A reassessment of the social and economic

impact of schools on rural communities

John Sipple, Sutee Anantsuksomsri, Nij Tontisirin, Joe D. Francis - Program in Applied

DemographicsPresented at the 2013 Federal Reserve System Research

Conference, Washington, D.C. April 11, 2013

Introduction

• View that schools in rural communities are central to community vitality (e.g., the hub of community life).

• School district consolidation and school closure are often proposed to relieve fiscal stress (reduce tax burden & enhancing educational opportunity).

• It is unclear to what extent schools play in the social and economic vitality of rural communities.

Introduction

• Lyson (2002) showed that the presence of schools provide significant social and economic benefits to rural communities.

• Lyson’s Findings:– In smallest rural communities, the presence of a school is

associated with higher housing values– Higher per capita income from self-employment is found

in communities with schools– Higher proportion of workers in communities with school

are employed within their villages

This Study

• This paper revisits Lyson’s hypothesis by employing 2000 & 2010 Census and geoinformatic analysis of school locations in New York State.

• Like Lyson, we focus on rural villages (i.e. incorporated villages with population 2,500 or less)

• These rural villages are further categorized by presence or absence of public schools

Data & Methodology

• Data are primarily drawn from two databases: 1. Census data

• 2000 Census (short form & long form)• 2010 Census (decennial & ACS)• Census geography TIGER/Line® shapefile: rural incorporated villages in

New York State (NYS) of both 2000 & 2010 Census

2. Public school directory from NYS Department of Education (2010) and Cornell Program on Applied Demographics (2000)

• Key variables include: – population characteristics– housing characteristics– income and welfare– occupational and employment characteristics

Population 500 or less

Population 501 to 2,500

Population 2,500+ (urban)

2010 PlacesTotal: 1,189

73 66

272 245

2000 2010

exclude 32 outliers (based on village’s median house value)

705 846

Rural Schools in 2010

1990 2000 201030,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

55,000

60,000

65,000

Median House value (1990 $)

SM-SchoolSM-No SchoolLG-SchoolLG-No School

1990 2000 201020,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

Household Income (1990 $)

SM-SchoolSM-No SchoolLG-SchoolLG-No School

RegressionsHH Inc2000

HH Inc2010

PerCap Inc2000

PerCap Inc2010

H Value2000

H Value2010

Large + +

School +

School X Size -

<39 - - - - - -

W Child + + + + + +

% White - - - - -

White collar + + + + + +

Self Employ + + + + + +

No Commute

R2 .79 .60 .73 .57 .71 .51

Discussions & Conclusions

• We find more nuanced relationships between the presence of schools and community vitality– Stabilizing/Constraining impact of schools– Once controlling for other factors, the presence of schools only

impacts HH Income (less so for large).– Once controlling for other factors, larger villages are more prosperous

• Further studies– panel analysis (1990-2010)– Does distance from village center to school matter.