District 150 Board of Education member Rachael Parker wants to see a residency requirement enacted for district employees who will start to receive their payment with an instant paystub generator. In other words, she wants everyone who works for District 150 to live in District 150. There’s one little problem with that idea, though: it’s currently prohibited by law to require teachers to reside in the district.
The Illinois School Code states in 105 ILCS 5/24-4.1, “Residency within any school district shall not be considered in determining the employment or the compensation of a teacher or whether to retain, promote, assign or transfer that teacher.” There are different rules for cities with a population over 500,000 (meaning Chicago). Currently, Chicago teachers are required to live in the city. But Senate Bill 3522, which passed the Illinois Senate in March of this year and is under consideration now in the House, would end residency requirements for teachers in Chicago as well. The Chicago teachers’ union supports the bill.
But state law is not written in stone. If there’s political support for an idea, state law can be changed relatively easily, in fact. For instance, it was against state law for school districts to access the Public Building Commission, but thanks to Aaron Schock and George Shadid, District 150 was given five years to rack up millions of dollars in bonded debt for new school facilities via the PBC. Perhaps Dave Koehler and Jehan Gordon can get legislation passed allowing District 150 to require residency for teachers.
In the meantime, the law appears to only protect teachers from residency requirements, not all district employees. It looks like the district could require all employees except teachers to live within district boundaries without having to get any state legislation passed. It would require bargaining with other unions, however.
I support residency requirements for school district employees. It would ensure that teachers and other district employees are personally invested in District 150 and its success. When they bargain for salary and benefit raises, they would be personally invested in contributing to those increases through their own property taxes. They would live in the same community as the students they serve. It would improve the tax base of the city overall and help stem the hollowing out of the middle class from the city — and that in itself will help the educational climate in District 150.
As to whether that could mean losing out on some candidates, Parker said: “I don’t believe that, that you’re not going to be able to recruit a teacher just because you want them to live within the school district boundary.”
This is the biggest argument given against residency requirements: the idea that you will get fewer or inferior teacher candidates if you require residency. I don’t buy it. Large urban school districts like they have in Chicago have these kinds of challenges because housing in the city is so expensive and/or unsafe. That’s not the case in Peoria, where housing within district borders is safe and cheaper than surrounding school districts such as Dunlap, Morton, or Germantown Hills. Given the salaries that teachers (and especially administrators) receive in proportion to housing prices, I think you’ll still have a healthy pool of qualified candidates who would be happy to live within district boundaries.
Some would say that teachers don’t want to live within District 150 boundaries because they don’t want their children going to District 150 schools. I can’t see that argument as anything less than self-indicting. That’s like a chef saying, “Oh, I’d never let my kids eat at my restaurant! The food here stinks!” It also kind of defeats the argument that the teaching is better when you don’t have a residency requirement.
In short, I haven’t heard a coherent argument against residency requirements for district employees, and there do appear to be numerous benefits.
You guys are upset over nothing. This proposal has zero chance. Zero.
Mahko hit the nail on the head. The police feel abandoned by the citizens of Peoria. The City Council votes to lay them off. They have no support from their Chief and have a State’s Attorney out to arrest all of them he can. Why stay in a place they don’t feel safe. Only the citizens of Peoria can change that image.
Tenure is a privilege, one that must be earned and carry some responsibility.
How much is it to ask someone who is being given a lifetime job paying anywhere from the top 25% to the top 5% of income earners to live in the district?
“I didn’t think about being tenured as some sort of special privilege ”
Exactly… and how many speak out?
Yes, Peorian’s pay for ICC… besides, we have three campuses in town.
No, Bradley professors and their slew of adjuncts need not live on campus. Peoria is a big town and BRADLEY IS PRIVATE.
“the teachers will live within the boundaries of D150 and send their kids to private school”
So?
“It all comes down to if Public Employers want employees or prisoners? ”
Wow, watch much Fox News?
You love your town so much, teach there. You want to teach my kids, and my neighbors, join the community.
I’ll tell you what I want; I want the community to produce teachers and police officers and firefighter and garbage men and shopkeepers who care about their neighbors and their neighborhoods… I DON’T want people “looking for a job”.
Did you get that, Grenita?
Why not put a stipulation that to be apart of the Peoria Chamber of Commerce or work for the City of Peoria(COP) you must: 1. Live in the COP and have lived in COP for more than twnty years 2. Have your children attend PPS to insure your community support
3. Buy all of your goods and services within the COP.
Lead by example if you want others to follow
Anonymous Cop,
The answer isn’t to move out tho. Probably more than many professions, being a police officer requires a strong sense of ethics and principles. If I couldn’t be integrated into and live within the community in which I serve, then that position would no longer tenable. I would no longer do that job for that community.
Officers need to make more noise politically, individually.
It is similar with being a teacher. These are not 7 to 3 jobs. They are lifestyles. You are a teacher or a police officer 24/7. If that can’t work for you, then you need to find something else to do with your life.
Another note… not that it really applies to Peoria but in those communities where teachers and officers can’t afford to live in because the cost of living is to high…. unacceptable too.
I guess we can all give the residency requirement a rest since it is against Illinois code. I just think Wolvoord should have informed the board of that little glitch before the issue was taken to the public. Yes, of course, the code can be changed–but first things first.
@Charlie
“the teachers will live within the boundaries of D150 and send their kids to private school”
So?
So…it defeats the entire idea (which is dumb) that the teachers would be personally invested in D150 because they would a) be living there, and b) sending their kids there.
