St. Louis Public Schools (Kirkwood, Webster Groves: low income, high crime, homes)

[scocar]

We are looking to move to the St. Louis area in the next year or two. We currently live in a suburb of Phoenix Arizona. My wife is from Jefferson County and we are moving to be closer to family. I don't want to live in Jefferson County as I'm more into the lifestyle that city living has to offer.

My dilemma is this: We have two kids, ages 8 and 11, and we want a neighborhood that is family-oriented to some extent. We both work in education, and thus our income might not afford us the ability to pay for private school tuition, and I'm finding it very hard to understand how the public schools work in STL city. I'm reading threads on here that talk about kid-friendly great neighborhoods, but then in the same thread they don't want their kids going to the public school in that neighborhood. That is very confusing to me. In Phoenix if you have a great neighborhood, then the school in that neighborhood is also great.

Can anyone shed some light on what this issue is with STL public schools?

[BoomBoxing]

Well like most old urban areas the city of St. Louis public schools can't keep up with the wealthier suburban ones. This isn't unique to St. Louis. You will see the same type of posts in the DC, Chicago, NYC forums too. If you can't afford private school tuition there are 2 options for you. You either send your kid to a charter school, some of which are good (Language Immersion School and Gateway Science Academy) and some barely better than the regular public schools (most of the rest). Or you get them into one of the city's excellent magnet schools, which are some of the best schools in the state. They have to test in as these are gifted schools, and even then there's not a 100% chance they will get in.

Then there are suburban districts, which spare you the above headache but can't match the city for urban living. Clayton, Webster Groves and Kirkwood are a good alternative but pricey. By my estimation, most city kids still go to Catholic schools which are relatively inexpensive and can be very good. Then again you have to deal with the Catholic stuff but many kids in those schools these days aren't even Catholic. And if one of you works there you may be able to get cheap or free tuition.

Hope it all works out for you.

[aragx6]

The fact that you aren't planning to move to the city for a year or two puts you in a great situation. The magnet lotteries are done in the early spring for the next fall's school year, so advance research and planning is necessary.

EDIT: The lottery was actually done in January, not spring.

A list of charter schools in St. Louis: http://www.dese.mo.gov/divimprove/ch...ls-05-2011.pdf

Magnet school guide: St. Louis Public Schools | Magnet and Choice School Guide (http://www.slps.org/1962109299111867/site/default.asp?&1962Nav=|&NodeID=93 - broken link)


And finally a list of Catholic schools: http://archstl.org/schools/elementary-schools?tid[]=1062 -- they often have significant second child discounts. And while the tuition is something you obviously have to budget for, you'll also find that you can spend less for a comparable home in the city and have lower property taxes than if you bought in Webster Groves or another similar inner-ring suburb.

You can use those resources in tandem with GreatSchools - Public and Private School Ratings, Reviews and Parent Community to look at test scores, socioeconomic data and parent reviews.

Boom is right that many of the best magnets are selectively enrolled (based on test scores), but there are also quite a few that are simple lottery as well. They vary in quality, but some are more than adequate. Again, research is necessary.

[scocar]

Thanks for your replies. I was also looking for some information as to why this situation exists. I know that it also exists in other cities, but it doesn't make sense to me. Why can't the older urban areas keep up with the wealthier suburbs? Like I stated, where I live if you have a neighborhood that has good families, raising good kids, then that would be the clientele of that neighborhood school. Thus with good kids of good families, you would understandably have a good school.

I understand how urban schools go downhill in poverty-ridden areas with high crime and such. When that is the clientele of the school then it stands to reason. But why would an area like The Hill, or Carondelet which appear to be nice, semi-affluent neighborhoods, not have good neighborhood public schools?

[aragx6]

Two main reasons:

#1: Even a small neighborhood school actually services more than one of St. Louis' neighborhoods -- there's a vast swath of socioeconmic statuses in any given attendance boundary. Even in a city neighborhood full of nice families and beautiful homes, it's still a dense place and as such will have plenty of multi-family structures and renters.

