October 24, 2006
Please Think of the Children
Today, the Washington Examiner returns to a theme we've noticed (and scratched our collective temple at) a number of times over the past year. It seems that Fannie Mae and the Urban Institute have conducted a survey showing that many District families are leaving the capital for the suburbs, due, according to the Examiner piece, to poor schools, excessive condo construction, and high housing costs. Says the article:
Most housing booms are “primarily driven by the fact that those neighborhoods have great schools,” said Stacey Stewart, president and CEO of The Fannie Mae Foundation. “Washington’s boom hasn’t been accompanied by the strengthening of the school system. If we really want to achieve balanced growth, we need to focus on improving the school system.”I don't think anyone would argue that the District needs to improve its schools, which remain an embarrassment to the city, but to suggest that schools are the fundamental driver of housing booms, and not job growth, is ludicrous. People would and do live in places with tons of great jobs but iffy schools, but no one moves to an area with no work but good schools. It's also not clear what might constitute balanced growth, whether D.C. lacks it, or why such growth might be important. Between 1990 and 2000, according to the Census Bureau, average household size fell in Washington (as it did nationwide), but the percentage of children in the population rose, from 19 percent to 20 percent. The percentage of "family households" fell, it's also true, but from 49% to 46%--hardly a biblical exodus. And who cares if there are fewer families with children anyway? Much more important to those interested in keeping the city vibrant and diverse is change in the city's income distribution.
And in that sense, the conclusions reached in this study are in many ways completely backward. It is not correct, for instance, to think that an increase in the number of families wishing to live in the city would lead to an increase in construction of single-family homes. Data from the Urban Institute (PDF) show that median prices of single family homes increased as much as or more than multifamily homes over the past ten years (in 2005, the percentage increase was an astonishing 7 times higher). Demand for single-family housing is there, and yet developers focus on condos for the very good reason that potential sales gains for multifamily construction are so much higher.
Neither is it clear that city residents should be demanding that single-family home construction keep up with condo building. In a growing city with an increasingly strained transportation system, building dense, mixed-use developments is the solution, not the problem. Such construction might turn off families with children and it might not, but the city shouldn't pretend that recruiting parents with the promise of bigger homes doesn't have a real cost: increased congestion and a reduction in the city's capacity to grow.
Which leads to the last misconception in the piece. If families are concerned about cost and space, then the central city will remain an unattractive option for many of them, regardless of the school situation. As we recently discussed, space near the core of the city tends to be more expensive because it is close to the economic activity and amenities of the central city. Children add to a family's need for that expensive space, but they don't add (or don't add much, at least) to the family's need for proximity to the city's activities. In other words, for a family with children to have the same indifference to city life as a family without children, the schools in DC would have to be better than, rather than merely as good as, schools in neighboring jurisdictions. Given the fine school systems encircling the capital, that seems like a tall order.
Which isn't, we must reiterate, a reason to stop trying to improve schools. A good public education system is a service any jurisdiction owes its taxpayers, and good District schools would help to solve many other problems that plague the city, from crime to economic inequality. But it is foolish to think that families moving to the 'burbs is a crisis for Washington, and it would be a mistake to shift policy toward recruiting them back.
Picture taken by Grundlepuck.
|
"People would and do in a places with tons of great jobs but iffy schools, but no one moves to an area with no work but good schools."
Wrong.
If "no one" moves to an area with no work and good schools, how do you explain the extremely-common hours-long commutes from parts in VA and MD to JOBS IN THE CITY? Two major reasons why people commute: more house for the money, and schools that actually have air conditioning.
actually read the study? Your opinions seem to rebut the shoddy editorializing by the writer from the Examiner, not the actual study.
Seriously, if your going to write a piece this long, it's probably worth reading the original document you claim to be criticizing. Maybe then your analysis would be slightly less worthless.
It's possibile that both you and Fannie Mae are correct. On an inter-metropolitan area scale, job growth is definitely the key factor driving housing prices. This is why the Rust Belt cities have lagged significantly in the recent housing boom. Detroit could have the best schools in the country, but nobody will move there if it means living off a truck stop salary.
