Search

The majority of existing research on mobility indicates that students do worse in the year of a school move. This research, however, has been unsuccessful in isolating the causal effects of mobility and often fails to distinguish the heterogeneous impacts of moves, conflating structural moves (mandated by a school's terminal grade) and non-structural moves (induced by residential mobility or by access to a better school) for example. Moreover, there is little evidence on the effects beyond the first year of a move. In this paper, we obtain credibly causal estimates of the impact of mobility on performance in both the short and long run, addressing heterogeneity in the impacts of mobility and the endogeneity of moving. We do so using richly detailed longitudinal data for five cohorts of New York City public school students making standard academic progress from grades 1-8. We estimate the impact of moving to a new school in a model with student fixed effects and two alternative sets of instrumental variables--the grade span of a student's first grade school and foreclosure/building sale--to isolate the causal effect of mobility that is likely planned and mobility that is likely due to unanticipated shocks, respectively. We find negative short-term as well as long-term effects of the structural moves built into the school system. Non-structural moves, however, have a positive effect on academic performance if they are made to join a new school at the beginning of that school's grade span and, thus, more likely made for strategic reasons. Robustness checks indicate results are not sensitive to inclusion of school quality measures, pre-move trends in mobility, or alternative samples. In the conclusions, we discuss the importance of findings on the heterogeneous impact of school moves to the literature and to policy makers.

We evaluate the effectiveness of small high school reform in the country's largest school district, New York City. Using a rich administrative dataset for multiple cohorts of students and distance between student residence and school to instrument for endogenous school selection, we find substantial heterogeneity in school effects: newly created small schools have positive effects on graduation and some other education outcomes while older small schools do not. Importantly, we show that ignoring this source of treatment effect heterogeneity by assuming a common small school effect yields a misleading zero effect of small school attendance. The following are appended: (1) Regents Examinations; (2) Definition of variables; (3) First stage, likelihood of attending a small high school; (4) Relationship between minimum distance to small schools and average student characteristics, by residence zip code; and (5) Full OLS and IV regression results.

Immigration and migration to New York City (NYC) collectively create a dynamic population of students. In this brief the authors use a decade of detailed, longitudinal data on NYC's 1st-8th graders to explore both the "stock" of students enrolled and the "flow" of new entrants in each academic year. Together, these paint a portrait of how newly entering immigrant students shape the ever evolving diversity of NYC public schools. New York City's elementary and middle schools receive between 20,000-30,000 new students in grades 2-8 every year. These students come from all over the world, speak over 175 different languages, and differ from the stock of students previously enrolled. Although the composition of new students varies annually, the variation manifests itself in both predictable and surprising ways. The research consistently shows that roughly half the new entrants in any year are native-born and that the flow of native-born students differs from the flow of foreign-born students, particularly in language skills and exposure to English at home. In the early grades, new entrants are disproportionately native-born, but as students age, the flow becomes increasingly foreign-born. Therefore, disentangling these groups and being more precise about "which" immigrants or "which" new students are examined is important in determining policy interventions. Four questions are addressed in this brief: (1) How many new students are there? (2) How have immigrants changed in the past decade? (3) Do new immigrant students lag behind native-born entrants on standardized exams? and (4) With whom do the new entrants go to school and are their schools different? This brief is intended to provide insight into this important group of newly entering students and to shed light on the variation in this population between nativity groups, over time, and across grades. Two supplemental tables are appended: (1) Total enrollment in NYC public schools; and (2) Foreign-born population in NYC.

