Holy Moly!

Stop the presses! Mr Higgins has said it is so, so it must be!

And look! As proof, he provides his own write-up!

I'm convinced.

Central is very overcrowded. Read document below

http://www.qe203.org/20080205referendum/thecaseforcentral.shtml

You will find it pretty hard to find anyone with a modicum of knowledge to declare Central over-crowded! It is also clear you have not visited the schools that did make the top ten.

Little newsflash for Naperville: you are not the "end all" and your little school system (or NCHS) is certainly not destitute or anywhere near as bad as what the rest of the State goes through. Of course, the rest of the State isn't singly motivated by the effort to try and ptove it is "as good or rich" as Hinsdale, Oakbrook, Lake Forest, etc". But, if that is how you sleep at night....

To Dan who posted:

"By the way, you pulled up the wrong listing. The Sun Times ranked the top ten Chicago high schools and the top ten public. They did not go beyond the top ten. And the rankings were based on student and parent satisfaction as well as results."

Maybe the reason NCHS didn't make the list was because it is over-crowded and in need of major renovations.

I don't tink it is denigrating to point out the district has weaknesses and makes mistakes. Those of you acting as apologists for the District do it a disfavor by not allowing it to grow and learn. I do not think saying they are not in the Sun Times top 10 schools is denigrating (actually, I think it is a fact dump). Could you elaborate on all of these denigrating comments? I think the other bloggers would consider it a great service to see tehm all summarized

Reading this blog makes it pretty clear that almost all who opposed the referendum do so based on the fact that there are already $72 Million available to the District, which is a lot of dinero that would have resulted in some great upgrades.

However, they did not even consider that a viable option. They limited it to a brand new Central and $160 million, $46 million with some okay, but not great , fixes, and the $115 for pretty much a total rebuild of Central and a lot of other stuff.

I originally thought it was a great exercise to have a blog like this so people could debate and exchange ideas. I never expected it to turn into such a bullying format for the supression of individual thought and ideas OR for the personal denigration of a single individual by an organized group of attack monkeys!

Dan D

"1. Should we close Illinois Science and Math because they only accept high achieving students? Should Chicago be forced to close their magnet schools?"

Of course not and who said anything about closing them, anyhow? How is that germane to this discussion? Please, let's stay on track.

Dan D you've made an apples and oranges comparison. Let's stick to one fruit species, please do show us how Naperville 203 high schools' top 20%, or whatever percentile that corresponds to Benet's admission standard, compares to Benet's. Give it your best guess if you do not have or want to pursue the data--as seems to be your style.

I'll give you a hint: look at ACT's (yes, I know how you feel about them, but they are standard & data is available) if NCHS and NNHS overall are comparable to Benet, it should be easy to image where they would be if only their top 25% or so were considered.

Call it what is: all are good schools, they differentiate themselves socially, theologically and economically, but only marginally so, and so very small at that, educationally.

Your unjustifiable denigrations of 203's performance as substantiation of your financial criticism of the district is weak and phony.

Mr. Denys

Perhaps you could post the links for the readers.

Thom,

Three points.

1. Should we close Illinois Science and Math because they only accept high achieving students? Should Chicago be forced to close their magnet schools?

2. Is it wrong for a parent to get the best for their children? This sounds like the KGB.

3. There are other schools that have openings (St. Francis, Montini), so they do not have to add to Benet.

By the way, you pulled up the wrong listing. The Sun Times ranked the top ten Chicago high schools and the top ten public. They did not go beyond the top ten. And the rankings were based on student and parent satisfaction as well as results.

Jill,

I’ve found that whenever Mr. Denys makes a claim it always pays to check it out as usually it isn’t the truth. Here is his comment to you,

Thanks again for your personal concern. I am very happy! I have great schools for my children. They go to a high school that was rated in the top ten in Chicago by the Sun Times. Not one of the Naperville Public Schools made this list. And they tried.

Two comments. First he sends his kids to Bennett, part of this $300,000.00 commitment to avoiding public school Rif-Raf for his two kids. Where is Bennett’s name if it’s in the top ten?

Secondly, as the poster above illustrates. Bennett, as well as the top three schools in the Sun Times study, are admissions based. Hardly a fair comparison to public schools who have to take all comers, not just those with high academic credentials.

Here’s the link to the study he is referring to, good luck finding Bennett.

http://media1.suntimes.com/multimedia/top50hs.pdf_20071030_16_37_40_56.imageContent

RANK PERCENTILE SCHOOL
1.--- 88.88--- Northside College Preparatory

2.--- 86.65--- Payton College Preparatory Hs

3.--- 83.65--- Young Magnet High School

4.--- 82.25--- New Trier Township H S

5.--- 80.51--- Hinsdale Central High School Hinsdale Twp

6.--- 80.09--- Adlai E Stevenson High School

7.--- 79.53--- Deerfield High School Twp

8.--- 79.10--- Glenbrook North High School

9.--- 77.19--- Highland Park High School

9.--- 77.19--- Libertyville High School

11.--- 76.88--- Naperville North High School

12.--- 75.17--- Prospect High School

13.--- 74.70--- Glenbrook South High School

14.--- 74.05--- Naperville Central High School

So if you remove the top three admissions based schools to get a fair comparison, Naperville North is 8th, and Central 11th, based on the Sun Times criterion, which is the percentage of students who score better than the statewide average in the PSAE test.

To correct my transposition error:

Why don't they build a bigger school...

The Naperville Sun's sister publication, The Doings-Hinsdale, reported for the '07/'08 school year Benet Academy in Lisle tested 611 students and enrolled 336.

http://www.pioneerlocal.com/hinsdale/schools/753189,do-edcatholic-012408-s2.article

Dan D says "They go to a high school that was rated in the top ten in Chicago by the Sun Times. Not one of the Naperville Public Schools made this list."

Well 1 day and counting. Perhaps the best thing to do for those readers here that are undecided, is offer the following links.

http://www.qe203.org/20080205referendum/costperformance_mediasurvey.shtml

This takes you to an analysis I did of three different studies. The Daily Herald, USN&WR and Chicago Magazine. There are links within to the original studies. What you will find is that D203, compared to 34 other Chicago land school districts, has students that rank at the very top in academic achievement while the costs are below even the state average. WSN&WR raked both HS’s in the top 2-3% nationally. And Chicago Magazine rated the two HS’s first and third in cost effectiveness, for non admissions based schools.

If a picture is worth a thousand words go here,

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/documents/costperactreadiness_v2080128-2.pdf

Please note, while a large part of the success of our kids is their families and the favorable economic circumstances of many here, D203 students still achieve higher ACT scores that other similarly advantaged communities, and that you can directly attribute to the schools here.

If you have questions as to why renovate Central to the extent it is being proposed please click here,

http://www.qe203.org/20080205referendum/thecaseforcentral.shtml

Our community's educational return on investment is substantial, and is reflected by District 203 students high scores in national achievement tests, their numerous victories in academic and athletic competitions, as well as the benefits that our excellent extracurricular programs bring to our students and the community. This return on investment is reflected in our high property values, for truly part of what makes the Naperville area desirable is the excellent educational opportunities that are available within our community. Please help us continue with this tradition of excellence.

I will be moving out of Illinois as well

While you may be of the opinion that having underfunded schools will remake the midwest into a magical wonderland, and while Dan D. wants to move to all of the great jobs in Arkansas - the reality is that Arkansas has a horrible educational system and ranks 49th out of 50 in per-capita income (in 2000). Could it be that those are non-union minimum wage jobs appropriate for a state with bad schools???

http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank29.html

I'll stick with Illinois (#14) thank you. Apparently having good schools and union jobs isn't so bad.

I hope you and your family enjoy your job prospects in Arkansas. I hear there are a lot of nice poultry processing plants!

I will be moving out of Illinois as well. The Midwest is being strangled by the unions and most people are too dense to see it (unless of course you are a union member).

The Chicago Tribune ran a great article about the dying Midwest a couple weeks ago. Just 50 years ago Detroit ranked #1 in per capita income, today it ranks 68!!! Detroit itself is hollowed out with around a 50% population loss. According the the Tribune article St. Louis has lost something like 60% of it's population!!! These are stunning numbers.

Check out the article above just posted about the property tax revolt. That article came out of the Chicago Tribune yesterday. Most of my neighbors will be voting NO tomorrow. I hope this baby goes down in flames.

Jill,

Thanks again for your personal concern. I am very happy! I have great schools for my children. They go to a high school that was rated in the top ten in Chicago by the Sun Times. Not one of the Naperville Public Schools made this list. And they tried.

I feel sorry for the people in this town that pay top dollar for Chevys. And then they get defensive when you do more!! Very curious.

My only concern is that our housing prices might be doing better than Robbins, but they are not keeping up with Hindsale and the North Shore. On the other hand, I bought in Naperville since it was cheaper than these areas, so I get what I paid for.

The real tragedy is that it could be better. We tax more than these areas and get less (except ACT scores). But I think this is a function of parents helping their children, not the water they drink or the teachers.

There was a recent article (last 4 months) about how public schools in areas like Naperville were being "converted" to be similar to the "private boarding schools". Not happening in 203. We still require SHOP OR HOME EC!!!! We are not even keeping up with 204 and their Frontier campus.

That is my position in a nutshell. We could do more, but don't want to offend the mainstream. WOW!!!!

Jill,

I'm not sure who is more unhappy - Mr. Denys or Mr. Davitt. I believe I could make a case for Mr. Davitt. Let's see where his hatred, unhappiness, frustration, you name it...is directed.

District 203 administrators? Yes.
Naperville teachers? Check. (actually he dispises them)
Naperville Chamber of Commerce? Yup.
Board of Education? Got 'em
Naperville Sun? Oh, yeah.
Build the Future 203? Them too.
Facilities Task Force? Them too.

Wow! That's sure a lot of anger for one person! How DO you do it? Will it ever end?

Thought it would be good to wrap this entry up with a quote from a previous Davitt posting.

"Let principles and values determine your vote"

Posted by: Mike Davitt | January 29, 2008 10:07 AM

Mr. Davitt talking about principles and values. Now THATS funny!

Definitely not on the school board! For a volunteer job, it seems they receive far too much grief.

It just seems that Mr. Denys is a very unhappy man. If you - Mr. Denys - didn't have to deal with so much "angst" as you perceive it, by living and paying taxes in District 203, perhaps you would live a happier and healthier life! Just looking out for my fellow man!

I will most assuredly vote YES for the referendum on Tuesday. The district has done their homework,listened to the community and made a smart decision that will benefit our community's earliest learners in the Early Childhood Program to the students at both of our high schools. That sentiment is supported by the endorsement of the Naperville Sun, Daily Herald, Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce and the Naperville Development Partnership, as well as thousands of Naperville residents.

jill,

Are you on the 203 school Board? I ask because one of the Board members had that SAME advice for any seniors who could not pay the property taxes. Your comment really sounds similar.

Jill,

You need me to pay these taxes. But as soon as I am done working, I am out of here. Illinois is destined to join the ranks of New Jersey and Michigan as wastelands.

And if I get more work out of state (or can do my work out of state), I'll move sooner.

Great constructive comment. LOL

dAN,

mIGHT i sUGGEST yOU mOVE!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tax_revolt_bdfeb03,0,2478984.story

The property tax revolt is spreading. See the article above from the front section of today's Chicago Tribune, Feb. 3rd, 2008. People are waking up to the huge ripoff government is foisting on the taxpayers. Throw the bums out, that's the best option. If you are a publicly elected official you better start watching your back, the voters are sick and tired of you and will replace you. No public job is exempt from the axe. Why do politicians think cuts can only come from the private sector? Why do they think they deserve employment for life? They DO NOT get it. Streamline, cut back, layoff employees like the rest of the us do and you might get to keep your job.

So Linda N,
Your last name is N????? @@@@:)

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 04:59 PM

I trust the irony of this posting is not missed by casual readers of this blog.

Thom,

I'm pretty sure I lead into my post with "Some issues I think will make any reader say "Hmmmmmm".

That is exactly what they are --- hopefully , all who read them will say "hmmmmm?" and askl their own questions.

Just so you know, I will NOT get dragged into an ongoing debate like you & Dan. too tedious and I don't type that well.

I will say, though, that your defense of Suzyn & Alan by obsessing on the word "never" is pretty weak. Or, more subtley, that's not how you should take it to the hoop!

The fact of the matter is that they said there would be no savings despite a drop ov 2000 students from the enrollment high --- that is nonsensical, it lacks fiscal responsibility, and people should be talking about it. If you want to discuss the word "never" take it elsewhere as I will not participate!

Your comments on my BTF203 funding are obviously rhetorical as I'm sure you're neither that naive or unconnected. The questions are just that ---questions.

As I have written in the Sun in the past, I not only have no problem with teachers, board members, etc., beibng involved, I encourage it! I just want it to be legal, in compliance with our negotiated contracts (something the teachers have a hard time doing!), and very transparent.

You know as well as I that the initial funding for the group came from Suzyn & Jackie (and families) and that the citizens would not really know about it until after the referendum as the filings would not need to be easily accessabel until after the vote. Ethically, I definitely have issues with this. Legally, I would like to know the fine points of this as I can lay out a case that says the Board is de facto supporting the referendum. I would actually like to read a post from a knowledgeable lawyer on this.

Finally, I really don't want to get into one of those tit-for-tat arguments with you on this thread where we hotly argue whether the original paper stock was 5o lb or 35 lb. I thought I was pretty clear in stating they were questions to be asked. I also suspect that just like happened after the April election, we will eventually find a lot more funding of the nature I question.

Pax.

To Mike:

Are you sure about that? Correct me if I am wrong, but only contributions exceeding $500 need to filed with the state. That's what it says on the forms that were posted here. Why is it not conceivable that 100 parents gave $10 or $20 each on the BTF204 website? They have an online system for contributing here:

http://www.buildthefuture203.org/

Click on "DONATE".

I'm sure any and all donations are welcomed.

To VoR:

Please correct me if I misinterpreted your point:

Are you saying that the O&M budget for capital improvements for the entire district should be used for NCHS, ECC, and Mill, leaving $0 for all other schools for the next 7 years, and thus we don't need the referendum?

Forgive me, but that doesn't sound very prudent to me.

The FAQ's below and associated links provide some great information:

http://www.naperville203.org/faq/index.asp?CATEGORY_ID=12#FAQ104

Did you know "Build the Future 203" is the school board? D-1 filings with the state show that the group calling themselves Build the Future 203 has been totally funded by school board members! Price $1,000. Prices appointee, Romberg $750. More predictable District 203 tomfoolery.

To all,

Wanted to make sure you understand the issues about classroom size. The District (or the ARCHITECTS) claims the existing classrooms are TOO SMALL --650 square feet. The correct size is 1,100 square feet.

Now most of us would say, ok. Move a couple of walls and make them bigger (RENNOVATE). The Architects say that the rooms would be too narrow and therefore the entire floors need to be “GUT REHABBED.” Move the corridors along one window and build the giant rooms. REBUILD.

The difference between these options--$30 million (add the locker room WANT and you have the reason for the referendum).

That is the important of classroom size. The architects NEVER justified this assumption. While that alone should be a reason to reject the REBUILD, I thought seeing what other schools have would be fair. I listed multiple schools since I would believe that at least one would be a TAJ MAHAL.

Higgens throws out numbers. REMEMBER, the District has REFUSED TO RESPOND. Wonder why? Then his most objective numbers do not even support the 750. North is good for another 30 years, so why do we need classrooms at Central that are 50% larger?

That is the entire issue in a nutshell. We all wait for Higgens rambling non response.

Responding to Bob S, his comments in Italics.

The District's forecasts don't include some revenue streams in their forecasts. This included millions per year from permanent State funding increases and property tax increases that are approximately 40% higher than the forecasts being used to support the referendum.

Will you please point out what revenue streams you are talking about, where they are missing, and how you know they have been left out?

Why did the Board and Superintendent make fiscally nonsensical statements, like the ones earlier this week in the Sun, where they outright declared a 10% drop in enrollment would never result in any cost savings via class space or instructors? Based on current per student spending, this enrollment decrease would result in $22 million in savings (a simple calculation as the savings would be somewhat less, but not as much less as one would expect given the District's low fixed costs ---- labor is a variable!)

I would ask you to show the readers where in the article the superintendent said never, link below. I can’t find it

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/756712,6_1_NA24_REDISTRICT_S1.article

As to the question of declining enrollment from now @17,584 students, to the projected 2010-2011 @16,452 students, lets say 1100, if they all were at 2-3 schools then you could close them. However spread over 21 schools and 12.5 grades it gets a lot tougher. And I know this will drive you completely bonkers but a few less kids per class is OK with me.

I am very concerned about the above posts referencing the Board providing funding for BuildTheFuture203. If legal, is it ethical? If so, why is it ethical? I ask this because outside of the obvious, I have been asked before both through and BY the Sun why I pick on "representatives" of the District (such as Mr Wilson). The idea is that they are representing the District, so by questioning them I am questioning the District, Thus, when Board members work somewhat covertly to skirt laws, I think it is reasonable to at least question the activity.

Where does it say a citizen give up their rights when they join a school board? Build The Future is a separate committee that has one purpose. To advocate for the referendum. How could it possibly be illegal or unethical for a board member to contribute? I think it’s pretty classy they donated. Hey, I donated! How can you claim they are working covertly? They made sizable contributions in their name, and it was promptly reported the next day by the committee. Please tell us how that can be considered skirting the law. Do you think it's unethical for teacher to contribute?

The referendum will be funding $12 million in Contingencies! Besides being almost 30% of the total referendum, it represents 12% of the ACTUAL project (115 less 12)! Regardless of the percentage, in my book $12 Million is a hell of a lot of buckos, buckos!

Please show us where you find this figure. I can not find it.

Bond premiums are very, very attractive in times of dropping rates (sound like an environment you have heard of lately?). I would have felt much better if the referendum was worded to preclude them.

If you look at the FAQ’s they are quite clear in the fact they will not be issuing premium bonds. Secondly, have you ever in your life seen a ballot question that states what they are not asking for? Thought so.

The total bonds involved will be $79 million, not $43 million. I have not seen this distinction covered in a detail that the average Joe or Joan citizen can understand. Wouldn't it be informative to report both the total bonding AND the total cost of the bonds once paid off? If ANYONE at all has shown this, it was probably Thom (is so, good job, Thom!). But WHY doesn't the District offer this up front?

Take a peek here pg 39 where you see the two different bonds illustrated

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/PlanforUpgradingFacilities2007%2D2012%2Epdf

Also here, on the Build Future website

Another $36 million will come from Alternate Revenue Bonds funded by the expiration of the Cantera TIF in 2010 which will generate $3.8 million annually for the District. This is new money coming to the District from the economic development of the Cantera area in northwest Naperville.

We are being asked to approve $43 million in bonds that we will pay for out of out property taxes. The $36 million will be paid by the Cantera business property owners. I bet most residents wished those were bigger. it would save them some money. As far as wanting the total cost outlined, I have a question. If you have a $250,000 mortgage on your house do you tell people it’s a $250K mortgage, or do you tell them it’s a $750,000 mortgage including the 30 years of interest? I think people are sophisticated to understand that there are interest costs involved, don’t you?

Honestly, I was undecided, but leaning toward yes.

The Central project seems like a great idea. The school seems to need a lot of work. I think the Mill Street and ECC projects are worthwhile, too. And it’s not like they’re asking for a ton of extra money. I could swing the increase they’re proposing. (I mean, really… who can’t?)

But I know nothing of these other projects this increase will essentially subsidize.

And, for quite a while now, I’ve been hearing/reading people who say “they already have the money.” Then I see that number in today’s story - $45.5 million. The math's not hard to do. They’re asking people to cough up $43 million now, for the top-priority projects, so they don’t have to cough up their $45.5 million until a little later, for the lower-tier improvements. That bothers me.

Again, with the world and economy looking the way it does today, I’d rather they take care of their top priorities with the cash they have available now, and wait a few years for the tax increase, just to see if the community wants and can afford these other projects at that time.

I know I’d support that plan. Whether I could afford to vote yes for it at that time... man, I sure hope so.

The cynic in me thinks that's why the vote is happening now. Lock it all in before everything heads south. (Or should I say even further south?)

Then again, it's not like these other projects are locked in, even if the proposal passes Tuesday. Maybe if things get too bad, they postpone them and use the money to delay an operating fund tax increase for a few more years. Spend that money now... you don't have that option.

Then again, they'll still have a $30 million surplus... if, indeed, that works out.

Well, I'm done. This is addictive, and, frankly, I have better things to do than get suckered into another blog.

Good luck, all.

Well, VoR, it really isn't about the hard analysis of the numbers. The point of the article was to say that if the referendum passes, then some of the money that is currently allocated to O&M for Central and Mill can be reallocated to other facilities that also need it. The point is that there are people in D203 that don't realize the indirect benefits of the referendum to them if their kids go to Beebe or Highlands or Lincoln or Jefferson.

Furthermore, I don't believe that "up until today", you were a YES voter. There's just not enough meat in the Sun article to have that kind of an effect on someone that didn't have a predisposition toward NO.

But of course, that is just my opinion.

Thom,

Let's keep comparisons on a similar basis.

The City of Naperville's $30 million surplus is based on modified accrual accounting. For 203, the same number is $80 million. If Naperville followed 203's conservative method, they would have a $40 million deficit.

Please note that we have never advocated a lower fund balance. Allen Albus, the District's former DFO, advocated that the District should carry a $10 million deficit. The over collection eliminated that policy and I agree.

You're right, Joe C.. The article doesn't "exactly" say that.

But, with all due respect, sir, I must ask what's wrong with my analysis of what the article said?

1.) They're asking to borrow $43 million to complete Phase I of this plan, and to raise taxes to repay that debt, with interest, over 20 years. The district’s own literature indicates doing so will cost $68 million over 20 years… or $3.4 million a year.
2.) Over the next seven years, the district will have $45.5 million of O&M funds available to it to make these repairs. (That's evident from the Zager e-mail posted by Higgins - "$6.5 million every year for major renovations.") That’s $2.5 million more than they’re asking to borrow and repay over the course of 20 years, and at an ultimate cost of $68 million. By that time in the term of the bonds, taxpayers will have only repaid roughly $20.4 million of this debt. (That’s $3.4 million a year for six of the 20 years.)

3.) After all of that – seven years and $160.5 million dollars in facility improvements (the $115 million for Phase 1 and the $45.5 million they expect to have for Phase 2) they’ll still be sitting on a $30 million cumulative surplus.

The district already has enough money to make Phase 1 happen. So why is it asking for this tax increase?

I now believe they’re asking for it because they want the whole shebang, and they know they can’t get it any other way.

Forgot about this blog, easier to use the one on the main page.

Check out my response to Thom.

Becky, what you just described is MAINTENANCE. If you do not maintain your buildings, they get leaks and infested with insects. Same with your house.

They have not even changed to low energy consuming light fixtures for 50 years.

If you are correct on their current maintenance, they will destroy the new building as well.

With all due respect to The Voice of Reason, I don't think the Sun said all that.

Here is the link if you want to read exactly what was written.

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/770587,6_1_NA01_PHASE2_S1.article

You know what today’s Sun story basically said, right?

1.) The district is seeking permission to raise taxes for 20 years to repay with interest the $43 million it wants to borrow so it can renovate and expand Central and Mill Street and create an ECC. In the end, the $43 million in bonds issued will cost $68 million to repay.

2.) The district anticipates it will incur $153 million of O&M expenses over the next seven years, and it expects $45.5 million of that will go toward “major renovations and repairs.” So… it is asking voters for permission to increase their taxes so it can borrow $43 million and repay it with interest to the tune of $68 million, all while it anticipates having $45.5 million available for the same purposes over the next seven years.

3.) After this seven-year period in which the district will have accumulated the $45.5 million it anticipates using for “major renovations and repairs” of its lower-priority projects (after raising people’s taxes to cover the costs of the top-priority projects) it will have repaid only $20.4 million of the estimated $68 million it will owe toward those $43 million bonds, and it will still be sitting on a $30 million cumulative surplus.

So… like so many have said for so long, the district will have MORE THAN ENOUGH MONEY to pull off this facility plan without a tax increase. This plan is just as much asking voters to approve a $43 million tax increase to put permanent walls in at Steeple Run, Scott and Maplebrook as it is asking them to renovate and expand Central. Central’s the sexy issue that will get people to vote yes. Would they be voting yes if they truly understood that the money was available to fix Central… but the district is clinging to it because it wants to use it to remodel a few LRCs? I don’t know. I suppose some would change their minds, and some wouldn’t.

Here’s how I feel. I think the improvements called for in Phase I of this plan are needed. They are, without doubt, the top-priority facility projects in the district. But I was taught that a budget is a list of priorities. You allocate your money to what’s most important to you. In this case, you could say that the district isn’t doing that. Or you could argue that it is… that its strategy is to get everything it wants – to fund all of its facility improvements by basically dangling in front of voters the carrot that is the sexy, top-priority projects residents really want to see happen, and essentially saying to them, “We won’t give you these unless you give us everything.”

How’s that for compromise?

Up until today, I’d have voted yes for this plan simply because I believe the Phase I projects are that important. Now I truly understand the district has the money to pull them off without a tax increase, and I just think that’s wrong… and even more unscrupulous considering the over-taxation that occurred as a result of the 2002 referendum.

These are tough times for people, and I believe they’re only going to get tougher. Every little bit of cash is going to help them, and they’re going to have to prioritize and make sacrifices. The district should have to do the same. The district should present a plan that funds its top priorities first using money it will have on hand (without a tax increase), and it should wait for a few years and see how the world and the economy shake out for it and for the people it serves.

In my opinion, that’s the most respectful plan they could put forward. It’s a plan I could support.

Naperville Central needs help. Naperville Central needs adequate funding for repairs.

Last week at dinner two of my sons (both Central students) compared notes on all the dripping, leaky spots to avoid. It seems if you are not careful which hallway or doorway you walk through, or where you sit in certain classrooms, you will get dripped on. Then the guys moved on to talking about the roaches and ‘demon centipedes’ in the locker rooms. They say the problem is half overcrowding and half generalized decay.

As s we would not consider working in that kind of situation, and we would never place our parents in a leaky, rundown hospital or nursing home, yet we expect our children to go to school, learn, and excel in this kind of an environment.

Vote YES for 203!

P.S. District 203 teachers and staff are the best! I cannot say enough about how their commitment and professionalism has made a difference in my sons’ lives.

Becky Simon

Hey, all!

I tried, but could not stay away. It is a sickness---- I have the blog monkey on my back! AAAAgghhh!!!

Some issues I think will make any reader say "Hmmmmmm":

>The District's forecasts don't include some revenue streams in their forecasts. This included millions per year from permanent State funding increases and property tax increases that are approximately 40% higher than the forecasts being used to support the referendum.

>Why did the Board and Superintendent make fiscally nonsensical statements, like the ones earlier this week in the Sun, where they outright declared a 10% drop in enrollment would never result in any cost savings via class space or instructors? Based on current per student spending, this enrollment decrease would result in $22 million in savings (a simple calculation as the savings would be somewhat less, but not as much less as one would expect given the District's low fixed costs ---- labor is a variable!)

>I am very concerned about the above posts referencing the Board providing funding for BuildTheFuture203. If legal, is it ethical? If so, why is it ethical? I ask this because outside of the obvious, I have been asked before both through and BY the Sun why I pick on "representatives" of the District (such as Mr Wilson). The idea is that they are representing the District, so by questioning them I am questioning the District, Thus, when Board members work somewhat covertly to skirt laws, I think it is reasonable to at least question the activity.

>The referendum will be funding $12 million in Contingencies! Besides being almost 30% of the total referendum, it represents 12% of the ACTUAL project (115 less 12)! Regardless of the percentage, in my book $12 Million is a hell of a lot of buckos, buckos!

>Bond premiums are very, very attractive in times of dropping rates (sound like an environment you have heard of lately?). I would have felt much better if the referendum was worded to preclude them.

>The total bonds involved will be $79 million, not $43 million. I have not seen this distinction covered in a detail that the average Joe or Joan citizen can understand. Wouldn't it be informative to report both the total bonding AND the total cost of the bonds once paid off? If ANYONE at all has shown this, it was probably Thom (is so, good job, Thom!). But WHY doesn't the District offer this up front?

That's it! I'm returning my wife's pc to her and going back on the 12 step program!

Good luck to all on Tuesday and EVEYBODY get out and vote!!!!!!

(of course, I will vote "NO"!

Response of Dave Zager Assistant Superintendent of Finance District 203 responding to e-mail inquiries by Tim Waldorf Education Reporter of the Naperville Sun.

These questions were from Tim Waldorf received on (01-30-2008):

Dave Zagers responses are in Italics.

Tim, from your e-mail:

“The District is projecting ongoing annual budget surpluses through 2013-2014, even with the $154 million of Operations and Maintenance expenses and $60 million Site and Construction expenses it anticipates paying from its operations budget between now and then. And, once annual revenues exceed expenses in 2013-2014, the district’s projected cumulative surplus of roughly $40 million is expected to keep it out of the red until 20__.”

OK. I am guessing that a lot of this is based on our 2007-08 budget document and the financial projections in that document. I think your $154 million is the projection in Operations and Maintenance from 2008-09 through 2013-14 – or 6 years (roughly $25.5 million per year). The Site and Construction $60 million is the amount shown in 2008-09 through 2010-11.

This latter amount is included in the $114.9 million. At the time this document was created (April of 2007) the recommended plan from the Task Force was a total package of $100 million. $60 million of this was to be a combination of the $36 million bonds funded by Cantera and $24 million from other sources (Walnut Woods sale, operating surpluses, Land Cash, etc.). This $60 million is the amount you see in the Site and Construction Fund expenditures. The additional $40 million was to be referendum approved bonds.

After this document was created – in fall of 2007 – the Facilities Project was revised to a total of $114.9 million and funded as detailed in all of the District referendum documents, including an additional $9.2 million provided from operating budget surplus.

Please note that the additional funding that went into this package also cut into those annual operating surpluses that were projected.

So a few corrections to your sentence above (I’ll base everything off that projection from April, 2007 – although I am in the midst of doing a new projection right now):

The operating budget was projected to be balanced through 2012-13, with 2013-14 being the first year that expenses exceeded revenue. The cumulative balance at 2012-13 would be projected at $29.6 million (the number in the document is $38.8 million – then subtract the $9.2 million = $29.6 million). I am currently revising the financial projection so I expect that to change again (Interest income will be reduced - so I expect revenue to be down a little. (Dave Zager indicated to me this number is approx $ 8 million based on projected interest rates and the current lower interest rates, TH 2-01-08) At the same time, we have reduced expenditures through new labor contracts and health insurance contracts).

a. The “$60 million” in the Site and Construction Fund is not in addition to the $114.9 million facilities package.

b. Your second e-mail about an additional $36 million is incorrect. ALL of the Site and Construction money is already in the $114.9 million facilities plan.

c. The projected (financial projection document of April, 2007) $154 million over the next six years includes all costs of operating, maintaining, repairing the District facilities. Included in that figure is about $6.5 million every year for major repairs and renovations. If the referendum were to pass and Naperville Central High School and Mill Street School are remodeled and renovated as planned, some of the repairs that are detailed in the District’s Five Year Plan and outlined in the District Wide Physical Facility Survey would be done in those projects. This would free up some of the annual budget for major repairs and renovations in the Operations and Maintenance Fund so that some of the Phase II projects could be done.

d.. As far as the fund balance keeping us out of the red – let’s say until 2014-15 (maybe even 2015-06) given the additional use of fund balance for the $114.9 million project.

I always remind everyone that the financial projection is NOT a budget. I always stress that the “Financial Projection – Trends and Assumptions” includes a three page explanation as well as the “numbers.” In that explanation (and I quote),”on a practical basis the meaningful years are the current year budget plus an additional three years. Beyond that, there is little meaningful information to form the basis of the projection.”

Tim, I think there has been some talk that the District would not need to issue the referendum bonds – there is plenty of money in future fund balances. First of all, maintaining some amount of fund balance is advisable. For example, the City of Naperville has a similar size budget to the School District and maintains over $30 million in balance. This ensures adequate cash to satisfy obligations without resorting to short term borrowing (such as Tax Anticipation Warrants) and is a source of funds if property taxes are delayed or state payments are delayed (as happened this year).

Second, the projections are just that – projections. The District has committed future funds for the next three years toward these projects. The District has committed future funds to be generated when the Cantera TIF expires. There is a balance that must be struck between minimizing additional taxpayer dollars (through the referendum) and maintaining a reasonable financial position so that the future of the District is not jeopardized.

Thom Higgins here. So any reader here will see that the $39 million, 2012 projected surplus, as offered in the April 07 budget papers, has been reduced by $9 million as I stated previously. Mr. Denys is incorrect again. Further as I have indicated there will be an additional $8 million loss in interest income if current conditions hold! Time will tell and the variables are numerous. Again these are projections, 5 years in advance. To claim that it is a certainty are guaranteed to have these funds is disingenuous to my mind

###I love teachers,

I have posted some on this blog and it is clear I will vote No.

Having said that, I would encourage you to NOT get a generaly mean atitude over the "despise" comment or to batter anyone else with it.

Unless I missed something, it was only ONE person who said it. I would be shocked if others on this blog believed it.

I have appreciated comments on teachers by Becky and you. Keep it up, guys###

dont worry i realize the comment was made by one person and dont attribute it to everyone. i was directing the post at the one person who made the comment. as i mentioned i dont have a connection to the district anymore. other then children who attend the schools. i used to have a family member at central. but they no longer work there. if you have notice i have not stated my position regarding the vote. i will vote yes but respect everyones right to vote as they wish. thats why we vote. i just get angry at the people who disprect an entire group of people.

Responding to Dan Denys,

1.The architects (Heally Bender) were hired to establish standards and evaluate the schools, not Thom Higgins.

Here is the link to pictures of the reports generated by Healy Bender, as anyone can see they run into the thousands of pages. 21 books one for each school. Mr. Denys continues to claim they did not evaluate the schools. He is completely incorrect.

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/healy-bender_links.shtml

2. We gave the District an opportunity to respond. Their answer, NEED MORE TIME, GET BACK TO YOU AFTER THE REFERENDUM VOTE. Here is their letter:

http://www.mediafire.com/?a5vxnqcdczk

The subject of renovating Central and the facilities issue has been discussed for months. It is noteworthy that you waited to the last minute to make your FOIA request, and that it included some 60 separate questions at that. Do you expect the district to suspend it’s normal operation to dig all this information out? No you waited to submit a HUGE FOIA request till you could be sure it was too late for the district to supply the answers before the referendum. If you really were interested you would have submitted months ago. So transparent.

(They have promised to let us look at the billings from Healy Bender, I will stop their when the office is open next. They have 39 pages for $350,000.)

No, they have tens of thousands of pages of analysis from Heal Bender for $350,000. It’s the billing, I’m assuming, that 39 pages long. See link above for pictures of the documents.

The state mandated capacity calculations (for life safety purposes) would have DEFINITIVELY answered the questions for North and Central. But the District has not provided them.

You are so totally and completely wrong here I do not know where to start. The safety standards have ZERO to do with the how large the classrooms at Central should be. The standard for safely exiting them is 18sf. as you know. but to actually learn in that room you need 30 sf. This is one of your typical smoke screens to obscure the issue.

3 I applaud your effort, Mr. Higgins. BUT THOM, YOU ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL OF THE DISTRICT. They had their chance to address our questions and ignored them.

I cannot spend the time to sort out all the information you “gathered." I also have contacts that could do the same, but why bother when the DISTRICT DOES NOT CARE!!!

What you are saying here Mr. Denys is you’re word is worthless. You made a challenge to me.

I have won the challenge, as I do all arguments with you because you are a model of mendacity.

The fact that you are suddenly too busy to verify the information, it’s petty easy actually, tells ever reader here you have no honor, and are only interested in making dishonest arguments in a vain attempt to damage the districts reputation Look at this post. You are factually incorrect and guilty of attempting to mislead reader from the truth in every single statement. I know that the $300,000 for your kids private school tuition must hurt, but please have the integrity to not to try to defeat this referendum just to save a few bucks on your property taxes.

Lastly this,

On the $39 million surplus and the extra $4 million “surprise revenue windfall” this year, save the trip. The $39 million EXTRA SURPLUS is in the budget on the District’s web page. Read the board minutes where Mr. Zager reports on the windfall. He also verbally confirmed this to another individual.

I will go over to the district office today and ask for something on D203 stationary regarding this and the specious referendum bond comments you have made. Although I doubt it will matter to you. Nothing anyone can do or say will stop you from attempting to dishonestly smear the reputation of D203. It’s just who you are.

Thom,

I have three points.

1. The architects (Heally Bender) were hired to establish standards and evaluate the schools, not Thom Higgins. Never done. Instead, the district’s new official position is that they asked the staff and principals what were the deficiencies. Cut through the rhetoric, the reports and plans are based on WANTS, not NEEDS.

2. We gave the District an opportunity to respond. Their answer, NEED MORE TIME, GET BACK TO YOU AFTER THE REFERENDUM VOTE. Here is their letter:

http://www.mediafire.com/?a5vxnqcdczk

(They have promised to let us look at the billings from Healy Bender, I will stop their when the office is open next. They have 39 pages for $350,000.)

The state mandated capacity calculations (for life safety purposes) would have DEFINITIVELY answered the questions for North and Central. But the District has not provided them.

3. I applaud your effort, Mr. Higgins. BUT THOM, YOU ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL OF THE DISTRICT. They had their chance to address our questions and ignored them.

I cannot spend the time to sort out all the information you “gathered." I also have contacts that could do the same, but why bother when the DISTRICT DOES NOT CARE!!!

When you become Superintendent, I will listen. But until then, the buck stops with Leis, not you.

On the $39 million surplus and the extra $4 million “surprise revenue windfall” this year, save the trip. The $39 million EXTRA SURPLUS is in the budget on the District’s web page. Read the board minutes where Mr. Zager reports on the windfall. He also verbally confirmed this to another individual.

Comments on Naperville Central High School room size and renovation

Dan Denys, and Mike Davitt have made repeated claims claiming that the renovations for Central would result in a TAJ Mahal. Let’s look at the facts.

Over the last few days I have been studying the space plan provided to me by Wight and Assoc., the architects District 203 chose to prepare the preliminary plans.

Here is what I found.

There is approximately 171,307 square feet that will remain essentially untouched or will have minor renovations. The largely untouched areas are the theater, the pool area and various gyms, all of recent construction, and it also includes a number of storage areas and hallways. The industrial technology and business classrooms and labs, also of newer construction, will receive minor renovations. This is one of the ways we get an updated modern facility, but at a lower cost than a new school., This shows sound decision making.

I am pleased to see that almost all the classrooms will be new or remodeled. They all will be larger and the school will have a number of new labs. For example, foreign language and math labs which are large rooms with computer stations. In the same way the English department will have some larger rooms to accommodate the technology needed to write and produce documents, web pages, etc. The days of students writing with just pens at their desks are ove.

So, what about the size of the classroom rooms?

Most of the core curriculum classrooms (science, math, english, foreign language, and social studies) reside in renovated and new areas resulting in differently sized classrooms. Ultimately, this will be to the district's advantage as they will be able to place programs based on their space needs, technology, instructional approach. This will provide enhanced flexibility for room utilization.

Dan Denys has outspokenly labeled the renovation as being excessive and unnecessary. On 1-17-08, he equated the standard for the amount of space a student needs to safely exit a room (18 s.f.) to the standard for how much space a student should be provided for instructional purposes. He incorrectly claimed that the existing classrooms (at 650 s.f.) are 167% larger than they have to be and to enlarge them further would be an unnecessary luxury. A Taj Mahal in his and Mr. Davitt’s words.

Mr. Denys used an irrelevant standard as the basis of his argument thereby rendering that argument invalid.

So what classroom standard is Wight Architects using? They are using the accepted 30 s.f. per student standard (Council of Educational Facility Planners International) and basing the classroom size on 26 students per room, for a total of 780 sf. I need to correct an earlier comment about this issue: I thought they were building to a 30 student classroom population, not 26.

The general education traditional lecture classrooms are mostly in a newly constructed wing and are 775 s.f. for the most part. The english classrooms will average 802 s.f.. I do not have a classroom by classroom breakdown, but my expectation is they also will be predominately 775 s.f. each, with some larger ones in the mix, too.

This conflicts with some higher numbers that have been discussed and this is where understanding the complexity of a modern school comes in. For example, the English lecture classrooms will average 802 s.f., but add in the 3 labs or centers, as the architect labels them, and you have a 912 s.f. average. Which number is correct? They both are. But, you need to know what the numbers represent to understand them.

The district has used the 900s.f. figure, based on including the larger spaces, in some of their communications as it is more illustrative of the increase in space over the existing classrooms.

So, how does this compare to Naperville North HS, for example? If you take all their classrooms and average them out, you get 875 s.f. If you take only the traditional, lecture style, gen ed classrooms, it is 720 s.f.

Let’s look some general ed traditional lecture classrooms in newly constructed schools.

Metea (in planning), projected to be 840 s.f. (28 students per room standard?)
Neuqua 840 s.f. (28 student per classroom standard?)
Waubonsie 780 s.f. (26 students per classroom standard?)
Oswego East HS’s either 928 or 960 s.f. (30 Students per classroom standard?)
Plainfield North 751s.f. (25 students per classroom stated standard)
CUSD 300 Hampshire, IL 825 s.f.

These are not averages, you will find in modern hs’s that all gen ed classes are the same size.

As you see above, the size of the room is only part of the story. The next part is how many students are in each classroom. The architect for Plainfield North told me it was designed to a 25 student per classroom standard. Oswego’s larger rooms are, I believe, designed to a larger student per classroom standard (30?) and then with some added space to boot, I bet.

So in the end, I can say that, the size of the rooms are appropriate considering the demands of 21st century technology, and the many and varied classes students take.
As they are being designed to a 26 student per class standard, the design is in accord with the demographic projections calling for Centrals enrollment to decline slightly in the coming years.

.
Further I feel the desire by the district to be fiscally conservative coupled with the fact that there is not a logical alternative site for a new high school, the decision to renovate Naperville Central high school is a sound one. Please click on the following link for a detailed discussion regarding why the scope of the renovation needs to be so extensive.

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/thecaseforcentral.shtml

Finally this,

On 1-25-08 Mr. Denys challenged me thusly,
My plain statement. If Thom can note that 75% of the general classrooms in these schools are greater than 750 square feet (note I am not using the 900 square feet the district is proposing), I will ask the Sun to publish an article stating that the reconstruction of the exiting space to increase the classroom size is reasonable. Thom, I will give you a letter to post on QE203. We will post the info on WDTA. Posted by: Dan D. | January 25, 2008 07:28 AM

Mr. Denys can easily verify all this information. Absent him offering proof to the contrary, I will be expecting his letter to the Sun and QE203.org shortly.

To Dan Denys and all readers,

I will contact the district offices and request a statement be made, on the record, regarding both the issue of the projection balances, and the issue of the $43 million in bonds.

I will also make the statement in advance that the bonds will not be premium bonds, and the analysis that I have offered regarding the projection balances are correct.

Shall someone agree to meet me at district offices, or will posting it here be acceptable?

Please advise me by posting a response here.

Thom,

Some people have checked with the District. And Dave Zager said that the $39 million was AFTER the deductions you talk about. In fact, the number has INCREASED by $4 million from "low ball estimates" in these projections. Go recheck your FACTS with Dave.

Unique? NO!!!!!!!!!

Two years ago, the District was going to be broke at the end of this year. ACTUALS--$40 MILLION.

You are absolutely correct, the surplus will not be $39 million, closer to $80 million. And imagine if the District managed the declining enrollment. We could rebuild Central twice!!!!!

I will chime in here and share a few things we should all remember:

1)There are several people posting as anonymous

2)The Sun blog has some issues that cause many posts to pop up as anonymous even if they "sign" it. To date, the Sun assumes the problewm is on the user end (not a complaint, Ted!)

3)in talking to blogmasters and from personal observations, an amazing majority of blog posters use some form of moniker that is NOT their real name. I am told there are scores of reasons for this, not the least of which is to avoid others Googling them too easily. I was told by at least one blogmaster that this Googling has led to personal crimes, by the way, and that the FBI encourages people to not use their names.

Just thought this could help some in diminishing the venom coming from those who accuse others of not "signing". I will also add that there are only two who really do and have any leg to stand on in complaining about the rest of us: Mr Higgins and Mr Shulman.

The rest of you who complain are hypocrites of the nth degree.

Fred

I'm sorry but you need to understand the context of those projections, the following is a post I did a few days ago. Please contact the district to confirm the following, and they will confirm it. This post talks about the 2011 balance. 2012 is I think was projected at $39 million last April.

First These are projections only. Projections are an exercise that says, “knowing what we know today, where will we be X years from now?” The balance for the 2010-2011 fiscal year is projected to be $36,249 million.
.
SECOND This projection is dated 4-07. Based on that projection the School Board, later in the Summer I believe, elected to allocate some of those funds to the building program. If you go here,

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/PlanforUpgradingFacilities2007%2D2012%2Epdf

and go to page 38 in the adobe reader you will see that on 6-30-08 the district plans on allocating $4 million in prior year operating revenue, and a combined $5 million on 6-30-09. That’s a $9 million reduction you have to remove from the earlier projection numbers.

Third The are a variety of thing that can change all of this. One which is already occurring is reduced interest income. The district derives significant interest income. Because the district has loads of cash stashed about? NO. It’s because the district gets two really big paydays from the county every year and immediately invests it in laddered CD’S . Just the effect of falling interest rate looks to translate into approximately $8 million lost in interest income thru 2011, and that’s assuming rated will not fall further, and they probably will.

One person actually wrote into the Sun recently about the districts $80 million balance and used that number to say the district doesn’t need a referendum at all. Wrong again, the district has it sitting there collecting interest as they wait to parcel it out on a monthly basis. Think about getting paid just twice a year for 90% of your income, Half in July and half in October.

So from $36 million you have to remove the $9 million the district allocated to the building fund, and at least $8 million over the next years for lost interest income. That gets us down to $19 million as a balance, assuming every single stinking thing goes the way it is projected. Anyone want to offer any bets on that?

The important issue is the district will actually end this year with modest balances. Not $40 million, and not $20 million, I have to ask, but I know the district is putting all the funds they can into the building program to reduce the referendum cost, and I think, think mind you, that they will end the year at $5 million or less.

Seriously, to anyone who has questions please contact the district and click on the link above.

m johnson,

My children were harassed pretty heavily leading up to the 2002 referendum. I do not want to put them through that again!

I would like to point out that your post is pretty strongly biased.

You make the comment that those who put their name on the post are hard workers who are always courteous. Conversely, you say those who post with anonymous are neither. I will add that the single worse misbehavior. name calling, and poison has come from Mr Higgins. who posts his full name at all times.

Are you really concerned, or are you just another shill for BTW203, Mr Higgins, and QE203?

I love teachers,

I have posted some on this blog and it is clear I will vote No.

Having said that, I would encourage you to NOT get a generaly mean atitude over the "despise" comment or to batter anyone else with it.

Unless I missed something, it was only ONE person who said it. I would be shocked if others on this blog believed it.

I have appreciated comments on teachers by Becky and you. Keep it up, guys!

So Linda N,

Your last name is N????? @@@@:)

But Joe C.,

If you are doing research yourself, how oh how did you totally misread my post? Or, as suspected, did you just listen to others commenting on it?

I am not voting for this referendum and here is why.

$40 million surplus in 2011-2112 per D203 financial projections PLUS millions annually in new and increased revenues that are not in D203's financial projections. The $40 million equates to almost $1,000 per avg homeowner. Not chump change.

I don't post my name because I have kids in district 203 and I know they will be harassed for my position. It's happened to them before.

I have not made up my mind yet which way I am going to vote on this referendum.

Having read this blog for weeks now out of curiousity to see how the community feels about this issue, I am surprised by something a lot of people have commented about.

I want to say how much I respect those people (pro or con) with the guts to put their name on their posts.

For those of you who post anonymously, why is that? Are you embarassed by your position? It is amusing, and frustrating at the same time, to see some of the childish comments on here by people who do not have the backbone to stand up for their convictions.

Whether you agree with them or not, you have to have respect for the people who give of their time to make this community a better place. For those of you "anonymous" posters out there, why don't you use the time you take to post your poison and name-calling, and go volunteer somewhere?

