Social Capital: Similarities and Differences Between FutureEducators and Urban Youth LeadersMelissa M. Pearrowa, Julia Zoino-Jeannettib, and Takuya Minamia

aUniversity of Massachusetts Boston; bFramingham State University

ABSTRACTThis study examines differences in social capital between twodemographically disparate groups: future education profes-sionals and youth leaders living in urban communities. This isimportant because there is growing scholarly evidence of apositive relationship between social capital and studentachievement. Social capital, defined as a constellation of privi-leges, is parallel to “the concepts of financial capital, physicalcapital, and human capital—but embodied in relations amongpersons” (Coleman, 1988). The impact of the varying access tosocial capital and its attendant resources may have profoundimplications on the interactions within the classroom; thus, thisstudy measured this construct in a sample of students ineducation preparation programs (n = 145) and a sample ofyouth leaders living in urban communities (n = 119). Therewere significant differences between groups in: communityparticipation, value of life, and feelings of trust and safety.Educational and consultative strategies to develop culturalcompetence and diversity sensitivity are discussed, with aparticular focus on training future school professionals.

KEYWORDSSocial capital; educators;youth development; urbanschools

Differences in demographics between school professionals and their students arewell documented, and it is predicted that these differences will continue, as thepreponderance of public educators remains predominantly White, middle class,and female while the diversity of school-aged children steadily increases(American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education [AACTE], 2010;Boser, 2014; National Center for Educational Statistics, 2009; National Councilfor Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2010; Sleeter, 2008). Several influentialreports have documented this difference, commonly referred to as “the demo-graphic imperative,” and researchers have consistently called for efforts todiversify the education workforce (Sleeter & Thao, 2007; Villegas & Davis,2007). This is uniquely so in urban environments where schools face a host ofchallenges, given the stark differences in the social background of the students’families and the disproportionate rates of students who are vulnerable tooppression and marginalization (Kaufman & Hines, 2010; Lee & Burkam,

CONTACT Melissa M. Pearrow melissa.pearrow@umb.edu Wheatley 2-169, Department of Counseling andSchool Psychology, 100 Morrissey Boulevard, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA 02125.

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTATION2016, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 266–282http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2015.1050104

© 2016 Taylor & Francis

2002; Rendon, 2014; Sleeter, 2001; Ukpokodu, 2011). As such, those consultingwith and preparing education professionals need to recognize the importance ofdeveloping an awareness of and sensitivity to diversity and its implications in thelearning environment.

Within the dialogue of urban education, the 100 largest public school dis-tricts represent less than 1% of all school districts in the US and educate 22% ofall public school students (Council of Great City Schools, 2011).Disproportionately, these students come from poverty (69%) and representracially and ethnically diverse communities (80% non-White; Plotts & Sable,2010). Moreover, national assessments of achievement in both reading andmath indicate that urban schools, in general, perform at lower rates than theirsuburban and rural counterparts (NCES, 2011a, 2011b). The persistent dispa-rities in achievement highlight the need to understand how access to resourcesinfluences educational outcomes. Pedagogical practices and policies implemen-ted in schools with communities that are often marginalized are characterizedas perpetuating hidden and overt cycles of domination (Foucault, 1980; Freire,1970; hooks, 1994). Furthermore, institutional discrimination, perpetuatedthrough segregation and concentrations of poverty, restricts access to socialmobility (Massey, 1994). These practices inadvertently support patterns ofunderachievement in educational outcomes and challenge the myth of anAmerican educational system that operates as a pathway for upward mobility.Instead, this confirms research demonstrating that “schools perpetuate theexisting status hierarchy and reinforce social inequity” (DeSena & Ansalone,2009, p. 60). Within this context, consultants have the opportunity to alter theseoppressive educational practice and enhance cultural relevance in order toreduce disproportionality (Ladson-Billings, 1995).

The scope of the differences between education professionals and students inurban communities has been recognized along multiple dimensions, rangingfrom age and demographics to social privileges (Villegas & Davis, 2008; Zoino-Jeannetti, Pearrow, & Couse, 2013). These differences are postulated to extendinto the lived experiences (e.g., living in poverty, exposure to communityviolence, access to quality education) and access to resources and networksthat create future opportunities through the presence of social capital. Socialcapital, and its attendant resources and social networks, can influence dailyinteractions within classrooms. As such, this study explores the variability ofsocial capital based on one’s position in the classroom and contributes to thediscourse on consultation practices that influence educational success.

What is social capital?

Social capital is “a resource that emerges from social relations” (Plagens,2010, p. 18). It has been described as “a sense of personal and collectiveefficacy,” as well as “the interpersonal trust, norms of reciprocity, and social

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTATION 267

engagement that foster community and social participation” (Carpiano, 2007,p. 639). According to Beaudoin (2007), “social capital is the actual orpotential resources that stem from shared social connections and senses ofreciprocity and trust, which, when put to use, can influence outcomes at boththe individual and collective levels” (p. 947). Research on the construct ofsocial capital bridges several scholarly fields: sociology, public health, andeducation, and is described as parallel “to the concepts of financial capital,physical capital, and human capital—but embodied in relations amongpersons” (Coleman, 1988). Furthermore, there is evidence of the positiverelationship between social capital and student achievement, highlighting thechallenges of academic success with disparities in access due to systemic andinstitutional barriers (Massey, 1994).

