Ms. Hendrickson - I made no such attempt at an armchair diagnosis. I said "PERHAPS". I am simply relating my personal experiences with the disease in the hopes that it may help others to breathe better, or perhaps even seek medical attention so they can discuss the matter with their Doctors.
So is the current ventilation work functioning properly or not? If it is, how is that a "band aid"? If it isn't, then it'd be nice to know why it isn't working.

I agree. Teachers are too well paid. They work 8 months a year and get numerous days off. Let them try the real world.

Michael - in what world is summer break from The end of April until the beginning of September? Get your facts straight before you post. Teachers work much more than you think. They are in the classroom 10 months of the year. They work long days (usually 8-4 in the school building). They take work home. and they have the job of EDUCATING our children and society. I think you need to try the real world and value the people who are educating the next generation in our society

Matt, you make a specious argument at best. We're talking about what's necessary to do, what's nice-to-do. Repairing the pool: Necessary. Replacing the pool: Nice.

However, if you truly believe in your ideas, you should present them to the School Board for consideration and debate.

David - I'm confused - why is fixing the pool a NEED? I would guess that most high schools in America don't have swimming pools - there are other ways to get exercise. Certainly, HPHS would still send 96% of its kids to school without a swimming pool. Generations of kids grew up in HP without a swimming pool and they did just fine. What is the difference between a WANT and a NEED? How does one know the difference? Are music, athletics or foreign language NEEDS or WANTS? Is a NEED something that (i) will enable our kids to continue to get into good colleges and (ii) was offered to students 50 years ago? Or do NEEDs evolve and is it more complicated than just getting kids into good colleges?

(as I stated above before your comment was deleted):

Ms. Hendrickson - I made no such attempt at an armchair diagnosis. I said "PERHAPS". I am simply relating my personal experiences with the disease in the hopes that it may help others to breathe better, or perhaps even seek medical attention so they can discuss the matter with their Doctors.
So is the current ventilation work functioning properly or not? If it is, how is that a "band aid"? If it isn't, then it'd be nice to know why it isn't working.

Actually, Michael. Swimming is a requirement for Freshman and Sophomores the High School and knowing how to swim is graduation requriement. The pools are there for curriculum based programs, community programs and the general use of citizens of these districts.

If HPAC and COHO want bigger facilities, they should build, maintain them, and fund their on-going operations. It's my understanding that those programs have grown in the past few years - while that's certain a nice thing, why should we have to build larger pools at the District to accommodate them?

Hypothetically: If we build new pools, and those outside organizations grow and need more capacity, does that mean we're going to build new facilities?

As others have said, "No. We'd probably have tryouts.".

So my question is "Why not do that now?". Only allow the use that we have the capacity to handle. If more want to be on the team or in the group than we can handle, then they have to try out, and make the cut or not.

It's not possible for everyone to be on the team, or be a leader. The taxpayers pocketbooks are not limitless.

Who are these so called "others" you speak of? It is my understanding that both clubs already have tryouts.

So you are proposing that COHO and HPAC be responsible for the 17 million dollars(Insert David Greenberg interest approximation here)? I'm sorry but both groups are non-profit organizations and it is ridiculous to even propose that they could raise that kind of money. In order to get this done some kind of school district or park district referendum would need to be passed, which you would be against.

You act as if the school and community are separate entities. I'm voting YES because I feel the referendum effectively meets the needs of both the school district as well as the community.

The "others" are other commenters on this website. Building new pools for the District will be about $17 million (that's according to the District's own published figures). COHO is an entity co-sponsored by the Deerfield and Highland Park Park Districts. HPAC is a private entity that's affiliated with another called "Team Unity" I believe.
COHO has had a long relationship with D113 - it probably pre-dates the park district's having their own indoor facilities, so it makes sense why it started. But as it's grown and needs more capacity, it's either time to restrict the numbers that can be in that program to the Capacity available at the District's/Park District's pools, or if they need more - to move on to other facilities.

As a community, we fund the schools. I didn't see anything saying that we should also fund the needs of every outside organization that wants to use those schools as well (for-, or non-profit).

The needs of the District have grown, it's the District's facilities, so they should take priority. If other outside groups need to use those facilities more than what's available, then they'll have to make other arrangements at their own expense.

I believe you mean "Team Unify" which is a website designing company that most recognized USA swimming clubs are now using. I'll remember to take everything you "believe" with a grain of salt.

