I think he means that white families in the City can't send their kids to County public schools (only black families can, based on the desegregation settlement), which is a true statement. Your statement is also correct that white families in the County can send their kids to SLPS magnet schools.Ebsy wrote:It would be crazy if that were actually a true statement.danryan1 wrote:How crazy is it that black families can stay in the city and freely send their kids to county schools but white families don't have the same option?
About 600 or so white students from the county attend the magnet schools. There are supposed to be about 2000 more, but no one else from the county has signed up.
- 516
Sorry, I guess I could not understand why someone would think it was crazy why a program that was designed, for better or worse, to racially desegregate the City's public schools, to not further segregate the schools by shipping the few remaining white children out.south compton wrote:
I think he means that white families in the City can't send their kids to County public schools (only black families can, based on the desegregation settlement), which is a true statement. Your statement is also correct that white families in the County can send their kids to SLPS magnet schools.
- 8,910
I can see how it would benefit the lower income student but how does it benefit the higher income student? With home prices so closely tied to school district boundaries I would think combining districts would be a hard sell for many.roger wyoming II wrote:^ It is well documented that allowing lower income children to be educated alongside higher income children results in better outcomes. It needs to be a fundamental part of the discussion for moving the region forward. And it wouldn't complicate other mergers... municipalities already are voting on such matters and will continue to do so.
I would argue that the unjust society, in which a student's prospects are largely defined by their zip code, negatively impacts nearly every facet of life in St. Louis: the economy, race relations, social mobility etc. Also, middle class whites have not exactly fared well in post industrial and segregated St. Louis, albeit they have done a bit better than their black counterparts. Almost everyone has been screwed, just the people that were discriminated against for several hundred years have been screwed worse.moorlander wrote: I can see how it would benefit the lower income student but how does it benefit the higher income student? With home prices so closely tied to school district boundaries I would think combining districts would be a hard sell for many.
- 8,910
Capitalism isn't always fair but do you have a better solution?
Public education was not conceived to create winners and losers. It was created to educate children and young adults so they could become responsible participants in our democracy. Obviously, it is failing miserably in that regard.moorlander wrote:Capitalism isn't always fair but do you have a better solution?
As for an idea, we could try adequately funding all of the public schools. You can't tell me that Ladue students need $22,000 a year per student in spending on a mostly middle to upper-middle class school district while the Jennings Public Schools can survive with only $16,000 a year per student for an almost exclusively poor, black student body. That money includes the reduced lunch program, security, and building maintenance, which eat up larger portions of Jennings' budget then Ladue's. It's so ridiculously unequal that it is preposterous to expect the Jennings school district to provide a good education to their students when they are realistically receiving half the funding per student that Ladue is. There is hardly enough money to pay the lesser quality teachers, and little left over for much needed arts programs. And before you tell me they don't need need those programs, then why do the good people of Ladue willingly tax themselves so that they can provide them for their children?
It's wrong to provide a higher quality of public service to one group of people over another simply because they have higher property values. Just because our society lacks the will to invest in educating poor children does not mean we aren't obligated to, or that we should give up because the people who have orchestrated this disaster want us to.
- 1,868
I don't think spending on education makes much difference beyond a certain point, although obviously people believe that it does. I think the notion of a benefit to low-performers mixing with higher performers and benefiting from positive social pressure is more interesting. But ultimately, the kids still spend most of their time at home. Not to mention, even if every kid in the city got a PhD, it wouldn't mean they all got appropriate jobs.
If it didn't matter then Ladue would spend less. If I was old enough to gamble, I would bet that if you went to the superintendent of the Ladue school district and proposed cutting their budget to $16,000 per student a year, he/she would become incredulous and ask you how he/she could possible be expected to deliver the same quality of education.MarkHaversham wrote:I don't think spending on education makes much difference beyond a certain point, although obviously people believe that it does. I think the notion of a benefit to low-performers mixing with higher performers and benefiting from positive social pressure is more interesting. But ultimately, the kids still spend most of their time at home. Not to mention, even if every kid in the city got a PhD, it wouldn't mean they all got appropriate jobs.
Also, the last point is a false dilemma.
