Moving schools: antecedents, impact on students and interventions.

Mobility in education can be caused by families moving from city to city or state to state as employment and housing changes for them; however, it can also be the result of families moving their children from one school to another within the same area, for other, more personal reasons. As the student mobility rate rises, concerns about its impact on the young learner increase (Wright, 1999).

This research investigated student mobility in a regional area in northern Queensland where the mobility rate increases each year. Through interviews with school personnel and some parents, a number of issues surrounding student mobility were examined. These included antecedents to mobility, perceived impact of mobility on students and strategies to address issues of mobility.

Keywords

educational mobility

transfer policy

academic achievement

transfer programs

attendance

social restrictions

Introduction

Mobility in schools has been described as 'patterns of family movement that involve students in relocating school, or periods of time when they do not attend school' and, further, a mobile student is described as 'a student who moves school more than twice in a three year period' (Commonwealth Department of Education, Science & Training & Department of Defence, [DEST & Def], 2000, p. 2). Student mobility can be caused by families moving from city to city or state to state as employment and housing situations change for them, but it can also be the result of families moving their children from one school to another within the same area for other, more personal reasons.

Australia has one of the most highly mobile populations in the western world (Settles, 1993, in Fields, 1997).The Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001, in DEST & Def, 2002) estimated that, within the overall Australian population, thirty per cent of residents from households with children moved at least once over a three year period, with an increasing proportion of this relocation being movement between one state or territory and another. The average Australian moves more than eleven times during his or her lifetime (Bell, 1995, in Fields, 1997). Regional areas such as the one examined in this research record a slightly higher mobility rate (forty-two per cent) than urban areas (forty per cent) (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2000).

While a number of positive impacts of mobility have been cited in research (Whalen & Fried, 1973; Wyer, Danaher, Kindt & Moriarty, 1997), mobility often causes inconsistency or interruption in the educational experience of the student (Ligon & Paredes, 1992, in Fisher, Matthews, Stafford, Nakagawa & Durante, 2002).

Literature review

Antecedents to mobility

Research in the area of mobility cites a number of factors that contribute to student mobility. According to Rumberger and Larson (1998) these factors are either family based or school based. Family-based reasons for mobility are mainly due to employment, lifestyle and housing changes, family changes (DEST & Def, 2002; Fields, 1997) and income (Martin, 2002; Wright, 1999).With the impact that global economic pressures have had on the labour market, employment moves have become more frequent, as one or both parents' work commitments or their seeking stable employment require relocation of the family to another geographical area (DEST & Def, 2002).

Lifestyle-related movement, where a family makes a conscious decision to relocate to a larger home or a better climate, accounts for many of these moves. Housing changes, due to instability in the housing market, eviction, a lack of adequate, low income housing and home ownership also account for a considerable number of family moves (DEST & Def, 2000; Fisher et al., 2002; Mantzicopoulos & Knutson, 2002; Martin, 2002; Skandera & Sousa, 2002).

Changes to the family that might serve as antecedents to mobility include financial or social difficulties, death, divorce, separation, disharmony or conflict (Astone & McLanahan, 1994; DEST & Def, 2002; Fisher et al., 2002; Rumberger & Larson, 1998). Family dysfunction can also lead to children becoming state wards or being placed in foster care. Some family moves may also be culturally related, due to cultural ceremonies, family business or recreational activities (DEST & Def, 2002).

Low family income is a determining factor for mobility (Audette, Algozzine & Warden, 1993; Family Housing Fund, 2002; Fisher et al., 2002; Skandera & Sousa, 2002). According to Skandera and Sousa, children from low income families or children who attend inner-city schools are more likely to have changed schools frequently than those from middle to high income families. Further, Alexander, Entwisle and Dauber (1996, in Wright, 1999, p. 347) state that 'higher income students frequently transferred into and out of the district, whereas lower income students more often transferred within the district'.

Ethnic minority groups are often cited as more mobile populations (DEST & Def, 2002; Family Housing Fund, 2002; Wright, 1999).

In Australia, there are a significant number of Indigenous students with high mobility rates, often with patterns of movement centred on a 'base' school, and intermittent travel to other locations in which enrolment in school may or may not occur. A summary of three Commonwealth projects on Indigenous student mobility found that within an Indigenous student population of 793 students from seventy-six schools, there were 1,039 movements in a nine-month period. These included transitions from primary to secondary school as well as movements in and out of school (DEST & Def, 2002).

