More McHenry County Blog

By a vote of 78-15, the United States Senate confirmed General Michael Hayden as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

WGN-TV called it a "landslide vote."

It seems like a lot of Democrats in the Senate had a miraculous change of heart since their original outcry at, gasp, a military man taking control of the civilian syy agency. Of course, the General played a similar role at the civilian National Security Agency.

I wonder if their secret briefing resulted in a growing of new spines or whether, when the original opponents heard what the United States is up against, they decided they did not want to be blamed for the next 9/11.

On May 11th, the Northwest Herald advised,

Air Force General Michael Hayden is not the right choice to lead the CIA. President Bush needs a critical thinker in this position, not another "yes" man.

Click to enlarge the editorial.

Senators Dick Durbin and Barack Obama followed the Northwest Herald's advice, even if the U.S. Senate, as a whole, did not.  

Here are Intercounty's contributions to politicians in the order in which they were given. Think of it as a daisy chain from which some meaning might be derived.

Contributed By Amount Received By Description

Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $250.00
7/23/1994 Individual Contribution
Friends of Saviano

Intercounty Title Co 120 W Madison
Chicago, IL 60602 $700.00
7/25/1994 Individual Contribution
Aldo DeAngelis, PA

Intercounty Title 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $260.00
8/4/1994 Individual Contribution

Steczo Citizens Comm
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $600.00
8/9/1994 Individual Contribution

Friends of Lee Daniels
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,000.00
9/20/1994 Individual Contribution

Citz For Joseph Kotlarz
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St, Ste 400
Chicago, IL 60602 $500.00
10/13/1994 Individual Contribution

Citizens for Jim Edgar
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St, Ste 400
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,000.00
10/21/1994 Individual Contribution

Citizens for Jim Edgar
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,250.00
11/5/1994 Individual Contribution

Citizens for Jim Meyer
Intercounty Title Co 120 W Madison
Chicago, IL 60602 $500.00
11/9/1994 Individual Contribution

Citizens for Blagojevich
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $500.00
11/14/1994 Individual Contribution

House Republican Campaign Comm
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $500.00
3/16/1995 Individual Contribution

Friends of Lee Daniels
Intercounty Title 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $500.00
4/5/1995 Transfer In

James Pate Philip Campaign Fund
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $500.00
6/23/1995 Individual Contribution

Citizens for Jim Meyer
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $500.00
7/6/1995 Individual Contribution

Friends of Saviano
Intercounty Title Co Of Il James Wallun
120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $400.00
7/7/1995 Individual Contribution

Citizens for Dart
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $150.00
8/16/1995 Individual Contribution

Citizens for Burzynski
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $150.00
8/24/1995 Individual Contribution

Committee to Elect Jay C Hoffman
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,100.00
8/24/1995 Individual Contribution

Friends of Lee Daniels
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,000.00
8/28/1995 Individual Contribution

House Republican Campaign Comm
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,000.00
9/26/1995 Individual Contribution

Citz For Joseph Kotlarz
Intercounty Title Co Of Il Susan Polozo
120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,000.00
10/6/1995 Individual Contribution

Friends of Michael J Madigan
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $500.00
1/22/1996 Individual Contribution

House Republican Campaign Comm
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $600.00
1/24/1996 Individual Contribution

House Republican Campaign Comm
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,000.00
1/24/1996 Individual Contribution

House Republican Campaign Comm
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,500.00
2/26/1996 Individual Contribution

Citizens for Churchill
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 1204 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $300.00
3/13/1996 Transfer In

Citizens for Beaubien
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,000.00
4/8/1996 Individual Contribution

Citz For Joseph Kotlarz
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $5,000.00
6/28/1996 Individual Contribution

Friends of Lee Daniels
Intercounty Title Co Sas Pac 120 W Madison 8th Fl
Chicago, IL 60602 $2,500.00
9/25/1996 Transfer In

Citizens for Emil Jones
Intercounty Judicial Sales Corp 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $200.00
9/26/1996 Individual Contribution

Arthur L Berman Campaign Fund
Intercounty Judicial Sales Corp (Probably unrelated, but at the same address) 120 W Madison
Chicago, IL 60602 $500.00
10/4/1996 Individual Contribution

Friends Of Howard W Carroll (Probably unrelated, but at the same address)
Intercounty Title Co 120 W Madison
Chicago, IL 60602 $5,000.00
11/1/1996 Individual Contribution
Aldo DeAngelis, PA

Intercounty Natl Title Comp Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $300.00
8/1/1997 Individual Contribution
Citizens for Bill Mahar Jr

Intercounty Natl Title Ins Co 120 W Madison Ste 800
Chicago, IL 60602 $250.00
8/20/1997 Individual Contribution
Volunteers for Bergman

Intercounty Title Co Of Il Terry Cornell
120 W Madison St Ste 800
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,000.00
8/22/1997 Individual Contribution

Friends of Michael J Madigan
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,100.00
8/25/1997 Individual Contribution

Friends of Lee Daniels
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $200.00
8/26/1997 Individual Contribution

Citizens for Churchill
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,000.00
8/26/1997 Individual Contribution

Citizens for Rauschenberger
Intercounty Natl Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,000.00
9/2/1997 Individual Contribution

Friends of Debbie Halvorson
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,000.00
9/2/1997 Individual Contribution

House Republican Campaign Comm
Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,650.00
9/8/1997 Individual Contribution
Citizens for Jim Meyer

Intercounty Title Co Of Il Terry Cornell
120 W Madison St Ste 800
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,000.00
9/16/1997 Individual Contribution
Friends of Michael J Madigan

Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $250.00
9/18/1997 Individual Contribution
Friends of Saviano

Intercounty Natl Title Ins Co 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,400.00
9/19/1997 Individual Contribution
Citizens for George Ryan

Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,000.00
9/24/1997 Individual Contribution
Dan Rutherford Campaign Comm

Intercounty Natl Title Ins Co 120 W Madison St Ste 800
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,600.00
10/22/1997 Individual Contribution
Citizens to Re-Elect Thomas J Walsh

Intercounty Title Co 120 W Madison
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,000.00
10/29/1997 Individual Contribution
Committee to Elect Rickey Hendon

Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $250.00
11/7/1997 Individual Contribution
Citizens for Churchill

Intercounty Title Co Of Il 120 W Madison 800
Chicago, IL 60602 $250.00
11/11/1997 Transfer In
Citizens for Dudycz

Intercounty Natl Title Ins Co Operating Acct
120 W Madison St Ste 800
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,500.00
3/13/1998 Individual Contribution
Jesse White For Secretary Of State, Inc

Intercounty Natl Title Ins Co 120 W Madison St
Ste 800
Chicago, IL 60602 $500.00
8/1/1998 Individual Contribution
Friends of Saviano

Intercounty Natl Title Ins 120 W Madison #800
Chicago, IL 60602 $5,000.00
8/7/1998 Individual Contribution
Committee to Elect James A Deleo

Under "Independent Trust” $500 to Citizens for Governor George Ryan
on September 22, 1998.

