If you think people in Nichols Hills send their kids to OKC Public Schools, you're dreaming. It's called McGuiness, Cassady, and Heritage Hall.

Not always true. I know two couples who moved into Nichols Hills specifically so their kids could go to Nichols Hills elementary.

As a product of private schools, I can tell it's not all rainbows and unicorns.

The reality is that one can get an education in OKC as good as one in the suburbs. Sometimes better, sometimes worse. To say otherwise is just ignorant. Yes, it is probably true that if you're seeking a more, how should we say it, "uniform" student body, then the suburbs are your best bet. Of course, you can also miss out on a very important aspect of education by intentional trying to surround yourself with only people with the same background. IMO, that was actually the biggest draw back of a private school. Very limited perspective.

NW Classen is recently renovated, actually.

Have you been in NW Classen lately? I volunteer there weekly...the place is a dump.


There isn't a school, public or private, that can compete with Classen SAS as long as you can be designated "gifted and talented" at an early age.

I agree that Classen SAS is a decent school for the OKC Public School district, but their test scores are still less than those in suburban school districts.


As for Bishop McGuinness, again man, look at a map. Western & NW 50th. I believe NW Classen's district. Most of the kids that will eventually end up at McGuinness do parochial elementary/middle school at Bishop Carroll (Western & NW 30th) or Villa Theresa (Midtown).

Not bad schools actually.

[QUOTE=Patrick;375988]I agree that Classen SAS is a decent school for the OKC Public School district, but their test scores are still less than those in suburban school districts.[QUOTE]

WTF are you talking about? It's the highest rated school in the entire state.

I think the test results measured by API speak for themselves. 1500 is perfect. State Average is 1289

Deer Creek Schools: API: 1489
http://apps.sde.state.ok.us/apireports/APIreports2009/55I006.PDF

Edmond Schools: API: 1450
http://apps.sde.state.ok.us/apireports/APIreports2009/55I012.PDF

Oklahoma City Public Schools: API: 1137
http://apps.sde.state.ok.us/apireports/APIreports2009/55I089.PDF


Oklahoma City has 16 schools on the "Need improvement" list. Edmond and Deer Creek have none.

Some OKC schools aren't bad though:
Quail Creek Elementary: API: 1443
Nichols Hills Elementary: 1441
Harding Prep: 1489
Classen SAS: 1487
Linwood: 1453
Cleveland: 1410


For the record: NW Classen, API: 1242
Douglass: API: 1029
NE Academy: (a magnet school): 1116
Oklahoma Centennial: 699 (ouch)
John Marshall: 1066
Capitol Hill: 966 (ouch)
Edgemere: 544 (ouch)

To compare:
Deer Creek Elementary: 1500
Prairie Vale: 1500
Rose Union: 1486
Deer Creek High School: 1483
Edmond North: 1463
Edmond Santa Fe: 1462
Edmond Memorial: 1459

WTF are you talking about? It's the highest rated school in the entire state.

Yeah, you're right on that.....sorta...Harding barely edges them out. But those two are the only high schools in the OKC Public district that are even comparable to the suburban high schools. The rest just aren't great.

I think we ought to move to open a Suburban versus Urban Schools Thread. This has nothing to do with what the original poster was asking about, which is specific neighborhood advice. It's obvious that there are at least three people who will never move into Oklahoma City to live for various reasons, including schools. But this is a forum about OKC, and it's a city we love, so pardon us for defending it as a place to live.

I live here and my daughter goes to an elementary school that rivals anything offered in the burbs, and she gets the added benefit of going to school with people who don't all look like her. To me, that is a benefit.

But thank you Caption Obvious for pointing out that suburban schools tend to be better than urban ones. You don't say?

Yeah, you're right on that. But it's the only high school in the OKC Public district that's even comparable to the suburban high schools. The rest just aren't great.

When looking at test scores, one has to ask how much the school is responsible for test scores, or if test scores are more likely to represent the innate ability of the student. Inner city schools at this point in time are much more likely to have children of lower IQ parents, and genetically they would be expected to test less well. I don't think you can use a single measurement like that and make sweeping generalizations about a school. And again, is the solution for everyone to live in the suburbs and let the schools in the inner city decay?

It's obvious that there are at least three people who will never move into Oklahoma City to live for various reasons, including schools.

I actually live in Oklahoma City.

