More Virginia Families Choosing Cities, City Schools

by James A. Bacon

It has been the traditional pattern in Virginia, as elsewhere, for young people to move to core urban areas to live as singles and then migrate to the quieter, safer burbs with better schools when they marry and have children. That dynamic still is working but it is weaker than before. More young families are staying put in urban jurisdictions to raise their kids and enroll them in local schools, feeding the strongest population growth that many Virginia cities have experienced since the 1950s.

And that, notes Hamilton Lombard on the StatChat blog, is forcing many cities and counties to re-work their school enrollment projections and their capital spending plans.

Lombard displays the data in a way I have never seen presented before. The chart below (modified slightly for purposes of clarity) compares the number of births in a jurisdiction to the number of children who went on six years later to enter the school system in 2005. Jurisdictions to the left of the line, mostly urban city jurisdictions, saw a marked loss of school-age children. Localities to the right of the line, mostly suburban counties, had far more children enroll in their schools than were born there previously. The chart show the dominant post-World War II pattern of young families moving from the city to the burbs.

importers_exporters
That was 2005. Now look at 2013 below. What’s different? Well, around 2006, per capita Vehicle Miles Driven peaked — people began driving less. Smart Growth advocates suggest that the younger generation is less infatuated with cars and prefers to live in walkable communities with access to mass transit. Then in 2007-2008 came the real estate crash and the Great Recession. As Lombard observes, mortgage rules tightened and it is harder now for families to buy a house in the ‘burbs. People are staying put. Only one-third as many homes were sold in Virginia in 2012 as in 2005. The number of Virginia families with children living in rented residences has increased 15%.

The shift in school enrollments is marked: Urban core jurisdictions are exporting fewer families with children, and counties are importing fewer.

2013_jumbled

Lombard sums up the impact on school systems:

Elementary schools have been among the first to feel the impact of the change in growth trends. Most rural and suburban elementary schools have too much classroom space because fewer families have moved to their divisions. At the same time, many urban school divisions, after decades of shuttering schools, are reassessing their capital improvement plans so they have enough space for the increases in enrollment.

Bacon’s bottom line:

There are several points to be made.

First, this data refutes the commonly held notion that most young families with the means to do so all will desert core cities and move to the suburbs when their children reach school age. Clearly, some young families are still making the move but more are staying. Whether this trend represents a fundamental shift in lifestyle preferences, a temporary effect of economic hard times or a little of both is hard to say. But the fact is undeniable: An increasing number of young city dwellers is growing, which is driving population growth in urban cores.

Second, it is good to see that analysts at the Weldon Cooper Center’s demographics research group, which publishes StatChat, are beginning to document this seismic demographic shift. If these insights get incorporated into the state’s official population projections, it will impact how dollars are spent in many areas, not the least of which is transportation. Kudos to Lombard for work well done.

Third, once middle- and professional-class families begin enrolling their children in urban-core jurisdictions in larger numbers, it could have a profound effect on how those schools are perceived. If the perception of inner city schools improves from dismal to not-so-bad, even more families might be willing to forego the suburban relocation. It’s way too early to say that that city schools have reached a tipping point but it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

15 responses to “More Virginia Families Choosing Cities, City Schools”

  1. Ghost of Ted Dalton Avatar
    Ghost of Ted Dalton

    Kind of surprised about one school system in particular: Staunton.

    Great little town and Staunton Public Schools are pretty good. I’m surprised they were an exporter in either 05 or 13…..

  2. It would be interesting to see more information about the relationship of more people living in rental property (be it legal or illegal — i.e., illegal apartments/boardinghouses ) and schools attended. Fairfax County Executive Ed Long has been displaying data indicating job growth at the higher income levels is now just a trickle, with most of the new jobs paying at the lower end of the wage scale. This suggests more renting (and less drive till you qualify), but I’d like to know more.

  3. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Not sure I see the pattern or the point. My cursory glance tells me that cities that are enjoying the trend tends to be smaller, less significant ones while Richmond continues its slide.

    The data also leaves out such key and important cities as Norfolk, Roanoke, Hampton and Newport News. If this data had been available and showed a trend I’d be impressed.

    So far, though, no cigar.

    1. Valid points.

      I’d like to see the data from Hampton Roads, too. I don’t know why Lombard left it out.

      As for Richmond, clearly the broader trend is muted there. I attribute that to the uniquely under-performing nature of the school system and the concentrated poverty of the city. It’s a bigger hurdle to overcome there and in Alexandria (and in Petersburg, to, I would guess) than elsewhere.

  4. Maybe Hamilton will give a more complete picture of the data if he has time… The trend certainly varies from place to place – and probably has a lot to do with the particulars of the city’s housing situation, employment base, etc.

    Two quick points I’d add. The first is that the impact of the suburbanization of poverty. Poverty rates in most suburban counties are rising relative to central cities. There are plenty of varying explanations for this – some argue section 8 housing has allowed those dependent on public housing to escape the projects, others that gentrification is pushing poorer people out, others just argue that the bottom rung of the American economic ladder is now high enough (and our infrastructure demanding enough) that most poor families are reaching the same levels of auto ownership that their wealthier counterparts have enjoyed for decades. Whatever the reason, suburban counties can’t boast drastically superior school systems via exclusivity anymore. They are starting to deal with the same number of lower-income children that city schools have been dealing with and my guess is that this may be leveling the playing field in school systems.

