The use of eligibility for a free lunch as a measure of a student’s socioeconomic status continues to be a fixture of quantitative education research. Despite its popularity, it is unclear that education researchers are familiar with what student eligibility for a free lunch does (and does not) represent. The authors examine the National School Lunch Program, which is responsible for certifying students as eligible for a free lunch, and conclude that free lunch eligibility is a poor measure of socioeconomic status, which suffers from important deficiencies that can bias inferences. A table characterizing key strengths and weaknesses of variables used as measures of socioeconomic status is provided to facilitate comparisons.
AdlerN. E.BoyceT.ChesneyM. A.CohenS.FolkmanS.KahnR. L.. (1994). Socioeconomic status and health: The challenge of the gradient. American Psychologist, 49, 15–24.
2.
AlexanderK. L.EntwisleD. R.OlsonL. S. (2007). Lasting consequences of the summer learning gap. American Sociological Review, 72, 167–180.
3.
AllisonP. D. (2001). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
American Psychological Association. (2007b). Report of the APA Task Force on Socioeconomic Status. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved September 18, 2008, from http://www2.apa.org/pi/SES_task_force _report.pdf
6.
Annual update of the HHS poverty guidelines. (2008). Federal Register, 73(15), 3971–3972.
7.
BlauP. M.DuncanO. D. (1967). The American occupation structure. New York: John Wiley.
8.
BollenK. A.GlanvilleJ. L.StecklovG. (2001). Socioeconomic status and class in studies of fertility and health in developing countries. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 153–185.
9.
BormanG. D.HewesG. M. (2002). The long-term effects and cost-effectiveness of success for all. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 243–266.
10.
BoykinA. W.ColemanS. T.LiljaA. J.TylerK. M. (2004). Research vistas in the communal learning paradigm (Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk Rep. No. 68). Retrieved November 10, 2008, from http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report68.pdf
11.
BreenR. (2005). Foundations of class analysis in the Weberian tradition. In WrightE. O. (Ed.), Alternative foundations of class analysis (pp. 41–69). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
BryantE. C.GlazerE.HansenM. A.KirschA. (1974). Associations between educational outcomes and background variables [Monograph]. Denver, CO: National Assessment of Educational Progress.
13.
BurkheadJ.FoxT. G.HollandJ. W. (1967). Input and output in large city high schools. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
14.
CampbellR. T. (1983). Substantive and statistical considerations in the interpretation of multiple measures of SES. Social Forces, 62, 450–466.
15.
ChenC.LeeS. Y.StevensonH. W. (1996). Long-term prediction of academic achievement of American, Chinese, and Japanese adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 750–759.
16.
CirinoP. T.ChinC. E.SevcikR. A.WolfM.LovettM.MorrisR. D. (2002). Measuring socioeconomic status: Reliability and preliminary validity for different approaches. Assessment, 9, 145–155.
17.
ColeN.CurrieJ. (1994). Reported income in the NLSY: Consistency checks and methods for cleaning the data (Working Paper No. T0160). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
18.
ColemanJ. S.CampbellE. Q.HobsonC. J.McPartlandJ.MoodA. M.WeinfieldF. D.. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity (2 vols.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
19.
CosciaJ. M.ChristensenB. K.HenryR. R.WallstonK.RadcliffeJ.RutsteinR. (2001). Effects of home environment, socioeconomic status, and health status on cognitive functioning in children with HIV-1 infection. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 26, 321–329.
20.
DauberS. L.AlexanderK. L.EntwisleD. R. (1996). Tracking and transitions through the middle grades: Channeling educational trajectories. Sociology of Education, 69, 290–307.
21.
DevaneyB. L.EllwoodM. R.LoveJ. M. (1997). Programs that mitigate the effects of poverty on children. Future of Children, 7, 88–112.
22.
Economic Research Service. (2003). Direct certification in the National School Lunch Program: Impacts on program access and integrity (Rep. No. 03–009, prepared by P. Gleason, T. Tasse, K. Jackson, & P. Memeth). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/efan03009/efan03009.pdf
23.
Economic Research Service. (2006). Profiles of participants in the National School Lunch Program: Data from two national surveys (Rep. No. EIB 17, prepared by C. Newman & K. Ralston). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved April 5, 2008, from www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib17/eib17.pdf
24.
Economic Research Service. (2008). The National School Lunch Program: Background, trends, and issues (Rep. No. 61, prepared by K. Ralston, C. Newman, A. Clauson, J. Guthrie, & J. Buzby). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved September 26, 2008, from www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR61/ERR61.pdf
25.
Edwards-HewittT.GrayJ. J. (1995). Comparison of measures of socioeconomic status between ethnic groups. Psychological Reports, 77, 699–702.
26.
EntwisleD. R.AstoneN. M. (1994). Some practical guidelines for measuring youth’s race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Child Development, 65, 1521–1540.
27.
Food and Nutrition Service. (1990). Study of Income Verification in the National School Lunch Program, Final report (Vol. 1, Rep. No. FNS-53–3198-6–44, prepared by R. St. Pierre, M. Puma, M. Battaglia, & J. Layzer). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/CNP/cnp-archive.htm
28.
Food and Nutrition Service. (2008). Program fact sheet. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved September 20, 2008, from http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/
29.
General Accounting Office. (2003). Public Schools: Comparison of achievement results for students attending privately managed and traditional schools in six cities (Rep. No. GAO-04–62, prepared by D. Edwards & P. Elston). Retrieved October 11, 2008, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0462.pdf
30.
GleasonP. (2008). Direct certification in the National School Lunch Program expands access for children. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27, 82–103.
31.
GrovesR. M. (2006). Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 646–675.
32.
GruskyG. (2005). Foundations of Durkheimian class analysis. In WrightE. O. (Ed.), Alternative foundations of class analysis (pp. 70–118). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
GundersonG. W. (2003). The National School Lunch Program: Background and development. New York: Nova Science.
34.
HanushekE. (1992). The trade-off between child quantity and quality. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 84–117.
35.
HarringtonA.MarshallB. L.MullerH. P. (Eds.). (2006). Encyclopedia of social theory. New York: Routledge.
36.
HarwellM. R.MaedaY.LeeK. (2004, April). Replicating and extending White’s (1982) Meta-analysis of the relationship between SES and student achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
37.
HaugM. R. (1977). Measurement in social stratification. Annual Review of Sociology, 3, 51–77.
38.
HauserR. M. (1994). Measuring socioeconomic status in studies of child development. Child Development, 65, 1541–1545.
HauserR. M.WarrenJ. R. (1997). Sociological indexes for occupations: A review, update, and critique. Sociological Methodology, 27, 177–298.
41.
HerrA.TobiasS. (1970). Achievement via programmed instruction and socioeconomic status. Psychology in the Schools, 1, 53–56.
42.
HobbsG.VignolesA. (2007). Is free school meal status a valid proxy for socio-economic status (in schools research)? (London School of Economics, Centre for the Economics of Education, Discussion Paper No. 0084). Retrieved November 29, 2008, from http://cee.lse.ac.uk/cee%20dps/ceedp84.pdf
43.
HolleyC. E. (1916). The relationship between persistence in school and home conditions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
JonesF. L.McMillanJ. (2001). Scoring occupational categories for social research: A review of current practice, with Australian examples. Work, Employment, and Society, 51, 539–563.
46.
KerckhoffA. C. (1975). Antecedents of academic performance and educational attainment (Final Rep., Project B-226). Chicago: Spencer Foundation.
47.
KurkiA.BoyleA.AladjemD. K. (2005, April). Beyond free lunch: Alternative poverty measures in educational research and program evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
48.
LevineS. (2008). School lunch politics: The surprising history of America’s favorite welfare program. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
49.
LiewJ.McTigueE. M.BarriosL.HughesJ. N. (2008). Adaptive and effortful control and academic self-efficacy beliefs on achievement: A longitudinal study of 1st through 3rd graders. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 515–526.
50.
LittleR. J. A.RubinD. B. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed.) New York: John Wiley.
51.
LubienskiS. T.LubienskiC. (2006). School sector and academic achievement: A multilevel analysis of NAEP mathematics data. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 651–698.
52.
LyndR. S.LyndH. M. (1929). Middletown: A study in American culture. New York: Harcourt Brace.
53.
