Fair enough - I should say that your kids are safer if you drive less. City or County, chose a place that requires you to drive less, much less, or not at all. That's easier to do in the city. The caveat is clearly that you may be chasing magnet schools or new charters all over town. No easy answers.
I really think the issues over schooling in the city are the biggest culprit to population loss. If we could substantially improve options, then I would wager we would be stronger as a whole.
- 11K
I think the schools are the biggest culprit in lack of population gain. They were not the main culprit in population loss.
- 516
Similar to the OP, we have a 3 year old and a 9 month old (playdate?). Our 3 year old won't start preschool until 2013 so we have time, but right now we're leaning toward Malinkrodt/Kennard. FWIW, two of our friends got spots in Malinkrodt's preschool over the last two years so perhaps its not as hard to get into as Kennard.
Even though one of the few things the Catholic Church and I have in common is that we both really love fried fish, I really like the sense of community/parental involvement and the various extracurricular activities offered at the Catholic schools and would not have a problem sending my kids there if they didn't get into Malinkrodt or Kennard.
Even though one of the few things the Catholic Church and I have in common is that we both really love fried fish, I really like the sense of community/parental involvement and the various extracurricular activities offered at the Catholic schools and would not have a problem sending my kids there if they didn't get into Malinkrodt or Kennard.
SLUH has a work grant program that waives tuition (or at least cuts it severely). Several good friends were in it, and they seemed to think it was a pretty good deal.debaliviere wrote:you still have SLUH ... Affordability is another story.justme123 wrote:And beyond that, what are the *affordable* HS choices?
As for Catholic-ness, the county grade schools SUCK (don't know about the city). Lots of indoctrination, and very little science/math. High schools are a different story. In terms of college prep in science/math/language, they're tough to match. Indoctrination is nonexistent at SLUH (I assume likewise for others). Following one's own conscience over societal and Church values is an idea stressed from day one.
- 10K
I don't know if I'd go that far. Unless things have changed dramatically in recent years, it's still pretty Catholic, as you'd expect. Still, I think non-Catholics would feel perfectly comfortable there.someguy wrote:Indoctrination is nonexistent at SLUH
What would you say is the main culprit in population loss now? Everytime I hear about someone leaving the city, they almost always start talking about schools. Maybe thats just the people I know. Not really sure.Alex Ihnen wrote:I think the schools are the biggest culprit in lack of population gain. They were not the main culprit in population loss.
Regardless, I think we can comfortably say that schooling plays a major role in net migration to and from the city.
I've taught at SLPS and I must say that the city schools are not near as bad as many would believe. Most have the same modern amenities as schools in the suburbs like Parkway, Rockwood etc. The main problem is POVERTY and the subsequent culture of poverty!
It really boils down to do I want my children to be exposed to people of different socioeconomic and racial backgrounds, mainly poor, inner city black children. The the answer is a big "NO!" for the majority of middle class white families in St. Louis (and the whole country for that matter). The perfect storm of Brown vs. Board of Education, Urban Renewal/Slum Clearance, and Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 bled many urban cores dry. St. Louis was disproportionally hurt because it is centrally located/landlocked, old economy, and didn't have a suburban tax base to fall back on.
Going back to neighborhood schools sounds good in theory, but the problem is that the Plessy vs. Ferguson Case (separate but equal) didn't address the vast socioeconomic disparities between blacks and whites, which came from centuries of institutional slavery and an additional century of Jim Crow policies. That is why the Brown vs. The Board of Education and Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s had to be passed. Unfortunately, it only further exacerbated the problem. Black communities would have probably been better off with equal funding for their own schools instead of the forced busing policies, but that would have sounded to much like reparations to some people.
It really boils down to do I want my children to be exposed to people of different socioeconomic and racial backgrounds, mainly poor, inner city black children. The the answer is a big "NO!" for the majority of middle class white families in St. Louis (and the whole country for that matter). The perfect storm of Brown vs. Board of Education, Urban Renewal/Slum Clearance, and Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 bled many urban cores dry. St. Louis was disproportionally hurt because it is centrally located/landlocked, old economy, and didn't have a suburban tax base to fall back on.
Going back to neighborhood schools sounds good in theory, but the problem is that the Plessy vs. Ferguson Case (separate but equal) didn't address the vast socioeconomic disparities between blacks and whites, which came from centuries of institutional slavery and an additional century of Jim Crow policies. That is why the Brown vs. The Board of Education and Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s had to be passed. Unfortunately, it only further exacerbated the problem. Black communities would have probably been better off with equal funding for their own schools instead of the forced busing policies, but that would have sounded to much like reparations to some people.
