journal of undergraduate research
inter-district mobility have signicant, negative impacts on corpora-tions’ average ISEP pass rates.
Cuss of Sudn moby
Te persistence o student mobility is a detriment to students andschools. It disrupts the nature o education by “penetrating the es-sential activity o schools – the interaction o teachers and studentsaround learning.”
Student mobility, while mainly impacting urbanschool districts, concerns districts nationwide. Student mobility atthe elementary level is considered the norm; according to data romthe National Assessment o Educational Progress (NAEP), approxi-mately “34 percent o 4
graders…changed schools at least once inthe previous two years.”
Te causes o student mobility can be bro-ken down into two categories: (1) purposeul, planned moves and(2) incidental, impromptu moves. Purposeul educational moves aregenerally seen as positive reasons or moving, including such sce-narios as students and amilies moving residentially to escape a vio-lent neighborhood, a mother and students escaping a violent ather,or students being accepted into a magnet program at a dierentschool.Te model or positive educational moves in economics is knownas the iebout Model.
In this model, consumers move i they areunhappy with the provided services; in this case, educational con-sumers move i they are not satised with their school. Tis “voting with your eet” model is held up as a means o choice or amilies. As with most economic models, one o the assumptions o the ieboutmodel is the presence o adequate resources.
Highly mobile stu-dents, however, are more likely to be living in poverty
and in situa-tions with inadequate resources.
Moreover, as is oten the case withhighly mobile students, the cause o mobility is unrelated to the out-come; that is, a residential move prompts an educational move eveni the amily was happy with the educational product. In the ie-bout model, it is hard to disentangle the relevant cause or the moveand the desired outcome without a statement rom the movers. An