 5 We have too many studies of narrowly framed questions
and too few studies of conceptually rich and more broadly framed questions. We
need to encourage studies that are more closely linked to other, related fields; and
we need to ask questions (and propose answers) that more sociologists would find
interesting. This is particularly true for studies of families and schools.

Final Thoughts

Just as there is no one best way to teach, nor one best way to learn, there is no
one best way for parents to be involved in schooling and to promote children's
success. Instead, there are multiple pathways. But some pathways are more com-
monly trodden than others, are accorded greater legitimacy than others, and are
easier to follow for some groups than for others. As researchers, we need to be
more critical of the demands made by schools, looking at them in a broader con-
text. In addition, we need to highlight the multiple ways that families seek to
comply with school requests and the uneven ways in which families "activate"
their resources. We need to integrate our fragmented knowledge. The challenge
for the future is to show, in a more dynamic, contingent, and specific fashion, the
role of families and schools in helping to sustain a relentlessly stratified society.

192

EBSCOhost - printed on 2/15/2021 6:54 AM via UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 Afterword

Notes

I am grateful to Dean Birkenkamp at Rowman & Litdefleld for his help in bringing out the
second edition. I am indebted to Julia Wrigley for writing a new foreword to the second edition.
I also appreciate the generous support of The Spencer Foundation for my recent research, which
is briefly discussed here. Kim Goyette, Salvatore Saporito, Aaron Pallas, and M. Katherine Moo-
ney graciously made comments on this piece, Anne Lareau and Lucille Lareau assisted with
proofreading. All responsibility for any ertors of course rests with me. An earlier version of this
afterword was given at the Spencer Foundation Conference, Sociology and Education, Adanta,
2000.

1. The discussion here is neither systematic nor comprehensive. I focus particularly on studies
of social interaction, particularly those using ethnographic methods. For collected volumes pro-
viding an overview of studies on family-school relationships see Booth and Dunn (1996); Fag-
nano and Solomon (1994); and Schneider and Coleman (1993). Numerous other important
studies offamily-school relationships are not examined here-including work done by Enwisde,
et al. (1997), Sui-Chi and Wilms (1996), Steinberg et al. (1993), Schneider and Coleman (1993),
and Furstenberg et al. (1999). There also are a large number of policy interventions. Joyce
Epstein, Johns Hopkins University, is the leading policy scholar in the area (but see Delgado-
Graiten [1991] for a somewhat different approach and Lareau and Shumar [1996] for a critique
of these policies). For more general overviews of the field of sociology of education as a whole
see the Handbook if Sociology if Education (Hallinan 2000) or the edited collection by Arum and
Beattie (1999).
3. Laurence Steinberg and Stanford Dornbusch published a series of articles assessing the vari-
able performance of high school students of different racial and ethnic groups. The book, Beyond
the Classroom, is aimed at a general audience but it contains a comprehensive list of all of the
studies from the research project.
4. The programs change rapidly. Various listserves, including those dedicated to single, specifiC
programs, can provide useful information and resources. Many have links to sites that offer
critical assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of the programs. Some standard programs
are ATLAS, QSRNUDIST, and ETHNOGRAPH. I use FOLIOVIEWS. This software is not
designed for ethnographic work per se, but it seems to allow efficient data management. It can
be learned quickly (i.e., in a few days), whereas other programs typically require a few weeks
to master.
5. It is true that in the sociology of education, as in the field as a whole, there are formidable
pressures to pick a "doable" research project. In addition, as Becker (1992) points out, the
"terror" of the literature, compounded by the weight of the obligation to be in good command
of the literature, directs scholars to frame questions such that they can be "on top" of the field.
This also contributes to the development of narrow questions.