School-based reasons for mobility feature less prominently in the literature. School issues such as social adaptability, engagement in curricula, academic difficulty, and safety may all lead to mobility in the student population. Additionally, time absent from school, misbehaviour and low educational expectations were found to correspond to students changing schools or dropping out of school before completing high school. Forty per cent of primary school students who changed schools did not change residences (Rumberger & Larson, 1998). With figures such as this, schools' roles in student mobility cannot be ignored. As Rumberger & Larson (1998, p. 1) note, 'Schools are at least partly responsible for high student turnover and, consequently, should help address the problem'.

Impact on students

Mobility affects all stakeholders, from students and their families to school personnel and system functioning. This paper looks at the affects of mobility on the learner. Benefits related to mobility include increased resilience and higher academic achievement in some students (DEST & Def, 2002; Whalen & Fried, 1973). Rahmani (1981, in Fields, 1995) found no significant negative impacts on measures of academic and social achievement for the children of Defence Force families, despite high levels of mobility. This could be due to the highly structured and supported relocations of Defence Force families (Duffy, 1987, in Fields, 1995).

In much of the literature, however, mobility is seen as problematic to students, families and school systems. Academic achievement may be lower (Astone & McLanahan, 1994; Family Housing Fund, 2002; Fisher et al., 2002; Ingersoll, Scamman & Eckerling, 1988; Mantzicopoulos & Knutson, 2000; Parades, 1993, in Wright, 1999; Rumberger & Larson, 1998) and behaviour and social interactions can be adversely affected by mobility (DEST & Def, 2002; Fields, 1997; Fisher et al., 2002; Mantzicopoulos & Knutson, 2000). In a study of highly mobile ten to fifteen year olds in Queensland, Fields (1995) found that seventy per cent of the sample had experienced significant social and school adjustment problems. Peer acceptance ratings of these students were decidedly lower than their non-mobile peers. They may feel socially isolated and consequently take up with other marginal students who may be involved in antisocial behaviour. Highly-mobile students report themselves to be more insecure, inconsistent, complaining, critical, and with fewer friends than their less-mobile peers (Audette, Algozine & Warden, 1993).

Some health and developmental problems may be the result of mobility. Research (Wood, Halfon, Scarla, Newacheck & Nessim, 1993, in Rumberger & Larson, 1998, p. 2) has found that children who moved frequently (six or more moves by age eighteen) 'were between fifty per cent and 100 per cent more likely to be reported to have a delay in growth or development, to have a learning disorder, to have repeated a grade, or to have four or more frequently occurring behavioural problems'. Ingersoll et al. (1998), however, caution that using mobility as a blanket excuse for negative functioning is a misnomer: 'Mobility affects may be solely a function of contamination of pre-existing differences, including socioeconomic status, or they may be reflective of other effects related to disruption of smooth psychosocial development' (1988, p. 6).

Intervention 

A number of strategies have emerged to address perceived negative impacts of mobility; however, many of them remain strategies in theory only and have not yet been taken up in practice. These include modifications to curriculum and record keeping, procedural and attitudinal changes, and community involvement with mobile families.

Curriculum and record keeping strategies include developing a national curriculum that would make local as well as interstate moves less complicated (Fisher et al., 2002; Williams, 1996, in Wright, 1999), and implementing computerised record exchange systems to keep track of student progress (DEST & Def, 2002; Fields, 1997; Fisher et al., 2002).

Procedural changes needed to facilitate student mobility include teacher training in flexible instructional strategies, multiple methods of assessment and strategies to help address the challenges facing mobile families (Fisher et al., 2002). Communication between schools and school districts can be strengthened (Martin, 2002). In a longitudinal study of children, families and teachers on Queensland's show circuit, Giroux found that through teacher knowledge of students' educational contexts and children, parents, tutors and teachers 'crossing borders' (Giroux, 1990 in Wyer et al., 2000, p. 6) between each others' cultural systems, the issues of mobility can be 'recognised and celebrated rather than labelled as inherent "problems".' Academic support, such as tutoring and before-and-after school programs and personal development studies within the school combined with social support in the form of orientation and welcome sessions for new students or buddy systems also help to engage mobile students (Fisher et al., 2002; Ingersoll, Scamman & Eckerling, 1988).

