Time for District 200 to act

Tuesday, January 29th, 2013 10:00 PM

We get that some members of the school board at Oak Park and River Forest High School still have a bitter taste in their mouths over a previous case of "Intergovernmental Agreements from Hell." That TIF agreement between the high school, the elementary schools and the Oak Park village government was a doozy of over-conceptualizing and under-clarifying and it led to a nasty lawsuit that we've long thought District 200 overplayed.

But we're over it and we expect the leaders of our public high school to get over it, too. That is, unless they're ready to say they'll never enter a collaborative agreement with other local taxing bodies again. Unless they're ready to say they're too hesitant to enter into a pact that is focused solely on the root cause of the greatest educational challenge the high school faces — that being the academic achievement gap between black and white students, between middle class and poorer students.

Last week the leaders of the Collaboration for Early Childhood came again to the D200 school board to answer questions about its bold and necessary plan to begin active, targeted outreach to Oak Park families with very young children who are at risk of falling behind academically and socially. Already the District 97 elementary schools and the village government are on board with funding for this initiative. And while the plan has supporters on the high school board, there is still something holding the board back. While we appreciate the school board's pointed questions and are impressed by the Collaboration leadership's ability to respond smartly, the time is here for OPRF to sign on as a full partner in this vital effort.

A segment of our youngest children fall behind before pre-K ever starts and by the time they stumble into the high school, the gap is nearly guaranteed. Finding a way to intervene early in these lives is essential. We know our high school has the financial wherewithal. We are certain that a better, clearer, more measurable pact can be forged among the funders and the Collaboration.

Now it is time to act. As D200 board member John Phelan said last week, the school should not miss its "window of opportunity" to invest in this effort.

Reader Comments

20 Comments - Add Your Comment

Comment Policy

drmr from Oak Park

Posted: February 26th, 2013 11:48 AM

The collaboration's cherry-picking of favorable study results,and ignoring widely accepted studies that show any gain from head start disappear by third grade just shows how desperate they are to manipulate District 200 into funding this wasteful and unnecessary program.The benefits cited by the collaboration are illusory ,if not imaginary.Not one cent of taxpayer funds(schools or village)should be thrown away on a social experiment that has been a failure since its' inception 40 years ago.

Speedway from Oak Park

Posted: February 7th, 2013 12:48 AM

I find it hard to believe that kindergarden age kids throughout the state are at that level. No wonder there is an achievement gap. It reminds me of those commercials where you teach your kids to read at 3 for $99.95.

Speedway from Oak Park

Posted: February 7th, 2013 12:43 AM

Kindergarden has really changed since I was there. We weren't expected to know anything but our name. Twenty years ago the expectation for going into kindergarden was count to 10, know your colors, and have some idea where A and Z were in the alphabet. Now kids are using Ipads, reading and spelling. cont.

Read the Proposal

Posted: February 6th, 2013 7:22 PM

If there is something that isn't being done and the Collaboration wants to do it, great. But to donate tax dollars to grow a private bureaucracy for the purpose of coordinating village, township, and district activities sounds nuts, especially on the scale being proposed. Other than professional development for caregivers, most of the proposal is about data collection and setting up meetings. None of the activities have specific dollars attached. Somebody's dreaming big - with our tax $$

Speedway from Oak Park

Posted: February 6th, 2013 6:21 PM

A directory of services is a nice idea which I'm sure ECC has, but it goes beyond that. I'm all for helping pre-school parents out but how much is this going to cost me $25./yr or $150./yr. The ECC directive is to increase it's funding every year to $1.2 million dollars. Be careful what you want and what you are forcing everyone to pay for forever.

Preschool parent

Posted: February 6th, 2013 4:04 PM

We're in that world right now, Read the Proposal. D-97 isn't responsible until they leave the state 0-3 system. The state has control over 0-3 testing and therapy for developmental delays, but you can also use private insurance. So it can be difficult figuring out which jurisdiction, who to talk to, depending on the child's age and circumstances. It would be helpful to families to have that info and resource in one place.

Read the Proposal

Posted: February 6th, 2013 3:42 PM

One of the things the Collaboration wants $$ for is to "disseminate widely the procedures for referrals to Early Intervention and District 97 Early Childhood Special Education". This is something the state already requires D97 to do. So is the Collaboration saying D97 isn't doing a good job? If D97 isn't doing a good job then D97 should be required to improve. Donating tax dollars to an outside organization to do D97's work doesn't seem to make sense.

Tired of It from OP

Posted: February 6th, 2013 6:08 AM

Not one additional dollar of taxes should go to this effort given the war chest that OPRF is sitting on. And who gets to use these new services? Who qualifies? What does "at risk" actually mean? Oh, and can we please set an actual measurable long-term goal for "the gap" and carefully track just how much is being paid to close it? I suspect it is a black hole without end....so, when do we say that the community and district have done all they can?? Where does parental responsibility start?

