McHenry County Blog

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.

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.”

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.

I went to one of the town hall meetings put on by Huntley School District 158 in mid-July.

Discussed were how the extra federal dollars for special ed from the Federal ARRA Stimulus Funds should be spent.

Parents had all kinds of practical suggestions on how the money should be spent to improve student learning.

It took months of waiting for top administrators to come up with their revised list.

Did the paid government officials listen?

Doesn’t look like it.

The parents are getting plenty of money recommended to be spent on the reading program.

But, they said they didn’t want the money spent on that.

Administrators are recommending among other things, the purchase of the items below for $80,550.

It reads more like an office equipment list not a special ed budget.

Almost ten grand for filing cabinets sticks out.
The whole list can be reviewed here.
Type in page 115 for the electronic page number after it downloads.  The download is about 31 Mb.  It may be slow.

Some of what you will see;

• Refrigerator for social workers, $200
• Tables for social workers, 15 @ $200   $3,000
• Printers for Speech Dept, 15 @ $500 each.  $7,500
• Printer for Speech Dept, 1 $1,000
• Laptops for Speech Dept, 2 @ $2,000 each   $4,000
• Computers for speech students, 10 @ $1000 each
• 6 locking lateral file cabinets, $4,800 at $800 apiece for Chesak School
• File cabinets for Conley School, $5,000
• Printers, administration building and high school, 10 @ $900 each  $9,000
• Printers, 2, Conley School  $700
• Printer ink, Conley School $400
• Ink Cartridges, Leggee School  25 at $50 each  $1,250
• Tables and chairs, Conley School $1,500
• Tables, 5 , Marlowe School $800
• Laser Printers, 5, Marlowe School $2,000
• Plenty of binders.  Conley $800.
• Copy machine and printer $1,600
• Laptops, 10 for Chesak School  $10,000
• Laptops, 10 for Heineman School  $10,000
• Laptop for conference room, Leggee School $1,000
• Laptop for conference room, Mackaben School $1,000
• 3 Laptops for students, Mackaben School $3,000
• Room dividers, Marlowe School $1,000
• Mileage reimbursement for staff $10,000

That’s not all, of course. Just a tad over $80,000.

$1.5 million came to the Huntley School District for special ed.

Want to see where the rest is going?

Take a look for yourself.

The special ed parents are.

I hope no Congressman or U.S. Senator representing this area brags about how all the money went to help special education students.

Without first informing the school board or parents, the Huntley School District has filed a plan with the Special Education District of McHenry County (SEDOM) outlining how Federal Stimulus money will be spent under the Individual Development Education Act (IDEA).

You remember that the administration recommended spending only half of the $1.6 million on what most people would consider special ed purposes.

The board, with administrators present, spent two nights getting input from parents.

I detected sincerity from Board President Shawn Green when he spoke of his concerns about that diversion of money from special ed kids.

Now, without board approval–at least in an open meeting–and with an unfilled promise for a parental survey (see below for what is contained on the bottom of minutes below; click to enlarge the image), a plan for how to spend the Federal funds has been filed in Woodstock.

ARRA Funds

• A survey was passed out to attendees and will also be on the district website. Staff and parents will have the opportunity to complete the survey online. Datesto be determined.
• Outcome of the survey should be ready for the October School Board meeting.

Supt. John Burkey had District 158 file a plan with SEDOM to spend the IDEA ARRA (American Recovery Re-Investment Plan) stimulus funds without as much as telling parents about last Friday’s deadline.

It is hard to believe that school administrators didn’t knew about the deadline and would be telling parents a survey would be taken, tempting them to think they would have input on such a plan.

The district hired a new attorney, a specialist in Special Ed, who promptly told parents how trust is important.

Maybe the trust speech should have been shared more broadly.

There are so many questions

• Whose name is on the document?
• Is it Director of Special Services Cheryl Kalkirtz’?
• Was Kalkirtz following orders about what was in the submission, risking insubordination if she didn’t send in the document as instructed? Or was she the author and decision-maker behind its entire content?
• Whose idea was it to keep the plan and its submission deadline secret from the board and parents?

