I think that scenario goes to 3 stars. My opinion.

 

The taxpayers should be getting better than 60% of all schools below average. Don't you think that?

 

You're getting hung up on the admin part. My only reason for cutting some of them is to gain dollars to make real changes so your tax bill and mine don't continue to go up (i.e. better use of resources). Even though it will do to property taxes going up for this.

 

What resources are not equal? So you are saying JCPS is placing unequal resources across the district?

 

If you think the jump is that significant just by switching staff, I think you'd be ignoring way too many factors. Just as an example, home life is a big reason many children don't perform to their potential, and unfortunately teachers can't control that. Again, IMO this line of thinking, just switching staff to "better" teachers, is a shot at the hard working teachers that are already in these schools, most of which who are great teachers giving their all.

 

Also, I think the rating system is to be questioned, at minimum.

 

I think there will always be a certain percentage of schools that always "under perform," regardless of how they are rated. I don't think the best teachers in the universe solve that problem, it just is what it is. If every school rose to what would be considered a 5 star level in this particular rating system, a new system would be created and a whole new crop of schools would be considered under performing.

 

In terms of resources, I'm talking books, computers, technology, etc. The proper amount of staffing. If you think all that is equal at every JCPS school, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

If you think the jump is that significant just by switching staff, I think you'd be ignoring way too many factors. Just as an example, home life is a big reason many children don't perform to their potential, and unfortunately teachers can't control that. Again, IMO this line of thinking, just switching staff to "better" teachers, is a shot at the hard working teachers that are already in these schools, most of which who are great teachers giving their all.

 

Also, I think the rating system is to be questioned, at minimum.

 

I think there will always be a certain percentage of schools that always "under perform," regardless of how they are rated. I don't think the best teachers in the universe solve that problem, it just is what it is. If every school rose to what would be considered a 5 star level in this particular rating system, a new system would be created and a whole new crop of schools would be considered under performing.

 

In terms of resources, I'm talking books, computers, technology, etc. The proper amount of staffing. If you think all that is equal at every JCPS school, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Duece, I'm going to get fired from my job, so I will have to agree to disagree. Although I think we are actually closer than we are apart on the majority of things, as we both want conditions and scores to improve for the students in the poorer performing schools.

 

Lastly, concerning resources, I can't possibly know who has what. I would agree that many of the lower performing schools don't have as much tech as higher performing school, but isn't that admin's job to allocate for that at 1.7 billion/year? Come on man... They should be held accountable to some measure here.

Lastly, concerning resources, I can't possibly know who has what. I would agree that many of the lower performing schools don't have as much tech as higher performing school, but isn't that admin's job to allocate for that at 1.7 billion/year? Come on man... They should be held accountable to some measure here.

 

You continue to assume that people aren't doing their jobs while ignoring an infinite number of factors that play into the performance of a school. Transiency, mental health of students living in poor conditions, kids who are homeless, staff shortages, and any number of other societal issues impact this more than you are giving credit for. Then, we can talk about how much of a joke standardized testing is on it's own.

You continue to assume that people aren't doing their jobs while ignoring an infinite number of factors that play into the performance of a school. Transiency, mental health of students living in poor conditions, kids who are homeless, staff shortages, and any number of other societal issues impact this more than you are giving credit for. Then, we can talk about how much of a joke standardized testing is on it's own.

 

This is all true, but you act as if we've just found this out last week. This has been the case in the neighorhoods where these schools are for decades and what has changed in the schools? This is the problem. And it's what I'm speaking to.

This is all true, but you act as if we've just found this out last week. This has been the case in the neighorhoods where these schools are for decades and what has changed in the schools? This is the problem. And it's what I'm speaking to.

 

Your targets are the teachers and admins. My targets are the resources, standardized testing, and other inequalities within the schools. There's only so much that can be done to affect things outside of school. I'm going to assume that there are constant efforts to combat those issues.

Your targets are the teachers and admins. My targets are the resources, standardized testing, and other inequalities within the schools. There's only so much that can be done to affect things outside of school. I'm going to assume that there are constant efforts to combat those issues.

 

So how does anything change? This is what it boils down to.

I'm asking for a different approach. Your asking for more resources. If it works I'm for your plan. "There's only so much that can be done to affect things outside of school" This tells me that the current way we do things outside of school need to be changed. Who is determining which schools get allocated which resources?

