St. Louis Public Schools

newstl2020 · PostMay 24, 2012#762012-05-24T15:27+00:00

Newsweek just released their ranking of the "top 20 public high schools in the midwest."

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... dwest.html

Metro Academic and Classical High School (of the SLPS system) ranked #12 and Clayton ranked #13.

pat · PostMay 24, 2012#772012-05-24T15:37+00:00

What if you could set up a school system with a type of partnership between the city and the community?

So say the city sets a baseline of how much it gives to each to school. This would cover the minimal/basic cost for education. Covers teacher salaries, books, whatever the school is legally required to pay for. Then its up to those schools and the families that attend there to add tuition on top of that for the amenities, better teachers, better curriculum, extracurricular activities, and so on that they want.

Or if its in a poorer community, they go out and get charity donations, do fund raisers and the like. I guess similar to charter schools.

So people kind of take ownership of where their kids attend.

I honestly have no clue how the system currently works, and I'm a ways off from having children myself to worry about. And having gone to private school, I'm pretty ignorant to the current SLPS system. There may already be something like this.

Anybody think this is a terrible idea? I think it could help get more quality education.

onecity · PostMay 24, 2012#782012-05-24T15:45+00:00

I understand there are public options, but those options are not appealing because they involve lotteries, waiting lists, applications, may be in other parts of the city from where I might live and be a PITA to get to, etc. It is difficult to plan for the future, invest in your home, etc, when you don't know which school your child will go to or in what part of the city, or IF they will be accepted. It is unreasonable to expect parents to deal with that kind of BS for the kind of free basic education that is a public right. My expectation is quality neighborhood based public schools, period. If I live in a good neighborhood, the schools should be good. As to how nonuser taxpayers are just as at fault for ruining the schools, it's pretty straightforward - if you don't have/had/won't have skin in the game so to speak - no kids attending/attended/will attend the public schools, you aren't going to PTO meetings, you aren't engaged with and invested in what is happening in the schools, all your tax money does is perpetuate a dysfunctional status quo.

newstl2020 · PostMay 24, 2012#792012-05-24T15:47+00:00

^^It's not a terrible idea at all, but runs pretty counter to the definition and idea of a public school, at least in my mind.

"As to how nonuser taxpayers are just as at fault for ruining the schools, it's pretty straightforward - if you don't have/had/won't have skin in the game so to speak - no kids attending/attended/will attend the public schools, you aren't going to PTO meetings, you aren't engaged with and invested in what is happening in the schools, all your tax money does is perpetuate a dysfunctional status quo."

I think you need to clarify that you are speaking about tax-payers who have kids but are choosing not to utilize (or are flat out avoiding) the public school system.

I am assuming that you do not expect a city resident with no children to attend PTO meetings. (Regarding Erina's post on the last page.)

Alex Ihnen · PostMay 24, 2012#802012-05-24T15:50+00:00

erina wrote:
onecity wrote: Uninvested taxpayers (e.g. not using the schools) are just as much at fault for ruining the school system as trashy "parents."
What? I'm a city homeowner and childfree by choice. Therefore, I'm paying taxes and not using the schools. Please explain to me how I'm ruining the public school system. I'm terribly curious.

The point wasn't/isn't that you're ruining the schools, it's that the savior of the schools isn't taxpayers, but involved parents. You're not an involved parent.

erina · PostMay 24, 2012#812012-05-24T15:52+00:00

onecity wrote: As to how nonuser taxpayers are just as at fault for ruining the schools, it's pretty straightforward - if you don't have/had/won't have skin in the game so to speak - no kids attending/attended/will attend the public schools, you aren't going to PTO meetings, you aren't engaged with and invested in what is happening in the schools, all your tax money does is perpetuate a dysfunctional status quo.

It's not like I can reasonably opt out of paying property tax or somehow designate that it gets spent on something other than public schools.

pat · PostMay 24, 2012#822012-05-24T16:01+00:00

the kind of free basic education that is a public right.

Is education a public right? I don't really think it is. But that's not the point of this discussion. So moving on...

The public schools in the county are better because they are in communities of higher income. They get more revenue from their tax base. They can pay better teachers and afford all the other things that go along with good education. They also don't have their tax revenues stuck in pensions (at least not to the extent of cops and firemen in the city).

