I won’t be able to blog for the next few days. I’m taking a little mini-vacation this weekend. So, in the meantime, please feel free to comment on anything you’d like. The place is yours; make yourself at home!
Snow removal shows marked improvement
The city did a very good job of plowing the snow the last couple of days. Everything seemed very organized. My alley was plowed before noon yesterday, and plowed again last night. The residential streets have had at least one pass, and I expect will be cleared curb-to-curb by tomorrow. The main roads are in excellent condition.
Perhaps the most impressive thing I saw was all the Cat end loaders and city trucks downtown last night actually removing the snow from the streets. I also saw little Bobcat-size tractors clearing the sidewalks. It was a sight to behold.
Congratulations to the Public Works Department on a job well done.
Is your bicycle registered?
In the category of “little-known and never-enforced Peoria ordinances,” did you know that your bicycle is supposed to be registered and licensed?
Yup. I didn’t believe it either, but Gary Sandberg told me it was in the municipal code. Sure enough, here’s the chapter and verse (emphasis mine):
Sec. 28-489. Registration, etc., required; exemptions.
(a) No person shall ride or propel a bicycle upon any street or public way in the city, or upon any part thereof, unless such bicycle has been registered and provided with the proper license tags as provided for in this article.
(b) Sidewalk bikes, scooter bikes, junior bikes or any other type of bicycle with a tire of 20 inches or less shall be exempt from license or registration.
(Code 1957, § 19-147)Sec. 28-490. Application for license; fee.
Application for a license to own and operate a bicycle shall be made to the superintendent of police, upon a form to be provided by the superintendent of police. The application shall be accompanied by a fee of $0.50 to be paid in advance at the time of issuance of the license.
(Code 1957, § 19-148)Sec. 28-491. License tag.
(a) Upon submission of the application referred to in section 28-490 in proper form, the superintendent of police shall provide duplicate tags, one to be permanently attached to the frame of the bicycle, the duplicate to be attached in such a manner as to permit the removal of the same by the owner while the bicycle is not in operation. The removal of any permanent tag, except by proper authority, shall be a violation of this article. It shall be a violation of this article for any person to operate any bicycle upon any street of the city, unless such bicycle is equipped with and displays thereon the proper license tags.
(b) Duplicate license tags for bicycles will be issued by the superintendent of police to the owner of a bicycle, when such tags are lost or stolen, only upon written application, which shall state what disposition was made of the original tag, whether the same was lost or stolen.
(Code 1957, § 19-149)
There’s actually more, but I don’t want to bore you further. There’s a provision for transferring ownership (fee: 10¢) and for violating the ordinance (fee: $10).
On that last point, I think we’ve found a great way to raise some money for the city: this spring and summer, station an officer at the beginning of the Rock Island Trail and start handing out citations to bicyclists with unregistered bicycles. Trail proponents say there are 82,000 users of the Rock Island Trail. If just a quarter of those (20,500) are bicyclists (and I bet they’re all unregistered), that would bring in over $200,000!
My first address to the City Council
Tonight, I addressed the Peoria City Council regarding the Kellar Branch issue. It was my first time addressing the council on any topic, and while I didn’t mentally feel nervous, physically I got cotton mouth and ended up speaking too fast. I guess that just goes to show I don’t have a future in public speaking. You can read my prepared remarks below by clicking the “Show More” link. I stuck pretty close to them, but I did ad lib a couple of times.
I got to meet Alexis Khazzam. We had a nice talk about the Kellar Branch issue. He’s often described to me as “energetic,” and after having met him in person, that’s a very accurate description. The first thing he asked me was if I was being paid by Pioneer Rail in any way, shape, or form. He could hardly believe me when I said I wasn’t. He was very nice and, even though we disagree on the Kellar Branch thing, he didn’t hold it against me personally.
In contrast, I also got to meet David Maloof who said exactly nothing to me. Barbara Van Auken introduced me to him and he somewhat reluctantly shook my hand. I’m not sure what to think of that. Maybe he’s just shy.
Former Mayor Dick Carver was actually a lot fairer than I thought he would be in discussing the issue. That was a pleasant surprise. I still think he’s overly optimistic about service via the western spur. He stressed the importance of having a carrier who has a good working relationship with the Union Pacific railroad in order for service from the west to work. That’s a perfect example of why service via the Kellar Branch is superior — competitive rail service is not dependent upon the benevolence of Union Pacific.
