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”?

Kellar Branch

Kellar Branch Update: Filings complete; parties await STB decision

5 Comments

Kellar CrossbuckAs Yogi Berra would say, it’s deja vu all over again.

Back in 2005, the City of Peoria got Pioneer Industrial Railway removed from the Kellar Branch and replaced with Central Illinois Railroad Company (CIRY) through a legal process known as an “adverse discontinuance request” they filed with the Surface Transportation Board (STB). But since that time, the City and CIRY have never fulfilled their promises to provide comparable service (or any service for a six-month period) via the Kellar Branch or the Western Connection. Carver Lumber, which initially did not object to the replacement carrier, has petitioned the STB to have Pioneer restored as the carrier. Thus, the proceeding has been reopened, taking us all back to where we were in 2005. That means the STB’s decision could be reversed and Pioneer could be restored as the carrier on the line.

The reason the city wants CIRY is because they want a carrier that will cooperate with their plans to turn the Kellar Branch into a recreational trail. While Pioneer is willing to cooperate with the building of a trail, they wouldn’t agree to removing the rail line because it would cheat Carver Lumber out of competitive rail service. Neither CIRY nor the city have any reservations about screwing Carver Lumber, despite Carver’s 60-year history of local ownership in Peoria.

The STB ordered all parties “to supplement the existing record by submitting additional evidence to the Board regarding the relative benefits and burdens that continuation of [Pioneer’s] service on the Kellar Branch, on the one hand, and the cessation of [Pioneer’s] service on the other, would have on the involved carrier [Pioneer], on the owner-lessor of the line [Peoria and Peoria Heights], and on the public [Carver Lumber, interstate commerce, local residents, etc.].”

The City of Peoria, the Village of Peoria Heights, and CIRY all filed their comments on February 22 and 23. Carver Lumber and Pioneer filed their comments on March 15. Here’s a quick summary of what they had to say:

|inline

The Peoria Chronicle

Posting will be light

17 Comments

I won’t be posting very much the next couple of days. My wife has gone to the “Hearts at Home” conference in Bloomington, so I’m Mr. Mom this weekend. And, of course, I still don’t have a computer since my son destroyed my laptop.

But, that will soon change. I have ordered a new laptop and it should arrive sometime next week, so I’ll be back in business soon.

In the meantime, please use this as an open thread to talk about whatever you wish.

AmerenCILCO, Illinois Commerce Commission

ICC demands explanation from Ameren

6 Comments

Ameren LogoThere’s been a lot of press coverage of Ameren’s threats since their bond rating was reduced to junk status by Moody’s Investors Service and the response by the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC). I’ve seen a lot of quotes from the ICC’s letter, but not the letter in its entirety. It is available online. You can read it by clicking the “Show More” link below, or see a scan of the actual letter on the ICC’s website in PDF format.

I’m glad the ICC is looking into this matter. It certainly appears that Ameren is playing games, and power is nothing to play games with. In today’s society we depend on electricity and gas for heat, cooling, cooking, and other vital needs. Especially gratifying were the parts of the letter that said the ICC expects Ameren to “suspend their common and preferred dividends” and “consider reductions in . . . executive compensation and promotional advertising” before cutting services.

It looks like, in their zeal to stave off attempts by the legislature to reimpose a rate freeze, Ameren went a bit overboard in their dire warnings of what might happen if their credit rating were to suffer. Apparently they didn’t anticipated the ICC would call them on it. The irony is that, in their attempt to rebuff rate regulation, they’re unintentionally making a case for it instead.

|inline

City Council, City of Peoria

City jobs are fleeting

26 Comments

The City of Peoria owns a lot of large, specialized vehicles (snow plows, backhoes, graders, fire trucks, etc.), and thus, they employ mechanics to maintain its fleet as well as professional drivers for CDL Truck Driving Positions. Now the city is looking to possibly outsource this service and lay off its 11 fleet maintenance employees. City Manager Randy Oliver justified this course of action in his Request for Council Action:

During the 2007 budget review sessions Council asked staff to continually seek opportunities to reduce service delivery costs. Fleet maintenance, an internal service provider, was an area discussed as a possible service where the City could potentially reduce costs and/or enhance service by contracting with a private vendor. The attached RFP [request for proposal] calls for a vendor to complete all the current fleet maintenance services provided by the Fleet Management Division of Public Works and the Fire Garage in the Fire Department. The vendor would use the City’s current tools and facilities at Dries Lane and Fire Station 8. The City would retain ownership of all the major repair equipment. Smaller hand tools would be the responsibility of the vendor.

