Readers: City Better Than A Decade Ago
In the poll last week readers could pick up to three answers, the top answer shows many felt the city has gotten better in the last decade, despite a loss in population.
Q:Reaction to the 2010 Census showing a loss of 29k residents? (pick up to 3 answers)
- Fewer residents but the quality of the city has improved in the last decade 111 [33.74%]
- Previous estimates showing a slight increase gave me false hope 67 [20.36%]
- Very disappointing 61 [18.54%]
- Happy the losses are getting smaller each decade 26 [7.9%]
- Partly the outcome of low density housing policy 22 [6.69%]
- The numbers must be wrong 16 [4.86%]
- Surprised the loss wasn’t greater 13 [3.95%]
- Other answer… 11 [3.34%]
- No opinion 2 [0.61%]
The “other” answers were:
- St Louis to Jennings
- Our schools need to be improved if we are ever going to retain our population
- i am very curious to know how the ave resident/house and income/house changed
- so many people were not counted.
- many people didn’t bother to send in cenus forms
- The numbers Might be wrong
- Note we gained amongst 18 , MUST fix schools
- My pride is hurt, but as long development doesn’t slow; it’ll heal.
- Obviously better with fewer low income African Americans
- Mixture of some areas (n. St. Louis) and emptyin and fewer large families.
Much work remains but for me the total number of residents is less important than the quality of life of those of us who didn’t leave.
– Steve Patterson
The fundamental issue is schools, followed by crime. In my ward (23rd), we lost 1,000 residents. 60% were younger than 18, the rest were less than 40. We're losing kids and their parents. If we want a city made up of graying empty nesters, college students, recent graduates and gay professionals, we can continue on our current path. I agree that quality is better than quantity, but jobs tend to follow where people choose to live, and with both families and jobs headed out of town, our future remains unclear.
To the contrary, jobs follow the executives, who are usually empty-nester, aged 45-55. And they want to attract energetic, new hires, who are usually young adults, aged 25-35. Having the bulk of your employees be aged 35-45, or heads of families, may actually be a liability for employers that are evolving quickly.
Most 45-55 year old execs I know have kids in high school and college. As for which age groups are assets or liabilities, I guess it all depends on one's perspective. Many employers value stable employees with families more than they value “energetic new hires” who may move on in a year or two . . .
Ah yes, fixing the schools. I feel like I always read a lot of broad complaints about this and rarely do I see any specific analysis of the actual issues or proposed solutions. I'd like to see someone take a stab at that…
I understand that we want good, free, public education. Could someone who is familiar with the public school system in St. Louis please answer the following: Don't we have a well-performing academic high school for the brightest students? And a performing arts high school for promising artists? Are there any decent vocational/technical high schools? Isn't there also a high school for military-bound students?
How are the elementary schools in the St. Louis Hills, Hampton, Carondelet/Holly Hills areas? I understand that is just a few neighborhoods, but that is where many families live. And in addition to these public schools, aren't there also many decent and inexpensive parochial schools for those who want that option?
Here is the problem: those that value education will send their children to private/charter/magnet schools. Those that do not will send their children to unde r-perfoming public schools where the cycle of poverty will continue.
Throwing money at the problem is not the solution. Parental involvement, instilling an appreciation for education, fighting poverty, etc are more critical to solving the problem than more funding. There isn't an easy solution to the aforementioned problems. City schools suffer from a lack of resources, but that isn't the main issue. Also, the City needs to get rid of their absolutely incompetent administration. The principals and other administrators often times set up barriers to success by preventing good teachers from doing what needs to be done.
/Not a solution, but I feel strongly about this issue
//The City will never succeed withhout decent public schools
Resources? Like what exactly? The private Catholic grammar school down the block has no gymnasium or auditorium. No high tech science labs are fancy art studies and the kids playground doubles as the parking lot.Yet the school does pretty well at educating the kids.
When an individual can teach for 5 years in a public school and receive approximately $0 for supplies in that time span, I would say there is a lack of resources. Any decent school gives their teachers (or at least the department) an annual budget. I know for a fact that there are teachers in SLPS that get no money for supplies whatsoever. Anything that is bought is either through seeking out donations or from their own pockets.
I forgot to mention, those children sent to the parochial schools are from homes where parents value education. You can't buy parental involvement or an appreciation for education.
Catholic school teachers are notoriously underpaid. having grown up in the Catholic system, I can attest to the FACT that most lay teachers in Catholic schools must spend additional time and money or their own on supplies. Having said that, however, a considerable number of public school teachers face many of the same problems: poor pay, few supplies, outdated/inaccurate textbooks, short-staffing, ill-prepared and unruly students AND parents. The list goes on. Being a teacher these days is a thankless and nearly impossible job, and I wouldn't wish this vocation on my worst enemy.,
Currently, there is little evidence that charters are outperforming Public schools. In some cases, the opposite is true, in addition to charters not actually being better, but only equal in outcomes. I have seen more than a few articles and study breakdowns which suggest that societal conditions and family dynamics are more of a contributing factor to childhood educational success than is acknowledged in the media. Teachers can only do so much, and when children come to school ill-prepared for interaction with adults and other children, this can cause numerous distractions for the other students and teachers alike. I must agree about the administration of Public Schools in the City: it is bloated and inefficient, and the competency level of those who are employed there can be judged, from an anecdotal standpoint at least, in an unfavorable light. Though I must say that the states provisional Board doesn't appear to be an outstanding group either. Re your comment on the City never succeeding without good schools: I wonder how this is possible when many parents who have school-age children either leave the City outright, or don't even take the time and energy to educate themselves about City schools, or base their decisions to eschew enrollment outright without even once stepping foot in a school? Involvement of parents is extraordinarily important, not only in actually taking interest in the day-to-day operation of the school, but in making sure that your children have additional resources, such as tutoring or direct parental involvement in homework assignments. Simply relying on a school, any school, parochial, public, or private to educate one's child is irresponsible and shortsighted. Especially since the “Teach to the Test” atmosphere brought about by the so-called No Child Left Behind law. Parents MUST be involved in the education of their children. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. If that means sacrificing time or activities which may negatively impact childhood education, then so be it. This is not meant as a critique of your comments, it is merely my take on my observations over the years. From Dutchtown.
Interesting article on natural decline in rural areas – http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/27/more-deaths-than-births-killing-us-counties-like-coleman-texas/ It has many observations that also seem to apply to the city, including that young people leave in search of good jobs and the decline of the traditional industries is hard to reverse. We can continue to cheerlead as much as we want, but the reality is it takes people to pay the bills. We’re built to be a city of 800,000, but we’re less than half that size and continuing to shrink. We have legacy costs that unsustainable, everything from infrastructure to pensions to schools. We either need to shrink to fit our available financial resources or we need to figure out how to attract more new blood to replace the numbers that are dying or moving out.
Interesting article on natural decline in rural areas – http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/27/more-deaths-than-births-killing-us-counties-like-coleman-texas/ It has many observations that also seem to apply to the city, including that young people leave in search of good jobs and the decline of the traditional industries is hard to reverse. We can continue to cheerlead as much as we want, but the reality is it takes people to pay the bills. We’re built to be a city of 800,000, but we’re less than half that size and continuing to shrink. We have legacy costs that unsustainable, everything from infrastructure to pensions to schools. We either need to shrink to fit our available financial resources or we need to figure out how to attract more new blood to replace the numbers that are dying or moving out.