Emily Blades EDL 630

1. Comparing Economically Disadvantaged Students to their Non Economically Advantaged Peers Across Two Similar Schools Emily Blades EDL 630

2. The Burning Question • Do students who are economically disadvantaged (ED) in the same district, but different school buildings, score similarly despite having more students in one building experiencing an ED situation? • School A and School B filter into the same freshman and high school buildings. Although they are in the same district (district X), and living in the same township, there are twice as many students who are economically disadvantaged at one school versus the other.

3. Context • There is a significant achievement gap between students who are ED and those who are non ED in this district and throughout the nation. • This is of personal interest to me because I want to be able to serve all students, regardless of their family background, in my integrative career course. • This project serves as a next step by to solving this issue by identifying research, programs, similarities and differences in the two populations of geographically similar populations of students

4. Economically Disadvantaged • Students who qualify as economically disadvantaged are those who might meet the following requirements: • Title IV of the social security act • Benefit from Food Stamps • Are on the free and reduced lunch program • Fall on or below the US poverty line

5. About District X • Overall Classified as Urban/Suburban – very high median income, very low poverty • “These districts also surround major urban centers.  They are distinguished by very high income levels and almost no poverty.  A very high percentage of the adult population has a college degree, and a similarly high percentage works in professional/administrative occupations.” • Total district population of students who are ED: 14.6% • Total State population of students who are ED: 45.1%

6. About District X • Located in Butler County, Ohio with 17,409 students enrolled • 7th largest district in the state covering 63 sq/mi • For the 2010-2011 school year, the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) ranked it “Excellent with Distinction” • Unfortunately, district X is going through some economic challenges as student populations grow and funding is stagnant

7. School A • Percentage of students who are ED: 8.9% • Population of 758 students • For the 2010-2011 school year, ODE ranked it “Excellent with Distinction” • 100% of the teachers in this school have a bachelors degree, and 72% of them have their master’s degree

8. School B • Percentage of students who are ED: 18% • Population of 605 students • For the 2010-2011 school year, ODE ranked it “Excellent with Distinction” • 100% of the teachers in this school have their bachelors and 78.2% have their master’s degree

9. Scholarly Evidence • Poverty has an impact on student achievement • The amount of time a student has been in poverty, the family’s assets, and the poverty level of a family when a child is 5 or younger have huge implications for student achievement (1) • “All children who attend middle-class schools are more likely to score higher on standardized tests than those in low-income schools” (2) • Both schools are from the same district, so it is possible their student demographics have no impact on student achievement levels?

10. Scholarly Evidence • Factors of Poverty have an impact on Student Achievement • People who are in non-metropolitain areas (like District X) are at a disadvantage for programs and resources (1). • Transportation might be the largest hindrance in getting students resources they need and can benefit from

11. Scholarly Evidence • Schools with higher populations of students who are ED offer less opportunities for student growth • “Schools with higher minority and low-income student populations are less likely to offer rigorous curricula and Advanced Placement courses” (p. 302) (1) • However, all students enter schools with differences in readiness, regardless of their economic backgrounds • Schools with diverse populations might track, or ability group, their students.

12. Scholarly Evidence • School and Family cultures with students who are ED • Culturally, some believe that public education perpetrates inequalities between ED and non ED students • Some researchers have found families with higher SES pass on qualities and characteristics in their children that schools rewards

13. Scholarly Evidence • Schools with higher populations of students who are ED have less qualified teachers • “The poverty level of a school affects student achievement through the quality of teachers associated with different types of schools.”(p. 5) (1) • higher percentages of new teachers • teachers with fewer credentials • teachers who are less effective

14. Conclusions about Research • Research about the effects of poverty on student achievement are extensive. • Poverty Impacts student achievement because of: • Less resources and transportation • Less education and academic opportunities • Cultural and systemic inequalities • Less qualified teachers

15. Types of Data • 2010-11 Ohio Report Cards Building Percentage Performance Levels • 2010-11 Ohio State School Report Card Performance levels • District X Junior School Program Guide • Interview with Mrs. James • Peer Reviewed Research • ODE- Power User

16. Data Limitations • ODE report cards look at the final scores, not the raw data, so there are limited ways to view this data • Reported in percentages for performance measures • Definition of ED – more students might experience poverty or mobility of these students might make them unaccounted. • Family factors are a huge contributor to a students’ educational achievement • To protect student’s identity, students who are ED remain anonymous, so services targeting this specific students are limited

17. How the two populations compare by subject and achievement level

18. Limited level - subject and gap difference between the two schools

19. Basic level - subject and gap difference between the two schools

20. Proficient level - subject and gap difference between the two schools

21. Accelerated level - subject and gap difference between the two schools

22. Advanced level - subject and gap difference between the two schools

23. Compared to the state of OhioEconomically Disadvantaged Reading

24. Compared to the state of Ohio Economically Disadvantaged Mathematics

25. Compared to the state of Ohio Economically Disadvantaged Science

26. Conclusions • Conclusion from Data: • Having more students in a school that are not ED helps the total population of students achieve higher proficiency rates. • Compared to Ohio state averages, students in District X are receiving quality education, with a few exceptions • The achievement gap exists in all performance levels and all subjects, for both schools, with a few exceptions

