K-12 Education: Many Challenges Arise in Educating Students Who Change Schools Frequently
Published: 2010-11-18T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Educational achievement of students can be negatively affected by their changing schools often. The recent economic downturn, with foreclosures and homelessness, may be increasing student mobility. To inform Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) reauthorization, GAO was asked: (1) What are the numbers and characteristics of students who change schools, and what are the reasons students change schools? (2) What is known about the effects of mobility on student outcomes, including academic achievement, behavior, and other outcomes? (3) What challenges does student mobility present for schools in meeting the educational needs of students who change schools? (4) What key federal programs are schools using to address the needs of mobile students? GAO analyzed federal survey data, interviewed U.S. Department of Education (Education) officials, conducted site visits at eight schools in six school districts, and reviewed federal laws and existing research.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: While nearly all students change schools at some point before reaching high school, some change schools with greater frequency. According to Education's national survey data, the students who change schools the most frequently (four or more times) represented about 13 percent of all kindergarten through eighth grade (K-8) students and they were disproportionately poor, African American, and from families that did not own their home. About 11.5 percent of schools also had high rates of mobility--more than 10 percent of K-8 students left by the end of the school year. These schools, in addition to serving a mobile population, had larger percentages of students who were low-income, received special education, and had limited English proficiency. Research suggests that mobility is one of several interrelated factors, such as socio-economic status and lack of parental education, which have a negative effect on academic achievement, but research about mobility's effect on students' social and emotional well-being is limited and inconclusive. With respect to academic achievement, students who change schools more frequently tend to have lower scores on standardized reading and math tests and drop out of school at higher rates than their less mobile peers. Schools face a range of challenges in meeting the academic, social, and emotional needs of students who change schools. Teachers we interviewed said that students who change schools often face challenges due to differences in what is taught and how it is taught. Students may arrive without records or with incomplete records, making it difficult for teachers to make placement decisions and identify special education needs. Also, teachers and principals told us that schools face challenges in supporting the needs of these students' families, the circumstances of which often underlie frequent school changes. Moreover, these schools face the dual challenge of educating a mobile student population, as well as a general student population, that is often largely low-income and disadvantaged. Schools use a range of federal programs already in place and targeted to at-risk students to meet the needs of students who change schools frequently. Teachers and principals told us that mobile students are often eligible for and benefit from federal programs for low-income, disadvantaged students, such as Title 1, Part A of ESEA which funds tutoring and after-school instruction. In addition, school officials we interviewed said they rely on the McKinney-Vento Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program, which provides such things as clothing and school supplies to homeless students and requires schools to provide transportation for homeless students who lack permanent residence so they can avoid changing schools. GAO did not evaluate the effectiveness of these programs in meeting the needs of mobile students.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is not making recommendations in this report. Education had no comments on this report.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Although the landmark Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965  (ESEA) was enacted more than 40 years ago to help improve the  educational outcomes of our nation’s poor children, the achievement gap  continues to persist and grow between them and their more affluent peers.  Research suggests that poor students change schools more frequently than  other students and that these school changes can disrupt their education.  Moreover, the recent economic downturn, which resulted in job loss,  foreclosures, and homelessness for many Americans, may be increasing  the numbers and frequency of students changing schools as their families  relocate in search of employment and affordable housing.
In preparation for the reauthorization of ESEA, the Chairman of the  Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and the  Chairman of its Subcommittee on Children and Families asked GAO to  undertake a study of the scope of student mobility in the United States  today and examine its effect on students and schools. Specifically, we  were asked to address the following questions: (1) What are the numbers  and characteristics of students who change schools, and what are the  reasons students change schools? (2) What is known about the effects of  mobility on student outcomes, including academic achievement, behavior,  and other outcomes? (3) What challenges does student mobility present  for schools in meeting the educational needs of students who change  schools? (4) What key federal programs are schools using to address the  needs of mobile students?
To answer these questions, we analyzed two nationally representative  datasets from the Department of Education (Education): one, which  followed a cohort of students from 1998 to 2007, contained information on  the numbers and characteristics of mobile students and the other  contained information on the schools students attended in 2007. Neither  of these datasets allowed us to assess effects of the economic downturn  on student mobility, which occurred post 2007. To collect additional  information about the mobile student population and reasons for their  mobility, including any potential effects of the recent economic downturn,  we interviewed school officials and federal and state education officials.  We determined that Education’s data were sufficiently reliable and valid  for the purposes of our review. We reviewed external studies that  measured the effects of student mobility on both educational and  noneducational student outcomes. We selected studies that were  published during or after 1984 and contained original data analysis or  meta-analysis. We conducted site visits to a nonprobability sample of eight  schools across six school districts in three states (California, Michigan,  and Texas) where we interviewed school officials and parents about the  challenges of student mobility and how schools address those challenges.  We selected states that provided geographic coverage and that had high  percentages of economically disadvantaged students and/or high rates of  foreclosures to provide insight on how the economic downturn might be  affecting students and schools in high poverty areas. We selected schools  with high percentages of mobile students and that differed by school type  (public and charter), grade level (elementary, middle, and high school),  and location (urban, suburban, and rural). We interviewed federal, state,  and school officials about federal programs that serve low-income,  disadvantaged, and special needs students, including those who change  schools, and we reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and agency  documents. In addition, we interviewed state education officials and local  homeless education liaisons about federal efforts to assist mobile students  from homeless families. (See appendix I for a detailed description of this  study’s scope and methodology.)
