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.
I am a teacher in District 150, although it really doesn’t matter where I teach or where I choose to live. I am with children all day long and when I stop at the grocery story on my way home from work at 5p.m., I prefer the anonymity I get from living in a neighboring community. I have friends that live in my community and teach in my community and they are constantly stopped in a store, the park,or at a community event by a parent to “just ask a question about their child”. How many people in the private sector have this happen to them? I love my job and I love my students, but I also love the fact that I live in a FREE country. I live approximately 15 minutes away from my job in Peoria and heaven forbid there is an EMERGENCY at school, I could be there quicker than I could drive to the other side of my community. I believe District 150 has far bigger fish to fry then to be digging up another issue.
teacher, i find your comments this morning disturbing beyond words. first, let me say that i thanked god this morning that you arent my kids teacher. second, i think your comments are a great example of what is wrong with dist 150 today.
i strongly agree with the opinion of, “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.”
anonymity?! heaven forbid if i stopped you on the street for a moment to say hello, or ask you a question about my child! FYI – my job exposes me a new person in the tri-county area almost everyday. if i happen bump into a person i have met before, (happens all the time BTW), and they ask me a question about the last time we met, i am happy to oblidge. yes, IT HAPPENS, and it probably happens to MOST people. sorry, but i find your “rock star” opinion of yourself dillusional. also, by living out of the area and your effort to shut out of everyone in the education world after 3:00 pm, all prove to me just how undedicated you are to your job, your community, and your kids.
again, thank god you arent my kids teacher.
its been proven over and over, (and just now), that its way past time for new blood in dist 150. there are alot of people out there right now that are in need of work, who could bring a new and fresh level of dedication and life into the district. for the kids sake, i just hope it happens real soon.
As a Realtor, I can say that throughout my entire adult life there has rarely been a time that I’ve been out and NOT run into a Seller, a prospective buyer, a buyer client, or a friend who just has a “real estate question”. At least once a week our home phone rings and it is someone who has a real estate or tax dilemna. I expect these types of encounters and although they are not always at the most opportune times I realize it is the lifestyle I have chosen, and I try to give my best advice each and every time. The day that these encounters stop happening is the day that I will most likely hang up the shingle. My point is that I think the first poster has missed the boat somewhat. Rachael’s idea definately merits discussion.
First of all, everyone has their opinions. Diane, you are missing the point. Your clients are not discussing their children with you in the middle of the feminine products isle. How many times have you gone to an adult establishment with your friends to have an adult beverage and had a parent walk over to you to discuss “little Johnny’s” spelling test? I also pay taxes in the community where I live, which goes to pay the teacher’s salaries in my community. So sorry that Peoria’s tax base keeps shriveling up because parents are pulling their kids out of the school district and moving because of discipline issues in ALL the schools. The reason it is in IL school code is because some communities would not have teachers in “their community” to hire. What then? Bus their kid to another community? Remember, this is a FREE country. Telling people where they can live based on where they work is akin to communism. I have been verbally assaulted by parents on the phone for calling to tell them their child was “out of uniform”. I fear that if I ran into these people in a store, they would do more than yell. I have seen it happen.
I don’t know how I feel about the residency requirement–I certainly see both sides. In the 80s, Harry Whitaker tried to instate a residency requirement–the idea didn’t fly. As for the poster Teacher, I, too, am disturbed by your statements. I taught at Roosevelt and then Manual for 43 years. I didn’t live in West Peoria then, but I shopped at Haddad’s. Everywhere I went in Peoria and West Peoria, I would run into students and their parents (current and past)–and still do. I welcomed their “hellos.” I never had a parent or student accoust me with any negative conversation, etc. First of all, you do not have to live in the same attendance area in which you teach–and, therefore, do not have to shop in that attendance area. Also, I assume you don’t do any shopping in Peoria because your students and their parents are likely to show up just about anywhere. I do wish you had kept your sentiments to yourself–they don’t help with the general image people nowadays have of teachers.
I have posted about this at http://petelle150.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/residency-requirements-for-employees/ seeking public input, though I will also check responses here to CJ’s post. 🙂
I’m curious if District 150 would be covered by the school code. District 150 is a charter school and sometimes has different rules than any other school in Illinois.
