I linked previously to some pretty serious issues raised by Elaine Hopkins at her blog, Peoria Story. District 150 Board of Education member Jim Stowell has responded to that report and asked me to post it on my blog as well. If you haven’t read the original article, you might want to first before you read his response:
Elaine – Thank you again for sharing the full report from the anonymous “experts”. It is entirely incorrect to state that the “district spent $10.5 million more than it budgeted as allege.” The “on-behalf” payments are an intra-state transfer from the state treasury direct to TRS. Those funds were never received by the district nor spent by the district. In 2006 and 2007 a statutory amount was reflected, but in 2008 the state engaged in an actuarial computation which was necessary given the large and growing under funded pension system. I was told that past comptrollers always omitted the amount as it is not part of our working capital or restricted funds. The state, I am told, uses this figure in overall education funding to enhance their effort in showing how they “support” public education. These are not education dollars, but rather pension dollars for future retiree benefits. Page 62 of the audit reflects an amount of “revenue” of $10,410,849 while page 66 shows a like amount as an expenditure. By stating the larger gross figure than what we actually receive (and throughout the state), it inflates how much the state really spends on education. With respect to the deficit fund balances, the Medicaid operations fund and Mid-Central Assoc. fund are merely cash flow issues. We provide services (an expense) but are often not reimbursed in a timely manner, thereby resulting in a deficit fund balance. I am also told that the Municipal retirement/social security fund balance deficit has existed for some time and the district is “whittling away” at it so it doesn’t have to levy for it, which, while within their rights, causes taxes to rise. The Self insured workman’s comp reflects the extremely large number of comp claims filed and is why the Board voted to establish a Tort levy. I voted against the levy because the amount carried as a liability is an estimate provided by our third party administrator (TPA). I felt we should better manage and be more proactive in mitigating workman’s comp claims and only levy once the outcome of all these pending claims are known. These anonymous supposed “experts” also make ridiculous assumptions that “if an expense was incurred the previous year, it is probable that it will occur again the next year”. With all the work being done to balance a budget and the dynamics of various program changes, that is an ill-founded assumption, at best. The group does raise legitimate questions on certain line items that warrant clarification and I will be following up to address those. For example, our Board has been frugal in spending, yet page 69 shows budgeted salaries for “Board of Ed Services” of $71,085 and an actual amount spent of $395,008. I am told that salaries for “Board initiatives” are booked here. I am asking for clarification and a breakdown. I will follow-up with more when I receive answers. I encourage you to affirm or deny the source of this “report” being our auditors, as some are suggesting. Whoever the source, they are wrong to suggest that we “spent $10.5 million more than” we budgeted, as you state in your opening sentence. Thank you for your concern on behalf of our students and our community. For more legal advice see: http://goodwinbarrett.co.uk/how-to-claim/. Jim
I appreciate Jim responding publicly, and he offers some very helpful insight. However, someone who wishes to remain anonymous takes issue with Jim’s comments:
The disclosure of the TRS revenue and offsetting expense by the state of Illinois on behalf of the school district is a required disclosure in the audit. Laymen may not understand that since it washes out or in Stowell’s case even like it, but by generally accepted accounting standards it must be reported that way as it has been for years! Stowell’s statement that it wasn’t budgeted before is grossly in error and personally shows how shallow his understanding. Consequently there should have been a budget though this year Cahill forgot it apparently and CG was required to highlight it!
I don’t know generally accepted accounting practices, so I’m not going to weigh in on this. All I can tell you is that the audits of the past few years haven’t looked too good, and I’m glad to see at least one board member taking these issues seriously and asking questions. Thank you, Mr. Stowell.
