Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
journal of undergraduate research
2
Th e C h a o s F ac t o r : A S t u d y o f S t u de nt Mobil it y in Indiana
3
journal of undergraduate research
5
journal of undergraduate research
have studied what the rest of the class has, and the teacher must fa-
cilitate catch-up and integration, in addition to maintaining his or
her regular duties.
Teachers are also mainly responsible for the social well-being of
each student. The importance of a trusting bond between students
and teachers cannot be stressed enough, for without it, students are
less likely to learn. Teachers are the primary adults with whom stu-
dents interact; the necessity of trust for meaningful student learning
is paramount. Since the teacher spent the beginning of the school
year building a relationship with his students, it is disruptive to re-
peat the process for each new student throughout the year.
Schools As Communities
Looking at the larger picture, we see that schools lose social capi-
tal with an increasing rate of student mobility; social capital and
student mobility are inversely related.27 Social capital is composed
of social networks and norms, which give a sense of community
among a group of people – in this case, within a school.28 Schools
utilize social capital by creating a community of learners and greater
community members committed to the education of their students;
a sense of community is vital to a school’s success.29 Mobility de-
creases the connection between parents, students, schools, and the
greater community, and dissolves the sense of ownership and need
for participation traditionally present in school communities. Be-
cause mobile students and their schools create a tenuous bond, the
idea that a student would extend the school trust diminishes; mobile
students adapt to moving frequently by accepting their disconnec-
tion from the larger community. Thus, schools feel the impact of
mobility through decreased parental participation, community in-
volvement, and, perhaps most importantly, through decreased trust
between teachers and students. Mobility undermines the role of the
school and school authority in students’ lives because of the imper-
manence of interaction.30
6
Th e C h a o s F ac t o r : A S t u d y o f S t u de nt Mobil it y in Indiana
Data
Our main data source was the Indiana Department of Education
website.31 When gathering data on student mobility, we found data
from several different sources, none of which ideally explained their
data gathering methods. To further our confusion, the different data
sources did not report the same mobility rates. As we shall explain,
in the end we used the mobility data from Indiana Annual School
Performance Reports (APR).32 When we initially compared these
data to the mobility information from each individual corporation’s
Student Migration data, we observed different rates from those pro-
vided by the APR.33 The Student Migration data shows the number
of students who transferred in and out of a given school for a school
year. For example, for the South Bend Community School Corpo-
ration (SBCSC, Corporation number 7205) the APR disclosed an
intra-district mobility rate of 9.1 percent, while the Student Migra-
tion data, after some tallying calculations, reported an intra-district
mobility rate of 19.27 percent.
We therefore investigated the Student Migration data set and
found reasons that the values of intra- and inter-district mobility
may be inaccurately reported. First, it is important to note that the
Student Migration data is raw, insomuch as it provides the number
of students moving into and out of a school corporation between
two school years, and thus calculations must be made to generate a
meaningful mobility rate. This not only leaves room for calculation
error, but also raises the questions of which definition of mobility
to use as well as how to create that measure. Second, it is also pos-
sible that Student Migration data is providing a count that is below
the actual mobility, since only schools that received or lost five or
more students within the corporation (or received or lost 10 or more
7
journal of undergraduate research
Methods
Theory
Since our null hypothesis analyzes the consequences of student mo-
bility on ISTEP pass rates, we regressed various independent vari-
ables on our dependent variable of ISTEP pass rates separately for
the math and English sections. This could also be helpful for corpo-
rations if they wish to look at the specific subject that holds the most
promise for improvement. Our final equation is below; we applied
the two dependent variables to the same independent variables:
8
Th e C h a o s F ac t o r : A S t u d y o f S t u de nt Mobil it y in Indiana
Dependent Variables
We included two different dependent variables, each a different cate-
gory of ISTEP passing rates measured by the average pass rate in the
corporation. These corporation averages are compiled from the aver-
age pass rate for the schools at each grade tested, grades 3 through
10. Our two dependent variables are: (1) PCTmath, the percentage
of students passing the math section, independent of their ISTEP
English score and (2) PCTeng, the percentage of students passing the
English section, independent of their math score. We chose these
two ISTEP pass rates because they are each a measure of AYP for a
given sub-group population under the federal government NCLB
Act,35 and thus important to school corporations. Also, math and
English each have different theoretical learning models, causing
mobility to impact each pass rate differently.
