Advertisement

Affordable Housing and the Socioeconomic Integration of Elementary Schools

  • Keith IhlanfeldtEmail author
  • Tom Mayock
Article

Abstract

Children from poor families achieve more academically if they are enrolled in schools that are socioeconomically integrated, but low-income students are increasingly attending schools characterized by high concentrations of poverty. Providing more housing opportunities for low-income families within the attendance zones of middle- and high-income schools has the potential to reverse this trend, but the link between the housing stock and the socioeconomic segregation of public schools has not been addressed in the existing literature. Using a panel of elementary schools in Florida, we show that increasing the stock of rental and affordable housing units in middle- and high-income neighborhoods has an important effect on the number of poor children attending these schools. Our results also reveal the types of housing units that have the largest impacts on socioeconomic segregation.

Keywords

School segregation Housing affordability Academic achievement of poor children 

References

  1. Andersson, F., & Mayock, T. (2014). Loss severities on residential real estate debt during the great recession. Journal of Banking & Finance, 46, 266–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angrist, J., & Krueger, A. (2001). Instrumental variables and the search for identification: From supply and demand to natural experiments. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(4), 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell, J. et al. (2011). Forced sales and house prices. American Economic Review, 101(5), 2108–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carnevale, A., & Strohl, J. (2010). How Increasing College Access is Increasing Inequality, and What to Do About It. In Kahlenberg, R. (Ed.) Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College (pp. 71–190). New York: Century Foundation.Google Scholar
  5. Dahl, G., & Lochner, L. (2012). The impact of family income on child achievement: Evidence from the earned income tax credit. The American Economic Review, 102 (5), 1927–1956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, T. (2014). School choice and segregation: ‘Tracking” racial equity in magnet schools. Education and Urban Society, 46(4), 399–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ellen, I. et al. (2016). Why don’t housing choice voucher recipients live near better schools? insights from big data. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35(4), 884–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischel, W. (1985). The economics of zoning laws: a property rights approach to american land use controls. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fischel, W. (2001). The homevoter hypothesis: How home values influence local government taxation, school finance, and Land-Use policies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Friedman, M. (1955). The role of government in education rutgers university press. NJ: New Brunswick.Google Scholar
  11. Fry, R, & Taylor, P. (2012). The Rise of Residential Segregation by Income. Pew Social and Demographic Trends.Google Scholar
  12. Gyourko, J. et al. (2008). A new measure of the local regulatory environment for housing markets: The wharton residential land use regulatory index. Urban Studies, 45(3), 693–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hintermaier, T. (2016). Exemption of Homesteads. Florida Statute 196.031.Google Scholar
  14. Horn, K. et al. (2014). Do housing choice voucher holders live near good schools?. Journal of Housing Economics, 23, 28–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ihlanfeldt, K. (Forthcoming). The Deconcentration of Minority Students Attending Bad Schools: The Role of Housing Affordability within School Attendance Zones Containing Good Schools. Journal of Housing Economics.Google Scholar
  16. Ihlanfeldt, K., & Mayock, T. (2016a). The Impact of REO Sales on Neighborhoods and their Residents. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 53(3), 282–324.Google Scholar
  17. Ihlanfeldt, K., & Mayock, T. (2016b). The variance in foreclosure spillovers across neighborhood types. Public Finance Review, 44(1), 80–108.Google Scholar
  18. Kahlenberg, R. (2013). From all walks of life: New hope for school integration. American Educator, 36(4), 1–14.Google Scholar
  19. Levitt, R. (2014). Evidence Matters: Paired Testing and the Housing Discrimination Studies. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Report.Google Scholar
  20. Lens, M., & Monkkonen, P. (2016). Do strict land use regulations make metropolitan areas more segregated by income?. Journal of the American Planning Association, 82(1), 6–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mickelson, R., & Bottia, M. (2009). Integrated education and mathematics outcomes: a synthesis of social science research. North Carolina Law Review, 88(3), 993–1089.Google Scholar
  22. Papke, L., & Wooldridge, J. (2008). Panel data methods for fractional response variables with an application to test pass rates. Journal of Econometrics, 145(1), 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pendall, R., & et al. (2006). From Traditional to Reformed: A Review of the Land Use Regulations in the Nation’s 50 Largest Metropolitan Areas. Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program Report.Google Scholar
  24. Reardon, S. (2011). The Widening Academic Achievement Gap between the Rich and the Poor: New Evidence and Possible Explanations. In Duncan, G., & Murnane, R. (Eds.) Wither Opportunity? Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances (pp. 91–15). Chicago: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  25. Rothstein, R. (2013). For public schools, Segregation Then. Segregation Since. Economic Policy Institute Report.Google Scholar
  26. Rothwell, J., & Massey, D. (2010). Density zoning and class segregation in U.S. Metropolitan areas. Social Science Quarterly, 91(5), 1123–1143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rothwell, J. (2012). Housing Costs, Zoning, and Access to High-Scoring Schools. Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program Report.Google Scholar
  28. Sanbonmatsu, L., & et al. (2011). Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration Program. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Report.Google Scholar
  29. Schuetz, J. et al. (2008). Neighborhood effects of concentrated mortgage foreclosures. Journal of Housing Economics, 17(4), 306–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schwartz, A., & Stiefel, L. (2014). Linking housing policy and school reform. In Lareau, A., Goyette, K., Schwartz, A., Stiefel, L. (Eds.) (pp. 295–314). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  31. Wooldridge, J. (1995). Score Diagnostics for Linear Models Estimated by Two Stage Least Squares. In Maddala, G., Srinivasan, T., Phillips, C. (Eds.) Advances in Econometrics and Quantitative Economics: Essays in Honor of Professor C.R. Rao (pp. 66–87). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  32. Wooldridge, J. (2010). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, MIT press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and DeVoe Moore CenterFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUNC Charlotte and Office of the Comptroller of the CurrencyCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations