Things are not looking good on Wisconsin Avenue:
Despite borrowing $30 million over the past three months using tax-anticipation warrants, the school district is again facing dire straits and according to the latest financial statements will not be able to meet payroll in May, much less a significant loan payment due in June. In order to remain solvent, district officials on Monday proposed restructuring its debt by seeking $35 million in working cash bonds, a loan structured to be paid back over several years.
Translation: property taxes for District 150 are going to go up, more teachers are going to get laid off, and more schools are going to close. District 150 needs to be reorganized from top to bottom.
A high school will be closed. Wait until June.
Will it be Woodruff or Central…….only time will tell.
Then how can their S&P rating be so high?
Why close one high school? Seems to me this city only really needs two high schools. One for all north of war drive, one for everyone south.
Bodies that can raise funds through taxes have higher bond ratings. Safer investment if you know they can always raise taxes….
District 150 should get rid of school buses and cafeterias and close schools deemed surplus by their declining enrollment. There should be one principal per school and one administrator for the district. Sports teams should compete within their schools, unless local businesses want to underwrite the cost of a school’s team competing with another school.
A high school will be closed. Wait until June.
Will it be Woodruff or Central…….only time will tell.
Dang it, Peoria fan, I was just starting to like you. 🙁
not saying that is what should happen, just reporting what I believe is going to happen.
You can still like me.
You folks do know the high school closure discussion will begin in June, right. It will happen. It’s on the calendar posted on the district’s web site.
http://pr.psd150.org/DepartmentSite/resources/29_Budget_Decision_Timeline_02-17-2009.pdf
I thought this was community knowledge?
I don’t see how they possibly will be able to avoid the closure at this point. I don’t think it is a matter of if but a matter of when.
I think those who will be most impacted by the closing of a high school are aware. I doubt that the general public heard that (after taking the closure off the table) it was almost immediately put back on the table. The only difference “might” be that only the discussion will start in June–that the closure itself will wait a year longer than previously purposed.
If enrollment is declining why wouldn’t a high school be closed? Is there opposition to closing a school?
Yes, there will be opposition–all for legitimate reasons due to academic concerns and to concerns for the welfare of Peoria (and there will be emotional reasons, also). These are the kinds of decisions that require two kinds of leadership in District 150. Trying to make good financial decisions while at the same time making good educational decisions will be difficult–maybe impossible. At least, the district should be willing to state loudly and clearly that their decisions are good financial decisions but bad educational decisions–don’t try to justify the decision for any reason other han financial necessity. Of course, I hope that all the possible avenues for cuts will be pursued before making a final decision about a high school.
Erik–
A question: Isn’t it true that the State of Illinois is multi-millions of dollars behind in state aid payments to the school districts? How much does this lack of payment impact the district’s current financial shortfall? I know that if I didn’t get paid money I had earned over a several-month period I would have to borrow to pay bills, too.
If the above is a major part of the problem right now (not talking about proposed future deficits but short-term spending) then that needs to be made clear.
And what about the stimulus money? There was a story in the paper today about that money being specifically designated for teacher salaries, etc. How does that factor in? Is that money going to be available in the near future–or when?
Otherwise, the district is putting out numbers to unduly scare people into going along with some of their previously planned cuts and closings (not even mentioning contract negotiations!) I am not accusing, just asking. Is the district this far behind with ALL monies paid in or not? Inquiring minds want to know.
To all re: closing a high school, many of you have read my postings about closing a high school. I won’t rehash them now but would like to remind all that the outside consultant 10 years ago recommended going to 3 schools if the enrollment went below 3900. The enrollment this year was 3800+, barely below that threshold, and the district’s plan speaks of drawing students back into the district through k-12 schools.
