It only took me until the second paragraph of Clare Jellick’s story in the Journal Star to start shaking my head in disbelief:
The [Peoria Public School] district [150] has agreed to partner with the City of Peoria to identify a site of about 15 acres that includes [Glen Oak] primary school, U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood announced Monday at a press conference following a meeting between local officials.
What is it with the school board and their obsession with getting 15 acres for an urban school? This arbitrary standard is the single most destructive policy the school board is following — it is the reason they wanted to build next to Glen Oak Park in the first place, and if it is not abandoned, it will damage every neighborhood where they want to build a new urban school.
Any compromise the city makes with the school district must include a decrease in their minimum acreage standards.
Why? There are five main reasons: (1) Minimum acreage requirements have been officially abandoned by educational experts as of 2004, (2) the State of Illinois does not require any minimum acreage for school siting, (3) there is no evidence that the amount of acreage has any effect on student achievement, (4) acreage requirements are counter to the Heart of Peoria Plan, which the council adopted “in principle,” and (5) minimum acreage requirements have a negative impact on student health and the environment.
1. Minimum acreage requirements have been officially abandoned by educational experts as of 2004.
The whole idea of minimum acreage requirements can be traced back to a professional association called the Council of Educational Facility Planners International (CEFPI). In past editions of their “Guide for Planning Educational Facilities,” they recommended thse minimum acreage standards:
Elementary Schools = 10 acres plus 1 acre for every 100 students;
Junior High/Middle Schools = 20 acres plus 1 acre for every 100 students;
Senior High Schools = 30 acres plus 1 acre for every 100 students.
Many states used these guidelines as a starting point to develop their own minimum acreage recommendations — some states even required it. Illinois’ recommendations are almost identical, except that they suggest a minimum of 15 acres plus 1 acre for every 100 students for elementary schools instead of CEFPI’s 10-acre proposal.
But those recommendations are now passé. In their most recent guide, “Creating Connections: CEFPI Guide for Educational Facility Planning,” published in 2004, CEFPI doesn’t give any minimum acreage standards anymore. “School districts are encouraged to base the size of school sites on educational program needs instead of on arbitrary acreage standards,” according to the Oregon Dept. of Transportation and Growth Management. “This more flexible approach has the potential of reducing ‘school sprawl’ and of making it easier for communities to build (or preserve and renovate) schools on smaller sites located in walkable neighborhoods, as opposed to constructing stand-alone facilities on large, remote sites accessible only by car or bus.”
The Fall 2004 issue of “Planning Commissioners Journal” also highlighted this change in CEFPI’s standards. In an article titled “Back to School for Planners,” policy analyst Tim Torma states, “Recognizing that a ‘one size fits all’ approach is dated and can work counter to a variety of goals, the new Guide encourages communities to analyze their needs in order to make appropriate siting decisions.”
So, why the need for 15 acres? Can the school district provide any needs assessment results that show why 15 acres are needed and how that land will be utilized? The only reason given to me for needing 15 acres was that the state recommended it, which leads us to the next point.
2. The State of Illinois does not require any minimum acreage for school siting.
You may remember when Ken Hinton was on WMBD way back on March 30, he made it sound like the state required new schools to be built on a minimum of 15 acres. Upon further investigation, it turned out this was only a state recommendation, according to Guy Cahill.
When I spoke with Cahill on March 30, he referred me to Susan Weitekamp at the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) for more information on state recommendations. I didn’t get through to her back then, but this past week I was finally able to connect up with her. She confirmed that the state does provide guidelines for school siting, but stressed they are not required, nor are they tied to state funding in any way.
And she confirmed something else: acreage decisions need to be made on a case-by-case basis. The published acreage requirements are a “one size fits all” suggestion, to use Torma’s words, that don’t take into account schools located in a dense urban area versus a sparse suburban area. Weitekamp said that the size of the school site is a local decision — the only requirements are that the site provide safe access for emergency vehicles and meet local zoning codes.
If acreage had any affect on achievement, you would expect the ISBE would require minimum acreage sites for schools, wouldn’t you? But since they don’t, one has to conclude that the state doesn’t recognize any correlation between the size of the school plot and student achievement. In fact, that’s what we find.
3. There is no evidence that the amount of acreage has any effect on student achievement.
I did a quick survey of District 150 primary and middle schools to see if, just locally in our own experience, there was any correlation between site size and achievement. To determine acreage, I did some rough measurements utilizing the awesome PeoriaGIS site (all acreage values are approximate); for achievement, I looked at the “Overall Performance — All State Tests” percentage on each School Report Card.
