Referendum an Opportunity to Look Forward: Letter

The following letter was written and submitted by Dan Struck.

With all the benefits that will be available to our community if the District 112 Referendum passes, it is a shame that unfounded claims continue to be raised in opposition. These myths – as typified by recently publicized comments from a former Highland Park mayor – do not withstand a reality check.

Assertion: “This plan is wrong; it will dismantle the unique and brilliant neighborhood schools that have served us well. … We will lose the charm and the educational experience of neighborhood schools that have made Highland Park the envy of communities throughout the area.”

Reality Check: Our community’s schools indeed have an illustrious history of educating generations of children. But instead of resting on past laurels, we must respond to today’s challenges and prepare for tomorrow. Our schools have been great not because of the location of the buildings but because of the character, commitment and creativity of our teachers, children, parents and community. The feeling of neighborhood comes from being involved and engaged, not just physical proximity. Our schools will be an integral part of our neighborhoods no matter where they are located within the community. But the existing buildings are becoming ever more costly to patch-up and are incompatible with modern teaching techniques. Aging and outdated buildings are the envy of no one: an environment that allows our outstanding teachers to do what they do best and to engage our students will be the envy of other communities.

Assertion: “… [M]ore residents than ever have told me they will be forced out of our community because they cannot afford the taxes. Your referendum will cause a flight out of town and will make it almost impossible for new families to move here. …”

Reality Check: Yes, property taxes will increase if the referendum passes – for a home with a $300,000 assessed value, the annual tax increase will be approximately $360.

With the plan, the tax rate for District 112 will be on a par with comparable communities.

Unlike neighboring communities, however, we, along with future residents, will enjoy the benefits of a District that is stable and has facilities that will make it easier for our teachers to engage our children with team-based teaching and learning approaches.

A “no” vote inevitably also will result in tax increases. Life and safety repairs can be financed by direct tax increases. The piecemeal repair and reconfiguration of aging facilities may well require multiple referenda, each bringing tax increases.

When all is said and done, what will be more appealing (and hence beneficial to property values) to young couples and families considering moving here: certainty that the community is committed to excellence in education and has acted decisively to maintain that excellence or the uncertainty that will result from kicking the can down the road?

Assertion: “Your plan is flawed. First, we do not want a “big box” middle school on the west side.” This is the least desirable location from the standpoint of accessibility and safety. Secondly, only one middle school should be closed and the others should be renovated. …

Reality Check: The approach described above was considered and rejected because it was too expensive and did not provide sufficient operational savings. The existing middle schools lack the footprint needed for expansion and lack the space for both outdoor activities and the implementation of an effective traffic plan. There is no benefit in rehashing unrealistic proposals.

The proposed middle school will not be a so-called big box. The team approach that is a hallmark of the new middle school is the opposite of a big box. The school will contain separate wings operating as separate schools for grades 5-6 and 7-8. Each grade will be in a “building” shared with the grade with which students are most developmentally and socially compatible. The shared spaces will include facilities, such as a functional auditorium and athletic facilities, which would not be feasible or cost-effective at the existing schools. This will give our children the feel of their own small school while also providing the educational and extracurricular resources and opportunities of a larger school.

Nor will the grades be monolithic. Each grade will be composed of several teams of up to 150 students. Each team will have its own core of teachers with its own pod of classrooms and collaborative spaces. In essence, each team will have its own village, providing a space that will be a student’s “home” within the school. Students will not spend their days navigating hallways to get from one end of the building to the other; rather, they will spend their days with their team in a setting that will encourage collaboration and exploration. This team approach also will make it easier for teachers to differentiate and respond to the individualized needs and abilities of students.

Assertion: “The $198 million price tag is excessive. You are among the richest districts in America. With more than $64 million in annual tax revenues, and a little more than 4000 students, you should do a better job of budgeting.”

Reality Check: The plan is the result of years of study and compromise that balances fiscal prudence with the desire for educational excellence. The plan before voters is the outcome of cutting away millions of dollars in expenses from earlier plans. The “price tag” reflects a cautious and prudent approach, including substantial contingencies. If the work is delivered under budget, that money will not be spent. Additionally, the District has selected a construction team that has had success – including at District 113 – in completing complex school construction projects within budget and on time. These are not mere partisan statements, they are facts relied upon by one of the community’s most respected impartial voices, the League of Women Voters, when it endorsed the referendum.

Suggesting that the District is “rich” is an irresponsible misstatement. The District is stretched to its limits and it faces further strain as it tries to maintain an aging physical plant. The district’s financial trajectory is unsustainable. But it is a fallacy that the District has been profligate. In recent years the District has gone through several difficult and painful rounds of cost-cutting and there is not “fat” to be cut. For example, the District must comply with a multitude of unfunded mandates, which often protect the most vulnerable students. These expenses are not excess, they are vital services that affect actual children and families in our community. Of course, the single biggest expense of the District is also its greatest resource – its teachers. Our teachers have made difficult compromises in recognition of the financial dilemma facing the District. And now, the NSEA, the bargaining representative of our teachers, has endorsed the referendum.

Assertion: “There is tremendous talent in this community that can help decrease the costs of renovating and bring the referendum to a reasonable cost.”

Reality Check: There District has relied on the tremendous talent in the community. The plan is the result of years of study, the findings of multiple committees composed of community volunteers, the review of dozens of alternate plans, numerous opportunities for community input at workshops and listening sessions and open invitations for the submittal of other ideas. The plan presented to voters is the result of the winnowing of costs and ambitions and the product of difficult choices and compromises reached by teachers, administrators and a committed group of community volunteers -- including our neighbors who voluntarily took on the thankless task of serving as School Board members. The plan is the result of a determined effort to develop a cost-effective and achievable solution that is consistent with the goal of providing an outstanding education to our children. It is unfair to denigrate the hard work that has been done with the facile critique that more study is always possible.

We have an opportunity to work together as a community to position our schools to meet the challenges of today and to prepare for tomorrow. It would be a disservice to squander that chance. It is time to put our schools and our community on a stable path to the future by voting “Yes.”