I am the "others" that Mr. Greenberg is referring to, however, that is not what I said. I was responding to a hypothetical question he asked about what might be done if the HIGH SCHOOL swim team out grew the proposed new pool. My answer was "Hypothetically, I would guess they would hold tryouts, as they have started to do with Water Polo this year. But that, I would assume that would be a decision made by Athletic Directors and Coaches."
I was not intending to post any more, but do not appreciate being misquoted.

Teachers certainly deserve a fair salary. Other professionals such as CPA's, Lawyers, Realtors, etc. are required to update their educations as well but often don't get reimbursed for those classes at all. Most people in the private sector don't get a pay raise simply for getting a new degree. Most don't get pay raises year-on-year that are at the level of educators.

In the private sector - pay raises are typically performance based. This is coming to IL Schools as well - it's in the statutes. The trick will be to determine fair metrics to measure teachers that serve different learners by. It'd hardly be fair to rate an AP teacher by the same metrics as one teaching remedial courses.

The benefits have to come into line with the private sector as well. This will mean more employee contributions.

How many people were in attendance? The more people you have in an area, the more body heat you generate, and controlling the temperature in a large open area with varying numbers of people is always a challenge. Why not do what I've seen done at HPHS, and other locales all around the World: Crack open an outside door.

PA's in gymnasiums are notoriously bad because of the acoustics and all manner of reflective surfaces that makes sound echo. Adding in varying amounts of people - talking, whispering, screaming, yelling, banging on the bleachers, and volume control becomes difficult at best.

I have to ask why this function wasn't held in the main auditorium where the seating is more comfortable, and the PA system/screen are configured for such usage?

A story on this website about that assembly:

http://highlandpark.patch.com/articles/charity-drive-raises-140k-for-saving-tiny-hearts-society

From the story, it sounds like quite a few people found the experience emotionally moving, and thoroughly enjoyed themselves.

Illinois State Statute: 105 ILCS 5/27‑6(b).

If everyone can't fit into the auditorium, then you do what other auditoriums do - you have multiple showings or presentations, restrict the numbers that can be physically present, or tape the event and allow it to be viewed over the Internet.

There was no comment from me regarding children with special needs because it hadn't been mentioned above.

Wow.

I had a prior commitment scheduled long before the Charity Drive was, that commitment wasn't able to be changed, and I was thus unable to attend the Charity drive assembly on Friday. That does not mean that I do not show support for the District, quite the contrary - I do.

Besides Ms. Sandlow, were the other candidates there?

Mr Greenberg had a prior commitment on Saturday night and wasn't available for the DHS Booster Bash either. I guess he doesn't like going to school functions.

Claiming that I don't like going to school functions such as the Booster Bash or Charity Drive simply isn't true. There will be times when conflicts occur and persons invited will be unable to attend. It doesn't mean they don't support the particular worthy cause at hand or that they're trying to snub anyone.

That conflicts can occur for any number of reasons, Boards will often choose one or more representatives from that body to attend certain functions. Besides the obvious - Board and Committee meetings, there may be functions where the entire Board is expected to and does indeed attend, and there may be other functions where one or two will do so.

This election cycle is pretty contentious, but before you pack up, visit http://labs.suntimes.com/reportcards

Note that Deerfield HS is #5/656, HPHS is #9/656

Lake Forest is #11/656, and Libertyville is #14/656

Regardless of the claim that LF and Libertyville "far surpass HP and Dfld in their current states" - reviewing those numbers shows that claim is apparently untrue. Our students have been, are, and continue to be very high achievers at both schools - we have many perfect scores on the ACT, award winners, and famous celebrities who began their careers in the D113 schools. And we don't need to allocate 47% of a $133 million referendum ($233 million with interest) to continue that tradition of excellence.

Voting NO on the referendum means you want to continue the excellence we've all come to appreciate and expect, but that you want to do it at a cost that makes fiscal sense. The facilities have some needs to be sure, but spending $17 million on pools when we can repair them for thousands, adding more space when enrollment/population is dropping and we aren't close to capacity, and throwing money at technology without a curriculum plan isn't the way to meet those needs. We need to vote no, send a message to the Board that we deserve a new plan, and take the time to focus on needs instead of spending 47% of the money on expensive competitive athletics and other "wants".

