News Tribune

JCLifer 4 months, 4 weeks ago

OK, so the good old boy wolf buddies like the megaschool chicken house. How about a review by a group of taxpayer watchdogs?

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

Paroquet 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Hmm. I'd like to see what the teachers think. I've got to know too many members of boards, committees, commissions, councils, etc. and thensome to be able to trust anything they put forward. Especially if its unanimous.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

JCLifer 4 months, 3 weeks ago

I would like to know of a list of other towns our size that have only one megaschool high school and how their students perform. Even better, I'd like to find some with academies too. I have asked at least twice but no one seems to know of any. The board should have visited a town the size of ours. Nashville Tennessee is quite different from JC with its multiple high schools.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

sancho 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Lifer and Paroquet, did you read the whole article or just the short summary they show on the forum? The people that reviewed this plan were from around the state 2 were from Columbia, one from KC and one from Sedalia. How can that be "the good old boy wolf buddies" and what is that anyway? According to the article, "Each member of the review team had recent experience with building a new school, or implementing professional career academies, or both."

It's fine to have teachers say what they think about the plan, but to have a thorough review of the plan requires people who deal with these type of issues - as the people on the review team are.

Paroquet, to imply that people on boards and commission are not trustworthy is insulting. I've served on boards and commissions - I volunteer my time to do so. I, along with the people I have served with study the information we are given and use use our background and experience to make this community better. We do more than sit on our behinds and blog, we research, meet with others to understand issues, and submit reports and information to help our groups.

I'm sorry if I'm being harsh, but both of your comments make me wonder if you read a different article than I read.

The school board can't catch a break. They are told their plan is deffective by people on this forum (hopefully they don't read this forum). They get a well qualified group to review the plan, and they're called good old buddie wolf boys (what is a good ole wolf buddie boy or buddie boy wolf or whatever????).

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

Dave 4 months, 3 weeks ago

The President of the Missouri School Boards' Association is a member of the Jefferson City School Board. The current superintendent, the immediately preceding superintendent, and the superintendent before that in Jefferson City were all hired as the result of a "search" conducted by the Missouri School Boards' Association, for which MSBA received five figure fees, every time. The Jefferson City school board belongs to the Missouri School Boards' Association, and annually pays that private organization thousands of dollars in membership dues for the privilege--monies that come from funds provided by tax payers for the public education of local children. Melissa Randol, the MSBA staffer quoted in the article, is not an educator, and has never been an educator. She is a lawyer, and runs the lobbying arm of MSBA, on whose behalf the last two superintendents and the board member who is currently MSBA president have routinely appeared to testify, twist arms and press flesh at the capitol to further MSBA's political agendas. MSBA is a political organization, not an educational one. There is no correlation between MSBA membership and student achievement, there is no correlation between MSBA membership and low per-pupil expenditure; there is no correlation between MSBA membership and any better-than-average, cost-effective expenditure of local, state, or federal dollars. MSBA does not further student learning. Missouri's unaccredited school districts are MSBA members. MSBA does take financial benefit from its partnership arrangements with bond financing companies used for capital projects in public school districts, including JCPS. To say that MSBA is an objective source of information is laughable. Their conflicts of interest are numerous; their funding descends in part from their capacity to convince voters they do not represent (and from whose districts they siphon funds in the name of membership) to support their private lobbying agenda that unilateral, closed-door actions by their member boards are somehow democratic processes. Jefferson City does not need to follow the recommendations of MSBA.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

JCLifer 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Bet they are working on getting MSHSAA's approval next. How much lobbying money from our taxes will that take?

The execution of this whole thing stinks to high heaven. The more they dig in and try to justify it, the smellier it gets.
Apparently their was zero fact-finding and objective discussion at all. No planning for ten years down the road. No contingencies for what happens when students only want to enroll in two of the academies instead of a neat bell curve distribution as planned. No scouting of one-school towns of our population.

Start over and use some transparency and some intelligence and then there might be some support.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

MakeSense 4 months, 3 weeks ago

JCLifer and Dave, so what would you propose as a solution? Have you done any research on your own to try to validate or discount any of the options?

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

3633 4 months, 3 weeks ago

My proposal would be to tear down the old State Pen and build on that land. We already own that property. Now, so why would we want to restore a jail and not build a school to use tax dollars with??? If we can use tax funds to restore the old State Pen then why not spend tax dollars to restore JC High School. Do we not want to educate!!!!

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

sancho 4 months, 3 weeks ago

3633, the state of Missouri owns the MSP site. That's why it is falling apart and undeveloped. No one has been able to convince the state of Missouri to allow development on the site. No one would be abe to convince the state to sell the land to the school board. Believe me, if they won't sell or transfer it to be developed, they are not going to sell it for a school for Jefferson City.

