I think folks underestimate the problems that the suburbs pose to children as well.  There are some serious issues in the schools there, too.

True, but space is another reason. Americans like big houses and yards more than good architecture or walkable neighborhoods. Also, there are also a good amount of people who avoid some inner suburbs like Lakewood or Shaker Heights simply due to high property taxes.

 

Space?  I'll give you that, although there is a sense of neighborhood/community that myself and my friends had growing up in the Heights that I just can't imagine being possible in many outer-ring suburbs with all of that "space."  Maybe I'm wrong because this is something I legitimately have no read on as I have don't have kids (yet), but I would think that many families would value living in close proximity to other families, particularly for the benefits of having similar-aged kids for their kids to interact with.  But then again, this goes back to the argument made above about different people valuing different things and it's probably my own personal bias shining through on that particular aspect.

 

As for the property tax point...ughhh.  The inner-ring apologist in me really wants to go off how that's complicated and not quite as it seems!  Maybe some other time...

Just one point.  I read that many people choose not to live in the city because it doesn't offer the amenities (parks, sports, etc.) of some suburbs and there aren't the same numbers of children and families.  I would simply argue that there aren't these things because people have fled the city and choose not to raise families there.  We have a real chicken or the egg argument.  If there were more middle class families in the city there would be more amenities and programs for children. 

 

We need more families in the city and I hope Cleveland is doing whatever it can to bring them in and keep them.  Step one is schools and they seem to be trying some innovative ideas on that front.  I hope they're successful.

I guess my question is why would it matter if more middle class/wealthy families start attending Cleveland public schools. How would that impact the students who are already there? Realistically, I seriously doubt it would make the kids there already, at least the "troubled" ones, want to learn now that new kids previously from the suburbs are attending. What, are they going to be less disruptive now? Have their home environments gotten any better as a result?

 

I get that white flight has been blamed for public schools turning to $hit (and I've never agreed with that cop-out excuse anyhow), but I don't see how the inverse would be true. If rock's kid goes to Option Complex or Patrick Henry, who benefits? I mean let's not kid ourselves.

And I'm honestly appalled that you think that it's just routine and to be expected that a woman should be leered at just because she goes into a city. In all the time I've spent in Chicago, Los Angeles and NYC I've never been leered at, followed, commented to/on as I walk by, asked for my number, harrased and what have you like I have here in Cleveland. I think it's a problem and it needs to be fixed.

 

Rockandroller, That's because you my dear are:

 

Folks, if you can't disagree with someone without making personal insults, your posts will be removed and your account will be suspended.

KJP, hee.

 

I think StrapHanger really nailed how I feel about it as well:

 

"I can't emphasize enough how fine I think it is for people to live however they want.  My hope for Cleveland is simply that it offer a full range of lifestyle options, so those people who like city life for any reason can find what they're looking for without feeling like they're sacrificing safety, school quality and other things that aren't inherently tied to built form and proximity to amenities."

 

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,26624.30.html#ixzz1l8JyHacA

I can't emphasize enough how fine I think it is for people to live however they want.  My hope for Cleveland is simply that it offer a full range of lifestyle options, so those people who like city life for any reason can find what they're looking for without feeling like they're sacrificing safety, school quality and other things that aren't inherently tied to built form and proximity to amenities.

 

I completely agree with this, and am glad you make it a point to say this.  But the fact remains, its a pretty consistent message from many others on this board - and within this thread - that if you decide to move to the suburbs you are now "part of the problem".  Or that it's completely incomprehensable to people why anyone would ever more to the suburbs.

 

I spent 4 years living in my condo downtown, which I still own, part of which was with a child.  I wish I felt like urban neighborhoods were more geared to raising young kids.  But I don't, and more specifically, my wife REALLY doesn't.  I just don't see how I am to blame for the plight of the inner city because I don't want to tough it out and "deal with it".

I get that white flight has been blamed for public schools turning to $hit (and I've never agreed with that cop-out excuse anyhow), but I don't see how the inverse would be true. If rock's kid goes to Option Complex or Patrick Henry, who benefits? I mean let's not kid ourselves.