Let me elaborate on my shallow level of understanding: Elaine, former Journal Star beat writer – education “reports” that the district “spent” $10.5 million it had not budgeted. CJ chimes in as if he picked up the Gotham gazette: “Holy Toledo” batgirl, there’s a crisis at hand. While over at the Pundit they pile on like Fat Albert in a game of Buck Buck. Elaines’ opening inflamatory statement is entirely incorrect (Nice of her to omit my opening sentence in my reply though). In my simple-minded understanding, if an employer makes a contribution to my retirement account each year that I can”t touch and never actually possess, do I “budget” that amount in what I will spend on groceries this year? No. Did the District actually receive or spend this money? No. Would the State like it to be counted as part of what they spend on education? Yes. As for my “statement” that these weren’t budgeted in the past, I did say that, other than the past two years were an amount was reflected, I was “told” that in years past, amounts weren’t reflected. Did I verify? No, because I didn’t have the inclination or the time. I think these anonymous “heroes” who are passing themselves off as experts must wish to remain anonymous because they are the same genuises who prepare taxes for some of President Obama’s political appointees. Just curious, if a blogger would ever make a mistake, where do they post their correction?
I am not an accountant, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out something is wrong on Wisconsin Ave. You are a board member, Jim, and it is your job to be inclined, especially when it comes to closing schools and rearranging boundary lines. It is clear District 150 is in trouble financially, but I do not hear your response as to why consultants are still retained. I am one who supports closing one of the high schools, but it is not my job to decide which one. I also support leaving Washington Gifted School open. I believe Edison has been successful, but if it costs the district more money than it can afford, why can’t that model be copied and used? These are not questions from an expert, but a taxpaying citizen who doesn’t understand why finances on Wisconsin are not in better condition. If I conducted my finances this way, I would be bankrupt.
Jim,
If I catch an error quickly enough, I revise the story. If the story has been up for a while before I catch it, I’ll usually post an “update” to it, striking through incorrect information and underlining added corrections. If it’s really serious, I’ll put up a separate post with the correction.
Peoria Story was incorrect when it said, “The latest audit […] shows the district to have spent $10.5 million more than it budgeted.” After checking the budget documents myself, I could see that the TRS money, when it’s reported, is listed under revenues and expenses and the two amounts cancel each other out. So I said:
I still think that’s the larger issue. You say, “Did the District actually receive or spend this money? No.” Okay, but it still reflects staffing/salary realities at District 150. There’s a reason that amount is 43% higher than the previous year — the state didn’t just decide to give all the teachers extra retirement money for nothing.
Also, if the “anonymous ‘heroes'” are correct, there’s still a technical blunder. I.e., if generally accepted accounting principles require that this money be disclosed, the fact that it’s not disclosed shows either negligence or a lack of knowledge of generally accepted accounting principles. The latter would seem more likely, considering the fact that previous audits have specifically listed that lack of knowledge as a problem in the district.
Jim writes:
Just curious, if a blogger would ever make a mistake, where do they post their correction?
Answer: The same place where they posted the incorrect information.
Yes, Jim, it is comical. The only problem is no one is laughing. Part of the problem is the continued insistance by the powers that be that everything is great. Our schools are failing and our budget incomprehensible but there is a good reason for that. No problems here. You can read the PJStar who moonlights as the district’s publicist to confirm. OK, everyone you can go back to sleep now. I even know a few who will sing you a lullyabye.
After the editorial (anonymous, of course) suggesting that not closing Woodruff is a mistake and a cave in by the district to public pressure… which is their job after all… to do what the public wants them to do, that is… I was wondering who is paying the PJStar’s editorial salaries? Is that in the School District’s budget, too?
It sure seems that way.
I think it comes under that old adage, “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”
After reading and thinking about Hopkins “Budget” article on PeoriaStory, I realized what that article really was saying, was when it comes to the District #150 Administration, you can’t take the word for the deed.
Mr. Stowell said above:
“As for my “statement” that these weren’t budgeted in the past, I did say that, other than the past two years were an amount was reflected, I was “told” that in years past, amounts weren’t reflected. Did I verify? No, because I didn’t have the inclination or the time.”
That statement is really interesting. He really just verified the credibility of Hopkins’ message, didn’t he? He took action on what he was “told” without verifying, only to find out that he shouldn’t have taken the “word for the deed.”
Isn’t that the whole point?