The recent foreclosure crisis has plagued nearly every city in the U.S., including New York City. Despite considerable attention to the causes of these mortgage foreclosures and the consequences they have had for communities, we know little about their impacts on individual families and children. Given that more than 2.8 million U.S. property owners received a foreclosure notice in 2010 alone; it is likely that large numbers of children are leaving their homes and moving schools, as well. This policy brief examines the prevalence of foreclosure among buildings housing New York City public school students and explores the relationship between foreclosures and student mobility. Specifically, the authors examine whether children who live in properties entering foreclosure are more likely than their peers to switch schools. Such mobility is of potential concern because research suggests that changing schools is often damaging to children's academic performance (Hanushek et al., 2004; Schwartz et al., 2007). This brief also explores how the new schools the children attend after moving differ from their origin schools, in terms of student demographics and performance. Our research focuses primarily on elementary and middle school students who attended New York City public schools in the 2003-04 and 2006-07 school years. For additional information on our data and methods, see Been et al. (2011), "Kids and Foreclosures: New York City." Key finding include: (1) 20,453 public school students lived in buildings that entered foreclosure in 2006-07; (2) 61 percent of students living in buildings that entered foreclosure lived in 2-4 family or larger multi-family properties; (3) 57 percent of students living in buildings that entered foreclosure in 2006-07 were black, compared to 33 percent of all other students; (4) Public school students living in buildings in foreclosure were more likely to change schools in the year following a foreclosure notice than other students, and the effect was amplified for children in multi-family buildings; (5) Students living in properties that entered foreclosure were significantly less likely than their peers to leave the New York City public school system in the subsequent year; and (6) Students who moved to new schools after a foreclosure moved to lower-performing schools on average. The change in school quality was no more dramatic, however, than that experienced by other students who moved schools.

New York City (NYC) is home to the largest school district in the U.S., with over one million students and more than 1,600 schools. While it is only one of approximately seven hundred school districts in New York State (NYS), the city educates about one-third of the state's students. In recent work examining school finance during Mayor Bloomberg's first two terms, Stiefel and Schwartz (2011) compared NYC's funding sources with those for the rest of the state in entirety. The NYS statistics presented in that chapter were, therefore, averages for all other school districts in the state--including the fiscally-stressed "Big Four" (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Yonkers), rural districts with their own, unique challenges, and relatively wealthy suburban districts. This brief builds upon that research--describing the changes in revenues for the city, other large urban districts, wealthy downstate counties surrounding NYC, and the rest of the state. This analysis uses revenue data from the New York State Education Department's (NYSED) annual fiscal profiles to compare the educational resources available to NYC relative to other districts in New York State and probe the differences in greater detail. Specifically, the authors examine the change in total revenue, total state revenue, local revenue, and total expenditures excluding debt service and transportation expenses for New York City, the other Big Four, two wealthy downstate counties (Westchester and Nassau), and the remaining schools districts in New York State. An appendix contains supplemental tables.

Since its inception as part of the 1965 "Elementary and Secondary Education Act" (ESEA), Title I has provided the largest amount of federal funding aimed at improving the academic achievement of poor children. In this paper, we examine the impact of Title I on school spending and school performance, using New York City public school data. Based on a regression discontinuity design (RD) with panel data, and including separate analyses for elementary/middle and high schools, we estimate local average treatment effects of Title I. Title I provides additional funding for schools serving high concentrations of poor children, but there are few curricular or programmatic constraints. Unfortunately it is possible that Title I funds supplant state or local funds, resulting in muted net impacts on spending and student outcomes. At the same time, the success of Title I in improving test scores offers important insight into the effectiveness of school-based compensatory funding in general, such as weighted student funding within districts or state compensatory aid across districts. Overall, the results indicate that Title I changes the mix of spending, enabling high schools to significantly increase the amount of money they spend on direct services to students and to improve their pupil-teacher ratios (while reducing experienced teachers). Elementary and middle schools do not increase spending as much, which is consistent with our finding that state compensatory education funds may be supplanting some Title I funding in schools. Since schools just below the Title I cutoff are similar to those just above the cutoff, this finding may be an equitable, albeit unintended result. Finally, additional Title I spending does not improve the achievement of students and may even reduce school-wide average test scores in elementary and middle schools. These effects for both spending and scores seem to increase with the length of time schools are Title I eligible and to be stronger for ones that are always Title I eligible compared to those that go in and out of eligibility.

