PN Data Narrative
PN Data Narrative
PN Data Narrative
A NEIGHBORHOOD PROFILE
This report integrates the findings of ten months of data collection and analysis of the Eastside Promise Neighborhood, in San Antonio, TX. The Eastside Promise Neighborhood is bounded by I-37 to the west, Fort Sam Houston to the north; AT&T Center Parkway to the east and East Commerce Street to the south. The Eastside Promise Neighborhood is approximately 3.5 square miles, and is home to 17,955 people.
The report is divided into 6 sections: the first is statistical presentation of the current state of the neighborhood; the second is an inventory of the assets found in the Eastside Promise Neighborhood; the following two sections are two different representations of the neighborhood one given by community members and the next a quantitative analysis of the academic performance of our students; the next section is also quantitative, and includes the segmentation analysis and predictive statistics modeling student academic performance through the elementary and middle school years. The final section integrates the data from all of these datagathering efforts with the best practices and evidence documented in the academic and policy literature to analyze segments of time through a childs elementary and middle school years in an attempt to elucidate the complexity of life in the Eastside 3
Promise Neighborhood. It is here that the needs of community are articulated. A separate document includes the best practices and evidence bases for the findings in this analysis. SECTION I: A STATISTICAL SNAPSHOT OF THE PROMISE NEIGHBORHOOD
Section I is a quantitative snapshot of the community that resides in the Eastside Promise Neighborhood [EPN] (how many people live there, what they do, how much money they make, and so on). The snapshot is intended to present a baseline from which to begin to debate, discuss, and prepare an educational plan for the community, thus the focus will return repeatedly to the educational system, and school-community relations. To help facilitate the preparation of the educational plan, and to ensure that it is data-driven and community-led, two interpretations follow the snapshot: one from the community itself and the other a quantitative interpretation of student achievement in the schools. The evidence base for each of the indicators presented below is presented in an additional report. Much of the following data is presented by census tract and/or by zip code; please refer to the following two maps for reference:
Our Basic Demographics Approximately 17,955 people live in the Eastside Promise Neighborhood1. The total population and ethnic make-up of the population has changed in the past two decades; once the heart of San Antonios African-American community, the area is now home to over 12,000 Hispanics, who make up 67.5% of the population today. There was a 2.58% decrease in the population of our area since 2000, although San Antonio grew by 16% in the past 10 years.
. Total Population AfricanAmerican Hispanic
1
12,127 (67.54%)
All demographic information (except where noted) is taken from the American Community Survey 2005-2009 sample. www.census.org.
821 991
(4.45%) (5.37%)
1,254 112
(6.98%) (.6%)
+56.85%
The distribution of races and ethnicities among the neighborhoods and among the school is not random; the eastern neighborhoods are more heavily African-American a reflection of the racially restrictive covenants that were present in housing deeds in the more western neighborhoods and elsewhere in the city, and which may have been enforced through the late 1940s. Residents of Harvard Place-Eastlawn, the neighborhood association to the eastern section of our Promise Neighborhood, recall the days of segregated housing, schools, and commercial establishments, noting that many settled in their homes in the 1950s because they were the only place we could buy a house.
Like many inner-city neighborhoods in San Antonio, the population in the Promise Neighborhood has aged, but a young generation is once again present as new families have moved into the neighborhood:
AGE Under 5 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15 to 19 years 20 to 24 years 25 to 29 years 30 to 34 years 35 to 39 years 40 to 44 years 45 to 49 years 50 to 54 years 55 to 59 years 60 and 64 years 65 and 69 years 70 to 74 years 75 to 79 years 80 to 84 years 85 years and over TOTAL
MALE 990 702 641 529 108 493 636 485 571 611 681 533 304 84 248 177 146 64 8,003
FEMA LE 671 747 724 609 464 575 613 519 399 694 644 434 486 206 247 287 349 229 8,897
TOTA L 1,661 1,449 1,365 1,450 992 1,068 1,249 1,004 970 1,305 1,325 967 1,028 375 495 464 495 293 17,95 5
PROMISE NEIGHBROH OOD 9.25% 8.07% 7.60% 8.08% 5.52% 5.95% 6.96% 5.59% 5.40% 7.27% 7.38% 5.39% 5.73% 2.09% 2.76% 2.58% 2.76% 1.63% 100.00%
SAN ANTON IO
8.3% 7.5% 7.7% 7.3% 7.9% 15.2% 13.8% 12.7% 5.1% 4.1% 5.3% 3.7% 1.4% 8.3% 7.5% 7.7% 7.3% 7.9%
100.00 %
5,925 people are less than 19 years old (32.9% of the population), a slight increase from the 2000 census (31.4%). There is not an appreciable difference between males and females overall, but in the early adult cohorts there is an appreciably larger number of females. Our young adult population dwindles in comparison with the larger city and in comparison to other age cohorts in the Promise Neighborhood, indicating that these young people are leaving the neighborhood for a variety of reasons that may include both financial independence and incarceration.
The median age in the neighborhood is 37.58, compared to 32.7 for the City of San Antonio indicating an aging population, which helps us understand the decreasing enrollment in our inner-city schools. The youngest cohorts (less than 5 and 5-9) hold a larger percentage of the population than older ones do; as they age, once empty schools may once again be full, making planning difficult but accurate projections a necessity. The median age in one census tract (1102) is 53.1 years; not far from here though, a much younger population can be found, in census tract 1306 where the median age is 25.8. Statistics such as these pose difficulties for community development (due to the different needs of such radically different sub-populations) but also present opportunities due to the interesting diversity present in such a small area. The older neighborhoods are also (not surprisingly) the more established neighborhoods where the housing stock has been revitalized or maintained over the past 100 years, and where the mobility rates are not as high as elsewhere.
The younger neighborhoods (to the east) are also the neighborhoods where the housing authority has significant public housing multi-family development. There are public housing developments for the elderly and disabled in the western census tracts, which may also be pushing the median age higher in those tracts. The overwhelmingly lower age range in tract 1306 is a direct reflection of the presence of the Wheatley Courts apartment complex (there are 171 grade-school age children living in the Wheatley Courts). Family and Household Structure The total number of families in the Eastside Promise Neighborhood has decreased faster than the decrease in overall population, indicating a shift in family2 and household3 structure in the past 10 years. Number in 2000 Total number of families Total marriedcouple families with children Single parent, male-headed families with children Single parent, female-headed families with children Children living with grandparents or other relatives 4,214 1,056 245 Number in 2009 3819 775 (20.29%) 227 Percentage change -10.34% -36.25% -7.9%
946 (22.4%)
983 (25.7%)
+3.7%
693
In 2000 22.4% of our families with children were single-parented by a female householder; in 2009 that figure jumped to 25.7% (compare to 9.9% for the city) is the area is being left to single parents? There are currently 36.25% fewer married couple families than there were in 2000 a possible indication of other additional stresses at work in the area this idea will be explored in later sections.
A family consists of a householder and one or more other people living in the same household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. All people in a household who are related to the householder are regarded as members of his or her family. A family household may contain people not related to the householder, but those people are not included as part of the householders family in tabulations. 3 A household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit. (People not living in households are classified as living in group quarters.) A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters.
Total number of children Total number of children living with parent(s) Total number of children in married-couple families Total number of children living in other than married-couple families Total number of children in single parent, maleheaded families Total number of children in single parent, femaleheaded families Children living with grandparents or other relatives Children in foster care or with unrelated adults Children NOT living with parents Children in singleparent households
2,650
48.4%
444
8.1%
2,206
40.29%
693 83 776
The family structure in the Promise Neighborhood is complex. There are more single-parented children, but possibly even more importantly, the structure of the
10
family itself is more complicated, such that census data may not capture the adultchild relations prevalent in the area. Families adapt to financial hardship in a variety of ways, including adaptive family relationships. Aunts, uncles, and grandparents play increasingly important roles as parents cope with increasing stress on the family. Over half of the children in the Promise Neighborhood do not reside in traditional married-couple families; rather, the majority are found in singleparent families, or are living with other relatives. The relationship between family structure and academic success is a complicated one; at the most cursory level, the preponderance of children in non-traditional families are considered at-risk of academic failure, but the family structure itself is probably an intermediary variable that indicates other stresses at work in the community, including financial and social. Understanding the cause-effect relationship here is important, as the cause of academic failure is not necessarily the family structure, but the stresses that produced that family structure; indeed, the family structure is probably a positive social and cultural adaptation to extreme financial stress. Family and Household Finances Our families struggle financially. 2005-2009 American Community Survey data indicates that 60.1% of the children in the Promise Neighborhood live below the federal poverty line (more than two-times the number in the City of San Antonio (26.6%)4. The median household income for the five census tracts was $19,766 in 2009 (compared to $43,087 for San Antonio)5. 1102 Per capita income Median family income Percent families in poverty Percent femaleheaded families in
4
For a four person family (2 adults, 2 children) the poverty threshold is $17,083 (2009); for the three person family (1 adult, 2 children), the poverty threshold is $17,083. Since most of our families are single-parented, I will use the three-person threshold when calculating examples. 2011 federal poverty guidelines indicate for a family of three the 100% poverty threshold is $18,530. 5 The Center for Public Policy Priorities in Austin Texas has calculated an alternative poverty index that is locally specific and more in line with 21st century spending habits than the 1960s poverty index used by the federal government. CPPPs calculation for a suitable, livable income level for a family of 4 in San Antonio is $37,000 (CPPP 2001, Making It: What it Really Takes to Live in Texas).
11
35.3% 7.8%
75.7% 11.8%
27.4% 6.2%
56.6% 7.6%
74.7% 6.9%
60.7% 16.8%
26.6% 4.3%
Compared to the City of San Antonio (itself a low-income city compared to other cities its size in the U.S.), the Promise Neighborhood census tracts are mired in poverty. When examined, the statistics elucidate a community in which a high percentage of children are living in poverty, many of whom live with their mothers only (see table below). Our female-headed households exhibit the highest levels of poverty of all of our families, reaching 96% in the neighborhood straddling I-35, south of Fort Sam Houston; the new SAHA property, Sutton Oaks, is located in this census tract. Sutton Oaks is a mixed-income development (30:30:30); the income figures quotes here are from the American Community Survey (2003-2008) which includes the former SAHA development (Sutton Homes) which was traditional public housing development (100% of units for 30% AMI). Thus the poverty figures quoted here may change in the next few years as Sutton Oaks fills with new families. The families that are represented in these statistics were offered vouchers through the Section 8 program; 89% have chosen not to return. Wheatley Courts is located in the other tract showing exceptionally high poverty rates; it is a traditional SAHA property which is home to 284 households ($5,284 average family income). The census tracts further west in the Promise Neighborhood report significantly higher median family incomes than those further from downtown. A greater percentage of our children are living in poverty than ever before. 88% of our children live below 200% poverty; 61% live at or below the federal poverty line, and 34% live in families or households making less than 50% of the federal poverty standard. Child Poverty Rates (0-17 years old) (assuming 5,439 children between 0-17 years old): 12
Under .50 (<$8,541) .50-.74 ($,8542-$12,641) .75-.99 ($12,812-$16,912) 1.00-1.24 ($17,083-$21,182) 1.25-1.49 ($21,183-$25,453) 1.50-1.74 ($25,453-$29,724) 1.75-2 ($29,725-$34,166) <100% federal poverty limit <200% federal poverty limit
ESTIMATED NUMER 1,852 898 521 596 321 378 235 3,271 4,801
The financial strains of joblessness and poverty both drive and are results of the social and personal stresses that characterize our Promise Neighborhood. A vicious feedback loop exists between poverty, lack of proper healthcare, lackluster academic performance, high attrition rates, and back to poverty. Each of these indicators is detailed below. Health Indicators The physical and mental health of the population and the accessibility of health care are central concerns of our Promise Neighborhood planning effort. There are two full-service clinics in the proximity of the Promise Neighborhood and one mental health clinic (each is detailed more thoroughly in the asset section of this report). We are using two measures of accessibility: geographic and financial, i.e., what is the distance one must travel to obtain health care and once there, how much does it cost? The economic or financial obstacles to healthcare may be more burdensome than the geographic ones, given the convenience of two substantial clinics in the area and a comprehensive public transit system. According to the American Community Survey, 16.8% of students in SAISD do not have health insurance; in the Promise Neighborhood, survey data reports that approximately 24.4% of our students fail to have any form of health insurance. But geographic and financial obstacles may not be the only barriers to obtaining healthcare; educational and/or social obstacles may also hinder access. Amongst the births to mothers residing in our Promise Neighborhood, 12% in 2008 were to young mothers of less than 18 years old; 65.9% were to single mothers (of any age). 38.7% of all mothers did not receive care in their first trimester, and 16.5% delivered early.
13
78202 Births 271 Births to Mothers 37 (13%) age <18 Births to single 178 (65%) mothers Low Birth Weight 35 (12%) Births <2500 g Estimated 42 (15.4%) Premature <37 weeks Births to Mothers 107 (39%) Receiving Late or No Prenatal Care >1st trimester Medicaid Funded 208 (76%) Births Births Occurring 64 within 24 months of Previous Birth Births to Mothers 85 (31%) BMI 30 and above before Pregnancy Births to Mothers 163 with Less than HS/GED Infant Deaths 1 www.voicesforchildrenSA.org
84 (75%) 24 36 (32%) 55 0
51%
27%
While the implications of these statistics on a childs growth are not entirely clear, a pattern has developed early of less than adequate attention to physical development of both mother and child. When asked about diet, responses from parents in our neighborhood indicate that our children eat more fruits and vegetables and eat fast food less than children in the rest of the city, but the current obesity rate and other health indicators belie this survey data. A better indicator of healthcare accessibility may be access to health insurance. Census data indicate that for those children living within the jurisdiction of the San Antonio Independent School District [SAISD], 19.7% are uninsured. School district surveys report that approximately 75% of our children are insured (albeit under-insured). Census statistics for insurance coverage of youth in SAISD: 2008 2009 Under 18 years 76,016 82,233 No insurance 17,348 13,777 % uninsured 22.8% 16.8% TOTAL 158,249 31,125 19.7%
14
NUMBER OF STUDENTSENROLLED IN VARIOUSINSURANCE PROGRAMSBY SCHOOL Chip Care Link Medicaid Private Military TOTALS STUDENT POPULATION PERCENTAGE 6 0 229 11 2 248 284 87.32% 8 2 307 16 0 333 499 66.73% 27 5 365 26 0 423 493 85.80% 29 4 220 18 3 274 413 66.34% 18 4 200 25 1 248 344 72.09% 75.66%
Early attention to pre-natal and early childhood healthcare nurtures the cognitive development that is taking place so quickly in each childs early years (before they turn 5 years old). Thus attention to healthcare will help us understand the preparation our little ones receive as they get ready for school. Educational Attainment The two demographic indicators explored above (economic and access to healthcare) impact the academic success rates amongst our youth. In fact, levels of educational attainment in our adult population provide insight into the poverty figures presented above. 1102 Number of people over 25 With less than 9th grade educati on Without a high school diploma With a high school diploma Associa tes degree Bachelo rs degree Higher 1110 1301 1305 1306 1307 SAN ANTON IO 807,44 9
608
1,735
2,554
2,238
2,696
1,207
28.61%
29.9%
16.2%
15.9%
22%
28.3%
10.5%
55.42%
57.06%
74.2%
66.44%
53.41%
47.47%
10.5%
44.58%
42.94%
25.8%
33.56%
46.59%
52.53%
1.9%
5.3%
5.5%
3%
1.8%
9.6%
3.2% 0.8%
4.4% 4.1%
4.1% .9%
3.3% .9%
2.8% 0
6.7% 4%
degree It is said that the greatest predictor of a childs academic success in school is the educational attainment level of their parent(s). Only one of our census tracts has a majority of adults holding a high school diploma; the others vary between 50-75% of adults not having achieved their high school diploma. While we cannot automatically assume that the children that struggle in school necessarily have parents who failed to complete high school, the data encourages further research into this relationship. If the relationship indeed exists among our Promise Neighborhood families, intervention at the adult education level may be warranted, as role models in the family may be as or even more influential on a students success than additional programming or support in the school itself can be. Before looking at the academic success rates of our students, some of their basic social characteristics are presented in the table below. These are intended to demonstrate the stresses that many of our children work under in school, thus, together with the adult education levels in the neighborhood, providing some insight into the levels of academic challenge amongst our children. Bowden ES Have limitedEnglish proficiency Receive free or reduced lunch Qualify for Special education 27.4% Pershing ES 32.9% Washington ES 18.8% Wheatle y MS 27.0% SAISD 18.2%
98.8%
98.5%
99.6%
98.8%
92.6%
7.1%
5.8%
8.2%
25.6%
10.7%
To summarize, our Promise Neighborhood schools have higher rates of students for whom English is not their first language, and probably is not spoken at home; and our middle school students are more than twice as likely to have been identified to receive special education instruction as other students in our district. The entire district is comprised of students whose families struggle financially, and our Promise Neighborhood schools are representative of that. Taking the above information into account, we can now examine academic success rates. All academic and educational indicators are explored more in section 4 of this report (including the segmentation analysis). Academic preparedness may be measured beginning in kindergarten with the Texas Primary Reading Inventory [TPRI] test. The TPRI is given three times during the kindergarten year at the beginning, middle, and end of the school year [BOY, MOY, and EOY, respectively] to determine readiness. Three tests are given that together comprise the TPRI. Kindergarteners are identified as developed or still developing on each test. In order to perform statistical testing on these results, we have labeled developed as 1 and still developing as 0 for each of the three tests, and then added the three 16
scores together. A child who scored developed on all three tests thus receives a 3 in this coding scheme; a child who scored still developing receives a 0. Ideally, all kindergarteners enter kindergarten ready so that the school year may be spent preparing them to enter their elementary school years. Unfortunately, many of our Promise Neighborhood children are not considered kindergarten ready until they actually finish kindergarten. The valuable lessons of kindergarten thus must be integrated with the more basic skills identified as age-appropriate for our 5-year olds. As indicated in the charts below, at the beginning of kindergarten 69.3% of our students are considered not kindergarten-ready; it will take them all of their kindergarten year to become kinder-ready, at which time they advance to 1st grade. It goes without saying the values of kindergarten are partially lost on many of these children.
0 TPRI_BOY TPRI_MOY TPRI_EOY 1 2 3 n= 1212 1268 1428
36% 16% 7%
6% 17% 47%
The impact of kinder-readiness on latter grade performance is examined in later sections of this report. Beginning, the 3rd grade, the academic indicator used in the following statistical analyses is based on the results of the Texas Assessment of Knowledge [TAKS]. Our children perform at a consistently lower rate than other students in the school district and state.
