Showing posts with label Socioeconomic Stratification. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socioeconomic Stratification. Show all posts

Thursday, September 27, 2012

LPS: Achievement Gap in 3rd Grade Reading

Here it was noted that there was a 29-point difference in 3rd grade reading proficiency rates between low income and non-low income students in the Lynn public school system. Below are the proficiency rates at this level by school; all numbers are in percentages. The positive or negative numbers in parentheses indicates the difference from the individual school's overall proficiency rate. In 2012, 41% of 3rd grade students citywide scored proficient or higher on the reading exam.

*N/A - Data is not reported for sample sizes less than 10.
**No data at the individual grade levels was reported for Washington

Low IncomeNon-Low Income
Aborn56 (-16)90 (+18)
Brickett39 (-4)54 (+11)
Callahan31 (-4)53 (+18)
Cobbet24 (-2)N/A
Connery23 (-12)N/A
Drewicz46 (0)N/A
Ford31 (0)N/A
Harrington28 (+3)10 (-15)
Hood 47 (-5)70 (+18)
Ingalls39 (-1)N/A
Lincoln-Thomson42 (-11)80 (+27)
Lynn Woods20 (-28)65 (+17)
Sewell Anderson42 (-4)60 (+14)
Shoemaker36 (-15)61 (+10)
Sisson71 (-5)82 (+6)
Tracy22 (-6)N/A
Washington**N/AN/A

The school with the largest gap between low income and non-low income students was Lynn Woods (45 points) while the school with the smallest gap was Sisson (11 points). Harrington was the only school were low income students had a higher proficiency rate than non-low income students.

For low income students, Aborn, Drewicz, Hood, Lincoln-Thomson, Sewall Anderson and Sisson all had higher proficiency rates than the city's overall 3rd grade reading proficiency rate. The proficiency rate specifically for low income students in Lynn as a whole was 36% (a 5-point difference from the aggregate).

All of the schools with available data except Harrington had a higher proficiency rate than the city for the non-low income subgroup. This figure was 65% just for non-low income students.

Citation: www.doe.mass.edu

Thursday, November 17, 2011

America's Poorest Cities

After reading this wonderfully uplifting (-__-) article about the financial troubles that Detroit is facing, I wondered what other U.S. cities are facing similar rates of extreme poverty.


Per the New York Times, these are the 10 cities with the highest poverty rates in 2010.

1. Reading, PA
Percentage below poverty line: 41.3%

2. Flint, MI
Percentage below poverty line: 41.2%

3. Bloomington, IN
Percentage below poverty line: 39.9%

3. Albany, GA
Percentage below poverty line: 39.9%

5. Kalamazoo, MI
Percentage below poverty line: 38.8%

6. Brownsville, TX
Percentage below poverty line: 38.6%

7. Gary, IN
Percentage below poverty line: 38.3%

8. Detroit, MI
Percentage below poverty line: 37.6%

9. College Station, TX
Percentage below poverty line: 37.3%

10. Pharr, TX
Percentage below poverty line: 37.1%



Cities with some of the highest unemployment rates in the country include El Centro, CA (29.6%), Yuma, AZ (27%), Yuba City, CA (16.5%) and Merced, CA (16%) (US Bureau of Labor Statistics).

While publications like the Wall Street Journal are reporting that the US recession scare has passed, there still seems to be many Americans across the country who are struggling to survive financially.

Friday, August 26, 2011

High Incomes, Low Absenteeism

Here we looked at the average number of school absences in cities that contain Massachusetts' hungriest children. It is also important to note this average for students in high income communities. Below is the average number of school absences in some of the wealthiest communities in Massachusetts.




























