ADVERTISEMENT

Amazon HQ2

I agree with part of that. Those young people will have children, and then they will want great schools, and they will want their children to be able to go outside the front door and be safe. We've been hearing about this inward migration to the cities for decades, but it's never happened with families. It's a meme that developers like to promote.

Kids change EVERYTHING.

Yes there may be demand for a 600K townhouse, but that is idiocity (is that a word), because developers can always build more condos/townhomes and bring down the value of that townhome.

Parents with kids want great schools and great neighborhoods without the BS.

A good friend of mine lives in East Cobb (Lassiter highschool, one of the best in the state), and he is proud of the facet that the school zone has zero apartment buildings. Lassiter is one of the best schools academically , and otherwise, in the state. Cobb country opposes all mass transit because it will bring in apartment buildings and temporary residents with no interest in the community and Section 9 tenants.

It's simply a fact of life regarding the cost of living in "the city" and the benefits of living elsewhere when your social life is gone and your priority is your kids.

In Orlando, we do have a couple of "downtown areas" that have families (Baldwin Park, Celebration), but they are rich and houses go for 700K plus which most people can't afford. They are also single family homes in neighborhoods with front porches, etc. But very few families can actually afford to live there.

Nobody is arguing that this mindset exists. It obviously does.

The question is whether that's the future. There will always be a market for people who feel this way, as well as people that just like a little land to call their own.

My premise though, is that future generations are NOT going to flock to traffic choked, unwalkable enclaves of McMansions. Some people still will, either out of racial/poor panic or just because it's the setting they prefer. But I don't think the bulk of millenials and those that come after are going to chase that.

It doesn't have to be big city life...it can be exurban "downtowns", still with good schools. Yes, right now those places are very expensive, because they're in demand. Most of the suburban towns around Atlanta are developing their downtowns because the demand is there for that kind of living. Hopefully the market will normalize a bit, but it's not like 3000 sf east cobb cookie cutter subdivision homes are cheap anyway.
 
Nobody is arguing that this mindset exists. It obviously does.

The question is whether that's the future. There will always be a market for people who feel this way, as well as people that just like a little land to call their own.

My premise though, is that future generations are NOT going to flock to traffic choked, unwalkable enclaves of McMansions. Some people still will, either out of racial/poor panic or just because it's the setting they prefer. But I don't think the bulk of millenials and those that come after are going to chase that.

It doesn't have to be big city life...it can be exurban "downtowns", still with good schools. Yes, right now those places are very expensive, because they're in demand. Most of the suburban towns around Atlanta are developing their downtowns because the demand is there for that kind of living. Hopefully the market will normalize a bit, but it's not like 3000 sf east cobb cookie cutter subdivision homes are cheap anyway.

If you build the Applebees, BWW and Chuy's....they will come.
 
"heavily subsidized by the government."

How so?

Thanks for asking.

Starting after the great depression, several federal programs (mainly the FHA) incentivized singe-family housing heavily using three main incentives:
  • federally backed mortgage lending programs
  • special tax treatment (interest deductions on mortgage),
  • subsidization of an car-oriented lifestyle (pass the true cost of roads, infrastructure, maintenance etc to the consumer), and
  • zoning laws
Allowing the FHA who backed the risks to lender's mortgages, they defined suburbia based on social assumptions of the time that assisted in getting (mainly whites) to get mortgages:
  • Large, new homes were given a higher score, because they increased demand for labor and materials. Older homes with small spaces didn’t create demand for new furniture.
  • Homogeneity of neighboring housing stock was believed to indicate stable housing prices. To get the max score on the FHA evaluation, the manual preferred that a house be a part of “a sparsely developed new neighborhood … completed over the span of very few years.”
  • The ideal house had “sunshine, ventilation, scenic outlook, privacy, and safety”, and “effective landscaping and gardening” added to its worth. The guide recommended that houses should be set back at least 15 feet from the road, and well-tended lawns that matched the neighbors’ yards helped the rating.
Meanwhile, in 2015, the federal government spent $71 billion on the interest deduction, and households earning more than $100,000 receive almost 90 percent of the benefits. Since the value of the deduction rises as the cost of one’s mortgage increases, the policy essentially pays upper-middle-class and rich households to buy larger and more expensive homes. At the same time, because national housing policy’s benefits don’t accumulate as much to renters, it makes it harder for poor renters to join the class of homeowners.

