4 herrington

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL
VOLUME 21, NUMBER 1, 2007--2008

STUDENT MOBILITY AND ACADEMIC
ACHIEVEMENT AT A SELECTED
ELEMENTARY CAMPUS: A CASE STUDY
WITH NATIONAL IMPLICATIONS

Hasid Puentes
Klein Independent School District

David E. Herrington
Prairie View A&M University

William Allan Kritsonis
Prairie View A&M University

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this article is to analyze the extent to which a selected urban elementary
school experienced “student mobility” during a recent academic year. The authors
examine this phenomenon due to its possible impact on student achievement as
measured by state and federal accountability requirements. While many national studies
have focused on social, psychological, or physical influences on issues academic
achievement among minority and economically disadvantaged youth, the issue of student
mobility during the early academic years has not been given the attention that it merits.

55

56 NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL

Introduction

T he purpose of this research is to determine the impact that
student mobility has on academic achievement on a specific
campus with the understanding that such campus will reflect
the overall experience of student mobility and its effects on education.
Student mobility is defined as the movement from one school to
another for reasons other than grade promotion. Students who are
highly mobile move six or more times in the course of their basic
education (Rumberger, 2003, winter). These may include the children
of military personnel, corporate executives on assignment, migrant
workers, families experiencing domestic violence, shortage of
housing, or unemployment. The reasons for frequent moves in a
child’s life are numerous. Though each situation is unique, the
negative impact on educational achievement is the same.

One common assumption made by educators, parents, and the
general public in the United States, is the belief that all students
learning can be measured according to attained grade level. The
transition between one school should not be problematic. In actuality
it is. (Fowler-Finn, 2001; Ingersoll, Scamman, & Eckerling, 1988;
.Rumberger & Lawson, 1998; Rumberger, 2003, winter). Although all
school districts must follow a state approved curriculum for each grade
level, the reality is that school districts, individual campuses, and
individual instructors vary more than is known regarding the content
and sequencing of the curriculum as well as instructional effectiveness
with populations they serve. Not all teachers teach the exact
information in the same sequence and not all students learn at the same
pace nor in the same manner. Students experiencing mobility are left
without direction or guidance to cope with the knowledge and skill
gaps every day. Some students adapt readily but most experience high
levels of stress and failure in novel classroom situations (Herrington &
Herrington, 2006; U.S. Government Accounting Office, 1994).

Hasid Puentes , David Herrington & William Kritsonis 57

Teachers who teach highly mobile students in their classes
often are unaware of these students’ learning characteristics and
history. They are disinclined to address these students’ learning
characteristics with greater individualization of instruction. The norm
is for the teacher to assume that their students have had similar
learning experiences and that they are ready to learn the same content
and skills at the moment they are taught. When faced with the reality
that they must either that they must deviate from prepared lessons to
address learning gaps or experience higher failure rates, teachers
reactions are largely based on their own passion for students, culture
of the school, and level of expectation established by their campus
leadership (Herrington & Herrington, 2006; Nakagawa, Stafford,
Fisher & Matthews (2002).

When working with children who have missed out on key
concepts, some teachers do their best work while others may become
frustrated, side-tracked, or apathetic. Because most of these highly
mobile students have not learned as easily or as much as their less
mobile peers have learned, they grow frightened and discouraged.
When teachers must review previous lessons to bring the new students
up to date instead of introducing new concepts; this slows the learning
process the other students Expressions of resentment from these
students can lead to further fear and discouragement by the more
academically fragile learners. These students represent a population of
student that calls for an approach to teaching and learning that is more
individualized and one that builds a classroom culture of tolerance and
support (Herrington & Herrington, 2006; Rothstein, 2004; Rumberger,
2003, winter).


Examination of Mobility Rates within an Urban Title I School

The purpose of this research is to determine the impact that
student mobility has on academic achievement on a specific suburban
campus. The information used in this is from a Title One school within
a suburban school district in Texas. The study focuses on the impact of
mobility on the first administration of the Texas Assessment of
Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) scores for the schools years 2003-2004
and 2004-2005.

The selected campus had a mobility rate of 17% (2003-2004).
This means that out of 815 students, 114 students experienced higher
degrees of mobility. The following year, the rate increased to 18%
(2004-2005). Of 811 students, 122 students experienced mobility
during their early academic careers. The student mobility rate offered
in this report is based on the number of times a student enrolls or
leaves the school from pre-kindergarten until the fifth grade.

Mobility Rate for 2004-2005

The data displayed below on the 122 students (N = 122) during
2004-2005 who had one or more incidence of mobility during their
early education years provides a breakdown based on frequency of
moves. The highest frequency (N = 48) is 2 moves between early
childhood to 5th grade or 39% of all mobility cases. The second highest
frequency (N = 32), 3 moves within the same time frame amounted to
26%. When combining those who moved 2 or 3 times, the numbers
constitute 65% (39% +26 The frequency of students (N = 16) that
moved more than 3 times, the most severe of mobility cases,
amounted to 13 % . Only 22% of students (N = 27) had just one
move.