17
Percent commended 3rd grade reading 4th grade reading 5th grade reading 6th grade reading 7th grade reading 8th grade reading 19.7% 11.4% 12.4% 18.4% 8% 17.9%
Percent pass (district) 62.8% (84%) 52.6% (77%) 61.3% (78%) 53.2% (77%) 57.1% (77%) 56.2% (86%)
Percent pass (campus group6) 88% 78% 78% 73% 77% 83%
The Promise Neighborhood Advisory Board agreed to use commended performance as the baseline against which to measure student performance, as commended performance on the Texas standardized tests is the best signal of college readiness, and is comparable with other states acceptable levels. It is also an indication of performance on the next phase of Texas assessment instruments known as STARR. The students in our Promise schools consistently score lower than comparable students in the school district and across the state. Percent commen ded (all Promise schools)
6
Campus Group: Each campus is assigned to a unique comparison group of 40 other public schools (from anywhere in the state), that closely matches that campus on six characteristics. Comparison groups are provided so that schools can compare their performance to that of other schools with whom they are demographically similar. Comparison groups are also used for determining the Comparable Improvement Gold Performance Acknowledgments. The demographic characteristics used to construct the campus comparison groups include those defined in statute as well as others found to be statistically related to performance. They are: the percent of African American students enrolled for 2009-10; the percent of Hispanic students enrolled for 2009-10; the percent of White students enrolled for 2009-10; the percent of economically disadvantaged students enrolled for 2009-10; the percent of limited English proficient (LEP) students enrolled for 2009-10; and the percent of mobile students as determined from 2008-09 cumulative attendance. Source: Texas Education Agency (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/); Glossary, AEIS 2009-1010.
18
Reading Math
17.4% 17.5%
22% 16%
24% 28%
33% 29%
Past years results indicate that the students attending schools in the Promise Neighborhood achieve commended scores far less often than students across the state or the district. When our Promise Neighborhood schools are compared to comparable schools throughout Texas, a pattern emerges that may help us understand the learning trajectories of our children. In the earliest grades tested (3rd, 4th) our children perform a bit below the levels of comparable children elsewhere. By the 5th grade though, they have become competitive with those children (although not with the majority of the state). This evolution may indicate the extreme lack of preparedness of our very young students (kindergarten-3rd grade), but their increasing achievement in the upper-elementary grades a possible indication of a greater need for early childhood educational interventions. Looking ahead to student performance in the middle school years, there is a statistically significant difference in reading TAKS grades between those who attend Wheatley Middle School and those who attend the pre-K 8th grades academies in the area; those attending the academies are more likely to achieve a commended performance in the middle school years on the TAKS reading test than those attending the traditional middle school (Wheatley). There are at least three possible explanations for this disparity: K-8th academies provide a consistent environment between the elementary and middle school years that the transition from 5th to 6th grade in the traditional progression from elementary to middle school does not; poorer-performing students at the academies in the area may be moving to Wheatley in their middle school years; or (possibly) the academies actually are more effective at preparing these students for higher levels of academic achievement. There is a distinct possibility that students at risk of dropping out of school in the later years, and coming from situations of poverty and insecurity at home, may respond well to the smaller, more intimate scale of the academies. Finally, higher densities of poor performing students may cause a negative contagion, the more dispersed they are the less of an impact the contagion may have.
The chart to the left indicates that 6% of the students entering Wheatley Middle School earned commended performance on their 5th grade TAKS test; 10% of those attending other SAISD middle schools did, and 15% of those attending a non-SAISD middle school achieved commended performance on their 5th grade TAKS 19
an exemplary example of the self-selection that appears to happen in the student body as our EPN children age.
Educational data and analysis will be presented in greater depth in the following sections of this report. In addition to health care and school preparedness, the neighborhood itself also impacts the readiness of our children to learn. The following section examines the housing stock in particular. Housing Stock The neighborhoods in the Eastside Promise Neighborhood were built beginning in the late 19th century (those neighborhoods furthest to the west, bordering downtown) and throughout the 20th century. They are predominately older neighborhoods, and the housing styles reflect an earlier building tradition, with pier and beam foundations, tall, vertical windows, and a floor plan that once allowed the air to move through an un-air conditioned home. Today, many of these houses are considered obsolete, although young urban families value the architectural style and craftsmanship embodied in them. Because of the high building standards with which many were constructed, they are worthy of reinvestment, although rehabilitation costs are similar to new construction costs at the edge of town. In the meantime, many have passed into renter-ship; 51.6% of homes are owner-occupied. There are 225 Section 8 properties in the neighborhood, and the public housing authority offers 555 subsidized- housing units for families, elderly and the disabled. A real estate survey conducted in 2006 categorized the housing stock in the area as having the Lowest housing values. Highest foreclosure rate. Highest rate of vacant parcels. Very low construction activity. Highest rate of code complaints (MVA 2006). It is recommended that American families budget between 25%-35% of their gross monthly income on housing7. Thirty-six percent of families in rental units in the
7
The conventional 30 percent of household income that a household can devote to housing costs before the household is said to be burdened evolved from the United States National Housing Act of 1937. The National Housing Act of 1937 created the public housing program, a program that was designed to serve those families in the lowest income group. By 1940, income limits gave way to the maximum rent standard in which rent could not exceed 20 percent of income in practice, the same as the predecessor income limit standard. The Housing Act of 1959 maintained maximum rents, but it also gave local public housing authorities more autonomy in establishing them. By 1969, the escalation of rents by public housing authorities struggling to meet spiraling operation and maintenance costs nearly nullified the purpose of the public housing program established in 1937 to serve the nations neediest. To reverse this, the Brooke Amendment (1969) to the 1968 Housing and Urban Development Act, established the rent threshold of 25 percent of family income; that is, a family would be required to pay one-quarter of its income in rent. By 1981, this threshold had been raised to 30 percent, which today remains the rent standard for most rental housing programs. Because the 30 percent rule was deemed a rule of thumb for the amount of income that a family could spend and still have enough left over for other
20
Promise Neighborhood pay less than 30% of their monthly income on rent; it is estimated that 58.2% pay over 30% -- signaling a lack of affordable housing in the neighborhood and offering a possible explanation for our higher than average mobility rates.
nondiscretionary spending, it made its way to owner-occupied housing too. ( Who Can Afford To Live in a Home?: A look at data from the 2006 American Community Survey by Mary Schwartz and Ellen Wilson US Census Bureau).
21
1102 Total numbe r of housin g units Total numbe r occupi ed Total numbe r vacant Of occupi ed, total numbe r owned Of occupi ed, total numbe r rented Media n rent
1110
1301
1305
1306
1307
SAN ANTON IO
399
1002
1545
1708
1854
862
504,440
258 (64.6%)
812 (81.03%)
1183 (76.5%)
1356 (79.3%)
1652 (89.%)
751 (87.1%)
90%
141 (35.3%)
190 (18.9%)
362 (23.4%)
352 (20.6%)
202 (10.8%)
111 (12.8%)
10%
145 (28.3%)
345 (34.4%)
680 (44%)
679 (39.7%)
748 (40.3%)
315 (36.5%)
60.1%
39.9% $730
Putting this story together, the table below details the populations economic characteristics and the state of the housing stock in an attempt to illustrate the housing need in the area (the pink areas in the map are public parks).
22
The assumptions implicit in this analysis are, once again, the recommendation that families pay less than 30% of their household income on housing per month. The published HUD area household median income is $57,800. Census income increments do not match our area income subcategories, thus the more conservative estimates are shown below:
23
<30% AMI8
30-60% AMI
60100% AMI
Number of househol ds making <$14,99 9 (<30% ami) Number of rental units less than $500 Percent need met Number of househol ds making $15,000$34,999 (30 -60%ami ) Number of rental units $500$1000 Percent need met Number of househol ds making $34,999$49,999 (60-85%
1102 125
1110 292
1301 344
1305 555
1306 785
1307 332
52
187
159
304
359
181
41.6% 52
64% 314
46.2% 300
54.7% 582
45.7% 587
54.5% 286
53
265
318
292
477
230
100% 61
84.3% 101
100% 138
50.3% 80
81.2% 144
80.4% 71
24
20 (7.7%)
105 (12.9%)
401 (33.8%)
139 (10.2%)
136 (8.2%)
62 (8.2%)
According to the findings above, there is a lack of housing availability (rental) for those making less than 30% of area median income. In all census tracts in the Promise Neighborhood, there is simply not enough housing available for these families, meaning that if they wanted to remain in the neighborhood but for some reason needed to find a new home, most would be unable to do so. Only two of the census tracts in the neighborhood have enough housing for those making 30-60% ami. This information, in turn, may provide insight into the high mobility rates we document amongst our families. Not surprisingly, there is a high rate of mobility through our Promise Neighborhood. Indeed our inner-city neighborhoods have served as zones of transition for decades, as young families move through them on their way to a more stable setting at the edge of town, where they begin to make their own investments and improvements to our physical infrastructure. Our inner-city neighborhoods reflect this mobility in the deteriorating condition of the homes. In addition to the physical impacts of high mobility rates, the social implications are as profound, especially on our children. Children who move from school to school (especially during a school year) are less likely to perform well on their standardized tests than a student who has attended the same school for consecutive years (this relationship will be detailed in the following sections of this report).
YEAR HOUSEHOLDER MOVED INTO UNIT Occupied housing units Moved in 2005 or later Moved in 2000 to 2004 Moved in 1990 to 1999 Moved in 1980 to 1989 Moved in 1970 to 1979 Moved in 1969 or earlier
1102
258 9.3% 22.5% 19.4% 12.0% 8.1% 28.7%
1110
812 19.3% 34.7% 24.8% 9.0% 6.2% 6.0%
1301
1,183 22.1% 26.9% 24.2% 4.9% 7.9% 14.1%
1305
1,356 34.5% 33.3% 13.1% 3.8% 4.3% 10.9%
1306
1,652 31.8% 20.7% 22.2% 4.5% 3.2% 17.6%
1307
751 38.5% 15.2% 16.9% 15.6% 4.5% 9.3%
SAN ANTON IO
454,189 34.2% 25.9% 19.5% 8.1% 6.3% 6.0%
Mobility rates by School (compare to 28.1% for the school district): Elementary School Bowden Pershing Washington Mobility Rate 25.7% 30.7% 32.4%
25
The neighborhoods further to the east (served by Washington) appear to be the most transitional; they also have the highest number of rental homes. The final concern about our housing stock is its age. The year a home was built indicates the probability of either lead and/or asbestos in the construction materials. Interior lead-based paints were phased out in the 1960s but not regulated until 1978; asbestos was commonly used in commercial buildings for a plethora of functions until the 1970s when it too was regulated. 1102
Total housing units Built 2005 or later Built 2000 to 2004 Built 1990 to 1999 Built 1980 to 1989 Built 1970 to 1979 Built 1960 to 1969 Built 1950 to 1959 Built 1940 to 1949 Built 1939 or earlier 399 0.0% 3.5% 1.3% 2.8% 6.5% 15.5% 5.3% 4.8% 60.4%
1110
1,002 0.0% 1.3% 7.4% 4.3% 12.4% 6.5% 12.6% 15.7% 39.9%
1301
1,545 1.7% 0.0% 1.2% 2.1% 11.1% 8.7% 12.0% 10.0% 53.3%
1305
1,708 6.3% 20.8% 0.5% 16.1% 3.1% 12.6% 14.9% 8.4% 17.3%
1306
1,854 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 3.2% 9.1% 16.2% 26.1% 22.4% 19.2%
1307
862 0.0% 1.0% 4.4% 22.4% 11.1% 6.1% 25.3% 14.6% 15.0%
SAN ANTON IO
504,440 4.2% 10.9% 13.5% 18.5% 18.4% 11.6% 11.1% 5.4% 6.2%
The two census tracts furthest to the west (and closest to downtown) have the oldest houses, built well before 1940. In addition, those census tracts border I-37, another source of lead contamination. Section I is intended to present a picture of the current conditions of the Eastside Promise Neighborhood, yet a statistical representation such as this one fails to capture the non-quantifiable elements in the neighborhood, thus we offer our inventory of assets. SECTION II: THE ASSET INVENTORY OF THE EASTSIDE PROMISE NEIGHBORHOOD
26
We begin this neighborhood profile not with a needs assessment, but with an asset inventory. Adopting the philosophy of John McKnight and Jody Kretzmann in Buildings Communities From the Inside Out: A Path toward Finding and Mobilizing a Communitys Assets (1993) the Eastside Promise Neighborhood [EPN] Advisory Board sought to learn of the strengths of the neighborhood and community, in addition to the needs often prioritized by more traditional methods of community development. Asset-based community development theorizes that community (any community) is built and rebuilt in a cooperative process linking citizens, government, and other institutions; in communities that are already empowered, external support (in the form of resources and support) focuses on capacities of the community while the unfulfilled needs within that capacity are identified and addressed. In disempowered communities (poor neighborhoods for example) the support is based on incapacities. By reversing this process and identifying the existent and nascent capacities in our Promise Neighborhood community we will also find the unfulfilled needs and work to address them together. Kretzmann and McKnight identify five levels or scales of asset: the personal (residents gifts), the associational (clubs and groups people belong to but do not get paid by), institutional (non-profits, service providers), physical (space, environment), and exchange (how and what we buy and sell). A variety of methods were used to collect this asset data. Personal or individual assets were collected by 27
survey on April 30 at the Dignowity Hill/Bowden Elementary School Promise Neighborhood block party; institutional assets were collected by survey conducted amongst all Promise Neighborhood board members and snow-balled out to include all providers active in the Promise Neighborhood footprint. Following this initial survey, a series of provider panels was conducted the Promise Neighborhood Advisory Board to learn more of the services available in and to the Eastside Promise Neighborhood. Associational assets were discovered through conversations between advisory board members and interviews with community members. Physical and commercial assets were collected via a neighborhood walk on May 25 and June 1. 15 teams of 2 were deployed through the neighborhood, each given approximately 700 parcels of land to inventory and describe. The categories of land use included residential (and the condition of the property), vacant land, multi-family units, service provider, commercial business, and church. All are mapped above (residential property is mapped in pale gray). Personal Assets. Citizen involvement has been a key piece of the Eastside Promise Neighborhood planning process; the advisory board is composed of citizens representing both associations and institutions throughout the Promise Neighborhood. These community members are active in numerous facets in their community and are aware of the assets and strengths they can offer to the community and have been doing so for years. In addition, those not participating in the day to day activities of Promise were surveyed in order to inventory the personal assets of the members of the community. A modified form of Kretzmann and McKnights personal asset inventory was used; people were asked: When you think about your skills, what three things do you do best? What are your passions, what do you care deeply about? Are there any skills you would like to teach? Are there any skills you would like to learn? We asked about ones passions after asking about ones skills, to try and understand shared values in the community that drive people to do what they do and to care about certain things. The table below is a summary of the personal asset inventory done to date. Many identified caretakers as a primary skills, and faith as a passion. It tells of a community with a deep faith base, where a citizens sense of social responsibility may come from their faith. Knowing this, the churches emerge as key institutions with whom to work to foster a revitalized promise neighborhood. What are your SKILLS? Caretaker (15) Housekeeper (15) Cook (16) Medical assistant (4) Roofer, mechanic, nurse, art, dance, concrete, gardening, computers What are your PASSIONS? My faith (9) Service to others (19) Problem solving (12) My family (6) Reading, acting, talking What would you like to TEACH? Decision-making (8) Cooking (14) Faith (6) Mentoring (5) Finance, mechanics, concrete, hair, parenting, beading, math, basketball 28
Associational Assets. Associational assets included in this report are largely churches and neighborhood associations. The churches reach far deeper into the community than addressing issues of faith; many are also refuges for people in need of basic services including food, and places of fellowship and friendship. Because there is a direct link between these larger associations and the personal assets and passions that neighbors offered, we identify this as a key strength on which to rebuild our Promise Neighborhood.
Over 50 churches and ministries serve the Eastside Promise Neighborhood. The historic roots of the EPN have been closely associated with the African-American community in San Antonio, and the faith community in the area reflects that history. Despite the changing demographics (the area is no longer predominately AfricanAmerican, as explained in the previous section), many of the churches continue to serve an African-American congregation. People commute long distances to attend services, so the ministry of the churches is wide-spread. Yet while their congregations may be geographically dispersed, their facilities are not, and a profound opportunity emerges as these churches begin to organize for the improvement of the neighborhood. There are four neighborhood associations that serve the Promise Neighborhood plus a residents council at Wheatley Courts (under the purview of SAHA). Due to the nature of San Antonio city government (our elected officials are 29
largely voluntary), it is difficult for individual citizens to navigate city government, especially citizens in need of fundamental services or in crisis. Our neighborhood associations often act as liaison between residents and the city for this reason. The neighborhood associations have neighborhood plans that are agreements between the citizens and the city for future investments in infrastructure in the neighborhoods.
Institutional Assets. Institutional assets make up the most visible and formal part of the communitys fabric. The combination of public and not-for-profit institutions in the Promise Neighborhood is rich. The institutional assets I wish to highlight in this report include healthcare providers, early childcare providers, out of school time programming providers, and educational providers. While it is fairly simple to map their locations, the number of services provided by each is multi-dimensional and complex. The facilities themselves are offices, meeting halls, and emergency shelters, while the offices make decisions about services, funding, staffing, and outreach all interconnected, all assets that if understood, supported, and promoted will serve as one of the foundational elements of community revitalization. One of the challenges of capturing these institutions for local community development will be the direction of their responsiveness; while our associations are fully responsive to and responsible to the neighborhood, institutional allegiances 30
often lie outside the neighborhood, thus responsiveness may be, first and foremost, to the central office rather than to the local community in which they are located (e.g., the neighborhood, city-owned, park). Healthcare providers.
