Skip to main content

Indicator: School and workplace socioeconomic diversity

Definition

Individuals are exposed to socioeconomic diversity within their schools, postsecondary institutions, and workplaces.

Recommended Metric(s)

Pre-K, K-12, postsecondary: Student body composition by income

Workforce: Employee composition by income

Type(s) of Data Needed

Administrative data

Why it matters

The disparity in average school poverty rates between White and Black students is the single most important predictor of differences between their academic achievement.1 Schools generally reflect the socioeconomic composition of the neighborhoods within which they operate; attendance in schools with a high concentration of poverty is higher among children of color than White children.2 The relationship between economic segregation and outcomes begins in early childhood, where children’s academic achievement and social-emotional development have been linked to the average socioeconomic status of their classroom, regardless of a child’s own economic or demographic background.3, 4 The benefits of socioeconomic integration may extend into the workplace.5, 6, 7

What to know about measurement

In early childhood and K–12, this indicator may be difficult to measure based on family income, as household income is not systematically collected and reported in these sectors.8 Eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch eligibility is often used as a proxy for low income, although this metric has several limitations, as discussed in greater detail under the guidance for measuring income status in the chapter on disaggregates. At the postsecondary level, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) collects information on adjusted gross income, though not all students fill out the FAFSA. Workforce systems capture individuals’ earnings.

As noted under the school and workplace racial and ethnic diversity indicator, pre-K and K–12 institutions have less direct control over demographics than postsecondary institutions and workplaces. This indicator should be used to identify policy solutions rather than penalize these institutions.

E-W Case Studies

Image
Children smiling stock photo
California's Cradle-to-Career Data System
California is developing a data system that brings together data from early learning programs, schools, colleges, financial aid providers, employers, workforce training programs, and social services.
View Case Study

Source frameworks

This indicator appeared in five source frameworks reviewed for this report, most commonly through measures of economic segregation. Our definition aligns with the Alliance for Resource Equity’s Dimensions of Equity, which acknowledges the benefit of socioeconomic diversity in classrooms and schools. Our measure draws from the Urban Institute’s metric for student poverty concentration. We expanded the definition and metric to include workplace socioeconomic diversity as well.

References

    • 8

      Reardon, S., & Owens, A. (2014). 60 Years after Brown: Trends and consequences of school segregation. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043152

    • 1

      Reardon, S. F. (2016). School segregation and racial academic achievement gaps. The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(5), 34-57. https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2016.2.5.03

    • 2

      Orfield, G., Kucsera, J., & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2012). E pleribus…separation : Deepening double segregation for minority students. Civil Rights Project/ Proyecto Derechos Civiles https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED535442

    • 3

      Bagby, J. H., Rudd, L. C., & Woods, M. (2007). The effects of socioeconomic diversity on the language, cognitive and social-emotional development of children from low-income backgrounds. Early Childhood Development and Care, 175, 395-405. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443042000270768

    • 4

      Reid, J. L., & Ready, D. D. (2013). High-Quality preschool: The socioeconomic composition of preschool classrooms and children’s learning. Early Education and Development, 24(8), 1082-1111. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2012.757519

    • 5

      Krausa, M. W., Torreza, B., Park, J. W., & Ghayebi, F. (2019). Evidence for the reproduction of social class in brief speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 116(46), 1–6. https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.1900500116

    • 6

      Rivera, L. A., & Tilcsik, A. (2016). Class advantage, commitment penalty: The gendered effect of social class signals in an elite labor market. American Sociological Review, 81(6), 1097–1131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122416668154

    • 7

      Martin, S., & Cote, S. (2018). Social class transitioners: Their experiences and organizational importance. Academy of Management Review, 44(3), 1–70. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0065