Demographic check

[eschaton]

I think a common assumption is all urbanists will become suburbanists once their children reach a certain age, as city schools are just that scary, and will retreat to the suburbs, even if it makes them miserable.

I've read a lot about educational outcomes, however, and your family background (how many books you have in the house, for example) matters far more in eventual life outcomes than the school your choose. I've also found once you correct for demographic factors, city schools generally perform just as well as top suburban schools (e.g., middle-class white kids perform above-average virtually everywhere).

But the presumption that "schools matter" so much sets up a vicious cycle. Given the single largest determinant, for example, of low standardized test scores is being black/latino, with income level following close behind, schools with a lot of poor black and latino students will, even with an identical quality of teaching, end up scoring worse. So the (usually white) parents of means take their kids out of the schools, which makes it look like they are getting even worse. They attempt to put their kids in the "top districts" - which of course tend to be wealthy, and have few minorities aside from perhaps a leavening of Asians.

I'd never send my daughter to a school that I genuinely thought was unsafe. But both my wife and I are fairly above average in terms of intelligence. Despite going to what was considered a great school district, I found as a child I learned far more on my own independently reading about science, history, and other subjects. I'm confident I can find public educational options she'll enjoy here in Pittsburgh.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I've read a lot about educational outcomes, however, and your family background (how many books you have in the house, for example) matters far more in eventual life outcomes than the school your choose. I've also found once you correct for demographic factors, city schools generally perform just as well as top suburban schools (e.g., middle-class white kids perform above-average virtually everywhere).

But the presumption that "schools matter" so much sets up a vicious cycle. Given the single largest determinant, for example, of low standardized test scores is being black/latino, with income level following close behind, schools with a lot of poor black and latino students will, even with an identical quality of teaching, end up scoring worse. So the (usually white) parents of means take their kids out of the schools, which makes it look like they are getting even worse. They attempt to put their kids in the "top districts" - which of course tend to be wealthy, and have few minorities aside from perhaps a leavening of Asians.

I'd never send my daughter to a school that I genuinely thought was unsafe. But both my wife and I are fairly above average in terms of intelligence. Despite going to what was considered a great school district, I found as a child I learned far more on my own independently reading about science, history, and other subjects. I'm confident I can find public educational options she'll enjoy here in Pittsburgh.

I think there is a great deal of truth to this post. But - as a parent are you confident that your oh-so-smart child will do well in school surrounded by a bunch of kids that don't care? These kids may not be hoodlums or gang members, but they also may only be motivated to graduate - with a C grade average. You and your wife may be wonderfully dedicated to your child's education, and set the right expectations. But if you do not think their surroundings matter - I think you are naive.

There are so many other reasons some do not want the urban experience. Privacy, noise, space, and crime are just a few others.

[wburg]

I grew up in the suburbs, and the other kids in school with me didn't seem to care much about education--I was part of maybe 10% of my graduating class that went to college.

Lack of privacy, noise, space and crime are not unique to, or inherent to, the urban experience.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

But - as a parent are you confident that your oh-so-smart child will do well in school surrounded by a bunch of kids that don't care? These kids may not be hoodlums or gang members, but they also may only be motivated to graduate - with a C grade average. You and your wife may be wonderfully dedicated to your child's education, and set the right expectations. But if you do not think their surroundings matter - I think you are naive.

A few things.

I know I'm in the minority here (and I know my wife disagrees to boot), but I'm not particularly concerned about my daughter doing well in school. I was on both sides of the fence growing up. In elementary school, I was largely an A student. But in Middle and High School, I generally got As in the classes I liked (Science, History, English), but Cs in the classes I disliked and didn't bother studying for (Math, Spanish), barely squeaking by with a 3.0 average by the end. In the long run, it didn't matter - I went to a good public university, which I graduated from Summa *** Laude (3.8), as once I could pick my own classes I had no problem applying myself. I got into a profession I enjoy, and while I'll never make that much money, because it's a social justice kinda job, making money was never a big priority for me anyway.

Regardless, while I want my daughter to be financially independent, to me "success" is measured by happiness, both in general and with your chosen path in life. I have read numerous studies which show that once you get past the poverty level, how much money you make has no bearing on your emotional well being. I have no desire to position my daughter in order to be the best possible social climber. I just hope she ends up loving whatever she does.