A beer or coffee summit sounds like a great idea, Lucy. I'd love to meet some readers face-to-face, and I'd also love for readers to meet each other. I'll see if I can put something together, but if you have any suggestions please feel free to email me at jacob@patch.com.

Thanks,
Jacob

Where am I unable to compromise? If I was truly unable to do so, I'd say "nope, don't fix anything." But I have not. I've said that we need to fix what needs fixing, and have an actual long-term plan to upgrade that which the District WANTS. I've stated publicly all along that I value a high quality education.

What credit have I supposedly denied the opposition?

That is so nice! Thank you Eva. We will do our best when we do it together.

Ideas that I've made previously:
1) Repair the pools. Reallocate usage to give priority to the District.
2) Fieldhouses: Not needed. Repair what's needed in the gyms.
3) Smart Boards: They're $10,000 each when you consider all the needed infrastructure and network items. I didn't say I was opposed to Smart Boards or technology per se - I asked to see a curriculum plan from the District so we know what our money will be used for.
4) Turf: I've found information that it's dangerous - I brought that information to the attention of the public and the Board because I happen to care about Student Safety.
5) I live about 1200' away from the Field in question. The PA is clearly audible within my home with the doors and windows closed. For the 70 years before the lights, and the 30+ that I lived in the neighborhood - we co-existed. Then someone decided they had to have lights. Several hundred neighbors turned out against the lights. The City and District came to a special use agreement and part of it was that the PA wouldn't be audible in the neighborhood. That hasn't been the case - so we asked for it to be adjusted. We have dB meter readings from deep within the neighborhood (over 2000' away) where it's clearly audible. This is unacceptable. The District created the nuisance, they can correct it.

I am not against education. I am FOR a quality education that's balancing the needs of the taxpayers. Costly upgrades need to take the taxpayer into account.

I'm too shy and private - and not that good looking - to post my face all over HP.

@ Jacob - Well? I was hoping Patch would be able to help with a beer of coffee summit, if not I think those of us who want to raise the bar on acceptable behavior should find a day and time to come together as a positive positive force for change.

On another note, a new Lucy has shown up on the Patch strings. It is not me. I am Lucy L.

Thank you for your support Joe.

If they wanted $133 million for items that were proven to improve critical thinking, citizenship and ethics, I'd pay a tax bill for double that.

Swimming pools? Field houses? Not so much. Especially not in this economy.

Speaking for myself: Let's see the plan. According to the most recent ISBE Salary Survey, our teacher's salaries are already about 17% above the mean for schools in our region and in similar size to ourselves. What's the total cost picture for the expensive calculators, text books, and other items? How long do they last? When do they need to be replaced? How will they improve the educational outcomes of the students in the District? 96% of the students graduate and go on to college, another 1% graduate and go to a vocation. The remaining 3% represents 120 students and are from varying demographics.

Why not consider electronic textbooks? "Open Textbooks" that don't rely on a specific publisher, but are written by contributors from all over the World and are copyright free? Have you seen the MIT OCW website? They have an immense amount of information available, and even have a section dedicated to High Schools.
Why should the taxpayers fund the "expensive calculators" or laptops? Why not require each student to bring their own portable device with mandated characteristics to school? Those that can't afford to do so could be offered loans that they pay off over the term of their high school 'career'. Do like a college and hold their transcripts and grades until everything is paid off. That would allow the taxpayers to focus on providing the supporting network infrastructure that has a longer life than the edge devices, and we wouldn't have to pay for upgraded devices.

David:

Students at HPHS and Deerfield pay for their textbooks, not the taxpayers. Second, with regards to electronic "devices", please remember that HPHS serves a significant population that is under the poverty line. Honestly, expecting them to come to school with a laptop or "fancy" calculator is not realistic. So the answer would be for the district or some nice benefactor to donate one to them.

As you point out, costs are going up. So by approving this referendum now aren't we getting more for the same or less then we would if we waited a year?

Also, I am sure you are not as shrill as you come across in print, so I'll ask you the same question I have been trying to get a discussion started on. Describe the attributes of your ideal community, especially the educational system.