Having social capital impacts opportunities for young people, and researchhas demonstrated how families’ and communities’ access to social networksadvance their children’s chances of educational achievement and success. Ameta-analytic study demonstrated that “families with high social capital aremore likely to produce children who fare positively in areas of general well-being, including mental and physical health, educational attainment and for-mal labor-market participation,” and that—after poverty—social capital is “thebest predictor of children’s welfare” (Ferguson, 2006, p. 590). The presence ofsocial capital uniquely and positively impacts young people in neighborhoodswith overwhelming social issues (e.g., high poverty rates, single-parent house-hold, etc.), as it has been linked with increased rates of school completion(Coleman, 1988), socioeconomic success (Furstenberg & Hughes, 1995), andempowerment (Pearrow, Harvey, & Aruro, 2012). The presence of socialcapital among these communities has also been correlated to improved health(Cattell, 2001; McPherson et al., 2013) and a decrease in delinquent behaviors(Mangino, 2009), including property crimes (Nakhaie & Sacco, 2009). Socialcapital may serve as a buffer to mental health issues, as it is negativelycorrelated with depression and anxiety among adolescent and adult ethnicallydiverse populations (De Silva, McKenzie, Harpham, & Huttly, 2005;Fitzpatrick, Piko, Wright, & LaGory, 2005; Valencia-Garcia, Simoni, Alegria,& Takeuchi, 2012). Furthermore, limited social capital in these populations, asmanifested through weaker ties, can result in less cohesive interactions andcollective efficacy to address community problems (Hanks, 2008).

Moreover, scholars have provided evidence of the positive relationshipbetween social capital and student achievement (Carolan, 2012; Goddard,2003; Plagens, 2010). Research links social capital to an increase in atten-dance rates, a decrease in dropout rates, and an increase in achievement(Coleman & Hoffer, 1987; John, 2005; Putnam, 2000). Yet, the opportunitiesembedded within the construct of social capital are immersed within thecommunity context. As stated by Putnam (2000), “a well-connected indivi-dual in a poorly connected society is not as productive as a well-connected

268 M. M. PEARROW ET AL.

individual in a well-connected society” (p. 86). In ways similar toBronfenbrenner’s ecological perspective of development, social capitalimplies a link between individual characteristics and immediate social con-texts such as families, neighborhoods, and communities (Furstenberg &Hughes, 1995). However, for students growing up in poor, urban neighbor-hoods, the “behaviors that enhance cohesion among peers and urban-specificsocial capital jeopardize school completion” (Rendon, 2014, p. 62). As such,social capital can influence behaviors that positively or negatively contributeto school success.

Social capital, and an awareness of its influence, has the potential toinfluence pedagogical practices of those leading schools and classrooms.Access to social capital has shown to be a predictor of both the educationalaspirations of students and of teacher expectations for the educationalachievement (Byun, Meece, Irvin, & Hutchins, 2012). In addition, main-stream teachers enter the teaching force with limited cross-cultural knowl-edge and experience, and tend to assume a deficit perspective regarding theachievement of students of color (Sleeter & Thao, 2007).

Thus, this study seeks to examine social capital of future school professionalsand youth in urban communities as it is believed to influence the interactionsand educational outcomes of urban schools. As such, this research seeks toidentify and compare social capital of two distinct groups who enter the sameclassroom—young adults entering as professional educators and student leadersin the classrooms of urban schools. The authors combined two separate datasets to empirically examine social capital, and given the exploratory nature ofthis study, the purpose was to identify the basic characteristics of these samplesas well as similarities and differences between these two groups with theprediction that those leading the classroom would have greater access to socialcapital. In doing so, a theoretical and pragmatic awareness of how access tosocial resources and influence relates to opportunities in an educational context.This study also offers strategies for consultation within urban school environ-ments and expands the scholarship of factors influencing the training of futureschool professionals.

Methods

Participants

Two samples were independently recruited for this comparison of socialcapital. The two samples were obtained at separate locations and occasionsover a 4-year time span. Sample 1 was recruited from introductory under-graduate and graduate education-related courses in licensing preparationprograms at two state-funded institutions in the Northeast. These institu-tions were targeted as they each had strong partnerships with urban

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTATION 269

districts in the local area. Students were matriculated into training pro-grams that focused on areas of elementary or secondary teacher educationand education support personnel (e.g., school counselors, school psychol-ogists). The majority of students (62%) were in the teacher educatorpreparatory program. Students training for education support personnelcomprised 21% of the participants, and data was missing on the remainingparticipants (17%). A trained graduate research assistant recruited partici-pants at the end of seven separate class sessions, after the instructor hadcompleted the day’s lessons. The vast majority of those recruited volunta-rily participated in this study, with a conservative estimate of 90% parti-cipation rate, totaling 145 future educators. Similar to the nationaldemographics of individuals in education and in preparatory trainingprograms (AACTE, 2010; Curtis, Castillo, & Gelley, 2010), the vast major-ity of the participants self-identified as Caucasian (86.9%) and werebetween the ages of 20 and 25 (82.1%).

