In light of the serious issues on the District #150 Board of Education agenda this evening and the decision the board members are being asked by the Administration to make, let’s take the time to review some accurate data. (Note: this data is extracted from the Interactive Illinois Report Card, found at http://iirc.niu.edu/District.aspx?districtID=48072150025)
- District #150 Overall (2008):
Student Demographics:
Black 61.1%
White 30.5%
Hispanic 5.5%
Asian 2.6%
Multiracial 0.2%
Native American 0.0%Low Income: 70%
District Spending vs. State Average (2006-07)
District State
Teacher Salaries/Benefits 48.9% 43.0%
Other Instructional Costs 3.8% 7.1%
Student Support 12.8% 11.6%
Admin/Operations 24.0% 22.7%
Building/Equipment 2.4% 7.4%
Debt Service 5.6% 7.1%
Other 2.5% 1.1% - Kingman Primary School (2008):
Student Demographics:
Black 57.6%
White 32.2%
Hispanic 10.2%
Asian 0.0%
Multiracial 0.0%
Native American 0.0%Enrollment: 304
Average Class Size:
Kindergarten 16.0
Grade 1 15.3
Grade 2 16.7
Grade 3 13.7
Grade 4 13.5
Grade 5 13.0Low Income: 93.1%
Mobility: 61.4%Adequate Yearly Progress:
The school is not making AYP.
The school is not making AYP in Reading.
The school is making AYP in Mathematics.
The school was identified for School Improvement in accordance with NCLB.
The 2008-09 the Federal Improvement Status is Choice.
The 2008-09 State Improvement Status is Academic Early Warning Year 1. - Irving Primary School (2008):
Student Demographics:
Black 69.3%
Hispanic 22.9%
White 6.1%
Asian 1.1%
Multiracial 0.6%
Native American 0.0%Enrollment: 362
Average Class Size:
Kindergarten 17.0
Grade 1 15.6
Grade 2 15.6
Grade 3 16.2
Grade 4 18.3
Grade 5 17.7Low Income: 95.6%
Mobility: 35.1%Adequate Yearly Progress:
The school is not making AYP.
The school is not making AYP in Reading.
The school is making AYP in Mathematics.
The school was identified for School Improvement in accordance with NCLB.
The 2008-09 the Federal Improvement Status is Choice.
The 2008-09 State Improvement Status is Academic Early Warning Year 1. - Garfield Primary School (2008):
Student Demographics:
Black 74.9%
White 17.1%
Hispanic 7.4%
Asian 0.3%
Multiracial 0.3%
Native American 0.0%Enrollment: 299
Average Class Size:
Kindergarten 11.0
Grade 1 17.0
Grade 2 18.3
Grade 3 19.3
Grade 4 15.3Low Income: 94.0%
Mobility: 45.6%Adequate Yearly Progress:
The school is not making AYP.
The school is not making AYP in Reading.
The school is making AYP in Mathematics.
The school was identified for School Improvement in accordance with NCLB.
The 2008-09 the Federal Improvement Status is Restructuring.
The 2008-09 State Improvement Status is Academic Early Warning Year 2. - Tyng Primary School (2008):
Student Demographics:
Black 87.1%
White 9.2%
Hispanic 3.1%
Asian 0.5%
Multiracial 0.0%
Native American 0.0%Enrollment: 381
Average Class Size:
Kindergarten 16.8
Grade 1 19.3
Grade 2 14.4
Grade 3 19.4
Grade 4 13.3
Grade 5 19.0Low Income: 96.9%
Mobility: 59.4%Adequate Yearly Progress:
The school is not making AYP.
The school is not making AYP in Reading.
The school is not making AYP in Mathematics.
The school was identified for School Improvement in accordance with NCLB.
The 2008-09 the Federal Improvement Status is Choice SES.
The 2008-09 State Improvement Status is Academic Early Warning Year 2.
Of the four schools cited above that the Board of Education is considering closing, 93% – 97% of the student populations are low income and 68% – 94% of the student populations are minorities. All four schools are Title I schools; the District’s past practice to determine Title I qualification is to base it on the applications received for the Free and Reduced Lunch Program.
