Can we move Mr. Fuller's quote to the 2024 election thread?
- 913
SLPS announced more school closures to be coming in 2026, which I can’t even imagine how many more we could close. Then they say enrollment is down 5000 since 2017 which is just really concerning. Enrollment only at 16,500. That really shocked me. There are counties made up of small towns with that many students in their systems.
It’s hard for me to believe that a city with the economic output of St. Louis can’t fund schools for 16,500 students.
I’m childless but we have to do something about this.
It’s hard for me to believe that a city with the economic output of St. Louis can’t fund schools for 16,500 students.
I’m childless but we have to do something about this.
SLPS has way fewer students/school than other school districts in our region. Closing schools is not a bad thing.
For example, Rockwood school district has 29 schools for nearly 19,000 students (~650 students/school) while SLPS has around 64 I believe which comes out to ~250.
For example, Rockwood school district has 29 schools for nearly 19,000 students (~650 students/school) while SLPS has around 64 I believe which comes out to ~250.
- 9,526
There is bit of a disguise happening with those numbers, there is also 11,900 students in City charter schoolsdelmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑Mar 10, 2025SLPS announced more school closures to be coming in 2026, which I can’t even imagine how many more we could close. Then they say enrollment is down 5000 since 2017 which is just really concerning. Enrollment only at 16,500. That really shocked me. There are counties made up of small towns with that many students in their systems.
It’s hard for me to believe that a city with the economic output of St. Louis can’t fund schools for 16,500 students.
I’m childless but we have to do something about this.
Charter School Data
- 975
True. Although charter school enrollment has been basically flat over the last 5-7 years, so it’s not making up for the decline.dbInSouthCity wrote:There is bit of a disguise happening with those numbers, there is also 11,900 students in City charter schoolsdelmar2debaliviere2downtown wrote: ↑Mar 10, 2025SLPS announced more school closures to be coming in 2026, which I can’t even imagine how many more we could close. Then they say enrollment is down 5000 since 2017 which is just really concerning. Enrollment only at 16,500. That really shocked me. There are counties made up of small towns with that many students in their systems.
It’s hard for me to believe that a city with the economic output of St. Louis can’t fund schools for 16,500 students.
I’m childless but we have to do something about this.
Charter School Data
Auggie and I agree on something...
I don't think there is any magic to having a more than half empty school building in a neighborhood. Also compared to Rockwood the SLPS schools are old and very expensive to maintain, and don't provide the modern facilities that suburban school districts offer. I the large number of low enrollment schools also adds to the inefficient bus transportation system. I see City school buses driving around in the morning with typically fewer than 10 kids on a huge bus.
I don't think there is any magic to having a more than half empty school building in a neighborhood. Also compared to Rockwood the SLPS schools are old and very expensive to maintain, and don't provide the modern facilities that suburban school districts offer. I the large number of low enrollment schools also adds to the inefficient bus transportation system. I see City school buses driving around in the morning with typically fewer than 10 kids on a huge bus.
All of this and more.TalkinDev wrote: ↑Mar 10, 2025Auggie and I agree on something...
I don't think there is any magic to having a more than half empty school building in a neighborhood. Also compared to Rockwood the SLPS schools are old and very expensive to maintain, and don't provide the modern facilities that suburban school districts offer. I the large number of low enrollment schools also adds to the inefficient bus transportation system. I see City school buses driving around in the morning with typically fewer than 10 kids on a huge bus.
By closing schools, you have fewer to upkeep, you can sell them to get immediate cash to invest into the remaining schools, you save money on transportation by making it more efficient, fewer teachers are needed, fewer security and janitors are needed, etc.
My only hope would be that SLPS would have a thought out long term plan to implement a downsizing of their square footage instead of just slowly closing schools are they empty out. Doesn't seem like there's any plan in place right now.
There was a video that got a lot of popularity a couple years ago about Carmel High School in Carmel, Indiana (sorta like St. Charles). It showed how great the school and and how many amenities it had and such. Got a ton of puchback from people who said it was racism because it's a better funded school district. But in reality, neighboring Indianapolis (IPS) had more spending/student than Carmel and 11 high schools for only slightly more high school students. Carmel only has the one high school.
