The D130 Project. (please check out the D89 thread "Drastic changes in District 89" for prior discussions)

To Jack Kahler - sorry for hijacking your prior threads. I decided to post this separately.

To Wm. Schumacher – thanks for the positive note, and your prior committee work! I will try to be more positive about the future and less focused on the past as well.

To Amy – not to sound to negative (and after reading my last midnight rant I wish that I would have reread it in the morning) I believe that a big reason you were pushed off from the SB regarding a merger is that it is not in their best interest. I believe that we need to get more people involved outside of the school leadership system. We should start with the likes of the LWV, PTA, Local government, State government and anyone else that will help. Even local business could help. I am working toward this endeavor, and may call upon you for help, soon.

To gemom1 – I hope that I was not too critical before as that was not my intent. I do believe that Dr. Perdue is a strong and skilled professional, whose heart is in the right place and is facing some tough challenges. As I said before, I am not a fan of the paired school systems. I too chose this area in large part for the schools and had I known that I could have ended up in a paired system or would have had to bus my children to a school before they turned 10, I would have bought a home somewhere else. If I were designing a system, it would be one where every school had every service for every grade with elementary classes from K-6 at my local school.

I also do not believe that the small savings available from switching to a paired school system is worth the disruption to the educational environments of the students, and if the economy changes or the area turns over quicker than planned, what are the assurances that the district would or could switch back?

To taxpayer – I do not wish to defend whether the D41 board has listened now or in the past. I have felt like Don Quixote myself at some school board meetings. However, I have walked the halls of a few of the schools during class hours, and there is no denying that more space is needed. I was at the board meeting 3/16 where Dr. R’s most recent contract renewal was on the agenda, and not one member of the public stood up and made a comment about its content, prior actions or prior costs – not one. Her contract was passed without one dissenting vote from the board. The D41 board members did exactly what the public told them to do – appose nothing. However, I am sure that we can look forward to some cutting edge solutions soon. (Sorry William, I guess I have to try harder to stay positive).

The Hadley school referendum came out of 2 areas: a community that did and does not want the portable class rooms and a committee that chose the Super School concept over other choices. No, I do not know if they were pushed in that direction as I was not involved. I hated it, but I also hate portable classrooms, students holding meetings in hallways, pre-K & Special Ed classrooms that move from school to school and a whole host of other issues that come from have hundreds of students above our school buildings’ designs.

I don’t really know how to address the additional hiring situations and increases in staff at the district level. I have never seen a district employee that looked bored or underworked. However, I am not an efficiency expert. What I do believe is that if D41 & D89 merged, than less would be needed (1 + 1 may = 1.1 in this issue, but it won’t = 2).

DISTRICT 89 GEBB USERS – e-mail your District administration, PTA members and the local papers. Hold a town meeting and get involved. Post your thoughts and tell your friends and neighbors about this board.

I don’t like “either or decisions,” but if asked between build/closing schools or redistricting, I’ll vote for joining D41 & D89 (for now I’ll call that the D130 Project).

District 41 GEBB USERS – it’s time to again following the SB closely. Soon you’ll be asked what you really want: more of the same or something better. Much of these discussions arise from the multiple and aging portables scattered around D41 as well as additional brick & mortar upgrades. Check out the attendance reports on the D41 site that show how many students are what I call “under roof vs. under tin.” Each school is listed with the numbers of students and class sizes as well as how many are in portable class rooms.

A few years back, there were studies that projected the student counts well beyond their current numbers. However the current counts present D41 with enough problems, such as busing from areas with no schools and specialty programs that shift from school to school or beyond based on the availability of a classroom. If your children are moving on from the elementary school level, please don’t ignore these issues. Home values are related to quality schools. Schools surrounded by trailers won’t be seen as preferred.

If you’re only a reader here and not a user (which I was for some time and now regret not speaking our more often) sign up and post your thoughts and ideas.

We all deserve better and so do our kids.

I don’t know if the D130 Project will solve all of our problems, and doubt that it will, however it will produce real long-term savings, unite our community and allow us the flexibility to better service all.

