Academic Differences Between an Urban Nativity School and an Urban Public School District

Abstract

Previous research suggests that both poverty and minority status significantly influence academic achievement. Nativity schools, which have been extensively researched, have been found effective for students coming from low socioeconomic statuses and diverse backgrounds. Differences were examined between an urban public school district and an urban parochial school that uses the Nativity model (henceforth referred to as Nativity School). The purpose of this study was to determine if students from Nativity School were able to achieve significantly above that which urban public school students achieved. Specifically, academic achievement in the areas of mathematics, language arts, and science were analyzed, as well as high school dropout rate, high school graduation rate, and entrance into postsecondary education. Nativity School used the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) to measure achievement longitudinally and reported stanines and local and national percentile ranks, while the public school system used the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) and provided four descriptor categories (i.e., Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced). Below Basic and Basic referred to students who demonstrate the skills outlined by the Missouri Show-Me Standards inconsistently and/or incorrectly, while students who perform in the Proficient and Advanced categories demonstrate these skills consistently, at or above grade level. Results revealed Nativity School students significantly improved their academic achievement scores and were more likely than urban public school students to graduate high school and enroll in postsecondary school. Interpretation and implications of these results and limitations are explored.

Keywords

Nativity model academic achievement high school dropout postsecondary education

Introduction

Childhood is the optimal time for people to acquire the skills necessary for a successful life (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2011; Stewart, 2007). Unfortunately, not all children are afforded the same experiences, nor do they all receive equal amounts of guidance and attention throughout their education. In many instances, education is considered the precursor for a successful life. It affords the individual to develop and hone academic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal skills required for higher education and a more comfortable lifestyle. An inordinate discrepancy exists between the opportunities and needs for children who identify as white and those who identify as ethnic minorities, as well as those from low socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds compared to those of upper and middle class families (Rollock, 2007).

Researchers have found that living in poverty has detrimental effects on academic achievement (Hair et al., 2015; Lacour & Tissington, 2011). Low-income students consistently perform below the national average and below students from middle and upper-class families on tests of achievement, and many researchers attribute these findings to a lack of educational resources available (e.g. books, computers, tutors). Additionally, research shows that race is a significant predictor of academic achievement and may be impacted by self-fulfilling prophecies, stigma consciousness, implicit racial bias, or stereotype threat (Boykin & Noguera, 2011; Guyll et al., 2010). Specifically, research suggests that identifying as a racial minority is sometimes associated with decreased academic achievement and poorer grades (Guyll et al., 2010; Merton, 1948).

An extensive amount of research has also investigated the effects of race and poverty on achievement outcomes for children attending public and private school systems. Urban public schools usually serve minority students from low SES backgrounds (Bolshakova et al., 2011; Lee & Loeb, 2000). Poor attendance, low standardized test scores, problem behaviors, low parental involvement, and an increase in high school dropout are common struggles for these school systems (Bolshakova et al., 2011; Johnson & Hannon, 2014; Stewart, 2007). These students are also at an increased risk for teenage pregnancy, substance use, and poor academic success (Basch, 2011; Botticello, 2009).

Regarding alternative school systems (e.g., private schools), research has reliably found that children from these schools have higher achievement scores on standardized tests in core academic subjects, are more likely to finish high school and earn a college degree, and are less likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors and drug use throughout secondary education compared to their peers from public schools throughout the city (Basch, 2011; Coulson, 2009; Hill & Mrug, 2015). These schools have generally been considered more effective than public schools in terms of academic achievement, especially for children from impoverished and minority backgrounds (Coleman et al., 1982; Hoffer et al., 1985; Lubienski & Lubienski, 2006).

Decades of empirical research reveals which methods are effective at closing the achievement gap between the minority, low-income students who attend public schools and those who attend alternative school systems. Some of these methods include high expectations of students, a strong sense of identification to one’s school, efficient classroom management, the coordination of support services, regular assessment and evaluation, and parent support and interaction (Edmonds, 1979; Eubanks & Levine, 1983). These factors are essential for closing the achievement gap.

