I agree with SideofFrys. After reading that list for D41, it makes me furious to think that we have even ONE person at the CSO on Main St. making over $50,000 when we are subtracting people who interact with our kids!! Again, I will throw the question out there....WHY do we keep the P.R. person who makes over $75,000 a year (at least that is what I think I read on this site in another thread) when we are cutting staff in the schools? Is this so our highly-paid Superintendant doesn't have to write her own freaking emails to the public?

Can anyone who serves on the school board possibly justify this? If cuts need to be made, I get that part. But somebody has to stand up for our kids, and not let this continue.

quote:

Originally posted by suzie:
I did not know that we had or needed a PR person. That must be a tough job, LOL.

Judging by all of the negativity I've seen on this board, my guess is that the PR person is NOT doing his or her job very well....in a community school setting, the PR should be directed primarily to the stakeholders (i.e. parents and other taxpayers)....why are so many of them unhappy with everything going on if this PR person is doing a good job??

BTN: Department Chairs have been around for a long time, they're sort of like the teachers who manage their particular departments.

I thought DAVEAs primary setting was hands-on blue collar-type training? For kids who wanted careers that didn't necessarily require a college degree?

quote:

Do we all believe that the planned reduction of the two Math Specialists

Well this doesn't exactly sound like the agenda of a district trying to raise its test scores I always thought that math and reading were two of the subjects needing the most assistance at most schools....

Dins - One clarification on the TRS pensions. They are NOT automatically "75% of their salaries". My sis-in-law retired from TRS last year at age 55 with a mere 20 years in.

The formula, as she explained it, is for every year of service, multiply by 2.2. So, her 20 years got her 44% of her final 4-year average.

I think 75% is the MAXIMUM, if you have at least 34 years in - 34 * 2.2 = 74.8%.

Sis-in-law still collects more than $40K per year and she is only 56 now. After 4-years, [3-years? something like this] an autoCOLA of 3% starts kicking in.

You are correct about the free health care for life part though.

Still a sweet, sweet deal.

GESM2 - My questions was: Is the facility now named Directions that D87 has a Director of Directions for, formerly known as DAVEA - DuPage Area Vocational Education Association?

And yes, I know that it is more vocational than educational. I only am asking about the name of the place.

As to the posting of the salaries and benefits of all the "administration" of a school district: This has got to be a new wrinkle [law]. When I see pdfs of "administrators" and their compensation, I have it in my head that these people aren't teachers. They're "manangement".

I understand now that for some reason, department chairs, who really ARE teachers, have some kind of overlap into an administrative role and therefore, also get listed in the new wrinkle posting.

BTN: I knew what you mean, I hadn't intended on diverting that. The way JRB described it (i.e. alternative....and the kids troubled) made me think it was more like what Glenwood used to (?) be (the old Queen Bee school on Bloomingdale Rd.). DAVEA was not necessarily troubled kids, just those looking for a different path in life.

quote:

Originally posted by ByTheNumbers:
Dins - One clarification on the TRS pensions.

Thanks for the correction.

Wow GESM2, you really hit that one out of the park. Clearly, you get it, and if I am not mistaken didn't you say you haven't lived here very long? Imagine how frustrating it's been, watching this unfold before our eyes and having no power to stop it. No matter who we elect to our school board, that position never gets touched. It's ridiculous.

Those of us who lived here before the "PR" person was hired (undoubtedly using 2001 referendum funds of course) were perplexed at the time. The idea that our Superintendant making $240,000 a year can't send out emails directly kind of irks me. Maybe the Assistant Superintendant could send out emails and answer questions from the press. Or maybe of the NUMEROUS administrative assistants that we have at the CSO could do that task.

All of this would be fine if we had the most amazing test scores to show for it. But we don't. That part, I think, is what makes so many people go negative.

Thanks D87P. Seems like common sense to me....though that's not so common these days it seems.

quote:

All of this would be fine if we had the most amazing test scores to show for it.

I tend to disagree with this statement, though. I don't think this mismanagement of funds is ok, regardless of the test scores. I stick to my guns about kids' education being about SOO much more than standardized test scores....and that's what's important, the education.

