1 / 19

Exploring the value of education within local housing markets: Sheffield, a case study

Exploring the value of education within local housing markets: Sheffield, a case study. Sue Easton Town & Regional Planning University of Sheffield. Overview / structure. Intro to the project Background The value of schools Accessibility and socioeconomic status Research questions

anne
Télécharger la présentation

Exploring the value of education within local housing markets: Sheffield, a case study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Exploring the value of education within local housing markets: Sheffield, a case study Sue Easton Town & Regional Planning University of Sheffield

  2. Overview / structure • Intro to the project • Background • The value of schools • Accessibility and socioeconomic status • Research questions • Methods • Findings • s.easton@sheffield.ac.uk

  3. Sheffield Travel to School Project • ESRC Secondary Data Analysis Initiative (18 months) • Pupil census and parental preference data shared by local authority under strict data-sharing contract • www.traveltoschoolproject.org.uk

  4. Background – Hedonic Models • Leech and Campos (2001) average additional increase for good secondary school catchment in Coventry: £10,000 - £20,000 (16-20%) on the average housein July 2000. • Gibbons and Machin (2003) 1% increase in primary school performance (Key Stage 2) associated with a £90 increase in mortgage fees per child. • Cheshire and Sheppard (2004) relationship non-linear, differed between primary & secondary schools. £42,541 (33.5%) between best and worst primary schools in Reading (2000)

  5. Accessibility and Socioeconomic Status • Burgess et al. (2011) – only 37% of schools within 3km of a child’s house actually accessible to that child. Lowest Socioeconomic Status quintile in metropolitan areas effectively excluded from over 70% of schools within 3km of their home. • Hamnett and Butler (2013) showed that the most popular schools in East London had the shortest distances to school within the tightest de facto catchment areas. They argue that places at the best state schools now rationed through geography via “distance to school” criteria.

  6. Research Questions • How do local education markets in Sheffield interact with local housing markets? • What are the socioeconomic and spatial differences in de facto catchment areas for different types of schools (faith/secular, high and low-performing)? • Do the best (highest-performing) state schools have tighter, more homogeneous, higher socioeconimic local catchment areas?

  7. Methods and Data • Property Price index – HPI-adjusted, weighted • Based on Land Registry data 2007-2011 (4 years) • “De facto” catchment areas for schools • Based on network analysis of drive and walk times • From point data on pupil residential location • Geodemographic classification of Sheffield using census output areas • Based on census 2011 data, property price index and urban form variables (building density etc) • Parental Preference Data – too “fluid” for analysis (administrative data).

  8. Property Sales 2010-11 (£)

  9. Primary 65% “de facto” Catchment Areas

  10. Neighbourhood Classification - 2011 Census

  11. Results so far … • Correlation of 0.51 between mean 65% catchment property price and school performance on Key Stage 2 results (at age 11) for best state primary schools (p=0.000, N = 52) • Correlation of 0.88 mean 65%catchment property price (2010-11 data) and school performance (using Key Stage 4 – GCSEs) excluding the Catholic High School at top-performing secondary schools (p = 0.01, N=7). • Positive correlation between “core” standard distance and best-performing secondary schools on key stage results (0.75 at 5% significance). Weaker for primaries. • Inverse relationship between property price and residential density?

  12. 65% De Facto Catchments for Best Primaries

  13. Best-performing Primary Schools and Local “Neighbourhood” Classification

  14. Conclusions • Endogeneity – children of high-performing professionals advantaged from birth >> perform better academically >> cluster together and attend local schools in/near wealthier residential areas. • Definitely a relationship between property price and school performance on KS results – strongest at secondary level. • Distance-based over-subscription criteria exclude children from other residential areas from accessing the best state schools and associated peer group (thinking social capital). Also religious selection criteria. • Inverse relationship between residential population density and school performance based on Key Stage results. • Next steps – to test relationships between pupils in residential areas and schools in a cross-classified multilevel model.

  15. Atypical Primary Catchments Tinsley Junior 91.5% BME -12 below Average for England KS2

  16. Netherthorpe Primary – city central -26 below mean for England (KS2); 34% FSM, 88% BME pupils

  17. Contact Details: s.easton@sheffield.ac.uk Department of Town & Regional Planning University of Sheffield

  18. Correlation between Mean Weighted Property Price for 65%Catchments& KS2 Primary Schools performing above mean for England

  19. Correlation between Mean 2010-11 Property Price for 65% Catchments& KS4 for Secondary Schools (performing above mean for England) Correlation = 0.88 (p=0.01)

More Related