Sentences with phrase «average school poverty»

Not exact matches

As most would guess, kids with more disadvantages, such as poverty and less educated parents, come to school less prepared, which pulls down average test scores at districts where more kids face these challenges.

Recognizing the educational challenges represented by children in poverty, who are not fluent in English or have other special needs, the Bloomberg administration — even as it relentlessly encouraged the growth of charter schools — built a citywide methodology designed to look past simple comparisons of average school scores on state tests.

At schools with a student poverty rate of below 10 percent, by contrast, the research team found that regular informal exchange among parents helps improve students» grade point average and makes them more likely to graduate.

In California, both NME and pertussis clusters were associated with factors characteristic of high socioeconomic status such as lower population density; lower average family size; lower percentage of racial or ethnic minorities; higher percentage of high school, college, or graduate school graduates; higher median household income; and lower percentage of families in poverty.

As our schools serve greater numbers of Hispanic students and fewer whites, for example, we should expect achievement to decline somewhat because Hispanic students, who are more likely to live in poverty, tend to perform at lower levels, on average, than whites.

The average Massachusetts student misses eight school days per year, according to Goodman, but student absences vary by poverty status, with poor students being absent ten days per year on average, three days more than nonpoor students.

Urban school districts spend significantly less per pupil on their high - poverty schools than their low - poverty ones, a fact that is routinely masked by school budgets that use average - salary figures rather than actual ones, a new paper suggests.

The analysis also incorporates data from the National Center for Education Statistics on the racial / ethnic composition of each school, the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced - price lunch (an indicator of family poverty), the average number of students in each grade (a measure of school size), and the school's pupil - teacher ratio (an measure of class size) in the 2007 - 08 school year.

That amounts to $ 6,439 per student this year, or about $ 2,000 less, on average, than at other Nevada public schools, which receive money from federal poverty and special - education programs.

In fact, many of these districts even «bill» their high - poverty schools for the average teacher salary instead of the actual (and usually much lower) salaries they are paying to their often brand - new, less - qualified teachers.

We find similar differential effects on math by school poverty level, with a statistically significant positive effect for lower - poverty schools, even though the average effect across all schools was not distinguishable from zero.

Students in the schools in this sample are more likely to have married parents (70.7 percent versus 61.7 percent statewide with third grade test scores), less likely to have fathers absent at the time of birth (9.8 percent versus 15.2 percent statewide), less likely to have Medicaid - funded births (a proxy for poverty at the time of birth, 37.7 percent versus 48.8 percent statewide), and have relatively better educated mothers (13.1 years of maternal education at the time of the child's birth, versus 12.5 years on average statewide).

Despite the slightly lower average poverty rates in receiving schools, they still had average poverty rates that were higher than 40 %, which is the criterion used to determine eligibility for schoolwide programs.

To isolate the effects of an SFJ on districts within each poverty quartile, we focus on changes in spending over time within specific school districts after taking into account changes from year to year in average education spending across all of the nation's school districts.

In Mesa, sending schools had a higher average poverty rate (66 %) than receiving schools (48 %), and receiving schools had a higher average poverty rate than eligible receiving schools (28 %).

Making progress on this difficult issue is predicated on acknowledging an uncomfortable truth, one that can easily be demagogued: On average, due to a host of factors beyond their own control, including poverty, fatherlessness, and trauma, poor children of color are more likely to misbehave at school than are their peers.

However, research by the National Union of Teachers (NUT) and the charity Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) shows that primary schools with more than 40 per cent of children on free school meals will on average lose # 473 per pupil.

Requiring districts to equalize their state / local spending in each Title I school with the average spending in non-Title I schools can create incentives for districts to adjust which schools they designate as Title I. For example, if a district's lower - poverty Title I schools (which could still be high poverty schools), have new, less - expensive teachers, kicking those schools out of Title I would lower average spending in non-Title I schools.

The upshot, per the article, is that «children in the school districts with the highest concentrations of poverty score an average of more than four grade levels below children in the richest districts.»

The study also compared charter performance to average statewide performance — admittedly, a higher bar, as schools statewide had significantly lower levels of poverty than the charters (and their urban districts).

The Hypersegregation Index calculates the share of schools in a district that have a poverty rate at least 20 percentage points above or below the district average.

For example, Stamford Public Schools in Connecticut — which scored a zero on the Isolation of Poverty Index and a zero on the Isolation of Wealth Index — has created a requirement that all schools be within 10 percentage points of the district's average share of «educationally disadvantaged» stSchools in Connecticut — which scored a zero on the Isolation of Poverty Index and a zero on the Isolation of Wealth Index — has created a requirement that all schools be within 10 percentage points of the district's average share of «educationally disadvantaged» stschools be within 10 percentage points of the district's average share of «educationally disadvantaged» students.

In the south end, where poverty is greatest, the average teacher at Rainier Beach High School earns $ 60,673.

This means that although the district, on average, has a poverty rate of 64 percent, more than three - quarters of the district's schools have a poverty rate that is either 84 percent and higher, or 44 percent and lower.

On average the funding gap between high - and low - poverty schools is $ 582 per pupil.

On average, respondents estimated that a little more than half — or 52 percent — of all low - income students attend high - poverty schools.67 This estimate is slightly larger than the Urban Institute figure showing that 40 percent of all low - income students attend a high - poverty school.68

Pasco High School is a high - poverty school in Eastern Washington that has kept its teacher turnover rate below the state average for the past five School is a high - poverty school in Eastern Washington that has kept its teacher turnover rate below the state average for the past five school in Eastern Washington that has kept its teacher turnover rate below the state average for the past five years.