Hesed House, Habitat for Humanity, Soup Kitchens, they all can use help. God knows it's a much more productive use of your time than hiding behind an "internet curtain" and throwing rocks at others more deserving of your respect.

Becky R. you are to be commended on what you do. Please don't forget all the escalating student fees we all have to pay every year on top of all the taxes we give to the schools, and volunteer time everyone gives.

I just received my wife's annual Social Security statement. She has been working in the corporate world and paying taxes into SS for 28 years. Guess what her retirement benefits will be? A whooping $1,500 a month. Compare that to Diane Mcguire, she starts at $6,000 a month. My wife has worked as long and hard as her. Where can I sign up for the teachers, firemen's, and police pensions? I'm getting screwed!!!

Anonymous:

You said:

Wow. Linda N.

Could you explain your post about the 4th grade(since it appears that there are several "anonymous" names, I would like to know if your WoW! applies to one of mine?
Be specific if you can.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 31, 2008 09:09 AM

Anon, you would not have this problem if you posted under your own name. ;-) LOL

Becky –
I happen to agree with you on a number of things. I wasn’t trying to say that teachers are the only ones who work hard. I think most people in every occupation work hard. It’s just irritates me when someone says they despise teachers and my guess is they never spent anytime trying to understand what teachers actually do on a day to day basis (yes this is my assumption and I could be wrong). Trust me when I tell you the contributions from the Home and School groups are greatly appreciated by the administration and the teachers. I also think that the most important person in regards to a children’s education is the parent. Without everyone we would not have excellent schools in Naperville.

Joe C. just wait until after February 5th. I will obtain the final filings for BTF 203 and post it here. We will see how much money flowed into BTF 203 and where it came from. Remember, the union has a history of timing their cash flows so nothing is revealed until AFTER the fact.

To I love teachers:

I also come from a family of educators and feel strongly about education. I certainly don't despise teachers! And I realize they work hard, I just don't think they are the only ones to do so. There are a lot of people who have a regular work day of 7:30 am - 6:00 pm, then spend a few more hours on their laptop before bed.

To give a little more perspective on teachers spending their own money on supplies and charity, I am president of the Home & School at an elementary school, and these are some of the things we did this year:

We gave each of 8 teams (6 grade level and 2 "specials") $500 to spend on classroom supplies.

We spent $1500 on leveled books that the teachers use in their classrooms.

Each year, we give the principal $1000 in a discretionary fund that is regularly used to buy winter coats and the occasional sleeping bag for outdoor ed.

Several years ago we started a Community Fund. Initially funded with donations from local businesses, it is now largely supported by two bread sales a year and by parents who add a donation to their hot lunch forms. This fund is used to pay for field trips, school supplies and hot lunch for any family who requests assistance.

In a few weeks we will have our annual auction fundraiser and hope to raise enough to purchase 7-10 laptops for the 2nd year in a row.

Again, this is not to disparage the contributions of teachers, just to say that parents do a lot, too.

Yes anonymous, you are right. I do rely on Mr. Higgins for a lot of good information. He has spent an extraordinary amount of time keeping this blog honest, and I really appreciate that. But I have done my own research as well, and have made up my own mind to vote YES. But thanks for your concern!

Mr Higgins,

Your koolaid is ready!

You use minutia to try to discredit oters. If that is the manner in which you roll, than I would add "did you notice the smudge in the lower left of pg 2?"

More importanly, I will point out that there are, indeed, two filings.From the first to the second, the treasurer changes and the beginning funding disappears. Viola! Then, new members and new money appears. Voila!

If youlook even closer, Mr Higgins, you will note that the filing requirements were both insufficient and deadlines were missed. Voila!

The actual, existing group called NUPACE, originally listed as a possible benefactor, is replaced by the benign sounding "Naperville Unit Committee or Foundation". Hmmmmm? I am pretty sure that NUPACE would qualify as a Naperville Unit Committee by pure definition (pun intended).

Finally, it is very warming to this capitalist to hear that you are so concerned about the productivity of the employees in the local businesses. And here I thought you were only about taking their money and spending it needlessly on others!

But wait! What about you? You seem to spend an awfully lot of time on this blog --- are you productive? Should we be concerned? Are you using company equipment to blog and research? Are you using IRS deductible hardware & software to do all of this? Do you claim it as such?

The people are curious and deserve to know!

Regarding fiscal responsibility, how could the district not be fiscally responsible with performance like this:

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/documents/costperactreadiness_v2080128-2.pdf

Where is the waste? Repeating earlier posts, even with the referendum implications, the expenditure per student would still be below state average.

Thanks D203!

Wow. Linda N.

Could you explain your post about the 4th grade(since it appears that there are several "anonymous" names, I would like to know if your WoW! applies to one of mine)?

Be specific if you can.

Gosh, Joe.

Can't you read or have you just drank too much of Mr Higgin's kool-aid?

I amNOT alleging anything --- Ioutright said Ms. Price is funneling money through BTF203. I did NOT say she was funding the Union!!!!

However, on your next blathering point --- of course she knows it will EVENTUALLY be an easily-accessible public record. The trick/issue is that it will not be until WELL AFTER the election/vote before it is easily accessible by all. Again, if it is so "up and up" why not just issue a press statemetn saying she is PROUD to donate money to this organizartion for this cause?

BTW, have you even read the D-1 filings yourself (for both PURE and BTF203), or do youjust rely on the Mr Higgins for your half-hearted information? You might want to actually do some reading yourself.

Regarding the $350,000 for the district renovation plans:

Why does this seem like such an outrageous amount of money for plans to invest $115M?

What would be an acceptable figure? Why?

I had some brickwork work done a couple of years ago. The guy came over and I told him what I needed done. He wanted $300 to draw up the plans.

You are saying that I shouldn't have to pay the guy for the plans because I told him what I needed?

That doesn't make sense to me.

So anonymous, you are alleging that Suzyn Price is funneling money through http://www.buildthefuture203.org in order to fund the teachers union? You think she did so knowing that the contribution would be a matter of public record with the state board of elections???

Yeah, right. You have been watching too much TV. This is a true act of desperation.

TO ALL READERS.

Please look at all pages in question, and note the dates.

The first two pages are the original D1 filing dated 12-13-2007.

On page 2, item 10, "Disposition of residual funds in the event of dissolution or termination of the committee". The box marked is "Transfer to a CHARITABLE organization." The description entered is;

Naperville Unit Political Action Committee.

Pages 3-4 you will note are the same form dated 12-21-07 8 days later than the above form.

Note box 3 on page 3. Amendment is checked. THIS IS AN AMEMDED SUBMISSION.

You will note that there are a number of changes, and you will see that box 10 still has the "Transfer to a charitable organization", but now the description entered is;

Naperville Unit Committee or Foundation.

Now, the teachers union political action committee’s acronym is NUPACE203. Please note the “E” on the end.This is a political action committee. It is not a charitable committee.

Had the Build the Future committee intended to donate any residual funds to them they would have been required to check the box above in both cases and would have listed the them by name as,

Naperville Unit PAC for Education 203. That is their name.

So, I will re-affirm my charges against Anonymous as outlined in my post of 1-30-08.

I would also ask the reader to note the timeliness of the committees submissions, and the low dollar amounts. Where are the tens of thousands of dollars in Union donations as claimed by yet another anonymous poster?

Further, to Anonymous. If you are so sure of your facts Sir, then come out of the shadows and declare yourself. Or are you a coward to boot?

BTW It has been noted that these doc’s were faxed from Taylormade in Naperville, to Broadwing Communications both here in Naperville, and in Downers Grove . Perhaps someone needs to stop by these organizations and ask if they know you are doing this on company time with company equipment.

Wow, anonymous,

This comment sounds like something someone in the 4th grade would make. But thanks for doing so.

Thom's disdain for your earlier posts are amply supported by your response here.

Barbara,

If 203 is so fiscally responsible, can you ....

*explain why their total spending per student has increased by over 100% in a ten year period?

*explain why they need a brand-spanking new building for an EC program that is already in full compliance with all mandates while they have 15 or so OTHER District buildings that need some level of improvements (per their consulting study)?

*explain why the Board President AND Superintendent BOTH BELIEVE that an 11% drop in student enrollment will result in absolutely NO savings in class space or employee headcount (despite the new ECC)?

*explain why they are taking 5 years to create and enact a language program that will cost very little (without such a program our k-8 programs are distinctly inferior to many, if not most, around us in preparing our children for the global world in which tey will compete)?

*explain WHY they spent over $350,000.00 on a consultant study that resulted in what was essentially a centralized list of issues from Principals, teachers, and parents but was VOID of any useful information as to how to design our facilities & renovations for the next teaching curve?

All in all I would point out that when some people post or discuss the District, it is NOT to be contentious just for it's sake. We believe that the District can do much better.

Good day.

Once again, as we have become used to, Mr. Higgins goes into bully mode when he disagrees with a point of fact. His name calling has indeed become gross, scurrilous, and very remniscent of the alleged actions of a few of our Councilmen, including Rosanova & Fursteneau.

Apparently, his ongoing and tedious personal debate with Dan D. on these pages is more important to him that the truthful and understandable sharing of info for all.

I refer to his inexcusable RANT posted at 5pm on 1/30/08. Apparently, Mr. Higgins either forgot, was too lazy, or attempted to mislead the readers of this blog by NOT reviewing the entire document he refers to (the BuildTheFuture203 filings). If he had, he would have seen the indications that the excess MAY be forwarded to Nupace.

He also completely ignores the true issue of the surreptitious funding of this group by the 203 Board via it's President and newest non-elected member.

As was the case with PURE back in April, we are all left wondering WHY the Board, the State & local Teachers' Union, and others feel compelled to HIDE thier contributions to these groups if it is so ethical and on the up and up? We are also left to wonder why Mr Higgins finds it important to rush in to take on these comments from others ---- it makes this reader wonder aloud if he is indeed not independent but is closer to these other groups than he has let on?

Mr Higgins, PLEASE CLEAN IT UP!

Hey Tommie Boy, would that contempt extend to PURE, Diane Mcguire and their despicable sex offenders as bus drivers stunt? It would appear you like selective contempt. Sorry pal but you are just mad I can post this stuff on here for all of Naperville to see. Isn't free speech a pain sometimes?

Go to page two Tommie and it also says Naperville Unit Political Action Committee.

Synthetic grass is indeed the most frequently used athletic field surface any more. I believe one of the brand names is PlaySafe. It is just like playing on real grass. If you watch sporting events closely that take place on this surface, you'll see black particles come up from a players feet when they make a cut on the field. That is actually very finely ground up tires and rubber to make the surface "softer" and reduce injuries to knees.

Another good example of the District 203 School Board’s acting fiscally responsible is in the December 17, 2007 Board minutes in which they discussed and quickly dismissed providing all-day kindergarten.

Please note that Naperville School District 204 approved its all-day kindergarten program for the 2008-2009 school year on 11/27/07. See link: http://ipsdweb.ipsd.org/News.aspx?id=16720

Taken from the 203 School Board minutes regarding the financial impact on local taxpayers of an all-day kindergarten:
• Financially, all-day kindergarten would be very costly for District 203. The state funding formulas affect District 203 and District 204 differently. State reimbursement would cover roughly $280,000 or only about 15% of the cost of the additional teachers required to staff an all-day kindergarten program. It would need to be funded by local monies and it would have a major impact on District 203’s budget.
• From a facilities perspective, a few of our elementary buildings could accommodate all-day kindergarten, but there is not space district-wide. If space was not built, the only other way to implement the program would be to reallocate space by increasing class size or relocating art, music, or other special teachers. Dr. Leis noted that those options, in his opinion, were not acceptable.

For complete December 17, 203 Board minutes, see http://www.naperville203.org/assets/MinutesDecember17_2007.pdf

Thus,although Naperville school district 204 will be offering all-day kindergarten next year, District 203 School Board will not be asking to spend over 1.5 million dollars in taxpayer dollars to offer an all-day kindergarten to its students.

Sounds like a fiscally responsible decision to me.

To Anonymous,

Please allow me to express my utter contempt for your pathetic attempt to lie to the citizens of Naperville.

TO ALL READERS please go to the page 4 of the D-1 and blow it up. You will find that they have checked the box

Charitable Contribution, and indicated it will go to "Naperville Unit committee or foundation". That means it will go back to the district to one of their funds.

Had they planned to give it to NUPAC they would of checked the box directly above "Transfer to another Political Committee.

Citizens of this town need to once and for all tell these clowns to stop trying to damage the good reputations of those that serve this town.

To Anonymous, Are you the one who filed the formal complaint against the committee? Well, Sir, you are wrong again. They are not required to file at DuPage County in addition to filing down state, as the committee covers TWO Counties! Your attempt to find any possible fault in order to damage their reputation disgusts me.

You are a coward for posting this anonymously, and beneath contempt for making these fictious charges, Sir.

http://www.mediafire.com/?cruxbryxtmb

Check out some more funding for Build the Future. Why is there money coming in from outsiders? What do they have to gain from the passing of this referendum?

http://www.mediafire.com/?fxcm7blzgy2

Check out the filing for Build the Future 203. It's being funded initially by $1,000.00 from Suzyn & Derke Price and $750.00 from Jacki Romberg & spouse. Oh and check out the CHARITABLE organization they plan to give any unused funds to. NUPACE !!! Now that is hilarious. Our own board members that are supposed to represent the taxpayers are going to potentially fund the very union they negotiate with. That is rich.

Becky says in her post of today:

"Not to mention the fact that we could probably save quite a bit on storm water abatement, both at Central and North because as far as I can tell, the only reason we are getting turf at North is because Central will have it."

Posted by: Becky R. | January 30, 2008 02:23 PM

...as far as I can tell...

Becky, you're starting to sound like some of the other folks on this blog. Why not find out by talking to the folks who use the facilities, rather than just conjecturing or making up a story that you believe is the reason something is going to take happen?

The reason that North is getting synthetic turf is much the same as for Central - the school is landlocked, there are many activites (football practices - multiple teams, soccer practices - mulitple teams, marching band, and more) that require the use of more fields than there is space available for them, and synthetic turf allows these activities to use the field more efficiently, without tearing up the grounds (and the repair of those "natural" fields costs money too). BTW, when grassy fields aren't repaired, students have injuries from tripping in holes worn into the field by repeated use, too.

“For the record, I don't hate teachers. I despise them.”

As anyone can post under any name on this board I am not going to attribute this comment to any one specific person, but can the person who made this comment please pull your children out of our schools and home school them. If you don’t have any respect for our teachers please don’t waste their time by letting them educate your children.

For those of you who despise or hate our teachers or those of you who think they are overpaid please spend a few days in a teacher’s shoes. The majority of educators in this district work their normal day, go home and then spend another few hours working and preparing for the next day. There are papers to grade as well as lesson plans to be put together. If you think this can be done on their prep hour you are mistaken. Most of their prep hour is spent dealing with student issues. The majority of time they provide make up lessons or tests during the prep hour. In addition most spend this time working with students who are falling behind. So they go home after their work day and spend another couple of hours doing what should have been done during their prep hour.

Oh and those summers off, don’t really happen. Just stop by a school during the summer. I can guarantee that there will be teachers there working during the summer. They are not required to do so but most of the teachers at the Jr. High and High School level spend a day or two a week working. For the most part they spend this time finalizing things from last school year as well as getting things ready for the next school year. These despised teachers would have done this during their prep hour but they helped your student become a smarter person.

Lets not forget about the after school programs. While the coaches get paid to coach most of the people chaperoning at the games or at other functions (dances, after school celebrations, etc) are not paid. Most stay because they do not despise your child.

In addition most teachers use part of their salaries to purchase classroom necessities. Most of these are not nice to haves but things that are necessary to for them (the teacher you hate) to educate your child. I can tell you from experience that most teachers spend at least a couple hundred dollars (if not a couple thousand) out of their own pockets every year buying things to keep their classrooms running. We are talking about things like pencils and pens, specialty paper, etc. Things that are provided for most workers in a normal office situation. In addition I can tell you that the generosity of the teachers in your school district is probably higher then most. The teachers are always donating to help out the underprivileged in our district. They do this without many of our community members knowing about it. Believe it or not there are many families in Naperville that can not afford to buy winter coats for their kids or have a hard time putting food on the tables. The teachers will find out about this and pull together to make sure the family is taken care of. I know of teachers that have donated hundreds of dollars at a time to make sure a families needs are met. BTW you don’t know about most of this because laws dealing with minors would prevent the district from putting together a drive to help some of these families.

So I will say it again. If you despise and/or hate our teachers please remove your kids from the district. This way my kid’s teacher doesn’t need to waste their talents on your kid. BTW most likely the teacher knows you despise them but do their jobs in spite of this fact.

FYI I am not a teacher but come from a family of educators and feel strongly about education. I also happen to know a number of teachers in the district.

Becky,

I think you are talking about the old “Astroturf”, not the new synthetic grass turf that virtually ALL professional, and many collegiate and high school fields are moving towards. I do not have any specific knowledge of the pros and cons of it, but the use of it is quite widespread

Thank-you, Thom, for your kind comments on my cemetary issues. I'm honored to actually wring a concession from you :)

I would consider your suggestion, but have found that "unofficial" negotiators aren't usually very effective. I have mainly been trying to stir up some awareness and maybe even outrage about the issue.

Stephanie, I know the lease on the land is almost over, I just don't think a cemetary is the appropriate use for the leased land anymore. Ms. Martin-Mitchel, her lawyers and the city planners at that time couldn't possibly have anticipated the changes that would happen in downtown Naperville over the last 80 years. When it comes to land use, buildings can be torn down, wetlands can be reclaimed, even Nike missile silos can be turned into parks, but once land becomes a cemetary, each square foot is dedicated to one person for an eternity. It can't even be used to grow food. I think it's almost criminal that land used by hundreds, even thousands of people can be sacrificed in this way. And apparently, the Martin-Mitchell will doesn't specify a cemetary per se, it was the city the allocated the specific land uses. And the city's decisions can be changed.

As far as the synthetic turf goes, several sports associations have concerns or outright bans against it's use. I believe only 1 or 2 professional football stadiums use it. It causes more joint injuries when bodies twist but feet don't (like when kicking a soccer ball), it doesn't give as much when you fall on it, and it causes deeper abrasions that are more prone to infections so that it has to be cleaned with antimicrobial products regularly. Not to mention the fact that we could probably save quite a bit on storm water abatement, both at Central and North because as far as I can tell, the only reason we are getting turf at North is because Central will have it.

To Becky regarding her question about turf on the football field.

I was told the reason they want to put turf down on the football field is so it can be used by the band, other sports, and phys ed classes. It will allow it to be an all-day, multi-use facility and not tear up the field.

The lease on the cemetary land ends soon, and when it does, Central will lose those fields where their sports teams currently practice, and where the band rehearses.

I think putting turf down makes sense when you consider all of the people who will be using that field.

From Mayor Pradel's State of the City speech

In order to streamline our business and administrative operations, 2007 saw the creation of the
Management Services Business Group to facilitate a more nimble and efficient organizational
structure.

• Modeled after private industry, this group consists of the Human Resources Department,
Information Technology Department and City Clerk's Office under the leadership of Don Carlsen.

• The MSBG saved city and District 203 taxpayers over $1 million in capital costs by partnering
with School District 203 in the joint procurement and implementation Voice over Internet
Protocol telephone system. This means using technology efficiently, which results in better
customer service for our residents.

I don't have a reference I can cite but D203 and D204 just partnered on a Human Resources system in order to save money. Just another illustration of how D203 works to be fiscally responsible.

It’s late, but I have to reply to this from Dan Denys.

If Becky is right that they are storing wheel chairs in the other set of rest rooms in the flat wing (one of Thom’s greatest complaints and reasons to support the building!!!), then do the following:

Rent a POD

Put it in Claudill’s parking space

Move the wheelchairs there

Take the rent out of Claudill’s salary increase

Open the other rest rooms.

This can only happen in a mismanaged circus called 203.

INSTEAD, 203 SPENDS $87 MILLION !!!!!!

Posted by: Dan D | January 29, 2008 09:17 AM

This is classic Dan Denys. Take a fact and attempt to make it into something it’s not.Yes they took away one Men’s facility washroom to “store” wheelchairs and specialized equipment. By this do we mean “store” as in putting things way in long term storage? NO. This is equipment that is used if not daily, then weekly, in order to serve this medically fragile special needs group. It take a lot of equipment to support these kids, and as I have been saying the school is full to the gills everywhere and they are improvising in all manner of ways, so yeah, they took over a men’s bathroom so they don’t have all the equipment cluttering the isles, or crammed in the two classrooms they use.

In the renovated Central these kids will have specialized spaces specifically designed for medically fragile, special needs students, and yes they will have lots of storage. Of course Mr. Denys doesn't think any of this is necessary. A POD will suffice.

Mr. Denys would rather they have an aide leave the kids, and walk out the building to a POD unit. How far away would that be Dan? How much time would that take? What about in the Winter? You want to plunk a medically fragile student in a wheelchair that has been sitting outside in zero degree temps?

None of this means anything to Mr. Denys, he’d rather make up some ridiculous statement, feebly attempting to make the district look bad when if fact all he is doing is once again proving he will say anything, anything, truth be damned, to damage the district. Why? It’s really quite simple. He doesn’t send his kids to public schools, so he doesn’t want to pay taxes to educate ours. Have some sympathy, the man has a $300,000 private school tab for his two kids to cover!

Responding to Anonymous | January 29, 2008 01:49 PM

Why do we need a free standing EC center?

Let’s look at the people who will use it, to help see why it is necessary. Keep in mind as soon as a child turns 3 they enter the program, District 203 has new students entering all year long on their 3rd birthday by federal mandate. These are children with Individualized Education Plans ( IEPs) who have such special education needs that it prevents them from attending private preschools in the area. The severity of some of the disabilities these kids are dealing with is heartbreaking, and require massive amount of staff and specialized equipment.

And these children are not going away. Enrollment numbers are not decreasing, but in fact are growing year-by-year, even while the district experiences a general decline in enrollment. This is a national phenomenon. The numbers in this program have doubled since 2000! This growth is one of the reasons for proposing the early childhood center. Further, if District 203 is unable to meet the needs of a child, it is mandated to pay for the child to be transported to and attend a private facility. This happens every year for a limited number of students. The district has to accept every student, there is no mandated limit, and the numbers served are expected to continue to climb.

Who are the students? They include children with cerebral palsy who may just be learning to walk at age 3, or children who have other significant physical needs arriving at school in wheelchairs. There are children who experience seizures, need a variety of equipment to change their physical position throughout the day (standers, adaptive seating, walkers, side-liers etc), use asssitive technology to communicate, and require adaptation of all materials so that they can participate, or have medical conditions requiring trained staff and specialized procedures. They all need an appropriate, safe, and sheltered environment.

There are other children with genetic disorders, or a history of early or traumatic experiences, and are experiencing significant delays in their development for reasons no one understands.

Then there’s the children who may be anywhere on the Autism spectrum, and are using pictures, or devices to communicate for the first time, and are by necessity being taught in a very specific manner with classrooms set up a very specific way. These same children are learning to socialize and communicate with those around them.

There are children with significant enough speech impairments that they require specialized services.

Who else would be educated at the center? Children who do not receive special education but are at risk for poor performance in Kindergarten. These risks factors include low income, one parent household, non-English speaking, and other factors. Grants cover most of the program cost and allow these children to enter kindergarten with the basic skills necessary to perform school tasks.

The final group of children this building would serve is our wonderful community students who fill the role of mandated typical peers and provide the special needs students with wonderful role models and friends, receiving an excellent pre-school education. These students pay tuition.

So these are all the children you would like to send to a spare vacant 5th grade classroom this year at school A after a 45 minute bus ride and to a vacant 2nd grade classroom in School Z next year with a hour bus ride? The very children who have the greatest challenges and have the hardest time dealing with changes?

So instead of building a facility designed for their needs, to save some money we give them the "left over rooms” at various elementary schools, even though they haven’t sinks, or bathrooms attached? Rooms that are not designed for this kind of use, and are therefore are not large enough to house 15-20 students, 3 adults, a variety of therapists, a ton of equipment, and yet also allow for significant space for learning through discovery and play?

These are children with significant physical challenges currently trying to use regular, busy, bathrooms with "5th grade" size toilets, or on the other end of the spectrum, beginning the potty training process while waiting for an entire 1st grade to use the bathroom. Where in the elementary schools are the rooms where diapers are changed?

The district has had to invest in very expensive equipment for children with physical needs. It currently has to be duplicated often 4-5 times due to the many sites the program is currently housed in. A $400 positioning chair or a $2000 stander that could be used by multiple students is purchased several times over because it is needed at Beebe, Elmwood, and Maplebrook, but could be shared if the entire student population were under one roof. This is not the most cost efficient use of our funds.

There is a tremendous amount of lost time by all the therapists, teachers, psychologists, social workers, and administrators as they travel back and forth every day to support this program and the students. Is that what you want to pay for, them traveling, as opposed to teaching and helping these kids? As a 203 taxpayer I don't.

D203’s enrollment for this program is the size of Naper or Ellsworth school’s enrollment, but is trying to function piece meal in 5 separate buildings. This practice of putting then wherever space is available needs to end.

Instead of the above, the center would be built with these children in mind, with equipment of appropriate size and height and with permanent, much larger classrooms with sinks and appropriately sized and designed bathrooms. There would be playgrounds of appropriate size and height, and rooms large enough for motor skills that all children, but especially these children need to practice daily. The school would be designed for all the incredible complexities involved in working with these children, and would be a safe, sheltered environment, which is what they need.

A crucial piece of this program is parent instruction including both home visits and family nights where parents are educated in parenting skills. A site for these events becomes difficult to attain as programs move from year to year. The EC Program does not have a Home and School component due to the multiple sites it is now housed in. Parents do not attend these programs when they are offered in a school that their child does not attend.

So a freestanding center built for these children is really the best logical solution. The space required is not available as an "attachment to any current building". Certainly attaching it to Central is completely impractical. The site is way, way, to crowded and busy now, without introducing a pre-school population to a high school campus.

Lastly, lost in all this is the fact that the district reduced the work proposed at Mill St. Elementary from $11 million to $7 million by removing proposed additional classrooms. The belief is that with a dedicated ECC there will be enough space at Elmwood that the Wil-o-Way kids could be re-districted there. There’s $4 million savings there. Beebe has some classrooms that would open up, that could possibly Mills overcrowding too.
.

Anonymous,

You stated 2011. The correct number is $36 million.

May I ask your comment regarding the $9 million allocated after that projection was made and the est. $8 million in lost interest income?

Mr. Higgins, I noticed you picked the year earlier to show a balance of $36 million. Mine is one year later and it's over $39 million. If your argument is simply that it's a "projection" then that of itself is pretty laughable. If I had done that you'd be all over me like a cheap suit. The FACT is the district is awash in CASH and does NOT need this referendum. I believe in the year 2011-12 the cash balances could be much higher than $39 million, more likely closer to $60 million. How will the district explain this to the voters? They will look like incompetent fools.

OK Becky, I give!

I hereby nominate you to be 203's unofficial negotiator with the Cemetery Board.

Yes! Save us the 5 million, and more as we wouldn't need the astroturf either, I guess.

Written fondly, with a smile on my face!

TH

Thom,

On the D203 ACT scores, correct, it's 25.

NG

Thom,

With regard to the cemetary, I understand the various fiefdoms that people are protecting. This particular use, however, seems ideally suited for a different location, especially if the cemetary was given an equivalent amount of land elsewhere.

I'm sure 80 years ago the cemetary was on the southern edge of Naperville and seemed like a fine use. But things change. I wouldn't want to drive the car they drove 80 years ago. We're not using the same instructional techniques, either. I noticed you also didn't address my question as to what portion of the $5 million storm water abatement could be saved if the fields were still available.

With regard to reopening the contract negotiations, why was that provision used as a selling point for rushing through the contract approval if the board had no intention of even considering it? If we weren't pursuing a referendum and the economy wasn't flirting with a recession, there would be no need. But with the changes we've seen in the last 10 months, it seems very reasonable to reconsider the contract.

Numbers Guy

I agree that the "score" is subjective. But what it is illustrative of is the relative success of students from any given school as it relates to 33 other schools. Do I think that the remaining 49% will do just fine in College? Absolutely! To me its a valuable reference to compare D203 to other schools, in relative academic performance and relative cost, rather than a indicator of future college success.

BTW I think D203's ACT comp is 25. Central is, and I think North's is too.

And of course, it's really refreshing to see how much less costly 203 is versus other school districts. I posted this a couple of days ago, but as they say a picture is worth a thousand words.

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/documents/costperactreadiness_v2080128-2.pdf

Regarding the ACT study

As Thom Higgins points out:

"The criteria was making the bogey in all four classes. For D203 90% made the English grade, 72% in Math, 77% in Social Science and 56% in Biology. But only 51% made it in all four."

The ACT survey results are misleading and does a great disservice to D203 and other IL districts. Does it really make sense that in top performing districts only half the students would be ready for college?

According to the ACT, college ready scores for the subject areas are English 18, Social Science 21, Algebra 22, and Biology 24. Considering the IL state average for all 4 areas of the ACT is consistently about 20 and for D203 about 24, the ACT readiness scores are spread across a very wide range. Maybe a 24 is needed if you're going to be a Biology major.

Students take the ACT as Juniors. Since most students apply to colleges in the fall of their Senior year, they would not take the test again. So anything that is learned during the Senior year in these areas is not even counted.

Finally, the ACT study considers biology to be the base science course. In D203 Biology, unlike the other three areas, is not even a required subject. Students have to take 2 years of science so if they choose Earth Science, Chemistry and/or Physics, does that mean they're not college ready? In order to take AP level courses to get into competitive colleges, these days HS students need to specialize earlier.

NG

Regarding this.

I will repeat this again and again and again. The district will end up with around $40 million in cash on hand after the construction is complete (2011). THEY DO NOT NEED THE MONEY for this construction project. They have a ton of new money coming in that they have told no one about. Mr. Higgins never addresses this fact. Ask DAVE ZAGER and he will confirm it. Posted by: anonymous | January 29, 2008 10:22 AM

This is where people reading documents, and plucking out numbers get into trouble. Posting your name would be a plus too. Please contact Dave Zager and ask him yourself, and please tell him to give me the same information and we can both post his reply. Remember, I know Zager and will verify any claims.

To respond to the question,

First These are projections only. Projections are an exercise that says, “knowing what we know today, where will we be X years from now?” Further, the balance for the 2010-2011 fiscal year is projected to be $36,249 million, not $40 million.
.
SECOND This projection is dated 4-07. Based on that projection the School Board, later in the Summer I believe, elected to allocate some of those funds to the building program. If you go here,

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/PlanforUpgradingFacilities2007%2D2012%2Epdf

and go to page 38 in the adobe reader you will see that on 6-30-08 the district plans on allocating $4 million in prior year operating revenue, and a combined $5 million on 6-30-09. That’s a $9 million reduction you have to remove from the earlier projection numbers.

Third The are a variety of thing that can change all of this. One which is already occurring is reduced interest income. The district derives significant interest income. Because the district has loads of cash stashed about? NO. It’s because the district gets two really big paydays from the county every year and immediately invests it in laddered CD’S . Just the effect of falling interest rate looks to translate into approximately $8 million lost in interest income thru 2011, and that’s assuming rated will not fall further, and they probably will.

One person actually wrote into the Sun recently about the districts $80 million balance and used that number to say the district doesn’t need a referendum at all. Wrong again, the district has it sitting there collecting interest as they wait to parcel it out on a monthly basis. Think about getting paid just twice a year for 90% of your income, Half in July and half in October.

So from $36 million you have to remove the $9 million the district allocated to the building fund, and at least $8 million over the next years for lost interest income. That gets us down to $19 million as a balance, assuming every single stinking thing goes the way it is projected. Anyone want to offer any bets on that?

The important issue is the district will actually end this year with modest balances. Not $40 million, and not $20 million, I have to ask, but I know the district is putting all the funds they can into the building program to reduce the referendum cost, and I think, think mind you, that they will end the year at $5 million or less.

Joe C: I can't Joe. It's an unscientific poll. However, I would hope that the honesty - and good fellowship - of the residents and voters will prevail. Thanks.

To: Jim Lynch

Thanks Jim, but how do you limit it to D203 voters? How do you prevent a "special interest group" from biasing the results?

Let us look closely at this ECC, shall we?

Since you agree that an ECC is NOT mandated, you prefer to portray me as having no conscience.

Hmmm? Great debate style --- as PresidenT William Jefferson Clinton says, "It is hard for your opponent to talk with your fist in his mouth!" [Editor's note --- the last C in ECC is for Center, which implies a building, NOT a program].

Thus, you decide my issue is saving a few bucks, as you put it. It is alarming how you gravitate (or possibly descend?) to this argument.

I will expand for you:

First, our school diatrict is in complete compliance with all mandates, Federal and otherwise, in this area.

Second, it has never been clearly explained why we need a stand-alone building for this program (which I am told is for a program that is forecasted to never exceed a little over 300 attendees BASED ON THE MANDATE. I do understand many would like to have such a building --- I would like to be 25 and look like Brad Pitt, but alas........

Third, the current program is spread out quite a bit, but it does take very good advantage of two things: 1) available space in the district, and 2)offerring the opportunity for the ECL attendees to be "included" with the rest of the children in the district. I have a feeling in the pit of my stomach that part of the reason for a separate center is to get "those children" away from the mainstream and tuck them away. I remember learning about the origins of the word "Bedlam "--- it goes back over 100 years to New York and Bedlam Hospital, where the State used to put those that were deemed"insane" or not fit for society. On Sunday's, the city folk would take brunch field trips to Bedlam to see the "nuts". It became a social event.

Fourth, since we will be making significant renovations to Central regardless of whether the referendum is passed on Tuesday, and since we are putting in the District cafeteria there, it crosses my mind:

WHY DON'T THEY BUILD A SMALL ADDITION/WING INTO CENTRAL TO ACT AS THE ECC? As we now know, Central is scheduled to drop fauirly dramaticall in attendance over the next 4 years, and the school will be designed to hold, what, 2,950 students at 80% occupancy? Before yu say it, YES---- this will save money. However, just spending money (or doing anything) just because you CAN makes you no better than a male dog doing you-know-what!

Fifth, because others are doing it, we should do it? THAT is your argument? What if others jump off a cliff? Or demand segregated classrooms (male and female)? Or demand all children must join an organized sport? Or demand the curriculum have no math or english? We should DO IT?

I will close at this point by saying "Saving money and spending wisely, not just because you can, does not nake one heartless, cheap, or anti-anything. It just makes one prudent. After all, though I think Honda's are wonderful cars, I will not pay $50,000 for one just because I can and other cars that perform lower cost more!

FYI, the post from January 29, 2008 01:28 PM was mine.

I'd also like to add that the I think the overall impact of the referendum on cost would be something like:

$3.4M per year bond levy * 11 years per student / 17,600 students in D203 = $2,125

If we add this amount to the $101,057 we currently spend on each kid, we get $103,182, which is still below the state average.

(11 years is used as the benchmark in the Herald study.)

We've now got a simple "yes" and "no" vote up on this issue on the home page. I hope this wildly popular blog keeps going - but I'm trying to broaden things a bit by just getting more of a feel for what the community wants - by a simple up or down vote. What do you think?

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/ncusdbudget07-08.pdf

Look at the last page of this PDF file provided by District 203 itself. The last page is 73. Note the surplus they are budgeting for in year 2011-12. It is $39,387,177 !!!! This is AFTER the referendum. How many people in Naperville even know this FACT!!!!!! Folks wake up, the district is awash in CASH, they DO NOT need this referendum.

All you referendum supporters cannot dodge around this one. THE FACT comes straight from the district itself.

Regarding Beth's ACT questions, I think the important point is that D203's dollar-for-dollar performance relative to other Chicago area districts is second to none. That is the subject of the Daily Herald study that Thom Higgins has refered to. Details of this can be found at:

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/costperformance_mediasurvey.shtml

If we look at one of my previous posts, the data from this study can summarized as:

School District        Cost      Pct

Lake Long Grove       $132,942   53

Lake Aptakisic-Tripp  $130,887   53

Lake Lincolnshire     $138,841   53

DuPage Naperville 203 $101,057   51

State Avg             $105,970   21

Again, the conclusion is: Naperville 203 is performing among the top districts in Illinois, at a cost that is below the state average.

From that data, we can demonstrate QE203's claim (link above) that "We stand alone in dollars spent for ACT score achieved."

How do we do that? Well, we can measure a district's efficiency as "Pecentage of College Ready Students per $100,000 Spent per Student". If we apply this efficiency formula to the data and rank order, we get:

School District		Cost		Pct	 Efficiency

---------------		--------	---	 ----------

Naperville 203		$101,057 	51	 50.5

Aptakisic-Tripp	102	$130,887 	53	 40.5 

Wheaton-W'ville		$101,406 	41	 40.4 

Indian Prairie 204	$ 95,248 	38	 39.9 

Long Grove		$132,942 	53	 39.9 

Lincolnshire		$138,841 	53	 38.2 

Prairie Grove		$ 90,772 	32	 35.3 

Cary			$ 93,203 	32	 34.3 

Lake Zurich		$103,061 	35	 34.0 

Crystal Lake		$ 94,548 	32	 33.8 

Fox River Grove		$ 95,299 	32	 33.6 

Geneva	304		$108,691 	36	 33.1 

Barrington		$127,587 	40	 31.4 

Libertyville		$146,203 	44	 30.1 

etc....

Where Efficiency = $100,000 * Pct / Cost

Do we realize what this says??? It says that Naperville 203 is 25% more efficient at producing college ready students per dollar than any one of the 77 districts that participated in the Daily Herald survey. Given this list, I'll bet we are number one in the state.

I see no evidence of all this wasted money being discussed on this blog. None.

We need improved facilities, the above suggests we have the right people to manage the money, so I am voting YES on the proposed referendum. I encourage everyone reading this to do the same.

Regarding this from Mr. Denys

Of course the planners are recommending larger classrooms. Public works projects are down, we are heading to a recession, people including architects and construction companies need work. Posted by: Dan D. | January 29, 2008 10:41 AM

Boy, are you going to look really silly in the next day or two when I post my figures!!!!

Stay tuned all, I need a bit more time to pull it all together.

To this,

From your post it appears that you AGREE that is is a non-mandated ECC that 203 wants to build (and us to pay for) for $11,000,000.00?

The program is mandated, the building is not. My only comment is if you don't care if these kids get an appropriate facility so you can save a few bucks, well, that's on your conscience. But as I have stated over and over, these are special needs kids, they need special facilities that you can't provide when you spread them out over 5 elementary schools. Having a dedicated facility is typical. Go visit our neighbors just south of us (204) they have one, and we should too, because caring for the weakest amongst us is what sets us apart as civilized people.

Here's a link to a piece I did talking about the issue.

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/documents/special_ed_piece_final_08_01_10.pdf

Joe, if you want proof of the $40 million plus surplus District 203 will have on hand in 2011 AFTER CONSTRUCTION email or call Dave Zager.

Can we please cite references or links when we state something as fact?

Thanks.

Beth,

Regarding this,

Gosh, I hate the word "powerless." It already galls me that someone who died 100(?) years ago is forcing bad policy decisions now. But the people running the cemetary are alive and well - is it too much to expect them to show a little civic responsibility?

Perhaps my word choice was poor but regardless, the cemetery owns the property and has owned it for 80 years, since Caroline Martin-Mitchell bequeathed the entire 235 acre parcel to the city. I don’t know all the details but the city made the decision to parcel it out to the various parties. Edward got some. The Cemetery got their part, Sportsman’s and the Boy Scouts got their parcels west of West. The park district got quite a bit including Rotary Hill, if I’m not mistaken, and the school district got the land Central sits on. It’s just the way it is, and all of these groups have their own interests and property rights, they feel are important to defend. I will say I know a cemetery trustee slightly and have talked about the issue with him. They are not interested in alternatives.

This is important to correct,

As far as the ACT test scores go, 90% in English is great, but 72% in Math, that's only a C... Plus, ACT defines all four scores together as a measure of college readiness for a reason.

The percentages listed are not the score as in 90% is an “A”, 72 is a “C” etc.

Rather its is the PERCENTAGE OF THOSE TAKING THE TEST that scored well enough per the ACT testing folks criterion that ACT feels they can achieve at least a “B” grade in Freshman College classes in those four subjects. Go here for their explanation.

http://www.act.org/path/policy/pdf/benchmarks.pdf

Lastly this,

Seriously though, if we renegotiate the 2009-2010 NUEA contract to include a 3% raise instead of a 5% raise, how much money will the district save over the next five years?

The contract extension was for 3.8% raises in both years of the contract. That I know. I think it covers years 08-09 and 09-10 So not 3% but not 5% either.

Thom,

Of course the planners are recommending larger classrooms. Public works projects are down, we are heading to a recession, people including architects and construction companies need work.

In the interest of full-disclosure. Dean Reschke, the past school board president, has a brother and sister-in-law on staff in District 203. When they retire there STARTING combined pensions will be over $145,000 per YEAR. After 25 years they will be over $300,000 per YEAR. I GUARANTEE you no one in the private sector will come anywhere near that sort of income off of social security. This madness has to stop before the unions totally bankrupt our state.

The Wunderlich's that wrote a letter to the editor in support of the referendum also have someone on staff in District 203. Usually when someone is vociferous in their support of more and more taxes for the schools I usually find out they are either a teacher, their spouse is a teacher, or another family member is a teacher.

The time is now, stop the MADNESS.

I will repeat this again and again and again. The district will end up with around $40 million in cash on hand after the construction is complete (2011). THEY DO NOT NEED THE MONEY for this construction project. They have a ton of new money coming in that they have told no one about. Mr. Higgins never addresses this fact. Ask DAVE ZAGER and he will confirm it.

Mr. Higgins,

From your post it appears that you AGREE that is is a non-mandated ECC that 203 wants to build (and us to pay for) for $11,000,000.00?

For those of you who are students of history rather than purveyors of fear mongering, a 203 referendum actually did fail back in 1994. And the results, as you might imagine, were catastrophic. Student performance remained high, and property values continued to increase. Oh, the humanity! Imagine if such a calamity should befall the 203 taxpayers this time around! Don't for a minute be fooled by the scare tactics of the liberal tax-and-spend 203 apologists. Common sense and history do not support their most recent "home value" campaign. Let principles and values determine your vote.

Becky,

You are making too much sense to deal with District 203. By the way, Thom Higgens is more reasonable than they are.

Remember, it is 203 way or the highway. Period.

Regarding the teachers that Mike (whoever he is)despises

1. They threatened to strike over $30.

2. One committed a crime (that appears to be covered up by the current board and administration)

3. If anyone went into a Board meeting and did what the basketball coach did, they would be fired the next day.

NOT VERY GOOD COMPANY AND ROLE MODELS FOR OUR CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!

If Becky is right that they are storing wheel chairs in the other set of rest rooms in the flat wing (one of Thom’s greatest complaints and reasons to support the building!!!), then do the following:

Rent a POD

Put it in Claudill’s parking space

Move the wheelchairs there

Take the rent out of Claudill’s salary increase

Open the other rest rooms.

This can only happen in a mismanaged circus called 203.

INSTEAD, 203 SPENDS $87 MILLION !!!!!!

Thom,

Since you are so good at getting information, how many of the 18 task force members voting were REAL citizens and how many were staff and administration.

Let's get the truth about the "Citizen Task Force" more aptly the District task force stacked with home and school reps.

Another "Independent Evaluation"

Let's see if the District will produce the Gap Analysis rationale. Also, how come these architects did not cite these new standards two years ago during their "independent evaluation"?

You are not part of the $350,000 problem, are the architects paying you to fix their mistake?

As far as the ACT test scores go, 90% in English is great, but 72% in Math, that's only a C... Plus, ACT defines all four scores together as a measure of college readiness for a reason.

By the way, I don't necessarily blame teachers for low test scores. Parents who complain about too much homework or put sporting events ahead of school bear some responsibility, too.

With regard to this:

But as a whole, from what I’m hearing, it seems to me that a genuine good faith efforts are being made by everyone involved to build a better, less confrontational relationship.

I guess if we give the union everything they want, there will be less confrontation.

Seriously though, if we renegotiate the 2009-2010 NUEA contract to include a 3% raise instead of a 5% raise, how much money will the district save over the next five years?

About the cemetary...

Gosh, I hate the word "powerless." It already galls me that someone who died 100(?) years ago is forcing bad policy decisions now. But the people running the cemetary are alive and well - is it too much to expect them to show a little civic responsibility?

This is not just a philosophical inquiry. If the school district can avoid Astro Turf in the stadium, how much of the $5 million stormwater abatment can they save?

Can the school board trade the cemetary land for property it owns elsewhere in the district?

I understand that some plots in the current practice fields have already been sold - could those plots be provided for by extending the cemetary only 20 feet or so?

Could we perhaps write to the people who purchased those plots and offer them alternative plots in a new cemetary annex in a different location at a discount?

Truly, once land is turned into a cemetary, you can't even have a picnic on it. It really is a selfish and in fact,luxurious use of prime real estate that has so much value to so many people. It's not just the high school, what about Ribfest and the other events and sports leagues that use the area?

The latest from Mike Davitts anonymous website.

http://hold203accountable.org/

District 203 moves forward on their plans to rebuild Central High, add a non-mandated Early Childhood Center (ECC), and do minor fixes to five other buildings. After hundreds of thousands in consultant fees, a large citizens’ group to study the issues, phone polls, tours, and yet other polls, etc., 203 is left with:
a. NO GAP analysis
b. NO standards (national, statewide, or even for District 203 by itself) to follow for our facilities
c. A list of wants by the users of the facilities are collected, centralized and summarized by the consultants for $350,000
d. A need for yet another referendum of $43 Million

Let’s start at the beginning with this a non-mandated Early Childhood Center

Well, not exactly. All districts are mandated to provide early childhood intervention.Most have built a dedicated building. Why do you need a specialized building? Because these are young children with a host of medical, physical, and cognitive challenges. They need physical therapy rooms, speech therapy rooms. Specialized bathrooms, playground equipment, etc. They need a safer more sheltered environment, and it’s not efficient to have this spread over 5 elementary schools with staff running back and forth between them

Want another reason to do this?

When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbors; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee. But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.”

To This, NO GAP analysis

Readers of this blog know that I have battled Dan Denys at length over this Red Herring.
The picture of these 21 books containing thousands and thousands of pages of D203’s GAP analysis quieted him. Perhaps it will work on Mr. Davitt as well. See link here,

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/healy-bender_links.shtml

To this, NO standards (national, statewide, or even for District 203 by itself) to follow for our facilities

Well, there are no state standards for classroom size. Is that the districts fault? This is sophomore logic at it’s worst. There are a thousand standards that come into play when designing anything as complicated as a school. As one small example, readers of this blog know I have been battling Mr. Denys on this subject too. I continue to dig, and today I find that a group called the CEFPI (Council of Education Facility Planners International) has a guideline recommending 30 square feet per student, as the district is planning on doing. The architect doing the plans told me when I asked about it. Minnesota has the same 30 sf as their state standard BTW. The district has hired a highly regarded, professional Architectural firm that has extensive experience in renovating and adding onto schools, link here, http://www.wightco.com/about/recognition.php All this is about is Davitt and Denys saying anything to attack the district. Logic, and truth be damned.

This, A list of wants by the users of the facilities are collected, centralized and summarized by the consultants for $350,000

Yes this is one of the things that happened, Healy bender talked to the teachers and staff. THE HORROR! This along with a Citizen Advisory Committee, and a Citizen Task Force, and countless hours spent by Director of Buildings and grounds with a consultant and Healy Bender. BTW the $350,000. bought us those 21 books, one for each school, containing those thousands and thousands of pages of GAP analysis that Davitt and Denys keep claiming doesn’t exist.And got the district to the “options to consider” point in the facilities improvement process. Wight was hired to do the detailed concept plans for another $50,000 or so. Guess we should be unhappy about that too.

Lastly this, A need for yet another referendum of $43 Million

Yes, a need for a small $43 million referendum costing us each $100.00 or so a year to get a renovated Central that will be in feel and operation like a new school, an Early Childhood Center, and repairs to North and Mill and others. Sign me up.

So what’s this all about? It’s about saying anything, anything to attempt to convince people that D203 is incompetent. Well, we wouldn’t win national recognition for being in the top 2-3% nationally, and get top marks for having high achievement at a low cost if all of this was true.

