How about yourself?  Didn't you go to St. Edward? 

 

No idea where you got that from.  Not that it's any of your business, but 13 years of public schooling for me.

 

Sorry for the mistake, I must have you confused with someone else.  I thought I remembered reading that you went St. Edward on one of the other forums that you and I both post on (I have a different name there).

This conversation is spinning a little out of control.  Clevelander17, I think you raise completely real issues facing the Cleveland area. Large influxes of impoverished or even working class citizens without middle class values into concentrated areas of suburbs is not great for their long term viability as places for middle class families (of any race) to raise families.  And I think lots of people on this board and in these communities probably agree with you.  I think you're wrong that CH and SH are near a "tipping point"- people have literally been saying that exact same thing for 40 years- but that's a different (and also interesting) conversation.

 

But I think you are off target when you think municipal government has much or any influence on these trends, except the power to zone out anyone who can't afford a sf home on a half acre lot.  Do you really think differences between CH and UH are because of more effective government in UH?  I agree that regional integration is oversold for the same reason.

 

I think you are really off target when your discussion of regionalism spins into a larger discussion of social welfare spending, most of which is funded through federal money.  There is nothing UH does or can due to limit taxation for those purposes.

 

Good post.

 

Two points:

 

There are different types of poor people, ones who humbly take their government check and do their best to help their family move forward and become productive members of society.  The second type of people get their check, spend it on all kinds of crazy things (like cars with spinners), drive in those cars at all hours of the night, and generally ruin the neighborhood.  I don't care if you're poor and your contribution to society is limited at this point.  I do care if you're and not only aren't you contributing to society, but you're making things worse.

 

I agree that parts of Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights will remain stable for the foreseeable future.  However there are parts of both cities that are trashed beyond repair.  It bothers me to see two communities that are unique and valuable in the region becoming worse and worse with every decade that passes.

 

Second, while most government programs are funded Federally, schools are funded locally.  And in the Heights, no expense is spared.  That means that kids who come from families that don't care about education, and aren't paying for it, are getting one of the priciest educations in the state.  I don't see how that makes sense.

Exactly what areas of Cleveland Heights are "trashed beyond repair"?  I'm not saying there aren't some, but your take on that question my provide some needed context in your line of posts.

Exactly what areas of Cleveland Heights are "trashed beyond repair"? I'm not saying there aren't some, but your take on that question my provide some needed context in your line of posts.

 

In Cleveland Heights, north Noble is in bad shape.  In Shaker Heights, the southwest corner of the city around Chagrin-Lee needs some serious TLC.  These and a few other parts of both suburbs look like inner-city slums and I wouldn't want to walk around alone in these areas after dark.

 

I know this is bit off of the specific topic of regionalism, but I still feel that a lot of this ties in together.  As of now, suburbs get to decide how their land is used (for the most part).  Merge cities together with one central government, and who's to say that the downtown is going to zone areas with the best interests of the residents in mind.

Exactly what areas of Cleveland Heights are "trashed beyond repair"?  I'm not saying there aren't some, but your take on that question my provide some needed context in your line of posts.

 

In Cleveland Heights, north Noble is in bad shape.

 

North Noble Rd. is in East Cleveland.  Once you cross over Euclid, go up the hill past Nela Park, on Noble Rd. you enter Cleveland Hts.  Is that area "trashed beyond repair"?  Someone should have told the developers that recently put some very nice, built up to the street, townhomes about 1/2 mile before you get to the police station.

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=noble+rd+cleveland+heights&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=35.136115,78.837891&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Noble+Rd,+Cleveland,+Cuyahoga,+Ohio&ll=41.538073,-81.557693&spn=0,359.980752&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.537955,-81.557386&panoid=ksEDn0a9PUzoiNE5lhP5gg&cbp=12,154.07,,0,5

 

 

Exactly what areas of Cleveland Heights are "trashed beyond repair"? I'm not saying there aren't some, but your take on that question my provide some needed context in your line of posts.

 

In Cleveland Heights, north Noble is in bad shape.

 

North Noble Rd. is in East Cleveland. Once you cross over Euclid, go up the hill past Nela Park, on Noble Rd. you enter Cleveland Hts. Is that area "trashed beyond repair"? Someone should have told the developers that recently put some very nice, built up to the street, townhomes about 1/2 mile before you get to the police station.

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=noble+rd+cleveland+heights&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=35.136115,78.837891&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Noble+Rd,+Cleveland,+Cuyahoga,+Ohio&ll=41.538073,-81.557693&spn=0,359.980752&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.537955,-81.557386&panoid=ksEDn0a9PUzoiNE5lhP5gg&cbp=12,154.07,,0,5

 

 

 

I didn't say "North Noble Rd.," I said "north Noble Rd."  There is a difference.  Those townhomes are out of place, no one in their right mind, especially with a family, would live in that area.

Like I said..... elitist.

 

No worries though... all the best athletes come from monticello or roxboro anyways.

 

Not that it matters, but even if it were relevant, it's worth noting that most of the kids at Wiley are from Cleveland Heights, too.

 

Fine, yes, there are similarities between the Northwest corner of UH and eastern CH, I'll give you that.  But the further you move east, the more evident the differences become.

