St. Louis Public Schools (best neighborhoods, 2013, day care)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you and I actually do agree on something, that the responsibility for education lies on the parents, as much as the faculty. Now with that being said, the best parent in the world can not make up for the worst teacher in the world, and I don't believe the best teacher in the world will make up for the best parent. All things being equal, you're going to have some good teachers with the bad, and some good parents with the bad. St. Louis City has been going through some major transformations for more than 20 years, and we've had an influx of good parents to the mix. Unfortunately these parents don't hold much faith in the vast majority of St. Louis City public schools, save some of the neighborhood schools and charters. If a parent believes that their child will receive the same amount or even more attention at the public school vs the private school I'm sure they'd be more inclined to send their kids there. The same would be true if they saw an improvement in test scores to an extent that seemed meaningful.
When my parents were deciding where I should go to High School (public vs private) it came down to numbers. When they were informed that 99% of the private high school's graduates were accepted into universities (Not just community college) and 65% of those students received scholarships my chances of going to a public high school were immediately SQUASHED! For reference, I personally believe I'd have been able to accomplish just as much in a public high school, maybe more. I can almost guarantee that my class ranking would have been higher at my local public high school, making some scholarships more attainable. I however was under intense pressure to do well, and go to college...it was expected of me, so the outcome of either decision would likely have been similar. With that being said, I think many parents simply want to stack the deck, especially if it's within their means to do so.
I admit that I come from AZ and so I'm not aware of how the teachers unions out here impact the quality of teachers. But with the amount of teachers out here that have to substitute due to a shortage of jobs, there should be no such thing as the worst teacher. Most really bad teachers don't remain in the profession. It makes no sense to. I've worked with bad teachers. Their lives were hell, as they had administrators in their classroom always scrutinizing their methods. They had classrooms that were out of control. No one could last long in the environment created by really bad teachers. I think there is a misconception as to how many ineffective teachers there are out there. People look at poor test scores and assume ineffective teachers. People look at one news story and assume there are many more that are unreported. The vast majority of teachers that remain in the profession for more than a few years are competent.
I admire your parents for "stacking the deck". That shows that they cared about your education. The irony behind that is that due to that simple fact you didn't need to go to a private school. I guarantee 99% of the public school kids that had a similar upbringing as you also went to a 4-year college. The reason that 99% of the private school kids go to 4-year colleges isn't because of the school or the quality of the teachers. It's because of the caliber of kids that are going to those schools, and the caliber of parents that are sending them there.
I also do not think that most parents send their kids to private schools simply because of the numbers. I think in many respects it's a status symbol to be able to say your kid goes to MICDS or John Burroughs, or even one of the many parochial schools. I also think parents send them there to attempt to keep their children away from the "bad kids" that populate the public schools. I would rather have my child exposed to diversity and appreciate the different struggles that people have. I think a public school education better prepares her for "real life".
My thoughts as a staunch urbanist and progressive are very different from my thoughts as a future parent -- we all have to walk that line I suppose.
No matter how many of my neighbors decide to send their kid to a school where not one kid is meeting standards; I couldn't do it. I value the role of early education too greatly, and agree that I wouldn't let my kid be a social experiment. That doesn't mean I think every kid needs to go to MICDS to succeed -- I certainly don't, and frankly not every kid is even going to fully benefit from such an environment. I'd happily send one of mine to a science and tech high school or performing arts high school if and when it became clear that's where their talent and interest lies.
But I also went to one of the least diverse schools in the metro and wish greatly I'd been subjected to more of the real world as a child. From everything I've seen (and a bit of the excessive optimism I'm generally known for) I believe that I'll be able to get my future kids into one of the good magnets and they'll be surrounded by my favorite thing in the world: a diverse group of kids who value learning. Realistically it's pretty darn hard to get there anwhere outside of the selective city magnets -- generally it's one or the other.
There's really two wildly separate issues at play:
1. Getting middle class families to stay in the city by offering options they'll find acceptable
2. Not continuing to completely fail the poor students who live in the city with an incomplete education
I also wanted to add this in, even though it's a bit out of scope for the conversation: I've heard it said (here and "in real life") many a time that the schools keep middle class families out of the city, a statement that, on its own, is not entirely false.
