By Mick Zawislak | Daily Herald | May 19, 2012
An exploratory Spanish program in Hawthorn Elementary District 73 will be shelved for next year but could be retooled.
School board members this week voted not to continue the Spanish Exploratory program, opting instead to have teachers spend more time working with students on core standards.
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120515/news/705159802/
Welcome to the game, Village of Vernon Hills! And you didn’t even know you were playing. Grab a glove, take a knee. You thought Cougar travel team costs were high? Mandatory entry fee to play pension games? $2 million a year. Or is it $5 million a year? Dunno, but it’ll be time to impose that first ever property tax soon enough – Hawthorn Mall sales taxes can’t save our backsides no mas (Spanish Exploratory shout-out there).
But, wait, “Another proposal would have local schools statewide lose about $536 million in tax income with the money going to pay for teacher pensions.”
Either D73 has less money for current services OR we face a property tax increase. Swell.
-When we saw the letter to the editor, we rolled our eyes and thought about doing an analysis or commentary on it but everyday life intervened. Thankfully, someone else stepped up, far better equipped than us.
A picture is worth a thousand words – take a hard look at both of the charts (click on link below). Again, we post subject matter like this because these costs are eating up the ability to provide current services. And taxes are too darn high and this is why.
http://www.championnews.net/2012/05/07/high-school-english-teacher-laments-tribune-pummeling/
(H73PG: another in a series of reader comments regarding the Spanish Exploratory program)
Deerpathmom May 10, 2012 at 11:08 am
I dispute the comment that the majority of our community is interested in a language program at this age level. Though I have no valid information of effectiveness of this type of program (it was not in place when my son was in elementary school) I cannot see the long term benefit/retention from a program structured in this way. I am not of the minority when I say that I had Spanish every day in HS and I remember very little. I may be a bit closed minded… probably am, but I have no interest in my children learning spanish at this age. I cannot understand the thinking behind the introduction of this program with specialized teachers or aides. I am however very interested and involved in the education of my children. My child began the AAA program in 3rd or 4th grade (my mind fails me, but it was on a trial type basis as AAA wasn’t truly introduced until the next grade level). My son flourished that year and every year in this program. He was challenged and certainly held his work to a higher standard than he may have had he not been involved in this program. This, coupled with an exceptional teacher who shared and encouraged his love for american history, evoked a love for reading and his passion to teach which stayed with him to this day. That being said, his 5th grade year was unremarkable. The AAA program was reorganized/reduced and renamed to include more kids than the top % of children (I understand this was a cost saving effort). I had no idea of what the program changes really meant until one day my son came home upset. He explained that he no longer liked these classes. I was surprised and asked why. He said there were alot of kids and (as verbatim as I can recall) they don’t care about it, they talk all the time, act goofy and I can’t think! My point here is that this type of program is important to nuture accelerated children and of even more importance are the special needs programs. It is essential to identify early and intervene when kids need more help and/or are falling behind. There is no excuse for children in this district to fall through the cracks due to lack of resources. I have heard these programs are continually subjected to budget cuts. I do not feel that a spanish exploratory program is a building block of elementary education as is reading and math. So no, I would not cut math and reading (as Deerpath Donna suggested) due to weak results in a particular grade. Quite the opposite. I cannot think of an argument so compelling that would convince me that spanish exploration is now or was ever worth throwing money into for 40 minutes a week at the elementary level. As for teachers supervising lunch room/recess… this was a long time coming. This district has spent far too many years and too much of our tax dollars on staffing for this purpose and it’s absolutely insulting to the taxpayers and has always been a sore spot with me. Why do teachers not want to do this? Because they never had to before. Sort of like filling in for a receptionist when you are a legal assistant. A nusense. But please know that lunch/recess duties are the norm in most districts as are parent helpers in the classrooms. This topic has always incensed me, as our district does not welcome the volunteer opportunites that many surrounding districts do. Why? Well, my presumtion has always been that our district didn’t want to give up the surplus tax dollars so they found ways to spend it. Speaking only for my family, I can assure you that we cannot continue at this rate. Property taxes are out of hand, yet everyone wants more, more, more – Highlighting the schools. I commend the Board for saying no to the Administrative increases proposed out of “fairness”. However, there isn’t enough pruning and still far too much spending. Thankfully, we are beginning to see some muscle flexing toward the unions that have stolen from us for so many years. It just may have come a bit too late.
(H73PG: another in a series of reader comments regarding the Spanish Exploratory program)
involvedcitizen | Submitted on 2012/05/10 at 8:16 am
As someone who attends most board meetings and was in attendance at the board meeting when the board voted to keep the Spanish Exploratory my recollection is that there was no documented proof that the Spanish Exploratory was ineffective. The administration provided no data in the form of assessments, tests, surveys, etc to back up their position that the Spanish Exploratory was indeed ineffective. Their position was only an opinion. Also, I do not remember that any or all of the board members were in agreement that the program was “ineffective”. I agree with Skeptical Sam that it appears that the board is attempting to improve the program with the hiring of Spanish teachers instead of aides (who the Admin. had originally contended could teach the program successfully) rather than ditching another program that the district has spent money to purchase and implement.
Skeptical Sam. Submitted on 2012/05/06 at 10:34 pm (Originally posted in response to the letter in “H73 and Spanish Exploratory.”)
A few points that don’t make sense with this letter. Boards cannot take any action (vote) in a closed meeting, it’s against the law. Are we to believe the board broke the law? Teachers are currently doing lunch/recess duty for 40 minutes/week while the kids are in exploratory Spanish. Which means they are not “losing that extra 40 minutes of instruction time”. I.e. they didn’t have it to lose it. Sounds like they’ll just be doing what they’re currently doing. If teachers are no longer to perform lunch/recess duty, someone else would have to do this which means hiring people to perform this duty. So even if the cost to hire the Spanish teachers is $250K, the net cost is less since they don’t have to hire new lunch/recess personnel. Looks like they’re replacing an ineffective program (exploratory Spanish taught by aids) with a program taught by certified Spanish teachers with the hope of having a better program for a net cost of something less than $250K (as opposed to no exploratory Spanish and hiring new lunch/recess personnel). The only question that remains is, is the net cost ($50K, $75K, $100K, $125K, ?) worth it to have a (hopefully) better exploratory Spanish program? Let get the facts and then decide.
Deerpath Donna. Submitted on 2012/05/07 at 8:33 pm | In reply to Skeptical sam.
Let’s be honest about what the post regarding Spanish Exploratory is really about. The teachers don’t want to supervise lunch room or recess like they do in other districts and thought they could get out of it with a deal from the Admin. The majority in our community wants a language program. If the program needs improvement then make it better don’t get rid of it. Should we get rid of reading or math in those grades in schools where the program is sadly weak? The teachers aren’t losing 40 min. The spanish exploratory came from 1 less gym period per week. Anyone with kids in the schools should know how much time is wasted in some classrooms watching movies or doing presentations that last weeks or reading one book for a whole trimester. You can thank the union for requiring certified teachers to run the spanish exploratory instead of instructional assistants and costing the district extra money when assistants have been acceptable for several years. As for the Administration working tirelessly to come up with ways to cut costs, it’s more like ways to find money so they can get a raise of 3.95%. This district continues to waste money on program after program that is started and abandoned after a few years. Can you say IBO or My Access? Let’s look at areas where money can be spent more efficiently and cut some real waste. Maybe if everyone would work together instead of for their own interests we could really save money and improve learning.
Disappointed Parent. Submitted on 2012/05/07 at 10:14 pm
Skeptical Sam – Not suprised that you would be skeptical. Afterall, who would think that the school board would actually spend $250,000 on an ineffective program. That is the cost to the district for having the ineffective spanish exploratory. You can say that there would be offsets to this – not hiring lunch room supervisors, but the bottom line is that this program that is not working will cost us $250,000.
You are correct that the board did not “vote” at this closed session. That was stated in error, but, they also did not ask for the job postings to be put on hold until they could have further discussion at an open meeting in light of this new cost.
In the board meeting where the spanish exploratory was mandated to remain for next year the motion that was passed was to “maintain the Spanish Exploratory program as it currently exists.” That would lead me to believe that it will be the same ineffective program just taught by more expensive people.
Personally, I would much rather see this money spent on something that would benefit the children – like additional classroom time or technology.
-H73PG editor note: name of letter writer has been redacted until we can verify authorship. But let’s look at the details:
Subject: Letter
Date: May 6, 2012
Good Afternoon,
Attached is a letter that I sent to the Chicago Tribune and Daily Herald regarding the recent vote of the Hawthorn District 73 School Board’s decision to spend over $250,000 to hire certified Spanish Teachers for the district Spanish Exploratory Program.
