the multiple dimensions of student mobility efrc condition report october 19 th 2007 amy ellen...

The Multiple Dimensions of Student Mobility

EFRC Condition Report October 19 th 2007

Amy Ellen Schwartz

Leanna Stiefel

Luis Chalico

2

Roadmap of presentation

• Motivation

• Objectives

• Findings– Mobility by type

– Mobility by performance and residency

– Mobility and academic performance

• Policy implications

3

Motivation: Why focus on mobility?

• Might affect student academic performance

• Might make teaching harder

• Probably costly to districts and schools

• Makes accountability harder

4

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

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 8th grade reading

6

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

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

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

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

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

Annual Inter-Year Inter-District Mobility I (T1)

8th Grade

Graduates

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)N. Obs. 660,698 52,982 65,147 542,569 80,085 40,970 663,624% of col (1) 100 8 10 82% of col (7) 81.76 12.07 6.17 100

2000 2001All

Students1-7

Grade Exiters

Stayers New 1st Grade

New 2-8 Grade

All Students

12

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

12.06

7.08

13.84

6.8811.45

5.85

13.02

6.77

66.26

79.68

33.14

20.18

8.304.13

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

Black White Black White Black White Black White Black White Black White Black White

1st grade 2nd grade 3rd grade 4th grade 5th grade 6th grade 7th grade

13

Annual Inter-Year Inter-School Mobility II (T4)

% of mandatory switches by race and grade

Switchers%

Mandatory Switchers%




Mandatory

Total 6,868 12.68 5,598 45.18 39,987 92.42 18,960 81.25 4,220 16.52White 754 3.71 413 13.56 8,334 95.13 2,160 78.10 443 20.99Black 2,816 13.03 2,125 40.80 13,167 89.86 7,554 80.18 1,696 9.79

From 7th to 8th (in 00-01)

From 3rd to 4th (in 96-97)




14

Annual Intra-Year Inter-School Mobility III (T6b)

% of switchers by poverty status and grade (during 2000-01)

82,782N. 85,335 82,748 81,131 78,641 74,323 72,622 68,521

5.735.49

6.67 6.71

4.90

3.84

5.966.27

5.96

7.32 7.28

5.38

4.37

3.69

4.28

4.87

3.54

2.19

5.505.64

6.28

3.863.71

3.91

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

1st grade 2nd grade 3rd grade 4th grade 5th grade 6th grade 7th grade 8th grade

All

Poor

Non-poor

15

Cumulative Prospective Cohort Analysis IV (T7)

Looking Forward from the Third Grade

Year

Continued from the Previous Grade

New Entrants to

District

Entered Grade from Non-

standard Grade

Number of Registered Students

Continued to Next Grade

Continued to Other Than Next Grade Exited

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

3rd Grade 1995-96 73,642

4th Grade 1996-97 71,778

5th Grade 1997-98 70,192

6th Grade 1998-99 68,752

7th Grade 1999-00 67,896

8th Grade 2000-01 68,521

16



Year


New Entrants to

District


standard Grade




(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

3rd Grade 1995-96 -- -- -- 73,642

4th Grade 1996-97 90.4% 7.3% 2.3% 71,778

5th Grade 1997-98 91.8% 5.9% 2.3% 70,192

6th Grade 1998-99 89.4% 6.1% 4.5% 68,752

7th Grade 1999-00 88.3% 7.2% 4.5% 67,896

8th Grade 2000-01 87.9% 5.8% 6.4% 68,521

17



Year


New Entrants to

District


standard Grade




(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

3rd Grade 1995-96 73,642 88.1% 5.2% 6.7%

4th Grade 1996-97 71,778 89.8% 3.2% 7.0%

5th Grade 1997-98 70,192 87.6% 4.1% 8.3%

6th Grade 1998-99 68,752 87.2% 7.5% 5.2%

7th Grade 1999-00 67,896 88.7% 4.1% 7.2%

8th Grade 2000-01 68,521 -- -- --

18

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

3.41 3.67

60.10

75.38

27.46

18.40

7.51

2.34 1.52 0.210.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

Black White Black White Black White Black White Black White

1 school 2 schools 3 schools 4 schools 5 schools

19

Characteristics of “New” Schools (T10)

% of switchers that moved to a school with lower/higher peer test scores 3rd graders, 1995-96 to 1996-97

3,006N. 3,863

63.35

40.98

36.65

59.02

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Black White Black White

Lower Peer Tests Scores Higher Peer Tests Scores

20

Student Moves and Residential Moves (T12)

% of switchers that moved to a different zip code/borough, 3rd graders, 1995-96 to 1996-97, percentages

N. 3,166 1,142

42.31

18.86

12.73

47.51

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Black White Black White

Different Zip Code Different Borough

21

Mobility and Student Performance

Academic performance is potentially affected by:

• Differences in socio-demographic composition

– Poverty

– Age

– Language skills

• Teacher and school quality

22

Mobility and Student Performance

We use the following education production function to test for the effect of mobility on performance:

Yij = β0 + β1Xi + β2Mi + φj + εij ,

Where:

Yij is the reading test score of student i on school j

Xi is a vector of SES characteristics for student i

Mi is a vector of measures of mobility for student i

φj is a control for fixed characteristics of school j

εij is an statistical error term

23

Mobility and Student Performance (T14)

Regression results, reading test scores, 8th graders in 2001-2001 (only the coefficients of M are shown)

Variable Coeff.

2 schools attended -0.203***




1 moving year -0.022***

2 moving years 0.009

3 moving years -0.088*



Observations 51129

R-squared 0.51

School Fixed Effects No

Notes: i) * significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1% ii) Other controls included

Inter-year inter-school mobility

Intra-year inter-school mobility

24

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

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

the multiple dimensions of student mobility efrc condition report october 19 th 2007 amy ellen...

Documents