Tag Archives: affordable housing

Want More Equitable Schools? Look at Housing and District Boundary Policies.

In a new report, Alex Spurrier, Sara Hodges, and I outline the very real impact of policy decisions across housing, funding, and education, made at all levels of government. 

In Priced Out of Public Schools: District Lines, Housing Access, and Inequitable Educational Options, how district boundaries are drawn and where accessible housing is located means that low-income families are priced out of some school districts and segregated from more affluent families. This isn’t only exclusion from certain public schools, but also exclusion from academic opportunities (such as magnet schools or Advanced Placement courses) and extracurricular activities. 

In looking at the 200 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, we found nearly 500 “barrier borders” across the country that have deep funding implications:

  • 12.8 million students live in districts with a high concentration of low-income housing and generate $6,355 per-pupil less in school funding from local, state, and federal sources than their affluent peers in districts with inaccessible housing.
  • Districts with inaccessible housing have an average of $4,664 more per-pupil than the “average” district, while districts with accessible housing have $1,691 less per-pupil than the “average” district.

This work joins a cadre of important studies and news media coverage on how seemingly random boundaries and borders are actually deliberate policy decisions. (Check out the Urban Institute’s latest study on within-district attendance boundaries and race, as well as the archives from EdBuild.)

Simply put, this is an intentional policy decision — sometimes made decades ago, but not always. We can also intentionally address it.

If we want equitable schools, I’ve long argued for making funding more equitable

The radical, but swift policy solution would be to decouple the real estate market from school funding, allowing local property taxes to play a minimal role in funding schools (if at all). Instead, states could create a state-funded education system (essentially replacing local funding) and distribute that funding equitably and based on student needs. 

Alternatively, if the policy landscape makes replacing local property taxes nearly impossible, states could seriously invest their dollars in leveling the playing field so that communities with higher property values do not continue to systematically disadvantage lower-income communities. 

There are also ways to fiddle around the ends if using property taxes for school funding continues, including the state limiting how much property taxes can be used locally and redistributing any amounts over the cap.

But changing funding isn’t the only avenue to pursue. States and locales could simply eliminate the mismatch between school district boundaries and city or county limits. It’s hard to imagine a rationale for one city, such as greater Chicago, to have 353 districts (and 45 barrier borders). Which also makes it hard to imagine what the rationale of these policies might be, if not the resulting exclusion of some families from some schools and resources. States with the highest number of school districts also tend to have the greatest number of barrier borders: eight of the 10 states that account for 70% of the nation’s barrier borders also rank in the top 10 states for highest number of school districts. Some metropolitan areas may be too big to have one mega-school district, but drawing boundary lines to explicitly divide communities based on income is inequitable and wrong.

Finally, there is a role that the federal government can play, and that’s in housing policy. At a baseline, there should be more low-income housing in more communities. The reality is that the need for low-income housing far outpaces the supply of affordable options, and sequestering low-income families together (particularly when physically far from important educational and other resources) is inequitable.

With the infusion of funds from the federal government, now is the time to reexamine and redraw what may seem like random funding, housing, and boundary decisions that are far from random. They are indeed intentional. The question is, can we be intentional about creating a more equitable landscape?

Priced Out of Public Schools: District Lines, Housing Access, and Inequitable Educational Options is part of an ongoing Bellwether examination of how finance and inequity in education shortchange millions of students and families.

 

How Inequities in Housing Affect Education — and Vice Versa

Photo courtesy of cottonbro for Pexels

As part of the Priced Out of Public Schools: District Lines, Housing Access, and Inequitable Educational Options release, Bellwether asked housing expert Malcom Glenn to weigh in on how finance and inequity in education and housing shortchange millions of students and families across the country.

There’s an old adage in politics, repeated in some form by everyone from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Sen. Tim Scott to President Barack Obama: a person’s ZIP code should not determine their destiny. More often than not, the two factors at the intersection of ZIP codes and social determinants are fair housing and education. Policymakers tend to think of these as separate issues and address them in silos. But from an equity perspective, rarely do you find two issues as inextricably linked — or as generationally interrelated — as housing and education.

Housing is the foundation for much of what comes after in a person’s life — the Urban Institute called it “the first rung on the ladder to economic opportunity,” and the absence of stable housing has significant negative impacts on health outcomes, family well-being, and overall quality of life.

Discrepancies in quality related to both housing and education are unfortunately the result of intentional decisions: just a few of the countless outgrowths of America’s history of racial discrimination. Not all of them show up in concrete, government-backed policies. As author Richard Rothstein writes, much of these discriminatory practices amounted to de facto segregation, where private actors were free to discriminate without any engagement from policymakers. That began a cycle that persists today.

From real estate agents unwilling to sell homes to people of color to discrimination in appraisals to mortgage lenders offering significantly higher interest rates to prospective Black borrowers, racist policies depressed Black wealth creation for generations. As white families in previously more racially diverse neighborhoods were able to favorably engage in the house-buying market, they moved elsewhere, and Black residents maintained significantly less net worth than their white counterparts. Over time, key pieces of infrastructure were at best, neglected, and at worst, purposefully used to further separate, segregate, and subjugate Black families and neighborhoods.

As property values dropped, there was less tax revenue to help fund investment in improving public school quality, widening the gap between high- and low-quality schools. As students at underfunded schools continued to see lower educational attainment, it deterred families from moving to those neighborhoods and further exacerbated plummeting property values in these communities. Without significant growth in property values, families remained stuck in a cycle of limited housing options resulting in limited educational options — the limits of which were passed on from generation to generation. In the past decade, housing costs near high-performing K-12 public schools were more than twice as much as costs near low-scoring public schools, according to a 2012 Brookings Institution report.

