New Milestone: Majority of Public School Students Now Considered Low-Income
Via Southern Education Foundation:
Students are eligible for free meals if they live in households with no more than 135 percent of the poverty level, and they qualify for reduced-price meals if household income is no more than 185 percent of the poverty level. In 2013, the federal poverty threshold was $23,550 for a family of four.
Brought to you by the trickle down Reagonomics love demons. Better known as the TP/GOP.
Is North Carolina the only state now offering ‘vouchers’ to low-income families toward paying tuition to private schools?
I don’t have any data to substantiate my suspicion, but it seems to me the flight from the public school systems by those families who can afford to do so, is doing exactly what many of us feared the so-called ‘choice’ programs around the country would do; leave the public schools with the hardest cases, the kids with learning disabilities, broken families, etc., while the private schools can cherry-pick the kids they take.
Here in NC, we also have a lot of home schooling, often on religious grounds, which presents a different problem. These are sometimes someone’s mom with two kids, she gets a couple of neighborhood kids to join in, and suddenly she is “XYZ Christian Academy”, and qualifies to accept ‘voucher’ kids. These ‘schools’ are not subject to the same standards as public schools; teachers need not be accredited, standardized testing is not required. How this is raising education standards in this country escapes me utterly.
Sandi
I forgot to mention the vouchers would pay maybe a quarter of the annual tuition to any of the good private schools, so it’s really a disservice to the families of low means who would like to get their kid in a private school. And it gives the public the impression that the state is “really trying to help those struggling families”, when what they are really doing is offering false hope.
This is probably not correct technically. Some students qualify for being in a school with a high percentage who meet the income requirements.
How are vouchers *more* of a disservice to the families of low means who would like to get their kids into private schools than the prevalent status quo of no vouchers and higher comparable real estate prices in highly reputable school districts?
m.jed:
Not entirely true. “status quo of no vouchers and higher comparable real estate prices in highly reputable school districts?” There are pockets of highly ranked schools with affordable housing. http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2013/09/paying-more-for-a-house-with-a-top-public-school-its-elementary.html#.VN_wuWAo6Ch “Fortunately, Redfin crunched the numbers and found numerous highly-ranked schools across the country where homes were significantly more affordable compared to homes within the boundaries of the top-ranked local schools.” Vouchered schools collect who they want to collect often leaving behind what they would classify as the less than desirable.
Run – the main crux of your citation was that there are diamonds in the rough, a point with which I wouldn’t disagree. But the larger point in the article was that home prices are significantly higher in good school districts:
“Although we were somewhat floored by the higher prices in many zones,”
“While we expected to see higher prices for homes in highly-ranked school zones, we didn’t expect the difference to be so large. In certain markets, the difference amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars for similar homes in the same neighborhood.”
“When accounting for size, on average, people pay $50 more per square foot for homes in top-ranked school zones compared with homes served by average-ranked schools. This means that the price differences for similar homes located near each other but served by different schools can range from tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
“Homes just a short distance apart with nearly identical attributes are selling for drastically different prices. We’ve looked across the country at homes that have sold in the last three months and found five examples where the prices vary on identical homes by as much as $130,000.”
jed:
Yours was an absolute statement.
“Chicken or the Egg: Are Higher Ranked Schools a Result of Better Homes?” (1st paragraph)
Everyone assumes that better school districts tend to have bigger homes, higher quality homes, larger lots, or a more prime location (views, quiet streets, etc). We’ve debunked that assumption. When accounting for size, on average, people pay $50 more per square foot for homes in top-ranked school zones compared with homes served by average-ranked schools.
Districts can have highly rated schools based upon the property taxes they may have within an area or by removing the property taxes from the equation altogether and using sales, etc. taxes to fund schools. It is just not the cost of the surrounding homes around the district which determine the school’s capability to provide a better than average education. I can tell you right now, the public high school I graduated from smack-dab in the middle of Chicago graduated the most PhDs in the nation and is still highly rated.
the question re house values and location starts with how many folks have children of an age where school is a concern. It does suggest unless other factors such as crime rates appear that those whose children are no longer in school or those who don’t have kids should move to the lower cost places. I suspect that there are other factors besides the schools that participate in the price discrepancy. After all 20% of women in their 40ties don’t have children now.
A scary hidden dimension here is that they are classifying students as “low income” if they are below 185% of the federal poverty line. My understanding is that the true “minimum needs” line is more like 250% of the federal poverty line …
… the fed line based on nothing more or less than 3X the price of an emergency diet (dried beans only, no expensive canned).
According to my 2001 edition of the MS. Foundation Book “Raise the Floor” chart 3-2 on p. 44, today’s true minimum needs line for a family of three (not four) is more like $50,000 a year (you have to update their figures for inflation — and — probably for higher medical insurance). That makes it look like significantly more than 50% of public school families are well below the poverty line.