Housing and education share strong ties in the United States. This relationship is shaped, in large part, by mobility. Students move to new schools, homes and neighborhoods as a result of planned and unplanned family relocations. Taxpayers move from one school district to another in a nation where school quality is closely tied to the district in which a family resides. Teachers weigh factors such as location, pay, and long-term career opportunities as they decide where to work and when to move within or between school districts. Despite the strong relationship between housing and education, policies that recognize and support this relationship are relatively rare. In this paper, we explore the mechanisms by which housing and education are related. We focus particular attention on disadvantaged students in urban areas, as these students often face a unique set of challenges that set them apart from their more advantaged and/or non-urban counterparts. First, we explore the ways in which a child's housing unit, his neighborhood, and the political economy of public schools might shape his educational outcome. We then turn to a discussion of the implications of these mechanisms for education and housing policy. Herein, we highlight recent efforts to strengthen the ties between education and housing policy and discuss how the lessons learned from these efforts might be brought to bear as policymakers consider new education and housing initiatives.

A long standing debate among policymakers as well as researchers is whether and how funding affects the quality of education. Often missing from the discussion is information about the costs of providing education at the school level and below, yet such information could impart a better indication of the linkages between outcomes and resources than is available with more macro-level data. In addition, because No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and state accountability systems often require reporting of performance at the grade or school level, micro-level cost information would be useful to school administrators as they try to allocate resources productively. In this paper, we analyze the challenges involved in establishing a system to track costs at the school, grade, and subject level that will fit the needs of both internal and external users. To begin, we review the literature on cost accounting that is relevant to micro-level costs and the research that analyzes sub-district level resources. Next, we describe general challenges that arise in reporting at the level of the school and below and we then discuss school-level reporting in practice. We follow with a case study of an improved reporting system that links resource use, student demographic characteristics, and student outcomes at the school, grade and subject level. We conclude with recommendations for states when constructing such systems. The following tables are appended: (1) Comparison of Approaches in Addressing the Challenges of Producing School-Level Reports; (2) Sources of Data for Pennsylvania School-Level Reports; (3a) Example of School Summary Report for Sample Elementary School; and (3b) Example of Fifth Grade Summary Report for Sample Elementary School.

With the financial support of several large foundations and the federal government, creating small schools has become a prominent high school reform strategy in many large American cities. While some research supports this strategy, little research assesses the relative costs of these smaller schools. Data on over 200 New York City high schools, from 1996 through 2003, is used to estimate school cost functions relating per pupil expenditures to school size, controlling for school output and quality, student characteristics, and school organization. The authors find that the structure of costs differs across schools depending upon mission--comprehensive or themed. At their current levels of outputs, themed schools minimize per pupil costs at smaller enrollments than comprehensive schools, but these optimally-sized themed schools also cost more per pupil than optimally-sized comprehensive schools. The authors also find that both themed and comprehensive high schools at actual sizes are smaller than their optimal sizes. (Contains 5 tables and 2 figures.)

This paper analyzes the distribution of resources and performance across 840 New York City elementary and middle schools. It presents empirical evidence on input and output of equity of expenditures, teacher resources, and academic achievement. Historically, researchers have studied interdistrict distributions, but given the large number of pupils and schools within many urban districts, it is important to learn about intradistrict distributions as well. The empirical work is built on a framework of horizontal, vertical, and equal opportunity equity. Data come from three sources published by the New York City Board of Education: "School Based Expenditure Reports, Fiscal Year 1997-98; Annual School Reports, 1997-98; and CTB Reading Tests By Quartile. Results show that: horizontal equity distributions are more disparate than what would be expected relative to results of other studies; vertical equity is lacking, especially in elementary schools; and equality of opportunity is at best neutral but more often absent. Middle schools exhibit more equity than elementary schools. (Contains 25 references.) (SM)

This study examined the role of school sub-city districts in determining the performance and efficacy of their member schools. A total of 846 low- and high-performing schools and sub-city districts were identified using a 3-year panel of data (1997-99) on New York City elementary and middle schools. These data were used to examine the differences in the school performance across school districts and to investigate the role of the district in shaping school performance. Results indicated that school districts did indeed matter. The estimated district fixed effects suggested that school districts had an important role in school performance, even when they had no revenue raising responsibility. The study examined whether that effect was due to unobservable, time invariant district characteristics or differences in the measurable characteristics of the districts, and it found that the number of middle schools, the level of per pupil spending, and the ways that resources were spent were the most significant factors. The study concludes that accountability systems need to be designed to recognize the role of school districts and to hold them accountable for their performance as well. Tables are appended. (Contains 15 references.) (SM)

