A special meeting of the District 150 Board of Education is planned for Tuesday night. There’s only one item of public business on the agenda:
APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH HAZARD, YOUNG, ATTEA & ASSOCIATES
Proposed Action: That the Contract with Hazard, Young, Attea & Associates covering the Superintendent search and the Controller/Treasurer search be approved. Further, that the Community Superintendent Search Committee’s proposed total budget of $45,000 be approved and that the timeline for commencing the candidate search be changed to August/September, 2009.
The district’s search committee recommended the firm to the board last month. A March 25 Journal Star article reported, “Cost to hire the firm is about $21,000, not including travel costs and office fees.” Apparently travel costs and office fees are no small expense, based on the $45,000 to be budgeted for the search committee.
Current superintendent Ken Hinton plans to retire June 30, 2010.
UPDATE: I received this additional information from School Board member Jim Stowell:
The first story didn’t anticipate them doing a search for Controller/Treasurer as well. Dr. Durflinger and Dr. Butts highly recommended a search firm who might “draw out” better applicants than what applied to our posting on several sources, including all of the “free” postings offered through the state. I had suggested the same firm recommended by the supt. search committee, if they were willing to do it for a reduced fee (and possibly seize on some economies of scale or interest from a duo who might like to work together). The Board saw a list of applicants and will discuss whether to go the search route.
Why don’t school board members ask to use the new program at least to try out some other possibilities before making such major decisions to close schools? This doesn’t make sense to me–the school district spent $8,000 to purchase this program, and they are now making the very same decisions without using the program. It seems that Hinton was in favor of the program just so that he could convince board members to vote his way. Talk about disingenuous–the money was spent just to support Hinton’s proposal. Why waste the money? Those who stand to lose by these plans are still not convinced, so the program was a waste of money.
Sharon – Please don’t assume that the Board isn’t considering many alternatives. You would be wrong. Look at the Tyng and Kingman school report cards on the District website. Tyng – mobility rate 59.4, average class size – 19. For Kingman – mobility 61.4, average class size 13.0. While you and yours might think it noble to shout “don’t close schools”, I have gotten numerous e-mails from current teachers at both schools indicating their understanding on the move, but less comfortable with the “plan” to re-align. I’m not at all entirely comfortable with the “plan” either, and to some extent fire back at admin – “what is the plan”, as fellow Board member Parker questioned in a recent e-mail to Mr. Hinton. Remember -it’s either facilities or labor that we have to address to bring our costs in line with diminished revenue. We are addressing both. As for the decision on whether to close a HS, look at class sizes at those levels. We simply can’t afford not to optimize our labor costs against a declining enrollment. While you threw in the towel on Manual long before you can honestly say you’ve given Dr. Kherat enough time, I think the academy model has some merit. ‘What if’s” are being proposed and discussed at length. The base model in PRM doesn’t include a reduction in EAV, either. Plug an assumption of a 2% decline in (which I think reflects a greater reality – at least over 1 or 2 years down the road) – and see what the impact is……..not good. Interestingly, I asked a “what if” all employees took a 10% wage reduction, and over the groans of those assembled, it came back with a surplus. It showed a surplus at a 5% reduction as well. I don’t expect it to get consideration, but it reflects that there are other alternatives. Point on the HS closing is that, with a directive from the Board to do so, we can come together to develop a 3-5 yr plan that gets us to where we need to be. I still think we can get to 4 HS campuses (with academies at at least 3) and go back to k-8 (maybe several k-6 too) elsewhere. Lots to do. Many positive opportunites to improve our District.
Also, I would invite Erik to share his thought that he presented to the Board with everyone. Tremendous idea!
I’m really struggling with this number of “For Kingman – mobility 61.4, average class size 13.0.” given by Mr. Stowell. With the exception of special education classrooms, I have NEVER seen a class inside the Kingman building with THIRTEEN students. Throwing this number around without coming to Kingman, walking around, and seeing classrooms with 20 or more students we are currently serving seems quite illiogical. If I were to see those numbers and trust they are correct, I’d be shouting, “Close that school!” too! The numbers are NOT true. I understand this came from the report card. It states that’s the number on the first day of school in May. Really, is that the number you want to trust or can you walk through the hallways at Kingman to find out the REAL number?