Some Guy: District 150 HAS one charter school. IL School Code is for the ENTIRE state. Think about Chicago, if it were a mandate to live in the community where you teach, the teachers who teach in the public schools in Chicago wouldn’t be able to afford the rent. If you think there isn’t enough money spent on education in Chicago already as opposed to the rest of the state, think about that. I believe it became code because of Chicago public schools. Most public school teachers in Chicago proper, commute to work from the “burbs”.
I too work for Dist 150 and frankly, I love it when I run into my students. This it not to say that all educators should feel the same way. Yes, there are parents who want to discuss their child’s personal issues in public, but there are polite ways of handling those situations. Also, often times parents are unable to come to the school because of work, etc. If I run into the students outside of school, it gives me a chance to meet their parents on a more relaxing note.
Regarding a residency requirement, I think it’s ridiculous to enforce this. The idea is to choose the best educators, just as one chooses the best Realtor. If I want to move to Dunlap, (I do live in Peoria btw), and I think the best Realtor for me lives in Germantown, then I’m using the Realtor from Germantown. I want the very best teachers in Dist 150, and if that teacher lives in Brimfield, then so be it.
Also, I do not believe fireman have to live in the city any longer. I do not know about policemen. Trying to force residency requirements onto people limits your pool of potential employees. Why would you want to do that?
“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”
Too expensive? The city of Chicago is too expensive for most people. If wages are the same in Chicago as they are in central IL, then why live in Chicago? Housing in suburban Chicago is a little cheaper – but it all depends on the suburb. Unsafe? Perhaps Chicago teachers union does not want a teacher residency requirement because living in the city would make it easier for a gangbanger to find and vandalize your house. At least Chicago cops that are required to live in the city can carry guns.
“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. ”
O.k., stop the lies. Should the teachers also be required to send their kids to district 150 schools? All teachers are certified and trained according to State of Illinois standards. They have to follow the curriculum as outlined by the state and federal departments of education. They teach directly from a script in a textbook that is approved by the school district. Learning to become a good public speaker takes years of experience. How can a new teacher become a better presenter of information when stuck in a disruptive and unsafe classroom. Whenever there is a dispute between a student and a teacher, the school administrator makes sure the student wins every time. There is ZERO student accountability for behavior and performance. Both students and teachers know it.
District 150 Board of Education members need to covertly work as substitute teachers. The experience will open their eyes. Have you ever set foot in a public school classroom, Ms. Parker?
The majority of my teacher friends have moved out of the districts they teach in. It’s just a good career decision, especially for coaches.
Folks, don’t forget that Ms. Parker’s idea is to require residency
requirements for NEW teachers only, not current ones. (According to original PJS article). Howver, if the state statute was ever overridden,
I think all new Dist. 150 employees should also be required to live in
the District.
I do believe it’s time that District 150 recognize the fact that parents of school age children move out of District 150 because of discipline issues. Teachers in District 150 schools are well aware of discipline problems in the district–discipline, not the quality of teaching, is the reason that teachers and others do not want to send their children to 150 schools. District 150 needs to put all its efforts into fixing these problems. The children of District 150 teachers (if forced to live in the district) will not increase the enrollment significantly. Remember that some administrators in 150 do not send their children to 150 schools either (and have not in the past). I agree with one poster–District 150 needs the best teachers it can find–where they live should not keep good teachers out of District 150.
Laura Petelle brings up some very good points on her blog. It is true that quite often both a husband and wife are teachers–they sometimes teach in different districts. Also, the new teachers for whom the residency requirement would apply are non-tenured. Some of them have already established residency in communities around Peoria. (Some younger teachers live with their parents and can’t afford to get their own place their first year of teaching). Why should they uproot their families when they could well be pinkslipped–as is the case of so many this year? Instead of forcing teachers to live in Peoria or West Peoria, District 150 should be working on solving the problems that deter people from choosing to live in District 150 attendance areas.
Just a thought,
District 150 is governed by a charter that is unique to the rest of the state. I am not talking about the new charter school I am talking about the charter that set up district 150 around 1850.
Sharon:
I beg to differ. Some of the main problems I have had with the schools my children have attended in District 150 have been the quality of teachers and how administrators may or may not discipline them (yes teachers need disciplining too).