We conducted this performance audit from October 2009 through  November 2010 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Nearly all students change school at some point during their school years,  most typically when they are promoted to a higher grade at a different  school. Specifically, students may change schools as they are promoted  from elementary to middle school and again from middle to high school. In  addition, students may also change schools when their families move to a  new home or to relocate closer to jobs.
In 1994, we issued a report that highlighted concerns about the education  of elementary school students who changed schools more frequently than  the norm. This report found that one in six third graders changed schools  frequently, attending at least three different schools since the beginning of  first grade. Students who changed schools frequently were often from low- income families, the inner city, migrant families, or had limited English  proficiency. These highly mobile students had low math and reading  scores and were more likely to repeat a grade. We recommended that  Education ensure low-income students have access to ESEA’s Title I  services, which they have taken steps to do so.
Since we issued our 1994 report, policymakers have continued to focus  attention on students’ educational achievement. Specifically, the No Child  Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA), which reauthorized ESEA, established a  deadline of 2014 for all students to reach proficiency in reading, math, and  science. Under NCLBA, districts and schools must demonstrate adequate  yearly progress toward meeting state standards for all students and every  key subgroup of students, including low-income students, minority  students, students with disabilities, and students with limited English  proficiency.
section_title: Characteristics of More Mobile and Less Mobile Students and Their Schools Differ
paragraphs: While nearly all students change schools at some point before reaching  high school, some students change schools with greater frequency (see  figure 1). According to Education data, which followed a cohort of  kindergarteners from 1998 to 2007, the majority of students—about 70  percent—changed schools two times or less and about 18 percent changed  three times before reaching high school. Some of these school changes  could occur as a result of students being promoted to a higher grade in a  different school or parents moving to a new home or relocating closer to  their jobs.
However, for the students who changed schools four or more times (about  13 percent), our analysis of Education’s data revealed statistically  significant differences between them and students who had changed two  times or less, not only in the frequency of their changes but along several  important dimensions. We compared students who changed schools two  or fewer times (referred to in this report as “less mobile”) to students who  changed schools four or more times (referred to as “more mobile”). We  selected this comparison because the differences were most pronounced  and because the two groups combined represent a significant fraction  (about 82 percent) of the population of the students in the cohort. We also  found statistically significant differences between students who changed  schools two or fewer times and students who changed schools three or  more times, but these differences were less pronounced. See appendix II  for Education’s Early Childhood Longitudinal Study: Kindergarten Class  of 1998-1999 (ECLS-K) data on the mobile student population.
Students who changed schools four or more times were disproportionately  poor, African American, and from families that did not own their home or  have a father present in the household. These more mobile students— compared to those who changed schools two times or less—had a  significantly larger percentage of students with family incomes below the  poverty threshold, according to Education’s survey data. Furthermore, a  significantly larger percentage of the more mobile students, compared to  less mobile students, received benefits under the National School Lunch  Program (NSLP), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and the  Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. As shown in  figure 2, about 26 percent of students who changed schools four or more  times had family incomes below the poverty threshold, compared to about  17 percent of the students who changed schools two times or less.  Moreover, significantly smaller percentages of the more mobile students  had a father present in the household, when compared to their less mobile  peers who changed schools two times or less.
African-American students comprised a disproportionately larger  percentage of the students who changed schools four or more times when  compared to African-American students, as well as all other racial ethnic  groups, who changed schools two times or less, as shown in figure 3.  African-American students represented about 15 percent of students in  kindergarten through eighth grade who changed schools two times or less;  however, they represented about 23 percent of students who changed  schools four or more times. In contrast, white students, who represented  about 60 percent of all students in the same grade range who changed  schools two times or less, accounted for about 51 percent of students who  changed schools four times or more.
Finally, a significantly larger percentage of students who changed schools  four or more times came from families that did not own their home.  Students from families that did not own their own home represented about  39 percent of students who changed schools four or more times compared  to about 20 percent for those who changed schools two or fewer times—a  difference of about 100 percent. According to principals and teachers we  interviewed, the more mobile students’ families may rent, live with  relatives, or move back and forth between relatives and friends. Further,  some students may be homeless; however, teachers and other school  officials we interviewed said that, in some cases, it may be difficult to  know whether a student is homeless because families may not disclose  that they are homeless or may not consider their particular living  arrangements as being homeless, for example, staying with relatives or  doubling up—that is, living with another family or families in a residence  designed for a single family. See appendix II for additional information  about the mobile student population.
