Verbatim Mac

AT: SES only causes achievement gap/too many factors can’t solve

Socioeconomic conditions mutually reinforcing of the achievement gap – but education resources can ameliorate the impact of SES

Reardon, Stanford University Graduate School of Education professor, et al, 17 (Sean F., Demetra, Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis research associate, Ken, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia with expertise in Educational Theory, Educational Policy, Econometrics, "The Geography of Racial/Ethnic Test Score Gaps", January 2017, http://cepa.stanford.edu/wp16-10, 7-8-17, GDI-EC)

One of the central sets of questions in the sociology of education for the last 50 years—since the publication of the Coleman Report (Coleman, et al., 1966)—concerns the primary causes of racial and ethnic achievement gaps and disparities in educational outcomes more generally. To what extent are these disparities the result of racial/ethnic differences in socioeconomic family background and circumstances, and to what extent are they the result of racial/ethnic differences in school quality? Put differently, to what extent should racial/ethnic disparities in educational outcomes be attributed to institutional features of the US educational system—features that may be malleable through changes in organizational, institutional, and policy features of schooling—and to what extent should they be attributed to factors outside the school system’s control, such as racial/ethnic disparities in socioeconomic family and neighborhood conditions?

Framed this way—as if inequalities inside the school system are distinct from inequalities outside of schools—the question implies a false dichotomy. Differences in socioeconomic conditions are not fully separable from disparities in educational conditions. Socioeconomic inequality may lead to inequality between and within schools, as communities with greater resources are able to better fund their local schools (in taxes and other ways). Parents in such communities may also use their greater social capital to secure better educational opportunities (better teachers, smaller classrooms, for example) for their children than less advantaged children within the same schools. Moreover, school systems react to social inequalities in ways that may reduce or exacerbate these inequalities. In most states, for example, when federal, state and local revenues are added up, per pupil expenditures are greater, on average, in districts enrolling large proportions of low-income students than in districts enrolling few poor students. This may attenuate differences in out-of-school opportunities (Aud et al. 2010; National Center for Education Statistics 2012). Conversely, school systems may also reinforce social inequalities by segregating children from low-income families into less demanding academic programs and/or into high poverty schools or by providing fewer resources to the classrooms and schools that enroll low-income students.

AT: Alt causes - teacher quality

High turnover and underqualified teachers prevalent at disadvantaged schools- studies prove

Le Floch, American Institutes for Research managing researcher, et al, 16 (Kerstin, Alicia, American Institutes for Research principal policy analyst, Catherine, American Institutes for Research principal technical assistance consultant, "Want to Improve Low-Performing Schools? Focus on the Adults", American Institutes for Research, March 2016, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED571848, 7-10-17, GDI-EC)

There lies a central problem. Although we know that highly capable teachers and leaders are critical for school improvement, evidence that schools serving disadvantaged students employ the least-qualified teachers is ample (Clotfelter, Ladd, Vigdor, & Wheeler, 2007; Isenberg et al., 2013). Compounding this issue, rates of teacher and principal turnover in schools serving high proportions of high-poverty students and minority students are high. Federal data demonstrate that more than 20 percent of principals leave their schools each year—and even more leave schools with high-poverty students. A study of Texas administrative data concluded that principal-retention rates are related to both student achievement and student poverty levels, with higher turnover among low-achieving, disadvantaged schools (Fuller & Young, 2009). Many schools serving America’s neediest children lose more than half of their teaching staff every five years (Allensworth, Ponisciak, & Mazzeo, 2009; Hemphill & Nauer, 2009).

AT: Alt cause - segregation

Funding problems increase incentives for housing segregation – creating inequality cycle

Boser, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress, and Baffour, research associate, K-12 Education Policy, Center for American Progress, 2017

(Ulrich and Perpetual, “Isolated and Segregated”, Center for American Progress, May 31, 2017, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/reports/2017/05/31/433014/isolated-and-segregated/, accessed 7/5/17, GDI-JG)

School funding also contributes to economic segregation. Public schools receive federal, state, and local funds to operate their schools, but the local source of revenue often takes up the greatest share of that mix. About 40 to 60 percent of every school’s budget is dependent upon local funding, and these funds are raised through the neighborhood’s property tax base. Low-income families, who tend to reside in areas with low property values, raise fewer funds for their local schools. On the other hand, higher-income families, who tend to live in high-priced properties, can boast higher-quality schools since they have a richer tax base.65∂ Since public school finance systems make local areas heavily dependent on local funding, school districts are incentivized to create boundaries that exclude lower-income neighborhoods. As EdBuild puts it: “The way we fund schools in the United States creates incentives for communities to segregate along socioeconomic lines in order to preserve local wealth. In so doing, communities create arbitrary borders that serve to lock students into, or out of, opportunity.”66∂ Schools in low-wealth neighborhoods raise smaller amounts of local revenue due to the weaker tax base. These school districts are less able to build beautiful school facilities, attract high-quality staff, and design compelling school programming. It is a situation that fuels a cycle in which parents who can afford high-priced properties flood to those wealthier areas, and the neighborhood schools receive greater funding for programs, supports, and services.