Attitudinal changes can increase students' and families' sense of membership and engagement with the curriculum. Through a nurturing and personalised climate, where teachers have high expectations of and are emotionally available to their students, negative impacts of mobility can be addressed (Fields, 1997; Fisher et al., 2002; Mantzicopoulos & Knutson, 2000; Rumberger & Larson, 1998). Wyer et al. (2000, p. 1) suggest that teachers step out of their own context of educator and get to know students, families, lifestyles and contexts as a way of getting to know and appreciating mobile students and by doing so improving their educational outcomes. Their research, however, focused on teachers from the School of Distance Education who, they concede, 'may be better positioned than most regular schools to promote the kind of "border crossing"' they describe.

Community involvement, in the form of extracurricular activities that support families and forge stronger bonds between the school and the home is considered by Fisher et al. to be the best strategy for preventing high mobility. This could include health services, breakfast and lunch programs, clothing pools, counselling, adult and parent education classes, family camps and multi-age programs. These strategies would strengthen family bonds to help families work efficiently despite mobility. Keeping parents strong contributes to more effective partnerships between parents and schools in the academic and social development of their children (Fisher et al., 2002). Parents also need more information about the impact on children of changing schools (Martin, 2002).

While these strategies seem to hold great potential in addressing the negative impacts of mobility, Fisher et al. (2002, p. 319) note that, in practice, 'rarely are antecedents a focus of school-level interventions'. In their investigations, no programs were identified that directly address school-related causes of mobility; for example, while school personnel recognised the importance of building caring, trusting relationships with families, no systemic efforts were identified to create such relationships in actual practice.

Methodology

This research examined antecedents and impacts of mobility in a regional area in northern Queensland. Between 1997 and 2000, four out of every ten adults in Queensland had moved at least once. Of these, seventy-two per cent had relocated within twenty kilometres and forty-nine per cent within five kilometres of their previous home. Employment opportunities and changes in housing were the main reasons cited for the moves. Seventy per cent of the moves were made by unemployed persons. Thirty-eight per cent of couples with children and forty-three per cent of single parents with children moved during this period (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2000).

Fisher et al.'s (2002) 'Cycle of Mobility' was used as a framework for this study. The Cycle of Mobility focuses on the antecedents of mobility, or sources contributing to movement in and out of schools/districts (school and family circumstances); the impact of mobility on students; and intervention strategies to address negative impacts of mobility. The research questions were:

* What factors in families appear to give rise to mobility?

* What are the perceived impacts of mobility to students?

* What intervention strategies are currently in place to address any perceived negative impacts of mobility? How successful are these? Could more be done to address the negative impacts of mobility?

This study focuses on primary school students. This is because, as Parades (1993, in Wright, 1999) suggests, mobility has a more pronounced impact at earlier grade levels. Through Education Queensland (2002), the researchers identified five focal primary schools with high mobility rates within the regional area. Due to time restrictions on this research, we felt that taking our sample from five schools would be manageable while still providing us with rich description of factors influencing mobility. We also felt that for this study, we would focus on state schools, where mobility is considerably higher than in private schools. Future studies might include a larger sample of schools, including a variety of private and public schools. All schools and participants are referred to by pseudonyms only.

Of the five schools, only Niranda State School ranked in the level of 'high' mobility in statewide data; three others ranked in the average to high levels of mobility and one ranked in the average level of mobility for the state (Education Queensland, 2002) although, according to school personnel, it has high levels of mobility within a portion of the school population. When attendance records were examined, schools reported mobility for 2003 as follows: Niranda--fifty per cent; Bridgewater--forty per cent; Primbee--fifty-six per cent; Wellington--thirty-seven per cent; and Egmont--twenty-three per cent.

Niranda State School Niranda State School has a school population of ninety students. It is situated on the main highway to the north of the city. The area surrounding the school has changed dramatically in the past decade. Where once the school was surrounded by houses, many of these have been replaced by units and government subsidised accommodation. Quite a number of the students do not come from the immediate area, but are dropped off and picked up by parents on their way to and from work in the city. Student numbers have been declining each year at Niranda State School, so a number of the classrooms are now being utilised by a support services unit.

Bridgewater State School Bridgewater State School, with a student population of 483, is located in a multicultural, low-socioeconomic area. Similar to Niranda State School, Bridgewater State School is also experiencing a downward trend in student population. The school population has changed dramatically over the last decade, with large numbers of migrant and Indigenous families moving into the area. A large public housing estate is part of the school catchment area. Bridgewater State School also has a designated special needs unit attached to it.

