Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2013, pp.

370--394

How Do Teachers Talk About Economic Inequality?

The Complexity of Teaching at a Socioeconomically
Integrated Elementary School
Elizabeth S. White*
Illinois State University

Rashmita S. Mistry and Kirby A. Chow

University of California, Los Angeles

This study examined elementary school teachers experiences at a socioeconomi-

cally integrated school. Specifically we focused on the ways that teachers address
privilege and promote friendships among economically diverse students and the
challenges they face in doing so. Open-ended interviews were conducted with
teachers (N = 25) in prekindergarten through sixth grades. Results indicated that
while socioeconomic status (SES) was the most frequently mentioned domain of
student difference, teachers were unsure about how to effectively address SES
in the classroom. Some teachers reported working (unsuccessfully) to mask SES
differences among students, though this became increasingly difficult in the upper
elementary grades. Additionally, teachers described challenges associated with
having an economically heterogeneous student body including parents differen-
tial power and involvement at the school and the lack of geographic proximity
among students. Findings highlight the need for clear and specific classroom-
and school-based strategies to better address SES differences among students in
socioeconomically integrated school settings. Implications for teacher practice
are discussed.

Economic inequality is reflected in many aspects of U.S. society, includ-

ing American schools (Orfield & Lee, 2006). Economic segregation is problem-
atic because it results in gross inequities in childrens educational experiences

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Elizabeth S. White, School
of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, IL 61790-5330
[e-mail: eswhite@ilstu.edu].
370
DOI: 10.1111/asap.12024 
C 2013 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
SES Differences in the Classroom 371

(Hochschild, 2003; Rouse & Barrow, 2006). One solution implemented by U.S.
public school districts to help alleviate these disparities has been socioeconomic
integration policies (Gottlieb, 2002; Kahlenberg, 2007). In fact, more than 65
school districts in the United States currently use socioeconomic integration plans
(Kahlenberg, 2009), and numerous university-affiliated laboratory schools across
the nation (e.g., University of Hawaii, University of Chicago, Illinois State Uni-
versity, CUNY) purposefully recruit a socioeconomically diverse student body. As
more school districts consider socioeconomic integration, it is critical to examine
the implications of such policies on children and teachers.
The limited research examining this topic suggests there are academic bene-
fits to children, as early studies have shown that low-income children who move
to less poor or majority middle-class schools demonstrate improvements in stan-
dardized test scores (Gottlieb, 2002; Kahlenberg, 2007, 2009; Schwartz, 2010).
However, recent work also reveals social challenges faced by low-income students
in such educational environments including feelings of social isolation (Crosnoe,
2009). Less well-investigated have been teachers perceptions of socioeconomic
integration policies and experiences working with an economically diverse stu-
dent body. The current study addressed this gap by examining elementary school
teachers experiences at a socioeconomically integrated school. Specifically, we
examined: (1) the extent to which teachers recognize socioeconomic status (SES)1
as a salient dimension of difference among students; (2) whether teachers address
SES differences in the classroom by discussing issues of privilege and promoting
friendships among students from diverse SES backgrounds; and (3) the challenges
teachers experience in creating egalitarian school and classroom environments.
We focused specifically on teachers because they are largely responsible for or-
ganizing and shaping childrens classroom environments, especially during the
elementary school years, and they have considerable direct contact with students
and parents. Thus, teacher accounts are particularly valuable because they offer
insights into both school and classroom processes that result from socioeconomic
integration policies, which can, in turn, inform more well-designed and thoughtful
socioeconomic integration policies and programs in the future.

Teacher Practices to Address SES Diversity in the Classroom

According to Allports contact theory (1954), just bringing diverse children

together is not enough to promote positive social relationships, as interactions
must be structured in deliberate ways to promote respect and acceptance among
students. There are various approaches teachers and schools can use to educate
students about diversity and difference, in and outside of the classroom setting.

1
We conceptualize SES primarily in terms of household income in order to capture families
power, prestige, and control over resources (Diemer, Mistry, Wadsworth, Lopez, & Reimers, 2013,
p. 3).
372 White, Mistry, and Chow

Research has shown that cooperative learning groups where students work in
small groups with peers of differing races, gender, and ability levels, and where
each student is assigned a specific part of a project, are effective in reducing
racial and ethnic prejudice among children and adolescents (Pettigrew & Tropp,
2006; Pfeifer, Brown, & Juvonen, 2007). Another effective strategy is the use
of antibias curriculum in schools. Although the specific components of these
programs vary, those that are most effective in reducing bias include explicit
discussions of prejudice and discrimination, discussions of how it feels to be
excluded from peers, role-playing activities for children to practice responding to
a biased peer, and discussions about similarities and differences among groups to
deemphasize group-based stereotypes (Brown, 2011). Such approaches have been
successfully applied to teaching middle school children from affluent backgrounds
about poverty and economic inequality (Mistry, Brown, Chow, & Collins, 2012).
Furthermore, studies with high school and college students have demonstrated the
power of service learning in changing attitudes and increasing understanding of the
issues faced by individuals living in poverty, especially for students from affluent
backgrounds (Seider, 2011; Seider, Rabinowicz, & Gillmor, 2010). However,
these approaches have not yet been systematically examined at an economically
integrated elementary school.
Descriptive studies and practitioner reports offer some suggestions for ad-
dressing younger childrens ideas about economic inequality and different SES
groups. Many of these strategies incorporate elements of critical consciousness,
meaning educating students about inequality and leading them to analyze broader
social issues through their own experiences (Freire, 1970; Giroux, 1988). For
example, Chafel, Flint, Hammel, and Pomeroy (2007) suggested that teachers
educate elementary schoolage children about SES inequality through teacher-
and student-initiated conversations, childrens literature, and volunteer service
projects. They also recommended that teachers build on childrens own life ex-
periences and knowledge regarding poverty and SES inequality. Similarly, Lee,
Ramsey, and Sweeney (2008) described using role-playing activities in a kinder-
garten classroom to engage children in conversations about SES disparities such
as creating different sized dollhouses to represent various SES groups, and giving
children different amounts of money to spend at a classroom store to illustrate the
consequences of economic inequality. Silva (2012) examined how to bring dis-
cussions of power and privilege into a first-grade classroom and found that these
young students had trouble linking these concepts to social groups until they par-
ticipated in a simulation where they experienced discrimination themselves. Thus,
role-play may be particularly helpful during early and middle childhood. Bal-
cazar, Tandon, Kaplan, and Izzo (2001) piloted a curriculum program designed to
promote critical consciousness among fifth-grade African American students that
included conversations, personal reflection, and research (e.g., family interviews)
about values such as equality and fairness. Students also participated in field trips
SES Differences in the Classroom 373

