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.
This actually is on point as far as the topic goes.
In my opinion, one of the greatest impacts of urban sprawl has been the public school system. Districts are constantly gerrymandered; educators switched unnecessarily; and students left to suffer.
I'm one who believes firmly in public school choice. Meaning, if I happen to live in northeast Denver, and want my child to attend school in Cherry Hills Village, my child should have the right to attend--especially if I'm providing the transportation. Conversely, if a parent in Littleton wants their child to attend Denver East High School because the sports program is better, then they should also have that right.
I think it's a chicken and egg situation. People left the city when they could because of the schools, which caused the schools to get worse.
I don't know what you mean about districts being constantly gerrymandered. In Colorado, it's very hard for a community to change school districts. Each district collects its own taxes, which makes it hard to justify totally open enrollment, as this involves different amounts of money per student, even though Colorado has school finance equilization laws. OE is the law in Colorado, where space is available. The schools have to accomodate the students of the attendance area before they can accept any from outside. This only makes sense. It is also hard for districts to plan if they don't know from year to year how many students will be in any particular school. Talk about having to switch educators!
I think it's a chicken and egg situation. People left the city when they could because of the schools, which caused the schools to get worse.
I don't know what you mean about districts being constantly gerrymandered. In Colorado, it's very hard for a community to change school districts. Each district collects its own taxes, which makes it hard to justify totally open enrollment, as this involves different amounts of money per student, even though Colorado has school finance equilization laws. OE is the law in Colorado, where space is available. The schools have to accomodate the students of the attendance area before they can accept any from outside. This only makes sense. It is also hard for districts to plan if they don't know from year to year how many students will be in any particular school. Talk about having to switch educators!
I hear what you're saying about OE being the law. It's technically the law here in Georgia, but considering that a woman was arrested and tried for falsifying her address only to get her child in a better school on the other side of town ... well, it makes one wonder if the law has caught up with the reality.
The very idea of districts is, in my mind, what complicates the entire premise of open enrollment. With "districts", those who live therein must be accomodated first. But if there's never any room to accomodate kids from outside the "district", then open enrollment becomes moot.
To me, "districts" and accomodation don't make sense.
I hear what you're saying about OE being the law. It's technically the law here in Georgia, but considering that a woman was arrested and tried for falsifying her address only to get her child in a better school on the other side of town ... well, it makes one wonder if the law has caught up with the reality.
The very idea of districts is, in my mind, what complicates the entire premise of open enrollment. With "districts", those who live therein must be accomodated first. But if there's never any room to accomodate kids from outside the "district", then open enrollment becomes moot.
To me, "districts" and accomodation don't make sense.
Other than cost of living I don't understand why Americans love suburbs so much. They are inconvenient, isolating, the neighbors are picky, you have to drive everywhere, and the architecture is unattractive. New urbanism is a much better option. Combining afforability and good schools with proper urban planning principals.
OK, I live in the sprawling suburbs and I can tell you why I like them. Lower crime, more room between houses, larger and newer houses, wider streets and roads, some costs are lower and everything I need to shop for is here, including my job. If I had kids I would include schools too. I never need to go into Chicago for anything and am happy about that. I despise city living and high density.
I like driving to where I need to go and prefer it over mass transit. I don't relish the thought of waiting at a street corner for a bus to go to the grocery store. I grew up with a car lifestyle and am quite content with it.
I don't understand how you can say isolating or inconvenient. People are people everywhere. Architecture is personal opinion and driving everywhere suits me.
I too live in the 'burbs, and know the comfort and conveniences of the lifestyle. Yet there are great costs to all of the conveniences of suburban living; and those costs will be problematic. Those who choose to remain oblivious to those costs are part of the problem.
I'm one who believes firmly in public school choice. Meaning, if I happen to live in northeast Denver, and want my child to attend school in Cherry Hills Village, my child should have the right to attend--especially if I'm providing the transportation. Conversely, if a parent in Littleton wants their child to attend Denver East High School because the sports program is better, then they should also have that right.
