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 don't think you understand how public school funding works. All schools in a district get the same per-pupil allotment, plus then schools with high number of students in poverty, high numbers of English language learners, and the like get extra funds on top of that. In addition, cities generally have decent tax bases and often have higher per-pupil allotments than suburban schools.
It depends. Most CA schools are funded by property taxes, we do not have county sized districts, they are city sized. There is a good sized gap in districts for funding. And not to mention ability for parents to contribute.
It depends. Most CA schools are funded by property taxes, we do not have county sized districts, they are city sized. There is a good sized gap in districts for funding. And not to mention ability for parents to contribute.
But the poster I was responding to was referring to individual schools within a city or suburb. While my response was just a "thumbnail sketch" and there are some differences within districts, e.g more to secondary students than elementary, etc, within a district the funding is pretty similar. In point of fact, often the "better" schools in a district get less funding per pupil b/c they have fewer high needs students.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 10-07-2014 at 07:29 AM..
Right. But there are poor blacks and poor hispanics who also do well in school, despite the obstacles. There are poor asians who do poorly in school, and rich whites who do poorly. Economic and social background are factors, but also depends on the individual.
Even blatant racists like Charles Murray admit that 20% of black people can equal or surpass the achievement of the average white person. Pointing out that there are many individual blacks/latinos who succeed doesn't change that, in aggregate, there are achievement gaps, and pernicious ones at that.
I honestly think it's a combination of factors, but cultural background plays a huge role. There are a lot of black immigrant groups to the U.S., for example, who are high-performing in school in the first or second generation - they actually generally exceed white students in performance. But studies have found by the third generation they revert to the norm for black Americans. This suggests that it's an issue of socialization - they stop being socialized in their immigrant culture (which expects hard work in school) and instead become socialized as African Americans (and thus, to some extent, internalize failure).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
What really happens is the schools get better access to more amentities. More extracurriculars, more AP classes, more after school programs, newer books, cutting edge curriculumn, more experienced teachers.....
Teachers raise their expectations ans everyone wins. Unfortunately we have this perception that poorer parents do not care. But reality is that it is an access problem. We only give access to those who have power.
I honestly don't think a lot of this matters, except for teacher experience. Studies have shown that teachers tend to quit frequently in underperforming schools, because it's draining for them to have classes full of students who (they perceive) couldn't care less that they were there. And a teacher needs around 5-7 years of experience before they really know what the hell they're doing. An experienced teacher knows how to grab onto the group dynamics in the class and really turn them into a collective working together. That's what's needed if you're really going to make potentially marginal students thrive - a sense that everyone is in it together.
I honestly don't think a lot of this matters, except for teacher experience. Studies have shown that teachers tend to quit frequently in underperforming schools, because it's draining for them to have classes full of students who (they perceive) couldn't care less that they were there. And a teacher needs around 5-7 years of experience before they really know what the hell they're doing. An experienced teacher knows how to grab onto the group dynamics in the class and really turn them into a collective working together. That's what's needed if you're really going to make potentially marginal students thrive - a sense that everyone is in it together.
From what I've heard of a few teachers in the NYC school system:
1) Most teachers hate working in the worst schools. If they can manage to transfer to a better school, they will
2) The newer teachers often end up there
If you have a link to that research I would definitely like to read it.
I am sure you are right about kids staying with their parents till later in life. Plus there are only a handful of cities that have had the success with attracting youth that places like Portland has experienced.
Many American cities still struggle to attract any kind of resident to their cities due to poor planning and bad choices with urban renewal.
It is in the same forum. You even commented on the third page of the thread, so I'm hoping you already read the piece. However, you never actually responded to the piece and referred to the light rail in Portland as one of the best light rail systems in the country, then went on to say it was one of the best ran cities. I lived there for 20 years, and I can assure you that most people there hated the light rail (they voted for it hoping others would ride it) and the city is horribly mismanaged leading to dramatic traffic problems for a city of its size. The condition of the roads isn't a problem, obviously, a temperate climate with virtually no freezing should never have major road condition issues, but the city goal to limit the footprint per human has meant very low levels of asphalt per person which results in massive traffic jams. The benefit of more trees is offset by people sitting in traffic running their engines as they wait to be able to move. Anyway, Portland, OR is not even in the top 10 list for growth in millenials. Pretty much every city on the list makes perfect sense to me.
