Greater Greater Washington

Posts about Poverty

Education


The new chair of the DC Council's education committee promises a change in style and substance

At-Large Councilmember David Grosso plans to adopt a less aggressive style than David Catania, his predecessor as education committee chair. Grosso says his main focus will be getting disadvantaged kids the services they need to do well in school.


Photo from David Grosso website.

Back in December of 2012, David Catania was chomping at the bit to become chair of the education committee. "I'm so excited," he told the Post, "I can't stand it."

What followed was a two-year whirlwind of activity, during which Catania introduced myriad pieces of legislation, visited some 150 schools, and grilled DC education officials about their perceived lapses.

When the Council reconvenes in January, Catania's successor, David Grosso, will take the reins. He's also eager to take on the challenge of addressing DC's seemingly intractable education problems—most fundamentally, the gap in achievement between affluent white students and other groups. But he says his style will be different.

"I'm not going to introduce eight bills during my first few months," Grosso said in a recent interview.

He says he'll have his own priorities, but will work collaboratively with others, engaging them in conversation before holding hearings or introducing legislation.

"When I put something forward," he says, "I'm not sure I have the answer. I'm going to want to work closely to make sure everyone buys in."

A shift in focus

Catania's legislative legacy includes an overhaul of the District's special education system, the end of social promotion, and additional funds for students who are most at-risk.

His hearings and roundtables also provided forums for parents, teachers, and the general public to air their views on subjects like DCPS's controversial teacher evaluation system.

Grosso says that under his chairmanship, the education committee will continue to address legitimate questions about teacher evaluations, testing, and "what goes on in the classroom." He also says the committee will remain "a place where the community has a voice" in education matters.

But his main focus, he says, will be on ways to ensure that kids—especially poor kids—have access to services that will put them in a position to learn. Education, he says, is an area that is connected to many others and can't be siloed.

As an example, he mentions a story he heard about a high school freshman who was "acting out." When a counselor sat down with the student to find out what was behind her behavior, the counselor discovered she hadn't had running water in her house for four months.

It's unrealistic, Grosso says, to expect students living in such circumstances to be fully engaged in schoolwork. And research backs him up: studies have shown that the stress of living in poverty causes physiological conditions that make it difficult for kids to focus and control their impulses.

"People might say, how is this relevant to the work of the education committee?" Grosso says. "But in reality, it's imperative to education that we give kids like that an opportunity to heal."

Seeing the bigger picture

Addressing problems related to poverty and race is beyond the capacity of any school system, he says, and requires a concerted effort. That's one reason he's glad he'll also be sitting on the Council's new committee on health and human services.

"I don't expect my staff or I to become experts in what should be taught or how," he says. That's the job of the DC Public Schools Chancellor and other school leaders, he explained. But, Grosso added, "we can see the bigger picture."

One area where he sees a need is mental health. Last summer he visited a number of mental health providers and was particularly impressed with a program called Resilient Scholars, which provides counseling in 21 DCPS and charter schools. Grosso would like to expand that kind of in-school program.

Grosso says he's learned a lot in his two years as a member of the education committee, and his sister is a Montessori educator. But other than that he has no particular expertise in education.

However, his deputy chief of staff, Christina Henderson, has a master's in public affairs from Princeton, with a particular emphasis on education. She's also held several education-related jobs, including one at DCPS and another at the New York City Department of Education. Henderson has been Grosso's main adviser on education and will continue to play that role.

Which style will produce results?

It's too soon to know if Grosso's more collaborative and focused approach will produce better results than Catania's aggressive, let's-do-it-all-at-once style. But it sounds promising. Although Catania certainly kept education issues in the spotlight, it's not clear his efforts will result in any meaningful reduction in the achievement gap.

A case in point is Grosso's chosen issue, in-school mental health services. Back in 2012, the DC Council passed legislation setting a goal of having a mental health program in 50% of all DC schools by this school year, and in every school by 2016-17. The prime mover behind that legislation was David Catania, who introduced it in response to a shooting that left four teenagers dead.

