dangerboy wrote:There are only two really good districts in Joco - Blue Valley and Olathe. There others are good, but not stellar. Yes, Shawnee-Mission used to be top shelf, but they are in a downward spiral of declining enrollment and declining revenue - being killed by the same sprawl that made them so good. If they were more aggresive about closing underutilized schools they could slow the decline, but the patrons cling to their neighborhood buildings.
Meanwhile, on the Missouri side you have Lee's Summit, Park Hill, Liberty, and Blue Springs that are just as good as Blue Valley. North Kansas City and Independence are not far behind. There is just a much greater variety of choices on the Missouri side. You can go north, east, or south and find excellent schools, it's not limited to the far southwest corner like in Joco.
You did read what these national magazines wrote, right? If they say JOCO is the best, it must be true Meanwhile KC gets in national magazines for having some of the worst urban schools and their crime-rate. Believe it or not, this leaves an impact on outsiders deciding to relocate to KC.
The Pendergast Poltergeist Project!
I finally divorced beer and proposed to whiskey, but I occassionally cheat with fine wine.
[quote=""GRID"Exactly, Shawnee Mission is right there with Raytown right now, and believe it or not, Raytown is not a bad school district.
There are more good districts in MO than KS and they are in better finacial shape (which is just amazing in itself).
But I too constantly hear it from random people, on the internet, and in publications that the KS side is where the good schools are. Whatever.[/quote"]
Bla, bla, blaugh...can we say "jealousy". At least you have sports teams, museums and attractions.
The Pendergast Poltergeist Project!
I finally divorced beer and proposed to whiskey, but I occassionally cheat with fine wine.
QueSi2Opie wrote:[quote=""GRID"Exactly, Shawnee Mission is right there with Raytown right now, and believe it or not, Raytown is not a bad school district.
There are more good districts in MO than KS and they are in better finacial shape (which is just amazing in itself).
But I too constantly hear it from random people, on the internet, and in publications that the KS side is where the good schools are. Whatever.[/quote"]
Bla, bla, blaugh...can we say "jealousy". At least you have sports teams, museums and attractions.
What the hell, all I said is that there are as many if not more good schools in Missouri as Kansas and you can't handle that? The KS side has good schools, yes, but so does the Missouri side. KCK has problems too and it effects a lot more of KCK than the the KCSD effects KCMO.
Jealous of Kansas? You have got to be kidding me. Jeolous of Denver or San Deigo at times, but Kansas?
The only thing in Kansas is Johnson County, a suburb of KCMO, not much to be jeolous of especially when the Northland is about to kick some JoCo tail.
Seriously, I understand though, you have to be proud of something, so yes, all the good schools are in Kansas and all the poor people live in MO. You have two choices JoCo or 39th and Troost.
Shawnee Mission is not in a downward spiral- it is certainly as good if not better than NKC. It has declining enrollment because the area is aging, but it is not in any worse shape economically than enyone else. The Missouri schools are not in better financal shape- Lees Summit may not have the cash to opporate their new high schol next year. There are more quality districts in Missouri than Kansas, but the Kansas districts are bigger. The big three have 11 schools- compared with 11 Missouri schools spread among Liberty, NKC, Park Hill, BS, and LS. Desoto is also soon to join the ranks of quality school districts. Misssouri has quality schools in more directions because Missouri has more directions to go.
The reason that the KCMO school district is bad is _not_ because of desegregation, or any court supervision. Those are things that are only indicative of its failure. The reason it is bad, and the reason that any other school district gets bad is because the money leaves the district. The money left KCMO thoughout the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and we are reaping the results of that now, and have been for years. It's very simple that if a school district has no money or is in a bad neighborhood(these often go hand in hand), it cannot succeed, because of the nature of the department of education.
People with money leave = decline in city services.
People get money = improvement of city services.
People have money = city services are excellent.
People don't have money = city services are poor.
