Each District 150 public forum begins the same way — with a PowerPoint presentation from the administration. One of the slides that is flashed up is titled “Enrollment to House,” and it shows these numbers:

One person at the Irving School meeting asked how you could replace three schools — total enrollment of 1164 — with one school that would only be able to house 650. She understood the school district’s vision of having magnet, or “choice,” schools. But she wondered why anyone wouldn’t want to send their kids to a brand new school closest to their neighborhood. Answer from School Board President David Gorenz: he couldn’t answer at this time because the board is still studying how it will all work.

In other words, the school board has leapt before looking again.

The whole thing doesn’t make any sense. They’re building a brand new, state-of-the-art school that can only hold half the population of the three it’s replacing and calling it progress. They say that the children on the East Bluff and North Valley deserve a new school, yet they’re simultaneously banking on half of those children opting out of it — i.e., “choosing” to go to another district school. If not enough kids opt out, I assume the district would have to make them go somewhere else, perhaps taking enrollment on a first-come, first-served basis.

The end result is that not only will kids be losing their neighborhood schools, they may be losing their new replacement school, too. Five to six hundred children will be bused to other “old” school buildings around in the city. This is a lose-lose for everyone except the small set of students who will (a) get the new school building in their neighborhood, and (b) be lucky enough to attend it.

And there’s another problem: can Health/Life Safety bonds for Irving, Kingman, and Glen Oak (1) be combined to build only one replacement school, and (2) can that replacement school be smaller than than the three schools it’s replacing? It would be worth a call to the Illinois State Board of Education to find out. Of course, if it turns out they can’t be used for that, I suppose the district would just get its funding elsewhere, like the Public Building Commission.

Little new was discussed at last night’s community forum on where to locate District 150’s planned new school(s). But I had to chuckle when district treasurer Guy Cahill explained why the existing buildings couldn’t be fixed up. He said that the buildings had been evaluated and determined to cost more to repair than to replace (although I believe those estimates are suspect), so the Illinois State Board of Education will not allow tax money to be spent fixing up the buildings in order to protect the taxpayers’ interests.

Of course, the reason the buildings are in disrepair is because of the poor maintenance the school district has done. That didn’t protect the taxpayers’ insterests.

The district spent $877,500 on properties on Prospect Road that it can’t use, doesn’t need, and won’t sell off — with taxpayer money. That didn’t protect the taxpayers’ insterests.

Senate Bill 2477 was recently passed by the state at District 150’s behest and will allow the school board to raise taxes for new school construction without a referendum via the Public Building Commission. That — by definition — doesn’t protect the taxpayers’ interests.

But now, we’re supposed to believe that consolidating three older neighborhood schools into a big, new, consolidated school is in the taxpayers’ interests — that it will be better “both financially and educationally,” according to school board president David Gorenz. From listening to the community forums, it doesn’t sound like the community believes it.

If you want to share with District 150 your thoughts on the placement of new school buildings on the east bluff, you’ll want to head down to Woodruff High School tonight at 7 p.m. for the first of four forums they’re holding.

The other meetings will be Sept. 27 at Irving Primary School, Oct. 4 at Von Steuben Middle School, and Oct. 18 at Glen Oak Primary School.

Kudos to Clare Jellick for her most recent blog entry on the school district’s plans to get community feedback on possible East Bluff school locations. She has posted information that the school district distributed at their recent news conference, which includes a page I found most interesting called “Site Selection Criteria.”

Let’s take a look at it. It begins with their requirement for size:

“SIZE”

The site(s) should be large enough to accommodate the District’s 120,000 sq. ft. birth through eighth grade educational program, including fitness and wellness spaces, parking, and loading/unloading zones for buses and parents. The minimum site(s) size depending upon what is adjacent to the school is 8-15 acres for a one story school and 6-12 acres for a two story school.

On the positive side, it appears they’ve relaxed their acreage standards somewhat. The low end is now just 8 acres for a one-story and 6 acres for a two-story school. (Incidentally, it’s also nice to see they’re considering a multi-story school, too.) However, the operative phrase here is “depending upon what is adjacent to the school.” Based on the rest of the site criteria, I take that to mean that they’ll need more acreage if the school is not next to a park or similar amenity.

It has never been explained how we went from a Kindergarten through eighth (K-8) to a “birth through eighth grade” (B-8) program. The district’s own Master Facilities Plan never speaks of a B-8 program. I can find no record of a vote on changing the program either. This change is significant, since it means the inclusion of space and staffing for day care and pre-school services.

Are the “fitness and wellness spaces” for students only, or are they still going on the “community center” model where these spaces would be opened for public use? I’m hoping it’s the former because, again, making this a “community center” with fitness equipment open to anyone is really beyond the scope of the school district and just adds unneeded expense.

“AMENITIES”

There are both “desirable” and “undesirable” amenities sought in the areas of a new school building(s). Preference would be given to a site(s) having a greater degree of desirable amenities.

