1 / 44

A 100 Week 3

A 100 Week 3. Four Perspectives: Overview – Weeks 3, 4 , 5 and 6. Four lens on the problem and solution: Week 3: Poverty, inequality, and social factors beyond the school’s control ( state ) Week 4: Bureaucracy, unions, politics, lack of talent, incentives and motivation ( market )

elle
Download Presentation

A 100 Week 3

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A 100 Week 3

  2. Four Perspectives: Overview – Weeks 3, 4, 5 and 6 Four lens on the problem and solution: Week 3: Poverty, inequality, and social factors beyond the school’s control (state) Week 4: Bureaucracy, unions, politics, lack of talent, incentives and motivation (market) Week 5: Underprofessionalization, skill, knowledge (profession) Week 6: Governance (communities)

  3. New Topic: Poverty, segregation and inequality – causes and consequences for school reform

  4. Is concentrated poverty the problem? Coleman Report, 1966: A school’s poverty level is a stronger predictor of how a child will fare in school than any other factor save the child’s own socioeconomic (SES) background. More than 40 years of research since Coleman confirms the negative impact of attending high poverty schools.

  5. What are the negative effects of attending a high poverty school? Teacher quality: less experienced, less qualified, higher turnover Curriculum: less homework, fewer rigorous courses Peer effects: mobility, crime higher; vocabulary, aspirations lower. Parental involvement lower; less parental political clout and pressure on school

  6. Affect of School SES on NAEP Scores

  7. Scarcity of high-performing high poverty schools The numbers of high poverty schools are significant . . . 2007-08: 43% of U.S. elementary students attend high poverty schools (>50% low-income). And growing. Between 1999 and 2007, high poverty schools grew from 34% to 44% of all schools.

  8. Internationally, SES segregation linked with lower achievement—2006 PISA science test Nations whose students score the highest have low levels of SES segregation. SES segregation between schools in US is 33% (OECD mean is 24%; Finland is 10%.) U.S. students score 28th out of 57 nations Only one country that scored above it had a higher degree of SES segregation.

  9. High poverty schools in the United States The numbers of high poverty schools in the United States are significant . . . 2007-08: 43% of U.S. elementary students attend high poverty schools (>50% low-income). And growing. Between 1999 and 2007, high poverty schools grew from 34% to 44% of all schools. During this same period, the percentage of families living below 200% of poverty was essentially static.

  10. Historically, we think of segregation of US schools in terms of race 1868 14th Amendment—equal protection under the law—passed during Reconstruction 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education 1960s and 1970s desegregation efforts

  11. Overlap between racial & SES segregation Attendance at high poverty schools 25% of white students attend high poverty schools. 69% of black and Latino students attend hp schools. Race-based school segregation is also growing % of Black students in predominantly minority schools up from 63% in 1980 to 72% in 2000 % of Latino students in predominantly minority schools up from 55% in 1968 to 71% in 1986

  12. Increasing focus in last decade on Socioeconomic Segregation of Schools 2007 Parents Involved decision declares that the use of race to assign students to schools is unconstitutional. Building research consensus on negative effects of high poverty schools; related media attention. School SES more significant than racial composition for student achievement.

  13. Causes of Increasing School Segregation Post WWII expansion of suburbia; decline of cities Federal highway funds, home mortgage deduction 1980s and 1990s: Federal government abandons desegregation policies Retraction of desegregation funding, judicial oversight Schooling decisions of affluent individuals 2005 study of 21 largest US schools districts finds a 26% gap between the neighborhood low income percentage (avg 34%) and the school (60%)

  14. Wiki and Beyond: High Poverty Schools What is the prevalence of high poverty schools nationwide, and how do states differ in their segregation of schools by income? What is the demographic viability of intra-district integration strategies to reduce the number of high poverty schools? What is the geographic and demographic viability of inter-district integration or consolidation strategies?

  15. Finding 1: Need to look at prevalence of high poverty schools at a state, not national, level

  16. SES Integration Strategies: Beyond Busing SES integration strategies used in 69 districts Parental choice; controlled choice Redrawing school attendance zones Flexible assignment and student transfers Preferential magnet school admission Inter-district Strategies much less common SES-based metropolitan choice programs (Minneapolis, Omaha) Longstanding district partnerships based on race District consolidation/regionalization

  17. Finding 2: Viability of SES Integration Strategies Intra-district Strategies Could eliminate 5%-15% of high poverty schools, affecting .5 to 1.5 million elementary students Work for high poverty schools in low poverty districts Inter-district Strategies Could eliminate 7%-49% of high poverty schools (6 state study) Work best in states with lower poverty rates and urban as opposed to regional concentrations of poverty

  18. Florida districts by low-income % Green = <40% low-income; Orange = 40-50% low-income; Purple = >50% low-income

  19. Nebraska districts by low-income % Green = <40% low-income; Orange = 40-50% low-income; Purple = >50% low-income

  20. Massachusetts districts by low-income % Green = <40% low-income; Orange = 40-50% low-income; Purple = >50% low-income

