As the Board prepares to vote to spend a half a million dollars on the additional "six pack" of portable classrooms at Hadley, it seemed like a reasonable time to ask when we can plan to see the portables leave the district? And, I am not counting on a building referendum passing any time soon.

The reason I wonder is back in Feb. 2005, the previous administration added four portable units housing 14 classrooms for the following school year. At about that time in early 2005, the district said that 270 of the total 3558 enrollment was in 12 portable classrooms. The administration said that the additional portables would be needed in the following year in order to house increasing enrollment and keep class sizes the same. What happened in 2005 should have been the alarm bell that the administration and future administration would soon have to change their tune as to why the additional portables were needed. In September of 2005 enrollment was 3539 and we now had all of the additional portable classrooms, moved PreK on site and dropped class sizes to well below target sizes in several cases.

The administration was maintaining the burgeoning enrollment expected by 2011. Funny that we don't hear that anymore. The very reason given why we needed to add those portables has not materialized. Shouldn't the district be talking about getting rid of the portables or at least re-deploying portables to Hadley since the curriculum change is requiring additional space.

District 41, it's time to lay the cards on the table. Stop changing the tune to fit todays scenario. Some vision.

Sounds like a great letter to the editor, Ohma.

Almost forgot...save me a seat Monday night.

The tune they are playing now is square footage allocated to administration. I thought I heard some factoid listed that said we had the lowest amount so feel sorry for us. That is why they want to move kids out of classrooms and into portables, so those classrooms can be turned into offices.

quote:

That is why they want to move kids out of classrooms and into portables, so those classrooms can be turned into offices.

That's false information. Or, false rumor. I don't know who "they" are, but that's incorrect.

Dan, I haven't heard about square footage for administration being low, but I do know what I read in the Space Utilization Report. Read about the offices used by the elementary school assistant principals, "small, windowless" etc. I guess one solution would be to eliminate the position. After all, the community did not specifically get a say in whether or not they were willing to add to the administration. Three of the four elementary schools are now below 600 in enrollment of K-5. Perhaps it is time to re-visit some of the positions that have been added since 2001.

Ohma: I would really appreciate if you would stop your assault on bureaucracy. How are we going to replace that teacher who throws a student's homework away because the student failed to put his name on the paper? We need to put that person in a position of administration while retirement is only a couple of years away.

What are we going to do with the teachers who need to be replaced? Like the one who minimizes bullying because "it's just kids teasing"? They have to be kicked upstairs or teach gifted children.

What are we going to do with the principals who desire to move up to administrative positions managing the employees so they can practice being a superintendent? We have to create a position so we don't lose that talent!

Don't kid yourself. The new horizon curriculum started before the consultant showed up to give it the required imprimatur. They created a new literacy curriculum, banking on a $40 Mil build out. They didn't get the bricks and mortar, but they can't stop the curriculum change.

You are so heartless.

quote:

Originally posted by hola76:

quote:

That is why they want to move kids out of classrooms and into portables, so those classrooms can be turned into offices.

That's false information. Or, false rumor. I don't know who "they" are, but that's incorrect.

Hola, I can't remember where I read it, if I find it I'll post. Please explain to me why we need more class rooms if enrollment has dropped? The only reason touted before was we need more space for the increased enrollment.

quote:

Originally posted by Dan the Man:
Please explain to me why we need more class rooms if enrollment has dropped?

Because they hired more and more administrators and "specialists" with their referendum windfall, and now they want fancy space to house these employees and their fancy salaries.

Never was any attempt to see what was the best we could do on any reasonable budget with the facilities available. Instead, it was "Hire, and they will build."

quote:

Originally posted by Dinsdale:

quote:

Originally posted by Dan the Man:
Please explain to me why we need more class rooms if enrollment has dropped?

Because they hired more and more administrators and "specialists" with their referendum windfall, and now they want fancy space to house these employees and their fancy salaries.

Never was any attempt to see what was the best we could do on any reasonable budget with the facilities available. Instead, it was "Hire, and they will build."

Not only to post the real thread....

Portable classroom needs are curriculum driven, according to the admin, not enrollment or anything else.

The question lingers as to why the curriculum change was and is being green lighted when there are obvious current space needs that will go unfulfilled.

By a vote of 3 to 2 we will all be seeing 6 more portables at Hadley.
Thank you Steve and Bob for trying to bring some sense to the board and for voting NO.
Where were your other two board members and how do things get approved on your board with three votes?

Oh well
Like Principal Dransoff said "That's the position that the community put us in"
Like when the community:
-Put pre-K and K children in their grade schools.
-Took the 6th graders out of their grade schools and sent them to their junior high (yes this one, the one that needs space).
-Tore down some of their elementary schools (including the not so very old one which curiously is right in the middle of the only area with known enrollment growth).
-Passed a referendum in '01 and intentionally chose to phase in the revenues so that they could give the school district more money than asked for.

What kind of community does stuff like this?

Shame on them.

Nice summary of the meeting, Candidate. I agree whole-heartedly with you.

I would add to your summary some of the observations from the evening.

In her Superintendent’s report, Dr. Riebock mentioned that the Hadley Horizon’s recommendations will likely be made in December. (So, if that is the case, is that when we can plan to see the request for more portables, again? Thanks to Bob for stating what should be the obvious to the administration. And that is, that one criteria for these recommendations should be “what does it mean for the facilities?”)

When it came to the action item on the board agenda, Vivoda motioned and Nelson seconded that the board approve the administration recommendation for the portables at Hadley. A lengthy discussed ensued. I must say, that whether one agreed or disagreed with points made by the dissenting voters – Solak and Vondrak – they made their points respectfully and without getting personal or condescending to other Board members. I cannot say that for other members.

