PEORIA -- While still censoring the public comments at its meeting, the Peoria School District 150 board is set to approve a tax increase -- said to add $35 to a typical residence.
That proposal generated a public hearing as well as the usual public comments at the Dec. 13 meeting. Here's the audiotape:
D150 Dec.13
Here's a summary:
- Activist Sharon Crews: Gave the board a detailed analysis of high school class sizes, which are huge in some instances. See her comments below.
Supt. Grenita Lathan afterward responded "we're working on this."
Crews also referred to a letter she received from the Illinois Attorney General's office that her Freedom of Information Act request to the district should have been honored. She's still waiting for the information.
The board's lawyer responded that he never received the letter. Board member Laura Petelle said she got a copy from Crews, and it was turned over to the "ombudsman."
- Activist Terry Knapp: Said he saw the letter, and asked why the lawyer should be involved when the district is paying someone $130,000 a year to be a Freedom of Information officer. "This has got to stop," he said of district stonewalling.
He also mentioned students walking home in the dark to the former Woodruff High School area from Peoria Central because activity busses apparently are not running. Lathan later responded that the busses are running and students may choose to walk home.
Knapp said a proposal to demolish Peoria Stadium and build a new stadium at Peoria High School is a "bad idea."
Board president Debbie Wolfmeyer later said "these things are not moving forward at this time."
- Activist Sevino Sierra: Told the board to stop wasting money on consultants and unneeded construction. A new gym at the closed Blaine Sumner school is sitting empty, next to Neighborhood House where after school activities are scheduled, he said.
- Peoria Federation of Teachers president Bob Darling: Thanked the superintendent for meeting with teachers, and mentioned rumors of "inflated grades," which are "an insult to students" if it's occurring.
Lathan later agreed, saying "we should not do that, let us know your concerns."
At the required public hearing on a tax increase, Knapp noted that last year the board voted down a tax increase, then called a special meeting over the holidays to approve it. It raised enough money to send to Edison Schools to continue that program, he said. Taxpayers "would be outraged if they knew what was going on."
The board also has been involved on other recent tax increases through the Public Building Commission, Knapp said, and wants to make Lincoln School hold 1,000 students, in defiance of research calling for small schools especially in low income neighborhoods. "Raising taxes during a recession, it's sad."
Sierra said "you people are squandering our money. Get rid of Edison."
-- Elaine Hopkins
Here are the comments from Sharon Crews:
The 2010 Illinois Report Card stated that the average District 150 class size was 11.8 students. What will that number be for 2011 with the closing of Woodruff?
All too often people give too much credence to these averages. This average class size figure is often used to substantiate the cutting of teaching positions and to justify closing schools. Jim Stowell was recently quoted in the paper as saying there were classes of 8 and 10 last year. In all fairness, why didn’t he also provide the number in the largest classes? This method of computing class averages has led to very poor academic decisions. As long as there are special ed classes and higher level electives, there will and should be some classes of 8 and 10.
I have provided you with the current class sizes of 364 regular division English, math, and social studies classes in the three high schools. These departments have the most required courses and these courses are also the focus of the NCLB tests.
Every student and every teacher in these large classes are at a disadvantage. First of all, the larger the class the more likelihood there is of discipline problems. Secondly, many of these classes include mainstreamed special ed students. Therefore, these classes with a large number of students with wide-ranging academic abilities present challenges to the teachers and disadvantages to the students. Few students can get one-on-one attention.
I wasn’t certain how to interpret the Manual data. I assume that there aren’t any classes of 52, 48, 46, and 43 taught by only one teacher—but that is what the data shows. I assume that there aren’t 26 classes of from 1 to 6 students. I think these numbers represent the number of mainstreamed students that are supervised by a special ed teacher. I hope the numbers as I received them are not used to compute class averages for the district.
From 69 to 73 classes in the three subject areas have from 30 to 35 students. There are over 2600 students in these overcrowded classrooms. Many students are probably in 3 or more overcrowded classes every day.
There are 115 more classes in the three subject areas with from 26 to 29 students. That means that another 3200 more students are in classes that are too large. That’s a total of 5800 students that are in overcrowded classes in, at least, 184 high school classes every day.
Only 23 of the 364 classes in the three subject areas have 16 or fewer students. Only 9 of the 23 have 6, 7, or 8 students. Please note that Manual has only about 20 of the largest classes. I believe that is due to the scheduling required by the Johns Hopkins courses. Manual has the largest classrooms but fewer students in them while Peoria High with very small rooms has larger numbers of students. In Peoria High classrooms, many student desks are wall to wall with no room for teachers to walk around the rooms. Clearly, there is little room for growth in District 150’s high schools—I guess you are counting on more and more families fleeing the district.
In closing, I would like to share my attorney general story. Both Mr. Gates and I received a letter dated December 2 stating, “We have determined that District 150 has not met its burden to withhold the requested information under Section 7.5 as the Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that release of masked information about students is not prohibited by the School Student Records Act. We ask that the District immediately respond to Ms. Crews’ request in accordance with the requirements of the Act by releasing the requested information.”