I have a folder full of PJS articles, especially from 2003 on; many of them are editorials written by Mike Bailey, who most likely wrote the latest one about 150. Mike has often been extremely critical of District 150, so I don’t think that he always takes 150’s side–far from it. I know that in 2004 he devoted at least two columns to information that I had given him about discipline and attendance problems in 150, more specifically at Manual High School. I certainly don’t always agree with him; he frequently bashes the union at bargaining time, etc.; however, I have always thought him to be fair-minded. I truly believe he is an expert on District 150 issues. At least, I found him to be very willing to listen and respond to our complaints about Manual before the blogs afforded us the opportunity to air our opinions, etc.
“which is their job after all… to do what the public wants them to do, that is…”
hunh, really?
or, is it to do what’s in the best interest of their constituency? two totally different things.
I was referring to the District’s responsibilities, not the paper’s.
Who is the School District’s constituency?
kcdad,
I too was referring to the district’s responsibilities. It’s not their responsibility to do what the public wants them to do, they are elected to do what’s best for the district.
“Who is the School District’s constituency?”
Good question.
I believe it’s (not in equal share) ultimately the kids and secondarily the taxpayer. In many ways, the board’s job is to balance the cost of educating the kids with the taxpayer’s ability to pay. The ‘state’ (used corporately) has a role in ensuring localities are able to meet the balancing demands because education is a public good, much like policing and the military are public goods. (it always kills me when someone says they shouldn’t pay ptax to schools because they don’t have kids)…
One could get into education’s constituency, but that’s too big picture. If by “the public” you mean majority, I disagree. If by ‘the public’ you mean taxpayer, I again disagree (and I do apologize for belaboring the point, I have the day off).
There is a tension between the will of the constituent, bureaucracy, and governance here. I don’t state tension pejoratively here, but to pinpoint where I think collaboration is the crucial element in deciding how to make decisions.
So, who’s your public?
Ed: I think your last comment about enrollment may have been on the school issue, not the museum issue; so I am responding here–as if it made a difference since I have already made this post primarily about Edison, since Martha didn’t mention it among her cost-saving suggestions (most of which I agreed with).
I agree that it hasn’t all been about white flight and that globalization and the end of factory jobs has played a role.
I haven’t yet given up the towel. I will keep harping (and thanks, especially to Frustrated who has also been beating this drum with me) on the need for a good, separate facility to house a bona fide alternative school for students who prove that they cannot adjust to the regular classroom setting.
I do not believe that there is any hope for District 150 if it doesn’t heed this call. Diane was right earlier when she stated that most kids will shape up with the “real” threat of being sent to an alternative school. Some will not–and probably, right now, a larger percentage until the discipline standards are truly changed in all the high schools–and middle schools, where the problems do begin. I don’t think there is any hope of drawing families back into 150 until they are completely assured (not by promises but by reality) that their children can learn in an environment conducive to learning. For the moment, I will concede that Edison is probably keeping families in 150 (probably mostly at Northmoor) that would otherwise leave. I really believe that the alternative school could do much more to alter the reputation of 150. Most people leave before their children get to high school–because that is where the problems really show up big time.
My public? THE public.
“Public, adj, is of or pertaining to the people; relating to, or affecting, a nation, state, or community; opposed to private; as, the public treasury, a road or lake. Public, n, is also defined as the people of a nation not affiliated with the government of that nation.
Public to the general body of mankind or of a nation, state, or community; the people, indefinitely; as, the public;”
So who at the School District is elected?
From what I understand…
The School Board is a separate entity from The School District. The School Board is elected to represent the PUBLIC (see above) in overseeing the District operations.
“The School Board is a separate entity from The School District.”
hunh?
why would you think that?
ed: I do not think that the school board is a separate entity from the School District.
Board of Education
School District Governance
The District is governed by a School Board consisting of 7 members. The Board’s powers and duties include the authority to adopt, enforce and monitor all policies for the management and governance of the District’s schools. (BOE Policy 2:10)
The powers and duties of the Board of Education generally include:
1. Formulating, adopting, and modifying Board of Education policies, at its sole discretion, subject only to mandatory collective bargaining agreements and State and Federal law.
2. Employing a Superintendent and other personnel, making employment decisions including determining all compensation and dismissing personnel.
3. Directing, through policy, the Superintendent, in his or her charge of the District’s
administration.
