Secondary schools committee was formed to promote the academy approach. Many schools are adopting the academy approach as part of their approach to education. We will potentially have a high school serving over 3,000 + students. Two high schools serving 1500 students each offering academies would have smaller classes and smaller a academies.
This proposal being pitched by the district will end up costing closer to $100 million. Why? We have not been given a cost estimate of what it will cost to replace Thorpe Gordon elementary. These are all questions which must be answered.
The Mitchell administration did not listen to the community rather they felt the need to promote another approach over what the community felt was important. It may be time for Mr. Mitchell to get out in the community rather than spending all his time at the country club, compliments of the taxpayers of the JCPS system.
Come on "lovebeingmom", the district did go out and put this together on their own. Study groups going back to the Kimble administration looked at secondary education and many were asking the district to consider a second high school option and then in December 2011 the district administration announced they had another plan. Academies have been around since the 1970's and if it is so "21st century" why haven't we seen more school districts adopt this approach. Many have it as part of their overall education plan, but not the only approach to educating their students. The district does NOT have plans on how they will implement this new plan. The evaluation process is being considered as we speak. Questions such as, how do we deal with too many applicants to a particular academy, have not been answered. The school district should have had these and many other questions answered before they decided to sell this to the citizens. Did you know 5th graders will begin "aptitude counseling" this school year?
It is my hope, and I will give the district administration the benefit of the doubt, that this proposal has nothing to with keeping the sports program together, but the district sure does have a big hurdle in overcoming this perception in the community. Note to Dr. Mitchell, you need to be a better LISTENER!
Two out of those three options are private schools. Nice too have in the community but does not replace a second public option. Not sure how you can say with "one high school you can offer more classes, and have more opportunities for kids to be involved in clubs".
The problem with 1 high school is there are not enough opportunities for 2,500 - 3,000 students. Who did the cost estimates between the different options.? My guess is the district, and they presented figures that supported their goals. Information that I have read about the academy approach is to bring down the drop out rate. This is a bottoms up approach to education. When students are moved through the school system and they can not perform academically at grade level we will continue to have problems with students when they reach high school. It's time for the educational system in our community to make sure these students are performing at grade level. This needs to start in the elementary grades and when we begin to do this, only then will we see an improvement in the drop out rate.
Much has been discussed about duplication of services. Well we already have it with Simonsen and the Academic center. Additional food service and custodial as starters. There are 6-8 administrators at the current high school and 3 at Simonsen. How many is it going to take for 7 small academies. So I don't believe there would be excessive duplication of services as is being implied.
The school district says there are currently 40 kids who live with in the area that the new high encompass. Will there be additional transportation costs to bus all the kids to the new school? How much of the 118 acres is going to be a parking lot?
It has been said athletics is not "driving this initiative" and I believe it is not, but it is driving the 1 high school approach. Somewhere in this communtiy it is embedded that there will not be a second high school no matter what. If we want to attract businesses to this community having more than 1 high school each offering different approaches to education will be a major asset. This is something I believe many in the community would be willing to pay for compared to the fluff that was proposed in "Transformation".
This future of economic development in this community may very well be dependent upon coming up with a strategy to improve secondary education in Jefferson City. While I support having 2 high schools and I would be willing to support such a plan by voting for the bond issue. Academies are not the only option available, but rather another education teaching method. We need to be diverse in our strategies to serve all the different students. There will be duplication of effort but not too the extent some believe. Academies were developed as an approach to combat drop out rates. We better not forget about the other 90%. Raise expectations of our students as we progress with the new options and require they actually perform at grade level to graduate. Provide more resources to our elementary schools to help struggling students before they get to high school and become disconnected with their education. What we don't need is the school board and supeintendent going against what the community wanted when they surveyed district patrons; 2 high schools. It's time this community pulls together to come up with a plan to serve our kids properly.
Well I wonder what they will do with the land if voter's don't apporove the April 2013 bond issue? Who are we going to find to buy the land at the bargain price of $26,000 + an acre?
Wonder why the school board did not listen to their patrons when they felt we needed a second high school? The academy approach may be a fine educational tool, but do we want to put all our resources into just one method of educating our students. The article also states that this facility will fulfill our needs "well into the next century". The current high school made it about 50 years. Are we building a high school that will accomodate close to 5 - 6,000 students. There's about 87 years left in this century.
Maybe we need to start with a new school board and superintendent.
You can't explain this stupidity.
One way to reduce military spending is to bring our troops home that are providing police protection around the world. This would allow the military to maintain troop readiness when needed. This police protection is costing billions.
Get the government out of our medical care. Let the government set guidelines, but not control the overall administration of the system. Their inability to run the system is well documented. These programs would work for all over time, but we have allowed our political leaders to buy votes with these benefits and thus they have created unfunded liabilites that will bring the programs down if we continue at this pace.
Yes we have fallen horribly behind in math because most people can't seem to figure out that spending more than you make is not a path to prosperity.
I'm not sure why we opened the middle schools, but we did move 6th graders out of elementary to the new middle schools. If there is an outdated building it would be the Simonsen ninth grade center.
Economic development is an issue with only 1 public high school. Many of the middle and upper middle class have voted by moving into the Blair Oaks district. Many of my friends said they did so because it was their preference not to have their kids attend Jeff City HS. Others, like my family elected to send our children to Helias for many of the same reasons. Since Blair Oaks has sprung up on the east of the county maybe we need a new high school on the west and renovate the current high school.
Employers do look at the educational opportunities within a community and it's my belief employers aren't satisfied we only have 1 public option with many private options. Look at areas in western St. Charles and Warren counties that serve the same number of patrons and these districts will have at least 2 high schools. This area has not attracted a viable private sector employer in many years.
An additional high school would give kids more academic and extra curricular opportunities than currently exist.
If I recall correctly weren't there numerous groups put together regarding the future of education in this district and one of the recommendations was a second high school? If so why did the superintendent decide we only need 1 high school? The district secondary director was the former principal of the high school who was relieved of his duties for sub par performance and promoted to his current position with a pay raise. Now this person wants to institute academies and has no experience with such programs. This may very well be viable approach to educating children for the 21st century, however the district needs to spell out to taxpayers how this will occur and how they will measure the success of this program. Have they considered two high schools each offering different academies and allowing families to choose which school they prefer attending?
The current high school does need renovating, but I do not believe is obsolete. The middle school concept employed here and elsewhere has contributed to many of the problems with this district.
We need to raise expectations for our students. We seem to be educating from the bottom up in today's educational environment. Also, schools are having to provide more in the way of day care than education. Recently a high school teacher told me they received an email from the principal that students will not be counted as tardy for arriving late too class after first hour. What do we intend to accomplish with a policy like this? What happened to being held accountable for your actions/behavior?
Last login: Wednesday, April 3, 2013
© 2013 News Tribune Publishing.