Image: Gulliver Globelink | Pixabay
Assistant Professor of Economics Mariana Laverde (Photo by Lee Pellegrini)
虽然对于一个处于相当混乱之中的学校系统来说，这似乎是一个令人沮丧的启示——去年夏天，bps勉强避免了国家接管，并聘请了10年来的第五位主管——但太阳城官网结果指出了一个更大的问题，几乎不是波士顿所专有的, according to Laverde, a researcher in the economics of education and applied market design.
“Because school-choice programs disconnect neighborhoods and schools, the theory goes, that will reduce segregation in the school system, improve the match quality between school and student, 同时也让来自弱势群体的孩子能够进入高质量的学校,” she explained. “Based on the analysis, 选择制度对平等进入高水平学校的影响是有限的, 原因可能不太明显，或者超出了择校计划的能力范围.
“Choice has a lot of good things about it, but clearly we can’t assume choice-based systems will solve everything.”
For Laverde, the BPS study represents a classic use of market design, a discipline focusing on the development and behavior of certain markets, especially those that operate outside of archetypal financial-based scenarios. For example, in private education, 学生能够或愿意支付的学费数额是决定他或她上哪所学校的关键因素. But given that public education is free, she said, “how do we decide which student goes to which school? 我们如何为这个市场设定分配规则，使每个人都尽可能高兴?”
一种选择是将孩子们统一分配到离社区最近的学校, said Laverde. 该系统的优点之一是学生从家到学校的路程较短，并加强了该地区家庭之间的社区意识. 但社区分配的学校往往会复制居住隔离，使教育不平等永久化, Laverde pointed out, which runs counter to their mission as mandated by law.
In theory, 一个以选择为基础的系统——要求家庭对他们的学校偏好进行排名——将减少特定学校系统内的隔离，同时使来自低收入家庭的学生受益, which tend to be Black or Hispanic, to attend high-performing schools. So why hasn’t that been the case for Boston Public Schools?
在波士顿和其他地方，家长们选择孩子上学的一个关键因素是离家近. 一些家长可能没有灵活的时间安排，无法让他们把孩子送到更远的学校, or may be concerned that their children face longer commutes in school buses. For these parents, said Laverde, 考虑到这些家长往往是低收入的黑人或西班牙裔，就近的低水平学校可能比远一些的高水平学校更可取, this invariably causes cross-race gaps in access to such schools, as is the case in BPS.
尽管该系统会根据学生离学校的远近来优先分配作业, and white students tend to live closer to higher-achieving schools, 分配算法对观测到的间隙没有任何有意义的贡献, Laverde found.
“Based on the analysis, 选择制度对平等进入高水平学校的影响是有限的, 原因可能不太明显，或者超出了择校计划的能力范围. Choice has a lot of good things about it, but clearly we can’t assume choice-based systems will solve everything.”
分析2010年至2013年家庭择校申请数据和美国能源部对学校特征的统计数据, Laverde构建了不同的模型，以确定影响进入高水平学校的可能因素. In models where the residential location of students was changed (for example, 如果黑人或西班牙裔学生住在高成绩学校附近的社区), 少数族裔学生和白人学生在学业成绩上的差距缩小了约50%. 消除邻近优先和学校选择菜单限制对学校成绩按种族分布的影响可以忽略不计, which indicated rules are not an important driver of the gap—and instead, 指出家与学校之间的距离较长是少数族裔和白人学生在太阳城网赌平台机会上存在差异的主要原因, Laverde said.
“There are important policy implications here,” she said. “尽管选择系统让所有家庭都可以选择进入该市最好的学校, 如果家庭在进入高水平学校时面临不同的成本，那么进入这些学校的差距将持续存在. 这也意味着学校系统内的竞争压力降低了, reducing the potential for system-wide improvements in quality.”
There are limitations to the scope of her study, Laverde notes. It doesn’t predict how, or if, 如果学校地点改变了，或者某所学校的成绩水平提高了，那么进入高水平学校的机会就会有所不同. 这两种情况都无法预测家庭的住房选择和他们对假想学校的需求, she explained, 哪些因素将决定按种族分配到高成就学校的距离的均衡分布.
这项太阳城官网也不意味着有意或有意识地剥夺了进入高水平学校的平等机会, Laverde说:“这只是一个关于BPS的择校“市场”的镜头。.
“There is nothing specific that points to a flaw in BPS. The bottom line is, even under a choice system, 一些居住隔离模式将渗透到学校分配中. 学区独自负责解决学校的种族隔离和不平等的想法是错误的. Instead, 这些政策目标应包括住房和交通部门的共同努力, to name a few.”
Sean Smith | University Communications | November 2022