Therefore the following two statements can not both be true:
1. The reason for cities failing to attract new residents is poor planning and bad choices for urban renewal.
2. Portland is one of the best managed cities in the country.
The proof has already been laid out that Portland is not one of the cities that is managing to attract new residents, therefore, either new residents are not focused on city planning or Portland is not managed well. In my opinion, the latter is the more probable case. Based off my 20 years of living in the city, I believe I am qualified to speak about the quality of city management. I know other people my age that also grew up near Portland and looked for an opportunity to move because they were fed up with the way the city was going. I don't dislike the pacific Northwest, but Seattle is the only first tier city there. The millenials have shown that as well. Seattle, despite a fairly high COL, was represented in the top destinations for millenials.
It is in the same forum. You even commented on the third page of the thread, so I'm hoping you already read the piece. However, you never actually responded to the piece and referred to the light rail in Portland as one of the best light rail systems in the country, then went on to say it was one of the best ran cities. I lived there for 20 years, and I can assure you that most people there hated the light rail (they voted for it hoping others would ride it) and the city is horribly mismanaged leading to dramatic traffic problems for a city of its size. The condition of the roads isn't a problem, obviously, a temperate climate with virtually no freezing should never have major road condition issues, but the city goal to limit the footprint per human has meant very low levels of asphalt per person which results in massive traffic jams. The benefit of more trees is offset by people sitting in traffic running their engines as they wait to be able to move. Anyway, Portland, OR is not even in the top 10 list for growth in millenials. Pretty much every city on the list makes perfect sense to me.
Therefore the following two statements can not both be true:
1. The reason for cities failing to attract new residents is poor planning and bad choices for urban renewal.
2. Portland is one of the best managed cities in the country.
The proof has already been laid out that Portland is not one of the cities that is managing to attract new residents, therefore, either new residents are not focused on city planning or Portland is not managed well. In my opinion, the latter is the more probable case. Based off my 20 years of living in the city, I believe I am qualified to speak about the quality of city management. I know other people my age that also grew up near Portland and looked for an opportunity to move because they were fed up with the way the city was going. I don't dislike the pacific Northwest, but Seattle is the only first tier city there. The millenials have shown that as well. Seattle, despite a fairly high COL, was represented in the top destinations for millenials.
Portland is tough because it got too expensive but also doesn't have very many good jobs
Seattle is also too expensive but it has a lot of good jobs
The Pac NW's boom was with Gen X. and it's still Gen X people who move to Portland. I think of it as a place where 40 year olds move, not 22 year olds. Of course there are still a lot of young baristas from LA who didn't get the memo that it is too expensive, but they usually end up going back home.
It is in the same forum. You even commented on the third page of the thread, so I'm hoping you already read the piece. However, you never actually responded to the piece and referred to the light rail in Portland as one of the best light rail systems in the country, then went on to say it was one of the best ran cities. I lived there for 20 years, and I can assure you that most people there hated the light rail (they voted for it hoping others would ride it) and the city is horribly mismanaged leading to dramatic traffic problems for a city of its size. The condition of the roads isn't a problem, obviously, a temperate climate with virtually no freezing should never have major road condition issues, but the city goal to limit the footprint per human has meant very low levels of asphalt per person which results in massive traffic jams. The benefit of more trees is offset by people sitting in traffic running their engines as they wait to be able to move. Anyway, Portland, OR is not even in the top 10 list for growth in millenials. Pretty much every city on the list makes perfect sense to me.
Therefore the following two statements can not both be true:
1. The reason for cities failing to attract new residents is poor planning and bad choices for urban renewal.
2. Portland is one of the best managed cities in the country.
The proof has already been laid out that Portland is not one of the cities that is managing to attract new residents, therefore, either new residents are not focused on city planning or Portland is not managed well. In my opinion, the latter is the more probable case. Based off my 20 years of living in the city, I believe I am qualified to speak about the quality of city management. I know other people my age that also grew up near Portland and looked for an opportunity to move because they were fed up with the way the city was going. I don't dislike the pacific Northwest, but Seattle is the only first tier city there. The millenials have shown that as well. Seattle, despite a fairly high COL, was represented in the top destinations for millenials.
