The Effect of Student Mobility on School Achievement:

The Effect of The Effect of Student Mobility Student Mobility

on School on School Achievement:Achievement:

A Study of the South Bend A Study of the South Bend Community School Community School

CorporationCorporation

Part 1: What we know Part 1: What we know about student mobility about student mobility from previous researchfrom previous research

Nick DepreyNick Deprey

Joseph Ruffini Joseph Ruffini

Andrew MarcheseAndrew Marchese

Introduction

• What is student mobility?• How much school switching goes on?• Why do students change schools?• Which students move the most?• Why school switching matter?

– For students– For Schools

• What can schools do to reduce student mobility? To mitigate the consequences of mobility?

What is Student Mobility?

• Students making non-promotional school changes – Can occur during the school year or between school years

– Can move to a school in same district or outside the district

– Can occur more than once a year

How much school switching goes on?

• In 1998, NAEP study showed – 34% of 4th graders– 21% of 8th graders– 10% of 12th graderschanged schools at least once in previous two years.

Source: Rumberger, 2003

Which students move the most?

• Among 4th graders, the NAEP study showed that over a 2 yr period. . .– 45 % of Black– 41 % of Hispanic– 27% of White– 33% of Asian American

. . . students changed schools



• 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.


by type of school district. . .

• Large, predominantly minority, urban school districts

• 30-40% of students enroll for less than the school year



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


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)


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


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


What can schools do to reduce student mobility?

• Work with community agencies to reduce need for residential moves– Review timing of housing subsidy payments

– Work with local – reality association – Coordinate foster home placements

• Build school identity and student loyalty

Source: Schuler, 1990

What can schools do to mitigate the consequences

of mobility?

• Schools and teachers should:– Prepare in advance for new students

– Facilitate transition as soon as new students arrive

– Establish ongoing procedures and practices to address new students’ needs

Source:Rumberger (2003)

Bibliography

Alexander, K., Entwisle, D., & Dauber ( 1994). “Children in Motion: School Transfers and Elementary School Performance.” Paper presented at the meeting of the American Sociological Association, Los Angeles, CA.

Felner, R., Primavera J., & Cauce, A. (1981) . “The Impact of School Transitions: A Focus for Preventive Efforts.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 449-459.

Kerbow, David. (1996) “Patterns of Urban Student Mobility and Local School Reform.” Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, I(2), 147-169.

Lash, Andrea and Sandra Kirkpatrick (1990). “A Classroom Perspective on Student Mobility.” Elementary School Journal, 91, 177-191.

Bibliography, cont.Rumberger, R. (2003). “The Causes and Consequences of

Student Mobility,” Journal of Negro Education, Vo. 72, No. 1 (Winter), 6-20.

Rumberger R. & Larson, K. (1998). “Student Mobility and the Increased Risk of High School Dropout.” American Journal of Education, 107, 1-35.

Schuler,D. (1990). “Effects of Family Mobility on Student Achievement, ERS Spectrum, Vol. 8, No. 4, 17-24.

Swanson, C. & Schneider, B. (1999) “Students on the Move: Residential and Educational Mobility in America’s Schools.” Sociology of Education, 72, 54-67.

Bibliography, cont.Tucker,Jack, Jonathan Marx, and Larry Long. (1998)

“Moving On: Residential Mobility and Children’s School Lives.” Sociology of Education, 71, 111-129.

Wood, D., Halfon, N., Scarla, D., Newacheck, P., & Nessim, S. (1993). “The Impact of Family Relocation on Children’s Growth, Development, School Function, and Behavior. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 270, 1334-1338.

Part 2: Mobility and ISTEP Part 2: Mobility and ISTEP scores across Indianascores across Indiana

Ben Clarke &Ben Clarke &Claire SmitherClaire Smither

Our Project

• Looked at Student Mobility throughout Indiana

• At the Corporation Level (n=316)

Data

• Student Migration– Over-counting– Under-counting

• Annual Performance Reports– Just right

Equation

PCTmORe = β0 +β1INTRA +β2INTER +β3ELLpct +β4 ATTNpct +β5STratio + β6SPEDpct +β7ENROLL +β8 ENROLLminPCT +β9FREELUNCHpct +β10PPE + β11metro +β12town + β13rural + e

Dependent Variables

• (1) “PCTmORe,” is the percentage of students passing either the math or English sections

• (2) “PCTmath,” is the percentage of students passing the math section, independent of their English score

• (3) “PCTenglish,” is the percentage of students passing the English section, independent of their math score

• (4) “PCTm&e,” is the percentage of students passing both the math and English sections

Independent Variables

Variable Definition

Corp Corporation code number

INTRApercentage of students who move from one school to another in the same school

corporation

INTERpercentage of students who move from one school to another in a different school

corporation

ELLpct percent of the corporation’s student population coded as English Language Learners

ATTNpct average percent of attendance per corporation.