    The second thing is that, as Hamilton points out, once their children are enrolled in school, most families stay put. The big move happens before the kids start kindergarten. These families staying in urban areas may be forced to do so for economic reasons, but once their children are enrolled, they will be reluctant to leave even if their economic situation changes.

  5. Spotsylvania? in 1963 Spotsylvania was not a “city’ .. it was a county of 15,000 with one high school.

    in 1963, I-95 opened and from that point on – Spotsylvania started to see people who worked at Quantico and points north move to the county.

    the trend continued – and continues…

    we now have 23,000 students and 20+ schools…

    we’ve never “exported” nor “imported”. not sure where the data for the chart came from – but it’s wrong for Spotsy.

  6. and missing Stafford which is between Prince William and Spotsy and would be of significance in confirming the trend from the closer counters to the farther out counties.

    the growth trend did slow significantly in 2007 and is just not starting to pick up again.

    As far as I know , county planners still use 2.6 for single family detached.

    and we do have excess capacity – in elementary but it’s primarily due to the slow down in new homes. but now we are starting to add homes and kids again.

  7. I think the “lifestyle preference” factor is a big one. A lot of people in my generation – I’m 31, and just starting to have kids and leave my demographic mark on studies like this – feel like the quiet-house-in-the-quiet-neighborhood thing epitomizes a bygone, crumbled time. We’re picking up the pieces now, and it feels like we will be for a long, long time.
    Behaving like the people who got us here is, economic constraints aside, extremely uncool.

  8. virginiagal2 Avatar
    virginiagal2

    Couple of random thoughts.

    First, and bear with me for a sec here, if I’m reading this right, the numbers don’t actually show that more kids born in the city go to school in the city. They also don’t show that people with kids are moving in from the suburbs. They only show that, for each 100 kids born in the city, for several Virginia cities, there are more first graders as a percentage of kids born in the city than their used to be.

    I know that sounds like a quibble, but it isn’t. Making a hypothesis about what’s driving these numbers is one thing – assuming that these numbers are actually because of that hypothesis is something else. You’d need to drill down and try to get some kind of longitudinal data to prove or disprove why they’re moving.

    Offhand, what I thought when looking at the data was first, huh, interesting, and second, wonder if our increasing percentage of immigrants might be affecting this? My husband’s parents were both born outside the US, and it seems to me (and him, I asked) that people coming from outside the US are more likely to prefer to live in cities than people born in the US. He also commented that cities often have communities that reach critical mass of people born in one place or another, and then people in that community are reluctant to leave their support group.

    Also, FYI, while people tend not to want to take their kids out of the schools they start with, that does not apply so much when they perceive the schools as unsafe or actively bad. There’s a difference between not wanting to move from one good school district to another, and being willing to risk your kids because you were broke early in your marriage.

    I know you know this, but – when interpreting data and thinking about how to apply it, what the data means is extremely important – the whole “correlation doesn’t equal causation” thing really kicks in when you start trying to change things or base policy on those numbers. If the interpretation of the data doesn’t sync up with the ground truth, you aren’t going to get what you expect.

    Off topic but sort of related – I have heard people say with big data that interpretation is no longer important. That is a genuinely moronic statement – you did not make it, but I have heard some reasonably intelligent people come out with versions of that particular whopper.

    1. Virginiagal, You are correct to note that the hypothesis doesn’t take into account foreign in-migration, in which, as you say, immigrants usually settle in cities (nor does it take into account domestic in-migration, in which immigrants are more likely to settle in the suburbs). That factor does need to be addressed.

      However, I am skeptical that a shift in foreign immigration trends explains the shift in school enrollments. There has been foreign immigration to cities for decades but city school populations declined anyway. Meanwhile, since the Great Recession, if anything, foreign immigration has *declined*. It is less of a factor than before. Yet city schools now are gaining enrollments for the first time in years. Something else has to account for the change — and that something is probably related to the mirror phenomenon of declining enrollment in county schools.

      1. virginiagal2 Avatar
        virginiagal2

        I would tend to agree with you that it’s more than immigration, and that the two changes – cities and counties – are correlated (although both may be somewhat related to immigration, if immigrants prefer cities.)

        However – wouldn’t kids enrolling in school be a trailing indicator, following about 7 years behind the conception of the child? What I’m thinking is, what we’re looking at are kids conceived around 2007, at the tail end of the last boom.

        Not saying it’s all of it, just saying it might be a possible reason for the change, and it would be interesting to find if attitudes are changing or if we have a different mix of people with different life experiences and preferences. Either way, people changing their minds or people from elsewhere, it doesn’t change the potential beneficial effect.

        1. re: trailing indicators

          all things equal and they never are…

          if you ask 10000 married folks either who have just had kids or are planning so in the near term to have them, if they had an EQUAL choice of choosing to live in an apartment or a single family detached – would more and more of them as a modern movement be preferring the apartment life over the single family detached?