Teachers are neither saints nor victims and they are a fluid part of the problem in District 150. Teachers are not above reproach as many who post here seem to think.
I have come across some wonderful teachers in District 150, unfortunately I can count them on one hand.
Emerge: It is easy to throw stones when you aren’t a teacher, isn’t it!
Especially with the shootings and stabbings that have ocurred in the past couple of weeks here in Peoria. Parker wants to force teachers to live here…..give me a break. I will move to Peoria as soon as the concealed weapon law is approved….
Well, let’s lay off of poster “Teacher”‘s comments. I once taught in another community..and I was at the store buying groceries and female products and here comes a teenage male, “hey so-and-so, what are you buying??” (face in my cart). I smiled spoke and said “groceries, get out of here….” and he smiled and pranced off. No, you don’t have to be rude to parents and kids. Yes, it does help when you say a quick hello and establish a face with a name in case you actually do have to call for another reason in the future. However, I do like being able to go home, walk the dogs and get a break. I think that some people do not realize that we really are the only support that some of the these children have. We are purchasing them supplies, uniforms and other things. We also are staying with them after school during our planning period time, being an adult listener. It is nice to have a few hours off for stress relief. To require us to live in the same area, would undoubtedly lead to a higher burn out of teachers. Although Chicago Public Teachers do have a residency requirement, it is widely known that they do offer waivers for those who want to live in the suburbs. For those who do choose to live in the city, they offer large discounts. Will Peoria do the same?
These are things that need to be discussed since this topic is very new.
Here is a novel approach any teacher who lives in the district boundary and also City boundaries will be provided a permit to carry,and a free Glock provided by the city.
Emerge (This is off topic) I thought you would like to know that Richwoods has 316 students who are entitled to free lunch and 90 who are entitled to reduced lunch (last year 2009-10 data). Also, I think we do have a right to know what your qualifications are for judging teacher performance. Also, on what criteria are you basing your judgments? I will never deny that there are bad teachers. Most of us fall somewhere between saint and victim. (I might add though that some saints were, also, victims–even martyrs)–just joking! I am gathering that your own experiences with teachers and your own experiences with your daughter’s teachers have not been good, overall. I truly would like to know the negatives about those experiences. Last night I was at Proctor Center doing some GED tutoring. I ran into 4 former Manual students (from the 1970s and 1990s)–not in the GED class; they are graduates. As usual, I loved seeing them and talking to them–and I believe the feeling was quite mutual. Two of us had lengthy coversations–our relationship goes back to Roosevelt Jr. High. They started listing all the teachers that they loved at Roosevelt and how much they loved their years at Roosevelt and at Manual. My point is, of course, that not all students have had your negative experiences–or, at least, the positives outweigh the negatives. I don’t have great memories about most of my former teachers (some no memory at all), but I do believe they all made contributions to my own education. Also, the three young men that I was tutoring did not once blame their former teachers for their lack of a high school diploma. They all said something to the effect of “I wish I had paid attention to all of this when I was in high school.” Hedy and Jeff have sort of thrown me into this volunteer effort. However, I am finding it to be extremely rewarding and quite a bit of fun. I was a bit upset when my phone rang–playing “Jeepers Creepers” by Louis Armstrong and none of the three knew who was singing. They guessed “Cosby” and had never heard of Armstrong.
Running away and avoiding the problems that District 150 and living here poses is NOT going to solve the problems at hand. Living away from the problem does nothing to change, resolve, or solve the problem.
Yeah I think residency should be required.
It says a lot to me as a parent when a District 150 employee does not have the confidence in the schools to send their kids to that school. Teachers will absolutely send their kids to the schools they work in, if they are good. The school I went to was often criticized for bringing in too many children of teachers.
Equally… it says a lot about the teachers and staff themselves. They are part of the problem too. Your school is a zoo? Fine… what are YOU doing to fix it? Lots of finger pointing… I just collect a pay check… yadda yadda yadda… yeah, mmhmm okay.
Everyone comments about the teachers living in the district. What about administrators? You would be surprised at how many administrators do not send their children to 150 schools. They either live out of the district or their children attend private schools. That shows what they think about District 150 schools.