 

Huh?  Are you saying there are no orthodox Jewish people in Cleveland Heights?

 

Many people in Cleveland Heights send their kids to private schools as well.  The schools aren't really an issue here, though, since CH and UH already share the same school district.

 

Do cities need to be demographically homogeneous?  Even so, SE isn't much more like UH than CH is.  If anything, SE is more similar to CH (especially with respect to average household income).  Although if it's % black that you're worried about (I think that' the elephant in the room), sure, you could shun the 41% black city and associate yourself with a 21% black city.  Is that what everyone's so worried about?

 

Either way, I think both CH and UH (as well as a bunch of other communities, SH included) should be merging with Cleveland.

 

University Heights residents send their kids to private schools at a rate that is unmatched in the region and from I gather, even the state.  That's no coincidence  Many UH residents want nothing to do with CH and the schools. 

 

By the way, the per capita income for CH and UH are nearly identical, whereas SE is almost $4,000 lower.  So I'm assuming you just want the lowest percentage of African-Americans possible when you speak of "demographics"?

 

Yes, but look at household and family income levels.  There's a pretty significant disparity there.

 

In a perfect world, University Heights would merge with Beachwood, but that's not going to happen.  UH's next best dance partner would be Shaker Heights, and that possibility would probably be 50-50, at best.

 

"University Heights residents send their kids to private schools at a rate that is unmatched in the region" Let me pull your card: Where are the stats? or is this just your OPINION?

Like I said..... elitist.

 

No worries though... all the best athletes come from monticello or roxboro anyways.

 

Not that it matters, but even if it were relevant, it's worth noting that most of the kids at Wiley are from Cleveland Heights, too.

 

Fine, yes, there are similarities between the Northwest corner of UH and eastern CH, I'll give you that. But the further you move east, the more evident the differences become.

 

Huh? Are you saying there are no orthodox Jewish people in Cleveland Heights?

 

Many people in Cleveland Heights send their kids to private schools as well. The schools aren't really an issue here, though, since CH and UH already share the same school district.

 

Do cities need to be demographically homogeneous? Even so, SE isn't much more like UH than CH is. If anything, SE is more similar to CH (especially with respect to average household income). Although if it's % black that you're worried about (I think that' the elephant in the room), sure, you could shun the 41% black city and associate yourself with a 21% black city. Is that what everyone's so worried about?

 

Either way, I think both CH and UH (as well as a bunch of other communities, SH included) should be merging with Cleveland.

 

University Heights residents send their kids to private schools at a rate that is unmatched in the region and from I gather, even the state. That's no coincidence Many UH residents want nothing to do with CH and the schools.

 

By the way, the per capita income for CH and UH are nearly identical, whereas SE is almost $4,000 lower. So I'm assuming you just want the lowest percentage of African-Americans possible when you speak of "demographics"?

 

Yes, but look at household and family income levels. There's a pretty significant disparity there.

 

In a perfect world, University Heights would merge with Beachwood, but that's not going to happen. UH's next best dance partner would be Shaker Heights, and that possibility would probably be 50-50, at best.

 

"University Heights residents send their kids to private schools at a rate that is unmatched in the region" Let me pull your card: Where are the stats? or is this just your OPINION?

 

Here's UH: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2007/snapshots/PL3978932.html

 

Here's a list of other cities in Ohio: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2007/states/OH.html

 

UH checks in at 60%.  That number is staggering.  I didn't click on every city on that list, but I clicked on a lot of them, especially cities in this area that I thought might have high percentages, but none of them even come close to the UH number.

Clevelander,

 

I understand many of your concerns and I've heard them from many other people.  It will do no good (at least in the context of regionalism) to argue whether the concerns are exaggerated or not, which areas are unsafe, etc.  Perception is reality, and if that is the perception of the people, it is an important point to consider in the discussion.  The point I don't understand is why people think cities themselves cause this to happen and how changing city boundaries will affect demographics.  I feel that if anything, it's school district boundaries that have a much bigger impact on suburban flight.

 

Second, while most government programs are funded Federally, schools are funded locally.  And in the Heights, no expense is spared.  That means that kids who come from families that don't care about education, and aren't paying for it, are getting one of the priciest educations in the state.  I don't see how that makes sense.

 

That's fine.  I can respect your view of the school system.  By no means do I think that there aren't changes that need to be made.  But once again, this is a discussion unrelated to regionalism in the CH-UH context (and any other regionalism discussion where school boundaries would remain unchanged) as the school district is already a "sunk cost" for residents that don't use it.

 

There are different types of poor people, ones who humbly take their government check and do their best to help their family move forward and become productive members of society.  The second type of people get their check, spend it on all kinds of crazy things (like cars with spinners), drive in those cars at all hours of the night, and generally ruin the neighborhood.  I don't care if you're poor and your contribution to society is limited at this point.  I do care if you're and not only aren't you contributing to society, but you're making things worse.

