Category Archives: Peoria Public Schools

Elections, Peoria Public Schools

No lynching on West Bluff; Journal Star disappointed

4 Comments

Apparently the Journal Star was expecting the Moss-Bradley Association to string up Alicia Butler and bat her around like a piñata at last night’s candidates forum. The Journal Star’s coverage begins with a heavy tone of disappointment: “Despite a reputation for being a tough crowd, the Moss-Bradley Residential Neighborhood Association ignored the elephant in the room for one of its own.” Phil Luciano said on the radio today that he thought the neighborhood association had given Butler “a pass.”

I’m not quite sure what these fine members of the media were expecting. Alicia Butler was the first candidate to speak, and the first thing she said was that she wasn’t going to talk about the controversy surrounding her that night, but that a statement from her lawyer would be forthcoming. I suppose we all could have peppered her with questions about it anyway, just for sport, knowing full well all she would say is “no comment” and “my lawyer will be issuing a statement soon.” Instead, the residents took the four minutes allotted Butler for questions and answers to ask her school-related questions.

Nevertheless, I caught up with Butler after the meeting and did ask some follow-up questions. For the most part, she spoke off the record, and I always respect someone’s request for comments to be off the record. But I can tell you a couple of things. Her lawyer is Hugh Toner, and she doesn’t know exactly when he’ll be issuing a statement, but she thinks it will be next week. Her mother, who was with her at the forum last night, steadfastly stood by Alicia and believes this is all a smear campaign. And finally, I asked her if she felt a sense of urgency in getting this resolved, because it certainly appears from the outside that she’s kind of dragging her feet. She said she was working diligently to find all her documentation and is turning over everything she finds to her lawyer.

Judging from her interaction with several people who came up to her while we were talking, she continues to have a lot of supporters despite the controversy. Even Mayor Ardis expressed to me that he was still supporting her, which the Journal Star is now also reporting.

Me? I haven’t made up my mind yet. In an old episode of the Andy Griffith Show, Opie tells Andy and Barney about a friend he has named Mr. McBeevee. He explains that McBeevee walks in the trees, has twelve extra hands, and jingles when he walks like he has rings on his fingers and bells on his toes. Andy and Barney believed this fantastic person was just an invisible friend and played along until Opie claimed McBeevee had given him a quarter and a little hatchet. They then worried that Opie was stealing these items and using “Mr. McBeevee” as an excuse for his kleptomania. Andy threatened Opie with a spanking if he didn’t come clean and admit that he made up this McBeevee character, but Opie steadfastly maintained he was not lying.

Andy decided not to spank Opie, but believe him instead. Barney, of course, thought he had lost his mind. It was so obvious Opie was making all this stuff up. Then something amazing happened: Andy met Mr. McBeevee. It turned out it was a real person — a lineman for the telephone company. He walked in “trees” (telephone poles), had twelve “extra hands” (tools), and the jingling was from his tool belt. Opie was vindicated in the end.

Can that be a metaphor for what’s happening with Butler? Probably not. I talked to Bradley myself today and checked the alumni directory. There is no indication anywhere that I can find that she ever graduated. It will really be a miracle if Alicia somehow produces transcripts that prove she really did get her bachelors and masters degrees.

But that said, I still think the whole thing is fishy. Charges that this is a smear campaign are not without merit. Even if it’s true that she embellished her resume, neither her job (she’s self-employed) nor the school board position require the degrees in question, so why did the Journal Star investigate it? Yes, it reflects on her character. But then, so does this letter to Sean Matheson signed by 14 District 150 administrators in May 2004 that alleges he “physically assault[ed] the Superintendent,” among other indiscretions. Yet that letter was allegedly suppressed by the paper’s editorial board. You didn’t see a big exposé in the Journal Star about that, even though it’s clearly more egregious than padding one’s resume. Why did the Journal Star apparently protect Matheson, but skewer Butler? There’s something rotten in the state of Denmark.