Jim, I am glad to hear that the board is considering other plans. However, I don’t understand how an alternative decision will be considered when you’re voting Monday and deciding on which high school to close by July. So far I don’t see any sign of a 3-5 year plan–or any kind of real plan, in fact. I don’t doubt that schools do have to be closed–it’s the “how” and the “when” to which I object. For instance, the teachers from Kingman were completely on board with moving to one new location–not to four different sites. I thought I was keeping up with BOE decisions, but I ran into the following from minutes from 2008 BOE minutes. Has the following idea been totally scraped? At least, all I’m hearing about now is a new Glen Oak and a new Harrison–no mention of this school.
NEW SCHOOL SITE – Moved by Stowell, seconded by Spangler that the block known as block 115 bounded by Monroe Street, Caroline Street, Perry Avenue and Mary Street, that portion of block 116 bounded by Monroe Street and Mary Street not already owned by the District, the lots on Perry Avenue 1503 through 1515 and lots 701 through 707 on Mary Street, be designated as the site for a new birth through fourth grade school replacing the current Irving Primary School and Kingman Primary School.
Allso, whether or not Manual succeeds will not be determined by what I think. However, at some point, you will have to look at discipline, enrollment, and NCLB test scores–and those will be the deciding factors as to whether or not Manual succeeds. I haven’t heard from you about my latest complaints about the 90-minute block schedule. Please add to my complaint this thought. Students will take 3 or 4 academic classes for 6 hours per day–working at double speed to cover a year in a semester. Then second semester they will take Keyboarding, PE for 90 minutes each–two courses that require no homework and should not require 90 minutes per day.
Not all of this is within Dr. Kherat’s control. I don’t believe this was her plan. Again, the plan was created with no input from teachers and by paying no attention to the knowledgeable parents that served on the restructuring committee. All the pitfalls that have occurred were predicted–so why would anyone expect Manual to succeed?
Also, the idea of looping–about which there was so much bragging, etc.–will undoubtedly be impossible because so many teachers are pink-slipped first-year teachers. Also, if the rumors I hear are correct several teachers weren’t planning to return any way because their experience at Manual was not what they were led to expect. Others have been labeled as “not team players.” The way I see it most of Manual’s new teachers (to replace the first-year pink-slipped teachers) will be involuntary transfers–they may not be team players.
Perhaps it would be better if the seven board members didn’t come to the public table exhibiting such a united “yes, Mr. Hinton” front. It would be well if we could hear some of your moments of disagreement. Sometimes I hear brief disagreement, but then I hear a 7-0 or a 6-1 vote in Hinton’s favor.
As to closing a high school–if you vote in favor, I hope there is a plan this time for putting all classes in one school–not a separate building for the freshmen from two current buildings. And I hope you have a definite plan for all the discipline problems that will immediately pop up because of such a merger–at least, be prepared for the worst even if you believe everything will be wonderful. Also, when presenting an idea about “choice” academies at each high school, remember that was tried by Strand and failed. At least, the vocational academy at Manual never drew students from other attendance areas. Please excuse the “you” in all my suggestions–that’s a collective “you”–administration and board members.
Teachingrocks is correct about the deceiving aspect of the average class size number. In any school that has special ed classes, the average class size number has nothing to do with the number of students in the regular classrooms. When parents hear that the average class size is 20 and then find their children are in a kindergarten class of 30–shouldn’t they feel they have a right to complain?
It’s been almost two weeks since the recommendation from Mr. Hinton on closing Kingman. Anyone care to guess how many board members have visited our facility to see what’s happening there? To see these tiny little classes of just 13 students? To talk to the teachers directly and get more input before they make a decision? To talk to Principal Johnson and get her insight?
“be designated as the site for a new…
… BIRTH THROUGH FOURTH grade school …
…replacing the current Irving Primary School and Kingman Primary School.”
George Orwell, Ray Bradbury, Aldous Huxley, here it is.
Your brave new world is upon us.
Don’t get me wrong. I have no problem with daycare and education… we have put that responsibility in the hands of the very people and organizations that are destroying our economy and government… bureaucrats.
Can you imagine how messed up our kids will be when they get programmed from birth in District 150? It will be … The Stepford Wives Syndrome meets The Omega Man.
Bureaucrats raising little bureaucrats… how lovely.
I am quite confused as to this Birth through whatever education plan. Why are we building into the education plan more obligation when we can’t meet what we have??? By law, the obligation begins with 1st grade. I understand all the merits of reaching children at critical points while their young but . . . then turning around and over loading classrooms with 25 plus because the District does not have sufficient revenues does not make sense to me. Close schools to right the budget (which I am in favor of) and then take those savings and turn around and spend them on something else that the District can ill afford at this juncture. I am trying to buy into all this because I really do feel this Board is prepared to take action to get the District back on the right course but it is difficult.
