ABOVE: St. Louis' Gateway Middle School on north Jefferson
For years it has been suggested that underperforming St. Louis Public Schools must be turned around to stop the loss of population. Do you agree? If so, how?
The counter argument is  fewer and fewer households have kids.  St. Louis should focus on attracting aging Baby Boomers & Busters (Gen X) whose kids are grown and Generation Z who don’t yet have kids. This is the subject of the poll this week (see upper right of blog).
– Steve Patterson
Currently there are "22 comments" on this Article:
I worked for SLPS for 4 years (2 as a teacher and 2 as a social worker). I've always thought that the district would benefit from being broken into 3-4 smaller school districts, doing away with the magnet system, and returning to all neighborhood schools (maybe this is what the charter schools will ultimately create). This will have the unfortunate consequence of a largely segregated system (along both race and class lines), but would at least help to bring students back into the district. Parents in Carondolet, st louis hills, holly hills, etc don't want to send their kids to Roosevelt or to a magnet school where they'll be integrated with kids from north of Delmar (sad but true). Imagine if “carondolet high” was an option or “Central West End Academy” it could be like having a private school without paying for it.
Doing away with the magnet system is the worst idea. It is the only thing SLPS has going for it. It is our success story. We need to model more schools like those in the magnet program in order to achieve more success for our students. If that was the case, the city would be better as a whole, and much more desirable. If the actually city of Saint Louis had better schools, more people would live there, less in west county and there would be less segregation. Better schools will create a better city.
I worked at a neighborhood and magnet school (roosevelt and gateway tech), not a huge difference other than the fact that magnets can kick out the underperforming kids. If we want to develop neighborhood pride and a sense of community, magnet schools work against that. Why would a kid care about the neighborhood around his/her school when it is across town from where they live? It's hard to get business support for the local school when they don't see that school benefitting the kids in their neighborhood. The Magnet program, while beautiful on paper, was largely responsible for putting SLPS's head in a noose, charter's will be the one to drop the trap door.
I’m late here on this discussion but you hit my major pain points. On top of the taxes everyone pays to support SLPS, I pay over $5k a year to put my kids in Catholic school because it is local, the other kids are local and it is good. If the SLPS was broken up so St Louis Hills, SoHa, Northampton and the surrounding neighborhoods could control and support their schools it would be a no-brainer. They would go to public school.
SLPS should be broken up and all the damn buses retired. This is a dense urban area where kids should be able to walk to school.
I don't think you can sustain a city without a place for families. Schools are important but I'm not sure the public school system the way it is currently constructed is viable. St. Louis needs to look at ways to be cutting edge and innovative. Parents should have a voice in the school their children attend. If all want to attend the same school, then look at what is happening at that school that is attracting everyone. At the same time, schools should be allowed to set standards for students and expect that students and parents will comply.
Money is not the core problem – we're among the highest, if not the highest per-pupil spenders in the state. HOW it's being spent is obviously a problem, either in trying to keep too many, less-than-half-full structures open and/or because of the legacy pension costs of a shrinking district. Part of the problem is that perception IS reality. People talk, and the good news is drowned out by the horror stories. Fight or flight is a natural instinct, and with suburban options being both multiple and affordable, it's just easier and “safer” for too many people to move out . . .
And your ideas need to be thrown out. Literally. At this point, I'm really just trying to understand the mindset of a person that can formulate such an evil plan.
Why seek to attract only retirees & people without kids yet? The prime earning years for people are between 30-55. I'm not sure why anyone would want to exclude those people.
I'm unclear on your writing, Steve. You say “St. Louis should focus…” Is that your opinion?
I don't think he said “only” retirees & people without kids but a “focus”. I wonder what is being done to market the city to the higher-end boomers. They are coming out of their prime earning years yes but have income, pay taxes/rent and could add some density to downtown. Who is going to help fill up Park Pacific, Laurel, etc. (Arcade/Chemical buildings)? Schools would maybe follow population/tax base growth. Of course I'm just trying to anticipate the boomers next move so I can get in front of it and make some money. I just hope they don't stay in the suburbs.
A number of my neighbors are 60+ and retired or semi-retired. They like being able to stay active walking to places but at the same time not having to clean gutters, cut grass or do stairs.
Ultimately, the schools must be fixed or the city will continue to decline. Who wants to invest in a city home, knowing that at some point down the road, they will have to shell out for private schooling or simply move out altogether?
