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'm not sure I follow. My renters in 85234 send their kids to the public schools which are pretty much on par with the public schools where I owned in SF -94116. The quality of the school often depends on where you live in a particular city.
.
The "quality of the school" has more to do with perception versus the actual "quality" of what is taught. Follow the money: more motivated families have thicker wallets and on average have higher performance expectations. I'm saying "average" test scores will be much higher because the coaster families are not in the data. In most cases, that won't change the actual test score of a specific motivated family's child. To be clearer, the average test scores are being dragged down by unmotivated families and have little to do with the quality that a motivated group of students receives in that perceived "inferior" school.
Still, most parents who have an option attempt to dodge lower-income areas in order to get their kids out of temptations. Or in 2021, violence, especially a perceived risk of being shot. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that parents simply don't understand multimodal distributions as they can only grasp "average" test scores. I cared that our kids do well in school and we were far less concerned that other groups of kids (in the same school) struggled because of lousy parenting. I digress...
So in the Mission District, many parents are going to dodge public schools because lower-income families integrated into their school. And in Gilbert, it's a homogeneous community. So in Gilbert, most parents feel comfortable about sending them to public schools. Gilbert is a more religious community. So parents like to home school while other parents feel the need for a religious private school upbringing. I'm saying Gilbert (not the PHX proper) is a different animal than SF Mission District.
Quote:
Originally Posted by john3232
But in both instances the affluent couples (living in downtown Phx or the Mission district of SF) by and large aren't going to send their child to the local public school if it's crummy. However, this hasn't stopped them from moving or buying into the area.
Gilbert isn't remotely affluent! People are paying 4X more in the pseudo-hood known as the Mission District. Hence, Gilbert parents barely send their kids to private schools because they are surrounded by more motivated families. Big picture: Gilbert parents don't have the money or need to send their kids to a private K-12.
Unfortunately, unless education is valued in the home there's often little a teacher or school can do.
100% true ^^. Still, even a K-12 coaster (myself included because of lousy parenting) can later rally later in life. Cut, paste, repeat in my wife's situation. At the end of the day, the top 10% (however they get there) drives this country. As a reminder, the USA has 4% of the population and has 25% of the world's wealth. All the while we spend GOBS of $$ on K-12. I guess those massive K-12 expenditures (waste and all) must be sinking us. lol
I know of no growing roster of "fine" museums, our blistering summers eliminate us as "year-round," and I think having good Mexican restaurants is not a factor in any "best."
We have rising housing prices, a dubious transit system, alarming environmental trends, depressing sprawl, and are at the bottom of the education rankings.
The environmental trends (which affect many states due to rapid climate change) and the poor education rankings and reputation are two things that could hinder growth going forward.
The "quality of the school" has more to do with perception versus the actual "quality" of what is taught. Follow the money: more motivated families have thicker wallets and on average have higher performance expectations. I'm saying "average" test scores will be much higher because the coaster families are not in the data. In most cases, that won't change the actual test score of a specific motivated family's child. To be clearer, the average test scores are being dragged down by unmotivated families and have little to do with the quality that a motivated group of students receives in that perceived "inferior" school.
Still, most parents who have an option attempt to dodge lower-income areas in order to get their kids out of temptations. Or in 2021, violence, especially a perceived risk of being shot. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that parents simply don't understand multimodal distributions as they can only grasp "average" test scores. I cared that our kids do well in school and we were far less concerned that other groups of kids (in the same school) struggled because of lousy parenting. I digress...
So in the Mission District, many parents are going to dodge public schools because lower-income families integrated into their school. And in Gilbert, it's a homogeneous community. So in Gilbert, most parents feel comfortable about sending them to public schools. Gilbert is a more religious community. So parents like to home school while other parents feel the need for a religious private school upbringing. I'm saying Gilbert (not the PHX proper) is a different animal than SF Mission District.
Gilbert isn't remotely affluent! People are paying 4X more in the pseudo-hood known as the Mission District. Hence, Gilbert parents barely send their kids to private schools because they are surrounded by more motivated families. Big picture: Gilbert parents don't have the money or need to send their kids to a private K-12.
I was comparing downtown Phx with the Mission district both of which are sketchy. (Crime, homeless ect) Not Gilbert/85234. My point being sketchy or not this hasn't necessarily kept those with money away.
