Tag Archives: Peoria Public Schools

Education, Peoria Public Schools

Not a single student proficient in math at Trewyn Primary School

Leave a comment

Courtesy of Wirepoints, Trewyn Primary School is on a list of 53 Illinois schools where not a single student can do math at grade level.

There are 386 students in Trewyn at $15,936 in tax money expended per student. And not a single student proficient in math. Think about that. That’s over six million dollars being spent with nothing to show for it. It’s even worse than it looks when you consider all the efforts the school district has gone through to inflate student grades. The lowest grade students can get on their assignments or tests is a 40 (out of 100). Even with this inflation, there is still not one student doing math at grade level out of 386 students.

And yet, all these children will get passed to the next grade level regardless. Why aren’t these kids being held back from advancing to the next grade until they master the material? Are we really helping children by inflating grades and practicing social advancement? Does the district administration care more about the money that comes from enrollment and reaching certain metrics (on paper, though not in reality) than they do about the education of children?

Peoria Public Schools

Abysmal scores celebrated by D150, local press

1 Comment

To read Peoria’s “newspaper of record,” one would think that everything is positive at Peoria Public Schools. They “got better marks on the Illinois State Board of Education’s annual Illinois Report Card this year.” “Nine schools received improved designations.” Two schools “were deemed exemplary schools.” The superintendent “celebrated the improvements in a statement issued by the district.” Hurrah!

Except.

Maybe it would be nice if journalists didn’t just reprint statements issued by the school district and actually did their own independent investigation. This is something that used to be standard practice in journalism. Journalists used to question everything. They weren’t just scribes for government agencies who take our tax money.

Let’s look at just one of the laudatory examples given in the Journal Star article:

Three schools located in the poorest areas of the city – Franklin Primary School, Harold B. Dawson Jr. Middle School, and Manual High School – were elevated from the lowest designation to “commendable,” meaning they had no underperforming student groups, a graduation rate greater than 67%, and were not in the top 10% of schools statewide.

Sounds great. Let’s look at Franklin Primary School’s report card on the Illinois Report Card website. Would you like to take a guess as to what percentage of the students are proficient in English Language Arts (ELA)? Six percent. That means 94% of the students at this school that “had no underperforming student groups” are not proficient in English. You might think it couldn’t get worse, but the percentage of students proficient in math is only two percent. That’s right: 98% of the students at this “commendable” K-4 school are not proficient in math. But they have a graduation rate greater than 67%.

Does something seem like it’s not right to you? Something that maybe would warrant a question or two from the fourth estate to the school board members? Maybe raise some concerns over how $14,000 per student at this school is being spent and why there is so little return on investment?

Not surprisingly, Harold B. Dawson Middle School (formerly Calvin Coolidge Middle School) turned in a proficiency rate of 3% in ELA and 2% in Math. They boast 11% proficiency in science. Booyah. They, too, are “commendable,” according to the State of Illinois. By the time you reach Manual High School, proficiency in ELA and Math are at 1%, and science is at 2%.

Can we state the obvious here? These scores are abysmal. They are not commendable. They are not a cause to celebrate. Our tax money is being wasted. Our city’s children are not being educated. Why isn’t there an independent investigation into why the performance of these schools is so appalling? Why aren’t the school board members (who seem to think that the most important work to be done is renaming our school buildings) being tossed out?

Here’s another question that has not come up during the teachers union negotiations: Why should the teachers get any more money? Why should there be no connection between their pay and the students’ educational outcomes? If your job is to educate, and only 1% of your students are educated, did you do your job? If the retort is that the teachers don’t get enough support from the administration for student discipline, then why don’t they threaten to strike over that issue? Why do they only threaten to strike over salary concerns?

One thing is for sure: the public school system is broken. Really, horribly, badly broken. And Peoria is fiddling while the schools burn.

Aaron Schock

Schock unopposed thanks to “ruthless tactics” he once decried

17 Comments

Eleven years ago, Aaron Schock was nineteen, just out of high school, and a candidate for the Peoria Public Schools Board of Education. At the time, 200 signatures were required to get on the ballot, and he filed 220.

Attorney Bob Hall, a close friend of Schock’s opponent (board president Rhonda Hunt), contested the signatures and found a number of irregularities. One of the petitions wasn’t signed by the person who circulated it. Several of the signers were not registered voters. Some of them didn’t put their addresses on the petitions.