Under “Jack Hargrove” $2,000 October 17, 1997, to Poshard for Governor.

Intercounty Title Co Il 120 W Madison St
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,000.00
11/16/1998 Individual Contribution
Dan Rutherford Campaign Comm

Intercounty National Title Ins. Co. 120 W. Madison St. #800
Chicago, IL 60602 $289.00
6/14/1999 In-Kind Contribution
Citizens for Jim Meyer 5 CD disk player

Intercounty National Title Insurance Company 120 West Madison Street
Suite 800
Chicago, IL 60602 $250.00
10/27/1999 Individual Contribution
Friends for Renee Kosel

Intercounty National Title Ins. Co., Cornell 120 W. Madison
Ste 800
Chicago, IL 60602 $500.00
11/4/1999 Individual Contribution
Citizens to Re-Elect Thomas J Walsh

Intercounty Title Company 120 West Madison
Suite 800
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,000.00
12/20/1999 Individual Contribution
Ned Mitchell Campaign Committee

Intercounty Title Company of IL 120 West Madison Street
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,000.00
12/31/1999 Individual Contribution
Dan Rutherford Campaign Comm

Intercounty Judicial Sales Corp (Probably unrelated, but at the same address) 120 W Monroe St
Chicago, IL 60602 $250.00
9/5/2001 Individual Contribution
Skokie Caucus Party

Intercounty Judicial Sales Corp 120 W Monroe St
Chicago, IL 60602 $500.00
8/19/2002 Individual Contribution
Skokie Caucus Party

Intercounty Judicial Sales (Probably unrelated, but at the same address) 120 W Madison
#718
Chicago, IL 60602 $1,000.00
1/16/2006 Individual Contribution
Lang for Committeeman

To return to McHenry County Blog, click here.

Among the $1,000 recipients were

Friends of Michael J. Madigan in 1995, plus $500 in 1996
Committee to Elect Ricky Hendon in 1997
Dan Rutherford Campaign Committee in 1998 and in 1999
Citizens for Joseph Kotlarz in 1996
House Republican Campaign Committee in 1996
Citizens for Rauschenberger in 1997
Ned Mitchell Campaign Committee in 1998

In 1994, Aldo DeAngelis, P.A., got $700

$600 was given to Friends of Lee Daniels in 1994 and the HRCC in 1996.

The $500 recipients follow:

Friends of Saviano in 1995 and 1998, plus $250 in 1994
James Pate Philip Campaign Fund in 1995
Citizens for Blagojevich in 1994
Citizens for Jim Edgar in 1994
HRCC in 1994 and 1996
Friends of Lee Daniels in 1994

$400 was given to Citizens for Dart in 1995.

Citizens for Bill Mahar Jr. and Citizens for Beaubien received $300 in 1997 and 1996, respectively.

The Steczo Citizens Committee had $260 donated to it in 1994.

At the $250 level were the following:

Friends for Renee Kosel in 1999
Volunteers for Bergman in 1997
Citizens for Dudycz in 1997

Two campaign funds received $150, both in 1995:
Citizens for Burzynski and
Committee to Elect Jay C. Hoffman

To return to McHenry County Blog, click here.

  

  

  

  

  

  

This week’s Susan Sovereign column from the Sumner Press is about how children take after their parents.

As a bonus there is a description of how a dog looks when it is fighting a balloon.

Click to enlarge the print.

For other Susan Sovereign columns, press the keys "control" and "F" at the same time and type in Susan.  

In 2003, that began to change under Governor Blagojevich, with state budgets seeing significant increases for schools. State spending for schools increased six times faster than the previous administrations, with the new funding paid for by dramatically reducing the size of the state’s payroll, ending the practice of putting special purpose funds ahead of needs like education and health care, and closing $500 million in unfair corporate loopholes. Preschool funding increased by 75%, and legislation passed this year makes Illinois the only state to create a program that will make preschool available to every three and four year old child in the state. High school graduation requirements were raised for the first time in over two decades, the dropout age was raised to 17 and the dropout rate fell to its lowest level ever (4%). After taking over the State Board of Education, new reforms and management eliminated the teacher certification backlog, cut more than 500 pages of unneeded rules and red tape, and expanded meal subsidies to 40,000 more children.

Gov. Blagojevich’s plan builds on that progress, focusing on five areas vital to improving schools and helping kids learn:

(1) A good place to learn;

(2) Strong teachers and administrators;

(3) Quality materials;

(4) Enough time to learn; and

(5) Schools with the financial resources to get the job done.

“We have to be willing to do things differently. We have a lot of schools that do well, but we have too many schools that don’t. This is a plan that carefully looks at what our kids need to succeed, and boldly proposes the changes needed to help them get there. It will take time, money, hard work and a tolerance for change. But if we’re willing to do that, we can make a real difference in the lives of millions of children,” said Governor Blagojevich.



I. A Good Place to Learn

The Governor’s plan focuses on three key areas: school construction, creating “small schools” and “identity schools” and encouraging school district consolidation.

School Construction: The plan includes $1.5 billion for new school construction, which would be used to help growing schools expand and help schools with outdated facilities upgrade.

“Small Schools” and “Identity Schools”: “Small Schools” represent an emerging reform in which a larger school building is broken up into several independent schools operating within the larger building. The idea behind “Small Schools” is to give students more personal attention. The State would help schools with the funding and logistical assistance needed to create “Small Schools.” The same goes for “Identity Schools,” which are schools focused around a certain theme like arts, music or agriculture, giving students training and focus in specific areas.