Mathematica Policy Research. (2005). Trends in nutrition policy (Issue Brief No. 2, Rep. No. PP05–14, prepared by P. Gleason & J. Burghardt). Princeton, NJ: Author. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/nslpensuring.pdf
54.
Mathematica Policy Research. (2008). High school reform in Boston public schools: The effect of focus on high schools on student academic outcomes (Rep. No. 8927- 00, prepared by S. James-Burdumy, I. Perez-Johnson, & S. Vartivarian). Retrieved December 11, 2008, from https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/8803/HighSchoolReform.pdf?sequence=1
55.
MayH. (2002). Development and evaluation of an internationally comparable scale of student socioeconomic status using survey data from TIMSS. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania (AAT 3073031).
56.
MeansG. H.MeansR. S.OsborneJ. L.ElsomeB. F. (1973). Task persistence as a function of verbal reinforcement and socioeconomic status. California Journal of Educational Research, 24, 5–11.
57.
MinerB. (1968). Sociological background variables affecting school achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 61, 372–381.
58.
MolnarA.SmithP.ZahorikJ.PalmerHalbachA.EhrleK. (1999). Evaluating the SAGE program: A pilot program in targeted pupil–teacher reduction in Wisconsin. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 165–177.
59.
MontagueD. O. (1964). Arithmetic concepts of kindergarten children in contrasting socioeconomic areas. Elementary School Journal, 64, 393–397.
60.
NamC. B.PowersM. G. (1983). The socioeconomic approach to status measurement (with a guide to occupational and socioeconomic status scores). Houston, TX: Cap and Gown Press.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Education Longitudinal Study of 2002: Base year data file user’s manual (Rep. No. 2004–405, prepared by S. Ingels, D. Pratt, J. Rogers, P. Siegel, & E. Stutts). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
63.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2006a). A closer look at charter schools using hierarchical linear modeling. (Rep. No. 2006–460, prepared by H. Braun, F. Jenkins, & W. Grigg). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2006460.pdf
64.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2006b). United States high school sophomores: A twenty-two year comparison, 1980–2000 (Rep. No. NCES 2006–327, prepared by M. Cahalan, S. Ingels, L. Burns, M. Planty, & B. Daniel). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved September 20, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006327.pdf
65.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). The nation’s report card: Mathematics (Rep. No. NCES 2007–494, prepared by J. Lee, W. Grigg, & G. Dion). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved September 20, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2007/2007494.pdf
66.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2008a). The condition of education 2008 (Rep. No. NCES 2008–031, prepared by M. Planty, W. Hussar, T. Snyder, S. Provasnik, G. Kena, R. Dinkes, et al.). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved September 20, 2008from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008031.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2008c). Trends among high school seniors, 1972–2004 (Rep. No. NCES 2008–320, prepared by S. Ingels & B. Dalton). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved December 5, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008320.pdf
69.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). National Household Education Surveys Program of 2007: Methodology report (Rep. No. 2009–029, prepared by M. Hagedorn, S. Roth, P. Carver, W. Van de Kerckhove, & S. Smith). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved August 10, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009047_1.pdf
NicholsS. L.BerlinerD. C. (2008). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
72.
NiermanG. E.VeakM. H. (1997). Effect on selected recruiting strategies on beginning instrumentalists’ participation decisions. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 380–389.
73.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
74.
OakesJ. M.RossiP. H. (2003). The measurement of SES in health research: Current practice and steps toward a new approach. Social Science and Medicine, 56, 769–784.
75.
Office of Inspector General. (1997). Food and Consumer Service, National School Lunch Program verification of applications in Illinois (Rep. No. 27010–0011-Ch). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
76.
Office of Research, Nutrition, and Analysis. (1994). School lunch eligible non-participants: Final report (Rep. No. 53–3198–018, prepared by F. Glantz, R. Berg, D. Porcari, E. Sackoff, & S. Pazer). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/CNP/cnp-archive.htm
77.
Office of Research, Nutrition, and Analysis. (2004). Evaluation of the National School Lunch Program Application/Verification Pilot Projects: Vol. 1. Impacts on deterrence, barriers, and accuracy (Special Nutrition Program Report Series, Rep. No. CN-04-AV5, prepared by J. Burghardt, P. Gleason, M. Sinclair, R. Cohen, L. Hulsey, & J. Milliner-Waddell). Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/CNP/FILES/NSLPPilotVol1.pdf
78.
