Here's a link to the article
http://glenview.patch.com/articles/district-31-parents-feel-abandoned-face-1-million-in-cuts-after-property-tax-referendum-failed (http://glenview.patch.com/articles/district-31-parents-feel-abandoned-face-1-million-in-cuts-after-property-tax-referendum-failed)
In a nutshell, a school referendum in Glenview (a much more affluent suburb than Berwyn ) was defeated. It was to cover a $4M shortfall, much less than the $14M for capital projects that D100 wanted.
At least they took their agenda directly to the voters.
An apples to apples comparison, surely.
As many districts do - especially those in low income communities - perhaps they might reconsider taking their agenda directly to the voters next time. The back door wouldn't be necessary if the front door were open.
Quote from: Robert Pauly on February 16, 2012, 12:31:09 PM
An apples to apples comparison, surely.
As many districts do - especially those in low income communities - perhaps they might reconsider taking their agenda directly to the voters next time. The back door wouldn't be necessary if the front door were open.
"Spectacles fit noses not because God created noses to fit spectacles".
Not asking the question because you know you won't like the answer, then insisting that the question has been satisfactorily answered without having been asked?
Stop the insanity!
Quote from: Robert Pauly on February 16, 2012, 12:31:09 PM
An apples to apples comparison, surely.
As many districts do - especially those in low income communities - perhaps they might reconsider taking their agenda directly to the voters next time. The back door wouldn't be necessary if the front door were open.
Yeah, but some people don't even try the front door, even when it may be opened.
I don't think people should always assume the front door will always be closed and that, therefore, the only alternative is to sneak through the back door.
Why not test the front door to see if it's unlocked? Why assume it's always closed?
Isn't that a better approach than a sneak attack through the back door?
Front door or back door - it doesn't matter to me - what fries my ass is inaction - DACEE made the preschool recommendation almost two years ago - meanwhile, the entire educational community is touting preschool as the real Silver Bullet - and here we sit, in typical Berwyn fashion - doing nothing.
Three types of communities: those that make things happen, those that watch things happen, and those, who from the beginning of time, and probably until the end of time, say "What the hell happened?" I'm tired of being in the third category - thousands of kids are comprised - I'm tired of crime, gangs, drugs, Pitt Bulls, blaring cars, connections to organized crime, drug dealers, etc. - it's time for action - front door or back door - and I have communicated this in these words to the D100 board. D98 is another issue - they don't deserve a pass, either.
This being said, there are reasons why low income communities are low income communities, and lack of foresight is one of them. An unwillingness to support a better lifestyle via higher taxes is another. For these reasons, and more, districts choose the back door - districts in low income communities run up the debt - because defeat of referendums is a foregone conclusion. So, given the choice of inaction or the back door, I choose the back door.
Quote from: Robert Pauly on February 17, 2012, 08:16:59 AM
DACEE made the preschool recommendation almost two years ago - meanwhile, the entire educational community is touting preschool as the real Silver Bullet
One of the recommendations in the teachers' union's 800 million dollar proposal to fix CPS is
universal preschool.
Carry on.
Quote from: Bonster on February 17, 2012, 10:54:13 AM
Quote from: Robert Pauly on February 17, 2012, 08:16:59 AM
DACEE made the preschool recommendation almost two years ago - meanwhile, the entire educational community is touting preschool as the real Silver Bullet
One of the recommendations in the teachers' union's 800 million dollar proposal to fix CPS is universal preschool.
Carry on.
Mark,
Here is what I don't get. How can D100 voters force D98 (a separate district) to implement preschool?
I think most people would consider "universal" to mean that alls students in a DISTRICT get to attend preschool.
The objection that D100 should not do something because D98 isn't doing it is like arguing that because D148 isn't doing something, neither should D98 or D100.
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on February 17, 2012, 12:14:53 PM
Quote from: Bonster on February 17, 2012, 10:54:13 AM
Quote from: Robert Pauly on February 17, 2012, 08:16:59 AM
DACEE made the preschool recommendation almost two years ago - meanwhile, the entire educational community is touting preschool as the real Silver Bullet
One of the recommendations in the teachers' union's 800 million dollar proposal to fix CPS is universal preschool.
Carry on.
Mark,
Here is what I don't get. How can D100 voters force D98 (a separate district) to implement preschool?
I think most people would consider "universal" to mean that alls students in a DISTRICT get to attend preschool.
The objection that D100 should not do something because D98 isn't doing it is like arguing that because D148 isn't doing something, neither should D98 or D100.
Wow, do you have that wrong. Every sentence.
Here is what I don't get. How can D100 voters force D98 (a separate district) to implement preschool?
I think most people would consider "universal" to mean that alls students in a DISTRICT get to attend preschool.
The objection that D100 should not do something because D98 isn't doing it is like arguing that because D148 isn't doing something, neither should D98 or D100.
In reverse order...
1) The objection has nothing to do with D98 not doing it. The objection has to do with the expected outcome and the complete waste of precious tax dollars. I can't blame pragmatic thinkers in the district for being against the proposal as stated. Serving a subset of a subset will get us nowhere, only a few. Mr. Pauly pretty much admitted there's no proof that serving a few would correct the whole, here. It is self-serving, and would not ultimately reduce the mobility rate.
2) I think most people would consider "universal" to mean universal, not "universal." If you want to limit your scope, it should be local, as in Berwyn. Yet, per the STATED objectives, and your suggestion (DISTRICT), then yes, it should be made available universally - to everyone served by DISTRICT 201.
3) Why should D100 do anything with regard to D98? What about ... CARES?
Now... if Mr. Fields can finagle his way in to 98 and implement the same (via "soft consolidation") you've got my vote.
Your last sentence is an excellent point.
As a resident of D98, you don't have a vote in D100, and likewise for a voter in D100. They are separate school districts, regardless of what municipality it falls under.
As for 1) the outcomes seem to have been studied and found that preschool DOES provide a benefit to students. As for mobility rates, I don't think that is really a concern of educators, at least in the way most people around here discuss it.
2) So you are saying Berwyn should not implement preschool unless Cicero, Stickney, McCook and I think a slice of Brookfield implements pre-school? Because that is what you just advocated with your definition of "universal".
3) CARES is an advocacy group. It is not the school board. What it does or does not do shouldn't affect what is good education policy for the school district.
Preschool benefits children. Saving Berwyn is a side benefit.
If both districts adopt preschool for all, fantastic - 2000 kids will benefit. If D98 doesn't believe, 1000 children is better than nothing.
