District 150 school board members made it very clear at Monday’s board meeting that they are not willing to accept less than 15 acres for a new school site. “15 acres is the minimum in terms of the school site for our children,” Superintendent Ken Hinton said at the meeting. All the other board members agreed.

Furthermore, they want the city to pay for the acquisition of all the land needed to create those 15 acres around the Glen Oak School site (estimated to be over $5 million) or they will pursue the Glen Oak Park site for the new school. Regardless of the final site chosen, the school board wants to continue acquiring property on the park site because “it’s not fair to keep them in limbo,” Superintendent Hinton said.

I’d like to credit board president Alicia Butler for at least asking the question I wanted asked. Here’s a transcription of her question and Hinton’s answer:

BUTLER: Mr. Hinton, can you delineate why you are coming up with the 15 acres?

HINTON: Sure I can. The 15 acres, in terms of the — and again, this is the vision on my part — in terms of as we go forward as a school district, we have an image and our children, I mean our, you know, our district has an image that I want to work on, and one of the things that is very important is that I want our families and our children to have the very best in the sense that they have a playground that has ball — baseball fields on it, the possibility that they want to go outside and do outdoor exploration, if we need to have soccer there, soccer’s available. Many of our children don’t have that particular environment. That is why the park site was such a choice site — is such a choice site, I should say — in terms of the opportunities it affords our students and our families and our staff.

The other part of that is that it is a minimal recommendation in terms of Illinois State Board of Education, and if you were to take that recommendation completely, it would actually be more than 15 acres. So the 15 acres is a minimum in terms of building the types of schools that we’re talking about doing as we go forward in terms of providing our children with state-of-the-art facilities to promote learning and see to it that we have optimal success with our children.

Mary Spangler added that based on national information, “we’re right there nationally” — which I assume means that we’re within the national average. (Yet, based on 2003 information from CEFPI, 22 states don’t have any minimum acreage requirements; one would think that would bring down the average.) She also said we need room to expand parking in the future, and the school building needs to be all one level to make it accessible to kids with special needs who shouldn’t be going up and down in elevators “in case of emergencies; it’s a safety issue.”

Martha Ross was concerned that switching sites would have a significant impact on the district’s construction timeline, and she later expressed her support for the park site.

David Gorenz believes that the best decision is to go with the park site based on its suitability for the educational programs the district wants, affordability, transportation issues, safety concerns, and community revitalization. He made a big point that community revitalization was last on the list and that the district should not compromise educational programs for the sake of community revitalization.

Matheson prefers the park site and will only consider the Glen Oak School site if the city provides complete financing of a 15 acre site.

Garrie Allen, unable to resist the urge to play the race card, said that “children of former slaves are being denied their 15 acres and a mule.” He later added, “it’s not our job as a school district to clean up blighted areas . . . Our job is to make things better for children.”

Stephen Morris and Butler both back the park site as well, although Butler was more evenhanded in her comments.

That’s my report.  In my next post, I’ll analyze the meeting.