The schools with the highest rates of student mobility also showed  differences across several characteristics. According to Education’s data,  about 11.5 percent of schools had the highest rates of student mobility— those where more than 10 percent of their eighth grade students started  the year at the school but left by the end of the school year. These  schools had larger percentages of at-risk eighth grade students compared  to schools where less than 10 percent of the students changed schools.  According to Education’s data, these schools had larger percentages of  eighth grade students eligible for Title I assistance, the federal  government’s largest program for low-income school age children. For  example, about 62 percent of the schools with high mobility rates received  Title I funding, compared to about 46 percent of the schools where  students’ mobility rates were lower. Moreover, the schools with high  mobility rates were more often eligible for Title I “school-wide” programs,  a designation that allows schools with a population of at least 40 percent  low-income students, to offer services to every student in the school. As  shown in figure 4, about 45 percent of the schools with high mobility rates  were classified as school-wide, compared to about 21 percent of the  schools that had lower rates of student mobility.
Moreover, the schools with high mobility rates were more likely to  participate in NSLP. Specifically, as shown in figure 5, about 91 percent of  the schools with high mobility rates participated in the school lunch  program, compared to about 68 percent of the schools with lower rates of  student mobility.
In addition, for about 10 percent of the schools with high mobility rates, all  of the students in these schools were eligible for free or reduced-price  lunch, compared to about 5 percent of the schools with lower rates of  student mobility (see figure 6).
The schools with high mobility rates also had larger percentages of eighth  grade students receiving special education services, with limited English  proficiency, and having higher rates of absenteeism. Specifically, as shown  in figure 7, of the schools that had 11-25 percent of their eighth grade  students receiving special education services, about 50 percent had high  mobility rates compared to about 32 percent that had lower rates of  mobility.
Schools with high mobility rates also had larger percentages of their eighth  grade students who had limited English proficiency. For example, as  shown in figure 8, of the schools that had 26-50 percent of students with  limited English proficiency, about 11 percent had high mobility rates  compared to about 2 percent that had lower rates of mobility.
Finally, the schools with high mobility rates had larger percentages of  students absent. About 30 percent of the schools with high mobility rates  had 6-10 percent of students absent on an average day, compared to about  11 percent of the schools with lower rates of mobility. See appendix III for  additional information comparing schools with high rates of mobility to  schools with less mobility.
Teachers, principals, and parents told us that financial difficulties and  family instability often underlie why students change schools frequently,  but some cited other reasons as well, such as parents’ desire to send their  children to a better-performing or safer school. Some school officials and  parents in all three states we visited (California, Michigan, and Texas) said  that economic difficulties, including job loss, played a role in student  mobility. For example, the principal of one Detroit-area school serving a  large low-income population said that families lost their jobs when the  automobile industry declined and moved out of the area in search of jobs.  Several principals and teachers also cited foreclosures on homes and the  inability of some families to pay the rent as reasons that students changed  schools. For example, officials at a rural California high school said that  relatively inexpensive real estate attracted many homeowners who later  lost their homes. One teacher in California told us that some families who  are unable to pay the rent and are evicted will move from one apartment  complex to another complex offering a free month’s rent. In addition,  school officials in all three states we visited said that they saw more  families “doubled-up”—sharing a single-family residence with one or more  other families. School officials said all of these situations have resulted in  students changing schools.
Family instability also plays a role in mobility, according to parents and  school officials we interviewed. School officials in all three states we  visited cited divorce as a reason for mobility. For example, school officials  in Michigan told us that one student had changed schools four times  during one school year when his parents’ custody arrangement changed. In  an urban school in Texas and a rural school in California, teachers and  principals also said that school changes can result when students are  passed around among relatives or friends when there is conflict in the  student’s family. Officials in California and Michigan told us that mobility  also results when social services personnel need to remove students from  their homes and that foster children are highly mobile, too. In addition to  family issues, school officials and parents in all three states said that, in  some cases, mobility results from family choice related to safety concerns  or the desire to provide different educational options for their children.  For example, one parent in Texas said she changed residences and her  child’s school after two home break-ins and in California, a principal said  that some families come to his school district to escape gang activity and  violence.
section_title: Research Suggests Student Mobility Can Have a Negative Effect on Academic Achievement, but Its Effect on Social Adjustment is Unclear
paragraphs: A body of research suggests that student mobility has a negative effect on  students’ academic achievement, but research on its effect on their social  and emotional well-being is inconclusive. With respect to academic  outcomes, while research suggests that the academic achievement of  students is affected by a set of interrelated factors that includes socio- economic status and parental education, there is evidence that mobility  has an effect on achievement apart from these other factors. Specifically,  the body of research suggests that students who changed schools more  frequently tended to have lower scores on standardized reading and math  tests and to drop out of school at higher rates than their less mobile  peers. For example, a national study that tracked high school age  students found that changing high schools was associated with lower  performance on math and reading tests. Another study using the same  national, longitudinal dataset found that students who changed schools  two or more times from 8th to 12th grade were twice as likely to drop out  of high school, or not obtain a General Equivalency Diploma, compared to  students who did not change schools. In addition, a meta-analysis found  that student mobility was associated with lower achievement and higher  rates of high school dropout.
