1 SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS ON EDUCATION By · 2013-12-12 · between parent education levels and child educational attainment as an indicator of future graduation rates within children

1 Poverty and Education

SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS ON EDUCATION

By

ARMAND CARR

Submitted to

Educational Leadership Faculty

Northwest Missouri State University

Department of Educational Leadership

College of Education and Human Services

Maryville, Missouri 64468

Submitted in Fulfillment for the Requirments for

61-683 Action Research Paper

Summer 2012

September 8, 2013


ABSTRACT

The issue of poverty in the area of education is well documented and much criticized.

The issue creates much controversy and the implications are said to have a direct impact on

education. Research shows that there is a connection between the effects of poverty and the

negative influence it presents to the educational process.This study was performed to find if there

is a relationship between low socioeconomic status (SES) and education. With poverty as a low

SES indicator the basis of poverty will be addressed and how it impairs the entire social

structure. Specifically, the effects of poverty on the graduation and dropout rates of high school

students will be the focus. Using free or reduced priced lunch as the poverty indicator, the study

will look at the impact of poverty in the area of education. The focus of the study will look at

dropout, graduation, and free or reduced priced lunch data from thirty high schools in the state of

Missouri. Ten of the high schools are located in urban areas. Ten of the high schools are located

in suburban communities, and ten are located within rural counties. This paper will seek to

determine if the role of poverty affects dropout rates. It will also seek to determine if poverty

interferes with the graduation rates. Poverty was classified into three groups The findings show a

connection between poverty and dropout rates. Poverty poses a negative effect towards the

dropout rates, while hurting the outcome of the graduation rates. In the schools with the highest

level of poverty the dropout rates were the highest while graduation rates were the lowest.

Schools located within the middle level of SES also had high cases of student dropout rates

compared to low graduation rates. The comparison between the lowest classification of poverty

with the middle classification results were similar with both groups displaying similar results.

The highest level of SES presented low dropout rates and high graduation rates.


INTRODUCTION

Background issues and concerns.

The concerns of low graduation rates and elevated dropout percentages in high schools

within areas of poverty presents a difficult challenge for school districts. In order to stay aligned

with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) local education agencies must maintain satisfactory

levels of student graduation rates. School districts within the state of Missouri must achieve

proficient levels of educational performance as well. In order to sustain adequate educational

performance and meet both state and local education guidelines, school districts must utilize

interventions to increase graduation rates which will automatically counter dropout rates

decreasing the level of student dropouts. School personell within the education realm are aware

of the influence poverty presents to the education process. Many observe the negative

connotations associated with poverty while recognizing the challenges it poses to student

academic achievement.

Poverty is a global epidemic that does not discriminate against race, color, or

background. Poverty is not bias towards any person male, female, boy, girl, young, or old.

However, it does leave a fingerprint throughout all areas of life. The origins of poverty are not

new, nor is it’s specific to one era, but the origins can be traced back throughout many

generations. Damages from the impact caused by poverty hurts every area of life with negative

consequences that influences all facets of society and the people exposed to it. This problem

plagues millions of individuals in the United States. The specifics of poverty are not limited to or

confined to one area, but it produces a widespread catastrophy covering every part of the

individual(s) social, emotional, and physical life.


Furthermore, studies have linked the effects of poverty to other things such as poor health

and nutrition, child development, and overall cognitive abilities and behaviors. Additional factors

such as crime, unemployment, lack of resources, poor access to resources, poor neighborhoods

and high amounts of single parent homes are common place in low socioeconomic communities.

These are the many pathways through which poverty operates, thus producing the combination

forming the condition of low SES. These factors are said to have a profound effect in various

areas with poverty being a key indicator and contributer within the matrix of SES.

In discussing SES, the areas that are consistent with it must be taken into consideration;

along with the impact is has on the individual(s) that reside in these areas. The highest

populations of low SES are covered with high rates of poverty and the factors are endemic to

these communities. The areas impacted the greatest form of low SES are typical to urban and

rural areas. The majority of these areas produce the highest concentration of high unemployment

rates, crime, single parent households, poor neighborhoods, and lack of resources.

The issue produces much room for criticism from all who believe there is an undeniable

link between poverty versus those that oppose that poverty and low SES status poses no threat to

student educational achievement. From the time a child enters the world; characteristics of the

childs environment will play a role in structuring the life of a an individual. If the association of

poverty are existent throughout the life of children from birth the risks of the cycle repeating

itself is prevalent.


In families where extreme cases of poverty are at the forefront, the indicators that

produce low SES are exhibited within these family structures. Single parent dominated

households where the parent has not obtained a high school diploma, General Education

Diploma, or the parents are unable to find adequate employment to provide for their families are

situations that breed the conditions of poverty.

The connection between parent education levels and children educational obtainment run

parallel with each other. Children who are exposed to conditions where the parent has not

attained adequate education are normally replicated by the child the connection can be made

between parent education levels and child educational attainment as an indicator of future

graduation rates within children. Educational obtainment of the parent(s) has a very significant

role in determing if a child will remain in school and not leave school early. Parental education is

taken into consideration in connection with the educational outcomes of the child.

Poverty that presents a constant presence during pivotal years in the growth of children

severly stunts the overall development of a child. Children are shaped to the contours of what

surrounds them. If poverty is prevelant than the chance that children associated with it will

absorb what surrounds them and the contents will spill out into different categories of life.


Poverty is said to account for a variety of cognitive delays. In children who are exposed

to poverty from birth the complications are observed in several areas. Low SES harms every

capacity of life for children exposed to high levels of poverty. However, low SES presents its

biggest challenges during the early stages of the childs life. As children grow into adolescent

stages the complications of poverty can be seen within the social, emotional, and physical areas

of the childs life. Also as a child progresses through the educational system; the harmful effects

of poverty also transitions into the educational domain. Graduation and dropout rates are at risk

before children enter high school if they are confronted with the negative conditions at an early

age.

According to the United States Department of Education, the No Child Left Behind Act

of 2001 (NCLB) is a United States Act of Congress that is a reauthorization of the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act, which included Title I, the government's flagship aid program for

disadvantaged students. NCLB supports standards-based education reform based on the premise

that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in

education. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills. States must give these

assessments to all students at select grade levels in order to receive federal school funding. The

Act does not assert a national achievement standard; standards are set by each individual state.

NCLB expanded the federal role in public education through annual testing, annual academic

progress, report cards, teacher qualifications, and funding changes.