Now is the time. Write your Village President (he reads the GEBB so you know that he wants to hear your opinion), as well as your State Reps.

This could be one of those calling all hands moments.

Kevin

If you look at class sizes in K-6 you'll see a lot of classes with low 20's and even lower. So it would not seem to be a stretch to suggest that some classrooms could be combined.

Also taking the pre-k program and moving it back to Main might also eliminate some of the crowding issues.

I think to much is made of the portables. I don't see them as being nearly as bad as some people make them out to be. Again what is so terrible about them. Do kids somehow learn less in s portable than in a regular classroom.

Combining Dist 89 and 41 will save us some money how much is debatable. I have a feeling we will be disappointed in its cost saving.

I do favor it but I don't think its going to save us a ton of money.

As for house values. First off home values probably aren't going to appreciate that much over the next couple of years. Higher taxes will also have a negative impact on home values.

Schools and how well students perform in them are largely a function of parents. Primarily their own academic achievements and their income.

Combining the two school districts into one makes sense on SOOOOOO many levels. Towns 3x our size have 1 grade school district. Obviously, the administrative salaries coupled with their pension and post retirement health benefits would save us payers of these money millions on an ongoing basis.

Find me someone that knows how to get this done and I would help rally the troops to make it happen.

As a point of clarification, District 41 buildings are not "hundreds of students above our school buildings' design." The school buildings were designed to actually house just about the number of students currently enrolled in District 41 -- 600 at each elementary school and 1200 at Hadley -- with no mobiles. I say that with a District 41 document in hand that says just that. I don't think that the capacity of the building can change? What has changed is the programs that the district currently has that were not envisioned when the community agreed to a building referendum in 1997. The 2001 referendum changed matters even more, as we all know.

Perhaps a good litmus test for how, and if, a merger of the disricts would work, would be for District 41 to rent space from District 89 for the non-mandated Pre-K at-risk program that was not located within the school buildings when the community was asked and asked again for more money. As I recall, District 41 now buses the Pre-K kids, so a little longer bus ride might go along way to showing the community that the administration is serious about getting rid of the mobiles.

As far as mobiles scaring away potential buyers, I would not worry too much here. I'd be more worried about them seeing our property tax bills!

Grateful,
I would suggest that your local representative, Sandra Pihos, would be the person...but when I have spoken with her in the past she was clearly in the camp supporting the benefits of separation. Did she come froma school admin background? If so, there is the obvious conflct of intrest.

Of course the quid pro quo is always there.....get it done and get my vote. With a constituency like yours, you could probably push the riht buttons! Go for it.

quote:

Originally posted by ohma:
The school buildings were designed to actually house just about the number of students currently enrolled in District 41 -- 600 at each elementary school and 1200 at Hadley -- with no mobiles. I say that with a District 41 document in hand that says just that.

Please let me know to what D41 document you are referring? I had seen ones giving the optimal enrollment figures at around 450 students each at Lincoln, Forest Glen and Franklin - Hence the need for the portables.

And don't think that the portables AREN'T on your tax bill - a great number are, I believe, RENTED.

William

If they are rented , which makes the most sense the maintainece should be the responsibility of the rentor. So all D41's complaints about the expense of maintaining the portables is a red herring.

The bottom line is this a new school is a long term cost which the taxpayers will be stuck with for years to come. Portables can be eliminated as enrollment declines. Since we are seeing decling enrollment at both D89 and Naperville. Glen Ellyns will follow suit if it hasn't already.

The point is D41 has asked once for additional funding for a new school and you were shot down 3:1. Despite that, D41 continues to harp on this. Considering how dismal the current economy is how we in Glen Ellyn are going to hit with massive tax increases over the next couple of years.

It's not going to happen. Find something else to occupy your time with.

Does the Illinois State Board of Education fit anywhere into this decision making process of combining districts?

I believe Dean Clark, head of the Civic Betterment Party here in town, is also a member of the State Bd of Ed. Perhaps he can be engaged in the evaluation process over this D130 project. I don't know if the State Bd. would be predisposed one way or the other to combining or not combining. Either way, this would seem to be an important connection.

