1 / 20

The War on Poverty’s Human Capital Programs: K-12 Education

The War on Poverty’s Human Capital Programs: K-12 Education. Elizabeth Cascio , Dartmouth Sarah 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

maxime
Download Presentation

The War on Poverty’s Human Capital Programs: K-12 Education

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The War on Poverty’s Human Capital Programs:K-12 Education Elizabeth Cascio, Dartmouth Sarah Reber, UCLA June 2012

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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 nominalmis-use of funds

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

More Related