Indeed, a close look at MCAS results shows there is surprisingly little difference between the quality of teaching in so - called «good» schools (wealthy, suburban schools with high MCAS scores) and «bad» schools (inner - city schools with low scores) when the results are averaged across all teachers in the district and disaggregated by student demographics, specifically race and poverty.

There is always a big hullabaloo when American students score average on international tests, but the fact is that American kids in very low - poverty schools score as high or higher than anybody else on the planet.

If the average salary gap between a poor and a wealthier school is $ 5,000, a higher poverty school with 30 teachers would be shortchanged $ 150,000 a year.

Average district per - pupil spending does not always capture staffing and funding inequities.14 Many districts do not consider actual teacher salaries when budgeting for and reporting each school's expenditures, and the highest - poverty schools are often staffed by less - experienced teachers who typically earn lower salaries.15 Because educator salaries are, by far, schools» largest budget item, schools serving the poorest children end up spending much less on what matters most for their students» learning.

The first column, FRPM 0 - 33 %, represents schools in wealthier communities; the far right column, FRPM > 89 %, represents high - poverty schools; and the middle column represents schools that are closer to the state average on the indicator, ranging from one standard deviation above to one standard deviation below the mean.

He reminds us that «in the US, wealthy children attending public schools that serve the wealthy are competitive with any nation in the world... [but in]... schools in which low - income students do not achieve well, [that are not competitive with many nations in the world] we find the common correlates of poverty: low birth weight in the neighborhood, higher than average rates of teen and single parenthood, residential mobility, absenteeism, crime, and students in need of special education or English language instruction.»

This implies that high - poverty schools are, on average, much less effective than lower - poverty schools, and suggests that strategies that reduce the differential exposure of black, Hispanic, and white students to poor classmates may lead to meaningful reductions in academic achievement gaps.

On average, the federal government contributes about 10 percent to the total amount spent on public education, but these dollars account for a larger portion of many high - poverty districts» budgets.11 For example, Los Angeles Unified School District and Chicago Public Schools — both high - poverty districts — receive about 15 percent of their budgets from the Education Department.12 These dollars serve essential purposes, such as supplementing services for low - income students, defraying the cost of individualized education programs for students with disabilities, and compensating for a loss of property tax due to federally owned land.

Children in the school districts with the highest concentrations of poverty score an average of more than four grade levels below children in the richest districts.

For example, in Trenton City school district, 31 percent of children are living with families in poverty — more than twice the average for New Jersey.

Because high school dropouts earn $ 250,000 less on average over a lifetime less than graduates do (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2006), their children are more likely to be raised in poverty — and students from impoverished households with undereducated parents are themselves more likely to drop out.

* At low - poverty elementary schools, student enrollment was on average 75 percent white, 6 percent black, 11 percent Hispanic, 7 percent Asian / Pacific Islander, and 1 percent American Indian / Alaska Native.

The authors pointed out some of the advantages of low poverty noting, «Children whose parents read to them at home, whose health is good and can attend school regularly, who do not live in fear of crime and violence, who enjoy stable housing and continuous school attendance, whose parents» regular employment creates security, who are exposed to museums, libraries, music and art lessons, who travel outside their immediate neighborhoods, and who are surrounded by adults who model high educational achievement and attainment will, on average, achieve at higher levels than children without these educationally relevant advantages.»

Meanwhile, white students went to a school where low - income students, on average, made up about 24 % of the enrollment — almost a 30 percentage point white - black disparity in exposure to poverty.

This oversampling of students who attend schools with high levels of poverty and undersampling of students from schools with less poverty results in artificially low PISA reports of national average scores.»

He rests this claim on the fact that, on average, black students in poverty perform eight hundredths of a standard deviations better in math and six - hundredths of a standard deviation better in reading when they are in charter schools, while the numbers for Hispanic students in poverty are, respectively, seven - hundredths and thirty - five hundredths of a standard deviation.

First, we find that teachers working in above - average poverty charter schools have significantly higher value - added scores compared to traditional public school teachers working in similar settings, which is mainly driven by the right tail of the value - added score distribution, yet we find no such differences in below - average poverty settings.

All of which helps explain how Bethune Elementary — with a population of children who are almost all African American and almost all poor — posts proficiency rates that well exceed state averages, earning it a place on the state's «High Performing High Poverty» school list.

In Philadelphia, what is most vexing are the politicians who have, or whose children have, attended magnet and criteria - based schools — schools that have historically been closed to most black children, have fewer children in poverty than the city's average, fewer students with special needs or ELL support, and who screen entry of its students studiously, and vigilantly.

It warns that these schools admit around 9.4 % of pupils eligible for Free School Meals (FSM)- a key measure of poverty, compared to 17.2 % attending the average state sSchool Meals (FSM)- a key measure of poverty, compared to 17.2 % attending the average state schoolschool.

Newark's North Star Academy, for example, which is run by Uncommon Schools, may beat city - wide averages, but it loses half of its students between grades five through 12, it serves half the percentage of students with disabilities and 15 percent fewer of its students are in poverty, notes Bruce Baker, a professor of education finance at Rutgers University.

The school's above - average spending is partly because it has a high number of students in poverty; it receives a pot of federal money every year for professional development.

Furthermore, in the schools in which low - income students do not achieve well, we find the common correlates of poverty: low birth weight in the neighborhood, higher than average rates of teen and single parenthood, residential mobility, absenteeism, crime, and students in need of special education or English language instruction.