Further, some studies found that the effect of mobility on achievement  varied depending on other factors, such as the student’s race/ethnicity,  special needs, grade level, frequency of school change, and characteristics  of the school change—whether it was between school districts or within a  district, or whether it was to an urban or suburban/rural district. For  example, one study found that school changes from one school district to  another tended to result in long-term changes in academic performance  and that this long-term change tended to be positive for students who  moved to schools in nonurban districts but negative for those who  moved to urban areas. In addition, this study found that school changes  within the same school district were not associated with any long-term  changes in performance, but were associated with short-run negative  effects on performance that were generally greater for African-American,  Hispanic, and poor students.
The small body of research that exists about the effect of mobility on  students’ social and emotional well-being is limited and inconclusive.  These studies generally used methods that do not support strong  conclusions about specific relationships between mobility and social and  behavioral outcomes. One important limitation is that these studies  typically did not account for pre-existing differences between more mobile  and less mobile students. For example, we were unable to report the  results of two national longitudinal studies that we reviewed because the  studies used narrow, limited measures of student behavior and other  social outcomes, and the studies did not control for prior student behavior  and social conditions. A complete list of the studies we reviewed is  included in appendix IV.
section_title: Schools with High Student Mobility Face Challenges in Meeting the Academic and Emotional Needs of All Students
paragraphs: Officials we interviewed in schools with high rates of student mobility said  they often face the dual challenge of meeting the needs of their students  who change schools at high rates and the needs of the entire student body,  which is comprised largely of low-income, disadvantaged students. A  number of teachers and principals told us that when new students arrive,  it can sometimes affect the pace of instruction for the entire classroom, as  teachers attend to the needs of a new student. Moreover, some teachers  and principals said that for a new student, there may be differences in  what and how instruction has been delivered to them from school to  school, and this can make it difficult for teachers to assess where students  are academically when they arrive and make decisions about proper  placement. Further, teachers in two schools said that the order in which  course material is taught varies from school to school, presenting  challenges for teachers in the classrooms. For example, one teacher told  about a student who moved to Texas from California and was placed in an  algebra class based on her academic record, but was later moved to a  more appropriate class after the teachers saw her struggling to keep up  with her peers. Also, a teacher from a Texas middle school, whose district  teaches pre-algebra reasoning skills beginning in kindergarten, said that  students from other states are taught these skills in later grades.
A number of teachers and principals also told us that mobile students’  records are often not transferred to the new school in a timely way or at  all, and, as a result, this can make it difficult for school officials to  determine class placement, credit transfer, and the need for special  services, such as services related to special education and language  proficiency. Several teachers said that when students arrive without  records, the school must observe and document whether students need  special education services—a process that is very comprehensive and can  take several weeks or months. In an effort to help schools make more  informed decisions about class placement and identification of students  with special needs, Texas has developed a system to electronically  transfer student records between schools in the state. This system allows  schools to share information on what classes students took at the previous  school, their grades and standardized test scores, reasons for withdrawal,  annual absences, immunization records, and special circumstances, such  as English proficiency, migrant status, homeless status, participation in  gifted programs or special education, whether the student has an  Individualized Education Program, and eligibility for NSLP.
Schools also face the challenge of helping mobile students adjust socially  and emotionally to the new school environment. While some students  adjust well to their new school, some do not. A few teachers, principals,  and other school officials said that some mobile students may feel like  they do not belong, fail to make new friends, exhibit poor attendance, and,  in some cases, drop out. Others who have difficulty fitting in socially may  try to gain attention by exhibiting certain behavior, such as disrupting  other students in the class. Also, some guidance counselors and teachers  told us some mobile students often act detached, especially when they  have changed schools repeatedly and anticipate changing again. In some  of the schools we visited, new students were paired with a “buddy” who  walks them to class, sits with them at lunch, and helps them learn  classroom routines and procedures. Some schools also provided  orientation tours of the school for new students and parents and arranged  for new students to meet with the guidance counselor to help with the  transition. For example, in a suburban/rural public school district in  Michigan we visited, the principal and teachers at the elementary school  meet with new students and their parents on the first day of the school  year; students officially start school the next day. This gives advance  notice to teachers about incoming students and allows them time to  prepare. In addition, the junior high school in this district has a welcoming  committee to introduce new students and parents to the school faculty  and provide a tour of the school.
Several school officials told us that the needs of mobile and nonmobile  students can extend beyond the classroom and often their families are in  need of services too. To help address the family circumstances that  contribute to mobility, two school districts we visited use school-based  family resource centers that rely on partnerships between the school,  community, church, and city agencies to arrange for “wraparound”  services for the entire family—such as services related to housing,  employment and finances, health care, education for parents and children,  and social support networks. In all three states we visited, some schools  have specific school-based or community outreach to parents that can  benefit both mobile and nonmobile families, such as parenting classes on a  range of topics, like budgeting and accessing housing. Also, homeless  students, who are often mobile, may lack basic supplies, for example,  backpacks, school supplies, and school uniforms, and they may miss  school frequently because of issues such as lack of transportation or  domestic violence. In addition, some school officials told us they help  arrange for services for homeless mobile students and their families, such  as coordinating with local homeless shelters and arranging to provide  homeless mobile students with food on the weekends when they do not  have access to free breakfast and lunch at school.
