2 people shot in JC December 22, 2014
The Jefferson City School Board seems to have attempted to proactively undermine any chance at a 2 high school plan when they agreed to sell the current facilities before they even put together a bond proposal for ANY new school plan. If the next bond proposal passes, the current campus is sold - done deal.
This seems to put the lie to any claims that they are open to ideas other than their mega replacement school.
I would very much like the News Tribune to exert their journalistic prowess and examine the records regarding 2 school board real estate transactions. First, the land purchased on Hwy 179; who owned what, when, and at what price over the course of the last 2 years. That land jumped in value geometrically, causing the school board to pay 27 TIMES the market value from 2 years ago. Second, could the News Tribune or some other disinterested 3rd party look over transactions for the sale of the current JCHS campus. How was a fair and equitable price arrived at? Who performed the assessment? What properties were used as a comparison for arriving at the campus' value? Is there documentation somewhere showing what the replacement value of those facilities are? I'm guessing that if lightning struck and the whole place burned to the ground, the insurance companies would be on the hook for far more that $11,000,000.
When they have the next public forum, I'll be there, front of the line, notebook in hand. :)
I wish I would have been able to attend lat night. The school board stated before that they intended to schedule 'a number' of these forums. Have they scheduled the next one, yet?
I've had 2 children graduate from JCHS, and have a Freshman currently attending. I do think all parties concerned would be better off if the school board would move forward with a 2 high school plan, but am looking forward to animated discussion of the Pro's and Con's of a 2 high school system compared to the boards current mega replacement school plan.
rollnthndr - from what I understand, it's being billed as a 'town hall' meeting to 'educate and discuss'. We won't know until sometime afterward how much input the school boards takes from the public on this issue.
I look forward to the exchange of information and ideas.
hteeteep://w w w.newstribune.com/news/2012/dec/12/your-opinion-survey-reflects-cost-concerns-school-/
Comments disabled. Hmmmm....
While I agree that hyperbole weakens ones statements, so does mixing questions, answers and what they mean. It's basically comparing apples to oranges.
I guess a report to show what the real world costs of a moderate new school (population about 1300, built in a way that allows for future growth) and reasonable remodeling of the current facilities (25 million seems WAY out of line with no evidence of structural instability), would go a long way towards showing the public what is doable.
Current estimates from the school board for a 2 schools solution don't appear to be grounded in reality.
I would think that busing costs would be reduced based on taking kids to only the closer of 2 locations. Think about the reduced busing costs incurred when we went from 7/8th grade downtown to LC and TJ.
Also worth noting, How much of a remodel does the current facility 'need'?
Precisely, what is broken that needs to be fixed? If the current problems with the facility are all directly related to student population, those immediately get corrected when 1/2 the students disappear to go to a new facility.
Especially when teachers have to teach to the 'Lowest Common Denominator'.
Yup. Did you know that people like free stuff, but get hesitant when they have to actually pay for it? Did you know that no matter which direction the school boards goes, it's gonna cost somebody something? It's true! ;)
The trick, as it were, in all these discussions, is striking a balance between what will work best and what we can afford. Yes, creating more facility capacity is going to incur more operating/maintenance costs. Many of us feel that the value of operating two separate campus's is worth the slightly increased building and operating costs.
Your point has merit, but I think the voters will see that the cost /value ratio of 2 campus's is worth it.
I'd like to point out that I still fail to see how building a 2nd high school, smaller than the SB's current plan, but able to handle about 1/2 the high school students and be 'scalable' to allow for future growth will cost so much more than the SB's current plan for one replacement mega-school. The SB hasn't convinced me of that , yet.
Good idea! If those middle school building are running @ 75% or less capacity, there should be space to go 4 grades instead of 3. The current JC campus becomes a middle school, serving 3 grades, then the JCSB just needs to build another middle school somewhere.
Last login: Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Copyright © 2014, CMNI.
All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Central Missouri Newspapers Inc.
Material from the Associated Press is Copyright © 2010, Associated
Press and may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall
not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or
redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP
materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for
personal and noncommercial use. The AP will not be held liable for any
delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the
transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages
arising from any of the foregoing. All rights reserved.
© 2014 News Tribune Publishing.