Still, you are right that to the extent schools matter, it's about the peer group. Most of "parental" influence quite honestly seems genetic, as studies have found, for example, that while biological children's intelligence, education level, and economic success tracks closely with their parents, adoptive children tend to fall back toward whatever the mean is as adults, so that by age 30 there is no clear evidence of parental influence at all. Most of the influence a parent has is in fact choosing an environment which causes a kid to be exposed to a different peer group.

That said, I'm not concerned about it. When I was a teenager, I spent my time indoors playing Civ II and reading science fiction novels. My wife spent her teen years playing D&D. I'm fairly certain, given a long family history on both sides of socially awkward, strange introverts, that's where she'll end up. And generally speaking, nonconformist children aren't very likely to succumb to those same sort of peer dynamics anyway.

In addition, as I said, we are placing her in the magnet system here in Pittsburgh, not a regular neighborhood school. Magnets tend to attract the interest of parents who who want "a good education" for their children, and hence attract smart parents who have smart children. The result, at least here in Pittsburgh, is if you just look at like for like (e.g., compare the white students to white students in the best suburban districts), the overall performance on measures such as standardized testing is just as good.

Originally Posted by hoffdano

There are so many other reasons some do not want the urban experience. Privacy, noise, space, and crime are just a few others.

You're naive if you don't realize that cities have all sorts of neighborhoods. I can name dozens here in Pittsburgh with detached single-family housing which are also quite safe. I wouldn't want to live there, but for all intents they give a suburban experience in an urban area.

[MIKEETC]

Originally Posted by nighttrain55

I acknowledge I can be completely wrong on this assumption. It seems to me that when we have these debates about suburbs and cities, the people who are arguing for either side are at different stages of life. I feel like the die hard urbanites are young, single, married with no kids, or have kids but not school age yet. The surburban defenders have kids, and are in school, or empty nesters with their kids already gone of to college. Am I wrong about this?

Somewhat.

I am single, no kids. I am outside of the age range that you'd call young but that's relative (I'm 40). I like visiting and enjoying what the 'city' has to offer.

[but at the end of the day, I want to go home]

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I think a common assumption is all urbanists will become suburbanists once their children reach a certain age, as city schools are just that scary, and will retreat to the suburbs, even if it makes them miserable.

I've read a lot about educational outcomes, however, and your family background (how many books you have in the house, for example) matters far more in eventual life outcomes than the school your choose. I've also found once you correct for demographic factors, city schools generally perform just as well as top suburban schools (e.g., middle-class white kids perform above-average virtually everywhere).

But the presumption that "schools matter" so much sets up a vicious cycle. Given the single largest determinant, for example, of low standardized test scores is being black/latino, with income level following close behind, schools with a lot of poor black and latino students will, even with an identical quality of teaching, end up scoring worse. So the (usually white) parents of means take their kids out of the schools, which makes it look like they are getting even worse. They attempt to put their kids in the "top districts" - which of course tend to be wealthy, and have few minorities aside from perhaps a leavening of Asians.

I'd never send my daughter to a school that I genuinely thought was unsafe. But both my wife and I are fairly above average in terms of intelligence. Despite going to what was considered a great school district, I found as a child I learned far more on my own independently reading about science, history, and other subjects. I'm confident I can find public educational options she'll enjoy here in Pittsburgh.

I'm sure you can, but in some cities the good schools WITHIN the city are in neighborhoods that are very expensive. Or, you can hope for a shot at a magnet or charter, but in some cases it can be very, very tough to get a spot. I've found that in many cities the elementary level isn't so tough, but it gets tougher at the junior high and high school level, where parents want to make sure that their kids have access to AP or IB or other advanced courses, etc.

I know from personal experience that it doesn't make much sense to write off entire districts (went to an urban school district myself, and my junior high was solidly "inner city" with many of the problems that go along with it) and we have always been willing to give city schools a shot, but some of these urban schools are just NOT places where middle-class parents are going to be willing to put their kids. (same thing with some suburban schools, of course). Especially in this era of test pressures. If the test scores are low at a school, some schools react by more drilling, more "teaching to the test", and less time for more independent learning and teacher freedoms. It's also perhaps surprising at the number of schools out there in some districts that don't have recess! I'm actually personally more worried about the schools turning my kid off to learning than I am about them not teaching him stuff, as we can cover any gaps at home.