- 1,868
I don't think that Ladue's superintendent is especially less prone to superstition and lazy thinking than the average person.Ebsy wrote:If it didn't matter then Ladue would spend less. If I was old enough to gamble, I would bet that if you went to the superintendent of the Ladue school district and proposed cutting their budget to $16,000 per student a year, he/she would become incredulous and ask you how he/she could possible be expected to deliver the same quality of education.MarkHaversham wrote:I don't think spending on education makes much difference beyond a certain point, although obviously people believe that it does. I think the notion of a benefit to low-performers mixing with higher performers and benefiting from positive social pressure is more interesting. But ultimately, the kids still spend most of their time at home. Not to mention, even if every kid in the city got a PhD, it wouldn't mean they all got appropriate jobs.
Also, the last point is a false dilemma.
Overeducation isn't a false dilemma; it's a common talking point in politics that the problems of poverty and the like are due to inappropriate skills or lack of education, when in fact it's due moreso to a lack of jobs. Educational parity isn't a bad thing, all else being equal, but the results are likely to be significantly inferior to more direct economic intervention (i.e. by spending money on housing and food assistance). I think it also has the downside of playing into the framing of racial issues as "black people are poor because they're all dumb criminals" that is the preferred view of people looking for excuses not to do anything about inequality, which overshadows the actual merits of the discussion.
St. Louis, and the black community in particular, does not have an over education problem. It is rather obvious that black individuals are on average less educated than white individuals, and that a white individual with similar education level to a black individual is on average more prosperous and has better job opportunities than said black person. Also, just because something is a common talking point in politics is not a valid logical argument that it is an actual problem.
On your second point, I would very much like to restructure public housing to something more along the lines of the French system and to spend more on programs like SNAP and TANF; however, that is not as politically feasible as expanding education funding. Also, we could have a long discussion about how housing in St. Louis has been repeatedly used to curb the political and economic opportunities of the black community.
Finally, I am not sure that if you are trying to say that I am claiming "black people are poor because they're all dumb criminals," because nowhere did I say that, nor do I believe anything I have said could remotely be construed as having meant that.
On your second point, I would very much like to restructure public housing to something more along the lines of the French system and to spend more on programs like SNAP and TANF; however, that is not as politically feasible as expanding education funding. Also, we could have a long discussion about how housing in St. Louis has been repeatedly used to curb the political and economic opportunities of the black community.
Finally, I am not sure that if you are trying to say that I am claiming "black people are poor because they're all dumb criminals," because nowhere did I say that, nor do I believe anything I have said could remotely be construed as having meant that.
- 1,868
Are black communities less well-educated because they live in poverty-stricken communities, or are their communities plagued with poverty because of a lack of education? I think it's the former.Ebsy wrote:St. Louis, and the black community in particular, does not have an over education problem. It is rather obvious that black individuals are on average less educated than white individuals, and that a white individual with similar education level to a black individual is on average more prosperous and has better job opportunities than said black person. Also, just because something is a common talking point in politics is not a valid logical argument that it is an actual problem.
Well, I agree that a solution that actually functions is probably not politically feasible.Ebsy wrote:On your second point, I would very much like to restructure public housing to something more along the lines of the French system and to spend more on programs like SNAP and TANF; however, that is not as politically feasible as expanding education funding. Also, we could have a long discussion about how housing in St. Louis has been repeatedly used to curb the political and economic opportunities of the black community.
I'm not saying anything of the sort, I'm just pointing out that although the discussion of education inequality has merit, it provides an entry to the talking point that blacks are poor because they're dumb. My worry is that it gives people an out to say "oh, we don't need to fund economic development of poor black areas, because it would be pointless given the dumbness of people who live there." Then they pull out some stats showing that there's little correlation between funding and outcome, and wash their hands of the whole issue of poverty other than maybe funding more cops. It might not be fair to a perfectly valid issue of education discrepancies, but life and politics aren't fair.Ebsy wrote:Finally, I am not sure that if you are trying to say that I am claiming "black people are poor because they're all dumb criminals," because nowhere did I say that, nor do I believe anything I have said could remotely be construed as having meant that.
- 182
I really wish the "boring" aspects of the housing conversation would get more attention.
The first being how property taxes are assessed and this is done throughout the city and county. The city has no ownership of the building on a plot of land only the services provided to it. So it seems to me that it is the services provided through the infrastructure, police, fire, etc that should be the basis for the tax. Improvements to a building, say rehabbing a vacant one shouldn't cost a person more in property taxes. Incentivize building up buildings through the tax code.