Has anyone mentioned on this thread that the land purchased on Hwy 179 (near where the new St. Mary's Hospital is being built) is centrally located so that students from opposite ends of the district will have about the same distance to travel to get to the new school? That would not be the case with a school on the MSP site or, as Jclifer suggests, Apache Flats.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

JCLifer 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Whatever happened to the plan the district announced a few years ago to build another building across Stadium Drive from the new Atkins Stadium below the ymca where the practice field and driving range are? Why did the board quietly dump that plan? There were floorplans and sketches published in the paper.

I don't think the district knows what it wants to do since it has no long range plan. They change with the wind.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

Dave 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Thanks for the question, MakeSense. I have some ideas, and here are only a few of them. 1. Separate the Operational Plan proposal of the Academy concept from the architectural/development/location debate. Education is a dynamic field, which flirts with various operational concepts (i.e. "junior highs" versus "middle schools" and "pod classrooms" v. "walled classrooms" and "cafetoriums" versus distinct food service and instructional/performance areas). History in JCPS and elsewhere shows that a well-built building will certainly outlast the proposed operational idea of the Academy structure. There is absent/unconvincing data to support the Academy approach at this time. A lot of affirmative statements on the pro-mega school website, but no data, no Missouri-specific examples, no parallel illustrations from schools with the same demographics. The building, if necessary, should be built with a longer vision than the Academy concept/current superintendent can sustain. 2. Consider making the current H.S. campus a 6-8 campus and making the two Middle Schools High Schools. This was publicly identified as an element of the Middle School design concept when it was sold to the public. Both M.S.'s currently house three grades with no complaints of overcrowding or potential overcrowding. The identically equipped M.S. would elminate the "equity" debate re "haves" and "have-nots". 3. IF Simonsen, though apparently suitable for collegiate instruction, is truly unusuable for 9th grade instruction, consider expanding the current H.S. campus to add 9th grade capacity, OR consider constructing two smaller, 9th grade additions to the M.S. campuses on the ample land available at both those sites.
4. Charge JCPS with the responsibility of explaining to the public why, when the question is "what is the most cost effective way to provide equitable, effective instruction to grade 6-8 students?" the answer is two, identically equipped schools logically placed at opposite ends of town, but when the same question is asked for grades 10-12, suddenly the answer changes to one mega-school, placed in the West-West/Central end. Why is that? 5. Postpone the ballot issue until August to allow for the necessary, data-driven,learning-focused, Missouri-specific evidence to be provided to the public. 6. Do not go to Dalton, GA, Nashville TN, or Prairie Grove, TX. Go to the Jefferson Building. Ask DESE for the list of Missouri districts with higher poverty, the same or lower per pupil expenditure, lower dropout, higher graduation, and the same or higher population. Then contact/visit/learn from those schools, here in Missouri, doing a better job than JCPS with more challenging students and the same or less money. Do THEY have a single mega-school? (Only if they're landlocked, i.e. Lindbergh). Do THEY use the Academy concept (only in their alternative schools and/or for exploration at the M.S. level).

Just for starts.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

RobHunterJohnson 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Mr Backes first our teachers, and students are the best right here in Jefferson City! I do not want to get into the rankings of our school, different enities rank different, criteria is analized differently, and information is presented differently? The bottom line for me is I have two facilities to compare, JCHS because I live here, Child, Grand Child, Nieces, and Nephews have, or are currently are attending JCHS Public Schools. Having stated that, the other HIgh School I have expeirence with is the one I attended myself. Parkway West, Ballwin, Mo class of 75. In 1975 we had the same amount of students that are presently enrolled at JCHS. Parkway was growing in leaps and bounds, but after I graduated a couple of years later they cut enrollment in half with the addition of Parkway South High School! Going to wikipedia, Parkway West has had some student who have done very well for theirselves, so has JCHS, but the improvement started with the cutting of the student body by half, and it was not all atheletes? It seems to me that the smaller school helped these kids with more oppurtunity? My grandson graduated from Risco High. Risco, Mo, he did very well academically, I owe alot of this to the close relationship between Teacher and Student class size? My Grandson and Grand Daughter have benefitted from a small school enviroment! I am a Pipefitter from St Louis, I would love to work on your schools, I have seen my share of school houses over the years, and there are things that can be done to help with student interuptions during construction, or remodeling. I also know what change does, having different applications of teaching, and change of grades at the same time? (PODS?) I am skeptical of the acadamy style of teaching, If one was to even think of doing that, they would need to begin alot earlier than High School? If JCHS needs a trade application why not merge with Linn tech on a JCHS location? You have not sold me, that your JCHS is and old worn out building. JCHS is worth more than the sale price of 8 million that the board sold it for? It is twice the size of Still, and half the size ot Lincoln in just acreage alone? What are those properties worth, and remember there are alot of us watching our money, and yours too! Rob 57

