Education and Literacy;Race and Ethnicity
Using evidence from Durham, North Carolina, we examine the impact of school choice programs on racial and class-based segregation across schools. Theoretical considerations suggest that how choice programs affect segregation will depend not only on the family preferences emphasized in the sociology literature but also on the linkages between student composition, school quality and student achievement emphasized in the economics literature. Reasonable assumptions about the distribution of preferences over race, class, and school characteristics suggest that the segregating choices of students from advantaged backgrounds are likely to outweigh any integrating choices by disadvantaged students. The results of our empirical analysis are consistent with these theoretical considerations. Using information on the actual schools students attend and on the schools in their assigned attendance zones, we find that schools in Durham are more segregated by race and class as a result of school choice programs than they would be if all students attended their geographically assigned schools. In addition, we find that the effects of choice on segregation by class are larger than the effects on segregation by race.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Southern) / North Carolina / Durham County
Education and Literacy;Race and Ethnicity
Using evidence from Durham, North Carolina, we examine the impact of school choice programs on racial and class-based segregation across schools. Theoretical considerations suggest that how choice programs affect segregation will depend not only on the family preferences emphasized in the sociology literature but also on the linkages between student composition, school quality and student achievement emphasized in the economics literature. Reasonable assumptions about the distribution of preferences over race, class, and school characteristics suggest that the segregating choices of students from advantaged backgrounds are likely to outweigh any integrating choices by disadvantaged students. The results of our empirical analysis are consistent with these theoretical considerations. Using information on the actual schools students attend and on the schools in their assigned attendance zones, we find that schools in Durham are more segregated by race and class as a result of school choice programs than they would be if all students attended their geographically assigned schools. In addition, we find that the effects of choice on segregation by class are larger than the effects on segregation by race.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Southern) / North Carolina / Durham County
This report highlights key lessons from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's Community Partnerships portfolio evaluation. It assesses the communities' progress over the course of the investment, and describes their work in the areas of building public commitment, using data, building and sustaining partnerships, and aligning policies and practices. The OMG Center served as the national evaluator of this initiative and the report also discusses the steps these communities can take to sustain their programs.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Midwestern) / Ohio / Montgomery County / Dayton;North America / United States (Northeastern) / Massachusetts / Suffolk County / Boston;North America / United States (Southern) / Florida / Duval County / Jacksonville;North America / United States (Southern) / North Carolina / Mecklenburg County / Charlotte;North America / United States (Southwestern) / Arizona / Maricopa County / Phoenix;North America / United States (Western) / California / San Francisco County / San Francisco;North America / United States (Northwestern) / Oregon / Multnomah County / Portland;North America / United States (Northeastern) / New York / New York County / New York City;North America / United States (Northeastern) / Pennsylvania / Philadelphia County / Philadelphia;North America / United States (Southern) / North Carolina / Wake County / Raleigh;North America / United States (Southern) / Kentucky / Jefferson County / Louisville;North America / United States (Southwestern) / Arizona / Maricopa County / Mesa;North America / United States (Southwestern) / Texas / Cameron County / Brownsville;North America / United States (Southwestern) / Texas / Potter County / Amarillo;North America / United States (Western) / California / Riverside County / Riverside
This report highlights key lessons from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's Community Partnerships portfolio evaluation. It assesses the communities' progress over the course of the investment, and describes their work in the areas of building public commitment, using data, building and sustaining partnerships, and aligning policies and practices. The OMG Center served as the national evaluator of this initiative and the report also discusses the steps these communities can take to sustain their programs.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Midwestern) / Ohio / Montgomery County / Dayton;North America / United States (Northeastern) / Massachusetts / Suffolk County / Boston;North America / United States (Southern) / Florida / Duval County / Jacksonville;North America / United States (Southern) / North Carolina / Mecklenburg County / Charlotte;North America / United States (Southwestern) / Arizona / Maricopa County / Phoenix;North America / United States (Western) / California / San Francisco County / San Francisco;North America / United States (Northwestern) / Oregon / Multnomah County / Portland;North America / United States (Northeastern) / New York / New York County / New York City;North America / United States (Northeastern) / Pennsylvania / Philadelphia County / Philadelphia;North America / United States (Southern) / North Carolina / Wake County / Raleigh;North America / United States (Southern) / Kentucky / Jefferson County / Louisville;North America / United States (Southwestern) / Arizona / Maricopa County / Mesa;North America / United States (Southwestern) / Texas / Cameron County / Brownsville;North America / United States (Southwestern) / Texas / Potter County / Amarillo;North America / United States (Western) / California / Riverside County / Riverside
Children and Youth, Crime and Safety, Education and Literacy
The primary mission of North Carolina schools is to provide students an excellent education. To fully achieve this mission, schools must not only be safe, but also developmentally appropriate, fair, and just.
