Twin Cities place 5 suburbs in top 22 of 2012 Best Cities List (Minneapolis: to rent, condos)
Minneapolis - St. PaulTwin Cities
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Brooklyn Park's crime rate isn't higher than other cities because the Brooklyn Park police are worse than other metro police officers
Brooklyn Park's school test scores are not worse than other cities because Brooklyn Park teachers care less or are less effective teachers
Brooklyn Park's median household income is not lower than other cities because the Brooklyn Park is holding people back
You say that Brooklyn Park has gone to **** but that is not a fair judgment.
Then why are all of Brooklyn Park's statistics lower? There has to be a reason. Its not just a random anomaly. Maybe City-Data has a secret conspiracy against Brooklyn Park?
Concerned citizens in the Minneapolis, Minn. suburb of Brooklyn Park are voicing their concerns over a potential illness cluster that is allegedly running rampant in people between the ages of 35 and 45. Instances of auto-immune disease, various forms of cancer and neurological disorders are being reported by the demographic who currently or once lived in Brooklyn Park or attended the city’s Park Center Senior High School or Brooklyn Junior High School.
Location: Mableton, GA USA (NW Atlanta suburb, 4 miles OTP)
11,334 posts, read 26,111,434 times
Reputation: 3996
Quote:
Originally Posted by stolafs69
Then why are all of Brooklyn Park's statistics lower? There has to be a reason. Its not just a random anomaly. Maybe City-Data has a secret conspiracy against Brooklyn Park?
Different demographics?
It only takes a relatively small group of underachievers to drastically change the overall results.
Correlation is not causation, but let's look at what City Data has to say about a city I'm quite familiar with (Minnetonka) and Brooklyn Park.
Median Household Income: Minnetonka $80,121, Brooklyn Park $64.937
Bachelor's Degrees: Minnetonka 51.6%, Brooklyn Park 27.3%
Foreign Born Residents: Minnetonka 5.7%, Brooklyn Park 13.3%
Police Officers per 1000 residents: Minnetonka 1.08, Brooklyn Park 1.43
Population change in the 1990s: Minnetonka +2,855 (+5.9%)., Brooklyn Park +10,938 (+19.4%).
Base Demographics - Minnetonka:
White alone - 44,081 (88.6%)
Black alone - 1,837 (3.7%)
Asian alone - 1,558 (3.1%)
Hispanic - 1,169 (2.4%)
Two or more races - 917 (1.8%)
American Indian alone - 103 (0.2%)
Other race alone - 61 (0.1%)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone - 8 (0.02%)
White alone - 37,948 (50.1%)
Black alone - 18,321 (24.2%)
Asian alone - 11,658 (15.4%)
Hispanic - 4,841 (6.4%)
Two or more races - 2,459 (3.2%)
American Indian alone - 313 (0.4%)
Other race alone - 215 (0.3%)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone - 26 (0.03%)
Brooklyn Park is much more diverse than Minnetonka. It has significantly fewer cops per capita, less average education and wealth, has had a lot more immigration, and has also experienced more recent population change than Minnetonka.
There are some very real differences between the two cities.
A larger number of immigrants could mean more ESL (English as Second Language) students which may have a harder time in school (and who can put a larger burden on teachers). Different cultures might each have different a work ethic, or might focus more or less on things like education over other priorities (staying at home with family, making money, having a job as a teen), etc. A more varied population might create stresses in the city between different groups that you might not see in a more homogeneous city.
Just brainstorming here, but it seems like there are many reasons for Brooklyn Park not being quite the same as many of its neighboring, wealthier, more stable, and more homogeneous neighbors. Growth and diversity often comes at a price.
Last edited by rcsteiner; 08-29-2012 at 01:48 PM..
Excellant post. I agree with everything you said. Especially the last sentance. "Growth and diversity comes with a price." If the price of growth of diversity is too high, you end up with high crime, bad schools, and low property values (like Brooklyn Park).
Instead of forcing growth and diversity like building "afforadable housing" such as rentals and condos, let the diversity and growth happen naturally. That way it will be genuine not contrived. Once someone can afford to move to the suburbs and buy a $300,000 house, great, welcome whoever it is with open arms. But when cities think they can build a better community by forcing growth and diversity by building cheap housing, problems will follow. I am sure if you ask someone who has lived in BP 25 years ago and compare it today, they will say the city is worse off today then it was 25 years ago and that many neighborhoods that were safe 25 years ago are now very shady and unsafe.
