D100 Pre-school

[Ted]

http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/berwyn/news/education/x2014919181/Details-emerge-on-D100-preschool-plan 
 
  Details emerge on D100 preschool plan

By Brett Schweinberg,
bschweinberg@mysuburbanlife.com
Berwyn Life
Posted Jul 28, 2011 @ 03:18 PM

   Berwyn, IL — More details emerged about South Berwyn School District 100's plan to take out $14 million in bonds and start a universal preschool program at a public hearing on the issue on Wednesday.

Although plans are tentative and would require board approval, Cheryl Wadsworth, the district's business manager, said the current plan is to earmark $10 million to create a facility to house the program, and $2.25 million to operate the program for about a year. The remaining $1.75 million would then be used for new technology throughout the district.

Resident Edward Karasek, the only person to comment during the public hearing, opposed the plan, repeatedly calling the preschool center a "baby school."

"I'm baffled and I'm concerned," Karasek said. "Why not have a referendum? Let the taxpayers know what's happening."

Karasek also was concerned about previous comments District 100 Superintendent Stan Fields made that said once the operating funds from the bonds run out, the school district will require a referendum to keep the center running.

"Look at the benefit of full-day kindergarten and now imagine if every 3 and 4 year old in Berwyn had access to a quality preschool," Fields said. "We're going to find out very soon how serious our district is about making our top-25 percent goal."

Residents have until Aug. 5 to deliver a petition to the board with the signatures of 10 percent of all registered voters, or 1,506 in the district, to try to halt the bond issue. If such a petition is delivered and verified, the issue would then be place on the March ballot.

If no such petition is received, the board is one vote away from being able to take out the bonds. That would likely occur at their August meeting.

For more information, call District 100 at (708) 795-2300.

[Ted]

 This doesn't make sense to me from a financial standpoint.

It makes no sense to borrow $10 million dollars to renovate or buy a building to turn into a pre-school if you have money to operate it for only a year.

What happens after one year?  What if the voters says no?

Does that mean you have a building costing $10 million dollars that cannot be used any more?

 Is the LaVergne Center going to be able to hold all the 3-year olds and 4-year olds in south Berwyn?  That is going to be about 800 kids.

 Doesn't it make more sense to hold a referendum BEFORE you spend the money on this?

The more I hear about why D100 is increasing its debt by 50%, the more and more the process makes little sense.

District 100 is putting the cart before the horse.  The FIRST step should be to ask voters if they want their taxes increased by $XX dollars per year and issue a bond for $10 million dollars to have public pre-school in Berwyn.

 Going ahead and bulding the pre-school first without a referendum will lead to the same kind of problems D201 found itself in in 2005.

This whole situation reeks of the District 201 debt situation all over again. And, at least, D201 had a more valid reason (a huge, sudden increase in the student population in the district).

District 100 should be having a dialogue with the community about this, not sneaking through a huge debt increase in the middle of the summer that may turn into a potential white elephant.

[Angel]

District 100 is putting the cart before the horse.  The FIRST step should be to ask voters if they want their taxes increased by $XX dollars per year and issue a bond for $10 million dollars to have public pre-school in Berwyn.

 Going ahead and bulding the pre-school first without a referendum will lead to the same kind of problems D201 found itself in in 2005.

This whole situation reeks of the District 201 debt situation all over again. And, at least, D201 had a more valid reason (a huge, sudden increase in the student population in the district).

District 100 should be having a dialogue with the community about this, not sneaking through a huge debt increase in the middle of the summer that may turn into a potential white elephant.

Firstly, while I teach in Berwyn, I am not a Berwyn resident, so this move will not impact me financially.  However, I agree with Ted that the cart is being put before the horse.  That said, I don't agree that a referendum is the first necessary step.  The first necessary step is educating parents in the district about the importance of education for the futures of their children. If that isn't done, for preschool and for every stage of education beyond that, I believe referenda will continue to be voted down.  No one wants to spend money without the certainty that it is serving an important purpose. 

[MRS. NORTHSIDER]

I do think that the district is trying everything in its power to try and turn the district around in terms of scores.  Preschool for 3 and 4 year olds is an ambitious project but also one that may turn the tide there.  I do not like the way they are trying to accomplish it but also not surprised there.  I have to agree with Ted on this one in terms of the taxpayers in the district.  They need to be more transparent with the taxpayers about what the bottom line is instead of trying to slip it under the door during the summer. 

[buzz]

Financially, it's just too large a capital expenditure at this point in time.

A totally different thought......  When did pre-school become the financial responsibility of the entire community ?  I understand its' importance but everyone I know has, or is, paying for their own child's pre-schooling.

[MRS. NORTHSIDER]

Financially, it's just too large a capital expenditure at this point in time.

A totally different thought......  When did pre-school become the financial responsibility of the entire community ?  I understand its' importance but everyone I know has, or is, paying for their own child's pre-schooling.

Buzz - I totally agree with you on both points.  My kids either went to preschool that I paid for or stayed home with a mom who read to them, went to the Field Museum in Chicago, Trailside in River Forest, numerous other things or both.  The difference is if we want our area to have a chance to score in the top 25% of elementary school districts in Illinois the taxpayers will have to take on the burden for such.  Just like Oak Park has done.  We can expect to reap the rewards in home values that will rise because of the desirability of living in such a district or be left in the stinkhole that most people think we are.

[Ted]

  Ed Karasek raised an interesting point in his comments - that the Working Cash fund should be used for operations, not for a capital project.

 There was a case in Hinsdale transferred working cash to various funds for a capital project. There was another case in which an appellate court ruled that a school district could not transfer money from working cash to operations to a capital project fund.

Here is a statement from a Hinsdale school board member:


The following statement was recently published by the ISBE (March 2009):

"A recent Illinois appellate court case confirmed the State Board's long-standing position regarding permanent transfers from the working cash fund. In G.I.S. Venture, the Second District held that a school district could not abate its working cash fund and permanently transfer said money to its operations and maintenance (O & M) fund; repayment was required. G.I.S. Venture et al. v. Novak, N.E.2d , 2009 WL 332872 (2d Dist. No. 2-07-0934)."

The court agreed with the ISBE and the property owners who had objected to the illegal transfers "... finding that nothing in the School Code or case law supported the practice of permanently transferring working cash directly to O & M. Sections 20-5, 20-9 and 17-2A of the School Code could not be construed to allow such a practice. Further, the Second District was clear that the Illinois Supreme Court's 1984 decision in the Walgenbach case did not interpret Section 20-9 to authorize a permanent transfer where working cash was abated, much less address to which funds the money might be transferred."

With regard to the current transfer of Working Cash Fund monies for capital projects, the same parties who told this board that the $20,000,000 of transfers were "authorized by law" are now telling the board that there is a "work around" that will get the money to its intended target ... capital projects.

Since November 2008, this Board has been warned by Rick Skoda, retired member of the Board and me that direct transfers of Working Cash Funds to the O&M Fund are a violation of the Working Cash statute. My current vote against additional Working Cash Fund transfers reflects my researched opinion that an indirect path through the Ed Fund is equally in violation of the intent of the law. It is my belief that a reasonable, objective review of these transfer resolutions (WCF > ED then ED > O&M) by an unbiased individual would lead to the same conclusion reached by me.

This shuffling of the money from the Working Cash to the Ed Fund to the Capital Projects fund (formerly O&M fund), with no intention of repayment back to the Working Cash fund, is what I have publicly called "Money Laundering" at the board table. By definition, "Money Laundering" is the act of engaging in transactions designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, location or source of money.

The School Code (Article 20, Section 6) states any elected official or administrator who willfully violates the Working Cash statute can lose their seat, get fined $10,000 and be held personally liable for any of the funds used.

[Ted]

 And, here is an article in the Tribune about this:


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-04-30/news/ct-met-0427-tax-transfer-20100430_1_school-districts-school-board-building-funds  
 
 Schools districts may get state OK to issue bonds for buildings without voter approval

Appellate Court has barred practice, though many districts waltz around the ban anyway

April 30, 2010
By Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah,
Tribune reporter

 Strapped for cash and taking their lumps on tax-increase measures, school districts in Chicagoland are increasingly skirting requirements for voter approval of building projects by issuing bonds that don't require a referendum and then shifting that money from fund to fund.

Even after a state Appellate Court ruled last year that such maneuvers were improper, the Hinsdale Township High School District 86 board reached into a rainy-day fund for $4 million to install artificial turf at its two high school football fields.

 Because the court held that another district inappropriately used working cash bonds on a building project, the Hinsdale board didn't transfer the money directly. Instead it parked the cash in the district's main education fund before moving it to building funds.

"Money-laundering," one outraged school board member called it.

