The War on Povertys Human Capital Programs: K-12 Education Elizabeth Cascio, Dartmouth Sarah Reber,...
-
Upload
kyler-wigfall -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
2
Transcript of The War on Povertys Human Capital Programs: K-12 Education Elizabeth Cascio, Dartmouth Sarah Reber,...
The War on Poverty’s Human Capital Programs:
K-12 Education
Elizabeth Cascio, DartmouthSarah Reber, UCLA
June 2012
Elementary and Secondary Education Act
• Signed April 11, 1965
• Title I: Federal aid to fund programs for poor, educationally deprived children– Directed to poor school districts– $1 billion in 1965-66 ($7b, 2009$)– Doubled federal aid for
elementary/secondary education
• Per-pupil grants to districts ↑ linearly in child poverty rate
The Title I Program• Restricted block grant from the federal
government to local school districts– Targeted good is educational services for poor
children• Initially, very little regulation of use of funds• Over time, became highly regulated• Most educators now think of Title I as related
to particular educational interventions (pull-out programs), schools and students– Evaluations of program consistent with this
Federal Grants in a Federalist System
• Effects of Title I extended beyond grant-making
• TI receipt initially tied to desegregation– Strengthened the hand of the Courts– Consider desegregation-related benefits part of
the legacy of TI• TI receipt tied to accountability• Experience of TI influenced design of state
programs
Title I Evaluation Studies• Federally mandated evaluations• Compare students participating in “Title I
programs” to some comparison groups• Generally find Title I not so effective• Difficult to handle selection problem• Gives benefits of Title I overall only if– No Crowd-Out: Services received by treated students
are new services– No Spillovers: Non-participating students not affected– Good reason to believe these don’t hold
Economists’ Approach• Worry about all kinds of crowd out• Who can crowd out?
– State governments– Local school districts– Schools
• Where might the money go?– Educational services for ineligible kids/schools– Ineligible educational expenditure (e.g. capital)– Private consumption (lower taxes)
• Funds may be nominally used for intended purposes but still not increase ed services for poor children – Lots of anecdotal evidence of nominal mis-use of funds
Fiscal Federalism Studies• Feldstein (1978)• Gordon (2004)• Cascio, Gordon, and Reber (2012)• Range of estimates, but all find evidence of
economically significant crowd-out.• What is the incidence?• CGR find suggestive evidence of
improvements in ed attainment for Southern whites
Summary of the Literature
• Important to consider crowd-out!• Few credible studies of Title I programs much
less the program as a whole• Desegregation appears to have benefitted
blacks TI like played some role– Many other actors and policies also important
• A lot we don’t know
School Spending and Attainment: A Long View
• How have the relationships among educational spending, educational attainment, poverty and income changed over time?
• Use state-level data from the 1950s to 2000s.– Digest of Education Statistics– Census/ACS
Summary• Spending incredibly unequal across states and
strongly negatively correlated with poverty– No “South” effect South is just poor– Would have needed a much larger program to equalize
• Poverty less predictive and slope less steep over time– Greater role for income
• Ed attainment gaps between high and low poverty states narrowing over time– HS: Strong trend over whole period– College Attendance: Consistent with role for TI
NE
NM
KY
WYKSIL
NY
AZNHMAWAVT
MNME MOINWIOHDE
PAORMT
SD
ID
NJCA
WV
OK
NV
MDUTCTMI
NDRI IACO
LANC
TXGA
ARAL
FL
SC
VATN
MS
020
040
060
080
0
0 .1 .2 .3 .41960 Child Poverty Rate
slope estimate = $909 ($70), R2 = .78A. Title I Per Pupil, 1969
IDWY
OK
CTKS
AZMD
NV
MNOR
NM
MANY WVME KY
MI
CORI
NJ IAOHPACAVT
WA
WI
NDUT
IN
SD
NHDE
NEMT
IL MO
VA
ALFL
TX TNGA SCLA MS
AR
NC
020
040
060
080
0
0 .1 .2 .3 .41960 Child Poverty Rate
slope estimate = $45 ($112), R2 = .003B. Federal Revenue Per Pupil, 1963
NE
NM
KY
WYKS
IL
NY
AZ
NHMA
WAVTMNME MO
INWIOH
DE
PAORMT
SD
ID
NJCA
WV
OKNV
MDUT
CTMI
ND
RIIA
CO LA
NC
TX
GAARAL
FL
SCVA
TN
MS
020
040
060
080
0
0 .1 .2 .3 .41960 Child Poverty Rate
slope estimate = $1213 ($177), R2 = .5C. Federal Revenue Per Pupil, 1969
Figure 1. Title I Formula Amounts and Federal Revenue Per Pupilv. 1960 State Child Poverty Rate
Current ExpenditurePer Pupil
Federal RevenuePer Pupil
040
0080
0012
000
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Year (fall of academic)
Figure 2. Trends in Real Federal Revenueand Current Expenditure Per Pupil (2009 dollars)
CT
CO
ID
VT
WV
WA
IA
MA
NY
WY
MOUT
NMINMI
ORMN
OK
WI IL
NDOH
DE
CA
NHMD
ME
NVMT AZKS
KY
SD
NJ
PA
NE
RI
AL
LAFL
MS
SC
TX
GA NCTN
VA
AR
7.5
88.