Here are all the schools in descending order by achievement, with a couple of notable highlights:
| No. | School | Acres | Performance |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Washington Gifted | 15.5 | 99.7 |
| 2 | Kellar Primary | 17.1 | 86.9 |
| 3 | Lindbergh | 12.6 | 85.7 |
| 4 | Charter Oak | 7.9 | 84.5 |
| 5 | Whittier | 1.5 | 83.4 |
| 6 | Northmoor Edison | 3.3 | 77.5 |
| 7 | Rolling Acres Edison | 6.0 | 71.2 |
| 8 | Roosevelt Magnet | 6.3 | 67.9 |
| 9 | Hines | 9.6 | 67.7 |
| 10 | Von Steuben | 17.7 | 66.7 |
| 11 | Calvin Coolidge | 9.0 | 62.5 |
| 12 | Thomas Jefferson | 14.5 | 62.4 |
| 13 | Woodrow Wilson | 6.1 | 62.4 |
| 14 | Franklin Edison | 1.8 | 61.1 |
| 15 | Mark Bills | 5.0 | 60.1 |
| 16 | Kingman | 1.7 | 57.0 |
| 17 | Irving | 0.9 | 52.4 |
| 18 | Columbia | 3.9 | 51.4 |
| 19 | Tyng | 3.5 | 48.5 |
| 20 | Harrison | 3.2 | 48.2 |
| 21 | Glen Oak | 2.8 | 45.5 |
| 22 | Garfield | 1.5 | 42.2 |
| 23 | Loucks Edison | 7.0 | 41.4 |
| 24 | Sterling | 26.0 | 40.6 |
| 25 | Trewyn | 13.7 | 36.2 |
| 26 | Lincoln | 4.0 | 33.8 |
| 27 | White | 2.2 | 28.4 |
| 28 | Blaine-Sumner | 3.2 | 26.3 |
Now consider the highlighted schools for a moment. Whittier school has the fifth highest achievement of any Peoria elementary schools and sits on a mere 1.5 acres with no greenspace whatsoever. In contrast, coming in a dismal 24th and almost 43 percentage points lower is Sterling, which sits on a whopping 26 acres — nearly double the minimum acreage requirement District 150 is pushing.
Of course there’s nothing wrong with having a lot of space for athletic fields and outside classes and things like that — if you have the space. But in a dense urban area, that space just isn’t available. And since there isn’t any evidence that more space would improve student achievement, what is the justification for mowing down 15 acres of real estate in the heart of Peoria? Ah yes, the Heart of Peoria . . . .
4. Acreage requirements are counter to the Heart of Peoria Plan, which the council adopted “in principle.”
Remember the Heart of Peoria Plan? Believe it or not, it did briefly address our school situation. They, too, recognize that “if the schools are suffering from problems of poor performance, crime, and physical decay, families with a choice will move to another district.” On that much I think we all agree.
However, their response to these difficulties is different than the school board’s. Instead of seeing existing physical structures as liabilities, the HOP plan sees them as assets:
The [school] buildings are not only beautiful, but well located from the standpoint of maintaining the neighborhood structure of the city. This makes the city’s schools even more important as components of Peoria’s neighborhoods. […]
Finding: Peoria has maintained an architectural legacy of attractive brick school buildings, well located in its inner city neighborhoods. […]
Recommendation: Encourage the continuation and expansion of programs to strengthen Peoria’s well-located historic schools, using available funds to renovate and enhance rather than consolidate or replace these schools.
Of course, their recommendation of renovating these beautiful buildings opens up a whole other topic — so let’s leave that for now and focus on the “well-located” part. The reason the HOP plan is quick to point out their location is because the philosophical basis of the plan is that urban areas should be urban in character, not suburban.
Tearing down five city blocks of housing stock so that a replacement school can be built on an unnecessary plethora of land can hardly be considered an “urban” development. It’s a radical transformation of an urban neighborhood school into a suburban-type consolidated school. This kind of “development” flies in the face of the Heart of Peoria Plan and shows how deeply the school board and city government are at odds in their proposed solutions to the plight of older neighborhoods.
Lost in this discussion is the plan to consolidate schools and the impact that will have not only on the community’s health, but on our children’s health and the environment.