Desirable:

• adjacency to parks and programs, libraries, recreational centers, not-for-profit community organizations providing–as part of their mission–services to school-age youth, and/or other similar such service providers
• adjacency to police, fire, and/or other public service agencies
• adjacency to other schools, including institutions of higher education

Undesirable:

• adjacency to commercial enterprises with a high concentration of vehicular traffic
• adjacency to commercial enterprises in the sale or trade of alcohol, tobacco, and/or firearms
• adjacency to areas with a high incidence of crime

Here we see that they’re still interested in being next to a park, as it’s first on the list. I’m not sure why they would need to be next to a library (doesn’t the school have its own?) or a recreational center (aren’t they planning to have their own fitness/wellness spaces?). I also have to wonder why it’s desirable to be adjacent to “police, fire, and/or other public service agencies.” Is this just for public safety purposes, or are they seeing this as places the kids could tour as part of their education?

And what’s the advantage of being adjacent to other schools? That looks like to me like a step toward more consolidation and away from a neighborhood-school concept. Consider two of the suggested locations: Next to Kingman school, which is down in the north valley, and next to Woodruff High School, which already has Lincoln School adjacent to it. If the latter site were chosen, you’d have a large, consolidated campus with three schools right next to each other.

The “undesirable” list makes sense. Although, one wonders how the Peoria Stadium made the list of possible locations if they’re worried about a “high concentration of vehicular traffic.” Putting the school there would not only put it next to one of the busiest highways in the city, but would guarantee that all the children would have to be bused or driven to school by their parents, thus added even more traffic to the roads.

“COST and TIMEFRAME”

The District received the order of effect from the State to allow the District to issue Health Life Safety bonds toward the construction of a new school(s). The costs associated with the assemblage and acquisition of property shall not exceed the budget set forth by the Board of Education and ideally should require no more than 6 months to procure the land once the site is selected.

Obviously the pertinent information missing here is “the budget set forth by the Board of Education.” What is that budget? And does that include the $877,500 they’ve already spent on properties along Prospect? They may not have much money left for property acquisition.

Here’s something else to think about. You know how the museum folks told us that construction costs have increased dramatically over the past year? How does that impact the school’s plans to build a school? At first they said it was going to cost $15 million to build a school, then it was $21 million. That was several months ago. What is it now? What will it be next year? It may cost $30 million to build this new school by the time they figure out a site. At that point, is it still more cost effective to build new than to restore existing structures?

“OTHER CONSIDERATIONS”

The District shall consider such other factors when weighing the relative merits of two or more sites of equal value as defined by size, amenities, cost and timeframe noted above.

• proximity to student population displaced with the closure and consolidation of multiple intra-attendance area buildings using the guidelines established by the State for free bus transportation
• accessibility to site by walk, car, bus, public transportation
• traffic volume and congestion
• preference of the City of Peoria
• neighborhood stabilization and revitalization

Note that these only come into play when evaluating two or more sites “of equal value” as defined in the previous sections. In other words, they’re literally and figuratively at the bottom of the list when it comes to picking a site. I find that rather sad, because it seems to me that one thing that can really improve education is neighborhood stabilization. After all, that’s where the kids are for 2/3 of each school day, all day on the weekends, and all day over the summer.

I think the stability of the neighborhood has a great deal to do with education. It affects whether the kids are worried about gangs, violence, drugs, etc., or are free from those concerns and able to focus on their studies. It affects whether they have pride in their homes and surroundings, which will affect how they look at school property. It affects whether they can walk to school or whether they have to be driven or bused.

Conclusion

The way I see it, the school board should be getting public input on more than just the location of the school. The public forums should also cover whether we want our tax dollars paying for daycare, fitness centers, and other questionable amenities. They should be focusing on whether we want big consolidated schools or smaller neighborhood schools. These are the root issues that are driving the whole push for replacement buildings.

This is an encouraging story out of District 150.

The school board wants the community’s and parents’ input on where to put a new school in the Woodruff High School attendance area. Thankfully, Glen Oak Park is not one of the options, and they still appear willing to consider the current Glen Oak School site. So there is reason to hope.

Here are eight options the school board unveiled:

1. Peoria Stadium site
2. Von Steuben School site
3. Glen Oak School site
4. Site adjacent to Woodruff High School
5. White School site
6. Adjacent to Morton Square
7. Adjacent to Constitution Park
8. Kingman School site

They say the list is not exhaustive and that the public can nominate locations not on the list. Here’s a map of the locations, corresponding to the numbers in the list above. The red outline shows the attendance area for Glen Oak and White schools — the ones that are being replaced:

I’m willing to give any location a fair shake, but if we’re looking for the one that’s closest to everyone in the attendance area among the sites currently under consideration, I think it’s obvious from the map that the best location is the site of the current Glen Oak School.

I mean, can you imagine busing all the children from the Glen Oak/White attendance area to the stadium? Or Kingman school? Besides, the school board already owns the Glen Oak School property, so they wouldn’t have to spend money on land acquisition — that is, unless they haven’t abandoned their arbitrary 15-acre minimum site requirement. Let’s hope they have.