There were surprisingly few people who spoke. My guess is that there will be a lot of people speaking next week. I decided to speak tonight because I felt, while it’s unlikely my speech will change anyone’s mind, it would be more likely to change their minds this week when they’re not under pressure to vote right away.
The real snow test could be tonight
The Journal Star reports that city crews are ready for the 4-8 inches of snow we’re supposed to get starting tonight.
After the December 1 snow storm, Public Works Director Steve Van Winkle told the council he wouldn’t change a thing. During last week’s snowfall, Van Winkle told WCBU’s Jonathan Ahl that his department is “capable of fighting snow,” but the “big ones” are “not as doable from the standpoint of achieving satisfaction on the part of all the citizens.”
Taken together, it sure sounds to me like Van Winkle is saying that, if we were to have another snowfall like December 1, there would be no difference in the outcome. We still would have had immobility problems because the city is prepared to adequately handle snowplowing for weather events like last week’s snow, but not “big ones” like the one December 1.
And that raises questions about the snow that is supposed to hit us tonight. This will be more like December 1 than last week, so it will be a truer test of any changes the city has made to improve their performance. And there have been some changes — they’ve been using more calcium chloride on the streets and have a fancy new AVL (automated vehicle locater) system so they can track the snowplows. Will it be enough? Time will tell.
David Haste tells the Journal Star he and his crews are ready. I would assume he has a case of Red Bull handy just in case he has to pull three or four consecutive all-nighters again. Since they know the snow is coming, I wonder if his superior suggested he flex his time — say, by coming in late today — so as to mitigate overtime pay. Nah, I’ll bet that’s one thing that didn’t change.
Guest Editorial: Peoria Riverfront Museum
First, a special thanks to CJ for the opportunity to submit this piece and explore the potential of the Peoria Riverfront Museum.
As a 30-year resident of Peoria — where my children were born and grew up — I am very interested in how my city faces the future. So when the museum project came on the horizon, I wanted to find out just how this will “play in Peoria.†After much research, I am a firm supporter of the new museum. I believe communities are largely defined by how well they preserve their heritage, promote and present the arts, stretch young minds and imaginations, and celebrate human achievement.
The Peoria Riverfront Museum will do all of those things in a unique way — known as the Delta concept. Through the Delta concept, museum visitors will learn about history, art, science and achievement in a way that puts it all in a shared context.
While one-dimensional museums present an isolated view, the Delta concept will blend and merge many views so that the visitor learns about more than just a single historic event or piece of artwork. They will be able to understand the many factors that influenced the historic figure or artist as they made their decisions or created their painting.
Museums are, first and foremost, about education. Lakeview Museum has been a magnificent resource to this community for arts and sciences education. By joining with its other partners—Peoria Historical Society, Illinois High School Association, African American Hall of Fame and the Peoria Regional Museum Society — the education component of the new museum will explode. In one setting, thousands of people will be able to explore hundreds of subjects in a depth and scope normally found only in museums in much larger cities.
The education component is particularly important for our children who are struggling in school. It is no secret that the core of our community is going through difficult times. Those factors affect and impact on children’s abilities to stay focused in school. All children can benefit from the stimulation and sense of wonder that comes from visiting museums. I am hopeful that there will be a special emphasis to bring in children who are having a difficult time in school—perhaps through after school or weekend programs sponsored by businesses—to help spark their interest in education. The community as a whole will benefit.
Another issue that has been put forth by some is the use of such a large space for just two buildings, the museum and Caterpillar Visitor’s Center, and how that fits in with the Heart of Peoria Plan and its emphasis on what is known as New Urbanism.
First, it should be mentioned that the museum planners originally received two-thirds of the space for the museum, with the remainder being retained by the city for possible retail development. Caterpillar then stepped forward and asked for the other one-third for the visitor’s center, which was granted by the City Council with full knowledge of the general space utilization and overall footprint of the two buildings.
As a general comment, I support New Urbanism as it applies to new development; it makes a lot of sense. Upon doing research regarding New Urbanism I found that the proposed use of the space fits in well with New Urbanism principles. Rather than criticize the approach, New Urbanism proponents should be using it as a shining example.
First, the riverfront area should be defined as a neighborhood, or even a district in New Urbanism lingo. A neighborhood consists of mixed uses for apartments, homes, shops and offices, while a district has a more defined use but should retain the principles of neighborhoods where possible. One could consider the riverfront more of an entertainment district than a neighborhood.