Meeting the educational needs of low-achieving children in our Nation's highest-poverty

schools, limited English proficient children, migratory children, children with disabilities, Indian

children, neglected or delinquent children, and young children in need of reading assistance;

closing the achievement gap between high- and low-performing children, especially the


achievement gaps between minority and nonminority students, and between disadvantaged

children and their more advantaged peers; holding schools, local educational agencies, and states

accountable for improving the academic achievement of all students, and identifying and turning

around low-performing schools that have failed to provide a high-quality education to their

students, while providing alternatives to students in such schools to enable the students to receive

a high-quality education.

Low SES filters into the educational arena of children who are exposed to conditions of

poor SES. Commonly the highest population of children who are face with the impact of poverty

are minority students. Many are of African American and Hispanic descent the two groups are

hit hardest by the adverse effects of living in low SES. They reside in underperforming

communities which conditions are the opposition to education. "Across all socioeconomic

groups, parents face major challenges when it comes to providing optimal care and education for

their children. According to North Central Regional Educational Laboratory” (1993). “For

families in poverty, these challenges can be formidable. Sometimes, when basic necessities are

lacking, parents must place top priority on housing, food, clothing, and health care” (1993). This

is true for the families who are immersed in these conditions. Populations associated with

poverty are hit the hardest by low SES.

There are many reasons why this relationship between education and low socioecomnic

status (SES) might exist. Looking specifically at a low SES Hispanic community, and found that

basic developmental needs were not being met, due for instance to inadequate nutrition, poor

access to basic medical care, and disadvantages in terms of early education programs. In

addition, these problems were often amplified by deficient school systems linked to inadequate

school facilities low quality teachers and a high turnover of principals. What is more prevalent,


poverty has an indirect influence on educational outcomes through weakened family structures,

higher mobility, less access to books and computers, and a higher crime rate found in low-

income neighborhoods.

According to the statistics the average income for a high school dropout places

the would position an individual exactly $910 above the first level of the federal poverty line for

a single individual which is set at $11,400. This leaves little margin and scratches the surface of

the classification of being labeled under the classification of being in poverty.

Practice under investigation.

The practice under investigation will look at the difference between free or reduced-

priced lunch and graduation and dropout rates. Inquiry data from the Missouri Department of

Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) from selected high schools from the state of

Missouri will be collected and used for the study.

School policy to be informed by the study.

School districts desire to keep their graduation rates at a high percentage. Districts that

have the problem of poor graduation rates encounter the challenges of raising there graduation

rates. In order for school districts to prevent elevated dropout rates, the issues that contribute

to high dropout rates must be identify and appropriate action must be taken to ensure that

graduation rates are not effected. Areas inflicted with poverty present a problematic situation for

school district located in the area. If there is a significant relationship between poverty and

education and low SES plays a role in the interference of obtaining educational attainment than


what interventions must be taken to offset high dropout rates and to permanently elevate and

maintain adequate graduation rates.

Conceptual underpinning.

It has been observed that low SES factors prohibit student education. Factors such as

poverty, crime, unemployment, family structure, family education, and family employment

present damaging effects within the arena of education. The influence of poverty damages the

social structure of ones life producing challenges that may prove to difficult to overcome. The

relationship between poverty and education is well documented. The condition of poverty’s

existence within education are caused to interfere with the education process weakening its

structure and the effect it has on academic performance.

Children who are exposed to low SES typically carry the weight of its factors as they

transistion through the educational system. The results of poverty within the walls of education

manifest itself in the form of low student academic performance, low test scores, and high

dropout rates.

Statement of the Problem.

If there is a difference between students who are eligible to receive free or reduced priced

lunch and the graduation and dropout rates, then the implementation of strategies and

interventions must be taken from all personnel involved to ensure that students and school

districts exposed to poverty remain academically proficient.

Purpose of the study

To find if there is a difference between free or reduced priced lunch and the graduation and drop-

out rates.


Research questions.

RQ 1: Is there a difference in dropout rates between schools with higher, middle, and lower socioeconomic levels?

RQ 2: Is there a difference in graduation rates between schools with higher, middle, and lower socioeconomic levels?

Null Hypothesis.

Ho 1: There is no difference in dropout rates between schools with higher, middle, and lower socioeconomic levels.

Ho 2: There is no difference in graduation rates between schools with higher, middle, and lower socioeconomic levels.

Anticipated benefits of the study

If there is a connection with poverty as a low socioeconomic indicator and

dropout/graduation rates, than what strategies/interventions need to be implemented to decrease

high dropout rates of students from low SES,thus increasing graduation rates.

Definition of Terms

Socioeconomic: of, relating to, or involving a combination of social and economic factors.

Poverty: the state of one who lacks a usual or socially amount of money or material possessions.

Poverty threshold: dollar amounts the Census Bureau uses to determine poverty status

Dropout: one who drops out of school.

Graduation: the award or acceptance of an academic degree or diploma.

Urban: of, relating to, characteristics of, or constituting a city.

Rural: open land, of or relating to the country.

Suburban: an outlying part of the city or town; a smaller community adjacent to or within commuting distance of the city.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB): is a United States Act of Congress that is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which included Title I, the government's flagship aid


program for disadvantaged students. NCLB supports standards-based education reform based on the premise that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education.

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE): is the administrative arm of the State Board of Education. It is primarily a service agency that works with educators, legislators, government agencies, community leaders and citizens to maintain a strong public education system.

Summary.

A study was conducted to see if there was a significant difference in students that qualify

for free or reduced priced lunch and dropout and graduation rates. Students that reside within

areas of high poverty are exposed to poor social structures. With education taken the brunt of the

conditions. This is indicated within communities with the lowest socioeconomic structures, and

is oftened reflected in school systems. Poor socioeconomic effects trickle into school systems

with the negative outcomes manifesting in the form of high dropout rates and unsatisfactory

graduation rates.

The benefits of study will focus on interventions to improve education within the lowest

socioeconomic areas thus improving the graduation rates and decreasing the dropout rates. Data

was collected from the DESE and it shows free and reduced priced lunch, dropout, and

graduation rates from 30 high schools within three classifications of SES with poverty as the

indicator of poor educational performance. The relationship between the negative connotations

of poverty within the educational domain presents severe challenges for educators to work

through the barriers in education that causes underachievement in many forms in low test scores,

subpar graduation rates, and high volume dropouts.


REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Individuals exposed to extreme levels of poverty are inflicted the most by the adverse

conditions which no one apart of it reaps any positive benefits. This paper will identify the

structure of poverty, how it effects the individuals who are engrossed in it, and all of the areas

that are disjointed by the numerous complications it poses. The topic of poverty and education is

the primary focus and the challenges poverty presents within the academic domain.

What is poverty? According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary; poverty is defined

as “the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material

possessions. “Income poverty is the condition of not having enough income to meet basic needs

for food, clothing, and shelter.” (Gunn & Duncan, 1997, p.55). For individuals or families of low

socioeconomic status (SES) the constant of not possessing money proves to be a common

occurrence that disrupts the way of life for many. Normal daily life routines are altered for lack

of resources and capital needed to purchase items necessary for daily life.

People afflicted by poverty are faced with challenges that are considered routine for

families that are not classified as being low SES. Survival becomes the main focus for families

that are faced with the responsibilities of trying to provide a quality way of life for their families.

According to the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory 1993. “A family's

socioeconomic status is based on family income, parental education level, parental occupation,

and social status in the community (such as contacts within the community, group associations,

and the community's perception of the family).” North Central Regional Educational Laboratory

(1993).


The map below of the United States provides a breakdown of all of the counties

percentages of poverty. The chart displays data collected by the United States Census Bureau.

Highlighted in the chart is the poverty statistics for the state of Missouri. Poverty percentages for

each state are listed. Notice as the total population of the state increased the poverty rate

increased as well over the 10 year time frame from the years 2000 to 2010. Notice the

breakdown of poverty per county throughout the United States. Observe the poverty breakdown

of the counties in the state of Missouri.

Below is a map of the counties in the US by poverty status.

GeoLytics, Incorporated. United States Census Bureau Demographic Data Poverty Statistics.


