poverty achievement Web - University of Southern Maine...poverty and average student achievement are...

TheRelationshipsBetweenSchoolPovertyandStudentAchievementinMaine

DavidL.Silvernail

JamesE.Sloan

ChelseaR.Paul

AmyF.Johnson

ErikaK.Stump

MaineEducationPolicyResearchInstitute

UniversityofSouthernMaine

January2014

A Center of the 140 School Street, Gorham, Maine 04038 School of Education and (207) 780-5044; FAX (207) 228-8143; TTY (207) 780-5646 Human Development www.cepare.usm.maine.edu A member of the University of Maine System

PublishedbytheMaineEducationPolicyResearchInstituteintheCenterforEducationPolicy,AppliedResearch,andEvaluation(CEPARE)intheSchoolofEducationandHumanDevelopment,UniversityofSouthernMaine.

CEPAREprovidesassistancetoschooldistricts,agencies,organizations,anduniversityfacultybyconductingresearch,evaluation,andpolicystudies.

Inaddition,CEPAREco‐directstheMaineEducationPolicyResearchInstitute(MEPRI),aninstitutejointlyfundedbytheMaineStateLegislatureandtheUniversityofMaineSystem.ThisinstitutewasestablishedtoconductstudiesonMaineeducationpolicyandtheMainepubliceducationsystemfortheMaineLegislature.

StatementsandopinionsbytheauthorsdonotnecessarilyreflectapositionorpolicyoftheMaineEducationPolicyResearchInstitute,noranyofitsmembers,andnoofficialendorsementbythemshouldbeinferred.

TheUniversityofSouthernMainedoesnotdiscriminateonthebasisofrace,color,religion,sex,sexualorientation,nationaloriginorcitizenshipstatus,age,disability,orveteran'sstatusandshallcomplywithSection504,TitleIX,andtheA.D.Ainemployment,education,andinallotherareasoftheUniversity.TheUniversityprovidesreasonableaccommodationstoqualifiedindividualswithdisabilitiesuponrequest.

ThisstudywasfundedbytheMaineStateLegislature,andtheUniversityofMaineSystem.

Center for Education Policy, Applied Research, and Evaluation

TableofContents

ExecutiveSummary..……………………………………………………................... i

Overview………………………………………………………………….......................... 1

Background………………………………………………………………………………... 1

Findings………………………………………………………………………………………. 6

AdditionalSchoolVariables…………………………………...…………………... 13

AdditionalStudentVariables…………………………………………………….... 23

MultipleRegressionAnalysis……………………………………………………… 27

Discussion………………….………………………………………………………………. 29

Reference……………………………………………………………………………………. 32

Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………. 34

AppendixA………………………………………………………………………………... 35

AppendixB………………………………………………………………………………... 37

AppendixC………………………………………………………………………………… 39

i

ExecutiveSummary

ThegoalofthisstudywastoexaminetherelationshipsbetweenschoollevelpovertyfoundinMaineschoolsandstudentacademicperformance.Theevidenceclearlyshowsthatthereisarelationship.Asthepercentofpovertyincreasesinaschool,studentperformancedeclines.Butthepovertylevelalonedoesnotexplainthewidevariationsinperformancefoundacrossthestate.Thelevelofpovertyinaschoolisthesinglebestpredictorofaveragestudentperformance,butotherfactorsalsoplayaroleininfluencingstudentachievement.Someofthesefactorsincludethetypeofschoolstudentsareenrolledin,yearsofteachingexperienceoftheschoolstaff,andtheeducationlevelsofteachers.Evidencewasalsofoundforsomehigherpovertyschoolsthatweredefyingtheodds.Evenwithhigherlevelsofpovertyintheirschools,theseschoolsweresuccessfulinproducinghigherlevelsofstudentperformance.

Twoadditionalcharacteristicswerediscoveredforstudentperformanceinhigherpovertyschools.First,overallperformancediffersinK‐8andmiddleschools.ThenegativerelationshipbetweenpovertylevelsandperformanceisweakerforK‐8schools.MoreofthehigherpovertyK‐8schoolsareperformingbetterthanhigherpovertymiddleschools.

Second,thelevelsofpovertyfoundinschoolsnotonlyaffectedchildreninpovertybutalsothosenotinpoverty.Studentsinhigherpovertyschoolswhodonotqualifyforfreeorreducedlunchesdonotperformaswellastheircohortsinlowerpovertyschools.Whatisuncleararethecausesofthislowerperformanceofnon‐povertychildreninhigherpovertyschools.

Withoutquestion,theevidenceexaminedinthisstudyindicatesthatlevelsofschoolpovertyandaveragestudentachievementarerelated.Themagnitudeoftherelationshipvaries,andotherfactorsarerelatedtopovertyandachievement,butthesinglebestpredictorofperformanceisschoolpovertylevel.Thebrightnewsisthatthereareschoolsatalllevelsthatdefytheodds.Studentachievementisbetterthanpredictedinspiteofschoolpovertylevels.Theseschoolsmayprovidegoodmodelsforotherschoolstoemulate.Inaddition,theevidencefromthisstudyindicatesthatthereismoretolearnabouttheperformanceofsometypesofschoolconfigurations(i.e.,K‐8schools)andtheperformanceofnon‐povertychildreninhigherpovertyschools.

1

TheRelationshipsBetweenPovertyandStudentAchievementinMaine

Schools

MaineEducationPolicy UniversityofSouthernResearchInstitute Maine

Overview

WhataretherelationshipsbetweenpovertyinMaineschoolsandstudentacademic

performance?Dostudentsinhigherpovertyschoolsperformpoorlyonstateachievement

tests?IsthereanyconnectionbetweenMaine’snewA‐Fschoolgradingsystemand

poverty?Arethereotherfactorsthatarerelatedtopovertyandstudentperformance?

AttherequestoftheJointStandingCommitteeonEducationandCulturalAffairsof

theMaineLegislature,theMaineEducationPolicyResearchInstitute(MEPRI)has

conductedananalysisofpovertyandachievementinMaine.MEPRIisanon‐partisan

researchinstitutefundedjointlybytheMainelegislatureandtheUniversityofMaine

System,andchargedwithconductingpolicyresearchattherequestoftheLegislature.

ThisBriefpresentsthefindingsfromaseriesofanalysesdesignedtoexplorethe

connectionsbetweenpovertyandstudentachievementinMaineschools.Itexploreshow

povertyandperformancearerelated,andexaminesotherschoolandstudent

characteristicsthatmaybeconnectedtostudentperformance.

Background

Ifwedonotfindwaystoreducethegrowinginequalityineducation

outcomes‐‐‐betweentherichandthepoor‐‐‐schoolswillnolongerbethe

greatequalizerwewantthemtobe(p.10).

Thiswastheconclusionreachedbyoneresearcher(Reardon,2013)afterexaminingthe

incomeachievementgapintheUnitedStatesoverthelastfivedecades.Theincome

achievementgapreferstothedisparityinstudentachievementbetweenchildrencoming

fromhigherincomefamiliesandchildreninlowerincomefamilies.Historicallychildren

fromhigherincomehouseholdshavescoredbetteronstandardizedteststhanstudents

comingfromlessaffluenthouseholds.Thegapinperformancehasexistedfordecadesand

2

littleprogresshasbeenmadeinclosingthegap.Infact,theevidenceindicatesthatthegap

hasonlybecomewider.

