School Board

As discussed earlier, now that the teachers' union has ratified the recently negotiated contract with Unit 4, a little more information is being made available.

Champaign teachers voted Tuesday afternoon to ratify a new three-year contract that includes raises of 4.5 percent per year for each of the next three years for most teachers, and increases beyond that for teachers with more than 21 years of experience.

"I'm happy with what they've put up for us," said Franklin Middle School teacher Cindy Stein. "They've got some good proposals that I think, outside the salary, are nice additions."

Hundreds of Champaign's 700-plus teachers showed up at Centennial High School to vote, and they approved the contract – retroactive to July 1 – by about a three-to-one margin, said Bottenfield Elementary librarian Patricia Plaut.

The Unit 4 Board will vote on this contract later this month.

Beth Shepperd sent out the attached Fact Sheet (in MS Publisher, which I converted to MS Word) to the Key Communicator Network

In light of the imminent Champaign County Sales Tax referendum, I have been intrigued by the relative flurry of activity. Having followed and done a bit of reading about the Consent Decree, talked to Unit 4 Board Members, community activists, reporters and parents, I am fascinated by all that is being said and done on this issue.

Which leaves me befuddled; I hear people saying that Unit 4 is a mess, that the schools are in trouble, etc etc, and I know of many people that have left for the "greener pastures" of Mahomet, Monticello and even Tolono. Why? Granted, I do not have any children in school, and I have yet to make a personal visit to any school, which is why I am reserving my own judgement. But what in particular makes the general impression of Unit 4 Secondary Education "bad"? I really do want to know.

There are certainly verifiably good things going on in Unit 4. If one chooses to use the standardized tests as a metric, the scores have been going up. In fact, the elementary schools are doing great! There are lots of special programs offered at various locations, and lots of exciting opportunities. There have been several innovative planning sessions invovling prominent and lay folks alike, collaborations like Great Campus and Great Schools Together. We have a lot of awesome diversity here in the Champaign area, a rich mixture of cultures. I have heard that there is much less diversity in Mahomet, which makes comparison of the various schools rather awkward at best.

I am not looking for opinions about the administration; I have heard an earful about that. And the reasons for the Consent Decree (in all its awful glory) have been spelled out many times; no need to rehash that. Why is there "white flight"? Why is there distrust, especially in the current climate? Call me naive, but I am trying to learn.

In posting this, I am looking for feedback. I plan to answer my own questions as I talk to more folks, review the many postings on IP and what is still publicly available online with News-Gazette. With all the verbiage swirling around, I am finding it is hard to seperate the facts from the thoughts, the objective from the subjective.

In closing, my one challenge is that if things really are a mess, we get out there and clean it up. Kudos to those who have worked hard to that end; they need more recognition.

There's now a campaign committee pushing the sales tax.

The committee, Citizens Looking at Supporting Schools, with between 15 and 18 members, has been meeting for about two months, said Lin Warfel, who co-chairs the committee with Susan Abbott. The members come from all the school districts in the county.

The committee worked with two Springfield consultants on how to structure the campaign to promote the tax increase, Warfel said.

I've only seen one anti-sales-tax sign, and it was homemade, and no pro-sales-tax signs or materials.

Also, Unit 4 announces more of its intentions if the sales tax passes:

The Champaign school district plans to build a new elementary school in Savoy using the money from the countywide school facilities sales tax if the proposal passes in November.

The district would close Carrie Busey Elementary School and move the staff and students to the new school in Savoy in 2011. It would also extensively renovate six other elementary schools.

Discuss.

UPDATE:  From the comments:

The volunteer group promoting the sales tax increase is called CLASS (Citizens Looking At Supporting Schools).
Their new website is here: http://www.champaigncountyclass.cc/

Thanks!

Today's News-Gazette:

The Champaign school district and its teachers' union reached a tentative contract agreement Wednesday night.

They reached the agreement after four and a half hours of negotiating, with the help of a federal mediator. It was the third time the two sides had met with the mediator.

The main issue that had to be resolved Wednesday was pay raises for teachers. Neither side released details of the three-year agreement.

Will details be released before the Board votes on the contract?

Another one:

A third civil lawsuit related to former Urbana teacher Jon White, in effect seeking more than $1.5 million, was filed Tuesday in Champaign County Circuit Court.

