Anonymous Joplin R-8 administration defense post draws rebuke

It is a shame that our educational issues have to be discussed through the back and forth of anonymous comments, but until our Board of Education meetings actually discuss business and issues instead of being a two-hour infomercial for Administration, this may be the best we can do. This was posted about a half hour ago:

So Huff would rather allow the divisiveness to continue instead of addressing it? That divisiveness is a reality, lest the commenter would not be here to selectively rebuke other comments. Too bad it is too much trouble for Huff to address criticisms, because he could have kept Flowers on his lap if he had been willing to find the time. Too bad our friend is stoking the fire instead of reaching out. Offering a boot instead of a hand.

Nor does this pro-Huff response do much to counter the idea that money for administrative and non-educational amenities is being prioritized. If the money being pursued is earmarked specifically for administration and nothing else, all that does is reinforce the point that they are more interested in expanding administration than education. If the funding stream is only applicable to those administrative positions, and the positions are only there to justify the funding stream, then that suggests those positions are superfluous.


I recognize, too, that funding for educational purposes might be more difficult to secure. For instance, the Race to the Top application was rejected - why not take the time to address issues that prevented that grant from being secured? That kind of grant requires more specific technical details and an ability to document, demonstrate, and monitor effectiveness. Bright Futures is an alternative to pursuing funding that requires in-depth and evidence-based documentation and planning.

If there is loss of revenue from the state that would cover educational needs but funding for administration and athletics is pursued, does that not suggest that certain choices were made?

The original sentence by a user comment referring to social media states: "New positions were created in areas like social media." This does not say that multiple social media positions were created, this says that "new positions were created, for instance in social media." Our pro-Huff friend is very selective in which claims he responds to and subtly twists others in order to build straw men that he can more readily dismantle. He goes on about the graphic design, reframing the argument into something he can respond to rather than understanding the underlying point being made. If times are tight and DESE scores are down, I would consider going after employees that would affect DESE scores before I go after PR.

I would be curious to hear our friend actually address the issues related to DESE scores, which he conveniently side-stepped to get to the hot-air. Those are not fictions invented by Turner. Terms like "state-of-the-art" and "innovative" mean nothing if not backed up by education, they are image-conscious buzzwords. If Webb City can demonstrate their students are meeting expectations without a 21st-century sports complex, so can we. It doesn't matter if the money is earmarked for amenities and cant' be used for education - if that type of funding was being pursued instead of educational funding designed to keep educators on the ground, then a choice was made. Enjoy your tennis conferences while last year's graduates pursue remedial math at Southern.

Does this remind us of anyone? Can you think of anyone who likes to shout others down and force the argument to conform to his terms? Who does not take the time to fully listen to and understand the concerns of employees?