Using this research, some alternative schools were developed specifically for at-risk, minority students. These schools, called Nativity Schools, were designed as alternative middle schools that aimed to provide excellent education and moral instruction for the most disadvantaged youth in the city. Nativity Schools emphasize a committed staff (i.e. teachers and principle) and parents, an extended school day that features opportunities for tutoring and extracurricular activities, small class sizes, graduate support after education, and a supportive peer environment (Fenzel & Monteith, 2008; Podsiadlo & Philliber, 2003). Research suggests Nativity Schools are effective at decreasing the risks normally associated with students attending urban public schools, such as poorer grades, low standardized test scores, substance abuse, and teenage pregnancy (Fenzel, 2009; Fenzel & Monteith, 2008; Podsiadlo & Philliber, 2003).

Current study

The purpose of the current study was to determine if an all-girls, urban school that adheres to the Nativity Model of education would support academic achievement growth over time for students who spent extended time within the school system. The Nativity School used in this study was a single-sex, parochial school located within an urban area in the Midwest. Females from the fifth through eighth grades were included for achievement analyses. Females from the twelfth grade were included for high school dropout analyses. Nativity School’s goal is to improve each female’s academic functioning, so the students may get accepted into good high schools in the hopes of furthering their education at a postsecondary school. Practices such as small class sizes, an extended school day, mandated, monthly parental involvement, and graduate support that follows students throughout high school and college set the foundation for this alternative middle school.

Research hypotheses

This study compared aggregate-level data for Nativity School students to their urban public school peers regarding academic achievement, high school dropout rates, high school graduation rates, and enrollment into postsecondary education. Based on the current research, there were several hypotheses for the outcome of these comparisons.

The first hypothesis was that academic achievement in mathematics, science, and English language arts (ELA) would either stay the same or deteriorate over time for students from Urban City public schools. Second, it was hypothesized that academic achievement in mathematics, science, and ELA or writing/vocabulary would improve from the time entering Nativity School (i.e., 5^th or 6^th grade) to the time graduating from Nativity School (i.e., 8^th grade), and, third, test scores would significantly improve from year to year while attending Nativity School. This would be reflected in significantly higher percentile scores when grade-level Iowa Tests of Basic Skills results were compared for each year. The fourth hypothesis was that significantly more students from Nativity School would graduate from high school and, fifth, fewer would drop out of high school than their peers attending urban public schools. The six and final hypothesis was that significantly more Nativity School students would enroll in postsecondary education than their peers from urban public schools.

Materials and methods

Participants

Participants included 158 females in the fifth through eighth grades from the Nativity School. In terms of race/ethnicity, approximately 75% of the students identified as Black/African American, 17% Hispanic, and less than 9% as White or Asian. Approximately 74% of the girls transferred to the Nativity School from elementary and middle schools located within the city, while the remaining students transferred from schools outside of the city. All students came from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, as evidenced by all participants’ qualifications for free or reduced lunch.

Additionally, 767 twelfth grade females comprised the sample from the urban public school district and an average of 750 females between the fifth through eighth grades were included for achievement analyses. A large percentage of students (i.e., 80–100%) qualified for free or reduced lunch, displaying comparable economic backgrounds to Nativity School students. Approximately 80% or more of these participants identified as Black/African American, 12% as White, and the remaining as Indian, Hispanic, or Asian. Data were collected for students who attended these schools from 2007 through 2017. All student information was kept anonymous.

Measures

Academic achievement for the urban public school district was assessed using the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP), created by Missouri’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). One component of the MAP, known as Grade-Level Assessments, are computerized tests that are administered annually to measure academic skills for students in grades three through eight in the state of Missouri. They provide teachers, administrators, and parents with information using Missouri’s educational standards (i.e. The Show-Me Standards) for each grade level in the areas of English language arts, mathematics, and science for fifth through eighth grades (McGraw-Hill, 2010). The Grade Level Assessments use a variety of response styles including multiple choice, constructed response, performance tasks (e.g. real-world scenarios), and technology-based items (e.g. computerized drag and drop diagrams). MAP results are categorized into four achievement levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced (Moonie et al., 2008).