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

Dave 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Respectfully, LittleInvestor is factually incorrect in his statements regarding school district consolidation in Missouri. Fifteen years ago, there were 527 school districts in Missouri. Today, there are 522. School districts that have met two or more of three criteria: Fiscal Insolvency, Academic Failure, and Crisis in Leadership, have on occasion been disbanded not by DESE but by the State Board of Education (DESE is the agency merely charged with executing the State Board's will), after many years of improvement interventions have failed to make a difference, and those students have been sent to a number of surrounding districts. Typically, school districts in Missouri are only "merged" rarely, and usually at the request of the districts and their communities themselves. The frequency of district consolidation in Missouri is in fact at its lowest rate in many decades.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

mikemojc 4 months, 3 weeks ago

" MSBA does take financial benefit from its partnership arrangements with bond financing companies used for capital projects in public school districts, including JCPS. "

With that in mind, the article now re-reads:

A team of hand-picked school administrators from around the state who rubber stamped the Jefferson City Board of Education’s plans to build a replacement mega-high school concluded the cost and staffing estimates developed by Jefferson City school administrators are appropriate.

“There were no holes in any of their data, and all their recommendations were sound,” said Attorney/Lobbyist Melissa Randol, MSBA deputy executive director, who helped facilitate the committee’s work, and who plans on having a nicer vacation next summer if the Patrons approve the bond issue

The crony review committee was assembled by the Missouri School Boards Association (a subsidiary of the JCPS); their report was issued Friday. (after offices close to avoid answering uncomfortable questions)

Emphasis mine, leading to interpretive fiction. Is there an unbiased, verified source for this data? Would an information request of DESE be out of line?

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

Dave 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Thanks, JCLifer for the correction. Even though the data is unfortunately not easy to "mine", it really is amazing what information can be gotten from the State Dept. of Ed.. MikeMoJC--I would imagine that the "data" that "has no holes in it" that Ms. Randol was referring to must have been data concerning the district's bonding capacity, interest rates, costs of borrowing, pay-off schedules, how to slide the $10m from the fire sale around. "No holes" there is hardly an endorsement--violation of those rules would be fiscal mismanagment at least and possibly illegal violations of regulatory code/administrative law/statue.
The holes in JCPS' data are not about dollars. The holes in JCPS' data are about student learning. (check out the completely unreliable trendline data and also absent data self-reported by the district regarding MAP scores and reported under "School Data and Statistics, District level report card" under the Data Mangement System tab at .dese.mo.gov)
The other holes in JCPS' data are about how to share germane facts and performance figures to guarantee an informed electorate when promoting ballot issues. Voters seeking real information from the NewJCHS site find only unsupported predictions and statements of enthusiastic idealism. There is one film clip regarding a local Middle School project (which is not High School), one film clip from a community with three high schools, not one, and two film clips from the education foundation of the director of the Star Wars movies. The district should be held accountable for providing specific examples of districts with similar demography to Jefferson City's, (an example from any one or two of those 520 Missouri districts seems like a reasonable expectation) showing that the Academy Approach has improved student learning, and showing that single high schools with enrollments over 2,000 are more academically successful than those with enrollments half that, and showing if possible to do so that there is any correlation between the age of school facilities and the effectiveness of teaching and learning that occurs within them. JCPS is fortunate that it's Business Services director, Jason Hoffman, enjoys a well-deserved statewide reputation as a school finance expert. No one needs MSBA or anyone else with a vested interest to check his work--that's why the district satisfies the state requirement that it be independently audited every year.
The city is less fortunate however, to be asked to support the unconvincing campaign for new, inconveniently located, unnecessarily expensive buildings, when the district really cannot currently demonstrate impressive instructional effectiveness in its current sites, and demonstrates no real data-evidenced understanding of how to redress that deficit in any building, at any price.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

Dave 4 months, 3 weeks ago

correction: Jason Hoffman's actual title is "Chief Financial Officer" for JCPS.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

JCneeds2HS 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Small School Law – Florida Florida law as of July 2003 (c) A high school with a student population of not more than 900 students

.ilsr.org/rule/small-schools-vs-big-schools/2107-2/

Small School Law – Florida

The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at .ilsr.org/rule/small-schools-vs-big-schools/2107-2/

In 2000, the Florida legislature passed the statute shown below, that recognizes the benefits of small schools and prohibits, as of July 2003, the construction of large schools. As of that date, new elementary schools will be limited to 500 students, middle schools to 700, and high schools to 900.

