Editorial: Give us $10 million, then trust us; yeah, right
3/23/2006
Bloomington Pantagraph
We've all heard that more individual attention will help children in their early learning years develop better in their later years.
So, smaller class sizes for kindergarten through third-grade classes sound ideal to address that problem - if you say it fast enough.
But, there is a problem. Make that two problems.
An Illinois House committee has approved $10 million to give $50,000 grants to hire teachers to reduce 200 kindergarten through third-grade classes in Illinois.
The Illinois State Board of Education said the grants would be evenly distributed within the state.
But there are no specifics of that plan, the No. 1 problem. Nor will there be until after the legislation becomes law, according to the state board.
The House committee didn't seem a bit concerned about where the $10 million, plus expected salary increases, will come from the following year. Hey, it's just money - money that we keep hearing the state can't afford.
That's problem No. 2. That's sufficient, we don't need to look for any more problems.
Any legislator who buys this pig-in-a-poke idea doesn't deserve to be representing us.
To view the rest of the article printed in the Bloomington Pantagraph click here.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Jim discusses why so many referenda failed with Kevin Craver of the Northwest Herald.
Bucking a trend
[published on Thu, Mar 23, 2006]
McHenry County school districts heard something from voters Tuesday evening that they do not hear often regarding referendums: Yes.
Voters approved four of five referendums, the first election since March 2002 that more than one passed. Referendums in Woodstock District 200 and McHenry District 15 passed by comfortable margins, according to preliminary vote totals. A bond referendum and an education fund tax rate increase referendum both passed in Carpentersville-based District 300, with the education fund increase winning by a narrow margin.
Pro-referendum groups in Woodstock and McHenry accustomed to defeat – District 15 passed on its sixth try – attributed their victories to aggressive community outreach.
"I think the difference this time was the entire package deal," said Kate Halma, co-chairman of the Citizens for District 200 Committee. "There wasn't a quick strategic planning session or an open house that not many people went to. This was a 2 1/2-year research effort. The answers weren't dictated to the residents of District 200. The answers were developed by the residents of District 200."
But referendum opponents who have organized over the years argue that the referendums passed because developers and vendors bought them with campaign contributions, and school boards threatened draconian cuts if the referendums failed.
"Why wouldn't the people resent the fact that developers who are putting a lot of homes in the community, certainly for their profit, are interested in promoting a tax on the community?" said Jack Roeser, founder of the Family Taxpayers Network, who spent about $18,000 of his own money for anti-referendum signs and mailings.
Halma rejected the notion that developers bought the election.
"The developers' contributions helped us print fliers," Halma said. "The developers' contributions did not help raise the passion of Woodstock citizens."
Tuesday's victories buck a years-long trend – three school referendums passed and 21 failed between 2003 and 2005. Seven of eight school referendums failed in the March 2004 election.
Districts 200 and 300 will embark on large-scale school construction programs to accommodate growth. District 15's vote will add more teachers and stave off program cuts. District 300 received some criticism for proposed activity cuts, which added up to 1 percent of the district's budget.
"There have been a lot of new threats lately, and the people charged with caring for the students and the citizens have instead been threatening them," said Jim Peschke, co-founder of Citizens for Reasonable and Fair Taxes, an anti-referendum group in Harvard.
The sole referendum failure Tuesday was District 46 in Prairie Grove, where voters soundly defeated a building plan that school officials said would not increase the tax rate. Prominent village residents such as the village president, a school board member and the president of the district's Parent-Teacher Organization opposed the referendum.
Woodstock's and McHenry's victories snapped long-time losing streaks fueled in part by ethical issues that tarnished voter trust.
District 200 acquired land for a new high school in 1991, despite two advisory referendums against the idea, landing the district and the former superintendent in trouble several years later with then-State's Attorney Gary Pack. District 15 exploited a legal loophole in 1993 to raise taxes a year early following a successful referendum.
"Part of the education process was helping [voters] understand what happened that year," said Bonnie Simon, co-chairman of the District 15 group Our Children, Our Investment. "As much as it seemed like an under-handed decision, it really was the best decision at the time. And it was 13 years ago – we really have to move on and base the decisions on today, not what happened back then."
Peschke called Tuesday's vote a temporary setback because homeowners sooner or later will run out of money to pay teacher salaries.
"The reason I say so is because the system can't continue," Peschke said. "You can't raise taxes faster than inflation. When the people get burned by these districts, they will learn. I was hoping they'd learn the easy way."
By KEVIN P. CRAVER
kcraver@nwherald.com
To view the rest of the article go to the Northwest Herald.
[published on Thu, Mar 23, 2006]
McHenry County school districts heard something from voters Tuesday evening that they do not hear often regarding referendums: Yes.
Voters approved four of five referendums, the first election since March 2002 that more than one passed. Referendums in Woodstock District 200 and McHenry District 15 passed by comfortable margins, according to preliminary vote totals. A bond referendum and an education fund tax rate increase referendum both passed in Carpentersville-based District 300, with the education fund increase winning by a narrow margin.
Pro-referendum groups in Woodstock and McHenry accustomed to defeat – District 15 passed on its sixth try – attributed their victories to aggressive community outreach.
"I think the difference this time was the entire package deal," said Kate Halma, co-chairman of the Citizens for District 200 Committee. "There wasn't a quick strategic planning session or an open house that not many people went to. This was a 2 1/2-year research effort. The answers weren't dictated to the residents of District 200. The answers were developed by the residents of District 200."
But referendum opponents who have organized over the years argue that the referendums passed because developers and vendors bought them with campaign contributions, and school boards threatened draconian cuts if the referendums failed.
"Why wouldn't the people resent the fact that developers who are putting a lot of homes in the community, certainly for their profit, are interested in promoting a tax on the community?" said Jack Roeser, founder of the Family Taxpayers Network, who spent about $18,000 of his own money for anti-referendum signs and mailings.
Halma rejected the notion that developers bought the election.
"The developers' contributions helped us print fliers," Halma said. "The developers' contributions did not help raise the passion of Woodstock citizens."
Tuesday's victories buck a years-long trend – three school referendums passed and 21 failed between 2003 and 2005. Seven of eight school referendums failed in the March 2004 election.
Districts 200 and 300 will embark on large-scale school construction programs to accommodate growth. District 15's vote will add more teachers and stave off program cuts. District 300 received some criticism for proposed activity cuts, which added up to 1 percent of the district's budget.
"There have been a lot of new threats lately, and the people charged with caring for the students and the citizens have instead been threatening them," said Jim Peschke, co-founder of Citizens for Reasonable and Fair Taxes, an anti-referendum group in Harvard.
The sole referendum failure Tuesday was District 46 in Prairie Grove, where voters soundly defeated a building plan that school officials said would not increase the tax rate. Prominent village residents such as the village president, a school board member and the president of the district's Parent-Teacher Organization opposed the referendum.
Woodstock's and McHenry's victories snapped long-time losing streaks fueled in part by ethical issues that tarnished voter trust.
District 200 acquired land for a new high school in 1991, despite two advisory referendums against the idea, landing the district and the former superintendent in trouble several years later with then-State's Attorney Gary Pack. District 15 exploited a legal loophole in 1993 to raise taxes a year early following a successful referendum.
"Part of the education process was helping [voters] understand what happened that year," said Bonnie Simon, co-chairman of the District 15 group Our Children, Our Investment. "As much as it seemed like an under-handed decision, it really was the best decision at the time. And it was 13 years ago – we really have to move on and base the decisions on today, not what happened back then."
Peschke called Tuesday's vote a temporary setback because homeowners sooner or later will run out of money to pay teacher salaries.
"The reason I say so is because the system can't continue," Peschke said. "You can't raise taxes faster than inflation. When the people get burned by these districts, they will learn. I was hoping they'd learn the easy way."
By KEVIN P. CRAVER
kcraver@nwherald.com
To view the rest of the article go to the Northwest Herald.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
A note from a Waterloo, Illinois parent and the reactions she received for speaking out.
Cathy Peschke,
Just wanted to let you know that the REPUBLIC TIMES in Waterloo printed our letter to the editor last week. We have received several phone calls and mail, mostly from residents in the community who strongly AGREE with our position. Unfortunately, those people have not had the guts to speak up for fear of repercussion to their children's education in the school or their participation in local groups like Scouts, or they'll be labeled an "uncooperative parent" by the school district. People have told us that they have learned to "keep their mouth shut" in this community or you'll suffer the consequences. What a shame! The local school district has wielded so much power and authority that it is no longer they that serve the public, but vice versa. The public exists to serve them . . . with their wallets, that is. It sounds like a form of terrorism to me! Not only do they hold the children's education hostage unless you're willing to fork over more dollars for whatever they want . . . but they also intimidate and harass your children if you have the gall to speak up and challenge their "authority" over you!
A couple people who agreed with us provided even more information about what is going on in the school that I don't have the time to verify. If what they said is true, I can't believe this community has tolerated so much for so long.
Apparently we have been the first to speak so boldly in this community against the government school monopoly. Even if the referendum and bond proposal are passed tomorrow, if nothing else maybe our letter to the editor will empower more people in the community to be bold and courageous in speaking the truth and make a difference for the better.
I feel very sad for a community who has VOICES (a public committee set up to push a school referendum) but NO VOICE (people against the referendum who are afraid to speak up).
Thanks again for your website, your educational information, links to other websites, advice, etc. You've been a real help.
Karen
P.S. The two people we heard from who STRONGLY DISAGREED with us were products of the school system who have lived here all their lives who were extremely sentimental to the school system, illogical regarding the facts, full of boasting about their personal level of education and high paid salaries, resorted to personally insulting us, giving us their ill-conceived reasons why we were against the referendum, and were just plain bitter and arrogant.
Just wanted to let you know that the REPUBLIC TIMES in Waterloo printed our letter to the editor last week. We have received several phone calls and mail, mostly from residents in the community who strongly AGREE with our position. Unfortunately, those people have not had the guts to speak up for fear of repercussion to their children's education in the school or their participation in local groups like Scouts, or they'll be labeled an "uncooperative parent" by the school district. People have told us that they have learned to "keep their mouth shut" in this community or you'll suffer the consequences. What a shame! The local school district has wielded so much power and authority that it is no longer they that serve the public, but vice versa. The public exists to serve them . . . with their wallets, that is. It sounds like a form of terrorism to me! Not only do they hold the children's education hostage unless you're willing to fork over more dollars for whatever they want . . . but they also intimidate and harass your children if you have the gall to speak up and challenge their "authority" over you!
A couple people who agreed with us provided even more information about what is going on in the school that I don't have the time to verify. If what they said is true, I can't believe this community has tolerated so much for so long.
Apparently we have been the first to speak so boldly in this community against the government school monopoly. Even if the referendum and bond proposal are passed tomorrow, if nothing else maybe our letter to the editor will empower more people in the community to be bold and courageous in speaking the truth and make a difference for the better.
I feel very sad for a community who has VOICES (a public committee set up to push a school referendum) but NO VOICE (people against the referendum who are afraid to speak up).
Thanks again for your website, your educational information, links to other websites, advice, etc. You've been a real help.
Karen
P.S. The two people we heard from who STRONGLY DISAGREED with us were products of the school system who have lived here all their lives who were extremely sentimental to the school system, illogical regarding the facts, full of boasting about their personal level of education and high paid salaries, resorted to personally insulting us, giving us their ill-conceived reasons why we were against the referendum, and were just plain bitter and arrogant.
Monday, March 20, 2006
Clinging to the Status Quo on Education
The following article appeared in The San Diego Union-Tribune but was posted on Real Clear Politics.com.
