I’m a big fan of neighborhood schools.
I grew up in a relatively affluent, suburban school district where nobody chose their schools, you just went to the one nearest your house. And I can’t tell you how convenient and comfortable it was to be able to walk to school from kindergarten through ninth grade.
That’s why the close proximity to Graham Hill Elementary was such an attractive amenity when, six month old baby in tow, we bought our house. For seven years, starting in pre-school, my daughter walked to and from school without even crossing a street, and there’s something special about being part of school community when that community is centered in your immediate neighborhood.
In 2006, when Graham Hill inexplicably found itself on the closure list, I joined with other parents to fight hard to save our neighborhood school, and against the closure process in general. And while Graham Hill was ultimately spared, and went on to thrive over the past few years, I sympathize deeply with families at other schools who were not so fortunate.
And so I read with interest the editorial in today’s Seattle Times—a paper that has strongly advocated in favor of school closures—arguing in favor of plans to redraw boundaries and limit school choice, not only as an effective cost-cutting measure, but also as a means of supporting and promoting neighborhood schools:
Set to take effect fall 2010, it offers a comfortable level of predictability and efficiency. Neighborhood schools, as opposed to citywide busing, offer cohesion and a level of intimacy among families. It allows schoolmates to move through the system together. Most parents would find the prospects of play dates and after-school activities easier to manage if their assigned school were practically within walking distance.
No doubt.
But in supporting an assignment plan that would limit choice and force more families into their neighborhood schools, the Times glosses over the circumstances that lead parents to inconveniently ship their kids halfway across the city in the first place: the gross inequity between schools from one neighborhood to another. Where I grew up, nobody chose their school; what would be the point when they’re all equally excellent? But as even the Times points out, that’s far from the case in Seattle:
The superintendent must make good on her promise to improve the quality of the city’s 90-some schools, particularly struggling ones in the Central Area and South End. The proposed plan’s foundation rests on the assumption that most families will accept their neighborhood school assignment. For that assumption to bear out, those schools must be academically up to par.
No, for the vast majority of families to accept neighborhood school assignment, their schools must not just be academically “up to par,” they must be equally excellent. And this simply cannot be accomplished unless the district, amongst other things, invests significantly more money per student in Central Area and South End schools than it does in those in more affluent northern neighborhoods.
Why do some schools require more money than others? Partially because their children are more expensive to educate. For example, during the years my daughter was at Graham Hill Elementary, the student population was about one third ESL and nearly two-thirds free and reduced price lunch. Children of immigrant and other poor and working class families simply face more challenges than children of affluent professionals, and generally have fewer resources to fall back on. And while school funding formulas do target extra money toward at risk and special needs children, it’s not enough to make up the difference.
But there’s another factor responsible for the growing disparity between individual Seattle schools, one which nobody seems to want to talk about: the growing reliance on PTSAs in affluent neighborhoods to fund the services the district can no longer afford to provide. At some North End schools PTSAs routinely raise over $1,000 per student per year to fund “extras” like art, music, tutors, teachers aides and other amenities (even, it appears, to reduce class size); indeed, upon taking the tour of Tops K-8, the guide explicitly told prospective parents that since admission would save us the cost of private school tuition, those of us who could afford it would be expected to cough up the difference accordingly. Meanwhile, some Central and South End schools barely manage to raise a few thousand dollars a year total, if they have an active PTSA at all.
Think about it. A working class South End family lucky enough to win assignment to, say, Stevens Elementary, will see their children benefit from all the amenities the generally affluent parents of their Capitol Hill classmates can afford to provide. So why wouldn’t they be tempted to bus their kids halfway across the city? Meanwhile, those affluent families at Graham Hill—and there are some—know that their generous PTSA contributions on their own can never amount to enough to provide the whole school the sort of services and benefits afforded their North End counterparts. Rather than tutors and teachers aides, we could merely raise enough money to pay for field trips, assemblies, classroom supplies and little extras like that.