 

But what about Riverside, Louisa May Alcott, School of the Arts, or John Hay?  What I see time and again on this board is a district with 50,000 students and 120 schools talked about as if it were some uniform entity, when it's really extremely heterogeneous.  There may be problems in the district OVERALL that an influx of families that value education and put time and effort into the home side won't cure, but let's be honest, if you're living in Ohio City, you're not gonna send your kid to Patrick Henry.

 

It's about building quality schools in our quality neighborhoods.  I think you're giving too much credit to schools themselves for academic achievement.  Sad as it is, it's really more about the demographics of the students than anything.

I agree about kids driving the decision to move. I dont think there is anything by design that makes urban neighborhoods less kid/family friendly, I just believe their current state does. I personally believe that by design, urban neighborhoods can be much more family friendly than suburbs. They just aren't there yet, so yes, its a chicken and the egg problem. I think these are some current reason people choose suburbs over the city in todays world.

 

Safety

Better schools

More Little Leagues (soccer, baseball, football etc.)

More neighborhood children.

More children with parents will same basic ideals.

Bigger yards to play catch. etc.

More shopping choices

 

A good point made earlier is that while some city neighborhoods do have advantages, there is no reason for me to ever choose Jefferson or Corlett over say a Rocky River, ascetically, architecturally, or functionally. Rocky river is going to be much safer for my kid to ride his bike, will have better schools, more kids to play with, and more activities for the child, such as playing sports.

But the fact remains, its a pretty consistent message from many others on this board - and within this thread - that if you decide to move to the suburbs you are now "part of the problem". 

 

At least in my mind, it's not that these people are "part of the problem", but are instead "not part of the solution".  Which is fine, no one should be obligated to be that person.  But I would praise anyone who would test the "can you raise a child successfully in Cleveland" question.

If you work towards effecting change, you are PART of the solution. There are, I'm certain, plenty of people who live within the city limits to where their zip code is the only PART of the solution they are participating in, and they are doing nothing else to be part of the solution. There are also other things that go into the solution than physically living in the city.

A good point made earlier is that while some city neighborhoods do have advantages, there is no reason for me to ever choose Jefferson or Corlett over say a Rocky River, ascetically, architecturally, or functionally. Rocky river is going to be much safer for my kid to ride his bike, will have better schools, more kids to play with, and more activities for the child, such as playing sports.

 

We're not going to shrink the class divide here.  You could also say there's no reason anyone would ever choose Beachwood over Pepper Pike.  A more realistic goal is to give people with a given housing budget a better set of lifestyle options.

 

It's the same deal in other cites like NYC, Boston, Chicago, or any older urban area in the USA. It's not just a Cleveland thing, although talking to a lot of Clevelanders you would think that was the case. I live in Chicago and can tell you the public city schools are no better. Like Cleveland, the city schools are made up of mostly minority kids who are likely lower class as well. White people and middle class minorities move to the suburbs when it's time to put their kids in school. I bet Chicago's city schools are maybe 10% white, which is telling.

 

From the point of view of a young family interested in urban life, I think it's actually quite a bit different in Boston, and at least somewhat different in NYC (I can't speak to Chicago). In Boston, elementary school entry is based on a lottery that uses your proximity to a given school as just one factor.  This means that good neighborhoods tend to have good schools, but also means that even if you live in a less fancy neighborhood, you have a decent shot at getting into a school of your choice.*  The down side, of course, is that living in a good neighborhood is no guarantee you'll get into your excellent local school, and people who get none of their choices in the lottery do tend to leave the city.  NYC also offers excellent elementary education in many neighborhoods.  In these cities, I think real estate prices push people out as much as anything else, which is not the case in Cleveland.

 

*I think Cleveland may offer something similar, but without the numbers of middle/upper middle class families needed to overcome the first actor/collective action problems.

Strap, that's interesting. I did not know that about the Boston lottery.

On the schools front, I'm a huge proponent of essentially a universal scholarship/voucher program coupled with universalization of school districts (i.e., dissolving all jurisdictional lines entirely).  That would make a serious difference in many people's abilities to stay in the city, especially with families.  Given that no such reform is likely in the pipeline, however, I'm going to have to make a choice soon, too.  Of course, I don't have kids yet, so I could live in downtown Akron for a while longer, but at some point, jurisdictional realities are going to demand attention.  The only Akron public school I'd consider sending my children to is Firestone, which is good but not great.  In the meantime, taxes are lower and the school district is better in Copley-Fairlawn.  (And my fiancee likes the thought of living a minute away from Summit Mall; I'm still working on curing her of that particular derangement, but that's a separate issue from the school district.)