Office of Research, Nutrition, and Analysis. (2007). NSLP/SBP Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification Study—Erroneous payments in the NSLP and SBP: Vol. 1. Study findings (Rep. No. CN-07-APEC, prepared by M. Ponza et al.). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from http://www.fns.usda.gov/OANE/MENU/Published/CNP/FILES/apecvol1.pdf
79.
OrshanskyM. (1965). Counting the poor: Another look at the poverty profile. Social Security Bulletin, 28, 3–29.
80.
PayneK. J.BiddleB. J. (1999). Poor school funding, child poverty, and mathematics achievement. Educational Researcher, 28(6), 4–13.
81.
PengC. Y.HarwellM. R.LiouS. M.EhmanL. H. (2006). Advances in missing data methods and implications for educational research. In SawilowskyS. S. (Ed.), Real data analysis (pp. 31–78). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
82.
PentzM. A.TrebowE. A.HansenW. B.MacKinnonD. P.DwyerJ. H.JohnsonC. A.. (1990). Effects of program implementation on adolescent drug use behavior: The Midwestern Prevention Project (MPP). Evaluation Review, 14, 264–289.
83.
PowersM. G. (1982). Measures of socioeconomic status: An introduction. In PowersM. G. (Ed.), Measures of socioeconomic status: Current issues (pp. 1–28). Boulder, CO: Westview.
84.
PurvesA. C. (1973). Literature education in ten countries: International studies in education. Stockholm, Sweden: Almquist & Wiksell.
85.
RaymondR. (1968). Determinants of the quality of primary and secondary public education in West Virginia. Journal of Human Resources, 3, 450–470.
86.
87.
RoseD.PevalinD. J. (2003). The NS-SEC explained. In RoseD.PevalinD. J. (Eds.), A researcher’s guide to the national statistics socio-economic classification (pp. 28–43). London: Sage.
88.
SeyfriedS. F. (1998). Academic achievement of African American preadolescants: The influence of teacher perceptions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 381–402.
89.
SirinS. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417–453.
90.
SpaethJ. L. (1976). Cognitive complexity: A dimension underlying the socioeconomic achievement process. In SewallW. H.HauserR. M.FeathermanD. L. (Eds.), Schooling and achievement in American society (pp. 103–131). New York: Academic Press.
StanfielJ. D. (1973). Socioeconomic status as related to aptitude, attrition, and achievement of college students. Sociology of Education, 46, 480–488.
93.
SteinM. L.BerendsM.FuchsD.McMasterK.SaenzL.YenL.. (2008). Scaling up an early reading program: Relationships among teacher support, fidelity of implementation, and student performance across different sites and years. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 368–388.
94.
MartinM. O.MullisI. V. S.ChrostowskiS. J. (Eds.). (2004). TIMSS 2003 Technical Report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College. Retrieved November 11, 2008, from http://timss.bc.edu/PDF/t03_download/T03TECHRPT.pdf
95.
Van HornM. L.BellisJ. M.SnyderS. W. (2001). Family Resource Scale–Revised: Psychometrics and validation of a measure of family resources in a sample of low-income families. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 19, 54–68.
96.
WalpoleM. (2003). Socioeconomic status and college: How SES affects college experiences and outcomes. Review of Higher Education, 27, 45–73.
97.
WangJ.NiemiD.WangH. (2007). Impact of different performance assessment cut scores on student promotion (Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, UCLA, Rep. No. 719). Retrieved November 10, 2008, from http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/R719.pdf
98.
WardleJ.RobbK.JohnsonF. (2002). Assessing socioeconomic status in adolescents: The validity of a home affluence scale. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56, 595–599.
99.
WhiteK. R. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 461–481.
100.
WorleyS. E.StoryW. E. (1967). Socioeconomic status and language facility of beginning first graders. Reading Teacher, 20, 400–403.
101.
WrightE. O. (2002). Foundations of class analysis in the Marxist tradition. In WrightE. O. (Ed.), Alternative foundations of class analysis (pp. 6–40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