- 11K
Well, I don't know that I can offer a full accounting of my thoughts quickly, but I think that population is stabilizing and if you dig into the latest Census, average income in the City increased, likely that the generic, amorphous middle and middle-upper class is moving into the city. Those moving in/staying with kids likely know the challenges of the public schools are have planned to make use of parochial schools, charters, privates, whatever. It seems like a chicken-egg argument regarding schools and population loss, but schools suffered first when people left and I think that economics - available jobs, housing and crime continue to drive population loss. Let's hope that loss becomes even a small gain in 2020. If it happens, it will require a rethinking of who's moving where and why.zun1026 wrote:What would you say is the main culprit in population loss now? Everytime I hear about someone leaving the city, they almost always start talking about schools. Maybe thats just the people I know. Not really sure.Alex Ihnen wrote:I think the schools are the biggest culprit in lack of population gain. They were not the main culprit in population loss.
Regardless, I think we can comfortably say that schooling plays a major role in net migration to and from the city.
- 2,386
^I think we will see population gain, Alex. This could be the decade that officially reverses suburban flight. I also think StL county will gain population in addition to the city. Basically, inside I-270 will become increasing populated once again. (The city stands to take the lion's share, IMO)
- 11K
^ I'd bet a whole lot on the County losing population. I think it's the beginning of very significant problems for many county municipalities - see Dellwood, St. George and others. There's zero coordination, let alone recognition, that there's a problem in the County. Wish we could fast-forward.
- 1,218
Bravo, you nailed it IMHO! This is the reason for most if not all white middle to upper class families leaving. Thanks for the honesty, this thread has been refreshing to read.goat314 wrote:I've taught at SLPS and I must say that the city schools are not near as bad as many would believe. Most have the same modern amenities as schools in the suburbs like Parkway, Rockwood etc. The main problem is POVERTY and the subsequent culture of poverty!
It really boils down to do I want my children to be exposed to people of different socioeconomic and racial backgrounds, mainly poor, inner city black children. The the answer is a big "NO!" for the majority of middle class white families in St. Louis (and the whole country for that matter). The perfect storm of Brown vs. Board of Education, Urban Renewal/Slum Clearance, and Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 bled many urban cores dry. St. Louis was disproportionally hurt because it is centrally located/landlocked, old economy, and didn't have a suburban tax base to fall back on.
I don't have children of my own (yet?) so maybe I don't have any skin in this game, but I've thought a lot about what kind of commitment I want to make to the City in relation to what I want from my future. And here's something you never see come up when people are talking about the affordability/not of private schools: If you live in the city and spend most of your time walking, and if you can use the bus or MetroLink to get to work (at least one half of a couple, anyway), can you become a one-car household? If you can walk to shop and eat, aren't you saving a ton of money in gas, car repairs, etc? If your house is $150,000 cheaper than the one you can buy in Kirkwood, isn't that money in your pocket?
My question is: Does anyone ever sit down and do the math to find out that the cost of living in the city is so much cheaper than in the burbs that you can afford private school?
My question is: Does anyone ever sit down and do the math to find out that the cost of living in the city is so much cheaper than in the burbs that you can afford private school?
I've actually done the analysis (and I tried to post it here in a different thread with no success), which is highly subjective and depends on several personal factors.
For Instance, here are the factors that my wife and I had to account for:
- We both need to drive to work (she a teacher in Webster Groves and me a project manager working near the airport).
- Private High school was the most probable option for our children, had we stayed in the City. 2-3 kids X $14,000* (in today's dollars) X 4 years of Private High School. Doesn't even account for pre-K thru 8 and the dollars needed to fund that portion of their education.
- Our desire to keep investing in retirement and college savings objectives
- Analysis of real estate tax increase in moving from the City to, say, a Ballwin, Chesterfield, or Kirkwood.
I personally would rather spend the money now on a more expensive home in a much more stable neighborhood** for a number of financial and tax related reasons. Also, a lot of it is timing. The point at which you being to pay for Private High School is also the point in time in which you could invest that money (more importantly) into your own retirement and savings objectives. If you have two kids and spend $14k per year (goes up every year) you would forgo $115K to invest in something else.
