Urban Schools - National Center for Education Statistics

[Pages:42]NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Urban Schools

The Challenge of Location and Poverty

U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement

NCES 96-184

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS June 1996

Urban Schools

The Challenge of Location and Poverty

Laura Lippman Shelley Burns Edith McArthur National Center for Education Statistics

With contributions by: Robert Burton Thomas M. Smith National Center for Education Statistics

Phil Kaufman MPR Associates, Inc.

U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement

NCES 96-184

U.S. Department of Education Richard W. Riley Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement Sharon P. Robinson Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics Jeanne E. Griffith Acting Commissioner

Data Development and Longitudinal Studies Group John H. Ralph Acting Associate Commissioner

National Center for Education Statistics

"The purpose of the Center shall be to collect, and analyze, and disseminate statistics and other data related to education in the United States and in other nations."--Section 406(b) of the General Education Provisions Act, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1221e-1).

June 1996

Contents

Page

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi List of Charts and Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxvii

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Previous Research on School Location and Poverty Concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Student Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 School Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Neighborhood Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Setting: Urban Schools and Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Urban Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 School Poverty Concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Student Minority Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Community Risk Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Definitions of Urbanicity and Poverty Concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2. EDUCATION OUTCOMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Summary of This Chapter's Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Student Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Academic Achievement of 8th Graders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Academic Achievement of 10th Graders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Did 10th-Grade Achievement Change Between 1980 and 1990? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 High School Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Postsecondary Degree Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Economic Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Early Productive Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Later Productive Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Unemployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Poverty Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Page xiii

Contents--Continued

Page

3. STUDENT BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS AND AFTERSCHOOL ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . 47 Summary of This Chapter's Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Student Background Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Two-Parent Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Parental Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Parents' Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 School Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Parents' Expectations for Their Child's Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Parent and Child Conversations About School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Afterschool Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Student Participation in Extracurricular Sports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 School Sports Offerings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Sports Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Employment of 10th-Grade Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

4. SCHOOL EXPERIENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Summary of This Chapter's Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

School Resources and Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Availability of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Teacher Salaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Teacher Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Difficulty Hiring Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Percent Minority Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Teacher Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Teacher Influence Over Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Teacher Absenteeism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

School Programs and Coursetaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Preschool Attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Gifted and Talented Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Vocational Coursetaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Mathematics Coursetaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Student Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Hours of Television Watched on Weekdays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Hours Spent on Homework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Student Absenteeism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Time Spent Maintaining Classroom Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 School Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Page xiv

Contents--Continued

Page Student Possession of Weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Student Alcohol Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Student Pregnancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124 APPENDICES A Estimates and Standard Error Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 B Methodology of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 C Technical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 D Data Sources and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1 E Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

Page xv

Foreword

In the past, analytic reports prepared by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) have used the data available from one of our survey programs to address a variety of issues. In this report, we have attempted to do something different. We have chosen some specific policy-relevant questions and have tried to answer them using data from several of our surveys as well as other federal surveys.

The questions we chose illuminate the condition of education in urban schools compared to schools in other locations. Much attention has been given recently to America's urban schools, which are perceived to be in a state of some deterioration. Critics like Jonathan Kozol (Savage Inequalities) have vividly pointed out the problems with run-down facilities, unmotivated teachers, crime, and low expectations in inner city schools based on firsthand observations. Many believe that urban youth are more at risk today than youth living elsewhere. Information on these youths is important to the Department of Education because our mission is to ensure equal access to a high quality education for all.

schools and students in other locations on a broad spectrum of student and school characteristics. In particular, we explored how the concentration of student poverty in schools is related to these differences. To do this, we used sophisticated analytical methodologies, but we hope the results are still easy to understand. Our goal was to provide useful information for people interested in the relationship of poverty and urbanicity to student outcomes and background characteristics, as well as school and teacher characteristics.

To help us in planning for future analyses, we would welcome your reaction to this report. Did it answer some important questions about urban schools for you? Were the results easy to understand? Did it provide a "big picture" of urban schools? Did it suggest other issues or topics that could be addressed in a similar manner? The answers to these questions will help us to gauge the success of our effort to produce a new type of report, analyzing a particular topic with relevant data from various sources. We are continually striving to improve our reports to make them more relevant, accessible, and thought provoking.

We thought we could add to the existing information by exploring differences between students from urban

Jeanne E. Griffith Acting Commissioner

Page iii

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions made by the many people involved with this project at every stage of its development.

The analysis of data from many surveys could not have been accomplished without the help and expertise of NCES survey directors and staff and our colleagues at MPR Associates and Pinkerton Computer Consultants. We wish to thank Jeff Owens, Jerry West, Sharon Bobbitt, and Alex Sedlecek of NCES for their willingness to take the time to share their expertise with us, and John Tuma and Phil Kaufman of MPR Associates for their analytical work. Bruce Daniel of Pinkerton Computer Consultants efficiently and cheerfully provided endless tabulations of data from multiple surveys.

Mary Frase, John Ralph, and Bob Burton offered helpful suggestions to the write-up and formatting of the indicators, which markedly improved the presentation. Jenny Manlove helped write a section of the report in chapter 1 on community level background characteristics.

The report was reviewed by very thoughtful and generous people both within and outside of NCES, who improved the report immeasurably. Our NCES reviewers included Mary Frase, Bob Burton, John

Ralph, Jeanne Griffith, Jerry West, Paula Knepper, Sharon Bobbitt, and Kerry Gruber. Our external reviewers included Michael Casserly, Gary Natriello, Floraline Stevens, and Donald Hernandez. Their contributions were innumerable, but any remaining flaws are ours alone.

The project generated many activities at MPR Associates that were orchestrated by the conscientious work of Fena Neustaedter, Patty Holmes, and Susie Kagehiro. Andrea Livingston expertly edited the report, and Leslie Retallick's design for the layout and graphics greatly enhanced the report. Elliott Medrich provided helpful editorial suggestions and took on the task of orchestrating the final editing and layout. Dawn Nelson at NCES handled the administrative aspects of contracting with MPR Associates and provided last-minute assistance with writing. Suellen Mauchamer orchestrated the production of the report.

The authors particularly wish to thank John Ralph for his inspiration, enthusiasm and support throughout the project, and Jeanne Griffith for her insights, support, and patience. This project took on many challenges, and its success was directly due to the willingness of Emerson Elliott, while Commissioner, and Jeanne Griffith, currently Acting Commissioner, to allow the authors to pursue the paths where the analysis led.

Page iv

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download