I’m willing to suspend judgment until Butler’s lawyer issues his statement. But it needs to come before the election, and it better be good. I found Butler to be very likable, and frankly, I want to believe her. But regardless of whether this revelation was politically motivated, it is an issue of trust and integrity. If she claimed to have degrees she really doesn’t have, then she needs to go, regardless of how likable she is or whether I agreed with her voting record on the board.

City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

1991 agreement: District 150 free from most city zoning laws

8 Comments

The Zoning Commission will be having their April meeting this Thursday, and their agenda is posted on the City’s website. One item on the agenda, however, has already been withdrawn.

Item “G” is a “public hearing on the request of Ed Barry for District 150 to…approv[e] a Special Use for a Public School…located at 2628 N Knoxville Ave, Peoria, Illinois.” If the address doesn’t ring a bell, it’s the old Social Security Administration building District 150 wants to use for an alternative school.

The item was withdrawn because, according to a 1991 intergovernmental agreement between the City of Peoria and District 150, the district doesn’t have to appear before the city’s zoning commission — in fact, the city’s zoning ordinance does not apply to the school district at all, save some minor exceptions. As the Journal Star summed up nicely on February 6, 1991:

The [school] district has agreed to adhere to zoning requirements for issues like setbacks, landscaping and building heights, but will not be required to bring its plans to the city’s Zoning Commission or Zoning Board of Appeals. Neither will it have to obtain building permits or have plans reviewed by the inspections department.

Any disagreement, as per the intergovernmental agreement, will be taken to the city manager and district superintendent for final resolution. The School Board will be responsible for public hearings.

So, rather than the City conducting the public hearing, the school district will conduct one instead. No word yet on when that will be.

I looked up the proceedings of the February 5, 1991, city council meeting to see what kind of discussion there was about this agreement. I was surprised to find that, according to the minutes, there was no discussion. The motion was made, seconded, and quietly passed unanimously.

I didn’t know anything about this agreement until today. And it appears that the city and the district had forgotten about it, too — at least temporarily — since the district applied for a special use and was on the zoning commission’s agenda for a time.

Agreement
AmerenCILCO, Peoria Public Schools

For at-risk students, 0.87 acres will do

7 Comments

Former SSA Building on Knoxville

UPDATED 3/31/07 10:45 p.m. Added info underlined, deleted items struck.

School District 150 officials met with parents residents on Monday night (3/26) to share information on their plans for the old Social Security Administration building at 2628 N. Knoxville Ave. While some parents residents were taken by surprise, this has been in the works for a couple of years.

District applied for building in 2005

On June 4, 2005, Clare Jellick reported in the Peoria Journal Star, “the Social Security Administration moved out of its Knoxville building in November to a new location in North Peoria. Once a building is vacated, the federal government offers it to the local government for certain uses and groups that serve the homeless, usually for free.” She added later in the article:

In order for the district to get the building for free, it would have to be used for educational purposes. This means it couldn’t be turned into offices.

Interim Superintendent Cindy Fischer hopes to move an alternative education program there so that it can expand.

The Transition to Success Academy, housed in White Middle School [it was later moved to the Manual High School building], provides specialized education and services for students with behavioral problems who aren’t succeeding in school.

This came out just a couple of months after I started blogging, so here’s my initial reaction to that story. Today, I feel the same way. The district’s Master Facilities Plan calls for a reduction in the number of buildings, not an expansion. Why not put these kids in the old Blaine-Sumner building? It’s in a better location and was designed to be a school. Yet the district has turned that building into offices, and they’ve acquired an office building to convert it to a school. As usual, there is no logic.

District acquired building in 2006 with strings attached

On June 24, 2006, the Jellick reported that District 150 had succeeded in “receiving the building for free through a federal program that offers surplus buildings to certain organizations.” Again, the planned purpose for the building was made clear at that time:

The district intends to use the 9,000-square-foot space next school year to house programs and services for at-risk students who aren’t succeeding in school. The building will likely serve kids in kindergarten through sixth grade, said district associate superintendent Cindy Fischer….

The federal government says District 150 must use the building for education purposes for the next 30 years and cannot sell it during that time. Once 30 years pass, the district can do whatever it wants with the building, [U.S. Dept. of Education realty specialist Mary] Huges said.