Below Basic refers to students who demonstrate a minimal command of the tools (i.e., inconsistently and/or incorrectly) identified in the Missouri Learning Standards. Basic refers to students who demonstrate a partial or inconsistent command of the skills outlined in the Missouri Learning Standards (i.e., demonstrate skills partially or below-grade-level). Proficient refers to students who demonstrate the skills outlined in the Missouri Learning Standards consistently and skillfully. Finally, Advanced refers to students who perform these skills consistently and apply these skills using a wide range of strategies. The literature suggests the MAP contains moderate to high test-retest reliability and construct validity, with reliability coefficients as high as .92 (McGraw-Hill, 2016; Page, 2009). It is notable that the MAP reports no stanine, local, or national percentiles.

Academic achievement for the Nativity School was assessed using the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS), developed by Hoover et al. (2003). The ITBS is a group-administered, norm-referenced battery of tests that provide information in the core academic areas of mathematics, science, and reading. Students answer approximately 40 questions per subject area and receive stanines, national percentiles, and grade equivalent scores to assess their individual growth and compare their achievement to the national norm (Hoover et al., 2003). Research supports the ITBS has high test-retest reliability (r = .80–.90) (Lewis et al., 2007; Lubienski & Lubienski, 2006) and moderate to high concurrent validity (r = .55–.76) (Diperna & Volpe, 2005; McGiverin et al., 1989). Two versions of this test were used in the analyses, with the first version being used from 2007–2012 and the second version from 2013–2017. The main difference between these two versions lies in the composite scores, such that the first version offers scores in mathematics, science, writing, and vocabulary, while the second version combined writing and vocabulary to provide an overall English language arts (ELA) score.

Procedure

All data used were archival, and the researcher signed a non-disclosure waiver to view and analyze Nativity School students’ confidential demographic, medical, and academic records. Grade level aggregates of individual achievement scores in mathematics, science, and English language arts or writing/vocabulary for Nativity School were compared longitudinally using national percentile ranks. Additionally, high school graduation and dropout rates, as well as enrollment into postsecondary education, were analyzed. No communication between the students and the researcher occurred.

Results

Hypothesis one stated that academic achievement for students from the urban public school district would either remain constant or deteriorate over time. Chi-square analyses were performed to assess expected versus actual counts of students who scored within one of the four categories (i.e., Basic, Below Basic, Proficient, and Advanced) in the areas of English language arts (ELA), science, and mathematics. All females within the same grade (e.g., all fifth grade students) were combined to yield an average sample size for each grade level. Results are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Chi-square goodness of fit for MAP scores for public school students.

	5th	6th	7th	8th
ELA
Below basic	181	186	201*	156
Basic	405	364	337	182*
Proficient	205	168	182	176
Advanced	79	51	52	54
N	870	769	772	568
Science
Below Basic	305*	–	–	410*
Basic	406	–	–	262
Proficient	98	–	–	100
Advanced	45	–	–	18*
N	854	–	–	790
Math
Below Basic	241*	228*	359*	401*
Basic	429	339	217	168
Proficient	152	147	59	37
Advanced	54	38	19	11
N	876	752	654	617

Table 1 indicates the number of students who performed in each category of the Missouri Assessment Program.

*p < .05.

Regarding ELA, scores significantly changed over time (X²(9, 3227) = 23.57, p = .005). Standardized residuals were then calculated to determine the significance of changes per grade level and category using the +/–2 criterion identified in Sharpe (2015). Results suggest that significantly more students scored in the Below Basic category in seventh grade and the Basic category in eighth grade than expected, as evidenced by residuals of +2.09 and +2.07, respectively.

Regarding science, results revealed significant changes over time (X²(3, 1644) = 55.65, p < .0001). Standardized residuals revealed that fewer students scored in the Below Basic category in fifth grade and more students scored in this category in eighth grade (−3.45 and +3.58, respectively), suggesting more students performed below grade-level expectation over time. Additionally, significantly fewer students scored in the Advanced category in eighth grade than in fifth grade (−2.23 and +2.15, respectively), suggesting fewer students scored above grade level over time.

Finally, regarding mathematics, scores also significantly changed over time (X²(9, 2899) = 310.89, p < .0001). Standardized residuals revealed that fewer students scored in the Below Basic category in fifth and sixth grade, while more students scored in this category in seventh and eighth grades (−6.77, −5.09, +4.91, +8.62, respectively), suggesting students’ scores worsened over time. Overall, the public school students had more students who scored in the Basic and Below Basic categories for ELA, science, and math. These results reflect that as students progressed throughout the public school system, the number of females performing below grade expectation (i.e., Basic, Below Basic) increased for each of the three assessed academic areas.