But according to the DC Fiscal Policy Institute, only 36% of schools currently have such programs. The DCFPI estimates that it will cost $11 million to fully fund the legislation, and it's not clear that money will be forthcoming.

Would there be more mental health programs in schools by now if Catania had taken more pains to bring everyone on board before passing a bill, as Grosso promises to do? Perhaps. But even though the legislation is a fait accompli, maybe it's not too late for Grosso to use his influence to meet its goals.

Did you enjoy this article? Greater Greater Washington is running a reader drive to raise funds so we can keep editing and publishing great articles every day. Please help us be sustainable by making a monthly, yearly, or one-time contribution today!

Support us: Monthly   Yearly   One time
Greatest supporter—$250/year
Greater supporter—$100/year
Great supporter—$50/year
Or pick your own amount: $/year
Greatest supporter—$250
Greater supporter—$100
Great supporter—$50
Supporter—$20
Or pick your own amount: $
Want to contribute by mail or another way? Instructions are here.
Contributions to Greater Greater Washington are not tax deductible.

Education


Low-income DC students get a helping hand to make it to college graduation

It's tough for low-income minority students to make it through college, especially if they're first-generation college-goers. But thanks to the efforts of one DC nonprofit and several charter schools, students from the District may have a better chance than most.


Photo of graduation cap from Shutterstock.

More and more DC students are taking the SAT and applying to college, but how many are actually graduating?

Because it often takes low-income students more than four years to get a BA, the six-year rate has become the standard for measuring college completion for that group. DC's Office of the State Superintendent of Education has only recently begun to track college graduation rates and won't have the six-year figure available until next spring.

But the DC College Access Program (DC-CAP), a nonprofit that offers college support to all DC public school students, says the six-year graduation rate for the students it serves, most of whom are low-income and minority, is 44%.

While that may sound low, it's far better than the 11% national average for low-income first-generation (LIFG) college students, a category that includes many alumni of DC high schools. Overall, the average six-year completion rate at four-year colleges is 59%.

LIFG students can encounter any number of obstacles on the way to a degree. Even those who excelled at their high schools may feel lost academically. Socially, they may feel out of place, especially at elite institutions. And, even more than other students, they may not have a clear idea of the connection between college courses and what they want to do in the future.

The biggest problem, though, is usually financial. Even after cobbling together scholarships and loans, students may find themselves forced to choose between attending class and showing up for jobs that make it possible for them to stay enrolled.

Often, what should be a minor setback ends up derailing a college career. Students may not want to ask for help or may not know who to ask.

But if you're a low-income college student from DC, you have a better than usual chance that someone from home is trying to make sure you stay on track to graduate.

DC-CAP supports students after high school graduation

For many, that person is an adviser from DC-CAP. A group of DC business leaders started the privately funded organization 15 years ago to fill a void in college advising services in DC Public School high schools. Seven Six years ago it began serving charter schools as well. DC-CAP says the college enrollment rate in DC is now about 60% , double what it was when the organization started.

During that same time, the college completion rate has tripled. DC-CAP's college retention advisers, building on relationships that start in 9th grade, keep track of students across the country through email, social media, and phone calls. On campuses that have a lot of DC-CAP students, the organization asks upperclassmen to act as peer mentors and liaisons.

DC-CAP also works with students' families on financial planning and gets regular reports directly from colleges so its advisers can monitor students' progress and intervene when necessary. Also, advisers can check on students during emergencies, as one recently did with students in upstate New York during a massive snowstorm.

Charter schools visit freshmen

But some DC charter high schools that send many low-income students to college go even further. Three schools—Thurgood Marshall Academy, KIPP DC, and SEED—not only stay in touch remotely but also try to visit all students during their freshman year.

"The visit makes a huge difference," says Tevera Stith, director of the KIPP Through College program, which serves both alumni of KIPP DC's own high school and those who go on to other schools after attending a KIPP middle school. "For some of these kids, they won't have a family member who will visit them."