to photograph examples of these values in the community and presented their find-
ings to classmates. The researchers found that after these experiences, children
became more critical of existing power structures and took steps to improve their
community by initiating a recycling program at their school.
Another approach to foster critical consciousness and address differences
among students is through a critical literacy curriculum, which may include ini-
tiating discussions about controversial issues through literature, teaching children
to question how events are portrayed in textbooks, or guiding students to question
power structures and understand the sociopolitical systems to which people belong
(Lewison, Flint, & Van Sluys, 2002). Chafel and Neitzel (2005) proposed that a
critical literacy curriculum can help to provide an effective framework to initiate
meaningful conversations about SES and to help children better understand eco-
nomic inequality and poverty. Lucey and Laney (2009) acknowledged that teachers
may feel uncomfortable discussing SES and privilege in the classroom and sug-
gested that upper elementary school teachers incorporate these topics in classroom
discussion by integrating them with music (e.g., Woodie Guthries This Land is
Your Land) and visual arts (e.g., George Segals Rush Hour depicting middle-
class workers). Similarly, the American Psychological Associations (APA) Task
Force on Resources for Inclusion of Social Class in Psychology Curricula (2008)
suggested books and popular media sources to engage college-level students in
discussions around social class.
However, to date, there has been no systematic exploration of teachers expe-
riences in a socioeconomically integrated school setting, their perception of SES
diversity among students, the extent to which they discuss privilege and promote
friendships among socioeconomically diverse students, and the challenges they
face in doing so. This examination is important as research has consistently shown
that elementary schoolage children are aware of SES differences among adults
and peers (Bigler, Averhart, & Liben, 2003; Chafel, 1997; Leahy, 1981; Ramsey,
1991) and can reason and make attributions about wealth and poverty (Chafel &
Neitzel, 2005). Evidence also suggests that children attach meaning to these cate-
gorizations, as children and adolescents are more likely to view poor students as
academically incompetent (Woods, Kurtz-Costes, & Rowley, 2004), and are less
likely to seek friendship with students from SES backgrounds different from their
own (Weinger, 2000). A developing area of research also documents that children
in the upper elementary grades are cognizant of their own economic background
and the resources and opportunities their familys SES may or may not afford
(Mistry, White, Chow, Gillen-ONeel, & Brown, 2013). Thus, examining teach-
ers awareness of SES differences among students and the degree to which they
address issues of privilege and promote friendships among students from diverse
SES backgrounds is critical to explore further. Furthermore, these discussions
and practices may be particularly complicated in economically integrated school
374 White, Mistry, and Chow

settings where childrens differential access to material resources, experiences,

and opportunities are especially pronounced.
In this study, we adopted a sociocultural perspective (Schoen, 2011), which
is concerned with how individual, social, and contextual issues impact human
activity (p. 12). According to this perspective, educational experiences are con-
textually based, and, as such, teacher and student experiences will be affected by
the social context outside of the classroom. The dramatically differing economic
resources and experiences that students bring to the classroom in an economically
integrated school setting have significant implications for student interactions and
for teacher practice. Our focus was on teachers experiences in these school and
classroom settings and their self-described strategies for addressing SES differ-
ences among students.

Methods

The Research Setting

South Bay Elementary (pseudonym) is a secular private school located in

Los Angeles County, California. The school is tuition-based, though scholar-
ships are available on a sliding scale. There are 17 classrooms, some multiage,
across prekindergarten through sixth grades, and most classes are team-taught.
South Bay espouses a holistic approach to education, giving equal attention to
childrens academic and social development. South Bay Elementary School was
chosen as the primary research site because of its commitment to diversity. In
fact, the schools mission states that it strives to provide a learning environment
that honors diversity across multiple domains including race, ethnicity, gender,
SES, language, family structure, nationality, religion, learning style, and physi-
cal ability. Approximately 450 students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds
attended the school; annual household income ranged from less than $10,000 to
more than $1 million (median income: $150,000$199,999). The economic di-
versity among the student population was essential for our study purposes, and
we consider it a strength for this study. Note that although our estimate is signifi-
cantly higher than the median household income in Los Angeles County ($52,595
as of 2011), it is on par with median household incomes in the neighborhoods
most proximate to the school (ranges: $84,343141,527; http://zipatlas.com). Los
Angeles County is, in addition, rated as one of the 10 most expensive counties
in the nation (http://www.kiplinger.com; July 2011). The student body was also
diverse with respect to race and ethnicity: 32% of students were White, 23%
Latino, 10% African American, 10% Asian, 4% Native American, 18% Multi-
ethnic, and 3% were designated as other. This diversity provided an opportunity
to examine issues of SES across (and not completely confounded with) race and
ethnicity.
SES Differences in the Classroom 375

Participants

The current investigation focused on the self-described experiences and prac-

tices of 25 teachers in prekindergarten through sixth grades. Teachers tenure at
the school ranged from 1 to 37 years (M = 9.8), while total years teaching ranged
from 4 to 37 years (M = 16.1). Most teachers had prior experience teaching in
public schools and were drawn to South Bay Elementary because of the freedom
in teaching practices and focus on critical-thinking skills. For example, Mr. Potts
(all teacher names are pseudonyms), a first-/second-grade teacher commented, I
wanted to be able to teach without the structure of you must teach this textbook
and be on this page at this time, it was really important to be able to have that
freedom . . . and to be able to be supported to teach the way I know best practices
lead me. Similarly, sixth-grade teacher Mr. Grey noted, A big enticement for
me to come here is the freedom to experiment with curriculum. Thus, teachers at
multiple levels noted the importance of using best practices and having freedom
in their curricular choices.

Procedures

Open-ended interviews were conducted with all lead teachers at the school
(N = 25). Patton (1987) recommends using interviews to understand another
persons perspective, so we felt that conducting interviews would be the most
effective way to gain insight into teachers perceptions of being educators in
diverse classroom contexts and to uncover details regarding school and classroom
processes. The first author conducted interviews on school grounds in a classroom
or private office. Each interview lasted approximately 40 minutes. We employed
a general interview guide approach by using a list of questions/topics to explore
during the interview (see Appendix for Teacher Interview Guide), which keeps
the interaction focused, but allows individual perspectives and experiences to
emerge (Patton, 1987, p. 111). Teachers were asked open-ended questions about
their professional background and teaching experience, and their thoughts about
student diversity. Teachers were asked to describe how they encourage interactions
among diverse students, incorporate themes of acceptance in their teaching, and
honor student differences. Teachers were also asked about ways that the school
could improve its approach to student and family diversity. All teachers were asked
the same sequence of questions. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed
verbatim by two graduate students.

Analysis

Coding of teacher interviews was an iterative and inductive process using

methods described by Merriam (2009) and Hill, Thompson, and Williams (1997)
376 White, Mistry, and Chow

to identify meaning and patterns in teachers interview responses. We used a

consensual qualitative research (CQR) approach that included dividing interview
segments into topic areas or themes, analyzing data across cases, and using con-
sensus coding (Hill et al., 1997). First, research team members independently read
teacher interview transcripts numerous times and identified three broad conceptual
themes related to SES diversity. Conceptual themes included: (1) teachers perceive
SES as a salient dimension of diversity among students; (2) teachers report having
few teaching strategies to address SES diversity among students; and (3) teach-
ers perceive numerous challenges working in economically integrated school and
classroom settings. (Note that the current investigation highlights teachers ap-
proaches to SES diversity. Findings regarding the ways teachers perceive and
address other kinds of student differences including race and ethnicity, gender,
and family structure will be addressed in a separate publication.) Once themes
were established, two team members independently sorted segments of teacher
interviews into the three theme categories. Disagreement was resolved by consen-
sus, and teacher response segments were double-coded when appropriate. Next,
two team members read through and examined teacher response segments in each
conceptual theme and developed more specific coding schemes. For example,
teacher response segments in the theme Teachers have few strategies to address
SES diversity were coded as Minimizing SES in the classroom or Promoting
critical consciousness. These two team members then coded teacher response
segments within each theme; again, disagreements were resolved by consensus.