Hypotheses two and three stated that academic achievement in mathematics, science, and ELA or writing/vocabulary would improve from the time entering Nativity School to the time graduating, and test scores would improve each year while attending Nativity School. In 2013, the format of the ISTB was altered, thus rendering a total ELA score that combines vocabulary and writing. To the best of our knowledge, no current research exists that has assessed the compatibility between the two versions of the ITBS. Due to the question of whether these two versions could be used interchangeably as separate but equal versions of the same test, separate analyses were performed for groups of students who were administered each version of the test.

MANOVAs were performed on the first version of the test and included scores from 2007 through 2012. Data were collected from an online database that provided percentile rank scores for students in grades six through eight. Only students who attended Nativity School for sixth, seventh, and eighth grade were included in these analyses, thus rendering a modest sample size of 41 students. Preliminary analyses were conducted on all students to determine if there were significant differences between students who left Nativity School before eighth grade and those who graduated from Nativity School. MANOVAs were implemented using dummy coded groups as the predictor variable and aggregate scores in vocabulary/writing, mathematics, and science as the outcome variables. Results revealed no significant differences between students who stayed through eighth grade and those who left early (Sixth: F(8, 120) = 1.07, p = 0.39; Seventh: F(8, 112) = 0.49, p = 0.86). Therefore, those who left Nativity School were performing at statistically similar levels compared to those who graduated from Nativity School; thus, results should not be attributed to differences between these students. Results are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics and MANOVAs for ITBS version one (2007–2012).

	Mean	Std. deviation	Year to year sig. level
Math
6th	36.24	21.67	6 = 7
7th	40.17	20.32	7 = 8
8th	44.05	21.30	6 < 8
Writing
6th	51.29	23.31	6 = 7
7th	54.73	24.14	7 = 8
8th	59.02	22.82	6 < 8
Vocabulary
6th	44.12	25.91	6 < 7
7th	52.12	27.14	7 = 8
8th	54.07	24.96	6 < 8
Science
6th	44.32	25.39	6 < 7
7th	56.41	24.19	7 < 8
8th	63.73	21.61	6 < 8

In order to determine whether achievement scores significantly improved over time, MANOVAs for each subject area were calculated using grade level as the predictor variable and percentile rank scores as the outcome variable. Results revealed statistically significant differences in achievement scores over time in all subject areas, suggesting that academic achievement improved over time spent within this alternative school system. Furthermore, pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni corrections revealed significant changes from grade to grade across subject areas. As can be seen in Table 2, all academic areas (i.e., math, writing, vocabulary, and science) revealed significant mean score increases between grades six and eight. Additionally, vocabulary increased between sixth and seventh grade, while science increased between every grade.

MANOVAs were then performed for the second version of the test and included scores from 2013 through 2016. Data were once again collected through an online database, and aggregated test scores for students from fifth through eighth grade were calculated. Only students who attended Nativity School from fifth through eighth grade were included in the analyses, which yielded a modest sample of 20 students. Preliminary analyses were also conducted for the second version of the test to determine if there were significant differences between those who graduated from or left early from Nativity School. MANOVAs were calculated using dummy coded groups as the predictor variable and total scores in ELA, mathematics, and science as the outcome variables. Once again, results showed nonsignificant differences between students who stayed through eighth grade and those who left early (Fifth: F(6, 42) = 0.47, p = 0.82; Sixth: F(6, 36) = 0.55, p = 0.76; Seventh: F(3, 18) = 0.43, p = 0.73).

Composite scores in the areas of mathematics, science, and English language arts (ELA) were analyzed. Descriptive statistics and analyses are presented in Table 3. Results revealed significant differences between achievement scores in the areas of mathematics and ELA over time; scores in science were nonsignificant. It is important to note, however, that science scores did reveal a statistically significant linear trend (F(1, 19) = 6.52, p = 0.02), suggesting that students’ scores were likely improving positively over time and may have significantly differed with more time spent within the school system. Pairwise comparisons revealed changes in the areas of math and ELA between grade levels. As can be seen in Table 3, both math and ELA mean scores increased significantly in the eighth grade when compared to fifth and sixth grades.