DC-CAP, which has only four advisers for 7,000 students at 500 colleges, doesn't have the capacity to make those kinds of visits. The charter schools support only a few hundred alumni at any given time.

Of the three charters, Thurgood Marshall has the highest six-year graduation rate, 65%. KIPP DC hasn't yet had a cohort of alumni reach the six-year mark, but Stith says she thinks the rate will be about 45%.

SEED says that 33% of its students who graduated from high school at least five years ago have earned a BA, while another 10% have earned an associate's degree or are currently in college.

Finding the right match

But when a student goes to a college that SEED has identified as having stronger supports for low-income students, the completion rate rises to 54%. Staffers at DC-CAP and the three charter schools all keep lists of institutions where their students have done well, and they emphasize the importance of finding the right fit for each student whether it's an Ivy League university or a community college.

"We have institutions that will take students with less than a 2.0 GPA and be really committed to serving those students and making sure they're retained and graduate," says Tosha Lewis, Vice-President of Retention and Data Management for DC-CAP.

A good college match can help students avoid academic and social difficulties. And the college support staff in DC do their best to connect students with financial aid, sometimes providing funds to cover small but essential expenses. DC-CAP provides students with up to $2,070 a year for five years and has disbursed a total of about $31 28 million since its founding.

Any DC student can also take advantage of the DC Tuition Assistance Grant program (DC TAG), which provides up to $10,000 in tuition assistance at public four-year colleges across the country to help make up the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition rates. In addition, DC TAG provides up to $2,500 per year towards tuition at private colleges in the DC area, private historically black colleges, and two-year colleges nationwide.

OSSE will provide data on graduation rates and remedial classes

DC's Office of the State Superintendent of Education, which administers DC TAG, is also beginning to focus on college support and retention, according to Dr. Antoinette Mitchell, the assistant superintendent for adult and career education.

OSSE plans to publish a list of colleges where DC students have done well, Mitchell said. And beginning next school year, information about college enrollment and four- and six-year graduation rates for every DC high school will be available on OSSE's LearnDC website, along with information about how many students take the SAT and ACT and the average scores.

OSSE is also planning to begin tracking the number of DC students who need remedial classes when they get to college. While it's clear that many DC high school graduates fall into that category, a hard figure isn't currently available. And it's an important figure to have: generally, only 35% of college students who take remedial classes graduate within six years.

It's unrealistic to expect all of DC's high schools to ensure that the college careers of their low-income graduates will be entirely smooth, and support from the colleges themselves or non-profits like DC-CAP will continue to be vital in helping students cope with financial and social challenges. But it shouldn't be unrealistic to expect that, in the not too distant future, every DC high school will give its college-going graduates the academic skills they need to handle college-level work. After all, that's what high schools are supposed to do.

Did you enjoy this article? Greater Greater Washington is running a reader drive to raise funds so we can keep editing and publishing great articles every day. Please help us be sustainable by making a monthly, yearly, or one-time contribution today!

Support us: Monthly   Yearly   One time
Greatest supporter—$250/year
Greater supporter—$100/year
Great supporter—$50/year
Or pick your own amount: $/year
Greatest supporter—$250
Greater supporter—$100
Great supporter—$50
Supporter—$20
Or pick your own amount: $
Want to contribute by mail or another way? Instructions are here.
Contributions to Greater Greater Washington are not tax deductible.

Education


DC students flock to afterschool programs, but many low-income students are still left out

A new nationwide survey of parents shows the District has the highest afterschool participation rate in the United States. On the other hand, DC is 49th in the percentage of low-income children enrolled.


Photo of student from Shutterstock.

The survey, conducted by a nonprofit called the Afterschool Alliance, ranked DC second only to California on overall measures of afterschool, including both participation and quality. But DC achieved that rank partly because so many children here participate in an afterschool programs: 35%, the highest proportion in the nation. DC also ranked fourth in average time spent in afterschool, almost nine hours a week.