School District Consolidation: Finally, to address the problem of having far too many school districts, the State would encourage and provide incentives for the formation of unit districts with one curriculum. Currently, students from multiple districts attend the same high school, and come in on all different levels, requiring 9th grade teachers to spend a major portion of the year just trying to get their students on the same page. Unit districts with single curriculums help solve that problem.

II. Strong Teachers and Administrators

The Governor’s plan focuses on four key areas: helping schools afford special education teachers, new mentoring programs for teachers, principals and superintendents, improving colleges of education, and instituting performance pay for teachers.

Funding Special Education: First, to help schools address the problem of not having enough money to pay for special education teachers, the state would increase funding for special education teachers from 97% to 100%. This would help schools meet state and federal mandates for special education and give special education students the help they need.

Superintendent Mentoring: This year, Illinois began funding state of the art teacher and principal mentoring programs, and continued funding the Grow Your Own teacher program. More funding for those types of programs means better trained teachers and administrators, which helps result in better student performance. This plan requires better and stricter mentoring for school district superintendents, aligning them with requirements for teachers and principals.

Colleges of Education: The colleges that teach our teachers are not always training new teachers in the subjects our schools and students need the most, like science and math. There are teacher shortages in some areas and surpluses in others. This plan provides incentives for colleges of education that produce graduates trained to teach in the areas our schools need.

Performance Pay for Teachers: Teachers and schools currently are not rewarded for good performance. They should be, and Illinois could and should be a national leader in offering performance pay for teachers. We must work with teacher unions and management to reward teachers and schools whose students show academic improvement.

III. Quality Materials

The Governor’s plan focuses on four key areas: improving textbook quality, improving school technology, improving school libraries and improving Career and Technical Education (CTE) curriculum.

Replacing Textbooks: In 80% of school districts, textbooks used by students are more than eight years old. That’s unacceptable. The Governor’s plan would require school districts to replace their textbooks on a six-year cycle, and provide an additional $40 million to replace old textbooks on a shorter cycle. Funds would be distributed first to the districts that need the new books the most.

Improving Technology: Too many classrooms are technologically out of date, because many school districts don’t have the resources to buy new technology. By providing funding to helping schools afford cutting edge technology in classrooms, we can reach kids in a whole new way. We also need to train teachers to use the new equipment. Examples include video on demand over the Internet for a wide range of academic subjects, programs that offer practice help in reading and math and provide continual feedback and progress reports, and programs that help parents track assignments and news about their children’s school.

Improving School Libraries: Students and teachers need school libraries with better materials and resources. This plan provides resources for schools to upgrade their libraries and hire new librarians.

Improving Career and Technical Education: The State’s curriculum for most Career and Technical Education (CTE) courses is outdated. Successful CTE programs help students learn skills that help them get good paying jobs. This year, the state budget provided the funding to update the curriculum, but we need to make sure that schools have the resources to actually teach the new curriculum.

IV. Enough Time to Learn

The Governor’s plan focuses on five key areas: full funding for universal preschool, full day kindergarten, expanding after-school tutoring, extending the school year, and improving parental involvement and participation.

Preschool: Over the last four years, the state has increased preschool funding by 75%, putting Illinois among the top states in the nation for preschool. We know that kids who attend preschool are better at reading and writing, less likely to need special education, more likely to graduate high school, and less likely to be arrested. However, even with these record increases in funding, there are still thousands of children who need to attend preschool. Continued funding of the Governor’s Preschool for All plan would ensure that preschool is available to every three year old and four year old who needs it.

Full Day Kindergarten: Even though some kids need more time to learn and develop, some schools do not offer full day kindergarten. Under the current funding formula, when a school district moves to full day kindergarten, they do not receive reimbursement from the state for two years. Providing the needed funding immediately would help many school districts offer full day kindergarten.

Funding After-school Tutoring: For some kids, the regular school day isn’t long enough to teach them what they need to know. After-school tutoring is an effective way to help some kids catch up, but we have to make sure that schools have the resources to provide the tutoring currently required by federal law. Funding would be targeted specifically at schools with underachieving students so that those students get the help they need.

Extend the School Year: Kids at risk of academic failure lose significant ground over the summer break. By extending the school year, we can makes sure that kids don’t fall behind over the summer. We will help underperforming school districts extend their teacher contracts by at least a month.

Improving Parental Involvement: If parents aren’t involved in their kids’ education, it’s much tougher for their kids to succeed in school. Programs that train parents to advocate for their children, help create websites that assist parents in steering their kids through school, and help parents keep track of their kids’ assignments and progress all help parents get involved. This plan funds classes and programs for parents, and would form a statewide council on parental leadership.

V. The Financial Resources to Get the Job Done

The Governor’s plan focuses on four key areas: increasing the foundation level, reducing administrative costs, funding this plan in year one and funding this plan in years two through four.

Raising the Foundation Level: Over the last four budgets, the foundation level has been increased by $774, more than any four-year term in the history of Illinois. But even after record increases over the last four budgets, years of neglect mean there is still far more to do. Increasing the foundation level is a necessity in any education reform plan.

Reducing Administrative Costs: It is also critical that school districts cut their administrative costs and invest more money in the classroom. This plan would require school districts to publish their administrative cost increases directly onto property tax bills so that the taxpayers know what they’re paying for. In addition, the General Assembly should pass legislation consolidating procurement, health insurance purchasing and construction to lower costs and put more money in the classroom.

Year One Funding:

Increase the Foundation Level: $250 million
Increase Special Education Funding: $200 million
School Construction: $50 million (debt service)
Preschool Expansion: $60 million
Programs targeted at underperforming students: $200 million
Textbook replacement: $40 million
Other reforms: $200 million

$6 Billion in New Funding: In 1975, the State of Illinois created the lottery. The idea behind the game was to create a funding source for schools that would solve the inequities in school funding. However, over the years, lottery money was not used exclusively for schools. Instead, it was used for a variety of purposes, failing to fulfill the mission promised to the taxpayers over thirty years ago.

Today, we have a valuable asset that could be used to do far more for education. And we have schools that need more funding. Under this proposal, the Illinois Lottery would either enter into a long-term lease with a private entity or conduct an Initial Public Offering that would generate approximately $10 billion in proceeds.

