structural Effects in Education 121

structural Effects in Education 121
Since the late 1970s, studies employing structural effects arguments continued to appear
(e.g., Alexander & Pallas, 1985; Kerckhoff, 1993; Lee & Bryk, 1988; McPartland & McDiU,
1982; Willms, 1985) along with others showing the limits of their explanatory capability.
Alwin and Otto (1977), for example, assessed the strength of aggregate school properties on
aspirations and whether within-school variation in student characteristics accounted for those
effects. It didn't and the context (climate) effects were small. Bidwell and Kasarda (1980)
showed how reliance on aggregate measures reduced explanatory power and also drew attention
to the importance of internal school processes—schooling—as mechanisms accounting
for achievement differences. Gamoran (1987), analyzing the stratification of high school learning
opportunities, showed that in six curricular areas, measures of school composition and
course offerings added virtually nothing to the amount of variation in learning explained, and
with few exceptions changed by trivial amounts, the values of coefficients representing student
characteristics entered earlier into regression equations.
SCHOOL COMMUNITY
From the 1960s onward, public policy agendas shaped research on the effects of schools, first
centered thematically on equality, and later on the alleged failures of schools and the proposed
remedies of choice, vouchers, tax credits, charter and private schools, site-based management,
decentralization, and community governance. Coleman, Hoffer, and Kilgore's High
School Achievement (1982), Coleman and Hoffer's Public and Private High Schools (1987),
and Bryk, Lee, and Holland's Catholic Schools and the Common Good{992>) represent works
written in a genre of policy reform. All employed structural effects reasoning.
This interest in policy represented a thematic shift from research written to explore sociological
themes without a policy subtext. There is an affinity between the stress on normative
school climate in this work and its intent to reform schools, because attempts to effect
change tend to be guided by value-laden definitions of desirable conditions and by the means
to reach them. These three studies concerned themselves with applying the alleged benefits of
private schools to the betterment of public schools. They also shared a premise that such
different educational outcomes as achievement in school subjects, rates of dropping out, and
student indiscipline, among others, can be explained by global properties of schools. The
evidence they adduced shows that these outcomes vary according to their location in sectors
of the educational system: public. Catholic, and private non-Catholic. Sectoral analyses compare
individuals identified by their school attendance in one of the sectors and treat schools as
possessing the characteristics of their respective sectors. School differences within sectors
receive some attention; differences in educational experience within schools do not.
High School Achievement (Coleman et al., 1982) began with a discussion of policy considerations
bearing on academic performance, post-high school educational plans, character
development, and school safety and discipline, along with such undesirable outcomes as segregating
talented students, fostering religious and racial divisiveness, and exaggerating competitiveness.
It described the terms of public debate about whether private schools foster positive
or negative outcomes more than public schools (pp. 4-5). Underlying the public-private
distinction was the idea that public sector schools were organized around residence and that
Catholic schools were organized around religious identity (p. xxix). These two principles of
organization applied both to schools and to sectors, making them in effect conceptually isomorphic.
The policy framework governing the comparison of public and private sectors (and
schools) subordinated internal differences in school structure and schooling to commonalities
across schools within sectors, thereby emphasizing differences between sectors. Yet prece




122 Robert Dreeben
dent existed for treating the internal structure and operation of schools (e.g., Barr & Dreeben,
1977; Bidwell, 1965; Bidwell & Kasarda, 1980; Bossert, 1979; Fichter, 1958; McPherson,
1972; Metz, 1978; Rosenbaum, 1976; S0rensen, 1970; S0rensen & Hallinan, 1977;
Stinchcombe, 1964; Swidler, 1979; Waller, 1961).