The majority of current research, including white papers from the keynote speaker at the county-wide Institute Day, Dr. Daggett, advocate smaller school size (not class size but school size) as a major component in student retention and attendance, as well as performance within certain demographics. The maximum school size is less than 1,000 students per school, with the optimum being 600 students. The district seemed to be moving that way with Manual and with the Freshman Academy at PHS. Now the administration claims a high school must close and uses the 10-year-old recommendation to justify it.
I agree with Sharon, they CANNOT sell a high school closing as good educationally, socially or as a benefit to students in any way. Even the argument about athletic teams being short-handed and not having advanced class offerings can be answered through co-oping and long-range learning. High school students are currently taking online courses in AP Calculus, etc. My son took an online course in Enriched English as a senior. Motivated students will do the work needed.
Bottom line, if closing a high school is necessary, it should be the absolute LAST resort for financial deficits, because it there is no legitimate educational reason to do it. And the district had better be prepared to show exactly how much money would be saved by such a closing, backed up with evidence, and admit that it is a BAD decision educationally. They can’t have it both ways. Too many people are watching.
And my personal opinion is, if that has to happen, the Wisconsin Avenue bldg better be well-nigh empty by then. There should be virtually no central admin left, let alone consultants and multiple superintendents. Cut farthest from the classroom first, (sigh), she says again.
Well…. I would much rather see High Schools with an enrollment of 500 versus an enrollment of 2000, with student teacher ratios under 20 per teacher. I see smaller high schools as an advantage and an asset that should be encouraged. I believe students will do better in the long run for it.
This business of consolidating schools and over stuffing the remaining ones to cut cost is a huge disservice to the students.
hot in the city:
the district has three structural issues and one large cash issue.
the structural issues are:
1. Loss of a 30% of a large revenue source. Personal Property Replacement tax accounted for $14 million in recent years. It’s lost $4 million in revenue generating ability due to the economy. The school is seeing the drop, we’re seeing the drop here at the county, and the city has seen the drop.
2. The district has been issuing pay day loans since 2005 to the tune of $16 million dollars. This, a year after spending down $22 million in working cash funds. Since 1999, the district has spent $67 million more than it’s brought in.
3. The expense base is simply larger than the revenue base.
The cash issue is as you point out. Money they depend upon to pay their bills from those who owe it to them is not being paid in a timely manner.
It’s not as simple as no margin, no mission, but it’s not that far away either. I realize that puts education delivery in a somewhat insensitive business analysis, but we’re talking solvency here.
sorry, i wasn’t clear. in my mind and i think norm stated this clearly in today’s PJS article, the hole is $20 million. $4 gone in CPPRT, and a $16 million structural issue.
I’m using the term “hole” purposefully. That’s the minimum floor, it could be deeper as expenses grow or budgets are exceeded. $20 million is the number I will keep using unless it changes.
The $30 million here, and $14 million and $16 million there, and $35 million over yonder do confuse. But, let’s break down the borrowing since January:
First borrowing – $16 million. cash loan
Second borrowing – $30 million. intended to pay back $16 million and obtain $14 million in cash.
Third borrowing – $35 million. intended to pay back $30 million, and leave $5 million in cash.
We have a budget committee meeting tomorrow at 5 on Wisconsin, but I believe my understanding of the above is correct.
Erik,
Thanks. Remember that us common folk don’t immediately “get” some of the more arcane accounting terms, the same way non-medical folks don’t get “myocardial infarction” but do get “heart attack.”
Thanks also for being willing to take the time to answer our questions without getting defensive. I hope you know my skepticism is for those in central admin and not for you or your committee. I wish you guys had been around when all of this shady accounting was going on and money was being spent….oh, well, water under the bridge. Just please make sure the numbers you are being given to work with are “actual” numbers , if you know what I mean. Especially regarding actual costs and proposed savings.
Anyway, I appreciate your answers. Again.
–hot
P.S. Too bad the district didn’t take out risky loans for those houses on Prospect they bought. We could get $$ back now! Hope some of those people don’t run their personal finances like they have run the district’s.