It is December 13—isn’t time about up? I would prefer not to contact the Attorney General again—right now the ball is in your court, so to speak. -30-
Update 12/14/2010: Sharon Crews sends the following information, related to the Attorney General's letter.
My Attorney General victory is on hold for now. I erred in not reading the inside address of the letter from the Attorney General to Robert Gates, the board lawyer. Most of the address was correct (Gates name, firm, firm's address). However, a Clark Street address was also used, and the letter was sent to Chicago, IL (to the Chicago Public Schools). Therefore, District 150 did not receive the letter and I erred in stating last night that their deadline for turning over data to me was about over.
Gates has appropriately scolded me for making this statement at the BOE meeting. Gates now maintains that the whole letter and its contents, not just the address, are inaccurate. He states, "Additionally, the letter fails to address a number of issues raised in my correspondence of October 11. These issues beg the question of who this letter was intended to be sent."
Personally, I believe the whole letter (dates, arguments, etc.,) all relate to my FOIA, but the Attorney General will be the final judge of that. However, there will undoubtedly be a lengthy delay while District 150 continues to refute my request. There is no doubt that District is paying dearly for their desire to withhold data from me—the credits earned by seven Manual seniors. The irony is that I was already given the same data for the other 106 graduates. The only reason I didn't receive this data in the first place is that I discovered on my own that there were actually 114 graduates, not 106 (without names or actual ID numbers). Therefore, I asked for the same data that I had received for the other 106.
I have attached Robert Gates' semi-angry letter to me. I think it's a bit funny that he is arguing that the wrong address makes the whole letter wrong when everything in the letter pertains to my FOIA and his original rebuttals. I do feel stupid for not reading the incorrect address:
Peoria School Disrtrict 150
c/o Mr. Robert Gates
Kavanaugh, Scully, Sudow, White & Frederick
302 SW Adams St. Suite
125 S. Clark St., Suite 700
Chicago, ILL 61602-1574
Dear Ms. Crews and Mr. Roberts:
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: AG Letter
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:33:37 -0600
Yes, it is now obvious, of course, that the letter was sent to the wrong city--both your firm's address and a Chicago Clark Street address appear in the inside address. Everything in the letter, however, does seem to pertain to my FOIA--at least, the information regarding my data and all the dates of our correspondence seem to be accurate. The Peoria Public Schools are referenced in the letter itself--in fact, the CPS reference is only mentioned once--a C instead of a P. It seems to me that the confusion arises primarilly because you referenced legal cases involving the Chicago Public Schools. Whether or not the legal arguments are in District 150's favor or mine and whether or not they are incomplete are certainly your prerogative to argue and for the Attorney General to decide. In fact, the information that I requested if I ever receive it will not result in any earth-shattering revelations, so it is probably all much ado about nothing. I am as anxious as you and District 150 are to learn the boundaries of the FOIA law, so it is the "principle of the thing," not the information that is important to all of us. I am appropriately embarrassed that I didn't notice the incorrect address. I will take care of the misleading information on my end by explaining these latest developments (sending the letter to the wrong place) on the blogs where I placed my original comments after receiving the letter from the Attorney General. In my own defense, I believed that the delay was probably due to your contesting the decision. Whether or not you would have informed me of that action is, of course, debatable.
Subject: AG LetterDate: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 13:53:30 -0600From: [email protected]To: [email protected]CC: [email protected]
Ms. Crews:
Following the public comments you made last night alleging ( and subsequent criticism) that the School District and/or myself was not following up on a decision made by the Attorney General, I told you that neither the School District nor my office had received the December 2, 2010 letter you referenced in your remarks to the Board.
This morning, I contacted the Attorney General. A copy of the letter was sent to my office this morning by email. It is dated on December 2 and addressed to you properly.
However, that is where the letter’s accuracy ends. Thank goodness I asked for an email copy, otherwise it never would have arrived.
First, this letter is addressed to the Chicago Public School system headquarters. This letter ended up being sent to CPS in Chicago. Further, as you know, the letter addresses me as a “Mr. Roberts” and also uses the CPS acronym in the body of the letter. Additionally, the letter fails to address a number of issues raised in my correspondence of October 11. These issues beg the question of who this letter was intended to be sent.
I will be discussing this issue with the AG and school district this week, and a representative of the District or myself will get back to you.
Nevertheless, I do recommend going forward that if you are aware of a delay at either my office or FOIA-related issues, that you contact the District’s FOIA officer to address those concerns. Giving the District or myself the opportunity to correct misunderstandings will be efficient and result in more active communication.
The culprit in this mistake/mis-information and situation is clearly the Attorney General. The confusion is a result of their mistake, not the School District’s and, subsequently, your allegation and criticism was incorrect and misplaced.
Please contact me with any questions you may have,
Bob Gates
-30-