However, when the study is applied to smaller scales, say an individual metro area, it becomes appropriate. Look at the housing costs of PG County vs. Montgomery or Anne Arundel Counties. While crime and sadly, race, play important parts in the relative prices, education cannot be overlooked. Montgomery and AA Counties have the best schools in the state, and the ability to attend them comes at a cost.
Personally, once (if) my firstborn arrives, the 5-year countdown begins. I have no intention of subjecting my child to the DC remedial school system. One could make the argument that this is beneficial for the city since a house of DINKs pays taxes and utilizes fewer city services. However, once it's obvious that I have no long-term plans to stay in the city, I'll have no reason to invest in my property or my community. That affects both my own and my neighbors' home prices.
.... but no one moves to an area with no work but good schools.
Yes they do. They're called SUBURBS/EXURBS.
As far as "investing" in DC schools goes, DC spends more per pupil than many jurisdictions in our area already already. DC's school investment is not being administered properly. DC schools will not improve until the quality of students attending those schools improve and the quality of the DC Public Schools administration improves. Most DCPS students are simply not ready to learn, mostly due to a lack of parenting and in-home education. DC Public Schools administation needs to be more centralized with less bureaucracy. We have too many people in charge and not enough followers. Power needs to be stripped from those who are not meeting the standard. And, a standard needs to be established and enforced. Also, teachers need to meet the standard regarding the certifications necessary to effectively teach.
While I think it would be tough to argue that the Washington suburbs have no jobs, the point I was clearly making was the one at which GhettoBurbs arrives: that on a metropolitan scale jobs are the driver, but inside the city schools become a factor. I then go on to explain why that doesn't matter.
Why must you always take such a snarky tone on the issue of families in DC?
I'll tell you what -- I'll accept that my tax dollars are wasted on poorly managed DC government agencies and corporate handouts like baseball stadiums for yuppy assholes, and maybe you can accept that a public education system is a given in every single municipality in this country. DC isn't some 'child-free' zone exempt from this fundamental right in this country. It's in the interest of every DC taxpayer to reject government waste in all of it's forms, and even the childless (now and forever) should be concerned with the inefficency and poor results of their tax dollars within DCPS. You seem to suggest schools/kids don't merit so-called prime real estate, even when their parents have earned this right via taxation.
DC has some of the finest schools in the region -- most happen to be private and exhorbinantly expensive. You seriously miss the point of the study -- the new housing tends to be monotonous yuppy asshole palace condos and not accomodating to a more diversified population, including affordable housing for working families.
DC has a transitory population because families don't establish roots in DC propper. A starter home condo or empty nest pad doesn't cut it.
"If families are concerned about cost and space, then the central city will remain an unattractive option for many of them, regardless of the school situation."
Ryan, have you ever heard of compromise?
As in i would give up a couple extra rooms if my children could attend an acceptable school.
Do you have children?
Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Your explination makes no sense.
"And who cares if there are fewer families with children anyway?"
Well there are a host of reasons to care. Here are a few off the top of my head:
1. Families are better economic generators than singles. They purchase more (albeit less expensive) things. They support smaller retail better than singles.
2. The more families, the more people will have an interest in the state of the DCPS. It's all well and good for someone like me to care about DCPS, but until I have children, it's not going to affect me much, so I don't have that much of an incentive to learn more about the schools and to push for reform.
3. Diversity isn't just having 8 different tapas places in a four block radius. Cities with children are just more interesting places than those without. That doesn't mean shutting down nightclubs, but any more diversity is good.
4. Not only do families create more economic activity, they are better for economies in the long run. They live in one place longer and stick out temporary down turns more.
Certainly there are more, but that's all I thought of off the top of my head.
A more telling quote from the article:
Fix the school system and developers will build housing for families in the District, said Margery Turner, director of the Metro Center at The Urban Institute. “Begin to show developers that D.C. can be attractive to families with children,” Turner said.
The problems with the public school system are rooted in the middle class white flight of the 1950s, followed by the black middle class in the 1970s. What's left is varying degrees of poverty. But it's a chicken-and-egg issue: you're not going to improve the schools until middle class famlies move back, and they won't move back until the schools improve. The corrollary is the gentrification of downtown: quality-of-life improvements didn't occur until people with money started moving into Dupont/Adams Morgan/Shaw and started demanding them. And so you will continue to spend more and more money on fewer and fewer students.