Sample 2 consisted of 119 youth who participated in a community-basedorganization (CBO) project addressing social issues related to community vio-lence (e.g., domestic violence, education reform, environmental equality, andyouth empowerment) in their diverse neighborhoods. Data from this samplewere collected as part of a program evaluation of an urban-based, youth empow-erment program facilitated in neighborhoods disproportionately experiencinghigh rates of criminal activity and youth violence, as determined by local policereporting. The youth who participated in this program were recruited at thecommunity sites. De-identified archival survey data were collected from the CBOconducting the program evaluation (see Pearrow, 2008 for more information).The participating youth ranged in age from 14 and 17 years, with a mean age of15.8 (σ = 1.08). Using the categories on the United States Census, the participantsidentified as African American (49%), Latino (24%), Caucasian (9%), Asian/Pacific Islander (2%), or “other” (16%; e.g., Caribbean, Cape Verdean, multi-ethnic). The participants were relatively representative of the local, urban publicschool district’s student body, which was comprised of African American (34%),Hispanic (43%), and Caucasian (12%), and Asian (8%).

The authors’ institutional review boards approved both studies andconferred ethical protection of human participants. Table 1 providesadditional information on the demographic characteristics of theparticipants.

Materials and procedures

Participants from the two samples completed self-report surveys to examinethe construct of social capital and background demographic informationusing the following measures:

270 M. M. PEARROW ET AL.

Social capitalSocial capital is most commonly measured by asking individuals about theirparticipation in social relationships and their perceptions of the quality ofthose relationships (De Silva et al., 2005). The Social Capital Questionnaire(SCQ; Onyx & Bullen, 2000) was used to measure the participants’ percep-tion of neighborhood and societal characteristics and connections withintheir community. Seven of the eight factors of this scale were used. Theseven factors addressed the following dimensions: (1) Participation in LocalCommunity, which refers to participation in formal community structures;(2) Social Action or Proactivity in Social Context, referring to a sense ofpersonal and collective efficacy or personal agency within a social context;(3) Feelings of Trust and Safety, reflecting a belief of trustworthiness ofcommunity locations and members; (4) Neighborhood Connection, indicatinginformal interactions in their area; (5) Family and Friends’ Connection,reflecting relational interactions and networks; (6) Tolerance of Diversity,examining a sense of multiculturalism; and (7) Value of Life, or their per-ceived value in society. The eighth factor, Work Connections, focused onexperiences with paid employment and those items were eliminated as theywere not relevant for the participants in the study. Similarly, 2 items from theSocial Action or Proactivity in Social Context were removed as they alsorelated to experiences with paid employment.

The scores for each of the 29 items were calculated on a 4-point scale, withhigher scores indicating higher levels of activity and/or agreement (4 = Yes,definitely; 3 = Yes, frequently; 2 = No, not much; and 1 = No, not at all). Thevalidity of this survey instrument and its replicated use with U.S. populationswere found to be adequate by O’Brien, Burdsal, and Molgaard (2004). Thismeasure was also found to have good reliability, or internal consistency, withboth samples in the present study, obtaining a Cronbach’s alpha of .73 withSample 1, and .81 with Sample 2.

DemographicsBasic demographic information was gathered at the end of the survey. Itemsincluded queries on race, age, and ethnicity, and for Sample 1, there was anadditional item on their undergraduate program or degree.

Table 1. Percentages of Participant Ethnicity.Ethnicity Sample 1a Sample 2b

African American 0.7 48.7Latino/a 1.4 23.5Caucasian 87.5 9.2Asian American 1.4 1.7Other 9.0 16.9

aFuture educators, n = 145; byouth, n = 119.

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTATION 271

Descriptive analyses of the overall social capital as well as the identifiedfactors were calculated for each of the samples. The descriptive analysesidentified the overall distribution of mean scores and variability (Myers,Well, & Lorch, Jr., 2011). Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)with the seven subscales of the SCQ as the dependent variables was con-ducted to compare between the future educators and urban youth. In addi-tion, post hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted to identify significantdifferences between these two samples (Hoyt, Imel, & Chan, 2008).

Results

With each of the samples, the authors sought to empirically examine the levelof social capital, and the factors encompassed within it. The results wereanalyzed to identify the descriptive characteristics of these samples as well aselucidate similarities and differences. As there were no significant differencesbetween those training to be classroom educators and those training to besupport personnel, these participants were clustered into one group. Thedifferences between the two groups—future educators and youth leaders—were compared in order to extrapolate implications for the school settings,and for consultants as they support the educational achievement of allstudents.

With regard to the descriptive analyses, both samples demonstrated rela-tively similar results based on the findings from the SCQ; however, therewere significant and noteworthy similarities and differences among thefactors that contributed to the findings of each sample. In the sample offuture educators, the Family and Friends Connection factor was rated thehighest (µ = 3.18, σ = .61) while Participation in the Local Community wasrated the lowest (µ = 2.10, σ = .60). All factors were rated with a level of“agreement” with the exception of the Participation in the Local Communityfactor.

In the urban youth sample, the Tolerance for Diversity (µ = 3.21, σ = .70)factor was rated the highest, and the Feelings of Trust and Safety (µ = 2.29, σ= .55) was rated the lowest. Within this sample, there were three factors thatwere not indicated with agreement, including Participation in the LocalCommunity (µ = 2.49, σ = .71), Value of Life (µ = 2.47, σ = .79), andFeelings of Trust and Safety (µ = 2.29, σ = .55; see Table 2).