All four schools are not making Adequate Yearly Progress and are in the State Improvement Academic Early Warning Status. Because they are Title I schools, they have also been identified for Federal Improvement Status ranging from Choice to Restructuring.
Since the 2004-05 school year, what has this Administration and Board done? They closed Blaine Sumner and White Middle Schools, and tonight they are proposing the closing of Kingman Primary School at the end of the 2008-09 school year and Irving Primary School at the end of the 2009-10 school year. Garfield and Tyng Primary Schools are also being considered for closing. They plan to build two new Community Schools (Glen Oak and Harrison), and have discussed some sort of consolidation with the Lincoln and Woodruff campuses to address the needs of the Kingman, Irving, and Lincoln students.
Behind all the passionate rhetoric, both opposing and supporting the District’s plans, one thing is clear: all the schools targeted for closure are south of the invisible Forest Hill-War Memorial Drive boundary.
These neighborhood schools are not to be individually replaced with new facilities; rather the Administration is recommending to the Board of Education that these neighborhood schools be combined into much larger community schools. The rationale behind this is financial. These decisions are not based on what is in the best interest of the students’ education, as stated by Board Vice President Wolfmeyer in the Sunday, April 19th Peoria Journal Star.
A pattern is emerging. The District has targeted the schools with the highest numbers of low income and minority students, and schools not making AYP in both State and Federal improvement status, to close and combine. These schools receive significant Title I funding to supplement the educational services provided the students, including funding for teachers’ salaries.
No schools north of the Forest Hill-War Memorial Drive invisible boundary have been targeted for closure.
Whether they wish to acknowledge it or not, by their recommendations and actions, the Administration and Board of Education are creating a perception of warehousing the minority children and the children of poverty.
There is another name for this practice, segregation.
–PrairieCelt
Regarding the server being down…I was told at school today that the problem is a part that needs to be replaced. Don’t know any specifics. I too find the timing troublesome, but it COULD be true.
I hesitate to write this, but our school was told to move/delete any emails that would be vulnerable to FOIA requests. We were told that if they were not on the D150 email (groupwise) and in a personal email they could not be FOIAed. There is a legitimate issue here regarding emails about students (by name, number or other identifier). We regularly communicate with each other, school social worker, etc., about issues regarding individual students. But we have NEVER until several days ago been told to move or remove emails from files for FOIA reasons. And it is very convenient that this has come up now when more people are finally waking up and asking questions. ALL emails older than 4 months are going to be purged from the system and will continue to be cyclically purged beginning in late May.
The first explanation we were given was that the saved emails were taking up too much room and clogging/slowing the server. Then the FOIA stuff came up. So…I have my own opinions and for the moment are keeping them private as I love my job.
A question, I heard the 5 PM report on Ch 25 and it sure sounded like McArdle was being fired about the missing money. I am confused after what I read this weekend and what I have learned from other sources. Are the media being mislead, just getting it wrong, or were people wrong this weekend?
District 150 is busy covering their hiney!!!
Hot, if that is the case, why did Ch 25 even mention Mary Davis’s name…. I found it strange the way they tossed that in.
McArdle turned in the allegations to the Superintendent’s office and filed a supplemental report to the original police report with very specific evidence against another 150 administrator. She is not the guilty one.
Is Vince Wieland in charge of the investigation? Wasn’t he on the school board a few years back? I would really prefer someone that does not have a history of being cronies with these people. Is he still receiving funds from the district? Maybe they have more consultants than we thought.
O.k., I am totally lost. Can someone link me to a site which names names and explains the facts??
Frustrated, you know better than that. We are dealing with District 150 and Ken Hinton for goodness sakes.
I have a feeling that the district will consider McArdle guilty of “something” and want to punish her–isn’t punishing a whistelblower a risky business for the district? I haven’t watched the 25 report yet–I’ll look online, but I have also heard that it’s confusing. Do you think the confusion might be that both women were/are Lindbergh principals? I certainly hope the media isn’t reporting inaccurate information–that’s what happens when the district isn’t transparent. Of course, I do understand that personnel issues are usually off limits–until the legal proceedings kick in.
