5 ms·

While I agree there are schools that are terrible, student success is not solely the responsibly of the school. A child that is in a stable home environment tha

While I agree there are schools that are terrible, student success is not solely the responsibly of the school. A child that is in a stable home environment that values education and exploration can probably do just as much as a good school can. Now we tend to self segregate and choose to live in places with people like us. As professionals choose to live in cities instead of suburbs, schools around them will likely be better funded.

hkarthik 14y ago
Once you're a parent, you'll worry about two things with regards to school choices: 1) Curriculum 2) Safety It's one thing to make the argument that most public schools are mediocre and the parents need to be more involved in their kids lives to make sure they stay focused and do well. But it's quite another to willingly send your kids to a school with drugs, gang violence, and an abundance of teen pregnancies just because you don't want to commute to work every day.
- _delirium 14y ago
  There's nothing inherently placing good schools in the suburbs and bad ones in the urban areas, though. These things historically have shifted in many cities, in respond to a wide range of things like housing stock. For example, in NYC the center has gentrified; most of the slummy areas of Manhattan are now desirable to live in. While areas that used to be quiet and suburban in Queens and the Bronx have ended up being sketchy, in a sort of inversion. In most of Europe that's also happened; if you can help it, you don't want to send your kid to a school district in the Paris suburbs, if there's any way you can manage to get them into a good urban district. As a different example, Houston is developing into a strange multiple-rings shape. The city center is gentrifying (medical center, Rice area, downtown), while the inner suburbs are going downhill as the housing stock gets older (60s/70s-construction suburban neighborhoods aren't looking so good anymore), and then really far away suburbs with newer construction (20+ miles, 1990s-present housing stock) are upscale again.
  - Lewisham 14y ago
    You sound like you're describing the LA area (with the exception of the city center gentrifying). It seems that what has happened is that, for the majority of American cities, they grew as an either/or option: you're either in the city, or you're in the suburbs, and the car enabled that in cities where it could. The cities which were geographically constrained, such as NYC or SF, were unable to sprawl outwards, and have commutes within reason, so the middle-classes stayed. That means things like good schools are able to exist because the demand was always there from the middle classes that didn't leave.
    - _delirium 14y ago
      Yeah, I think that's the correct analysis. Having lived in Houston a few years, one thing that I think happens is that without geographical constraints, and with the way things are currently funded, it's easier to just keep moving out. Where I lived in the 1990s was a "new" suburban area of Houston, but already by the 2000s there were abandoned stores, because if a store moved out of a building, sometimes another store moved in, but often it was easier to just build a new to-order building another mile south on the freeway, instead of renovating an existing one. With no constraints, you can just keep moving out another mile every year for decades. Same with suburbs; why renovate a 1970s house if you can just move another mile down the freeway and build a new one? Especially given the cheap construction that's been used for the last 50 years... Part of that I think is also because some of the costs that incurs aren't properly charged. There was a proposal in Houston to charge developers for the cost of new infrastructure. For every 10,000 new homes built in a new suburb, for example, you can estimate what new capital infrastructure they'll need: on average 1 elementary school, 0.5 high schools, 1 fire station, 1 police station, X miles of roads, X miles of sewers, etc. (whatever the real numbers are). Add the estimated cost of that up, divide by 10,000, and charge that as a per-house assessment on new developments. That proposal failed, though, so new developments' indirect capital costs are subsidized by homeowners in the older areas of the city.
      - hkarthik 14y ago
        We've got nearly the same problem in Dallas. For decades the development has moved further north into the Ex-burbs and bedroom communities. The interesting component is how the development gets financed in a Ponzi-esque scheme. Suburbs are built out with municipal bonds, which subsidize the build outs of services (schools, police, fire stations, roads) while keeping property taxes low. Once the suburb is completely built out, the taxes double or triple to pay back the bonds. Then the next suburb just north or south of it is built with more new bonds and the cycle continues.

hkarthik 14y ago

Once you're a parent, you'll worry about two things with regards to school choices: 1) Curriculum 2) Safety It's one thing to make the argument that most public schools are mediocre and the parents need to be more involved in their kids lives to make sure they stay focused and do well. But it's quite another to willingly send your kids to a school with drugs, gang violence, and an abundance of teen pregnancies just because you don't want to commute to work every day.

_delirium 14y ago
There's nothing inherently placing good schools in the suburbs and bad ones in the urban areas, though. These things historically have shifted in many cities, in respond to a wide range of things like housing stock. For example, in NYC the center has gentrified; most of the slummy areas of Manhattan are now desirable to live in. While areas that used to be quiet and suburban in Queens and the Bronx have ended up being sketchy, in a sort of inversion. In most of Europe that's also happened; if you can help it, you don't want to send your kid to a school district in the Paris suburbs, if there's any way you can manage to get them into a good urban district. As a different example, Houston is developing into a strange multiple-rings shape. The city center is gentrifying (medical center, Rice area, downtown), while the inner suburbs are going downhill as the housing stock gets older (60s/70s-construction suburban neighborhoods aren't looking so good anymore), and then really far away suburbs with newer construction (20+ miles, 1990s-present housing stock) are upscale again.
- Lewisham 14y ago
  You sound like you're describing the LA area (with the exception of the city center gentrifying). It seems that what has happened is that, for the majority of American cities, they grew as an either/or option: you're either in the city, or you're in the suburbs, and the car enabled that in cities where it could. The cities which were geographically constrained, such as NYC or SF, were unable to sprawl outwards, and have commutes within reason, so the middle-classes stayed. That means things like good schools are able to exist because the demand was always there from the middle classes that didn't leave.
  - _delirium 14y ago
    Yeah, I think that's the correct analysis. Having lived in Houston a few years, one thing that I think happens is that without geographical constraints, and with the way things are currently funded, it's easier to just keep moving out. Where I lived in the 1990s was a "new" suburban area of Houston, but already by the 2000s there were abandoned stores, because if a store moved out of a building, sometimes another store moved in, but often it was easier to just build a new to-order building another mile south on the freeway, instead of renovating an existing one. With no constraints, you can just keep moving out another mile every year for decades. Same with suburbs; why renovate a 1970s house if you can just move another mile down the freeway and build a new one? Especially given the cheap construction that's been used for the last 50 years... Part of that I think is also because some of the costs that incurs aren't properly charged. There was a proposal in Houston to charge developers for the cost of new infrastructure. For every 10,000 new homes built in a new suburb, for example, you can estimate what new capital infrastructure they'll need: on average 1 elementary school, 0.5 high schools, 1 fire station, 1 police station, X miles of roads, X miles of sewers, etc. (whatever the real numbers are). Add the estimated cost of that up, divide by 10,000, and charge that as a per-house assessment on new developments. That proposal failed, though, so new developments' indirect capital costs are subsidized by homeowners in the older areas of the city.
    - hkarthik 14y ago
      We've got nearly the same problem in Dallas. For decades the development has moved further north into the Ex-burbs and bedroom communities. The interesting component is how the development gets financed in a Ponzi-esque scheme. Suburbs are built out with municipal bonds, which subsidize the build outs of services (schools, police, fire stations, roads) while keeping property taxes low. Once the suburb is completely built out, the taxes double or triple to pay back the bonds. Then the next suburb just north or south of it is built with more new bonds and the cycle continues.