So where are the people who can't afford to buy a $300k house supposed to live?!? They've got to live SOMEWHERE. And many, many good, decent people can't afford to spend that much on a house. Or worse, they can't, yet they stretch and try to buy something that they really can't afford. I would hope we've learned something from the recent housing crisis. I believe the average household income in the metro area is slightly under $65k. Those families can't afford to buy a house that price. Where would you like those families to live?
And are you suggesting that more affordable housing just be banned, even if there's clearly a need? That seems quite the opposite from allowing growth to happen "naturally." (although FWIW, I think the need for affordable housing needs to be addressed metro-wide, and think that all local communities need to do their part to make sure that there's a range of housing available for their residents.)
I don't know how much you make currently, but I doubt you entered the working world with a six figure salary. Were you a worse person and a bad neighbor when you made less money? Are your neighbors with higher incomes than you better people and greater assets to the community?
For the record, I am building a new house in woodbury and will be moving there in November so my kid can attend schools with higher test scores.
I am curious, where are you moving from?
You do understand that schools in MN have better reading groups for the better students (and better parents). Of course there are also better math groups, honors programs, PSEO, open enrollment, IB, etc. etc. In summary, you picked a district or school that has better averages. Again, if the average students and below drag down the scores and my kids standardized scores are in the top percentile that is what I am focused on (my kids stats). Now if the school is full of problem kids (as in the majority) then that's a different story. Brooklyn Center probably falls under that category but I have not looked. But if you live in North Oaks, realize that Mounds View HS will have plenty of below average kids to drag down the statistics. But the top performers will do just as well anywhere. They don't have "better" or more caring programs in Woodbury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stolafs69
No matter how smart your kids are, if you put them in a under performing school, there will be a negative impact.
Define "under performing". Are you still talking "averages"? My kids went to Anoka (we live in Andover). I went to Anoka. But the "averages" show that there are plenty of problems (and there are). All I care is where my kids landed. So long as there is a great group of kids that want to kick butt (much of it has to do with parenting) then that group hangs together. Yet I'm happy to compare where our kids ended up as compared to EP or Woodbury or (pick your HS). I'm telling you from personal experience, BP has plenty of outstanding students. I suppose the parents who lack the passion and simply drop off their kids to school may need to worry about a subset of coasting students. As I said, my DD and DS would be at the same spot because we were involved parents. All I am saying is I have the proof (my kids) and I know of several other kids that are doing exceptionally well independent of the "averages"
You do understand that schools in MN have better reading groups for the better students (and better parents). Of course there are also better math groups, honors programs, PSEO, open enrollment, IB, etc. etc. In summary, you picked a district or school that has better averages. Again, if the average students and below drag down the scores and my kids standardized scores are in the top percentile that is what I am focused on (my kids stats). Now if the school is full of problem kids (as in the majority) then that's a different story. Brooklyn Center probably falls under that category but I have not looked. But if you live in North Oaks, realize that Mounds View HS will have plenty of below average kids to drag down the statistics. But the top performers will do just as well anywhere. They don't have "better" or more caring programs in Woodbury.
Define "under performing". Are you still talking "averages"? My kids went to Anoka (we live in Andover). I went to Anoka. But the "averages" show that there are plenty of problems (and there are). All I care is where my kids landed. So long as there is a great group of kids that want to kick butt (much of it has to do with parenting) then that group hangs together. Yet I'm happy to compare where our kids ended up as compared to EP or Woodbury or (pick your HS). I'm telling you from personal experience, BP has plenty of outstanding students. I suppose the parents who lack the passion and simply drop off their kids to school may need to worry about a subset of coasting students. As I said, my DD and DS would be at the same spot because we were involved parents. All I am saying is I have the proof (my kids) and I know of several other kids that are doing exceptionally well independent of the "averages"
Anoka isn't really a good example of a district to use as "underperforming". Sure, it's not the best high school in the state, but hardly the worst. Compare schools in Minneapolis where district wide there is a 48% graduation rate, 28% at Minneapolis north. If you are in a class with 30 kids and only 3 of them care about being there, it's going to have a huge impact on the amount of material you are exposed to during your school career. Sure, you can still find good students in these schools but consider how much further they could go in a supportive school environment. Supportive parents help quite a bit but in high school, peers are the biggest influence in a child's life. There have been a multitude of studies done about that. I disagree that your children would be where they were now if they attended a school like North, Edison, etc.
Think back to high school years and the kids when "everyone else is doing it" or "no one else does it" and how much harder it would have been as a parent to motivate a child in a situation where none of the other kids in their class cared about graduating from high school, let alone going on to college. Then, factor in the difficulty of the work your kids did when most, if not all, of the other kids in their classes were motivated. Imagine if most of the kids in their class still can't read at grade level in high school. What books will they be reading in class and how productive would the discussions be if only one or two students read the book.