*I think Cleveland may offer something similar, but without the numbers of middle/upper middle class families needed to overcome the first actor/collective action problems.

 

This is correct.  There have been some changes since I was a student, but from what I understand, the district still sends out a mailing at the end of the school year saying, "this is the school you're guaranteed a spot in next year (usually a neighborhood school, unless you're in a gifted program or something similar,) but you can enter a lottery to take a spot at another school of your choice."

Couple of quick thoughts. Interesting conversation:

 

- To RnR's point, there are a ton of ways to support revitalization of the city. Living within city limits is one. But so is patronizing city businesses, opening a business in the city, encouraging people to visit and spend money who otherwise wouldn't, volunteering in the city, donating to nonprofits in the city, supporting progressive urban-centric candidates for local and state offices, etc. We could give everyone a "helping the city" score, and not all suburbanites would have a low one, and clearly, not all Cleveland residents would have a high one. I'm one of the loudest critics of suburban lifestyle ... I have a deep ideological belief that I can't get past about suburbanization affects poverty, crime, educational standards, sustainability, livability, etc. That being said, I think we do a disservice to our cause if we suggest that all suburbanites are the problem or are not part of the solution. There are people who just aren't going to live in Cleveland now, and we may never make the case we should. But they can still participate in meaningful ways, and it just seems really wasteful to potentially turn them off from supporting our effort, even if just with their dollars and good will.

 

- I think it's important to note that while there are challenges and shortcomings of raising children in an urban setting, there are also a great deal of benefits not typically enjoyed by kids in the suburbs, and certainly not in outer suburbs. The vast majority of our museums and cultural organizations are in the city, and there is a tremendous amount of after-school and summer programming that's available, often in the middle of residential neighborhoods. I would argue that "city kids" get exposed to a greater degree of diversity and a greater degree of projects and developments and history that can inform their imaginations, etc. And after you get beyond the confines of a particular subdivision, I think many suburbs have incredibly hostile environments for kids walking and biking around, while city neighborhoods tend to be far more walkable. So there are some alternative propositions about child rearing. I would argue that one of the biggest things a suburbanite can do to support the future of Cleveland proper, in the absence of actually becoming a resident, is to make sure their kids have frequent opportunities to take  in the city. Raising kids to understand urbanism is necessary to reverse decades of misunderstanding and fallacies about what city living is like. 

 

- While I would agree that Cleveland is not always the most kid-friendly place in the world, I do think it's undoubtedly gotten better over the past decade. Crime rates are dropping, educational attainment is going up, density of activity is increasing in pockets across the city, etc. I think one of the biggest indications of a sea change is the formation of Near West Intergenerational (http://nearwestschool.org/). A group of parents on the Near West Side were nearing that school age where they had to make difficult decisions about educational options for their kids (some forumers included). Rather than going the more conventional routes of moving to the outer suburbs or paying a huge premium for private or parochial education, they've worked to develop a charter school based on the TREMENDOUSLY successful Interegenerational School in the Larchmere area. We should be doing more to support those parents who want to say in playing a more active role in creating the infrastructure for doing so.

 

- We should be thinking more about how we make Cleveland a better place for kids. And I don't think that's just in an effort to draw more middle- and upper-income families back into the city. I think as a matter of social equity, we owe lower-income kids an opportunity to have happy and supportive childhoods, too. Even if we don't have a moral imperative to do so, there's also a pragmatic rationale for making sure that kids graduate high school, pursue higher education, find full-time employment, open businesses, etc. And if we build kid-friendly assets for our current residents, we'll also increase the likelihood that the equation for suburbanites moving in changes. Think that's too big an undertaking? Look at what a relatively modest investment in a new recreation center in Collinwood has accomplished: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2012/01/collinwood_recreation_center_d.html 

Very nice points. I don't agree with them exactly but it's a very interesting, optimistic approach.

 

My one main hangup, okay, I have a lot, on the issue is just that I still don't see how sending middle/wealthy class kids to schools with a remarkably high percentage of 'troubled' youths benefits anyone. These schools are awful because of unruly kids and terrible home environments. An influx of more stable kids with more stable home environments wouldn't change that on any real scale.

