1.
Easy, all of the mandates that the Feds cram down the throats of the States would disappear overnight, since the States would fire the Senators on the spot. Before direct election, Senators were told how to vote by the State Houses.

*Free Trade would have been DOA in Illinois

We now have 100 free agents funded by God knows who, the Senate represents the Senators and the urban areas. State and local governments have devolved into errand boys for the Feds, top down government.

2.
Direct election favors the densely populated cities over the suburbs and rural areas; so its possible for the Chicago machine to own two Senators who don't have to pay much attention to the rest of State as long as they keep the redistribution of wealth flowing into the cities and their machines. Even if it means borrowing $1 trillion from China to keep the "re-distribution" flowing.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Also, I don't see how returning to having the legislatures elect Senators would be an improvement.

"Anonymous on May 24, 2010 2:18 PM" is me

-JQP

By Anonymous on May 22, 2010 10:31 AM wrote:

Senators elected by the State houses, income tax repealed and all taxes collected by the States and we follow the existing law and get one Congressman per 30,000 not the current unlawful 500,000. (Naperville is currently cheated out of 5 reps) Congress and the political machines just ignore the Constitution on the issue of the number of reps.

While I agree with you it would be a good idea to decrease the size of our congressional districts, the U.S. Constitution stipulates that 30,000 people is the minimum population size for a congressional district, not the maximum. Also, I don't see how returning to having the legislatures elect Senators would be an improvement.

Anon,

The real question is:

Can the current system be reformed or is an external set of controls the only thing that can limit the grip of:

the special interests, unions, political machines and attorneys who have written themselves into 10-12% of GDP like the Signore Class that ruled 3rd world Italy before Mussolini physically ejected them from their stranglehold on the economy and politics and put them in chain gangs.

Internal reform would require restoring the Constitution and the current monkey-Courts and putting the checks and balances back into place. Senators elected by the State houses, income tax repealed and all taxes collected by the States and we follow the existing law and get one Congressman per 30,000 not the current unlawful 500,000. (Naperville is currently cheated out of 5 reps) Congress and the political machines just ignore the Constitution on the issue of the number of reps.

External limits on Government are more likely to come from multilayered defaults and bankruptcies of Federal, State and local Governments and hyperinflation like Argentina when China turns of the credit card.

When the governments can borrow no more money, they will collapse back into what we can afford on a cash basis which is a good thing. Like a drowning man, the above interests will do their best to pull everyone under with them as the ship sinks, TARP and the FED multi trillions to the banks so far, Bailouts of the connected, so called Stimulus most going to the Dems political machines, insane tax schemes like carbon taxes to kill manufacturing in the US etc. Think of the current bills in Congress as looting the treasury before the elite fled Cuba or Iran "citizens of the world".

How trickle down stupidity works:

For every $2 the Feds and Obama spend they borrow $1.

Of every $2 the Feds spend, 80 cents goes to the States.

The States buy off the local governments to follow them the same way including our school districts.

Before I hoped our system could reform internally, now I'm hoping that China realizes they will get stiffed and turns off the credit card cold Turkey.

Once the school districts are forced into bankruptcy, we can have school choice.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
By Anonymous on May 21, 2010 9:35 PM
That statement is just a reflection on the current and historic status in public education and is not a reflection of what may come to pass when the education system is totally reformed. It is an easy lament because there are not many alternatives at present and mostly because the public education system has a monopoly that discourages any kind of viable competition in this and many other specialty subsets of educational needs.

"A public school district CAN NOT turn away a student for any reason other than disciplinary."

That statement is just a reflection on the current and historic status in public education and is not a reflection of what may come to pass when the education system is totally reformed. It is an easy lament because there are not many alternatives at present and mostly because the public education system has a monopoly that discourages any kind of viable competition in this and many other specialty subsets of educational needs.

Open everything up to competition and privatization and someone will step up to fill the void and service the need. Just because of how it is has been is not a rational justification of how it should be in the future, and especially not so if we are focused on truly improving the quality of education.

Maybe not for those who are content and complacent with maintaining the mediocre status quo, but they are dinosaurs and headed for extinction anyway.

Expulsion is a disciplinary action not a result of test scores, abilities or disabilities.

A public school district CAN NOT turn away a student for any reason other than disciplinary.
Yes, magnet schools may have test scores required, but the district itself does not. Every student in a school district has a school to attend. Students are not turned away due to ability.