Police Officers won their residency a couple years ago. Several incidents of having thugs follow officers home, taunting them at their houses and even attempting to break into one allowed the officers to cite the safety of their families as a reason to move outside city limits. The Federal arbitrator agreed. I agree teachers should be allowed to live outside the districts since I know firsthand how many of their not so well students act and how some may actually seek retribution for discipline they may recieve. For those who think they should live where they work, you might want to put it in context. Think of where you work and restrict yourself and your family to living within one mile of there. I know district 150 is more than one mile, but this is just for context.
Sharon -what is anyones “qualification” to judge teachers? They have no accountability and tenure! Is accountability student test scores? What is it? How do YOU think teachers should be evaluated and how should they be held ACCOUNTABLE? Just because you “taught” – how does that make you an expert judging teacher capability and performance?
I would be curious as to how many teachers who live in Peoria and West Peoria actually live in the same attendance area as their students do. A teacher can teach in District 150 without living in the same neighborhood in which their students live. Certainly, a teacher can shop anywhere even if they do or do not live in Peoria or West Peoria. Don’t people from Metamora, Brimfield, Morton, etc., shop in Peoria. Even if a 150 teacher lives in an outlying area, won’t she/he still run a chance of running into students and their parents when shopping in Peoria? I don’t see that “getting away from students” has any part in this residency requirement discussion. I know many people who live in Peoria who never venture anywhere close to Peoria’s high crime areas-there are ways of living in Peoria and escaping the high crime areas. I truly do believe that parents who are teachers and administrators should be allowed to choose what they believe is best for their children. Many teacher parents (for religious reasons) have always chosen to send their children to parochial schools–I believe that should be their right.
Just me–Why would we even respond to you when we do not know anything at all about your qualifications to make such absurd judgments. I don’t think I have ever claimed to be a good judge of a teacher’s performance. That is one of the reasons (one among many) that I would never have wanted to be an administrator. However, I absolutely can say that judging teachers on the basis of student test scores is a very, very poor way of evaluating teachers. When that becomes the basis for judging a teacher’s performance, then teachers should definitely try to find jobs in the most affluent areas. Research, unfortunately, does state that there is a correlation between test scores and economic status.
I am tired of blaming all of the district’s problems on teachers. Lets place the blame where it belongs, but no one ever says out loud, the parents of the disruptive kids. How about instead of requiring teachers to live in the district we require the parents to be parents and raise their kids, discipline them, get them prepared for school, back up the teachers when there are behavior problems, and hold them accountable.
I don’t think a teacher is any less committed to their classroom because of their zip code.
Please tell me what “absurd judgments” I made in my statements.
Thanks “Just Me” I got this…
Sharon, surely you jest – “what are my qualifications to judge”? Really? I am a parent with a child in District 150, the parent who shows up to volunteer for at least 3 – 4 hours every week, the parent who goes on field trips, the parents who buys treats for other classes because they don’t have any, the parent who hands out books to children who she is concerned about, the parent who begs teachers and administrators to challenge my student and others.
Beyond that, I am a professional who knows how professionals are supposed to dress, communicate and conduct themselves, regardless of what field they are in.
It’s a full time job keeping up with the tricks that teachers and administrators play on parents. Yes – tricks. I have witenssed groups of children being tossed aside, because their parents never thought to look at how they were placed. I am in the school to make my obesrvations and I have no problem judging who I think is a quality teacher.
Just me–I was wrong; I certainly should have stated that, in my opinion, they are absurd judgments–I can’t be the judge of your opinions. As to Parker’s proposal, this isn’t the first time she mentioned it. I can’t imagine why Wolvoord didn’t mention to board members that such a rule is against Illinois code.
Sharon – I made no “judgment” other than teachers having no accountability. You have stated nothing to refute my “observation”.
Teachers have accountability. What makes you think they don’t? School administrators and students have no accountability. What makes you think they do?
Many public schools are dirty, run-down, dangerous places for students and teachers. How can teachers be effective in such an environment. How can students learn in such an environment. Please tell me why even the town of Morton has a cop working full time at its “safe” high school.
Jim – I don’t know about Morton, but would venture a guess they are not immune to aberrant adolescents. Please enlighten me on how teachers are held accountable. I thought they got raises merely for length of service and education advancement (some with dubious “coursework”). Administrators and students also need structured accountability, they aren’t immune, just not addressed in what prompted my post.