Afterexaminingtherelationshipbetweenstudentperformanceandfamilyincome

overthepast50years,Reardon(2013)foundthat:

Amongchildrenborninthe1950s,1960s,andearly1970s,thereadingachievementgapbetweenthosefromhigh‐incomefamilies(atthe90thpercentileoftheincomedistribution)andthosefromlow‐incomefamilies(atthe10thpercentile)wasabout0.9ofastandarddeviation....[T]hisgapbegantowidenbeginningwiththecohortsborninthemid‐1970s.Amongthoseborn20–25yearslater,thegapinstandardizedtestscoreswasroughly1.25standarddeviations—40percentlargerthanthegapseveraldecadesearlier(p.10).

Further,oneinfivechildrenintheUnitedstatesarefromhouseholdsbelowthe

povertyline,andamongthemostdevelopednationsintheworldtheUnitedStates

rankssecondhighestinchildpoverty(UNICEF,2012).

Theeffectsofthewideningincomeachievementgapandpovertyarewell

documented.Considerableresearchhasbeenconductedovertheyearsinattempts

tounderstandthecausesofthegapanditseffectsonstudents.Aconcisesynopsisof

theresearchfindingshasbeencompiledbytheTauckFamilyFoundation(2013).

TheFoundationreportedthatresearchershavefound:

1. Childrenfromlow‐incomehouseholdsenteringkindergartenandfirstgradearealreadysignificantlybehindtheirmoreaffluentpeersintermsofacademicknowledge,andcognitiveandsocialskills.

2. Thirdgraderswhobothliveinpovertyandreadbelowgradelevelarethreetimesmorelikelytodropoutofhighschoolthanstudentswhohaveneverbeenpoor.

3. Fourthgradersfromlow‐incomefamiliesarelikelytobeacademicallythreeyearsbehindtheirpeersfromaffluentfamilies.

4. Sixthgradersinhigh‐povertyschoolswhofailmathorEnglishorreceiveanunsatisfactorybehaviorgradehavea75%chanceofdroppingoutofhighschool.

5. Studentsinlow‐performingschoolsarefivetimesmorelikelytodropoutofhighschoolthantheirpeersfromhigh‐performingschools.

6. Highschoolseniorsfromlow‐incomefamiliesare,onaverage,fouryearsbehindtheirhigher‐incomepeers.

3

7. Onlyoneoutoftwostudentsfromlow‐incomefamiliesgraduatehighschool.

8. Nationally,only33%ofhighschoolstudentsfromlow‐incomehouseholdsgotocollegeandonly8%willcompleteadegreewithinsixyearsofmatriculation.

Thisisjustarepresentativesampleofthefindingsoftherelationshipbetween

povertyandstudentachievement.Overtheyearsithasbecomeclearerandclearerthatthe

twoareconnectedinsomefashion,andthattheeffectsarefarreaching.Whataboutherein

Maine?Howarethetwoconnected?Whataretheeffectsonstudentlearning?Doother

factorscontributetothegap?

Oneofthemosthelpfulwaystoexaminetherelationshipbetweenpovertyand

studentachievementistouseastandardstatisticaltoolspecificallydesignedtocreatea

coefficientrepresentingthedegreeoftherelationshipbetweentwoormorevariables.This

iscalledaCorrelationCoefficient.InthecaseofMaine,thecorrelationcoefficientwould

representthedegreeofrelationshipbetweenpoverty,asmeasuredbythepercentof

studentsinaschoolwhoqualifyforthefreeorreducedlunchprogram,andaverage

studentperformanceontheNewEnglandCommonAssessmentProgram(NECAP),a

standardizedmathematicsandreadingachievementtestadministeredyearlyinMaine,

Vermont,andNewHampshire.

Acorrelationcoefficientmayrangefrom‐1.00to+1.00,withvaluescloserto1.00

representingstrongerrelationships,andvaluescloserto0representinglittleorno

relationshipsbetweenvariables.Thesigns(+or‐)depictthedirectionoftherelationship.

Aplus(+)valueindicatesthatasonevariableincreasestheothervariablealsoincreases.

Forexample,asthetemperatureincreases,icecreamsalesincrease.Aminus(‐)value

indicatestheopposite;asonevariableincreasestheothervariabledecreases.Asthe

temperaturedecreases,heatingbillsincrease.

Figure1depictswhatiscalledaperfectpositiverelationship(i.e.,thecorrelation

coefficient=+1.00).Ifthisrepresentedtherelationshipbetweenwarmerweatherandice

creamsales,andeachdotrepresentingaspecifictemperatureandsaleslevel,thenallthe

dotswouldendupinastraightline.Inthiscase,ifoneknewtheexacttemperatureone

couldpredicttheexactamountoficecreamsalesandbeaccurateintheprediction100%of

thetime.

4

Figure 1: Perfect Positive Correlation (+1.00)

Inreality,fewsituationsresultinperfectrelationships(i.e.,acorrelation

coefficient=1.00).Eachincreaseindegreesofheatdoesnotalwaystranslateintoequal

increasesinicecreamsales.Forexample,ifoneweretographtherelationship

temperaturedeclinesandincreasedheatingbills,onewouldfindanegativerelationship,

onethatisalmostperfect,butinsomecasesthecolderweathermightnotalwaysresultin

higherheatingbills.ThisrelationshipmightlooklikethatinFigure2,whereamajorityof

thedotsfallinastraightline,butnotallofthem.Thestraightlineiscalledthe“lineofbest

fit”,alineclosesttothemostdots.

Thelineofbestfitrepresentsthepredictionline.Asmaybeseenfromthefigure,

predictingheatingbillsfromthetemperaturewouldnotalwaysresultinacorrect

prediction(i.e.,sometimestheactualintersectionofthetwovariableswouldproduceadot

notontheline).Howaccuratewouldthepredictionbeinthiscase?Theequationfor

determiningthiswouldproduceadegreeofaccuracyequalto90%(Accuracy=‐.952x

100%).Instatisticallanguagethismeansthat90%ofthevarianceinheatingbillsmaybe

explainedbythecoldertemperatures.

WoolfadaptedfromStockburger2013

5

Figure 2: Very High Negative Correlation (‐0.95)

Iftherewerelittleornorelationshipbetweentwovariablesthegraphmightlook

likeFigure3.Inthiscase,predictingonevariablefromtheotherisvirtuallyimpossibleand

almostalwaysinaccuratebecauseonly6%ofthevarianceisexplained.

