This past year, while thousands of low-income families suffered from the challenges created by Maine’s desperate housing shortage, proposals for affordable housing were blocked in Falmouth, Cape Elizabeth, Cumberland and Saco. Addressing our state’s 38,000-unit housing shortage will require resolve and collaboration – but some have been reluctant to jump on board.

As arguments against new developments swirl in the city council meetings of Maine’s most affluent communities, it’s imperative to weigh the consequences of NIMBY’s continuing
triumph over public interest in our state. Here, I want to highlight an invaluable opportunity provided by affordable housing: socioeconomic integration in schools.

Building affordable housing in Cumberland County’s suburbs would give students of low-income families access to some of the best public schools in our state. Reducing income segregation in schools improves numerous measures of well-being for all involved. There’s an overwhelming body of empirical evidence showing that economic integration doesn’t just produce higher academic achievement across the board, but is in fact an exceptionally effective strategy when compared to those that simply allocate more resources to high-poverty schools.

On top of benefiting from higher expectations from teachers, fewer distractions from peers and a more involved community of parents, integrated low-income students develop a radically transformed perspective about the world and their place in it. One study of the long-term effects of school integration found that low-income students gained significant confidence from the realization that they could perform at parity with their wealthier peers and came to offer higher appraisals of their own capabilities.

Integrated students were exposed to positive role models in the form of their ambitious classmates and their peers’ professional-class parents. These positive examples “rubbed off” on them. Low-income students reported that this environment expanded their conception of what they could realistically achieve, improved their understanding of the steps required to get there, and developed their confidence in their ability to make it happen. Indeed, program participants went on to attain higher levels of education and status in their careers than low-income students who didn’t integrate.

These gains are realized with no significant negative behavioral or academic effect on high-income students. In fact, reducing income segregation confers great benefits to wealthier students as well.

In case studies from India and Chile, researchers found that the process measurably improved social cohesion and reduced class prejudice. “Rich kids” from these schools displayed a wide range of increased prosocial behavior within school. They more often chose students from different economic strata for their teams in sports and for afterschool playdates, and they were more likely to share money with classmates and volunteer for charity. Moreover, students carry an elevated level of social consciousness with them for life; they are more aware of class disparities and sympathetic to the challenges of poverty. As a result, program participants grew more supportive of meritocratic college admissions and redistributive policy.

In light of these facts, it’s clear that while NIMBYs think they’re protecting their neighborhoods by shooting down affordable housing projects, they’re really shooting themselves in the foot: They weaken their own communities by preventing the gains of economic diversity.

Despite mountains of evidence affirming the virtues of socioeconomic integration in schools, the U.S. remains highly segregated, and the achievement gap between children from high- and low-income families continues to grow. Developing affordable housing in affluent school districts is one proven mechanism to reverse this trend. Our nation’s growing educational inequity is a national crisis, and top academics argue that creating affordable housing opportunities in high-performing school districts is the best strategy we’ve got to address it.

It works better than magnet programs and school choice vouchers by limiting the risk of limited integration (where magnet-induced integration cohorts stick with their peers) and reducing the
challenge of finding accessible, reliable transportation to other districts. Instead, students can more fully integrate – enjoying the resources offered not only by their school environment but their neighborhood environment as well.

With this in mind, I address fellow Mainers debating future affordable housing proposals: As you weigh concerns about traffic patterns and the cultural or aesthetic fabric of your neighborhood, consider the immense long-term cost of depriving Maine’s children of a richer educational experience and more prosperous life. Consider reserving your protests at the next city council meeting, or even lobbying your property-value-concerned neighbors to support workforce housing development in your school district. It is essential for the social cohesion of our communities, the lifelong well-being of our youth, and the prosperity of our state.