The omnibus MANOVA was statistically significant (Wilk’s Λ = .015, df =[7,252], p < .001), indicating that the combination of the seven subscales ofthe SCQ were different between the urban youth and future educators. Posthoc analyses (Holm, 1979) indicated that the two groups differed on threesubscales; specifically, the urban youth indicated significantly higher scores inthe Participation in Local Community (t = 4.96; p < .001), while the futureeducators demonstrated significantly higher scores in the Feelings of Trust

272 M. M. PEARROW ET AL.

and Safety (t = –7.84; p < .001) and Value of Life (t = –5.14; p < .001). Theresults from this scale and for each of the factors are included in Table 2.

Discussion

The findings from this study suggest that even though students in urbanschools and those who will become their educators and support staff mayshare the same physical space of a classroom, they have access to differentcomponents of social capital and its attendant resources. In addition, thefinding that there are no differences between those who are future educatorswho will provide educational services in the classroom and those whoprovide consultation to these educators is noteworthy. Thus, the significantdifferences between these two groups in three of the factors that constitutethe social capital construct—Participation in Local Community, Feelings ofTrust and Safety, and Value of Life—have implications for consultative andeducational practices. Given the diverse demographic profiles of the twosamples, these differences have the potential to shape exchanges within theclassroom, accentuating a cross-cultural divide that permeates many urbanschools (Ladson-Billings, 1995).

The difference between the two samples’ levels of participation in theirlocal communities was significant and striking and may be attributed inpart to the unique aspects of how this engagement is demonstrated byeach sample. The urban youth in this study were seeking an employmentopportunity to address violence in their community, so it is logical thatthis sample demonstrated a greater degree of participation in the commu-nity. Nonetheless, we might expect to see higher levels of communityengagement for this sample. For educators, this level of participationmight be expected given that those who seek out professions in educationhave the tendency to obey the rules and seek out opportunities to workwithin socially recognized institutions (Pearrow & Sanchez, 2008). This

Table 2. Social Capital and Factors: Descriptive Statistics and Post Hoc t Test Comparisons.Future Educators

M (SD)Urban Youth

M (SD) Difference t p

Participation in local community 2.09 (.60) 2.49 (.70) 0.40 4.96 <.001Social agency 3.06 (.45) 3.09 (.57) 0.03 0.50 .619Feelings of trust & safety 2.88 (.68) 2.28 (.55) –0.61 –7.84 <.001Neighborhood connections 2.75 (.53) 2.67 (.62) –0.07 –1.06 .289Family and friends connections 3.19 (.66) 3.18 (.61) 0.01 0.06 .951Tolerance for diversity 3.05 (.71) 3.22 (.71) 0.17 1.94 .053Value of life 2.92 (.66) 2.46 (.79) –0.46 –5.14 <.001Social Capital Questionnaire 2.74 (.33) 2.70 (.39) –0.04 –0.99 .322

Note. Four-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating higher levels of agreement. Differences betweenthe samples for Participation in Local Community, Feelings of Trust & Safety, and Value of Life werestatistically significant after controlling for Type I error rate using Holm (1979).

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTATION 273

may reduce a need or desire to engage in the community to make it “abetter place” and challenge institutional practices and the status quo.Correspondingly, the similarities in social agency, which refers to thesense of personal or collective efficacy, may reflect the social context ofthe two samples. In other words, to be proactive in a community that isadequately resourced might look very different from being proactive in acommunity influenced by a paucity of resources and exposed to commu-nity strife. Thus, the impetus or desire for community participation mayvary based on individual and contextual factors that contribute to issues tobe addressed.

Based on these findings, urban youth experience vastly lower rates offeelings of trust and safety (e.g., “Do you agree that most people can betrusted?”) and lower rates of believing that their life has value (e.g., “Do youfeel valued by society?”). For many new educators working in urban education,it may be worthwhile to explore and understand how environmental andcommunity factors influence this lack of feelings of trust and safety. Withouta foundational sense of safety and security, as conceptually articulated byMaslow (1954), a student’s ability to pursue educational obtainment may becompromised. This highlights the need for schools to provide a haven fromcommunity violence and create positive school climates that promote safetyand security (Swearer, Espelage, Love, & Kingsbury, 2008; Rendon, 2014).Similar to their limited feelings of trust and safety, the sample of youthindicated a belief that they are not satisfied with their life and that they donot feel valued by society. Together, these factors portray young people inurban communities who internalize a societal context that leaves them vulner-able both physically and psychologically. As an effort to counter this, schoolscan take an empowerment approach rather than reducing them to passivevessels in the learning process (Freire, 1970). By engaging the voices ofstudents and families in urban schools, there are enriched opportunities toinfluence school climate and to enhance a sense of value by the youth (Sweareret al., 2008). Moreover, a nuanced and sensitive understanding of how thisperception of societal messages influences urban youth and how this contri-butes to their engagement in school and life can alter conversations andactivities facilitated by the educators and consultants within the school envir-onment. This also speaks to the need to solicit youth voice through theeducational process, as we know that youth demonstrate improved mentalhealth and academic performance when given opportunities to contribute andhave an influence on their school and community lives (Bemak, Chi-Ying, &Siroskey-Sabdo, 2005; Hazler & Carney, 2002; Pearrow & Pollack, 2009).