So how do you fix the schools? It's a problem of participation and fractured communities. If you are from a neighborhood, your kids should attend with peers that also live in the said neighborhood. Why? It increases social cohesion (kids actually being located NEAR their friends) and allows good neighborhood schools to shine and truly represent the best, instead of being “spoiled” by outsiders, per se. Cohesion also helps with the greatest problem facing StL children: many simply don't have the will or incentive to attend…
With that said, more parental involvement and encouragement are the sole real options for city schools. If a child doesn't have good parents to get them to school and boot their ass when they get bad grades, then that child won't have the necessary work ethic and motivation. Just looks at graduation rates and grades vs. attendance rates, I think you'll find a general correlation.
And the final part is cultural. I won't venture in too deep, but the vast vast majority of failing schools have large percentages of African Americans. Call it socioeconomic status, but a culture that doesn't support its children in their pursuits is a culture that is producing failure. History hasn't changed, regardless of how anyone wants to sugarcoat it.
Agree with a lot of points. At the end of the day you have to have a viable public school. That in turn has a lot to do with the immediate community/neighborhood and huge part in the parents. Now, for the plus side their is some changes going on. A large city can not simply depend on one demographic as a bedroom or exburb can.
1) As noted, SLPS has some very good magnet schools. 2) State control has actually led to a stable leadership instead of the revolving superintendent system that plagued the district when I moved to the region. Every school board election was a circus and they choosed a new supertindent to reform again. 3) With consisten leadership not subject to the circus there finally has been an effort to downsize the system to match its number of students. That is some of the tough choices needed to be made. 4) Finally, a school bond was put on the table and was passed. $155 million of real money to start tackling the multiple of aged, outdated schools. More importantly, it means their is a legitimagte concernt and willingness of the residents to start addressing the issues.
However, your last point I don't agree with. I wouldn't state that it is a culture that doesn't support its childern. I would say the biggest issue facing African American has been a collapse of a two parent family structure that does a far better job of raising childern. In other words, half the equation has gone missing for the most part. The numbers simply don't lie. More childern are born out of wedlock and often lack a second parent. Typically a father. In that respect, I wouldn't put down the one person trying to raise a child on their own while trying to learn how to be a parent and make things better in their childs life at the same time (a terrible combination).
Agree, the baby-as-teen-status-symbol is not a uniquely African-American thing, it's a cultural thing that varies from region to region. In Denver, the main “offendors” were Hispanic, and there was a TV news report last week about Caucasian girls in the southeast, tied to some reality show glorifying teen motherhood. Bottom line, a child is not a puppy or kitten, it's an 18-20 year commitment, and when the cute wears off, you're still responsible. And while you “wouldn't put down the one person trying to raise a child on their own while trying to learn how to be a parent and make things better in their childs life at the same time (a terrible combination)”, isn't that at the core of the problem?! While, obviously, views on family planning are driven by both religion and personal beliefs, the choice to use the morning-after pill, have an abortion, carry a pregnancy to term, or to keep a child one bears at 15 or 17, is still that, a CHOICE! It's at the core of the poverty cycle, as is the whole baby daddy, disrespectin' women, rapper mindset. If we, as a society, continue to accept or tolerate these choices, we need to accept the consequences, as well, and those include both poverty and a dysfunctional school system.
A few comments–about 70% percent of black children, nationwide, are born out of wedlock. That is unsustainable in even the near term. About 40% of all births were out of wedlock.
I bought a city home in 2007 and sold it in 2010, taking a sizable loss. My realtor who sells in both places told me that that city homes did not keep their value, compared to other municipalities, through the financial crisis. Why is anyone's guess, but investing in a city home is more of gamble than other places.
Even if you don’t have kids – poor schools limit the pool of potential buyers should you ever wish to resell. I lived in the city for twenty years and only left when I could find no affordable way to educate my kids and stay.
Even if you don’t have kids – poor schools limit the pool of potential buyers should you ever wish to resell. I lived in the city for twenty years and only left when I could find no affordable way to educate my kids and stay.
I’m late here on this discussion but you hit my major pain points. On top of the taxes everyone pays to support SLPS, I pay over $5k a year to put my kids in Catholic school because it is local, the other kids are local and it is good. If the SLPS was broken up so St Louis Hills, SoHa, Northampton and the surrounding neighborhoods could control and support their schools it would be a no-brainer. They would go to public school.
SLPS should be broken up and all the damn buses retired. This is a dense urban area where kids should be able to walk to school.
AARP Livibility Index
The Livability Index scores neighborhoods and communities across the U.S. for the services and amenities that impact your life the most
Built St. Louis
historic architecture of St. Louis, Missouri – mourning the losses, celebrating the survivors.
