--- In carfree_cities@y..., Jym Dyer <jym@e...> wrote:
> I haven't seen any evidence showing that suburban schools
> provide a consistently better education than urban schools,
> and my own experience suggests otherwise. ..
Yeah, but the parents aren't moving to arbitrary suburbs.
If it's easier to move to a good school district in the
suburbs than one in town, this would encourage sprawl.
This might be the case because the presence of good
schools drives even higher the already expensive real
estate in town. The point is that coupling school
selection to where one lives interferes with factors
that otherwise drive this choice. I don't think the
migration of new parents out of the city is just my
imagination, nor that school district plays a role in
Without this artificial coupling, cities would be
attractive to parents of school-age children precisely
*because* they naturally offer a wide choice of schools
in a compact area. Even without knowing the needs of
their children in advance, parents in a city would
be confident of a good school nearby. If parents had
such choice, that might actually drive some parents
from the suburbs into cities. Suzy could attend the
High School for Performing Arts, while Jimmy attends
a middle school for academically advanced students,
and both are less than two miles distant, so both can
walk to school. But parents DON'T have this kind of
choice. When they're locked into one middle school and
one high school, parents do what they can to find a
district that offers a lot all around, or that offers
what they think their kids will need.
> Since "peecee" is a chimeric appeal to a form of
> _ad_hominem_ argument, it really adds nothing to
> discourse. It's an appeal to ignore actual
> considerations by making an association with
> chimeric elements. ..
> "True school choice" is conservative/propertarian
> code ..