5. Minimum acreage requirements have a negative impact on student health and the environment.
In October 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency came out with a report called, “Travel and Environmental Implications of School Siting.” Consider this quote from the cover letter of this report:
Realizing that use of large, new campuses may have adverse consequences for the environment and a community’s quality of life, communities are beginning to re-evaluate the impact of existing requirements. […]
These changes exemplify a growing trend. Citizens, school administrators, and parents are recognizing that schools do more than house children for the day. They affect home-buying decisions and traffic patterns. They present opportunities to create neighborhood centers for education and civic life.
This study provides important information about the effect of school location on how children get to school. It shows that school siting and design can affect traffic congestion, air pollution, school transportation budgets, and children’s health and obesity.
The report goes on to explain how the location of the school affects how many children need to be bused to school, which has all kinds of environmental and social ramifications. If kids aren’t walking or biking to school, they get less exercise, which exacerbates our childhood obesity problem in this country. If the school is too far away to walk or bike, that means more buses and cars on the street, clogging up the roads and increasing emissions which hurt the environment.
The Bottom Line
I’m pretty sure this is the longest post I’ve written to date, but I’m pretty fired up about this arbitrary 15-acre minimum standard the school board is forcing down our throat. There isn’t a shred of justification for it, except to get people all upset about how many houses would have to be torn down, how much it will cost the city, and thus turn public opinion back toward letting them build on a corner of the ever-shrinking Glen Oak Park.
It’s really a shame that this has gotten so adversarial. The city wants the school district to succeed, but it wants to work with the school district on common goals for revitalization of older neighborhoods, too. As long as the school district continues to cling to outdated ideas of educational planning, it looks like Bill Dennis’s headline will come true: “To save Glen Oak, they killed the East Bluff.”
CJ: Glad you’re back. Awesome post with all the data and analysis. Please consider these additional points:
(1) Weitekamp (ISBE) said that the size of the school site is a local decision — the only requirements are that the site provide safe access for emergency vehicles and meet local zoning codes.
Would this mean that the assertion that D150 does not have to meet local zoning codes is untrue (as in vacating streets, getting a special use permit for a school in a R-3 (or other R designated districts) district?
(2) Attended the neighborhood planning session at Glen Oak School, yesterday and I was a little late. Another citizen shared that D150 representatives talked about that schools with larger windows and thus more sunlight would help with childhood obesity …… say what?
So, take a trip around the exterior of Glen Oak School, look at all the large window space which has been bricked up? Why reinvent the wheel — unbrick the windows — replace with high efficiency window, A/C, furnace, insulation …. and save a pile of $$$$ on new construction. Gut the interior, reconfigure for a ‘modern’ education (however and whatever that will be determined to comprise) and save another pile of $$$ and keep the historic schools.
In your research, do you know when and why Glen Oak School windows were bricked up???
(3) The concept of one stop schools is an interesting one. I support life-time learning and educational opportunities. My concerns are based on the fine line between:
(a) enabling/disabling vs. true self-sufficiency aka empowerment of the participants of the school and;
(b) the point at which so many government services are provided that a socialist (government take care of all our needs) approach surfaces.
A D150 representative talked about the community school being not just a 0-K school, but actually a 0-death community center for a lifetime of learning. More federal funds to reply upon for the funding of 0-3 services and should those $$$$ dry up — what then???
Glad you’re back! 🙂
Go Karrie! Except that lifetime learning center is not such a bad thing. The building is theoretically not in use evenings (or at least in far less use after 7pm). Community centers as such build community. This is not an entirely bad idea…
And then my comments…
Being a new urbanist, I’m in agreement with every point you make.
1. Kids walk and bike to school – fight childhood obesity. If you’re worried about safety, parents lose weight too walking their kids to school!
2. Less folks driving their kids to school, fewer buses necessary = lots fewer greenhouse gases, and hence the city/school board get on board doing our part to save ourselves from almost inevitable global warming.
Now my question:
What the fuck is up with the School Board and Park Board? I’ve only lived here 1.5 years, but man – they have the collective intelligence and foresight of a jelly bean. If anyone should be reading the recommendations of the CEFPI, it’s them! Why is it incumbent upon CJ to go find this data. And the crazy thing is that it’s DATA, not some political rant.
I have never seen such inane operating procedure (and I’ve lived in NY, NJ, WA, and FL).
