Spatially Varying Factors of Educational Inequity and School Segregation in the U.S.

• In Event: Markets and Education

Proposal

Context of the Study
Education is spatial. Where a student lives often determines the education that one receives. Because state governments rather than the federal government are responsible for providing public education, states rely on different education laws, policies, and regulations. Moreover, even within each state, education is funded differently as the education finance often depends on local taxes. In short, students in different states learn different curricula with different textbooks and resources (Goldstein, 2020, January 13), and are funded differently in two neighboring school districts (Owens, 2017), which leads to educational inequality. The phenomenon of receiving different education depending on where you live evokes how schools and students are segregated. Schools and students are spatially segregated based on diverse factors, particularly race and socioeconomic status, and studies have found that the basis of school segregation is changing (Massey et al., 2009; Reardon et al., 2000; Reardon et al., 2019).
Despite the significance of space and location in education, limited education research has taken geospatial perspectives in analyzing educational issues (Yoon, Gulson, Lubienski, 2018; Cobb, 2020). Even though space and location encompass racial, socioeconomic, cultural, and even physical contexts of education inequity, there has been a lack of discussion that involved spatial inequity in education research.
Considering the significance of spatiality in educational equity and the outcomes of school segregation that differently impact students, this study aims to analyze the ways in which educational opportunities are segregated based on race and socioeconomic status across the United States with a focus on geographic variation. While this study utilizes geographically weighted regression, it also takes critical spatial theories as a theoretical lens to interpret the findings and look into the relationship between power dynamics and the ways in which education is spatially institutionalized.

Power and Protest in Space
The geographical institutionalization of education and how people form communities and neighborhoods reflect the power dynamics and the process of protest in diverse ways. As emphasized by critical spatial theorists, space is a product of a society that undergoes constant construction and change due to human actions, interactions, and the influences of cultural and socioeconomic circumstances. Through the examination of space creation, conflicts, and alterations, critical scholars seek to reveal how spatial aspects are connected to social disparities and pinpoint opportunities for bringing about societal transformation. The ways in which space and education in that space are institutionalized and resisted can be understood as how power attempts to dictate and perpetuate and sustain social, educational, and spatial inequity, whereas protesters compete for justice and equity.

Theoretical Framework
This study is based on critical spatial theories, which were born out of criticisms against the quantitative Euclidian spatial approaches that saw space as an empty background where human interactions and dynamics happen. Critical geographers and sociologists such as Lefebvre, Soja, Harvey, and Massey have emphasized that space is a social product infused with social meanings driven by daily activities, symbols, representations, and the meanings that people make of those places (Lefebvre, 1991). In particular, public space is structured and formalized in a manner that leads to the emergence of class distinctions, ownership, and societal connections within that space (Harvey, 2006).

Data and Methods
This study uses geographically weighted regression as a method and applies critical spatial theories as a theoretical framework. Geographically weighted regression (GWR) is a statistical method that attempts to understand how different factors are related in various places. To do so, GWR looks at each specific location separately and considers that some areas might have a stronger connection between variables. GWR takes the data for each location and gives more weight to the nearby data points while considering how factors are related. Using GWR, this study aims to investigate the spatial variations in the relationships between racial and socioeconomic factors in different places.
This study uses demographic, educational, and spatial data at the national level. Students’ demographics, academic achievement, and spatial data are retrieved from the Education Demographic and Geographic Estimates data and National Assessment of Educational Progress data. Moreover, for general population demographic data, American Community Survey data from the Census Bureau is accompanied. For educational opportunity, the Child Opportunity Index, which measures current aspects of neighborhoods that impact children in terms of education, health and environment, and social and economic factors, is used. This study focuses on the educational aspects of the index.

Findings
This study aims to answer the following research questions:
RQ1. What spatial factors significantly contribute to school segregation in metropolitan/non-metropolitan areas across the U.S.?
RQ2. Are there significant differences between school segregation in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas?
RQ3. What shapes spatially varying institutionalization of education and school segregation in different places?
The findings will indicate the spatially varying factors contributing to school segregation and how power dynamics shape segregated education.


Original Contribution and Significance of the Study
As mentioned, only limited education research has taken spatial perspectives in analyzing educational equity issues. Some studies have taken geospatial analysis of U.S. educational issues at the local level (Wei et al., 2018; Hogrebe & Tate, 2012) but not at the national level. Other disciplines, such as health and economics, have taken geographically weighted regression analysis at the national level (Shoff and Yang, 2012; Partridge et al., 2008), but not in education. Some international education studies, such as Fotheringham (2001), Ansong et al. (2015), and Sacco and Faletti (2021), studied the spatial relationships between social and educational factors at the national level but are done outside of the U.S. context.
This study contributes to scholarly originality in that it attempts to examine the methodological feasibility of taking geographically weighted regression analysis at the national level in the U.S. education context. Moreover, it is also significant in that it contributes to existing knowledge on educational inequity and school segregation by expanding the purview on the spatiality of the issue.

Author

• Jina Kim, Indiana University Bloomington