It would be interesting to know how the average class size of 13 was calculated. If all the certified staff at Kingman was used in the calculation, that might give a skewed result. If there are any resource teachers, small special ed classes, part-time specialists (PE, Art, Music), staff developers, etc. who are not classroom teachers, that would definitely drive the average class size numbers down.
Teachingrocks, would it be possible for you to get a count of classroom teachers and actual class size per teacher? Then list all the specialists, resource teachers, and special ed teachers w/# of students per class?
This could be presented in a simple format, i.e., Kindergarten, teacher A – 27 students, teacher B -29 students, etc. That way the readers could really figure out what is going on. If you have any friends on the Irving faculty, perhaps they could give you something similar for that school.
Just an idea . . .
Does anyone out there have a copy of the Structural Imbalance Task Force study/report? There are knowledgeable people in town who are saying that even after the proposed school closings and staff downsizing, there will still be a significant structural imbalance and that perhaps the public should better scrutinize the Administration’s proposed actions. If a copy of that could be obtained and placed online, then everyone would have access to the same information at the same time.
Sharon, wasn’t Terry Knapp on that task force – he keeps everything, so perhaps you could borrow a copy from him and maybe C.J. would put it up for you?
frustrated.. “Why are we building into the education plan more obligation when we can’t meet what we have???’
MORE money. What else. The longer the District has the kids, the more money they get. Why can’t you see that? Do you really think the administration cares about anything else?
No – I do not think Terry was on that task force. Cahill was. I suppose he does not need his copy any longer.
kcdad – I do think the District cares about its’ students. I just think it cares more about some than others. Its’ actions become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
kcdad are you referring the Average Daily Attendance monies and Title I monies (available for some ECE programs)? Are there any other funds available to the District, other than federal, for ECE programs?
Frustrated – perhaps that study/report can be FOIA’d.
Are you talking about this report?
Why does the district want anything? New buildings, birth to adulthood education… anything? The answer is money. The more money they have, the more they spend, the more they spend, the more they want… the more they want, the more they spend before they get it … it is the Ole’ Oral Roberts’ prime the pump, seed faith mentality… “if we spend it, it will come.”
I think the administration is wise enough to know (especially seeing homeschooler reports) that students learn DESPITE what the school system does. The schools don’t perform relatively well with more affluent kids, they just doesn’t mess them up as much as they do the poorer kids.
EVERY kids in our community would be better without public schools. Face it.
Yes, C.J., thank you. Already printing it!
Teachingrocks: first an apology, it is still early and I’m not quite awake yet (that’s as good an excuse as any other).
Kingman and Irving are Title I schools, are they not, and as such, most if not all of the teachers’ salaries are paid by Title I funds. Therefore, they are not charged against Ed Fund revenues. So how does closing Kingman, Irving, Tyng and Garfield address a structural imbalance in the Ed Fund? The federal Title I funds – to the best of my knowledge – haven’t been reduced or eliminated.
Special ed salaries are also covered by special monies or at least via flow-through accounts. So they aren’t directly charged against the Ed Fund either.
If the proposed school closings are for the purpose of relieving the financial burden on the Ed Fund, why not propose closing 2 schools whose salary expenses (at least for Regular Division classroom staff) are charged to the Ed Fund?
The costs of operating a physical plant are small in comparsion to personnel cost, and some maintenance and/or repairs qualify for Health, Life Safety funding.
So, what’s going on?
Frustrated’s “Close schools to right the budget (which I am in favor of) and then take those savings and turn around and spend them on something else that the District can ill afford at this juncture. ” This is exactly what concerns me–thanks for bringing this up. I believe this has been done over and over again in District 150–save to spend on anything but the classroom–12 acres of park land per school (and its maintenance) for one thing.
PrairieCelt—Good information! This is the purpose of blogs–to give the public the facts.
I know there are 5 special education classes (which includes an am and pm sped pre-k)as well as 4 speciality teachers (music, science, pe, and orchestra). Those 8 teachers along with the reading coach and reading teacher makes 10 teachers who do not have “traditional” classrooms but are all certified teachers. I don’t know how the average classroom size is computed but it does seem possible that the presence of these teachers might cause the number to be off.