Right now many of those private schools that serve special needs are partially funded by the school districts. Because a student with special needs is required to be placed in the best and least restrictive setting, there are students who are sent by the public schools to those settings. The public school district pays to send those kids there. Currently private school students with special needs do benefit from the local schools. Speech pathologists, LD specialists in the public school, etc are required to give services to students residing in a school district who may be in private school if the student has had those needs identified. There are students in Catholic schools who do get special ed services from the public schools.

Home schooling is a choice. Those students are welcome in any public school. They have not been turned away.

"Right now private schools have the ability to turn away students. Some require certain test scores for admittance.

So what private school, in their quest to compete, is going to be willing to take on the struggling students, the special education students, the students who have learning disabilities, students with Autism or Asperger's syndrome, and those with Down syndrome. I could go on and on here. Educating those students can often cost more money. It requires more staff and assistants."

Public schools have the ability to turn away students as well... ever hear of expulsion? Some public school also require certain test scores for admittance. SD 204 is considering going in with some other local school districts and Aurora Univ to create such an option locally. A local rumor is that WVHS will be the likely site for where this school will be created because Aurora Univ doesn't have the funding to build such a facility and with the current enrollment trends WVHS will soon be empty anyway, but that discussion is probably better saved for another day and another discussion topic. That is if the Naperville Sun can get past the current low were only three new topics have been offered for discussion in the last 5 weeks.

There are also many, many private schools that serve students with special needs. Often these private schools are better at it than local school districts and are able to deliver a higher quality product with better results at a lower cost and especially as compared to results from school districts who attempt to "normalize" special needs students. Right now access to better special education is limited to those who can afford it and the size of the offering is obviously sized to meet demand. Give public school parents with special need students a voucher to go where they want to receive education for their children and many more would take advantage of such an option. Right now access to such educational options are limited by a family's resources. Vouchers level the playing field both in terms of public vs private education but also and more importantly in terms of rich vs poor as well as giving people lots of options and free choice on where they choose to educate their children.

As an aside another totally overlooked aspect in the discussion of voucher systems are home schooled children. Right now parents who choose this option are not compensated in any way for the personal and family sacrifices they make to pursue this form of education and they should also be eligible to receive a voucher for the value of the cost of education that they are delivering.

No one who is a unionized, civil servant, public school district employee likes to hear this kind of a discussion because it upsets their cozy monopoly. As we have seen recently the cozy union monopoly at Chicago's McCormick Place over the last 40-50 years has come to a head and finally a broken system of corruption is being fixed. Those who work in public education better get ready for change and restructuring because too many of us are fed up and are ready to do whatever it takes to reform the education system.

From the cost of school busses and transporting students, to cafeteria food, to athletics, to class room size, class room staffing, school air conditioning there is seemingly no end to what public school parents, teachers, and administrators are willing to demand, ask for, or even think they need regardless of the cost to the taxpayer. Enough is enough. Parents of public school students need to step up to the plate and start accepting responsibility for most if not all of the changes that have slowly shifted from their pockets to the tax payer at large.

If parents can't afford to pay the full cost for their child to eat in the cafeteria then send them to school with a bag lunch. If you forget to pack a lunch little Jane or Johnny might miss a meal and from the looks of a growing number of them missing a meal here or there might actually be a good thing.

If parents can't afford to pay the cost of a bus ride to and from school then your children simply walk or you need to make other arrangements for transportation. If your kids walk to school and you need a crossing guard on your route expect to pay for their services or expect to find another way to get your children to school. Crossing guards are there to protect the safety of your child and other children along the same route and if you aren't willing to pay for your own children's safety then why should other taxpayers?

Want to complain about the hours you work and your commute doesn't allow you to take your kids to school? Then make a friend and work out a private deal between yourselves. Maybe you can shovel their snow and mow their yard in return for them helping you out of a tough situation?

Need to drop your kids off at school early or pick them up late after work? No problem, child care services will be available at all schools, and a good way for teachers to make some more money on the side, but expect to pay market rates for such services... don't expect the taxpayer to pay for your child care needs.

There are costs of raising children and you should have fully considered these costs, the challenges of educating your child, and everything else you might be expected or required to do for the next 18 years or so before you brought a life into this world. Most of us have enough on our plates raising our own children and don't have the time, desire, or will to help you raise your children. As the saying goes... it is time for a lot of parents to step up to the plate and stop expecting the government to be a surrogate parent to your children.

P-row,

Thought I would check out the CIA fact book, well for some facts. In short, the Belgians need to put down their beer and chocolates and get busy between the sheets since they don't have enough kids to replace the ones that will be dieing off in the next decade.

Clearly money laundering is where the true measure of national achievement lays. We should come up the the same model as Lichtenstein, we need a Monarch, royalty and peasants. Congress and the Prez are already working hard on it.

PER CAPITA INCOME:

Liechtenstein $ 122,100 2007 est.

Bermuda $ 69,900 2004 est

Jersey $ 57,000 2005 est.

United States $ 46,400 2009 est.

Belgium $ 36,600 2009 est.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

EDUCATION % GDP

Following are the expenditures per country as a percentage of GDP. In Kiribati they are chanting "we're number one" as I type this. In Lesotho they are chanting "we try harder"!

1 Kiribati 17.80 2002

2 Lesotho 13.00 2006

3 Marshall Islands 11.80 2004

4 Palau 10.30 2002

5 Yemen 9.60 2001

6 Vanuatu 9.50 2003

7 Uzbekistan 9.40 1991

8 Saint Kitts and Nevis 9.30 2005

9 Cuba 9.10 2006

10 Botswana 8.70 2007

40 Belgium 6.00 2004

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

CIA summery on Belgian economy, sounds like USA, income distribution (redistribution) is a good thing. Same policies, same results. Debt in Belgium equals 100% of GDP, just like Greece the UK and coming to a country near you next year.

Can U hear Dandy Don singing in the distance?

"Turn out the liiiiights the paaaaartyeeeeez over"

............"On the positive side, income distribution is relatively equal and the government succeeded in balancing its budget during the 2000-2008 period. In 2009 Belgian GDP contracted by 3.1%, the unemployment rate rose slightly, and the budget deficit worsened because of large-scale bail-outs in the financial sector. Belgian banks have been severely affected by the international financial crisis with three major banks all receiving capital injections from the government"

I wonder if Prez Obama sits in his office tying this stuff for the CIA web site?

Inspector Poirot

Pray tell, do students have choice as mentioned on ABC (a main stream liberal network by the way)? Does a school lose its subsidy if they do not attact sufficient students?

Your numbers, is government spending 50% of gdp(for education to be 6%)? You can always spend three years trying to vet your numbers with another Naperville blogger.

Does the school choice concept make sense? Does this contribute to the success? Do people feel good about spending since they get value?

An expert should be able to enlighten us.

Does anyone think this country would be willing to pay for my beloved Belgium educational system here? Mr. D perhaps?

Belgium’s primary education has an 11 to 1 student/teacher ratio.

Our educational expenditures are 6% of GDP and 12% of government spending. We place a very high importance in education and are willing to pay for it.

Schools are structured as public and religious, not all that different than the US.

1. Schools owned by the local community
2. Subsidized public schools, organized by provinces and municipalities
3. Subsidized free schools, mainly organized by the Catholic church.

And, mon amis, do not forget that we are a far more egalitarian society, we rank 121st out of 134 countries for our lack of income stratification. You Yanks rank 42nd. Right up there with Uganda, even Iran is more egalitarian. Your child poverty rate is 18%, ours is 7%, partly due to our far more extensive social safety net. It seems that your fine country has many challenges, not just education, n'est-ce pas?

To By Anonymous on May 18, 2010 2:36 PM

You are way to anchored into the public education monopoly.

I think what Anonymous on May 18, 2010 9:25 AM was advocating is the type of public school that exists in Begium, France, Japan and other higher achieving nations.

Belgium, I am certain on that one. ABC News took a group of the top 50 students in an affluent New Jersey suburban community of New York City (in line with Winnetka or Hinsdale, a step above Naperville) and had them take the same test as a school from Belgium. The result, the US children scored 50% to 70% of the scores as the Belgium students. The Belgium students laughed as the lack of skills of their American counterparts.

ABC then highlighted how schools worked in Belgium. There were no monopoly public schools. All schools were private and they had to compete for students. The money followed the students. If a school failed, it was closed down. Imagine, a market system to decide who keeps their jobs. The schools strive to keep their students.

And then you throw out the poor disadvantaged children. Same format. The schools that provide the best services get the students and the money. Mayby Giant Steps does a better job than 203 with autistic children. They should. They specialize. They can address a niche market. It would be better to have two schools (notice I did not say one)specializing in autism rather than 20 districts muddling along. And if they fail, allow another school to compete.

And guess what? The teachers in the more sought after schools got paid more than those in the less desirable schools. They wanted to promote their school to do more.

