Most parents fear their children participate in risky behavior. Some suggest that Catholic school attendance can help deter risky behavior in children through stricter discipline, religious instruction and a better peer group. The debate over public vs. Catholic school continues in this article as Naci Mocan, Benjamin Scafidi and Erdal Tekin investigate the supposed non-academic benefits of Catholic school. Utilizing data on the risky behavior of 7th through 12th graders in both public and private schools, Mocan et. al find that Catholic school attendance does not decrease the likelihood of risky behavior.
The authors use the a. National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Heath (Add Health), the most comprehensive study of adolescents ever completed in the US. Add Health was a questionnaire given to a sample of US school children, which included a subset of 7,018 adolescents in 7th to 12th grade that lived in metropolitan areas in 1994-1995, Mocan et. al explore and compare the impact of Catholic school and public school on the likelihood of drug use or selling, property crime, sexual activity, gang membership, suicide attempts and running away from home. A child’s tendency for risky behavior is based upon their seatbelt wearing habits. Parents were also questioned on the extent of their supervision of their children. The authors also use a measure of the power of teacher’s unions in the area to control for the propensity for Catholic school existence. Mocan et. al find that Catholic students are more likely to reside in states with stronger teacher unions.
When the authors control for everything from personal aspects (age, sex, religion), family aspects(parent’s education, family income), parental supervision, students tendency to risky and the propensity for the existence of Catholic schools (strength of the teacher’s unions), the authors find no evidence supporting the theory that Catholic schools reduce a child’s risky behavior.
The authors continue to investigate further details about Catholic school attendance. The evidence shows boys and girls attend Catholic school for different reasons. Test results show that Catholic school attendance for boys is only negatively correlated with two of the eleven risky behaviors. It appears male students go to Catholic school because they have risky behavior. The opposite emerges for girls. Catholic schoolgirls are negatively correlated to nine of eleven risky behaviors.
An important part of the authors’ research is discussing the opposing findings of this research and an article by Figlio and Ludwig (2000), which claims Catholic school does improve behavior by reducing sex, arrest and hard drug use. Mocan et. al note differences in their research that led to the opposing findings. The first difference is the age group. Mocan et. al use 13-18 year olds while Figlio and Ludwig question mostly 18 year olds. In addition, Figlio and Ludwig were researching a dissimilar topic: catholic schooling in 1988 as explanatory for risky behavior in 1992. Mocan et. al look at current schooling on risky beavhior. Finally, Mocan et. al add a number of control variables such as parental supervision.
Having attended both private (not Catholic) and public school, a sister who graduated from public and a brother who spend 98% of his schooling in private school, I have a unique circumstance for anecdotal information on risky behaviors in both types of schools. The findings do not surprise me. Although many students attend private school to further their academic interests, some students enter private schools because they are having behavior problems. The average of risky behavior students entering a private school may be the same as that in public school.
Even though I find the results reasonable, I have trouble with some of the methods used in the research, such as the reason for only looking at Catholic private schools. I find that using only Catholic schools, which represent 49% of all private schools, could skew the data as well as push a religious agenda in saying parochial schools would do a better job at mitigating risk than a private school would. In New England, most private schools are more prestigious than the parochial schools. A difference between the two types of private school could be a defining factor in whether the school mitigates risky behavior. I have also heard that parochial schools are less expensive than private schools, which may also have a factor on how can attend which type of private school. The religious aspect also might change the student population. In addition, the authors look at the power of teacher’s unions as a way to show possible push towards private school. The children who leave the public school system for the private may filter themselves in different ways into private and parochial schools.
Second, the authors use seat belts as a measure of teen’s taste for risk. I don’t think it is a good indication of risk. Teens don’t gain anything from not wearing their seat belts. Yet, other risky activities do have gains. For example, doing drugs leads to a high. Stealing gives a rush of adrenaline and the item stolen. I doubt anyone gets a high from not wearing his seat belt. I am unsure what should be used instead, but something that is more relevant should be the proxy.
Third, only students for metropolitan areas are included in the research. This distinction appears limiting in the scope of private schools and of where risky behavior occurs. This comes back to the omission of private schools that have no religious affiliation. A lot of parents send their children to bordering schools in rural areas. None of these schools are counted.