I'm very happy to hear that Rod's a man of integrity. It wasn't a personal attack. It's an effort to understand an apparent contradiction. I commend anyone who stands up for what they believe. That doesn't mean I have to believe it, however.
"He warned the board [that] he doesn’t believe voters can be persuaded to accept a single high school. "
...maybe because he's actively persuading voters to reject it?
I think "Citizens for 2 Public High Schools" is a euphemism. These guys want to kill the idea of improving JC's HS system all together, and are feigning support for an idea the community already said it would not fund. (The community rejected paying for 2 schools in that recent survey, and we've been rejecting it for more than 2 decades. Dan and Rod know this. ) Where were Dan and Rod during the year-long community driven research phase? Those committees came up with 3 possibilites. The two campus option was there. The single campus with 7 separate academy buildings (with about 400 kids each) won out hands down.
I'm pretty sure Dan's kid(s) (one at least) goes to Helias. This guy either has alterier motives or is seriously mistaken. He said on KOMU that the new school will be 3500 kids (...more like 2,670...the guy should read the NewsTrib...). If he really wants schools of 800 students or under (like Helias), he should be all for the Academies concept. Each academy would average around 400 kids, all to themselves, within their own Academy building. Perfect. The 7 Academies wont, however, function in two high schools of 1300 kids. Less popular -yet essential- academies would have just 100 students or so... that's 25 kids per GRADE! A single, spacious campus with 7 high school academy buildings is closer to the path Dan has chosen for his child at Helias. Why shouldn't public school kids get that opportunity as well?
In a STL Post op-ed, Rod said - in support of building the Keystone Pipeline - "We should listen to experts." Education experts say that high schools of 300-800 are the ideal size. We have the potential to realize this ideal, but the numbers (of students) only work on a single campus. Our Board has listend to the experts. So, why the change or heart, Rod?
[mid-way down: stltoday.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letters-to-the-editor-november/article_2a1d3f4c-448e-5f64-9685-7c2ad9c50ca5.html]
Both men may have reasonable explanations for what appear to me to be contradictions with the "2 public high school" position they've suddenly taken. I'd like to hear them.
haha! We've gone from "The Snow-day Nazi", Richard Pimberton ("No snow day for you!"), to just a straight up Nazi?
[I know you weren't quite suggesting that.]
I feel that the board needs to tighten the leash a bit sometimes... Elected Board members should drive decisions more than an appointed administrator.
...board members don't care about children? Seriously? Most of the board is made of former teachers or spouses of teachers. I don't think people go into teaching for the money. (especially in this district.)
I understand the conspiracy logic that there's a group of elites that think they know what's best for the city, and try to push it onto the general population. (annexation, Transform JC, etc.)
But explain how that's the case here? I don't see it that way in this instance...
First, Marie is one of 4 non-Chamber members on the Board. See profiles at jcps.k12.mo.us . (And she was first appointed by many of the very board members people're suggesting get voted/thrown out.)
More importantly, the main thing that survey said was that the public doesn't want to pay for two high schools. Sure, we like the idea of improving education, but don't want to foot the bill. The Board seems to have heard this point loud and clear.
Hence, they've found an innovative way to boost education, keep costs down, and deliver a new high school to the public. The board is working hard to save us money. Look, the budget that the Board has passed over the past few years has voluntarily rolled back the levy... rather than asking for more $ and being told no, the Board is listening to voters and doing what they can to keep costs down. So, instead of paying $5.40 a year like Columbia property owners do, we pay just $3.67 in JC. (the JCPS budget is online)
haha! nice one, rob!
Linn and Lincoln have agreed to purchase all of the current HS buildings.
And a $20mil grant may come from the Fed.
This is the first (and only) well-planed, good idea to come from JC leaders in a long time.
Twenty-first century facilities with minimal tax burden is much better than having to pay for two industrial-style HS buildings. The more you know, the more you'll like it:
check out the site at newjchs.us
Because of football? Thats's an idea from the past.
Look at the Board. It's mainly teachers, spouses of teachers, and others that have made education their number one priority.
Agreed! 6-8...called "Academies".
This issue is not a dichotomy. The academies are an innovative solution to a cumbersome problem. I'm not trying to "have it both ways", rather I'm calling it for what it is.
It is 8 buildings ("learning communities") with 300-500 kids in each. Yes, I think the lower cost is very important, but achieving the goal of student learning is the primary function of schools...We seem to agree. Also, as you correctly point out, research says smaller schools are better. Many say below 800 is best. Two mega-buildings don't get us below that threshold, as 10-12 has around 2000 students already. Add Simonsen's 800... You get my drift. I think it is worth considering any plan to get us small schools (under 800) without having to build 4 high schools. Two mega-buildings just separate the problem geographically and make it more expensive in the process. Academies solve the problem.
Last login: Monday, December 10, 2012
© 2013 News Tribune Publishing.