So let's forget about merit pay. Lets instead focus on MERIT SCHOOLS and competition. A GREAT IDEA!!!!

Naperville FD is totally staffed with full time, paid, professional fire fighters.

Both Plainfield and Oswego have a limited number of full time, paid, professional fire fighters. The rest of the staff in both of these departments are classified as paid on-call. For legal and liability reasons these days I'm not sure if any totally volunteer fire fighters still remain. I believe that just about all, if not all, fire departments have converted what once was a volunteer position to paid on-call positions.

My understanding is that the majority of the full time, paid professional fire fighters in both Plainfield and Oswego are primarily paramedics staffing the ambulance crews and they are also made available for fire fighting duties as the need arises.

TO
Anonymous on May 18, 2010 9:25 AM

Right now private schools have the ability to turn away students. Some require certain test scores for admittance.

So what private school, in their quest to compete, is going to be willing to take on the struggling students, the special education students, the students who have learning disabilities, students with Autism or Asperger's syndrome, and those with Down syndrome. I could go on and on here. Educating those students can often cost more money. It requires more staff and assistants.

Right now the public schools take all of these students on and educate them. How are you going to guarantee a privatized system will also take these kids on?

By the way, some of those kids brought more joy to me in my teaching than any others ever have. And I would not have had the opportunity to teach them in a private school.

Anonymous Wrote: Anonymous on May 17, 2010 3:55 PM

First off, Rule #1 is don't ever believe ANYTHING a realtor tells you. They are sales people and realtors will tell you ANYTHING they think you want to hear in order to close the sale! Verify, verify, verify is far more important than location, location, location.
.....
So even comparing Naperville and Plainfield isn't apples to apples... One community has a local hospital and one doesn't, one has a paid, professional fire department and the other is mostly volunteer, one has lake water and the other doesn't, one has easy access to commuter rail and interstate and the other doesn't.
___________

Hi Anon,

thanks for the tip on realtors, I agree, but I was easily able to verify what the realtor told me. Web sites such as Realty.com, Realtor.com and zillow.com among others show active listings or home values of homes within towns, or zip codes. When I looked at homes in various areas and used the same search criteria for all (sq footage, bedrooms, basement, etc) it proved out to be that homes in D203 and D204 were comparable (with 203 costing slightly more for the given criteria). Both Plainfield and Oswego came in behind them in home value using the same criteria. So the equivalent home for Plainfield and Oswego was less expensive. The question now is why?

My theory is that school districts account for at least 50 - 75% of this disparity in price. i.e. a perceived "better" (?) school increases home value.

You mentioned fire departments and water service in your response. Both Plainfield and Oswego are staffed with full time fire departments - not volunteer. No difference there.

And while Plainfield is farther from the train stations they are closer to I-55. Many parts of Oswego are closer to the train stations than many parts of Naperville (in the South) so I'm not in agreement that commute time is a major factor although it does / can play a role.

Oswego uses deep aquifer wells for their water supply, but Plainfield began using Lake Michigan water in 2004. So no difference there either.
In April of 2004, the community began receiving treated Lake Michigan water as our source supply. http://www.plainfield-il.org/departments/water.php

That leaves your hospital reasoning as a major factor in housing values. I agree, it can play a part, but I'm not sure how big a factor the fact that Plainfield doesn't have a hospital plays into the pricing of homes.

I'm not looking to be right here, or to intimate you are wrong. But I still believe that the school districts of D203 and D204 play a major part (50 - 75% +?) in determining the housing values, particularly when comparing surrounding communities (Plainfield, Oswego).

Every parent should have the right to choose what school their children attend. The entire public school system should be dismantled and rebuilt. Instead of local school districts where a bunch of incompetent elected citizens are entrusted to do their best to make decisions that impact the rest of us it would be far better to just privatize the entire education process. With good old fashioned competition and profit behind the effort all schools would soon cost less to build and operate.

What I am proposing isn't much different from what our senior citizens already get with Medicare. The government pays for senior health care and the senior chooses where they receive care... i.e. which hospital, which nursing home, which pharmacy, which doctor, etc.

The same kind of funding system used in health care shouldn't be any different with the education system. Basically every student should receive an education voucher and they should be free to apply and attend any school they wanted or could get in as in the case of magnet or charter schools. With the only source of funding being the vouchers they receive for tuition every school would be forced to become highly competitive in terms of the quality of the education product offered and more efficient in their use of resources. Schools that can't or won't be competitive simply won't stay open. Teachers that can't or won't perform will be let go. Exactly the same as it is in the private sector.