Coleman and associates (1982) showed that patterns of academic course taking, indiscipline,
future academic plans, self-esteem, academic performance by subject (reading, vocabulary,
and mathematics), and other considerations favored the Catholic sector (and other private
sectors) over the public sector and for different student subpopulations. The mechanisms
accounting for sectoral differences in outcome were coursework, homework, attendance, positive
disciplinary climate, and good student behavior (p. 171). Accepting these conclusions at
face value, however, requires hesitation because the characteristics of student populations and
schools were measured by sector as if there were no structural variation within schools and
among schools within sectors. This is because the initial residential versus religious community
distinction provides no conceptual basis for considering within-sector and within-school
variation. Sectoral differences can appear even when relations between school characteristics
and outcomes deviate from the sectoral pattern or even contradict it (Hauser, 1971; Kendall &
Wolf, 1949). However, if school deviations from a sectoral pattern occur, explaining school
variation within sectors remains an issue that draws attention to events and to structures internal
to schools.
Another analysis (Coleman and associates, 1982) demonstrated the relation of parental
education and race/ethnicity, respectively, to achievement in each sector; it showed parental
education to be less strongly related to student achievement in the Catholic sector than in the
public sector (pp. 144). Parallel findings held for race/ethnicity. This pattern, called the "common
school effect," was said to indicate that achievement differences in Catholic schools were
less responsive to student class, race, and ethnic distinctions than in public schools. (Lee and
Bryk, 1988, for example, adopted as a "premise that there is a more equitable distribution of
achievement in Catholic schools than in public schools" [p. 79].)
Generalizations about the Catholic school advantage, the common school effect, and the
relation between school and sector are germane to structural effects analysis. Coleman and
Hoffer (1987) introduced the concepts of "functional" and "value" community to elaborate
the meaning of sector and school. They based this distinction on the following historical narrative.
In the 19th century there was coincidence between two school tasks: extending children's
perspectives beyond the family to the wider culture (the public school perspective) and expressing
families' values (the private school perspective). In time, because of immigration
and the ensuing increase in ethnic and religious diversity, technological change, urbanization,
and the growth of mass media, the historical coincidence disintegrated and yielded three separate
and at times conflicting "orientations" to school organization: schools as agents "of the
larger society" freeing children from parental constraints (pp. 24-25), of the religious community,"
and "of the individual family" (p. 24). (Historical scholarship [e.g., Axtell, 1974;
Bridenbaugh, 1964; Brown, 1996; Demos, 1970; Kaestle, 1973, 1983; Morgan, 1966;
Vinovskis, 1985) identifies aims of public schooling as combating parental neglect of children's
educational needs, as creating an informed republican citizenry, and also as reflecting social
cleavages within communities. These considerations cast some doubt on the primary significance
of the three orientations.)


"Functional community" referred to
'closure' between the adult communities and the communities of youth in high school: Parents
knew who their children's friends were and knew their parents. The norms that pervaded the school
were in part those dictated by the needs of youth themselves, . . . but in part those established by the

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

structural Effects in Education 121Since the late 1970s, studies employing structural effects arguments continued to appear(e.g., Alexander & Pallas, 1985; Kerckhoff, 1993; Lee & Bryk, 1988; McPartland & McDiU,1982; Willms, 1985) along with others showing the limits of their explanatory capability.Alwin and Otto (1977), for example, assessed the strength of aggregate school properties onaspirations and whether within-school variation in student characteristics accounted for thoseeffects. It didn't and the context (climate) effects were small. Bidwell and Kasarda (1980)showed how reliance on aggregate measures reduced explanatory power and also drew attentionto the importance of internal school processes—schooling—as mechanisms accountingfor achievement