A robust body of geographic education policy research has been amassing over the past 25 years, as researchers from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds have recognized the value of examining education phenomena from a spatial perspective. In this chapter, I synthesize 42 studies that examine education issues using a geographic information system, or GIS. The review is framed by the major thread that runs through this body of research: educational equity, access, and opportunity. I summarize the research within seven theme-based research topics and offer examples of geospatial analysis as applied to education. The chapter includes a discussion of the major barriers and limitation facing GIS researchers and offers thoughts about the future.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Acevedo-GarciaD.OsypukT. L.McArdleN.WilliamsD. R. (2008). Toward a policy-relevant analysis of geographic and racial/ethnic disparities in child health. Health Affairs, 27(2), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.27.2.321
2.
ArchbaldD.HurwitzA.HurwitzF. (2018). Charter schools, parent choice, and segregation: A longitudinal study of the growth of charters and changing enrollment patterns in five school districts over 26 years. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(22). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.2921
BallS. J.NikitaD. P. (2014). The global middle class and school choice: A cosmopolitan sociology. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 17(3), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-014-0523-4
BellC. (2009). Geography in parental choice. American Journal of Education, 115(4), 493–521. https://doi.org/10.1086/599779
7.
BifulcoR. (2014). Charter school location: Evidence and policy implications. In IngramG. K.KenyonD. A. (Eds.), Education, land, and location (pp. 243–266). Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
8.
BoggsE.DabrowskiL. (2017, September). Out of balance: Subsidized housing, segregation, and opportunity in Connecticut. Open Communities Alliance. http://www.ctoca.org/outofbalance
9.
BriggsX. (2005). The geography of opportunity: Race and housing choice in metropolitan America. Brookings Institution Press.
10.
BrunoJ. E. (1996). Use of geographical information systems (GIS) mapping procedures to support educational policy analysis and school site management. International Journal of Educational Management, 10(6), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513549610151677
11.
Burdick-WillJ.KeelsM.SchubleT. (2013). Closing and opening schools: The association between neighborhood characteristics and the location of new educational opportunities in a large urban district. Journal of Urban Affairs, 35(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12004
12.
BürgiR.TomatisL.MurerK.de BruinE. D. (2016). Spatial physical activity patterns among primary school children living in neighbourhoods of varying socioeconomic status: A cross-sectional study using accelerometry and global positioning system. BMC Public Health, 16(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-2954-8
13.
CâmaraG.SposatiA.KogaD.MonteiroA. M.RamosF. R.CamargoE.FuksS. D. (2004). Mapping social exclusion and inclusion in developing countries. In GoodchildM. F.JanelleD. G. (Eds.), Spatially integrated social science (pp. 223–238). Oxford University Press.
ChumaceroR. A.GómezD.ParedesR. D. (2011). I would walk 500 miles (if it paid): Vouchers and school choice in Chile. Economics of Education Review, 30(5), 1103–1114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.05.015
16.
CobbC. D. (2003). Geographic methods and policy: Using geographic information systems to inform education policy. Educational Research Quarterly, 27(1), 28–39.
17.
CobbC. D. (2019). A geographic account of economic, health, and educational disparities in Hartford’s Sheff region. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 41, 84–100.
18.
CobbC. D.GlassG. V. (1999). Ethnic segregation in Arizona charter schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v7n1.1999
19.
The College of William and Mary and the Minnesota Population Center. (2011). School Attendance Boundary Information System (SABINS): Version 1.0. University of Minnesota.
20.
CollingwoodL.JochimA.OskooiiK. A. R. (2018). The politics of choice reconsidered: Partisanship, ideology, and minority politics in Washington’s charter school initiative. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 18(1), 61–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532440017748569
21.
CorcoranC.SaxeK. (2014). Redistricting and district compactness. The Mathematics of Decisions, Elections, and Games, Providence: American Mathematical Society, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1090/conm/624/12476
22.
DoppK. A.GodfreyN. (2012). Legislative redistricting–compactness and population density fairness. Available at SSRN 1945879. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1945879
23.
DoughertyJ.HarrelsonJ.MaloneyL.MurphyD.SmithR.SnowM.ZannoniD. (2009). School choice in suburbia: Test scores, race, and housing markets. American Journal of Education, 115(4), 523–548. https://doi.org/10.1086/599780
ElwoodS. (2006). Critical issues in participatory GIS: Deconstructions, reconstructions, and new research directions. Transactions in GIS, 10(5), 693–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9671.2006.01023.x
26.