The percentage of low-income children participating in afterschool, however, is only 20%, putting DC near the bottom of the list in that category.

DC's low-income participation was lower than any of the other jurisdictions that made it into the survey's top ten. In California, which ranked number one overall in the survey, 47% of low-income students participate. In Florida, which ranked third overall, 52% do.

DC also does poorly in the percentage of children left unsupervised after school: 26%, the second-highest percentage in the nation.

In addition, the survey noted that DC has the highest unmet demand for afterschool programs. Two out of three children who are not enrolled in an afterschool program would participate if one were available to them.

Of course, as with many comparisons between the District and the 50 states, the survey's results are skewed by the fact that DC is an entirely urban area with a much higher concentration of low-income residents than most states have. Demand for afterschool programs is higher among low-income and minority families, which probably explains why there's so much unmet demand here.

The survey didn't break down the participants in DC's afterschool programs by racial or demographic category. So it's possible that DC's afterschool participation rate is so high because middle-class and affluent kids are disproportionately enrolled. But it's also possible that most participants are low-income, and DC has so many low-income children that the programs can still only serve 20% of them.

Mixed results on quality

DC also got mixed results on measures of afterschool quality. On the positive side, DC was fifth in the nation when it came to parents satisfied with their program's quality of care, with 95% putting themselves in that category. And while only 53% agreed that their program provided a "high quality of care," that was enough for DC to rank eighth in that category.

But the District ranked dead last in the nation in terms of parents who were satisfied with their program's variety of activities (55%) and its cost (45%). And it did almost as badly when it came to parents who were "extremely satisfied with their afterschool program overall," a category DC ranked 50th in after only 34% responded yes.

The Afterschool Alliance began doing the survey in 2004, but this is the first year that DC has been included. A research firm screened over 30,000 households across the country, with at least 200 interviews conducted in every state and DC. The interviews were done primarily online, with some conducted by phone.

The report on the survey gave credit to two nonprofits for raising awareness of the importance of afterschool programs: the DC Alliance of Youth Advocates and the Youth Investment Trust Corporation.

Afterschool funding may be on the rise after a troubled past

The Youth Investment Trust has had its problems in the past. Last year, former DC Councilmember Harry Thomas Jr. was sentenced to three years in prison for embezzling $350,000 from the organization.

According to the Washington Post, even before that incident there was a general perception that the public-private organization, designed to leverage private contributions for youth services, served as a slush fund for DC politicians.

More recently, the Trust has been putting reforms in place in an effort to regain public confidence. This week, in fact, the Trust is unveiling a new name and a new logo.

That reinvention effort may be paying off. According to the survey, investments in afterschool programs for DC Public Schools decreased from over $11 million in 2011 to about $7 million in 2013. But in 2015, that number will go up to $8 million.

Another factor in declining private funds for afterschool programs may be the availability of other options and a sense that the classroom experience is more fundamental to improving outcomes for children. Many philanthropists and foundations contribute to DC charter schools, as well as to a fund that DCPS has set up to funnel private donations to its programs.

But afterschool programs remain important, especially for low-income and minority students, who generally have less access to enrichment opportunities outside of school than their middle class peers. Some advocates for an extended school day have called for schools to partner with community organizations to provide those additional hours.

Some DC afterschool programs, such as Higher Achievement, have begun to move into that role and already have an impressive record of success with low-income and minority students.

It's fine to celebrate DC's overall ranking as second in the nation for afterschool programs, as Mayor Vincent Gray recently did. But that shouldn't distract us from the fact that many of the kids who need afterschool the most are still left wanting.

Did you enjoy this article? Greater Greater Washington is running a reader drive to raise funds so we can keep editing and publishing great articles every day. Please help us be sustainable by making a monthly, yearly, or one-time contribution today!

