Neighborhoods, Ethnicity and School Choice: Developing a Statistical Framework for Geodemographic Analysis

Abstract

Geodemographics as the “analysis of people by where they live” has origins in urban sociology and social mapping, and is experiencing a renaissance in applied spatial demography. However, some commentators have expressed reservations about the statistical limitations of common geodemographic practices, especially focusing on the potential internal heterogeneity of the geodemographic groupings, as well as the problem of clearly identifying predictor variables that might account for or explain the socioeconomic patterns revealed by geodemographic analyses. In this paper we argue that geodemographic typologies are structured methods for making sense of the spatial and socioeconomic patterns encoded within complex datasets such as national census data. By treating geodemographics as more a framework than a tool for analysis in its own right we are able to integrate it with the flexibility and statistical conventions offered by multilevel modeling. We demonstrate this with a case study of whether pupils from different types of neighborhood in Birmingham, England are more or less likely to attend their nearest state-funded secondary school and how that likelihood varies with the ethnic composition of the neighborhood. In so doing we build on previous research suggesting that ethnic segregation between schools is at least equal to that between neighborhoods in England and speculate in this regard on the consequences of current government plans to extend choice to parents within a schools market.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Notes

  1. 1.

    How well geodemographic classifications “capture” the geographical patterning of society (e.g., patterns of demography or of consumption) depends not only on the base units of analysis—such as postal or census zones—but also the number of clusters those units are grouped into, on a “like-with-like” basis, to form the geodemographic classification. In fact, Callingham (2006) has suggested that there is little difference in precision between classifications based on census small areas or those based on even finer postal geographies; what matters more is the number of geodemographic clusters used for analysis.

  2. 2.

    Geodemographic classifications are sometimes portrayed as “black boxes” because the exact choice of variables used to profile small areas, and the weightings attached to those variables, are not usually published (for commercial reasons). “Open geodemographics” has emerged in response to this in the U.K. (Vickers and Rees 2007; Vickers et al. 2005).

  3. 3.

    See also http://www.cmm.bristol.ac.uk/research/Lemma/ where there is a range of papers about multilevel modeling, as well as access to multilevel software and tutorials.

  4. 4.

    http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk

  5. 5.

    http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/people/d.vickers/OAclassinfo.html

  6. 6.

    Geodemographic practices of labeling places and people may be far from harmless (see Burrows et al. 2005), although the supposed negative impacts largely are conjecture.

  7. 7.

    In England, 93% of the school age population attend a state-funded school.

  8. 8.

    Specifically we have excluded pupils living in Lower Layer Super Output Areas that touch the metropolitan boundary of Birmingham. See http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk for more information about this aggregated census geography of England and Wales.

  9. 9.

    A likely, although not deliberately intended consequence of excluding the more suburban areas of Birmingham LEA from the analysis, is that straight-line distances to school are likely to approximate the actual distances, given the higher density of road and pedestrian routes within inner city areas.

  10. 10.

    Another and perhaps more relevant question is whether pupils of a given ethnic group are less likely to attend schools that go beyond a certain threshold proportion of other ethnic groups within them—that it is the ethnic composition of schools, not neighborhoods, that discourages applications. Unfortunately this is not straightforward to model because we are analyzing school choices after the event. If any one school is predominantly “nonwhite” then, by definition, not many white pupils can be attending it. To fit what is essentially the same information to both sides of the regression equation (i.e., as both the Y and an X) is to create a tautology. How to avoid this is commented upon in the section “Measuring ‘Neighborhood Effects’” of the paper.

  11. 11.

    See MLwiN Help file, version 2.03.03.

  12. 12.

    This implies a criticism of geodemographics which may, itself, be unfair: geodemographics usefully can identify places that do have high crime rates without it being necessary to identify quite why they are high. But, in terms of policing crime proactively rather than reactively, and in terms of addressing the policy question of what causes crime, then geodemographics alone is not sufficient (see Farr 2006 for an interesting example of how geodemographic methodologies can be combined with qualitative ones for managing health outcomes).

References

  1. Ashby, D. I., & Longley, P. A. (2005). Geocomputation, geodemographics and resource allocation for local policing. Transactions in GIS, 9, 53–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Batey, P., & Brown, P. (1995). From human ecology to customer targeting: The evolution of geodemographics. In P. Longley & G. Clarke (Eds.), GIS for business and service planning (pp. 77–103). Cambridge, MA: GeoInformation International.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bell, D. (2005). What does it mean to be a citizen? Lecture to the Hansard Society, London, 17 January 2005. Retrieved from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications/.

  4. Berry, M., & Linoff, G. (1997). Data mining techniques for marketing, sales, and customer support. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Booth, C. (1902–1903). Life and labour of the people of London. London, England: Macmillan.

  6. Browne, W. (2004). MCMC estimation in MLwiN. University of London, Institute of Education, Centre for Multilevel Modelling.

  7. Burgess, S., & Wilson, D. (2005). Ethnic segregation in England’s schools. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30, 20–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Burrows, R., Ellison, N., & Woods, B. (2005). Neighborhoods on the net: The nature and impact of internet-based neighborhood information systems. Bristol, England: The Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Callingham, M. (2006). The use and further development of OAC. Paper presented at the Market Research Society seminar, “Geography and people: How academic theory has evolved into business benefit.” London, 27 November 2006. Retrieved from http://www.mrs.org.uk/networking/cgg/nov06prog.htm.

