What state is better to live in? Kansas or Missouri? (Center: credit, job)

[STLCardsBlues1989]

I love Missouri, but I've never been to Kansas. Rode in a car through it. I think I slept the whole time.

I don't guess it really matters, but if the above descriptions are correct, I'd take more urban KCMO than cookie cutter KCK. But like I said, I've never been there.

In MO you would have to pay taxes for things like stadiums and probably more urban public projects, but I'm not sure which state has higher taxes.

And gas in Missouri is 2nd cheapest in the nation, but Kansas is 6th cheapest, not far behind. See map: USA National Gas Temperature Map

[Plains10]

Originally Posted by northbound74

When you're strictly talking about the metro area, I don't think unemployment rates really matter. If you live in one state, it's not that far to commute to the other for work, if you need to do so. Not my cup of tea, but a lot of people commute both ways. The Missouri side may not be a non-stop boom town like JOCO, but there is a very large amount of positive economic activity going on in places like downtown, Lee's Summit, Independence Center, Blue Springs, Liberty, Parkville... in other words, most places outside of east KC. East KC, along with a couple of other places make the Missouri side look worse than it really is, in my opinion.
As far as rural areas go, I'll take Missouri any day. With or without a bad economy.

It seems your are right on this one. The data supports the fact that the population continues to grow in most areas of rural southern MO even with little in the way of economic growth over many years. Missouri is "similar" to southern states in this manner.

[Plains10]

Originally Posted by kcmo

Missouri is growing faster than Kansas both economically and in population.

You are forgetting that Kansas has Johnson County and that is it. The rest of the state is pretty much in a decline or barely hanging on.

Missouri has KC and StL, plus Springfield is booming.

Also, there is much more going on in the Metro MO side than the KS side. It's just that it's spread out a little more while in KS it's all on the newer edges of JoCo. JoCo builds about 25% of the metro homes now which is right about what their metro population is.

KCMO has been building more homes than Olathe and Overland Park combined now for several years in the northland alone.

JoCo has even less than 25% of the commercial construction now. The days of JoCo having 75% or even 50% of the metro's new housing permits and commercial construction are long gone and the Northland, Eastern Jackson, Cass and the urban core are now much more powerful then they were in the 80's and 90's.

Back in 1990 people from all over the metro went to JoCo to shop and dine and live if they wanted an upper bracket home.

Now there is no reason to do that. If you live in Platte County or eastern Jax or a downtown condo, there is no reason for you to travel to JoCo unless you just want a change of scenery.

It sounds like more ugly sprawl to me, but in a different part of the metro area

A cookie cutter development is an ugly looking development no matter what location it is plopped at. It is quite depressing flying into KCI airport and seeing all of the houses just plopped all over the landscape. This low density sprawl is not a wise use of land management in the long-term.

[dpgtfc]

I'd recommend not working in KS and living in MO, paying two state's taxes isn't that fun for me. Some don't care, but I hated it.

[careerbound]

Ok duh Missouri is grown faster than Kansas there are two big cities in MO St. Louis and Kansas City. But right now I don't want to think of the whole state of MO vs. the whole state of KS. I wanna talk bout Kansas City in both states, see I love Kansas City. Now to clarify I am from Kansas City, Ks. But KCK or KCMO I love both, becaue they both represent Kanasas City. Yeah KCK may be alot smaller, but that doesn't mean much. Honestly I started going to the MO side alot when I got in high school. I would go north and go to the movies cause I wanted to go somewhere different. But going to KCMO wasn't a big deal to me cause we got everything we need in KCK. Sure we don't have a downtown, but thats not everything, because as much as I love the KC metro area down town may be coming up, BUT from where I have been and from what I have heard from Kansas Citians and non Kansas Citians Kansas City's down town still ain't crap compared to the rest of the cities the same size. Now don't get me wrong I love to go downtown, but it's not all that at all. Then KCK may not ever get as big as KCMO, but we are on a come up. They are building alot in KCK. Within the next 5 to 10 years it's gone be a different Kansas City, Kansas how they are building, basically they are making it a tourist city. Which will be good for all of Kansas City, because people will come and tour on both side. Also another thing was I never went to MO, because heck I went shopping in KS indepence center is a nioce mall and is big, but it is too far, and even KCMO people say that and that they perfer oak park. The biggest rivaries I have seen were KC/STL and KCK/KCMO and when you make a topic things will get heat lol. I love both sides and call both sides home, because I stay no more than ten mins from downtown on the Kansas side, but soome the KCMO people that get on here really try and put kansas city, ks down and you get tired of seeing that. Now i'm not saying Kansas people don't do it, but mostly when they do it is because kcmo people try and make kck look bad. All in all I love my the city KCK/KCMO 913/816 and if anybody was to move here I would perfer on the KCK side village west or overland park on the KCMO side the northlands, the plaza would be really cool to live by and downtown if you want to live in the downtown life

[anr_black]

Originally Posted by dpgtfc

I'd recommend not working in KS and living in MO, paying two state's taxes isn't that fun for me. Some don't care, but I hated it.

Don't worry about working in one state and living in another. I live in St. Louis and used to work in IL. You just pay your income tax to one state and property tax to another....you don't pay taxes to both. Just go to an accountant, and it's not a big deal at all. Probably 1/2 the workers in downtown STL live across the river.

[geekduo]

How about in terms of cost of living and good schools? Are there major differences?

[northbound74]

Originally Posted by geekduo

How about in terms of cost of living and good schools? Are there major differences?

Generally speaking, Missouri is more affordable.
Both sides have really good schools to choose from, and both sides have districts to avoid. It's one of the more popular topics on the KC forum, so if you search a little, you'll find quite a bit of information.
All in all, there's not any enormous differences, but the "feel" of different areas is easily noticed.

