Article on kids' safety

[Frkrygow]

Here's an interesting article, vaguely related to the recent "Young Cyclist Killed" thread.
Cycling is only part of it, of course, but it's in there. Note the bit about neighborhood design,
near the end.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/sundaystartimes/0,2106,2815011a6619,00.html

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

 

[Eric S. Sande]

>Here's an interesting article, vaguely related to the recent "Young Cyclist Killed" thread.
>Cycling is only part of it, of course, but it's in there. Note the bit about neighborhood design,
>near the end.

It wasn't considered unusual when I was a kid to be outdoors for most of a vacation day, ranging
around and basically doing whatever.

But we did know that what we did had consequences, and we were regularly reminded by our WWII era
parents (who all knew each other) that if we got in trouble there would be consequences.

There weren't many TVs, and mostly no air conditioning, so unless you were a reader there wasn't any
alternative to the great outdoors.

The question that has to be asked (in the context of the article) is does the bemoaned lifestyle
derive from a failure of parental ideology or simply the fact that the world has changed.

I'd argue that the world has changed, significantly.

I have to say that my neice and nephew have little opportunity for what I would consider normal play
in the outdoors, they are well behaved and intelligent but not adventurous.

Somewhat withdrawn, very trusting of adults in their immediate family, and intensely technical.

But not innovative risk takers.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________

 

[Luigi De Guzman]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:19:39 -0500, "Eric S. Sande" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>Here's an interesting article, vaguely related to the recent "Young Cyclist Killed" thread.
>>Cycling is only part of it, of course, but it's in there. Note the bit about neighborhood design,
>>near the end.
>
>It wasn't considered unusual when I was a kid to be outdoors for most of a vacation day, ranging
>around and basically doing whatever.
>
>But we did know that what we did had consequences, and we were regularly reminded by our WWII era
>parents (who all knew each other) that if we got in trouble there would be consequences.
>
>There weren't many TVs, and mostly no air conditioning, so unless you were a reader there wasn't
>any alternative to the great outdoors.
>
>The question that has to be asked (in the context of the article) is does the bemoaned lifestyle
>derive from a failure of parental ideology or simply the fact that the world has changed.
>
>I'd argue that the world has changed, significantly.

Birthrates have fallen in the first world, as well, which boils down to much fewer kids on the
block. It's tough to get a pickup game of baseball started.

I'm routinely surprised at how much freedom I used to have as compared to my younger brothers.

When I was little, we lived in a nice neighbourhood of Tegucigalpa, in Honduras, and I and the
neighbourhood kids would go riding our bikes around and generally hang out. We'd ride our bikes in
construction sites--best time was when they'd dug foundations but hadn't put in the forms for
pouring yet. This is where I first learned how to descend a very steep slope--after crashing a few
times. No helmets in those days, of course.

My younger brothers have grown up in the States, and something has changed. My mother and father,
who were quite happy to let me go and play with the neighborhood kids and go riding my bike
wherever, are extremely wary of my younger brothers straying very far from home without supervision.
Net result: neither of them know how to ride a bicycle very well. They can do it, but they cant' do
any of the usual kid tricks, like wheelies, bunnyhops, curbsurfing, bike tag....

I'm the loony in the family; I ride my bicycle for ridiculous distances just to ride my bicycle. My
parents are even nervous about me being out on the public roads. (I can't even take my Dad riding
with me, he's so scared of the roads, but maybe that's another issue altogether).

I guess the answer is that this is a far more anonymous place (NoVA) that we live in than we used to
when I was a little kid. There are other kids on the block that I see playing, but they don't play
with my brothers, and my brothers don't play with them. I don't know those kids other than by face
(and sometimes bicycle). I don't say hello (I do wave every now and then) --is it because I'm afraid
of being misconstrued? At the end of the day, one of those kids could well vanish, and I wouldn't
know or notice--just as one of my brothers could vanish, and they wouldn't notice either.

-Luigi "Under neon loneliness, Motorcycle emptiness..." -Manic Street Preachers

www.livejournal.com/users/ouij Photos, rants, raves

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Eric S. Sande" <[email protected]> writes:

> There weren't many TVs, and mostly no air conditioning, so unless you were a reader there wasn't
> any alternative to the great outdoors.
>
> The question that has to be asked (in the context of the article) is does the bemoaned lifestyle
> derive from a failure of parental ideology or simply the fact that the world has changed.