But for these purposes, let’s consider it a neighborhood. In New Urbanism, a neighborhood has a public space at its center which is no more than a five or 10 minute walk for all of those in the neighborhood. The Charter for the Congress For New Urbanism says, “Civic buildings and public gathering spaces require important sites to reinforce community identity and the culture of democracy. They deserve distinctive form, because their role is different from that of other buildings and places that constitute the fabric of the city.â€
Adreas Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyber, the inspiration for Peoria’s New Urbanism efforts through the Heart of Peoria Plan, put it this way, “Certain prominent sites at the termination of street vistas or in the neighborhood center are reserved for civic buildings. These provide sites for community meetings, education, and religious or cultural activities (emphais added).â€
And finally, the Heart of Peoria: Implementation Charrette Report and Master Plan produced by Farrell Madden Associates with Urban Advisors in May of 2006 suggests creating new outdoor civic spaces and providing new outdoor public spaces, people places, squares and civic greens. The report focuses on the Warehouse District, Sheridan Triangle and Prospect Rd., but did not look at the museum block. It did make a brief reference to “reclaiming†the Peoria riverfront for all of its citizens through walkways, displays of public art, access to the water, etc., all of which were in place at the time the report was prepared.
If you consider the area from the RiverPlex to WTVP and from the river to Washington St. a neighborhood, then the new museum is clearly the center of the neighborhood and the open space there meets all of the recommendations cited above for gathering places, people spaces, community meetings, education, cultural activities and so forth.
The use of the outdoor museum space as a gathering place is the very definition of what New Urbanism recommends for the center of a neighborhood. Other aspects of a neighborhood already exist, including a variety of housing options, shops and offices, all with entrances right off the street. There are many entertainment venues as well.
Consider a bright spring day with people enjoying the outdoor space at the museum, perhaps playing a game of chess with giant chess pieces, playing hopscotch, watching street performers or enjoying lunch or coffee at an outdoor café. Children are creating giant bubbles while another group listens to a storyteller. This is what gathering places and people spaces are all about, and they just don’t exist without some kind of driving force such as a museum.
The only reference I find in the Heart of Peoria Report and Master Plan to the museum block is a rendering that shows seven buildings in the space, six of which I believe are to represent separate buildings for the various museum partners and one is designated for retail space.
This approach is so ill-advised that it really doesn’t deserve comment. Clearly the report producers did not understand the museum’s vision of creating a Delta concept, nor did they have any grasp of or give any consideration to the cost of building, maintaining and staffing six different museums. Increasing the density of the block eliminates the center of the neighborhood and is actually in conflict with New Urbanism principles.
There are many other aspects of the project that have been challenged at one time or another: the cost; the need; who supports and controls the project; the potential use of tax credits for funding; will be a tourism draw; and, of course, the name. I hope the planners don’t listen too much to all the naysayers and give up and I hope delays are minimized so that increasing costs don’t result in a downsized museum.
There is a great deal of work yet to be done and few final decisions have been made. As with most projects of this magnitude there surely will be changes and compromises in the future. But when the doors open, I will be at the head of the line and I’m sure I’ll be joined by thousands of other central Illinoisans who will be proud of the result and proud of all the people who worked so hard to make the Peoria Riverfront Museum a reality.
Peoria Chronicle to run guest editorials
The next post I put up will be the first one on the Peoria Chronicle not written by yours truly. Instead, it will be a guest editorial by a regular reader of my blog — an anonymous commenter who goes by the handle “justanobserver.” Justanobserver has a different view than I about the current designs for the Peoria Riverfront Museum and how they fit with New Urbanism, as you will be able to tell immediately.
So, why a guest editorial? In a previous post, “Museum Project Too Big, Too Expensive,” there was quite a back-and-forth discussion going between a museum supporter and a museum critic, and both felt the use of the comments section to express themselves was a little constraining. So I made an offer:
I happen to think this discussion has been very interesting and educational. I love to hear both sides of the issue, and I feel like that’s what we’re getting here.
If you want, and if it would make this forum easier for each of you, I’ll make you an offer. Each of you write up your “side†of the argument — make your case — and send it to me via e-mail, and I will post both of them as guest editorials on my blog.