But it's also, from my experience, somewhat overstated in St. Louis. I grew up in an entry-level subdivision in St. Peters with nice middle class families made up of teachers and McDonnell Douglas employees. Easily half of the kids in my subdivision went to parochial schools over the newer, frankly better, public schools they were already paying taxes for.
In fact, my brothers and I would have but there was no room! St. Elizabeth Ann Seton and Stes. Joachim and Ann were arguing over which parish we were actually supposed to belong to -- each saying the other! (My mom finally said to hell with ya'll and sent us to PSR at St. Joseph in Cottleville)
My point being, it wasn't the quality of the public schools keeping any of those folks out of the city -- it was a lifestyle thing. The city could've had the best schools in the country and no one in my neighborhood would have moved there. The city schools need improvement for the kids who are already there's sake, not simply the possibility of bringing new families into the city fold.
I also wanted to add this in, even though it's a bit out of scope for the conversation: I've heard it said (here and "in real life") many a time that the schools keep middle class families out of the city, a statement that, on its own, is not entirely false.
But it's also, from my experience, somewhat overstated in St. Louis. I grew up in an entry-level subdivision in St. Peters with nice middle class families made up of teachers and McDonnell Douglas employees. Easily half of the kids in my subdivision went to parochial schools over the newer, frankly better, public schools they were already paying taxes for.
In fact, my brothers and I would have but there was no room! St. Elizabeth Ann Seton and Stes. Joachim and Ann were arguing over which parish we were actually supposed to belong to -- each saying the other! (My mom finally said to hell with ya'll and sent us to PSR at St. Joseph in Cottleville)
My point being, it wasn't the quality of the public schools keeping any of those folks out of the city -- it was a lifestyle thing. The city could've had the best schools in the country and no one in my neighborhood would have moved there. The city schools need improvement for the kids who are already there's sake, not simply the possibility of bringing new families into the city fold.
This may be apples to oranges as it took place in Phoenix not here in STL. My ex-wife decided to send our son to a parochial high school in Phoenix as he was having some issues with a particular kid bullying him at the public school. I disagreed with the decision for a variety of reasons. She sent him anyway. They had an open house early in the school year, and I was shocked at the lack of basic social skills and intellect of the teachers. Most of them were very young and lacked experience. His Chemistry teacher responded to a parent suggesting that he write the students assignments on the board instead of just saying them out loud with; "That's a good idea, I've never thought of that". I swear I'm not making that up. Then when I talked to his U.S. History teacher I introduced my self and told him I taught Social Studies at the middle school level. He responded with, "Social Studies that must be a fun class to teach". Not sure what he thought History was classified as? The school boasted about the percentage of their teachers that had master's degrees. The biggest fallacy about teaching is that those with master's degrees are better teachers. You can be a social leper and get a master's degree (in fact is probably easier if you are a social leper). If you are social leper you will be an awful teacher. The tuition to attend this school was roughly $10,000 per year. Their curriculum and the quality of the teachers was inferior not superior to the vast majority of the public schools I've been in. But I'm certain more of those kids went on to attend college than their public school counterparts.
The city schools don't improve without the addition of significant numbers of middle class families. Period.
Hence the need for a specified number of parents, in a targeted neighborhood (again, say TGS), to commit to putting their kids in the neighborhood school. You focus on one school in this manner to demonstrate one thing: it isn't the schools that are failing the kids - it's the failing kids' families. Then you do it at the next school over. And the next one.
If you are middle class, and you live in a middle class neighborhood in the city with a neighborhood school, and you still choose private - then you are part of the problem.
The parochial schools in St. Peters weren't nearly as expensive as the one you're speaking of, but the teachers were older on average and had lower educational attainment (which I know you dismiss, but it was more of their antiquated teaching methods that I think were the key result from this), the textbooks were ancient, the facilities were of a much lower standard (i.e. they'd get out of school a couple times a year because they didn't have air conditioning in the classrooms). That goes for Duchesne High School where many of my friends went as well.