I recall chumming around outside with lots of neighbourhood friends. In fact, looking back, it was
quite an elaborate and intricate social network we kids had. And we'd generally look out for each
other -- parents' supervisions would have been redundant dead weight, and not particularly welcome
in most of our endeavours, enterprises, activities & adventures.

cheers, Tom
--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
[point] bc [point] ca

 

[Zoot Katz]

Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:55:21 -0800, <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, "Eric S. Sande" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> There weren't many TVs, and mostly no air conditioning, so unless you were a reader there wasn't
>> any alternative to the great outdoors.
>>
>> The question that has to be asked (in the context of the article) is does the bemoaned lifestyle
>> derive from a failure of parental ideology or simply the fact that the world has changed.
>
>I recall chumming around outside with lots of neighbourhood friends. In fact, looking back, it was
>quite an elaborate and intricate social network we kids had. And we'd generally look out for each
>other -- parents' supervisions would have been redundant dead weight, and not particularly welcome
>in most of our endeavours, enterprises, activities & adventures.
>
I got grounded for ridin' wrong way on a one way. Busted by a buddy's mom. We were both walkin' for
a week. Didn't teach me anything. A head-on with a van did.
. . . I hope.

"There is no question, the street was one of the greatest sources of my life skills,"
- Bobbie Schultz
--
zk

 

[Peter Cole]

"frkrygow" <"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Here's an interesting article, vaguely related to the recent "Young Cyclist Killed" thread.
> Cycling is only part of it, of course, but it's in there. Note the bit about neighborhood design,
> near the end.
>
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/sundaystartimes/0,2106,2815011a6619,00.html

I think Michael Moore got a lot of it right (Bowling for Columbine) when he claimed media attention
("If it bleeds, it leads") is making everyone paranoid. That said, while I had a relatively Tom Sawyer-
ish childhood in the 50-60's, we took our lumps, one friend lost a kidney (sledding), another got a
skull plate (hockey), and there were several near-drownings.

I do think that cycling is more dangerous for today's kids, since bikes are becoming so rare,
drivers don't expect them. Driving habits, especially in residential areas, seem to have gotten
worse. The real shame of it is that many of those drivers are parents with children. Despite that
behavior, I still think the benefits outweigh the risks, and I encourage my children to bike, but
I'm very much in the minority here (outside of Boston).

 

[Denver C. Fox]

> since bikes are
> becoming so rare,

???

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/indicator11.htm

"Bicycle Production Breaks 100 Million

Janet Larsen

Over 100 million bicycles were manufactured in 2000, the most since the all-time high of 106 million
in 1995. (See Figure.) This production level is double that of 25 years ago.

China manufactured a record 52 million bicycles in 2000—over half the world total. Nearly two
thirds of these were exported, with 17 million going to the United States. The United States itself
produced just over 1 million bikes, down sharply from the 1995 output of nearly 9 million. With over
43 million cyclists, the United States is the world's largest bicycle export market, with imports
meeting 97 percent of demand.

This new federal commitment helped boost U.S. bike sales from 15 million in 1991 to 21 million
in 2000. "

http://members.aol.com/foxcondorsrvtns (Colorado rental condo)

http://members.aol.com/dnvrfox (Family Web Page)

 

[Peter Cole]

"Denver C. Fox" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > since bikes are
> > becoming so rare,
>
> ???
>
> http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/indicator11.htm
>
> "Bicycle Production Breaks 100 Million
>
> Janet Larsen
>
> Over 100 million bicycles were manufactured in 2000, the most since the all-time high of 106
> million in 1995. (See Figure.) This production level is double that of 25 years ago.

From the same article:

"In the United States and Canada, where development is much less concentrated, 84 and 74 percent
of trips are made by car respectively. In both countries, only about 10 percent of trips are
pedestrian, and just 1 percent is by bicycle. Many residents use bicycles for recreation, not
for transit."

In the context of this thread, *children* riding bikes is becoming a rare sight in the US,
especially in a "utilitarian" context, like riding to school. My local (Boston area) grade school
prohibits bikes, citing the danger. All of the current research seems to agree that this
generation of children, in the US anyway, is more sedentary than ever. The only kid I see in the
neighborhood riding a bike is the "paperboy", a real flashback to the 50's, but then his mother
grew up in Sweden.

