I understand the sentiment behind the Journal Star’s recent editorial about District 150. They say, “Somewhere in this debate, those children got lost. It is time for Peoria to find them again, for its own sake.”
I totally agree with that sentiment; I really do. I want to see the community pull together and provide the best possible education for our children. I think everyone wants that. But the editorial board’s prescription is a placebo. They whitewash over the serious issues that have led to the “general unpopularity” of the school’s decisions.
They say, “Hinton and his board have a mandate to try and rescue a declining school district,” and, “With this new school and others, they’re trying to do that.” This is the crux of the problem. What the editorial writers have stated is not the school board’s mandate, nor are the school board’s actions the way to achieve either this or their real mandate. Allow me to quote the oath of office each school board member must take before taking his or her seat on the board (105 ILCS 5/10‑16.5):
I, (name of member or successful candidate), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of member of the Board of Education of Peoria Public School District 150, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and the laws of the State of Illinois, to the best of my ability.
I further swear (or affirm) that:
- I shall respect taxpayer interests by serving as a faithful protector of the school district’s assets;
- I shall encourage and respect the free expression of opinion by my fellow board members and others who seek a hearing before the board, while respecting the privacy of students and employees;
- I shall recognize that a board member has no legal authority as an individual and that decisions can be made only by a majority vote at a public board meeting; and
- I shall abide by majority decisions of the board, while retaining the right to seek changes in such decisions through ethical and constructive channels.
That is the school board’s real mandate. I would submit that one reason residents are up in arms over the school board is because they’ve failed in this aspect: “I shall respect taxpayer interests by serving as a faithful protector of the school district’s assets.”
How do the school board’s recent actions stack up against this part of the oath? They did not do due diligence in assessing the rehabilitation possibilities of their current property (viz., Glen Oak School) before they decided to build a new school on a different site (adjacent to Glen oak Park). Thus, they started spending taxpayer money on property acquisition, architects and planners without verifying a new building or additional property were warranted in the first place. They have changed the scope of their project from building a replacement school to building a community center, which has added $7 million more to the projected cost of construction. They have taken a building (Blaine-Sumner Middle School) that was slated for closure and sale to save the district money and, instead of disposing of the property as outlined in their own Master Facilities Plan, have rehabilitated it for use as an office building. These are not examples of faithfully protecting the school district’s assets.
So they’re not fulfilling their real mandate, but they’re not even fulfilling the editorial writers’ mandate. Building new school buildings is not going to “rescue a declining school district.” Sorry. Whittier was built in 1914 and is a model school, earning awards and making adequate yearly progress. Sterling was built in 1962 and is on Academic Watch Status.
But here’s what’s really strange. Whenever I mention that there is no correlation between the age of buildings and test scores, I’m always told that no one is claiming that building a new school will improve student performance. So, why build, then? What’s the purpose? Read the editorial writers carefully on this point:
To the degree that the condition of a city’s school facilities makes a statement about the value locals place on their children and their educations, Peoria does not stack up well against other Illinois communities. If there is one thing Peoria really can’t afford in a competitive environment, it’s to leave that impression.
Did you catch it? The key word is “impression.” We need to spend all this money so that we give the impression that we “locals” value our children and their education. Who cares if they actually are educated? Maybe we can fool those out-of-towners into relocating here if we blind them with our shiny buildings in the park.
That’s not a good enough justification for spending $22 million (plus $2-3 more million in acquisition/demolition costs). And it certainly doesn’t constitute finding “those children [who] got lost” in the debate. If we want to find the children, we need to start focusing on root problems instead of secondary issues like new school buildings. If we want to attract people to the city, we need to impress them with our school report cards and high test scores — then when they start moving back into town we’ll have the money to build those shiny new schools.