Results

Teachers Believe That SES is a Salient Dimension of Diversity Among

Students

When asked about perceptions of student diversity and differences among stu-
dents in the school and classroom, teachers mentioned various types of difference
including family background characteristics (e.g., ethnicity) and individual child
characteristics (e.g., learning ability). However, the most common category of dif-
ference mentioned was SES diversity (n = 17), which was described as difference
in terms of economic status, social class, SES, or family income. For example,
first-/second-grade teacher Ms. Nichols offered, Well, I think of the obvious,
economic diversity while third-/fourth-grade teacher Ms. Moss mentioned that
Theres a big class difference among students at the school. Similarly, sixth-
grade teacher Ms. Hill explained, We definitely have worked towards having
the diversity, having the socioeconomics . . . which I think is so, so essential to
have kids learn about difference. Some teachers also described how economic
differences among students sometimes led to differences in student behavior and
experiences. According to Mr. Potts, I would say a major part of diversity at this
SES Differences in the Classroom 377

school is, I dont know how to say it, but kind of entitlement. There are certain kids
that feel a little entitled. In addition to feeling more entitled, third-/fourth-grade
teacher Ms. Clark described how economic heterogeneity among students has led
to some students being more privileged in their life experiences:
Some students have, are privileged to experience the world in a way that other students
dont. An example today in spelling, and train was one of the spelling words, so I like to
ride the train. And one of the students said, oh I love to ride the bullet train in Japan. And
all the other kids just, were like really? You know, like how many people get to have that
opportunity?

Eleven teachers discussed the growing income disparity among students at

South Bay Elementary and their perception of a shrinking middle-class student
population. For example, third-/fourth-grade teacher Ms. Williams commented,
We have a lot of students who are on, who are at the top end of the spectrum,
and we have a lot of kids who are at the bottom, and not very many in between.
On a similar note fifth-grade teacher Ms. Bennett said, Theres a very wealthy
element and then a not so wealthy element and I see the middle not being as
many as it used to be. Seven teachers attributed this increasing economic gap
to the changing tuition structure at the school, as Ms. Nichols explained, As
tuition goes up, weve got more people on the wealthy end . . . were committed
and able to offer scholarships, but the middle is going, the middle is shrinking.
Another fifth-grade teacher, Mr. Harris, also mentioned recent budget cuts and a
decrease in school funding. Thus, some teachers recognized that the increasing
tuition necessitates a wealthier population to make up for the lack of school funds,
as Mr. Harris noted, The wealthy pay for the, they keep the school rolling. In
summary, economic heterogeneity among students was a salient dimension of
difference considered by teachers at South Bay Elementary, and some teachers
were particularly mindful of the differential life experiences that greater economic
resources affords.

Teachers Have Few Strategies to Address SES Diversity Among Students

Teachers downplay SES. Teachers mentioned numerous strategies to address

diversity (broadly speaking) among students and to teach children to honor student
differences. Teachers reported working to build a strong classroom community,
using literature and current events, highlighting and validating individual student
differences, and promoting critical consciousness among students. Despite the use
of these various strategies and open communication about many topics and areas
of student difference (e.g., gender, race, learning ability), addressing issues of
socioeconomic diversity proved particularly challenging for teachers to address in
the classroom. Of the 12 teachers who mentioned that they use literacy and current
events to initiate and guide discussions about student diversity, none mentioned
discussions of SES, or included books about poverty or economic inequality in
378 White, Mistry, and Chow

their teaching. These findings are further illustrated by the words of kindergarten
teacher, Ms. Cook:

I think it gets really difficult to talk about economic differences at the school . . . were okay
talking about lots of other differences, you know, family structure, and all of that stuff, but
I think economic differences is the hard thing to talk about here because I think it affords,
the perception is . . . among parents and even teachers that those differences can afford you
more access . . . its an uncomfortable conversation to have.

In addition, 10 teachers described how they intentionally minimize or down-

play SES differences among students in various ways, which again is in contrast
to all other areas of difference mentioned by teachers. This downplaying of SES
differences was sometimes evidenced by teachers conscious effort to demonstrate
equal responses for all student experiences when wealthier students had privileged
experiences outside of school, and then came back to the classroom and shared
their experience with teachers and peers. While teachers didnt actively dismiss
childrens experiences, they did work to have:

the same put ups and praise and excitement for every student . . . like for the kid who goes
on these lavish vacations, not being like, oh my gosh, you went to Hawaii and you stayed
at the Four Seasons . . . And then for someone who spent time at a cousins house and
not being, like ohhh, but having the same excitement for both of them. Like, wow, that
sounds like a great time that you spent with your family; you mustve really enjoyed the
time you spent together, (Ms. Baker, third-/fourth-grade).

Similarly, first-/second-grade teacher Ms. Jackson commented, Some of the

kids experiences are phenomenal opportunities that they have in their lives, but
I dont really make a big deal out of it, um, and I sort of give everybody equal
time and attention for what they want to share. Ive tried to deal with it that way.
Fifth-grade teacher Ms. Cruz also explained that if a student is sharing an amazing
travel experience, she will bring them back to something local so the other kids
dont feel like, I have nothing to contribute. Unlike other domains of difference
among students, which were often highlighted by teachers as making each child
unique and being an asset to the classroom community, we found that teachers
sometimes consciously avoided SES differences, and this practice was evident
across all grade levels.
In addition to showing equal excitement and equal attention to all students,
teachers also described how they actively structure their classroom and student in-
teractions to avoid or minimize uncomfortable interactions where SES differences
become apparent. For example, kindergarten teacher Ms. Perry explained how she
works to prevent children from being exposed to each others homes when she
knows that there are substantial differences in family SES:

I actually try to downplay and equalize the ground that the kids are working on in terms
of, like if they have play dates, Id rather have them on campus where they can have an
equal ground . . . rather than going to someones house where its a mansion . . . , so I will
SES Differences in the Classroom 379

always encourage that if friendships are being developed between children who do have
differences.

Here, Ms. Perry described actively working to conceal economic differences

among students to maintain equality in the classroom. Similarly, first-/second-
grade teacher Ms. Jones explained how she structures her morning circle in a
way that avoids too much conversation about childrens differential experiences,
though she noted that these differences might still be discussed during free time:
We dont shut it down because thats the background that child is bringing in, um and at
the same time I guess its more of a way we structure the morning circle than it is the way
we necessarily handle that situation. But the kids know that, you know, they are listening
to each other and they are only talking when its their turn. So its not a time to respond
its more of a time to just kind [of] listen to everybodys check in. So it doesnt really
come up that often during morning circle . . . , but Im sure that theres follow up on the
[playground] . . . . I hear things like we need to have a play date. So I know that it happens
but um, I guess not necessarily at the morning circle time.

As before, this example illustrates how teachers minimized the visibility of

SES differences among students and childrens awareness of these differences
in very deliberate ways. However, despite these efforts, SES background and
economic inequality could not always be camouflaged. Ms. Jones explained that
these differences often become apparent when students describe their experiences
outside of the classroom such as lavish travel experiences or gifts theyve received:
There is a range socioeconomically as well though I dont see that day to day as much
because we basically provide all of the materials . . . but I hear it in things like morning
check ins where the kids say, Oh I got 3 new Wii games this weekend, and did this, and
I went here, and I went there. And others who are looking around, you know, like wow I
wish had that experience.