State

Total Population - 2000

Population in Poverty - 2000

% of Population in Poverty -2000

Total Population - 2010

Population in Poverty - 2010

% of Population in Poverty – 2010

Percent Change from 2000 to 2010

Alabama 4 334 919 698 097 16,1% 4 596 836 786 544 17,1% 1,0%

Alaska 612 961 57 602 9,4% 674 801 64 245 9,5% 0,1%

Arizona 5 021 238 698 669 13,9% 6 110 304 933 113 15,3% 1,4%

Arkansas 2 600 117 411 777 15,8% 2 790 794 502 684 18,0% 2,2%

California 33 100 044 4 706 130 14,2% 35 877 036 4 919 945 13,7% -0,5%

Colorado 4 202 140 388 952 9,3% 4 773 303 584 184 12,2% 3,0%

Connecticut 3 300 416 259 514 7,9% 3 434 901 314 306 9,2% 1,3%

Delaware 759 117 69 901 9,2% 856 004 93 857 11,0% 1,8%

District of Columbia

541 657 109 500 20,2% 551 331 101 767 18,5% -1,8%

Florida 15 605 367 1 952 629 12,5% 18 107 049 2 502 365 13,8% 1,3%

Georgia 7 959 649 1 033 793 13,0% 9 204 793 1 445 752 15,7% 2,7%

Hawaii 1 178 795 126 154 10,7% 1 298 918 124 627 9,6% -1,1%

Idaho 1 263 205 148 732 11,8% 1 496 581 203 177 13,6% 1,8%

Illinois 12 095 961 1 291 958 10,7% 12 439 981 1 572 048 12,6% 2,0%

Indiana 5 894 295 559 484 9,5% 6 219 801 842 540 13,5% 4,1%

Iowa 2 824 435 258 008 9,1% 2 916 252 338 263 11,6% 2,5%

Kansas 2 605 429 257 829 9,9% 2 725 175 338 792 12,4% 2,5%

Kentucky 3 927 047 621 096 15,8% 4 157 077 735 782 17,7% 1,9%

Louisiana 4 334 094 851 113 19,6% 4 302 475 780 359 18,1% -1,5%

Maine 1 240 893 135 501 10,9% 1 291 988 162 358 12,6% 1,6%

Maryland 5 164 376 438 676 8,5% 5 557 115 476 732 8,6% 0,1%

Massachusetts 6 138 444 573 421 9,3% 6 253 462 658 391 10,5% 1,2%

Michigan 9 700 622 1 021 605 10,5% 9 726 785 1 444 004 14,8% 4,3%

Minnesota 4 794 144 380 476 7,9% 5 119 104 542 133 10,6% 2,7%

Mississippi 2 750 677 548 079 19,9% 2 845 365 604 272 21,2% 1,3%

Missouri 5 433 293 637 891 11,7% 5 744 590 802 596 14,0% 2,2%

Montana 878 789 128 355 14,6% 949 414 138 109 14,5% -0,1%

Nebraska 1 660 527 161 269 9,7% 1 744 704 206 227 11,8% 2,1%

Nevada 1 962 948 205 685 10,5% 2 594 953 308 426 11,9% 1,4%


New Hampshire

1 199 322

78 530

6,5%

1 273 957

99 527

7,8%

1,3%

New Jersey 8 232 588 699 668 8,5% 8 544 303 777 968 9,1% 0,6%

New Mexico 1 783 907 328 933 18,4% 1 970 838 361 771 18,4% -0,1%

New York

18 449 899

2 692 202

14,6%

18 710 113

2 650 166

14,2%

-0,4%

North Carolina

7 805 328 958 667 12,3% 9 013 443 1 399 945 15,5% 3,2%

North Dakota 619 197 73 457 11,9% 636 048 78 405 12,3% 0,5%

Ohio 11 046 987 1 170 698 10,6% 11 199 642 1 586 292 14,2% 3,6%

Oklahoma 3 336 224 491 235 14,7% 3 559 437 577 247 16,2% 1,5%

Oregon 3 347 667 388 740 11,6% 3 688 745 516 271 14,0% 2,4%

Pennsylvania 11 879 950 1 304 117 11,0% 12 199 544 1 509 858 12,4% 1,4%

Rhode Island 1 010 000 120 548 11,9% 1 014 029 123 396 12,2% 0,2%

South Carolina

3 883 329 547 869 14,1% 4 369 147 716 537 16,4% 2,3%

South Dakota 727 425 95 900 13,2% 771 100 105 819 13,7% 0,5%

Tennessee 5 539 896 746 789 13,5% 6 075 066 1 002 467 16,5% 3,0%

Texas 20 287 300 3 117 609 15,4% 23 707 679 3 972 054 16,8% 1,4%

Utah 2 195 034 206 328 9,4% 2 613 440 283 536 10,8% 1,4%

Vermont 588 053 55 506 9,4% 600 114 66 726 11,1% 1,7%

Virginia 6 844 372 656 641 9,6% 7 595 386 781 516 10,3% 0,7%

Washington 5 765 201 612 370 10,6% 6 430 231 780 009 12,1% 1,5%

West Virginia 1 763 866 315 794 17,9% 1 789 092 310 495 17,4% -0,5%

Wisconsin 5 211 603 451 538 8,7% 5 486 658 637 613 11,6% 3,0%

Wyoming 479 485 54 777 11,4% 532 245 52 297 9,8% -1,6%

Whole US 14 373 439 1 584 805 11,0% 15 814 709 1 872 020 11,8% 0,8%

Poverty Statistics

“According to the US Census Bureau (USCB) there were 1,872,020 people in the US

living in poverty – that is nearly 12% of the American population. Poverty affects every state

and there is no county in the country that doesn’t have some poverty living within it.”

(GeoLytics Incorporated, n.d.)


The Census Bureau conducts a national census every ten years where they count every

person. Additionally they have an ongoing survey, the America Community Survey (ACS),

which is released annually with the new updated figures. One of the vital sections of this

questionnaire deals with poverty. These numbers are used to set policy for the years to come.

High poverty environments include individuals or families that meet the criteria of

poverty under the federal poverty guidelines, where the household income falls below the

national average for families that do not meet the criteria for low SES.

Another important contributer of family income is a crucial point of focus as the presence

of poverty also determines children’s educational achievement. Household income is an

indicator of SES. It is also a intrical part of the general life outcomes and educational outcome of

children.


The chart from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation provides

the 2013 poverty guidelines. The chart is used to measure federal poverty within the United

States. The chart can also be used to get an basis of how individual(s) fit into the poverty scope.

2013 POVERTY GUIDELINES FOR THE 48 CONTIGUOUS STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Persons in family/household Poverty guideline

For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $4,020 for each additional person.

1 $11,490

2 15,510

3 19,530

4 23,550

5 27,570

6 31,590

7 35,610

8 39,630

SOURCE: Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 16, January 24, 2013, pp. 5182-5183

“Programs using the guidelines (or percentage multiples of the guidelines — for instance,

125 percent or 185 percent of the guidelines) in determining eligibility include Head Start, the

Food Stamp Program, the National School Lunch Program, the Low-Income Home Energy

Assistance Program, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Note that in general, cash

public assistance programs (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Supplemental

Security Income) do NOT use the poverty guidelines in determining eligibility. The Earned

Income Tax Credit program also does NOT use the poverty guidelines to determine eligibility”.

United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Services.


It has been studied that low income has a dynamic effect in determining educational

outcomes of children. “For low-income children, a $10,000 increase in mean family income

between birth and age 5 was associated with nearly a full-year increase in completed schooling”

(Gunn & Duncan, 1997 p. 62). This information is helpful information considering that there is a

direct connection between education and income. Education translates into higher income, the

more household income, children are more likely to advance through the educational ranks.

Socioeconomic status (SES) when mentioned with education opens the door for much

discussion, and produces much controversy. “Hundreds of studies, books, and reports have

examined the detrimental effects of poverty on the well-being of children.”(Gunn & Duncan,

1997 p. 56).

Children unprotected by the onslaught of poverty are hit the hardest as critical

foundational areas are hampered by the consequences of poverty. When looking at the impact

poverty has on child development the facts must be taken into consideration. “In recent years,

about one in five American children-some 12 to 14 million have lived in families in which cash

income failed to exceed official poverty thresholds. Another one-fifth lived in families whose

incomes were no more than twice the poverty threshold. For a small minority of children 4.8% of

all children and 15% of children who ever became poor – childhood poverty lasted 10 years or

more.” (Gunn & Duncan, 1997 p. 55). This has a critical impact on children, because the years

are critical developmental years in a child. This causes the greatest damage in the foundational

years which are pivotal in the growth of a child.


“School readiness reflects a child’s ability to succeed both academically and socially in a

school environment. It requires physical well-being and appropriate motor development,

emotional health and positive approach to new experiences, age-appropriate social knowledge

and competence, age appropriate language skills, and age-appropriate general knowledge and

cognitive skills. It is well-documented that poverty decreases a child’s readiness for school

through aspects of health, home life, schooling and neighborhoods” (Ferguson, Bovaird, &

Mueller 2007 p.701). Children that are emersed in poverty experience these negative

circumstances. “Six poverty-related factors are known to impact child development in general

and school readiness in particular. They are the incidence of poverty, the depth of poverty, the

duration of poverty, and the timing of poverty (eg, age of child).” (Ferguson, Bovaid, & Mueller,

2007, p.701).


The map below provides a breakdown of children under 18 with poverty levels for each

county within the state of Missouri.

The breakdown looks at the specific percentages in the state for the year 2000. In

comparison to the United States Census Bureau map of poverty the total percentage of poverty

for the state of Missouri for the year 2000 was 11. 7% compared to 15.3% total for the

percentage of children statewide that were below the poverty level. This is a 3.6 difference with

more children being classified in the poverty area than the total poverty population percentage

for the state. Observe the counties within the state that fall into the highest percentage of

poverty. Children that reside in these areas are exposed to heightened amounts of poverty.


A fact that must be taken into consideration is the fact that minority children are

generally overrepresented in high-poverty urban schools. This fact may also have a negative

impact on education, as it can cause cultural adaptation issues, marginalization and

discrimination. In contrast those children that reside in high SES communities are presented with

the directly opposite. The likelihood of the towns experiencing high levels of poverty are

practically non existence. Suburban towns are less likely to be affected with the socioeconomic

factors that are prevalent within these communities (Cuhat, 2011)

Greater opportunites for success are prominent in areas of high SES and register positive

social outcomes. “Families with high socioeconomic status often have more success in preparing

their young children for school because they typically have access to a wide range of resources to

promote and support young children's development” (North Central Regional Education

Laboratory 193).

The federal poverty guidelines are used to determine eligibility for free or reduced priced

lunch. Individuals that qualify for free or reduced priced lunch are typical to impoverished

communities. The free and reduced-price lunch program is a federally funded effort to ensure

that children who might experience food instability have access to nutritious food, which is

essential to their growth and learning. Households that are at 130 percent of the federal poverty

level or lower qualify for free lunch, Nationally, the number of students qualifying for free or

reduced-price lunch continues to increase. According to the most recent comparison by the

National Center for Education Statistics, “free and reduced-price lunch eligibility rose from 38.3

percent during the 2000-01 school year to 48.1 percent during 2010-11” (Jester, 2013, para # 2).


Qualifications for free and reduced priced lunch are based on the federal poverty

guidelines. The poverty guidelines determine which students are eligible to receive free or

reduced lunch. The chart below displays the reduced and free lunch breakdown.

Highlited in blue are the federal poverty guidelines.

Rural towns also replicate the negative faces of poverty. Some are so badly damaged by

the effects of persistent poverty that the entire community structure is disabled. High levels of

unemployment dominate some of these areas, along with few to no resources available, the

towns provide limited to no opportunities for growth or advancement. The educational systems

within these areas suffer tremendously as well. “Locating the Dropout Crisis first drew attention

to list of about 2,000 high schools that researchers considered to be dropout factories – an

instruction that does a good job systematically producing dropouts” (Zehr, 2010 p.2). Graduation

rates are severly low as the properties of poverty infiltrate the education system.


“Despite the importance of graduating from high school, the high school dropout rate has

remained relatively stable over the past 30 years currently at 10.9% However, accurately

determing dropout rates across states and school districts has been complicated by differences in

data collection policies and practices. Moreover, there is no national standardized operational

definition of dropout” (Christle, Jolivette, & Nelson 2007 p.325). “Dropping out of school is a

complex social problem from which there is no simple solution (p. 334). “Since the 1970s, there

has been a growing effort to improve high school gradution rates. In 1983, the National

Commision on Excellence in Education sounded the alarm because U.S. educational standards

had fallen behind other major industrialized countries” (Suh, 2007 p.298).

“Dropping out of school has is a serious problem, not only for the individual, the school

system, and the community, but also for society. Students who drop out of high school have

fewer options for employment and, if employed, usually end up working in low-skilled, low

paying positions with fewer possibilities for advancement. According to a report on high school

graduates in 2000, 56% of high school dropouts were unemployed, compared to 16% of high

school graduates. Census Bureau estimates have placed the average income of a dropout in 2000

at $12,400 compared to $21,000 for a high school graduate” (Christle, Jolivette, & Nelson 2007,

p. 325).

According to the United States Department of Education “Dropping out of high school is

related to a number of negative outcomes. For example, the median income of persons ages 18

through 67 who had not completed high school was roughly $25,000 in 2009.1 By comparison,

the median income of persons ages 18 through 67 who completed their education with at least a


high school credential, including a General Educational Development (GED) certificate, was

approximately $43,000. Over a person’s lifetime, this translates into a loss of approximately

$630,000 in income for a person who did not complete high school compared to a person with at

least a high school credential. Among adults age 25 and older, a lower percentage of dropouts are

in the labor force than are adults who earned a high school credential. Similarly, among adults in

the labor force, a higher percentage of dropouts are unemployed than are adults who earned a

high school credential (U.S. Department of Education, pg. 1).

“Furthermore, dropouts age 25 and older reported being in worse health than adults who

are not dropouts, regardless of income. Dropouts also make up disproportionately higher

percentages of the nation’s institutionalized population. Comparing those who drop out of high

school with those who complete high school, the average high school dropout costs the economy

approximately $240,000 over his or her lifetime in terms of lower tax contributions, higher

reliance on Medicaid and Medicare, higher rates of criminal activity, and higher reliance on

welfare.” (United States Department of Education, pg. 1).


RESEARCH METHODS

Research design.

A quantitative study was conducted to determine if there is a relationship with low

socioeconomic factors and education, and if low SES negatively impairs education. With poverty

as the indicator the independent variable to be tested was free or reduced priced lunch

percentages, while the dependent variables tested were dropout and graduation percentages. If

the difference is significant then school personnel must implement interventions and strategies to

combat high school dropouts among students from low socioeconomic status. The utilization of

effective interventions to decrease the number of high dropout rates in low socioeconomic areas

will automatically offset the dropout rates thus higher graduation rates will be achieved.

Study group description.

Thirty high schools were selected from urban, suburban and rural school districts within

the state of Missouri. The total percentage of students eligible to receive free or reduced priced

lunch, as well as, the total graduation and dropout percentages of ninth through twelve grade

students from the thirty high schools were selected as the study group to be evaluated.

Data Collection and Instrument.

Archived inquiry data from the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary

Education (DESE) was collected from each identified school respectively to identify percentages

of students who received free or reduced price lunch. Graduation and dropout percentages were

obtained from DESE from the conclusion of the 2011 year data was selected as the year for the

identified schools.


Statistical analysis methods

An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine if there is a significant

difference in the free or reduced priced lunch and graduation/dropout rates. The categories used

were free and reduced priced lunch and graduation and dropout rates. The sum of squares, the

degrees of freedom, mean squares, the Fischer score, and p-values were concluded from this test.

The Alpha level was set at 0.25 to test the null hypothesis; there is no difference in free or

reduced priced lunch and graduation/dropout rates. In addition to, utilization of Microsoft Excel

program was used in the analyzing segments of the data.


FINDINGS

A ANOVA test was conducted to determine whether there was a difference in students

that receive free and reduced priced lunch, graduation, and dropout rates. performance on the

2011. The following tables graphs will show the findings based on the statistical inquiry data

found on the state of Missouri DESE website from the conclusion of the 2011 school year.