About the e-mails: Even when I was teaching (before Skyward), the district periodically purged the system. I do think the district wasn’t too smart sending out a communication giving FOIAs as a reason for deleting e-mails–especially, if they were anticipating the current situation. I believe it was a message sent to all personnel, right? No, nobody has to answer–I’m immune from retaliation, you might not be.
hot in the city. So I wonder who issued the directions that personal e mails?(what are those) could not be FOIA’d yet groupwise e mails could? Could it be the district attorneys? Is the district trying to get rid of evidence so it could not be used against those in certain positions who have no regard for the rules? If this is the case, union attorneys and ISBE attorneys should be involved immediately to stop this travesty. What about ethics of the district attorneys if they are the ones giving this advice? the Board calls for transparency and then this happens. How can they look themselves in the mirror in the morning?
Mr. Weiland was on the School Board for a number of years and I believe was the President for some period of time. I agree, it would seem better if he were not leading the investigation, however, perhaps because he is familiar with the District he can do a better job of investigating.
McArdle is “guilty” of pointing out past unethical and illegal behavior at the school that happened before her tenure at Lindbergh.
I do not think everyone got the e mail about the FOIAs as a reason.
It is my understanding from current parents at Lindbergh that they are not satisfied with the new prinicpal there. I think everyone loved the old principal, and she really raised the bar while she was there and also did a good job of controling student behavior. I sure hope she is not involved in this. I was counting her being someone that would be around to lead the District in the future.
I just listened to the Channel 25 6 p.m. news–I don’t think there was a mention of the administrator’s name (had trouble hearing with cartoons on the other TV)–but the rest of the story seems accurate with many holes because they haven’t been given the “rest of the story.” I guess the PJS doesn’t worry about being scooped–so far nothing on their site. Channel 31 already put its script from 5 p.m. online but 25 hasn’t done so yet. I wonder what the district will do with the person accused of theft–keep her on until charges are investigated but fire McArdle
What are the accusations?
Sharon, that would not surprise me. There also is a whole lot more to this story. It all will eventually come out.
Frustrated: Yours is the “other side of the story–and I’m sure the reason 150 will give for letting her go. However, it certainly isn’t customary to terminate a principal at this point in the year just because she didn’t seem to be “a good fit”–the reason I have heard that 150 is giving. It is unfortunate if the “accused” person (whom everyone seems to agree was a good principal) was less than ethical in these matters. Now it is time for the legal proceedings to get to the truth–something 150 wasn’t able to do (or I guess something they may have chosen to ignore).
Channel 31, WMBD-TV, has the full story, including the two names. Did a good job on the story.
Sharon- your info is 100% correct about “not being a good fit”. She is not a good fit because she won’t put up with unethical behavior.
O.k., I still really don’t know what I am talking about because I am only piecing things together through others comments. If the District can eliminate someone that is accused of wrongdoing under the guise they are not meeting performance expectations, that’s o.k., whatever works. Whenever an employee is accused of a crime and you terminate them and then later they are found not guilty due to a technicality or some other glitch, the employer has to take them back with back pay. This has happened to the District on many occasions, so I imagine they are trying to the cautious. If they can get a clean termination now, so much the better.
Elaine — from WMBD http://centralillinoisproud.com/content/fulltext/?cid=56252
One report was filed outlining a misuse of funds. And a second report regarding missing financial records,” District Spokesperson Stacey Shangraw said.
Reported missing are the 2007-2008 financial files. District officials would not comment on exactly what information those files contain. Or whether they’re from just one school or district-wide. Shangraw says there is no student information contained in the files, or personal information, like social security numbers of employees.
What does that mean …. Reported missing are the 2007-2008 financial files. PrairieCelt? Anyone?
Missing are student activity fund records for 2007-2008 at Lindbergh.
If Ken Hinton wants you gone….. You’re out! Oh, I just got this horrible scene in my head of him throwing he biggest temper tantrum during this fiasco. He had to have come undone.
To all, there was NOT an email about the FOIA-vulnerable files. It was stated in a meeting. As I said, a part of that is legitimate in re student emails. There was a D150 staff news email, I believe, that referred to emails being cleared but not to FOIAs per se. I did not read it, I was busy testing last week and haven’t caught up yet. I’ll check tomorrow if the server is up. The overall purging will begin in late May (everything older than 4 months).