differences. Gamoran (1987), analyzing the stratification of high school learningopportunities, showed that in six curricular areas, measures of school composition andcourse offerings added virtually nothing to the amount of variation in learning explained, andwith few exceptions changed by trivial amounts, the values of coefficients representing studentcharacteristics entered earlier into regression equations.SCHOOL COMMUNITYFrom the 1960s onward, public policy agendas shaped research on the effects of schools, firstcentered thematically on equality, and later on the alleged failures of schools and the proposedremedies of choice, vouchers, tax credits, charter and private schools, site-based management,decentralization, and community governance. Coleman, Hoffer, and Kilgore's HighSchool Achievement (1982), Coleman and Hoffer's Public and Private High Schools (1987),and Bryk, Lee, and Holland's Catholic Schools and the Common Good{992>) represent workswritten in a genre of policy reform. All employed structural effects reasoning.This interest in policy represented a thematic shift from research written to explore sociologicalthemes without a policy subtext. There is an affinity between the stress on normativeschool climate in this work and its intent to reform schools, because attempts to effectchange tend to be guided by value-laden definitions of desirable conditions and by the meansto reach them. These three studies concerned themselves with applying the alleged benefits ofprivate schools to the betterment of public schools. They also shared a premise that suchdifferent educational outcomes as achievement in school subjects, rates of dropping out, andstudent indiscipline, among others, can be explained by global properties of schools. Theevidence they adduced shows that these outcomes vary according to their location in sectorsof the educational system: public. Catholic, and private non-Catholic. Sectoral analyses compareindividuals identified by their school attendance in one of the sectors and treat schools aspossessing the characteristics of their respective sectors. School differences within sectorsmenerima beberapa perhatian; perbedaan dalam pendidikan pengalaman dalam sekolah tidak.Tinggi sekolah Achievement (Coleman et al., 1982) mulai dengan diskusi kebijakan pertimbanganbantalan pada prestasi akademik, rencana pendidikan pasca tinggi sekolah, karakterpembangunan, dan keamanan sekolah dan disiplin, bersama dengan hasil tersebut tidak diinginkan sebagai pemisahansiswa berbakat, pembinaan perpecahan agama dan ras, dan melebih-lebihkan daya saing.Ini menggambarkan persyaratan debat publik tentang apakah sekolah swasta mendorong positifatau hasil negatif lebih dari sekolah umum (MS 4-5). Mendasari publik-swastaperbedaan adalah ide bahwa sektor publik sekolah diselenggarakan di sekitar residence dan bahwaSekolah Katolik diselenggarakan di sekitar agama identitas (p. xxix). Dua prinsip-prinsiporganisasi yang diterapkan di sekolah maupun di sektor, membuat mereka berlaku secara konseptual isomorphic.Kerangka kebijakan yang mengatur perbandingan publik dan sektor swasta (dansekolah) subordinasi internal perbedaan dalam struktur sekolah dan sekolah untuk kesamaandi seluruh sekolah dalam sektor, dengan demikian menekankan perbedaan antara sektor. Namun prece122 Robert Dreebenada penyok untuk mengobati struktur internal dan pengoperasian sekolah (misalnya, Barr & Dreeben,1977; Key Biscayne, 1965; Key Biscayne & Kasarda, 1980; Bossert, 1979; Fichter, 1958; McPherson,1972; Metz, 1978; Rosenbaum, 1976; S0rensen, 1970; S0rensen & Hallinan, 1977;Stinchcombe, 1964; Swidler, 1979; Waller, 1961).Coleman and associates (1982) showed that patterns of academic course taking, indiscipline,future academic plans, self-esteem, academic performance by subject (reading, vocabulary,and mathematics), and other considerations favored the Catholic sector (and other privatesectors) over the public sector and for different student subpopulations. The mechanismsaccounting for sectoral differences in outcome were coursework, homework, attendance, positivedisciplinary climate, and good student behavior (p. 171). Accepting these conclusions atface value, however, requires hesitation because the characteristics of student populations andschools were measured by sector as if there were no structural variation within schools andamong schools within sectors. This is because the initial residential versus religious communitydistinction provides no conceptual basis for considering within-sector and within-schoolvariation. Sectoral differences can appear even when relations between school characteristicsand outcomes deviate from the