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

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

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:

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

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

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 -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) ATTNpct 1.0627* (.304) 1.2914* (.407) 1.2746* (.322) 1.5031* (.409) Stratio 0.2306* (.108) 0.3345 (.179) 0.4467* (.175) 0.5505* (.247) SPEDpct -0.0476 (.062) -0.1132 (.097) -0.0149 (.090) -0.0806 (.122) ENROLL 0 (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) PPE 0.0004* (0) 0.0004* (0) 0.0006* (0) metro 2.9475 (.833) 2.9776* (1.17) 3.5516* (1.05) 3.5803* (1.36) town 0.1422 (.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). That’s almost a one-to-one ratio.

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

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 http://mustang.doe.state.in.us/AP/buttoncorp.cfm?corp=7205&year=2006

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

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

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 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 School Level Data 4 years (2004-2007) http://mustang.doe.state.in.us/SAS/sas1.cfm and 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

ISTEP pass rates in 3rd grade English vs Stability Index

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

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 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 Statistics

Results: Percent passing math

Results: Percent passing English

Part 4: Proposals for SBCSC Sam MacDonald & Mary 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 Illinois Nick DePrey & Andrew Marchese

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

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?