References

Alford, R. R. (1998). The Craft if Inquiry. New York: Oxford University Press.
Arum, R. and 1. Beattie. (1999). The Structure if Schooling. Menlo Park, CA: Mayfield Pub-
lishing.
Booth, A. and J. Dunn (Eds.). (1996). Family-School Partnerships. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erl-
baum.
Booth, W., Colomb, G. and Williams, J. (1995). The Craft of Research, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Brantlinger, E. A. (1993). The Politics of Social Class in Secondary School. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Briggs, J. L. (1970). Never in Anger. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

193

EBSCOhost - printed on 2/15/2021 6:54 AM via UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 Home Advantage
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1966). Socialization and Social Class through Time and Space. In Class,
Status, and Power R. Bendix and S. M. Lipset (Eds.), New York: The Free Press.
pp. 362-377.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). "Developmental Research, Public Policy, and the Ecology of
Childhood." Child Development, 45, pp. 1-5.
Bryk, A. S., Lee, V. E. and Holland, P. B. (1993). Catholic Schools and the Common Good. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press.
Burawoy, M., Burton, A., Ferguson, A. A., Fox, K., Garnson,J., Gartrell, N., Hurst, L., Kurz-
man, c., Salzinger, L., Schiffinan,J., and Shirori, U. (1991). Ethnography Unbound. Berke-
ley: University of California Press.
Calhoun, C. C. and E. LiPuma and M. Postone, (Eds). (1993). Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Coleman,J. (1985). "Schools and the Communities They Serve," Phi Delta Kappan, 66, April,
pp. 527-532.
Coleman, J. (1988). "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital." American Journal of
Scoiology (Supplement) 94, pp. S95-S120.
Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Handbook of Qualitative Research, Vol. 1 and 2, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Epstein, J. L. (1991). "Effects on Student Achievement of Teachers' Practices of Parent Involve-
ment." In Literacy Through Family, Community, and School Interaction Edited by S. Silvern
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 261-276
Emerson, R., Fretz, R. I., and Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. and Olson, L. S. (1997). Children, Schools, and Inequality. Boul-
der: Westview.
Delgado-Gaiten, C. (1991). "Involving Parents in the Schools: A Process of Empowerment."
American Journal of Education, 100, pp. 20-46.
Fagnano, C. and Solomon, L. (Eds). (1994). School, Family, and Community Interaction: A View
from the Firing Lines. Boulder, CO, Westview Press.
Farkas, G. (1996). Human Capital or Cultural Capital? New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Farkas, G., Grobe, R. P., Sheehan, D. and Shuan, Y. (1990). "Cultural Resources and School
Success: Gender, Ethnicity, and Poverty Groups within an Urban School District." Ameri-
can Sociological Review, 55, pp. 127-42.
Fuller, B. and Elmore, R. F., Orfield, G. (1996). Mo Chooses? Mo Loses? New York: Teachers
College Press.
Furstenberg, F. F., Cook, T. D., Eccles, J., Elder, G. H. Jr., and Samerotf, A. (1999). Managing
to Make It. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Geertz, C. (1988). Works and Lives. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Goldenberg, C. and Gallimore, R. (1995). "Immigrant Parents' Values and BeliefS about their
Children's Education." Advances in Motives and Achievement, 9, pp. 183-228.
Graue, E. (1993). Ready for Mat? Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hallinan, M. (2000). Handbook of Sociology of Education. New York: Kluwer Academic Press.
Hao, L. and Bonstead-Bruns, M. (1998). "Parent-Child Differences in Educational Expecta-
tions and the Academic Achievement ofImmigrant and Native Students." Sociology ofEdu-
cation, 71 Quly), pp. 175-1998.
Hart, B. and Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young Ameri-
can Children. Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing.
Hays, S. (1996). The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with Words. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Holloway, S. D., Fuller, B., Rambaud, M., Constanza, E.-P. (1997). Through My Own Eyes.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hout, M. (1988). "More Universalism, Less Structural Mobility: The American Occupational
Structure in the 1980s." AmericanJournal of Sociology 93, 3, pp. 1358-1400.

194

EBSCOhost - printed on 2/15/2021 6:54 AM via UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 Afterword