But of course it’s not true. It’s the ravings of someone who is so lost as a person that in this blog yesterday he made this statement. For the record, I don't hate teachers. I despise them. (I do though hate liberals who think money grows on trees; who equate money with education; and who resort to bullying on blogs).

Is there anything else we need to know about Mr. Davitt?

Before everyone excoriates the poster above listed as Mike Davitt I suggest someone call Mr. Davitt and verify he actually posted the above comment. In case you didn't notice I could sign my post Thom Higgins and call teachers idiots. Just be aware anyone can sign their name or someone else's name to a post.

Becky,

Did some more checking,

The District did in fact work together with the union to choose a new insurance carrier (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) that has indeed saved the District substantial money, though I cannot tell you how much exactly. They changed over this last fall. Dave Zager could give you the actual amount.

The District and the union are engaging in serious talks about the length of the elementary day in relation to the addition of foreign language. There have been meetings with teachers, support staff, maintenance and bus drivers to begin the dialogue that will be necessary to lengthen the day to include new curricular mandates like foreign language. This involves cooperation on a lot of fronts, and the talk has been very serious even though many logistical obstacles remain.

Yours other question was on the re-opening of talks and no, to my knowledge, no one has broached the idea of re-opening the contract. That clause was put in the last contract to allow one or both sides to, if an opportunity arises for a true win-win situation in terms of contract extension, to take advantage of it. I really don't know if either side will try to do this anytime soon.

But as a whole, from what I’m hearing, it seems to me that a genuine good faith efforts are being made by everyone involved to build a better, less confrontational relationship.
Probably means that they will be accused of being in bed together instead of everyone heaving a sigh of relief. My strongest comment is watch what they do. I you don’t like it then get them voted out of office.

Becky

Touché!

Couple of quick comments,

Regarding this,

Why isn’t anyone questioning why the cemetery gets to absorb more prime real estate in the middle of town? Right now, that land can be used by many different people for many different purposes, but once it is a cemetery, a few people monopolize it forever.

The Cemetery has owned the land for years as part of the CMM bequest, and has been renting the land for something like a dollar a year to the high school or park district till they need it. They are simply taking back what was given them many, many years ago. The school is powerless to stop them.

Regarding this

Why are we duplicating very expensive services and facilities for multi needs people in the overcrowded high school when a hospital is ¼ mile away? I know the answer is “federal mandates” but can’t options at least be explored? (The reason there’s only one set of bathrooms in the flat wing of Central is because the other set is used for wheelchair storage.)

The short answer is because it’s the schools problem not the hospitals. The schools district is mandated to take care of these kids. I suspect they have to be in the high school too, as there is a requirement to have them part of the school community, but don’t quote me.

As to this

I know that we have the “highest test scores for the lowest cost” in the Chicagoland area. But has anyone thought about the fact that in a town where most of the parents have at least a bachelor’s degree, only half of the kids graduate ready for college? Is this anything to brag about?

The criteria was making the bogey in all four classes. For D203 90% made the English grade, 72% in Math, 77% in Social Science and 56% in Biology. But only 51% made it in all four.

Lastly this,

But I’m having trouble getting past the repeated demonstrations of union control over the district during the last few years. There seem to be few, if any, checks and balances on their power and that’s just not right.

You know what? The board and D203 administration deserves some peace. I soundly reject the claim of undue union influence. We elected these people. If they don’t do the job properly and in fiscally responsible manner then turn them out next election. But to be rid of Mike Davitt, when he in this very blog yesterday, made this unbelievable comment For the record, I don't hate teachers. I despise them. (I do though hate liberals who think money grows on trees; who equate money with education; and who resort to bullying on blogs). I think is a major accomplishment. I always believed all this talk about fiscal responsibility was complete BS. I just never believed he would be so brazen to reveal his true feelings. It's a good thing he's gone. Ask some board member sometime about how disruptive he was.

Oops, one last one,

Has there been any substantive discussion of a longer elementary school day?

Here is where the savings of being a CUSD come into play for good and ill. The district has decided to have a long high school day. They then needed to put the elementary school day inside the HS day times for the purposes of saving money on the bus costs. We can make the elementary school day longer, and they are trying to figure out how to do this for the foreign language classes in elementary schools, but it’s the bus schedule that is limiting factor. So which do you prefer, shorter days or higher transportation costs? There is no free lunch here.

And welcome to the bog, oh I mean blog!

In case you didn’t want to read my fable above, some questions are just too important to miss:

When the teacher’s contract extension was approved last April, the School Board President gave four reasons why it was a good deal for the District and taxpayers:

- A "re-opener" clause that would allow either side to engage the other in new contract negotiations for 2009-2010;
- A change in the contract expiration date from August to June, to avoid "last minute"
bargaining that could threaten the start of the school year;
- A union commitment to work with the District this summer to reduce health care costs (with the bulk of the savings going to District 203); and
- A commitment by the NUEA to work collaboratively with the District to explore a longer elementary school day. A longer elementary school day could provide students with instruction in foreign language at an early age, and would also allow teachers at that level to have more collaborative planning time to focus on individual student needs.

In light of the changes in the economy and the extensive facilities needs, has the Board considered reopening contract negotiations?

Has the District realized any savings in health care costs?

Has there been any substantive discussion of a longer elementary school day?

A Fable (in response to the Satire of January 24, 2008)

Once upon a time there was a woman who loved school. Her parents and grandparents were teachers, she volunteered in her kids’ schools, and when the schools needed more money in 2002, she worked on the referendum, going to meetings and calling people from bank lobbies to ask them to vote for it.

And that was good.

She put a sign in her yard, rationalized that $500 over 5 years was worth it, talked her husband into voting for the referendum, and it passed.

And that was very good.

She watched as her yearly property tax increase quadrupled. She realized that property values were increasing, too, and didn’t blame the school board.

That was not so good, but still okay.

Then in 2005, she watched while the teacher’s union, seeing the windfall of tax money, did whatever necessary to get as much of it as possible. She put her kids to bed on the night before school started and couldn’t answer their nightly question “What are we doing tomorrow?” Her middle-schooler saw her teachers on TV as they were dancing after the strike vote meeting and wondered why they were so happy about not having school.

And she felt betrayed.

She thought about the chief union negotiator’s opinion that she wanted a Cadillac education at Chevy prices while she drove her kids around town in her Chevy. She thought about the letters to the editor from teachers about how hard they work as she reheated her husband’s dinner when he got home at 7:30 pm.

In 2007, she read the school board president’s reasons for agreeing to an extension to the teacher’s contract before the next school board election.

She noticed the union-endorsed candidates for that school board election complained about other people forming a “ticket” even while they formed their own. She read the union candidates’ flyer and wondered why it was being mailed from an apartment near 87th street.

And she started to have questions.

The District collected hundreds of millions of dollars since the last referendum and what have we gotten for our money?

Our buildings have certainly been maintained adequately, but not especially enhanced.

We don’t have a longer school day.

We threatened voters with the loss of elementary foreign language before the last referendum. Even though they passed it, foreign language was still cut and we didn’t hear anything about it again until last October.

We don’t have all day kindergarten.

As far as I can tell, the main thing we got is a contract that is more generous than that of comparable jobs in the private sector requiring similar training and experience. (Payroll is 80% of the budget.)

In light of the worsening of the economy and the extensive facilities needs, has the Board considered reopening contract negotiations as provided in the contract extension of last April?

Why isn’t anyone questioning why the cemetery gets to absorb more prime real estate in the middle of town? Right now, that land can be used by many different people for many different purposes, but once it is a cemetery, a few people monopolize it forever.

Has anyone looked at the studies showing higher injury rates to student athletes when playing on AstroTurf?

Why are we duplicating very expensive services and facilities for multi needs people in the overcrowded high school when a hospital is ¼ mile away? I know the answer is “federal mandates” but can’t options at least be explored? (The reason there’s only one set of bathrooms in the flat wing of Central is because the other set is used for wheelchair storage.)

I know that we have the “highest test scores for the lowest cost” in the Chicagoland area. But has anyone thought about the fact that in a town where most of the parents have at least a bachelor’s degree, only half of the kids graduate ready for college? Is this anything to brag about?

Finally, I am not part of the “anti-tax crowd.” I believe our District is staffed with people who are talented and caring, several of whom I consider personal friends. I have a child at Central and left the parent orientation very impressed with the quality of teachers and curriculum. I also realize that there are problems with the facility.

But I’m having trouble getting past the repeated demonstrations of union control over the district during the last few years. There seem to be few, if any, checks and balances on their power and that’s just not right.

The moral of this fable: The only thing necessary for wrongs to succeed is for good people to remain silent. – paraphrased from Edmund Burke

The simple fact of the matter is folks this District is awash in cash and they will have around a $40 million surplus in 2011. They can finance this all from internal operations without a referendum. Mark my words.

BTW, I don't hate or despise teachers. I don't blame them for getting what they can. What I don't like are unions that are holding the midwest hostage and driving it into the ground. The fact is people, the public sector unions are making states like Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio increasingly irrelevant. Until we have public servants with the guts to stand up to these groups we will continue to sink compared to other states.

Regarding Mr. Davitt’s comments yesterday (Jan 27 ‘08 at 9:22 am), I have to say that his admission that he despises teachers is not a surprise, given the content of his web pages past and present. The fact that he is willing to say so in a public forum, with his own name, is the bigger surprise. But there’s larger message of promise we can take from his entry. Mr. Davitt said:

I hate to ruin my reputation, but I actually wrote a letter to one of my children's teacher's this semester complementing her for her hard work and creativity work.

Don’t worry, this one admission won’t spoil your reputation, Mr. Davitt. But the teacher of your child is to be commended for her work, and its transformative effect on you, for in your recognition of her hard work and creativity, you had to step out of your normal mode of demonizing all teachers, a big step for someone who only sees how despicable that lot is. There’s hope for you yet, Mr. Davitt.

“For the record, I don't hate teachers. I despise them”

Posted by: Mike Davitt | January 27, 2008 09:22 AM

I will take the liberty to speak for everyone on this blog when I say that we are left utterly speechless by this classless comment. You ought to be ashamed and embarrassed.

Joe C.

You gave me a thought regarding Davitts website. I took the data from the Herald study and graphed it in Excel. The results are really, really, interesting. Here’s the link

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/documents/costperactreadiness_v2080128-2.pdf

This illustrates two things. This from Mike Davitt’s own words on his website, link here,

http://www.mikedavitt.com/edmyths.html

Though you'd never know it from the tenor of most education debates, the vast majority of studies have found no sustained positive relationship between spending and classroom results.

Now the graph of these 77 elementary school districts and their corresponding high schools costs illustrate that yes, there is not much of a correlation between academic achievement and cost, so Davitt is correct, but in one sense only. When you consider all 77 districts it looks to be true, however,

What’s so important is that 203 stands alone in the low cost-high academic performance quadrant. So, instead of attempting to beat up D203 for its costs vs. academic performance, he should be calling all those many, many, higher cost but lower performing districts and asking them to be as good as 203. And of course the small additional cost of the Feb 5th referendum will move that dot to the right what, 1/8th. of an inch maybe?

District 203 stands alone in combining low cost and high academic achievement. As the old story says. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Thanks for giving me the inspiration Joe.

I had a look at HOLD203ACCOUNTABLE.org. I don't see how the plot on the home page is relevant since it does not show a comparison to other districts in the Chicago area. Also, no inflation correction.

What do we think the expenses per student were for computer equipment, support, and other technology that didn't exist in 1972? How about energy costs for buildings and buses? How about textbooks? Seen the price of that stuff lately?

The Daily Herald data is far more relevant and comprehensive. This says it all:

School District        Cost       Pct

Lake Long Grove        $132,942   53

Lake Aptakisic-Tripp   $130,887   53

Lake Lincolnshire      $138,841   53

DuPage Naperville 203  $101,057   51

State Avg              $105,970   21

Cost = Average cost per student from Grades 1 thru 12
Pct = Percentage of students who met all four ACT subset standards — and are considered ready for college.

BOTTOM LINE: Naperville 203 is performing among the top districts in Illinois, at a cost that is below the state average.

Dan,

Let’s go back to the beginning.

On 1-17-08 10 days ago you posted this.

ISBE stardard 18 SF per student
http://www.mediafire.com/?ag2xwmzxcbz

In this post you claimed the 18 sf number is the state standard for number of square feet for a student used in calculating classroom size. Your calculations were 18 X 22 (avg. students per class at Central) = 396 SF. And you used a partial document to show the 18 sf number.

You then indicated that Centrals classroom size is Typical 203 classroom size 650 SF with this conclusion Percent of ISBE Standard 164%

So by your own words you are claiming that Centrals 650’ classrooms are 164% over ISBE standards. So there is no need to enlarge them to 900 ft which is the plan. Your Taj Mahal adjective that you are so fond of comes to mind here.

The following was my post on 1-20-08 @ 11:58 pm explaining the problem with your claim,

You see, the standard he quotes is actually the state standard for the minimum SF per student in a room that allows that student to safely exit said room in an emergency. That is all. So we can rest assured in a fire emergency there is ample room for our kids to flee.

Had Mr. Denys chosen to show you the page before this it would be self evident. I refer you here to the entire code book.

http://www.isbe.state.il.us/construction/health_safety/pdfs/175ark.pdf

You will note this entire document addresses Health and Safety issues. The relevant pages are pg 34-35 in the document although my Adobe reader thinks they are 43-44 for some reason. Regardless, if you get to Subpart E Protection Requirements Section 175.410 Exits you will see the page Mr. Denys points us to is under section 3). The exit capacity of any individual room or space. It then goes on to list them partially on pg 34 and then for a full page on pg 35 that lacks any context. This is the page that Mr. Denys chose to present, and I don’t think this is an accident. I can find no possible way for Mr. Denys to have mistaken Exit Safety Standards for Instructional Classroom Space Standards, as Part 175 is only a maintenance code for school facilities constructed between July 1, 1965 through March 24, 1995. For the record Illinois does not have any mandated per student instructional space standards although they did have a 30SF minimum standard for classrooms when they were offering construction grant money years ago.

So how did you respond to my comments? You started sliding away from your original contention and grasped the “safety” issue as a ruse,

2. CLASSROOM SIZE. Do our classrooms meet the minimum ISBE safety standards? Why do they set minimums? Could it be that many buildings (not Central) are or were not in compliance?

Posted by: Dan D | January 22, 2008 08:09 AM

Then there was this from you,

The following was the ISBE document that I was citing:

EFFICIENT AND ADEQUATE STANDARDS FOR BUILDING SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOLS

This is the correct name of the document, however if you read it you will see it covers only Health and Safety issues.

Your reference to safety is that the corridors need to be sized for the ISBE room capacities. I guess our architects were using the following document:

CLAUDILL’S STANDARDS FOR BUILDING SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TAJ MAHAL

This is not correct. I never brought up corridors. You did here as another way to obscure the real issue.

Again, tomorrow the District should supply the capacities for all district classrooms calculated in accordance with state mandated regulations. That should end this debate.

another attempt to cloud the issue.

Posted by: Dan D. | January 24, 2008 08:42 AM

Back to today with this from Dan,

The classroom capacity information can be found on the attached file.

http://www.mediafire.com/?fslxlzje9zg

Please note, an Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) mandate that the District is to comply.

I hope Dan doesn’t mind me reproducing a small part of his e-mail to me regarding this,

Please read the attached ISBE form that the District should be complying with. I think sections f) 4) and 5) are relevant about classroom capacity. Nothing to do with auditoriums.

Here is F. 4-5 that he is referring to.
4) The identification of each room and space as to its occupancy and use.

5) The designation of the rated population capacity and student enrollment capacity for each floor and each occupied room or space thereon.

This has ZERO,ZERO, to do with Dan’s original claim that the standard for classroom design is 18 SF as his first post charged as a way to de-legitimize the desire to make the classrooms larger at Central. That is what the question is.

Dan, you were factually incorrect in your claim 1-71-08 in this blog and your dodging and weaving trying to make this into a discussion regarding safety issues is nothing but ant attempt to obscure the factual incorrectness of your original claim Will you please admit that and we can move on from this issue one can for all?
And this from the same e-mail

I appreciate you called six people, but I do not think their “off the cuff” responses are authoritative. But just like I will not accept the inadequate work of the architects, I will not accept the similar inadequate hearsay. That is why the rated capacity worksheets noted above would be very authoritative. Or you and I can measure the classrooms, get a pass.

Even if there is a document that lists rated capacities for classrooms for safety purposes, this has ZERO to do with instructional standards. Are you really going to attempt to conflate safety standards with instructional standards to get you off the hook here, is that the gambit?

To this from you post today,

I also find the referendum page misleading. The District says there are not standards, yet people start saying that the “Metropolitan Standard” is 30 square feet per student. Where did this information appear? No standards can be found for two years and now this is the absolute truth?

As I have said there are not current ISBE standards for how many SF per student for classroom design. However they are not the only voice in this matter. You claim the page is misleading? Shall we go talk to some school architects? We can do that. I can probably arrange it. Here is link to the State of Minnesota’s building standards. I refer you to pages 124-126 on your adobe reader.

http://education.state.mn.us/mdeprod/groups/Finance/documents/Publication/003979.pdf

(c) Classrooms
Guidelines for classrooms apply to all non-specialized classrooms such as English, social studies, and math. These guidelines are meant to encourage the design of imaginative, flexible, accessible classrooms, or classrooms with adjacent common resource and support spaces, and to help avoid sterile, crammed classrooms lacking spaces for a variety of learning activities and storage. Essential elements to consider for high school classrooms include: square footage: 850-950 square feet for 20-28 students. Determine appropriate classroom square footage by analyzing current and anticipated class sizes, staffing, needed space for technology and students with disabilities, and deciding whether common spaces (i.e. large group, team learning, small group, conference, and office spaces) will be located within or outside classrooms. If resource and support spaces and/or more than several computers are to be placed in the classroom, additional square footage is necessary. Consider providing additional space for technology for more advanced student project work and teacher applications of technology to the curriculum.

Dan if you called school Architects and talked to them, as I have, you would know that 30 SF is the standard that school Architects use, and states such as Minnesota have actually codified it into law. When I talked to Healy Bender and they gave me the smaller classroom size, the first word out of his moth was, “remember we built to a 25 student classroom population so at 30 SF per student we are only 750 Sf. 203 is building to a 30 student 30 SF classroom standard

Lastly to this,

I appreciate your honesty. However, I think we need to have definitive information, not a quick phone conversation.

To put it bluntly I’m not going to waste any more time proving this to you and then have you say it’s not definitive enough. If I can get spread sheets from architects, that indicate sq footages and classroom designations will that be sufficient, or do we need to get a tape measure and measure every room? I am working on getting them for a number of HS’s, but I’m not wiling unless you agree this will be sufficient. I am also trying to get it for the renovated Central as that should be the basis of comparison. If I can get permission I will post it all on QE203.org’s website.

Just an update to Thom.

The classroom capacity information can be found on the attached file.

http://www.mediafire.com/?fslxlzje9zg

Please note, an Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) mandate that the District is to comply.

Thanks for your research methodology for classroom sizes. For the last two years, nobody could address. Now you can call the local building and get a definitive size. NO WAY!!!

I appreciate your honesty. However, I think we need to have definitive information, not a quick phone conversation.

I also find the referendum page misleading. The District says there are not standards, yet people start saying that the “Metropolitan Standard” is 30 square feet per student. Where did this information appear? No standards can be found for two years and now this is the absolute truth?

As to the FOI, no contact despite leaving my telephone number and e-mail. If they ask for a seven business day extension, they are saying they will not provide the information before the election. The questions are simple, you had them and did not raise any concern.

Question,

WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO HIDE? Remember, you had Paulson’s response, he did not answer the questions. If they have done their job, it should be easy to answer. Let’s post the questions on the internet.

For interested readers here is an analysis I did recently of a number of different studies regarding D203.

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/costperformance_mediasurvey.shtml

If you go there you will find links to a study that shows there is not another school district in the Chicagoland area who's students achieve higher ACT College Readiness scores for a lower cost per student. You can also click on the link provided to read the USN&WR nationwide study that ranks both 203 HS's in the top 2-3% nationally, and links to the Chicago Magazine study that lists 203 schools at first and third for ACT scores vs. costs. The is also some further analysis I did.

What all of this evidence points to is one simple conclusion;

District 203 has some great kids, from some great families who thankfully have above average socio-economic advantages. But 203 gets to take some credit too. Go look at the studies, especially the Herald. Look at all the school districts around us that have similar economic advantages. The difference between those scores and 203's higher ones I'll say is attributable in large part to the excellent job 203 does educating our children. For that, I for one thank them, and urge the residents of this fine town to support this kind of excellence, especially in light of the fact that the district truly is so fiscally responsible with our tax dollars.

Don't believe me. Go look at the studies yourself.

Having respect for eternity, I'll only respond to one point within Higgins' endless rant. For the record, I don't hate teachers. I despise them. (I do though hate liberals who think money grows on trees; who equate money with education; and who resort to bullying on blogs). I have a problem with 75% of the teachers who threatened to strike in 2005 because they were not getting 5% raises. I have a problem with the teachers who were caught campaigning during the last school board election using school resources in violation of the state's Ethics & Gift Ban law. But then again, the end justifies the means for this group. I have a problem with a former teacher and union president (now running to fill Joe Dunn's seat) who produced ads implying I wanted to hire sex offenders for bus drivers and custodians. I have a problem with a certain girls basketball coach coming before the board saying "Central is a dump, and should be torn down." The money's been going to striking teachers, coach (would you volunteer to free up some of your strike-gotten gains for facility improvements for the students?). I have a problem with administrators who rate 75% of tenured teachers as "excellent." That's one hell of a public sector bell curve, and pure B.S. And I have a problem with enablers of this militant out-of-touch union. I hate to ruin my reputation, but I actually wrote a letter to one of my children's teacher's this semester complementing her for her hard work and creativity work. Not as creative as Higgins' rant though.

Well I cruised the Hold 203accountable.org website and all I can say is it looks to be just more of the same from a certain person who hates teachers, the school board, the administration, and anyone else who supports them. Me, and my group especially, but the Chamber of Commerce gets its hits too, and even Tim West here at the Sun because he didn't fall into lockstep with this "gentleman".

But the question to me is why doesn't the website doesn’t have any names on it?

Have to give this person who I shall call He who doesn't want to be named credit, he covered his tracks this time. But allow me to refer the reader to a post I did some time ago, on 12-21-07 11:09 on this thread.

Lets look at the content and style of rhetoric. Here’s the Taxpayers Ticket website

http://www.taxpayersticket.com/

And here’s Mike Davitt’s website

http://www.mikedavitt.com

Now, there’s a lot of angry rhetoric on display here. Some of it directed at me, so let me comment on that. I’m not some crazy far left wing radical that’s a stooge for, or on the payroll of the Union, or school board, as I have been painted. And I’m sure that goes for all the many different people that are maligned in much the same way.

But it gets worse.

We then descend to the next level of animus and reach the anonymous blogs. My personal favorite?

http://thenuea203.org/

If you take the previous two sites and jack up the hyperbole a ton you get this site.

It is seething in its contempt for its targets, all the while cloaking itself with the mantle of Integrity. Here is a quote form one of its web pages

Where is there dignity unless there is honesty?" – Cicero

Yes indeed where is dignity and honesty and Integrity on display by the writer?

So I ponder who wrote this bile? Reading it closely the style and substance resembles Mike Davitts stuff to be sure, but again it’s hidden behind the cloak of anomonity so who can really know for sure?

Well you can go here http://www.dnstools.com/

Now I can’t say that Mike Davitt owns this site, I can only post the information I found here (he’s listed as the registrant) and make the request for people to look at the three different sites, look at the rhetoric and decide for themselves. But the story of the Duck comes to mind here. All these sites were up and operating as I post this.

So back to today, It looks to me that He who doesn't want to be named has improved his skills at registering a website. but certainly it’s in the same style, and uses the same attack rhetoric. Is it the same person? I'll let you decide.

Seriously folks, go to the websites, read the information. If you want to vote against the referendum based on this tripe, please do so, but realize whom you are getting in bed with here.

I do have an offer to make. I will award to people who can identify the failures in logic that's on display in this latest site a SPOLMVOU (Small prize of little monetary value or use.) Be the first on your block to Win!

And before someone makes the mistake of claiming well the Build the future website is anonymous! may I remind you they posted here by name at least once, and you can go see them in the flesh if you want to.

The Build the Future folks have posted a piece I've written on "Why rebuild Central, and why spend $87.7 million.

It's in narrative form, and too long to post here so I offer this link

http://www.buildthefuture203.org/case_Naperville_Central.php

Loyal readers will recognize bits of it that I have posted here. This is the best and most detailed case I can make explaining why Central need to be rebuilt to the tune of $87.7 million.

Why is it that when someone attempts to clarify the blatant disregard for the facts of a few people on this blog, they are labled as bullies?

Is it really necessary to resort to name-calling? This is a tactic reminiscent of the liberal left (see Clinton, Franken, Garofalo, et al..) and really has no place here.

For the most part, the give and take here is good. It is great to see people with a passion for their convictions. In the future, let's try to respect others position and keep this discourse civil.

I think this facilities construction plan will take care of the most blatant needs of D203 facilities and we should vote "Yes" on the referendum. It's only going to get more expensive, the longer we put this off.

A fantastic web site arguing principle and values are reasons to oppose the 203 referendum! www.HOLD203ACCOUNTABLE.org

"deliberate attempt to mislead and misrepresent the facts" sounds like what dianne mcguire and the teachers union did in the last school board election!!

I believe there has been a deliberate attempt to mislead and misrepresent the facts by much of the anti-referendum faction. I don't think anyone has been bullied.

Yes, I didn't run away either. However, with the emotional temperature of this blog getting hot and somewhat immature, and the fact that we really aren't getting any new information. Just no point continuing.

I do still read posts, or skim them anyway, I just don't ask anything that I, perhaps should be finding answers to elsewhere.

Best of luck to SD203, the students, parents and resident taxpayers. We will know shortly.

Dan,

Sincerely, I do not understand your difficulty in getting the information. All I did was to start making calls. Now it’s fortunate that I knew that Healy Bender designed Plainfield North, and that I have a friend who’s doing some work on Oswego East, but all it took was taking the time to make some phone calls. Realize, I accepted the information that was given me. I certainly didn’t go to each school and review blueprints.

To find North HS’s sq. footage I called the Principal there and he gave me the 875 Sf number. I will contact Craig, or Ralph, on Monday and ask him to help the two of us to review their documentation.

As for the others and my sources see below

1. Naperville North 875 sf
2. Oswego East 920-960 sf See below.
3. Neuqua 840 sf D204 Director of Buildings, Jay Strang.
4. Matea 840 Above
5. Waubonsie 780 sf. Above
6. Plainfield North 751 sf. Healy Bender Architects, they designed the school
7. Bollingbrook high schools 850 sf Assistant in Building and Maintenance Director Eugene Egizio's office.

I can not reveal who I talked to regarding Oswego as they are involved with the problems it is having. The Atrium was built cheaply with plastic panels and they move too much causing leaks. Also the HVAC was undersized and is causing problems. This is the reason the Architects who designed the school were not chosen for the new HS.

Regarding this

If I had either the school drawings or the state mandated capacity filings (that the District could not make available to us in seven business days),

The deadline for the District to respond to our FOI request passed. I had asked for a call or e-mail on the status, but was not afforded that courtesy

Two comments. First, my understanding is the district did respond to you within the seven days, (I called and asked someone) and the response I received was they contacted you, don’t know how, and requested an extension due to the large number, 61, of questions you posed. Second, there is no state mandated capacity filings regarding classrooms. I'm not trying to pick a further fight, but the standard you cite (section180.120) is for Assembly rooms(large auditorium rooms) not classrooms. Here is the ISBE Project standards, Assembly Room definition,

600 GENERAL-USE FACILITIES
610 Assembly
Definition: A room designed and equipped for the assembly of large numbers of
persons for such events as dramatic, musical, or commencement
activities

This has nothing to do with classrooms.

To this,

To be clear, we have been asking questions for TWO years and not getting answers (as recently as NOW). Yet Thom can get general classroom sizes for seven schools in half a day. WOW!!!!!

You yourself posted above your prior FOIA and Tom Paulsen’s responses, so I have a hard time accepting that you have had difficulty getting information.

Please e-mail you availability next week, during business hours I would guess, and let’s get together with the district.

For everyone's benefit.

I see no new information being put on this post, that is why I do not feel it warrants any additional attention. The deadline for the District to respond to our FOI request passed. I had asked for a call or e-mail on the status, but was not afforded that courtesy.

To be clear, we have been asking questions for TWO years and not getting answers (as recently as NOW). Yet Thom can get general classroom sizes for seven schools in half a day. WOW!!!!!

If I had either the school drawings or the state mandated capacity filings (that the District could not make available to us in seven business days), it would take me at least two hours per school to identify the general purpose classrooms, calculate the size, and see if 75% were greater than 750 square feet. Since I did not get a snap response in four hours to my e-mail and now Thom says some time next week, it appears his first data collection was not comprehensive.

Maybe 203 should have hired Thom to do the background work. If he did it in 4 hours and we paid him $500 per hour (since he is very efficient), we would have one standard to make a good decision for $2,000 rather than next to nothing for $350,000 (or whatever the new number is, yet to see the details). This is what I would have expected from the architects.

In my "off line" e-mails (I have tried not to be personal on this site and berate others), Thom had not communicated how he was going to provide the backup information. On that e-mail, I said, let's just use North. North will not be improved for many years and the District would be responsible for providing all of the information, we would not need to rely on the architects that have not been able to address this in two years.

Enough, I am not running away. I just do not find it productive to respond to the same information, evasive and long winded non responses, and name calling. Voters will have their choice in ten days.

To Anonymous,

No, I am not bullying. I made a commitment early on that I would "pay any price, bear any burden," in refuting comments made on this blog that were untrue. This is what I have done.

I was angered by Mr. Denys abandoning the field just hours after his agreeing to offer a retraction if I proved him wrong.

What readers of this blog do not know is Mr. Denys and I have side conversations going on at times by e-mail. He contacted me last night and we will be getting together next week regarding this issue. It is my expectation that he will offer a retraction, and at that point I will request the the Sun remove the post you found so objectionable.

Hope that helps.

Mr. Higgins,

Ann E. was correct ---- you are nothing more than a schoolyard bully!

There was absolutely no reason for your last post. The man had paid you a great compliment, yet you could not resist the temptation to poke & bully.

I had originally been following, and occassionally posting, here because I thought everyone was doing it in good spirit. Clearly I was wrong as I find your spirit waning, if not missing completely.

Ann had talked me into not posting, but I could not resist this observation.

Good Day.

It is apparent that Mr. Denys realizes his post of 1-24-08 @ 7:28 AM was a bridge to far, and before he got bloodied any further he decided.

I am signing off.

It amuses me that he has put his tail between his legs and run away.

Mr. Denys you posted this earlier this morning,

I will ask the Sun to publish an article stating that the reconstruction of the exiting space to increase the classroom size is reasonable. Thom, I will give you a letter to post on QE203. We will post the info on WDTA.

Will live up to your words sir?

To all readers: Our schools are safe. State Fire Inspectors inspect every D203 school yearly to verify the schools are compliant with every fire safety code. Every school, every year.

So, on to this from Dan Denys,

You need to read these sections slower and more carefully from the ISBE manuals closer. These are standards for hallway sizes and exits based on the capacity of the building. The capacities are based on these amount of square footage per student.

NO, NO, NO, this has NOTHING to do with standards for hallways, which (if you read these sections slower and more carefully) actually are expressed in minimum widths. However, to get back to the real issues, see the following from the IBSE manual,

3) The exit capacity of any individual room or space. The capacity shall be the actual
number of occupants anticipated to use the space; or it can be calculated by dividing the
net floor area (sq. ft. of such room or space by the applicable figure in the following table, whichever is greater:

iii) Normal classrooms 18

It clearly states ROOM OR SPACE. This has nothing to do with hallway sizes.!

From my 30 years of working with several school districts, the reason for this standard is that many buildings do not conform to this safety standard. In fact, many schools EXCEED these capacity calculations. And all of this is based on avoiding another tragedy like the Chicago school fire in the late 1950's.

You comments on hallways and safety standards has nothing to do with your original claim regarding classroom size, and is just another attempt at a smokescreen to avoid being detected for making false statements. As I have stated in the past, you took a number for the minimum SF for a student to safely exit a classroom (18 SF.) and stated that it is the standard for how many SF per student a classroom should have for instructional usage purposes. You made this initial claim on 1-17-08 @ 7:33 , here it is.

ISBE stardard 18 SF per student

http://www.mediafire.com/?ag2xwmzxcbz

Average class size 21.6 Use 22

ISBE Classroom size 396 SF

Readers of Mr. Denys post will see it is a disingenuous attempt to manipulate data to make the case that Centrals classrooms are large enough and do not need to be enlarged. I refer readers to my post of 1-20-08 @ 11:58 that fully exposes Mr. Denys regarding this matter.

Lastly this,

But Thom has never responded to my question, what are the classroom sizes of comparable schools. I will note the following schools:

1. Naperville North
2. Oswego East
3. Nequa Valley
4. Proposed Matea
5. Plainfield North
6. Bolingbrook
7. Walter Payton (a $75 million--1998 dollars--Chicogo school for 1,250 students--Jesse Jackson should have visited this school rather than Nequa).

My plain statement. If Thom can note that 75% of the general classrooms in these schools are greater than 750 square feet (note I am not using the 900 square feet the district is proposing), I will ask the Sun to publish an article stating that the reconstruction of the exiting space to increase the classroom size is reasonable. Thom, I will give you a letter to post on QE203. We will post the info on WDTA.

Posted by: Dan D. | January 25, 2008 07:28 AM

Start writing Mr. Denys. If the Sun won’t publish it, we will pay to run it as an advertisement. You might also want to send a copy to D203 offices.

1. Naperville North 875 sf
2. Oswego East 920-960 sf
3. Neuqua 840 sf
4. Matea 840 sf I‘m not sure it is finalized, regardless, will not be less than 840
5. Waubonsie 780 sf.
6. Plainfield North 751 sf. (see comment below)
7. Bollingbrook high schools 850 sf is the district standard.

Let’s look at Plainfield North’s classroom size of 751 sf for a moment. Does this mean that they are cramming students into a smaller classroom? NO This is just one more illustration of how Mr. Denys simplistic generalizations trip him up.

Both D203 and the Plainfield school districts are building to the same square foot standard (30 sf per student), as I have been maintaining all along. Why are Plainfield’s rooms smaller? because they are building to a 25 student per classroom standard, rather than D203's 30 students per classroom standard! Frankly, it would be great if D203 did he same, but a district has to balance the advantages of having smaller class sizes with the additional cost of the bricks and mortar and teacher salaries. D203 has elected, as most districts have, to go to a 30 student classroom standard in order to save on costs.

These are Gen Ed classroom sizes. Science labs are larger so I didn’t bother with them.I have a call in to Mr. Thayer of Walter Payton. Mr. Denys will you accept Waubonsie in lieu of Walter Payton Academy, or will you use this to try to wiggle out of your offer?

I Look forward to seeing your response on the WTDA website, please send Peter and me a copy so we can post it at QE203.org.

To all,

It has been fun addressing these issues. I feel they are very important to the community.

Also, I complement Thom, Peter, and Barbara. I might disagree with some of your positions, but I do respect your commitment and that you do take a position.

Finally, I must note there is one important party missing in this debate--THE DISTRICT. If they would have done 10% of the work Thom had, we would all be better informed.

I am signing off. We are really going over the same issues. If we get a response from the District today (it is the deadline), we will post.

Dan

Did anyone else read the Sun yesterday?

Just when I wanted to really believe the people running 203 had a clue, they go and say stuff like they did in that article on crowding!

For those who missed it, let me summarize:

The District is now projecting enrollment even lower then they did leading into this referendum thing. In fact, they now say the decline from the 2003 peak to 2010/2011 will be about 2,000 students (this is a drop of 11%)! This would also represent a drop of over 1,100 from this year alone (which has dropped almost 300 from last year!)

Of course, this is not what has my ire up and questioning their ability to responsibly run the District. What really frosted me was the comments from Suzyn Price (Board President) and Alan Leis (Superintendent of the District) concerning the implied financial affects of these drops ------ they believe there are NONE as Price is quoted saying the decline does NOT translate into fewer teachers and Leis agreed!

Price was also quoted as saying that this is drop is a “very small number that will have almost no impact on the classrooms or the make-up of our schools and classrooms”.
I’m not sure, but it appeared that she took the total number of classrooms in the District, divided it by the decline in students, and came up with a drop of ONE student per classroom. So, she implies we have 2000 classrooms in 203 (9.22 students per classroom --- Sounds low to me.) I’m no educator, but this kind of lame analysis MAY be indicative of their overall acumen with numbers.

Leis added the early childhood program was one reason there could be no decline in classrooms or teachers (hey --- doesn’t the referendum include a brand new building for that program?)

The end result is that for the 203 Board, an 11% drop in enrollment is deemed insignificant as we are in the “LAND Of PRICE”, where the motto is
“THE PRICE IS NOT RIGHT UNTIL WE SPEND AS MUCH AS THE OTHER SCHOOLS”

Messege for Thom

You need to read these sections slower and more carefully from the ISBE manuals closer. These are standards for hallway sizes and exits based on the capacity of the building. The capacities are based on these amount of square footage per student.

From my 30 years of working with several school districts, the reason for this standard is that many buildings do not conform to this safety standard. In fact, many schools EXCEED these capacity calculations. And all of this is based on avoiding another tragecy like the Chicago school fire in the late 1950's.

But Thom has never responded to my question, what are the classroom sizes of comparable schools. I will note the following schools:

1. Naperville North
2. Oswego East
3. Nequa Valley
4. Proposed Matea
5. Plainfield North
6. Bolingbrook
7. Walter Payton (a $75 million--1998 dollars--Chicogo school for 1,250 students--Jesse Jackson should have visited this school rather than Nequa).

My plain statement. If Thom can note that 75% of the general classrooms in these schools are greater than 750 square feet (note I am not using the 900 square feet the district is proposing), I will ask the Sun to publish an article stating that the reconstruction of the exiting space to increase the classroom size is reasonable. Thom, I will give you a letter to post on QE203. We will post the info on WDTA.

Thom, we do not need three pages of words, just some simple facts. The sames facts I thought we had paid a portion of the $350,000.

Regarding this post by Dan Denys,

Thom, you can go to the Illinois State Board of Education sight and see if you can find more information. As to the misleading, please look in a mirror.

The following was the ISBE document that I was citing:

EFFICIENT AND ADEQUATE STANDARDS FOR BUILDING SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOLS

Your reference to safety is that the corridors need to be sized for the ISBE room capacities. I guess our architects were using the following document:

CLAUDILL’S STANDARDS FOR BUILDING SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TAJ MAHAL

Again, tomorrow the District should supply the capacities for all district classrooms calculated in accordance with state mandated regulations. That should end this debate.

Posted by: Dan D. | January 24, 2008 08:42 AM

You really have no shame sir. You are willfully attempting to mislead readers here, and when you are called on it you double down and do it again. You can try to dodge and weave but I will simply re-post the proof that you are not telling the truth. Here it is again,

This is simply appalling. Mr. Denys started this topic on 1-17-08 @ 7:33 when he claimed the following

ISBE stardard 18 SF per student

http://www.mediafire.com/?ag2xwmzxcbz

Average class size 21.6 Use 22

ISBE Classroom size 396 SF

There’s more to the post but he is claiming that the ISBE standard for a student is 18SF and as the avg. class size is 21.6 at Central, then the classrooms should be 396 SF.

What Mr. Denys did was to use a ISBE standard for the minimum SF that is required for a student to safely exit a classroom, which is quite low, and untruthfully use it to make the case that it is the ISBE standard for the amount of SF per student a room should have. Why? because it allows him to make the case for smaller classroom size, thus negating one of the rationales for rebuilding Centrals classrooms to make them larger. This is how Mr. Denys operates. See my post of 1-20-08 @ 11:58 for full details.

So today, undaunted that he has been exposed for attempting to mislead readers, he now makes the stunning charge "Do our buildings meet minimum ISBE safety standards? Could it be that many buildings(not Central) are were not in compliance?"

First Mr. Denys should apologize for misleading the readers on 1-17-08. But to then attempt to then twist the truth into an accusation that D203 is endangering the safety of our students is disgraceful, and he should be ashamed of himself.

To hold my nose and answer his charge, the standard does not lie
with the room, it lies in the number of students in the room! The room can not be out of compliance in and of itself.

Posted by: Thom Higgins | January 22, 2008 11:33 PM.

I guess I should now add that you should apologize for misleading the reader again on 1-24-08, how many times will you attempt to mis-lead the readers here?

I was thinking of Mr. Denys earlier post and how he doesn't want to spend his tax dollars to build a dedicated Early Childhood Center and I realize that perhaps this link would be helpful. It is the analysis that QE203.Org did, talking about why it is important. I wrote most of it.

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/documents/special_ed_piece_final_08_01_10.pdf

To Anonymous,

You must be taking lessons from the master of the universe here. You are either willfully mis-stating my comments or do not understand them.

Regarding you point #1. I was talking about the poor soul that had his taxes increase 300% in one year. Yes I think thats huge. So it's a pretty feeble attempt on your part to attempt to conflate that with our property taxes as clearly I was not.

District 203's tax increase? Considering how much less we pay to educate our kids that other high performing districts, we all should be sending flowers and candy to the district offices. I'm happy to pay my property tax bill. It's the best return of the money I spend on taxes. Anyone interested in what a bargain D203 is fiscally click here,

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/costperformance_mediasurvey.shtml

You point #2. Disparage the data I disagree with? No. But I do get a little cranky when some anonymous poster. willfully mis-states another persons statement as was done here. If someone does that, then yes, you betcha, that person deserves to be condemned. Honestly what I'm doing hereis truth squadding all the BS that is being spewed by some posters, by including full documentation and links to show where it came from! If you are truly interested in the truth and not a bunch of BS then I would hope you would offer your thanks rather than trying to play games.

Mr. Higgins,

You wrote "Here are some more quotes by Mr. Marcus to give you all an idea of the thinking of this darling of the Anti-Tax crowd. Here's he's talking about the silver lining of these huge tax increases."

I have two comments for you, sir:

1)I am glad you see the District 203 tax increases as HUGE, as I do, too!

2)So, if anyone finds data you disagree with, your modus operandi is to try and disparage either the data, the person forwarding it, or both. Sounds like Clinton 101!

Mr. Shulman,

You wrote "If I understand this correctly Marcus is implying that for every $1,000 reduction in property taxes, someone will take on $12,000 more house (and presumably debt--if not, then they could only purchase $1000 more house...)."

I actually contacted Prof. Marcus early last summer --- it was NOT easy as he is retired and I had to go through the university President, have him forward the request, etc.

The discussion was short: the study was midwest based, thus more applicable to Ill than Ca., and per my discussion, I thought he was saying an additional $1000 in taxes decreases home values by $12000. So, if you have a $1000 increase, whatever the value of your home is it would be $12000 less than if there was no increase in taxes.

He did not mention the reverse economics of folks saving $1000 in taxes than spending $12000 more on a house (this would work perfectly only if you already owned the house, yes?) However, more apporpriately I would agree that one can logically say this means that with everything else being equal, a house with $1000 less in taxes would sell for $12000 more.

The City of Naperville Announces the Largest Suburban Office Lease Deal of the Year
Blue Cross Blue Shield Parent Company Signs 15-Year Lease Takes 260,000 Square Feet, Projects 1,000 Jobs to the Area

NAPERVILLE, IL - The City of Naperville is pleased to announce one of the largest suburban office lease deals of the year in the Naperville Woods Office Center, located at 1000 - 1100 Warrenville Road. Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC), parent company of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois, will relocate its Hallmark Services Division, which will occupy approximately 260,000 square feet and is expected to bring 1,000 jobs to the area.

Thousand new jobs. Think the great schools for BC/BS's employees factored into the decision? Could this help Naperville property values stay high?

Why can't District 203 spend some of the surplus on reducing student fees? They are getting out of hand. They must think we are all rich in Naperville. Why not improve the cirriculum? Why not hire better teachers? Did anyone else see the Chicago Tribune on how many teachers in Illinois were fired in the last 10 years for incompetence? It was astounding, only 4 were fired state wide!!! You can't tell me of the 1,300 or so teachers in District 203 they are all great teachers. The union again protects their own to the detriment of our children. If you really want to improve test scores forget the building and fire lousy teachers.

Dan, you wrote: "Ted,
Please note to Thom and Peter that the Indiana tax quote was not mine. They need to direct their personal attacks elsewhere.
Thank you."

Dan, No need to jump all over me. The style and content type of the cited post mirrored many of yours so I just assumed it was you, sorry. Please reread my post, I thought I asked reasonable questions--which, actually, seem to address points that you have raised if not exactly so here; how were they personal attacks?

Peter

The following is illustrative of Dan Denys desire to say anything, to allow any adverse outcome, simply to save himself having to fork over a few hundred buck extra a year for schools his children will never use.

From his post of 1-24-08

Another comment. There are 13 “non-programmed” classrooms. But the traditional problem is occurring--the administration let people spread out and “use” the empty classrooms. Why not use band and chorus rooms for tutoring, they are not used for many hours in the day?

If you redistricted school centers (like was done every year from 1972 to 1998, you could free up 24 classrooms (11 currently used for early childhood plus the empty 13) and ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR THE EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER.

Yes, let’s have 203 re-district every year so he can save some bucks! Who cares if that will throw the district’s families into chaos every year? It will save him money! don’t you all understand that?

Yes, lets save some of his tax money and not build an Early Childhood Center, They need more space? Let them use a band room if they need more space. Specialized classes? Who needs those? Cram them into the regular classrooms. They’ll get by. We can fire more teachers that way. Kids were probably slackers anyway.

The ECC? He could care less about providing a specialized space designed for these kids. No money for smaller bathrooms, or smaller safer playground equipment. No money for specialized Physical Therapy, and Occupational Therapy rooms, let alone a place to safely store all the equipment

How about the fact that these kids need a safer, more controlled environment, than what the elementary schools can offer, especially getting in and out of the schools? He says,

So What!

The fact that the number of children receiving these specialized services doubled and is growing? He says,

Who cares!

The fact that the program cannot work as efficiently spread out over 5 schools? He says,

Tough!

Mr. Denys is all about only one thing. Saving money on his tax bill. Whether it’s the Early Childhood Center, Central, or I bet North, and Mill schools, he always has the same response. He knows better than all the experts, and everything the district does is wrong, and too expensive. But what’s it really about for Mr. Denys is the money, his money, that he needs to send his kids to expensive private schools..

How district 203 decided on their building program

A Satire.

It all started when the evil D203 administrators asked; “who’s the worst consultant that we can hire to waste the most money and will give us the result we want?”

And they searched high and low and found HB, and it was good.

HB did what was asked of them, and after BSing with all the different school principals, the ones who bought the most rounds got “The Nod”

Now the district had to offer a public participation process. All those people sifting thru all these documents and options, that can’t be allowed to happen independently. What to do? So it was decided to secretly implant devices in all the participants to control their minds, a costly but necessary, decision.

So with the publics minds under their control, the district set its evil plan into action. Let’s listen in on the RESIDENTS TASK FORCE deliberations;

"Where shall we start" one asked?

“How about classrooms” was the reply.

“OK, we need more of them, and we need them to be bigger. When a kid passes gas the whole damn room about faints.”

“Yeah”, said another, “I wish Taco Bell wasn’t so popular with kids today.”

“So we do what? Add some classrooms, so kids aren’t crammed into every nook and cranny, and make them large enough to house 30 students in the larger class rooms? Guess that would make the learning environment better.

“Sure, why not? Typical modern classrooms are built to a 30SF per student standard and Centrals academic classes are in the high 20's” was the reply." They need more space"

“But what about this guy, Dan somebody or other, he’s claiming that we already have too many classrooms now, and we should consolidate rooms and fire a bunch of teachers?

“Him? He has no idea what he’s talking about. He conveniently ignores how we teach today. You know all the specialized and individualized learning programs, and he doesn't care if we have to cram them into any space we can.”

“You mean like the Academy program that puts struggling students into smaller groups and gives them individualized attention, or the ELL kids?

“Exactly, all these programs need space and resources.”

“Then why is he complaining so loudly all the time? “

“Oh, I think it’s because the tuition at his kids private school is so huge, and he needs the bucks."

“Lets move on. What else?"