Jeff Adkins-Dutro, who is running for PFT President, just informed me that Hinton went to Irving Primary School today and told the teachers that he is is recommending that Irving stay open for another year. (According to the earlier proposal that was tabled, Irving was scheduled for closing next year). Hinton also has a meeting at Kingman tomorrow–not sure what his promise will be to them. The following flyer has been prepared for a possible petition drive against closing a high school. I thought this would be a good place to try it out.
We the undersigned taxpayers in Peoria School District 150 feel that closing one of its four high schools will lead to problems that will be far more costly than the savings that would be realized from eliminating a high school. We sincerely ask that all possibilities for cuts be considered and pursued before a decision is made to close a high school. We believe that the following repercussions will be a direct result of merging two high schools into one:
• Decrease in student achievement that will prevent District 150 from reaching its goal to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
• Decrease in safety that will prevent the district’s goal of ensuring safe and positive school environments
• Decrease in property values in areas far removed from the vicinity of a high school
• Decrease in school and community involvement, loyalty, and traditions–especially since the athletic and other competitive teams of one school will be completely eliminated
• Decrease, possibly even a loss, of alumni support and scholarships, etc.
• Decrease in the number of teachers, thus preventing the retention of a highly-qualified staff
• Increase in class sizes, which will negatively impact student achievement
• Increase in the dropout rate due to larger school enrollments, etc.
• Increase in busing, which will have academic and financial repercussions
• Increase in segregation due to further urban flight and a demographic shift due to proposed boundary changes—possibly illegal action.
• Increase in crime due to an increased dropout rate, etc.
Please remind these decision-makers that ignoring the opposition to closing a school will not make it possible for them to ignore all the problems that the closing of a school will create.
Before ANY schools are closed, the administration building needs to be shut down and sold. Farm the administrators, the consultants, the consultants, (did I mention the consultants?), etc., out to the high schools. We’ll make room. Board meetings can be held in high school auditoriums. There’s plenty of seating. The administrators will have to adjust to life without air conditioning . . . but hey . . . the students do it . . . and if it’s good enough for them, it should be good enough for the admin., right? During student passing times, administrators can help monitor the hallways . . . and they can eat pizza and chicken nuggets every day . . . just like our students do. Maybe they can even spend a day or so per week subbing when teachers are out . . . to make up for our sub. shortage and to keep in touch with the classroom.
Woo Hoo, you go Jeff! I agree completely. Cut farthest from the classrooms first (sigh) she says again.
So Erik, what you are saying is the District has been mismanaged for at least 2005. Hiring people they can’t afford, giving raises to people they can’t afford, borrowing money they can’t afford to pay back… and now they want a bail out. They want to dump two primary schools… Hinton has finally made a final decision…. until when?
Bravo Jeff… brilliant idea, but come on… give up their private corner offices? You will have to fire them first… but hey, that’s even a better idea. (I don’t mean buy out their contracts and pay them for not working for the next 8-24 months… I mean fire them for incompetence and willful mismanagement of public finds.)
…and as for you principals and teachers, how do you like the idea that your salary is being paid by borrowed money? You are one loan chasing scam at the administration away from your paycheck bouncing.
What will the next loan be this month? 40 million to pay off the 35, then 50 to pay off the 40 and then 70 to pay off the 50?
kcdad,
No, i did not say (or write) that the district has been mis-managed since 2005.
I wrote that since 1999 the district has spent more than its made. If I were going to tag a year when structural balance of revenues and expenditures was effectively lost, I would say it was/is 1999, not 2005.
It appears little was done to fix the problem in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, to avoid the catastrophic spend down of reserves and ultimately deficit – propped up by pay day loan – spending.
I’m not sure what happened in 1999, as we’ve not mined that far into the data yet. One of the reasons I’m spending so much time on the ISBE website is because it seems only data filed with the state is agreed to be the standard, so that’s what I’m using (even though the data on the ISBE website is fed by the external audit).