Primbee State School Primbee State School is an inner city school with approximately 282 students, many of whom are from migrant or Indigenous families. Similar to the two previous schools, Primbee has experienced numerous changes to the area, with houses replaced by flats and government subsidised dwellings. A special needs unit is also located at Primbee State School.

Wellington State School Wellington State School, with a student population of 441, has one of the highest populations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in an urban primary school setting in Australia. A special needs unit is part of the school. Many of the students live in a nearby public housing estate. There is quite a high level of student movement between Wellington, Primbee and Bridgewater schools, particularly by Indigenous students.

Egmont State School Egmont State School, with 798 students, is located in a higher socioeconomic suburb and has students with a wider range of family backgrounds. Once the 'elite' primary school in the region, it has faced many changes in recent years. Because of the popularity of this school, enrolments have been open only to students living in the immediate area, or family members of current students.

Once schools agreed to be involved in the research, one administrator and one teacher from each school was asked to participate in the research by agreeing to being interviewed. Mantzicopoulos and Knutson (2000) focused their research on parental reports of the impacts of mobility on the family and the children, but we felt that adding school personnel's perceptions would enrich our findings. To the total of ten school participants we added a school social worker and an in-school program coordinator, whose experiences with mobile students and their families added further insight into the situation in the region. We weren't prepared, however, for parents' responses to being interviewed.

Each school identified five to ten families with high mobility rates. Permission was sought from them to participate in an interview by letter, telephone call (where possible), and in some cases through visits to the home. This last strategy was suggested by one of the teachers at Niranda School, who encouraged a door knock as he felt that parents probably wouldn't respond to our letters of request.

The only parents who consented and were interviewed were from Egmont State School, the school with the lowest mobility rate in the study. In the four other schools, families either did not return their permission forms or had moved again by the time the researcher went to visit the homes.

School personnel were interviewed at the school and parents in their homes, using open-ended questions about antecedents to and consequences of mobility. Participants were also asked about any intervention strategies that may have been implemented to address the negative impacts of mobility and the success of these strategies, and whether more could be done in this area.

Interviews were audiotaped where possible (some participants would not agree to this) and notes were taken by the researchers as the interviews proceeded. Interviews were transcribed and coded, looking for emergent themes (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). Emergent codes were then applied to the entire data set and displays formatted to group information for further analysis Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Findings

Antecedents

In accordance with the literature, participants cited housing changes, where families change residences within the same area or move to another geographical location (interstate, overseas and to areas outside the region) and employment of parents as antecedents to mobility.

Significantly, however, three strongly-reported antecedents to mobility in this area were not reasons of housing and employment.

Family breakdown, with suggestion of domestic violence, was one of these. One teacher, Dave, said that at times one parent was hiding from the other parent, possibly fearing for their own and their children's safety:

   A lot of instances have been where mothers are dodging the father,
   usually trying to limit, or actually in a lot of cases that we have
   had here, stop access, and therefore they don't want anyone to know
   where they are. They can go to great lengths of changing their
   names, and therefore that is why they
   constantly move ... They usually get into an employment stream
   which will support that movement.

A number of employment opportunities in this regional area are indeed seasonal. It is a popular tourist destination, particularly during the cooler months and also a stopping point for shows and circuses that tour Queensland. A need for privacy and anonymity may be one reason why parents were so difficult to recruit for this research.

Cultural issues were the second antecedent to mobility that was strongly reported in this area, and that may help to account for families having moved by the time a researcher did a door knock. Noted particularly within the Indigenous population, this issue affected families going back to the Torres Strait Islands to visit relatives, attend funerals or join in cultural celebrations. Health of relatives was also named as a reason for families moving. Years Four and Five teacher, Lisa said, 'Children go up to the islands to see their families and they are taken up there and they can be gone for two or three months at a time.' Leonard, principal of Bridgewater School, added that some families 'don't get back until weeks after school starts.'

The third category of strongly-cited antecedents to mobility was school-based problems, primarily the behaviour of the child. Lisa noted that some children 'move school because they are getting into trouble at one school and they think they can go to another school and that the trouble won't follow them. But the truth is that they haven't made any changes themselves.' Anecdotes from school personnel describe these situations as follows:

   The child that is leaving my class is leaving because he is down
   here currently from Thursday Island [in the Torres Strait] and
   living with his aunty, and his behaviour is so poor that she cannot
   control him and she is sending him back to live with his mother on
   Thursday Island (Ralph, Year Six teacher).

