March 31st special board meeting

The agenda for the March 31st special board meeting has been posted on boarddocs (anyone know of a way to “deep link” it?). The agenda is quite full – I am sure you could find something interesting on it. 🙂 Lots of money changing hands….

 

Just as a reminder, a Special Board Meeting means that the public is allowed three minutes (each person, each topic) to talk on various agenda items, as opposed to being restricted to the first item on the agenda.

 

• 7. Reports: New Business
  • A. Facilities: Dr. Judy Wiegand This item has files attached
  • B. ELA Adoption: Trevor Nadrozny This item has files attached
  • C. Health Adoption: Cheryl O’Leary This item has files attached
• 8. Action Agenda: New Business
  • A. Administrative Appointments – Assistant Principals at Garden Hills Elementary: Ken Kleber
  • B. Policy 440.03 Update: Food Services – Charging Costs of Meals: Tom Lockman This item has files attached
  • C. Policy 720 Student Welfare – Food Allergy: Tom Lockman This item has files attached
  • D. Westview Change Order #15: Matt Foster This item has files attached
  • E. Approval of Robeson/Bottenfield Abatement Change Order #1: Matt Foster This item has files attached
  • F. Approval of Robeson/Bottenfield Abatement Change Order #2: Matt Foster This item has files attached
  • G. Bid: Kenwood and Robeson Asbestos Abatement: Matt Foster This item has files attached
  • H. Bid: Robeson/Bottenfield Student Device Technology: Dave Hohman
  • I. Bid: Robeson/Bottenfield Staff Computer Technology: Dave Hohman
  • J. Bid: Magnet Grant Student Device Technology: Dave Hohman
  • K. Rejection of Bids for Sale of Marquette (203 S. Fifth, Champaign): Matt Foster This item has files attached
  • L. Resolution – Sale of Property at 203 S. Fifth: Matt Foster This item has files attached
• 9. Consent Agenda
  • A. 2014-15 IHSA Memberships: Orlando Thomas This item has files attached
  • B. Tax-Exempt Lease-Purchase Financing for Two Used 71 Passenger 2015 Blue Bird Propane Buses: Matt Foster This item has files attached
  • C. Revocation of Retirement – John Ayers, Jr.: Ken Kleber
  • D. Resolution to Authorize Reclassification – Ian Tatum: Ken Kleber
  • E. Resolution to Give Written Notice of Reassignment & Reclassification – Theodis (Tony) Maltbia: Ken Kleber
  • F. Resolution to Give Written Notice of Reassignment & Reclassification – Paul Ranstead: Ken Kleber
  • G. Resolution to Give Written Notice of Reassignment & Reclassification – Rachel Maehr: Ken Kleber
  • H. Separation Agreement – Lisa Geren: Ken Kleber
  • I. Release of Certified Staff: Ken Kleber This item has files attached
  • J. Reductions In Force – Certified Staff: Ken Kleber This item has files attached
  • K. Reductions In Force – Classified Staff: Ken Kleber This item has files attached
  • L. 2014-2015 Staffing Requests: Ken Kleber

A chance to speak about the Unit 4 Facilities (k-8, new high school, middle school configuration, etc)

From the PTA Council:

Our next meeting will be held on April 3rd, next Thursday, at Southside Elementary School.

We will be hearing from Laurie Bonnet, Kristine Chalifoux and Dr. Wiegand to discuss facilities and answer any questions you may have. Please let your school PTA’s know that everyone is welcome.

 

Typically these start at 6:pm 7:pm. For more information:

• PTA Council’s website: http://champaignptacouncil.weebly.com/
• Facilities Committee webpage: http://www.champaignschools.org/pages/facility-committee/facility-committee
• Facilities Committee Presentation to the Board of Education 03-10-2014

 

UPDATE: Correction! Meeting starts at 7:pm

Chat with Arlene Blank about the PMPK committee

I had a fantastic talk with Arlene Blank recently. For those who may not be aware, Arlene has been with Unit 4 for several decades, employed in various positions (she reminded me how she hired Greg Novak way back when as the librarian at Edison) both before and after retirement and has served on the board for multiple (different) stints. Arlene also mentioned that she played a role in the 1% Sales Tax referendum; as the Board President of the time, her name was on the document that went to the County Board to be put on the ballot, so she felt some responsibility in being involved in the Promises Made Promises Kept Committee when it was formed in 2009. Although not her intent, she was elected as the board chair and has been so ever since.

