Tag Archives: equity

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

Back to School Leader Q&A: Natalie McCabe Zwerger and Cristher S. Estrada-Peréz on Re-Centering Race and Equity in Education

As the 2021-22 school year begins across the country, we asked a few education leaders to share their insights on where we’ve been, where we’re going, and what their organizations are doing to weather the COVID-19 pandemic and serve students. Today’s post concludes a three-part Q&A series exploring the highs and lows of the past 18 months through the lens of dynamic education leaders.

RE-Center: Race & Equity in Education* is a Connecticut-based nonprofit that activates youth and adults to drive transformative change towards racially just schools and communities. In July 2021, Natalie McCabe Zwerger joined the organization as its new executive director after spending more than two decades as an educator and attorney, most recently serving as director of the center for strategic solutions at New York University’s Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the Transformation of Schools. Her colleague, Cristher S. Estrada-Peréz, has been with RE-Center since 2016 and is one of the lead evaluators on its Equity-Informed School Climate Assessment team. 

I had a wide-ranging discussion over Zoom recently with McCabe Zwerger and Estrada-Peréz about how RE-Center has shown up during the pandemic, how COVID-19 made their team pivot and respond to community needs, and more. 

Melissa Steel King:
Tell me a little bit about RE-Center’s work and your roles within the organization. Who does RE-Center primarily serve?

Natalie McCabe Zwerger:
I have a unique background as a longtime educator and attorney. I was most recently with NYU’s race and equity center and often apply a civil rights lawyer lens to my daily work. The work of RE-Center is steeped in transformative change to create, foster, and maintain more equitable schools. It’s a profound mission that drew me to join the organization. 

The bulk of RE-Center’s work is in the service of children in systems led by adults. Young people can’t bear the load of transforming spaces that harm them. We focus on Black and Indegenous children of color who learn in systems led by predominantly white educators in Connecticut. We focus on supporting those educators through professional development to change the way they teach and relate to students of color who don’t look like them. 

We also work in evaluation, which enables us to make sure we have our receipts and can measure and scale impact. We want young people to feel spaces shift to be more welcoming and affirming, and to serve them in the ways they’re entitled to be served. RE-Center’s work with teachers, leaders, board members, community partners, families, and young people brings this mission into the everyday.

Cristher S. Estrada-Peréz:
I have a background in evaluation and in decolonizing work grounded in liberation and environmental justice. I joined RE-Center in 2016, initially as a volunteer and am now its research and program evaluation manager. There’s a little sprinkle of me throughout the organization’s work, to be honest, in everything from evaluation processes and facilitation to thought partnership and communications. 

MSK:
Do you work with cohorts of students in addition to your focus on teachers and school leaders?

CEP:
Both. It’s extremely important for us to not just have theoretical applications and observations but to be in community and relationship with young people, listening to and learning from them. We recently convened a quarantine series and pivoted during COVID-19 to focus on hearing from young people about their pandemic experiences, especially students of color who may be at the receiving end of systems but don’t have power over things like teacher hiring. RE-Center’s partnerships with students are grounded in leveraging our voice to build awareness among critically conscious adults to support those students.

MSK:
How has RE-Center shown up in the past 2020-21 school year? What went well, what was hard, and how did you approach the work?

NMZ:
It’s often said that you can’t do this kind of relational work through a screen and that you need to be in the same room to make a difference. The pandemic forced us to do our own organizational reflection, pausing to lean into the discomfort of distance to further collective learning. We shifted and pivoted because that’s what needed to happen. Today, it feels like we’ve rewound to the past [with the emergence of the Delta variant]. But we’ll continue to be responsive and center young peoples’ voices and support staff in the school year ahead.

CEP:
We also believe this work is relational. Yes, connecting in a human space is important. But the limitations of the pandemic fostered a spirit of creativity to find different ways of doing this work. Early on, we realized that different things would be needed to meet this moment of urgency. One of those ways was having our staff dedicate eight hours to community projects, events, or support of family. Recognizing the enormity of the pandemic and trying to implement responsive practices that take stock of our humanity is important to RE-Center’s work.

MSK:
Are you continuing to train adults virtually as an organization? Did schools lean in or opt out due to stretched systems in the pandemic?