 

[Luigi De Guzman]

On 20 Feb 2004 12:58:35 GMT, [email protected] (Denver C. Fox) wrote:

>> since bikes are
>> becoming so rare,
>
>???
>
>http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/indicator11.htm
>
>"Bicycle Production Breaks 100 Million

Bicycle production statistics don't even tell part of the story. Americans may own many bicycles,
but that doesn't mean they ride them at all--consider the thousands on thousands of bicycles that
are bought and then promptly left in some disused corner of the garage...because their owners think
there's nowhere to ride.

We know of course that that's silly: ride where you are! But the owners, who bought the bicycles as
recreational machines rather than as *bicycles*, firmly believe that bicycles should be segregated
from traffic. They'll ride on sidewalks, they'll ride wrong-way, they'll throw them in the car and
ride in the park--that is, if they ride at all.

Around where I live, the only serious transportational cyclists I've ever found are Salvadoran
immigrants. They ride clunky old late-70s ten-speeds on the sidewalk at what might be described as
brisk walking pace. They also ride considerable distances to get to a job site.

How to change things? Maybe education would help. But since school districts are now so cowed by the
mere thought of being held liable for a injuries sustained by a student riding a bicycle to or from
school, the schools are unlikely to be of much assistance. In any event, all the education in the
world is going to be of no use when these kids go back home to their parents. The parents will see
them riding in the street, be horrified, scold the kids for trying to get themselves killed--and
then blame us, cyclists, for encouraging risky behaviour.

Then, at sixteen, these same parents will blithely hand their children the keys to the family car--
or, worse, a vehicle purchased especially for the kid--and then be horrified when Junior is killed
when he wraps the car around a tree, having sped through a twisty road at night, in the rain or snow
or sleet or hail, at half again the daytime limit.

Not to mention that Junior's car, having been specially purchased for him, is no unique phenomenon--
where the American Dream would have initially been content to have one car in the driveway, today it
won't rest until there are three cars: one in the driveway, and two in the garage. Blame rising
incomes and expectations. Blame the two-income household model that requires at least two wage-
earners to commute significant distances without recourse to cheap or reliable public transport.
Whoever you blame, when you get on the road, you see that there are just more cars: the total
mileage of paved road-surface has been unable to keep pace with the total number of motor vehicles.
Heavy-volume traffic is no place for an 8-year-old kid, and it intimidates adults who try to get by
in anything less than a Hummer (with a Federal Firearms Licence, I'll bet they'll mount a Browning
M2 machinegun for added 'safety' in traffic).

That a hundred million bicycles were produced--and that the majority of them were probably produced
by Shanghai Forever, Tianjin Flying Pigeon, or Hero Cycles (India)--is utterly irrelevant to the
situation prevailing in the United States. Even if there were a hundred million bicycles consumed in
the United States alone, it would make no difference if all of them were hanging on hooks. There has
to be a better way.

-Luigi "Let a thousand flowers bloom, Let a hundred schools of thought contend!" -Mao Tse-tung

www.livejournal.com/users/ouij Photos, Rants, Raves

 

[Matt O'Toole]

Luigi de Guzman wrote:

> On 20 Feb 2004 12:58:35 GMT, [email protected] (Denver C. Fox) wrote:
>
>>> since bikes are becoming so rare,
>>
>> ???
>>
>> http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/indicator11.htm
>>
>> "Bicycle Production Breaks 100 Million
>
>
> Bicycle production statistics don't even tell part of the story. Americans may own many bicycles,
> but that doesn't mean they ride them at all--consider the thousands on thousands of bicycles that
> are bought and then promptly left in some disused corner of the garage...because their owners
> think there's nowhere to ride.

This is true. I see more bicycles in people's garages than ever, rarely ridden though.

> We know of course that that's silly: ride where you are! But the owners, who bought the bicycles
> as recreational machines rather than as *bicycles*, firmly believe that bicycles should be
> segregated from traffic. They'll ride on sidewalks, they'll ride wrong-way, they'll throw them in
> the car and ride in the park--that is, if they ride at all.

Yup. They'll ride them in their own cul-de-sac neighborhoods, or surrounding paths if they exist, or
take them to the park where there are such paths, but that's about it. Mostly, the bikes sit in the
garage because "going on a bike ride" is a logistically complicated exercise, and too much trouble.

> Around where I live, the only serious transportational cyclists I've ever found are Salvadoran
> immigrants. They ride clunky old late-70s ten-speeds on the sidewalk at what might be described as
> brisk walking pace. They also ride considerable distances to get to a job site.

