Good Schools Stabilize Neighborhoods

[eldondre]

While good schools won't make a whole city attractive, it is interesting how it can stabilize a neighborhood by making it attractive to people of all ages. while the young people and empty nesters tack might be sufficient for center city, it's insufficient for the entire city

The school, with math and reading rankings well above the state average, has helped make the community one of the most sought-after in the city, bringing rapid change in a neighborhood that was seen as gasping for air 15 years ago.

Housing prices are up, crime is down, and amenities such as Clark Park and the popular neighborhood swimming pool have been upgraded. And there are a lot more children...."The catchment area has turned it into a stable family neighborhood, with kids on almost every street," said Andrew Meloney, the West Philadelphia planner for the City Planning Commission.

From the beginning, the school was expected to have a healthy impact on property values.

A differential long existed, with homes closer to Penn, the city's largest private employer, costing more than those farther away. But the gap has widened since Penn Alexander opened, and now a house in the catchment area will cost about $100,000 more than the same house across the line, according to Kevin Gillen, vice president of Econsult, an economic-consulting firm in West Philadelphia, and an expert in the Philadelphia housing market.

Penn neighborhood blooms around a top school | Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/05/2010

[phillysw]

The neighborhood is far more than stabilized at this point--it's very nice. I wish I could afford to buy a house in the catchment or even on the surrounding edges, but I was priced out long ago.

[eldondre]

The neighborhood is far more than stabilized at this point--it's very nice. I wish I could afford to buy a house in the catchment or even on the surrounding edges, but I was priced out long ago.

be that as it may, it keeps it stable. without it, those people may well have moved when the kids became school age.

[thunda]

I totally agree that good schools are a huge asset to a given neighborhood, but this particular area already has great housing stock, great transit connections to the Center City, proximity to several major employers, pretty good highway access, etc. It would be in solid shape with or without Penn Alexander. (Also, ISTR reading an article that said that property appreciation in this area was very similar to other gentrifying neighborhoods like Bella Vista that are outside the catchment.)

[Sycamore]

Good schools are important even to those us without children. We would never consider buyinng in a bad school district (catchment, if you're in Philly) because it would hinder our resale value. Plus, it's important that the people you live around value education, both kids and adults.

[eldondre]

I totally agree that good schools are a huge asset to a given neighborhood, but this particular area already has great housing stock, great transit connections to the Center City, proximity to several major employers, pretty good highway access, etc. It would be in solid shape with or without Penn Alexander. (Also, ISTR reading an article that said that property appreciation in this area was very similar to other gentrifying neighborhoods like Bella Vista that are outside the catchment.)

doesn't south philly have some decent elementary schools? what it means, of course, is that the neighborhood may stay full of families rather than be just another gentrified neighborhood with few families, only those who can send their kids to private school

sycamore-theoretically, the bad schools should be built into the price making it a non-factor. in other words, if you didn't pay for a good school, you won't lose money because of it. you make money if the school improves unexpectedly and lose money if it gets worse. for me it's important since I'd like there to be other kids around. I grew up, partly, in an area where all the kids left because the catchment was changed in order to diversify the student base at another school (in this case, central in Houston). rather than diversify, within two years, almost all the families had moved out of the neighborhood.

[Insoluble]

doesn't south philly have some decent elementary schools? what it means, of course, is that the neighborhood may stay full of families rather than be just another gentrified neighborhood with few families, only those who can send their kids to private school.

Yeah, Meredith elementary is one you always here about, but there are others that aren't quite as top notch, but still better than the Philly average.

And I agree that having good public schools around is also important for non-parents.

[billy ross]

Neither Mt. Airy nor East Falls have excellent public schools, yet both neighborhoods have been singled out as destinations for families with young children. The other community amenities in these cases
overwhelm the public school factor. Among them are libraries, little leagues, private schools, parks, etc. However, if the schools were to step it up a notch or three, it would be a shot in the arm for these neighborhoods.

BTW, what does 'scores which are well above the state average' really mean? It could be interpreted as damning with faint praise. I want better than that for my kids.

[eldondre]

Neither Mt. Airy nor East Falls have excellent public schools, yet both neighborhoods have been singled out as destinations for families with young children. The other community amenities in these cases
overwhelm the public school factor. Among them are libraries, little leagues, private schools, parks, etc. However, if the schools were to step it up a notch or three, it would be a shot in the arm for these neighborhoods.

BTW, what does 'scores which are well above the state average' really mean? It could be interpreted as damning with faint praise. I want better than that for my kids.

while on a personal level I agree that most public schools fail to teach independent thinking (which isn't captured by standardized testing), philly's low college graduate %'s is due, in no small part, to bad schools. most people I know that have moved out of the city when they had children were two degree couples. there are only so many people who are willing or able to afford private school (which, if you aren't rich, usually means you have to give things up like expensive cars and vacations)....good schools widens the potential resident pool. personally, I'd love to see the public system dismantled and the district simply pay for children's educations rather than run local monopolies.