According to Newsweek and other national lists, Classen SAS is the highest rated school in Oklahoma, along with OSSM and Booker T. Washington. There is nothing in the suburban schools that compares to the IB program. Ask admissions counselors at Harvard which is the best and they'll let you know.

And again, is the solution for everyone to live in the suburbs and let the schools in the inner city decay?

Absolutely not. In fact, test scores at several OKC Public schools have improved, and I'm glad to see it.

I actually live in Oklahoma City.

Do you live in Oklahoma City at like 195th and Portland or something, because that's not really the same.

Yeah, I guess the Mercy Hospital area isn't part of Oklahoma City even though it's city limits.

Do you live in Oklahoma City at like 195th and Portland or something, because that's not really the same.

Says WHO??? You are either in the city or your not. To say the otherwise is to be geographic challenged.

I think the test results measured by API speak for themselves. 1500 is perfect. State Average is 1289

Deer Creek Schools: API: 1489
http://apps.sde.state.ok.us/apireports/APIreports2009/55I006.PDF

Edmond Schools: API: 1450
http://apps.sde.state.ok.us/apireports/APIreports2009/55I012.PDF

Oklahoma City Public Schools: API: 1137
http://apps.sde.state.ok.us/apireports/APIreports2009/55I089.PDF


Oklahoma City has 16 schools on the "Need improvement" list. Edmond and Deer Creek have none.

Some OKC schools aren't bad though:
Quail Creek Elementary: API: 1443
Nichols Hills Elementary: 1441
Harding Prep: 1489
Classen SAS: 1487
Linwood: 1453
Cleveland: 1410


For the record: NW Classen, API: 1242
Douglass: API: 1029
NE Academy: (a magnet school): 1116
Oklahoma Centennial: 699 (ouch)
John Marshall: 1066
Capitol Hill: 966 (ouch)
Edgemere: 544 (ouch)

To compare:
Deer Creek Elementary: 1500
Prairie Vale: 1500
Rose Union: 1486
Deer Creek High School: 1483
Edmond North: 1463
Edmond Santa Fe: 1462
Edmond Memorial: 1459


Facts supplant emotions.

Facts supplant emotions.

But again, an isolated fact may mean many things. We hang our hats on test scores, without analyzing what that score means. To be truly accurate, you would have to do cultural bias free IQ testing on each child and then compare cohorts of children with identical IQ test scores who attended urban versus suburban schools. If children with identical IQs actually score worse after attending city schools than suburban schools, then you might have something. I don't think the data you cut and pasted gives us that information.

But again, an isolated fact may mean many things. We hang our hats on test scores, without analyzing what that score means. To be truly accurate, you would have to do cultural bias free IQ testing on each child and then compare cohorts of children with identical IQ test scores who attended urban versus suburban schools. If children with identical IQs actually score worse after attending city schools than suburban schools, then you might have something. I don't think the data you cut and pasted gives us that information.

OMG...Is there any absolute in your cloistered world? Or are there always combinations/permutations and circles within circles. If you will reread I merely quoted what Patrick posted. Cut and paste is an entirely different concept. Duh...

Most retarded thread ever.

When looking at test scores, one has to ask how much the school is responsible for test scores, or if test scores are more likely to represent the innate ability of the student. Inner city schools at this point in time are much more likely to have children of lower IQ parents, and genetically they would be expected to test less well. I don't think you can use a single measurement like that and make sweeping generalizations about a school. And again, is the solution for everyone to live in the suburbs and let the schools in the inner city decay?

Wow. Lower IQ? You're kidding, right?

As a guardian ad litem for lower income kids for many years back near Washington, DC, I sure didn't see anything like that. What I saw was cultural - a lack of academic education as a strong value; uneducated parents; and many single parents who were too exhausted or distracted to do what they needed to support their kids, academically. I also saw a big dose of substance abuse and just plain bad parenting. And schools that are zoos.

Low IQ is bringing down the scores. I am still sitting here thinking you did NOT write that! I could sit and chat with nondrugged up parents of children failing academically and I assure you a low IQ wasn't the problem of failing schools and failing students. That wasn't even on the top ten or fifteen list of what was going on with these kids. Geeze. I can't believe you even wrote that. There are plenty of reasons staring people right in the face before trying to make this genetic. And frankly, even if you found a group with an IQ not as high as some (and good luck with that), it certainly is in the normal range, overall, and kids with normal IQ parents do fine in school. Even low normal.