Variable F/R FRQ. CUM % CUM Frequency Plot

x < 8.1 0 0 0 0

x = 8.1 1 1 3.3 3.3 ************************

x = 13.8 1 2 3.3 6.7 ************************

x = 14.9 1 3 3.3 10 ************************

x = 16 1 4 3.3 13.3 ************************

x = 16.8 1 5 3.3 16.7 ************************

x = 18.5 1 6 3.3 20 ************************

x = 19.8 1 7 3.3 23.3 ************************

x = 21.3 1 8 3.3 26.7 ************************

x = 22.9 1 9 3.3 30 ************************

x = 27 1 10 3.3 33.3 ************************

x = 30.3 1 11 3.3 36.7 ************************

x = 32.4 1 12 3.3 40 ************************

x = 34.1 1 13 3.3 43.3 ************************


x = 37 1 14 3.3 46.7 ************************

x = 43.2 1 15 3.3 50 ************************

x = 43.8 1 16 3.3 53.3 ************************

x = 45.7 1 17 3.3 56.7 ************************

x = 46.9 1 18 3.3 60 ************************

x = 48.3 1 19 3.3 63.3 ************************

x = 51 1 20 3.3 66.7 ************************

x = 56.8 1 21 3.3 70 ************************

x = 69.5 1 22 3.3 73.3 ************************

x = 75.3 1 23 3.3 76.7 ************************

x = 76.2 1 24 3.3 80 ************************

x = 76.9 1 25 3.3 83.3 ************************

x = 80.3 1 26 3.3 86.7 ************************

x = 82.7 1 27 3.3 90 ************************

x = 84.6 1 28 3.3 93.3 ************************

x = 86.2 1 29 3.3 96.7 ************************

x = 89 1 30 3.3 100 ************************

x > 89 0 30 0 100

TOTAL 30 100


ANOVA analysis results for the 2011 dropout percentages.

Summary of Decriptive Statistics for Dropout Rates (Table 1)

Free or Reduced N Mean Variance

1 10 1.57 16.6111

2 10 2.26 16.6111

3 10 24.39 16.6111

As shown in table 1 thirty high schools were selected for the study to determine if there is

a difference between free or reduced price lunch and dropout rates. According to the data, there

are a total of 30 schools, each school has been recoded into the highest 33.3% , middle 33.3%,

and lower 33.3% groups for dropout rates. F/Reduced priced lunch group one mean score is

1.57. Group two’s mean score is 2.26. Group three mean score is 24.39. There is a .69 difference

between f/reduced priced groups one and two. There is a mean difference of 22.13 between

groups two and three. Group three has a 24.39 mean score. The standard deviation for all three

groups is constant at 16.6111.


(Table 2) Summary of ANOVA Test of Significance Results for 2010 – 2011 dropout percentages. Dependent Variable: Dropout percentages ______________________________________________________________________________ Source SS df MS f p-value ______________________________________________________________________________ F/RLunch 3369.88 2 1684.94 10.1435 0.000518086 Dropout 4484.99 27 166.111 ______________________________________________________________________________ Significance p-value = < 0.25

According to the data in table 2 for dropout the sum of squares is 4485. The degrees of

freedom is 27, and the mean squared is 166. For free or reduced priced lunch the sum of squares

are 3370, the degrees of freedom is 2, the means squared is 1685. The Fischer score is 10.14. The

null hypothesis states that there is not a significant difference in free or reduced priced lunch and

dropout. The null was rejected because the p-value of 0.00052 is lower than the alpha level 0.25

and the null was rejected null is there a significant difference between free and reduced priced

lunch and dropout rates.

Summary of Post Hoc Analysis Results for Dropout and Free or Reduced Price Lunch (Table 3) P-values for pairwise comparison of dropout and free or reduced priced lunch Free & Reduced Free & Reduced Mean D Std.Error p-value ______________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 -0.69 5.76387 0.905598 1 3 -22.82 5.76387 0.000493032 2 3 -22.13 5.76387 0.000675764 __________________________________________________________________________ Note: Significance when p-value = < 0.25


As shown in table 3 the greatest mean difference was found between F/Reduced Lunch

group 1 and F/Reduced group 3 with a mean difference of -22.82. The smallest mean difference

was observed between F/Reduced groups 1 and 2. The second highest mean difference was

observed between groups 2 and 3 with a difference of -22.13. There was not a significant

difference between groups one and two.

The comparison of the p-value for F/Reduced lunch for the group 1 with group 2

compares F/Reduced lunch lowest socioeconomic group 1 with the middle socioeconomic group

2. The p-value of .90 is higher than the p-value of .25. There is not a significant dropout rate

between groups 1 and 2. However, there were significant differences between groups one and

three and two and three. The p-value of 0.000493032 that compares group 1 and group 3 is lower

than the alpha level 0.25. The null hypothesis states that there is a significant difference in

dropout and Free or Reduced priced lunch. The null was rejected because the p-value was less

than the alpha level. This shows that free or reduced priced lunch as indicator of poverty

significantly impacts dropout rates and the results of poverty are reflected in education. The

lowest socioeconomic group compared to group two the middle socioeconomic shows that there

is also a significant difference in free and reduced priced lunch and the dropout rate.

Results of group 2 and 3 shows a p-value score of 0.00067 which indicates a significant

difference in free and reduced priced lunch and dropout rates. In comparison the middle

socioeconomic group that has poverty compared to the highest socioeconomic group group 3 that

poses the highest SES shows that the affects of poverty pose a negative challenge to dropout

rates in areas where low SES may not be as intense but still presents a major obstacle.


The data shows that there is a higher percentage of student dropouts within the lowest

socioeconomic classification compared to the highest socioeconomic group. Schools within the

highest level of SES produce the lowest level of student dropouts. And the graduation rates are

higher in these areas compared to the lowest SES. Schools located within the highest SES have

the lowest amount of student dropouts.

However, it is the exact opposite for the lowest socioeconomic area. Students within

these areas are exposed to increased amounts of poverty and poor socioeconomic structures.

Education is effected with high dropout rates within these areas. The schools located within

areas of high poverty and low SES produce the highest levels of student dropouts. Comparison

of the lowest socioeconomic level group 1 with the highest socioeconomic level group 3 shows a

significant difference in dropout rates with a p-value of 0.00067. The p-value of 0.00067 is lower

than the p-value of 0.25. Thus, the null is rejected and there is a great difference with free-and

reduced lunch and dropout rates. The conclusion shows that students with free and reduced

priced lunch in the middle socioeconomic groups have extremely high dropout rates versus the

highest socioeconomic group.


Table 1 Summary of Decriptive Statistics for Graduation

Free or Reduced N Mean Variance

1 10 93.69 10.6395

2 10 88.81 10.6395

3 10 69.28 10.6395

As shown in table 1 thirty high schools from the state of Missouri were chosen to

determine if there is a differnce between free or reduced and graduation rates. According to the

data there are three groups. Each group is classified into free or reduced price lunch from

lowest to greatest. Group one mean is 94, the students in the second group mean is 89, Whereas,

students classified in groups three mean is 69. The variance is 10.63.