Support us: Monthly   Yearly   One time
Greatest supporter—$250/year
Greater supporter—$100/year
Great supporter—$50/year
Or pick your own amount: $/year
Greatest supporter—$250
Greater supporter—$100
Great supporter—$50
Supporter—$20
Or pick your own amount: $
Want to contribute by mail or another way? Instructions are here.
Contributions to Greater Greater Washington are not tax deductible.

Education


Three maps that illustrate the connection between poverty and low test scores

These 3 maps show where poor kids live in DC, and how students in each neighborhood score on standardized tests in reading and math. They're a vivid illustration of the connection between poverty and low test scores.

DC Action for Children, with support from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, recently worked with a team of volunteers to create the DC Kids Count data tool, an interactive visualization of child well-being in the District.


Percentage of children in poverty.

One part of the data tool is the map above, which shows child poverty rates in various DC neighborhoods. The rate is based on the estimated number of children under 17 who live below the federal poverty line in a given neighborhood, divided by the total number of children in that age group who live there. The greater the rate of child poverty in a neighborhood, the darker the shading on the map.

On all 3 maps, the dots represent locations of public schools. Blue dots are traditional DC public schools, while red dots are public charter schools.

The two maps below show student proficiency rates on DC's standardized tests, the DC-CAS. Students who score above a certain percentage on the tests are labeled proficient or advanced. Those who score below that percentage are categorized as basic or below basic.

Usually, proficiency rates are tied to individual schools, but the maps below link them to where students live. That can make a significant difference in DC, where only 25% of students attend their neighborhood school.

DC Action for Children decided to use neighborhood-level proficiency rates because we wanted to make a connection between the resources available to children in their neighborhoods and their performance on tests.

The maps show math and reading proficiency rates based on the 2013 DC-CAS results. They reflect aggregated scores for all students in a given neighborhood, including all tested grade levels and those who attend charter schools as well as DC Public Schools. The higher the rate of proficiency, the darker the neighborhood is shaded.

For math:


Percentage of students proficient in math.

For reading:


Percentage of students proficient in reading.

Taken together, the maps show that on average, the higher the child poverty rate in a neighborhood, the lower the percentage of students who are proficient in math and reading. Notably, the median poverty rate was 52% for the 10 neighborhoods with the lowest percentage of students who are proficient in reading.

Pictures like these require DC residents to ask tough questions about how we allocate our resources and how we can ensure that all children have access to high-quality education.

Did you enjoy this article? Greater Greater Washington is running a reader drive to raise funds so we can keep editing and publishing great articles every day. Please help us be sustainable by making a monthly, yearly, or one-time contribution today!

Support us: Monthly   Yearly   One time
Greatest supporter—$250/year
Greater supporter—$100/year
Great supporter—$50/year
Or pick your own amount: $/year
Greatest supporter—$250
Greater supporter—$100
Great supporter—$50
Supporter—$20
Or pick your own amount: $
Want to contribute by mail or another way? Instructions are here.
Contributions to Greater Greater Washington are not tax deductible.

Education


Five lessons one woman's story teaches us about poverty and education in DC

Over two decades ago, Tenille Warren was a student at a high-poverty junior high school in Southeast DC. Last week, at the age of 37, she started college. What happened in between holds lessons for anyone trying to improve educational outcomes for low-income students.


Photo of graduation caps from Shutterstock.

According to a story in Sunday's New York Times, when Warren was a student at Kramer Junior High—now Kramer Middle School—a local philanthropist "adopted" her and many of her classmates through the I Have a Dream Foundation. At the time, Kramer was DC's second-lowest-performing junior high.

At the beginning of 7th grade, half of Warren's class was randomly selected to participate in the I Have a Dream program. These "Dreamers" got a heavy dose of extra support through high school, including tutoring, summer school, and help with basic necessities like food. They also got a promise of free college tuition if they graduated.

Warren, one of those selected, seemed to be on track. After Kramer, she got into the selective Duke Ellington School of the Arts and graduated on time. She dreamed of becoming a fashion designer. But instead of taking up the offer of free college tuition, she took a job at Safeway, cleaning bathrooms and stocking shelves.