 

And there are all types in between.  And some people transition from one end to the other.  And nobody wants to live next to the guy that has no respect for the law or his neighbor.  But I'm not sure what this has to do with cities banding together.  I don't think that Cleveland Heights does anything specifically to attract "bad neighbors" or entice them to move to its fair city.  I don't think University Heights does anything specific to prevent it from happening, either.  The best way for neighborhoods to remain stable, regardless of race or integration level, is for the people and businesses to take a vested interest in their own community.  I think you see that in areas of all three Heights cities, and I don't see how city borders determine which areas have been preserved more, which areas have lower crime, which areas have the perception of being desirable, etc.

^Yup.  Clevelander17, I was leaving school districts out of the mix because I think any merger discussions there is completely off the table in most people's eyes. You are totally right that they are hugely important and do drive a lot of local taxation.

 

I think you are a tad alarmist, though, about some of these demographic trends as they pertain to the Heights (and no, not because I'm a 20 year-old idealist).  Their proximity to UC and downtown and housing stock give them much more staying power than the bungalow/post war burbs, which, like Euclid face much more dire long term challenges. And I also think you boil social problems down to single dimensional stereotypes a bit too much, which a lot of people find kind of offensive.  Even multidimensional stereotypes would be better.

 

A very interesting regionalism-related development is the county reform plan.  It will be very interesting to see how the new county council operates.  This will really be the first body (other than NOACA?) with broad countywide representation,  no?

I understand that school districts and municipalities are completely different entities.  So with that stated, what would be a good way of going about regionalizing the schools?

 

I can't speak for other areas, but on a smaller scale I think that CH-UH could/should explore merging with SE-L and RH.  Other districts that might make sense in such a merger would be Mayfield, Shaker Heights, and Beachwood, though for various reasons I doubt any of those parties would be interested.  Would be worth discussing though.

 

Also, what about rolling some of the independent library systems into the very successful Cuyahoga County system?  Somewhere I recall reading that CH-UH and SH could save a decent chunk of change if they joined up with the County system.  I'd get on board with that.

I think a county-wide consolidation for the schools is the only major shift that is even plausible.  You would have to maintain the "sub" district lines probably, but you could consolidate school boards and administration.

Schools will be the last form of any sort of regionalism being discussed. way, way, way last.

 

Edit:  With the exception of school funding, which is actively being discussed, and may be county wide.

What about some countywide magnet schools?  I don't know where the money would come from, but might be a more palatable way to provide some more choices for middle class parents who who want to live in the City of Cleveland or other sub par districts.  If their kids test well enough to get in, that is.

I think a county-wide consolidation for the schools is the only major shift that is even plausible.

 

Plausible on what level?  You think families in places like Beachwood, Solon, Orange, Bay Village, Westlake, Brecksville, etc., etc., would ever go for that?  It's not going to happen, let's talk more realistically here.  Would no benefit be derived from the merger I suggested?

^That type of confusion ensues when you only quote half of the original post.

^That type of confusion ensues when you only quote half of the original post.

 

"Sub-district" line or not, it's not going to happen.  And even if it could happen, how would that address that inequities that exist amongst the different school districts?  Sure money may be saved, but is that all we're going for here?

Saving money might be the only realistic goal.  The inequities are not going to be solved for the reasons you cited above.

Saving money might be the only realistic goal. The inequities are not going to be solved for the reasons you cited above.

 

I think if smaller mergers such as the one I suggested were to occur, it would give districts and families more options.  For instance, the magnet school program could be explored again, including an honors school and a school that served a similar purpose to Taylor Academy for delinquent "students."

Along the lines of school district / city boundary issues, here's an interesting article I read a few days ago in the Lorain Journal.  This is anti-regionalism, in my opinion; let's not start a dispute between two neighboring cities!  Basically, councilmen in the city of Amherst would like to annex portions of the city of Lorain that lie within the Amherst School District (who's boundaries extend into the west side of Lorain, where all of the new developments are occurring):

 

Amherst councilman pushing to annex part of Lorain's west side

By SCOT ALLYN | [email protected] | accessed 03/12/2010

 

LORAIN — Residents of Lorain's west side might wake up one morning and find themselves residents of Amherst, if a plan by Amherst City Councilman Joe Gambish to annex a portion of Lorain is carried out.

 

Gambish, Amherst's 3rd Ward councilman, said he wants the Lorain families whose children attend Amherst schools to become residents of Amherst. He didn't know how many properties are involved.

 

Rest of the story and a MAP showing boundaries:  http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2010/03/09/news/mj2426328.txt

 

 

I don't think Amherst is going to be successful in annexing that part of Lorain.  I've heard of cities annexing other unincorporated areas, but never heard of one city annexing part of another.  I think the process must be quite difficult.

South Euclid is exploring contracting with Cleveland for garbage (and possibly snow) removal:

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/05/cleveland_officials_talking_to.html

 

If I'm a South Euclid resident, I'd be wondering about how this is going to save money, or even provide equal or better services than what they've currently got.  And the SE service director's comment about private business is pure nonsense.

