1 / 32

School quality, school access and the formation of neighbourhoods

This study explores the relationship between school quality, neighborhood formation, and access to good schools. It examines differential "strategic" moving rates and the formation of segregated communities in relation to school quality.

deshong
Download Presentation

School quality, school access and the formation of neighbourhoods

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. School quality, school access and the formation of neighbourhoods Simon Burgess and Tomas Key November 2008

  2. Motivations • Understanding the role of income in gaining access to good schools. • School access – if proximity matters, how does that come about? Look at differential “strategic” moving rates. • Formation of communities – how segregated communities are formed, in relation to school quality. www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  3. Results • Estimating the process of moving house in its possible relationship to school quality. • We show that school quality matters. • Strong differences between poor and non-poor families: • For non-poor families there is a relationship between school quality and moving; not so for poor families. • Different process for within- and across-labour market moves. www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  4. Plan • Literature • Framework • Data • Results • Conclusions www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  5. Literature • Results relating house price premia to school quality (Black; Machin & Gibbons). • General equilibrium models of residential location and school selection. • In the US, Epple and Romano; Nechyba; and Bayer and McMillan. • In the UK, a different setting. www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  6. Framework • Simplified story is: • Families start out w/out children, and choose where to live on that basis • Acquire children and consider relocating before the key date for school assignment • If they choose to move, they attempt to move with increasing effort. • Of course, there are other (random) reasons for moving too. www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  7. Framework 2 • Assumptions: • In overall equilibrium in the sense that all the distributions of income, tastes, labour market states, amenities and school qualities are fixed. • Within that, individuals move and change within a cohort as it ages. • So house prices are fixed; people move between locations, but in equilibrium, prices remain constant. • School quality and neighbourhood quality are exogenous, unaffected by the people learning or living there (future work …). www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  8. Model • i = family (ie kid/parent); L = location • The family chooses L to maximise U(), L*. • With given supply of housing: • Bayer and McMillan, … www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  9. Choice of L* with kids or not: • Pick L*(0) to start with at k=0 so q is irrelevant. So necessarily live somewhere nicer in terms of e and/or cheaper. • L* (k=1) cannot be at a lower q than L*(k=0), unless e is correlated in strange way. • The decision whether to move at all or not is balancing the extra cost of higher price Dp, with the value of higher quality, lDq. www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  10. Invest in attempting to move, c. • So pia = f(c*), and c*= f(a, DUia), where Dbetween k = 0 and k = 1. • Approximate: www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  11. So, within TTWA Dm = 0: • Dp* substituted out by Dq, De and location. • Allow for heterogeneity in response to q • Include q or Dq? www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  12. Data • PLASC/NPD • 5 censuses merged together • Non-selective, non-middle schools LEAs • Looked at TTWAs as unit, LEAs. • Spatial controls: • TTWA dummies, LEA dummies • LLSOA dummies • Smoothed LLSOA effects from contiguous areas www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  13. Primary School Secondary School Year 1 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A Census Census Census KS2 Census Apply for SS: need ‘good’ p’code here Moving house here could be strategic P’code changes here could be realisations of coding errors Timeline www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  14. We have tried several different controls for spatial context: - Dummies for Travel To Work Area - Dummies for Lower Layer Super Output Area (LLSOA) - Smoothed LLSOA effects from contiguous areas, using the IMD Score for neighbouring LLSOAs, as well as the pupil’s own IMD score. • Varying these controls has no qualitative impact on the results. www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  15. Two different ways of defining ‘default’ secondary school: • Nearest secondary school • Modal secondary school given primary school attended • Lots of cleaning work on changing postcodes, to eliminate redistricting, input errors and mis-coding • We attempt to identify siblings in our data, and pick out eldest mover only. We do this by grouping pupils who move from/to the same postcode, and count these pupils as a family if there are less than 8 of them. www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  16. Cleaning of p/code changes • We use Royal Mail information about postcode redistricting. • We do not count as moves postcode changes that leave the first and last two characters of the postcode unchanged. • If all in former postcode moved, and all includes more than 8 pupils (our cut-off for a family), then we do not count this as a move: it is likely to have been a redistricting. • We do not count moves of less than 100m. • We do not count as a move cases where either of the first or last two characters of the postcode only change. • We do not count as a move cases where the first or last two characters only are coded in reverse compared with the postcode for the other academic year. • We do not count as a move cases where there are changes in the postcode length by one character, e.g. AB1 becoming AB12 or B12 becoming CB12, with all remaining characters unchanged. www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  17. Results • Descriptive analysis of moves • Basic analysis of probability of moves • Analysis by within- and across-TTWA moves • Analysis by pupil age • Dynamic, non-linear panel data models with unobserved heterogeneity and initial conditions problems. • Panel analysis 1 • Panel analysis 2 www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  18. Summary Statistics www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  19. Moves 1 www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  20. Moves 2 Pre-move GOR (Note eg Post-move GOR, London – 9286m) www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  21. Changes in School Quality www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  22. Changes in Neighbourhood Poverty Note – negative means a fall in the IMD, so an improvement www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  23. Basic Results www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  24. Within- and across-TTWA moves www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  25. By age www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  26. Econometric Issues • Potential problems: • Omitted variables? Neighbourhood – well covered; schools – GCSE results, other things likely correlated; Families – repeated obs. • Reverse causation? Timing, local controls, movers are small fraction of any school. • Initial conditions problem: current school quality might result from previous choices – a (non-random) group of families may already have moved. www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  27. Main threat to identification: Birds of paradise behaviour (Some) birds of paradise build a nest first and then seek a mate – not least through having a nice nest to live in. The equivalent here is families moving to get a good default school before having a child to send to the school. If pre-kid location chosen independent of school quality, then in principle this is ok as an initial condition. Separate practical problem that we don’t see everyone from the start. www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  28. Econometric Issues • Assume q (age = 0) is exogenous, we first see people at age = A. Some movers may already have moved by then. • Who would move early? People with high preference for schooling, low preference for other amenities • So expect a bigger coefficient if capture more and earlier part of families’ lives. Confirmed: get bigger coefficient on short early window, and on long window. www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  29. Panel Analysis • Use Wooldridge’s approach for dynamic nonlinear models with unobserved effects and initial conditions problems. • Approach models the distribution of the unobserved heterogeneity conditional on the initial value. • Essentially a random effects probit model with controls for initial state. www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  30. Panel data model 1 www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  31. Panel data model 2 www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

  32. Conclusions • Implications for school access. • Implications for the formation of neighbourhoods. • Invert estimated moving model to analyse the composition of neighbourhoods. • Future work: … joint model of school performance and neighbourhood formation www.bris.ac.uk/CMPO

More Related