Figure 3: Small Negative Correlation Coefficient (‐.25)



6

Findings

Giventhisbriefoverviewofcorrelations,whatarethecorrelationsbetweenschool

povertylevelsandstudentperformanceinMaine?Figure4reportsthecorrelationfound

betweenthesetwovariableswhenallMaineschools(elementary,K‐8,middle,andhigh

school)areincluded.Theverticallinerepresentsstudentperformanceintermsofz‐scores,

amethodforcreatingequivalentscoresacrossmultiplegradelevels.Thehorizontalline

representsthepercentofpupilswhoqualifyforfreeorreducedlunchesineachschool.

SeveralpiecesofimportantinformationareshowninFigure4.First,the“lineofbest

fit”slopesdownfromlefttorightinthefigure.Thismeansthatthereisanegative

relationshipbetweenpovertyandachievementinMaineschools.Aspovertylevelsincrease

inaschool,studentachievementgoesdown.Second,thecorrelationcoefficient

representedinthegraphis‐.5874.Thiscorrelationcoefficientisconsideredtobea

moderateone,meaningthatinamajorityofcases,asthepovertylevelincreases,

Figure 4: Correlation Between Poverty and Achievement For All Schools

decreased.Butthisisnottrueinallcases.Infact,ifonetriedtopredicttheachievement

levelforaschoolonlyknowingthepovertylevelinthatschool,onewouldonlybecorrect

35%ofthetime(Accuracy=‐.58742x100%).Inessenceonly35percentofthevarianceor

differenceinstudentperformanceamongtheschoolsisaccountedforbythepovertylevel

intheschools.Othervariables,inadditiontopoverty,playanimportantroleinexplaining

Z ‐ Score

Percent Free or Reduced Lunch

7

differencesinstudentachievement.

Third,someschoolswithsimilarpovertylevelstootherschoolsarefaringbetter

thanothers.Schoolsdenotedbydotsabovethepredictionlineareschoolsinwhichstudent

performanceisbetterthanpredictedgiventheirpovertylevels.Otherschoolswithsimilar

povertylevelsaredoingworsethanpredicted.Theseareschoolsdenotedbydotsbelow

thepredictionline.Thus,whenallMaineschoolsareconsidered,thereisamoderate

negativecorrelationbetweenpovertylevelsandstudentperformance.Aspovertylevels

increaseperformancedecreases.Butthisisnotalwaystrue.Otherfactorsinfluence

achievementandsomeschoolsareevendoingbetterthanpredictedgiventheirpoverty

levels.

However,whileintheaggregatetherelationshipbetweenpovertylevelsand

studentperformanceisonlymoderate,thepictureissomewhatdifferentateachofthe

elementary,middleschoolandhighschoollevels.Figures5‐7showthesethreeschool

levelrelationships.First,areviewoftheserevealsthattherelationshipisalwaysnegative

Figure 5: Correlation of ‐0.49 Between Poverty and Achievement for K‐5 Schools

ateachschoollevel.Aspovertylevelsgoup,performancegoesdown.Second,andateach

schoollevel,someschoolsaredoingbetterthanpredictedandsomeworse.Someschools

arerepresentedbydotsabovethepredictionline,whileotherschoolsarebelowtheline.

Third,therelationshipsbetweenpovertylevelsandperformancebecomestrongerwith


8

eachschoollevel.

Figure 6: Correlation of ‐0.64 Between Poverty and Achievement for Middle Schools

Figure 7: Correlation of ‐0.79 Between Poverty and Student Achievement for High Schools

ThecorrelationcoefficientsforthethreeschoolgradelevelsappearinTable1.The

correlationgoesfrom‐.493attheelementarylevelto‐.637inmiddleschoolsandto‐.790

inhighschools.TheR2columnreportsthepredictionaccuracyvalue.Theprediction

accuracyisonlyabout25%attheelementarylevel,butincreasestoalittleover60%atthe

highschoollevel.Thesecorrelationsareastrongindicatorthattheimpactsofpovertyare



9

Table 1. Increasing Strength of Relation Between Poverty and Performance in Higher Grades

Correlation with Free & Reduced Lunch Percentage

R2

Grade 4 NECAP ‐.493 .243

Grade 8 NECAP ‐.637 .405

Grade 11 MHSA ‐.790 .624

strongerathighergradelevels,andinalllikelihood,thattheeffectsofpovertyare

cumulative.Schoolpovertylevelsandperformancearemorestronglyrelatedateach

increaseinschoollevel.

Asecondaryanalysisofthe8thgradeperformancesurfacedanimportantdistinction

betweenK‐8schoolsandmiddleschools.Figure8presentsthedataforbothK‐8schools

andmiddleschools.ThereddotsandredpredictionlineareforK‐8schoolsandtheblue

Figure 8. K – 8 and Middle School Poverty and Achievement

dotsandbluelinerepresentmiddleschools.Bothtypesoftheseschoolsincludegrades8

butasmaybeseeninthefigure,8thgradersinK‐8schoolsoverallscoredbetterthantheir

peersinmiddleschools,andahigherpercentoftheK‐8schoolsperformedbetterthan

predicted(i.e.,schoolsthatendedupabovethepredictionline).Whatisparticularly


Key:

o Middle School

o K ‐ 8

10

noteworthyhereisthefactthatK‐8schoolsandmiddleschoolshavesimilarpovertyrates,

51%and47%respectively.Thus,itappearsthattheconnectionbetweenpovertyand8th

gradeperformanceissomewhatweakerinK‐8schoolsincomparisontothemiddleschools.

AsshowninTable1above,thecorrelationcoefficientatthemiddleschoollevelis‐.637

whilethecoefficientattheK‐8schoolsis‐.542.StudentachievementintheseK‐8schoolsis

slightlylessrelatedtotheschoolpovertylevelthaninmiddleschools.

TurningforamomenttoMaine’snewschoolgradingsystem,thequestionbecomes

whataretheconnectionsbetweenschoolpovertylevelsandschoolgrades.Inspring2013

theMaineDepartmentofEducationreleasedanewschoolgradingsystemwheregradesof

A‐FwereassignedtoMaineschoolsdependingupontheschool’sperformanceonthe

NECAP.Manywerequicktopointouttheapparentrelationshipbetweenthegradeaschool

earnedandtheirlettergrade.

Ananalysisofthegradingsystemcompletedforthisstudysupportsthiscontention,

butalsorevealsthattherelationshipismorecomplex.Figure9plotseachelementary

schoolintermsofitspovertylevelanditsassignedgrade.Similarfiguresforthemiddle

Figure 9. Grade 4 School Letter Grades

schoolandhighschoollevelsappearinAppendixA.Thecolorofeachdotdenotesthe

Key:


11

school’sgradeinthenewgradingsystem.Asmaybeseeninthefigure,schoolsearninga

lettergradeofA(green)tendtobeschoolswithlowerlevelsofpoverty(i.e.,more

clusteredtotheleftinthefigure)andschoolsearninggradesofD(purple)andF(red)tend

tobeclusteredtotherightandrepresentinghigherpovertyrates.