Those aren't significant they're impossible.

The first rule of bureaucracy is to protect yourself. So Im guessing that the teachers union, and whatever association represents the Administrators lobbied ( bribed ) our state legislators to put this in . Protecting their jobs, pensions etc forever.

So anyone else have any other cost saving ideas ?

At the very least, it seems like the time has come to look at this project seriously. At least as seriously as both districts are looking at some of these other projects under consideration. Perhaps the timing and current circumstances may increase your estimate of success.

Even in good times, the free market business world looks to mergers and consolidations as ways to increase productivity and achieve better results. In tougher economic times, the potential benefits are even more meaningful to all the constituents.

In addition to realizing economies of scale by spreading fixed costs over a greater number of students and a larger tax base, and, reducing other fixed costs by eliminating redundancies in both physical facilities and human admin resources, there are other benefits that will improve the bottom line and the performance of the districts.

For starters, one has excess space and declining enrollment, the other has portables and 'crowding'. One has a better history of controlling tax increases and maintaining trust, while the other could use some help in these areas. There are other potential benefits. I am sure there are concerns about potential negative effects. If there is a chance we can solve some space issues while lowering or 'keeping taxes the same', why not look at this project now?

The hurdles mentioned are significant, but as tax bills rise, the economy struggles, and voters turn out 3 to 1 against the latest major referendum offering (seems like a supermajority there), the odds of success may not be a low as projected earlier.

The D130 Project...

Taxpayer – I do agree with much of your comments.

There are some areas with lower classroom student counts, however this can be a bit deceiving. The buildings themselves are not designed well for flexible classroom sizes. Additionally, the classroom limit is 25.
One would hope that most of the actual counts would be in the low 20s, however it doesn’t mean that 4 classrooms of 22 can be combined into 3 classrooms. Any designed change that would effect a building’s total would require redistricting, and not just once but as an annual plan. I do not want this type of annual redrawing of lines, as it would potentially be asking parents who live near borders to move their children back and forth between schools.

There are multiple pre-K programs, some of which the SD should be able to partner with the PD, but others that are truly the SD’s responsibility.

I don’t like the portables. I agree that there is no reason a child should learn more in a building than a trailer. Yet there are multiple issues regarding the portables that are real:
1. The cost is significant and ongoing and at some point it is understood that the cost of maintaining them will be beyond the cost of buildings.
2. There is quite a bit of wasted time associated with moving students to and from the trailers during the day, especially in winter months.
Moving from the trailers to the library, lunchroom, gym, music and other under roof activities requires getting the kids prepared and bundled up – that is real downtime from the classroom.
3. The portables have no bathrooms.
4. The portables need to be evacuated during significant weather (yes this happens more than I thought).
5. There are security issues associated shuttling kids back and forth from the school to the trailers.
There are other things, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

The portables are rented all 32 of them (see the short form of the Master Facility Report at d41.dupage.k12.il.us...), also it would be good to review the Portables Fact sheet (d41.dupage.k12.il.us...) for issues regarding the State’s rules of occupancy on temporary facilities.

I don’t know what the savings of a D130 would be, but seeing as they both have significant staffs and their own buildings, I would tend to think that it would be large enough to have a positive effect in the short and long term.

I also agree with you completely on the negative effect of taxes on home values. Or, at least the ability of a purchaser to finance a home, and thus limits the price bracket in which they will shop (your same point of “home price attractiveness” I’m sure).

Furthermore, I couldn’t agree more that the single greatest factor in a child’s academic performance lies with the parents. I will defend that point against any and all comers, but I do not wish to lose sight of the fact that we are throwing money at the SDs and should expect that money to be well spent AND produce a results.

ohma – I would appreciate it if you could reference where I could get such a document as referenced within your post. Everything that I have ever seen from the SD doesn’t line up with that, and that still leaves us with this: Lincoln School has 646 students as of the 3/27/09 Enrollment Report, 46 more than 600 (Yes, 18 are for EC) and 146 in trailers. If there is a document that shows how D41 can fit 600 kids in that school, I will take it to the SD meeting myself and ask why it isn’t being used.