Seattle does not enjoy (or suffer from) the same sort of racial and socio-economic homogenity of the suburban Philadelphia school district of my youth (Lower Merion, in case you’re wondering), let alone that of Mercer Island or Bellevue, so I understand that 100-percent equity is not an achievable or even necessary goal. Seattle has done a wonderful job rebuilding and renovating schools, putting most on an even footing in terms of physical plant, thus most parents would happily choose their neighborhood school as long as its program is somewhat comparable to those offered in other neighborhoods. But we will never come close to that level of equity as long as we rely on PTSAs to pay for services that should be standard across the district as a whole.
Yes, promoting neighborhood schools is an admirable goal, as is the efficiency and cohesion that comes with it, but there are downsides as well, not the least of which being the continued racial and socio-economic resegregation that is already proceeding apace. If the Superintendent eliminates choice without first resolving the academic and funding disparities that already make busing such an attractive alternative for so many families, she will only widen the existing inequities between neighborhood schools, not narrow them. And that can only create the kind of unfair and untenable circumstances that led to our existing inefficient and “Byzantine” assignment rules in the first place.
There are twice as many kids in school now as there were in 1950 and half as many schools. Increased transportation costs incurred with school consolidation tends to eat up any saving from consolidation. With $2.50 diesel now the bottom of the market instead of the top transportation costs are really going to balloon.
It’s time to bring back the neighborhood school in a big way.
Naa. Letting kids go out of the neighborhood to get to a bettter school, means the neighborhood school that’s crappy doesn’t get any pressure to get better.
Good article. It raises more questions than it answers. This one of those issues that is almost as hot button as shooting abortion doctors, at least to school age parents. My son is starting 1st grad in one of those schools with an aggressive PTA. We are blessed to have a great school within walking distance. I know in my brain that it’s not fair to other kids in other school, that don’t have some of the advantages my school has, but my heart is glad that my kid has access to those resources.
Almost every parent wants the best chances for their children. Few parents are willingly going send their kids to the sub standard local school, to sacrifice their kid while it fights and maybe succeeds on improving.
If a community is able to pass a taxing levy to improve their school and get the community to pay more, should they be allowed to? Now their public school is “better” than the public school in the miserly districts who didn’t value kids, or the poor districts that cannot afford more. I can see it being unfair to all parties.
If we are talking about public schools, shouldn’t all schools be equal? Why does the liberal leaning school boards give more $ and better teachers to some schools and not the others.
Im a big fan of Private schools, the kids are free from Liberal Brainwashing, and actually are required to learn and act like respectful 1st class citizens or they get the boot.
Isn’t it amazing that private education institutions like Kennedy, O’Dea, and others in the Seattle area don’t have to build brand new mega schools every 5 years.
Their teachers are not Union hacks, they have to produce or they get the boot.
No thanks on the Public institutions, when their costs of tuition go up 43% in a couple of years, no thanks.
@5 When did public schools begin charging tuition?
Goldy said
And that’s why Puddy takes offense to you calling yourself from Philadelphia. Puddy didn’t have that opportunity ‘to grow up in a relatively affluent, suburban school district’ living inside South-West Philadelphia, not the ‘burbs! That’s why my people continue to suffer at the hands of ‘burbs power brokers Goldy and are too stupid to figger it out!
Moron@6: When the tax man cometh to tax you even though you send your children to private schools. You are paying their tuition and your kids tuition.
It’s worse than tuition.
They call it taxes.
At least with tuition only those that are pro-child pay it. You can be anti-taxes all you want but you will pay them by threat of force.
Great post, Goldy. Thanks.
Quick quiz for wingnuts:
What is the difference between weather and climate?
You will be graded.
9 MS
You don’t pay taxes by threat of force. you pay them because our elected representatives in our beloved republic haved voted them into place to fund the services we need.
But if you’ve got a problem with that, force IS always there to beat your dumb ass.
Sometimes I think it’s really weird that you guys think there was some other kind of magic pony way to pay for government services over the last 10,000 years.
Yes, better schools are best.
Make them better and the point is moot.
BTW, plenty of private school folks having to go public due economic realities.
Go Bees!
Diddled Luvr@11, both occur inside that hat rack on you neck.
Ding Ding A+ score!
