What are the 3 Safest Suburbs near Chicago? (Berwyn: student loans, teaching jobs)

[AuDiBelle]

Originally Posted by slow_nerve_action

I think you need to reformulate your data for the average commute for people that work in the Chicago metro area. In 2005, it was 33 minutes, a figure not really seen in your histogram there.

Sorry, I should have specified that the graph I posted (from city-data) is commuting times specific to people living in St. Charles, not the overall Chicago Metro area. A large majority of St. Charles folks have commute times between 5-20 minutes, meaning they are most certainly not commuting downtown for work. Very few have commute times over an hour.

And yes, many people don't blink at an hour long commute door to door, but that would not be the case traveling from St. Charles to the city when the train ride alone is 60 minutes.

Glad you were able to cut down your commute time, almost in half. Definitely improves the quality of life.

[chet everett]

Originally Posted by slow_nerve_action

...
Your girlfriend works in education. Odds are, with no connections, she's going to be working at a "diverse" school. If you live on the North Side, odds are she'll be teaching in the public schools. If you live out on the west burbs, younger teachers have to cut their teeth in the West Chicagos and Elgins of the world before getting those plum positions in the Napervilles and Wheatons.

...

Speaking from actual experience, and not a hypothetical, the desirable schools districts have no particular desire to hire some one that has "cut their teeth" in a district that does not have the same make-up as their own.

Aside from the obvious problems of sort of wasting any experience with bi-lingual / limited English proficiency population when going from a district that has a need for these skills in their staff to that does not, the structure of granting credit for previous employment in other Illinois Teacher's Retirement System Schools or the separate CPS pension fund could make hiring such teachers more expensive. Further there are wildly different parental expectations / involvement levels in comparing high performing / desirable schools to those that serve a more challenged student population. The best indicator of how will a new teacher will do in meeting the expectations / needs of the local population is to see them in the local school, if that means that they hire inexperienced teachers as para-professionals instead of full timers, and their structure of the local contract allows this (and their are sufficient funds for enough para-professionals..) THAT is the preferred route that schools in high performing areas will follow.

Generally staff turn over is quite low even in schools districts that serve challenged populations -- the difficulty for tenured teachers to leave certainly is part of that, but is also a fact that some teachers really do prefer to serve a population that is not traditionally high performing. The reasons of this can range from a desire to be a source of inspiration to the rare student that will go from a under performing school to high personal achievement, unwillingness to deal with 'helicopter parents', less scrutiny from administration in schools with lower expectations, fewer extracurricular demands, easier / more routine commute, to fears of interviewing and general aversion to change...

The "standard path" for most teachers includes a very stable employment history, with the majority never having worked in particularly low performing schools...

[slow_nerve_action]

Originally Posted by chet everett

Speaking from actual experience, and not a hypothetical, the desirable schools districts have no particular desire to hire some one that has "cut their teeth" in a district that does not have the same make-up as their own.

Aside from the obvious problems of sort of wasting any experience with bi-lingual / limited English proficiency population when going from a district that has a need for these skills in their staff to that does not, the structure of granting credit for previous employment in other Illinois Teacher's Retirement System Schools or the separate CPS pension fund could make hiring such teachers more expensive. Further there are wildly different parental expectations / involvement levels in comparing high performing / desirable schools to those that serve a more challenged student population. The best indicator of how will a new teacher will do in meeting the expectations / needs of the local population is to see them in the local school, if that means that they hire inexperienced teachers as para-professionals instead of full timers, and their structure of the local contract allows this (and their are sufficient funds for enough para-professionals..) THAT is the preferred route that schools in high performing areas will follow.

Generally staff turn over is quite low even in schools districts that serve challenged populations -- the difficulty for tenured teachers to leave certainly is part of that, but is also a fact that some teachers really do prefer to serve a population that is not traditionally high performing. The reasons of this can range from a desire to be a source of inspiration to the rare student that will go from a under performing school to high personal achievement, unwillingness to deal with 'helicopter parents', less scrutiny from administration in schools with lower expectations, fewer extracurricular demands, easier / more routine commute, to fears of interviewing and general aversion to change...

The "standard path" for most teachers includes a very stable employment history, with the majority never having worked in particularly low performing schools...

Different routes.

My experience comes from watching my friends in the education profession go up the ladder over the last ten years we have been out of school in and around the Chicago burbs.

But we do agree that there are teachers that self-select into different school backgrounds.