Both groups indicate comparable levels of access to networks that have thepotential to support academic success (Bourdieu, 1973; Goddard, 2003; John,2005; Plagens, 2010). However, neighborhood and community factors alsoimpact social capital, and for the purposes of educational obtainment, it may

274 M. M. PEARROW ET AL.

be that the family and friend connections that are available to young peoplein urban communities may have the paucity of resources to enrich academicsuccess (Subramanian, Lochner, & Kawachi, 2003; Williams & Le Menestrel,2013). Even more, in urban communities with high rates of communityviolence, young people’s exposure to the neighborhood context can contri-bute to poor educational outcomes (Rendon, 2014). This presents a potentiallink for schools and educators to become translators of resources that buildnetworks for access to educational opportunities (Bryan, Moore-Thomas,Day-Vines, & Holcomb-McCoy, 2011). Moreover, even though quantitativelythese two samples are similar in their family and neighborhood connections,qualitatively there appear to be significant differences in the resources avail-able through those networks.

Limitations and future directions

Of the limitations to this study, an influential one is the lack of normativedata with which to compare either of these samples. The construction andutilization of the SCQ has been examined and validated by the originalauthors, Onyx and Bullen (2000); however, there is a lack of clarity on howthe participants in these samples may or may not reflect those in otherstudies. Moreover, given the regional variance demonstrated in the changingracial and ethnic demographics of students in public schools (NCES, 2013), itis possible that these findings uniquely reflect the experiences of those in theNortheast. This could be addressed by expanding regions from which sam-ples are studied as well as examine the utility of this assessment tool.

In addition, data collected through self-report surveys heavily relies on thetemporal beliefs and attitudes of the respondent, which may or may notaccurately reflect time behaviors associated with these attitudes. Futureresearch could attempt to verify how these findings influence interactionsin the classroom setting. This research could be collected through observa-tions and qualitative interviews, to deepen the understanding of how socialcapital is translated into the classroom setting and to help elucidate anawareness of each samples’ perspective on these issues—particularly as theyrelate to success in school. Once these attitudes are better understood, thenthere is the need to examine whether simply increasing awareness of thesedifferences is enough to improve educational practices and outcomes inurban schools, and if not, then what other interventions are needed toenhance the connection between students and teachers with disparate livedexperiences.

More research is needed to develop a critical understanding of the con-textual and developmental factors that contribute to the youth leaders’ find-ings, specifically in the value of life and feelings of trust and safety. It ispossible that most of the adolescents in American society have lesser

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTATION 275

amounts of feelings of trust and safety and feeling valued by society whencompared to adults. In the absence of examining whether these findings arerelevant to all youth, as opposed to this sample comprised primarily of urbanyouth, we lack an understanding of contextual and environmental influencesthat contribute to these results.

Similarly, research could explore how the social capital of this sample offuture educators—whose demographic characteristics predominantly reflectthe dominant culture—may compare with a more ethnically diverse sampleof young adults. In addition, comparisons of young adults who pursuecareers in education with those who chose other career paths could enhanceour understanding of the social capital of young adults.

Implications for the consultant

For the consultant engaging in indirect services, the focus is on offeringsupports and training that direct service providers find “helpful, respectful,and address the concerns of the consultee” (Sander, 2013, p. 226). Yet, thisassumes that the consultee is aware of the differences in social capital andhow it influences the students in the classroom. If students walk into class-rooms believing that society does not value them, it impacts all aspects ofhow they engage in their lives—including their efforts and beliefs aboutschool and the value of education. For many of the individuals who standin front of a classroom, most of whom may have never experienced the worldin this way, simple references and covert messages from the worldview of theteacher may not translate into the world of students who have vastly differentlife experiences. In a sense, they cannot ordinarily find common ground, asneither group has a frame of reference for the other’s worldview. Recognizingdifferences and increasing awareness of these differences can have profoundimplications on how one proceeds to educate students (DeJaeghere & Zhang,2008). It can also influence how consultants, particularly those who addressthe educational and psychological growth of vulnerable students, engage andsupport classroom teachers.

Paulo Freire (1970) posited that schools can perpetuate the “bankingsystem of education” in which a cycle of oppression ensues from the narra-tive of teacher to student, wherein the teacher, who assumes the role ofpaternalistic figure, “deposits” information into the passive student recepta-cles. The opportunity for dialogue is short-circuited, and with that, thechance for a true development of understanding and a socially just environ-ment is eliminated. Perpetuating this system of imposing knowledge into anempty vessel gives a message to youth that their knowledge and life experi-ences lack value—which further perpetuates their belief that their life lacksvalue. Thus, teachers are in a position to corroborate this belief or to challengeit. Breaking this cycle requires teachers and school staff to engage youth in

276 M. M. PEARROW ET AL.

ways that recognize these differences and empowers them to connect toresources that extend community networks. This is particularly relevant foryouth of color, who frequently reside outside the networks of power andexperience a culture of silence that contributes to the massive dropoutproblem (McInerney, 2009).

Altering the access to the networks in these social and power structuresmay require altering school operations, where parents and community lea-ders participate in school planning and expand the access to opportunitiesthat improve the school learning environment. Building on the beliefexpressed by Evans (2007), “meaningful youth voice and influence in settingscan deliver rewards to communities, as youth bring their collective energy,creativity, and innovation to bear on transforming unjust social conditionsand alleviating human suffering” (p. 706). Nonetheless, perpetuating thecurrent systems risks the continued loss of potential for some vulnerableyouth, and misses an opportunity to work with young people as they come torealize that they can be powerful agents of educational attainment andpositive social change (Williams, 2007).

