| ARCHIVE
This page includes my reports on board meetings and other relevant community events from March 2006 through August 2007. For more recent information, please see the main Board Update page.
August 22, 2007 - School Service Center
During the superintendent's report, the chair of the district's Hubble "Alternate Site Use" subcommittee reported that on September 8, in connection with the Wheaton Chamber of Commerce, it will host an all-day design workshop on possible uses for the Hubble/Wheaton Central property at the Park District Rice Lake Center. Portions will be open to the public, including introductory presentations at 8:30 a.m., presentations at 1 p.m., and a public comment time immediately thereafter. According to media reports, the Chamber of Commerce believes "the decision has already been made" to turn the property over to private developers if the voters approve building a new middle school. However, Board President Andrew Johnson indicated that the Chamber is wrong, as he stated that at some point the board will have to decide what to do with the property.
The Board introduced the new president of the district teachers union, and confirmed that it will pay him full salary not to teach, but to conduct union business full-time. Consistent with past practice, the union will reimburse the district for only a portion of the cost of his salary, meaning that the board members who accepted the union's endorsements for their reelection will continue to reward the union with a taxpayer-funded subsidy.
Dr. Drury reported that the EPA NFR letter relating to the proposed new middle school site has not yet been received, but is anticipated to show "the site is clean."
I told the Board that they are "on the right track" with the proposed R-rated movie policy because that policy now says that the district "strives to be exemplary in terms of literacy." This shows a healthy skepticism about the teaching value of commercial movies, as opposed to books. Film by its nature appeals to emotions more than logic; think about the use of film as propaganda in Battleship Potemkin, Triumph of the Will, or even JFK. I have no doubt that some students may find watching a movie more fun than reading a book, but this may be true in many areas. Good teachers will find ways to engage students in learning without having to turn to Hollywood entertainment.
August 8, 2007 - School Service Center
The district voted to post its budget for the July 1, 2007- June 30, 2008 fiscal year. District operating revenues are up 5%, or twice the rate of inflation (CPI increase is about 2.5% according to staff). But district spending is up 6%, fueled in large part by an increase in salary and benefit costs of 6.7% - or more than 4% above inflation. (Note: according to Dr. Belha, the district received over 8,000 applications for 81 vacancies this year. Clearly these applicants don't believe our staff are underpaid.) There will be a public hearing on the budget prior to the September 12 board meeting.
Overall, excluding construction work, there will be about a $2,000,000 deficit, which the board vice president concedes is due almost entirely to the district's decision to spend money (it doesn't have yet) on architectural services for a new middle school. If a referendum passes, the district will seek to reimburse this borrowing.
After comments from a number of concerned community members, the Board has revised its policy on R-rated movies. The new policy is a big improvement and shows that parents can make a difference if enough of them speak out on issues of concern. Keep doing so. The new policy states, in relevant part, "Other than in the study of film as an art form, the use of full-length commercial films in the classroom is discouraged as District 200 strives to be exemplary in terms of literacy and protection of valuable instruction time." I absolutely agree.
Interestingly, as quoted in today's Daily Herald story, one middle school teacher spoke during public comment to express his view that prohibiting the showing of R-rated movies in middle schools (to children as young as 11 or 12) "borders on censorship." Folks, it is this type of attitude that shows the need for independent review of curriculum materials. The classroom is a place for learning, not entertainment. Young children are not fully formed adults who have the "right" to make all decisions themselves; that's why they don't drink or vote. It is the responsibility of their parents to shield them from age-inappropriate material, and it is the responsibility of this district to make sure, as one board member stated last night, that the educational value of the materials used is greater than any other available material. I think the board is now on the right track with its revised policy, and it is not necessary to bring more movies to younger children.
July 11, 2007 - School Service Center
I did not attend this meeting, so I am filing this report based on public information from the District's web site.
The Board has posted for public comment a new policy on the use of R-rated movies in the classroom. I will be submitting written comments and will post them when available. But the policy can be summarized as the Board's "No Accountability" policy. If you read the policy (posted on the Board's web site), you will see that the Board is passing the buck on reviewing what is supposedly an important part of the curriculum. In fact, under the new policy neither the Board nor the superintendent will review ANY movies, or even have authority to decide whether or not they are appropriate! I'm not sure if the board can legally do this.
The Board has posted a 56-page powerpoint presentation by Legat Architects on its web site. I commend the Board for making this data public as soon as possible. Notably, the construction costs are now back to $49 million (plus land) - we were told in May that about $3 million would be saved by spending money in advance of the referendum. That "savings" appears to have been spent. There is a lot of additional information, and I will not comment further until I have had a chance to review it in more detail.
June 13, 2007 - School Service Center
As expected, the Board spent time extending good wishes to Dr. Catalani on the occasion of his last board meeting before retirement. I stated at the meeting that while I disagree with certain policies the Board has sought to implement, I have always believed that Dr. Catalani has been an effective administrator.
Board Member John Bomher stated that in his view Dr. Catalani is "way too young to be leaving," as he still has a lot of energy and is "just hitting stride." Mr. Bomher noted that the retirement is a result of the current system. I agree. In Illinois, the public school pension system is set up to encourage our most experienced staff to retire at age 55, with a generous taxpayer guaranteed pension for life. This deprives our schools of their most seasoned educators, while imposing a crushing burden on the pension system that continues to push it further into insolvency - that taxpayers must bail out. Powerful teachers' unions continue to resist needed reforms. But ultimately, the system will collapse of its own weight as private businesses with unsustainable benefit structures, such as the auto and steel industries, have found.
I don't blame anyone for taking advantage of the current system - we'd all like to retire at age 57, with a pension starting at $215,000 a year and increasing from there, and move to a warm climate where there is no state income tax. Isn't that the American Dream? But those of us who are not so lucky must stay here, and continue to pay local property taxes to support our schools, and Illinois income taxes to fund the state's pension system. It's disappointing that some people who have been the strongest advocates for raising our property taxes - such as a former board member - don't put their money where their mouth is, but soon leave our community and the tax burden they imposed, while the rest of us stay and pay.
What is the Board doing to address the problem of effective staff retiring "way too young"? It gave Dr. Catalani a 63.5% raise over the last two years to boost his pension. And it's continuing to aid and abet the current system. With no discussion, the board voted unanimously last night to pay a veteran teacher over $90,000 a year, plus benefits, not to teach, but to conduct union business full-time. See the Download Files page for a copy of my remarks. The board seeks to ingratiate itself with the union - which delivers money and manpower for their reelection and referendum campaigns - rather than take steps to try to reform even a small piece of the system.
A concerned community member also spoke to appeal the dismissal of an unnamed teacher at Franklin Middle School.
May 23, 2007- Wheaton North High School
The Board took positive steps last night to consider options for the district to retain the current Hubble site for educational use even if a new middle school is built elsewhere. Rhetoric in the recent board campaign suggested that selling the property to private developers was the official position of the district. However, Board Vice President Rosemary Swansno noted that the original motion to build a new school did not take a position on the current property. In her view, the district should study other options, even though she is concerned that they may be too expensive to afford.