Southern CA is like this. For every rec.bicycles type of cyclist, there are probably 10 South
American gentlemen riding considerable distances to work every day. The machine of choice is usually
a Wal-Mart style bike, and yes, most of them do use lights.

> How to change things? Maybe education would help. But since school districts are now so cowed by
> the mere thought of being held liable for a injuries sustained by a student riding a bicycle to or
> from school, the schools are unlikely to be of much assistance. In any event, all the education in
> the world is going to be of no use when these kids go back home to their parents. The parents will
> see them riding in the street, be horrified, scold the kids for trying to get themselves killed--
> and then blame us, cyclists, for encouraging risky behaviour.

Educate the educators! Actually, the biggest problem is poor community planning and siting of
schools. It's amazing to what degree schools and school issues shape our communities, for better
and/or worse. Fix the schools, and we fix a lot of other problems too.

> That a hundred million bicycles were produced--and that the majority of them were probably
> produced by Shanghai Forever, Tianjin Flying Pigeon, or Hero Cycles (India)--is utterly irrelevant
> to the situation prevailing in the United States. Even if there were a hundred million bicycles
> consumed in the United States alone, it would make no difference if all of them were hanging on
> hooks. There has to be a better way.

There is.

Matt O.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

David L. Johnson wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 12:49:02 +0000, Peter Cole wrote:
>
>> I think Michael Moore got a lot of it right (Bowling for Columbine) when he claimed media
>> attention ("If it bleeds, it leads") is making everyone paranoid.

> I think that is most of the difference. There is such a perception of risk, and fear of taking
> even modest chances, that parents don't let children do anything unsupervised, and the children
> internalize that.

Absolutely. And it's not just the "bleads/leads" stories -- the shootings and car accidents. It's
the daily barrage of what I call "gonnagitcha" programming. Every newscast is dominated by stories
of newly discovered dangers, and of course, how newschannel X will help you protect yourself and
your children. From identity theft to child molesters to germs in the shower (the latest story here
locally), they have everyone completely on edge all the time. This is what they want -- your
attention -- because it's what their business depends on.

Note what percentage of tonight's newscast is devoted to this. You'll see it's the majority of the
program -- either the "gonnagitcha" segments themselves, or the teasers leading up to them.

> It seems odd that the exceptions to the paranoia -- driving a car is the big one -- are probably
> more dangerous than anything the culture teaches us to fear. People are afraid to walk in the
> cities, even in the daytime, but fearless of driving on highways.

I've noticed that in other countries, people feel exactly the opposite. I've noticed it in big
cities too -- like New York or London -- people view driving as the high-hassle solution, vs.
walking or taking public transportation. Not everyone, but at least some.

On the other hand,
> nearly everyone has lost a family member to a traffic accident, and seems to accept that as a
> normal consequence of life, but few have known someone killed by a mugger or child molester.

Also true. Driving is one of our biggest national health problems. Unfortunately, most people don't
see it that way.

Matt O.

 

[Luigi De Guzman]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 17:41:37 GMT, "Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > That a hundred million bicycles were produced--and that the majority of them were probably
> > produced by Shanghai Forever, Tianjin Flying Pigeon, or Hero Cycles (India)--is utterly
> > irrelevant to the situation prevailing in the United States. Even if there were a hundred
> > million bicycles consumed in the United States alone, it would make no difference if all of them
> > were hanging on hooks. There has to be a better way.
>
> There is.

If there is I can't see one from where I sit. To change things would require convincing vast
majority of the people that their present way of life, which they enjoy, should change drastically
in a way that would cause them immediate physical discomfort (perish the thought, actually cycling
to get anywhere!).

In an ideal world, I wouldn't let a kid drive until he had ridden his bicycle in traffic--some of it
quite heavy--for at least a year. Not segregated on bike trails, but in the midst of it all. It
makes me a better driver: more patient, more attentive, more aware. People who drive with me are
often amused at how I treat a car as if it were an oversized bicycle when I'm driving---constantly
checking my blind spots, signalling well ahead of time, picking one line and staying with it. All by
the book, right? But only on the bicycle is by-the-book behavior *compulsory*--it is the difference
between getting home and not.