 

Not to mention I would have legitimate concerns of what kind of education the new students could possibly get, and how it could ever match or surpass suburban educations, at least in the foreseeable future. Why would I as a parent ever do that do my child when I have much better options? Your responsibility as a parent is your child, not fixing a broken system

I don't know if this is the correct place for this article, but it's somewhat related (maybe someone can redirect it to a more appropriate thread if not). I didn't know suburban living could be so detrimental to your health! (or that things had changed so much from the time I was young)

 

January 30, 2012, 2:52 pm

Communities Learn the Good Life Can Be a Killer

By JANE E. BRODY

 

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/communities-learn-the-good-life-can-be-a-killer/?ref=janeebrody

 

this is shocking:

In 1974, 66 percent of all children walked or biked to school By 2000, that number had dropped to 13 percent.

My one main hangup, okay, I have a lot, on the issue is just that I still don't see how sending middle/wealthy class kids to schools with a remarkably high percentage of 'troubled' youths benefits anyone. These schools are awful because of unruly kids and terrible home environments. An influx of more stable kids with more stable home environments wouldn't change that on any real scale.

 

I agree with this, and this is one of the main reasons I support vouchers, as I mentioned above.  Allowing upper- and middle-class families to live in the city and send their children to private school at taxpayer expense could keep a good many more "stable kids with more stable home environments" in the city.  Keeping those families here as their children go through school (which often coincides with the peak earning years of the parents) might even pay for itself economically, to say nothing of the cultural returns from having a higher concentration of leading, mature professionals in the urban core.  At the moment, once "young urban professionals" fall out of the "young" category, they tend to fall out of the "urban" category as well.

^^^ It's a valid point. Philosophically, I think the argument is similar to the one employed when talking about decentralizing public housing instead of putting it into a high-rise ... Bad educational performance is exacerbated when we centralize kids from non-supportive backgrounds into schools and put students that are already primed to succeed in separate schools. Pragmatically, school reform happens most effectively when parents are directly engaged in their children's education; parents with the time and means to advocate for change are much more likely to affect school-level change than are parents who are time-poor, money-poor or otherwise disinvested. Cynically, school funding is determined to a large degree by number of pupils, so not having middle- and upper-income students in the mix lowers the overall funding for the kids who need it most.

 

I don't think any of those are arguments for putting your kids in a bad school, and I'm not advocating that you take a gamble on your kids' futures. But I think the position that suburban schools are inherently better than urban schools is a little overarching. Some of the absolute best schools in the region are in Cleveland proper. Granted, many of them are magnet schools, charter schools and private schools, but there are some great traditional public schools. William C. Bryant in Old Brooklyn, for example, has a state Excellent rating of 96.7. That's pretty comparable to a 98.7 Effective rating for Surrarer in Strongsville. That's not to say I'm making a case that there aren't a whole lot of terrible schools in the city. There are. But it's nuanced, and there are good schools out there for parents who have the time and energy to find them.

 

One thing that we don't mention a lot either is that since the vast majority of school funding comes from property tax, and Cleveland offers 12 year abatements for rehabs and 15 year abatements for new construction, public education can actually be a lot cheaper for a homebuying parent in the city than for one in the suburbs, or that abatement can be treated as a downpayment toward private / parochial education.

Do keep in mind that if you move somewhere for "good schools" when your child is 3 that the school might not be such a good school by the time your kid or their younger siblings are teens. When the schools get worse, property values go down (or stagnate) and you get stuck. I don't know Cleveland 'burbs very well, but it's been a concern here in places like Reynoldsburg, Grove City and even Hillard already. When I talk to people from those areas it seems like a lot of them have problems. But, meltdowns haven't been a problem in Grandview and Bexley, our older inner-ring 'burbs. Of course, you pay for that stability with elevated real estate prices and property taxes.

Isnt Shaker Heights high school only graded as efficient? And they have the highest school funding in the state from what ive heard.

Well, if you move somewhere for a good school when your child is 3 and the school district isn't as good when the child is 13, you can move again.  Ten years is considerably longer than most people stay in most residences, anyway.

I guess my question is why would it matter if more middle class/wealthy families start attending Cleveland public schools. How would that impact the students who are already there? Realistically, I seriously doubt it would make the kids there already, at least the "troubled" ones, want to learn now that new kids previously from the suburbs are attending. What, are they going to be less disruptive now? Have their home environments gotten any better as a result?

 

I get that white flight has been blamed for public schools turning to $hit (and I've never agreed with that cop-out excuse anyhow), but I don't see how the inverse would be true. If rock's kid goes to Option Complex or Patrick Henry, who benefits? I mean let's not kid ourselves.

 

It's very simple.  If enough well-adjusted kids from educated middle- or upper-class families started attending CPS (or really any urban district, for that matter), the state report card ratings would rise.  And then perception of the schools would change without the administrators, principles, or teachers significantly changing anything.  But there would have to be a critical mass of these families and students.  What people everywhere don't understand is that the state's report card ratings are a sham.  They correlate much more closely with demographics than with what is going on in the classrooms.  And yet when people run off to the exurbs to avoid get away from the "terrible" schools in the inner-rings, they are oftentimes basing that decision mostly on something that is blatantly flawed.

I guess my question is why would it matter if more middle class/wealthy families start attending Cleveland public schools. How would that impact the students who are already there? Realistically, I seriously doubt it would make the kids there already, at least the "troubled" ones, want to learn now that new kids previously from the suburbs are attending. What, are they going to be less disruptive now? Have their home environments gotten any better as a result?

 

I get that white flight has been blamed for public schools turning to $hit (and I've never agreed with that cop-out excuse anyhow), but I don't see how the inverse would be true. If rock's kid goes to Option Complex or Patrick Henry, who benefits? I mean let's not kid ourselves.

 

It's very simple.  If enough well-adjusted kids from educated middle- or upper-class families started attending CPS (or really any urban district, for that matter), the state report card ratings would rise.  And then perception of the schools would change without the administrators, principles, or teachers significantly changing anything.  But there would have to be a critical mass of these families and students.  What people everywhere don't understand is that the state's report card ratings are a sham.  They correlate much more closely with demographics than with what is going on in the classrooms.  And yet when people run off to the exurbs to avoid get away from the "terrible" schools in the inner-rings, they are oftentimes basing that decision mostly on something that is blatantly flawed.

 

This was all tried years ago.

I guess my question is why would it matter if more middle class/wealthy families start attending Cleveland public schools. How would that impact the students who are already there? Realistically, I seriously doubt it would make the kids there already, at least the "troubled" ones, want to learn now that new kids previously from the suburbs are attending. What, are they going to be less disruptive now? Have their home environments gotten any better as a result?

 

I get that white flight has been blamed for public schools turning to $hit (and I've never agreed with that cop-out excuse anyhow), but I don't see how the inverse would be true. If rock's kid goes to Option Complex or Patrick Henry, who benefits? I mean let's not kid ourselves.

 

It's very simple.  If enough well-adjusted kids from educated middle- or upper-class families started attending CPS (or really any urban district, for that matter), the state report card ratings would rise.  And then perception of the schools would change without the administrators, principles, or teachers significantly changing anything.  But there would have to be a critical mass of these families and students.  What people everywhere don't understand is that the state's report card ratings are a sham.  They correlate much more closely with demographics than with what is going on in the classrooms.  And yet when people run off to the exurbs to avoid get away from the "terrible" schools in the inner-rings, they are oftentimes basing that decision mostly on something that is blatantly flawed.

 

I remember when we moved to the exurbs from the suburbs that at school the trailer park kids got all the attention and that my classmates spent an inordinate amount of time talking about "n-words"... of course that's not the word they used. I also remember not having nearly as much time for homework because of all the time I spent on the bus and in cars (got too much of a headache trying to do homework while in 'em) . That's why I flunked the 7th grade.

Isnt Shaker Heights high school only graded as efficient? And they have the highest school funding in the state from what ive heard.

 

Yes, the per student funding is high.  I don't know what its current ratings are..... but I do know it produces an astounding number of national merit scholar students and its student consistently get admitted to the top colleges and universities.

I guess my question is why would it matter if more middle class/wealthy families start attending Cleveland public schools. How would that impact the students who are already there? Realistically, I seriously doubt it would make the kids there already, at least the "troubled" ones, want to learn now that new kids previously from the suburbs are attending. What, are they going to be less disruptive now? Have their home environments gotten any better as a result?