 

You already know they are doing a poor job here, as JCPS has no turf fields compared to Lex who basically all their schools have them. Still sure that 60 million is working properly?

So how does anything change? This is what it boils down to.

I'm asking for a different approach. Your asking for more resources. If it works I'm for your plan. "There's only so much that can be done to affect things outside of school" This tells me that the current way we do things outside of school need to be changed. Who is determining which schools get allocated which resources?

 

You already know they are doing a poor job here, as JCPS has no turf fields compared to Lex who basically all their schools have them. Still sure that 60 million is working properly?

 

Turf fields? How is that AT ALL relevant? Do you want nice fields or better schools?

 

Of course there are improvements to be made in JCPS, just like in all other school districts.

 

You clearly take issue with the Admin making a certain amount of money, for whatever reason. I'm for switching things up too, but how, exactly, does having fewer people making $100k a year make schools better?

Turf fields? How is that AT ALL relevant? Do you want nice fields or better schools?

 

Of course there are improvements to be made in JCPS, just like in all other school districts.

 

You clearly take issue with the Admin making a certain amount of money, for whatever reason. I'm for switching things up too, but how, exactly, does having fewer people making $100k a year make schools better?

 

It's the allocation of the money. You are asking for more resources and I'm trying to give them to you.

It's the allocation of the money. You are asking for more resources and I'm trying to give them to you.

 

Yeah well I'm not on board for firing people just because they make a certain amount of money...

Yeah well I'm not on board for firing people just because they make a certain amount of money...

 

Your missing the point. I'm for allocating the money differently. Your hung up firing people.

Your missing the point. I'm for allocating the money differently. Your hung up firing people.

 

I'm "hung up" on it because you made a point about how many people make over $100k in your original post and have made several comments about holding those people accountable. :lol2:

So what can be done about all this? We can highlight different things like metrics, poverty rate, public vs private schools, racial makeup, etc., but when the dust settles how can we improve the status/the learning environment for the underperforming students? I'm not naive enough to think we will get 100% of anything, but I find the significant number of schools underperforming to be unacceptable. My goal is not to blame anyone. I'm a solver in logistics and thinking.

 

I have always felt JCPS has too many (600) adminastrators making over $100,000/year, when we don't have any teachers making near that much. An approach to try going forward would be to reduce the adminastrative staff by 10%. Yes, this would cause some initial problems, but I believe they can be accounted for. Take the 6 million dollars that this generates and invest it in the teachers working in the CSI schools. Give better teachers an incentive to work and change the lives of poorer performing students in poorer performing schools. This would be verified by test scores. If your students improve their test scores and pull themselves out of the CSI category, those teachers receive a substantial bonus/stipend or whatever.

 

I know this isn't perfect. But if we only focus on making administrative changes, how has that worked for us in the past? I just don't feel that will be as effective as making a change with the most critical components of education - the teacher - student relationship. If teachers were more incentivised to help those student succeed, I feel the system would be better. We have to try something we aren't trying now or the results will be the same.

 

Are the school systems under-performing or are the students and family systems? No matter the program if the latter is the real culprit there is only so much the former can do.

I think you have a right to your opinion. I'm not so much drawing a correlation as I am trying to make a real change. But to think that across the board the level of teachers is the same at a CSI school vs a school that is a 4 or 5 star school is not true. I'm not saying those CSI teachers are not trying and are not working hard. It's just like Coaches. Don't you think Jeremy Pruitt at Tennessee is trying. Sure he is. He just isn't a very good Head Coach. I think the same is true here.

 

I'm also saying were as taxpayers are not getting what we should out of the $60 Million/year from the administration. When I review the information, that's what it says to me.

 

A Coach gets to recruit the players that make up his program. A teacher does not.

 

Bad Comparison.

 

Apples to Oranges.

I'm "hung up" on it because you made a point about how many people make over $100k in your original post and have made several comments about holding those people accountable. :lol2:

 

I'll see you here at the next report.

I'll see you here at the next report.

 

At the next flawed report? :lol2: Alright, I'll be here.

 

If having fewer Admin making six figures is your way to reallocate money, how do we select which Admin to cut?