Stratio ratio of number of students enrolled to full-time equivalent per corporation.

SPEDpct percent of corporation’s population that is coded as special education students.

ENROLL number of students enrolled per corporation.

ENROLLminPCT percentage of students enrolled who are of minority ethnicity.

FREELUNCHpctpercentage of students receiving free lunch per corporation, having a family income

below 130% of the poverty line.

STABLEnumber of days the average student was enrolled; the number of school days

enrolled over the total number of school days

PPE average corporation wide per pupil expenditure

metro geographic qualifier; corporation coded as being in a metropolitan area.

town geographic qualifier; corporation coded as being in a town.

rural geographic qualifier; corporation coded as being in a rural setting.

Results

Table III: OLS Estimates of the Effect of Mobility on Student Performance 2006

Independent Variables

Dependent Variable

(1) PCTmORe (2) PCTmath (3) PCTeng (4) PCTm&e

INTRA-0.8174*

(.349)-0.9587*

(.445)-0.7041*

(.387)-0.8457

(.472)

INTER-0.3176*

(.111)-0.4228*

(.145)-0.4345*

(.139)-0.5394*

(.169)

ELLpct-0.0203

(.032)-0.0206

(.046)-0.0665

(.039)0.0256

(.042)

ATTNpct1.0627*

(.304)1.2914*

(.407)1.2746*

(.322)1.5031*

(.409)

Stratio0.2306*

(.108)0.3345

(.179)0.4467*

(.175)0.5505*

(.247)

SPEDpct-0.0476

(.062)-0.1132

(.097)-0.0149

(.090)-0.0806

(.122)

ENROLL0

(0)0.0001

(0)0.0001

(0)0.0002

(0)

ENROLLminPCT-0.1258*

(.033)-0.1531*

(.041)-0.1432*

(.036)-0.1705*

(.042)

FREELUNCHpct-0.2352*

(.033)-0.2687*

(.046)-0.2981*

(.038)-0.3315*

(.049)

PPE0.0004*

(0)0.0004*

(0)0.0006*

(0)0.0006*

(0)

metro2.9475

(.833)2.9776*

(1.17)3.5516*

(1.05)3.5803*

(1.36)

town0.1422

(.823)0.7728

(1.07)-0.4998

(1.03)0.1301

(1.22)

rural-0.5336

(.557)-0.4879

(0.728)-1.6872*

(0.692)-1.6432*

(0.817)

*Statistically Significant at 5% level.

Main Findings• Excluding the demographic variables, INTRA and INTER are the largest negative influences of ISTEP score

• INTER and INTRA are significant in 7 out of 8 estimates

• ATTN is a big, significant, positive factor in ISTEP scores

What does this mean for Indiana?

For a given corporation, if the INTRA mobility rate decreases by one percentage point (from 17.4 to 16.4), the ISTEP pass rate should increase by .84 percentage points (from 60 to 60.84).

Part 3: Mobility & ISTEP Part 3: Mobility & ISTEP scoresscores

in the SBCSC in the SBCSCCole Davis, Cole Davis,

Karen Stockley, &Karen Stockley, &Ann WalterAnn Walter

Mobility

• Two types of school switching – within a school system (intra) – into a different school district (inter)

• How does it affect SBCSC?– Intra: 15.0%– Inter: 7.7%– Total: 22.7%

• Adequate Yearly Progress– http://mustang.doe.state.in.us/AP/buttoncorp.cfm?corp=7205&year=2006

Intra District MobilitySBCSC, 2005-06*

MovePrimar

yMiddle High Total

Out 839 530 310 1679

In 757 538 115 1410

Out + In 1596 1068 425 3089

Enrollment

7948 6394 6209 20551

*Moves between schools involving less than five students are not recorded

Intra District Mobility Rates (%)

SBCSC, 2005-06*

MovePrimar

yMiddle High Total

Out 10.6 8.3 5.0 8.2

In 9.5 8.4 1.8 6.9

Out + In

20.1 16.7 6.8 15.0

*Moves between schools involving less than five students are not recorded

Mobility Findings

• Primary school students are most likely to switch schools (1 in 5)

• Intermediate students rank second (1 in 6)

• high school students least likely to move (1 in 14)

Inter District Mobility SBCSC, 2005-06*

Move Total Rate

Out 896 4.4

In 686 3.3

Out + In

1582 7.7

*Moves between schools involving less than ten students are not recorded

Intra + Inter District Mobility,

SBCSC, 2005-06

Intra Inter Total

Out 8.2 4.4 12.6

In 6.9 3.3 10.2

Out + In

15.0 7.7 22.7

Intra vs. Inter District Mobility

SBCSC, 2005-06

• Predominance of school switching is internal– Changes within the district occur almost twice as often and changes involving schools outside the district.

