personal commentary on things like marriage, motherhood, education, community, urbanism, theology, culture, and politics
I definitely haven’t said much lately on this blog. Rest assured, it’s not for lack of ideas or desire. I’ve simply been too busy and overwhelmed to sit down and write.
Until I get my act together and write something original, chew on this:
A great article, courtesy of good.is about the value of planning cities with families in mind.
Thanks, GOOD. I couldn’t have said it any better.
In Cincinnati, parents have the choice about where their children attend school. In the public school system, children can default to attending their neighborhood schools, or apply for enrollment in one of the magnet schools. Many of these magnet schools are designed around a specific educational pedagogy–Montessori or Paideia, for example–or a certain focus of education–foreign language or fine arts, for example.
The competitive nature of enrollment in these magnet schools is understandable. First of all, Cincinnati magnet schools are free for city residents. And because they are sometimes much higher ranked in academics and a bit more culturally refined than neighborhood schools, these schools are a great option for parents who would consider private or parochial schools if it were not for the price.
There is a catch.
Some of these schools are so desirable that they attract too many families. To keep enrollment manageable, CPS has developed a system that requires some pretty serious dedication from the family.
A recent story in the Cincinnati Enquirer covers the phenomenon of the CPS magnet school enrollment process:
“The magnet schools, which generally have high academic ratings and focus on specialties like foreign language or the arts, accept students on a first-come first-served basis. At most schools there is no problem getting in. But at Fairview and a handful of others, lines form days in advance.”
I have mixed feelings about this “first-come first-served” policy.
On the positive side, CPS can rest assured that only the most committed families will enroll their children in these highly competitive schools. This obviously contributes to the high academic achievement of such schools, as well as the shared commitment to success. This policy also gives parents the opportunity to provide the best education possible for their children, regardless of financial restraints.
On the negative side, it’s not an equitable policy. “First-come first-served” policies like this take a lot for granted. First, that all parents have the possibility of taking 3-5 days out of their lives to camp out on the school’s front yard. Second, it presupposes that a child’s worthiness in not inherent, but is dependent upon their parents’ willingness to go to such lengths.
Another major inequality built into the policy is the way it effects the neighborhood schools. In this system, the children privileged enough to have parents willing to sacrifice for their children are the only ones offered an option outside of their own neighborhoods. Where does that leave the rest?
So, if this system is not an equitable system, what other option do we have?
I do believe that committed parents should be rewarded for their commitment. And I also understand that any parent who wants the best for their child would (hopefully) do whatever necessary to make it happen–i.e. make certain they can be in line when they need to be to secure that spot in their desired school. So, completely tossing out the policy doesn’t make sense.
I guess one simple question is this: Why doesn’t CPS reserve a certain percentage of the open spots for those who are not able to make it to the front of the line? It seems like this would make everyone happy. The parents at the front of the line would get theirs spots. And the folks at the back of the line would be entered into a lottery for the remaining slots.
Is this already happening?
Am I missing something?
And maybe there is another question to ask:
What is the point of magnet schools?
According to Wikipedia’s article on Magnet Schools:
“Districts started embracing the magnet school models in the hope that their geographically open admissions would end racial segregation in “good” schools, and decrease de facto segregation of schools in poorer areas. To encourage the voluntary desegregation, districts started developing magnet schools to draw students to specialized schools all across their districts. Each magnet school would have a specialized curriculum that would draw students based on their interests. One of the goals of magnet schools is to eliminate, reduce, and prevent minority group isolation while providing the students with a stronger knowledge of academic subjects and vocational skills. Magnet schools still continue to be models for school improvement plans and provide students with opportunities to succeed in a diverse learning environment.”
Can someone with more personal experience in the Cincinnati magnet schools tell me if this is working? My fear is that instead of desegregating the more under-served and impoverished neighborhood schools, magnet schools actually pull the most opportunistic families out of all of the neighborhood schools and leave even mid-income neighborhood schools culturally impoverished. The children who end up in the magnet schools benefit; everyone else suffers.
I don’t know that I can offer any better solution to the problems in our public schools. I can understand a parent’s desire to provide the best opportunity for their children, so I’m not willing to fault those who stand line for days to secure those coveted kindergarten seats.