Gas taxes and other fees paid by drivers now cover less than half of road construction and maintenance costs nationally – down from more than 70 percent in the 1960s. Who's paying for the other half? It's subsidized by the federal and state governments.

Not only heavily subsidized, but the Fair Housing Act had major unintended consequences allowing the banks to discriminate on mortgage origination, essentially "red lining" entire neighborhoods based on their current or future outlook. This has created a generational wealth gap, as a much higher rate (61%) of mortgage applications were denied to African Americans and Latinos, over whites.

7c5d47d73.png


More than any other country, really, home dictates what school you go to, which is this weird thing that we've entangled where property taxes go to certain schools, and just inherently that creates huge divisions. So, education, access to food, access to just basic services, parks, all sorts of things that people that live in suburban neighborhoods take for granted.

The sum total of all that means that I don't think it's strange to say that if you're around poverty, it's much harder to leave poverty; and if you're around wealth, it's much easier to obtain wealth. If we're not fixing that system, if we're not correcting that massive government social engineering project that was created seventy years ago, then everything else is bullshit.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...iorgio-angelini-podcast-transcript-ncna893991
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hayduke GW
.If we were ever to become a nation that believes in doing what it takes to provide everyone with a high quality education, seeing it as an investment in the future, we'd be nearly unstoppable. But we seem keen to fund and focus on everything but education. In the minds of many the only education that matters is that of their own child. Sad.

#TheGoogle.

The United States spends more money educating its young people than any other nation, according to Education at a Glance 2017, the most recent study from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which compiles educational data from nations across the globe each year. In 2014, the U.S. spent an average of $12,157 per student on elementary and secondary education, over 30% more than the OECD average of $9,419. College spending, including technical schools and universities, was nearly $30,000, 75% more than the average spending of other countries in the OECD. Total U.S. spending averaged $16,268 per student, 51% more than the average for all of the countries included in the OECD study.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NDallasRuss
I suspect as time moves on the cities will continue to get even more stuffed and congested with people the trend will then shift to working at home in an attempt to avoid the congestion of people. The next generation will say, "why would I want to work and live in this mess when I can accomplish the same while living in a peaceful suburban/rural settings?". The future message board will quickly champion such ideas and quickly surmise that living in mass urban housing units is akin to rats being crammed in a cage.
 
Maybe we should allocate school funding such that they have the same $/student as the schools in the wealthier neighborhoods of those very same districts. In fact, considering the work to be done in those poorer neighborhoods, perhaps we should allocate them even more resources.
Without being able to cite the specific numbers, I'm pretty certain that the schools within our school district are funded at the same level. But yeah, they could be funded at a higher level than some other districts' schools- especially in comparison to the schools in rural southern/western Virginia.
 
If only, they had a program to add funding to the schools in improvised areas.

They could call them Title One schools.
 
#TheGoogle.

The United States spends more money educating its young people than any other nation, according to Education at a Glance 2017, the most recent study from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which compiles educational data from nations across the globe each year. In 2014, the U.S. spent an average of $12,157 per student on elementary and secondary education, over 30% more than the OECD average of $9,419. College spending, including technical schools and universities, was nearly $30,000, 75% more than the average spending of other countries in the OECD. Total U.S. spending averaged $16,268 per student, 51% more than the average for all of the countries included in the OECD study.
And yet our outcomes are lacking. By nearly every statistical measure relative to the rest of the OECD the quality of education in the US is middle of the pack and declining.

Our education system hasn't had any significant structural changes since its advent. We're using 1800s infrastructure in the 2000s, it's not surprising that our dollars aren't going very far.

We're too young of a nation to get bogged down by 'tradition' or 'the way things are'.

https://www.oecd.org/education/school/50293148.pdf
 
Whoa there, big fella!

I'm on your side!

We moved way out to the far reaches of the suburbs so we could send our kid to a great school in the richest county in the country. She goes to school with a lot of different- looking kids. What they all have in common though is that they're all goal- oriented and success- driven. These kids are all high achievers, because their families are all high achievers. There's no violence or bullying at her school, because the kids don't have time for any of that. The results are obvious in the test scores and college acceptances.

Like it or not, fair or not, the schools with the poorer students - regardless of what color/ religion/ nationality they are- don't do as well.