Board President Green assured parents they would have input into any plan.

Since the parents’ survey has not been completed, it would seem that parental input has gone by the wayside.

But, since the plan hasn’t been made public yet, who knows?  Maybe some of the verbal advice from the Special Ed Moms and Dads was followed.

Keeping key information from the public was a cornerstone of the referendum tax hike deception of 2004.

Five years later, it appears similar practices live under a new administration.

As a former government official, I can tell you that individuals act with impunity when they are certain there will be no potential negative consequences if they get caught.  (If you need a high profile example, think of Governor Rod Blagojevich before his arrest.)

It seems to me that the school board has been hung out to dry…assuming they have not been informed of the content of the report.

Certainly, if the board majority has approved what has been submitted in their names, special ed parents will wonder when and where that approval occurred.

Any approval out of public view would challenge the mandate of the Open Meetings Act.
 
So, let’s assume the Open Meetings Act was obeyed.

Who, then, has concocted this secret plan?

Will that person or persons be punished or rewarded?

There does seem to be some irony that Federal government officials can’t keep a military recommendation about the need for more troops for Afghanistan a secret, yet Huntley’s school administration thinks it can keep a spending plan secret from residents until after going through the motions of taking a survey.

It will be interesting to see to school administrators explain the getting of input after, instead of before the plan was sent to SEDOM.

It will also be interesting to see whether newspapers’ editorial staffs give District 158 a pass, not to mention how reporters will cover the story.

The local expert on stadiums is McHenry’s Steve Stanek. He is a Research Fellow with the Heartland Institute.

When I read in Kevin Craver’s article in the Northwest Herald that the McHenry County Board is thinking of awarding the largest portion of the Federal stimulus bonds to the Woodstock baseball stadium folks, I thought of Stanek and asked for his opinion.

Just in case you are interested, here is the story I wrote the night the Woodstock City Council approved the proposal.

Here’s what Stanek has to say:

“I could quote dozens of economists and public policy researchers to show how bad it would be for the County Board to grant this greedy, self-serving request for $15 million of stimulus bonds for that baseball stadium. But I will instead quote the owners of a professional sports team:

“‘The financial issue is simple, and the city’s analysts agree, there will be no net economic loss if the Sonics leave Seattle. Entertainment dollars not spent on the Sonics will be spent on Seattle’s many other sports and entertainment options. Seattleites will not reduce their entertainment budget simply because the Sonics leave,’ the Soncis said in the court brief.” — Seattle Times, Jan. 18, 2008, regarding the NBA’s Super Sonics trying to break their stadium lease to move to another city.

“Imagine: The owners of the Seattle Super Sonics said, under oath in federal court, that Seattle would suffer no economic harm if the team were to leave the city. These same owners, when arguing for huge taxpayers subsidies for KeyArena in Seattle, said the team would bring tremendous economic benefits. But of course, when they made those claims, they were not under oath in a court of law.

“When I read about this request for stimulus bonds in the (Northwest) Herald this morning, I said to myself,

‘You’d think these people would have learned from the MCC baseball stadium fiasco.’

“But then I realized this has nothing to do with good economics or benefiting the community.

“This has to do with benefiting a handful of people with lots of money and friends in high places in this county, and with making a handful of people who cast themselves as community leaders feel good about themselves.

“I am especially disgusted with the McHenry County Community Foundation. I contacted them with information about how bad it is to use subsidies to support such facilities, and I received assurances this would be entirely privately funded. (See this article.)

“Now $15 million of stimulus bonds that have been made available by the government could go to this baseball team.

“To those few local officials who might actually care about benefiting the community, I say this would be a terrible waste of resources.

“Economic studies overwhelmingly conclude sports teams return virtually nothing to the economy and sometimes actually hurt the overall economy.

“That money could be loaned far more effectively to other businesses — businesses that have been in this county for years, paying every nickel of tax local government officials can squeeze from them.