March 01, 2006
Clinging to the Status Quo on Education
By Ruben Navarrette
SAN DIEGO -- You have to hand it to critics of No Child Left Behind. In trying to preserve the status quo, they're wrong. But at least they're persistent. In fact, they're persistently wrong.
Made up of teachers, administrators, school board members and anyone who turns a blind eye to the mediocrity of public schools, the critics are relentless in their attempts to discredit the education reform law.
They'll get another chance to blast away over the next several months as a bipartisan commission holds public hearings across the country to get an earful on what works with the law, and what doesn't. The commission will send recommendations to Congress, which is expected to renew the law in 2007.
It's easy to see why those who prefer the status quo detest No Child Left Behind. Under the law, children in every racial and demographic group in every public school must improve their scores on standardized tests in math and science. No excuses. Schools that fall short of that goal can be shut down, and their students can transfer to another public school.
The critics hate requirements like that for one reason -- because good tests not only tell you if kids are learning but also if teachers and administrators are holding up their end. If the truth comes out, disgruntled parents might go from demanding accountability from schools to demanding it from the individuals who work in them.
The critics are nothing if not versatile. First they insisted that No Child Left Behind was unfair to schools because it was a one-size-fits-all approach with no flexibility. Then they said the law was unfair to teachers because it tied them to student performance when not all children learn at the same pace.
Now they're insisting the law is unfair to some students because it benefits middle-class white kids and hurts Latinos and African-Americans. At least that is the conclusion of a troubling new study by the deceptively named Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
Troubling because the agenda it advances is dangerous and the thinking behind it is backward. Deceptively named because if this group cared about civil rights, it would push in the opposite direction.
It goes back to the flexibility the critics requested and eventually received. Now that 49 states have either amended the law or waived some of its provisions, the critics have the chutzpah to insist that the thing they wanted has produced a result they find unacceptable. They claim that schools that educate white and middle-class students are more likely to take advantage of loopholes and dodge accountability than those that teach poor kids and Latinos and African-Americans. As a result, they say, schools with poor and minority kids are more likely to report low scores on exams and are thus more likely to incur sanctions. That is, according to the critics, an education law intended to help black and brown kids is, in fact, racist.
That criticism is half-right. There is racism here, but not in the law. Rather, it is built into the educational system that the law seeks to reform.
It begins when a teaching corps that is three-fourths white approaches minority students with what President Bush calls the soft bigotry of low expectations. It continues as those teachers, at a loss to explain why these students don't do as well in school, cling to the racist assumption that minority parents don't value education. And, finally, it is compounded when those who want to preserve the status quo do everything they can to undermine testing -- not to protect black and brown children but to protect the adults who are disenfranchising them.
The No Child Left Behind law didn't create racism in education. But it just might be helpful in exposing it.
I suspect that the Harvard study is right about one thing -- that some schools, including those that educate white and middle-class children, have come up with creative ways to skirt the law by taking advantage of waivers and the like.
But so what? The schools that resort to such maneuvers are only hurting the kids they're supposed to be teaching. Minority students, far from being disenfranchised, are much better off for being held accountable with no exceptions and no excuses.
That can be messy. But whom are we kidding? It's nothing compared to the mess that the special interests have made of the educational system.
March 01, 2006
Clinging to the Status Quo on Education
By Ruben Navarrette
SAN DIEGO -- You have to hand it to critics of No Child Left Behind. In trying to preserve the status quo, they're wrong. But at least they're persistent. In fact, they're persistently wrong.
Made up of teachers, administrators, school board members and anyone who turns a blind eye to the mediocrity of public schools, the critics are relentless in their attempts to discredit the education reform law.
They'll get another chance to blast away over the next several months as a bipartisan commission holds public hearings across the country to get an earful on what works with the law, and what doesn't. The commission will send recommendations to Congress, which is expected to renew the law in 2007.
It's easy to see why those who prefer the status quo detest No Child Left Behind. Under the law, children in every racial and demographic group in every public school must improve their scores on standardized tests in math and science. No excuses. Schools that fall short of that goal can be shut down, and their students can transfer to another public school.
The critics hate requirements like that for one reason -- because good tests not only tell you if kids are learning but also if teachers and administrators are holding up their end. If the truth comes out, disgruntled parents might go from demanding accountability from schools to demanding it from the individuals who work in them.
The critics are nothing if not versatile. First they insisted that No Child Left Behind was unfair to schools because it was a one-size-fits-all approach with no flexibility. Then they said the law was unfair to teachers because it tied them to student performance when not all children learn at the same pace.
Now they're insisting the law is unfair to some students because it benefits middle-class white kids and hurts Latinos and African-Americans. At least that is the conclusion of a troubling new study by the deceptively named Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
Troubling because the agenda it advances is dangerous and the thinking behind it is backward. Deceptively named because if this group cared about civil rights, it would push in the opposite direction.
It goes back to the flexibility the critics requested and eventually received. Now that 49 states have either amended the law or waived some of its provisions, the critics have the chutzpah to insist that the thing they wanted has produced a result they find unacceptable. They claim that schools that educate white and middle-class students are more likely to take advantage of loopholes and dodge accountability than those that teach poor kids and Latinos and African-Americans. As a result, they say, schools with poor and minority kids are more likely to report low scores on exams and are thus more likely to incur sanctions. That is, according to the critics, an education law intended to help black and brown kids is, in fact, racist.
That criticism is half-right. There is racism here, but not in the law. Rather, it is built into the educational system that the law seeks to reform.
It begins when a teaching corps that is three-fourths white approaches minority students with what President Bush calls the soft bigotry of low expectations. It continues as those teachers, at a loss to explain why these students don't do as well in school, cling to the racist assumption that minority parents don't value education. And, finally, it is compounded when those who want to preserve the status quo do everything they can to undermine testing -- not to protect black and brown children but to protect the adults who are disenfranchising them.
The No Child Left Behind law didn't create racism in education. But it just might be helpful in exposing it.
I suspect that the Harvard study is right about one thing -- that some schools, including those that educate white and middle-class children, have come up with creative ways to skirt the law by taking advantage of waivers and the like.
But so what? The schools that resort to such maneuvers are only hurting the kids they're supposed to be teaching. Minority students, far from being disenfranchised, are much better off for being held accountable with no exceptions and no excuses.
That can be messy. But whom are we kidding? It's nothing compared to the mess that the special interests have made of the educational system.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
SCHOOL REFERENDUMS - Residents' trust, votes are at issue
The following article appeared in the Chicago Tribune
SCHOOL REFERENDUMS
Residents' trust, votes are at issue
By Grace Aduroja
Tribune staff reporter
Published March 17, 2006
Dan Denys supported the tax referendum measure four years ago in Naperville School District 203, and then his tax bill came.
Based on campaign estimates, he had calculated that his annual tax bill would increase about $1,200 over five years. Instead, it jumped by $1,800 within four years.
The unexpected increase led him to believe the school campaign had been deceptive, but district officials say their projections were accurate based on information that was available before the election. The higher amount was due to quirks in state law, they said.
"I think people are essentially victims of this process," said Denys, a financial adviser for school districts throughout the Chicago area. "It's not like these are some dictators pulling money out of us; these are our neighbors, these are people that we elect."
A growing number of suburban residents are expressing skepticism similar to Denys' during this tax referendum season. Districts from Hinsdale to Huntley have been accused of taking more money than promised during referendum campaigns.
And that has caused problems in other school systems where residents are apprehensive about approving tax increases that school officials say they need to close financial shortfalls and fund construction projects.
"I think people want to be sure that you're going to do what you say you're doing," said Stephen Berry, co-interim superintendent for Glenbard High School District 87, which is asking voters for a 5-cent tax rate increase.
One cause of the perceived dishonesty is a loophole in Illinois law that allows schools to approve a tax increase for one fund, such as education, but put some of the money into other accounts, such as transportation. But when it's time to figure the tax rate the next year, only the portion of the money in the fund for which it was approved counts toward that increase, so the district can raise the tax rate again to make up the difference.
For example, if a homeowner paying $1,000 in school taxes voted in favor of an increase that amounted to $30, he could pay $1,030 in taxes the next year. But if only $10 of that $30 increase went into the fund for which the increase was approved, the district could add on an additional $20 the following year, making that homeowner's bill $1,050. This process could be spread out over five years.
Also, taxpayers might unwittingly vote themselves out from under the protection of the state's tax-cap law, which is designed to keep taxes relatively steady even as home values soar. The law prohibits increases in a tax bill of more than the rate of inflation or 5 percent, whichever is lower, unless voters approve. Voters who approve a referendum measure increasing the tax rate could find themselves paying that total rate even on a home whose value has increased dramatically.
"Essentially ... you're suspending the operation of the tax cap for five years," said state Rep. Mike Tryon (R-Crystal Lake). "Some districts don't do that."
But others do. Such was the case in Huntley District 158, where taxpayers approved a 55-cent increase that could end up costing them more than double that amount. When the dust settled, the superintendent resigned, another administrator took an early retirement and three new board members were elected.
"What's happening is that parent groups go out and sell a referendum and then they look like idiots because they put their credibility on the line," Tryon said.
But education advocates stress that not every school system has accessed the additional money--even though it's not unlawful to do so.
"What's unfortunate is that we're all lumped into one size fits all," said Peg Agnos, executive director of LEND, the Legislative Education Network of DuPage, a group that represents county schools.
"This is all within the letter of the law. It's unfortunate that it's occurred because of the quirks in property tax law."
Still, residents hit with startling tax bills have been livid.
Some districts have gone so far as to halt the collection of surplus funds. In an emotional meeting last year, the Hinsdale Elementary School District 181 board voted to return to the spirit of the referendum campaign. Naperville District 203 agreed this year to abide by the tax-cap formula.
But the resulting strife can be detrimental elsewhere. Several opposition groups have been campaigning against referendum measures in Carpentersville District 300, which is near the Huntley school system.
"We help people defeat referenda," said Cathy Peschke, co-founder of Citizens for Reasonable and Fair Taxes, a McHenry Country group that opposes the proposals in District 300. "[Districts] are not being honest with voters. I think it's really deceptive tactics."
The way that referendum requests are worded on ballots also has contributed to the confusion.
Tryon is sponsoring a bill that would make it difficult for districts to take the additional funds by making the ballot language more specific.
"You need a mechanism as a voter to go in that ballot box and know how this is going to affect you," he said. "We're talking about people's money and we're talking substantial dollars."
But not all residents doubt their districts. Robin Church supports a measure in Aurora-based Indian Prairie District 204--which is next door to Naperville District 203--because she's crunched the numbers.
"I've done far more research on my own," Church said. "I don't anticipate any surprises."
SCHOOL REFERENDUMS
Residents' trust, votes are at issue
By Grace Aduroja
Tribune staff reporter
Published March 17, 2006
Dan Denys supported the tax referendum measure four years ago in Naperville School District 203, and then his tax bill came.
Based on campaign estimates, he had calculated that his annual tax bill would increase about $1,200 over five years. Instead, it jumped by $1,800 within four years.
The unexpected increase led him to believe the school campaign had been deceptive, but district officials say their projections were accurate based on information that was available before the election. The higher amount was due to quirks in state law, they said.
"I think people are essentially victims of this process," said Denys, a financial adviser for school districts throughout the Chicago area. "It's not like these are some dictators pulling money out of us; these are our neighbors, these are people that we elect."
A growing number of suburban residents are expressing skepticism similar to Denys' during this tax referendum season. Districts from Hinsdale to Huntley have been accused of taking more money than promised during referendum campaigns.
And that has caused problems in other school systems where residents are apprehensive about approving tax increases that school officials say they need to close financial shortfalls and fund construction projects.
"I think people want to be sure that you're going to do what you say you're doing," said Stephen Berry, co-interim superintendent for Glenbard High School District 87, which is asking voters for a 5-cent tax rate increase.