This study examines the academic performance of students in New York City's elementary and middle schools, investigating variations across grades and schools and documenting differences in student and teacher characteristics and the pattern and level of expenditure between low, middle, and high performing schools. The study reports averages of student, teacher, and expenditure variables for each level of performance. The study used 2 sources of 1997-98 school-level data published by the New York City Board of Education (BOE): "School Based Expenditure Reports" and "Annual School Reports." The study also used data obtained directly from the BOE to augment measures of school-level student performance on citywide reading and mathematics examinations. Results confirmed years of previous research: low-performing New York City schools overwhelmingly serve students of color who are poor, are limited English proficient, have consistently low attendance, and are taught by teachers who have very limited experience and earn the lowest average salaries. Moreover, these low performing schools receive a higher per pupil expenditure than the aggregates for middle and high performing schools. There is a higher percentage of children in full-time special education in the lowest performing schools. Appended are extensive tables of research data. (SM)

Small size is often cited by reformers and parents as the key ingredient necessary to create an effective learning environment. In New York City, the new public secondary schools have consistently smaller numbers of students than most existing high schools. The literature is unambiguous that smaller schools show better outputs than schools of other sizes, but is less clear about the relationship of school size and costs. This report analyzes the relationship between size of student body and school costs and performance in New York City public high schools, using Board of Education school-level data (1995-96) on budgeted expenditures, student characteristics, and performance. Of 201 secondary schools and programs in the Board's database, 133 were included in the analysis; excluded entries did not serve all grades 9-12, served very specialized populations, or lacked information on necessary variables. The schools were categorized as small (less than 600 students), smaller medium (600-1,200), larger medium (1,200-2,000), and large (over 2,000). Results indicate that the size of the student body was an important factor in relation to costs and outputs. Although small academic schools had somewhat higher costs per student, their much higher graduation rates and lower dropout rates produced among the lowest cost per graduate in the New York City system. Contains 36 references, 8 data tables and figures, and a glossary. (Author/SV)

This report evaluates alternative approaches to and measures of equity in state school finance plans. It also evaluates the Federal Expenditure Disparity Measure (FEDM). Following an introduction, Part II describes alternative conceptions of equity in education and identifies three components of these conceptions: groups treated, alternative treatments, and criteria for equity. Part III presents numerical models that show how alternative combinations of group, treatment, and criterion can yield different conclusions when applied to a hypothetical school district. In Part IV, the value judgments that underly the alternative conceptions of equity are examined. Since few value judgments are widely held, a number of equity conceptions must be considered valid. Also in Part IV, the value judgments inherent in Per Pupil Expenditure Disparity Measures (PPEDMs) are reviewed and analyzed. In Part V, the theory behind the FEDM and the way the Office of Education applies the FEDM to calculate measures from state data are discussed. In Part VI, recommendations concerning equity measurement in federal regulations and particular procedures used by the Office of Education to measure expenditure disparities are presented. A lengthy appendix considers social welfare theory, social choice theory, equity measures calculations, and the tax price of education. (Author/JM)

The questions of whether a number of equality and wealth neutrality measures agree, within the respective groups, when used to assess one state over time or to compare a number of states at one point in time are addressed. The basic analyses in this study show that for four assessments (equality in a state over time, wealth neutrality in a state over time, equality across states, and wealth neutrality across states), there is far from perfect agreement among the various measures and between units of analysis. But these findings result from a focus on a particular dependent variable, independent variable, pupil measure, two units of analysis, and a specific set of equality and wealth neutrality measures. The level of comparability for the variable limits the conclusions to measurement methodology and not to specific states. However, the selection of a subset of measures will make comparisons over time and across states more discriminating or less ambiguous. The critical question then becomes whether there is sufficient agreement on the value judgments so that specific measures and units of analysis can be selected. (PN)