In all fairness, 85% of school districts in Illinois have to use short-term borrowing through out the school year. The difference here is it occurs year, after year, after year, after year, after year, after year. The other difference here is the structural nature of the problem, versus simply a cash flow problem.
SO TOO apparently have 85% of American banks and American Stock investment companies…. it is the American way! It doesn’t remove it from the mismanagement column. How is it any different than floating checks or what Madoff did? The district is using someone else’s money to pay off their debts and keep doing that until the entire ponzi scheme falls in around them.
Citizens go to jail for that kind of behavior…
Erik, we understand the need for you to be diplomatic. We, on the other hand, can read between the lines with no problem.
Hinton will be meeting w/ staff @ Tyng on Friday. I’m not sure why he’s bothering since staff was told on Monday that the school will close at the end of the current year.
Just curious – the article this morning mentioned the district planned to defer school roof repair/replacement and other school maintenance items. Why? Those types of items are covered by Health, Life, Safety monies – they are not usually paid out of the Ed Fund. Reading between the lines, where did the several million in Health, Life, Safety monies go? What did the district spend it on? That is restricted use money. Should the public worry about whether they used that money appropriately and lawfully?
PrairieCelt- Regarding the roof, they figure if they hold off long enough the city will pay to repair it instead of repairing sidewalks 🙂
Erik: Can you answer PrairieCelt’s question about these Health, Life, Safety monies? The more I hear about District 150 finances, the more confused I get. Also, unfortunately, the more I am convinced that transparency is a long way off.
And while we’re at it, what about the PBC monies? Have they been received yet and how have they been – or are being – spent? Those monies can also be used for structural repairs.
A Kingman teacher told me that at a meeting at Kingman today, Hinton told the audience that they would be closing Kingman this year, and Woodruff High School next year.
There is an urgent meeting at Woodruff Commons tonight at 6:30. Kingman teachers were told that their students would be redistributed to 4 different un-named schools.
prairiecelt
the document i have, fiscal 2009 budget dated july 2008, shows $3.47 million spent out of health-life-safety funds in fiscal year 2008 (july 1, 2007-june 30, 2008).
Proposed 2009 expenditures were $665,448 taking the remaining savings in the fund down to $1.88 million, projected, at year end, June 30, 2009.
If I am reading the district’s budget filed with the state correctly, I believe $3 million went from PBC to O&M (operations and maintenance) in 2009. I believe those dollars show in O&M savings.
I also want to correct something I stated earlier when I wrote ‘it appears little was done’…from a numbers standpoint, from 1999-2003 salary and benefit costs in the primary district spending account increased, on average, 6.6% annually. They were spending $27 million more in personnel costs in 2003 than in 1999.
From 2003 to 2009, personnel costs have averaged 1.4% growth. They are spending $1.4 million more in personnel costs in 2009 than in 2004.
I realize there are retirements in there. I’m not sure I understand how growth pops up that quickly, that large, and then tapers off equally as quickly.
Erik,
With all due respect I believe 1999 was the start of a lucrative 5 year teachers’ contract that had annual raises that made other districts gasp. It does not surprise me when you state 6.6% average. Those rates also applied to non-union school personnel such as the highly paid principals and their assistants as well. It also created a “me too – me too” era for other union contract negotiations. It should also be pointed out that union contract was awarded by the administration prior to Dr Royster. Furthermore that was the year that the top administration left in mass on June 30 consisting of Garret, Kilpatrick, Williamson, Russel and even Ken Hinton who left for an Edison employment. Royster arrived to find a vacant front office and the smoking gun of an expensive contract not of her making but history seems to blame her.
Erik, if you take a look at the PFT CBA for the period ending June 30, 2000 and then compare that with the CBA for the period beginning July 1, 2000 – June 30, 2005, you may understand some of the 6.6% annual growth in salary and personnel expense from 1999-2003. There were some unusual circumstances surrounding the negotiation of the 2000-05 CBA that resulted in significant salary increases for certified staff. I’m guessing you and your committee have not been given the historical background in order to understand the increase in personnel costs.
