The Effect of Student Mobility on School Achievement: A Study of the South Bend Community School Corporation
Part 1: What we know about student mobility from previous research Nick Deprey Joseph Ruffini Andrew Marchese
Introduction • What is student mobility? • How much school switching goes on? • Why do students change schools? • Which students move the most? • Why school switching matter? • For students • For Schools • What can schools do to reduce student mobility? To mitigate the consequences of mobility?
What is Student Mobility? • Students making non-promotional school changes • Can occur during the school year or between school years • Can move to a school in same district or outside the district • Can occur more than once a year
How much school switching goes on? • In 1998, NAEP study showed • 34% of 4th graders • 21% of 8th graders • 10% of 12th graders changed schools at least once in previous two years. Source: Rumberger, 2003
Which students move the most? • Among 4th graders,the NAEP study showed that over a 2 yr period. . . • 45 % of Black • 41 % of Hispanic • 27% of White • 33% of Asian American . . . students changed schools Source: Rumberger, 2003
Which students move the most? • Low-income students • 43% of 4th graders eligible for national school lunch • Living in single parent, mother-only families • 40% of all students moving 3 or 4 times over two years Sources: Rumberger, 2003; Kerbow, 1996.
Which students move the most? by type of school district. . . • Large, predominantly minority, urban school districts • 30-40% of students enroll for less than the school year Source: Rumberger, 2003
Which students move the most? overall. . . • More students make nonpromotional changes during their elementary and secondary school careers than stay in a single elementary, middle, and high school • Changing school is • the norm for elementary students • an exception for high school students Source: Rumberger, 2003
Why do students change schools? • Changing residences (70% of moves for 8-12th graders) • Evictions • Changes in family composition • Splits • marriages • School orders move for disciplinary reasons • To experience more diversity • To avoid problematic environment • To attend a better school Source: Kerbow, 1996
Why does Mobility Matter? Consequences. .. • For Students switching schools • Lower Achievement • More Behavioral Problems • Higher Drop-out Rates • For classrooms • For students who stay • For schools
Lower Achievement for Movers • On average, changing schools lowered GPA (measured on a 4.0 scale) by • .163 points for Black students • .541 points for Hispanic students • Students who switch schools also were 35% more likely to have failed a grade Source: Felner, Ginter and Primavera, 1981 The Journal of the American Medical Association
Behavioral Problems for Movers • After controlling for socioeconomic differences, • 77% of school switchers are reported to have behavioral problems • Behavioral problems increase with the number of school changes Source: Tucker, Marx, and Long, 1998 The Journal of the American Medical Association
Higher Dropout Rates for Movers • Students switching schools early are more likely to drop out before graduating high school • 1 out of every 4 eighth graders switching schools drops-out Source: Swanson and Schneider, 1999; Rumberger and Larson
Consequences for Stayers • The stable core • percent of students who remain at a school from one year to the next • In a typical Chicago elementary school, 46% or students who entered in kindergarten are present for the first day of 4th grade Source: Kerbow, 1996
Consequences for Stayers • Mobility creates Chaos Factor in classrooms • Instructional routines disrupted • Pace of instruction slows • Curriculum design driven by needs of movers • Administrative resources diverted to incorporating new students • Teacher morale falls • Sense of community fractured • Stayers suffer academically (lower scores) Source: Rumberger, 2003
Consequences for Schools • School test scores fall • Ability to evaluate instructional quality clouded • Schools held accountable for students who may have been elsewhere for a significant portion of the school year Source: Rumberger, 2003
What can schools do to reduce student mobility? • Educate students/parents about the consequences of moving • Assess past enrollment history to identify frequent movers and target them • Problem solve so that students can remain Source: Rumberger, 2003
What can schools do to reduce student mobility? • Work with community agencies to reduce need for residential moves • Review timing of housing subsidy payments • Work with local • reality association • Coordinate foster home placements • Build school identity and student loyalty Source: Schuler, 1990
What can schools do to mitigate the consequences of mobility? • Schools and teachers should: • Prepare in advance for new students • Facilitate transition as soon as new students arrive • Establish ongoing procedures and practices to address new students’ needs Source:Rumberger (2003)
Bibliography Alexander, K., Entwisle, D., & Dauber ( 1994). “Children in Motion: School Transfers and Elementary School Performance.” Paper presented at the meeting of the American Sociological Association, Los Angeles, CA. Felner, R., Primavera J., & Cauce, A. (1981) . “The Impact of School Transitions: A Focus for Preventive Efforts.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 449-459. Kerbow, David. (1996) “Patterns of Urban Student Mobility and Local School Reform.” Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, I(2), 147-169. Lash, Andrea and Sandra Kirkpatrick (1990). “A Classroom Perspective on Student Mobility.” Elementary School Journal, 91, 177-191.