Florida Statutes: Title XVI Education – Chapter 235 Educational Facilities 235.2157 Small school requirement.– (1) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS.–The Legislature finds that: (a) Florida’s schools are among the largest in the nation. (b) Smaller schools provide benefits of reduced discipline problems and crime, reduced truancy and gang participation, reduced dropout rates, improved teacher and student attitudes, improved student self-perception, student academic achievement equal to or superior to that of students at larger schools, and increased parental involvement. (c) Smaller schools can provide these benefits while not increasing administrative and construction costs. (2) DEFINITION.–As used in this section, “small school” means: (a) An elementary school with a student population of not more than 500 students. (b) A middle school with a student population of not more than 700 students. (c) A high school with a student population of not more than 900 students. (d) A school serving kindergarten through grade 8 with a student population of not more than 700 students. (e) A school serving kindergarten through grade 12 with a student population of not more than 900 students. Aschool on a single campus which operates as a school-within-a-school, as defined by s. 230.23(20), shall be considered a small school if each smaller unit located on the single campus meets the requirements of this subsection. (3) REQUIREMENTS.– (a) Beginning July 1, 2003, all plans for new educational facilities to be constructed within a school district and reflected in the 5-year school district facilities work plan shall be plans for small schools in order to promote increased learning and more effective use of school facilities. (b) Small schools shall comply with all laws, rules, and court orders relating to racial balance. (4)EXCEPTIONS.–This section does not apply to plans for new educational facilities already under architectural contract on July 1, 2003. History.–s. 21, ch. 2000-235.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

sancho 4 months, 3 weeks ago

JCneeds, I don't want to use Florida as a role model. They do not appear to me to do very well caring for children in foster care, for many years they have made national news with cases of children in foster care killed or abused. Missouri certainly has our problems in that area. But Florida just does not appear to me to be focused on children. Tourism and attracting retirees are their priorities. Missouri is very different.

Also, the academies model is not one big mega-school. It is 7 schools located on one property. I don't consider Lawson Elementary and Thomas Jefferson Middle School to be one school. They are 2 schools, located next door to each other. I don't consider the 7 academies to be one school.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

sancho 4 months, 3 weeks ago

I'm pretty sure that no school funding ballot issue will pass. So really, JCNeeds2hs, you and your supporters can rest easy, save yourself the legwork of doing research to support your position. But JCNeeds2hs, I do have a question for you. Did you work on any of the committees that worked over 2 years on improving the schools here? Did you attend any meetings on the public school plans before the fall of 2012?

JCLifer great job of providing studies (they were a bit dated, but perhaps that's all there is, outdated research); but really, if you'd rather do something other than look up information online, please do. No amount of work, or research, will convince voters to pass an increase in funding for the schools. So folks who don't like JCHS, can send their kids to Helias, because voters are not going to agree to pay for any improvement to our school system.

Over and over, in Jefferson City, I have seen commissions, task forces, committees work on projects to improve something about this community. Meetings were public, and were announced for interested people to attend. Very few people attended the meetings where people did the committee work. But when these groups presented their projects, groups in Jeff City criticized the work, nit-picked, insulted the people on the committees, on and on. Sometimes there wasn't even a cost associated to the proposals. There is just an ingrained negativity in this community, when it comes to reacting to change. So change does not happen.

Dave you said, "The other holes in JCPS' data are about how to share germane facts and performance figures to guarantee an informed electorate when promoting ballot issues." In order to have an informed electorate, voters have to be interested in getting informed. They have to be engaged in the process. People here do not do that. They wait until someone else has done a great deal of work, and then they sit back and tear it apart. I don't really see why the JCPS should waste their time. A year ago they invited the public to attend the meetings about the work their committees had conducted over more than 2 years on how to improve the high school. I went to those meetings and learned a lot, Here we are a year later and people on this forum are screaming and yelling about how the school board went behind the tax payers' backs and did things. If people on this forum are so uninformed about the work done to figure out how to improve our schools, as to claim it was done in secret, no amount of work to "...share germane facts and performance figures to guarantee an informed electorate when promoting ballot issues" will change anything. In the end the same people against the school board will oppose anything else they propose.

Jclifer you are saying do 2 highschools and do it cheaper, do it cheaper do it cheaper. Well, 2 high schools will not be cheaper, it will be more expensive. You will be leading the charge against the expensive proposition.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

sancho 4 months, 3 weeks ago

I knew about the meetings, plans, etc. because they were announced in the paper, and I attended them, as did others. Many of us went wanting 2 schools. We came away impressed with the plans, and the work that went into studying all of the options - including 2 separate schools.

Quit being so negative and insulting about the work the school board and committees did on this. You weren't paying attention, which is why you think it was all in secret.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

online_editor 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Let's make sure we stay focused on discussion of the issues. It's fine to respond to and rebut another forum participant's viewpoints, but let's avoid personal jabs at other participants and repetitive bickering. Remember, there's a stage in multiple exchanges with another contributor when you've made your points clear to all readers and you may need to agree to disagree with that one person and move forward.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