But this is the sort of topdown ivory tower claptrap we've come to expect from the Urban Institute. "Just fix the schools and families will flood back into the cities!" What about crime? The lousy city services? The crowding? The high cost of living? The noisy bastards nextdoor? The kids screaming in the street at 11pm? The guy blaring the Kicker basses from his Escalade while he's looking for parking off V Street on Friday night? If the schools were magically transformed overnight, these other examples of urban "vibrancy" would remain.
What we're seeing is a sort of self-imposed urban/suburban segregation: single DINKs, underclass families, and those who can afford private schools take the cities, everybody else takes the suburbs. Such skewed demographics will lead to a declining urban population as breeders continue to move to the burbs, and a gradual increase in taxes to compensate for the lost income. According to La Turner, DC needs to have a broad mix of incomes. Admirable sentiments, but here on Planet Earth, things work a little differently, contrary to Urban Institute whitepapers.
Isn't "single DINKs" a bit contradictory? I suppose a single person could have two jobs and fit the acronym, but I don't think that demographic is why the term was coined.
It should read "singles, DINKs" etc.
Sounds like what you're referring to is a couple who each have two incomes and no kids, which would technically make them QINKs.
I think the commenters on this article are having a knee-jerk reaction typical to people who may have grown up in family-filled suburban environments. I believe Ryan was trying to point out that singles and childless couples are just as beneficial to a city as families. The Fannie Mae report (hmmmm...I wonder why they would advocate for more single-family housing) conveniently ignores that DC's renaissance is because of the "yuppies" and condo canyons that commenters on DCist love to vilify.
Should the city aim to attract middle-class families? Of course. Will fixing the schools help do that? Of course. But to suggest that single professionals and childless couples detract from a city's vibrancy is ridiculous.
I'm going to state an opinion thats going to be very offensive to most people. I was briefly a teacher and an education major. I'm not bitter, it just wasn't for me, and I'm too much of a realist to work in that kind of environment. Plus, I quickly discovered that I hate kids, but only half as much as other teachers.
The brutal truth is that schools are only as good as the kids who attend them, and the kids are only as good as their parents. The PC bullsh*t about teachers and good schools being able to change kids lives is total rubbish. You have good schools when you have motivated students. Teachers have some influence, but most influence comes from parents who value education, and instill a work ethic in their kids instead of filling their brains with the sugary PC self-esteem canon.
You can throw all the money at DC schools you want. It hasn't changed much, and it won't. Unfortunately, a lot of public schools aren't much more than day care centers, and teachers are essentially babysitters.
For big change to happen there needs to be a wholesale cultural change in how parents and students value education.
It's more than just elementary and secondary education people. There is no decent post-secondary education in the District of Columbia. And I'm not just talking U.Va.-quality education either. There is no decent community college or job training in DC. And that affects all of us. I myself have considered moving to Maryland or Virginia just so I can take a class at NoVa or Montgomery College for either personal growth or career development. And you'd better believe that anyone that cares about education has their eyes set on the collegiate options for their children.
"I believe Ryan was trying to point out that singles and childless couples are just as beneficial to a city as families...But to suggest that single professionals and childless couples detract from a city's vibrancy is ridiculous."
That's not necessarily true. Too much of either does detract from a city's vibrancy. As I said above, singles can be a detriment on some retail. They generally create less commercial activity than families. They also don't support smaller retail the same amount (think of kids spending money at the proverbial corner shop). So yes, you could argue that at this point, by displacing families, singles are detracting from the vibrancy of the city.
Also I commented in the morning's post on this, but to repeat myself, I agree with incognito. It's not only the schools, but the students that keep families from settling in the District. That's why I think DC should consider setting up a system within a system for elite students, whose parents would otherwise move or go private if their kids were forced to go to school with disruptive and remedial kids. It's not an ideal solution, but it might solve the chicken and egg problem of improving schools and attracting the students needed to improve the schools. Obviously it would be crucial to ensure this was not a retread of segregation, but frankly we already live with a system nearly as segregated as it was in 1954, so I'm not sure how we would even tell if it were increasing segregation.
