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.
As I've said in the past, there are numerous other causal factors to consider. For example, black students are more likely to be exposed to lead in childhood, which leads to permanent learning disabilities. There's also stereotype threat to consider, which may play a large role in reducing black test scores. And studies have suggested that there can be real negative changes to babies caused by maternal stress that can persist for generations - so that even the children's children of a grandmother are still feeling the effects of something like inadequate neonatal nutrition. So I think the jury is out on the cause. I'm pretty confident though it doesn't all just boil down to throwing more money at under-performing schools.
Another hypothesis that has gotten some traction is the "acting white" hypothesis. Essentially, it's been noted that while individual black and latino children, when placed into an overwhelmingly white school, perform well, when they become a sizable group in a mostly white school district they stop doing any better than they would in overwhelmingly black schools (adjusting for higher income). There are hypotheses that this is because once the minority population becomes large enough for a social clique to form, the low-performing students essentially use peer pressure to stop the higher-performing ones from excelling. Or perhaps it's instead that the inter-group racism of children only comes out if there are a sizable number of black or brown kids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
The problem is very multi-faceted, and we can't make progress if we don't make it a priority for all students, of all ethnic groups and income levels, to have access to great education. Our future depends on it, but we ignore this reality.
I agree wholeheartedly. But I think it's important to remember that integration was originally considered as much, if not more, the means than the end. Integration was desired because the education system in black schools was by and large terrible, and it was a quick way to equalize resources. But if equal results are not seen, we need to look at other ways we can level the playing field. If studies eventually find that overwhelmingly black academies with a certain pedagogy help on average boost black test scores more than being in integrated schools, I daresay there isn't any reason to not consider it.
Say what? If these gentrifiers are going to stay in the cities as virtually all claim they will, there will have to be some schools for them to send their kids to. This problem may start to show up in five years or so.
You seem to be thinking of cities in a more abstract way than I am. Asking cities to improve their schools to keep families from leaving doesn't make sense to me, because school districts are separate entities from city gov't. Outside of zoning, (and possibly offering tax incentives to spur development) city governments don't have much to do with bars, coffee shops, or housing, either.
I have to say, eschaton, both here and on the Pittsburgh forum, you are highly focused on race and bring it up a lot.
You seem highly focused on schools and bring them up a lot. And you can't seriously discuss schools in urban America without discussing race, segregation, and test score disparity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
I certainly take offense at "the average white parent".
Some people argue that racism is a system of oppression, as opposed to bigotry, which is merely personal bias. Under those definitions while many white parents are actually no longer personally bigoted, they in aggregate act in ways which still result in racist outcome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
#3 is the school's problem, it seems to me. What is the need for honors classes in elementary school, at least prior to 4th grade or so?
No need. City schools do this solely to try to keep a hold on middle class white (and Asian) parents. Admittedly it might not be entirely to assuage uncertainty about the school - it might also be belief that the parents of the "star pupils" need to be given extra-special treatment, the same way a business may shower free perks on repeat customers. It's one of the ways the market model of education can break down.
Why are you confused? I've been on many threads where I've said that my generation, too, moved to the city in their 20s, but didn't stay. The 20 somethings respond that they will be different, they'll stay. If I weren't on my kindle, I'd do a search. You'll just have to believe me.
You seem highly focused on schools and bring them up a lot. And you can't seriously discuss schools in urban America without discussing race, segregation, and test score disparity.
Some people argue that racism is a system of oppression, as opposed to bigotry, which is merely personal bias. Under those definitions while many white parents are actually no longer personally bigoted, they in aggregate act in ways which still result in racist outcome.
No need. City schools do this solely to try to keep a hold on middle class white (and Asian) parents. Admittedly it might not be entirely to assuage uncertainty about the school - it might also be belief that the parents of the "star pupils" need to be given extra-special treatment, the same way a business may shower free perks on repeat customers. It's one of the ways the market model of education can break down.
Right, white parents, as in all white parents. I think this conversation is over.