D100 has Smart technology. Half of their kids go home with a laptop or notebook. They have full day kindergarten. They're considering preschool for all. Their test scores are beginning to soar.
IMO, this puts the heat on D98, assuming there's someone to turn the dial. And that someone is not CARES - it's parents and taxpayers.
Quote from: Robert Pauly on February 17, 2012, 03:07:08 PM
Preschool benefits children. Saving Berwyn is a side benefit.
The primary benefit, not "side" benefit, as stated by the District, Stan fields and you - was ultimately to improve the test scores at the high school level, in turn improving the community thereby reducing the mobility rate. It was never stated to be a matter of charity for some.
Nice cop out on the CARES front.
The outcomes seem to have been studied and found that preschool DOES provide a benefit to students.
Yes, a self-serving benefit. Where's our municipal benefit? We do support school districts, but to what end? Spending millions to help a few? (That 1000 number was a guess) This isn't the same argument that those who don't use Fire Dept services shouldn't have to pay for them.
So you are saying Berwyn should not implement preschool unless Cicero, Stickney, McCook and I think a slice of Brookfield implements pre-school? Because that is what you just advocated with your definition of "universal".
No. I advocated Berwyn. The other option was based (more logically) on your District idea.
CARES is an advocacy group. It is not the school board.
As is DACEE, who advocated for D100. Likewise, they are not the school board. What they do or do not do shouldn't affect what is good education policy for the school district. And thankfully for the residents of D100, they didn't.
Quote from: Bonster on February 17, 2012, 03:32:09 PM
Nice cop out on the CARES front.
Nice cop out on the taxpayer front.
No cop out here. :P
Quote from: Bonster on February 17, 2012, 03:32:09 PM
It was never stated to be a matter of charity for some.
;)
Quote from: Bonster on February 17, 2012, 03:58:38 PM
The outcomes seem to have been studied and found that preschool DOES provide a benefit to students.
Yes, a self-serving benefit.
+3.
Quote from: Robert Pauly on February 16, 2012, 12:31:09 PM
An apples to apples comparison, surely.
Nope, an economic fact of life. Taxpayers everywhere are over-burdened. D001 has too much debt. D98 is positioned beautifully. D98 has made the necessary concentrated effort to reign in the budget. D100 ? NOT !
That's probably why Field's has offered to "share" districts; because D98 is financially healthy. And, do you think Fields' services would be free ? C'mon, it's 2 Titles, 2 salaries. Too sad.
I think Pauly & Co. should set aside their collective guilt trip and stop rushing this thing.
On another note, what's the tax rate for D98 compared to D100 ? Isn't there a difference ?
I don't get ANY part of this post.
Quote from: Robert Pauly on February 17, 2012, 08:16:59 AM
Front door or back door - it doesn't matter to me - what fries my ass is inaction
If "inaction" is what fries ones ass, then maybe having that ass pay for private school tuition would alleviate the burning sensation instead of having other unwilling asses trying to put out the fire.....OR......
maybe have that fried ass ask the tough questions of the ass (Lovero & Co.), metaphorically speaking, that really put the blow torch to the hide instead of firing missiles ONLY Cicero's way.
Quoteand here we sit, in typical Berwyn fashion - doing nothing.
No, you may not be paying attention...Berwyn simply said it's not going to get done the way you want it to get done.
QuoteThree types of communities: those that make things happen, those that watch things happen, and those, who from the beginning of time, and probably until the end of time, say "What the hell happened?" I'm tired of being in the third category - thousands of kids are comprised - I'm tired of crime, gangs, drugs, Pitt Bulls, blaring cars, connections to organized crime, drug dealers, etc. -
Three types of people: those that make things happen, those that watch things happen, and those that demand everybody else help make it happen.
Quoteit's time for action
-
Sure is...start by consolidating school district(s)....only if the proper political infrastructure is in place will a tax increase referrendum stand any chance of passing.....
Quotefront door or back door
.....and then ONLY through the FRONT door...deceipt is a wretched concept.
QuoteThis being said, there are reasons why low income communities are low income communities, and lack of foresight is one of them.
I'd say lack of income brings "lack of foresight"...
QuoteAn unwillingness to support a better lifestyle via higher taxes is another.
You can't support something you may not be able to afford. Ironic how some who want a "better lifestyle" are unwilling to dig their hands SOLELY in their own pockets and make it happen. St. Mary's is a mile away, Fenwick two miles away or so....all it takes is dipping into that pocket instead of expecting everyone else to dig in also.
Quote from: Robert Pauly on February 16, 2012, 12:31:09 PM
The back door wouldn't be necessary if the front door were open.
Do you talk to your significant other that way?
Jake,
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Ted on February 16, 2012, 06:30:35 PM
Yeah, but some people don't even try the front door, even when it may be opened.
I don't think people should always assume the front door will always be closed and that, therefore, the only alternative is to sneak through the back door.
Why not test the front door to see if it's unlocked? Why assume it's always closed?
Isn't that a better approach than a sneak attack through the back door?
Ummmmm....I will leave this alone.
Quote from: The Jackal on February 17, 2012, 06:15:33 PM
I don't get ANY part of this post.
Quote from: Robert Pauly on February 17, 2012, 08:16:59 AM
Front door or back door - it doesn't matter to me - what fries my ass is inaction
If "inaction" is what fries ones ass, then maybe having that ass pay for private school tuition would alleviate the burning sensation instead of having other unwilling asses trying to put out the fire.....OR......
maybe have that fried ass ask the tough questions of the ass (Lovero & Co.), metaphorically speaking, that really put the blow torch to the hide instead of firing missiles ONLY Cicero's way.
Quoteand here we sit, in typical Berwyn fashion - doing nothing.
No, you may not be paying attention...Berwyn simply said it's not going to get done the way you want it to get done.
QuoteThree types of communities: those that make things happen, those that watch things happen, and those, who from the beginning of time, and probably until the end of time, say "What the hell happened?" I'm tired of being in the third category - thousands of kids are comprised - I'm tired of crime, gangs, drugs, Pitt Bulls, blaring cars, connections to organized crime, drug dealers, etc. -
Three types of people: those that make things happen, those that watch things happen, and those that demand everybody else help make it happen.
Quoteit's time for action
-
Sure is...start by consolidating school district(s)....only if the proper political infrastructure is in place will a tax increase referrendum stand any chance of passing.....
Quotefront door or back door
.....and then ONLY through the FRONT door...deceipt is a wretched concept.
QuoteThis being said, there are reasons why low income communities are low income communities, and lack of foresight is one of them.
I'd say lack of income brings "lack of foresight"...
QuoteAn unwillingness to support a better lifestyle via higher taxes is another.
You can't support something you may not be able to afford. Ironic how some who want a "better lifestyle" are unwilling to dig their hands SOLELY in their own pockets and make it happen. St. Mary's is a mile away, Fenwick two miles away or so....all it takes is dipping into that pocket instead of expecting everyone else to dig in also.
I think that Robert Pauly is a passionate person who has allowed this passion to blind him on some key issues. Just because DACEE recommends something des not mean it is the correct course of action, whether it be on flawed research (one can find research that dispels his point of view just as much as one can find research supporting it) or that it is not feasible due to budget constraints. What is obvious is that he has elevated what was once a good idea for an advisory group and lost touch that the voters decide how much they want to pay not DACEE. I have lost a gret deal of respect for him with these recent posts. I must say I agree with jackal on the points above
Here goes.
School Taxes RATE 2010%
Morton D527 .392 4.56
Berwyn HS201 1.858 21.60
School District 100 2.499 29.05
So, 55.21% of my total real estate taxes went to schools. I don't feel the least bit guilty that I can't compete financially with a Naperville or Wilmette.
Don't let those doors hit ya' in the ass on the way out !
Anyone have the rate/percentage for D98 ?
buzz,
You don't have to compete with a Naperville or Wilmette. You live in Berwyn. If Bob or anyone else wants a Naperville type education for their kids though, Fenwick is a stones throw away...but ALAS, that would require digging only into ONE (their own) pocket, not everybody elses as well.
That doesn't obscure or vitiate the fact that a quality hs district is of paramount importance, but if one is asking an already burdened to the hilt PUBLIC to fund such an endeavor, then certain prerequisites must be present.....political infrastructure, autonomous and/or trustworthy hs board, consolidated school dist, etc.....BEFORE any tax increase referrendum can be even entertained.
It appears to me there's a certain subset within Berwyn pushing said tax increase fervently that is all too willing to bump their own taxes and more importantly the taxes of their neighbors a couple of hundred bucks a year in the name of a better education, but NOT WILLING AT ALL to pay the 10-12 K a year a top notch private hs education costs for their little precious darlings.
The solutions are simple, IMO, and they can be found right across Harlem Avenue and/or two miles north of Roosevelt. Either pony up the 10-12K/year x 4 yrs for Fenwick, OR, move west of Harlem/south of 22nd and see where your taxes and mortgage payments skyrocket to. If the little kiddies education is so important, then I don't see why people like Bob wouldn't be willing to make the sacrifice that those in Riverside do (or that those in Berwyn who send their kids to private schools do) instead of demnding people of lesser means than themselves in Berwyn agree to a bump up in taxes.
Don't you think that a community has a moral obligation to educate their kids as best as they can? How does your city in Indiana stack up for schools compared to Berwyn? Much better I would guess.
Quote from: buzz on February 17, 2012, 11:09:53 PM
Anyone have the rate/percentage for D98 ?
Tax rates are higher in D98 than in D100, both for regular expenses and for debt payoff. I also added in City of Berwyn for comparison purposes:
D98
Total Rate: 2.836
Of that, .6548 is for debt payoff
and, 2.181 is for regular expenses
D100
Total Rate: 2.499
Of that, .4483 is for debt payoff
and, 2.050 is for regular expenses
City of Berwyn:
Total Rate: 2.310
Of that, .5330 is for debt payoff
and, 1.777 is for regular expenses
One more point - If the bond proposal had passed last summer, D100's debt rate would have increased from .4483 to .7759 !!!
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on February 18, 2012, 02:07:48 AM
Don't you think that a community has a moral obligation to educate their kids as best as they can? How does your city in Indiana stack up for schools compared to Berwyn? Much better I would guess.
EVERY city has a moral obligation to educate its kids.......SUBJECT to its financial wherewithall and circumstances. That's why Naperville is Naperville and Berwyn is Berwyn. Its not a matter of IF, but rather a matter of HOW MUCH and UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES.
On the flip side, every parent also has the INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY to educate his/her own child. Therefore, if the community you live in isn't willing to spend the $$$$ necessary to educate "appropriately" (for whatever reason), you have two choices: 1) Move to a community that does, and/or 2) Put your hand in the ole pocket and pay for it solely by yourself....as SOME people in Berwyn already do.
That's not to say that Berwyn should settle for the status quo, but a tax increase referrendum under the current circumstances is irresponsible, idiotic and ludicrous. Change some of those circumstances and then maybe.......instead of trying to backdoor already financially strapped people to death.
As to your final question, the short answer is you get what you (not EVERYBODY else as well) pay for. I want a top flight education for my kids so I pay double in purchase price and double in property taxes. I don't move to a community with relatively affordable housing and moderate property taxes and then expect a Wilmette or Naperville type education while exhorting my neighbors to supports a couple hundred/thousand dollar a year tax hike so that I can receive a benefit I'm completely unwilling to pay for all by myself. Kind of selfish and self serving, if you ask me.
So basically you suggest people just accept whatever is here and not try and improve things. That seems like a VERY old school Berwyn attitude.
I'm glad to see people trying to make positive changes, not just fleeing the town.
No, I didn't say that...YOU did.
What I said was basically don't put the cart before the horse, especially for fairly evident self serving purposes.
It seems like quite a few other Berwyn residents (even newcomers) agree, wholeheartedly.
Throwing money (especially other people's) at the problem doesn't solve it.
In Berwyn's case, it makes it worse...and Berwyn can ill afford any more mistakes.
Just a hypo here, but tell me your thoughts.....unified school districts, city manager form of government, stand alone hs district, qualified/competent Berwyn hs board...if all these things are present, what do you feel the likelihood of a tax increase referrendum passing is? My guess is that it would significantly increase.
Point is, fix the problems first, THEN ask people for more money.
DEMANDING a tax increase isn't fixing the problem/making positive change...its simply trying to address the CURRENT problem(s) of a few with the pocketbook(s) of many.
Quote from: Mustang84 on February 17, 2012, 07:54:42 PM
I think that Robert Pauly is a passionate person who has allowed this passion to blind him on some key issues. Just because DACEE recommends something des not mean it is the correct course of action, whether it be on flawed research (one can find research that dispels his point of view just as much as one can find research supporting it) or that it is not feasible due to budget constraints. What is obvious is that he has elevated what was once a good idea for an advisory group and lost touch that the voters decide how much they want to pay not DACEE. I have lost a gret deal of respect for him with these recent posts. I must say I agree with jackal on the points above
Thank you for your kind comments. I am sorry for having lost your respect.