Similarly, research by Rendon (2014) indicates that in order to understandfactors that result in school non-completion in inner city neighborhoods, “itis necessary to shift attention away from educational norms presumed tofigure predominantly in education outcomes and to account for the everydaycontext that guides urban youths’ choices and behavior” (p. 76). The differ-ences in social capital demonstrated by these two samples suggest thatcontextual factors influence their accessible networks and connections, andthe inadvertent consequences may undermine the well-being of urban youth,as the social cohesion of the inner city that helps residents navigate urbanconditions can serve as a detriment to school success. Rendon (2014) alsofound that the institutional structures of schools have the potential to bufferyoung people from neighborhood and urban violence, or they can alsoincrease the risk for school failure. Interventions, such as half-day alternativeschool programs and suspensions, inevitably give youth more exposure to theneighborhood and its risks. Consultants may be in a unique position to assiststudents as they access new networks that expand opportunities and provideincreased exposure while entering different worlds. Consultation with schooladministrators and staff can build on alternative strategies to addressingbehaviors that negatively impact academic growth and instead support posi-tive relationships and address the safety of students.

Consultants can also support classroom teachers and school administra-tors as they take on courageous conversations about how these factorscontribute to the psychological safety experienced by students in the school.Consultants can work to create psychologically safe learning communitiesthat extend beyond metal detectors at the door (Brock et al., 2009), especiallygiven the significant difference in this foundational aspect of trust and safety

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTATION 277

and value of life. A public health and primary prevention approach canestablish psychological safety as part of the education practice of schools(Overstreet & Mathews, 2011). Classroom-based educators may assumepractices of culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995) to fosteran examination of unintended perspectives of privilege in the hiddencurriculum.

While one can argue that the basis for the differences between the twosamples is based on each group’s lived experiences, this study also suggestsa need to increase the awareness of school personnel to the foundational,psychological perspective of students in urban communities. Likewise,consultants working with educators need to be cognizant and responsiveto educators as they recognize their own privilege, and build supportivelearning environments for students who do not share the same experi-ences. According to Ladson-Billings (1995), this unfolds as educationalpractices that are culturally relevant, defined as practices that “empower . . .students intellectually, socially, emotionally, and politically by using cul-tural referents to impart knowledge, skills and attitudes” (p. 118). Forthose in training programs, this emphasizes the need to place futureeducators in schools with diverse student populations while criticallyexamining the manifestation of these differences. It is also important toincrease the racial, ethnic, and economic diversity of the professionalsentering schools. Introducing these conversations into classrooms at thetraining and program recruitment levels has the potential to disrupt orinterrupt the status quo and support the retention of educational profes-sionals from diverse backgrounds, and help other professionals be moreprepared to examine underlying beliefs that contribute to their work inclassrooms.

In summary, this study compared and contrasted the social relationships,connections, and networks of two separate groups that share the sameenvironment in urban schools. Based on these findings, the SCQ scalereliably quantifies how social capital may manifest itself differently basedon privilege and social context. The impact of the varying access to resourcesmay have profound implications on the work and activities within the class-room, particularly in urban school settings where continuing a bankingsystem of education only perpetuates inequities. Greater awareness andunderstanding of how societal and community factors contribute to thesedifferences can serve as a foundation for engaging and empowering vulner-able students to promote success beyond the classroom and into multipleaspects of school and life.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance provided by Angela Couse.

278 M. M. PEARROW ET AL.

References

American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. (2010). An emerging picture of theteacher preparation pipeline. Retrieved from http://aacte.org/Research-Policy/Research-and-Policy-Statements/an-emerging-picture-of-the-teacher-preparation-pipeline.html

Beaudoin, C. E. (2007). The impact of news use and social capital on youth wellbeing: An aggregate-level analysis. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 947–965. doi:10.1002/jcop.20205

Bemak, F., Chi-Ying, R., & Siroskey-Sabdo, L. A. (2005). Empowerment groups for academicsuccess: An innovative approach to prevent high school failure for at-risk, urban AfricanAmerican girls. Professional School Counseling, 8, 377–389.

Boser, U. (2014). Teacher diversity revisited. Center for American Progress. Retrieved fromhttp://americanprogress.org/issues/race/report/2014/05/04/88962/teacher-diversity-revisited

Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In R. Brown (Ed.),Knowledge, education, and cultural change (pp. 71–112). London, UK: Tavistock.

Brock, S. E., Nickerson, A. B., Reeves, M. A., Jimerson, S. R., Lieberman, R. A., & Feinberg, T.A. (2009). School crisis prevention and intervention: The PREPaRE Model. Bethesda, MD:National Association of School Psychologists.

Bryan, J., Moore-Thomas, C., Day-Vines, N. L., & Holcomb-McCoy, C. (2011). Schoolcounselors as social capital: The effects of high school college counseling and collegeapplication rates. Journal of Counseling and Development, 89, 190–199. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00077.x

Byun, S., Meece, J. L., Irvin, M. J., & Hutchins, B. C. (2012). The role of social capital ineducational aspirations of rural youth. Rural Sociology, 77(3), 355–379. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.2012.00086.x

Carolan, B. V. (2012). An examination of the relationship among high school size, socialcapital, and adolescents’ mathematics achievement. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22,583–595. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00779x

Carpiano, R. M. (2007). Neighborhood social capital and adult health: An empirical test of aBourdieu-based model. Health and Place, 13, 639–655. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2006.09.001

Cattell, V. (2001). Poor people, poor places, and poor health: The mediating role of social networksand social capital. Social Science and Medicine, 52, 1501–1516. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00259-8

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal ofSociology, Supplement: Organizations and Institutions: Sociological and EconomicApproaches to the Analysis of Social Structure, 94, S95–S120.

