Here is a link to the presentation of the community leadership team. http://www.dist113.org/communityaction/Leadership%20Team%20Minutes/Leadership%20Team%20Presentation%20to%20BOE%205-21.pdf
This is what drove the development of the master plan. The need for the pools and the other physical education space is from the requirement for physical education teaching spaces. These were considered by the community group to be tier 1 priorities.

We'll see if the voters agree.

Got news for y'all. Physical Education is mandated through 4 years of HS by the State. I applaud this since athletics and physical activity HAVE been shown to improve educational outcomes. Schools NEED gyms and pools!

Dan:

I'm confused. This referendum addresses only immediate needs, as determined by over 100 volunteer citizens. These people clearly determined that these are needs.

In terms of pools, the pools are in danger of failing. So do you spend 19 million to rebuild them in a way that will make them usable for the future, or do you spend 12 million to rebuild them in their present location and not solve other problems associated with the pools?

I assume you are looking for academic space, which the new "C" building will provide, as will repurposing "B" building and converting better classrooms in "A" that are now offices. The price of building a new "C" building is constructing a new gym at Highland Park.

Deerfield does not have enough PE teaching stations to support the program they offer. Should we offer less of a program?

The "wants" you seem to point out are actually "needs" and when ammortized over the expected 50 year life span represent a bargin for taxpayers. Waiting will literally cost taxpayers millions in higher construction and interest costs. I ask you if it is worth it to eliminate some of the items you say are "wants" or to argue about a very preliminary budget?

Enough with this wants versus needs nonsense. The schools need new pools. Either we build new pools or we eliminate the swimming programs completely -- not a good option in my book. The pools are used for the swimmers, divers, water polo teams and many PE classes. DHS is lacking indoor PE space. Students actually run in the hallways in bad weather. Ask them about the shin splints they get from running on tile floors.

And as the plan outlines, there are a multitude of infrastructure issues that must be addressed. Creating this plan has been very inclusive and everyone in the community had the opportunity to get involved and informed. Just repeating the "wants versus needs" rhetoric over and over again is not productive. It is such a subjective argument that it could be used to block almost anything. My hope is the supporters of the schools and this referendum can drown out these naysayers.

Actually, the committee I sat on sifted through the "Wants" v. "Needs" - did we have unanimity on everything? Nope. But we achieved consensus on what the Tier I (Immediate) down to Tier IV (In a perfect world) needs were.

This current referendum is essentially all Tier I needs being corrected.

In everything we did, we told the architects that we wanted them to consider all the options, and that we weren't married to anything. We also told them that we wanted at least 25-50 years out of whatever we rehabbed and to do the cost analysis of all the options.

So they did that with the pools. Some of the issues are known, some unknown because it would cost more to investigate (e.g. cracks/voids underneath the pool bottom of the HPHS pool). But when the condition of the infrastructure was taken into account - a rehab would get us 10, maybe 15 years at the outside of extra life. The filters are at their end of life, the pipes/electrical is pretty much shot (some due to old age, some due to corrosion from improperly stored acid), etc.

So you say to yourself: "I can spend $X million and rehab this structure and get 10-15 years out of it. Or I can spend $X+Y million and get 50-75 years out of the structure". I don't have the exact figures in front of me, but I believe Y was $3 million. So it wasn't really a contest - we had to build new pools.

The gyms. The one in HPHS being moved is in a building that has some very old infrastructure in the basement. By the time you rehab that building and all it's infrastructure you've spent millions but haven't really done anything to help future utility needs. Given that the building is in the center of the campus - new utilities are going in so that future buildings and parts of the Master Plan can be tied in there. We've got to replace that space because it's needed, so the gyms move to a better location.

As for Deerfield - I saw first hand the sheer number of students engaging in all the PE programs. Packed in like sardines. Some practicing in the hallways. Completely unsafe. So you have two choices there: 1) Rightsize the program offerings to what our current capacity is, or 2) Add more capacity.

Given the participation in those programs, I can predict that #1 would go over like a lead balloon. So you've got to undertake #2 - after seeing it, I'd actually classify it as a need or despite the best efforts of the District, someone's going to get seriously injured or killed at some point.

Going forward, we need to know what our capacities and review them BEFORE making a course offering so we can have a cogent discussion as a community as to the costs involved, or we'll be right back here in a few years.

Agreed

Walt...you don't say whether you are supportive or not. I think this one has a much better chance of passing than the last because this plan has the transparent research to back it up, it has the recommendation of a citizens committee behind it, and we have more time to educate the community about the benefits of passage and the risk of turning it down.

