Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Housing Policy is School Policy: Socioeconomic Integration as an Educational Reform Strategy - Richard D. Hahlenberg Presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Housing Policy is School Policy: Socioeconomic Integration as an Educational Reform Strategy - Richard D. Hahlenberg Presentation

503
views

Published on

Presentation by Richard D. Kahlenberg for the Looking Back, Moving Forward Conference - March 2013, University of Richmond and Virginia Commonwealth University

Presentation by Richard D. Kahlenberg for the Looking Back, Moving Forward Conference - March 2013, University of Richmond and Virginia Commonwealth University

Published in: Education

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
503
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • What you see here is when you compare children living public housing who attended green zone schools to those who attended red zone schools, the gap is even bigger. Essentially, the positive impact of attending low-poverty schools outweighed the district’s strategy of extra resources directed to it’s neediest elementary schools. And the district’s investments in its red zone schools are those that have been supported by research.
  • Transcript

    • 1. Housing Policy Is School Policy:Housing Policy Is School Policy:Socioeconomic Integration as anSocioeconomic Integration as anEducational Reform StrategyEducational Reform StrategyLooking Back, Moving Forward:Looking Back, Moving Forward:A Conference on Race, Class, Opportunity andA Conference on Race, Class, Opportunity andSchool Boundaries in the Richmond RegionSchool Boundaries in the Richmond RegionThe University of RichmondThe University of RichmondRichard D. KahlenbergRichard D. KahlenbergMarch 14, 2013March 14, 2013
    • 2. Housing StrategiesHousing Strategies GautreauxGautreaux Program (Chicago). Lottery winners 4Program (Chicago). Lottery winners 4times less likely to drop out of high school (5%times less likely to drop out of high school (5%vs. 20%) and twice as likely to attend collegevs. 20%) and twice as likely to attend college(54% vs. 20%) as lottery losers.(54% vs. 20%) as lottery losers. Federal Moving to Opportunity Program. FewFederal Moving to Opportunity Program. Fewachievement gains but a poor test: control groupachievement gains but a poor test: control group(73.9% subsidized lunch) vs. treatment group(73.9% subsidized lunch) vs. treatment group(67.5% subsidized lunch) in schools attended.(67.5% subsidized lunch) in schools attended. Local Inclusionary Zoning Programs – e.g.Local Inclusionary Zoning Programs – e.g.Montgomery County, MD.Montgomery County, MD.
    • 3. Heather Schwartz Study ofHeather Schwartz Study ofMontgomery County, MDMontgomery County, MD RAND researcher Heather Schwartz tests the effectiveness toRAND researcher Heather Schwartz tests the effectiveness totwo strategies: extra resources (class size reduction, professionaltwo strategies: extra resources (class size reduction, professionaldevelopment, extended learning time) in high poverty “red zone”development, extended learning time) in high poverty “red zone”schools ($2,000 more/pupil) vs. “inclusionary housing” policyschools ($2,000 more/pupil) vs. “inclusionary housing” policythat allows low-income students to attend low poverty “greenthat allows low-income students to attend low poverty “greenzone” schools with fewer resources.zone” schools with fewer resources. Examined 858 children randomly assigned to public housingExamined 858 children randomly assigned to public housingunits scattered throughout Montgomery County and enrolled inunits scattered throughout Montgomery County and enrolled inMontgomery County public elementary schools 2001-2007.Montgomery County public elementary schools 2001-2007.
    • 4. Public Housing Students in Green Zone SchoolsPublic Housing Students in Green Zone SchoolsOutperformed Those in Red Zone SchoolsOutperformed Those in Red Zone SchoolsSource: Heather Schwartz, “Housing Policy Is School Policy.” in The Future of School Integration (NewYork: The Century Foundation, 2012), p. 45, Figure 2.6.
    • 5. Montgomery County StudyMontgomery County Study Low-income public housing students in low povertyLow-income public housing students in low povertyschools performed at .4 of a standard deviation betterschools performed at .4 of a standard deviation betterin math than low-income public housing students inin math than low-income public housing students inhigher poverty schools with more resourceshigher poverty schools with more resources Low-income students in green zone schools cut theirLow-income students in green zone schools cut theirlarge initial math gap with middle-class students in half.large initial math gap with middle-class students in half.The reading gap was cut by one-thirdThe reading gap was cut by one-third Most of the effect (2/3) was due to attending low-Most of the effect (2/3) was due to attending low-poverty schools, and some (1/3) due to living in low-poverty schools, and some (1/3) due to living in low-poverty neighborhoodspoverty neighborhoods
    • 6. Classmate Characteristics, by School or Student SESClassmate Characteristics, by School or Student SESa Percentage of schools reporting student acts of disrespect for teachers in classrooms at least once per week. High-poverty refers to schools with 50 percent or more of theirstudents eligible for free or reduced-price lunch; and low-poverty refers to schools with 20% or less of their students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.b Percentage of students who have attended two or more schools between first and third grades. High-poverty refers to the study’s lowest family income group (family incomeis less than $10,000). Low-poverty refers to the study’s highest family income group (family income is $50,000 or more).c Number of words in student’s vocabulary by 36 months of age. High-poverty means child is part of a family receiving welfare, and low-poverty means child is part of aprofessional family.Source: Rachel Dinkes, Emily Forrest Cataldi, and Wendy Lin-Kelly, Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2008, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department ofEducation and U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., December 2008, Table 7.2, p. 99 (teacher disrespect); U.S. General Accounting Office, Elementary School Children:Many Change Schools Frequently, Harming Their Education (Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1994) (mobility); and Paul Barton and Richard Coley, Windows onAchievement and Inequality (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 2008), p. 9, Figure 2 (vocabulary).