Coleman, J. S., & Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and private schools: The impact of communities.New York, NY: Basic Books.

Council of Great City Schools. (2011). Urban school statistics. Retrieved from http://www.cgcs.org/Page/75

Curtis, M. J., Castillo, J. M., & Gelley, C. (2010). School psychology 2010: Demographics,employment, and the context of professional practice. Communique, 40(8), 28–31.

DeJaeghere, J. G., & Zhang, Y. (2008). Development of intercultural competence among U.S.teachers: Professional development factors that enhance competence. InterculturalEducation, 19, 255–268. doi:10.1080/14675980802078624

DeSena, J. N., & Ansalone, G. (2009). Gentrification, schooling and social inequality.Educational Research Quarterly 33, 60–74.

De Silva, M. J., McKenzie, K., Harpham, T., & Huttly, S. R. A. (2005). Social capital andmental illness: A systematic review. Journal of Epidemiological and Community Health, 59,619–627. doi:10.1136/jech.2004.029678

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTATION 279

Evans, S. (2007). Youth sense of community: Voice and power in community context. Journalof Community Psychology, 6, 693–709. doi:10.1002/jcop.20173

Ferguson, K. M. (2006). Social capital and children’s wellbeing: A critical synthesis of theinternational social capital literature. International Journal of Social Welfare, 15, 2–18.doi:10.1111/j.1468-2397.2006.00575.x

Fitzpatrick, K. M., Piko, B. F., Wright, D. R., & LaGory, M. (2005). Depressive symptomatol-ogy, exposure to violence, and the role of social capital among African American adoles-cents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75, 262–274. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.75.2.262

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge. Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977.Colin Gordon (Ed.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder & Herder.Furstenberg, F. F., & Hughes, M. E. (1995). Social capital and successful development of at-

risk youth. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57, 580–592. doi:10.2307/353914Goddard, R. D. (2003). Relational networks, social trust, and norms: A social capital per-

spective on students’ changes of academic success. Education Evaluation and PolicyAnalysis, 25, 59–74. doi:10.3102/01623737025001059

Hanks, C. A. (2008). Social capital in an impoverished minority neighborhood: Emergenceand effects on children’s mental health. Journal of Child and Adolescent PsychiatricNursing, 21, 126–136. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6171.2008.00145.x

Hazler, R. J., & Carney, J. V. (2002). Empowering peers to prevent youth violence. HumanisticCounseling, Education, and Development, 41, 129–149. doi:10.1002/j.2164-490X.2002.tb00137.x

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York, NY:Routledge.

Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journalof Statistics, 6, 65–70.

Hoyt, W. T., Imel, Z. E., & Chan, F. (2008). Multiple regression and correlation techniques: Recentcontroversies and best practices. Rehabilitation Psychology, 53, 321–339. doi:10.1037/a0013021

John, P. (2005). The contribution of volunteering, trust, and networks to educational perfor-mance. The Policy Studies Journal, 33, 635–656. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2005.00136.x

Kaufman, J. S., & Hines, S. M. (2010). Cultivating an understanding of privilege amongteacher candidates. Race, Gender and Class, 17, 135–147.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. doi:10.3102/00028312032003465

Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differencesin achievement as children begin school. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Mangino, W. (2009). The downside of social closure: Brokerage, parental influence, anddelinquency among African-American boys. Sociology of Education, 82, 147–172.doi:10.1177/003804070908200203

Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Harper and Row.Massey, D. M. (1994). America’s apartheid and the urban underclass. Social Service Review,

37, 471–487. doi:10.1086/604079McInerney, P. (2009). Toward a critical pedagogy of engagement for alienated youth: Insights

from Freire and school-based research. Critical Studies in Education, 50, 23–35.doi:10.1080/17508480802526637

McPherson, K. E., Kerr, S., Morgan, A., McGee, E., Cheater, F. M., McLean, J., & Egan, J. (2013).The association between family and community social capital and health risk behaviors in youngpeople: An integrative review. BMC Public Health, 13, 971–994. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-971

Myers, J. L., Well, A. D., & Lorch, R. F., Jr. (2011). Research design and statistical analysis (3rded.). New York, NY: Routledge.

280 M. M. PEARROW ET AL.

Nakhaie, M. R., & Sacco, V. F. (2009). Social capital, individual disorders, and property offences.International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 32, 392–399. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2009.09.009

National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). School and staffing survey. Retrieved fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009321.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics (2011a). Table B.2.a.-1 Percentage distribution ofpublic school students across National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) readingachievement levels, by grade level and school locale: 2011. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ruraled/tables/b.2.a.-1_2011.asp

National Center for Education Statistics (2011b). Table B.2.a.-2 Percentage distribution ofpublic school students across National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) mathe-matics achievement levels, by grade level and school locale: 2011. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ruraled/tables/b.2.a.-2_2011.asp

National Center for Education Statistics (2013). Enrollment and percentage distribution ofenrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by race/ethnicity and region: Selectedyears, fall 1995 through fall 2013 (Table 203.50.). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_203.50.asp

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2010). Transforming teachereducation through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers.Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.