Frank Bryant Health Center (FBHC) is a full-service family health care provider that addresses all the basic health care needs of its patients, including medical, dental and behavioral health care services. It lies just outside of the Promise Neighborhood, on East Commerce Street. There is an onsite pharmacy; lab and eligibility services are also offered. In addition, dental health education, Mental/Behavioral Health, Pediatrics, Primary Care, and Womens Health are offered. Medicaid, Medicare, and other insurance policies are accepted. The dental and mental health services at the FBHC are funded by Methodist Healthcare Ministries. The Frank Bryant HC is a federally qualified health clinic run by Communicare. The East San Antonio Medical Center (1954 E. Houston St.) houses several independent medical clinics, including the E.T. Dixon Clinic, the South Texas Center for Pediatric Care, the Carol Clinic for Family Centered Healthcare, and FIVE medical doctors with their own private practices. The Dixon Clinic is owned by Methodist Healthcare Ministries. There are two 31
family practice doctors on staff, 4 social workers, 1 registered nurse, and one registered dietitian. The clinic serves the most indigent patients with no means of payment, and thus does not accept patients with any form of medical insurance, including Medicaid and Medicare (those with Medicaid or Medicare are often referred to the FBHC. In addition to the Methodist Healthcare Ministries on this site, there are also 5 additional doctors, a home health care business, and a diagnostic clinic. These practitioners do accept insured patients. The Adult Mental Health Clinic at the Ella Austin Health Center (1920 Burnet) is a mental health clinic run by The Center for Health Care Services. There are two (80% time) doctors on staff, plus 5 licensed professional counselors. The clinic serves people with major depression, schizophrenia, and bi-polar disorders. They charge a fee for service and accept Medicaid and Medicare. The East Pointe Medical Center (2011 E. Houston St) is a LapCorp Patient Services facility and also performs some dialysis treatment. The Eastside Christian Dental (2606 E. Houston St) Davis Family Dentistry located at 210 Chestnut
Family Services The Ella Austin Community Center (1023 N. Pine) promotes limited shortterm support in periods of family crisis including emergency food, infant formula, clothing, information and referral, rental and utility assistance, and income tax assistance (VITA); Early Child Development, Parenting Classes, Senior Services, Individual & Family Services, Youth Development AfterSchool Program, Emergency Food & Utility Assistance. River City Area Center (414 N. Hackberry) is a long-term care nursing home. Most patient needs are accommodated at the site, including medical and mental health treatment. Strong Foundation Ministries Salvation Army Dave Coy Center (226 Nolan) The Catholic Worker House (622 Nolan) provides homeless services to families and single people. Food is also served at noon and dinner times. Educational Service Providers:
32
Early Child Care [ECC] Educational Opportunities: Licensed Pre-Schools Antioch Christian Academy (45) Ella Austin Child Center (169) Healy-Murphy (163) Miller Child Development Center (70) Wee Care Development Center (25) St. Pauls Episcopal Montessori (80) Registered Child-Care Home Maggie Sullivan (12) Sharon Thomas (12) Pre-K and Head Start Bowden Elementary Pre-K (41) Pershing Elementary Pre-K (65) Tynan Head Start Center (121 from 78202, 78208)
33
Grade and Middle School Educational Opportunities: Tynan Early Childhood Center (3-5 years old) Elementary schools Bowden (preK-5) Pershing (preK-5) Washington (K-5) Middle School Wheatley MS (6-8) Private Schools Carver Academy Antioch Academy Charter Schools City Center Health Careers Alternative Schools Healy Murphy
Out of School Time [OST] Educational Opportunities: Ella Austin Community Center (50) San Antonio Youth Centers Antioch Missionary Baptist Community (233, but serves outside PN) St. Pauls United Methodist Church (150, but serves outside the PN) SA Youth Centers 150 at Pershing Elementary All Stars 90 at Bowden Elementary Healy Murphy Youth Against Gang Activity Wheatley Middle School HIS BridgeBuilders
There are approximately 1,661 children between 0-5 years old in the EPN. There are 227 seats in pre-K and Head Start programs (combined); there are approximately 576 seats in registered and home daycares in the EPN, although most of those seats are not taken by a child who lives in the EPN. Our median household income is $20,892, making daycare a luxury for many families. While these numbers were detailed and developed in the previous section of this report, the message at this point is clear: while we appear to have many educational assets in our neighborhood, some are not available to our children for financial reasons, but perhaps more importantly, there simply are not enough.
34
Commercial Assets in the Promise Neighborhood: There are 296 private businesses in the EPN. It is said that economic community development requires that money generated in an area must remain there for 3-4 transaction cycles in order to impact the local economy (and thus community) of that area. Thus the question remains: despite a seemingly large number of employers, how much of the money generated in the EPN remains there and for how long? These are the assets identified in the past year in San Antonios Eastside Promise Neighborhood. It is upon these assets that true community revitalization and development can begin. SECTION III: THE COMMUNITYS REPRESENTATION/INTERPRETATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD The information presented in the two proceeding sections is (metaphorically) a map of the neighborhood what is there, how much, and where. In the following two sections two different methods are used to weave the data together in an attempt to understand how individual and families navigate their landscape (both literally and metaphorically). The first section documents the 35
communitys perceptions of their Promise Neighborhood. The second section is a segmentation analysis of the academic performance of our elementary and middle school students. Together these two interpretations will enable us to better understand daily life in the Promise Neighborhood, how our families cope with the stresses posed in a challenging inner-city neighborhood, and how our children mature and perform academically. Community Engagement Fifteen focus groups were held between February 1st and March 1st, 20119. Existent social and associational groups were enlisted to participate in this effort; the effort was built on existent groups, since people seem more willing to share ideas and discuss difficult topics amongst others with whom they already have relationships, as opposed to building completely new relationships. Conversations addressed questions about the neighborhood, schools, and families in the community. Each focus group lasted approximately 2 hours and 5-8 people were included. The questions that guided the conversations included: Questions about the Schools in your community If you could design the ideal school, how would it work? o What would be the same? o What would be different? What are the greatest challenges our kids face when they are in elementary school, middle school, and high school? This question has two parts: o For your childrens future, please rank these from most important (#1) to least important (#5): Spend time with family Get a job Get married Go to college Take care of family Other __________ o How are you preparing your child for that future? What problems does your child have at school? What stops our kids from completing high school? Questions about the neighborhood and community
9
Either 1 or 2: 1. What brought you to this neighborhood? What keeps you here? If you want to leave, what makes you want to leave? 2. Please tell us about the people your [trust, lean on, go to for help]. What are they like? How did you get to know them?
Focus groups were conducted with: English-speaking and Spanish-speaking parents at Pershing Elementary; English-speaking and Spanish-speaking parents at Bowden Elementary; English-speaking and Spanish-speaking parents at Washington Elementary; English-speaking and Spanish-speaking parents at Tynan Early Childhood Center; Englishspeaking parents at Wheatley Middle School; Harvard Place/Eastlawn Neighborhood Association; Dignowity Hill Neighborhood Association.
36
Can you meet your familys needs in this community? (examples: health, exercise, food, businesses)? Where do you go for help? (lets make a list) o What needs CANNOT be met in this community? Where do people go? Can we make a list? If you could wave a magic wand, what changes would you make in your community?
Question that ties schools to community Name every single thing that kids need to go from Pre-K to high school graduation (make a list on a flip chart). o Who is responsible to provide these things (put on the flip chart)? What are we missing? What havent we asked??? Although all questions were open-ended, conversation was guided toward education and neighborhood assets and concerns. From these two areas, we can begin to discern overall concerns about the quality of life in the neighborhood, and residents interpretations of what works and what does not, and why. Despite holding 15 different focus groups, at 15 different locations, with 15 different set of participants (no one participated in more than one focus group), the same themes emerged again and again: Drugs are a major problem in the community and seems to affect many facets of life; Nearly every instance of some negative school experience involved miscommunication between teachers/staff and parents. Overwhelmingly, participants have a desire to implement the changes themselves. Looking more closely at the themes that emerge from the conversations: How Would You Change Your Neighborhood? When participants were asked about what changes they would make to their community/neighborhood (not their childs school), several themes emerged: (presented in order of importance) Dealing with the rampant drug problem, lack of police presence in the community, issues with neighborhood blight, issues with school safety, more parks/ recreation, dealing with prostitutes and gangs, changing their neighborhoods bad image, having a more diverse base of businesses within the community. Dealing with the Rampant Drug Problem. The severe drug problem in the community was mentioned by almost every focus group, and it seemed that participants thought the drug problem was their communitys most pressing concern. Community members believe that the police seem to ignore the problem and drug dealers /users seem ambivalent to law enforcement10:
10
Throughout these transcriptions, various forms of coding were used, so different individuals may have received different coded identifiers to protect their personal identity. Mod refers to the moderator or facilitator of the focus group.
37
C1: Hmm. Theres drugs and prostitutes and all that kind of stuff around, you know, even with the cops there. Of course they outnumber the cops right, but you would think that theyd be scared? Seeing the cops there? But they are not scared they keep doing what theyre doing. Mod: Why are they not scared? Whats your guess? C1: I dont know maybe its no biggie for them to go to jail. Many of them have been in and out of jail. I mean thats what I would think. C2: But you know, on the corner of my street theres always a drug dealer or a prostitute. We run them out, but eventually after a time they come back. I tried to call the cops, and let them know I just got, even if whether or not its true, I got solicited. And they drove by so they have a reason to come back, but I dont actually know if they ever do come out but Ive never heard anything or seen anything but they make me think that they have. So that to me [its].. big. Local businesses seem to help facilitate drug deals and help drug dealers hide from police detection: P2: You know even at some of these stores [drug dealers] do transactions inside these little storesthese little conscience [sic] stores they havethey go in there and you see the drug dealer and they are doing the exchange in the back in the bare area. It is impossible for the tellers not to be seeing because they have those big mirrors whats going on in the store. In some cases, the drug problem seems to even affect the quality of life by preventing the use of some public spaces: 11: Yea we go to the park and theres confrontations over there and theres somebody with drugs sitting out over there. 11: Theres always a man smoking a pipe right where the kids walk and so I call the cops to help and they dont even come! You know my kids are three and two and he would come over and I would say get the hell outta here!! 2: We were walking through the woodchips at the park over there and there were needles in the wood chips and I was like uh uh. 3:Well what makes it not work for me is pretty much the drugs and the ones who like to hang out at those corner stores. You know the ones who hang out like its their second home or something This quote may sum up the shared sentiments about the communitys drug problem: M: What aboutthe drug problem in the community? P2: Its rampant I dont know how they are going to curb it. They have been trying for so many years. I dont know if there is anything can be fixed unless the entire communityI mean the entire community...not just some become involved. Everybody is afraid even the childrenI know I am. I dont want anything to fall on the kids for something I said. [This woman is afraid that if she was to inform the police about a particular drug dealer or user that she would put her children and herself in danger (This is what she meant by I dont want anything to fall on the kids for something I said).] Little Police Presence in the Community. After the drug problem, the lack of police presence is one of the major concerns participants have. Police dont seem to respond when the participants need them: 3: In every situation where theres something [going on] and Im out there looking and [the police are] just sitting there and Im like what are you doing 38
here?? You know the cops [dont come]. And I just think you know youre here to protect and serve, not to judge. No one said youre perfect. C4: What doesnt work for me is that I feel like every time I call the police they never come. M: Sometimes you can walk up and tell something to the [police officers who are] parked and they dont do anything. P2: They dont do nothing. P1: They just sit there. According to community members, there is such little police presence; criminals know police officers only patrol particular areas at particular times: P1: I agree with you Ms. (P2) I feel that in this community that there should be more officers riding around at night [and] more than just [in] particular areas. You might want to commit a crime and you know what time to do it. Mod: They are that predictable? P2: Yeah the crack heads learn the schedule. And they move to another street. Or they give signals from one street to the next street. P1: They know when do go outside and when not to go outside. They know if they want to go rob Ms. [Ms] house what time the police are sitting across the street. It is also important to analyze the themes that were not very prevalent: violent/destructive property crime and whether personal safety is threatened. Very few participants reported destructive property or violent crime; such things only came up 2 times: one participants home was robbed 4 times and there was an arson related crime near another participants home. No participant ever spoke about murders or gun violence in their community. No person ever expressed that they didnt feel safe in their neighborhood (the person whose home was broken into 4 times in the past now has several dogs to protect her home, and says that no one would dare break into her home now). So the strong desire of participants for more police enforcement doesnt seem to be derived from violent crimes or for personal safety reasons; the desire for more police enforcement seems to mostly stem from a desire to control the drug problem. Even though no participant expressed concern for their personal safety, participants did reveal that many residents are fearful: C4: One of the things that doesnt work for me, at least on my block, I know Im the only one that calls the police. My other neighbors are very, very fearful; they dont want to get involved. They just let things happen. M: Do you have a neighborhood watch program there? C4: Probably not but I dont think anyone on my block would call. C2: They wouldnt [call] in [my neighborhood] either. Issues with Neighborhood Blight. Neighborhood blight is a theme that arose in almost every focus group. Abandoned and decrepit housing seems to be ubiquitous in the neighborhood. There are also problems with streets and sidewalks: C2: Where we live at, off of Rio Grande, it seems like every three months Rio Grande has a cave in. And the city comes out, patches it up, and everybody in the neighborhood had learned to read the streets. So if water is coming out the street be careful because its going to cave in. So, I like that, I mean the streets might be a little tore up, but theres no traffic. Large amounts of trash also seem to be present in the neighborhood:
39
P1: There are people who leave trash when they leave and this is always a problem here. Lots of trash outside of the houses. [I dont know, never.. its always a problem in this place.. much trash]. P2: Ive realized this as well. And also abandoned cars and always lots and lots of trash in the street. Issues with School Safety. Although few participants mentioned being concerned for their personal safety, many participants said they were concerned with the safety of their children. Bullying was the focus of participants concern with school safety. Afterschool violence seems to be of particular concern. Participants want some sort of after school patrol to protect their children: P3 (via translator): the parents come to drop off their children and then when they take offand the parent[s] [dont know] that their [children are] getting beaten up from that point to this point. You know? She said that there have been times that shes walked this way and the kids are taking offtheyre going down to another street or their beating up another kid. Umshe said that thats one of the things that she wants to change. To create more safety for the children by working with the staff. P1: I wanna see more officers out once [the children] get past Washington. But once they get past and up and in that side street Dawsen, thats when the fighting [starts]. Kids want to start jumping on other kids. We had an incident where a little girl was attacked by another little student. Cuz they was outside the. Perimeter [of the school]. And they say oh I can do that now because [adults/police] are over there. Traffic outside the schools was also a concern. Participants want speed bumps near schools to protect children: C1: I live down the street from Wheatley and I saw a kid walk to and from school but cars are just flying by. So I think that there needs to be a few speed bumps down the street maybe not just that street but down Gevers. C2: Yeah, and yall talking about the inner street. When I come off of my street on Walters, going over the Walters Street bridge is this big old flashing yellow lights slow down I call the policeman every other morning saying, yall need to put a police officer on the corner of Walters and Gable, Ive seen a child almost get hit by the students on the way to St. Philips. More Parks/Recreation. Many participants wanted more parks in their neighborhood so children could have a place to play. Some participants also wanted some form of cheap recreation: 3: CHEAPER recreations. Because they are fifty dollars! Fifty bucks for recreation? We didnt have to pay [that] when we were little. You know [to] get the little snack or dinner or lunch or whatever, you gotta pay fifty dollars to get all that! Deal with the Prostitutes and Gangs. Although not nearly as prevalent as the drug issue, issues about prostitutes and gang members did occasionally arise. Although issues with prostitution were not mentioned very often, those who did mention it seemed to suggest prostitutes are ubiquitous. Gang members also seemed to be a concern, again not mentioned very frequently.