The brutal truth is that schools are only as good as the kids who attend them, and the kids are only as good as their parents.
I think you're mostly right. Scholastic success begins at home and if a parent doesn't take 20 minutes each day to read with their kid they are probably dooming them to academic failure.
I disagree that good schools and teachers can't change lives. Kids are very malleable, if you take a kid and put him/her into a situation where academic achievement is the norm they will adapt to that. You need motivated students to create a culture of achievement in a school; that's something that piece can't come from teachers and administrators alone.
DC1974
Good point about the job training and professional development opportunities for adults. An equivalent to Montgomery Co. Community College would benefit the District.
For parents with prospective college bound kids, DC does have a program called DCTAG -- Tuition Assistance Grant, which provides in-state tuition to any public university in the US (as well as benefits to DC regional schools) for post-secondary full time students seeking their first primary college degree. The only additional eligibility requirement is an established period of residency in the District
http://seo.dc.gov/seo/cwp/view,A,1226,Q,536770,seoNav_GID,1511,.asp
I believe it was mentioned in a previous post that DC residents qualify for in-state tuition at ALL public universities throughout the country. However, that doesn't negate the fact that you'd still have to drive to College Park to attend UMd or where ever.
I believe it was mentioned in a previous post that DC residents qualify for in-state tuition at ALL public universities throughout the country. However, that doesn't negate the fact that you'd still have to drive to College Park to attend UMd or where ever.
(my apologies if this double-posted... the Post button was acting wonky)
DC1974
Good point about continuing education. For students seeking a primary degree as full time students, check out DC Tuition Assistance Grant Program (DCTAG. In-state tuition to public universities, as well as grants to regional community colleges and 4 year universities and historically black national colleges. DC residency is the primary qualification
And you'd better believe that anyone that cares about education has their eyes set on the collegiate options for their children.
True dat. But as any reasonably well informed parent in the District knows, DC students are eligible for in-state tuition at any state school in the US. UVA's a good school, my little sister went there; but I like the idea that my baby girl will have the option to go to Michigan or Berkley or Rutgers for in-state prices.
Obviously no more comment on this is necessary, but anyway:
"People would and do live in places with tons of great jobs but iffy schools, but no one moves to an area with no work but good schools."
D.C. schools are not iffy, they're tragic. And a city that would allow schools not only to degrade to the point of D.C. public schools, but wallow there year after year, is a city that doesn't have its sh*t together overall. D.C. attempts a surge in one or two areas in hopes of generating energy for other needs (development will equal tax dollars, baseball will equal ... tax dollars), but the efforts are under planned and poorly executed and result in a waste of money and resources and a reinforcement that this city is a mess. Once there is some confidence in the basic services D.C. needs to provide (lead-free water, functional libraries, healthcare and hospitals, quality school faculty) *THEN* maybe families will want to make the city their home. Until then, just say hello to more and more young government workers and contractors who will live here only as long as they have to, then move somewhere else, with better schools, safer streets, etc., to make their life as part of a community.
Reid,
Good point about your elite system, I thought that idea was largely what pushed the charter school movement?
DC1974 also makes a good point about post-secondary school options. I am usually enrolled in one class at NoVa. Just for "fun", develop new interests, and sometimes (but rarely) to sharpen job related skills. I have had classmates from DC, and they're paying the typical 3x inflated out of state tuition. For me it's dirt cheap. People poke fun at NoVA, but I'm a big believer in the mission of community colleges. I've gotten a lot out of the experience (but I've also "put in"), and it's a great bargain. I can also access adult education classes through Alexandria or Arlington public schools. I'm definately into the "lifelong learning" concept.
It's not "DC residents" who qualify for in-state tuition, as DC1 mentions above the program is only for "post-secondary full time students seeking their first primary college degree." The program doesn't help people looking for individual adult education classes or graduate-level degrees at all.
Exactly, incogonito!