Tripp: I understand that HPHS does have a significant low-income population and I'm sensitive to their needs. That's why I recommend that the District make them low-interest loans for the equipment. The length would depend upon when the student enters the system - if they come in as a Freshman, it's a 4 yr loan. If they come in as a Jr. it's a 2 yr loan. They pay it off over that time period. Given what some textbooks cost, the price could be comparable. For those that are really unable to even afford that, perhaps the D113 Foundation could have some grants available?

I'll have to give some considered thought to your question about an ideal community and its educational system.

My son told me last night that he learned more by being a part of his athletic team than he did in any classroom. Oh, and he took 6 AP classes and every possible honors class available to him.

Ask a professional athlete.

I think the operative word in my initial comment was "proven"-- I think it's also important to take into consideration what percentage of students benefit from the top line improvements. Kids on teams may need Olympic sized pools, but someone in gym class can paddle around in a smaller one just fine. Similarly, I don't see a broad based benefit for a field house.

As for a teenager who claims to have benefited more from his team than his AP classes, would you have forfeited the AP classes? I always said I learned more outside the classroom than in it at the Ivy League university I attended. A glib and fun statement to make, but perhaps not the whole story. I did indeed learn a great deal outside the classroom. Quantitatively, it would be hard to gauge the value of the "outside the classroom" versus "inside the classroom" learning, but I suspect the inside the classroom learning would win out if such a measurement could be taken.

That's why I proposed a short-term loan program for those who can't afford to purchase their own device outright. See the comment above. The thought that I have behind the students bringing their own is to keep the District out of the student computer business - those devices have to be replaced every 4 years and with technology changing rapidly it doesn't make sense for the District to take on the responsibility of the edge devices carried by Students. Some will want an iPad, other's an iPod Touch, some a laptop, some a netbook... Managing those different platforms is difficult, and it's why corporations tend to standardize on one or two platforms and not support anything else.

In today's world, access is becoming web-based so the platform matters less to some extent, as long as the platform has a standards-compatible web browser.

Students are buying and schlepping textbooks anyway - the cost of a device at a $200-$300 is comparable in cost.

As I've said previously Laurie: IF the teacher(s) were properly licensed and trained, then I have absolutely NO problem with them carrying concealed weapons. In the event that a situation occurs, I'd rather know that there are properly trained and armed teachers who can defend themselves and others against a deranged attacker if need be. Yes, they can still go into "lock down" mode, but if the deranged attacker gets into a classroom despite the locked door, wouldn't you rather have a teacher able to defend herself and a group of students at that moment, rather than cowering in fear in the corner as the deranged maniac slaughters everyone?

I'm not trying to denigrate anyone here, but when seconds count, Police are only minutes away. The teachers could be another line of defense.

You have nothing to fear from the law-abiding, and everything to fear from the criminal element. The criminal element, by their very definition, are not restricted by laws. The criminals already have de facto concealed carry because they don't obey the laws, I simply propose leveling the playing field.

I have two nieces and a god-daughter in D112, and G-d willing, my wife and I will have our future child(ren) going through the Districts as well. I want them, and all the students to be safe, but no matter what electronic measures or door locks we have, as events across the Country have demonstrated, "bad stuff" can happen. This would be an additional safety measure.

Joe, I said I am not against. That means anyone can serve. "I am not against non-parents on the board." If he had kids in the system, he would already know many of the answers.

Many of the answers to what questions?

Where did you get the 55% statistic from?

Students are already benefiting from the existing PE facilities through PE, involvement on teams, and other opportunities. I've addressed pool repairs and capacity issues previously on this site and in other forums.

Thanks for the numbers, I thought you were talking about HPHS *and* DHS. DHS has a very nice outdoor running track, but don't have an indoor one. I believe they have 4 outdoor baseball diamonds, and some nice indoor facilities. Those outdoor fields do have some drainage issues that deserve consideration. However, from what I've see on the tours at DHS - they have space issues not just with PE, but with Theater as well, and that begs the question as to whether the District computed the Total Cost of Offering before offering the courses involved. As an example: They claim they have no place to story kayaks in the pool area - did they ask the question as to where they'd store them, and what the impact would be on other courses before agreeing to offer that course? Same with theater - it's not a bad thing to have per se, but to have an extensive theater offering, and then claim they have no space for it so they're storing costumes in the hall seems to have put the cart before the horse to me. If we want to have expanded offerings which can't fit in their existing space, that's a conversation the community and the District should have and we should know the total costs involved to implement and maintain it going forward.

