5 ms·

Part of the reason the suburban schools in good districts are so good is because they have relatively low population density and relatively high property tax re

by bcx 10y ago

Part of the reason the suburban schools in good districts are so good is because they have relatively low population density and relatively high property tax revenue. So they can spend more money per student. At some point there are probably diminishing returns to the amount of $$ spent per student in a school system. But you can imagine that most suburban parents would have a hard time reducing the $$ spent on their own kids for the benefit of the greater good.

ryandrake 10y ago
It's a self-reinforcing cycle: High housing cost -> affluent population -> more tax revenue -> better schools -> increased home demand -> higher housing cost -> more affluent population ... ... ... The other cycle is self-reinforcing too: Low housing cost -> working class population -> less tax revenue -> worse schools -> reduced home demand -> lower housing cost -> even less affluent population ... ... ... There doesn't seem to be an obvious weakest link, but I'd start with untying school funding from LOCAL taxes and from "school performance" which is code-word for "richer students". Allocate funds state-wide or even nation-wide to those schools with the highest need. EDIT: Alternatively, let me send my kid to whatever school I want, regardless of which side of some artificial school district line I live.
- niftich 10y ago
  Sadly the first circle is not self-reinforcing (and, sadly, the second cycle is entirely accurate). Instead, in the 'good exurban schools' case, the evolution usually goes: 1. Rural, periphery area attracts affluent folks seeking bigger houses on cheaper land. High-end residential subdivisions are developed. 2. Increased tax revenue allows for good schools, nice government amenities. 3. Good schools attract additional residents. Residential population swells, commercial and industrial population remains low. 4. Residential brings fewer tax dollars per infrastructure cost than commercial or industrial. At some point, municipal costs (roads, sewer, fire, schools) begin to approach revenue. Services are cut. Schools decline, making residents eligible to contemplate moving to another area in step #1 or step #3. Those who can't afford to move to a newer area stay; they are thus on average lower-income than those who left. At this point, there is a danger of falling into the second cycle.
  - ryandrake 10y ago
    Maybe my thinking is clouded by Bay Area particularities, then. Here, when a school gets good, housing prices simply go up. Areas stay ultra-rich, and schools stay ultra-good. Look at Cupertino, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, Belmont, Portola Valley. Are these areas ever going to cost more than their taxpayers can fund?
    - niftich 10y ago
      Bay Area towns aren't exurban periphery and aren't low on commercial and industrial jobs. Atherton is obviously buoyed solely by the residents' wealth, but the rest of them are mixed-use areas. Furthermore, the Bay Area concentrates more wealth than your average US metropolitan area. The evolution I laid out can be most readily observed in places where urban areas are not hemmed-in geographically, and easy access to cheaper undeveloped land exists, so new exurban nodes can be readily created. Right now, Northern Virginia (DC suburbs), Atlanta, Raleigh, Dallas, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Kansas City, and Minneapolis are experiencing this in their urban areas. California yet again a special case because exurban areas are usually much, much further away than elsewhere (Santa Clarita, Temecula, Palmdale -> LA; Santa Rosa, Fairfield, Tracy -> SF/SJ).
      - ryandrake 10y ago
        Then, yea, your examples are outside of those two cycles--to be fair I didn't say the ones I listed were the only two possible chains. When I think of "good schools" though, I don't think of "temporary wealth" exurbs where accountants are buying McMansions. I'm thinking of schools that feed into the Ivy League and fiercely compete with elite private schools that also feed the Ivies.
hirsin 10y ago
This is surprisingly not the case - for example, Detroit and DC city schools (generally seen as underperforming) spend 50%+ more per student than the suburban average.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
awareBrah 10y ago
There's more to the story than $ spent per student. Zuckerberg donated 100MM to Newark school district and the results are forgettable http://www.businessinsider.com/we-now-know-more-about-how-newark-schools-partially-squandered-mark-zuckerburgs-100-million-donation-2015-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/we-now-know-more-about-how-ne... I would argue that the reason suburban students are better are most likely because their parents are also better, whatever being a 'better' parent means in this case.
- larrik 10y ago
  Anecdotally, in my experience it's not that the parents are "better" its that the parents have school as an actual priority. Poorer communities often have a culture so different than the average HN reader that most of us can't possibly understand it. (I learned this as a result of being a foster parent)
  - troupe 10y ago
    > Anecdotally, in my experience it's not that the parents are "better" its that the parents have school as an actual priority. If you were trying to rank parents wouldn't "prioritizes their children's education" be a factor in determining which parent was better? Just because something is a cultural difference doesn't mean we can't say it is better or worse.
    - larrik 10y ago
      I wouldn't say that, no. Especially since supporting "doing well in school" may not be the same as supporting "getting a proper education". After all, the first may be more about pushing conformity and obedience than the second, depending on the circumstances. As nice and easy it would be to measure a person's worth as a parent by how well their kids do in school, or how much they make as an adult (like this article), I don't think that's reasonable at all.
      - troupe 10y ago
        I agree that it isn't fair to measure a parent by how well their kids do in school, but I think it is perfectly reasonable to measure a parent by how well they support and encourage their children to get a basic education. For example, I know of two parents who have actively encouraged their kids to drop out of high school just months shy of graduation--and these were students who were going to graduate. So now they are going to be looking at providing for themselves without even having a high school diploma.
larrik 10y ago
I don't believe this is true. Look at a state like Connecticut, which features very affluent areas and very poor areas within. If you like at the top performing schools, sure the best ones tend to be in affluent areas, and the worst ones are in cities, but that's not at all how much money gets spent per student. For instance, the town in the state with the absolutely lowest spending per student, Wolcott, is one of the top school districts in the state, and even has a school that won the national "Blue Ribbon" aware for excellence last year. There are also numerous studies (which I'm way too lazy to go find) that indicate the affluence of the parents to be more important than the affluence of the school on a child's school success (this article is about adult income, though).
- maxerickson 10y ago
  How do the schools in Connecticut compare to the schools in a state like Nebraska? I ask because I think it can be hard to generalize from an area like Connecticut that is really quite high population density and quite wealthy to the US in general (in CT a student might be a reasonable distance to 3 or 4 large high schools. In Nebraska, they might be a reasonable distance to 1 tiny school).
  - larrik 10y ago
    I can't truly speak for the whole country, but Connecticut schools seem to be a class above most anywhere else. Every time I've considered moving somewhere cheaper, the school system research is completely depressing. I know parents who tried to move to Florida and found the schools to be 2 years behind CT grade-level-wise (so their 4th grader is learning stuff they learned in 2nd grade in CT). They actually simply moved back, it was that bad. Keep in mind that CT is a bit of a sinking ship, with companies and jobs leaving, and the population often following it. It's not some place that everyone is flocking to, but it has a long history of being at the forefront of things like education and mental health. I've also heard, from numerous people, that having a few years experience as a teacher here in CT will make getting a job teaching in most other places completely trivial.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
ThomPete 10y ago
Money is not the defining factor, parents interest in their kids education is much more primary and cost nothing.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  It costs time, which is often traded for money with little left over. Free time costs money.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    Its cost nothing to ask your kid how their school went and how their grades are. Its litterally the most cost effective tool you have available and its something you should enjoy too even if you have any interest in your kids future.
  - greendragon 10y ago
    Time is also traded for entertainment. Parents that care about their children's education make the time even if they have to personally sacrifice something.