District meets with parents residents to share plans in 2007

District 150 parent and nearby resident Karen Carter attended Monday’s meeting on the district’s current plans and had this to report:

The plan is to put an alternative school that will host grades 5-8 and possibly even 2nd, 3rd, and 4th graders…. They are currently at Manual High School in an unused wing. They currently have 43 students with 8 staff members. In the new facility they will “hopefully” have 100 students with 1-2 staff members per every 10-12 students….

They plan to bus most of the kids in and the bus location is horrible. They have no consideration for traffic and other cars that park on the street. They want the kids to be picked up and dropped off on Gift next to the building and then enter the building on Knoxville. The street is not wide enough to accommodate their plans and everyone is saying so.

Most surprising to me is that the lot is only 300 ft. by 127 ft., or 38,100 ft.², or 0.87 acres. I thought grade schools had to have at least 10 acres, plus one acre for every 100 students. I thought kids had to have green space immediately adjacent to the school building for it to be an adequate learning environment. I thought our kids deserved “the best” and not merely “good enough.” Isn’t that the basis upon which the school board decided to reject all proposals to keep Glen Oak School in its current location? How are kids ever going to be able to observe a bee so they can draw it correctly?

Once again, the school board exhibits bald-faced hypocrisy. For the Glen Oak replacement school, they need 15 acres of green space or we’re practically abusing the students. For the alternative school students — students who are most at-risk — an 0.87-acre site with no green space on one of the busiest arterial roadways in Peoria is perfectly acceptable:

Old SSA Building on Knoxville

It appears from federal regulations that the school district is committed to using this building for educational purposes for 30 years. So while the district has all kinds of money to convert classrooms to offices and offices to classrooms, there’s no money to upgrade classrooms at Glen Oak School. Just more of the same lunacy we’ve come to expect from District 150.

Elections, Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Public Schools

Alicia Butler’s credentials questioned

17 Comments

Alicia ButlerThe Journal Star is accusing Alicia Butler of falsely claiming to have a bachelors and masters degree from Bradley University. Butler has not directly denied it.

Anyone know any more about this issue? I mean, Alicia has been on the school board for a while now. No one thought to check out her credentials before this? How did this come up all of sudden, right before the election?

I can’t quite understand Butler’s response as reported. Whether or not you have a degree is easy enough to prove — all you have to do is get out your diploma. If these allegations turn out to be true, it will be not only professionally, but personally devastating to Butler. I’m not a big Alicia Butler fan, but honestly I hate to see this happen to anyone; I hope the allegations are untrue.

Someone out there knows what’s going on — come on… give!

Update (3/31): Now that I’ve read the full article that ran in Saturday’s paper, I have to say this looks very bad for Alicia. All the other candidates were easily able to provide proof of their college degrees. As one commenter pointed out, this is easy to do. In fact, if anyone questioned my degree from ICC or my wife’s degree from Bradley, I could just go to my filing cabinet and pull out our diplomas — it would take me two minutes, tops. Why does Butler claim “she would not have time to verify the information before the election”? The election is 17 days away.

Worse, Bradley’s registrar (it wasn’t clear to me from the previous article that a Bradley official had actually verified this) has gone on record saying Butler does not have any degrees from Bradley. I’m not sure how Butler could “know” she has a degree from Bradley, yet Bradley could somehow not know.

It’s true, as the paper points out, that there is no educational requirement to be on the school board, so the fact that she doesn’t have these degrees does not disqualify Butler from her current seat or the present race. But her integrity and character are seriously in question now, and that doesn’t set well with voters who are already distrustful of sitting school board members. I think this sinks any chance there might have been of her being reelected.

On the one hand, and I’m assuming these allegations are true based on the testimony of the Bradley registrar and Butler’s inability to prove otherwise, Butler has no one to blame but herself. But on the other hand, I’m still bothered by this statement:

Triggered by allegations against Butler, the Journal Star asked all five District 150 School Board candidates to verify their educational credentials.

Who made the allegations against Butler? Was it another candidate? A sitting school board member? Is this political payback for a decision or vote Butler made? Again, I can’t have much sympathy for someone who lied on her resume, but the source of the allegation is still germane. Who wanted to ruin Butler’s reelection bid and why?

Peoria Public Schools

Why replicate Edison?

19 Comments

District 150’s school board is trying to decide what to do about Edison Schools. Lots of parents like it, apparently, and so the district is considering replicating the program in-house to save money. But according to estimates recently released by the administration and reported in the Journal Star, it would cost almost a million dollars more than their current Edison Schools contract to replicate the program in-house. Now some parents are saying we should keep Edison because it’s cheaper.

My question is, why would we want to replicate it, let alone keep it? Take a look at the rankings below (click the “Show More” button if you’re not reading the permalink) and tell me what you notice about Edison schools compared to the rest of District 150’s schools. What I see is not much difference in student performance — certainly not $1.57 million worth of difference (the cost of the contract plus implementation). Is this the “world class education for every child” Edison promises in their promotional literature?

That there is little difference in performance should come as no surprise. The Rand Corporation recently released a study on Edison and other private for-profit companies that manage schools in Philadelphia. They found the same thing: “Within Philadelphia, the schools managed by private providers were doing neither better nor worse than districtwide achievement trends.” There is no reason to believe that these results would be unique to Philadelphia.

Instead of haggling over replication costs, the school board should simply fire Edison altogether and put together a restructuring plan of their own, based on what’s been proven to work in Peoria. District 150 has several successful schools from which to get ideas, such as Lindbergh Middle School and Kellar Primary School. Charter Oak, Von Steuben, and Whittier also did better than three out of four Edison schools.

Why not replicate success?

|inline

Peoria Public Schools, State Legislation

District 150 testing of disabled children, Part II

4 Comments

Peoria Public Schools logoIn my last blog entry on testing of special education students, I asked at the end, “is it fair to say that children being tested at their grade level are not being tested at their ‘learning level’ when the IAA [Illinois Alternative Assessment] takes into account the students’ Individualized Education Program (IEP)? Wouldn’t the IEP be tied to the child’s ‘learning level’?”

Well, I posed this question to Bryan Chumbley, the director of research, testing, and assessment for District 150, and here’s how he responded:

It is true that federal legislation does not allow students with disabilities to be tested off grade level except in the case of IAA students (specific to Illinois). If we keep in mind that the IAA is intended for those students with significant cognitive delays, then it is more clear how these students are assessed. The portfolio that is created for IAA students identifies specific learning standards that classroom teachers are working on with these students. Given the severity of the disability for these students, the types of activities provided these students look much different than any regular classroom assignment or test. Thus, the evidence of student progress for the IAA is, in most cases, not in alignment with the work we would see of regular education students of the same age. This assessment is an “alternate” to other state testing because this 1% of the population cannot be assessed by more traditional assessment methods. In essence, the IAA does provide an assessment opportunity that does not measure this small segment of our school population at the grade level at which their chronological age would indicate.

The issue of “fairness” is of great concern to educators. For those students for whom the IAA is not determined to be appropriate, these students must participate in the regular state testing program. However, during the IEP process teachers, coordinators, and parents can identify specific accommodations that can be provided to account for needs of students. Some of the accommodations that can be provided include:

  • extended time
  • small group setting
  • test read to student (does not include the reading test)
  • scribe (for students for whom the physical act of writing presents difficulties).

However, there is certainly widespread concern that for those students who do not currently function at grade level in reading or math, asking those students to participate in testing at their chronological grade just does not seem fair. The concern is centered around the fact that, even with accommodations, some students are at a disadvantage when it comes to testing. There has been legislative action taken (I believe Aaron Schock coauthored the legislation) in Illinois to allow students to be tested at their “functional level”, but these changes have not been approved by the US Dept. of Education. Until the federal legislation changes we have no choice but to comply. The District would be interested in reviewing any future legislation and provide support if the legislation would result in a benefit for our students.

I found this to be a very thorough and thoughtful response, and it makes me wish more administrators and school board members were as helpful and communicative as Mr. Chumbley. The News-Gazette (Champaign) explains the same issue this way:

Districts are allowed to test up to 1 percent of the IEP students – most of whom have more severe levels of mental retardation – using an alternative assessment. The other 99 percent, which includes students with IQs of 55 to 70, must take the general test for their grade level – not ability level – the same test that’s given to students without disabilities.