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics and MANOVAs for ITBS version two (2013–2017).

	Mean	Std. deviation	Year to year sig. level
Math
5th	32.68	20.31	5 = 6
6th	34.47	20.39	6 = 7
7th	39.37	25.81	7 = 8
8th	45.58	20.45	5, 6 < 8
ELA
5th	43.90	19.85	5 = 6
6th	44.25	20.81	6 = 7
7th	51.70	23.56	7 = 8
8th	53.85	21.83	5, 6 < 8
Science
5th	35.20	16.31	–
6th	41.20	21.18	–
7th	46.20	24.67	–
8th	48.45	21.90	–

Table 4.

High school graduation and dropout rates.

	Graduated	Did not graduate
NS	114*	7*
Urban PS	544	223

Table 4 indicates the number of students from Nativity School (NS) and Urban Public Schools (Urban PS) who graduated or withdrew from high school.

*p < .05.

Table 5.

Postsecondary school enrollment.

	Enrolled	Did not enroll
NS	135*	23*
Urban PS	349	195

Table 5 indicates the number of students from Nativity School and Urban public schools who enrolled in postsecondary education.

*p < .05.

Hypotheses four and five stated that significantly more Nativity School students would graduate from high school and fewer would drop out of high school compared to their peers from the urban public school district. A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was implemented to determine the statistical differences between Nativity School students and urban public school students reported levels of high school graduation and dropout.

It was found that 114 students from the Nativity School graduated from high school while 7 either did not graduate or earned their GEDs. The total sample including both Nativity School students and urban public school students consisted of 888 participants. In order to determine if there was a significant difference between Nativity School and public school students who graduated from high school, a chi-square goodness-of-fit test was implemented to assess expected versus actual counts of students who either graduated or dropped out of high school. As shown in Table 4, results revealed significantly more students from the Nativity School than would be expected graduated from high school (X²(1, 888) = 29.53, p < .0001). Additionally, standardized residuals were calculated to determine the significance of dropout rates. Follow-up analyses using Sharpe’s (2015) criteria revealed significantly more students from Nativity School graduated high school than expected, while fewer Nativity School students dropped out of school than expected.

Hypothesis six stated that significantly more students from Nativity School would enroll in postsecondary education compared to students from the urban public school district. It was determined that 349 females from public school district attended a two-year, four-year, or technical college between 2007 and 2017, and 195 females did not enroll. Nativity School data revealed that 135 students enrolled in postsecondary school, while 23 did not enroll. Therefore, a total of 702 females comprised this sample.

A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed to assess expected versus actual counts of students who enrolled in postsecondary education. As shown in Table 5, results of the chi-square were significant (X²(1, 702) = 25.80, p < .0001), suggesting differences in postsecondary enrollment existed between the two schools. Standardized residuals revealed a significantly greater number of Nativity School students enrolled in postsecondary education than expected and significantly fewer abstained from enrollment than was expected.

Discussion

The results suggest that Nativity School students statistically improved their achievement scores over time, while a greater number of public school students performed below grade level over time. These findings provide preliminary evidence for the success of the Nativity School, suggesting that the methods employed may be effective at closing the achievement gap between at-risk females who attend an urban public school and an alternative school. This is also concurrent with other research that has found differences between public schools and alternative schools in terms of academic achievement (e.g., Lubienski & Lubienski, 2006). Nativity School students were also found to be more likely than their peers to graduate from high school and enroll in a two-year, four-year, or technical college, while students who stayed in the urban public school system were more likely to drop out of high school and/or refrain from enrolling in college than would be expected.

Results also found that females who remained within the Nativity School through eighth grade did not statistically differ on their scores of academic achievement when compared to students who dropped out of Nativity School early. This finding suggests that the results are not attributable to differences in intellect between these groups of students on measures of achievement, and the differences between students’ academic achievement could be attributed to differences between the school systems. Further, students who did leave Nativity School early likely left on their own volition (e.g., relocation, behavior problems). Therefore, these findings should be interpreted as accurate depictions of the academic potential for students who graduate from Nativity School and are likely not a result of a potentially skewed sample arising from Nativity School retaining only the brightest students in the neighboring communities.