As far as the police goes… I think the waving of the residency requirement was a mistake. I understand the problems that some were facing leading up to that decision. What I take away from that is that our police force was and is grossly understaffed. If as a community we cannot ensure the safety of our police officers by supplying them with the tools, staffing, and funding needed to make sure this community is safe then we have FAILED them. Being a part of the community in which you work in is fundamental. I think I would be a little ticked off at my co-workers who bailed on Peoria by moving out. Principles matter greatly. If I were in their shoes the only answer would be to resign en masse. Lay it out. The police chief should be the one carrying this political football but our current chief either doesn’t agree or doesn’t have the political fortitude to make the stink necessary. I guess it’s hard to go head to head with those who decide your employment.
When the thugs run you out… be it on the streets or in the schools, the thugs win.
Emerge, now you did begin to give some specifics–before you just made a blanket judgment about “bad” teachers. Now you mention how teachers conduct themselves, communicate, and dress. I know I am “old” school, but I often cringe when I see how teachers dress. Of course, in hot, unair-conditioned buildings, I can understand some relaxed standards. Jim Stowell has brought teacher attire up, also. I’ll stay out of that argument because I don’t need to have an opinion on the subject except to say that I always felt the need to dress appropriately as an example for my students–and they did and do notice. That said, how a teacher dresses does not indicate whether or not he/she is a good teacher or even a good person. I was just asking you to pinpoint your broad statement about “bad” teachers to let us know what kinds of issues you are judging, etc. In what way aren’t your daughter’s teachers challenging her, etc? I know that I paid attention to one child’s progress through Whittier and Washington (and now Richwoods)–and now her brother’s progress in the 1st grade. So far I believe that Whittier teachers have done a great job in challenging both of them–and certainly Washington and now Richwoods. I am just wondering why your daughter’s experiences seem to be so much different. Nobody is more critical of teachers than another teacher–especially, when their own children are involved. At least, some of the most obnoxious parents were themselves teachers. What kind of tricks do teachers and administrators play on students? Do you assume that the things you are seeing happen in all schools, just your school? How do teachers toss aside a whole group of students–what do you mean by toss aside? Have you taken these concerns to central administration, to the school board? I just think that such strong accusations need to be backed up with facts and certainly need to be reported if they are as severe as you indicate. I can’t imagine that someone isn’t willing to listen. You often tell me to look for the good in District 150 instead of just the bad–I guess we expect the same of each other. I know that I spend more time on the problems than I do on the successes because I want the district to pay attention and fix the bad.
Just me–have you ever seen an evaluation form for teachers? Do you know that administrators are required to do a thorough evaluation (classroom visit, etc.) every three years? Do you know that teachers are given ratings: unsatisfactory, satisfactory, excellent (I don’t remember the exact categories). Do you know that unsatisfactory evaluations result in a regime of remediation? Teachers have to teach for four years to get tenure. In my experience, administrators often do not do a thorough enough job of evaluating during those years when it is easy to “fire” an incompetent teacher. I believe 5 teachers at Manual were dismissed this year because of administrator evaluations. The problem, of course, is choosing the criteria for judging a teaching. I dare say that no 10 of us on this blog could agree on the criteria or on the evaluation of any one teacher. It is a very, very subjective judgment–you know “in the eye of the beholder.”
This is all very interesting, but consider:
While there are lofty sentiments behind requiring a teacher to reside in the district boundaries of where they teach about improving the community and all, in today’s world, it is not practical. Think about it seriously for a moment…if you are a line worker at CAT’s Mossville plant, is CAT going to tell you where you can or can’t buy a house? Of course not. People today are so concerned with equating public education to the business world…well, there you go.
Administrators are different…they are essentially at the “middle mangement” level, so they naturally have different contract structures (i.e. get paid more, have better benefit packages, and have to work 10-11 months), have consistent supervisory responsibilities that require them to be on site at school (athletic events,, etc.), have to be available to screen and hire new teachers, etc. I can understand a residency requirement for those folks.