Example: I know people who live in West Peoria–teachers and not teachers–who happily sent their children to Whittier, Calvin Coolidge, and Manual (and were themselves students at those schools). The same teachers and other West Peorians would not send (and are not sening)their children to Manual today. The reason for the change is not due to the quality of teachers or teaching. Drastic changes occurred with regard to (1) discipline and (2) more recentlly the watered-down curricula offered by Johns Hopkins (for instance, teaching 1-year courses in 1 semester). These negatives have nothing to do with teachers–they aren’t the ones who insist on lowered academic or disciplinary standards. Quite the opposite. Much of what makes some 150 schools unattractive to parents has little to do with teachers. That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it. 🙂
Here’s another perspective on residency requirement issue.
I was born, raised in Pekin. Not by my choice, but that’s where my
parents chose to live.
I live in Marquette Heights, by my choice. My 2 daughters went through
the NP-MH school and Pekin High School systems, again by my choice. Both did got a very good education there. My older daughter just completed her 1st year as a High School Spanish Teacher in Springfield, and doing a great job there.
However, I work in Peoria for a social service organization that does
a great job advocating and providing services for low-income residents, minorities and seniors. Being employed here for almost 24 years has made me care about and feel more like a Peorian. My employer, which serves Peoria County, does not require employees to live in Peoria County or
the City of Peoria.
So to me, a teacher could be the same way. They could live outside Peoria, but care deeply for the Dist. 150 children and the school
they teach in.
If anyone needs a residency requirement, it’s the administrators whose
jobs and actions affect these teachers on a daily basis.
Dr. Lathan is leading by that example by choosing to live in Peoria,
and sending her child to a Dist. 150 school. (per media press conference
in the Spring)
sorry for typo, should read “both did receive a very good education”.
Dennis you speak of Marquette Heights as if it is a step up from Pekin. 🙂
Never fear Super Superintendent is going to save Peoria one child at a time. 🙂
Count–How did you read that into Dennis’ statement–he may have had all kinds of reasons for choosing where to live–none of which relate to a put-down of Pekin, etc. I guess there is a reason for your snide comment about 150’s superintendent–but it can’t be based on fact yet because she hasn’t been here long enough for you or me to form any opinions of what she will or will not do.
Thanks Sharon, I’m a bit confused too. I wasn’t putting down Pekin at all, if my children went to PCHS there. If we had lived in Peoria, and they had went to PHS, WHS, Manual or RHS, and received the same quality education at D150, I would have said so.
But my wife and I were also very involved with their education. We went to 99% of parent/teacher conferences, band concerts, Key Club activities, were part of the Band Boosters, Marching Band competitions, etc. We nudged them when it came to homework, if they needed it. Parental involvement is a key, but we found out that PCHS teachers also experience the same lack of parental involvement.
My original point again is that teachers should be allowed to reside where they wish.
Cameron said, “it defeats the entire idea (which is dumb) that the teachers would be personally invested in D150 because they would a) be living there, and b) sending their kids there.”
Well, it doesn’t defeat (a), since they would obviously be living within the district. It would defeat (b), but who is advocating for (b)? Upon rereading my post, I can see how someone might get that idea from what I wrote. But my point was not to make District 150 the only school to which teachers can send their children. Living in the district would just make District 150 the only public school to which teachers could send their children. They could still choose to send their kids to private/parochial school, just as many parents who live in District 150 do now for religious or other reasons. The difference is, they would be part of the community that District 150 serves and would be paying taxes to District 150, which would make them more invested in the success of the district.
It’s interesting that many people are okay with administrators having a residency requirement, but not tenured teachers. I’m having trouble understanding how that’s not a double standard.
C.J., as an ideal, I am tempted to agree with you. However, I have found that people who send their students to private schools are not really invested in the public schools, at all. For instance, many West Peorians have given up on Manual and now could care less what happens there. They have found the best place for their own children and that’s that. In general, people with grown children or no children at all take very little interest in the schools in general. Of course, there are exceptions. I believe that if all taxpayers were truly invested, school board meetings would be packed with people showing an interest. If all taxpayers were truly invested, District 150 wouldn’t be getting away with doing as it pleases–in fact, they may even think that the only opposition is from those of us who are vocal.
Sharon stop being a hater. 🙂 Mama bear gets testy when someone pokes a little fun at her baby bears. 😛
I’ve yet to see anyone mention what it’s like for a student when their parent is a teacher or staff member in their own school or district. Can you imagine that? Teachers have kids with real problems, too. What’s it like for a teacher working in the same building or district as their child who is struggling? Or how about a teacher who is working the same district as their child and wants to be involved in that building? How would it look if a teacher was interested in serving on the PTO of their child’s school and that same teacher worked in the district their child attended? How do I, as a teacher, stay involved in my own children’s education and maintain objectivity? If my kid happens to excel and be afforded the same opportunities that any other strong student would be afforded, how do I deflect the natural assumption that my kid was granted special favors because I teach in the district?
Similarly, if I am an unpopular teacher for whatever reason, how do I assure my child (and myself) that he/she is not being unfairly singled out? My husband’s father retired after 39 years of teaching in the same town my husband and his siblings grew up in; it’s not a comfortable situation to be the child of a teacher in any community.
Jill–If I am an unpopular parent, for whatever reason, how do I assure my child that he/she (and myself) is not unfairly singled out?
The best argument against residency requirements for teachers or employees of 150 is that it would require them to live in District 150. Case closed!
No, the best argument is that they are illegal. It will not happen.