The part about "not being driven by profit" being the reason why the city might be able to do it more cheaply is economically unsound, true, but to the extent that it's a monopsonistic (single-buyer) market, there's some truth to the bottom line of the statement.  Also, it's not a completely free market because "participation" in the market (i.e., trash removal) is mandatory, for completely sane reasons.  This has the effect of making the demand compulsorily inelastic, which would give a private company artificially increased price-setting power if it were allowed to capitalize on it.  The same is also true of sewer systems: people generally have no exit options (although some people may be able to work with private septic systems, it's rare for a large municipality to be able to offer that option to everyone), which means that if a private company could charge what it wished, it could ratchet up the cost without giving the consumers the ultimate veto power they have in a truly competitive market--the ability to walk away.

It's not as much about the individual's choice as the city's choice and I do believe there are multiple options there thus providing incentive to private business to be competitive.  Interestingly enough, I'm aware of some Geauga County townships where trash removal is left up to the resident, not the local government.  Might now work or make sense in an area like South Euclid, however.

Perfect example of a town that needs to merge with someone else. I'm guessing the people there would rather end up in Cuyahoga Hts, but there's no good reason Newburgh Heights shouldn't end up in Cleveland.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/05/newburgh_heights_future_in_dou.html

 

Newburgh Heights' future in doubt when RTA closes Harvard District bus garage

 

By Karen Farkas, The Plain Dealer

May 19, 2010, 8:00AM

 

NEWBURGH HEIGHTS, Ohio -- When RTA closes its Harvard District bus garage, it will be a severe blow to tiny Newburgh Heights, its mayor said Tuesday.

 

Shuttering the village's biggest employer will lead to a loss of $92,000 a year in payroll taxes, Mayor Derrick Kinder said.

 

The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority will mothball the service garage in September and operate out of its remaining two garages in Cleveland and East Cleveland, a move that will save $5 million a year, said General Manager Joe Calabrese.

 

 

 

Reguardless of who they merged with, I think the point is, there is no good reason Newburgh Heights should exist.  I'm guessing their citizenry complains that "taxes are too high" and never stops to think that a "city" of .6 square miles is over burdened paying for its own police, fire, and ems forces, city council and mayors, etc.  And people around here always ask what makes us "business unfriendly"...  It's NOT the business tax rates which are actually fairly reasonable.  Its paying to replicate services every 50 feet, and "cities" living and dying on income taxes and doing anything they can to take business from their neighbors, because they know if a business leaves all they can really do is raise residential property taxes to pay for the services... which of course drives people out.  Great system.  Let's keep it going.

One of my biggest pet-peeves is seeing articles about "Cleveland's huge population loss" when the reality is that the metropolitan area's population has remained relatively flat for 50 years--meaning that the majority of people "leaving" have simply relocated to the suburbs.

 

So regionalization should fix this, right?

 

Merge the city and the county and we're back as the tenth-largest city in the nation again. This idea appeals to me greatly. None of this crap about Columbus trying to claim the title for Ohio's largest city.  I hate that!

 

So if the problem is that the suburbs don’t want to lose control, how do we sow the seeds of regionalization while maximizing local control? I’ve heard talk about “boroughs,” but has anyone come up with a plan of implementation?  What is it that the suburbs value most that they don’t want to lose through regionalization? Surely, this doesn’t entail a complete loss of local control.

 

Which service presents the most pressing need for regionalization? I’d probably have to say it’s police and fire.  CH won’t like it since we tend to have a 1:1 police:resident ratio, but I think most residents would agree we could stand to cut down on the police presence a bit (who decides this stuff anyway?)–those CH cops would be much more useful patrolling into East Cleveland.

One of my biggest pet-peeves is seeing articles about "Cleveland's huge population loss" when the reality is that the metropolitan area's population has remained relatively flat for 50 years--meaning that the majority of people "leaving" have simply relocated to the suburbs.

 

So regionalization should fix this, right?

 

Merge the city and the county and we're back as the tenth-largest city in the nation again. This idea appeals to me greatly. None of this crap about Columbus trying to claim the title for Ohio's largest city. I hate that!

 

So if the problem is that the suburbs dont want to lose control, how do we sow the seeds of regionalization while maximizing local control? Ive heard talk about boroughs, but has anyone come up with a plan of implementation? What is it that the suburbs value most that they dont want to lose through regionalization? Surely, this doesnt entail a complete loss of local control.

 

Which service presents the most pressing need for regionalization? Id probably have to say its police and fire. CH wont like it since we tend to have a 1:1 police:resident ratio, but I think most residents would agree we could stand to cut down on the police presence a bit (who decides this stuff anyway?)those CH cops would be much more useful patrolling into East Cleveland.

 

One of the excuses I hear when I bring the subject up when I'm in the area is schools.  God forbid that a kid in Bay Village be exposed to "Cleveland".  The first thing that would make regionalism almost defacto would be to merge all of the City/Suburban schhol districts into a County School System. 

Good questions ccars.  Here are my thoughts on the issue.

 

I don't think I would mind having county-wide police, as long as there was a "local" police station, fast police response times, and a continued police presence in the neighborhood. 

 

In fact, regionalize all you want, just don't give me less service.  Trash, tree-trimming, park maintenance, snow-plowing, street maintenance, fire departments -- I probably wouldn't notice whether it was my city doing those jobs or the county. 