“Well, we need to finally upgrade the utilities, so the places has some new plumbing and a updated and bigger electric service to run all the technology needs we have now. Fixing all those different roof planes on the flat section would be nice too”

Check, anything else?

“Hey how about the Cafeteria? Having the kitchen across the hall for the Cafeteria in really stupid and besides it’s too small if we want to offer hot lunches to the Elementary schools.

“Sounds reasonable, and we can use the new cafeteria as a multi purpose space for flag practice too.

"Next?"

”We need to do something about the special needs kids, they need to have rooms designed to help them with their disabilities. They are in some old business class rooms and they need specialized facilities too.”

“Wow, this is getting to be quite a list, I didn’t realize there was so much that needed to be considered.”

“We’re not done yet either. They need some more damn bathrooms in the flat wing, just the other week I was there when the classes were changing and couldn’t get into the bathroom on time. Hope no one noticed the puddle in the corner……………. .

“Ah …. Lets move on

“Well, the school is loosing the practice fields to the cemetery”

“Duh!! People are dying to get there what do you expect?

“But what do we do with all the activities that go on that field? Where will they go?

“I know how about Astroturfing the stadium field? Then all those different groups could use that.

“Great idea, anything else?

I know, how about if we do this the right way, we hire a professional firm like Wight and Assoc and have them use their expertise to craft a plan that address the whole schools need for the next 50 years instead of just doing some more patching?
”
“I don’t know…. Makes too much sense to me”

“We could ignore all of these problems, and do it for less, a lot less actually. How about just $10 million on the science labs and such? Or we could only spend like $40 million and do the infrastructure needs, a little fixing up?

“Yeah we could, but we’d be back in 5 years doing the rest at a greater cost.”

“What I don’t get is, isn’t the district really frugal? I hear we are the lowest cost, high performing school district in the Chicago land area?"

"Absolutely, we are a lot cheaper compared to schools like New Trier and Stevenson"

"Anybody have an idea what it will cost to do this right so we won’t be throwing good money after bad?

“Figure about $88 million all in. and the total building plane will only Cost an additional $80-100. per year to fund it.”

“That’s all? A new school is what, $125-150 Million?”

“Yup”

And that was how it all happened. After much discussion and exploration, The citizens Task Force voted for the rebuilding of Central and Wight Assoc. took at that information and gave Naperville an excellent rebuilt school that address its needs, and will last for the next 50 years, all at savings of $50 million over a new school.

That these evil administrators were able to pull this off is a story that must never be told.

THE END

Thom,

I moved to 203 for the high value in education in 1986. However, the education has not improved proportional to the tremendous increase in spending and TAXING over the past ten years.

Your article confirmed this statement, but true to form, did not answer the question I posed

"Find me any economist that will opine that this EXTRA taxing has ANY positive benefit on the economy or home values."

EXTRA, is the key word. MARGIN was Marcus's word (I view a 7.5% over taxation as significant, don't need to get to the 30% in Indiana to cause alarm).

And Thom, I think we should keep children out of this discussion. As I have consistently stated, I am willing to pay both reasonable taxes (that was in place in 203 until 2002) and tuition to get alternative education that District 203 does not offer (Avery Coonley) and a different environment (Benet).

NEED FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER

Some interesting comments in today’s Sun.

Actual 2007-2008 enrollment……….17,584

Kasarda study Series A……………..17,775
………………Series B………………18,269
………………Series C………………18,691

The projection is of by 1% from lowest estimate!

District 2010-2011 projection……….16,452

Kasarda A 2010-2011 projection……16,586

They are projecting no further reductions than current. We’ll see.

Another comment. There are 13 “non-programmed” classrooms. But the traditional problem is occurring--the administration let people spread out and “use” the empty classrooms. Why not use band and chorus rooms for tutoring, they are not used for many hours in the day?

If you redistricted school centers (like was done every year from 1972 to 1998, you could free up 24 classrooms (11 currently used for early childhood plus the empty 13) and ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR THE EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER.

And with the projected attendance reductions (1,000 students), you will be able to redistrict to free up 40 CLASSROOMS (based on 25 students to the class).

AND at least 40 teachers, at $75,000 per teacher, that is $3,000,000 annually!!!! And more since you could close schools and eliminate the .8 “support teachers and administrators. We could pay for TWO FOREIGN LANGUAGES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is 2005 all over again. Leis said he could not save any money and now we have a $40 million surplus. Today he says he cannot manage building utilization. This sounds like a belligerent child who says he or she CAN’T do what they are asked. Is that the quality of our leader responsible for spending $200 million???????

Responding to Dan Denys,

I have read your comments about the Marcus quote. I think the operative word is MARGIN. District 203 is over taxing the typical resident $400 (Dave Zager's number). And this money is going into the bank, not foreign languages, longer school day, etc.

Yes, the operative word is margin, and the writer was saying that at the margin (meaning at the outer limit) Indiana’s huge 1 year tax increase would affect home values. Let’s see, some poor slobs received a 300% increase in their taxes, guess that would have an impact on their home values.

I know you are doing your best to try to convince readers that 203 is over taxing by $400.00 but as I constantly have to remind you, you ran on that platform last year for school board,

You Lost

Further, your complaint that the money is going into the bank is laughable. Yes Dan it’s going into the bank till this community decides on the facilities referendum. I know it kills you that there’s all that money that you want refunded to help pay your child's $14,000.00 per year tuition at Avery Coonley, but the rest of us would like to see it go towards the public schools as it was intended.

To This,

Find me any economist that will opine that this extra taxing has ANY positive benefit on the economy or home values. It is not even a wealth transfer since it is not being spent.

Dan, you of all people should know to never, never, ask me to find something.

V. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Do parents value school quality? Indeed they do. Using an
approach that compares houses that are close to each other but
are associated with different elementary schools, I find that
parents do care about school peers and other unmeasured components
of school quality. As such, they are willing to pay about 2.1
percent—or $3948—more for houses associated with test scores
that are 5 percent higher at the mean. My findings also suggest
that a move from a school that scores in the twenty-fifth percentile
of my sample to a school in the seventy-.fifth percentile would
result in a house price increase of $5452. These results are robust
to different tests of specification and omitted variable biases.
These findings have several key implications. For example,
although the preferences of my sample of suburban Boston home
owners do not necessarily reflect the preferences of others, the
approach could help us to evaluate more effectively a number of
education policies. One such policy is the Metco program, which
promotes desegregation and enables urban students in Boston to
achieve academically by enrolling them in participating suburban
school districts. By applying this approach to the affected population
of low-income households, we could estimate the financial
benefit to the parents of these children.

My results also provide a perspective on the value of better
schools, not only to parents but also to home owners and politicians.
For instance, a one-point rise in average reading and math
scores in Massachusetts that is less than a one-standard deviation
increase (and a bit more than the change in scores in the
last ten years) could lead to a 1.5 percent increase in housing
prices. Given that there were 36,610 houses in the state in 1985
and the median sales price was $126,000, this rise in scores
suggests a $69,192,900 jump in overall wealth in Massachusetts

In short, parents’ willingness to pay more for better schools,
as measured by test scores, is found to be capitalized in house prices

Link to above

http://www.econ.ucla.edu/hotz/e232d/readings/black.pdf

To all readers the above study simply confirms what we all know already. People move to Naperville, and other communities with high performing school districts largely for the schools if they have a family. They are willing to pay a premium for those homes because of the schools. And they also are willing to fund those schools within reason with their property taxes. As one parent told me. " Before we moved here I checked out the 203's ISBE report cards for the schools and talked to my Realtor at length, but had I actually toured Central I would never have moved into Centrals boundary area.

Now if you want an economists view in highly complex language go here,

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/pdf/haurin/haurin.pdf

Lastly,

WDTA is an anti WASTE organization, not an anti TAX group.

Yes but to you paying property taxes is a waste as you have such a huge private school tuition bill to cover each year. Have you ever added it up? Looks to be something like $140,000 per child. Are you really willing to pay almost $300,000 to send you two children to private schools? And then try to say it's because of the math program at Bennett when lowly Naperville Central consistently beats Bennett in the IML competitions? Links here;

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/napervillemath.shtml
http://www.qualityeducation203.org/napervillemath2.shtml

Joe,

Please note that the comment about "not solving issues" really means that the Administrators did not get what they WANTED.

How many of the 18 people voting were District staff and administrators? They had a disproportionate membership on the task force and probably even more on the final vote.

Also, if you go with the $40 million rennovation, then there is no referendum, you save the ENTIRE $82 (really $103 for a median house by the way).

But there is a choice. People have a choice. I respect your opinion and hope you respect mine. Note respect does not mean you have to agree.

Thom,

BASIS OF PROPOSED CENTRAL

Thom, after SIX requests to you and three to the District to produce the second part of the INDEPENDENT EVALUATION of Educational Limitations and there is no document. Further, the District has CHANGED its web site and noted that “educational limitations” were based on interview with STAFF and ADMINISTRATION.

. .So unless the District provides something Friday, it appears that based on the DISTRICT’S statement that the building was designed on the WANTS of the people.

STANDARDS

Thom, you can go to the Illinois State Board of Education sight and see if you can find more information. As to the misleading, please look in a mirror.

The following was the ISBE document that I was citing:

EFFICIENT AND ADEQUATE STANDARDS FOR BUILDING SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOLS

Your reference to safety is that the corridors need to be sized for the ISBE room capacities. I guess our architects were using the following document:

CLAUDILL’S STANDARDS FOR BUILDING SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TAJ MAHAL

Again, tomorrow the District should supply the capacities for all district classrooms calculated in accordance with state mandated regulations. That should end this debate.

Will someone please remove the "Caps Lock" key from Dan D's keyboard?

He sure yells a lot.

Response to: Dan D. | January 23, 2008 09:50 PM

Thanks Dan, for pointing us to the presentation from November 11, 2006. It shows the district did their due diligence and investigated many options before concluding (from slide 16) that:

"$40 million Addition/Renovation did not solve enough issues"

Again, we are talking about $82 per year. A lesser proposal that does not fix the core problems, but saves me 20 or 30 or 40 bucks a year is, in my opinion, not worth considering.

Wow, there is a 40 million dollar plan...why haven't we talked about this sooner?

Thom,

I have read your comments about the Marcus quote. I think the operative word is MARGIN. District 203 is over taxing the typical resident $400 (Dave Zager's number). And this money is going into the bank, not foreign languages, longer school day, etc.

Find me any economist that will opine that this extra taxing has ANY positive benefit on the economy or home values. It is not even a wealth transfer since it is not being spent.

For all of you people that support education so much, did you contribute an extra $1,000 to 203? If it was such a good "investment", why not?

As I stated earlier, I have never complained about the base taxes, just the EXCESS!!!!!!!!!!

Thom, WDTA is an anti WASTE organization, not an anti TAX group.

Dan

Mr. Denys

Your FULL CAPS!! dis-ingeniousnesses is amazing.

Are you telling everyone that the decision to rebuild Central is not based on sound principles, but instead it is based only on the desires of the teachers and administrators, to no logical end?

Is that your position?

BTW do you have the guts to respond to the readers here and explain to them how you misled them regarding the ISBE Safety standards? Or are you going to try to BS them again?

How about explaining to everyone why you suddenly stopped crying about WHERE IS THE GAP ANALYSIS!!!!!! What's changed?

Seriously, inquiring minds want to know.

Ted,

Please note to Thom and Peter that the Indiana tax quote was not mine.

They need to direct their personal attacks elsewhere.

Thank you.

THE MISSING REPORT

FOR THE SIXTH (6TH) TIME

WHERE IS THE REPORT?

A quote from propoganda group mailing

"Architectural review of all 21 schools, both infrastructure AND EDUCATIONAL NEEDS"

Thom, 2 studies, 2 21 volume books. You have one, where is the other?

FAQ by District

"The infrastructures of all schools were studied intensively by independent architects at the beginning of the facilities planning process. The same architects then met with parents, staff, and administrators at each school to look at educational needs."

OH OH. No mention of the architectural review of the EDUCATIONAL NEEDS. They met with ADMINISTRATORS, STAFF, and parents..

AH AH They heard what the ADMINSTRATORS AND STAFF. . . WANTED.

Thom, you can stop looking. It appears there was a change of plans and the two adminstrators that yelled loudest (Central and Mill) got what they wanted.

$511 ALL OVER AGAIN. I am speechless!!!!!!!!

Joe,

You showed the current posture of the District--as Ann notes, an "ALL OR NOTHING".

But there were two OTHER options per the following District file:

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/FacilitiesTaskForceBoardPresentation_11_13_06.pdf

Page 7 is the minimalist option that now the District says is the only other option (the "POUTING OPTION"--if you do not give us our WANTS, we will do NOTHING).

Pages 8 and 9 outline the $40 million RENOVATION plan.

See Thom, no more money, the plans were paid for as part of the $350,000 paid to the consultants.

Ann E. and others,

YOU DO HAVE A CHOICE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I’M OFFICIALLY CONFUSED, NOT!

regarding this,

>>>As you may be aware, a detailed study by Indiana University economist Morton Marcus calculated that for every $1,000 increase in property taxes, the value of a home falls by almost $12,000. When you take the "only $82" from this referendum and add it to the over-collections from the 2002 referendum, you have an estimated negative impact to our home values of the $12,000! IN SHORT, WE HAVE ALREADY PUT OUR REAL ESTATE VALUES AT RISK, AND SHOULD BE HESITANT TO DO EVEN MORE TO EXPOSE THEM.

Well kids I think you have a real problem here. I did a little researching and this is what I found;

Runaway property taxes are an issue wherever property values have shot up in recent years. But now Indiana may be at the forefront of a homeowner rebellion against a tax system that has come to be seen as arbitrary, unfair and unpredictable. What's driving this angst is the first reassessment of property values in six years and the resulting property tax bills. In Marion County (the city of Indianapolis), average property taxes increased sharply-by 34 percent. Across the state, the average increase is 24 percent. And these are only averages. Many homeowners are facing much larger increases.

Property taxes also, at the margin, lower property values. Retired Indiana University economist Morton Marcus calculates that for every $1,000 increase in property taxes, the value of a home falls by almost $12,000. Moreover, high and uncertain property taxes make it difficult to attract workers and capital investment to the state.

Full article here

http://www.inpolicy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=252&Itemid=26

So rather than a detailed study this looks to be a single remark made in the context of Indiana’s property tax crisis last year when taxes increased an average of 24% in one year. More damning is the crucial disappearance of the phrase at the margin. So instead of it being a statement that increased property taxes cause property values to fall, he is saying that at the outer edges of these much larger tax bills they will cause property values to fall. A world of difference. BTW some property taxes in Indiana increased as much as 300%!

Here are some more quotes by Mr. Marcus to give you all an idea of the thinking of this darling of the Anti-Tax crowd. Here's he's talking about the silver lining of these huge tax increases.

Marcus, the former Indiana University economist, said one silver lining in the issue is that tax revenue stays local and ends up being used to pay those who run or contract with the government, such as road-building companies and schoolteachers. "Government tends to buy labor, services and hire people. The possibility of more spending in the county could lead to more employment," he said. "I think it is possible that the positive may outweigh the negative in the big picture. People always tend to think about the negative, but if government spending makes the community more attractive, it will encourage more people to come here, and attracting more people tends to be a good thing."

And here he is in story form;

So,” I proceeded, “we need to raise taxes. And what should we tax? I think it's a good idea to tax discretionary consumption. It won't hurt too much to consume a little less today in order to have more tomorrow. Yes, I do think we should raise taxes on a few selected goods and services. For example, when you go bowling, what do you pay?” My friend thought for a moment, and I could see in his eyes an image of Henna Homestead hooking a ball into that sweet spot between the one and the three pin. “Oh, ‘bout $3 at one of those places that has a $1-a-line for seniors in the early afternoon.” “Would you be willing to pay $3.30, if you knew the revenue was going to be invested in raising the productivity of the American labor force, increasing income, making it easier for Suzannah and Sheldon to earn enough to support you and themselves?” “Might be,” he said softly.

Here is a reference to the remark by another Anti-Tax group similar to the WTDA. If you search you will find Marcus' comment was picked up by a number of Anti-Tax groups and used to push their platform. At least this guy didn't edit it.

Any politician who doesn’t point this out to the voter is doing themselves and their constituents a massive disservice.
Property taxes also, at the margin, lower property values. Retired Indiana University economist Morton Marcus calculates that for every $1,000 increase in property taxes, the value of a home falls by almost $12,000. Moreover, high and uncertain property taxes make it more difficult to attract workers and capital investment to the state.
Well Duh!! Show that stat to the dingy real estate agents who moon over their suburb’s artificially propped up test scores. Maybe some enterprizing politician will see the light and see just how fast real estate can bounce back if we ZERO OUT the education portion of your property tax.

So what this is really about is someone, I bet from from Mr. Denys Anti-Tax organization, posted a statement that was edited to support their position even though that was not the meaning of the comment. SOP

Dan, you wrote above:

"As you may be aware, a detailed study by Indiana University economist Morton Marcus calculated that for every $1,000 increase in property taxes, the value of a home falls by almost $12,000. When you take the "only $82" from this referendum and add it to the over-collections from the 2002 referendum, you have an estimated negative impact to our home values of the $12,000! IN SHORT, WE HAVE ALREADY PUT OUR REAL ESTATE VALUES AT RISK, AND SHOULD BE HESITANT TO DO EVEN MORE TO EXPOSE THEM."

Do you have references for Morton Marcus's statements, I would like to read them.

If I understand this correctly Marcus is implying that for every $1,000 reduction in property taxes, someone will take on $12,000 more house (and presumably debt--if not, then they could only purchase $1000 more house...). While there must be some truth to the statement, I think that he overlooks some important factors such as the effect of market perception on real estate values, the behavior of the buyer who does not have debt limits (e.g. a high income buyer) or the behavior of the buyer who has substantial equity from a home sale (e.g. a buyer moving from a higher priced market to a lower priced market--CA to IL).

The local real estate market and its valuation is more complex than what your statement implies. Increasing property taxes does not guarantee that home prices will fall, just as decreasing taxes do not guarantee that they will increase.

I think the issue is one of priorities. Obviously, most of us are not independently wealthy and if we put a priority on education then at some point we will have to make tough decisions about how we spend our money. Do we buy more house or do we invest in our children's education? For me the answer is clear.

I have been lurking in this blog for a few days and find it incredibly amusing that people who probably live in 3.5+ thousand sq. ft. homes (what's that 875+ sq. ft/person for a family of four?) are condemning a school district for "wanting" an additional 250 sq. ft. or so per classroom of 30 students (an additional 8-10 sq. ft./person).

To: Build the Future

I was one of the folks who asked questions about you, but I know who you are -- you are the group offering one side of the referendum issue.

My question is "Where does your funding come from?"
Are you getting funding from NUPACE, NUE, IPACE?

I would also add some comments on your three points for the referendum which you posted:

1. Supports a fiscally responsible facilities option for our schools.
>>> I would disagree that this is necessarilly fiscally responsible, or at least the only one. The District has an estimated available funds of $72 million available to it. The SINGLE MOST FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE MOVE would be to renovate the facilities within that $72 MILLION pool.

2. Upgrades D203 facilities to protect the investments we’ve made in our homes.
>>>As you may be aware, a detailed study by Indiana University economist Morton Marcus calculated that for every $1,000 increase in property taxes, the value of a home falls by almost $12,000. When you take the "only $82" from this referendum and add it to the over-collections from the 2002 referendum, you have an estimated negative impact to our home values of the $12,000! IN SHORT, WE HAVE ALREADY PUT OUR REAL ESTATE VALUES AT RISK, AND SHOULD BE HESITANT TO DO EVEN MORE TO EXPOSE THEM.

3. Keeps our students education strong with long-term building solutions
>>>Given the current great education our children get, I would submit that we would get a bigger bang for the buck by using some of the funds to improve the curriculum (as an example, NOT WAITING 3 MORE YEARS TO GET A LANGUAGE PROGRAM!!!

I would also like to highlight again that the expensive consultants used all agreed that the district's buildings were structurally safe & sound, so it is not unreasonable to say the children are already safe.

I have seen teh facilities impacted by this referendum, and I, too, feel that it is time to address these upgrades and provide an adequate learning environment for future generations of learners. HOWEVER, I FULLY believe we can do it with the $72 MILLION already estimated to be available.

Mr. Dennison, can you post your filing here? I will do it once I receive a copy. BTW, you failed to file your report with DuPage County as required by law. Your organization is in violation of the law. Not only do you file it with the state but you must file it with the county as well.

Some more on Centrals classroom numbers and sizes.

A complicated question is the whole classroom number and size issue. Centrals average class size is listed as 21.6 on the ISBE report card. Not so bad right? Well it’s not that simple. The academic classes are all in the upper 20’s, 26-29, and the PE classes are in the mid 30’s. That average is reduced down, as you have to include every class. Including 20 special ed classes, 9 literacy classes, academy classes, etc. all with very small class sizes.

Having an adequate number of classrooms matters in the delivery of educational services. Take the Academy program for example. 203 identifies students that have a low academic standing and places them in small 10-12 person classes and gives them the same College Prep curriculum the other students get, but does it in a small group setting to give them more one on one time with a teacher. Most people do not realize that one of the significant changes of late is now all students have to take ACT test, not just those who want to. Therefore the number of students taking it has exploded and these additional new students are usually the lower performing ones. That 203 has been able to not skip a beat in their ACT scores is due to these specialized programs for these students. But this takes dedicated space, and a higher teacher to student ratio. They have to have more room for these kind of specialized programs.

Having appropriate classroom size matters too. Centrals classrooms are from 500SF to the low 700’s, too small from the number of kids in them. The typical large Metropolitan HS, based on industry standards and sometimes state standards, typically builds classrooms to a 30 student, 30SF per student, 900 total sq ft. academic classroom standard. That is what I believe is being proposed for Central, and I can’t see why we shouldn’t do the same as other large schools do. This does not mean all classrooms have to that big but we need them for the large core academic classes, and they can always utilize these larger classrooms,if available, during the 3 lunch hours for the smaller groups.

This is my analogy only, but as I study this issue it seems that building a school and deciding on its capacities is a lot like designing a highway. You have to allow for the rush hour as best you can otherwise its chaos. A schools “rush hour” is the core academic classes in the morning periods 1-3 before lunch and periods 7-8 after lunch. These have the largest number of students attending them. Now the district could “add lanes” by adding even more classrooms and teachers to reduce class size, but what any district has to do I assume is decide what maximum class size it is willing to live with and design a building around that. 203 is I believe using a 30 student per academic classroom for its standard, and based on a 30SF per student industry standard that equates to 900SF.

There is actually a movement in the country to reduce class sizes for academic courses to below 20, as the outcomes are improved. Now if money was no object that would be nice but as 203 is trying to do this as inexpensively as possible, so that’s just not in the cards.

Joe C.

Thanks for the links.I believe the Master Facilities Plan you link to was accepted as the final plan. There's a wealth of information there. I urge everyone to check it out.

It has been brought to our attention that someone posting on January 19 as “Anonymous” has expressed concerns about our organization, Build the Future 203 and that “no one can see who they are”.

Build the Future 203 is made up of District 203 parents who support the passage of the facilities referendum. We filed our Statement of Organization on December 14 with the Illinois Board of Elections.

Our organization came about because we have a passion for this issue. We also believe that it is important for voters to have all of the facts and data about this referendum so they can make an informed decision when they go to the polls.

Our feeling is that the issue at hand is a simple one. For the average homeowner, an $82 investment on their property taxes for the next 20 years will help fund much-needed facilities improvements at six District 203 schools as well as the construction of an Early Childhood Center. The largest amount of funding will go towards a re-build of Naperville Central.

We believe in the importance of having safe, up-to-date facilities to prepare our children to compete in a global economy and be contributing citizens in our world community. And we believe in investing in the infrastructure of our educational system to protect our real estate values.

We feel that this referendum successfully addresses three key issues that all of us as taxpayers are concerned about.

The referendum:

1. Supports a fiscally responsible facilities option for our schools.

2. Upgrades D203 facilities to protect the investments we’ve made in our homes.

3. Keeps our students education strong with long-term building solutions

If you’ve been in any of the facilities impacted by this referendum, we feel that you’ll agree that it is time to address these upgrades, and provide an adequate learning environment for future generations of learners.

Jim Dennison & Beth Ashley
Co-Chairmen
Build the Future 203

For all those interested to know what happens if the referendum fails (i.e., "Plan B"), here are two links:

http://www.naperville203.org/faq/index.asp?CATEGORY_ID=12#FAQ90

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/MasterFacilitiesPlanWeb.pdf

Please note the publication date of the Master Facilities Plan is 5/17/2007. It's hard to say if this is the most current plan.

The following are excerpts of posts made by Dan Denys on 1-16 and 1-17-08.

By the way, any luck in finding the GAP ANALYSIS? I could find nothing, thought you would have more clout with the District. We ask for the FOURTH TIME,WHERE IS THE GAP ANALYSIS?

To help you find the GAP ANALYSIS, look at Page 1-2 if the Facilities report you sent: TO BE CLEAR, WE CANNOT DETERMINE THE STANDARDS AND RATIONAL FOR THE “INDEPENDENT EVALUATION.”

We do not need another thirty paragraphs rambling, just STANDARDS AND RATIONAL FOR THE “INDEPENDENT EVALUATION.” Is that asking too much? No disagreement. But the District was not designing a school. They were identifying the deficiencies. IF IT IS NOT BROKEN, WHY FIX IT? WE STILL DO NOT KNOW IF THERE IS A PROBLEM. What were they designing? Where is the GAP ANALYSIS????????????????????????????.

Here we have a classic tactic of Mr. Denys, pound away in FULL CAPS FURY! To show how outraged his is about some trumped up issue. He has gone on and on about this supposed lack of a Gap Analysis, and the inability of the district to provide him, Master Of The Universe, with each and every standard that the consultants used so he can opine on their correctness.

Well, this lasted till I rebutted him in two posts on 1-17-08 @ 1:08 AM and 11:03 PM. Makes him look pretty silly actually, and I note he is off this particular rant, and is now instead using the same tactics this time on the Instructional or I think he call the Educational plans and standards.

To close out the question of whether D203 and their consultant Healy Bender did a comprehensive enough review (gap analysis) of all 21 schools, (note; Mr. Denys has claimed in full caps furry that they did not do all 21 schools) I provide this link

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/healy-bender_links.shtml

There you will find pictures of all 21 volumes, comprising thousands and thousands of pages and occupying 3-4 feet of shelf space in their entirety. I have also posted the Survey Methodology, a table of contents for the NCHS survey, along with its brief summary. Also listed are North’s summary, and the discussion of the pool issue. Lastly for fun is a picture of the palatial office facilities for the Director of Buildings and grounds and his staff. This is apparently insufficient for Mr. Denys. I will let the reader come to their own conclusions if this was extensive enough or not.
.

Ann E.

Thanks for posting. In response to this,

The question we pose is the square foot total that is being rebuilt or added on. No one is saying that change wouldn't be a good thing for the students, the community and the high school. We would like to be able to make an educated choice ourselves, between the Plan A and a missing alternative of any sort.

So your question is why not offer two alternatives to the public? One reason is that it takes a lot of time and cost to comes up with these plans. Two credible plans? Almost twice the cost.

I also think part of the problem is that the Infrastructure needs are intertwined with the Instructional needs. If we are going to renovate the infrastructure in the old part of the building shouldn’t we also modernize the spacing and layout to make it function better at the same time? To cut the spending in half would require some difficult decisions, as it was designed as a complete renovation. Change one thing and it affects another elsewhere. There aren’t any stand-alone structures that we could easily lop off and save XX million. Could we do the new classrooms and modernize the old and leave the flat wing alone? I guess. But these are vastly complicated questions, that I’m not qualified to answer. I keep asking those that want to spend less to tell us what they think should be cut, and no one has been willing to respond in an point by point basis what a credible $45 million dollar plan would be for Central. I’ve offered the list twice.

Lastly, while I can’t speak for the district, I suspect that they feel that after a couple of years studying and discussing it, with a large degree of community input through the Facilities Task Force and the Citizens Advisory Committee, they have produced what they firmly believe is the best plan to address D203’s facilities needs. Remember it’s not all about Central.

Hope this helps.

Responding to this,

Mr. Higgins, is it right or fair that the booster club at North uses their email address list to push for the referendum? If you think it's ok, then do you agree it should be fair for the booster club to share it's list with the opposition? If not, why not? Posted by: Anonymous | January 22, 2008 02:36 PM

Was it a parent that posted or a teacher? I’m pretty sure it was a parent. So Is it OK for a parent to send out a e-mail to other parents? Yes. And the e-mail can be positive or negative. Is it’s you that received the e-mail and posted it? Why not respond giving your reasons why you don’t back the referendum. Doesn’t bother me

Hi Rod,

I read your post and have a few comments regarding this.

The facilities of Naperville Central (I did take a recent tour) are much better than Lincoln Park (except for the upgraded science labs). In fact, the gym has changed (they now have round backboards rather than rectangular ones; otherwise the "smaller" gym is exactly the same as fifty years ago). The school does not have a football field (it plays its home games at Lane Tech about six miles away). Two years ago part of the library ceiling fell down. The library is still not yet usable. Also, a parent group is trying to raise funds to upgrade the auditorium.

I’m not sure what to make of this. Are we to be glad that our library is usable and not closed for two years? Is this the standard we are setting for ourselves? Sure many Chicago Public Schools have significant facilities needs. Your students there are to be commended for achieving so much in difficult circumstances, but I have to say that this town would not stand for Centrals library to be closed for two years. We are blessed in this town to have a highly educated and highly paid workforce.We value education and are willing to pay a reasonable buck for it. There would be a revolution in this town if our schools conditions reached what many inner city schools are. Lastly, A Football stadium 6 miles away? Can you imagine trying that in Naperville?

Regarding this.
Will the massive "rebuilding" effort result in the ideal learning environment for the 21st Century student body?

Yes. Or shall I say as much as $88 million can buy. Would a new school at $140 million be more ideal? well yeah but that ain't going to happen. Another minor patch job will take us farther away from that ideal too.

It seems to me that if one agrees that the approximately $90 million needs to be spent, then a new high school is a better answer. And, not necessarily at the Knock Park site.

A new school will cost way more money. Meta is going to be what $140 million or thereabouts? Would a new school be nice? Yeah, but the district is valiantly trying to be fiscally responsible here, and do a rebuild for $88 million and save the additional $52 million. Leis is adamant that the district will not spend the extra money to get a new school. It isn’t going to happen, and the important point is that the rebuilt Central will be a really thoughtfully laid out, technologically, and infrastructurally, up to date school. It will be fine.

Response to this From Dan Denys,

1. Anybody who questions over taxation and the $87 million Central REBUILD patently "anti-tax."

No Mr. Denys, I said you were, Still think so, but you are not everyone.

2. Reasons for higher Central cost
a. Higher construction cost (Most likely explained by union workers in 203 versus non union in Oswego)
b. SEVEN times the amount of additions/REBUILD at Central (by the way Thom, what are classroom sizes in Oswego?)
c. Almost double the amount of RENOVATION.

If you will look at my post today 1-22-08 @ 2:53 you will see that Centrals avg. SF cost is $142.25 and Oswego’s was $128.70. Central is doing more major work and is a larger, project, Central is 371,000 SF and Oswego is 112,000SF. The costs are quite comparable and unless you know exactly what each plan entails you can’t accurately compare the SF costs anyway. Also explain the SEVEN times comment, Look like three more or less. Looks to me like you are engaging in your typical, let’s use numbers to bash Centrals plan without having any idea what the reality behind any of those numbers are.

Responding to Dan Denys here;

1. EDUCATIONAL DEFICIENCIES. Yes Thom, there are 21 volumes of paper on the STRUCTURE. But only 100 pages on the Educational evaluation and 75 of those are floor plans. WDTA have been asking for these for 18 months.

HOW DO WE KNOW WE HAVE A 21ST CENTURY SCHOOL DESIGN? Looks like 1970's to me.

Mr. Denys is a master at making charges and not backing them up. Please Mr. Denys tell the readers of this blog in detail why this plan looks like the 1970’s. I grow weary of you throwing out claims and never backing them up.

Further this “Straw Man” of Where are the Educational Plans! The WDTA has been asking for 18 months! I mean really, because the district hasn’t posted them on the website they don’t exist? What, Wight pulled this plan out of thin air? Mr. Denys posted earlier his FOIA request to D203 regarding this question. I will announce to the readers here in advance Mr. Denys will find the districts responses lacking. Forget that District staff and Wight have spent hundreds of hours working on preliminary plans, and of course Wight does this for a living. No Mr. Denys need to see all the rationales and standards so he can judge the plans fit. Mr. Denys is bound and determined to find fault any way he can, and believe me he will. Which leads me to this little gem in the same post.

2. CLASSROOM SIZE. Do our classrooms meet the minimum ISBE safety standards? Why do they set minimums? Could it be that many buildings (not Central) are or were not in compliance?

A simple answer. What are the classroom sizes in Hinsdale and New Trier, inefficient schools that spend more money? What about Nequa Valley and the new Matea?

.This is simply appalling. Mr. Denys started this topic on 1-17-08 @ 7:33 when he claimed the following

ISBE stardard 18 SF per student
http://www.mediafire.com/?ag2xwmzxcbz

Average class size 21.6 Use 22

ISBE Classroom size 396 SF

There’s more to the post but he is claiming that the ISBE standard for a student is 18SF and as the avg. class size is 21.6 at Central, then the classrooms should be 396 SF.

What Mr. Denys did was to use a ISBE standard for the minimum SF that is required for a student to safely exit a classroom, which is quite low, and untruthfully use it to make the case that it is the ISBE standard for the amount of SF per student a room should have. Why? because it allows him to make the case for smaller classroom size, thus negating one of the rationales for rebuilding Centrals classrooms to make them larger. This is how Mr. Denys operates. See my post of 1-20-08 @ 11:58 for full details.

So today, undaunted that he has been exposed for attempting to mislead readers, he now makes the stunning charge Do our buildings meet minimum ISBE safety standards? Could it be that many buildings(not Central) are were not in compliance?

First Mr. Denys should apologize for misleading the readers on 1-17-08. But to then attempt to then twist the truth into an accusation that D203 is endangering the safety of our students is disgraceful, and he should be ashamed of himself.

To hold my nose and answer his charge, the standard does not lie
with the room, it lies in the number of students in the room! The room can not be out of compliance in and of itself. .

Joe Central,

Let me weigh in on Mr. Denys post of 1-22-08 @ 8:00AM & 1:29PM.

Yes, I agree that the WDTA and Mr. Denys want the district to abate the $400 per home, and then ask for it back in a facilities referendum. However, there are some huge problems with the math. Say that we did abate the $400 per home and that equals $10-11 million a year on a cash flow basis, that’s pretty close actually. Where this plan fails from the outset is going forward the district doesn’t have $10-11 million a year allocated to the building plan to give back to the residents. The numbers are $4.5 million in 2009, $5.5 million in 2010 and only $260,000 in 2011. Those are the Districts numbers.

So if we abate $10,000 million a year we are upside down to the tune of a bit less than $20 million in only three years for funding the building program. We would have to add that amount to the $115 million. If we don’t want to finance even more money, then they would have to cut $5.5 million in operating funds in 09, $4.5 million in 2010 and cut $9.3 million in 2011 to make up for the shortfall, and remember this will then be a structural $10 million deficit in 2012 and beyond, as the district is using that income in it's projections going forward to balance the books. Do we then ask for the $10 million back in an operating fund referendum in 2012?

And as Mr. Denys stated today (note, they have corrected their spending problem, they will have another $10 to $20 million surplus this year. they have done a great job controlling expenses. I have to see what surplus there is this year over the $10 million they are allocating to the building fund, but I think the $20 million figure Mr. Denys is quoting is the total balances in all the different funds, not surpluses generated for one year. So no, there's not spare tens of millions just sloshing around to abate and not have a immediate financial impact. As Mr. Denys states they have been doing a good job controlling expenses, if we were to make cuts of this magnitude there would be real repercussions.

Additionally, what Denys is asking us to do is abate cash flow, and substitute it for long term financing. Think of it as deciding not to pay cash when you can, but financing it instead and paying all that interest. Why in the word would anyone do this?

This is why Mr. Denys magic “lets get $400 back and pay only $200” is a pipe dream. Reminds me of the old adage if it looks too good to be true it probably isn't! This from someone who makes his living in the bond financing industry. Go figure.

Those of us that dare to question the project scope of the NCHS rebuild can see that the difference between Oswego's projected renovation and NCHS's projected renovation are $13.55 per square foot. Higher than it could be, but not too far off, as construction in Naperville will probably be billed at a higher rate than Oswego and NCHS is older, possibly creating more expensive remodel costs.

The question we pose is the square foot total that is being rebuilt or added on. No one is saying that change wouldn't be a good thing for the students, the community and the high school. We would like to be able to make an educated choice ourselves, between the Plan A and a missing alternative of any sort.

Thom, (I know you are but one voice, but you get my questions, as you are the "pro-plan" voice here on this blog) you know this is our question, you have repeatedly sidestepped this question with current plan numbers, what the SB has done in the past that may or may not be honest, and emotional rhetoric. You also know, I'm sure that there could be very viable and up- to-date alternatives offered, if explored. If we had the two or more plan choices, we wouldn't be so polarized on the issue. My vote would be "YES" much sooner if I, as an NCHS parent and Naperville 203 homeowner had an educated choice to make, rather than simply "go" or "no".

I believe the 400 some million that Oswego has spent included and new junior high in Plainfield and a new grade school in Oswego. These schools, built and scheduled to open next fall, will not open as building and new enrollment has declined at such a rate that there aren't students to fill them. I read that the grade school was built for 750, if it opened next year there would be only 145 or so students attending. Let's not overspend further in 203!!!

Interesting, even at $30 million, the people of Oswego 308 feel it is excessive.

Oswego School Board making little sense with both meetings and spending on OHS remodeling
Author: Lee Hoffer, Oswego
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2007

Kudos to the Ledger for filing the complaint that the Oswego School Board violated the Illinois Open Meeting Act for having a workshop outside the district and commendations to States Attorney Eric Weis for ruling that the Open Meeting Act was violated. The email sent to board members by Superintendent Below stating, “…it would be wise to hold our board workshop off site to discourage media attendance …”, confirmed his intent to have the meeting outside of PUBLIC view and knowledge.

Attorney Stuart Whitt’s letter to States Attorney Weis, saying that the meeting was in full compliance with the Open Meeting Act is the epitome of arrogance and indicates Whitt and Behlow think they can decide what is right and do not understand they are public employees and not above the law. The school board should now understand the importance of the Open Meeting Act and not be led by Superintendent Behlow or Attorney Whitt.

It was disappointing that the members of the school board could not make a logical decision on the remodeling of Oswego High School but instead increased the allowed cost to $30 million which is $8 million more than the $22 million SDFAC estimate that was the basis for the referendum. Board member Andy Wood, stated that on August 3, 2006, Superintendent Behlow stated funds were in the referendum to expand OHS to 3000 capacity and adding a pool, Wood then asked, “Where did that money go?” to which there was no answer.

Andy Wood, voted No on the $30 million, and should be commended for being the only member stating that $22 million was what the voters were told and that amount should be adhered to.

Conversely, board member John Graff voted No on $30 million, insisting that the entire $36 million should be spent. John Graff should have concern with unnecessary spending of tax dollars since his name was listed on the Ledger, Nov. 1, Delinquent Property Tax List, Evidently he doesn’t see not paying taxes on time as a conflict with spending other’s tax dollars.

It is difficult to understand why the board cannot decide on an amount close to $22 million and insist that increased student capacity and a pool be included. The current amount required for Life Safety items for the next 5 years according to the latest administration construction overview is $3,220,020 which is only $1,460, 000 more than what was in the SDFAC estimate. All other items, causing the $8 million increase, are wants created by asking administrators and teachers what they would like to have. This proposed plan is based on aesthetics and wants vs. needs without enhancing education. Destruction of class rooms to have a 42 foot wide corridor and changing the heating system to forced air instead of the current hot water system is both illogical and problematic.

The logical solution is what the Ledger recommended and what I have stated repeatedly, “Get another Opinion with educational enhancement as the priority!”

Thom,

The $30 million was to bring a school built over many years up to the same standard as Oswego East. These costs were always part of a $425 million COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

That is what we need in 203, not a WANTS list.

Cliff Note Version of Thom's response to Ann E.

1. Anybody who questions over taxation and the $87 million Central REBUILD patently "anti-tax."

2. Reasons for higher Central cost

a. Higher construction cost (Most likely explained by union workers in 203 versus non union in Oswego)

b. SEVEN times the amount of additions/REBUILD at Central (by the way Thom, what are classroom sizes in Oswego?)

c. Almost double the amount of RENOVATION.

3. CURRENT District request is small, only $82.

MY REACTION. Oswego's plan is to provide a functional facility with just as many additions over time as Central, not a TAJ MAHAL. Oswego also did not give the inmates (school principals and teachers in this case) control of the asylum.

Earlier in this blog, there is reference to the U.S. News & World Report where "Best High Schools" were listed. One of the schools is Lincoln Park High School (formerly known as Waller High School - the name change occurred in 1979), located on the near-north side of Chicago, which was listed in the top 100 as a gold medal winner.

Moderator Ted was only partially correct. Lincoln Park H.S. is not a full magnet school. Only half are selected from areas around the city while the other half are from the feeding neighborhood elementary schools (these neighborhood elementary schools likely still send students to Lane Tech). I do have some intimate knowledge of the school as I graduated from Waller H.S. and recently served as President of the Waller/Lincoln Park H.S. Alumni Association (the current principal gave me the above information about the student body).

The school, in 1999, celebrated the 100-year anniversary of the school building. In the early 1960s, a new auditorium, cafeteria, and music rooms were added to the building (and the old auditorium was converted into the "new" library). A smaller building (built in the 1960s) across from the main building now is a Freshman center and also contains the science labs that were upgraded about two or three years ago.

Some comparative information (according to the State reports on Lincoln Park and Naperville Central) includes the following:

Students: LP - 2,192 NC - 3,124
Avg. Class Size: LP - 22 NC - 21.3
Avg. ACT Score: LP - 22.6 NC - 25.0
Parental Contact: LP - 82% NC - 100%
White Students: LP - 31.5% NC - 82%
Average Teacher Salary: LP - $66,043 NC - $72,071
Graduation Rate (2007): LP - 78.9% NC - 96.8%
PSAE Overall Score: LP - 62.6 NC - 80.1
AVP Reading: LP - 69.9 NC - 79.3
AVP Math: LP - 60.4 NC - 81.1

The principal has told me that about 50% of the students are on the free lunch program.

During the last five or six years that I am aware of, Lincoln Park has had more National Merit Scholars than Naperville Central even though the it has a smaller student body.

The facilities of Naperville Central (I did take a recent tour) are much better than Lincoln Park (except for the upgraded science labs). In fact, the gym has changed (they now have round backboards rather than rectangular ones; otherwise the "smaller" gym is exactly the same as fifty years ago). The school does not have a football field (it plays its home games at Lane Tech about six miles away). Two years ago part of the library ceiling fell down. The library is still not yet usable. Also, a parent group is trying to raise funds to upgrade the auditorium.

A year ago, I asked the D203 School Board whether there were any safety issues at Naperville Central. I was told emphatically NO.
If there are some now, then they should have been taken care of by normal maintenance of the building.

Will the massive "rebuilding" effort result in the ideal learning environment for the 21st Century student body? Or, would a more modest expenditure to fix the immediate problems be more prudent? That is, in the long run is a massive expenditure now the best option?

It seems to me that if one agrees that the approximately $90 million needs to be spent, then a new high school is a better answer. And, not necessarily at the Knock Park site. I asked Jim Caudill whether anyone considered a site just 2 1/2 miles south of the current school site, located near 87th and Modaff. Yes, it is owned by the DuPage County Forest Preserve District and is the easternmost portion of the Springbrook Prairie. Should D203 talk with the Forest Preserve about the use of about 80 acres for a new high school campus and building that would better accommodate students in the southern portion of the school district?

Ann,

There is a Plan B, spend $20 million on addressing the science classrooms. I would be willing to throw in the $20 million for deferred maintenance and improving the traffic flow.

BUT THIS IS NOT WANT CENTRAL WANTS!!! They want $67 million more. So you do not even see Plan B as a fallback.

I am beginning to think that that classrooms are not too small, the Central staff and administrators WANT MORE. They have dreamed for great things and want more.

Our children have attended Mill St, Jefferson, and NNHS. We were undecided about how we were going to vote on this referendum, but are now leaning towards voting yes.

I recently took a tour of Central since I hadn't been in the school in a long time. Frankly, I was surprised. That place IS a dump!

Science labs that don't work, the "Fly Room",...how do kids learn there?

Ann E.

Your comment

It seems that Mr. Higgins may think we are to believe that the rebuild plan that's on the table is the only solution to NCHS's facility problems, or there is no solution...keep the "dump" as it is. If we don't agree with the intensive rebuild, we are against education and against our children.

I have not accused you of being against education or our children. Now I have made similar statements against Mr. Denys because I do feel that Mr. Denys is all about not paying taxes, as he sends his kids to private schools, and he is a founder of a Anti-Tax organization.

As you explore in your next paragraph, I'm asking those that are not in favor of the $87.7 million plan to tell us what they think is extraneous. I don't think it's too much to ask for. The district admn., consultants, architects, and the public have spent thousands of hours getting us to this point. If anyone wants to disagree with the plan that is their right, but I think it's then incumbent of said person to offer an alternative plan.

We all have to realize that to say well, "What's the $45 million plan for Central"? is an extremely complex question. You can't just do it on the back of a envelope, at least not credibly in my view. And that's the problem, there has been much criticism of this plan but no one had stepped up and said OK here's what we do for $45 million, let alone with the credibility that say a building professional would have. So I anticipate the response to this will be well why hasn't the district prepared a $45 million plan? I can not speak to for them, but I suspect that this plan is what they believe is the appropriate response for the reality of the building and the needs of its students.

Regarding this

I have tried to question what alternatives there are to the rebuild plans and brought up the cost of neighboring community building costs. Never have gotten an answer, Thom...even though you post reams and reams of links and info that never goes forward to answer my question.

I would point you to a post I did about York HS and the Oswego HS costs for starters reproduced below.

For the sake of discussion here are some comparative stats regarding he proposed Central renovations and the recently approved renovations at Oswego HS.

Here’s the Central info from page 14 of the Plan For Upgrading Facilities PDF link here,
http://www.naperville203.org/assets/PlanforUpgradingFacilities2007%2D2012%2Epdf

New Additions 168,591 Sq ft @ Cost of $187.34 per Sq. Ft.
Major Remodeling 97,098 Sq. Ft. @ cost of $127.31 per Sq. Ft.
Medium remodeling 77,032 Sq. Ft. @ cost of $101.43 per Sq. Ft.
Minor remodeling 28,926@ Sq. Ft. @cost of $38.30 per Sq Ft.
Total sq footage 371,647
Avg. Cost per Sq. Ft. $142.25

Here’s some comparable costs for the recently approved Qswego HS from a Ledger Sentinel Article link here,
http://www.ledgersentinel.com/article.asp?a=6817

New additions 47,100 Sq. Ft. @ cost of $170.91 per Sq. Ft.
Remodel 65,000 Sq. Ft. @ cost of $98.15 per Sq. Ft.
Total sq ft. 112,100
Avg. Cost per Sq. Ft. $128.70

Now, let me be the first to say that this is a very rough comparison. Yes, they are both high schools in the Chicago area and are having additions along with the renovations, but the similarities could well stop there. The variables between the two projects could be endless. Can't say this impresses me regarding the Oswego renovation, Academically, the proposed math research and development center and a computer room were removed,

Naperville Central probably has $5 Million problem the Oswego doesn’t have namely the water retention issue. Central because if it’s small campus size is projecting to spend $5 million I expect on underground storage vaults. Oswego on the other hand with, I bet, a 100 acre campus can just flood it’s fields with it.

I believe the same Architects that 203 is planning on using in 2003 did York High School’s renovation in Elmhurst. I didn’t find any comparable financial info but here’s a link to an article on that renovation. Cost of that renovation was $93 Million. Realize too that construction costs are going up about 5% a year due to material increases.