"Classist =/ racist" I am not used to seeing that as the not equals sign. Maybe ^=?
 
We're using 1800s infrastructure in the 2000s, it's not surprising that our dollars aren't going very far.

We're too young of a nation to get bogged down by 'tradition' or 'the way things are'.
Well, the preferences of many of the people who are in charge of education - especially in a lot of the areas that are way behind the curve - would be to go much, much further back for the lessons that should be taught in school. As long as the leadership continues to want to cling to the past and teach things the way everyone used to believe, then the US education, as a whole, is never going to move forward and allow us to compete globally.
 
Maybe we should allocate school funding such that they have the same $/student as the schools in the wealthier neighborhoods of those very same districts. In fact, considering the work to be done in those poorer neighborhoods, perhaps we should allocate them even more resources.

If we were ever to become a nation that believes in doing what it takes to provide everyone with a high quality education, seeing it as an investment in the future, we'd be nearly unstoppable. But we seem keen to fund and focus on everything but education. In the minds of many the only education that matters is that of their own child. Sad.

DC spends more per capita on students than just about any school district in the country, and they fail miserably. No school can make up for a child who shows up to kindergarten not knowing the alphabet, or a kid who grows up in a highly dysfunctional home. Money is not the answer although money must be there.

I do think it sucks that schools are based on property taxes, but that is a fact of life. On the other hand, it's also local control which is better than top down control from the US government or state government.
 
*****
My premise though, is that future generations are NOT going to flock to traffic choked, unwalkable enclaves of McMansions. Some people still will, either out of racial/poor panic or just because it's the setting they prefer. But I don't think the bulk of millenials and those that come after are going to chase that.
*****

Maybe, but I doubt it. The housing boom is back here in Orlando and more McMansions are going up in the hinterlands. I think that once the millenials have kids, they will end up with a house in the burbs and a minivan. Going bar crawling in Buckhead will no longer be a possibility. Then again we have the faux downtowns as you mention, but those are quite pricey.
 
DC spends more per capita on students than just about any school district in the country, and they fail miserably. No school can make up for a child who shows up to kindergarten not knowing the alphabet, or a kid who grows up in a highly dysfunctional home. Money is not the answer although money must be there.

I do think it sucks that schools are based on property taxes, but that is a fact of life. On the other hand, it's also local control which is better than top down control from the US government or state government.
Agree that it's tough for schools to compensate for kids who have rough home lives or haven't received the early childhood education that studies show is crucial in successful outcomes.

However, those circumstances are unfortunately part of our reality and something the school system has to account for and overcome. I get the "that's the parents' job" line folks use but if some parents aren't going to do it then the schools have to step in and do it, else we end up in a vicious cycle that in the end costs Joe Taxpayer more than if money/energy/resources were just allocated up front to get the young kid what he/she needs to overcome their home issues.
 
Agree that it's tough for schools to compensate for kids who have rough home lives or haven't received the early childhood education that studies show is crucial in successful outcomes.

However, those circumstances are unfortunately part of our reality and something the school system has to account for and overcome. I get the "that's the parents' job" line folks use but if some parents aren't going to do it then the schools have to step in and do it, else we end up in a vicious cycle that in the end costs Joe Taxpayer more than if money/energy/resources were just allocated up front to get the young kid what he/she needs to overcome their home issues.

Count me as one who thinks that while schools should be adequately funded, there is nothing you can do to overcome the early childhood years. My kids, and most of the kids they went to school with, came into kindergarten already knowing how to read. In most of the worst performing schools, many kids come into kindergarten not recognizing what letters are which. There is absolutely nothing that schools can do at that point to equalize outcomes.

Add to that all the ancillary factors of chaotic or poor homes, like lower attendance, nobody helping or even making sure they do their homework, etc...you cannot pour enough money into schools to equalize that. If you've lived in a wealthy area, the amount of time and effort people put in independently of school into their kids education is SIGNIFICANT...music lessons, art programs, programming lessons, tutors, etc.

The only way to improve education in poor areas is basically interception at birth, making sure children are well nourished, getting enough sleep, having screen time limited, and most of all, being read to. When their parents either don't understand those things, or their own education, poverty, work schedules, etc don't allow those things, children are educationally-speaking doomed. You can't fix that in middle school and high school.

