Kim Frencken to teachers: How do you treat your subs?

We've all called in for a sub. And... we've all had someone that we would rather never set foot in our class again. I've had subs that I had to hide all of my snacks, pens, and pencils or they would disappear. I've had subs tell my kids that they knew more than the teacher. I'm sure we've all had those. But, we've also had the sub that graded our papers, kept the room neat, didn't fall for any of the "our teacher lets us do that", and were a great help to us.

How did we respond? I'm guilty of doing nothing. I'm guilty of taking that individual for granted. I hope that I was never rude or treated the sub like an intruder instead of a guest. I'm sure I didn't make them feel welcome at lunch or include them in my conversation. And, for that, I should be ashamed.

Now, I'm on the other side. I teach part-time and sub on other days. I do my best. Sometimes it isn't easy if I am unfamiliar with school practices or routines or I don't have a class roster. But I try. Sometimes it is hard for me to adjust to 'little people' since I spent my career in middle school. But I try. Sometimes I don't get through the lessons because I run out of time. But I give it my best shot.

Going into a strange situation is not easy. I don't know anyone. I hear the whispers, "Who is she? Is she new here? Wonder if she is looking for a job." Well, let me tell you who I am. A semi-retired teacher who loves kids. I'm not new. I've been here before. Subbing for the teacher across the hall or in the Middle School. I've been here when several of you were at a meeting or a case of the flu wiped out half the staff. I'm not looking for a job. I've been teaching since 1992, but I'm ready for a break. Part-time subbing is perfect for me. I'm not a threat to your job.

I was once in the trenches just like you. I know how to teach. I can learn names quickly. God gave me a gift and I try to use it faithfully every time I step into a classroom. No, I am not perfect. No, I don't do well every time I sub. I have good days and bad days just like any other human. No, I am not you. I will do things differently, but I will not undermine you. I try to be friendly. I smile and try to strike up a conversation. It would be nice if you responded in kind. Turning your back to me or making a snippy comment insinuating that I don't know what I am doing hurts me, and it makes me think you're a real jerk.

Subs get early morning and late night calls. We are there because the teacher cannot be there. If you have shown kindness by greeting me when I arrive, thank you. If you helped me find the resources I needed or lesson plans, thank you. If you gave me a schedule or a roster, thank you. If you smiled at me, thank you.

Is showing some appreciation all that hard? Shouldn't teachers be modeling respect? How do you treat your subs?

(For more of Kim Frencken's writing and information about her educational projects, check out her blog Chocolate For the Teacher.)

Video- This week in the Missouri Senate

This week, the Missouri Senate addressed legislation that would enable people to expunge certain weapons convictions from their records and prevailing wage is being targeted once again.

Charlie Davis: Sending National Guard to protect the border is a good idea

Rep. Charlie Davis, R-Webb City, says he expects the Missouri National Guard to be called to protect the nation's southern border and he fully supports the idea.

In the accompanying Newsmakers video, Davis tell interviewer Judy Stiles President Trump's asking for National Guard members to be sent to the border is the right call because of various crimes that are occurring that are being committed by people coming to the U. S. from south of the border.

"It's not an anti-immigration issue," Davis said. "We have a big problem with guns coming across our border and going to M-13 members and other gang members."

Davis also cited the nation's opioid problem and truckloads of heroin coming across the border."

The president's move is "not trying to keep people out," Davis said, noting that "we've got great Hispanic friends in our county and I think they should stay."

Billy Long: Wait is over for VA health facilities in Joplin, Springfield

(From Seventh District Congressman Billy Long)

Before I was elected to Congress, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced its plans to build two health care facilities in Joplin and Springfield. What I thought would be a quick and speedy process turned into a long and bureaucratic one. However, after years of work and planning, both the Joplin and Springfield VA health care facilities are finally on track to open later this year.