One cause of the perceived dishonesty is a loophole in Illinois law that allows schools to approve a tax increase for one fund, such as education, but put some of the money into other accounts, such as transportation. But when it's time to figure the tax rate the next year, only the portion of the money in the fund for which it was approved counts toward that increase, so the district can raise the tax rate again to make up the difference.
For example, if a homeowner paying $1,000 in school taxes voted in favor of an increase that amounted to $30, he could pay $1,030 in taxes the next year. But if only $10 of that $30 increase went into the fund for which the increase was approved, the district could add on an additional $20 the following year, making that homeowner's bill $1,050. This process could be spread out over five years.
Also, taxpayers might unwittingly vote themselves out from under the protection of the state's tax-cap law, which is designed to keep taxes relatively steady even as home values soar. The law prohibits increases in a tax bill of more than the rate of inflation or 5 percent, whichever is lower, unless voters approve. Voters who approve a referendum measure increasing the tax rate could find themselves paying that total rate even on a home whose value has increased dramatically.
"Essentially ... you're suspending the operation of the tax cap for five years," said state Rep. Mike Tryon (R-Crystal Lake). "Some districts don't do that."
But others do. Such was the case in Huntley District 158, where taxpayers approved a 55-cent increase that could end up costing them more than double that amount. When the dust settled, the superintendent resigned, another administrator took an early retirement and three new board members were elected.
"What's happening is that parent groups go out and sell a referendum and then they look like idiots because they put their credibility on the line," Tryon said.
But education advocates stress that not every school system has accessed the additional money--even though it's not unlawful to do so.
"What's unfortunate is that we're all lumped into one size fits all," said Peg Agnos, executive director of LEND, the Legislative Education Network of DuPage, a group that represents county schools.
"This is all within the letter of the law. It's unfortunate that it's occurred because of the quirks in property tax law."
Still, residents hit with startling tax bills have been livid.
Some districts have gone so far as to halt the collection of surplus funds. In an emotional meeting last year, the Hinsdale Elementary School District 181 board voted to return to the spirit of the referendum campaign. Naperville District 203 agreed this year to abide by the tax-cap formula.
But the resulting strife can be detrimental elsewhere. Several opposition groups have been campaigning against referendum measures in Carpentersville District 300, which is near the Huntley school system.
"We help people defeat referenda," said Cathy Peschke, co-founder of Citizens for Reasonable and Fair Taxes, a McHenry Country group that opposes the proposals in District 300. "[Districts] are not being honest with voters. I think it's really deceptive tactics."
The way that referendum requests are worded on ballots also has contributed to the confusion.
Tryon is sponsoring a bill that would make it difficult for districts to take the additional funds by making the ballot language more specific.
"You need a mechanism as a voter to go in that ballot box and know how this is going to affect you," he said. "We're talking about people's money and we're talking substantial dollars."
But not all residents doubt their districts. Robin Church supports a measure in Aurora-based Indian Prairie District 204--which is next door to Naperville District 203--because she's crunched the numbers.
"I've done far more research on my own," Church said. "I don't anticipate any surprises."
Saturday, March 18, 2006
What do they do with the money? - A state senate candidate who gets it.
The following letter to the editor appeared in the Daily Southtown If you live in District 19 you may want to vote for Eric M. Wallace for Senate.
"Why do districts keep asking for money?"
The recent article by Kati Phillips (March 6) about school referendums asks a good question but does not come up with the right answer. The only thing I agree with her on is that people will spend money on new construction if there is overcrowding. This is a no-brainer and easy to evaluate. It is tangible. What is not easy to see is that schools need more money to improve the quality of education. What is not easy to see is whether the district is spending its money (actually our money) wisely.
People balk at spending money when the results are poor to mediocre. People, taxpayers, balk at higher property taxes when there is no evidence that they will get a better return on their investment. Actually, we intuitively know that the opposite is true. We know that higher property taxes chase away new streams of revenue. The higher the property tax, the least likely you will have new homebuyers move into your town, or new homes built in your area, and the more likely new businesses will pass up your community and old businesses will relocate or close up shop. Thus we are left with a system that chokes off any possibility of new revenue.
But we continue to hike the property tax, telling people it is for the children. We are told it is only a few more dollars a year. What you are not told is that the assessment on your property is about to go up 1.9 percent (in Cook County), that the value of your house has also gone up along with all your utilities. What was a few dollars has now mushroomed into $500 to $1,200 more. Who can afford this? And the money is to be used for what?
The real question is why aren't the school districts better stewards of our money? Why aren't we looking outside the box to create better revenue streams while keeping our taxes low? When was the last time the district was audited? What did you do with the last increase? These are the right questions. Now if we could only get some answers (the right answers). Then maybe, just maybe, we could get a handle on the school funding problem, and at the same time begin to tackle the quality of education, which is a subject for another day. But back to the original question, why do school districts keep asking for money? The answer: because they misspent the last installment of your tax dollars.
Eric M. Wallace
Candidate for state Senate, 19th District
Matteson
"Why do districts keep asking for money?"
The recent article by Kati Phillips (March 6) about school referendums asks a good question but does not come up with the right answer. The only thing I agree with her on is that people will spend money on new construction if there is overcrowding. This is a no-brainer and easy to evaluate. It is tangible. What is not easy to see is that schools need more money to improve the quality of education. What is not easy to see is whether the district is spending its money (actually our money) wisely.
People balk at spending money when the results are poor to mediocre. People, taxpayers, balk at higher property taxes when there is no evidence that they will get a better return on their investment. Actually, we intuitively know that the opposite is true. We know that higher property taxes chase away new streams of revenue. The higher the property tax, the least likely you will have new homebuyers move into your town, or new homes built in your area, and the more likely new businesses will pass up your community and old businesses will relocate or close up shop. Thus we are left with a system that chokes off any possibility of new revenue.
But we continue to hike the property tax, telling people it is for the children. We are told it is only a few more dollars a year. What you are not told is that the assessment on your property is about to go up 1.9 percent (in Cook County), that the value of your house has also gone up along with all your utilities. What was a few dollars has now mushroomed into $500 to $1,200 more. Who can afford this? And the money is to be used for what?
The real question is why aren't the school districts better stewards of our money? Why aren't we looking outside the box to create better revenue streams while keeping our taxes low? When was the last time the district was audited? What did you do with the last increase? These are the right questions. Now if we could only get some answers (the right answers). Then maybe, just maybe, we could get a handle on the school funding problem, and at the same time begin to tackle the quality of education, which is a subject for another day. But back to the original question, why do school districts keep asking for money? The answer: because they misspent the last installment of your tax dollars.
Eric M. Wallace
Candidate for state Senate, 19th District
Matteson
Thursday, March 16, 2006
It's your money, folks. Having a hand in how it is spent shouldn't be pie in the sky.
Where's the scrutiny on school district decisions?
Everyone who's had high school civics knows tax revenue is a big pie that is carved up and doled out to the various government boards and authorities.
In Downers Grove, the property tax pie has many slices. The sanitary district and airport authority get the thinnest of slivers. The forest preserve district, library and College of DuPage get somewhat more substantial pieces.
The two most hotly contested slices — the ones that generate the most controversy and debate on a continual basis — go to the village of Downers Grove and the Downers Grove Park District. Still, even these slices are pretty modest, with the village's take only 8.8 percent of the pie and the park district's even smaller.
By far the biggest pieces of the tax pie, the real gut-busters, go to our two local school districts, Grade School District 58 and Community High School District 99. Together, our public schools account for almost 70 percent of the Downers Grove property tax bills, some $3,200 on a $300,000 home in 2004.
So it was with considerable dismay that I learned the District 99 school board has instituted a new policy that will limit each visitor's comments to just three minutes per meeting. The policy also allows the board president to increase or shorten the amount of time a visitor may speak and to deny a visitor the opportunity to speak at all if they have previously addressed the board on a specific issue.
One has only to imagine the outcry that would result if the Village Council or park board tried such a stunt. Both of them have run afoul of public opinion with comparatively lesser affronts, such as neglecting to include an opportunity for visitors' comments on an agenda or by responding disrespectfully to citizens who comment.
Yet here we have one of our community's two biggest consumers of the tax pie literally biting the hand that feeds it. And to judge from the lack of irate letters to the editor, getting away with it, too.
It's a mystery to me how local taxpayers can practically come to blows over whether the half-percent home-rule sales tax is appropriate while consistently overlooking the taxing and spending decisions of our school districts.
With the exception of a handful of citizens who have spent years calling District 99 to account — and to whom the new policy was undoubtedly addressed — the operations of our school districts continue largely unquestioned by the taxpayers who foot the bill.
The result in District 58 is board meetings that are so carefully choreographed as to bear little resemblance to the meetings of the politically motivated Village Council or the sometimes contentious park board.
District 58 may take this as a compliment, but I find it difficult to understand how there can be so little substance in the monthly meeting of a board that has ultimate responsibility for $40 million in property tax revenue.
Politics and contention might never be welcome in that chamber, but there is every reason to expect members of both school boards to proactively surface issues and conduct substantive discussions in the public forum. And for the public to actually be on hand to witness it.
How to account for the lack of public interest in school district affairs? It might be that residents lose touch with the schools as their children grow up and move on, while maintaining their connection to village and park district issues.
It could be the kid card — the real or imagined sensitivity of some parents to doing or saying anything that could negatively impact their children. Or it might be the expertise mystique — the entrenched idea that the administrators are hired to run the district without undue involvement by the school board members elected to oversee them.
Whatever the reason, our local school districts operate a world apart from the Village Council or park board, which have their meetings broadcast on public access television for all interested citizens to watch.
To view the rest of the story go to Suburban Chicago News.com.
Elaine Johnson has been a resident of Downers Grove since 1984. Contact her c/o The Sun, 1500 W. Ogden Ave., Naperville, IL 60540, or at dgcolumnist@comcast.net.
Everyone who's had high school civics knows tax revenue is a big pie that is carved up and doled out to the various government boards and authorities.
In Downers Grove, the property tax pie has many slices. The sanitary district and airport authority get the thinnest of slivers. The forest preserve district, library and College of DuPage get somewhat more substantial pieces.
The two most hotly contested slices — the ones that generate the most controversy and debate on a continual basis — go to the village of Downers Grove and the Downers Grove Park District. Still, even these slices are pretty modest, with the village's take only 8.8 percent of the pie and the park district's even smaller.
By far the biggest pieces of the tax pie, the real gut-busters, go to our two local school districts, Grade School District 58 and Community High School District 99. Together, our public schools account for almost 70 percent of the Downers Grove property tax bills, some $3,200 on a $300,000 home in 2004.
So it was with considerable dismay that I learned the District 99 school board has instituted a new policy that will limit each visitor's comments to just three minutes per meeting. The policy also allows the board president to increase or shorten the amount of time a visitor may speak and to deny a visitor the opportunity to speak at all if they have previously addressed the board on a specific issue.
One has only to imagine the outcry that would result if the Village Council or park board tried such a stunt. Both of them have run afoul of public opinion with comparatively lesser affronts, such as neglecting to include an opportunity for visitors' comments on an agenda or by responding disrespectfully to citizens who comment.
Yet here we have one of our community's two biggest consumers of the tax pie literally biting the hand that feeds it. And to judge from the lack of irate letters to the editor, getting away with it, too.
It's a mystery to me how local taxpayers can practically come to blows over whether the half-percent home-rule sales tax is appropriate while consistently overlooking the taxing and spending decisions of our school districts.
With the exception of a handful of citizens who have spent years calling District 99 to account — and to whom the new policy was undoubtedly addressed — the operations of our school districts continue largely unquestioned by the taxpayers who foot the bill.
