Words: 2367
For decades now, reforming school systems and Improving educational outcomes for low-income communities has been a topic for reformers looking for assistance of the ever-changing federal and state policies. Evidence shows that improvements in public services have strong positive effects on economic and social growth and that this growth would happen at a faster rate than for other cities This paper looks to explain the how location decisions can help improve education for lower-income communities, and how improvements would better the educational outcomes of children and economic opportunities of communities, INTRODUCTION
An essential key for the well being of all communities is quality educational opportunities for children and young adults. Many children however, face overwhelming obstacles to getting ahead, to achieving a better life for themselves. These obstacles are even bigger for low-income communities living In substandard housing and high-poverty neighborhoods, where conditions are demoralizing and tend to be a roadblock to the children’s education.
Schools in these neighborhoods are faced with throngs of low-income students that are overwhelmed by their situations and the lack of opportunities that could open doors for future success, not only in school but in elite as well. This report will show that with the support and collaboration of agencies, development In communities and by creating the space for educational Improvements, opportunities for low-income families are achievable.
If achieved, a multidisciplinary approach across several agencies that serve these families could have big implications on regional development and planning, making cities with better educational systems coveted by possible homebuilders. Over and over again agencies have limited their efforts to issues of housing families in ghetto- eke communities that don’t get enough other services or easy access to them. Society and has aggravated the disparity between low-income and high-income communities.
Integrated planning is necessary to achieve the goals of integrated, sustainable, and opportunity-filled communities in which children can grow. While researching about educational policy that could make a difference in the lives of high-poverty stricken areas, it was very hard to find a specific program that granted not only better educational opportunities to children and teens, but that would also improve their quality of life.
PRIMARY POLICY ISSUE It is well known that greater personal income leads to higher demand for land by consumers, making them locate in areas where they can meet their needs and expectations for suburban living. In addition to the bigger space, many high-income families locate where they find public schools that meet educational expectations for their children. In many cases schools in the suburbs have better facilities, better teachers and principals, and their curriculum is designed to serve the quality expected by the students and parents served in such schools.
Measure of the school laity tends to reflect not only on the quality of the education offered but also the characteristics of the students, which in the suburb areas tends to be a higher income type of student. By this account, it could be argued that high-income homebuilders and families are not only paying for the land they live in, but also for the school in their area and quality of their children’s classmates. There is a different picture painted for most inner cities and downtown areas in the US.
Inner cities tend to have, in general, low-income populations because of the need to live densely populated areas due to the cost of land. In large cities like New York or Washington, D. C. It can observed that the majority population in the mentioned areas is of racial or ethnic minorities, which are already at a greater risk for school dropout or failure. Based on the previous facts, it could be arguable that children living in poverty are at a higher disadvantage when it comes to receiving a good education.
Many studies show that social environment influences the learning achievement in children. Nonsense, 2009) Since most resources go to areas that pay more taxes for the land, and other resources are also allocated to better serve the high-income communities and heir schools, in can be inferred that low-income neighborhoods are the recipients of very low subsidies for education. By making significant changes in the education, more resources could be allocated to serve underprivileged areas and with that, raise the land values and also revive and revivalist them.
This could potentially make former low-income areas more appealing to high income families, giving high-income buyers a chance to move back into the city and help desegregate inner cities and downtowns all around the country. Families for them to relocate to higher-income areas to provide their children with a utter prospect for their educational achievement and this way also make communities more diverse. MOVING TO OPPORTUNITIES The “Moving To Opportunity for Fair Housing” (MOT) program seems to have found the right balance between better education and better housing for low-income families. The program provides tenant-based rental assistance and combines it with housing counseling to help very low-income families move from poverty-stricken urban areas to low-poverty neighborhoods. ” (Development) The purpose of Section 8 rental assistance is to provide families that qualify with dehydrate priced private housing in neighborhoods that have ample access to educational and work opportunities. Unfortunately, many households that depend on Section 8 rental assistance can encounter other barriers to their success, such as discrimination, lack of transportation, a deteriorated housing market, etc. And sometimes are forced by their circumstances to rent houses in high-crime, high- poverty neighborhoods. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Moving to Opportunity “tests the impact of housing counseling and other assistance on the sousing choices of Section 8 households, as well as the long-term effects of access to low-poverty neighborhoods on the housing, employment, and educational achievements of the assisted households. The goal is to develop more effective mobility strategies for recipients of tenant-based housing assistance in metropolitan areas throughout the Nation. (Development) CONCERNS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL SETTINGS Local and regional governments all around the country are trying to find ways to revivalist their downtown areas and try to revive them to their former glory. Local overspent lose millions of dollars in revenue from buildings in disuse, crime rates tend to be higher, and segregation of minorities to these areas is high. By providing better education for students in the city and creating schools that would be a model for others we could spark interest in the higher income community to move back to the city from the suburbs in order to enroll their children in these schools.
Also, by providing low-income families resources to rent homes in higher- income communities, local governments could promote more diverse neighborhoods and a better sense of community. City planners are always looking for better ways to urbanize the downtowns and create multi-use areas around the city. Making certain areas of the city more GOALS AND OBJECTIVES From a liberal perspective, money invested in education is probably the best possible use for it.
In addition to education, increasing the standard of living for many of the citizens in high-poverty communities is also an important objective of the social programs reviewed on this document. * Goals to achieve Reduce dropout rate in high-poverty communities Lower crime rates in low-income communities Why are these goals important? By having children attend schools with higher educational standards, being able to measure their educational achievement becomes an easier task. Children reading at their age level, having math skills appropriate to their class level, and performing better academically have better chances of succeeding in live. When children are given the opportunity to succeed in an educational setting, families and communities benefit. If children are performing better in school there is a direct relation in the dropout rates, they decrease. Studies have shown that immunities with better education also have lower crime rates. (Ludwig, Duncan, ; Hierarchies, Urban Poverty and Juvenile Crime: Evidence from a Randomized Housing-Mobility Experiment, 2001) * By reforming the educational systems of inner-city schools, families and the community as a whole benefit.