“If they don’t believe me about the overwhelming agreement among researchers about how bad such proposals are, maybe they’ll believe this:

’With most empirical issues there’s lots of debate. Does the minimum wage cause unemployment? There’s lots of debate about that issue. Here there’s no debate.’ — Vanderbilt University economist John Siegfried regarding economists against sports subsidies, quoted in Boston Globe, March 19, 2006.”

= = = = =
All the photos were taken at the Woodstock City Council meeting when the proposal was approved 6-1. Top right, pointing at the plan for the stadium is Mark Houser, the man who refused to identify himself when he walked out of a secret meeting with the McHenry County College board. The MCC plan eventually died, of course. Below are Frontier League Commissioner Bill Lee and baseball team promoter Pete Heitman. The crowd that attended the Woodstock City Council meeting is seen at the bottom.

I would note that now the Democrats have two issues upon which to beat county board Republicans about the head–the upcoming Ridgefield train station vote and the baseball stadium bond vote.

Remember the

direct mail piece the Democrats put out last fall (click to enlarge) ?

I am sure the Dems will top this piece, if the county board allocates more than half of the bonds allocated for private enterprise in McHenry County to the Woodstock baseball stadium.

And think of the mailing that could be made to every small business in McHenry County:

Couldn’t get a loan last year?

The McHenry County Board could have helped you, if (you fill in the blank).

In case you have forgotten how good the “Monopoly” piece was, talk a look at

McHenry Dems Attack Republican Monopoly

Democrats Go for Republican Vulnerabilities – 1

Democrats Go for Republican Vulnerabilities – 2

Democrats Go for Republican Vulnerabilities – 3

Democrats Go for Republican Vulnerabilities – 4

County Board Plans to Buy Land to the North

Democrats Go for Republican Vulnerabilities – 5

How Is Your Town Ranked by Local Democrats?

That’s what State Rep. Lou Lang (D-Skokie) said he was going to tell McHenry County Democrats at their central committee meeting Wednesday night.

Lang is a 22-year member of the Illinois House and Mike Madigan’s floor leader.

“I’m involved in a lot of noise on the floor,” he said.

“We just got through five years of a governor who didn’t understand his job. I’m not just talking the criminal charges.”

Lang talked about the impeachment trial, observing that there had been a lot of talk about it in the back rooms for a long time.

“One who did not talk about it quietly in the back rooms was your own State Rep. Jack Franks.

“I’d prefer to have taken him out (in an election). Impeaching a governor isn’t too good for your party.

“Democrats were moving forces in cleaning up our own act, in cleaning up Springfield,” said one of the members of the House Impeachment Committee.

“While it looked like fun, it was not fun.

“This is the most important time I’ve spent in the legislature.

“Governor (Pat) Quinn takes over…at the worst possible time.

“(We are in) unprecedented fiscal crisis in the state. All fifty states (are in the same condition).”

Referring to Quinn, Lang said, “He’s been practicing for this job for a very long time. He wakes up as Lieutenant Governor and went to sleep as Governor.”

Lang praised the courage of Quinn for proposing an income tax increase.

“It took a significant amount of political courage.”

“We must do something to maintain the level of services,” was the way Lang characterized Quinn’s motivation.

Lang told how the Federal government made it impossible to use most of the stimulus money to fill the $6-11 billion budget hole. Congress wrote into the law that Medicaid payment cycles had to be lowered from Illinois’ 90-days to 30-days.

“All that was left was the human service programs.”

He pointed out that when human service agencies faced a 50% cut in subsidies that “doesn’t equal 50% of the cost because of fixed costs.”

“I voted for the income tax.”

Lang was one of 42 Democrats who voted for it.

“Jack Franks, my very good friend, didn’t vote for it. He had legitimate, thoughtful reasons.”

“Dozens who voted, ‘No,’ did so just to protect their next election.

“Jack Franks is my good friend, but at least he had a reason.

“There are so many who did not.