These top-of-the-line facilities will be equipped to take care of the thousands of veterans in southwest Missouri area. The Springfield facility will offer a variety of services such as primary care, dental, optometry, mental health, audiology, radiology, physical rehab and endoscopy, among others. Located on West Republic Street, this 68,000-square foot facility will serve more than 9,000 vets. Sixty percent of the veterans in Missouri's 7th Congressional District will use the Springfield facility, whereas 40 percent will use the Joplin facility.

Although not as large as the Springfield center, the 20,585-square foot facility in Joplin will provide similar services to local veterans, including primary and mental health care along with phlebotomy and radiology services. This facility is expected to serve more than 6,000 veterans in the area.

With more than 400,000 veterans in Missouri, these VA health care facilities will play a vital role in making sure these brave men and women get the care they deserve. Not only will these new facilities increase access to care, but they will also eliminate the distance some veterans have to travel to access care while reducing wait times for appointments. For too long veterans have had to drive sometimes hours to obtain basic care. That’s unacceptable and why these facilities are so necessary.

I look forward to working with the VA to ensure these facilities have the staff and equipment to take care of our veterans properly. Finally, the wait is over and our veterans will get the care they rightfully deserve.

Warrensburg Republican: Senate Bill 617 includes largest tax cut in Missouri history

(From Sen. Denny Hoskins, R-Warrensburg)

During my time in the Missouri General Assembly, my colleagues and I have been working to find a reasonable approach to reforming our state’s tax policies. It has been an uphill battle until recently, when the Missouri Senate granted initial approval to Senate Bill 617, a proposal that revises and reforms Missouri’s antiquated tax system. If passed, the bill would include the largest tax cut in the history of Missouri.

The proposal intends to reduce the income tax burden on Missourians by:

· Reducing the corporate income tax rate from 6.25 percent to 4.25 percent,

· Lowering the individual income tax rate to 5.25 percent,

· Gradually increasing the Missouri fuel tax from 17 cents per gallon to 23 cents per gallon. The only states with lower fuel taxes are Alaska and Oklahoma,

· Creates the necessary framework to authorize the state of Missouri to enter into the Streamline Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA) which will level the playing field for Missouri based brick and mortar businesses,

· Implements the largest funding enhancement for road and bridge repairs since the initial passage of the motor fuel tax in 1994.

The legislation is known as the Missouri Economic Relief Act, a revenue-neutral proposal that adjusts exemptions for individuals and businesses. This proposal reflects recent changes made to the federal tax code and provides an opportunity to reduce the tax burden on hard-working Missourians. I believe it’s time we find ways to put money back into the pockets of individuals and businesses across the state. I look forward to working alongside my colleagues to help advance this bill to the Missouri House of Representatives for further discussion and debate.

Judge overrules motion- Jalen Vaden's statements can be used at trial

Jalen Vaden''s written and oral statements that he was responsible for the abuse that led to the death of three-year-old Jayda Kyle November 30 can be used at trial.

Judge David Mouton overruled defense attorney Tracey Martin's motion to suppress the statements. Martin contended when Vaden said, "Where is Judd?" referring to the murder victim's grandfather Judd McPherson, an attorney, that all questioning should have stopped and that he invoked his right.

Mouton did not agree.

Having previously taken under advisement the Motion to Suppress Statement of Defendant, having heard and considered the evidence and argument of counsel presented at the hearing on the motion, and now having had an opportunity to consider the audio and videotaped interview of the defendant as memorialized in the DVD marked as State's Exhibit 1, together with the other exhibits submitted for this court's consideration by the parties, and having considered the legal suggestions of the parties and the authorities cited therein, the court finds that defendant was in custody at the time of the interview and that Detective Hutchins read to the defendant the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, as confirmed in writing in State's Exhibit 2, which was signed by the defendant.  

This court further finds that defendant did not invoke his right to counsel pursuant to the Fifth Amendment, in that he did not make an unambiguous, unequivocal and specific request for counsel, and this court further finds that defendant's statements, both oral and written, following his signing of the Miranda waiver December 6, 2017, were voluntary and pursuant to a voluntary, intelligent and knowing waiver of constitutional rights. Accordingly, this court hereby overrules the Motion to Suppress Statement of Defendant. So ordered. David B. Mouton, Circuit Judge.

