Why are schools better in the suburbs than in the city?

[Anonymous]

I've always wondered why even the elementary schools in "wealthy" Ward 3 tend to still have worse test scores than their counterparts in Bethesda/McLean and why are high schools soo terrible especially since DC spends more per year than its neighbors. They're so close in proximity yet sooo far apart.

[Anonymous]

The Caucasian upper middle class children of lawyers and policy analysts who attend Janney test every bit as well as the Caucasian upper middle class children of lawyers and policy analysts who attend Wood Acres.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Caucasian upper middle class children of lawyers and policy analysts who attend Janney test every bit as well as the Caucasian upper middle class children of lawyers and policy analysts who attend Wood Acres.

And then they abandon the DCPS and go to private schools because the schools at that level are pretty bad while the kids in Montgomery County continue to go to public schools through high school. Why are they better? Simple the larger the school the more it draws from other less desirable parts of the city and the nice little elementary school that had 100% parent buy in is not there in the high schools because the % of parents that care and want to see their kids do well is much lower. Sad but true

[Anonymous]

Google "DCPS out of boundary"....

[Anonymous]

Urban planning. Car idustry had a big say in it. That is why the public transport is non existent in many big American cities. There the best areas are the city centre, and the best public schools are there, and everything else.

[Anonymous]

Poverty. That's why some close in suburbs (for example in PG county) have underperforming schools as well. I can't think of a single area of the country where there's a large poor population that has good schools.

[Anonymous]

Desegregation, among other reasons. Schools used to be segregated in the cities and elsewhere. When they desegregated, whites (who had more money) fled the cities and moved to the suburbs, where they wouldn't have to send their kids to schools with black kids. This had the effect of leaving mostly poorer black families behind in the inner cities, which meants that the schools had less money (smaller tax base) and was dealing with the burdens of poverty. The well-off blacks moved away, and then even the black middle class.

[Anonymous]

You have more concentrations of poverty (typically associated w/ lower academic levels and more behavior problems) in the city vs. in the suburbs. That's especially true in the fancy MC suburbs of Bethesda and CC vs. Wheaton and SS area.

I think the elementary schools tend to do better attracting families because behavior issues aren't that big a problem at the elementary level. On the other hand, once you start to get to middle school and definitely high school you see more disruptions in the class and at schools. (I went to a city school for elementary and middle and my mom taught at a city - not DC - highschool and that seemed the pattern.) I'd also agree that the situation feeds on itself that given the fact that most rich families in DC send their kids to private school the demographics at the MS/HS level are very different from at the ES level, which makes them less attractive schools given the higher concentrations of students needing more help and coming from less well off situations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I think the elementary schools tend to do better attracting families because behavior issues aren't that big a problem at the elementary level. On the other hand, once you start to get to middle school and definitely high school you see more disruptions in the class and at schools.

No, I think some elementary schools seem "OK" because they are smaller than middle and high schools, and therefore draw from a smaller population, just form one neighborhood. If a certain neighborhood has middle or upper middle class families in it, and they all send their kids to the same neighborhood elementary school, chances are great that that elementary school will be seen as a good one. Test scores will be higher, more educated parents will demand better principals, etc. However, the middle school kids form that neighborhood are zoned for might draw kids from 5 to 8 different elementary schools, depending on how large the middle school is. THat now means you won't just be sending your kid to school with other middle and upper middle class neighbors in your little area, but with kids from a much larger area of town.... and the schools could now pull from a significantly poorer population. Unless most of the 5 to 8 other elementary schools are also upper income, a lot of parents would have a problem with their child attending the middle school.

[Anonymous]

If smaller schools, with fewer students is better, what does it mean that Michelle Rhee closed down so many schools for under-enrollment? Wouldn't have been better to keep the numbers down and try and improve the quality?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If smaller schools, with fewer students is better, what does it mean that Michelle Rhee closed down so many schools for under-enrollment? Wouldn't have been better to keep the numbers down and try and improve the quality?

Class size is not a particularly strong driver of academic performance, unless the classrooms are very crowded.

Rhee's decision was to reduce the facilities cost of the school system. Everyone in education knows that made sense. The district was paying to fix broken down buildings that were only partially occupied. As a result, its facilities costs were way out of whack with other school systems.

[Anonymous]

why is poverty the answer? shouldn't parents in poverty put even MORE emphasis on free public education?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:why is poverty the answer? shouldn't parents in poverty put even MORE emphasis on free public education?

Of course they SHOULD. But since when so people do all they should?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:why is poverty the answer? shouldn't parents in poverty put even MORE emphasis on free public education?

People in poverty have to work extremely hard just to survive each day. Education is a goal for the future, and when you can barely meet your daily needs of shelter, food, heat, etc., future goals like education quickly get put on the back burner.

When public school systems can help meet all needs of children in poverty (like weekend food programs, in-school health clinics, etc.), kids perform significantly better. But as we all know, that costs a ton of money to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:why is poverty the answer? shouldn't parents in poverty put even MORE emphasis on free public education?

Do you mean why is poverty the reason for poorer schools?

People who are pooer have kids with poorer prenatal care, poorer nutrition --- this can lead to poorer health and possibly lower IQ.

They live in less stable situations which makes life less stable for kids -- worse psychological problems.

Poorer parents are overwhelmed with demands of day to day life, have less education themselves, and are less able to effectively advocate for their kids, less able to make a compelling case to get bad teachers removed; less able to take days off of work to come in and observe a bad teacher to be able to make a compelling case that the teacher should be fired. THus poorer teachers end up working at poorer schools. "THe dance of the turkeys" -- less effective teachers get moved fomr higher income schools (where parents complain) to lower income schools (where parents may complain but don't do so in a way that something has to happen.)