However,twootherphenomenaareimportanttopointoutfromthefigure.First,

therearesomeschoolsthatdonotreflectthegeneralpattern.In‐other‐words,some

schoolshavelowerpovertylevelsandstillearnedgradesofCorD,andsomeschoolshave

higherpovertylevelsbutstillearnedgradesofAorB.Second,someschools,regardlessof

theirpovertylevelsareearningbettergradesthanmightbeexpected(i.e.,theyareabove

theline)andothersarenotearninggradesashighasonemightexpect(i.e.,theyarebelow

theline).Thesephenomenasuggestthatthecurrentsystemmightbemoremeaningfulif

povertywasfactoredinwhenassigninggrades.Butitalsosuggeststhatfactorsotherthan

povertymaybeplayingkeyrolesindeterminingschoolperformance.

Whataresomeoftheseotherfactorsthatmayberelatedtoschoolperformance?

Thedatausedinthisstudyweredisaggregatedfurtherinordertodeterminethe

relationshipsbetweenotherselectedvariablesandschoolperformance.Toaccomplishthis

schoolpovertywasexaminedattwolevels.Lowerandhigherlevelsofpovertywere

definedasschoolswithpovertylevelsonestandarddeviationaboveandonestandard

deviationbelowthestateaverage,apracticeoftenusedinresearchtomoreclearlyisolate

theeffectsofvariables.Schoolperformancewasalsoexaminedattwolevels.Schools

performingbetterorworseweredefinedasschoolsfoundaboveandbelowtheprediction

line.

Figure10showsthesetwolevelsofdisaggregationvisuallyforelementaryschools.

SimilarfiguresformiddleandhighschoolsappearinAppendixB.Theverticallinesinside

thefiguremarkthepovertylevelstandarddeviationlines.Schoolstotheleftofthe34.5

povertylinehaveaveragepovertylevelsatorbelow34.5%.Schoolstotherightofthe

secondverticallineareschoolswith68.5%orhigherpovertylevels.Asdescribedinearlier

figures,dotsabovethepredictionlinerepresentschoolsperformingbetterthanexpected

12

Figure 10: Profile of Grade 4 Disaggregated Data

andthosebelowthelineareschoolsperformingworsethanexpected.Inessence,thedata

inthisstudywasbrokendownsothatfourdifferentgroupsofschoolscouldbecompared:

1. lowerpovertyschoolsperformingbetterthanexpected

2. lowerpovertyschoolsperformingworsethanexpected

3. higherpovertyschoolsperformingbetterthanexpected

4. higherpovertyschoolsperformingworsethanexpected

Oncethedatawasdisaggregatedinthisfashion,severaladditionalcharacteristicsof

schoolswereexamined.Theseincludedschoolvariablesoftenthoughttoinfluencestudent

performance,aswellastwoadditionalstudentvariables.However,theanalyseshadtobe

limitedtovariablesforwhichtherewasstatewidedataavailable.Thesevariableswere:

SchoolVariables

1. schoolsize

2. perpupilvaluations

3. perpupilexpenditures,expendituresbycategoriesofspending

4. percentofspecialneedsstudents

5. teacher‐studentratios

6. teacherexperienceandeducationlevels

Inaddition,twostudentlevelvariableswereexplored.Thesewere:

1

2

3

4


13

StudentVariables

1. schoolaveragedailyattendance

2. qualifyingforfreeorreducedlunch.

AdditionalSchoolVariables

Thesizeofaschool,intermsofstudentenrollment,isoftenthoughttohavean

impactonstudentachievement.Figures11‐12reportthedataforschoolsize,byschool

levels,povertylevels,andbypredictedperformance.Schoolsizeisreportedonthevertical

axis,andschoollevelsbypovertylevelsandpredictedperformancearereportedalongthe

horizontalaxis.Forexample,inK‐5schoolstheaveragesizeoftheschoolsinlowpoverty

schoolsthatdonotperformaswellaspredictedis242pupils,whereastheaveragesizeof

Figure 11: K‐5 and K‐8 School Size Relationships

theselowpovertyschoolsthatareperformingbetterthanpredictedis372pupils.Thebar

graphsfortheotherthreetypesofschoolsinFigures10‐11arereadinasimilarfashion.

242 253

323

146

372

272 260

183

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Enrollm

ent

Lower Poverty High PovertyK ‐ 5 Schools

School Size

Lower Poverty High Poverty K ‐ 8 Schools

14

Figure 12: Middle and High Schools Relationships

Overall,theschoolsizesinhigherperformingschools,bothinlowerandhigherpoverty

levelschools,arehigherthanothertypesofschools.However,trendsaremixed,with

smallerenrollmentsalsooccurringathigherperformingschoolsatsomegradesand

povertylevels.Thus,additionalanalysisisneededbeforetherelationshipbetweenschool

size,povertylevelsandstudentperformanceisclearer.

Asecondareathatwasexploredwastherelationshipbetweenschoolpovertylevels,

perpupilvaluations,andstudentperformance.Perpupilvaluationsareonewayto

measurecommunitywealth.Higherperpupilvaluationswould,atleastostensibly,denote

awealthiercommunity.Figures13‐14depicttherelationshipofcommunitywealthto

performance.Inallbuttwocases,lowerpovertyschools,boththoseperformingbetterthan

predictedandeventhoseperformingworsethanpredicted,havehigherperpupil

valuations.Thisisnottoosurprisinggiventhatschoolpovertylevelsaredirectlyrelatedto

communitypropertywealth.

544

265

628

248

410

502

656

202

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Enrollm

ent

Lower Poverty High PovertyMiddle Schools

School Size

Lower Poverty High Poverty High Schools

15

Figure 13: K‐5 and K‐8 Schools Per Pupil Valuation Relationships

Figure 14: Middle and High Schools Per Pupil Valuations

Athirdareathatwasexploredisanareathatisoftenthoughttohaveanimpacton

howwellaschoolperforms.Thisisthepercentofpupilsinaschoolwhohavespecialneeds

andneedspecialservices.Figures15‐16reportspecialneedsratesinschoolsintermsof

thepercentofthestudentpopulationwhoqualifyforspecialservices.Asshowninthe

figures,higherpovertyschoolshavehigherpercentagesoftheirstudentswithspecial

needs,buttherearenoconsistentresultsintermsofstudentperformance.Forexample,

lowerperformingmiddleschoolalsohavehigherlevelsofspecialneedsstudents,butinthe

caseofK‐8schoolshigherperformingschoolshavehigherlevelsofstudentswithspecial

needs,regardlessoftheirpovertylevels.Andinhighschoolstheperformanceismixed

729 745900

191

1,171

598

2,687

874

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Per Pupil Valuations


Per Pupil Valuation


2,720

600980

501

1,058718

1,396

650

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Per Pupil Valuations


Per Pupil Valuation


16

betweenhigherandlowerpovertyschools.Consequently,therelationshipbetweenspecial

educationrates,povertyandperformanceisatbestinconsistentandunclear.

Figure 15: K – 5 and K – 8 Schools Special Education Relationships

Figure 16: Middle and High Schools Special Education Relationships

Turningtoananalysisofothercharacteristicsfoundinschools,threewere

examined:(1)student‐teacherratios;(2)teachingexperience;and(3)teachereducation

levels.Allthreehavebeenfoundinsomecasestoberelatedinonewayoranotherto

studentperformance.