ElwoodS.CopeM. (2009). Qualitative GIS: Forging mixed methods through representations, analytical innovations, and conceptual engagements. In CopeM.ElwoodS. (Eds.), Qualitative GIS: A mixed methods approach (pp. 1–12). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857024541.n1
27.
Environmental Systems Research Institute. (2018). ArcGIS 10.6.
28.
GalsterG. C. (2011). The mechanism(s) of effects: Theory, evidence and policy implications. In van HamM.ManleyD.BaileyN.SimpsonL.MaclennanD. (Eds.), Neighbourhood effects research: New perspectives. Springer.
29.
GalsterG. C.KillenS. P. (1995). The geography of metropolitan opportunity: A reconnaissance and conceptual framework. Housing Policy Debate, 6(1), 7–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.1995.9521180
30.
GhoseR.WelcenbachT. (2018). “Power to the people”: Contesting urban poverty and power inequities through open GIS. Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien, 62(1), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12442
31.
GilblomE. A.SangH. I. (2019). Schools as market-based clusters: Geospatial and statistical analysis of charter schools in Ohio. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(15). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4091
GoodchildM. F.JanelleD. G. (2004). Thinking spatially in the social sciences. In GoodchildM. F.JanelleD. G. (Eds.), Spatially integrated social science (pp. 3–22). Oxford University Press.
34.
GreenT. L. (2015). Places of inequality, places of possibility: Mapping “opportunity in geography” across urban school-communities. The Urban Review, 47(4), 717–741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-015-0331-z
35.
GreenT. L.SánchezJ.GermainE. (2017). Communities and school ratings: Examining geography of opportunity in an urban school district located in a resource-rich city. The Urban Review, 49(5), 777–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-017-0421-1
36.
GulosinoC.d’EntremontC. (2011). Circles of influence: An analysis of charter school location and racial patterns at varying geographic scales. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v19n8.2011
37.
GulosinoC.LubienskiC. (2011). School’s strategic responses to competition in segregated urban areas: Patterns in school locations in metropolitan Detroit. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(13). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v19n13.2011
38.
GulosinoC.MaxwellP. (2018). A comprehensive framework for evaluating Shelby County School District’s voluntary preschool program: The challenges of equity, choice, efficiency, and social cohesion. Urban Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085918801885
HelbichM. (2017). Children’s school commuting in the Netherlands: Does it matter how urban form is incorporated in mode choice models?International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 11(7), 507–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2016.1275892
41.
HillmanN. W. (2016). Geography of college opportunity: The case of education deserts. American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 987–1021. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216653204
42.
HogrebeM. C. (2012). Adding geospatial perspective to research on schools, communities, and neighborhoods. In Tate IVW. (Ed.), Research on schools, neighborhoods, and communities: Toward civic responsibility (pp. 151–159). Rowman & Littlefield.
43.
HogrebeM. C.TateW. F.IV. (2012). Geospatial perspective: Toward a visual political literacy project in education, health, and human services. Review of Research in Education, 36(1), 67–94. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X11422861
44.
HogrebeM. C.TateW. F. (2019). Residential segregation across metro St. Louis school districts: Examining the intersection of two spatial dimensions. AERA Open, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419837241
45.
HollowayS.HubbardP.JönsH.Pimlott-WilsonH. (2010). Geographies of education and the significance of children, youth and families. Progress in Human Geography, 34(5), 583–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132510362601
46.
JabbarH.SánchezJ.EpsteinE. (2017). Getting from here to there: The role of geography in community college students’ transfer decisions. The Urban Review, 49(5), 746–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-017-0420-2
47.
JonesB. D.HarrisK. D.TateW. F. (2015). Ferguson and beyond: A descriptive epidemiological study using geospatial analysis. Journal of Negro Education, 84(3), 231–253. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.84.3.0231
48.
JonesP. A. (2018). The influence of charter school competition on public school district revenues across the U.S. Journal of Education Finance, 43(4), 327–359.
49.
KahnemanD. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803322655392
KellyM. G. (2019). A map is more than just a graph: Geospatial educational research and the importance of historical context. AERA Open, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419833346
KwanM.DingG. (2008). Geo-narrative: Extending geographic information systems for narrative analysis in qualitative and mixed-method research. The Professional Geographer, 60(4), 443–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330120802211752
LaFleurJ. C. (2016). Locating Chicago’s charter schools: A socio-spatial analysis. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.1745
56.