Weston
5.5
Dover
7.1
Carlisle
6.2
Sherborn
5.8
Sudbury
6.5
Wellesley
6.3
Wayland
6.4
Concord
6.4
Winchester
7
Lincoln
7.3
Boxford
6.6
Lexington
6.1
Marblehead
8.2
Newton
7.1
Swampscott
8.3
Brookline
7.5
Cohasset
7.5
Acton
7.3
Nahant
8.1
Andover
6.8
Harvard
7.6
Lynnfield
6.8
Belmont
7.2
Needham
6.6
Walpole
6.8


In the low income communities selected for the previous study, the average ranged from 6.4 school absences to 15.7. Here we see that children in high income communities tend to miss a lot less school; the averages range from 5.5 school days to 8.3. This difference indicates the added challenge that low income communities have in educating their children compared to high income communities. While is it important to know this, the next step should be to determine why students are not coming to school and what the school, parents and community can do to change high absentee rates. Fixing the curriculum and raising standards are important, but matters little if children not coming to school; one cannot teach a child that is not present.

All Data Taken from: www.doe.mass.edu

Monday, August 22, 2011

Hungry Students, High Absenteeism

Among other issues (see here), students with an inadequate food supply tend to miss more days of school than students who have enough food at home (Danzig & Bernier, 2008). Below is the average number of school absences for cities in Massachusetts that have been determined to have the state's hungriest children.


Haverhill
12.1
Metheun
9.7
Lawrence
11.8
Lowell
11.3
Fitchburg
12.1
Peabody
9.1
Lynn
10.8
Shirley
6.4
Cambridge
10.2
Revere
9.5
Chelsea
9.7
Gloucester
12
Salem
11.1
Boston
13.6
Qunicy
8.7
Grafton
8
Brockton
10.8
Fall River
14.1
Webster
9.4
Amherst
7.9
Holyoke
15.3
Chicopee
11.8
Springfield
15.7
West Springfield
9.5
Westfield
10.1
New Bedford
13
Taunton
8.8
Framingham
8.5
Worcester
9.3


All data taken from: http://www.doe.mass.gov/

Citation:
Danzig, B. and Bernier, J. (2008). Child poverty in Massachusetts: a tale of 2 states. Massachusetts Citizens for Children, 1-63.

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Poverty Matters: The Effects of Being Poor On Children

A recent national study revealed that 1 in 5 U.S. children lives in poverty which has largely been attributable to the recession and represents an increase of nearly 2.5 million children since 2000. Given the number and the scope of the negative effects associated with poverty, increasing poverty rates among U.S. children have the potential to inflict severe psychological, emotional and economic damage on the next generation of young people. This issue is particularly pertinent for me living in Lynn, MA, a city where nearly a quarter of children (under age 18) live below the poverty line; other cities in Massachusetts have as high as 42% of children living below the poverty line (Danzing & Bernier, 2008). In Chelsea, MA, 97.4% of children under age 18 live in a neighborhood 20% of more of population is living below the poverty line (Danzig & Bernier, 2008). Furthermore, the Massachusetts Citizens for Children found that on any given day 50,000 school aged children and youth as well as 50,000 younger children are homeless in Massachusetts (Danzig & Bernier, 2008); at the Whitney Elementary School in Las Vegas alone 85% of the 610 students are homeless (see here). Knowing the numbers is important, but what about the specific consequences of both short-term and persistent poverty? What are some of the far-reaching effects of childhood poverty?

Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Greg Duncan published a study in 1997 detailing the toll that poverty can take on children. Specifically, Brooks-Gunn and Duncan (1997) found that poor children suffer higher incidences of adverse health, developmental, and other outcomes than non-poor children. In terms of physical health, poor children are 1.7 times more likely to be born with a low birth rate than non-poor children.  This is likely because poor pregnant women have less access to adequate nutrition and prenatal care; in Lynn, nearly 29% of pregnant women receive NO prenatal care within the first trimester (Torname, 2011). Low birth weight has been associated with an increased likelihood of cognitive and emotional problems that can persist through childhood and adolescence (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). Learning disabilities, physical disabilities, and grade repetition as well as lower levels of math and reading achievement are also more prevalent among children who were low birth weight as infants (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). This information is particularly disheartening given that in my hometown (Lynn, MA) 8.7% of children are born with a low birth rate (Torname, 2011). Additionally, poor children are only 66% as likely to be in excellent health and almost twice as likely to be in poor or fair health compared to non-poor children (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). Poor children are also twice as likely to experience growth stunting (low height for age), spend almost 1.5 times as many days in bed, and have twice as many short-stay hospitalizations than non-poor children (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). 

