Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
^...it's pretty clear that St. Louis city could have the absolute best schools in the universe and there would still be plenty of people who go the parochial/private Catholic route. It is a way of life thing. ....
I call that a ruining public schools thing, not a way of life thing. And it is totally unacceptable civic behavior.
In soviet russia yeh...in America...we do as we please, and if that means paying extra dollars to send my kid to the school of my choosing, so be it. And the "government provided" school and deal with it. I'd call this a freedom of choice type of thing, and totally acceptable behavior in a free society.
I call that a ruining public schools thing, not a way of life thing. And it is totally unacceptable civic behavior.
SCHOOL CHOICE IS THE WORST!
Yawn.
Listen, I see your point, and I'm very committed to public schools -- always have been. But people are going to send their child to the place they think they'll get the best education (even if I happen to disagree with them), and while you seem to be fine doing so, I could never blame a parent for making that choice.
I might have misread something, but i thought a previous poster wanted to increase the costs of private education to make it prohibitively expensive with the hopes of increasing public school enrollment. Very dangerous road to go down considering there are some many good public school districts in the area that can be had for little more than city living...Considering that many of the new urban dwellers often move towards the county or seek out alternative education options anyway, makes me think it could be a deal killer for current urban revival.
But if my contention is accurate it would not be an issue. Although I did not advocate big increases to private education, I do think it would be beneficial, if it caused city dwelling parents to turn to public education. The problem is that the same people that advocate for public education are not the same ones that set private education tuition. So really the only entity that can create prohibitive raises in private education doesn't want a bunch of kids switching to public schools. So it's probably a moot point.
Listen, I see your point, and I'm very committed to public schools -- always have been. But people are going to send their child to the place they think they'll get the best education (even if I happen to disagree with them), and while you seem to be fine doing so, I could never blame a parent for making that choice.
I actually completely agree with everything stated here. I strongly advocate for public education. But when I moved here I was not willing to live in the city and subject my children to an environment they were not used to. I lived in a suburb of Phoenix my whole life and went to a school I would compare to something in the Parkway district. My kids experienced something very similar to this point. Without any first-hand knowledge of STL I was not willing to roll the dice that SLPS was "not as bad" as everyone was saying.
But if my contention is accurate it would not be an issue. Although I did not advocate big increases to private education, I do think it would be beneficial, if it caused city dwelling parents to turn to public education. The problem is that the same people that advocate for public education are not the same ones that set private education tuition. So really the only entity that can create prohibitive raises in private education doesn't want a bunch of kids switching to public schools. So it's probably a moot point.
I understand your goal, but your way of achieving it is where I draw contention. If you want to attract good parents to the SLPS then the objective should be to improve the quality of the schools, not simply limit the options available. Encouraging more stable families to use the district is only a small part of the overall obstacle. Getting those families in the schools will undoubtedly improve the schools academic standing, but to what extent? You might see some minor improvements in test scores, the district might even regain accreditation, but will there be an overwhelmingly positive response to the change? My guess is no.
So, lets fix the district. This is going to take lots of $$, and has to be all encompassing. Ensure that the teachers have the best interests of the students in mind, engage the students to find methods that improve the overall schooling experience, not simply test scores. Get the students involved in their school, and attempt to instill some school pride. Improve and modernize the facilities, ensure that a student at this district will receive an excellent technical education as well as a standard curriculum. Enforce a strict dress code, if parents can get their kids blue jeans, they can buy some khaki's, and they'll have more uses than simply "haning out"...Also, enforce a belt policy and a "sag" policy...I recently learned that Flo-Valley has a rule of 5" below the waist...ridiculous, those pants should be AT the waist...that's what the belt is for. Get these kids to understand their options, future goals, aspirations, etc and paths to accomplish these goals. And enforce educational requirements, you don't get to make the poor decision of dropping out at 16 cause you'd rather hang out with your 23 year old friend who's doing nothing to better his own life...you're EXPECTED to show up, you're expected to do homework (in study halls, in class, etc...whatever it takes) and you're expected to graduate! I think all of this would be a good start, and it would help give the school board some "cred" by the parents, which would help further the development of the district.
I understand your goal, but your way of achieving it is where I draw contention. If you want to attract good parents to the SLPS then the objective should be to improve the quality of the schools, not simply limit the options available. Encouraging more stable families to use the district is only a small part of the overall obstacle. Getting those families in the schools will undoubtedly improve the schools academic standing, but to what extent? You might see some minor improvements in test scores, the district might even regain accreditation, but will there be an overwhelmingly positive response to the change? My guess is no.
