Keeping the Environment Stable: What to do when Kids come into Care
By Abby Goldstein and Christine Wekerle

Problems Associated with School Mobility

The issue of whether to change a child’s school when he moves residentially requires an analysis of an individual child’s “attachment” to school as a familiar place, as well as peers and adults who are positively connected and prepared to be involved with the child. On a case-by-case basis, a change in residence may be an opportunity for a child with an unsupportive school environment, bullying problems, few extra-curricular options, and low learning resources to have a “fresh start” at another school, where preparatory work with school officials, the teacher, and the parent’s group (potentially) may set the stage for an individual child’s success. It is also a matter of degree; three or more school changes may be over-challenging to a child with issues regarding friendship maintenance, positive peer selection, and skills in developing close relationships. Important opportunities for teacher and coach mentors may be diminished with many school changes.

From a systems perspective, transporting children to their old school following a change of placement, is not only a cost issue, but also an access issue in terms of closeness to friends and the quality of the bus ride experience, which is often a site for bullying behaviours.
 
There is limited research on this issue from the child outcomes or system services perspectives. Research with randomly selected teens from the Maltreatment and Adolescent Pathways (MAP) project suggests that this type of maltreatment may be important: male teens who had reported childhood neglect and high system turbulence (number of moves, number of workers) reported poorer mental health outcomes. The school environment is mandated to be a safe environment and maltreated children would seem to benefit from a secure relationship to the key adults and places they spend much of their daily living time.

Several lines of evidence point to the negative impact of school mobility. Among the most documented effects of school mobility is its negative impact on academic performance, greater absenteeism, and increased rates of dropout. School mobility is particularly likely among low-income families, who are often relocating due to difficulties finding affordable housing.

There are certain points in schooling where consistent quality instruction is perhaps more salient. For example, while some children can achieve reading fluency as they exit kindergarten, children who are not fluent readers by Grade 3 would be referred for assessment; however, most children will achieve reading by end of Grade one. In a similar way, Grades 7 and 8 are important preparatory years for high school across all subject areas, and especially in science and mathematics.  Poor absorption of content in Grade 8 can substantially limit a youth’s ability to succeed in high school academic courses required for admission into university.  A premature placement into to an applied-level course can alter a youth’s trajectory in high school and post secondary education. Although researchers in the United States have identified school mobility as an area of concern, there has been little research on school mobility in Canada (Wasserman, 2004).

One of the primary concerns around school mobility is the lack of continuity in schooling that these students face. Zeitlin, Weinberg and Luderer (2004) discuss the problem of school mobility for youth in the foster care system. They note that frequent mobility results in foster care youth falling behind academically, losing credits, and having incomplete academic records. Youth who are forced to start school without their school records often find themselves repeating classes and losing credits. In addition, the lack of school records can delay the implementation of an individualized evaluation program (IEP), resulting in students falling further behind due to inadequate classroom supports and resources. Finally, highly mobile students might be unlikely to get an IEP because they have not been in the school district long enough to have an educational assessment, due to waiting lists. Even when school records are accessible, they often contain partial information. Stronge, Popp, and Grant (2007) have several recommendations for teachers on how to best manage highly mobile students including creating a supportive environment for new students, taking the time to get to know new students and providing early assessments of academic ability  to ensure students are accurately placed (for a full review see http://www.serve.org/nche).

School Mobility: Does Age Matter?

School Mobility and Adolescents: The Impact of Peer Networks

One group of researchers has proposed that school mobility has its greatest impact via its effects on peer relationships and that this is most problematic for adolescents, who have difficulty becoming fully integrated into new peer networks. Haynie, South and Bose (2006) have examined the impact of mobility on the development of friendship networks among youth. According to their model, there are important differences between mobile and non-mobile students in their peer role models for academic outcomes. Due to frequent school leaving and re-entering, highly mobile youth are less likely to integrate with prosocial peer groups and more likely to socialize with peers who place little value on educational achievement. They suggest that mobility is particularly difficult for youth given the increased emphasis on peer influences in adolescence. In addition, they proposed that integration into peer networks would be most difficult for older adolescents, where more time in school is associated with firmer connections among peers within peer networks.