4. Approving the annual budget, tax levies, major expenditures, payment of obligations, annual audit, and other aspects of the District’s financial operation.
5. Entering into contracts using the public bidding procedure when required.
6. Providing, constructing, controlling, supervising, and maintaining adequate physical
facilities.
7. Approving the curriculum, textbooks, and educational services.
8. Evaluating the educational program and approving School Improvement and District Improvement Plans when they are required to be developed of revised.
9. Establishing and supporting student discipline policies designed to maintain an environment conducive to learning, including hearing individual student suspension or expulsion cases brought before it.
10. Establishing attendance units within the District and assigning students to the schools;
11. Establishing the school year.
12. Visiting and inspecting the District’s schools.
13. Providing student transportation services.
14. Entering into joint agreements with other School Boards to establish cooperative educational programs or provide educational facilities.
15. Complying with requirements in the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act.
Specifically, each individual School Board member must, if an allegation is raised to the member during an open or closed School Board meeting that a student is an abused child as defined in the Act, direct or cause the School Board to direct the Superintendent or other equivalent school administrator to comply with the Act’s requirements concerning the reporting of child abuse.
16. Communicating the schools’ activities and operations to the community and representing the needs and desires of the community in educational matters.
(BOE Policy 2:20)
No. 16. may answer the question — “which is their job after all… to do what the public wants them to do, that is…”
P.S. Still conducting the research to respond to your museum comments. Need to FOIA documents to provide you the complete answer that could take seven or more days.
karrie:
16. Communicating the schools’ activities and operations to the community and representing the needs and desires of the community in educational matters.
(BOE Policy 2:20)
No. 16. may answer the question — “which is their job after all… to do what the public wants them to do, that is…”
You may see me as difficult, and for that I apologize. I respond based on the tone some posts take.
“To do what the public wants them to do” IS NOT the same as “representing the needs and desires of the community” in my book.
A need MAY be contrary to a desire. “The people” may want (AKA “desire”) to keep the high schools open, but the board says they “need” to close.
So am I to infer from yours and kcdad’s context that by the statement of fulfilling the need, instead of “what the public wants” they’re not doing their job?
Ed: I understand the difference between “needs” and “wants.” Also, I know that my own feelings about the degree of public and teacher input that is necessary may be conflicted. I think the BOE should seek out the teachers’ and the public’s opinions so that they (the board) can make intelligent decisions, weighing the points of view of all stakeholders. Personally, I don’t think that the public or even the teachers should be misled into believing they actually “have a vote.” I think we all want to be heard–just to keep the board fully informed. In the end, the board is elected to make the hard decisions. As in the case of closing a high school, my mind is not at all closed to the idea (probably necessity) of closing a high school. When and if that time comes, I know that the board might have to make a decision that will be upsetting to the alumni of whatever school will be closed. My problem with the recent chain of events is that the board and administration did not give the community and teachers time to have the input–because they certainly had not considered all the ramifications of so many decisions made in haste. For instance, housing the freshmen from both Woodruff and Peoria High at the old Loucks School was an idea fraught with problems–and I think 150 should have given people time to weigh in on the idea–probably should have recognized it as a bad idea before putting in forward. Of course, not everyone can be pleased, but 150 needs to work harder at gaining the trust of the public, teachers, etc.
sharon;
we’re on the same page.
ed:
I do not see you as difficult. We read postings with our own lenses and experiences and if we are speaking — It’s not what you say, it’s what they hear and that can be applied to writing too — it’s not what you write, it’s what they read! 🙂
No, please do not infer that for my part. Not authorized to speak for kcdad! 🙂
Communicating the schools’ activities and operations to the community and representing the needs and desires of the community in educational matters.
How does the school board communicate with the community? How is information gathered to determine needs and desires? How is that input weighed, balanced and decided? If school board members are not willing to meet with the constituents of their district, how would a school board member determine needs and desires? Some other form of communication — one way input at school board meetings, telephone, email, snail mail?????
It needs to be a dialogue not a monologue.
Methods used — Proactive methods? Reactive methods?