This is from wrights website,
http://www.wightco.com/news/newsdetail.php?news_id=7

Posted by: Thom Higgins | December 28, 2007 11:24 PM

So to respond to your question more directly, Oswego renovated 112,000 Sf and Central is 372,000 Sf so there's a huge part of your answer. How old is Oswego HS?, what is the history of renovations prior to the latest one? what's it's capacity? I Don't know, but they all have a bearing on what was spent and why. If this is not the kind of information you are looking for then ask a specific question and I will do my best to offer a response.

You brought up the relative cheapness of the Oswego HS renovation, something like $30 Million in the first post on this thread. I did hear recently that the $30 million was just a few years after Oswego passed something like a $425 Million building referendum and realized they still had $30 million more work to do at Oswego HS. Yikes!

So to me this is all about what makes sense, not about us saying I only want to spend X dollars less. So yeah, I have a huge problem with your contention here,

I believe much of the excellence comes from the community and our families, not the building. It's ok if our kids are challenged in life, somewhat.

Challenge creates growth—It has always been my opinion that not everything should be pretty and perfect, and handed to our kids, if we want them to be great thinkers and problem-solvers, the challenge will make them stronger adults.

As I stated in my post responding to you. While I agree that challenging our kids is a good thing, I’d far prefer to challenge them academically. We keep loosing sight that the districts is asking all of us for some really small amounts to do all this, and I'm all for giving them every opportunity we can to excel.

You also charged me with bullying, and respectfully, I have to say that nothing I have said in my response to you can be characterized in that manner. I will apologize again for not seeing your correction adding your name to your post that went up as anonymous. There are so many anonymous posters here you can't keep them straight and that gets me cranky at times.

Keep posting the waters fine.

Mr. Higgins, is it right or fair that the booster club at North uses their email address list to push for the referendum? If you think it's ok, then do you agree it should be fair for the booster club to share it's list with the opposition? If not, why not?

Thom,

Simple question.

How big are the classrooms at Naperville North?

Dan

Ann E. raises very good points.

However, I am beginning to figure out why we do not see any alternatives. As noted on the District's web site, there was never an INDEPENDENT EVALUATION of the District's facilities for educational delivery.

INSTEAD (direct quote from 203 website)

"The same architects then met with parents, staff, and administrators at each school to look at educational needs."

So the plans being put forth are NOT INDEPENDENT EVALUATIONS, instead, they are what the principals and teachers WANTED.

What they wanted, bigger classrooms, no classes in the basement, move the locker rooms. WANTS, not NEEDS.

No wonder when we asked last year whether there was another way to solve the circulation limitations at Central, there wasn't any (note Benet did that for probably less than $1 million). There were not any because that was not what they WANTED.

And how DARE anyone question what they said (and now RETRACTED)!!!!!!!!!!!

It seems that Mr. Higgins may think we are to believe that the rebuild plan that's on the table is the only solution to NCHS's facility problems, or there is no solution...keep the "dump" as it is. If we don't agree with the intensive rebuild, we are against education and against our children.

I will be the first to say that I am not the one to go through what is being proposed to pick and choose what should be eliminated to save costs. It's not my area...I do creative direction, illustration and design. I am intelligent enough, however, to know that this argument has been beaten to death, with somewhat bullying tactics when we, who question the plans, are criticized for not wanting to improve facilities for our children.

I am not asking to eliminate areas of what might be currently on the table (Let's call it "Plan A"). I am asking to see "Plan B". We all know that there are areas that could be utilized without rebuilding, adding facility features to update and not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I can handle financial and building/design and constuction issues very well in my little creative mind...while acknowledging that it's not my field. Can some of you that live in a numbers world open up creatively and admit that there could be a different solution that saves larger parts of our sweet old "dump"?

I have the distinct impression that my voice is not respected, my questions unheard...I'm going to be finished here, as the Creative Director doesn't know what she talks about?

Peace out.

Joe,

I think you should be able to read my post for yourself. Remember, the $400 over collection (using Dave Zager's and Thom's numbers) goes on forever, every year. And this amout or the $800 over the $511 exceeded what was promised.

Like an alchoholic, if the District said, "Oops, we made an inadvertant mistake. We will correct the over collection (note, they have corrected their spending problem, they will have another $10 to $20 million surplus this year) and be honest with the taxpayers." This honesty would address my number ONE concern.

Then be HONEST about the capital plan. And ask the voters to vote for it.

THIS DOES NOT HAVE TO BE CONFUSING IF YOU ARE HONEST.

To summarize, I would save $200 ANNUALLY, the $400 over collection would be refunded and the capital program would be $200 added. SIMPLE.

Reply to: Dan. D | January 22, 2008 08:00 AM

Thank you very much for clarifying your position. Forgive me, but it has been hard for me to understand some of the complicated posts on this blog. (Maybe Thom Higgins can help verify that that is what you've been saying all along.)

In essence, what you are saying is that you would sacrifice a well thought out capital improvement plan for a $400 tax rebate that you would wind up paying back at a rate of $50 per year for the next 20 years?

But the point is that your plan is NOT on the table. So, the risk vs. reward is much too great. IF the plan you are advocating were to be followed as a result of this referendum not passing, it would likely delay any construction by years and would likely cost taxpayers more than the current plan on the table.

Sorry, but a $400 loan paid back at $50 per year for 20 years is not worth the risk. I will be voting YES to pass the referendum.

Thom--if you re-read my post, you will see that these words are in there:

"What is our more reasonably budgeted alternative to making NCHS a BETTER FACILITY?"

And you say that it's a good thing that I posted that anonymously? I did correct my anonymous post status do you see that? It was an oversight, corrected immediately. I don't see the problem with anything that I asked or stated, and I would re-post it again.

I have never advocated, in these blogs, that we keep NCHS the "dump". I have tried to question what alternatives there are to the rebuild plans and brought up the cost of neighboring community building costs. Never have gotten an answer, Thom...even though you post reams and reams of links and info that never goes forward to answer my question. If you notice, I haven't blogged here for a while, since the very first post on this blog...and I will continue to avoid it, with that kind of response.

Have we all been watching what our markets and world markets are doing the last few days? I have to pay close attention to these things if I want to keep my own business and household financially successful, how about the SB paying attention, as well.

Br.

I missed Ann E's correction.

I'm not bullying anyone. What I have a hard time understanding is if we are again to spend money on Central, why wouldn't we do it properly once and for all? I listed most, if not all of the issues the rebuild is planing on addressing. Will Ann E. or you tell me which ones we drop to save the $43 million? That would be helpful.

Wow. Good thing you posted that anonymously.

You know, Thom, your folksy language doesn't disguise the fact that you are a something of a bully. Was it really necessary to include this put-down in your response? And by the way, the person who originally posted is Ann E - she added a correction just after her post which you must have missed.

I agree with you completely, Ann E. I think challenge is very important for kids and I don't think saying so means you want a building that "doesn't function particularly well as a school."

WHERE ARE THE ANSWERS?

Back from long weekend. I have been watching Thom's disertations. I will spend more time later to summarize the key points of this blog and the WDTA position. But two big questions loom over the discussion.

1. EDUCATIONAL DEFICIENCIES. Yes Thom, there are 21 volumes of paper on the STRUCTURE. But only 100 pages on the Educational evaluation and 75 of those are floor plans. WDTA have been asking for these for 18 months.

WHERE ARE THEY (should we check with Dick Cheney?)

HOW DO WE KNOW WE HAVE A 21ST CENTURY SCHOOL DESIGN? Looks like 1970's to me.

2. CLASSROOM SIZE. Do our classrooms meet the minimum ISBE safety standards? Why do they set minimums? Could it be that many buildings (not Central) are or were not in compliance?

A simple answer. What are the classroom sizes in Hinsdale and New Trier, inefficient schools that spend more money? What about Nequa Valley and the new Matea?

SIMPLE QUESTIONS, NO ANSWERS.

Respones to Joe Central,

GREAT COMMENT.

ANSWER (subject to a PRUDENT Capital Plan): YES

WHY: The over collection (using Dave Zager's number) works out to $400 per year. I would prefer to have my $400 back and have the District tax for the $130 for capital.

THAT IS PRECISELY THE POSITION WE ADVOCATE.

Some more responding to Anonymous’ post of 1-21-08 @ 6:31PM below,

What is our more reasonably budgeted alternative to making NCHS a better facility? We already have the test scores and so forth in the "dump". Making NCHS an NVHS type facility won't change test scores markedly won't make our children more successful or happy in the long run. I believe much of the excellence comes from the community and our families, not the building. It's ok if our kids are challenged in life, somewhat.

Challenge creates growth—It has always been my opinion that not everything should be pretty and perfect, and handed to our kids, if we want them to be great thinkers and problem-solvers, the challenge will make them stronger adults.

I was so concerned about answering your how do we do it without a referendum question that I glossed over your rationale for doing so.

Are you really wiling to say it’s a positive thing for our kids that the building doesn't function particularly well as a school?

Wow. Good thing you posted that anonymously.

While I agree that challenging our kids is a good thing, I’d far prefer to challenge them academically. A rebuilt Central may not increase ACT scores but I wouldn't bet against it either. If I may gently say, your response illustrates the thinking that partly got us into this mess. Let’s spend the very minimum, put a couple of more patches on Central, it’s OK if it doesn’t work all that well in the end. To this I say, look where that got us. Think about the message we are sending to our kids. We don’t value your education enough to spend a few bucks to give you the best HS we can reasonably afford. No one is talking about building anything fancy or excessive here.

Years ago schools were a source of pride in a community. Look at Ellsworth and Naper. These schools were built to a very high architectural, and construction materials standard. Probably were “state of the art” back then, and they are in excellent condition some 80 years later, because of the quality of the materials. Which is where the new Oswego HS that people like to tout as it was constructed very cheaply, is illustrative. Oswego HS’s problem? It was built very cheaply from a materials stand point, and at just a few years old they are having problems. That isn’t very fiscally prudent either.

Now, the rebuilt Central will never win any architectural awards, and the expensive detailing of Ellsworth and Naper, aren’t part of the plan either, but the rebuilt Central will be as close to a new 21st. Century standards high school as is humanly possible, at a lower cost than a new high school. I really can’t believe that this community can’t see the benefit to that.

To reply to anonymous’ post of 1-21-08 6:31pm and perhaps 1:12pm

If the question is why can’t we do it without a referendum and forgo the $43 million, I guess you have to ask first what are we going to cut?

The total cost of the building plan is $114.9 Million. If we are going to do it on $72 million and, (and this is not a given) we still build the Early Childhood Center for $11 million and do the work at Mill St. Elementary for $7 .3 million, North’s work for $5.2 million and there are miscellaneous security upgrades to some Middle schools for $.7 million. Add in $ 3 million in contingency fees, and you have $44.8 million and that’s not going to get it done at Central. If the question is what can we accomplish at Central for $45 million, you all need to decide which of the following we need to forgo;

Central is “broke” to a certain extent. It’s time for its infrastructure to be modernized. This doesn’t mean that Central hasn’t been maintained properly as Dan Denys claims in this blog. When you properly maintain a facility, at a certain point the mechanicals still have to be replaced and upgraded. If you are concerned about achieving this in the most cost effective way, you do it as one large project, rather then piecemealing it. This is what is being proposed here. Further, they have been putting off whatever repairs they can recently as they don’t want to throw money away.

It’s time to bring the school up to 21st. Century educational infrastructure standards. Simply put, if we want to offer a 21st. Century educational experience we need to offer the 21st. Century educational technology that supports it. This is not a minor concern or effort.

A larger Kitchen that will allow a district wide hot lunch program for the elementary schools, and will create efficiencies as now the Kitchen is actually across a busy hall from the seating area! Additionally the new cafeteria will be larger, and will be multi-purpose, with high ceilings so the cheer and flag girls can practice there for example.

Appropriate, dedicated space for the special needs population that is medically fragile, and is housed at Central due to its proximity to Edward Hospital. Currently these kids are housed in some cobbled up space in the flat wing. It’s not even close to what these kids need for a facility. The adaptive PE students are in the hallway, as I believe the gyms are needed every period for the large PE classes, so they get shunted to the hall.

Create an organizational logic to a facility that has suffered from a patchwork of 16 additions over the years. This is really important if you look at the concept drawings you will see the various departments spaces now grouped together, allowing for more efficient use of the space. This includes grouping the academic classrooms together, the PE facilities, and the Music and Theater, all together. This is not a minor consideration; the “traffic flow” inside is a nightmare. The new plan will consolidate the major and elective area, and significantly improve the movement of students.

Far larger and updated Science labs.

They are short 5 biology classroom spaces so classes have to share lab space on an every other day basis. So teachers have to modify their curriculum I bet.

The most complicated issue to me is the whole classroom number and size issue. Centrals average class size is listed as 21.6 on the ISBE report card. Not so bad right? Well it’s not that simple. The academic classes are all in the upper 20’s, 26-29, and the PE classes are in the mid 30’s. That average is reduced down as you have to include every class. Including 20 special ed classes, 9 literacy classes, some academy classes, etc. all with very small class sizes.

Central’s classrooms are from 500SF to the low 700’s, too small from the number of kids in them. Dan Denys has tried to make this an issue, but the school construction industry today, for a metropolitan HS, typically builds classrooms to a 30SF per student, 900 sq ft. academic classroom standard. I can’t see why we shouldn’t do the same.

Central has ZERO space available in periods 1,2,3,7. and 8 is all but full,. They are using basement classrooms, portables, the LRC, any possible place they can shove some kinds into. This isn’t particularly conducive to learning, and the shortage of rooms for the small group and individual tutoring work that is typical today in our schools is a mind-boggling challenge.

And my personal favorite, more damn bathrooms! There are one boys and one girl’s bathroom in the flat wing. Don’t know how they do it.

This is not how a world-class school should have to operate in my opinion. So perhaps the correct questions to ask are these. Are we willing to spend an additional $50-$100-$250 bucks or so a year, depending how fancy a house we have, to give our students the best educational experience we can provide? Considering the fact that even after the referendum we would still be 5-30% less than the other high performing districts, don’t our children deserve it? Do we think the other high achieving districts will never spend any more money either?

I think the answer is pretty clear. These kids, and this district, have earned this. It’s up to the community to live up to the promise of providing our children with the best educational experience that we prudently can. To do another multi million dollar patch, just doesn’t make sense.

Follow-up to: anonymous | January 20, 2008 07:11 PM

I do not understand your point. My understanding is that the tax surplus from the 2002 referendum is being applied to this project, in the amount of $25.4M. So, wouldn't that mean that if the 2002 property value predictions were perfect ($0 surplus), then the amount of this referendum would be $25.4M higher, or $68.4M ?

So, instead of current proposed increase of $82 per year, wouldn't the corresponding amount be about $130 per year?

Would those opposing the $82 per year referendum support a $130 per year referendum if perfection were achieved in 2002? That is my question to everyone.

Ted/Jim

Sorry, my previous "Challenge" post was made by me, ANN E. I think I forgot to list that, make the change for me, if you would like?

I can't say for sure, but I believe that "Anonymous 1:34's" question about an alternative for the SB's surplus has nothing to do with the info the Thom posted, and always links us to in reply. I'm sure it had to do with the following...Is there an alternative plan, remodeling NCHS instead of rebuilding that will utilize money that is already on hand or coming in? I don't need to be linked to facts and figures regarding the current plan, that has been beaten to death here. What is our more reasonably budgeted alternative to making NCHS a better facility? We already have the test scores and so forth in the "dump". Making NCHS an NVHS type facility won't change test scores markedly won't make our children more successful or happy in the long run. I believe much of the excellence comes from the community and our families, not the building. It's ok if our kids are challenged in life, somewhat.

Challenge creates growth—It has always been my opinion that not everything should be pretty and perfect, and handed to our kids, if we want them to be great thinkers and problem-solvers, the challenge will make them stronger adults.

To Anonymous regarding the following,

is there an option out there for basically the surplus of $72 Million thatis already forecasted? If not, are you aware of the reason why it wasn't an option?

I'm not sure what you are exactly asking. The building plan totals $114.9 million. The $72 million you reference is funds either on hand, or future income, that has been allocated to the this plan. The remaining amount $43 million is the additional funds needed to get to the $114.9 million.

Check this link out, it might help fill in the blanks for you.

http://www.buildthefuture203.org/taxes.php

Bob S.

Your post is quite similar to the E-mail I received from Mr. Denys on the same issue. As you and he have been participating together in our e-mail conversations I thought my comment was a safe one to make. My apologies.

In the interest of full disclosure. Julie Lichter was listed as a supporter of Suzyn Price in the last election. Ms. Lichter also was a prominent member of the 2002 referendum campaign that way over taxed district 203.

Thom,

I do have a serious question for you (actually, my better half asked it of me and I had no answer):

Is there an option out there for basically the surplus of $72 Million thatis already forecasted? If not, are you aware of the reason why it wasn't an option?

Thanks in advance for anything you may have on this.

Thom,

Well, there you go again!

You posted "As to Mr. Denys and Bob S’s desire to broaden the debate."

Perhaps I missed it in the thousands upon thousands of words the two of you have written, but I, and only I, posted AFTER your 1/18 challeng that a round table would be a better format.

I again humbly request you treat me as an individual and quit trying to lump anyone who is not on "your page" on this issue as one and the same!

Thank you kindly.

Below is an email forwarded to me this morning from Julie Lichter to all the Naperville North Booster Club members. I deleted the list of email recipients. I ask, is it right for the booster club to do this? Is it not the fair thing to do to release this email list to the opposition so that we can email them why they should vote against this referendum?

At least the teachers and parents don't seem to buying the party line. Not a good turnout so far for them.

-----Original Message-----
From: Julie Lichter
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 10:37 AM
Subject: Upcoming referendum

Dear Booster Club parents:

I am asking for your support with the upcoming referendum on Feb. 5th. Naperville North will benefit greatly from the changes in the science lab, the pool and lockers, to the new traffic pattern, and also to the new artificial turf at the stadium. I know my children will not benefit directly from these improvements but future generations will and I would like to say that all the work we as a Booster Club did was not just for our kids but for the kids still to come. Also, as a community we have a responsibility to provide a positive learning environment for the entire district, including the Early Childhood Center, NCHS and Mill Street.

As active volunteers in our school, I am asking you to join our efforts this Saturday to deliver our message door to door. We are meeting at 8:00 am at the Holiday Inn (Diehl and Naper Blvd) to get trained and paired up. You are not campaigning as much as you are delivering a message and collecting information. I am embarrassed to say that only one teacher from NNHS and a four parents have come out to support this effort so far.

I am grateful that my children have received the quality education they have (I would like to take all the credit but can't) so they can go out and compete academically with the rest of the world. I figure that my approximately $10 a month (for a house my size) equates to two stops at Starbucks is not much of a sacrifice to ensure that the kids in our community have the best schools we can possibly provide.

Please consider joining us on Jan 26th to help us insure success on Feb. 5th. To volunteer go to www.buildthefuture203.org. Show your pride in NNHS and wear your spirit wear when you come out to canvass. Go Huskies!!

Hope to see you Sat.

Julie Lichter

Jim,

We will of course abide but your decision, it's your sandbox after all, but I feel that the Sun has missed a golden opportunity to help this town come to grips with all the claims being made by Mr. Denys and his supporters.

So, in all kindness to you, a duel is far from the only alternative, a rigorous exploration of the opposing statements would be far preferable, and more valuable for this community.

To Thom Higgins, Dan and others: I'll handle this for Ted. Respectfully, we're not in the business of holding a forum on this matter - indeed, to have a proper forum we would need the attendance of Dr. Leis, the 203 School Board and various other community entities. What we're providing here is a platform for discourse where anyone can exchange ideas or opinions to support their case. Also, it's not our fault that Thom and Dan have taken over the conversation to the degree they have. The only thing we can offer here is to continue the forum and, hopefully, other members of the community can weigh in so it's not just Thom and Dan opining. D203 and Dr. Leisa have gotten their message out through tours of the school, various other communications to the residents etc. etc. Frankly, at this point, I see no value to dredge up their aguments for or against over and over and over. It's already out there for public consumption. So about all I can say is to urge others to become more involved so we hear from other citizens. Short of that, the only alternative would be for Thom and Dan to have some sort of duel. The problem of course with that is I believe it's against the law and, also, we all know what happened to Alexander Hamilton. That was supposed to be humorous by the way. I hope you guys understand where I'm coming from. Why not mobilize your supporters - both sides - to broaden the scope of the conversation?

Regarding Mr. Denys claim that 18 SF is the Ill State Board Of Ed standard as he claims here;

ISBE stardard 18 SF per student
http://www.mediafire.com/?ag2xwmzxcbz

Wight Optimum 30 SF per student

Average class size 21.6 Use 22

ISBE Classroom size 396 SF

Wight Optimum Class Size 660 SF

Typical 203 classroom size 650 SF

Percent of ISBE Standard 164%

Percent of Wight optimum 98%

I thought we were paying Healy Bender to do such an analysis. This makes sense to me. This can be done for hallway width, windows per class, light fixtures, etc.
But using this classroom analysis, I do not see the need to spend $47 million to rebuild ALL of the existing classrooms for 10 extra square feet
.
Thom, you and I can do this analysis, probably for much less than $350,000.
Posted by: Dan D. | January 17, 2008 07:33 PM

So Mr. Denys is claiming that Illinois actually has a per student classroom standard of 18 SF per student and Mr. Denys backs it up with a one page PDF of the ISBE Regs. He then attacks one of his favorite targets Healy Bender, as once again, he has exposed their incompetency. So he must be correct, right?

Well actually he’s not even close. And I am concerned as to how Mr. Denys has chosen to present his argument. You see, the standard he quotes is actually the state standard for the minimum SF per student in a room that allows that student to safely exit said room in an emergency. That is all. So we can rest assured in a fire emergency there is ample room for our kids to flee.

Had Mr. Denys chosen to show you the page before this it would be self evident. I refer you here to the entire code book.

http://www.isbe.state.il.us/construction/health_safety/pdfs/175ark.pdf

You will note this entire document addresses Health and Safety issues. The relevant pages are pg 34-35 in the document although my Adobe reader thinks they are 43-44 for some reason. Regardless, if you get to Subpart E Protection Requirements Section 175.410 Exits you will see the page Mr. Denys points us to is under section 3). The exit capacity of any individual room or space. It then goes on to list them partially on pg 34 and then for a full page on pg 35 that lacks any context. This is the page that Mr. Denys chose to present, and I don’t think this is an accident. I can find no possible way for Mr. Denys to have mistaken Exit Safety Standards for Instructional Classroom Space Standards, as Part 175 is only a maintenance code for school facilities constructed between July 1, 1965 through March 24, 1995. For the record Illinois does not have any mandated per student instructional space standards although they did have a 30SF minimum standard for classrooms when they were offering construction grant money years ago.

The most charitable view regarding this is Mr. Denys is once again showing that he lacks the technical competence to criticize the professionals recommendations. The less charitable view is he is simply attempting to deceive the reader.

I still need to address Mr. Denys calculations as to the avg. number of students in a classroom at Central and how that beaks down in the various subjects. Some have less and some have more. The larger ones are the academic classes I believe. I have to do some more digging.

Ted,

If I may, we need you to weigh in on my challenge to Mr. Denys. Absent the Sun’s involvement this is all just conversation.

As to Mr. Denys and Bob S’s desire to broaden the debate, I will take the opposing view. Mr. Denys and I have written thousands of words in this blog on every conceivable issue relating to this referendum, and D203 in general. There is little to be gained by others offering more

The Sun will provide a significant service to this community if they rigorously challenge both Mr. Denys and my statements in this blog. Mr. Denys is one of the leading critics of D203 and is a founder of the Will DuPage Tax Alliance. Both he, and his organization, have been outspoken in their criticism of D203. I on the other hand, as a member of QualityEducation203.Org, have emerged as D203’s leading public supporter as my posts in the blog readily attest. I can think of no two better-suited individuals to have their positions tested on this matter.

I am willing defend every word I have written in this blog , and stand willing for the Sun to make the ultimate call as to where the truth lies. Mr. Denys?

To anonymous that stated $82 is no big thing. You might have been right 6 years ago when the last referendum was purported to only cost $511 per $300k home. But District 203 lied and alm ost tripled their take and was poised to take more on the final year until the outcry became too great. Remember, their take last FOREVER, it will not decrease. Now along comes the Dist. for another take on top of the city, the county and the state all poised to take more. The huge windfall they took in 2002 should have been more than enough to cover what they need now. Do you EVER ask how could a district that is taking in almost THREE times what they said on the last referendum now needs to up it again in only SIX years. Do you even have a clue why that is? Do you honestly expect me to believe that Federal mandates have skyrocketed that much in SIX years? When are the taxpayers going to wake up and say enough is enough!!!

To Ted and the Sun:

I find the idea of a debate twixt only two bloggers to be at best an exercise in egos {see post, above) with little value to the remaining 70,000 citizens affected by the referendum.

Why on earth would we be interested in only hearing what two folks have to say (or, for that matter, to only two views/sides to an issue)?

I would suggest that an exchange of ideas indeed take place, but that it be both more inclusive AND using a different forum.

The forum would be the one suggested earlier ---- a Round Table discussion. It would be moderated by the Naperville Sun and would be in regards to the 2008 referendum.

The Sun would ask a series of questions of the attendees. Not every attendee would be asked every question (similar to the alleged "debates" heald recently for the national Presidential primaries). In fact, you could solicit questions from the bloggers ahead of time!

The participants should be EXPANDED GREATLY beyond Thom & Dan. I would suggest asking some others to participate:

1)Steve Deutsch, who was the only candidate in the 2007 Board election recommended by the Sun

2)Diane McGuire, Treasurer of PURE (the group that was intrumental in the 2007 elections)

3)Fred Lu, another 2007 candidate who had many excellent ideas on improvements to the District, including the facilities

4)Alan Albus, past business manager for the District and the name most often brought up in connection to the miserably-implementes 2002 referendum

5)Doug Wilson, who was the leader of the Citizen's task Force

6)Roy Ozols, a local parent who I am told has been greatly involved in trying to get a handle on all of the information flying around town on this issue

7)Jim Caulfield, past Board member and perhaps the only Board member with a strong grasp of the taxing laws and the effects of their implementation (also a lightening rod for some folks!)

8)Thom & Dan

9)I would love to participate if there was room

That's it. This is just my opinion, but such a format and inclusionary event could be both entertaining and beneficial.

To Anonymous, posted 1/19/08, 11:47 am.

Can you really get that information before the vote?

Given the secrecy that appears to be involved here,can you ALSO find out if there is yet ANOTHER funds laundering scheme being perpetrated by the State and local teacher's Union to affect another vote in Naperville?

I know that leading up to the April 07 Board elections the two unions laundered approximatley $24,000 through their political action committees and into a shell "citizens group" called PURE.  As I recall, IPACE and NUPACE funneled $23,500 to PURE, and PURE than used that money to hire a consulting firm to perform a "push poll"  to directly affect the outcome of the 2007 District 203 School Board elections.

[For those unaware, a push poll is one of the most  underhanded political campaign technique known to a democracy. An organization (such as PURE and the Teachers' Unions) attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a "poll" which is actually a  series of calls, masquerading as a public-opinion poll, in which people who support a particular candidate or issue offer negative information about a rival candidate, including  rumor-mongering. They are designed to shape, not measure, public opinion.]    I, as a voter, would certainly like to know if tis is happening again. With all of the non-transparent issues in our town right now, and with the cloudy 203 Board history concerning basic job functions like implementing a referendum and clearly reporting campaign issues and funding, it would be tragic if the voters were yet again disenfranchised by the back-room deals and movements of a select few with power and money.

There's more to it than the above but I think the average reader gets the basic idea of covert dealings and conflicts of interest.

I have been trying to understand the issues and a friend pointed me to this site, but a lot of the basic points seem to have gotten lost in the rhetoric. Although my kids will be out of high school soon, I understand there will still be indirect benefits to me. But really, I'm more interested in the bottom line GIVES and GETS the proposed referendum has on the community (as a whole).

GIVES:

- Average $82 per year per household.

GETS:

- A 75% rebuild of NCHS,
- Major renovations to Mill St. School,
- New building of an Early Childhood Center for special needs kids, and
- Improvements to the PE facilities at NNHS, including a new pool.

This is what's on the table. When you think about it, 82 bucks a year is nothing. We all spend much more than that on far less significant things, so let's all realize that there is much more going on here than the best interests of the community.

I suggest we get this referendum passed and get on with more important issues, like trying to reduce our dependence on foreign oil or trying get a tax deduction on college tuition payments. That would be a much better use of our time and would save us a lot more than $82 per year.

A response to Mike Davitt

Regarding this.

Central is a dump, and should be torn down.” When a teacher from Central made this statement during a school board meeting one year ago, I was infuriated. But decorum prevented me from screaming out at Mr. N. "Yes, Central is old. But being old is not synonymous with being a dump!" Actually, the consulting engineers reported Central is structurally safe and sound.

Two comments.

1. Yes, Central is not in any danger of falling down and killing people but that hardly means that it doesn’t need work. Safe and structurally sound is addressing that concern, nothing more.

2. Why were you so infuriated by this teachers comment? I’m sure you are aware that approximately 1,000 people took tours of Central and 70% or 700 people agreed and felt it should be torn down too. Are you infuriated with them also? I also think that it’s worth noting here that the district conducted a phone survey through UNICOM (who you have been incorrectly characterizing as attempting to push the referendum) and it was based on the results of that larger phone survey that the district decided to move toward rebuilding Central rather than building a new Central as the support for a new Central was at something like 30%. A pretty good indication of the District listening to the residents and proceeding in a more modest manner, irrespective of the fact that the people who actually toured the facility overwhelmingly supported a new school. I need to state to those of you that I have been talking to who feel they should oppose the referendum because you want a new Central built. This will not happen. A new Central will not be built.

To this,

. The District’s 2007-08 budget currently shows a surplus of $40M! Not enough for a Taj Mahal perhaps, but more than enough for the educational essentials.

Well no, actually. But at least you are getting closes to the truth than the writer in the letter to the editor recently who pegged the surplus at $80 million. The fact of the matter is this; At any given point the district can show huge balances in their accounts as they have essentially two large paydays a year when the property taxes are received.

The actual budget balance beyond expenses is approximately $20 million. $10 million will be transferred to the building fund as arat of this effort, and the other half is split in various fund accounts, some with mandated balances.

The Taj Mahal meme is getting a little old here. There are a host of issues being addressed at Central and we need to not loose sight of the fact that a new Early childhood Center is in the plan along with repairs to Mill and North.

But for the moment lets focus on Central.

While in no danger of falling down, Central is “broke” to a certain extent. It’s time for its infrastructure to be modernized. This doesn’t mean that Central hasn’t been maintained properly as Dan Denys claims. When you properly maintain a facility, at a certain point the mechanicals still have to be replaced. If you are concerned about achieving this in the most cost effective way, you do it as one large project, rather then piecemealing it. This is what is being proposed here.

It’s also time to bring the school up to 21st. century educational infrastructure standards. Simply put, if we want to offer a 21st. century educational experience we need to offer the 21st. century educational technology that supports it. This ain’t easy, as anyone who has hooked up the latest and greatest home theater will tell you. So, there are a plethora of things that will be changed at Central. This is not simply about more, or larger classrooms, as Mr. Denys is trying to make it about.

A rebuilt Central will offer the following;

A larger Kitchen that will allow a district wide hot lunch program for the elementary schools, and will create efficiencies as now the Kitchen is across a busy hall from the seating area.

Appropriate, dedicated space for the special needs population that is medically fragile, and is housed at Central due to its proximity to Edward Hospital.

Create an organizational logic to a facility that has suffered from a patchwork of 16 additions over the years. This is really important if you look at the concept drawings you will see the various departments spaces now grouped together, allowing for more efficient use of the space. This includes grouping the academic classrooms together, the PE facilities, and the Music and Theater, all together. This is not a minor consideration.

Far larger and updated Science labs.

Larger classrooms, built to current size standards, along with smaller rooms for all the small group-teaching activities.

And my personal favorite, more damn bathrooms!

There's more to it than the above but I hope everyone gets the idea.

“Central is a dump, and should be torn down.” When a teacher from Central made this statement during a school board meeting one year ago, I was infuriated. But decorum prevented me from screaming out at Mr. N. "Yes, Central is old. But being old is not synonymous with being a dump!" Actually, the consulting engineers reported Central is structurally safe and sound. The foundation of education is learning, not aesthetics. Does Neuqua provide a better education because it’s newer? Second, Mr. N’s militant union is the very reason why the district has had to be so frugal with the maintenance of their facilities over the past 10 years. You see, the NUEA had just threatened the school district again with a strike in 2005 if they didn’t get a 5% salary increase. Do the math, 10 years of employment contracts that far exceed inflation and revenue results in far less money being available for student programs and facilities. But don’t interpret this to mean facilities are now on the verge of crumbling to the ground. Far from it – they are old, but very sound. The District’s 2007-08 budget currently shows a surplus of $40M! Not enough for a Taj Mahal perhaps, but more than enough for the educational essentials. If the school board had the courage and leadership to keep employment contracts within the range of the private sector, we wouldn’t be here discussing another referendum after only six short years. This referendum is not about $82. It’s about financial accountability. It's about principle. So get off your sofas and vote NO on February 5! The district is “banking” on apathy and a low voter turnout.

http://www.elections.il.gov/CampaignDisclosure/CommitteeDetail.aspx?id=20969

Well well well, the old group is up to their same old tricks again. Build the Future 203 files there reports on paper so no one can see who they are and how much they are funding their campaign. But we have ways to obtain the reports and I'll be posting them here before the referendum for all to see. Click the link above to see what I mean.

Just once, just once I'd like to see the school board and their friends file their reports electronically, and on time, so there is complete openess in this process. Why is that so hard to do for this group?

Well I know why, they want to keep the voters in the dark as much as possible.

Mr. Higgins, I would like to keep my job.

To anonymous regarding this,

am a teacher in District 203. We are being heavily pressured to get out and vote for this referendum and to contribute $$$ for this effort. Me and many of my colleagues resent this sort of pressure. I must remain anonymous for obvious reasons, but if you don't believe me ask any teacher you know in District 203. The word is if the referendum is not passed the board is going to refuse to do any renovations to Central. My sources tell me that Caudil is heavily behind this tactic.

I urge you in the strongest terms for you and any other teacher who can cooberate your story contact the Sun editors and give them your evidence.

Absent that, You will be exposed as just another poster anonymously spewing lies.

I am a teacher in District 203. We are being heavily pressured to get out and vote for this referendum and to contribute $$$ for this effort. Me and many of my colleagues resent this sort of pressure. I must remain anonymous for obvious reasons, but if you don't believe me ask any teacher you know in District 203. The word is if the referendum is not passed the board is going to refuse to do any renovations to Central. My sources tell me that Caudil is heavily behind this tactic.

A response to this by Mike Davitt,

District 203 liberals and apologists can rationalize 203's latest referendum until they are blue in the face with their page after page after page of pontificating. If you vote to give the district any more money, with the knowledge the over collection from the 2002 referendum is in the range of $30M-$40M, you are a fool.

Posted by: Mike | January 17, 2008 06:40 PM

A reader can almost know without reading the name, that if the writer starts out with labeling anyone who supports 203 as a liberal, and, or, an apologist you can be fairly confident that Mike’s name will appear below.

But the rest is what is so interesting. Mr. Davitt and Mr. Denys desperately do not want to you read the volumes of information that I have posted because it leaves their arguments in ashes. To all the readers here, may I draw you attention to my laboriously documented posts, and ask you to compare them to these inflammatory “rocks” that Mr. Davitt and Mr. Denys continue to hurl.

Let’s look at June E’s comments;

If the current classrooms at 650 square feet are creating outstanding ACT scores, why would we want to mess with success? Let’s keep them crammed into the rooms and learning.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. We might end up like all the other higher spending, lower performing schools.

It is illogical to make the claim that the classrooms are creating outstanding ACT scores. Further to say let’s keep them crammed into the rooms, strikes me as a rather callous statement.

Naperville prides itself on its fine schools, and revels in their children’s high academic achievements. We should not lose sight of what this referendum is asking from us. In order to rebuild Central, build an Early Childhood Center, make significant repairs to Mill, along with more minor repairs North and some other schools, we are being asked to pay a modest additional sum. If you look at the median priced house at around $420K we are talking about $106.00 a year. Half will pay less, half will pay more. That’s not a lot to ask for in the scheme of things.

To June’s last comment “if it ain’t broke” well, Central is “broke” to a certain extent. It’s time for its infrastructure to be modernized. This doesn’t mean that Central hasn’t been maintained properly as Denys claims. When you properly maintain a facility, at a certain point the mechanicals still have to be replaced. If you are concerned about achieving this in the most cost effective way, you do it as one large project, rather then piecemealing it. This is what is being proposed here.

It’s also time to bring the school up to 21st. century educational infrastructure standards. Simply put, if we want to offer a 21st. century educational experience we need to offer the 21st. century educational technology that supports it. This ain’t easy, as anyone who has hooked up the latest and greatest home theater will tell you.

So, there are a plethora of things that will be changed at Central. This is not simply about more, or larger classrooms, as Mr. Denys is trying to make it about.

A rebuilt Central will offer the following;

A larger Kitchen that will allow a district wide hot lunch program for the elementary schools, and will create efficiencies as now the Kitchen is across a busy hall from the seating area.

Appropriate, dedicated space for the special needs population that is medically fragile, and is housed at Central due to its proximity to Edward Hospital.

Create an organizational logic to a facility that has suffered from a patchwork of 16 additions over the years. This is really important if you look at the concept drawings you will see the various departments spaces now grouped together, allowing for more efficient use of the space. This includes grouping the academic classrooms together, the PE facilities, and the Music and Theater, all together. This is not a minor consideration.

Far larger and updated Science labs.

Larger classrooms, built to current size standards, along with smaller rooms for all the small group-teaching activities.

And my personal favorite, more damn bathrooms!

There's more to it than the above but I hope everyone gets the idea.

Finally lets look at this comment,

We might end up like all the other higher spending, lower performing schools.

Well perhaps, but considering the value we are getting for our dollars I kinda doubt it. And as I outline in the analysis I did, link here;

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/costperformance_mediasurvey.shtml

While 203 is the lowest cost, high performing school district in the Chicago area, there are districts that achieve higher ACT scores, but at a far far higher cost. See my link here for an analysis,

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/documents/top%206%20HSD's.pdf

So perhaps the correct questions to ask are these. Are we willing to spend an additional $100 bucks or so a year to give our students the best educational experience we can provide? Considering the fact that even after the referendum we would be say 25-30% less than the other high performing districts, don’t our children deserve it? Do we think there other high achieving districts will never spend any more money?

I think the answer is pretty clear. These kids, and this district, have earned this. It’s up to the community to live up to the promise of providing our children with the best educational experience that we prudently can.

A CHALLENGE TO DAN DENYS

I challenge Mr. Denys to a debate on these web pages moderated by the
Naperville Sun regarding D203 and the 2008 referendum.

Here are some conditions I think make sense.

1. The Sun will take comments made by Mr. Denys and myself in this blog
as the basis for their questions.

2. Mr. Denys and I will be the only participants.

3. The Sun will moderate the debate and declare a winner for each
question.

4. The responses by Mr. Denys and myself will be unedited.

Mr. Denys the glove has been thrown down.

What say you Mssrs. Lynch and Slowik?

Another day, more BS from Mr. Denys to respond to;

1. INCREASED DEFERRED MAINTENANCE
HB recommends $56.9 (I thought it was closer to $90 million), District budgets $35. That is why the drinking fountains DON’T WORK.

This is really precious.The district is acting in a fiscally prudent manner and Mr. Denys claims it’s deferring needed maintenance! Further he continues with his ridiculous canard of the drinking fountains at Central. Some of the fountains do not work because the original galvanized piping is so corroded that that it clogs the mechanism. Now the responsible thing to do is replace all the galvanized piping together, and all the better to do it as part of a major renovation. So once again Mr. Denys at attempting to create an issue where one does not exist.

2. ARCHITECTS EVALUATION
Thom notes, “an initial rigorous evaluation by experts”. The referendum flier boldly states “”Architectural review of all 12 schools, BOTH INFRASTRUCTURE AND ECUATIONAL NEEDS…”

Yet the details of this RIGOROUS EVALUATION cannot be produced.

Mr. Denys charges such as this are beyond belief. Those thousands of pages contained in those 21 binders are what exactly? This is not rigorous enough for Mr.Denys? Further as he knows, but chooses to ignore, the educational issues,(which I refer to as Instructional space issues) were discussed and evaluated at length, leading up to a vote that ranked them in order of importance, and that vote became the basis of the Task Force recomendation for the upgrades that are being proposed by the school district. I once again refer him to this document http://www.naperville203.org/assets/FacilitiesPlanCommunityForum%2Epdf as a partial reference.

3.TASK FORCE COMMITTEE
How good can their work be if they were kept in the dark as we have?

As Mr. Denys knows quite well, within the Task Force Committee documents there was a volume of information that was provided to the committee. No one was kept in the dark. So now it will be time for Mr. Denys anti schools ally to chime in here and claim he was on the task force and he was kept in the dark I'm sure. To pre-rebut the charge that I expect will come, I refer any reader to the document I linked to above, or the Task Force Committee page on the D203 website, and ask yourself if there is a lack of detailed information contained there.

And from a more global perspective, why is everyone involved here except Mr. Denys apparently incompetent? Is he truly some kind of genius that is better able to comprehend all the details and complexities the issues we are discussing better than the professionals?

The Cliff Notes Version of Thom’s posts. I learn more every day on how this District is run into the ground.

1. INCREASED DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

HB recommends $56.9 (I thought it was closer to $90 million), District budgets $35. That is why the drinking fountains DON’T WORK.

2. ARCHITECTS EVALUATION

Thom notes, “an initial rigorous evaluation by experts”. The referendum flier boldly states “”Architectural review of all 12 schools, BOTH INFRASTRUCTURE AND ECUATIONAL NEEDS…”

Yet the details of this RIGOROUS EVALUATION cannot be produced.

3.TASK FORCE COMMITTEE

How good can their work be if they were kept in the dark as we have?

SIMPLE!!!!!!!

Mr. Higgins,

If the current classrooms at 650 square feet are creating outstanding ACT scores, why would we want to mess with success? Let’s keep them crammed into the rooms and learning.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. We might end up like all the other higher spending, lower performing schools.

I have a few moments so I want to comment on Dan Denys posts above.

Here is the essence of Denys “straw man” argument, let’s look;

No disagreement. But the District was not designing a school. They were identifying the deficiencies. IF IT IS NOT BROKEN, WHY FIX IT?

WE STILL DO NOT KNOW IF THERE IS A PROBLEM. What were they designing?

Where is the GAP ANALYSIS????????????????????????????.

WE SHOULD GET MORE FOR $350,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So maybe we should just stop there. But that would be wrong since a SUBSEQUENT EVALUATION (after $350,000)detailed significant DEFERRED MAINTENANCE (boilers, lights, roofs) that Healy Bender missed. However, these REPAIRS do not need a referendum.

HOPEFULLY THE DISTRICT WILL FILL IN THE MISSING GAPS.

So what is the reality here?

Healy Bender was retained to provide a District Wide Physical Facilities Study. The link below is the SUMMARY document. The FULL REPORT is comprised of 21 separate booklets, one for each school. HB looked at all the mechanicals, every window, wall, floor surface, door, the roof, etc. Nothing was overlooked. From these 21 documents, which total in the thousands of pages, Healy Bender gave their recommendations regarding the maintaining of the INFRASTRUCTURE of the schools. Interestingly if you look on page 1-13 you will find their schedule for Necessary Projects through 2015 at $56.9 million. However, the Director of Buildings and Grounds, took their recommendations and, where he felt it prudent, based on his standards, he reduced that cost to just under $35 million. thru 2016 He did this, as I understand, by increasing the interval for specific repairs.

Here’s the link for the Summary only;

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/FacilitiesSurveySummaryReport%5F11%5F14%5F05%2Epdf

So to Dan’s,

. IF IT IS NOT BROKEN, WHY FIX IT?

This is exactly what 203 did. They looked at the recommendation and where, in their estimation, it wouldn’t “break” for a period longer than the HB recommendation the elected to save the residents millions. So this below is just ridiculous;

So maybe we should just stop there. But that would be wrong since a SUBSEQUENT EVALUATION (after $350,000)detailed significant DEFERRED MAINTENANCE (boilers, lights, roofs) that Healy Bender missed. However, these REPAIRS do not need a referendum.

Oh, so now Denys is claiming the district is guilty of $35 million in deferred maintenance? It is absurd on its face. There is in Appendix D a schedule of the repairs and the years in which they plan on making these repairs. That should put to rest this little canard.

Then we have this;

WE STILL DO NOT KNOW IF THERE IS A PROBLEM. What were they designing?

Where is the GAP ANALYSIS????????????????????????????.

No Dan, the problem here is you do not want to admit there is a comprehensive plan to deal with the infrastructure needs of 203 schools through 2016. So in your trademark “FULL CAPS” fury, you rather ridiculously attempt to convince readers that there is no plan, so of course we can’t know if there is a problem, which leads to your ultimate “Straw Man”, the absurd “where is the GAP ANALYSIS.??????????????” Comment.

The district office has all 21 one copies of the Physical Facilities Study. One for each school. As stated above every inch of the facility is evaluated, a schedule of recommended repairs was made. While you will continue to dodge and weave, and make ridiculous claims, the fact remains they exist. They indicate and outline, the totality of maintenance needs for these facilities thru 2016. I know it doesn’t say GAP Analysis on the cover, and you will go off in “FULL CAPS” fury all over again, over this, but in the end this process is rock solid and is in essence a Gap Analysis as they evaluated every inch of the school and delineated the necessary repairs out to 2016

I fully expect Denys response to be;

“BUT WHAT ARE THE STANDARDS!!!!!!!!!!!! HOW CAN WE KNOW IF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE CORRECT IF YOU DON’T TELL US WHAT STANDARS WERE USED???????????????????/ WHAT IS THE DISTRICT HIDING?????????????????????????????

Any bets?

In another post is this;

Thom, that is NOT what the architects said. There were to be two reports--one for facilities and one for facility deficiencies, “District Wide Educational Planning--Educational Evaluation of Existing Schools--District Wide Overview” dated November 14, 2005.

By both the architects written comments and the district process, the first report alone was NEVER the gap analysis.

If it was, then there is NO NEED FOR any capital program. I am paraphrasing from my recollection (and you can research and post the EXACT words, but the first report CONCLUDED that the physical condition of all District buildings was at least ACCEPTABLE. The report stated that all that was necessary was routine REGULAR maintenance.

There is also a brief report that is the called the Educational Evaluation of Existing Schools. This is the INSTRUCTIONAL study that the district used as part of the Facilities Task Force discussion. Think of it as the “what kind, and what quantity of space do we need at a specific school” report. It was their job to take this document and by vote, rank the various, different, initiatives. From this came the Task Force recommendation to, from an INSTRUCTIONAL standpoint, rebuild and modernize Central, make the modifications to North and Central, and build the Early Childhood Center. The second component for the Task Force was the INFRASTRUCTURE needs that was also addressed. You can look through this process at this link for the Task Force Facilities Plan

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/FacilitiesPlanCommunityForum%2Epdf

It’s a quick read and I commend the entire document to all, but specifically, take a look at pg 6 to see the organizational process D203 used in this effort You can see on pg 19 the prioritization process of the recommendations made in the Educational Evaluation of Existing Schools document. The remaining recommendation what were at the bottom of the voting is outlined on pages 27-28 of the Master Facilities plan. Link again here;

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/FacilitiesSurveySummaryReport%5F11%5F14%5F05%2Epdf

You will note there are no costs included. This is because as there was not sufficient community desire, as evidenced by the Task Force Vote, these remain only as topics for discussion only. There will not be any effort to push forward with these items absent community interest.

What is important to recognize is the district engaged in an initial rigorous evaluation by experts, created a huge group of residents to give the district direction through The Task Force Committee and the Community Advisory Groups, and ultimately a proposal was made to the School Board, which was approved unanimously.

Or, responding to the onslaught of Denys claims, the district did exactly what they needed to do to prepare the groundwork for this facilities referendum. Mr.Denys has once again spent a day spewing out ridiculous accusations with but one goal in mind, to damage the confidence this community has in D203 and destroy 203's chances in the upcoming referendum.

So we can choose to look at the vast amount of data, and the qualifications of the organizations involved, and rest confident in the knowledge that 203 is in good hands or we can abandon ourselves to the "FULL CAPS FRENZY" of Mr. Denys.

regarding this,

I found the post below in the blog about 204's new site for their proposed High School. It was signed THOM. I'd like to ask Mr. Higgins if this is him? Thom Higgins are you an employee of District 204?