Diddled Luvr, when you buy a land parcel through the Bank unless you are a rich Donkey, do you really buy it or are you perpetually renting it through taxes? What happens when you renege on the “rent” payment?
You will be graded.
The factor that most closely relates to the ability to learn is the emotional quality of the child’s homelife, according to John Gottman of the University of Washington.
People have been talking about education reform for hundreds of years. You would think that if there was a way to analyze and fix schools, we would have stumbled upon it by now.
It would seem that there are lots of things that can degrade the learning opportunities for kids, but no way, in the schools, to maximize kids those opportunities. No matter what metric you choose, it will not be a panacea for education.
Solid home life with strong emotional support from parents is the best way, but that isn’t a school issue.
That’s my point. When it comes to my kid’s education, my first impulse is to think like a selfish conservative. I want my child to have access to a great education and I don’t care a bit about anybody else’s kid. Their parents can worry about them.
What would be the progressive thinking? All kids should have access to a great education, even if their parents are not able to provide it. We have to at least try.
I’m being honest, I have to fight with myself, to push through the selfish bastard conservative part of me, and get to the progressive better part.
The progressive version is better for everyone, better for society with a well educated work force and electorate. Not just a lucky few. Look at the countries with the least public education:Mali, Eritrea, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Niger, Haiti, Somalia.
Maybe you conservatives want America to copy them, but I don’t.
In looking for countries that don’t have public education, I found this comment.
Conservatives, how would you argue against this? Seems having an educated work force would be good for business and the economy?
Or is it the usual problem with conservatives. They see it would be good for society and for them because it would be good for business and the economy, but none of that matters, because they just don’t want to pay for it.
It’s about if something isn’t working, like the los angeles unified school district, giving them more money is not the correct solution.
@17, 18
Our current crop of conservatives can’t seem to figure out that all those businesses which they claim to be “pro” will wither up and die if the working class doesn’t have any money to spend on their products.
Send your kids to the best schools you can while working to make lower end schools and communities better.
@19
The current crop of Republican’s don’t want to give money to schools and programs that ARE working.
Regarding the cost of K-12 education, there are certainly things to talk about. Why do individual schools have their own library (instead of just situating schools and neighborhood libraries closer to each other), why do individual schools have their own sports facilities (instead of situating schools and rec centers close to each other)? For that matter, does every nine-year-old need access to a desktop, or is that just a give-away to the IT industry?
But I think there’s a larger issue here, in fact, I would go so far as to say that most issues in the Seattle metro area really are just the side effects of one meta issue. And that is who we build for, i.e., the demographic target for our housing stock.
Because it sure as hell isn’t for families, and this has direct bearing since education funding is based in part on the number of students a school has in enrollment. Most families, particularly in the K-12 demographic, aren’t upper middle class, etc., partly because of the normal distribution of income, and partly because the parents are still early in their careers, and haven’t had a chance to maximize their earning power. And so these families are priced out of existing housing stock, while developers often completely ignore them in building most new housing.
The state’s Growth Management Act requires that cities and counties zone and plan according to growth targets estimated by the state. So Seattle, etc, has a target of X units that it must build.
Exactly “who” X is built for is left to your greedy neighborhood developer and their friends in local government to decide. And guess what! Families didn’t make the cut, either in the design of the apartments/condos/houses, or in the types of businesses that are sought to accompany the new housing.
So we shouldn’t be surprised when Seattle is the city with the second lowest percentage of children as a part of its population (even pricier San Francisco is first), and schools are constantly being closed down for lack of students (i.e, funding).
Neighborhood schools are synonymous with segregation …socuio econimic if not racial.
It is absurd to think that there are not advantages to a kid of growing up in Laurelhurst. Many of those advantages can not be addressed by the schools BUT offering all kids the opportunity to go to good schools is a great way of at making sure that someone who can nto afford to live in Laurelhurst can still benefit from the schools.
the goal is to so dumb down the publik skools that the average person has no clue what is going on in this country. for example, on the news the other night, they did a piece on the percentage of jewish supreme court justices vs the perecntage of the population that is jewish. bryer and ginsburg make up over 20 per cent of the supreme court while the jewish population is around 2 per cent. they had some woman saying we should also have religous diversity also.
oh, no wait a minute. that piece wasn’t about jewish justices, it was about catholic judges. of course, how stupid of me, the msm would never talk about jewish religous diversity. only christian or catholic is ok. but there you go, a stupid publik skool grad would never get the discrimination that goes on in the msm.