Here’s where I was confused: I thought the 1% rule was 1% of the total student body, but it turns out it’s only 1% of the special needs children (those with Inidividualized education programs, or IEPs). That leaves a lot of special needs children in the position of having to perform as well their non-disabled peers on the same states tests, which does seem to be unfair.

Mr. Chumbley mentioned legislation. The only legislation on this issue I could find sponsored by Rep. Schock was HB3678 , which was signed into law August 23, 2005. It “[p]rovides that the indicators to determine adequate yearly progress for children with disabilities shall be based on their individualized education plans” and sundry other provisions, but is “contingent upon the federal government not formally disapproving through the submission and review process for the Illinois Accountability Workbook.” I got the impression from Mr. Chumbley’s e-mail that even though this legislation was approved by the state, it was still in limbo pending federal approval, but perhaps he was referring to different legislation. If anyone has any further info, let me know.

Peoria Public Schools

Chronicle readers question District 150 testing of disabled children

12 Comments

On January 20, 2007, the Journal Star reported that “Four District 150 schools have entered state-mandated “restructuring” because their disabled students’ most recent test scores didn’t improve enough.” In a recent open thread, frequent District 150 commenter PrairieCelt questioned the instrument used to assess those disabled students:

We’ve all heard Ken Hinton’s excuses for District 150’s poor performance – high poverty rates, the effect of subgroup performance on the district’s overall performance, etc. Based on what the administration said, it was my understanding that the subgroup students received the same test instruments as the non-subgroup students. But, according to Scott Russell (Sup’t. of Morton District 709), “special needs students who took Alternative Assessment exams and who attained the status of meeting/exceeding state standards doubled since last year.” That seems to invalidate the District 150 administration’s assertion about the special needs student subgroup. If the special needs student subgroup take an Alternative Assessment exam, why did Hinton and Chumbley lead us to believe they took the same exam as the students in the general population, and that their poor performance caused the majority of the problems with AYP?

Another commenter who goes by the pseudonym “Hula Monkey” added, “As the parent of a student in district 150’s lovely special ed program, I can tell you that district 150 doesn’t give their students the modified test. We asked about it because it is unfair that our child should be tested out of grade level.”

There is indeed an instrument called the Illinois Alternate Assessment (IAA), and I didn’t remember hearing anything about it in the news. So I e-mailed Bryan Chumbley, the director of research, testing, and assessment for District 150, and asked him if the district uses the IAA and, if not, why not. He promptly responded with this information:

C.J.,

You are correct that students in Illinois with disabilities can participate in either the Illinois Alternate Assessment or the ISAT/PSAE. However, the Illinois State Board of Education has set a limit of 1% of all students tested on the ISAT/PSAE that can participate in the IAA. Currently, there are slightly more than 1% of students who participate in the IAA. Each year we must submit a request for an “Exception to the 1% Cap” for alternate assessment.

Typically, the IAA is used to determine the progress of students with the most severe developmental delays. However, there are always exceptions that must be addressed. In our district there are several students for whom the IAA is used in place of the IAA [sic] for special circumstances (i.e., a student who has lost their vision who is not proficient in Braille takes the IAA because there is no way to make the necessary accommodations for testing on the ISAT/PSAE).

Please let me know if you have further questions.

As you can see, the district confirms that it is using the IAA. But what about Hula Monkey’s assertion that they’re not using it for his/her child? I don’t know Hula Monkey or his/her child’s circumstances; perhaps it has to do with that child’s specific situation. But I can say in general that not all special needs children are eligible to take the IAA. Only children with “significant cognitive disabilities” can take it, and even then, as Mr. Chumbley pointed out, no more than 1% of the student population that can take it without the state granting a special exception.