That is quite the false assessment you just made on Portland, not even sure where to start. Though you do realize the population of Portland is growing and is ranked as one of the cities that is attractive to millennials.
You lived in Portland 20 years you say? So when did you move out of Portland because there seems to be a lot of people here that like having light rail.
So I should ask you, what is a "good planned" city in your opinion? As for bad choices for urban renewal, you are also incorrect. Portland has made some good and some bad choices with urban renewal, but no where near as bad as many other cities. Portland still has a very healthy downtown full of historic buildings.
Portland is tough because it got too expensive but also doesn't have very many good jobs
Seattle is also too expensive but it has a lot of good jobs
The Pac NW's boom was with Gen X. and it's still Gen X people who move to Portland. I think of it as a place where 40 year olds move, not 22 year olds. Of course there are still a lot of young baristas from LA who didn't get the memo that it is too expensive, but they usually end up going back home.
That is true, Portland is an attractive city to use Gen X crowd. Many of us are finding Portland to be the city to settle down in. Though it is still an attractive city to the 20 something crowd.
In the case of yards some space to run around in without being in danger of damaging something. In the case of traffic, I would have preferred less of it interrupting play in the alleys. I really couldn't bike in the streets too busy.
In the case of arcades, malls, laser tag and pizza hut the same way I got around the city ask your parents or your friend's parents to drive you. Kids need to be at least 11-12 before you use public transit for simple routes and more like 14 to do anything complex with it which greatly limits your range before 16. Also between school and curfew there isn't that much time you can do stuff before 16.
In addition heading out of your neighborhood can be dangerous at young ages. You can get picked on by other kids and get into an fight and there will be no adult around. There are issues with gangs and public transit itself is not safe I know about someone who got stabbed and died. Not to mention the occasional fights at the bus stop some people I knew got into. And as for walking all you can walk to are things like restaurants and shops and not much else. The shops can't hold an candle to an entire mall full of stuff and an food court and the restaurants darn near want to run you out for being an teenager.
What's the homicide rate for those neighbourhoods though? If I remember where you live correctly it's a fair bit above the national average and maybe not the best example... Despite all the articles about the suburbanization of poverty, poverty and the associated issues (like crime) are still by and large much more intense in cities than in suburbs. However, I'm pretty sure that where the socio-economic profile of suburban areas is similar to troubled inner city areas there is a fair bit of crime including in places like mall parking lots.
And I'm not sure what part of Chicago's south side you live(d) in but the walkscore is not that high. Mostly around 55-70 compared to 85 to 95 (or even more?) for denser (but still not super dense downtown/highrise dominated) urban neighbourhoods... and Toronto's biggest suburbs, Mississauga and Brampton are at 50-55, with the Vancouver suburbs ranking about the same if not a bit higher (Burnaby is at 65). So South Chicago doesn't seem like the best example of urban walkability.
With neighbourhoods that have a 85-95 walkscore it does get pretty interesting and you will have mall like concentrations of businesses at the very least accessible by transit including some that are specialized with a particular type of business whether that's restaurants, food stores, clothes, bars, antiques, art or even pawn shops (Toronto's pawn shop district is at Church and Queen with about a dozen pawn shops within 2-3 blocks). You can also have urban malls, speaking for cities that I'm familiar with, Budapest has several.
There's the Mammut shopping centre, with 630,000 square feet including a large daily farmer's market, multiplex theatre, bowling alley, shops and restaurants with a total of 330 stores. It's located next to a major square with a subway station, bus terminal and several tramway (LRT) lines to ensure accessibility to much of the city. There's also a great park next door for kids with a really nice huge playground and also the old Buda Castle within walking distance.
I'm familiar with Budapest mostly from visiting grandparents who live in Buda and my cousins/aunt/uncle who live in a suburb. Within about a 5-10 minute walk of my grandparents there's a smaller mall (69 stores) too (also with a playground just next to it, though more average sized than in the Mammut), and probably more low-key small malls like this elsewhere that I don't know of.
There's also Allee shopping centre, WestEnd, Corvin, all located in mid rise urban settings. Actually Budapest may well have more urban malls than suburban ones.
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.