sectoral pattern or even contradict it (Hauser, 1971; Kendall &Wolf, 1949). However, if school deviations from a sectoral pattern occur, explaining schoolvariation within sectors remains an issue that draws attention to events and to structures internalto schools.Another analysis (Coleman and associates, 1982) demonstrated the relation of parentaleducation and race/ethnicity, respectively, to achievement in each sector; it showed parentaleducation to be less strongly related to student achievement in the Catholic sector than in thepublic sector (pp. 144). Parallel findings held for race/ethnicity. This pattern, called the "commonschool effect," was said to indicate that achievement differences in Catholic schools wereless responsive to student class, race, and ethnic distinctions than in public schools. (Lee andBryk, 1988, for example, adopted as a "premise that there is a more equitable distribution ofachievement in Catholic schools than in public schools" [p. 79].)Generalizations about the Catholic school advantage, the common school effect, and therelation between school and sector are germane to structural effects analysis. Coleman andHoffer (1987) introduced the concepts of "functional" and "value" community to elaboratethe meaning of sector and school. They based this distinction on the following historical narrative.In the 19th century there was coincidence between two school tasks: extending children'sperspectives beyond the family to the wider culture (the public school perspective) and expressingfamilies' values (the private school perspective). In time, because of immigrationand the ensuing increase in ethnic and religious diversity, technological change, urbanization,and the growth of mass media, the historical coincidence disintegrated and yielded three separateand at times conflicting "orientations" to school organization: schools as agents "of thelarger society" freeing children from parental constraints (pp. 24-25), of the religious community,"and "of the individual family" (p. 24). (Historical scholarship [e.g., Axtell, 1974;Bridenbaugh, 1964; Brown, 1996; Demos, 1970; Kaestle, 1973, 1983; Morgan, 1966;Vinovskis, 1985) identifies aims of public schooling as combating parental neglect of children'seducational needs, as creating an informed republican citizenry, and also as reflecting socialcleavages within communities. These considerations cast some doubt on the primary significanceof the three orientations.)"Functional community" referred to'closure' between the adult communities and the communities of youth in high school: Parentsknew who their children's friends were and knew their parents. The norms that pervaded the schoolwere in part those dictated by the needs of youth themselves, . . . but in part those established by the

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

Efek struktural dalam Pendidikan 121
Sejak akhir 1970-an, penelitian menggunakan efek struktural argumen terus muncul
(misalnya, Alexander & Pallas, 1985; Kerckhoff, 1993; Lee & Bryk, 1988; McPartland & McDiU,
1982; Willms, 1985) bersama dengan orang lain menunjukkan batas-batas kemampuan penjelasan mereka.
Alwin dan Otto (1977), misalnya, menilai kekuatan sifat sekolah agregat pada
aspirasi dan apakah dalam sekolah variasi karakteristik siswa menyumbang bagi mereka
efek. Ini tidak dan konteks efek (iklim) yang kecil. Bidwell dan Kasarda (1980)
menunjukkan bagaimana ketergantungan pada langkah-langkah agregat mengurangi kekuatan penjelas dan juga menarik perhatian
pada pentingnya internal sekolah proses-sekolah-sebagai mekanisme akuntansi
untuk perbedaan prestasi. Gamoran (1987), menganalisis stratifikasi pembelajaran SMA
peluang, menunjukkan bahwa dalam enam bidang kurikuler, ukuran komposisi sekolah dan
kursus persembahan ditambahkan hampir tidak ada jumlah variasi dalam pembelajaran menjelaskan, dan
dengan beberapa pengecualian diubah oleh jumlah sepele, yang nilai koefisien yang mewakili mahasiswa
karakteristik masukkan sebelumnya dalam persamaan regresi.
SCHOOL COMMUNITY
Dari tahun 1960-an dan seterusnya, agenda kebijakan publik berbentuk penelitian tentang pengaruh sekolah, pertama
berpusat tematis tentang kesetaraan, dan kemudian pada kegagalan dugaan sekolah dan diusulkan
solusi pilihan , voucher, kredit pajak, piagam dan sekolah swasta, manajemen berbasis situs-,
desentralisasi, dan tata kelola masyarakat. Coleman, Hoffer, dan tinggi Kilgore di
Sekolah Prestasi (1982), Coleman dan Hoffer Publik dan Sekolah Tinggi Swasta (1987),
dan Bryk, Lee, dan Sekolah Katolik Belanda dan Common Good { 992>) merupakan karya
yang ditulis dalam genre reformasi kebijakan. Semua bekerja efek struktural penalaran.