Eventually, Warren worked her way up to a better job. But she never entirely forgot her dream. 6 years ago, she returned to it in earnest, eventually moving to New York for an unpaid internship in the fashion industry and taking night school classes in the basics of fashion design.

This fall, 14 years after the offer of free tuition expired, Warren enrolled as a full-time student at the prestigious Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT) in Manhattan. While she's gotten some scholarship money, she's also taken out $57,000 in student loans.

While Warren's story is in many ways an inspirational tale with an apparently happy ending, it also points up the difficulty of engineering a successful trajectory for students living in multi-generational poverty.

Free college tuition isn't enough, and extra help in school may not be enough either.

Despite the tutoring and mentoring, many of the students in the I Have a Dream program were far from prepared to do college-level work after graduation.

"We realized pretty quickly that we were never going to be able to catch our kids up academically," the Kramer Dream Class co-director and mentor, Steve Bumbaugh, told the Times. "This was triage. We were trying to keep these kids alive. We were trying to keep them in school."

And even Warren, who did well at Ellington, found the prospect of college daunting. She had grown up with a single mother who had trouble holding on to a job, and at one point they were evicted. She told the Times she couldn't imagine leaving DC for college because she was worried about what might happen to her mom, and about her own basic survival.

Aiming high might not always be the best advice.

Bumbaugh said he now regrets urging Warren to head to Parsons School of Design or Pratt Institute, both top fashion design schools in New York, when she was in high school. Perhaps, he says, if he had suggested small steps instead, she would have her BFA by now.

Grit actually is important.

For a while, it was fashionable to talk about the importance of grit, meaning qualities like perseverance and resilience. Now it's fashionable to dismiss grit as overrated. But Warren's story is a testament to the power of grit.

Her efforts to get herself on track for a career in fashion have been heroic. Setting her sights on a job with the clothing company founded by the rapper Jay Z, she did everything but stand on her head to get his attention. After FIT rejected her for the second time, she called the admissions office to ask, "What exactly do I need to do to make no a yes?" When she finally got in, she was living in a homeless shelter while working multiple jobs and taking sewing classes.

It's clear that Warren has grit, but what's less clear is how she got it and how to instill it in others. It's possible that the years of mentoring and support she got in her teens helped develop her remarkable resilience. But then again, that didn't necessarily happen for the other Dreamers in her cohort.

Don't judge the success or failure of a program too soon, or by only one measure.

By the standards of the I Have a Dream program, Warren would probably be considered a failure, since she didn't graduate from college within the time allotted by the program. But that would be a vast oversimplification.

The story is also complicated, to some extent, for her Dreamer cohort as a whole: Only 6 of the 67 students in the group earned a bachelor's degree on time. Even now, only 9 have their degrees. But 4 students from her class are now in college. And 72% graduated from high school or earned a GED, compared to only 27% of the non-Dreamers in their class at Kramer.

The program also may be having positive effects on the next generation. Currently, 18 children of the Dreamers are in college, 3 hold bachelor's degrees, and two are in graduate school.

Try not to leave a whole school behind.

While Warren's fortunes have risen recently, the same is not true for Kramer. It's still one of the lowest-performing middle schools in DC, with proficiency rates of 24% for math and 22% for reading.

To the extent that the I Have a Dream program was able to help Warren and some of her fellow Dreamers, that's terrific. But if we're going to change outcomes for students like them on a broader scale, we need a strategy that transforms entire schools—and, as much as possible, their surrounding communities—rather than the lives of a few members of a subgroup.

The story of Kramer's Dreamers may hold more lessons for those interested in poverty and education: the author of the Times article, Diana Kapp, is working on a book that will trace the lives of several students from the group. I, for one, am eager to read it.

Did you enjoy this article? Greater Greater Washington is running a reader drive to raise funds so we can keep editing and publishing great articles every day. Please help us be sustainable by making a monthly, yearly, or one-time contribution today!