Why are you confused? I've been on many threads where I've said that my generation, too, moved to the city in their 20s, but didn't stay. The 20 somethings respond that they will be different, they'll stay. If I weren't on my kindle, I'd do a search. You'll just have to believe me.
I don't think this forum is a particularly good sample. And of the ones in this forum, some weren't making plans that far into the future of what to do when their children are elementary age.
I don't think this forum is a particularly good sample. And of the ones in this forum, some weren't making plans that far into the future of what to do when their children are elementary age.
I've seen that sentiment on the city forums I visit as well.
The answer is simple. America has until quite recently been a nation of frontiersmen. It remained this way until pretty much after WWI. After WWI, it was peoples' dreams to own their own homes, get away from farming, and live "a good life." Little did anyone bank on the Depression and WWII and a sudden and dramatic increase in a skilled workforce with little to no international competition make it a realizable dream for everyone. Thus now EVERYONE could own a home. This extended into the 80s as the Boomers made their own little utopias away from the "crime ridden" city centers to their McMansions. Not to mention that cities dating from the 1800s to the early 20th century were polluted wastelands of factories punctuated by neighborhoods.
Probably too late to respond. But the "nation of frontiersmen" is a bit silly and reeks of national-myth. Past a generation or two past settlement was a place a frontier or just any other settled place. Even the American West, where there's a bit of truth to it, by the early 20th century nearly half the population was urban, though it depended on the state. In most of New England, obviously not. My area hasn't been frontier since the late 17th century. Nor was the settlement by independent families clearing a plot on their own, but by organized groups who settled in separate towns trying to recreate English peasant villages. Later industrial-era migrants came from Europe or French Canada. Most of the ones from Ireland came out of desperation, not because they were especially enterprising. Those who came from a rural background in Europe and had a bit of money tried to go further west to get land, the ones that stay behind in the Northeast were often poorer.
In any case, my point is that even in places in the US that definitely had no "frontier mentality" had low density suburbia (post-1950, if anything New England suburbia was lower density than the national average). For many northern cities, especially in the Northeast, few moved from farming to suburbia; suburban residents in Northeastern cities were from the adjacent big cities. Same is probably true for many Midwestern cities.
I suspect this has a lot to do with the rail cars needing to be in certain places. It complicates things considerably to deadhead out to a yard, decouple, make some runs, then deadhead back to the yard to pick up the cars again when they're needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan
That sounds very inefficient but so does generating the power to run several empty rail cars all day between rush hours.
Agreed. What Boston is planning to do with the closer in portions of commuter rail is to replace the lomotive hauled train with short self-propelled diesel trains (called DMUs). The plan is also to increase the frequency with the idea the ridership would be much higher if placed in the same fare zone as local rail/bus and run more often, replacing bus and bus + subway trips. Makes sense, as the tracks are there and barely used. And yes, talking about government intervention, this is planned by MassDOT, the state transportation department [Western Massachusetts grumbles].
Why are you confused? I've been on many threads where I've said that my generation, too, moved to the city in their 20s, but didn't stay. The 20 somethings respond that they will be different, they'll stay. If I weren't on my kindle, I'd do a search. You'll just have to believe me.
Anecdotally, in my regions certain types of parents are moving to the city or city like areas that are denser and walkable. My own neighborhood has lots of young families and not much by the way of single family homes. Nearby Alameda, a suburb, has good schools and walkable neighborhoods. It is a very popular destination for parents who wanted to stay in Oakland, but ditched the schools around middle school age. (Berkeley is popular, but has similar urban problems as Oakland. Popular destination for former SF dwelling parents. Another town, Albany, is suburban but walkable with good schools and is also popular with parents.
In my own region, people at moving to the "burbs" but they aren't like the traditional ones.....unless they have been priced out. Sadly these areas do have larger homes, but it still costs about $700k for a 3 bedroom. More expensive than the similar areas that are more traditional suburban.
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.
