Does High School Affect Social Mobility - Essay Example

appears here] appears here] appears here] appears here] Does High School Affect Social Mobility Abstract Student mobility is a subject that repeatedly surfaces in discussions about the problems of schooling. Surprisingly, it tends to fade from the agenda as discussion turns toward reform initiatives and school restructuring. Student movement, nevertheless, penetrates the essential activity of schools i.e. the interaction of teachers and students around learning. This paper describes the extent of school instability. Many schools, in fact, do not have a stable cohort of students whose progress they can track over time. The causes of this high level of instability, connected both to residential mobility and to more school-related reasons, are explored. Student Mobility: An Introduction Student mobility i.e. students moving from one school to another for reasons other than being promoted to the next school level-is common in the United States. It is a topic that repeatedly surfaces in discussions about the problems of urban schooling. Remarkably, it tends to fade from the program as discussion turns toward reform initiatives and school restructuring. Student mobility and the resulting school instability are usually relegated to a background condition a part of an external context to which schools must adjust. However, mobility's effects can be deep and wide-ranging. They penetrate the crucial activity of schools the interaction of teachers and students around learning. In addition, not only does mobility have an effect on those students who are changing schools, it also more in general disturbs the functioning of classrooms and the basic operations of schools. This is not to say that just reducing student mobility will unavoidably translate into school improvement. Stable schools can also provide bad quality instruction to their students. Stability, in contrast, provides a base condition on which a school can build and transform successful programs. Without a certain level of stability, it is in doubt how school -based educational programs, no matter how modern, could effectively develop and show long-term impact. Mobility is an occurrence that is strongly deep-seated in the urban context and in urban schools. Accordingly, no one-policy approach alone is likely to reduce its prevalence and to improve its effects. The analyses suggest that an array of policy issues merit consideration. Discussions should focus on two levels: policies that can assist in decreasing the level of mobility between schools, and initiatives that can assess the negative impact of student mobility on learning and support school improvement efforts more generally. Over their whole elementary and secondary careers, most students make at least one non-promotional school change (Rumberger et al., 1999). Many educators think that student mobility is a definite result of students changing residences. In actual fact, 2000 U.S. census data show that 15% to 18% of school-age children moved in the previous year. There have also been indications that welfare reform may affect moving, with parents moving to accept jobs. On the other hand, research has also found that between 30% and 40% of school changes are not related with residential changes (Kerbow, 147-169; Rumberger et al., 1999). School factors such as overcrowding, class size reduction, suspension and expulsion policies, and the general academic and social climate also contribute to student mobility. The increase of parental options included in the No Child Left Behind legislation may also contribute over time to increased mobility. Impact on Students Academic Growth: A Literature Review The existing studies of the effect of student mobility on achievement tend to point out that a general decline in achievement is associated with mobility (Benson, Haycraft, Stayaert, & Weigel, 444-47; Benson & Weigel, 15-19; Blane et al, 127-42; Felner et al., 449-59; Johnson & Lindblad, 547-52; Schuler, 17-24; Wood et al., 1334-1338). The literature is limited in several respects nevertheless. First, earlier research has not focused on the intra-district mobility that takes place within urban settings (an exception to this is Ingersoll et al., 143-49). Such patterns of mobility are likely to have different impacts compared to movement in other settings. Second, and conceivably most disturbing, longitudinal data on students' achievement history are lacking. At most, these studies consider two time points. However, the effects of several school transfers may actually "accumulate" in due course. Changing schools is almost definite to disturb, somewhat, a child's learning experience. For instance, the effects of changing schools in second grade may have an "immediate" impact on achievement in that grade. A student may have an adjustment period, which will be reflected in test scores during the year following a change of schools. Nevertheless, this drop in learning, from what would have been expected given the student's earlier achievement rate, may or may not continue. After adjusting to the new environment and possibly making up any loss resulting from the move, the student may return to his or her normal achievement level. That is to say, the student may "recover" from the effects of changing schools and resume his