The other which is a result of strong neighborhoods is the freedom to not own a car. I love living and working in the city for this reason. I don't have to pay for a car and can walk or ride my bicycle or take Metro. And it ripples on. I have more disposable income. I then choose to spend that money at local businesses that keep their dollars inside the community as the small locally owned shops have a much better value to the tax base than any big box retail store. It creates a virtuous cycle.
One thing that stuck out to me about Ferguson (86% of people drive themselves to work) and it holds true for all parts of St. Louis where income levels aren't high that you have to throw money at a car to get a job in another municipality that may not pay all the well. And THEN you have one of many municipalities that rake in money from traffic fines and tickets. And I'm not even touching the selective enforcement of such laws on the people driving.
We need to pressure our local representatives to tax us fairly in a way that encourages neighborhood growth and to realize that spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to make it easier to leave the city in a car is money that isn't spent making our neighborhoods better places.
The first being how property taxes are assessed and this is done throughout the city and county. The city has no ownership of the building on a plot of land only the services provided to it. So it seems to me that it is the services provided through the infrastructure, police, fire, etc that should be the basis for the tax. Improvements to a building, say rehabbing a vacant one shouldn't cost a person more in property taxes. Incentivize building up buildings through the tax code.
The other which is a result of strong neighborhoods is the freedom to not own a car. I love living and working in the city for this reason. I don't have to pay for a car and can walk or ride my bicycle or take Metro. And it ripples on. I have more disposable income. I then choose to spend that money at local businesses that keep their dollars inside the community as the small locally owned shops have a much better value to the tax base than any big box retail store. It creates a virtuous cycle.
One thing that stuck out to me about Ferguson (86% of people drive themselves to work) and it holds true for all parts of St. Louis where income levels aren't high that you have to throw money at a car to get a job in another municipality that may not pay all the well. And THEN you have one of many municipalities that rake in money from traffic fines and tickets. And I'm not even touching the selective enforcement of such laws on the people driving.
We need to pressure our local representatives to tax us fairly in a way that encourages neighborhood growth and to realize that spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to make it easier to leave the city in a car is money that isn't spent making our neighborhoods better places.
- 8,155
The higher income student gets to live in a region that is able to be more competitive through a more highly educated workforce and less racial tension. There's a greater chance he/she won't ditch this place after graduation. I believe I mentioned earlier that it is possible to achieve greater diversity with the current two dozen or so districts. but it would be more orderly if there were fewer.moorlander wrote:I can see how it would benefit the lower income student but how does it benefit the higher income student? With home prices so closely tied to school district boundaries I would think combining districts would be a hard sell for many.roger wyoming II wrote:^ It is well documented that allowing lower income children to be educated alongside higher income children results in better outcomes. It needs to be a fundamental part of the discussion for moving the region forward. And it wouldn't complicate other mergers... municipalities already are voting on such matters and will continue to do so.
- 1,792
COME ON... we are at a point were simply normalizing the resources available on a per student basis will not fix the problem.
http://www.homesurfer.com/schoolreports ... m?state=MO
Jennings at $9067 per student spends more than Webster Groves at $8986 yet get comparatively different results.
SLPS is ranked #25 in the state at $12,199 per student BTW.
The argument that resources is the real problem is deceptive and disingenuous at best. Its easy to cherry pick Ladue from the top of the list (who are admittedly incredibly wasteful with their resources apparently) but its a distraction from the real underlying problem.
HOMELIFE. Absentee Fathers, Single mothers, Lack of Jobs and Opportunity, Nutrition, Poor Role Models, and a Cultural Rejection of Education as the way to escape poverty are much bigger factors. To pretend like you can solve it by taking rich peoples money and giving it to under performing schools is simply being blind to the reality of the situation.
I've known teachers in SLPS and they are dedicated, hardworking and bright. If you think Ladue is sucking up all the talent i submit to you that most teachers in Ladue schools probably wouldn't last a school year in SLPS. They have a cake job teaching kids that either want to learn, and or are forced to by their respective parents. They rarely get robbed when their back is turned and there vehicles are rarely vandalized. They don't spend a lot of time worrying if their student are holding, or have a weapon. Its an enviroment that is conducive to education.
The reason Ladue is so flush... well because school money is based on property tax, and all the very wealthy people of Ladue tend to pay a lot in property taxes. Many of them don't even send their kids to Ladue and instead choose, Chaminade, MICDS, SLUH... ect. Several others are oldesters, whose kids are well out of school age but still pay.