I don't dispute that sports and extracurricular activities are valuable contributors to success, but would dispute that they are keys to such success. There are plenty of examples of successful individuals who never got involved in either or both.

It's not my twitter account, I don't know who's it is.
I've said that properly trained and licensed TEACHERS should be allowed to carry concealed weapons for the reasons I've detailed above. There's nothing dangerous about a thought.
Many college campuses across the Country either allow concealed carry permit holders to carry their weapons on campus, and others are debating the merits of updating their policies.

Yes, there's a difference between college campuses and high schools - that's why I advocate TEACHERS being allowed to do so, if they are properly licensed and trained. Gun Free Zones have been demonstrated to be Victim Zones because criminals don't obey those restrictions. The Police can't be everywhere, nor would we want them to be, so it's incumbent upon us to protect and defend ourselves against criminal acts.

Not ramblings, part of the overall discussion about space at DHS - some of which relate to athletics. I said that I have no problem with theater per se, my comment was related to their space complaints as well. Part of the issue I've seen in both schools at the District is that they have complaints related to space for various programs. My question was whether or not they "did the analysis" before offering the program or class to determine if they could fulfill the needs of that program, or if they offered it without doing so first. Using theater as an example - I have no problem with theater per se - I have a problem when the District says "We have space problems. We're storing costumes in the hall." because it seems to me that one would want to know where the costumes and other materials would be stored BEFORE offering the program requiring all those costumes. If they asked it before, and said "We don't have enough space for this program. Here's what it's going to take to offer it - then we could have a conversation as a community about it and see what funding it would require.
Coming to us after the fact and saying "See, we need a bigger building because we don't have enough space for this or that." seems to be a lack of planning.

Concealed carry for citizens does not involve automatic weapons, nor would I advocate that. I'd rather have the ability for one to defend oneself than to be a victim. Training would involve not just HOW to use the weapon, but WHEN to use the weapon as well.

Your comment about avoiding Sandwick Ct. on Friday nights is 100% inappropriate and uncalled for. Across the country, concealed carry permit holders are involved in perhaps less than 1% of all crime. States haven't turned into the Wild Wild West where it's been enacted.

Virginia Tech was a "gun free zone" - and from what I understand, the shooter didn't have any high-capacity magazines.

Ft. Hood - if I recall correctly, the only armed people were the MP's, so the whole base wasn't armed. People tried to fend the guy off with chairs before the MP's figured out what was going on and showed up.

Tucson - the guy was mentally unbalanced, if he'd decided to attack the Congresswoman with a motor vehicle, would you call to ban all motor vehicles? Whether there was a "gun free radius" around the Congresswoman or not, that's not going to be something that criminals respect.

I was not saying that concealed carry caused these tragic shootings because as we all know crazy people do not follow the law, my point was that concealed carry did not have any impact on preventing them. That is the argument that the NRA puts forth that concealed carry prevents crime, I am saying it has little to no effect. If armed MP's can't stop a crazy person intent on killing someone what makes you think an ordinary citizen can. Our society is too fixated on guns and violence. A gun in the home is more likely to be used intentionally or accidentally against a member of the household than to prevent a crime.

And I apologize for putting a street name in the post above, if the patch would let me edit it out I would.

The armed MP's initially didn't know what was going on. Once they were informed, they had to find the gunman.

Have you ever read the book by the U of Chicago researcher John Lott? Visit his website for more information.

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

I am sorry you feel that way but I do not believe ordinary citizens should be able to conceal carry, there are too many angry people in this country and to let them "hide" weapons while they are out in public is just not right. Too many ordinarily nice people snap at times in anger and if they have a loaded weapon may do something stupid. An active police officer or military personnel carrying a weapon is ok. I had a friend in high school who went out hunting and accidentally crossed onto a farmers field and the farmer shot him in the back because he was tired of people crossing his land to get to another hunting area. How many times have you accidentally bumped into someone in a crowd and they start screaming at you, next time they may pull a gun.

Sorry Jim, but your paranoid fantasies are not borne out by the actual statistics across the Country.

Paranoid fantasies, don't you read the newspapers or watch the news, how many innocent people need to get hit by stray bullets from drive by shootings and shot up by crazy people with semi-automatic weapons before we do something. You packing heat is not going to save you from a crazy person or a stray bullet.

we need to put restrictions on the types of guns and ammunition available as well as more restrictions on how and where they can be purchased and finally who can legally own a gun. Putting more guns on the street with concealed carry is not the answer.

