Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Using Data To Make Decisions EDL 630.A, EDL 630.B Dr. Sally Lloyd
A BURNING QUESTION
Do economically disadvantaged
students perform better in school districts of wealth than economically disadvantaged students who attend school districts categorized as disadvantaged?
EVIDENCE
Let us first find scholarly evidence of
Nationwide, 8 percent of all federally funded schools have failed to bring enough students to grade level for four or more consecutive years. Most of these schools are in low-income districts.6
According to an article in the Journal of Educational Research,
poverty is a higher indicator of poor performance than any other indicator previously studied, including race.4
poorly than other groups. Disadvantaged schools have less resources to offer students.
According to an article in the Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, Schools with a higher [disadvantaged] student population are less likely to offer rigorous curricula and AP courses. They are also less likely to have experienced and qualified teachers. 3 Lower income schools have limited access to lessons and enrichment opportunities that add to student competence in a learning environment, confidence in ability to learn new things, social interaction skills, and a background information that may transfer to any academic setting. Involvement in schoolrelated activities in general is associated with higher achievement. 3
exposure to information-rich environments have been found to be less available to children in poverty, placing them at a disadvantage 3
By moving the children from concentrated areas where
this is true to a more information-rich environment, in other words, more affluent or wealthy school, students will have more opportunities to learn. This effects overall performance.
Research, Socioeconomic status of the [school] district can explain variations in students average standardized test scores4
In other words, the districts wealth does have an effect on test
scores overall.
students from low-income families in the school were the most influential and consistent factors related to schooling outcomes.5
Disadvantaged students are shown to perform better in wealthier
schools.
income schools, the differences are what promotes higher performance in the same group (disadvantaged) of students.
Can we conclude that a departure from the standard of
DATA
data about every school district in the state. The basis of district wealth are determined from this report. Report also has population and density data for every district.
Community schools list used to remove community school
data
calculating district types (Urban, Suburban, Rural) Population Data from 2010 United States Census
DATA LIMITATIONS
Data is aggregated, no student level data available to
the public. Many data points are averaged already cannot check authenticity or mathematical standards. Data has been interpreted by others already. Data is unclean Human calculation error Standard error Standard deviation
Disadvantaged:
A child utilizing free
District
Determined by median
and reduced lunch A child in a home at or below the poverty level Designation as Disadvantaged on LRC Data Table
family income of district Compared to state median income Cupp Report % student population in poverty > 40% makes district economically disadvantaged (ODE)
more clearly the difference in performance of very poor school districts compared to those of wealthy districts
How is this categorized? Disadvantaged District More than 40% of student population utilizes Free/Reduced Lunch Moderately Disadvantaged District More than 25%, but less than 40% of student population utilizes Free/Reduced Lunch Wealthier District Less than 25% of student population utilizes Free/Reduced Lunch
LET US FIRST DISCUSS HOW DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS PERFORM IN EACH DISTRICT ECONOMIC TYPE
100
90 80 70
Average Passing % Read Average Passing % Math Average Passing % Science
80 70
% Passing
% Passing
60
60 50 40 30 20 10
Grade Level
0 OGT 11th
Grade Level
DISADVANTAGED DISTRICTS
100 90 80 70
100 90 80
70 60 50 40
% Passing
30 20 10 0
Grade Level
100 90 80 70
80 70
% Passing
% Passing
60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Average Passing % Math Average Passing % Science
60
50
40 30 20 10
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
OGT
Grade Level
11th
WEALTHY DISTRICTS
student population by economic type performs in different types of districts, let us look at how only disadvantaged students perform in different districts across subjects.
This will be a base for conclusion to our
burning question
READING
Performance of Students in Elementary Grades in Reading in All District Types
100
90 80 70 Avg. Pass % Read Disadv.