section_title: Schools Use a Range of Federal Programs Already in Place to Meet the Needs of Mobile Students
paragraphs: Because the highly mobile schools we visited also had large percentages of  low-income, disadvantaged students and special populations already  targeted by federal programs, the schools met the needs of mobile  students using funding from programs already in place. For example,  during our site visits, a number of school officials and state and local  educational agency officials told us they relied on funds from Title I, Part  A of ESEA, a federal program targeted to disadvantaged students,  including those who are from low-income families, have limited English  proficiency, are from migrant families, have disabilities, or are neglected  or delinquent. Services available under Title I, Part A are intended to  ensure that disadvantaged children have a fair and equal opportunity to  obtain a high-quality education and to reach proficiency on assessments  based on the state’s academic standards. Some school officials and state  and local educational agency officials told us they used funds from Title I,  Part A to pay for tutoring, after-school instruction, teachers’ salaries,  technology upgrades, school field trips, and staff development and training  on addressing diverse needs of mobile and nonmobile students. One  school we visited used funding provided by the American Recovery and  Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) for ESEA Title I, Part A to,  among other things, hire additional teachers to provide small-group  instruction to all students who are behind academically, including mobile  students. See table 1 for information about school-based federal programs  for disadvantaged and special needs students.
School officials in one district we visited told us that some of their mobile  students are eligible for services under the Individuals with Disabilities  Education Act, a program that provides early intervention and special  education services for children and youths with disabilities. The schools  we visited also received funding through the Department of Agriculture’s  school nutrition programs, which provide free and reduced-price school  meals for low-income, disadvantaged students. School officials in some  locations said that this program allows them to provide school meals to a  large percentage of their student body, including both mobile and  nonmobile students.
In addition, some schools we visited used the McKinney-Vento Education  for Homeless Children and Youth Program (McKinney-Vento Program),  which is designed to meet the educational needs of homeless students.  Some school officials told us that homeless students are often mobile.  Specifically, the McKinney-Vento Program requires all school districts to  put in place homeless education liaisons. Some homeless education  liaisons and other school officials we interviewed said they used funds  from the McKinney-Vento Program to provide homeless students with  food, clothing, school uniforms, backpacks of toiletries and school  supplies, tutoring at homeless shelters, academic enrichment services, and  summer programs. The McKinney-Vento Program also requires all school  districts to provide transportation to those homeless students who choose  to remain in their school of origin, however funding for transportation is  provided by the school district. Some schools we visited used their own  school funds to pay for transportation, such as bus passes and gas cards,  as needed, for homeless students to get to school. Schools we visited also  used McKinney-Vento Program funds for various other purposes, including  one school that used the funds to hire staff to identify homeless students  and two other schools that used the funds to provide outreach to parents.  Across all three states we visited, homeless education liaisons help  provide a stable environment for homeless students to learn by arranging  for services for their families, such as referrals to soup kitchens, health  services including free dental clinics, free school supplies, and domestic  violence groups.
According to state education agency officials we interviewed, schools in  their states relied on the Migrant Education Program, which supports the  educational needs of a specific population of mobile students—students  who are migrant workers or children of migrant parents. The Migrant  Education Program (1) provides students with services, such as academic  (tutoring and summer school) and health services; (2) allows school  districts to share migrant student information electronically across state  boundaries; (3) encourages states to collaborate in administering state  assessments and sharing lesson plans; and (4) provides funding for  “portable” education services, such as instructional booklets and CD-ROM  learning modules that help migrant students earn school credits as they  move from school to school or undergo extended absences. States use the  Migrant Student Information Exchange—a Web-based database—to  collect, maintain, and share student record information to facilitate school  enrollment, grade and course placement, and accrual of secondary school  course credits. We did not evaluate the effectiveness of these federal  programs in meeting the needs of mobile students.
We provided a draft copy of this report to the Department of Education for  review and comment. Education did not have any comments on the report.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its  issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to relevant  congressional committees, the Secretary of Education, and other  interested parties. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on  GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-7215 or ashbyc@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff that made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: This appendix discusses in more detail our methodology for our study  examining the scope and implications of student mobility on students and  schools. Our study was framed around four questions: (1) What are the  numbers and characteristics of students who change schools, and what  are the reasons students change schools? (2) What is known about the  effects of mobility on student outcomes including academic achievement,  behavior, and other outcomes? (3) What challenges does student mobility  present for schools in meeting the educational needs of students who  change schools? (4) What key federal programs are schools using to  address the needs of mobile students?
subsections: section_title: Analysis of Federal Datasets
paragraphs: To obtain information on the number and characteristics of mobile  students and schools they attend, we analyzed two nationally  representative datasets that are administered by the Department of  Education’s (Education) National Center for Education Statistics  (NCES)—the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class  of 1998-1999 (ECLS-K) and the National Assessment of Educational  Progress (NAEP). We selected these datasets in consultation with our  methodologists and Education officials.