The result in District 58 is board meetings that are so carefully choreographed as to bear little resemblance to the meetings of the politically motivated Village Council or the sometimes contentious park board.
District 58 may take this as a compliment, but I find it difficult to understand how there can be so little substance in the monthly meeting of a board that has ultimate responsibility for $40 million in property tax revenue.
Politics and contention might never be welcome in that chamber, but there is every reason to expect members of both school boards to proactively surface issues and conduct substantive discussions in the public forum. And for the public to actually be on hand to witness it.
How to account for the lack of public interest in school district affairs? It might be that residents lose touch with the schools as their children grow up and move on, while maintaining their connection to village and park district issues.
It could be the kid card — the real or imagined sensitivity of some parents to doing or saying anything that could negatively impact their children. Or it might be the expertise mystique — the entrenched idea that the administrators are hired to run the district without undue involvement by the school board members elected to oversee them.
Whatever the reason, our local school districts operate a world apart from the Village Council or park board, which have their meetings broadcast on public access television for all interested citizens to watch.
To view the rest of the story go to Suburban Chicago News.com.
Elaine Johnson has been a resident of Downers Grove since 1984. Contact her c/o The Sun, 1500 W. Ogden Ave., Naperville, IL 60540, or at dgcolumnist@comcast.net.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Great news! Two newspapers have seen the light on the D-300 education referendum.
Courier News
Approve D300 bond issue, not tax hike
A strong educational system is a foundation of any community. Its contribution to the vitality of a region cannot be overstated.
In that spirit, we wanted to support District 300's ambitious but costly referendum on March 21, which asks voters to approve $185 million in bonds for new construction and a 55-cent per $100 of assessed valuation increase in the education fund. If the proposal is successful, owners of a $200,000 home would pay an additional $339 a year in taxes. If not, the District 300 Board of Education has promised to cut virtually every extra-curricular activity from varsity sports all the way down to elementary music.
Setting aside emotional issues, we examined only the numbers used by the district to justify this tax increase.
Whether the district needs more money to operate effectively is not in question. In fact, even Carpentersville businessman Jack Roeser, ardent member of the Family Taxpayers Network and frequent opponent of school referenda, told The Courier News editorial board that he offered to work for a referendum if the district would seek a smaller amount. And in fact, the amount that the district seeks, not its need, is what we question.
Any financial projection is based on estimates of future growth and potential tax revenues. But the district has used an absolute worst-case scenario of high student growth and artificially low revenues in justifying the 55-cent figure.
In its defense, the administration has adopted a conservative approach in contrast to its previous more liberal view of potential revenue. But asking taxpayers to fund only the most dire projection is not prudent.
Two examples illustrate our point.
In a recent Courier News story, the district estimated the foundation state aid to education per pupil would increase only $50, while the state budget estimated $170 per pupil. When challenged, the district revised the estimate to $170, potentially generating another $3 million in revenue. State estimates are notoriously high, so the actual figure will be less, but probably well above $50.
Secondly, the district revised sharply higher its estimate of the district's 2006 equalized assessed valuation, the base upon which taxes are levied, which will increase property tax revenue. Financial officials said that increase will be offset by losses elsewhere and that it won't have a material effect on the district's overall financial picture. Growth and revenue estimates are fluid, but vastly different numbers are unsettling.
The school board decided to seek this amount of money before these revisions. It may have made a different decision if it had been presented with a range of potential outcomes, rather than just the worst one.
A doomsday scenario needs to be bolstered by evidence more compelling than what the district has presented. A skeptical public that does not want to vote itself a huge tax increase needs only a sliver of a doubt to reject it.
We cannot urge residents to vote for something as costly as this without complete confidence in the numbers the district is using to justify its need.
If this measure fails, the school board should avoid a punitive stance and reconsider its pledge to cut extra-curriculars until it has a firmer grasp of the true financial picture. So far, that picture appears to have brightened considerably since the board took its vote in January.
We urge voters to reject the education fund increase and force the district to come back to them with a more reasonable figure.
To view the rest of the story click here.
Daily Herald
Education fund tax hike — No
For: Additional teachers, reduced class sizes.
Cost per year on $200,000 home: From low of $361 to high of $577. Average annual cost over 20 years: $461.
Our decision on the 55-cent education fund tax hike is “no,” and will be until we see numbers that don’t change with every challenge, assurances that employees will be part of the financial solution and a defter touch on the budget-cutting knife. Laudably, the district:
• Would take the tax hike in a single year, reducing the overall cost to taxpayers and matching plan to a tax cap law amendment being considered now that would mandate it.
•Has already cut $14 million over the last three years, stopping the fund’s bleeding.
•Has asked employees to pay more toward health-care costs. The 30 percent average is typical in the private sector, but groundbreaking in the public sector.
•Has begun in-depth financial and efficiency analyses of all departments and programs.
Yes, we also understand new schools must be staffed, but building a school takes two years. There is time to present a better plan, more assurances and more defensible numbers.
If academics are the heart of a school district, extracurricular activities are its soul, the glue that holds the school experience together and offers possibilities beyond test scores. They also have little impact financially. The board’s scorched earth approach seems excessive and manipulative, given the many questions elsewhere.
The district low-balled its revenues numbers early. When challenged, revenue numbers were revised upward, reducing the needed cuts. But the board reaffirmed the damaging cuts for 2006-07 anyway. That’s a stubbornness that borders on irresponsible, given the impact. Reduced wage costs and smaller cuts would cover the $2.5 million we believe needs paring for next year.
Its contract with teachers expires this summer. A deal prior to the election would have assured voters their money wouldn’t go mostly for pay raises. School officials said they would keep pay hikes in check, but we believe the public needs more than vague promises. If the tax hike fails, the district should:
•Immediately drop plans for extracurricular cuts for 2006-07. There is no going back from this draconian decision; it should be delayed.
•Ink a multiple-year teacher pact that includes a freeze or minimal increases. Employees represent the greatest part of the budget. They either are part of the solution or there won’t be one.
•Complete program analyses quickly. Look for efficiencies and potential cuts heretofore unknown, especially in the more expensive programs like special education. This should be done before asking for more cash.
•Rethink class size reductions given research shows little impact on achievement. Could reductions be limited to certain classes or ages?
•Solidify all revenue and expense numbers using reasonable expectations. Reassess all cut proposals in light of the above.
Then try again, when voters might believe they are part of a reasoned solution involving all parties, not just the convenient local bank.
To view the rest of the story in the Daily Herald click here.
Approve D300 bond issue, not tax hike
A strong educational system is a foundation of any community. Its contribution to the vitality of a region cannot be overstated.
In that spirit, we wanted to support District 300's ambitious but costly referendum on March 21, which asks voters to approve $185 million in bonds for new construction and a 55-cent per $100 of assessed valuation increase in the education fund. If the proposal is successful, owners of a $200,000 home would pay an additional $339 a year in taxes. If not, the District 300 Board of Education has promised to cut virtually every extra-curricular activity from varsity sports all the way down to elementary music.
Setting aside emotional issues, we examined only the numbers used by the district to justify this tax increase.
Whether the district needs more money to operate effectively is not in question. In fact, even Carpentersville businessman Jack Roeser, ardent member of the Family Taxpayers Network and frequent opponent of school referenda, told The Courier News editorial board that he offered to work for a referendum if the district would seek a smaller amount. And in fact, the amount that the district seeks, not its need, is what we question.
Any financial projection is based on estimates of future growth and potential tax revenues. But the district has used an absolute worst-case scenario of high student growth and artificially low revenues in justifying the 55-cent figure.
In its defense, the administration has adopted a conservative approach in contrast to its previous more liberal view of potential revenue. But asking taxpayers to fund only the most dire projection is not prudent.
Two examples illustrate our point.
In a recent Courier News story, the district estimated the foundation state aid to education per pupil would increase only $50, while the state budget estimated $170 per pupil. When challenged, the district revised the estimate to $170, potentially generating another $3 million in revenue. State estimates are notoriously high, so the actual figure will be less, but probably well above $50.
Secondly, the district revised sharply higher its estimate of the district's 2006 equalized assessed valuation, the base upon which taxes are levied, which will increase property tax revenue. Financial officials said that increase will be offset by losses elsewhere and that it won't have a material effect on the district's overall financial picture. Growth and revenue estimates are fluid, but vastly different numbers are unsettling.
The school board decided to seek this amount of money before these revisions. It may have made a different decision if it had been presented with a range of potential outcomes, rather than just the worst one.
A doomsday scenario needs to be bolstered by evidence more compelling than what the district has presented. A skeptical public that does not want to vote itself a huge tax increase needs only a sliver of a doubt to reject it.
We cannot urge residents to vote for something as costly as this without complete confidence in the numbers the district is using to justify its need.
If this measure fails, the school board should avoid a punitive stance and reconsider its pledge to cut extra-curriculars until it has a firmer grasp of the true financial picture. So far, that picture appears to have brightened considerably since the board took its vote in January.
We urge voters to reject the education fund increase and force the district to come back to them with a more reasonable figure.
To view the rest of the story click here.
Daily Herald
Education fund tax hike — No
For: Additional teachers, reduced class sizes.
Cost per year on $200,000 home: From low of $361 to high of $577. Average annual cost over 20 years: $461.
Our decision on the 55-cent education fund tax hike is “no,” and will be until we see numbers that don’t change with every challenge, assurances that employees will be part of the financial solution and a defter touch on the budget-cutting knife. Laudably, the district:
• Would take the tax hike in a single year, reducing the overall cost to taxpayers and matching plan to a tax cap law amendment being considered now that would mandate it.
•Has already cut $14 million over the last three years, stopping the fund’s bleeding.
•Has asked employees to pay more toward health-care costs. The 30 percent average is typical in the private sector, but groundbreaking in the public sector.
•Has begun in-depth financial and efficiency analyses of all departments and programs.
Yes, we also understand new schools must be staffed, but building a school takes two years. There is time to present a better plan, more assurances and more defensible numbers.
If academics are the heart of a school district, extracurricular activities are its soul, the glue that holds the school experience together and offers possibilities beyond test scores. They also have little impact financially. The board’s scorched earth approach seems excessive and manipulative, given the many questions elsewhere.
The district low-balled its revenues numbers early. When challenged, revenue numbers were revised upward, reducing the needed cuts. But the board reaffirmed the damaging cuts for 2006-07 anyway. That’s a stubbornness that borders on irresponsible, given the impact. Reduced wage costs and smaller cuts would cover the $2.5 million we believe needs paring for next year.
Its contract with teachers expires this summer. A deal prior to the election would have assured voters their money wouldn’t go mostly for pay raises. School officials said they would keep pay hikes in check, but we believe the public needs more than vague promises. If the tax hike fails, the district should:
•Immediately drop plans for extracurricular cuts for 2006-07. There is no going back from this draconian decision; it should be delayed.
•Ink a multiple-year teacher pact that includes a freeze or minimal increases. Employees represent the greatest part of the budget. They either are part of the solution or there won’t be one.
•Complete program analyses quickly. Look for efficiencies and potential cuts heretofore unknown, especially in the more expensive programs like special education. This should be done before asking for more cash.
•Rethink class size reductions given research shows little impact on achievement. Could reductions be limited to certain classes or ages?
•Solidify all revenue and expense numbers using reasonable expectations. Reassess all cut proposals in light of the above.
Then try again, when voters might believe they are part of a reasoned solution involving all parties, not just the convenient local bank.
To view the rest of the story in the Daily Herald click here.
Monday, March 13, 2006
National Taxpayers United of Illinois BUST MORTON DIST. 201 LAWBREAKERS
The following press release was sent to us by the National Taxpayers United of Illinois.