Vaden was living with Jayda Kyle's mother, Devyn Kyle, at 405 Meadow Lake Drive in Carl Junction when the abuse occurred. The child was taken to Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City where she died three days later.

The next hearing for Vaden, who is charged with second degree murder and felony child abuse, is scheduled for Monday, April 16.

Previous posts

Jasper County detective acknowledges Devyn Kyle's mention of McPherson treated differently than Jalen Vaden's

Motion: Jalen Vaden's statement should be tossed because he asked for Judd McPherson

Bond set at $1 million for Jalen Vaden, trial may be as soon as June or July

Despite social media claim, Judd McPherson was not at daughter's home the night Jayda Kyle was abused

Recordings of interviews with Jaden Valen, Devyn Kyle among items turned over to defense during discovery process

Gag order expected in Jalen Vaden case

Reporter/Carl Junction City Councilwoman threatens Jayda's Beat founder, says Vaden guilty, McPherson not involved
Press conference claim: Jalen Vaden confession to Jayda Kyle murder was coerced

Jasper County Prosecuting Attorney outlines evidence against Jalen Vaden
Jalen Vaden to Jayda Kyle's father: I pray that you know I didn't do this to her

Family of accused Jayda Kyle murderer suspects outside manipulation as SMB, GoFundMe shut down accounts

Explosive court documents claim Jayda Kyle's mother turned her death into a social media event

Jayda Kyle's mother to answer questions under oath; defense to add Judd McPherson as a witness

Dankelson refuses to recuse from Jayda Kyle murder case, says he does not have a close relationship with Judd McPherson

Jalen Vaden's lawyer asks for change of judge, cites Dankelson's close relationship with Judd McPherson

Jalen Vaden bond decision delayed, preliminary hearing waived
Accused killer of Jayda Kyle to waive preliminary hearing
Bond motion filed for accused killer of three-year-old Jayda Kyle

Jasper County Sheriff: We are still investigating Jayda Kyle's death

Children's Division documents: Grandfather attempting to manipulate Jayda Kyle murder investigation

Juvenile Office documents: Jayda Kyle suffered bleeding from brain, severely torn retina, probably already brain dead when she arrived in K. C.

Some thoughts on the Joplin Globe's article on the Jayda Kyle murder investigation

Probable cause: Carl Junction man abused three-year-old, left her on the floor bloody, unconscious

Jayda Kyle obituary

Graves: We must make good on our promise to build the wall

(From Sixth District Congressman Sam Graves)

Our immigration system is broken.

It’s broken because of a porous border and lax enforcement of current law. Citizens of our country shouldn’t be subjected to harassment, injury and even murder because we haven’t effectively secured our border or enforced our laws.

Securing our border means building the wall. It’s not just campaign rhetoric. There are many places along our southern border that absolutely require it. There is just no way to safely and regularly patrol some of those areas and a physical barrier is a proven solution. I believe our primary goal in fixing the immigration system should be to control and defend our borders. Period.

Combine a physical barrier such as a wall with technology and manpower and you have a recipe for success in ensuring that our country is adequately secured. Several years ago, a section of border in Arizona added a barrier and more border agents. Those actions resulted in an 83% decrease in illegal entries.

The facts don’t lie; effective border security works.

That’s why I was happy to support a recent increase in funding for building a border wall and other border security measures. However, we have to do more. We must dedicate more funding to border security and we must make good on our promise to build the wall.

Once we do that, then we can look at immigration policies in place that undermine our nation’s security and immigration system.

Solving the illegal immigration problem won’t happen overnight; however, securing the border would go a long way towards improving our current situation. Our immigration problems didn’t occur overnight; they have grown steadily due to decades of inaction and bad policy. It’s time we act for the safety, security and sovereignty of our nation.

Missouri Supreme Court will not rehear appeal of man who murdered Missouri Southern coach

The Missouri Supreme Court announced today it will not rehear Jeffrey Bruner's appeal of his conviction for the November 1, 2013 murder of Missouri Southern State University line coach Derek Moore in the parking lot in front of the Northstar 14 theater.