or her previous pattern of academic growth. For students who experience various changes of schools, on the other hand, this state of affairs may be improper. Their "adjustment period" becomes extended across years and several different schools. As a consequence, an additional question must also be considered about the growth in academic ability affecting across time. This cumulative aspect of the effect of mobility is related to single-time movers as well although may be particularly prominent when considering repeated movement across several school years. A number of factors may contribute to such an effect. Students who transfer between schools may actually miss understanding of key concepts, which are fundamentals for higher order skills. Despite the fact that this lack of exposure may not be critical in the particular class the student is attending, its affects may grow as the student progresses through the grades and is required to build on previous knowledge. Such a state of affairs is particularly pertinent in mathematics, which has a rather logical progression in the curriculum. On the whole, students' opportunities to learn depend on the pace with which new material is introduced into the syllabus (see Barr, 526-54; Good & Marshall, 15-38; Rowan & Miracle, 133-44). Pace for the mobile student can be influenced in an irregular way by the new classroom that the student enters. Their prospects to learn may be slowed down or stepped up depending on the school. Nevertheless, it is debatable how well students, even those fortunate enough to enter a class at a similar point in the curriculum as previous one, will be able to take advantage of these opportunities as a result of their instability. Besides, the effect of ability grouping is particularly critical for mobile students. Not only do students transfer to another school, however they may also be misplaced in terms of ability group. The new teacher usually has limited information about mobile students; as a result, their placement into a group is not simple. This crucial decision will influence not only how much the students will learn but also their placement in future years (Rist, 411-51; Gamoran, 185-96; Sorenson & Hallinan, 519-42). These various factors linked together in complicated ways; therefore, a complete understanding of the impact of mobility requires exploring both short-term or immediate consequences and long-term or cumulative effects on academic growth. Many studies have examined the impact of mobility on several aspects of academic achievement. As with all research studies, there are limitations to what these studies tell points out. Most important, since mobile students may have personal and family problems that contribute to their mobility, studies should take into consideration those prior characteristics with the aim of determining whether mobility itself is the cause of later achievement and other problems in schools. Studies that do not control for the background characteristics of students constantly find that mobile students have lower achievement on average than non-mobile or stable students. For case in point, one national study of third-grade students found that frequent school changes were associated with a host of problems, including nutrition and health problems, below-grade-level reading scores, and retention in grade (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1994). On the other hand studies that do explain background differences find that mobility may be more of an indication than a cause of poor school performance. One study of mobile students in Chicago found that half of the achievement differences between mobile and stable students could be attributed to differences between the students that pre-dated their school changes (Temple & Reynolds, 1997). One well-designed study of elementary students in Baltimore found that although mobility during elementary school had a harmful association with test scores, grades, retention, and referral to special education in fifth grade, the association was mainly of no consequence once controls were introduced for the family and academic performance in first grade (Alexander et al, 3-12). In other words, "mobile students came from poorer families and had lower academic performance before they were mobile, a finding supported by other studies" (Nelson et al., 365-369). A number of national studies have also studied the impact of student mobility on the academic performance of students across grade levels. These studies were based on a national health survey that provided controls for the demographic characteristics of students although not prior educational performance. These studies found that only frequent-three or more-family moves predicted grade retention (Simpson & Fowler, 303-309; Wood et al., 1334-1338). Nevertheless, another study based on the same data found that even one residential move had a negative impact on a combined measure of both academic and behavioral aspects of school performance, although the negative association was found only among children who did not live with both biological parents (Tucker et al, 111-129). The authors suggest that two-parent families may have more so-called "social capital" that can help lessen the effects of residential mobility (Coleman, 32-38). Lastly, there is strong evidence that