Why does Ladue spend 22K per student then. Probably because they have 22k to spend. Is it fair... not really. Is it efficient... not at all. If anything La-Dudes should be annoyed that they are overspending per student and everyone is paying too much in property taxes. Afterall are they really that much better than Clayton at 16k per student. Then again if I have a modest home in Ladue school district why wouldn't i vote for a tax increase, when a comparatively small increase for me generates such a large increase for the school.
I am not trying to be miserly and if taking a few thousand from Ladue and spreading it around would fix the problem I'd consider it, but I find no evidence that it would. Of course most of it would have to go to Cooter R4 ($5909 per student) to bring them up to parity. SLPS would have to pay out too...
http://www.homesurfer.com/schoolreports ... m?state=MO
Jennings at $9067 per student spends more than Webster Groves at $8986 yet get comparatively different results.
SLPS is ranked #25 in the state at $12,199 per student BTW.
The argument that resources is the real problem is deceptive and disingenuous at best. Its easy to cherry pick Ladue from the top of the list (who are admittedly incredibly wasteful with their resources apparently) but its a distraction from the real underlying problem.
HOMELIFE. Absentee Fathers, Single mothers, Lack of Jobs and Opportunity, Nutrition, Poor Role Models, and a Cultural Rejection of Education as the way to escape poverty are much bigger factors. To pretend like you can solve it by taking rich peoples money and giving it to under performing schools is simply being blind to the reality of the situation.
I've known teachers in SLPS and they are dedicated, hardworking and bright. If you think Ladue is sucking up all the talent i submit to you that most teachers in Ladue schools probably wouldn't last a school year in SLPS. They have a cake job teaching kids that either want to learn, and or are forced to by their respective parents. They rarely get robbed when their back is turned and there vehicles are rarely vandalized. They don't spend a lot of time worrying if their student are holding, or have a weapon. Its an enviroment that is conducive to education.
The reason Ladue is so flush... well because school money is based on property tax, and all the very wealthy people of Ladue tend to pay a lot in property taxes. Many of them don't even send their kids to Ladue and instead choose, Chaminade, MICDS, SLUH... ect. Several others are oldesters, whose kids are well out of school age but still pay.
Why does Ladue spend 22K per student then. Probably because they have 22k to spend. Is it fair... not really. Is it efficient... not at all. If anything La-Dudes should be annoyed that they are overspending per student and everyone is paying too much in property taxes. Afterall are they really that much better than Clayton at 16k per student. Then again if I have a modest home in Ladue school district why wouldn't i vote for a tax increase, when a comparatively small increase for me generates such a large increase for the school.
I am not trying to be miserly and if taking a few thousand from Ladue and spreading it around would fix the problem I'd consider it, but I find no evidence that it would. Of course most of it would have to go to Cooter R4 ($5909 per student) to bring them up to parity. SLPS would have to pay out too...
I would much rather redistribute the money to other programs that would do more to alleviate urban poverty, but the rural and suburban voters that currently run the state would not have that. Some of the only government they can stand are the public schools, so more school funding is the only realistic way to help. If you doubt me, just look at the Medicaid expansion issue, and how the Republicans in the State Legislature are blocking it just because they don't like Obama and "big government", despite the fact that it would increase the quality of life for many of their constituents.
I still think that the schools should be funded both more robustly and more equally. While I acknowledge that spending more is not going to solve the entire problem, going towards Kansas like spending levels, which is where we are headed, will make things much worse. We already underfund the State's education formula, and as revenue dries up, I would expect deep cuts into education, like our wonderful neighbor Mr. Brownback has carried out.
I still think that the schools should be funded both more robustly and more equally. While I acknowledge that spending more is not going to solve the entire problem, going towards Kansas like spending levels, which is where we are headed, will make things much worse. We already underfund the State's education formula, and as revenue dries up, I would expect deep cuts into education, like our wonderful neighbor Mr. Brownback has carried out.
It's not the spending on the schools that's the problem. It's the middle class migration triggered by location based education options.
If white families who lived in integrated neighborhoods could also take advantage of school busing through the desegregation program, then much of the middle class flight and urban poverty throughout the region would be alleviated.
