. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 May 3.

Published in final edited form as: Am Sociol Rev. 2009 Oct 1;74(5):709–730. doi: 10.1177/000312240907400502

Table 5.

Breakdown of Two School SES Typologies

	Proportion Middle- or High-Income Parents			Proportion College-Educated Parents
	< 20%	20 to 40%	> 40%	< 20%	20 to 40%	> 40%
School-Level
Total number of schools in category	10	20	17	9	24	14
Concentrated minority school	8_a	9ab	2_b	6_a	10_ab	3_b
Urban	5	6	2	4	6	3
Suburban	4_b	11_ab	14_a	3_b	15_a	11_ab
Rural	1	3	1	2	3	0
Student-Level
Total number of students in category	389	482	202	260	714	99
White	42_c	157_b	142_a	75_b	223_b	43_a
African American	171_a	127_b	22_c	123_a	168_b	29_b
Latino	161_a	129_b	24_c	53_b	234_a	27_b
Other race/ethnicity	15_b	69_a	14_b	9_b	79_a	10_ab
Dropout	38	55	25	34	80	4

Note: N = 1,073 (students), 47 (schools). A concentrated minority school had 40 percent or more of the student body from racial/ethnic minority groups. Within same row under same school SES typology, Ns with different subscripts differed significantly according to one-way anova. For the school-level comparisons, statistical significance is measured at p < .10. For student-level comparisons, it is measured at p < .05. For school- and student-level variables, the column sums do not equal the total number of schools in the category for three reasons. First, concentrated minority schools could have been urban, suburban, or rural. Second, the number of schools with a 0 on the binary concentrated minority school variable is not presented, although it can be inferred from what is presented. Third, dropouts could come from any racial/ethnic group.