According to court filings, 95 school districts in Cook, DuPage and Will counties sold nearly $800 million in working cash bonds between 2000 and 2008 for building projects through these "back-door" means of avoiding referendums. Nearly 75 percent have been in Cook County.

State legislators are now considering a bill that would permit school districts to transfer working cash bond money to any school fund, allowing the controversial practice to become the norm. The legislation, which would be retroactive, was crafted by firms that specialize in school law and a nationally recognized bond counsel, Chapman and Cutler, which has advised schools on the practice.

State Rep. Paul Froehlich, D-Schaumburg, who served on a school board in Schaumburg District 54 from 1989 to 1993, voted against the bill, which was approved by the House and could come to a final Senate vote as early as Tuesday.

"I see it as an amnesty bill," he said. "It's giving amnesty to those school districts that didn't follow the law."

Critics of the legislation say a fund created to help districts pay bills when the state is late on its payments — as it is now — could be gutted by school districts with a proclivity to overspend. State Board of Education officials estimate 44 percent of districts will spend more than they take in this school year. As for taxpayers, the legislation would take away their right to vote down building projects through a referendum.

John Izzo, an attorney with Sraga Hauser, which represents about 100 of the state's 869 school districts, helped draft the legislation and testified in favor of it in Springfield. He says the Appellate Court decision simply interpreted "an ambiguous provision" of the school code differently from how Chapman and Cutler and school attorneys had done in the past.

School districts could potentially be ordered to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, in tax refunds if the law is not changed.

"That's money that right now means more teacher layoffs, more cuts in services, at a time when school districts can least afford it," Izzo said.

The ruling also opened the door for board members who authorized questionable fund transfers to possibly face fines.

Izzo added, "We have to abide (by the Appellate Court) decision, but of course the courts have to abide by the legislature if the legislature changes the language."

The State Board of Education, which last year said the Appellate Court ruling only confirmed its "long-standing position," says it's neutral on the bill.

"The state is behind $1.25 billion in payments to districts, and we're facing a $1.3 billion proposed budget shortfall for next year," said state board spokeswoman Mary Fergus. "We don't want to hinder districts if this is something they need to do during historically tough economic times."

Opponents of the legislation say there's more at stake here.

"This was done to keep the bond business going because it took away the risk of a referendum (defeating a building project)," said Jim Rooney, an attorney representing tax objectors who first raised the legal issue when they sued West Chicago School District 33 in 2000. District 86, Community Unit School District 201 in Westmont and Lombard School District 44 — all of which faced similar lawsuits — agreed to be bound by the West Chicago case, which eventually was heard by the Appellate Court.

School advocates, meanwhile, argue that the financing method does not take away voters' rights to object to building projects.

"The public votes on which school board members will use the limited resources they have in the most efficient way," Izzo said. "It's an exaggeration or distortion of the law to say that you have to go to the public every time you fix a roof or remodel a kitchen. It doesn't say you have to go to voters for every decision."

[Ted]

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/School_bond_and_tax_elections_in_Illinois 
 
  School bond and tax elections in Illinois

School bond and tax elections in Illinois are held under three different circumstances:

For bonding that funds capital improvements of school districts (i.e. new construction or maintaining existing facilities).

To create a contingency fund to pay existing debts which is called "Chapter 20 Funding" which is listed under the Illinois Education Code.

Exceeding the property tax cap set under the Illinois Property Tax Referendum Cap of 2006.

[buzz]

The difference is if we want our area to have a chance to score in the top 25% of elementary school districts in Illinois the taxpayers will have to take on the burden for such.  Just like Oak Park has done.  We can expect to reap the rewards in home values that will rise because of the desirability of living in such a district or be left in the stinkhole that most people think we are.

We are not Oak Park, the median family incomes aren't even close.  Home values ?  IMO ... We aren't going to see them rise for another 10 years.  Do you think D201 (that anchor around our necks) goes un-noticed ?  Think Pesek.  D201 is an embarassment, a deal killer for young families looking to buy.
And last of all, this is a capital expenditure.  From what Ted has posted it doesn't look like they can legally play with those funds.  Of course this is Berwyn.
   

[mustang54]

The difference is if we want our area to have a chance to score in the top 25% of elementary school districts in Illinois the taxpayers will have to take on the burden for such.  Just like Oak Park has done.  We can expect to reap the rewards in home values that will rise because of the desirability of living in such a district or be left in the stinkhole that most people think we are.