[Insoluble]

while on a personal level I agree that most public schools fail to teach independent thinking (which isn't captured by standardized testing), philly's low college graduate %'s is due, in no small part, to bad schools. most people I know that have moved out of the city when they had children were two degree couples. there are only so many people who are willing or able to afford private school (which, if you aren't rich, usually means you have to give things up like expensive cars and vacations)....good schools widens the potential resident pool. personally, I'd love to see the public system dismantled and the district simply pay for children's educations rather than run local monopolies.

Go to an all charter and voucher (for private schools) model? I'd agree with that. Unfortunately it's politically impossible right now since teacher's unions will never let it fly. The irony is that most teachers would probably benefit in the long run from the improvement in the schools. (i.e. most would be happier working for slightly less in a much better/safer environment.)

As for improving the college graduate %, I think it's not just an issue of getting more Philadelphia kids into our terrific universities, it's also a matter of getting graduates from those universities (out of towners included) to stay here. Improving schools is a big part of that, but other quality of life improvements and especially increasing the number of white collar jobs available is just as important.

[Templeton]

Go to an all charter and voucher system so that private for profit crooks can steal my tax dollars? Report cites questionable charter-school practices | Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/05/2010

No thanks. Charter schools do not create success. They just cherry pick the best students from the bad schools. Penn Alexander does well because it has the same demographics as the suburbs - affluent, educated parents who pass those skills on. With the exception of a few rentals, in order to go to Penn Alexander you must be able to pony up $350k+ for a house. Show me a neighborhood where the neighbors all own 350k+ homes, and I'll show you a school district with 'scores which are well above the state average' .

[Insoluble]

Go to an all charter and voucher system so that private for profit crooks can steal my tax dollars?

Well its either that or some public crook (appointed or elected by the machine) stealing your tax dollars. Yes the charter school system is not perfect, but compare it to, for example, South Philadelphia High School.

No thanks. Charter schools do not create success. They just cherry pick the best students from the bad schools.

Yes, one reason that student at charter schools are more likely to do better is that they are more likely to have parents who care about their education (hence make the decision to send them to charter schools.) That being said, many charter schools do better than just selection bias. Charter schools have the freedom to raise educational standards and fail students who do not meet them. Public schools are pressured to waive kids through the system. Charter schools also have the freedom to try out innovative teaching interventions. Are some charter schools duds? Sure. But the hope is that those are more likely to be taken over or shut down (be it due to low test scores or corruption). If you see corruption in the public schools, good luck getting rid of it (see Akerman, South Philly High, etc.)

Show me a neighborhood where the neighbors all own 350k+ homes, and I'll show you a school district with 'scores which are well above the state average' .

And here you've touched upon the real issue: Money. Pen is funneling loads of money into Penn Alexander. Schools in more affluent neighborhoods can depend on the increased tax $ as well as parental support, private tutors, etc. Not to mention they don't have to deal social issues on the same level as impoverished neighborhoods. That's why other problems (like I said before, JOBS) need to be addressed at the same time in order to really improve the schools here.

[billy ross]

Go to an all charter and voucher system so that private for profit crooks can steal my tax dollars? Report cites questionable charter-school practices | Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/05/2010

No thanks. Charter schools do not create success. They just cherry pick the best students from the bad schools. Penn Alexander does well because it has the same demographics as the suburbs - affluent, educated parents who pass those skills on. With the exception of a few rentals, in order to go to Penn Alexander you must be able to pony up $350k+ for a house. Show me a neighborhood where the neighbors all own 350k+ homes, and I'll show you a school district with 'scores which are well above the state average' .

The Jenks school in Chestnut Hill easily exceeds your price criterion. Alas, it is not a school of choice. I am almost positive that its scores aren't above the state average. Is Jenks mediocre because Chestnut Hillers don't use it, or do Chestnut Hillers not it because it is mediocre? We have the same issues with Mifflin in East Falls. The PSD needs to continue to be dismantled until only the schools which are doing at least a 'good' job are left.

By the way, according to the left, George Bush was at the same time an evil genius and a blabbering idiot. Similarly, according to you, charter schools are both run by crooks and also places where dastardly administrators manage to cherry-pick the best students out of a system which is failing on a grand scale. I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now.

[billy ross]

while on a personal level I agree that most public schools fail to teach independent thinking (which isn't captured by standardized testing), philly's low college graduate %'s is due, in no small part, to bad schools. most people I know that have moved out of the city when they had children were two degree couples. there are only so many people who are willing or able to afford private school (which, if you aren't rich, usually means you have to give things up like expensive cars and vacations)....good schools widens the potential resident pool. personally, I'd love to see the public system dismantled and the district simply pay for children's educations rather than run local monopolies.

