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.
Why? What do you think sending your kid to the "best school possible" will achieve?
If you have a smart kid, he will be smart, regardless of where he goes. If you have a dumb kid, the same is true. To the extent that schooling can modify these things, studies have shown that within a few years of adulthood, they cease to matter entirely, and people revert to whatever intelligence level they should have had. And ultimate adult income (past 30 or so) correlates more strongly with intelligence than level of education.
Because thats what most parents do. You try to put your kid in the best possible situation. If that wasnt the case, than public schools in the city wouldnt have been struggling like they did for past few decades. Parents would just send thier kid to whatever public school was in their neighborhood and leave it at that.
Because thats what most parents do. You try to put your kid in the best possible situation. If that wasnt the case, than public schools in the city wouldnt have been struggling like they did for past few decades. Parents would just send thier kid to whatever public school was in their neighborhood and leave it at that.
I don't think any parent would disagree with this statement. Some of us are questioning the premise that the "best situation" necessarily involves the highest rated school system. There are so many other variables, and the fact is most of us will not get our kids in to the so-called best system. There just aren't that many slots. On a certain level, we are all "making do" with alternative options. The argument then becomes, to what extent does this matter? Many of us think what matters most is that the children are supported at home, have enough food, get some exercise, and attend a school that will give as much back as we put in to it. There are so many ways to get there, that it seems odd to rule out an entire lifestyle category based entirely on unproven innuendo.
That's a pretty big "if". And who wants to be the first family in such a 'hood? There are some neighborhoods in Denver that have long been "family" neighborhoods and they have decent schools, but the others that are "gentrifying" are more hipster-type places. Stapleton, the new-urbanist development in the city has tons of kids, mostly little. It's been said Stapleton is suburban living in the city. One of the nice things about my suburban neighborhood is that my kids had friends within close walking/biking distance, including one just through the back yard. It's going to take a lot of people moving to the city for that to be the case in the average city neighborhood where these 20 somethings like to live.
I always thought city kids had more people within walking distance, because the population density is higher. That's almost certainly false, except maybe for the most childless neighborhoods. While the percentage of children might decline, it doesn't decline as fast as the population density increases. I did the math out a while ago for a number of places, I could dig it up.
Quote:
As for your second paragraph, that's true to an extent, but isn't the purpose of living in the city supposed to be all these adult-oriented activities? Isn't the issue with the suburbs supposed to be that there is no professional theater, upscale restaurants, symphonies, museums and the like? Yes, people with families will go to Water World instead of the art museum on a hot summer's day; to a pizza parlor instead of a tony restaurant that frowns if a kid drops his/her fork on the floor (but tolerates loud drunkeness, one of my pet peeves about people complaining about kids in restaurants); the zoo, one of the few activities in the city that kids really enjoy.
Who said that's the purpose? I certainly never have. Some of the adult-oriented activities are nice, but unless parents are living right in the center city, you don't have these activities in your local neighborhood (its activities could be more family friendly even if the city center is not). Many city neighborhoods also have cheap places to eat and plenty of pizza parlors? Older children may appreciate these "adult-oriented" activities when older.
Quote:
I think if I hear one more person trying to avenge their awful childhood through their kids I will scream!
If you didn't like the suburbs growing up and found cities better, it's natural to want your child to experience what you thought was best.
@ Bajan: I didn't really mean you specifically when I said "you," more of a response to a theoretical person that you seem to be discussing.
@ Katiana: my childhood wasn't awful. That's not what I'm saying. But it could have been better. My family moved a lot, I did in fact spend part of my childhood living in a big city (Philadelphia). That probably represents my favorite memories of growing up, the time we were in Philly. That's the kind of environment I want for my kids. I've found that, and so far, they seem to respond well to it.
Because thats what most parents do. You try to put your kid in the best possible situation. If that wasnt the case, than public schools in the city wouldnt have been struggling like they did for past few decades. Parents would just send thier kid to whatever public school was in their neighborhood and leave it at that.
First off, while on a subjective level, I love my daughter and want her to be happy, on an objective level, I recognize my child doesn't deserve "the best." Nor does any other child, they all deserve an equal shot to use their natural talents to the fullest. Thus I hate the whole ratrace around parenting, the idea that you're trying to give your kids a leg up on the competition. Frankly, I could care less how much education my daughter ultimately has, or how much money she makes, as long as she's leading a happy life.
Secondly, while I realize this attitude is widespread, it's because people don't really reflect upon their assumptions - specifically the "nurture assumption" that children are "blank slates" and parenting choices after birth make them into the person they ultimately become. This is factually completely and totally wrong.