Who pays for the maintenance of the 15 acres? Seriously now… who pays for it? District 150 or the park district? I have seen in other communities where they build a school on a large spread of acreage, they call all that extra acreage a ‘park’. Because the park district uses the ‘park’, they also perform the maintenance. The school naturally gets to use the ‘park’ as their school yard. In effect the park district is subsidizing the school district. This becomes part of an enlarged taxing shell game, where the park district can raise funds that the school district might not otherwise be able to raise. The school gets a school yard on the cheap.
Karrie: You should research the costs of rennovating versus building. I’d be willing to bet that you would be surprised at what you learned. Glen Oak school has asbestos that would be a huge hinderance to rennovation. Also, the amount of work that would need to be done to add HVAC and unbrick/install new windows would be huge. Don’t forget you would have to add elevators, reconstruct stairways, doorways, bathrooms, etc for ADA compliance. When you are done, you would then have a very expensive 100 year old building on 2.5 acres of asphalt.
Tony: CJ has older posts on this subject and also at http://rally-peoria.blogspot.com/2006/05/d150-new-information-citizens-civic.html.
National Trust For Historic Preservation publication is a must read —
Why Johnny Can’t Walk to School
http://www.nationaltrust.org/issues/downloads/schools_why_johnny.pdf
and
http://www.nationaltrust.org/issues/schools/downloads/school_feasibility_study.pdf
Renovation vs. Replacement and the Role of the Feasibility Study —
with a feasibility study by an architect who is familiar with renovation vs. an architect with only new construction experience that would be the end result to review coupled with all the other elements that the NTHP states to adequately address a school siting issue. Gutting the building probably be the answer instead of makeshift cut and patch jobs.
It is all taxpayer $$$$ so in some cities (think , it is more expensive to rehab — however the political will supported the people’s choice. Imagine that! 🙂
It appears that D150 maybe looking for ‘new schools’ as in the new panacea to cure the low academic performance. Ernestine Jackson at school board meeting voiced her concerns that a new school was not necessarily the answer and we have Lincoln to show for that.
Yougottawanna — it is mainly an inside out job — academics and academic performance, personal accountability, personal responsibility, integrity, honor, giving back vs. me first others last, gimme gimme gimme attitudes are the key. It just seems like this is another build and they will come project for Peoria for millions of taxpayer $$$$ – the new buzz is community schools. Several years ago it was the K-8 transition to K-5 and 6-8 and now that is passe because it supposedly didn’t work.
Cara: I agree with increased usage. That would also mean increased maintenance and perhaps replacement so citizens be aware that will happen and then not gripe about costs in the future. Also, the new school construction standards are reported to have a 25 year life span for new buildings so that it would appear that the construction cycle will be frequent.
Would your vision of a lifetime learning center (school) include: a therapy or lap pool; physicians for pre-natal care, seniors, orthopedics, et al; grocery store; bank; daycare center (private or school (taxpayer) funded) ….. These are some of the ideas being floated. Citizens should attend meetings to participate in the process.
25 year lifespan…. thats code for cheap assed materials and cheap assed construction.
Karrie – Thanks! I don’t live in the neighborhood, so I’m not sure what is needed. But if local residents are an integral part of the process, I could support their suggestions for inclusion in a lifetime learning center. It very much should be up to the people, like you, who live in the East Bluff.
Cara: Your’re welcome. Actually, I live on the Near Northside of Peoria! However, wherever we live, we are all in this together and what affects one part of Peoria, even if as ‘neighbors’ we are not geographically adjacent, it will affect all of us. United we stand, divided we fall — like Mayor Ardis said, “A Tale of Two Cities!”
Tony said, “You should research the costs of renovating….” Yes, I agree, but it’s not Karrie who should be researching those costs — it’s District 150. Why have they not done a feasibility study to see if the building(s) can be renovated? I think the school board, like Tony, is biased against old buildings, and just assume they can’t be renovated.
I can’t say for sure what the plan will be for a new school on the current Glen Oak School site, but I think its worth mentioning that not everyone involved thinks 15 acres is a forgone conclusion.
During the June 13 edition of “Outside the Horseshoe”, Bob Manning seemed rather confident it would take less than 15 acres to accomplish what the school district wanted to, even in terms of green space and other community functions. Manning also talked about heavy involvement of the HOPC in the planning process and site design of this school. (The .mp3 of that show is on the WCBU web site at http://www.wcbufm.org).
This may be relevent because the district will likely need city help to make this thing fly. So I think “15 acres” is yet to be seen. It could be a lot less.
