The nature of education in the United States is unique in that a student’s socioeconomic background has a larger impact on their school performance than it does in other, comparably developed countries. An article in The Atlantic cited the 2012 Programme for International Student Assessment, which found that “fifteen percent of the American score variation is explained by socio-economic differences between students”, as compared to 10 percent in comparable countries (Ryan). The inequity of educational attainment between students of different income backgrounds, both between and within school districts, is a problem that should be addressed in order to facilitate more equitable and fair human capital gains for all students. Possible solutions to this problem are fairly new and still being explored as viable options, but have potential to help alleviate the issue.
One way that public school systems have attempted to address the achievement gaps between schools and districts is through alternative educational options, such as public charter schools. According to the National Charter School Research Center (NCSRC), charter schools can be defined as “independently managed, publicly funded schools” which tend to have more autonomy than a regular public school (NCSRC). They are funded through state resources on a per-student basis. They are not limited to a particular school district, and therefore are open to students from both high-performing and low-performing areas. However, the results from implementing a charter school program on educational achievement gaps are not strongly in favor of the program. (FINISH THIS)
Funding is a large contributing factor to the issue of inequality between school districts, and therefore altering the way public schools are funded could have a positive impact on the process of closing the achievement gap between students. The public school system in the United States was created as a direct reflection of the emphasis placed on state and local controls in the government, and thus much of the financing in public schools comes from state and local sources (Card & Payne). As a result, those districts with higher property values or higher household incomes enjoy a higher level of local funding than do “poorer” districts. The inequality in public school funding has been well-documented. (FINISH)
There are several different approaches to funding a public school. In the United States, the idea of local property taxes has always been an important part, but in the past 40 years, states have increasingly utilized such approaches as flat grants, minimum foundation plans, and variable guarantee plans (Card & Payne). By far the most popular approach between 1975 and 1991 among states whose funding plans were found unconstitutional has been minimum foundation plans, defined by Card & Payne as “systems that pay an amount per student that is higher for districts with lower tax bases”. As for the impact of minimum foundation plans on student outcomes, measuring the difference in performance is difficult to do across different districts. Upon investigating SAT scores for students in different financial reform systems, it was concluded that lowering spending inequality could reduce score disparities on the SAT by approximately 7 points, indicating that, in fact, the refinancing of school districts could have significant impacts on student achievement (Card & Payne).
Another aspect of school finance reform to be considered is how it changes the income distribution in neighborhoods. Income redistribution as a result of school finance reform is, on its own, a possible piece of the solution to equalizing students’ educational and long-term economic outcomes. This idea is based on the Tiebout model, which implies that “within-community homogeneity decreases as a result of an exogenous decrease in the ability of jurisdictions to set tax and expenditure levels” (Aaronson). The Tiebout model essentially argues that districts attempt to attract residents by developing tax programs and public goods, and households make the decision on where they live based on information about various districts and what they offer (Aaronson).
School finance reform may well be a contributing factor to the solution. How effective changing finance policies would be on educational attainment has been explored in numerous papers. (find papers) Implementing finance reforms may lead to unintended consequences or responses by a district. Card & Payne noted the fact that even if a state or states are forced to equalize funding in each district, the districts might “reduce local taxes in response to an increase in the amount of state aid”, which would simply cancel out the benefit of this increased state aid. In the period studied, it was found that local spending per student actually became more unequal during the 1980s (Card & Payne). Why does this matter? Tie back to the end – does school finance reform help student outcomes, or hurt, or nothing? Conclude – bring it all together
Another possible solution to be discussed is that of relocating students in order to equalize the income demographics in each school. The idea of economic integration through public housing projects in wealthy areas has been explored as a possible solution, most notably in Montgomery County in Maryland (Schwartz). The county is an extremely interesting case study, as it is one of the wealthiest counties in the country while also running an extensive public housing system that brings low-income students randomly into the wealthier school districts in the area. The way their public housing system works results in a relatively random assignment of children in public housing to different schools in the area, allowing for a study that directly compared student achievement for children living in public housing in high-poverty and low-poverty areas (Schwartz).
The study of Montgomery County, published in 2010, found large performance gaps between publicly housed students who attended low-poverty schools and those in high-poverty schools after a period of five to seven years, indicating that, in fact, relocating a student may dramatically improve their educational experience (Schwartz). While these results indicate a significant relationship between where a student is housed and how well they do in school, one study may not be completely sufficient to prove a causal relationship. Upon investigating further, similar experiments and studies, the relationship becomes weaker in significance.
An experiment known as Moving to Opportunity (MTO) was put in place between 1994 and 1998 which randomly selected families living in high-poverty areas and moved them to low-poverty areas in order to observe how this change in location would affect the families over time. The findings of the study were not what many expected: it seemed that there was no significant impact on the educational achievement of children who had been moved to a low-poverty area (Rothwell). However, the results differed as more time went on and researchers could follow the children of these families as they entered the workforce and became adults.
Depending on the paper, the impact of MTO differed in significance in children’s lives. The most recent report, published nearly 20 years after the initial experiment began, hypothesized that if the children were young (about eight years old) when their family moved, their educational outcome was much more positive than if they were older at the time of moving (Chetty, Hendren, & Katz). The paper, which took into account the disruption cost of moving and the benefits of living in a low-poverty area, found that benefits outweighed costs if the child was young, but that there was actually a net negative effect on older children. Ultimately, a child who was impacted by MTO when they were young was expected to increase their lifetime earnings by approximately $302,000 (Chetty, Hendren, & Katz). As a result, it is possible that relocation could improve lifetime student economic outcomes, but it seems to be at least somewhat dependent on the child’s age when the move occurs.
Education is not only a key determinant of economic development, but a universal right as defined by the United Nations. Therefore, it is extremely important to work towards an public educational system that will provide equal opportunities for as many students as possible. While none of these solutions are definitively able to improve the economic outcomes of students, there is an abundance of evidence pointing to a hopeful outcome, especially in relation to school finance reform and family relocation through public housing projects.