    • 7. Parental Involvement, by Student SESParental Involvement, by Student SESSource: 1988 National Educational Longitudinal Study data on PTA membership cited in Richard D. Kahlenberg, All TogetherNow (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2001), p. 62; National Center for Education Statistics, Parent and FamilyInvolvement in Education, 2006-07 School Year, August 2008, p. 9, Table 3 (volunteer and committee service). NCES considersstudents living in households with incomes below the poverty threshold to be poor, or low-SES. Both studies gauge parentalinvolvement based on the socioeconomic status of students—not schools.
    • 8. Teaching Quality, by School SESTeaching Quality, by School SESSource: U.S. Department of Education, The Condition of Education 2008 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,2008), p. 51; Richard M. Ingersoll, cited in “Parsing the Achievement Gap,” Educational Testing Service, 2003, p. 11;Linda Darling-Hammond, “Doing What Matters Most: Investing in Quality Teaching,” National Commission onTeaching and America’s Future, 1997, pp. 25–27.
    • 9. Salary Increase Needed to Counteract Turnover Effects Caused by DifferencesSalary Increase Needed to Counteract Turnover Effects Caused by Differencesin Student Characteristics Between Large Urban and Suburban Districts, byin Student Characteristics Between Large Urban and Suburban Districts, byExperience Class of Teacher (for Female, Nonminority Teachers)Experience Class of Teacher (for Female, Nonminority Teachers)Source: Eric A. Hanushek, John F. Kain, and Steven G. Rivkin, “Why Public Schools Lose Teachers,” Journalof Human Resources 39:2 (2004): 326-54.
    • 10. Parallel Schools Strategy:Parallel Schools Strategy:Socioeconomic IntegrationSocioeconomic Integration 80 U.S. Districts, educating 4 million students, using80 U.S. Districts, educating 4 million students, usingsocioeconomic status as a factor in student assignment.socioeconomic status as a factor in student assignment.Examples:Examples: Cambridge, MA. All schools should fall within + or –Cambridge, MA. All schools should fall within + or –10 percentage points of district average for free and10 percentage points of district average for free andreduced price lunch (40%).reduced price lunch (40%). Chicago, IL. 85% low-income so begin by integrating aChicago, IL. 85% low-income so begin by integrating asubset of magnet and selective schools, with the goal ofsubset of magnet and selective schools, with the goal ofintegrating more as middle-class return.integrating more as middle-class return.
    • 11. 40 Years of Research40 Years of Research 1966 Coleman Report: SES of family the biggest predictor of1966 Coleman Report: SES of family the biggest predictor ofachievement; SES of school the second biggest predictor.achievement; SES of school the second biggest predictor. 2006 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)2006 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)for 15 year olds in science showed a “clear advantage infor 15 year olds in science showed a “clear advantage inattending a school whose students are, on average, from moreattending a school whose students are, on average, from moreadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds.” Finland leastadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds.” Finland leasteconomically segregatedeconomically segregated 2006 Douglas Harris CAP study: Math data from 18 million2006 Douglas Harris CAP study: Math data from 18 millionstudents found minority students have greater gains in raciallystudents found minority students have greater gains in raciallyintegrated schools and that “a substantial portion of the ‘racialintegrated schools and that “a substantial portion of the ‘racialcomposition’ effect is really due to poverty and peercomposition’ effect is really due to poverty and peerachievement.”achievement.”
    • 12. Percentage of Schools That are Persistently High-Percentage of Schools That are Persistently High-Performing, by SESPerforming, by SESNote: High-poverty is defined as at least 50 percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch; low-poverty is defined as fewer than 50percent eligible. High-performing is defined as being in the top third in the state in two subjects, in two grades, and over a two-year period.Source: Douglas N. Harris, “Ending the Blame Game on Educational Inequity: A study of ‘High Flying’ Schools and NCLB,” Educational PolicyStudies Laboratory, Arizona State University, March 2006, p. 20.
    • 13. Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, NationalAssessments of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2011 Math Assessment, Grade 4.Poverty Concentrations and AchievementPoverty Concentrations and AchievementNational Assessment of Educational Progress 2011,Fourth Grade Math Results241 244240237234232224223258265258 2562522512462382102202302402502602700% 1-5% 6-10% 11-25% 26-34% 35-50% 51-75% 76-99% 100%AverageNAEPmathscorePercentage of students in school eligible for free or reduced price lunchStudents Eligible for Free or Reduced Price Lunch Students Not Eligible
    • 14. Socioeconomic IntegrationSocioeconomic IntegrationEffect on Middle-Class StudentsEffect on Middle-Class Students Numbers Matter. Numerical majority sets theNumbers Matter. Numerical majority sets thetone.tone. Middle-Class children on average are lessMiddle-Class children on average are lesssensitive to changes in school environment thansensitive to changes in school environment thanlow-income students.low-income students. Social and moral benefits of diversitySocial and moral benefits of diversity
    • 15. Concluding ThoughtsConcluding Thoughts Poor kids can learn, if given the rightPoor kids can learn, if given the rightenvironment.environment. 95% of education reform about making separate95% of education reform about making separatebut equal work rather than reducing the numberbut equal work rather than reducing the numberof high poverty schools.of high poverty schools. Housing policy and school policy can serve asHousing policy and school policy can serve ascomplementary strategies.complementary strategies.
    • 16. Contact InformationContact Information Richard D. KahlenbergRichard D. Kahlenberg Senior FellowSenior Fellow The Century FoundationThe Century Foundation 1333 H Street, N.W. 101333 H Street, N.W. 10ththFloorFloor Washington, D.C. 20005Washington, D.C. 20005 kahlenberg@tcf.orgkahlenberg@tcf.org www.tcf.orgwww.tcf.org