 

The bigger the organization (corporation or city government), the less responsive they seem to be, however.  It will be difficult to ensure that everyone feels like their problems are being addressed in a larger government entity.  Perhaps that's where you would hope that your ward/borough representative would have a good staff, but if not ?  That's something the new county government will have to address if they want suburbs to give up their own government to join the county.

 

Each ward/borough of the county should have it's own local "downtown" commercial district where people of that community can gather together.  Since you brought up Cleveland Heights, good examples would be Coventry, Cedar-Fairmount, Cedar-Lee, etc. 

 

 

Everyone is protective of their local schools, that might be the hardest area to consolidate.  My own feeling is that  everyone ought to have an elementary school within walking distance.  I think that helps to maintain local involvement in a school, which encourages a sense of community.  Yes, if money alone is considered, some areas will lose their schools.  But this is one area where I think it is worth spending a little extra to have a local elementary.  I'm probably in the minority on that issue.  I have no problems with middle/high schools farther away.  Those kids aren't so eager to have their parents around the school anyway, and parents are less concerned that they can't take care of themselves between school and home.

 

 

Based on my limited information, I think Cleveland Heights has a very good police department.  Very professional, if a bit of a stickler for following the "rules," like speed limits.  (You would think I should know that by now.)  I don't think they are overstaffed, nor would I want fewer officers patrolling my neighborhood.  East Cleveland probably does need more officers though.

 

My understanding is that for some time Cleveland Heights paid the salary of one East Cleveland police officer.  I don't know whether that is still the case, but it wasn't done just out of charity, there was a definite benefit for Cleveland Heights.

One of the excuses I hear when I bring the subject up when I'm in the area is schools.  God forbid that a kid in Bay Village be exposed to "Cleveland".  The first thing that would make regionalism almost defacto would be to merge all of the City/Suburban schhol districts into a County School System. 

 

But is it even necessary to touch the schools at all? I don't see how improving schooling from abysmal to mediocre is going to help the depressed areas.  There are plenty of us who do not consume school services at all, especially since it is relatively affordable to send your kid to a private school.

 

Not only that, I don't think that merging school districts does much for unity.  I know the CH-UH rift has been discussed earlier in this thread, but their school district has been merged for years.  The two suburbs want nothing to do with each other, which is a real mind-boggler for me (although I heard UH doesn't even allow kegs, so screw them!)

 

I think education really has to take a back seat to safety here.  I think it could stand to be sold much harder: clean up crime in those real problem areas, and you're going to improve the feeling of safety throughout the city.  Wipe away that bad perception. That way, I don't have to hear about shootings in Coventry on the news.

One of the excuses I hear when I bring the subject up when I'm in the area is schools. God forbid that a kid in Bay Village be exposed to "Cleveland". The first thing that would make regionalism almost defacto would be to merge all of the City/Suburban schhol districts into a County School System.

 

But is it even necessary to touch the schools at all? I don't see how improving schooling from abysmal to mediocre is going to help the depressed areas. There are plenty of us who do not consume school services at all, especially since it is relatively affordable to send your kid to a private school.

 

Not only that, I don't think that merging school districts does much for unity. I know the CH-UH rift has been discussed earlier in this thread, but their school district has been merged for years. The two suburbs want nothing to do with each other, which is a real mind-boggler for me (although I heard UH doesn't even allow kegs, so screw them!)

 

I think education really has to take a back seat to safety here. I think it could stand to be sold much harder: clean up crime in those real problem areas, and you're going to improve the feeling of safety throughout the city. Wipe away that bad perception. That way, I don't have to hear about shootings in Coventry on the news.

 

Yes, but its the schools issue that people harp on the most when trying to justify separation of city and burbs

It doesn't seem unfeasible to regionalize certain functions while keeping regional school districts intact. The fiefdoms can continue to levy a local tax for schools if they want, but they pay into the fund for one police department that isn't nearly as annoying and powertripping as the CH cops because they have to deal with real problems rather than drunk people or noise complaints. (Forgive my bitterness, but if we really do live in the second most dangerous city in the country, why is it that there are police staking out my neighborhood every night just to give people noise tickets, or screaming at people to get off the sidewalk? This is absurd.)

At the end of the day, it's 100% about schools.  Parents want to send their kids to school with a group of kids who have 1 common denominator among them:  they all have parents who are active in their child's life.

 

People from the suburbs see what happened within Cleveland itself a la regionalism.  Instead of Cleveland Schools being based in the neighborhood and where you lived within the district, they opened it up for any kid to go to any school anywhere in the district.  Suddenly the few schools in Cleveland that were performing OK went into the toilet. 

 

You can't just introduce kids with deadbeat parents to a population of kids with active parents and expect the kid to turn around b/c he/she is exposed to a better environment...unless of course you simply never send the kid home.

 

Read up on the Harlem Children's Zone and what their research found that the problem was with the Harlem Schools.  It wasn't the schools, it wasn't the teachers, it wasn't the books, it wasn't the kids learning ability...it was the fact that the kids had to go home.  Malcolm Gladwell has a good chapter on it in his book "Outliers".

At the end of the day, it's 100% about schools.  Parents want to send their kids to school with a group of kids who have 1 common denominator among them:  they all have parents who are active in their child's life.