FOR RELEASE: Monday, March 13, 2006
Contact: Jim Tobin (312) 427-5128 (office), (773) 354-2076 (cell)
TAXPAYERS BUST MORTON DIST. 201 LAWBREAKERS, REPORT THEM TO STATE'S
ATTORNEY
BERWYN--The president of Illinois' largest taxpayer organization announced today that the group has reported J. Sterling Morton High School District 201 to the Cook County State's Attorney for violating the Illinois Election Interference law in the campaign to increase the school district's property tax rate.
On Thursday March 9, NTU Vice-President Jeffrey Babbitt spoke with the General Counsel for the Illinois State Board of Elections, Steve Sandvoss, regarding District 201's illegal activities. Sandvoss advised that District 201's actions violated criminal law and should be reported to Mary Bucaro at the Public Corruption and Financial Crimes division of Cook County
State's Attorney Dick Devine's office.
NTU outlined several violations committed by District 201 in its complaint filed with the State's Attorney on March 9, including the distribution of "a fax promoting a fundraising event for the Morton Quality in EducationCommittee ... and urging support for the referendum ... through a District 201 fax machine paid for with public funds and using telecommunications services paid for with public funds," listing a District 201 phone number as a contact number for the pro-referendum political action committee, and displaying a large pro-referendum banner on school property. All of
these charges have been substantiated by reporter Johnna Kelly and city editor Robert Carr at The Life newspapers.
The complaint also stated that public employees on District 201's staff may have further violated the Elections Interference law by performing political pro-referendum work while on the clock. NTU's complaint ended by urging the State's Attorney's office "to take immediate action on this violation of election law."
"District 201 teachers and administrators want a substantial property-tax hike--more than $400 every year for the average homeowner--in order to line their pockets with more $100,000 salaries," said Jim Tobin, president of National Taxpayers United of Illinois (NTU) and a 23-year-resident of the school district. The district taxes Berwyn, Cicero, Stickney, Lyons,
Forest View and McCook. "Apparently it's hard for them to convince the taxpayers while playing fair. They have broken the law on several counts, and it's time for them to take the consequences."
"Giving District 201 more money would do nothing for the children, but it certainly would support District 201's culture of corruption and greed," said Tobin.
Founded in 1976, NTU is the largest taxpayer organization in Illinois with over 10,000 members and affiliation with more than 200 local taxpayer groups.
###
Jim Tobin
National Taxpayers United of Illinois
312-427-5128
tobin@ntui.org
http://www.ntui.org
FOR RELEASE: Monday, March 13, 2006
Contact: Jim Tobin (312) 427-5128 (office), (773) 354-2076 (cell)
TAXPAYERS BUST MORTON DIST. 201 LAWBREAKERS, REPORT THEM TO STATE'S
ATTORNEY
BERWYN--The president of Illinois' largest taxpayer organization announced today that the group has reported J. Sterling Morton High School District 201 to the Cook County State's Attorney for violating the Illinois Election Interference law in the campaign to increase the school district's property tax rate.
On Thursday March 9, NTU Vice-President Jeffrey Babbitt spoke with the General Counsel for the Illinois State Board of Elections, Steve Sandvoss, regarding District 201's illegal activities. Sandvoss advised that District 201's actions violated criminal law and should be reported to Mary Bucaro at the Public Corruption and Financial Crimes division of Cook County
State's Attorney Dick Devine's office.
NTU outlined several violations committed by District 201 in its complaint filed with the State's Attorney on March 9, including the distribution of "a fax promoting a fundraising event for the Morton Quality in EducationCommittee ... and urging support for the referendum ... through a District 201 fax machine paid for with public funds and using telecommunications services paid for with public funds," listing a District 201 phone number as a contact number for the pro-referendum political action committee, and displaying a large pro-referendum banner on school property. All of
these charges have been substantiated by reporter Johnna Kelly and city editor Robert Carr at The Life newspapers.
The complaint also stated that public employees on District 201's staff may have further violated the Elections Interference law by performing political pro-referendum work while on the clock. NTU's complaint ended by urging the State's Attorney's office "to take immediate action on this violation of election law."
"District 201 teachers and administrators want a substantial property-tax hike--more than $400 every year for the average homeowner--in order to line their pockets with more $100,000 salaries," said Jim Tobin, president of National Taxpayers United of Illinois (NTU) and a 23-year-resident of the school district. The district taxes Berwyn, Cicero, Stickney, Lyons,
Forest View and McCook. "Apparently it's hard for them to convince the taxpayers while playing fair. They have broken the law on several counts, and it's time for them to take the consequences."
"Giving District 201 more money would do nothing for the children, but it certainly would support District 201's culture of corruption and greed," said Tobin.
Founded in 1976, NTU is the largest taxpayer organization in Illinois with over 10,000 members and affiliation with more than 200 local taxpayer groups.
###
Jim Tobin
National Taxpayers United of Illinois
312-427-5128
tobin@ntui.org
http://www.ntui.org
SD 228 won't pay for supt.'s degree
The following article appeared in the Daily Southtown. Many of you may be surprised that school districts pay for advanced degrees. In deed many do. The best way to find out if your school district pays for advanced degrees is to go to your school board office and fill out a FOIA for the teachers' and administrators' contracts. Keep in mind once you pay for these education courses you often pay an increase in salaries for the individuals that take this perk.
SD 228 won't pay for supt.'s degree
3/10/2006
By Glen Leyden
Daily Southtown
Bremen High School District 228 will not pay about $100,000 for its superintendent to get a second doctoral degree - a decision the board majority says is a cost-saving move but that contend is politically motivated.
Supt. Richard Mitchell has been admitted to Benedictine University's Organizational Development doctorate program. Hundreds of senior-level managers from various fields applied and 25 were accepted, Mitchell said.
The school board voted Tuesday not to pay the cost of the three-year program. Board members Verla Clevenger and Ruth Becker supported the payment.
Mitchell said he will enroll despite the board's decision.
"Dr. Mitchell already has a Ph.D. and this one costs $100,000 and it's not even in administration or education," board president Evelyn Gleason said. "Considering the financial state of our district right now, it's not a good idea."
But Clevenger said this is the first time the District 228 board has turned down a full-time administrator's request for tuition payment.
"If everyone else gets it, why doesn't Dr. Mitchell get it? It's because they don't want him here. He's not one of their good old boys," she said.
District 228 administrators' contracts include a stipulation on reimbursement for higher education, but Mitchell said his does not specify cost or types of degrees.
"I just want them to honor my contract and do what is right for the district," he said, adding that he's reviewing the board's decision with his attorney.
"We're going to find ourselves in a lawsuit," Clevenger said.
Gleason said the board's attorney told her that the board had the right to turn down Mitchell's request.
Mitchell said he applied to the program because it will put him in contact with top managers and executives from a variety of fields and backgrounds. District 228 needs to try new ideas to help pull two of its schools off the state's list of academically failing schools.
"This district needs some out-of-the-box thinking, some innovative ideas," he said. "I have two schools on the watch list, and they're not moving."
The traditional Ph.D. in education that most administrators pursue is not providing those new ideas, he said.
"It is an expensive program but will it help us?" board member Ruth Becker said. "Yes, organizational management is all about finding new and innovative ideas rather than trying the same old ideas every time."
District 228 includes Bremen, Oak Forest, Hillcrest and Tinley Park high schools.
SD 228 won't pay for supt.'s degree
3/10/2006
By Glen Leyden
Daily Southtown
Bremen High School District 228 will not pay about $100,000 for its superintendent to get a second doctoral degree - a decision the board majority says is a cost-saving move but that contend is politically motivated.
Supt. Richard Mitchell has been admitted to Benedictine University's Organizational Development doctorate program. Hundreds of senior-level managers from various fields applied and 25 were accepted, Mitchell said.
The school board voted Tuesday not to pay the cost of the three-year program. Board members Verla Clevenger and Ruth Becker supported the payment.
Mitchell said he will enroll despite the board's decision.
"Dr. Mitchell already has a Ph.D. and this one costs $100,000 and it's not even in administration or education," board president Evelyn Gleason said. "Considering the financial state of our district right now, it's not a good idea."
But Clevenger said this is the first time the District 228 board has turned down a full-time administrator's request for tuition payment.
"If everyone else gets it, why doesn't Dr. Mitchell get it? It's because they don't want him here. He's not one of their good old boys," she said.
District 228 administrators' contracts include a stipulation on reimbursement for higher education, but Mitchell said his does not specify cost or types of degrees.
"I just want them to honor my contract and do what is right for the district," he said, adding that he's reviewing the board's decision with his attorney.
"We're going to find ourselves in a lawsuit," Clevenger said.
Gleason said the board's attorney told her that the board had the right to turn down Mitchell's request.
Mitchell said he applied to the program because it will put him in contact with top managers and executives from a variety of fields and backgrounds. District 228 needs to try new ideas to help pull two of its schools off the state's list of academically failing schools.
"This district needs some out-of-the-box thinking, some innovative ideas," he said. "I have two schools on the watch list, and they're not moving."
The traditional Ph.D. in education that most administrators pursue is not providing those new ideas, he said.
"It is an expensive program but will it help us?" board member Ruth Becker said. "Yes, organizational management is all about finding new and innovative ideas rather than trying the same old ideas every time."
District 228 includes Bremen, Oak Forest, Hillcrest and Tinley Park high schools.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Life of a Jacob's High School Student
The following was sent to us by a Jacob's High School Student.
Hello, I am a student at Jacobs High School. Supposedly, and by law as well, schools including Jacobs, Dundee Crown, Westfield, and all other District 300 schools are not allowed to push for a yes,yes or no,no vote on March 21,2006's referenda questions. However, this has been ignored. Let me show you a (currently) typical day at Jacobs High School regarding the referendum:
1.Come to school, and around 7:15/7:20, an announcement comes on (with a teacher speaking) about how students should sign up for canvasing(walking door to door for referendum support). Today's message was along the lines of this: "Subliminal(repeated several times), come canvas for Jacobs and District 300."
2. During the morning announcements which run from 7:40-7:45, there is 9/10 chance that pro referendum "prodigy" Matthew Bishop will come onto the intercom for an "important announcement," telling us about how we should not stand idly by, and all at the same time, support his cause.
3.During our flex block lunch, an announcement comes onto the intercom to remind us to go to today(Friday's) pro-referendum meeting in the auditorium. In today's meeting, they signed up people for canvasing, gave out t-shirts, and gave out wristbands.
4.After the 2:41 release bell has sounded, Matt Bishop (today at least) comes on to yet again tell us of the referendum and how we should care.
The above mentioned are a day-to-day basis, however other such things occur as:
1. Pro referendum tshirts being worn by students
2. Pro referendum "Yes,Yes" posters are put onto school hallways
3. Students wear "I am District 300" wristbands
How is it possible for this referendum to occur if the pro-referendum side cannot simply abide by not local, but STATE law?
Just like I am, my friends are also sick of this bombardment of propaganda.
Homeschooling, sweet homeschooling
The following article is by Nathanael Blake a senior in college who although he does not yet have children has decided to homeschool his children.
Homeschooling, sweet homeschooling
By Nathanael Blake
Mar 10, 2006
Last week a New York Times article profiled the ordeal of academic applications: essays, interviews, application consultants, tuition of $10,000 a year or more, and the stress of separating families.
The article was about private preschools in New York City. The following is representative of the tribulations chronicled among well-heeled parents. "When Ms. Malloy, a federal prosecutor, applied for her twins, a boy and a girl, she asked her husband to write the application essay. "I was so nervous," she said, "and I'm someone who took the LSAT, who's written for the federal judiciary and in law review."
The family applied to four schools. "There's not a week that goes by that I don't regret that I didn't apply to three or four more," Ms. Malloy said. And so the hamster-wheel rat-race is now beginning at the ripe old age of two.