South, Haynie and Bose (2007) examined the peer networks of mobile students and found that they had smaller networks of friends and occupied less central positions within their peer groups. In addition, their peer groups had lower grade point averages and were involved in fewer extra-curricular activities, indicating less school engagement among peers of mobile students. Although they found no evidence for age-related differences in peer group affiliation and mobility, their sample primarily consisted of young to middle adolescents (ages 14-20, mean age 15.56, SD = 1.27). In an earlier study, they found similar results. Students who were more mobile had greater difficulty affiliating with high achieving and prosocial peers and were more likely to join underperforming and more deviant peer groups. Again, they found no difference in these peer affiliation patterns among older and younger mobile adolescents and found that the impact of mobility on friendship networks persisted for several years, likely reflecting continuity in peer networks. That is, when entering a new school, more mobile students initially attach to friendship networks consisting of low performing peers and tend to stay involved with these friendships.

Peer Mobility and Children (K-7): The Impact of Early Transitions

Although early studies found evidence for school mobility negatively affecting academic achievement, as Mantzicopoulos and Knutson (2000) point out, the relationship between school mobility and achievement is a complex one. In particular, many of the factors that impact school mobility (e.g., low SES, academic performance, social relationships) are likely to impact academic skills as well. Whereas Haynie, South and Bose suggest that mobility is more detrimental for youth, Mantzicopoulos and Knuston propose that school mobility is most crucial in young children. This is specifically because the early transition to school is a critical point in a child’s development, it has an important impact on later academic successes and failures. In their study of mobility and achievement, Mantzicopoulos and Knuston (2000) examined children from Kindergarten to Grade 2 and found that greater mobility was associated with lower scores on reading and mathematics achievement tests and lower ratings of academic competence from teachers. Even when very early achievement was included in the model, the relationship between increased mobility and poorer academic achievement persisted. Thus, even for very young children, greater mobility is linked with poorer academic outcomes. In addition, the authors found negative effects of mobility on achievement, even for students who remained in schools within the same district. They suggest that students should be allowed to remain in their school and that school transportation systems should be organized to facilitate school stability.

Temple and Reynolds (1999) conducted a longitudinal study examining school mobility effects for inner city minority children. They first assessed children in kindergarten and then re-assessed them in Grade 7. They found that many children changed schools at least once, but one-fifth changed schools three or more times. They also found that an increased number of school moves between kindergarten and Grade 7 was associated with lower levels of achievement in math and reading. Although effects of a single move were small, there was a significant effect on achievement for those who moved two or more times.

Buckner et al (2001) found that among school-age children school mobility was significantly associated with academic achievement over and above residential moves and housing status (i.e., homeless versus housed families). They also suggested that the elementary school years were most important because this is the time that basic skills in reading and mathematics are in their early development. Since regularity and stability of the school environment is important for promoting positive development, the consequences of mobility should be greatest during these formative years.

School Engagement: A Proxy for School Mobility

Compared to school mobility, more research attention has been paid to school connectedness and school engagement. Both of these may serve as proxies for school mobility; children and youth who frequently move from school to school will be less likely to feel connected to any one school. In addition, school engagement is likely to be disrupted by frequent changes in peer relationships and the availability of extracurricular programs. Thus, we can borrow from the research on school connectedness to examine the impact of school mobility on outcomes.

Several definitions of school connectedness have been offered, but most include a behavioural and an affective component. For example, Whitlock (2006) defines school engagement as consisting of  a sense of belonging at school, liking school, supportive relationships with teachers, presence of a peer network, and involvement in extra curricular activities. Goodenow (1993) defined school connectedness or engagement as “the extent to which students feel personally accepted, respected, included, and supported by others in the school social environment” (p.80). Goodenow developed an assessment of school connectedness, the Psychological Sense of School Membership Scale (PSSM), which assesses three aspects of school engagement: sense of belonging at school (“I feel like a real part of [name of school]”), encouragement (“people here know I can do good work”) and acceptance and inclusion (“I am included in lots of activities at [name of  school]”). Based on these definitions, it seems likely that high rates of mobility would make it difficult to achieve a sense of connectedness or engagement to school.

