4 ms·

Proper planning and policy would mean that people wouldn't have to make this decision. Funding schools based off of local property values creates a rich-get-ri

by bluthru 13y ago

Proper planning and policy would mean that people wouldn't have to make this decision. Funding schools based off of local property values creates a rich-get-richer scheme for school quality. It also encourages people to sprawl, which is what we don't want to encourage if we want vibrant, walkable environments. If every student in America had the same funding (cost of living adjusted) we wouldn't have as many failing schools or encourage people to flee the city when they have a kid.

rayiner 13y ago
School funding is a red herring. In the Washington Metro area, D.C. and Baltimore spend $19k/year and $15k/year per pupil, versus $13k/year for Fairfax County. Yet, any parent would rather send their kids to Fairfax County public schools rather than D.C. or Baltimore public schools. What encourages people to flee the city when they have a kid is that urban liberals are incredibly hostile to the idea of allowing school boundaries to be drawn along socioeconomic lines. Middle class parents don't just want to send their kids to schools that are adequately funded (as schools in most major cities certainly are), but to schools where the other kids are from families like themselves. They don't want their kids being influenced by kids whose dads are in jail for drug dealing. That's the politically-incorrect reality of parenthood. They can get this in the suburbs, but cities make it extremely difficult and expensive to do this. For example, until recently San Francisco had this wonderful (from a social progress point of view), but terrible (from a parenting and urbanism point of view), policy of not having "home" schools based on geographic location, but incorporating some element of lottery selection. The net result was that middle and upper class people couldn't pick their schools by moving to a particular neighborhood. Of course, this created a tremendous incentive to just leave the city, and even ultra-liberal san francisco was recently forced to end the policy. The problem is that school policy has been hijacked by teachers, so the debate always revolves around "more money." But throwing lots of money at a school where 75% of kids don't have a father in their lives isn't going to help those kids learn. Throwing money at things like Section 8, which might let those families move to suburbs where they can go to a school where they aren't surrounded by that culture, that could really push forward the cause of social progress.
- mhurron 13y ago
  > urban liberals are incredibly hostile to the idea of allowing school boundaries to be drawn along socioeconomic lines. In cased you missed it, segregation is bad. It was bad 50 years ago and it is bad now. Parents that are trying to bring it back under they guise of 'think of the children' absolutely should be smacked down.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Our "integrationist" school policies don't remedy segregation, they create more of it. When you tell middle class parents that their only public school options in the city involve schools where 90% of kids are low-income, they just opt out of the public school system, send their kids to private schools, or move to the suburbs. That's the story of the last 30-40 years in American cities. One way or the other, middle class people will send their kids to schools with the kids of other middle class people. The question is whether those schools will be in suburbia, or will be allowed to exist in the cities. It's almost certainly better for everyone involved if they're allowed to exist in the cities.
    - mhurron 13y ago
      > middle class people will send their kids to schools with the kids of other middle class people. So clearly we should enshrine it in law. We better make sure that middle class kids never see anyone less fortunate then themselves. I don't see that the mobility of the middle class is as easy as you paint it.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        It's cutting off your nose to spite your face. You're saying it's better for middle class families to just head out to the suburbs, where their kids will really be assured of never having to interact with poor people as human beings, than for them to live in the same city and pay into the same tax base while allowing wealthier neighborhoods to have their own local schools. At least if middle class families live in the city, there is some hope of gradual integration. Through measures like Section 8, which often pays for low-income families to live in nicer neighborhoods, urban schools in wealthier areas can be 10-20% low-income. Parents will tolerate that. It's the 80-90% low-income schools, which make up the vast majority of urban schools, that they won't tolerate.

by bluthru 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

School funding is a red herring. In the Washington Metro area, D.C. and Baltimore spend $19k/year and $15k/year per pupil, versus $13k/year for Fairfax County. Yet, any parent would rather send their kids to Fairfax County public schools rather than D.C. or Baltimore public schools. What encourages people to flee the city when they have a kid is that urban liberals are incredibly hostile to the idea of allowing school boundaries to be drawn along socioeconomic lines. Middle class parents don't just want to send their kids to schools that are adequately funded (as schools in most major cities certainly are), but to schools where the other kids are from families like themselves. They don't want their kids being influenced by kids whose dads are in jail for drug dealing. That's the politically-incorrect reality of parenthood. They can get this in the suburbs, but cities make it extremely difficult and expensive to do this. For example, until recently San Francisco had this wonderful (from a social progress point of view), but terrible (from a parenting and urbanism point of view), policy of not having "home" schools based on geographic location, but incorporating some element of lottery selection. The net result was that middle and upper class people couldn't pick their schools by moving to a particular neighborhood. Of course, this created a tremendous incentive to just leave the city, and even ultra-liberal san francisco was recently forced to end the policy. The problem is that school policy has been hijacked by teachers, so the debate always revolves around "more money." But throwing lots of money at a school where 75% of kids don't have a father in their lives isn't going to help those kids learn. Throwing money at things like Section 8, which might let those families move to suburbs where they can go to a school where they aren't surrounded by that culture, that could really push forward the cause of social progress.

mhurron 13y ago
> urban liberals are incredibly hostile to the idea of allowing school boundaries to be drawn along socioeconomic lines. In cased you missed it, segregation is bad. It was bad 50 years ago and it is bad now. Parents that are trying to bring it back under they guise of 'think of the children' absolutely should be smacked down.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Our "integrationist" school policies don't remedy segregation, they create more of it. When you tell middle class parents that their only public school options in the city involve schools where 90% of kids are low-income, they just opt out of the public school system, send their kids to private schools, or move to the suburbs. That's the story of the last 30-40 years in American cities. One way or the other, middle class people will send their kids to schools with the kids of other middle class people. The question is whether those schools will be in suburbia, or will be allowed to exist in the cities. It's almost certainly better for everyone involved if they're allowed to exist in the cities.
  - mhurron 13y ago
    > middle class people will send their kids to schools with the kids of other middle class people. So clearly we should enshrine it in law. We better make sure that middle class kids never see anyone less fortunate then themselves. I don't see that the mobility of the middle class is as easy as you paint it.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      It's cutting off your nose to spite your face. You're saying it's better for middle class families to just head out to the suburbs, where their kids will really be assured of never having to interact with poor people as human beings, than for them to live in the same city and pay into the same tax base while allowing wealthier neighborhoods to have their own local schools. At least if middle class families live in the city, there is some hope of gradual integration. Through measures like Section 8, which often pays for low-income families to live in nicer neighborhoods, urban schools in wealthier areas can be 10-20% low-income. Parents will tolerate that. It's the 80-90% low-income schools, which make up the vast majority of urban schools, that they won't tolerate.