For both datasets, we assessed the quality, reliability, and usability of the  data for reporting descriptive statistics on the characteristics of students  and the schools they attend. For our data reliability assessment, we  reviewed agency documents about the datasets’ variable definitions,  survey and sampling methods, and data collection and analysis efforts. We  also conducted electronic tests of the files and interviewed Education  officials about the steps they took to ensure data reliability. We  determined that the Education data were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of our review. The surveys used weighted probability sampling  of students (ECLS-K) and schools (NAEP). We followed recommended  statistical techniques to estimate standard errors of estimates from the  ECLS-K and NAEP data.
The ECLS-K’s measure of individual-level student mobility is limited in  that its measure of school changes includes the number of promotional  school changes—for example, the typical school change from an  elementary school to a middle school—as well as the nonpromotional  school changes.
subsections: section_title: Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999
paragraphs: The ECLS-K is a longitudinal survey of students from kindergarten through  eighth grade. The survey population is a nationally representative cohort  of 21,260 students who began kindergarten in 1998. The survey collects  data from students, parents, teachers, and school officials from 1998 to  2007. In our analysis of ECLS-K data, we focused on the eighth grade  survey round, to ensure that we captured the most complete data on  school changes.
During each spring survey round from first through eighth grade, parents  were asked how many times their child changed schools since the last  survey period. We used the responses from those questions, as well as  school identification information, to estimate the number of school  changes for each student. We examined the following student  characteristics available in the ECLS-K data: (1) race; (2) measures of  family income, including poverty threshold, receipt of free or reduced- price lunch, food stamps, or assistance from the Temporary Assistance for  Needy Families (TANF) program; (3) whether a father was present in the  household; and (4) whether the family owned their home.
We compared students who changed schools two or fewer times (referred  to as “less mobile”) to those who changed schools four or more times  (referred to as “more mobile”). We chose those groups for comparison  because they provide a clear separation between the more mobile and less  mobile groups and also because the two groups combined represent a  significant fraction—about 82 percent—of the population of the students  in the cohort. Students who changed schools four or more times would  generally have experienced at least three nonpromotional school  moves. We also considered defining high mobility students as those who  changed five or more times. However, such students only made up about 5  percent of the population followed by the ECLS-K. Because table cell  sample sizes were often very small using the five change cut-off, resulting  in wide confidence intervals, we decided against the use of this definition.
In addition to the analyses we presented in the main body of this report,  we compared students who changed schools two or fewer times to those  who changed schools three or more times. We found statistically  significant differences among some of the relationships we explored, but  as expected, the differences were more pronounced when the highly  mobile population was defined as students who changed four or more  times. See appendix II for ECLS-K data on the mobile student population.
section_title: National Assessment of Educational Progress
paragraphs: The NAEP—the results of which are issued as the Nation’s Report Card— provides nationally representative results on school characteristics based  on samples of 4th, 8th, and 12th grade students. Similar to our analysis of  the ECLS-K, our analysis of NAEP focused on the eighth grade year. We  used the results from survey questions related to school environment and  characteristics to describe the characteristics of schools and their student  mobility rates. To determine schools’ student mobility rates, we used  responses from the following question administered in the 2007 survey:  “About what percentage of students who are enrolled at the beginning of  the school year is still enrolled at the end of the school year?” Further,  using the NAEP data, we explored relationships between schools’ mobility  rates and the following school characteristics: (1) geographic location; (2)  measures of low-income students, such as receipt of Elementary and  Secondary Education Act of 1965’s (ESEA) Title I funding and  participation in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP); (3) students  in special education; (4) students with limited English proficiency; and (5)  students absent on an average day.
For our comparison of schools with “low” student mobility rates and  schools with “high” student mobility rates, we sorted the NAEP data into  three pairings to determine which pairing provided a clear separation  between low mobility and high mobility schools. When we compared  schools that had 5 percent or fewer of their students no longer enrolled at  the end of the school year (low mobility) with schools that had more than  5 percent of their students no longer enrolled at the end of the year (high  mobility), we found few statistically significant differences. When we  compared schools that had 10 percent or fewer of their students no longer  enrolled at the end of the school year (low mobility) with schools that had  more than 10 percent of their students no longer enrolled at the end of the  year (high mobility), we found several statistical differences. When we  compared schools that had 20 percent or fewer of their students no longer  enrolled at the end of the school year (low mobility) with schools that had  more than 20 percent of their students no longer enrolled at the end of the  year (high mobility), cell sample sizes were too small to make meaningful  comparisons. We thus selected the 10 percent pairing because it provides a  clear separation between the low mobility and high mobility schools and  the sample sizes were sufficient to make meaningful comparisons. See  appendix III for NAEP data on schools.
section_title: Review of External Research Studies
paragraphs: We reviewed existing studies to determine what research says about the  effects of mobility on student outcomes, including academic and  nonacademic outcomes, such as behavior. To identify existing studies, we  searched several electronic databases using the keywords “student  mobility,” “school mobility,” and “transience.” We identified 151 studies  that met the following criteria:    original analysis of data based on students in the United States or original  quantitative synthesis of such previously conducted research (also  referred to as meta-analysis) and   published or prepared during or after 1984.