Sharon – So, when anonymous people with no verifiable credibility make a statement, you treat it as factual? If I had to refute every incorrect statement about Dist. 150 that is offered up here, I wouldn’t get anything else done. While I don’t trust the 13 as being precise, 20 is too low also – plug in that on the model and watch the deficit grow. The mobility is more insightful to me, but we have many other factors we are all taking into consideration. I think we will need more time to ultimately decide what to do with a HS. July will be here too soon. I don’t expect to move forward on the previous plan at Woodruff, but I may be in the minority, I don’t know. Teachingrocks – I have had a lot of input from various people at Kingman and try to be as accessible as possible. Communication works both ways.
PrairieCelt – you are sooooooooooo correct those proposed closures of Title 1 schools will do nothing toward saving money for the Education Fund. Those Title dollars will merely follow the children to whatever schools Hinton plans to warehouse the students. Evidence once again of shallow thinking by the administration!
Truth is at your fingertips, Jim–you’re the one with the most access. Also, Teachingrocks makes a good point–the month of May is not the time to take the count, at least that was true at the high school level.
In my own experience at Manual, I might have a class of 35 one hour and as low as 15 in another. My average class size was good, but the class of 35 in the 2000s was a trial. Which anonymous statement did I accept as fact?
Of course, if you stop by a classroom on any given day, there will probably be absentees–some more on one day than on another. You need to ask the teacher to show you the attendance book–how many are actually on the role. Believe me the students who are chronically absent are the biggest problems–trying to get them caught up, etc. Also, they are likely to be the discipline problems on the days they show up.
I agree with you about Woodruff–and, unfortunately, that you might be in the minority.
Anyone who wishes to verify the statement that Garfield, Kingman, Irving and Tyng are Title I schools, phone the Title I office on Monday and ask. Their phone number is: 672-6754.
To find out more information about Health, Life, Safety funds and how those funds are to be used can phone the Peoria Regional Office of Education at 672-6906.
If I had to refute every incorrect statement about Dist. 150 that is offered up here, I wouldn’t get anything else done.
Jim, without requesting that you offer up a rebuttal, could you at least identify which of Prairie Celts statements are incorrect? That should only take a minute or two at the most.
Jim, does your refuting efforts also apply to information “off-the-top” of Hinton’s head at board meetings? I have especially enjoyed hearing him say (2 times) that he was fed the wrong information when Manual’s freshman class capacity was set at 150 (instead of the near 200 that was normal). Why is it that the accurate information was readily available to me through a FOIA but not available to the superintendent? Aren’t we now in this whole financial mess and confusion because some wrong data that came from Cahill? Which is worse, trusting anonymous bloggers (who might not as anonymous as you think) or trusting officials who purposely or carelessly give out wrong information?
By the way, has anyone else heard that 150 teachers have been told to erase e-maills so that they can’t be FOIA’d? If true, I find that ironic since the teachers should probably protect themselves so that administrators can’t read their e-mail.
diane – Why don’t you correct your own inaccuracies first? They have been plentiful.
I know that we often hear why District 150 is having BOE problems with the public, class sizes, discipline problems…etc Why *would* we send our children to District 150 schools? I have a lot of friends that I have referred to this blog that have preschoolers and live in Peoria. Please share your opinion on this.
Good response, Jim! You tell ’em.
I hope Jeff doesn’t read the blog today to catch my grammatical error: should be “Jim, do (not does) your refuting efforts also apply to information.
Erik, at least, your error was humorous. Just when I was about to post a poorly written Manual document on the blog! Humility is a good thing!
Jim, obviously anything I write I would consider accurate or I wouldn’t write it. What in your opinion are the inaccurate statements by Prairie Celt, myself, or anyone else with an opposing point of view?
Jenny, Good question. Speaking only for myself, my husband was born and raised here. He is a graduate of Peoria Central and currently sits on their alumni board. He loves Peoria and I have come to love it too. We prefer to live in an urban, eclectic setting as opposed to a more rural setting. We prefer to send our children to a school with a varied, diverse student body as we feel that exposure to a broad mixture of races, cultures, and socio-economic backgrounds will best prepare them for a successful future.
This is in no way criticising any other choice that other parents make for their children. Where and how parents decide to educate their children is a highly personal decision and one that only the parents/guardians should be entitled to make.
Parents that choose to send their children to Peoria Public Schools are entitled to and should expect a school system that puts the student first, that is fiscally responsible, and is wisely and cautiously managed with student achievement always being at the forefront of every decision. Currently, I don’t believe that is the case and as a citizen, parent and taxpayer, it is our right to legally but actively engage and question District officials and hold them accountable for their decisions.