  21. New Topic: Four Approaches to Tackling Out of School Factors

  22. Five Approaches to Addressing Influence of Poverty • Reduce segregation • Intra-district or inter-district choice • Help children outside of school • Early childhood education • After school programs • Community schools and HCZ • Reduce poverty and inequality (Finland) • School centered approach (next week)

  23. Inter District Busing • Examples: Metco, St. Louis busing • Positive Results: Increases in college-going rates • Challenges: Political obstacles, difficult to scale • (See more info in handout)

  24. Intra District Choice • Examples: Wake County, Cambridge, San Francisco • Mechanics: Parents rank schools, central office seeks to give parents choices, while also seeking greater socio-economic integration • Challenges: Works best in liberal areas where people of different SES backgrounds are concentrated • (See more info in handout)

  25. Abecedarian Project • Designed to enhance school readiness • 5 year program, beginning at 4 months (1972-1977) • 6-8 hours per day • Infant to caregiver ratio 1:3, then 1:6. • 57 treatment; 54 control • 98% African American • All poverty to mothers not graduated from high school • Staff: graduate degree to paraprofessionals + coaching

  26. Abecedarian Project • Treatment • Cognitive and fine motor skills • Language gross skills • Language development • Child care center became a school program • Variety of activities

  27. Abecedarian Project • Results • Higher reading and math scores for treatment group from ages 3 to 21 • Grade retention (as of age 15): • 31.2 percent vs 54.5 percent • Special ed • 24.5 percent vs 47.7 percent • College (age 21) • 35 percent enrolled or graduated 4 year college vs. 14 percent • Average age at birth first child: • 19.1 years vs. 17.7 years

  28. Perry Pre-School • Context: • Ypisilanti, MI, 1962-63-1966-67 • 3 or 4 years old in study years • 45 participants two years; 13 for one year • 58 treatment; 65 control, all low SES, below 90 on IQ – random assignment • Matched on SES, welfare status, parental employment, household size, etc.

  29. Perry Pre-School • Intervention: • 5 mornings a week, classes of 20-25 • Teachers certified in early childhood and special education • 90 minute weekly home visits • High/Scope Curriculum • Children plan, carry out and review own activities • Teachers arrange classroom – balance between child-centered and teacher-centered learning • Developmental curriculum derived from Piaget

  30. Perry Pre-School • Results as of age 27: • Schooling: • 11.9 years vs 11 years • 71% high school diploma/GED vs. 54% • Earnings: • 29% $2000 or more, vs. 7% • Males 42% $2000 or more vs 6% • Females 80% employed vs 55%

  31. Perry Pre-School • Results as of age 27: • Marriage: 40% (treatment) vs 8% (control) • Arrests: 2.3 (treatment) vs. 4.6 (control) • Welfare assistance (including food stamps, Medicaid, public housing): • 59% of treatment vs 80% of controls

  32. Perry Pre-School • Results as of age 27: • Marriage: 40% (treatment) vs 8% (control) • Arrests: 2.3 (treatment) vs. 4.6 (control) • Welfare assistance (including food stamps, Medicaid, public housing): • 59% of treatment vs 80% of controls

  33. Perry Pre-School How do you think it achieved these effects so many years later? • sdfsa

  34. Perry Pre-School: Pathways Literacy at age 19 Program intervention High school earnings K-3 motivation High school grad Initial SES Lifetime arrests

  35. Head Start • 800,000 children annually • Poor children only • Learning environment + nutrition and other social skills. • Funding roughly $5,000-$6,000 annually (about half to 1/3 of Perry and Abecedarian in constant dollars)

  36. Head Start • Results: • Benefits for early test scores • Fadeout of test scores over time: • Particularly for African Americans • Less so for whites • No fadeout for those in high SES schools • Long term effects -- small to none, depending on the study • Conclusions in the eye of the beholder

  37. Community Schools and Harlem Children’s Zone http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H0k2TDZF7o&feature=channel http://www.hcz.org/what-is-hcz/hcz-tv?task=videodirectlink&id=2

  38. Harlem Children’s Zone • Goal: Provide enveloping positive environment – birth to college • Less than one square mile, 10,000 children • Baby college – classes for parents 0-3 • All day pre-kindergarden • Extended day charter schools (promise academy) • 4 to 1 student teacher ratio • Health clinics and community centers • $100 million + of private funding • Obama: $10 million to replicate in 20 cities

  39. Harlem Children’s Zone: Results, Good News Source: Roland Fryer (reference below)

  40. Harlem Children’s Zone: Results, Bad News Source: Aaron Pallas (reference below)

  41. HCZ, Qual. Results:Tough, Whatever It Takes • Struggled to produce results in middle school “Promise Academy” charter school • Fired the principal • Board members want to replace with KIPP • Individualized plans for students based on test performance • Extended school day and week • Doubled and tripled the time spent in test prep • Ultimately had to close planned expansion for 9th grade • Elementary school more successful • Trying to patch holes in the “conveyor belt” • Trials of middle school leads to desire to start earlier

  42. If you were Obama, would you expand HCZ to 20 sites? • sdfasf

  43. HCZ: Too soon to tell • Results due to Promise Academy or to other social services? • Success in middle school math due to a few exceptional teachers or broad wrap around services? • Worries about speed of scaling

More Related