Of note, science scores did not significantly improve from the time entering Nativity School to the time leaving Nativity on the second version of the ITBS. One potential reason for this finding is that Nativity School may have altered their lesson plans to emphasize achievement in ELA and mathematics more so than in science, perhaps in part because Nativity School teachers may feel that science is less of a priority to furthering their students’ education. It is also possible that there may simply be fewer resources in the school to aid students who are struggling with science (e.g., tutors), perhaps due to the increased cost of science equipment (e.g., lab specimens, microscopes, etc.) when compared to materials needed for math and ELA (primarily books and other standard teaching equipment). It is also possible that these differences between versions are simply an artifact of the second version of the ITBS measuring science in a different manner than the first version. To determine whether this is the case, future studies could examine the comparability of the two versions of the ITBS.

Explanation of findings

Since the participants in the Nativity School and the urban public school samples were similar in terms of racial/ethnic identity and SES (as determined by qualification for free lunch), it is unlikely that the reported results were due to the two samples differing on relevant demographic characteristics. This begs the question of why are students from Nativity School improving academically, are more likely to graduate from high school, and are more likely to enroll in postsecondary school compared to females from the urban public school district? The answer likely lies in Nativity School’s use of the Nativity Model. This explanation aligns with previous research that supports the effectiveness of Nativity schools for use with low income, minority students (Fenzel, 2009; Podsiadlo & Philliber, 2003). The research further suggests that this model works for specific methods that are not typically implemented within the urban public school systems: a committed staff with strong leadership skills, an extended school day that allows for tutoring and mandatory participation in extracurricular activities, monthly parental involvement, and increased support services to guide students throughout high school and college (Bolshakova et al., 2011; Fenzel & Domingues, 2009; Podsiadlo & Philliber, 2003; Woolfolk Hoy & Davis, 2006).

A committed staff fosters a sense of community within the school structure, and it provides a place where students can feel cared for and safe. The longer school day also permits students to be more engaged within the school community, thus fostering a sense of cohesion and strengthening the relationships between students and faculty. The small class sizes also promote community within the classroom between peers, further strengthening the communal feeling. Furthermore, Nativity schools grant students the opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities that might not be attainable in other settings, such as yoga or soccer, and scholarships, which are not offered in public schools.

Parental involvement also likely adds to the sense of community within the school system, as well as fostering parent-child interaction that could positively affect a child’s motivation and academic success. In-house tutoring aims to promote academic growth, particularly for students who may be entering the Nativity School below grade level. Additionally, the graduate support system provides resources for students navigating their futures and education, and it ensures partnership and guidance throughout their advancing academic experiences.

Previous research also suggests that methods incorporated in Nativity schools likely increase a student’s sense of self-efficacy, which may help to increase feelings of resilience for risk factors common among minority students, such as stereotype threat (Guyll et al., 2010). The extracurricular clubs and activities may also aid students in gaining leadership skills and making healthy life choices, thus promoting growth opportunities both in the classroom and the community. In contrast, traditional urban public schools likely do not have the ability to offer many of these resources (e.g., small class sizes, mandatory parental involvement) that Nativity schools offer, thus contributing to the differences in achievement outcomes.

Much of the time, students from low SES, minority backgrounds are additively affected by risk factors at both the individual and institutional levels. Graduating from high school and enrolling in college are two major milestones that may help close the achievement gap by allowing these students to enhance their education and earn a well-paying job to combat the cycle of poverty. Successful academic outcomes may also contribute to decreasing the likelihood of engagement in substance use and teenage pregnancy, thus increasing the likelihood of staying in school longer. Collectively, it appears that Nativity School, while implementing the Nativity Model methods, is able to positively increase the likelihood that low income, minority females can improve their academic achievement, graduate from high school, and enroll in postsecondary education when compared to females attending the urban public school district.

Limitations and future directions

A major limitation of this study is that academic achievement was measured differentially in the two school systems, thus their scores could not be directly tested. Based on the results, Nativity School students increased their academic performance from the time of enrollment to the eighth grade, whereas it appears that public school students’ performance decreased over time, as is evidenced by more students falling into the Basic and Below Basic groups in the seventh or eighth grade of enrollment. Given that public schools within this urban district do not report stanine, local, or national percentiles, it makes it extremely difficult for parents to know how their children are performing relative to their peers. There are several ideas moving forward for researchers looking to combat the incompatibility between tests.

First, future research could focus on analyzing the compatibility of the ITBS and MAP achievement tests to provide options for direct analysis. If this proved impossible, another option includes administering the same achievement measure (e.g., MAP test) to students from both types of schools and following their performance longitudinally. However, as longitudinal research is both costly and time consuming, researchers may choose to assess at the Nativity School since data on these students is already being following over time. Specifically, researchers could petition for students at Nativity School to take the MAP test once per year and then compare their results to students from the public school system. Additionally, future research may consider looking into students’ records and analyzing previous MAP data taken before they transitioned into Nativity School. Overall, comparing two versions of standardized tests is extremely difficult without the proper descriptive statistics provided. It would be beneficial for state tests to report mean scores as well as local and national percentiles to further research in this area.

Another limitation of this study is that only female participants were included, thereby limiting the generalizability of these findings to all-boy or coed schools. Additionally, the samples were modest in size, thereby affecting the power of the study. Future studies could overcome these limitations by collecting data from schools that consist of a mix of all-boy, all-girl, and coed schools, ensuring that more participants are able to participate in the study to increase power and generalizability. Research has found that males in urban school systems traditionally report lower achievement scores and higher dropout rates than females. This implies the need to analyze differences between males who attend an alternative school that uses the Nativity Model and those in the traditional public school system.

As the purpose of the current study was to examine differences between the school systems, another area of future research could encompass a dismantling study that would assess the effectiveness of each method employed by Nativity School and compare these methods to the methods used within the urban public school district. This would offer more specific information regarding the effectiveness of the Nativity Model with at-risk students. Additionally, acquiring qualitative data from both schools to evaluate students’ senses of self-efficacy, community in the school, teacher and staff helpfulness, and other protective factors would also aid in interpreting the reasons behind any obtained results. Research could manipulate the resources provided to schools (e.g., small class sizes, mandatory parental involvement) to shed light onto which factors are contributing the most to the students’ increases in academic achievement, although it would be important to ensure that participants in both conditions were receiving the best available education in line with federal and state regulations.

Footnotes

Notes

Informed Consent

	N	F	df, Error df	Sig.	Partial ƞ²	Power
Math	41	5.46	2, 39	0.01	0.22	0.82
Writing	41	6.47	2, 39	0.00	0.25	0.88
Vocabulary	41	12.91	2, 39	0.00	0.40	1.00
Science	41	33.59	2, 39	0.00	0.63	1.00

The top portion of Table 2 indicates the means and standard deviations for students from Nativity School in four subject areas on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills between the years of 2007 and 2012. Column four displays the significance between grades based on mean test scores. The bottom portion of Table 2 indicates the MANOVAs for each subject area.

ORCID iD

Kristen Haeberlein

References

Basch

C. E.

(2011). Teen pregnancy and the achievement gap among urban minority youth. The Journal of School Health, 81(10), 614–618.

Bolshakova

V. L.

Johnson

C. C.

Czerniak

C. M.

(2011). “It depends on what science teacher you got”: Urban science self-efficacy from teacher and student voices. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6(4), 961–997.

Botticello

A. L.

(2009). School contextual influences on the risk for adolescent alcohol misuse. American Journal of Community Psychology, 43(1–2), 85–97.

Boykin

A. W.

Noguera

(2011). Creating the opportunity to learn: Moving from research to practice to close the achievement gap. Ascd.

Bulotsky-Shearer

R. J.

Fernandez

Dominguez

Rouse

H. L.

(2011). Behavior problems in learning activities and social interactions in head start classrooms and early reading, mathematics, and approaches to learning. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 39–56.

Coleman

Hoffer

Kilgore

(1982). Achievement and segregation in secondary schools: A further look at public and private school differences. Sociology of Education, 55(2/3), 162–182.

Coulson

A. J.

(2009). Comparing public, private, and market schools: The international evidence. Journal of School Choice, 3(1), 31–54.

Diperna

J. C.

Volpe

R. J.

(2005). Self-report on the social skills rating system: Analysis of reliability and validity for an elementary sample. Psychology in the Schools, 42(4), 345–354.

