Differences in Schools. In addition to the ways schools operate as
internally differentiated institutions, sociologists have been con-
cerned with structural differences betweenschools and their conse-
quences for student achievement and postsecondary opportunities.
For example, students in Catholic schools have lower absenteeism
rates, are less likely to drop out, and have higher levels of math
achievement than students in public schools (Bryk & Thum, 1989;
Lee & Bryk, 1988, 1989). The advantages of attending Catholic
school are thought to operate through the normative and structural
features of these schools, including the greater similarity in course
taking across curriculum tracks (in comparison to public schools).
Furthermore, students enrolled in smaller schools have higher lev-
els of achievement and lower levels of absenteeism and dropping
out than those in larger schools (Finn & Voelkl, 1993; Fowler &
Wahlberg, 1991; Lee, Bryk, & Smith, 1993; Lee & Smith, 1995).
Variation in the interest and commitment of teachers also produces
achievement differences across schools (Lee & Bryk, 1989).
The composition of the student body is another factor influenc-
ing individual achievement. For example, the average socioeconomic
status composition of schools, above and beyond a student’s own
socioeconomic status, is linked to absenteeism, dropping out, and
achievement (Bryk & Thum, 1989; Fowler & Wahlberg, 1991; Lee
& Bryk, 1989). Such compositional effects may influence student
outcomes through several possible mechanisms. Socioeconomic status
composition may be associated with the fiscal and human resources
of a school or may reflect differences in the values and expectations
of students, parents, and staff, which in turn shape school organiza-
tion (Lee, Bryk, & Smith, 1993). The racial composition of schools
has also been studied heavily as a possible influence on the achieve-
ment of minority students. Several studies indicate that the academic
achievement of minority students improves in integrated schools
(Bankston & Caldas, 1996; Crain & Mahard, 1978, 1983; Entwisle
& Alexander, 1992; Lee, Bryk, & Smith, 1993; Roscigno, 1998;
Wortman & Bryant, 1985).
A SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE 47