Those who truly care about the dynamic of a city will be passionate supporters of singles, families, seniors, widows, rich and poor populating the physical space of their cities. A city made up of entirely single people is no more healthy than a cityt made up entirely of families. I'd take serious issue with the statement, " And who cares if there are fewer families with children anyway? Much more important to those interested in keeping the city vibrant and diverse is change in the city's income distribution." Families with children bring about so many things that a single person cannot, and vice versa. Personally, if my street became all single people (or all married w children) people, it would be a fairly nauseating place to live.
All are welcome, all are necessary, all are required.
The district is doomed to lag behind comparable cities as long as attitudes like "who cares about families" or "who cares about singles" are allowed to continue.
The Undeclared War On DC Families
By Republican Write-In DC Mayoral Candidate Dennis Moore
www.MooreForPeople.com
Even as a write-in mayoral candidate, I sincerely expect and wish the best for the expected winners of DC's mayoral and council member elections. Nevertheless, I cannot and will never ignore the daily realities of ongoing socioeconomic suffering by the District's low-income to middle-class families. My family is among them.
There is an undeclared war on District of Columbia families. Pretentious public officials, media-elected candidates and assorted special interests continue to divide and control our city. Behind the headlines, DC residents are reaching the breaking point of social and economic discontent. The hype and deception continues. Recent US Census figures, when sorted and filtered for actual full-time non-transient residents, show the reality of DC population losses in families, permanent residents, and long-term middle-class taxpayers.
These losses will create the coming District budget deficits and fiscal imbalances -- especially when much of our money will go to a new baseball stadium, dysfunctional DC agencies, and other revenue wasting mayoral initiatives. Simply, families need good schools, affordable housing, public safety, accessible healthcare, local jobs, and neighborhood retail services. Simply, families leave when these assets are missing. Selling-off our schools and land to condo developers won't help.
Based on DC Board of Elections figures, over two-thirds of DC Primary voters did not vote. Hype, the hypocrisy of DC democracy, and special interest candidates suppress voter turnout. Over 285,000 District voters who didn't vote want real change. District discontent continues and increases throughout diverse hard working communities. It should be no surprise that our rising discontent has less to do with party politics, economic status, ethnic group, ward issue, or unresolved community complaints ignored by District officials.
Our discontent is deeply rooted in the serious lack of real accountability, genuine respect and effective action on the actual common needs of everyday DC residents. This discontent can be eliminated by a mayor with the genuine will, innovative leadership, and a real action plan to aggressively and always act in the best interest of District citizens first.
Electing a progressive Republican or other DC mayoral candidate in a city-state long dominated and dependent on Democratic public officials may seem like an impossible challenge -- and received little media attention. But, I confidently believe most District voters are ahead of anyone acting on the hype of an alleged "mandate" and "landslide." Can we afford 4 more years of self-serving promises based on shaky records that provide minimal socioeconomic empowerment? Are low expectations our highest standard?
Ironically, some of the same DC public officials heard, mismanaged and paid lip service to the problems they now claim they want to solve -- now that they are candidates. No doubt, we can no longer find comfort in public officials who are again all too comfortable with another opportunity for unaccountable, arrogant, fiscally irresponsible District governance.
We all know this is the time to make REAL change. Beyond the millions in special interest campaign money and media hype, District of Columbia citizens still want genuine leadership of change and empowerment -- a change to policies and priorities directly benefiting us, the people.
Change will come from a new standard of District leadership and vision. Vision without a real action plan is just campaign hype and style. Hopefully, most of us WILL vote -- vote for real change on Tuesday, November 7.
www.MooreForPeople.com
It's sortof ironic that Fannie Mae is stating it's concern for DC's tax base yet they sure are willing to suck up to that special DC income tax exemption the Federal government specially created for them. Fannie Mae reported a recent annual profit of $7.9 billion. Granted, not all of that would be taxable in DC, but if even 20% was that's one heckuva lot of tax they are avoiding paying.
I suppose they need that extra money to craft yet another multi=million dollar benefits package for their top honchos.