Ini bunga kebijakan mewakili pergeseran tematik dari penelitian yang ditulis untuk mengeksplorasi sosiologis
tema tanpa tersirat kebijakan. Ada afinitas antara stres pada normatif
iklim sekolah dalam pekerjaan ini dan niat untuk sekolah reformasi, karena upaya untuk mempengaruhi
perubahan cenderung dipandu oleh definisi nilai-sarat kondisi yang diinginkan dan dengan cara
untuk menjangkau mereka. Ketiga penelitian yang bersangkutan diri dengan menerapkan manfaat dugaan
sekolah swasta untuk perbaikan sekolah-sekolah umum. Mereka juga berbagi premis bahwa seperti
hasil pendidikan yang berbeda sebagai prestasi dalam mata pelajaran sekolah, tingkat putus, dan
ketidakdisiplinan siswa, antara lain, dapat dijelaskan dengan sifat global sekolah. The
Bukti mereka dikemukakan menunjukkan bahwa hasil ini bervariasi sesuai dengan lokasi mereka di sektor
sistem pendidikan: public. Katolik, dan swasta non-Katolik. Analisis sektoral membandingkan
individu diidentifikasi oleh kehadiran di sekolah mereka di salah satu sektor dan memperlakukan sekolah sebagai
memiliki karakteristik sektor masing-masing. Perbedaan sekolah dalam sektor
menerima beberapa perhatian; perbedaan pengalaman pendidikan di sekolah-sekolah tidak.
Prestasi Sekolah Tinggi (Coleman et al., 1982) dimulai dengan diskusi tentang pertimbangan kebijakan
bantalan pada kinerja akademik, rencana pendidikan sekolah pasca-tinggi, karakter
pembangunan, dan keamanan sekolah dan disiplin, bersama dengan hasil yang tidak diinginkan seperti memisahkan
siswa berbakat, mendorong perpecahan agama dan ras, dan melebih-lebihkan daya saing.
Ini menggambarkan hal debat publik tentang apakah sekolah swasta asuh positif
atau negatif hasil lebih dari sekolah umum (pp. 4-5). Mendasari publik-swasta
perbedaan adalah gagasan bahwa sekolah sektor publik yang diselenggarakan di sekitar tempat tinggal dan
sekolah-sekolah Katolik diselenggarakan sekitar identitas agama (hal. xxix). Kedua prinsip
organisasi yang diterapkan baik ke sekolah-sekolah dan sektor, membuat mereka berlaku konseptual isomorfik.
Kerangka kebijakan yang mengatur perbandingan sektor publik dan swasta (dan
sekolah) subordinasi perbedaan internal dalam struktur sekolah dan sekolah untuk kesamaan
di seluruh sekolah di sektor, dengan demikian menekankan perbedaan antara sektor. Namun prece 122 Robert Dreeben penyok ada untuk mengobati struktur internal dan operasi sekolah (misalnya, Barr & Dreeben, 1977; Bidwell, 1965; Bidwell & Kasarda, 1980; Bossert, 1979; Fichter, 1958; McPherson, 1972; Metz, 1978 ; Rosenbaum, 1976; S0rensen, 1970; S0rensen & Hallinan, 1977; Stinchcombe, 1964; Swidler, 1979;. Waller, 1961) Coleman dan rekan (1982) menunjukkan bahwa pola akademik mengambil kursus, ketidakdisiplinan, rencana akademik di masa depan, diri esteem, prestasi akademik oleh subjek (membaca, kosakata, dan matematika), dan pertimbangan lainnya disukai sektor Katolik (dan swasta lainnya sektor) atas sektor publik dan untuk sub-populasi siswa yang berbeda. Mekanisme akuntansi untuk perbedaan sektoral dalam hasil yang kuliah, pekerjaan, kehadiran, positif iklim disiplin, dan perilaku yang baik siswa (hlm. 171). Menerima kesimpulan ini pada nilai nominal, bagaimanapun, membutuhkan