Similarly, fifth-grade teacher Mr. Reed noted that economic differences be-
come obvious through the experiences theyve had when they talk about what
they did over the weekend, I think thats where a lot of it comes out . . . even the
vacationsI went to Paris, I went to South America, I went to China or Japan
and then the other students are like we went for ice cream. In addition to stu-
dent experiences, teachers reported that economic differences become noticeable
in academic performance when they are working on assignments or activities
that rely on childrens background knowledge, as described by first-/second-grade
teacher, Ms. Nichols:
Whats not so level is we involve a lot of thinking and a lot of reflection on what kids are
bringing into the classroom from home, from their experiences. And where things really
start getting skewed is when people start talking about what they did on vacation . . . and
if theyre celebrating holidays that involve gifts or food . . . thats where I really feel the
income stuff is very, very apparent. And its tough as a teacher to be able to figure out, how
do you support kids? How do you create an experience that values that life outside of home
and kids can actually use that to write stories and poems? Because I teach writing and I also
teach science, you know, and if someones been [to] the Grand Canyon and youre studying
rocks, thats such an incredible mindblower . . . There are a lot of ways to level the playing
380 White, Mistry, and Chow

field, but the toughest thing is when you rely on background knowledge. And theres such
diversity there, and economics is the primary driver of that.

Although teachers at all grade levels were conscious of SES differences among
students, these differences seemed to be particularly challenging to circumvent
in the upper elementary grades, as students engaged in more explicit social com-
parison with others. Ms. Bennett noted that she has had parents who have been
worried that when their children go to another friends really wealthy house and
come home and their very comfortable house is no longer something theyre will-
ing to invite others to see. They become very self-conscious of that. Similarly,
Ms. Moss commented, For me, what I hear from the parents the most is the play
date inequity. You know, you can come to their house but they wont go to your
house. Thus, strategies used by teachers in the earlier grades to mask economic
differences among students like encouraging play dates on campus may not work
as well for older children. Furthermore, teachers in the upper elementary grades
reported that children may have more conversations about their possessions and
engage in social comparisons with classmates, as evidenced by this comment from
Ms. Moss: I think that my little girls really express the class stuff a lot in their
comparisons with each other, um clothing, toys, whether they have a TV in their
room. Third-/fourth-grade teacher Ms. Baker described conversations with par-
ents in which they expressed struggling with their children being envious of what
other kids are allowed to have. Thus, as children grow older, we saw teachers
and parents being challenged by how to address childrens growing awareness of
economic inequality among peers and differential access to various possessions.

Addressing SES through critical consciousness. Although in the minority,

three teachers mentioned attempts to address socioeconomic diversity more ex-
plicitly with their students, though only one exemplified critical consciousness.
For example, Ms. Clark explained how she would address an insensitive comment
about money from a more privileged student: If somebody, some student, a priv-
ileged student says something that a nonprivileged student might take offense at
and gingerly Ill address that and try and let somebody know that not everybody
is as fortunate. Similarly, first-/second-grade teacher Mr. Hernandez described
how he acknowledges the difference and moves on to the next topic:
One little boy, very innocently, talked about his iPad in group share, and somebody ac-
knowledged it. I think someone said, oh I wish I had an iPad, and I was just very matter of
fact about it. I said, oh well in his family they were able to get him an iPad, and in others,
we cant, but thats okay.

Although both of these teachers acknowledged SES differences among their

students, neither pursued the conversation around economic inequality any further.
However, Ms. Price, a sixth-grade teacher, spoke of using these kinds of uncom-
fortable conversations as teachable moments to initiate conversation among the
SES Differences in the Classroom 381

students in her class. Based on many examples during the interview, Ms. Price ex-
emplified critical consciousness in her teaching, as she described open discussions
about privilege and economic difference among students. She began:

I talk about privilege and the unconsciousness of that . . . its hard because we as adults
dont want to look at it. . . . I like to teach about privilege from how we use our materials
. . . [I say] youre not going to use all that paint . . . youve got to be mindful . . . yes, its
here in abundance, but that doesnt mean we have to waste, and bring consciousness to that.

She further acknowledged that, it gets uncomfortable because we do have

low-income kids here, but because I bring my own personal experience then
they can own theirs and maintained that this approach is part of her teaching
philosophy in regard to all areas of student difference.

You know, its a balancing act when do you intercede and when you dont. For me, I intercede
all the time . . . every moment is a teaching moment for me about social awareness and if
were going to have diversity we have to look at all these avenues.

Ms. Price used classroom experiences as a catalyst to initiate discussions

about privilege and economic inequality, teaching students to critically analyze
society and question social conditions.

Challenges Working at an Economically Integrated School

Throughout the interviews, teachers noted several school and classroom chal-
lenges associated with having an economically heterogeneous student population
including parents differential power and involvement at the school and in the
classroom and the lack of geographic proximity among students at the school.

Parental access and resources. Seven teachers mentioned how parents dis-
parate resources lead to differential access in the classroom. Specifically, eco-
nomic inequality proved difficult because more economically privileged parents
may have more power (or perceived power) as compared to other families. For
example, first-/second-grade teacher Ms. Davis reported being surprised about
how strong and powerful these parents are, and how they can really influence
the teacher, the principal, it was a shock. She then explained that as teachers
we make one decision in the classroom and we have to be ready to defend that
every single time. Because of this level of parent involvement, particularly among
higher SES parents, teacherparent interactions were at times taxing for teach-
ers. According to Ms. Moss, As a tuition-based school, I would say 50% of the
parents treat you like youre an employee versus a professional. Other teachers
at the same grade level echoed these sentiments: There are some families that
I feel a sense of entitlement from . . . Its definitely something that occurs and is
challenging and not talked about, (Ms. Martin). Similarly, Ms. Clark expressed:
382 White, Mistry, and Chow

Theres a sense of entitlement . . . I think that thats true in any place you teach where the
SES levels surpass you as a teacher . . . that SES card can get played . . . . And there are
times when those parents who have that higher level, the way they feel they can speak to
you or handle situations can be challenging.

In addition to differential power and involvement at the classroom level,

teachers felt that parents experience differences in power at the school level.
Teachers reported that the more economically privileged parents have more time,
either because of job flexibility or because one parent does not work outside the
home, to actively participate at school and take on leadership roles, often through
the Parent Teacher Association (PTA). Eleven teachers explained how this becomes
problematic, particularly in meetings, because parents who work long hours, have
inflexible jobs, lack adequate transportation, or live farther from the school cannot
show the same level of participation or leadership as those parents who have more
resources. For example, Mr. Hernandez explained:
A challenge for us is . . . how to give families who are working families a voice in decisions
that get made . . . I think that because of the differences in SES of those parents that can
support and can take a leadership role in some of those areas, sometimes the ones that are
not in those positions sometimes feel disengaged or disempowered, . . . some of the people
that I know that are in power, are sensitive to and aware of this situation, and theyre trying
as best as they can to bridge this gap, but its a little challenging because some of those
families are never here because theyre always working.

Another teacher at the same grade level, Mr. Potts, echoed these notions:
The [PTA] is made up primarily of the haves, the people who have a lot of money or who
have time to work. Its not made up of the single mothers . . . or that live in [lower SES
neighborhoods]. Theyre not the people who can contribute, so they dont get to make the
decisions about what happens.

Prekindergarten teacher, Ms. Evans, shared that these inequities extend to

other school events as well, noting, Its the same thing as having an auction, a
silent auction. You know, the parents with the money can buy the things, the parents
without cant . . . . Its very touchy and very complicated. Ms. Walker described
how this power differential among families with varying economic resources could
be uncomfortable for parents as well:
I think that it probably is really challenging to be a lower income family in this very wealthy,
highly educated, really special kind of place, if you come from um, not such a privileged
background, it probably feels awkward, more often than we realize, to be here. And I wish
that um, I dont know, it would have to be well done, it would have to be well thought
through, but I think it would be worth having some honest conversations.