[chris0681]

As far as her cutting her teeth in a less desirable area, she already does have experience teaching music at a couple of different schools here in Michigan, she even created a music program at one. As far as teaching in a less desirable school, the kids are always a problem with their behavior at alot of those schools, so that is not something she wants to put up with, meaning a school with very poor quality, something average quality is all she wants, she knows she wont get into a great district not having much experience. The fact is though she is non tenure and only 24 years old at the moment.. it may be hard for her to get employment in the west suburbs or north suburbs where we are looking... that is why we are also looking at central illinois, northern indiana, and southern wisconsin as well... so we may not get to live in a great north suburb or west suburb for a few years until she gets tenure. But she is giving things a try, and applying for every position that comes up in the west and north suburbs for music, I give her credit. The fact is if nothing works out for her, I plan on possibly moving from Michigan and trying out the area, ideally with a job, which is why I'm starting to look at the west and north suburbs for employment if things do not work out with my current job and I have to go on unemployment. If I did find work in the city, I would not be commuting from St. Charles. I drove to St. Charles from the city during rush hour and it is a joke. I would rather live closer in, but I was saying St. Charles would be a great place to live if I worked in say Naperville, Aurora, or those areas. Its hard right now because I dont know where she will get a job, (she does not want to work in the city of Chicago), so I cant really live in the city. And she is not sure where she will get a job, like I said we are considering 3 different states right now (Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana). Along the lake in Wisconsin is very nice, or even near Madison in some areas for awhile until we can move closer to Chicago. Right now things are up in the air but I really do appreciate everyones comments as I'm trying to explain my situation. I'm basically trying to plan out which suburbs I should generally be looking at for work, which slow nerve action, you said St. Charles may be on the decline, which suburbs do you think would be a better place to work then out in the suburbs? I dont have a problem with diversity, except near Detroit where it is pretty black and white there. I just want a suburb that is generally safe, that is growing, has jobs, 25-50 miles from chicago in the north or west suburbs where I can start looking for work with a business administration degree, I do not have experience in health care administration, but I took those classes as well. Ideally, its not a big deal if I dont work in health care, just some place I can get an administrative job or work for a company with a business degree is what I'm looking for.

[Lookout Kid]

I'm a bit floored by this OP's obssession with safety, since most of the suburbs are really very safe in every way. It would be easier to list suburbs to avoid (like Maywood, Bellwood, Hillside, etc.). If we only look at the absolute safest suburbs, the ones that are close to the city are also expensive. So I don't think the Wheaton/Geneva/St. Charles areas are such a bad idea for this particular poster, since he seems to be a bit uncomfortable with any sort of diversity.

[chris0681]

Well I realize alot of them are safe, but some are also on the decline, dont have great job prospects for someone with a business admin degree or a teaching degree, and i really dont want to live right next to Chicago, most likely 20 miles or more away.

[AuDiBelle]

Chris, you are attempting to combine two different desires. 1. You want to live in a 'safe' neighborhood, and 2. You want great job prospects. Given that you have a safety obsession, you're not going to find a house/apartment and job prospects galore in the same town.

Most people in the suburbs do not live in the same town they work in. Your best bet would be to find whatever you consider to be a 'safe enough' town (not sure if any place in the Greater Chicagoland area will fit the bill for you) that is also close enough to major employment hubs (ie., Chicago, Schaumburg) so that you're not going to end up with an hour's + commute. Chicago and the near-West suburbs have a plethora of hospitals. The further out you go, the less job opportunities you will find.

Your best bet would be to find a job first, as has been suggested SEVERAL times in this thread. Get a job, then narrow down locations suitable enough for you to live in peace.

[chris0681]

Yeah thats the thing, its hard to interview being 6 hours away.. thats why I thought about just relocating to the area, going on unemployment, and if I couldnt find employment within say 6 months, then get a masters degree. If my job is cut here, or if my girlfriend and I dont work out Id have to do those things anyway.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by chris0681

Well I realize alot of them are safe, but some are also on the decline, dont have great job prospects for someone with a business admin degree or a teaching degree, and i really dont want to live right next to Chicago, most likely 20 miles or more away.

I haven't seen anyone recommend a "suburb on the decline" for you. If you mention one, belive me, people will jump in.

[pvande55]

It would be better if you could find a job first. For one thing, unless you have covered wages for the period in question, you will not be able to collect unemployment benefits. For another, you need to be within a reasonable distance from the job. If you choose to live in St. Charles, and you end up working in Waukegan, that is going to be a pain. The typical commuting distance in the area is about ten miles. If you work in the Loop, there is less of a problem due to commuter trains. If it is true that everything is moving to the city, maybe some of the outer suburbs will be less desirable, but if you end up with a job there, that is not an immediate concern.