The suit, filed by Mattoon lawyer Sean Britton, was brought by one of White's former Urbana students and her mother, referred to as Jane Doe-7 and Julie Doe-7.

White, who is named in two counts of the suit, taught in Normal and then Urbana elementary schools before his arrest. He pleaded guilty to 10 counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse – eight in Champaign County and two in McLean County.

The suit filed by Britton closely mirrors two filed by Champaign lawyer Ellyn Bullock on behalf of two other Urbana girls and their mothers.

Discuss.

I wonder if this might have any implications for Urbana?

The insurer's complaint points to parts of the Normal school district's insurance plan, and states that it should not have to insure White in the matter partly because the incidents "occurred during a prior policy period" and that the Normal defendants knew "'sexual misconduct or sexual molestation' had occurred or begun to occur, in whole or in part prior to the 2005 and 2006 policy years," among other policies and exclusions cited in the complaint.

Champaign lawyer Howard Small has worked on many insurance cases, though not this one. He said insurance companies list all possible reasons the allegations might not fit the coverage because it is possible that if the court determines any one broad exclusion applies, the insurance company doesn't have to pay for damages or legal representation in that situation. "They list them all on a shotgun basis and hope something sticks to the wall," he said.

Hope Nightingale of the Litchfield Cavo law office in Chicago, which represents the insurer, said the complaint is not "a comment whatsoever that the allegations are true, but assuming they are true, those claims are not" covered by the insurance company. She said Illinois law requires that the company assume the allegations are true.

Nightingale said whether insurance would pay for any possible damages could be decided before the civil suit is decided.

The McLean County Unit 5 school district's attorney, Dennis Triggs of the Peoria firm of Miller, Hall & Triggs, was on vacation. His colleague Curt Richardson was not available Wednesday afternoon.

Small said it is common for insurance companies to seek declaratory judgments against an intentional "wrongdoer" like White. "These are supposed to be accident policies. That's not really in the spirit of a coverage," he said.

A second civil suit connected to the Jon White case has been filed:

The latest suit contains 30 separate allegations, each with a request for $1 million in compensation, plus court costs.

Champaign lawyer Ellyn Bullock is representing the victim and her family, as well as three other victims of White and their families.

Bullock said that the girl for whom the suit will be filed was a victim of White from shortly after he started teaching at Urbana's Thomas Paine Elementary School – in fall 2005 – until his arrest in January 2007.

Discuss.

It's budget time at Champaign Unit 4:

The Champaign school district is in good financial shape, even though its budget of nearly $100 million for the current school year has a $1.8 million deficit, says Gene Logas, the chief financial officer for the district.

The district has the money to cover the difference between what it will spend this school year and the money it will bring in, from surpluses the past two years and from working cash, Logas said.

"You can't simply look at the deficit in the '09 budget and say the sky is falling. You really need to look at it in ... perspective," Logas said.

He'll present the 2008-09 budget to the school board at its meeting Monday at 7 p.m. at the Mellon Administrative Center, 703 S. New St., C. The budget covers the fiscal year that began July 1 and ends June 30, 2009.

The district will get $800,000 less in general state aid this fiscal year, Logas said. As the assessed value of property within a school district increases, the amount of money it receives from the state decreases. However, the amount of additional money the Champaign school district could get from the growth in property values is limited by tax caps.

Good news:

The district is also spending $1.5 million on new positions this year, most of them teachers. About $500,000 is for staffing the alternative academy that recently opened on North Randolph Street, for high school students who aren't doing well in a traditional, large high school setting.

Bad news:

An extra $500,000 has been budgeted for attorneys' fees this year – the last year of the district's consent decree....

He also noted that if the consent decree ends as scheduled in June 2009, the district will have about $2 million more available that is now used for attorney fees related to the consent decree.

Sheesh.

Champaign Unit 4's School Board reveals a bit about its plans for anticipated sales tax revenue:

The Champaign school district would rebuild Washington Elementary School and add more space at Garden Hills Elementary School, with the goal of making each a magnet school, under a recommendation to be made to the Champaign school board Monday.

The proposed project would allow the school district to meet its consent decree requirement to add more elementary seats in north Champaign. The school district will also be working with the Champaign park district.

Discuss.

Much awaited:

The school board reviewed a plan for the district's future, developed over the last 10 months by residents and community leaders, at a study session Monday night. The board will vote on whether to approve the plan at its Sept. 15 regular meeting.