“You might say it’s picky,” Hall told the Journal Star. “But pickiness is exactly what the Legislature expected.”

Hall prevailed and Schock was thrown off the ballot. Everyone remembers what happened next: Schock mounted a write-in campaign and beat Hunt for the school board seat anyway. It’s a real David vs. Goliath story.

Not so well remembered is Schock’s initial reaction to getting booted from the ballot.

“I think its ridiculous,” Schock was quoted as saying by the Journal Star on February 2, 2001 — eleven years ago today. “It shows Rhonda Hunt’s true character, that she is willing to use ruthless tactics and try to keep me off the ballot, and to stop the people of Peoria from having a choice of who they want to represent them on the School Board.”

According to the paper, “[Schock] said these were small mistakes, and he doesn’t think it jeopardizes the integrity of his ballots. ‘It was not intentional in any way. I am new to the political process. The technicality they have got me on was human error. I think it’s ridiculous. This is why people don’t get involved in politics. I think it is a disgrace in American politics.'”

Fast-forward to February 2, 2012. Schock is now the incumbent U.S. Representative from the 18th Congressional District, and he is being challenged in the primary by Darrel Miller. Some friends of Schock contested Miller’s petitions, and today Miller was tossed from the ballot:

Last month, Central Illinois Republican officials Michael Bigger of Wyoming, Ill., and Katherine Coyle of Peoria filed official challenges to Miller’s candidacy with the State Board of Elections. Bigger said he pursued the objection independently, not at the request of Schock’s campaign, after noticing several signatures collected by Miller came from Schock’s “close, personal friends.” He said that made him suspicious.

Miller had expressed confidence that enough of his 730 signatures would survive to give him the required 600. But a records exam and subsequent review found Miller’s petition contained only 583 valid signatures, 17 short of the minimum requirement. […]

Miller told WJBC on Thursday that he was certain his signatures were from registered voters who live in the 18th District. But Miller said the board’s questions centered on the “genuineness” of his signatures – specifically the 80 or so that were printed names, not traditional signatures. He said he lost around 50 signatures only because they were printed. […]

Miller represented himself during Thursday’s session in Springfield, and he admitted he was in “over his head.” His advice to anyone else looking to run for Congress: get three times the number of required signatures, to be safe.

Technicalities. Small mistakes. Someone new to the political process and in “over his head.” Sound familiar?

Miller was a gracious loser by all accounts. It could be that he’s older, wiser, and more circumspect in his speech than a 19-year-old kid. Or maybe he’s just accepted the fact that politics is a dirty business.

But what does Schock think about this? Surely his friends told him they were going to do this. Why didn’t he stop them from disgracing American politics? Doesn’t he think this stops the people of the 18th Congressional District from having a choice of who they want to represent them? Doesn’t he think this keeps good people from running for office? Doesn’t he think his tacit approval of these “ruthless tactics” reveal his “true character”? Or has he changed his mind over the past 11 years?

“Schock’s campaign declined to comment on the state board’s decision.” (Journal Star)

My suggestion to Miler: Run as a write-in.художник на икониИкони на светци

Peoria Public Schools, Redistricting

Peoria Public Schools redistricting map on the agenda for Monday night

16 Comments

On the District 150 school board’s agenda for Monday night, September 12, is a resolution to adopt a new voting district map. Every ten years, elected bodies adjust their representative boundaries to ensure equal representation by population based on the U.S. Census numbers. For District 150, things are a little more complicated because they also have to comply with a 1987 Voting Rights lawsuit settlement agreement.

Before the lawsuit, District 150 board members were all elected at-large. Now the school district has been split into three voting districts. District 1 is deliberately drawn so that it has a “voting age population which will be composed of a majority of minority race voters,” and has one representative. Districts 2 and 3 split up the remaining population and have three representatives each. Here’s how it breaks out:

District # of Reps Mean Voting
Age Population		 Actual Proposed
Voting Age Population		 Deviation Black Pop. Total Minority Pop.
1 1 10,951 10,717 -2.1% 63.47% 73.60%
2 3 32,853 32,839 -0.04% 35.84% 45.75%
3 3 32,853 33,102 +0.7579% 14.18% 22.83%

As you can see, it really works out to 10,951 voters per representative (ideally), but rather than split the district into seven districts, they have a goal of one with 10,951 voters and one representative, and two with 32,853 (10,951 x 3) voters and three representatives each. They don’t have to meet the goal perfectly, but they have to be within a 5% deviation of the mean. This proposed map meets that standard.