by bcx 10y ago

ryandrake 10y ago

It's a self-reinforcing cycle: High housing cost -> affluent population -> more tax revenue -> better schools -> increased home demand -> higher housing cost -> more affluent population ... ... ... The other cycle is self-reinforcing too: Low housing cost -> working class population -> less tax revenue -> worse schools -> reduced home demand -> lower housing cost -> even less affluent population ... ... ... There doesn't seem to be an obvious weakest link, but I'd start with untying school funding from LOCAL taxes and from "school performance" which is code-word for "richer students". Allocate funds state-wide or even nation-wide to those schools with the highest need. EDIT: Alternatively, let me send my kid to whatever school I want, regardless of which side of some artificial school district line I live.

niftich 10y ago
Sadly the first circle is not self-reinforcing (and, sadly, the second cycle is entirely accurate). Instead, in the 'good exurban schools' case, the evolution usually goes: 1. Rural, periphery area attracts affluent folks seeking bigger houses on cheaper land. High-end residential subdivisions are developed. 2. Increased tax revenue allows for good schools, nice government amenities. 3. Good schools attract additional residents. Residential population swells, commercial and industrial population remains low. 4. Residential brings fewer tax dollars per infrastructure cost than commercial or industrial. At some point, municipal costs (roads, sewer, fire, schools) begin to approach revenue. Services are cut. Schools decline, making residents eligible to contemplate moving to another area in step #1 or step #3. Those who can't afford to move to a newer area stay; they are thus on average lower-income than those who left. At this point, there is a danger of falling into the second cycle.
- ryandrake 10y ago
  Maybe my thinking is clouded by Bay Area particularities, then. Here, when a school gets good, housing prices simply go up. Areas stay ultra-rich, and schools stay ultra-good. Look at Cupertino, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, Belmont, Portola Valley. Are these areas ever going to cost more than their taxpayers can fund?
  - niftich 10y ago
    Bay Area towns aren't exurban periphery and aren't low on commercial and industrial jobs. Atherton is obviously buoyed solely by the residents' wealth, but the rest of them are mixed-use areas. Furthermore, the Bay Area concentrates more wealth than your average US metropolitan area. The evolution I laid out can be most readily observed in places where urban areas are not hemmed-in geographically, and easy access to cheaper undeveloped land exists, so new exurban nodes can be readily created. Right now, Northern Virginia (DC suburbs), Atlanta, Raleigh, Dallas, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Kansas City, and Minneapolis are experiencing this in their urban areas. California yet again a special case because exurban areas are usually much, much further away than elsewhere (Santa Clarita, Temecula, Palmdale -> LA; Santa Rosa, Fairfield, Tracy -> SF/SJ).
    - ryandrake 10y ago
      Then, yea, your examples are outside of those two cycles--to be fair I didn't say the ones I listed were the only two possible chains. When I think of "good schools" though, I don't think of "temporary wealth" exurbs where accountants are buying McMansions. I'm thinking of schools that feed into the Ivy League and fiercely compete with elite private schools that also feed the Ivies.

