Re: 3A State Marching Participants Enrollment/Econ Data
Posted by Basically, yes on 11/2/2019, 7:06 am, in reply to "Re: 3A State Marching Participants Enrollment/Econ Data"
As far as I know, the definition of economically disadvantaged has not changed. And if you compare all 3A schools to all 5A/6A schools, no, they are not inherently more disadvantaged. However, there are hardly any 3A schools in the 0-20% disadvantaged range, while there are lots of 5A/6As in that range, and those tend to be the ones you see at SMC/Honor Band finals. 2A/3A schools tend to occupy more of the middle of the economic spectrum, while 5A/6As are spread across the whole gamut from 1% to 99%. Why? Think about the locations in which you tend to find smaller schools vs. larger schools, and the employment opportunities found in such locations, and the requisite education level for such employment opportunities. There's your answer. |
I'd be interested in knowing, as an outside observer (not a 3A director) if the definition of "economically disadvantaged" has changed in the past 15-20 years.
The only reason I ask is that while these numbers offer a wide range (25%-82%), over 50% of these schools have a 50% or higher economically disadvantaged status.
So which is true? Has the "metric" shifted? Are 3A students inherently more likely to be disadvantaged than bigger schools? Or is it just coincidence that this year over half of the students performing are economically disadvantaged?