mobility during elementary school in addition to during high school reduces the prospects for graduation. One study that tracked children from early childhood to young adulthood found that residential mobility reduced the chances of high school graduation even after controlling for a variety of family background variables (Haveman & Wolfe, 1994). Several studies based on the same national database of over 10,000 high school students found that school mobility between the first and eighth grades increased the chances of dropping out of school during high school even after controlling for eighth-grade achievement and other factors (Rumberger & Larson, 1-35; Swanson & Schneider, 54-67; Teachman et al, 773-783). Students Mobility: Some Solutions The solutions depend on how one view this phenomenon. Some mobility is viewed mainly as a strategic activity started by students and their families to serve their own interests and educational preferences. Moreover there may be little that can be done to prevent mobility when mobility is a result of families' decisions to change jobs or residences. In this case, the only response is perhaps to better inform students and parents about the possible problems that can develop from changing schools and how to allay them. Nevertheless, at least some mobility is neither strategic nor related to moving. Rather, both students and schools initiate student transfers in response to social in addition to academic concerns. Therefore, much can and should be done both to prevent some types of mobility, particularly those caused by school factors, and to allay some of the harmful effects from mobility. Despite the fact that not supported by formal research, experience suggests that schools and parents can help reduce needless mobility and lessen its harmful effects. Schools and districts can limit policies such as redistricting that contribute to unnecessary mobility. The most general yet potentially the most useful strategy to reduce mobility is to improve the general quality of the school. Case studies have suggested that significant and important school reforms can considerably reduce a school's student mobility rate. For case in point, in a three-year period, Hollibrook Accelerated School in Houston, Texas, reduced its student mobility rate from 104% to 47% (McCarthy & Still, 63-83). School districts can also be accommodating with school boundaries and provide transportation and other supports to help students in low-income families remain in their schools. Districts can also cooperate with each other to support transferring students. Besides these important efforts, counselors, administrators, and other school staff can: Counsel students to remain in the school if at all possible. Staff can "problem solve" with a withdrawing student about how he or she could remain at least until the year end-for example, how the student could use public transportation or be transported by a family member if the student moved out of the neighborhood. Prepare beforehand for incoming transfer students and make easy the transition of incoming transfer students as soon as they arrive. Establish constant activities and procedures to deal with the needs of new students. Evaluate the past enrollment history of incoming students, including the number of previous school changes, and personally monitor the educational progress of students with three or more previous school changes. Parents and students may also be able to prevent unnecessary mobility to help mitigate the potentially harmful effects of mobility that may be necessary or desirable: Students and parents can attempt to solve problems at school before starting a school transfer. Preferably, students can make school changes between semesters or at the end of the school year. When a transfer is made, parents should personally sign students into their new school and meet with a school counselor. They should also make sure that their child's school records are sent in an appropriate manner from their previous school. Parents should make a follow-up appointment with a school counselor and teachers two or three weeks after a transfer is made to see how their child is adjusting to the new school. Conclusion Despite the fact that a substantial body of research suggests that students may be affected psychologically, socially, and academically from changing schools, the impact of mobility depends on such factors as the number of school changes, when they occur, the reason for the changes, and the student's personal and family situation. It was found that mobility has negative impacts on both students and schools. This general conclusion is derived from our analysis of the student and survey surveys as well as the analysis of the student, parent, and educator interviews. Students tend to suffer psychologically, socially, and academically from mobility. Many students experience difficulties adjusting to new school settings. Both students and educators reported transferring to a new school affected their personality or psychological interests. Moreover although the NELS student survey data did not show any significant differences in self-esteem and locus of control, the differences were in the expected directions, with mobile students reporting lower self-esteem and less self-directed control of their lives. Mobile students