I think the study group has done a great job. I want the most important work to get done. I'm just concerned that some of the items may still be seen as wants by the voters. Remember we have to sell this to people who are facing the highest taxes of their lives and have no children in the district. I think we should do what any good political campaign does...poll. Get a feel for what the community will bear. If that's already been done then great.

Right and wrong Walter. Right that we can't afford to wait, but IMHO there was no sense in dumbing down the number just to ensure passage. That puts off things that are needed now down the road 15 or 20 years. We can do this now, but only if the folks who know this is important stop blathering and get out and campaign to make it happen.

Candidates who campaign hard lose all the time. It's about the message.

Absolutely right on Walter. It IS the message:
Extensive study by community members in consultation with experienced professionals resulted in a long term plan based on a consensus of needs and priorities. Corollary: Candidates who don't campaign, lose most of the time.

OK, well, sounds like you know the voters of 113 very well.

That argument has absolutely no facts behind it. Try again.

Not grammatical either.

What facts?

Exactly. You have none. Number of students is irrelevant. We're talking about buildings that are falling apart. What is "educational advantages?" You would "guess" that the admin is larger now? How much larger and what part does that play in this? What about the plan makes it poor?

Enough of that too Carl. Just because NCLB was a flawed concept, and penalizes districts with non-english speakers and special ed. students doesn't make a high school "failing". HPHS helps students who don't come with all the advantages succeed at a rate far higher than would be expected than if those students were at a different high school.

Idiotic. Last I looked DHS was ranked 5th in the state and HPHS 9th. Enough with the NCLB bull.

1st and 3rd from that US news list after you remove the magnet schools.

Check out the CBO program Carl. That is how a great community helps those within its borders who come to the table with fewer resources.

No Child Left Behind is mathematically flawed for districts with the amount of ESL and Special Needs students that HP has in it. The educators are great and working hard. As a parent I am generally very impressed with my child's teachers. This is a physical issue, not a teaching issue. That is a completely different discussion.

In Highland Park library is a DVD called Ron Clark. Ron took one of the worst class in low per forming school in New York City. In one year he turned the class into a high performing class. High performing students will be good even in a bad school. you measure the school by its ability to give incentive to poor performing students.

Joel:

The last bond issue was in the 1990's and went to build the Science Wing at HPHS and the Academic addition at DHS. That money has been spent and the bonds come off the books soon.

School levies are capped at the rate of inflation by Illinois law. I cannot tell you how or why the rates are higher than that. So you feel you do not recieve value for the taxes you pay? Aren't our schools among the best performers in the area? Doesn't that performance influence the value of your home? Aren't home values in District 113 on the rise again, while others continue to drop or are stagnent? Isn't it worth the value of a weekly Starbuck's to have top notch facilities?

btw...schools budget differently. They borrow (sell bonds) to pay for their capital expenditures just as a business might raise cash (take out loans or sell stock), but they don't always have the option of saving for a rainy day like you or I might.

Ha Ha Ha! Good luck outspending us in Lake Forest. We spend ~$23,000 per student per year, and we're looking at selling more bonds to spend even more money.

You don't have a chance. We spend more on our facilities and teachers than you do, so that means we're better, and that our students will be smarter, and that means more people want to live in LF than Deerfield, and that drives our property values through the roof, which ... isn't happening.

Damn! Wait. Something went wrong with my logic somewhere. This USED to work. Can anyone help me figure out where I made a mistake?

We really spent about $30,000 per student. Pension and some other costs are not reflected in your $23,000. The superintendent involved with last referendum has received over 1 million dollars for the short time she is on pension. No one who is on Social Security has received this much even if retired for 30 years.

@Gary - Would (and could) never try to outspend LF. The school was nicer than a lot of private colleges I have seen. That would never be the goal.

Its just that our buildings are severely warn down to a point where I believe inconveniences are mounting for students and staff, the operating costs (electric, gas, etc.) are higher. ADA compliance is reliant on "duct tape", etc. etc. If the buildings were a resident's home, they would want to move or renovate.

There is a 76% chance that Carl Lambrecht makes up his facts and figures along with a 84.5% probability that he would be against any referendum no matter the cost or scope. It is a 110% fact that people like Carl are the reason things are as bad as they are now because he (and everyone else) didn't insist that serious long range planning be a requirement for approving past bond issuance. Unfortunately we are at the place we are now and just because your children are long gone (I am looking at you Carl) doesn't mean you can abandon the responsibility you put off for the last 15-25 years. I am fully on board with bringing our facilities back up to the current century but I wish we were also talking about all the other things that will need to be taken care of 10-15 years from now an start planning for them so we stagger these issues into smaller chunks instead of huge bond issues every 15 years. The bed has been made and we have no choice but to sleep in it this time but there is no reason we have to keep making the same mistakes going forward and being in the same place in 10-15 years...