And allowing teachers to carry guns into school is absolutely insane. I can just imagine the protests in front of HPHS if teachers began bringing guns to school. That position alone makes you unqualified to be on the Dist 113 school board.

Bullets aren't 'stray' they're fired by a criminal. Drive by shootings - fired by a criminal. Packing heat may not protect one from a crazy person or one fired by a criminal at random into a crowd, but it does give one the opportunity to protect oneself should the situation arise.
More restrictions don't and haven't worked. Witness Washington DC before the gun ban was overturned - they had one of the highest murder rates in the country. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed puts the criminals on notice that they might have the tables turned on them by their intended victim, and so it reduces crime.

Allowing teachers to carry guns is not my proposal alone - check the newspapers and the news - it's a topic in many States and on many college campuses. That I'm willing to EXPLORE methods of increasing safety doesn't make me unqualified, personally I think that someone who is willing to discuss and explore a diverse set of concepts and opinions would be someone we'd value on the Board.

There already *IS* a gun range at HPHS - it was used for JROTC rifle training, it's now used for soft-tipped darts.

I've said that the facilities are used for PE Classes and District Teams, but we still don't need new field houses, a new indoor track at HPHS, new pools, new stadium seating, more artificial turf.... The needs such as HVAC, diagnosing and repairing water infiltration, repairing the pools - yes.

I was asked to comment on something by Laurie Weil, I did so. If you'd read the thread, you'd know that she asked the question, I answered it truthfully and presented a position. This has everything to do with improving safety. Stop being so alarmist.

My comments were in response to Laurie Weil's question: "As long as David is going to discuss his feelings and plans for District 113, I would appreciate his notating his feelings on other things that come into play, such as his comments on gun control. He stated in previous articles that he had no problem with teachers carrying weapons in school. "

I said IF the teachers were PROPERLY licensed and TRAINED that I'd have no problem with it because in my opinion it'd enhance school safety in the event something happened. That hardly constitutes a plan for school safety.

This has been proposed in other areas of the Country. South Medford, OR - teacher wanted to bring her 9mm Glock.

See this http://works.bepress.com/david_kopel/10/
link for more discussion. Yes, it refers to college campuses, but again, I'm not talking about students, I'm talking about trained, licensed teachers who wish to do so.

Where have I said that we shouldn't have a decent infrastructure, comfortable temperatures, non-flooding fields or weathertight construction? As I've said, and said again, I've proposed ONE OR TWO CLASSES for college-bound kids be taught in a lecture style format. It's not a cost-saving issue, it's one of preparedness for college. I haven't proposed arming all teachers with handguns, just those who are properly trained, licensed, and who desire to do so as a contribution to an overall safety plan.

Voting No on the referendum means we'll have enough money to take care of those infrastructure needs (ventilation, temperature, weatherproofing), and will also leave money available for the feeder elementary districts.

Finally, if you want someone who's not afraid to take a position and state it publicly, someone who's not afraid to consider out-of-the-box ideas and concepts for improving our schools, someone who takes into account the needs of the District and the needs of the taxpayers, and someone who isn't afraid to ask "WHY?", then I'd appreciate your vote. I'm David Scott Greenberg, and I'm #3 on the ballot. If you have any questions, please visit my website at:

http://www.davidgreenberg.org

Nope, what I said was "Voting No on the referendum means we'll have enough money to take care of those infrastructure needs (ventilation, temperature, weatherproofing), and will also leave money available for the feeder elementary districts." I've discussed the funding for a better plan above. Please review.

Whether we need a a bond or a referendum depends on how much money we're talking about. You can't compute that without first creating the plan, then looking at how much it costs, then determining if it's affordable, and refining the plan if it's not. Depending upon the needs and the scope of the plan, it may be items that are funded out of reserves, or the operations/maintenance budget. It may also be via bonds which may or may not require approval of the voters depending upon the cost we end up with.