For me, reading this story increased my determination that if probability wins out and I marry and have children (I'm archaic enough to believe that to be the proper order), they will be homeschooled.
But though over one million children are homeschooled in America, there's a surprising amount of resistance to the idea, even from many who support other alternatives to the state schools (i.e. charter and private schools).
When I tell people about my plans for my (hypothetical) children, I invariably hear the same infratentorial objection, which is that they won't "socialize" properly.
No one ever tells me that homeschooling will stifle my children's academic ability.
The stereotype is quite the opposite: homeschoolers are smart but socially inept. There are, to be sure, examples of failed homeschooling, but its general record is better than the government's schools.
There are occasional comments about the difficulty of homeschooling.
To be sure, it takes sacrifice, and there are some families that cannot undertake the task. Yet what are we to make of the wealthy New Yorkers who send their toddlers to pre-schools with tuition higher than my university's? They aren't driven by necessity, but by the desire to get their children out of the home and out of the way. This begs the query: why have children if you don't want them to interfere with your life?
I think that the least parents can do is to match the Spartans and allow the kids to be raised at home for the first seven years. Longer is better--even through high school.
But the cry goes up that they must be socialized. In response, most homeschoolers point out the many activities available to them, from sports to music to church.
They're right: as homeschooling usually teaches more in less time, it leaves more time for both play and social activities. And I can attest that most of the long-term homeschoolers I know posses fine social abilities.
Nevertheless, this view concedes too much. Why do we even assume that modern schools are a healthy way to socialize a child and set a standard homeschooling must match? The socialization of our school system is profoundly anti-social. Edmund Burke wrote of civilization as a partnership "between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born." In the schools, society doesn't even consist of the various generations of the living.
The standard (though rarely articulated) definition of successful socialization is to "fit in" with a lot of immature little savages raised by television, video games, and the internet. Spending at least 35 hours a week, nine months of the year, with 20-30 kids of one's own age (with a harried adult supervising) is the antithesis of what is needed in order to learn how to function in society.
Give me the shut-in homeschoolers any day; from their family and their books, they will at least have some notion of life beyond their cohort and how to interact with it.
Enough with socialization; let us look at a case for homeschooling.
The strongest argument for homeschooling is the education that takes place in the public schools, or rather, the lack thereof. Reports on the sorry state of America's schools come out regularly, and it's always interesting to see how many spots we've fallen and what tiny nations (like Luxembourg and the Czech Republic) outscored us academically.
The problem isn't a lack of funding.
Rather, much of it is due to a fondness for egalitarian gestures. As Christopher Lasch observed, "Given the underlying American commitment to the integral high school – the refusal to specialize college preparation and technical training in separate institutions – make-work programs, athletics, extracurricular activities, and the pervasive student emphasis on sociability corrupted not merely the vocational and life-adjustment programs but the college preparatory course as well." People have varying intellectual abilities, and however much it may offend liberals, half the population is below average.
Some people are ready for college work in their early teens and others will never be ready for it, but the school system is largely incapable of adjusting for this. Despite the burgeoning popularity of AP classes and the like, the brightest intellects are still stymied by years of waiting for their peers to catch up. Furthermore, the notion that schooling equates to an education has diluted the currency of a degree, as higher education has become a certification program.
To read the rest of the story go to townhall.com
Homeschooling, sweet homeschooling
By Nathanael Blake
Mar 10, 2006
Last week a New York Times article profiled the ordeal of academic applications: essays, interviews, application consultants, tuition of $10,000 a year or more, and the stress of separating families.
The article was about private preschools in New York City. The following is representative of the tribulations chronicled among well-heeled parents. "When Ms. Malloy, a federal prosecutor, applied for her twins, a boy and a girl, she asked her husband to write the application essay. "I was so nervous," she said, "and I'm someone who took the LSAT, who's written for the federal judiciary and in law review."
The family applied to four schools. "There's not a week that goes by that I don't regret that I didn't apply to three or four more," Ms. Malloy said. And so the hamster-wheel rat-race is now beginning at the ripe old age of two.
For me, reading this story increased my determination that if probability wins out and I marry and have children (I'm archaic enough to believe that to be the proper order), they will be homeschooled.
But though over one million children are homeschooled in America, there's a surprising amount of resistance to the idea, even from many who support other alternatives to the state schools (i.e. charter and private schools).
When I tell people about my plans for my (hypothetical) children, I invariably hear the same infratentorial objection, which is that they won't "socialize" properly.
No one ever tells me that homeschooling will stifle my children's academic ability.
The stereotype is quite the opposite: homeschoolers are smart but socially inept. There are, to be sure, examples of failed homeschooling, but its general record is better than the government's schools.
There are occasional comments about the difficulty of homeschooling.
To be sure, it takes sacrifice, and there are some families that cannot undertake the task. Yet what are we to make of the wealthy New Yorkers who send their toddlers to pre-schools with tuition higher than my university's? They aren't driven by necessity, but by the desire to get their children out of the home and out of the way. This begs the query: why have children if you don't want them to interfere with your life?
I think that the least parents can do is to match the Spartans and allow the kids to be raised at home for the first seven years. Longer is better--even through high school.
But the cry goes up that they must be socialized. In response, most homeschoolers point out the many activities available to them, from sports to music to church.
They're right: as homeschooling usually teaches more in less time, it leaves more time for both play and social activities. And I can attest that most of the long-term homeschoolers I know posses fine social abilities.
Nevertheless, this view concedes too much. Why do we even assume that modern schools are a healthy way to socialize a child and set a standard homeschooling must match? The socialization of our school system is profoundly anti-social. Edmund Burke wrote of civilization as a partnership "between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born." In the schools, society doesn't even consist of the various generations of the living.
The standard (though rarely articulated) definition of successful socialization is to "fit in" with a lot of immature little savages raised by television, video games, and the internet. Spending at least 35 hours a week, nine months of the year, with 20-30 kids of one's own age (with a harried adult supervising) is the antithesis of what is needed in order to learn how to function in society.
Give me the shut-in homeschoolers any day; from their family and their books, they will at least have some notion of life beyond their cohort and how to interact with it.
Enough with socialization; let us look at a case for homeschooling.
The strongest argument for homeschooling is the education that takes place in the public schools, or rather, the lack thereof. Reports on the sorry state of America's schools come out regularly, and it's always interesting to see how many spots we've fallen and what tiny nations (like Luxembourg and the Czech Republic) outscored us academically.
The problem isn't a lack of funding.
Rather, much of it is due to a fondness for egalitarian gestures. As Christopher Lasch observed, "Given the underlying American commitment to the integral high school – the refusal to specialize college preparation and technical training in separate institutions – make-work programs, athletics, extracurricular activities, and the pervasive student emphasis on sociability corrupted not merely the vocational and life-adjustment programs but the college preparatory course as well." People have varying intellectual abilities, and however much it may offend liberals, half the population is below average.
Some people are ready for college work in their early teens and others will never be ready for it, but the school system is largely incapable of adjusting for this. Despite the burgeoning popularity of AP classes and the like, the brightest intellects are still stymied by years of waiting for their peers to catch up. Furthermore, the notion that schooling equates to an education has diluted the currency of a degree, as higher education has become a certification program.
To read the rest of the story go to townhall.com
Thursday, March 09, 2006
A version of HB750 rears it's ugly head. The education establishments greed never ends and they have the money to buy off both sides of the aisle.
The following was sent to us by Marily Rickert of Fair Tax Now.
I received an alert from my local chamber of commerce which says in part:
On Feb 23, 2005 state Rep. Renee Kosel submitted and is the Chief sponsor of HB 3460 cited as the Local Property Tax Reduction Act which empowers local school districts to propose 2% income tax for schools. This new 2% tax along with the existing 3% state income tax will result in raising our overall income tax burden by 67%.
The Bill provides for the corresponding reduction in property taxes to be temporary if more money is needed by the school district.
This new bill is bad news for privately-owned business owners who reside in a school district that enacts this bill. Corporations are excluded and not subject to this tax, thus making it difficult to compete with owners who reside in a district that does not enact this option against those who live in a district that did.
Marilyn Rickert
It's time to pass the FairTax!
Note: Kosel is a Republican(?) and has a primary challenge
I received an alert from my local chamber of commerce which says in part:
On Feb 23, 2005 state Rep. Renee Kosel submitted and is the Chief sponsor of HB 3460 cited as the Local Property Tax Reduction Act which empowers local school districts to propose 2% income tax for schools. This new 2% tax along with the existing 3% state income tax will result in raising our overall income tax burden by 67%.
The Bill provides for the corresponding reduction in property taxes to be temporary if more money is needed by the school district.
This new bill is bad news for privately-owned business owners who reside in a school district that enacts this bill. Corporations are excluded and not subject to this tax, thus making it difficult to compete with owners who reside in a district that does not enact this option against those who live in a district that did.
Marilyn Rickert
It's time to pass the FairTax!
Note: Kosel is a Republican(?) and has a primary challenge
Why Ron Gidwitz should not be governor of Illinois
Dave Ziffer of the IllinoisLoop.org sent the following letter to the Chicago Tribune regarding their endorsement of Ron Gidwitz for governor.
Dear Chicago Tribune Editor:
I was very disappointed to read the Tribune’s endorsement of Ron Gidwitz as Republican candidate for governor in the upcoming primary elections. Gidwitz’ plan for education is so illogical that I must wonder whether he could possibly have any other sensible policies.
On his website (at http://www.ron2006.com/news/contentview.asp?c=31647) Gidwitz openly acknowledges federal statistics indicating that our public elementary schools are essentially completely incompetent in teaching young children how to read. The failure rate is so high (40% completely illiterate, plus another 30% below grade level) that it indicates total systemic failure. (A system with an even moderate level of competency would have something more like a 2% failure rate.)
Gidwitz’ solution to this problem? He wants to force us to pay for more failure by requiring kids to spend more time with teachers who obviously don’t know what they’re doing (i.e. mandatory kindergarten) and by giving the failed system more license to occupy more of our kids’ time at an even younger age (publicly financed preschool). This makes about as much sense as pumping more money into Enron in the hopes of getting better energy services.
Gidwitz’ proposal to create a “seamless” education system is downright frightening. The same language was used by associates of the Clintons in the early 1990s who were planning to use the Clinton presidency as a springboard for creating an inescapable nationalized school system similar to those in socialist countries. What we need in education is school choice, not a seamless system of failure.
Your endorsement makes sense only if we hope to be choosing between two Democrats this fall. My hope is that other newspapers will endorse Jim Oberweis, a man who offers us a true alternative to the ever-increasing socialist nonsense in Illinois government.
Sincerely,
David Ziffer
REFERENCES
Public education’s consistent 70% failure rate: The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has been reporting since 1992 that approximately 40% of our fourth-graders are “below basic” (i.e. functionally illiterate) and an additional 30% are “below proficient” (i.e. struggling) in reading. Please refer to http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading. Ninety percent of American children are in public schools. The low end of private school performance tends to dovetail with the upper end of public school performance.
Is a 2% reading failure rate reasonable?: A 98% success rate in teaching reading is a commonly quoted statistic among non-public-education service providers using the same sorts of metrics and sometimes the same metrics as their public school counterparts. During 1997-2002 I ran an after-school reading program servicing primarily “dysfunctional” readers. During that time we achieved a 98% success rate in promoting students’ reading capability one grade level per semester (that’s two grade levels per year), using a combination of licensed teachers and teachers’ aides. All statistics and raw data regarding this program are published at www.projectpro.com/icanread.htm.
Associates of the Clintons also gleefully anticipated implementing a “seamless” education system. Check it out at http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/marc_tucker/marc_tucker_letter.html.