School board President Dave Tomlinson said the district's staff will analyze what is needed to meet the goals of the plan. Some will require more staff and a commitment of money, such as adding foreign language instruction at the elementary school level.

But not everything has a price tag. For example, a priority is developing a 10-year capital improvement plan. The district already has condition reports for its buildings, Tomlinson said. Now it needs to take those reports and make a long-range plan for building maintenance.

Superintendent Arthur Culver said the plan reviewed Monday will shape what the district does in every area.

More here.

The Champaign Unit 4 School's visioning committee will release a report this evening:

Champaign residents are asking the school district to accomplish a number of things over the next 15 years, from creating a team to look at potential school locations to establishing a bullying prevention program to increasing foreign-language offerings.

Groups of residents and community leaders who have been working since last winter on planning for the future of the Champaign school district have finalized their strategic plan, and the school board will talk about it at a study session Monday. The board will meet at 6:30 p.m. at the Mellon Administrative Center, 703 S. New St., C.

"It provides some real grass-roots direction for the future of the district, and it provides an opportunity for Unit 4 to really show a commitment to meeting the desires of the citizens of Champaign," said Bruce Knight, the city of Champaign's planning director and the chairman of the committee overseeing the planning process.

More information at greatschoolstogether.org, including a copy of the draft plan.

And so it begins:

Other defendants named include former Urbana schools Superintendent Gene Amberg, former Thomas Paine Elementary School Principal Janice Bradley, former human resources director Carmelita Thomas, afterschool program supervisor Rhiannon Ross, afterschool program worker and lunchroom supervisor Lamar Walker and current elementary teacher Kay Grabow.

The suit states that staff at the school – as well as staff in McLean County – should have made calls to the Department of Children and Family Services under mandated reporting laws.

The suit states that Amberg, Thomas and Bradley knew of the inappropriate behavior in White's classroom, let it continue, interviewed the child – referred to as Jane Doe-2 in the complaint – without her mother's consent or presence, did not inform the child's mother of the complaints against White and the child's known participation in activities after school in White's classroom and did not remove the child from the classroom.

"The school district knew that White was abusing her and did nothing," Bullock said. "They were intentionally keeping the parent out and keeping the parent uninformed, which made the child a sitting duck."

Discuss.

Urbana School District 116 is somewhat mimicking Champaign Unit 4's long-term visioning committee, although with an explicit emphasis on facilities:

The goal of the committee is to come up with a long-term "road map" for how the school district's buildings should look and operate in the near and not-so-near future, board President Mark Netter said.

He said the committee will have freedom to examine other issues related to facilities, including looking at redistricting – balancing population sizes in elementary school. "We're not really giving them too tight a rein," he said.

...

To apply, send an e-mail to district spokesman Mark Schultz at mschultz@usd116.org with "who they are, why they're interested, a little bit about their background," Netter said.

Discuss.

Today's News-Gazette:

Urbana High School is facing restructuring after five years of groups within the school failing to meet testing benchmarks set by the federal No Child Left Behind Act. As a result, the district needs to come up with a plan that is approved not only by the Urbana school board, but also by the Illinois State Board of Education.

Though the Urbana board approved a plan earlier in the spring, passing the state board is proving a hurdle. The Urbana-board-approved restructuring plan called for extra time for freshmen and sophomores to work one-on-one with teachers in subject areas in which the students need help, as well as more frequent classroom evaluations.

But the Urbana board did not approve a new $70,000 administrator position for evaluation and accountability, one recommendation from the original restructuring plan.

And on June 4, Carol Diedrichsen of the state board told the district that the restructuring plan "does not sufficiently describe a change of governance as required by law. ... The plan needs revision to include the structure for accountability, monitoring and support necessary to effect significant change in instruction."

Discuss.

Today's articles about the Jon White travesty are a follow-up to yesterday's "How Could This Happen" series.

First, Districts more careful about who comes in contact with children:

As for mandated reporting, Williams said, staff members "get information when they're hired, and then also at the beginning of the year."

Staff members must all sign a sheet stating that they understand they are mandated reporters. As well, he said, in the first in-service meeting of the school year, they get training on mandated reporting, another new element.

Training staff on mandated reporting is one way schools can make a difference in recognition and response to child sexual abuse, said Charol Shakeshaft, the author of a U.S. Department of Education-sponsored paper on educator sexual misconduct and an educational leadership professor at Virginia Commonwealth University.