Support us: Monthly   Yearly   One time
Greatest supporter—$250/year
Greater supporter—$100/year
Great supporter—$50/year
Or pick your own amount: $/year
Greatest supporter—$250
Greater supporter—$100
Great supporter—$50
Supporter—$20
Or pick your own amount: $
Want to contribute by mail or another way? Instructions are here.
Contributions to Greater Greater Washington are not tax deductible.

Education


Test scores are not improving for at-risk student groups

DC Public Schools Chancellor Kaya Henderson announced the system's 2014 test scores yesterday, saying "we're continuing on an upward trajectory." However, a closer look at the scores reveals a stagnant or downward trajectory for black, Hispanic, low-income, English language learner, and special education students in the last five years.


Reading scores have declined among at-risk groups since 2009. Graph from DCPS with emphasis by the author.

It's true that reading test scores overall have increased since 2009, and slightly overall since last year. However, it's a different story for many demographic subgroups, including every at-risk subgroup: students receiving free or reduced price lunch (FARMS), black students, Latino students, special education students, and students whose first language is not English (called "English Language Learners"). For those students, scores have declined since 2009 and further since last year.

Math scores are mixed among at-risk subgroups since 2009

While reading scores have declined since 2009 among all at-risk subgroups, math scores look better.

Black and Hispanic students have gained on average since 2009, though white students have gained even more. Lower-income (FARMS) students and special education students gained slightly, while English language learners lost considerable ground.

The achievement gap is widening

The decline among at-risk subgroups, along with gains among white and Asian students, has widened the achievement gap in DC. The every-other-year federal test, NAEP, reports the gap between students eligible and not eligible for free and reduced price lunch.


2013 Department of Education report of 8th grade NAEP test scores with emphasis by the author.

However, this gap is nowhere in the 2014 CAS score reports by the Office for the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) or by DCPS. The Department said the following about this achievement gap in its most recent report on DC NAEP scores.

In 2013, students who were eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch, an indicator of low family income, had an average score that was 31 points lower than students who were not eligible for free/reduced-price school lunch. This performance gap was not significantly different from that in 1998 (25 points).
What does this mean for reform policies?

Can we draw any conclusions about DCPS's reform efforts from this data?

Scores did increase substantially in reading as well as math from 2007 to 2009, and are still above 2007 levels in all categories. DC Public Schools (DCPS) officials argue that 2007 should be the baseline (and therefore we should consider their reforms a success) because mayoral control of DCPS began in 2007.

However, the IMPACT teacher evaluation system went into effect in 2009. The first round of DCPS school closures was announced in the spring of 2008, and implemented over the next two years, well after students had taken the 2008 CAS test.

Most students taking the CAS tests in the spring of 2007, 2008 or 2009 were still unaffected by the IMPACT system or by school closures.

On the other hand, it may still be too early to judge the effects of any particular reform. Still, we must ask, how long will it take to know for sure?

Is DCPS really "on an upward trajectory"? If DC's education system is slowly growing but not for those groups where public education is most likely to make or break success in life, it is not doing its job.

Did you enjoy this article? Greater Greater Washington is running a reader drive to raise funds so we can keep editing and publishing great articles every day. Please help us be sustainable by making a monthly, yearly, or one-time contribution today!

Support us: Monthly   Yearly   One time
Greatest supporter—$250/year
Greater supporter—$100/year
Great supporter—$50/year
Or pick your own amount: $/year
Greatest supporter—$250
Greater supporter—$100
Great supporter—$50
Supporter—$20
Or pick your own amount: $
Want to contribute by mail or another way? Instructions are here.
Contributions to Greater Greater Washington are not tax deductible.

Development


Housing is a big part of inequality in Washington. We need more housing, and more affordable housing, to fix it

There's a lot of inequality in our region, including housing, where low-wage households living farther out spend more time and money traveling than wealthier ones closer in. A new report quantifies these problems and recommends reforming zoning to build more housing, as well as expanding subsidized housing.