Moreover, if you are suggesting that minorities have an IQ low enough to impact their academic achievement to the extent we see in inner schools - oh please tell me that you aren't making that ridiculous argument - guess again. The area around DC is teeming with biracial or triracial children and they get their genetic makeup from both parents. Some do fine, some don't do so well. Some of the brightest students I ever worked with (and I was a teacher before I was a lawyer) were black or biracial.

Sorry - the notion that some of my guardian ad litem kids being told (or reading) that people believe they aren't doing well in school because their neighborhood is full of low IQ people would be a slap in the face and totally stunning. Wow.

Facts supplant emotions.

Well if it isn't Mr. Deer Creek. Perhaps you should compare Classen SAS, which is the school I was talking about, Einstein. I wasn't suggesting the overall district compares to a bunch of white-break rich people.

Wow. Lower IQ? You're kidding, right?

As a guardian ad litem for lower income kids for many years back near Washington, DC, I sure didn't see anything like that. What I saw was cultural - a lack of academic education as a strong value; uneducated parents; and many single parents who were too exhausted or distracted to do what they needed to support their kids, academically. I also saw a big dose of substance abuse and just plain bad parenting. And schools that are zoos.

Low IQ is bringing down the scores. I am still sitting here thinking you did NOT write that! I could sit and chat with nondrugged up parents of children failing academically and I assure you a low IQ wasn't the problem of failing schools and failing students. That wasn't even on the top ten or fifteen list of what was going on with these kids. Geeze. I can't believe you even wrote that. There are plenty of reasons staring people right in the face before trying to make this genetic. And frankly, even if you found a group with an IQ not as high as some (and good luck with that), it certainly is in the normal range, overall, and kids with normal IQ parents do fine in school. Even low normal.

Moreover, if you are suggesting that minorities have an IQ low enough to impact their academic achievement to the extent we see in inner schools - oh please tell me that you aren't making that ridiculous argument - guess again. The area around DC is teeming with biracial or triracial children and they get their genetic makeup from both parents. Some do fine, some don't do so well. Some of the brightest students I ever worked with (and I was a teacher before I was a lawyer) were black or biracial.

Sorry - the notion that some of my guardian ad litem kids being told (or reading) that people believe they aren't doing well in school because their neighborhood is full of low IQ people would be a slap in the face and totally stunning. Wow.

Wow. I agree. I think Betts misspoke. These kids from inner-city environs -- and their parents -- don't have lower IQs, they just are economically challenged. Big difference. I was disappointed in Betts's post. My sister is an inner-city educator and she is constantly impressed with how smart these kids are; just as smart as their suburban counterparts. They just come from more challenged home environments. Her school is primarily Latino, and the children speak English as a second language, but they're scoring as high as native speakers in many areas. Also, contrary to the stereotype, their parents are extremely supportive of their education, they just don't have much themselves.

Well if it isn't Mr. Deer Creek. Perhaps you should compare Classen SAS, which is the school I was talking about, Einstein. I wasn't suggesting the overall district compares to a bunch of white-break rich people.

Didn't Classen SAS just reduce its enrollment making it harder to get in? I thought I read that in the Gazette but maybe I dreamed it.

Wow. I agree. I think Betts misspoke. These kids from inner-city environs -- and their parents -- don't have lower IQs, they just are economically challenged. Big difference. I was disappointed in Betts's post. My sister is an inner-city educator and she is shocked with how smart these kids are; just as smart as their suburban counterparts. They just come from more challenged home environments. Her school is primarily Latino, and the children speak English as a second language, but they're scoring as high as native speakers in many areas. Also, contrary to the stereotype, their parents are extremely supportive of their education, they just don't have much themselves.

Thank you for that. So many of my inner city kids were just so smart and talented and young - it hurts to even imagine how a comment like that would feel.

Says WHO??? You are either in the city or your not. To say the otherwise is to be geographic challenged.

I understand geography really well. But thanks for your concern. "Rose Creek" is OKC in name only. It's a part of town for people who don't really like OKC, and trust me, we get it after your posts. Edmond is more your speed.

I just want to write that although I was quite taken aback by Bett's comment (because I immediately think how that would make one of the kids feel) I am not suggesting she is a racist or anything. I think it just wasn't thought through and made without doing her homework. A boneheaded and ignorant remark but not a meanspirited one.

