The Effect of The Effect of Student Mobility Student Mobility
on School on School Achievement:Achievement:
A Study of the South Bend A Study of the South Bend Community School Community School
CorporationCorporation
Part 1: What we know Part 1: What we know about student mobility about student mobility from previous researchfrom previous research
Nick DepreyNick Deprey
Joseph Ruffini Joseph Ruffini
Andrew MarcheseAndrew 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 graderschanged 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 Part 2: Mobility and ISTEP scores across Indianascores across Indiana
Ben Clarke &Ben Clarke &Claire SmitherClaire 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 +β4 ATTNpct +β5STratio + β6SPEDpct +β7ENROLL +β8 ENROLLminPCT +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
Independent Variables
Variable Definition
Corp Corporation code number
INTRApercentage of students who move from one school to another in the same school
corporation
INTERpercentage of students who move from one school to another in a different school
corporation
ELLpct percent of the corporation’s student population coded as English Language Learners
ATTNpct average percent of attendance per corporation.
Stratio ratio of number of students enrolled to full-time equivalent per corporation.
SPEDpct percent of corporation’s population that is coded as special education students.
ENROLL number of students enrolled per corporation.
ENROLLminPCT percentage of students enrolled who are of minority ethnicity.
FREELUNCHpctpercentage of students receiving free lunch per corporation, having a family income
below 130% of the poverty line.
STABLEnumber of days the average student was enrolled; the number of school days
enrolled over the total number of school days
PPE average corporation wide per pupil expenditure
metro geographic qualifier; corporation coded as being in a metropolitan area.
town geographic qualifier; corporation coded as being in a town.
rural geographic qualifier; corporation coded as being in a rural setting.
Results
Table III: OLS Estimates of the Effect of Mobility on Student Performance 2006
Independent Variables
Dependent Variable
(1) PCTmORe (2) PCTmath (3) PCTeng (4) PCTm&e
INTRA-0.8174*
(.349)-0.9587*
(.445)-0.7041*
(.387)-0.8457
(.472)
INTER-0.3176*
(.111)-0.4228*
(.145)-0.4345*
(.139)-0.5394*
(.169)
ELLpct-0.0203
(.032)-0.0206
(.046)-0.0665
(.039)0.0256
(.042)
ATTNpct1.0627*
(.304)1.2914*
(.407)1.2746*
(.322)1.5031*
(.409)
Stratio0.2306*
(.108)0.3345
(.179)0.4467*
(.175)0.5505*
(.247)
SPEDpct-0.0476
(.062)-0.1132
(.097)-0.0149
(.090)-0.0806
(.122)
ENROLL0
(0)0.0001
(0)0.0001
(0)0.0002
(0)
ENROLLminPCT-0.1258*
(.033)-0.1531*
(.041)-0.1432*
(.036)-0.1705*
(.042)
FREELUNCHpct-0.2352*
(.033)-0.2687*
(.046)-0.2981*
(.038)-0.3315*
(.049)
PPE0.0004*
(0)0.0004*
(0)0.0006*
(0)0.0006*
(0)
metro2.9475
(.833)2.9776*
(1.17)3.5516*
(1.05)3.5803*
(1.36)
town0.1422
(.823)0.7728
(1.07)-0.4998
(1.03)0.1301
(1.22)
rural-0.5336
(.557)-0.4879
(0.728)-1.6872*
(0.692)-1.6432*
(0.817)
*Statistically Significant at 5% level.