Goldy-
The only way you get ‘equity’ is for everything to be crap. Life is not fair. or equal.
Schools, with involved parents from higher class neighborhoods, WILL have more resources – either formally or informally – than lower class neighborhoods. Cutting funding to schools that have involved PTAs will just piss off the parents the District needs, because it’s not just money, it’s volunteer time as well. Our school has 1-3 parent volunteers in each classroom.
Stop wasting time and resources trying to level all the schools to be equal. Set a standard instead. Tell principals to meet the standard or resign. Bad teachers need to be booted, principals need to have that power.
@18
“they just don’t want to pay for it.”
Not even close to true. I’m just tired of rewarding failure.
I have one kid in private school, two in public school. The difference in academic rigor is astounding. I’m paying my taxes, donating money and time to the public school, AND paying private school tuition.
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
Rasmussen Alert!!
The Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll today has the Presidential Approval Index at +3, an increase of 200% since only yesterday!!! Approval for our nation’s president is soaring!! Skyrocketing!!! U, up, to the stratosphere!!
This obviously sucks for Mr. Klynical. He checks the Rasmussen Poll each morning to see if he’s going to have a good day or a bad day. His entire outlook on life hinges on the outcome of a daily tracking poll!! Alas, Mr. Klynical is having a very bad day today. So sad.
@25 Delbert
Poor Delbert doesn’t really understqand the American way. The whole idea of the public school system is to give everyone an equal chance for an education and an equal chance to succeed. Some schools that are “more equal” than others doesn’t cut it.
Yes, there is some beaurocratic bloating in the schools – I like the experiment they are doing with a charter school in NY. Paying extraordinary teachers over 100K (more than the principal) and cutting out all the other fluff (asst. principals, gym teachers) and having the teachers handle everything.
How far left does one have to be to consider wanting the best for their child a “selfish conservative” trait.
Schools are getting more $$ than anytime before in american history.
Not only does he supply the analysis, he is the proof.
Goodness NutRight is a moron:
Dude, and Puddy uses the term lightly, have you been poor in your life? Have you attended a poorly run, poorly situated, poorly kept school? Where is the equal chance fool? Goodness you look at the problem through rose colored on-the-other-side-of-the-fence eyes. Ever been a big brother to a poor child? Ever been to inner-city schools?
Puddy doubts NutRight can answer yes to many of those questions. There is no equality with the way Dummocraptics run the inner cities vs how they run the burbs. Even Goldy admitted he “grew up in a relatively affluent, suburban school district” and you being the first class moron don’t get what it’s like to have one or two strikes against you when you want to aspire to greater things but the school system is woefully inadequate!
Grow up moron and see what the “Great Society” didn’t deliver to the same poorly run inner city schools fool!
Last few questions for NutRight:
Why did Jesse Jackson send his kids to private schools?
Why do almost all of Congress send their kids to private schools or leave their kids in the local home schools district?
They spend ~26,000 a year per kid in WA DC Unified Skuul District. Why isn’t it the best there is with all dat money?
The other thing left out from NutRight’s second paragraph:
… is the NYC Teacher’s Union is trying to get those charter schools to join the union so they can mess it up! Puddy got a whole passel of teachers in his family. We be watching this NYC development. The NYC teachers union sees any school proving accountability works as a mortal threat to their well being. It ain’t about the kids, it’s about union self-preservation.
Of course NutRight didn’t tell you the teacher’s union tried to stop the state from passing a charter-school law.
Of course NutRight didn’t tell you the teachers union made sure there was a tight cap on the number of charters allowed in New York.
Of course NutRight didn’t tell you the teachers union constantly tries to get the schools’ funding yanked each year. Why? The charter school’s children are academically out-performing the standard NYC schools and the teachers are paid on average $10,000 more per year.
