NationStates Jolt Archive

Everything is interconnected - changing one aspect of life will have implications that ripple through everything else. Public policy is no different.

Right now, I will focus on discussing suburban sprawl.

Zoning regulations limit supply of housing in a city, driving up the price (that bit is intentionally). Given the ability to build high-rise apartment buildings, supply would raise closer to market equilibrium, driving down the price and making it affordable. Limiting the choices available for living, more people are forced out to the suburbs that would rather live in the city.

Public schools also greatly restrict where people choose to live. Parents want their children to have a good education, yet what school a child may attend is based upon what neighborhood they live in, thus the flight to suburbs with better schools. This fuels housing costs in those areas as parents compete for housing based partly upon what school they want their children to attend. Neighborhoods with good schools are in higher demand than would otherwise be without schooling based purely on location.

These are simply two of many factors pushing people out of cities and into suburbs.

If zoning regulations allowed more high density housing, more people would live in cities rather than suburbs. Sure, those extra people will be a higher load on the infrastructure, but they would also pay for the higher costs. Fewer commuters would also mean lower traffic and infrastructure costs imposed by people who do not pay taxes to the city. This would reduce both the environmental damage from commuters driving into the city as well as reduce the consumption of gasoline.

School choice would reduce several problems - it would reduce people fleeing certain neighborhoods due to poor schools (which has a reinforcing effect as it reduces the quality of the area even more, pushing the newly marginal people out), would reduce the explosion of housing prices as people bid up houses in an attempt to get into good school districts, and drastically improve the education of those stuck in a failing district by giving them a way into better schools.

Just a couple of thoughts that occurred to me while reading threads about high gas prices and people bashing suburbs - people live in suburbs largely because of bad incentives rising from bad public policy. Does this resonate with anyone or do i just really need a break and a nap, or maybe a full holiday somewhere tropical?

I live in the suburbs becasue cities are too densely populated. I can only take so many idiots shouting "Reagan gave us a huge debt that'll drain the budget for decades and that's why he's the best president ever!!!!".

I live in the suburbs becasue cities are too densely populated. I can only take so many idiots shouting "Reagan gave us a huge debt that'll drain the budget for decades and that's why he's the best president ever!!!!".
And I can only stand so many idiots who yell "Reagan cut taxes and actually had a grasp of economics and that's why he's the worst president ever!!!!":rolleyes:

And yes, I hate zoning regulations. I would LOVE school choice, but that would mean big brother dosen't know best, and the government can't stand that.

And I can only stand so many idiots who yell "Reagan cut taxes and actually had a grasp of economics and that's why he's the worst president ever!!!!":rolleyes:

And yes, I hate zoning regulations. I would LOVE school choice, but that would mean big brother dosen't know best, and the government can't stand that.

http://members.aol.com/plittle/StrawmanPoster.jpg

Public schools also greatly restrict where people choose to live. Parents want their children to have a good education, yet what school a child may attend is based upon what neighborhood they live in, thus the flight to suburbs with better schools.

whats this? :eek:

I mean I've seen some schools better than others but WTF?!

whats this? :eek:

I mean I've seen some schools better than others but WTF?!

what dont you understand?

in general the school in the suburbs are better than the schools in the city.

School choice would reduce several problems - it would reduce people fleeing certain neighborhoods due to poor schools (which has a reinforcing effect as it reduces the quality of the area even more, pushing the newly marginal people out), would reduce the explosion of housing prices as people bid up houses in an attempt to get into good school districts, and drastically improve the education of those stuck in a failing district by giving them a way into better schools.


For the most part I agree with you. Although, a week ago I spent lunch with someone(a teacher) who is strongly against a government voucher education system where parents choose which school they want their kids to go to. He did bring up one very interesting point. School zones are mostly based on where buses have to go every morning to pick up kids. Parents might choose a school 40 miles from where they live across town and the school buses would have a hell of a time getting them there. Plus, in any rural areas of the country, there is still only one choice.