The data provided by the school district also provides a picture of what we all know but rarely see quantified: the farther north you go, the fewer minorities there are. And remember, this isn’t the entire City of Peoria, just District 150.

Here’s the proposed map:

D150 Proposed Map 2011
Peoria Public Schools Proposed Redistricting Map (click for larger view)

Hat tip: Emerge Peoria

General News, Peoria Public Schools

School Superintendents: Fresno vs. Peoria

119 Comments

Have you heard about this? The school superintendent in Fresno County, California, Larry Powell, is a hero to taxpayers nationwide:

Some people give back to their community. Then there’s Fresno County School Superintendent Larry Powell, who’s really giving back. As in $800,000 – what would have been his compensation for the next three years.

Until his term expires in 2015, Powell will run 325 schools and 35 school districts with 195,000 students, all for less than a starting California teacher earns.

“How much do we need to keep accumulating?” asks Powell, 63. “There’s no reason for me to keep stockpiling money.”

…[Powell asked] his board to allow him to return $288,241 in salary and benefits for the next three and a half years of his term. He technically retired, then agreed to be hired back to work for $31,000 a year – $10,000 less than a first-year teacher – and with no benefits.

Setting aside for a moment Powell’s generosity, though, take a look at his salary and responsibilities compared to District 150’s superintendent:

  Fresno Supt. Peoria Supt.
Schools 325 28
Districts 35 1
Students 195,000 13,021
Salary $288,241* $198,000**
*Including benefits | **Not including benefits

The school board also awarded District 150’s superintendent a $10,000 bonus this year. It seems the Fresno superintendent has a much bigger responsibility. If you run the numbers, you’ll see that Peoria’s school system is less than 7% the size of Fresno’s by enrollment, yet our superintendent’s salary is almost 70% the size of Fresno’s — not including benefits.

Am I suggesting that our superintendent should only get 7% of what Fresno’s makes (it comes to a little less than $20,000)? No, of course not. But I am questioning whether $198,000 is too high, given the size of our school district. If the Fresno superintendent thinks he’s overpaid at $288,000, and his school district is nearly 14 times the size of ours, then it seems we may have a problem — especially when you factor in the cost of living. According to BestPlaces.net, Fresno is 26% more expensive than Peoria, housing in Fresno is 75% more expensive than Peoria, and a salary equivalent to $198,000 in Peoria would be $250,371 in Fresno.

I’m sure I’ll be accused of comparing apples and oranges, but it does make a taxpayer wonder if our salary scales for administrators are too high. The educational opportunities provided at schools, such as scholarships for masters degree, may be one of he reasons. And oh, that there would be more public-sector workers like Powell — ones who would say, “There’s no reason for me to keep stockpiling money,” and voluntarily take a pay cut for the sake of better government service.

Peoria Public Schools

D150 should know that there’s no such thing as a free lunch (UPDATED)

115 Comments

Here’s an informational sheet I received from District 150 on the first day of school:

A recent change in federal law allows Illinois, Kentucky and Tennessee school districts with a high poverty population to offer free meals to all students in the approved school. To be eligible and receive reimbursements from the government, a school district must have 40% or more families participating in Federal poverty programs for each school that is approved for the Community Eligibility Option (CEO). CEO is a pilot program for the three states listed above, and once a school is approved to participate, their participation is guaranteed by the Government for at least four years.

That’s right. Because fewer than half of families in a particular school need free or reduced price school lunches, the federal government has developed a program that gives everyone in the school free breakfast and lunch. In District 150, this means 22 out of 28 schools are participating — every school except Richwoods, Lindbergh, Washington Gifted, Kellar, Northmoor, and Charter Oak. So now, the first 15 minutes of the day at Whittier is spent serving kids free breakfast.

Obviously, I have no problem with a program that provides free and reduced price lunches to children in need. But under this program, up to 60% of families who are not at all in need will get free meals. Why? According to a USDA press release, “By streamlining the eligibility and enrollment process, no additional application is required to provide much need nutrition assistance to children in need.” Here’s how another press release expresses it:

“Community eligibility is a great way for schools to cut through burdensome red tape for themselves and low-income families so that children in high-poverty areas have access to the nutrition they need to learn and thrive,” said Agriculture Under Secretary Kevin Concannon. “Schools will benefit from reduced paperwork, parents will not have to fill out duplicative forms, and children in need will get better access to healthy school meals.”

