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.
The issue is not urban vs. suburban per se. It is a socioeconomic issue. If an urban area's demographics were upper middle class, it is highly likely the schools in that area would be good.
However, many urban areas are dominated by people of lower socioeconomic status. These demographic groups are associated with lower levels of academic performance. The students that attend these public schools tend to have parents with weak academic history. As a parent - you can choose to be courageous and put your kids in these schools. You have to have confidence that the teachers are indeed good, that your kids can withstand the peer pressure to NOT perform, can perform in spite of poor classroom environments, etc.
I wouldn't risk it. And I think many people agree with me. That's why we/they want our kids in public schools generally filled with kids that expect to do well in school. Most of those school systems are not in inner city areas.
However, many urban areas are dominated by people of lower socioeconomic status. These demographic groups are associated with lower levels of academic performance. The students that attend these public schools tend to have parents with weak academic history.
Another common situation is that while the city does a large middle or even upper class population, they tend to be childless adults, the families tend to be poorer. The lack of good schools encourages this situation, which encourages low performing schools.
Like school yards, gyms, sports fields, etc? Urban schools have these facilities. Suburban schools usually have huge yards (not fields for football, actual yards) that are under-used. Why do we need so much space for schools?
They're only left to rot (not really an accurate term IMO) because the tax base left and there aren't enough people to get funding from. After generations of kids attending an under-funded school, a majority of the parents and students become indifferent and what funding is left is even more insuffient because students and parents don't make the effort. It has nothing to do with people wanting "newer schools", it has everything to do with caring parents wanting good schools.
I'm not sure why you mention this, but it depends on the neighborhood and the city.
My own high school, which was fairly urban (for Beaver County, PA) did not have a football stadium. We played at a local college. It didn't seem to hurt Joe Namath any. DH's urban high school also had no football stadium. They played all their games away, although they were sometimes designated the "home" team. I'm not sure exactly how all this worked, just going by what he told me. Anyway, it seemed to work for Gale Sayers (sp?). Now they have a stadium, given to the school by some member of the Buffet family.
City schools generally have a larger tax base than suburban schools b/c of all the businesses in a city. In fact, on another thread we discussed per-pupil funding and I showed how Denver Public Schools have higher per-pupil allotments than most suburban schools, and this in a state that tries to equalize school funding. (Though I think Denver gets more b/c of being an "urban" school with more poor kids, more ESL kids, etc.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Another common situation is that while the city does a large middle or even upper class population, they tend to be childless adults, the families tend to be poorer. The lack of good schools encourages this situation, which encourages low performing schools.
It does get to be a "chicken and egg" situation. I don't know the answer, and I've studied schools for years.
The issue is not urban vs. suburban per se. It is a socioeconomic issue. If an urban area's demographics were upper middle class, it is highly likely the schools in that area would be good. ...
That's the dynamic you see in Minneapolis, where the southwest quadrant of the city is heavily middle (and upper) class. The public schools in this part of the city are mostly good (including one of the state's top public high schools), and the white MPS kids actually outperform many of their suburban peers. Unfortunately in the Twin Cities the schools are often very socioeconomically (which in the Twin Cities also tends to fall along racial lines) segregated. SW Minneapolis is a lot less diverse than some local suburbs, for example, and while still affordable to the middle class, it's not cheap (in part due to perception that the public schools are good.). Looking at the big numbers it looks like it's an urban versus suburban issue, but look a little closer and you see that the pattern gets more complex. In some cities it's less complicated, although even then I would assume that within the array of suburbs there are those with very good schools and those with very troubled schools. But yes, at it's core, I agree that it's mostly about the socioeconomic factors at play.
My own high school, which was fairly urban (for Beaver County, PA) did not have a football stadium. We played at a local college. It didn't seem to hurt Joe Namath any. DH's urban high school also had no football stadium. They played all their games away, although they were sometimes designated the "home" team. I'm not sure exactly how all this worked, just going by what he told me. Anyway, it seemed to work for Gale Sayers (sp?). Now they have a stadium, given to the school by some member of the Buffet family.
City schools generally have a larger tax base than suburban schools b/c of all the businesses in a city. In fact, on another thread we discussed per-pupil funding and I showed how Denver Public Schools have higher per-pupil allotments than most suburban schools, and this in a state that tries to equalize school funding. (Though I think Denver gets more b/c of being an "urban" school with more poor kids, more ESL kids, etc.)
It does get to be a "chicken and egg" situation. I don't know the answer, and I've studied schools for years.
If you can attract middle class families through the city providing benefits other than better schools at first, that will result in better schools, and more middle class families moving to the city for that reason, with the positive feedback cycle going in the opposite direction.
If you can attract middle class families through the city providing benefits other than better schools at first, that will result in better schools, and more middle class families moving to the city for that reason, with the positive feedback cycle going in the opposite direction.
within limits. If the schools are much worse than suburban schools, than the middle class will leave as soon as their children as school-age or send them to private if affordable. Just a bit worse, the families may take a chance and a positive feedback cycle might start. I assume Canadian cities never got schools bad enough that middle class families would generally avoid them.
Another reason families might leave cities, at least denser ones, is they'd rather raise their children on a house with a yard. Or price-wise, finding space to comfortably fit a family is too expensive (I think that was uptown urbanist's situation). In that case, you'd get less families overall but the families left shouldn't be poorer. And the city's tax base for funding school will be great — lots of well off childless adults with few students.
within limits. If the schools are much worse than suburban schools, than the middle class will leave as soon as their children as school-age or send them to private if affordable.
Welcome to Hoboken.