Any time a monopoly is allowed to exist, as has been demonstrated time and time again throughout history, it isn't long until those in charge start taking advantage of those who do not have a true choice. What was intended to be a legal monopoly so that it could be more cost efficient and effective has slowly spun out of control to the point where we find ourselves today. It doesn't matter if we are talking about rates from the Water Commission, electricity, natural gas, etc. the average citizen continues to get screwed by our elected officials. For example a business can choose where they buy gas and electric. Businesses can go together and buy together and get better price leverage. While residential consumers are the largest consumers we are legally prevented from banding together either as individuals or even as communities or associations where we live. If we had the same freedom as commercial users have to shop suppliers and rates we would have far lower utility bills. In effect residential consumers are subsidizing lower commercial rates. The monopoly effect isn't really any different when applied to the school system.

For way too long we have trusted our teachers, our schools, our school boards. Time and time again they have broken and abused our trust to serve their needs ahead of the students they should be serving. So now it is time to restore order and trust and the only way that is ever going to happen is for us to rebuild the entire system from the ground up.

"You've looked down your typical long Naperville nose at East Aurora, Rockford, and Joliet school districts."

But see.... I actually don't look down on those schools districts. I am fully aware that there are some excellent teachers and students in those districts. In fact, I worked in the East Aurora schools for many years before I had my own kids. I would say the majority of the teachers I worked with in EA were better teachers than the ones in both 203 and 204. (I also worked in both those districts after my kids got older.) But the truth of the matter is those districts do have lower test scores. Those districts have lower graduation rates. And yes, those facts impact property values in those districts. There are homes just over the border of 204 in EA that are identical to some in Naperville, yet they sell for far less money.

Another place you are wrong....
I have never lived nor will I ever live in Naperville. Could have built our house there, but did not. Would not. Never will.

The test scores and reputations of the education students receive in most districts impact property values. And personally I am tired of private school advocates wanting to get rid of taxes to the schools. Until the state of Illinois comes up with another way to fund schools, then you also need to pay your share. Because yes you do benefit from the schools where you live. You choose to send your kids to private schools. Many people do not have that choice.

I will agree that administration in most districts is overpaid. I will agree that there are incompetent members on pretty much every school board. I will agree that taxes are high right now. But as long as the state funds schools as they do now, through property taxes, then I will never agree that someone who CHOOSES to send their kids to a private school should not pay taxes to the public schools where they live.

Two comments on this blog.

1. Plainfield gets Lake Michigan water through a pipeline from Bedford Park. The good news for Plainfield residents and water customers is that they only pay to wheel the water. In contrast, the other users on the pipeline in Bolingbrook and Homer Glen pay exorbitant rates to Illinois American, a private water utility.

2. The pain on water rates should not be substantial when the sales taxe is ended. The sales tax was originally intended to pay the general obligation bonds instead of property taxes (about $15 million per year). The receipts have doubled and the Water Commission used the extra money to fund the additional bonds to be paid from water rates ($12 million per year), fund additional capital projects (some frivolous!!),and accumulate reserves (that were stolen and wasted).

The general obligation bonds are nearly paid off and the remaining bonds are paid off by 2016. So the loss in the tax will be offset by lower debt service. Therefore, rates should not skyrocket.

Unless you are a politician who wants more taxes.

Anonymous ONE,

: ) First off, Rule #1 is don't ever believe ANYTHING a realtor tells you. They are sales people and realtors will tell you ANYTHING they think you want to hear in order to close the sale! Verify, verify, verify is far more important than location, location, location.

IMO, a far more important distinction in looking at SD 203/204 vs school districts to the west is where people live vs where they work and the commute they face. Real estate values in Naperville tend to be higher because the commute is less than either Plainfield or Oswego and access to major highways and rail is easier for those who use either to commute. Other factors are access to shopping and services and while both other communities lagged years ago they are finally starting to catch up. Then their are city services and professional vs volunteer, full time vs part time, etc. Anyone who lives in Plainfield can tell you all about not having a local hospital. And since Plainfield is in Will County I imagine that all of Plainfield is on either well water or river water like Joliet.

And for what it is worth when I moved to Naperville a couple of decades ago Plainfield used to advertise wide and far that they had better schools than Naperville as used that claim as an enticement to get many families to move south. Obviously, some families believed what they heard. With little reliable or objective data to really compare the important aspects of education between Plainfield and Naperville school districts it is hard to tell if Plainfield got worse, if Naperville improved, if both have stayed the same, etc. I do know that I do not hear boasting about Plainfield schools the same as it was years ago.