27. Comparing the Data to the Research • Research says: there is a correlation with being ED and not achieving as highly as those who are non ED • This data shows: There is a significant achievement gap between students who are ED and those who are not ED at BOTH schools • There are a few exceptions when compared to the state and school B

28. Comparing the Data to the Research • Research says: There are many factors of poverty that have an impact on student achievement because of less resources • This data shows: Unable to determine based on this type of data. • In an interview with Mrs. James*, a teacher from school B: “Students have left the district to attend another school district that is near by and offers busing options.” According to Mrs. James, parents at school B: 1) didn’t have cars to drop their children off; 2) worked too late or too early to be able to drop their children off; or 3) simply did not want to be bothered to drop of their children.

29. Comparing the Data to the Research • Research says: Schools with higher populations of students who are ED offer less opportunities for growth • This data shows: there is a significant achievement gap between these two populations. • School A consistently has a smaller gap than school B, with one exception • Students who are ED are less likely to score in the accelerated and advanced categories and more likely to score in the limited, basic and proficient ranges • School B, which has a higher population of ED students, tracks their students by using teams

30. Comparing the Data to the Research • Research says: there might be a culture, or mindset, of poverty. The teaching profession is out of balance with 90% of its teachers being white, non-Hispanics. This might perpetrate the achievement gap between these populations • This data shows: unable to determine based on this data • However, School A’s teaching population is 100% white, with 77.7% of the student population being white • School B’s teaching population is 96% white (only one teacher of another ethnicity), with 72% of the student population being white

31. Comparing the Data to the Research • Research says: schools with higher populations of ED students have less qualified teachers • This data shows: unable to determine this based on the data. • Unable to find the average years of experience at these two schools, but I was able to find average salaries. • Based on the averages, it can be concluded there is slightly more teaching experience at school B, which contradicts the research • School B has a higher percentage of teachers with a Master’s degree, which also contradicts the research.

32. Discussion • Programs at the junior schools are similar, with a few exceptions • Career Based Intervention (CBI) is a program offered by one of the community resources. This program is available at School B, but not School A. • Math Connections is a program offered at both schools but is implemented differently • School Teams are used at school B and not School A

33. Suggestions for Improvement • Title I • Federal money offered for schools and districts that have high levels of students that come from low income families • District X does not qualify for the money, but they can focus on making the goals of Title I the goals of the district in order to bridge the gap

34. Suggestions for Improvement • CBI • As of now, the teacher of this course focusing on reading and writing skills • Career skills are not stressed at the junior level • These students should get some real world experience with careers • The teacher should stress the connection of the students’ schooling to college and career readiness

35. Suggestions for Improvement • Teams • Teams might contribute to the gap between ED and non ED students. • School A has no teams, yet does better on achievement tests when compared to school B • Do away with teams or stop ability grouping/tracking students by using teams • Since students are invited to advanced courses based on achievement scores only, school B should consider opening up advanced courses for all students who are interested

36. Suggestions for Improvement • Partnering with the Community & Parents • Making resources known to all students and their families. • Including parents into their child’s schooling by giving them more opportunities to help the school • Local resources: Butler County United Way Jeffery Thomas Hayden Foundation Reach Out Lakota Ronald McDonald House The Community Foundation of Liberty and West Chester YMCA/YWCA American Red Cross Free Store/Food bank Drake Center Duvall center Family Education Program Habitat for Humanity – West Chester/Mason District Tutoring - Ohio READS Lakota Special Services Ohio Community Emergency Food Center Salvation Army

37. Questions to Staff • What can we learn from other buildings? Other districts? • How can we get more community involvement? • How can we make our students and their families aware of the programs our community offers? • What conclusions can we draw about our current programs? • What steps will you take to increase parent awareness and involvement? • How can you learn from our students’ experiences? • How are you differentiating your instruction so all students can learn and be challenged? • How can you incorporate flexible grouping into your classes? • How are you meeting the needs of you student’s multiple intelligences? • How can you connect your instruction to real life situations in order to make it meaningful to your students? • How can you be sensitive to the outside factors that impact your students? • What extra responsibilities are you willing to take on to help all students achieve?

38. References  (2012). Economically Disadvantaged Family or Individual Law and Legal Definition. USLegal. Retrieved December 1st, 2012 from http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/economically-disadvantaged-family-or-individual/ Burney, V. H., & Beilke, J. R. (2008). The Constraints of Poverty on High Achievement. Journal For The Education Of The Gifted, 31(3), 171-197. Mills, R., & ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, C. L. (1998). Grouping Students for Instruction in Middle Schools. ERIC Digest. ODE. (2012). Ohio Department of Education. Retrieved December 1st, 2012 from http://www.ode.state.oh.us/ REDEAUX, M. (2011). The Culture of Poverty Reloaded. Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine, 63(3), 96. Southworth, S. (2010). Examining the Effects of School Composition on North Carolina Student Achievement over Time. Education Policy Analysis Archives, (1829) U.S. Department Of Education. (2012). Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies (Title I, Part A) . ED.gov. Retrieved December 1st, 2012 from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html