Alternative Measures of School Segregation

Zoloth, Barbara S.

doi:10.2307/3145527

Cited by 90 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies by Schnare (1980) and Smith (1991) also reported finding different patterns and trends in residential segregation when using D and S. Coleman et al (1982:177-179) had previously argued that D and S differ in ability to provide a reliable signal of when group have important differences in residential outcomes and noted that D can take high values when the two groups in the comparison have fundamentally similar distributions on residential outcomes. Zoloth (1976) made similar points in an earlier methodological study. Unfortunately, 7.1 The Increasing Practical Importance of the Distinction Between Displacement… the findings and observations reported in these studies have had minimal impact on prevailing practices in segregation research.…”

Section: The Increasing Practical Importance Of the Distinctionsupporting

confidence: 56%

“…The larger reduction in λ for S in the first exchange compared to the second exchange −3.96 points versus −0.04 points -highlights a property of S discussed above and noted previously by Zoloth (1976), James and Taeuber (1985), and Reardon and Firebaugh (2002). The property is that S responds more strongly to integration-promoting exchanges between areas that are more polarized in terms of area racial composition (i.e., exchanges when | | p p i j − is larger).…”

Section: Examples Of D-s Differences In Responding To Integration-promentioning

confidence: 66%

“…The core of their position is that, unlike D, S registers whether or not groups live apart due to both groups being concentrated in homogeneous areas, a residential pattern of compelling substantive interest to researchers. The view Stearns and Logan advocate runs counter to most methodological studies which view S as one among many alternative measures of uneven distribution including the gini index (G), the dissimilarity index (D), the Theil entropy index (H), and the Atkinson index (A) represented here by the closely related Hutchens square root index (R) (Zoloth 1976;James and Taeuber 1985;White 1986;Reardon and Firebaugh 2002). 12 These various alternative indices all differ from each other in at least the narrow sense that they can yield different numerical scores when applied to the same residential distributions.…”

Section: Is Separation a Distinct Dimension Of Segregation?mentioning

confidence: 93%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Distinctions Between Displacement and Separation

Fossett

2017

New Methods for Measuring and Analyzing Segregation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The previous chapter documents that the separation index (S) can reveal the presence of important aspects of residential segregation that cannot be reliably established by examining the more widely used dissimilarity index (D). Specifically, S reliably indicates whether groups are separated and live apart from each other in different areas of the city and experience substantially different residential outcomes -at minimum with respect to area racial composition and potentially also on other neighborhood outcomes that co-vary with area racial composition. High values on S thus signal that groups are residentially separated and reside apart from each other in areas that are polarized on racial composition. The same cannot be said for D. To the contrary, D can and sometimes does take high values when two groups are not residentially separated and in fact live together in the same neighborhoods and experience quantitatively similar residential outcomes on area racial composition. Thus, high values on D cannot and do not reliably signal the presence of group residential separation and neighborhood racial polarization.

show abstract

Section: The Increasing Practical Importance Of the Distinctionsupporting

confidence: 56%

Section: Examples Of D-s Differences In Responding To Integration-promentioning

confidence: 66%

Section: Is Separation a Distinct Dimension Of Segregation?mentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Distinctions Between Displacement and Separation

Fossett

2017

New Methods for Measuring and Analyzing Segregation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For any given value of p, we can dichotomize the income distribution at p and compute the pairwise segregation between those with income ranks less than p and those with income ranks greater than or equal to p. Let H p ð Þ denote the value of the traditional information theory index of segregation computed between the two groups so defined (Theil, 1972;Theil & Finezza, 1971;Zoloth, 1976). Likewise, let E p ð Þ denote the entropy of the population when divided into these two groups (Theil, 1972;Theil & Finezza, 1971).…”

Section: Measuring Segregation With the Rank-order Information Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Income Segregation Between Schools and School Districts

Owens

Reardon

Jencks

2016

American Educational Research Journal

283

186

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although trends in the racial segregation of schools are well documented, less is known about trends in income segregation. We use multiple data sources to document trends in income segregation between schools and school districts. Between-district income segregation of families with children enrolled in public school increased by over 15% from 1990 to 2010. Within large districts, between-school segregation of students who are eligible and ineligible for free lunch increased by over 40% from 1991 to 2012. Consistent with research on neighborhood segregation, we find that rising income inequality contributed to the rise in income segregation between schools and districts during this period. The rise in income segregation between both schools and districts may have implications for inequality in students' access to resources that bear on academic achievement.ANN OWENS is an assistant professor of sociology and (by courtesy) spatial sciences at the University of Southern California, 851 Downey Way, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1059; e-mail: annowens@usc.edu. Her research interests include sociology of education, urban sociology, social policy, and social stratification. Current research focuses on the causes, trends, and consequences of income and racial segregation between neighborhoods and schools. SEAN F. REARDON is the endowed Professor of Poverty and Inequality in Education and professor (by courtesy) of sociology at Stanford University. His research focuses on the causes, patterns, trends, and consequences of social and educational inequality; the effects of educational policy on educational and social inequality; and applied statistical methods for educational research. CHRISTOPHER JENCKS is the Malcolm Wiener Professor of Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. His recent research deals with changes in family structure over the past generation, the costs and benefits of economic inequality, the extent to which economic advantages are inherited, and the effects of welfare reform. His books include The Academic Revolution (with David Riesman);

show abstract

“…First, we define the concept of segregation and analyse the various indices used to measure it, which are derived from the literature developed to study residential and school segregation among racial minorities (Duncan and Duncan, 1955;James and Taeuber, 1985;Massey and Denton, 1988;White, 1986;Zoloth, 1976). Second, we present the design of the counterfactual scenario and the assumptions on which it is based.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Socioeconomic school segregation in Chile: Parental choice and a theoretical counterfactual analysis

Santos¹,

Elacqua²

2016

CEPAL Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we examine the hypothesis that the policy of parental school choice in Chile has increased socioeconomic school segregation. We use a georeferenced database of students and schools in the Greater Metropolitan Area of Santiago to compare actual segregation with the segregation that would occur in the hypothetical case that students attended the school nearest to their place of residence. The results indicate that school segregation is higher in the actual scenario than in the counterfactual scenario, which suggests that the interaction between family preferences and school entry barriers (tuition and selective admission process) tend to increase school segregation beyond the city's underlying residential segregation.

show abstract

Alternative Measures of School Segregation

Cited by 90 publications

References 6 publications

Distinctions Between Displacement and Separation

Distinctions Between Displacement and Separation

Income Segregation Between Schools and School Districts

Socioeconomic school segregation in Chile: Parental choice and a theoretical counterfactual analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About