Not a neighborhood school. Teachers also discussed the lack of geo-

graphic proximity among students at the school. South Bay Elementary is not
a neighborhood-based school; it draws children from more than 45 ZIP codes all
over the city. Thirteen teachers mentioned this as a significant challenge at the
school and felt this distance impedes student friendships, especially among those
SES Differences in the Classroom 383

from differing SES groups. Mr. Reed reflected, The higher socioeconomic kids
are, live in the [higher SES neighborhoods] . . . whereas a lot of the other ones are
living in [lower SES neighborhoods] . . . so outside of school, its hard to make
any connections with them, for them to make connections with each other. Mr.
Hernandez shared that One mom in particular has brought up that she knows she
cant have a play date in her neighborhood because the parents of her daughters
classmates wouldnt bring their child to her neighborhood, an inner-city type
neighborhood. Furthermore, Ms. Nichols acknowledged that even if bonds are
formed at school, these friendships might be difficult to sustain if not reinforced
outside the classroom:
Where it gets complicated is that families have friendship patterns that dont necessarily
match childrens friendship patterns. And thats the tough thing about not being a neighbor-
hood school . . . people dont live close to each other. There are people who live in [affluent
neighborhood] and theyre not driving to [lower SES neighborhood] to make friendships
happen. So theres stuff that happens outside the classroom that negatively affects friend-
ships inside the classroom. . . . We do a lot of work here on inclusion . . . being friends
with people and valuing a really diverse set of friends. I then feel as a teacher sometimes
undone, that work is undone because of family preferences.

Discussion

In the current study, we explored teachers experiences at a socioeconomically

integrated school, how they dealt with SES diversity among their students, and
how they helped students make sense (or not) of these differences. We expected
to uncover a list of strategies elementary school teachers use to discuss issues of
privilege and promote friendships across children from diverse SES backgrounds.
Our findings, however, were quite different. Overall, many teachers expressed
hesitation and uncertainty about how to effectively address SES differences in
the classroom and foster meaningful relationships among students, and many
were uncomfortable broaching the topic with children. They also acknowledged
challenges inherent in teaching at a socioeconomically integrated school, including
the lack of geographic proximity among students and parents differential power at
the school, based on family SES. We discuss the major findings and implications
for research and practice below.

Teaching Children About SES Differences

Teachers at South Bay Elementary recognized multiple domains of difference

among students at the school as well as the opportunity that this diversity provides
for students to learn about difference and develop positive attitudes about others.
However, they were less sure about how to foster this understanding with regard
to SES. Despite being acutely aware of SES differences among students, teachers
were uncertain about how to effectively address SES in the classroom and how
384 White, Mistry, and Chow

to help children make sense of this disparity. In fact, teachers at South Bay often
reported trying to downplay or mask SES differences among students, structuring
both in-school and out-of-school activities so as to minimize uncomfortable con-
versations about SES and interactions revealing SES disparities among peers. A
key question is why teachers felt so uncomfortable addressing or discussing issues
related to SES in the classroom. Social class is still considered a sensitive and
taboo subject in American society, which likely makes it difficult for teachers to
know how to address it in the classroom because teacher practices are informed by
these sociocultural trends and national beliefs. Teachers at South Bay stated that
they were comfortable discussing ethnicity, language, and family structure during
early and middle childhood, but not social class. This avoidance may be tied to
notions of the American Dream, or the belief that hard work and education are
rewarded regardless of ones economic background. In fact, Americans are more
likely to believe that wealth is unimportant and that economic mobility is possible
with hard work despite experiencing less economic mobility than other industri-
alized countries (Stiglitz, 2012). Whether or not teachers in our study espouse
this belief is unknown, yet if teachers openly acknowledge student privilege and
resources that affect school performance and adult outcomes, students may begin
to question this notion. Perhaps teachers feel disempowered to initiate such con-
versations in the classroom, particularly when the more privileged students and
their parents have benefited from the existing income- and wealth-based power
structures in the U.S. Research with economically privileged college students has
shown that some are resistant to acknowledge class privilege and the educational
gains they may receive because of it (Espino & Lee, 2011). Similarly, wealthier
parents may be offended by or resistant to discussions suggesting that their wealth
is due to something other than hard work. According to McIntosh (1988), invisible
power structures serve to maintain power among privileged groups and reinforce
dominance over others. Given that the wealthy parents at South Bay tended to
be the most active in the classroom and had the most power at the school, these
conversations may be even more difficult for teachers to initiate.
Another reason for this omission could be teachers lack of personal experi-
ence dealing with issues of poverty and inequality. Of the 25 teachers interviewed,
we found evidence of only one, Ms. Price, who explicitly addressed economic
diversity with students and guided their conversations about the consequences of
inequality such as privilege and differential access to resources. This teacher also
described how she relied on her own experiences growing up in poverty to inform
these conversations with students. This finding calls for a better understanding of
how teachers values, beliefs, and past experiences inform their current practices,
particularly in regard to teaching about social class. Research has shown that
preservice teachers draw on their own ethnic identity and experiences to enhance
discussions of multicultural literature with students (DeGroot, 2011), so similar
processes may occur for social class. Because the majority of preservice teachers
SES Differences in the Classroom 385

are from middle-class backgrounds (Ladson-Billings, 2001; Swarz, 2003), explicit

training in ways to address SES in the classroom may be especially important.
Our findings may also reflect a lack of effective teacher training and gen-
eral challenges linking educational research to teacher practice. While researchers
maintain that teachers should engage children in open conversations about eco-
nomic inequality and use various activities (e.g., literature, role-playing) to initi-
ate these conversations (Chafel et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2008), we found that few
teachers actually reported using these strategies in the classroom. This finding
was particularly surprising given that data were collected at a school that delib-
erately recruits a socioeconomically diverse student body. However, a recent poll
from Public Agenda and the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality
(2008) indicated that new teachers generally felt unprepared for racial and ethnic
diversity in the classroom and that coursework addressing these issues helped little
in the classroom. Teachers may feel similarly unprepared regarding social class.
Clearly, there is a need for teacher preparation programs and professional devel-
opment classes to explicitly explain and demonstrate how to integrate curricular
topics and use childrens literature or role-playing to initiate and guide conversa-
tions about poverty and inequality. Furthermore, these experiences may be further
enhanced if they are conducted in actual classroom settings so that teachers see
the strategies in practice.
Interestingly, teachers also acknowledged the shortcomings of their avoidance
approach. Many teachers reported that SES differences became readily apparent
once children shared their out-of-school experiences, particularly in the upper
elementary grades. Theoretical and empirical evidence also suggest that ignoring
or masking areas of difference is largely ineffective because children will ascribe
meaning to group membership and develop ideas about reasons for differences on
their own if not explicitly addressed (Bigler & Liben, 2007). Furthermore, research
has shown that schools and teachers who adopt a color-blind philosophy of
education (i.e., the belief that race does not matter and should be ignored) engage
in more discriminatory practices against racial minority students (Lewis, 2001;
Schofield, 1986). Similar economic blind phenomena may also be at play but
have yet to be investigated in elementary school contexts. Thus, even if teachers
ignore SES, it is highly probable that children will notice differences in their
peers economic backgrounds, and both students and teachers may be more likely
to make inaccurate judgments about students from differing SES backgrounds.
Given that teachers efforts to hide socioeconomic disparity are theoretically and
practically ineffective, explicit strategies to help teachers address SES differences
among students are critical.
Strategies that have been used effectively with other domains of difference
(e.g., race and ethnicity, gender) may help teachers understand how to deal
with economic inequality among students in their classroom, though our find-
ings indicate that SES diversity may be more complex. For example, creating
386 White, Mistry, and Chow

