D112 'Plan B' Would Have Significant Challenges: Letter

The following letter was written and submitted by Dan Jenks.

In recent days, I have heard several people say a variation of the following statement: “Vote “No,” District 112 will be forced to go back to drawing board and a better plan will be developed – it always happens that way, just look at what District 113 did in 2013.” Having been intimately involved in working for the passage of the District 113 referendum in 2013, I would suggest that the nature of the problem that District 113 confronted is very different and much simpler than the challenges that District 112 is facing now.

The first District 113 referendum in 2011 offered essentially everything anyone could want to see at Highland Park High School – including a new Field House, new B & C buildings, new pool, etc. Voters rejected this referendum not because they disliked Field Houses, new pools or replacing 100 year old buildings – it just cost too much and didn’t seem to be very well thought out. Whether the referendum failed or succeeded, District 113 was on firm financial footing and success or failure would have no impact on class size, number of teachers employed, academic courses offered or extra-curricular activities.

The failure of the 2011 referendum sent a clear message to the District 113 Board – go back and prioritize important repairs (leaky basements, boilers, HVAC, electrical, plumbing) and improvements (new gym and pool) and come back to the electorate with a slimmed down proposal. Importantly, decisions on things like whether to build a new Field House had little or no impact on whether to replace the boiler or rebuild both the B and C buildings – these were all largely discrete items and repairs. And it took District 113 two full years of analysis and review merely to prioritize and develop a smaller, $89 million proposal – which was a much better, well-thought out plan than the one offered in 2011. And the plan passed by just 52% to 48%.

I’m not sure what a good Plan B looks like in the case of District 112. Prior to the completion of District 112’s analysis, I had hoped for a simpler solution that cost much less, shut a couple of elementary schools and included 2 middle schools. For me, this would be my “Plan B.”

However, after watching numerous meetings over the past two years, reviewing many documents and personally meeting with/challenging several 112 Board members, I don’t believe this option exists given our financial, programming and property constraints. Simply put, it’s an appealing illusion that we can come with an educationally equivalent plan – with 2 middle schools - that costs substantially less. Here’s why.

Fundamentally, the District’s plan is based on several criteria - (1) essentially keeping our education system exactly like it is now - class size limits, programming, teaching methodologies, dual language, etc., (2) following accepted architectural and educational conventions about how you rehab old buildings and construct new ones to provide a safe, high quality education, (3) not raising the operating levy (the amount we pay year-in, year-out to operate the schools) and (4) introducing full-day Kindergarten.

Based on these assumptions and the work of the District’s architects, Nagle Hartray, a 2 middle school model didn’t satisfy these criteria but a single middle school campus model – with a 5/6 building and a 7/8 building - did. Do I think a different Board, administration and architect could up with a workable 2 middle school model based on the assumptions used here? As no one has explained to me the flaw in Nagle Hartray’s analytical approach or has pointed out to me a metaphorical “Field House,” the answer is “No.”

If we want to save a substantial amount of money and/or incorporate a 2 middle school model in any Plan B, then it seems to me that at least some of these criteria need to be relaxed or eliminated. To start with, one would need to determine up front the maximum amount of money the community would be willing to spend. Then one would need to be willing to consider (1) modifying our current educational system (as defined above); (2) not necessarily following generally accepted architectural and educational conventions about building/rehabbing schools; (3) increasing the operating levy; and/or (4) not offering full-day Kindergarten.

And what mix of choices (financial and educational costs and benefits) would voters be prepared to accept? Put another way, what does a “No” vote on this referendum tell the Board about what the community wants in a “better plan”? Does it mean that the community has completely rejected a one middle school campus - regardless of location or cost? Does it mean they just want more investigation into other alternatives? Does it mean that any acceptable solution must have 2 middle schools? Does it mean that anything over $100 million is too much? Would an operating levy increase be acceptable? Could we do away with full day Kindergarten? I’m not sure how the Board moves forward with their analysis here - which, of course, doesn’t give me any confidence that a successful resolution will be found in the next couple of years. After all, it took District 113 two years to come up with a new plan that was merely based on prioritizing discrete projects – given the complexity involved here and that each of us wants something different, could we reasonably expect District 112 to come up with a better plan even in that time frame?

Ultimately, the question for undecided voters is “does it make sense to search for a better “Plan B” - given the very uncertain financial and educational outcome; the length of time it will take to come up with a plan, pass a referendum and implement it; and the cost of the uncertainty and disruption to your children and property value in the meantime?” Put another way, “are the incremental tax savings in some future Plan B (over the District’s plan) likely to be that significant and is the middle school campus idea really that bad that we should go down this road?” For me, the answer is clear – I’m ready to move forward and vote “Yes”.