RobHunterJohnson 4 months, 3 weeks ago

Mr Backes, I went to the DESE site, I found it hard to understand, as well as hard to search, or compare? I did go to school digger the next site down on high school rankings from the list at google, and while going back to the same two schools I am aquainted with JCHS, and West High, (Parkway) Ballwin. These folks at school digger, 2011-2012 gave JCHS a rank of 443, Teacher to student ratio of 16.8 to 1, a combined MAP of 90.5 and with enrollment of 1912 students not counting the Simonsen kids (2500). West High, (parkway) Ballwin, 2011- 2012 had a rank of 17, and a student to teacher ratio of 16.2 to 1, with a combined MAP of 164.8 and a enrollment of 1293 students 9th through 12th. No matter how I look at this I have a problem with the ranking of our children! I am not an Educater, or a Teacher. There is quite a difference in the numbers that I have found, and I am just an old construction worker. I am not interested in conversation out of this format, I do feel that the DESE group should compile some better way to let the average Joe understand the criteria they are trying to present? I also feel we should remodel our existing High School, and build a new one! The other option I could agree to would be one large Jr High, and the existing Jr Highs to become the 2 High schools, sharing privilage to Atkins Stadium! We could possibly still sell Simonsen at the close all this back to Lincoln University? We could also remodel Nichols into more high school space, and find another location for this facilty, keeping all in one place, but then that brings us back to one large school! Rob 57

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

duke 4 months, 3 weeks ago

I don't really think it matters what process has been used by the school district. If there's not unaminous support for a bond proposal even among the board, if there as many public questions left unanswered as there are demonstrated here and elsewhere, if the district and new high school websites don't provide any specific hard data to show that a single mega-school and/or an Academy approach is likely to improve the district's lackluster academic performance, and if no one at the district is asking or answering questions about teaching and learning in a meaningful way, then it's not yet time to support a bond issue at the polls. The Board and its Superintendent need to get on the stick and provide specific data to show how what they're asking for will make a difference, or they need to postpone the issue until August or drop it entirely. Just because meetings are held doesn't make a process meaningful. Just because people attend those meetings doesn't mean all the important questions have been asked and answered.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

RobHunterJohnson 4 months, 2 weeks ago

sancho, what will it cost to renovate the existing high school and not the inflated price of 25 million? What is in so dire need of repair? Rob

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

sancho 4 months, 2 weeks ago

RobHunter, you asked what it will cost to renovate the existing high school. The information on the newjchsdotus site is as followings:

"Renovation of current JCHS: Renovation and construction of a single high school campus would include full renovation of the high school, Nichols Career Center and Thorpe Gordon Elementary School, as well as additional new construction at that site. Thre three facilities would be placed "under one roof." Additionally, the district would need to build a new Thorpe Gordon Elementary School. Total renovation including additional parking: $51,260 million, plus $10 million to build a new Thorpe Gordon equal $61,260,000 and a debt service levy of $0.26."

I may be reading into your question, but I suspect you would expect it to cost less, and probably you would expect them to do less. My opionion is that if they are going to bother improving JCHS so that it serves the needs of preparing 21st century kids for employment in the 21st century world, then do it right. Either do it right or don't bother. They did a major renovation of Simonsen in th 90s, and here we are 20 years later and people are saying Simonsen is not an acceptable school. I would have preferred to see the money invested in that renovation go further than 20 years.

Rob, you are apparently in construction. You probably know that taking an older building and renovating it to modern standards can be expensive.

One of the things I like about the academy model at the new site is that for the money we spend, we get the new school, with 7 academies. The 7 academies will each be a small learning community, with an average of 380 students, each with its own principal, core group of teachers, counselor and support staff.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

duke 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Sancho--Is it then a reasonable conclusion that Lincoln/Linn Tech expect to spend thirty or forty million dollars completely to renovate the old buildings? Strange that's not mentioned in any of the articles about the fire sale. It's almost as if they think the facilities are ready for effective instruction as is.
Also, you here repeat an undocumented claim of the "Academy" proposal--that it will result in smaller learning communities. I'm sure you know that the only way to have smaller learning communities is to have more teaching faculty, right? So, how many more faculty will be required in the Academy model, what's the price of that faculty, and how soon after the bond issue camnpaign to build the new mega-school will the voters be asked to supprot the tax levy increase that will pay for that price? Also, if you're moving from four principals to seven, what's that cost? And could you provide any insight into the professional developent offerings and costs necessary to make all those new (and old) teachers more effective, or are you satisfied to let JCHS continue it's below-state-average performance in all of the state's measured post-secondary success indicators?

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

duke 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Building expensive, new buildings does not imply more effective instruction or higher levels of student learning. Just ask the citizens of Kansas City.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

sancho 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Duke, I don't find it strange at all that Linn Tech and LU have not laid out detailed plans for the buildings if they acquire them. This is a complicated, long-term project. Linn Tech and LU will not purchase those buildings unless some type of funding passes and the final outcome is JCHS moving. Linn Tech and LU have plenty of time to plan what to do with the buildings, how much to spend and how to pay for that.

Regardless of whether they build 7 new academies, or renovate, or go with the 2 high school model, they will have to hire more teachers. One of the main reasons they began this planning process was because they project a higher number of students in the highschool in the future, so they will need more staff. But they may not need a proportionate number of more principals. Each academy will have one principal. Now there are 7 principals at the hs.