The court affirmed Bruner's conviction earlier this year following a November hearing.

Bruner's attorneys contended Judge Gayle Crane erred when she did not submit an instruction that would have allowed the jury to consider self-defense.

The murder was described in the Southern District Court of Appeals decision written by Judge William W. Francis Jr.

Bruner and his wife, Michelle Bruner, were estranged and Wife moved out of the marital home approximately

two weeks before November 1, 2013. While Bruner and his daughter were eating out on the evening of November 1, 2013, Bruner’s daughter showed Bruner a picture that had been posted on Facebook of Wife and Victim, taken outside of what appeared to be a nearby movie theater.

Bruner was “stunned” when he saw the picture and told his daughter “this isn’t right. You know, what your mom is doing is not right.” He was also “hurt,” “angry,” and felt “betrayed.” Bruner decided to go to the theater and confront Wife. Bruner’s daughter did not want to go with Bruner and asked that he take her home.

On the way home, the daughter testified Bruner told her “he didn’t want [her] to see him kill a man[,]” that she probably would not have a “mom or a dad by the end of the night[,]” and “he would be going to jail that night[.]”1 Upon arriving home, Bruner again viewed the picture of Wife and Victim. He then retrieved two loaded pistols from the house because of “how big [Victim] was in the picture.” Bruner returned to his car, one pistol concealed upon his person, the other placed in the passenger seat along with an extra ammunition clip.


On the way to the theater, Bruner texted Wife asking “WTF,” and a second text asking her where she was. Wife did not respond. Arriving at the theater, Bruner unsuccessfully scoured the parking lot for Wife’s Jeep.

After several laps around the parking lot, Bruner parked in a space facing the theater. Bruner texted his daughter to determine if she was okay, and then sought to confirm what clothing Wife was wearing that night.

After a significant period of time, Bruner observed Wife emerge from the theater with Victim. Bruner left his vehicle and approached the two, asking Wife, “[W]hat’s going on[?]” Wife replied, “We’re on a date.” Bruner responded that “they had not talked about dating,” and Wife told Bruner she did not need his permission to date. An argument then ensued between Bruner, Victim, and Wife.

Victim asked Bruner who he was and Bruner responded, “This doesn’t have to do with you. I just want to talk to my wife[.]” Victim stated, “She moved out pal.” Bruner observed Victim to be considerably larger than he was—Bruner was 5’11” and approximately 170 pounds; Victim was approximately 6’5” and “was really big.”

As Victim would approach Bruner during this argument, Bruner would take a few steps back. However, Bruner continued to remain in front of Victim even when Victim would move forward.

Eventually, the procession reached the street opposite the movie theater entrance. Bruner saw a median emerging out of his peripheral vision, and not wanting to trip over it, stopped moving backward. Wife and Victim walked around Bruner to his right, causing Bruner to pivot clockwise toward Wife and Victim.

Bruner testified on direct examination that at that point, Victim exclaimed, “I’m not from here, mother fucker, I’ll have your throat slit in two hours.” Bruner asked why Victim was threatening him, and Victim indicated he did not play “these redneck games.” Victim stepped onto the median and said “you don’t know who the fuck you are messing with.”

Bruner saw Victim move into a “fighting stance” and move his right arm such that Bruner perceived Victim was going to grab him.

Bruner then pulled the pistol from his jacket and shot Victim several times in the back, killing him. A three-day jury trial commenced on March 23, 2015. At the jury instruction conference, Bruner’s counsel tendered a self-defense instruction, pursuant to MAI-CR 306.06, Part A – General Statement of Law, which the State opposed. The trial court refused the instruction.

The jury found Bruner guilty of first-degree murder and armed criminal action, and recommended life imprisonment without parole on the first-degree murder charge, and five years’ imprisonment on the armed criminal action charge.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Daniel Scott wrote that even if every word Bruner said could be believed, "society has not yet devolved to 'ordinary reasonable and prudent' persons publicly emptying guns into one another."

Scott also noted Bruner's actions:

-Bruner pulled a gun and shot Moore from behind until Moore dropped, his spinal cord severed.

-Bruner stood over Moore and emptied the gun into his back, then kicked Moore’s head and face with heavy boots as he lay dying.

-Waiting for police to arrive, Bruner said: “They posted it all over Facebook. What’s a guy supposed to do?”

In his dissenting opinion, Judge Gary W. Lynch made it clear his disagreement was not with the verdict but with Judge Crane's decision not to allow the jury instruction. In his opinion,he outlined the case that Bruner's attorney made.

Defendant and Michelle Bruner (“Wife”) married in 1992. Over the course of the marriage, the couple had periods of marital difficulties and separation but had always reconciled. Around October 15, 2013, Wife moved out of the marital home into an apartment.

When she moved out, Wife denied that she was involved with another man or that she planned on divorcing Defendant and said she just “needed space.” Defendant believed that no one else knew the couple had separated, and that he “knew it would be hard for her to come back, if everybody knew what she was doing.”

After Wife moved into the apartment, Defendant visited her “at least every other day[,]” and “spent two nights there with her.” On October 31, 2013, Defendant bought Wife a small gift and arranged to meet her at her workplace to give it to her. When they met, Wife acted different, “[k]ind of cold and something didn’t feel right.” Defendant asked her if they could go out the next night, but Wife said she had to work.

The next night, however, Wife went on a date with Derek Moore, and a photo of the two of them was posted on her Facebook page with the caption, “date night.” Defendant’s fourteen-year-old daughter saw the post and showed the photo to Defendant while they were out having dinner that evening. Defendant was stunned, hurt, angry, and upset because Wife had told him she had to work that night.

It appeared to Defendant that the photo was taken at the local theater. Defendant texted Wife asking her where she was. Wife did not reply. After Defendant returned home with his daughter, he looked at the picture in the Facebook post on his daughter’s computer and decided he wanted to find Wife, talk to her, and save their marriage. Before leaving the house, he put a gun in his pocket “because of how big the guy was in the picture.” He thought if the man “tried to beat [him] up or something, that [he] would be able to back him off with it.”

Wife had previously “been with [men] that were of the same build[,]” and once told Defendant “that these guys could crush [him].” Defendant drove to the theater, parked in front, and waited for Wife to exit the theater. He “just wanted to talk to [Wife] and help her to see that what she was doing wasn’t right and to come back home . . . that God is going to punish her for what she’s done . . . [and he] wanted to save her from that.”

When Wife exited the front entrance of the theater alongside Moore, Defendant exited his vehicle and approached Wife near the theater entrance, asking her, “[W]hat’s going on.” Wife responded that she was on a date. When Defendant told her that they had not talked about dating, Wife told him, “I don’t need your permission.” Defendant pleaded with her, telling Wife he just wanted to talk and asked why they couldn’t work things out. At that time, Moore told Defendant, “[S]he moved out, pal[,]” and Defendant told Moore, “this doesn’t have to do with you.” Moore responded, “it f-ing does because we’re on a date.” Wife intervened, putting her hand to Moore’s chest “like she was holding him back from [Defendant].”

As Defendant continued talking to Wife, Moore kept interfering with their conversation. Defendant backed up “countless times” as Moore “kept saying over and over, again, who the fuck are you and every time he would step toward me and I would back up.” Defendant was 5’10” and estimated that Moore was 6’4” or 6’5” and “really big.” Defendant had backed up until he was close to tripping over a “sidewalk median.” He stopped there, while Wife and Moore “started like circling around [him] to [his] right.”

As Moore went around Defendant, Moore told him, “I’m not from here, mother fucker, I will have your throat slit within two hours.” At that time, Defendant turned his focus completely on Moore because Defendant “didn’t know when [Moore] was going to cut my throat” as “within two hours that’s any time there.”

Defendant testified that at that point, "I got this really sick feeling in my stomach. I felt like I was kind of like [spinning]. And it was like the sky was getting darker. Everything is – it’s like everything was getting farther, . . . farther away. And sounds were sounding like they were farther and farther away. And everything was like closing in on me. And by the time he said, you don’t know who the fuck you’re messing with[,] my vision was just about gone . . . . like I was [blacking] out or something . . . [Moore] was like getting blurry."

Moore had stepped up onto the median, while Defendant remained on the asphalt. Defendant then asked, “[W]hy are you threatening me[,]” to which Moore stated, “I don’t play these redneck games.”

Defendant testified, “I did see some kind of motion right before the shots were fired. . . . I know there was some kind of motion that he made.” Moore had taken “what [Defendant] would call a fighting stance[,] . . . sideways looking at [Defendant]” with his right shoulder closer to Defendant, and Defendant “saw his right arm move.”

Defendant sensed that he was then in danger, “perceived that [Moore] was trying to grab [him,]” backed up, and at the same time pulled his gun out. Moore told Defendant, “[Y]ou don’t know who the fuck you are messing with.”

At that point, Defendant fired his gun multiple times. Defendant could not remember much of what occurred after he shot Moore except that he was sitting in his car with his hands on the steering wheel, trying to recall what had happened. When he got out of his car, someone was approaching, and he told them to call 911, saying, “I think I just shot someone.” Moore died of his wounds, and Defendant was arrested and charged with first-degree murder and armed criminal action

Judge Lynch wrote, "Although no weapon was found on Moore’s person, the jury could have concluded that Defendant believed that Moore had a knife (or some other instrument capable of slitting Defendant’s throat) based on his testimony that Moore had threatened to slit his throat, assumed a fighting stance, and moved his arm toward Defendant.

"The jury also could have concluded that Defendant believed that having his throat slit would expose Defendant to the risk of death and Defendant was entitled to proportionally respond to the threat of deadly force with deadly force. Therefore, there was evidence putting at issue all three of the applicable section 563.031 elements of self-defense, as mirrored in Defendant’s proposed Instruction A, and that instruction should have been submitted to the jury."

Musser: You're stuck with me for another three years- Fort returns to Joplin R-8 Board, Koch falls short

Joplin R-8 voters elected two former district principals to three-year terms on the Board of Education today, with the man who has served as board president for the past three years falling short.

Final results show Lori Musser winning her second consecutive term with 2,153 votes, followed by Debbie Fort, returning to the board after a one-year absence, with 1,921 votes and Jeff Koch with 1,853.



Musser posted the following message on her campaign Facebook page:

Thank you Joplin voters for your votes and support! Looks like you are stuck with me for another three years. I will always put our children first.

On her campaign Facebook page, Fort also expressed gratitude:

Thank you for your vote of confidence in me today! I promise each vote I make will be in the best interest of our students, teachers, staff, and community. Thank you, Joplin!

Koch was elected on his second try in 2015 after finishing fourth in a field of seven vying for three spots in 2014.

He became the first board member to serve three consecutive years.

Neosho R-5 voters give board president the heave ho; Haskins, Wiest win three-year terms

Neosho R-5 voters elected not to return Board of Education President Steve Douglas a third term today, electing Dan Haskins and Steffen Wiest to three-year terms.

Haskins was the top vote-getter with 751, according to unofficial final results from the Newton and McDonald county portions of the district, followed by Wiest with 670 and Douglas with 620.

Douglas offered congratulations to the winners in a Facebook statement:

Not the result I hoped for in the School Board race, but I appreciate the past six years of service to the people of Neosho. Dan Haskins and Steffen Wiest will do an awesome job to move Neosho forward. Neosho is a fantastic community. If we all work together, we can make it even better! It is a great day to be a Wildcat! Thank you to everyone who has believed in me the past six months. I appreciate your friendship and support. Congratulations to Mr. Haskins and Mr. Wiest, you have my full support and best wishes.#WildcatNation

The "six months" in Douglas' statement refers to the criticism he, fellow board member Brett Day and R-5 Administration has been under over an apparent lack of transparency about the junior high building project over that period of time that has been the focus of numerous recent Turner Report posts in recent weeks.