Do you know if the administration spent the budgeted $665K HLS monies or did they underspend or overspend budget? If they projected the fund balance to be $1.88M at the end of FY’09, why aren’t they using those funds to pay for needed building maintenance and repair which is part of the intended purpose of HLS funds? The PJS article implied that by deferring those needed repairs, it would be a cost savings – presumably to the Ed Fund. But those are separate funds, so why defer?
Without Malice remembers it as I do. A favorable contract with the Teachers’ Union was reached during that time period which caused labor costs to escalate and a corresponding increase in salaries was realized by management as well. I remember, things differently than Malice as to Royster. I recall her having no respect for the word “budget” and the controller she brought in being ineffective.
One thing that Without Malice reveals in his blog is the number of good administrators lost by the District. Kilpatrick, Russell, Williamson, and even Hinton were effective in their positions. I do not believe their replacements, are for the most part, of the same caliber. Perhaps this have been responsible for the District’s demise as much as anything.
Jeff, I agree 100% with your comments above!!!!
THANK YOU!!!!
I believe it was the 2000-2005 contract of which I was one of the beneficiaries. I guess instead of trying to defend it, I will have to say that that contract made all the difference in my life as a retiree, and leave it at that. Therefore, I will remain grateful. I think there is a possibility that the early retirement aspect of the contract might have put an added burden on District 150 because of benefits, which I believe 150 continued to pay for retirees until they reach 65. I’m not sure about all of that since I didn’t retire early. I believe that the early retirement incentive was based on the hope that getting rid of “old” teachers earlier than usual would decrease the number of higher paid teachers–and, therefore, the district could make money by having younger teachers without so much experience. I’m not so sure the cost-savings was realized. Maybe that’s yet to come.
Also, please note that it was also during the time period probably before 2000 that Edison was introduced to the district and that Edison teachers in four schools earned more than teachers in other buildings because they were paid for additional hours–even weeks, I believe.
About closing a high school: There was a meeting tonight at Woodruff to mobilize all those interested in keeping Peoria High and Woodruff open. Anyone on the blog who is interested in this effort, please create your own “Save Our Schools” signs and come at 5:15 to the board rooms on Wisconsin Avenue on Monday, April 6, for a protest. Speakers willing to present their viewpoint to the board would be most appreciated. At the meeting tonight at Woodruff, I was again made aware of how large the readership of this blog really is. C.J. has created a wonderful forum for us to air our views. Thanks again, C.J. Thanks, also, to Beth Akeson for taking time out of her busy schedule to come to take part in the discussion about this issue.
I understand the passion of those that wish to keep things as they are, i.e. 4 high schools, but it seems to fly in the face of the reality of the numbers offered by Erik. As someone whose children are approaching high school, I would prefer to have 3 high schools offering more specialized programs to accommodate all students learning needs. If there is only so much revenue to go around, I would prefer it go directly to education, teachers, sports programs, etc. and not to building maintenance, utilities, etc.
Hey Erik, I am a little slow on the draw. I just realized that you are the runner that was featured in the PJS. You must be a very busy fellow. Thank you again for devoting so much time and effort to this blog and to the District 150 project.
Frustrated: The problem is that the district has not really figured out the cost of closing the schools compared to the cost of keeping them open. The closings will definitely have costs–some tangible–the intangible will show up but are not as easy to prove or anticipate in dollars and cents.
The district has been asked to show how much money was saved from closing Blaine Sumner and Loucks–no answer. If there was a savings in closing those schools, shouldn’t there be figures to prove it?
For example, all the closings are going to require extensive (increased) busing–and busing is listed as a cost that the district is trying to bring under control.