40
Neighborhood Perception: Although not discussed very much, a desire to change the image of the Eastside was expressed by participants in multiple focus groups: S1: I would change everybodys perception on how they think the eastside is. Mod: You would want to change peoples perceptions of how the Eastside is? What would you want their perceptions to change to? S1: Like. For them to think that this is the only side of town thats really bad because its really not. Student: They always think that. Student: Its not that bad, the same stuff thats going on over here is going on northside and the Westside, the southside. More Businesses. Some participants were frustrated with the lack of business variety present in their neighborhood: C4: Something like a cute little shop or a nice little place to eat with a little personality with a little ambiance where you want to stay and hang out youre not just there to sit and eat and leave. Im not even sure what other businesses, because I think that question kind of came up too, but what are the kinds of businesses that actually would serve the community that the community would feel like I really want to be there where there was some sort of energy. What Changes Would You Like to Make to Your Childs School? When asked about what changes they wanted to their childs school, several themes emerged: (listed in order of importance) more parental involvement, more engaged teachers, more real life/ real world experiences for children, a more hands on/real world based curriculum, and physical improvements to their childs school. More Parental Involvement. Most participants wanted parents to be more involved in their childs school: P1: I noticecoming out to the gamesthat our opponentsif were here their [side] is full of the opponents familiesyou couldnt count [the parents from our school] on your handsand thats for the boys and the girls. Its very few parents that come out. SoI agree that we need to get you know more parent involvement and me and Mrs. Carole already spoke on that too. Trying to getto go out were going to start beating our feet to try to get more parents to come out. Because shes right. You have all these children, but you cant even count the parents on your hands. Some participants seemed to suggest that some parents only attend school functions when the schools offer some service for free: P3 (via translator): They dont come to those types of events. She says that she likes the way the other principals put it[parents] are not going to come unless you give them something. Thats the way she sees it. P1: If [parents] know its benefiting them they will fly-outthey will cut their soap operas off if its benefiting them. I feel its for the kid. You should break your neck arm and a leg to be here with your child. 41
One participant offered an explanation as to why parents only seem to come to school events when services are rendered for free: Mod: Do you think it is out of necessity or is it because they are like that. Are the parents more worried about filling their needsin the sense of resources? P2: I think it could be both. But I think in some cases it is more of a necessity. Because a lot of the parents they do receive food stamps especially when its at the end of the month thats when you get a lot of people coming in. The stamps only last so long. By her own account, P2 did not become involved in her childs education until later in her childs elementary school years. And as her quote above suggests, the reason she was not involved was because she was working to provide for her family: Mod: what was keeping you from being involved at the elementary level? P2: I was working working working and just not there I was there but just not there you know? Another participant suggested that parents simply dont care: P1: A lot of parentssend they kids to school just to get them out of the house [with an attitude like] he dont have to be in my hair, put him off on somebody elsebut [ parents feel as though their children are the schools problem] because they [are at school] during the day. When they come home then they're [the parents] problem. More Engaged Teachers. In general, many participants thought that teachers were not effectively engaging their children: C2: Well there are some teachers that have the passion to make sure your baby get it right. And then we have the ones that just sit there that just make you want to holler, because they dont care. They dont have the passion, you see the kids theyre laying down theyre going to sleep. You walk in the room you go to sleep, because theres no passion there for the love of teaching to make sure, I call it old school teachers, you know that have the passion that see C3 over there struggling and they stop and they take their time to make sure that if C3 still dont get it, C3 stays after school until he gets it right. These new teachers, Hey you got it, you dont forget it Im getting tired. Participants cited several reasons why teachers may not be engaging their students. Many teachers are new and inexperienced: C8: My son is in eleventh grade and when I went to his open house, all the teachers were real young, 25 years old. I went up to one and said, who are you are you a student? Oh Im Damiens teacher.Yes, more experience. My son is a straight A student every month, but hes saying the teacher is boring. Thats no good. Real young teachers, kids dont really look up to them. Participants seem to believe that some teachers are not able to effectively manage their classrooms or particular students: P2: Some kidsare more distracting than others with their behaviorthey have so many things they have to do even before they start class that day. And sometimes the instructors thats the last thing they wanna have to deal with. And some of the instructors dont teach as well as they could or they are not as motivated to impart the knowledge that they have. Sometimes its the kids that decide to not to complete high school or graduate because of the instructors that they have. I can say that some instructors are fed up 42
with the kids who come into the class with issues and [teachers] do not know how to properly address those issues. Sam Houston High School students mentioned that teachers dont implement hands on lessons: Student: They should change the way they teach too. Ordinarily they just lecture and lecture. Mod: How would you like them to teach? Student: Hands on. Student: More activities and stuff. Student: More projects. More Real Life/ Real World Experiences. Quite a few participants wanted children to have some sort of after school program or after school activities/opportunities. But, the focus of these opportunities seemed to focus on giving children real world/real life experiences. Many participants wanted children to have the opportunity to make money. Apparently the need for money can be a gateway to illegal activity: C1: I think there should be some stuff. Only because if you stand outside you can see all these kids do is get into trouble. Kids are trying to make money, not only to help themselves but to help their families. And these drug people take advantage of that, because really thats what theyre doing, theyre taking advantage of these kids that need it, these families that need it, because they think thats the only way that they can make money. Some models for these types of programs are Sanyo (no longer in existence) and a Family Services Program: C2: Okay, so when we were talking about kids, when I was growing up and I turned 13, and I was in junior high school, there was a program called Sanyo. Sanyo had funds for kids to work and when I was with Sanyo I first started off in recreation. Sanyo helped kids from 13-21, and when you turned 16 you were able to work on base. Thats how I got my first base job, before I turned 19 I was at E3. And I got it through Sanyo, they even gave you a chance to work after school, 4 hours a day, Monday through Thursday, but it still gave us a chance to make money. There werent any young kids, we werent on the streets trying to sell drugs and stuff because we knew we had a Sanyo job which helped a lot of our families. And a lot of kids helped play mortgage, CPS bill, plus buy school clothes for themselves and their siblings and their families. C1: In response to the Sanyo thing, the city has a thing that they do every year, Family Service participates in it as well, what we do is we hire students from ages 16-18 (it changes every year) so this past year I think it was from 16-18. But I feel it shouldnt be those students who get it because when youre 16, 17, or 18 you can get a job at McDonalds or whatever. I think they should get it at the middle school, from there on up. And keep it from 13-18 if thats the case, but start it there. Because thats when kids really start to see the need to help their parents , a need like, Oh we want this but they cant give it to us. Or, Oh we dont have enough food. You know, they start really seeing that need. Those middle kids, they get left out. Even if those programs are not related to some sort of life skills, participants just wanted something to keep children out of trouble. One student acknowledged that
43
after school programs (like YAGA which he/she is a part of) keep him/her out of trouble: Mod: So you want afterschool programs in the school? Student: Yeah, so we can stay out of trouble, yall keep me out of trouble. Yall done keep me out of trouble. A More Hands on Curriculum. The desire to have children experience real world/ real life experiences manifests itself in a desire to implement a more hands on/ real world relevant curriculum. Students and parents alike wanted a curriculum that featured more hands on activities: C1: I would definitely change the curriculum. I think kids need to have more hands-on learning, instead of just sitting there and listening. I think theyd do better if they actually have their hands on it, when they can feel it. I think that students should have a choice in what they want to be in. It seems like they choose your elective for you. Some parents gave examples of the types of programs they would like to see; in particular this quote indicates that this participant wants a career/jobs supplement to the curriculum: C3: In [an unidentified] High School they have the elective of the Explorer program for the SAPD. The reason why I know this is because my daughter is now at central headquarters, she is also doing the LOTC Explorer program. In two years shell be able to do the ride-along program with them. But theyre already talking about making her the next chief of police. Interestingly, whenever school curriculum was mentioned, the focus was almost exclusively focused upon a hands on/ real world based curriculum. There was only one instance of participants wanting the curriculum to focus upon preparing students for college, and only one instance of a participant complaining about the curriculum not imparting basic skills. In regards to the curriculum, here is the only instance of a participant wanting schools to prepare students for college: 5: Theres this one program where they do that and they follow kids through high school when I was going to ___ they didnt have it but now Im going to ___and its a and they take them to universities. So they learn about college. They only have it for the class of 2013 which is the class under me but I think they should do that for all of us. Because I havent you know I had seen all of the schools in San Antonio but they get to go out of the city and out of the state to see schools and I think its very good. This is odd, considering most participants ranked college as the primary goal for their children or (in the case of students) for themselves. Maybe participants believe schools are already doing a good job of preparing students for college. Physical Improvements. Many participants wanted immediate improvements to their childs school: 3: The technology a lot of the buildings like Wheatley is a very old building. It needs a lot of work. 4: Even like the intercoms, everything. Everything is messed up over there. 2: Here they cant do a playground; they dont have the budget for it. Mod: Any other ideas about things you would change or keep the same. Student: The water fountains. Student: They nasty, they taste like bloodthey taste like crusty, thats what I meant. 44
Some participants wanted their children to have greater access to computer labs (both at Wheatley and Sam Houston): 3: You know that ridiculous theres what? 500 kids at this school and they only have 10 computers for them to work on? And they only have certain designated times to be in the library. There are a lot of things that these kids are not given the advantage [that] others are. A Need for Better Parent-Teacher Communication One of the largest themes to emerge from the content analysis is the theme negative feelings towards or experiences of school. When this theme was analyzed, nearly all instances of negative feelings or experiences with school involved a lack of communication between parents and teachers. Some participants complained that they do not know what their child is being taught in the classroom. This seems to hurt the parents ability to help their children with their homework: C4: They keep teaching kids new strategies, so when you are a parent who is capable of working with your kids, you say, Oh, I know that. Ok let me help you. And you go and do it your way and theyre like, What? What is this it doesnt make any sense? Thats not what the teacher told me? And Im like, But it works. Then I have to go back to the school and tell the teacher, I dont know what the heck youre doing! C5: I had to stay home and work with Ashley [with her math homework]. When I was growing up I was taught long division, but now they do it totally different. And she was so upset with me and she came back and said, thanks Mom, I got a bad grade. So I went to her teacher and said, how did she get it wrong? And she said, well its not the answer that she got wrong its the process. I said what the hell? Not only do parents report not knowing what is being taught in the classroom, but also many report that teachers do not effectively explain homework assignments to them or their children: P1: I think they arent good teachers, there arent explanations, because they say nothing more, mountain of papers, no explanations, there arent open books P2: But my sister [who is a student] doesnt understand [] Because she doesnt go or shes sick. She knows that this isnt explained and she doesnt understand the way that the teacher explains that she asks for an explanation but doesnt get one. P3: With my son its the same as the woman, because he doesnt understand, and I tell him that Ill go talk with [the teacher] to explain to teach him like this... I talk with [teacher] and say it isnt... because he doesnt understand and so hes crying. Parents seem to want more communication from teachers about the academic status of their children: 2: I think for myself um I dont get the signs like sometimes enough communication from her and you know because Ill ask like you know it how is my daughter doing and shell be like shes fine shes doing great and Im like ok can we elaborate a little more you know like shoot me an email or something? Luckily shes doing really well but Id still like to have that communication you know. The parent teacher conference and if I had that I
45
think it would be betterWell at least like 4 Like one every couple of months you know for my own personal assurance. 8: [The teacher and I] set down an agreement that at the beginning of the school year, if my child has problem learning you will call me and let me know, but they didnt. So my child has to sit back in fifth grade to repeat fourth grade. Some participants wanted some positive feed-back from their teachers instead of a solely negative dialogue: P1: But I feel that [the school] shouldyou know open their doors make the parents feel welcome. Dont call the parents every time with something negative. Maybe if [parents] get a phone call saying something positive about their child they would might want to come outyou know something positiveevery time [I] get a phone call it has to be negative. I feel thats why a lot of parents dont want to come out because they getting this negativeAnd maybe the parents would come out more if they get a positivesay well you son or you daughter is doing this in the school maybe the parents would come out more. There also seems to be a miscommunication about school policies. One parent didnt know why she wasnt contacted when her child sustained an injury and another parent received no help in navigating a schools registration process: And then here its like when my daughter fell and hit her head on the playground I didnt even know that she did that ok. I was just like can yall explain to me how she got this mark on her forehead? Well you know she fell and hit it on the swings ok well no body called to tell me that. They didnt call me or tell me anything I had to ask my own daughter what happened to her head. Does that make any sense? 2: Well one change that I just thought of. Well I just have one daughter so all of this is new to me and you know getting her here and getting the information that is required for her to be here like registration I got it was like through word of mouthNothing was explained to me so I think that I would change that you know when a parent comes for the first time this is your registration formI still dont know why we need a physical I guess to me its like if my child isnt physically fit shes not allowed to come to school why do we need blood work and why do we need dental and stuff? What for you know I still dont know to this day what for you know its just something that is required. Explain you know! The lack of communication was not entirely the schools fault. Many parents know their childs needs but didnt seem to express those needs to teachers. This parent knows his/her child is shy and may not be good with certain projects, but doesnt seem to inform his/her childs teacher about it: 9: Well you know my son is just shy. Like he doesnt talk. He knows how to do the work but the teacher says he doesnt know how to do it. But then when he comes home he can do it. And maybe you know they could have certain kids do certain projects if they dont like to talk. Because thats where theyre missing because they dont know if hes really struggling or if he just doesnt like to talk you know what I mean. Some people just struggle in public speaking. Complaints about teachers dominated a significant proportion of the discussion related to education. Based upon assumptions, it seems that many parents knew their child had particular issues or needs but did not express them to their teachers. 46
Our conclusion that the vast majority of the negative experiences of school stem from communication problems is reinforced by analyzing all the instances of positive school experiences or feelings; nearly all of the positive school experiences expressed were cases of good communication between parents and teachers. Parents usually had good feelings towards teachers and staff that communicate with them in a clear fashion: P1: I love the counselors cuz they pull me out [and told me] what is wrong with Thomas (her son). [They told me]Thomas is bored thats the problem. He needs to be challenged because the work is too easy for him. So they put him in AP and now he is an honor roll student as well as being here at Wheatley. So the counselors work with real good with me helping both of my children. C1: My son is in first grade and he brought home some homework that I was like, what? What is this? So his teacher is really good. I have his email address, his personal cell, his work phone. So I call him whenever, Mr. ___, I need to sit with you tomorrow and you need to help me go over my sons homework. The Parent Advocate Program at Tynan seems to be a program that effectively bridges the gap between parents and school. The school can effectively communicate with parents via the Advocates and the parents can readily express their needs to the Parent Advocates: 3: Parent Advocates.I met them through the school. At first I didnt know I was like who are these people? Well they need to come to your house. For what? I dont like people coming into my house what are they coming here for? And she was just like well theyre just here to tell you how your child is doing and Im like ok. And I didnt know they had all that help for you you know like one time I had a problem and you know when my momma passed away I needed help and so she gave me a lot of different resources and stuff so theyre looking good at this school. I think they should have that at middle school and high schools. Who is Responsible for the Changes You Want in Your Community? In regards to who is responsible for the changes the participants seek, there are two overall themes: elected officials and personal responsibility. The participants showed a very strong sense of personal responsibility; the vast majority of the conversation related to who is responsible for the changes in your community centered squarely upon participants strong sense of personal responsibility. But to fully understand why this is, analysis of the other theme is necessary. There are three sub-themes under elected officials: city council, the school board, and state/government in general. In regards to city council, City Councilwoman Ivy Taylor was mentioned frequently as the person responsible for implementing many changes in the neighborhood. The school board was seen as responsible for some of the school related changes, and, in general, participants seemed to look to state/government in general for needs that could not be met by the school board. But in regards to what elected officials actually accomplished, some participants seemed to be frustrated with the slow pace of and/or lack of change in their communities: C4: You kind of want to go to an SAISD board meeting or something and make the board members aware. So that they can do stuff. Mod: Have you tried that or do you know anyone who has? 47
C4: No. C2: I have. I went to the school district when I was on a long range community. I told Dr. Duron. I have walked up and showed them the intersection, they know about it. It took, like Walters and 35, the Sutton Homes almost 7 years to get a gate to protect their babies from the cars as they walked to school Because a child lost her life on that bridge. And it took almost 7 years. This frustrations seems to extend beyond elected officials: M: you have a small group of people that want to see change and want to make change. But then they start the huge big process and by the time you even start the ball rolling its like forget it. Its too much work and its too much you have to go through so many people to get anything in your community. Its crazyits discouraging and its tiring. You feel like you are battling up against a wall after wall after wall. Literally, people start falling off. They are like forget it! This frustration with the lack of or slow pace of change facilitated by elected officials may be fueling a desire among some to take matters into their own hands, which may explain why participants showed a great sense of personal responsibility. But participants also expressed a strong desire to organize, which may stem from the frustrations expressed in the previous quote. Here is one participant emphasizing the themes of organization and personal responsibility: C6: Well what Im saying is, I think we can develop our own thing and you know just be leaders in the community. Ive been saying just be a leader, and there arent other people that want to be leaders until youve got a focus groupwe can all as people who live in the community, then were from different parts of the community, we make our presence known and make a leaders forum. When we march were going to march together. This sentiment even seems to be present with the students as exemplified in this quote by a YAGA student: Mod: Who is responsible for making these changes [to your community] ?. Students (in unison): we are! S1: They were just trying to close Sam Houston down. They should have seen how many people packed up into that auditorium. Because them thats why our school stayed open. This question was not asked in the same form to all groups. One facilitator in particular encouraged participants to specifically state who they believed to be responsible for specific things children need to successfully complete school; almost all the responses centered around the responsibility of the parents/families. It is important to note the limitations of generalizing this sense of responsibility to the broader community. The very act of participating in these focus groups indicates that participants are already actively involved in their communities. This is bolstered by the fact that many of them are very involved and active in their schools. The participants revealed that apathy runs very deep in their community: M: Things like this promise neighborhood, Im going to tell you something. When we were talking about what it is supposed to be or suppose to change. Some of the parents were like is this something else they are promising and their saying that they are doing? Im going to tell you they said in Spanish that it is a load of crap. A: Cuz it has been happening so many times before. 48
M: some people get tiredthey think its (not) going to change and some people just give upand nobody cares. Participants seem to think that some parents are apathetic to the needs of their children: C5: I know a couple of home visits that weve done. There were some actually that went, theres one I thought it was the craziest one. You knock, wheres the child, and the child comes out and its the only one that doesnt look like hes high. But you look into the living room, the mother is thrown on the floor because shes real high, and then the mothers mother which is the grandma, and shes sitting in the chair and shes high! And shes like an old woman! You know! And to me that was like, Oh my god no wonder this kid is not going to school and not paying attention and doesnt care because nobody at home cares. Mod: How often do you think that happens? C5: In that area?! Mod: Like 10%, 20%, 80%? Everyone: 80%. Mod: I hear 80 here, I hear 30. Many participants also seem to think that most parents are not involved their childs school/education; it seems that the only way to get parents involved is to offer them an incentive: M: She says that in her case what she seesparents right nowwhen you have an arts and craft or when something is giving out to them when it is benefiting them. They dont come for the childs education. They dont come to those types of events. She says that she likes the way the other principals put itthey are not going to come unless you give them something. Thats the way she sees it P1: And I agree with [P1] a lot of parents feel thatthey send they kids to school just to get them out of the house. Everyone: [Murmurs of agreement] P1: [Send him to school] so he dont have to be in my hair, put him off on somebody else. So it is clear that the participants will be a great resource in helping the project move forward, but, if the participants characterization of the community at large is true, then pervasive apathy might be a problem. Finally, how well residents navigate the assets already present in the neighborhood may elucidate the degree to which those associational, institutional, and commercial assets are integrated into the community they reside in. Is their outreach and their concern local, or does it lie outside the neighborhood (and if so, how can we encourage a reprioritization so they will engage and serve)? Needs That Are/Can Be Met in the Community When analyzed across groups, there are several types of organizations which participants use to meet their needs: churches, healthcare providers, non-profit organizations, food/restaurants, and stores/shops. There are a total of seven churches that participants specifically stated they go to for help: St. Patrick's Church, Antioch Missionary Baptist Church, Hodges Chapel, God's House, St. Gerard's, Mount Sinai Baptist Church, and St. Stevens. The participants mostly use the churches for food, although there are notable 49
exceptions. Hodges Chapel has donated 5 cases of water bottles to Wheatleys LOTC when they were marching in a parade, and St. Stevens provides resources for house repairs. Of all the churches, Antioch seems to be used by the community the most. There are a total of nine healthcare providers that participants use to meet their healthcare needs. But, unfortunately, participants only gave definite names or addresses for a few of them: Health Care Ministries (probably referring to the Methodist Healthcare Ministries Dixon Clinic), Frank Bryant Center, Ella Austin, some clinic on Rio Grande, Dr. Leo Edwards on 2011 East Houston St., the pharmacy across the street from 2011 East Houston St., East Medical, Centro Med, and University Hospital. One participant specifically mentioned that they use Ella Austin for some form of mental health services. There are nine non-profit organizations the residents use to meet their needs: The Claude Black Center, HIS Bridge Builders, United Way, Gathering Place, Carver Center, Food Shelter, Community Assistance Ministries, the Salvation Army, and Melrose. Unfortunately, in many cases the participants were not specific about what services they received from these organizations; participants mostly reported receiving food and clothing from them. Participants use stores/shops to fill their needs for various goods, services: AutoZone, Carb. O'Reilly's, Finger Nail Shop, H.E.B, Fred Lloyd, Dollar General, Dollar Tree, Rent-A-Center, The Dollar Store, gas stations, and the laundry mat. AutoZone, Carb, and OReillys are auto related goods or services businesses. There also seems to be a desire to get cheap goods, as represented by Dollar General, Dollar Tree, and The Dollar Store. In addition, participants use fast food places and restaurants to fill their need for food: Angel's Restaurant, Burger King, Church's Chicken, Jack in the Box, King's, and McDonald's. There are several organizations or businesses that do not fall into broader categories: schools, parks/recreation, and government services. Multiple participants reported that schools provide information so parents can find necessary resources. Participants also cited using parks and pools near their homes or schools for exercise. If we look at the services or goods rendered from the most frequently visited places, food and healthcare represent the largest categories. Food by far is the largest category. These are the organizations/ businesses from which participant have sought or seek food: Sinai (church), St. Gerard's, Angel's Restaurant, Burger King, Church's Chicken, Jack in the Box, King's (fast food chicken), McDonald's, food shelters, H.E.B, Bridge Builders, God's House, and schools. Many participants report that churches provide food to those who need it. Some fulfill their food needs at fast food places. Healthcare was the other major category. Besides the healthcare providers that were listed previously, some participants mentioned that they used parks and a pool to exercise. Needs that Cannot be Met in the Community Even though healthcare represented one of the largest categories of needs that can be met in the community, oddly it is the largest category in regards to needs that cannot be met in the community as well. Healthcare providers represented half of the places participants reported going to meet their needs: Baptist Methodist, Southside Dental, Hospitals, Overnight clinics, Pediatricians, Santa Rosa, South Cross, Southeast Baptist, Southwest General, a children's 50
hospital on the Southside, and the Zarzamora Mental Health Clinic. Unfortunately, participants merely mentioned whether they have visited these places and, in many cases, did not provide what kinds of services they received. Other than healthcare, food is the next largest category for unmet needs. Unfortunately, all the places which participants say they meet this need are fast food places and restaurants: Chick-Fil-A, Papa John's, Peter Piper's, Chuckie Cheese, Apple Bee's, Chilis, Olive Garden, and Souper Salad. It is important to note all of these places are from a couple of people in the Tynan focus group. There are several organizations/ businesses which do not fit into broader categories: courthouse/legal services, mechanics, and malls. There is one church, the Community Bible Church which provides vital resources to Bridge Builders. This analysis of the communitys interpretation of neighborhood and school conditions provides tremendous insight into how people navigate the landscape painted in the first two sections of this report (descriptive statistics and asset inventory), and why they feel that at times things do not work properly. The next section is a statistical analysis of student performance, intended to provide another interpretation of how our young people navigate their own landscape, and, in turn, how the landscape or environment impacts our young people.