 

It quickly became clear to me that there are many different opinions about the PMPK committee (not just between Arlene and I, but with others in the community as well). I hope to do justice to various perspectives and most importantly, keep the door of communication open as the invitation to disagree remains standing.

 

Before going further,

Community Saturday School

Just saw this in the News-Gazette and immediately liked it:

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2014-03-22/community-school-brings-lessons-history-character-future.html

 

What would it take to multiply this by 10? By 20? Hats off to Amira M. Davis and everyone else involved in this awesome project.

PMPK March 13th meeting agenda and notes

PMPK Agenda March 13,2014

PMPK Meeting Notes 031314

 

“27 iPads were purchased for $10,573.00”

Wow!

 

Live/Work and “Community Involved Planning” video

Unit 4 recently posted a couple items:

“Community Involved Planning” : video shown at the March 10th BOE meeting

Live/Work Central “re-use”: Presentation from the March 17th BOE meeting

QLEO: Quantified Learning Environment Outcomes

What is QLEO?

Quantified Learning Environment Outcomes

http://www.bldd.com/qleo-pages-189.php

 

How much did we pay for this opportunity?

In 2013 alone:

CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME            BUDGET CODE ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT
0101      186488   11/08/13 203459 BLDD ARCHITECTS 102319000000 310  QLEO (QUALIFIED LE  0.00      5,900.00
0101      186897   11/22/13 203459 BLDD ARCHITECTS 102319000000 310  QLEO (QUALIFIED LE  0.00      35,400.00
0101      186897   11/22/13 203459 BLDD ARCHITECTS 102319000000 310  REIMBURSABLE EXPENS 0.00      282.16
TOTAL CHECK                                                                              0.00      35,682.16

Who was involved?

• BLDD
• CEFPI
• Facility Committee Members
• “* Determined by the standards as defined in the Strategic Plan (Great Schools Together).”

 

What did we get out of it?

Apparently, the Facility Committee had an opportunity to interface directly with the software and tweak variables. The only thing the public sees is a 32-page report which has been modified several times (high school capacity numbers corrected, Live/Work slides removed).

 

 

 

 

Future Facilities: do your homework and talk to the board

As shown by last Monday’s BOE meeting (March 10th), the school district’s Facility Committee has been plugging away at deciding what our future school configuration will look like. They have used feedback and data gathered from “Great Schools Together” (2008), the Dejong-Ricther “engagement” sessions (2012 – early 2013), as well as input from various consultants (ie, BLDD, RPC, Gorski-Reifsteck, etc).

My bet is that most people in the community had no clue this was even going on, much less what they have discussed. At the March 10th BOE meeting, they presented the results of their work to date, three middle-school configurations (or scenarios) chosen from an initial list of 11. At the March 17th BOE meeting, the Committee will again present information to the Board focusing on the “Live/Work” option of the current Central building once the school is relocated to north Neil Street.

What is “Live/Work”? What are the 11 options? What are the final three? Where did they come from? Who is making all these decisions? Your assignment is to try to answer these questions. Here are some hints as to where you might start looking:

• Facility Committee Unit 4 webpage (note the Meeting Minutes page only has two meetings, and there are two additional documents on the left-hand pane for the 10-year Safety Survey Report and the Committee’s March 10th presentation to the board <- START HERE).
• Future Facilities webpage (a byproduct of Dejong-Richter, has a number of relevant documents)
• The Board’s New Central Site Location page (yes, this is very relevant as well)
• “Town Hall” on Central video (not exactly my expectation of a town hall meeting, but this was labeled by others)

There have been numerous articles, columns, editorials and letters to the editor in the News-Gazette. I draw your attention, again, to a Feb 6, 2011 letter by Laurie Reynolds, which describes a path the she sees would be optimal for the school district to follow in planning for a future Central. As you read through it, you can see that the district will readily point out they have followed some of the steps, but there are others that leave a bit of a hole. I believe her last sentence still rings loud and clear with preternatural accuracy:

“But if we continue the discussion along the lines we have followed so far, those options will never be explored, and the ultimate decision on Central will be made with incomplete information and without an understanding of all of the costs that new construction on a remote site will impose on the community.”

