Status inconsistency is a situation when an individual's social positions have both positive and negative influences on their social status. For example, a teacher has a positive societal image (respect, prestige) which increases his status but may earn little money, which simultaneously decreases his status. In contrast, a drug dealer may have low social position though have a high income. However, a drug dealer may have high status within his or her own reference group (e.g., inner city gangs) and may be indifferent to his "low status" within the larger society.
In North America, the sociologist Parsons (1970) has been most influential in delineating the theoretical underpinnings of socioeconomic status. First, Parsons understood the idea of status as a position in the social structure, as part of the social differentiation in society (different occupations, different family positions). Although Parsons associated status with position (a status is occupied, such as accountant, and a role is performed, as in financial auditing), the concept carries with it a hierarchical referent.
According to Parsons a status is evaluated, and this social evaluation is central to his contribution to the idea of socioeconomic status. Social status was, for him, the core notion of social stratification, or rank. This differential evaluation in terms of honor and prestige lay at the heart of inequality.
Parsons opined that socioeconomic implies at least two dimensions to inequality—social and economic. Although these two dimensions are understood as closely associated, they nevertheless incorporate two different aspects of stratification. The economic dimension is best represented by money or wealth as reflected in employment income, home ownership, and other financial assets (e.g., pension plans, property ownership). The social dimension incorporates education, occupational prestige, authority, and community standing. A family's social standing as judged by others was used to differentiate between upper, middle, and lower classes. For Parsons, income and wealth were important, but secondary to social status or honor.
Parsons also understood family units as the key component of social stratification. Families were assumed to be units of solidarity sharing similar interests. He also assumed that families had a single breadwinner. That is, the concept of the head of a family was central to his understanding of the family unit. Although there is a tendency for him to interpret this idea of a single breadwinner as sexist, various reasons at the time gave some plausibility to his assumption. First, the inequities of domestic labor meant that most families had one principal wage earner, and this was typically the male head of the household. Second, many families had made investments in a single earner, either via decisions about geographic mobility or support for education (in both cases, women's careers typically were de-emphasized). Third, Parsons and others assumed that family members had a shared interest not only in their own well-being, but also in the well-being of their children. These ideas were the basis of his thinking that the family was the key unit of stratification and that the male head of the household was the principal determinant of the family's social status.
Finally, Parsons developed the functional theory of stratification. The core premise of this theory was that society had to differentially evaluate positions so that members of society would be motivated both to pursue the training necessary for the most important positions and, once in those positions, to perform them as well as possible. Encouraging the most qualified and competent people in a society to perform the most important jobs required that jobs be differentially ranked. Differences in socioeconomic status were one way to understand this necessary hierarchy.
Lareau (2003) speaks on the idea of concerted cultivation, where middle class parents take an active role in their children’s education and development by using controlled organized activities and fostering a sense of entitlement through encouraged discussion. Laureau argues that families with lower income do not participate in this movement, causing their children to have a sense of constraint. A division in educational attainment is thus born out of these two differences in child rearing.
Crnic and Lamberty (1994) also discussed the impact of socioeconomic status on children's readiness for school. According to him, the segregating nature of social class, ethnicity, and race may well reduce the variety of enriching experiences thought to be prerequisite for creating readiness to learn among children. In furtherance, he noted that social class, ethnicity, and race entail a set of 'contextual givens' that dictate neighborhood, housing, and access to resources that affect enrichment or deprivation as well as the acquisition of specific value systems among children.
Ramey (1994) described the relationship between the family’s socioeconomic status and the children's readiness for school. According to him, across all socioeconomic groups, parents face major challenges when it comes to providing optimal care and education for their children. For families in poverty, these challenges can be formidable. Sometimes, when basic necessities are lacking, parents must place top priority on housing, food, clothing, and health care. Educational toys, games, and books may appear to be luxuries, and parents may not have the time, energy, or knowledge to find innovative and less-expensive ways to foster young children's development.
These foregoing ideas make us to understand that families with low socioeconomic status often lack the financial, social, and educational supports that characterize families with high socioeconomic status. Poor families also may have inadequate or limited access to community resources that promote and support children's development and school readiness. Having inadequate resources and limited access to available resources can negatively affect families' decisions regarding their young children's development and learning. As a result, children from families with low socioeconomic status are at greater risk of entering kindergarten unprepared than their peers from families with median or high socioeconomic status and this affects their academic performance in an adverse way.
