BA+ Signal in High-Poverty Schools: Summary Note Generated: 2026-02-21 Question Can we provide clear, plain-language numbers on how strongly school/community BA+ rates relate to proficiency in high-poverty schools, and compare that to low-poverty schools? Data used - data/processed/SchoolDataWithAddressesAndCensusSES.csv (ELA) - data/processed/SchoolDataMathWithAddressesAndCensusSES.csv (Math) - data/processed/SchoolDataScienceWithAddressesAndCensusSES.csv (Science) Scope and filters - School-level analysis, Total Population (All Students). - Non-charter, non-virtual schools for comparability with prior work. - Weighted by Number of Participants. - School rows assembled by district/school ID; Science uses All Grades row where present, ELA/Math aggregate grade rows to school level. Variable notes - Outcome: Percent Proficient. - Poverty: Students Experiencing Poverty (ODE At-a-Glance school-level field). - BA+: ACS_Ed_BA_or_Higher_Rate (stored in the processed files as proportion values; converted to percent units in these tests). - Attendance control (for adjusted tests): Attendance_Percent_Regular_Attenders. What we tested 1) Statewide composition and poverty gradient context - Statewide share check: the school-population proxy shows Students Experiencing Poverty at about one-third of students. - Direct assessment subgroup rows added later put tested-participant poverty shares somewhat lower, at about 26.5% to 30.6% depending on subject; this memo still uses the school-level poverty field because the analysis is school-level. - Statewide school-level poverty-proficiency gradients were quantified to answer: "roughly one-third of students in school-population terms, but how big is the statewide effect?" 2) BA+ strength inside high-poverty schools (bivariate) - High poverty defined two ways: - >=40% Students Experiencing Poverty - >=50% Students Experiencing Poverty - Reported weighted correlation and weighted slope (proficiency points per +10 BA+ points). 3) BA+ strength in high-poverty schools after controls (multivariate) - Compared: - Base model: proficiency ~ poverty + attendance - Full model: proficiency ~ poverty + attendance + BA+ - Reported BA+ adjusted slope and added explanatory power (delta R^2). 4) Apples-to-apples low-poverty comparison - Same model framework, low poverty defined as <20%. - Also reported middle band 20-40% as a bridge between low and high. Key findings A) Statewide composition and effect - Students Experiencing Poverty is a minority share statewide: - About 33.27% poverty vs 66.73% non-poverty (ADM-weighted school-pop proxy). - Direct subgroup reminder: - Later assessment-group merges put tested-participant poverty shares below that proxy level, at roughly 26.5% to 30.6% depending on subject. - Despite that, statewide poverty gradients are large: - Roughly -7.9 (ELA), -7.1 (Math), -6.6 (Science) proficiency points per +10 poverty points (non-charter/non-virtual estimates). B) BA+ is clearly positive overall, but weaker inside high-poverty bands - Overall BA+ slopes (all non-charter/non-virtual schools): - ELA +5.50 points per +10 BA+ - Math +5.75 points per +10 BA+ - Science +4.45 points per +10 BA+ - High poverty >=40% BA+ slopes: - ELA +1.64 per +10 BA+ (r=0.191) - Math +1.60 per +10 BA+ (r=0.203) - Science +1.46 per +10 BA+ (r=0.181) - High poverty >=50% BA+ slopes: - ELA +0.97 per +10 BA+ (r=0.110) - Math +1.13 per +10 BA+ (r=0.146) - Science +0.96 per +10 BA+ (r=0.122) C) Low-poverty comparison confirms a stronger BA+ signal - Low poverty <20% BA+ slopes: - ELA +4.83 per +10 BA+ (r=0.585) - Math +5.53 per +10 BA+ (r=0.533) - Science +4.55 per +10 BA+ (r=0.491) - Middle band 20-40% BA+ slopes: - ELA +2.33 - Math +3.30 - Science +1.62 Interpretation: - BA+ matters in every band. - The BA+ signal is strongest in low-poverty schools, weaker in middle-poverty schools, and weakest in high-poverty schools. - In practical terms, high-poverty context appears to dampen (not erase) the BA+ gradient. D) BA+ still contributes after controlling for poverty and attendance in high-poverty schools - High poverty >=40% (adjusted BA+ slope; delta R^2): - ELA: +0.90 per +10 BA+; delta R^2 = +0.011 - Math: +1.29 per +10 BA+; delta R^2 = +0.025 - Science: +0.83 per +10 BA+; delta R^2 = +0.010 - High poverty >=50% (adjusted BA+ slope; delta R^2): - ELA: +0.75 per +10 BA+; delta R^2 = +0.007 - Math: +1.01 per +10 BA+; delta R^2 = +0.017 - Science: +0.76 per +10 BA+; delta R^2 = +0.009 Interpretation: - Even after accounting for poverty level and attendance, BA+ remains positive. - Independent BA+ lift is modest in high-poverty bands, strongest in Math, and smaller in ELA/Science. Method cautions (keep in narrative) - These are school-level observational associations, not causal claims. - BA+ is a community context measure, not a direct measure of parents of tested students. - Suppression and missingness rules still apply for some ODE fields. Pitch-ready paragraph (Option 1 voice) Even in high-poverty schools, places with more college-educated adults tend to do a bit better, but the lift is much smaller than in low-poverty schools. In our 2024-25 statewide school data, a 10-point increase in BA+ is linked to roughly 1.5 points of added proficiency in high-poverty schools, compared with about 5 points in low-poverty schools. Put simply: BA+ still matters in high-poverty communities, but poverty appears to blunt how much that advantage shows up in test outcomes.