Anoka's only real downfall is their perpetual budget issues. The student body there is not the issue.
Brooklyn Park's issues are still "developing". The growth there is still fairly new. Give it 10 years and it's going to look like North High School in Minneapolis if things continue on the current path.
So where are the people who can't afford to buy a $300k house supposed to live?!? They've got to live SOMEWHERE. And many, many good, decent people can't afford to spend that much on a house. Or worse, they can't, yet they stretch and try to buy something that they really can't afford. I would hope we've learned something from the recent housing crisis. I believe the average household income in the metro area is slightly under $65k. Those families can't afford to buy a house that price. Where would you like those families to live?
And are you suggesting that more affordable housing just be banned, even if there's clearly a need? That seems quite the opposite from allowing growth to happen "naturally." (although FWIW, I think the need for affordable housing needs to be addressed metro-wide, and think that all local communities need to do their part to make sure that there's a range of housing available for their residents.)
I don't know how much you make currently, but I doubt you entered the working world with a six figure salary. Were you a worse person and a bad neighbor when you made less money? Are your neighbors with higher incomes than you better people and greater assets to the community?
There are plenty of affordable housing units available in the twin cities already. Just because people may prefer to live in Edina or Minnetonka doesn't mean everyone has a right to. Maybe you can't live in Edina right away but instead live in Richfield and work hard for a few years, save some money, and some day you can afford that house in Edina. I took a similiar apprach. Bought a starter house in Cottage Grove, worked hard for a few years and saved up a down payment and I am now moving to a new house in Woodbury right when my kids are entering school age. It can be done. I worked hard and saved so I could move to wealthier community with excellant schools. The last thing I want to some liberal HRA orginization coming in and demanding that Section 8 housing be built in my community.
Anoka isn't really a good example of a district to use as "underperforming". Sure, it's not the best high school in the state, but hardly the worst. Compare schools in Minneapolis where district wide there is a 48% graduation rate, 28% at Minneapolis north.
My points were related to BP (not "any" HS). We agree that there is a point where distractions == poorer performance for every child. If you live in BP, you can also be in the Champlin Park boundaries. Or, you can open enroll. IMHO, forget the ratings. Andover==Champlin Park==Anoka even though the averages say Andover is "better". Hogwash.
But your "Sure it isn't the best high school..." is what I have a problem with. We are talking about AVERAGES. a full 25% of the Anoka HS kids are destined to be worthless. My kids had GREAT caring teachers and they were challenged along the way (K-12). Why? Because we were involved parents. Many times we got the exact teacher we wanted by requesting them. As parents, we did our research. We didn't let them get into burnt out teacher classes. We challenged the reading groups that my DS got into and he was bumped up when we knew they had it wrong. In HS, both took every possible advanced class and were with motivated students. DS was 1st in class DD #20ish (forget the exact ranking). They did PSEO (DS fulltime). DS tested in top 1% of college chemistry nationally as an 11th grader and was a college tutor and the list goes on. You see, I just don't see how they would have done better in Rosemount, Edina, etc? I'm all ears on how Rosemount is "better" for my kids.
My points were related to BP (not "any" HS). We agree that there is a point where distractions == poorer performance for every child. If you live in BP, you can also be in the Champlin Park boundaries. Or, you can open enroll. IMHO, forget the ratings. Andover==Champlin Park==Anoka even though the averages say Andover is "better". Hogwash.
But your "Sure it isn't the best high school..." is what I have a problem with. We are talking about AVERAGES. a full 25% of the Anoka HS kids are destined to be worthless. My kids had GREAT caring teachers and they were challenged along the way (K-12). Why? Because we were involved parents. Many times we got the exact teacher we wanted by requesting them. As parents, we did our research. We didn't let them get into burnt out teacher classes. We challenged the reading groups that my DS got into and he was bumped up when we knew they had it wrong. In HS, both took every possible advanced class and were with motivated students. DS was 1st in class DD #20ish (forget the exact ranking). They did PSEO (DS fulltime). DS tested in top 1% of college chemistry nationally as an 11th grader and was a college tutor and the list goes on. You see, I just don't see how they would have done better in Rosemount, Edina, etc? I'm all ears on how Rosemount is "better" for my kids.
You missed my point, if your kids attended NORTH high school things would have been a lot different. Anoka had all of the things you wanted and you were able to get the advanced classes with the advanced kids. Schools like North just don't HAVE the kids to do that with. There are kids in every school that won't go on to college, etc., however, better schools have options for those kids as well as the advanced students. Also, ONE story out of how many kids doesn't mean it's so, what about those 25% at Anoka--maybe they WOULD do better elsewhere, you just don't know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
