What will happen to our major cities if the large urban school districts across the nation continue to under-perform?
There’s no question that many of our big cities are in trouble, and current demographic and economic trends indicate that this situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. People, jobs and a good portion of the tax base are moving out to the suburbs, leaving many of our downtown areas blighted.
Urban planners and activists have been addressing this situation for a number of years. Smart Growth is the currently favored umbrella term for programs that attempt to discourage people and businesses from locating on the outskirts of town, and thereby contributing to increased urban sprawl.
The arguments for locating businesses in the existing urban core (rather than paving over more farmland on the outskirts of town) make good sense from a land-use policy standpoint. After all, the infrastructure is already in place, and densely populated areas make mass transit solutions much more cost-effective.
More importantly, getting businesses to move back (or at least remain) in the inner city will also provide job opportunities for those who most desperately need it. The resulting new businesses and jobs, in turn, will provide needed tax revenue which, then, will enable our cities to improve existing infrastructure and services.
It all makes great sense. Unfortunately, unless we do something to improve our large urban school districts, we don’t stand a chance in the world of turning our cities around.
Why? Because labor is, and always will be, the most important area a company evaluates in determining the best location to expand or relocate their operations.
Sure, other factors -- business climate, taxes, transportation infrastructure, real estate, utility costs, proximity to market -- are also important, but a good and plentiful work force has always been No. 1, in good times and in bad.
With graduation rates below 25 percent, and average college board scores below the 20th percentile (compared to everyone else nationwide who took the ACT or SAT that year), our big city school districts are condemning an entire generation to life at the bottom of the economic barrel. This is not the kind of work force businesses, particularly those that offer good-paying jobs with a future, tend to gravitate towards.
I just finished going over the preliminary results of our latest Education Quotient study, and this dismal trend continues. The one area these districts seem to excel in is in per-pupil expenditures, where some of the worst performing school districts in the country also have the greatest financial resources.
Most metropolitan areas are the same in that the school district that carries the metro’s name usually suffers from low graduation rates and abysmal test scores. Likewise, all metro areas seem to have suburban school districts that range in quality from good to excellent.
Suburban areas are also where most of the economic and population growth in a metro can be found. It’s not just a coincidence, either.
Sure, it’s usually cheaper to build new on a greenfield site on the outskirts of town that it is to retrofit an existing vacant facility downtown. But that can be “adjusted” using existing financial incentives that most cities offer. What usually can’t be “adjusted” is the lack of an educated work force within easy commute of the proposed site. That’s the problem most enterprise zones are faced with.
That’s why, more and more, businesses are flocking to the suburbs and fringe cities, many of which have themselves become big “cities” (at least from a population standpoint).
That’s why improving our urban school districts is so important. Unless we do, the current downtown sections of our cities will eventually shrivel up and die.
My point is not to beat up on big city teachers and administrators, or to put the weight of the world on their shoulders. They face challenges that most suburban school districts cannot even imagine.
Still, something has to improve because our kids are only young once, and the longer they spend in these under-performing schools, the less likely they are to share in the American dream of owning a home, raising a family, sending their children to college, having enough money left over for a decent retirement, etc.
My theory is that the main difference between the high-achieving suburban schools and the inner city schools lies with the parents, and not with the kids.
Kids are kids and seem to have a genetic predisposition to goof off. It’s as if it’s a part of their DNA. Left to their own devices, most will not study, will not do their homework and, eventually, will not even bother to show up for school. Those of you who are parents know exactly what I mean.
But that’s exactly where parents are most needed. Teachers have our children for seven or eight hours a day. The rest of the time they are under parental control, the level of which varies from family to family.
It’s the parents’ job is to ensure that their children go to school and do their homework, in addition to instilling in them the basics of good citizenship. In return, teachers teach and try to spark an interest in a subject that might eventually turn into that child’s lifetime passion (and, possibly, career).
It’s a partnership between teachers and parents that requires each side to carry its own weight. It’s important because the door to the middle class is located on the far side of the school house.
If we don’t fix the problem, people and businesses will continue to vote with their feet. And remember, history is replete with examples of formerly great cities and towns that no longer exist.
The clock is ticking.
Means the article is accessible only to our magazine subscribers.
