4 ms·

so your explanation for why schools in wealthy suburbs always do well and schools in poor urban areas do poorly is simply because somehow, suburbanites are hold

by jjeaff 3y ago

so your explanation for why schools in wealthy suburbs always do well and schools in poor urban areas do poorly is simply because somehow, suburbanites are holding their schools accountable while the urbanites are somehow not?

TimTheTinker 3y ago
Yes, exactly. Suburbanites generally have more ability to move their kids to private schools if they want to. So the public schools have a higher bar to clear to keep attendance high.
- jjeaff 3y ago
  That's very likely not true in the slightest. Only a very small percentage of suburbanites are close to a private school. And of that small percentage, most aren't close to being able to afford private school.
  - TimTheTinker 3y ago
    > Only a very small percentage of suburbanites are close to a private school. I just used Esri geoenrichment tools to create maps of private schools (based on SIC code lookup) in the LA area, central Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Your assertion doesn't hold. There are multiple private schools in every local suburban area I've looked into. Or did you have a particular area in mind? (or maybe you meant to say "rural"?) Southern California alone (south of San Luis Obispo) has 962 religious private elementary schools, and that's not counting the nonreligious, Montessori, preparatory schools, etc. Even charter schools in California (not counted either) often present excellent competition to traditional public schools, primarily because through them parents have greater choice (and no tuition!).
dragonwriter 3y ago
Really, the explanation is that suburban schools generally have a greater proportion of students from the socioeconomic and demographic groups that do better no matter where they are; typical metrics of school quality don't measure the effect of the school, but what the school is working with.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

4 ms·

so your explanation for why schools in wealthy suburbs always do well and schools in poor urban areas do poorly is simply because somehow, suburbanites are hold

by jjeaff 3y ago

TimTheTinker 3y ago
Yes, exactly. Suburbanites generally have more ability to move their kids to private schools if they want to. So the public schools have a higher bar to clear to keep attendance high.
- jjeaff 3y ago
  That's very likely not true in the slightest. Only a very small percentage of suburbanites are close to a private school. And of that small percentage, most aren't close to being able to afford private school.
  - TimTheTinker 3y ago
    > Only a very small percentage of suburbanites are close to a private school. I just used Esri geoenrichment tools to create maps of private schools (based on SIC code lookup) in the LA area, central Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Your assertion doesn't hold. There are multiple private schools in every local suburban area I've looked into. Or did you have a particular area in mind? (or maybe you meant to say "rural"?) Southern California alone (south of San Luis Obispo) has 962 religious private elementary schools, and that's not counting the nonreligious, Montessori, preparatory schools, etc. Even charter schools in California (not counted either) often present excellent competition to traditional public schools, primarily because through them parents have greater choice (and no tuition!).
dragonwriter 3y ago
Really, the explanation is that suburban schools generally have a greater proportion of students from the socioeconomic and demographic groups that do better no matter where they are; typical metrics of school quality don't measure the effect of the school, but what the school is working with.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]