Fire department suspects carbon monoxide in hospitalization of 4 Russellville teens September 1, 2015
Mr. Clayton, in the 2011 school board survey, 74% of people were actively FOR a 2nd high school. What survey were you referencing?
He didn't say the academy would be 3500 kids right out of the box, he said it would be built for 3500 kids (7 academies of about 500 kids each - do math =3500), 'built for' referring to intended maximum capacity. That then begs the question, "what do we do when THAT fills up?" because demographic projections indicate that possibility in the not-to-distant future.
As far as the student count goes, both you and the school board need to pay more attention to your language. You've indicated that this is one great big school that isn't a great big school, but instead it's really 7 smaller schools that aren't really small schools, but one great big school. I get tired just trying to follow the logic on that one. :)
As far as any comments made on another subject, please don't muddy the waters by mixing Rod's keystone apples with his high school oranges. Should we listen to the experts? Yes, when the expects are drawing reasonable conclusions from known data. We're still waiting for the school board to post that data as they said they would at last nights meeting.
Based on what I've read and heard so far, I still don't see where the school board got the 2011 poll data indicating near 3/4's support for a second high school , and made the interpretation to the current plan of one single mega-replacement school, disposing of the current facilities for a value of pennies on the dollar.
"The academies approach is not a huge megaschool. It is 7 academies, I think they've said around 500 students per academy."
7 times 500 = 3500. Sounds like a megaschool to me.
I didn't say "everyone". I said, "The Jefferson City community, including parents, students, and employers,"
Please quote me correctly, especially if your intent is to misdirect my message. Makes it more believable that way. ;)
Land in the middle of the city is not cheap. Land out a little ways, like where they built the Pioneer Trail school, that's a different story. Part of what's being questioned here is stewardship.
Bingo! We have a winner!
The Patrons (as the SB likes to call them) were not really called to attention until the SB announced that they spent ~$5,000,000 on 118 acres of tree covered rock. At just about the same time, the concept drawings for the single replacement Mega school were released. Yes, they may be a little late to the party, but their opinion (read vote) still counts.
While the plan may not have been developed quickly, it may have been developed on incorrect premises. Polling data from a couple years back indicates Patron support for a second high school. Much more support than for a single replacement of the Academy model. If you ask people what they want, then try to give them something else, they can, will, and should complain.
I disagree with the concept that remodeling existing (read 'paid for') facilities coupled with moderated new construction will be more expensive than disposing of current facilities and replacing them all with new construction. Just talking about cost per square foot with some contractor friends leads me to believe that the SB's 'estimates' were created with the goal of discouraging 2 fatalities in mind. Their numbers conflict with equitable, reasonable estimates just based on the cost per square foot.
I agree with you that interested folks should learn more about the school boards plans, and their actions regarding those plans to date. The more we have informed discussions about the possibilities, the better decisions we (the Patrons) can make about the future of our schools.
Well stated, Lifer. LU and Linn Tech are just being presented a juicy deal on a silver platter. For a deal to be struck, both sides had to agree. The JCSB severely undervalued the current property. The JCSB also spent WAY too much on the 179 property. $23k/acre for completely undeveloped land, mostly rock at that. Blasting alone will increase construction costs significantly.
As far as 'dividing the community' goes, Jeff City started down that road years ago when they took the 6th grade out of the elementary schools, combining them with the 7th and 8th grade classes to form the middle schools. Somehow we managed to get through that. I would argue that the TJ / LC cross town rivalry is one of the most polite I've seen in a long time.
3 high schools when you count the alternative school operating out of the Miller Performing Arts Center.
How is she not in protective custody? If I entrusted my child to her to babysit and discovered she used my kid in a toddler fight club, more violence would occur.
“The only thing we can do is share what the plan is, and why we think it’s a good plan for our community,” Mitchell said.
Mr. Mitchell is incorrect, that is not the ONLY thing they can do. They (the school board) can also learn, discuss and ADAPT whatever the current version of the plan is. If the current plan calls for Academies, but the taxpayers, parents and voters (Patrons in School Board parlance) don't want them, then the current plan will adapt or it will fail. If Patrons want 2 (or more) high schools instead of the single humungous campus, the plan will either adapt or fail.
Given the reception of recent land purchase news, the school board might find itself on thinner ice than it's used to once they start the sales pitch in earnest . Patrons (especially the active voters) will be looking very hard at the Board's recent stewardship and future plans when they decide if they want to buy into this plan, or not. If the voters don't like what they see in the plan, the plan better adapt. Otherwise we'll just be cramming more kids into the same buildings we've been using for so long.
Last login: Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Copyright © 2015, 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.
© 2015 News Tribune Publishing.