I dont think Betts was being racist at all, I just think it was a not very well thought out comment (which is surprising for betts....)

I think she was just trying to make a correlation that you actually can't make (genetics to intelligence). Intelligence is learned and usually tied to environment/support, which would have been a better more accurate point that I think betts meant.

Nobody accused her of being racist, although there's a lot of coded language used when discussing "inner city" and "urban" which is often racial in its application. The fact we even have suburban schools is because of White Flight after school integration. Had we not had the White Flight in the first place, we probably wouldn't have the same challenges in our inner-city schools as we have today.

Nobody accused her of being racist, although there's a lot of coded language used when discussing "inner city" and "urban" which is often racial in its application. The fact we even have suburban schools is because of White Flight after school integration. Had we not had the White Flight in the first place, we probably wouldn't have the same challenges in our inner-city schools as we have today.

Every city of a certain size has the same problem. People of means move our not just for white flight (they way they did when busing was ordered). They move out to get more land and a more laid back lifestyle. These days, people still move out of town even though busing is no longer a factor and your kids' schools resemble the neighborhoods they live in.

Every city of a certain size has the same problem. People of means move our not just for white flight (they way they did when busing was ordered). They move out to get more land and a more laid back lifestyle. These days, people still move out of town even though busing is no longer a factor and your kids' schools resemble the neighborhoods they live in.

Don't kid yourself. This started when people wanted to ensure their kids wouldn't go to school with black kids. Then the moneyed kids left the inner-city districts and what was left of the student body was mostly poor, then the problem calcified. I realize there are people who actually prefer living in the suburbs, but the big driver of establishing the burbs was white flight. Edmond used to be a tiny little town at one time.

I request this thread be locked. Way far off topic. What a great way to welcome this person (possibly family) into OKC. Bravo....

Don't kid yourself. This started when people wanted to ensure their kids wouldn't go to school with black kids. Then the moneyed kids left the inner-city districts and what was left of the student body was mostly poor, then the problem calcified. I realize there are people who actually prefer living in the suburbs, but the big driver of establishing the burbs was white flight. Edmond used to be a tiny little town at one time.

Living in a rural or semi rural area, to me, is heaven. It has nothing to do with race. It has to do with lifestyle. Less crime, less traffic, less people, knowing my neighbors and businesses and deep roots in the community. Oklahoma is a state built, in large part, on agricultural and therural or suburban lifestyle is something a lot of people crave. Yes, some city folk left the cities in white flight. In the sixties and seventies. Of course they did. Busing was an extremely traumatic experience for many and if you had a child put on a bus to drive two hours a day instead of walking to a neighborhood school, you'd consider leaving, too. Some left because they didn't want integrated schools, surely. But it was much more complex that you are painting it and it CERTAINLY is not what is going on, now. Good schools, infrastructure (that didn't used to exist), big homes, big lots, etc., etc., is why most people live there, now.

I grew up on the northeast side. I lived in Bethany for 25 years, then lived in OKC near McGuinesss. My neighborhoods as an adult were white although the Bethany one was changing beginning in the early 90s. I don't see living in the city as living in bad neighborhoods. That never crossed my mind. But I don't want to live in the inner city because I want more land. People in my neighborhood all say the same thing and I have never heard anyone say they moved to the suburbs to get away from black people. Moving to a good school is NOT the same thing as moving to a white school. And having just moved back home from living in Washington DC, I assure you that there are many, many reasons people live outside the inner city that have less to do with race than with crime, congestion, expense per square foot, schools and even property taxes. And I stand by my position that inner city blight is a common problem in most large cities.

Congrats to the suburbanites on your life choices. Now, back to the original topic.....

I wasn't being a racist at all. I wasn't implying race. Poverty is related to multiple factors and....some of it is related to ability, which some people would equate with IQ. Ability has absolutely nothing to do with race, nor does IQ. My argument is that test scores are not only related to the quality of the education provided at a school, but also to the students' native ability. It's far too simplistic to say that suburban and private schools have better test scores because they are better schools. There are multiple factors involved. I agree, some is parental involvement and interest, some is quality of education, but some is ability, or IQ, or whatever you want to call it. IQ testing is simply another form of test, and so it's rather foolish to argue that while SOME test scores for urban schools are lower, those scores are completely unrelated to intelligence and only reflect the quality of education. And, test scores are only a mean. If people would look back at earlier posts I've written, I say that some of the most brilliant people I've met have come from very small, undeniably "inferior" school systems. There are brilliant people in every income group, every race, from every country. So, even if a school has lower test scores on the average, that says nothing about individuals. If people cannot understand my argument, I apologize, but I don't believe I have ever mentioned race, because I simply do not believe any one race is superior or inferior.

