Expanding the Understanding of School Concentrated Disadvantage Using Free and Reduced-Price Meals Data: Links to College and Labor Market Outcomes in Maryland

Abstract

School concentrated disadvantage has been linked to poorer academic achievement and psychosocial functioning in prior research. The current study expands upon prior examinations of school concentrated disadvantage by applying a measurement approach first described by Michelmore and Dynarski in 2017, where eligibility for free and reduced-price meals (FRPM) is examined over time and the duration of eligibility serves as the key indicator of student disadvantage. We used data from a linked longitudinal administrative data system in Maryland, and we measured disadvantage using the proportion of years a student was eligible for FRPM between 6^th and 12^th grades (see ref. Michelmore & Dynarski). This measure was aggregated to the school level to measure school concentrated disadvantage. We found that school-level concentrated disadvantage was uniquely, and more strongly related to college enrollment than individual student-level disadvantage. However, early labor market outcomes tended to be more strongly linked to race/ethnicity than experiences with disadvantage. We highlight the need for additional targeted resources for students in schools with high concentrations of disadvantaged students.

Acknowledgement

We are grateful for the assistance provided by the MLDS Center. Prior versions of this manuscript were published by the MLDS Center and findings were presented to multiple local and statewide stakeholder audiences. We appreciate the feedback received from the MLDS Center and its stakeholder partners. Additionally, we thank the panelists and attendees at multiple academic conferences and the anonymous reviewers of the current journal for helpful feedback on this manuscript. All opinions are the authors’ and do not represent the opinion of the MLDS Center or its partner agencies.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the Maryland Longitudinal Data System (MLDS) Center. Restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under contract for this study. Access to the restricted use data is available with permission from the MLDS Center.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Nationally, the utility of FRPM data as a measure of disadvantage has become more limited due to the implementation of the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), which allows schools to provide free meals to all enrolled students regardless of household income (see Koedel & Parsons, 2021 for a review). CEP did not begin to be implemented in Maryland, beyond a few small sites, until the 2015-2016 academic year, and did not affect this cohort of students.

2 The FRPM qualification process usually requires parents or guardians to complete a form that documents household composition and income. Some students qualify for free meals through direct certification, a mechanism by which students who are in certain programs (e.g., homeless, foster care) or who live in households receiving need-based services (e.g., SNAP) qualify for free meals without completing application forms (USDA, 2017). All local school systems in Maryland were required by federal law to have a direct ­certification process by academic year 2008-2009. Students who are directly certified through need-based services are likely more disadvantaged since the income threshold for these programs is lower than 185% of the federal poverty line.

3 A small percentage of students reported different race/ethnicities over time. For this study, we used the most recently reported race/ethnicity. Additionally, the data collection methods for student race/ethnicity changed in 2011 based on federal reporting guidance from the U.S. Department of Education. Before the change, race/ethnicity was a single measure with 5 categories (White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, Native American). After the change, students were first asked whether they were Hispanic (yes/no) and then they were asked for their race.

4 For each student i, for each school h in the set of schools they attended {j}, a weight w was created for each school and summed to 1. An equal weighting approach was used that did not consider the length of time students attended each school. For example, in Maryland there are 180 days in an academic year. If student i spent 30 days in school 1, 60 days in school 2, and 90 days in school 3, the school residuals would be weighted: school 1 = 0.333; school 2 = 0.333; and school 3 = 0.333. Wolff Smith and Beretvas (2014) found that the choice between equal weighting, used in the current study, and proportional weighting, where schools are weighted by the proportion of time spent in each school, did not greatly impact parameter or residual estimates.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by the Maryland Longitudinal Data System (MLDS) Center.