Regression Analysis• Data Sources

– http://mustang.doe.state.in.us/SAS/sas1.cfmand http://mustang.doe.state.in.us/SEARCH/snapcorp.cfm?corp=7205

• School Level Data• 4 years (2004-2007)• 32 primary schools

Definition of key variables

• Stability index: the average across students of the portion of the school year each student is enrolled in a particular school (hypothetical range is 0 to 100%)

• ISTEP passing rates for math only and English only

ISTEP pass rates in 3rd grade Math vs Stability

Index

20

40

60

80

100

ISPM03

60 70 80 90 100SI

ISTEP pass rates in 3rd grade English vs Stability Index

20

40

60

80

100

ISPE03

60 70 80 90 100SI

Our Model• Variables of Interest

– ISTEP pass rates, Stability Index

• Control Variables– Student variables

• attendance rate, race, percent free lunch, percent limited English

– School Variables• teacher experience, suspensions, expulsions

Results• Stability index is insignificant• Significant variables

– Percent free lunch– Dummy variables for 2005, 2006, 2007

• R2 = .52 (math) and .56(english)

Implications• Can’t prove that mobility is significant

• Data limitations– Problems with mobility measure

• Cannot follow movements of individual students• Limited to one move per child• Cannot determine timing of move• No moves recorded for school when 4 or fewer children move in or out

– Missing important variables – More years of data needed

More research is needed

• Focus on individual children, not schools

• Collect and analyze data that correct for limitations

• Identify frequent movers and track their movement

• Estimate the cost of open enrollment for mobile children

• Follow a core of stable students

Glossary of Variables

ISPB03= 3rd grade percent pass both math and English ISTEP

ISPE03= 3rd grade percent pass English ISTEP

ISPE03= 3rd grade percent pass English ISTEP

slpct=Free Lunch Percent

si= stability index

pctlimeng= percent of students with limited English, not fluent

pctexp= percent of students expelled

pctsus= percent of students suspended

dum07= dummy variable for the year 2007



attrate= attendance rate

teexpt=Average Experience Teachers

pctblack= percent African American students

pctlat= percent Hispanic students

Summary StatisticsVariable Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max

School 128 16.5 9.269372 1 32

Year 128 2005.5 1.122427 2004 2007

ispb03 72 46.125 15.4664 21 95

ispe03 72 60.22222 13.66524 34 96

ispm03 72 55.18056 14.16236 32 98

Slpct 125 54.16 17.01821 24 90

Si 126 82.69524 5.53424 66.9 97.2

Attrate 126 0.940883 0.021374 0.8673 0.9857

Teexpt 127 16.93701 5.295623 4 32

pctblack 126 0.360329 0.122194 0.145749 0.659509

Pctlat 126 0.117067 0.10288 0.016043 0.479605

pctwhite 126 0.449691 0.16848 0.071038 0.717754

pctlimeng 126 0.089822 0.087302 0.002699 0.42398

Pctexp 120 0.003464 0.007386 0 0.0625

Pctsus 126 0.625276 0.954109 0.007181 8.225962

dum07 128 0.25 0.434714 0 1

dum06 128 0.25 0.434714 0 1

dum05 128 0.25 0.434714 0 1

Results: Percent passing math

OLS Results, Dependent variable: ispm03

Independent observation (1) (2) (3)

si 1.090337 (.365617)

.5895033 (.3670559)

.5096075 (.3543275)

slpct -.4634969 (.208471)

-.6416691 (.2317814)

pctlimeng -22.73833 (53.7376)

-34.65123 (52.47648)

attrate 32.12873 ( 245.8404)

36.15541 (248.5916)

pctblack 7.559081 (18.69625)

21.42832 (19.60734)

pctlat 42.01834 (42.77498)

62.41159 (45.59962)

pctexp 630.0402 (2197.281)

1977.503 (2128.951)

pctsus -14.6789 (10.84399)

-11.15138 (11.22111)

teexpt .113768 (.4566926)

.0715774 (.428312)

dum07 10.87436 (4.182478)

dum06 9.479481 (4.598991)

dum05 4.580454 (5.319092)

Number of Observations 71 65 65R-squared 0.18 0.4478 0.5198

Results: Percent passing English

OLS Results, Dependent variable: ispe03

Independent observation (1) (2) (3)

si 1.105855 (.2847266)

.7489167 (.3177031)

.4244482 (.3143979)

slpct -.2358508 (.2559666)