We screened the studies to identify those that were relevant for our study  and identified 62 of the 151 studies that met the following criteria:    assessed a student’s school change as distinct from a student’s residential    used quantitative measurement of the association between school change  and at least one student outcome, either academic or nonacademic; and   peer-reviewed journal article, association or agency paper, state or local  education agency paper, or a conference paper from the last 2 years (2007  onward).
Each of these 62 studies was reviewed by a social scientist to determine  whether the study (1) contained sufficient information on methods to  make a determination about the study’s soundness and limitations and (2)  for studies on academic outcomes only—controlled for students’ academic  performance prior to changing schools. For the purpose of controlling, we  considered a variety of methods to be sufficient, such as    using a statistical model that included prior academic performance as a    matching students on prior performance, or    analyzing difference scores (i.e., difference between premobility academic  performance and postmobility performance) rather than absolute  measures of achievement.
The result of this stage of the review was a set of studies that we  determined used sound methods and, in the case of studies of academic  outcomes, controlled for prior academic achievement. For each of these  studies, we also reviewed the other studies these authors used as  references, screened these studies using the same methods described  above, and identified one additional study that met our inclusion criteria.  Further, we excluded a few studies due to redundancy (covering the same  or nearly the same data and analysis as other studies included in the  review). At the end of the screening process, 26 studies on the effects of  mobility on student outcomes remained, of which 21 assessed academic  outcomes and 11 assessed nonacademic outcomes.
To review the findings, methods, and limitations of the selected studies,  we developed a data collection instrument to obtain information  systematically about each study’s methods, findings, and limitations on the  reliability, scope, and generalizability of these findings. We based our data  collection and assessments on generally accepted social science  standards. A senior social scientist with training in survey methods and  statistical analysis of survey data reviewed each study using the data  collection instrument. A second senior social scientist reviewed each  completed data collection instrument and the relevant portions of the  study in question to verify the accuracy of the information recorded. Most  of our selected studies measured academic outcomes using standardized  test scores or school dropout or completion rates and nonacademic  outcomes using misbehavior and social capital (i.e., richness of students’  social networks).
We selected the studies for our review based on their methodological  soundness and not on the generalizability of the results. Although the  findings of the studies we identified are not representative of the findings  of all studies of student mobility, the studies consist of those published  studies we could identify that used the strongest designs to assess the  effects of mobility. The selected studies varied in methods and in scope.  For example, some studies distinguished among types of mobility (e.g.,  intra-city versus city-to-suburbs, or school-change-only versus school- change-plus-residential-move), but others did not. Some studies used  nationally representative samples of students, while others focused on  specific populations, such as low-income students in one city. Some  studies assessed effects of mobility at the student level, while others  assessed effects at higher levels, such as classrooms. See appendix IV for a  list of the studies we reviewed.
section_title: School Site Visits
paragraphs: We conducted site visits to a nonprobability sample of eight schools  across six school districts in three states (California, Michigan, and Texas)  where we interviewed school officials and others about issues related to  student mobility. We selected states that provided geographic coverage  and that had high percentages of economically disadvantaged students  and/or high rates of foreclosures to provide insight on how the economic  downturn might be affecting students and schools in high poverty areas.  We selected schools with high percentages of mobile students and that  would illustrate school type (public and charter), grade level (elementary,  middle, and high school), and location (urban, suburban, and rural).
During our school site visits, we interviewed state education agency  officials, local homeless education liaisons, principals, teachers, guidance  counselors, school social workers, community group representatives, and  parents of mobile students. During our interviews, we collected  information about  the number and demographic characteristics of mobile students; reasons for student mobility and timing of mobility;    challenges related to student mobility, including meeting academic, social,  and emotional needs of mobile and nonmobile students; and   how schools address challenges of student mobility, including use of  federal programs and community resources.
In preparation for our site visits, we reviewed relevant laws, regulations,  and agency documents, and interviewed federal officials and  representatives of education and homeless associations about issues  related to student mobility and federal programs that serve low-income,  disadvantaged, and special needs students, including those who change  schools.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2009 through  November 2010 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Data on Characteristics of Mobile Student Populations
paragraphs: This appendix provides information from the Early Childhood  Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-1999 (ECLS-K)—which  followed a cohort of students from 1998 to 2007—on the number of  schools students attended, by various student and parent characteristics.  In each table, we provide a comparison of the percent of students who  changed schools two times or less to students who changed schools three  or more times, and students who changed schools four or more times.
section_title: Appendix III: Data on Characteristics of Schools Regarding Mobile Student Populations
paragraphs: This appendix includes data from the National Assessment of  Educational Progress (NAEP), which is also known as the Nation’s Report  Card. The NAEP is a continuing assessment of student progress conducted  nationwide periodically in reading, math, science, writing, U.S. history,  civics, geography, and the arts. The NAEP assessment collects data from  students and school officials for a nationally representative sample of 4th,  8th, and 12th graders. In the following tables, we present data on the  characteristics of students in grades four and eight from the 2007 NAEP  assessment for schools with “low” and “high” mobility rates. Schools with  low mobility rates had fewer than 10 percent of their students who were  no longer enrolled at the end of the year while schools with high mobility  rates had more than 10 percent of their students who were no longer  enrolled at the end of the school year. The tables are based on a selection  of variables relevant to our review.
section_title: Appendix IV: Literature Review of Published Research on Student Mobility
paragraphs: This appendix includes studies of possible academic and nonacademic  outcomes of student mobility that met our criteria for inclusion in our  review.