All I really ever wanted to say is that I think test scores are far too simplistic and overblown to be used as a single measure to compare schools and that I think urban schools can educate. If I had kids of school age I wouldn't hesitate to send them to school in Oklahoma City. I think people who are getting huffy about what I said and yet have stated above that they wouldn't send their children to a city public school should perhaps think about what that statement implies. Ordinarily I would ignore the above and move on, but I don't like people implying I am racist on a public forum, when nothing could be further from the truth. Now I am going to move on and will cease commenting here.

we're with you betts, your statement just sounded a little funny but I think all of us who know you understand what you were trying to say. You definitely are an advocate for downtown and the inner city.. ....

Didn't Classen SAS just reduce its enrollment making it harder to get in? I thought I read that in the Gazette but maybe I dreamed it.

Yes they did. soonerguru for your edification I do not live in Derr Creek.

The fact we even have suburban schools is because of White Flight after school integration.

Partially. I like living in a rural area of OKC. I do so because I do not like like living on a city lot with neighbors just out my window. I like the open space land owning provides. I atteneded Mayfair Elementary, Harding Junior Hiigh and then my family went rural. So the majority of my education was in OKCPS.

I understand geography really well. But thanks for your concern. "Rose Creek" is OKC in name only. It's a part of town for people who don't really like OKC, and trust me, we get it after your posts. Edmond is more your speed.

That's a pretty blanket statement. There are plenty of folks in Rose Creek that love OKC, and for that matter, that voted FOR Maps 3. I suppose anyone that doesn't live in inner city or midtown fits in your category, meaning places like Quail Creek and Lakehurst aren't part of OKC. Well, I bet if they found that out, they'd be happy if you refunded the sales tax money they pay.

I wasn't being a racist at all. I wasn't implying race. Poverty is related to multiple factors and....some of it is related to ability, which some people would equate with IQ. Ability has absolutely nothing to do with race, nor does IQ. My argument is that test scores are not only related to the quality of the education provided at a school, but also to the students' native ability. It's far too simplistic to say that suburban and private schools have better test scores because they are better schools. There are multiple factors involved. I agree, some is parental involvement and interest, some is quality of education, but some is ability, or IQ, or whatever you want to call it. IQ testing is simply another form of test, and so it's rather foolish to argue that while SOME test scores for urban schools are lower, those scores are completely unrelated to intelligence and only reflect the quality of education. And, test scores are only a mean. If people would look back at earlier posts I've written, I say that some of the most brilliant people I've met have come from very small, undeniably "inferior" school systems. There are brilliant people in every income group, every race, from every country. So, even if a school has lower test scores on the average, that says nothing about individuals. If people cannot understand my argument, I apologize, but I don't believe I have ever mentioned race, because I simply do not believe any one race is superior or inferior.

All I really ever wanted to say is that I think test scores are far too simplistic and overblown to be used as a single measure to compare schools and that I think urban schools can educate. If I had kids of school age I wouldn't hesitate to send them to school in Oklahoma City. I think people who are getting huffy about what I said and yet have stated above that they wouldn't send their children to a city public school should perhaps think about what that statement implies. Ordinarily I would ignore the above and move on, but I don't like people implying I am racist on a public forum, when nothing could be further from the truth. Now I am going to move on and will cease commenting here.

Well, Betts. You really are saying something completely different, now. Because here is what you said, before:


When looking at test scores, one has to ask how much the school is responsible for test scores, or if test scores are more likely to represent the innate ability of the student.
Inner city schools at this point in time are much more likely to have children of lower IQ parents, and genetically they would be expected to test less well. I don't think you can use a single measurement like that and make sweeping generalizations about a school. And again, is the solution for everyone to live in the suburbs and let the schools in the inner city decay?

Betts, where it went bad was your comment about lower IQ and genetics because you can't get around it that IQ is pretty much basic intelligence levels - not application or cultural things, overall. When you start saying lower income people have lower IQs and start talking genetics, you get into some deep water since lower income people tend to be heavily minority, especially black and hispanic.