Doesn't anyone get that?
if I buy a place with bad schools then it helps me with property value....schools can't get any worse so it doesn't really affect property values.....and there is a chance they could improve.
KC's urban neighborhoods like city market and the business loop are probably never going to rely on families rather single/married young professionals looking for a change of pace....and empty nesters.
The reason that the KCMO school district is bad is not because of desegregation, or any court supervision. Those are things that are only indicative of its failure. The reason it is bad, and the reason that any other school district gets bad is because the money leaves the district. The money left KCMO thoughout the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and we are reaping the results of that now, and have been for years. It's very simple that if a school district has no money or is in a bad neighborhood(these often go hand in hand), it cannot succeed, because of the nature of the department of education.
I don't agree - PEOPLE make school districts bad. Lack of money didn't cause the KCMOSD to loose it's accreditation in the late 80's & early 90's when Judge (liberal moron) Clark handed the district millions upon millions in the deseg ruling. That's when the school board PROVED beyond a shadow-of-a-doubt that thier stupidity and greed was invincible. Central High School was constructed with state-of-the-art amenities. At the time it was the most expensive ( lavish beyond lavish) public or private high school ever built, complete with Olympic Training quality swimming facilities ( for a student population that HAD NO SWIM TEAM to date!) Fencing ( lol) and Foreign (Language, lit & art) consultants and teachers were 'bought' in from overseas ( all expenses paid of course) to teach fine art, language and culture to the deprived children of the district. All this to "attract white students" which was a joke, a handful of white students were bussed in and then thier parents realized the schools were still a cesspool and pulled thier kids out. Every High School in the district received untold millions to rehab and redo and what's left? Nothing but the most worthless district of all time.
I'm amazed at the stupidity of the idiots that keep voting the same school board members in year after year. Lack of money has NEVER made a school district bad. It's the failures of the School Board, Execs, Supers, Teachers and PARENTS that make a school district suck.
Last edited by Royals Fan on Mon Oct 20, 2003 8:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
More importantly, the district has to be populated with people who have money. You'd be hard-pressed to find a bad neighborhood with excellent schools. The two are mutually exclusive. Again, people do not make school districts and neighborhoods bad. People are what make them successful. It's a natural inclination of people, to succeed. The places where you see people not succeeding are places where they are being kept from succeeding by their situations, usually crated by the slippery slope of governmental denial, and attitudes like the one I'm afraid you seem to have.
Money is not the only factor. When my daughter was in school, I sent her to a parochial school. I served on the budget committee for it. We operated on a fraction of expense (per pupil) that the surrounding public school district did, and our test scores were over 25% higher than theirs.
Our facilities were not nearly as modern and our teachers were not paid as much, still it was successful.
The community and parents have a lot to do with it. The current dilemma of the public schools is not just to KCMO, it is a national problem. As our suburbs grow, the same problems will follow them.
I wish there was an easy fix. I wonder if there is one at all.
Nevertheless, schools are a major factor for the vast majority of people. They are always used as a major selling point for any community. And, an important factor in their growth.
GRID wrote:What the hell, all I said is that there are as many if not more good schools in Missouri as Kansas and you can't handle that? The KS side has good schools, yes, but so does the Missouri side. KCK has problems too and it effects a lot more of KCK than the the KCSD effects KCMO.
Jealous of Kansas? You have got to be kidding me. Jeolous of Denver or San Deigo at times, but Kansas?
The only thing in Kansas is Johnson County, a suburb of KCMO, not much to be jeolous of especially when the Northland is about to kick some JoCo tail.
Seriously, I understand though, you have to be proud of something, so yes, all the good schools are in Kansas and all the poor people live in MO. You have two choices JoCo or 39th and Troost.
C'mon now, I was being sarcastic...don't blow a vessel, chief. I could give two $hits about schools, especially since I don't have any brats yet.
The Pendergast Poltergeist Project!
I finally divorced beer and proposed to whiskey, but I occassionally cheat with fine wine.