While requiring teachers to live “in district” sounds good and all, it falls short of it’s “feel good” plateaus about community togetherness and “we’re all invested in each other” and such. Good teachers are totally invested in their kids, no matter what address their house is. Making new hires live somewhere where they don’t want to will probably turn more good applicants away than you might think. Teachers who live somewhere else obviously pay taxes into another district, so the benefit is being realized in the system…but if I would be required to live “in district” I’d make sure the union negotiates much higher salaries, so I can live in a much nicer house and a way better neighborhood…hey, they want the tax money, right? That’s what Parker said this was for 🙂
By the way, does anyone else think the idea of this residency requirement generating significant tax revenue is completely idiotic?
OK, back to the topic at hand…
I grew up in Chicago and my mom was a teacher. Yes, we had to live in the city limits. There are (or were) neighborhoods all over the city where you couldn’t pass 3 houses without one of them housing a teacher, fireman or policeman. Not all of Chicago is prohibitively expensive.
I agree with Rachael. I am a D150 employee, but before that my husband and I chose to make a stand and stay in Peoria with our children. Our kids went to a parochial grammar school, one in the center city and then on the south side and then to Peoria High. The last one graduated last year, so this is not ancient history. We have watched neighbors leave when their children got to middle- or high-school age, often without ever having set foot in the schools they were running from. And by their leaving, it makes it that much harder for those who choose to stay to keep the schools safe and achieving. I am not passing judgment (people do what they feel they need to do), but the more stable families who leave, the fewer are left to provide stability and accountability.
I believe that, if at all possible, a person should live in the community if not the attendance area where they work, if they are paid with tax money. That being said, I know that there can be valid reasons why someone couldn’t do that. Some of them have been raised here. Instead of requiring or demanding residency, I would like to see teachers/D150 employees “recognized” for choosing to stay in the city. Perhaps bargaining units could agree to financial recognition or incentives, just as they do for other behaviors that are to be encouraged.
And, more important, I strongly believe that ALL administrators above a certain level should be required to live in D150 (not just Peoria) limits. These are the decision-makers and their policies and decisions directly impact the taxpayers of D150. They should definitely have a financial and social stake in the outcome. The Board should start with administrators (give them X years to move, have them give back X portion of their salary for living outside the district, etc.) and enforce it. Then bargain with teachers, paras, etc., to set up a system that encourages and rewards living in D150.
As far as requiring parents to send students to D150 schools, I agree that many parents do not do so for religious reasons. The students cannot control where they live or where their parents work. I think that would be impossible to enforce.
My two cents: It is nuts to require teachers to live within the District plain and simple. If a teacher who is off, on their own time, doesn’t want to associate with other people who want to ask questions about Johnny, then so be it. It doesn’t make them a bad teacher.
Some here are anal retentive on this subject and Diane comparing her real estate questions is a bigger joke. I know for a fact she eludes people who think she screwed their sale. Apples and oranges
Teachers, live where you want. Everyone would like to believe it’s the teachers fault our kids aren’t learning when in fact at District 150 75% of the kids don’t care to learn and 35% of those are on parole. No wonder a teacher doesn’t want to bump into their students and or the parent, who also in this District seldom shows their face.
Teachers who don’t live in the district are not invested in the district. They see their jobs as just that… jobs.
How is it any different than suggesting a parent doesn’t need to live in the same house as the kids they are raising?
Why should a school district tax base support the careers of people from outside the community who come in for 6 hours a day to collect their paychecks and then run back to their own communities… where they pay their taxes, and spend their money and raise their kids.
Charlie, how does that philosophy apply to ICC teachers? I do believe one of the bloggers correctly stated that teachers living outside the district still do contribute to the economy by buying in Peoria, eating in Peoria restaurants, etc. I still think we have to consider that many 1st-3rd year teachers are single and often live with their parents because they don’t have enough money to pay for apartments, etc., when they are just beginning to earn money. If their parents live in surrounding communities, then these young teachers are out of luck. There are so many extenuating circumstances that this whole issue just opens another can of worms–District 150 can’t afford more controversy. Teachers living or not living in Peoria are not going to change Peoria’s economic status all that much. People like Hot in the City and other tenured teachers made the decision to live in Peoria and send their kids to Peoria schools in a different era. Who knows what decision we would have made in this new era when District 150 certainly schools certainly are +experiencing problems relatively unknown to the district 20* years ago.