There will come a day - mark these words - when preschool will become mandated. Most - I regret not being able to say "all" - will acknowledge that Berwyn had arrived a day late and a dollar short - by then, the world will have moved onto something else, and Berwyn, again, will be driving in the right lane.
As for your "budget constraints", it's all relative. There are 17 Cook County communities with Berwyn-like demographics - D100 has the 14th lowest school tax rate. Obviously, south Berwyn cares more about "budget constraints" than others.
It boils down to your view on quality, public education: is it essential or elective? I agree with you that the voter has spoken. If only the voter represented the constituency.
As to your insinuation, Jackal, the advocates of these and other progressive, educational initiatives will never derive a shred of direct benefit from any of them. Living in a nicer community in 20 years might be the exception.
Quote from: Ted on June 03, 1970, 04:15:02 PM
One more point - If the bond proposal had passed last summer, D100's debt rate would have increased from .4483 to .7759 !!!
Thanks.
I can only imagine what the reaction will be when D100 announces they want to replace Hiawatha ! They've kept that issue pretty much on the down low.
Quote from: Robert Pauly on February 19, 2012, 09:51:42 AM
As for your "budget constraints", it's all relative. There are 17 Cook County communities with Berwyn-like demographics - D100 has the 14th lowest school tax rate. Obviously, south Berwyn cares more about "budget constraints" than others.
Again, what does this mean?
Which communities are these and what makes them "Berwyn like"? How many of these "Berwyn like communities" have two different grammar school districts, a high school board with a 201 like history dominated in composition by a neighboring town advancing its own political agenda, a hs district configuration which yields maximum output (relatively speaking in tax dollars) for minimum return (% of students), a track record of "back door" maneuvers which has alienated and angered many constituents, a municipal government which continually finds new and unique ways (eg padded pensions, TIF handouts) to drain an already strapped tax base, etc., etc., etc......????????
Facts and figures can be manipulated all sorts of different ways.
As for these "progressive" educational initiatives (even though I'm not all that certain whats so "progressive" about publicly funded kindergarten), well, a community can have only what it can afford. The Berwyn taxpayer has continuously told you that, given what was stated above, they're not willing/unable to fund mandated kindergarten. Now maybe if some of the "progressive leaders" in town actually addressed the issues (see 2nd paragraph above) which alienate Berwyn taxpayers instead of continuously harping on misleading facts/figures, then publcily funded kindergarten wouldn't be such a pipe dream.
The horse goes before the cart, not vice versa.
Quote from: Robert Pauly on February 19, 2012, 09:51:42 AM
If only the voter represented the constituency.
Oh, but they most certainly DO.
Thankfully they do not represent the vocal minority and their bad logic.
The two people seemingly arguing the most about preschool in District 100 don't even live there.
And you two both keep doing it over and over and over.
Let other people discuss the topic. You two (Jackal and Bonster) just won't quit and shut down ANY discussion of preschool in D100.
I've asked you nicely. Please humor me.
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on February 20, 2012, 12:15:27 AM
The two people seemingly arguing the most about preschool in District 100 don't even live there.
And you two both keep doing it over and over and over.
Let other people discuss the topic. You two (Jackal and Bonster) just won't quit and shut down ANY discussion of preschool in D100.
I've asked you nicely. Please humor me.
Actually, very few people who pay taxes in District 100 have chimed in here on the issue of a tax increase for "preschool for all" but the ones who have are pretty much against it except for a few. From what I've read the meeting they had about it prior to the vote most of the people there were against it also. You have a few advocating for the many when it comes to this issue. Am I for educating our kids? Yes, but there are limitations to what we can do. Again, scores are going up in the district with full day kindergarten and let's not forget about the free preschool that's provided to kids who are "at risk" of not succeeding in kindergarten because of developmental delays or other problems.
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on February 20, 2012, 12:15:27 AM
Let other people discuss the topic. You two (Jackal and Bonster) just won't quit and shut down ANY discussion of preschool in D100.
I've asked you nicely. Please humor me.
Really?
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on February 17, 2012, 12:14:53 PM
Mark,
Here is what I don't get. How can D100 voters force D98 (a separate district) to implement preschool?
You asked a question, and I had exactly three posts since then, one in direct response.
Over and out.
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on February 20, 2012, 12:15:27 AM
The two people seemingly arguing the most about preschool in District 100 don't even live there.
And you two both keep doing it over and over and over.
Let other people discuss the topic. You two (Jackal and Bonster) just won't quit and shut down ANY discussion of preschool in D100.
I've asked you nicely. Please humor me.
OK. I live in D100. The problem with this whole discussion is this - there are two issues:
1. Do you support public pre-school for 3 and 4 year olds?
2. Do you support the finanical plan proposed to the D100 board last summer to pay for public pre-school for 3 and 4 year olds?
If I had gone to my boss with a financial plan that called for a large capital expenditure, a large on-going yearly cost, a 70% increase in the company's debt and which had only a revenue life span of only 1 year, this is what would have happened.
First, my boss would have laughed in my face for presenting a financial proposal that had a life span of only one year without any sources of revenue to support the project in the years after year 1.
Second, he would then have thrown me out of the room for presenting such a stupid non-sensical financial plan that would have put the company deep into debt without any long term thinking for the years beyond year 1.
That, Brian, is the main problem. Yet, the advocates have made it out to be that opposition to a fool hardy financial plan is equivalent to being Dath Vader and a meany to little kids.
That is what people are starting to resent, especially when they hear it over and over again for 6 months.
Ted
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on February 20, 2012, 12:15:27 AM
The two people seemingly arguing the most about preschool in District 100 don't even live there.
And you two both keep doing it over and over and over.
Let other people discuss the topic. You two (Jackal and Bonster) just won't quit and shut down ANY discussion of preschool in D100.
I've asked you nicely. Please humor me.
Brian,
Are topic postings now limited to residents and non residents? Because if you ARE indeed attempting to place such limits, then I guess you too should be barred from posting on this thread.
I've made exactly FOUR posts on the topic. Not ONE has been combative and from what I can tell, just about everyone on the thread except you and Mr. Pauly agree with me. In fact, mustang 84 has explicitly stated he agrees completely with my initial post.
I'm not sure where you get I'm trying to "shut down" discussion of D100 preschool. Is that what you call it when people set forth logical arguments which another party can't respond to? Is that what you call it when self serving, distorted rhetoric at least in part based on deception is ferreted out?
If that's the case, then I'll bid this thread adieu and apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused. As a parting suggestion, I would submit that in the future you completely bar from threads anyone who has a viewpoint opposing yours. Saves a lot of aggravation.
p.s. I'm ALL FOR D100 preschool...just not under Mr. Pauly's terms and certainly not on his timeline.