Figure I

Student Mobility Rates for Frequency of Student Moves During the
Academic Careers of Students Attending a Selected Suburban
Elementary School Demic Year (N = 122)
Texas Education Agency (

> 3 moves
1 move 13%
22%

3 moves
26%

2 moves
39%

The data in Chart I can be further analyzed when viewed from
a grade level perspective. Table I below shows during what years of
the students’ lives the most recent mobility occurred. These
breakdowns specify the grade level in which the 122 students entered
the Selected Urban Elementary School.

Table I


2004-2005 Mobility Indexed by Grade Level of Entry at the Selected
Suburban Elementary Campus
________________________________________________________
Grade Level Frequency Percent

• Pre-Kindergarten N = 34 28%
• Kindergarten N = 21 17%
• 1st Grade N= 6 5%
• 2nd Grade N= 5 4%
• 3rd Grade N = 19 16%
• 4th Grade N = 20 16%
• 5th Grade N = 17 14%
These data are further represented in Figure II below:


Figure II

Mobility Index for 2004-2005 by Grade Level (N = 122)

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0
P-K K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th

3-D Column 1 34 21 6 5 19 20 17

The rates listed here show P-K and K as high entry levels for
these 122 students. However, it is important to note that these two
grades are indicative of the initiation of education is required during
one of these two levels. After 1st grade, though, the numbers are
indicative of mobility since they must have attended another school
prior to entering this selected campus. Given this information, it is
understandable that the level of movement in 1st and 2nd grade is much
less than the movement seen in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade, which together
adds to 46% of the total mobile group. This indicates that the student
population of the selected campus has at least 55 per cent of its
students who possess characteristics and issues related to mobility.


TAKS Scores vs. Mobility

Is there a relationship between student mobility and state
mandated test scores in math and reading? While this question cannot
be answered from the aggregated data presented, the achievement data
from the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) at least
suggest that while the mobility rates are high in these grade levels,
there also is a decrease in the test scores over the same period in math
and science. Consider the following details:

Table II

Comparative Pass Rates on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and
Skills (TAKS) for Students enrolled at a Selected Urban Elementary
School Campus (2003-2004 and 2004-2005) (Texas Education
Agency 2003-2004; Texas Education Agency 2004-2005).

Grade Level/Subject 2003-2004 2004-2005
TAKS Pass Rate TAKS Pass Rate
________________________________________________________
3rd Grade Reading 83% 94%
4th Grade Reading 72% 75%
5th Grade Reading 55% 61%
3rd Grade Math 81% 86%
4th Grade Math 81% 75%
5th Grade Math 62% 60%___________
In reviewing these scores, one can see the significant decrease
in academic achievement particularly in Reading between 3rd grade
TAKS scores and 5th grade TAKS scores. On average, it appears that
there is a difference of 25 to 30 points which is a very high drop in
academic performance, particularly during these academic years when


test scores begin to take a very important role in the student’s learning
career. Graph III below depicts these data graphically.

These results in Table II and Graph III are very informative.
They show the marked decrease in TAKS scores from 3rd to 5th grade.
The mobility rates shown by grade levels show a dramatic increase in
mobility during the same period of time. Whether these phenomena
are related or whether they are coincidental would merit further
consideration and study.

Figure III

TAKS Scores by Grade Level (Texas Education Agency 2003-2004;
Texas Education Agency 2004-2005)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
3rd 4th 5th

Reading 03-04 83 72 55
Reading 04-05 94 75 61
Math 03-04 81 81 62
Math 04-05 86 75 60

Based on the preliminary findings contained within this article,
student mobility may be as important as social, physical, and


educational issues when trying to explain student under-achievement.
Very little research effort has been devoted to better understanding this
phenomenon. Additional research in this area can guide administrative
professionals, educators, and students on how to best to approach this
challenge to the benefit of all parties involved.


REFERENCES

Fowler-Finn, T. (2001). Student stability vs. mobility. School
Administrator, 58(7), 36-40.
Herrington, D.E. & Herrington, K. (2006). Addressing the Unremitting
Educational Neglect of Homeless and Foster Children: The
Journal of Border Educational Research 5 (1).
Ingersoll, G. M., Scamman, J. P., & Eckerling, W. D. (1988). Impact
of student mobility on student achievement in an urban
setting. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Research Association.
Nakagawa, K., Stafford, M. E., Fisher, T.A., & Matthews, L. (2002).
The ‘city migrant’ dilemma: Building community at high
mobility urban schools. Urban Education, 37(1), 96-125.
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and
educational reform to close the Black-White achievement
gap. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Rumberger, R. W., & Larson, K.A. (1998). Student mobility and the
increased risk of high school dropout. American Journal of
Education, 107(1), 1-35.
Rumberger, R.W., Larson, K.A., Ream, R.K., Palardy, G.J. (1999).
The educational consequences of mobility for California
students and schools. Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for
California Education.
Rumberger, R. W. (2003, Winter) Student mobility: How some
children get left behind. The Journal of Negro Education, 72,
(1), 6-21.
Texas Education Agency (2003-2004). Academic excellence
indicator system (AEIS) Report. Klein Independent School
District.
Texas Education Agency (2004-2005). Academic excellence
indicator system (AEIS) Report. Klein Independent School
District.
U.S. Government Accounting Office (1994). Elementary school
children: Many change schools frequently, harming their


education (GAO/HEHS Publication No. 94-45). Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

4 herrington

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (13)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to 4 herrington

Similar to 4 herrington (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

4 herrington