We are not Oak Park, the median family incomes aren't even close.  Home values ?  IMO ... We aren't going to see them rise for another 10 years.  Do you think D201 (that anchor around our necks) goes un-noticed ?  Think Pesek.  D201 is an embarassment, a deal killer for young families looking to buy.
And last of all, this is a capital expenditure.  From what Ted has posted it doesn't look like they can legally play with those funds.  Of course this is Berwyn.
   

With all due respect Buzz you are wrong. 201 is not a deal breaker for young families looking to move here. Lets be real here for once. Young families are moving in its just not the type of families that many desire. The desireable families many long for to move here are not moving in for the same reasons others moved out. They drive around the area take a look around and keep driving. Lets be truthfull here they don't want to move into a community where THEY and especially their children will be the minority,period. That is the real reason and everyone here knows it and acts like it isn't.

[Ted]

  With all due respect Buzz you are wrong. 201 is not a deal breaker for young families looking to move here. Lets be real here for once. Young families are moving in its just not the type of families that many desire. The desireable families many long for to move here are not moving in for the same reasons others moved out. They drive around the area take a look around and keep driving. Lets be truthfull here they don't want to move into a community where THEY and especially their children will be the minority,period. That is the real reason and everyone here knows it and acts like it isn't.

I don't think that is correct.  We are now seeing middle class Hispanic families moving out of Berwyn when their kids reach high school age.

[mustang54]

 With all due respect Buzz you are wrong. 201 is not a deal breaker for young families looking to move here. Lets be real here for once. Young families are moving in its just not the type of families that many desire. The desireable families many long for to move here are not moving in for the same reasons others moved out. They drive around the area take a look around and keep driving. Lets be truthfull here they don't want to move into a community where THEY and especially their children will be the minority,period. That is the real reason and everyone here knows it and acts like it isn't.

I don't think that is correct.  We are now seeing middle class Hispanic families moving out of Berwyn when their kids reach high school age.

Ted read my post. I was commenting on the statement Buzz made why people don't move in. But I don't agree with you either.Right now with the present value of homes not many people are leaving for any reason,they can't afford to. When school is back in session many of you should ask to walk through the halls of Morton West during school hours. Spend a few hours there especially when classes change and during the lunch periods. Then some of you just might wake up and see the place has much bigger problems than who is on the frickin school board.
  Back to the topic. I think spending money on 3 and 4 year olds is a waiste. The plan to spend millions and then run out of money after one year sounds like one big clusterfuck. I also don't think teaching 3 and 4 year olds will improve your scores down the road,not at all. If you want to improve scores lengthen the school day or year of the elementry kids in the grades where they are learning to read or do math. Thats where the help to improve not just the test scores so you can claim a victory using students as lab rats but actually help the kids learn more down the road in all their subjects because they can read at the proper level.

[buzz]

Young families are moving in its just not the type of families that many desire. The desireable families many long for to move here are not moving in for the same reasons others moved out. Lets be truthfull here they don't want to move into a community where THEY and especially their children will be the minority,period. That is the real reason and everyone here knows it and acts like it isn't.

I don't think that is correct.  We are now seeing middle class Hispanic families moving out of Berwyn when their kids reach high school age.

Ted, he's not totally wrong.  I no longer know what a "desirable" family looks like, but I can sure spot the "undesirables".
As for those "families moving out"...many people can't afford to leave.  That must be a terrible feeling, to be trapped financially, and have all the additional worries for your children's safety and future.

[mustang54]

Young families are moving in its just not the type of families that many desire. The desireable families many long for to move here are not moving in for the same reasons others moved out. Lets be truthfull here they don't want to move into a community where THEY and especially their children will be the minority,period. That is the real reason and everyone here knows it and acts like it isn't.

I don't think that is correct.  We are now seeing middle class Hispanic families moving out of Berwyn when their kids reach high school age.

Ted, he's not totally wrong.  I no longer know what a "desirable" family looks like, but I can sure spot the "undesirables".
As for those "families moving out"...many people can't afford to leave.  That must be a terrible feeling, to be trapped financially, and have all the additional worries for your children's safety and future.

See Ted Buzz gets it. The one thing I will admit is and maybe some others can tell us if they have noticed the same thing, I am seeing an even bigger increase of parents sending their high school age kids to private schools.

[berwynguy]

The difference is if we want our area to have a chance to score in the top 25% of elementary school districts in Illinois the taxpayers will have to take on the burden for such.  Just like Oak Park has done.  We can expect to reap the rewards in home values that will rise because of the desirability of living in such a district or be left in the stinkhole that most people think we are.

