emily blades edl 630
DESCRIPTION
Comparing Economically Disadvantaged Students to their Non Economically Advantaged Peers Across Two Similar Schools. Emily Blades EDL 630. The Burning Question. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Comparing Economically Disadvantaged Students to their Non Economically
Advantaged Peers Across Two Similar SchoolsEmily Blades
EDL 630
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.
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
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
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%
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
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
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
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?
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
How the two populations compare by subject and achievement level
Limited Reading PercentageLimited Mathematics Percentage
Limited Science Percentage
Basic Reading PercentageBasic Mathematics Percentage
Basic Science Percentage
Proficient Reading PercentageProficient Mathematics Percentage
Proficient Science Percentage
Accelterated Reading PercentageAccelerated Mathematics Percentage
Accelerated Science Percentage
Advanced Reading PercentageAdvanced Mathematics Percentage
Advanced Science Percentage
School A EDSchool A Non EDSchool B EDSchool B Non ED
Limited level - subject and gap difference between the two schools
School A ED
School A Non
ED
School B ED
School B Non
ED
-
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
Limited Reading PercentageLimited Mathemat-ics PercentageLimited Science Percentage
Limite
d Rea
ding P
ercen
tage
Limite
d Math
emati
cs Per
centag
e
Limite
d Scie
nce Pe
rcenta
ge (2.0)
-
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
Difference in Achievement Levels at School ADifference in Achievement Levels at School B
Basic level - subject and gap difference between the two schools
Basic
Reading
Perce
ntage
Basic
Mathem
atics
Perce
ntage
Basic
Scien
ce Per
centag
e -
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
Difference in Achievement Levels at School ADifference in Achievement Levels at School B
School A ED
School A Non
ED
School B ED
School B Non
ED
-
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
Basic Reading PercentageBasic Mathematics PercentageBasic Science Percentage
Proficient level - subject and gap difference between the two schools
School A ED
School A Non
ED
School B ED
School B Non
ED
-
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
Proficient Reading PercentageProficient Mathe-matics PercentageProficient Science Percentage
Profici
ent R
eadin
g Perc
entag
e
Profici
ent Math
emati
cs Per
centag
e
Profici
ent Sc
ience
Perce
ntage
-
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
Difference in Achievement Levels at School ADifference in Achievement Levels at School B
Accelerated level - subject and gap difference between the two schools
School A ED
School A Non
ED
School B ED
School B Non
ED
-
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
Accelterated Read-ing PercentageAccelerated Mathematics Per-centageAccelerated Sci-ence Percentage
Accelt
erated
Readin
g Perc
entag
e
Accele
rated
Mathem
atics
Perce
ntage
Accele
rated
Scien
ce Pe
rcenta
ge
(25.0)
(20.0)
(15.0)
(10.0)
(5.0)
-
5.0
10.0
Difference in Achievement Levels at School ADifference in Achievement Levels at School B
Advanced level - subject and gap difference between the two schools
School A ED
School A Non
ED
School B ED
School B Non
ED
-
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Advanced Reading PercentageAdvanced Mathe-matics PercentageAdvanced Science Percentage
Adva
nced R
eading
Perce
ntage
Adva
nced M
athem
atics
Perce
ntage
Adva
nced S
cience
Perce
ntage
(40.0)
(35.0)
(30.0)
(25.0)
(20.0)
(15.0)
(10.0)
(5.0)
-
Difference in Achievement Levels at School ADifference in Achievement Levels at School B
COMPARED TO THE STATE OF OHIO
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED READING Lim
ited R
eading
Perce
ntage
Basic
Reading
Perce
ntage
Profici
ent R
eading
Perce
ntage
Accelt
erated
Readin
g Perc
entag
e
Adva
nced R
eading
Perce
ntage
-
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
School A EDSchool B EDOhio State ED
COMPARED TO THE STATE OF OHIO
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED M
ATHEMATICS Lim
ited M
athem
atics
Percen
tage
Basic
Mathem
atics
Perce
ntage
Profici
ent M
athem
atics
Perce
ntage
Accele
rated
Mathem
atics
Perce
ntage
Advan
ced Math
emati
cs Pe
rcenta
ge -
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
School A EDSchool B EDOhio State ED
COMPARED TO THE STATE OF OHIO
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
SCIENCE Limite
d Scie
nce Pe
rcenta
ge
Basic
Scien
ce Pe
rcenta
ge
Profici
ent S
cience
Perce
ntage
Accele
rated
Scien
ce Pe
rcenta
ge
Adva
nced S
cience
Perce
ntage
-
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
School A EDSchool B EDOhio State ED
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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 WayJeffery Thomas Hayden FoundationReach Out LakotaRonald McDonald HouseThe Community Foundation of Liberty and West ChesterYMCA/YWCAAmerican Red CrossFree Store/Food bankDrake CenterDuvall center Family Education ProgramHabitat for Humanity – West Chester/MasonDistrict Tutoring - Ohio READSLakota Special ServicesOhio Community Emergency Food CenterSalvation Army
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?
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