So let’s get back to PrairieCelt’s original question: “why did Hinton and Chumbley lead us to believe they took the same exam as the students in the general population, and that their poor performance caused the majority of the problems with AYP?” I don’t think D150 administration led us to believe they were taking the same exam. The point of contention is not the testing method used, but the grade level at which it’s scored. Indeed, the same Journal Star article quoted above also said, “Disabled students’ scores are a source of frustration for the schools in restructuring because gains elsewhere don’t matter when it comes to AYP. And disabled kids must be tested at their grade level, not their learning level, which two principals said isn’t fair.”

Even though disabled students are allowed to take the IAA, all that really changes is the method of testing. The ISBE explains it this way: “The IAA isn’t like a standard paper-and-pencil test. Instead it is a portfolio of student work and other materials collected at two points in the school year. The materials can include samples of student work, photos of the student doing work in school or at home and teachers’ summaries of what students have learned.” Despite this alternative method of testing, “The IAA assesses students in the same subjects and at the same grade levels as the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) and the Prairie State Achievement Examination (PSAE),” the ISBE states elsewhere.

Now the question I have is, is it fair to say that children being tested at their grade level are not being tested at their “learning level” when the IAA takes into account the students’ Individualized Education Program (IEP)? Wouldn’t the IEP be tied to the child’s “learning level”?

Elections, Peoria Public Schools

“Turn on, tune in, drop out,” or, “My evening at the candidates forum”

10 Comments

Computer antisocializationTonight, my whole family went to a candidates forum so we could hear the candidates for the upcoming school board election. It was held at award-winning Whittier School near my house on the West Bluff. I normally don’t take my whole family, but this forum had a twist: it offered “free childcare.” When you have three kids, that’s very attractive.

So we all trekked over there, arriving a little late as is normal when you have three kids. We were directed to the “computer room” for the “free childcare.” Our kids are 6, 3, and 1, so I figured perhaps part of the room had computers for older children, but then part of the room would be like a kindergarten room for younger children.

Nope. When we walked in, there they all were — kids of all ages, headphones on, sitting neatly in straight rows, staring at their computer screens. Each computer was turned on, the kids were tuned in, and they’d all dropped out of any social interaction whatsoever, each absorbed in his or her own individual virtual universe.

My children have never turned on a computer or played on a computer (unless you count James’s recent exploits with my laptop). James stacks blocks, Margaret colors pictures, and Jacqueline reads books. So, we asked if the room next door — the library — was open, or if there was anything for James to do. Nope. The kiddies could either sit with a computer or their parents for an hour.

I suppose you get what you pay for. Free childcare = computerized babysitting.

I’m not a big fan of computers in primary schools; I think they’re unnecessary and possibly even harmful to a child’s development. But even setting that aside, when you advertise “free childcare,” you expect there to be something for small children. Like a one-year-old. What’s a one-year-old going to do with a computer (besides pour his drink on it)?

So, we tried attending the forum anyway with children in tow, and our kids did quite well the first 45 minutes or so. Then they started getting bored and wanting to run around, and Jamie started getting rather noisy. So we left, much to the relief of the rest of the attendees, I’m sure.

The forum itself was very good. Five candidates attended: Beth Akeson, Alicia Butler, Linda Butler, Bill O’Brien, and Rachael Parker. Alicia Butler had to leave early for another engagement. I didn’t get to hear everything, but I did catch their positions on a couple of hot-button issues:

School in the Park

All the candidates except for Linda Butler emphatically said they were against putting a school on the corner of Glen Oak Park. Linda Butler didn’t commit herself one way or the other, saying instead that there should have been more public interaction and more communication so that they could have made an informed decision.

Properties on Prospect

All the candidates except for Linda Butler and Alicia Butler stated they believe the properties on Prospect should be sold, not razed. They felt the people and the park district had spoken, and the district shouldn’t continue to continue to hang on to these expensive properties. Akeson mentioned they could either sell the property to the park district or fix up the homes and put them on the market. Linda Butler referred to the fact that the Master Facilities Plan includes Glen Oak Park as a possible site for a future school and never really answered the question squarely, leading me to believe she favors the park school. Alicia Butler had already left when this question was raised.

