Does a Student's Lunch Ticket Hint at Their Civics Test Score? Exploring the Link Between School Poverty and Civic Learning

 Imagine two schools: one in a wealthy suburb, the other in a neighborhood facing economic hardship. Students in both are learning about government, their rights, and their responsibilities as future citizens. But do they have an equal shot at succeeding on a test measuring that knowledge? New research suggests that a seemingly unrelated factor – how many students at a school qualify for subsidized lunches – might offer a clue.

Brief Context of the Research Problem (Why It Matters): Civic education is crucial. It’s how young people learn to participate in democracy, understand societal issues, and become engaged citizens. In many places, standardized tests, like Florida's End-of-Course (EOC) assessment in civics, are used to measure how well students are learning these important concepts. However, we also know that a student's socioeconomic status (often indicated by things like eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch, or FRPL) can be linked to their overall academic performance. This raises an important question: Are these civics tests truly showing us what students know about civics, or are they reflecting broader inequalities? Understanding this is vital for ensuring every student gets a fair chance to learn and succeed.  

Simplified Explanation of Key Finding(s): A study published in Educational Practice and Theory took a close look at this very question in Florida. We investigated whether there was a relationship between the percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) at a school and the school's overall success rate on the 7th-grade civics EOC exam during the 2015-2016 school year.  

What we found was a strong connection. Specifically, schools with higher percentages of students eligible for FRPL tended to have lower percentages of students passing the civics exam. This doesn't mean that qualifying for FRPL causes a student to do poorly on the test. Rather, it points to a correlation: the two things tend to go together. We found this connection to be quite significant – about 61% of the difference in civics test proficiency rates between schools could be statistically associated with the differences in their FRPL percentages. To put it more concretely, for every 1% increase in a school's FRPL student population, there was, on average, about a half-percent decrease in the rate of students passing the civics test.  

Real-World Implications or Applications: So, why does this matter to you, whether you're a parent, student, teacher, or just an interested community member?

1. Equity in Education: This research highlights that students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, who often attend schools with high FRPL rates, may face more hurdles in demonstrating their civics knowledge on these standardized tests. This isn't about individual student ability but about systemic factors. Are these students getting the same resources? Are their schools equipped to address the unique challenges poverty can bring to the classroom?  
2. Interpreting Test Scores Carefully: It reminds us to be cautious when we see school-wide test scores. High or low scores might not just be about the quality of civics instruction or how much students learned about government. They might also reflect the economic realities of the students in that school. This study emphasizes that standardized tests may measure affluence as much as, or even more than, subject competency.  
3. Policy Considerations: For policymakers, findings like these could signal a need to look beyond test scores when evaluating schools or civics programs. It could also point to the importance of investing more resources in schools serving high-poverty populations to help level the playing field. Addressing the root causes of educational disparities, including economic ones, is crucial.

Brief Mention of Methodology (Simplified): How did the we figure this out? We looked at publicly available data from 348 schools across Florida for the 2015-2016 school year. For each school, we had two key pieces of information:

·         The percentage of all students in the school who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (this was their stand-in, or "proxy," for the school's overall socioeconomic status).

·         The percentage of 7th-grade students at that school who passed the civics EOC test.  

We then used a statistical method called simple linear regression to see if these two sets of numbers were related and how strongly. This method helps understand if you can see a pattern or trend when you compare two variables.  

This chart shows a general trend: schools with more students eligible for subsidized lunch (higher on the vertical axis) tend to have fewer students passing the civics test (further left on the horizontal axis). Each dot is one school. Note: The article's scatterplot actually plots "% of FRL" on the Y-axis and "Percentage Level 3 or Above" on the X-axis.

Limitations and Future Research Directions: It's important to remember that this study shows a correlation, not causation. It doesn't mean that being from a low-income family directly causes a student to score lower, or that subsidized lunch programs themselves are the issue. Many other factors could be involved, such as school funding, teacher experience, access to learning resources outside of school, parental involvement, and health and nutrition, all of which can be linked to socioeconomic status.  

The authors themselves point out that while the trend is strong, there are "outlier" schools – those with high poverty rates but relatively good civics scores, and vice-versa. Future research could dive into these schools to see what they might be doing differently that helps students succeed despite economic challenges. Understanding these success stories could provide valuable lessons for all schools.  

Final Takeaway and Call to Action: The most important takeaway is that a student's journey in civic education, and how we measure it, is intertwined with broader issues of economic equity. While learning about democracy is vital for everyone, we need to ensure that the way we assess that learning doesn't inadvertently penalize students already facing economic disadvantages.

Learn more in the full article: You can read the original research here:

Furgione, B., Evans, K., Ghimire, N., Thripp, R., & Russell, W. B., III. (2018). What’s on your plate? Correlating subsidized lunch and proficiency on the civics end-of-course assessment. Educational Practice and Theory, 40(1), 51-66. https://doi.org/10.7459/EPT/40.1.04

(Direct link: What’s on Your Plate?: Correlating Subsidized Lunch and Pro...: Ingenta Connect)