Most school districts across New York State are experiencing a steady rise in the number of students residing in economically disadvantaged households. This increase comes despite nearly a decade of economic recovery since the depths of the Great Recession in 2009 and 2010.
New York State defines economically disadvantaged students as:
Those who participate in, or whose family participates in, economic assistance programs, such as the free or reduced-price lunch programs, Social Security Insurance (SSI), Food Stamps, Foster Care, Refugee Assistance (cash or medical assistance), Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP), Safety Net Assistance (SNA), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), or Family Assistance: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). If one student in a family is identified as low income, all students from that household (economic unit) may be identified as low income.
This more comprehensive marker of hardship is intended to replace the old free or reduced price lunch figure, which, due to new community eligibility rules, was becoming increasingly unreliable. And since the economically disadvantaged determination is based on administrative data, rather than families completing paperwork to receive discounted lunches, it appears to be a more reliable measure of need. However, shifting eligibility criteria for these means tested programs could distort the economically disadvantaged rate over time.
That said, none of the listed programs changed significantly between 2011 and 2017. And yet, the rate of economically disadvantaged students seems to be steadily climbing in most suburban or rural districts around the state. Interestingly, it is level or even declining in some of the highest poverty urban districts in New York, and is falling substantially in New York City. The visualization below contains three tabs, and one has the option of changing counties.
I really don’t know how to interpret this data, but it is quite interesting. Are more families slipping closer to poverty, even as the overall child poverty rate remains relatively steady? Is this a continuation of a long-term trend of smaller family sizes for higher earning families? Are well-to-do families fleeing the state? Are low-income families moving to suburban districts? Is it a reflection of greater uptake of public assistance programs, but not a change in actual economic status? Have state data staff improved their matching algorithms to identify more children and families receiving economic assistance?