In terms of cognitive abilities, children living below the poverty line are more likely to experience learning disabilities and developmental delays (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). One study found that poorer children scored between 6 and 13 points lower on various standardized tests of IQ, verbal ability, and achievement (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). This difference between poor and non-poor children was still present even when controlling for maternal age, marital status, education and ethnicity. The 6- to 13-point difference on these types of measures, for some, could mean the difference between being placed in a special education class or not (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). Findings suggest that the effects of poverty on children's cognitive development occur early, but also that the effects of long-term poverty were significantly greater than the effects of short-term poverty (Brooks-Gunn, 1997).  What is the reason for this? Poverty has been found to affect children's brain development as children growing up in poor families tend to experience unhealthy levels of stress hormones. Excessive levels of stress hormones disrupt the formation of synaptic connections between cells in the developing brain and affect its blood supply. The result is impaired language development and memory (Danzig & Bernier, 2008). 

Fortunately, a comprehensive review of the literature did find that the effect of poverty on the number of school years completed was small (Brooks-Gunn, 1997). The observed relationship between income and educational attainment seems to be related more so to confounding factors such as parental education, family structure, and neighborhood characteristics as opposed to just family income (Brooks-Gunn, 1997). Research does suggest, however, that family income averaged from birth to age 5 had a much more powerful effect on the number of school years a child completes than family income measured between ages 5 and 10 or between ages 11 and 15 (Brooks-Gunn, 1997). Specifically, for low income children a $10,000 increase in mean family income between birth and age 5 was associated with almost a full year increase in completed schooling (Brooks-Gunn, 1997). This same increase to family income later in childhood had no significant impact suggesting that income may only be a significant  primary factor in future education attainment during the earliest childhood years (Brooks-Gunn, 1997). In terms of other academic related outcomes, poor children were twice as likely to repeat a grade, be suspended or expelled and dropout of high school (Brooks-Gunn, 1997).

Poor children also suffer from emotional and behavioral problems more frequently than non-poor children exhibiting both more externalizing (aggression, fighting, and acting out) and internalizing behaviors (anxiety, social withdrawal, depression) than children who had never been poor (Brooks-Gunn, 1997). This may be due to the fact that poor children are almost 7 times more likely to experience child abuse or neglect and violent crime than non-poor children (Brooks-Gunn, 1997). Short-term poverty (being poor in at least 1 out of 4 years) was also associated with behavioral problems though the effects were smaller than what was found for those experiencing more persistent poverty (Brooks-Gunn, 1997). Still, parents in poor families were 1.3 times more likely to have a child who had an emotional or behavioral problem that lasted 3 or more months (Brooks-Gunn, 1997). Interestingly, persistent poverty was associated with more internalizing behaviors while current, but not persistent, poverty was associated with externalizing behaviors such as hyperactivity and peer conflict (Brooks-Gunn, 1997). 

So how and why does poverty have such a negative effect on children?

Health & Nutrition
- The cumulative health disadvantage experienced by poor children on health measures may account for as much as 13% to 20% of the difference in IQ between poor and non-poor children (Brooks-Gunn, 1997). 

-Malnutrition is associated with lower scores in tests of cognitive development (Brooks-Gunn, 1997).

-Growth stunting, which poor children are at an increased for, affects short-term memory. The effects of stunting on short-term memory is equivalent to the difference in short term memory between families that experienced poverty for 13 years and children in families with incomes at least 3 times the poverty level (Brooks-Gunn, 1997). 


