July 9th Regular board meeting posted

re: http://www.boarddocs.com/il/champil/Board.nsf/public


Go read it. Don’t forget to look at the documents that are linked from various line-items.


Several items in the “Reports: New Business” are of particular interest to me – NOTE, these are NOT action items, but merely reports. I do not have time to read or comment on them, but I plan to soon. And I hope to get some thoughts/comments/questions out to board members this weekend still.


Reports: New Business
A. Comparative Studies of K-8 Versus K-5 and 6-8 Grade Configurations: Dr. Susan Zola
B. Request for Qualifications for Professional Services: Tom Lockman
C. Policy 720.11R Exemption From Physical Activity: Tom Lockman
D. Request For Proposal – Controlled Choice Student Assignment Plan: Tom Lockman


I am having a hard time figuring out which piques my curiosity the most. 🙂 Item B is about hiring someone to assist in finding land/space for a new high school. If these topics do not generate a boiling pot of discussion, I am just going to take a 40-year nap.


more later…….

One Response to “July 9th Regular board meeting posted”

  1. charlesdschultz Says:

    For me personally, the biggest issue is item D, the RFP for Controlled Choice. I really do not like the requirements for familiarity with educational law and have made this clear to the board. In talking with several local software companies, the soft requirement for a vendor with previous experience in building a school assignment system is also a huge hangup. My biggest fear is that one and only vendor is going to respond to the RFP as it is; if that happens, I hope the Board throws it away and reconsiders the RFP.

    Here are the local companies I have personally contacted (because I feel strongly about this):
    Chrisp Media

    Line item A is interesting; apparently, some folks have been researching the pros and cons of K-8 versus K-5 (no mention of K-6? *grin*). There is a lot to swallow, but for those that are passionate about different school configurations, it makes for an interesting read. I very much wonder what kind of discussion will happen tonight.

    Line item B is another interesting read. Some part of me thinks that this should have been done under the umbrella of Dejong-Richter in their capacity as “public engagement/high school siting” – isn’t that what we hired them for? Also, while I am glad that we have sort of backed down and are looking for a site with 30 acres (as opposed to 40 or 60), I hope we also keep our imagination going at full tilt – I don’t want this site to be locked into a “traditional” site just because that is easy. If it makes the most sense in terms of finances, greenspace, availability and what the community wants, that is one thing.

    Line item C seems like a good thing – don’t really have any strong opinions on it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: