Discussant Comments on The Legacy of ESEA & K-12 School Quality

Chapter by Cascio/Reber

Rucker C. Johnson, UC-Berkeley & NBERVisiting Scholar, Russell Sage Foundation

June 12, 20121

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

County Population: Percent African American - 1960

Less than 10%

10 to less than 25%

25 to less than 50%

50% or more

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)

Title I $12.7 billion in 2006 appropriations

• 1/3 of fed K-12 support

Largest fed program past 40 yrs Goal: increase achievement of poor students by providing funding to poor schools Evidence of effectiveness is mixed (Matsudaira et al, 2012; Casio et al, 2012; Van der Klaauw, 2005).

Local pub finance reasons why may not work-- crowd-out of local funds. (Gordon, 2004)

Research Q’s about Title I Does it increase funding of poor schools? Does funding appear to displace other sources of

funding? If so, what other sources of funding decline?

Does it boost measurable school inputs, e.g. pupil-teacher ratios?

Does it increase student achievement, esp. among targeted subgroups?

Do schools engage in “strategic behavior” to attain funds?

Empirical Challenges

Many diffs between Title I and non-Title I schools-- (esp. poverty level), and the students attending them.

Title I Allocation Process

Feds give $ to counties based on Census poverty counts. State gives $ to districts based on same.

ESEA Funding Data (1967-80)

1. Info culled from NARA records by searching program titles & program codes

2. Identify pool of grants potentially for ESEA (included string searches on ESEA grant titles)

3. 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"

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

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.)

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…

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Avg

Pe

r-P

upil

ES

EA

Fu

ndin

g(A

ges

5-1

7, 2

000$

)

1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970Year of birth

All Children Black Children

Birth Cohort Variation inESEA School Funding during Childhood

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Avg

Pe

r-P

upil

ES

EA

Fu

ndin

g(A

ges

5-1

7, 2

000$

)

1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970Year of birth

95% CI Black Children

Birth Cohort Variation inESEA School Funding during Childhood

ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1968

0

1 – 1,120

1,121 – 1,681

1,682 – 2,567

2,567 +

ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1969

0

1 – 1,120

1,121 – 1,681

1,682 – 2,567

2,567 +

ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1970

0

1 – 1,120

1,121 – 1,681

1,682 – 2,567

2,567 +

ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1971

0

1 – 1,120

1,121 – 1,681

1,682 – 2,567

2,567 +

ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1972

0

1 – 1,120

1,121 – 1,681

1,682 – 2,567

2,567 +

ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1973

0

1 – 1,120

1,121 – 1,681

1,682 – 2,567

2,567 +

ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1974

0

1 – 1,120

1,121 – 1,681

1,682 – 2,567

2,567 +

ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1975

0

1 – 1,120

1,121 – 1,681

1,682 – 2,567

2,567 +

ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1976

0

1 – 1,120

1,121 – 1,681

1,682 – 2,567

2,567 +

ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1977

0

1 – 1,120

1,121 – 1,681

1,682 – 2,567

2,567 +

ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1978

0

1 – 1,120

1,121 – 1,681

1,682 – 2,567

2,567 +

ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1979

0

1 – 1,120

1,121 – 1,681

1,682 – 2,567

2,567 +

ESEA Per Pupil Spending 1980

0

1 – 1,120

1,121 – 1,681

1,682 – 2,567

2,567 +

ESEA School Spending Per Poor Kid 1980

0

1 – 8,692

8,693 – 10,492

10,493 – 12,958

12,958 +

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!

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.

Caveats and Interpretation

Lacking info on extent of targeting, effects of funding on treated students remains unclear.