 

People from the suburbs see what happened within Cleveland itself a la regionalism.  Instead of Cleveland Schools being based in the neighborhood and where you lived within the district, they opened it up for any kid to go to any school anywhere in the district.  Suddenly the few schools in Cleveland that were performing OK went into the toilet. 

 

You can't just introduce kids with deadbeat parents to a population of kids with active parents and expect the kid to turn around b/c he/she is exposed to a better environment...unless of course you simply never send the kid home.

 

Read up on the Harlem Children's Zone and what their research found that the problem was with the Harlem Schools.  It wasn't the schools, it wasn't the teachers, it wasn't the books, it wasn't the kids learning ability...it was the fact that the kids had to go home.  Malcolm Gladwell has a good chapter on it in his book "Outliers".

 

But look at Charlotte/Mecklenberg schools in the 1970's when "forced" busing was introduced to de-segregate schools.  Seems to have worked just fine. 

Cuyahoga county schools would have worked out OK if done 40-50+ years ago.  If you did it now everyone would move out of the county, it will never ever happen.... as for Charlotte Mecklemberg schools, while they are "OK", you still have people downt there moving outside of mecklenberg county "for the schools".  By in large it just created a giant mediocre school district.

^I totally agree re. Cuy County. What does seem more feasible (maybe) is a countywide magnet program, at least for higher grades.  Could be financed like a countywide charter school: the home district keeps all the locally raised property taxes, but the state contribution would follow the student to the magnet (which would then receive additional state money directly).  If nothing else, this would allow families with motivated students to live anywhere in the county without worrying about the quality of that district's schools.

At the end of the day, it's 100% about schools.  Parents want to send their kids to school with a group of kids who have 1 common denominator among them:  they all have parents who are active in their child's life.

People from the suburbs see what happened within Cleveland itself a la regionalism.  Instead of Cleveland Schools being based in the neighborhood and where you lived within the district, they opened it up for any kid to go to any school anywhere in the district.  Suddenly the few schools in Cleveland that were performing OK went into the toilet. 

 

You can't just introduce kids with deadbeat parents to a population of kids with active parents and expect the kid to turn around b/c he/she is exposed to a better environment...unless of course you simply never send the kid home.

 

Read up on the Harlem Children's Zone and what their research found that the problem was with the Harlem Schools.  It wasn't the schools, it wasn't the teachers, it wasn't the books, it wasn't the kids learning ability...it was the fact that the kids had to go home.  Malcolm Gladwell has a good chapter on it in his book "Outliers".

 

Is every Suburban/rural parent is active in their childs life?

 

I went to Shaker and I knew kids who's parents didn't know what their kids were doing from day-to-day, but because they were rich, its a different story.  Right??  I knew kids who's parent only worried about the keeping up appearances.  Yet their kid was strung out.  And when the shit hit the fan, mommie and daddy rush to school to find out what they can do to get their kid passed to the next grade so the neighbors wouldnt talk.

 

My nephews and neice attend Shaker. Same thing.  Kids who's parents don't really care about them, but live to say "we live in shaker and have good schools".

 

Also, I think that is insulting to imply the many parents of students in the CMSD do not care about their children and their childrens educations.

 

My father and his siblings are products of the CSS; many of my cousins are and many of their children are current students.  Not everyone in the system is poor or a bad representation of the CMSD.

 

Now, I agree it's a combination of parenting and having a child who is focused.

Cuyahoga county schools would have worked out OK if done 40-50+ years ago. If you did it now everyone would move out of the county, it will never ever happen.... as for Charlotte Mecklemberg schools, while they are "OK", you still have people downt there moving outside of mecklenberg county "for the schools". By in large it just created a giant mediocre school district.

 

 

The same thing is happening in Nashville. It surprises me, but people area already moving out of the county due to the schools.

It doesn't' have anything to do with segregation or race or religion or learning ability or opportunity.

 

It has to do with are you or aren't you being raised by a responsible parent?  Is the residential neighborhood stable enough so when a kid goes home after school and for the summer, that he/she doesn't lose everything it learned at school?

 

It's the same reason that even within really good school districts they don't put too many "problem" children in the same classroom.  In a class of 20, you can have 2-3 "problem" kids.  Any more than that and those types of kids (who 99 out of 100 are a "problem" b/c their parents are degenerates) just dominate the classroom and really bog it down and prevent other kids from learning.

At the end of the day, it's 100% about schools.  Parents want to send their kids to school with a group of kids who have 1 common denominator among them:  they all have parents who are active in their child's life.

People from the suburbs see what happened within Cleveland itself a la regionalism.  Instead of Cleveland Schools being based in the neighborhood and where you lived within the district, they opened it up for any kid to go to any school anywhere in the district.  Suddenly the few schools in Cleveland that were performing OK went into the toilet. 

 

You can't just introduce kids with deadbeat parents to a population of kids with active parents and expect the kid to turn around b/c he/she is exposed to a better environment...unless of course you simply never send the kid home.

 

Read up on the Harlem Children's Zone and what their research found that the problem was with the Harlem Schools.  It wasn't the schools, it wasn't the teachers, it wasn't the books, it wasn't the kids learning ability...it was the fact that the kids had to go home.  Malcolm Gladwell has a good chapter on it in his book "Outliers".