A program that intercedes/interferes at that stage is certainly daunting, raises a lot of difficult questions, and presents a monumental challenge. But if we were serious about breaking the cycle of poverty and despair, that's what it takes. Individual frequent one on one counseling and tracking of every parent, training them and compelling them to follow through on ideas that they weren't raised with and are foreign to them is unimaginable in scope, but it's what we should be talking about.
 
And yet our outcomes are lacking. By nearly every statistical measure relative to the rest of the OECD the quality of education in the US is middle of the pack and declining.

Perhaps measuring by averages can be misleading:

"Steve Sailer of VDARE.com got the full list of 65 nations, broke down U.S. reading scores by race, then measured Americans with the countries and continents whence their families originated. What he found was surprising.

Asian-Americans outperform all Asian students except for Shanghai-Chinese. White Americans outperform students from all 37 predominantly white nations except Finns, and U.S. Hispanics outperformed the students of all eight Latin American countries that participated in the tests.

African-American kids would have outscored the students of any sub-Saharan African country that took the test (none did) and did outperform the only black country to participate, Trinidad and Tobago, by 25 points.

America’s public schools, then, are not abject failures.

They are educating immigrants and their descendants to outperform the kinfolk their parents or ancestors left behind when they came to America. America’s schools are improving the academic performance of all Americans above what it would have been had they not come to America.

What American schools are failing at, despite the trillions poured into schools since the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, is closing the racial divide.

We do not know how to close the gap in reading, science and math between Anglo and Asian students and black and Hispanic students.

And from the PISA tests, neither does any other country on earth.

The gap between the test scores of East Asian and European nations and those of Latin America and African nations mirrors the gap between Asian and white students in the U.S. and black and Hispanic students in the U.S.


Which brings us to “Bad Students, Not Bad Schools,” a new book in which Dr. Robert Weissberg contends that U.S. educational experts deliberately “refuse to confront the obvious truth.”

“America’s educational woes reflect our demographic mix of students. Today’s schools are filled with millions of youngsters, many of whom are Hispanic immigrants struggling with English plus millions of others of mediocre intellectual ability disdaining academic achievement.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: surfnole
We do not know how to close the gap in reading, science and math between Anglo and Asian students and black and Hispanic students.

Which brings us to “Bad Students, Not Bad Schools,” a new book in which Dr. Robert Weissberg contends that U.S. educational experts deliberately “refuse to confront the obvious truth.”
One of the antiquated structures of our school system is school zoning and typing property values to school zones.

The idea of "bad students, not bad schools" is predicated on the concept that schools tend to be heavily composed of one socioeconomic group or another, without much mingling.

In addition to broadening curriculum to account for things missing at home, schools need to be rezoned to get away from the 'good school', 'bad school' model. Any district that has a single 'bad school' (as we seem to traditionally define it today) should be seen as a failure.

Racial segregation in schools is now higher than it was in the early 80s. As I said farther up in this thread, folks that care about their child's education too frequently don't care at all about the education of others. A public school system can't be built on that type of selfishness. Policy makers have to push back against those selfish desires.
 
And yet our outcomes are lacking. By nearly every statistical measure relative to the rest of the OECD the quality of education in the US is middle of the pack and declining.

Our education system hasn't had any significant structural changes since its advent. We're using 1800s infrastructure in the 2000s, it's not surprising that our dollars aren't going very far.

We're too young of a nation to get bogged down by 'tradition' or 'the way things are'.

https://www.oecd.org/education/school/50293148.pdf

Um, no it's not the 1800's infrastructure. We spend the money incorrectly. Get out and vote!
 
As I said farther up in this thread, folks that care about their child's education too frequently don't care at all about the education of others. A public school system can't be built on that type of selfishness. Policy makers have to push back against those selfish desires.
This is where it gets difficult for me. As a parent who's intimately involved in my kid's education, I believe that if everyone cared as much about their kid's education as I do, then all of the kids would be better off. It's only when one set of parents care about their kids' educations, and another group does not, that the achievement gap continues to widen and the disparity becomes more and more evident.

I work my rear off during the day, and also stay really engaged with how my kid's doing in each of her classes. Every day we walk through what she did in each class, what she learned, and what she has coming up - including assignments and tests. That's not money that makes the difference - it's time, and it's caring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RTM58 and surfnole
One of the antiquated structures of our school system is school zoning and typing property values to school zones.