Inthecaseofstudent‐teacherratios,student‐teacherratiosareoftenthoughttobea

keyingredientindeterminingstudentachievement.However,thenationalresearchis

somewhatmixed.Inmanycasesresearchershavenotfoundastrongconnectionbetween

ratiosandstudentperformance.Theexceptionsareincaseswherethedifferenceinratios

isverylarge(e.g.,35:1ratiosversus15:1ratios).Someresearchershavefoundthatmore

14%

17%

10%

13%14%

17%15%

17%

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Percent En

rollm

ent


Special Education


15%

20%

16%

20%

13%15% 14%

22%

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Percent En

rollm

ent


Special Education


17

favorableratiosbenefitcertaintypesofstudents.Themostnotablestudyinthisareaisthe

TennesseeSTARstudy,whereanexperimentalresearchdesignwasusedtoexaminethe

impactsofmorefavorablestudent‐teachersratiosinearlyelementarygrades.The

researchersfoundthatthelowerratioshelpedimproveacademiclearning,particularlyfor

studentsfromlowincomeminorityhouseholds.

Figures17‐18reportthestudent‐teacherratiosfoundinthefourtypesofschools

andrelativetotheirpovertylevelsandstudentperformance.Again,therelationships

appeartobemixed.Inallcases,higherpovertyschoolshavemorefavorableratios.There

arefewerstudentsperteacherintheseschools.Butintermsofperformance,amajorityof

Figure 17: K – 5 and K – 8 Schools Student – Teacher Ratios Relationships

Figure 18: Middle and High Schools Student – Teacher Ratios Relationships

schoolsperformingbetterthanpredictedhadslightlymorestudentsperteacher.Thus,it

10.49.4

11.3

9.0

11.29.9 9.6 9.3

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Ratios


Student ‐ Teacher Ratios


11.49.7

11.59.7

10.8 10.9 11.5

9.3

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Years of Experience


Student ‐ Teacher Ratios


18

appearsthattheperformanceofschools,bothhigherandlowerpovertyschoolsis

unrelatedtostudent‐teacherratiosfoundinMaineschools.

Anotherareawherethereappearstobelittlerelationshipbetweenlowerand

higherpovertyschoolsisinteachers’yearsofteachingexperience.Somenationalstudies

havefoundaconnectionbetweenteachingexperienceandachievement.Performance

tendstobehigherinschoolswithmoreexperiencedteachers,buttheconnectionisrather

weak.ItappearsthisisthecasehereinMaine.Figures19‐20reporttheyearsofteaching

experiencefordifferentlevelsofschools,poverty,andstudentachievement.Atsome

schoollevelswhereschoolsperformingbetterthanpredictedhaveonaverageslightly

Figure 19: K – 5 and K – 8 Schools Teaching Experience Relationships

Figure 20: Middle and High Schools Teaching Experience Relationships

moreexperiencedteachers,butnotinallcases.

18.3

16.1

17.6 17.8

18.3

17.617.9

16.6

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Years of Experience


Teaching Experience


16.7 16.715.2

17.317.3 17.7 17.2

14.4

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Years of Experience


Teaching Experience


19

Anareawheretheredoesappeartobearelationshipbetweenpovertylevel,school

level,andstudentperformanceisinteachereducationlevels.Figures21‐22reportteacher

educationlevelsintermsofthepercentofteachersindifferenttypeschoolswhohave

earnedamaster’sdegreeorhigher.Likethenationalresearch,teachereducationlevels

Figure 21: K – 5 and K – 8 Schools Teacher Education Relationships

appeartoberelatedtoperformanceintheupperschoolgrades.Inallcases,ahigher

percentofMaineteachersinlowerpovertyschoolsholdmoreadvancededucationdegrees

thanMaineteachersinhigherpovertyschools.Butsomeofthelargestdifferencesare

foundinK‐8schoolandhighschoolhigherpovertyschools.Somedifferencesarefoundat

Figure 22: Middle and High Schools Teacher Education Relationships

themiddleschoollevel,butthesedifferencesbecomesubstantiallygreaterinK‐8andhigh

schools.HigherpovertyK‐8schoolsperformingbetterthanpredictedhavealmosttwiceas

48%

37% 36%

16%

55%

38%

47%

31%

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Prercent Masters +


Teacher Education Level


45%38%

52%

33%

59%

41%

63%

40%

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Percent Masters +


Teacher Education Level


20

manyteacherswithadvancededucationdegrees,andthepercentagedifferenceatthehigh

schoollevelis7%.Itappearsthateducationlevelmaybeplayingapartinperformancein

higherpovertyschools.

Tosummarizethefindingsfromthesesixareasthen,higherpovertyschoolstendto

besmallerinsize,areinlesswealthycommunities,butgenerallyhavesimilarpercentages

ofstudentswithspecialneeds.Whilethereislittledifferenceinstudent‐teacherratiosin

mostcases,theredoappeartobesomedifferenceintherelationshipsbetweenteaching

experienceandteachereducationlevelsforsometypesofschool.Basedonthese

conditions,onewouldexpecttofindsomedifferencesinexpenditurelevelsbetweenlower

andhigherpovertyschools,andpossiblybetweenschoolsperformingbetterorworsethan

predictedintermsofstudentachievement.

Figures23‐28reportthreetypesofperpupilexpenditures:(1)totalperpupil

expenditures:(2)perpupilexpendituresforinstructionalone;and(3)perpupilspecial

educationexpenditures.Inthecaseoftotalperpupilexpenditures,thedatainFigures23‐

24indicatethatwiththeexceptionofK‐8schools,lowerpovertyschoolsspendmoreper

pupilthanhigherpovertyschools.Butinthecaseofschoolsperformingbetterthan

predicted,perpupilexpendituresarehigherinlowerpovertyschoolswhereastheper

Figure 23: K – 5 and K – 8 Schools Per Pupil Expenditures Relationships

pupilexpenditureslevelsaremixed(i.e.,sometimeshigherandsometimeslower)inhigher

povertyschools.Forexample,lowerperforminghigherpovertymiddleschoolsspendmore

10,665 10,968 10,526

15,235

12,41210,893

14,32912,514

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Dollars


Per Pupil Expenditures


21

thanhigherperforminghigherpovertymiddleschools,buttheperpupilexpenditurelevels

inhighschoolsarereversed.

Figure 24: Middle and High Schools Per Pupil Expenditures Relationships

Whatabouthowschoolsspendmoney?Aretheredifferencesinhowmuchschools

spendonregularinstructiondependingupontheirpovertylevelsandperformance?

Figures25‐26reportthepercentageofperpupilexpendituresschoolsspendonregular

instruction,whereregularinstructionisdefinedasincludingallclassroomrelated

expenditures,excludingspecialeducation.Somewhatsurprisinglythereisconsiderable

commonalityinthepercentagesdifferenttypeschoolsspendonregularinstruction.Most

Figure 25: Figure 25: K – 5 and K – 8 Schools Per Pupil Regular Instruction Relationships

rangebetween52‐55%.TheoneexceptionislowerpovertyK‐8schools,butonlyafew

suchschoolswereincludedinthisanalysissotheexceptionmayberelatedtothesample

size.Itisofsomenote,however,thathigherpovertyhighschoolsspendasmallerpercent

14,706

11,074 11,452 11,07612,665

9,436

13,233 12,669

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Dollars


Per Pupil Expenditures


56% 52%

64%56%55% 51% 53% 50%

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Percent


Per Pupil Regular Instruction Percent


22

onregularinstructionthananyotherschooltype.Anadditionalanalysisrevealedthatthis

wasnotrelatedtovocationaleducationexpenditures;alltypesofhighschoolshadsimilar

levelsofvocationaleducationexpenditures.

Figure 26: Middle and High Schools Per Pupil Regular Instruction Relationships

Athirdanalysisofexpenditureslookedatthepercentschoolswerespendingon

providingspecialeducation,andtheseresultsappearinFigures27‐28.Thepercentagesare

verysimilarforK‐5schools,butquitedifferentinothertypesofschools,withnoconsistent

patterns.HigherperforminghigherpovertyK‐8schoolsspendahigherpercentageoftheir

expendituresonspecialeducation,butitisjusttheoppositeinhighschools.Someofthese

Figure 27: K – 5 and K – 8 Schools Per Pupil Special Education Expenditures Relationships

58%

48% 50% 49%55%

51% 53%47%

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Percent


Per Pupil Regular Instruction Percent


19%21%

16%13%

20% 20% 20% 20%

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Percent Expenditure


Percent Per Pupil Special Education Percent


23

Figure 28: Middle and High School Per Pupil Special Education Expenditures Relationships

differencesmayberelatedtodifferentlevelsofspecialneedsandthecostofproviding

servicesfoundindifferenttypesschools,buttheanalysisearlierofthepercentofspecial

needsstudentsfoundindifferentschoolsdoesnottrackinasimilarfashionin

expenditures.In‐other‐words,thepercentspentonspecialeducationdoesnotalways

matchthepercentofspecialneedsstudentsfoundinschools.

AdditionalStudentVariables

Turningtoadditionalstudentcharacteristics,twospecificoneswereexplored:(1)school

attendance;and(2)freeorreducedlunchstatus.Intermsofstudentattendanceonemight

expecttofindthataveragedailystudentattendancewaslowerinhigherpovertyschools,

andparticularlyhigherpovertyschoolsperformingworsethanpredicted.Butthisisnot

thecaseexceptatthehighschoollevel.AsshowninFigures29–30,attendanceratesare

verysimilarandrangefor93‐96%inmostschools.Theonecasewhereattendancerates

Figure 29: K – 5 and K – 8 Schools Pupil Attendance Relationships

16%

23%21% 22%

18%15%

18% 18%

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Percent Expenditure


Percent Per Pupil Special Education Percent


95%

94%

96%

94%

95%

94%

95%

93%

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Percent Attendan

ce


Pupil Attendance


24

areconsiderablydifferentisinhigherpovertyhighschools.Attendanceratesinthese

schoolsare6‐13%lessthaninlowerpovertyhighschools.Sooutsideofthisonecase,

attendanceratesdonotseemtoberelatedtopovertylevelsandperformance.

Figure 30: Middle and High Schools Percent Attendance Relationships

Lastly,performanceofstudentswhoqualifyforfreeorreducedlunchprogramswas

comparedwiththosestudentswhodonotqualityfortheseprograms.Inessence,

performanceofstudentsinpovertywascomparedwithstudentsoutsideofpoverty.

Figures31‐32comparethemathematicsproficiencyperformanceofstudentsinpovertyat

thefourdifferentschoollevels.Readingproficiencyperformanceprofilesappearin

AppendixC.Threekeyfindingsstandoutfromthisanalysis.First,regardlessoftheschool

Figure 31: K – 5 and K ‐8 Schools Percent Mathematics Proficiency for Students in Poverty

level,lessthan60%ofthestudentswhoqualifyforfreeorreducedlunchprogramsmet

proficiencyinmathematics.Thesameistrueforreading.Second,theperformanceofthese

94% 93% 93%

88%

95% 94% 94%

80%

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Low HighPerf. Perf.

Percent Attendan

ce


Pupil Attendance


55%54%

51%

54%

Lower HigherPoverty Poverty


Percent Proficient

K ‐ 5 Schools

Mathematics Proficiency

K ‐ 8 Schools

25

studentsdoesnotvarymuchbetweenlowerandhigherpovertyschools.Andthird,the

percentofthesestudentsmeetingmathematicsproficiencydecreasesinhighergrades.For

example,55%ofthesestudentsinlowerpovertyK‐5schoolsmetproficiencyand51%met

proficiencyinhigherpovertyschools.However,thischangesinhighergrades.The

Figure 32: Middle and High Schools Percent Mathematics Proficiency for Students in Poverty

differenceinthepercentofstudentsmeetingproficiencyis60%inlowerpovertymiddle

schoolsandonly39%inhigherpovertyschools.Althoughnotaswideadifference,the

sameistrueatthehighschoollevel(basedon11thgradeperformance).Thisevidence

suggestsonceagainthattherelationshipbetweenpovertyandstudentperformance

becomestrongerintheuppergrades.

Whatabouttheperformanceofstudentsnotinpoverty?Thisevidenceappearsin

Figures33–34.ThepercentofthesestudentsmeetingproficiencyissimilarinK–5

schoolsbutchangesquitedramaticallyinotherschoollevels.Only64%ofnon‐poverty

Figure 33: K – 5 and K – 8 Schools Percent Mathematics Proficiency for Students Not in Poverty

60%

37%39%28%



Percent Proficient

Middle Schools


High Schools

81% 86%76%

64%



Percent Proficient

K ‐ 5 Schools


K ‐ 8 Schools

26

studentsinK–8higherpovertyschoolsmetmathematicsproficiency,andthisdecreases

to54%inmiddleschoolsandevenfurtherto44%inhighschools.Atthesametime,86%

ofnon‐povertystudentsinlowerpovertyK–8schoolsmetproficiency,and82%inmiddle

Figure 34: Middle and High Schools Percent Mathematics Proficiency for Students Not in Poverty

schools.Whilethispercentagedecreasedatthehighschoollevelitstillisconsiderably

higherthannon‐povertystudentsinhigherpovertyhighschools.Thissuggestsnon‐

povertystudentsinhigherpovertyschoolsdonotperformaswellastheirnon‐poverty

peersinlowerpovertyschools.

Thus,tosummarizethesedisaggregatedanalyses,itappearsthatwhilethereare

somedifferencesinthecharacteristicsoflowerandhigherpovertyschoolsthedifference

inmanycasesappeartobesmall.Higherpovertyschoolstendtobesmallerandarelocated

inlesswealthycommunities.Inmostcasesspecialeducationratesaresimilaracross

schools,andexpenditurewhilesomewhathigherinsomeschools,allschoolsspendsimilar

percentagesoftheirexpendituresonregularinstructionandspecialeducation.Student‐

teacherratiosandschoolattendanceratestendtobesimilarormixedacrossschooltypes.