 

Is every Suburban/rural parent is active in their childs life?

 

I went to Shaker and I knew kids who's parents didn't know what their kids were doing from day-to-day, but because they were rich, its a different story.  Right??  I knew kids who's parent only worried about the keeping up appearances.  Yet their kid was strung out.  And when the sh!t hit the fan, mommie and daddy rush to school to find out what they can do to get their kid passed to the next grade so the neighbors wouldnt talk.

 

My nephews and neice attend Shaker. Same thing.  Kids who's parents don't really care about them, but live to say "we live in shaker and have good schools".

 

Also, I think that is insulting to imply the many parents of students in the CMSD do not care about their children and their childrens educations.

 

My father and his siblings are products of the CSS; many of my cousins are and many of their children are current students.  Not everyone in the system is poor or a bad representation of the CMSD.

 

Now, I agree it's a combination of parenting and having a child who is focused.

 

I'm not really sure what the purpose of this response was.  I didn't say that is what suburban schools were, I said that's what parents WANT.  And yes, parents WANT their child to be around other children with responsible parents.

 

And I'm sure not all CMSD parents are irresponsible, but the ratio of responsible to irresponsible is high enough that it ruins the entire district.  All you really need is 20% or so to be "bad" to bring down everyone else.

 

At the end of the day, it's 100% about schools.  Parents want to send their kids to school with a group of kids who have 1 common denominator among them:  they all have parents who are active in their child's life.

People from the suburbs see what happened within Cleveland itself a la regionalism.  Instead of Cleveland Schools being based in the neighborhood and where you lived within the district, they opened it up for any kid to go to any school anywhere in the district.  Suddenly the few schools in Cleveland that were performing OK went into the toilet. 

 

You can't just introduce kids with deadbeat parents to a population of kids with active parents and expect the kid to turn around b/c he/she is exposed to a better environment...unless of course you simply never send the kid home.

 

Read up on the Harlem Children's Zone and what their research found that the problem was with the Harlem Schools.  It wasn't the schools, it wasn't the teachers, it wasn't the books, it wasn't the kids learning ability...it was the fact that the kids had to go home.  Malcolm Gladwell has a good chapter on it in his book "Outliers".

 

Is every Suburban/rural parent is active in their childs life?

 

I went to Shaker and I knew kids who's parents didn't know what their kids were doing from day-to-day, but because they were rich, its a different story.  Right??  I knew kids who's parent only worried about the keeping up appearances.  Yet their kid was strung out.  And when the sh!t hit the fan, mommie and daddy rush to school to find out what they can do to get their kid passed to the next grade so the neighbors wouldnt talk.

 

My nephews and neice attend Shaker. Same thing.  Kids who's parents don't really care about them, but live to say "we live in shaker and have good schools".

 

Also, I think that is insulting to imply the many parents of students in the CMSD do not care about their children and their childrens educations.

 

My father and his siblings are products of the CSS; many of my cousins are and many of their children are current students.  Not everyone in the system is poor or a bad representation of the CMSD.

 

Now, I agree it's a combination of parenting and having a child who is focused.

 

I'm not really sure what the purpose of this response was.  I didn't say that is what suburban schools were, I said that's what parents WANT.  And yes, parents WANT their child to be around other children with responsible parents.

 

And I'm sure not all CMSD parents are irresponsible, but the ratio of responsible to irresponsible is high enough that it ruins the entire district.  All you really need is 20% or so to be "bad" to bring down everyone else.

 

 

and what is that rate?

Cuyahoga county schools would have worked out OK if done 40-50+ years ago.  If you did it now everyone would move out of the county, it will never ever happen.... as for Charlotte Mecklemberg schools, while they are "OK", you still have people downt there moving outside of mecklenberg county "for the schools".  By in large it just created a giant mediocre school district.

 

 

The same thing is happening in Nashville. It surprises me, but people area already moving out of the county due to the schools.

 

If you move out of Davidson County, where do you go?  Once you get outside Nashville, there isn't anything...

the same thing can be said about charlotte... but they are moving out of the county anyways for the schools

Cuyahoga county schools would have worked out OK if done 40-50+ years ago. If you did it now everyone would move out of the county, it will never ever happen.... as for Charlotte Mecklemberg schools, while they are "OK", you still have people downt there moving outside of mecklenberg county "for the schools". By in large it just created a giant mediocre school district.

 

 

The same thing is happening in Nashville. It surprises me, but people area already moving out of the county due to the schools.

 

If you move out of Davidson County, where do you go?   Once you get outside Nashville, there isn't anything...

 

Williamson County is where its at now. That's where all the money is going. It is quickly becoming very developed. Brentwood and Franklin are both in Williamson.

the same thing can be said about charlotte... but they are moving out of the county anyways for the schools

 

I think schools are the excuse for the move.  I went to school in one of the western suburbs and I witnessed the same sh*t that only supposedly happens in cleveland.  I mean how far away do you move?  People are in alot of denial in the burbs because it's "their" kids

Cuyahoga county schools would have worked out OK if done 40-50+ years ago. If you did it now everyone would move out of the county, it will never ever happen.... as for Charlotte Mecklemberg schools, while they are "OK", you still have people downt there moving outside of mecklenberg county "for the schools". By in large it just created a giant mediocre school district.