If children feel safe going to school, and if they can see enough improvement in their grades, then children and their parents make better option for their future. POLICY OPTIONS Provide families with system like the one implemented by the MOT or the HOPE programs in the sass’s and ass’s. Policies that enable families living in high- poverty communities to move to more economically mixed neighborhoods show significant improvement in their children’s education. A good source for information about these findings is the US department of Housing and urban Development.
A study conducted in Baltimore showed that “even young children assigned to the Section 8-only comparison group (whose families are not constrained to move to very low-poverty areas) experience an improvement in reading test scores of one-quarter of a standard deviation relative to control children, which may increase lifetime earnings by as much as $9,600 for boys and $7,900 for girls. ” (Ludwig, Laid, & Duncan, Urban Poverty and Educational Outcomes, 2001) Under today’s standards these numbers are even more impressive. Lowering taxes on communities with high-poverty rates in addition to enhancing the educational systems in these communities could increase gentrification. According to a study “houses associated with a school ranked at 1 SD below the mean are essentially priced on physical characteristics only. In contrast, houses associated with higher-quality schools command a much higher price premium. (Starts, 2011) The five original sites that implemented the MOT program; Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angels, and New York, have all made substantial progress in placing families in low-poverty neighborhoods.
Of the five Baltimore and Boston “had reached a stable point in their operations. ” (Development) “MOT non-profits are consistently achieving placement rates that are as high or significantly higher than the 25 percent average success rates typical of the Gateaux demonstration. ” (Development) Data gathered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development shows he achievements of these two cities: BALTIMORE The Housing Authority of Baltimore City (HABIT) administers the Baltimore MOT demonstration in cooperation with the Community Assistance Network (CAN), a Baltimore County non-profit.
HABIT currently administers 18,000 public housing units and more than 6,400 certificates and vouchers in its regular Section 8 program. CAN is a private, non-profit community action agency with over 30 years of experience providing assistance to low-income people, including day care, housing counseling, weatherization, and self-sufficiency counseling. With HVAC’s approval, CAN’s offices for MOT are housed in the same building as HVAC’s Section 8 offices.
Five census tracts, with an average poverty rate of over 67 percent, were targeted for Baltimore’s MOT program. These five tracts contained a total of eight public housing projects (four low-rise and four high-rise family projects), which were home to a total of 3,807 households. Residents had an average household income of only $6,880, and 46 percent received public assistance. Virtually all of the project residents were African-American (99. 6 percent), and 84 percent were female- headed.
As soon as the Baltimore MOT demonstration began operation, the HABIT conducted an outreach effort by notifying resident associations and public housing managers of the targeted developments, as well as sending 2,300 letters to potentially eligible families. At the same time, CAN began landlord outreach. CAN and HABIT also initiated efforts to coordinate with the six other PHASE operating in the suburban counties of the metropolitan area, in anticipation of serving families who would consider moving outside the city.
CAN’s staff provides intensive counseling for roughly 30 to 40 experimental group families per month. In the first 60 days after assignment to the experimental group, before housing search is initiated, Baltimore MOT families must attend seven training workshops. In addition, housing counselors spend considerable time providing individual assistance to each family. For example, CAN counselors average over 10 housing search trips per family, although MOT requires only three.
CAN drives small groups of MOT families to outlying communities in a Van, so that they low-poverty communities participate in orientation classes for new MOT participants, and tell them about their experiences with the program. Opposition from community organizations and elected officials in one portion of the Baltimore suburbs delayed the early implementation of MOT in Baltimore. Efforts to allay community concerns required extensive outreach, and resulted in decisions to intensify CAN’s screening and counseling services and to ensure that MOT does not create new clusters of poor families.
HABIT began to process applications for assignment to CAN in October 1994. By the end of February 1996, 222 families had been randomly assigned to the MOT experimental group and, with CAN’s assistance, 98 of these families had found and anted apartments in low-poverty areas throughout the Baltimore metropolitan area. About half of the MOT families moved to low-poverty neighborhoods within the City of Baltimore, with the remainder locating in the surrounding suburbs, including Howard, Ann Roundel, and Hartford Counties.
The MOT lease-up rate in Baltimore is roughly 60 percent, dramatically higher then the 25 percent lease-up rate experienced in Gateaux, and relatively close to the lease-up rate of 71 percent for comparison group families. CAN’s average operating cost is $1 ,665 per family served, or $2,844 per family leased up. In the city of Baltimore “findings indicate that starting 4 to 6 quarters after assignment to the experimental or Section 8-only groups, Juvenile arrests for violent crime decline relative to the control group. Reductions in robbery account for about half this decline.
The figures also suggest that teens in the experimental group may have higher rates of property crime arrest relative to the control group. ” (Ludwig, Duncan, & Hierarchies, Urban Poverty and Juvenile Crime: Evidence from a Randomized Housing-Mobility Experiment, 2001) The evidence on the above paper suggests that “the offer to relocate families from high- to low-poverty neighborhoods reduces Juvenile arrests for violent offenses by 30 to 50 percent, with some indications that there is a concomitant increase in property crimes in these groups.
Although it should be kept in mind that MOT participants are a self-selected group, these results at least suggest that policies which reduce the spatial concentration of poverty may affect overall levels of violent crime. ”