KCPowercat wrote:
Obviously better schools help a city overall but no everybody decided based on schools and demos show us households with kids are the minority and dropping
School Performance = Property Value*
*Except in very rare cases, of which the Kansas City metro is no where near reaching.
KCPowercat wrote:
Obviously better schools help a city overall but no everybody decided based on schools and demos show us households with kids are the minority and dropping
What does the KC data say? I could see this being the case in larger urban areas, but it's hard for me to believe that the majority of couples out there in KC don't ever plan on having kids. People are waiting longer to have kids, but when it's all said and done, most couples still eventually have kids, and that means they'll be searching for good schools to send them to.
We also have to take into account the baby boomers who are empty-nesters now. I'm sure they, along with people waiting longer to have kids, skew the data.
I've posted it like 30 times. In the 2000 census it was approx 35% of households had school aged kids. I'll bet anything that number goes down for 2010. People just aren't having kids as much and like you said, baby boomers kids are moving out. Which is why we see them moving downtown as empty nesters.
Pretty ignorant to assume everybody today just couples up man and wife and pops out kids....this isn't the 50s.
Yes, I think your position is pretty clear, but I'm not sure it's convincing. Do you know what % of people have school-age kids at some point in their lives?
I would guess that a lot of people like continuity in there communities--may want to establish themselves in a neighborhood before they have kids and remain there after they've lived there for 20 years. It doesn't really make sense to me that schools only matter to the 35% of households that happen to have a child between the ages of 5-17 living at home.
That's true. What I use this this number for is to refute those who say everybody is fleeing the city when they have kids. Not as many households have kids as people think. No doubt once people get established some tend to stay.....still more bail on that house when they get rid of the kids.....hence the increase of empty netters downtown.
You don't have to agree with me but let's end this assumption that every household is some family with 2 kids and they simply moved to blue valley for school for Jr. The numbers show that's not accurate.
In 2000, 650,468 households in KC, 250,496 (36%) had individuals under 18. I'd put that number even lower in 2010
AJoD wrote:
Yes, I think your position is pretty clear, but I'm not sure it's convincing. Do you know what % of people have school-age kids at some point in their lives?
I would guess that a lot of people like continuity in there communities--may want to establish themselves in a neighborhood before they have kids and remain there after they've lived there for 20 years. It doesn't really make sense to me that schools only matter to the 35% of households that happen to have a child between the ages of 5-17 living at home.
Sad but true - folks who don't have kids or already got rid of their kids will still choose a neighborhood because there is a good segregated, all-white school serving the neighborhood. Makes it that much easier to sell the house when you can find plenty of parents who refuse to let their kids go to school with those that are beneath them.
shinatoo wrote:
School Performance = Property Value
I agree 1000% (for Midwest cities like KC). This is important to homeowners without kids, too. 99% of Americans want to protect thier investment. Neighborhoods with good schools give them good odds.
The pioneer-types that like to invest in emerging old neighborhoods are gamblers. Some win, others lose (financially). They are not the norm. If you are one of them (most of us here are) stop a moment and put yourself in the shoes of most homeowners. Not everyone can be a gambler.
Some neighborhoods in KC like the Country Club or Brookside buck this "School Performance = Property Value" trend, but only slightly. Imagine the value of those homes if they were in an elite school district. They would be only for the rich becasue they would be so coveted.
Ask ne joco how that's working for them. People are bailing on that hood too and schools are fine...and if you are saying it is just for better schools to 'protect their investment' at what point is the school district safe enough for investment?
KCPowercat wrote:
Ask ne joco how that's working for them. People are bailing on that hood too and schools are fine...
There is a perception - misguided IMO - that SM North is becoming a "bad school." I think its because there is more blight in NE JoCo than in other parts of JoCo, and the school is more racially and socioeconomically diverse than other SM and BV schools. People interpret this as "the school is going downhill."
KCPowercat wrote:
Ask ne joco how that's working for them. People are bailing on that hood too and schools are fine...and if you are saying it is just for better schools to 'protect their investment' at what point is the school district safe enough for investment?
Use it and leave it behind. Great way to live.
SM North, NW, and W are no longer white enough nor English speaking enough for those seeking the suburban dream.
Max....exactly. this is what is frustrating. Whether its education or crime or whatever. Bail and move further out isn't fixing anything....and governments need to quite assisting with more and more 10 lane interstates.
KCMax wrote:
There is a perception - misguided IMO - that SM North is becoming a "bad school." I think its because there is more blight in NE JoCo than in other parts of JoCo, and the school is more racially and socioeconomically diverse than other SM and BV schools. People interpret this as "the school is going downhill."
As I said, self-fulfilling prophecy. Eventually enough families will flee those neighborhoods to the point where the schools loose the majority of their children from middle class, educated parents. Eventually "achievement" really does start to slip and real social issues develop. But these only become real issues because of the flight. Sprawl creates this impression that a "good school" is an all-white, all middle-upper class, all children of college educated parents school. The further from this ideal, the more it becomes a "bad school". Problem is, that ideal can only be achieved through continual sprawl and neighborhood abandonment - if everyone runs as soon as some poor minority kids show up at school, than the cycle will never stop, parents will always have to locate somewhere brand new and demographically homogenous.
kcmetro wrote:
That's what I'd like to know too. Where is this blight everyone keeps speaking of? The homes are older, but I don't see any blight.
i assume what they are talking about are the empty, deteriorating strip malls, empty businesses and office space, the proliferation of payday loan places, etc. which is pretty common in JoCo north of 435. parts of metcalf, quivira, etc. are starting to look like noland road. you dont see boarded-up houses or burnt-out buildings or anything, but there is absolutely evidence of abandonment in the older parts of the county.
There are definitely strip malls in NE JoCo that are half abandoned, or haven't been kept up over the years. There are abandoned parcels. Its not as bad as say KCMO, but if you were comparing NE JoCo to JoCo south of 435, you'd definitely notice a big difference.
KCMax wrote:
There are definitely strip malls in NE JoCo that are half abandoned, or haven't been kept up over the years. There are abandoned parcels. Its not as bad as say KCMO, but if you were comparing NE JoCo to JoCo south of 435, you'd definitely notice a big difference.
parts of olathe look pretty bad too, and that is south of 435. somehow, "south joco" has come to only describe the tonier parts of south leawood or OP.
All this about schools is interesting to me from an historical standpoint. When I was growing up (I know, it was a long time ago), kids who lived around Ward Parkway and in Mission Hills, etc. went to Southwest HS or Shawnee Mission. My mother went to Southwest! What went wrong?
Based on my observations/experience, the reasons people bail from the urban public schools.
Lack of monetary support for the schools
Large class size
Teachers spend a lot of time with underachieving students; bright kids aren't challenged
Lack of parent involvement in the school
Disruptive students
Lack of school choice (no neighborhood schools)
Long bus rides
Violence
Recent news: in order for the state of California to qualify for some federal funds, it has to adopt federal education standards that are lower than California's. What does that say?
People throw solutions around, but until we starting funding education equally to all school and match that of Europe and Japan, I don't see much improvement in the future.