Parental Interactions with Children
-Among adolescents, family economic pressure may lead to conflict with parents resulting in lower school grades, reduced emotional health, and impaired social relationships (Brooks-Gunn, 1997). 

-Other sources of conflict include economic uncertainty, unemployment or underemployment and unstable work conditions that ultimately impact the children (Brooks-Gunn, 1997). 


Parental Mental Health
-Parents who are poor are likely to be less healthy both emotionally and physically than those who are not poor (Brooks-Gunn, 1997). 

-Parental irritability and depressive symptoms are associated with conflictual interactions with adolescents, leading to less satisfactory emotional, social and cognitive development (Brooks-Gunn, 1997). 

-Poor parental mental health is associated with impaired parent-child interactions and less provision of learning experiences in the home (Brooks-Gunn, 1997). 


Neighborhood Conditions
-Low income may lead to residence in extremely poor neighborhoods characterized by social disorganization such as crime and few resources for child development such as playgrounds, day care and after school programs (Brooks-Gunn, 1997). 

-Poor children are twice as likely to report being scared to leave the house (Brooks-Gunn, 1997).

Other
-Other pathways through which poverty operates include a lack of access to and use of prenatal care, access to pediatric care, exposure to environmental toxins, household stability, quality of school attended and peer groups (Brooks-Gunn, 1997).

While poverty has the ability to negatively affect multiple aspects of both children and adults' lives, there are protective factors against a guaranteed life of misfortune. These include strong family support, religion, and positive peer relationships. Additionally, introducing learning experiences in the home has been found to aid in cognitive development and counteract poverty's influence on achievement outcomes. Unfortunately, not all children have parents or families that are willing or able to provide the necessary academic or emotional support to prevent negative outcomes. While some in the recent education reform debate may say that citing poverty is 'an excuse,' as the research here and elsewhere suggests, the effects of poverty on one's  overall emotional and physical well being and  future educational outcomes as well as on life’s trajectory in general are very real. 

Citations:
Brooks-Gunn, J. and Duncan, G.J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. Children and Poverty, 55-71.
Danzig, B. and Bernier, J. (2008). Child poverty in Massachusetts: a tale of 2 states. Massachusetts Citizens for Children, 1-63.
Torname, J. (2011). Lynn: a little city with big potential. New Lynn Coalition Publication, 2-32.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

13 Years of School and No Diploma?: Non-Grad Completers

In addition to local graduation requirements, students in Massachusetts are required to pass the MCAS test in order to graduate from high school. Although they are given 5 opportunities to pass the exam, some  students still do not reach the proficient mark leaving many frustrated and/or discouraged. There is a population that does leave school rather than take the MCAS a 3rd, 4th or 5th time with the possibility of failing again;  some obtain GEDs while others dropout of school entirely with less than a high school education. In addition to high school graduates, dropouts and those who seek a GED, there is a fourth group of students. "Non-grad completers" are students have successfully completed school according to local requirements, but their MCAS test scores (scores lower than 220) prevent them from receiving an official diploma. Instead these students sometimes receive what is called a 'certificate of attainment' which indicates that they have met all graduation requirements aside from standardized testing. Specifically, non-grad completers are students who either:

a) earned a certificate of attainment
b) completed local graduation requirements but whose district does not offer a certificate of attainment
OR
c) students with special needs that reached the maximum age (22) but did not graduate.


So, who is more likely to be a non-grad-completer?

Students in low income communities seem to have more difficulty passing the MCAS than students in higher income communities due to a number of factors including a higher number of school absences (see here).  Perhaps, partly as a result of this, low income communities see higher numbers of students who either dropout or seek a GED, but also have a higher number of non-grad completers.  Below are the non-grad completer, GED and dropout rates for Lynn, Lawrence, Holyoke, Lowell, Chelsea and Brockton for the 2009-2010 school year. The percentage of low income students in these communities ranges from 72.25% to 87.1%; the percentage of children (under age 18) living below the poverty line ranges from 19.4% to 41.7%.








