Children and Youth, Education and Literacy, Housing and Homelessness
The problem of students changing schools in the middle of the school year is not new. The consequences of these changes, however, are increasingly dire. Student mobility, defined as students' movement into and out of schools and school districts during a school year, is particularly prevalent among low-income, immigrant and minority children, whose families are often susceptible to changes in housing that precipitate changes in the schools they attend. In an era in which all students are held to high standards, the disruption caused by moving from school to school -- sometimes multiple times within one school year -- can have devastating results for mobile students as well as the teachers and non-mobile students in the schools from which these students depart and to which they arrive.
The purpose of this report is to shed light on the challenges associated with high rates of student mobility in order to best identify and disseminate promising strategies for overcoming these challenges -- both inside and outside of schools. The report is intended to highlight the issue of student mobility and focus policymakers' attention on the changes needed in policy and practice at state and local levels to best serve these students. The ultimate goal is to ensure that mobile students are provided with every opportunity to receive the high quality education that will enable them to become successful, productive citizens.
This report focuses on districts in Massachusetts' Gateway Cities; in these 11 school districts, 35,000 students moved at least once during the 2008 -- 09 school year, representing 35% of all mobile students statewide. In some of these districts, nearly one-third of the students changed schools during the course of the year. This report describes the scale of Massachusetts' student mobility problem and the challenges student mobility presents in 11 schools in 6 Gateway City districts (Brockton, Fitchburg, Haverhill, Holyoke, Springfield, and Worcester). Findings were gathered from interviews with 43 school and district staff members in the 6 Gateway Cities school districts listed above.
The report also provides examples of promising school-, district- and state-level strategies for mitigating the negative impact of mobility. The final section puts forth considerations for action for Massachusetts policymakers. The report suggests that Massachusetts policymakers:
- develop the Readiness Passport and incorporate individual indicators of student mobility;
- expand current efforts to better understand the implications of student mobility and support the districts most impacted by it;
- develop a more flexible and responsive funding system;
- consider how to incorporate student mobility into the state accountability system while holding all students to high standards;
- encourage schools of education to incorporate training for working with mobile students; and
- promote interagency collaboration to address the root causes of student mobility.
The report was the subject of discussion during a public event in Holyoke, MA on September 20, 2011.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Northeastern)-Massachusetts
Children and Youth;Education and Literacy
Student learning plans (SLPs) represent an emerging practice in how public schools across the country are supporting the development of students' college and career readiness skills. Learning plans are student-driven planning and monitoring tools that provide opportunities to identify postsecondary goals, explore college and career options and develop the skills necessary to be autonomous, self-regulated learners. Currently, 23 states plus the District of Columbia require that students develop learning plans, and Massachusetts state policymakers are considering whether all middle and high school students should be required to develop learning plans. Legislation is currently pending that calls for the Executive Office of Education to convene an advisory group to investigate and study a development and implementation process for six-year career planning to be coordinated by licensed school guidance counselors for all students in grades 6 to 12.
The purpose of the policy brief Student Learning Plans: Supporting Every Student's Transition to College and Career is to provide policymakers in Massachusetts with a better understanding of what student learning plans are as well as how and to what extent their use is mandated in other states. The brief is organized into five major sections: an overview of SLPs and the rationale for their use in public K-12 education; an overview of the research on the effectiveness of SLPs on improving a variety of student outcomes, including engagement, responsibility, motivation, long-term postsecondary college and career planning; current state trends in mandating SLPs for all students, including the structure and implementation of SLPs, their connection to other high school reform initiatives and their alignment with state and federal career awareness and workforce development initiatives; promising implementation strategies; and, considerations for state policymakers.
Considerations for Massachusetts policymakers include: learn from states that are pioneers in the implementation of SLPs for all students; develop a comprehensive implementation plan; and, strengthen career counseling and career awareness activities in Massachusetts schools.