Quote from: Ted on February 20, 2012, 06:21:46 AM
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on February 20, 2012, 12:15:27 AM
The two people seemingly arguing the most about preschool in District 100 don't even live there.
And you two both keep doing it over and over and over.
Let other people discuss the topic. You two (Jackal and Bonster) just won't quit and shut down ANY discussion of preschool in D100.
I've asked you nicely. Please humor me.
OK. I live in D100. The problem with this whole discussion is this - there are two issues:
1. Do you support public pre-school for 3 and 4 year olds?
2. Do you support the finanical plan proposed to the D100 board last summer to pay for public pre-school for 3 and 4 year olds?
If I had gone to my boss with a financial plan that called for a large capital expenditure, a large on-going yearly cost, a 70% increase in the company's debt and which had only a revenue life span of only 1 year, this is what would have happened.
First, my boss would have laughed in my face for presenting a financial proposal that had a life span of only one year without any sources of revenue to support the project in the years after year 1.
Second, he would then have thrown me out of the room for presenting such a stupid non-sensical financial plan that would have put the company deep into debt without any long term thinking for the years beyond year 1.
That, Brian, is the main problem. Yet, the advocates have made it out to be that opposition to a fool hardy financial plan is equivalent to being Dath Vader and a meany to little kids.
That is what people are starting to resent, especially when they hear it over and over again for 6 months.
Ted
Ted brings out another great point which I forgot to mention in my posts, namely, the sheer absurdity and foolishness of a one year plan with a XXXX cost.
I guess it also doesn't help when the president of a citizens activist group and most vocal proponent of this plan shamelessly admits to having no qualms about "backdooring" his fellow residents and/or utlizing children as pawns in this crusade. I'm not a genie here, but I think that too has probably gotten under the skin of most residents. Just a guess...
Nonetheless, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to post in your topic. Its time for me to depart.
Refinancing bonds is the lesser of two evils. Doing nothing is the greater.
While I think that going to referendum is unnecessary and a waste of precious resources, it, too, is the lesser of two evils. Doing nothing is greater.
Deceiving people (and using children as pawns to achieve your end) is the GREATEST evil of them all.
Berwyn has NEVER said it will do NOTHING.
What Berwyn has said is that it will NOT do it YOUR way.
You hear only what you want to hear....and frame the issue(s) in as self serving a manner as possible.
Really Jackal?
So much for civility.
Ok. I think I have this worked out. Was really hoping to not have to use it.
Quote from: Robert Pauly on February 20, 2012, 09:50:29 AM
Refinancing bonds is the lesser of two evils. Doing nothing is the greater.
While I think that going to referendum is unnecessary and a waste of precious resources, it, too, is the lesser of two evils. Doing nothing is greater.
Bob, the bond re-financing would have supported the program for only 1 (or at most 2) years. After that, what did the district planning on doing?
At the meetings last summer, it was said that after year 1 or 2, they would go to the voters with a referendum.
That is what does NOT make sense. If the district is eventually going to go to the voters to finance this, do it in YEAR 0 rather than increasing the debt by 70% and then asking for money.
This is the exact same strategy that D201 employed (run up the debt and then plead for money) and voters resented it when a referendum was put on the ballot.
Again, the financial plan proposed was ill conceived - it did not address the issue long term and it would have increased the debt dramatically for a 1 year program.
Sorry, Bob, but that approach is infeasible. Ask for the money BEFORE HAND rather than putting a boat load of debt on the tax payers and THEN asking for the tax rate increase.
Like I said, this is deja vu all over again with what we went through with D201 and the same backdoor approach to large capital projects (e.g the Freshman Center and the Alternative School).
Add on to that the proposed re-building of Hiawatha and you have Jay Cuneen all over again. D201 in 2002 turns into D100 in 2012.
If you want pre-school, pay for it the right way.
Is there a long term financial plan document that lays out what the district expects it will need in the coming years?
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on February 20, 2012, 11:32:51 AM
Is there a long term financial plan document that lays out what the district expects it will need in the coming years?
MORE!
Je n'ai plus aucun argent.
For the record, I'd like to state that I resent the accusations and insinuations in this thread.
Ted: There were a few plans on how to best use the proceeds from the refinancing, each more aggressive - from squeezing preschoolers into existing schools, renting trailers, retrofitting LaVergne and demolishing and rebuilding LaVergne, etc. I'm not sure that the district ever settled upon a plan, but they claimed to possess resources to run the preschool for 3 to 5 years. A one-year, doomsday scenario makes no sense to me, either.
As for a referendum, I charged them to run one on June 9, 2009. I charged them again in October. IMO, it's a waste of resources - I'd retrofit LaVergne, use the refinancing to get up and running for 3 to 5 years, then go to the community armed with results, if necessary, but I acknowledge that others feel differently. We elect a board to make these decisions, and I abide by their decisions. What I don't abide by is doing nothing - futures are compromised - if 30% of your product didn't meet expectations, Ted, you wouldn't get kicked out of your boss's office, you'd get fired.
Quote from: Robert Pauly on February 20, 2012, 12:24:09 PM
Ted: There were a few plans on how to best use the proceeds from the refinancing, each more aggressive - from squeezing preschoolers into existing schools, renting trailers, retrofitting LaVergne and demolishing and rebuilding LaVergne, etc. I'm not sure that the district ever settled upon a plan, but they claimed to possess resources to run the preschool for 3 to 5 years. A one-year, doomsday scenario makes no sense to me, either.
That's not what was stated at the meeting in July. In the meeting in July, it was stated that the bond would bring in enough money to pay teachers for one year. After one year, another source of revenue would have to be found to pay for those newly hired teachers.
Based on the numbers presented, that is also what the numbers showed - a one year pay of teacher's salary out of the bond. The bond did not cover salaries after year 1 and the only solution after year 1 would be to either drain the existing fund balances or go to referendum.
There was no long term financial plan presented for funding public pre-school for 3 year olds and 4 year olds - at least, not one that was presented in the public meetings on the bond issue.
Quote from: Robert Pauly on February 20, 2012, 12:24:09 PM
... We elect a board to make these decisions, and I abide by their decisions.
And, yet, it was the school board that decided against the proposed plan (and subsequent debt increase). Why did 4 school board members believe the plan was not in the best interests of the district?
I don't think anyone can say that Joanne Zendol is anti-education. Just before the vote, Joanne read a very good statement about why the financial plan that was proposed was not something she could vote for.