Unfortunately, many so-called "school safety" proposals in the wake of the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut have been shortsighted measures inspired by political expediency but unsupported by data. We aim to provide a more thoughtful approach informed by decades of research and centered on the mission of public schools.
This issue brief responds to the newly established N.C. Center for Safer Schools, which has requested public input on "local concerns and challenges related to school safety" and has made available the opportunity to submit written comments.
The first section of the brief debunks common myths and provides essential facts that must provide the backdrop for the school safety debate. The second section offers proven methods of striving for safe, developmentally appropriate, fair, and just public schools. It also provides examples of reforms from other cities and states. The third section makes note of resources that we encourage Center staff to study carefully.
This brief rests on several key premises. First, "school safety" includes both physical security of students as well as their emotional and psychological well-being. Many of the proposals following the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School have had an overly narrow focus on physical security at the expense of this broader picture of holistic student well-being. Second, public education in this state needs more funding in order for schools to even have a chance of achieving their core mission. North Carolina consistently ranks among the worst states in the country for funding of public education.
Schools need more resources to implement measures that can truly ensure student safety. Third, student well-being depends on a coordinated effort by all the systems that serve youth. For example, school safety will be helped by laws that keep guns off school property and by full funding of the child welfare, mental health, and juvenile justice systems. Finally, this issue brief is not intended to be a comprehensive set of suggestions.
Instead, our focus is on providing the Center important context that we view as missing from the current debate.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Southern)-North Carolina
Education and Literacy, Poverty
This paper examines whether teachers in schools serving students from high-poverty backgrounds are as effective as teachers in schools with more advantaged students. The question is important. Teachers are recognized as the most important school factor affecting student achievement, and the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their better off peers is large and persistent.
Using student-level microdata from 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 from Florida and North Carolina, the authors compare the effectiveness of teachers in high-poverty elementary schools (>70% FRL students) with that of teachers in lower-poverty elementary schools (<70% FRL students). The results show that the average effectiveness of teachers in high-poverty schools is in general less than teachers in other schools, but only slightly, and not in all comparisons. The authors also find differences in within-school-type variation in teacher effectiveness in nearly every comparison. These differences are largely driven by the longer tail at the bottom of the teacher effectiveness distribution in high-poverty schools. Teachers at the top of the effectiveness distribution are very similar across school settings.
The observed differences in teacher quality between high-poverty and lower-poverty schools are not due to differences in the observed characteristics of teachers, such as experience, certification status and educational attainment. Rather, they appear to arise from differences in the marginal return or payoff from increases in a characteristic. In particular, the gain in productivity from increased experience is much stronger in lower-poverty schools. The lower return to experience in high-poverty schools does not appear to be a result of differences in the quality of teachers who leave teaching or who switch schools. Rather, it may be the case that the effect of experience on teacher productivity may depend on the setting in which the experience is acquired.
If there are positive spillovers among teachers that depend on teacher quality (ie. teacher "peer effects") or if exposure to challenging student populations lessens the future productivity of teachers (i.e. leads to "burn out"), teachers in schools serving large proportions of low-income students may simply not improve much as time goes by.