"Training in this area needs to be done regularly," she said. "It needs to be done every year."

Second, Urbana getting bigger legal bills:

In invoices dated Feb. 15, 2007, and March 23, 2007 – just after White's charges were filed – the district received $24,928 in legal bills from Weedman's firm. In the previous two months, the district received $7,307 in legal bills from Weedman's firm.

The Urbana school board hired a separate firm, The Taylor Law Office in Effingham, specifically for the purpose of evaluating the district's response to concerns about White and to look at its policies.

Bills from the law firm – one from April 2007 and one from June 2007 – show the school district has already paid at least $42,804 for the external review.

Third, 2002 case strikingly similar to White case:

If the case of Jon White feels eerily familiar to some East Central Illinoisans, there's a good reason.

In 2002, Gerald Scott Huddleston, then a teacher at Chatsworth Elementary School in Livingston County, was charged with committing oral sex acts against young girls.

The circumstances of his acts read like a playbook that White – who attended nearby Illinois State University at the time – could have followed: bringing students to the classroom to help with cleaning, blindfolding students and having them perform a "tasting game."

Huddleston was convicted on three counts of predatory criminal sexual assault, and is now serving life in prison at Menard.

Discuss.

I've obtained this memo sent to Champaign County Board members outlining the announced plans of each of the County's school districts if the proposed one percent sales tax increase for education facilities passes in November.

There's no real new information in this, but it is a very useful summary of plans.  You can read the whole thing yourself, but you'll note that every district which has existing debt is currently promising to use sales tax revenue to abate or eliminate that debt (and reduce property taxes as a consequence), although the amounts vary.

Key information to remember (taken from the memo):

Each of the Boards of Education of the 14 school districts in Champaign County has passed a resolution requesting that the Champaign County Board put the question of imposing a 1% sales tax for school facility purposes for submission to the voters of Champaign County at the November 4, 2008, election. If this resolution passes and the County Board implements the full 1% sales tax, the revenue can be used for the following purposes:

• Pay for projects as you go
• Leverage revenue for current needs (use revenue to pay for bonds)
• Retire existing debt issued for capital purposes (abate taxes)
• Any combination of the above

Discuss.

long post with with hopefully some answers...

I have been reading with interest the continual comments about the County Wide Schools Facility Tax. It has now been approved by every school district in the county by, I believe, a unanimous vote by each individual board. I certainly see that there are myriad questions about the tax and just as many perceptions good and bad about the potential for the tax.

Though I cannot speak for any other school district besides Unit 4, I will try to answer some of the comments that have been asked on this blog...

1. Why go for the Max 1%? 
   Frankly, I don't think the ILGA intended for the TAX to be used as a mechanism for Property Tax relief. I think they intended to try and help school districts by providing another mechanism to fund capital projects. I may be wrong in that belief, but that is what I think. That being said, when the districts in Champaign County got together at the Regional Office of Education to discuss this tax, the key thing that we in Unit 4 talked about was that we would not support this new tax without some kind of relief for property owners. We feel that it is imperative that any reductions that can be made are made. IF we were to ask for 1/4%, we would be able to abate the same 9-10 cents /100 EAV that we are allowed to with this tax (AGAIN IT IS ONLY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEBT AND FACILITIES ISSUES, NOT SALARIES). That abatement in Unit 4 is approximately $15M. That is all the debt we have out and al we can abate with this potential revenue source. People can say all they want that it is not enough and I would totally agree. However, it is all we can do.

   If our only goal was to abate property taxes, then we would simply go for 1/4%. actually it begs the question if we are not going to do anything new other than pay off one type of debt with a different revenue stream, why would any district do that. In order to have construction bond debt, a district had to ask the voters for approval for property tax increases to begin with. Why would a district go back to the voters to ask for approval to do the same thing with a different source of income. Doesn't make sense to go back ask for something you already have

   This revenue source can be used for additional stuff, hence the 1% request. In Unit 4, we can dramatically increase the efficiency of our bldgs and put in A/C. Everyone of us works in an air conditioned environment and I often wonder why teachers and students should be asked to do something different than what we all do... We can also satisfy the consent decree requirements for the additional seats north of university ( yes I know that not everyone agrees with this, BUT it is a legal settlement that past boards agreed to and it is not open for contestation in court). We can update the infrastructure to support the computers needed for today's learning environment. We could build a school south of University if needed. More to come later on this subject. 
   If another district wants to post about their plans, that would be great.