There's a reason that 4 school members voted against the plan - If the plan was a good plan, it would have passed the school board with flying colors. There's a reason it failed (and it isn't because of tax-o-phobia)
If this was such a great plan, then why did 4 school board members vote against it?
Quote from: Robert Pauly on February 20, 2012, 12:24:09 PM
... What I don't abide by is doing nothing ...
Then don't do nothing. If you feel that strongly about it, then circulate a petition to put a referendum on the ballot and convince the voters.
You don't need permission from the school board to put a referendum on the ballot. No one's stopping you from going door to door, collecting signatures and putting a referendum on the ballot.
At the August 24, 2011 Working Cash Bonds Issuance Community Forum - which I believe supersedes your July information - question #6 was: "Is it true that the $14 million is mostly for buildings and the preschool program will need to go to referendum one year after starting in order to completely fund the program's operating budget"?
Stan Fields answer: "No."
Question #39 was: "How will the district be able to sustain a pre-k center? Referendum ....... ?
Stan's answer: "In the near term, D100 has sufficient reserves. Depending on the scope of the program, alternative or additional funding will be required to sustain a preschool program that serves all children within 4 to 7 years."
So what's with the 1 year propaganda? "Tax-o-phobia"?
As for the board, all I'll say is that for every dissenting board vote, there are 200 D100 students who do not meet state expectations. It's too bad they don't make statements.
As for your suggestion on a referendum, remind me to add you to my list of political advisers.
Quote from: Robert Pauly on February 20, 2012, 04:01:53 PM
At the August 24, 2011 Working Cash Bonds Issuance Community Forum - which I believe supersedes your July information - question #6 was: "Is it true that the $14 million is mostly for buildings and the preschool program will need to go to referendum one year after starting in order to completely fund the program's operating budget"?
Stan Fields answer: "No."
Question #39 was: "How will the district be able to sustain a pre-k center? Referendum ....... ?
Stan's answer: "In the near term, D100 has sufficient reserves. Depending on the scope of the program, alternative or additional funding will be required to sustain a preschool program that serves all children within 4 to 7 years."
So what's with the 1 year propaganda? "Tax-o-phobia"?
As for the board, all I'll say is that for every dissenting board vote, there are 200 D100 students who do not meet state expectations. It's too bad they don't make statements.
As for your suggestion on a referendum, remind me to add you to my list of political advisers.
Right... the answer was if the district did not go to referendum, it would have to dip into and drain the fund balances after the first year. The 70% increase in the debt covered only the first year. Draining the fund balances after the first year was not a good solution.
The school board members understood that (thank God) - they understood what Fields was proposing was a dangerous thing to continue the program after one year. It would have meant dipping into and draining the fund balances.
The 70% increase in the debt covered only one year's worth of teachers salaries. After one year, it was either go to referendum or drain the district of its fund balances.
Draining the fund balances is not a good idea, especially if the # of students K-8 balloons up to 4,000 - which is one of the reasons Zendol gave for voting against the proposal.
So, it's not propaganda. It's fact. The proposal would have put the district in a precarious position if funding after the first year didn't come via referendum.
Quote from: Robert Pauly on February 20, 2012, 12:24:09 PM
For the record, I'd like to state that I resent the accusations and insinuations in this thread.
For the record, I'd like to state that I resent your
Nixonian approach to forcing this ill concieved hoax upon the residents.
Quote from: buzz on February 21, 2012, 11:23:35 AM
Quote from: Robert Pauly on February 20, 2012, 12:24:09 PM
For the record, I'd like to state that I resent the accusations and insinuations in this thread.
For the record, I'd like to state that I resent your Nixonian approach to forcing this ill concieved hoax upon the residents.
Buzz,
Final warning. Disagree with Bob, but you don't need to start calling names.
Clear enough?
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on February 21, 2012, 12:30:35 PM
Quote from: buzz on February 21, 2012, 11:23:35 AM
Quote from: Robert Pauly on February 20, 2012, 12:24:09 PM
For the record, I'd like to state that I resent the accusations and insinuations in this thread.
For the record, I'd like to state that I resent your Nixonian approach to forcing this ill concieved hoax upon the residents.
Buzz,
Final warning. Disagree with Bob, but you don't need to start calling names.
Clear enough?
WOW.
Quote from: The Jackal on February 21, 2012, 12:33:59 PM
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on February 21, 2012, 12:30:35 PM
Quote from: buzz on February 21, 2012, 11:23:35 AM
Quote from: Robert Pauly on February 20, 2012, 12:24:09 PM
For the record, I'd like to state that I resent the accusations and insinuations in this thread.
For the record, I'd like to state that I resent your Nixonian approach to forcing this ill concieved hoax upon the residents.
Buzz,
Final warning. Disagree with Bob, but you don't need to start calling names.
Clear enough?
WOW.
You too. When I'm trying to administer this board, I don't need people giving me shit.
Nobody is giving you "shit" Brian. Step back from the pc and see what you've done here. Nowhere but nowhere in buzz's last post does he call Bob any sort of name. NOWHERE.
Just like there's NOTHING uncivil or udnuly argumentative about ANY of my posts in this thread.
Fact is, Bob Pauly has basically admitted in this thread and previous threads to advocating "back door" methods (ie trickery, deceipt) to achieve his desired result, yet when someone else points it out to him, that person is tagged a "name caller" by YOU the administrator? Let me remind you of the "Skrydmarks" moniker you've tagged on the current 4th ward alderwoman. And now you threaten others with God knows what for "name calling"? Ironic (to say the least) wouldn't you say? You deride Bonster and I as a noresidents for chiming in on a "District 100" issue, yet you don't live in Dist 100 either, nor have you ever. Perplexing "logic", to say the least.
If you want to create a thread simply to advocate on behalf of and/or espouse a certain position, then simply close it to those with opposing views. If however, you want healthy debate and discussion (especially of the non insulting/non antagonistic variety found on this thread) on an issue (which I believe is what forums like this are intended for), then I can't for the life of me understand how you can attempt to 'filter" content based on your own viewpoint, especially when your viewpoint is shared by only one other poster in this thread. In fact, your viewpoint is not only opposed by almost everyone on this thread, but also by the overwhelming majority of voters.
Then again, its your dime and your dance floor. Do what you want with it.
Bye.
Quote from: Robert Pauly on February 20, 2012, 09:50:29 AM
Refinancing bonds is the lesser of two evils. Doing nothing is the greater.
While I think that going to referendum is unnecessary and a waste of precious resources, it, too, is the lesser of two evils. Doing nothing is greater.