These findings suggest that solutions to the achievement gap between high and lower-poverty schools may be complex. Changing the quality of new recruits or importing teachers with good credentials into highpoverty schools may not be sufficient. Rather, the findings suggest that measures that induce highly effective teachers to move to high-poverty schools and which promote an environment in which teachers' skills will improve over time are more likely to be successful.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Southern)-North Carolina, North America-United States (Southern)-Florida
Profiles the goals, activities, implementation, and challenges of the twelve states that won Race to the Top federal funds to improve teacher quality and preparation program accountability; analyzes their strategies; and makes policy recommendations.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Northeastern)-Delaware, North America-United States (Southern)-Florida, North America-United States (Southern)-Georgia, North America-United States (Southern)-Maryland, North America-United States (Northeastern)-Massachusetts, North America-United States (Northeastern)-New York, North America-United States (Southern)-North Carolina, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Ohio, North America-United States (Northeastern)-Rhode Island, North America-United States (Southern)-Tennessee, North America-United States (Western)-Hawaii, North America-United States (Southwestern)-New Mexico-Bernalillo County-Albuquerque, North America-United States (Southern)-Georgia-Fulton County-Atlanta, North America-United States (Southern)-Maryland-Baltimore, North America-United States (Northeastern)-Massachusetts-Suffolk County-Boston, North America-United States (Northeastern)-Connecticut-Fairfield County-Bridgeport, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Illinois-Cook County-Chicago, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Ohio-Hamilton County-Cincinnati, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Ohio-Cuyahoga County-Cleveland, North America-United States (Southwestern)-Texas-Dallas County-Dallas, North America-United States (Western)-Colorado-Denver County-Denver, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Michigan-Wayne County-Detroit, North America-United States (Southwestern)-Texas-Harris County-Houston, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Indiana-Marion County-Indianapolis, North America-United States (Southern)-Florida-Duval County-Jacksonville, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Missouri-Jackson County-Kansas City, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Nebraska-Lancaster County-Lincoln, North America-United States (Northeastern)-New York-Long Island, North America-United States (Western)-California-Los Angeles County-Los Angeles, North America-United States (Southern)-Kentucky-Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government-Louisville, North America-United States (Southern)-Georgia-Bibb County-Macon, North America-United States (Southern)-Tennessee-Shelby County-Memphis, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Minnesota-Hennepin County-Minneapolis, North America-United States (Southern)-Tennessee-Davidson County-Nashville, North America-United States (Southern)-Louisiana-Orleans Parish-New Orleans, North America-United States (Northeastern)-New York-New York County-New York City, North America-United States (Western)-Nebraska-Douglas County-Omaha, North America-United States (Western)-California-Santa Clara County-Palo Alto, North America-United States (Western)-California-Los Angeles County-Pasadena, North America-United States (Northeastern)-Pennsylvania-Philadelphia County-Philadelphia, North America-United States (Northeastern)-Pennsylvania-Allegheny County-Pittsburgh, North America-United States (Northwestern)-Oregon-Multnomah County-Portland, North America-United States (Northeastern)-Rhode Island-Providence County-Providence, North America-United States (Western)-California-Sacramento County-Sacramento, North America-United States (Western)-California-San Diego County-San Diego, North America-United States (Western)-California-San Francisco County-San Francisco, North America-United States (Western)-California-Santa Clara County-San Jose, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Minnesota-Ramsey County-St. Paul, North America-United States (Northeastern)-New Jersey-Mercer County-Trenton, North America-United States (Southwestern)-Arizona-Pima County-Tucson, North America-United States (Western)-Washington-King County-Seattle, North America-United States (Southern)-District of Columbia-Washington
Education and Literacy;Government Reform
Describes how state leaders spurred innovation to raise high school graduation and college-readiness rates through cooperative programs between school boards and community colleges, nonprofit support, and start-up grants. Discusses remaining barriers.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Southern) / North Carolina