ragu-ragu karena karakteristik populasi siswa dan sekolah diukur dengan sektor seolah-olah tidak ada variasi struktural dalam sekolah dan sekolah-sekolah dalam sektor-sektor. Hal ini karena awal perumahan dibandingkan agama masyarakat perbedaan tidak memberikan dasar konseptual untuk mempertimbangkan dalam-sektor dan dalam sekolah variasi. Perbedaan sektoral dapat muncul bahkan ketika hubungan antara karakteristik sekolah dan hasil menyimpang dari pola sektoral atau bahkan bertentangan itu (Hauser, 1971; Kendall & Wolf, 1949). Namun, jika penyimpangan sekolah dari pola sektoral terjadi, menjelaskan sekolah variasi dalam sektor tetap menjadi isu yang menarik perhatian acara, untuk struktur internal yang ke sekolah-sekolah. Analisis lain (Coleman dan rekan, 1982) menunjukkan hubungan orangtua pendidikan dan ras / etnis , masing-masing, untuk prestasi dalam setiap sektor; itu menunjukkan orangtua pendidikan menjadi kurang kuat terkait dengan prestasi siswa di sektor Katolik daripada di sektor publik (pp. 144). Temuan paralel diadakan untuk ras / etnis. Pola ini, yang disebut "umum efek sekolah, "dikatakan untuk menunjukkan bahwa perbedaan prestasi di sekolah Katolik yang kurang responsif terhadap siswa kelas, ras, dan perbedaan etnis daripada di sekolah umum. (Lee dan Bryk, 1988, misalnya, diadopsi sebagai "premis bahwa ada distribusi yang lebih adil dari prestasi di sekolah Katolik daripada di sekolah umum "[p. 79].) Generalisasi tentang keunggulan sekolah Katolik, efek sekolah umum , dan hubungan antara sekolah dan sektor yang erat dengan analisis efek struktural. Coleman dan Hoffer (1987) memperkenalkan konsep "fungsional" dan "nilai" masyarakat untuk menguraikan makna sektor dan sekolah. Mereka berdasarkan perbedaan ini pada narasi sejarah berikut. Pada abad ke-19 ada kebetulan antara dua tugas sekolah: memperluas anak perspektif luar keluarga dengan budaya yang lebih luas (perspektif sekolah umum) dan mengekspresikan nilai-nilai keluarga '(perspektif sekolah swasta). Dalam waktu, karena imigrasi dan peningkatan berikutnya dalam keragaman etnis dan agama, perubahan teknologi, urbanisasi, dan pertumbuhan media massa, kebetulan sejarah hancur dan menghasilkan tiga terpisah kali dan pada konflik "orientasi" ke organisasi sekolah: sekolah sebagai agen "dari masyarakat yang lebih luas "membebaskan anak-anak dari orang tua (pp 24-25.), masyarakat agama," dan "dari keluarga masing-masing" (p 24). (beasiswa Sejarah [misalnya, Axtell, 1974;. Bridenbaugh, 1964; Brown, 1996; Demos, 1970; Kaestle, 1973, 1983; Morgan, 1966; Vinovskis, 1985) mengidentifikasi tujuan pendidikan publik memerangi mengabaikan orangtua anak-anak kebutuhan pendidikan, sebagai menciptakan warga republik informasi, dan juga sebagai cerminan sosial . perpecahan dalam masyarakat Pertimbangan ini meragukan beberapa pada signifikansi utama . dari tiga orientasi) "komunitas Fungsional" disebut 'penutupan' antara masyarakat dewasa dan komunitas anak muda di sekolah tinggi: Orang tua tahu siapa teman-teman anak-anak mereka itu dan tahu orang tua mereka. Norma-norma yang merasuki sekolah berada di bagian yang ditentukan oleh kebutuhan pemuda itu sendiri,. . . namun sebagian yang ditetapkan oleh