It sounds like you two are quite involved in Lakeview and can make a good case for your opinions, and I think my readers would love to hear both sides of the argument. Scott could write about what his vision is for a museum and why the Museum Collaboration plan isn’t living up to that ideal. Observer can write about why the current museum plan is better than the Heart of Peoria Plan vision. … Or however you want to organize it — I’m just trying to say you can both feel free to give your positive vision of how the museum project should go. If you’d rather not proceed in this way, that’s fine too. Just wanted to provide you with another option, if you’re interested.
My offer has been accepted, so the next post will be the very first guest editorial to run. I hope you enjoy hearing a different voice once in a while. Let me know what you think.
Note: Right now, I’m not accepting unsolicited editorials. It’s probably unlikely that I would get a flood of submissions if I were accepting them, but Billy is already providing that service on his blog, so it would seem superfluous for me to do the same. To differentiate myself, my guest editorials will be by invitation only.
The Candidates Forum
I was at the candidates forum Wednesday night (2/7). It was good, but with 14 people running, there was only time to give each person 4 minutes for a speech and 4 minutes of Q&A — not a lot of time to get to know them. But it was a good introduction anyway.
I’m not going to go over all the candidate’s platforms because it’s already been more than adequately covered on the Chamber of Commerce site and in the Community Word. Instead, I’d just like to give a few impressions I had of some of the candidates (sorry, I’m not going to hit them all).
As Gale Thetford got up to speak, I overheard a person sitting behind me whisper to no one in particular, “I sure hope she doesn’t get reelected!” Amen, sister. Thetford said she wants to strengthen older neighborhoods, but she didn’t say her idea of “strengthening neighborhoods” is to allow places like MidTown Plaza to be built. She said she didn’t raise taxes while she was in office, but didn’t mention that she lobbied and voted for the $6 garbage tax fee. She said she was disappointed the city cut funding to District 150 for crossing guards, and one can only wonder where she would have suggested the city get the money for that.
District 150 came up a lot with several of the candidates, actually. While they all made the obligatory caveat that District 150 is its own entity and the city can’t run the district, several spoke of the need for the city to help District 150 any way it can. What most of them didn’t mention was the need for that to be a two-way street. In fact, according to my notes, only Dan Irving made a point of saying helping D150 “should be a two-way street.” Irving also is a supporter of city-wide wi-fi, so I expect he’ll be endorsed by Billy Dennis.
Eric Turner got a cool reception, which I didn’t expect. After he got finished telling everyone that one way the council needs to address neighborhood concerns is to have an at-large councilman team up with the district councilman and meet with the neighborhood leaders to strategize, one audience member said, “Well, you’ve had a long time to work on that.” I guess, while there are benefits to incumbency, there are apparently also pitfalls.
I got to ask George Jacob how he answers those who would criticize his numerous abstentions on liquor-related issues because of his job. He said he had to abstain x-number times (I think it was something like 62 times — he gave me actual figures but I didn’t write them down), and most of those (47, I think) were on the consent agenda, which were unanimous votes. Of the 15 or so remaining votes, 8 were unanimous and the remainder were non-unanimous, but not controversial. The closest vote was 6-4 on the liquor license for the bar on W. Main St. So, he feels it’s a non-issue. I have to admit, I kind of like the guy. He’s unpretentious and he gets out in the neighborhoods. And, of course, he wins the award for “Most Expensive Campaign Materials.” Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Ryan Spain had a lot to say about economic development, but not much to say about anything else (Spain on crime: “Crime is a problem that needs to be dealt with”; Spain on city services: they are “an important commitment we need to live up to”). In fairness, he did only have 4 minutes, so maybe he has some fleshed-out ideas he just didn’t have time to share. But then I picked up his ad flier and saw that he’s endorsed by Ray LaHood, and that raised a red flag. It appears he’s being groomed for bigger and better things in the Republican party, and this is just the first step. He wins the award for “Most Aaron-Schock-ish Campaign.”
Gary Sandberg wore his trademark bow tie and had the crowd in the palm of his hand. I know of no one who lives in an older neighborhood (remember, this forum was held in the 2nd district) that doesn’t like Sandberg (don’t write and tell me you know someone — I know they are bound to be out there; I’m just saying I’ve never met one). He has an impeccable record for putting essential services first and supporting older neighborhoods, and he touted that record Wednesday night. He pointed out that he was the only candidate running in this election who can say he voted for requiring a supermajority to expand institutional zoning boundaries within 20 years of their filed institutional plan. He was also the only candidate who mentioned the Land Development Code, which is near and dear to my heart, of course.