Dr. Dransoff was called to the podium to answer some of the points made. He used medical analogies throughout his comments. The “band-aid” (aka the “six pack” of portable classrooms) buys us time to “cover the wound and increase healing, but the situation could get worse.” Hadley has "arterial constriction." IMO, it was unfortunate that he chose to place blame, as Candidate says above, for "the position that the community put us in." Vivoda weighed in with echoing Dransoff’s sentiments and added that our community needs to prepare its students “for college not vocational school.”

Board President Howard closed the session saying that the Board needs to work together to find a permanent solution. As she prepared to call for a roll call vote, Board member Vondrak asked about not having 2 members present. Howard indicated that there was a motion on the table, and cutting him off asked the Board Secretary for a roll call vote. (This seems unusual as the Board President talked about working together.) With that the vote to expend $700,000 for 6 portable classrooms passed 3 – 2. Voting “yes” – Howard, Nelson and Vivoda, voting “no” – Solak and Vondrak and absent – Cosgrove and Kenwood.

It is truly unfortunate that the community was not able to hear from all of its voices on the Board. This action, once again, leaves us with more questions than answers. How would the two absent members voted? Were their absences known in advance of the meeting? Were the absences non-vacation related and thereby, their presence could have been made via teleconference? Unfortunately, we will never know. The motion, while it was made, could have easily been pulled and delayed.

Is it any wonder that the community still does not trust D41 administration and a majority of the Board? Is it any wonder that the over 400 invitations to the “Visioning” process were sent and only 38 responses were received by the District? What is the “Vision” that does not even respect the entire Board process? Instead of an attitude of gratitude toward the community for all that has been provided to it, the District administration apparently feels reproach toward the community (the community “put us in this position”). While I was disgusted by the display, I was glad I attended. It reaffirms to me that nothing has changed, nothing will change. The wounds that the community has suffered in the past will not be allowed to heal as the district continues to apply caustic remedies.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ohma,

What impresses me as overwhelmingly sad about this entire episode is that it appears obvious to me that the unrest in D41 will continue for the foreseeable future.

I've lived in GE for 12 or so years, and it seems as tho over that time conditions in the schools have gotten more out of control, rather than less. Without laying blame on any one party or another, it really would be nice to live in a community where there weren't ongoing drawn-out battles concerning school funding and building.

Just doesn't seem as tho it oughtta be so fatiguing to simply live in a pleasant suburban community.

Bob or Steve should have walked out. They would not have had quorum.


Makes me sick. I think I might have a little chat with Dransoff. How ridiculous to use such medical analogies. I sat next to a newer staff member at the Hadley Horizons committee I serve on and she commented about the unsupportive community. I clarified for her exactly why it failed so miserably and she had a whole new view of the situation and agreed that she can understand the reasons people voted no. They have and are getting so many new staff, we have a lot of "educating" to do with these new educators. (Remember when Schmidt said we needed to be educated - what a joke!)

Unsupportive community? Are you kidding? From where is this notion coming? Are there throngs of residents not paying their tax bills? Are parents all of a sudden not volunteering anymore? Maybe that is why morale is so bad at Hadley, or at least that's what the PTA President asserted in her comments to the Board during the hearing. She said that the portable classrooms were needed to increase the morale of the teachers and students.

As far as anyone walking out, I'm not sure about that. They took the high road and were there to do the job that the community elected them to do. Too bad that they are in the minority.

The community is the culprit. Rich.

Does anyone have the conceptual concept drawing from the referendum? Was this curriculum change ever discussed in the YES info? The District sent out numerous mailings, but I did not see the literacy curriculum as a reason to expand. As I recall, we were going to put up the Hadley factory to accommodate the massive overcrowding in the K-5 programs. We were going to add on to Hadley to bring over the 5th graders. Therefore, not building the factory means.......Hadley is the school that's overcrowded! Gymnastic logic.

Some wonder why there is a credibility gap with Board members who schedule a vote and then don't make themselves available for that vote. At least they didn't abstain on the record. Perhaps they were campaigning in Kentucky or Oregon.

Ohma and Candidate, I give you my gratitude for adequately stating the frustrating and infuriating notes from last night's meeting. It is a shame that more of the Board members do not look at the conduct and presentation by the Hadley Student Council as a way to conduct a community based decision. They were wonderful. (That was my only good note )

Bob and Steve should be commended for their stands last night. They did not take the easy way out and bow to the Administrative pressure or disappear like two others. How can one person who runs for the office actually abstain from the most critical vote of his tenure and be absent for the second, unbelievable. How can a Sitting President so callously cut off her own Board member when she proclaims, mightily, to think in the best interests of the children. Neither Board members were advocating not spending money; rather, they were looking to not throw good money after bad. Make an informed decision, what a concept.

Community trust building took another serious blow last night. I will walk every door in Glen Ellyn, personally, to ensure some of these current Board members do not get re-elected (If they have the cajones to try based on their voting record, or lack thereof)

I'll walk with you, Rob!!!

Was there a Quorum?

The insert from the Online Policy Manual clearly states that in the presence of a quorum a simple majority vote carries.

Was there a quorum last night to vote the expenditure of 3/4 Million dollars on a Band-Aid?

A little further down the same link as above provides this:

"Quorum and Participation by Audio or Video Means
A quorum of the Board must be physically present at all Board meetings. A majority of the full membership of the School Board constitutes a quorum."

Does 5 out of 7 Board members constitute a majority of the full membership, thus ensuring a quorum? Legal eagles out there help me out with the wording.

Either way, the spirit of the decision was neglected.