In 1950, DC's population was 800,000. DC development is much more dense now than it was in 1950. There is space in this city for families and singles alike. Luxury condo development has just as much a place in this city as single-home (detached and attached) development. There are many neighborhoods with rowhouses that can be revitalized, but thugs have overrun them and created a war-zone in this city. Reduce the crime, and families will accelerate their return to the city. There are plenty of rowhouses and such for miles upon miles which will still be here in the next 50 years. Condos and office development is occuring mostly on vacant and underutilized land. That is why it is called redevelopment. The families will always have a place in this city to live, and it probably will remain largely affordable. It might not be in a trendy neighborhood, but it is safe and stable.
And, like incognito and I have stated, the quality of schools and their adminstration will improve once the quality of students and their parents improves.
See you in about 50 years so that we can see what history documented for us.
There can be growth without good schools, but not even growth. Neighborhoods with good jobs but bad schools attract single people. This is the problem DC faces (there was another post on this just a couple of days ago). Young professionals The people they leave behind-- old, cranky, single political consultants-- could give a crap less about the school system. The disadvantage to this system is that families are a source of stability in a community. Single people are lessl stable. And in fact, the families who have lived in DC for multiple generations and used to provide that stability are being pushed out by the professional singles who can afford higher rents.
"but no one moves to an area with no work but good schools."
Let me second the people who point out that this is wrong. Many people are willing to drive great distances to and from work. Few people can afford to pay for private schools when public ones are not satisfactory.
"but no one moves to an area with no work but good schools."
The other problem with this concept, besides those several others have pointed out, is there aren't many "areas" with no work but good schools, at least not when you're talking metro areas as opposed to neighborhoods or communities within a larger metro area. If there weren't good jobs to be had in the D.C. area, Montgomery, Arlington, Fairfax and Alexandria schools wouldn't constantly rank as high as they do in national stats.
There IS a huge issue with people moving to the middle of nowhere to get "good schools." First off, a lot of people claim their kids are going to good schools when they aren't. Friends bought a house in Silver Spring that was still affordable, and bragged abotu the "good schools" but when their daughter started Pre-K they found out there were only 3 native English speakers in her Pre-K class and when they looked at the test scores, that elementary school was lousy- well below what they thought. They send her to private school.
Many Loudon and Fairfax residents do not work in DC, they work at beltway bandits in Tysons Corner, Crystal City, AOL and Pentagon satellite offices, etc. I work with a few people who commute from long distances- Delaware and West Virginia, but those school systems S*CK compared to Falls Church City. The Exurbs do not have schools as good as Fairfax, Montgomery, etc. I challenge anyone to find an Exurb school that competes with a close-in suburb that also contains high tech office parks like Tysons or Bethesda's NIH. The Exurb argument is false.
Also a friend of mine in Fredericksburg who works in Chantilly owns 4 cars because his kids can't walk anywhere. Would you rather spend $20k per year to send kids to a private school they can walk to or spend $15-20k on a car so they can drive themselves. Maybe you want to buy a house in Bethesda? A house in my parents' neighborhood is available for $2 million. Because there is no free lunch- you pay for private school, for cars, or for housing values. I've done some calculating and overall, you make your money back on the house.
Exurbs are the slums of the future, do not bet on those schools improving.
Until then, just say hello to more and more young government workers and contractors who will live here only as long as they have to, then move somewhere else, with better schools, safer streets, etc., to make their life as part of a community.
----
Contrary to your ageist attitude, young people are part of the community right now.
.... but no one moves to an area with no work but good schools.
Yes they do. They're called SUBURBS/EXURBS.
That's a pretty specious way of looking at it. By that standard, I can claim that I live in a place where there are no jobs for an archivist, because the National Archives aren't in my living room. *
(* Though I could see why someone might think so.)
Bethesdan- I'm 33 and part of my neighborhood committee. But my point about D.C. has always been that there are a lot of young people here to get their careers started, either through university education or federal jobs, and they are biding their time to move on to the place where they will really invest and start their lives. D.C. is a waystation for too many people and those of us who live here (and not in Bethesda) suffer. They're ambitious, educated, employed young people who won't bother giving D.C. anything because it isn't home. They might buy a condo, but they don't register their cars, they don't register to vote, they don't volunteer. They've got one foot over the city line. Generalization, yes, but widely applicable.
Veteran actor William Franklyn, known for voicing the 1960s Schweppes TV adverts, dies aged 81...