   I had a boy who was getting into sniffing glue and he was getting
   into a lot of trouble here at school, so he was just taken front
   here and taken over to Egmont School. But I noticed that he is now
   back in Wellington School, so I don't know what happened at Egmont,
   but he was just moved simply because he was getting into trouble
   (Lisa).

   At the moment, I've got a girl who has been getting into trouble
   and I think the family might have moved house to Fairfield--they
   said they were going to Fairfield and she said 'no', she was going
   to stay here at Wellington. She has been getting into a little bit
   of trouble. The parents have said, 'Oh no, we're going to take her
   to Fairfield' (Lisa).

Another school-based reason for mobility given was the behaviour of parents and teachers. Sandra, an in-school program coordinator, noted that sometimes parents don't fit into the school. At times, mobility may be the result of teachers picking on students, said Year Three teacher, Kate. Another participant noted that at times parents move their children because they don't like the child's teacher.

These three antecedents to mobility--family breakdown, cultural issues and problems within the school--feature strongly in this research. Each of these antecedents may help to explain parents' hesitance to participate in research about mobility: in the first case to remain anonymous; in the second because they had actually moved again for cultural reasons; and in the third because of their problems or dissatisfaction with the school and possibly the education system.

Consequences of mobility

As was mentioned in the literature review, this research found that the process of moving schools was reported to provide the child with new experiences that help build resilience and independence in some children. As acting principal, Kylie, noted, 'An upsetting routine to one child can be a challenge to another child--it depends on children's resilience.' The experiences children bring with them may also assist them to excel in some school subjects. Dave reported that 'some students have a wealth of experience and knowledge coming from different places, so they excel at subjects like science, history and SOSE.'

But school personnel and parents reported other positive impacts of mobility. These included a disruption to undesirable friendships and a creation of new friendships, which could impact favourably on the child's behaviour. School principal, Warren, said, 'Sometimes when a child moves, behaviour improves--where the friendships which were influencing the behaviour are no longer there to detract from learning.'

Unfortunately, participants in this research reported a number of negative impacts of mobility on school achievement, social interactions and behaviour of the child, similar to those in prior research. But contrary to the literature, no mention was made, either by school personnel or parents, of any impacts of mobility on health and development. This may be based on the very small input parents had in this study, considering that parents are largely responsible for health matters for their children. Had more parents participated, perhaps mention would have been made of health and developmental impact.

All participants reported the negative impact of mobility on school achievement. Gaps experienced through missing chunks of schoolwork were said to make it difficult for a mobile student to catch up with their new class. Lisa observed that there are

   ... gaps in their skills and knowledge because they haven't had the
   continuous curriculum, so that when we go to teaching something, or
   go back over something or something comes up, the rest of the class
   know it and they [the mobile students] are just sitting there.

If students arrive from another area, particularly from interstate, they can be unfamiliar with the curriculum altogether. Year Six teacher, Patrick said, 'Kids become disenfranchised--they often come in too late in the term to pick up on what is happening.'

Many of the mobile students were reported to require special support programs to address their academic needs; yet mobility was said to disrupt these programs, and the length of time it often takes to transfer students' records from the old school to the new one can mean the problems are not addressed for lengthy periods of time, if at all. Warren said:

   Generally, mobile students benefit from special programs and then
   these are disrupted. Appraisement is an example. It takes quite a
   bit of time and effort to carry out an appraisement on a student,
   and often you just get it carried out and they move.

Besides schoolwork suffering and students needing to catch up on missed work, participants said that there are a number of social problems associated with student mobility, many of these associated with settling into a new school environment. Dave noted:

   The students themselves may not be able to fit in to the community
   of the school. It makes it very difficult for the students to build
   good relationships with other students, and friendships. They
   usually require a lot of catching up to get up to the level that we
   are at in the school, or within the school environment.

A mother added that some days her son seemed 'really down' at home and didn't want to go to school.

Another negative impact of mobility mentioned was friendships and relationships with other students and teachers This included both the disruption of established friendships, which caused sadness and grief in some children, and the difficulty of making new friends in a new environment.

Barbara, mother of twelve-year-old Mark, reported that Mark has found it difficult to make friends in new schools. She described the friendships he had established as 'on again, off again' friendships and said that as Mark moved into the upper primary grades, he felt less and less accepted by other children. But she added that this could be partly due to his interests, which are more inclined towards the arts, while the schools Mark had attended focused more on sports.