Not surprising give the median wage is something like $16 an hour — and the median income I keep seeing is $26,000 (must have lost some hours in there). Not rationale given a mere 3.5% shift of GDP would make a minimum wage of $15 (about how much we grow ever couple of years) — or how easy it would be to re-unionized the country if we really had an interest (an all consuming interest seeing nothing else can save us).
PS. Berkeley political science professor Martín Sánchez-Jankowski spent nine years on the ground in five NY and LA poverty stricken neighborhoods and says in his book that the reason ghetto schools don’t work is that students are not incentivized enough to strive in the classroom because of their [very accurate] perception there is nothing remunerative enough waiting for them in the labor market when they graduate to make it worth the effort.
So, it all boils down to — like every other bad social condition in this country boils down to — our labor market. That is our PATHOLOGICALLY de-unionized labor market. Even Obama — of all people — figured out that “inequality is the defining challenge of our time” — until the speech didn’t poll well and he forgot all about it. Let us not forget.
run,
Help me understand the logic pattern – (a) according to your reference, we’ve concluded people pay more per SF for a home in a top school district, and (b) you’re asserting that residents of good school districts pay higher local taxes than they otherwise would. If true, on average, residents pay both more for housing and taxes to be in a good school district. I 100% agree with this conclusion.
As for Chicago, the top five public high schools in the city are selective, meaning one has to test in to gain admittance, rather than proximity-based. And on top of that, roughly 20-30% of students at those highly-ranked schools went to private grammar schools. http://www.wbez.org/story/chicagos-best-high-schools-who-gets-who-doesnt-97110
Further, there are elements that underpin the theories of both assortive mating and Schelling’s Tipping Point at work. From my observation, affluent parents in urban neighborhoods with good public schools where admittance is proximity-based are grateful for not having to shell out private school tuition, so those schools have no issues raising funds from parent when the schools ask. In support of this view, the last time I looked, elementary schools in hotter neighborhoods for yuppie parents (South Loop, Bucktown, Wicker Park) rose quickly up the ranks of test scores and ratings once they became hot neighborhoods.
In my opinion, these are factors that have led to increased socio-economic segregation –
http://danielkayhertz.com/2014/03/31/middle-class/ –
which then feeds on itself from larger network effects. Vouchers wouldn’t solve this issue, but they wouldn’t exacerbate it either.
jed:
Having grown up in Chicago and having kids now living in Chicago, I do not believe I am at a disadvantage pointing out you are wrong as usual. My previous high school is one of those top 5 which is included in the article and yes you had to be invited as it was not a district high school and it took students from the entire city back into the sixties. No you do not have to test into it. There were always 8th grade tests. That plus grades and teacher recommendations would suffice. I was a decent student and most of us went to public grammer schools.
You do not have to own a Mc Mansion to get into a good schools. Neither do you have to pay high property taxes as schools are funded in multiple ways. You can own a small townhome in Chicago and pay high property taxes which might include good schools. The lottery results might place your child in a school not so desirable. Then to if you live in Michigan where schools are mostly funded by sales tax; and you chose wisely, you could be in a good school district. It is not always big homes and high property taxes which fund schools.
You asserted one most own a bigger home to gain access to a good school district. My answer was, no you do not have to live in a McMansion to gain access and you could have a smaller home which exists in abundance in larger cities. Furthermore it may not even be property taxes which drive the quality of schools. I also added the value of your home may be less and you still might have access. What bothers me about your argument and Maggie was pretty on the mark with it was your bias towards race and ethnicity.
20-30% went to private schools and the rest went where?
Finally, Milliken vs Bradley was one court ruling which segregated the population of one city denying access of the population to better schools very much akin to Cruikshank denying access to 14th amendment protection for some citizens.
that the reason ghetto schools don’t work is that students are not incentivized enough to strive in the classroom because of their [very accurate] perception there is nothing remunerative enough waiting for them in the labor market when they graduate to make it worth the effort. – See more at: http://angrybearblog.strategydemo.com/2015/02/new-milestone-majority-of-public-school-students-now-considered-low-income.html#comments
And speaking to that, our governor, the man who wants to turn Duke and UNC into trade schools, recently gave a speech where he addressed this issue and said something to the effect, “Tell a 9th grader that if he stays in school and completes a degree, there will be a $65,000 job waiting for him”, and this will end drop-outs.
And this from a governor who has not been able to get his General Assembly to raise beginning teachers’ salaries to $35k/year and who let the bill pass that removed the pay bump for teachers who completed a masters degree. Counties subsidize teachers above the state pay scale, but of course, this means the richer counties can afford to pay more, and the poorer ones, not so much.
“Them that’s got shall have, them that’s not shall lose…………..Your mama may have, and your papa may have, but God bless the child…….”
Re Sandi’s comment. Of course if you truly believe in Mr. Market paying kids for good grades follows its just pay for performance which occurs with adults. But mention this and many who favor the market react with horror to the idea. If pay for performance is good enough for adults, why is it not good enough for kids?
Just read Tim Worst-of-all’s article — he is the worst.
The “hidden dimension” in the numbers — in “how we count the numbers” is of course that the official federal poverty line that it counts portions of (135%, 185%) is off by a factor of about 2 1/2.
The official US poverty line is based on 3X the price of an emergency diet — nothing else! (dried beans only may be purchased; no expensive canned).
A genuine “minimum needs” line may be computed from chart 3-2 on p.44 of the Ms. Foundation book Raise the Floor. You’ll have to use an inflation calculator — my edition is 2001. http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
The result is a poverty line of about $50,000 a year for a family of three if (big if) they have to pay for their own health insurance. The median family income. Many of those who do not have to pay their own health — or cannot — are so far below the line they qualify for extra help. Throw in food stamps, Medicaid, E.I.T.C., section 8 like Tim says — and we have an Ark load of people who who are hoisted up closer to but mostly not all the way back to the poverty line (by definition, or they wouldn’t be eligible for food stamps, etc.).
The median wage is about $16 and the median income is about $26,000 (must have lost some hours, weeks or months in there somewhere) while the minimum needs line is double the median income. Means we have half or our fellow Americans endlessly struggling to keep their heads above water — almost half a century after LBJ opened the war on poverty, almost double the per capita income later.
What would it take? It would take 3.5% shift in GDP output to raise the minimum wage to $15. Most of all it would take re-unionization to rebalance the labor market (might take that just to get the $15 min). How do you like those propositions, Tim?
So what’s new? The article from SEF and much of this discussion thread reads like some new and startling discovery has been made. What does one expect the student body of public schools to look like when income for the average American worker has been stagnant or worse for several decades now? When household income, especially in the lower half of the work force, is barely a living wage do we expect that their children would suddenly start attending private schools? One need not present the findings of this study to support the contention presented in the introduction to the graphic display. “SEF Vice President Steve Suitts wrote: “No longer can we consider the problems and needs of low income students simply a matter of fairness… Their success or failure in the public schools will determine the entire body of human capital and educational potential that the nation will possess in the future. Without improving the educational support that the nation provides its low income students – students with the largest needs and usually with the least support — the trends of the last decade will be prologue for a nation not at risk, but a nation in decline…”” Startling in its revelation, educational support is good for poor students and also good for the nation as a whole. That’s news??? So does it really matter where we set the lower limits of income in order to define the poor? Not in any discussion of educational need, it doesn’t.
And when did we expect proper funding of public schools to begin making an impact on the poor quality that those schools often offer to their student bodies? This is a topic that’s growing moss from its own level of stagnation. Which brings us to the turn in the discussion thread towards RE value and public schools. What advantages do the children of the wealthy have in any educational setting? Let me count the ways!!! No people, parents don’t pay more to be in rich school districts. Rich districts mimic the economic status of the people who already live in those districts. On the other hand, the wealthy may very well pay more for their real estate so that they don’t have to hob nob with the hoi polloi. They also need bigger lots for their bigger homes. And, oh my goodness, they’re willing to pay higher property/school taxes because its deductible from federal income taxation. Private school fees are not!! Pay $30 or $40 thousand a year in deductible taxes and send two or three kids to top notch (well funded) schools. Sounds like a good plan to me. Wealth doesn’t follow schools. Wealth generates good schools which then provide the better education for children who already have every other environmental advantage related to learning.
The exception to this process is, of course, land in the city that is generally worth more than land in the country (or the suburbs for that matter). Often enough the same people who live in those first rate, good school suburbs, also live in those real expensive city town homes and condos. That’s what real wealth is all about.
LATE NOT FOR TIM WORSTALL — OR ANY OF HIS READERS:
Just to short-hand, shore up my claim of 50K minimum needs for a family of three found in detailed chart 3-2, on p.44 of MS. Foundation book Raise the Floor.
My quick look:
$11,000 health care for a family of four (not three), $498 a month (after $541 subsidy) + $4900 (from Brill, p. 346, close enough);
$4,000 payroll taxes (not even counting all those regressive taxes that we take for granted as the part of prices);
$15,000 rent and utilities for any place decent;
leaving a big $400 a week to feed, cloth, transport (entertain?; MS. does not allow a cent for entertainment) four people. I would call that minimum needs.
Meantime the median income is $26,000.
3.5% shift in income would pay for a $15 minimum wage (half the workforce is seriously treading water between $300 a week (assuming they get 40 hours; most may not) and $500. If the 16% of income that shifted to the top 1% since the mid-seventies had instead shifted to the bottom 90% (the top 10% mostly kept up their share until recently) the latter would be swimming in money (and FICA collections would be going through the roof — got to stop diverting funds to that silly TF at some point).
Denis,
So what!! What has that to do with the focus of the post, public schools and poverty? The definition of poverty is irrelevant. The only relevant issue is what it takes to provide educational opportunity to all young people regardless of family income and where that income falls on some subjective scale of adequacy.
Malaysian Readers could do better than following Worstall