So even comparing Naperville and Plainfield isn't apples to apples... One community has a local hospital and one doesn't, one has a paid, professional fire department and the other is mostly volunteer, one has lake water and the other doesn't, one has easy access to commuter rail and interstate and the other doesn't. We can throw the schools into the mix, methods of assessing real estate, township and city taxes, and a whole host of other factors. In the end each of us is going to come to our own conclusion in terms of what is "better". In the end we might agree, most likely we won't.

Anonymous at 9:14 AM wrote: "Regardless there are many factors that go into determining what a property is worth. Local schools is but one of many factors that determine valuation. How much of the value any buyer subjectively attributes to the local schools is going to vary. Unfortunately for you there isn't any hard data that really supports your argument."

________________________

I agree that schools are not the only factor that determine home value, and at the risk of "cherry picking" your post I want to say that I just want to understand your point. (On another thread, WT pointed out to me that I tend to pick portions of postings and add my comments, so I'm just wanting you to clarify). (I went back and reviewed, and yes I am guilty of doing this - sorry if this is the case here, and a "shout out" to WT for being correct - sorry).

There are probably ways to measure this, but within a 5 mile radius there are no doubt homes that meet the following criteria: 3000 square foot, 4 bedroom, 2.5 bath, 2 car garage, basement). Let's say that this identical description of home is currently in Dist. 204, Dist. 203, Dist 308 (Oswego), and Dist 202 (Plainfield). What would each of these be worth? Put another way, when we bought in Naperville our realtor gave us this scenario and showed us that D203 homes tended to be older, but more expensive than 204. 204 was more expensive than both 308 and 202 - the only real difference between homes in each were the schools. Why?

I believe that school districts, while not the only factor in determining home value, contribute as much as 50 - 75% toward the value of a home. Your point about trying to define what makes for a "better" school district is valid - but my belief is that the reputations of SD203, and SD204 are such that homes within those boundaries cost more than equivalent homes in other local districts.

Oh, I got your point all right. The problem is your point is flawed, very flawed.

Property being purchased by someone with school age children might have some care or consideration about the "reputation" of local schools. Based upon the data that is objectively available about most school districts in Illinois most of what goes into a schools reputation is more often subjective than objective.

Not all property is being purchased by people with school age children though and people who do not have school age children are more likely to be a better barometer of why and where they choose to purchase property. Regardless there are many factors that go into determining what a property is worth. Local schools is but one of many factors that determine valuation. How much of the value any buyer subjectively attributes to the local schools is going to vary. Unfortunately for you there isn't any hard data that really supports your argument. From an objective standpoint when a real estate assessor and/or appraiser tries to determine the value of a property neither one takes into consideration the "reputation" of the local school district yet they do take into consideration a lot of objective things, for example distance to the nearest fire hydrant, distance to the nearest fire station, etc.

If I accepted your argument, and I don't, that SD 204 is "... a better school district than many if not most of the districts in Illinois" means we would all have to come to an agreement as to what "better" means in terms of a school district. More importantly, when we start agreeing on what "better" means only then we can start doing some forensics and see if there really is any TRUE VALUE in what the cost of "better" adds up to locally. There is a growing concern that most of us in SD 203 and SD 204 are mindlessly throwing way too much money into both of our school districts with no good plan, no defined goals, no solid way to measure objective results, and all in the blind hope that maybe, just maybe something might work and little Jane or little Johnny will have a "better" chance to get a "better" education, score "better" on aptitude and entrance exams, and maybe, just maybe, have a "better" chance to get into college or go to a "better" school.

You've looked down your typical long Naperville nose at East Aurora, Rockford, and Joliet school districts. Yet the fact is there are a lot of students in these school districts and many others just like them who are getting just as good of an education as students in SD 203 or 204. These other school districts have students who get better grades, score better on national tests, and get accepted to better universities than some of our own local students so everything these other school districts do is not in vain. Despite a couple hundred years of public education in this country, decades of experiments, studies, and countless research none of our overly educated school officials can tell us why some students can be off all the charts in a hell hole school district and why other students can fail miserably in even what are considered the best school districts.