ISTEP tests are given to students in Indiana at the beginning of
the school year. Since there is little time for new curriculum before
students are tested, ISTEP tests are lagged one year. They are associ-
ated with the school year prior to the one in which they were given.
Therefore, while our independent variables are for the 2005-2006
school year, our ISTEP pass rates are from the 2006-2007 school
year.
The descriptive variables for each dependent variable are shown
in Table 1. The first column shows our two dependent variables. The
number of observations, means, standard deviations, minimums,
and maximums are shown for the two dependent variables in the
columns to the right, respectively.
The mean pass rate for students passing math independent of English
is higher than the pass rate for students passing the English section
9
journal of undergraduate research
10
Th e C h a o s F ac t o r : A S t u d y o f S t u de nt Mobil it y in Indiana
11
journal of undergraduate research
12
Th e C h a o s F ac t o r : A S t u d y o f S t u de nt Mobil it y in Indiana
Results
The results of our econometric regressions are shown in Table 4.
The first column of the table lists the independent variables we used
in our regression. By including other explanatory variables, we at-
tempted to isolate the effect of intra- and inter-district mobility on
standardized test scores, independent of other characteristics. The
second and third columns show our math and English ISTEP pass
rate regressions, respectively. In these columns, the first number is
the coefficient assigned to each independent variable, and the num-
ber below in parenthesis is the standard error, used to calculate a
measure of significance. The coefficients with an asterisk are statisti-
cally significant from zero at the five percent significance level; co-
efficients with two asterisks are jointly statistically significant from
zero at the five percent significance level. The last row of the table
shows r2, the correlation coefficient. It shows the amount of the vari-
ation in the data for which we account: it is a goodness of fit for our
equation.
13
journal of undergraduate research
r2 .6918 .7181
*Statistically Significant at 5% level.
** Geographic settings are jointly significant at 5% level.
14
Th e C h a o s F ac t o r : A S t u d y o f S t u de nt Mobil it y in Indiana
15
journal of undergraduate research
16
Th e C h a o s F ac t o r : A S t u d y o f S t u de nt Mobil it y in Indiana
Variable
PCTeng 65.54 72.56 73.44 72.66
PCTmath 67.56 74.74 76.84 76.13
INTRA 3.92 1.67 0.47 0.02
INTER 7.55 7.08 7.42 7.70
Stratio 17.07 17.66 17.99 17.03
SPEDpct 17.58 17.03 16.90 17.25
ENROLL 16,080 6,101 2,282 1,087
ENROLLminPCT 37.15 17.07 8.12 3.85
FREELUNCHpct 38.33 26.41 22.02 20.98
PPE $ 10,485.00 $ 9,896.23 $ 9,572.50 $ 9,343.88
ATTNpct 95.61 96.03 96.14 96.12
ELLpct 7.77 4.62 3.69 1.94
17
journal of undergraduate research
Limitations
We acknowledge that there is an omitted variable in our research: a
measure of student ability. Certain measurements, such as IQ scores,
indicate a person’s inherent intellectual capacity. Usually innate abil-
ity and academic performance illustrate a strong correlation – so
students who are naturally “smarter” would usually perform better
on standardized tests like the ISTEP. We could not, however, secure
any individual data to control for student ability in our regression.
Thus, when our regression model failed to pass the Ramsey Regres-
sion Equation Specification Error Test (RESET), we were not sur-
prised by this result. The RESET tests for the possibility of omitted
variables in an equation, though it does not test for what the variable
could be. For our equation, a measure of student ability is the likely
culprit. Additionally, given that our r2 was fairly high, we felt that
our regression was accurate for missing such an important predictor
of ISTEP pass rates.
A second problem may exist in our data that could potentially
skew the results. In an ideal study, we would like to include im-
portant characteristics of the population within a corporation to
more accurately control for population characteristics that impact
the school community. While we considered using data from the
Department of Education’s data extract site with census informa-
tion, the data was from the 2000 census and we judged it too dated
to be relevant. Thus, we lacked specific population characteristics
– such as the percentage of adults in the population with less than
a high school education – which could also influence the students’
academic environment, and thus their academic performance. Per-
haps future studies on mobility will be able to include such popula-
tion characteristics.