 

I get that white flight has been blamed for public schools turning to $hit (and I've never agreed with that cop-out excuse anyhow), but I don't see how the inverse would be true. If rock's kid goes to Option Complex or Patrick Henry, who benefits? I mean let's not kid ourselves.

 

It's very simple.  If enough well-adjusted kids from educated middle- or upper-class families started attending CPS (or really any urban district, for that matter), the state report card ratings would rise.  And then perception of the schools would change without the administrators, principles, or teachers significantly changing anything.  But there would have to be a critical mass of these families and students.  What people everywhere don't understand is that the state's report card ratings are a sham.  They correlate much more closely with demographics than with what is going on in the classrooms.  And yet when people run off to the exurbs to avoid get away from the "terrible" schools in the inner-rings, they are oftentimes basing that decision mostly on something that is blatantly flawed.

 

This was all tried years ago.

 

Busing?  No, I wasn't suggesting that we go back to doing that.  I was making the larger point that schools aren't "good" or "bad" as much as the students attending them are from good or bad backgrounds.  Solon, for instance, is a "great" school (in the minds of many) because it's loaded with students from great family backgrounds.  Any school anywhere can be a "great" school with the right students. 

 

On a more micro level, any student from a background with the right family support can succeed in most schools, whether that school is considered "good" or "bad" by those that worship the ODE ratings.

Isnt Shaker Heights high school only graded as efficient? And they have the highest school funding in the state from what ive heard.

 

Yes, the per student funding is high.  I don't know what its current ratings are..... but I do know it produces an astounding number of national merit scholar students and its student consistently get admitted to the top colleges and universities.

 

The property taxes in SH are the highest in the state.  The per pupil expenditures are in the top 5-10, but there are a few others (Beachwood, Orange, CH-UH even) that spend slightly more, I believe.

 

The district and high school are both rated "effective," which is the second highest rating.  As I mentioned above, those ratings are far from perfect, however. 

Cleveland spends more per pupil then "excellent" rated school systems such as Westlake and Willoughby-Eastlake. So funding doesnt really determine anything for the most part.

 

The problem with Cleveland schools are the worse backgrounds(mentioned above) and lack of value placed on education from the parents, and in some cases lack of discipline from teachers who just gave up. A good student at lets say Willoughby-Eastlake might not be as good of a student in Cleveland. This could be caused by the other students they would interact with not placing as much value on it, and also unruly classrooms. Good students with good parents can still be brought down by who the child goes to school with.

 

I dont think there is anything wrong with the district necessarily because I think that if you took a high school in the Willougby-Eastlake school district, placed it in the Cleveland Metropolitan School District, and replaced all its teachers with Cleveland's teachers, the school would still receive "excellent" ratings. And if you moved the Willoughby-Eastlake teachers into a failing Cleveland school and under W-E control, you would most likely still receive poor ratings.

I would assume that the 'per pupil' cost is not as black and white as it seems.  Cleveland buses a lot of its students around and that certainly costs money.  I believe it reimburses or provides funds for RTA so the poorer students can get to school.  Providing lunches is also probably an issue which increases costs.  Cleveland may additionally have to pay its teachers more.  And, due to older buildings, maintenance costs are probably much higher.  Plus, they have to pay for security details.  These are just a couple thoughts off the top of my head as to why a system like Cleveland would pay more per pupil than Westlake.

 

But C17's point is well-taken.  The biggest difference is that Westlake students tend to come from families that genuinely care about and are actually involved in their children's education.

Cleveland spends more per pupil then "excellent" rated school systems such as Westlake and Willoughby-Eastlake. So funding doesnt really determine anything for the most part.

 

The problem with Cleveland schools are the worse backgrounds(mentioned above) and lack of value placed on education from the parents, and in some cases lack of discipline from teachers who just gave up. A good student at lets say Willoughby-Eastlake might not be as good of a student in Cleveland. This could be caused by the other students they would interact with not placing as much value on it, and also unruly classrooms. Good students with good parents can still be brought down by who the child goes to school with.