My last question:
What would happen if, instead of hand-picking the best regional opportunities for our children, we invested our time and energy in our own neighborhood and community institutions, whether they be educational, cultural, or religious? How would the most disadvantaged children in our city benefit from this local investment by the parents of the most privileged ?
Perhaps what I’m suggesting is not the economic concept of the “redistribution of wealth” but, rather, the redistribution of educational opportunity.
As for our family, my husband and I have some crazy schemes for the education of our children. And I’m not ready to discuss them here. For now, I’m simply going to hope for good weather for those camped out on Clifton Ave, and pray for the welfare of the children whose parents won’t show up, but who deserve something better than their neighborhoods can provide.
My son is not yet two years old, but I can already see that 1. he is a severe extrovert and 2. he loves being out of the house. So, what does this mean for his adolescent years, when the most natural expenditure of his energy will be to go outside and play with his friends–without my supervision?
I mean, seriously.
Am I willing to let my 10 year old son out in Over-the-Rhine to play, or to walk alone to library for that matter?
The issue of unsupervised youth has come up recently in the news, among friends, and in the parenting class we’re involved with at our church. And now we’re asking ourselves these same questions again.
When our son is ten years old, who will he play with?
Where will they play?
Will I let them play alone?
There is a lot of talk in parenting circles about the dangers of the modern world. And it’s almost comical the steps some parents take to protect their children–everything from fairly benign re-designing of public playscapes to be “safer” for kids to the more ridiculous tracking their movements with GPS chips.
Thanks to some links from CityKin, I have been reading in on the conversations among radical parents across the nation who are defying the modern ideals of a “safe childhood” and are instead raising their children to be wise, independent, and self-reliant in the world. These particular folks call the movement “free-range kids,” and have some great things to say about how ridiculous we’ve become in our quest to protect our children from the “dangers” of the modern world.
I am quick to admit that my husband and I do often question the wisdom of raising children in the city, mostly because of two issues: this apparent need for more supervision in an urban environment and the lack of greenspace and natural areas. But, we decided that the benefits of an urban lifestyle were worth combating these problems rather than allowing them to send us to the suburbs (where we know parents deal with the very same issues, anyway).
For families like us who believe that urban living is inherently better than a sub-urban lifestyle (for multiple reasons which I am always willing to defend, but cannot go into here) and want to know how to keep your children safe without going bonkers about every possible danger, I have a few suggestions:
1. Be realistic about danger.
We all know that life is dangerous, and that there are people and ideas and places that can hurt us lurking around every corner. But, the only real way your children will learn to combat danger is to face it with wisdom and discernment. And if your children are never exposed to uncomfortable or seemingly dangerous situations when they are young and are never forced to navigate their world alone as they grow older, they will never gain the skills in problem-solving and adaptation that will make adult dangers much easier to navigate.
2. Let go. Slowly.
Children who are locked in child-proofed homes or fenced in manicured backyards are given no opportunities to practice the art of trial and error. It is normal and healthy for children–even very young children–to make mistakes. Without falls and bumps and bruises, children never learn to navigate dangers or to correct their mistakes.
Now, there are obvious limits to the dangers we should allow our children to confront at a young age. This is why I say, “Let go. Slowly.” But, let common sense be the guild as you allow your child’s environment to get a little more risky all the time. Watch them closely for their first few years and you’ll see how they naturally adapt to their surroundings and learn skills to confront new problems as they grow.
3. Let kids solve their own problems.
Some examples:
Once your child can climb up and down the stairs, let him. Even if it takes longer.
Once your child can open the door, ask him to open it for you.
Let your son get his own shoes. And put them on, if he can.
Let him figure out where he left his toy, instead of finding it for him.
Give directions and be patient as he tries to follow them. Don’t help if he doesn’t need help.
Let your child solve petty conflicts with friends on their own, without your mediation.
Allowing young children to clean up their own messes, entertain themselves, do their own work, and solve their own problems will pay off in dividends as they grow older. A child who is competent in his own little world will have an easier time navigating the world outside his front door. He will be more resourceful, more resilient, and more responsible. And since you have watched how competent he is at home, you will be more likely to trust this competence to help him outside of the home.
4. Have a lot of kids.
Now, I understand that most people don’t want a dozen children, but hear me out on this. Having multiple children–i.e. built-in playmates–is great for urban living because if your 7 year-old daughter has two older brothers to take her to the park, she doesn’t need you to do it.
And if having multiple children is not your cup of tea, you could simply make an effort to get to know other families in the immediate, walkable area. And if there are no other children nearby, or if you don’t trust the other families nearby to be with your kids, then you could always start an intentional community. (I’m totally, 100%, serious about this, by the way. No creepy cult-talk intended.)
Basically, the “safety in numbers” scenario is a great way to calm a parent’s worry and keep children safe.
5. Get outside.
By “get outside” I mean you should physically leave the house and get outside with your young children to explore your neighborhood. This is helpful for two reasons. First, the best way to decrease “stranger danger” is to have fewer strangers. If your child knows and is known by the local grocer, the woman at the bank, the postal worker, the librarian, and the guy who is always begging for change outside the library, then there will be five more sets of eyes watching him venture out into the neighborhood by himself some day. Stop worrying that everyone in your neighborhood might secretly be a pedophile and get to know them. Learn their names. Introduce your children. And learn what it means to actually be a community.
Secondly, this principle remains true for strange places, not just strange people. If you know your neighborhood, and spend time in and around your neighborhood with your children when they are young, they will know their way around as well as you do. They will know which intersections are busiest, which streets to avoid, which coffeeshops serve the best hot chocolate, and where to buy tissues when they get a bloody nose playing in the park. Teach them how to get to the police or fire station, the library, and the grocery store. Make your environment familiar to your children and they will be a million times more secure and discerning when on their own.
At our home, we are lucky to have a small backyard which will provide at least some opportunity for our young children to play alone outside in a confined environment. But, our small backyard will not be enough for a young boy who wants to ride his bike or organize an ad-hoc baseball game. So, I hope that by the time our son is old enough to venture out of the house by himself, we are ready to let him. And, even if I’m not ready, I want to make sure that he is.
What about you?
Where do you live?
Do you feel safe letting your children out alone to play?
Why or why not?
Food for thought:
Read this story about a radical “holiday” for kids.
Could you do it?
And check this out. Adventure Playgrounds.
Wow. I plan to write more about this, eventually.
Every time a new restaurant/diner opens downtown, and a friend tells me of their recent visit there, I ask a simple question: Did you see any kids or highchairs?
Most people, obviously, don’t look for a highchair when they walk into a new place. But, from a parent’s perspective, the absence of this simple object says one thing to me: Your kids are not welcome here.
I can understand a restaurant owner’s fear of becoming a *gasp* “Family Restaurant,” and I can understand that a toddler is not their primary clientele. But, I also know that there a very large number of young adults with young children who would love to be able to support these local businesses, but the businesses seem to not want their support.
Yes, I can still sneak in with my son and let him sit on my lap while we both try to eat. And, yes, a booster seat is a step in the right direction. But, a young toddler is much more likely to sit still if seated in a high chair. My son is very well behaved (and we know when our son is not behaving and it’s time to leave). Heck, these business owners might actually like having us around!
So,
Dear Business Owners:
I support local business and I’d love to support yours. But, until you are willing to accommodate my small and well-behaved family, you’ll be relegated to my “date night” restaurant list. This list is large and not often consulted for dinner plans. Maybe we’ll see you (and you’ll see our money) in a few years?
Sincerely,
Your neighbor.
(And don’t even get me started on coffee shops and gas station bathrooms without diaper changing stations… ugh!)
According to a recent article in the New York Times, most families will actually save money by choosing to live in New York City rather than moving to the suburbs once they have children.
There are a few caveats:
– The cost of paying for private schooling in lieu of public city schools changes the numbers quite drastically.
– The article presumes that the working parent(s) work in the city.
– As stated in the article, sometimes ideology or suburban lifestyle trumps affordability for growing families and they leave the city anyway.
You can read the full article here.
I would love to see the same article written for Cincinnati. My presumption is that the numbers would be the same: for a family whose working parent(s) work in the city, they would save money by living nearer to work. This should be common sense, no?
Maybe I’ll write that article, all numbers and statistics included.
Thoughts?
A few weeks ago, I represented my organization by sitting on a panel for a Give Back Cincinnati “Sounding Session.” The topic was urban revitalization. I was supposed to be representing the nonprofit perspective on what it takes to revitalize a community, what stands in the way, and how an individual can help the cause in their community. I may have had a few things to say as a “professional,” but I actually walked away with more personal reflection than anything else. In fact, I’ve been thinking about the topic ever since.
A few thoughts on the issue:
– One of the biggest deterrents to urban revitalization is both the transient nature of many would-be urban dwellers and a city’s neglect of amenities that would encourage long-term commitment from residents. Because of the rapid life changes that many residents will go through (college graduation, first jobs, marriage, first child, third child, retirement, etc.), they feel the need to move to a different neighborhood every five years to accommodate those changes. Whether it is the sheer absence of single-family residences, a lack of greenspace and natural areas, parking issues, or safety concerns, most families would not consider living in the same location where they rented their first college apartment. And most residents are simply unwilling to commit to staying put in a community where they are not certain they will be comfortable in 25 years. I believe that the issue here is as much imagined as it is realistic, which leads me to my next point…
– Perceived issues are sometimes more a deterrent than real issues. For example, people may believe it’s impractical to live in downtown Cincinnati because “there is no place to buy groceries,” but they are wrong in their assumption. And even if they were correct, it would be no more difficult to drive from their downtown home to the nearest large grocery store than it would be for them to drive from their Mason home to the nearest grocery store. In fact, it might be nearer to them and take less time. Another example is the popular notion of how “terrible” the schools are. Not only is this an improper assumption, but it is irrelevant given that in Cincinnati parents can send their children to the public school of their choice, anywhere in the city. All it takes is some ingenuity and effort on the part of the parents and their children can have the same quality education as a child who lives next door to Fairview German School or Walnut Hills High School. (And don’t even get me started on the ridiculous notion that once a couple decides to have a child, it is time for them to move to a new subdivision on the outskirts of town, where all the families live. UGH!)
– Poor housing and real estate stock is a serious deterrent to revitalization. There is often a shortage of single-family homes in urban areas and, even where there are homes, parking is an issue. In addition, most parents want a backyard for their children and would even settle for a small, fenced courtyard if given the option. But, concrete reigns supreme instead. In many lower-income areas, beautiful single-family residences have been chopped into poorly-maintained and tastelessly-renovated multi-family buildings (Cincinnati’s Avondale neighborhood is a prime example of this). In addition, many vacant buildings cannot be developed because they are owned by absentee landlords who are either slumlords or speculators.
– Quality and diversity of commerce is important for the revitalization of a community. One common theme that I heard at the Sounding Session was that residents and visitors want to see and support businesses that can only be found there, in that community. Sometimes we call these “Mom and Pop” businesses and they are sometimes the best thing drawing people and money to an area. I will add to this, though, that the mere presence of these businesses is not enough. Residents must continue to support them financially on a regular basis. (See the 3/50 Project website for more a comprehensive writing on this issue.)
– No one person, family, or business can revitalize a community alone. In order for a community to experience real renewal, it must be a cooperative task between neighbors, friends, and organizations. In my exercises in community organizing for work, I have seen that the issue of cooperation (or lack-there-off) can really make or break a community. First, those in control of community resources (money, real estate, connections, etc.) must consider the shared vision of those in the entire community or either watch their single vision die or become an unwelcome guest. Now, add to this every person’s need for deep and authentic relationships. This makes it simply impossible for one entity to accomplish anything great alone, unless they have the support of those around them. I have all sorts of crazy ideas related to this issue, but I won’t go into it now.
All in all, this entire issue of “revitalization” is huge and impossible to conquer in one conversation or one blog post. In fact, most people who dedicate their lives to seeing their community revitalized may not witness the fruits of their effort in their lifetime. This is, indeed, big work. And this issue quickly becomes a battle of ideologies, ethics, culture, and politics, which so often ends the conversation entirely.
Suffice to say this (for now):
I have committed myself to never simply residing in my community.
If I am not somehow benefiting it–creating something, bringing something new to life (or bringing something dead back to life), making it safer or stronger, or more beautiful, then I am a waste of space and have surrendered my rights as a resident of the community.
So, I suppose this is where the real conversation begins:
What are you doing to bring your community to life?
the walking green 