And the use of the phrase "getting huffy" in your follow up comment is, frankly, a little arrogant. I wasn't getting huffy. I was quite offended at the thought that one of my guardian ad litem kids would read your original statement and think that people who claim to not be racist would comment that she might not test well because she probably inherited her parents' low IQ genes. There was no other way to read that regardless of what you meant or how you see yourself. I would expect you to own up to a boneheaded comment - not try to minimize the reactions of others and claim you said something different. I should think you'd go back and re-read that - think about a twelve year old young black girl reading it. After that, I'd hope that instead of making excuses, completely rewriting what you "meant," and calling bad reactions to your original post "getting huffy," that you'd think, "OMG, I can't believe I wrote that." And write something, accordingly.

I hope you have reconsidered saying that poor people are genetically inclined to not test well. I accept that you didn't mean to come across as racist but suggest you don't even start talking about genetics and low IQs of poor people if you don't want to be perceived as a racist. And I appreciate how painful it is to be accused of being a racist when you don't see yourself that way. You are fortunate that so many people have supported you and tried to understand. Frankly, a comment like that is inexcusable, especially in an intelligent person who doesn't approve of racism. You've denied racism, completely rechanged your comment, called people "huffy" and stomped off, claiming you won't read this again because you are offended. And on top of that, implied that anyone who didn't agree with your basic position but objected to the comment might well be racist, themselves. Not much to add to that other than the observarion that your response didn't show a lot of humility or courage.

Penny, I personally believe there are many causes of poverty. Mental illness is one of them, drug and/or alcohol abuse makes someone more likely to live in poverty, being born to a poor parent makes you more likely to live in poverty. I actually think children of other ethnicities than Caucausian are more likely to have one of those other reasons than IQ as their reason for poverty, because intelligence as measured by IQ test should be spread across a bell-shaped curve, no matter the race. But, it is inescapable that people with a lower IQ are more likely to be poor than wealthy because most jobs that make you wealthy are easier to obtain with a higher IQ. While most of us are under the curve somewhere, we're not all the same. Having a low IQ is just one part of what a person is, like height, and shouldn't be a source for shame, but the fact that we're all different where IQ is concerned is a fact of life. If you took a thousand garbage collectors (no slam on the garbage collection business, just using it as an example) and a thousand physicists and tested their IQs, I suspect you'd find that as a group the physicists had higher IQs. Doesn't mean there wouldn't be a few outliers in the garbage collection group with high IQ who just liked being a garbage collector, had a parent who was a garbage collector, etc. We are again talking about a mean here. As a whole, physicists probably make more money than garbage collectors, and so they are more likely to send their children to a suburban or private school so their child doesn't have to "pay the price" of having to attend a city public school (I hope you don't mind me quoting you here). Genetically, the child of a physicist is more likely to have an IQ closer to his or her parent, and if we say that physicists are more likely to have a higher IQ, then it follows that the child of a garbage collector is more likely to have an IQ similar to his or her parent. The fact that the child of the physicist is more likely to attend that private or suburban school skews the test scores higher.

Now, I never meant to imply that IQ is the only measure of intelligence. Au contraire. I'm one of the people who believes there are multiple types of intelligence, many of which aren't measured by intelligence tests. I happen to think all the obsession with test scores skews how we teach children, and as educators we fail children who don't have the same type of intelligence as what the schools are looking for and can measure. Which brings me back to my point. Test scores are a very poor way to measure the success or failure of a school. They tell you only one thing about a person. They don't tell you what that child wants to do with their life, what their dreams and ambitions are. They don't tell you what kind of drive that child has, whether he or she is a good person. So, my point is that the people who are telling others, "If private school isn't an option, live in a shack before you send your child to a crappy public school." does all those children of poverty who are in that "crappy" public school a disservice. My point is "They're more like you or me than many people think". They may be able to add a lot more richness to your child's life than the kid with the BMW parking next to your child in the private school parking lot. Sorry, I don't think that's a racist point of view.

Speaking as someone who spent a good part of their career dealing with kids in trouble or in need of assistance, the first thing I would tell many of their parents (the ones not mentally ill or drug addled) is to get their kids out of crappy neighborhoods and into a school that offers them a chance at a decent education. I stand by that, firmly. You are talking idealism and I am talking long term experience based on being charged with looking out for the best interest of individual children. From the way you write, you clearly have no idea what those kids live with or how it affects their future. Rule number one for people in the projects is to get out of them. It is not a much different rule for people not in the projects but in low achieving schools and sketchy neighborhoods.

