4 ms·
There's no rule that says that rich cities will continue to have bad schools. To take one counter example, there are plenty of well-off parents in NYC who send
by msrpotus 10y ago
There's no rule that says that rich cities will continue to have bad schools. To take one counter example, there are plenty of well-off parents in NYC who send their kids to public schools because New York has built a number of public schools that are good (not enough, to be fair, but enough that there are plenty of families here). The same could happen in San Francisco.
- scurvy 10y agoOne problem is that SF doesn't have a gifted and talented program until near high school (and the junior highs are terrible across the board). Even with more schools, the school board would mismanage them. It's easier just to move than it is to fight an entrenched bureaucracy.
- pizzetta 10y agoOf course, but given that in the SF example, at least, the proportion of the pop under 18yoa is very low, so that more or less will result in fewer resources dedicated to education. If the proportion under 18yoa of people were increasing we'd see an investment for the future --but given the characteristics of housing stock in SF, we're not likely to see the proportion of under 18yoa increase significantly in the near future.
- scurvy 10y agoOr as Peter Thiel put it, "San Francisco is structurally hostile to families."
- freyir 10y ago> The same could happen in San Francisco. It could, but who is going to push for this change? SF has an extremely low proportion of families (fewest children of any major city). Are single millennials and DINKs going to make this a priority?