Send them to the Catholic school and tell them to ignore the stupidity, i.e. the Catholic parts.

And don't play glass bottom boat with the priests.

Stix, Mallinkrodt, Shaw, Kennard, McKinley, Metro, St. Margaret of Scotland, Soulard School, Mullanphy, Gateway, City Garden Montessori, South City Prep, Language Immersion...we have friends with lovely, intelligent little ones at each of these. Remember, no school is perfect. If you are not afraid of your child being around children of mixed economic and racial backgrounds, the city has many options. If that is something you simply cannot tolerate, be honest with yourself, and move on or go to a private school that keep those variables out of the equation. I really think you have to try the options before you paint with a broad brush and just say "city schools suck" without zero first hand knowledge. You'd be surprised how many "city lovers" pack it up for the burbs without researching or testing the waters. Best of luck and PM me if you want more info.

^^ Testing the waters doesn't mean throw your child into a school and see what happens. Visit the schools, talk to other parents, talk to Mark, meet his friends.

ricke002 wrote:I have no kids, but do live in the city. I don't feel like any child I may eventually have should be subjected to "testing the waters" with their education. Especially their formative years. Until the majority of opinion is positive about the SLPS, I'm not willing to risk my kid's education on it.

Thanks for your honesty. Many will not just say this and will beat around the bush for hours sidestepping their real opinion. You clearly need popular opinion to be in your favor before you make decisions and that's cool; that's probably a big reason why Lindenwood Park appeals to you. It's a safe, homogenous neighborhood that most in the region would agree is a secure bet for easy, safe and convenient yet still "city living". Where you send your kids is a very personal thing, it's in many ways a direct reflection of your parenting. Active parents don't take this lightly, and this debate becomes a personal one very quickly. I didn't mean that my kids futures are an experiment where I'm using them to see how good/bad a situation is. That's just stupid. What I mean is that once you start talking to your friends and neighbors with kids, you start finding out where they go to school and what options you might have. You visit the school, you interview a couple teachers, you look around at the families and kids that are there. To me the quality of families and kids are far more important than the facilities, books, curriculum, etc. Again, the needs of a kid are very personal and the point I'm trying to make is that for some kids and some parents, there are rational, even excellent (if not superior) options in St. Louis vs. the great almighty suburban school system.

ttricamo, I'm curious about your comfort level with your child playing around those areas. Is it due to crime issues, traffic issues, or something else? I perceive the Hill as a great area for kids, except for the heavy car traffic, but that's something that would exist in the suburbs too. Just curious as we continue our search for neighborhoods in the city.

ttricamo wrote:Does anyone have data to back up the point made that some city options are superior to suburban public schools?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/f ... hools.html Metro usually ranks in the top 100 in the nation. And always the best in Missouri.
Your questions about open play are legit. I think that playtime is much more structured with little ones these days in general; lots of parental oversight and helicoptering. My biggest fear is traffic, not crime or thugs. Kids ride bikes, scooter, boards and play basketball in alleys, they go to the parks, etc. I am terrified of my kids crossing Jefferson or Grand; but I'd probably be as concerned with Chesterfield Parkway or Olive in the swanky parts of the suburbs.

Back to schools, the biggest frustration for me is not having the full programs all rolled into one. If I went to St. Margarets or Parkway, I'd have the sports, band, or other extracurricular stuff all roled into one. I wish my kids had sports teams at their schools so they could play with their friends. Instead we sign them up at St. Margarets (a great and welcoming set of parents/kids) and that works, but it's a lot of extra work and driving for us to get them around to practices and games. We have to sign them up for private music lessons, because the afterschool music programs in our magnet doesn't fit the bill for us. You definitely have to work harder as a parent if you choose the city systems. It's not a one stop shop like my schools growing up in Belleville, ILL or my friends experiences in the wealthy districts.

