Last week the Brookings Institute released a study by Jonathan Rothwell on the relationship between exclusionary zoning and school performance. He points out that this is the first study linking zoning to educational outcomes. The findings demonstrate that cities with stronger exclusionary zoning policies have larger differences in test scores across schools. This finding makes sense, as exclusionary zoning policies segregate households by income, and household income is strongly correlated with children’s educational outcomes.
This research is important because school district quality is a key factor in families’ decisions of where to live. I think that school quality is likely an important factor behind many NIMBY efforts too, as parents in a neighborhood may be afraid that lower-income residents moving into the school boundary will bring down the quality of education. Whether or not this is a valid concern on NIMBYs’ part, perception is all that matters.
Rothwell’s dependent variable is called the school-test score gap, or the difference between a school’s test results and the state’s test results. So his results don’t tell us whether reducing exclusionary zoning will improve individuals’ outcomes or merely bring schools’ averages more in line. Of course what we would like to see is improved absolute educational outcomes, particularly for those students with the poorest performace. Theory does suggest some reasons that more equal schools could improve absolute student results, one being that more experienced teachers typically do not work in a city’s worst-performing schools. Another is that students may do better when they are surrounded by higher-achieving classmates. Through those channel and perhaps others, reducing disparities across schools could improve low-income students’ results.
In developing the case for why it’s important for children of all income levels to attend schools with higher median test scores, Rothwell cites studies that demonstrate that “the quality of schooling is enormously important to both test scores and future economic success.” However, he also acknowledges that studies involving school lotteries, in which children are randomly assigned to higher or lower performing schools, have less clear results about the impact of schooling on education. This is a key distinction because many studies of education are plagued by the difficulty of collecting data on some of the variables that affect student success. For example, parental involvement in schooling, parents’ time spent reading with children in early childhood, and other aspects of a child’s lifestyle are difficult and expensive to measure. Understandably, then, these variables are often omitted from studies of educational outcomes, biasing the estimated impacts of the variables researchers do include. This is particularly true when studying the effects of a child going to a higher-performing school without a lottery; a parent who makes a significant effort to get his child into what he believe is a better school than the neighborhood school is likely making extra effort to help out his child’s education at home in other ways.
While Rothwell is supportive of policies such as charter schools and voucher programs that give parents the opportunity to send their children to schools outside of the one tied to their address, he seems to be even more supportive of eliminating exclusionary zoning and requiring municipalities to allow multifamily housing. While clearly I am against exclusionary zoning, I’m not convinced that this is necessarily the right policy tool for improving educational outcomes. Instead, I would suggest any policies that move away from requiring children to go to the school in their neighborhood. This connection eliminates any semblance of competition among schools and contributes to the incentives for residents to lobby against potential new neighbors. Land and education are two separate markets that government has tied together with negative (un)intended consequences.
From an educational perspective, though, one reason to support the elimination or reduction of exclusionary zoning is that this would allow more people to move to cities. Cities contribute to economic growth, and we know that children from higher income families tend to do better in school. Future studies could build on what Rothwell has contributed by looking at low-income students’ educational attainments when land use restrictions are relaxed or when school attendance is not tied to where they live.
Note: Rothwell also recently wrote a great piece in The New Republic about zoning as an extractive institution. I hope to write more about zoning from a new institutional perspective in the near future.
First, I don’t think you’d propose to reduce the strictures of zoning solely to achieve better educational outcomes – instead, you’d propose to change zoning and list education as one of many benefits.
Second, there are limits to open enrollment. Consider the case of DC – DC already has a process for out-of-boundary students to go to schools in different neighborhoods, but this of course is limited by the fact DC can’t send students to Virginia or Maryland. In short, open enrollment can reduce some border effects, but by no means all border effects.
Third, think politically. If you want to actually change zoning rules, then dismissing the educational reform potential as a way to build support for that goal is awfully short-sighted. You might not think that land and education should be tied together in policy, but you’ll never actually change that without tying them together politically.
I’m in complete agreement about the limits of open enrollment. From a competition perspective, vouchers or tax credits are more interesting since they don’t have to be used within the municipality or school district.
My impression is that school district quality is a significant influence on real estate prices, at least in the best districts. This means that the families with the worst educational achievement would not necessarily end up in good school districts even if zoning were eliminated. If a family has to choose between two equally priced units, one small and in a good school district, the other large and in a bad school district, which will they prefer? I think the kind who choose the former are typically not in real socioeconomic danger in the first place.
I grew up in arguably the “best” school district in my metro area. There were a few cheap apartment buildings among our suburb’s mostly large houses, but the people I knew there were mostly very recent Asian immigrants, who within a couple generations would likely belong to the upper middle class. They had little money, but made sure to invest what they had based on the school district. Meanwhile, large numbers of Americans were choosing to buy houses in the exurbs rather than renting apartments near me…
Sorry for a slow response, but I wanted to point out that the study hits on this directly and quantifies the cost of housing that comes from school districts.
As pointed out in your article the study is worthless. Comparing school, and not individual, test scores with dissimilar populations merely highlights correlations, not causations. Schools do not sit for SAT’s. Furthermore, the use of a term such as exclusionary zoning reveals the bias of the researcher. Why read a study by a disciple? In the quest for variables, readily available to explain the differences in outcomes, control for the number of children raised in never married households, and much of the hyped achievement gap disappears. Even Vice President Biden, proving even a stopped clock is right twice a day, explained the gap. In his presidential campaign, he stated in Mid West schools, although income levels were the same as the inner city schools, the educational outcomes were superior because the mothers read to their children.
To counter the avalanche of cries that inner city parents are too busy to spend quality time with children, parents in poverty work less than 20 hours pers week. Additionally in response to Gingrich’s statement that we need to teach children born in poverty good work habits, such as time keeping, critics pointed out in 30% of such homes at least one parent worked. So, 70% do not. The myth of the two or three job worker in poverty in the inner city is not helpful. The reality is such workers reside in the suburbs, trying to pay student loans, property taxes, and healthcare premiums. Inner city poor receive pell grants, (which completely cover the tuition at a JC, and more), Medicaid, and subsidized housing.
Parents explain the gap, as even in racial groups, the differences in educational outcomes between Cuban, and Mexican homes, or African, and African American homes are statistically significant. Viz our President. In addition, without the “exclusionary zoning” consdier the erosion in your tax base. Manhattan is only able to spend 20k per student because of the 5th avenue Co-ops. Interestingly, most send their little darlings to private school. Viz our President. In a free society, unless you create competitive schools, that allocate places on academic, and not socially engineered grounds, you will see the continued flight to the suburbs of parents. Even in Portland, as the residents have children, and wish for a yard for the toddlers to play in, and a high performing school for their children, the former DINKS change their tune, and voting habits. Viz Wisconsin.
It is valued that he recognizes that studies including school lotteries, in which youngsters are haphazardly allotted to higher or bring down performing schools, have less clear results about the effect of tutoring on instruction. This is especially genuine when considering the impacts of a kid setting off to a higher-performing school without a lottery; a parent who endeavors to get his youngster into what he accept is a superior school than the area school is likely trying to assist his tyke’s training at home another ways.