Main Streeter – I’ve worked with Sandra Pihos before and have found her to be a true professional. Yes, she did come from a school admin background, but she is an honest person that I believe will do the right thing. The right thing is what her constituents tell her they want. So yes, go to her web site and e-mail her your thoughts.

When I spoke to her last about the D41/D89 issues, she very concerned and already had a grasp for the topics. I do not know which way she personally leans, but I believe that she will do what’s best for both the students and the community, and everyone is concerned with costs.

Iceburg – It would be great if any member of the State BoE could chime in here. It is me impression (as expressed by someone in a school administration) that the State would love it is the whole state was one district. I am not for that and want to maintain the strength and uniqueness of our community. I do believe we could do with maybe 1 less in the state...

Jombl – Thanks for the great post! I believe that getting ready for consideration starts here!

Please all, keep chiming in and tell your friend and neighbors.

Any opportunity to get this on a ballot will be here before we know it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ted E.,

quote:

Originally posted by side of FRYs:
ohma – I would appreciate it if you could reference where I could get such a document as referenced within your post. Everything that I have ever seen from the SD doesn’t line up with that, and that still leaves us with this: Lincoln School has 646 students as of the 3/27/09 Enrollment Report, 46 more than 600 (Yes, 18 are for EC) and 146 in trailers. If there is a document that shows how D41 can fit 600 kids in that school, I will take it to the SD meeting myself and ask why it isn’t being used.

The short answer to your question is the classroom sizing issue brought about by the 1997 and 2001 refs. This is only the highest enrollment in these schools because previous enrollments of this size were spread amongst more schools. They could get rid of the portables and house all the students in classrooms, it would just increase class sizes. Justifiable over a short period of time, you be the judge. It wasn't until the recent ref try that the schools "lost" capacity from their intended 600. How many portables are not used at Churchill, on a full time classroom basis, throughout the day.

All of the rhetoric and ranting about portables boils down to the cost to correct this in a fasion that is acceptable to administration and state guidelines. If they wanted to rid the district of portables without raising other costs, it is possible. Maybe not palatable, but possible. I have seen the costs associated with the MFP and would never sign on for that kind of cost, for any educational reason, as opposed to portables. this is not a cost that can be phased in over a good many years. Other solutions are necessary and are feasible, if we look forward enough. Incdently, the board will be discussing this tonight at the meeting at Lincoln School if anyone is interested in getting a vibe. Funny, that this is moving forward prior to the newly elected members sitting.

This is a great thread. I cannot speak for any other D41 BOE members (current or outgoing), but I would welcome a committee to explore unification. I'd suggest a meeting of some of the posters/lurkers here to talk in real time about it.

Rob, the Masters Facility Plan was a goal of the current Board, which is why it was to be completed, presented and voted upon by the current seven.

The cost numbers discussed were broken out by school and scenario and while I would agree that the total dollar number is probably not feasible, remember that this is a long-range plan, and that the future Board(s) will have to decide which pieces move forward at what time. Or if other, entirely different, options are pursued instead.

The D130 Project.

Ted – Thanks for the edit… sorry I didn’t get the "links pasting" correct.

Rob – I can’t seem to get my hands on the prior refs details, but I’m not sure if the student count issues back then really matter to me much. Whether the SBs “lost” capacity in the schools is a matter of holding someone accountable for the reports used in 97 & 01 against today’s numbers. I believe it is just not a fruitful discussion to fight the history. To stick with the same analogy, I think that we should first go for the low hanging fruit and join the SDs together.

Yes, I did pick Lincoln school in my prior example as amongst the D41 elementary schools it has the most students under tin and the most portables. On the question of Churchill, I have not been able to visit that school yet, but judging by the classroom sizes, if there is an empty classroom in that school maybe they should be using it and reducing some of the 4th Grade class sizes.

I do know that D41 will be bringing a self contained MIP classroom to the Ben Franklin location for the 2009-10 school year, and it will not be in one of the trailers. D41 currently does not have an MIP K-2 program under roof, so to go back to your “lost” phraseology this new class will be held in a “found” room that was not designed as a classroom. There are positives and negatives on both sides of this issue, but the fact remains that it’s more students and more needed rooms.