Parents also mentioned that at times other children teased their children. Teachers commented that mobile students often seem anxious, nervous, unsure, shy, reserved and reluctant to stay in school. One teacher noted that at times, mobile students don't try to fit in because they know they will leave again soon. According to Warren, these are signs of the deep impact mobility has had on the child. Sandra related this story:

   There was a little boy who I remember very distinctly. He had moved
   around a lot. His parents were both long-term unemployed and very
   mobile. He came to our school after quite a number of other schools.
   He was very reserved when it came to making friends. We did a lot of
   work on fitting him into the class and assisting him with making
   friends. He was invited to a birthday party for another boy in the
   class. He was so excited. It was his first ever invitation to a
   birthday party and he was so looking forward to it. A week before
   the party, his parents moved town and he was gone. I will never
   forget the look of dismay on his face.

While both parents and teachers reported behaviour problems such as students not wanting to come to school, teachers reported that behaviour problems from previous schools were not necessarily addressed by the new school. This was partly due to the length of time it currently takes for information from one school to reach another, and also because some parents were reluctant to inform the new school of their children's behaviour problems, preferring to present the child as problem-free as a way of giving the child a fresh start. 'This means we often have to reinvent the wheel with a new student,' noted Warren.

Intervention

For the most part, participants reported negative impacts of mobility on students. Yet when asked to describe what practices were currently in place to address these impacts, responses were limited. Extra programs in reading, language, computers and social skills were used to address difficulties of all students, but not targeted to mobile students. No mention was made of universal curricula or modifications to existing curricula, and no changes to school record-keeping or transferring of student information were noted.

Individuals reported welcoming new students and their families and making an effort to get to know them through new parent nights, interviews and extra-curricular, community-building activities to familiarise them with the school community. A few school personnel said that uniforms and books were made readily available for new children, and that school staff listened to families' suggestions and made an effort to increase parents' awareness of the importance of education, and to discourage the move. A social worker talked about counselling children in preparation for a move and a teacher reported sending students 'to the next school with at least lots of work in their books that they've really made a start on their learning. And we can moderate where they are up to in their work so we can send on information to another school.'

Placing students in special needs classes was another strategy mentioned, but in the context of schools second-guessing parents:

   Sometimes parents don't give the full story on enrolment if the
   child has learning support issues, disabilities or behavioural
   problems. They want to keep it a secret so the kids can be given
   a fresh start, but then the issues rise fairly quickly. Sometimes
   these children need to be placed in a special needs class for
   their own benefit.

Brief mention was made of attendance officers who followed up on mobile or absentee children and their families and extra programming time for teachers to assess the levels of new students. Other strategies included buddy systems and continued support of the child. Lisa noted:

   We try to make [the new child] feel welcome and that they are part
   of the group. We try to do some group inclusive activities so we
   get them into a group in the classroom and we try to encourage them
   to have their say and maybe try to get them to be 'Student of the
   Week' or something, just to make them settle in and realise it is
   a good place to be.

Several participants reported the burden of extra work that classroom teachers experience while trying to help children fit into the class. This might affect their attitudes to mobile students and families, which seemed to indicate some disfavour. 'Most schools do not like students to move to another school in the area, and try to work issues through for the stability of the child,' said Sandra. Lisa added:

   When parents come in and say that they have been moved to another
   house and they were thinking about moving their children, we do
   try to discourage [this] with an interview, and talk through some
   of the issues. I think a lot of the teachers spend time with the
   children trying to give them a positive view of the school, and we
   watch out for them.

While some participants rated current strategies as successful, others mentioned that success was dependent on a number of variables, including parents' and child's cooperation and reasons for the move. Dave said:

   [Success] varies from student to student. It tends to be very
   successful for some students and not so successful for other
   students, especially students who move around a lot who don't
   really want to make friendships, but prefer to be on their
   own. And trying to improve them in group activities tends
   to disrupt the group of students.

Kylie felt that success is indicated by the communication channels with families. She said that a number of the families who had moved out of the area still stay in contact with the school. Lisa described a successful transition that she had facilitated:

   One that I had a success with is a little boy who came to me from
   a school on the Tablelands where they had been getting into a lot
   of trouble, mainly I think through his older brother. And when he
   came here he told me that they came here for a new start. So I
   explained to him that schools are all the same--buildings,
   teachers, children, lessons, principals, deputy principals, and
   that the only thing that can change is himself And we went through
   a whole lot of Choice Theory things on how he can make better
   choices and he has settled in really well.