Edmonds

(1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15–24.

10.

Eubanks

E. E.

Levine

D. U.

(1983). A first look at effective schools projects in New York city and Milwaukee. The Phi Delta Kappan, 64(10), 697–702.

11.

Fenzel

L. M.

(2009). 1 Effective alternative urban middle schools: Findings from research on NativityMiguel schools. Middle Grades Research Journal, 4(3), 1–17.

12.

Fenzel

L. M.

Domingues

(2009). Educating urban African American children placed at risk: A comparison of two types of Catholic middle schools. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry & Practice, 13(1), 30–52.

13.

Fenzel

Monteith

(2008). Successful alternative middle schools for urban minority children: A study of nativity schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 13(4), 381–401.

14.

Guyll

Madon

Prieto

Scherr

K. C.

(2010). The potential roles of self-fulfilling prophecies, stigma consciousness, and stereotype threat in linking Latino/A ethnicity and educational outcomes. Journal of Social Issues, 66(1), 113–130.

15.

Hair

N. L.

Hanson

J. L.

Wolfe

B. L.

Pollak

S. D.

(2015). Association of child poverty, brain development, and academic achievement. JAMA Pediatrics, 169(9), 822–829.

16.

Hill

Mrug

(2015). School-level correlates of adolescent tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use. Substance Use & Misuse, 50(12), 1518–1528.

17.

Hoffer

Greeley

A. M.

Coleman

J. S.

(1985). Achievement growth in public and catholic schools. Sociology of Education, 58(2), 74–97.

18.

Hoover

Dunbar

Frisbee

Oberley

Bray

Naylor

Qualls

(2003). The Iowa tests: Interpretive guide for teachers and counselors. Riverside Publishing.

19.

Johnson

Hannon

(2014). Measuring the relationship between parent, teacher, and student problem behavior reports and academic achievement: Implications for school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 18(1), 38–48.

20.

Lacour

Tissington

L. D.

(2011). The effects of poverty on academic achievement. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(7), 522–527.

21.

Lee

V. E.

Loeb

(2000). School size in Chicago elementary schools: Effects on teachers' attitudes and students' achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 3–31.

22.

Lewis

J. D.

DeCamp-Fritson

S. S.

Ramage

J. C.

McFarland

M. A.

Archwamety

(2007). Selecting for ethnically diverse children who may be gifted using Raven’s standard progressive matrices and Naglieri nonverbal abilities test. Multicultural Education, 15(1), 38.

23.

Lubienski, C., & Lubienski, S. (2006). Charter, private, public schools and academic achievement: New evidence from NAEP mathematics data.

24.

McGiverin

Gilman

Tillitski

(1989). A meta-analysis of the relation between class size and achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 90(1), 47–56.

25.

McGraw-Hill

(2010). Missouri assessment program grade-level assessments technical report 2010. Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

26.

McGraw-Hill

(2016). Missouri assessment program grade-level assessments technical report 2016. Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

27.

Merton

R. K.

(1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. The Antioch Review, 8(2), 193–210.

28.

Moonie

Sterling

D. A.

Figgs

L. W.

Castro

(2008). The relationship between school absence, academic performance, and asthma status. Journal of School Health, 78(3), 140–148.

29.

Page

S. J.

(2009). The impact of departmentalization on sixth grade achievement on the Missouri assessment program. Lindenwood University.

30.

Podsiadlo

R. J. J.

Philliber

W. W.

(2003). The nativity mission center: A successful approach to the education of Latino boys. The nativity mission center: A successful approach to the education of Latino boys. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 8(4), 419–428.

31.

Rollock

(2007). Why black girls don’t matter: Exploring how race and gender shape academic success in an inner city school. Support for Learning, 22(4), 197–202.

32.

Sharpe

(2015). Your chi-square test is statistically significant: Now what? Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 20, 1–10.

33.

Stewart

E. B.

(2007). Individual and school structural effects on African American high school students' academic achievement. The High School Journal, 91(2), 16–34.

34.

Woolfolk Hoy

Davis

H. A.

(2006). Teacher self-efficacy and its influence on the achievement of adolescents. Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, 5, 117–137.