cooperative learning groups among students of varying SES backgrounds may be

an effective way to support friendships among students (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006;
Pfeifer et al., 2007). However, as noted by teachers in the current study, even if
meaningful relationships are developed at school, promoting friendships among
students from differing SES backgrounds may be difficult in nonneighborhood-
based schools given the lack of geographic proximity between the higher and
lower SES students. Thus, teachers also need strategies in place to support the
growth of cross-SES friendships outside of school. Antibias curriculum strate-
gies could be used with the elementary grades to combat negative perceptions
of people living in poverty (Brown, 2011). Similarly, service learning experi-
ences that have been used successfully with college-age students to promote
an understanding of poverty (Seider et al., 2010) may be another avenue for
children to learn about inequality. However, studies addressing economic in-
equality conducted by Mistry and colleagues (2012) and Seider (2010, 2011)
were conducted with affluent populations who experience little direct contact
with less affluent peers. If both higher and lower SES groups are represented
in the classroom, teachers will need to validate all students backgrounds and
experiences, being careful to not marginalize a particular group. Thus, even
strategies used with other domains of difference need to be better articulated
and understood in regard to SES diversity, as our findings indicate that these
practices can become much more complicated in economically integrated school
settings.

Developmental Considerations

Our findings also point to the importance of considering the developmental

level of children when addressing economic inequality in classrooms. The only
teacher who reported using critical consciousness and openly discussed topics
such as privilege and access to resources, Ms. Price, taught upper elementaryage
students, which may have made these kinds of conversations easier given childrens
ability to engage in more complex reasoning and to understand more complicated
social topics at this age as compared to younger groups (Eccles, 1999). Thus,
teachers must consider childrens cognitive capacity to understand such topics and
design lessons accordingly. Furthermore, while antibias approaches have been
found to be effective, reviews have cautioned that these interventions must be
tailored specifically to the childs developmental level (e.g., Aboud & Levy, 2000;
Pfeifer et al., 2007). Younger elementary school children who lack emotional
sophistication may not handle feelings of guilt in productive ways, and may
blame the victim, deny wrongdoing, or feel pity rather than respect for people
who experience discrimination (Aboud & Levy, 2000). Thus, the conversations,
lessons, and activities used to help children understand and appreciate economic
differences will likely differ depending on the grade level.
SES Differences in the Classroom 387

Teachers in the current study also noted that economic differences were
particularly difficult to mask in the upper elementary grades. As children reach
middle childhood they begin to engage in more social comparison with others
(Eccles, 1999), so differences in houses, clothes, family cars, and other social
markers of SES may become more pronounced during this developmental period.
In fact, research has shown that in the upper elementary grades, childrens un-
derstanding of their own economic status is informed by resources afforded by
family income and comparisons of possessions and lifestyle with peers (Mistry
et al., 2013). While strategies to address SES are needed throughout the elemen-
tary school years, they may be particularly important in the upper elementary
grades.

Equal Power and Access for All Parents

In addition to difficulties addressing SES differences among students, teach-

ers discussed challenges that result from such pronounced economic inequality
among families at the school. One clear challenge was the differential access and
involvement among parents at both the classroom and school levels. Teachers
described the sometimes intense school involvement of the wealthier parents and
the imbalance of power based on SES. Furthermore, across grade levels, teachers
reported experiencing challenging interactions with the wealthier parents and feel-
ing like they were sometimes treated as an employee rather than a professional.
Parent involvement in school is associated with childrens academic achievement
(Epstein & Sanders, 2002) and is generally thought of as a positive phenomenon.
However, parent overinvolvement may be difficult for teachers to handle, par-
ticularly when parents are perceived as demeaning to teachers. Lareaus (2003)
findings indicated that middle- and upper-middle-class parents often take an ac-
tive (sometimes obtrusive) role in their childrens education. These parents openly
voice dissatisfaction and expect that teachers adjust their behavior or methods
to accommodate their childs individual needs. In contrast, lower SES families
are less comfortable voicing concerns in schools and are less likely to challenge
the teachers or the schools authority. We found a similar pattern among teacher
reports of parent behavior at South Bay Elementary. These parent behaviors may
also become models for their childrens interactions with institutional settings
and may reinforce socioeconomic inequality in the school and among students.
Schools with an uneven distribution of power and access among parents must
develop clear guidelines about the level of parent involvement in the classroom
and must develop strategies to better include lower SES parents so that all parents,
regardless of SES, have an equal say in what happens to their children and the
direction of the school. Schools must strive to establish a balance of power by
moderating the involvement of some parents and increasing the involvement of
others (which we acknowledge is challenging in tuition-based schools). Teachers
388 White, Mistry, and Chow

may also benefit from professional development programs designed to help them
learn to build partnerships with all parents.

School and District Policy Implications

While the economic dispersion among students at South Bay Elementary

is dramatic, it is not necessarily unique. In many respects, the student body at
South Bay reflects the growing socioeconomic inequality evident in the larger
U.S. population (Stiglitz, 2012). Teacher reports of increasing economic polariza-
tion among the student body are consistent with the growing income and wealth
disparity in the United States over the last 30 years (Economic Policy Institute,
2011). This increasing economic stratification coincides with efforts on the part
of school districts to deal with the resulting educational inequality through the
implementation of school-based socioeconomic integration policies. These po-
lices are developed with good intentions, though our findings indicate that even in
economically integrated school contexts, inequality among children may persist
through their interactions with peers, the experiences they bring to the classroom,
and parents differential power at the school. Clearly, there is no quick fix
for issues of social and economic inequality and district-level changes are not
enough to promote equitable social conditions for students. Developing greater
levels of critical consciousness among teachers and students and guided and fa-
cilitated conversations about poverty and inequality are also necessary to bring
about greater equality and social change. Teaching students to examine social re-
alities and existing power structures, reflect on their place within those structures,
and then take action to change those structures (Freire, 1970; Giroux, 1988) is
important to empowering students to become their own agents of social change.
Therefore, if a district develops socioeconomic integration plans, it should col-
laborate with experts in the field (e.g., model teachers, university researchers) to
design professional development workshops for teachers and administrators to
learn how to promote critical consciousness in the classroom. For example, strate-
gies used by Balcazar and colleagues (2001) to promote critical consciousness
among African American students including classroom conversations, personal
reflection, and community-based research could also be used to foster an under-
standing of socioeconomic inequality. Although discussions may be challenging
in an economically integrated elementary school context, teachers could use a va-
riety of resources to help initiate and guide classroom conversations about poverty
and inequality including childrens literature (e.g., Maniac McGee, A Shelter in
our Car, Gettin Through Thursday, One Hundred Dresses, etc.), popular media
resources (e.g., Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, Everybody Hates Chris),
and role-playing activities (APA, 2008; Lee et al., 2008). Teachers, like Ms. Price,
who demonstrate critical consciousness in their teaching could also model their
practices and provide guidance to other teachers. These workshops should also
SES Differences in the Classroom 389

give teachers an opportunity to reflect on their own ideas and experiences related
to social class and inequality. McIntoshs notion of Serial Testimony (2004),
part of a national diversity training program where educators offer personal reflec-
tion regarding their own experiences and understandings of social issues, could be
used to support conversations among teachers and possibly, with practice, be in-
corporated into childrens daily sharing. By examining and articulating their own
understanding and assumptions about SES disparities and social class, teachers
may be better able to support students in this process as well. Thus, school districts
considering socioeconomic integration plans should have clear policies in place
to better support teachers in this process.