Dear Chicago Tribune Editor:
I was very disappointed to read the Tribune’s endorsement of Ron Gidwitz as Republican candidate for governor in the upcoming primary elections. Gidwitz’ plan for education is so illogical that I must wonder whether he could possibly have any other sensible policies.
On his website (at http://www.ron2006.com/news/contentview.asp?c=31647) Gidwitz openly acknowledges federal statistics indicating that our public elementary schools are essentially completely incompetent in teaching young children how to read. The failure rate is so high (40% completely illiterate, plus another 30% below grade level) that it indicates total systemic failure. (A system with an even moderate level of competency would have something more like a 2% failure rate.)
Gidwitz’ solution to this problem? He wants to force us to pay for more failure by requiring kids to spend more time with teachers who obviously don’t know what they’re doing (i.e. mandatory kindergarten) and by giving the failed system more license to occupy more of our kids’ time at an even younger age (publicly financed preschool). This makes about as much sense as pumping more money into Enron in the hopes of getting better energy services.
Gidwitz’ proposal to create a “seamless” education system is downright frightening. The same language was used by associates of the Clintons in the early 1990s who were planning to use the Clinton presidency as a springboard for creating an inescapable nationalized school system similar to those in socialist countries. What we need in education is school choice, not a seamless system of failure.
Your endorsement makes sense only if we hope to be choosing between two Democrats this fall. My hope is that other newspapers will endorse Jim Oberweis, a man who offers us a true alternative to the ever-increasing socialist nonsense in Illinois government.
Sincerely,
David Ziffer
REFERENCES
Public education’s consistent 70% failure rate: The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has been reporting since 1992 that approximately 40% of our fourth-graders are “below basic” (i.e. functionally illiterate) and an additional 30% are “below proficient” (i.e. struggling) in reading. Please refer to http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading. Ninety percent of American children are in public schools. The low end of private school performance tends to dovetail with the upper end of public school performance.
Is a 2% reading failure rate reasonable?: A 98% success rate in teaching reading is a commonly quoted statistic among non-public-education service providers using the same sorts of metrics and sometimes the same metrics as their public school counterparts. During 1997-2002 I ran an after-school reading program servicing primarily “dysfunctional” readers. During that time we achieved a 98% success rate in promoting students’ reading capability one grade level per semester (that’s two grade levels per year), using a combination of licensed teachers and teachers’ aides. All statistics and raw data regarding this program are published at www.projectpro.com/icanread.htm.
Associates of the Clintons also gleefully anticipated implementing a “seamless” education system. Check it out at http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/marc_tucker/marc_tucker_letter.html.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Were your children in school today?
The article below appeared at townhall.com and explains why your teacher may have not been in school today.
he teachers unions are mad at me
By John Stossel
Mar 8, 2006
Teachers unions are mad at me. The New York State United Teachers demands I apologize for my "gutter level" journalism, "an irresponsible assault on public school students and teachers." This is because I hosted an ABC News TV special titled "Stupid in America," which pointed out:
-- American fourth graders do well on international tests, but by high school, Americans have fallen behind kids in most other countries.
-- The constant refrain that "public schools need more money" is nonsense. Many countries that spend significantly less on education do better than we do. School spending in America (adjusted for inflation) has more than tripled over the past 30 years, but national test scores are flat. The average per-pupil cost today is an astonishing $10,000 per student -- $200,000 per classroom! Think about how many teachers you could hire, and how much better you could do with that amount of money.
-- Most American parents give their kids' schools an A or B grade, but that's only because, without market competition, they don't know what they might have had. The educators who conduct the international tests say that most of the countries that do best are those that give school managers autonomy, and give parents and students the right to choose their schools. Competition forces private and public schools to improve.
-- There is little K-12 education competition in America because public schools are a government monopoly. Monopolies rarely innovate, and union-dominated monopolies, burdened with contracts filled with a hundred pages of suffocating rules, are worse. The head of New York City's schools told me that the union's rules "reward mediocrity."
All that angered the unions. But when they criticize my "bias and ignorance," I don't hear them refute the points listed above. They don't refute them because they can't. It's just a fact that rules that insist an energetic, hard-working teacher who makes learning fun must be paid exactly the same as a lazy, incompetent teacher are rules that promote mediocrity.
Ironically, before I did "Stupid in America," the New York teachers union wanted to give me an award. The United Federation of Teachers' Social Studies Conference wrote: "Our organization, ATSS/UFT, would be proud to present you with the Hubert H. Humphrey Humanitarian Award for the outstanding work which you have done for social causes. ... Your development and generous sponsorship of In the Classroom Media provide students with the opportunity to enhance their civics education. This is the highest award that we can give to an individual. Past honorees have included Mario Cuomo, Shirley Chisholm, Charles Schumer, Dolores Huerta, Major Owens, Charles Rangel ... "
Wow! Chuck Schumer, Charlie Rangel and me! Alas, after my education special aired, they decided not to give me the award. Apparently my work with In the Classroom Media -- which provides teachers with videos about the free market -- only helps kids as long as I stay away from the "social cause" most relevant to them: their education.
Instead, teachers' unions announced that Wednesday (3/8), they will hold demonstrations against me and ABC in New York City, Chicago, Atlanta, Detroit, and elsewhere. One police permit suggests the crowd outside my office will number 750-1,000 people. It should be interesting.
"We want to make sure that ABC hears the voices of incredibly hard-working teachers," says the union website, quoting New York City's UFT President Randi Weingarten. "The network needs to hear how unfair and biased those of you in the trenches believe their broadcast to have been."
I'm sorry that union teachers are mad at me. But when it comes to the union-dominated monopoly, the facts are inescapable. Many kids are miserable in bad schools. If they are not rich enough to move, or to pay for private school, they are trapped.
It doesn't have to be that way. We know what works: choice. That's what's brought Americans better computers, phones, movies, music, supermarkets -- most everything we have. Schoolchildren deserve the joyous benefits of market competition too.
Unions say, "education of the children is too important to be left to the vagaries of the market." The opposite is true. Education is too important to be left to the calcified union/government monopoly.
Award-winning news correspondent John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News "20/20" and author of "Give Me a Break."
he teachers unions are mad at me
By John Stossel
Mar 8, 2006
Teachers unions are mad at me. The New York State United Teachers demands I apologize for my "gutter level" journalism, "an irresponsible assault on public school students and teachers." This is because I hosted an ABC News TV special titled "Stupid in America," which pointed out:
-- American fourth graders do well on international tests, but by high school, Americans have fallen behind kids in most other countries.
-- The constant refrain that "public schools need more money" is nonsense. Many countries that spend significantly less on education do better than we do. School spending in America (adjusted for inflation) has more than tripled over the past 30 years, but national test scores are flat. The average per-pupil cost today is an astonishing $10,000 per student -- $200,000 per classroom! Think about how many teachers you could hire, and how much better you could do with that amount of money.
-- Most American parents give their kids' schools an A or B grade, but that's only because, without market competition, they don't know what they might have had. The educators who conduct the international tests say that most of the countries that do best are those that give school managers autonomy, and give parents and students the right to choose their schools. Competition forces private and public schools to improve.
-- There is little K-12 education competition in America because public schools are a government monopoly. Monopolies rarely innovate, and union-dominated monopolies, burdened with contracts filled with a hundred pages of suffocating rules, are worse. The head of New York City's schools told me that the union's rules "reward mediocrity."
All that angered the unions. But when they criticize my "bias and ignorance," I don't hear them refute the points listed above. They don't refute them because they can't. It's just a fact that rules that insist an energetic, hard-working teacher who makes learning fun must be paid exactly the same as a lazy, incompetent teacher are rules that promote mediocrity.
Ironically, before I did "Stupid in America," the New York teachers union wanted to give me an award. The United Federation of Teachers' Social Studies Conference wrote: "Our organization, ATSS/UFT, would be proud to present you with the Hubert H. Humphrey Humanitarian Award for the outstanding work which you have done for social causes. ... Your development and generous sponsorship of In the Classroom Media provide students with the opportunity to enhance their civics education. This is the highest award that we can give to an individual. Past honorees have included Mario Cuomo, Shirley Chisholm, Charles Schumer, Dolores Huerta, Major Owens, Charles Rangel ... "
Wow! Chuck Schumer, Charlie Rangel and me! Alas, after my education special aired, they decided not to give me the award. Apparently my work with In the Classroom Media -- which provides teachers with videos about the free market -- only helps kids as long as I stay away from the "social cause" most relevant to them: their education.
Instead, teachers' unions announced that Wednesday (3/8), they will hold demonstrations against me and ABC in New York City, Chicago, Atlanta, Detroit, and elsewhere. One police permit suggests the crowd outside my office will number 750-1,000 people. It should be interesting.
"We want to make sure that ABC hears the voices of incredibly hard-working teachers," says the union website, quoting New York City's UFT President Randi Weingarten. "The network needs to hear how unfair and biased those of you in the trenches believe their broadcast to have been."
I'm sorry that union teachers are mad at me. But when it comes to the union-dominated monopoly, the facts are inescapable. Many kids are miserable in bad schools. If they are not rich enough to move, or to pay for private school, they are trapped.
It doesn't have to be that way. We know what works: choice. That's what's brought Americans better computers, phones, movies, music, supermarkets -- most everything we have. Schoolchildren deserve the joyous benefits of market competition too.
Unions say, "education of the children is too important to be left to the vagaries of the market." The opposite is true. Education is too important to be left to the calcified union/government monopoly.
Award-winning news correspondent John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News "20/20" and author of "Give Me a Break."
182 billion reasons to vote "NO" on education referenda
182 billion reasons to vote "NO" on education referenda. The following letter to the editor appeared in the Daily Herald.
Why all should care about District 15
There are 182 billion reasons why taxpayers in Mundelein (and Peoria and East St Louis) need to care about salary increases at McHenry District 15. This is my answer to Tracy Simon’s letter of Feb 20 justifying 41 percent average salary increases for teachers in District 15 the last four years.
The 182 billion is the amount of taxpayer dollars that will be required to pay teachers pensions over the next 40 years. That’s according to Buck Consultants actuaries for the Teacher Retirement System.
That’s an average of $4.5 billion per year. And pensions are paid at the state level, not at the local referendum level. And since pensions are directly related to salaries, every increase in every school district affects every Illinois taxpayer.
The other issue is transparency or more correctly the absence of transparency. Why did it take someone outside of District 15 to bring up the point of 41 percent increase over four years? Why didn’t Ms. Simon and the school board mention this fact in 2001?
They should have said “We think our teachers are underpaid and we would like them to average 41 percent increases over the next four years, and we are going to tax you accordingly to pay for it.” Either the school board did not know 41 percent raises were in store, which is nonfeasance, or they decided that it was not important that the taxpayer be made aware of the magnitude of the increase, which is malfeasance.
Considering the lack of forthrightness by school boards and administrations in regard to previous referendums and bond issues (as reported by the Daily Herald), I would guess it is the latter. If they had notified the public and the public voted for it then I have no complaint.
Now the public does know, and let’s see what they say on March 21.
Bill Zettler
Mundelein
Why all should care about District 15
There are 182 billion reasons why taxpayers in Mundelein (and Peoria and East St Louis) need to care about salary increases at McHenry District 15. This is my answer to Tracy Simon’s letter of Feb 20 justifying 41 percent average salary increases for teachers in District 15 the last four years.
The 182 billion is the amount of taxpayer dollars that will be required to pay teachers pensions over the next 40 years. That’s according to Buck Consultants actuaries for the Teacher Retirement System.
That’s an average of $4.5 billion per year. And pensions are paid at the state level, not at the local referendum level. And since pensions are directly related to salaries, every increase in every school district affects every Illinois taxpayer.