I will go over there to take a look but no this is not me and I am not in any shape or form involved in the educational community.

I always sign my full name as you see here.

I have commitments as well and will be scarce for the next five days..

Let's summarize Thom's classroom size treatise.

ISBE stardard 18 SF per student
http://www.mediafire.com/?ag2xwmzxcbz

Wight Optimum 30 SF per student

Average class size 21.6 Use 22

ISBE Classroom size 396 SF

Wight Optimum Class Size 660 SF

Typical 203 classroom size 650 SF

Percent of ISBE Standard 164%

Percent of Wight optimum 98%

I thought we were paying Healy Bender to do such an analysis. This makes sense to me. This can be done for hallway width, windows per class, light fixtures, etc.

But using this classroom analysis, I do not see the need to spend $47 million to rebuild ALL of the existing classrooms for 10 extra square feet.

Thom, you and I can do this analysis, probably for much less than $350,000.

“A weakened sense of responsibility does not weaken the fact of responsibility.” – William Bennett, Author, The Book of Virtues.
District 203 liberals and apologists can rationalize 203's latest referendum until they are blue in the face with their page after page after page of pontificating. If you vote to give the district any more money, with the knowledge the over collection from the 2002 referendum is in the range of $30M-$40M, you are a fool. A fool who has absolutely no comprehension of what Bill Bennett is talking about.

Ted, no I do not want my name put in.

I found the post below in the blog about 204's new site for their proposed High School. It was signed THOM. I'd like to ask Mr. Higgins if this is him? Thom Higgins are you an employee of District 204? If not, that's fine, but in the interest of full disclosure, if you are an employee of District 204 I think it is only fair the readers of this forum know that. I think it bears directly to the intent and your potential vested interest in the Dist. 203 referendum.

In the interest of full-disclosure I am not an employee of District 203 or any school district anywhere in the United States. I am Naperville taxpayer and that's it.

"As both an employee and graduate of D204 I am glad to see that a location has finally been recommended by school board. A forum such as this is a breeding ground for opinion misrepresented as fact. I have only one comment to make. To Aurora Resident, Taxpayer and Mother with regards to her statement about “MAJOR high voltage substation…” The Midwest Generation substation was shut down nearly 7 years ago. So I implore those reading this and any other forum to double check for facts before railing on something. THOM"

Dan (and Anonymous 5:05 p.m.--let me know if you want your name put in):

I'm in no way challenging or disputing the accuracy or validity of information you present. I'm just letting other visitors know that I'm not personally able to check out every link and vouch for it, either. I'm completely neutral in that respect. I think it's great that so much information is presented here for all to consider.

Dan,

I see that you haven’t disappointed us today.

It’s unfortunate that the path you have chosen is so transparent. Your efforts to rail against the straw man you have created, help illustrate to all that you are really only about attacking the district. Nothing more.

You rant about standards, and decry the lack of a Gap analysis. Fine. Go on as much as you like.

As I collect information I will post it on the blog. I have a busy night with my children so this will be the last post unless I have time later tonight.

I haven’t the time to go back to find your comments, but in response to your criticism regarding classroom size, and the charge that the new classrooms are going to be too large, here are some comments from Wight, the architects that were retained to do the planning and concept design work for the buildings included in the referendum.. Please note their distinguished CV. Below that is the link to Wight’s pre referendum findings. First here’s Wight’s website;

http://www.wightco.com/index.php

Size of classrooms

The state of Illinois does not have strict guidelines for the classroom size. Each school district is responsible for setting the size of instructional spaces that best meet their program needs and instructional styles. There are generally accepted best planning practices of a 900 sf classroom as the rule of thumb. The reason that classrooms have become larger relates to the activities going on in the room and the use of technology as a teaching/learning tool in the classroom. No longer are classrooms solely designed around the traditional, old classroom model where student sit in row and listen to teachers talk. Research has shown that students learn in different ways and the classrooms being designed for the future are responding to those needs. Flexibility needs to be provided for small group work, individual work, the use of technology in the classroom and different styles of furniture. As the project moves through the design process we expect to continue having discussions with the individual departments to design the right size (and shaped) classrooms for their specific needs.

Note: The International Builbing Code is does not relate to effective school planning practices – it’s a building code more related to health and safety. The CEFPI figure of 30 square feet per student is more appropriate. In addition, Illinois State Board of Education used 30 sf/student in the construction grant program (no longer funded), but that was really more of a “funding calculation tool” than a school planning guideline.

Here's Wight's K-12 Planning Experience that they bring toD203

1.Approximately 50 major school building programs (new schools, additions/renovations) over the last 6 years.

2.Over $600 M in construction volume on schools in the last 6 years

3. Major high school building programs completed, underway or in the master planning phase: York High School (Elmhurst, IL) Bolingbrook High School Romeoville High School Lemont High School Joliet Central High School Joliet West High School Riverside Brookfield High School Willowbrook High School Addison Trail High School Webster Groves High School (Webster Groves, MO)

4. 6 time award winner - Illinois Association of School Board’s Excellence in the Design of Educational Environments: Burr Ridge Middle School (1994), Lemont High School (1998), York High School (2004), Bolingbrook High School (2004), Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy (2005), A. Vito Martinez Middle School (2007)

5. Designer of only suburban school project ever to receive Chicago Building Congress’ Merit Award for Rehab Construction: York High School, Elmhurst, IL

6. 2003 Historic Preservation Award from The Historic Preservation Commission of Oak Park – Oak Park & River Forest High School

For those interested in some more detail here’s is the link to Wight’s pre-referendum findings for D203’s facilities plan;

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/D203SummaryofFindingsDRAFT11052007.pdf

So here we have another distinguished, award wining organization that is providing valuable consulting and design services for 203 and this will not be enough for you I’m sure. I believe that you made the charge that Wight shouldn’t be doing both the planning and concept work, and the construction management work if the referendum passes. Wight’s contract is only for the planning and concept work. If the referendum passes then the construction management contract will be let out to bid. They are allowed to bid for that contract.

Ted, everything I have posted I have posted links to it to verify my statements. I posted links to PURE's filings with the state, I posted links to Unicom-Arc and their founder to show what they are all about, I posted links to FAKO & Associates to prove my statements about PURE and their ties to the school board, etc. I don't believe I have posted anything that is false.

To all,

Take a look at this upgbeat, comprehensive plan to taxpayers.

http://www.mediafire.com/?bm1iez3dm3t

They have all of their priorities well spelled out and are moving forward. Even with their high debt for new buildings (and historically lower valued houses), their taxes are not much more than 203.

Ted,

We are very calm. We are waiting for Thom's response to our comments. I understand he is still working on them.

And hopefully we will have the answers once and for all from the District to our questions. Thom is valiently trying to defend the District, but the data would be more convincing.

Right now, we have no opinion on the scope of Central work since the rationale behind the gap analysis has never been presented. Put this in perspective, the question relates to hundreds of millions of dollars.

A good consultant should be able to clearly articulate his approach and findings to a highly educated community such as Naperville.

Thom and Dan, et al.,

I take it the truce didn't stick.

Bear in mind Jim and I lack the means to vet or vouch for the validity of information presented in the forum. I continue to be schooled about district finances, though I am concerned that the differences of opinion are becoming quite volatile.

I encourage all participants to take a deep breath, and temper the tone of posts. I suggest you'll have an easier time making others with differing views understand your arguments if you present your case with class, respect and dignity.

SLANDER ?!?!?!?!?!

Thom Higgens writes, :

“(I have) never once heard or seen him (Dan D.) utter a positive comment about 203.”

NOT TRUE. Read the posts.

1. I complimented the District for fiscal responsibility from when I moved to the District in 1986 to 1998.

2. I complimented the District in reigning in spending since 2005.

SLANDER--Be careful when you make such accusations!!!!!

By the way, I have NEVER complained about paying taxes while sending my children to private schools. MY CHOICE.

Interestingly, the private schools are HAPPY about the complacent attitude of 203. They need to keep their schools full. And they are more concerned about this objective since they see the on coming reduction of children in Naperville.

PUTTING WORDS IN PEOPLE’S MOUTH

Thom Higgens recently wrote:

“Now you can see by his own words, Mr. D. is alleging that there is not a Gap Analysis anywhere, and as the reports do not, delineate item by item, the STANDARD to which any given issue is judged against, therefore the thousands of dollars, and the thousands of hours spent are all in vain,”

SIMPLE, never said that. I ONLY ASKED for the study. But after two years, THOM MIGHT BE RIGHT.

Hopefully the District will supply the missing pieces to the WDTA and the community.

THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE

Thom Higgens recently wrote:

“So in a sense the entire report can be considered a GAP Analysis.” (Referring to the FIRST report).

Thom, that is NOT what the architects said. There were to be two reports--one for facilities and one for facility deficiencies, “District Wide Educational Planning--Educational Evaluation of Existing Schools--District Wide Overview” dated November 14, 2005.

By both the architects written comments and the district process, the first report alone was NEVER the gap analysis.

If it was, then there is NO NEED FOR any capital program. I am paraphrasing from my recollection (and you can research and post the EXACT words, but the first report CONCLUDED that the physical condition of all District buildings was at least ACCEPTABLE. The report stated that all that was necessary was routine REGULAR maintenance.

So maybe we should just stop there. But that would be wrong since a SUBSEQUENT EVALUATION (after $350,000)detailed significant DEFERRED MAINTENANCE (boilers, lights, roofs) that Healy Bender missed. However, these REPAIRS do not need a referendum.

HOPEFULLY THE DISTRICT WILL FILL IN THE MISSING GAPS.

THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE

Thom Higgens recently wrote:

“Reflect for a minute on the thousands of decisions that have to be made by a team professional architects when they are designing a school.”

No disagreement. But the District was not designing a school. They were identifying the deficiencies. IF IT IS NOT BROKEN, WHY FIX IT?

WE STILL DO NOT KNOW IF THERE IS A PROBLEM. What were they designing?

Where is the GAP ANALYSIS????????????????????????????.

WE SHOULD GET MORE FOR $350,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WDTA ANNOUNCES FOI FACILITIES PLAN

The Will DuPage Taxpayers Alliance has been following the Capital Program including having one representative on the committee. The attached file is the Will DuPage Taxpayers Alliance freedom of information request summarizes our questions that have yet to be answered.

http://www.mediafire.com/?9lzyvy2cxm5

The following document representing our last questions and the District response in October 2006 was also attached.

http://www.mediafire.com/?6bkjvtdudze

INVITATION TO QE203

Please feel free to add any additional questions that we missed in this request.

WDTA ANNOUNCES FOI FOR OPERATING DATA

One of the major issues relates to financial information. The attached file is the Will DuPage Taxpayers Alliance freedom of information request to compile a common set of information.

http://www.mediafire.com/?2twlz1zmwb2

We have attached two schedules that are referenced in the request as follows:

203 Summary of Property Tax Overcollection

http://www.mediafire.com/?4txxlylbcxz

203 Financial Projections (2002 original and 2005 Update by Allen Albus)

http://www.mediafire.com/?2eznttw3dqo

INVITATION TO QE203

Please feel free to add any additional questions that we missed in this request.

When I took the tour of Central with my husband standards were never discussed. I even asked about the standards used and received blank stares. The tour guides could not answer my questions.

http://politicalpolling.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html

Check out FAKO's backtracking using the link above. They changed their wording after they were caught.

Mr. Higgins, I hope the community sees this current school board for the underhanded, self-serving bunch of incompetents that they are.

Remember PURE, remember FAKO & ASSOCIATES. They used subterfuge and classic union tactics to hoodwink the average voter in District 203. I will never let this board forget it.

Oh, by the way Thom I have children in Dist. 203 and I am not worried one whit about their education if this referendum fails. In fact, I bet ACT scores will not decrease by any statistically meaningful amount whatsoever.

http://www.fakoassociates.com/

BR, you hit the nail on the head. Check out FAKO & ASSOCIATES above. They bid on the referendum job too but Unicom "won" the bid. You know why? Because Fako & Associates was behind the hack job during last April's school board election. PURE hired FAKO & ASSOCIATES to do push polling in District 203 and mail out highly inflammatory mailers to voters. Remember PURE was a front for Diane Mcguire and the Naperville Teachers Union. Of course PURE kept that hidden until AFTER the election. There was no way Suzyn Price, Mike Jaensch, & Terry Fielden could hire FAKO for the referendum push after their underhanded tactics during the school board election. What makes it even worse is the day after the election Fako & Associates had a congratulatory note on their website to their clients Suzyn Price, Mike Jaensch, and Terry Fielden. Within 20 minutes of being busted on it FAKO & ASSOCIATES changed the wording on their website to state that they made an error and the candidates were not their clients but PURE was their client.

This schoolboard has used every dirty trick in the book to hide their involvment with the unions. It is time we put a stop to it. Vote NO on the referendum, this board is not worthy of our TRUST.

Thom,

For the FIFTH time (and I will be more specific in this request after I have poured through more reams of paper),

What are the OBJECTIVE STANDARDS AND RATIONAL used by the architects in their INDEPENDENT EVALUATION of instructional limitations of existing facilities (the second Healy Bender report titled "District Wide Educatonal Planning--Educational Evaluation of Existing Schools--District Wide Overview" dated November 14, 2005?

Just as the first phase had 21 volumes, I would expect this more complex second phase should have four times the work, it is more complicated.

It is my understanding that this report is the rational for the FIRST $117 million of proejects and probably HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS MORE to come. As expected, rather than an answer to this SIMPLE question, more rhetoric. I have to go now, but there are a couple of inflammatory comments of Thom's that need to be highlighed and rebutted.

Comments regarding Dan Denys criticisms of D2303’s facilities plan.

Reading through Mr. Denys two confusing posts I come to this;

As he states there are two initial reports. The first is the District Wide Educational Planning, Educational Evaluation of Existing Schools, District Wide Overview report. This is the report that discusses 203’s INSTRUCTIONAL space issues. Then there is the District Wide Physical Facilities Survey that deals with INFRASTRUCTURE issues. These two reports were the first steps in a process that ultimately culminated in the Master Facilities Plan the board adopted. The Feb 5th, referendum request is a direct outgrowth of this plan to address the districts needs through 2011 I believe.
Reading his two posts carefully, I think we are in agreement up to this point.

So where do we part? It’s hard to tell exactly what he is complaining about, but I have parsed the two posts and I believe I understand his position to be as follows,

Although Healey Bender has created 21 separate detailed reports, one for each school, collectively numbering in the thousands, and thousands of pages, in which every single mechanical system, every classroom, window, door and wall was evaluated and recommendations were made, this is insufficient for him for the following reasons;

This from his posts,

WHERE IS THE GAP ANALYSIS? >

Here below Denys is quoting the Instructional reports first paragraph.

“This draft is an INDEPENDENT EVALUATION (emphasis added) of instructional limitations, based on current programs and delivery only, of the twenty-one (21) existing school facilities in 203….The physical condition evaluation of the existing school facilities is not included in this draft document. The two documents will be MERGED (emphasis added) and service as the foundation for development of a district wide master facilities plan.”

And here he is talking about his feelings regarding the phrase INDEPENDENT EVALUATION as used above,

TO BE CLEAR, WE CANNOT DETERMINE THE STANDARDS AND RATIONAL FOR THE “INDEPENDENT EVALUATION.”

And,

Every taxpayer should be able to see and evaluate the standards the architects used. We do not need another thirty paragraphs rambling, just STANDARDS AND RATIONAL FOR THE “INDEPENDENT EVALUATION.”

So what does this all mean?

There are two issues at play here. First apparently Mr. Denys feels that he needs to be able to see every and all the standards that Healy Bender used in evaluating D203 schools. This is simply an impossible task, and frankly I doubt Mr. Denys has the technical ability to discern the complexities implicit in many standards. Let’s break this down into the two parts. First, from an INFRASTRUCTURE standpoint, could Mr. Denys, for example, understand the standards for the myriad of mechanical systems our schools contain? Could any one person? Common sense tells us all that people specialize in specific fields, Electrical, Plumbing, HVAC. Etc. One reason they do so is no one single person could possible know the thousands of standards that apply to all these different fields, to name just a few.

Then there is the INSTRUCTIONAL standards; classroom size, is a issue he often brings up here. I would expect here we are essentially talking about the myriad of decisions that have to be made that ultimately create the physical makeup and layout of a school. How many classrooms, small group instruction spaces, labs, accommodations for special needs students, music and theater spaces. Reflect for a minute on the thousands of decisions that have to be made by a team professional architects when they are designing a school.

And then there is this whole GAP Analysis question. What is he talking about? Gap analysis is essentially benchmarking against a standard. Note the last word, standard. What Mr. Denys is going for here is to ask the question, what are the needed repairs and improvements that the district is contemplating and what is the STANDARD to which they are applying these standards against?

Now you can see by his own words, Mr. Denys is alleging that there is not a Gap Analysis anywhere, and as the reports do not, delineate item by item, the STANDARD to which any given issue is judged against, therefore the thousands of dollars, and the thousands of hours spent are all in vain, per Mr. Denys.

Wow.

Let’s think about this charge of his. First the easy part. As I indicated above there has been an exhaustive study of all 21 schools by PROFESSIONALS. They identified the issues, and offered solutions. So in a sense the entire report can be considered a GAP Analysis. Here is a quick blurb from Healy Benders home page.

Healy, Bender & Associates, Inc. is a 38 person multi-disciplinary architectural, engineering and planning firm located in northern Will County, Illinois. Licensed to practice in the States of Illinois, Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin, Healy | Bender has completed more than 1,300 architectural and engineering projects for educational clients in Illinois alone. The firms is a recognized leader in functional, award-winning primary educational facilities in the Chicago suburban area.

Founded in 1935 as A.J. Kruegel in Joliet, Illinois, the firm has been in continuous practice in the field of architecture for more than 70 years

So gee, I don’t know, I guess the ultimate question here is who do you trust to make the decisions for what is in the best interests of D203 facilities. Award wining professionals such as these, or Mr. Denys?

Finally, their remains the ultimate question of what is Mr. Denys trying to achieve in the many posts that he has made, especially the ones regarding the facilities issue. For myself, who has spent time with Mr. Denys in person, and of course here in the blog, and has never once heard or seen him utter a positive comment about 203, it is clear that all this is about is his overwhelming desire to damage 203’s reputation in any way he can. Specifically in this case by attempting to create a “Straw Man”, so he can rave on and on, decrying the lack of any standards and the lack of a true gap analysis. Get ready, we will see him in “FULL CAPS FURY” DENOUNCING THE INCOMPETENCE OF HEALY BENDER, THE DISTRICT, AND THE LACK OF ANY STANDARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We will see him respond. He will make more amazing and reckless allegations, and sweeping generalizations, along with a few outright lies, all in the pursuit of what I pray is a unsuccessful attempt to sully the reputation of a school district that is simply excellent in educating our children, and being fiscally prudent while they do it. Why does he do this? I don’t know. But I suspect it lies with the fact he sends his kids to private school and doesn’t believe in public education, so why should he spend his money educating my children. It’s rather tragic really.

So to me. Why do I do this day after day, engaging Mr. Denys and the others bent on 203’s destruction? For a number of reasons. First I believe when a group of people rise up to destroy the reputation of a institution I respect and admire, I can not allow such slander to stand unchallenged. But I have other reasons. Dan Denys and Mike Davitt and their followers here are putting themselves on record here in these blogs. Post after post, after post, they are making bed that they will have to lie in. It is my sincere hope that the residents of Naperville reading this will see them for who they truly are.

Yes that’s it. To see then for who they truly are.

My fondest wish for Naperville,

Read on.

I agree with Anonymous about Unicom-Arc and their union ties. Their “statistically-significant 400 person survey” is one of the reasons I have trouble supporting this referendum. The entire thing was very carefully written so as to generate data points to show the community supported a referendum. I don’t believe the text of the questions is still available on the district website, but I did read through all of them when it was and wrote down the one cited most often:

37. I support spending money to improve school facilities because it is a long-term solution to the District’s needs, rather than a short-term band-aid approach.

Most financially responsible people would have trouble saying no to that question, regardless of how they felt about the referendum (which isn’t even mentioned). Especially when it follows a bunch of other questions designed to make the respondent think about how badly the facilities need to be upgraded. Taking the question apart, I would bet many of the people who said yes did not connect “I support spending money to improve school facilities” with it’s true meaning: “I support increasing my taxes to improve school facilities.” Also, years of self-help and business management books have drilled into us that “long-term solutions” are better than “short-term.” Finally, “bank-aid approach” is a well-accepted negative term that further prejudices the respondent to say yes to the question.

Why couldn’t they just ask “Would you vote for a referendum costing the average homeowner approx $82 per year to support school facility improvements?”

The fact nothing remotely like this question appeared in the survey means that it’s intent was not to gather community input as advertised, but to generate talking points in support of a referendum.

Thom,

To help you find the GAP ANALYSIS, look at Page 1-2 if the Facilities report you sent:

“This report does not evaluate the use of space, building organization, or the functional performance of the facilities. Those items are being addressed in a SEPARATE STUDY (emphasis added) evaluating each facility as they relate to the delivery of the educational curriculum.”

The following link is to the SECOND report.

http://www.mediafire.com/?5nmuar1xmxy

The following is the scope of this report (page 1, first paragraph).

“This draft is an INDEPENDENT EVALUATION (emphasis added) of instructional limitations, based on current programs and delivery only, of the twenty-one (21) existing school facilities in 203….The physical condition evaluation of the existing school facilities is not included in this draft document. The two documents will be MERGED (emphasis added) and service as the foundation for development of a district wide master facilities plan.”

TO BE CLEAR, WE CANNOT DETERMINE THE STANDARDS AND RATIONAL FOR THE “INDEPENDENT EVALUATION.”

Remember, we paid $325,000 through November 2006 for these two reports. They are quoted extensively as the justification for spending at least $117 MILLION. Every taxpayer should be able to see and evaluate the standards the architects used.

We do not need another thirty paragraphs rambling, just STANDARDS AND RATIONAL FOR THE “INDEPENDENT EVALUATION.”

Is that asking too much??????????

REMEMBER……WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!!!!!!

Thom,

The District's approach to developing a Master Facilities Plan was to consist of two research reports, the Physical Facility Plan that you listed (yes, the reports are two feet high and we have looked at them all) and the Gap Analysis (that we have posted and noted as inadequate). From these two reports (TWO RESEARCH REPORTS, no one), the Master Facilities Plan was to be developed (the other report you posted).

You said we missed the relevant details in the SECOND report, the GAP ANALYSIS, not the first research report. Your response has only one of the two research reports.

We ask for the FOURTH TIME,

WHERE IS THE GAP ANALYSIS?

I would check with the CIA, I think it is filed with the report on WOMD.

Jim 7 Ted,

RE: your concerns on the "anonynous" moniker:

Occasionally, for no apparent reason, the blog lists me as anonymous though I sign my input as Bob S.

NOTE from Ted Slowik, host:

Bob,

Anytime you or anyone else wants a post corrected with your name just let us know.

Dan,

I will weigh in, with greater detail tonight but to respond to this,

By the way, any luck in finding the GAP ANALYSIS? I could find nothing, thought you would have more clout with the District.

CENTRAL (that's punny) to the entire plan.

As typical, you do not do any research, instead you make wild accusations. Here for the folks following at home are the following links,

Below is the Facilities Summary. These are the recommendation made by Healy Bender. The district looked at it and based on demographics, among other considerations, disregarded some of the recommendations. Such as additional school rooms at North because the demographics study tells them the overcrowding now is a temporary bubble best addressed by temp classrooms rather than spending money on permanent classrooms.

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/FacilitiesSurveySummaryReport%5F11%5F14%5F05%2Epdf

THIS IS A REPORT BY HEALY BENDER. IT IS NOT THE MASTER FACILITIES PLAN. THIS WAS THE “RESEARCH” SO TO SPEAK THAT ALONG WITH THE DISTRICT WIDE EDUCATIONAL PLANNING DOCUMENT FORMED THE BASIS FOR DISCUSSION THAT ULTIMATELY LED TO THE DOCUMENT BELOW.

Here is the SUMMARY of the Master facilities plan. Please look at pages 27-28. This is the Master Facilities Plan as approved by the board. The full Master Facilities Pan document broken down into 21 separate brooks, one for each school, that combined are about 2 feel tall. In them you will see that every inch of a school is evaluated, down to each and every door the facility has. The full report is available for view, by appointment, at the administration offices.

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/MasterFacilitiesPlanWeb%2Epdf

In summary Dan, you can go on, and on, and on, with your accusations but in the end, you are just doing what you always do, make wild, unfounded, accusations in a futile attempt to damage D203's reputation. Go make an appointment with the district, and after you wade through a few thousand pages tell me that D203 hasn't been scrupulous in their planning.

Richard C. Longworth just wrote a great piece for the Chicago Tribune magazine. Read it here. Look what the unions have done for the Midwest. No wonder the Midwest is hollowing out.

www.chicagotribune.com/features/magazine/chi-mxa0106magglobaljan06,1,910877.story

Just a question here, guys? Is [Anonymous} and Anonymous the same person, because the brackets don't show up when the blog is posted. What's the story here....? Can't we get better nom de plumes if we don't want to use real names?

http://www.labortribune.com/labor_tribune_history.html

Read about Ed Finkelstein, the founder of Unicom-Arc at the link above. Do you know what Unicom stands for Thom? UNION COMMUNICATIONS. Get real Thom, admit the truth Unicom-Arc is a Union PR firm hired by Dist. 203 and MANY OTHER School Districts to sell taxpayers on the need for more tax dollars. At least have the guts and the courage of your convictions to admit it Thom.

Thom,

To your comment about what I think 203 would do compared to 204? District 203 listened to their previous financial consultant who promoted the Phase-In plan.

Why would they ignore their new financial consultant that masterminded premium bonds in 204?

That is why we in 203 should be concerned.

Thom,

Your betting concept is childish. I told you what what address the issue, a resolution by the Board that they would only take $43 in net proceeds from any bond issue. Simple.

By the way, any luck in finding the GAP ANALYSIS? I could find nothing, thought you would have more clout with the District.

CENTRAL (that's punny) to the entire plan.

Dan

Here in the Chicago area and elsewhere in Illinois, one name that pops up frequently is that of "UNICOM-ARC". This St. Louis firm has been hired by school districts in the Chicago area, including Antioch D34, Barrington D220, Carpentersville, Deerfield D109, Glenbard High School District 87, Glen Ellyn D41, Glenview D34, Gurnee (Woodland) D50, Gurnee D56, Highland Park, Kenilworth D38, Lake Zurich D95, Libertyville/Vernon Hills High School D128, Lockport Township D205, Mt. Prospect D57, Naperville D203, North Palos D117, Park Ridge-Niles D64, Roselle D108, St. Charles, Skokie D69, Skokie (East Prairie) D73, Wheaton-Warrenville D200, and Woodstock D200, as well as in a number of school districts downstate including Belvidere D100, Collinsville D10, Springfield D186, and O'Fallon Township in St. Clair County.
It's most revealing to do a little checking around on this "UNICOM-ARC" company.

Turns out that UNICOM-ARC is no run of the mill "research" company. In a description of itself that UNICOM-ARC posted on a directory of union shops (maintained by the Union Label & Service Trades Department of the AFL-CIO), they say,

We are all-union communications and public relations firm that specializes in serving labor, non-profit and community-based organizations. Unicom-ARC is experienced in media outreach, planning campaign strategy and developing effective messages through focus groups and polling ...
The bulk of their business comes from school districts who hire them for the explicit purpose of spiffing up their image as a prelude to passing tax hikes.
We can quickly realize that when a "community survey" is conducted, parents and teachers should NOT expect UNICOM-ARC to deliver an unbiased report on what the town really wants wants -- that's NOT what they were hired to do, and it's not what they do for a living.

Take a look for yourself: here is the UNICOM-ARC website.

I'd suggest everyone simply email the board and ask them if they plan to use premium bonds or not. See what they say.

Yes I was criticized by Joe I believe for hiring outside consultants. Look it up yourself.

Again, Thom, I'd like to smoke what you are smoking regarding Unicom-Arc. Check out Unicom-Arc's website. It is CLEARLY an outfit geared to union backed public school issues. In fact, FAKO & Associates bid on the job that Unicom-Arc won. They too are another pro-union outfit that was responsible for the whole PURE debacle started by Dianne Mcguire. You might be able to fool other folks into thinking Unicom-Arc is this simple little polling outfit hired by 203 but get real Thom, you are grasping at straws here.

Again folks use google, check out Unicom-arc and Fako & Associates websites. Thom stop with the BS, you know both firms are union hacks.

To anonymous regarding this

find it amazing that the school board can use taxpayer dollars to hire a union outfit like Unicom-Arc to sell the issue, the district can use taxpayer dollars to send out multiple press releases, etc. to generate support for this referendum, yet if myself and a group of taxpayers want to hire (with our own money - no tax dollars involved) an outside bond fighter to assist us we are criticized for it. Amazing.

This sort of mentality is all the voters need to know why they should fight this tax increase. The arrogance of our elected officials is beyond belief. Those that don't like us hiring an outside consultant, I say to you, tough! Deal with it. We are using the same tactics as you are. At least be intellectually honest.

My response,

Unicom was hired to do a telephone opinion poll to gauge public perceptions before the board voted to approve the referendum effort. Nothing more. They have not been hired to "push the election"

The district is precluded, BY LAW, from advocating for the referendum. It has not done so. If you mean this,

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/District203Facts%5FFigures%2Epdf

Nowhere will you find any mention of the referendum, let alone campaigning for voters to approve the referendum. I understand that the facts contained ruin the many canards that people are attempting to perpetuate on this blog, but in the end truth will out.

Perhaps you are confusing this analysis I did, link below, that helps residents understand that 203 is number one in the ACT scores our children achieve for the dollars spent, and that based on an extensive local study the 11 districts that had lower costs than 203 had ACT scores 60% lower. Gee, lets reduce taxes!

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/costperformance_mediasurvey.shtml

Seriously if you are going to make a claim please provide the document. If it's a "Press Release" it will be on 203's website I should think. Further I know the Chamber of Commerce has endorsed the referendum. Please don't assume their press release is from the district. It is not.

Lastly please show me where in this blog you have been criticized for hiring a outside consultant. I haven't seen a word, or is this just another attempt to create a straw man, so you can criticize the district?

Dan

In response to you post here,

To Thom’s point long ago about the impact to the tax payers.

If you go to page 4 of the attached information sheet from District 204 about their new school, you will note that they are going to raise $132,840,000 (the originally approved $124,660,000 bond issue plus $8,180,000).

THEIR PLEDGE ABOUT MATEA--No more taxpayer money. PROMISE BROKEN BY $8 million.

HOW DID THEY DO THAT? Premium Bonds.

WHO MASTERMINDED THE PREMIUM BONDS? The financial advisor that 203 hired. The 204 board should have never made that pledge if this was their intention. Oh, Metzger was up for reelection. It's all about winning.

Hold on to your wallets!!!!!!!

First what does what 204 have to do with 203? Conflating what 204 MAY, OR MAY NOT, have done with what 203 has plainly stated is rather indefensible, and is another attempt by you to confuse readers. Stick to 203, that's what we are discussing. Are you claiming by inference that 203 will attempt to yield substantively more than the $43million advertised?

OK. As I offered previously and you ignored, Here's the offer. If 203 raises more than $43 million plus some minor fees say 240K from this referendum, I will donate $500.00 to your favorite charity. However the converse applies as well. I will take this bet with any and all. So how about it Dan. 203 going to finagle more that the $43 million? Fine

PUT YOU MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS!

If your inferred claim is correct, this should be some really easy money for you and the boy's. Come on, take me up on it.

For those how want to know the truth in cold hard numbers, here is the taxes fact sheet prepared by the referendum committee

http://www.buildthefuture203.org/taxes.php

Also here by the district look at pages 29-30 and read the FAQ's below.

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/PlanforUpgradingFacilities2007%2D2012%2Epdf

Mr. Denys I await your response to my challenge. Either pony up for the wager or recant sir. It's the only honorable path.

The arrogance of District 203 and it's supporters is amazing. I have kids in District 203 and if this referendum does not pass I am not worried one bit that my kids will suffer. I know they will not.

I find it amazing that the school board can use taxpayer dollars to hire a union outfit like Unicom-Arc to sell the issue, the district can use taxpayer dollars to send out multiple press releases, etc. to generate support for this referendum, yet if myself and a group of taxpayers want to hire (with our own money - no tax dollars involved) an outside bond fighter to assist us we are criticized for it. Amazing.

This sort of mentality is all the voters need to know why they should fight this tax increase. The arrogance of our elected officials is beyond belief. Those that don't like us hiring an outside consultant, I say to you, tough! Deal with it. We are using the same tactics as you are. At least be intellectually honest.

To Thom’s point long ago about the impact to the tax payers.

If you go to page 4 of the attached information sheet from District 204 about their new school, you will note that they are going to raise $132,840,000 (the originally approved $124,660,000 bond issue plus $8,180,000).

http://www.ipsd.org/Uploads/news_17229_3.pdf

THEIR PLEDGE ABOUT MATEA--No more taxpayer money. PROMISE BROKEN BY $8 million.

HOW DID THEY DO THAT? Premium Bonds.

WHO MASTERMINDED THE PREMIUM BONDS? The financial advisor that 203 hired. The 204 board should have never made that pledge if this was their intention. Oh, Metzger was up for reelection. It's all about winning.

Hold on to your wallets!!!!!!!

Dave Zager worked for Ehlers? Isn’t that the firm that the District hired in November to create this bond issue? Did he disclose his conflict? Who else was interviewed for the position? Enquiring minds want to know.

Mr. Higgins, I sure hope the teachers paid into their retirement program. Hey can I switch from SS to the teachers pension? Your argument is so laughable I can't believe you even make it. I pay the max into SS and you know what my benefits will be when I retire? $1,500 a month vs. Diane Mcguire's at $6,000 a month (if she retired at 55, even greater if she didn't), yeah real great comparison there Thom.

By the way, if Diane and other teachers were smart they could also contribute to an IRA, so IT IS NOT the only retirement program they have.

Jim,

Thanks. When my comments were being attacked, when of my Brain Cramps was that I saw some of this before. Here is a laugh for you, I thought it was the Daily Herald (I searched their site). Should have known better!!

Amazing how a front page picture catches one's attention.

Dan

To Dan D.: I'll pinch hit for Ted on this one, Dan. The answer to your question is yes. The article did appear in the regular paid edition.

Thom,

So you know, there are others who do not appreciate higher taxes.

http://www.mediafire.com/?7skgg1mlozt

You should recruit Dillard to be your Democratic candidate for the Illinois Senate. Might improve your access to President Obama.

Thom,

I will let the Sun do the talking. The following article addresses it all.

http://www.mediafire.com/?3muvly1lhqd

Check the math. Rick Klau priced his house 2% below comparable values, lowered it 18% and still has not sold it. Boy are those numbers familiar!!!!

A significant quote from Susan Ganden of Re/Max of Naperville:

“People who bought in a hot market three years ago paid top price for their home. Now we has so many houses on the market, they can’t sell it for the price they paid for it.”

Three years ago, 2003-2004. OK, I was either wrong by a year OR the top of the market occurred earlier in my area.

I DO NOT THINK THAT EITHER OF THESE ERRORS MATERIALLY AFFECT THE REST OF MY COMMENTS. (But Thom, I know you will pounce on some facet.) But again, this is my opinion and readers can and should form their own opinions and not be bullied by Thom.

There are some other scary comments in the article such as 672 houses in foreclosure in Naperville and that the housing problems are hitting higher priced houses (over $500,000). Since the median listing price is now $435,000 (down 7% from last year), this will hit much of Naperville.

Dan

PS Ted, this article was prominently displayed in your “free” Tuesday paper (just came this AM). Did this run in the regular edition? It must have since I remember the “top of the market four years ago” quote that I incorporated in my original post.

My response to Thom’s blog January 15, 2008 5:35 PM

Thom,

For at least the SECOND time, I posted the following statement:

1. “First, median housing values in MY NEIGHBORHOOD have fallen, in my opinion, by 15% since 2002 BASED ON ACTUAL SALES HISTORY. I suspect that there have been similar experiences in the District, but let each person form THEIR OWN OPINION. Comparable housing values in 203 are lower than Hinsdale. Tax rates are also lower in Hinsdale. The lower taxes could account for a portion of the higher value of Hinsdale houses.”

This replaced the two comments that you continue to quote. In reflecting on this statement, I recall people telling me at least two years ago that houses in the $500,000 to $1,000,000 ranges were not selling. So they are not in your median house price numbers. It may have been that it took time for the housing recession to hit the lower priced houses that we now discovered were fueled through the sub prime funding market (I do not know the number in Naperville).

And I know you do not agree with the above statement.

Two other points. There is waste throughout all levels of government. The waste in 203, IN MY OPINION, is the $47 million for the REBUILD or TAJ MAHAL, and the $450 (your number) over collection from 2002. I do not view these as small numbers. And just because other governments are taxing recklessly does not justify 203. TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT.

And your following statement is wrong, that I am a “anti property tax crusader who will oppose any property tax increase because he doesn't want to pay property taxes.” I must admit that I do not want to pay taxes, who does? But I do not oppose property taxes since they are a necessary to provide essential services. I DO OBJECT to property tax requests that are based on false pretences.

The key to this election is that there was a GAP STUDY the detailed the need for the TAJ MAHAL (the extra $47 million). HAVE YOU FOUND THIS REPORT YET, THE DISTRICT HAS NOT SUPPLIED IT. You expect me to support a tax increase on a GROSS MISREPRESENTATION?

LIGHT BULB. Maybe this report was done by the CIA agent who saw the WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!!

Thom, let the voters DECIDE!!!!!!!!

Barbara,

Another pleasant posting (I mean this). And I learned something new thanks to you and Dave Zager. My reaction.

1. The numbers that 203 put out from 1998 to 2005 were the most confusing that I have ever encountered in my 25 years (now 30 years) of working in the financial arena. I had been corresponding with Albus since before the election. The District maintains three different books and the one that all of these numbers are based do not comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. When I would ask Albus a question, his response would be accompanied by 30 pages of spreadsheets. In fact, many times he said he could not send me the information since his file was so large, it could not transfer.

2. As we all know, in hindsight, it turns out that this plethora of numbers had serious errors. We have now discovered that the $511 referendum number he created was really $811 when you include his phase in. What really irritated Mike Davitt during the election was that the $100 million increase number was given to him by….ALLEN ALBUS. Subsequently, the District disavowed them. Thankfully, he is GONE!!!!

3. From my experience both actual and in following the financial world (that is my profession), when financial information is presented in a complex manner, the unfortunate ultimate discovery is that it has been done so to COVER UP THE REAL TRUTH. District 203’s financial information is among the MOST confusing of all the governments I have dealt with. And it turns out, that at the end of the day, they were covering up the misinformation about the referendum (the $511 claim) and the over collection. If you read the financial reports of Enron or Worldcom before their bankruptcies (that ultimately were caused by FRAUD), you will see the same pattern. Fortunately, I do not believe that money was looted from 203, I will leave to others whether Albus’s 49 PUBLIC claims of $511 constitutes fraud.

4. What I learned new. At the time of Dr. Leis’s letter (2005), Allen Albus was noting that the over collection was between $24 and $45 million (the three sets of books can get confusing). Also, at that time, only TWO years of POST REFERENDUM financial results were known. So I did interpret Allen Albus’s “reconciliation of overspending” as relating to the first two years. The financial projections Albus presented at the time (the 20 pages of Blue Sheets) did not show any variances in the last two years (infering that they all occured in the fisrt two years).

I THINK YOU CAN SEE NOW WHY I WOULD VIEW THESE VARIANCES AS UNUSUAL IN LIGHT OF THIS MISUNDERSTANDING (and it is not clear in Dr. Leis's letter what period these variances relate to, he just notes at the end that the District will realize a surplus at the end of four years).

5. Dave is EXACTLY correct in the year that I was looking at (although I think it is for all funds, not the education fund). In four years, the District missed their own spending target by 7% after getting an 18% one time tax increase. Not that it matters much, the numbers I have from Albus were an original budget of $179,699,321 and actual expenditures of $191,638,859. THE NUMBERS NEVER STAY THE SAME.

Interesting that in that memo Dr. Leis said there would a “small budget surplus” (his comment to WDTA was that it was impossible to realize a surplus) and the District realized SIGNIFICANT surpluses.

6. Dave is wrong about the private sector, if you missed your numbers by 5 or 7 percent particularly when you control the expenses through headcount, you would be fired. They expect you to BEAT your numbers!! In fact, companies “control costs” (fire people) in good times to make sure they generate profits for their shareholders. Take a look at Citigroup, they are firing 20,000 people because of a bad business decision by one department. In the private sector, the $13.7 million in increased medical costs would have TOTALLY been passed to the employees through IMMEDIATE higher premiums. Look at how the automakers have dumped this cost TOTALLY on the union. But I can understand why Dave has not experienced this “profit pressure” since he has generally worked in the public sector (except for his term with Ehlers).

7. I think another concept that has been lost in this discussion was that prior to 1998, the District was very fiscally responsible AND provided the same education it does now. Since moving to the District, I was very content with the taxes and financial policies of District 203 until the deficit spending that began in 2000 by Don Weber and Allen Albus that made the 2002 referendum more contentious. And we know what has happened since then.

8. Lastly, I am aware of at least two attempts to get a common set of numbers, if QE203 has done so as well, then three. Interestingly, the numbers the District produced on the two requests are not the same and are different from those we received earlier. This makes any analysis impossible. And it begins raising serious issues of credibility, the crux of my statement. I have papers two feet high from all of the conflicting information that I have received in 2002 and 2005.

However, I (through the WDTA) will make one more attempt to get a common scorecard. In fact, I have to complement Dave Zager for preparing an accurate summary of the tax over collection. It was on one page, the numbers reconciled (even to my calculations from 2005), and did not hide information. I am hopeful to get that straight since the wide range of numbers confuses me and the overall debate. But the lowest number, $45 million (that would increase a year later if the numbers are correct to $52 million) in MY OPINION is OBSCENE AND UNACCPETABLE.

Again, I comment Barbara on a very polite and professional approach. It is refreshing to other commenters on this blog.

Barbara,

I agree totally with you about the challenges special education present. I do not know how these children were handled prior to Special Education in 1975, I suspect they were institutionalized and funded through the health care system. Then the government made the schools responsible.

My observations.

1. This program and challenge existed prior to the 2000 to 2005 financial disaster in 203. So the only impact during this time was incremental. In fact (based on my recollection which might be wrong), Allen Albus did not even identify this as one of the issues facing the District.

2. I think your 13% funding is off. Per the 2005 audit (the last that I downloaded from the state since 203 does not post its audits, but it is illustrative, not ABSOLUTE), special ed expenditures were $15.9 million. State and Federal Special ed revenues were $9.8 million. About 60%.

3. It is interesting that Dr. Leis has claimed that the Early Childhood program does not cost taxpayers money (Illinois school districts cannot use taxpayer money for other than K through 12 by state law, that is why many school districts historically outsourced Head Start/ Early Childhood). Of course, we have not seen financial information supporting his claim.

4. I know there are many wild claims and generalizations about excessive spending in District 203 for special education. I will not repeat them (please send paramedics to Thom’s house). It should be easy to compare 203’s programs to neighboring school districts and quantify if this is really an issue or not. I do not have the time to do this, but for me it is not an issue.

5. I do have one “concern” about special education in 203. I thought that the intent was to mainstream children. I went to a parent orientation at Central last spring and one of the student presenters was introduced as a “Special Ed student.” He even said that. In fact, he publicly stated he was Special Ed from at least Junior High.

From all appearances, he seemed very normal. I experienced two emotions. First, disgust. Did this student really need additional programming. In fact, he stated that he had passing grades and was told he was no longer eligible for special education. Then he said he was put back into the program. WHO KNOWS?

But my second emotion took over. I really felt remorse for this student. How can he be given such a Scarlet Letter, “Special Ed Student.” You can put him into regular classes, but with a target on his head. This labeling cannot be productive. Particularly in a school that refuses to track all of the other students for fear of “ranking” students.

Barbara, by the way, your comments were very specific and polite. In short, if the District needed an additional $1 million for special education, I would not be raising this as an issue. However, I do not think that was the issue.

Anonymous,

Your statement,

Mr. Higgins, I used Zillow as an example. If you think housing prices are just fine in Naperville and will be just fine in 2008, then can you pass me some of what you are smokin'?

May I remind you that the entire discussion regarding real estate values was started by Dan when he made this factually incorrect statement;

But I think the secret is out. Housing values in Naperville have fallen at least 15%, not since the 2005 peak, but since 2002. Part of this reflects industry leaving the state due to the punitive business climate. But the rest relates to HIGH TAXES.

If you read through Dan's posts you see that he is trying to claim that the taxes in 203, are hurting real estate values in Naperville and this is happening all over Illinois destroying the entire states economic climate. There are so many logical holes in the argument I haven't time to recount them again. but let's say that at the least his claim above is false on it's face and he has never been man enough to admit to that. That's his problem, he makes sweeping generalizations and then tries to slink away from them. Can you imagine the uproar, no revolution, that would be happening in this town if property values in this town sank 15% FROM 2002 HOME VALUES, NOT 15% BELOW 2005, NO, 15% BELOW 2002 VALUES, because of Naperville's property taxes?

Further, and this is important, his many statements here help us to realize the essential truth about Denys beliefs. At his core he is an anti property tax crusader who will oppose any property tax increas because he doesn't want to pay property taxes. It doesn't affect him, he sends his kids to private schools. So we get all this blather and his unsubstantiated claims regarding the rebuilding of Central. All in the service of his desire to keep his taxes low, damn the consequences.

So to your point, the facts are that in 07 per the MLS service the price of detached single family dwellings went up 1.8% in 2007. It was 8.5% approx in 2006, and we all know from 202 thru 2005 appreciation was huge. Now, I was surprised by the gain in 07 too. But is based on the sale of 1458 homes. Not mine, yours, or Dans. And you fail to grasp that the entire reason that I offer these stats is to disprove with facts, Dans claim the housing prices are 30% below 2002 values. If you think you can prove that on Zillow go right ahead.

TO: Anonymous | January 15, 2008 08:15 PM

Go get a new job w/ better pay and better benefits and quit adding carbamide to someone else's cornflakes because you are unhappy with your current situation.

To Anonymous,

Gee now we are talking about teacher pensions?

A couple of thoughts. First I wonder how many people know that if you are a teacher you do not pay into Social Security, and that a teachers pension is the only retirement program a teacher has. They pay in I believe 9.4 % of their salary and I believe the district and the state combine their contributions to match it. That’s the whole program. from a funding standpoint. So the beef is what? the state and school district matching it? Your employer does the same with your SS deduction they match it too the government.

Remember that’s all they get. No 401K matched by an employer, no defined benefit program. Nothing except for the one plan.

I love this,

If she lives 30 years her 30th year she will be knocking down over $168,000 !!!!!

Well I was a young salesman, 30 years ago in 1978, and I thought if I ever made $30,00.00 a year I’d be a very rich man. So we see what a difference 30 years make.

Mr. Higgins, I used Zillow as an example. If you think housing prices are just fine in Naperville and will be just fine in 2008, then can you pass me some of what you are smokin'?

Joe, nice dodge. Guess the facts hurt, huh?

Dan:

In regard to your confusion regarding Dr. Leis’ statement taken from his July 1, 2005 Letter to the Community which I created a link

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/2002-Referendum-Implementation.pdf#xml=http://www.naperville203.org/search/index.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=821&Index=D%3a%5cProgram%20Files%5cdtSearch%20Developer%5cUserData%5cncusd203%

Leis: “Health care costs have escalated $13.7 million over original projections due to rising costs nationally and a marked increase in participation in the District’s plan, as private sector benefits have been reduced.”

Your response:

Also, all of those numbers you cite do not make sense. If medical costs went up $13 million for two years, then the costs would have doubled.

The only numbers one can trust from the District are those that the auditors present. And they show significant surpluses.

I have seen the list of “REASONS”; when you put them in context, they appear to be “EXCUSES”. For example, we have an increase of 50 students in ESL, another two teachers, $100,000. Total benefits went up $3 million. So medical cannot be the cause the remaining $12 spending increase. If we had a “World Class” educational program, compliance with No Child Left Behind should be easy. In short, I have a hard time figuring out how an entity can miss a budget by $12 million. If this was the private sector, management would have been ousted.

