McHenry County Blog

The Northwest Herald published a long letter of resignation from former Cary School District 26 School Board President David Ruelle.

He just resigned as the school district’s finances are tanking.

One item in the letter was Ruelle pointing out;

“For the third year in a row, the District exceeded its expenditure budget.”

He omitted how this is prohibited under the Illinois School Code. Must not have any meaningful consequential in the law.

So why would a board member, who became board president, allow such overspending with apparently inadequate accountability for Superintendent Brian Coleman?

Is it because his wife is a teacher in Cary District 26?

I’ve never gotten this “serve on the school board with a wife on your payroll” approach to public service.

It’s not exactly a phenomenon. Huntley School District 158’s past President Mike Skala has a wife who is a Huntley High School teacher. She was even co-president of the teachers’ union.

It always stuck me as a conflict of interest or at least an appearance of a conflict of interest.

Apparently Skala agreed, because, last time around, he didn’t participate in the union negotiations.

But, back to District 26.

You can find the salary/compensation info for the ex-school board president’s wife Elizabeth Rulle on the Champion web site.

There you can see;

Ruelle, Elizabeth A – $92,821

That is more than Thom Gippert , Principal of Maplewood School, is reported to make in the same database.

Gippert, Thomas R – $89,084

Ruelle voted to not close Maplewood school.

Mrs. Ruelle’s compensation also compares favorably with Principal Chad Nass at Briargate School in the same database.

Nass, Chad W – $88,864

The above is 2008 data.

District 26 has the highest average teachers’ salaries in McHenry County for all elementary or unit school districts, according to a chart published by the Northwest Herald.

That’s probably because of a school board caved a couple of years ago when the teachers went on strike.

Ruelle didn’t formally vote for his wife’s current teachers contract. He abstained.  He apparently did negotiate the contract’s compensation for the 2006-8 contract, plus terms and conditions.  The 2008-11 contract had the same terms and conditions as 2006-8, just different salary schedules.  He abstained on that vote, too.

It’s hard to believe this is perfectly legal in Illinois with all of our ethics and conflict of interest laws.

Wait a minute.

No, it isn’t.

The Illinois Education Association (the teachers’ union for most teachers outside of Chicago) is one of the most influential special interest groups in Illinois.

One of the provisions that Ruelle did not get removed from his wife’s teachers’ contract is this:

2. A post-retirement lump sum payment of $20,000 to be paid after the certified staff member’s last day of creditable service and after the last paycheck for regular earnings (after July 1st of retirement year) as a non-elective employer paid contribution into a post-retirement tax sheltered 403(b) annuity.

You can find it using this link. Go to electronic page 27.

Does any school district around, besides Cary, have this cash retirement wealth transfer?

Ruelle’s letter of resignation complaining about being fiscally responsible reminds me of a scene from the movie Casablanca. Maybe this dialogue will remind you of it:

Captain Renault:   “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on, in here!”Croupier walks over and gives Renault a lot of money.

Croupier:  “Your winnings, sir.

Captain Renault:   “Oh, thank you very much.”

It’s fair to say that Ruelle wanted his board to vote for another tax increase referendum.

When you have lump sum $20,000 give aways in a teachers’ contract, in view of the current economy, it’s easy to explain why residents would vote “No” to using their money to ratify such a policy.

= = = = =
For those who need more of an explanation about the dialogue from “Casablanca,” I offer this from MSNBC:

Remember when Captain Renault, looking for an excuse to close down Rick’s, declares himself “shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here,” just before the croupier hands him his winnings?

Ever since, people have used that double-adjective to describe the false innocence of public officials: those who know the score, benefit from the score, and then loudly condemn the score.

Yesterday, the first half of a report was published on what happened on the special ed front at the parents advisory committee meeting and the subsequent school board meeting. What follows, concludes that report.

Board member Aileen Seedorf questioned a disbursement to Scholastic Inc. for over fifty thousand dollars in the financial records. Scholastic provides Read 180.

Controller Mark Altmayer didn’t give it up and said he didn’t know.

With some persistence, other administrators fessed up and the cat was out of the bag.

Finally, Supt. Burkey confessed, saying 60 licenses had been purchased.

Curriculum director Mary Olsen said all of these licenses were to be used only for regular education students.

Tough to figure out how no licenses had been purchased a week earlier but we’ll wait for the response to the Freedom of Information request. And, if it’s unsatisfactory, I’ll file it again after January 1st when there will be actual penalties for those responding falsely.

One could still wonder why the Read 180 purchases were in a special ed classroom unpacked by a special ed student and given to a special ed student to take home to his parents.

Apparently at least one special ed student had been using the Read 180 program when none had been purchased for their use.

What the special ed parents asked for at the board meeting was

• Being able to make a presentation to the board on caseload staffing
• Parent participation on the committee coming up with revised ARRA funds spending recommendations

Seedorf tried to get the board and Burkey to agree to schedule a presentation by the parents at the next committee of the whole meeting.

Burkey and the board majority turned cold shoulders to both suggestions.

How unreasonable are such requests, considering how the Special Ed Moms have been treated this fall?

They are very reasonable.

In order to get the superintendent and 158 administrators to listen one apparently has to go door-to-door passing out flyers.

The Daily Herald pointed out how Burkey had “stone ears” in its article and how the parents distributed flyers door-to-door in order to stop this vote and get a revised spending list.

The Northwest Herald observed of the newest revision of how District 158 intends to spend the $1.6 million (which happened after the flyers hit door knobs):

“And the initiative for additional staff development –such as the opportunity to be trained in disability awareness –increased to $450,000 total.”

Parents told the board there had been other items purchased besides Read 180 and there was an internal memo indicating such.

As you might expect, administrators asked for a copy of their own memo, rather than offer to provide the memo to the board with an explanation.

Perhaps the memo has to surface publicly before its existence is confirmed by the administration.

Sort of like how the Read 180 licenses and materials weren’t purchased this year until a special ed parent brought the materials to a board meeting for show and tell.

District 158 is among the model local governments in revealing what will be discussed at their meetings. (In comparison, Crystal Lake reveals nothing more than its agenda and, then, not on a convenient basis.)

But with how it obtained the Read 180 licenses, which it apparently wants to finance with Federal stimulus money and which educational value is clearly experimental for special ed kids, “transparency” apparently means,

“Show us evidence of what you suspect and we’ll admit that’s what it is.”

Thank goodness for observant parents.

And others.

The Huntley School District 158 Board room was packed Thursday at 7 PM.

The only two empty seats were that of Board President Shawn Green and board member Kim Skaja. Skaja showed up after missing the academic spotlight and almost all of the parents’ public comments.  Green was absent, having told me that he would participate by phone if the special education agenda item were to be considered.

The parents’ advisory committee meeting on special ed had started at 6. It received record attendance. (Seen above are some of those who attended the July 14th meeting of the same committee.)

Many special ed teachers were in attendance.

At issue were staffing recommendations that has caseloads close to the legal maximum limit, for example, for speech pathologists in five schools.

The plan proposed by the administration for formal adoption has the burden being placed on individual teachers to prove they have too large of a caseload before adequate staffing is considered to meet the needs of the children.

“Prove it! with you doing all of the work” is apparently Human Resources Chief Lauren Smith’s new idea of working together and “collaborating” with the teachers.

The first item discussed by Special Ed Director Cheryl Kalkirtz was her suggestion to not have a December 10th parents advisory committee meeting.

She asked for a show of hands of those favoring not having the meeting.

The only hands raised were the administrators’.

When then asked how many wanted to have the meeting, a roomful of hands went up.

The attempt to gain approval to cancel the meeting at which the Federal stimulus ARRA IDEA spending would be discussed with parents failed. Apparently, their kids education was considered more important than Christmas parties.

One parent in 158, who is a special ed teacher in another district, made this point about the reading programs proposed to be financed with Federal funds:

“What are we doing to make sure it’s being implemented properly?”

When Kalkirtz seemed to try to brush off the point, wanting to move onto a different topic, a Special Ed Mom from the back of the room spoke up:

“I don’t think you heard what she was saying!”

It was fairly obvious from comments made by some of the teachers that this may have been the only time all of these teachers were in a room and asked or allowed to voice their opinions and ask questions about how the $1.6 million dollars should be spent.

It certainly did not appear that administrators had asked the teachers for their input on the revised list of expenditures.

Strange that teachers may have to attend public meetings if they want to “collaborate” with administrators on a group basis. Wouldn’t you think that would be included in the union contract?

Parents learned that, contrary to what Supt. John Burkey said at the previous board meeting, 60 Read 180 licenses had already been purchased for Heineman school. (When Burkey challenged a Special Ed Mom to file a Freedom of Information request on the topic the Thursday before last, I did. I’ll let you know when I get the response.)

The Moms knew this because, apparently as part of class time, a special ed student was assigned to unpack the boxes which were stacked up in a special ed room.

In addition, a special ed student received the Read 180 materials to take home so the parents could see what was going to be used for that student.

More tomorrow.

Door-to-door leafleting.

Pretty basic politics.