There is even a possibility of a law suit based on the Armstrong Act (I believe) that could call into question the increased segregation created by the plan to close a high school.
Of course, no one is even mentioning the alternative school that was actually a topic of conversation of at one board meeting. And you all know that I believe that none of the district’s efforts will be successful if there is no alternative school.
Do you all realize the large area of the city that will be without a high school if Woodruff is closed? How can anyone possibly believe that to be a wise decision?
Frustrated, I am too bummed out to respond to you tonight but hope to do so soon. Sorry, just have a lot on my plate with family issues. I am not disrespecting you.
—hot
Frustrated: I tried to keep my self from saying this, but here goes. The administrators you mentioned–the good administrators you mentioned are the ones who ignored the warning signs of the problems that were sneaking up on us. The problems we face today didn’t start with Kay Royster or Ken Hinton–they just got bigger and bigger each year. These problems didn’t just pop up overnight. One of the district’s most devastating problems was the exodus of families out of Peoria or away from District 150 schools. Williamson undoubtedly saw they problem–she followed the families out to her present position. In fact, I remember that she made the decision to move so that her own children wouldn’t have to go to 150 schools. I remember clearly a meeting we had with her at Manual–one in which she clearly revealed that she did not have a clue about the problems we were facing–tried to tell her, but she soon left for “greener” pastures. Starting way back then and before, District 150 just accepted the exodus without trying to resolve the problems that caused people to leave. And all those problems are the ones that plague us today.
Ok Sharon. I swear I submitted a response to you and it did not appear. Perhaps I was edited out?? I agree with your read on the past errors of the District. Your thing is the alternative school and, as you know, I desperately want a District that is at least part focused on aggressive academics leading to a stellar college prep high school program. I see it as the only way to stem the tide of the “exodus of families” from the District and attract new students. You are correct that past administrations should have taken note of the trends and taken action before the District got to the state it is in today. It is going to be a very difficult turn around now.
My comment on the past Administrators was based on my own limited dealings with them. I am sure you have more insight and contact. I just found the past administrators I worked with to be more impressive professionally than some of the current administrators. Others must view these past administrators favorable as well, given they are now leaders of other school districts and seem to be doing quite well.
Frustrated: I checked my spam filter and moderation queue and didn’t find any messages from you there, so I’m not sure what happened to the earlier response you said you sent. Sorry if it never showed up!
All: I’m also concerned about the number of schools that are closing — not just the high school issue, but also primary and middle schools. I believe that, from an educational standpoint, smaller class sizes and centrally-located neighborhood schools are better than larger class sizes and consolidated schools. However, the question then remains, how does the district pay for this? If there’s no alternative plan, I’m afraid all the protests in the world to keep schools open are going to fall on deaf ears.
Sharon,
The “problem” you identify; that of the district not being able to present how cost cutting measures, including school closures, effect it’s fiscal state was true. That’s a past tense statement.
This is why the budget committee focused its efforts on addressing that issue first. That is why we recommended to the board the purchase of the $8500 software package that allows budgets past, present and potential futures to be loaded up and interacted with.
People will be able to see in an instant all those things being asked for over the last six months or so.
A protest Monday night? What are you protesting? That the school is near bankruptcy? How do you protest a current state? I’m not sure folks understand the depths of this issue. The school district is in a position where business decisions need to be made first, and educational configuration second. I’m truly sorry to have to write that, and I wish it weren’t so, but it is. How does it help to start yelling at the board; a board (albeit with its own warts) that apparently inherited a problem that has now blossomed to a tipping point? Those are rhetorical questions.
I was at the last school board meeting and I’ll be at the next. If all goes well this week, the board will be getting it’s first look at the budget module on Monday night. We’re actively working to schedule an open meeting with the public for the week of April 13-17 to go over the software as well. I’m working with the district to get that meeting scheduled off-site and in a facility large enough for the public to attend.