LubienskiC.DoughertyJ. (2009). Mapping educational opportunity: Spatial analysis and school choices. American Journal of Education, 115, 485–491. https://doi.org/10.1086/599783
57.
LubienskiC.GulosinoC.WeitzelP. (2009). School choice and competitive incentives: Mapping the distribution of educational opportunities across local education markets. American Journal of Education, 115(4), 601–647. https://doi.org/10.1086/599778
58.
LubienskiC.LeeJ. (2017). Geo-spatial analyses in education research: The critical challenge and methodological possibilities. Geographical Research, 55(1), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12188
59.
MasseyD. S. (2001). Residential segregation and neighborhood conditions in US metropolitan areas. In SmelserN. J.WilsonW. J.MitchellF. (Eds.), America becoming: Racial trends and their consequences (Vol. 1, pp. 391–434). National Academies Press.
60.
MillerP. (2012). Mapping educational opportunity zones: A geospatial analysis of neighborhood block groups. Urban Review, 44(2), 189–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-011-0189-7
61.
MisraK.GrimesP. W.RogersK. E. (2012). Does competition improve public school efficiency? A spatial analysis. Economics of Education Review, 31(6), 1177–1190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.08.001
62.
NelsonL. K. (2013). Research in communication sciences and disorders. Plural.
63.
OkaM.WongD. W. (2014). Capturing the two dimensions of residential segregation at the neighborhood level for health research. Frontiers in Public Health, 2, 118. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00118
64.
OsypukT. L.Acevedo-GarciaD. (2010). Beyond individual neighborhoods: A geography of opportunity perspective for understanding racial/ethnic health disparities. Health & Place, 16(6), 1113–1123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.07.002
65.
OyanaT. J. (2011). Exploring geographic disparities in broadband access and use in rural southern Illinois: Who’s being left behind?Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 252–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.09.003
66.
ParsonsE.ChalkleyB.JonesA. (2000). School catchments and pupil movements: A case study in parental choice. Educational Studies, 26(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690097727
67.
PastorM. (2001). Geography and opportunity. In SmelserN. J.WilsonW. J.Mitchell (Eds.), America becoming: Racial trends and their consequences (Vol.1, pp. 435–468). National Academies Press.
68.
PetersonR. D.KrivoL. J. (2010). Divergent social worlds: Neighborhood crime and the racial-spatial divide. Russell Sage Foundation.
69.
PowersJ. M.TopperA. M.PottertonA. U. (2017). Interdistrict mobility and charter schools in Arizona: Understanding the dynamics of public school choice. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, 25(3), 56–87.
70.
ReeceJ.GambhirS.OlingerJ.MartinM.HarrisM. (2009). People, place and opportunity: Mapping communities of opportunity in Connecticut. Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, Ohio State University.
71.
ReeceJ.GambhirS.powellj. a.Grant-ThomasA. (2009). The geography of opportunity: Building communities of opportunity in Massachusetts. Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, Ohio State University.
72.
ReedD. S. (2006). Vouchers, desegregation and the segregationist academies: A spatial examination of the racial effects of school vouchers, in Alexandria, VA, 1960-1964 [Paper presentation]. American Political Science Association Policy History Conference, Charlottesville, VA, United States.
73.
RehmM.FilippovaO. (2008). The impact of geographically defined school zones on house prices in New Zealand. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 1(4), 313–336. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538270810908623
74.
RichardsM. P. (2014). The gerrymandering of school attendance zones and the segregation of public schools: A geospatial analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1119–1157. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214553652
RichardsM. P.StroubK. J. (2015). An accident of geography? Assessing the gerrymandering of public school attendance zones. Teachers College Record, 117(7), 1–32.
77.
RosenbaumE. (2008). Racial/ethnic differences in asthma prevalence: the role of housing and neighborhood environments. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 49(2), 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/002214650804900202
78.
SaporitoS. (2017). Shaping income segregation in schools: The role of school attendance zone geography. American Educational Research Journal, 54(6), 1345–1377. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217724116
79.
SaporitoS.SohoniD. (2006). Coloring outside the lines: Racial segregation in public schools and their attendance boundaries. Sociology of Education, 79(2), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070607900201
80.
SaporitoS.Van RiperD. (2016). Do irregularly-shaped school attendance zones contribute to racial segregation or integration?Social Currents, 3(1), 64–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329496515604637
81.
SaultzA.FitzpatrickD.JacobsenR. (2015). Exploring the supply side: Factors related to charter school openings in NYC. Journal of School Choice, 9(3), 446–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2015.1028829
82.
