The Challenge of High-Poverty Schools: How Feasible is Socioeconomic School Integration? Stephanie Aberger, Expeditionary Learning Ann Mantil, Harvard Graduate School of Education Anne Perkins, Massachusetts Department of Higher Education The Future of School Integration: Socioeconomic Diversity as an Education Reform Strategy March 7, 2012

The Achievement Gap, SES, and High Poverty Schools _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Mathematics Assessment, 2009, Low-income students defined as those eligible for free and reduced price lunch.

Research Questions What are the patterns and prevalence of U.S. high poverty schools, and how do they vary by state? What is the potential of intradistrict and interdistrict integration strategies to reduce the number of high poverty schools?

Research Design United States, by Percentage of Students Receiving Free or Reduced Price Lunch _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Source: Authors’ compilations from National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2007-08 school year.

Prevalence and Patterns of High- Poverty Elementary Schools In our district elementary sample: There are 22,487 high poverty schools (48%) 10.3 million students attend high poverty schools 75% of Black and 72% of Latino students attend high-poverty schools as compared to 29% of white students. The percentage of schools that are high poverty ranges from 4% (New Hampshire) to 85% (Mississippi).

While high poverty school enrollment generally tracks state poverty levels, there are some striking exceptions. Connecticut 34% low-income statewide 14% [ 54% ] Most Socioeconomic School Segregation ________________________________________________________ Source: Authors’ compilations from National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2007-08 school year. 3/7/12

States with more SES school segregation also tend to have larger SES achievement gaps _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Source: Authors’ compilations from National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2007-08 school year and National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007 4th grade Reading Assessment.

Intradistrict strategies can reduce the number of high poverty schools by 5% nationally. Intradistrict strategies reduce the number of high-poverty schools through initiatives contained within a single district. At least 40 districts currently utilize intra-district strategies (Reardon & Rhodes). While there are districts in nearly every state that could utilize intradistrict strategies, most high-poverty schools are located in high-poverty districts.

Viability of Interdistrict Strategies States Selected for Interdistrict Analysis- District Elementary Schools _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1, “GCT-PH1. Population, Housing Units, Area, and Density: 2000” ; authors’ compilations from National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2007-08 school year.

Possibilities for Interdistrict Partnership Virginia, by Percentage of Low-Income Students Arlington County Alexandria City Giles County Scott County _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Source: Authors’ compilations from National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2007-08 school year.

The percentage of high-poverty schools with inter-district solutions ranges from 7% in Florida to 52% in Nebraska. Percent Reduction in High-Poverty Schools through Inter-district Strategies _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Source: Authors’ compilations from National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2007-08 school year. Based on demographic viability screen. Borderline and higher-poverty districts only; intradistrict strategies used in low-poverty districts

Missouri, by Percentage of Low-Income Students Regional concentrations of poverty lower the potential for interdistrict solutions. Missouri, by Percentage of Low-Income Students Kansas City Percent of High Poverty Schools “Solved” = 17% _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Source: Authors’ compilations from National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2007-08 school year.

Nebraska, by Percentage of Low-Income Students Patchwork patterns of low and higher income districts are more amenable to interdistrict integration. Nebraska, by Percentage of Low-Income Students Percent of High Poverty Schools “Solved” = 52% Omaha Lincoln _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Source: Authors’ compilations from National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2007-08 school year.

Massachusetts, by Percentage of Low-Income Students Urban concentrations of poverty raise the potential impact of interdistrict strategies. Massachusetts, by Percentage of Low-Income Students Percent of High Poverty Schools “Solved” = 34% Boston _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Source: Authors’ compilations from National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2007-08 school year.

Overcoming the Perception of SES Segregation as a Fixed Reality Viability of Intra- and Interdistrict Strategies _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Source: Authors’ compilations from National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2007-08 school year.

Appendix

Intradistrict strategies can reduce the number of high poverty schools by 5% nationally. Springfield Metropolitan Area

Interdistrict viability tracks overall state poverty. Florida, by Percentage of Low-Income Students Jacksonville Pensacola Miami Percent of High Poverty Schools “Solved” = 7% _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Source: Authors’ compilations from National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2007-08 school year.

Socioeconomic Segregation and Standardized Achievement Gaps Table 6: Socioeconomic Segregation and Achievement Gaps National Rank, Socioeconomic Segregation State % of Schools whose Low-Income Percentage Varies from the State's by >20% Standardized Score in 4th Grade Reading, Low-Income Students Standardized Score in 4th Grade Reading, Higher-Income Students SES Gap in 4th Grade Reading National Rank, SES Gap in Reading 1 Arkansas 80% -0.44 0.30 0.74 18 2 Connecticut 68% -0.57 0.49 1.06 3 New York -0.33 0.45 0.79 7 4 Arizona 65% -0.71 0.09 0.80 6 5 Illinois 64% -0.48 0.78 9 New Jersey -0.30 0.47 0.76 11 Rhode Island 63% -0.52 0.24 12 8 California -0.73 0.12 0.85 Massachusetts 61% -0.18 0.63 0.81 10 Maryland 57% -0.40 0.36 13 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Source: Authors’ compilations from National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2007-08 school year.