Duke, you stated, "I'm sure you know that the only way to have smaller learning communities is to have more teaching faculty, right?" I don't agree. If you have 2800 students, and your teacher/pupil ratio is 18/1 (which is ours) then you need around 155 teachers, whether they are in the 7 academies or 2 highschools or the existing high school.

I think where you get into a disproportionate number of new staff in one model versus the other is in the food services, transportation, support staff (secretaries), janitorial staff and maintenance. From what I've read the 2 school model (on different campuses) will require more of these types of positions.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

sancho 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Duke, you are asking some good quesionts.

You asked, "And could you provide any insight into the professional developent offerings and costs necessary to make all those new (and old) teachers more effective..." I went to the newjchsdotus site, under Facilities in the FAQ, I found a question, "The District is running both a bond and a levy. I understnad the bond will go towards building the new school, but what will the levy monies go towards?" I won't quote the entire answer here (you should go to the site and see all the information), but the part that addresses your question is, ""Professional Development (31%): it is important that all staff receive the professional development they need to successfully implement 21st Century teaching and learning trategies."

So it appears the School Board agrees with you that teachers need to be more effective and they are planning to provide training and professional development to make that happen.

Duke, as for your comment about Kansas City, I agree new buildings do not mean better education. Our school board has been researching, studying, working on improving secondary education in Jeff City for 3 years now. They took the initiative to do this, there have been committees of people from the community working on the planning. The school building project that took place in Kansas City was the result of a lawsuit, and one or more judges were very involved in the process. That is a very different approach to implementing change. Hopefully our planning is going to have better results and will not be subject to judges and lawyers playing "devil's advocate" and messing things up.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

duke 4 months, 2 weeks ago

If you are going to have "smaller learning communities" than you have now, the only way to do that is by increasing the number of staff. The law is written so that schools do not receive funding support anymore for those hours when students are taught by a teacher not certified in the subject matter of that particular class. If you are going to make the "learning communities" (which is a fluff term, by the way--used to promote a concept that the district shows no understanding to deeply implementing, and learning communities are not impactful on student achievement except when they are deeply implemented) smaller, the only way to do so--the only way to have students in smaller groups, is to have more teachers.

The fact that KC schools were required to build more expensive buildings was in fact the result of a federal judge's decision--you are correct about that. And federal judges did guarantee that the district and city complied with those decisions. The design of the buildings however, and the elements within them, and the organizational models used to execute teaching and learning in those buildings were all controlled by the school board and the district administration, just as they are in Jefferson City. The Paseo Academy is a Missouri-specific example of the Academy model being employed in a new construction AND renovation project. It is not in Texas, it is not in Tennessee, it is not in Georgia, and it is not a middle school.

Saying that one is going to spend 31% of a levy on professional developmment is not the an answer to the question regarding what type of professional development will be offered. Where is JCPS going to find proven professional development offerings that are going to teach current teachers how to be effective in an instructional and organizational model they are strangers to, when they cannot even be more effective than average schools in a conventional model that is used statewide by high schools routinely outperforming JCHS? Quoting prices and projected expenditures is NOT an answer to the request for hard data that shows student achievement improvement in exceptionally large high schools in Missouri with similar demographics to JCPS.

Repeating campaign propaganda and talking building budget numbers is not a response to the real issue--what is the most cost-effective, field-proven, data-evidenced way to improve student learning in JCPs to at least state averages?

I read the entire New JCHS website. I found it repetitive and self-serving, but lacking any data about achievement, lacking any Missouri examples, and lacking any specifics showing a real grasp by the board or superintendent of how to address the PROBLEM of ineffective teaching and learning. New buildings and different organizational models are a shell game.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

duke 4 months, 2 weeks ago

And one more thing. The phrases "21st century learning" and "21st century jobs" are jokes. It's 2012 (check your watch, soon to be 2013) We're already 1/8th of the way through the 21st century. Anyone who's got a job RIGHT NOW has a 21st century job, and has for over a decade. JCPS, whether it owns the fact or not, is engaging students in 21st century learning EVERY DAY, and doing only poor-to-middling at it.

NO ONE has any more of a clue about preparing kids for jobs as-yet-unimagined and twenty or more years away today than a person in 1912 had a clue about preparing kids for jobs in the 1930's and 40's and after. Which is to say, the answer is the same for the century we are already in as it was for the twentieth century--you give kids the deepest exposure you can to current technology, you prepare them to think deeply and critically no matter what their vocation may be, you teach them how to express themselves precisely and persuasively in written and spoken language no matter what their vocation may be, you give them an accurate sense of the history of their country no matter what their vocation may be,, equip them with the civics understanding to make a difference in their society, teach them sufficient mathematics to understand logic and the physical world around them no matter what their vocation may be, excite them to science so that they will stick with it as scientific knowledge rapidly changes throughout whatever career they end up in, and then you turn them loose to enter the world. Doing so is the focus of the schools IN MISSOURI that are outperforming JCPS. Doing so is the focus of the schools in nations all around the world that are outperforming the U.S. Doing so was the focus of schools 100 years ago as they prepared those generations that led America out of 19th century thought and into and through the American century.