David Zager responded::

The Health Insurance costs increased due to national increases as well as more participation by employees (and dependents).

Dr. Leis wrote that letter in July of 2005. The figures that he notes on the second page are cumulative differences for four years. So, for example, the health insurance difference is the amount projected back in 2001/2002 for the next four years (2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06) versus the amount the District actually paid for 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, and budgeted for 2005-06. So the letter is saying that the total health insurance costs for those four years (cumulatively) exceed the amount that was projected just before the referendum by $13.7 million. Health Insurance costs increased so that by 2005-06 this category was about 24% higher than what was projected at the time of the referendum.

In reading Mr. Denys’ comments that you forwarded to me – while a little hard to determine – it appears he is assuming the comparison is only for two years (rather than four) and/or the comparison is only for the final year (2005-06 ) versus the final year in the projection. Mr. Denys refers to “missing the budget” by $12 million. Again, while not sure what he is referring to, it could be the final year of the projection (2005-06). Back in 2001, the District projected the Education Fund expenditures would be $179,766,550 – four years prior to that budget being developed, so this is a four year projection. The actual budget 2005-06 for the Education Fund was $190,098,397, a difference of $10,331,847 – or 5.7%. Using the same analogy, I think management in the private sector would not be too displeased with a 4 year projection that was 5% off.

I hope this gets at some of your questions. I am not sure that Mr. Denys understands the figures contained in Dr. Leis’ letter were cumulative differences over a four year period. The letter does state this fact, contrasting these cumulative differences in actual vs. projections with the cumulative (over the same four years) actual collection of property taxes versus the cumulative amount that was projected.

Dan

This is getting embarrassing. You say this,

For everyone's benefit, my point again:

“First, median housing values in MY NEIGHBORHOOD have fallen, in my opinion, by 15% since 2002 BASED ON ACTUAL SALES HISTORY.

OK, let's try to parse this. Is it your opinion as you state, or is it ACTUAL SALES HISTORY? Is it both? OK then show us this ACTUAL SALES HISTORY you base this on. You know addresses, sale prices, and 2002 valuations. You know the actual back up.

And again for the millionth time this does not explain, or excuse the statement you made that started this

But I think the secret is out. Housing values in Naperville have fallen at least 15%, not since the 2005 peak, but since 2002. Part of this reflects industry leaving the state due to the punitive business climate. But the rest relates to HIGH TAXES.

Dan, Your neighborhood does not Naperville make. That's the most charitable comment I can make.

To this,

However, I have seen many articles (not mine or Jimmy Stewart) that question the affordability of Naperville. My opinion is that the community will suffer from the rampant increase in taxes in the last five years compared to the previous 16 years I lived in the District. In fact, for that matter, Illinois is one of the bottom five states (along with the likes of Michigan, New Jersey and California) without economic growth. What is the common reason TAXES.

So are you saying that out school board taxes you too much and that's why Illinois has economic problems? Wow, I didn't know the fate of Illinois rests on a $43 million referendum.

As far as the rest of your post, well lets just say it's more of the same.

All complaints and accusations, and absolutely Zero on why the rebuilding of central is a bad idea. I have to hand it to you. You are an absolute master at attacking but never making the case.

Thom,

AGAIN, my point was not to quantify the actual rate of increase or decrease in home prices in Naperville. You focus on that tangient (and quote the number--median price--that is meaningless for relative value). If my neighborhood is the only one that has lost value and every other house has gone up, then just say that.

For everyone's benefit, my point again:

“First, median housing values in MY NEIGHBORHOOD have fallen, in my opinion, by 15% since 2002 BASED ON ACTUAL SALES HISTORY. I suspect that there have been similar experiences in the District, but let each person form THEIR OWN OPINION. Comparable housing values in 203 are lower than Hinsdale. Tax rates are also lower in Hinsdale. The lower taxes could account for a portion of the higher value of Hinsdale houses.”

However, I have seen many articles (not mine or Jimmy Stewart) that question the affordability of Naperville. My opinion is that the community will suffer from the rampant increase in taxes in the last five years compared to the previous 16 years I lived in the District. In fact, for that matter, Illinois is one of the bottom five states (along with the likes of Michigan, New Jersey and California) without economic growth. What is the common reason TAXES. If I did not have my business roots here, I'd be out of here. I'll let you pay Diane McGuire's pension.

The Taj Mahal. Let's quote Clair Peller, "Where's the beef?" Have you found the report that details the need for $87.7 million instead of $30 million (I threw in an extra $10 million so deferred maintenance could finally be addressed)? I printed all of the relevant pages, NO BEEF. We posted them on this blog. You infer I have hidden them. I did not find them.

In fact, if you read the response from the District about where is the famous GAP ANALYSIS, Mr. Paulson states, “The educational analysis, not the infrastructure analysis, was done based on building interviews.” Does this mean that instead of an objective analysis by experience architects (THAT HAS BEEN THE REPRESENTATION) they instead are based on the wants of the building administrators? If so, then why not state that? Why the ruse?

And I my position has not changed on tax and spending.

TO: Anonymous | January 15, 2008 02:17 PM

Just because you may not get paid what you feel you are worth does not mean that other people do not deserve to be paid what they are worth.

Dan ,

Your points stand for themselves? No they don’t, that’s the problem Your points make no logical sense.

This,
First, median housing values in MY NEIGHBORHOOD have fallen, in my opinion, by 15% since 2002 BASED ON ACTUAL SALES HISTORY.

Is not a logical outgrowth, nor does it prove your initial statement

But I think the secret is out. Housing values in Naperville have fallen at least 15%, not since the 2005 peak, but since 2002. Part of this reflects industry leaving the state due to the punitive business climate. But the rest relates to HIGH TAXES.

You won’t acknowledge you are committing an Inductive Fallacy called Unrepresentative Sample, ie too small. This is typical of you. We can not have substantive conversations if you fail to offer logical arguments.

To this,

The District bases its Taj Mahal on a GAP ANALYSIS that does not exist

Dan ,where’s the Beef? Are you really telling me this is your response to my request to give all the readers here a detailed critique of you beef with Centrals plans? Is that the best you are going to offer? You are against it because you think it’s a “Taj Mahal” and that’s supposed to mean anything? Again, if you want to have a legitimate conversation here then you have to do better than say it’s bad cause I say so. No GAP analysis? I guess those hundreds and hundreds of pages that you don’t bother to read apparently don’t count in your eyes.

To Anonymous,

Really love you won’t post your name, but regardless, you are falling into the same Inductive Fallacy as Dan. Further you’re basing this on only my house, on Zillow? Boy that’s substantive.

Here’s my source. The MLS of Illinois, and they say that in 2007 calendar year for Detached Single Family homes the median sale price increased from $445K to $453K a 1.8% increase. This covers 1458 home sales, not Dan’s house, not mine, or your uncle Charlie. 1458 detached single family homes. Or every stinkinn one that closed in 2007. And let's not forget how we started on this topic is because Dan said home prices have fallen 15% over the 2002 values.

To the second anonymous poster regarding the Champion website,

Will you please verify that all teachers are included in the statistics? I hear they manage to, shall we say, drop a few names on the floor to help their cause. Love to know if that's correct.

Go to www.thechampion.org and look at teacher salaries since they started publishing the data. The biggest increase has been in salaries, there is no way around it.

Check out the pension calculator too, it will blow you away. After they retire they receive guaranteed 3% increases yearly until the day they die if they retire at 61. If they retire at 55 they receive no increases for six years then at 61 their pension jumps 18% and then they receive guaranteed 3% annual increases until the day they die.

So for example, lets look at Diane Mcguire, running as a Democratic in Naperville for State Rep.

Her Salaries were as follows: $108,529 - $105,262 - $87,721 - $84,751. Her pension is calculated off the last four years of her employment. Run the numbers yourself from the Champions website. If she retired at 55 (which I don't think she did) her annual pension would be $72,424. If she lives 30 years her 30th year she will be knocking down over $168,000 !!!!!

How many of you will make that kind of money on Social Security? None of you will even come close. Remember, her pension is state tax free too. This sort of stuff is unsustainable and must stop.

This is part of the reason why taxpayers have no sympathy for teachers and their constant whining about low pay. I won't even get into health benefits.

Mr. Higgins, according to www.zillow.com your home has dropped in value from $718,000 to $656,000 in one year. I suspect it will drop more.

My points stand for themselves. Thom, I KNOW you disagree.

You must have to put me down since you have a difficult case to defend. The District makes a commitment in 2002 and breaks it BIG TIME. What more can be said.

The District bases its Taj Mahal on a GAP ANALYSIS that does not exist. Did you find the phantom report? Or would you simply ridicule me more.

Simple positions, let the voters decide.

The purpose of this long post (I tried to shorten it up) is to show that just in the area of special ed alone, many uncontrollable factors can and do have an impact on the District 203 proposed and actual budgets. Get a cup of coffee and settle in. This is worth your time.

I gathered the following information from last night’s discussion regarding the proposed Early Childhood Center held by District 203 at Kennedy Junior High:
• The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was first enacted in 1975. It is the federal law that guarantees all children with disabilities access to a free and appropriate public education and the related services. Although the special ed mandate was created back in 1975, provisions to the mandate demanding greater services for greater numbers of students are regularly added.
• Although the original intention of the federal special education mandate was to be fully funded, District 203 receives about 17% of its total special ed costs from federal and state governments.
• If a District 203 student enters a drug rehabilitation facility, District 203 is mandated to pick up his educational costs at the facility.
• District 203 currently cares for at least 5 medically fragile students at Naperville Central that have one-on-one nurses. These students undergo tube feeding and ventilation at the high school in curtained off areas. The medical treatments require additional space, increasing facility needs. District 203 must meet all expenses incurred.
• District 203 is mandated to educate homeless children who once resided in District 203. If the homeless child relocates to Chicago, District 203 is required to bus them back to our school district at our expense for classes unless and until the child enrolls at a different school. The district has 12-15 now.
• District 203 is mandated to educate some 3-5 year old special ed students with typical peers who are not in special ed. Thus, the numbers in this program doubled since 2000 to 260 students, This growth is one of the reasons for the proposed $11 million dollar early childhood center.
• If District 203 is unable to meet the needs of a child, it is mandated to pay for the child to be transported to and attend a private facility.
• District 203 is mandated to care for qualifying special needs children from the time that they are 3 until they are 22. District 203 currently has approximately 21 students greater than 18 years old.
• District 203 is mandated to provide 12 months of education for some special ed students on an Extended School Year plan on their individualized educational plan (IEP).
• ESL(English as a second language) program is mandated. ESL students often require other special ed/social services requiring additional staff, space, and funds. Mill Street School has been especially impacted by their growing numbers of ESL students. Part of the reason for renovation request at Mill. The Mill ESL students currently utilize a classroom trailer for services.
• The number of children qualifying for reduced lunches has increased unexpectedly from a few hundred to 1000. These children statistically require more special education/social services, increasing District 203 costs.
• If a child has not been “adequately educated”, despite severe disabilities, by the age of 22, parents may sue for compensatory damages. District 203 settled with a family a few years back before it went to court. Other cases are popping up around the country. Special ed professionals are very careful to legally document IEP’s.
• District 203 must also provide home visits to qualifying special ed children from birth to age 3. At this time, although District 203 receives funds for this, it must staff these visits.
• The number of special ed children requiring expensive services has increased as our medical technology improves and saves more of these children’s lives
• District 203 has approximately 300 special ed teachers.

Private schools do not have to meet any federal or state mandates and typically have very little in the way of special ed services if any. They are simply too expensive and complex for them to attempt.

Conclusion: Let’s cut the school district a little slack. Not only do they have to care for District 203 children from birth to age 22 as required by law, but they must project spending without knowing the amount of grant money they will get each year; keep track of and adhere to all of the federal and state mandates and provisions, fund 83% of the total costs (this year), and fight off critics who are not aware of all of these demands.

District 203 has no control over the mandates, their provisions or amount of state and federal funding from year to year. Our federal and state elected officials created these laws and determine amount of funding each year.

Dan,

This statement from you,

1. “First, median housing values in MY NEIGHBORHOOD have fallen, in my opinion, by 15% since 2002 BASED ON ACTUAL SALES HISTORY.

Is a world away from your initial statement of,

But I think the secret is out. Housing values in Naperville have fallen at least 15%, not since the 2005 peak, but since 2002. Part of this reflects industry leaving the state due to the punitive business climate. But the rest relates to HIGH TAXES.

As I pointed out last night you are committing an Inductive Fallacy called Unrepresentative Sample, ie too small This is typical of you. You constantly conflate issues and commit so many errors in logic that I can’t keep up with them. Admit that you made one of your bigger DDSG’s tm. And let’s move on. Really love the "in my opinion" too.

This,

2. Your point on value. I do not agree to the validity of the relationship between spending and ACT scores. There are many districts that spend more and get lower or higher test scores.

Really? There are districts in the Chicagoland area that have lower costs and higher ACT scores? Since you have to know which ones they are to legitimately make this statement, unless it’s another Dan Denys Spectacular Generalization or DDSG tm, please edify us will you?

Finally this,

3. Finally, a $40 million renovation of Central will do just fine. We do not need 1,000 square foot classrooms. Never saw any justification.

So now you are down from claiming it’s a Taj Mahal as you did yesterday to just complaining about classroom size? Is that today’s argument? What about yesterday's argument offered by you?

I define the Taj Mahal as REBUILDING the entire facility except the auditorium and swimming pools for $87.7 million versus a RENOVATION for $40 million. So the Taj Mahal is $47.7 million. Can I be more clear?

Can you be more clear? Yup, you could be much more clear. Please, for all of us, give us in one post your detailed criticism of the Central renovation plans. I'm sure we all would like to see it in one place in it's entirety.

Thom,

The following are my exact points.

1. “First, median housing values in MY NEIGHBORHOOD have fallen, in my opinion, by 15% since 2002 BASED ON ACTUAL SALES HISTORY. I suspect that there have been similar experiences in the District, but let each person form THEIR OWN OPINION. Comparable housing values in 203 are lower than Hinsdale. Tax rates are also lower in Hinsdale. The lower taxes could account for a portion of the higher value of Hinsdale houses.”

Don’t try to take one small aspect of my comment out of context and then assert that I am totally wrong.

2. Your point on value. I do not agree to the validity of the relationship between spending and ACT scores. There are many districts that spend more and get lower or higher test scores.

Instead, I rely on the District’s referendum commitment in the 2002: provide a fine education after taxes were increased by 18%. They would do that and no more. Then through loopholes they tax and spend more (I think 7%). And now some of these surpluses they are going to use some of it for capital. Again violating their campaign pledge of NO NEW PROGRAMS.

My position on taxes and spending. Be honest, state your case, and stay true to your word. Not done in 203, the only other District that violated voter confidence more is 204. Check you Daily Herald details.

3. Finally, a $40 million renovation of Central will do just fine. We do not need 1,000 square foot classrooms. Never saw any justification.

Dan,

One last thing the writer in the Sun that you refer to displays the typical lack of understanding or unwillingness to tell the truth that I wittiness in these pages.

By stating that 203 has $80 million in the bank right now and therefore doesn't need a referendum is stunningly ignorant. 203 has two really big paydays when they receive the taxes collected by the county assessor. They have to pay it out over twelve months, so at any given time they have very large balances. If you bother to do the research you will find that 203 has about a actual $20 million account balance when you combine the different funds, some which have mandated minimum balances required. And $10 million of that balance was transfered to the building fund as I have indicated previously, thereby reducing the referendum request.

Dan,

Another few hundred words bobbing and weaving. Do you still defend your statement below or not Sir?

But I think the secret is out. Housing values in Naperville have fallen at least 15%, not since the 2005 peak, but since 2002. Part of this reflects industry leaving the state due to the punitive business climate. But the rest relates to HIGH TAXES.

This is the statement you can not defend so you slip and slide and try to change the subject. I will post in this manner till you prove it or recant.

Lastly this,

My take and you can correct it is that your position is that "Higher spending is good, the more even better."

No, Dan. As I have indicated here numerous times before 203 is number one in their students achieving high ACT scores at the lowest cost in the Chicagoland area. No school districts kids post higher scores with a lower spending district. Not one. That's true fiscal responsibility.

Perhaps you forgot to read my detailed analysis of the various studies that lead to my conclusion. Here it is again,

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/costperformance_mediasurvey.shtml

Thanks for bringing this up so I can point readers to it once again. I sincerely appreciate it.

I think that the $43 million referendum request, that is part of the $114.9 million facilities program is money well spent. If you took the time to study all the many things they are trying to achieve with those funds honestly you'd agree, The Naperville Chamber Of Commerce agrees with me. They recently endorsed the referendum and I think we all agree they are a group that believes in fiscal responsibility. What's your problem?

Thom,

I said it before, there are two real questions. Have higher taxes in Naperville compared to other areas hurt property values? Are they part of the cause of a softening or decline in home prices?

I have stated that we cannot prove anything about values. I can only go on select information. Maybe values are increasing more in other areas of Naperville. Fine. Then only our area is realizing a loss. Maybe it's because we are in Central versus North. Who knows.

Does it matter if the unrealized appreciation of everyone's houses began to decline in 2002 or 2005? And if you feel you have none, then fine.

In short, I feel that part of the reason that housing values are declining in 203 is the high property taxes, second highest in DuPage County. My opinion. Your opinion, the more taxes, the higher value.

FINE--defined and move on to the next point. Is that an appropriate summary? Let people decide, they know what their values are. And they can chose to believe the Indiana University professor or you.

Next item.

Thom,

I think you are practicng THSG. The purpose of this blog is for people to express their opinions. And they should have reasonable basis. On certain topics such as over taxation, stick to your position. My take and you can correct it is that your position is that "Higher spending is good, the more even better." My position, reasonable spending balanced with accountability is good. We need rational spending given the basic premise of our free market system that scarcity is the rule, demand will always exceed supply.

Like early in the blog, the extra $700 dollars in over taxation could go into my child's college fund.

Another concern. During my MBA studies at Northwestern, I posed a question about the economic impact of government spending. Specifically, I questioned whether the one multiplier (wealth redistribution if my memory serves me correctly) was applicable to "excess" government spending? The answer from a noted PHD was no, it was inflationary. And in 203's case, since the over collection is not spent, it has zero impact on the economy.

I view these issues as very serious. I do not disparage your positions, just cite the what I think is relevant. It gets a little personal. Four years ago, I toyed with the idea of selling to get the top of the market. Of course, the problem is where do you reinvest. But one reason I did not try was that people listed houses prices comparable to sales of adjacent houses and after 24 to 36 months had to sell at a prices 10 to 20% below their list prices. I attribute the market for part of the problem, but it has become very costly to live in Naperville. A 60% increase in taxes is a major component of the increased cost. This has no impact? This is not a DDSG, this is an observation. I think that based on the information provided by the District, taxes are too high. As the writer said in the Sun today, they have enough, how dare they ask for even more.

The counter point from the Price campaign? Increased taxes increase housing values. Novel, I have never seen that in any academic position. I have seen a comment that inadequate services (and related taxes) can have a negative impact, but I do not think this is the case in District 203.

Again, stand behind your position. I think clear choices are good for the voters.

Your property value correlates directly to the reputation of District 203. If your property value decreases by less than 1% due to the perception of a weakening school district’s infrastructure, you lose far more than the $82/yr tax increase for a $335K home for 20 years that the school district is currently requesting.

After touring District 203’s facilities and listening to both sides of this issue, we believe Naperville Central desperately needs to be repaired. For the record, we live within the Naperville North attendance boundaries.

Messing with the success of District 203 is a risky financial proposition to homeowners. Don’t gamble with your property value.

Dan,

Another few hundred more wasted words bobbing and weaving. Here is the statement you made that you can not defend.

But I think the secret is out. Housing values in Naperville have fallen at least 15%, not since the 2005 peak, but since 2002. Part of this reflects industry leaving the state due to the punitive business climate. But the rest relates to HIGH TAXES.

This was the genesis of this discussion. It is factually incorrect You can write a million more words trying to obscure the issue, but the fact remains. You made the statement. It is factually incorrect.

If you are correct, then prove it. Go to your realeator friends and give us the sales figures from 2002 thru 2007 and show us how the sale prices have fallen 15% below the 2002 levels. That is your charge sir.

Prove it.

Thom,

You must have a secret statistical service only available to you. I work with housing developers and we are all trying to get a real handle on house prices. The only statistic I can find is the "Median Sales Price" of houses that sold. I think that number has remained constant (up or down by 5% at the most)in Chicago. And developers are discounting their lots due to soft if not lower ultimate real estate sales prices.

But that number does not tell you anything. It reflects a mix of houses that sell each measurement period, not comparable houses. In fact, it is not a mean, but a median. So it real does not tell you much unless you had a community of homogenous houses (like was the case prior to 1960 when houses were very homogenus).

I go by what realtors are telling me. But there are a thousand of them in town and I bet you could find 100 that say prices are increasing. But as I said earlier, you can judge by the activity in your area. By the way, there are 196 houses over $1 million for sale in Naperville. Tried to get the number of sales of such houses over the last five years, but the Tribune site is down.

Also, I think the US consumer tells the story. Recent business publications show the economy headed toward recession since people feel "poorer", they do not have the equity in their houses. One guiding principal is that people in aggregate are generally "correct." The data "confirming" these situations follows months later (we find out a year after we went into a recession).

One final thought. In reviewing real estate options, I calculated that I could spend $200,000 more for a house in Hinsdale or Burr Ridge than in Naperville due to their lower taxes. The value gap for comparably sized homes (I used 4,000 sf) is closer to $500,000. Would it be reasonable to assume that at least a portion of the $500,000 relates to property taxes since annual costs do enter into the equation for home ownership?

Bob S. did post the study by the Indiana University professor that summarized his studies that each incremental $1,000 in annual property taxes impacts housing values by at least $10,000. Do you have a study that says higher property taxes INCREASE value? I know, the schools are so good that people pay more to be in the community. Using your logic, does that mean that Hindale schools are 50% better than Naperville?

Thom, you need to focus your comments and not throw them out of context. My overall point is tax for what is reasonable, not 10% more. Of course, my position has been morphed (I will leave you out of this since I do not want to reread your postings) that we want to cut the spending by at least 50%. WRONG!!!! We want to cut taxing to equal rational spending. All of your numbers DO NOT reflect the overcollection. That went into the Bank of 203 for 2015. And my point is that this overcollection has another impact, lowering our property values. By some amount, however you want to measure it.

Bob,
You made this claim;
It is also important to look at our own history: Simply put, 203's spending is rising at a rate WAY BEYOND the combination of enrollment changes and inflation (by any measure you pickl!) In fact, if you compound the 1995 spending by this, and add an insane $20 million for new unfunded mandates (which is WAY too high), you still come up with a result that shows 203 is overspending at an alarming rate (approximately a third higher than it should be!!!

And later this;

The goal was to SIMPLIFY a view of 203 spending over a given time period of 10 years. I took a spending number (I admit I have rec'd several from 203), grew it for inflation over the period, grew it by student enrollement changes, and added some extra yearly spending for unfunded mandates (I uses a made-up, very high number of $20 million)The result was a number that was still somewhat lower than the 203 spending at the end of 10 years. Given our testing, scoring, etc., hadn't moved much, it was ONE way to show that the spending growth in 203 was, from my view, too high.

OK that’s your claim. Fine. But I ask, and ask, and ask, for some kind of tangible cogent analysis that makes you point using real numbers, and you dart and weave like Ali in his prime. I mean if you are going to make a complex financial argument you really need to show your work. But you don’t because I don’t think you can. Prove me wrong Bob, you say 203’s spending is 30% too high? Show me the analysis that leads to that conclusion. And when I say show me what you cut to reduce the budget by that magical 30%, don’t give me this,

It is not my job to cut --- we handsomely pay Dr. Leis for that.

And this;

I have gone through the simple math with you several times. You prefer to not accept that particualr form of analysis. I will repeast what I told Dr Leis and the Board on more than one occasion: "I DON'T CARE WHERE YOU SPEND IT OR HOW ---THAT IS YOUR JOB. I CARE ABOUT THE RATE RISING AT THREE TIMES INFLATION."

I’ll say it one more time if you want to have a constructive conversation actually debating real issues in this forum you have to make a real argument using real numbers. I will push back every single time until you do.Show us with more than a bald assertion that 203’s spending is rising at three times inflation after solving for the enrollment growth, no wait a minute! You were first saying 203 was over spending by 30%. Are you suddenly making two different claims?

Lastly, and I really hope it is for the last time, on the fire alarms. Bob you put in your letter to the editor in the Naperville Sun a charge that Steeple Run had an obsolete Fire Alarm system based on a study that was over two years old, and did so without asking yourself if gee, I wonder if thy might have taken care of this in the last 2 years or so. Which I maintain was reckless as it had to frighten any Steeple Run parent that read that. But no, instead you included it in your letter and you were factually wrong. To say that well, it’s Ok to say that because the quote did come from the study as a defense, is like me writing and saying that the Bears won last years Super Bowl, because i read it in a 22 year old paper. It’s the same thing.

OK I’m back early enough to offer the following, and then I’m going to bed.

Dan, well I have to thank you again for making me turn back to my school days of yore to dig up which logical fallacies you are displaying. So let’s get to it.

That house sold for 30% less than my conservative appraisal four years ago and the taxes were now 30% higher. Based on these numbers, would it be reasonable that taxes contribute to the lower appreciation of houses in 204?

The logical fallacy here?

Non Causa Pro Causa

This is the most general fallacy of reasoning to conclusions about causality. Mistakes about causation are the result of confusing correlation with causation. Two types of event may occur simultaneously, or one type always following the other type, without there being a causal relation between them. Or simply, just because your taxes went up doesn’t mean it caused your property values to go down. Indeed, you can empirically test your assertion by asking what the highest taxed towns are and what are the property values there? If we look at the North Shore you have both high taxes and high property values. Oops. Further you keep trying to slide away from your initial statement that I will continue to hold you to. Here it is, for the unpenteenth time;

But I think the secret is out. Housing values in Naperville have fallen at least 15%, not since the 2005 peak, but since 2002. Part of this reflects industry leaving the state due to the punitive business climate. But the rest relates to HIGH TAXES.

Dan, you have tried most recently to narrow this to a single house, then and try to conflate that to Naperville, (which is known as a Inductive Fallacy called Unrepresentative Sample, ie too small) and you have tried to broaden it to include articles about cities that are experiencing housing declines., but make no mention of Chicago much less Naperville.(Which is another type of Inductive Fallacy, the False Assumption). And There is also this little gem of logic. If as you are claiming prices have fallen 2002 how therefor did they peak as you claim in 2005? Can't quite figure out which logical fallacy that is but it's late. So why do you do this? Bbecause you have a real problem. You are woefully factually incorrect in the statement. Housing has not fallen 15% in Naperville since 2002. As I indicated above single family housing actually went up 1.8% in 2007, and went up something like 8.5% in 2006. I have the stats in writing, do you want them? Believe me, except for you, everyone else knows that housing skyrocketed from 2002 to 2006. I will give you a way out though. Sales volume was off almost 15% in 2007. Why don’t you concede that you really meant that and move on. Truly, you’re embarrassing yourself with all this. Trying to tell people that housing prices are down 15% and down 15% from 2002 levels to boot, because of Naperville’s high property taxes, caused by that mean and nasty school board over taxing us, is just not going to fly big guy. And of course this is why I sometime get a little heated with you. You continue to make these grand sweeping generalizations, or as I now call them in shorthand, DDSG ™ , you get called on it by me, and we spend a few days wasting our time as you dart and weave trying to evade the truth, and the truth is housing did not decline 15% from 2002 levels. Give it up Dan, and go buy a book on making logical arguments will ya? I need a rest.

Thom,

My "conservative appraisal" when I refinanced my house. Come on Thom, we all have opinions of what our houses are worth. If I used a value based on houses that sold in 2002, the my "appraisal" (not conservative!!) would be 60% higher (although I do not think that anyone could get that price today or get a loan against that value).

Put this in perspective, a higher value would further reinforce my position that property taxes have a direct negative impact on housing values. I would not want to overstate an idea.

I do not have to be a real estate agent to have an idea of what house values are. You should keep your comments in perspective.

Barbara,

I have a couple of thoughts, if you really care about my opinion.

1. The PROUDTOBE203 group made a very explicit campaign promise FROM THE DISTRICT something along this line, We are going to spend in accordance with a prescribed schedule and no more. We will NOT implement ANY new programs. That would be part of a subsequent referendum.

This promise was broken within two months of the vote when the District overspent these budgets by $3 million IN THE FIRST YEAR. Within two years, the budget commitment of $179 million was overspent by $12 million ($191 million total). Put all of this into context, the budgets were increased by 9% and spending increased by another 7% on top of that. SO MUCH FOR THE CAMPAIGN PLEDGES. Remember, these are not promises to communist enemies, these promises to our NEIGHBORS.

2. I have seen the list of “REASONS”; when you put them in context, they appear to be “EXCUSES”. For example, we have an increase of 50 students in ESL, another two teachers, $100,000. Total benefits went up $3 million. So medical cannot be the cause the remaining $12 spending increase. If we had a “World Class” educational program, compliance with No Child Left Behind should be easy. In short, I have a hard time figuring out how an entity can miss a budget by $12 million. If this was the private sector, management would have been ousted.

3. If all of these issues were so real, why were they not identified BEFORE the money was spent? Allen Albus should have declared a fiscal crisis. Spending control should have been implemented. This really involves people since the majority of costs are salaries. The District has now (at least in April of this year) a very reasonable staffing program. To spend more money, you either need to pay overtime (there are limited opportunities to do this in 203 beyond the current stipends for programs) or higher more teachers than the staffing plan would call require.

4. In 2005, Alan Leis and Allen Albus stated to the WDTA that it was IMPOSSIBLE to control expenses. They would HAVE to spend all the money that was being taxed. As late as November 2006, Allen Albus (there are two Allen-Alan) put together a projection showing the District at a deficit in four years.

As I previously stated, GOOD NEWS. Four months later, Dave Zager issues a projection showing a $40 million surplus. A MIRICLE!!!!!! And we know there are surpluses, how could they fund this new Site and Construction Fund?

Once the light was shined on the spending, it STOPPED. I have heard NO OUTCRY from this spending correction.

So was it IMPOSSIBLE to control expenses? Apparently not. As the old adage goes, if there is a will there is a way!!!! And if spending can be cut so radically in 2006, what did not happen in 2004 and 2005?

And we have had some tough economic periods over the last four years. And it looks bad for at least two years to come. I think 203 should continue to be fiscally conservative. And they should constantly revisit their operations. Look at 203, 15 “excess” teachers reassigned in the first month of the new superintendent’s tenure. Private industry has been economizing for the last 15 years and needs to continue. Government including schools should not be immune. How they do that, that is why we hire administrators. They have to make the tough calls. If not, you just get spending.

Several of my sources have told me the school board is very worried about the return of the Taxpayers Ticket or a group like it. Therefore, they want to push this referendum through as fast as possible before taxpayers receive their new tax bills. If they can get spades in the dirt fast they can have construction under way before a new board comes in and stops the process. This board is very nervous what taxpayers are going to do when they see their new tax bills on or around May 1st. Remember this when you go to the polls on February 5th.

Yes I have the name of the hired gun coming in to fight the referendum. He is damn good. No I will not give you his name. Of course it's legal, ever heard of free speech!!!!??

To be correct (per Thom Higgens):

Plan A
1. Originally appoved by Task Force-- $100 million
2. Revised-- $117 million
Plan B-- $40 million
Plan C-- $150 million

The District can implement Plan B and spend $34 million on additional projects. This would allow the District to address more than three buildings.

Over time, the enrollment reductions will free up one school building that could be reprogrammed for Early Childhood.

Thom, thank you for your correction.

Dan

To ALL bloggers on the "How will you vote on D203's referendum?" blog:

Does ayone else notice there seem to be maybe 7 of us doing all the blogging? Or that the tone has gotten increasingly caustic?

As I read through these long threads, I am not even positive that As A Group we even remember what the heck it is we are debating! It seems we are so far down in the weeds we might just be forgetting we are in an Illinois prairie.

Perhaps we can move it upstairs a notch? I do not want feel I contributed to someone's cardiac failure!

Thom,

It is not my job to cut --- we handsomely pay Dr. Leis for that.

As I have written earlier, my posts DO sometimes come across as Anonymous. Not all of them, and certainly NOT all Anonymous posts are me. I believe Ted has addressed this much earlier in this and other blogs.

NOT my bad on the fire alarms--- it is a quote from the report. I know you don't like it, but it is what it is, man.

I have gone through the simple math with you several times. You prefer to not accept that particualr form of analysis. I will repeast what I told Dr Leis and the Board on more than one occasion: "I DON'T CARE WHERE YOU SPEND IT OR HOW ---THAT IS YOUR JOB. I CARE ABOUT THE RATE RISING AT THREE TIMES INFLATION."

Now, would I really, really enjoy a reconciliation from the inflation rat to actual total spending, by category? You bet. Am I holding my breath? No.

Dan,

I'm gone for the evening so will have to respond tomorrow at the earliest. I have to make a living a bit here too and not spend my life with you guy's on these pages.

But Dan you should know you are supporting plan B not plan A as you indicate.

Thom,

I will ignore your personal attacks and follow my 0 for 5 numbers (if I am following your e-mail correctly).

0 for 1 OMISSION OF HB REPORT PAGES

The document I have is about 100 pages, 30 pages of text and 70 pages of site and floor plans. Here are the additional relevant pages for Central, I do not think they have the classroom size issue addressed:

http://www.mediafire.com/?3zxjywbpt9e

Since you were asking Bob about Steeple Run, here is their page.

http://www.mediafire.com/?eivh92wgzhy

0 for 2 DO NOT HAVE FINAL GAP ANALYSIS

This is news to me. I have asked for this information and this was the final document. This is the “FOUNDATION” to the subsequent drawings done by HB at a significant cost to the District. By the way, the subsequent Schematic Drawings were supposedly to address the DEFICIENCIES in the Gap Analysis. My opinion, NO DEFICIENCIES, NO DRAWINGS. A foundation made of SINKING SAND!!!!!

If you have a more up to date report, please scan and post. As you know from the information I previously shared with everyone, the District has not provided me with any, this was the basis of the spending. Kevin sat on the Task Force and he has no recollection of any additional reports. It is hard for us to respond to . . . NOTHING!!!!!!!

0 for 3 ALTERNATIVE PLANS

It was my understanding the District had three options for Central (I do not recall if I have the letters in the correct order):

A. RENNOVATE $40 million
B. REBUILD (this plan)--$70 million, now $87.7 million
C. NEW SCHOOL $135 million

They are promoting Plan B, I support Plan A. That is what this election is about. They can do Plan A without a referendum. I assume that is the fall back if the election does not pass. Forty million should be enough to get the job done, it is almost half the cost of the new 204 high school.

0 for 4 THE TAJ MAHAL

I define the Taj Mahal as REBUILDING the entire facility except the auditorium and swimming pools for $87.7 million versus a RENOVATION for $40 million. So the Taj Mahal is $47.7 million. Can I be more clear?

0 for 5 ARCHITECT’S FEES

As you know from reviewing the District’s response, we do not know what we got for $350,000--they have refused to make the information available. From what I have seen, they have overpaid for a MAINTENANCE SURVEY that should be maintained by the highly paid Buildings and Ground staff, that is my experience. Maybe some help from the architects. The other cost was at least THREE (3) Schematic Designs for buildings to correct problems that were never documented and that we cannot build. I think that is called putting the cart before the horse.

Too bad that a real deficiency analysis was not done like at your alma mater (Willowbrook). We would not be having this discussion.

Also, we asked the District if they made it a condition for the architects performing the building evaluations not to be able to perform the actual architectural services. This is a “Best Practice” so that needs are not identified simply to increase architectural fees. The answer, NO.

Thom, if you can fill in the blanks, I would really like to go 5 for 5. You have our materials, so if you have anything else, it would be very easy to correct me. You saw Paulson’s response and that is why I still have these questions.

This was my post.

Dan:

I repeat: It is unethical and counterproductive to accuse District 203 of being irresponsible in meeting its fiduciary responsibilities without carefully looking at the expenses that they must absorb. If you find this disparaging, so be it. Many good, hard-working, well-intentioned individuals employed by and volunteering for District 203 deserve our respect as well. In addition, I agree with Mr. Higgins. We believe we have our facts straight. If I make a mistake, please let me know. So far, you have not pointed out any mistakes.

On your Taxpayer’s Ticket Website, you ask your visitors ‘SO WHERE HAS ALL THE MONEY GONE? Just look at this chart and the answer is clear.”

Your website has a fuzzy graph with unexplained axis showing increased spending, but it does no NOT tell me where the money has gone! Your website attacking District 203’s spending never mentions some specific, rather large unavoidable expenses: Increasing health insurance costs, expenses due to meeting unfunded mandates, meeting the needs of our dramatically increased population of English language learners, reduced interest, higher insurance rates, increased fuel costs and state mandated retirement costs for non-teachers among others. The only increase in spending that you include to explain the increase in spending at District 203 was the increase in teachers’ salaries. This is inaccurate and misleading at best.

Again: It is illogical to assume that because District 203’s spending has significantly increased that District 203 and its board should be mistrusted. I have seen no red flags to demonstrate anything else. Their spending is right in line with comparable school districts. As you and I both agree, they have a surplus. The money is there for rebuilding. It is not gone. This is good! Cause to celebrate!

Dan,

from your post on 1-11-08 10:53

But I think the secret is out. Housing values in Naperville have fallen at least 15%, not since the 2005 peak, but since 2002.

Please show us the reference you based this on. It seems you are now trying to get out from under your comment by making a lot of anecdotal statements.

I thought I would outline a couple of links since Thom seems to think there is not a housing crisis.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aRCzVd1X4T3k

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&refer=home&sid=aC36T0Edvals

In reflecting on Thom’s comment, it might be that those who were “fortunate” to sell their houses in 2005 at a higher price than 2003 might have done so because of the sub prime housing lending. So Thom, you might be correct that some people paid a higher amount. And the new buyers will be leaving as well. Why stay, they have not equity. Just like Houston in the early 80’s.

I can only go by local experience, prices in the east part of Naperville (except the mansions on Hobson Road) in 2005 were lower than those who sold in 2002. In fact, many people have simply taken their houses off the market since they have not been able to sell them in the last three years without a significant price reduction.

By the way, if housing values fall to the 2002 levels, will the District roll back taxes as well? Only if the tax rates force them to do so.

Dan

Anonymous,

Bob is that you?

The fire alarms still again? Your bad my friend, better to check before you write something this inflammatory.

If it's you responding to Barb and I'm assuming this based on the content, after all this talk you haven't done as I asked regarding giving us specifics. You spent all the time that you relate to Barb? Grand, show us how after all this extensive research we are 30% over spending. I believe that was your claim. Please show us the math and exactly what you would cut.

TO: Posted by: Anonymous | January 14, 2008 01:53 PM

I was referring to this post, previously up the thread. Perhaps you should ask them. I was simply re-stating what someone already posted as fact. It would not be the first time a CRUST-like entity was used anywhere (even out of their area) to swoop in and help defeat referendums. If you do a little digging you will find lots of sites that explain how to defeat these initiatives on the ballot as well as many groups/services for hire to bring in to help accomplish this goal.

=====

A group of concerned taxpayers have hired a big anti-referendum hired gun from out of state to come to Naperville and fight the District 203 referendum. Radio ads, print ads, flyers, etc. will be blanketing Naperville soon. The guy they have hired is darn good too.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 10, 2008 10:27 PM

=====

Dan:

I repeat: It is unethical and counterproductive to accuse District 203 of being irresponsible in meeting its fiduciary responsibilities without carefully looking at the expenses that they must absorb. If you find this disparaging, so be it. Many good, hard-working, well-intentioned individuals employed by and volunteering for District 203 deserve our respect as well. In addition, I agree with Mr. Higgins. We believe we have our facts straight. If I make a mistake, please let me know.

On your Taxpayer’s Ticket Website, you ask your visitors ‘SO WHERE HAS ALL THE MONEY GONE? Just look at this chart and the answer is clear.”

Your website has a simple graph showing increased spending, but it does no NOT tell me where the money has gone! Your website attacking District 203’s spending never mentions some specific, rather large unavoidable expenses: Increasing health insurance costs, expenses due to meeting unfunded mandates, meeting the needs of our dramatically increased population of English language learners, reduced interest, higher insurance rates, increased fuel costs and state mandated retirement costs for non-teachers among others. The only increase in spending that you include to explain the increase in spending at District 203 was the increase in teachers’ salaries. This is inaccurate and misleading at best.

Again: It is illogical to assume that because District 203’s spending has significantly increased that District 203 and its board should be mistrusted. I have seen no red flags to demonstrate anything else. Their spending is right in line with comparable school districts. As you and I both agree, they have a surplus. The money is there for rebuilding. It is not gone. This is good! Cause to celebrate!

Bob,

In a letter to the editor you talk about having an elementary school having obsolete fire alarms. You don't think that that would be frightening to parents? Seriously?

to respond to your question here,

...WHY are you using revenues? The argument is about spending, isn't it?

and the funds they are spending come from where?

Thom,

No mas! My fingers are bleeding, man!

If they have done something to the fire alarm at Steeple Run --- Great! About time! Someone might want to tell the consultants and the Facilties Planning group.

By the way --- what about the poor quality construction and the roof?

Barbara Herr,

You are right --- it DOES take a lot of time. That is why I, instead of reading or listening to Dr Leis' comments, also spent hours and hours shifting through the actual worksheets with AA leading up to the election. Actual formulas, projections, assumptions, historical calcs, real exciting stuff.

As far as the $20 million, I thought I had been clear that it was just a number (a very big one!) to represent the unfunded mandates you refer to. Since it represents about 10% of the spedning budget, I feel comfortable saying it is,in fact ,too big. As such, it helps the QE203 argument, hurts mine, yet still shows a gap in spending! Sorry to try and be fair in the analysis!

By the way, if you have 20-40 hours of free time some week or month, I highly encourage yu to contact Mr Zager and ask if you can review all of his worksheets, formulas, etc. Tons of fun!

Note to Thom:

>I forgot earlier: please refrain from bringing Mr Zager into our arguments. I met him once and I have nothing negative to say about him as I don't know him, so please don't infer I do. I DID have mtgs with AA and Dr. Leis.

>Why not indict the entire Illinois School system? It is not like we are #q in the country at much. We begin to get back to my fear of a sow queen-mentality!

Joe,

Dude --- now you got my attention and I AM concerned here!

The hired mercenary you refer to --- do you have a name? Do you know this to be fact? Do you know who hired them?

Can you get this info? Is it legal? Does the District know about it? Can we stop it?

Do you have any data, or are you rumormongering?

Thom,

Please at least attempt to be somewhat civil, eh?

You accuse me of frightening parents --- dude, I took it right from the HB report ---I quoted, man! I guess I have my facts down pretty well, then. So, it actually illustrates a good understanding of the published data which YOU, I believe, have referred to many times in the past ("The HB report").

Dial it back a bit before you blow an artery or something. This is intended to be at least a little fun and all. Your rhetoric is a little disturbing, Take a breath, lean back, open the mind a little.....

Thom,

The official inflation rate was about 2.2%, and WHY are you using revenues? The argument is about spending, isn't it?

Dan,

This,

I do not see the extra half hour in these numbers. Am I missing something? Also, I do not know what districts Dr. Leis was using when he stated that 203 had the shortest elementary day.

I added the numbers spent on total instruction incorrectly when I compared it to the state average. It's only 5 minutes longer, not 30. My apologies. Still kinda of ruins the 203 has the shortest day meme you keep pushing. And please stop putting words in Dr. leis' mouth when you are trying to extricate yourself.

This,

That house sold for 30% less than my conservative appraisal four years ago and the taxes were now 30% higher. Based on these numbers, would it be reasonable that taxes contribute to the lower appreciation of houses in 204?

Now your'e a real estate agent? YOUR conservative appraisal four years ago?

Joe,

Concerning your January 12, 2008 12:06 AM post:

I was continuing a debate I have been having with Thom.

The goal was to SIMPLIFY a view of 203 spending over a given time period of 10 years. I took a spending number (I admit I have rec'd several from 203), grew it for inflation over the period, grew it by student enrollement changes, and added some extra yearly spending for unfunded mandates (I uses a made-up, very high number of $20 million).

The result was a number that was still somewhat lower than the 203 spending at the end of 10 years. Given our testing, scoring, etc., hadn't moved much, it was ONE way to show that the spending growth in 203 was, from my view, too high.

Dan,

It would be helpful if you would let readers know that your 7 page document is an overview of a 100 plus page planning document that is itself an overview of 21 separate documents that were created, one for for each school and are themselves quite extensive.

Now to the specifics;

This,

As it relates to Naperville Central, this report supposedly is the basis of the task force analysis

No, no, no. See above. Also, this is not the end product. 203 has been evaluating the HB report for over two years and has had countless meetings regarding the facilities question. The full HB report was the first building block in a extensive facilities plan. You just don't get that.

To this,

It does not mention deficiencies in classroom size or locker rooms being below grade, two major reasons the cost is $87.7 million versus the other District plan to build new science classrooms and RENNOVATE (sic) the facility for $40 million.

It's costing $47 million to add some classrooms and lockers? Your nose is growing Danny, or else you complete and total lack of knowledge regarding what they are proposing is showing. You pick. It's not definitive but read the Key Considerations-Central High School paragraph. You know the place where they actually discuss the possibility of building a entirely new Central. I hear they have some info on the district website that might help you understand exactly what they are proposing. Try here;

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/PlanforUpgradingFacilities2007%2D2012%2Epdf

This,

Without the support from a REASONABLE GAP ANALYSIS, the extra $47.7 million simply represents a REBUILD of Central to create a TAJ MAHAL, not to address documented deficiencies or gaps.

Dan, please will you make up your mind. Which is it?. Is it as above where you claim it's going to cost $47 million for some classrooms and lockers or here, where you claim the $47 million is going to create a Taj Mahal? Both can't be true. I've asked you this before of you, if they are building a Taj Mahal please give us specific details of exactly what is excessive, rather than your trademark sweeping generalities. In the future I think I'll just use DDSG (tm).

This,

For the benefit of taxpayers, the reports support a RENOVATION for $40 million, not a REBUILD for $87.7 million

Please point to where in this document you take this from.

This,

Also, remember that the above report cost $350,000. I for one am disappointed. Is the District also disappointed? Is that why they hired Wight?

Let's see your 0 for what 5 now? See my first statement regarding the full study, not these 7 pages.

Lastly, and only to Bob S.

You made a comment today in your letter to the editor that I'm sure needlessly frightened the parents of children at Steeple Run Elementary School. I will reproduce it here.

Reviewing district-provided documents shows as a point of fact that the other 15 schools are, by definition, being ignored. There are no renovations for them included in Option A. As an example, will the referendum include monies for Steeple Run, which the Healy-Bender report states has a "lack of quality construction ... has a near-need for a roof ... and an obsolete fire alarm"? Simply put, no!

Bob, the fire Alarm system was either replaced or upgraded in 2006 as part of 203's continuing maintenance program. Seriously, before you do something as visceral as frightening parents and children about their safety, please make sure you know your facts. Further this illustrates your lack of understanding of the realities as to how 203 operates. Needless to say we don't need to include in the referendum items that have already been accomplished.

Thom,

I attach the link to the District 203 report card.

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/DistrictReportCard.pdf

I think this summarizes the information on instructional minutes in key academic areas compared to state averages:

Elementary (3rd)
203 Instructional minutes 270
State average 264
Excess (deficiency) 6
Junior High (6th)
203 Instructional minutes 200
State average 243
Excess (deficiency) (43)
Junior High (8th)
203 Instructional minutes 200
State average 232
Excess (deficiency) (32)

I do not see the extra half hour in these numbers. Am I missing something? Also, I do not know what districts Dr. Leis was using when he stated that 203 had the shortest elementary day.

Going through the report cards showed another interesting fact? Graduation rate in 203 is 96.3 versus 204 at 99.9 and New Trier at 99.8. Are these the students that get socially promoted in junior high that parents related to me during my campaign?

Just wanted to stay on the FACTS.

Dan

PS. I had not seen Thom’s response before I drafted the above, so don’t believe my numbers, just go to the link and add up the numbers yourself. They are on the bottom of Page 1 of the report card.