So, lets fix the district. This is going to take lots of $$, and has to be all encompassing. Ensure that the teachers have the best interests of the students in mind, engage the students to find methods that improve the overall schooling experience, not simply test scores. Get the students involved in their school, and attempt to instill some school pride. Improve and modernize the facilities, ensure that a student at this district will receive an excellent technical education as well as a standard curriculum. Enforce a strict dress code, if parents can get their kids blue jeans, they can buy some khaki's, and they'll have more uses than simply "haning out"...Also, enforce a belt policy and a "sag" policy...I recently learned that Flo-Valley has a rule of 5" below the waist...ridiculous, those pants should be AT the waist...that's what the belt is for. Get these kids to understand their options, future goals, aspirations, etc and paths to accomplish these goals. And enforce educational requirements, you don't get to make the poor decision of dropping out at 16 cause you'd rather hang out with your 23 year old friend who's doing nothing to better his own life...you're EXPECTED to show up, you're expected to do homework (in study halls, in class, etc...whatever it takes) and you're expected to graduate! I think all of this would be a good start, and it would help give the school board some "cred" by the parents, which would help further the development of the district.
We actually have more contention then you realize. You say "fix the schools". I say that the schools don't need fixing. Now this is not to say that all SLPS schools are perfect. But please answer me this question: If the schools are broken and need fixing, then why does SLPS have some outstanding magnet schools? It flies in the face of reason to suggest that a district can run some schools great and other schools poorly. Are all these policies you are advocating taking place at the magnet schools? There are issues in many Parkway schools as well. The difference is that their test scores are high so we don't know about them. When a school loses accreditation, it's based on one thing and one thing only: Test Scores. The schools are not the problem. It's the kids and the parents.
One area that could help is that SLPS should put the best teachers at the worst schools. While this would not "fix" the problem it might do some good in improving the test scores a little. But you'd be amazed how if you put different kids into those schools, all of a sudden you'd be hearing about how much the school has improved.
We actually have more contention then you realize. You say "fix the schools". I say that the schools don't need fixing. Now this is not to say that all SLPS schools are perfect. But please answer me this question: If the schools are broken and need fixing, then why does SLPS have some outstanding magnet schools? It flies in the face of reason to suggest that a district can run some schools great and other schools poorly. Are all these policies you are advocating taking place at the magnet schools? There are issues in many Parkway schools as well. The difference is that their test scores are high so we don't know about them. When a school loses accreditation, it's based on one thing and one thing only: Test Scores. The schools are not the problem. It's the kids and the parents.
One area that could help is that SLPS should put the best teachers at the worst schools. While this would not "fix" the problem it might do some good in improving the test scores a little. But you'd be amazed how if you put different kids into those schools, all of a sudden you'd be hearing about how much the school has improved.
Would you object, however, to putting the worst teachers in Webster Groves, Kirkwood, Clayton, etc, however, on a rotational basis?
Would you object, however, to putting the worst teachers in Webster Groves, Kirkwood, Clayton, etc, however, on a rotational basis?
In principle no I would not. It's not realistic given that these are all different school districts and thus contracts would not allow it. People have this misconception that poor performing schools are filled with a bunch of bad teachers. It's simply not true. The vast majority of teachers are very good teachers. All school districts have on-going training and development sessions that teachers are required to attend. All districts have evaluation tools in place to assist teachers to improve their skills. Most teachers that "just don't have it", leave the profession after a few years.
Now it is possible for the bad teachers to last a little longer in a poor performing school. The reason for this is that the parents don't get involved and demand higher caliber teachers. Trust me, involved parents drive the education bus. Districts and administrators will not stand by when parents have legitimate complaints about poor teaching going on. I know this as both an educator and an involved parent.
In principle no I would not. It's not realistic given that these are all different school districts and thus contracts would not allow it. People have this misconception that poor performing schools are filled with a bunch of bad teachers. It's simply not true. The vast majority of teachers are very good teachers. All school districts have on-going training and development sessions that teachers are required to attend. All districts have evaluation tools in place to assist teachers to improve their skills. Most teachers that "just don't have it", leave the profession after a few years.
Now it is possible for the bad teachers to last a little longer in a poor performing school. The reason for this is that the parents don't get involved and demand higher caliber teachers. Trust me, involved parents drive the education bus. Districts and administrators will not stand by when parents have legitimate complaints about poor teaching going on. I know this as both an educator and an involved parent.
I agree all points you have considered, particularly the bolded. I think a lot of parents that are otherwise idealistic, and are societally driven on one hand, fall victim or prey to another set of standards in which they wish for their own child(ren).
The real problem here, as I see it, are, as you have indicated, uninvolved parents. I think in most instances, the uninvolved were/are, in many instances, not ready to become parents in the first place, due to maturity or economic attainment. And here is where you cross the scope from the matter of education into the greater arena of family planning. As parents or observers, we are attempting to troubleshoot the more micro-level problem of school quality, when, at the root, the greater problem is individuals who otherwise have no earthly business having children, having them nonetheless, in perpetuity.
In other words, the cart being put before the horse. The greater issue is parenting, and unwanted or unintended pregnancy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