That money would go directly and only to schools, fulfilling the promise originally made to the people more than thirty years ago. Specifically, the lease would provide $4 billion towards a new $6 billion funding plan for schools over the next four years and guarantee a $650 million annuity to the Common School Fund until Fiscal Year 2025.

The funds would be generated in one of three ways, either: (1) a competitive bid for a long term lease of the lottery; (2) an Initial Public Offering in which stock in the Illinois Lottery would be sold to individual and institutional investors; or (3) a hybrid of the two. The Lottery would be regulated by a new, independent, bipartisan board, consisting of seven members appointed by the General Assembly (four appointees, one from each caucus), the Governor (one), the State Comptroller (one), and the State Treasurer (one).

Over the next four years, $6 billion would be invested in our schools, increasing the foundation level, mandated categoricals, school construction, universal preschool, and a host of new programs and ideas targeted specifically at helping underachieving students and schools improve. $4 billion would come from the $10 billion generated in Lottery proceeds, with the remaining $2 billion generated by the following: approximately $500 million would be generated through investment proceeds off the $4 billion (as it sits in an interest bearing account) and from income tax paid by the new operator of the lottery; and $1.5 billion from a mix of revenue growth and special fund transfers, mirroring the $400 million annual increases seen over the last four budgets.

VI. Taking Over Failing Districts

School districts should be willing and able to implement these reforms and opportunities and take advantage of the new funding. But failing school districts that refuse to make changes cannot be allowed to continue to fail without intervention. School districts that continually fail will face state takeovers until the problems are turned around.

VII. Long Term Planning

These ideas are not the only ideas that would help our schools and continued discussion among elected officials, education leaders, business leaders, and community leaders is needed. A new council would create an on-going process designed to shape the course of education in Illinois for decades to come.

“There’s no magic formula that fixes our schools and helps our kids learn. But if we give our kids better places to learn, good teachers, better materials and enough time and attention, odds are they’ll improve. That’s what this plan attempts to do, through a combination of new ideas and doing a better job with the things we already know. It will take hard work, cooperation, a tolerance for change, and time. But with enough of each, we can do it,” said Gov. Blagojevich.

To return to McHenry County Blog, click here.

In 2003, that began to change under Governor Blagojevich, with state budgets seeing significant increases for schools. State spending for schools increased six times faster than the previous administrations, with the new funding paid for by dramatically reducing the size of the state’s payroll, ending the practice of putting special purpose funds ahead of needs like education and health care, and closing $500 million in unfair corporate loopholes. Preschool funding increased by 75%, and legislation passed this year makes Illinois the only state to create a program that will make preschool available to every three and four year old child in the state. High school graduation requirements were raised for the first time in over two decades, the dropout age was raised to 17 and the dropout rate fell to its lowest level ever (4%). After taking over the State Board of Education, new reforms and management eliminated the teacher certification backlog, cut more than 500 pages of unneeded rules and red tape, and expanded meal subsidies to 40,000 more children.

Gov. Blagojevich’s plan builds on that progress, focusing on five areas vital to improving schools and helping kids learn:

(1) A good place to learn;

(2) Strong teachers and administrators;

(3) Quality materials;

(4) Enough time to learn; and

(5) Schools with the financial resources to get the job done.

“We have to be willing to do things differently. We have a lot of schools that do well, but we have too many schools that don’t. This is a plan that carefully looks at what our kids need to succeed, and boldly proposes the changes needed to help them get there. It will take time, money, hard work and a tolerance for change. But if we’re willing to do that, we can make a real difference in the lives of millions of children,” said Governor Blagojevich.



I. A Good Place to Learn

The Governor’s plan focuses on three key areas: school construction, creating “small schools” and “identity schools” and encouraging school district consolidation.

School Construction: The plan includes $1.5 billion for new school construction, which would be used to help growing schools expand and help schools with outdated facilities upgrade.

“Small Schools” and “Identity Schools”: “Small Schools” represent an emerging reform in which a larger school building is broken up into several independent schools operating within the larger building. The idea behind “Small Schools” is to give students more personal attention. The State would help schools with the funding and logistical assistance needed to create “Small Schools.” The same goes for “Identity Schools,” which are schools focused around a certain theme like arts, music or agriculture, giving students training and focus in specific areas.

School District Consolidation: Finally, to address the problem of having far too many school districts, the State would encourage and provide incentives for the formation of unit districts with one curriculum. Currently, students from multiple districts attend the same high school, and come in on all different levels, requiring 9th grade teachers to spend a major portion of the year just trying to get their students on the same page. Unit districts with single curriculums help solve that problem.

II. Strong Teachers and Administrators

The Governor’s plan focuses on four key areas: helping schools afford special education teachers, new mentoring programs for teachers, principals and superintendents, improving colleges of education, and instituting performance pay for teachers.

Funding Special Education: First, to help schools address the problem of not having enough money to pay for special education teachers, the state would increase funding for special education teachers from 97% to 100%. This would help schools meet state and federal mandates for special education and give special education students the help they need.

Superintendent Mentoring: This year, Illinois began funding state of the art teacher and principal mentoring programs, and continued funding the Grow Your Own teacher program. More funding for those types of programs means better trained teachers and administrators, which helps result in better student performance. This plan requires better and stricter mentoring for school district superintendents, aligning them with requirements for teachers and principals.

Colleges of Education: The colleges that teach our teachers are not always training new teachers in the subjects our schools and students need the most, like science and math. There are teacher shortages in some areas and surpluses in others. This plan provides incentives for colleges of education that produce graduates trained to teach in the areas our schools need.

Performance Pay for Teachers: Teachers and schools currently are not rewarded for good performance. They should be, and Illinois could and should be a national leader in offering performance pay for teachers. We must work with teacher unions and management to reward teachers and schools whose students show academic improvement.

III. Quality Materials

The Governor’s plan focuses on four key areas: improving textbook quality, improving school technology, improving school libraries and improving Career and Technical Education (CTE) curriculum.

Replacing Textbooks: In 80% of school districts, textbooks used by students are more than eight years old. That’s unacceptable. The Governor’s plan would require school districts to replace their textbooks on a six-year cycle, and provide an additional $40 million to replace old textbooks on a shorter cycle. Funds would be distributed first to the districts that need the new books the most.

