Emily Blades EDL 630

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


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


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


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)

-


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


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



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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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

Emily Blades EDL 630

Documents

Transcript of Emily Blades EDL 630