Contracting is something that many governmental entities are considering. Cities contract out services generally to reduce costs and/or improve services. Seeking proposals will also serve as a measure to compare costs between in-house and private service delivery. While a change in service delivery may be justifiable on the basis of any cost savings, as a practical matter, however, the cost savings should be sufficient to justify the organizational change. Many local government agencies use a cost savings threshold to determine whether the change is worthwhile. An attached spreadsheet is how staff would determine any cost savings.

This has caused a firestorm of controversy, complete with accusations of union busting. At last night’s council meeting, the council voted 6-5 to defer this discussion until May 8 (after the election, incidentally) “to give labor and management time to discuss possible cost savings,” according to the Jennifer Davis’s report for the Journal Star.

The employees, of course, feel that they’re uniquely qualified to provide this service for the city and should be retained. That’s a good argument to make, and they may be proven right. I don’t think that these employees will get dumped if some private company comes in a dollar less than what it costs to provide services in-house. I’m confident their experience will be taken into consideration.

The employees also don’t want to lose their jobs, of course. They point out that these are good, head-of-household jobs, which is true. Even neighborhood activist LaVetta Ricca sprang to their defense last night:

“When this council wants new TIF areas or money for businesses, you all say these businesses are going to provide good-paying, head-of-household jobs – like Firefly (Energy’s inclusion in an Enterprise Zone) last week,” Ricca said. “Because, as you all say, this city depends on good-paying jobs. And now you’re saying you want to get rid of these guys, these guys who’ve lived here for years, who’ve been dedicated to this city. I really have a hard time understanding this.”

But this is a spurious argument. It’s not the city’s job to take taxpayer money and manufacture good-paying, head-of-household jobs. The city’s job is to provide the services residents need with the best balance of quality and value it can get. There are plenty of professional services that the city could bring in house but are more economical and fiscally-responsible to outsource to private companies. Fleet management should not get any special treatment — certainly not on the basis that they get paid so well. That’s the very reason the city manager is looking at outsourcing them!

TIFs and Enterprise Zones are tools the city uses to attract private investment and the good jobs that generates. Are TIFs and Enterprise Zones abused? I think so. But that’s not an argument for creating or maintaining in-house services that could be justifiably outsourced.

Peoria Journal Star

GateHouse Media buys Journal Star

4 Comments

GateHouse Media LogoThe speculating is over. GateHouse Media, owners of the Pekin Daily Times and the Canton Daily Ledger, have agreed to buy the Peoria Journal Star and six other daily newspapers owned by Copley Press for $380 million, according to the Journal Star’s report. The best analysis of this so far is on Billy’s blog — here and here.

As I see it, there are two main concerns with this transaction.

One is competition. By buying the papers in Peoria, Galesburg, Springfield, and Lincoln, while already owning newspapers in Pekin and Canton, they practically have a monopoly on central Illinois dailies, with the notable exception of the Bloomington Pantagraph. Media consolidation is generally not a good thing.

On the other hand, it raises the importance of sites like Peoria Pundits and the Peoria Chronicle. Citizen journalism provides more diversity of opinion in the marketplace and allows more opportunity for minority positions to get information out to the public.

The other concern is quality. As GateHouse consolidates its operations among the newly acquired papers, staff is going to get cut — the concern is whether so much staff will be cut that the paper won’t be able to cover as much local content as it does right now. That would be a real shame.

I do a fair amount of criticizing the editorial positions of the Journal Star, but when it comes to local coverage, no other media does a more thorough job. You get things in the paper that you just don’t get anywhere else — obituaries, real estate transactions, exhaustive coverage of professional and local sports including high school sports, arts coverage, neighborhood coverage, police/fire/courts coverage, etc. This is real asset to the city, and should be preserved.

UPDATE: Paul Gordon is singing GateHouse’s praises now. Well, technically he’s just reporting, but it sounds really upbeat, doesn’t it?

Bradley University, City Council, City of Peoria

Supermajority approves Bradley’s institutional plan

2 Comments

Rubber StampA while back, there was a motion to require a supermajority vote to approve institutional zoning boundary changes. That motion failed. As it turns out, that initiative was moot because Bradley’s request to change their boundaries passed 10-1 last night.

There was a lot of talk about the importance of strong neighborhoods last night. Bradley and the neighborhoods have a symbiotic relationship, it was said. Bradley needs the neighborhoods surrounding it to be strong because that’s a reflection on the university. The neighborhoods need the stabilizing force of the university to remain strong neighborhoods, they say.

If that’s true (and I think it is, theoretically), then why is Bradley doing so much damage to their relationship with the neighborhoods by their unilateral behavior? Why are they destabilizing the Arbor District — the neighborhood to their immediate west?