It could be just sloppy writing on the part of the Inquirer, but I'd expect such a sought-after school as Penn-Alexander to have scores which are at or near the top of the state, for public and private schools. To the extent that it doesn't do so, I would scratch my head and wonder why.

[billy ross]

Well its either that or some public crook (appointed or elected by the machine) stealing your tax dollars. Yes the charter school system is not perfect, but compare it to, for example, South Philadelphia High School.



Yes, one reason that student at charter schools are more likely to do better is that they are more likely to have parents who care about their education (hence make the decision to send them to charter schools.) That being said, many charter schools do better than just selection bias. Charter schools have the freedom to raise educational standards and fail students who do not meet them. Public schools are pressured to waive kids through the system. Charter schools also have the freedom to try out innovative teaching interventions. Are some charter schools duds? Sure. But the hope is that those are more likely to be taken over or shut down (be it due to low test scores or corruption). If you see corruption in the public schools, good luck getting rid of it (see Akerman, South Philly High, etc.)



And here you've touched upon the real issue: Money. Pen is funneling loads of money into Penn Alexander. Schools in more affluent neighborhoods can depend on the increased tax $ as well as parental support, private tutors, etc. Not to mention they don't have to deal social issues on the same level as impoverished neighborhoods. That's why other problems (like I said before, JOBS) need to be addressed at the same time in order to really improve the schools here.

While jobs and money would help, competition will help (and is helping) more with the public schools in Philly. As fewer and fewer Philadelphians become non-productive adults due to more and more Philadelphians attending functional charter schools which give them a decent education, Philadelphia will become a less impoverished city. It's a clean, simple, and direct way out of poverty. Let them create wealth. The sooner we can wind down the disasters in the Philly public schools, the better off we will be. To the best of my knowledge all of the failed middle schools are now history, and I'd love to see that continued at the high school level. I believe that it is happening, too, and the unions are powerless to stop it.

[eldondre]

Go to an all charter and voucher system so that private for profit crooks can steal my tax dollars? Report cites questionable charter-school practices | Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/05/2010

No thanks. Charter schools do not create success. They just cherry pick the best students from the bad schools. Penn Alexander does well because it has the same demographics as the suburbs - affluent, educated parents who pass those skills on. With the exception of a few rentals, in order to go to Penn Alexander you must be able to pony up $350k+ for a house. Show me a neighborhood where the neighbors all own 350k+ homes, and I'll show you a school district with 'scores which are well above the state average' .

bache martin is another example of a bad school in a good district, or rocborough high. charter schools certainly have proven they can help the school district. you're cherry pick argument is a distraction. the reality is, if the city doesn't offer good schools, the suburbs will continue to cherry pick the good students. as for vouchers, there's absolutely no reason is can't work. in fact, it can and does work in some places in europe. there's no reason some local neighborhood monopoly HAS to educate kids. I don't see why you prefer to be ripped off by the school district. sub par schools, school violence. when the state took over, they found schools that didn't exist, they lost textbooks, children in their 40's were still covered, etc. under a voucher system, poor children wouldn't be trapped in bad neighborhood schools.

[billy ross]

bache martin is another example of a bad school in a good district, or rocborough high. charter schools certainly have proven they can help the school district. you're cherry pick argument is a distraction. the reality is, if the city doesn't offer good schools, the suburbs will continue to cherry pick the good students. as for vouchers, there's absolutely no reason is can't work. in fact, it can and does work in some places in europe. there's no reason some local neighborhood monopoly HAS to educate kids. I don't see why you prefer to be ripped off by the school district. sub par schools, school violence. when the state took over, they found schools that didn't exist, they lost textbooks, children in their 40's were still covered, etc. under a voucher system, poor children wouldn't be trapped in bad neighborhood schools.

It amazes me that people think that the same operation which brought us the Post Office is the best operation to educate our kids. I told my brother-in-law my recent discovery - that our mayor, our governor, and our president all went to fancy prep schools and Ivy League colleges, over Easter Dinner. I also mentioned ditto for our most recent president. He asked about our most recent governor, and the pattern holds. It's obviously not going to be the case every time (it certainly wasn't with John Street), but I think that it says alot about how powerful scholarships can be. As far as I can tell, Ridge, Obama, and Nutter (as well as I) were all scholarship students. Obviously I believe alot in scholarships. If a school can identify a talented person who can add to that school, that school should be able to recruit that person, no matter where that person lives or what his or her parents can or cannot afford. The results can be glorious. Note that public schools which must accept all kids who live in geographic boundaries (i.e. suburban public schools, generally) are unable to offer scholarships. And people have the gall to act like they are democratic. In a way, Masterman offers 'scholarships'. One could say that all of the students at the magnets are on scholarships. I would LOVE to see at least some of the charters unshackled and made able to offer 'scholarships', i.e. competitive admissions, just like Penn State and Temple and UPenn do. Competition works so well with our fine universities, I fail to comprehend why we don't extend that model down to at least the high school level, even if on an experimental basis. In our present system, people in one district can only get Lada cars, made and provided by the government, and people in the next district over can only get Volga cars, made and provided by the government, while the next gets Yugos. Of course we would never do that, but we do, in a way.

