A r c h i v e d I n f o r m a t i o n

       FOR RELEASE                                           Contact:  David Frank     August 5, 1996                                                  (202) 401-1576

Location, Poverty and Schools

A new report, issued today by the U.S. Education Department, challenges some widely held views about the effect of poverty on education, especially in the nation's cities.

Yes, poverty does make a difference, and schools with high concentrations of poor students often appear similar to high poverty schools in rural and suburban areas, but when poverty is removed as a factor, some differences become more clear: in significant ways, attending an urban school is not the same as going to a rural or suburban school.

"We've known for a long time that our cities are unique and present special challenges for teachers, parents and students," said U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley. "What has been lacking is greater clarity about those factors that make the difference. Of course, poverty, but is there more? This report is an important step in gaining the level of understanding it will take to better serve the students growing up in the nation's cities."

Urban Schools: The Challenge of Location and Poverty, prepared by the department's National Center for Education Statistics, compared urban, rural and suburban students and schools and found that by virtually every measure, schools with a high percentage of students in poverty compared unfavorably with schools serving primarily more affluent students. Similarly, urban schools appeared to have more difficulties than rural or suburban schools. Many indicators reflected the compelling importance of poverty, i.e., many measures were largely the same across urban, rural and suburban schools when the percentage of poverty was about the same.

But the study found that poverty alone cannot account for all observed differences among urban, rural and suburban schools. When poverty was removed as a factor, some differences among urban, rural and suburban indicators emerged. For example, regardless of poverty, urban students had lower rates of high school completion and were more likely to watch three or more hours of TV on weekdays.

The report found that even after accounting for poverty concentration:

Urban schools had larger enrollments, on average, than suburban schools at both the elementary and secondary levels;
Teacher absenteeism, an indicator of morale, was more of a problem in urban schools than in rural or suburban schools, and in urban high poverty schools compared with rural high poverty schools;
Student behavior problems were more common in urban schools than in other schools, particularly in absenteeism, classroom discipline, weapons possession, and student pregnancy. However, the use of alcohol was less of a problem in urban schools that in rural schools;
Students in high poverty schools regardless of location were less likely to feel safe in school, or to spend much time on homework than those in low poverty schools
8th graders in urban and urban high poverty schools scored lower on achievement tests, but their 10th grade counterparts scored about the same as those in other locations;
Students in urban and urban high poverty schools were less likely to complete high school on time, but they completed postsecondary degrees at the same rate as others;
Young adults who had attended urban and urban high poverty schools had much higher poverty and unemployment rates later in life than those who had attended other schools.

The report describes students who attended public schools in the 1980s and examines their progress through 1990.

Single copies of Urban Schools are available while supplies last from the department's National Library of Education by calling 1 800 424 1616, or on the department's website at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/.

-###-