While current practices to address the negative impact of mobility were fairly minimal, a number of strategies were suggested by participants as further ways to deal with the negative impacts of mobility. Many of these were also mentioned in the literature.

Suggestions that put responsibility on the school were largely procedural, such as hiring home/school liaison officers, parenting programs, student mentor programs, staff development on the mobility rate and its impacts, making sure information about the child and work folios were sent promptly to the next school and creating a national curriculum with universal assessment. Ralph put forward the idea of a central data collection agency to address this problem:

   It probably wouldn't be a bad idea that there was some central data
   collection agency rather than the parents or the guardians of the
   child be expected to bring on that child's transcript forms and
   report cards and stuff like that ... some sort of central agency
   that would hold the records of the children for a particular period
   of time, especially while they are in the state system.

Attitudinal changes within the school were alluded to through a few suggestions about fostering better communication with parents and other schools, but in general, mobility seemed to be viewed as problematic. It was suggested that the Department of Education should intervene to stop people from moving schools. One teacher said:

   I really think that the department needs to maybe look at ways and
   means of stopping people changing schools willy-nilly within a
   school district for no good purpose except that 'I'm getting into
   trouble here; I'll go over somewhere else'.

Conclusion

As Sandra so aptly said, 'Not many families move for conventional reasons, such as transfers with parents' jobs.' Although some families in the region investigated relocate to seek employment or changes to housing, the antecedents of family breakdown, maintaining cultural and family ties while maintaining schooling, and addressing behavioural problems in the original school are all issues that need further research and addressing.

The interviews conducted for this research support the notion that while there are positive impacts of mobility on the student, there are a great many negative impacts that impede upon learning and socialisation. Mobile students are faced with disruptions to and gaps in their studies, difficulties in adjusting to new situations, and extra burdens such as transport and financing new uniforms and supplies.

Participants reported some strategies that are currently implemented to address the negative impacts of mobility, but for the large part these strategies seem to rely on the good nature and welcoming attitude of the teacher, and the extra support for special needs within the school. According to participants, current strategies work for some students but not for others. This implies that it is a 'hit or miss' situation whether mobile students will actually meet their learning and socialisation outcomes during their school lives, and ultimately whether they will continue to high school completion.

A number of strategies to further address the negative impacts of mobility were suggested, including a central data collection agency to pass on information from one school to the next, more awareness of the issues of mobility to the student, the family and the school and stronger partnerships with families. Rather than recognising that changes to teacher attitudes and pedagogy could make a difference to the impact of mobility, participants in this study seemed to view mobility as something problematic that required teachers to complete more work, second-guess parents and reinvent the wheel, and that needed to be fixed by changing the students and their families. While viewed as 'problems', mobile students may experience further negative consequences of mobility.

As Fisher et al. (2002) observed, people recognise the importance of addressing the issues of mobility, but have yet to implement strategies that actually do so. A parent in this study noted, 'Lots of kids have issues [due to mobility]. There needs to be more help for the kids and more family support.'

References

Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Dauber, S. L. (1996). Children in motion: School transfers and elementary school performance. The Journal of Educational Research, 90, 3-12. In Wright, D. (1999). Student mobility: A negligible and confounded influence on student achievement. The Journal of Educational Research. 92(6), 347.

Astone, N. & McLanahan, S. (1994). Family structure, residential mobility, and school dropout: A research note. Demography, 31(4), 575-584.

Audette, R., Algozzine, R. & Warden, M. (1993). Mobility and school achievement. Psychological Reports. 72(2). 701-702.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2000). Perfect one day; moving the next. Media Release. Retrieved November 21, 2002, from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs2nsf/0/3CF4C6AB802B99CECA256A8

Bell (1995). In Fields, B. (1997). Children on the move--the social and educational effects of family mobility. Children Australia. 22(3), 4-9.

Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. (1998). Qualitative Research for Education. USA: Allyn and Bacon.

Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training and the Department of Defence. (DEST & Def). (2002). Changing Schools: Its impact on student learning. Retrieved December 19, 2002, from http://www.dest.gov.au/schools/publications/ 2002/mobility.htm

Duffy (1987). In Fields, B. (1995). Family mobility: Social and academic effects on young adolescents. Youth Studies Australia. 14(2), 27-31.