Jonathan, I listened to the show (thanks for the link). Good job, as always. However, a regular commenter to my blog wrote to school board vice president Sean Matheson about my post; his response was copied to me and said, in part (emphasis mine):
So, we know that at least the VP of the school board is not willing to consider any less than 15 acres. I think it’s a major sticking point. But, on the other hand, I hope you’re right, because 15 acres is excessive.
I wrote back to Matheson and asked him on what he bases his belief that the school needs 15 acres. Now, he was at a conference and not able to consult anything, so I want to be fair here, but here’s his response off the top of his head:
Here’s the thing: I always try to look at both sides of the issue — this isn’t to imply that I’m necessarily unbiased, just that I always try to look at what my “opponent” says for himself instead of reading only things that agree with my viewpoint. I don’t like setting up a “straw man”; I’d rather have a real debate. So, I’ve been searching for any articles I can find that defend minimum acreage requirements or draw any correlation between increased acreage and academic performance, and I cannot find any. I’m not saying they don’t exist, but I can’t find one. Every article I find, whether it’s a federal, state, or local resource, a smart-growth or educational site — they all say that arbitrary acreage minimums are outdated, and that schools should base land requirements on need instead.
Indeed, even the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE), which does publish minimum acreage recommendations, says that you have to take land needs on a school-by-school basis. Even they don’t push 15 acres as a hard and fast rule, especially in urban neighborhoods. So, I’m not buying the argument that these changes were just political or financial.
And I’m still waiting for an answer to the question of how Whittier can be on 1.5 acres and be fifth highest in performance for the district, but Sterling can be on 26 acres and be at the bottom in terms of performance, if 15 peaceful acres are all that’s supposedly needed to improve student performance.
What do other urban centers do? What do Chicago, New York, LA, etc. do, when they determine a need for new schools in urban areas? Or is this a uniquely Peorian problem?
15 acres are needed because everything has to be on one floor and then enclosed with a barb-wire fence and guard towers; moats and guard dog runs. Then there has to be big drives and parking lots. ALl the vestiges of a prison, which is excatly what these new schools look like. I once mistook one in another town for a county jail. No joke.
I know boring — let’s go back to the D150 Master Facility Plan.
(1) Pages 10 and 11 — Observations/Assumptions, 11.:
“A multitude of variables go into making a school successful including but not limited to experience of teaching staff, readiness of students, teh soci-economic mix of students, configuration of grades, size of classroom and building, intimacy of learning environments, “flow” of building, learning opportunities, parental involvement, presence of absence of natural lighting, sound proofing, technology, and the like;
However, the one common denominator upon which all seem to agree
is that success correlates strongest
with the strength of the building principal.”
Did our community miss this vital recommendation and the discussion to resolve this issue prior to building $15 million dollar schools?
(2) page14 – 4.0 — Finance the new construction, addition, and renovations according to the following plan:
Page 15 , 14-15, option 3 b –
OR ALTERNATIVELY
Secure $60,000,000 to $75,000,000 in City of Peoria-pass through funding with the exercies of their Public Building Commission authority;
So, while we talk of no $$$$ and SB2477 waits to become law on July 9, 2006 unless Governor Blagojevich vetoes it —- what is the problem with acquisition amounts, land costs, etc????
There are so many variables and such a serpentine path —- the entire 15 acres would suddenly be very possible????
Jack– it’s not a problem that’s unique to Peoria, and other urban areas are all over the map (no pun intended) as to how they solve the problem.
CJ, I wouldn’t say that I am biased against old schools or old buildings. In fact I really do love old buildings. It’s just that gutting an old building is a money pit, and is best left for a commercial venture that has the money to spare. Costs ALWAYS overrun. If there were a benefit to keeping the old school then I would be for it. Commercial ventures benefit from old buildings for the nostalgic factor if anything else. Nostalgia doesn’t educate.
I have worked inside of a few very old schools. Pekin Grade School district did a great job on Washington school, they spared NO expense, down to the art deco decor and ornate plasterwork. A lot of contingencies came up and costs mounted. You tend to find problems when you gut a 100 year old building. Sometimes BIG problems. Was this a truly good use of money? Perhaps in Pekin’s case it was a better use, but that is because half of that building was of modern construction.
As for PSD buildings, a lot of money was spent installing network cabling and such in the summer 2000. That project alone came up with a lot of extra costs due to unforseen problems, and that was just for cable installation.
Again its not that I am against old schools. I am against wasting money, which a gutting could very well turn out to be.