So even without a plan, I think closing schools is a step in the right direction. Only real hiccup is selling them and getting them redeveloped which seems to happen slower than we'd want.
- 2,052
That is an interesting concept... if you had to start over from scratch, what would you do? 
I would build large, 700-1,000 student schools along major arterials, they would be top notch with all the modern amenities you'd want. I'd want 20-25 schools in total (elementary, middle, and high).pattimagee wrote: ↑Mar 11, 2025That is an interesting concept... if you had to start over from scratch, what would you do?
Hip hip…
St. Louis Public Schools president loses reelection bid to three newcomers
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 15905.html
St. Louis Public Schools president loses reelection bid to three newcomers
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 15905.html
- 6,117
^Best luck to Marston, Collins-Adams, and Foster. The three of them have some pretty different stories, but they sound like level headed folks with an interesting mix of fresh ideas and perspectives.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/edu ... -top-story
Proposal calls for 37 SLPS schools to be closed, only 31 kept open.
It's unfortunate, but this does need to happen. The city should work with SLPS to sell the closed buildings and attempt to turn them into 1) Affordable housing and 2) Neighborhood community centers.
Proposal calls for 37 SLPS schools to be closed, only 31 kept open.
It's unfortunate, but this does need to happen. The city should work with SLPS to sell the closed buildings and attempt to turn them into 1) Affordable housing and 2) Neighborhood community centers.
Can't read it because of the paywall, but I would dispute that closing 50+% of SLPS schools "needs to happen." The thing is, public schools are important institutions which help with neighborhoods' stability. Not sure how we can expect the city to ever grow again if the amenity of a neighborhood school is continually pulled back.
It shouldn’t just be closure of schools, it should be a capital improvement in the schools that remain and a reassessment of property taxes. The below experts paint a very grim picture that SLPS is hurting the City, not helping. SLPS needs to do whatever it needs to shake the image of consistent incompetence. Throwing more property tax (stifling development and affordability) at a sinking ship is not the answer.
“Last year, there were 18,122 students scattered across more than 60 schools in SLPS, which has one of the lowest average building capacity rates in the country.”
“With too few students in too many buildings, educators struggle to find enough certified teachers, counselors, social workers, bus drivers and coaches. Students miss out on foreign language instruction, advanced courses, sports and extracurricular activities. Many city schools lack the volunteers to form a parent-teacher organization.”
“The city’s population could drop below 266,000 over the next 10 years, pulling SLPS enrollment even lower, according to the report from architectural firm Cordogan, Clark and Associates. The firm’s analysis estimates SLPS enrollment will fall to 12,700 by 2035, a stunning collapse for a district that enrolled as many as 115,000 baby boomers in the 1960s.”
“SLPS is projected to lose between 800 and 2,000 students just this summer, mostly because of displacement from the May 16 tornado.”
“Last year, there were 18,122 students scattered across more than 60 schools in SLPS, which has one of the lowest average building capacity rates in the country.”
“With too few students in too many buildings, educators struggle to find enough certified teachers, counselors, social workers, bus drivers and coaches. Students miss out on foreign language instruction, advanced courses, sports and extracurricular activities. Many city schools lack the volunteers to form a parent-teacher organization.”
“The city’s population could drop below 266,000 over the next 10 years, pulling SLPS enrollment even lower, according to the report from architectural firm Cordogan, Clark and Associates. The firm’s analysis estimates SLPS enrollment will fall to 12,700 by 2035, a stunning collapse for a district that enrolled as many as 115,000 baby boomers in the 1960s.”
“SLPS is projected to lose between 800 and 2,000 students just this summer, mostly because of displacement from the May 16 tornado.”