 

I dont think there is anything wrong with the district necessarily because I think that if you took a high school in the Willougby-Eastlake school district, placed it in the Cleveland Metropolitan School District, and replaced all its teachers with Cleveland's teachers, the school would still receive "excellent" ratings. And if you moved the Willoughby-Eastlake teachers into a failing Cleveland school and under W-E control, you would most likely still receive poor ratings.

 

This is a pretty fair assessment.  There are indeed some environmental factors, as you pointed out.

 

As for CMSD's per pupil expenditure number, as a large urban district there are significant costs associated with large enrollments of special needs and ESL students (both of which require federally-mandated services but are severely underfunded) and low-income students that also need programs and services.  You simply don't see as many of those students in the outer-ring suburbs.

.... or you see them enrolled in special schools because their parents can afford that.

But C17's point is well-taken.  The biggest difference is that Westlake students tend to come from families that genuinely care about and are actually involved in their children's education.

 

This is off on a tangent, but I want to make it abundantly clear that every student has the capacity to learn, even the ones from troubled or less supportive backgrounds.  The point is that when you have a number of these students aggregated together into one school or district, it's a challenge for that school or district and their rating, under the current ODE system, is most certainly not going to compare favorably to the rating of a district in an outer-ring suburb.  Not to belabor the point, but as an analogy in some districts you have large groups of kids who are starting First and Goal from the 7-yard line and the ODE congratulates them for kicking a field goal and in other districts you have kids starting on their own 10-yard line who schools help along to midfield and the ODE tells them that they're failures.

.... or you see them enrolled in special schools because their parents can afford that.

 

Right and in either case they don't "count against" the district's ODE rating, which means the city/district can sell their schools as being more successful than peers who aren't on a level playing field.  It's all part of the perception of the quality of the schools in the suburbs. 

I think the biggest factor of parents wanting to send their children to suburban schools is they want their child to grow up with, and become friends with children who have parents with the same morals and who place a strong value on education. Nobody wants their kid to go to a school where hardly any of the kids/parents care, which doesn't really create a good learning environment. And again, its nothing against urban school districts per se, its just their current state in many instances.

The peer group is definitely one of the most salient things that a school provides, for better or for worse.  Peers can have every bit as much of an influence on a child's academic development as teachers (and, of course, even more in terms of their non-academic development, i.e., social development).

 

Let's also not forget the social relationships between parents, either.  If you are determined to be the responsible parent who takes an active interest in both your child's education and in the school as an institution, do you really want to have your fellow parents be apathetic about the school and disinterested and uninvolved in their own children's development?  Where are you going to look to for allies when you encounter problems with the school that you can't necessarily overcome on your own?

I would still argue that individual potential and family background can and often do transcend peer group influences.  There is some merit to the peer group argument, but I think it may be overblown to some degree.  Further I'm bothered by the fact that I think that some people use it as cover (not necessarily anyone here) to justify acceptance of a modern-day segregation of the schools along urban-suburban lines that exists in Northeast Ohio and undoubtedly elsewhere.  This idea of acceptable and legal re-segregation is, in my opinion, in fact one of the biggest contributors to sprawl.

I think the thing that makes charter schools successful in many cases, even in some of the worst dropout areas, is the people they draw. Lets say there is a public school of 500 students. 100 of those students have motivation, and parents who support them educationally. The area is financially poor, so private school is not an option. These kids will go through school, and many over time will lose there drive due to their surroundings, and eventually drop out or fail like the rest who dont care. A classroom where the majority of students dont care doesn't create a good learning environment. So even though they started motivated with parental support, the overbearing of students not caring, and in some cases, teachers giving up as well, leads to the collapse of their educational process. So what charter schools do is then come into those neighborhoods, and take applications for those 100 or so families who truly care. Now those same 100 kids are in an environment where all the other kids care, and are trying hard, and where learning is actually occurring. Many more, if not all, will end up succeeding in the end, and graduating with good to great test scores.

 

I personally think the environment is crucial. This is why charter schools can do great things for a neighborhood. It gives that group that does care, an easier and more likely path to success, instead of letting many of them end up failing in the public system. Not all will fail in the public system, but many will, and the ones who do succeed, will probably do so with not as high test scores.

