The Challenge of High-Poverty Schools: How Feasible is
Socioeconomic School Integration?
Stephanie Aberger, Expeditionary LearningAnn Mantil, Harvard Graduate School of Education
Anne Perkins, Massachusetts Department of Higher Education
The Future of School Integration: Socioeconomic Diversity as an Education Reform Strategy
March 7, 2012
2
The Achievement Gap, SES, and High Poverty Schools
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Mathematics Assessment, 2009, Low-income students defined as those eligible for free and reduced price lunch.
3
Research Questions
1. What are the patterns and prevalence of U.S. high poverty schools, and how do they vary by state?
2. What is the potential of intradistrict and interdistrict integration strategies to reduce the number of high poverty schools?
4
Research DesignUnited States, by Percentage of Students Receiving Free or Reduced Price Lunch
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Source: Authors’ compilations from National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2007-08 school year.
5
Prevalence and Patterns of High- Poverty Elementary Schools
In our district elementary sample:
• There are 22,487 high poverty schools (48%)
• 10.3 million students attend high poverty schools
•75% of Black and 72% of Latino students attend high-poverty schools as compared to 29% of white students.
• The percentage of schools that are high poverty ranges from 4% (New Hampshire) to 85% (Mississippi).
6
While high poverty school enrollment generally tracks state poverty levels, there are some striking exceptions.
3/7/12
Connecticut
34% low-income
statewide
14%
[54%
]
Most Socioeconomic School Segregation
________________________________________________________Source: Authors’ compilations from National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2007-08 school year.
7
States with more SES school segregation also tend to have larger SES achievement gaps
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Source: Authors’ compilations from National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2007-08 school year and National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007 4 th grade Reading Assessment.
8
Intradistrict strategies can reduce the number of high poverty schools by 5% nationally.
• Intradistrict strategies reduce the number of high-poverty schools through initiatives contained within a single district.
• At least 40 districts currently utilize intra-district strategies (Reardon & Rhodes).
•While there are districts in nearly every state that could utilize intradistrict strategies, most high-poverty schools are located in high-poverty districts.
9
Viability of Interdistrict Strategies
States Selected for Interdistrict Analysis- District Elementary Schools
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1, “GCT-PH1. Population, Housing Units, Area, and Density: 2000” ; authors’ compilations from National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2007-08 school year.
10
Possibilities for Interdistrict Partnership
Arlington County
Alexandria City
Giles County
Scott County
Virginia, by Percentage of Low-Income Students
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Source: Authors’ compilations from National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2007-08 school year.
11
The percentage of high-poverty schools with inter-district solutions ranges from 7% in Florida to 52% in Nebraska.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Source: Authors’ compilations from National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2007-08 school year.a. Based on demographic viability screen.b. Borderline and higher-poverty districts only; intradistrict strategies used in low-poverty districts
Percent Reduction in High-Poverty Schools through Inter-district Strategies
12
Regional concentrations of poverty lower the potential for interdistrict solutions.
Missouri, by Percentage of Low-Income Students
Kansas City
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Source: Authors’ compilations from National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2007-08 school year.
Percent of High Poverty Schools “Solved” = 17%
13
Patchwork patterns of low and higher income districts are more amenable to interdistrict
integration.Nebraska, by Percentage of Low-Income Students
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Source: Authors’ compilations from National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2007-08 school year.
Omaha
Lincoln
Percent of High Poverty Schools “Solved” = 52%
14
Urban concentrations of poverty raise the potential impact of interdistrict strategies.
Massachusetts, by Percentage of Low-Income Students
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Source: Authors’ compilations from National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2007-08 school year.
Percent of High Poverty Schools “Solved” = 34%
Boston
15
Overcoming the Perception of SES Segregation as a Fixed Reality
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Source: Authors’ compilations from National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2007-08 school year.
Viability of Intra- and Interdistrict Strategies
17
Intradistrict strategies can reduce the number of high poverty schools by 5% nationally.
Springfield Metropolitan Area
18
Interdistrict viability tracks overall state poverty.
Florida, by Percentage of Low-Income Students
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Source: Authors’ compilations from National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2007-08 school year.
Percent of High Poverty Schools “Solved” = 7%
JacksonvillePensacola
Miami
19
Socioeconomic Segregation and Standardized Achievement Gaps
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________Source: Authors’ compilations from National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2007-08 school year.
Table 6: Socioeconomic Segregation and Achievement Gaps
National Rank, Socioeconomic
SegregationState
% of Schools whose
Low-Income
Percentage Varies from the State's by
>20%
Standardized Score in 4th
Grade Reading, Low-
Income Students
Standardized Score in 4th
Grade Reading,
Higher-Income Students
SES Gap in 4th Grade Reading
National Rank, SES Gap in
Reading
1 Arkansas 80% -0.44 0.30 0.74 182 Connecticut 68% -0.57 0.49 1.06 13 New York 68% -0.33 0.45 0.79 74 Arizona 65% -0.71 0.09 0.80 65 Illinois 64% -0.48 0.30 0.78 96 New Jersey 64% -0.30 0.47 0.76 117 Rhode Island 63% -0.52 0.24 0.76 128 California 63% -0.73 0.12 0.85 39 Massachusetts 61% -0.18 0.63 0.81 5
10 Maryland 57% -0.40 0.36 0.76 13
Top Related