I’m still confused about the charges/complaints/allegations. Ms. McArdle is current Lindbergh principal and she uncovered the charges, Ms. Davis was principal until a central admin position was created for her earlier this year and Ms SanFilip was principal there before that. So what’s going on?? And where is the Board of Ed in all this?
I wonder how many other funds, credit cards, etc., are out there in out “going bankrupt if we don’t close schools” district? And BTW, I thought Ms. Royster got rid of the credit cards? Did Mr. Hinton reinstate them for certain people/schools?
Maybe this is just the tip of the iceberg regarding financial irregularities at D150.
I’m glad Ms. McArdle has legal representation, if she is not the guilty party and id being scapegoated. Maybe others in D150 who have things to hide should be doing the same!
oops, “our” not “out” in paragraph 3 of the above. Sorry all.
so… “in OUR “going bankrupt if we don’t close schools” district?”
more oops, “is” not “id” in paragraph 4. More sorry. Testing has fried my brains.
so… “IS being scapegoated.”
So McCardle is dismissed and then found not guilty. Guess who is going to have to foot her legal fees until she is found not guiltly. She is!! Will she be able to recover these fees quickly? NO WAY! How much is the district with “no money” going to pay their attorneys in legal fees? This whole affair just sickens me! No money for students, staff, and schools. the only ones who win are the attorneys who collect their fees.
Frustrated: I would give you the details as I’ve heard them–but won’t in deference to C.J. since none of the specific charges have been made official.
“If the District can eliminate someone that is accused of wrongdoing under the guise they are not meeting performance expectations, that’s o.k., whatever works.” Please clarify–because the current principal is being terminated but has not been accused of any wrongdoing by Hinton or anybody. She was the one doing the accusing–the one whose accusations were ignored (that was on Channel 25 per her lawyer and fits with what I’ve heard).
Karrie: I haven’t digested all the reports, but I didn’t think the reports that I heard had clarified what kinds of records were missing (were they financial)?
Elaine: Channel 31 must have added names at 6 pm.
She will not be fired for whistle blowing….. they have found another reason to get rid of her.
But if she sues the district and wins…. How much will that cost us?
McArdle is not accused of anything other than not being a good fit. She will be dismissed because she has questioned unethical and illegal behavior throughout the school year. She also is the one that discovered the financial problems. The district did not uncover the problem. She did.
I wouldn’t worry about correcting your spelling or syntax. We got the point. After all, we have been reading Billy for years.
Just an FYI, speaking as a parent of two #150 students, we received “robocalls” from each school telling us that the District server is down and should be up by Tuesday night.
Hot in the City: You’re right–I thought credit cards were a thing of the past. I always want to correct my grammatical errors, too–since I often find fault with the errors in District 150 documents. However, we are writing on the run–and with no spell or grammar check. Yes, I agree if there are other credit cards out there and if there isn’t any oversight (as might be case here), then there may be other misuses of funds yet to be uncovered.
WEEK’s headline on this is outrageous. I hope she sues them too!
MAWB: You’re right!–Frustrated, is that the headline you read (WEEK’s); it certainly is misleading (maybe libelous).
Also, on WEEK”The investigation has prompted a special District 150 school board meeting Monday night. School board officials may terminate a principal’s contract
That’s tonight, so I guess we still have the 10 p.m. news.
If McArdle took the files out of the school so she could look through them, or show them to her attorney… she may be the one they are accusing of stealing files. I hope she made copies!!
Trust me, McArdle did not take the files out of the school. She did not know they existed. She assumed the district had them at Wisconsin because word has it these records are audited after a principal leaves a school. Who has the most to gain with these files missing?
So, this means they had a year to audit them and someone over there OKed these expenditures. Gosh, who would that be? I’m praying for a resignation!
I know there is always a chance that my source was wrong or that I misheard, but I think we need to know which came first: the chicken or the egg. It is possible that McArdle, in good faith, uncovered several questionable practices, financial and otherwise, and then reported them, believing that she was doing the right thing. It is possible that no one wanted to hear her complaints but that she persisted. It is possible that she was then considered to be “the wrong fit for Lindbergh.” It is possible that she said she would file charges if the district wouldn’t and that she did and then learned that the district had already filed the charges. If her actions came first, then I really do not understand why the district wants to risk firing her now, knowing full well that she already has a lawyer to fight her dismissal.