Someone who came across as somewhat similar to Gary was Dan Gillette. He worked for the streets department before taking early retirement. He seemed to be a firm believer in putting essential services first and looking for forms of revenue other than taxes and fees of citizens. He gave the example of providing certain services (such as thermal striping of streets) to nearby cities for a fee. He’s worth further consideration.
Also worth further consideration are Charles Schierer and Brad Carter, with whom I spent a fair amount of time in conversation. Carter came to the last Blogger Bash (2/3), so I know him a little better. He is also an essential-services-first candidate, and he’s in favor of keeping the Kellar Branch a rail line, so obviously he’s clear-thinking. Schierer is a former accountant and current lawyer, which wouldn’t be bad skills to have on the council; he’s also a fan of form-based code. Incidentally, Carter wins the award for “Most Unintentionally-Humorous Campaign Materials.” You’ll have to get your own flier to find out why.
Those are just my initial thoughts, so sorry if they seem a bit sketchy. I’d be interested to hear if anyone else has met the candidates and has any further impressions to share.
City stacks deck against rail supporters
Three weeks ago, Pat Nichting (5th District) asked the council to grant the privilege of the floor to Mike Rucker of the Recreational Trail Advocates. Rucker proceeded to hand out binders full of information to each council person and give a 10-minute presentation on why the council should continue to support the trail.
On Tuesday’s agenda, the first item is, “PRESENTATION by FORMER MAYOR RICHARD CARVER and Communication from the City Manager and Corporation Counsel Regarding REPORT on ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE Regarding the KELLER BRANCH RAIL LINE with a Request for Direction from the City Council.” Carver is, of course, on the Peoria Park District dole to help facilitate the conversion of the Kellar Branch to a recreational trail. He’ll probably have all the time he wants.
Meanwhile, rail supporters — e.g., Michael Carr of Pioneer Railcorp, former mayor Richard Neumiller — will probably be told to limit their comments to five minutes each. Are trail proponents afraid they’ll lose the argument if they have to give equal time to rail supporters?
Alexis Khazzam is expected to produce some sort of expert testimony that a shared use of the trail with the rail line is impossible or too expensive, and there are some other presenters lined up to present how great of a boon this trail is going to be to our economy, raising property values and improving Peoria’s “quality of life.”
Be sure to bring your pooper-scooper on Tuesday. The RTA and Park District’s dog and pony show should be a memorable event. Most of the council members’ minds are already made up at this point, so this is all just a formality anyway. They’ll hear what they want to hear and vote like they planned to vote all along. If you want my take on the issue, you can read it by clicking here.
District 150: Restructuring report
It’s been all over the news recently: “Test scores send Four District 150 schools into restructuring.” Because four District 150 schools did not make “adequate yearly progress,” or AYP, for the sixth consecutive year, “Sterling, Loucks-Edison, Lincoln and Trewyn middle schools have entered the restructuring process,” reports the Journal Star.
But what exactly is “restructuring”? There’s a very informative memo on the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) website that details this process. According to the memo, restructuring means that the district must undertake “a major reorganization of a school, making fundamental reforms, such as significant changes in the school’s staffing and governance.” Whatever plan they develop has to be approved by the school board and the State Superintendent of Education.
What do they mean by “major” reorganization or reforms?
Under federal and state law, each school restructuring plan developed by the district must indicate the district is planning to undertake one or more of the following actions in the affected school:
- Charter School: Reopen the school as a public charter school, consistent with Article 27A of the School Code (105 ILCS 5/27A);
- Staffing: Replace all or most of the school staff, which may include the principal, who are relevant to the school’s inability to make adequate yearly progress;
- Contracting: Enter into a contract with an entity, such as a private management company with a demonstrated record of effectiveness, to operate the school as a public school; or
- Other Major Restructuring: Implement any other restructuring of the school’s governance that makes fundamental reform in:
i. Governance and management; and/or
ii. Financing and material resources; and/or
iii. Staffing.
So, what option is the district taking? Option #2. But if you’re scratching your head wondering why you haven’t seen a huge turnover in employment, it’s because that option is rather broadly defined. For instance, in the document cited above, the ISBE says that one possible application of option 2 is to “transfer the locus of staffing decisions, start to finish, to a turnaround specialist or to the district level from the principal or vice versa.” Two of the restructuring plans (Lincoln and Trewyn) are utilizing the “turnaround specialist.”