% Passing
50 40
% Passing
60
60 50
40
30 20 10 0
30
20 10 0 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th
Grade Level
OGT
11th
Grade Level
MATH
Performance of Students in Elementary Grades in Math in All District Types
100 90
80
70
80
70
Avg. Pass % Math Disadv. Avg. Pass % Math Mod. Disadv. Avg. Pass % Math Wealthy
% Passing
50 40
30
20 10 0
% Passing
60
60 50 40
30
20 10 0
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Grade Level
OGT
11th
Grade Level
SCIENCE
Performance of Students in Elementary Grades in Science in All District Types
100 90 80 70
Avg. Pass % Science Disadv. Avg. Pass % Science Mod. Disadv. Avg. Pass % Science Wealthy
% Passing
50
40 30 20 10 0
% Passing
60
60
50
40 30 20 10 0 OGT 11th
8th
Grade Level
Performance of Students in High School in Social Studies in All District Types 100
90 80 70
Avg. Pass % Soc. Studies Disadv. Avg. Pass % Soc. Studies Mod. Disadv. Avg. Pass % Soc. Studies Wealthy
% Passing
% Passing
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 OGT 11th
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 OGT 11th
Grade Level
Grade Level
CONCLUSIONS
Based on research and statistical evidence, it is
concluded that students from disadvantaged backgrounds do, in fact, perform better in schools that are wealthier. It is also clear that across the wealth continuum, the wealthier the school, the better disadvantaged students perform, on average.
In other words, disadvantaged students perform better in
schools with 25%-40% of students in poverty than in schools with more than 40% in poverty and even better in schools with less than 25% of students in poverty. As the school district increases in wealth, so does performance of disadvantaged students.
Works Cited
Burney, V. H., & Beilke, J. R. (2008). the Constraints of Poverty on High Achievement. Journal For the Education Of The Gifted, 295-321. Edgerton, J. D., Peter, T., & Roberts, L. W. (2008). Back to the Basics: Socio-Economic, Gender, and Regional Disparities in Canada's Educational System. Canadian Journal or Education, 861-888. Fowler, W., & Walberg, H. (1991). School size, characteristics, and outcomes. Educational Evolution and Policy Analysis, 189-202.
Jackson, S. A., & Lunenburg, F. C. (2010). School performance indicators, accountability ratings, and student achievement. American Secondary Education, 27-44.
Maxwell, L. A. (2012, March 7). Poverty's Role in Education Gets Renewed Attention. Education Week, pp. 1, 22-24.
Toutkoushian, R. K., & Curtis, T. (2005). Effects of Socioeconomic Factors on Public High School Outcomes and Rankings. Journal of Educational Research, 259-271.
Bibliography
Edgerton, J. D., Peter, T., & Roberts, L. W. (2008). Back to the Basics: Socio-Economic, Gender, and Regional Disparities in Canada's Educational System. Canadian Journal Of Education, 31(4), 861-888. Maxwell, L. A. (2012). Achievement Gaps Tied to Income Found Widening. Education Week, 31(23), 1-22. Burney, V. H., & Beilke, J. R. (2008). The Constraints of Poverty on High Achievement. Journal For The Education Of The Gifted, 31(3), 295-321. Myers, S., Kim, H., & Mandala, C. (2004). The Effect of School Poverty on Racial Gaps in Test Scores: The Case of the Minnesota Basic Standards Tests. Journal Of Negro Education, 73(1), 81-98. Bishop, J. H., Mae, F., & Bishop, M. (2001). How external exit exams spur achievement. Educational Leadership, 59(1), 58-63.
Nebbitt, V. E., Lombe, M., LaPoint, V., & Bryant, D. (2009). Predictors and Correlates of Academic Performance Among Urban African American Adolescents. Journal Of Negro Education, 78(1), 29-41.
Bibliography Continued
Toutkoushian, R. K., & Curtis, T. (2005). Effects of Socioeconomic Factors on Public High School Outcomes and Rankings. Journal Of Educational Research, 98(5), 259-271. Jackson, S. A., & Lunenburg, F. C. (2010). School performance indicators, accountability ratings, and student achievement. American Secondary Education, 39(1), 27-44. Hughes, C., Manns, N. N., & Ford, D. Y. (2009). Racial Identity Attitudes and Academic Achievement Among At-Risk Black Female Adolescents. Journal Of At-Risk Issues, 15(1), 25-32. MIRON, G., JONES, J., & KELAHER-YOUNG, A. (2012). THE IMPACT OF THE KALAMAZOO PROMISE ON STUDENT ATTITUDES, GOALS, AND ASPIRATIONS. American Secondary Education, 40(2), 5-27. Strayhorn, T. L. (2010). The Role of Schools, Families, and Psychological Variables on Math Achievement of Black High School Students. High School Journal, 93(4), 177-194. Fowler, W., & Walberg, H. (1991). School size, characteristics, and outcomes. Educational Evolution and Policy Analysis, 189-202.