poverty achievement web - university of southern maine...poverty and average student achievement are...
TRANSCRIPT
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)
WoolfadaptedfromStockburger2013
WoolfadaptedfromStockburger2013
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
Percent Free or Reduced Lunch
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
Percent Free or Reduced Lunch
Percent Free or Reduced Lunch
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
Percent Free or Reduced Lunch
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:
Percent Free or Reduced Lunch
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
Percent Free or Reduced Lunch
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
Lower Poverty High PovertyK ‐ 5 Schools
Per Pupil Valuation
Lower Poverty High Poverty K ‐ 8 Schools
2,720
600980
501
1,058718
1,396
650
Low HighPerf. Perf.
Low HighPerf. Perf.
Low HighPerf. Perf.
Low HighPerf. Perf.
Per Pupil Valuations
Lower Poverty High PovertyMiddle Schools
Per Pupil Valuation
Lower Poverty High Poverty High Schools
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
Lower Poverty High PovertyK ‐ 5 Schools
Special Education
Lower Poverty High Poverty K ‐ 8 Schools
15%
20%
16%
20%
13%15% 14%
22%
Low HighPerf. Perf.
Low HighPerf. Perf.
Low HighPerf. Perf.
Low HighPerf. Perf.
Percent En
rollm
ent
Lower Poverty High PovertyMiddle Schools
Special Education
Lower Poverty High Poverty High Schools
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
Lower Poverty High PovertyK ‐ 5 Schools
Student ‐ Teacher Ratios
Lower Poverty High Poverty K ‐ 8 Schools
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
Lower Poverty High PovertyMiddle Schools
Student ‐ Teacher Ratios
Lower Poverty High Poverty High Schools
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
Lower Poverty High PovertyK ‐ 5 Schools
Teaching Experience
Lower Poverty High Poverty K ‐ 8 Schools
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
Lower Poverty High PovertyMiddle Schools
Teaching Experience
Lower Poverty High Poverty High Schools
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 +
Lower Poverty High PovertyK ‐ 5 Schools
Teacher Education Level
Lower Poverty High Poverty K ‐ 8 Schools
45%38%
52%
33%
59%
41%
63%
40%
Low HighPerf. Perf.
Low HighPerf. Perf.
Low HighPerf. Perf.
Low HighPerf. Perf.
Percent Masters +
Lower Poverty High PovertyMiddle Schools
Teacher Education Level
Lower Poverty High Poverty High Schools
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
Lower Poverty High PovertyK ‐ 5 Schools
Per Pupil Expenditures
Lower Poverty High Poverty K ‐ 8 Schools
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
Lower Poverty High PovertyMiddle Schools
Per Pupil Expenditures
Lower Poverty High Poverty High Schools
56% 52%
64%56%55% 51% 53% 50%
Low HighPerf. Perf.
Low HighPerf. Perf.
Low HighPerf. Perf.
Low HighPerf. Perf.
Percent
Lower Poverty High PovertyK ‐ 5 Schools
Per Pupil Regular Instruction Percent
Lower Poverty High Poverty K ‐ 8 Schools
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
Lower Poverty High PovertyMiddle Schools
Per Pupil Regular Instruction Percent
Lower Poverty High Poverty High Schools
19%21%
16%13%
20% 20% 20% 20%
Low HighPerf. Perf.
Low HighPerf. Perf.
Low HighPerf. Perf.
Low HighPerf. Perf.
Percent Expenditure
Lower Poverty High PovertyK ‐ 5 Schools
Percent Per Pupil Special Education Percent
Lower Poverty High Poverty K ‐ 8 Schools
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
Lower Poverty High PovertyMiddle Schools
Percent Per Pupil Special Education Percent
Lower Poverty High Poverty High Schools
95%
94%
96%
94%
95%
94%
95%
93%
Low HighPerf. Perf.
Low HighPerf. Perf.
Low HighPerf. Perf.
Low HighPerf. Perf.
Percent Attendan
ce
Lower Poverty High PovertyK ‐ 5 Schools
Pupil Attendance
Lower Poverty High Poverty K ‐ 8 Schools
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
Lower Poverty High PovertyMiddle Schools
Pupil Attendance
Lower Poverty High Poverty High Schools
55%54%
51%
54%
Lower HigherPoverty Poverty
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%
Lower HigherPoverty Poverty
Lower HigherPoverty Poverty
Percent Proficient
Middle Schools
Mathematics Proficiency
High Schools
81% 86%76%
64%
Lower HigherPoverty Poverty
Lower HigherPoverty Poverty
Percent Proficient
K ‐ 5 Schools
Mathematics Proficiency
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%
Lower HigherPoverty Poverty
Lower HigherPoverty Poverty
Percent Proficient
Middle Schools
Mathematics Proficiency
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
Table 3. Grade 8 Regression
Regression # Variable Name R‐square
Significance Level
1 Percent Eligible for Free Reduced Lunch 2013 .408 <.001***
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
Table 4. Grade 11 Regression
Regression #
Variable Name R‐square Significance
Level
1 Percent Eligible for Free Reduced Lunch 2013 .636 <.001***
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
Percent Free or Reduced Lunch
Percent Free or Reduced Lunch
Key:
Key:
36
Figure 8. High School Letter Grades
Percent Free or Reduced Lunch
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)
Percent Free or Reduced Lunch
Percent Free or Reduced Lunch
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)
Percent Free or Reduced Lunch
1
24
3
39
Appendix C
60%
75%
54%
73%
Lower HigherPoverty Poverty
Lower HigherPoverty Poverty
Percent Proficient
K ‐ 5 Schools
Reading Proficiency
K ‐ 8 Schools
73%
37%
58%
28%
Lower HigherPoverty Poverty
Lower HigherPoverty Poverty
Percent Proficient
Middle Schools
Reading Proficiency
High Schools
40
81% 86%76%
64%
Lower HigherPoverty Poverty
Lower HigherPoverty Poverty
Percent Proficient
K ‐ 5 Schools
Non ‐ Free/Reduced Lunch Percent Proficient ‐ Reading
K ‐ 8 Schools
82%
67%
54%44%
Lower HigherPoverty Poverty
Lower HigherPoverty Poverty
Percent Proficient
Middle Schools
Non ‐ Free/Reduced Lunch Percent Proficient ‐ Reading
High Schools