I would be very curious to know what kind of “evidence” of her “unfitness” is being presented to the BOE tonight. At the end of the year, the district might well have decided not to renew her contract and gotten away with reasons such as the parents don’t like her, etc. However, firing a principal in April (especially, without evidence or even accusation of serious wrongdoing) puts the district on very shaky legal ground. Principals don’t have tenure–this case certainly points out the pitfalls of having no union protection.
Maybe since Cahill didn’t get a lawyer to fight his dismissal, they might not have thought of legal action. Maybe they have some really strong evidence against her–either way more taxpayer money will be spent on legal fees to fight a case that maybe the district would be wise to drop for now.
Frustrated with unethical behavior – In defending the status quo, what specific areas of accomplishment can this principal demonstrate during her tenure? What was your perception of the previous principals performance? What is the parent satisfaction score? How did she demostrate that she was a good fit? Does she relate well to a multi-cultural student population? I don’t trust you because I do not know you. I know what I have observed and what others have shared.
Parent: I’m not Frustrated, but why wouldn’t the end of the year have been the appropriate time to evaluate her and dismiss her? How much harm can she do in the 30+ days remaining in the year? I do not know either the former or the present principal, so I couldn’t possibly judge the performance of either of them. I know that the former principal had a good reputation. All you say about the new one may be true (and there is, also, the “eye of the beholder” thing). However, as things stand now, her performance is no longer the issue. (The district seems to be shooting themselves in the foot). What’s at issue is whether or not her accusations about someone else’s wrongdoing are accurate.
Did you all just hear that giant SUCKING noise? More money pouring out of the district, away from the children and into legal fees for David Walvoord et al. This school district needs a complete do-over starting with Hinton and the Board of Education.
I promise not to say another word tonight, but does anyone see the humor in this quote from the Internet:
“But the Mobleys recently discovered these dolls are only American in name. If you look closely, you’ll see a tag on the box that says ‘Made in China.’
“To have an American Girl doll made in China sounds like a contradiction, does it not?” said Dr. Daniel Howard, professor of Marketing at the SMU Cox School of Business.
Someone posted at Week.com that on a 4 to 1 vote, McArdle is gone… Anyone else hear that?
That is correct, Martha Ross was the only no vote.
Sharon has accurate information about this situation.
Board members have not spoken to teachers or visited the school, so how do they know that she is “not a good fit”?
Many of Sharon’s assumptions are incorrect. What was the part of the contract Mrs. Wolfmeyer referenced in reading the action item? It went by quick.
This is a slight sidebar to the rest of the comments. BUT I am not sure any of us truly know the full extent of the facts in relation to either person, but I did go back to C.J.’s 3/12/09 article on administrator and principal salaries and saw that MD now has a position with a salary of over 6 figures. I am not saying she was not qualified but I do wonder if this position opened due to a resignation or retirement and was the Board not aware of the district’s financial problems then? why was this position even filled, especially given the salary range? How many staff, materials, teaching supplies could this money have purchased?
It wasn’t filled… it was created just for Mary, I believe.
Teach2–“What was the part of the contract Mrs. Wolfmeyer referenced in reading the action item? It went by quick.” Was this something she said tonight? I didn’t realize this meeting was open or on Channel 17–was it? Just curious as to what you are talking about. Also, there are always two sides to every story–sometimes three–the truth. I am not absolutely sure that I have it right–just going by what I’ve heard (and basing my “opinions” on what I’ve heard).
The only negatives that I have heard about the current principal is what I’ve read on this blog tonight. And, by the way, I certainly hope that no principal is dismissed like this because parents don’t like her/him. What a precedent that would set!
Oops, I promised not to write any more, Sorry!
Sorry, I meant “Tired2” not “Teach2”– I’m tired, too.
Karrie – I have no knowledge of which financial records are missing. Just an observation – if they records are from the 2007-08 school year and have been missing since then, and McCardle wasn’t hired until August 2008 or so, then someone caused them to go missing before McCardle ever entered the picture.