59
0 .1 .2 .3 .41960 Child Poverty Rate
slope estimate = -2.28 (.18), R2 = .69A. 1963
IAAZ
NE
SD
NY
MD
CA
WV
NV
MNMTMI
NJ
MA
INMO
OK
KY
OH
DE
ND
IL
CO
NH
KS
ME
OR
WY
ID
CT
PA
WA
RIVT
UT
NM
WI
GAARFL
VA
NCSC
LA
TNTX
MSAL
8.5
99.
510
0 .1 .2 .3 .41960 Child Poverty Rate
slope estimate = -1.09 (.28), R2 = .17B. 2006
Figure 3. ln(Current Expenditure Per Pupil), 1963 and 2006,v. 1960 Child Poverty Rate
-2.5
-2-1
.5-1
Gra
dien
t
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Year (fall of academic)
Figure 4. Trend in the Gradient of ln(Current Expenditure Per Pupil)in the 1960 Child Poverty Rate
-50
510
1520
Gra
dien
t for
Pup
il-Tea
cher
Rat
io
-1.8
-1.6
-1.4
-1.2
-1-.8
Gra
dien
t for
ln(T
each
er S
alar
y)
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Year (fall of academic)
Gradient for ln(Teacher Salary) Gradient for Pupil-Teacher Ratio
Figure 5. Trends in the Gradients of ln(Teacher Salary) and Pupil-Teacher Ratioin the 1960 Child Poverty Rate
.2.4
.6.8
R-s
quar
ed
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Year (fall of academic)
1960 Child Poverty Current Per-Capita Income Both
Figure 6. Trends in the Predictive Power of the 1960 Child Poverty Rateand Per-Capita Income for ln(Current Expenditure Per Pupil)
.64
.77
.88.91 .93 .94
.35
.54
.76
.83.87 .88
.25
.33
.49
.56 .57.62
.11.16
.35
.43 .42
.51
No Exposure Full Exposure
0.2
.4.6
.81
1929 1939 1949 1959 1969 19795-year Birth Cohort Starting...
High School Graduation - White
High School Graduation - Nonwhite
College Attendance - White
College Attendance - Nonwhite
Figure 7. Trends in High School Graduation andCollege Attendance Rates by Ages 26-30, by Race
No Exposure Full Exposure
-1-.8
-.6-.4
-.20
.2
1929 1939 1949 1959 1969 19795-year Birth Cohort Starting...
High School Graduation Some College Completed
A. White
No Exposure Full Exposure
-1-.8
-.6-.4
-.20
.21929 1939 1949 1959 1969 1979
5-year Birth Cohort Starting...
High School Graduation Some College Completed
B. Nonwhite
Figure 8. Intercohort Trends in the Gradients of High School Graduationand Some College Completed in the 1960 Child Poverty Rate
WhiteHS Graduation
NonwhiteHS Graduation
WhiteCollege Att.
NonwhiteCollege Att.
0.2
.4.6
.81
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980cohort
Figure 7. Trends in High School Graduation andCollege Attendance Rates, by Race
No Exposure Partial Exposure Full Exposure
-1-.
50
.5
1934 1944 1954 1964 1974 1984cohort
High School Graduation College Attendance
A. White
No Exposure Partial Exposure Full Exposure
-1-.
50
.51934 1944 1954 1964 1974 1984
cohort
High School Graduation College Attendance
B. Nonwhite
Figure 8. Intercohort Trends in the Gradients of High School Graduationand Some College Attendance in the 1960 Child Poverty Rate