Summary of ANOVA Test of Significance Results for 2010 – 2011 graduation. Dependent Variable: Graduation percentages ______________________________________________________________________________ Source SS df MS f p-value ______________________________________________________________________________ F/RLunch 3336.94 2 1668.47 16.0903 0.000025061 Graduation 2799.75 27 103.695 ______________________________________________________________________________ Note: Significance = < 0.25


According to the data in table 2 the sum of squares for graduation is 2800, the degrees of

freedom is 27, and the mean squared is 104. The sum of squares for free or reduced lunch is

3337, the degrees of freedom is 2, the mean squared is 1668, the Fischer score is 16.0903. The

null of is there a difference significant difference between free or reduced priced lunch and

graduation is rejected. The p-value of 0.000025 is lower than the alpha level of 0.25. There was a

significant difference between free lunch and graduation.

Summary of Post Hoc Analysis Results for Graduation and Free or Reduced Price Lunch P-values for pairwise comparison of graduation and free or reduced priced lunch Free & Reduced Free & Reduced Mean D Std.Error p-value ______________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 4.88 4.554 0.293392 1 3 24.41 4.554 0.0000115899 2 3 19.53 4.554 0.0002055 __________________________________________________________________________ Note: Significance = < 0.25

As shown in table three the highest mean difference was shown in between Free or

reduced groups one and three with a mean difference of 24.41. Groups two and three has the

second highest mean difference of 19.53. Whereas, the smallest mean difference is between

groups one and two with a 4.9 difference. The p-value of group one compared to group two of

0.293392 is higher than the alpha level of 0.25 the null is accepted. The p-value shows that

Group 1 representing the lowest socioeconomic group indicates that there is no significant

decrepancy between graduation rates compared to group 2 the middle socioeconomic group.


However, groups 2 and 3 show a extremely significant difference in graduation rates with a p-

value score of 0.0002055. The score of .00020 is lower than the p-value 0.25.

The middle socioeconomic group 2 compared to group 3 the highest socioeconomic

group shows that schools classified within the middle socioeconomic classification produces the

lowest graduation rates versus schools that are located within the lowest socioeconomic group

with the highest SES. The p-value score of 0.0002055 shows a significant difference in free and

reduced priced lunch and graduation. The null is rejected being less that the p-value score of

0.25. Group 1 versus group 3 shows a p-value score of 0.000011, which is lower than the alpha

level of 0.25. This shows that the lowest socioeconomic group graduation rates are significantly

lower than the highest socioeconomic group.

Graduation rates between group 1 and group 2 that receive free and reduced priced lunch

shows a p-value score of 0.29. The null is rejected being less than the 0.25 alpha level. This

indicates that poverty within the two groups is not a major factor that affects the graduation rates

between the two groups. The lowest socioeconomic group, group 1 compared to the highest

socioeconomic group shows a great discrepancy in graduation rates among the two groups. The

p-value score of 0.000011 is below the alpha level of 0.25 thus there is a significant difference

in free and reduced priced lunch and graduation rates. The null is rejected, showing that the

graduation rates between the lowest socioeconomic group and the middle group that poverty

does not have a big effect on graduation rates. The lowest socioeconomic group 1 and group 3

shows a significant discrepancy among the lowest socioeconomic group and the highest and that

students receiving free and reduced priced lunch in the lowest socioeconomic group have a low

percentage of graduating. This is indicated with the p-value score of 0.000011, which is below

the alpha level 0.25. However, the highest socioeconomic group that received free and reduced


priced lunch had the highest graduation totals compared to the lowest socioeconomic group that

had free and reducaed priced lunch had low gradution rates. Groups with the highest SES had

the highest graduation rates and the lowest dropout rates.


CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The outcomes reported from this study show that dropout rates are effected by poverty

(free or reduced priced lunch). The findings show that there is a significant difference between

free and reduced priced lunch and dropout rates. ANOVA test results the 2011 school year

indicated that the p-value for dropout was 0.00051 and graduation 0.000025, both much lower

than the alpha level set at 0.25; therefore, the null hypothesis tested is rejected with confidence.

There is a difference between dropout and graduation rates. Dropout rates where the highest

within the lowest socioeconomic group. Group 2 being the middle socioeconomic group had

high dropout rates that were not as high as group 1, but they were still significantly high. Group

3 the highest socioeconomic area with the least amount of poverty has the highest graduation

rates and the lowest dropout rates out of the three group. Schools located within the lowest

socioeconomic group produced the highest levels of dropout and the lowest graduation rates.

This indicates that areas with high poverty are at risk of having high number of dropouts and low

graduation. Graduation rates are lowest amongst located within the Group 1 the lowest level of

poverty. In both categories the highest socioeconomic group had the least amount of dropouts

and the highest number of graduates. Poverty had a limited effect in the highest socioeconomic

areas the graduation were consistently high, while dropout rates where low.


In order to counter the dropout rates there must be an all hands on deck approach to

increasing the graduation rate. First, the structure of poverty must be destroyed before it

addressed before citation?

The effects of poverty have a lasting impression on children who have been a part of it

for a decade or more. Children who experience poverty or members of a low income

householdare more at risk to repeat the cycle of poverty when they become adults.

The incident of poverty is uncontrolled by the child. It’s presence within a childs life is

not determined based on the child, but rather the child was unvoluntarely placed in the situation

into circumstances that they are not able to change. The duration of poverty is broken down into

two classifications, short term poverty and long term poverty. Children who are emersed in short

periods of poverty are more accepatable of breaking through its hold. However, long-term

poverty has long-range consequences. Many children that are in positions where poverty is

consistent poverty assumes a long-term place. Long-term poverty conditions can initiate

situations of the cycle of poverty repeating producing generational poverty.

The ramifications of poverty are also observed within school districts were the dropout

out is equivalent to the graduation rate. With that being said whenever the dropout rate is greater

than or equal to the graduation rate then raises the level of concern and the focus becomes what

actions need to be implemented to increase the graduation rate. The graduation rates are often hit

the hardest. for the increasing of the graduation there is a major problem that The relation this

has with schools that are in urban school districts that house the highest areas of minorities,

which are predominantly composed of African American and Hispanic students.


School districts located in high areas of poverty reap the harmful manifestation of

poverty. In many areas where there are extreme cases of poverty the educational systems are hurt

as the influences of low SES enter into the school environment. The ramifications of poverty are

infused within the educational system as school districts located in these high poverty areas are

pulled in by the undertow of poor SES. Low SES negative translation into the educational

process is seen as it presents itself within high school students that reside in areas of poverty.