In yesterday’s NG, Heather Owen’s letter to the editor asks community members to chime in on the various K-8 options the Facility Committee is considering. Ms. Owen also emailed me directly, as well as emailing the Board with her concerns. I encourage all property tax payers to follow suit – read up on the available documentation and let the Board know what you think about it. Better late than never. I have a bit more to say on this particular topic, but I am closing off a couple other threads and want to present multiple perspectives; I have heard from one board member that takes issue with the letter, and I have another in-progress conversation with administration.

Personally, I was hoping for more community-focused engagement, along the lines of Springfield’s Education Summit and (not or) charrettes used by planners. I have asked the board and the district administration on multiple occasions to think about both of these ideas. What gets me is that Superintendent’s Goals for the District #2 is all about “Community Involved Planning” (also the title of a recent Spotlight video which is not yet available online). It is exceptionally difficult for me to reconcile the progress of decision-making that Unit 4 has taken so far and this particular goal. But perhaps I am cynical and/or naive.

So until I can wrap up my other conversations, I conclude with a recommendation that readers, tax payers and Unit 4 residents get acquainted with the available information and start asking questions. Make plans to attend the March 17th BOE meeting; yes, your speaking time will be limited to 3 minutes and you will not be able to enjoy a back-and-forth dialogue, but this is one of the very few opportunities you currently have to make your voice heard in a public setting.

Do not let other people make up your mind – make up your own mind.

Documents from the Sept 12, 2013 PMPK meeting

I received a couple supporting documents that augment the meeting minutes from the September 12, 2013 Promises Made Promises Kept (PMPK) Committee meeting:

• Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan (which is also available on the Unit 4 website but buried elsewhere)
• “Fact Sheet” on the 1% Sales Tax

 

Both documents are a few years old. 🙂

money and the state budget

There is a syndicated article in the NG today talking about how the state intends to chop ONE BILLION DOLLARS out from Education. Doing the math, right now the unbalanced budget has $13.2B set aside for Education, but we have to subtract out a massive $5B for pensions which brings it down to $8.2B for everything else in schools. Divided by 3862 public schools in the state of Illinois, that averages to roughly $2M per school or about $3993 per student. Unit 4 receives a little over $15M from the state (FY2014 state budget form) for the Educational Fund(*), which comes out to $1623 per student (9383 total students). Ironically, according to ISBE Superintendent Christopher Koch, the “statutory amount set for general state aid” per child is $6119. Which is obviously meaningless and a sad joke. There is a ton of talk about “pension reform” and I have not figured out how the proposed “balanced budget” of chopping $1B will affect pensions. If we assume the worst-case scenario where pensions are left alone, that brings the money for Education down to $7.2B, or $1.86M average per school ($3505 per student); for Unit 4, an oversimplified guess would put the cut at $2.1M (total down to $13.3M), or $1421.6 per student.

Unit 4 has a $103M budget(*), and Gene Logas and the rest of the Finance team has placed us in a really well-padded financial position. Except we are cutting into that buffer space with additional raises for both teachers and administrators over the next three years due to the contract negotiations last year.

* UPDATE NOTE: The total Unit 4 budget is $138,853,108 – I am focusing on the Educational portion of the budget from which teachers are paid (among other things).

It is quite unclear how Gov. Quinn’s promise to protect Early Childhood Learning will play into this picture. I am not smart enough to figure that out. *grin* If you are, or if you know of someone who is, please pitch in.

All this to say that I am quite confident Unit 4 will be fine for the next few years, but we have to be diligent and very careful with how we plan our future. My sincere hope is that all stakeholders can come to the table to exercise “community involved planning” to dream up ways we can maximize our dollars.

.