It remains true that putting your child in a car twice a day for a 20min drive to school puts them in more danger than living in the city. Traffic accidents are the number one cause of death for children age 4-18. Is it possible that your child (or mine) will be hit by a car in the city? Kidnapped? Shot? I guess, but it's much, much more likely that they will be seriously injured or die in a car wreck.

Also, these choices are about balance. If you demand walk-in closets, a two-car garage, 3,000 sq ft. and big yard, well... That's a bit of an exaggeration, but there will be trade-offs. We're spoiled with great homes in the city, but homes can be found in Kirkwood and Webster, etc. for a good price, you might just have to park one of the cars outside.

justme123 wrote:Agreed - IMHO there are some really good choices in the city for grade schools, both secular and religious. I think part of the "goodness" comes from parents who have actively sought out a good school for their kids and are (naturally?) more involved with school activities.

OTOH, I've commented before that the big problem is High School. Not every city kid can go to Metro, and if the Catholic High Schools aren't an option (and even if they are, here comes that 20-minute drive problem again) what are the choices? And beyond that, what are the *affordable* HS choices?

My hope is that the same group of involved parents who currently have grade-school-age kids will "move up" to being involved parents at the high school level.

I think you nailed it here. I haven't yet researched options for HS so I can't speak to it, but I fear the worst re: few options. I hope more and more STL families will take the time to research, visit and talk to others before they leave, but man, it's not hard to blame them, things seem much easier and less work for the parents in other districts.

ttricamo wrote:Alex always brings up the "die in a car wreck" stats, which I agree with. I don't agree, however, these stats are at all applicable to StL City vs. StL County. People in St. Louis City drive as much as people in any of the suburbs.

Couldn't agree more with this. I work and go to church in Creve Coeur. Being one of the few non-Catholics in St Louis (tongue kind of in cheek, but only kind of), we never found a church in the city that suited as when we lived in the city. Eventually we were going to church in Creve Coeur while living in Dogtown. That makes a total of 6 days a week in Creve Coeur. My wife only recently started working in the city, and my son goes to day care in the city. However, he'll be school age soon and will go to public school in Kirkwood. I really did enjoy living in the city, but if I spent a couple of weekends around the house, I may not cross into city limits for weeks at a time. Sure, I do want the city to do great, and there's no doubt that the restaurant options are tons better, and the city has the museums and sports venues, but I just don't have to go to the city often. Unlike an STLToday commenter, I am not wearing this as a badge of honor, its just the truth. When visitors come up, I don't show them around the suburbs - I show them our fair city - downtown, Dogtown, south city, north city, etc.

Regarding the school situation - we had to get out of our house asap in the city due to a rat problem and slumlords who wouldn't keep the house up. I had sent and received several emails from someone with the SLPS talking to them about Magnet options, and had planned on my son attending Wilkinson in Dogtown. We lived close enough to the school that we were pretty sure he would get in...but in a pinch, we had to move, and we wanted to move where we knew we could put my son in school without worries. I didn't have the luxury of spending time figuring out what neighborhood boundaries I had to live in for certain magnet schools, or the luxury of spending time seeking out parents who had kids in those schools. All I knew was we didn't want to end up in a situation where we had to put my son in a questionable school...so we had to make a quick decision, and found a rental in Kirkwood. Kirkwood is super convenient, has a nice, active, and walkable downtown, and has a very low crime rate. I don't regret my decision at all to move to Kirkwood. I completely understand your frustration - and concern - about sending your kid(s) to a good, safe school. If you were to send him or her to a school where they were unsafe, you would feel like a horrible parent and have to try to get out of dodge asap, or find another school and potentially have the same headache. It was a constant struggle with me; "Am I staying in the city for the well being of my family, or because I am selfish and want to live the urban lifestyle?" I'm not saying that anyone who chooses city living is selfish at all, it was just something I personalyl struggled with. Without a doubt the anti-city sentiment that 75% of this region has had an affect on my pscyhe.