The city doesn't have that luxury. I don't know for sure, but I would think that the city has a lower average salary. They get less from their tax base. So starting with a base amount of money for city citizens reflects that lower income level. If those with higher income in the city want to supplement their child's education, they can pay more. And whatever that

more

is, may be the equivalent of what they would pay in the county for public schools. Don't know for sure, but I think it could work

Alex Ihnen · PostMay 24, 2012#832012-05-24T16:02+00:00

^ The per student expenditures of "better" schools in the County and City of St. Louis schools isn't dramatically different. In fact, it's higher in the City than in many school districts that are considered to be much better.

onecity · PostMay 24, 2012#842012-05-24T16:04+00:00

I was primarily referring to people with kids, BTW, erina. That didn't communicate.

But as to the role of folks like yourself, I think there is not a single issue with greater impact on the future viability of the city than the state of public education. It is intrinsically tied to the crime rate, level of funding for infrastructure through tax base, ability of the city to attract skilled professionals and their families, attractiveness of the city as a place for 21st and 22nd century businesses to invest in and potentially relocate to, and a whole slate of other things. Every person in the city should be involved in this one, even if they don't have kids, because it's impact on the city and the region as a whole would be so profound.

erina · PostMay 24, 2012#852012-05-24T16:07+00:00

pat wrote: Or if its in a poorer community, they go out and get charity donations, do fund raisers and the like. I guess similar to charter schools.
Anybody think this is a terrible idea? I think it could help get more quality education.

And what happens when they are in a poorer community and

1. Don't have the skillset, time, or resources to get charity donations or do fund raisers
or
2. DGAF about the schools

onecity · PostMay 24, 2012#862012-05-24T16:08+00:00

"The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and be willing to bear the expenses of it. There should not be a district of one mile square, without a school in it, not founded by a charitable individual, but maintained at the public expense of the people themselves."
— John Adams, U.S. President, 1785

Alex Ihnen · PostMay 24, 2012#872012-05-24T16:14+00:00

^ That guy was crazy!

newstl2020 · PostMay 24, 2012#882012-05-24T16:15+00:00

onecity wrote:I was primarily referring to people with kids, BTW, erina. That didn't communicate.

But as to the role of folks like yourself, I think there is not a single issue with greater impact on the future viability of the city than the state of public education. It is intrinsically tied to the crime rate, level of funding for infrastructure through tax base, ability of the city to attract skilled professionals and their families, attractiveness of the city as a place for 21st and 22nd century businesses to invest in and potentially relocate to, and a whole slate of other things. Every person in the city should be involved in this one, even if they don't have kids, because it's impact on the city and the region as a whole would be so profound.

Very good points.

Nice JA quote as well BTW.

onecity · PostMay 24, 2012#892012-05-24T16:16+00:00

JA was a total Bolshevik nutcase!

Thanks!

pat · PostMay 24, 2012#902012-05-24T17:16+00:00

erina wrote:

And what happens when they are in a poorer community and

1. Don't have the skillset, time, or resources to get charity donations or do fund raisers
or
2. DGAF about the schools

Then tough s**t.

You get basic education (which if done right, should be enough).

Alex Ihnen · PostMay 24, 2012#912012-05-24T17:18+00:00

Wow, there you go.

onecity · PostMay 24, 2012#922012-05-24T17:49+00:00

erina wrote:

And what happens when they are in a poorer community and

1. Don't have the skillset, time, or resources to get charity donations or do fund raisers
or
2. DGAF about the schools

Then tough s**t.

You get basic education (which if done right, should be enough).

I think history has shown that obsolete way of thinking about the issue to be equivalent to the city opening the STL Violent Offenders Academy, with special degree programs in murder, drug dealing, and aggravated assault, and a minor in arson. That's how you build a city!

In all seriousness, though, the answer to these problems is stuff like KIPP. Make every effort to minimize these kids' exposure to the crap communities and families many of them come from and give them a fighting chance to do something awesome with their lives. It's got to be cheaper than the future court, police, government assistance, and incarceration expenses associated with the present approach, and will make many parts of the city immensely more hospitable to investment long term.

pat · PostMay 24, 2012#932012-05-24T18:13+00:00

Wow, there you go.

I thought that might get a reaction.

My point really is that government can only provide so much. At some point the government has to draw a line and say that's all we can do. They have only a limited pool of resources, and those have to be distributed elsewhere.