Like it or not, the feeder districts are part of the equation. If those students end up shortchanged as a result of overspending by D113, then we're going to have to deal with the issues created when those students enter D113. In particular, D112 has sent letters to the Public regarding their financial situation, and I sat on the D112 Budget Reduction Task Force, so I'm not going to assume that they are OK for now. They do have needs. If D113 focuses on it's actual needs instead of the wish-list of wants, then D112 in HP will be able to meet their needs as well when they come to the Public for a referendum. I've also been told by persons in Deerfield that D109 has needs, and this would leave money on the table for the D109 district as well. If memory serves, Deerfield just approved a referendum for their library, and something to do with water or sewage - money from the taxpayers is a finite resource, to be shared by all the taxing bodies.

Who's Dan Seals?

Honestly I am in need of a new job as well since I am currently severely underemployed however I am still supporting the referendum. I am not focusing as much on the total price tag but what it means to me and my family personally, a difference of $400/yr = $1.095/day = 1 cup of McDonalds coffee to get significantly improved facilities for future HPHS and DFLD students none of which will be my 3 children since they have or will have graduated before construction is completed.

Now lets start the countdown 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1

Carol - as clearly been stated previously - your taxes will not go up. In approximately three years your taxes will decrease, a $300,000 house would save aprox. $250.00 per year. However, that is somewhat short sided, property values are historically known to go down as young families always look to move into areas with a thriving educational system. Our high school buildings are extremely outdated and lagging behind others in our areas. Why would they choose to live here when they could move to communities like Lake Forest, Northbrook, or Glenview - which have beautiful new schools and a great education? If we care about our property values - especially our seniors - who once again historically sell their homes to young families - we need to VOTE YES.

D113 schools are in the top 10 in the State, our kids are getting a great education, regularly win awards, and get perfect scores on the ACT. When looking to buy a home - young families look at the total package of what's available, and see what it's going to cost. Many people can afford the house, but can't afford the tax bill. So they move someplace where they can get the same or bigger house with lower taxes and still attend a school that's in the Top 10.

All that does to our area is to depress our property values. Sellers have to lower the price of their property to offset the onerous tax bill in order to make it attractive to a buyer. I know several young families, who would like to move out of a cramped condo into a larger home - but they can't afford the taxes, and they can't sell their condo! So they're staying put for now, as soon as things get better, they're moving to another area with great schools and a lower tax bill.

Lake Forest: Built a new school, it's mothballed. They built too much capacity.
Northbrook/Glenview: Those Districts have lots of businesses who share in the property tax bill for the Schools. Compared with D113 which has fewer.

Throwing more money at education (or anything for that matter) doesn't guarantee better results. 96% of our students graduate and go to college, an additional 1% graduate and go to a vocation. The remaining 3% represent about 120 students.

Vote No, we need and deserve a fiscally responsible plan.

People with babies and young children will be attending D112 (or D109/D106 in Deerfield or Bannockburn). If the elementary districts are shortchanged, they're not going to be attracted to this community. They'll say "Gee, they put in a lot of glitz at the High School, but the elementary district is in bad shape. Why didn't they allocate the money more evenly?" and they'll live elsewhere - someplace more balanced.

D112 and D109 have needs that the Community is aware of. To overspend on D113 by funding a bunch of WANTS instead of focusing on necessities, shortchanges the elementary districts, and that will end up causing issues for D113 when those students enter D113.

re: Teachers looking for jobs. The teachers in our District have been here for the long-haul, partly because of the community, partly because of the salary and benefits they receive. If you look at the ISBE Report on Teacher Supply/Demand - you'll see that there are 60,000 teachers in the pipeline, that many return to teaching each year, and that a very high percentage are retained (I believe the number was 92%). Visit my website www.davidgreenberg.org if you want to review a copy of that report.

Regardless, the North Shore is, has, and remains a desirable place to teach. One job opening in D112 garnered about 350 applications...

Don't shortchange the elementary districts. Vote NO on the referendum.

D112 currently has a $2.7M shortfall they are trying to address. But that's operations - they still haven't come to the Public about their capital needs for the buildings because they believed it was wrong to do so in this economy, and they want to make sure that the plan is well-refined. I don't want to see the D113 students shortchanged, I want to see their needs met, but I also want to see the needs of the feeder elementary districts met as well. It's incumbent upon the two largest taxing bodies on our tax bills (at least in D112/D113) to coordinate.

Well David, the history of District 112's facilities is something I know about, having C0-Chaired a Space Needs Task Force in 1994-95 when the District first came into existance. The committee was made up of community members, icluding construction professionals, central office staff and building staff. At that time, our committee presented 33 different ways to improve the District's 11 schools to handle teaching changes and population changes. We offered no recommendations, as was our charge.

