A 100 Week 3

Four Perspectives: Overview – Weeks 3, 4, 5 and 6

Four lens on the problem and solution:Week 3: Poverty, inequality, and social factors

beyond the school’s control (state)

Week 4: Bureaucracy, unions, politics, lack of talent, incentives and motivation (market)

Week 5: Underprofessionalization, skill, knowledge (profession)

Week 6: Governance (communities)

New Topic: Poverty, segregation and inequality – causes and consequences for school reform

Is concentrated poverty the problem?

Coleman Report, 1966: A school’s poverty level is a stronger predictor of how a child will fare in school than any other factor save the child’s own socioeconomic (SES) background.

More than 40 years of research since Coleman confirms the negative impact of attending high poverty schools.

What are the negative effects of attending a high poverty school?

Teacher quality: less experienced, less qualified, higher turnover

Curriculum: less homework, fewer rigorous courses

Peer effects: mobility, crime higher; vocabulary, aspirations lower.

Parental involvement lower; less parental political clout and pressure on school

Affect of School SES on NAEP Scores

1-5% 6-10% 11-25% 26-34% 35-50% 51-75% 76-99%200

210

220

230

240

250

260

270

Figure 1: 2009 NAEP, 4th Grade MathFRL Eligible Students Non-FRL Eligible Students

Percent FRL Students in School

Aver

age

Scal

ed S

core

Scarcity of high-performing high poverty schools

The numbers of high poverty schools are significant . . .

2007-08: 43% of U.S. elementary students attend high poverty schools (>50% low-income).

And growing.

Between 1999 and 2007, high poverty schools grew from 34% to 44% of all schools.

Internationally, SES segregation linked with lower achievement—2006 PISA science test

Nations whose students score the highest have low levels of SES segregation.

SES segregation between schools in US is

33% (OECD mean is 24%; Finland is 10%.)

U.S. students score 28th out of 57 nations

Only one country that scored above it had a higher degree of SES segregation.

High poverty schools in the United States

The numbers of high poverty schools in the United States are significant . . .

2007-08: 43% of U.S. elementary students attend high poverty schools (>50% low-income).

And growing.

Between 1999 and 2007, high poverty schools grew from 34% to 44% of all schools.

During this same period, the percentage of families living below 200% of poverty was essentially static.

Historically, we think of segregation of US schools in terms of race

1868 14th Amendment—equal protection under the law—passed during Reconstruction

1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson

1954 Brown vs. Board of Education 1960s and 1970s desegregation efforts

Overlap between racial & SES segregation

Attendance at high poverty schools

25% of white students attend high poverty schools.

69% of black and Latino students attend hp schools.

Race-based school segregation is also growing

% of Black students in predominantly minority schools up from 63% in 1980 to 72% in 2000

% of Latino students in predominantly minority schools up from 55% in 1968 to 71% in 1986

Increasing focus in last decade on Socioeconomic Segregation of Schools

2007 Parents Involved decision declares that the use of race to assign students to schools is unconstitutional.

Building research consensus on negative effects of high poverty schools; related media attention.

School SES more significant than racial composition for student achievement.

Causes of Increasing School Segregation

Post WWII expansion of suburbia; decline of cities

Federal highway funds, home mortgage deduction

1980s and 1990s: Federal government abandons desegregation policies Retraction of desegregation funding, judicial oversight

Schooling decisions of affluent individuals 2005 study of 21 largest US schools districts finds a

26% gap between the neighborhood low income percentage (avg 34%) and the school (60%)

Wiki and Beyond: High Poverty Schools

What is the prevalence of high poverty schools nationwide, and how do states differ in their segregation of schools by income?

What is the demographic viability of intra-district integration strategies to reduce the number of high poverty schools?

What is the geographic and demographic viability of inter-district integration or consolidation strategies?

Finding 1: Need to look at prevalence of high poverty schools at a state, not national, level

SES Integration Strategies: Beyond Busing

SES integration strategies used in 69 districts Parental choice; controlled choice Redrawing school attendance zones Flexible assignment and student transfers Preferential magnet school admission

Inter-district Strategies much less common SES-based metropolitan choice programs

(Minneapolis, Omaha) Longstanding district partnerships based on race District consolidation/regionalization

Finding 2: Viability of SES Integration Strategies

Intra-district Strategies Could eliminate 5%-15% of high poverty schools,

affecting .5 to 1.5 million elementary students Work for high poverty schools in low poverty districts

Inter-district Strategies Could eliminate 7%-49% of high poverty schools (6

state study) Work best in states with lower poverty rates and

urban as opposed to regional concentrations of poverty

Florida districts by low-income %

Green = <40% low-income; Orange = 40-50% low-income; Purple = >50% low-income

Nebraska districts by low-income %

Green = <40% low-income; Orange = 40-50% low-income; Purple = >50% low-income

Massachusetts districts by low-income %

Green = <40% low-income; Orange = 40-50% low-income; Purple = >50% low-income

New Topic: Four Approaches to Tackling Out of School Factors

How are you feeling right now about educational reform?