Mr. Solak – thanks for posting. The Master Facility Plan looks great. As I’ve said before, it looks to be the view of a school district where I would like to live. Again, I would like to commend all that took part in its formation and design.

I would like to offer a pat on the back and a Guinness at Shannons to all that took time out of their busy schedules to contribute to the MFP, and a case to anyone that can find a way to pay for it without raising my taxes. I really do not wish to downplay to plan with that comment, but I believe that we need to pursue more cost effective strategies first.

If we can get a couple of doze people to commit to meeting, I’m in and available 5/6 or 5/7. If that’s too soon, let’s target the send week of June.

I’ll see you at the SD41 meeting tonight.

Kevin

I think the real question is why are there suddenly so many portables. Is it due to a real increase in student population or is this a case of mismanagement on the part of D41.

In I think three years we went from having zero portables to having 32. Doing some very rough math at twenty two students per portable that would be roughly seven hundred students, or almost twenty five percent of the entire student population. I believe there has been only minor if any growth of student population at D41 certainly no where near twenty five percent.


At Lincoln there are according to Mr. Fry 146 students in the portables. That would have to work out to between 7 and 8 classes. Which would mean average class size of say roughly twenty one to eighteen. If we're at the low end then some form of class room consolidation could be done.


I would suggest that what we really need to look at would be staffing level student/teacher ratios in the classes and if we could get by with larger class sizes.

With aides and maybe even having multiple teachers in a class it might work out.

In years past, the argument given here on the GEBB against portables was that, although portables added classroom space for additional students and teachers, they did not add equivalent support space, e.g. restrooms, cafeteria facilities, lockers, gymnasiums, teacher parking... right down to additional janitorial supply space and weekly trash storage.

If, however — as suggested above — the portables are not serving more students, but simply a redistribution of the expected student/teacher count, then portables would not seem to create an unforseen-consequence problem. One reason to verify the original occupancy projections and expectations.

There is a District 89 Board of Education Meeting--open to the public tonight at 7pm. The board which represents the public needs to know what we want and expect. Please come and express your views! The meeting is a 7pm at the D89 admin building on Butterfield and Park.

quote:

Originally posted by Bob Solak:
Rob, the Masters Facility Plan was a goal of the current Board, which is why it was to be completed, presented and voted upon by the current seven.

The cost numbers discussed were broken out by school and scenario and while I would agree that the total dollar number is probably not feasible, remember that this is a long-range plan, and that the future Board(s) will have to decide which pieces move forward at what time. Or if other, entirely different, options are pursued instead.

You are correct, Bob. How soon I forget. I will wait for the outcome of the discussion tonight to see what the interest level is on the Board for this MFP. I said it before, I am not against a Long Range Plan. On the contrary. I just cannot envision a scenarion where any part of this vision is done in a piece meal fasion.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Herbold:
I have seen the costs associated with the MFP and would never sign on for that kind of cost, for any educational reason, as opposed to portables. this is not a cost that can be phased in over a good many years.

Rob,

As Bob Solak said, the MFP isn't a concrete plan, but primarily a recommended goal to provide direction to the Board. As you know, the Commitee Members looked at more than the facilities and classroom numbers - there was research into changes in curriculum, scheduling, classroom instructional methods, security, and technological changes, among other areas. To oversimplify the MFP as an expensive building project is to ignore what the MFP is - it is an idealized target to shoot at, but how close the schools actually get is wildly variable.

Think of it like planning a Summer Vacation; You will look at the condition of the car, look at who's going along, look at how much money you have, and how fast you'd like to go. But you need to have an ideal DESTINATION to start the planning. How lavish a trip remains to be seen.

And I believe the only parts of the MFP that are "moving forward" are the attempt to eliminate the portables in the long run, an attempt to add more small group spaces in the current buildings, and a look at addressing the most pressing issues of the individual school site committees (primarily maintenance issues...). That doesn't look "funny" to me.

William