“Teachingrocks – I have had a lot of input from various people at Kingman and try to be as accessible as possible. Communication works both ways.”
I am one of those “various people at Kingman” who has communicated with you. I sent you an e:mail with some of my feelings as well as a question. While you didn’t answer my question, you did at least respond and I commend you for that. It was more than some of the other BOE members bothered to do. However, after this response from you:
“Unless we drastically reduce our labor costs, we can’t afford to operate the current number of facilities. I am open to all options.”
I e:mailed back with an additional question regarding a different scenario regarding the closing of Kingman and Irving. There was no further communication from you.
I understand the frustration so many people are feeling. I’m feeling it as well. It seems like decisions are made without consideration to anything other than Mr. Hinton’s recommendation. I agree with what was said about the public reacting more positively if we ever saw some disagreement from the board towards Mr. Hinton’s recommendations. He was pretty clear when he visited Kingman that the board has no option other than to agree with his recommendation to close us after this year. Why does everything have to be done so quickly and with, what seems to be like, very little thought? We still haven’t heard where our students will be attending school next year. How can this be possible? Why is it that Kingman teachers will be sent out all over the district this year and Irving teachers will slide right into the new building at the end of the next school year? Why is it that there isn’t a document somewhere which shows how the savings are figured for next year with the closure of Kingman? We hear numbers thrown around about how much needs to be saved and how much will be saved but no one is showing the facts behind these figures. I apologize for wanting solid evidence showing this decision makes sense. I only have to close my eyes and start envisioning faces of Kingman students and see them on buses going to an unfamiliar school, in classes with increased numbers of students and surrounded by unfamiliar faces to want to question the sensibility of this decision.
I only have to close my eyes and start envisioning faces of Kingman students and see them on buses going to an unfamiliar school, in classes with increased numbers of students and surrounded by unfamiliar faces to want to question the sensibility of this decision.
OMG I can’t believe you said this. I have this vision in my head too and it haunts me…Now not only do some have to deal with parents that don’t care, but a community that doesn’t care either. That is what keeps me going….
Sharon: Did the demonstration account for closing a school or schools and transportation cost adjustments? Would closing schools result in increased transportation costs? What happens when inflation kicks in after the stimulus spending spree is over? What happens when the price of gas increases?
teachingrocks: Oh that there were such documents of solid evidence to show you and the rest of our community ….
I feel like I am trapped in my college biology lab — looking at a paramecium (aka Lady Slipper) under the microscope.
If the paramecium runs into a solid object, the cilia changes its direction and beats forward, causing the paramecium to go backward. The paramecium turns slightly and goes forward again. If it runs into the solid object again it will repeat this process until it can get past the object. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramecium).
Regrettably …. and so it continues ….. no plan …..
Karrie: All of those scenarios were mentioned and the resulting numbers were plugged in–but just in bits and pieces, so no total solution was presented. Actually, finding solutions was not the purpose of the presentation–the purpose was just to show how the program works and how helpful it could be in planning a budget, cost-cutting, etc. However, I still wonder what good the program will do if 150 administrators are the only ones who have access to the program. The program is only as good as the people who plug in the information–so where does that leave us?
Sharon: Regrettably, out of the loop again…
I admire the tenacity of Prairie Celt. This writer is very astute to be aware that the closing of Title I schools is not that big of a financial windfall as some may think. Many of their programs are supplemented with federal funds. After watching the last school board meeting, once again, it was apparent that board members allow KH to use his brash language to intimidate them.
Once again….Where is the accountability to our students. Fact, stated for the seond time, the proposed schools closing are all Title I funded schools. What does that mean? It means they qualify for federal funds which other schools do not. Our Title I schools are the ones which should be kept opened. It is in these schools federal moneys could benefit children living in poverty. By the way children do not choose to live in our poverty areas…which is the exact reason Title I funds are available from the federal government. When is the superintendent and most board members going to stand up for these children. Why do we not close one of our north side schools. Where are all these children going to attend school.
Most of these schools do not qualify for Title I funds.
We have an Early Childhood Center which has never reached its potential. Go back and check to see how Title I funds have supplanted that program. It should be filled with children from all over the district. All one needs todo is to go back and read the original charter which was designed by none other than Superintendent Hinton. I am appalled that the school board members never mention the abuse of this great facility.
However Title I funds can only be used to supplement learning not supplant. Notice I used the word supplant for the Early Childhood Center. Title I funds cannot be used to supplant only to supplement. Supplant means to take the place of where supplement means something added to complete a goal. Title I funds get a little complicated and must be closely monitored. Closing the scheduled schools will only complicate distribution of federal funds our students so desperately need.