Action Barriers

Inertia

Fear

Apathy

Self-doubt

Isolation

Urgency

Hope

Anger

YMCAD*

Solidarity

Action Catalysts

From Analysis to Action (Rather Than Paralysis)

*You can make a differenceCourtesy of Marshall Ganz

Five Approaches to Addressing Influence of Poverty

1. Reduce segregation Intra-district or inter-district choice

2. Help children outside of school Early childhood education After school programs

3. Community schools and HCZ

4. Reduce poverty and inequality (Finland)

5. School centered approach (next week)

Inter District Busing

Examples: Metco, St. Louis busing Positive Results: Increases in college-going

rates Challenges: Political obstacles, difficult to

scale (See more info in handout)

Intra District Choice Examples: Wake County, Cambridge, San Francisco

Mechanics: Parents rank schools, central office seeks to give parents choices, while also seeking greater socio-economic integration

Challenges: Works best in liberal areas where people of different SES backgrounds are concentrated

(See more info in handout)

To discuss

How convinced are you that intra or inter district integration policies are an important part of the solution?

What are their merits?

What are their limitations?

Strategy 2: Pre and out of school

Abecedarian Project Designed to enhance school readiness 5 year program, beginning at 4 months

(1972-1977) 6-8 hours per day Infant to caregiver ratio 1:3, then 1:6. 57 treatment; 54 control 98% African American All poverty to mothers not graduated from

high school Staff: graduate degree to paraprofessionals +

coaching

Abecedarian Project

Treatment Cognitive and fine motor skills Language gross skills Language development Child care center became a school program

Variety of activities

Abecedarian Project

Results Higher reading and math scores for treatment

group from ages 3 to 21 Grade retention (as of age 15):

31.2 percent vs 54.5 percent Special ed

24.5 percent vs 47.7 percent College (age 21)

35 percent enrolled or graduated 4 year college vs. 14 percent

Average age at birth first child: 19.1 years vs. 17.7 years

Perry Pre-School

Context: Ypisilanti, MI, 1962-63-1966-67 3 or 4 years old in study years 45 participants two years; 13 for one year 58 treatment; 65 control, all low SES, below

90 on IQ – random assignment Matched on SES, welfare status, parental

employment, household size, etc.

Perry Pre-School

Intervention: 5 mornings a week, classes of 20-25 Teachers certified in early childhood and

special education 90 minute weekly home visits High/Scope Curriculum

Children plan, carry out and review own activities Teachers arrange classroom – balance between

child-centered and teacher-centered learning Developmental curriculum derived from Piaget

Perry Pre-School Results as of age 27:

Schooling: 11.9 years vs 11 years 71% high school diploma/GED vs. 54%

Earnings: 29% $2000 or more per month (7% of control)

Males -- 42% $2000 or more 6% of control) Females 80% employed vs (55% of control)

Perry Pre-School Results as of age 27:

Marriage: 40% (treatment) vs 8% (control)

Arrests: 2.3 (treatment) vs. 4.6 (control)

Welfare assistance (including food stamps, Medicaid, public housing):

59% of treatment vs 80% of controls

Perry Pre-School Results as of age 27:

Marriage: 40% (treatment) vs 8% (control)

Arrests: 2.3 (treatment) vs. 4.6 (control)

Welfare assistance (including food stamps, Medicaid, public housing):

59% of treatment vs 80% of controls

Perry Pre-School

How do you think it achieved these effects so many years later?

sdfsa

Perry Pre-School: Pathways

Program intervention

Initial SES

High school earnings

Lifetime arrests

High school grad

K-3 motivation

Literacy at age 19

Head Start

800,000 children annually Poor children only Learning environment + nutrition and other

social skills. Funding roughly $5,000-$6,000 annually

(about half to 1/3 of Perry and Abecedarian in constant dollars)

Head Start

Results: Benefits for early test scores Fadeout of test scores over time:

Particularly for African Americans Less so for whites No fadeout for those in high SES schools

Long term effects -- small to none, depending on the study

Conclusions in the eye of the beholder

To discuss

What can and can’t we learn from the research on early childhood programs?

Is scaling good childhood programs any more possible than scaling good schools?

Approach 3:Community Schools and HCZ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H0k2TDZF7o&feature=channel

http://www.hcz.org/what-is-hcz/hcz-tv?task=videodirectlink&id=2

Harlem Children’s Zone

Goal: Provide enveloping positive environment – birth to college Less than one square mile, 10,000 children Baby college – classes for parents 0-3 All day pre-kindergarden Extended day charter schools (promise

academy) 4 to 1 student teacher ratio Health clinics and community centers $100 million + of private funding Obama: $10 million to replicate in 20 cities

Harlem Children’s Zone: Results, Good News

Source: Roland Fryer (reference below)

Harlem Children’s Zone: Results, Bad News

Source: Aaron Pallas (reference below)

HCZ, Qual. Results:Tough, Whatever It Takes

Struggled to produce results in middle school “Promise Academy” charter school Fired the principal Board members want to replace with KIPP Individualized plans for students based on test

performance Extended school day and week Doubled and tripled the time spent in test prep Ultimately had to close planned expansion for 9th grade

Elementary school more successful Trying to patch holes in the “conveyor belt”

Trials of middle school leads to desire to start earlier

HCZ: Too soon to tell

Results due to Promise Academy or to other social services?

Success in middle school math due to a few exceptional teachers or broad wrap around services?

Worries about speed of scaling

Strategy 4: Finland

More encompassing social safety net Common curricula for all students/no tracking Health care is a start Broader/bolder agenda Gradual improvements in living standards

would lead to improved outcomes for students?

To discuss

Which of these four strategies seems most promising?

Would you focus on social reform coupled with school reform, or would you get more bang for your buck by focusing on a school-centered strategy?