1 / 25

The Multiple Dimensions of Student Mobility

The Multiple Dimensions of Student Mobility. Amy Ellen Schwartz Leanna Stiefel Luis Chalico. EFRC Condition Report October 19 th 2007. Roadmap of presentation. Motivation Objectives Findings Mobility by type

sauda
Download Presentation

The Multiple Dimensions of Student Mobility

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. The Multiple Dimensions of Student Mobility Amy Ellen Schwartz Leanna Stiefel Luis Chalico EFRC Condition Report October 19th 2007

  2. Roadmap of presentation • Motivation • Objectives • Findings • Mobility by type • Mobility by performance and residency • Mobility and academic performance • Policy implications

  3. Motivation: Why focus on mobility? • Might affect student academic performance • Might make teaching harder • Probably costly to districts and schools • Makes accountability harder

  4. Objectives • Develop alternative measures of student mobility • Document magnitudes of each type (and by subgroups) • Analyze how mobility affects academic performance • For NYC, grades 1-8, 1996-97 to 2000-01

  5. Findings: Summary • Considerable mobility from outside (into) New York City • Considerable mobility across schools within the district • Considerable mobility over student’s schooling history • Entrants/frequent movers associated with harder-to- educate characteristics • Mobility negatively affects 8th grade reading

  6. Annual Mobility Measure I: Inter-Year Inter-District Mobility • Refers to mobility in or out of the NYC primary schools between years • What percentage of students are new entrants/exiters/stable in each year?

  7. Annual Mobility Measure II: Inter-Year Inter-School Mobility • Refers to mobility between schools in NYC primary schools between years • Among the stable students, what percent of students are switchers between years?

  8. Annual Mobility Measure III: Intra-Year Inter-School Mobility • Refers to mobility between schools in NYC primary schools within academic years • What percentage of students are switchers during a given academic year?

  9. Cumulative Mobility Measures IV: Prospective Cohort Mobility • Follows a cohort of students who begin in a given grade and year • Asks what percentage of students in a cohort • Move in standard progress • Move to a non-standard grade • Are exiters/entrants from 3rd to 8th grade?

  10. Cumulative Mobility Measures V: Retrospective Cohort Mobility • Traces the paths followed by a cohort of eighth grade students • Asks what percentage of students are switchers within and across academic years in a cohort of eighth grade students?

  11. Annual Inter-Year Inter-District Mobility I (T1)

  12. Annual Inter-Year Inter-School Mobility II (T2b) % of switchers by race and grade (from 99-00 to 00-01) 60, 203 65, 573 71, 590 63, 733 70, 913 68, 779 N. 71, 414

  13. Annual Inter-Year Inter-School Mobility II (T4) % of mandatory switches by race and grade

  14. Annual Intra-Year Inter-School Mobility III (T6b) % of switchers by poverty status and grade (during 2000-01) 74,323 78,641 72,622 81,131 68,521 82,782 82,748 N. 85,335

  15. Cumulative Prospective Cohort Analysis IV (T7) Looking Forward from the Third Grade

  16. Cumulative Prospective Cohort Analysis IV (T7) Looking Forward from the Third Grade

  17. Cumulative Prospective Cohort Analysis IV (T7) Looking Forward from the Third Grade

  18. Cumulative Retrospective Cohort Analysis V (T8) Looking Backwards from the Eighth Grade (2001-02), % of students by number of schools attended by race and grade

  19. Characteristics of “New” Schools (T10) % of switchers that moved to a school with lower/higher peer test scores 3rd graders, 1995-96 to 1996-97 3,006 N. 3,863

  20. Student Moves and Residential Moves (T12) % of switchers that moved to a different zip code/borough, 3rd graders, 1995-96 to 1996-97, percentages 1,142 N. 3,166

  21. Mobility and Student Performance Academic performance is potentially affected by: • Differences in socio-demographic composition • Poverty • Age • Language skills • Teacher and school quality

  22. Mobility and Student Performance We use the following education production function to test for the effect of mobility on performance: Yij = β0 + β1Xi + β2Mi + φj + εij , Where: Yij is the reading test score of student i on school j Xi is a vector of SES characteristics for student i Mi is a vector of measures of mobility for student i φj is a control for fixed characteristics of school j εij is an statistical error term

  23. Mobility and Student Performance (T14) Regression results, reading test scores, 8th graders in 2001-2001 (only the coefficients of M are shown) Inter-year inter-school mobility Intra-year inter-school mobility

  24. Results • Considerable mobility of students in NYC primary schools • Mobility affects performance • Those who move frequently are in general the least well-off groups • Follow up: Distribution of switches by type of school

  25. Policy implications • “Longer-span” schools like K-8 schools could help to minimize student moves • Addressing the academic needs of those students who switch could foster higher performance • Targeting “high-switching” groups in order to diminish their mobility could improve performance

More Related