Let’s look at the recent announcement of school closures. You decide — proactive and/or reactive? It was reported that no one seemed to know except for the administration / school board. I do not know if that is true or not — I was not involved. So, if someone tells me they didn’t know about the school closures, I exercise faith that they are telling me the truth.
How would you like to read about it in the newspaper or hear about it on the news?
As a stakeholder in our community — how do you feel about that type of communication? Respected? Valued? Part of a team? ……..
As I sat at the school board meeting, I was disappointed and saddened that the three D150 public forums were cancelled. Why? This is the time that we need to start the dialogue and engage people in conversations — input — needs and desires. It was announced no school closures for one year. Now is the time to begin the dialogue.
You and I have commented back in forth, seeking to understand the other’s viewpoint (I hope you will see it that way too). That process takes time, can be messy and challenges our beliefs and knowledge base to be broadened. We an obtain new perspectives and may even change our opinion. In the end, we have shown respect and can agree to disagree as needed.
Thank you for the continued dialogue.
I think Karrie, Ed, and I–and I’m sure others all agree. I’m wondering about this new budget committee that is being set up. First of all, I wonder who will be on it and then I hope the administration and board don’t think that just because it’s a committee made up of the “public” that the rest of us would not want the kind of input Karrie suggests. I’ve seen committees set up by the administration–often have the same point of view as the administration.
have you read the release?
http://www.psd150.org/community/docs/Budget_and_Planning_Committee_to_Form.pdf
What will the committee do?
• Assist the District in establishing a planning process for use by the Administration, Board, and
the public including:
-Processes for internal administrative planning and budgets.
-Procedures for public hearings and input
-Processes for incorporating recommendations or possible changes in funding to
show impact on the budget and programs.
• Assist the District in establishing budget and planning documents, including worksheets for use
by the Administration, Board and the public that will:
-Have standardized financial reports and spreadsheets
-Identify sources and uses of funds in the categories of: 1. Capital funds, 2. Program Funds, 3. General Funds, and 4. Restricted funds.
• It will also include reports or forms for analysis of anticipated federal and state stimulus funds.
This also can be used for multi -year projections and planning.
• It will include methods for identifying and making available information and reports to assist with research and explanations of budget requirements and funding sources.
All that, in just a few short weeks!
Seriously, when it’s announced contact those folks, tell them what you think. I *suspect* they will be listening.
Wow! How embarrassing. Aren’t the duties established for this committee exactly what Hinton and Cahill should have already established for the District? Further support of my previous post, that the identified skills that should be sought in a new superintendent are broad based business skills.
I hope that in forming the committee they can bring to the table individuals with little or no emotional ties to the issues, but rather ones with the education and skills to simply analyze the situation and make sound business decisions.
Ed, I don’t find you difficult, I find you exacting and pragmatic and that is what is demanded in analyzing the matters facing the District. I agree with Sharon that the rush to decision on closing a school was disconcerting but . . . nevertheless, a high school needs to be closed after the Board does considerable more study on what educational options should be offered at the remaining three.
I think it is a fortunate turn of events that the revelations about the budget irregularities and other management errors has come to the forefront so that these matters can be put in order before we begin the musical chairs process of consolidation.
Where are the anonymous experts? chirp……chirp….
Jim,
The “experts” you disparage are not anonymous in the sense that NO ONE knows who they are. They have asked to remain anonymous for the time being. There are several people who know their identities. BTW– I am not one of them or I would personally vouch for them. Please be careful when flame-throwing as it might come back on you. I hope not as I respect your positions, except for your vendetta against Peoria High.
I also respect the fact that you post online under your real name; even though I may not agree with what you say. So do not take this as a personal attack. It is not; just understand that there are others who do not have the latitude to post/write as freely as you do without repescussions.
–hot in the city (do your research and you will know who I am!)
oops, it’s repercussions. Sorry for the misspelling.
I sure hope they aren’t hiring any more consultants to work on the budget, dear God!!
His “vendetta against Peoria High?” Huh? I must’ve missed a chapter.
Procedures for public hearings and input
Jim: Where are the procedures for dialoguing? It appears that this is a monologue approach vs. a dialogue approach? Any comments? Thanks.
