INFLUENCE OF HOPE VI PUBLIC HOUSING ON PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Donna Comrie

PROPOSAL DEFENSE Introduction: Problem statement Research background Research significance Literature Review Theoretical Framework Research Question & Hypothesis Research Design and Methodology Timeline

INTRODUCTION

Problem Statement Did the HOPE VI public housing program have

an influence on public schools? HOPEVI is a mixed income housing approach,

drawing on New Urbanist philosophy Implemented by HUD since 1993 There is little research on the link between the

HOPE VI public housing program and public schools; this research aims to fill the gap

The lack of economic integration in the schools is a direct reflection of the lack of economic integration in the nation’s neighborhoods (HUD, 2003, p4).

BACKGROUND- PUBLIC HOUSING National Commission on Severely Distressed Public

Housing (1992) found 86,000 units “unfit, unsafe and unlivable”

Demolish Public Housing Projects in 32 states (165 Sites) –

1993 Revitalization Grant- HOPE VI

HUD adopted the tenets of New Urbanism to revive inner cities

Jane Jacobs (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities

- combat sprawl - address patterns of high density

- expand mix-use opportunities

- establish mixed income developments

- provide affordable housing- reduce concentrated poverty

- create walk able communities

BACKGROUND- PUBLIC SCHOOLS School enrollment patterns are typically organized

by neighborhood boundaries. These boundaries, clustered by real- estate, inextricably link schools and neighborhoods

High poverty school performance rates are lower than low poverty schools

(Orr et al., 2002; Puma et al, 1993; and Kraus, 2008). School poverty depresses the scores of all

students in schools where at least half of the students are eligible for subsidized lunch, and seriously depresses the scores when more than 75 percent of students live in low-income households.

(Puma et al., 1993; and Coleman et al, 1966) On the other hand, poor students who attend

middle-class schools performed significantly better.

(Education Week, 1988).

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE Investigates school performance as it relates to

community/ neighborhood change.

Fills gap in the literature linking housing to education at the organizational level.

Inform policy makers by developing best practices.

Emphasizes the importance of cooperation at the federal and local level between HUD and DOE as it relates to policy, funding, and service delivery.

Findings may impact the Obama Administration’s newly developed Choice Neighborhoods Initiative, which is an expansion of the Hope VI program to include high-quality educational opportunities with an emphasis on early childhood education.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Reforms in education and housing policy have been two separate efforts DOE- improve the level of instruction HUD- delivery of affordable housing.

Little empirical research investigates the link between public housing and public education.

Research focus: Individual Level- Student Organizational Level- School

LIT. REVIEW: INDIVIDUAL STUDENT LEVEL Stability

Home environment influences social and emotional wellbeing and cognitive development (Vandivere, 2006)

Mobility Frequent mobility negatively effects educational

performance (Mueller and Tighe, 2007) Quality of housing (inadequate heat, inoperable

plumbing, rodent infestation, & overcrowding) Negative housing conditions could impede student

concentration and decreases school readiness (Braconi, 2001)

Security Stable, affordable housing may contribute to children’s

educational achievement by reducing the frequency of unwanted moves (Lubell & Brenna, 2007)

Homelessness Homeless children are less likely to attend preschool

have higher rates of grade retention and are more likely to drop out (National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, 1997; Lubell & Brennan, 2007)

LIT. REVIEW: ORGANIZATIONAL SCHOOL LEVEL

Negative effects of concentrated poverty in urban schools: Spatial isolation - resources and opportunities

(Jargowsky, 1997) Educational burdens on teachers, parents,

administrators & students; misallocation peer influence.

(Kahlenberg, 2001) Segregation perpetuates an underclass -educational

and employment opportunities (Massey & Denton, 1993; Rusk, 2003)

Spatial patterning of inequality- rural & urban- drop out rate and educational attainment

(Roscigno, Tomaskovic, & Crowley, 2006) Students who attend schools with higher

proportions of lower-income students will be exposed to more students who are not performing at their grade level and are more likely to drop out of school (Kahlenberg, 2001).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Hidden curriculum (Jean Anyon) Truly Disadvantaged (William Julius Wilson) Place-Based vs. People-Based Strategy Public- Public Partnership & Public-Private

Partnership Public-Public

HUD & DOE Federal & Local Governments

RESEARCH BASIS

As neighborhoods declined in property value, amenities, and safety, schools followed the same undesirable path. Thus, if neighborhoods improve, schools could prosper.

School1.% FRLP 2.Performance

Hope VI

Poverty

FRLP: Free and Reduced Lunch Program Performance: Math & Reading scores

RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Q1: Did the implementation of Hope VI (with an emphasis on mixed income communities) relate to the proportion of low socio-economic status (SES) students (measured by FRLP) in neighboring public schools

H1: Following the implementation of Hope VI, the proportion of low-SES students were reduced at neighboring public schools.

 

Q2: Were schools in Hope VI communities more likely to improve public school performance (measured by math and reading scores) than schools in non-Hope VI communities.  

H2: Schools located in Hope VI communities were more likely to improve school performance than schools in non-Hope VI communities.

Q3: What are the factors that contribute to higher public school performance in Hope VI areas?

RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODOLOGY Q1: Did the implementation of Hope VI (with an

emphasis on mixed income communities) relate to the proportion of low socio-economic status (SES) students (measured by FRLP) in neighboring public schools

Quantitative Research: Schools in Hope VI areas determined by address (165

schools) Standard Configuration K-5 Schools Interrupted Time Series- Hope VI Intervention (Before

& After ) Tracking of SES (FRLP rates) of students -1990 thru

2010 DOE by state

RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODOLOGYQ2: Were Hope VI communities more likely to

improve public school performance (i.e. math and reading scores) than schools in non -Hope VI Communities?

Quantitative Research: Schools in Hope VI areas determined by address

(165 schools) Standard Configuration K-5 Schools Counterfactual comparison – random sample of

schools in non-Hope VI sites (post intervention)- same school characteristics Tracking years 1990 3 years after implementation 6 years after implementation

Counterfactual scenario investigates whether Hope VI had a residual effect on neighborhood public school performance.

RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODOLOGYQ3: What are the factors that contribute to higher

public school performance in Hope VI areas?

Qualitative Research: Results of Time Series- SES rates (greatest rate of

change) Most improved school

Results of Counterfactual- school performance Highest scores

Two in-depth case studies of schools in Hope VI areas Case study will determine best practices for

improving reducing the proportion of low-SES students and school performance.

TIMELINE

Spring 2011 Summer 2011

- Collect Date for Quant and analyze results-Literature Review- Introduction and Background Chapters

-Create surveys and interview questions-Strategies stakeholders of Hope VI and local public schools- Run regression and analyze results

Fall 2011 Spring 2012

- Schedule Interviews-Visit Sites-Compile data-Transcribe using Atlas.ti

-Literature, Recommendation and Conclusion Chapters-Final Edits and revisions-Dissertation Defense

QUESTIONS