The idea of "bad students, not bad schools" is predicated on the concept that schools tend to be heavily composed of one socioeconomic group or another, without much mingling.

In addition to broadening curriculum to account for things missing at home, schools need to be rezoned to get away from the 'good school', 'bad school' model. Any district that has a single 'bad school' (as we seem to traditionally define it today) should be seen as a failure.

Racial segregation in schools is now higher than it was in the early 80s. As I said farther up in this thread, folks that care about their child's education too frequently don't care at all about the education of others. A public school system can't be built on that type of selfishness. Policy makers have to push back against those selfish desires.

I am surprised this thread has not been locked already....so let's continue.

Not sure how old you are, but there was a time when suburban kids took buses into the inner city for the sake of diversity. And inner city kids took buses to the suburbs. This was all in the name of "diversity" although the term was not used back then. Nobody liked it, and the whites who could afford it moved or paid for private school. Kids were being forced into 2+ hour commutes at the mandate of the US government. Doesn't seem like a real solution to me.

What was ironic is how Northerners decried racism when the south opposed "busing" but the North were just as incredulous when it came their turn.

Of course people care about their own children more than other's children. You can't fight human nature, and policy makers can't fix it.

No policy maker is going to make the child of baby-mama with four children from four different men working all the time compete with the child of an intact marriage with two smart individuals who educate that child at home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RTM58
I am surprised this thread has not been locked already....
I'm not. This is an example of when the LR can be really good at talking through things in a healthy, productive manner, in an effort to understand different sides and express our thoughts and opinions with each other in a respectful manner. It'd be great if every thread could go as well as this one has.
 
No policy maker is going to make the child of baby-mama with four children from four different men working all the time compete with the child of an intact marriage with two smart individuals who educate that child at home.

The breakdown of the family unit has been terrible for kids, but they don't vote and you can't judge people based on the terrible life choices. I'm sure in a few generations it will better than it is now. :-/
 
I am surprised this thread has not been locked already....so let's continue.

Not sure how old you are, but there was a time when suburban kids took buses into the inner city for the sake of diversity. And inner city kids took buses to the suburbs. This was all in the name of "diversity" although the term was not used back then. Nobody liked it, and the whites who could afford it moved or paid for private school. Kids were being forced into 2+ hour commutes at the mandate of the US government. Doesn't seem like a real solution to me.

What was ironic is how Northerners decried racism when the south opposed "busing" but the North were just as incredulous when it came their turn.

Of course people care about their own children more than other's children. You can't fight human nature, and policy makers can't fix it.

No policy maker is going to make the child of baby-mama with four children from four different men working all the time compete with the child of an intact marriage with two smart individuals who educate that child at home.

You know, if you stayed on topic, avoided using anecdotal evidence to support your argument and absconded with the non sequiturs, the thread would have a much better chance of staying unlocked.

Gladwell had an interesting pod cast on this subject from season two. The data supports that there is still cultural and racial bias in the school system. He argued, as well as several other people, that it was a mistake to integrate school children before integrating the teachers. Also, American Life podcast "The Problem We all Live With" has some very good discussions on school integration. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/562/transcript
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReliableOstrich
I am surprised this thread has not been locked already....so let's continue.

Not sure how old you are, but there was a time when suburban kids took buses into the inner city for the sake of diversity. And inner city kids took buses to the suburbs. This was all in the name of "diversity" although the term was not used back then. Nobody liked it, and the whites who could afford it moved or paid for private school. Kids were being forced into 2+ hour commutes at the mandate of the US government. Doesn't seem like a real solution to me.

What was ironic is how Northerners decried racism when the south opposed "busing" but the North were just as incredulous when it came their turn.

Of course people care about their own children more than other's children. You can't fight human nature, and policy makers can't fix it.

No policy maker is going to make the child of baby-mama with four children from four different men working all the time compete with the child of an intact marriage with two smart individuals who educate that child at home.

They have created a middle ground with various magnet schools and hardship wavers that allow kids at certain schools to change if they choose. But most people just want to go to local schools if possible and I don't think anyone blames them.
 
It’s a small silver lining.

I’d take an L there to see some real progress though.

Move to Gwinnett, both incumbent County Commissioners were defeated. I don't know if that is because the voting population is changing or people in Gwinnett are fed up with the current Commission. It's probably a mix of both.
 