          Once you think you know that answer, you can start bringing back into the question the things that influence the decision that made it not equal.

          that’s my premise. I think people with kids do not willingly choose the apartment life. I think it ends up being a choice but influenced by things like costs, job availability, etc.

          In other words, I’d need to see more evidence that people’s preferences are lifestyle are actually changing.

          as data ( note that data is not information nor knowledge) becomes more and more accessible and available, we have more and more simplistic correlations being done and cast as the core of a “study” and the rest of the study is more subjective narrative to bolster the premise rather than a rigorous counter testing of the premise. In other words, the person doing the work as a validation check purposely assumes their own premise is wrong and sets up to show how and by doing that – they can identify potential influences that might affect the central premise.

          we see less and less of this in studies now days.

          any study that asserts that people’s attitudes – independent of economic and other influences – are changing with respect to choosing to live in multi-family attached is a jump and deserves skepticism until the accumulated evidence becomes very strong and difficult to refute.

          not to say it can’t be true. we know from history that millions of people left rural areas and did move to cities – before we had a national road system or the follow on interstate system – and consequently before even when sprawl became an accepted concept.

          We actually did have people moving out from city cores BEFORE the creation of a national highway system – via train.

          To this day – people who work in New York and live in Connecticut and other distant locales ride trains – trains that were not originally built for commuting.

          and interestingly enough – that train commuting prior to the building of mega/interstate roads – was NOT called “sprawl” … and NOT considered a land-wasting, damaging phenomena by Smart Growth activists.

          Trains were the mobility equivalent of interstates – in that era. In fact, many, many small towns were actually created as a direct consequence of the rails.

          so call me a skeptic on the premise that at this point in time – there is a sea change underway where families (as opposed to singles) – are changing their preferences for living arrangements …unrelated to negative influences and instead to take advantage of advances in urban lifestyle and settlement pattern.

          and I’d finish by asking this question – is commuter rail just as “sprawl inducing” as interstates and beltways. Are all those multi-generational folks in Connecticut who have spent their entire careers commuting by train – living in Sprawl communities?

          Is MARC and VRE commuter rail – subsidized sprawl? (it probably is).

          I do not have a dog in this hunt other than taking a contrarian view – often – precisely because I want to find validation for a premise -by challenging it’s assertions.

    2. done by the Cooper Center, usually a reputable group doing credible work but the more I look at this the more it doesn’t look right.

      In Spotsylvania County – we have not seen declining enrollments as much as we have seen a pause in growing enrollments.

      and despite conventional wisdom, we’re still building new homes.. have been all along but at a reduced rate and this year several thousand new homes have been approved.

      Not including Stafford is a problem as it’s the area just south of Prince William and just north of Spotsylvania.

      The City of Fredericksburg lies between Stafford and Spotsylvania and has a relatively small school system in comparison to the counties that each have over 20,000 students.

      Fredericksburg also has many apartments including govt subsidized for low income whereas the two counties have almost none. The apartments being built in the counties are high-end types for empty nesters.

      I think what this data shows is what happens to the urban/suburb conundrum when the economy slows more than any fundamental change in the way people choose where to work and live.

      the beltway is not going to disappear and as long as major roads extend beyond the beltway and raw land is available, people who want to live in single family detached homes – are going to seek them.

      Even in a place like Fredericksburg – there is still land available for single family homes and they are being built – along with apartments.

      down our way, the lower end apartments are rented, in addition, to low income subsidized – by locally employed teachers and deputies – usually singles.. and when they get married and have kids, they leave the apartment for a nearby home.

      the Cooper Report has a tad bit too much settlement pattern “rah rah” to it for my taste and I’d prefer instead to see a little more validation and narrative about the self-admitted weaknesses of the study.

      1. Larry, the commentary is almost all coming from this blog. The Cooper blog is just laying out numbers (except for a brief foray into explaining it in terms of the economic recession).

        All the counterexamples people are bringing up are anecdotes about this or that development going on, which is really not a response at all. There are lots of things going on everywhere all the time for an infinite number of reasons. All we can speculate about are small shifts and broad trends.

  9. NV – I was looking at the StatBlog which associates itself with UVA and has Cooper Center on it’s page…

    but they say this:

    “But, since the mid 2000s, a demographic change has slowed the conveyor belt of movement in and out of cities. More young families are staying in Virginia’s urban areas to raise their children and enroll them in local schools, fueling the strongest population growth many of Virginia’s urban areas have experienced since the 1950s.”

    that’s a pretty big conclusion… which I believe is not really borne out by the data … unless you squint and hold your mouth a certain way.

    anytime you’re looking at demographic and economic data that spans big swings in the economy – I would think you’d want to be scrupulous to try to normalize the data and even then be conservative with the conclusions.

    as I said earlier – Fredericksburg is a small urban area with a small school system … and the counties that abut it – Spotsylvania and Stafford are much larger and have seen both tremendous population growth over the last two decades – as well as a significant slowdown since 2008.

    I’m not convinced that the claimed changes are due to much beyond machinations of the economy .. but who knows.

Leave a Reply