NMZ:
There’s an interesting intersection of the pandemic and the murder of George Floyd. Early on in the pandemic, there was a moment in time when things slowed down and organizations like ours questioned what engagement opportunities would look like. The tragic Floyd murder changed everything for us. More people were energized and animated to take on this work. RE-Center had to vet partnerships and assess readiness, and in that process we learned invaluable things we’ll definitely carry forward. One key lesson learned is to have more frequent meetings with partners but in smaller dosages. Gone are the days of a six-hour training session — and we try not to make racial equity work an “event” anyhow — now, we pick up the phone and coach a superintendent to navigate this work or have shorter Zoom sessions within our networks. 

CEP:
We recognize that we’re all “Zoomed out” so we try to make meetings shorter to ensure engagement. Hybrid models borne of the pandemic have enabled RE-Center to be in more spaces. Moving from meeting to meeting virtually is something that had been limiting before with geographic boundaries. RE-Center often had to defend our work pre-pandemic, but now there’s a growing and deeper level of understanding in the field. That’s been one bright spot amid the trauma and grief of the last 18 months.

MSK:
I see this in my work with schools across the country: folks are grappling with dual pandemics of COVID-19 and racial injustice. When you think ahead to SY2021-22, what’s on your mind? What are you concerned or excited about, and what do you want to share with schools as kids return?

NMZ:
I hope this is an opportunity to lean into centering young people in a humanizing way. Many students haven’t physically been together for 18 months and it makes us wonder what being “together” looks like in the school year ahead. How can we support educators to support young people with the same concerns? The Delta variant, attacks and misunderstandings of Critical Race Theory, volatile school board meetings, these are all creating a palpable fear even with educators we’ve worked with in the past. We have to keep the momentum going in focusing our work on centering racial equity.

MSK:
Is there a common mistake schools make when they think they center students’ needs, or do you typically see an “aha!” moment that marks a lasting shift?

NMZ:
There are so many pandemic examples, especially with school-based health practices. Kids virtually learning at home are on different schedules and, in many cases, can center their own needs in ways that don’t always translate in traditional school buildings. We should afford young people the same level of trust. Scheduling and curriculum for the first six weeks of SY2021-22 are critical. Are we going to lean into new, restorative ways of structuring the school day or are we going to fall back into deficit training? Are we going to ask kids if they’re OK and if the school community can hold space for shared grief? We must ask those questions first and avoid the inclination to over-focus on deficit-based thinking like talking about “learning loss.” Instead of asking how far behind sixth graders are, maybe we should shift content and teaching approaches to respond to the collective water we’re all swimming in.

CEP:
We have to recognize the loss and acknowledge that so many young people have experienced domestic violence, tragedy, grief, and more and are going to bring that into the school building with them every day. It’s important that we hold space for humanity and for the collective loss and grief we’re all experiencing. And, to recognize that systems we had in place pre-pandemic weren’t working for young people (for example, mental health supports). Acknowledging our shared humanity is the first step toward lasting change.

(*Editorial note: RE-Center is a past Bellwether client; this version carries a minor correction for accuracy)

Back to School: What’s Your “Magic Wand” Education Solution? (Part Two)

Photo courtesy of Pixabay for Pexels

Join Ahead of the Heard for a lively back-to-school series expanding on Andy Rotherham’s original Eduwonk post, What’s Your Magic Wand?, featuring reflections on wish-list education solutions heading into the fall from teachers, school leaders, academics, media types, parents, private sector funders, advocates, Bellwarians…you name it.

At Bellwether, we’re focused on the 2021-22 school year ahead but also on what we’ve collectively endured since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. It’s a gross understatement to say that it has been a lot, that mistakes have been made, that many rose to the occasion achieving amazing things for students (while others did not), and that countless lessons were (re)learned. It has been a season where optimism was sometimes elusive and where challenges often seemed insurmountable. 

So we thought we’d do something a little different…and try to have some fun.

We turned to contacts across the country in the education sector and asked them this simple, hopeful question. Answers vary as widely as each participant’s background and will be featured over a two-week span.  

Teachers, students, and families will enter into a 2021-22 school year unlike any other. If you could wave a magic wand, what’s the one education issue you’d address or solve right now, and why?

Laura LoGerfo
Assistant Director, National Assessment Governing Board (submitted as a parent and not on behalf of the Board)

“In order to address massive and unknown variations in learning, my magic wand would have schools and teachers implement universal diagnostic testing, with frequent assessment updates and teaching aimed at attaining fundamental skills and knowledge as swiftly as possible.  