In my view, the district cannot afford not to keep this property. Dr. Catalani reported that Wheaton's newest school, Longfellow (built 2001) is already out of space - the art room was vacated for use as a classroom, and mobile classrooms may be needed next year. The School Service Center is also running out of space. He also stated that if the state mandated universal preschool or all-day kindergarten, it could not be accomodated within the current buildings. While I would not support either of these initiatives, it is possible that the state will require them at some point, and the district would have no choice but to address them. The board engaged in an open and extended discussion on this issue, which I would like to see them continue with regard to significant issues.
The Board also voted to hire a new director of communications for the district, at a salary of $115,000 per year for a 226-working day year.
May 9, 2007 - Longfellow Elementary School
The Board honored District teachers and staff who are celebrating their 15th and 25th service anniversaries in the District. The Board also swore in newly-reelected members and reelected the current school board president and vice president to those offices. This means that current board president Andy Johnson, who has been in that office since 2001, will continue until at least 2009. Newly reelected board members are certainly keeping their campaign promises of "stability" on the board at all costs, but why not allow some other members to try their hand at leadership? Do the remaining board members feel that they lack the ability to lead their fellow members?
Board's Unfunded Mandate to State
The board members received effusive praise from an elementary school administrator who is retiring at the end of this school year. Well he should thank them. This individual received a 20% raise this year, boosting his salary from $106,606 to $127,928. This is a contractually guaranteed benefit, meaning that it is not "merit pay" - simply a reward for longevity. This one action boosts his annual pension (he's retiring in his mid 50s) from $76,660 a year to $82,773 a year, with 3% cost of living increases for life. Assuming his life expectancy is roughly 30 years, this increases his total lifetime pension entitlement from $3.5 million to $3.8 million - a nearly $300,000 additional "unfunded mandate" from our district to the struggling state pension system.
The Board also voted to gamble roughly $1.9 million from the operations and maintenance fund toward preparing drawings for a new middle school, even though funding will not be approved until next spring (if then). See my statement on the download files page. Speaking in favor of this contract award to Legat Architects was Ralph Heatherington, who chairs a political fund that received $5,000 from Legat Architects. Voting in favor of this contract was Board Member John Bomher, who (until February 20 of this year) chaired the same committee.
April 25, 2007 - Sandburg Elementary School
Board approves $7.4 million No-Bid Contract
The Board approved a no-bid contract with Laidlaw Transportation for bus services for next year, despite denying during the recent campaign that there are no-bid contracts at the district. A loophole in state law makes this legal, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. The Board used rather strange logic: it says Laidlaw is the only available bus company, but if the contract had been bid out, Laidlaw would realize this and charge a higher price. By not bidding the contract and dealing only with Laidlaw (so Laidlaw KNOWS that it is the only option), somehow the district is able to negotiate a better price. Following this reasoning, why should we seek competitive bids on any contract - let's just sit down with our existing vendor (which is also a major political contributor to a campaign fund chaired by a current board member) and "negotiate."
Myth vs. Fact - True or False?
Dr. Catalani distributed "Myth vs. Fact - An Update" purporting to answer all questions on Hubble relocation. Unfortunately, some of the District's facts contradict one another. For example, the District states as a "myth" that "the school district determines how the Hubble site will be developed when the new school is built." Yet it is a "fact" that "the redevelopment of Hubble will include open space." Which is correct - if the district doesn't determine how the site will be developed, how can it guarantee what kind of redevelopment will occur? It is also claimed as a "myth" that "renovating Hubble is the least expensive option." Yet at least one board member (John Bomher) admitted during the campaign that renovating Hubble is cheaper; he contends that "cheaper isn't always better." Renovating Hubble is cheaper, even using the district's own numbers. The only option that would be more expensive is the hypothetical plan to make substantial changes to Hubble so that it would be different from the facilities found at the other three district middle schools. That's not "comparing apples to apples."
April 18, 2007 - Election Results
As stated on the your200team web page, thank you to the thousands of district residents (4,344 at last count) who voted for me (and Betty Welker and Paul Yousif), and the hundreds who volunteered by displaying yard signs, walking precincts, and helping my campaign. We had a tough race against long-time incumbents, but we stuck with our issues and are proud of the race we ran. We made many new friends and have built a network that cannot be ignored. If nothing else, it cannot be claimed that we speak only for a "small group" when we outpolled a number of citywide candidates in terms of the number of votes we received. While I am disappointed at the outcome, I will remain involved in district issues and welcome your emails regarding any concerns you may have.
April 4, 2007 - Jefferson Preschool
Several district parents raised concern about the use of R-rated movies as part of the high school curriculum, and one student spoke in favor of viewing R-rated movies in class. In response, the district has imposed a moratorium on showing R-rated movies until it can straighten out its policy. The board contended in a letter to me and other residents (see download files page) that its current policies have been followed. Yet several parents - none of whom I know - publicly told the board that's not the case. They said they weren't told in advance, and in one case, that the students weren't even told in advance what would be shown. No matter what policy is implemented, the board must make sure it is enforced so parents can have confidence in what's going on in the classroom. The board's committee studying this issue must identify where policies were violated, and determine how to stop that in the future, along with reviewing the policies themselves. Otherwise, any policy will be a dead letter.
The district honored our Special Olympics basketball team, which recently placed third in the state, along with their coaches. The board also approved bids for new band uniforms for each high school.
March 15, 2007 - Lowell Elementary School
HEADLINE: Board delay costs taxpayers $2.7 million; Board now wants to spend first, ask permission later to try to recoup extra costs caused by its own inaction. See the last paragraph of this entry for more information. The board also received updated numbers on Jefferson Preschool, discussed on the Jefferson Too? page. We learned for the first time that Jefferson work will result in loss of playing fields there. The complete Jefferson presentation is now (March 19) available on the district's web site.
Welcome to Dr. Richard Drury, who made the long drive down from Wisconsin to attend. He took the time to speak with a number of community members in attendance. I thanked him for disclosing his current contract (posted on this web site) - the District will not disclose his new contract with us.
One Warrenville resident spoke about a bad experience where her 6 year old son (who attends Bower) was put on the bus in error (he should have stayed at school), made to get off the bus even though his mother wasn't there, and ended up wandering to the home of an unknown neighbor. It is unacceptable that proper procedures were not in place to prevent this - she encouraged the Board to adopt a "red tag" system for parents.
Another resident indicated that his children at WWS were required to watch R-rated movies for class, and the "permission slip" did not fully disclose the levels of obscene language and violence. It appears the teacher in question may have violated District policy; Dr. Catalani equivocated on the usefulness of R-rated movies as a teaching tool. He cited clips from "Braveheart" as a movie showing "leadership." I say, what's wrong with the speech from Shakespeare's Henry V?
The Board discussed issuing no-bid contracts to Bovis Construction, as construction manager, and Legat Architects, for a proposed new middle school. Dr. Catalani stated that the board is not required to seek competitive bids, and this is true. But why wouldn't we even consider other alternatives, EVER? We may be satisfied with our current textbooks, but we don't keep them forever; we continually review what's on the market. Just because the District solicited competitive proposals 12 YEARS AGO doesn't mean we should never look again.