As to better siting and planning of schools: this may not even be an option in some localities. In
my town, four elementary schools were recently consolidated into two schools. Maintaining small,
local schools is extremely expensive in terms of staffing and physical plant costs. Now, all the
town's elementary students are in two large schools--the physical facilites are themselves much
improved, but, where children previously would walk to the schools in their neighborhood, now they
are bused or driven in. Worse, the two new schools are on the same roads as the high school (for
one) and the middle school (the other). Each of these streets is narrow and residential, and the school-
run traffic that is created is high-volume and irritable. Neighborhood schools were the better
solution, but in an environnment of limited public funds....

-Luigi

 

[Frkrygow]

Luigi de Guzman wrote:

> As to better siting and planning of schools: this may not even be an option in some localities. In
> my town, four elementary schools were recently consolidated into two schools. Maintaining small,
> local schools is extremely expensive in terms of staffing and physical plant costs. Now, all the
> town's elementary students are in two large schools--the physical facilites are themselves much
> improved, but, where children previously would walk to the schools in their neighborhood, now they
> are bused or driven in. Worse, the two new schools are on the same roads as the high school (for
> one) and the middle school (the other). Each of these streets is narrow and residential, and the
> school-run traffic that is created is high-volume and irritable. Neighborhood schools were the
> better solution, but in an environnment of limited public funds....

I'm not so sure about the "limited public funds" concept. How did our prosperous society become
unable to fund something as proper as a school in the neighborhood??

What I mean is: Such schools used to be the norm, when families typically had more kids and only one
worker (and so, much less disposable income).

I imagine teachers made smaller salaries in those days, and I'm not proposing that they work for
less. But that can't be the only reason that such schools are somehow "too expensive."

Is there a chance the problem is merely an unwillingness to pay for such schools - that is, for
better schools?

Today, we seem to have many more double income families spending far more than ever before on extra
cars, mega-homes, luxurious furnishings & home entertainment centers, electronic gadgets of every
kind, restaurant meals ...

But ask anyone. Taxes are far, far too high! I assume that means taxes for education as well. (I
heard that when a local levy failed around here, it was the mega-home precincts that voted it down.)
And I know that state support of colleges is dropping rapidly.

Can it be that we're stealing from kids to buy 3000 square foot homes?

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

------------ And now a word from our sponsor ---------------------- For a quality mail server, try
SurgeMail, easy to install, fast, efficient and reliable. Run a million users on a standard PC
running NT or Unix without running out of power, use the best! ---- See
http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgemail.htm ----

 

[Luigi De Guzman]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 22:47:38 -0500, "frkrygow"
<"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> wrote:

>I'm not so sure about the "limited public funds" concept. How did our prosperous society become
>unable to fund something as proper as a school in the neighborhood??
>
>What I mean is: Such schools used to be the norm, when families typically had more kids and only
>one worker (and so, much less disposable income).
>
>I imagine teachers made smaller salaries in those days, and I'm not proposing that they work for
>less. But that can't be the only reason that such schools are somehow "too expensive."
>

The costs of maintaining the structures themselves was prohibitive. The structures themselves were
aging, and due for a refit in a few years--and the town wasn't sanguine about refitting four schools
where they could refit and expand two for less. There are other things, as well.

I should say that the opponents of the school consolidation put up a valiant fight, and were
defeated in the bond referendum. The Athenians, those great democrats, put it best when they
delivered their ultimatum to the Melians. We live in a world where "...the strong do what they will,
and the weak suffer as they must."

>Is there a chance the problem is merely an unwillingness to pay for such schools - that is, for
>better schools?

Public funds are limited, and limted, yes, by the unwillingness of people to pay for schools, or
roadways, or policing. The list goes on and on.

>Today, we seem to have many more double income families spending far more than ever before on extra
>cars, mega-homes, luxurious furnishings & home entertainment centers, electronic gadgets of every
>kind, restaurant meals ...
>
>But ask anyone. Taxes are far, far too high! I assume that means taxes for education as well. (I
>heard that when a local levy failed around here, it was the mega-home precincts that voted it
>down.) And I know that state support of colleges is dropping rapidly.
>
>Can it be that we're stealing from kids to buy 3000 square foot homes?

This is one of the most affluent counties in the country, and could probably afford a small
increase in taxes. A levy here, too, was defeated. Nobody wanted to give any more in tax than they
were already giving. Never mind that the idea of raising taxes locally and spending them locally
might have been liberating (the alternative--paying taxes to Richmond and then watching the
General Assembly distribute them to less-populous parts of the Commonwealth--wasn't getting much
done here in terms of constructing new schools, roadways, mass transit, etc) nobody was willing to
give it a try.