Improving Technology: Too many classrooms are technologically out of date, because many school districts don’t have the resources to buy new technology. By providing funding to helping schools afford cutting edge technology in classrooms, we can reach kids in a whole new way. We also need to train teachers to use the new equipment. Examples include video on demand over the Internet for a wide range of academic subjects, programs that offer practice help in reading and math and provide continual feedback and progress reports, and programs that help parents track assignments and news about their children’s school.

Improving School Libraries: Students and teachers need school libraries with better materials and resources. This plan provides resources for schools to upgrade their libraries and hire new librarians.

Improving Career and Technical Education: The State’s curriculum for most Career and Technical Education (CTE) courses is outdated. Successful CTE programs help students learn skills that help them get good paying jobs. This year, the state budget provided the funding to update the curriculum, but we need to make sure that schools have the resources to actually teach the new curriculum.

IV. Enough Time to Learn

The Governor’s plan focuses on five key areas: full funding for universal preschool, full day kindergarten, expanding after-school tutoring, extending the school year, and improving parental involvement and participation.

Preschool: Over the last four years, the state has increased preschool funding by 75%, putting Illinois among the top states in the nation for preschool. We know that kids who attend preschool are better at reading and writing, less likely to need special education, more likely to graduate high school, and less likely to be arrested. However, even with these record increases in funding, there are still thousands of children who need to attend preschool. Continued funding of the Governor’s Preschool for All plan would ensure that preschool is available to every three year old and four year old who needs it.

Full Day Kindergarten: Even though some kids need more time to learn and develop, some schools do not offer full day kindergarten. Under the current funding formula, when a school district moves to full day kindergarten, they do not receive reimbursement from the state for two years. Providing the needed funding immediately would help many school districts offer full day kindergarten.

Funding After-school Tutoring: For some kids, the regular school day isn’t long enough to teach them what they need to know. After-school tutoring is an effective way to help some kids catch up, but we have to make sure that schools have the resources to provide the tutoring currently required by federal law. Funding would be targeted specifically at schools with underachieving students so that those students get the help they need.

Extend the School Year: Kids at risk of academic failure lose significant ground over the summer break. By extending the school year, we can makes sure that kids don’t fall behind over the summer. We will help underperforming school districts extend their teacher contracts by at least a month.

Improving Parental Involvement: If parents aren’t involved in their kids’ education, it’s much tougher for their kids to succeed in school. Programs that train parents to advocate for their children, help create websites that assist parents in steering their kids through school, and help parents keep track of their kids’ assignments and progress all help parents get involved. This plan funds classes and programs for parents, and would form a statewide council on parental leadership.

V. The Financial Resources to Get the Job Done

The Governor’s plan focuses on four key areas: increasing the foundation level, reducing administrative costs, funding this plan in year one and funding this plan in years two through four.

Raising the Foundation Level: Over the last four budgets, the foundation level has been increased by $774, more than any four-year term in the history of Illinois. But even after record increases over the last four budgets, years of neglect mean there is still far more to do. Increasing the foundation level is a necessity in any education reform plan.

Reducing Administrative Costs: It is also critical that school districts cut their administrative costs and invest more money in the classroom. This plan would require school districts to publish their administrative cost increases directly onto property tax bills so that the taxpayers know what they’re paying for. In addition, the General Assembly should pass legislation consolidating procurement, health insurance purchasing and construction to lower costs and put more money in the classroom.

Year One Funding:

Increase the Foundation Level: $250 million
Increase Special Education Funding: $200 million
School Construction: $50 million (debt service)
Preschool Expansion: $60 million
Programs targeted at underperforming students: $200 million
Textbook replacement: $40 million
Other reforms: $200 million

$6 Billion in New Funding: In 1975, the State of Illinois created the lottery. The idea behind the game was to create a funding source for schools that would solve the inequities in school funding. However, over the years, lottery money was not used exclusively for schools. Instead, it was used for a variety of purposes, failing to fulfill the mission promised to the taxpayers over thirty years ago.

Today, we have a valuable asset that could be used to do far more for education. And we have schools that need more funding. Under this proposal, the Illinois Lottery would either enter into a long-term lease with a private entity or conduct an Initial Public Offering that would generate approximately $10 billion in proceeds.

That money would go directly and only to schools, fulfilling the promise originally made to the people more than thirty years ago. Specifically, the lease would provide $4 billion towards a new $6 billion funding plan for schools over the next four years and guarantee a $650 million annuity to the Common School Fund until Fiscal Year 2025.

The funds would be generated in one of three ways, either: (1) a competitive bid for a long term lease of the lottery; (2) an Initial Public Offering in which stock in the Illinois Lottery would be sold to individual and institutional investors; or (3) a hybrid of the two. The Lottery would be regulated by a new, independent, bipartisan board, consisting of seven members appointed by the General Assembly (four appointees, one from each caucus), the Governor (one), the State Comptroller (one), and the State Treasurer (one).

Over the next four years, $6 billion would be invested in our schools, increasing the foundation level, mandated categoricals, school construction, universal preschool, and a host of new programs and ideas targeted specifically at helping underachieving students and schools improve. $4 billion would come from the $10 billion generated in Lottery proceeds, with the remaining $2 billion generated by the following: approximately $500 million would be generated through investment proceeds off the $4 billion (as it sits in an interest bearing account) and from income tax paid by the new operator of the lottery; and $1.5 billion from a mix of revenue growth and special fund transfers, mirroring the $400 million annual increases seen over the last four budgets.

VI. Taking Over Failing Districts

School districts should be willing and able to implement these reforms and opportunities and take advantage of the new funding. But failing school districts that refuse to make changes cannot be allowed to continue to fail without intervention. School districts that continually fail will face state takeovers until the problems are turned around.

VII. Long Term Planning

These ideas are not the only ideas that would help our schools and continued discussion among elected officials, education leaders, business leaders, and community leaders is needed. A new council would create an on-going process designed to shape the course of education in Illinois for decades to come.

“There’s no magic formula that fixes our schools and helps our kids learn. But if we give our kids better places to learn, good teachers, better materials and enough time and attention, odds are they’ll improve. That’s what this plan attempts to do, through a combination of new ideas and doing a better job with the things we already know. It will take hard work, cooperation, a tolerance for change, and time. But with enough of each, we can do it,” said Gov. Blagojevich.

To return to McHenry County Blog, click here.

