St. Louis City Schools - What Can Be Done? (Maryland Heights: real estate, house)

[Bobster]

I'll be honest, I'm a victim of the St. Louis City Schools. While I actually went to one of the "good" high schools (Southwest class of 79), when I got to Mizzou I realized just how poor an education that I had actually received.

Though I had done extremely well on the SAT's and had gotten a scholarship, when I had to compete against kids who had gone to Rockwood or Ladue schools...even kids who weren't as smart as i was, it was evident that they were better prepared than I was. I'm sure part of this was my fault...I had found out about girls and partying early on in high school.....I also have to lay some of the blame on the school district. No one had told me that I should probably already know a foreign language when I got to college!

Anyway, that was back in the early 80's and from what I can tell, not much has gotten better. If anything, a lot has gotten worse.

Reading here and elsewhere, as well as from my experience of selling real estate, I can tell you that few if any people hold the St. Louis City Schools in high regard. The funny part of it is that you can't even blame it on the amount of money that the school district spends on it's students. From what I understand, St. Louis spends more than most other school districts per student.

I realize that the city has to deal with a lot of issues that many suburban school districts don't have to, such as a high concentration of poverty and a higher level of non-English speaking students, but are these reasons enough to justify the districts poor performance. If it is, what can be done?

How Are The Schools?

That's one of the first questions that I get when I talk to someone looking to relocate from elsewhere to St. Louis. When I tell them that the city doesn't have a very good school district, most families....even those without children...choose to look elsewhere.

In a sense, this reduction in demand for city homes that comes as a result of people desiring a "good" school district serves as a hidden tax on city property owners. If the city had better schools, more people would want to buy in the city which in turn would cause city property values to rise.

So, What Can Be Done?

I"m by no means an expert on educational policy, but it seems to me that SOMETHING should be able to be done? What do you folks think?

[aragx6]

Well if I share my honest opinion I'll be showing myself to be very far left (when in reality I find myself much more centrist than this opinion might lead others to believe) but I think local districts have shown themselves to be incapable of taking care of themselves.

It makes me angry that public schools vary across such short distances as much as they do and i think we've got to do something about it- namely states must take more control over the local districts.

This is not a problem unique to St. Louis and it is hindering urban growth throughout the country- most city schools are failing and failing badly.

[anduarto]

Excellent thread, Bobster! And one that might actually prove constructive.

I agree that the condition of St. Louis City Public Schools is central to STL's larger recovery as a healthy urban area. Not only is it a matter of social justice - city kids deserve access to free, high quality education - it's also key in attracting new residents (particularly young families) back into the city.

Your statistic about spending per student surprises me. Still not sure what to make of that. But I do know money is not always the core issue.

I lived for years in Provincetown MA. A small wealthy town with a tiny student population and tremendous financial resources. I volunteered as a mentor at the local h.s. one year and was pretty appalled by what I saw. Students were treated more like patients to be comforted than scholars to be challenged.

St. Louis of course is a very different climate. But maybe there's a similar "lack of expectation" at work. Not much is expected, so not much is achieved. And it must be demoralizing to be a teacher or a student in a school system that is constantly held up as an example of failed education.

A few years back I saw a news story about a new trend in public education that started in Harlem. As I recall, it was largely one principal's vision. He started a school that offered a high quality education to some of the poorest, most disenfranchised students in New York City. Kids people had pretty much given up on.

Enrollment was voluntary. In exchange for a first-rate education, he demanded an atmosphere of respect and responsiblity from the teachers, the students and their parents. Although a public school, he imposed a uniform. Students and their parents signed a contract that a minimum amount of work be completed each and every day. While discipline wasn't corporeal, the teachers were given the authority they needed to discipline their charges. The students were pushed, they were challenged. But they were also believed in, encouraged, supported.

They had a lot of catching up to do, but in only a couple years, these kids from low-income and outright poor families in rough neighborhoods began to excel. Kids nobody thought had a chance where suddenly getting scholarships into top colleges and universities.

From what I recall, this type of school has been established in various cities around the country always with similar results. I thought of St. Louis immediately.

One of the things on my list when I relocated back to NYC was to research the issue and find out more about this school. (I don't recall the name). Thanks to your thread, maybe I'll actually do that. I'll let you know.

Again, GREAT thread.

[STLCardsBlues1989]

I hear a lot of complaints down here because the state spends more money on students in KC and STL than here.

My school's not dangerous, just really small. We don't have a paper or Honors classes like mythology or anything.

St. Louis city schools I'm sure could use some investment. I think Nelly and Larry Hughes are on to something building their big indoor complex (although it's in Maryland Heights). I think it would help if the kids had something constructive to do all year, even when it's cold. I mean, what constructive things can kids do after school?

[Bobster]

Thanks for the comments....I've heard of a program similar to the one that you mention Andunarto and I agree, it would be nice to see something like that in St. Louis. STL, from what I hear a good portion of that money that they spend on kids here and in KC goes towards transportation expenses....putting city kids in taxis and driving them to the burbs...I have my doubts about that.

My idea would be to start a program where each kid or maybe a small group of kids..no more than say 5 in each group would be assigned to a mentor. Somebody from the community that could serve as an over-seer of that kids education.

If something went wrong with the kid...say their parents were being evicted or something, that person could see what forces they could bring to bear to help the kid keep moving forward with their education.

The program could be funded by tax dollars, corporate giving and community fund raising.

Yeah, it would be expensive, but as I mentioned in my post, the school district being what it is, is a hidden tax on everybody who owns property in the city, as well as those outside the city who are affected by the negative effects of a badly educated populous.

[aragx6]

Great idea Bob!

...Don't even get me starting on the bull that is deseg... It's Friday I'm in too good a mood

[MoNative34]

Originally Posted by anduarto

I agree that the condition of St. Louis City Public Schools is central to STL's larger recovery as a healthy urban area. Not only is it a matter of social justice - city kids deserve access to free, high quality education - it's also key in attracting new residents (particularly young families) back into the city.

Your statistic about spending per student surprises me. Still not sure what to make of that. But I do know money is not always the core issue.

You hit the nail on the head. The kids need quality education. The parents have every right to expect it since their taxes go to the schools.

I've known couples over the years that got married, bought their first home in the city, rehabbed it, had some kids and had to move on when they became school aged. The city attracts younger couples, but can't retain them when they have kids.


I'd say the voters clean house on the school board. That's a start in tossing the status quo.

[STLCardsBlues1989]

Ya. Living in the city with kids is probably only feasible if you afford Private school or manage to get into charter or magnet schools.

[aragx6]

Do you guys know if the magnets and charters are all lottery or if there are some you test into?

[photobuff42]

I think you all have had made some excellent points. The common thread that seems to permeate them all is community involvement. Good schools matter to their neighborhoods and neighborhood involvement sets expectations for student achievement. Perhaps the school district administration should seek more grass roots involvement. As a school administrator, I can generally tell if a school is good or not almost as soon as I walk through the door. If a school is friendly and welcoming to those who walk through its doors it seems that the students are happier and do better than in schools that are closed off and not warm to the public. Somehow that correlates to student achievement.