I compare 94116 (Sunset district) with 85234 area of Gilbert because both my renters and those I sold my SF property to send their kids to local public schools. My point here is those living in 85234 are receiving just as good of a public education those in 94116/SF.
AZ might be last in education spending but this doesn't mean the PHX metro is without good schools. When I list a rental in Chandler or Gilbert I make it point to mention the local schools. Companies considering moving to the Phx metro are more concern with tax incentives than overall AZ test scores because their employees usually won't be living in an areas which have crummy public schools.
Follow the money: more motivated families have thicker wallets and on average have higher performance expectations.
Yes, because education is often valued and not necessarily because of how much a state spends per student. The main thing that the data shows here is that the disparities in America aren’t between frugal and generous states, or between red and blue states, they’re between racial groups. This leaves us with a big, unaswered question: why are the gaps so large, and what can we do to fix them? https://medium.com/@tgof137/increase...ht-3d46ebf5c1d
The environmental trends (which affect many states due to rapid climate change) and the poor education rankings and reputation are two things that could hinder growth going forward.
I think education will improve as it remains a major focus and voting trends in the state have taken a a purple turn recently.
Gilbert isn't remotely affluent! People are paying 4X more in the pseudo-hood known as the Mission District. Hence, Gilbert parents barely send their kids to private schools because they are surrounded by more motivated families. Big picture: Gilbert parents don't have the money or need to send their kids to a private K-12.
I think this is changing....and quickly. Word is out that it's a growing, great place to raise a family. High-net worth families are moving here in droves.
I think education will improve as it remains a major focus and voting trends in the state have taken a a purple turn recently.
Why? Improving education has been a top property in SF for decades and not much has changed.
Twenty-seven SF Unified schools are "low performing." Nine of which were rated as "lowest performing," in the bottom 5 percent of all state schools. https://www.sfgate.com/education/art...n-13611519.php
What can Phx and AZ do that SF and Cal haven't already tried? Imo, not much. Well, Cal could do away with Prop. 13 and property tax revenue would drastically increase.
But would doubling the amount of money spent in Cal per pupil or tripling the amount of money spent in AZ improve the test scores in under-preforming schools? Sadly I seriously doubt it.
But would doubling the amount of money spent in Cal per pupil or tripling the amount of money spent in AZ improve the test scores in under-preforming school districts? Sadly I seriously doubt it.
Please re-read what I typed about average scores because I am thinking my point got past you. Often the schools aren't "under-performing". Rather, the students/families are. Yet some families in a below-average-rated school are kicking butt! But we agree, with unmotivated/troubled kids, shy of hiring replacement parents, spending more won't move the needle much. So SF or whichever city could spend $100K on a troubled group of kids/school. The results would be about the same.
Understand the highest spending districts ALWAYS spend the most! They hire more babysitters known as counselors, police, truancy officers, etc. They need metal detectors, have to pay teachers more in order to go to work in those schools. They also have more psychologists and are often loaded down with more special education students. So if I want to "prove" that spending more money on K-12 actually gets worse results, I can easily do it by cherry-picking districts. It's known as statistical lies. To strengthen my statistical lie more, I'll compare it to a "private" which supposedly is so much more efficient. Actually, they shed the "junk" and can get it done at a fraction of the price: no police officers, psychologists, they dodge a lot of special ed etc. But that's how people argue "vouchers" (which I don't have a problem with vouchers).
Still, average standardized test courses don't define quality education. It's only part of it. In MN, our kids had summer programs paid for by the district/taxpayers. "Free" college in 11th and 12th grade (which both of our kids were full-time). Language immersion programs etc. There were numerous mentoring programs that businesses and colleges partnered with including Medtronic and the UofMN. Let's not forget Boys State, History Day and other programs that stretch kids. Both of our kids participated in them. Where does that education show up on the benchmark district tests? How about the arts? Because those programs cost $$'s. Parents who value high-performance K-12 education are paying attention to extra programs. No, not everyone. I'm talking about trends not absolutes. Big picture: if you want to attract talent, young professional parents stare at K-12 schools. And many want quality K-12 public districts. It's pretty obvious.
Please re-read what I typed about average scores because I am thinking my point got past you. Often the schools aren't "under-performing". Rather, the students/families are. Yet some families in a below-average-rated school are kicking butt! But we agree, with unmotivated/troubled kids, shy of hiring replacement parents, spending more won't move the needle much. So SF or whichever city could spend $100K on a troubled group of kids/school. The results would be about the same.