  

Peter J. LaBarbera
Executive Director, Illinois Family Institute

Peter LaBarbera, 43, was born in Chicago and lived in Elmhurst until he
was 7 and then Winfield (near Wheaton) until he was 14, when the family
moved to Michigan.

LaBarbera returned to Illinois from Washington, D.C., in September 2003,
after 18 years as a reporter and commentator on issues ranging from
communism in Central America to the growing controversy over "gay
marriage." After beginning his writing career with Reed Irvine's media
watchdog group Accuracy in Media, he worked for two years as a reporter
for The Washington Times, covering the Congressional debate surrounding
communism in Central America that was a key part of the Reagan foreign
policy.

After returning from a freelance stint in Central America covering
Nicaragua's landmark election that rejected Sandinista communism,
LaBarbera returned to Washington, D.C., and founded The Lambda Report
and Americans for Truth, which focused a critical eye on the homosexual
activist agenda. He moved to the Family Research Council, a leading
pro-family think tank, where he served as a policy analyst on
homosexuality and gender issues while editing FRC's popular weekly
publication, CultureFacts. He held similar positions working with Robert
Knight at the Culture and Family Institute of Concerned Women for
America and became a leading national voice critical of homosexual
activism before joining IFI.

Since taking the lead position at IFI, Peter has been a leading voice
for protecting marriage in Illinois from being redefined by homosexual
activists, appearing on major TV and radio news programs and in
newspapers across the state.

He graduated from the University of Michigan with a B.A. in Political
Science in 1985, and lives in Chicago's western suburbs with his wife
Cristina and their five children.

The Sumner Press brings us the March 3, 2006 column of Susan Sovereign today. Click to enlarge the copy of the column.
     

The final page designate Michelle Rentzsch, the city's Director of Planning & Economic development as the sole contact person and sets the submission deadline for June 30th at 4 PM.

Then, there are two paragraphs of disclaimers, including one that says with 60 days written notice, any subsequent agreement may be cancelled, immediately, if there is a violation of the terms, conditions, requirements and/or non-performance on the agreement.

  

The seventh page explains the review and selection process.

It starts with a pre-submission city hall meeting on Tuesday, June 6th at 1 PM. A site visit will follow.

Staff and "all other involved selectio parties" will conduct an initial review. The result will be "a select number of teams may be forwarded to a second level of review."

The second review will involve an oral presentation with city staff and "other members of the selection party."

Then, "a recommendation will be presented to the City Council for their final consideration." Graphics are suggested.

Finally, the Developer of Record will be selected and given six months to "negotiate a development agreement with the City of Crystal Lake for the development of Vulcan Lakes Center."

  

Page 6 contains the submission requirements--15 copies with these specified sections:
General approach to redevelopment of the site (2 pages)

Names, addresses, phone and fax numbers of all principal firms involved, including their roles, responsibilities, and authority, plus size and depth of experience and current workload for "2005 and 2006." (That must be a typo.) Also wanted is information of previous projects over the last five years and a company history.

Names of project personnel and their areas of expertise and responsibility, plus the name of the Project Manager.

Evidence of the development team's financial strength and ability to obtain financing for the project, which information shall be "confidential."

Three references from similar projects, that is, public/private ventures, "if possible."



  

The fifth page discusses the development possibilities and evaluation criteria.

Apparently, considerable discussion has already occurred with potential developers. The RFQ mentions the city's perspective "has expanded as it has discussed a wide variety of options internally and with deveoplers who have expressed interest in the site."

But, the instructions stress,

Above all, the City seeks to assure that the redevelopment of the site will include the publicly accessible beach, marina and waterfront amenities.

A beginning vision is outlined next:

1. A commercial activity center adjacent to the public recreation uses that includes destination restaurants, recreation, and recreation-oriented retailing,

2. Mid-rise condominiums on the uplands and luxury townhomes cascading down the slopes of the site, and

3. Redevelopment of adjacent property (on US 14 and Main Street) reoriented toward the lake, in a mix of restaurants, hotel, banquet and conferencing facilities which will take advantage of overviews.

As to evaluation critieria, here is what is listed:

Experience of the Development Team with projects of similar scope.

Indicated understanding of the Vulcan Lake Center concept, project scope, and goals and objectives of the City as evidenced by the contents and quality of the proposal submitted.

Developer's demonstrated capability to plan, finance and successfully carry out the development program.

Financial ability to complete the project as designed.

A demonstrated capacity and commitment to quality control, and cost control.

Makeup of the Team and specific experience of individuals assigned.

Familiarity of the firm with the project area, including environmental consideration, comunity characteristics, and local real estate markets.

Developer's vision or strategy for the development.

Click to enlarge page.  

This looks like a standard "poop" sheet sent to folks considering locating in Crystal Lake.

  

The following page lays out the opportunities,

"opportunies,,,(that) do not present themselves every day. Lakefront property with high accessibility, within a diverse and fast growth market, near transit and community services, and supported by tax increment financing...The economics of this development must work for both the developer and the community, and the City seeks a development partnet willing to "dream big" and build well.

The page outlines Crystal Lake's control of "a net developable area shared by public recreation uses and private market driven development of approximately 95 acres. An additional 31 acres of land adjacent to the site are held by owners who have expressed interest in incorporating their property into a unified Vulcan Lakes development.

Without limiting the possibilities, the City anticipates that the open space and recreation facilities on the site will be a natural supporter and compatible partner with restaurants, entertainment, banquet/clubs, recreational venues, and high quality residential uses. Property along Route 14 is most likely to succeed in retail commercial uses. Additional property overlooking the lake, accessible on South Main Street may be suitable for hotel, restaurant, and high quality residential uses.

Concernnig density, the RFQ says,

it recognizes that development densities will need to be commensurate with the overall scale of this project investment. The City will work closely with the developer to assure that the project sets a very high standard for place making, and that it makes a significant contribution to the character of the community.

The Tax Increment Financing district is discussed next:

The City...will use TIF funding to support the cost of infrastructure, public improvements and amenities for the site. As is the case in any TIF project, the greater the private investment in development, the greater the city's capacity to reinvest TIF project funds in the site. The TIF budget anticipates public costs of approximately $20 million in support of infrastructure, site preparation, and public recreation facilities.