18
Th e C h a o s F ac t o r : A S t u d y o f S t u de nt Mobil it y in Indiana
Policy Implications
By examining the causes and consequences of student mobility, we
found that certain policy implications come to the forefront for
statewide Indiana school corporations. There are also implications
for mobility policy at the local level for school corporations such
as the South Bend Community School Corporation (SBCSC), and
such policies need to be carried out in a way that has a direct impact
on mobile students.38 In some ways local authorities may not be able
to address student mobility comprehensively, since it is a problem
that extends beyond their jurisdiction into further social realms such
as landlord-tenant relations.39 Policy changes could include modi-
fying the current Hardship Transfer Policy of the SBCSC to allow
students wishing to stay in their original school to do so without
the requirement of personal transportation. This issue is especially
pressing when compared to the transportation provided for students
who attend certain magnet schools, since transportation is provided
for these students regardless of where they live in the district. While
magnet school students usually perform well on ISTEP and other
such tests, the transportation entitlement is striking when compar-
ing “regular” schools and magnet schools, especially when consider-
ing the impact of mobility on students.
Both inter- and intra-district mobility are worth exploring as a
means of understanding the mobility picture. As Hanushek, Kain,
and Rivkin discover, the two types of mobility present different out-
comes for students and come about for different reasons.40 Local au-
thorities must unite for the cause of lowering inter-district mobility,
a goal with great obstacles, in order to limit the negative influence
of student mobility on academic achievement. Requirements would
include keeping accurate records for students in case they need to
transfer so there is no gap in school information; this way, one school
could pick up where another left off. It would also ensure that indi-
vidual student records were transferred between schools efficiently
and in a timely manner, so the student’s new school could appro-
priately gauge the student’s prior academic work and achievement.
19
journal of undergraduate research
Conclusion
The results of our econometric analysis indicate, as previously de-
scribed, that increases in intra- and inter-district mobility rates have
a statistically significant negative effect on ISTEP pass rates. Based
on our results, then, school corporations’ academic performance can
be increased by decreasing student mobility. The specific estimates
for a given decrease in the mobility rate are shown below in Table 6.
20
Th e C h a o s F ac t o r : A S t u d y o f S t u de nt Mobil it y in Indiana
21
journal of undergraduate research
Independent Variables
Corp = Corporation code number, unique for each corporation.
INTRA = percentage of students who move from one school to an-
other in the same school corporation; the APR data was taken from
the difference between the school roster on October 1st of two con-
secutive school years, only looking at students who transferred within
the school corporation.
INTER = percentage of students who move from one school to an-
other in a different school corporation; the APR data was taken from
the difference between the school roster on October 1st of two con-
secutive school years, only looking at students who transferred from
outside of the corporation.
ELLpct = percent of the corporation’s student population coded as
English Language Learners
ATTNpct = average percent of attendance per corporation.
STratio = ratio of the number of students enrolled to full-time equiva-
lent teachers per corporation.
SPEDpct = percent of corporation’s population that is coded as special
education students.
ENROLL = number of students enrolled per corporation.
ENROLLminpct = percentage of students enrolled who are of minor-
ity ethnicity, non-white.
FREELUNCHpct = percentage of students receiving free lunch per
corporation, having a family income below 130 percent of the pov-
erty line.
PPE = average per pupil expenditure in a corporation
22
Th e C h a o s F ac t o r : A S t u d y o f S t u de nt Mobil it y in Indiana
23
journal of undergraduate research
Endnotes
1
The authors wish to thank Professor Jennifer Warlick and the Fall 2007 class
of ECON 40520, The Economics of Education for their helpful revisions and
support. Claire wishes to thank Dean Stuart Greene for his support while she
was writing the literature review for this paper, originally created for his ESS
senior research seminar. Finally, part of the database used in this paper was
created for Claire’s senior thesis during summer 2007, funded by UROP. Both
authors are most appreciative of UROP’s support.
2
D. Kerbow, Patterns of Urban Student Mobility and Local School Reform.
Journal of Education for Students Paced at Risk, 1 (no.2, 1996): 1.
3
R.W. Rumberger, “The Causes and Consequences of Student Mobility,” Jour-
nal of Negro Education 72 (no.1, 2003): 6.
4
E.A. Hanushek, J.F. Kain, & S.G. Rivkin, “Disruption Versus Tiebout Im-
provements: The Costs and Benefits of Switching Schools,” National Bureau
of Economic Research, Working Paper 8479. http://www.nber.org/papers/
w8479 (Accessed 7 November 2007).