Regardless of the criticisms contained in this thread of the newly established budget committee, I think it is a very positive step in the right direction and I am pleased with the objectives that ed posted above. Further, I believe that the members of the committee are people from outside the district. My suggestion would be to give the committee some latitude and let them do their work. I’m sure it will not be a walk in the park.
Call me a cynic, but I am wondering about this committee. I know how the restructuring committee at Manual worked–lots of input and much volunteer time from some very qualified people, most, if not all of which, was ignored. All show.
What are the qualifications of the people on this new budget committee? From the list of duties, it would appear that these committee members need to be well-qualified in financial areas.
Where will they find well-qualified people, especially outside the district, that will be willing to work for nothing? Will they be paid or are they volunteers?
Mary Fran – I have no “vendetta” against PHS. I was calling for much needed capital improvements in, and around, the school. I’d encourage you to listen to those that know and understand what it means to tell the truth, and I’m not referring to the budget questions.
Sharon & Karrie – The volunteers assembled are known, well-respected leaders in our community. They have no agenda, other than to serve our District and community. I know of no opportunity for them to dialog with the general public. I agree with Diane on this point – let them do their work. If questions remain, I’d encourage you to send them to the chairperson (copy me). I have also suggested to Dr. Gorenz that a parrallel panel be formed to revisit and re-prioritize our Master Facility plan. I feel we have a couple of months, at most, to make closure decisions. While we face grave challenges, we also have tremendous opportunities. Encouraging ALL of our students to own up to their responsibility of becoming skilled, educated, and engaged in the community is how everyone can help. Those that truly understand know how daunting of a challenge that is to overcome. It must be done.
Jim, with your “a couple of months, at most, to make closure decisions,” are you giving us new information? When I left the meeting last Monday, I definitely had the impression that the decisions had been postponed–no school to be made by next school year. ???
I am only speaking for myself, but I think that was the wrong impression. No high school closings, yes. Everything else is still on the table, in my mind. To rely on the stimulus $$ is to shirk our responsibility to right-size the district. To do the job we need to do takes considerably more planning and time. The facilities improvements to accommodate the acadamies at WHS and PHS (if that is the Boards desire) might need to occur over the next couple (several?) years. I still feel that a technology pathway @ Woodruff – greater than the good one they already have – and a medical pathway @ PHS could re-energize those schools and our community. Moving to a number of k-8’s and some k-6’s also provides better structure – again, my opinion. I feel the reason to have slowed down was prudent, but now the pace must quicken. The two groups proposed will help us along. Longer school day and longer year also warrant consideration. We also need an alternative facility (Costs $$$) that should be designed with the intent that it is not necessarily permanent. Today there is a distinct need. If we do as we should with the “birth through” concept, more students should be better acclimated to learning going forward, regardless of their socio-economic background. Some say pie-eyed optimism, I say pressing need.
No high school closings….
No shorter day…
No firing of part timers…
No increase in Administrative personnel…
We have heard all the promises and lies (about the same thing) for years now.
Do you really want us to believe they were just kidding about closing Woodruff? Are you trying to tell us they realize it was a bad idea?
This is the kind of thing that makes us think District 150 is full of crazies. They pronounce what they are going to do as if it were coming down in stone from the mountain… then when they are questioned or called to justify it they back off and say:
“after further study we have concluded that that (I just wrote “that that”) wasn’t necessary … BUT THIS IS!”
And why are we supposed to think this second set in stone pronouncement is any more thought out?
Oh… and the biggest lie…
“This will improve student (or school) performance”
Jim, I think what you have said has merit. I do think a more “permanent” alternative school should be planned–I think the day when it isn’t needed might be farther down the line than you’re thinking. When it is no longer necessary, the district will be in such good shape that abandoning the alternative school won’t be an issue.
Jim – I agree with your ideas. I hope you can get it done. Sharon – Ditto!
Jim, then how about “based-on-the-fact-that-you-want-to-close-Peoria-High-for-a- year-and-then-re-open-it-which-will invalidate-its-charter-which predates-the district-charter-apparent vendetta” against PHS? If you were willing to throw Manual into the mix for closing I would have an easier time believing your intentions re: PHS.