The first step would be to get kids situated in the classroom by establishing a warm and welcoming environment for students to thrive socially, emotionally, and academically. Almost immediately, kids would be given diagnostic assessments to determine their skills and knowledge in reading, math, science, and social studies. There would be no ceiling, no floor, no false constraints of what we mistakenly call ‘grade level,’ and no assumptions of what kids did or did not learn for the last 18 months. 

As a next step, teachers would immediately figure out plans for each kid. Group them by similarity (with flexibility built in as the weeks progress and diagnostic assessments are updated, enabling kids to move up, out, in, or over skill levels/topics) and by skills/knowledge, not age. Assign teachers by strength. Group size matters less than the effectiveness of the instructor. Use technology wisely and strategically.  

I’d incorporate this within my pet idea of ditching twelfth grade completely, except for those who need that year for final refinement of skills and knowledge. Instead, for that ‘senior year,’ 17-year-olds would spend their mornings working on life skills and reflecting on what they do in the afternoons, which would be working, volunteering, or interning (depending on family circumstances) with the elderly, with the young, or in nature. The 17-year-olds who qualify to work with youth would be assigned to assist teachers with tutoring so that differentiated instruction can be a real thing, rather than a myth.”

Mike Goldstein
Parent; School Founder; International Education Leader; General Education Polymath

“With a magic wand, I’d like to give students the choice to consume less K-12 public school, on an individual kid basis, with a very short leash/prove-it approach that’s easily revoked.    

Students would still attend school but less of it, possibly just three days each week. In exchange, individuals (not the school system) would take full accountability for their learning.  

At the elementary levels, students would attend school until lunchtime and then go home every day.  

High schoolers would unobtrusively come and go during class (no need to fake desire to use the bathroom). They could skip a whole class without penalty, while remaining accountable for the learning, and giving the teacher a timely heads-up.  

During these school breaks, high school students would have three choices. First, go to a school-designated lounge. Second, leave campus, go out for walks, or get coffee with a friend (many schools have had open campuses for seniors for a long time). Third, participate in anything fitness-related if a gym class isn’t already using the space/equipment.  

This idea starts with older students but works younger steadily, beginning with the uber-responsible kids and working toward the moderately responsible. It would require parent permission and freedoms would grow if students hit certain milestones.”

Joel Rose
Co-Founder and CEO, New Classrooms

“The pandemic laid bare the profound implications of reforms that were aimed exclusively at optimizing an approach to schooling born in the industrial era. It is time to redesign the way in which we do schooling in ways that by design are mindful of breakthroughs in brain science, that leverage advanced technological tools, that enable learning both within and outside the classroom, that meet the unique strengths and needs of each student, and that systemically support the development of the whole child.”

Yonatan Doron
Chief Partnership Officer, Branching Minds

“The pandemic shined a spotlight on a gross inequity with which most educators were already quite familiar: Many students (particularly students of color and students from rural communities and low-income families) still lack access to consistent, high-speed internet and devices at home. As more and more educational assessments, assignments, programming, and school-home communications have moved online, it’s even more important for policymakers and educational leaders to address the disparity so that all students can succeed.”

Daniel T. Willingham
Professor of Psychology, University of Virginia; Author of Why Don’t Students Like School?

“Modern physical plant for every school.”

Tim Daly
CEO, EdNavigator

“Unfunded teacher pension obligations. They are absorbing increasing amounts of education funding in some of our largest states and preventing badly needed investment and innovation.”

Michael J. Petrilli
President, Thomas B. Fordham Institute

“My magic wand would be teaching dramatically more history, geography, and science in grades K-3 when the kiddos return this fall. That’s because it solves three problems for the price of one! First, alongside teaching foundational reading skills like phonics and phonemic awareness, beefing up kids’ content knowledge (and thus vocabulary) is the best way to boost their reading comprehension. Second, teaching little kids about the wonders of faraway places and faraway times, and the mysteries of the natural world, is the perfect way to avoid the temptation to do terrible, boring, ‘remedial’ education in the wake of the pandemic. And third, the early years are the ideal time to give kids a solid grounding in these subjects, without all of the controversy surrounding topics like Critical Race Theory, given that almost nobody thinks 6-year-olds are ready for all of that.”