hirsin 10y ago

This is surprisingly not the case - for example, Detroit and DC city schools (generally seen as underperforming) spend 50%+ more per student than the suburban average.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

awareBrah 10y ago

There's more to the story than $ spent per student. Zuckerberg donated 100MM to Newark school district and the results are forgettable http://www.businessinsider.com/we-now-know-more-about-how-newark-schools-partially-squandered-mark-zuckerburgs-100-million-donation-2015-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/we-now-know-more-about-how-ne... I would argue that the reason suburban students are better are most likely because their parents are also better, whatever being a 'better' parent means in this case.

larrik 10y ago
Anecdotally, in my experience it's not that the parents are "better" its that the parents have school as an actual priority. Poorer communities often have a culture so different than the average HN reader that most of us can't possibly understand it. (I learned this as a result of being a foster parent)
- troupe 10y ago
  > Anecdotally, in my experience it's not that the parents are "better" its that the parents have school as an actual priority. If you were trying to rank parents wouldn't "prioritizes their children's education" be a factor in determining which parent was better? Just because something is a cultural difference doesn't mean we can't say it is better or worse.
  - larrik 10y ago
    I wouldn't say that, no. Especially since supporting "doing well in school" may not be the same as supporting "getting a proper education". After all, the first may be more about pushing conformity and obedience than the second, depending on the circumstances. As nice and easy it would be to measure a person's worth as a parent by how well their kids do in school, or how much they make as an adult (like this article), I don't think that's reasonable at all.
    - troupe 10y ago
      I agree that it isn't fair to measure a parent by how well their kids do in school, but I think it is perfectly reasonable to measure a parent by how well they support and encourage their children to get a basic education. For example, I know of two parents who have actively encouraged their kids to drop out of high school just months shy of graduation--and these were students who were going to graduate. So now they are going to be looking at providing for themselves without even having a high school diploma.

larrik 10y ago

I don't believe this is true. Look at a state like Connecticut, which features very affluent areas and very poor areas within. If you like at the top performing schools, sure the best ones tend to be in affluent areas, and the worst ones are in cities, but that's not at all how much money gets spent per student. For instance, the town in the state with the absolutely lowest spending per student, Wolcott, is one of the top school districts in the state, and even has a school that won the national "Blue Ribbon" aware for excellence last year. There are also numerous studies (which I'm way too lazy to go find) that indicate the affluence of the parents to be more important than the affluence of the school on a child's school success (this article is about adult income, though).

maxerickson 10y ago
How do the schools in Connecticut compare to the schools in a state like Nebraska? I ask because I think it can be hard to generalize from an area like Connecticut that is really quite high population density and quite wealthy to the US in general (in CT a student might be a reasonable distance to 3 or 4 large high schools. In Nebraska, they might be a reasonable distance to 1 tiny school).
- larrik 10y ago
  I can't truly speak for the whole country, but Connecticut schools seem to be a class above most anywhere else. Every time I've considered moving somewhere cheaper, the school system research is completely depressing. I know parents who tried to move to Florida and found the schools to be 2 years behind CT grade-level-wise (so their 4th grader is learning stuff they learned in 2nd grade in CT). They actually simply moved back, it was that bad. Keep in mind that CT is a bit of a sinking ship, with companies and jobs leaving, and the population often following it. It's not some place that everyone is flocking to, but it has a long history of being at the forefront of things like education and mental health. I've also heard, from numerous people, that having a few years experience as a teacher here in CT will make getting a job teaching in most other places completely trivial.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

ThomPete 10y ago

Money is not the defining factor, parents interest in their kids education is much more primary and cost nothing.

JoshTriplett 10y ago
It costs time, which is often traded for money with little left over. Free time costs money.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  Its cost nothing to ask your kid how their school went and how their grades are. Its litterally the most cost effective tool you have available and its something you should enjoy too even if you have any interest in your kids future.
- greendragon 10y ago
  Time is also traded for entertainment. Parents that care about their children's education make the time even if they have to personally sacrifice something.