5
Ibid.
6
Rumberger, “The Causes and Consequences of Student Mobility,” 6-21.
7
G. M. Ingersol, J.P. Scamman, & W.D. Eckerling, “Geographic Mobility and
Student Achievement in an Urban Setting,” Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis 13 (no.2, 1989): 143-149.
8
C.B. Swanson & B. Schneider,“Students on the Move: Residential and Edu-
cational Mobility in America’s Schools,” Sociology of Education 72 (no.1,
1999): 54-67.
9
Angie Buysee, interview by the author, South Bend, Indiana (28 November
2007).
10
Rumberger, “The Causes and Consequences of Student Mobility,” 6-21.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
13
C.J. Tucker, J. Marx, & L. Long, “Moving On:” Residential Mobility and
Children’s School Lives. Sociology of Education 71 (no. 2, 1998): 111-129.
14
Ibid.
15
R. Felner, J. Primavera & A. Cauce, “The Impact of School Transitions: A
Focus for Preventive Efforts.” American Journal of Community Psychology 9
(1981): 449-459.
16
Hanushek, “Disruption Versus Tiebout Improvements.”
17
Felner, “The Impact of School Transitions,” 449-459.
18
Hanushek, “Disruption Versus Tiebout Improvements.”
19
D. R. Sanderson, Veteran Teachers’ Perspectives on Student Mobility. Essays
in Education 4 (2003): 1-17.
20
Ibid.
24
Th e C h a o s F ac t o r : A S t u d y o f S t u de nt Mobil it y in Indiana
21
Tucker, “Moving On,” 111-129.
22
Jay Bankowski, interview by the author, South Bend, Indiana (28 November
2007).
23
A.A. Lash & S.L. Kirkpatrick, “A Classroom Perspective on Student Mobility,”
The Elementary School Journal 91 (no.2, 1990): 176-191.
24
Rumberger, “The Causes and Consequences of Student Mobility,” 6-21.
25
D.R. Sanderson, “Engaging Highly Transient Students,” Education 123 (no.3,
2003): 600-605.
26
D.B. Schuler, “Effects of family mobility on student achievement,” Education-
al Research Spectrum 8 (no.4, 1990): 17-24.
27
Bankowski, interview by the author.
28
R.D. Putnam, “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital,” Journal
of Democracy 6 (no.1, 1995): 65-78.
29
V.E. Lee, “Catholic Lessons for Public Schools,” Chapter 6 in D. Ravitch and
J. Viteritti, New Schools for a New Century, 147-163, (New Haven, CT.: Yale
University Press, 1997).
30
Tucker, “Moving On,” 111-129.
31
http://www.doe.state.in.us/.
32
Data is also available on the website as School Snapshots http://mustang.doe.
state.in.us/SEARCH/search.cfm and http://www.doe.state.in.us/htmls/perfor-
mance.html.
33
CORP 7205, for example, http://mustang.doe.state.in.us/SEARsCH/feed-
corp.cfm?corp=7205.
34
When building our database, we used several means of gathering data: (1)
drawing data down straight from the IN Department of Education website,
(2) we found the data in hard copy and hand entered it, and (3) we extracted
the data like (1), but manipulated it to get the measure we wanted. The vari-
ables were entered into the database as follows. Method 1: ENROLL. Method
2: INTRA, INTER, PPE. Method 3: ELLpct, ATTNpct, STratio, SPEDpct,
ENROLLminPCT, FREELUNCHpct, metro, town, rural, nochoice.
35
US Department of Education, No Child Left Behind. http://www.ed.gov/
nclb/landing.jhtml.
36
36 F. Mosteller, “The Tennessee Study of Class Size in the Early School
Grades.” The Future of Children 5 (no.2, 1995): 113-127.
37
US Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services. http://www.fns.
usda.gov/cnd/governance/notices/iegs/iegs.htm.
38
Kerbow, “Patterns of Urban Student Mobility,” 147-169.
39
Schuler, “Effects of family mobility on student achievement,” 17-24.
40
Hanushek, “Disruption Versus Tiebout Improvements.”
41
U.S. General Accounting Office (1994). Elementary school children: Many
Change Schools Frequently, Harming Their Education. Washington, DC.
42
Rumberger, “The Causes and Consequences of Student Mobility,” 6-21.
25