Alexander, Karl L., Doris R.  Entwisle, and Susan L. Dauber.  The Journal of Educational  Research, vol. 90, no. 1  (September/October 1996): 3- 12.
District/city (Baltimore); urban,  poor (data were intended to be  representative of all Baltimore  schoolchildren, but attrition over  the 5 years of the study  resulted in bias towards a  African-American, low-socio- economic status (SES)  population)
Booker, Kevin et al. Journal of  Public Economics, vol. 91  (2007): 849-876.
State (Texas)
Burkam, David T., Valerie E.  Lee, and Julie Dwyer. Prepared  for the Workshop on the Impact  of Mobility and Change on the  Lives of Young Children,  Schools, and Neighborhoods  (June 29-30, 2009).
Hanushek, Eric A., John F. Kain,  and Steven G. Rivkin. Journal of  Public Economics, vol. 88  (2004): 1721-1746.
State (Texas)
Heinlein, Lisa Melman, and  Marybeth Shinn. Psychology in  the Schools, vol. 37, no. 4  (2000): 349-357.
Mantzicopoulos, Panayota, and  Dana J. Knutson. The Journal of  Educational Research, vol. 93,  no. 5 (May/June 2000): 305-311.
Mao, Michael X., Maria D.  Whitsett, and Lynn T. Mellor.  Paper presented at the Annual  Meeting of the American  Educational Research  Association, Chicago (Mar. 24- 28, 1997).
State (Texas)
Ou, Suh-Ruu, and Arthur J.  Reynolds. School Psychology  Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 2 (2008):  199-229.
Reynolds, Arthur J., and Barbara  Wolfe. Educational Evaluation  and Policy Analysis, vol 21, no. 3  (Autumn 1999): 249-269.
Rumberger, Russell W., and  Katherine A. Larson. American  Journal of Education, vol. 107,  no. 1 (November 1998): 1-35.
Rumberger, Russell W.,  Katherine A. Larson, Gregory J.  Palardy et al. University of  California, Berkeley:  Chicano/Latino Policy Project  (CLPP) Policy Report, vol. 1, no.  2, (October 1998).
State (California)
Rumberger, Russell W.,  Katherine A. Larson, Robert K.  Ream et al. University of  California, Berkeley and  Stanford University: Policy  Analysis for California Education  Research Series 99-2, (March  1999).
State (California)
Temple, Judy A., and Arthur J.  Reynolds. Journal of School  Psychology, vol. 37, no. 4  (1999): 355-377.
Xu, Zeyu, Jane Hannaway, and  Stephanie D’Souza. National  Center for Analysis of  Longitudinal Data in Education  Research (CALDER) Working  Paper no. 22, March 2009.
State (North Carolina)
Griffith, James. The Elementary  School Journal, vol. 99, no. 1  (September 1998): 53-80.
Mann, Emily A., and Arthur J.  Reynolds. Social Work  Research, vol. 30, no. 3  (September 2006): 153-167.
Reynolds, Arthur J., Suh-Ruu  Ou, and James W. Topitzes.  Child Development, vol. 75, no.  5 (September/October 2004):  1299-1328.
Reynolds, Arthur J., and Dylan  L. Robertson. Child  Development, vol. 74, no. 1  (January/February 2003): 3-26.
South, Scott J., and Dana L.  Haynie. Social Forces, vol 83,  no. 1 (September 2004): 315- 350.
Gruman, Diana H. et al. Child  Development, vol. 79, no. 6  (November/December 2008):  1833-1852.
Schools (10 suburban schools  in the Pacific Northwest that  had high-risk population of low  income, single-family  households, high mobility, and  poor academic performance)
Pribesh, Shana, and Douglas B.  Downey. Demography, vol. 36,  no. 4 (November 1999): 521- 534.
Reynolds, Arthur J. American  Educational Research Journal,  vol. 28, no. 2 (Summer 1991):  392-422.
Reynolds, Arthur J., and  Nikolaus Bezruczko. Merrill- Palmer Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 4  (October 1993): 457-480.
Swanson, Christopher B., and  Barbara Schneider. Sociology of  Education, vol. 72, no. 1  (January 1999): 54-67.
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact above, Sherri Doughty (Assistant Director),  Linda Siegel (Analyst-in-Charge), Vida Awumey, Robert Grace, Erin  O’Brien, and Stacy Spence made significant contributions to this report.  Jack Wang, Ruben Montes de Oca, Luann Moy, and John Karikari assisted  with data analysis and methodology. Russell Burnett, Lorraine Ettaro, and  Jay Smale assisted with the review of external studies. James Rebbe  provided legal support. Mimi Nguyen and Jeremy Sebest assisted with  graphics. Susannah Compton assisted in report development.