Michael Kennedy

EDAD 510
13 July 2014
Critical Issue Position Paper
Neighborhood Schools
Throughout the history of American public education, the decision of where to send a
child to school was largely decided based on where the child lived. Territory has most often been
the deciding factor of what school a child attends. All over the United States, politically drawn
lines dictate which schools will educate which students, creating so-called neighborhood
schools. On face value, neighborhood schools seem to be the most obvious choice to educate
students. Why would any district decide to transport students to schools that are farther away
than the school in these students neighborhood? In fact, transporting students may be the best
way to truly meet the educational needs of all students within a district. School districts that
adheres to the neighborhood school model under any and all circumstances is limiting how
well it is able to meet the needs of its students. Moreover, the neighborhood school model has
become obsolete in modern-day education. How close a student lives to a certain school should
have no bearing on where that child goes to school. Ultimately, each child should go to school in
the place that best meets his/her educational needs.
Incidences where it may not be appropriate for students to go to the school in their
neighborhood usually involve race and/or poverty. McQuillan & Englert (2001) looked at this
factor and asserted that schools with high minority or poverty populations were not appropriately
serving students needs. They cited the students lack of cultural capital, meaning income,
resources, skills, attitudes, etc. that help individuals to be successful in society. McQuillan &
Englert (2001) assert that high concentrations of students in schools that lack cultural capital
creates inequality among schools. In looking at these high poverty, high minority schools, they

maintain, such [school] conditions undermine educational opportunity for these students to the
extent that their rights are violated (p.747). In cases like this, clinging to a neighborhood
schools is not in the best interests of the students. They are not able to receive the education they
could in a different setting.
When students come from poverty, they tend to live in neighborhoods comprised of other
individuals from poverty. Similarly, middle class families tend to live near other middle class
families, as is the same for upper class families. Therefore, prescribing to the neighborhood
school model means accepting that schools in low income neighborhoods will predominately
educate students from low-income families. Turner & Berube (2009) contend that this is a major
issue. They cite research that shows the need to mix students from different income backgrounds
to help raise student achievement. Turner and Berube state, Research shows that (other things
being equal) low-income children do better when they attend schools with middle- and upperincome children than when they attend schools where most of their classmates are poor (p.1-2).
If it is the priority of schools is to offer the best possible education to all students, than this
research clearly shows that adhering to the neighborhood school model is insufficient for the
successful education of all students.
The original purpose to the neighborhood school model was to send students to the
closest available school to where they live. After all, if education is to be compulsory, it only
makes sense that students can receive their compulsory education in the building thats
geographically closest to the individuals it serves. Neighborhood schools have also served as a
focal point for communities; a place within the neighborhood that everyone could identify with,
share a common bond, and take pride in. However, communities look very different today than
they did decades ago. The connections people have to their neighborhoods and communities are

different. In our ever globalizing society, peoples sense of identity and relationships arent
necessarily based on territory. Schools need to adapt to these changing cultural patterns as well,
or at least not force children to attend neighborhood schools in the name of community.
Many people may argue that the biggest contributing factor to the success of a school is
the individual characteristics that each school holds (i.e. teachers, administrators, funding, PD
initiatives, etc.). Proponents of neighborhood schools would agree with this, asserting that
changing the students of a school will not make a school successful, but rather getting the right
staff and vision will. Jargowsky and El Komi (2009) searched for answers to this debate. They
concluded that reducing the concentration of poverty in a school is the easiest way to reduce the
disparity that exists between schools.
Another argument for keeping neighborhood schools is that the alternative options could
cause many people to up and leave the community altogether. Bogart and Cromwell (2000)
assert that families that live in districts that transition away from the neighborhood school model
will have their property values drop. One of the reasons that many people decide to move to
certain neighborhoods is based off the schools found in those neighborhoods. If the
neighborhood school model is abolished, the school is no longer a deciding factor for an
individual to move to that neighborhood, in turn lowering property values. This argument comes
down to an ethical decision. Is doing what is educationally best for all students most important?
Or is maintaining current property values? Or is fear of families moving to other districts a
motivating factor? Ultimately, the only question that should matter for educators is that of what
should be done to attain higher levels of achievement for all students.
Another argument made in favor of neighborhood schools comes from Diane Ravitch
(2010). She talks about how schools need to focus on having a strong curriculum, rather than

restructuring where students go to school. Ravitchs claim is strong, but falls short because she
gives no possibility of restructuring school demographics to gain student achievement. She
strongly believes that all school issues can be solved by strengthening curriculum, but fails to see
the insurmountable issues that block this from occurring. It may be true that some neighborhood
schools can be improved through the improvement of curriculum, staff, etc. However, some
schools, even after all of these improvements have been made, are still not raising student
achievement to acceptable levels. In these cases, shuffling students should be an option. Moving
away from the neighborhood school model should always be an option to increase student
achievement.
Neighborhood schools can be successful means of educating our youth. Furthermore, if
students can be sent to the school nearest to their home and receive the education they are
entitled to, they should attend the neighborhood school. However, if there is any reason that
students cannot receive a full and equitable education near their neighborhood, the system should
be changed. There are a number of positive affects for a student to attend a neighborhood school,
but the only determining factor in this matter should be the education the student receives.

References
Bogart, W. & Cromwell, B. (2000). How Much is a Neighborhood School Worth? Journal of
Urban Economics. 47, 280-305. Retrieved July 8, 2014, from
http://sites.duke.edu/niou/files/2011/06/BC_neighborhood-school.pdf
Jargowsky, P., & El Komi, M. (2009). Before or After the Bell?: School Context and
Neighborhood Effects on Student Achievement. Retrieved July 1, 2014, from the
Educational Resource Information Center database.
McQuillan, P.J. & Englert, K.S. (2001). The Return to Neighborhood Schools, Concentrated
Poverty, and Educational Opportunity: An Agenda for Reform. Hastings Constitutional
Law Quarterly, 28(4), 739-770. Retrieved from
http://www.hastingsconlawquarterly.org/archives/V28/I4/McQuillan.pdf.
Ravitch, D. (2010). In Need of a Renaissance: Real Reform Will Renew, Not Abandon, Our
Neighborhood Schools. American Educator, 34, 10-13, 16-22, 42. Retrieved July 3,
2014, from the Educational Resource Information Center database.
Turner, M., & Berube, A. (2009). Vibrant Neighborhoods, Successful Schools: What the Federal
Government Can Do to Foster Both. Urban Institute. Retrieved July 8, 2014, from the
Educational Resource Information Center database.