The policy brief was the subject of discussion during a public webinar on June 30, 2011.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States;North America / United States (Northeastern) / Massachusetts
Children and Youth;Education and Literacy
In 2009, for the first time in a decade, Massachusetts' dropout rate fell below three percent. While this progress is promising, there remain nearly 8,300 students who did not earn their high school diplomas during the 2009-2010 school year. Given that these individuals face significantly lower earning potential, fewer prospects for employment, much higher rates of incarceration and health problems, and are much more likely to utilize public assistance than those who graduate, there is continued cause for concern and attention to the goal of ensuring that every student receives their high school diploma.
In the current environment of constrained resources, many districts are reluctant to launch new programs or improve existing services that provide additional supports for students at risk of dropping out. Declines in revenue combined with rising costs have constricted local education budgets, forcing superintendents and school business officers to make tough decisions about which programs to fund and which must be cut. It is within this context that the Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy engaged in a study to not only explore promising dropout reduction approaches across Massachusetts, but to also examine the costs and benefits of promising practices for reducing the number of students dropping out of school.
Meeting the Challenge: Fiscal Implications of Dropout Prevention in Massachusetts, conducted with support from the Massachusetts Association of School Business Officers (MASBO), explores the approaches, costs and potential financial benefits of implementing dropout reduction strategies. It highlights a diverse group of five Massachusetts districts that have substantially reduced their dropout rates over the past three years and identifies the district-wide policies and school-based strategies that superintendents and principals indicate have contributed to reducing the number of students dropping out of school. The brief also presents two scenarios that illustrate how, for some districts, per pupil funding obtained from increased enrollment due to successful dropout prevention strategies can be allocated to serve at-risk students.
Considerations for School and District Leaders
- Incorporate strategies that promote engagement and student success into every aspect of the school experience.
- Support staff in taking on new roles and responsibilities.
- Analyze data to determine what works and allocate resources accordingly.
- Use the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education's Early Warning Indicator Index to budget for dropout prevention initiatives for incoming high school students.
- Formalize strategies for reaching out to and re-engaging students who have dropped out.
Considerations for State Policymakers
- Work to establish sustainable funding streams for districts' dropout prevention initiatives.
- Continue to promote, provide and seek ways to expand data collection and analysis tools for schools and districts.
- Strengthen the ability of districts to establish partnerships with community based social service agencies, local businesses and institutions of higher education.
- Facilitate outreach to dropouts.
- Expand alternative education options.
This policy brief was released at a public event on March 1st, 2011.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Northeastern) / Massachusetts
Children and Youth, Education and Literacy
Recently, testimony from three public hearings in Massachusetts suggested that excessive disciplinary action for non-violent offenses, such as tardiness and truancy, exacerbates the dropout crisis. Testimony indicated that students already behind in school are often forced to miss additional days through suspensions, which leads to a loss of credits and an inability to catch up. Some parents, educators, education stakeholders, and coalitions, including the Massachusetts Graduation and Dropout Prevention and Recovery Commission, have called for a closer look at school discipline policies and practice. Many observers have come to believe that fully understanding the role of discipline is an essential step in tackling the problem of why some Massachusetts students are not staying in school. It is within this context that the Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy embarked upon its examination of school discipline in Massachusetts.
Act Out, Get Out? Considering the Impact of School Discipline Practices in Massachusetts reviews why discipline policies are necessary, laws governing these policies, and national research on the effects of disciplinary removal. The brief then describes overall trends in the disciplinary removal (suspensions and expulsions) of Massachusetts public school students over time (school year 2005-2006 through 2008-2009) and findings from a more in-depth analysis of discipline data from the 2007-2008 school year. Key findings from data about the 2007-2008 school year include: 1. For the most serious infractions, those involving illegal substances, violence and criminal activities the most common reason for disciplinary removal is violence; 2. Out-of-school suspension is the most frequently used form of disciplinary removal; 3. The number of disciplinary removals peaks at 9th grade and declines in 10th through 12th grade; 4. Particular segments (low-income, special education, male, black, Hispanic) of the student population are removed at disproportionately high rates.