So yes, family is going to be the most important factor, but most middle-class parents aren't going to put their kid into a school where nearly ALL of the other students are far behind grade level. What that seems to leave cities with is a patchwork of schools, with some truly excellent (whatever the test scores say as a whole) and some that may (or may not be) excellent for kids who need the extra boost that they're not getting at home, but might not be a good fit for a middle-class, English-speaking kid. The other unfortunate reality is all the "extras" -- music, art, even the above-mentioned recess. In many districts parents have to fundraise to get what used to be basics covered! Some very poor schools benefit from grants and other funding (we looked at a few low-income NYC schools with very impressive arts programming!) but that's not an automatic given. Some schools are not always particularly friendly to parents who don't fit their typical demographic profile, which probably further encourages parents in those areas to feel unwelcome and just move. (I have personally encountered this, and have also seen some of the venom spewed by some people against middle-class parents at times in some urban districts; they are seen by some as sapping the money and resources that could be devoted to needier students.)

In any case, I agree with you overall, but still think that within districts, especially very large urban districts like NYC, Chicago, etc., you can't overlook the importance of the local zoned schools. There you may not get parents moving out the 'burbs, but they may well -- if they can afford it -- move to a neighborhood within the city that has better public options. But since those neighborhoods are often (not always, but often) more expensive, sometimes they end up moving out. It sounds like Pittsburgh it more like my native Minneapolis, where it's relatively easy to get a spot in one of the many magnets, and where there are many affordable middle-class neighborhoods with decent public schools. But that's not true in all cities (check out the acceptance rates for some of Chicago's magnets, for example), and in those cities it's easy to see why some middle-class families are reluctantly leaving for the 'burbs. The school process was about 100 times easier (and the schools very good!) in Minneapolis versus San Francisco or Chicago, for example, and when we thought we were going to be living in NYC we were willing to live in a much smaller place at a much higher price point than many families (especially with more kids) could afford. For a lot of families, the school issue is the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. (FWIW, I think the magnet we liked in Chicago accepted something like 5% of applicants, and other magnets weren't all that much better. In SF if you didn't have sibling preference the odds of even getting a spot in your neighborhood school -- or ANY of the schools that you wanted -- were pretty low. That kind of uncertainty can be very stressful.)

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

I'm sure you can, but in some cities the good schools WITHIN the city are in neighborhoods that are very expensive. Or, you can hope for a shot at a magnet or charter, but in some cases it can be very, very tough to get a spot. I've found that in many cities the elementary level isn't so tough, but it gets tougher at the junior high and high school level, where parents want to make sure that their kids have access to AP or IB or other advanced courses, etc.

We're aiming for the local magnet system. Within the city, it offers around 25% of all public school slots (at least at the kindergarten level). Totally based upon random lottery at all levels (minus the arts high school, which requires an audition), but once you're in, it's impossible to get kicked out unless something really bad happens (excessive truancy, really bad grades, or bad conduct issues). So unless your kid is dumb or a delinquent, they aren't going to be bounced for someone else. Still, I've known people who have gotten into the magnet system moving here with older kids, so it's not an impossible task. I don't know the exact stats, but from anecdote it seems like well over half of those who apply get in somewhere.

There is a segment of the city which offers very good neighborhood schools all the way up to the high school level, but as you note, it's priced appropriately. The only areas within the feeder pattern we could afford are both suburban in character and very, very ugly, so I'd hate to think of this as a recourse.

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

I know from personal experience that it doesn't make much sense to write off entire districts (went to an urban school district myself, and my junior high was solidly "inner city" with many of the problems that go along with it) and we have always been willing to give city schools a shot, but some of these urban schools are just NOT places where middle-class parents are going to be willing to put their kids. (same thing with some suburban schools, of course). Especially in this era of test pressures. If the test scores are low at a school, some schools react by more drilling, more "teaching to the test", and less time for more independent learning and teacher freedoms. It's also perhaps surprising at the number of schools out there in some districts that don't have recess! I'm actually personally more worried about the schools turning my kid off to learning than I am about them not teaching him stuff, as we can cover any gaps at home.

Hrrm...you have a point here I did not consider.

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

The other unfortunate reality is all the "extras" -- music, art, even the above-mentioned recess. In many districts parents have to fund-raise to get what used to be basics covered! Some very poor schools benefit from grants and other funding (we looked at a few low-income NYC schools with very impressive arts programming!) but that's not an automatic given.

This is an issue in the suburbs too. When I was a kid, they were already cutting back on such "extras," merely because the locals didn't want to pay taxes for them.

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

(I have personally encountered this, and have also seen some of the venom spewed by some people against middle-class parents at times in some urban districts; they are seen by some as sapping the money and resources that could be devoted to needier students.)

Sad, and a poor understanding of public policy. Programs which benefit everyone are always more supported by the general public than those who benefit just the poor.