I obtained copies of their restructuring plans via a Freedom of Information Act request, and you can read them here:
Lincoln Middle School
Loucks-Edison Jr. Academy
Sterling Middle School
Trewyn Middle School
Charter Schools
An interesting option that is not being considered is charter schools. There are currently 37 charter schools in Illinois and there can be up to 60, so this is a possibility. Charter schools in Illinois are governed by the Charter Schools Law, 105 ILCS 5/27A.
A charter school in Illinois is a public school that has a contract (or charter) of operation with the local school board or directly with the state. It has to be public (i.e., can’t charge tuition but is eligible for public funding), nonsectarian, nonreligious, non‑home based, and non‑profit. In fact, it’s set up like a non-profit corporation with its own board of directors, and can make decisions independently of the district, but within the bounds of its contract (charter).
However, the charter gives the school considerable flexibility — for instance, they can choose their own curriculum and disciplinary policies, set their own hours of operation and school calendar, hire their own employees/teachers, etc. In return, the charter school has greater accountability for student achievement. And, of course, the school is subject to common-sense regulations required of all public schools (e.g., civil rights mandates; criminal background checks for employees (click here for more info); open meetings act; state goals, standards, and assessments, etc.).
The local school board can choose this course of action, or it can be initiated directly with the state by public referendum. It takes a petition from 5% of the voters in a school district and approval of the proposed charter school contract by the Illinois State Board of Education (i.e., acknowledgment that the proposed contract complies with the Charter Schools Law) to put the question on the ballot.
Peoria actually had a charter school from 1996-1999. It was called the Peoria Alternative Charter School and it met in the old Greeley school building at 919 NE Jefferson. (Incidentally, my grandmother taught 3rd grade at Greeley before she retired in 1975. Back then, it was a K-8 grade school.) However, many felt this was not the original vision for charter schools — District 150 set this school up as a place to put disruptive students (hence the “alternative” part of the name). In fact, they even put expelled students in this charter school and were legally challenged over it.
Charter schools have never been attempted as a restructuring option for an existing primary or middle school to my knowledge. This may be an option worth exploring. It appears to be successful in Chicago.
Other Major Restructuring
Some examples (not an exhaustive list) of “other major restructuring” given by the state are:
- Restructure the school by altering the school’s grade configuration (for example, a K-2 school becomes a K-6 school) or the programs offered (for example, the school becomes a magnet school or a career academy), or both….
- Change to a site-based management school rather than centralized administration, or to centralized administration of the school rather than site-based management (non-applicable to a Title I schoolwide school).
- Align the school with an existing research-based school improvement model of sufficient size and scope such that the model, used as prescribed and intended, can affect needed change.
- Use school consolidation processes to create a new public school or schools….
- Implement a school-within-a-school model or a smaller learning community model.
These options help shed some light on recent District 150 plans to consolidate schools and abandon the primary/middle school model in favor of a return to the old K-8 model.
The Next Step?
Just out of curiosity, I wondered what would happen if the district’s attempts at reorganization failed. The answer is not pretty:
[T]hese interventions could occur in the school year following the restructuring implementation year. Under the School Code, the State Board has the authority to take one of the following actions for the school:
- Authorize the State Superintendent to direct the regional superintendent to remove the board members.
- Direct the State Superintendent to appoint an Independent Authority to exercise such powers and duties as may be necessary to operate a school for purposes of improving pupil performance and school improvement. The Independent Authority serves for a period of time determined by the State Board.
- Change the recognition status of the school to “nonrecognized.†[This is more serious than it sounds at first; the document later explains, “If a district is nonrecognized, it cannot make any claim for General State Aid. …[I]f any school district fails for one year to maintain within the boundaries of the district a recognized school, the district is automatically dissolved and the property and territory is disposed of.”]
- Authorize the State Superintendent of Education to direct the reassignment of pupils or direct the reassignment or replacement of school district personnel who are relevant to the failure to meet AYP.
In other words, the state takes over. Elsewhere, the document says that under NCLB other options include: “abolish or restructure the district,” and “appoint a receiver or trustee to administer district affairs, in place of the superintendent and school board.”
Much as removal of board members or certain district personnel may be viscerally appealing sometimes, losing local control of the school district is really not in our best interests. That’s why school board elections and good school board candidates are so important. I’ll do my best to provide information about the candidates. (Full disclosure: I am supporting Beth Akeson for school board.)