2. Why are you doing to reduce the cost of doing business?
   Since I have been on the board, we have delayed a textbook adoption by one year, saving the interest on $700,000. We have refinanced debt at a much lower rate saving several hundred thousand dollars in interest payments. The night I was elected the previous board cut $2M in annual expenditures, We have bought lower priced energy through co-op arrangements, we have not filled at least 15 positions that I am aware of off the top of my head that have been vacated and we decided not to fill them to save money. Just a name a few of the items...

   Each year staff throughout the district ask the board for programs to increase this or that. The vast majority have been met with good idea, but we can't afford it right now. Even this week we were presented with middle school athletic program additions, last month it was additional foreign language offerings.

   All of these ideas are terrific and the vast majority need to be added as soon as possible. However, they can only be looked at as part of a total budget package. An individual request for $100K in expenditures seems insignificant in a $95M operation, but we get 10 such requests/ideas a month. Those add up to a major deficit.

   2 months ago the board was asked to give a list of programs we would like to add because they are things that community members have asked us to do. That "dream sheet" combined with staff requests added up to close to $28 Million dollars for year!!!! Obviously there is no way we can or will approve that kind of increase.

   On another note, Schools are highly regulated about how we spend and collect taxes. The hold the line/reduce costs items are typically found in the Education fund/Transportation areas. Taxes are levied into individual funds and increases are limited by PTELL. Those hold the line/reduce costs are not generally found in the O and M and Health Life Safety areas. These are generally low Levy's and are not near enough to pay for recurring costs as facilities get older and older. Look at some of the facilities in Unit 4 and the county and you can see just how much cost reduction there is when it comes to stretching the maintenance dollar. Those folks are masters of stretching a dollar for building issues.

3. This is simple a "Bait and Switch"For some this is a tax increase. (those who don't own property in Champaign County)

   For others this will be a tax decrease (those who own property in a district that plans to abate some portion of the property tax bill related to construction debt and who don't spend as much on the retail goods) I suspect a good portion of the 'middle" class will fall in this area at least in Unit 4)

   For others it will be a wash. It will reduce property taxes and you will spend enough on taxable items to negate the property tax savings.

   If anyone is saying that some will not pay additional money in their total tax package (property, income, sales, etc) they are wrong. Some will pay more and some will pay less, most will probably pay about the same... those are the facts.

   However, for the same amount for the property owner, the schools throughout the county could be greatly improved.

   If facilities don't matter, than why do so many people ask me why we can't have facilities like Normal Unit 5? I am asked that often.

I am sure that I will have more later. Especially a detailed plan about how we in Unit 4 will spend this revenue if approved. Including a mechanism for accountability.

If you have any questions, you can feel free to contact me at tomlindw@comcast.net or 217-202-6841

Dave Tomlinson, President
Champaign Unit 4 Schools Board of Education

Another school board goes on the record supporting a massive tax increase, hoping to distract voters by talking about miniscule property tax relief.

Board members voted 5-0 at a special Wednesday meeting to support the tax. Members Val Woodruff and Tom Harpst were absent.

The 1 percent tax has enough support for the Champaign County Board to put it on the November ballot.

Board member Max McComb wanted to know when the district would reveal a plan for what it would do with the tax money if it passes, especially related to property tax relief.

If this were really about property tax relief, then the districts should ask for a smaller sales tax increase which is more nearly the equivalent of the property tax reductions being promised.

But it's not about property tax relief.  It's about getting the maximum possible tax increase, much larger than necessary to provide the maximum allowable property tax relief.

Both Champaign Unit 4 and Rantoul Township High School boards have voted to support a November ballot question asking voters for a one percent sales tax increase to support education.  Both Districts are using a miniscule amount of property tax relief to mask their request for the largest-possible tax increase, as have most other area school districts, and most media reports are emphasizing the property tax relief as if it somehow offsets the sales tax revenue which will be generated.

It will be interesting to see if the County Board puts the full one-percent increase on the ballot, or if they settle for a smaller amount.

And it will be interesting to see how long the "this is about property tax relief" storyline is allowed to play out before people realize that the sales tax revenues of a one percent increase are several times larger than the maximum amount of property tax relief allowable.