Is this an acceptable way to run a district? If the answer is no, come to a meeting at Godfather’s tomorrow night at 6:00. Bring your friends, grandparents, neighbors etc.
There will be serious discussion of Elaine Hopkins idea at Peoria Story:
http://peoriastory.typepad.com/peoriastory/2009/04/district-150-waste-folly.html
Two teams of 25 in a day would probably do the trick…
So you are going to push for a referendum and cause teachers to receive script if the Dist. doesn’t have adequate cashflow? How should I show my gratitude? Realtors should get paid only if the seller makes a profit. Where do I start a sign-up for that?
It’s the law. I didn’t make it.
The teachers would still get paid. If the district would go bankrupt it would probably be taken over by the state.
diane – You’re tight with a lawmaker – are you willing to advocate change to do your part and help?
Karrie: I sent an e:mail to the BOE members asking the quesiton about bussing costs for the students from the closed schools. I saw the presentation from the PMA and couldn’t understand how it was possible that in each scenario they showed there was no change in transportation costs. I tried to get an explanation of how nearly 400 students from Kingman were going to be bussed to four different schools and yet there wasn’t a single bit of change in transportation costs. This is the answer I got from David Gorenz:
“As was shown last evening transportation is reimbursed well by the state. In addition we already bus many students so there is not as much increase as you would expect. We have been making budget reductions over the past 3 years and they have been in many areas that do not effect the classroom. The saving in regards to closing a building is in regards to the facility but also the savings is by having fewer staff. I know it is popular to say that administration should be eliminated but really that is not feasible. The administration however is being reduced as Supt Hinton mentioned last evening. The Board has looked at many different options and will continue to do so.”
This answer leaves me still confused. Why was the district talking about moving busses to the southside to help save on transportation and why is the district adopting the three tier bell schedule if they don’t care about transportation costs?!?
It’s no wonder people eventually just stop fighting for things in this district. When things make little to no sense, the board members make comments about how we don’t truly understand this or that–they say they are weighing all options–they seemingly go along with Mr. Hinton and his recommendations with little to no questioning–they seem almost surprised that we would doubt anything they try to shove down our throats. I know many different alternatives have been offered to them regarding the closing of Kingman and the moving of our staff and students. It would be nice for them to offer geniune proof of why these alternatives are not viable. Instead, we are patted on the head and told we just don’t understand.
Ok anon – now I feel better. Our state is flush with cash. What’s in your cellar?
Well they obviously have more cash than the Disrict! Lol!
diane – to me – it’s a livelihood, not a laughing matter. Whose deficit is greater for next year, anyway?
Teachingrocks: I understand your frustration and am, also, totally bewildered as to how the new bell schedule and maintaining buses at a location in the southside are necessary for saving transportation costs when transportation costs aren’t a problem. The budget committee at the meeting this week made the same argument–that transportation costs aren’t that much of a problem. It just doesn’t make sense. Along the same lines, I believe PrairieCelt stated that there was a possibility (and she said possibility so wasn’t posting incorrect information) that the Manual contract with Johns Hopkins was coming from Title I money–that seems like a plausible possibility since Manual is a Title I school. Yet Jim Stowell was leary of spending money for the Johns Hopkins program–so why wouldn’t it matter if the program is paid for with Title I money?
As to Kingman and Tyng–if they are Title I schools–my guess is that the administration wants to ship the students to other schools to make them Title I schools. If I’m not mistaken Dr. Royster had the same idea–to change boundaries so that there would be a sufficient number of students who meet poverty guidelines in as many schools as possible. I think hat could possibly also happen if Woodruff and Peoria High are combined.
Is a district that is almost totally Title I a good thing or a bad thing? Good for money; bad for drawing people into the district or to stay in the district.
What everyone seems to forget is that all this Title I money still comes out of the pockets of taxpayers. I’m not opposed to Title I, but I believe much Title I money is wasted–I believe I saw plenty of that at Manual. Personally (with little proof at all), I’ve had the feeling that too much of Title I money does not go directly to helping students.
Teach2 – Yes it is your livelihood. You’ll be fine. On the other hand, it is these childrens future. What happens in their primary school years will impact them for life. The policies of this Administration treats them as if they are the bottom rung of the ladder. I’m not laughing. This is deadly serious. See this link if you haven’t already:
http://peoriarocks.blogspot.com/2009/04/district-150-priorities-ill-report-you.html