I've lived here a while (beginning year 6 this June), but not nearly as long as many others on this board. It just doesn't seem like rocket science to me, and I can't help but feel like if enough people are POd about it, they could DO something about it. It blows my mind that in a town like this, that's so enriched with educated and intelligent individuals, no one has yet gotten creative enough to find a way to "overthrow", or supercede, or whatever word you choose....the existing agendas. I understand the Park District issues, as irritating as some of them are, they're still just PD. This, though....this is our children's educations....our children's futures....our town's future, quite honestly. Hearing these things makes me almost glad that my children will be attending school in the Lombard District (which, when I initially discovered that, I was none too happy about).

We DO try to do something about it. We elect people to both the D41 and D87 school boards who promise us that they too are sick of it. That they will do whatever it takes to clean up this type of ridiculous spending.

Then, once elected,

I can't finish that sentence. I am not really sure what happens once they are elected. All I know is that very little has changed. I remember when my daughter who is now in high school was back at D41. One of the biggest "no questions asked" supporters of the administration, is now sitting on the D41 board. Back then, this individual showed so much promise, I was shocked when that person turned out to be a staunch supporter of whatever the administration wants. This ran so contrary to what we were promised.

I meant a creative "workaround", if you will. Aside from actually electing someone....there has to be some sort of outside the box-type of framework that could be implemented to make the necessary changes. I know there are good, intelligent people who are feeling very much like you and have tried to things the traditional way to make the changes....but what about non-traditional ways? Obviously, there aren't enough of you guys to make said changes per the status quo.

quote:

Originally posted by GESingleMom2:
I've lived here a while (beginning year 6 this June),
...
It blows my mind that in a town like this, that's so enriched with educated and intelligent individuals, no one has yet gotten creative enough to find a way to "overthrow", or supercede, or whatever word you choose....the existing agendas.

So there we have it, folks. 6 years is how long it takes for the wide-eyed glow of new residency to wear off!

Bet the under...

Hey for someone my age, 6 years is pretty darned steady! No glow worn off, I still love this town and still would like to purchase my house here (albeit unincorporated).

quote:

Originally posted by GESingleMom2:
No glow worn off, ...

Sure. Before you know it, you'll be one of the regular barflies bellying up at Vittorio's, crying into your gin...

Anyone out there resemble that remark?

Lol, pretty sure I'd end up at Tap House or Ellyn's first....remember, I DON'T fit the "GE mold"

quote:

Originally posted by Gus:

And, I don't buy the minority issues of the district. Other districts have the same "issues" with much better results.

Citation, please? Thanks!

At the risk of dampening the hysteria over projected personnel cuts at D41, I would suggest that we step back, take our finger off the panic button, and resist the urge to fall prey to the faded notion that, in and of themselves, more layers of staff, and more money, ensure quality education.

Many D41 community members have become a little too savvy to buy into that bogus claim any longer. And even if they still did . . . over the past nine years, D41 has provided the most vivid example as to the fallacy . . . and high baloney content . . . inherent in the argument.

Dial back to the frenzied days leading up to the April 2001 referendum when the specter of personnel/program cuts evoked a like sense of doom with parents throughout D41 . . . a foreboding which in turn brought forth a flotilla of little green “yes” signs dotting the landscape like spring daffodils, and brigades of buggy-pushing PTA moms ringing doorbells with a vigor that would make the Avon lady proud.

The entire referendum was to provide $3.8 million in new money to hire approximately 30 more teachers and specialists to address a “a growing enrollment, art and music, foreign language and social services.” The effort was then wrapped up in a warm and fuzzy banner that purred “Fund our Future”. . . and, boy, did we fund . . . and fund . . . and fund . . . and fund . . . and fund.

We had no idea how much funding was in our future . . . but my intention here is not to beat that dead horse yet again, for which I am sure there will be a unanimous sigh of relief!

The point that I am trying to make, however, is that approximately $76 million in new money has been generated to date since the phase-in of the 2001 referendum . . . a staggering amount of money in nine years, which is almost double pre-referendum projections that forecast $80 million in new money over 20 years.