Karabel,]. and Halsey, A. H. (1977). Power and Ideology in Education. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Kalrnijn, M. and Kraaykamp, G. (1996). "Race, Cultural Capital, and Schooling: An Analysis
of Trends in the United States." Sociology of Education, 69, pp. 22-34.
Lamont, M. and A. Lareau. (1988). "Cultural Capital: Allusions, Gaps, and Glissandos." Socio-
logical Theory, 6, pp. 153-168.
Lareau, A. (Forthcoming). "Embedding the Concept of Capital Back to the Broader Field: The
Case of Family-School Relationships." In B. Biddle (Ed.), Social Class, Poverty, and Educa-
tion. London: RoutiedgeFalmer Press.
Lareau, A. and Horvat, E. M. (1999). "Moments of Social Exclusion and Inclusion: Race, Class,
and Cultural Capital in Family-School Relationships." Sociology of Education, 72,
pp.37-53.
Lareau, A. and Shultz,]. (1996). Journeys Through Ethnography. Boulder: Westview.
Lareau, A. and Shumar, W. (1996). "The Problem ofIndividualism in Family-School Policies."
Sociology of Education. (Supplement), 24-39.
McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing College. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Mehan, H., Villanueva, I., Hubbard, 1., and Lintz, A. (1996). Constructing School Success. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miles, M. and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis, Second Edition. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Phelan, P., Davidson, A. 1., and Yu, H. C. (1998). Adolescents' Worlds. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Portes, A. (1998). "Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology." Annual
Review of Sociology. 24, pp. 1-24.
Portes, A. and MacLeod, D. (1996). "The Educational Progress ofImrnigrants: The Role of
Class, Ethnicity, and School Context." Sociology of Education, 69, pp. 55-275.
Reardon, S. (1997). Social Class and the Community Ecology of Adolescent Drug Use: A Shadow
of Two Communities. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Graduate School of Education,
Harvard University.
Riesman, D. with Glazer, N. and Denny, R. (1950). The Lonely Crowd. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Robbins, D. (1991). The Work of Pierre Bourdieu. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Rosier, K. B. (2000). Mothering Inner-City Children. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Schneider, B. and Coleman,]. (1993). Parents, Their Children, and Schools. Boulder, CO: West-
view Press.
Sampson, R.]. (1998). "How Do Communities Undergird or Undermine Human Develop-
ment? Relevant Contexts and Social Mechanisms." Paper presented at Conference, Does
It Take a Village? Community Effects on Children, Adolescents, and Families, Pennsylvania State
University.
Sampson, R.]., Raudenbush, S. W., and Earls, F. (1997). "Neighborhoods and violent crime:
A multilevel study of collective efficacy." Science. August 15, pp. 918-924.
Smith, D. E. (1987). The Everyday World as Problematic. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Spade,]. Z., Columba, 1., and Vanfossen, B. E. (1997). "Tracking in Mathematics and Science:
Courses and Course-Selection Procedures." Sociology of Education, 70 (April), pp. 108-27.
Stanton-Salazar, R. and Donbusch, S. M. (1995). "Social Capital and the Reproduction of
Inequality: Information Networks Among Mexican Origin High School Students." Sociol-
ogy of Education, 68 (April), pp. 116-135.
Steinberg, 1. (1996). Beyond the Classroom. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Sui-Chu, E. H. and Wilms, D. (1996). "Effects of Parent Involvement on Eighth-Grade
Achievement." Sociology of Education, 69, April, pp. 126-141.
Swartz, D. (1999). Culture and Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative Research Analysis Types and Software Tools. London: Falmer Press.
Useem, E. (1992). "Middle School and Math Groups: Parents' Involvement in Children's
Placement." Sociology of Education, 65, October, pp. 263-279.

195

EBSCOhost - printed on 2/15/2021 6:54 AM via UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
 Home Advantage
Valdes, G. (1996). Con Respecto. New York: Teachers College Press.
Wacquant, L.,J. D. (1992). "Toward a Social Paxeology: The Structure and Logic ofBourdieu's
Sociology" In An Invitation to R41exive Sociology. P. Bourdieu and L. J. D. Wacquant (Eds).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1-59.
Wacquant, L., J. D., (1993). "Bourdieu in America: Notes on the Transadantic Importation of
Social Theory." In Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives Calhoun, C. c., LiPuma, E. and Postone,
M. (Eds). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 235-263.
Wells, A. Stuart and Crain, R. L. (1997). Stepping Over the Color Line. New Haven: Yale Univer-
sity Press.
Wolfe, M. (1992). A Thrice-Told Tale. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Wrigley, J. (1988). "Do Young Children Need Intellectual Stimulation? Experts' Advice to
Parents, 1900-1985." History cf Education, 29, pp. 41-75.
Yonezawa, S. (1997). Making Decisions about Students' Lives: An Interactive Study cf Secondary
School Students' Academic Program Selection. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, School of
Education, University of California, Los Angeles.
Zelizer, V. (1985). Pricing the Priceless Child. New York: Basic Books.

196

EBSCOhost - printed on 2/15/2021 6:54 AM via UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use