Edison School Contract

O’Brien stated that he thought Edison schools were good, but financially draining. He suggested that if the school board would terminate the program, then businesses, corporations, and/or foundations would step forward to fund it and it wouldn’t have to be funded out of the district’s budget. Akeson and Linda Butler believed the Edison program could be replicated by District 150 without having to contract with Edison itself. Parker wouldn’t commit one way or the other, stating that her position would depend on the cost of the Edison program — she apparently is unaware of the cost. She might want to look that up for future forums. Alicia Butler, again, had already left.

There were two school board members in the audience: Martha Ross and Jim Stowell (aka “Gypsy Jim” for his ability to divine the will of the “silent majority”). I also noticed that WCBU’s Tanya Koonce was there covering the event, but I didn’t see any other media (I have to assume someone was there from the Journal Star, but I don’t know who).

Elections, Peoria Public Schools

School Board candidates forum

2 Comments

UPDATE: School Board candidate Beth Akeson verified that the school district doesn’t have a digital map of the representative district boundaries, but she sent me this picture of the map. It’s not quite detailed enough to be able to read all the street names, but it will give you a rough idea of where the boundaries are. The map image is about 1MB.

ForumFor all of you who will be voting on new second district representatives to the Peoria Public Schools Board of Education next month, I encourage you to attend a candidates forum tonight (Tuesday, March 13) at Whittier Primary School, 1619 W. Fredonia Ave., at 6:30 p.m. Free babysitting will be provided.

You don’t need me to tell you how important it is to have competent, inclusive leadership on the school board. Many people have been up in arms about recent decisions the district has been making. This is our chance as voters to make our voices heard.

Even though voter turnout is at an all time low, it doesn’t matter. Voters on election day are the one “vocal minority” that can’t be ignored.

City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

Actions speak louder than words

14 Comments

In Saturday’s paper, the editors write about how terrible it is that the City of Peoria is ending its involvement with District 150’s crossing guard program, looking at water user fees that would impact the district, and moving toward establishing two new TIFs that would also impact D150. The title and main point of their editorial: “Actions speak louder than words.”

Indeed.

From the same paper, in an article on District 150’s plan to demolish three houses they purchased adjacent to Glen Oak Park:

[District treasurer Guy] Cahill said the district hasn’t abandoned its interest in building a school on that site one day, which is part of the reason why demolition is an appropriate choice.

“We never intended to have those houses there in the long-run anyway. In other words, the homes add no value to that property near or long-term,” Cahill said after the meeting.

Never mind that every neighborhood association came out against the school in the park. Never mind that the Park Board denied a land-sharing agreement that was critical for the school’s plans to locate there. Never mind that the City of Peoria, while not officially voting on it, nevertheless made clear its displeasure and even made overtures to help the district keep the school at the current Glen Oak School site. No, today we read that “the district hasn’t abandoned its interest in building a school on that site one day,” and thus will commence with demolishing the houses already purchased — a few at a time, apparently.

In other words, the school district is collectively giving Peoria the finger.

Hence, I don’t shed one tear over the actions the City has taken to start withdrawing support from District 150. It’s not like the City hasn’t tried to cooperate. In 2006, the City extended to District 150 $311,105 in operating costs, $575,000 in capital costs, and $236,000 in debt service costs — a total of $1,122,105. Did they ever ask anything from District 150 in return for that? Once: they asked that the Woodruff attendance area replacement school be built at the site of the current Glen Oak School building — and even offered to throw in $500,000 more for property acquisition to boot. Response from District 150? The finger.

You know what? Cooperation isn’t cooperation when only one party is doing the cooperating. That’s called exploitation. And that’s what District 150 is doing to the City and the taxpayers.

They need to go. Hinton needs to go. Cahill needs to go. And, frankly, the school board needs to go.

Until people are elected/hired that will truly cooperate (partner, collaborate) with others — such as the City, the taxpayers, the parents and teachers — I don’t think they should get one thin dime from the City.

Furthermore, if things don’t turn around soon, I think the Mayor should appeal to the state for authority to take over the school district just like Mayor Daley did with the Chicago public schools over a decade ago. Peoria’s public school district is getting close to a state takeover anyway — why not keep it local?