There can be no doubt that the Arbor District has been destabilized, despite any protestations to the contrary. The president of the Arbor District’s neighborhood association, Mr. Wagner, stood up at the meeting and told the council members that in the 800 block of Cooper alone, thirteen homes had been converted from single-family, owner-occupied residences to rentals. Is this Bradley’s idea of a stable neighborhood: One where owners are moving out and absentee landlords are buying up their property?

Bradley likes to portray itself as neighborhood-friendly, but only when it serves their purpose. In my opinion, they’re opportunistic. They point with pride to the public meetings last fall and this February when they “communicated” with the neighbors. But this was one-way communication, not two-way collaboration. The major components of their plan, such as the parking deck, were non-negotiable.

Marjorie Klise got it right when she said that the issue here is not just the ends, but the means. She gave the best analogy of the flawed nature of this process when she addressed the council:

[audio:http://www.peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/Klise-03132007-Council.mp3]

Bradley would just as soon forget about the past and start moving forward from here. Forget about the process that got us here and look at their commitments for the future. Consider their “commitment” to the neighborhood, measured in dollars invested and conditions agreed to, like this one from staff:

Bradley University shall continue the positive ongoing communication strategy with surrounding neighborhood associations. Prior to each implementation of the improvements in the official development plan, Bradley University shall initiate timely discussion with the impacted and nearby neighborhood associations. Bradley University shall work with the neighborhood to stabilize and improve off-premise student housing, increase home ownership in nearby neighborhoods, and encourage a mutually beneficial campus-neighborhood relationship.

That sounds lovely, but there’s no enforcement mechanism. Ask yourself this, if Bradley started stonewalling the neighborhoods tomorrow in direct violation of this clause, what would happen? What could or would the city do? If past actions are any indication, the answer is nothing. Consider that the city couldn’t get Bradley to pave a gravel parking lot for the past 15 years. If they can’t enforce something as simple, obvious, and tangible as that, how are they ever going to enforce something as nebulous as “initiat[ing] timely discussion with the impacted and nearby neighborhood associations”?

By passing this ordinance last night, the city council tacitly endorsed Bradley’s tactics and offered no real assurance to the surrounding neighborhoods that this wouldn’t happen again in another 10-15 years. Instead of “removing doubt,” like Mrs. Klise said the city indicated was the purpose of institutional zoning, last night’s action has increased doubt. And that doubt will lead to more speculation along Cooper and other surrounding streets.

There were a lot of good sound bites about communication and neighborhood stability, but it was all belied by a vote that gave Bradley everything it wanted, and left the neighborhoods with the same empty promises they’ve had all along. Bradley’s plan should have been denied.

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.

Cults, Dunlap, Gary Sandberg

The Gary V. Sandberg Project

8 Comments

Gary V. Sandberg ProjectFile this one under “Cults.”

Dunlap High School recently had a Battle of the Bands competition. The winner? “The Gary V. Sandberg Project.”

Really. I’m not making this up. I couldn’t possibly ever, in a million years, make this up.

The Gary V. Sandberg Project is a bluegrass band, and they even have their own MySpace page (who doesn’t?). Apparently, there’s a group of kids at Dunlap High who watch every Peoria City Council meeting, then get together to discuss them. And Gary is their hero.

They even wrote a song about him called, “Our Friend.” You can hear a recording of it on their page, and here’s a live version:

If you can’t make out the lyrics, they are:

Who’s the man on the TV with the smiling face?
Who’s the man with the filled up trophy case?
Who’s the man who eats all his greens?
Who’s the man with a parrot named Jellybeans?

He’s our friend, he’s our friend
But he doesn’t even know it, he’s our friend
He’s our friend, he’s our friend
Won’t you be his friend too?

Sand is on the beach, ice is on the berg
But it doesn’t even matter because we’re friends

Who’s the man with the black bow tie?
Who’s the man who will tell no lie?
Who’s the man with the poofed up hair?
Who’s the man you cannot scare?

He’s our friend, he’s our friend
But he doesn’t even know it, he’s our friend
He’s our friend, he’s our friend
Won’t you be his friend too?

Sand is on the beach, ice is on the berg
But it doens’t even matter because we’re friends

Gary was invited to the Battle of the Bands competition to introduce the group that bears his name. He obliged. It was the first time he had heard them, and he was truly moved by their homage to his work on the council.

Wow. I think if I were Gary, I’d be flattered, but would probably take out an order of protection just to be on the safe side….

How long do you think it will be before Markley and Luciano are playing this song regularly on their WMBD afternoon show?