It must be nice to be so sure of your righteous self and so eager to dismiss everyone who has a different view. I actually admire the audacity.
I find it interesting in a sad way that everyone seems set against preschool, rather than saying "this has been shown to be beneficial, let's figure out how to make it happen".
Says a lot.
IMO, debating topics on BTF has become a lost cause, but for whatever it's worth, I am in favor of the preschool idea. Mr. Pauly has to play nice Mr. PC because he is the head of DACEE, but I don't. With that said, most breeders around here leave a lot to be desired in the parenting dept. which is one of the main reasons we have the problems that we do. If preschool was mandated then the kids would have a better chance of just getting up to par, not ahead, which is sad in itself. And for what ever it's worth again, this is coming from the father of a Berwyn D100 preschool age son. Many of the debaters in this topic don't even have any kids at all.
Quote from: berwynguy on February 21, 2012, 10:18:53 PM
IMO, debating topics on BTF has become a lost cause, but for whatever it's worth, I am in favor of the preschool idea. Mr. Pauly has to play nice Mr. PC because he is the head of DACEE, but I don't. With that said, most breeders around here leave a lot to be desired in the parenting dept. which is one of the main reasons we have the problems that we do. If preschool was mandated then the kids would have a better chance of just getting up to par, not ahead, which is sad in itself. And for what ever it's worth again, this is coming from the father of a Berwyn D100 preschool age son. Many of the debaters in this topic don't even have any kids at all.
See my other post in the Education forum about who benefits from schools. Parents aren't the only ones who are able to discuss this topic.
That's all you've got to say about my comments? Okay.
I agree with pretty much everything you said.
Ok, cool.
Quote from: berwynguy on February 21, 2012, 10:18:53 PM
... Many of the debaters in this topic don't even have any kids at all.
I know many parents of children in D100 schools who were against this proposal, including people who are long time education advocates in Berwyn.
Also, the 4 board members who voted against the proposal all have or did have kids who went to D100 schools. 2 of the board members who voted against the proposal currently have kids in D100 schools and the other 2 board members had kids in the schools as recently as 3 to 7 years ago.
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on February 21, 2012, 10:02:11 PM
I find it interesting in a sad way that everyone seems set against preschool, rather than saying "this has been shown to be beneficial, let's figure out how to make it happen".
Says a lot.
A scheme is not a plan. Back door taxes are schemes that contribute to the distrust people have in elected bodies. I don't see
"everyone is set against preschool", only the way in which this proposal was put forward that left voters without a say in the matter.
From the school side, it appears fear driven. If it's a good proposal, let the voters have their rightful say in how it will be funded. D100 didn't have enough confidence in its constituents or its own scheme to ask for their support? Yet the blame is weirdly put on the voters who weren't asked?
When a taxpayer asks what they are getting for their money, they deserve an explanation. When they do ask for more money, they should be prepared to respond to the inevitable questions about how their current money is being spent. When they find ways to spend more money without asking, they need a better response than "YOU would have said NO!". They should also be mindful and sensitive to the realities people are experiencing.
As long as local property taxes are the scheme used to fund local education, it falls to school district administrators to be accountable to their funding sources. When it seems that inordinate emphasis is placed on finding ways AROUND being answerable or to postpone an accounting, distrust seems sane and natural.
Quote from: watcher on February 22, 2012, 07:07:55 AM
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on February 21, 2012, 10:02:11 PM
I find it interesting in a sad way that everyone seems set against preschool, rather than saying "this has been shown to be beneficial, let's figure out how to make it happen".
Says a lot.
A scheme is not a plan. Back door taxes are schemes that contribute to the distrust people have in elected bodies. I don't see "everyone is set against preschool", only the way in which this proposal was put forward that left voters without a say in the matter.
From the school side, it appears fear driven. If it's a good proposal, let the voters have their rightful say in how it will be funded. D100 didn't have enough confidence in its constituents or its own scheme to ask for their support? Yet the blame is weirdly put on the voters who weren't asked?
When a taxpayer asks what they are getting for their money, they deserve an explanation. When they do ask for more money, they should be prepared to respond to the inevitable questions about how their current money is being spent. When they find ways to spend more money without asking, they need a better response than "YOU would have said NO!". They should also be mindful and sensitive to the realities people are experiencing.
As long as local property taxes are the scheme used to fund local education, it falls to school district administrators to be accountable to their funding sources. When it seems that inordinate emphasis is placed on finding ways AROUND being answerable or to postpone an accounting, distrust seems sane and natural.
Whether they are against the idea of preschool, or against the funding...my point still stands...no one has said "this is a good thing, let's figure out how we can do it".
Quote from: watcher on February 22, 2012, 07:07:55 AM
A scheme is not a plan. Back door taxes are schemes that contribute to the distrust people have in elected bodies. I don't see "everyone is set against preschool", only the way in which this proposal was put forward that left voters without a say in the matter.
From the school side, it appears fear driven. If it's a good proposal, let the voters have their rightful say in how it will be funded. D100 didn't have enough confidence in its constituents or its own scheme to ask for their support? Yet the blame is weirdly put on the voters who weren't asked?
When a taxpayer asks what they are getting for their money, they deserve an explanation. When they do ask for more money, they should be prepared to respond to the inevitable questions about how their current money is being spent. When they find ways to spend more money without asking, they need a better response than "YOU would have said NO!". They should also be mindful and sensitive to the realities people are experiencing.
As long as local property taxes are the scheme used to fund local education, it falls to school district administrators to be accountable to their funding sources. When it seems that inordinate emphasis is placed on finding ways AROUND being answerable or to postpone an accounting, distrust seems sane and natural.
Let me add to that. It was stated that a bad proposal for pre-school was better than doing nothing.
But- what if that bad proposal for pre-school bankrupts the district in 3 or 4 years? Is bankrupting the district in 3 to 5 years really better than doing nothing? Especially for an initiative that is outside the mission of the district?
Let me repeat something - The proposal last summer would have funded teacher's salaries for only one year. After the first year, funding for teacher's salaries would have had to come from some other source - either a tax increase via referendum or by draining the district's reserves and bankrupting the district.
If the solution for funding teacher salaries after year 1 was a referendum to increase the tax rates, then why wait until after Year 1? Why not put a referendum on the ballot in year 0 and get the money then? Why increase the debt by 70% and THEN ask for a tax rate increase??
If the solution for funding teacher salaries after year 1 was to drain the reserves in the fund balances and bankrupt the district in 3 to 4 years, then someone has to ask the question whether that is a sane idea?