Although, you could set some realistic limitations on school transport, like parents can only choose within a 20 mile radius of their home or something. And I think that if the government got rid of the board of education, which is what a school voucher system would hopefully do, it could easily afford to have more school buses run around town and traffic kids further distances to and from school.

Is this based in USA or a certain state or other country, please specify.

The change you wish wouldn't work in every country, there's bound to be reasons to have zoning restrictions.

The place a person lives may have an effect on their educational success but so does many other factors, chiefly being the parental influence and the culture the child is brought up in, then the amount of money.

Sometimes schools don't actually encourage people to stay in education, i suggest making it voluntary at some point, that and encouraging education for older generations would help reduce negative cultural influences on a child's perspective on their education.

in general the school in the suburbs are better than the schools in the city.

thats like really bad and stuff isn't it?

thats like really bad and stuff isn't it?

i dont know.

its very bad that cities like detroit are hell holes with schools that graduate 25% of its students from highschool.

but its good that you can go somewhere where the schools are better than that if you want something better for your children.

its very bad that cities like detroit are hell holes with schools that graduate 25% of its students from highschool.

but its good that you can go somewhere where the schools are better than that if you want something better for your children.

what ever happened to the equal opportunity to succeed or fail based on your own merits?

what ever happened to the equal opportunity to succeed or fail based on your own merits?

schools are locally run. you are "guaranteed" equal opportunity within your school district.

schools are locally run. you are "guaranteed" equal opportunity within your school district.

I am sorry, but the public school system now is not very meritocratic.

schools are locally run. you are "guaranteed" equal opportunity within your school district.

oh well thats okay so long as the gated community schools don't have gates within them its all fine :p

oh well thats okay so long as the gated community schools don't have gates within them its all fine :p

im not opposed to local control.

i do think that school systems like detroits need to be taken over by the state or the feds to fix whatever it is that is wrong there.

im not opposed to local control.

by the looks of things maybe its time the state got itself involved :eek:

http://members.aol.com/plittle/StrawmanPoster.jpg

Argument? You didn't HAVE an argument! All you did was say something about how high the debt was with Reagan, you didn't make any points, or present any facts. I merely mocked your statement. It was not an argument in any way.

Being able to choose a school when they're still under the central control of the local authority wouldn't do a great deal. Basically the schools would tend to be run in a very similar way, and the only real difference would be the quality of particular teachers (which is what it comes down to anyways) - and that is difficult for a parent to know beforehand.

I'm all for school choice, but it has to come with competition, otherwise it won't do a whole lot. And once you accept that, there isn't much going for having government-run schools at all. In effect privately-run schools that compete for vouchers or some other form of subsidy based on how well they're attracting students would be no harder to access for poor people, but would offer a greater variety of offers. In principle I'm not even against schools that particularly specialise in a certain area - close to Brisbane here is a private school that specialises in giving kids the skills needed to become professional pilots. They do all the basic stuff required by law, but the studies program and extracurricular activites are geared towards this particular profession. That could keep the kids a lot more interested too.

Of course, all this assumes that the parents care. In places like inner-city Detroit, no amount of choice between schools is going to help if the parents couldn't give a shit.

School zones are mostly based on where buses have to go every morning to pick up kids. Parents might choose a school 40 miles from where they live across town and the school buses would have a hell of a time getting them there.
From about 12 years old, kids can use public transport. You wouldn't choose a primary school that's far away from your home, but here in Brisbane many thousands of kids make hour-long trips with train and bus to get to the nicer private high schools.

by the looks of things maybe its time the state got itself involved :eek:

its in michigan. i dont know what they have done and what they are legally allowed to do.

SNIP

you might have a point if it wasn't already more than clear that the state has a massive interest in providing the best possible access and quality education to its children?