If you're a person that lives and works in the City, plans to send your children to public/charter/magnet schools, and intends to stay in a house in the city for an extremely long amount of time (like decades), you may consider staying in the City as it might make more financial sense for you.
*$14,000 is what it costs to send your child to a Nerinx Hall (my wife's school) or SLUH level of private high school.
**I'm implying investing in Real Estate in most City neighborhoods is more volatile and risky then investing more money in County real estate within solid school districts. Furthermore, the "more stable" neighborhoods in the City (Lindenwood Park, St. Louis Hills, the Heights, CWE) are priced pretty similarly to Kirkwood and Webster Groves
For Instance, here are the factors that my wife and I had to account for:
- We both need to drive to work (she a teacher in Webster Groves and me a project manager working near the airport).
- Private High school was the most probable option for our children, had we stayed in the City. 2-3 kids X $14,000* (in today's dollars) X 4 years of Private High School. Doesn't even account for pre-K thru 8 and the dollars needed to fund that portion of their education.
- Our desire to keep investing in retirement and college savings objectives
- Analysis of real estate tax increase in moving from the City to, say, a Ballwin, Chesterfield, or Kirkwood.
I personally would rather spend the money now on a more expensive home in a much more stable neighborhood** for a number of financial and tax related reasons. Also, a lot of it is timing. The point at which you being to pay for Private High School is also the point in time in which you could invest that money (more importantly) into your own retirement and savings objectives. If you have two kids and spend $14k per year (goes up every year) you would forgo $115K to invest in something else.
If you're a person that lives and works in the City, plans to send your children to public/charter/magnet schools, and intends to stay in a house in the city for an extremely long amount of time (like decades), you may consider staying in the City as it might make more financial sense for you.
*$14,000 is what it costs to send your child to a Nerinx Hall (my wife's school) or SLUH level of private high school.
**I'm implying investing in Real Estate in most City neighborhoods is more volatile and risky then investing more money in County real estate within solid school districts. Furthermore, the "more stable" neighborhoods in the City (Lindenwood Park, St. Louis Hills, the Heights, CWE) are priced pretty similarly to Kirkwood and Webster Groves
I also wonder what impact the people who now have younger kids in the lower grade levels will have if some of them do stick around. I mean, it won't take many to have a critical mass of parents in any particular school. And we all know that parental involvement is what makes or breaks education. So couldn't this become a self-fulfilling prophecy: If we stay and contribute to the school environment for the sake of our own kids, don't the schools improve for all the kids?
- 1,218
If you have boys, here's cost of St. Mary's HS on South Grand:
Tuition 2011-2012
Tuition for the 2011-2012 school year is $8,495. Tuition for 2012-2013 still to be determined. Tuition costs cover all textbooks, workbooks, paperbacks, art class sketchpads, freshmen portfolios, online subscriptions and most field trips/transportation.
Source: http://www.stmaryshs.com/tuition-assist ... ships.aspx
Tuition 2011-2012
Tuition for the 2011-2012 school year is $8,495. Tuition for 2012-2013 still to be determined. Tuition costs cover all textbooks, workbooks, paperbacks, art class sketchpads, freshmen portfolios, online subscriptions and most field trips/transportation.
Source: http://www.stmaryshs.com/tuition-assist ... ships.aspx
jennifer wrote:I also wonder what impact the people who now have younger kids in the lower grade levels will have if some of them do stick around. I mean, it won't take many to have a critical mass of parents in any particular school. And we all know that parental involvement is what makes or breaks education. So couldn't this become a self-fulfilling prophecy: If we stay and contribute to the school environment for the sake of our own kids, don't the schools improve for all the kids?
This is entirely true. You can also count on all kinds of ancillary things happening, as well:
- Lower Crime
- Higher Real Estate values
The "critical mass" idea does some seriously positive things
I couldn't agree more with the notion that our past blatant and systemic discriminatory laws, institutions, and social structures have had dramatic implications......but.....I try to be careful about putting 1960 s narratives on 21st century culture....are people fleeing a race or a reality...if city schools performed at the same level and with the same access of parkway or pattonville school systems (these systems have not lost their accreditation), would people still 'flee' to these areas and beyond because of skin tones in the city?
IOW, it seems to me that todays young parents and young people are more results driven and less race driven...I mean the above financial calculations seem fairly typical...and anything but racially motivated...