The phase-in dollars have enabled D41 to hire close to 80 new staff members (almost triple the original "need" cited by the District!), stuff a host of expensive administrative suits into CSO, and gorge on a veritable potpourri of technology goodies, capital bells and whistles and so forth.

If one fully subscribed to the notion that money, and all that it can buy, guaranteed elevated performance and classroom experience, one would have every expectation that an infusion of so much new revenue since 2001 would have sent D41 student achievement levels skyrocketing into the academic stratosphere.

And yet, what I hear from D41 parents . . . and from my personal observations of the District’s overall ranking amongst Illinois school districts . . . bears out that not much has changed for a full generation of students, who have gone through D41 since 2001 (K-8) with the educational benefits of a $76 million transfusion.

D41 is still plodding along . . . no better or worse than pre-2001 days . . . with only one of its schools (Ben Franklin) even making a 2009 appearance on the Top 100 List of elementary and middle schools in the state.

So much for celebration, or any lingering doubt as to the connection between dollars/quantity of personnel and scholastic impact . . . which only reinforces the original premise that we shouldn’t get our knickers in a twist over some rational trimming of staff additions that have morphed three times beyond their original scope.

Socio-economic base of students, involved parents, quality of individual teachers, and strong core curricular content in the classroom, are far more germane to . . . and far greater indicators of . . . academic achievement, than the sheer quantity of adult bodies clogging the buildings.

We need to refocus along those lines . . . and stop obsessing with worn-out distractions, which administrators (and P.R./communications directors!) are paid quite well to skillfully sprinkle around like chaff.

Does anybody know what current enrollment numbers are today compared to what was forecast in 2001 for our elementary schools?

quote:

Originally posted by Melbourne:
but my intention here is not to beat that dead horse yet again

Mel,

For not wanting to beat a dead horse… Look, I agree with your points on the 2001 referendum. However I don’t think that calling out parents that don’t want to lose their child’s math specialist, see the classroom sizes revert to unproductive numbers, or see their child’s advocate cut as hysterical, panicky and un-savvy. Your post carries with it many statistical facts that should be noted by all, but gets a little lost in the sarcasm.

It is just that I have come to a few irrefutable savvy truths, a couple of which are:
1. No matter haw many times you (we, anybody, etc.) ask, or who we elect, it appears that we are never going to get an apology for the misrepresentations of 2001, nor are we going to get the money back or even see the fees abated.
2. I would rather see money spent on teachers than PR (amongst other issues).

Furthermore, I agree that it is a fallacy to believe that “more layers of staff, and more money, ensure quality education.” However, there are many paradigms that have to be recognized in this situation, the largest of which is that the educational environment defies the laws of the free market economy. There are certain limitations inherent in the public educational system. This is not a business that can employ a six sigma approach or even one (based on test scores) that we can hold up to attract future talent. Just as a comparison, if D41 was a baseball team, what would the headline news be? These are great statements when you are trying to rally the troops, but lacking in salient comparison points when pressed into action.

Let me also say that I wholeheartedly agree with you that the “Socio-economic base of students, involved parents, quality of individual teachers, and strong core curricular content in the classroom, are far more germane to . . . and far greater indicators of . . . academic achievement, than the sheer quantity of adult bodies clogging the buildings.” With the considerations of parental socio-economics aside, we should always look generate change that improves these measurements. So what are your ideas here? I think retaining math specialists fit well into these goals. I would much rather see ideas routinely posed as discussed than discussions held on what we should not be talking about.

There seems to be quite a quite few problems to address, but I would rather see cutting teachers be a lower priority solution. If we could be convinced that the teachers being released were the under performers, well that is a different message all together.

Well said Side of Frys.

Long day of working at the school today as I am one of those involved parents, I do homework every night with my kids and so forth and so on that Mel referred to. However, Mel, have you looked at the changes in the socioeconomic status and the ethnic diversity that has occurred in D41 since 2001. Again, get over it. Our children 9 years later should not have to suffer due to poor judgement of the previous board. The cuts should not begi at the level of direct involvement with the children. It needs to start in CSO. We need every teacher that we have and then some.

Me