On‐the‐other‐hand,theanalysesappearedtorevealsomedifferenceinthelower

andhigherpovertyschoolsinsomeareas.ThesewereincomparingK‐8schoolsand

middleschools.Thesewerealsointermsofteachingexperienceandeducationlevelof

teachers.

82%

67%54%

44%



Percent Proficient

Middle Schools


High Schools

27

MultipleRegressionAnalyses

Toexplorethesecharacteristicsfurtherandtodeterminehowthesecharacteristics

mayinteractinexplainingdifferenceinstudentperformance,threestepwisemultiple

regressionswerecomputedforthethreeschoollevels.Multipleregressionisastatistical

techniquefordeterminingtheamountofvarianceaccountedforwithaspecificgroupof

variables.Itisusedtoidentifythebestsetofvariablesthatwillbestpredictacertain

outcome,inthiscasestudentperformance.Thestepwisefeatureallowstheresearcherto

determinewhatisthebestsinglepredictorofaspecificoutcome,thenwhatarethebest

twopredictors,andsoon.Calculationsendwhenaddinganotherpredictordoesnot

significantlyimprovetheprediction.

Basedontheevidencedescribedabove,sevenvariableswereincludedinthe

regressionanalysis,andregressionswerecalculatedforthreegradelevels.Theseven

variableswere:(1)percentschoolpoverty;(2)K‐8typeofschool;(3)schoolsize;(4)

percentschoolspecialeducation;(5)teachingexperience;(6)teachereducationlevels;and

(7)perpupilregularinstructionexpenditures.

ThestepwiseregressionforGrade4appearsinTable2.Inthiscaseonlythreeofthe

sevenvariablessignificantlypredictedperformance.Thesewerepercentschoolpoverty,

beingfromaK‐8typeofschoolandteachingexperience.Asexpected,schoollevelpoverty

levelswasthebestsinglepredictorofstudentperformance,followedbytypeofschooland

teachingexperience.Togetherthethreeonlyaccountforapproximately28%ofthe

variance.Toputthisanotherway,72%ofthedifferenceinperformanceinGrade4is

attributabletootherfactorsbesidesthesethree.

Table 2. Grade 4 Regression

Regression # Variable Name R‐square

Significance Level

1 Percent Eligible for Free Reduced Lunch 2013 .256 <.001***

2 K‐8 School .272 <.001***

3 Teacher Ave. Years of Experience .284 <.001***

28

Theamountofvarianceaccountedforincreasesatthe8thGradelevel.Asmaybe

seeninTable3,alittleoveronehalfofthedifferenceinstudentperformanceinGrade8is


Regression # Variable Name R‐square

Significance Level


2 K‐8 School .496 <.001***

3 Teacher Education (Percent MA or higher) .524 <.001***

relatedtopovertylevels,beinginaK‐8school,andtheeducationlevelofteachers.Teacher

educationlevelreplacesteachingexperienceasasignificantpredictorofstudent

performance.ButasinthecaseofGrade4performance,thepercentofstudentsinpoverty

inthe8thGradeisthesinglebestpredictorofperformance.

Teachereducationlevelalsohelpsexplainthedifferenceonperformanceatthe11th

Grade.AsshowninTable4,percentofpovertyisthesinglebestpredictor,followedbyper

pupilregularinstructionspending,andteachereducationlevels.Togethertheyexplain

70%ofthedifferenceinstudentperformanceacrossschoolpovertylevels.Takentogether


Regression #

Variable Name R‐square Significance

Level


2 Per Pupil Spending Regular Instruction 2012 .686 <.001***

3 Teacher Education (Percent MA or higher) .702 <.001***

thesethreeregressionanalysesindicatethatintermsofthevariablesexaminedinthis

study,povertyinclearlyrelatedtostudentperformance.Butinaddition,someother

factorsarerelatedtostudentoutcomes.

29

Discussion

Thegoalofthisstudywastoexploretherelationshipsbetweenschoollevelpoverty

foundinMaineschoolsandstudentacademicperformance.Theevidenceclearlyshows

thatthereisarelationship.Asthepercentofpovertyincreasesinaschool,student

performancedeclines.Butthepovertylevelalonedoesnotexplainthewidevariationsin

performancefoundacrossthestate.True,thelevelofpovertyinaschoolisthesinglebest

predictorofstudentperformance,butotherfactorsalsoplayaroleininfluencingstudent

achievement.Someofthesefactorsincludethetypeofschoolstudentsareenrolledin,

yearsofteachingexperience,andtheeducationlevelsofteachers.

Thus,thefindingsfromthisstudyarecongruentwiththosefoundinotherstudiesof

schoolpovertyanditseffectsonstudentperformance.Schoolswithhigherlevelsof

povertystruggletoachievehighlevelsofstudentachievement.Butsomeofthesehigher

povertyschoolsdefytheodds.Evenwithhigherlevelsofpovertyintheirschools,theyare

successfulinproducinghigherlevelsofstudentperformance.

Thefindingsfromthisstudyalsohaveuncoveredwhatappeartobetwoother

distinguishingcharacteristicsofhigherpovertyschools.First,overallperformancediffers

inK‐8andmiddleschools.Thenegativerelationshipbetweenpovertylevelsand

performanceisweakerforK‐8schools.MoreofthehigherpovertyK‐8schoolsare

performingbetterthanhigherpovertymiddleschools.

Thisfindingisnotwithoutprecedent.Severalresearchersinthepasthaveexplored

therelationshipsbetweenschoolgradeconfigurationandstudentperformance.Inmost

casestheseresearchershavereachedthesameconclusion;schoolgradeconfiguration

matters,particularlyforupperelementarymiddleschoolgrades.Forexample,researchby

Offenberg(2001),andColdarciandHancock(2002)havefoundthatstudentsinK‐8have

highermathematicsandreadingachievement.Similarresultshavebeenfoundin

longitudinalstudiesinWisconsinSimmons&Blyth,1987)andMaryland(BaltimoreCity

Schools,2001).

However,whilethefindingsfromthisstudyaresupportedbyotherstudies,itisnot

alltogetherclearwhytheresultsarebetterforK‐8schools.Someattributeittodifferences

30

instudentpopulationsinthetwotypesofschoolorbetterattendanceinK‐8schools

(Balfanz,2002,Yakimowski&Connolly,2001).Othersattributethehigherperformanceto

differencesinteacherquality(Paglin&Fager,1997)andfewerschooltransitions(Herman,

2004;Simmons&Blyth,1987).Unfortunately,itisnotpossiblewithinthescopeofthis

studytodiscernthecausesforthedifferencesinMaineschools.Furtherresearchisneeded

inthisarea.