11
The number appears high, but it includes every student that registers in one of our Wheatley schools over the 7 years for which data has been collected. Due to the tremendous mobility in the school district, students enter in grades other than kindergarten or first, making longitudinal analyses difficult, which explains why we included all of the feeder schools, not only those in the promise footprint.
51
SocioTesting data economic information Ethnicity TPRI scores Is economically TAKS scores disadvantaged (all tests, all grades) Age Sex
In addition, variables have been transformed for analysis and modeling purposes, so that the total number of variables being analyzed is 324. Three levels of analyses are presented below: descriptive statistics will provide an overview of the variables collected; a segmentation analysis allows us to look more closely at student-level performance and divide our student body into segments, sub-populations, or clusters that perform similarly, and predictive modeling analyzes the relationship between significant variables that culminate in various levels of student performance and may aid in understanding cause and effect relationships. Descriptive Statistics: a. student body
16,128 students have attended one or more of the schools in the Wheatley Middle School feeder pattern EE 37 between 2003 and 2010. Attendance through elementary school is fairly stable, with similar class PK 3972 sizes at every level from kindergarten through 5th K 4910 grade. Yet note the drop in attendance from 5th to 6th 1st 4893 grade the year that most students should be making 2nd 4574 the transition to Wheatley Middle School. Trying to th 3rd 4273 dissect this apparent loss of students, of the 4006 5 th grade students in the database, 619 attended 6 grade 4th 4178 at Wheatley (19%), 527 went to another middle school 5th 4006 in this feeder pattern (possibly one of the academies) 6th 2095 and 2,110 are unaccounted for 64%), meaning they did th 7th 2014 not attend 6 grade in any of the schools associated with the Wheatley Middle School feeder pattern. Only 8th 1991 19% of the total possible 5th graders elected to attend their neighborhood middle school; 81% opted to attend 6th grade elsewhere. Data for the 2010-2011 6th grade class illustrates this dispersal. Sixty-three 5th graders
N
52
graduated from Bowden, 20 enrolled in Wheatley in the fall; 48 5th grades graduated from Pershing, 12 enrolled in Wheatley in the fall; 65 5th graders graduated from Washington, 33 enrolled in Wheatley in the fall (additional schools outside of the Promise Neighborhood also feed Wheatley). If our goal is to encourage neighborhood stability Wheatley must be made a more attractive option to which to send ones middle school age children.
Ethnicity Cumulative Frequency Valid Asian African American Hispanic Native American White Total Missing -99 System Total Total 49 5909 9543 19 519 16039 74 15 89 16128 Percent .3 36.6 59.2 .1 3.2 99.4 .5 .1 .6 100.0 Valid Percent .3 36.8 59.5 .1 3.2 100.0 Percent .3 37.1 96.6 96.8 100.0
There is currently an Hispanic majority in these schools, yet African-Americans continue to make up over 35% of the student body, making this cluster of schools the most ethnically diverse in the school district. As the Anglo population grows (see demographic information in section 1), this diversity will increase, which will make these schools increasingly attractive to young urban families. Nearly (24.36%) of our elementary age children are considered English-language learners or have limited English proficiency; they most probably speak Spanish at home, and speak solely Spanish all summer long.
Gender Cumulative Frequency Valid Female Male Total Missing Total System 7905 8208 16113 15 16128 Percent 49.0 50.9 99.9 .1 100.0 Valid Percent 49.1 50.9 100.0 Percent 49.1 100.0
53
Economically Disadvantaged Cumulative Frequency Valid Yes No Total Missing Total System 15153 960 16113 15 16128 Percent 94.0 6.0 99.9 .1 100.0 Valid Percent 94.0 6.0 100.0 Percent 94.0 100.0
The poverty levels described for the neighborhood are also reflected in the student level data; 94% of students qualify for free or reduced lunch the overwhelming
majority for income reasons. Throughout the elementary school years, high performing students may be tested to receive gifted-talented services [GT]. As the table indicates, an increasing number of students are identified through the early years, until 5th grade, where 6% of the student body is labeled GT12. The interesting thing to note here is the subsequent drop in percentage, as our 5th graders move into 6th grade their middle school years. Fewer students are labeled GT in our middle schools than were in our elementary schools, possibly indicating these students are electing to attend middle school outside the cluster (i.e., the absolute number of GT students in the area remains that same, but the percentage attending Wheatley MS drops significantly).
Yes Gifted & Talented Grade KG Gifted & Talented Grade 1 Gifted & Talented Grade 2 Gifted & Talented Grade 3 Gifted & Talented Grade 4 Gifted & Talented Grade 5 Gifted & Talented Grade 6 Gifted & Talented Grade 7 Gifted & Talented Grade 8 No n= 4910 4893 4574 4273 4178 4006 2095 2014 1991
1% 1% 3% 4% 5% 6% 4% 5% 4%
Similarly, those with learning differences and difficulties are also identified throughout the elementary years, so they may receive the special services they need to succeed in school. As with the GT data, the percentage of students receiving special education increases through these years as students are identified. Looking especially at the learning disability category, the percentage of students identified as learning disabled jumps from 11.1% of the student body in 5th grade to 14.8% in the 6th grade, indicating that perhaps students with learning
12
Once a child is identified gifted and talented that identification remains until they graduate from high school or leave the district (at which time they may be reassessed).
54
disabilities are remaining in the Wheatley cluster while, at the same time, students who excel [GT] are opting out.
KG Learning Disability Speech Impairment Emot ional Dist urbance Ot her Health Impairment Mental Retardation Autism Noncategorical Early Childhood Visual Impairment Orthopedic Impairment Auditory Impairment T raumatic Brain Injury (Count includes multiple responses) 3.0% 6.0% 1.0% 1.1% 0.8% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 523 Grade 1 4.2% 6.0% 1.5% 1.5% 1.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 624 Grade 2 5.7% 5.8% 1.7% 1.5% 1.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 629 Grade 3 7.6% 5.2% 2.0% 1.7% 1.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 651 Grade 4 9.3% 4.1% 2.2% 2.2% 1.5% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 724 Grade 5 11.1% 3.8% 2.5% 2.0% 1.6% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 753 Grade 6 14.8% 2.9% 3.1% 2.7% 2.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 492 Grade 7 15.1% 2.0% 3.8% 2.5% 2.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 485 Grade 8 15.3% 1.5% 3.7% 2.2% 2.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 481 T otal 6.2% 3.8% 1.9% 1.5% 1.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 2345
Mobility Of the 16,128 students in the database, not one student was present from kindergarten through the 8th grade. 39 students (0.2%) were in the Wheatley cluster from 1st through 8th grade, and 134 (0.8%) attended Wheatley schools from 2nd through 8th grade a true sign of the degree of mobility of these eastside families. Absenteeism:
Days Absent N Absent Days Grade EE Absent Days Grade PK Absent Days Grade KG Absent Days Grade 1 Absent Days Grade 2 Absent Days Grade 3 Absent Days Grade 4 Absent Days Grade 5 Absent Days Grade 6 Absent Days Grade 7 Absent Days Grade 8 Valid N (list wise) 37 3972 4910 4893 4574 4273 4178 4006 2095 2014 1991 0 Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maximum 67 76 70 73 74 66 59 52 105 85 96 Mean 10.81 8.24 7.69 6.83 6.10 5.81 5.56 5.71 6.68 8.01 9.34 Std. Deviation 12.728 7.751 7.658 7.121 6.515 6.168 6.073 6.212 8.114 9.506 10.919
Elementary school-age children miss 5-6 days of school/year (the equivalent of one week of school); absenteeism becomes a greater problem in the higher grades, when middle school students are missing 8-9 days of school/year nearly the equivalent of two weeks of school. As will be shown in later sections, absenteeism correlates highly with academic performance in some grades.
55
Age:
Average Age at Beginning of Year Age range per N Grade_EE_age Grade_PK_age Grade_KG_age Grade_01_age Grade_02_age Grade_03_age Grade_04_age Grade_05_age Grade_06_age Grade_07_age Grade_08_age Valid N (list wise) 37 3982 4925 4905 4582 4281 4181 4006 2095 2014 1991 0 Minimum 2.31 3.00 4.92 5.38 6.38 7.38 7.55 9.03 10.73 11.66 12.66 Maximum 5.60 5.00 7.58 8.70 15.05 11.26 12.27 13.33 14.80 15.89 16.47 Mean 3.2415 4.3436 5.5369 6.6385 7.7289 8.7935 9.8184 10.8480 11.9135 12.9087 13.8830 Std. Deviation .81936 .47153 .34469 .44087 .52728 .56073 .57198 .59219 .63897 .63122 .63688 grade 3.0-3.99 4.0-4.99 5.0-5.99 6.0-6.99 7.0-7.99 8.0-8.99 9.0-9.99 10.0-10.99 11.0-11.99 12.0-12.99 13.0-13.99
In this dataset (age), two important trends emerge. The first concerns the increasing average (mean) age of each class, and the second concerns the increasing standard deviation in age in each class. The ages above are calculated on a decimal scale such that 10.0 denotes 10 years and 0 months while 10.9 equates to 10 and 9/10ths of a year. Thus 10.5 equals 10 years and 6 months old. Note that with each successive year of school the average age in the cohort increases more than it should, i.e., the average age in any grade should theoretically be X.5, yet we see ages creeping up probably due to the retention rate in earlier grades. In addition to the increasing average age in higher grades, the standard deviation of all ages in a grade also increases. The result is that there is more age diversity in the higher grades than in the lower, again possibly due to the compounding effects of retention. Increased age emerges as a causative variable in the analyses described below. b. Indicators of academic performance were collected to try and ascertain the academic performance of individual students, with the ultimate goal of understanding the interplay between variables such as absenteeism, attendance in pre-K, family mobility, and academic achievement. 1. measuring kindergarten-readiness. Kindergarten is not required in the State of Texas, but if a child is registered for kindergarten, normal expectations of attendance apply. Although it is not required, kindergarten has been shown to be overwhelmingly predictive of academic preparedness and success throughout 56
elementary school, which then is predictive of middle school accomplishment. In a nationwide survey of kindergarten teachers perception of school readiness and behavioral skills of their classes, 30% of the teachers report that the majority of children in their classes had problems following directions and cooperating as part of a group13. The impact of this lack of preparedness (the inability to work well with others, and the difficulty following directions) has been traced into high school; behavior problems as early as 6 years old are correlated positively with lower competencies in math and reading (after controlling for IQ) at 17 years old evidence that students who fall behind in their very early years (due to a lack of socialization skills) fail to catch up in the successive years. The Texas Primary Reading Inventory [TPRI] test was chosen as the indicator of kindergarten readiness (as it is the only diagnostic test given to our kindergarteners that will allow comparison). The TPRI is given three times during the kindergarten year at the beginning, middle, and end of the school year [BOY, MOY, and EOY, respectively] to determine readiness. Ideally, all kindergarteners enter kindergarten ready so that the school year may be spent preparing them to enter their elementary school years. Unfortunately, many of our Promise Neighborhood children are not considered kindergarten ready until they actually finish kindergarten. The valuable lessons of kindergarten thus must be integrated with the more basic skills identified as age-appropriate for our 5-year olds. There are 3 TPRI tests we used (phonemic awareness, grapho-phonemic knowledge, and listening-reading comprehension), for which each student is deemed developed or still developing. A 1 was assigned to developed and a 0 to still developing; the three test scores were then combined such that a 3 indicates a student who is considered developed on all three tests, a 2 a student who is developed in 2 test areas and still developing on 1 and so forth. At the beginning of kindergarten 69.3% of our students are considered not kindergarten-ready); it will take them all of their kindergarten year to become kinder-ready, at which time they advance to 1st grade (even at the end of kindergarten, 53% of our children have not mastered all of the skills identified to make one kinder-ready). It goes without saying the values of kindergarten are partially lost on many of these children.
0 TPRI_BOY TPRI_MOY TPRI_EOY 1 2 3 n= 1212 1268 1428
36% 16% 7%
6% 17% 47%
13
Charlie page 3
57
2. measuring elementary school progress Beginning in the 3rd grade, elementary school students are tested each year in reading and math and later in social studies and science as well with the Texas Assessment of Knowledge [TAKS] test.
Commended Performance TAKS Reading Grade 3 TAKS Reading Grade 4 TAKS Reading Grade 5 TAKS Reading Grade 6 TAKS Reading Grade 7 TAKS Reading Grade 8 Passed Fail to Pass n= 3609 3349 3256 1555 1449 1415
The Eastside Promise Neighborhood Advisory Board has agreed to use commended performance as the benchmark for our students, as it is the better indicator of preparedness for college than the passing- level of performance. The following table includes all of the years (2003-2010) for which data has been collected, so individual years of extraordinarily high or low performance are not skewing the data. Yes refers to passing the TAKS test, and no to failing to pass.
58
Our 3rd graders perform at the same level as others in our district signaling their ability to succeed academically, yet that advantage fades in later grades, possibly as the pressures of a stressful environment are felt by a child as they grow. II. Segmentation Analysis: The purpose of a segmentation analysis is to subdivide the population into clusters or subsets that resemble one another, thus allowing further analysis to be done on each cluster. Because the primary concern of the Promise Neighborhood for this data set is student academic achievement, clusters were identified that group students with similar academic performance together. K-means clustering was used for this analysis, and is a method of cluster analysis which aims to partition observations into k clusters in which each observation belongs to the cluster with the nearest mean. For two reasons three separate segmentation analyses were done: (1) the records for a significant majority of the students in the data set are incomplete, thus by narrowing the time span in each cluster or segment more students were included; and (2) logically, certain grades and certain traits belong together and different predictive relations emerge. The three segments are K-3rd grade; 3rd-5th grade, and 6th-8th grade. Kindergarten 3rd Grade Segmentation Analysis The first segmentation is of students in kindergarten through 3rd grade. 1,645 students (of the 16,128 (10%) students in the database) attended school in the Wheatley cluster from kindergarten through 3rd grade (implying that 90% of students changed schools in to or out of the cluster during those years), and thus are included in this segmentation analysis. To determine cluster membership, attendance in pre-K, mobility, age in 3rd grade, retention, and 3rd grade TAKS reading and math score results, absentee rates, gender, and ethnicity were included. Four clusters were identified: cluster number 1 is populated with students who are academically successful. Clusters 2 and 3 perform well enough to advance from year to year, but fail to excel. Their academic performance is often inconsistent. Cluster 4 consists of students who are consistently poor achievers. Their failure rate on the 3rd grade TAKS test is approximately 43% in reading and 59
71% in math. Note that age in the earliest grades does not show a distinct pattern, but by 2nd grade and especially evident in 3rd grade, cluster 4 is populated by older students (as much as 1 year older than the mean, and at least 6 months older than the recommended age limit for the grade). Ethnicity and gender fail to play a significant role in determining cluster membership.
KG - 3rd Grade
19%
8%
1 2 3 4
n=
31%
42%
Mean Age 1st 2nd 3rd Grade Grade Grade 6.7 7.7 8.7 6.5 7.5 8.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 7.0 8.2 9.5
Mean Days Absent 1st 2nd 3rd KG Grade Grade Grade 4.1 3.8 3.1 3.1 6.3 5.5 5.1 5.1 6.6 5.3 5.4 5.7 7.7 7.2 6.2 6.8
Test Results TPRI TPRI 3rd 3rd BOY EOY Read Math 1.66 2.65 1.97 1.87 1.20 2.32 1.15 0.83 1.08 2.26 1.04 0.63 0.81 1.83 0.61 0.30
Reading across, 8.2% of the 1,645 students comprise cluster #1. Their average age in kindergarten was 5.7 (slightly above 5 ); their ages in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grade were 6.7, 7.7, and 8.7 respectively; they missed 4.1, 3.8, 3.1, and 3.1 days of school in K, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grade, and finally they achieved a 1.66 TPRI score at the beginning of kindergarten, a 2.65 at the end, and 1.97 and a 1.87 on the 3rd grade math and reading TAKS14. A profile of a student in cluster 1 and cluster 4: N=1,645 % achieving commended on 3rd grade reading test % attended Pre-K % have changed schools % missed 0-2 days schools Cluster 1 highest performers 98% 61% 10% 56% Cluster 4 lowest performers 3% 41% 40% 29% (40% missed >6 days)
In order of importance, the variables that carry the most weight in determining ones cluster membership in grades K-3rd grade are: age in 3rd grade, followed by 3rd grade TAKS reading performance, rates of absenteeism, 3rd grade math TAKS score, Mobility, attendance in pre-K. Mobility and attendance in pre-K are dwarfed by the power of the other variables in predicting cluster membership. Note that these variables are tightly intertwined some may be truly causative (meaning they can be identified as a cause of ones academic performance) while others are symptoms of something else at work in the
14
The TAKS test is coded such that a 2 indicates a commended score, a 1 indicates a passing score, and a 0 indicates failure to pass.
60
childs life (absenteeism, for example, may signal risks in the household that prevent the child from getting to school daily). 3rd-5th grade Segmentation Analysis 1,136 students in our database attended Wheatley cluster schools from the 3rd-5th grades15. The 3rd-5th grade cluster analysis included reading and math standardized tests in all grades, plus age, student mobility, absenteeism, gender, and ethnicity. Again, TAKS scores were re-coded such that fail to pass is coded 0, met standard is coded 1, and commended performance is coded 2. The greatest predictors of cluster membership in the 3rd-5th grade segmentation are age in 5th grade, followed by math and reading TAKS scores in the 4th grade, then in the 5th grade, then absenteeism. Once again, we must distinguish between first and second order variables; first order variables may be identified as direct causes of the outcome we are measuring; second order variables are indirect causes and are often indicative of additional forces at work that are more difficult to quantify and study. Age emerges in both this and the earlier segmentation as a critical variable in determining cluster membership; age is the only indication in this statistical test that may signify retention (increased ages are probably explained by repeating an earlier grade), thus the importance of age may be signaling the importance of retention in an earlier grade are these students who truly struggle due to a learning disability or difference and thus their age signifies the struggle, or were they retained, and then became overage and perhaps stigmatized socially for being older? Perhaps both explain this situation, but each requires a very different form of intervention.