Limitations and Future Directions

One limitation of this study was our focus on teachers in one school, as
findings could be unique to this context. However, as stated earlier, numerous
school districts and university-affiliated laboratory schools in the United States
currently use socioeconomic integration plans (Kahlenberg, 2009). Given that the
economic polarization among the students at South Bay is similar to that found
in many private schools and large American urban centers, and that economic
inequality in the United States is increasing, these issues will likely affect more
public and private schools in the future. Therefore, while the teacher experiences
described here are specific to South Bay, they are not necessarily unique. Also,
as a tuition-based school, South Bay Elementary relies on the wealthy parents
to keep the school rolling, so their influence at the school may be particularly
pronounced. However, this may not be very different from public schools in
more affluent neighborhoods that rely upon family contributions to supplement
district funding and to finance extracurricular activities, field trips, and school
supplies. Furthermore, South Bays commitment to diversity and efforts to recruit
a diverse student population may also affect the generalizability of study findings,
as this type of school may attract teachers who are particularly concerned with
issues related to student diversity. While we feel that there are important lessons
to be learned from this investigation that can be applied to public and private
schools across the United States, additional studies should be conducted to examine
whether or not similar processes occur in other economically integrated school
contexts.
Second, there are limitations to the interview method we employed. We asked
teachers open-ended questions regarding their experiences in a diverse school
context. While we felt this was an effective way to uncover school and classroom
processes and understand teachers experiences in this context, teachers may be
using more strategies than reported. For example, when discussing using childrens
literature to initiate conversations about diversity, teachers did not explicitly state,
I do not include books about poverty. They simply didnt mention including any
390 White, Mistry, and Chow

books about poverty in their classroom. Thus, they may be doing more than what
was self-reported in the interview, so using a checklist of strategies or observations
of practice may enhance such an investigation in the future.
Third, we did not collect any data on teachers SES background that, in
hindsight, may have helped us better understand our findings. Atwater (2008)
has argued that teachers racial and ethnic identity and past experiences greatly
inform discussions of race in the classroom. Furthermore, educators who are part
of the nondominant culture may show greater awareness and understanding of
racial issues, making them less likely to adopt a color-blind approach. Similar
processes may be at work in regard to social class. If the majority of teachers in
our study were from middle- or upper-middle-class backgrounds (the dominant
culture), this could partly explain why so many were unsure about how to address
SES disparities with students.
Last, we focused solely on teachers perceptions and experiences. Future
studies should include the experiences of children, parents, and administrators in
schools with socioeconomically diverse student populations to gain a more com-
prehensive understanding of the dynamics in these environments and to compare
perspectives. Additionally, observations of interactions between children from dif-
fering SES groups and experimental studies testing different classroom strategies
to address SES would also help us understand these classroom processes more
thoroughly.

Conclusion

This study provided insights into teachers educational practices and expe-
riences with children and parents at a socioeconomically integrated school. We
aimed to uncover teachers perceptions of SES diversity, the ways that teachers
work to create egalitarian environments that support friendships among economi-
cally diverse students, and the challenges they face in doing so. Overall, teachers
from South Bay reported feeling uncertain about how to effectively address issues
of privilege and SES differences among students in the same classroom, even
at a school that explicitly recruits for a diverse student population. Furthermore,
teachers noted significant barriers to promoting friendships among students from
different SES backgrounds and substantial differences in power among parents
at the school. Given that economic diversity among students is found in vari-
ous educational contexts, and that economic inequality in the United States is
increasing, these issues will continue to affect both public and private schools in
the future. Thus, research examining how teachers can effectively guide children
in making sense of economic inequality among peers and address imbalances
in power among families is essential. Additionally, professional development for
teachers in districts where socioeconomic integration policies are in place is key
to helping them effectively teach in schools where SES disparities are prominent.
SES Differences in the Classroom 391

Socioeconomic school integration policies offer an exciting opportunity for chil-

dren from varying SES backgrounds to learn about difference and develop friend-
ships with diverse peers. However, educators must ensure that these school contexts
are designed thoughtfully so that teachers have the needed supports and strate-
gies in place to foster student friendship across SES boundaries and to address
economic inequality among students in a respectful and meaningful manner.

References

Aboud, F. E., & Levy, S. R. (2000). Interventions to reduce prejudice and discrimination in children
and adolescents. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 269294).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
American Psychological Association. (2008). Resources for the inclusion of social class
in psychology curricula. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/
social-class-curricula.pdf
Atwater, S. A. C. (2008). Waking up to difference: Teachers, color-blindness, and the effects on
students of color. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35, 246253.
Balcazar, F., Tandon, S. D., Kaplan, D., & Izzo, C. (2001). A classroom-based approach for promoting
critical consciousness among African-American youth. The Community Psychologist, 34, 30
32.
Bigler, R. S., Averhart, C. J., & Liben, L. S. (2003). Race and the work force: Occupational status,
aspirations, and stereotyping among African American children. Developmental Psychology,
39, 572580. doi: 10.1037/00121649.39.3.572.
Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2007). Developmental intergroup theory: Explaining and reducing
childrens social stereotyping and prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16,
162166.
Brown, C. S. (2011). Anti-bias education. Encyclopedia of peace psychology. Malden, MA: Wiley-
Blackwell Publishing.
Chafel, J. A. (1997). Societal images of poverty: Child and adult beliefs. Youth & Society, 28, 432463.
doi: 10.1177/004411897028004003.
Chafel, J. A., Flint, A. S., Hammel, J., & Pomeroy, K. H. (2007). Young children, social issues, and
critical literacy: Stories of teachers and researchers. Young Children, 62(1), 7381.
Chafel, J. A., & Neitzel, C. (2005). Young childrens ideas about the nature, causes, justifica-
tion, and alleviation of poverty. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 433450. doi:
10.1016/j.ecresq.2005.10.004.
Crosnoe, R. (2009). Low-income students and the socioeconomic composition of public high school.
American Sociological Review, 74, 709730. doi: 10.1177/000312240907400502.
DeGroot, A. (2011) Talking about texts: Examining the role of interventions in preservice teachers dis-
cussions of young adult multicultural literature. The Journal of Multiculturalism in Education,
7. Retrieved January 15, 2013 from http://www.wtamu.edu/journal/volumes.aspx
Diemer, M. A., Mistry, R. S., Wadsworth, M. E., Lopez, I., & Reimers, F. (2013).
Best practices in conceptualizing and measuring social class in psychological re-
search. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 77113. Retrieved April 2,
2013 from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1530-2415/earlyview doi:
10.1111/asap.12001.
Eccles, J. (1999). The development of children ages 6 to 14. The Future of Children, 9, 3044.
Economic Policy Institute. (2011). Income inequality: It wasnt always this way. Retrieved November
15, 2012 from http://www.epi.org/publication/income_inequality_it_wasnt_always_this_way/
Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2002). Family, school, and community partnerships. In M. H.
Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting. Vol. 5: Practical issues in parenting (pp. 407437).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
392 White, Mistry, and Chow