Until we understand what causes these variations we are going to remain rooted in mediocracy and misled by our emotions that WANT us to believe what our children are getting in our local school district is the very best. Case in point, over the years I've lived in many different parts of Illinois... urban, suburban, rural, downstate, etc. and I can honestly say that I have never, ever lived anywhere in Illinois that the local people did not feel just as strongly as people in Naperville that their local school district was the best of the best. When it comes to our local schools, our local hospital, and local emergency services we all want to believe we have the best. The constant barrage of media information by local officials is all designed to lead us to believe that what we have IS the best and that what we have is all because of them. As rationale, inquisitive adults it is our responsibility to make factual determinations if there is substance to these claims or if we are simply letting our emotions get the better of the objective truth. So I do understand where you are coming from, at a basic level, in your defense of Naperville schools. However, I do encourage you to look past the marketing put out by the school district, to look past blind faith or trust, and to look past all of the other subjective opinions we read and hear from others. The most important question is a simple one. Are we as parents and taxpayers getting what we paid for? Our our students getting what we paid for? If we ARE happy with what we are receiving in terms of a quality education the next question becomes is that quality education being delivered in the most cost efficient and cost effective manner?

If we want to only look at the "cost" of funding local public education there are many, many local people who have come to the conclusion that we have actually gone way too far to the outside of the cost-benefit ratio. What this means is that at this point for us to see any true bottom line improvement becomes incrementally more difficult and correspondingly increasingly more expensive. The further we go outside the cost-benefit ration we ultimately get to the point where even the smallest improvements become irrationally expensive. We are clearly way past the point of seeing linear improvement that is lockstep with cost. What we need to do now is have a rational discussion of how much more improvement we want or expect and whether or not we are prepared to pay for how much it will cost... and at this point it isn't going to come cheaply.

The vast majority of parents of school age children get way too emotional about anything related to their child's education and more often than not make poor decisions, especially at the ballot box, because of irrational fear that little Jane or Johnny might, God forbid, be deprived if they don't vote to give the school district every thing it requests. The sad truth is the system isn't working very well and the elected school board members have been and are doing more to represent the teachers union and the school administrators. The school board members do listen to a certain extent to school parents however their opinions are often so fractured the only clear majority is what the teachers and administrators want. What the school board members do a really, really bad job at is getting any kind of meaningful input from commercial property owners, residential property owners without school age children, and residential property owners with school age children who do not use public schools.

My home in 204 has devalued in price yet my taxes went up. 204 has bleed us all to death. Why can the private schools make it and 204 can't. You only pay for what you use in a private school and not all of you life like in 204 or any other school system for that matter. And please don't tell me about civic duty and responsibility.

As for me, I am on a well and don't feel that I should in any way help the water commission. I am tired being taxed on everything and for service that I don't even use.

Vote these clowns out of the water commission if that is all possible and vote the overpaid 204 administrators out as well in the next election. Enough is enough !

"If anything, if a private homeowner could actually opt out of public education the value of their home would skyrocket instead of devalue as you suggest."

You obviously did not get my point which was that you should not see any benefit from the school district if you are not paying taxes to it. If your house was in another district - i.e. East Aurora, Rockford, Joliet - your home would not be worth what it is now. You are still benefitting from the fact that 204 is a better school district than many if not most of the districts in Illinois.

Really? Right now my home, in SD 204, is worth less than a comparable home in SD 203 and all because of the SD204 taxes. If anything, if a private homeowner could actually opt out of public education the value of their home would skyrocket instead of devalue as you suggest.

Anonymous on May 15, 2010 11:26 PM,

There is a big difference between funding a local school and funding someones personal water usage. I have no problem with my tax money going towards my local schools, but I do have an issue with my taxes paying for your water. The schools are for the greater good of the whole community, whereas your reduced water cost benefits you.

There are some municipalities in DuPage that opted out of the chance to get lake water, and thankfully, I live in one of them. It appears all of you that do have lake water pay for your own water, and the millions squandered away by your beloved water commission yourselves, as it should be.

BTW, I have dined at several restaurants in Cantera, and have to say the water is fine. Actually, water from the lake must be an acquired taste, as I have always found it rather nasty. Possibly from all the sewage, animal renderings and industrial waste dumped into it for centuries before the advent of treatment plants? Anyways, I am sure it is fine, as everything surely has settled to the bottom by now.

Like all things political in Illinois, it's hard to know where the money goes and who benefits.

Add the Water Commission to the apparently unlimited number of political bodies in Illinois in need of a forensic accounting audit and probably a Federal Grand Jury.

Vote against all incumbents, is a good start.

Yet you do benefit from the good public schools in your area. Maybe we should devalue the homes of anyone who sends their kids to private schools if it is not going to be part of the property taxes?