We are not Oak Park, the median family incomes aren't even close.  Home values ?  IMO ... We aren't going to see them rise for another 10 years.  Do you think D201 (that anchor around our necks) goes un-noticed ?  Think Pesek.  D201 is an embarassment, a deal killer for young families looking to buy.
And last of all, this is a capital expenditure.  From what Ted has posted it doesn't look like they can legally play with those funds.  Of course this is Berwyn.
 

With all due respect Buzz you are wrong. 201 is not a deal breaker for young families looking to move here. Lets be real here for once. Young families are moving in its just not the type of families that many desire. The desireable families many long for to move here are not moving in for the same reasons others moved out. They drive around the area take a look around and keep driving. Lets be truthfull here they don't want to move into a community where THEY and especially their children will be the minority,period. That is the real reason and everyone here knows it and acts like it isn't.

Absolutely 100% the truth.  Well said.  Some goofs out there have their heads buried in the sand while they live in lala land.  The "desirable" families mentioned here are passing Berwyn up.  The "desirables" you are getting in Berwyn are young couples with no kids, DINKS, and same sex couples.  The families that were once considered desirable in Berwyn are long gone.  The DINKS and SS couples will stay until they get sick of all the political shenanigans, gangbangers, pitbulls, shitheads, etc. but those young couples with kids will be out of here when Junior gets old enough to go to these shit hole schools.  

I have said this before and I will say it again.  THE SECOND that this real estate market picks up again there will be the last and final mass exodus of whites from Berwyn.  

[berwynguy]

Young families are moving in its just not the type of families that many desire. The desireable families many long for to move here are not moving in for the same reasons others moved out. Lets be truthfull here they don't want to move into a community where THEY and especially their children will be the minority,period. That is the real reason and everyone here knows it and acts like it isn't.

I don't think that is correct.  We are now seeing middle class Hispanic families moving out of Berwyn when their kids reach high school age.

Ted, he's not totally wrong.  I no longer know what a "desirable" family looks like, but I can sure spot the "undesirables".
As for those "families moving out"...many people can't afford to leave.  That must be a terrible feeling, to be trapped financially, and have all the additional worries for your children's safety and future.

So true.....There's not a single day, maybe even hour, that I don't worry about this.

[OakParkSpartan]

Odd.  I spent an evening with about 50 "desirable" people who all live in Berwyn.  No one discussed moving. 

[Angel]

  Back to the topic. I think spending money on 3 and 4 year olds is a waiste. The plan to spend millions and then run out of money after one year sounds like one big clusterfuck. I also don't think teaching 3 and 4 year olds will improve your scores down the road,not at all. If you want to improve scores lengthen the school day or year of the elementry kids in the grades where they are learning to read or do math. Thats where the help to improve not just the test scores so you can claim a victory using students as lab rats but actually help the kids learn more down the road in all their subjects because they can read at the proper level.

As I said in my response to Ted's original post, until parents get on board with the importance of education, and the fact that they need to support the implementation of education, it doesn't matter how much is spent or not spent.  It doesn't matter how many hours kids spend in or out of school.  Parents need to reinforce what schools expect, which is a desire to learn, a desire to succeed in whatever productive future the student chooses, and an understanding that literacy, numeracy, time, and effort are necessary to facilitate those goals.  The earlier the educational system begins teaching parents what we expect and what students need to know and be able to do, and how the parents can support that knowledge and those skills, the sooner the test scores and the graduation rates will rise. The attitude the kids have when they walk through the doors of any academic institution controls how they will perform.  In my experience, when the parents have high expectations, the kids are more willing and more likely to meet the expectations set by the school district. 
Maybe this current proposal isn't the best way to achieve this, practically or financially, but preschool is a great time to start educating parents about the need to read to their kids and reinforce being responsible about education.

[buzz]

  The earlier the educational system begins teaching parents what we expect and what students need to know and be able to do, and how the parents can support that knowledge and those skills, the sooner the test scores and the graduation rates will rise.

Maybe this current proposal isn't the best way to achieve this, practically or financially, but preschool is a great time to start educating parents about the need to read to their kids and reinforce being responsible about education.

Screw that !  Now my tax dollars are for educating the parents ?  Let them pay for their own damn pre-school.
I'd rather my money went to Planned Parenthood.