Data from recent years shows the results of more than a half-century of policies, neglect, and cyclical marginalization, and it starts at the very beginning of a child’s educational journey and continues as long as they’re in school. According to a 2016 report, there’s an association between lower kindergarten readiness scores and “cumulative exposure to poor-quality housing and disadvantaged neighborhoods.” 

Research from that same year also found that household crowding — defined as having more people living in a home than there are rooms — has a direct impact on educational attainment, particularly during a student’s high school years. And passing rates in virtually every subject are lower for children experiencing homelessness than children in stable housing situations. It’s not just the students who suffer from housing difficulties, either. Increases in teacher pay have been outpaced by rising home prices, making many teachers significantly more likely to depart their jobs in high-cost school districts within just two years. 

Fixing this problem requires addressing the fundamentally interrelated aspects of fair housing and education. Policymakers, education advocates, families, and more should consider a range of solutions, including the following.

It’s these types of efforts that will make housing more equitable in its own right, while importantly creating better educational attainment. And it speaks to a philosophical shift that can and should occur, with a clear recognition of the impact of quality housing policy on good education policy. Too often, a person’s ZIP code still does determine their destiny. It’s only by unraveling the inequitable policies of the past and leveraging smart policies of today that we can provide better futures for America’s schoolchildren.

Malcom Glenn is a fellow at New America’s Future of Land and Housing Program and the director of public affairs at Better, a platform that makes homeownership easier and more accessible. He’s a former national director of communications at the American Federation for Children

#DemDebates: Another Nothingburger on Education?

Two members of Bellwether’s Policy & Evaluation team, Cara Jackson and Beth Tek, watched Wednesday’s debates for any mention of education. They didn’t get what they were looking for, but there’s still plenty to discuss. 

Beth Tek: I have to say, while I was disappointed about the lack of education-related talk during the Democratic debate last night, I’m also not surprised.

Cara Jackson: Yup, I’m guessing no one got education bingo. But several candidates did discuss social supports that impact children, such as child care, paid maternity leave, and housing.

stack of empty burger buns, photo by Marco Verch

Photo by Marco Verch

Beth: That’s true. Elizabeth Warren talked about childcare, universal pre-K, and the exploitative wages of childcare workers. And Andrew Yang mentioned the fact that close to 75% of school outcomes are determined by what happens to children at home.

Cara: Yes, we know that out-of-school factors explain much of the variation in student achievement. This has been demonstrated since the 1966 Equality of Educational Opportunity report by James Coleman and colleagues, and by more recent work too. 

And candidates rightly addressed housing policy, which directly impacts education policy! Tom Steyer commented that housing determines where your kids go to school. Warren noted that her housing plan includes 3.2 million new housing units for lower-income families and middle-class renters in communities with severe housing supply shortages. She aims to mitigate the long-term impacts of redlining, the segregation created by refusing loans to black families, which continues to impact neighborhoods, and by extension schools, to this day.  

There’s also evidence of long-term academic benefits for children from low-income families who attend universal pre-kindergarten programs, so the debate certainly had implications for education.

Beth: And it’s not like these candidates don’t have education plans! I would have liked to hear Warren talk about her proposed infusion of Title I funding. Schools could use that money to provide more wraparound supports for America’s students, which would go a long way to educate the “whole child.” We know that Millennials (approximately ages 24 to 38) and Generation Zers (currently in K-12 and early adulthood) are reporting the highest percentages of anxiety and depression of any age group. And schools are trying to do more to address and support mental health.

Cara: Yes! I’d love to see some of that additional funding used to ensure students have access to supportive, high-quality school counselors. We know that these supports could improve high school graduation and college attendance. Or we could provide incentives to push back high school start times, in keeping with research that suggests doing so would improve academic outcomes.

Beth: Exactly Cara! Let’s take what we know works and provide the resources needed to implement it. In addition to later start times for high schoolers, how about free breakfast and lunch for all students? Students who come from food insecure homes have a hard time focusing in school, and this leads to poor behavioral and academic outcomes. Free breakfast and lunch would remove this obstacle from their education.

Cara: I hope we’ll hear more about education in the December debate. Stay tuned!

D.C. Unveiling Affordable Teacher Housing Co-located with Charter Schools

UPDATE: So far I’ve only found one other example of a complex that includes both affordable teacher housing AND a charter school facility. My Bellwether colleague Kyndall Parker-Joseph alerted me to Teachers Village in Newark, NJ.

– – –

In The Washington Post, Perry Stein writes about a new private apartment building in Washington, D.C. that will offer subsidized housing to city teachers:

The residential units are aimed at young teachers without families who are on the low end of the teacher pay scale. Building Hope wants the residences to serve as an incentive for top young teachers who might otherwise be dissuaded from accepting jobs in the District because of the city’s high cost of living.

The building, a converted Catholic dormitory and study space, will also house two charter schools. The whole complex is a project of the Charter School Incubator Initiative, which seeks to address the well-documented facilities challenges faced by charter schools.

Photo of former St. Paul's College via Google Maps

Photo of former St. Paul’s College via Google Maps

Could this be a model used elsewhere to attract educators to expensive cities while also addressing a critical challenge for charter schools? Similar efforts to create affordable rental units for teachers exist in high-cost cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco, but the merger of housing with a school building could be a first.