All studies of adopted children show that after age 30, they have IQs and personalities no more similar to their parents than would be the case if they compared these traits with a random stranger. Nurture can change things during childhood, but as adults we tend to "reset" to whatever would have come natural to us. Truly bad parenting (abuse) can screw up a child irrevocably, but beyond this all choices seem pretty moot, barring things like manners, which are pretty clearly cultural.
I understand why parents want to believe they have a great deal of control, post birth, in their child's outcomes, as it means they can take personal credit to some degree for their kid's successes. But the data just doesn't bear this out.
^^ In re: schools, not to go too off-topic, a school system won't change overnight. It might take 5 years or so. Who wants to take that chance with their kids? Who wants to go first? I've never been one to obsess about schools, the way some do on some of the city forums, and I don't think there's ever one "best" school in a city or even metro area, but I do (did) want my kids in a decent system that isn't riddled with problems.
This speaks directly to my point that there's no guarantee a certain suburban school district will remain "tops" for the 18 years required to push a kid through - especially in inner ring suburbs, many of which are in decline throughout the US.
How is that any different from parents who move back to the suburbs so that the kids can experience what they had as a kid (big lawns and big houses, etc) assuming their kid will want what they had?
I'm sure that happens, too. I was speaking more specifically about the person who wants to raise a kid in the city and expects him to say, "Thanks for raising me in a walkable neighborhood with lots of amenities around, Dad!" They're not accounting for the possibility that their kids might actually hate living in the city. I remember having a party at my house and one of my friends from school asked me, "Where's the rest of your house?" It was embarassing. I felt cheated because some of my friends had stuff we simply didn't have space for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Might be bringing a can of worms, but I'm wondering how much of the perspective about growing up in the city is based on race or class. Harlem and most of the Bronx are not known for being safe middle-class family friendly neighborhoods; they city will seem less appealing for kids if you've grown up there.
Many parts of Brooklyn, Queens and Philadelphia were not bad for families during the 80s. People just don't want to live in those places anymore because they likely had to share bedrooms and bathrooms with so many people. I have two sisters. Could you imagine what it was like trying to get into the one bathroom we all shared before school every morning? I want to have at least 3.5 bathrooms in my house so no one has to share.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
What about being able to walk around his neighborhood easily (not possible in all suburbs) to different places and friend's houses? Playing in city parks, etc. Not all suburbs have much in the way of open space. I did enjoy the woods near my house, though plenty of people were completely uninterested in the outdoors.
Why can't you walk around a subdivision? I see kids doing that all the time. I have cousins who live in suburban Maryland and you see kids roaming around their subdivision.
This speaks directly to my point that there's no guarantee a certain suburban school district will remain "tops" for the 18 years required to push a kid through - especially in inner ring suburbs, many of which are in decline throughout the US.
Well, no, there are no guarantees about anything when it comes to schools. However, it's not just the cities that have open enrollment. OE is the law in all of Colorado, and quite a few other states as well. There is a thread about this on the Education forum, with a list. The problem with OE is that the receiving school has to have room for your OE child, and generally you have to provide the transportation.
Well, no, there are no guarantees about anything when it comes to schools. However, it's not just the cities that have open enrollment. OE is the law in all of Colorado, and quite a few other states as well. There is a thread about this on the Education forum, with a list. The problem with OE is that the receiving school has to have room for your OE child, and generally you have to provide the transportation.
Interesting. So is it by county? Or could a student conceivably enroll in any school in CO?
I always thought city kids had more people within walking distance, because the population density is higher. That's almost certainly false, except maybe for the most childless neighborhoods. While the percentage of children might decline, it doesn't decline as fast as the population density increases. I did the math out a while ago for a number of places, I could dig it up.
Who said that's the purpose? I certainly never have. Some of the adult-oriented activities are nice, but unless parents are living right in the center city, you don't have these activities in your local neighborhood (its activities could be more family friendly even if the city center is not). Many city neighborhoods also have cheap places to eat and plenty of pizza parlors? Older children may appreciate these "adult-oriented" activities when older.
If you didn't like the suburbs growing up and found cities better, it's natural to want your child to experience what you thought was best.
It would be interesting to see your map. Does it break down by ages? My experience living in the city was that there weren't that many kids in my neighborhood. Even in Washington Park in Denver, where my nephew and niece lived with their daughter, there weren't as many kids right in their immediate vicinity as in my own neighborhood in Louisville.
Who said? That's the general mantra you get from reading this forum. More to do, more to do, which generally means more for adults to do. A criticism about suburbs for decades now has been that they're too kid-oriented. Kids do not care if there is a walk-up bar in their neighborhood, or a coffee shop where you can schmooze with a bunch of people for hours on end.
We should probably limit this thread to people who actually have kids!
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.