O’Brien, M. S., Burdsal, C. A., & Molgaard, C. A. (2004). Further development of anAustralian-based measure of social capital in a US sample. Social Science & Medicine, 59,1207–1217. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.01.007

Onyx, J., & Bullen, P. (2000). Measuring social capital in five communities. Journal of AppliedBehavioral Science, 36, 23–42. doi:10.1177/0021886300361002

Overstreet, S., & Mathews, T. (2011). Challenges associated with exposure to chronic trauma:Using a public health framework to foster resilient outcomes among youth. Psychology inthe Schools, 48, 738–754. doi:10.1002/pits.20584

Pearrow, M. (2008). A critical examination of an urban-based youth empowerment strategy:The Teen Empowerment program. Journal of Community Practice, 16, 509–525.doi:10.1080/10705420802514213

Pearrow, M., Harvey, V., & Arora, K. (2012, August). Empowerment and social capital ofurban, ethnic youth. Poster presentation at the annual convention of the AmericanPsychological Association, Orlando, FL.

Pearrow, M., & Pollack, S. (2009). Youth empowerment in oppressive systems: Opportunitiesfor school consultants. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 19, 45–60.doi:10.1080/10474410802494911

Pearrow, M., & Sanchez, W. (2008). Personal epistemology of elementary school teachers.Education and Urban Society, 40, 226–242. doi:10.1177/0013124507304169

Plagens, G. K. (2010). Social capital in schools: Perceptions and performance. TheInternational Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 5, 17–30.

Plotts, C., & Sable, J. (2010). Characteristics of the 100 largest public elementary and secondaryschool districts in the United States: 2007–08 (NCES 2010-349). U.S. Department of Education,National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. NewYork, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Rendon, M. G. (2014). “Caught Up”: How urban violence and peer ties contribute to highschool noncompletion. Social Problems, 61, 61–82. doi:10.1525/sp.2013.11237

Sander, J. (2012). Consultation and collaboration. In D. Shriberg, S. Y. Song, A. H. Miranda,& K. M. Radliff (Eds.), School psychology and social justice: Conceptual foundations andtools for practice (pp. 225–243). New York, NY: Routledge.

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTATION 281

Sleeter, C. (2001). Preparing teaches for culturally diverse schools: Research and the over-whelming presence of Whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 94–106. doi:10.1177/0022487101052002002

Sleeter, C. (2008). An invitation to support diverse students though teacher education.Journal of Teacher Education, 59(3), 212–219. doi:10.1177/0022487108317019

Sleeter, C., & Thao, Y. (2007). Diversifying the teaching force. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34, 3–8.Subramanian, S. V., Lochner, K. A., & Kawachi, I. (2003). Neighborhood differences in social

capital: A compositional artifact of a contextual construct? Health and Place, 9, 33–44.Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L. Love, K. B., & Kingsbury, W. (2008). School-wide approaches to

intervention for school aggression and bullying. In B. Doll & J. A. Cummings (Eds.),Transforming school mental health services: Population-based approaches to promoting thecompetency and wellness of children (pp. 187–212). Thousand Oaks, CA: NASP/Corwin Press.

Ukpokodu, O. (2011). Developing teachers’ cultural competence: One teacher educator’spractice of unpacking student culturelessness. Action in Teacher Education, 33, 432–454.doi:10.1080/01626620.2011.627033

Valencia-Garcia, D., Simoni, J. M., Alegria, M., & Takeuchi, D. T. (2012). Social capital,acculturation, mental health, and perceived access to services among Mexican Americanwomen. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80, 177–185. doi:10.1037/a0027207

Villegas, A.M., & Davis, D. E. (2007). Approaches to diversifying the teaching force: Attending toissues of recruitment, preparation, and retention. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34, 137–147.

Villegas, A. M., & Davis, D. E. (2008). Preparing teachers of color to confront racial/ethnicdisparities in educational outcomes. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J.McIntyre, & K. Demers (Eds.), Handbook on research in teacher education (pp.583–605). New York, NY: Routledge.

Williams, A. (2007). Support, expectations, awareness, and influence: Reflections on youth anddemocracy articles. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 811–814. doi:10.1002/jcop.20181

Williams, B., & Le Menestrel, S. M. (2013). Social capital and vulnerability from the family,neighborhood, school, and community perspectives. New Directions for YouthDevelopment, 138, 97–107. doi:10.1002/yd

Zoino-Jeannetti, J., Pearrow, M., & Couse, A. (2013, April). Exploring power: An examinationof social privilege and social capital of future educators. Chaired by K. Demers, TeachingPractice. Paper presented at the 45th annual meeting of the New England EducationResearch Organization, Portsmouth, NH.

Notes on contributors

Melissa M. Pearrow, PhD, is in the Department of Counseling and School Psychology in theCollege of Education and Human Development at the University of Massachusetts Boston.

Julia Zoino-Jeannetti, PhD, is an Associate Professor and Education Department Chair atFramingham State University.

Takuya Minami, PhD, is an Associate Professor in Counseling Psychology and Chair of theDepartment of Counseling and School Psychology at the University of Massachusetts Boston.

Note: The authors report that to the best of their knowledge neither they nor their affiliatedinstitutions have financial or personal relationships or affiliations that could influence or biasthe opinions, decisions, or work presented in this manuscript.

282 M. M. PEARROW ET AL.

Copyright of Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation is the property of Taylor &Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to alistserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,download, or email articles for individual use.