Mean Age 3rd 4th Grade Grade 8.7 9.7 8.7 9.6 8.5 9.5 9.1 10.2 Mean Days Absent Test Results 3rd 4th 5th 3rd 3rd 4th 4th Grade Grade Grade Read Math Read Math 2.8 2.7 3.0 1.73 1.61 1.80 1.88 4.8 4.7 5.2 1.20 0.89 1.10 1.08 3.3 2.9 3.1 0.88 0.41 0.32 0.22 7.1 8.3 9.0 0.70 0.23 0.32 0.26
23%
7%
1 2 3 4
n=
26%
44%
The profiles of a student in cluster 1 and 4: N=2,079 % commended reading (all grades) % have changed schools % have missed <5 days school Average age in 5th grade Cluster 1 highest performers 70-77% 13% 87% 10.67 Cluster 4 lowest performers 1% (43-67% fail in all grades) 34% 29% (40% missed > 6 days) 11.36
15
As indicated earlier in the report, there were 4,000 students in the sample who attended the 4th grade in the Wheatley cluster, but only 1,136 who attended 3rd-5th grade in the cluster, thus making them eligible for inclusion in this segmentation analysis.
61
In order of importance, the variables that carry the most weight in determining ones cluster membership in grades 3-5 are: ones age in 5th grade, 4th grade math TAKS, 4th grade reading TAKS, and mobility. Again, age in 5th grade is indicative of retention, which is highly correlated with TAKS performance, thus simply ones age is not causal, but rather serves as a proxy for other forces at work. 5th - 8th Grade Segmentation Analysis One of the most important things to note about the 5th-8th grade segmentation analysis is the distribution of students between clusters 1-4. Recalling that this segmentation overlaps (5th grade) with the previous one, note that cluster 4 in the previous analysis held 22% of the 1,336 students analyzed; in the 5th-8th grade segmentation analysis, cluster 4 contains 38% of the 386 students analyzed. Whats going on? We already know that we lose a high number of students from the Wheatley cluster to other schools both in and outside SAISD in the transition from 5th to 6th grade; what this segmentation population is telling us is that the students who remain in the cluster tend to be lowerperforming, thus cluster 4 holds a larger percentage of the population than it did before the transition to middle school. In fact, cluster 4 is the largest cluster in this third segmentation analysis (48.1%), meaning that the majority of our students are now low-performers. The student population at Wheatley Middle School has a much higher percentage of students at-risk of very low performance than the elementary feeder schools did. In addition, the most atrisk students are probably not even included in the segmentation analysis because their data entries are not complete (and thus are automatically removed during the analysis), thus the results presented are quite conservative in the estimation of numbers of students who populate clusters 3 and 4.
Mean Age 6th 7th Grade Grade 11.5 12.3 11.8 12.8 11.6 12.6 11.9 13.0 Mean Days Absent Test Results 8th 5th 6th 7th 8th 6th 6th 7th 7th Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Read Math Read Math 13.5 2.0 2.0 1.7 2.4 1.59 1.68 1.49 1.46 13.8 7.9 9.3 12.4 13.2 1.27 0.99 1.20 0.86 13.6 2.5 2.5 2.7 3.6 1.08 0.82 0.91 0.80 14.0 5.3 6.1 7.6 10.1 0.50 0.21 0.36 0.08
1 2 3 4
n=
The variables that are the greatest predictors of cluster membership in the 5th-8th grade segmentation analysis are: reading TAKS performance in the 8th grade, followed by math (7th grade), absenteeism, and math (8th grade). The profile of a student in cluster 1 and 4: 62
N= 858 % commended reading (all grades) % have changed schools % have missed <5 days school Average age in 7th grade
Cluster 4 lowest performers 0-8% (41-73% fail in all grades) 13% 49% (22% missed >11 days) 13.0
All of the statistical analyses tables are included in the appendices following this report. III. PREDICTIVE MODELING: The purpose of predictive modeling is to analyze the relationships between variables that combine to predict a students academic achievement level. This analysis was broken into four different pieces because at different stages in a students academic trajectory, different variables emerge as more and less determinative of ones achievement level. For instance, in 3rd grade, how well one performed in kindergarten is predictive of 3rd grade reading levels, but age and mobility may be more predictive. By 5th grade, it appears that how well one performed in the previous years and the number of years in the same school have become increasingly important in predicting performance. The four analyses are: Pre-K - K; K-3rd grade; 3rd-5th grade; 5th-8th grade. Predicting the Impact of Pre-K attendance on Kindergarten readiness. Consolidating the top and bottom TPRI performance groups (0-1) and (2-3) provides comparison groups that aid in the interpretation of the influence of Pre-K attendance on KG readiness. The lack of differentiation between TPRI score groups 2 and 3 clearly indicates that these two groups are very similar, with high percentages attending Pre-K and only slight differences in performance. The average profile of students with high TPRI performance is defined by Pre-K attendance, female gender, slightly higher age than low performing students and fewer absences. TPRI BOY High Performance 73% 27% 59% 41% 5.56 0 - 55 372
Attended PK Gender
63
Attendance in a pre-K or Head Start program does not automatically produce kindergarten-readiness though; note that 57% of those that attended pre-K were not kinder-ready. The model to compare high and low performance TPRI groups identifies age, Pre-K attendance and gender, in descending order of importance, as significant predictor variables. Absences in KG are only marginally significant as a negative influence on performance. The positive influence of age would indicate that in kindergarten ones age is probably best interpreted as a measure of maturity. Slightly more mature students (i.e., older students) who attended Pre-K are the highest performers in kindergarten. Among students who attended Pre-K, females achieved higher TPRIBOY scores than males. However, among students who did not attend Pre-K there is no significant difference in TPRI-BOY performance between female and male students. K-3rd: Influence of Pre-K on TPRI and 3rd grade Reading Test There is a highly significant difference in TPRI results between students who attended Pre-K and those that did not. The performance on the TPRI at the beginning and end of year clearly shows that Pre-K attendees are better prepared for these tests, and thus for kindergarten and the beginning of school. There is a significant difference on 3rd grade reading test results between students who attended Pre-K and those that did not, but not nearly as large as the difference we see on the TPRI comparison. The performance on the 3rd grade reading test shows that Pre-K attendees are slightly better prepared, but only by a small margin. This would seem to indicate that some of the advantage gained from Pre-K may be lost by the time students reach 3rd grade. The coefficients for the 3rd grade reading model show that the most influential independent variable appears to be a negative influence with increasing age at grade 3 followed by a positive influence for Pre-K attendance. Absences have a small but significant negative influence on the probability of achieving a commended score. This does not link to KG readiness, but could show the benefits of Pre-K attendance. 3rd-5th Grades: Predicting Academic Performance through the Elementary Years The available factors that have significant relationships with 5th grade reading performance are listed below in descending order of influence for prediction of commended results16: 4th grade reading test results categorical variable (levels: commended, passed, not passed) 3rd grade reading test results categorical variable (levels: commended, passed, not passed) Age in grade 5 large negative coefficient, but low significance due to high variability Years in the same school log transformation for positive nonlinear relationship
16
64
Interaction between age and absence in 4th grade log transformation for negative nonlinear relationship.
df 10 10 1
Relationship of Number of Years in Same School to Reading Test Results The association between years in the same school and reading test results is highly significant for 3rd, 4th and 5th grade. There is a significant linear relationship between years in the same school and reading test performance. The differences are most noticeable between students who attend the same school for 6 years and students who attend the same school for only one year. The logistic regression results indicate that when we compare against a reference group of students who attend a school for only the year of the test, a student who attends the same school for: 6 years is 3.68 times more likely to achieve a commended score. 5 years is 1.97 times more likely to achieve a commended score. 2 years is 1.38 times more likely to achieve a commended score. The high mobility rates of families in the Promise Neighborhood are thus an important predictor of a students academic success, although, as mentioned previously, mobility is a second order variable, and may be indicating additional stresses on the family and child that materialize as mobility (keeping in the mind the high mobility rates of military families and the high academic performance of most of their children). Into Middle School The only variables that provide a good model fit for predicting academic success in the middle school years are reading test results for 5th, 6th and 7th grades and persistent 8th grade absences. The most influential variable for the 8th grade model is the 5th grade reading test. There seems to be a pattern of the 5th grade test being the most challenging, the 6th grade test being the least challenging and the 7th grade test being more challenging than the 6th grade, but less challenging than the 5th grade. Thus as our children progress through the grades, they seem to quickly fall into performance patterns such that success one 65
year leads to success the next year (and vice versa). The interesting question is why? Are classroom placements based on performance, such that the most successful students from one year are placed together the following year, and create a high performing classroom where achievement is expected, or is ones performance one year a true predictor of performance the next eyar, even without outside influences such as classroom placement? The 5th, 6th and 7th grade test results and absences during the 8th grade have consistent relationships with the 8th grade test results. The other variables (ethnicity, gender, years in same middle school and age during the 8th grade) have inconsistent patterns in terms of relationships with 8th grade reading test results, which causes problems for model development. Finally, for the purpose of intervention, each grade was examined to determine the most important variables (ordered below) that may aid in predicting passage and failure rates on the standardized reading test given at the end of the year. In the table the variables impacting performance are ordered (1 through 3 where 1 has the highest impact on academic performance for that grade). Where the 1 is bolded and enlarged, that variable dwarfs all others in the analysis, such that others, where included, may be unpredictable, and are not even included here if not statistically significant at the .05 level. 3rd 3 2 4th 3 4 5th 6th 7th 2 8th ?
Mobility Increase d age Advance d absentee ism (>4 days) TAKS reading (previou s grade)
SECTION V: Integrated Findings: Assets, Needs, Perspectives, and Evidence The following section integrates the findings detailed above. In addition, for each life stage analyzed, findings from the academic literature have been compiled to offer an objective perspective on the mix of assets, needs, and findings reported here. The full literature review and evidence base are included in an additional report. To ensure consistency throughout, the life stages reported mirror those used in our segmentation analysis.
66
NEED ~1,661 children 0-5 years; 69% not kinder-ready at beginning of year; by end of kindergarten year 25% still not ready
0-5 years (infancy through kindergarten) ASSETS FOCUS GROUPS REGRESSION ANALYSIS 803 potential spaces Keen awareness of Attendance in Pre-K in early childhood importance of early is highly predictive of programs; childhood education, kinder-readiness, 6 licensed prebut concern for the although 57% of schools expense; those who attended 3 registered childConcern with parent- pre-K were NOT care homes teacher relationships kinder-ready; age is 3 Pre-K and Head and lack of most important Start programs communication; variable in predicting 1 Early Head Start Parents identify drug kinder-readiness program; problems in (advanced age may These seats could neighborhood as signal advanced potentially serve 48% impacting their maturity in the low of our children children due to fear; grades); parents would like highest performers more out-of-school on TPRI attended pretime programming to K. protect their children from crime; parents juggling working and parenting, which prevents them from participating in school events; parents of young children have difficulty navigating the school district and dont know how to interface with teachers; parentpartnership at Tynan effective in
EVIDENCE BASE Behavioral readiness considered by many to be a greater predictor of kinderreadiness; children living in poverty are at greater risk for behavioral problems; Attendance in a Pre-K or Head Start program shown to have life-time influence; significant cognitive development happens before formal schooling actually even begins.
67
68
Integration of data sources: 0-5 years One of the prevailing concerns for our EPNs smallest children is the number who have not been prepared to begin formal schooling by the time they reach 5 years old. Cognitively, significant development has occurred by 5 years and, metaphorically, a window is open in those years to begin learning and to establish healthy learning habits that will last a lifetime. Unfortunately, for many of our youngest, that window has not been opened and much of that age-appropriate learning is delayed until elementary school. Academic preparedness is not the only trait identified though; behavioral readiness has been identified in the literature as a significant problem, especially in poverty-stricken communities. Young children often have not had the opportunity to interact with others, and thus are not ready to learn in a group setting or interact with a teacher when they arrive in kindergarten for their first day of school. Given this lack of preparedness, we also sought to learn about the stresses at work on our youngest families and their children. A lack of prenatal care and high childhood obesity rates do not necessarily set up a cause-effect relationship with academic performance in the earliest grades, but may be indicative of a lack of attention to physical development of both mother and child. Maybe due to a lack of awareness or financial stress (most likely a combination of several variables like these), our young mothers may not be receiving the care they need throughout pregnancy which, research shows, may impact a childs cognitive development even before birth. This lack of attention then pervades the formative youngest years, when books should be read, pictures should be drawn, and colors should be learned but are not. The systemic nature of these variables and relationships can never be fully understood, but must be appreciated in order to be addressed properly. If we can begin to understand some of these actions as adaptations to an environment characterized by high rates of poverty, elevated crime rates, low educational attainment amongst adults, and tense school-community relationships (as detailed in our focus groups) then the most rational adaptations to this environment may in fact be some of the behaviors we have seen this past year: complicated family structures, delayed schooling, and a lack of attention to physical development. If this is the case, then more attention to the prevailing environment may eliminate some of the elements to which people adapt. The mechanism here is different: do we adjust the environment, or do we adjust the assets?
69
NEED ~1,449 children 59 years; 62.8% pass the 3rd grade reading TAKS (compared to 84% for district); 19.7% pass at commended level compared to 22% at district; <75% of elementary-age students have health insurance (~66% at Pershing and Washington); 26% limited English proficiency in elementary schools; 99% eligible for free/reduced lunch; retention rates by school: 1st grade 14.1, 8.5, 6.5 (8.4); 2nd grade 12.1, 0.0, 12.7 (4.6), 3rd grade 12.0, 9.8, 7.0 (5.5) beginnings of overage; 14.22% 1st graders overage, 22.43% 2nd graders
ASSETS Programs in schools: [differ by school see asset charts]; Family-SchoolCommunity Partnership [FSCP]; Out-ofSchool Programming available through schools; Programming also at Ella Austin CC, Antioch MBC, St. Pauls UMC; HIS Bridgebuilders; Dignowity Hill NA Education Leadership partnership at Bowden; Frank Bryant Health Care; Dixon Clinic
Years 5-9 (K-3rd grade) FOCUS GROUPS SEGMENTATION ANALYSIS Parent concern with: K-3rd parent-teacher segmentation relationships and level included: of parent engagement; attendance in preparents of elementaryK, mobility, age, age children express retention, 3rd fear over bullying and grade reading and fighting in and out of math TAKS, school (often fighting absenteeism, starts on the way gender, ethnicity. home); parents would Segment 1 8.2%, like to see more parks segment 4 19.0% for recreation for their segments 2 and 3 kids a place to play; 72.7%; in order of parents believe importance, age teachers do not engage in 3rd, 3rd reading, their children; want absenteeism, 3rd children to have after math, mobility, school pre-K activities/opportunities; parents identify curriculum as problem, not real-world focused; parent-teacher communication ineffective; parents do not understand homework and are humiliated by teachers; miscommunication about school policies; difficulty navigating school registration process
REGRESSION ANALYSIS Age and mobility more predictive of 3rd grade performance than kindergarten TPRI; pre-K attendees only slightly better performers in 3rd grade; by 3rd grade increased age has become a negative influence; significant relationship between years in same school and commended performance (not the mobility but the reasons for mobility)
EVIDENCE BASE Level of parental academic achievement indicative of level of student; Mobility leads to loss of social capital, which impacts academic performance ; Parental expectations and parenting style more important than attendance at school functions
70
71
Integration of data sources: K-3rd grade By the time our children reach elementary school, parents have interfaced with the neighborhood school, and are often experiencing frustration, humiliation, and defeat. They speak of their own inability to help their children do well in school, due in part, they believe, to a lack of communication between school and family. The Family-School-Community Partnership was identified repeatedly in our focus groups as a site of empowerment though the parent room itself, but also the networks that are building point to a revolutionary shift in family-school relationships, where the families will actually play a significant role in the future of our neighborhood schools, as they become empowered and more self-confident. Children are beginning to differentiate academically in their early elementary years. While some differentiation may be due to innate cognitive abilities, much more is probably due to early preparation for learning, including attendance in an early childhood program, where they learn with others interactively. While our children who attended a pre-kindergarten program in one of our neighborhood schools tended to be better prepared for kindergarten (kinder-ready), still the majority were deemed still developing in the core subjects identified by the TPRI assessment instrument. In turn, how well a student performed on the TPRI was predictive of how well they perform on their 3rd grade TAKS test a flawed but consistent benchmark by which to measure their progression. Again though, second order variables are the greatest predictors of 3rd grade performance: age in 3rd grade and mobility emerge as the greatest predictor so academic success by the 3rd grade, yet both point to more complicated relationships in which the child may be embedded. Advanced age signals a late start into school or retention in the early grades. Why would a child start school late or be retained din the earliest grades? And are they related? Early retention is often due to academic preparedness which is masked by behavioral readiness. Young children act out when frustrated, and if they do not possess the social skills needed to address their frustration more productively. Repeated bouts will often result in being labeled and held back in the early grades because they are deemed not ready. At that point, age which in kindergarten had a positive correlation with performance now becomes a negative influence in later grades. But the more fundamental questions remain: why were they not ready? Again, we return to early childhood preparation and socialization for the formal, institutionalized school setting. Unfortunately, once one begins the educational trajectory, prior performance (we will see this even more pronounced in the later grades) becomes the greatest predictor of success. Is this simply due to cognitive ability or do we change a childs environment to fit what we perceive as their stage or level of learning, thus creating a feedback loop that is impossible to escape? For instance, if a child fails to perform well in 2nd grade, are they placed in a classroom of others who failed to perform well in 2nd grade, and, subsequently, almost expected not to perform well in subsequent
72
years? Or do we allow our youngest school children to begin each new school year with the highest expectations each year?
73
NEED
~59.9% pass the 3,4,5th grade reading TAKS (compared to 80% for district); ~14.5% pass at commended level; TAKS scores show steady progression downward with advancing grades; over-age: 29.46% 3rd graders, 32.48% 4th graders, 35.29% 5th graders. Retention: 3rd grade 9.6% (5.5 district), 4th grade 4.7% (2.0 district), 5th grade 5.7 (4.3 district); special education 7% compared to 10.7% district. Underutilized special ed?; <75% of elementary-age students have health insurance (~66% at Pershing and Washington); 26% limited English proficiency in elementary schools; 99% eligible for free/reduced lunch;
ASSET Programs in schools: [differ by school see sheet]; FSCP; Out-of-School Programming available through schools; Programming also at Ella Austin CC, Antioch MBC, St. Pauls UMC; HIS Bridgebuilders; Dignowity Hill NA Education Leadership partnership at Bowden; Frank Bryant Health Care; Dixon Clinic;
Years 8-10 (3rd-5th grade) FOCUS GROUPS SEGMENTATIO N ANALYSIS Parent concern with: 1,136 students; parent-teacher segments relationships and based on level of parent reading and engagement; levels math all of bullying; parents grades, age, of elementary-age children express fear mobility, absenteeism, over bullying and fighting in and out of gender, school (often fighting ethnicity. 7.2% starts on the way in segment 1, home); parents 69.6% in 2 and would like to see 3, 23.2% in 4. more parks for Age in 5th grade recreation for their greatest kids a place to predictor of play; parents believe segment teachers do not indicates engage their earlier children; want retention. children to have after school Then math and activities/opportuniti reading in 4th es; parents identify grade, then 5th curriculum as then mobility.
problem, not realworld focused; parent-teacher communication ineffective; parents do not understand homework and are humiliated by teachers; miscommunication
REGRESSION ANALYSIS Years in school predictive of TAKS performance in 5th grade; most significant predictors of 5th grade performance are 4th grade performance, 3rd grader performance, age in 5th grade, years in the same school, and possibly absenteeism, but interrelated.