On the comment about housing values. A clarification. The peak in my area was in 2002 to 2003, not the bubble in 2005. Prices had already starting falling then. In fact, I read somewhere that the real estate crisis will hit those people hardest who purchase their houses in the last four years (again, pointing to 2002 to 2003 as the pinnacle of housing prices).

Now I know why Thom is yelling, he thinks I am trying to peg the entire housing value problem on higher taxes, specifically the 203 OVERTAXATION. Did not. Do I personally think that higher taxes in 203 compared to say Hinsdale and Elmhurst are exasperating our situation? Think so. But that was not what I originally said.

One of the reasons I purchased in 203 back in 1994 before this madness at a higher price rather than 204 was the HIGH 204 taxes (location and quality of neighborhood did matter as well). At the time, 204 taxes were 10% higher for a comparably sized house that sold at 90% of my house. That house sold for 30% less than my conservative appraisal four years ago and the taxes were now 30% higher. Based on these numbers, would it be reasonable that taxes contribute to the lower appreciation of houses in 204?

To all,

Here is the “Gap Analysis” performed by the District. Read it, particularly in conjunction with Mr. Paulson’s comments.

http://www.mediafire.com/?5nmuar1xmxy

As it relates to Naperville Central, this report supposedly is the basis of the task force analysis. It does not mention deficiencies in classroom size or locker rooms being below grade, two major reasons the cost is $87.7 million versus the other District plan to build new science classrooms and RENNOVATE the facility for $40 million. The lower figure is closer to what is being spent to RENNOVATE Willowbrook High School where Thom is an alumnus.

Without the support from a REASONABLE GAP ANALYSIS, the extra $47.7 million simply represents a REBUILD of Central to create a TAJ MAHAL, not to address documented deficiencies or gaps.

For the benefit of taxpayers, the reports support a RENOVATION for $40 million, not a REBUILD for $87.7 million.

Also, remember that the above report cost $350,000. I for one am disappointed. Is the District also disappointed? Is that why they hired Wight?

But as Thom and Barbara Herr advocate, read the materials. Form your own opinion.

Dan,

Please read before you type. Per the ISBE report card the ELEMENTARY SCHOOL day is about 1/2 hr. longer in the 4 subjects.

The MIDDLE SCHOOL day is about 45 minutes shorter in the 4 subjects.

So to this;

HOW DARE Thom and Barbara Herr DISPARAGE OTHERS WHEN THEY DO NOT HAVE THEIR FACTS STRAIGHT. Don’t throw stones when you live in glass houses!

We have our facts straight Dan, you don't seem to be able to process the difference between an elementary and middle school.

To this;

On my comment about shifting time from PE to the three R’s. I was trying to be short and illustrate a point. I was wrong, we should shift them from Cartoon Network (home time) to school time per your facts. Sorry again.

you started this little tempest in a tea pot by making this ridiculous claim.

Why do our elementary students have the shortest school day and spend more time in physical education than the 3 R’s?

YOU made the statement, more time in PE than in the 3R's. YOU have to lie in that bed.

To this;

For example, on your comment about housing values, I guess you are right. Prices have not gone down in many areas since people have chosen not to sell and are trying to wait out the current market. Note I gave you a SPECIFIC example and you have the audacity to say I am fabricating a housing crisis!

Dan your comment that started it was this,

Housing values in Naperville have fallen at least 15%, not since the 2005 peak, but since 2002. Part of this reflects industry leaving the state due to the punitive business climate. But the rest relates to HIGH TAXES

As I say over and over housing did not start declining in 2002 and in fact we had a insignificant gain in appreciation in 2007!. Your attempt to wiggle out of your own outrageous claim of falling prices for the last 5 years by pointing to one home for sale currently is really weak. Home prices are softening now, but the appreciation since 2002 has been quite significant.

The bottom line is you need to take ownership of your words. They are yours alone sir.

The Will DuPage Taxpayers Alliance (WDTA) has been monitoring the school construction initiative. We have had questions about this process, so we posed them to the District. Your can read the latest request for you own information:

http://www.mediafire.com/?9azd3zbbgzt

Please note that we asked to review the billings for the architectural services and have not been provided that information. We will now need to revert to a formal FOIA request. We are concerned both about the amount of the expenditure ($350,000 as of last November) and what work was actually done.

Hope this link works. I accessed the page from another blogger.

Also, we are copying in famous “Gap Analysis”. My reading of Mr. Paulson’s response is that there were NO STANDARDS, but I will let all of you read the document and conclude for yourself.

AMAZING!!!!!!!!

In one of Thom’s previous postings, he accused me of being incompetent, a liar and spinner on my comments about the school day. I guess he also means that Dr. Leis is a liar as well. Sorry Doc.

Then Thom notes that per the ISBE report card the 203 instructional time is

45 MINUTES SHORTER PER DAY!!!!!!!!

Thanks Thom for exonerating Dr. Leis and myself!!!!!! Also, remember I did qualify my statement that I tried to collaborate it with the ISBE data, but their computers were down. I had no reason to revisit this concept since the April elections.

HOW DARE Thom and Barbara Herr DISPARAGE OTHERS WHEN THEY DO NOT HAVE THEIR FACTS STRAIGHT. Don’t throw stones when you live in glass houses!

Just to put things into perspective. The study of elementary school foreign language has been going on for at least two years. Now another three years to implement. Excuse me, this as well as many other educational initiatives should have been the District’s TOP PRIORITY. I attribute a major factor that helped my children’s educational development as being foreign language training. But there were many other benefits as well. Remember, when I explored moving my children to 203 schools, I was told that they did not offer several of the programs that my children took (for example, reading in kindergarten besides language). And those programs were offered in Hinsdale, Oak Brook, Glen Ellyn and Wheaton since many parents did transfer their students to those public schools.

Thom, I also think that the other schools that go into the average (Oak Brook and Hinsdale among others) offer gym and foreign language, so their day would be proportionately longer as well. The ISBE report card just measures classroom time in the four discilplines, not the others.

On my comment about shifting time from PE to the three R’s. I was trying to be short and illustrate a point. I was wrong, we should shift them from Cartoon Network (home time) to school time per your facts. Sorry again.

While I was not elected, I would encourage a thorough review of the educational program should be the Board’s top priority rather than building a Taj Mahal (yes Thom, that is MY impression of the Central project). The bureaucratic SEVEN year curriculum review can deal with details, but their needs to be a big picture review. Look at 204--all day kindergarten, college transition alternative--they are preparing for 2050 rather than being locked into the 1970’s.

Finally, a message to Thom. I know we disagree. But please be civil. Even the best companies continue to reinvent themselves to stay the best. I have tried very hard to be civil, you should too. For example, on your comment about housing values, I guess you are right. Prices have not gone down in many areas since people have chosen not to sell and are trying to wait out the current market. Note I gave you a SPECIFIC example and you have the audacity to say I am fabricating a housing crisis! Am I living in a parallel world and am the only one getting special versions of the Wall Street Journal and the Chicago Tribune detailing a housing crisis?

Thom,

I need to point out the obvious which is the #1 tactic used by anti-tax groups:

Keep the entity busy battling BS; the more outlandish BS the better.

They do not care if what they say is actually true. The only goal is to make a tax referendum FAIL. PERIOD.

Why else would they bring in a hired mercenary from out of state? They do not care what the issue is. They are only paid to STOP something from passing, regardless of what it is or how badly it is needed.

Sad, but true.

As promised here is the link to the Daily Herald spreadsheet that outlines the total revenue for 1996-1997 of $128,147,000. and an average daily attendance(ADA)of 16,586. For 2005-2006 it is $202,787,000. and 17,616. From this we can derive that for this 9 year period, attendance went up 6% and the increase in revenue over that period was 49%, or 3% LESS than the state average.

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/documents/dailyheraldchangeinrevperstudent_08_01_12.pdf

This only to stop the incessant, and incorrect, claim that 203 revenues climbed 100% in 10 years, plainly they did not.

Note; 203 stats on page 2. This is a abbreviated version of the Herald spread sheet that had all nine years of figures. Further, I sorted the list to rank it by the increase in revenue per pupil.

Since I have laid to rest the canard about 203 having the shortest elementary school day, (it’s actually ½ hr. longer than the state average), I thought I’d spend some time here talking about the middle school day as I have a 6th grader at Washington. Really great school BTW.

If you look at the ISBE report card you will find that 203 middle schools spend about 45 minutes less than the state average in Math Science, English and Social Studies. So oooohh, it’s looking bad for the home team right?

Let’s take a deeper look at this; we have a nine period day that includes a lunch period, a P.E. period and an exploratory or foreign language period for the students. Some junior highs have an 8 period day. All schools are required to teach daily P.E. but they might not have exploratory/foreign language each day. The 9th period allows us to have daily P.E. and daily exploratory/foreign language.

Let me explain how district 203 junior highs do exploratory classes. All sixth graders take music, art, applied technology and L.I.F.E. (Home Ec.). During the sixth grade year, actually coming up pretty soon, sixth graders and their families elect to either continue in the exploratory track for 7th and 8th grade or to take Spanish, French or German. For grades 7-8 they eliminate the music class and rotate the kids through the other three exploratory classes.

Foreign language is important for all of the obvious reasons. D203 considers exploratory classes to be a vital part of the middle school approach to educating students this age. This is a time for them to explore areas that might or might not initially appeal to them. I love the idea that my daughter might discover an interest in drafting because she took applied technology or that another might find and interest in fashion or cooking because of L.I.F.E. classes. Students often take further courses in high school or beyond in an area that they've explored in middle school. Perhaps they'll explore a career in that field. I'm also proud that students who enter foreign language in 7th grade and succeed can enter high school and take the second year of the language, positioning them for higher-level classes later.

I have also been impressed with the care and concern they have for the whole student including their emotional well-being. At Washington the 6th graders are put in two groups, with dedicated teachers, counselors and support staff, this allows all these fine people to really know my daughter, and help her make the most of her experience.

I mention this only because 203’s critics love to take pot shots at the district, seemingly just for the sport of it. The problem is they either are ignorant of, or choose to ignore, the forward thinking and care that goes into our children’s education, as is reflected in the high level of academic achievement that the critics unfortunately choose to downplay.
.

Dan,
This is getting ridiculous. You made these statement on 1-11-08 @ 10:53

Does spending influence education? More precisely, does the LACK OF SPENDING INFLUENCE EDUCATION? I think the answer would be yes.
Would spending more money in 203 improve education? No. It would just be a waste of money.

Would reprioritizing programs improve education? YES. Might they cost more? Yes, but where is the analysis? We are locked into a seven year perpetuation of the status quo.

Which caused this response from me.

Please tell us why spending any more money would be a waste. Are you really willing to make the statement, that 203 can not possibly spend any additional monies and have it be of value? That’s a staggering generalization.

So now you say this today,

My comment was that sImply spending more money without a specific goal will not result in any benefit. I think you have been advocating that, 203 has better results at a lower cost. Or our you changing your position?

In every criticism you make against 203, it is as if the district is just staggering along, aimlessly squandering our money, and somehow in spite of all this our children are magically getting a great education. Must be those outside tutors! All you do Dan is MAKE UP unfounded charges to level against D203, in order to damage their reputation. That’s why I don’t respect the arguments you make. So you are telling us D203 isn’t doing any forward planning, instead they are just sitting around at district headquarters and doing what, playing video games? Sure Dan, everyone gonna believe that's what's happening

This again from 1-11-08 @ 10:53

Why do our elementary students have the shortest school day and spend more time in physical education than the 3 R’s?

Here was my response,

Another staggeringly incorrect statement. Educational instruction in Elementary schools is 22.5 hours per week, PE is at best 1 hr. So your statement is nonsensical. BTW we spend ½ hr. more per week than the state average in educational instruction, so it’s time to retire this canard. Here’s the breakdown. Math 300 minutes per week, Science and Social Science 150 minutes a week, English is 750 minutes per week. PE varies per grade as follows, K 20 minutes, 1&2 50 Minutes and 3-5 60 minutes.

To which you make this reply today,

SHORT ELEMENTARY SCHEDULE
I’m sorry, I should have revealed my source, Dr. Alan Leis. He made this comment in response to Jaensch about the foreign language at a candidates forum. And I think that the 203 report card shows that the number of instructional hours at the elementary level are BELOW the state averages (ISBE’s system has been down, so I could not double check my recollection). Are they the shortest? Did not check all relevant 700 districts with elementary classes. I just took Dr. Leis’s word for it.

OK, So Dr. Leis stated that our elementary kids spend more time in PE than instruction? He’s your source? You seriously expect any sentient being to accept that? It’s laughable, I mean really how could you have even written the sentence? Kids spending more time in PE than instruction! It's absurd, and ridiculous on its face. And so now you try to smear Leis as being that idiotic, by claiming he is your source? Spare me. Further, as usual, you didn’t even bother the verify your statement. I DID!! and 203 elementary schools have ½ Hr. longer instruction per the ISBE as I indicate in my response to you. That’s what you do Dan if you expect to be taken seriously in these debates. You do the research and you show the numbers. You can not expect to be respected if all you do is throw a bunch of garbage out there and hope it sticks. It won’t, because I won’t let you.

The debate on these blogs has been characterized by you and others making claims against D203 that HAVE NO BASIS IN REALITY, requiring me to methodically, with verified facts and research, shredding your meager arguments into bits. Hey, we can play this game forever and you can throw more s**t against the wall, but it ain’t sticking my friend.

Lastly,
I’m still asking you for your proof of this statement made by you in the same post.
Housing values in Naperville have fallen at least 15%, not since the 2005 peak, but since 2002. Part of this reflects industry leaving the state due to the punitive business climate. But the rest relates to HIGH TAXES

You made the statement, back it up if you expect to be taken seriously. It’s not about disagreeing with you Dan, it’s about you making outrageous claims that you pull out of thin air in your attempt to paint 203 in a negative light. As I’ve asked above in my previous post, show us the proof that housing values have been falling since 2002.

Dan:

The total $33 million that you have calculated from Dr. Leis’ July 1, 2005 Letter to the Community equals the unexpected increases in expenses above and beyond the projected increases. It does not equal the total increases in expenses. As I have urged you and other strong opponents to District 203’s spending, without doing a thorough accounting of the books and fully understanding the financial impact of special education and no child left behind mandate, we will arrive at faulty conclusions.

I merely used Dr. Leis’ letter to demonstrate that there are many factors that must be considered when examining District 203 expenses and spending. My point is: It is reckless to jump to the conclusion that because District 203 spending has greatly increased, that District 203 has been irresponsible in its fiduciary responsibility. You continue with your criticism of the district by saying, “The only numbers one can trust from the District are those that the auditors present.” arguing that the district cannot be trusted. It is these generalized accusations without substantiation that I find so frustrating.

District 203 publicizes that there are surpluses! District 203 would like to utilize these financial surpluses towards needed reparations to the District 203 infrastructure that are so desperately needed. These surpluses allow District 203 to ask for only $82/yr for a $355K house for 20 years in the upcoming 2008 Referendum to meet the total expenses to maintain our facilities.

By the way, I do not understand your confusion regarding Leis’ reporting of the unexpected increase of $13.7 million in health care costs between the time of the 2002 referendum and the letter Leis wrote on July 1, 2005. These unexpected increases in health care expenses, above the projected increases in health care expenses, were due to, in Leis’ explanation, “due to rising costs nationally and a marked increase in participation in the District’s plan, as private sector benefits have been reduced.”

Barbara,

Thank you for the accounting of $33 million, but where is the other $60 million of the $93 million of overtaxation?

Also, all of those numbers you cite do not make sense. If medical costs went up $13 million for two years, then the costs would have doubled.

The only numbers one can trust from the District are those that the auditors present. And they show significant surpluses.

In November 2005, Allen Albus said the District would be broke in five years, four months later, Dave Zager says they will have more than $40 million. HUH!?!?!??!?!

To quote a famous Chicago Democrat, "Hocus pocus, dominocus!" (Harold Washington)

I have been following all of the comments placed on this blog to date. What has been frustrating to me is when individuals continually criticize the increase in spending at District 203 without a full accounting of expenses. Yes, it is time consuming and painstaking; but without it, one is reckless and unethical in his criticism of District 203’s spending. Here is a link to Dr. Leis’ explanation on July 1, 2005 of why expenses shot up so much. I do not intend this to be a full accounting of where the additional revenue went. To do so, start with the financial budgets from 2004 until 2008 posted on the District 203 website. Learn about the financial effects of the Special Education and No Child Left Behind mandates. Until one does this and follows up with a close examination of the books located at District 203, how can one criticize and ask where all of our local taxes go?

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/2002-Referendum-Implementation.pdf#xml=http://www.naperville203.org/search/index.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=821&Index=D%3a%5cProgram%20Files%5cdtSearch%20Developer%5cUserData%5cncusd203%

Here is the copy and paste of Dr. Leis’ message to the community dated July 1, 2008:

Where did any additional revenue go?

At the same time revenue increased above projections, other factors have offset that increase, including:

. Health care costs have escalated $13.7 million over original projections due to rising costs nationally and a marked increase in participation in the District’s plan, as private sector benefits have been reduced.

. Educational salary increases have been $5 million more than projected for multiple reasons, including changing student demographics (e.g., increased numbers of students whose native language is not English), and federal requirements related to special education services and No
Child Left Behind.

. Low interest rates have reduced interest earnings on investments by $5.5 million less than projected. . As the State has struggled economically, State revenues have been $4 million less than originally projected.
. Higher property and liability insurance costs after September 11 have increased costs by $2 million more than projected.
. State mandated retirement costs for non-teachers have been $2.8 million over projections.

The net effect is that all the changes in revenues and expenditures have largely canceled each other out, and District 203 is expected to eliminate its deficit by next year.

End of pasted excerpt of Dr. Leis’ message to community.

Thus, Bob, where did you pull the $20 million number in expenses due to underfunded/unfunded mandates from? Mike Davitt, how can you ask on your website where all the money has gone, when you fail to mention anywhere on your website(s) about District 203’s financial demands: increasing health insurance costs, expenses due to meeting unfunded mandates, meeting the needs of our dramatically increased population of English language learners, reduced interest, higher insurance rates, increased fuel costs and state mandated retirement costs for non-teachers?

As Mr. Higgins points out, this is time-consuming.

If you are going to criticize the district, taking us all away from our roles as parents, employees and educators of our children, please have the facts to back your criticisms up. Otherwise, we are not getting to the truth, and the unsubstantiated criticisms are part of the problem.

Thom,

ADDITIONAL SPENDING

My comment was that sImply spending more money without a specific goal will not result in any benefit. I think you have been advocating that, 203 has better results at a lower cost. Or our you changing your position?

Just remember that the District told us in 2002 they had a firm budget that would provide a quality education and IMMEDIATELY proceeded to overspend it by $10 to $15 million per year WITH NO ADDITIONAL VALUE (lower class sizes, diverse programs, etc.). AND they planned to spend even MORE, but when put under scrutiny in 2005, found a way to eliminate the waste. Ask Dave Zager for the original referendum commitment and the actual results.

The previous paragraph illustrates one thing--MISMANAGEMENT. Only when the light was shined on the District in 2005 did they stop the spending spree. Take a look at 204. The new superintendent immediately found 20 unnecessary positions.

SHORT ELEMENTARY SCHEDULE

I’m sorry, I should have revealed my source, Dr. Alan Leis. He made this comment in response to Jaensch about the foreign language at a candidates forum. And I think that the 203 report card shows that the number of instructional hours at the elementary level are BELOW the state averages (ISBE’s system has been down, so I could not double check my recollection). Are they the shortest? Did not check all relevant 700 districts with elementary classes. I just took Dr. Leis’s word for it.

But you will have to wait another THREE YEARS before 203 will act. I think your children will be out of elementary school by then.

By the way, the bus schedule. I support using the buses three times. Maybe one way to solve the problem is to eliminate the wasted time at the high school. Students have about 2 1/2 hours of NON INSTRUCTIONAL TIME (they arrive 1 hour before school, ONE HOUR for lunch--a total waste of time, the busses leave a half hour after school lets out--some later). I think the high school day could be reorganized to facilitate a change the bus schedule to fix the elementary day.

TUTORING

OK, you have one student that does not have a tutor. My comments are based on what I was told by 203 parents and COUNSELORS, my personal relationships with parents, and my observation at a major tutoring center. Since you have such an inside track to 203 information, besides asking for the breakdown of SAT tests, see if they are compiling tutoring information.

By the way, the highest performing school systems Internationally have one feature we do not have in the United States--choice. And I am not talking about vouchers. A school system as large as 203 should be able to provide options. As John Stoesel stated, the American education system is patterned after socialism. (You make that very clear in your comments by the way). Socialism failed and he states schools will too unless they reorganize.

HOUSE VALUES

The assessors are three years behind (by law). And they hate to increase the values since the school districts abuse the taxes (call John Trowbridge). Now that values are falling, they do not have to increase them.

I resent the “smoking” comment. Every press release I have seen has been talking about the drop in housing values and are forecasting more. On a serious note, we are in for a major recession. I know you hate him, but George Bush said it best, “This is the worst time to be increasing taxes and taking more money from people.”

By the way, the house across the street was purchased by the relocation company in May for $850,000 and sold in December for $725,000 (a total of 20 months on the market). That’s appreciation? In fact, if prices continue to fall, the assessments will have to fall as well.

Your concluding comment is totally bogus. You ramble forever and then say I do not know what I am talking about. I did not say that the results of the District non-Asian students were “mediocre at best”, this was Fred Lu. If he is wrong, the District should just publish the facts. The SILENCE IS DEAFENING. I respect your comments and opinion, you should show the same to others. I am not asking you to agree by the way.

Ann E.

It's from South Park poking fun at lawyers, baseless arguments and non nonsensical if/then conclusions that people tend to use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

I find it somewhat amusing that Joe knows so much Star Wars lingo, especially how to spell "Chewbacca?" I don't know if I've ever seen that word spelled out before, but I'm totally off-topic, so I will not post this...ohno! so sorry, but my mouse seems to have a mind of it's own! :-)

Almost every claim that the school board is wasting money seems to come down to the Chewbacca defense.

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the supposed jury, what we have here is a school board that spends many millions of dollars. Now, if Chewbacca is a wookie living on the planet Endore and Endore is full of Ewocs, this does not make sense. Therefore, the schoolboard's budget does not make sense. I rest my case."

Bob,

Thanks a lot for making me toss and turn all night thinking about this statement,

Take the 1995 spending (as an example)-- multiply it by 1.03 (which is quite a bit higher than inflation during the same span) 10 times. Then multiply that result by 1 plus the increase in enrollment. then take that number and add $20 million. Then take that and subtract it from the 2005 spending. The result is approx one third of 2005 spending

OK I did what you suggested. But I started with the 1996/07 revenue of $128,147,000. per the Herald study, and I set up a spread sheet and did the 9 year progression to get to a 2005/06 revenue figure and then compared it to the actual revenue figure. Again using your scenario of a $20 million increase in un-funded mandates over ten years so only $18 million here, which I chose to add in on a pro-rated basis per year as opposed to a lump sum at the end (more accurate), a 3% inflation rate, and I added in .667% a year to solve for the 6% enrollment increase over the 9 year period, which you need to do for fairness..

So what was the number?

$198,081,000.

Actual 2005/06 revenue per the Herald?

$202,787,000.

So the variance is $3.986million, not the $60 million in your “203’s revenue is 30% too high” scenario.

Now, you looked at 1995 to 1996. I used the Heralds numbers for only nine years as it is an independent source.

Further, if you are really saying that 2005 spending is 30% too much then you are saying that the reasonable revenue number is the 2005/06 revenue amount of $202,787 million multiplied by .66% correct? That’s $135,056 million or only $6.6 million over the 1996/97 revenue amount. How much lower is your 1995 revenue figure?

Regardless your analysis does not make sense. If 203’s revenue is really 30% too high as you claim then what you are asking is for 203 to have had just about zero increase in revenue for 9 or 10 years. I know you would like that because your property taxes would be lower but let’s get real here.

Lastly, hey do some research! Find out the official inflation rate for the 10 years. It would be fun to see.

I’ll send you my spread sheet probably tomorrow, I’ve got a busy day today.

Bob, with your math exercise did anything 'new' get factored in ?

I see a track of 3% increases over 10 years (multiple by 1.03), I see something about 1+increase in Enrollment (not sure what this signifies) , add $20 million (again, I'm not clear what this is for or why) then subtract that from 2005 spending.

Ok, please explain to this clueless one exactly what each step is doing here and what you are trying to find/calculate. I admit, I'm a bit clueless trying to follow your thought process.

Bob,

I respect you a lot, but your 20 second analysis is so simplistic in the extreme so as to be worthless. Where's your 10 year health care cost increase analysis? Or your 10 year energy cost analysis? How about the 10 year increase in insurance costs, especially post 911? Then there is all the new technology costs and the mandated increases in nurses, social workers, and counselors, where do you account for that? How did you solve for the lost interest income when rates plummeted? How do you know that all the increased costs for NCLB, special ed costs, which have skyrocketed, and the other unfunded mandates magically just cost $20 million? Where did you solve for the 6% increase in enrollment?

You didn’t do the work, you just pulled out an envelope and said I think that 203 should not be able to have a anything more than a 3% increase annually and I don’t care about the details. It took you 20-30 seconds tops. Well, nice try but the real world doesn’t work that way.

Let’s also remember that if you indict 203 you are indicting all Illinois schools as here are the numbers from the Daily Herald study. I will get the spreadsheet posted this weekend some time, but all Illinois schools went up an average of 52% and as you see below 203 went up 49% So are we to apply your 30% scalpel to all Illinois districts?.

I do take your point re Dan and Mike, but you can not expect to be taken seriously posting the arguments that you are making. If it was as easy, and simplistic as you say we should fire Zager and hire my 11 year old daughter, cause even she could do your analysis. Sorry Bob.

To Anonymous regarding this,

From 1995 to 2005, the spending per student (per the data I rec'd on a FOIA request) DOUBLED from a little over $5200/per to almost $10700/per student.

You did a FOIA? please post it. Below is the stats from the Daily Herald study, and you ain’t even close.

For 1996-7 school year; Total revenue $128,147,000. Average daily attendance 16,586. Total cost per student $7,726

For 2005-06 school year Total revenue $202,787.00 Average daily attendance 17,613
Total cost per student $11,513.

So from this we can derive that there was a 6% increase in enrollment and a $49% increase in revenue. So we have a bit of a discrepancy here. Please show us your FOIA doc’s. and let me know when you did the FOIA. I will ask for the same doc’s

To Jay regarding my We’re number one statement;

If you will go here to the QE203 website

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/costperformance_mediasurvey.shtml

you will see an analysis I did of a variety of studies. My conclusion after digging through all the data is the 203 has the highest academic achievement at the lowest cost of any district in the Chicago land area.

We are number one.

This does not mean there aren’t higher performing districts. Just that they spend a ton more than 203. I could not find a district that had better ACT scores at a lower cost. I did find a ton with higher costs but lower academic performance. This really screws with Davitt’s narrative as I discuss below.

To Mike Davitt,

Re this

Unless you're one of the socially and fiscally liberal members of QE203, it's time to demand accountability from District 203. It's time to stop falling for the vacuous argument comparing District 203 to other districts.

Yes by all means everyone, it’s a vacuous argument to ask how does 203 academic achievement and costs compare with other school districts. Mike doesn’t want you to go there because it utterly destroys his argument. So how about we demand some accountability of Mike and his arguments? Yesterday he said the we are paying 100% more than we should be. So Mike, show us the numbers. Cut the budget to $110 million, show us how it’s done. Now, anyone who follows your statements knows you feel that teachers at best contribute 5% to a kids academic achievement, so I guess a start is to hire a bunch of kids at minimum wage for teachers, maybe that will get you there. Seriously show us the numbers. Also, tell everyone what better technique you have to assess the success or failure of this district than the Daily herald, USN&WR, and Chicago Magazine studies, along with the ISBE school report cards. Really everyone pay no attention to any of that

Thom,

I've been thinking over our earlier meetings and these blogs ---- since I actually have 5 versions of the "numbers" for the period in question, I decided to use the set most unfavorable to my statements. I also think these are th eones I rec'd from DZ.

The new results are as follows:I used a ten year inflation rate of a little over 2.2%, I added 20 Mil in unfunded mandates, and the result was a little over 29% of overspending. The mesage doesn't change under this exercise, but the "degree" varies slightly. We probably will never agree on this being a meaningful figure, but if it was my personal budget I wouyld be no more, or no less, questioning of it then I am with the School District.

[I think it about time I threw away some of the old sets of numbers!]

“Perhaps nothing in our society is more needed for those in positions of authority than accountability. Too often those with authority are able (and willing) to surround themselves with people who support their decisions without question.” Unless you're one of the socially and fiscally liberal members of QE203, it's time to demand accountability from District 203. It's time to stop falling for the vacuous argument comparing District 203 to other districts. It's time to say enough is enough! Get off your ass and vote on Feb 5.

"If you are content to just be better than the next District, more power to you.

Yes Bob I think we all need to accept that we are number one and will be after we approve this minor referendum. What a amazing place to be,

Number One."

Thom, could you please briefly explain what you mean by this comment?

Thom,

Let me add something on spending:

From 1995 to 2005, the spending per student (per the data I rec'd on a FOIA request) DOUBLED from a little over $5200/per to almost $10700/per student.
undoubtedly there are some good reasons for some of the increase (inflation, unfunded mandates, etc), but as I already pointed out, they fall FAR short of explaining it)

Thom,

On my issue of spending, you saying it in a snarky way doesn't make you right. I would encourage you to do the math, man! I DID.

Simplified:

Take the 1995 spending (as an example)-- multiply it by 1.03 (which is quite a bit higher than inflation during the same span) 10 times. Then multiply that result by 1 plus the increase in enrollment. then take that number and add $20 million. Then take that and subtract it from the 2005 spending. The result is approx one third of 2005 spending.

Sorry, man, but the numbers is the numbers!

[for now, PLEASE leave me out of your argument with Dan & Mike. I stand by my numbers, they are correct, and more importantly they use SOUND analysis and economic sense)

Has anyone else seen the news blurbs today about Oswego? They have built a brand new grade school in Oswego and junior high in Plainfield, scheduled to open next fall. (405 million referendum) Now it appears, with the housing slowdown, the schools will sit empty for now, if the new proposal to keep them closed is approved. I heard on Channel 7 that the grade school is built for 750, and if it opened next year, only 145 students would attend.

Not the same as Naperville, but between SD203 and 204 we could be looking at less students than we are building for, as well. SD204 may be building a HS that may not be needed. Combine the two districts, and I'm sure we would have all the facilities we need here in Naperville.

Dan,

I guess the best way to respond is to start asking you to stop throwing out claims if you are not going to back them up with any kind of rationale/data.

To this,

Would spending more money in 203 improve education? No. It would just be a waste of money.

Please tell us why spending any more money would be a waste. Are you really willing to make the statement, that 203 can not possibly spend any additional monies and have it be of value? That’s a staggering generalization.

To this,

Why do our elementary students have the shortest school day and spend more time in physical education than the 3 R’s?

Another staggeringly incorrect statement. Educational instruction in Elementary schools is 22.5 hours per week, PE is at best 1 hr. So your statement is nonsensical. BTW we spend ½ hr. more per week than the state average in educational instruction, so it’s time to retire this canard.

Here’s the breakdown. Math 300 minutes per week, Science and Social Science 150 minutes a week, English is 750 minutes per week. PE varies per grade as follows, K 20 minutes, 1&2 50 Minutes and 3-5 60 minutes.

Further, you continue to harp on the elementary schools having the shortest day which is true mostly as we tie with another district (I do not know who this group is comprised of) for the shortest day, but it is because we have the LONGEST day in the high schools and as we are a CUSD and share resources such as buses, the decision was to put the elementary day “inside” the HS day.

Considering our students high academic achievement, and the districts desire to be fiscally prudent, and I assume, not hire a bunch more bus drivers, it certainly seems to me to be the correct decision, that you “fiscal conservatives” should approve of.

Regarding this,

For those people who care about education, why are they forced to hire private tutors to make up the 203 deficiency or send their children to private schools so they can get what they get in Hinsdale, Elmhurst, and Winnetka? The District gets the results because of the independent actions of the parents of these students.
Do a survey, ask them how they excel. The District knows this, thereby making their claims to the success even more disingenuous. How about a breakdown of the ACT scores by ethnicity? The District has the numbers, why don’t they release them? Is Fred Lu correct when he said that if you took the Asian students scores out of the ACT’s that 203 would be mediocre at best? Did you notice that a disproportionate number of recent National Merit Semi-Finalists were Asian?

This is a just a group of sweeping generalizations. Are we to assume that all our
top performing students have tutors & go to after school reading
classes? I think not. I personally know a student who graduated with
honors from 203 who was never tutored nor attended any outside the
district after school classes—and neither did his friends. To imply
that his parents did not care about (his) education is absurd as is the
conjecture that the excellent results of the district are solely a
product of the independent actions of the parents. Where’s the data for
this?

There is no evidence that the after school programs are necessary and
most parents put their children in these programs because they think
there is an advantage, real or perceived, and not because the district’s
programs are deficient. There is a difference.

You like to compare US schools to other countries, well check out
McKinsey’s recent study where they observe that countries with high performing
education systems strive to have the best teachers (and value them).

The district is not disingenuous—boy this word is getting a workout
lately—they take credit for their part in the education of their
students, but also acknowledge the efforts of the students and their
families, too.

What is the point of breaking down the district’s results by ethnicity
Your point about a recent number of National Merit Scholarship Semi-Finalists being of Asian heritage is irrelevant to the discussion and denigrates the accomplishments of all the other high performers who do not happen have that ancestry. Subtracting out the top, regardless of their ethnic background, and then implying that we have mediocre district—that we shouldn’t fund—is just stupid. They all are entitled to the best that we can give them. The debate here is about renovating facilities (and funding education) for all the children that are inside our buildings.

Housing values in Naperville have fallen at least 15%, not since the 2005 peak, but since 2002. Part of this reflects industry leaving the state due to the punitive business climate. But the rest relates to HIGH TAXES

Dan, what are you smoking, and can I have some? This is ridiculous. If home prices truly have fallen since 2002 then please tell us why you all were not suing the county assessors for years 2002 thru 2007 for reductions on your homes assessed values?
And if you statement is true how did the school levy increase so significantly in the years 2002-2004? Home price’s in Naperville went up an average 8.5% in 2006, 2007 was up 1.5%, and everyone knows that home values shot up tremendously from 02 through 05, I just don’t have the time to look up those numbers. Disagree? Please prove me wrong. Show everyone how much homes in Naperville have declined since 2002 on a yearly basis if it started in 2002.

The bottom line to all this, if I may borrow from someone in the other thread, is you guys seem to have a reckless disregard for the truth. As I’ve pointed out above, your facts are wrong, recklessly wrong. And while I am not holding you personally accountable for others statements, your claims above are very much in the same vein as Bob’s regarding the supposed 30% excess in 203’s budget here; “….with a result that shows 203 is overspending at an alarming rate (approximately a third higher than it should be!!! Yikes!).” And Davitt’s claim that no, it’s 50% here; “Happily paying 100% more for the same level and quality of service is simply unintelligent.”

As I’ve said to you all before, you really have to stop just making s**t up.

Thom,

Let’s not overplay the various comments. Does spending influence education? More precisely, does the LACK OF SPENDING INFLUENCE EDUCATION? I think the answer would be yes. Would spending more money in 203 improve education? No. It would just be a waste of money. Would reprioritizing programs improve education? YES. Might they cost more? Yes, but where is the analysis? We are locked into a seven year perpetuation of the status quo.

But let’s drill down on another campaign pledge from 2002. The budget the District presented to maintain the existing (at that time) 203 educational program was all the District was going to tax for, not a penny more. THEY COULD MAINTAIN THE WORLD CLASS PROGRAM FOR THE COSTS NOTED. Instead, they taxed for $45 million more than they promised. AND NO NEW EDUCATION, JUST SPENDING.

Another part of the story. Back in 2005, Alan Leis and Allen Albus told Bob S. and myself that 203 could not economize and would spend all of the $45 million if not more! Where was Suzyn Price and Dean Reschke, standing behind their pledge to the community?

But there was good news. With the pressure from the community and probably the departure of Albus, the District DID NOT SPEND THE ENTIRE $45 MILLION. So much for not being able to get things done.

I will repeat what I said in my campaign. Let’s evaluate the education provided in this district and IMPROVE the value. Why do our elementary students have the shortest school day and spend more time in physical education than the 3 R’s? Why do they need to play catch up when they get to high school? Why is it going to take THREE YEARS to implement a foreign language program throughout the District?

For those people who care about education, why are they forced to hire private tutors to make up the 203 deficiency or send their children to private schools so they can get what they get in Hinsdale, Elmhurst, and Winnetka? The District gets the results because of the independent actions of the parents of these students. Do a survey, ask them how they excel.

The District knows this, thereby making their claims to the success even more disingenuous. How about a breakdown of the ACT scores by ethnicity? The District has the numbers, why don’t they release them? Is Fred Lu correct when he said that if you took the Asian students scores out of the ACT’s that 203 would be mediocre at best? Did you notice that a disproportionate number of recent National Merit Semi-Finalists were Asian? To their PARENTS credit, they care about education and are making the difference so their students can excel.

The real measure of VALUE? Without factoring in tutoring costs and private schooling, District 203 taxes are the second highest in DuPage County, behind 204. I think as one writer said before, you should move out to get a better value. But I think the secret is out. Housing values in Naperville have fallen at least 15%, not since the 2005 peak, but since 2002. Part of this reflects industry leaving the state due to the punitive business climate. But the rest relates to HIGH TAXES. And for those of you in Naperville, the City wants to raise your taxes 10% compared to the 2.5% tax cap limit. And last year they raised them 6.5% versus 3.4%. I’m glad I live in an unincorporated neighborhood!

Mercenary Propaganda from out of state? Oh man, that's hilariously desperate. Who better to know what's best for your school district than someone without a clue from nowhere around here?

A group of concerned taxpayers have hired a big anti-referendum hired gun from out of state to come to Naperville and fight the District 203 referendum. Radio ads, print ads, flyers, etc. will be blanketing Naperville soon. The guy they have hired is darn good too.

Miike

No mater how many time you say it it will not make it true.

please provide some kind of back up this statement

Happily paying 100% more for the same level and quality of service is simply unintelligent.

we are paying less and getting more and I took the time to prove it in the analysis I did. Here's the link one more time

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/costperformance_mediasurvey.shtml

You can not win this argument. There is a mountain of facts and statistics against you.

To this,

District apologists who continue to compare District 203 to the Jones's are completely ignorant to the concepts of fiscal responsibility

Your "Jones's" are every other school district in the Chicagoland area and if you take the USN&WR study into account the entire country. So who's being ignorant please?

It's more than self evident you loathe the teachers and the union that represents them, I rather doubt you want to pay property taxes necessary to support the schools, any schools. But In every measure that I can find 203 is what you should be applauding from both a fiscal and educational standpoint.

You may not care that USN&WR rated 203's HS's in the top 2-3% nationally but I do, and while the parents and children deserve a great deal of credit they didn't do it on their own. I consider my children's teacher valued partners in their education.

To this;

Simply put, 203's spending is rising at a rate WAY BEYOND the combination of enrollment changes and inflation (by any measure you pickl!) In fact, if you compound the 1995 spending by this, and add an insane $20 million for new unfunded mandates (which is WAY too high), you still come up with a result that shows 203 is overspending at an alarming rate (approximately a third higher than it should be!!! Yikes!).

I’ll post and link to the Herald worksheet tomorrow but briefly the average increase in revenue per district from 1996 to 2005 on a per pupil basis, based on the schools average daily attendance was 52% for all Illinois districts. D203 came in at $49% or below the state average. Remember this solves for the changes in student population and over those years 203’s population increased by 6%.

Now you will say that this doesn't matter that you were talking about CPI inflation vs 203's revenue growth. but If you are indicting 203 you have to indict all Illinois school districts. You can not escape the fact that 203 is below the state average. You also take far to simplistic view. There are a host of things that caused the increases in expenditures, you just gloss or ignore them. For you to legitimately make the claim the 203 and by inference all school districts have unreasonably increased their expenditure, you have to go into the budgets and parse the numbers, a daunting task, but what is required to make your claim. You say they are overspending by approximately a third? Please show us your spreadsheet that proves it,otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

To this;

Why do I say "overspending"? Because I believe it is important to measure ourselves against ourselves --- only looking at other Districts puts us in the position of being Queen of the Pigs (in this case, Spending pigs!).

All this says to me is you think all education costs too much and the fact that we are on the top i.e. “Queen bee” of the “spending pigs” means nothing to you. Bob, truly, look at the studies. 203 is what you all should hope all of the rest of the state becomes from a fiscal standpoint. 203 isn’t a few bucks or percentages less they are thousand of dollars and 20-30% lower. You interested in the state saving educational dollars? Here’s my biggest recommendation convert all the school districts to CUSD’s because looking at the differences in cost, the savings are really compelling with them. I wonder if what you really feel is we need to measure what we are spending against what you personally want to spend.

To this,

If you are content to just be better than the next District, more power to you.

Yes Bob I think we all need to accept that we are number one and will be after we approve this minor referendum. What a amazing place to be,

Number One.

Lastly

I encourage you to quit disparaging those of us who use other standards

I was responding to Mike Davitt and my comments are directed to him only. I would hope that you of all people would be willing to embrace my slight modification of his comment

Instead of;

Spending has no bearing on the quality of education. Never has. Never will.

Can you and I agree on this?

Spending more does not automatically have a bearing on the quality of education.

Bob and Mike,

Please post up what specific things (with dollar amounts) you would trim from the budget to bring it down to a level where you think the spending should be. Then, if you can, justify the reductions and explain how it will not have any negative impact to the schools, students or the school system.

I like the talk, but the important question is does it walk?

As long as school districts are run by union-endorsed, liberal school board members, we will continue to see teacher compensation 2-3 times the rate of inflation, leaving little to nothing for facilities improvements or innovative programs that might actually improve the quality of education. Teacher salaries do not affect student performance. District apologists who continue to compare District 203 to the Jones's are completely ignorant to the concepts of fiscal responsibility, value, and economics. Happily paying 100% more for the same level and quality of service is simply unintelligent.

Thom,

As we have discussed often, just looking at other districts is NOT enough!

It is also important to look at our own history: Simply put, 203's spending is rising at a rate WAY BEYOND the combination of enrollment changes and inflation (by any measure you pickl!) In fact, if you compound the 1995 spending by this, and add an insane $20 million for new unfunded mandates (which is WAY too high), you still come up with a result that shows 203 is overspending at an alarming rate (approximately a third higher than it should be!!! Yikes!).

Why do I say "overspending"? Because I believe it is important to measure ourselves against ourselves --- only looking at other Districts puts us in the position of being Queen of the Pigs (in this case, Spending pigs!). In the past, the District 203 Board & admin has done an OUTSTANDING job of delivering bang for the buck ---- Rudy Carl and others never concerned themselves with other districts as they fully understood our own results and costs --- They measured themselves against themselves. Now, you want us to only ensure we are financially better than others. This is a low bar, indeed!

If you are content to just be better than the next District, more power to you. However, I encourage you to quit disparaging those of us who use other standards, most notably our own past success.

Regarding this;

There is not a school district in the Chicagoland area that has higher academic performance at a lower cost than 203. Not One.

Let's play fair here kids. If you want to use the ISBE report card stats or ACT scores to find the one high school district I might possibly have missed fine, have at it, but it has to be this kind of recognizable standard for it to mean anything. While don't think you will find one, second or third would hardly be a sin. CPS admissions based schools certainly don't apply and if you were to include them you have to also include all the other CPS schools

Let's see if you guy's can find one.

Let’s look at Mike’s favorite statement that he repeats over and over.

Spending has no bearing on the quality of education. Never has. Never will.

Where Mike gets tripped up is by claiming that spending has NO bearing on the quality of education .That’s simply an ignorant statement. If he would make a statement such as the following I would agree with him "Spending more does not automatically have a bearing on the quality of education." As truly there are a host of school districts that do not perform as well academically as D203 and have far higher costs. However every higher performing district has higher costs than D203. So the bottom line on 203?

There is not a school district in the Chicagoland area that has higher academic performance at a lower cost than 203. Not One.

Every high school district with higher academic performance has significantly higher costs.

I strongly suggest you visit the districts website and look at this fact sheet. It illustrates forcefully that 203 excels at educating our children at a modest cost.

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/District203Facts_Figures.pdf

I also ask you visit here;

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/costperformance_mediasurvey.shtml

I wrote this piece and whether you look at the Herald study, or my analysis of 4 high performing schools that were not in the study, or the comparison of the 6 CUSD’s , in each and every case 203 had the lowest cost for hi performing districts, and the only ones who did better spent significantly larger sums to get there.

The converse is true also and is even more damaging to Mikes case. If you look at the Herald study this is what you will find;

Only 11of the combined Elementary/High School Districts had a lower combined cost than 203
Their average composite ACT score was 60% lower, at 20.5%.

Is this town willing to accept 60% lower ACT scores just so Mike can save a few bucks on his property taxes? I kinda doubt it.

Deb and Jay

You raised some interesting questions that peaked my interest. Forgive me for being careful but I created an email for you to forward on your email contact info for the anti referendum group, I understand I will also be getting a lot of junk to this also. The email is

defeat203referendum@gmail.com

Mike,

That's a very interesting perspective. Unfortunately not every cost factor that District 203 has to pay equates out to the CPI rate from 1972. Also, I would venture a guess that there are actually more cost factors involved (and mandated) now than there was back then.

If money doesn't make the education on some level within some upper/lower window of spending (I'll definitely admit there does come a law of diminishing returns but no one here knows where that line actually sits) then we should be able to run D203 on an 18 million dollar budget per year. If that were the budget would the quality of the education go up or down from where it is now?

When District 203 was founded in 1972 it's operating budget was $18 million. Compound that figure at CPI and see what you get 35 years later. How does it compare to today's budget? Not even close? Oh, I forgot, we have high academic performance today (just like we had 35 years ago). There's only one way to respond to District 203 apologists who justify the district's fiscal incompetence by pointing to its ACT scores or what the Jones's are spending: just ask them when in the last 35 years student performance wasn't high in Naperville. Spending has no bearing on the quality of education. Never has. Never will.

but Joe,

That $50 vehicle sticker is financing SOMETHING tangible-perhaps a parking garage. Also, I think this tax has been proposed by elected officials to fund THEIR $$ needs which they consider to be of the utmost importance. tug,tug,tug...

I am a product of NapD203 schools, both NCHS and NNHS. I recall that 30 students per classroom has been the acceptable standard for a long time right? Please remember, the students themselves responded to the criticism that NCHS was a dump by printing up t-shirts saying that "it might be a dump, but it's OUR dump". I think the students get it and I admire them for their chutzpah.

Deb, I would like the same thing. There is a fellow blogger named Dan (I think) who was raisng some sort of opposition group, but this is a difficult forum in which to respond to in person.

Ted, any ideas? This is my 1st blog. Is there protocol?

Jay,

With regards to controlling where taxes will go, yes you can. If you vote FOR the referendum, you know they will go there. If you vote no, well... When they go up for some other reason, it may be for something that you don't get a vote for (like being required to have a $50 yearly sticker per vehicle). The sticker may happen still but all you get out of it is a sticker. You do stand to also get a better condition (and more desirable) HS in your area with a referendum.

Personally, I believe the light is almost a solid red in the housing market already. Foreclosures are going to be disgusting. Add to that the 'new math' being proposed to compute your credit score. I think this is the backhanded way they will try to 'save' the housing market by making people's credit appear better than it really is (by adjusting the math formula). EUREKA! You can now qualify for that new home loan due to the change in math that you could not qualify for the prior week under the old formula. That will just push out the problem a little while longer (and into the lap of whomever is the next president). But, I'm getting off topic yet again; sorry.

Joe,

With all due respect, are you sure you can control what taxes will be diverted toward? Although they were elected, D203 keeping excess taxes was the Board's decision, not the taxpayers.

Considering all taxing bodies, taxes might be going up on top of home values that have appreciated over the past several years. I would honestly like to hear what would happen when home values fall and taxes go up (in terms of our topic here). I know we don't have a crystal ball but I think currently, the light is flashing yellow.

Is there an opposition group to this referendum? Is there any way to get lawn signs to post in our yards in opposition of the referendum? Anything being done to educate Naperville Dist. 203 taxpayers regarding this proposal and prior overtaxation resulting in the net gain currently in 203's account?