- 21,784
- 2,957
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
Honest to God, the issue of public school is so dense that there's no way for someone to break it down simply in a post on here. I've been researching it for about a year now as I want to carve out a career that deals with children in public school in some capacity, so I can tell you that one huge problem is revenue that schools gain from property taxes surrounding the school district. If the properties in the surrounding area are empty lots that are undesirable, or there are dilapidated homes that run down the blocks from the playground, or any kind of factory work nearby that decreases the quality of life, then the monetary value of the entire area is depreciated significantly, and so any property tax designed to support schools would be MUCH less than if you were look somewhere like Walnut Creek or whatever other affluent area you can think of which is packed with valuable land.
Then you get to the issue of not being able to attract quality teacher because of not having enough money from the property taxes, so the districts are stuck having to dole out poor pay, and then having to contend with the inherent bias some would have against working and living in a place like Oakland (I'm speaking more to people unfamiliar with the area, rather than those who grew up nearby and have a better understanding). So without being able to offer competitive pay and needing to have people who are devoted teachers who are willing to learn to manage kids who come from incredibly difficult circumstances, you cannot bring in the right talent to do the right job.
And then we come to the mother of all these issues, which unsurprisingly is tied to racial segregation. This in itself deserves so much more than I can articulate without studying more, but if anyone is truly interested I suggest reading Savage Inequalities by Jonathan Kozol. Even just the first chapter discussing East St. Louis will bring you into the calamity of urban life, especially for the children, who are the most victimized by all of this.
Thanks for the response (and ICE CITY FC). Seems like a very circulatory system. I am sort of at that age where realistically I will be starting a family in the next 3-4 years and I need to move somewhere that makes sense cause affording SF housing is totally out of the picture. I am trying to persuade my girl to just go back to the East Bay but she is pretty stern on wanting to send our future kids to the SF school system, more notably Lowell high school where she went. That school is so different from my high school that she told mer her graduating class almost had a 70-80% of the kids going to UCs where as the others went to states and no one went to JCs. At my high school, well over 50% all went to junior colleges (DVC and CCC) and the rest went to states and UCs or trade schools.
Anyways.....just such a difficult thing to pick out seeing how there are so many factors of what is important and even where we work.
If I can be frank concerning your situation, the most impactful thing in a child's life concerning education is going to be the involvement of parents and attentive adults. Your future kids could end up in a school that doesn't send many students to a four year college, but their fate is much more tied to the fact of whether or not you and your girl are attending to their needs as students in the classroom. The definitive developing years for children in school are from grades 3-6, where they begin to understand better their role in school and the roles of others. If you've got them believing in school and working hard until about the 8th grade, the likelihood that they don't do well in high school drops dramatically.
I don't mean to say that you can enroll them anywhere and they'll be fine as long as you're around. Just that if they end up somewhere that's not at the top for graduating future college grads, it's not the worst thing that can happen.