And some Special Education Moms were doing it this afternoon in neighborhoods around town.

With a photo of Superintendent John Burkey, taken by yours truly, the broadside’s headline was

Our Superintendent wants special ed money spent on filing cabinets to help our kids learn.

Bet your Superintendent doesn’t do that!

In the leaflet seen above (click to enlarge), the Moms talk of politely asking, pleading, literally begging, and almost groveling to get Burkey to listen.

“It’s gone from giving us the stone-ears treatment to where Supt. Burkey now wants our board to approve nonsense.”

Citing the approximately $100,000 being spent on filing cabinets, office supplies and equipment, plus an expensive reading program the Moms don’t want, they explain that still there is “no option B and option C alternatives.“

“We disagree with Supt. Burkey’s priorities and judgment about spending large sums of special ed money that won’t help special ed children learn. This is personal for us. It’s our children. But frankly in our opinion, many of his recommendations reflect terrible educational judgment and a callous insensitivity to our children’s learning needs.”

One is tempted to ask, “How do they really feel?”

The message asks for people to attend Thursday night’s meeting at 7 and gives email addresses:

• sgreen@district158.com
• kgentry@district158.com
• ddrzal@district158.com
• ptroy@district158.com
• aseedorf@district158.com

Despite the hopeful words from board member Kim Skaja, the Moms seem to write her and fellow veteran official Mike Skala off, referring to them as “rubber stamp board members,” who “want to give Supt. Burkey another long contract with lots more money.”

This is the firth and final installment of a too long article about the discussion of spending $800,000 of special ed money allocated to Huntley School District 158 this year as a result of the Federal stimulus program. The other stories are here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4.

Board member Paul Troy brought up the question of staff training. He found $8,000 explicitly listed.

It turns out there is more, but it was not identified in the budget document. It was bundled with other identified expenditures in various line items.

Clearly exasperated by this point, Superintendent John Burkey asked,
“What do you think it should be?

“Tell us.

“We’ll make it look like that.”

Troy suggested 5%, saying he “would also like to see the general education teachers get it, too.”

“It’s already there,” Burkey replied.

“I want the regular education staff to understand the needs of the special ed (kids),” interjected veteran board member Mike Skala. “They don’t have a complete understanding of what it means to be special ed.

“If you tell me that’s what’s going to happen, great, and I’ll theoretically hold you accountable.”

“If that’s what you want, it’s not in here,” Burkey observed.

“General teachers don’t know what to do when a kid has a melt down,” Seedorf said. “Don’t call the kid a name. Don’t insult the kid. Is it impossible to send down a memo that says, ‘If you have a problem with a kid, call Cheryl and (another person)?”

Assistant Special Ed Director Karen Alward revealed that she was “doing Special Ed 101 classes” in each school.

As the meeting moved toward its conclusion, Skaja concluded, “Everything we’ve brought up has been addressed.”

Kevin Gentry disagreed.

“I think people want a different allocation, but can’t (come up with it).”

“I don’t feel comfortable spending $500,000 on Read 180,” Don Drzal added.

Referring back to Comptroller Mark Altmayer’s statement that he would order the Read 180 licenses as soon as the plan were approved, Skaja said,

“Do it slowly, then go forward with more.

“As soon as it’s approved Mr. Altmayer said he’ll filed a purchase order.

“That’s the one item I wouldn’t approve.”

“I’m fine,” Troy said, seemingly changing his mind after Skala spoke.

Maybe someone else can figure out how the board will vote when given more detail in the face of a December 1st filing opportunity, but I have no idea.

What I took away from the meeting was that there were not a lot of suggestions the special ed staff professionals made that could not be fulfilled with the money that was available.

If some Read 180 money were to be eliminated by the board, it made me wonder if the Special Ed Moms, who were filled with suggestions at the July 14th town hall-style meeting with administrators and board members I attended, might come up with their own priority list for spending a couple of hundred thousand dollars.

Surely, some of them know enough about the subject to make rational suggestions of what would help their children.

= = = = =

Huntley School District 158 School Board member Paul Troy is on top.  Superintendent John Burkey can be seen just below.

Five of the seven school board members can be seen in the next shot, plus Supt. Burkey.  From left to right are Don Drzal, Paul Troy, Shawn Green, John Burkey, Kevin Gentry and Kim Skaja.  Hidden behind Skaja sits Mike Skala.  Aileen Seedorf sits to the right of Troy.

This is the fourth installment of the discussion last Thursday night at the Huntley School District 158 board meeting on spending Federal stimulus money under the IDEA grant program. Here are links to the prior stories: Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.