In other words, those in need no longer have to fill out an application form (which the government considers “burdensome red tape”), and the school doesn’t have to process them. But who’s paying for all this convenience? Ultimately, the school district:

Under this option, schools utilize preexisting data to determine the amount of reimbursement they can claim from USDA. The determination is primarily based on the percentage of households in that community who are already participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp Program. Schools that utilize this option agree to provide meals to all children free of charge, and USDA reimburses them for the appropriate amount based on this preexisting data. Under this option, schools will still be responsible for paying the remaining difference between the Federal reimbursement amount and the total cost to operate the program. [emphasis added]

So, the federal government is only reimbursing school districts for those 40% or more students who are really in need. The up to 60% of other children that take advantage of the free breakfasts and lunches who are not in need will be paid for by the school district. This seems a high price to pay for eliminating an application form. On WCBU news this morning, it was reported that District 150 is facing a $2 million budget deficit this year.

UPDATE: I asked District 150 Comptroller/Treasurer David Kinney about the costs of this program to the district, and he had this to say:

Yes, we pay the difference [between the Federal reimbursement amount and the total cost to operate the program]. However, what is important is understanding what that “difference” is. With all formulas worked out, the feds will reimburse us 99.2% of the meals served. We are actually hopeful that we will be ahead with that formula for a couple of reasons. First we will be able to save a small amount in typical administrative costs. Second, we will NOT be in a situation with those eligible schools that we will be chasing down kids or families that haven’t paid for their lunches – which is the situation we have had in the past. What has often happened – and happens in many school districts, kids that are not “free” or “reduced” may spend their lunch money on something else and then charge their lunches – or parents didn’t have the money to give. When these charges accumulate, many school districts enact practices to try to collect those funds. For District 150, all those head aches will actually now go away. At a max of 8/10ths of one percent cost to implement this program, we project we will actually come out ahead.

We also think that with the ease of this program, we will serve more lunches and breakfasts to our kids, making for a better day for them.

He brings up another D150 policy that I find bizarre. One day my wife and I discovered that we owed D150 for milk our daughter had purchased on credit. We never gave her permission to buy milk, nor to have any kind of “credit” account. (We send an orange juice, which you can find at sites like https://orangina-na.com/, with her sack lunch, and would have given her milk money if she had asked for it — she never did.) But apparently at District 150, kids can put stuff on their parents’ tab without their parents’ knowledge. Then one day the parents get a surprise bill in the mail for it. It’s a strange economic system indeed that resolves collection problems by ceasing to charge for goods.

Peoria Public Schools

Butler new D150 Board president

12 Comments

From the Journal Star:

District 150 School Board Vice President Linda Butler was elected Friday as president of the board, which again passed over longtime member Martha Ross.

Ross has been on the School Board for nine years, longer than any other member. After Friday’s 4-2 vote, she said the practice of selecting a board president was “unfair” and “biased.”

“We as a board are supposed to model how we want our children to perform. We want our children to treat each other fairly … but yet I really feel that is not what is happening with this board and it is a personal feeling that I have not been treated fairly for whatever reason,” Ross said during the meeting, adding that “it has the appearance in this community as being discriminatory and biased.” […]

“I’m not upset because I know who I am as a person and I know what I’ve contributed to this community in the last 30 years,” she said, later adding “but If there was a spirit of fairness, I would’ve had my turn.”

I think it’s painfully clear that the other board members simply do not have confidence in Martha Ross as a leader. There may have been some question over whether this was race-based in the past, but given that the last two superintendents the board has hired have been black, and now the new school board president is black, I really don’t see how that argument holds water.

I don’t see anything in the school code that says the board is obligated to elect as president the member with the most seniority. I don’t see anything in the school code that says every board member is guaranteed a turn as president. All the school code says is, “The president of the board of education shall be elected by the members thereof from among their number and serve for 2 years…” (105 ILCS 5/10-13).

If fairness is defined as “conformity with rules or standards,” then this election was fair. If Ross believes that every board member should have a “turn,” then she should take her beef to the state legislature and lobby for a change in the school code. But calling your fellow board members biased, unfair, and discriminatory every time you lose an election is probably not the best way to secure their confidence and votes in the future.