Believe me, I too have had those extended moments of near hopeless bewilderment, BUT, that effect is one of being mired in the current state. This problem didn’t begin overnight and won’t be fixed over night but I think steps are being taken to correct the organization.
C.J. – Been a stressful week. Lots of school volunteering. Maybe I did not push “send” after all.
I agree with bloggers that there has been way too much fiddling and fudging with the budget — but as Erik points out the District has been overspending for years. It has just caught up with them in a huge way.
Like so many individuals during this economic crisis, the District is going to have to learn to conduct its affairs in a different and more economical way. The public trust could be improved if the District would make some much needed administrative cuts, but this will not right the budget entirely and it will not provide needed revenue for enhanced and specialized programs.
Smaller class sizes and school populations are ideal, if you are a school district that can afford them. For a time we thought we were moving to the Western Suburbs of Chicago. Every high school in a radius of where we needed to live had at least 1800 students and most had 2500 to 3000. And these are financially solvent school districts. Maybe small schools are a luxury the District cannot afford at this time.
Some of the alternative plans for combining high schools and creating new vocational programs, such as those proposed by Stowell need more fleshing out, but I think they sound exciting. I wish more people with expertise could “volunteer” to make this happen rather than fighting to keep a high school open.
“from a numbers standpoint, from 1999-2003 salary and benefit costs in the primary district spending account increased, on average, 6.6% annually. They were spending $27 million more in personnel costs in 2003 than in 1999.
From 2003 to 2009, personnel costs have averaged 1.4% growth. They are spending $1.4 million more in personnel costs in 2009 than in 2004.”
I am amazed… I am sitting here shaking my head and thinking of a history teacher making $75,000 a year, a 2nd year principal at Richwoods, for example, making $110,000 a year… PLUS… a $365 a day per diem…
So is this why the District is such a mess? Is this all they have succeeded in doing the past 10 or 20 years… raise the teachers and administrators in our schools in to the top 15% of our population’s income earners?
I always thought teachers were paid diddly. That it was a struggle and they had to get summer jobs and some times even second jobs during the school year to get by. I thought like, nurses and child care providers that they did it for the love it, because of the inability to conceive of anything else more important that teaching.
I didn’t realize it was to pay for that big boat, the condo in Florida, the golf club memberships and to be able to afford the same cars their students are driving. Oh, yeah, no offense meant, Sharon, and to have a nice comfortable retirement. I didn’t realize teachers ever retired….
Erik: Part of the protest will be a request to let us know how the district is going to solve the educational problems that will be created by the cuts. This district never deals with the fallout from their plans. Manual is a perfect example–they created a new plan that didn’t begin to address the real problems–and spent quite a bit of “new” money doing it. Erik, you are dealing only with the money–as you stated earlier, someone has to look out for the educational end of it. Who is doing that?
I don’t think Jim Stowell’s plan involves closing a building. Please remember that every school that is closed (except Irving) will probably either sit idle or be used for some other purpose. Therefore, there will be no savings in maintaining the building.
Frustrated: You are comparing apples to oranges (I think). Suburban schools and their problems can’t be compared to urban schools and their problems.
The same with the administrators you mentioned–those that left 150 to go to suburban schools. Their greatest problem is overcrowding. They do not have the financial problems, the same kind of discipline problems, the same degree of poverty, the same degree of students with development learning problems. It’s a bit easier to look “professional” when things are relatively smooth sailing.
Kcdad: Maybe $4000 a month will buy somebody a boat–but I haven’t been able to squeeze that out.
Sharon, you are correct, I was looking at high performing school districts but frankly, I can’t see how such large schools are ideal for any student. I understand that students with challenges might be better served in a smaller school setting BUT . . . my comparison is still on point. Financially sound school districts do not expend funds on smaller schools so it seems unrealistic to expect that District 150 can, given its current state. So many bloggers have chastised the District for failing to live within its budget and now it seems protests are being planned to encourage more of the same reckless behavior.