Education Queensland (2002). School Student Enrolment Mobility Relative to State Benchmarks, Cairns and Cape District for July 2002 by all Students. Retrieved January 28, 2003, from http://cdw2.qed.qld.gov.au/dev60cgi/rwcgi60.exe

Family Housing Fund. (2002). Kids Mobility Project Report. Retrieved December 19, 2002, from http://www.fhfund.org/Research/kids.htm

Fields, B. (1995). Family mobility: Social and academic effects on young adolescents. Youth Studies Australia. 14(2), 27-31.

Fields, B. (1997). Children on the move--the social and educational effects of family mobility. Children Australia. 22(3), 4-9.

Fisher, T., Matthews, L., Stafford, M., Nakagawa, K. & Durante, K. (2002). School personnel's perception of effective programs for working with mobile students and families. The Elementary School Journal. 102(4), 317 (18).

Giroux (1990). In Wyer, D., Danaher, P., Kindt, I., & Moriarty, B. (1997). Interactions with Queensland show children: Enhancing knowledge of educational contexts. Qualitative Journal of Educational Research. Vol. 13.

Ingersoll, G., Scamman, J. & Eckerling, W. (1988). Impact of student mobility on student achievement in an urban setting. American Educational Research Association Conference Proceedings.

Ligon, G. & Paredes, V. (1992) Student mobility rate: A moving target. In Fisher, T., Matthews, L., Stafford, M., Nakagawa, K. & Durante, K. (2002). School personnel's perception of effective programs for working with mobile students and families. The Elementary School Journal. 102(4), 317 (18).

Mantzicopoulos, P. & Knutson, D. (2000). Head Start Children: School mobility and achievement in the early grades. The Journal of Educational Research. 93(5), 305.

Martin, N. (2002). Addressing the causes and consequences of high student mobility: the role of school systems and communities. American Youth Policy Forum. Retrieved December 19, 2002, from http://www.aypforg/forumbriefs/2002/fb030102.htm

Miles, M. & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis--an expanded sourcebook. Second edition. USA: Sage Publications.

Parades, V. (1993, April). A study of urban student mobility. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA. In Wright, D. (1999). Student mobility: A negligible and confounded influence on student achievement. The Journal of Educational Research. 92(6), 347.

Rahmani (1981) in Fields, B. (1995). Family mobility: Social and academic effects on young adolescents. Youth Studies Australia. 14(2), 27-31.

Rumberger, R., Larson, K. (1998). Student mobility and the increased risk of high school dropout. American Journal of Education. 107(1), 1.

Settles (1993) in Fields, B. (1997). Children on the move--the social and educational effects of family mobility. Children Australia. 22(3), 4-9.

Skandera, H. & Soma, R. (2002). Mobility and the Education Gap. Hoover Digest. No. 3. Retrieved December 19, 2002, from http://www-hoover.standford.edu/publications/ digest/023.skandera.html

Whalen, T. E. & Fried, M. A. (1973). 'Geographic mobility and its effect on student achievement'. Journal of Educational Research. 67, 163-165.

Williams, D. (1996). Kids, schools suffer from revolving door. American Educator, 20, 36-39. In Wright, D. (1999). Student mobility: A negligible and confounded influence on student achievement. The Journal of Educational Research. 92(6), 347.

Wood, D., Halfon, N., Scarla, D., Newacheck, P. & Nessim, S. (1993). Impact of Family Relocation on Children's Growth, Development, school function and behavior. Journal of the American Medical Association. 270, 1334-38. In Rumberger, R., Larson, K. (1998). Student mobility and the increased risk of high school dropout. American Journal of Education. 107(1), 1.

Wright, D. (1999). Student mobility: A negligible and confounded influence on student achievement. The Journal of Educational Research. 92(6), 347.

Wyer, D., Danaher, P., Kindt, I., & Moriarty, B. (1997). Interactions with Queensland show children: Enhancing knowledge of educational contexts. Qualitative Journal of Educational Research. Vol. 13.

Dr Reesa Sorin is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Education at James Cook University, Cairns. Her research interests include student mobility, conceptualisations of childhood and emotional literacy.

Rosemary Iloste is a Community Development Officer for Education Queensland in the Cairns region.

Sorin and Iloste are hoping to do further research on mobility and retention strategies for primary school students.

Correspondence concerning this article can be addressed to Reesa Sorin, School of Education, James Cook University, PO Box 6811, Cairns, QLD 4870. Email [e-mail]

Dr Reesa Sorin

James Cook University

Rosemary Iloste

Education Queensland