It needs to happen because SLPS has one of the lowest occupancy rates in the nation, it's incredibly inefficient to be maintaining nearly 70 school buildings when they average ~260 students, and more schools means greater inequality in amenities for students.PeterXCV wrote: ↑Jul 21, 2025Can't read it because of the paywall, but I would dispute that closing 50+% of SLPS schools "needs to happen." The thing is, public schools are important institutions which help with neighborhoods' stability. Not sure how we can expect the city to ever grow again if the amenity of a neighborhood school is continually pulled back.
SLPS spends so much money on students but a lot of it goes into maintaining buildings that are underutilized.
And like I said, the city should work with them to sell and redevelop these buildings instead of letting then sit on the market or sell and then sit.
In theory, by not spending part of the yearly budget on maintaining dozens of underused buildings, they would be able to improve the remaining, more occupied buildings to a greater degree.addxb2 wrote: ↑Jul 21, 2025It shouldn’t just be closure of schools, it should be a capital improvement in the schools that remain and a reassessment of property taxes. The below experts paint a very grim picture that SLPS is hurting the City, not helping. SLPS needs to do whatever it needs to shake the image of consistent incompetence. Throwing more property tax (stifling development and affordability) at a sinking ship is not the answer.
“Last year, there were 18,122 students scattered across more than 60 schools in SLPS, which has one of the lowest average building capacity rates in the country.”
“With too few students in too many buildings, educators struggle to find enough certified teachers, counselors, social workers, bus drivers and coaches. Students miss out on foreign language instruction, advanced courses, sports and extracurricular activities. Many city schools lack the volunteers to form a parent-teacher organization.”
“The city’s population could drop below 266,000 over the next 10 years, pulling SLPS enrollment even lower, according to the report from architectural firm Cordogan, Clark and Associates. The firm’s analysis estimates SLPS enrollment will fall to 12,700 by 2035, a stunning collapse for a district that enrolled as many as 115,000 baby boomers in the 1960s.”
“SLPS is projected to lose between 800 and 2,000 students just this summer, mostly because of displacement from the May 16 tornado.”
I also always feel the need to mention that SLPS itself does a fine job. Anyone on here would do fine at an SLPS school. The reality is that 80% of their students are impoverished and 20% are homeless. They are saddled with the most difficult of students to try and teach while private schools take most of the high income students.
Another fact is that SLPS essentially operates its own Special School District and does not contract with the St. Louis County Special School District. While all of the county school districts send most of their special needs students to SSD with dedicated staff, services and facilities, SLPS is duplicating those services within their existing buildings, teaching and administrative structures. SSD has had its own problems lately, but nevertheless it is a heavy burden that districts like Parkway and Rockwood don't have to shoulder on their own despite larger overall enrollments and resources, and likely a lesser demand for special needs students.
Why are charter schools not part of the discussion? Seems like the soft siphon of students out of the traditional City public schools does not help anything.
The charters have powerful defenders in Jefferson City,bwcrow1s wrote: ↑Jul 22, 2025Why are charter schools not part of the discussion? Seems like the soft siphon of students out of the traditional City public schools does not help anything.
- 975
They are using a forecast of a 7% overall population drop in the city and a 30% decline in student enrollment over the next decade to justify this plan. So depressing.
Yet another instance of small government, no doubt.
I don't get why it should concern them other than complete gutting of quality, accessible public education. You would think they'd want to keep well educated people in the state's top GDP region to drive innovation.
Unfortunately, there is no solution on the horizon. SLPS does bad because it gets saddled with all of the tough cases, extremely poor and troubled children. Similar to police, the schools cannot fix these issues on their own. But in Missouri and certainly Trump's America, we implement policies that will make these issues worse.
Add on the racial undertones and persistent segregation, and everything just gets worse.
This plan will save $42 million per year, that's $42 million that could go into attracting new teachers and retaining current ones, it could go into school food programs, and improving existing amenities.
It's just so annoying how none of the charter or private schools, those who filter out the kids who are not poor and troubled, never get talked about. People only talk about SLPS, as if their child is also poor and troubled and wouldn't be at one of the top rated magnet schools.
Add on the racial undertones and persistent segregation, and everything just gets worse.