Is bankrupting the district in 3 to 5 years better than doing nothing? I think not. I would rather do nothing than bankrupt the district.
The proposal on the table was a bad proposal - that's why 4 board members voted against it.
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on February 22, 2012, 07:54:44 AM
Whether they are against the idea of preschool, or against the funding...my point still stands...no one has said "this is a good thing, let's figure out how we can do it".
Simple - put a referendum on the ballot (either by the board or by petition) that increases the tax rate to bring in more property taxes to fund public pre-school for all 3 and 4 year olds.
That's the way to do it.
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on February 22, 2012, 07:54:44 AM
Whether they are against the idea of preschool, or against the funding...my point still stands...no one has said "this is a good thing, let's figure out how we can do it".
There is a clear process to achieve that goal. It was bypassed. With each backdoor event, finagle and cleverness, the taxpayers have been prevented their past-due accountings. Resentments are difficult to overcome and districts that have used and/or abused their "other avenues" have, IMO, not done enough educating on their operations to deserve the benefit of the doubt.
We can argue on and on whether voters/taxpayers have been as supportive as they could/should be, but since Plan A seems to have become to find ways around having to face the voters/taxpayers, the argument is pointless.
There's far more complexity to it, but the problems of education today are more directly attributable to "cleverness" in the board rooms than any other single influence. What are we doing? How are we doing it? How are we paying for it?
Simple enough questions that either aren't being asked, or aren't being answered. So that when a referendum finally does come up, all those unasked/unanswered questions don't go unnoticed.
Quote from: Ted on February 22, 2012, 08:31:45 AM
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on February 22, 2012, 07:54:44 AM
Whether they are against the idea of preschool, or against the funding...my point still stands...no one has said "this is a good thing, let's figure out how we can do it".
Simple - put a referendum on the ballot (either by the board or by petition) that increases the tax rate to bring in more property taxes to fund public pre-school for all 3 and 4 year olds.
That's the way to do it.
So have you heard if anyone in D100 (the geographic area, not the school administration) is working to achieve that goal?
Quote from: berwynguy on February 21, 2012, 10:18:53 PM
And for what ever it's worth again, this is coming from the father of a Berwyn D100 preschool age son.
Do you intend to school your son here ?
Quote from: berwynguy on February 21, 2012, 10:18:53 PM
Many of the debaters in this topic don't even have any kids at all.
True, but in the 20+ yrs. I've lived here I've voted for school referenda, even for D201. You're not required to have children to have an opinion.
Under your belief system, no kids = no voice ?
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on February 22, 2012, 09:33:25 AM
Quote from: Ted on February 22, 2012, 08:31:45 AM
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on February 22, 2012, 07:54:44 AM
Whether they are against the idea of preschool, or against the funding...my point still stands...no one has said "this is a good thing, let's figure out how we can do it".
Simple - put a referendum on the ballot (either by the board or by petition) that increases the tax rate to bring in more property taxes to fund public pre-school for all 3 and 4 year olds.
That's the way to do it.
So have you heard if anyone in D100 (the geographic area, not the school administration) is working to achieve that goal?
Think about your question. The Supt. of the district wants the preschool. The school board can simply call for the question to be put to a referendum.
Instead you want a citizen group to form and circulate petitions to call the question?
Quote from: buzz on February 22, 2012, 02:56:49 PM
Quote from: berwynguy on February 21, 2012, 10:18:53 PM
And for what ever it's worth again, this is coming from the father of a Berwyn D100 preschool age son.
Do you intend to school your son here ?
Quote from: berwynguy on February 21, 2012, 10:18:53 PM
Many of the debaters in this topic don't even have any kids at all.
True, but in the 20+ yrs. I've lived here I've voted for school referenda, even for D201. You're not required to have children to have an opinion.
Under your belief system, no kids = no voice ?
Don't worry about it, it's none of your concern.
Quote from: watcher on February 22, 2012, 03:27:05 PM
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on February 22, 2012, 09:33:25 AM
Quote from: Ted on February 22, 2012, 08:31:45 AM
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on February 22, 2012, 07:54:44 AM
Whether they are against the idea of preschool, or against the funding...my point still stands...no one has said "this is a good thing, let's figure out how we can do it".
Simple - put a referendum on the ballot (either by the board or by petition) that increases the tax rate to bring in more property taxes to fund public pre-school for all 3 and 4 year olds.
That's the way to do it.
So have you heard if anyone in D100 (the geographic area, not the school administration) is working to achieve that goal?
Think about your question. The Supt. of the district wants the preschool. The school board can simply call for the question to be put to a referendum.
Instead you want a citizen group to form and circulate petitions to call the question?
Rather than sitting around doing nothing? Yeah, that would seem to be preferable.
Why is it so radical to think that if people think pre-school would be a very good thing, they would work to make it happen?
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on February 22, 2012, 05:35:07 PM
Rather than sitting around doing nothing? Yeah, that would seem to be preferable.
Why is it so radical to think that if people think pre-school would be a very good thing, they would work to make it happen?
The people didn't come up with this
scheme plan. The district 100 administration did.
They claimed to have done the research and this was a good idea.
When the school board with a single sheet of paper and a voice vote can put the question on the ballot, organizing a petition drive
for the District's plan is a waste of time and effort better used to work on the campaign to PASS the referendum.
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on February 22, 2012, 05:35:07 PM
Rather than sitting around doing nothing? Yeah, that would seem to be preferable.
Why is it so radical to think that if people think pre-school would be a very good thing, they would work to make it happen?
Brian, what do you propose as an alternative way of funding public pre-school for all 3 year olds and 4 year olds in Berwyn?
If not a referendum to increase tax rates and pay for a large capital expenditure, then what other approach is there?
I agree with Watcher on this - If the board and superintendent want it, then fund it without jeopardizing the district's debt or financial stability.
Quote from: Ted on February 23, 2012, 06:11:16 PM
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on February 22, 2012, 05:35:07 PM
Rather than sitting around doing nothing? Yeah, that would seem to be preferable.
Why is it so radical to think that if people think pre-school would be a very good thing, they would work to make it happen?
Brian, what do you propose as an alternative way of funding public pre-school for all 3 year olds and 4 year olds in Berwyn?
If not a referendum to increase tax rates and pay for a large capital expenditure, then what other approach is there?
I agree with Watcher on this - If the board and superintendent want it, then fund it without jeopardizing the district's debt or financial stability.
No idea...but no one else has even seemed to raise that possibility.
And if you think pre-school is a good idea, why is it necessary to wait for the school board to take care of your needs?
Does the community want pre-school? Does the community understand it might be good for them?