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. 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.