Peoria Public Schools

Court: McArdle termination legit

78 Comments

District 150 did not violate Julie McArdle’s first-amendment rights when they terminated her contract. Evidence presented in court basically confirmed District 150’s statement to the press on April 29, 2009. Specifically, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois found that McArdle was terminated without cause, pursuant to her employment contract, and that the decision to terminate her employment was made before she reported alleged illegal activities of her supervisor, Mary Davis.

McArdle had argued that her termination was in retaliation for blowing the whistle on Davis. But the court found that the timeline of events simply didn’t comport with McArdle’s assertions:

Plaintiff’s own evidence shows that McArdle did not report Davis’ alleged illegal conduct until after learning that the District intended to terminate her contract. When Broderick, the vice-president of the Board of Education [sic], called McArdle on April 21, 2009, McArdle was given actual notice of her supervisor’s decision to exercise the buy-out provision of her contract. The record before the Court illustrates, therefore, that the decision to terminate McArdle had effectively already been made, and McArdle was notified of this decision before she engaged in allegedly constitutionally protected speech. While some of the Board members saw McArdle’s email regarding Davis’ alleged criminal conduct, the superintendent and vice president of the Board had already decided to terminate McArdle’s employment and had effectively and clearly communicated this decision to her before she ever publicized Davis’ alleged criminal activity. Thus, no reasonable factfinder could conclude that the District was motivated by McArdle’s future speech when deciding to exercise the early termination provision of her contract.

Incidentally, the court document erroneously identifies Broderick as the School Board vice president; he was actually the Human Resources administrator.

McArdle also argued that Davis orchestrated her termination by giving her unwarranted bad reviews and giving district administrators a bad report of her performance. However, the court found no evidence for this:

As illustrated in the record before this Court, the District had received numerous complaints from parents and coworkers about McArdle’s actions and statements while principal. McArdle was also informed of these complaints and given an opportunity to correct her actions and attitude before the District chose to terminate her employment. These complaints did not come solely from Davis, and there is no evidence before the Court to establish a genuine issue of material fact that Davis orchestrated these complaints, as argued by Plaintiff. […]

When making its initial determination, [Superintendent Ken] Hinton and [Human Resources Director Tom] Broderick considered numerous complaints made by parents, students, and teachers against McArdle in addition to the performance reviews and personality conflicts reported by Davis. The Board, when finalizing the decision to terminate McArdle, also considered evidence in addition to and not provided by Davis.

In short, McArdle failed to prove there was a conspiracy against her orchestrated by Davis. You can read the full 15-page opinion here:

Summary-Judgment-6-7-2011

Peoria Public Schools

Wojcikewych considering School Board run

167 Comments

At Washington Gifted School’s Fine Arts Night on Thursday, Principal Joan Wojcikewych told the audience what she’s planning to do after she retires at the end of this year: run for the District 150 school board. Wojcikewych lives in the second voting district within District 150. The terms of current second district board members Linda Butler and Lynn Costic (who is filling Rachael Parker’s term since Parker was elected to the Peoria County Board) expire in 2012. Икони

2011 Election, City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

Election Results 4/5/2011

39 Comments

Here are Tuesday’s election results for City Council and District 150:

Peoria City Council

# Candidate Votes Pct
1 Chuck Weaver 14,784.5839 24.95%
2 ♦ Ryan M. Spain 10,071.9164 17.00%
3 ♦ Gary Sandberg 8,390.0000 14.16%
4 ♦ W. Eric Turner 6,911.3335 11.67%
5 Beth Akeson 6,040.0832 10.20%
6 Charles V. Grayeb 5,559.3335 9.38%
7 Jim Stowell 2,402.7500 4.06%
8 André Williams 2,261.2499 3.82%
9 Christopher (C.J.) Summers 1,812.4167 3.06%
10 George Azouri 1,011.3333 1.71%

District 150, Ward 2

Candidate Votes Pct
♦ Debbie L. Wolfmeyer 1,150 55.66%
Mike Mitchell 916 44.34%

District 150, Ward 3
(All candidates were write-in candidates)

Candidate Votes Pct
Rick Cloyd 2,120 67.11%
Janice K. Deissler 759 24.03%
Jody Pitcher 181 5.73%
Phillip E. Cline 99 3.13%

♦ = Incumbent