I mean surely this holds the same water (if not more) as health care especially as it then comes into an issue of parents first actually paying (bad parent do exist after all) and secondly that it denies access to the very best schools for the poorest

you might have a point if it wasn't already more than clear that the state has a massive interest in providing the best possible access and quality education to its children?

I mean surely this holds the same water (if not more) as health care especially as it then comes into an issue of parents first actually paying (bad parent do exist after all) and secondly that it denies access to the very best schools for the poorest

The poor are already being denied a good education. I grew up going to inner city schools, if I hadn't been so studious and dorky and studied on my own time, things would not be so cheery for me.

12% of my senior class graduated, 75% of them failed to pass an 8th grade reading level test.

you might have a point if it wasn't already more than clear that the state has a massive interest in providing the best possible access and quality education to its children?
In theory it does. In practice "the state" isn't a hive mind either, and we have plenty of evidence that right now it's not doing a good job at it. In the US, that is, in other countries it has shown itself quite capable - because it uses very different methods.

I just think that privatisation in the way I described is the path of least resistance. I really don't see how you can make an argument that it would be worse for any stakeholder group involved (other than bad teachers, I suppose), and it would surely be a lot cheaper and quicker than trying to reform the way the state does education. Ultimately the rules of what makes a school good aren't dependent on who owns it. But if one ownership structure has shown itself so incapable of following the rules, it stands to reason to try another one.

Two links of interest to everyone:
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9989914
How to be top

What works in education: the lessons according to McKinsey

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/education/no_child/
Schools, Teachers Work to Reach No Child Left Behind Goals

Teacher NewsHour education special correspondent John Merrow looked into how some teachers and school districts are handling the federal education law and states' execution of it in a three-part series.

I mean surely this holds the same water (if not more) as health care especially as it then comes into an issue of parents first actually paying (bad parent do exist after all) and secondly that it denies access to the very best schools for the poorest
That's the case regardless, because the very best schools tend to be the prestigious ones that the very best teachers want to work at. For whatever reason, those schools are more likely to be private rather than public even now.

The question is whether it wouldn't be better to improve the schools the poorest actually do have access to.

its in michigan. i dont know what they have done and what they are legally allowed to do.
The state did take over the Detroit school system for a while. Everybody was in an uproar about it, so after a year or so we got to elect a school board again, and go back to the usual corruption, tons of money disappearing to God knows where while the students have to bring toilet paper from home because the school bathrooms never have any.

The state did take over the Detroit school system for a while. Everybody was in an uproar about it, so after a year or so we got to elect a school board again, and go back to the usual corruption, tons of money disappearing to God knows where while the students have to bring toilet paper from home because the school bathrooms never have any.

*shudder*

i hope you dont have to send kids to those schools.

12% of my senior class graduated, 75% of them failed to pass an 8th grade reading level test.

and they say Britain is the one with the Chavs...how could that be acceptable
this side of the 18th century?

I really don't see how you can make an argument that it would be worse for any stakeholder group involved

well considering what some of these private schools teach in the science classroom I'm not sure I trust them with the children of a superpower

it would surely be a lot cheaper and quicker than trying to reform the way the state does education.

looking at some of the statistics I'm seeing I really don't know what you can do...I mean if any money is actually put into guaranteeing every child a decent education the libertarians on this board (as vague as that is to judge America by) would be up in arms even if it is to guarantee places in private schools...

That's the case regardless, because the very best schools tend to be the prestigious ones that the very best teachers want to work at. For whatever reason, those schools are more likely to be private rather than public even now.

I don't think its the best schools that happen to be the issue though, this is more the run of the mill schools in the city not providing a decent education

The question is whether it wouldn't be better to improve the schools the poorest actually do have access to.