Quote:
In that case, you'd get less families overall but the families left shouldn't be poorer. And the city's tax base for funding school will be great — lots of well off childless adults with few students.
You'd think so, but you run into one of two problems
1) If you've got a lot of childless adults and/or adults sending their kids to private schools, you'll have trouble getting support for funding schools
2) You might have a situation where you have a lot of well-off childless adults, but also a lot of low-income people with a lot of kids.
This is precisely one of the topics I am currently researching. Obviously, where and why families with children choose to live has a lot to do with the quality of the schools. Seattle and Denver both are currently entertaining the idea of opening a school downtown to accommodate an increase of families with children choosing to live more urban lifestyles. They often move out when Jr. turns 4 or 5 because of the schools issue. In Seattle, for example, the elementary school that serves downtown (which is not located downtown) is currently over capacity by a significant number of students. And student projections only anticipate that overcrowding trend will get worse. The Seattle School Board just (2 days ago), voted to include provisions to site a school downtown (the first in 30 years). It has a ways to go until it becomes a reality, including finding matching funds, but it is a start.
Nei, to your point about Canadian schools, I have interviewed folks in Toronto and Vancouver who confirm that there isn't quite the disparity in school quality between neighborhoods in Canada as there is in the states. Yes, wealthier neighborhoods do have a reputation for slightly better schools, but not to the extent that they do in the states. It is my understanding that in Toronto, all schools are neighborhood-based, meaning your children go to their neighborhood-assigned school. To throw a kink in that statement, however, Toronto has 4 separate publicly-funded school boards: English, English-Catholic, French, and French-Catholic; in order to attend a specific type of school, you may be going outside of your immediate neighborhood.
As an architect and urban designer, I see the benefits of going to a neighborhood school: creating community around a significant central public amenity, knowing the neighborhood kids that go to the same school, etc. Other the other hand, there are obvious educational benefits for students having the option to attend the best schools in the district, regardless of whether that is their neighborhood school, and regardless of their socioeconomic background.
If you'd like to chat more about the school-quality-and-urban neighborhood relationship, I'm all ears! Especially as it relates to Boston, Chicago, Denver, Minneapolis, New York, Seattle, San Francisco, Toronto, Washington DC, and Vancouver. These are my "study cities" for my Downtown Families research project. ([url=http://www.downtownfamilies.com]Home[/url])
This is precisely one of the topics I am currently researching. Obviously, where and why families with children choose to live has a lot to do with the quality of the schools. Seattle and Denver both are currently entertaining the idea of opening a school downtown to accommodate an increase of families with children choosing to live more urban lifestyles. They often move out when Jr. turns 4 or 5 because of the schools issue. In Seattle, for example, the elementary school that serves downtown (which is not located downtown) is currently over capacity by a significant number of students. And student projections only anticipate that overcrowding trend will get worse. The Seattle School Board just (2 days ago), voted to include provisions to site a school downtown (the first in 30 years). It has a ways to go until it becomes a reality, including finding matching funds, but it is a start.
Nei, to your point about Canadian schools, I have interviewed folks in Toronto and Vancouver who confirm that there isn't quite the disparity in school quality between neighborhoods in Canada as there is in the states. Yes, wealthier neighborhoods do have a reputation for slightly better schools, but not to the extent that they do in the states. It is my understanding that in Toronto, all schools are neighborhood-based, meaning your children go to their neighborhood-assigned school. To throw a kink in that statement, however, Toronto has 4 separate publicly-funded school boards: English, English-Catholic, French, and French-Catholic; in order to attend a specific type of school, you may be going outside of your immediate neighborhood.
As an architect and urban designer, I see the benefits of going to a neighborhood school: creating community around a significant central public amenity, knowing the neighborhood kids that go to the same school, etc. Other the other hand, there are obvious educational benefits for students having the option to attend the best schools in the district, regardless of whether that is their neighborhood school, and regardless of their socioeconomic background.
If you'd like to chat more about the school-quality-and-urban neighborhood relationship, I'm all ears! Especially as it relates to Boston, Chicago, Denver, Minneapolis, New York, Seattle, San Francisco, Toronto, Washington DC, and Vancouver. These are my "study cities" for my Downtown Families research project. (Home)
The only information I could find about a school in downtown Denver is this:
Downtown Denver Expeditionary School, a charter school, would provide a K-5 school for downtown Denver, especially accessible to low-wage downtown hotel workers and students at Auraria Higher Education Campus, as well as more affluent residents of downtown lofts. Downtown amenities including the performing arts complex and the museum would be incorporated into school life, and an extended school day would provide for extra targeted instruction. The large number of retirees living downtown would be recruited to lead elective classes. DPS board grills new school applicants | EdNewsColorado
This is only a proposal at this point, and I think some of the assumptions I have bolded are a little optimistic. I don't think most residents of the downtown lofts have school age kids.
Downtown Minneapolis has a metro-wide magnet school that serves more the kids of downtown employees than downtown residents. There are some other schools that are near, but not in (as far as I know) downtown. The way the school zones are drawn, however, the downtown kids are zoned for middle school and high school towards the edge of the city. Those schools, however, also happen to be really good. They also have access to a bunch of good magnet schools. We've considered moving to downtown Minneapolis, and if we do so, our school options will be nearly the same as they are now in our bit of SW Minneapolis. Even better, if our son gets into one of the magnet schools, he will continue to get busing to the same school even if we move downtown after he starts school while we're living in a different neighborhood. We know we're going to be moving in the next year and perhaps not in time for the start of the academic year, so we're focusing on magnets, not neighborhood schools, as we'd like to minimize disruptions. (I think we could stay with a neighborhood school if we provided our own transportation, but that would be difficult.)
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.