This policy brief highlights essential questions that need to be answered in order to fully understand how discipline policies are being carried out and to tease out the relationship between disciplinary removal, the achievement gap, and dropping out of public schools in Massachusetts. The final section of the brief puts forth considerations for policymakers and K-12 school and district leaders. The brief suggests there is a need for more detailed and complete record keeping of school discipline data as well as for more schools and districts to implement school-wide preventative approaches and alternative education programs for students who have been removed. The brief also questions the extent to which of out-of-school suspensions are used for non-violent, non-criminal offenses, particularly those for Pre-Kindergarten and Elementary School aged students.
The brief was the subject of discussion at a public event on May 26, 2010.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Northeastern)-Massachusetts
Cobb's review of this report praises it for its technically sound analysis and results that are descriptively useful. However, Cobb cautions that any real claims about whether the voucher program is actually causing higher graduation rates must depend upon a much stronger research design.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Midwestern)-Wisconsin-Milwaukee County-Milwaukee
For the 23rd consecutive year, the Public Policy Forum has compiled and analyzed data from Southeastern Wisconsin's school districts in order to better inform policymakers and the public about progress-or lack thereof-on commonly utilized measures of academic achievement. This year's analysis of the 2008-09 academic year indicates cause for encouragement in some areas, but also cause for significant concern.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Midwestern)-Wisconsin (Southeastern), North America-United States (Midwestern)-Wisconsin-Milwaukee County-Milwaukee
Community and Economic Development, Education and Literacy, Employment and Labor
What's the difference between a Philadelphia graduate and a high school dropout? About $580,000, according to this study which shows the difference in net fiscal contribution over a working lifetime (tax revenue generated vs. tax revenue received) between a Philadelphia student who earns a diploma and one who does not. This research report also offers information on the percentage of students in Philadelphia who do not graduate from high school, the difference in lifetime earnings between high school graduates and high school dropouts, and the likelihood of employment for high school graduates compared to high school dropouts.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Northeastern)-Pennsylvania-Philadelphia County-Philadelphia
Children and Youth, Education and Literacy, Employment and Labor
In the United States, nearly 1.23 million public school students from the class of 2008 failed to graduate with a diploma. In Massachusetts, 91 students drop out of high school each day. Nationally, and in our state, there has been much recent attention paid to the dropout crisis. One initiative being used by states in their efforts to reduce the dropout rate is to increase the compulsory attendance age to 18. In Massachusetts, the current compulsory attendance age is 16.
The passage of a new law in August 2008 led to the establishment of a state-level Graduation and Dropout Prevention and Recovery Commission in Massachusetts. The Commission is charged with making informed recommendations on ten issues, including whether or not the compulsory attendance age should be raised from 16 to 18.
The Rennie Center's recent policy brief, entitled Raise the Age, Lower the Dropout Rate? Considerations for Policymakers, focuses on the question: Is there empirical evidence to support Massachusetts raising its compulsory school attendance age to 18?
Through an examination of research and analysis of other states' policies, the Rennie Center examines the arguments for and against raising the compulsory age of school attendance to 18 and concludes that there is no credible empirical evidence to support this policy alone as an effective strategy to combat the dropout crisis. The Center argues that prior to considering a raise in the compulsory age of attendance, the Commonwealth should focus its energy and resources on developing policies and programs that research has shown to be successful in helping at-risk students stay in school and persist to earning a diploma.
We recommend the following considerations for policymakers. Our hope is that this information will contribute to the current policy discussions focused on the issue of raising the age of compulsory school attendance in Massachusetts.
- Consider empirical evidence.
- Address student disengagement and alienation from school.
- Improve attendance monitoring and early intervention systems.
- Increase alternative education options.
- Examine and consider eliminating some of the existing exemptions that permit 14- and 15-year-olds to leave school prior to graduation.
- Examine and consider updating the current process for legally leaving school.
- Examine the fiscal impact of increasing the age of compulsory school attendance, including examination of: the cost of enforcement; funding outreach programs; increasing capacity to serve youth who would return to school; expansion and professional development of teacher workforce; expansion and professional development of school staff.
August 1970
Geographic Focus:
