We examine the effects that household exposure to housing price declines, captured by measures of negative equity, have on children's academic performance, using data on public school students and housing transactions from the State of Florida. Our empirical strategy exploits variation over time in the timing of family moves to account for household sorting into neighborhoods and schools and selection into initial mortgage terms. In contrast to the existing literature on the effects of foreclosure, we find that students with the highest risk of negative equity exhibit significantly higher test score growth, with the largest effects among Black students and students qualifying for free or reduced-priced lunch. We find evidence supporting two underlying mechanisms: (1) families in negative equity may reduce the impact of income losses on consumption by forgoing mortgage payments, and (2) families exposed to high levels of negative equity may move to schools that received higher average school report card grades. While negative equity and foreclosure are undesirable, negative equity may have encouraged homeowners to forgo mortgage payments to mitigate the impact of the Great Recession, and temporarily reduced the housing market barriers low-income households faced in accessing educational opportunities.

The Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 allows school districts to provide free meals to all students if over 40 percent of them are directly certified as free-meal eligible. While emerging evidence documents positive effects on student behavior and academics, critics worry that CEP has unintended consequences for student weight, district finances, and instructional spending. We investigate these using school and district data from New York State and a difference-in-differences design. We exploit staggered CEP adoption, and explore differences between metro, town, and rural districts. We investigate potential mechanisms, including lunch and breakfast participation, and use event studies to assess pre-adoption trends and effects over time. We find that CEP increases total food expenditures, but spending per meal declines. Local food service revenues decline, but increased federal reimbursements more than compensate for local food revenues and expenditures changes. Indeed, while some worry that CEP crowds out education spending, we find no effect on instructional expenditures. Furthermore, CEP increases participation in school lunch and breakfast, but has no deleterious effect on weight outcomes and, instead, is associated with obesity declines in secondary grades. Rural districts experience larger impacts than metro and town districts, alongside some negative fiscal effects.

Policy makers and analysts often view the reduction of student mobility across schools as a way to improve academic performance. Prior work indicates that children do worse in the year of a school move, but has been largely unsuccessful in isolating the causal effects of mobility. We use longitudinal data on students in New York City public elementary and middle schools to isolate the causal effects of school moves on student performance. We account for observed and time-invariant differences between movers and non-movers using rich data on student sociodemographic and education program characteristics and student fixed effects. To address the potential endogeneity of school moves arising from unobserved, time-varying factors, we use three sets of plausibly exogenous instruments for mobility: first-grade school grade span, grade span of zoned middle school, and building sale. We find that in the medium term, students making structural moves perform significantly worse in both English language arts (ELA) and math, whereas those making nonstructural moves experience a significant increase in ELA performance. In the short term, there is an additional negative effect for structural moves in ELA. These effects are meaningful in magnitude and results are robust to a variety of alternative specifications, instruments, and samples.

In the spring of 2008 the authors surveyed members of the American Education Finance Association (AEFA) to gain insight into their views on education policy issues. The results summarize opinions of this broad group of education researchers and practitioners, providing AEFA members and education leaders with access to views that may be helpful as they consider policies to analyze or pursue. This article reports the results in six areas of current policy interest. How should education aid be distributed? Is school choice a good thing? Does school finance reform work? What has accountability wrought? Can school policies close the black-white achievement gap? And how should teachers be compensated? Our findings identify areas of substantial agreement as well as areas where there is disagreement. For example, there is considerable agreement that state and federal governments should provide additional funding for disadvantaged students but disagreement on how to measure school finance adequacy.

Reorganizing primary school grade spans is a tractable and relatively inexpensive school reform. However, assessing the effects of reorganization requires also examining other organizational changes that may accompany grade span reforms. Using data on New York City public schools from 1996 to 2002 and exploiting within-school variations, we examine relationships among grade span, spending, and size. We find that school grade span is associated with differences in school size, class size, and grade size, though generally not with spending and other resources. In addition, we find class size and grade size differences in the same grade level at schools with different configurations, suggesting that school grade span affects not only school size but also class size and grade size. We find few relationships, though, between grade span and school-level performance, pointing to the need to augment these analyses with pupil-level data. We conclude with implications for research and practice.

Public schools across the United States are educating an increasing number and diversity of immigrant students. Unfortunately, little is known about their performance relative to native-born students and the extent to which the “nativity gap” might be explained by school and demographic characteristics. This article takes a step toward filling that void using data from New York City where 17 percent of elementary and middle school students are immigrants. We explore disparities in performance between foreign-born and native-born students on reading and math tests in three ways—using levels (unadjusted scores), “value-added” scores (adjusted for prior performance), and an education production function. While unadjusted levels and value-added measures often indicate superior performance among immigrants, disparities are substantially explained by student and school characteristics. Further, while the nativity gap differs for students from different world regions, disparities are considerably diminished in fully specified models. We conclude with implications for urban schools in the United States.