QueSi2Opie wrote:C'mon now, I was being sarcastic...don't blow a vessel, chief. I could give two $hits about schools, especially since I don't have any brats yet.
Sarcasm doesn't come across very well in a forum. 9 times out of 10 it's best to avoid it.
dangerboy wrote:Sarcasm doesn't come across very well in a forum. 9 times out of 10 it's best to avoid it.
Aye, but peeps should know by now that I love KCMO. But since everyone's usually makin' me the JOCO representative on this forum, I might as well represent my suburbanite brothers & sisters out here on the plastic prairie. I'm jus' tellin' you fellas why many people choose JOCO, whether these national magazine rankings hold true or not.
The Pendergast Poltergeist Project!
I finally divorced beer and proposed to whiskey, but I occassionally cheat with fine wine.
As a teacher, I have a lot of issues with people who don't care about schools. Poor schools drag everything down in the community. Good schools do more than most ammenties in attracting major employers to a city. I'd never tell anyone thinking of moving to KC to move into the KCMO school district area. Unless you can afford to send the kids to private schools, you need to live somewhere other than the KCMO school district. None of my coworkers with children or thinking of having children would even consider living in this school district.
Are you sure we're talking about the same God here, because yours sounds kind of like a dick.
it's not that I personally don't want good schools everywhere, I do...but it's not a deciding factor for me right now. and you're right, if I have kids (ahhhhhhh) I will not send them to KCMO schools. Although I went to KCK schools which aren't world renowned and I'm the smartest person I know
The KCK schools may not be the best in the world, but they are better than KCMO. I used to sub in KCK, I was in Schlagle, Washington, and all of the middle schools. All of those schools are under control. Although there are drugs, gangs, and all that, it didn;t seem like a place where most kids felt unsafe. Sumner (KC- you said you went there, what about you, Que?) is rated #99 in the country. The demographics are the same as KCMO, but the schools are better. Hopefully this could be turned into some positive growth for KCK.
Royals Fan, you areright about money and people. The only effective way to desegregate (defacto) the schools is to make them appealing to whites. The magnet program actually led to more discrimination. My father knew an African American who wanted to get his kid onto a magnet school but couldn't- they needed more whites, not blacks! There was also a white JoCo girl who wanted in- they let her in, but what if a black Kansan wanted in? He would not have been allowed. To fix those schools, we need a few families to start moving in, assuming that their kids will get a quality education. That is what has happened out here with Dysart School district- one of the worst school districts in the area, until a couple years ago when it became the fastest growing. (And home of the Royals spring training!) It will be tough, but change will need to come form the ground up. I'm glad that no voucher people have shown up here!
By the way, Grid, the Northland will kick JoCo's butt about the same time that KC outgrows St. Louis, if then!
phxcat wrote:All of those schools are under control. Although there are drugs, gangs, and all that, it didn;t seem like a place where most kids felt unsafe. Sumner (KC- you said you went there, what about you, Que?)
I went to Frank Rushton, Rosedale, Harmon and Turner in KCK. The time I lived on 5th & Minnesota at Gateway Gardens, my mom drove me to Rosedale because I was familiar with the district after living in that part of town near 39th & Rainbow and 8th & Southwest Blvd. Went to Harmon and Turner when we lived on 42nd & Metropolitan. I had to leave Harmon because I was a lil' troublemaker who fought 24-7. I still kept the bulk of my friends that lived at 10th & Central until I started UMKC. At the time, they were good friends that I made durin' my Gateway stint.
The Pendergast Poltergeist Project!
I finally divorced beer and proposed to whiskey, but I occassionally cheat with fine wine.
Meanwhile KC gets in national magazines for having some of the worst urban schools and their crime-rate. Believe it or not, this leaves an impact on outsiders deciding to relocate to KC.
At least you have sports teams, museums and attractions.
I still kept the bulk of my friends that lived at 10th & Central until I started UMKC. At the time, they were good friends that I made durin' my Gateway stint.