This would leave us with a much better set of problems than we currently face. Instead of asking how to stem much of the disinvestment in certain communities, we could be having the less difficult conversation of how to promote diversity in schools.
If white families who lived in integrated neighborhoods could also take advantage of school busing through the desegregation program, then much of the middle class flight and urban poverty throughout the region would be alleviated.
This would leave us with a much better set of problems than we currently face. Instead of asking how to stem much of the disinvestment in certain communities, we could be having the less difficult conversation of how to promote diversity in schools.
This one is just devastating. If you're not convinced we need reforms here, nothing will.
Washington Post - How municipalities in St. Louis County, Missouri profit from poverty
Washington Post - How municipalities in St. Louis County, Missouri profit from poverty
While in jail, she missed a job interview. She fell behind in her paralegal studies. When she finally got her day in court, she was told to change out of her jail jumpsuit into the same clothes she had worn for three days straight, and that had been sitting in a bag for the previous two weeks. She was brought into the courtroom to face the judge, handcuffed, in dirty clothes that had been marinated in her own filth. “I was funky, I was sad, and I was mad,” she says. “I smelled bad. I was handcuffed. I missed my kids. I didn’t feel like a person anymore.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- ... m-poverty/If you were tasked with designing a regional system of government guaranteed to produce racial conflict, anger, and resentment, you’d be hard pressed to do better than St. Louis County.
- 8,155
We're going the wrong way! Flordell Hills, population 800, to have its own police force.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crim ... ab904.html
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crim ... ab904.html
- 1,792
^There needs to be a clear way to demonstrate consolidating police departments will provide better policing for lower cost. That there is believable argument to the contrary is frustrating. What makes such an argument plausible.
^ Flordell Hills does not need its own police department. If a city of 20,000 is too inept to run a police department and struggles to find qualified candidates, what makes people think a town of less than 1,000 needs one. Every neighborhood in the city of St. Louis is larger than Flordell Hills, this would be like Baden or Tower Grove having their own department. This is so freaking stupid. We need state intervention to force a merger, because this fragmented ideology is going to kill the region. Everybody wants their little corrupt, inefficient banana stands, no wonder the region is one of the slowest growing in the nation. Who the hell wants to move to Missouri and live in Flordell Hills? Disgraceful!
- 8,155
Lakeshire to pursue annexation prospects
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 5c322.html
Didn't know this place even existed. I think I could live here a lifetime and still not know all the little (useless) towns in the county.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 5c322.html
Didn't know this place even existed. I think I could live here a lifetime and still not know all the little (useless) towns in the county.
[quote="goat314] Every neighborhood in the city of St. Louis is larger than Flordell Hills, this would be like Baden or Tower Grove having their own department. [/quote]
Actually TGS and even Baden are much larger than Flordell Hills.... this would be more like if TGS were its own city (i.e. Jennings) with a few blocks in the middle of it carved out as yet another even smaller city that previously contracted for police with yet another small city carved out of TGS (i.e. Country Club Hills) and now deciding to have its own department.
edit: just did a quick check on numbers
Flordell Hills has about 800 people
Country Club Hills 2,000
Jennings 14,000
TGS 13,000
Baden 7,000
CCH and Flordell Hills joining with Jennings is a natural.
Actually TGS and even Baden are much larger than Flordell Hills.... this would be more like if TGS were its own city (i.e. Jennings) with a few blocks in the middle of it carved out as yet another even smaller city that previously contracted for police with yet another small city carved out of TGS (i.e. Country Club Hills) and now deciding to have its own department.
edit: just did a quick check on numbers
Flordell Hills has about 800 people
Country Club Hills 2,000
Jennings 14,000
TGS 13,000
Baden 7,000
CCH and Flordell Hills joining with Jennings is a natural.
- 1,218
[/quote]roger wyoming II wrote:[quote="goat314] Every neighborhood in the city of St. Louis is larger than Flordell Hills, this would be like Baden or Tower Grove having their own department.
Not exactly true. I can think of a few STL neighborhoods with < 800 residents (Kosciusko, Kings Oak, Cheltenham); but I get your point.
- 8,155
The more I think about it, maybe we should go the opposite direction of Better Together and start More the Merrier.... we could add 70+ more municipalities just by splitting each of the city neighborhoods into newly incorporated towns! We could have Saint Louis County and Saint Louis City County, each with 70 plus municipalities working in their own self-interest!