Board delay: Legat Architects presented new numbers; it says building a new middle school will now cost $49.6 million, PLUS LAND - over $57 million total. Note that on May 24, 2006, the Board cited a cost of only $26 million in 2007 dollars - look up the minutes on the district web site. This cost has increased by $2.7 million since December 2006 due to the Board's failure to hold a referendum this year, despite two opportunities (February 27 and April 17, 2007). The Board wants to "solve" the problem created by its own delay, and "save" by prepaying architectural costs. Two problems: (1) the board promised last May it wouldn't do this, but would wait until the community agreed, and (2) if the referendum doesn't pass, this money is wasted and has to be paid from the budget for maintaining our schools, requiring a 20% cut in maintenance (it's roughly 20% of the total annual operations and maintenance budget). Bad idea - the board should do what it promised and hold a referendum before spending millions.
March 1, 2007 - Superintendent Contract
The District still won't provide the contract you and I are obligated to pay to our current superintendent. But the Muskego-Norway School District, home of our superintendent-designate, Dr. Richard Drury, has provided his current contract. It's available on the Download Files Page - Drury Wisconsin Contract. You'll note that it has no guaranteed raises. The fact that the Wisconsin district provided it with no fuss speaks well of them, and of Dr. Drury. I hope he will bring a climate of openness to District 200 when he arrives.
February 28, 2007 - Johnson School
No, there was not a meeting - the board cancelled it due to "lack of agenda items." But, together with Your 200 Team, we've put together a brief agenda the board should have considered if it thought there wasn't anything to do. It's available on the Download Files page - February 28 agenda.
February 23, 2007 - Herrick/BP Contract
A copy of the contract the Board signed to buy the Herrick Road/BP site is available on the Download Files page. Here are some highlights and unusual features:
1. The Board admits in paragraph 34 that it threatened to condemn this propety by EMINENT DOMAIN, and in paragraph 35 agrees that if the Agreement terminates, it will support the owner developing the property for residential use. Why would the board agree to lobby for a housing development, unless this Board has been interfering with the private property rights of this developer by preventing him from getting proper zoning and threatening condemnation of his property?
2. Does the board really want the community to decide? The Board has now paid $200,000 of your money as a deposit, which is not refundable if a referendum does not pass. Also, the board is obligated to run a referendum in the 2008 primary (paragraph 8) BUT it has the right to run another one in November 2008 if the first one doesn't pass. In other words, if the voters of District 200 reject this site in the spring - the board doesn't care what you think, it will try again! Plus, paragraph 34 contemplates that if a referendum fails TWICE, the board can still try to take the property by eminent domain!! I say the board should take ONE vote and abide by the community's decision.
3. The board really doesn't know if this site is suitable for a school (physically - even if there were no environmental issues at all). Despite all the rhetoric that this is a perfect site, the board doesn't know (A) if soil conditions are suitable for a school building - not whether the soil is contaminated, but whether it will even physically support the building (paragraph 10), (B) whether the property is a wetland or floodplain (paragraph 11), or (C) whether there are archaeological issues (paragraph 12). All of these tests have to be done at the board's expense. If the board is so concerned about delay, why has it spent a year negotiating without getting the answers to these vital questions?
Some of these facts are disturbing; others suggest that the board really wasn't ready for a referendum this spring, despite its claims that "opponents" somehow delayed the process.
February 14, 2007 - Hubble Middle School
I missed this meeting (my first missed meeting in about a year) because I was on my honeymoon.
January 28, 2007 - Wiesbrook Elementary School
Meeting was cancelled as of January 19 due to "lack of agenda items."
January 10, 2007 - Franklin Middle School
The meeting was relatively short, with one major disappointment, one interesting revelation, and one positive.
Disappointment: The Board voted to seek a waiver from state law so it can evaluate our teachers on a "pass-fail" basis, instead of the state-mandated "excellent," "satisfactory," or "unsatisfactory." This is a giant step backward: how can we go from good to great if we won't measure the difference between the two. This vote (which was unanimous) shows that the Board isn't serious about a commitment to excellence in teaching. Over 895% of districts statewide use the state-mandated system - District 200 is out of the mainstream by refusing to challenge its teachers to achieve their highest level of achievement.
Interesting revelation: Those tests that claimed the Board's proposed school site was "pristine"? According to the Illinois EPA, they were "inadequate" (Dr. Gary Catalani, as quoted in Daily Herald, 1/11/07, page 1). This doesn't mean that the property is or isn't safe - we'll see what the EPA eventually determines - but it clearly vindicates those community members who called for more testing.
Positive: The Board approved an intergovernmental agreement with the Wheaton Park District to share the cost of fitness equipment at the high schools, and make it available to the community. I am pleased that the Board is working with another governmental body to save money for both, and that the Board got legitimate competitive bids on the equipment. I encourage the Board to continue to cooperate with other government units, and seek competitive bids on other projects where no-bid deals have been the norm.
December 26, 2006
Saturday's Daily Herald contained the following editorial, with which I wholeheartedly agree. I am not aware of any competitive bidding process for District 200 bond issues.
Daily Herald 12/23/06
Going out to bid is good business: It’s always best to bid big contracts that are to paid for with public dollars. Unfortunately, the DuPage County Forest Preserve Commission didn’t apply this premise in awarding a $550,000 contract to a financial firm to broker the forest preserve district’s $68 million bond sale approved by voters in the last election. Supporters of the no-bid contract say the firm has handled other bond issues very well, achieving savings, and that there is something to be said for loyalty. But how about loyalty to the taxpayers, who expect the best bang for their buck? And how will they know if they are getting just that, if there aren’t competitive bids?
December 15, 2006
Sadly, Wheaton North High School and our District have made the news in a nationally-reported story involving serious student misconduct. The alleged particulars of the incident are vile and not suitable for publication on a family web site. Given the health and psychological issues involved, it is disappointing that the District reportedly attempted to suppress coverage of the story in the media.
It is the role of parents to instill proper values in their children. However, in my opinion it is the role of the educational system to reinforce those values, and not permit them to be attacked or denigrated in the classroom.
I urge the District 200 School Board to act immediately to reevaluate its character and citizenship curricula, including the so-called "Character Counts" program, and determine if sufficient emphasis is being given to character education in our District.
December 13, 2006 - Pleasant Hill Elementary School
Congratulations to Pleasant Hill staff and students on winning the U.S. Department of Education "Blue Ribbon School" award. This award was given based on objective criteria, which are publicly available, in a competitive process.
$380,000 IS NOT ENOUGH? According to your school board president at last night's meeting, Dr. Catalani's $380,000 annual salary is "still less than he should be paid." No one on the school board disagreed with this statement. The board president listed accomplishments of Dr. Catalani, including "passing a $72 million referendum." This board also believes its members are personally responsible for building field houses. Funny, I thought that the voters of District 200 were the ones funding our schools. This is an insult to every working taxpayer in District 200. But accepting the board's claims at face value, does the $380,000 figure represent merit pay based on measurable accomplishments? The Board still won't tell us. Don't claim that making an administrator the highest paid school employee in all of Illinois - more than 50% above the average for superintendents of similar districts - is based on merit if you won't tell us what's in the contract. See the Download Files page for my remarks, and statistics on superintendent salaries at other large districts.
Legat Architects gave a very detailed and informative presentation last night. While I disagree with some of the underlying assumptions, I appreciated the time and effort put into it, and am glad I was there to see it. This is extremely important for the community to consider. Unfortunately, the board again showed a lack of respect for the community, its own architects by failing to publicize the presentation in advance. It shoehorned the presentation - which lasted most of the meeting - into the "Superintendent's Report" so it did not have to list it on the agenda. This violates the spirit of posting an agenda in advance so the public will know what is being discussed, and is at least the second time this has been done on an important Hubble-related issue. Why doesn't the Board want the community to know in advance what's going on?
Also not disclosed in advance was a presentation by Bill Hepworth of RW Baird, the District's bond consultant. It purported to show, based on a number provided by the District from a developer, what taxes could be generated from a sale of Hubble. One big problem - TIF. If the Hubble property is sold and put in a TIF - which the District can't stop, and has actually encouraged in the past - the tax return for the District, the Park District, and other governmental bodies will be ZERO for the next 23 years. No statement was made as to whether the District would be able to prevent a TIF at Hubble.
November 27, 2006 - Statement on FOIA Lawsuit
A copy of the lawsuit filed as a result of District 200's failure to provide the public with a copy of its superitendent contract, as required by the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, is available on the Download Files page.
November 8, 2006 - Hawthorne Elementary School
NEW TAXES? The Board voted to support an Illinois Association of School Boards resolution calling on the Illinois General Assembly to consider allowing school districts to impose a NEW SALES TAX. The original resolution called for a 2% sales tax for unit districts like District 200 (this is double the sales tax rate that the City of Wheaton collects). The resolution has NO MENTION OF PROPERTY TAX RELIEF - it is simply an encouragement to raise taxes on all of us. See www.iasb.com/ReporttoMembership06.pdf (Resolution 8).
Board members Swanson and Knicker expressed their concern about the cost of spending up to $25,000 on a risk assessment study. But it's hard to take seriously claims that the Board is "looking out for the taxpayer" when it is going to oppose the very next resolution (Resolution 9) that would require tax increment financing districts (TIF) to pay their fair share of school taxes. Board Member Swanson served on the committee that recommended against this resolution. Unfortunately, our District is ok with looking at raising sales taxes on consumers, yet opposes a resolution to demand that commercial developers and other TIF beneficiaries pay their fair share. Even worse, our Board is supporting the IASB's Position Statement 2.32 to DESTROY TAX CAPS by allowing districts to levy at their "maximum" rate without a referendum. As I demonstrated last night, this would have meant $90 MILLION IN ADDITIONAL TAXES over just the last 5 years. See Download Files for a copy of my presentation (Tax Levy).
Dr. Catalani reported that during the October heavy rain, the School Service Center (Administration Building) lower level flooded with over a foot of water, and without intervention, "could have been maybe up to the ceiling if not worse" due to electrical failure that knocked out the sump pump. To date, Board members have not called for building a "new School Service Center" to address the flooding problem.
For the first time last night, it was disclosed that as part of the District's proposed new school site near BP, the District would undertake an obligation to maintain 11 acres of BP property - forever. Visit www.educate200.com, Download Files page, to see a copy of Warrenville Ordinance 2301. This was passed in June, but curiously the Board never mentioned it until EDUCATE 200 uncovered it. Apparently the Board's school site can't function as a self-contained unit; it needs to use BP property for emergency access and storm water detention. If the District acquires its site, Warrenville can assign Warrenville's obligations under the ordinance to the District, in which event District 200 taxpayers will have to maintain a large portion of BP property in perpetuity. See Section 3.1 and Section 5.15 of the Ordinance.
November 2, 2006 - You Too Can Win an Award
District 200 regularly publicizes awards won by it, or by various schools. It's perfectly appropriate for the District to recognize achievements. However, it's also appropriate for the District to tell us how it got the awards - was there a competitive process involved where an outside party actually sought out the District for an achievement? Or was it a participation ribbon awarded just for mailing in an application? Here's an example: the District just issued a news release, "District Wins Environmental Award." What it didn't announce was that the "award" was a participation recognition given to everyone who applied - there was no "judging" involved. The EPA news release can be viewed at http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/68b5f2d54f3eefd28525701500517fbf/f42b7acf21b3b9a685257154005d6db5!OpenDocument. The competitive awards were the Champion and Excellence Awards - other entrants who did not win a competitive award, including District 200, received the Recognition level.
I can't speak to the District's work on this issue (I haven't seen it, but I encourage the District to post it on their web site). I am pleased that the District is focusing on indoor environmental quality (this has been an issue - see information about Johnson School class action settlement on the Download Files page). But let's have full disclosure of how these awards are determined.
October 25, 2006 - Emerson Elementary School
All in attendance appreciated the refreshments generously provided by the Emerson PTA. The Board recognized the 18 National Merit high school honorees. Assistant Superintendent, Dr. Sorrick presented a detailed and informative Powerpoint presentation on the most recent testing results, which I encourage the District to post on its web site. The good news is that all schools achieved adequate yearly progress this year, so Johnson and Monroe are off the "watch list." It should also be noted that math and reading tests were changed this year, so this year's data isn't necessarily comparable with prior test data.
Dr. Sorrick stated that a staff member told her, "N[o] C[hild] L[eft] B[ehind] isn't the basis for complaining; we celebrate that our students have learned more." She also reminded the Board, "it isn't all about money all the time," but about individual student needs. It's not always about additional funds or additional people; doing something different, or in a different way, can help students learn without putting additional demands on District resources.
In other news, the District is going to require that before it buys its proposed new school site, the owner will have to obtain a satisfactory risk assessment and a no further remediation letter from the Illinois EPA. Dr. Catalani indicated this course of action was recommended by the District's new environmental attorney. I believe this is a good course of action. For those who criticized EDUCATE 200 for demanding more testing - what is the response now that the District and its attorney have agreed and are moving forward with the type of testing (risk assessment) EDUCATE 200 urged be done? Will a retraction be forthcoming?
Dr. Catalani also presented a Powerpoint presentation updating some Hubble information. This is on the web site - which I like - BUT it does not include an important disclaimer. Dr. Catalani is citing some numbers showing the alleged value of redevelopment of the Hubble property that he stated at the meeting were "not solid verifiable data" (his words). I have no problem looking at hypotheticals, but this disclaimer needs to be included on the web site, before the District conveys the impression that these numbers are fact.
October 11, 2006 - Whittier Elementary School (Built 1925)
I enjoy meetings at Whittier because the building has a lot of character and is a great example of how well the District can maintain an older building, when it wishes to do so. I urge readers to visit Whittier and see for yourself.
Environmental attorney Shawn Collins of The Collins Law Firm (www.collinslaw.com) who successfully litigated on behalf of families affected by groundwater contamination near Lockformer in Lisle, spoke about environmental issues at the Board's proposed middle school site and stated that in his opinion, (1) using only 20 probes (totaling less than 2 square feet) for a nearly 19 acre site is not enough, (2) independent information (not merely that provided by BP) is needed about BP risks, and (3) now that the presence of arsenic and certain heavy metals has been identified on the site in higher than "background" amounts, a risk assessment on the effect on children should be performed. State Rep. candidate Dirk Enger also spoke.
District resident Lou Holland, Jr. gave an eloquent and impassioned speech about his experiences as a graduate of three District schools and parent of students in three others, including Hubble. He stated that 5 of the 6 (all but Hubble) were "phenomenal" facilities. It was obvious to his hearers that Mr. Holland was very well educated by District 200; interestingly, Mr. Holland spent the majority of his years in the District at the old Longfellow School (included as one of the 5 "phenomenal facilities"), which was then 100 years old and has now been demolished. The age of the building must not have hindered his learning.
Pam Nielsen of Warrenville indicated that in her opinion, this writer should not offer information on bus travel times (September 27 meeting) because I have no children in school here (a trait I admittedly share with some board members and administrators of District 200). I stand behind all information I have cited, which is a public record obtained from District 200. The "no children" argument has come up before - I will take it seriously ONLY when I hear someone from the Board cadre make it at referendum time and urge everyone without children currently enrolled to vote NO on a tax hike. I'm not holding my breath. As I have stated before - our schools are a resource for everyone in the community, affecting our quality of life and property values. Everyone has a stake, and everyone should be represented.
Quote of the day: We "cannot move the District forward without trust and openness." Dr. Attea, of Hazard Young Attea (District's superintendent search firm).
September 27, 2006 - Madison Elementary School
I spoke on the issue of bus routes. Educate 200 has now posted copies of all elementary and middle school bus routes on its web site, www.educate200.com.
Of the 39 bus routes at Hubble, only five (13%) are over 35 minutes from start to finish. However, for a valid comparison we also examined elementary bus routes within Warrenville. At Johnson Elementary, 2 of 12 routes (17%), and at Bower, five of 14 routes (36%), are over 35 minutes.
District 200 says Warrenville middle school students spend too long on the bus, yet it makes Warrenville kindergarteners at Bower ride for as long as 55 minutes, on Route 102. In the afternoon, elementary students leaving Bower on Route 206 take up to 51 minutes to get home. Kindergarteners at Johnson on Route 103 take up to 45 minutes to get to school. These are not Warrenville students going to Wheaton, but younger students within Warrenville. Yet, only one late activity bus of the 39 Hubble routes has a longer trip. What’s going on here? The problem is not the school location, but the way the District runs its buses. The 12 longest routes in Warrenville average 13.5 stops per route, and the 55-minute kindergarten route has 19 stops, far more than most routes.
Building a new middle school won’t shorten travel times within Warrenville to Bower or Johnson. The only way to shorten travel times is to split these routes. All parents, whether they want Hubble moved or not, should join me in urging this Board to fix the problem now. This Board can act immediately, without a referendum or spending millions, so Warrenville elementary and kindergarten students, not just those at Hubble, get shorter trips. If this Board does not act, it is not serious about finding a solution for all Warrenville students.
Other community members spoke on the issue of making homework assignments available on-line, and about the Board's plan to move Hubble.
The Board also discussed the topic, "All Students Can Learn Beyond Expectations." Some board members spoke on the issues of AP courses, class rank, grading, and expectation levels for student achievement. I recognize that these discussions were to some extent hypothetical in nature, and I commend board members for taking the time to discuss, in public, their views on these important issues. This is what the board should be doing. As Board Member Ken Knicker stated, "learning takes place when different viewpoints are offered."
September 13, 2006 - Bower Middle/Elementary School
A group of Warrenville residents announced that they are organizing in support of the Board's proposal to build a new middle school in Warrenville. Ironically, they made their announcement in the existing Warrenville middle school, which was converted by a prior board to an elementary school (and which is large enough to serve all Warrenville students now enrolled at Hubble). Certainly Hubble is not as close as Bower, but Hubble hasn't moved in 80 years; it is the Board that has voluntarily chosen to move students ever greater distances, from Bower to Monroe, Wheaton-Warrenville Middle School, and now Hubble, and neglected capital improvements at Hubble to create a "crisis".
No one faults Warrenville residents for wanting "their" school (although about half the students at Hubble live in Wheaton). In an ideal world perhaps all children would be able to walk to school, or take a short bus ride. However, we do live in the suburbs, where driving is a way of life, and if we choose to live in areas with more open space and larger lots, distances will be greater. That's why Hubble has the largest attendance area, geographically.
Even if the new school is built where the Board wants, it will NOT BE THE CLOSEST MIDDLE SCHOOL to residents of west Warrenville (including the Board President). In fact, West Chicago Middle School is almost a mile closer. Do a Mapquest TM search to check the mileage from Johnson School, 2S700 Continental Drive, Warrenville, to West Chicago Middle School, 238 East Hazel, West Chicago, versus Herrick Rd & Galusha Ave, Warrenville. As I pointed out at the meeting, unless I see a bunch of petitions to disconnect from District 200, these residents are accepting that the Board's decision means their children STILL won't be going to the closest middle school - so despite what they say, distance must not be the most important factor in their decision making! Perhaps they agree with me that for a great school, it's worth the trip.
QUOTE OF THE DAY: Board Vice President Rosemary Swanson stated that in her opinion, there is "no room in the budget to cut things further."
Dr. Catalani also stated that at a recent meeting on Wheaton's TIF districts, a representative from District 200 may have supported changes that will cost District 200 tax dollars, but the District's representative's vote doesn't count. It's unfortunately true that school districts can't veto TIFs that rob them of needed tax dollars; municipalities have the final say. But why not try a little lobbying? District 200 doesn't control state spending, either, but that hasn't stopped it from asking residents to encourage state legislators to do the right thing. It's time for District 200 to get off the sidelines and use its influence to educate the public about the harm of TIF.
August 30, 2006 - School Service Center (Closed Meeting)
???
August 23, 2006 - School Service Center
Note: the August 9, 2006 meeting was cancelled by the Board.
The August 23 meeting began with a public hearing on the proposed budget for next year. District staff presented an excellent powerpoint summary of the budget, including revenues and expenditures by fund, which I hope will be posted on the District web site. The budget is very close to being in balance, and the education fund (the largest fund) is in balance, and District staff should be commended for this.
Wheaton resident Joe Mahady of Wheaton made an excellent presentation on TIF (tax increment financing) and its terrible effect on school districts. I have frequently raised this issue - see the TIF: Bad for Schools page.
One question that has not been answered, however, is whether the District will have enough money to honor the teacher contract it just signed for the next three years without a tax increase. In my view, the Board should have answered this question when it signed the contract. It has yet to do so. The Board is proposing to form a finance committee to help with long term planning; this is a good start and I encourage them to move forward with it.
The regular meeting involved lots of citizen participation, which is a good thing, in my opinion. Thanks to all who took the time to come and speak, whether or not I agree with them. This is a welcome change from meetings not long ago when few if any community members bothered to attend meetings.
Corrected: On August 30, the Board will hold a closed workshop/ "Self Evaluation" meeting. The Board is able to do this and technically comply with the Illinois Open Meetings Act. However, the Board too often uses closed sessions to hash out important issues and then run the open meetings according to a "script" with important decisions already agreed upon. Do I know what is discussed? No, the meetings are closed. Some issues - such as student discipline - must and should remain secret. But some major decisions, which can be negotiated confidentially, should be discussed in public once they are finalized. Example: the Board voted on May 24 to approve the teacher contract it negotiated in closed session. It is perfectly permissible and appropriate to negotiate in closed session. BUT the Board should then explain to the community its rationale: how does this contract compare to what neighboring or peer districts are doing, what specific features of this contract have been newly tailored to our District's specific needs and goals, and most importantly, can the District pay for the contract given current revenue projections? The Board should also post the final contract on the District web site for public review. Let the board members explain why they think this is a good contract; do not deprive the community of an open discussion on important issues. I urge the Board to adopt some "glasnost" and open up its deliberations.
July 12, 2006 - School Service Center
The EDUCATE 200 Foundation presented petitions from almost 1100 District residents opposing relocation of Hubble to the Board's proposed site. These signatures were gathered in about seven days. To put these signatures in perspective, they represent about THREE TIMES MORE RESIDENTS than have attended every Board meeting in the last year COMBINED (roughly 20 meetings), and almost TWENTY TIMES the number of signatures state election law requires on a petition to become a school board candidate.
The Board indicated members met with BP Amoco, and in their opinion the site is safe. The Board indicated that they will publicize the results of their meeting, so I will defer to them to explain in detail what they learned.
The Board also voted, in a late addition not on the printed agenda, to engage a consultant to conduct soil, air and water testing at the proposed site. Dr. Catalani indicated that Board attorneys stated that normally a district would conduct Phase II testing on a proposed school site, but would not run two sets of tests (the landowner is also conducting its own tests). I am pleased that the District is working to ensure safety, and EDUCATE 200 and the District residents who signed the petitions have already achieved something - the Board is taking additional action it would not have taken but for the community concern.
June 28, 2006 - Arrowhead
The Board met with the Wheaton Park District board in a special joint meeting to address various issues, including what the Park District will do if it loses access to Hubble facilities.
According to Dr. Catalani, if the new middle school site is selected, the Wheaton Park District will NOT have access to it, or to Hubble, which District 200 wants to sell for private development. Currently, ALL District 200 residents, including Warrenville residents, can participate in Park District programs held at Hubble. Park District staff stated that baseball and softball programs "could not exist" without using school fields, including Hubble; without them "we'd have no place to go." District 200 says it is "working on a plan" to address these issues.
According to Wheaton Park District Commissioner Dave Blankenship, the Park District already has too little land; he said ideally 800 people per month would use each field, but actual usage is about 3,000 people per month - almost four times the recommended usage. He also stated that "we are flat running out of open space," the Park District recognized the need for more acreage by trying to buy Sunny Ridge, but "could not compete" because of the high cost of land. The only possible solution is to "pave paradise and put up a parking lot," that is, replace natural grass fields with astroturf that could be used "24/7" (24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with lights). Note that Dr. Catalani said the new high school field houses were needed, in part, so kids did not have to practice until 10 or 1030 at night; now District 200 thinks that's just fine for all other Park District facility users.
Speaking of the new site, according to Dr. Catalani as of June 28, the District "hasn't met yet" with the owners of the site where the District wants to build a new middle school, and is still "putting together a plan to begin negotiations with the property owner." It has already been five weeks since the Board voted to authorize the District to do this. I believe the District will continue to drag its feet to avoid a referendum in November (when voter turnout will be relatively high), so it can run a referendum during low turnout municipal elections next spring. If this is such a high priority, why not run the referendum in November, instead of delaying until next year? The District could always not spend the money or use it for renovating Hubble if the new land does not work out. FOLLOW UP: Dr. Catalani did state that the reason the Board has not yet discussed price with the landowner is that the District is doing its due diligence - appraisal, environmental testing, et cetera - on the property. I am pleased that the District is going to perform additional testing, and it is well worth whatever time and money is needed to evaluate the safety of the site. However, I continue to question how the District knew on May 24 that the proposed site was ideal, without knowing the cost, and how Board members can guarantee the property is safe without testing results in hand. For example, most people buy a house by determining first if it is affordable (price) and meets their needs. Once this is determined, a price is agreed and a contract is signed, contingent on the house passing inspections. I would imagine that few people tell the seller they want to buy the house, conduct and pay for the inspection, then start negotiating price. In my legal representation of a public body acquiring land, the body negotiated privately with the landowner, and reached agreement before publicizing the matter, instead of issuing a press release first, then negotiating.
June 14, 2006 - School Service Center
Which of the following statements was actually made at the board meeting?
A. Employees at the BP Amoco facility adjacent to the proposed school site are healthier than the general population, except for cancer.
B. Downtown Wheaton is more toxic than a chemical testing facility.
C. The School Board has every confidence that the proposed school site is safe.
Answer: ALL OF THEM.
The Board meeting had media coverage on the evening news, and a large turnout of concerned residents.
Statement A. Especially compelling was the testimony of Dr. Ed Paschke, a former Amoco employee and brain tumor survivor. Dr. Paschke, a chemical engineer, has no axe to grind in the matter of Hubble relocation. But given his background and work experience, he strongly opposes any deliberate choice to place children in close proximity, every day, to a chemical testing plant. His tumor was caused by exposure over a period of years, so effects may not be immediately apparent. Perhaps, "other than cancer," BP employees are healthy. Is this risk worth taking?
Statement B. Board President Andy Johnson claims that downtown Wheaton (Hubble's current location) is more toxic than a chemical plant, given the pollution emitted by the cars and trains passing through downtown Wheaton. As a Wheaton resident, I find this insulting and offensive. There is no comparison between a chemical testing lab, where new chemicals are synthesized, and my home, two blocks south of "high traffic" Roosevelt Road. Does the Board have ANY evidence of ANY child who has suffered harm during the 80 YEARS Hubble has been in operation? Curiously, this issue was never previously raised as a reason to move Hubble, maybe because Wheaton North and Wheaton-Warrenville South, among other schools, are also located close to major roadways.
Statement C. Despite Board claims, NO TESTING has occurred on the proposed site. A "Phase I" analysis is a paper survey, looking at title records; it does not involve soil or water sampling. However, even if testing is completed, it cannot account for the risks that could occur from discharges on adjacent property - such as a chemical testing plant. The Board claims that it KNOWS the new site is safe, even though such testing has not been completed. Given the Board's track record - it settled a multi-million dollar class action lawsuit over mold contamination at Johnson School, the final terms of which have never been released - we should be very careful in taking its word. The Board claims it would have made further investigations without action by EDUCATE 200, but in fact no discussion of any environmental issues occurred at either the last board meeting, where the site was approved, or at the Board's Hubble Committee meeting, even though Michelle Senatore and others raised these same issues to the Board two years ago with regard to a nearby site.
June 5, 2006 - School Service Center (Special Board Meeting)
This was in some ways the best board meeting I have ever attended. I say this not because of the decisions that were made, but because of the way in which they were made, with discussion, explanation, debate, and regard for informing the community about one of the most significant issues to face the Board in years - the process for hiring a new superintendent. Unfortunately, the meeting was not well publicized, so other than myself and a reporter, no one from the community attended. But I encourage the Board to repeat its process of openness at future meetings.
At the special meeting, representatives from the District's headhunter, Hazard Young Attea, explained in detail, during an open meeting, the process by which a new superintendent will be selected: it should be "inclusive," "transparent," and "ethical." The headhunters will meet with representatives of various stakeholders, have them rank desired leadership qualities, then prepare a detailed report - which will be made available to the public - listing the "marching orders" for recruitment. There will also be community meetings, both during the day and the evening, this fall. Five candidates will be selected as "semi-finalists," with a goal of a final choice by January 2007. When the District uses the proper process for its decisionmaking - one that is open, explains the process and the decision making criteria to the public, and comes to the table with an open mind, instead of a pre-made decision, it is more likely that a good result will be reached and the District will have community support.
Despite the overall positive tone of the meeting, I do have several concerns. First, hiring an outside headhunter to conduct a national search suggests that the Board does not believe it has qualified internal candidates; otherwise no search would be needed. Any internal candidate (current cabinet members in the District) must compete with other candidates nationwide, on a neutral basis. This is fair for outside candidates, but makes it less likely that an internal candidate will be selected - thus, we can expect a change of leadership, despite the fact that the Board says it is very satisfied with the current regime. Also, despite the call by the District's consultant for a "transparent" process, the Board has repeatedly refused to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request for current contracts. The Board should not be trying to hide the ball from the public while it is trying to involve them in the hiring process.
June 1, 2006 - School Service Center (Hubble Committee)
The Hubble Committee met for the first time in more than six months. The District provided a map of the gerrymandered parcel it wants to buy (see Site Map on Download Files page and discussion on Preserving Hubble page for more about the site itself).
At the meeting, Dr. Catalani stated that the District has "not yet talked what asking prices are" for the land, but there are "no other sites out there" that would work for a new school in Warrenville. The District does not even know what the appraised value of the property is at this time. He mentioned again that the District is "hoping" for money from Warrenville based on an "informal" agreement; he also stated that Warrenville has promised that it will not require any portion of the property to be used for storm water detention.
Dr. Catalani made the following statements about the new building:
1. It will be a minimum of two stories, possibly three stories, yet will be "free flowing."
2. It will have an auditorium and 900 square foot classrooms, but "square footage could change" for the building.
3. It will be similar to Monroe Middle School in some ways, by having "pods" and "team areas" (despite the multi-story layout?), but not the same.
ATTENDANCE BOUNDARY CHANGES were discussed as a likely option in connection with the construction of the new school - if you think that this will only affect Hubble students, think again.
Despite the fact that at its previous meeting (12/6/05) the Hubble Committee voted "unanimously" that the District should go to referendum at the earliest possible time, Dr. Catalani directed the referendum subcommittee to go back to the drawing board to "study" if a November referendum should be held. In my opinion, this is a red herring; it is highly unlikely that they will try November, and they are looking for excuses to postpone until next spring.
May 24, 2006 - Wheaton-Warrenville South High School
Unfortunately, this was in some ways the worst board meeting I have ever attended. I say this not because of the decisions that were made, but because of the way in which they were made, with little discussion, no explanation, no debate, and no regard for informing the community about two of the most significant issues to face the Board in years. Prior to making a decision, the Board is legally permitted to discuss certain limited issues in closed session. However, once a decision is made public, instead of just voting in lockstep unanimity (it knows what it discussed in secret, and the community should just assume the Board knows best), the Board should spend some time to explain its reasoning - not suppress debate and urge Board members to "be brief" like the Board President did at this meeting. Failure to disclose demonstrates only contempt for parents, residents and taxpayers.
$3,000,000,000.00 PER HOUR.
That's right, THREE BILLION DOLLARS AN HOUR. In less than five minutes, with minimal discussion, the Board approved the new teacher contract, which will cost District taxpayers over a quarter BILLION dollars over the next three years (multiply and that works out to $3 billion per hour). Obviously, many hours were spent in negotiations and closed session hammering out the details. BUT doesn't the community deserve a little more than five minutes, which was primarily spent by the Board congratulating themselves? If the contract is so great, why not tell the community the details? We weren't even told how much this contract will actually cost; my figures are based on current salary costs multiplied by the guaranteed raises. This is by far the largest financial obligation of the District - why not make copies available at the meeting, or better yet post it on the District web site? The District has not posted its current contract on its web site - WHY NOT - although a copy is available at www.wwea.org. The Board also refused to tell us whether its financial projections indicate it can even pay for this contract, or whether it will run out of money in the middle like District 87 did, causing layoffs and cutbacks. This is a "spend first, plan later" approach; if the Board expects community support, it needs to do its homework, provide all the numbers, and be honest with taxpayers if it thinks a tax hike is needed. Otherwise, it should not count on community support.
NOTE: District staff have stated that although the basic contract terms have been approved, the actual contract language has not been finalized, a process that may take a couple more months. This was not mentioned in the District's news release, which stated that the contract had been "ratified." In any event, for community information I encourage the District to post its current contract now, and to post the new contract as soon as it is finalized.
HUBBLE.
The District approved a contract for Legat Architects, and after closed session and no real discussion approved "negotiating" to buy an 18 acre site in Warrenville (discussed in detail on the "Preserving Hubble" page). Dr. Catalani spent several minutes berating the Educate 200 Foundation, but neither he nor any Board member spent any time at all explaining how the District decided on the new site, or what features of that particular site make it the best one. Since this decision is now out in the open (telling the seller that his property is the only one under consideration is a curious way to negotiate, to say the least), why won't the District provide more information about the land or its process? By the way, it said nothing about what role, if any, its Hubble Committee had in this decision.
May 15, 2006 - Kane County (Closed Meeting)
District 200 residents (and local restauranteurs) may get indigestion upon learning that the Board went all the way to Kane County for a closed session to discuss "personnel issues" at the 18 North restaurant in St. Charles. So much for supporting our local tax base! Since the entire meeting was held in executive session, no one from the public attended, but here is a review of the restaurant, found at chicago.citysearch.com. The reviewer rated it a "poor value." (Editor's Note: I have not been to this restaurant myself.) Next time, I urge the Board to try one of our fine local restaurants that pays taxes in our District!!
"My wife, my mother, and I went to 18 North this past Friday evening, basically to check it out to see if it would be a decent place for my wife to throw my sister’s wedding shower. It definitely isn’t. We had reservations, but upon being seated we were told to pick where we wanted to sit. The restaurant, unlike every other close restaurant, was empty. The menu is very limited and not good on value. I ordered the halibut special, yet the waitress returned 5 minutes later to say they were out. The tuna I ended up having was dry, although I ordered it medium rare. My wife’s ravioli was $14 and had only 5 ravioli in it. My mother’s Chicken Vesuvio was fatty, meager chicken. While the waitress was pleasant and the decor was upscale (grand looking old church with modern décor inside), the dining experience wasn’t!
Pros: Lavish Decor, Friendly Wait Staff
Cons: Poor Value, Limited Menu, Vacant Dining Room
Overall user rating: Not Recommended"
May 10, 2006 - Edison Middle School
POSITIVE: The meeting was brief and uneventful. The District Wellness Committee is working on healthy eating options at the schools - children may not always make the "healthy" choice and it is difficult to balance what they want to buy and eat with what they "should" be eating.
STATE AID UPDATE: Dr. Catalani reported that the new state budget will increase the foundation level of funding by $170. He says that this will not result in more money for District 200 because our equalized assessed valuation is rising rapidly. He also contends that state support has been fairly static and we are losing ground due to inflation. Actually, it depends on how you measure it. "General" state aid is at roughly the same level as five years ago. HOWEVER, District 200 gets two types of state aid to the education fund: "General" and "Categorical." Taken together, state support is up 13% from 2001 to 2005 (years available on the District web site) - versus inflation of 7% for the same period. If we look at just the last four budgets, state support is up 20% versus inflation of 7%. Information from education fund budgets on District web site; inflation information from U.S. Department of Labor. Review the District budget - you'll see that state support has always fluctuated significantly, which shows how foolish it would be to try to increase reliance on uncertain "state" money for "school funding reform."
April 20, 2006 - State of the Schools Address
District 200 Superintendent Dr. Gary Catalani delivered his annual state of the schools address to the Wheaton Chamber of Commerce at a luncheon today at the Wyndemere retirement community. Dr. Catalani summarized where he believes the District is today; there was no "news" that had not already been presented at Board meetings and other District presentations.
Dr. Catalani stated that the first question for any District spending by the Board should be "how will this benefit our children" and if we cannot answer that question, the vote should be no. I agree with this sentiment as far as it goes; the priority must be the classroom. However, there is a necessary follow up question: "Based on the costs and benefits, what is the priority of this spending versus other needs?" A major reason for the existence of this site is my belief that the current Board is not properly prioritizing its spending choices.
Dr. Catalani stated that given the ever-changing universe of technology, even if we spent 100% of our budget on technology, and were completely up-to-date today, we'd be behind again tomorrow. I agree completely. This is why we must focus our resources on teaching core concepts, and not chase after every expensive gadget that comes along. We cannot ignore technology, but our schools must not overemphasize whiz-bang technical training at the expense of a broad classical education that will endure long after the next release of Microsoft Windows.
Dr. Catalani also stated that there is a lack of qualified candidates to replace him. I disagree. I respect Dr. Catalani's leadership (though disagreeing with some of the policies he has been tasked to implement), but I think he has developed a good cabinet that includes several individuals now in the District who could be chosen. Today's Daily Herald contained an article noting that our neighboring District 41 received 30 applications for its vacant superintendent position.
April 12, 2006 - Pleasant Hill Elementary School
POSITIVE: The Board recognized a Wheaton-Warrenville South student who is the State Champion in Extemporaneous Speaking. This requires students to give a 6-minute speech, without notes, citing sources, based on 45 minutes advance notice of the topic - compiling all the material from notes the student brought with him. Congratulations to him and his coaches! The winning speech topic? How to control government spending. The children are our future - I hope the Board will invite him back to reprise his speech for the Board.
Pleasant Hill's principal presented a powerpoint presentation with the results of a "focus group" conducted among students to determine why they like coming to school. Results included many activities the children enjoy; the number one choice was great teachers (and principal). This focus group cost $18,500 less than the $18,500 the District spent on its survey. Again, the children are our future. The children did not include "new and glitzy buildings" in their top ten list.
NEGATIVE: The Board had its architect provide a detailed power-point presentation on what he believes are the requirements to build a "21st century middle school." Unfortunately, the Board failed to provide any advance notice, thus denying members of the public a chance to attend and see the presentation on this important topic first hand. Despite the fact that the presentation took about 40 minutes, it did not even appear on the Board's agenda. I encourage interested community members to watch the broadcast on public access tv, and to attend future meetings of the Educate 200 Foundation that will discuss multiple options for a Hubble Renaissance. Educate 200 meetings are publicized in advance, are open to all, and allow everyone to ask questions. Educate 200 believes that an inclusive process, considering all alternatives, will achieve the best result.
March 22, 2006 - Lowell Elementary School
POSITIVE: The Educate 200 Foundation reported on its first public meeting at Hubble, where a local architect presented York High School as a possible model for a Hubble renovation.
Prior to the meeting, the Lowell students in 2nd and 4th grades presented "The Greatest Show on Earth" in the gym, demonstrating acrobatic skills they learned in PE class.
NEGATIVE: In response to the Educate 200 presentation, Board Member Swanson stated that "the community sits at this table," meaning that Educate 200 should not get involved in the Hubble process unless and until the Board changes its mind on Hubble. She suggested that "chaos" might ensue if community groups not officially designated by the Board got involved on multiple issues relating to the District. I find these statements very troubling and emblematic of a "top-down" mentality of leadership.
Educate 200 does not claim to represent the Board, does not need the Board's permission to promote community involvement to work for a Hubble Renaissance, and would not be needed but for the last 5 years of delay with Hubble. Like the League of Women Voters or the booster club, Educate 200 is an independent, community-based organization, open to all. If the Board really does believe that all wisdom resides at the Board table, it is out of touch and arrogant. The Board is elected to make the final decisions on behalf of the District, but if it remains unwilling to listen to different points of view, and chooses to seek input only from "official" committees that it appoints and controls, it will not learn, or succeed in developing a true partnership with the community.
INDIFFERENT: Board President Johnson cited a number of statistics from the IMF relating to the amount various countries spend on education as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP), suggesting that the U.S. spends 2% of GDP on education, whereas Costa Rica spends 20%. He has provided the source, which is overcomingviolence.org/fileadmin/dov/files/ wcc_resources/dov_documents/MilitarySpendingReport.pdf. I found the overall report very interesting. The information he cites refers to central government spending on education as a percent of GDP. Thus, that figure includes only U.S. federal spending on education; in the U.S. (and District 200) most education spending for primary and secondary education is made at the state and local level, so it would not be included in that figure. The report also cites separate information from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute showing that when one considers total government spending on education at all levels of government, the U.S. spends the fourth most in the world as a percent of GDP (trailing only Yemen, Malaysia and Sweden). As a percent of GDP, Costa Rica's total spending on both education and health care is actually lower than U.S. spending - even though Costa Rica has no military at all and thus has zero military spending. This seems to contradict the argument that military expenditures automatically result in less social spending. Also see a report from the U.S. Department of Education showing that as a percentage of GDP, the U.S. spends more on elementary and secondary education than peer nations of Canada, Germany, Japan and the UK. In fact, the U.S. percentage is 30% higher than Japan spends. The entire report can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/Pubs2005/2005021.pdf.
March 8, 2006 - Jefferson Preschool
POSITIVE: The Educate 200 Foundation Board - Michelle Senatore, Betty Welker, Joe Mahady and me - introduced ourselves to the District 200 Board. We noted that the Board has explored, in detail, the possibilities for relocating Hubble; we want to serve as a resource to look at other options, which may be needed given the fact that no land has been forthcoming despite five years of searching.
The Board adopted its new vision and mission statement, drafted by a committee of District 200 Board Members Barbara Intihar and JoAnn Coghill. I think they did a very good job on this.
NEGATIVE: The Board adopted, on a 6-1 vote, a set of history textbooks for 7th and 8th grades called The History of US. In my opinion, these books, which will be used as the principal supplement to the standard history texts, present material with biased and one-sided editorial comment. I commend Board Member Rosemary Swanson for voting No, based on her opinion that the books do not comply with the District policy on teaching controversial topics, which requires both sides of issues to be presented.
|