 

 

The same thing is happening in Nashville. It surprises me, but people area already moving out of the county due to the schools.

 

If you move out of Davidson County, where do you go?   Once you get outside Nashville, there isn't anything...

 

For example, Brentwood is already so big now that they have 2 public high schools. Lots of cul-de-sacs and strip malls.

It doesn't seem unfeasible to regionalize certain functions while keeping regional school districts intact. The fiefdoms can continue to levy a local tax for schools if they want, but they pay into the fund for one police department that isn't nearly as annoying and powertripping as the CH cops because they have to deal with real problems rather than drunk people or noise complaints. (Forgive my bitterness, but if we really do live in the second most dangerous city in the country, why is it that there are police staking out my neighborhood every night just to give people noise tickets, or screaming at people to get off the sidewalk? This is absurd.)

 

I agree with this, but many of the people who support regionalism think that regionally consolidated school districts are a sine qua non of successful regional integration, and the thought of ramming integration down the throat of [insert series of unflattering adjectives] suburbanites only makes them like the prospect all the more.

 

I've said multiple times in the past that I think getting rid of public schools entirely and moving to a universal voucher program would be a blessing for both the quality of education and for the feasibility of revitalizing the inner cities, but obviously I'm on the opposite side of most urbanism/regionalism advocates there.  Nevertheless, I know for myself that one of the only things that would ever force me to the suburbs would be the school districts (my preferred solution, however, is to become sufficiently filthy rich that I can have an urban lifestyle and send all my children to private school).

 

However, for the purposes of this topic--regionalism in Northeast Ohio--the school districts would be the easiest thing to leave independent because they already exist independently of incorporated municipalities and townships.  Even high schools that share their name with a municipality often actually don't have school district boundaries completely coterminal with that municipality.

 

I fully support integrating police, fire, and emergency services; the potential for jurisdictional snafus and inefficient allocation of resources is high and the implications for police and fire protection of those misallocations are greater than most others.  I think most suburbanites would be receptive to campaigns for consolidating police/fire/other emergency services, as well as public utilities.  I'd be curious to see how they react to the concept of sharing municipal amenities like pools and similar amenities that have sometimes been jurisdictionally exclusive (contra, for example, the public library, which seldom requires you to be a resident to have a library card ... I've stayed a member of Columbus Metropolitan and I haven't lived in the city in six years now).

I agree with this, but many of the people who support regionalism think that regionally consolidated school districts are a sine qua non of successful regional integration, and the thought of ramming integration down the throat of [insert series of unflattering adjectives] suburbanites only makes them like the prospect all the more.

 

I would argue the opposite: public schools suffer from major diseconomies of scale from corruption, loss of sense of community, and many other factors that can only be witnessed in very large educational institutions.  Maybe it's my bias as a product of a small public school speaking, but I have never seen a high-quality unified school district.  Frankly, every city has areas that can do without fantastic public education at the ready, and those who don't need such services tend to live in those areas.  In our city, the problem we need to overcome is that of public safety, which forces someone like me to live in an area with decent public schools even though I have no future plans to utilize the public education system. 

the same thing can be said about charlotte... but they are moving out of the county anyways for the schools

 

I think schools are the excuse for the move.  I went to school in one of the western suburbs and I witnessed the same sh*t that only supposedly happens in cleveland.  I mean how far away do you move?  People are in alot of denial in the burbs because it's "their" kids

 

Not with the frequency and acceptance of which it happens in Cleveland you didn't.  There's no denial in graduation rates and test scores.  CMSD isn't under academic probation because the kids can't learn, the teachers can't teach, or the buildings aren't modern enough.  They're under academic probation because the environment they live in outside of school doesn't continue or enhance the education they receive while at school, basically nullifying anything productive they do while at school.

I agree with this, but many of the people who support regionalism think that regionally consolidated school districts are a sine qua non of successful regional integration, and the thought of ramming integration down the throat of [insert series of unflattering adjectives] suburbanites only makes them like the prospect all the more.

 

I would argue the opposite: public schools suffer from major diseconomies of scale from corruption, loss of sense of community, and many other factors that can only be witnessed in very large educational institutions.  Maybe it's my bias as a product of a small public school speaking, but I have never seen a high-quality unified school district.  Frankly, every city has areas that can do without fantastic public education at the ready, and those who don't need such services tend to live in those areas.  In our city, the problem we need to overcome is that of public safety, which forces someone like me to live in an area with decent public schools even though I have no future plans to utilize the public education system. 

 

I graduated from a midsized, exurban high school that was the product of the consolidation of several rural school districts about a generation earlier (about 900 students in 9-12 when I was there).  I think that that consolidation worked out well.  However, I think that different problems beset urban consolidations and rural consolidations.  Independently, they'd never have had the resources to offer even the modest honors curriculum that they did, and even that wasn't much.

 

That said, merging a trio of 200-400 person high schools to make a 900-person one isn't in the same league with merging enough districts to create a super-district with 50,000+ in high school alone, to say nothing of PK-8 education.