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.
I'm from B'more and had City, Poly, and Western in mind when I described "When you added in the specialty schools these systems were able to offer (academic, technical, gender based, etc) the advantage was even more obvious and even more significant. "
Not really though; nor are the charter schools.
These are statistical outliers now because their "high" academic and admission standards are far closer to what "par" for the entire system was forty years ago when the standards these exceptional schools held to were true exemplars.
Yeah, I know. I heard the same from my dad (Poly) and my granddad (City) and his brother (Poly) and my older cousins (Western).
But I was asked to defend.
However - and this is from someone who lives within spitting distance to two of these schools - these are definitely top quality public schools that attract the best, most driven students in an otherwise lackluster school district. And apparently good enough to make some list.
Not to mention, the US News list is not the "gold standard" of what makes a good school.
No it isn't. I was just waiting for that. You see, this whole thing was set up so that you could see city-dwellers defend something most of us (in many US cities, anyway, urban schools in Canada do not share our problems) readily concede to the suburbs.
None of the other defenses proved sufficient to you, so I googled and came up with this. If you tell me what the gold standard is I can try to apply it as well, but I make no promises as to its effectiveness. Like I said, on the whole: Suburban schools are better. It's not something a lot of cities can really defend themselves on.
Public schools are largely dependent on the neighborhoods they serve in the city. We have lots of troubled neighborhoods, it makes sense we'd have troubled schools to go along with them. However, the city being what it is we have the whole spectrum of humanity contained in our borders so we also have some of the best public schools around. That, and I think cities are much bigger on school choice. It's silly that the local school should discourage people from moving into a certain neighborhood. Because of that many send their children to charters, or private parochial, but I guess that steps outside the argument here.
There really is no gold standard. If you want to go over to the Denver fourm, or to the ed forum, and look at my posts, you will see that's what I think.
City schools depend very much on the neighborhood. In Denver, there are several 'hoods that are known for good schools, and lots that are known for mediocre schools.
There really is no gold standard. If you want to go over to the Denver fourm, or to the ed forum, and look at my posts, you will see that's what I think.
City schools depend very much on the neighborhood. In Denver, there are several 'hoods that are known for good schools, and lots that are known for mediocre schools.
I definitely don't have a low opinion of you.
And you didn't start this forum, it was impossible from the get-go. The whole thing is a set up. But an interesting one at that.
Baltimore, and maybe some other places, has school choice. You're zoned through middle school then you apply to high schools. A lot of kids have hour+ transit commutes to the high school of their choosing. But for a high quality free education, it's worth it.
A popular way for some (who don't get into the top high schools) to get educated is to go to city schools through 8th grade then go to private school for 9-12. Cheaper then going all the way through in the parochials. A lot of my friends did that.
What exactly is it that people are supposed to defend?
I want pro-city people to defend the city when the suburbs might possibly offer me better educational opportunites that the city can't offer me. I can't afford private or public schools. My kids may not get into a magnet or charter schools. So tell me why the city is so much better than the suburbs if this is my situation. On these forums all I hear is how the suburbs are a horrible place to live, so I want pro-city people to defend the city and their public schools system. Don't tell me about white flight or any other excuse, I want you to tell me SPECIFIALLY, why the city is so much better in my situation that I am presenting to you.
And you didn't start this forum, it was impossible from the get-go. The whole thing is a set up. But an interesting one at that.
Baltimore, and maybe some other places, has school choice. You're zoned through middle school then you apply to high schools. A lot of kids have hour+ transit commutes to the high school of their choosing. But for a high quality free education, it's worth it.
A popular way for some (who don't get into the top high schools) to get educated is to go to city schools through 8th grade then go to private school for 9-12. Cheaper then going all the way through in the parochials. A lot of my friends did that.
I can't afford private or parochial schools, so what is my next option? Why is living in the city a better option than suburbs if I cant afford any of those options.
Once upon a time when the majority of decently paid people lived within the Cities... and those cities had that level RE and Income tax resources to work with... the CITY school systems as a whole were far superior to any other option. It was fairly common for families from the outlying areas to pay tuition that allowed their children to attend the big city schools.
When you added in the specialty schools these systems were able to offer (academic, technical, gender based, etc) the advantage was even more obvious and even more significant. What they didn't do well... was racial integration or feel good support for student populations that couldn't (or wouldn't) keep up academically.
In the wake of 1950's integration efforts, and block busting, and the natural desire to have more room, as well as the opportunity the new road systems offered to commuters into those cities and elsewhere for work...
more and more families with the option to choose relocation to the suburbs... chose relocation to the suburbs.
When these middle class families left the Cities... among other things, like functional family units, they took the income and RE tax money needed to successfully operate a large municipal school system with them leaving behind the lowest end of the middle class and the lower classes who didn't have the choice to leave nor the resources to do much of anything else in the best interest of their children.
The net effect of all this is that the suburban school systems began to surpass the general quality available from most city school systems. Today it's a rare suburban system that isn't far superior to it's neighboring city. But very few of these suburban school systems today come anywhere close to doing the good job that the city school systems they neighbor used to provide.
hth
I will ask the same question, why is the city better the suburbs, if the suburbs may offer a better quality of education than the city?
I can't afford private or parochial schools, so what is my next option? Why is living in the city a better option than suburbs if I cant afford any of those options.
Plenty of inexpensive housing here in the city. Mine would be at least double in the suburbs, because of the schools. Probably be cheaper to do private, in that case.
Also, read the other responses. You missed how we got to this point. Not many are going to tell you that city schools are better than their suburban counterparts. I'm not going to tell you that. It is an obvious shortcoming of which most city-dwellers are aware. You asked to defend, so I did - 4 of the top 20 public schools in my state are in my city, according to US News. So, hooray.
And you didn't start this forum, it was impossible from the get-go. The whole thing is a set up. But an interesting one at that.
Baltimore, and maybe some other places, has school choice. You're zoned through middle school then you apply to high schools. A lot of kids have hour+ transit commutes to the high school of their choosing. But for a high quality free education, it's worth it.
A popular way for some (who don't get into the top high schools) to get educated is to go to city schools through 8th grade then go to private school for 9-12. Cheaper then going all the way through in the parochials. A lot of my friends did that.
Same question, what if I can't afford private or catholic schools. Tell me why the city is better if I can't afford these options?
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.