IOW, it seems to me that todays young parents and young people are more results driven and less race driven...I mean the above financial calculations seem fairly typical...and anything but racially motivated...
Word up. Our decision to leave the City was soley based on our financial road map. That might not be the case for others. FWIW, Pattonville and Parkway are fairly diverse from a skin tone perspective, and both are great school districts.RobbyD wrote:IOW, it seems to me that todays young parents and young people are more results driven and less race driven...I mean the above financial calculations seem fairly typical...and anything but racially motivated...
I'm sorry but I just dont buy this argument. People are very much still racially driven to do a lot of things, whether it is said or not. Society is just a lot more politically correct and most dont want to be perceived as being racist.RobbyD wrote:I couldn't agree more with the notion that our past blatant and systemic discriminatory laws, institutions, and social structures have had dramatic implications......but.....I try to be careful about putting 1960 s narratives on 21st century culture....are people fleeing a race or a reality...if city schools performed at the same level and with the same access of parkway or pattonville school systems (these systems have not lost their accreditation), would people still 'flee' to these areas and beyond because of skin tones in the city?
IOW, it seems to me that todays young parents and young people are more results driven and less race driven...I mean the above financial calculations seem fairly typical...and anything but racially motivated...
My issue is the either / or way people talk about race and how much it drives choices...race plays a role...its how we get the Hill or Dogtown or the Ville...but imho its not the ultimate role...that's my objection...I just don't think its accurate to say that most white parents don't want their kids learning and playing with black children...I think most white parents want their kids safe, healthy and in strong learning environments...unfortunately our history has produced many predominately black urban areas that often don't provide what folks, white or black, want...and produced predominately white areas that don't provide what folks want either......what the city is currently facing is black family flight, I think...how does racism explain this trend?
to the original poster—
First, I'll admit to not reading the entire thread in case I'm repeating info.
Two of our three children attend charter schools. Our youngest is at St. Louis Charter School on Flyer and Sublette/Macklind. UMSL is their sponsor. Also, my wife works there as a para-pro. (full disclosure
) She likes the attitude there.
We're really pleased with that school, the teachers have a good work ethic and care for and about the kids.
I suggest visiting.
First, I'll admit to not reading the entire thread in case I'm repeating info.
Two of our three children attend charter schools. Our youngest is at St. Louis Charter School on Flyer and Sublette/Macklind. UMSL is their sponsor. Also, my wife works there as a para-pro. (full disclosure
) She likes the attitude there.We're really pleased with that school, the teachers have a good work ethic and care for and about the kids.
I suggest visiting.
- 2,386
^That should be "Fyler" not "flyer," just so the original poster has the correct info.
Here's the audio of a panel discussion at WashU a few weeks ago. They discuss Turner v Clayton, legislative solutions, and how they might impact schooling in the region.
Public Education at a Crossroads
Panel:
State Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal;
State Sen. Jane Cunningham;
State Rep. Scott Diekhaus, chair, House Committee on Elementary and Secondary Education;
State Rep. Tishaura Jones;
Chris Nicastro, commissioner of education for the State of Missouri; and
Don Senti, executive director, Cooperating School Districts.
Kimberly Jade Norwood, JD, professor of law at WUSTL, will serve as moderator.
http://brownschool.wustl.edu/resources/ ... -2012.aspx
Public Education at a Crossroads
Panel:
State Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal;
State Sen. Jane Cunningham;
State Rep. Scott Diekhaus, chair, House Committee on Elementary and Secondary Education;
State Rep. Tishaura Jones;
Chris Nicastro, commissioner of education for the State of Missouri; and
Don Senti, executive director, Cooperating School Districts.
Kimberly Jade Norwood, JD, professor of law at WUSTL, will serve as moderator.
http://brownschool.wustl.edu/resources/ ... -2012.aspx
I wonder if the Mid-County area of town is going to gain a lot of population (i.e. Maplewood, Richmond Heights, Brentwood, and even Webster) since it provides people with a close-to-the-city location and good schools. We currently live in Maplewood-Richmond Heights and I've heard a lot of great things about the school here. We are currently selling our house (because we want a different house) and will be looking at Webster Groves, Maplewood/Richmond Heights and the DeMun/Moorlands areas of Clayton for our next house. I've researched all three of these districts a lot and I see a lot of pros and cons to each of them. It just strikes me that the mid-county areas may stand to be the big winner in the anti-suburbia plus concern about city schools discourse.