#2: (and you can not underestimate the importance of this): Parochial schools. You used the Hill as an example, and it's a perfect one to show point #2. Families who live n the Hill have been sending their kids to Catholic schools since the beginning of time and unlikely to change anytime soon. So if the middle class families of means are all sending their kids to parochial schools, you're left with the poorer kids who have less support at home in general.

[BoomBoxing]

Actually I think the big reason is a massive amount of very low income citizens who contribute little to nothing to the tax base. There are plenty of semi-affluent taxpayers in the city as you noted but they have the financial burden of paying for all of the city's schools. Suburban districts with no poor areas like Ladue and Clayton are not subsidizing the education of thousands of urban poor. City residents are. And they are more often than not choosing to send their kids to private schools and therefore have little incentive to ensure the public schools do get better. Most probably think it's a lost cause....very few, if any, cities like St. Louis have excellent school districts.

If you broke the city school district into several smaller ones I think your theory of good neighborhoods with families equating to good schools would come to pass.

[SouthCityGal]

I wouldn't call our Catholic schools "inexpensive." Expect to pay in the $6000 range for two kids, and that includes the second child discount. Don't forget the uniforms, registration fees, and other fees that add on a few hundred more per family.

I live in the city and my children attend Catholic schools, but it is really is a sacrifice. If you fall in love with the city and can afford the tuition, I would encourage any private school. (I don't even want to think about catholic high school, which is currently $8000+ for the cheapest schools--no telling what it'll be when my kids are ready for high school!)

[maseyjean]

My daughter spent the last two years at a magnet school; the school is OKAY; I cannot go as far as to say that it is really any better than a "regular" school. She tested for the gifted program and was supposed to go to Kennard CJA, but they over-enrolled and they ended up booting her out at the last minute; I had two and a half weeks before school began to find her another school with no help and it stressed me to the max. Had I known she was not guaranteed a spot at Kennard, I would have kept her where she was as attending that school was my sole purpose for removing her. There were also issues at her current school about them not doing too well academically, so much so that they sent letters home to parents giving us the option to remove our kids from the school and placing them in another Magnet. No computers in the classrooms is something that really doesn't sit right with me as well. We parents have gone to board meetings regarding the SLPS budget, yet they cannot provide clear-cut answers as to where the money is going. The politics of the district is something I do not agree with, but this happens everywhere, not just SLPS, and it may not be a big issue for others.

I may be a bit biased because I graduated (and worked) in other districts and I see how advanced everything is in comparison. I just think the kids are being short-changed, but despite my suspicions, I am sure that financially speaking they just cannot supply all of the "frills" that other districts are able to enjoy for reasons some of the other posters have mentioned. However this is solely my experience and opinion, and I cannot speak on all of the Magnet schools. Aspects that I do love is the diversity and that most of the teachers, faculty and staff put their heart into what they do.

[scocar]

Well it seems to me that maybe the issue comes from some of the parents not wanting their kids to attend schools with diversity and therefore the magnet schools are created, and the parochial schools are flooded with students. If the parochial schools were not so common, and the magnet schools did not exist to such a large degree, then maybe the neighborhood schools in SLPS would be in a small enough area to cater to that particular neighborhood, and the funding could be focused on the those schools as well.

I know in Phoenix there are some parochial schools, but almost all those students are catholic and are going to get the "catholic education". One difference in Phoenix also is that there multiple school districts within the city. Some are good and some not so good. But the ones that are in better neighborhoods are all very good districts, with very good schools, and so the parents send their kids to them.

[aragx6]

Most people who send their kids to the parochial schools here are Catholic -- most St. Louisans are Catholic.

And it's a wild oversimplification to suggest that if the magnets didn't exist the schools would fix themselves from the ground up. More likely the city would empty of young families. That's the opposite of the right direction.

You also need to remember that Phoenix likely should have more than one school district, It's 519 sq/mi! St. Louis is only 61 and significantly more dense.

Most of St. Louis county's suburbs are more urban than anything outside of Phoenix downtown. It's really an apples to oranges comparison.