Asecondadditionalfindingfromthisstudywasthatthelevelsofpovertyinschools

notonlyaffectedchildreninpovertybutalsothosenotinpoverty.Studentsinhigher

povertyschoolswhodonotqualifyforfreeorreducedlunchesdonotperformaswellas

theircohortsinlowerpovertyschools.Thisfindingisnotwithoutprecedenteither,butthe

researchinthisareaisbynomeansvoluminous.Themajorityofresearchinthisarea

focusesonexaminingtheeffectsonpovertychildreninlowerpovertyschools.However,a

smallnumberofresearchershaveexaminedwhathappenstonon‐povertychildrenin

higherpovertyschools.Kennedy(1986)foundthatnon‐povertystudentsinhigherpoverty

schoolsdonotperformaswell,andPuma,Jones,RockandFernandez(1993)foundthat

highconcentrationsofpovertyinschoolsaffecttheperformanceofallstudents.Whatis

uncleararethecausesofthislowerperformanceofnon‐povertychildreninhigherpoverty

schools.Somehavespeculatedthatitisbecauseofpeerorparentalinfluences,lower

expectations,weakercurriculum,andteacherquality(Kahlenberg,2002;Caldas,1997;

Hogrebe&Tate,2010;Palardy,2008).Theuseoffreeandreducedluncheligibilityasa

binarydefinitionofpovertyisalsolimiting,asittreatsallineligiblestudents(with

householdincomesgreaterthanabout$45,000forafamilyof4)asequivalent.Giventhe

limitedevidenceinthisimportantarea,considerablemoreresearchisneededtonotonly

documentmoreclearlytheimpactsofhigherpovertyschoolsonnon‐povertychildren,but

alsotoestablishamuchdeeperunderstandingofthecausesoftheseimpacts.

Withoutquestion,theevidenceexaminedinthisstudyindicatesthatlevelsofschool

povertyandstudentachievementarerelated.Themagnitudeoftherelationshipvaries,and

otherfactorsarerelatedtopovertyandachievement,butthesinglebestpredictorof

performanceisschoolpovertylevel.Thegoodnewsisthatthereareschoolsatalllevels

thatdefytheodds.Studentachievementisbetterthanpredictedinspiteofschoolpoverty

31

levels.Theseschoolsmayprovidegoodmodelsforotherschoolstoemulate.Inaddition,

theevidencefromthisstudyindicatesthatthereismoretolearnabouttheperformanceof

sometypesofschoolconfigurations(i.e.,K‐8schools)andtheperformanceofnon‐poverty

childreninhigherpovertyschools.

32

References

Balfanz,R.,Spiridakis,K.&Neild,R.(2002).WillConvertingHigh‐PovertyMiddleSchoolstoK‐8SchoolsFacilitateAchievementGains?AResearchBrieffortheSchoolDistrictofPhiladelphia.Philadelphia,PA:PhiladelphiaEducationFund.Coladarci,T.,&Hancock,J.(2002).“The(Limited)EvidenceRegardingEffectsofGrade‐SpanConfigurationsonAcademicAchievement:WhatRuralEducatorsShouldKnow”.JournalofResearchinRuralEducation,vol.17,no.3,pp.189‐192.

Herman,B.E.(2004).“TheRevivalofK‐8Schools”.PhiDeltaKappaFastbacks,no.519,pp.7‐37.Offenberg,R.(2001).“TheefficacyofPhiladelphia’sK‐8schoolscomparedtomiddlegradesschools”.MiddleSchoolJournal,vol.32,no.4,pp.23‐29.

Paglin,C.&Fager,J.(1997).GradeConfiguration:WhoGoesWhere?Portland,OR:NorthwestRegionalEducationalLaboratory.

Simmons,R.&Blyth,D.(1987).Movingintoadolescence:theimpactofpubertalchangesandschoolcontext.NewYork,NY:AldineDeGruyter.

Yakimowski,M.E.&Connolly,F.(2001).AnexaminationofK‐5,6‐8,andK‐8gradeconfigurations.ReportpreparedfortheboardofSchoolCommissioners.Baltimore,MD:DivisionofResearch,Evaluation,&Accountability,BaltimoreCityPublicSchoolSystem.

Caldas,Stephen;Bankston,CarlIII.EffectofSchoolPopulationSocioeconomicStatusonIndividualAcademicAchievement,JournalofEducationalResearch,May1997,p.269.

Hogrebe,MarcC.;Tate,WilliamF.IV,SchoolCompositionandContextFactorsthatModerateandPredict10th‐GradeScienceProficiency,TeachersCollegeRecord,Vol.112,no.4,2010.

Palardy,Gergory.DifferentialSchoolEffectsamongLow,Middle,andHighSocialClassCompositionSchools:AMultipleGroup,MultilevelLatentGrowthCurveAnalysis,SchoolEffectivenessandSchoolImprovement,vol.19,no.1,March2008,p.21‐49.

Kahlenberg,RichardD.AllTogetherNow:CreatingMiddle‐ClassSchoolsthroughPublicSchoolChoice,WashingtonD.C.:BrookingInstitute,2003.

Kennedy,Mary,etal.,Poverty,AchievementandtheDistributionofCompensatoryEducationServices,U.S.DepartmentofEducation,December1986.

Puma,MichaelJ.,CalvinC.Jones,DonaldRock,andRobertoFernandez,forAbtAssociates,

33

Inc.(1993,July).Prospects:TheCongressionallyMandatedStudyofEducationalGrowthandOpportunity:InterimReport,(Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofEducation).Reardon,S.F.(2013).TheWideningIncomeAcademicGap.EducationalLeadership,Vol.70,No.8pp10‐16.ReportCard10(2012).MeasuringChildPoverty:NewLeagueTablesofChildPovertyintheWorld’sRichCountries.UNICEF.AchievementGap(2013).Bridgeport,CT.:TauckFamilyFoundation.Retrievedatwww.tauckfamilyfoundation.org/challenge/achievement‐gapWoolf,L.(2013).Correlation.AdaptedbyWoolffromStockburgerandretrievedfromwww2.webster.edu~woolfm/correlation/correlation.html

34

Appendices

35

Appendix A

Figure 6. K ‐ 8 School Letter Grades

Figure 7. Middle School Letter Grades



Key:

Key:

36

Figure 8. High School Letter Grades


Key:

37

Appendix B

Figure 6. K‐8 Schools Performance by Poverty

Figure 7. Middle School Performance by Poverty (Grade 8 Reading and Math School Average Scale Score)



1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

38

Figure 8. High School Performance by Poverty (Grade 11 Reading and Math School Average Scale Score)


1

24

3

39

Appendix C

60%

75%

54%

73%



Percent Proficient

K ‐ 5 Schools

Reading Proficiency

K ‐ 8 Schools

73%

37%

58%

28%



Percent Proficient

Middle Schools

Reading Proficiency

High Schools

40

81% 86%76%

64%



Percent Proficient

K ‐ 5 Schools

Non ‐ Free/Reduced Lunch Percent Proficient ‐ Reading

K ‐ 8 Schools

82%

67%

54%44%



Percent Proficient

Middle Schools

Non ‐ Free/Reduced Lunch Percent Proficient ‐ Reading

High Schools

poverty achievement Web - University of Southern Maine...poverty and average student achievement are...

Documents

Transcript of poverty achievement Web - University of Southern Maine...poverty and average student achievement are...