JCPS scores can be taken at face value, or Gov Bevin (and anyone else truly interested) can get into the trenches and learn some things about JCPS students, comnunities, teschers and administration. It's really easy to make a value assessment based upon paper. It helps you ignore the growing numbers of ESL students, homeless students, students living in instability, poverty, etc.

JCPS schools aren't broken, JCPS students are or so says Donna Hargens.

 

At the rate they're going the good will get better and the bad will get worse. They have got to do something or we'll lose another generation. It's obvious to anyone looking in that what they are doing now is not working and yet they defend what they are doing tooth and nail. They spend literally millions of dollars a year to ship kids all over town because they are more interested in who students sit next to then they are how well a student does. The underperforming schools have HUGE turnover in staff while the excellent schools (and there are fewer of those every year) enjoy fairly stable staffing.

 

I went to a JCPS school, I'm proud that I did. I worked at a JCPS school for several years, I'm proud that I did.

 

I WOULD NOT send my kids to either of those schools now even if they paid me.

So school A is underachieving and school B is a high achiever.....why would parents choose school A? They won't of course, and in a vacuum, school A loses role models, AND it's aggregate scores get even lower. So say you're a parent....do you willingly risk your child's future and send them to school A for the team? Not if you have a choice! So what if you don't have a choice? Your child goes to school A.

 

OK, we get all that....but what are we going to do to fix school A and help UP the kids at the bottom?....because a lot of them are staying at the bottom...and just because the average scores are higher if certain students are not allowed to choose their school...theirs aren't!! We have failed them either way.

I don't disagree with your post at all @doomer. But until policies in JCPS are changed so that great teachers want to be at Iroquois and Shawnee just like they want to be at Male and Manual nothing will change. Why not offer incentives to great teachers to either transfer to or stay at underachieving schools? Why not stop spending millions on a failed 30+ year social experiment and put those millions back into the school itself? Why not cut some of the bloat in the administration of JCPS and reinvest that in the schools?

I don't disagree with your post at all @doomer. But until policies in JCPS are changed so that great teachers want to be at Iroquois and Shawnee just like they want to be at Male and Manual nothing will change. Why not offer incentives to great teachers to either transfer to or stay at underachieving schools? Why not stop spending millions on a failed 30+ year social experiment and put those millions back into the school itself? Why not cut some of the bloat in the administration of JCPS and reinvest that in the schools?

 

Wouldn't having all kids go to their local high schools help with this? It seems the great schools in JCPS stay great because they get the best and the brightest, while the terrible schools in JCPS stay terrible because the best and the brightest are pillaged from them.

JCPS scores can be taken at face value, or Gov Bevin (and anyone else truly interested) can get into the trenches and learn some things about JCPS students, comnunities, teschers and administration. It's really easy to make a value assessment based upon paper. It helps you ignore the growing numbers of ESL students, homeless students, students living in instability, poverty, etc.

 

JCPS seems to be the model for why the state of KY should not to get rid of local school districts and allow statewide open enrollment. The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Would you agree?

Shuffling chairs on the titanic.

JCPS seems to be the model for why the state of KY should not to get rid of local school districts and allow statewide open enrollment. The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Would you agree?

 

No, I don't agree. I love that JCPS students have the opportunity to choose schools. I don't think that it has to be an either-or proposition.

I don't disagree with your post at all @doomer. But until policies in JCPS are changed so that great teachers want to be at Iroquois and Shawnee just like they want to be at Male and Manual nothing will change. Why not offer incentives to great teachers to either transfer to or stay at underachieving schools? Why not stop spending millions on a failed 30+ year social experiment and put those millions back into the school itself? Why not cut some of the bloat in the administration of JCPS and reinvest that in the schools?

 

All Tell, stability is indeed key. Yet the state keeps coming in to force shuffling at schools that haven't met their benchmarks fast enough. All of the turnover is not at the whim of the teachers/administration.

No, I don't agree. I love that JCPS students have the opportunity to choose schools. I don't think that it has to be an either-or proposition.

 

All Tell, stability is indeed key. Yet the state keeps coming in to force shuffling at schools that haven't met their benchmarks fast enough. All of the turnover is not at the whim of the teachers/administration.

 

The schools don't meet benchmark because the brightest students in the district choose other schools in the district. The system is the reason. Benchmark scores come from the aggregate. If you take away the top 10 scores because they went to a different school, but you keep the bottom 10, the average is going down.

Turnover happens because the teachers are dealing with factors at these schools that they are not dealing with at the best schools. The best schools are the best and the worst schools are the worst because of the system.

The schools don't meet benchmark because the brightest students in the district choose other schools in the district. The system is the reason. Benchmark scores come from the aggregate. If you take away the top 10 scores because they went to a different school, but you keep the bottom 10, the average is going down.

Turnover happens because the teachers are dealing with factors at these schools that they are not dealing with at the best schools. The best schools are the best and the worst schools are the worst because of the system.

 

I disagree, based upon what I have learned from people I know who teach in JCPS.

Apples to apples GROWTH is what our entire education system should be built on. Thats how schools should be evaluated and thats how teachers should be evaluated.

All Tell, stability is indeed key. Yet the state keeps coming in to force shuffling at schools that haven't met their benchmarks fast enough. All of the turnover is not at the whim of the teachers/administration.

 

I disagree to an extent. I understand that low achieving schools are sometimes made to re-staff but I also understand that many teachers request transfers away from "challenging" schools. Why wouldn't you, teachers are paid the same at Shawnee and at Manual. Why wouldn't you go to the better school if the opportunity presents itself? Why not offer financial incentives to teachers who will fill positions at the lower achieving schools? Maybe you would get good teachers that are willing to stay at those schools? Unfortunately any time something like that is proposed the JCTA fights it.

I don't disagree with your post at all @doomer. But until policies in JCPS are changed so that great teachers want to be at Iroquois and Shawnee just like they want to be at Male and Manual nothing will change. Why not offer incentives to great teachers to either transfer to or stay at underachieving schools? Why not stop spending millions on a failed 30+ year social experiment and put those millions back into the school itself? Why not cut some of the bloat in the administration of JCPS and reinvest that in the schools?

 

Those are all good ideas IMO.

I disagree to an extent. I understand that low achieving schools are sometimes made to re-staff but I also understand that many teachers request transfers away from "challenging" schools. Why wouldn't you, teachers are paid the same at Shawnee and at Manual. Why wouldn't you go to the better school if the opportunity presents itself? Why not offer financial incentives to teachers who will fill positions at the lower achieving schools? Maybe you would get good teachers that are willing to stay at those schools? Unfortunately any time something like that is proposed the JCTA fights it.

 

My daughter in law is at Doss, so it's not exactly the lowest end of the spectrum, but definitely not the top. I get what you are saying, but I know 7 teachers in 4 different schools. None want to leave their schools. 2 (including DIL) are at Doss, 1 at Southern, 1 at Eastern, 2 at Central and 1 at Valley. Obviously not all are disadvantaged schools.

 

But, let's just use DIL for an example. She came in from Evansville schools. She was a department head at Bosse before coming to Doss. She makes more as a teacher at Doss than as a department head at Bosse. She LOVES her students and she LOVES the staff there. She wanted to work at Doss BECAUSE of the challenges. And the staff and administration there all seem to want to be there.

 

I'm sure some teachers would rather teach elsewhere. But I think that pinning it on teachers not wanting to be there is shortchanging the efforts of more than not.