I’m afraid this important topic may get lost among the election news but the Globe has a story today about a study from the Metropolitan Area Planning Council which refutes the notion that building more housing in the suburbs means more kids in the schools.
This is from the MAPC report…
One of the most widespread worries about new housing development, especially in suburban communities, is that it will drive up school enrollment. Many local officials and residents assume that new housing, and especially new multifamily housing, will attract families – families with children who will inevitably increase enrollment in the local public schools – creating additional education costs outweighing any new revenue the housing generates.
These apprehensions are rooted in the demographic and development patterns of the late 20th century, when Baby Boomers were in their prime child-rearing years. Their residential choices caused housing stock, enrollment, and school expenditures to grow quickly in many suburbs. Many communities even considered limiting housing development in hopes of curbing school budget increases and the need for more tax revenue.
Over the past 15 years, however, multiple studies have examined the enrollment and fiscal impacts of individual housing developments and found that concerns about those impacts are commonly overstated. ….
…We find that the conventional wisdom that links housing production with inevitable enrollment growth no longer holds true. At the district level, we observe no meaningful correlation between housing production rates and enrollment growth over a six-year period. While it is true that schoolchildren occupying new housing units may cause a marginal change in enrollment, they are one small factor among many. In cities and town with the most rapid housing production, enrollment barely budged; and most districts with the largest student increases saw very little housing unit change. The rate of housing unit growth is not a useful predictor of overall enrollment change, nor is rapid housing development a precondition to sudden enrollment increases. It appears that broad demographic trends, parental preferences, and housing availability now play a much larger role in enrollment growth and decline. Our findings raise important issues related to capital planning, education finance, and housing incentive programs.
In Newton, according to the report, our permitted housing stock increased by less than two percent between 2010-16 but our school population rose by seven and a half percent.
Our school enrollment should grow with increased housing. It’ll be a sign that we will have provided entry-level housing for folks who want to raise families in Newton. Children are really quite wonderful, you know. Also, seniors are nifty. Young professionals aren’t awful, either.
Counter points
Did the study track private school enrollment. New construction in bad school districts may simply attract young professionals who are willing to pay for private
Of the study which cover districts with top tier public schools, did those districts see increased enrollment
One of the major factors in choosing to live in Newton is the schools, people move here so their kids go to a decent school.
“Towns that do have growing student populations tend to be close to job centers and fall into one of two categories, the report says.
Some have strong school districts, which make them attractive to affluent families, who bid up home prices — places like Brookline, Lexington, and Lincoln. Those towns could use more housing to meet the demand, the MAPC says. Others — including Everett, Revere, and Lynn — have lower test scores but are relatively affordable.”
I think a more accurate headline would be “More Housing Does Not Always Equal More School Kids”.
I’m proudly draining the Newton taxpayers.
We were quite happy living elsewhere until my daughter was going into first grade. We sold the house for one reason – to move to Newton for the schools. The flip side of that of course is that all those people like us do help to prop up property values, which increases the tax base to pay for the schools.
I was struck by an overheard conversation a few years back. Mayor Warren was at an event in our neighborhood. One of my neighbors began giving him a hard time about new development bringing more kids to the Newton schools. He said quite passionately (paraphrased) “We want young families. We want people who want to raise their kids here. Yes, there are challenges. Yes we do have to plan for and deal with it but we don’t want to make Newton a place that’s trying to make it more difficult for kids and families to live here. The city thrives on that. That’s what keep’s the city alive and vibrant.”
As somebody who had only recently moved here with a young daughter it made a big impression.
The next time a new development is proposed, I stand ready to wager $100 that it will increase demand on NPS, if someone else is willing to wager $100 that it will decrease demand on NPS. Any takers?
@Jerry: On that, Mayor Warren and I agree. But as a resident, I hope you are willing to pay the price because high density residential development is not fiscally sustainable unless 1) we grow our commercial tax base substantially, 2) we go after non=profits aggressively and 3) we are willing to increase our taxes in order to accommodate increased enrollment in our schools and increased demand on our services.
Amy,
You want to put those kinds of barriers on more beautiful young people joining our community?
@Sean: Maybe you don’t remember – but I was the “Yes we need an override candidate.” What barriers do you think I’m putting up? None. Just be prepared to see an increase in your taxes.”
Amy,
Do you remember me? I’m the guy who said people should vote for you because you were upfront about the need for an override! 😉
Higher taxes? Can you put a price on the joy of adding more darling children to our community?
@Amy Sangiolo – Agreed. As the mayor said there are challenges but we’ll deal with them if we want to keep Newton the vibrant place that it is. If that’s what it takes then – yes, yes, and yes,
Solution: high density tax.
You build 4-8 LUXUARY units on a plot of land which only had single house then the new residents pay a high density tax. No tears for someone who can buy a 3BR condo for a million dollars
@Jerry Reilly Disagree with your assessment that you are “draining the Newton Taxpayers”
Newton got the better bargain with your arrival.
To the main topic: The MAPC study in today’s Globe clearly proves that, for Newton, more housing DOES equal more school kids. The MAPC study shows 2011 to 2017 enrollment in Newton schools increased by 893 students while the number of new housing units increased by 622. If that trend continues, then for every new housing unit Newton adds, we should expect .7 new students to enroll. If we add 1,000 new units, there’s 700 more school kids. But here’s something further to consider: whether or not new housing brings more students to our schools, our high schools are TODAY experiencing overcrowding problems. My 9th grader attends Newton North, so I have a newly heightened awareness of congested conditions there. According to massschoolbuildings.org, Newton North is a “400,000 sq. ft. building (built) to (accommodate) 1,850 high school students”. Today it serves almost 2200, and of that number, 25% are Students with Disabilities, and 32% are Students with High Needs. see: http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/student.aspx?orgcode=02070505&orgtypecode=6&leftNavId=305& . I point out these student populations because the Massachusetts School Building Authority requires increased school building capacity (square footage) above and beyond baseline capacity, relative to the number of disabled and high need students served. The original baseline capacity for Newton North did not take into account the rapid growth in Newton’s special status student population and the increased number of special aides that spend time inside the building each day. Overcrowding is not simply a function of too many bodies; it is a byproduct of the space requirements for the types of populations served. Overcrowding at North has troubling impacts such as: limited availability of common spaces (cafeteria,library, studios, gym), diminished air quality (EPA cites greater risk for asthmatics as well as other negative health impacts for all occupants), clogged halls and stairways impeding students trying to get to class on time, and a feeling of discomfort, even distress for the more vulnerable students. Newton South has similar impacts from overcrowding.
The time is now to field solutions for Newton’s school overcrowding, ahead of all the newly approved residential development soon breaking ground. I take no comfort in overarching demographic trends posited by MAPC. Those projections do not apply to Newton, at least not for the foreseeable future. Newton continues to be a magnet for families with school age children. As a community, we must plan for this and address our current overcrowding issues accordingly.
I spent years telling people that 40B was bad for Newton. Not bad because it created some affordable housing. Bad because it did not create enough affordable housing, and the City was always getting the short end of the stick from developers…
But that tide has turned since the City met its 40B requirement. We are now able to insist that large scale residential developments provide a higher percentage of affordable units than 40B, and require developers to provide “linkage” funds for more community amenities…
The number of school age children should always be a factor in what the City requires from the developer of any large scale residential development. In many cases property taxes alone will not be enough to underwrite the cost of educating the children that move into a newly constructed multi-unit development. We must insist that these developers cover a more substantial part of that cost than they have in the past. If they’re not willing to pay, the City’s message to them should be “take a hike.”
@Sami O’Reilly – Thanks for the kind words.
That’s not how I read it. The reports says that for the period they reported on Newton school enrollment went up and number of units of housing went up. At first glance its a good guess that one caused the other. There seems to be a correlation there. What argues against that in other towns school enrollment didn’t go up with housing units.
I think what the study really says is that there are a number of other factors than effect school enrollment aside from number of units of housing. What portion of Newton’s new school enrollments were directly tied to new units of housing vs other factors is an open question that this report can’t answer. Taking that one Newton sample period and extrapolating that unit-housing vs enrollment ratio as some permanent part of a uniquely Newton phenomenon seems a bit far reaching.
i.e. it is a special town, but not that special 😉
@Sami O’Reilly, I have another interpretation of the data too…
On my block, in the last 8 years, 6 houses have changed owners (including ours). From those 6 sales of existing ~3BR homes, 6 children have or will be added to the local elementary school (4 kids moved out, 10 kids moved in that I know of). This is happening because the older residents were retiring/downsizing (one couple went to the Watch Factory in Newton)/passing on.
Although the property values on houses in our neighborhood continues to increase at about 5% a year, the city sees an increase of … you guessed it … 2.5% in taxes (overall). If we want to minimize the level of overrides we’ll need, Newton needs to prioritize development – and the new taxes from development – on units that appeal to the childless. (Hint: ~3BR single-family homes are not what appeals to the 20-something professionals/yuppies or DINKs that I know; and if you’re old enough to downsize, I doubt that’s what you’re looking to move to.)
And for those that say seniors don’t need luxury housing, I was in Brugger’s in Auburndale when I overheard the best conversation about selling the house (and grounds! this would be the last fall to garden!) and moving to One Dalton (a luxury tower under construction)*. Pity there were no comparable units in Newton for them to move into. Guess Boston will just get the new tax dollars.
*I tuned in at hearing “One Dalton” because I work for Suffolk, and am at the site weekly.