In response to some of the prior postings regarding my comments:

1. I did attend the community forum.
The comments directed toward those in attendance were very vague. We were told that changes needed to be made because of the present poor economy which has affected the school district.

2. We were given short term recommendations:
capping enrollment, conducting a census

intermediate goals/recommendations:
PAIRED SCHOOLS

long range recommendations:
using Arborview as a preK and Kindergarten site and moving the arborview 1-5 students to westfield and arborview.
closing arborview

At the end of the meeting, someone asked what is the next step---we were told, (after we had spent a lengthy period of time brainstorming on other ideas--some of which were great) that research would be conducted into the paired schools model and the school board would be making a decision regardign the paired schools.What about the ideas we had come up with? At that moment I felt that the adminstration had made up their minds and our participation was for nothing other than to make us feel involved. That is why I came to this website and expressed my views.

Here are my objections:

students could enter one school using the paired school model, then at grade 3 move to the next school, and if the long range plan kicks in then move to a 3rd school.
What is this accomplishing? Is this truly what is best for the students? Is this truly sound financially? Is this truly saving money?

Why are the intermediate plans and long range plans that are SO DRASTICALLY different needed?
If a big change is needed at the very least make ONE big change and commit to it. There is no need to bounce between one idea to the next. Students require stability. Furthermore switching between paired schools and converting arborview to a preK/Kindergarten site would be costly. No one presented the cost of doing this.

--When a parent at that meeting asked about the additional transportation costs required in the paired schools model. We were told the costs would be minimally increased. I find this hard to believe. I expect data and information.

Regarding property values: No I cannot PROVE that paired schools would decrease property values. However, at the meeting each and every small group raised this issue as a concern.

Personally, I moved to Glen Ellyn last year-I moved here for the schools. Had I known that my kids may possibly be going to a system of paired schools- I would not have moved here. Plain and simple.
I am a mainstream person and I can tell you that other home buyers would feel the same.

Finally, if the financial problems of the district are due to the immediate changes of the ecomomy (short term problem--not a 20 yr problem)--why are we making long term changes in the way that are children are educated.

I also would like more details--I found more on the D89 website then were presented at the meeting. Paired schools would save 200,000 dollars in the 2nd year and 300,000 in the first year. These savings are not large enough to necessitate such broad and drastic changes.

I thank everyone for their opinions. I hope that everyone keeps expressing their views and most importantly expresses their views to the D89 administration and school board.

Nice posts. Intelligent, well thought out etc.

District 41 and 87 hear but they do not listen.

After the 20001 referendum which I voted yes on. It was obvious D41 had a major problem on its hands. People felt they had been lied to, they felt the district was a spendthrift.

D41 answered that by hiring a new Super with only minimal qualifications gave her a nice pay raise over the previous superintendent. And payed for her realty fees.

Not exactly listening.

Soon after, all these portables started showing up . I don't believe there was a tremendous spike in enrollment to justify the new portables. There was however, a large spike in employment at D41.

Soon D41 began to make noises about another ref to build either an additional school or to add onto Hadley. D41 used dubious statistics to back up its claim of larger enrollment.

As we see Enrollment has declined across the State, in Chicago, in Naperville, and across Roosevelt. Somehow D41 believes it will see an increase in enrollment while no one else has.

D41 then put the issue before the citizens in a referendum which lost almost 3:1. Did that stop them no. They formed committees. Considered hiring consultants.


So how could anyone say that D41 has listened. To say that we have to get beyond 2001 is fine ,but D41 keeps on reminding us of why we still cant trust them. They still don't listen.

The D130 Project.

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

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.

I had to get that ridiculous District 130 thread out of sight on the District 89 thread. I attribute that crap to Clam and his ridiculous plot to get the districts to merge.

Silly idea from a silly man.