Speaking as an educator and mother, whose own children's IQ scores shifted wildly from year to year, I don't put all that much stock in them beyond hitting a broad range, assuming the child is trying. You are correct that IQ tests are only one measure of ability and it is frequently not particularly accurate. That is one of the reasons it was so stunning to see an educated person talk about inner city schools being "much more likely to have children of lower IQ parents" and that, "genetically," they would be expected to test less well.

There are a lot of reasons people are poor but low IQ, in my experience, is nowhere near the top of the list and certainly isn't enough to skew the testing results of the children born to inner city people on any large scale. For every questionable parent I ever spoke to who was clearly of low IQ, there were probably 500 more who were suffering from mental illness, drug abuse or just plain old personality disorder - and I worked with thousands of troubled families, the majority poor, over the past ten years as a guardian ad litem with probably 800 families specifically assigned to me by the court. And add to that stew is the fact that of the parents who were slow or dull, nearly all the children were of normal intelligence (in fact, that was a problem in a number of cases since the parent couldn't keep up). Add to that the fact that even if a parent is slow, they almost always had either a partner, sibling or parents of normal intelligence living in the household. I appreciate that you didn't mean to say what you said but you were just flat off the mark.

There were a total of two posts relevant to the OP's question before MustangGT's comment started the derailment of the whole thread. I've said it before, I'll say it again: OKCtalk should be called OKCpolitics. Except for the nostalgia forums, every forum and thread eventually gets corrupted.

Back to the topic, if you like inner city you might check into the Linwood area, around NW 23rd and Drexel.

Does anyone know if NW 18th and Villa/Crestwood is a good and safe area. Thinking about buying there. I did the News 9 Crime Tracker I see a lot of assault and batteries and robberies within a 3 mile radius.

I live in Crestwood. To say that there were numerous assault/batteries within a 3-mile radius is a bit of a misnomer, because so much of OKC proper is very hit-or-miss when it comes to neighborhoods. So there are definitely good neighborhoods and bad neighborhoods within a 3-mile radius. We did have a strew of burglaries last spring, but that was the case all across the metro.

You would like this neighborhood if you like living in a area that is fairly diverse in both age and ethnicities. One of my neighbors has 5 chickens that live in their backyard. There's a sweet lady who comes and picks the mulberries off my tree that overhangs the street every year. The kids on my street play outside from after school until it's dark, every single day, no matter how hot or cold it is. I know almost every person's name that lives in a block radius of me, and I could tell you what they drive and what their dog's name is. I know this kind of stuff can be undesirable to some, but these are the things that I look for in a neighborhood.

Yes, it's a good area.

Does anyone know if NW 18th and Villa/Crestwood is a good and safe area. Thinking about buying there. I did the News 9 Crime Tracker I see a lot of assault and batteries and robberies within a 3 mile radius.

A lot of assaults are bar fights and / or domestic. Doubt you would deal with violent crime in that area.

This is the house I'm considering. Now no one go swoop it up from me lol.

Thoughts?

1809 N Villa Ave, Oklahoma City, OK 73107 - Zillow (http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1809-N-Villa-Ave-Oklahoma-City-OK-73107/21860571_zpid/)

This is the house I'm considering. Now no one go swoop it up from me lol.

Thoughts?

1809 N Villa Ave, Oklahoma City, OK 73107 - Zillow (http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1809-N-Villa-Ave-Oklahoma-City-OK-73107/21860571_zpid/)

It certainly looks like a good price.

And other question. How busy of a street is Villa? I don't want to be stuck on a noisy/high traffic street.

And since this house is on Villa is it considered apart of Crestwood?

Thanks.

It is probably Las Vegas neighborhood.

And other question. How busy of a street is Villa? I don't want to be stuck on a noisy/high traffic street.

Thanks.

ACOG has a traffic map here: http://acogok.org/Programs_and_Services/Transportation_and_Data_Services/TrafficCounts/

It looks like around 6000 vpd. Not a quiet residential street, but nothing really high.

You should take a look at Oklahoma City - A Better Life - Oklahoma City - A Better Life (http://www.abetterlifeokc.com) It is the site geared for people moving to Oklahoma City or who have recently relocated.