A little history: The Administration has been working tirelessly to come up with ways to cut costs in order to balance the budget. A recommendation was made to the Board of Education to eliminate the Spanish Exploratory program in all of the elementary schools as it has been found to be ineffective. Those 40 minutes would be used at the teacher’s discretion for areas in which they feel students would need more instructional time. At the School Board Meeting on March 12th, the board agreed with the administration’s assessment of the ineffectiveness of the Spanish program. It was discussed that the program needed to be revamped and should be put on hiatus until a better program could be put in place. Two Board members, Jeff Bard and Julie Weiler raised the concern that if they remove the program, it may never return (but were still of the opinion that it is ineffective). Unfortunately, by a 4-3 margin, the Spanish Exploratory program was voted by the board to remain in place and would be taught by instructional assistants. However, the Union became involved and it was determined that instructional assistants would no longer be allowed to teach this program. So, in a closed meeting on Monday, April 23rd the Board of Education voted in favor of hiring 5 certified spanish teachers at a cost to the district of over $250,000. The District staff was told about the decision on Wednesday, April 25th and the response has not been favorable. Teachers are now losing that extra 40 minutes of instructional time and instead will spend those 40 minutes supervising lunch and recess. The Board has not announced what will be eliminated in order to pay this $250,000.
I urge you all to attend the next School Board Meeting on Monday, May 14 at 7:00 p.m. in the district office. Public comments are allowed at the beginning of the meeting.
No shock there. The rich are just like everyone else – if they can take advantage of a system where they dump responsibilities onto the rest of the state, there is little hesitation. It’s all about the incentives.
(For those getting this via email at home, click on the TRS Graph headline to take you back to H73PG website – there’s a graph there.)
Editors’ note: with the debate in Springfield heating up, we thought we’d re-post one of our more popular pieces. To readers of H73PG, here’s the main reason why our Hawthorn district doesn’t get timely payments promised it by the State of Illinois. Public pensions -teacher pensions in particular- are crushing the state’s finances:
Illinois’ population is 12% bigger now than it was in 1980, yet we have 200% more retirees. And the payouts are growing, well, not quite exponentially, but it’s obvious the pension annuity slope/line is going up at quite a worrisome clip. The data above stops at 2010 – can you imagine what it will look like in 2015 or 2020?
This graph was forwarded to info@hawthorn73shadowboard.com along with supporting data. The individual who prepared this (Ken H) has been in contact with our state legislators and is trying to spread the word about our spiraling pension costs. Nothing tells a story like a picture. (TRS stands for Teacher Retirement System.)
Let’s see if Quinn prevails on his modest reforms.
Tags: TRS pensions, Hawthorn 73, pension shortfall
http://hawthorn73shadowboard.com/?p=646 (copy/paste for graph)
https://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120429/discuss/704299901/
Excerpt-
“It’s true. Teachers did not cause the pension problem. Our elected officials did — those elected to the legislature and those elected to school boards who approved raises seemingly without a thought to the pension impact (bold added by H73PG). And yet teachers are being asked to sacrifice. What do you say to them? ‘If you don’t rescue it,’ Quinn said, ‘there will be no retirement. That’s what I’d say to teachers.’”
-Two sentences, two misstatements.
By Molly Beck | State Journal Register, April 28, 2012
When Don Burton retired in 2009 as school superintendent in the Hillsboro School District, he considered himself lucky to end his career with a full pension while still well under 60 years old.
Burton said he began hearing rumblings about a possible overhaul of the public pension system as early as 2004. So, five years later, he decided to take the leap in order to preserve his pension benefits.
-Please read full MB / SJ-R article, then come back here for our take -> http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x1018069209/A-lot-of-angst-among-teachers-over-pensions?zc_p=0
Ok. Don didn’t end his career. And he didn’t just take the leap to retire (which he didn’t) to preserve his pension bennies – he did it because the system was set up (cough, rigged) such that it’s in his best interest to ‘retire’, collect $115k starting annuity (multiply that by 1.03 each successive year, compounded annually for life), bank $5 million plus total if he lives to actuarial predicted age of 82, AND still work now because he can make whatever he’s making in Pawnee (is it $120k, is it 170k??… doesn’t matter, it’s additive to his not-taxed-in-Illinois pension). Ahhh, the sacrifices one must make.
Recent Comments