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

16

Appendix

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