I'm all in agreement about school choice ... but the public school system needs to be eliminated and replaced with a privatized system. That way, you can send your child to any school you wish, and you would pay for the cost of his/her education yourself ... no burden on taxpayers like it is now. I don't have children, but I end up flipping the bill for everyone else's offspring through my tax dollars for their education, plus other social services.
Since this thread is about urban sprawl, I won't go on about education any further here. I'll likely be starting a new thread about the schools and why they should be privatized.
I'm all in agreement about school choice ... but the public school system needs to be eliminated and replaced with a privatized system. That way, you can send your child to any school you wish, and you would pay for the cost of his/her education yourself ... no burden on taxpayers like it is now. I don't have children, but I end up flipping the bill for everyone else's offspring through my tax dollars for their education, plus other social services.
Since this thread is about urban sprawl, I won't go on about education any further here. I'll likely be starting a new thread about the schools and why they should be privatized.
I"ll make a big assumption that you attended public school, so someone paid for your education. Maybe even your college education. There are benefits to society of having an educated population. Privatization is not the way to go.
I"ll make a big assumption that you attended public school, so someone paid for your education. Maybe even your college education. There are benefits to society of having an educated population. Privatization is not the way to go.
You're only partially right about attending public school. I went to a private school during my elementary and junior high years, and to a public high school. The quality of the public school was vastly inferior in every aspect ... and it was considered to be one of the BETTER high schools. I went to ASU for two years, and then to University of Phoenix (a private university) for the next four years, where I received a BA in finance, and a BA in management.
By the way, in case you're wondering what people do who can't fully afford private education: they obtain loans (as I did). Also, since I was working full time while going to the U of P, my employer paid for my tuition as long as the classes were business related, and as long as I achieved a "C" grade or better. Education should be about the QUALITY, which is why I favor getting the government out of it. The public system is ineffective & a major cost burden to taxpayers ... and it's a form of socialism!
OK, I live in the sprawling suburbs and I can tell you why I like them. Lower crime, more room between houses, larger and newer houses, wider streets and roads, some costs are lower and everything I need to shop for is here, including my job. If I had kids I would include schools too. I never need to go into Chicago for anything and am happy about that. I despise city living and high density.
I like driving to where I need to go and prefer it over mass transit. I don't relish the thought of waiting at a street corner for a bus to go to the grocery store. I grew up with a car lifestyle and am quite content with it.
I don't understand how you can say isolating or inconvenient. People are people everywhere. Architecture is personal opinion and driving everywhere suits me.
I'm not exactly sure why driving everywhere would be a positive. I don't wait for a bus to go to the grocery store because everything I need is on MY BLOCK (included trains). That is the luxury of city life (at least in NY). As far as isolation you said it yourself, "I never go into Chicago". I used to live in the suburbs and I always felt the people I encountered there were trapped in the 'burb they lived in, and had misconceptions of the city. I will give you the lower crime and more space but the architecture is a tough sell.
It is just frustrating to see America addicted to oil mostly because the neighborhoods in the suburbs aren't planned to be walkable. Like I said if more suburbs were in the "new-urbanism" model I would take a serious look at moving back.
I'm not exactly sure why driving everywhere would be a positive. I don't wait for a bus to go to the grocery store because everything I need is on MY BLOCK (included trains). That is the luxury of city life (at least in NY). As far as isolation you said it yourself, "I never go into Chicago". I used to live in the suburbs and I always felt the people I encountered there were trapped in the 'burb they lived in, and had misconceptions of the city. I will give you the lower crime and more space but the architecture is a tough sell.
It is just frustrating to see America addicted to oil mostly because the neighborhoods in the suburbs aren't planned to be walkable. Like I said if more suburbs were in the "new-urbanism" model I would take a serious look at moving back.
And how often do you go to the burbs? It works both ways.
It is not true that ALL suburbs have no sidewalks and aren't walkable.
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.