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 Part 3: Mobility & ISTEP scoresscores
in the SBCSC in the SBCSCCole Davis, Cole Davis,
Karen Stockley, &Karen Stockley, &Ann WalterAnn 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*
MovePrimar
yMiddle High Total
Out 839 530 310 1679
In 757 538 115 1410
Out + In 1596 1068 425 3089
Enrollment
7948 6394 6209 20551
*Moves between schools involving less than five students are not recorded
Intra District Mobility Rates (%)
SBCSC, 2005-06*
MovePrimar
yMiddle High Total
Out 10.6 8.3 5.0 8.2
In 9.5 8.4 1.8 6.9
Out + In
20.1 16.7 6.8 15.0
*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*
Move Total Rate
Out 896 4.4
In 686 3.3
Out + In
1582 7.7
*Moves between schools involving less than ten students are not recorded
Intra + Inter District Mobility,
SBCSC, 2005-06
Intra Inter Total
Out 8.2 4.4 12.6
In 6.9 3.3 10.2
Out + In
15.0 7.7 22.7
Intra vs. Inter District Mobility
SBCSC, 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
ISTEP pass rates in 3rd grade Math vs Stability
Index
20
40
60
80
100
ISPM03
60 70 80 90 100SI
ISTEP pass rates in 3rd grade English vs Stability Index
20
40
60
80
100
ISPE03
60 70 80 90 100SI
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
Glossary of Variables
ISPB03= 3rd grade percent pass both math and English ISTEP
ISPE03= 3rd grade percent pass English ISTEP
ISPE03= 3rd grade percent pass English ISTEP
slpct=Free Lunch Percent
si= stability index
pctlimeng= percent of students with limited English, not fluent
pctexp= percent of students expelled
pctsus= percent of students suspended
dum07= dummy variable for the year 2007
dum06= dummy variable for the year 2006
dum05= dummy variable for the year 2005
attrate= attendance rate
teexpt=Average Experience Teachers
pctblack= percent African American students
pctlat= percent Hispanic students
Summary StatisticsVariable Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
School 128 16.5 9.269372 1 32
Year 128 2005.5 1.122427 2004 2007
ispb03 72 46.125 15.4664 21 95
ispe03 72 60.22222 13.66524 34 96
ispm03 72 55.18056 14.16236 32 98
Slpct 125 54.16 17.01821 24 90
Si 126 82.69524 5.53424 66.9 97.2
Attrate 126 0.940883 0.021374 0.8673 0.9857
Teexpt 127 16.93701 5.295623 4 32
pctblack 126 0.360329 0.122194 0.145749 0.659509
Pctlat 126 0.117067 0.10288 0.016043 0.479605
pctwhite 126 0.449691 0.16848 0.071038 0.717754
pctlimeng 126 0.089822 0.087302 0.002699 0.42398
Pctexp 120 0.003464 0.007386 0 0.0625
Pctsus 126 0.625276 0.954109 0.007181 8.225962
dum07 128 0.25 0.434714 0 1
dum06 128 0.25 0.434714 0 1
dum05 128 0.25 0.434714 0 1
Results: Percent passing math
OLS Results, Dependent variable: ispm03
Independent observation (1) (2) (3)
si 1.090337 (.365617)
.5895033 (.3670559)
.5096075 (.3543275)
slpct -.4634969 (.208471)
-.6416691 (.2317814)
pctlimeng -22.73833 (53.7376)
-34.65123 (52.47648)
attrate 32.12873 ( 245.8404)
36.15541 (248.5916)
pctblack 7.559081 (18.69625)
21.42832 (19.60734)
pctlat 42.01834 (42.77498)
62.41159 (45.59962)
pctexp 630.0402 (2197.281)
1977.503 (2128.951)
pctsus -14.6789 (10.84399)
-11.15138 (11.22111)
teexpt .113768 (.4566926)
.0715774 (.428312)
dum07 10.87436 (4.182478)
dum06 9.479481 (4.598991)
dum05 4.580454 (5.319092)
Number of Observations 71 65 65R-squared 0.18 0.4478 0.5198
Results: Percent passing English
OLS Results, Dependent variable: ispe03
Independent observation (1) (2) (3)
si 1.105855 (.2847266)
.7489167 (.3177031)
.4244482 (.3143979)
slpct -.2358508 (.2559666)
-.5805653 (.2386773)
pctlimeng -19.51923 (51.19185)
-40.85973 (46.47939)
attrate -17.40577 (246.4196)
-68.96697 (243.442)
pctblack -11.51753 (21.58646)
9.599153 (20.14727)
pctlat 24.26733 (45.54547)
62.26471 (43.76925)
pctexp -1304.904 (2078.589)
259.3186 (2154.727)
pctsus -9.991449 (13.48134)
-4.882115 (13.13196)
teexpt .1526517 (.4373986)
-.0316745 (.3826851)
dum07 15.45287 (3.77722)
dum06 14.93788 (4.011298)
dum05 12.18533 (4.124465)
Number of Observations 71 65 65R-squared 0.1979 0.4096 0.5597
Part 4: Proposals for SBCSCPart 4: Proposals for SBCSCSam MacDonald &Sam MacDonald &Mary Kate SweeneyMary Kate Sweeney
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Registration Questionnaire
• Child’s 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
Information Pamphlet for
Parents• Changing schools?...Some things to think about
Part 5: Migration from Part 5: Migration from IllinoisIllinois
Nick DePrey &Nick DePrey &Andrew MarcheseAndrew Marchese
Cost of Living Analysis
• Cost of living index: 4th quarter 2005
South Bend
Chicago Joliet-Will County
Composite Index
95.1 117.4102.8
Grocery Items
90.7 119105.7
Housing 88.5 133.5 107.2
Utilities 117.7 110.9 103.3
Transportation
97.9 112.1103.8
Health Care 94.7 108.2 100.1
Miscellaneous
95 107.698
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
South Bend Champagne Peoria Springfield Chicago
$9,205.02 $9,588.56 $9,686.19 $9,216.98 $11,321.98
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.
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
Questions?