Well put, CADG. I'm sure you're hard at work putting together your anti-teacher, pro-concealed carry in schools platform. If there's anything I can do to help the campaign, let me know. I'm a big supporter. BTW it looks like the candidate is laying low, maybe trying to fly under the radar this time. But we won't let that happen, will we?

RE: " ... because your children are long gone (I am looking at you Carl) doesn't mean you can abandon the responsibility you put off for the last 15-25 years."

SAY IT LOUD AND SAY IT PROUD, CADG, because you KNOW that's what so much of this is about for Carl and so many others - people who won't use the schools and fixed incomes.

Schools should not be failing like Highland Park High School for the last five years. Read the School report card.
Carl Lambrecht 847 432 8255, lambrecht@laurelindustries.com

Actually it's a fact that the Public took their eyes off the ball in several areas - long range planning for not just D113, but the other feeder districts. HP's Park District and their pension fiasco. Even the City which has done a pretty good job has had some issues come to light (garage sprinklers come to mind). We've seen what happened when we did that, and I believe it's been a harsh awaking.

But the important thing is that the Public is more engaged (there were times when Carl was the only guy that went to the meetings), people are taking the time to investigate and ask questions of their elected officials. And those officials overseeing these entities have changed. They're listening, they're studying things in more depth, they're changing, they're responding, they're partnering with the remarkable amount of brainpower that we have in our communities, and they're acting more transparently than I can recall.

D113 has a great start for a Master Plan - is it perfect? Nope. Is it better than the last? Yep. Can we continue to refine it and achieve cost savings, efficiencies, and effectiveness in all we do? Yep. Can we continue to operate even more transparently? Yes.

Compete with surrounding communities in what way? You must mean sports based on the amount being planned to be spent on athletic facilities. If you mean academics, despite what Carl is preaching, both DHS and HPHS are amongst the top in the state.

Ronnie, I think that means compete for homebuyers on a level playing field within our neighborhood of the north and northwest suburbs of Chicago

Geez Carl. Holding Louisiana up as an example for public education would be like using Springfield as an example of good government.
Politics is local and locally we have the best public secondary education anywhere!
If you are against public education, just say so, but quit playing games with a federal law that was intended to motivate truly failing schools, by applying its one size fits all language to one specific situation here that doesn't fit.
btw is that Buddy's brother. I like Buddy Roemer, not his politics, but I like him.

You are correct Louisiana is a poor example of public education. This is about school choice in Louisiana. Highland Park for five years is a truly failing school. Yet it has good parts. The administration needs to correct this issue. One year Ok. Yet five years is too long. Who is Principal? Who is Superintendent? We need school choice in Illinois.
Springfield is really Chicago. Look at all of the leaders in Springfield. Look at the Illinois school code.

Carl Lambrecht 847 432 8255, lambrecht@laurelindustries.com

Until now I thought Greenberg had made some of the dumbest school posts I'd ever seen. We now have a new clubhouse leader. How could anyone actually think HPHS is a failing school? Unreal.

The state of Illinois says Highland Park is a failing school

And many people have tried to explain that to you but you don't seem to want to understand.

. I thought I was explaining that to you. For me we have many excellent teachers. Administrators we have too many. If we reduce the administration. We would have some millions to spend on improvements. Come to Friday’s meeting you will see administration in action or inaction.

OK so now your position is that if we get rid of some administrators this will bring HPHS out of a failing state in the eyes of NCLB. How exactly does that work?

I'd venture a guess that pretty much anyone who's attended HPHS will tell you that it's a great school, and that they got a great education. Even if they didn't believe it at the time, chances are good that if you talk to them a few years after they graduated, that they'll tell you they came to this realization after meeting some people who weren't so lucky in their educational opportunities.

But the truth is HPHS is listed as a failing school because it's failed to meet some of the requirements under the NCLB Act for several years. In my opinion, that Act started out well-intentioned, but needs to be reworked because there's no way that 100% of the members of a sub-group can be expected to achieve the targets. If just one has some mental deficiency, gets ill, or flubs up the test - you now fail and the whole school goes on a watch list. Crazy.

We can take all the action we like, but until the Act is changed, or we stop accepting Federal Dollars, we're stuck with it. If we have to hire private tutors or more teachers - what's that going to cost? Where's that money going to come from?