Academic achievement gap in Michigan could be narrowed with big boost in public school funding, economist says

Julie Mack | By Julie Mack |
on January 29, 2013 at 6:15 AM, updated January 29, 2013 at 9:57 AM
Tim Bartik.JPG Tim Bartik  
KALAMAZOO, MI -- In theory, Michigan could largely eliminate the academic achievement gap between middle- and low-income students by spending at least 60 percent more per low-income student for targeted interventions, a Kalamazoo economist says.

Those interventions include preschool, smaller class sizes and high-quality summer school, said Tim Bartik, senior economist for the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, who was written extensively on the cost and benefits of academic interventions.



"If we really want to achieve the dream of equalized educational opportunity for all, there's no free lunch in doing that," said Bartik in a recent presentation to the Kalamazoo Public Schools Board of Education. Bartik was a KPS trustee from 2000-08 and was school board president in 2005-06.

While such interventions would be expensive, Bartik said, "there would be obvious fiscal returns," such as lower crime rates, less dependency on social programs and higher incomes and worker productivity.

"There are a lot of students that show that these interventions are inherently self-financing over the long term, but unfortunately they're not in the short term," Bartik said. "You have to consider it as an investment."

Bartik spoke at the board meeting at the invitation of KPS Superintendent Michael Rice and the KPS board, who have been arguing for several years that Michigan should overhaul its funding formula to provide more resources for low-income students.

They point to decades of research that show a significant and persistent performance gap between low- and middle-income students that experts attribute to differences in tangible and intangible supports that children receive outside of school.

Bartik offered some specifics about the gap.

"While there are huge variations in all groups," Bartik said, on average, students who qualify for the federal lunch program perform at about the 25th percentile compared to middle-class students. That means 75 percent of middle-class students outperform the average low-income child, he said.

Among third-graders, that means low-income children tend to lag about a grade level behind middle-class students. Because the variation between students grows as they age, by ninth grade, the average low-income child is three grade levels behind the average middle-class student, Bartik said.

Difference in academic outcomes can have profound differences for individuals as adults, especially in their ability to earn a living, Bartik said.

He added that income inequity "is a problem getting worse over time," and people born into low-income households are now less likely than in past generations to move into the middle class.

"There is a widening income gap by achievement level," he said.

The objective of Bartik's presentation was to offer some hard numbers on the cost of interventions that could level the playing field.

"If you want to really equalize educational opportunities, what does that cost?" he said.

He said that fully implementing the support services needed for low-income children means those student cost between 100 and 150 percent more to educate in urban states and 60 to 100 percent in non-urban states.

"Most states only provide an extra 15 to 30 percent" more funding for low-income students, he said.

Bartik rejected the idea that the achievement gap can be eliminated without extra funding. He pointed to charter schools as an example; those that have been most effective, he said, have used costly strategies such as longer school days and years, more small-group tutoring, more mentoring of teachers and more frequent assessment.

He said the most effective interventions are those implemented at the start of a child's school career. "Kids are more malleable early on," he said. "It's easier to change their habits of mind, habits of behavior."

He estimated that providing each low-income student with preschool, class sizes of less than 15 students in grades K-3 and summer school would cost about a total of about $28,000 per child, but that trio of interventions should have eliminated the achievement gap by the end of third grade.

But, Bartik added, schools would need to continue to provide additional interventions in later grades to keep the low-income children on track.

"There's a reason to invest in this," he told the KPS board. "What happens to one person affects us all. Why should I be my brother's keeper? Well, there's ethical reasons for that. But there's also enlightened self-interest" in creating a more educated, productive population.

Rice applauded Bartik's presentation.

"Our state has one of the most regressive funding systems in the country," he said. "In most cases, it treats every child as if they were equal. What that means is that some children end up with more opportunities than other children."

Reforming the funding formula, he said, "is not just a matter of social justice. It's also a considerable economic issue."

Coming Thursday: Live chat at noon Thursday with Tim Bartik.


Click here for more stories by Julie Mack.