1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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?

4. 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 school year.

5. 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).

6. 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 school year.
3/7/12

7. 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 school year and National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), th grade Reading Assessment.

8. 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.

9. 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 school year.

10. 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 school year.

11. 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 school year.
Based on demographic viability screen.
Borderline and higher-poverty districts only; intradistrict strategies used in low-poverty districts

12. 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 school year.

13. 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 school year.

14. 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 school year.

15. 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 school year.

16. Appendix

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

18. 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 school year.

19. 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 school year.