Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Modern School

(794 posts)
Tue Apr 24, 2012, 07:50 PM Apr 2012

Does Zip Code Really Matter?

A new report from the Brookings Institution reveals a strong correlation between housing prices and school test scores. However, many are claiming a causal relationship between housing prices and school quality, something that is not supported by the data.

There is indeed a strong correlation between housing prices and test scores. The Brookings study examined state standardized test scores from 84,077 schools in 2010 and 2011 and found that the average lower-income student attended a school that scored at the 42nd percentile on state tests, while the average affluent student attended a school that scored at the 61st percentile. The largest disparity was in the northeast, where homes near high-performing schools were worth 2.4 times more than those near low-performing schools on average. Connecticut’s Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk region had the largest test score gap and income disparity.

However, the main cause of both high test scores and exclusionary residency is familial wealth. It should be obvious that greater wealth allows one to purchase a more expensive home in a more affluent neighborhood. So long as neighborhood schools are attended primarily by children who live near those schools, they will continue to be segregated by class.

Wealth also leads to better health outcomes because wealthier people have greater access to healthy foods, cleaner environments, comprehensive health care, and less stressful working and living conditions. This results in affluent children having significantly lower rates of chronic disease and absenteeism, which can have a significant impact on academic success. They are much less likely to be born premature or with low birth weight, suffer lead poisoning or anemia, and numerous other conditions that can impair cognitive development or cause learning disabilities.

Affluent children have many other advantages growing up that improve their educational outcomes. For example, they have substantially larger vocabularies and pre-literacy skills before they have even entered kindergarten (see here and here) because they hear a greater variety of words at home as they grow up. They are also more likely to have enriching extracurricular opportunities like summer camps, travel, private arts and music classes, and they are more likely to have access to tutors, personal computers and educational toys and games growing up.

Of course affluent schools also tend to receive substantially more in donations from parents and community members than lower income schools, allowing them to retain arts programs, athletics and librarians. But the main reason for their higher test scores are the numerous life advantages their affluent students have enjoyed since the time they were still in the womb.

The report suggests that ending exclusionary zoning practices would significantly reduce the test score gap by making schools less segregated by social class. Desegregation of the schools might help raise test scores for some lower income students, particularly those who already have sufficient academic skills, motivation and familial support. But students who are far behind in credits and reading and math skills will need far more than the inspiration of being surrounded by higher achieving students or access to a librarian to bring them up to speed. There is nothing intrinsically better about affluent schools that would cause low performing students to suddenly excel.

If all schools were fully desegregated by class, with equal numbers of affluent and poor children, it is indeed likely that the gap in test scores between schools would decline. This is because the scores in the once predominantly affluent schools would likely decline with the influx of lower performing students while the scores in the hitherto lower income schools would rise with the influx of affluent children. However, desegregation should not have any significant effect on the test score gap between students of different socioeconomic backgrounds since their social class and life experiences would remain more or less unchanged.

It is also hard to imagine a scenario in which affluent parents would allow their privileged schools to be diluted with rabble from the other side of the tracks. These are the parents with the most political clout and the money to back it. They resist spreading parental donations equally throughout their school districts. They resist changing school funding rules to ensure that districts with lower property tax bases receive the same resources as their districts. They like their high test scores, Advanced Placement courses, arts electives and trouble-free campuses.

Yet if push came to shove and social class desegregation was imposed on them by the courts, they have the resources to transfer their children to elite private schools and many would likely do so.

Modern School
http://modeducation.blogspot.com/2012/04/does-zip-code-really-matter.html

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Kalidurga

(14,177 posts)
2. But, high income zip codes do actually get more money for their schools.
Tue Apr 24, 2012, 08:39 PM
Apr 2012

In Minnesota 68% of school funding comes from the general fund. Yet, high income zip codes still get nearly 2x more money than low income zip codes. This practice was ruled unconstitutional (1971) and is unconstitutional per the Minnesota State constitution where education equality was codified into law. Yet, here it is in 2012 and it still goes on.

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
3. At least in Wisconsin there is the referendum issue.
Tue Apr 24, 2012, 09:05 PM
Apr 2012

Can't remember how it works in Minnesota from when I lived there. Here, if a district needs more money for something, they can go to the voters. Guess which of the rich or poor districts usually vote to approve the referendums more than the other?

Modern School

(794 posts)
5. More money for schools doesn't equate to better learning outcomes for poor kids
Thu Apr 26, 2012, 11:50 PM
Apr 2012

It is true that wealthier zipcodes often get greater funding, through higher property tax revenues and through donations. However, what really boosts their test scores are the years of privilege that their affluent students have enjoyed. Simply plopping a few poor kids into one of these schools won't make most of them suddenly start testing well.

 

saras

(6,670 posts)
4. Yep - it's about money, and fairness.
Thu Apr 26, 2012, 12:27 AM
Apr 2012

The closest I can get to right-wing agrees that problem kids in schools are a problem to other students, but completely rejects their "solutions". I say we should fix the problems so that when you put EVERY American child in public schools together, they all get an education that is one of the best in the world, insightful, rigorous, and pluralist, suiting some combination of their most proficient gifts and their desired development, with the assumption that they will make the world of work fit them, rather than adapt to what employers demand of them.

Okay, enough of that.

Being more pragmatic, it usually looks best to me to start at the bottom, and fix the worst problems, and alleviate the worst suffering, then let improvements ripple up the system. If something else becomes an important problem, of course it should be addressed. Like right now, it seems impossible to address lots of important problems with the poor and barely above poor without addressing the problem of the 1%, unfair distribution of the world's resources, and the corruption of the current system.

You can argue that there's no legitimate reason for the social class of one's parents to control the quality of PUBLIC education available to one, but it's really hard to separate "quality" from "diversity". If the money for education all gets distributed equally, how much of it is available for elective things that one community but not another might be interested in? Or should it all go to statewide necessities, with no elective funds, and no opportunity for communities to address their own needs? How do you keep "different" from becoming "separate and unequal"?


The problem with using law to control behavior is that it's really easy to prohibit something, or to require something, but it's really hard to optimize something.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Education»Does Zip Code Really Matt...