I can tell you this, go up to Henry or any small town or even closer to home, Pleasant Hill School and most of the teachers do not live in the community. What some are forgetting is this, while many think that if a teacher who lives in the community will make for a better teacher, how about the fact that someone cares enough to go and get a degree just to teach children. Heck, they may even travel across the country to teach children in an area that is impoverish. To be a teacher takes a special person on the inside that cares and is dedicated to the profession. Where they live makes no difference. That makes a good teacher. Now maybe in the old west days when the town sent out for a teacher to live among them and to teach, yes that was how it was. Same with the town doctor.
If anyone should live in the district it should be these highly paid 6 figure administrators we hire. They should have a vested interest in the district they serve. I know several college professors at both Bradley and ISU and they don’t live in Normal/Bloomington or Peoria. Does that make them worse educators than those that do? Doubtful and if very single teacher in District 150 did live in the city of Peoria, would that make better schools? Doubtful. All schools have problems. It is their clientele that bring those problems and I am not talking about color either. Dunlap does well because more parents care and involved themselves, Peoria has problems because of crime and poverty, while Pekin, which is about as diverse as a Klan rally has the same problems as Peoria. When stupid raises stupid generation after generation, it’s hard to break that cycle period.
With teachers being pink slipped every year, why should they move to Peoria? One year you’re here, the next you’re gone. Moving is expensive and you won’t get your money back, especially in this economy, if you are moving in and out of Peoria whenever it suits Dist 150 to hire you. Fabulous first year teachers were pink slipped, along with speech pathologists, etc. They found jobs! Now they are being called back. Who knows which job they will choose to keep?
So, the BOE is going to say, “Yes, you can have this job, then we will pink slip you and you can live in limbo until we decide if we want you back. Don’t move out of Peoria, because if you do you will be ineligible for employment!!”
Are you kidding me? We will lose more good teachers over this ridiculous residency requirement than we will gain.
“how does that philosophy apply to ICC teachers?”
ICC’s “district” is the tri- county area plus. Why would ICC hire a teacher from Chicago or Galesburg?
I did (or intended to) specify tenured teachers (in an earlieR post).
In America, people can live where they want. People don’t forfeit their rights by becoming teachers. They are not emergency personnel like police or fire – where there is some justification for a proximity rule. There is NO justification for a teacher residency rule and I expect it would prompt another lawsuit the district would – and should – lose. When are these people going to stop doing idiotic things and start looking at improving eduction? Oh, that’s right, NEVER! They are hopeless. Which is why people keep leaving District 150.
Charlie, being tenured isn’t a sin and being tenured doesn’t make a teacher a bad teacher. By the same token, being non-tenured doesn’t make a teacher a great teacher. Fortunately, there were no blogs when I was teaching, so I didn’t think of tenure at all. I didn’t think about being tenured as some sort of special privilege that allowed me to work less hard than I would have without tenure. What it did do was to give me some security to speak up about flaws in the system without fear of losing my job. I don’t know the answer to this question. If you own a house in Peoria and teach at I.C.C. does any portion of your property taxes go to support I.C.C.? Should Bradley professors be forced to live next door to a fraternity? Iti is true that traditionally many some Bradley professors did live near campus–until Bradley bought their houses and tore them down.
I know Rachel means well, but District 150 has bought quite a few houses that could have yielded property tax money for the district–the houses on Prospect come to mind. I’m not convinced that so many houses needed to be torn down to make way for green space at Glen Oak.
It all comes down to if Public Employers want employees or prisoners? Where you live should have no effect on how well you do your job. If an employee is not doing a good job management should dicsipline them. There is more bad management out there that just blame everything on bad employees versus bad management not notifying employees when they are doing something wrong. Do all the consultants District 150 or the City hires live within the City boundaries? Do all the contractors employees for each live in the City? How many private business’s have residency requirements? Aren’t most people posting here continually say they want the public side to be like the private side? I think there is a double standard and people only want the public side to act like the private side when it benefits them otherwise they want different rules.
Poor idea….the teachers will live within the boundaries of D150 and send their kids to private school. This is a knee-jerk reaction to a much, MUCH bigger problem. Let’s start with admin. Let’s start with tenured teachers that are locked in. Let’s start with negligant parents.