Geo St. Louis
a guide to geospatial data about the City of St. Louis
I worked for SLPS for 4 years (2 as a teacher and 2 as a social worker). I've always thought that the district would benefit from being broken into 3-4 smaller school districts, doing away with the magnet system, and returning to all neighborhood schools (maybe this is what the charter schools will ultimately create). This will have the unfortunate consequence of a largely segregated system (along both race and class lines), but would at least help to bring students back into the district. Parents in Carondolet, st louis hills, holly hills, etc don't want to send their kids to Roosevelt or to a magnet school where they'll be integrated with kids from north of Delmar (sad but true). Imagine if “carondolet high” was an option or “Central West End Academy” it could be like having a private school without paying for it.
As long as racial integration is the highest goal of the local public school system, then it will forever remain mired in slop.
Doing away with the magnet system is the worst idea. It is the only thing SLPS has going for it. It is our success story. We need to model more schools like those in the magnet program in order to achieve more success for our students. If that was the case, the city would be better as a whole, and much more desirable. If the actually city of Saint Louis had better schools, more people would live there, less in west county and there would be less segregation. Better schools will create a better city.
I worked at a neighborhood and magnet school (roosevelt and gateway tech), not a huge difference other than the fact that magnets can kick out the underperforming kids. If we want to develop neighborhood pride and a sense of community, magnet schools work against that. Why would a kid care about the neighborhood around his/her school when it is across town from where they live? It's hard to get business support for the local school when they don't see that school benefitting the kids in their neighborhood. The Magnet program, while beautiful on paper, was largely responsible for putting SLPS's head in a noose, charter's will be the one to drop the trap door.
I’m late here on this discussion but you hit my major pain points. On top of the taxes everyone pays to support SLPS, I pay over $5k a year to put my kids in Catholic school because it is local, the other kids are local and it is good. If the SLPS was broken up so St Louis Hills, SoHa, Northampton and the surrounding neighborhoods could control and support their schools it would be a no-brainer. They would go to public school.
SLPS should be broken up and all the damn buses retired. This is a dense urban area where kids should be able to walk to school.
I don't think you can sustain a city without a place for families. Schools are important but I'm not sure the public school system the way it is currently constructed is viable. St. Louis needs to look at ways to be cutting edge and innovative. Parents should have a voice in the school their children attend. If all want to attend the same school, then look at what is happening at that school that is attracting everyone. At the same time, schools should be allowed to set standards for students and expect that students and parents will comply.
Money is not the core problem – we're among the highest, if not the highest per-pupil spenders in the state. HOW it's being spent is obviously a problem, either in trying to keep too many, less-than-half-full structures open and/or because of the legacy pension costs of a shrinking district. Part of the problem is that perception IS reality. People talk, and the good news is drowned out by the horror stories. Fight or flight is a natural instinct, and with suburban options being both multiple and affordable, it's just easier and “safer” for too many people to move out . . .
There is no quick fix. First the city needs to design a plan/model that could work. Hire the best for this.
My idea would be –
Bus the county kids to the city.
Give incentives to the parents.
Make it popular.
Build schools for the future(high tech).
Create a waiting list.
Where are all the idealist?
Just an idea from a downtown family of four…
Yikes! Is that a serious proposal? Your idea is ridiculous and embarrassingly naive.
Thank you Josh. I'm just throwing ideas out, not proposals. It all starts with an idea.
And your ideas need to be thrown out. Literally. At this point, I'm really just trying to understand the mindset of a person that can formulate such an evil plan.
Why seek to attract only retirees & people without kids yet? The prime earning years for people are between 30-55. I'm not sure why anyone would want to exclude those people.
I'm unclear on your writing, Steve. You say “St. Louis should focus…” Is that your opinion?
I've expressed no personal opinion, I've just presented some popular views to spark discussion.
I don't think he said “only” retirees & people without kids but a “focus”.
I wonder what is being done to market the city to the higher-end boomers. They are coming out of their prime earning years yes but have income, pay taxes/rent and could add some density to downtown. Who is going to help fill up Park Pacific, Laurel, etc. (Arcade/Chemical buildings)? Schools would maybe follow population/tax base growth.
Of course I'm just trying to anticipate the boomers next move so I can get in front of it and make some money. I just hope they don't stay in the suburbs.
A number of my neighbors are 60+ and retired or semi-retired. They like being able to stay active walking to places but at the same time not having to clean gutters, cut grass or do stairs.
Ultimately, the schools must be fixed or the city will continue to decline. Who wants to invest in a city home, knowing that at some point down the road, they will have to shell out for private schooling or simply move out altogether?