Areas that are engrossed with high percentages of dropout rates with decreasing graduation

percentages are typical to urban school districts.

Students exposed to these conditions are at a disadvantage Urban communities lie in the

heart of these cities and the communities have a noticeable impact. The damaging affect this has

from an educational standpoint is critical because both rural and urban communities are the areas

that suffer the most in regards to high dropout and low graduation rates.

Meeting the educational needs of low-achieving children in our Nation's highest-poverty

schools, limited English proficient children, migratory children, children with disabilities, Indian

children, neglected or delinquent children, and young children in need of reading assistance;

closing the achievement gap between high- and low-performing children, especially the

achievement gaps between minority and nonminority students, and between disadvantaged

children and their more advantaged peers; holding schools, local educational agencies, and states

accountable for improving the academic achievement of all students, and identifying and turning

around low-performing schools that have failed to provide a high-quality education to their

students, while providing alternatives to students in such schools to enable the students to receive

a high-quality education.


Areas that suffer from poverty are at a disadvantage and the children that attend schools

within these locations. Although NCLB mission is to advance children academically the weight

of poverty remains a stumbling block. Many students associated with these areas come to the

conclusion that the only choice is to dropout.

The incident of poverty is uncontrolled by the child. It’s presence within a childs life is

not determined based on the child, but rather the child was unvoluntarely placed in the situation

into circumstances that they are not able to change. The duration of poverty is broken down into

two classifications, short term poverty and long term poverty. Children who are emersed in short

periods of poverty are more accepatable of breaking through its hold. However, long-term

poverty has long-range consequences. Many children that are in positions where poverty is

consistent poverty assumes a long-term place. Long-term poverty conditions can initiate

situations of the cycle of poverty repeating producing generational poverty.

The conceptual underpinning is supported by these research findings. Dropout and

graduation rates are negatively effected by lower socioeconomic status. Lower Socioeconomic

status does play a negative role in the graduation and dropout rates. The implementation of

interventions and strategies to enhance student academic performance. Effective explicit

instruction infused into the curriculum tailored to the specific needs of the students is key. This

research could be used in developing additional ways to bridge the gap between dropout and

graduation rates. In order to counter the dropout rates there must be an all hands on deck

approach to increasing the graduation rate.

Different ways to help both the community and students build a educational foundation

that builds community involvement and establishes alternative programs that are designed to

help promote academic achievement are key. Programs such as credit recovery progams and


programs that allow student to obtain college credits during high school are needed. The

utilization of mentoring programs are also beneficial in the overall assistance of helping children

overcome the effects of poverty. These are a few of the vast interventions that can incorporated

that will help decrease the dropout rates and increase the graduation rates.

The ramifications of poverty are also observed within school districts were the dropout

out is equivalent to the graduation rate. With that being said whenever the dropout rate is greater

than or equal to the graduation rate then raises the level of concern and the focus becomes what

actions need to be implemented to increase the graduation rate. The graduation rates are often hit

the hardest. for the increasing of the graduation there is a major problem that The relation this

has with schools that are in urban school districts that house the highest areas of minorities,

which are predominantly composed of African American and Hispanic students. Areas that

suffer from poverty are at a disadvantage and the children that attend schools within these

locations. Although NCLB mission is to advance children academically the weight of poverty

remains a stumbling block. Many students associated with these areas come to the conclusion

that the only choice is to dropout.


REFERENCES

Bradshaw, C. P., O’Brennan, L. M., & McNeely, C. A. (2008). Core competencies and the

prevention of school failure and early school leaving: Core competencies to prevent

problem behaviors and promote positive youth development. New Directions for

Children Adolescent Development, (122), 19-32.

Christle, C. A., Jolivette, K., & Nelson, C. M. (2007). School characteristics related to high

school dropout rates. Remedial and Special Education, 28,(6), 325-339.

Cuhat, G. O., (2011). Learner factors in a high poverty urban middle school. Urbanedjournal,

Vol 9(1) Retrieved July 18, 2012 from http://www.urbanedjournal.org/current

Ferguson, H. B., Bovaird, S. & Mueller, M. P. (2007). The impact of poverty on educational

outcomes for children. Pediatrics and Child Health, (12), 8, 701-706, Retrieved May 15,

2013 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528798/

Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. (1997). The effect of poverty on children: The future of children.

Children and Poverty, (7), 55-65.

Jester, E. (2013, June 16). More students getting free or reduced priced lunch. The Gainsville

Sun. Retrieved from

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20130616/ARTICLES/130619692/-

1/search10?template=printart

Knesting, K. (2008). Students at risk for school dropout: Supporting their persistence. Heldref

Publications, (52), 4, 3-9.


Suh, S. & Suh, S. (2007). Risk factors and levels of risk for high school dropouts. Professional

School Counseling, 10, (3), 297-306, Retrieved from

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=8046c7d5-9064-41b6-a4d6-

5a8db549a67a%

Zehr, M. (2010). Rural Dropout Factories Often Overshadowed. Education Week, (29), 27,

Retrieved June 22, 2013 from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=707ba1d3-

347c-43d3-a96e-e6db6d7b9c80%

United States Department of Agriculture. Food and nutrition services: Income eligibility

guidelines. Federal Register, March 29, 2013, Retrieved from

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/notices/iegs/IEG_Table-032913.pdf

United States Census Bureau. Percent children of poverty under the age of 18 below poverty in

Missouri. Retrieved from odelia.missouri.edu

United States Census Bureau. Demographic poverty data: Retrieved from

http://www.geolytics.com/censusdata/povertystatistics.asp

United States Department of Education (2001). No Child Left Behind Act 2001, full text.

Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html

United States Department of Education. Trends in high school dropout and completion rates in

the United States: 1972 – 2009. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012006.pdf

United States Department of Health and Human Services (2013). Poverty guidelines, Retrieved

from http://aspe.hhs.gov/images/logo1.png


United States Income Eligibility Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 16, January 24, 2013, pp. 5182-

5183 Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/notices/iegs/IEG_Table-

032913.pdf

Woolf, H. B., (1977). Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, Massachusetts, G. & C

Merriam Company.


Documents

1 SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS ON EDUCATION By · 2013-12-12 · between parent education levels and child educational attainment as an indicator of future graduation rates within children