At the time, I favored (as did others) a solution that changed Red Oak back to a middle school and placed 5th grades into middle schools. It also would have accounted for re-building Oak Terrace and Lincon, as well as adding onto Sherwood and Northwood to accomodate additional students. Unfortunately, the School Board, under pressure from some community members, elected to scrap our report and establish another, larger committee that recommended that every school receive an addition. This was, while politically expedient, the most expensive option.

In addition, the District continues to have a bloated administrative staff, including seperate ciriculum coordinators doing jobs once handled by teachers and, until recently a HR Assistant Superintent that was a "Superintendent in Training."

--- Continued---

My point is this. Each district has to answer how their request benefits the community. Each request must stand on its own. I might very well look at D112's building needs request and say, "well, if they had been responsible 15 years ago, they wouldn' t need to be asking now."

We all look at these things through the lens of our experience and position in life. My children are grown and have or soon will, be on their own. Yet, here I am supporting the 113 referendum because in the end I believe it will benefiut our communities. Others in the same position look at it differently. That's what good debate is about.

However, unless you are prepared to offer alternatives, I believe the debate does not advance in a positive manner. Waiting for others who you cannot control is not an answer.

I'm not saying that we ought to wait for them and do nothing at D113. I and others just happen to believe that some of what D113 is asking for are needs, and some are wants. If those wants aren't funded, it'll leave money available for other purposes, and hopefully lessen the tax burden on the taxpayer.

As for the "Curriculum Coordinators" the way they were explained to me was that they were primarily dealing with the creation and management of IEP's.

From what I remember (and my daughter teaches Special Ed) IEPs are done by the Special Ed case manager (usually the teacher) with assistance from the supervisor. That's a single person. 112 has a number of Cirriculum Coordinators that cover every subject taught.

I thought the same thing, and another person at one of the D112 meetings thought that 5 curriculum coordinators was just crazy, so I asked the question at the recent BDR task force meeting and that's what Greg Kurr (Asst. Super. Bus. Mgt.) told me.

To some extent I agree about not waiting until every possible unknown is known. However, let's look at the pools - getting a structural engineer out to do the analysis - why wasn't it done. We're talking about millions of dollars there. It's not like we're talking about what color to paint the walls. I gave an Asst. Superintendent the name of a local sewer contractor who could check out the manhole sewer in the middle of the courtyard just outside of the library at DHS (the area that repeatedly floods). It'd take a few hours for him to put a camera into the pipe to see what was going on. They never called him. Why? Personally, I'd rather know if it's an easy fix (hydrojet the obstructions out of the pipe), or a hard fix...

I haven't said we ought to do nothing at D113 while we wait for the feeder districts. I said that D113 should focus on it's needs which would leave money on the table for the feeder districts - that would hopefully reduce the overall burden on the taxpayer in these trying times.

No one's been saying we ought to do the minimum. The call has been to meet the needs. The wants are nice, but we don't know what the total costs of them will be and that may lead to more financial pain that some are willing to bear. Each has their own level of 'pain' that they consider bearable. Some may have no issue at all, while others I've spoken with - it's medication, rent, car payment, and so on...

I am sorry but my opinion is you and Education First are stating we should only provide for the needs. Isn't that by definition the minimum.

Nope. We can do better with what we have already. HVAC - yep, that's a need. Could we fix it and get by? That'd be the minimum. But it's one of those things that needs to be done, so we have to do more.
Swimming pools: Do we need a new one? No. Can we fix it for millions less? Yes. Can we resolve the issue with the storage of the kayaks in an innovative way that doesn't require tearing down the whole building? Yes. That's not the minimum - it's not the platinum plan either, it's somewhere in the middle.

Sorry Mark, it's presumptuous on your part to assume that you know what I know, and you're actually incorrect in your assumptions.

My mindset is not what you stated. My mindset is to focus on the needs of D113, which would also leave money on the table for the elementary feeder districts. The reason I talk about D109 is because while discussing D112, it was brought to my attention that D109 also has needs. D113 overlaps several communities, and I don't want anyone to feel disenfranchised.

Although I have nieces and a god-daughter in D112, whether I have children or not is not germane to the discussion. I bring a different point of view to the mix, and in my opinion, such diversity can only help things.