When we left off, newly-elected member Don Drzal was trying to find out what the special ed administrators would spend money now destined for Read 180, if the hoard decided to cut it back to a pilot program.

Assistant Special Education Director Karen Alward seemed to have already provided the answer in an interchange with board member Kevin Gentry.

Gentry was trying to find out how the special ed administrators had gotten down to the $800,000 in first year money that is available.

“We really didn’t have to say, ‘No,” to anything,” Alward told the board. (Alward is the one looking at the camera in this only shot that got all four special ed administrators’ faces.)

Later it was explained that some suggestions, like providing gift cards to students for accomplishing something, were made that just were not legal under the guidelines.

Board member Aileen Seedorf, who seems to be the patron saint of the Special Ed Moms waiting until last.

“I believe the parents would have expected something in this year,” she said.

“Is that correct?”

“Yes, “The Moms answered.

Seedorf asked about the classroom furniture. Board President Shawn Green had a similar concern.

Kevin Gentry took offense at what he thought was a Seedorf’s accusation that regular students were treated better than special ed students.

“If you’re right, we need to do something about it.”

Green agreed: “If you have specific concerns they need to be addressed?”

Seedorf repeated several times that the committee she has proposed could have investigated that line of though, but the board majority had decided not to allow it.

She burrowed in on Read 180 and took a jab at one of her fellow board members.

“I’m not interested in running for senate.”

“I’m not interested in running for senate either,” Gentry replied.

“Good for you,” Seedorf countered.

Seedorf wanted to know if the Read 180 pilot program “could be pared down to 15-20.

“How many do you need to buy to do a small study before you drop big bucks on this?”

Special Ed Director Cheryl Kalkirtz replied that they could also be used as part of an RIT initiative, that is, with at risk kids.

“Let’s get 30 licenses and see how the kids do,” board member Paul Troy added. He suggested that would be better than “buying 360 license today.”

“We need to give direction to the administration and move forward,” long-time board member Mike Skala said.

“We can’t just buy 360 licenses and go forward not caring whether they work or not,” Troy interjected.

“If the administration wants to change it and come back to us, I’m fine with that…but not the opposite,” Skala replied.

The board decided to ask for more detail on the Read 180 line item.

“We all trust you. You’re all professionals,” veteran board member Kim Skaja added.

More tomorrow.

This is the third part of a rather exhaustive article about what happened at last Thursday’s Huntley School District 158 school board meeting concerning how the district is going to spend the first half of a $1.6 million grant from Congress’s Stimulus Plan designated for special education.

In Part 1 and Part 2, McHenry County Blog looked at the public comments of Special Ed Moms. We conclude those comments here and move onto the reaction of the school board members.

Referring back to what had been presented at the town hall meetings in mid-July, she observed,
“It looks to me like you’re going through what you originally proposed.

“It isn’t about the money. It’s about our children. It’s about getting the right tool.”

Money for staff development came up again.

Newly elected board members Don Drzal and Paul Troy had tough questions.

Toward the end of a night in which the discussion on this subject ended about 11:15, Superintendent John Burkey was virtually pleading to be given direction.

“If you don’t want to see it, we’ll take it out,” the superintendent said.

The general consensus was the newer board members wanted greater detail.

Drzal was the boldest.

He pointed out that “the previous Special Ed Director clearly said this was to provide another program.”

The emphasis seemed to be on the word “another.”

“I don’t feel comfortable spending $500,000 on Read 180. I don’t think having the amount of money allocated to Read 180 is acceptable,” Drzal concluded.

For illustration purposes, he compared spending $40,000 on one reading program, $50,000 on another versus $500,000 for Read 180.

“That seems out of whack.”

The amount cited included a second reading program called System 44.

But the cost and elements of the two programs were not spelled out in enough detail for questioning board members to wrap their arms around the proposal.

Earlier Troy made a point that seems elemental for any government expenditure, but is too often lacking:
“Are there criteria in place to evaluate the effectiveness into saying ‘Yes, it ’s worth going onto the next step?’”

Troubling to some members was a comment by Comptroller Mark Altmayer. He said that he would order all of the Read 180 licenses and spend the associated expenses immediately, if the board approved the Federal IDEA Stimulus Plan proposal.

“Don’t buy it,” a Mom behind me said audibly.

“You’re basically telling Shawn and I can’t vote for it,” Drzal concluded.

Drzal asked a logical budgeting question.

“If I don’t want to spend more than $80,000 for Read 180, do we have a plan for that (extra) money?”

Later he concluded, “There’s no Plan B.”

More tomorrow.

Yesterday, McHenry County Blog began a rather exhaustive report on Thursday night’s meeting of the Huntley School District 158 school board meeting on how to spend Federal Stimulus money earmarked for special education.