Yep, NutRight only told part of the story. A moron called Don Joe calling that partial punditry. Well Don Joe of course lets a libtard swineflu weasel pass.
@31
Hmm… That’s the second thing I’ve agreed with you on this week.
IS there any school district
that does not have neighborhood schools
iow that sends kids out of neighborhoods
anywhere in the USA
that has good schools that have achieved that equity thing with all schools being good schools in the rich neighborhoods and the poor neighborhoods?
Has this been done anywhere at all?
If not saying you want equity and quality first is like saying we want to find a unicorn first.
If this mythic school district cannot be found, if there is no unicorn, then perhaps neighborhood schools are the best way to go.
Unassailable logic, right?
Can you back that up? You know – with those things called facts.
When I was young, the Feds paid for a big slice of education. Nowadays, not so much.
# 29. Marvin Stamn spews:
How far left does one have to be to consider wanting the best for their child a “selfish conservative” trait.
If you had bothered to finishing reading the paragraph, I continued and said “I want my child to have access to a great education and I don’t care a bit about anybody else’s kid. Their parents can worry about them.”
That shortsighted thinking is destructive to society.
It’s about if something isn’t working, like the Los Angeles unified school district, giving them more money is not the correct solution.
Then it’s a good thing we are talking about the SEATTLE and the WA school systems. That’s like saying because Michael Savage is vile, you must be. Try to stay focused on the topic, and not get confused and distracted.
@36
are you fucking kidding me? dc pays 14k per student, thats not enough?
@36 uptown:
The facts seem to show the opposite.
In 1991-92 total spending on education was $236.3 billion, of which 6.4% (or $15.1 billion), was from the U.S. federal government.
In 2005-06 total spending on eduation was $521.1 billion, of which 9.0% (or $46.9 billion), was from the U.S. federal government.
The growth of federal eduacation spending during this period of time was 9.1% per year. Much larger than the rate of inflation.
All data is from the U.S. Census Bureau.
uptown,
Puddy placed the WA DC Unified Skuul District budget on HA swineflu weasels a couple of months ago. Puddy can’t help it if you can’t remember anything after 24 hours have passed. But as most HA swineflu weasels scream where’s da proof, we whom think right have to provide DD for you. You can try the new Microsoft BING and see it for yourself for a change.
Rasmussen Alert!!
In the Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll the Presidential Approval Index is at +7, up 600% since only Saturday! Our president’s approval is soaring!!
OK no one could answer the last question. I guess that means there are NO school districts that have diverse economic neighborhoods that do have equal academics of a quality nature.
I guess that means if you are waiting for that to happen in Seattle before you’re for neighborhood schools, then you’re waiting for Seattle to do something no one else anywhere has ever been able to do.
OK, here’s a simpler question.
Are there school districts that are successful that do not have neighborhood schools?
Any?
Just one even?
Are there school districts that are successful that do not have neighborhood schools?
Not a clue. What would that look like? A school district where everyone shipped their kids to a common location?
Well no, that would be a school district that has a complex assignment system like we have in Seattle. In other words, are there any school districts that have a complex assignment system (that is, not “neighborhood schools”) that are SUCCESSFUL academically?
Anywhere?
Can anyone name just one?
None that I know of, where kids are scrambled across the district in an attempt of equalization. I applaud them for trying, but it seems to be an experiment that was tried, but don’t work well enough, to not try something else.
That’s why we say that David Milhous Goldstein is not a Philadelphian. He is a Philaburbian.
OK you had your chance.
Nobody can point to one single school district that (a) mixes students around instead of having neighborhood schools, (b) that has success.
So, this debate is over. The notion we should wait until we achieve the magical unicorm of academic equity everywhere, before trashing the Seattle mixing system and replacing it with neighborhood schools, LOSES, because the idea of achieving total academic quality everywhere is fine and noble but we don’t know how to do it. Or can’t do it. Or maybe, just maybe, NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS HELP ACHIEVE SUCCESS.
while correlation ain’t causation if you can’t point to one successful school district that mixes students around and is a success, you got some ‘spalinin’ to do or else get behind neighborhood schools.
It would seem.
Works for me.