The other issue is transparency or more correctly the absence of transparency. Why did it take someone outside of District 15 to bring up the point of 41 percent increase over four years? Why didn’t Ms. Simon and the school board mention this fact in 2001?
They should have said “We think our teachers are underpaid and we would like them to average 41 percent increases over the next four years, and we are going to tax you accordingly to pay for it.” Either the school board did not know 41 percent raises were in store, which is nonfeasance, or they decided that it was not important that the taxpayer be made aware of the magnitude of the increase, which is malfeasance.
Considering the lack of forthrightness by school boards and administrations in regard to previous referendums and bond issues (as reported by the Daily Herald), I would guess it is the latter. If they had notified the public and the public voted for it then I have no complaint.
Now the public does know, and let’s see what they say on March 21.
Bill Zettler
Mundelein
Monday, March 06, 2006
Teacher accountability
The following letter to the editor appeared in the News Sun on March 6, 2006.
Teacher accountability
For 30 years the NEA has supported Democrats almost 100 percent. From September '04 through August '05, they spent $25 million on political activities and lobbying. They spent another $65.5 million on contributions, gifts and grants. What does the NEA get in return for all of these huge expenditures? They get repeated hikes in educational spending at all levels — federal, state, and local. One more reason why your taxes go up every year.
Any Democrat seeking to improve his party standing must adhere to the NEA educational policy. This includes opposing school choice, advocating smaller class size, hiring more teachers, and very important, blocking all efforts at accountability. Observant taxpayers who live in the school districts covering Gurnee, Winthrop Harbor, and Waukegan understand what lack of accountability means when it comes to the school districts and their continued salary and pension increases.
In view of the above I have three questions:
1) Is it right to have the largest teachers union in the country being so active in the political arena?
2) Is the NEA active in areas they have no business being in?
3) Under the pressure of the NEA policies are our young people really learning what they need to exist in our world of today?
My final comment — due to the lack of accountability, students are not being taught necessities, thus are not learning due to teachers not being held to some level of accountability. Maybe a merit system would provide better teachers on a more consistent basis.
Chuck Guthrie
Wadsworth
Teacher accountability
For 30 years the NEA has supported Democrats almost 100 percent. From September '04 through August '05, they spent $25 million on political activities and lobbying. They spent another $65.5 million on contributions, gifts and grants. What does the NEA get in return for all of these huge expenditures? They get repeated hikes in educational spending at all levels — federal, state, and local. One more reason why your taxes go up every year.
Any Democrat seeking to improve his party standing must adhere to the NEA educational policy. This includes opposing school choice, advocating smaller class size, hiring more teachers, and very important, blocking all efforts at accountability. Observant taxpayers who live in the school districts covering Gurnee, Winthrop Harbor, and Waukegan understand what lack of accountability means when it comes to the school districts and their continued salary and pension increases.
In view of the above I have three questions:
1) Is it right to have the largest teachers union in the country being so active in the political arena?
2) Is the NEA active in areas they have no business being in?
3) Under the pressure of the NEA policies are our young people really learning what they need to exist in our world of today?
My final comment — due to the lack of accountability, students are not being taught necessities, thus are not learning due to teachers not being held to some level of accountability. Maybe a merit system would provide better teachers on a more consistent basis.
Chuck Guthrie
Wadsworth
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Taxes add up
Light reading for Sunday. The piece below appeared in the Friday, March 3, 2006 edition of the Daily Southtown, in the Speak Out section.
Not one of these taxes, 52 of them, existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most prosperous in the world, had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and only one parent had to work to support the family. What has happened? I hope I have enough time to mention all the taxes: Accounts receivable tax, building permit, capital gains, CDL tax, cigarette tax, corporate income tax, court fines, dog licenses, federal income, federal unemployment, fishing license, food license, fuel permit, gasoline tax, hunting license, inheritance tax, inventory tax, IRS interest charges, IRS penalties, liquor tax, local income tax, luxury taxes, marriage license, Medicare, property, real estate, septic permits, service charge, Social Security, road usage taxes, sales taxes, recreational vehicle, road toll booth, school taxes ...
Sorry, time expired.
Not one of these taxes, 52 of them, existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most prosperous in the world, had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and only one parent had to work to support the family. What has happened? I hope I have enough time to mention all the taxes: Accounts receivable tax, building permit, capital gains, CDL tax, cigarette tax, corporate income tax, court fines, dog licenses, federal income, federal unemployment, fishing license, food license, fuel permit, gasoline tax, hunting license, inheritance tax, inventory tax, IRS interest charges, IRS penalties, liquor tax, local income tax, luxury taxes, marriage license, Medicare, property, real estate, septic permits, service charge, Social Security, road usage taxes, sales taxes, recreational vehicle, road toll booth, school taxes ...
Sorry, time expired.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Tax increases you do not get to vote on.
The Daily Herald
hits another one out of the park. Below is a perfect example of how school boards continue to cheat taxpayers out of their hard earned dollars. School boards should not be allowed to pass these back door referenda without voter approval.
Refinancing will cost Dist. 15 taxpayers
By Ethan Grove
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Saturday, March 04, 2006
Restructuring Palatine Township Elementary District 15’s debt, which also will provide $5 million for life-safety improvements, will cost residents an additional $11.5 million over five years.
That figure — which includes $5 million in principal, the costs of restructuring about $5.5 million in debt, and fees and interest — was presented by David Schott and Ivan Samstein of LaSalle Bank to the school board Friday night during a special meeting for residents to comment on and ask questions about the refinancing.
The $11.5 million would be paid at about $2.3 million annually starting in 2021, Schott and Samstein said. All figures are subject to change until the deal is finalized.
District 15 is currently paying $4.9 million — which will remain consistent until 2020 — for a portion of its debt.
The board voted 4-3 at its Feb. 8 meeting for the restructuring, which will extend its debt five years.
Some residents who spoke at Friday’s meeting were in favor of refinancing, while some were opposed to it, and others wanted to know how much it would cost taxpayers.
The district’s life-safety survey results put a series of repairs into three categories — A, B and C, with A being mandatory and urgent — to be completed over about 10 years.
The A list projects are estimated to cost about $1.3 million, and the board voted in December to change the tax levy to move about 5 cents from the transportation fund into the life-safety fund — for a total of about $1.7 million — to make those improvements.
The B and C repairs will need to be made at some point, but are not as urgent, board members said.
“This stuff is so complicated, and to rush it through like this is a crime,” board member Tim Millar said before the meeting. “We’re manufacturing the need instead of managing it. We do need to do these things, but the roofs aren’t collapsing today, which is why they aren’t in A.”
“My feeling is we need to do some of those B things now,” Superintendent Robert McKanna said. “We’re going to need a fair amount of money next year and the year after just for building and grounds repairs.”
Board member Wendy Rowden questioned whether now is the right time to refinance debt.
“Right now the bond rates are favorable,” board President Scott Boucher said.
The district will shift the $1.7 million from the life-safety fund into the education fund so the district can rehire some teachers and administrators, McKanna said.
hits another one out of the park. Below is a perfect example of how school boards continue to cheat taxpayers out of their hard earned dollars. School boards should not be allowed to pass these back door referenda without voter approval.
Refinancing will cost Dist. 15 taxpayers
By Ethan Grove
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Saturday, March 04, 2006
Restructuring Palatine Township Elementary District 15’s debt, which also will provide $5 million for life-safety improvements, will cost residents an additional $11.5 million over five years.
That figure — which includes $5 million in principal, the costs of restructuring about $5.5 million in debt, and fees and interest — was presented by David Schott and Ivan Samstein of LaSalle Bank to the school board Friday night during a special meeting for residents to comment on and ask questions about the refinancing.
The $11.5 million would be paid at about $2.3 million annually starting in 2021, Schott and Samstein said. All figures are subject to change until the deal is finalized.
District 15 is currently paying $4.9 million — which will remain consistent until 2020 — for a portion of its debt.
The board voted 4-3 at its Feb. 8 meeting for the restructuring, which will extend its debt five years.
Some residents who spoke at Friday’s meeting were in favor of refinancing, while some were opposed to it, and others wanted to know how much it would cost taxpayers.
The district’s life-safety survey results put a series of repairs into three categories — A, B and C, with A being mandatory and urgent — to be completed over about 10 years.
The A list projects are estimated to cost about $1.3 million, and the board voted in December to change the tax levy to move about 5 cents from the transportation fund into the life-safety fund — for a total of about $1.7 million — to make those improvements.
The B and C repairs will need to be made at some point, but are not as urgent, board members said.
“This stuff is so complicated, and to rush it through like this is a crime,” board member Tim Millar said before the meeting. “We’re manufacturing the need instead of managing it. We do need to do these things, but the roofs aren’t collapsing today, which is why they aren’t in A.”
“My feeling is we need to do some of those B things now,” Superintendent Robert McKanna said. “We’re going to need a fair amount of money next year and the year after just for building and grounds repairs.”
Board member Wendy Rowden questioned whether now is the right time to refinance debt.
“Right now the bond rates are favorable,” board President Scott Boucher said.
The district will shift the $1.7 million from the life-safety fund into the education fund so the district can rehire some teachers and administrators, McKanna said.
Friday, March 03, 2006
State Funding, Percentage Rankings, and Choice
John Biver of the Family Taxpayer Network wrote this great piece. Yet another reason to vote no on all education referenda.
State Funding, Percentage Rankings, and Choice
By John Biver
After reading the rants of those who want ever more of your tax dollars, you may think that anyone arguing for better financial management in the public schools hates children. Actually, Illinois taxpayers love kids – and have been showing it by increasing funding at twice the rate of inflation for over twenty years. Illinois schools are not poorly funded.
First, a note about “state funding” versus “local funding.” The state maintains the ultimate responsibility for funding public schools since local governments are subject to the state.
Some would have you believe that the current system results from the state government shunning its responsibility. On the contrary, it was the citizens of the state deciding that local control of public education funding was preferable to having all decisions emanate from Springfield.
The current hullabaloo over state funding results from the simple fact that the public school establishment doesn’t like that too many local citizens are saying ‘no’ to ever increasing taxes by voting down referendums. Since local taxpayers won’t give them what they want, they turn to calling the state government bad names.
Illinois’ rankings show that Illinois schools are not poorly funded: (Source: NEA Rankings & Estimates, 2004)
Nationally, Illinois is:
* 3rd in public school revenue as a percentage of combined state and local revenues
* 11th in K-12 public school spending per student (average daily attendance)
* 14th in public school revenue per student (average daily attendance)
To view the rest of the article click here.
State Funding, Percentage Rankings, and Choice
By John Biver
After reading the rants of those who want ever more of your tax dollars, you may think that anyone arguing for better financial management in the public schools hates children. Actually, Illinois taxpayers love kids – and have been showing it by increasing funding at twice the rate of inflation for over twenty years. Illinois schools are not poorly funded.
First, a note about “state funding” versus “local funding.” The state maintains the ultimate responsibility for funding public schools since local governments are subject to the state.
Some would have you believe that the current system results from the state government shunning its responsibility. On the contrary, it was the citizens of the state deciding that local control of public education funding was preferable to having all decisions emanate from Springfield.
The current hullabaloo over state funding results from the simple fact that the public school establishment doesn’t like that too many local citizens are saying ‘no’ to ever increasing taxes by voting down referendums. Since local taxpayers won’t give them what they want, they turn to calling the state government bad names.
Illinois’ rankings show that Illinois schools are not poorly funded: (Source: NEA Rankings & Estimates, 2004)
Nationally, Illinois is:
* 3rd in public school revenue as a percentage of combined state and local revenues
* 11th in K-12 public school spending per student (average daily attendance)
* 14th in public school revenue per student (average daily attendance)
To view the rest of the article click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)