The Effect of Student Mobility on School Achievement:

1
The Effect of Student Mobility on School
Achievement

• A Study of the South Bend Community School
  Corporation

2
Part 1 What we know about student mobility from
previous research

• Nick Deprey
• Joseph Ruffini
• Andrew Marchese

3
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?

4
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

5
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
6
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
7
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.
8
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
9
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
10
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
11
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

12
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
13
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
14
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
15
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
16
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
17
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
18
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
19
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
20
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

SourceRumberger (2003)
21
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.

22
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
  Americas Schools. Sociology of Education, 72,
  54-67.

23
Bibliography, cont.

• Tucker,Jack, Jonathan Marx, and Larry Long.
  (1998) Moving On Residential Mobility and
  Childrens 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 Childrens Growth, Development,
  School Function, and Behavior. The Journal of the
  American Medical Association, 270, 1334-1338.

24
Part 2 Mobility and ISTEP scores across Indiana

• Ben Clarke
• Claire Smither

25
Our Project

• Looked at Student Mobility throughout Indiana
• At the Corporation Level (n316)

26
Data

• Student Migration
• Over-counting
• Under-counting
• Annual Performance Reports
• Just right

27
Equation

• PCTmORe ß0 ß1INTRA ß2INTER ß3ELLpct ß4
  ATTNpct ß5STratio ß6SPEDpct ß7ENROLL ß8
  ENROLLminPCT ß9FREELUNCHpct ß10PPE ß11metro
  ß12town ß13rural e

28
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) PCTme, is the percentage of students
  passing both the math and English sections

29
Independent Variables
30
Results
31
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

32
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).

33
Part 3 Mobility ISTEP scores in the SBCSC

• Cole Davis,
• Karen Stockley,
• Ann Walter

34
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?c
  orp7205year2006

35
Intra District MobilitySBCSC, 2005-06
Moves between schools involving less than five
students are not recorded
36
Intra District Mobility Rates ()SBCSC, 2005-06
Moves between schools involving less than five
students are not recorded
37
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)

38
Inter District Mobility SBCSC, 2005-06
Moves between schools involving less than ten
students are not recorded
39
Intra Inter District Mobility,SBCSC, 2005-06
40
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.

41
Regression Analysis

• Data Sources
• http//mustang.doe.state.in.us/SAS/sas1.cfmand
  http//mustang.doe.state.in.us/SEARCH/snapcorp.cfm
  ?corp7205
• School Level Data
• 4 years (2004-2007)
• 32 primary schools

42
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

43
ISTEP pass rates in 3rd grade Math vs Stability
Index
44
ISTEP pass rates in 3rd grade English vs
Stability Index
45
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

46
Results

• Stability index is insignificant
• Significant variables
• Percent free lunch
• Dummy variables for 2005, 2006, 2007
• R2 .52 (math) and .56(english)

47
Implications

• Cant 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

48
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

49
Glossary of Variables
50
Summary Statistics
51
Results Percent passing math
52
Results Percent passing English
53
Part 4 Proposals for SBCSC

• Sam MacDonald
• Mary Kate Sweeney

54
Mobility Focus Group

• Met with curriculum leaders on October 5, 2007
• Shared anecdotes about experiences with mobility
  in SBCSC
• Made recommendations for dealing with mobility
  issues

55
Causes of Mobility in South Bend

• Temporary movement to native country
• Eviction
• Family issues
• Change of foster homes
• Move between guardians
• Unhappy custodial agreements
• Family member incarcerated
• New family formation

• Parents are angry at the school
• Possibility that the child may be tested
• Escape from bad neighborhoods
• Move for diversity
• Leaving public school for home school

56
Surprises

• No standardized way of changing schools within
  the corporation
• No standard way of welcoming new students
• Pearly has Resource and Parent Rooms
• Transfer of records is not systematic
• No attempt to educate parents about the costs of
  mobility
• No systemic recording of mobility

57
Recommendations

• Keep child in the same school for at least an
  entire school year
• Provide options to families to prevent change of
  schools
• Get the whole community to help
• ie the Mayor Casie Center
• Provide transportation no matter where the
  students live

58
Casie Center

• Elementary School Truancy Prevention Program
• Work with the schools
• Student tracking
• Folder of information
• Truancy prevention specialist
• 6th grade
• Middle schools
• School Switching
• Testimonies

59
Parent Questionnaires

• Aim is to provide the SBCSC with data on mobility
• An addition to the withdraw and registration
  paperwork
• Parents fill them out when withdrawing and
  reenrolling child
• Design incorporates information from the focus
  group meeting

60
Withdrawal Questionnaire

• Track movement within SBCSC and to other school
  corporations
• Time frame for reenrollment
• Frequency of mobility
• Problems child has experienced due to change of
  school
• Reasons for withdrawal
• Ways SBCSC can assist the parent
• Desire to stay in current school
• Need for transportation

61
Registration Questionnaire

• Childs previous school
• Time lapsed since withdrawal
• Frequency of school changes
• Problems child has experienced due to change of
  school
• Reason for mobility
• Ways SBCSC can assist the parent
• Desire to stay at previous school
• Need for transportation to previous school

62
Information Pamphlet for Parents

• Changing schools?...Some things to think about

63
(No Transcript)
64
(No Transcript)
65
Part 5 Migration from Illinois

• Nick DePrey
• Andrew Marchese

66
Cost of Living Analysis

• Cost of living index 4th quarter 2005

67
Cost of Living Analysis

• Comparisons
• If you live in Joliet and you have a 10,000
  consumption bundle, to consume the same bundle,
  you need
• South Bend is not only a much cheaper city to
  live in than south Chicago, it is the cheapest of
  all the nearby metropolises

68
Analysis of TANF Grants

• Illinois
• 2006 estimate 1.48 million people living in
  poverty, 12.0
• June 2007
• 32,000 families received TANF cash grants, 77,000
  total persons
• Average per case cash grant 239/month,
  2868/year
• Average per person grant 99/month
• Total grants roughly 7.6 million
• In 2006 only 18.1 of all residents eligible for
  TANF received it
• TANF participation steadily declined in Illinois
  since 2000 while poverty rates, and food stamp
  and family health plan participation rates have
  risen.

69
Analysis of TANF Grants

• Indiana
• June 2007
• 38,000 families received TANF, 103,618 total
  recipients
• Total grants 7,904,857
• Average grants 204.47/month, 2453.64/yr
• Average grant per person 76.29
• Incentive to move to Indiana direct cash grants
  are more readily available

70

• Questions?