 

The issue then is what do you do with the other 400 or so kids who dont care? How do you get education to become important to these children and their parents. I think one thing that could work is a huge stress on the importance in the beginning years. Kindergarten, First grade - fifth grade. As they get older, pushing the importance must still continue. So even if there is no support at home, hopefully there will be a somewhat strong support system at school. Many will drop off from that path, and others wont achieve as high, but I think it would be better then what is currently happening and you will get a higher percentage who could achieve academic success.

I think the thing that makes charter schools successful in many cases, even in some of the worst dropout areas, is the people they draw. Lets say there is a public school of 500 students. 100 of those students have motivation, and parents who support them educationally. The area is financially poor, so private school is not an option. These kids will go through school, and many over time will lose there drive due to their surroundings, and eventually drop out or fail like the rest who dont care. A classroom where the majority of students dont care doesn't create a good learning environment. So even though they started motivated with parental support, the overbearing of students not caring, and in some cases, teachers giving up as well, leads to the collapse of their educational process. So what charter schools do is then come into those neighborhoods, and take applications for those 100 or so families who truly care. Now those same 100 kids are in an environment where all the other kids care, and are trying hard, and where learning is actually occurring. Many more, if not all, will end up succeeding in the end, and graduating with good to great test scores.

 

I personally think the environment is crucial. This is why charter schools can do great things for a neighborhood. It gives that group that does care, an easier and more likely path to success, instead of letting many of them end up failing in the public system. Not all will fail in the public system, but many will, and the ones who do succeed, will probably do so with not as high test scores.

 

The issue then is what do you do with the other 400 or so kids who dont care? How do you get education to become important to these children and their parents. I think one thing that could work is a huge stress on the importance in the beginning years. Kindergarten, First grade - fifth grade. As they get older, pushing the importance must still continue. So even if there is no support at home, hopefully there will be a somewhat strong support system at school. Many will drop off from that path, and others wont achieve as high, but I think it would be better then what is currently happening and you will get a higher percentage who could achieve academic success.

 

It's important to remember that charter schools aren't truly "public" in the sense that one must apply to attend, and students can be kicked back to the truly public schools for minor behavioral infractions. Also, few charter schools accept children with disabilities - particularly major cognitive and physical disabilities - so they really aren't comparable to public schools which must, by law, accept everyone. This system of public-private schooling emerged from the integration wars in Mississippi (which doesn't have charter schools because most White kids already go to "Independent" schools), so it shouldn't be surprised that these schools contribute, over time, to more segregation.

^ I mentioned the difference and the application process. And black children can attend as well. Charter schools have actually really helped black children in poor mostly black areas. It gave children a chance who otherwise would most likely have failed. Just look at Harlem.

I don't think the data is there to lead anyone to conclude that charter schools are "successful."  There are a few really good ones, a few mediocre ones, and a lot of really bad ones.  That's despite the motivation/selection factor.  One thing that charter schools are good at doing is being as much or more so segregated than regular public schools, at least in Northeast Ohio.

 

There are some interesting, innovative, and positive things going on in some charter schools, but I don't think they're quite the answer, at least not in enticing families that can move further out to stay in urban/inner-ring areas.  At least, I don't think, not more so than magnet/honors schools can.

The issue then is what do you do with the other 400 or so kids who dont care? How do you get education to become important to these children and their parents. I think one thing that could work is a huge stress on the importance in the beginning years. Kindergarten, First grade - fifth grade. As they get older, pushing the importance must still continue. So even if there is no support at home, hopefully there will be a somewhat strong support system at school. Many will drop off from that path, and others wont achieve as high, but I think it would be better then what is currently happening and you will get a higher percentage who could achieve academic success.

 

This is not a new or unknown revelation, though.  Urban public school administrators and education researchers have known this for a long time.  This was the scientific impetus behind Head Start and other early childhood education programs.  What they later found was that they had a strong impact in the early years, but that much of those gains vanished over the course of adolescence.  (Nevertheless, it does have some positive impact.)

 

Urban public schools do try to give a support system.  There are two problems with that: (1) Public schools still only have children for maybe 7 hours a day (unless they're involved in extracurriculars, but most of the students we're talking about don't participate in extracurriculars), and (2) that still puts those public schools at a serious disadvantage against suburban schools, charter schools, and private schools that don't need to invest time, money, and energy in providing a basic support system and can instead concentrate on their core academic missions (i.e., where the parents and community institutions already provide enough support).