That house is in the Las Vegas neighborhood. It's not a bad little neighborhood, either. I am not sure if there is a neighborhood association, because several people who live in that neighborhood also come to the Crestwood events.

If I were you, I would come to the area on a weekday morning of evening and listen to the traffic yourself. Crestwood Baptist Church is at 16th and Villa--park there and just listen for 10 or 15 minutes between 7 and 8am. I live west of there, and admittedly, I don't walk my dogs east of Villa because there are no sidewalks and I hate walking in people's yards.

You can look at OKC crime stats by month and by neighborhood at this site:

City of Oklahoma City | Police (http://www.okc.gov/okcpd/crimeinfo/crimestats.html)

That house is in the Las Vegas neighborhood. It's not a bad little neighborhood, either. I am not sure if there is a neighborhood association, because several people who live in that neighborhood also come to the Crestwood events.

If I were you, I would come to the area on a weekday morning of evening and listen to the traffic yourself. Crestwood Baptist Church is at 16th and Villa--park there and just listen for 10 or 15 minutes between 7 and 8am. I live west of there, and admittedly, I don't walk my dogs east of Villa because there are no sidewalks and I hate walking in people's yards.

You can look at OKC crime stats by month and by neighborhood at this site:

City of Oklahoma City | Police (http://www.okc.gov/okcpd/crimeinfo/crimestats.html)


I checked the County Assesor's website and it lists the house as Crestwood. I will definitely look at it at different times of the day and night to see what I think.

I just want to feel safe.

Crestwood is pretty safe. I wouldn't go off the News9 tracker, a 3 mile radius is a pretty wide net to cast for an area that is comparatively dense like the inner NW side. At 3 miles from Crestwood, you are including some pretty bad neighborhoods like Metro Park and Classen Ten Penn and its probably skewing the results more than it should.

I would buy it. Seems like a nice house that just needs some TLC, but I wouldn't worry about the area.

I checked the County Assesor's website and it lists the house as Crestwood. I will definitely look at it at different times of the day and night to see what I think.

I realized that when I was driving home this evening. I had looked on a mapping website that had incorrectly put it on the east side of Villa.

I'd go for it if I were you. One of the things I like about this neighborhood is that even short-term investments seem to be worth the while here. Several folks have come in and purchased a house for $80k and turned it around and sold it for $150k+.

I realized that when I was driving home this evening. I had looked on a mapping website that had incorrectly put it on the east side of Villa.

I'd go for it if I were you. One of the things I like about this neighborhood is that even short-term investments seem to be worth the while here. Several folks have come in and purchased a house for $80k and turned it around and sold it for $150k+.


I drove by the house tonight around midnight. Pretty quiet area except for a few cars driving by. Man some people are speed happy.

Does anyone have experience with owning an older/historic home. People are telling me it's going to be super expensive to repair things and my heat and electric bills will be crazy.

I have owned an older home. They're no more expensive to heat or cool than many new homes, as a lot of the big developers make what you can see look good and skimp on what you can't see. The thick walls of older homes retain their temperature a lot better, but the windows tend to be less efficient so it ends up a wash. And I've found that once a home is 10 years old, they all cost about the same to repair. That's my personal experience.

I lived just a little southwest of there for a while, .. in Reed Park by 12th & Drexel and also went to church at Crestwood at 16th & Villa for a while. In fact, we seriously looked at a very nice old house in Crestwood on 17th between May and Miller. You could probably do ok over there, but personally, I would not want to be right on Villa.

I have owned an older home. They're no more expensive to heat or cool than many new homes, as a lot of the big developers make what you can see look good and skimp on what you can't see. The thick walls of older homes retain their temperature a lot better, but the windows tend to be less efficient so it ends up a wash. And I've found that once a home is 10 years old, they all cost about the same to repair. That's my personal experience.

I agree, my house was built around 1920 and I replaced the windows a couple of years ago. It made a huge difference and I think that the house is very energy efficient now. The house is very well built. I have been there for 30 years and love the place.

This is the house I'm considering. Now no one go swoop it up from me lol.

Thoughts?

1809 N Villa Ave, Oklahoma City, OK 73107 - Zillow (http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1809-N-Villa-Ave-Oklahoma-City-OK-73107/21860571_zpid/)

The house has a lot of potential.