-.5805653 (.2386773)

pctlimeng -19.51923 (51.19185)

-40.85973 (46.47939)

attrate -17.40577 (246.4196)

-68.96697 (243.442)

pctblack -11.51753 (21.58646)

9.599153 (20.14727)

pctlat 24.26733 (45.54547)

62.26471 (43.76925)

pctexp -1304.904 (2078.589)

259.3186 (2154.727)

pctsus -9.991449 (13.48134)

-4.882115 (13.13196)

teexpt .1526517 (.4373986)

-.0316745 (.3826851)

dum07 15.45287 (3.77722)

dum06 14.93788 (4.011298)

dum05 12.18533 (4.124465)

Number of Observations 71 65 65R-squared 0.1979 0.4096 0.5597

Part 4: Proposals for SBCSCPart 4: Proposals for SBCSCSam MacDonald &Sam MacDonald &Mary Kate SweeneyMary Kate Sweeney

Mobility Focus Group

• Met with curriculum leaders on October 5, 2007

• Shared anecdotes about experiences with mobility in SBCSC

• Made recommendations for dealing with mobility issues

Causes of Mobility in South Bend

• Temporary movement to native country

• Eviction • Family issues

• Change of foster homes

• Move between guardians

• Unhappy custodial agreements

• Family member incarcerated

• New family formation

• Parents are angry at the school

• Possibility that the child may be tested

• Escape from bad neighborhoods

• Move for diversity• Leaving public school

for home school

Surprises• No standardized way of changing schools within the corporation

• No standard way of welcoming new students• Pearly has Resource and Parent Rooms

• Transfer of records is not systematic• No attempt to educate parents about the costs of mobility

• No systemic recording of mobility

Recommendations• Keep child in the same school for at least an entire school year

• Provide options to families to prevent change of schools

• Get the whole community to help • ie: the Mayor; Casie Center

• Provide transportation no matter where the students live

Casie Center• Elementary School Truancy Prevention Program

• Work with the schools• Student tracking• Folder of information• Truancy prevention specialist• 6th grade• Middle schools

• School Switching• Testimonies

Parent Questionnaires• Aim is to provide the SBCSC with data on mobility

• An addition to the withdraw and registration paperwork

• Parents fill them out when withdrawing and reenrolling child

• Design incorporates information from the focus group meeting

Withdrawal Questionnaire

• Track movement within SBCSC and to other school corporations

• Time frame for reenrollment• Frequency of mobility• Problems child has experienced due to change of school

• Reasons for withdrawal• Ways SBCSC can assist the parent• Desire to stay in current school• Need for transportation

Registration Questionnaire

• Child’s previous school• Time lapsed since withdrawal• Frequency of school changes • Problems child has experienced due to change of school

• Reason for mobility• Ways SBCSC can assist the parent• Desire to stay at previous school• Need for transportation to previous school

Information Pamphlet for

Parents• Changing schools?...Some things to think about

Part 5: Migration from Part 5: Migration from IllinoisIllinois

Nick DePrey &Nick DePrey &Andrew MarcheseAndrew Marchese

Cost of Living Analysis

• Cost of living index: 4th quarter 2005

South Bend

Chicago Joliet-Will County

Composite Index

95.1 117.4102.8

Grocery Items

90.7 119105.7

Housing 88.5 133.5 107.2

Utilities 117.7 110.9 103.3

Transportation

97.9 112.1103.8

Health Care 94.7 108.2 100.1

Miscellaneous

95 107.698

Cost of Living Analysis

• Comparisons:• If you live in Joliet and you have a $10,000

consumption bundle, to consume the same bundle, you need…

• South Bend is not only a much cheaper city to live in than south Chicago, it is the cheapest of all the nearby metropolises

South Bend Champagne Peoria Springfield Chicago

$9,205.02 $9,588.56 $9,686.19 $9,216.98 $11,321.98

Analysis of TANF Grants

• Illinois • 2006 estimate: 1.48 million people living in poverty, 12.0%

• June 2007: • 32,000 families received TANF cash grants, 77,000 total persons

• Average per case cash grant: $239/month, $2868/year • Average per person grant: $99/month• Total grants: roughly $7.6 million

• In 2006 only 18.1% of all residents eligible for TANF received it

• TANF participation steadily declined in Illinois since 2000 while poverty rates, and food stamp and family health plan participation rates have risen.

Analysis of TANF Grants

• Indiana• June 2007:

• 38,000 families received TANF, 103,618 total recipients

• Total grants: $7,904,857• Average grants: $204.47/month, $2453.64/yr• Average grant per person: $76.29

• Incentive to move to Indiana: direct cash grants are more readily available

Questions?

Documents

The Effect of Student Mobility on School Achievement: