born and raised in Lenexa. somehow managed to enjoy my childhood. later, moved my shaggy, shiftless douchebag self to live out my protracted childhood fantasy in KCMO.

Oddly, I don't resent my parents.

but that's just me

There is really no good reason to avoid public elementary schools in this -- or most other -- cities. That's the ne plus ultra of white fearmongering.

Cool.

I'm going to go ahead and stick to my guns on this one, though: for a host of reasons, the American postwar suburban lifestyle is a piss-poor way to raise children.

Average cost of car ownership is $9K/year. Average annual private school tuition is $8.5K/year. The average Kansas City metropolitan household has 1.76 vehicles (and guess where in the metro the higher end of that bell curve is). Not that it totally offsets it, but it starts adding up.

ok. a good family will raise a good child no matter where the family lives, suburban or urban.

a lot of these good families just don't have the money to pay for a private education.

1. Sure.

2. Okay. But many families do. They just choose to spend their money differently. Which is everybody's own prerogative. But a lot of times, people act like they are forced into the suburbs because its the only conceivable place that one's children's educational needs can be met and that is patently false. Its like saying we'd love to pay for out-of-state tuition so our child could go to somewhere else for college, but we just can't possibly afford to...because we bought a lake house and a boat.

also, there are often scholarships or other forms of financial aid for private schools for those who cannot afford full tuition, as well as discounts for siblings, etc.

a very good friend of mine grew up in a very urban environment in south STL City, blue collar pedigree, but his folks sacrificed to send him and his brother to one of the best private schools in the STL area. it wasn't easy but they made it a priority, over and above a fancy house in the burbs, vacations, etc.

Private School costs a shit load of money. it is what it is. If KCMO had a public school system that wasn't horrible, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So, instead of slamming parents who take their kids into the suburbs as "piss-poor" parents or the kids themselves as "shaggy, shiftless douchebags," maybe you should concern yourself with how to provide a quality public education to urban neighborhoods.

i also have to say that i didn't hate growing up in the burbs as a kid. i didn't know any different. my parents had a pretty big yard, but we always played in the street, rode bikes around in cul-de-sacs, etc. it didn't even occur to me that i could be living in an urban environment (or rural environment for that matter). if anything, i wished at the time that my parents lived in a nicer suburb than raytown.

in retrospect, though i find most of the built environment of raytown pretty hideous, it has a very "real" quality and relative diversity that i think shaped my experiences and worldview for the better. i am honestly not sure if i would have had this kind of insight had my parents lived in BKS and sent me to Rockhurst. obviously that has its own advantages, but i'm saying i may not have really been immersed in "real america" as much.

Unlikely. I grew up with those kids. But in Brookside's defense, when I was growing up there it was a neighborhood and not a brand.

I do. My kids go to KCMO public schools. And I went to a large, diverse inner city high school with a 50% graduation rate. I've got my bonafides.

What's ur point? Nobody's saying parents like you are piss poor. Ur kids are in KCMO public school. Good for them and good for you.

It's you, who are casting the stones.

"I beg to differ." - The majority of children that attended KC Public Schools over the last 30 years.

If parents want to live in an urban area and send their kids to a urban public school, or a private school, more power to them. Same goes for suburban or rural choices. That is a decision a parent should make with regards to living and how his or her children are educated. No one should be critical of the decision made by another that is very personal. You do have a right to disagree with the decision but to be outright critical - NO.

The decision of where one sends their kids for elementary and secondary education is much like the decision of college. Two year, four year? Large school, small school? Public, private? Commute or go away? It is all very individual.

So, ah, what's the difference between disagreeing and being "outright critical"?

If you're a parent and are sweating what people think about how you educate your kid, that's your problem. Either be a grownup and defend your choice, or make sure you poll your friends and neighbors the next time you have to make an important decision.

The words being used. My wife and I can have a civil discussion over a difference of opinion or we can use words to attack one another.

sounding like a douche.

Everybody pays attention to what their friends think. You might not let their negative opinions change your mind. But if you really, really don't care what they think and it has no weight in your decision, you're not a primate.

Besides, by experience, the definite falsehood in the idea that kids as a whole are miserable growing up in the sub/exurbs (be it through contentment or blissful ignorance), your statement is a knife that can cut both ways. There have been many kids I see growing up in an urban community (both here and overseas) who would like to move to a less-densely populated area. Not everybody who moves to the suburbs is a recent immigrant or a product of white-flight.

And on a far less cynical note than how you put it, a kids growing up in the suburbs may have greater appreciation for living the urban life than one who was raised in the urban environment for as long as they can remember. Like it or not, those "shaggy, shiftless douchebags" are a potentially integral part of this city's urban regeneration.