As I said in my post, there are many of your ideas I agree with, as well as Martha’s. And I search for truth (and facts, which are not always the same thing) without being influenced by “others” although I will listen to everyone at least until they prove themselves untrustworthy.
I will reiterate what I have stated publicly–
1) You will not get broad-based community buy-in to any proposal unless and until the community has faith in the numbers and projections coming out of Wisconsin Ave. No matter what, there are serious issues with the numbers. It just doesn’t look right and the convenience factor is too coincidental. I am glad the board has stopped the runaway train for the time being, but…
2) There is a great deal of current research (last 10 years, since the outside consultant recommended closing a high school when enrollment dropped below 3900) that supports smaller high school size (not smaller class sizes, per se) as a positive factor in dealing with student retention and achievement.
3) The alternative high school has to be part of the plan — can they use Loucks?
4) The district needs to seriously implement curriculum alignment in the high schools. I know this is being attempted with English curriculum, but it needs to be expanded. With the high mobility of students, it is imperative that their education not be negatively impacted more than necessary by frequent moves between high schools.
5) Consultants and a top-heavy administration with multiple job “perks” MUST be eviscerated. Only externally funded outside consultants should be retained, and all job positions in central admin should be examined. If the district is in deficit, you cut farthest away from classrooms first. Until that is done, people will not believe the problem is as serious as central admin claims.
I appreciate you and Martha not rubber-stamping the current proposal and offering other options, even as I disagree with some of the components of both of them. Each is better thought out than the original proposal. I believe one thing the community is tired of is the board seeming to approve anything coming out of Wisconsin Ave. because “they are the experts.” ‘Nuff said.
Jim since you read this and have emailed me on occasion let me ask you for this info because I am confused after hearing one thing at the board meeting and now trying to comprehend what you are saying:
1. Will WHS and PHS be open for the next school year? (To clarify will they be just as they are now?) If not please explain.
2. Will Irving, Tyng, and Kingman be open for the next school year? (To clarify will they be just as they are now?) If not please explain
3. Since you have provided some information here for everyone to read and you seem to want to provide transparency to the public, I would ask you if you can provide the dollar figures listed in each of the seven funds the district operates so that the public can see them and get a better understanding of the finances.
4. Can funds in the building/maintance fund (ie: for new schools, or building improvements) be switched into the Ed. Fund?
5. What is the projection of how much the Alternative school will cost?
6. What is the projection of how much the Birth Through ___ will cost?
Thanks
Thanks for the input and comments. The Board is actively challenging and evaluating issues you mention. My idea on PHS was predicated on the event of the Board voting to close a HS – just ask someone close to you. PHS is in need of serious updates and improvements, none of which could occur over the course of a summer. By trucking out the charter issue, which our attorney addressed at the last Board meeting, you neglect the real issues. The PHS charter is not my primary concern. Apparently it is yours, or you would have commented on my vision for the center bluff and PHS campus. The students, their environment, and our communities long-term best interests weigh more heavily on my thought process. Again, know your source for that inflamed rhetoric. It is just not truthful.
Time will probably allow Jim’s original plan to be a bit more flexible. I am probably going to be the Lone Ranger here–but I’ll throw this out anyway. I really believe that one of the four high schools could become an alternative school. Personally, I’m thinking anywhere from 200 to 400 students for an alternative school for middle and high school age kids. Jim seems to be (in my opinion) too optimistic about this being just a temporary situation–and maybe even about the number who would attend. However, the district is not going to resolve the societal problems, including gangs, that have created so many of the problems. That’s just the way it is.
Maybe with the removal of the kids to alternative school, Woodruff and Peoria High might be able to get away with including the 7th and 8th grades. It’s already being done at Manual–however, I have objected strongly to the mixing of these younger kids with the older kids. Maybe the alternative school would convince me that it can be done.