Speedway from Oak Park

Posted: February 6th, 2013 5:24 AM

Before we say "yes", I would like to know how much "yes" is going to cost property owners. Are the various boards going to spend taxpayer money then ask for an increase next year or are they going to reduce their spending on other budget items. Also, if we succeed in closing the gap, do we leave these children without the financial means to go to college? Maybe we taxpayers should considered all the aspects and how much we are willing to spend.

Mr. Middle

Posted: January 31st, 2013 3:19 PM

@ Actually. I agree with Tom. I have no issue for paying to increase these services. I also had no issue with the movement in the 1990 to have Illinois fund more education and remove local responsibility. I have no issue with a plan in Illinois to combine districts and more generally fund. I have an issue when we have the current system which reaches beyond its mission to fund. Where then is the line...it is always moving.

Actually

Posted: January 31st, 2013 2:24 PM

Thanks, Tom. I "get" the opposition to perceived domain-of-interest, but think the shared cost makes more sense than, say, the Village just outright funding a program. But it's really 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. It makes no difference as long as the kids are being taken care of.

Tom from River Forest

Posted: January 31st, 2013 1:49 PM

Actually - Can't speak for Mr. Middle, but I for one would be perfectly fine with either the Village or Township of OP paying for this program given that its beneficiaries will be entirely comprised of Oak Parkers. It is only fair.

Actually

Posted: January 31st, 2013 1:29 PM

Way to selfishly pass the buck, Mr. Middle. If you don't like the Dist 200 funding, then you'd be ok with the Village or Township introducing an Early Education tax to cover the whole cost since that would be an appropriate taxing body? Either way you pay.

Mr. Middle

Posted: January 31st, 2013 1:15 PM

@ Actually. You actually identified the issue. In Illinois we do not have funding that follows the child but specific district funding. All of those who support this miss the mission of a locally funded HS and what it is for. Because it is not funded by the State or the rest of society the board has the responsibility to fund only HS programs. The system requires that the Gap be funded elsewhere. If you do not like that, require the state to fund more like Dawn Clark Nescht wanted.

Actually

Posted: January 31st, 2013 12:48 PM

So we only care about the gap at our school? Not altogether in society? It doesn't matter where they come from or end up. But, if you must, the at-risk population in OP is larger than any single elementary school, larger than a single grade level, and would be about 1/4 of the HS. Some of those kids are going to end up staying in the district even if we're not catching all of the transfers.

OPRF Achievement Gap

Posted: January 31st, 2013 12:46 PM

"Concerned from River Forest" as hit the Nail on the Head! This is the missing piece to this well intended program. I am sure this is also why d200 is NOT jumping into support with all hands and feet. There is something here that we are NOT being given all the facts on. This is another reason the 15 people running for the SB have to be very well vetted at lots of public forums.

Concerned from River Forest

Posted: January 31st, 2013 12:32 PM

Actually, like I said, a worthy cause. But show me the numbers . You can't. How many kids at OPRF who are underperforming started their education as kindergartners in the district 97 or 90 school system? It doesn't help to close the gap if we are educating the wrong kids. If in the end most of the students are transferring in , late in the educational process we will not have closed the gap at OPRF!

Actually

Posted: January 31st, 2013 12:19 PM

Actually, the achievement gap at the high school WOULD be affected by the allocation of these funds to Early Childhood education. That's the whole point, in fact. 16% of the OP population is at-risk...800 kids or so. And the ROI for Early Education is actually greater than at any other point in a person's life...school or job training. Despite the fact that we spend the least on it. If you want to close the achievement gap, this is the way to do it.

Concerned From River Forest from River Forest

Posted: January 31st, 2013 11:41 AM

Early child education is a worthy cause, but show me matriculation data for preschool to high school for the population that would benefit. How many students come to D200 new to the district? Or as new students in middle school, too late already to close the achievement gulf that already exists. The achievement gap at the high school would not be affected by the allocation of these funds to Early Childhood edu. coordination. Use D200 funds for tutoring and curriculum dev to close the gap!

Lived here too long from Oak Park

Posted: January 30th, 2013 11:34 PM

Of course we should do something to help young children at risk. But where is the track record of even one successful program? Where is the data? Where is documentation of how D97 provides continued support once the kids come into the district? All I hear is that it (whatever is the problem) is the parents' fault. Of course if parents try to engage the district then they are "over-involved" parents who are "interferring" with the teachers' work. Can't have it both ways.

What's new on OakPark.com