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
Source:Rumberger (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,
Kerbow, David. (1996) “Patterns of Urban Student Mobility and Local School Reform.” Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, I(2),
Lash, Andrea and Sandra Kirkpatrick (1990). “A Classroom Perspective on Student Mobility.” Elementary School Journal, 91,

22. Bibliography, cont.
Rumberger, R. (2003). “The Causes and Consequences of Student Mobility,” Journal of Negro Education, Vo. 72, No. 1 (Winter),
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,
Swanson, C. & Schneider, B. (1999) “Students on the Move: Residential and Educational Mobility in America’s Schools.” Sociology of Education, 72,

23. Bibliography, cont.
Tucker,Jack, Jonathan Marx, and Larry Long. (1998) “Moving On: Residential Mobility and Children’s School Lives.” Sociology of Education, 71,
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,

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 (n=316)
+ We examined the relationships between intra- and inter-district mobility throughout Indiana
+ We looked at data at the corporation level, not the school level

26. Data Student Migration Annual Performance Reports Over-counting
Under-counting
Annual Performance Reports
Just right
+ Show different data

27. Equation
PCTmORe = β0 +β1INTRA +β2INTER +β3ELLpct +β4 ATTNpct +β5STratio + β6SPEDpct +β7ENROLL +β8 ENROLLminPCT +β9FREELUNCHpct +β10PPE + β11metro +β12town + β13rural + e
Say there are different dependent variables, which we will look at now:

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) “PCTm&e,” is the percentage of students passing both the math and English sections
Four different dependent variables; each is impacted by mobility in a different intensity

29. Independent Variables
Definition
Corp
Corporation code number
INTRA
percentage of students who move from one school to another in the same school corporation
INTER
percentage 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.
FREELUNCHpct
percentage of students receiving free lunch per corporation, having a family income below 130% of the poverty line.
STABLE
number 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.
Independent variables:
+ mean of INTRA (.7756) lower than INTER (7.46), almost ten times greater
+ settings: rural (162), town (33), suburban (61), and metro (36)
+ Per pupil expenditure had a $6,000 range, from $7,400 to $13,400

30. Independent Variables
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
* (.349)
* (.445)
* (.387)
(.472)
INTER
* (.111)
* (.145)
* (.139)
* (.169)
ELLpct
(.032)
(.046)
(.039)
(.042)
ATTNpct
1.0627* (.304)
1.2914* (.407)
1.2746* (.322)
1.5031* (.409)
Stratio
0.2306* (.108)
(.179)
0.4467* (.175)
0.5505* (.247)
SPEDpct
(.062)
(.097)
(.090)
(.122)
ENROLL
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
ENROLLminPCT
* (.033)
* (.041)
* (.036)
* (.042)
FREELUNCHpct
* (.033)
* (.046)
* (.038)
* (.049)
PPE
0.0004* (0)
0.0004* (0)
0.0006* (0)
metro
(.833)
2.9776* (1.17)
3.5516* (1.05)
3.5803* (1.36)
town
(.823)
(1.07)
(1.03)
(1.22)
rural
(.557)
(0.728)
* (0.692)
* (0.817)
*Statistically Significant at 5% level.

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).
That’s almost a one-to-one ratio.

33. Part 3: Mobility & ISTEP scores in the SBCSC
Cole Davis,
Karen Stockley, &
Ann Walter

34. Mobility Two types of school switching How does it affect SBCSC?
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

35. Intra District Mobility SBCSC, 2005-06*
Move
Primary
Middle
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

36. Intra District Mobility Rates (%) SBCSC, 2005-06*
Move
Primary
Middle
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

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*
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

39. Intra + Inter District Mobility, SBCSC, 2005-06
Total
Out
8.2
4.4
12.6 In
6.9
3.3
10.2
Out + In
15.0
7.7
22.7

40. 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.

41. Regression Analysis Data Sources School Level Data 4 years (2004-2007)
and
School Level Data
4 years ( )
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 Control Variables
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 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

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
ISPB03= 3rd grade percent pass both math and 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

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
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

62. Information Pamphlet for Parents
Changing schools?...Some things to think about

65. Part 5: Migration from Illinois
Nick DePrey &
Andrew Marchese

66. Cost of Living Analysis
Cost of living index: 4th quarter 2005
South Bend
Chicago
Joliet-Will County
Composite Index
95.1
117.4
102.8
Grocery Items
90.7
119
105.7
Housing
88.5
133.5
107.2
Utilities
117.7
110.9
103.3
Transportation
97.9
112.1
103.8
Health Care
94.7
108.2
100.1
Miscellaneous 95
107.6 98

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
South Bend
Champagne
Peoria
Springfield
Chicago
$9,205.02
$9,588.56
$9,686.19
$9,216.98
$11,321.98

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, $ /yr
Average grant per person: $76.29
Incentive to move to Indiana: direct cash grants are more readily available

70. Questions?