  10. Curry, M. (1998). Digital places: Living with geographic information technologies. London, England: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dale, R. (1997). Educational markets and school choice. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 18, 451–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Danermark, B., Ekström, M., Jakobsen, L., & Karlsson, J. C. (2002). Explaining society: Critical realism in the social sciences. London, England: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dietz, R. D. (2002). The estimation of neighborhood effects in the social sciences: An interdisciplinary approach. Social Science Research, 31, 539–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Farr, M. (2006). Exploring the link between lifestyle and health patterns using geodemographics. Paper presented at the Market Research Society seminar, “Geography and people: How academic theory has evolved into business benefit.” London, 27 November 2006. Retrieved from http://www.mrs.org.uk/networking/cgg/nov06prog.htm.

  15. Gittus, E. (1964). The structure of urban areas: A new approach. Town Planning Review, 35, 5–20.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Goldstein, H. (2003). Multilevel statistical models. London, England: Hodder Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Goldstein, H., & Noden, P. (2003). Modelling social segregation. Oxford Review of Education, 29, 225–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gorard, S., Taylor, C., & Fitz, J. (2001). Social exclusion and public policy: The relationship between local school admission arrangements and segregation by poverty. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 26, 10–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Goss, J. (1995). Marketing the new marketing: The strategic discourse of geodemographic information systems. In J. Pickles (Ed.), Ground truth: The social implications of geographic information systems (pp. 130–170). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Graham, S. D. N. (2005). Software-sorted geographies. Progress in Human Geography, 29, 562–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Harris, R., Sleight, P., & Webber, R. (2005). Geodemographics, GIS and neighborhood targeting. Chichester, England: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  22. HM Government (2005). Higher standards, better schools for all: More choice for parents and pupils. Norwich, England: The Stationery Office, Department for Education and Skills.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Johnston, R., Wilson, D., & Burgess, S. (2004). School segregation in multiethnic England. Ethnicities, 4, 237–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Johnston, R., Wilson, D., & Burgess, S. (2005). England’s multiethnic educational system? A classification of secondary schools. Environment and Planning A, 37, 45–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the best explanation. London, England: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Longley, P. (2005). Geographical information systems: A renaissance of geodemographics for public service delivery. Progress in Human Geography, 29, 57–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Longley, P. A., Goodchild, M. F., Maguire, D. J., & Rhind, D. W. (2005). Geographic information systems and science. Chichester, England: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Manski, C. F. (1993). Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. The Review of Economic Studies, 60, 531–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Manski, C. F. (2000). Economic analysis of social interactions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14, 115–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Martin, D. (1998). Automatic neighborhood identification from population surfaces. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 22, 107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Menand, L. (Ed.). (1997). Pragmatism. New York: Random House.

  32. Monmonier, M. (2002). Spying with maps: Surveillance technologies and the future of privacy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Observer, The. (2005). Why Trevor is wrong about race ghettos. September 25.

  34. O’Sullivan, D., & Unwin, D. (2003). Geographic information analysis. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Park, R., Burgess, E., & McKenzie, R. (1925). The city: Suggestions for investigation of human behavior in the urban environment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Parsons, E., Chalkley, B., & Jones, A. (2000). School catchments and pupil movements: A case study in parental choice. Educational Studies, 26, 33–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Phillips, T. (2005). After 7/7: Sleepwalking to segregation. Speech to Manchester Council for Community Relations, 22 September 2005. Retrieved from http://www.cre.gov.uk.

  38. Pooley, C., Turnbull, J., & Adams, M. (2005). The journey to school in England since the 1940s. Area, 31, 43–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rasbash, J., Steele, F., Browne, W., & Prosser, B. (2004). A user’s guide to MLwiN. University of London, Institute of Education, Centre for Multilevel Modelling.

  40. Renzull, L. A., & Evans, L. (2005). School choice, charter schools, and white flight. Social Problems, 52, 398–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sleight, P. (2004). Targeting customers: How to use geodemographic and lifestyle data in your business. Henley-on-Thames, England: World Advertising Research Center Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Smith, S. J., & Easterlow, D. (2005). The strange geography of health inequalities. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30, 173–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London, England: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Taylor, C. (2001). The geography of choice and diversity in the “new” secondary education market of England. Area, 33, 368–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Taylor, C., & Gorard, S. (2001). The role of residence in school segregation: Placing the impact of parental choice in perspective. Environment and Planning A, 33, 1829–1852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Vickers, D. W., & Rees, P. H. (2007). Creating the National Statistics 2001 Output Area Classification. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (Statistics in Society), 170(2), 379–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Vickers, D., Rees, P., & Birkin, M. (2005). Creating the National Classification of Output Areas: Data, methods and results. Working Paper 05/2. University of Leeds, School of Geography.

  48. Voas, D., & Williamson, P. (2001). The diversity of diversity: A critique of geodemographic classification. Area, 33, 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Webber, R., & Longley, P. A. (2003). Geodemographic analysis of similarity and proximity: Their roles in the understanding of the geography of need. In P. A. Longley & M. Batty (Eds.), Advanced spatial analysis: The CASA book of GIS (pp. 77–103). Redlands, CA: ESRI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Weiss, M. (2000). The clustered world: How we live, what we buy, and what it all means about who we are. New York: Little, Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  51. West, A., Pennell, H., & Noden, P. (1998). School admissions: Increasing equity, accountability and transparency. British Journal of Educational Studies, 46, 188–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Williamson, T., Ashby, D. I., & Webber, R. (2005). Young offenders, schools and the neighborhood: A new approach to data-analysis for community policing. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 15, 203–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank three anonymous referees for their helpful and insightful comments upon a previous version of this manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Harris.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harris, R., Johnston, R. & Burgess, S. Neighborhoods, Ethnicity and School Choice: Developing a Statistical Framework for Geodemographic Analysis. Popul Res Policy Rev 26, 553–579 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-007-9042-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Ethnicity
  • Geodemographics
  • Multilevel
  • Schools