often experience difficulty in making new friends and fitting in socially to a new school situation. Mobile students in the National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS) surveys reported that they were less likely to be involved in extracurricular activities than stable students. Students and educators who were interviewed confirmed this lower level of involvement, with educators suggesting that this was due in part to poor attendance, which reduced the possibility for after school activities. Possibly as a result, both teachers and students themselves report that mobile students are more likely than other students to act out or to get into trouble in school. Bibliography Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Dauber, S. L. Children in motion: School transfers and elementary school performance, 1996:3-12, Journal of Educational Research, 90(1), EJ 538 467. Barr, R. Instructional pace differences and their effect on reading acquisition, 1974: 526-54, Reading Research Quarterly, 9. Benson, G.P., Haycraft, J.L., Steyaert, J.P., & Weigel, D.J. Mobility in sixth graders as related to achievement, adjustment, and socioeconomic status, 1979: 444-47, Psychology in the Schools, 16. Benson, G.P. & Weigel, D.J. Ninth grade adjustment and achievement as related to mobility, 1981: 15-19, Educational Research Quarterly, 5. Blane, D. A longitudinal study of children's school mobility and attainment in mathematics, 1985: 127-42, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16. Coleman, J. S. Families and schools, 1987: 32-38, Educational Researcher, 16(6), EJ 363 043. Felner, R.D., Primavera, J., & Cauce, A.M. The impact of school transitions: A focus for preventive efforts, 1981: 449-59, American Journal of Community Psychology, 9. Gamoran, A. Instructional and institutional effects of ability grouping, 1986: 185-96, Sociology of Education, 59. Good, T.L. & Marshall, S. Do students learn more in heterogeneous or homogeneous groups In P.L. Peterson, L.C. Wilderson, & M.T. Hallinan (Eds.), The Social Context of Instruction, 1984: 15-38, Orland: Academic Press. Haveman, R., & Wolfe, B. Succeeding generations: On the effects of investments in children, 1994, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Ingersoll, G.M., Scamman, J.P., & Eckerling, W.D. Geographic mobility and student achievement in an urban setting, 1989: 143-49, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11. Johnson, R.A. & Lindblad, A.H. Effect of mobility on academic performance of sixth grade students, 1991: 547-52,Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72. Kerbow, D. Patterns of urban student mobility and local school reform, 1996: 147-169, Journal of Education of Students Placed at Risk, 1(2), EJ 531 794. McCarthy, J., & Still, S. Hollibrook Accelerated Elementary School, In J. Murphy & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Restructuring schooling: Learning from ongoing efforts, 1993:63-83, Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press. ED 357 437. Nelson, P. S., Simoni, J. M., & Adelman, H. S. Mobility and school functioning in the early grades, 1996: 365-369, Journal of Educational Research, 89(6), EJ 536 814. Rist, R. Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education, 1970: 411-51, Harvard Educational Review, 40. Rowan, B. & Miracle, A.W. Systems of ability grouping and the stratification of achievement in elementary schools, 1983: 133-44, Sociology of Education, 56. Rumberger, R. W., & Larson, K. A. Student mobility and the increased risk of high school dropout, 1998: 1-35, American Journal of Education, 107(1), EJ 583 043. Rumberger, R. W., Larson, K. A., Ream, R. K., & Palardy, G. J. The educational consequences of mobility for California students and schools, 1999, Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education. ED 441 040. Schuler, D.B. Effects of family mobility on student achievement, 1990: 17-24, ERS Spectrum, 8. Simpson, G. A., & Fowler, M. G. Geographic mobility and children's emotional/behavioral adjustment and school functioning, 1994: 303-309, Pediatrics, 93(2). Sorenson, A.B. & Hallinan, M.T. Effects of ability grouping on growth in academic achievement, 1986: 519-42, American Educational Research Journal, 23. Swanson, C. B., & Schneider, B. Students on the move: Residential and educational mobility in America's schools, 1999: 54-67, Sociology of Education, 72(1), EJ 590 424. Teachman, J. D., Paasch, K., & Carver, K. Social capital and dropping out of school, 1996: 773-783, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58(3), EJ 537 275. Temple, J., & Reynolds, A. J. Predictors and consequences of school mobility for urban black children from low-income families, 1997, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Tucker, C. J., Marx, J., & Long, L. "Moving on": Residential mobility and children's school lives, 1998:111-129, Sociology of Education, 71(2), EJ 568 057. U.S. General Accounting Office. Elementary school children: Many change schools frequently, harming their education, 1994, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Wood, D., Halfon, N., Scarlata, D., Newacheck, P., & Nessim, S. Impact of family relocation on children's growth, development, school function, and behavior, 1993: 1334-1338, Journal of the American Medical Association, 270(11). Read More