The place across the street from us is for sale, and a GREAT price.

3500sqft.....pool...fenced in backyard...1/2 acre lot.....it’s a real gem!!!

Just take 400N to exit 13, go left, drive about another 5 miles west until you see the new Kroger and turn right. Look for the Keller Williams sign :)(
 
I forgot to mention the school district...it’s the best! If you drive a suburban or F250 you’ll make friends with everyone no problem! And of course you’re welcome to come over and check out my sweet man cave on game days. My wife makes a sweet Queso dip and I have MichUltra half kegger on tap for all the brewha you can handle!
 
Looks like this will remain true this morning.

Not a whole lot of change in terms of seats, but some of the races that were historically landslides were not so much this time. As it stands now, my district actually flipped on both the house and senate side. It wasn't even as close as I thought it would be. All of Dekalb County will be Democrat in the entire General Assembly.

I think we'll see quite a bit of change four years from now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReliableOstrich
I am surprised this thread has not been locked already....so let's continue.

Not sure how old you are, but there was a time when suburban kids took buses into the inner city for the sake of diversity. And inner city kids took buses to the suburbs. This was all in the name of "diversity" although the term was not used back then. Nobody liked it, and the whites who could afford it moved or paid for private school.
I was one of those kids.

My parents took me out of a private school 10 mins away in order to put me on a bus for 90 mins each morning and afternoon. Going to a school on the opposite side of town was maybe the greatest blessing I've had in life thus far. I fully intend on doing the same if I have a kid.

I also don't buy the argument that because something didn't work several decades ago, it won't work now. Technology, algorithms, location data, etc... has all improved. What was once inefficient because local dudes were eyeballin' it could potentially be very efficient when backed by significant data.

No policy maker is going to make the child of baby-mama with four children from four different men working all the time compete with the child of an intact marriage with two smart individuals who educate that child at home.
I don't agree with the high-level premise (ignoring its absolute nature) of this and even if I did I'd say that achieving it should be the goal we ought to strive for. As things stand right now we're not even trying, in the least. We're utterly failing a large subset of our population because we either don't care about it or don't feel like trying.

There's a defeatist mindset that's taken hold in this nation, one that invented flight and put men on the moon. Now claiming so many things they deem inconvenient are actually impossible. Rather than finding problems and shattering them, we're ignoring problems and joking about it.
 
Last edited:
Actually, Gwinnett County is pretty diverse from a racial standpoint.

According to the most recent US Census, Gwinnett is 40% white, 20% Hispanic, 26% black and 11% Asian.

Compare that to, say, Decatur, which is more than two thirds white (67%) and about one-fifth black (21%).
Or to Midtown Atlanta, which is almost three fourths white (70%) and about one eighth black (13%).

https://statisticalatlas.com/county.../Race-and-Ethnicity#figure/race-and-ethnicity
https://statisticalatlas.com/place/Georgia/Decatur/Race-and-Ethnicity
https://statisticalatlas.com/neighborhood/Georgia/Atlanta/Midtown/Race-and-Ethnicity
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReliableOstrich
I was one of those kids.

My parents took me out of a private school 10 mins away in order to put me on a bus for 90 mins each morning and afternoon. Going to a school on the opposite side of town was maybe the greatest blessing I've had in life thus far. I fully intend on doing the same if I have a kid.

I also don't buy the argument that because something didn't work several decades ago, it won't work now. Technology, algorithms, location data, etc... has all improved. What was once inefficient because local dudes were eyeballin' it could potentially be very efficient when backed by significant data.

I don't agree with the high-level premise (ignoring its absolute nature) of this and even if I did I'd say that achieving it should be the goal we ought to strive for. As things stand right now we're not even trying, in the least. We're utterly failing a large subset of our population because we either don't care about it or don't feel like trying.

There's a defeatist mindset that's taken hold in this nation, one that invented flight and put men on the moon. Now claiming so many things they deem inconvenient are actually impossible. Rather than finding problems and shattering them, we're ignoring problems and joking about it.

Why did you leave private school?
 
Why did you leave private school?
High-level: My parents thought it would be a better life experience to go to a diverse public school and not come of age sheltered within a protective bubble.

Other contributing factors were number of racist taunts I heard while at Maclay, no shortage of awful people there so I'll happily put them on blast. Also, I think they got rattled by a couple of drug overdose / DUI deaths by high school kids at Maclay over a few year span. Going to school on the south side certainly steered me clear of those types of problematic characters / drug issues. Much safer.
 