Understand the highest spending districts ALWAYS spend the most! They hire more babysitters known as counselors, police, truancy officers, etc. They need metal detectors, have to pay teachers more in order to go to work in those schools. They also have more psychologists and are often loaded down with more special education students. So if I want to "prove" that spending more money on K-12 actually gets worse results, I can easily do it by cherry-picking districts. It's known as statistical lies. To strengthen my statistical lie more, I'll compare it to a "private" which supposedly is so much more efficient. Actually, they shed the "junk" and can get it done at a fraction of the price: no police officers, psychologists, they dodge a lot of special ed etc. But that's how people argue "vouchers" (which I don't have a problem with vouchers).
Still, average standardized test courses don't define quality education. It's only part of it. In MN, our kids had summer programs paid for by the district/taxpayers. "Free" college in 11th and 12th grade (which both of our kids were full-time). Language immersion programs etc. There were numerous mentoring programs that businesses and colleges partnered with including Medtronic and the UofMN. Let's not forget Boys State, History Day and other programs that stretch kids. Both of our kids participated in them. Where does that education show up on the benchmark district tests? How about the arts? Because those programs cost $$'s. Parents who value high-performance K-12 education are paying attention to extra programs. No, not everyone. I'm talking about trends not absolutes. Big picture: if you want to attract talent, young professional parents stare at K-12 schools. And many want quality K-12 public districts. It's pretty obvious.
Yes, but they are looking at school districts in areas they are considering moving into. Not AZ as a whole. Plenty of good school districts in the Phx metro. See Gilbert or Chandler for example: https://www.niche.com/k12/search/bes...cts/s/arizona/
Parents who value high-performance K-12 education are paying attention to extra programs.
In which case they will likely send their kids to a private school or a public school where wealthy parents help by kicking in. The drama department in the Pacific Palisades high school where my brother children went flew students to NY to watch a Broadway show.
So SF or whichever city could spend $100K on a troubled group of kids/school. The results would be about the same
But that's what this (more money needed for education) is basically all about. Improving test schools for underperforming schools. Unfortunately more money won't solve the problem. So, here is what some are proposing in Cal. regarding math in public schools. https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=13658
Yes, but they are looking at school districts in areas where they are considering moving. Not AZ as a whole. Plenty of good school districts in the Phx metro. See Gilbert or Chandler for example: https://www.niche.com/k12/search/bes...cts/s/arizona/
Parents who value high-performance K-12 education are paying attention to extra programs.
In which case they will likely send their kids to a private school or a public school in where wealthy parents kick in. The drama department in the Pacific Palisades high school where my brother children went flew students to NY to watch a Broadway show.
You are discussing outliers (wealthy people). I'm not. I'm referencing above-average income white-collar workers. For instance, let's say you are a semiconductor Process Engineer at Intel in Chandler. They make $90K-$130K https://www.payscale.com/research/US...nductor/Salary . Maybe $150K if they have their Ph.D. and years of experience. Private schools might cost $12K-$20K per year. That is a massive budget leak. Mind you, that is an after-tax expense. That's why I have been saying over and over public schools matter to "educated" parents. They are a far cry from rich.
Re: "Good schools". That's subjective. A person living in MA, WA, or MN might disagree with you that AZ has excellent public schools. Speaking of Pacific Palisades, I was staying there with some friends on Sunday night. Again, you are discussing an outlier community. Their kids went here https://www.hw.com/admission/Tuition-Information . A mere $42,600 a year for K-12 tuition. But they pulled down $1M plus and were frugal to boot. Oh.. add $2500 for the bus and another $2500ish in fees. A highly educated Ph.D in the sciences will NOT be going to a private school. This was my point all along. Then add in a nanny at $100K plus a year plus living expenses and benefits. As I said, Apples-oranges.
Last edited by MN-Born-n-Raised; 07-14-2021 at 12:14 PM..
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.
Often the schools aren't "under-performing". Rather, the students/families are. 
Yet some families in a below-average-rated school are kicking butt!
But we agree, with unmotivated/troubled kids, shy of hiring replacement parents, spending more won't move the needle much. So SF or whichever city could spend $100K on a troubled group of kids/school. The results would be about the same. 
