bility of key aspects of curriculum within and across jurisdictions, and reducing nonessential structural mobility.
Mobilizing adaptive systems, by supporting parenting skills, fostering bonds with other competent and caring adults, fostering school engagement, nurturing brain development and self-regulation skills, and supporting cultural traditions and organizations that support child development and provide opportunities for children to connect with prosocial adults and peers.
Mobility is a complex phenomenon. Understanding its extent and nature, and particularly its effects on children’s educational progress, can help policy makers identify appropriate responses. A central question is whether mobility independently contributes to negative outcomes for certain groups of children and, if so, whether there are strategies that can reduce the negative effects. But as Cindy Guy noted in her opening remarks, mobility is a moving target; patterns may change over time and moves may have different effects in different circumstances. She and Ruby Takanishi both stressed that improved understanding of mobility and its effects are important because so many interventions designed for vulnerable children are place-based. The variation in mobility suggests not only a need for flexibility in the design of interventions, but also the importance of balancing the value of broad-based regional policies against the value of narrowly focused neighborhood or school-based interventions. With that context in mind, workshop participants turned to a close look at data on the children affected by mobility.