Spending money to send your kid to an inferior school is honestly one of the stupidest things I've ever heard, but it's kind of just how things are done in St. Louis.
The city schools don't improve without the addition of significant numbers of middle class families. Period.
Hence the need for a specified number of parents, in a targeted neighborhood (again, say TGS), to commit to putting their kids in the neighborhood school. You focus on one school in this manner to demonstrate one thing: it isn't the schools that are failing the kids - it's the failing kids' families. Then you do it at the next school over. And the next one.
If you are middle class, and you live in a middle class neighborhood in the city with a neighborhood school, and you still choose private - then you are part of the problem.
But I'll be a good parent. If those are the two options, it's an easy choice. Are you a parent?
The city schools don't improve without the addition of significant numbers of middle class families. Period.
Hence the need for a specified number of parents, in a targeted neighborhood (again, say TGS), to commit to putting their kids in the neighborhood school. You focus on one school in this manner to demonstrate one thing: it isn't the schools that are failing the kids - it's the failing kids' families. Then you do it at the next school over. And the next one.
If you are middle class, and you live in a middle class neighborhood in the city with a neighborhood school, and you still choose private - then you are part of the problem.
We speak the same language. I really do hope that someone can build up the support to do something like this to prove what we both know to be the case.
The school district/individual schools will always adjust to meet their clientele. I lived in a northwest suburb of Phoenix called Surprise, before moving here. Over a 5 or so year period it was one of the fastest growing cities in the nation. Prior to the population explosion Surprise was a mostly farming community and it's population was heavily Hispanic with the majority of the population Mexican immigrants. The few schools in the district performed very poorly, had high dropout rates, and were considered undesirable to attend. As parents started moving to Surprise to take advantage of the great land prices that led to great home prices the district had to all of a sudden serve a much different student and a much different family. There were growing pains at first. Some parents refused to send their kids to the inferior public schools. And many charter schools began to give the parents another option. Some of the best and largest charter schools in the Phoenix area still exist in Surprise. I talked to a parent that said her son was learning stuff in 5th grade that he had learned in 3rd grade at his previous school. But most parents worked to improve the public schools in the area. Several bond initiatives were put on the ballot to raise money to improve facilities and build new schools. Parents got involved in the PTSA and in other ways. The main high school that existed in the district and had a graduation rate of less than 50% in the 90's, now has a greatschools rating of 6 and graduates close to 90% of it's students. There are some schools that perform better than others, but the lowest greatschools rating for any school in the district is 4, and several have 9's and 10's. By comparison in STL Public Schools not a single non-magnet school has a greatschools rating above a 4.
But I'll be a good parent. If those are the two options, it's an easy choice. Are you a parent?
If you were part of an organized effort, along with the other parents in a middle-class neighborhood, to integrate the city school with students that live within it's boundaries you would be a good parent. You'd be teaching your children a social lesson that went beyond academics. And as an involved parent your child would be able to attain many of the same things they would at the parochial school down the street.
What makes you think that you'd be a bad parent by sending your child to a school that has low test scores? I agree that I would not do it as the only parent. I would not want my child to go to a school where he/she was one of the few that cared about academics. But if it was part of an organized concerted effort I'd be proud to be a part of that. I guess if you truly believe that the low test scores are a result of bad teachers, then that would make sense. I'm 100% convinced that's not the case.
If you were part of an organized effort, along with the other parents in a middle-class neighborhood, to integrate the city school with students that live within it's boundaries you would be a good parent. You'd be teaching your children a social lesson that went beyond academics. And as an involved parent your child would be able to attain many of the same things they would at the parochial school down the street.
What makes you think that you'd be a bad parent by sending your child to a school that has low test scores? I agree that I would not do it as the only parent. I would not want my child to go to a school where he/she was one of the few that cared about academics. But if it was part of an organized concerted effort I'd be proud to be a part of that. I guess if you truly believe that the low test scores are a result of bad teachers, then that would make sense. I'm 100% convinced that's not the case.
Bingo. Count me in on your theory as well, Scocar. Demographics are at the heart of the argument and so many are afraid of being called names these days to even broach the topic, and that's a shame.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