I was at Rock Bottom at Cantera last night for dinner. Had a glass of water. It was fine water.

Pay for your own water,

Well I don't use the public schools. Why should I, or anyone else that don't use public school have to contribute to the funding of public education they don't use? Sorry, but it is time for public school users to pay the piper, as they say.

There are lots more examples of things we pay for through various federal, state, and local taxes that we don't use deliberately or otherwise and which we still have to pay our fair share as part of the "greater good". IF we start cracking the door open on should we pay based upon whether or not we choose to use something a lot of people may not like where this conversation ends up, as in my example.

Let's also not forget that those who live in unincorporated areas and certain municipalities opted out of the Water Commission when it was first formed. Mostly because they were too cheap to pay for it and instead choose to stay with well water. Go visit a restaurant at Cantera and have a glass of water with your meal and tell me how well that is working out. Regardless, it amazes me how many of these cheapskates come crying for help when they find their private wells are contaminated and how they have been allowed to get Water Commission water without having to pay any of the late access fees that were supposed to be charged to those who choose to opt out way back when. If nothing else that free ride and the 1/4% sales tax basically becomes your safety net if your well dries up or ends up being declared unfit to drink. Don't bite the hand that feeds you as they say.

By Anonymous on May 14, 2010 9:27 AM

".........With loss of the sales tax and added debt it is clear that every elected official with a hand in this sordid mess is deliberately making conscientious decisions that will directly cause the price all of us pay for water to rise dramatically."

_________________________________________

Not all of us.

It may come as a shock to you Anon, but not everyone on this blog lives in Naperville, nor gets lake water. I see no problem getting rid of the 1/4 % sales tax. Why should I, or anyone else that doesn't use lake water have contribute to the funding of water they don't use? Sorry, but it is time for DuPage Water users to pay the piper, as they say.

It seems odd to me that we would issue bonds (and pay interest) on money that we will just put into the bank (ie reserves) at a rate most likely lower than that being paid on the bonds.

I may be wrong, but rate arbitrage is supposed to work to your advantage, yes?

Let's see, first Schillerstrom raided the Water Commission treasury and legally stole much of the cash reserves to make up for the fiscal irresponsibility of his leadership and the rest of the county board. Then the bunch of mayors who sit on the Water Commission, including our own well loved, yet incompetent Pradel, raided much of the rest of the reserves to line the fiscal pockets of their respective municipalities by following Schillerstrom's example to cover up their own fiscal irresponsibility's.

Fast forward to present and we have the class dunce and court jester Cronin wanting to abolish the 1/4% sales tax that funds the Water Commission and at the same time introduces legislation under one elected office to make the Water Commission report to an office where he is a candidate in the next election.

So all of the pilfering of the reserves that had built up over nearly twenty years now leaves the Water Commission with way too little in reserves and the Water Commission now want to borrow money which will have to be paid back with interest to build the reserves back up to a reasonable level. With loss of the sales tax and added debt it is clear that every elected official with a hand in this sordid mess is deliberately making conscientious decisions that will directly cause the price all of us pay for water to rise dramatically. What isn't clear is if the Water Commission builds the reserves back up on the back of the taxpayers and increased water fees what is to prevent some future county board from raiding the Water Commission coffers again and leave all of us holding the bag on a never ending cycle of pilfer, borrow, and raise water rates?

What Schillerstrom did was immoral and unethical. Just a typical workday for your average lawyer, right? An equal amount of guilt, shame, and blame goes to the state legislature for allowing Schillerstrom to get away with what he did. Just one more glaring example of too many lawyers concentrated in one place and allowed to play with the legal rules any way they want, for their whims, for their friends, for their benefit... and the best interest of the public be damned.

When is enough going to be enough? When are taxpayers and voters going to get the message that we simply have to throw every single currently elected official, republican and democrat alike, out and vote in a brand new crop of elected officials? If we are really, really smart we will only vote in new elected officials who have never served in any office before... and we will only vote for candidates who make a personal performance contract with the People of Illinois and then stand behind it to once and for all reform Illinois and make Illinois the "gold standard" by which the rest on the states can be judged.

The only way to clean up Illinois politics is to do a wholesale housecleaning. Electing one bright and hopeful candidate has never been able to work because they don't have enough clout by themselves and they are soon corrupted by the status quo. We need to vote them all out and all out at once and rebuild Illinois politics from the ground up with totally new officials with no ties to the old ways and who will unselfishly represent the People who elected them. It is time everyone in Illinois said "Special interest be damned!".