Bibliography, cont. Rumberger, R. (2003). “The Causes and Consequences of Student Mobility,” Journal of Negro Education, Vo. 72, No. 1 (Winter), 6-20. Rumberger R. & Larson, K. (1998). “Student Mobility and the Increased Risk of High School Dropout.” American Journal of Education, 107, 1-35. Schuler,D. (1990). “Effects of Family Mobility on Student Achievement, ERS Spectrum, Vol. 8, No. 4, 17-24. Swanson, C. & Schneider, B. (1999) “Students on the Move: Residential and Educational Mobility in America’s Schools.” Sociology of Education, 72, 54-67.
Bibliography, cont. Tucker,Jack, Jonathan Marx, and Larry Long. (1998) “Moving On: Residential Mobility and Children’s School Lives.” Sociology of Education, 71, 111-129. Wood, D., Halfon, N., Scarla, D., Newacheck, P., & Nessim, S. (1993). “The Impact of Family Relocation on Children’s Growth, Development, School Function, and Behavior. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 270, 1334-1338.
Part 2: Mobility and ISTEP scores across Indiana Ben Clarke & Claire Smither
Our Project • Looked at Student Mobility throughout Indiana • At the Corporation Level (n=316)
Data • Student Migration • Over-counting • Under-counting • Annual Performance Reports • Just right
Equation PCTmORe = β0 +β1INTRA +β2INTER +β3ELLpct +β4ATTNpct +β5STratio + β6SPEDpct +β7ENROLL +β8ENROLLminPCT +β9FREELUNCHpct +β10PPE + β11metro +β12town + β13rural +e
Dependent Variables • (1) “PCTmORe,” is the percentage of students passing either the math or English sections • (2) “PCTmath,” is the percentage of students passing the math section, independent of their English score • (3) “PCTenglish,” is the percentage of students passing the English section, independent of their math score • (4) “PCTm&e,” is the percentage of students passing both the math and English sections
Main Findings • Excluding the demographic variables, INTRA and INTER are the largest negative influences of ISTEP score • INTER and INTRA are significant in 7 out of 8 estimates • ATTN is a big, significant, positive factor in ISTEP scores
What does this mean for Indiana? For a given corporation, if the INTRA mobility rate decreases by one percentage point (from 17.4 to 16.4), the ISTEP pass rate should increase by .84 percentage points (from 60 to 60.84).
Part 3: Mobility & ISTEP scores in the SBCSC Cole Davis, Karen Stockley, & Ann Walter
Mobility • Two types of school switching • within a school system (intra) • into a different school district (inter) • How does it affect SBCSC? • Intra: 15.0% • Inter: 7.7% • Total: 22.7% • Adequate Yearly Progress • http://mustang.doe.state.in.us/AP/buttoncorp.cfm?corp=7205&year=2006
Intra District MobilitySBCSC, 2005-06* *Moves between schools involving less than five students are not recorded
Intra District Mobility Rates (%)SBCSC, 2005-06* *Moves between schools involving less than five students are not recorded
Mobility Findings • Primary school students are most likely to switch schools (1 in 5) • Intermediate students rank second (1 in 6) • high school students least likely to move (1 in 14)
Inter District Mobility SBCSC, 2005-06* *Moves between schools involving less than ten students are not recorded
Intra vs. Inter District MobilitySBCSC, 2005-06 • Predominance of school switching is internal • Changes within the district occur almost twice as often and changes involving schools outside the district.
Regression Analysis • Data Sources • http://mustang.doe.state.in.us/SAS/sas1.cfmand http://mustang.doe.state.in.us/SEARCH/snapcorp.cfm?corp=7205 • School Level Data • 4 years (2004-2007) • 32 primary schools
Definition of key variables • Stability index: the average across students of the portion of the school year each student is enrolled in a particular school (hypothetical range is 0 to 100%) • ISTEP passing rates for math only and English only
Our Model • Variables of Interest • ISTEP pass rates, Stability Index • Control Variables • Student variables • attendance rate, race, percent free lunch, percent limited English • School Variables • teacher experience, suspensions, expulsions
Results • Stability index is insignificant • Significant variables • Percent free lunch • Dummy variables for 2005, 2006, 2007 • R2 = .52 (math) and .56(english)
Implications • Can’t prove that mobility is significant • Data limitations • Problems with mobility measure • Cannot follow movements of individual students • Limited to one move per child • Cannot determine timing of move • No moves recorded for school when 4 or fewer children move in or out • Missing important variables • More years of data needed
More research is needed • Focus on individual children, not schools • Collect and analyze data that correct for limitations • Identify frequent movers and track their movement • Estimate the cost of open enrollment for mobile children • Follow a core of stable students