EVIDENCE BASE Positive relationship between physical activity and academic performance 618 years old; in some findings it has been reported that positive impacts of Head Start are erased by 3rd grade, while other research claims that Head Start advantages last a lifetime.
74
75
By the time our EPN children are in their later elementary years, their prior years performance is the greatest predictor of how well they will do in any given school year. In turn, recall that the greatest predictors of their performance in the earliest grades was how well prepared they were to enter kindergarten; in 5th and 6th grade that preparedness continues to haunt them. In these later grades, parents begin to express concern over the school curriculum both their own lack of understanding of the subject matter being taught and their perceived understanding that its relevancy to their children may be questionable. Few identify the subject matter itself as irrelevant, but the teaching styles make the subject matter irrelevant. Lecture classes and a banking method of pedagogy (in which teachers deposit knowledge in young minds) continue to dominate classrooms, yet, as parents describe, children learn through doing, and become alienated and bored otherwise. While our schools are required by both state law and national expectations to teach a given curriculum, there are additional outlets to alleviate some of the tensions caused by lack of engagement in the classroom. Out-of-school-time [OST] programming has been identified in the literature and policy circles as a potentially untapped resource, especially in our inner-cities. Largely unregulated, OST programs have been used in other states (namely Rhode Island) to effectively supplement their state curriculum while building community pride at the same time. In 2010 the San Antonio Area Foundation requested a study be done to map the current OST providers and inventory the various programs available in different parts of our city. Not surprisingly, there is a disparity of academically-engaged programming across the urban landscape with our EPN falling into an OST dessert (to borrow a popular metaphor). While some programming exists in the EPN much of it serves children coming from schools other than our own, or has a cost associated with it that our families cannot afford. Effective OST may address the perceptions of irrelevancy in the established school curriculum by integrating core subjects with hand-on experiments and by integrating the arts into the learning environment. Unlike many large cities, much of the OST in San Antonio is publically-funded (i.e., Challenge program that serves about 10% of our inner-city youth), and thus accessible to our poorest families. If those programs can be expanded and/or focused into parts of the city where the risk of dropping out is greatest, then OST may be effectively integrated into the school day thus augmenting the state curriculum while providing the learning environment we know (both thorough experience and academic research) to be the most effective for this age group.
76
NEED ~1,365 children 10-14 years; ~55% pass the 6,7,8th grade reading TAKS (compared to 80% for district); ~12% pass at commended level; those attending academies in area far out-perform those who attend Wheatley two explanations; 72% of Wheatley students have health insurance; 48% of students in Wheatleyfeeder elementaries DO NOT attend Wheatley; in 2010, 25.6% of Wheatley students receiving special ed. services (10.7% for district); 20072010, 35.29% 5th graders overage, 44.35 of 6th
ASSET Out-of-School Programming available through schools; Programming also at Ella Austin CC, Antioch MBC, St. Pauls MC; City Year at Wheatley MS this year; Extensive faith community; YAGA at Wheatley; Ft. Sam Houston adopt-a-school; City Hall mentors; CPS mentors; SA Fighting Back mentors; CIS; Big Broths Big Sisters; FamilySchoolCommunity Partnership program [FSCP]
Years 10-14 (5th-8th grade) FOCUS GROUPS SEGMENTATION ANALYSIS Parent concern 5-8th grade with: lack of segmentation alignment between analysis includes: real-world age in 5th, 6th, 7th, experiences and 8th grade, reading needs and and math TAKS curriculum; scores 5-8th perception that grade, days kids drop out due absent 5th-8th to perceived grade, gender, irrelevancy; parents concerned ethnicity, with safety walking mobility, years in to school; parental same grade; involvement by segment 1 holds middle school 6.9%, segment 4 diminished; kids 48.1%, segments beginning to try 2 and 3 45.2%; and make money greatest partly to help family drawn into predictors of segment are in drug trade; hands on curriculum; order: reading technology at TAKS 8th grade, Wheatley dated; math TAKS 7th parent-teacher grade, communication absenteeism, lacking parents math 8th grade. not aware of By middle school, whats happening; performance in parents want previous grades teachers/schools highest predictor; to open their doors; consistent absences in 8th grade also
REGRESSION ANALYSIS Most influential variable for predicting 8th grade performance in reading is 5th grade performance. Advanced absenteeism also important in 8th grader performance.
EVIDENCE BASE Positive relationship between physical activity and academic performance 618 years old; OST used in some states to augment standard curriculum; extracurricular activities such as music and chess have been found to have an impact on quantitative reasoning skill development;
77
graders (shows loss to academies); 42.25% 7th graders; 38.47% 8th graders
78
Integration of data sources: 5th 8th grade The most startling finding in this age and grade segment is the sheer number of students choosing to attend middle school elsewhere. Our three elementary schools Bowden, Pershing, and Washington feed to Wheatley Middle School, yet approximately 52% of our 5th graders attend Wheatley. Instead, 48% are choosing other middle schools in the district, or even moving their children out of the district to attend middle school. Most importantly, the children electing to attend schools other than Wheatley are not a random sample of our elementary children; instead, they are the higher performers who achieved higher scores consistently through elementary school, and who tended to miss fewer days and had not been retained in earlier grades. The result of this sorting is that the incoming 6th grade class to Wheatley tends to have a higher percentage of children identified as at-risk (this is most clear when examining the number of children in the four segments of our segment analysis in the 3rd-5th grade segmentation analysis 23.2% were in segment 4 (the lowest performers), but the 5th-8th grade segment, 48.1% are). Once at Wheatley, the school is now dominated by students who are struggling and failing to engage in their learning environments. At some point (tipping-point majority or minority) that attitude becomes a culture, and it pervades the entire school. These are the students most at risk of dropping out in high school, or even before reaching high school. The value of economic and racial diversity in our schools has been debated for years in the academic literature. Should we continue the attempts to integrate our public schools, despite the resistance of the past 40 years, or do we allow schools to re-segregate while providing truly equal resources to all? The Wheatley experience may argue for a determined effort to integrate. If a school culture actually materializes and feeds back to impact all students, then we need to understand the role of the classroom environment on teaching and learning, and possibly work to create a heterogeneous classroom in which strong and struggling learners work together. This study may begin to provide evidence that we must look more closely at the actual distribution of children between schools and try and work toward the greatest diversity in any student body.
SECTION VI: CONCLUDING REMARKS: So how do we understand and integrate all of this? Traditional models of community development began with a needs assessment, which is followed by an asset inventory, from which the gap (needs asset = gap) is then calculated. Once the gap is identified, it can be filled, and community development will commence. The gap is filled with individual parts that combine to produce a whole -- be it a neighborhood, a school, or a well-functioning family. Housing, plus schools, plus services, plus a well-functioning economy add up to a whole. This 79
tradition of speaking of wholes as composed of individual parts stems from the industrial revolution and Newtonian science. But the model has failed to work; has it failed to work because we havent sufficiently filled the gap, or has it failed to work because the model is flawed (a linear approach to a non-linear reality)? I believe that the underlying assumptions on which the model is built are deeply flawed, and that new community development models that draw from new ideas in the physical, social, and management sciences may prove transformative with new insights into how to proceed in a new and different way. The underlying assumption of the needs, assets, gaps model is that of a linear system in which parts add up to produce wholes in a fairly predictive manner. Yet experience has shown that parts fail to align in a predictable way implying nonlinear relationships with interdependent parts. Knowing this, we must look beyond linear systems theory for our model, and look to nonlinear or complex systems theory in which non-linearity and interdependence are assumed. We need an alternative model for conceptualizing effective change one that recognizes a series of systems and subsystems at work in our Promise Neighborhood (educational, social, institutional, commercial systems, and so on). In fact, the Promise Neighborhood initiative mandates that we reconceptualize community development along these lines. Two questions thus emerge: How do we encourage these subsystems to operate as a whole rather than as a series of independent parts? Looking more closely at the social system, how has it evolved and adapted to the environment it perceives and how might we guide it to a new equilibrium?
Question 1 there are two methods we might use to encourage the subsystems to articulate with one another case management and structural coupling. With a case management model systems communicate via representatives and people who occupy multiple roles in various systems, and thus act as the communicator between systems. Individuals are thus mediators between the systems. The main practical problem with this solution however is that networks of persons cannot be introduced by decisions and if done so they are unlikely to produce stabilized effects and often instead tend to form systems of their own thus adding an additional level of complexity for us to navigate. The second mode of articulation is called structural coupling. Structural coupling is a relationship between systems with each belonging to the others environment. It involves a system making it own complexity available for the constitution of another system and vice versa. Each system can then take the others for granted and concentrate on its own tasks. In organizational theory a system such as this is called functional/cross-functional, in which teams are created of people serving or playing different functions toward the same goal. Traditionally, teams are functionally specific; this alternative form of organization exposes those working toward the same goal to the others and their 80
ways of thinking and approaching the situation working toward that goal, thus causing all to realize the greater environment in which they work. How do we encourage this sort of articulation in our Promise Neighborhood? How do we get each system to see the others as part of their environment, and thus influential in day to day affairs? By exposing the various subsystems to one another regularly: parents shadow a teacher for a day, teachers shadow a parent for a day, parents shadow a child, teacher shadow an administrator, administrators shadow a teacher, and so on. Issues such as those encountered in each of the subsystems fail to become vital until they become personal. The second concern is for community members. How do individuals navigate this landscape? How do they do it now? Research has shown that in complex systems such as this one, there is a logic that orchestrates the emergence of novel structures self-organizing structures that allow adaptation to the environment and that make the system extraordinarily flexible and robust against perturbations from outside conditions. This type of self-organization is inherently sustainable yet its existence is not and cannot be achieved through central management; it is an order that only can be maintained through self-organization. The local community has self-organized to take care of its many needs. It picks and chooses from the institutional landscape, creating interesting combinations of resources that enable people to make it through the day. Community members form a system of their own the social system. The function of their social system is to make sense of the environment by selectively transforming the problems posed by the environment, such that problems are not solved but reformulated, simplified, so that the social system can deal with them. In this way, the system builds up its own internal complexity by self-organizing against the pressures of a complicated environment. So how do our families respond to, accommodate, or self organize in response to an environment of 8 am 3 pm schooling for one child, 9 am 4 pm for another, and day care hours for another? How do young men respond to an environment that lacks jobs for unskilled workers? How does the family structure we see in the Promise Neighborhood accommodate the stresses of poverty, incarceration, and teenage pregnancy? And how does all of this apply to an inner-city neighborhood with struggling schools? The environment has been described in section one of this report; households make about $20,000/year; few adults graduated from high school and their children replicate that pattern; there is a lack of jobs for unskilled workers; many of our babies are born to very young mothers. So what are the self-organized systems that have emerged in response to this environment? A network of family, friends, and neighbors that cares for the youngest children; an informal economy in which those without skills or a diploma function; a family structure that goes well beyond the nuclear members to care for our children. These are the self-organized systems that are inherently sustainable. Are they always positive adaptations? No, 81
most certainly not. An informal economy dominated by the drug trade and prostitution rings may be an adaptation to the lack of jobs and skills, but it is not a sustainable adaptation on which to build a future. In-home childcare by friends, family, and neighbors, on the other hand, may be understood as an adaptation to expensive early childhood education programs, inflexible working hours, and institutionalized care and is, with support, highly sustainable. If we adopt this model of community development, what are our options? There are two: if the self-organized system is working yet struggling (if it is a positive adaptation to the environment), then bolster it in any and every possible way; if it is not, then change the environment that it is a response to so that a new system or adaptation may emerge. Sustainable change must be self-organized; it cannot be introduced and enforced from the outside. Self-organizing systems allow for adaptation to the prevailing environment. For instance, the complicated family structure found in our EPN detailed above may be understood as a positive adaptation to a difficult environment. Drug use, high poverty rates, and high rates of incarceration place tremendous stress on families; the family structure we see may be the local adaptation to these stresses. How can it be supported and strengthened? Increased childcare, better adult education opportunities, flexible school administrators would each alleviate some of the burden on these families. In contrast, the high crime rates especially drug use and prostitution may also be understood as adaptations to some of the same stresses, although in this case negative or mal-adaptations. Here, alternatives to this informal economy must be found although they need not necessarily be formalized.
82
1
Segmentation KG - 3rd Grade
Attended PK Mobile Elementary School Grade_03_age (mean) Grade KG Yrs Grade 1 Yrs Grade 2 Yrs Grade 3 Yrs Reading Std Met Grade 3a2 2+ Years 2+ Years 2+ Years 2+ Years Commended Yes No Math Std Met Grade 3a2 Commended Yes No Grade KG Days Absent 0 - 2 Days 3 - 5 Days 6 - 10 Days 11 - 20 Days Over 20 Days Grade 1 Days Absent 0 - 2 Days 3 - 5 Days 6 - 10 Days 11 - 20 Days Over 20 Days Grade 2 Days Absent 0 - 2 Days 3 - 5 Days 6 - 10 Days 11 - 20 Days Over 20 Days Grade 3 Days Absent 0 - 2 Days 3 - 5 Days 6 - 10 Days 11 - 20 Days Over 20 Days Gender Female Yes Yes 9% 61% 10% 8.71 0% 3% 0% 0% 98% 2% 0% 83% 17% 0% 47% 26% 23% 4% 0% 46% 32% 19% 3% 0% 58% 27% 15% 0% 0% 56% 31% 13% 0% 0% 55%
2
43% 53% 21% 8.53 0% 0% 0% 0% 23% 71% 7% 14% 58% 28% 46% 18% 13% 17% 5% 54% 12% 11% 18% 5% 57% 10% 11% 20% 2% 53% 14% 12% 17% 4% 53%
3
31% 56% 24% 8.49 0% 0% 0% 0% 12% 79% 9% 6% 52% 42% 14% 28% 41% 15% 3% 21% 42% 32% 4% 0% 20% 42% 32% 6% 0% 21% 37% 33% 7% 1% 48%
4
17% 41% 40% 9.46 6% 32% 21% 29% 3% 54% 43% 1% 28% 71% 29% 26% 18% 18% 8% 31% 21% 27% 13% 8% 36% 22% 25% 13% 5% 32% 24% 25% 16% 4% 42%
Total 1110 584 268 8.69 12 66 40 55 251 716 143 171 526 413 369 258 262 171 50 433 275 233 131 38 466 263 222 138 21 443 271 234 135 27 553
83
Likelihood Ratio tests17 for each variable (segmentation analysis K-3rd grade):
Likelihood Ratio Tests
Effect Intercept ReadingMetStd_3a2 MathMetStd_3a2 Age_Grade_03 Days_Absent_01 Days_Absent_02 Days_Absent_03 Attended_PK Mobile_Elementary
-2 Log Likelihood of Reduced Model 995.015a 1170.306 1110.495 1588.209 1147.714 1153.515 1102.850 996.840 1000.782
Chi-Square .000 175.291 115.480 593.194 152.699 158.500 107.835 1.825 5.767
df 0 6 6 12 12 12 12 3 3
The chi-square statistic is the difference in -2 log-likelihoods between the final model and a reduced model. The reduced model is formed by omitting an effect from the final model. The null hypothesis is that all parameters of that effect are 0.
1
Segmentation 3rd - 5th Grades
Mobile Elementary School Grade_05_age (mean) Grade 3 Yrs Grade 4 Yrs Grade 5 Yrs
17
2
46% 15% 10.61 1% 0% 0%
3
22% 19% 10.59 0% 0% 0%
4
22% 34% 11.36 20% 5% 24%
The likelihood ratio tests provide the best insight into which variables are most predictive of cluster membership. The Chi-square statistic (higher numbers) and the level of significance (closer to 0) allow us to prioritize the variables. Due to tremendous interdependence between the variable though, prioritizing one variable above another is not statistically sound, although their relative importance may be weighed.
84
Commended Yes No
77% 23% 0% 73% 27% 0% 70% 30% 0% 69% 31% 0% 86% 14% 0% 93% 7% 0% 58% 29% 9% 3% 0% 63% 24% 13% 1% 0% 62% 18% 18% 2% 0% 61% 39% 67% 28% 2% 2% 0%
27% 73% 1% 15% 79% 6% 20% 80% 0% 11% 74% 15% 14% 79% 7% 22% 76% 2% 45% 22% 22% 10% 1% 49% 19% 22% 9% 1% 42% 22% 22% 11% 2% 54% 46% 60% 39% 1% 0% 0%
2% 82% 16% 0% 35% 65% 1% 78% 21% 0% 28% 71% 1% 29% 70% 1% 70% 29% 43% 37% 19% 1% 0% 48% 36% 16% 0% 0% 51% 32% 15% 3% 0% 52% 48% 47% 51% 1% 1% 0%
1% 62% 37% 1% 33% 67% 1% 56% 43% 0% 18% 82% 1% 27% 72% 1% 42% 57% 25% 22% 30% 17% 6% 23% 21% 28% 20% 8% 23% 17% 23% 31% 6% 42% 58% 56% 42% 2% 0% 0%
273 902 161 187 723 426 218 929 189 154 634 548 200 671 465 261 809 266 550 349 293 118 26 591 313 282 118 32 557 304 272 172 31 686 650 757 549 20 6 0
Commended Yes No
Commended Yes No
Commended Yes No
Commended Yes No
Commended Yes No
Gender
Female Male
Ethnicity
85
Effect Intercept ReadingMetStd_4a2 ReadingMetStd_5a2 MathMetStd_4a2 MathMetStd_5a2 Mobile_Elementary Age_Grade_05 Days_Absent_04 Days_Absent_05
-2 Log Likelihood of Reduced Model 1016.921a 1219.866 1121.268 1250.193 1160.467 1030.402 1300.096 1100.481 1068.603
Chi-Square .000 202.945 104.348 233.273 143.546 13.481 283.176 83.561 51.682
df 0 6 6 6 6 3 12 12 12
The chi-square statistic is the difference in -2 log-likelihoods between the final model and a reduced model. The reduced model is formed by omitting an effect from the final model. The null hypothesis is that all parameters of that effect are 0.
1
Segmentation 5th - 8th Grades
Mobile Middle School Grade_08_age (mean) Grade 5 Yrs Grade 6 Yrs Grade 7 Yrs Grade 8 Yrs Reading Std Met Grade 5a2 2+ Years 2+ Years 2+ Years 2+ Years Commended Yes No Reading Std Met Grade 6a2 Commended Yes No Reading Std Met Grade 7a2 Commended Yes Yes 10% 13% 13.49 0% 0% 0% 0% 48% 53% 0% 65% 35% 0% 53% 48%
2
18% 15% 13.81 3% 0% 0% 1% 19% 75% 6% 38% 59% 3% 24% 76%
3
34% 11% 13.59 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 80% 19% 17% 77% 6% 2% 89%
4
38% 13% 14.05 10% 4% 4% 5% 0% 27% 73% 8% 46% 46% 0% 41%
86
No Reading Std Met Grade 8a2 Commended Yes No Math Std Met Grade 5a2 Commended Yes No Math Std Met Grade 6a2 Commended Yes No Math Std Met Grade 7a2 Commended Yes No Math Std Met Grade 8a2 Commended Yes No Grade 5 Days Absent 0 - 2 Days 3 - 5 Days 6 - 10 Days 11 - 20 Days Over 20 Days Grade 6 Days Absent 0 - 2 Days 3 - 5 Days 6 - 10 Days 11 - 20 Days Over 20 Days Grade 7 Days Absent 0 - 2 Days 3 - 5 Days 6 - 10 Days 11 - 20 Days Over 20 Days Grade 8 Days Absent 0 - 2 Days 3 - 5 Days 6 - 10 Days 11 - 20 Days Over 20 Days Gender Female Male Ethnicity Hispanic African American White Asian
0% 85% 15% 0% 55% 45% 0% 68% 33% 0% 45% 55% 0% 48% 53% 0% 65% 28% 5% 3% 0% 73% 15% 13% 0% 0% 70% 25% 5% 0% 0% 68% 20% 10% 0% 3% 58% 43% 63% 28% 8% 3%
0% 71% 29% 0% 15% 74% 12% 16% 69% 15% 3% 78% 19% 3% 87% 10% 12% 26% 28% 31% 3% 1% 16% 44% 32% 6% 3% 19% 41% 24% 13% 4% 16% 31% 37% 12% 43% 57% 69% 29% 1% 0%
10% 17% 83% 1% 2% 82% 17% 6% 70% 23% 0% 80% 20% 4% 82% 14% 65% 23% 11% 1% 0% 57% 35% 8% 0% 0% 52% 34% 14% 0% 0% 52% 25% 17% 6% 0% 56% 44% 65% 34% 2% 0%
59% 0% 64% 36% 0% 20% 80% 1% 22% 77% 0% 12% 88% 0% 32% 68% 39% 23% 25% 12% 1% 38% 25% 24% 12% 1% 27% 22% 29% 17% 5% 17% 22% 27% 23% 11% 49% 51% 72% 28% 0% 0%
99 104 229 53 34 205 147 47 185 154 20 198 168 26 235 125 177 92 73 40 4 160 100 81 40 5 137 100 91 41 17 123 84 87 67 25 198 188 262 116 6 1
87
Native American
0%
0%
0%
0%
-2 Log Likelihood of Reduced Model 252.486a 273.009 334.850 287.611 287.975 339.069 311.445 282.802
df 0 12 6 6 6 6 12 12
The chi-square statistic is the difference in -2 log-likelihoods between the final model and a reduced model. The reduced model is formed by omitting an effect from the final model. The null hypothesis is that all parameters of that effect are 0.
TPRI BOYa B High Intercept Perfor 5.30 mance 9 Grade_KG . _age 702 absence_K G [Attended _PK=1] -.01 6 . 681
df 1 1 1 1
Sig. . 00 0 . 00 0 . 08 3 . 00 0
Exp( B)
88
0b . 561 0b
. .129 .
. 18.7 84 .
0 1 0
. . 00 0 .
. 1.75 2 .
. 1.35 9 .
. 2.25 7 .
Dependent variables: age in kindergarten, number of absences in kindergarten, attended pre-K, and gender. Analysis of relationship between attendance in Pre-K and TPRI performance and absenteeism; note that for those who did not attend pre-K, age and days absent become much more heavily weighted:
Somer s' d
No
Ordinal by Ordinal
Somer s' d
Symmetric TPRI_BOY Dependent Absent Days Grade KG Dependent Symmetric TPRI_BOY Dependent Absent Days Grade KG Dependent
Analysis of relationship between attendance in Pre-K, TPRI performance, and age in kindergarten: Attended PK Yes Ordinal by Ordinal Value .080 .068 .096 .117 .097 .146 Appro x. Sig. .003 .003 .003 .000 .000 .000
Somer s' d
No
Ordinal by Ordinal
Somer s' d
Symmetric TPRI_BOY Dependent Grade_KG_age Dependent Symmetric TPRI_BOY Dependent Grade_KG_age Dependent
89
TPRI_BOYa
Intercept absence_KG Grade_KG_ag e [Attended_PK =1] [Attended_PK =2] [Gender=1] [Gender=2] Intercept absence_KG Grade_KG_ag e [Attended_PK =1] [Attended_PK =2] [Gender=1] [Gender=2] Intercept absence_KG Grade_KG_ag e [Attended_PK =1]
B 3.180 -.020 .561 .126 0 .154 0 6.617 -.028 1.027 .697 0 .648 0 6.847 -.014 .766 .936
Std. Error 1.220 .009 .218 .143 . .141 . 1.363 .011 .241 .165 . .156 . 2.321 .018 .410 .299
Wald 6.79 3 4.47 5 6.61 5 .781 . 1.20 1 . 23.5 75 6.39 9 18.1 66 17.8 91 . 17.3 73 . 8.70 0 .593 3.49 3 9.82 1
df 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
Sig. .009 .034 .010 .377 . .273 . .000 .011 .000 .000 . .000 . .003 .441 .062 .002
95% Confidence Interval for Exp(B) Lowe r Boun Upper d Bound .962 1.14 3 .858 . .886 . .999 2.687 1.500 . 1.537 .
90
0 .578 0
. .262 .
. 4.87 0 .
0 1 0
. .027 .
. 1.783 .
. 1.06 7 .
. 2.980 .
Reversing: TPRI_BOYa 95% Confidence Interval for Exp(B) Lower Boun Upper d Bound .218 . .336 . .978 .208 .704 . .937 . 1.051 1.038
Intercept [Attended_PK =1] [Attended_PK =2] [Gender=1] [Gender=2] absence_KG Grade_KG_ag e Intercept [Attended_PK =1] [Attended_PK =2] [Gender=1] [Gender=2] absence_KG Grade_KG_ag e Intercept [Attended_PK =1] [Attended_PK =2] [Gender=1] [Gender=2]
B 6.84 7 -.936 0 -.578 0 .014 -.766 3.66 7 -.810 0 -.424 0 -.006 -.205 .230 -.239 0 .070 0
Std. Error 2.321 .299 . .262 . .018 .410 2.322 .300 . .263 . .019 .409 2.375 .310 . .269 .
Wald 8.700 9.821 . 4.870 . .593 3.493 2.493 7.273 . 2.600 . .096 .251 .009 .595 . .067 .
df 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
Sig. .003 .002 . .027 . .441 .062 .114 .007 . .107 . .756 .616 .923 .440 . .795 .
.787 . 1.07 2 .
.429 . .633 .
1.445 . 1.818 . 91
absence_KG Grade_KG_ag e
-.014 .261
.019 .418
.530 .391
1 1
.467 .532
.986 1.29 9
.949 .573
1.024 2.945
The following table displays the results of a logistic regression model designed to predict commended 5th grade reading test performance, based on the independent variables listed above:
Parame te r Estimate s 5th Grade Reading T est a B Commended Intercept 3rd grade reading=commended 3rd grade reading=pass 3rd grade reading=no 4th grade reading=commended 4th grade reading=pass 4th grade reading=no ln_Yrs_same_school ln_absence_Grade4 * ln_Grade4_age ln_Grade5_age a. T he reference cat egory is: Not Commended. b. T his parameter is set t o zero because it is redundant . -1.219 2.599 1.164 0b 3.202 1.922 0b .736 -.090 -2.034 Std. Error 5.667 .751 .741 . .503 .475 . .305 .049 2.312 Wald .046 11.972 2.470 . 40.550 16.388 . 5.798 3.422 .773 df 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 Sig. .830 .001 .116 . .000 .000 . .016 .064 .379 13.456 3.202 . 24.584 6.835 . 2.087 .914 .131 3.086 .750 . 9.176 2.695 . 1.147 .830 .001 58.665 13.671 . 65.870 17.333 . 3.797 1.005 12.162 Exp(B) 95% Confidence Int erval for Exp(B) Lower Bound Upper Bound
The 3rd and 4th grade reading test results are treated as categorical variables. Each level of the categorical variables is treated as a separate predictor variable, with not passing as the reference level. The commended results level is the most influential predictor from the 3rd and 4th grade reading tests. The Years in Same School variable is treated as a scalar metric variable. The log transformation increased the coefficient for the years in same school variable and accounts for the nonlinear relationship with performance on the 5th grade test, meaning that each additional year in school has an exponentially higher level of influence on test performance. The 4th grade appears to a challenging year for testing. The number of days absent from school and age-in-grade seem to be highly correlated and are not significant as separate variables, but they are marginally significant as an interaction variable. The interaction variable for absence and age has a nonlinear negative association with 5th grade test performance. The 4th grade appears to be the most significant point in time for this relationship. Statistics for Variables Included in the Model
N Mean Mode Std. Deviation Variance Minimum Maximum Percentiles 25 50 75 a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown Valid Missing Statisti cs Reading Std Met Reading Std Met Years_Same_Scho Grade 3a2 Grade 4a2 ol Grade_04_age 1155 1155 1155 1155 0 1.0545 1.00 .56437 .319 .00 2.00 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0 .8000 1.00 .64682 .418 .00 2.00 .0000 1.0000 1.0000 0 4.17 3 1.304 1.700 1 6 3.00 4.00 5.00 0 9.7261 9.79 .52602 .277 8.38 12.02 9.3233 9.6548 9.9534 Absent Days Grade 4 Grade_05_age 1155 1155 0 5.79 1 5.692 32.394 1 59 2.00 4.00 8.00 0 10.7843 10.04 a .57055 .326 9.38 13.33 10.3479 10.7041 11.0219
92
Parameter Estimates Reading Std Met Grade 8a2a 95% Confidence Interval for Exp(B) B -.277 -.043 2.378 1.131 1.594 -6.045 -.052 4.346 1.848 3.789 Std. Error .302 .019 .583 .368 .439 .753 .024 .728 .477 .659 Wald .838 5.240 16.654 9.437 13.198 64.447 4.706 35.596 14.986 33.040 df 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sig. .360 .022 .000 .002 .000 .000 .030 .000 .000 .000 .949 77.154 6.345 44.214 .906 18.507 2.490 12.147 .995 321.645 16.170 160.938 Exp(B) .958 10.780 3.099 4.926 Lower Bound .923 3.441 1.506 2.084 Upper Bound .994 33.771 6.378 11.642
Yes
Commended
Variable s in the Equation 95% C.I.for EXP(B) B Step 1 a Mobile_Elementary(1) Age_Grade_03 Age_Grade_03(1) Age_Grade_03(2) Age_Grade_03(3) Age_Grade_03(4) Days_Absent_03 Days_Absent_03(1) Days_Absent_03(2) Days_Absent_03(3) Days_Absent_03(4) Constant .035 .061 .400 .712 -1.856 .122 .123 .136 .217 .121 -.032 -.271 .043 .525 .141 .148 .141 .135 .370 S.E. .094 Wald 15.508 35.727 .050 3.346 .091 15.077 18.730 .084 .242 8.628 10.790 234.122 df 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 Sig. .000 .000 .822 .067 .763 .000 .001 .773 .623 .003 .001 .000 1.036 1.062 1.492 2.037 .156 .815 .835 1.142 1.332 1.317 1.352 1.948 3.115 .969 .763 1.044 1.690 .734 .570 .791 1.297 1.278 1.020 1.377 2.203 Exp(B) 1.447 Lower 1.204 Upper 1.740
Table X: Predicting the risk of 3rd grade TAKS reading failure The exponentiated B [Exp(B)] value is the greatest predictor of importance in these analyses. In order of decreasing importance, absenteeism, age, and mobility are the greatest predictors of the possibility of failing the reading TAKS test. With each variable, the relationship is positive, thus as absenteeism increases, so too does the possibility of failure.
93
Variable s in the Equation 95% C.I.for EXP(B) B Step 1 a Mobile_Element ary(1) Age_Grade_04 Age_Grade_04(1) Age_Grade_04(2) Age_Grade_04(3) Age_Grade_04(4) Days_Absent_04 Days_Absent_04(1) Days_Absent_04(2) Days_Absent_04(3) Days_Absent_04(4) Reading3(1) Const ant .282 .230 .358 .076 1.863 -1.129 .127 .130 .160 .304 .148 .122 -.116 -.190 -.170 .156 .147 .148 .152 .161 .306 S.E. .117 Wald 6.832 5.974 .622 1.634 1.257 .940 8.025 4.887 3.109 5.008 .062 158.968 85.823 df 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sig. .009 .201 .430 .201 .262 .332 .091 .027 .078 .025 .803 .000 .000 1.325 1.258 1.431 1.079 6.445 .323 1.032 .975 1.046 .595 4.824 1.702 1.624 1.958 1.956 8.610 .891 .827 .844 1.169 .668 .619 .627 .853 1.188 1.106 1.136 1.602 Exp(B) 1.358 Lower 1.080 Upper 1.708
Table X: Predicting the risk of 4th grade TAKS reading failure In order of decreasing importance, reading results from the previous year, followed by absenteeism and mobility predict failure of the 4th grade reading test.
Variable s in the Equation 95% C.I.for EXP(B) B Step 1 a Mobile_Element ary(1) Age_Grade_05 Age_Grade_05(1) Age_Grade_05(2) Age_Grade_05(3) Age_Grade_05(4) Days_Absent_05 Days_Absent_05(1) Days_Absent_05(2) Days_Absent_05(3) Days_Absent_05(4) Reading4(1) Constant .223 -.012 -.050 .806 2.440 -2.629 .158 .171 .199 .356 .133 .175 -.235 -.273 -.071 .164 .192 .187 .191 .193 .067 S.E. .158 Wald .179 6.390 1.505 2.130 .139 .723 7.638 2.004 .005 .062 5.119 338.716 226.240 df 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sig. .673 .172 .220 .144 .710 .395 .106 .157 .944 .803 .024 .000 .000 1.250 .988 .952 2.239 11.474 .072 .918 .707 .644 1.114 8.848 1.703 1.381 1.405 4.502 14.878 .790 .761 .931 1.179 .542 .527 .640 .807 1.151 1.098 1.355 1.722 Exp(B) 1.069 Lower .784 Upper 1.458
Table X: Predicting the risk of 5th grade TAKS reading failure By the 5th grade, performance on the previous years TAKS reading test dwarfs all other variables in importance of prediction. The only other variable that may even be significant in prediction is absenteeism.
94
Variabl es in the Equation 95% C.I.for EXP(B) B Step 1 a Mobile_MiddleSchool(1) Age_Grade_06 Age_Grade_06(1) Age_Grade_06(2) Age_Grade_06(3) Age_Grade_06(4) Days_Absent_06 Days_Absent_06(1) Days_Absent_06(2) Days_Absent_06(3) Days_Absent_06(4) Reading5(1) Const ant .138 .040 .358 .321 2.147 -2.524 .233 .242 .271 .516 .182 .251 .406 -.103 .320 .363 .272 .292 .282 .279 -.772 S.E. .383 Wald 4.074 5.238 2.231 .124 1.288 1.694 2.082 .349 .028 1.746 .385 139.984 101.001 df 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sig. .044 .264 .135 .725 .256 .193 .721 .554 .868 .186 .535 .000 .000 1.148 1.041 1.431 1.378 8.563 .080 .726 .647 .841 .501 6.000 1.814 1.674 2.435 3.791 12.222 1.502 .902 1.378 1.438 .881 .509 .792 .832 2.560 1.599 2.396 2.485 Exp(B) .462 Lower .218 Upper .978
Table X: Predicting the risk of 6th grade TAKS reading failure By the time our student enters 6th grade, and transitions to middle school, performance on the previous years test, and mobility are the only reliable predictors of possible failure.
Variable s i n the Equati on 95% C.I.for EXP(B) B Step 1 a Mobile_MiddleSchool(1) Age_Grade_07 Age_Grade_07(1) Age_Grade_07(2) Age_Grade_07(3) Age_Grade_07(4) Days_Absent_07 Days_Absent_07(1) Days_Absent_07(2) Days_Absent_07(3) Days_Absent_07(4) Reading6(1) Const ant -.428 -.352 -.351 .260 2.809 -1.628 .389 .392 .393 .406 .189 .399 -.181 -.335 .276 .792 .271 .280 .279 .281 .286 S.E. .312 Wald .839 18.501 .449 1.433 .974 7.925 7.627 1.212 .805 .799 .408 220.417 16.625 df 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sig. .360 .001 .503 .231 .324 .005 .106 .271 .370 .371 .523 .000 .000 .652 .704 .704 1.296 16.588 .196 .304 .326 .326 .585 11.449 1.396 1.517 1.520 2.873 24.034 .834 .716 1.318 2.208 .490 .414 .762 1.272 1.418 1.238 2.279 3.834 Exp(B) 1.331 Lower .722 Upper 2.451
Table X: Predicting the risk of 7th grade TAKS reading failure Seventh and eighth grade results are similar to 6th grade, although ones age in 7th grade becomes more significant than mobility while mobility is marginally significant in predicting 8th grade performance (well behind reading in 7th grade and advanced absenteeism).
95
Variable s in the Equation 95% C.I.for EXP(B) B Step 1 a Mobile_MiddleSchool(1) Age_Grade_08 Age_Grade_08(1) Age_Grade_08(2) Age_Grade_08(3) Age_Grade_08(4) Days_Absent_08 Days_Absent_08(1) Days_Absent_08(2) Days_Absent_08(3) Days_Absent_08(4) Reading7(1) Constant .258 -.171 .229 .999 3.040 -3.135 .293 .287 .310 .357 .231 .312 .181 .261 -.122 -.105 .309 .323 .328 .315 -.843 S.E. .457 Wald 3.410 2.211 .341 .654 .139 .110 11.321 .775 .353 .546 7.846 173.480 100.760 df 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sig. .065 .697 .559 .419 .709 .740 .023 .379 .552 .460 .005 .000 .000 1.294 .843 1.257 2.715 20.906 .044 .729 .480 .685 1.350 13.298 2.297 1.481 2.307 5.460 32.864 1.198 1.299 .885 .901 .653 .689 .465 .485 2.196 2.447 1.684 1.671 Exp(B) .430 Lower .176 Upper 1.053
96