I think its more to do with the fact that the poorer students (who tend to be the most in need of help) are sent into the same schools instead of having the load spread out because it seems to me that when you have separate communities divided by what land you can own it only ends in disaster for the poorest communities who will have the most trouble reaching an acceptable standard

I'm not entirely sold on the idea of school choice really affecting all that much, in no small part because of factors mentioned in the original article. You mentioned the fact that parents bid up the price of houses in good school districts, which is true, but you didn't mention that this is also in itself part of the reason why those school districts are good: higher property taxes means more money per pupil. The causal chain here is a hermaneutic rather than a higher school achievement ---> higher demand for housing line.

The problem with school choice, then, is that it might very well undermine what's doing a significant portion of the work: the higher amounts of per-person funding. Unless you're also talking about de-coupling property taxes from school funding, what you're essentially asking for is sending a bunch of students to a very good district whose parents have no financial stake in that district and who in some sense demonstrate less commitment to top-notch education because they didn't bid high enough to get into the district anyway.

Now granted, I'm not of the opinion that this bidding really captures their thought processes, but that is how a strict economic view of their choices would have to run, which is usually how an argument for school choice also goes.

well considering what some of these private schools teach in the science classroom I'm not sure I trust them with the children of a superpower
If you have parents who really want their kids to learn wrong things, then they have the power to make sure this happens regardless of the system. As you reduce the control parents have over their children, it gets progressively harder, but you come to a point (and a question I have often asked myself) at which you have to decide where the rights of the kid and the rights of the parents clash and the outside world might be justified in intervening on behalf of the child.

It is accepted in cases of violence and sexual abuse, but not in the way learning and knowledge is being treated at home. I would argue though that the latter may have just as important an impact on the rest of the child's life as the former.

looking at some of the statistics I'm seeing I really don't know what you can do...I mean if any money is actually put into guaranteeing every child a decent education the libertarians on this board (as vague as that is to judge America by) would be up in arms even if it is to guarantee places in private schools...
I don't think it really is about the money. None of the stats say it is. Good schooling doesn't have to cost a lot of money.

Fact of the matter is that people are paying an extraordinary amount already in one way or another. If anything, school vouchers would make the expenses more obvious and probably more justifiable to the voters.

I think its more to do with the fact that the poorer students (who tend to be the most in need of help) are sent into the same schools instead of having the load spread out because it seems to me that when you have separate communities divided by what land you can own it only ends in disaster for the poorest communities who will have the most trouble reaching an acceptable standard
Again, I'd argue that whatever link exists between poverty and bad academic performance is to be looked for in the common factor, and that's the parents. As hard as it is for some people to accept, most poor people aren't poor because of a random accident that somehow stopped them, but from either a series of poor decisions or simply a focus on different things in life from learning and, subsequently, a career that pays money (ie one that involves your brains). Maybe it is too much to ask to have such a person teach their child the joys and uses of learning and intelligence at a very early age, but then the question is who to ask instead.

Anyways, I'm not sure that the sort of clustering of bad students would be avoided under either system. It seems to be the case now, and if my theory on why kids aren't doing well is true and it is the parents' fault, then those parents may also make bad choices and send the kids to the cheapest, most convenient or closest school without much thought. The only way you could stop it is to assess bad students and then send them away to various schools and spread them out basically by force. Whether that's going to improve their performance, attitude and the value they can bring to other students and learning environments...well, let's call that another matter.

The poor are already being denied a good education. I grew up going to inner city schools, if I hadn't been so studious and dorky and studied on my own time, things would not be so cheery for me.

12% of my senior class graduated, 75% of them failed to pass an 8th grade reading level test.

ouch, i cringed reading that 75%.(they need an ouch smiley)
But how long ago was this, have things changed much since you were at school?

ouch, i cringed reading that 75%.(they need an ouch smiley)
But how long ago was this, have things changed much since you were at school?

Yeah, things are worse now because of NCLB.

A friend of mine did an academic type study and found out of 35 teachers at my old school that the average IQ there was 89.

It's a really really bad situation. It's not indicative of all the other schools in the district though. District wide the average IQ of the teachers is like 95, so nearly average.

3/4 of the highschool graduates last year were functionally illiterate though, district wide.