Stay tuned for more in our “Magic Wand” series and join the conversation on Twitter @bellwethered.

(Editorial note: Some organizations listed in this series may include past or present clients or funders of Bellwether.)

Four Questions About the Biden Administration’s Title I Equity Grants Program

Photo courtesy of Aaron Kittredge for Pexels

President Biden’s Fiscal Year 2022 budget proposes $20 billion in funding for a new Title I Equity Grants program that has the potential to incentivize changes to school funding systems, with a primary goal of improving equity and driving resources to support students with the greatest needs. Eligible school districts and charter schools (local education agencies, or LEAs) receiving these funds can use them to address four priority areas:

  • Address long-standing disparities between under-resourced school districts and their wealthier counterparts by providing meaningful incentives to examine and address inequalities in school funding systems.
  • Ensure that teachers at Title I schools are paid competitively.
  • Increase preparation for, access to, and success in rigorous coursework. 
  • Expand access to high-quality preschool for underserved children and families.

The first priority area focuses on funding equity, which means ensuring that districts and schools direct more resources to the students who need them the most. The Biden administration is looking to use the relatively small pot of federal education funds (as a share of total school funding) to push greater equity in the much larger pot of state and local school funding systems (which generate and distribute about 90% of total money for schools). Just as a small lever can move a large object, a targeted funding program could have an outsized impact with the right incentives. And that’s the potential of this ambitious proposal. But there’s still a lot to figure out, if and when this new program comes to fruition. 

Title I is one of the largest federal funding streams for K-12 education and is primarily directed by a formula for schools and districts serving high proportions of low-income students to provide supplemental educational supports. Biden’s proposal would not change the structure or formula for Title I. Instead, it would create a new grant program on top of current Title I structures. This new grant would rely on a different allocation formula that targets a greater share of funds to LEAs with the greatest concentrations of poverty. This is significant, because it might signal a step towards changing the Title I formula as a whole. 

The FY22 budget proposal is still in its early stages and requires congressional approval and a lot more work to iron out details. If this proposal is ultimately implemented, four key questions that advocates nationwide should be asking include:

1. Will recipients of these funds need to address all four priorities, or can they pick and choose? 

School funding reform is challenging work that often requires a significant investment of political and financial capital. If states can opt to apply funds to other priorities that may be relatively easier to implement, what’s the incentive to engage in broad, meaningful funding reform?

2. What are the expectations for the state-level School Funding Equity Commissions and the plans they develop?

The proposal includes allocating $50 million to voluntary School Funding Equity Commissions. These state commissions would measure gaps in funding equity and adequacy, develop plans to address those gaps, and report progress on the milestones and metrics set forth in those plans. However, it’s not clear if the commissions are focused on allocations of funding through state funding formulas or the allocation of funds from districts out to schools at the local level, or both? These two processes are typically separate and have different equity challenges and potential remedies. Both allocation structures can force equity, and both can be politically and practically complex.  

3. How do the school-level reporting requirements relate to similar requirements under current federal law? Does the Title I Equity Grants program represent a change to those provisions? If not, what does this FY22 proposal intend to achieve?

The process of defining a common definition of per pupil expenditure at the LEA or school level is more complex than it may sound on its face. Given that a similar provision aimed at promoting transparency regarding school-level spending already exists in law, it’s not clear what this proposal aims to achieve that’s different. Transparency can be a powerful tool for equity, but not if adding a new calculation muddies an already poorly understood concept.

4. Finally, how will the Title I Equity Grants program ensure that state plans for funding equity are effective for students with the greatest needs?

Some reporting language indicates that states will need to, “Demonstrate progress in improving the equity and adequacy of their funding systems to be eligible for future increases in funding.” Does that mean that future Title I allocations will include incentives for demonstrated progress toward equity (and adequacy) goals? Is this a carrot or a stick, how much funding might be somehow contingent, and how will “progress” be defined especially to ensure that more funding is directed to student groups who need additional resources, including students with disabilities and English language learners? 

The Biden administration’s Title I Equity Grants program brings welcome attention to a foundational issue for educational equity — ensuring that students who need the most resources receive them. While the FY22 proposal faces significant congressional and administrative hurdles, it highlights the need to address funding inequities in state and school district spending plans. Ultimately, the proposal has the potential to be an effective lever for change if it can set up meaningful incentives for states and districts and define success through prioritizing the needs of our most marginalized students.