Presentation Transcript

1. Discussant Comments on The Legacy of ESEA & K-12 School QualityChapter by Cascio/Reber

   Rucker C. Johnson, UC-Berkeley & NBER Visiting Scholar, Russell Sage Foundation June 12, 2012 1
2. US County Poverty Rates in 1960 Among the 300 poorest counties 2.1 – 20.99 21 – 31.29 31.3 – 45.62 45.63 – 93.07
3. County Population: Percent African American - 1960 Less than 10% 10 to less than 25% 25 to less than 50% 50% or more
4. 1965 ESEA Title I—Financial assistance to local educ agencies for the educ of children of low-income families Title II—school library resources, textbooks, and other instructional materials Title III—supplementary educational centers and services Title IV—educational research and training Title V—grants to strengthen state departments of education Title VI—general provisions New titles created by early amendments to 1965 law 1966 amendments (Public Law 89-750) Title VI - aid to handicapped children (1965 title VI becomes Title VII) 1967 amendments (Public Law 90-247) Title VII - bilingual education programs (1966 title VII becomes Title VIII)
5. Title I $12.7billionin2006appropriations 1/3 of fed K-12 support Largestfedprogrampast40yrs Goal:increaseachievementofpoorstudentsbyproviding fundingtopoorschools Evidenceofeffectivenessismixed (Matsudaira et al, 2012; Casio et al, 2012; Vander Klaauw,2005). Localpubfinancereasonswhy maynot work-- crowd-outoflocalfunds.(Gordon,2004)
6. Research Q’s about Title I Doesitincreasefundingofpoorschools? Doesfundingappeartodisplaceothersourcesoffunding?Ifso, whatothersourcesoffundingdecline? Doesit boostmeasurableschoolinputs,e.g.pupil-teacher ratios? Doesit increasestudentachievement,esp. among targeted subgroups? Doschoolsengagein“strategicbehavior”toattainfunds?
7. Empirical Challenges Many diffs between Title I and non-Title I schools-- (esp. poverty level), and the students attending them.
8. Title I Allocation Process Feds give $ to counties based on Census poverty counts. State gives $ to districts based on same.
9. ESEA Funding Data (1967-80) Info culled from NARA records by searching program titles & program codes Identify pool of grants potentially for ESEA (included string searches on ESEA grant titles) Most records, ESEA programs listed by community & funding amounts, & info on "stock" of programs at a particular time allows verification of accuracy of grant "flows"
10. ESEA Funding Data Sources 1967-80: cnty-level Fed program outlays (NARA, Title I,II,III) SEERS: # of 4 yr olds by county, 1965-80 County poverty rate (‘60,’70,’80: linearly interpolate) Key variable: ESEA spending per 4-yr old in cnty, 1967-80
11. Data PSID individuals born between 1950-1970 followed up to 2009 Data linked to census block in childhood Resulting Sample: from 6,362 individuals •from 1,574 families from 920 school districts 37% black Matched to…1965-80 cnty ESEA & Head Start spending 1960-1990 Census data, case inventory of desegregation court cases 1955-1990 Office of Civil Rights (Logan, American Communities Project) 1962-1982 Census of Governments, and Common Core data (compiled by National Center for Education Statistics.)
12. Other coincident policies controlled for: School desegregation exposure, by race (Johnson, 2010) Head Start spending per poor child (cnty) (Johnson, ‘12) Timing of Kindergarten intro, state-funded initiatives (Cascio, 2010) County-level gov’t transfer programs (1959-79: REIS (Hoynes et al., 2010)); avg during childhood ages Medicaid/AFDC/Food Stamps/UI…
13. ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1968 0 1 – 1,120 1,121 – 1,681 1,682 – 2,567 2,567 +
14. ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1969 0 1 – 1,120 1,121 – 1,681 1,682 – 2,567 2,567 +
15. ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1970 0 1 – 1,120 1,121 – 1,681 1,682 – 2,567 2,567 +
16. ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1971 0 1 – 1,120 1,121 – 1,681 1,682 – 2,567 2,567 +
17. ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1972 0 1 – 1,120 1,121 – 1,681 1,682 – 2,567 2,567 +
18. ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1973 0 1 – 1,120 1,121 – 1,681 1,682 – 2,567 2,567 +
19. ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1974 0 1 – 1,120 1,121 – 1,681 1,682 – 2,567 2,567 +
20. ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1975 0 1 – 1,120 1,121 – 1,681 1,682 – 2,567 2,567 +
21. ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1976 0 1 – 1,120 1,121 – 1,681 1,682 – 2,567 2,567 +
22. ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1977 0 1 – 1,120 1,121 – 1,681 1,682 – 2,567 2,567 +
23. ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1978 0 1 – 1,120 1,121 – 1,681 1,682 – 2,567 2,567 +
24. ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1979 0 1 – 1,120 1,121 – 1,681 1,682 – 2,567 2,567 +
25. ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1980 0 1 – 1,120 1,121 – 1,681 1,682 – 2,567 2,567 +
26. ESEA School Spending Per Poor Kid 1980 0 1 – 8,692 8,693 – 10,492 10,493 – 12,958 12,958 +
27. Reasonable Impact to Expect Project Star (a randomized experiment investigating the effects of small class size) cost ~$3,800/student. Reduced class-size by ~7 students (from a base of 22), and increased student achievement by .2-.25 standard deviations. A reasonable starting benchmark may be to assume effects are linear in program cost so Title I effects may be slightly <1/10th of Project Star’s effects Expect effects of ~.7 reduction in pupil-teacher ratios, and a .02 - .025 increase in test scores—VERY SMALL!
28. Reasonable Impact to Expect with Targeting Expected effects depend on extent funds are targeted within schools. e.g, if funds are targeted to 20% of students, expected effects should be 5x as large.
29. Caveats and Interpretation Lacking info on extent of targeting, effects of funding on treated students remains unclear.