Much of the work on school engagement is based on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological framework for understanding the impact of various contexts on development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urie_Bronfenbrenner). Bronfenbrenner characterized the child’s environment as consisting of multiple interrelated systems. One of these systems, the mesosystem, represents the connections between the most proximal systems (i.e., microsystems) in the child’s life: school, family, friends and work. When the child’s mesosystem provides support and connects learning at school to other systems in the child’s life, school engagement should be high. Again, school mobility is likely to have a significant impact on the connections between the child’s school and other aspects of his/her life. When children change schools repeatedly, it will become increasingly difficult to establish these connections, resulting in an unsupportive mesosystem.

School Engagement and Age

Overall, there is increasing evidence that school engagement is an important determination of school success (www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/hrsd/prc/publications/research/2001-000175/SP-483-01-02E.pdf). In terms of age-related differences in school engagement, there appears to be a decrease in school engagement as grade level increases (Marks, 2000; Woolley and Bowen, 2007). For example, classroom support appears to be greatest among elementary school students and lower among middle and high school students. Across all students, however, more successful students are more engaged whereas more alienated students are less engaged (Marks, 2000). In addition, Finn (1993) notes that engagement in school may be fostered during the earliest years of school and perpetuated throughout schooling. When students are disengaged early on, this leads to increased risk up to adolescence. Finn’s model suggests a reciprocal relationship between early school engagement, school success, and later academic  achievement. Accordingly, disengagement in the early years leads to lack of success at school, which leads to increased withdrawal and decreased identification with school, which leads to even poorer academic outcomes.

Other authors (Fredricks, Blumenfeld and Paris, 2004) point out that school engagement may take different forms across developmental stages. For example, true investment in school may not take place until students have the capacity for self-regulation and intentional learning, which does not occur until further along developmentally. Unfortunately, there has been little research on the longitudinal effects of school engagement across developmental stages. Overall, however, the weight of the evidence supports consistency in school environment, especially for younger children in elementary school who are changing placement.  Lack of consistency in school emerge as a risk factor for learning and social outcomes. Children in foster care need an individualized assessment of the quality of the school environment in supporting the child, as well as the other factors involved (e.g., food programs, sports and childcare programs, level of parental involvement in school, transportation experience).  Considered as a group, researchers support consistency in school and the nurturance of positive peer and adult relationships, in order to achieve good outcomes for children in care.

About the Authors

Dr. Abby L. Goldstein, PhD., is a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Psychology at York University where she has been involved with the Collegiate Health Study, an examination of the impact of child maltreatment on health outcomes for first year college students.

Christine Werkerle, PhD., is a senior scientist in the Faculty of Education at the University of Western Ontario.

References

Finn, J. D. (1993). School Engagement and Students at Risk. National Center for Education Statistics research and Development Reports. Washington, DC. http://nces.ed.gov/Pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=93470

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., and Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109.

Goodenow, C. (1993). The psychological sense of school membership among adolescents: Scale development and educational correlates. Psychology in the Schools, 30, 79-90.

Haynie, D. L., South, S. J., and Bose, S. (2006). The company you keep: Adolescent mobility and peer behavior. Sociological Inquiry, 76, 397-426.

Mantzicopoulos, P., Knuston, D. J. (2000). Head Start children: School mobility and achivement in the early grades. The Journal of Educational Research, 93, 305-311.

Mehana, M., and Reynolds, A. J. (2004). School mobility and achievement: A meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 93-119.

Popp, P. A. (2004). Tips for Supporting Mobile Students. Project Hope Virginia Information Brief No. 4. Virginia Department of Education.

Shochet, I. M., Dadds, M. R., Ham, D., and Montague, R. (2006). School connectedness is an underemphasized parameter in adolescent mental health: Results of a community prediction study. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35, 170-179.

South, S. J., Haynie, D. L., and Bose, S. (2007). Student mobility and school dropout. Social Science Research, 36, 68-94.

Wasserman, D. (2001, April). Moving Targets: Student Mobility and School and Student Achievement. Presented at American Educational Research Association 2001 Annual Conference. Seattle, WA.

Whitlock, J. L. (2006). Youth perceptions of life at school: Contextual correlates of school connectedness in adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 10, 13-29.

Zeitlin, A.,, Weinberg, L., and Wade Luderer, J. (2004). Problems and solutions to improving education services for children in foster care. Prevention School Failure, 48, 31-36.

Previous article: Safety and Family Group Conferencing

Next article: The Child Welfare Supervisor as Stress Manager