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 would really love for somebody to answer the situation with schools. If I have kids, and I can't afford private schools, what am I supposed to do? Even if there is a good public school, there will probably be a waiting list, so what am I supposed to do then? There are alot of major cities where the public school system is a mess, so there might be only a handful of public schools that are even worth trying to get into.
As others have said, we've made this problem ourselves. Public schools in cities are generally bad, because the middle class left. This leaves mostly the rich and poor (and the middle class without kids) in our cities. Because the rich can afford to send their kids to private schools, that leaves only the poor in our cities' public schools. It's this concentration of poverty that drags the schools down. If the middle class would stop fleeing for the suburbs when their children became school age, city schools would improve. But, I certainly understand the other side of that argument, too. It's very difficult to make your children pioneers in a struggling school district. So, the problem will persist until there is some kind of major change.
The point of a suburb is to offer housing in an area that's inexpensive, safer, and more viable options for people who could not otherwise afford the city.
Because I live in the rust belt, it's much cheaper to live in the city than in the suburbs.
Quote:
I value space, clean air, landscaping, nature, etc. things like a nice evening in my backyard eating some food on the patio. I LOVE that.
Me too.
Although some might call this "suburban," () this is my back yard, in the city. The only thing I don't really have is space, but that means less grass to mow. If you don't think I have enough nature, the 4400 acre Mill Creek MetroParks is just to the left, out of frame.
This isn't a problem inherent to cities. Schools are bad if you refuse to resource and invest in them. Unfortunately, we have pushed families out of the urban areas, neglected the schools and are suddenly surprised when the school age population decreases.
Cities don't have to have bad school districts, but we have caused this and haven't made it a priority to fix things.
We have discussed this issue in the past. (Sorry, nei, I'm bringing up old threads again.) You could do a search. In many large city schools systems, the per-pupil spending is higher than in the suburban districts. This is true in Denver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
I thought in the US were all about freedom of choice. If everyone has to drive to get basic stuff done, how is it a choice?
Who says "everyone" has to drive? Most people in the burbs live within a mile or so of a grocery store, and many live much closer. This is certainly walkable. Most grocery stores these days are located in litle mini-malls with a drug store, a dry cleaner, hairdressers, small restaurants, and the like.
We have discussed this issue in the past. (Sorry, nei, I'm bringing up old threads again.) You could do a search. In many large city schools systems, the per-pupil spending is higher than in the suburban districts. This is true in Denver.
Who says "everyone" has to drive? Most people in the burbs live within a mile or so of a grocery store, and many live much closer. This is certainly walkable. Most grocery stores these days are located in litle mini-malls with a drug store, a dry cleaner, hairdressers, small restaurants, and the like.
This is true in Youngstown, too. A big part of the reason is that there is a high concentration of poor students, and many of them have special needs. I think this article illustrates the connection between poverty and special needs at school: Race, Poverty and Special Education | SparkAction
From the article:
Quote:
Poor children, for example, are more likely to be born with low birth weight, have nutritional deficiencies, and suffer from substandard child care in the earliest years of life—problems that may compound school troubles later.
good luck with this question being answered, I've never seen a pro-city person try to defend this issue.
Who but a nitwit doesn't understand that city schools were quite good before they were left to the lower class? Now, the genes that made those city schools good are in the suburbs. What else do you need to know?
I don't want to engage in class-bashing, but I think demographic changes might explain much of the decline of city schools. For example when this school was in a middle class neighborhood, it had numerous successful alumni (3 Nobel Prize winners, and Bernie Madoff — does he count? I'm not sure):
The neighborhood the school is in now much poorer and the school is being closed for underperformance.
But even today, I've met people who've done quite well coming from city school; there are very good and very bad city schools. I do agree the risk of a kid going to a bad school is much higher in a city.
Who but a nitwit doesn't understand that city schools were quite good before they were left to the lower class? Now, the genes that made those city schools good are in the suburbs. What else do you need to know?
So why do pro-city people continue to bash the suburbs if the public school system is an issue? If I have kids, i'm not going to sacrifice their education just so I can see the city improve.
As others have said, we've made this problem ourselves. Public schools in cities are generally bad, because the middle class left. This leaves mostly the rich and poor (and the middle class without kids) in our cities. Because the rich can afford to send their kids to private schools, that leaves only the poor in our cities' public schools. It's this concentration of poverty that drags the schools down. If the middle class would stop fleeing for the suburbs when their children became school age, city schools would improve. But, I certainly understand the other side of that argument, too. It's very difficult to make your children pioneers in a struggling school district. So, the problem will persist until there is some kind of major change.
I like this response because atleast you acknowledge this issue. It seems like when people are preaching why living in the city is so great, they seem to leave out this part. There are alot of people who leave the city and like the suburbs because of reasons like this (this is not the only reason, just one of them). There are some people who like the suburbs because of more space, its quiet, and its probably more family friendly and probably better school system. There are some people who like the city because they are close to restuarants, grocery stores, and probably alot more action and probably can afford private schools.
We have discussed this issue in the past. (Sorry, nei, I'm bringing up old threads again.) You could do a search. In many large city schools systems, the per-pupil spending is higher than in the suburban districts. This is true in Denver.
And in that thread, the study cited didn't really say that--it said that some big-city school systems paid more per pupil than some suburban school systems, but other big-city school systems paid less per pupil than some suburban school systems, but that economic factors played a bigger role (how wealthy or poor the community was) than school funding. To claim what you're saying is a half-truth.
Quote:
Who says "everyone" has to drive? Most people in the burbs live within a mile or so of a grocery store, and many live much closer. This is certainly walkable. Most grocery stores these days are located in litle mini-malls with a drug store, a dry cleaner, hairdressers, small restaurants, and the like.
Because it's not just about being able to walk to the store...commuting to work is an equally important consideration. Walkable neighborhoods and better transit make commuting to work more viable, even in a two-income household.
And in that thread, the study cited didn't really say that--it said that some big-city school systems paid more per pupil than some suburban school systems, but other big-city school systems paid less per pupil than some suburban school systems, but that economic factors played a bigger role (how wealthy or poor the community was) than school funding. To claim what you're saying is a half-truth.
Because it's not just about being able to walk to the store...commuting to work is an equally important consideration. Walkable neighborhoods and better transit make commuting to work more viable, even in a two-income household.
I said: "In many large city schools systems, the per-pupil spending is higher than in the suburban districts. This is true in Denver." I do not appreciate being called a liar (or half liar). Please provide a link to what you're saying, as you are constantly posting stuff with no documentation. School funding is complicated, yes. I stated one part of it.
As far as commuting to work, that is not something I was responding to. Always moving the goalposts, burg!
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.
) this is my back yard, in the city. The only thing I don't really have is space, but that means less grass to mow. If you don't think I have enough nature, the 4400 acre Mill Creek MetroParks is just to the left, out of frame.