Lynn
Lawrence
Holyoke
Lowell
Chelsea
Brockton
Non-grad Completer
2.3
4.1
3.7
2.1
1.8
1.1
GED
3.8
4.4
2.8
2.3
3.8
3.1
Dropout
16.4
26.6
28.4
13.6
25.1
17.5

In terms of actual numbers this translates into:








Lynn
Lawrence
Holyoke
Lowell
Chelsea
Brockton
Non-grad Completer
26
41
20
18
7
13
GED
43
44
15
20
15
38
Dropout
184
263
152
119
98
213


From this, we see that while there is a percentage of students that are non-grad completers, this number is not substantial across the board. Brockton, for example, has a tiny percentage of its students receive certificates of attainment while Lawrence and Holyoke see a slightly larger number of students leave school as non-grad completers. The percentage of students who dropout of school completely seems to be a more significant statistic than the percentage of students who receive certificates or GEDs. The dropout rate in these communities is as high as 28%. This may indicate that some students may opt to leave school rather take the MCAS multiple times or complete the 12th grade without a diploma. The Massachusetts Department of Education does also have a board of Appeals for students who meet certain requirements such as taking the test 3 times and attending school 95% of the time, but many students likely become demoralized by the education and do not pursue this option. As a result, there is a considerable population of students in each of these cities that complete their secondary education with a certificate of attainment instead of a diploma.

In order to assert that students in low-income communities are more likely to be non-grad completers,  one would have to know what the numbers are for high income communities. Below are the non-grad completer, GED and dropout rates for selected high income communities in Massachusetts also for the 2009-2010 school year. The percentage of low income students in these communities ranges from 3.4% to 5.9%; the percentage of children (under age 18) living under the poverty line ranges from 1.8% to 4%.








Wellesley
Weston
Dover-Sherborn
Andover
Concord-Carlisle
Non-grad Completer 
0
1.1
0
0
0.6
GED
0.7
0
0.6
1.1
0
Dropout
0
0.6
0.6
1.1
0.3


Here we see an almost non-existent population of students who leave high school with just a certificate of attainment. This is consistent with overall graduation trends in these communities as a small number of students either obtain a GED or dropout of school all together.

From this we can reasonably say that you are more likely to be a non-grad completer if you attend a school in low income city or town. Are there other risk factors such as limited English proficiency or race? Looking at the data for selected populations reveals no general answer to this question; it largely depends on the city in which the student resides. For example, a larger percentage of African American students in Lowell (7.5%) and Lawrence (8.7%) leave high school as non-grad completers while the percentage of African American non-grad completers in Holyoke and Chelsea is zero. On the other hand, special education students in Holyoke

While it is interesting to note how many students graduate with certificates of attainment and what the demographics of this population are, it would more useful to know what are the psychological effects of 'graduating' without a diploma. One can only imagine how difficult or frustrating it would be to complete 13 years of schools, but walk away with only a certificate because of a test score.  More importantly, how does this non-grad completer status affect the overall trajectory of the student's life? He or she technically does not have a high school degree, so where does that leave him or her in terms of applying for jobs or college? Students who do not pass the MCAS do have the opportunity to complete educational proficiency plans (EPP) in order to graduate, but all of this is based on a test which studies show to be an unreliable measure of one's knowledge and abilities. Indeed, testing can be important to gauging how much information a student has retained and what areas or topics need more focus, but more thought needs to be put into the punishment aspect of standardized testing. While students who have proven themselves to be poor students probably should not receive a diploma, it seems unfair that a student who complied with every other requirement including those related to attendance still could not receive the diploma he or she has worked 13 years to receive.

*All data taken from: www.doe.mass.edu