[Sockpuppet]

Neither Mt. Airy nor East Falls have excellent public schools, yet both neighborhoods have been singled out as destinations for families with young children. The other community amenities in these cases
overwhelm the public school factor. Among them are libraries, little leagues, private schools, parks, etc. However, if the schools were to step it up a notch or three, it would be a shot in the arm for these neighborhoods.

BTW, what does 'scores which are well above the state average' really mean? It could be interpreted as damning with faint praise. I want better than that for my kids.

True, EF and Mt. Airy are great neighborhoods and a lot of families with kids have moved there, but it's an overstatement to say that other community amenities "overwhelm" the public school factor. The lack of a excellent public school options in these areas (Henry is doing pretty well, however) undermines true neighborhood cohesion and will make it difficult for property values to increase. Many people in these neighborhoods are opting for public schools, just ones that are in other parts of the City, whether they be charters or "regular" public schools.

[billy ross]

True, EF and Mt. Airy are great neighborhoods and a lot of families with kids have moved there, but it's an overstatement to say that other community amenities "overwhelm" the public school factor. The lack of a excellent public school options in these areas (Henry is doing pretty well, however) undermines true neighborhood cohesion and will make it difficult for property values to increase. Many people in these neighborhoods are opting for public schools, just ones that are in other parts of the City, whether they be charters or "regular" public schools.

Property values already HAVE increased, dramatically, in these neighborhoods, despite the weakness of the neighborhood public schools. In addition, both neighborhoods ARE known for having very strong community feels. I think you are discounting Germantown Friends, Greene Street Friends School, Project Learn, the Big Backyard, Penn Charter, and St. Bridget's as drivers of community in Mt. Airy and East Falls. In my opinion, schools which absolutely DEMAND that parents be involved in their kids' education are very strong drivers of community cohesion. This is not to say that having public schools which are perceived as excellent wouln't be good for these communities, from a tax base (and property values) point of view. However, I don't think that I would entirely welcome the ridiculuous price appreciation the Penn-Alexander catchment area has seen. There comes a time when too much price appreciation becomes too much price appreciation, and a community begins to lose its socioeconomic diversity. East Falls and Mt. Airy are still affordable to middle-class people, barely. Drive the prices up another few notches without commensurate increases in income and you leave alot of people behind. I am fine with pockets of wealth scattered around the city, and I certainly want the city to be socio-economically healthy, but I for one don't want to live in a place where the price of admission drives out the vast majority of decent folk (like me as a kid). That's what keeps me out of places like Haddonfield, Moorestown, and Chestnut Hill, and evidently out of the Penn-Alexander catchment area. It just proves my point, which is that 'great public schools' generally aren't so public. They're only for the chosen few among the public. I only want to be a member of a club that would have ME as a member, to paraphrase Groucho Marx. I don't really believe in exclusivity.

[Templeton]

Well its either that or some public crook (appointed or elected by the machine) stealing your tax dollars. Yes the charter school system is not perfect, but compare it to, for example, South Philadelphia High School.

My complaint with Charters has always been the creation of McSchools. Schools that exist to make (taxpayer) money, not actually provide education. A school that is a nightclub on weekends seems to fit that bill. I don't want to replace one flawed system with another.

Yes, one reason that student at charter schools are more likely to do better is that they are more likely to have parents who care about their education (hence make the decision to send them to charter schools.) That being said, many charter schools do better than just selection bias. Charter schools have the freedom to raise educational standards and fail students who do not meet them. Public schools are pressured to waive kids through the system. Charter schools also have the freedom to try out innovative teaching interventions. Are some charter schools duds? Sure. But the hope is that those are more likely to be taken over or shut down (be it due to low test scores or corruption). If you see corruption in the public schools, good luck getting rid of it (see Akerman, South Philly High, etc.)

S. Philly/Ackerman are cases of incompetence, not corruption. There is a difference. I agree with your other points though. But they do have the ability to cherry pick. Once you've pulled the reasonably performing students out, charter schools would come up against the same problems when dealing with the rest.

And here you've touched upon the real issue: Money. Pen is funneling loads of money into Penn Alexander. Schools in more affluent neighborhoods can depend on the increased tax $ as well as parental support, private tutors, etc. Not to mention they don't have to deal social issues on the same level as impoverished neighborhoods. That's why other problems (like I said before, JOBS) need to be addressed at the same time in order to really improve the schools here.

Too true.