SaultzA.YalumaC. B. (2017). Equal access? Analyzing charter location relative to demographics in Ohio. Journal of School Choice, 11(3), 458–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2017.1345239
83.
SchafftK. A.JensenE. B.HinrichsC. C. (2009). Food deserts and overweight schoolchildren: Evidence from Pennsylvania. Rural Sociology, 74(2), 153–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.2009.tb00387.x
84.
SchultzL. M. (2014). Inequitable dispersion: Mapping the distribution of highly qualified teachers in St. Louis metropolitan elementary schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(90). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n90.2014
85.
Siegel-HawleyG. (2013). Educational gerrymandering? Race and attendance boundaries in a demographically changing suburb. Harvard Educational Review, 83(4), 580–612. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.83.4.k385375245677131
86.
SingletonA. D.LongleyP. A.AllenR.O’BrienO. (2011). Estimating secondary school catchment areas and the spatial equity of access. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 35(3), 241–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2010.09.006
87.
SmrekarC.HoneyN. (2015). The desegregation aims and demographic contexts of magnet schools: How parents choose and why siting policies matter. Peabody Journal of Education, 90(1), 128–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2015.988545
SojaE. W.ChouinardV. (1999). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles & other real & imagined places. Canadian Geographer, 43(2), 209–212.
90.
SquiresG. D.KubrinC. E. (2006). Privileged places: Race, residence, and the structure of opportunity. Lynne Rienner.
91.
SuiD. (2015). Emerging GIS themes and the six senses of the new mind: is GIS becoming a liberation technology?Annals of GIS, 21(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475683.2014.992958
92.
TalenE. (2001). School, community, and spatial equity: An empirical investigation of access to elementary schools in West Virginia. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(3), 465–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/0004-5608.00254
93.
TalenE.AnselinL. (1998). Assessing spatial equity: An evaluation of measures of accessibility to public playgrounds. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 30(4), 595–613. https://doi.org/10.1068/a300595
94.
TateW. F. (2008). “Geography of opportunity”: Poverty, place, and educational outcomes. Educational Researcher, 37(7), 397–411. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08326409
TaylorC. M. (2007). Geographical information systems (GIS) and school choice: The use of spatial research tools in studying educational policy. In GulsonK. N.SymesC. (Eds.), Spatial theories of education: Policy and geography matters (pp. 77–93). Routledge.
97.
TaylorC. (2009). Choice, competition, and segregation in a United Kingdom urban education market. American Journal of Education, 115(4), 549–568. https://doi.org/10.1086/599781
98.
TukeyJ. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Pearson.
99.
WaitollerF. R.LubienskiC. (2019). Disability, race, and the geography of school choice: Toward an Intersectional analytical framework. AERA Open, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418822505
100.
WebsterC. J.WhiteS. (1997). Child-care services and the urban labour market. Part 2: Modelling the relationships between child-care service accessibility and labour-market participation. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 29(9), 1675–1695. https://doi.org/10.1068/a291675
101.
WeinerD.HarrisT. M. (2008). Participatory geographic information systems. In WilsonJ. P.FotheringhamA. S. (Eds.), The handbook of geographic information science (pp. 466–480). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470690819.ch26
102.
WilliamsD. R.CollinsC. A. (2001). Racial residential segregation: A fundamental cause of racial disparities in health. Public Health Reports, 116(5), 404–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0033-3549(04)50068-7
103.
WilliamsS.WangF. (2014). Disparities in accessibility of public high schools in metropolitan Baton Rouge, Louisiana 1990-2010. Urban Geography, 35(7), 1066–1083. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2014.936668
104.
WoessnerM. (2010). A new ontology for the era of the New Economy: On Edward W. Soja’sSeeking Spatial Justice. City, 14(6), 601–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2010.525080
105.
YoonE. S.GulsonK.LubienskiC. (2018). A brief history of the geography of education policy: Ongoing conversations and generative tensions. AERA Open, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418820940
106.
YoonE. S.LubienskiC. (2018). Thinking critically in space: Toward a mixed-methods geospatial approach to education policy analysis. Educational Researcher, 47(1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17737284
107.
YoonE. S.LubienskiC.LeeJ. (2018). The geography of school choice in a city with growing inequality: The case of Vancouver. Journal of Education Policy, 33(2), 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1346203
108.
YoshidaA.KogureK.UshijimaK. (2009). School choice and student sorting: Evidence from Adachi Ward in Japan. Japanese Economic Review, 60(4), 446–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5876.2008.00462.x
