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

2. 1 Roadmap of presentation Motivation Objectives Findings – Mobility by type – Mobility by performance and residency – Mobility and academic performance Policy implications

3. 2 Motivation: Why focus on mobility? Might affect student academic performance Might make teaching harder Probably costly to districts and schools Makes accountability harder

4. 3 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. 4 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 8 th grade reading

6. 5 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. 6 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. 7 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. 8 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. 9 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. 10 Annual Inter-Year Inter-District Mobility I (T1)

12. 11 Annual Inter-Year Inter-School Mobility II (T2b) % of switchers by race and grade (from 99-00 to 00-01) N. 71, 414 70, 913 71, 590 68, 779 65, 573 63, 733 60, 203

13. 12 Annual Inter-Year Inter-School Mobility II (T4) % of mandatory switches by race and grade

14. 13 Annual Intra-Year Inter-School Mobility III (T6b) % of switchers by poverty status and grade (during 2000-01) 82,782 N. 85,335 82,748 81,131 78,641 74,323 72,622 68,521

15. 14 Cumulative Prospective Cohort Analysis IV (T7) Looking Forward from the Third Grade

16. 15 Cumulative Prospective Cohort Analysis IV (T7) Looking Forward from the Third Grade

17. 16 Cumulative Prospective Cohort Analysis IV (T7) Looking Forward from the Third Grade

18. 17 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. 18 Characteristics of “New” Schools (T10) % of switchers that moved to a school with lower/higher peer test scores 3 rd graders, 1995-96 to 1996-97 3,006 N. 3,863

20. 19 Student Moves and Residential Moves (T12) % of switchers that moved to a different zip code/borough, 3 rd graders, 1995-96 to 1996-97, percentages N. 3,166 1,142

21. 20 Mobility and Student Performance Academic performance is potentially affected by: Differences in socio-demographic composition – Poverty – Age – Language skills Teacher and school quality

22. 21 Mobility and Student Performance We use the following education production function to test for the effect of mobility on performance: Y ij = β 0 + β 1 X i + β 2 M i + φ j + ε ij, Where: Y ij is the reading test score of student i on school j X i is a vector of SES characteristics for student i M i is a vector of measures of mobility for student i φ j is a control for fixed characteristics of school j ε ij is an statistical error term

23. 22 Mobility and Student Performance (T14) Regression results, reading test scores, 8 th graders in 2001-2001 (only the coefficients of M are shown) Inter-year inter-school mobility Intra-year inter-school mobility

24. 23 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. 24 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