Socioeconomic Diversity

Sociologists often classify individuals into upper class, middle class, working class, and
lower class, depending on their relative wealth, power, and prestige. Table 2.3 shows
selected characteristics for each one of these groups (Macionis, 2006). The term socioeconomic
status (SES) is also used to categorize individuals based on their economic,
educational, and occupational characteristics. SES is one of the most powerful factors
influencing student achievement, often shadowing other group differences such as
those stemming from ethnic background or gender. For example, upper-SES
European-Americans share many more characteristics with upper-SES African-
Americans and Hispanic-Americans than with lower-SES European-Americans, including
how they spend their vacation time, the sports they play, and how and where they
socialize. At school, SES predicts students’ intelligence and achievement scores, grades,
and dropout and suspension rates (Macionis, 2006).

Health Care. As shown in Figure 2.4, about 17% of children under 18 years of age in the
United States were living in families below the poverty line in 2006, with a rate of almost 53% for single-mother families, approximately 33% for African-Americans, 27% for Hispanics, 11% for Asians
and Pacific Islanders, and 10% for whites (DeNavas-Walt,Proctor, & Smith, 2007). Low-SES families have less access to good prenatal and infant health care and nutrition and are more likely to have premature babies, and children in poverty are more likely to be exposed to legal and illegal
drugs before birth. Figure 2.5 shows that children in poverty were more likely to be uninsured than the population of all uninsured children in 2006 (DeNavas-Walt
et al., 2007). These factors are all associated with impairments in higher cognitive development and with lower school achievement (McLoyd, 1998). Poor children do not receive medical or dental care regularly and suffer from untreated illnesses at a rate that is estimated to be at least twice that of middle-SES children (Sanders-Phillips, 1989)

Resources. Low-SES families have less access to highquality preschool care for their children, and this can
place them at a disadvantage in intellectual and social development (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 2000). In addition, the schools that low-SES children attend often have fewer resources than those in higher-income neighborhoods (McLoyd, Aikens, & Burton, 2006). Although low- and high-SES children are found to
make similar gains in reading and math during the school year, low-SES children fall behind when schools are closed in the summer (Entwisle, Alexander, & Olson, 1997). This results from the limited number of neighborhood and home resources of lower- SES families, including computers, books, museums, and libraries, which has a negative impact on students’ opportunities to learn outside of school. To facilitate continuous learning, some experts have recommended year-round education, with students having
several short vacations rather than one three-month summer break (Weaver, 1992).

Home Support and Stimulation. Lack of emotional and cognitive stimulation at home
can account for up to a half of low-SES children’s academic disadvantages (Korenman,
Miller, & Sjaastad, 1995). One study with over 1,200 adolescents found that poverty was
related to lower math and reading scores and less cognitively stimulating home environments
(Eamon, 2002). Higher-SES parents are, on average, more involved in their children’s
school activities than lower-SES parents (Brown, Anfara, & Roney, 2004; Diamond
& Gomez, 2004). This is partly because parents in low-SES households need to work at
two or more jobs (Weiss et al., 2003) and partly because many low-SES parents had limited
education themselves, so they are not as capable of helping their children with schoolwork
(Finders & Lewis, 1994). On average, higher-SES parents talk with more elaborated
language and encourage their children to engage in problem solving more than do lower-
SES parents (McDevitt & Ormrod, 2004). They also have positive expectations for their
children and encourage them to graduate from high school and attend college (Brown
et al., 2004; McGrath, Swisher, Elder, & Conger, 2001). In contrast, many low-SES students
may not place a high value on education (Graham, 1997) and may have no definite
career plans after leaving school (Pollard, 1993).

Teacher Expectations. In low-income neighborhoods, middle-SES teachers are likely to
have low expectations for these learners and fail to provide sufficient stimulation to promote
the development of high-order thinking skills (Persell, 1997; Spring, 2006). Similar to the
case of cultural minority students, once these low expectations have been set, the result is a
self-fulfilling prophecy: Teachers subtly communicate these expectations to students in a variety
of ways, and students come to behave in a way that is consistent with such expectations
(Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968).

Students at Risk. Children from disadvantaged homes are less likely to have good nutrition,
access to good health care, and opportunities to learn both outside of school
and at school. They are also typically held to lower expectations and likely to live in
impoverished neighborhoods where crime prevails and positive role models are absent
(Vernez, 1998). These factors place students at risk of failing to complete their education
with the skills necessary to succeed in today’s society. However, remember that
there is diversity within socioeconomic groups. Not all poor families lack appropriate
health and nutrition or opportunities to learn for their children, and many parents,
despite being poor, are able to help their children succeed. In fact, some low-SES parents
are actively invested in their children’s learning and education, and their children
achieve at higher levels as a result (Jimerson, Egeland, & Teo, 1999). The
opposite is also true. Coming from a high-SES family does not guarantee academic
success. Many children will not get the stimulation, caring, and support found among
the average high-SES families. Parents’ attitudes and behaviors can be more predictive
of students’ achievement than their SES (White, 1982). Furthermore, the many
negative factors that we reviewed do not automatically doom low-SES children to failure.
As you will learn in Chapter 11, many children from impoverished environments
develop what is called resilience, the ability to not only survive but thrive in adverse
environments (Dole, 2000).
In addition, many other individual, family, peer, school, and community factors are
found to be positively correlated with being at risk (Yeakey & Henderson, 2003), such
as the following:
• Being a male
• Being a member of a cultural minority (except Asian-Americans)
• Being a non-native English speaker
• Living in a large city
• Frequently moving from one school to another
• Having low psychological well-being and self-esteem
• Having low expectations or commitment to educational goals
• Poor early academic performance and poor study habits
• Unstable family relationships (e.g., divorce, separation, domestic violence)
• Weak or harsh parent–child relationships
• Associating with delinquents
• Low teacher expectations
• Living in a community where the prospects for socioeconomic success are low
• Living in a community where unemployment, poverty, and
crime are high
How can teachers help support the success of students at risk? One way is to create a mentorship program. For instance, a four-year program funded by the Ford Foundation provided ninth-grade students with the daily support of a caring mentor, academic activities outside school, community service projects,
and cultural and personal enrichment activities (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1995). An evaluation of this program showed that 63% of the mentored students graduated
from high school as compared to only 42% of a nonmentored control group. Teachers can also reach out to families and community members and encourage and support students’ learning and motivation in a variety of ways. Classroom Tips: Strategies to Support Students at Risk lists some research-based
strategies (Alderman, 1990; Epstein & Sanders, 2002; Garcia, 1999; Pianta, 1999; Ramey & Ramey, 1998).