Espino, M., & Lee, J. (2011): Understanding resistance: Reflections on race and privi-
lege through service-learning. Equity & Excellence in Education, 44, 136152. doi:
10.1080/10665684.2011.558424.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Westport,
CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Gottlieb, A. (2002). Economically segregated schools hurt poor kids, study shows. The Term Paper,
1(2). Retrieved May 13, 2012 from http://www.piton.org/Documents/term2.pdf
Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative
research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 517572. doi: 10.1177/0011000097254001.
Hochschild, J. L. (2003). Social class in public schools. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 821840. doi:
10.1046/j.0022-4537.2003.00092.x
Kahlenberg, R. D. (2007). Rescuing Brown vs. Board of Education: Profiles of twelve school districts
pursuing socioeconomic school integration. The Century Foundation. Retrieved May 13, 2012
from http://www.tcf.org/publications/education/districtprofiles.pdf.
Kahlenberg, R. D. (2009). Turnaround schools that work: Moving beyond separate but equal. Retrieved
May 13, 2012 from http://tcf.org/publications/2009/11/pb700
Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachers in diverse class-
rooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Leahy, R. L. (1981). The development of the conception of economic inequality: I. Descriptions and
comparisons of rich and poor people. Child Development, 52, 523532.
Lee, R., Ramsey, P. G., & Sweeney, B. (2008). Engaging young children in activities and conversations
about race and social class. Young Children, 63, 6876.
Lewis, A. (2001). There is no race in the schoolyard: Color-blind ideology in an (al-
most) all-white school. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 781811. doi:
10.3102/00028312038004781.
Lewison, M., Flint, A. S., & Van Sluys, K. (2002). Taking on critical literacy: The journey of newcomers
and novices. Language Arts, 79, 382392.
Lucey, T., & Laney, J. D. (2009). This land was made for you and me: Teaching for economic
justice in upper elementary and middle school grades. The Social Studies, 100, 260272. doi:
10.1080/00377990903283916.
McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see cor-
respondences through work in womens studies (Working Paper No. 189). Wellesley, MA:
Wellesley Centers for Women.
McIntosh, P. (2004). Q&A empowering educators through SEED: An interview with Peggy McIntosh.
Wellesley Centers for Women, Research & Action Report, 25(2), 1015.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mistry, R. S., Brown, C. S., Chow, K. A., & Collins, G. S. (2012). Increasing the complexity of
young adolescents beliefs about poverty and inequality: Results of an 8th grade social studies
curriculum intervention. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 704716. doi: 10.1007/s10964-
011-9699-6.
Mistry, R. S., White, E. S., Chow, K. A., Gillen-ONeel, C., & Brown, C. S. (2013). Elementary school
childrens reasoning about social class: A mixed-methods study. Manuscript in preparation.
Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2006). Racial transformation and the changing nature of segregation. Cam-
bridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publi-
cations.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751783. doi: 10.1037/00223514.90.5.
751.
Pfeifer, J. H., Brown, C. S., & Juvonen, J. (2007). Prejudice reduction in school. Teaching tolerance
in schools: Lessons learned since Brown v Board of Education about the development and
reduction of childrens prejudices. Social Policy Report, XXI(2), 123.
SES Differences in the Classroom 393

Public Agenda and National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. (2008). Lessons learned:
New teachers talk about their jobs, challenges, and long-range plans. Issue No. 3: Teaching
in changing times. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality and
Public Agenda.
Ramsey, P. (1991). Young childrens awareness and understanding of social class differences. The
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 152, 7182.
Rouse, C. E., & Barrow, L. (2006). U.S. elementary and secondary schools: Equalizing opportunity or
replicating the status quo? The Future of Children, 16, 99123. doi: 10.1353/foc.2006.0018.
Schoen, L. (2011). Conceptual and methodological issues in sociocultural research and theory devel-
opment in education. In D. M. McInerney, R. A. Walker, & G. A. D. Liem (Eds.), Sociocultural
theories of learning and motivation: Looking back, looking forward (pp. 1140). Charlotte,
NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Schofield, J. W. (1986). Causes and consequences of the colorblind perspective. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L.
Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 231253). Orlando, FL: Academic
Press.
Schwartz, H. (2010). Housing policy is school policy: Economically integrative housing promotes
academic success in Montgomery County, Maryland. The Century Foundation, New York.
Retrieved May 13, 2012 from http://www.inhousing.org/PDFs/HeatherSchwartzArticle.pdf
Seider, S. (2011). The role of privilege as identity in adolescents beliefs about homelessness, oppor-
tunity, and inequality. Youth and Society, 43, 333364. doi: 10.1177/004411810366673
Seider, S. C., Rabinowicz, S. A., & Gillmor, S. C. (2010). Changing American college students
conceptions of poverty through community service learning. Analyses of Social Issues and
Public Policy, 10, 215236. doi: 10.1111/j.15302415.2010.01224.x
Silva, J. M. (2012). Critical classrooms: Using artists lives to teach young students social groups,
power, and privilege. Urban Education, 47, 776800. doi: 10.1177/0042085912441187.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How todays divided society endangers our future. New
York, NY: W. W. Norton Company, Inc.
Swarz, E. (2003). Teaching white preservice teachers: Pedagogy for change. Urban Education, 38,
255278.
Weinger, S. (2000). Economic status: Middle class and poor childrens views. Children & Society, 14,
135146. doi: 10.1111/j.10990860.2000.tb00161.x
Woods, T. A., Kurtz-Costes, B., & Rowley, S. J. (2004). The development of stereotypes about the
rich and poor: Age, race, and family income differences in beliefs. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 34, 437445. doi: 10.1007/s10964-005-7261-0

Appendix

Teacher Interview Guide

1. How did you end up at South Bay?

a. Why did you choose to be a teacher here?
b. How long have you been at South Bay?
c. Describe previous teaching experiences.
2. What grade are you currently teaching?
a. How long have you been with that grade level?
b. What other grades have you taught?
3. When you think about diversity or difference in the classroom, what kind
of student differences come to mind?
a. What kind of differences do you see among students in your classroom?
394 White, Mistry, and Chow

b. How aware are kids of those differences? (if not already mentioned, how
aware are they of differences such as social class, race/ethnicity, immigrant
status, or language)
4. How is South Bay different from other places youve taught or other pub-
lic/private elementary schools in general?
5. What kinds of teaching strategies do you use to foster tolerance and acceptance
of others from diverse ethnic and economic backgrounds in the classroom?
6. Do you use specific strategies in your classroom to encourage interactions
among diverse students? (differing by race/ethnicity, social class, immigrant
status, learning ability, language, etc.)
a. If so, what kinds of strategies to do you use?
b. Are there strategies you feel are more effective or less effective?
7. Are there additional ways you believe the school could support more interac-
tions among students from diverse backgrounds?

ELIZABETH S. WHITE, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Child Development

in the College of Education, School of Teaching and Learning, at Illinois State
University. Her research interests include childrens civic engagement and sense of
social responsibility, teacher practices in diverse classroom contexts, and childrens
understanding and experience of poverty and inequality.
RASHMITA S. MISTRY, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Education (Human
Development & Psychology Division) at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Her research focuses on understanding the consequences of family socioeconomic
resources and disadvantage (i.e., poverty) on childrens development, childrens
reasoning about socioeconomic stratification, and assessing the implications of
school-level socioeconomic diversity on teaching, learning, and childrens social
development.
KIRBY A. CHOW, M.A., is a graduate student in the Department of Education at
the University of California, Los Angeles. Her research interests are in the areas
of poverty and homelessness and childrens educational outcomes, and young
childrens reasoning about socioeconomic stratification.
Copyright of Analyses of Social Issues & Public Policy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.