Photo from the report.

The report, from The Commonwealth Insititute, DC Fiscal Policy Institute, and Maryland Center on Economic Policy, looks at many ways the recent economic growth in our region has helped higher-income individuals and families more than others.

The gap between the low-wage and high-wage jobs is greater than the national average and getting worse. Jobs for people without college educations have gotten scarcer, while jobs for people with college educations (particularly with advanced degrees) has grown even faster than the number of people with those degrees. And black residents and young people have been hit hardest.

Meanwhile, it's become more expensive to live in most of our region.

The inner jurisdictions, except for Prince George's County, have the smallest share of families making $50,000-200,000, though DC and Alexandria still also have more lower-income households than elsewhere.


All graphs from the report.

Many households pay more than 30%, or even more than 50%, of their income toward housing. For renters, this effect is worst in outer jurisdictions like Stafford, Calvert, Charles, and Spotsylvania counties.

It's worse for renters than homeowners. It seems likely this is because many homeowners have owned for a number of years with fixed-rate mortgages, meaning their property values (and, often, tax burdens) have risen but their housing payments have not. Renters don't have that long-term stability, and are also more likely to have moved in more recently.

Overall, for both renters and owners, housing costs are lower farther from the core, but so are incomes. That means that the proportion of "housing burdened" households is about the same closer in and farther out. This makes a certain sense, since people will naturally gravitate toward areas where they can afford the housing.

However, that doesn't tell the whole story. If a lower-income household is paying a similar share of income to live in an outer jurisdiction, those residents also likely face longer commutes than a wealthier household in a central location. Low-wage workers are becoming more likely to commute 50 miles or more than high-wage ones.

The report says:

In Fauquier, Spotsylvania, Frederick, and Prince George's counties, the average housing and transportation costs exceed 45 percent of those counties' median incomes. That means the average housing and transportation costs in the county are considered unaffordable for the median household.

Three of these four localities are in the outer suburbs, where high transportation costs are responsible for the lack of affordability, despite median home values and rents generally being more affordable there than in the core and inner suburbs.

In Prince George's County, low median family incomes mean that even with relatively low housing and transportation costs, the median household income is insufficient to cover those average costs.

I would add that Prince George's has poor Metro accessibility compared to Montgomery and Fairfax, making commute times and costs higher. Also, with most jobs having shifted to the west side of the region, it's not quite as close to as many jobs as its distance from downtown DC might suggest.

The report notes that Prince George's had twice as many foreclosures in 2011 as the region generally; its rate is comparable to that in hard-hit outer Virginia counties and neighboring Charles County.

What's the solution? Besides increasing incomes, helping people build skills, and expanding access to health care, a big one is taking steps to make housing more affordable. The report says,

Increasing opportunities for affordable housing for working families through zoning reform (such as removing restrictions on building more apartments close to metro stops) and housing subsidies can help working families live close to their jobs and reduce stress on families and communities.
Many reports on inequality from social justice organizations in the past have not included zoning among the policy tools to deal with housing affordability. It's great to see TCI, DCFPI, and MDCEP agree that we need to do both: add more housing (and lots of it), and also explicitly ensure that some of that housing in all jurisdictions goes to people at many points along the economic spectrum.

Did you enjoy this article? Greater Greater Washington is running a reader drive to raise funds so we can keep editing and publishing great articles every day. Please help us be sustainable by making a monthly, yearly, or one-time contribution today!

Support us: Monthly   Yearly   One time
Greatest supporter—$250/year
Greater supporter—$100/year
Great supporter—$50/year
Or pick your own amount: $/year
Greatest supporter—$250
Greater supporter—$100
Great supporter—$50
Supporter—$20
Or pick your own amount: $
Want to contribute by mail or another way? Instructions are here.
Contributions to Greater Greater Washington are not tax deductible.

Support Us