But just try advocating a tax rise, even on the rich, and see how quickly you're shot down.

-Luigi "Say can't you see cops more crooked than we By the dawn's early night robbin' ****as for
keys. Easy low key crooked military Pay taxes out my ass but they still harrass me. " -Fugees,
"The Beast"

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>, "frkrygow" <"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> says...
> Luigi de Guzman wrote:
>
> > As to better siting and planning of schools: this may not even be an option in some localities.
> > In my town, four elementary schools were recently consolidated into two schools. Maintaining
> > small, local schools is extremely expensive in terms of staffing and physical plant costs. Now,
> > all the town's elementary students are in two large schools--the physical facilites are
> > themselves much improved, but, where children previously would walk to the schools in their
> > neighborhood, now they are bused or driven in. Worse, the two new schools are on the same roads
> > as the high school (for one) and the middle school (the other). Each of these streets is narrow
> > and residential, and the school-run traffic that is created is high-volume and irritable.
> > Neighborhood schools were the better solution, but in an environnment of limited public
> > funds....
>
> I'm not so sure about the "limited public funds" concept. How did our prosperous society become
> unable to fund something as proper as a school in the neighborhood??
>
> What I mean is: Such schools used to be the norm, when families typically had more kids and only
> one worker (and so, much less disposable income).
>
> I imagine teachers made smaller salaries in those days, and I'm not proposing that they work for
> less. But that can't be the only reason that such schools are somehow "too expensive."

They are, on a per-kid basis. It's cheaper to put 2000 kids into one big school than it is 500 kids
into each of 4 schools.

....

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

 

[Frkrygow]

David Kerber wrote:
>>I imagine teachers made smaller salaries in those days, and I'm not proposing that they work for
>>less. But that can't be the only reason that such schools are somehow "too expensive."
>
>
> They are, on a per-kid basis. It's cheaper to put 2000 kids into one big school than it is 500
> kids into each of 4 schools.

I understand that.

My point is: we afforded the more expensive way - smaller neighborhood schools - back when people
had much lower standards of living and much less disposable income.

We should be able to afford it now.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

 

[Pete]

"frkrygow" <"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> David Kerber wrote:
> >>I imagine teachers made smaller salaries in those days, and I'm not proposing that they work for
> >>less. But that can't be the only reason that such schools are somehow "too expensive."
> >
> >
> > They are, on a per-kid basis. It's cheaper to put 2000 kids into one big school than it is 500
> > kids into each of 4 schools.
>
> I understand that.
>
> My point is: we afforded the more expensive way - smaller neighborhood schools - back when people
> had much lower standards of living and much less disposable income.
>
> We should be able to afford it now.

The spaces where those 4 500 kid schools need to go is already taken up by new houses and strip
malls. Easier/cheaper to find one bigger space than 4 somewhat smaller spaces.

Pete

 

[None]

Additionally, as am employee of a small school district, there are added costs in today's world that
were not present in the educational environment of yesteryear.

There have been added legislative requirements that make school buildings more expensive (safe,
useable, effecient, etc.), the price of land in the size needed has increased as well as good
citizens thinking they can get a premium when schools buy their land (government has lots of money),
educational expectations and reporting requirements have increased (local, state and federal), we
have things now that we didn't have even 25 years ago (computers, networks, larger sports arenas,
higher utility bills, etc.), Title IX and other gender equalizing legislation, laws mandating that
public schools offer the same programs to all eligible students regardless of circumstance
(handicapped, multi-ethnic, etc.), salaries of teachers and staff have risen (some would say they
are still too low) and all of this combined with a growing sense of increased expectations has added
costs to our educational system that were not present in the funding considerations of the time
period we would all like to return to.

There are economies of scale that show the cost per student is less when more students can be served
by the same size administrative team at each school site. There are also studies that show the
performance of students is best when the student size is large enough to provide a variety of
educational experiences but is still small enough to allow students (and staff) to feel a sense of
connection with their fellow students and peers.

And, the thing that frustrates me the most, is the growing practice of using the school system to
absorb or supplant the responsibilities that would normally be found in the home (with good parents)
and in the underlying value systems of the students attending. Too often the school is one more
public arena where larger social issues are introduced and the school system is expected to address
issues outside its control.

All of this adds to the costs to those who must fund all the activities of what the patrons of the
school districts (or laws) expect.

And, the world that existed in the past does not exist and we as a society are forced, whether we
like it or not, to function in a larger world. If we expect our students to be prepared to enter
this changing world, it is necessary (again, whether we like it or not) to be adaptable and able to
respond to the rapidly changing conditions we both find for ourselves and which, in many cases, we
have made for ourselves.

R.

"Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "frkrygow" <"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > David Kerber wrote:
> > >>I imagine teachers made smaller salaries in those days, and I'm not proposing that they work
> > >>for less. But that can't be the only reason that such schools are somehow "too expensive."
> > >
> > >
> > > They are, on a per-kid basis. It's cheaper to put 2000 kids into one big school than it is 500
> > > kids into each of 4 schools.
> >
> > I understand that.
> >
> > My point is: we afforded the more expensive way - smaller neighborhood schools - back when
> > people had much lower standards of living and much less disposable income.
> >
> > We should be able to afford it now.
>
> The spaces where those 4 500 kid schools need to go is already taken up by new houses and strip
> malls. Easier/cheaper to find one bigger space than 4 somewhat smaller spaces.
>
> Pete

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>, "frkrygow" <"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> says...
> David Kerber wrote:
> >>I imagine teachers made smaller salaries in those days, and I'm not proposing that they work for
> >>less. But that can't be the only reason that such schools are somehow "too expensive."
> >
> >
> > They are, on a per-kid basis. It's cheaper to put 2000 kids into one big school than it is 500
> > kids into each of 4 schools.
>
> I understand that.
>
> My point is: we afforded the more expensive way - smaller neighborhood schools - back when people
> had much lower standards of living and much less disposable income.
>
> We should be able to afford it now.

But we can't; too much of it has gone into infrastructure to support the cars. Plus things like
environmental requirements, inflation of land prices, etc, have driven costs up fast.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

 

[Frkrygow]

None wrote:
> Additionally, as am employee of a small school district, there are added costs in today's world
> that were not present in the educational environment of yesteryear.
>
> There have been added legislative requirements that make school buildings more expensive (safe,
> useable, effecient, etc.), the price of land in the size needed has increased as well as good
> citizens thinking they can get a premium when schools buy their land (government has lots of
> money), educational expectations and reporting requirements have increased (local, state and
> federal), we have things now that we didn't have even 25 years ago (computers, networks, larger
> sports arenas, higher utility bills, etc.), Title IX and other gender equalizing legislation, laws
> mandating that public schools offer the same programs to all eligible students regardless of
> circumstance (handicapped, multi-ethnic, etc.), salaries of teachers and staff have risen (some
> would say they are still too low) and all of this combined with a growing sense of increased
> expectations has added costs to our educational system that were not present in the funding
> considerations of the time period we would all like to return to. ...

It seems to me that some of those "rising costs" may not have risen much if measured in constant
dollars - which is the only rational way to measure such things. Some other things mentioned are, I
think, of _highly_ questionable value.

> And, the world that existed in the past does not exist and we as a society are forced, whether we
> like it or not, to function in a larger world. If we expect our students to be prepared to enter
> this changing world, it is necessary (again, whether we like it or not) to be adaptable and able
> to respond to the rapidly changing conditions we both find for ourselves and which, in many cases,
> we have made for ourselves.

I believe the changes in society are a result of thousands of individual decisions. Therefore,
there's certainly a big difficulty in affecting the direction of the changes.

But attitudes can be changed (partly by discussion, which we're engaged in now), and when attitudes
change, the direction of the changes can be affected. My attitude is that "out-in-the-cornfield"
schools have negatives that need to be recognized; and that school, being one place where children
_have_ to go, should normally be in a place a child can get to. Seems logical to me!

FWIW, I've long been puzzled by the importance given to team athletics in schools. How much money
should we spend on larger sports arenas, on Title IX-mandated girls' teams, on better athletic
equipment, coaches salaries, field maintenance, etc.?

Seems to me it's spent to give opportunties and priveledges to a small group of student
athletes, of whom an at-best tiny percentage may have brief careers chasing after balls in front
of bigger audiences. Most will gain no benefit at all, other than stories to tell when sitting
in a bar someday.

I know it's simplistic, but if that money were spent instead to make the school accessible by
walking or biking, we might encourage healthy habits in a much larger group of students.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]