[Lsautism]

By David Hunn

Missouri has demanded too little of its schools and reprimanded their
shortcomings too slowly, according to a new federal report.

A team from the U.S. Department of Education has found dozens of problems with
the state's supervision of its schools, from simple differences in terminology
to major violations of the federal law known as No Child Left Behind.

The U.S. government is now asking Missouri's education department to review the
status of every school and every district in the state that has failed to meet
scoring targets on standardized tests for more than two years in a row — about
200 schools and 167 districts.

"Missouri has a challenge," said Zollie Stevenson, chief of federal Student
Achievement and School Accountability Programs, and leader of the team that
reviewed Missouri. "The state needs to be more proactive — actually going out
and monitoring."

Some think the federal teams are coming down harder on states than they have in
the past. The Missouri report is one of several recent instances where states
have been cited for letting districts slide.

Now Missouri districts face sanctions this school year that they didn't expect.

Some, such as Parkway, Ritenour and Fort Zumwalt, have relatively minor
penalties — creating school improvement plans or offering some students
transfers to higher-performing schools within their districts.

But the schools that fell short most often may be forced to fire teachers and
principals, reopen as charter schools, or even close altogether.

State administrators do not know exactly how many will be affected. They say as
few as 20 could see unexpected penalties, but they're not yet sure which ones.

No Child Left Behind started a clock ticking in 2002, with the alarm set to go
off in 2014 when all schoolchildren are supposed to be proficient in reading
and math. Along the way are annual benchmarks for schools to meet and sanctions
when they don't.

"It appears Missouri reinterpreted the statute to provide for more time for
those decisions to be made," Stevenson said.

The federal team was so concerned that it even reserved the right to fine the
state — as much as $500,000 this year.

State leaders — like many educators across the country — say No Child Left
Behind has been confusing and the guidelines murky.

But they say they've already begun fixing these problems.

WORST-CASE STATE

Every three years, the U.S. Department of Education checks to make sure each
state is monitoring its schools correctly. Not only does this keep schools on
track with the law, but it also allows the government to keep tabs on the $14
billion it gives schools to help low-income students.

Since the law took effect in 2002, U.S. teams have reprimanded nearly every
state, according to past federal reports. In 2005, Illinois was cited for
verifying test results too slowly, and not identifying failing schools until
the middle of the school year — too late for parents to take advantage of
remedies offered under the law. In 2006, Wyoming didn't ensure all failing
schools developed improvement plans; South Carolina incorrectly calculated
district test scores. In 2007, Rhode Island was reprimanded for having
inconsistent standards for children learning to speak English.

But the errors caught in Missouri were more serious, experts say.

"This is really a worst-case state," said Phyllis McClure, a consultant in
Washington who has helped monitor states on points of education law since the
late 1960s.

She was stunned Missouri hadn't been monitoring district progress more closely.
The state had not asked to see district letters that should have been sent to
parents, explaining that their children could be eligible for tutoring or
transfers from failing schools, the report said. Nor had Missouri required
evidence that districts were giving the right amount of federal money to each
school. And while Missouri had monitored schools for test-score progress, it
hadn't held districts accountable for low scores.

And when schools failed tests, Missouri hadn't forced them down the federal
improvement path that begins with tutoring and transfers and leads to
"restructuring," where schools must shut down and start over with new leaders
and staff.

"The whole point of this requirement, these stages of corrective action, was
not to let these schools slide for so long before they got help," McClure said.

"Why have they been letting that go on for five years?" she asked.

A CONFUSING LAW

Becky Kemna, Missouri's new coordinator of school improvement, said No Child
Left Behind greatly increased requirements for schools.

Not only must their entire student bodies now meet yearly testing goals, but
each group of students — black, white, Asian, low-income, special-education and
those learning English as a second language — are held to the same standards.
And those standards increase each year.

It has been difficult, Kemna said, for state employees to interpret all of the
new rules. Federal guidelines initially encouraged interpretation. Now this
report, she said, has shown her the federal government doesn't tolerate as much
flexibility as first thought.

Kemna said the state must send its responses to the U.S. Department of
Education by the middle of this month. State officials fixed many of the
problems cited before the federal team even left, she said, but others will
take more effort.

The state will now ask to see letters before districts send them to parents. It
will compile yearly lists of districts that missed state testing goals and must
be penalized.

School administrators grumble that No Child Left Behind demands the impossible.

A 2007 survey shows state employees across the country say they simply don't
have enough people to monitor every school district.

Schools, however, have no choice but to work toward the goals they're given.

At the Patrick Henry Downtown Academy in St. Louis, a new principal pores over
test results, seeing which individual questions tripped up students in key
subject areas. Just 4 percent of Henry students passed the English test; only 1
percent passed math. The principal hopes to find out why.

In Webster Groves, the school district sent parents a letter last month saying
the district had barely missed the state's annual progress goals, and would
have to develop a plan for improvement. Administrators there have already
broadened expensive, one-on-one math and reading lessons for students who need
to boost test scores.

The Normandy School District had four schools cited this year for low test
scores, adding to two it already had on the list. "I think the state was
catching up," said Sheila Williams, the district's executive director of school
programs.

"All these designations, I don't want to say they don't mean anything to us,
but we're striving to get all these kids proficient, regardless," she said.
— David Hunn
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
2007-09-04
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/education/story/D0A9BA288DDC5FDA8625734C00084D57?OpenDocument

[STLCardsBlues1989]

My Mom's a teacher and she complains about No Child Left Behind all the time.

I've always heard Missouri has some of the highest standards in the nation, as well as very poor funding.