Grouping teenagers by the jobs they think they might have in fifteen years and then giving them focused instruction in that area is not "21st century learning". It's trade school teaching, and it's what Earnest? (can't remember his first name) Simonsen was promoting when he donated the land for the school that bears his name a few years after the Civil War. Only in Jefferson City could the notion be confused with modernity. The world beyond Cole County is an inclusive world, not a segregating one. It is a world democratized by technology, not a classist world shaped by presumptions based on a child's socio-economic status/

Quite apart from the research-disproven simply WRONG and outdated premise of the "Academy" approach, just sample any 100 Jefferson City residents. Ask how many ended up in the careers they thought they'd have when they were fourteen. Ask those who went to college how well they would have done if their high school preparation had been shaped by what they thought their career would be when they were fourteen.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

JCLifer 4 months, 2 weeks ago

The JCPS Board really did itself no favor by mixing discussion of new building with academy model. It appears their intent was ti justify one with the other, or at least throw up a distracting smokesceen with the other when difficult questions are being asked.

I question voters will need to ask themselves before voting is "Do I trust these people with my tax dollars, my children, and the economic development of Cole County?"

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

duke 4 months, 2 weeks ago

It is not disrespectful to continue repeating the same question when it has yet to be answered.
Quoting an unconvincing website is not a convincing thing to do. Acting offended because someone disagrees with your views and then being offensive towards others who disagree with your views is hypocrisy.

The school district does not have a monopoly on public forums, or on which forums are acceptable for the open exchange of ideas regarding schools. I know that is part of the plan to control public opinion, and I have used it myself, in schools settings, in bigger districts and more expensive projects than this one. This too is a forum, Sancho--it's just not the school's forum.

It's not that I don't respect you--I don't know you; it's just that I disagree with you. If the "ideas of others" never go beyond building unnecessary buildings and adopting unproven organizational models in lieu of providing successful instruction that guarantees learning for all, I'll continue to point out the weaknesses of those ideas.

All we need are some Missouri-specific examples of large high schools with demographics comparable to JCHS who can provide meaningful data over a three-year trendline showing that the Academy approach improved student achievement from average or below-average levels to levels above state average or even significantly above state average. Until then, the drumbeat of criticism will continue, and appropriately so.

If the "research" of the school board/district is so comprehensive, and the participation of yay-sayers has been so fruitful, surely this request is an easy one to satisfy.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

RobHunterJohnson 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Sancho, you seem to be at the point? I to have to say that several post up that Duke said it well! I have asked previously how many juniors know what they want to be in life, there is some kids parents that have shaped them into their vision, but most do not have not a clue! Why does the school board keep blending this conversation with the need for a new Thorpe Gordon? I know Thorpe is the school in JCPS that needs the most attention, why don't they seperate Thorpe Gordon out, and away from the high school for starters? Your vision for renovation and mine are quite different, because I still have trouble with the acadamy style approach. It is a trade specific application of teaching, and my learning days were one big experiment in the late 60s, and early 70s! A couple of days ago I gave mr backes some data I mined out of this computer, and JCHS was rated by this enity at 443. The other school I refererd to has done well since the student body was split in half? I would like to know if JCPS went to an acadamy style program, can you tell me that children won't get lost in this approach when the switch is made, and are they really going to be ready for the world when they leave with all the specialized skills they have recieved at such a young age. How many Acadamies are now operating in the State of Missouri, 2012-2013 school year? How long, and did they improve their performance State wide by making that change? Rob57

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

sancho 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Education is always changing. One of the things Duke left out in what we need to give our kids, is the ability to work together as a team, and collaborate. They need to learn the ability to be focused and involved in what they are learning. Duke claimed no one has a clue about preparing kids for jobs. But employers and businessmen know what they need that they are not seeing in the workforce and they are asking for educators to revamp our schools to provide that. Our children are being conditioned to expect to be entertained, even in the classroom. Using the same curriculum that we used 15 years ago does not work any more. Duke you and I have different ideas of what “smaller learning community” means. So we probably will be wasting our time by discussing that concept. It is not just a smaller number of students to teachers. Duke said, “Saying that one is going to spend 31% of a levy on professional development is not an answer to the question regarding what type of professional development will be offered.” My experience with implementing a huge change like this is that you start with planning the big picture, more or less an outline, then you fill in the details. If you start with details, you get bogged down with that and never get any planning accomplished. So in my opinion, assigning a percentage of the levy to professional development without ironing out the details of what specific training will be offered is what I expect to happen now. The details will be determined later. Some of the training they will provide hasn’t even been developed yet. I don’t think there is an expectation that a student attends a specific academy and they are only prepared to work in that field. Duke, you said you read the entire newjchs website. You need to re-read it, because it states that no matter what academy a student is in they will “gain the skills needed to move on in their education.”

Rob, kids rarely know what career they will end up in. So you teach them how to reason, process information (in their heads, not on their mobile devices), use good judgement, work with others, communicate, etc. In my opinion the academy model gets students interested in learning. It is not just to get them directed in a certain career, but to engage them in learning by making them feel like they are in the real world while they learn.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

sancho 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Duke stated, "All we need are some Missouri-specific examples of large high schools with demographics comparable to JCHS who can provide meaningful data over a three-year trendline showing that the Academy approach improved student achievement from average or below-average levels to levels above state average or even significantly above state average."

I disagree. Why force us to only do what has been attempted in Missouri? Why limit ourselves to only looking at communities that mirror our demographics? If somebody in Iran has developed a successful teaching technique, that produces good results are we going to have to ignore that because it's not something that was tried and proven in Missouri? We get bright people here. Why not encourage them to look beyond the borders of our state for ways to improve what we do?

Rob, it sounds like your experience was with a school that went from one large school to 2 smaller schools. My experience was the opposite. My little school was consolidated with 2 others to become a big school. It made people quite upset, many pulled their kids out of the schools consolidating and sent them elsewhere. At that time, this was a new thing in our area. It seemed like we were going from a one-room schoolhouse to what at that time we thought was a mega-school. It was a positive, long-lasting change that improved the quality of education for those involved. I see the current proposal as a way to accomplish a similar result here.

Duke, what specifically to you want to see happen to Jefferson City High School over the next 5 years, 10 years? You are opposed to what the school board is proposing. What do you propose instead of their plan?

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

duke 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Thanks sancho for asking. I like several of the ideas proposed by "dave" above, and to them I would add and echo the following (as a beginning): 1. The School Board should publicly announce that it will not place a bond issue on the ballot until August. 2. The School Board needs publicly to indicate that the proposed new construction and/or renovation bond issue is separate and distinct from the district's possible adoption of the "Academy" organizational model. 3. The School Board needs to withold approval for 2013-2014 Professional Development expenditures unless the district's Professional Development Committee (PDC) which recommends those expenditures provides those recommendations indexed to reference any one of the following: A. The grade level and subject matter of state-mandated assessments (upon which the district's accreditation status is partially based) that those professional developent expenditures are meant to improve, and/or B. Any of the non-mandated assessment-based standards currently used by the state to determine district success/performance/accreditation (i.e. dropout rate, graduation rate, ACT performance, ACT participation, etc.) that expenditure is meant to improve, and/or C. Any other student achievement performance-based indicator, documented by data to be in need of improvement, identified by the district, providing data-based improvement goals to be measured and reported to the board prior to the next request for professional development funds. 4. The School Board needs to charge the Superintendent with ensuring that not later than August, 2014, every class in the core subjects (math, english, social studies, and science) has a district-identified performance standard correlated to the Common Core standards (required for implementation by the feds and the state within the next twenty-four months) that can be measured with a pre-test and post-test to provide meaningful data on actual student learning as defined by the district; and to require the same for ALL district-offered instruction not later than August, 2015. 5. The School Board needs to charge the Superintendent with demonstrating the district's implementation of the new Missouri Educator Effectiveness (teacher and principal performance evaluation) system, not later than August, 2013.
6. The School Board needs to make readily available to the public data-driven evidence of the Academy organizational model used in a high school of similar size as JCHS, from ANY STATE IN THE UNION, which shows an improvement in student achievement and district performance that correlates directly to the implementation of that organizational model. There are more ideas I have, sancho, but those are a start, and NT prohibits long/complex posts.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal

sancho 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Thanks for the ideas Duke.

To save space I’ll just refer to your item numbers, and not quote them in full.

On your #1, I hope the school board considers waiting until August to put this on the ballot. I think we need to learn from past ballot initiatives to increase taxes, and make sure the voters understand what is being proposed. In the past I believe groups have been in a hurry to get issues on the ballot, and those issues failed. Now people are paying attention to what the school board is proposing. Taking the time to discuss the options and discuss concerns in full would help educate all of us about the school issue.

On your #2, I believe I’ve heard that regardless of whether a new facility is built, or the existing school undergoes major renovations, the district is pursuing implementing the academy model. If I’m right about that, then your #2 could be done.

On your #s 3-5, I can’t help you with those Duke. I am not an educator, I am a retiree, voter, taxpayer, and parent of two young adults who graduated from JCHS. I don’t have the expertise to address the issues you raised. I do believe the school board needs to share with us where our high school is performing in key areas. But on the subject of measuring success, what to measure and how, I believe that school boards should have some flexibility. No child left behind sounded like a good idea, but it wasn’t. I don’t want us to over emphasize measuring success and not get around to teaching our kids.

I agree with your #6.

Have a good New Year.

• Sign in to reply
• Sign in to suggest removal