A major part of education is parenting, and the government (or city in this case) can't play that role.

onecity · PostMay 24, 2012#942012-05-24T18:22+00:00

Yeah, maybe so, but you can either say "well, that's just the way it is and we can't spend the money, and besides, it isn't government's role." Or you can say "The current situation is unacceptable, and it ends now, today, this minute, and screw political philosophies about what is or isn't government's role - we will make solving this problem our number one priority because it is so fundamental to the long term viability/livability of the region." That's my challenge to the folks living in the city limits. And as a non city dweller I could get behind that kind of thinking with both tax money and personal involvement. Any other way of thinking is self-fulfilling defeatism. Pony up and make things happen.

debaliviere · PostMay 24, 2012#952012-05-24T18:24+00:00

Alex Ihnen wrote:"the fact that so many St. Louisans wouldn't use the public schools even if they were the best in the world"

That's not a fact.

Not a fact, but you might be surprised at just how prevalent private schools are in the STL area. I live in one of the top school districts in the area, and the majority of my neighbors send their kids to the nearby Catholic school. I'd say the overwhelming majority of the people I went to grade school, high school and college with live in top performing school districts yet still send their kids to private schools.

roger wyoming II · PostMay 24, 2012#962012-05-24T18:47+00:00

pat wrote:
Wow, there you go.
My point really is that government can only provide so much. At some point the government has to draw a line and say that's all we can do. They have only a limited pool of resources, and those have to be distributed elsewhere.

How do you think the Saint Louis region got into the sh*tty state it is in in the first place? A major reason is that we drew a line and distribute resources elsewhere. Just one small example, how much has stupid TIF cost public schools in the region? Until we get behind every child counts in a systematic and comprehensive way, STL will always be a laggard.

PostMay 24, 2012#972012-05-24T18:53+00:00

As a parent of a lil one in SLPS, I personally believe that there are a number of quality options for educating children in the City and that too many parents simply don't look at the (growing) options or use it as an excuse to move out to the burbs.

Any parent who wants to discuss a bit more, feel free to pm me.

onecity · PostMay 24, 2012#982012-05-24T19:02+00:00

As a parent of a lil one in SLPS, I personally believe that there are a number of quality options for educating children in the City and that too many parents simply don't look at the (growing) options or use it as an excuse to move out to the burbs.

Any parent who wants to discuss a bit more, feel free to pm me.

Are those options:

1) Public schools
2) Not application-based
3) Not lottery-based
4) Not waiting-listed
5) Comprehensive from K-12
6) Actually diverse, i.e. neither overwhelmingly black, white, poor, or rich?
7) Neighborhood-based, i.e. not trucking across town

Discuss!

roger wyoming II · PostMay 24, 2012#992012-05-24T19:17+00:00

^ Public schools are an option but not the only one. An interesting thing that is developing with some of the better charters is a move to a neighborhood-based nature (e.g. the Citygarden Monetessori (which will have a fantastic new home in the fall on Tower Grove); as for applications, I don't think it is too difficult to get into a good SLPS magnet or charter w/in a reasonable distance of one's home. As for true diversity, I think you have a cute outlook on that, as this ideal certainly isn't being reached in America.

Again, while providing quality education for all children in the city is a goal that we are far from attaining, with a bit of research, etc. parents likely will be able to find a good school fit for their children.

pat · PostMay 24, 2012#1002012-05-24T19:22+00:00

roger wyoming II

How do you think the Saint Louis region got into the sh*tty state it is in in the first place? A major reason is that we drew a line and distribute resources elsewhere. Just one small example, how much has stupid TIF cost public schools in the region? Until we get behind every child counts in a systematic and comprehensive way, STL will always be a laggard.

So raise the "line". Take money from other places in the city budget and use it to make city education better.

I'm not saying the minimum given to schools has to be so low that it is a disservice to children.

We should figure out the minimum amount of education/schooling that gives the greatest benefit to children and gives the necessary skills to succeed. Determine that cost and set that as the baseline for city schools. If families or communities want more out of a public school than that, pay for it. Some could be tuition based. Some could be charity based.

But the problem with all of this is that government doesn't work for profit. They have a set pool of money to work from. And when a lot of that money is already tied up in pensions or other areas, it creates a problem. It limits resources that could benefit schools. The money just isn't there. So you lower the base provided by the city and supplement it from other sources.

Fixing the budget problems and increasing the tax base would alleviate a lot of our current situation.

St. Louis Public Schools

Choose Display Mode