So how do you fix the schools? It's a problem of participation and fractured communities. If you are from a neighborhood, your kids should attend with peers that also live in the said neighborhood. Why? It increases social cohesion (kids actually being located NEAR their friends) and allows good neighborhood schools to shine and truly represent the best, instead of being “spoiled” by outsiders, per se. Cohesion also helps with the greatest problem facing StL children: many simply don't have the will or incentive to attend…
With that said, more parental involvement and encouragement are the sole real options for city schools. If a child doesn't have good parents to get them to school and boot their ass when they get bad grades, then that child won't have the necessary work ethic and motivation. Just looks at graduation rates and grades vs. attendance rates, I think you'll find a general correlation.
And the final part is cultural. I won't venture in too deep, but the vast vast majority of failing schools have large percentages of African Americans. Call it socioeconomic status, but a culture that doesn't support its children in their pursuits is a culture that is producing failure. History hasn't changed, regardless of how anyone wants to sugarcoat it.
Agree with a lot of points. At the end of the day you have to have a viable public school. That in turn has a lot to do with the immediate community/neighborhood and huge part in the parents. Now, for the plus side their is some changes going on. A large city can not simply depend on one demographic as a bedroom or exburb can.
1) As noted, SLPS has some very good magnet schools.
2) State control has actually led to a stable leadership instead of the revolving superintendent system that plagued the district when I moved to the region. Every school board election was a circus and they choosed a new supertindent to reform again.
3) With consisten leadership not subject to the circus there finally has been an effort to downsize the system to match its number of students. That is some of the tough choices needed to be made.
4) Finally, a school bond was put on the table and was passed. $155 million of real money to start tackling the multiple of aged, outdated schools. More importantly, it means their is a legitimagte concernt and willingness of the residents to start addressing the issues.
However, your last point I don't agree with. I wouldn't state that it is a culture that doesn't support its childern. I would say the biggest issue facing African American has been a collapse of a two parent family structure that does a far better job of raising childern. In other words, half the equation has gone missing for the most part. The numbers simply don't lie. More childern are born out of wedlock and often lack a second parent. Typically a father. In that respect, I wouldn't put down the one person trying to raise a child on their own while trying to learn how to be a parent and make things better in their childs life at the same time (a terrible combination).
Agree, the baby-as-teen-status-symbol is not a uniquely African-American thing, it's a cultural thing that varies from region to region. In Denver, the main “offendors” were Hispanic, and there was a TV news report last week about Caucasian girls in the southeast, tied to some reality show glorifying teen motherhood. Bottom line, a child is not a puppy or kitten, it's an 18-20 year commitment, and when the cute wears off, you're still responsible. And while you “wouldn't put down the one person trying to raise a child on their own while trying to learn how to be a parent and make things better in their childs life at the same time (a terrible combination)”, isn't that at the core of the problem?! While, obviously, views on family planning are driven by both religion and personal beliefs, the choice to use the morning-after pill, have an abortion, carry a pregnancy to term, or to keep a child one bears at 15 or 17, is still that, a CHOICE! It's at the core of the poverty cycle, as is the whole baby daddy, disrespectin' women, rapper mindset. If we, as a society, continue to accept or tolerate these choices, we need to accept the consequences, as well, and those include both poverty and a dysfunctional school system.
A few comments–about 70% percent of black children, nationwide, are born out of wedlock. That is unsustainable in even the near term. About 40% of all births were out of wedlock.
I bought a city home in 2007 and sold it in 2010, taking a sizable loss. My realtor who sells in both places told me that that city homes did not keep their value, compared to other municipalities, through the financial crisis. Why is anyone's guess, but investing in a city home is more of gamble than other places.
Even if you don’t have kids – poor schools limit the pool of potential buyers should you ever wish to resell. I lived in the city for twenty years and only left when I could find no affordable way to educate my kids and stay.
Even if you don’t have kids – poor schools limit the pool of potential buyers should you ever wish to resell. I lived in the city for twenty years and only left when I could find no affordable way to educate my kids and stay.
I’m late here on this discussion but you hit my major pain points. On top of the taxes everyone pays to support SLPS, I pay over $5k a year to put my kids in Catholic school because it is local, the other kids are local and it is good. If the SLPS was broken up so St Louis Hills, SoHa, Northampton and the surrounding neighborhoods could control and support their schools it would be a no-brainer. They would go to public school.
SLPS should be broken up and all the damn buses retired. This is a dense urban area where kids should be able to walk to school.