Today we continue the comments made by Special Ed Moms.

The plan would “continue to keep the district out of compliance,” Sara Deifucci charged.

“The district is so sensitive when it comes to regular students. It seems insensitive to special (needs) students.”

There was also this intriguing question:

“Has the district already purchased anything that parents aren’t aware of? Have you already purchased Read 180 licenses?”

“No,”

Superintendent John Burkey replied.

“If I FOI it, (will I find something)?”

“Do your FOIA (short for Freedom of Information request),” he said.

Past shyness was shed as one after another they worked up courage to speak in public about what they saw as poor judgment concerning where the money was to be spent.

Those with probing questions trained their sights on a computer assisted reading program called Read 180.

It is a program that is aimed at junior high kids. Late in the discussion it was reported that pilot program for sixty students had been conducted, but none of the students were special ed children. They were low level readers and, from the recommendation to roll out the program more widely, it must have been successful.

“It’s failed iin other districts,” another Mom said. She said her son, who has an Individual Education Plan (IEP) had told her he was going to start Read 180.

“Keep my son out of those things until it’s in his IEP,” she said firmly.

This mother even seems to have made the jump into political arena.

“We made choices by putting you in this spot. I wish I had gotten involved earlier.”

Huntley School District 158 Special Ed Moms poured in on during the public comment time before the school board Committee of the Whole meeting Thursday night.

By the time that part of the meeting was over at 11:15, there was no clear consensus among board members to approve the plan as presented. More detail was requested.

The Moms probably weren’t just irritated that the meeting started forty-five minutes late as a result of the board’s decision to expel a student for unspecified reasons.

They had done their homework, made possible by the school board’s having posted its board packet on the internet.

One after another they attacked various parts of the plan to spend Federal Stimulus money coming to help children with special needs.

There was a complaint that the gathering of information from staff and parents was inadequately promoted

One Mom took on the use of $80,000 for what seemed to be routine furniture purchases.

Another attacked Read 180:

“We don’t know this program will work for our kids.”

Taking up 43% of the $830,000 to be spent this year, “We don’t have any studies showing it will work on special needs students.”

Concerning staff development:

“I’m not really seeing that here.”

“It’s very tech heavy.”

“There are a lot of items that are very questionable.”

There was a toilet seat included.

“If we need that, we need that.”

In other words, why wait for Federal money to buy it?

“I don’t think the messages from the town hall came through on this list.”

More tomorrow.

We would like to think government employees wouldn’t take money away from special ed children and use it for regular education.

Especially when money is specifically designated for special ed use.

Even if the Federal law allows such a diversion (which it does—half can be diverted).

We’d also like to think elected officials wouldn’t allow such an abuse when brought to their attention.

Then there’s what is going on in Huntley District 158.

I wonder if it would be if school administrators or board members have a special needs child.

Board member Aileen Seedorf seems to understand the long standing law which says the district is required to provide an appropriate education to every child. At the July 14th town hall-style meeting, School Board member Shawn Green did express what I took to be sincere concern about how the Federal stimulus money on special education would be spent.

I have written about how the administrators have proposed how to spend the Federal Stimulus funds.

A lot of the money is still being recommended to expand a reading program used in regular ed which the special ed parents don’t want.

The moms and dads don’t want it because there is no vendor-independent research that shows it works with special ed children.

The attention spans required for the programmed instruction are about 20 to 30 minutes. That’s a long time for challenged kids.

It seems likely that the massive expenditure will be redeployed into regular student use when it becomes obvious that the program doesn’t provide much benefit tospecial ed students.

The special ed parents want programs that will work for their children.

From what I heard at the July 14th town hall-style meeting with administrators and school board members, those parents would give those decision-makers the old grade of “needs improvement.”

It would take quite a reporter to capture their disillusionment.  I surely am not skilled enough to convey it.

But, it is clear to me that administrators need to listen to the parents of special education children and not spend a huge sum on a reading program the parents don’t want and for which the parents can find no credible research that says will work.

I remember the education I received from a District 300 mother back in the 1970’s when special education laws were being crafted.  I remember her every time I drive past her Huntley Road home on the way to Spring Hill Mall.  She said to finance her son’s education at Summit School, they had subdivided their property and would sell of the lots.

Unfortunately, most of the parents with special ed kids in Huntley School District 158 don’t have similar resources.  If the Huntley School Board doesn’t provide for their children’s education, ones who might be able to cope in society will just “slip through the cracks,” as the trite cliche says.

It’s really much more serious than that.

Ask a parent.