November 22, 2009
Comments by johncourter
Page 1 of 29 | Next
The goal should be how to capitalize on this study after Intel goes away, turn it into a educational program and make it a continuous process to be funded in all schools. If there was one teacher in the entire district who was selected as being the only "qualified" person to handle this type of study, then effort needs to be placed on getting others within the district to that level, and that requires investment in training, funding. There is such a unique opportunity here to carry it to higher levels, and that should be looked at and capitalized on. Could be a good campaign argument for that permenant levy thing when it comes up again instead of the "black cloud" scenario. These are directions long range planning should take. Progression opportunities for all students, all schools. Simple concept, one this community continues struggle with.
Drbjr, excellent post, I agree alot of opportunities out there, are they being sought out? The Empower Center, great resources and programs. The Gates Foundation has done wonders. This is where the Long Range Planning committee has opportunity to put some focus and resources on.
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
It is a test and study for a company to better market their product, not a long term program. Students get an opportunity to benefit from it. That is an excellent thing and this is exactly what occurs in the real world now, it is how many people conduct their work and business, on a remote computer. The challenge is how to make this study into a program that is a long term one and beneficial to all students in all schools. There are similar programs throughout the country like this where districts are paying for it and do not have a corporate sponsor. These programs teach students how business is conducted with the technology out there and gears them for the world when they become adults. Things like this go right to the core of why permenant funding is important. This is what a levy should be about, funding, future state programs such at this, not day to day maintaining or "black cloud" scenarios. This study has a shelf life, that means it will end at some point in time. What should be done now is figuring out how to leverage the potential of something like this into a long term strategic program for all schools starting at a pre-determined grade level. And the most important thing of all, fund it. The present way of how we fund our educational processed do not address that. These are topics that should be discussed at board meetings by all, administration, board members, and the public. Future state, not status quo. This is where long range planning needs to be focused on, anyone from that group, you listening? Long range planning, future state, anyone looking at this study and trying to work on ideas to make it into a program within the Long Range Planning committee or are we still focused on consulting groups?
This was a bad decision, it should have waited till Apr 2010 and the proper argument come back to the ballot. I believe it was the wrong path then and I continue to believe it now. The validations are all there to back my rationale. This is a setback for the educational processess here, the vote only re-enforced the sunset clause as an acceptable means of doing business regardless of what was said time and time again by the very group of people who trashed this direction back in April. This is not what the district originally stated they needed to operate. The sunset clause was an orginal argument for Axiom during the first go around and as I stated before, as long as we continue to utilize this method, Axiom maintains control on holding St Joseph back from competing and they win by default. Catch 22. We should of have had the confidence and strength to re-argue what was needed instead of the "black cloud" scenario. The LRP, very simple in my view. Address the future state of every building, not just a few and have a plan for it. There should be plans for replacements or upgrades sitting on the shelves somewhere in that massive district archive done by past administrations. If there is not, then why not? Why has not that type of planning occured? I believe operating under the sunset scenario for almost half a century has a lot to do with lack of planning. Before any consulting group is hired, this needs to occur first. It is not the responsibility for a community group to design and make plans to propose. This is a district responsibility and if we have not done that, then that is something that needs to be corrected. Future state planning for all buildings, all areas. I have brought that to the table many times, still has not been answered, the question has been ignored. There is a reason for it, because there is no plan, only a set agenda that is polticially motivated.
On A resounding yes on school levy
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
This is another example of a result of a community not committing to investing in itself for future state progression. It is very simple in my view. If a measure was ran to gain voter support for bonds about this issue, would it have passed. The community struggles with supporting its educational processes into future state, so now we are going to slam city hall for this. That is not the correct approach. Until this entire community to change its mindset and culture to work together on moving forward into the future, issues like this will continually surface. St. Joseph has a reputation for the way it does business, it is very evident on the outside and within the political arena. That also hurts this community. It needs to change across the board in every infrastructure issue facing the city or we will continue to loose out on opportunities for our growth. This is a city of over 80 thousand people, we can do much better for our progression.
On St. Joseph did not apply for aid
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Excellent!!! This will be a welcome change to the neighborhood.