I was one of those kids.

My parents took me out of a private school 10 mins away in order to put me on a bus for 90 mins each morning and afternoon. Going to a school on the opposite side of town was maybe the greatest blessing I've had in life thus far. I fully intend on doing the same if I have a kid.

I also don't buy the argument that because something didn't work several decades ago, it won't work now. Technology, algorithms, location data, etc... has all improved. What was once inefficient because local dudes were eyeballin' it could potentially be very efficient when backed by significant data.

I don't agree with the high-level premise (ignoring its absolute nature) of this and even if I did I'd say that achieving it should be the goal we ought to strive for. As things stand right now we're not even trying, in the least. We're utterly failing a large subset of our population because we either don't care about it or don't feel like trying.

There's a defeatist mindset that's taken hold in this nation, one that invented flight and put men on the moon. Now claiming so many things they deem inconvenient are actually impossible. Rather than finding problems and shattering them, we're ignoring problems and joking about it.

I feel sorry that you had to spend three hours a day commuting to an inner city school. I won't even commute more than an hour a day to my job.

Kids today also have far more homework than I ever did. I'm not sure that any high school kid could survive a three hour commute with the workload now unless they are very motivated. I imagine you got home just in time for dinner and couldn't hang out with neighbor friends. You were the subject of a social experiment by the US government. Local control is always best.

Any while may statement about baby-mamas with children of different dads may have been absolutist, I will wager that the children of first marriage parents, who remain married, perform better in school than the children of families with siblings of multiple fathers.

In Florida, we have virtual school today, and any child is free to leave their school and attend virtual school. No busing needed. Maybe that is an answer. There are many home school options too, but that generally requires a parent with a few hours a day to educate their child.
 
I feel sorry that you had to spend three hours a day commuting to an inner city school. I won't even commute more than an hour a day to my job.

Kids today also have far more homework than I ever did. I'm not sure that any high school kid could survive a three hour commute with the workload now unless they are very motivated. I imagine you got home just in time for dinner and couldn't hang out with neighbor friends. You were the subject of a social experiment by the US government. Local control is always best.

Any while may statement about baby-mamas with children of different dads may have been absolutist, I will wager that the children of first marriage parents, who remain married, perform better in school than the children of families with siblings of multiple fathers.

In Florida, we have virtual school today, and any child is free to leave their school and attend virtual school. No busing needed. Maybe that is an answer. There are many home school options too, but that generally requires a parent with a few hours a day to educate their child.
Bless your heart. Don't feel sorry for me. There are folks out there who are getting these sheltered educations, not exposed to ideas or people starkly different from themselves, feel sorry for those people.

My experience was fantastic, life shaping, and a heck of a lot of fun. Sure I woke up a bit earlier than normal but I was home by 430p and most days we got about an hour of bball in at school after classes ended, which is basically any kid's dream.

I also had a ton of homework, actually started college with enough credits to be a Soph, so my class load was not a walk in the park but still managed to have a pretty good bit of spare time (certainly enough to play video games, some more bball on the driveway, consume more than a healthy amount of TV, etc...)

I wasn't the subject of any federal government experiments, which is too bad b/c it was a great experiment and I do believe in federal control of education. It was a county program after the era of desegregation, in fact right in the heart of the re-segregation era, which I suppose continues to this day.

As for the navel gazing about kids of married families and families with dads, yadda yadda yadda, that's not only judgmental but useless and counterproductive. The reality is families are of all sizes and types, if we can't evolve our education system to keep up then we're going to fall behind, and it's not that hard to evolve - we choose not to in order to thumb our noses at our own history. You and your kids, me and mine, don't live in a vacuum. We share a country, economy, and basically everything else outside our houses - so it's in all of our personal best interest to make sure everyone is getting some good learning in.

I am all for a full blown shake up of school zones, reallocation of teachers in schools, and federalization of the education system, with maybe some marginal wiggle room at the state level. Many states, northern included, have now proven for the second time that they're incapable of administering a fair public education system. No other country fools around with this stuff at a local level, math is math, literature is literature, science is most certainly science, PE is PE, spanish is spanish -- it's no wonder our costs are so high and outcomes so poor.
 
ADVERTISEMENT