I tend to lean toward making Manual the alternative school for some obvious reasons. Right or wrong, perception or reality–changing boundaries to infuse Manual with more students is, in my opinion, not going to happen. District 150 already tried to make Manual a “choice” school this year and it did not work–only about 14 kids actually opted in to the freshmen academy. Kids assigned to an alternative school really aren’t going to have a choice; consequently, Manual would be the logical choice. I know Martha wants an alternative school, but she also doesn’t want it to be punitive. However, I think there is a way of putting the decision into the kids’ hands. Live up to the rules or give up your choice. That said, once they get to the alternative school, I wouldn’t want the school to be punitive in nature. I would want it to offer a truly alternative education suited to young people who can’t succeed in the regular school setting and with teachers (not just dumped there) who really want to be there.
I know that some will be against sending the present Manual kids to other schools. However, I believe there are a significant number of kids whose behavior and academic standing and motivation would fit quite well at WHS and PHS–even Richwoods. They also deserve to be away from the disruptive students (who will be at the alternative school) who presently interfere with their education, etc.
Jim you seemed to question those anonymous sources from the Elaine Hopkins article but I put my name out there and asked for answers. Can you please provide those as that would be a great start in the transparency. Thanks in advance
Jim, if you going to provide the finanacial info for which Scott is asking. Please add these to the list. What is the source for the money in the building fund? Does this same source provide money that goes into the education fund? How is the decision made as to the ratio money into each of these accounts? And Scott’s question: can these funds be transferred to another account, etc.?
I ask that question because I am bewildered as what seems to be an endless supply of money for new builldings, for building additions and rennovations, etc., but not enough to pay for the services (including teachers’ salaries) that take place within those buildings.
Jim, in an effort to understand, can you please explain what you are referring to as “inflamed rhetoric”? What in Hot in the City’s comments above was based in something not truthful or inflamed?
Jim, you may need a blog secretary!
Jim, since your reply seemed to address issues I posted, let me reply.
There is no need to close Peoria High in order to implement the changes you suggest. Manual High was not closed and re-opened when it re-organized; it operated as a continuing entitiy.
I know that my husband and I disagree on closing a high school (not the first time we have disagreed in 30+ years of marriage); I can respect differences of opinion that are based on knowledge and data-driven research, including yours. He believes that Manual should be the school closed based on demographic and performance issues. Sharon’s idea that Manual be the alternative school site is not without merit. Your ideas have merit without the closing of Peoria High as an entity, which is not necessary. I absolutely believe an alternative high school is a necessity ASAP.
If you would read what I have posted here and on other boards, we actually share a common vision for Peoria High (without the closing issue) since it is the high school closest to Bradley and the medical centers. I have advocated making Peoria High the site for the 9-12 grade Math and Science Academy students rather than having a 4-12 grade population at the current adult ed site on Moss Ave. Medical profession ed would be a logical add-on to the PHS curriculum.
And as far as truthful sources for rhetoric, I would say that what is coming out of Wisconsin is at least as less truthful (ick for the grammar!) than anyone trying to sway my opinions. Believe me, I don’t believe everything I hear. And your attorney needs to do a little more research on charter issues before he issues blanket opinions, because there are people in the community who are very informed on this issue. Charters and legal issues are tricky and fraught with unanticipated problems.
BTW–I worked as a newspaper editor for a number of years and have dealt with related issues before.
Again, I appreciate your willingness to contribute to the debate.
Scott – the last time we spoke, you indicated that you were contemplating a lawsuit against the District. For that reason, I respectfully decline to be engaged in debate or discourse, as I don’t think it appropriate. Diane – someone is bending hot’s ear that I have vendetta’s or agendas against PHS, which is not true. The facilities improvements I hope the Board considers are vast and I felt the quickest way for us to get it to what it should become was to cease using it as a high school. With the added planning time, I’m hopeful we can find a way without jeopardizing the charter. As for Manual, I think Sharon, et. al., have been too quick to judge and the academy model has merit. As for funding sources of buildings, the Public Building Commission is our avenue to bonding authority. The Board sought and seeks that funding without raising the tax levy. We remain hopeful that the state funds the school construction grant. I’ll defer on a lot of the budget questions as the committee will be announced tomorrow and they will address those issues as we work to provide greater transparency. Thank you all for your understanding. I have much to read and a week to prepare for, so any other responses will have to wait until later.