My comment has everything to do with the issue. As long as we do not make a committment in this community to progress for the long term and that issue continues to stay unstable, Axiom will haunt. The community needs to take a real stand against them, not a compromise one, and that is what the sunset clause is pure and simple, a compromise, nothing more. It is the orginal argument Axiom went after in Apr. We can deny it all we want to, but that is why they went against Apr, because of no sunset. I will be interested to see what comes out of the tree if you find out who is behind them, but the bigger issue is how we as a community conduct our business. Get rid of the unstability and take a clear stand to move towards progression, and you get rid of Axiom. That is how it should be approached moving foward. Dillygent, I have already conveyed my thoughts and suggestions to both, on several occasions, the only one who responded and cared enough to meet for discussion was Dr. Smith. I got responses from several others, but they were generic responses, and did not pursue any further discussion. In my view that made it clear to me the minds were made up. Your comments give a good perspective of what is going on out there. But I believe we as a community can do much better, and it starts with the community. Pay issues, with education progression and growth, that will come in my view, if we stagnant and continue to do so, we have what we have. Quality of life issues, those are wide ranging, and I believe every individual bears some responsibility in their own quality of life and how they choose to improve it or not. St Joseph has not invested in its educational processes appropriately for almost half century. That needs to change, the city has over 87 in its population base, that is enough of a base to have the ability to move things forward into long term progression. Back to the quality of life. I do mean this as a negative, I love to go and "play" more then anyone, but if we as a community have the ability every weekend to aid in a local casino making record profits because we like all like to "play" , then we have the ability to invest for future state of our educational processes. A community that appears to be struggling to make ends meet can still manage to find "play" and spend for it. And everyone from all walks of life is there regularly, including me. Not a critisizm, just an observation. We can do much better in this community for future state and we have the ability to do so, the challenge is do we have the drive and motivation?
Drbjr, no, you are not "crazy" public school districts being a government entity is right on target.
JohnH, I may not totally subscribe to the present direction of the Long Range Committee group, but I will stay open minded about their thought processes moving forward. I do believe this issue has become far more complex then it has to be. I had a very interesting conversation with someone earlier today about other elements independent of this group that may take place soon that were very encouraging to hear. Those elements are indirectly related and I have to admit it was nice to hear about other elements besides the OCODOF and the LRC philosophies. I will engage the LRC with alternatives to consider before leaping to Unicorn. The point about district administration was to bring into the debate about a responsibility the administration should to already have some kind of a long range plan in place, such as the future of buildings, future improvements, etc. Why not ask the district for those plans before we develop a whole new concept and see what is already out there. Example, April's vision, take that concept, dust it off, see what is there and expand on it or redevelop it to address all needs and all areas. Look to see what else previous administrations may have proposed but never took hold. Why re-invent the wheel when the work may have already been done in the way of future planning, just never implemented, probably because operating under a sunset clause created unstability, making those projects null and void.
MM1967-JohnH is a stand up individual and he makes good reccomendations for everyone on here who posts.
Regardless of where everyone is at on the issues, I strongly suggest everyone follow thru with what JohnH has to say and then if you don't get a response, you have your answer like as stated, but at least you tried to convey your thoughts and suggestions to Mr. Kirby's letter. Take a crack at it, see what falls out, then make decisions based on a response, or lack of. However it turns out, at least an effort was made.
On A resounding yes on school levy
2 of 2 people thought this was a good comment.
MM1967, excellent point that is exactly one major concern I have as well.
On A resounding yes on school levy
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
JohnH, I will be responding to Mr. Kirby's letter with some things that I believe should be considered. However, I will say this about his letter, and I have said this before, it sounds more of like a job description posting for a consulting group instead of a request for input or ideas. This is almost the exact same letter he posted with the News Press a while back. The group really has to be open to suggestions and thoughts from the entire community. The letter does not convey the message very well. I am one person that is still not totally convinced a consulting group is the right direction. I believe we all know what it truly needed to improve, but for whatever reasons many of those issues are ignored or not addressed. I stated this before, it is simple in my view, when we argue for future state, that means for the long term progression and improvement of all educational processes in all areas, that includes what will be done to buildings that will still be around for a while, improvements to meet NCLB requirements, technology advances, new schools,(what is the plan after they are built, what happens to ther rest of the buildings still in use, any plan or are we going to neglect?), etc. The April initiative kind of addressed that to an extent, but it did not go far enough, that is why it failed in my view. It addressed certain aread and neglected others. When the issues get addressed where all areas will benefit, the buy in will come and we will not consulting groups to help us with that. We need to committ to all of it, not just bits and pieces. As I stated before, along as this issue stays unstable and that is what it is, Axiom will continue to haunt. Seems to me Axiom created alot of emotional turmoil. Well then lets do something about it, argue for what is truly needed, stand by it, get the community buy in for it, and send a "real" message to Axiom. Axiom will continue to have the upper hand as long we do not progess, sunset clause is the continued direction, and we do not invest or committ to address all issues in every area.
On A resounding yes on school levy
Page 1 of 29 | Next
JOB SEARCH
RECENTLY DISCUSSED
Health care bill clears Senate
(3 comments)
Hamilton overwhelms Lamar
(1 comment)
H1N1 overhyped?
(4 comments)
Task force report stirs health debate
(2 comments)
More Popular Discussions
(3 comments)
Hamilton overwhelms Lamar
(1 comment)
H1N1 overhyped?
(4 comments)
Task force report stirs health debate
(2 comments)