“We did have thirteen more people (Democrats) ready to vote for an income tax increase,” Lang added.

Doing the addition, that meant the Democrats had 55 of the needed 60 votes to pass an income tax. Lang said that those 13 saw no reason to expose themselves to political challenge, if the bill were not going to pass.

Tomorrow: “Twelve Brave Souls.”

The next day: “More About the Income Tax Fight.”

= = = = =
In the photograph of the three men during the question and answer session, you see, from left to right, Mark Freund, John Darger and Jonathan Farnick

The patriotic decor of Crystal Lake’s 1776 restaurant was an ideal setting for Wednesday night’s meeting of the McHenry County Young Republicans.

It was so much more appropriate that the little room in the Pizza Hut basement outside the men’s and women’s restrooms where I remember the YR’s once met back in the 1970’s.

The main speaker was U.S. Senate candidate Ed Varga, a resident of Richmond and a ten-year member of the McHenry County Board of Health.

Varga was upbeat, having just been invited yesterday to give a five minute talk in Springfield to the Illinois Republican County Chairman’s Association at 10 today.

He previewed the speech on the YR’s.

Varga described himself as a 42 year old engineer who was a single parent of an 11-year old son who had lost his health insurance last year. His father emigrated from Europe.

He described his greatest achievement in his pubic service as

“Our leaders in Washington, D.C., have forgotten how to listen,” he continued.

“People are speaking, but people in in Washington aren’t listening.”

Varga outlined his “core values:”

• Pro-life
• 2nd Amendment supporter
• In favor of state’s rights
• Opposed to national health insurance
• Favors a strong, well-equipped military
• Opposed to cap and trade
• Supports the military’s patrolling our borders
• Opposed to devaluation of the dollar caused by the Stimulus Package
• Opposed to global environmental standards

From his hand out, I see Varga is [Mistake originally published follows: "also opposed to." Correction has been inserted following this parenthesis.] in favor of same sex unions. (Click to enlarge the image.)

After Varga’s short speech, YR President Bryan Javor announced the group now has 726 members and the goal of activating 10% of that number.

One of the on-going projects is to notify Young Republicans who live in a precinct which now had no elected GOP precinct committeeman and encourage them to run for the office.

Javor then called on heads of committees for reports.

Maybe you’ll read it here first. Increases in money to local school districts have been decided.

The information is online at the State Board of Education’s web site.

Begin the gnashing of teeth.

Or will it be sighs of relief?

Some school superintendents preferred to pretend the $160 increase per student was going to be zero.

Result?

Outlook “bleak.”

When you pretend it’s zero then you can publicly say the outlook is “bleak.”

I was at a meeting last week where the special ed parents weren’t buying into Huntley Supt. John Burkey’s desire to appropriate $800,000 of IDEA (special ed) federal stimulus funds to balance his proposed budget.

By my quick math, the foundation level increase is more than $1.25 million for Huntley School District 158.

This is a far cry from the “zero” that board members approved in the district’s preliminary budget.

And, this is not the first time a school district has predicated actions on no increase in state aid to education.

Remember the last District 300 referendum?

Now, the cat’s out of the bag.

The foundation level increase is $160 per student.

Unrealistic projections are just that.

There is nothing “fiscally conservative” about being purposely unrealistic.

The McHenry County Board is being so much more transparent that the McHenry County College Board.

When the MCC Board was trying to get public money to finance baseball promoter Pete Heitman’s team, it did not require a list of investors in the Frontier League team.

Click on the image below and you will see that the McHenry County Board is requiring that information to be made public.

So, should, per chance, the most recent iteration of Pete Heitman’s team seek public financing for its baseball stadium, you and I will get to learn who the investors are.

And, if any of the owners make campaign contributions, we eventually will be able to find out to and from whom.

Congratulations to the McHenry County Board for instituting the transparency so lacking at McHenry County College.

There is one question that it might be useful to ask which is not on the questionnaire yet:

Have any of the owners been convicted of criminal offense and, if so, what was (were) the offense(s)?