This plan will save $42 million per year, that's $42 million that could go into attracting new teachers and retaining current ones, it could go into school food programs, and improving existing amenities.
It's just so annoying how none of the charter or private schools, those who filter out the kids who are not poor and troubled, never get talked about. People only talk about SLPS, as if their child is also poor and troubled and wouldn't be at one of the top rated magnet schools.
- 488
I just want to vehemently disagree with the idea that everything is Trump or Missouri's fault. I'm pretty liberal but its just not true anymore that "red" states are bad at education. Mississippi has been doing incredible work in reading comprehension for more than a decade now. We'd be so lucky if our school district/school board cared enough to be anything like Mississippi in terms of education.Auggie wrote: ↑Jul 23, 2025Unfortunately, there is no solution on the horizon. SLPS does bad because it gets saddled with all of the tough cases, extremely poor and troubled children. Similar to police, the schools cannot fix these issues on their own. But in Missouri and certainly Trump's America, we implement policies that will make these issues worse.
Add on the racial undertones and persistent segregation, and everything just gets worse.
This plan will save $42 million per year, that's $42 million that could go into attracting new teachers and retaining current ones, it could go into school food programs, and improving existing amenities.
It's just so annoying how none of the charter or private schools, those who filter out the kids who are not poor and troubled, never get talked about. People only talk about SLPS, as if their child is also poor and troubled and wouldn't be at one of the top rated magnet schools.
SLPS has some positives that don't get talked about enough, and they do have to deal with really tough situations, but the excuse making is such a turnoff. The board has been terrible since they took back control from the state - that's their fault, they are to blame and they should take responsibility. And its hurting kids who really need help. The board, the leadership they should all be embarrassed. Saying its someone else's fault it such a lame cop-out.
It's not an "excuse" and it has nothing to do with the education policies of red states or blue states. It has to do with the fact that 80% of SLPS students are impoverished and 20% are homeless. SLPS is given the toughest kids to try and educate and it simply does not work when they don't have a stable out-of-school life. What is Missouri and Trump's fault is that they do not promote policies to reduce the affects of poverty or find ways to break the cycle of poverty and rather double down on the system of segregation that our school systems currently are. Where liberals go wrong is trying to fix the problem at the top- at university level. They create policies like affirmative action or an abundance of student loans to help dumber people go places they aren't smart enough for because of root issues.mjbais1489 wrote: ↑Jul 23, 2025I just want to vehemently disagree with the idea that everything is Trump or Missouri's fault. I'm pretty liberal but its just not true anymore that "red" states are bad at education. Mississippi has been doing incredible work in reading comprehension for more than a decade now. We'd be so lucky if our school district/school board cared enough to be anything like Mississippi in terms of education.Auggie wrote: ↑Jul 23, 2025Unfortunately, there is no solution on the horizon. SLPS does bad because it gets saddled with all of the tough cases, extremely poor and troubled children. Similar to police, the schools cannot fix these issues on their own. But in Missouri and certainly Trump's America, we implement policies that will make these issues worse.
Add on the racial undertones and persistent segregation, and everything just gets worse.
This plan will save $42 million per year, that's $42 million that could go into attracting new teachers and retaining current ones, it could go into school food programs, and improving existing amenities.
It's just so annoying how none of the charter or private schools, those who filter out the kids who are not poor and troubled, never get talked about. People only talk about SLPS, as if their child is also poor and troubled and wouldn't be at one of the top rated magnet schools.
SLPS has some positives that don't get talked about enough, and they do have to deal with really tough situations, but the excuse making is such a turnoff. The board has been terrible since they took back control from the state - that's their fault, they are to blame and they should take responsibility. And its hurting kids who really need help. The board, the leadership they should all be embarrassed. Saying its someone else's fault it such a lame cop-out.
Anyone on this forum could go through SLPS and get a perfectly fine education because the education is not the problem, funding is also not the problem. The fact that they have a filtered student body where they receive nearly all the impoverished and homeless students is the problem. And they can't fix that, the city can't fix that.