urbanSTL

goat314 wrote:I love this whole good school/bad school dichotomy we have in the US. Some how all the "good schools" are white and suburban and all the "bad schools" are black and urban. It so apparent that "black culture" produces these "bad schools" because after all most of the "bad schools" have black students. It is also common knowledge that all black people raise their kids the same way, which is vastly different than the way "civilized" white people raise their kids. I mean most blacks don't even care about their children or want anything better for them, that's why we have to fill up this school auditorium to prevent them thugs from coming to a "good school". Remember that poverty, a legacy of inequality, and systematic racism has nothing to do with it. It's been proven that if white people were in the same predicament as blacks in this country they would have better results. We as a country have given blacks everything and they just cant get it right. Maybe some blacks do well, but that is only after they accept "civilized" cultural norms that can only be learned at a "good school". I'm tired of all this political correctness because it's obvious that blacks are responsible for the moral, social, and physical decay in this region. Now if you call me a racist it's obvious you're a racist because I'm black and my family is black and most of my friends are black, so that gives me free reign to make as many baseless suggestions, allegations, and proclamations as humanly possible.

The End

It looks like you just took 2 pages worth of posts and read it with your own misguided prejudgments and anger. It's kind of racist to assume that all white people don't want to be around all black people, isn't it? Where on these 2 pages have you seen anyone say that this is a black problem and the whites should be left alone? Where? I absolutely believe the black family has been severely damaged by institutionalized racism. No doubt about that. The problem is, I don't see why race is really coming in to this in the first place. We had "alternative schools" where I'm from, but no racially diverse schools in my particular bustling metropolis of 7,000 people. But I can guarantee you that NOBODY would be happy with an alternative school full of bad white kids who lost its accreditation dumping their students into another district.
My responsibility is to MY family - MY children. I am 28 years old. I have never once had the opportunity to hire someone and didn't because they are black. At the end of the day, it does not matter to me what got someone where they are - racism, their being molested as a child, their parents divorcing, their dad being in prison, their mom being a prostitute, being raised by a nanny and neglected - all I know is, if they are bad kids with bad parents, I should have every right to take my child to where they aren't.

goat, I'm sure that you would have no problem placing your kid in an SLPS school in north city because you are so accepting of everyone and it's all for the greater good, but I do - I choose a different life for my kid. I chose a different life for my kid when I moved to the St Louis area instead of keeping them forever in a rural town with nothing to do but drink - but by your logic, I should not be able to make those choices for my kids education.

OF COURSE it would be naïve to say that some of these people wouldn't want blacks from the city even if they were from a gifted magnet school. But I can imagine there are a ton of people who don't feel that way, and sincerely are concerned about the PARTICULAR school these kids are coming from and the environment in which many of these kids were raised. I know that the latter is exactly how I feel. Of course you could never do something like this now because the ACLU would jump into the fray in a heartbeat, but how about individual students are able to go to new schools because they have no criminal history and/or no major infractions on their school records like weapons or drugs (1 in 4 at Normandy do according to the article I posted above! - oh, wait - is that racist?). That will never happen - but I betcha the outcry would be much quieter if that were the case and then you really could scream "RAAAAYCIST!" at everyone who opposed it.

tl;dr: my responsiblity is to my children and giving them a good life regardless of how politically incorrect it may be to say I don't want to send my kids to Normandy schools or to disperse the problems of Normandy schools amongst other schools within the region. Sorry.

juiceinkirkwood wrote:We cannot talk honestly about race, because talking honestly about race instantly makes you a racist. Duh.

c'mon, that's just silly. It's just my observation that when talking about race, religion or whole other classes of people, it is far more productive to lay off the broad generalizations. And for whites, I also find it is useful to not ask, "how come its okay for blacks to say "n-" all the time and whites can't?"

Presbyterian wrote:I find these conversations easier when we distinguish between personal and structural injustice.

1) I didn't hear much personal racism among the FH parents. I think it would be unfair to accuse them of personally racist motivations. I heard motivations that were all about protecting their kids from drugs, violence, etc.

Over the weekend, I happened to spend some time with parents who have 3 kids in the FHSD. They're worried and angry, but as Presbyterian noted, there were no overtly racial comments.

What WAS mentioned is the fact that Normandy schools ostensibly have "failed" (i.e., lost accreditation) due to low test scores. What happens to the students who are, presumably, the driver of these low scores, when they arrive at schools where the subject matter is beyond what they've been taught in Normandy? Example: A class size of 28 students in FH 6th grade Math presumably will presumably - based on those test scores - be at a different level than the incoming 6th graders who are the product of grades K-5 in the (failing) Normandy district. These incoming students most likely will require additional teaching resources, and where will those come from, with school scheduled to start in FHSD in 3+ weeks? In all likelihood, the existing teacher/educator structure will have to stretch to bring these new students up to speed, especially given the statement that the newcomers test scores will be included with current students for MAP assessment purposes. The fear is that current "performing" FHSD students will be ignored in order to focus on the newcomers in order to maintain FHSD's MAP scores.

Another thing to remember is that for the most part, the parents in the FHSD are middle-class people, and for the last few years, middle class has been a tenuous place to be. Parents in FHSD and Normandy just want a good (better?) life for their kids, and the key to this is education.

I don't have a dog in this fight either way, but as a taxpayer, I see the transfers as a colossal waste of money that *might* benefit the students who transfer, and *might* degrade the education of the current students in FHSD, and will certain leave little resources for the existing Normandy infrastructure. IMHO, that money should be spent improving the failing schools and this transfer program is only a short-term fix. At this point, my best idea in this no-win situation would be for some larger gov't entity (I hate to say "the government" because the more libertarian folks immediately bristle) to *temporarily* step in provide some sort of alternative to those students/families in Normandy who choose it, or "cover" the FHSD tuition payments but mandate NSD use the funds towards tangible improvements which would be checked/audited (i.e., not wasted on sending the superintendent and his staff to seminars.) This would NOT be "school choice" but rather something like the suburban districts offered early on in this battle -- satellite schools in the failing districts, etc.

roger wyoming II wrote:

justme123 wrote:

This would NOT be "school choice" but rather something like the suburban districts offered early on in this battle -- satellite schools in the failing districts, etc.

Curious when this was and any details. There certainly are no easy answers, but I do think that broad, regional desegregation needs to be part of the picture and we can't wall off poor kids in poor-performing districts and expect consistently strong results regardless of who is running them.

I tried searching the P-D website (stltoday.com) but couldn't find the article (from at least 1+ years ago.) I recall Clayton, Parkway, etc., were proposing "satellite" schools. I think that's also been proposed in Kansas City, where the city schools there are unaccredited.

FWIW, I did find that other suburban districts (inc. Parkway) are accepting transfer applications from NSD and RGSD.

^ The new law does make it possible for other districts to run satellite schools in unaccredited districts and I believe Ferguson/Florissant has suggested they'd be interested. Not sure how that would work out in terms of being more or less expensive than transfers for the unaccredited district. And, yes, as expected it appears that the majority of transferring students will be going to districts other than FHS and Mehlville.

Juiceinkirkwood...we have a winner!

jem79c wrote: I don't think the point is neccessarily to save money, but to provide an alternative that is most amenable to everyone.

I think it gets back though the the issue of how you draw that line of whatever change -- whether its transfers, satellite schools, etc -- that might make progress for some kids while not destroying the larger school district. Or perhaps in some cases that should happen. No easy answers.