  

  
  
 

A major plank of his first campaign was to one-up a deadlocked Congress and raise the minimum wage in Illinois. In 2003, Illinois became the only state between the Appalachian and Rocky Mountains with a minimum wage requirement exceeding the $5.15 national level. Today, Illinois’ minimum wage is $6.50. If re-elected the Governor intends to raise it to $7.50. Without defending the federal wage level, there are good economic reasons for Illinois not to be out of line with national and regional standards where business cost drivers are concerned. This should be of great concern for leaders of a state where job growth is severely lagging the national experience.

In 2004, the Governor supported importing drugs from foreign sources to provide lower cost drugs to Americans. He defied the federal government by leading a campaign for importation and recruited other government entities to join a drug-purchasing consortium. Ultimately, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration stifled the scheme by pointing out it was illegal and refusing to give Illinois a waiver. Congress subsequently adopted a prescription drug plan for Medicare recipients and deflated the issue.

Next, the Governor reacted to the short-lived national scare of a flu vaccine shortage. At the Governor’s direction, Illinois purchased $2.6 million worth of vaccine from a foreign manufacturer. Illinois taxpayers paid the bill, but the vaccine never arrived in the U.S. and was eventually donated for use overseas. The feared vaccine shortage never materialized.

Last year Governor Blagojevich sought the national spotlight again by attacking video game makers and retailers over violent and sexual content in video games available to the nation’s youth. He prevailed upon the General Assembly for restrictive legislation despite near certainty federal courts would rule his Illinois law unconstitutional. The Entertainment Software Association was forced to mount an expensive lawsuit. After the Seventh Circuit Court predictably overturned the statute the gaming industry now seeks $645,000 from state taxpayers to reimburse their legal fees. It is unknown how much it cost taxpayers for the Attorney General to defend bad law.

Following the controversy in Washington over federal funding for stem cell research Governor Blagojevich did not hesitate to get on the bandwagon for state funding of medical research. While, the California legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger set a high bar for others to follow Governor Blagojevich was quick to do so. He out maneuvered Comptroller Dan Hynes (Who had already established himself as the political champion of stem cell research in Illinois.) by simply exercising spending authority secured by clandestine language inserted in the budget bill. The secretive maneuver let the Governor avoid the legislative, political and ethical controversies that plagued President Bush. The Governor’s approach also demonstrated his contempt for a collaborative legislative budget process and cemented further distrust on the part of legislators who believe state spending policy is fundamentally their responsibility.

Recently, the Governor chose to champion higher standards for mercury emissions than required by new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rules established for the nation’s coal burning electric generating plants just last year. The Illinois standards, if adopted, will exceed national policy and again demonstrate our Governor’s eagerness to trump Washington. Unfortunately, the practical affect of this politically popular move will result in minuscule improvement in Illinois’ air quality, while adversely impacting two of the State’s most important quality job creating industries. One must also be concerned about how the Governor’s rules will affect the much-anticipated Illinois investments the coal and electric power generation industries have had on the drawing boards. The Governor’s rules threaten the economic viability of Illinois coal fired plants and could result in price increases for electric energy users.

Governor Blagojevich’s highest priorities have been well publicized initiatives focusing on children and health care.

Governor Blagojevich quickly grasped the significance of national reports that revealed concerns for childhood obesity and diabetes. His solution was to take on the food industry by attempting to ban their products from Illinois public schools. When his legislative initiative failed, the Governor pressed his appointed State Board of Education to do the deed by administrative fiat. The state board’s effort to mandate food policies for locally elected school boards was also recently stopped by legislative action.

While not the first Illinois Governor to recognize early childhood education as a worthy program with proven results, he has significantly expanded funding and access. His most ambitious proposal has set the state on a course towards government-funded universal pre-school. Georgia and Oklahoma are the only states providing universal pre-school funding for all four year olds and above. Governor Blagojevich envisions extending the program to all three year olds during his second term. It is a move that could thrust the Governor into the role of national pacesetter.

In three years the Governor’s approach to health care has been to increase the role of government by opening up Medicaid to everyone. He has expanded eligibility to more people, increase benefit coverage and taken the pre-existing government subsidized insurance programs called “FamilyCare” and “KidCare” to a new level.

Universal health care for all children will likely be Governor Blagojevich’s legacy program. His “AllKids” program has an appeal that could capture the attention of a nation desperate to provide affordable health care for the uninsured. His record positions him as a leader of the parade of advocates from across the county who pursue ever expanding government-funded healthcare programs to satisfy the needs of everyone.

While Governor Blagojevich’s initiatives have proven shortcomings, he has nevertheless pursued politically attractive issues, challenged the Republican dominated federal government, and gained attention from the Hollywood and Washington crowds. If voters are not weary of the photo-op Governor and his expensive initiatives he will be re-elected. Then, as a highly successful fundraiser from a solidly “blue” state, it should not be surprising if the Blagojevich camp has a field operation in Iowa by this time next year.

To return to McHenry County Blog, click here.

The next page explains why a Request for Proposal is not being used. The Request for Qualifications is designed to avoid

"unnecessarily limit(ing) the number and quality of teams responding...The City seeks the most qualified, most enthusiastic, most committed development team, and will, instead, use this RFQ process to select that team as the Developer of Record...

In the agreement that will be negotiated after the Developer of Record is selected,

Issues of ownership, control, timing, financial interest, and return on investment will be documented in the development agreement.

The rest of the page is devoted to outlining what Crystal Lake's city government wants to be completed in the first phase of the Vulcan Lakes Center development:

A public beach area and shore protection

A public shelter/cabana/concessions facility

Small boat marina, fishing piers, and several public overlooks

A unifying trail system

Site circulation with access to US 14, Pingree Road and Main Street

Market driven uses compatible with the site are most likely to include:

Active Recreation facilities

High quality restaurants and entertainment uses

Other compatible uses designed to maximize site views, such as high-quality housing, hotel, conference, banquet centers, etc.

The City says it wants the developer to construct the public improvements, which will be reimbursed with TIF money.
  

“What’s wrong with that?” a Republican stalwart might have asked prior to the Tristano indictment. Perhaps the following Election Interference Act might hint at an answer:

(10 ILCS 5/9-25.1) Sec. 9-25.1. Election interference. (a) As used in this Section, "public funds" means any funds appropriated by the Illinois General Assembly or by any political subdivision of the State of Illinois. (b) No public funds shall be used to urge any elector to vote for or against any candidate or proposition, or be appropriated for political or campaign purposes to any candidate or political organization. This Section shall not prohibit the use of public funds for dissemination of factual information relative to any proposition appearing on an election ballot, or for dissemination of information and arguments published and distributed under law in connection with a proposition to amend the Constitution of the State of Illinois. (c) The first time any person violates any provision of this Section, that person shall be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor. Upon the second or any subsequent violation of any provision of this Section, the person violating any provision of this Section shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. (Emphasis added.)

Whether or not the Election Interference Act was violated by the dispensing of pork to help elect non-incumbent Republican candidates, the type of Federal criminal charges of which Secretary of State chief of staff Scott Fawell and the Citizens for George Ryan were convicted could also end up in play in the U.S. Attorney’s investigation of former House GOP Leader Lee Daniels. The same law would be violated if employees worked on campaigns while on the state payroll.

Of course, it is not unusual for pork to be used to help re-elect incumbents. That certainly is a major reason any number of Democrats were induced to vote for this year’s budget.

But what House Republicans did in the 2000 campaign may have been an innovation in Illinois politics.

Approximately $1 million in so-called “member initiatives” was appropriated by the General Assembly for each House member.

Instead of spreading it evenly among the GOP incumbents, a significant amount was diverted to advance the campaigns of favored Republican challengers like Jankowski.

“Obviously, the sitting state representative and senators put the word out that there was money available…That’s one of the things I ran into while I was down there campaigning,” Jankowski told me three years ago.

“Anywhere I went, everybody’d tell me, ‘I got this from Dan (Reitz, the Democrat incumbent),’” explained the GOP challenger. “A lot of it wasn’t appropriated yet. It was promised.

“Everybody’s talking about it and you become aware of different needs out there and you pass that up the line to campaign people and such,” he continued. “My understanding is that those leaders had a pot of money that they were divvying up among their members and they had the controlling interest of where it went.”

So, what did Jankowski get to help his insurgent campaign in Monroe, Randoph, St. Clair and Washington Counties?

Here’s how House Republicans allocated most of the public dollars spent on the Nashville county board member’s campaign:

$175,00 of taxpayer money was spent to entice votes for Jankowski in Monroe County. The Monroe County Fair Association received $125,000 for land acquisition and improvements to the fairgrounds. Another $50,000 went to improve Bolm Schuhkraft Park in the City of Columbia. Lee Daniels even came down to Monroe County for a press conference.

Randolph County received $75,000 in public largess. The Village of Evansville got $25,000 for equipment and/or improvements, while the Kankaskia Regional Port District got $50,000 for engineering of a rail spur at Baldwin dock.

In St. Clair County, the Village of Millstadt received $50,000 worth of sidewalks and curb replacements.

Jankowski’s political base of Washington County received $95,000 worth of “re-enforcement.” The City of Nashville was able to purchase a new 20 cubic foot garbage packer truck with its $50,000. The Village of Okawville got $25,000 to purchase a new police car and equipment for police cars. The Okawville Youth Association spent $20,000 on improvements to its ballpark.

Reitz won the election 28,210 to 18,336. According to the Board of Elections, Reitz spent $30.23 per vote, while Jankowski spent $28.43.

But that figure does not count the taxpayer-financed pork spent by both sides.

To return to McHenry County Blog, click here.

The NW Herald also contends

Moreover, public debate and political capital will be wasted on a wedge issue meant to mobilize conservative voters. An advisory referendum does not change law.

It has been the NW Herald’s choice to ignore the repeated collection (and even theft) of petition signatures at St. Thomas Catholic, plus other Christian churches in McHenry County.

As to putting the question on the ballot, Springfield lobbyists for family interests can tell the legislators who have committed to voting to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot.

They tell me that the votes are there, but Democratic Party leaders of both chambers of the Illinois General Assembly refuse to allow a vote. The referendum is intended to provide ammunition to convince rank and file Democrats that their constituents favor being able to be allowed to vote on the real thing.

Here’s the question that will be on the ballot, if the petitions withstand certain homosexual scrutiny. (They obviously think ballot results would not be to their liking.)

Shall the Illinois General Assembly submit an amendment to Article IX of the Illinois State Constitution to the voters of the State of Illinois at large at the next General Election stating as follows:

To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, a marriage between a man and a woman is the only legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State?

Maybe the NW Herald will ask State Representatives Mark Beaubien, Jack Franks and Mike Tryon, plus State Senators Pam Althoff and Bill Peterson, if they would vote to put a Protect Marriage constitutional amendment on the ballot. Or, would that present the other side of the story, something the NW Herald certainly cannot be accused of doing on this issue.

As to the petition gathering being used “to mobilize conservative voters,” which “conservative” power party candidate would the NW Herald think the effort might help?

· Republican Judy Topinka, who flaunts her support of the Gay Pride Parade, or

· Democrat Rod Blagojevich, who signed the bill that forced the Gay Games Regatta on Crystal Lake.

To return to McHenry County Blog, click here.

grand old partisan said...
YDD, don’t pretty much all people and businesses that pay local property taxes also pay personal and corporate income taxes?

If you lower local property taxes, you have to increase the amount that comes from the state in order to simply maintain, let alone increase, combined school funding. How do you do that? You have to increase personal and corporate income taxes. That’s why it’s called a swap. But make no mistake about it, this swap is no fair trade. For most people (ie, families and local businesses) the income tax increase will be far greater than the property tax relief...meaning a net increasing in their tax burden...meaning they will be bearing and even greater “share of the load.”

The truth is that you can’t increase combined school funding without increasing the combined tax burden in some way on some group of people. Period. So who is that group going to be?
1:29 PM

respectful said...
Is Cal right that it's misleading to complain that IL ranks 49th in ed spending without specifying that he's referring only to state spending? Of course.
2:09 PM

Extreme Wisdom said...
Cal wrote:

That is a half-truth. Illinois may rank 49th or 48th in state aid to education, but, to be honest, one must consider state and LOCAL ....etc.
_____

It isn't really a half truth, it is a bald-faced lie. The entire HB750 (State v. Local Funding) debate proves this by the simple fact that it dictates the disposition of local property taxes.

The property tax for schools is a STATE AUTHORIZED tax. Therefore, the state funds 100% (minus federal $$, of course) of the bill.

The "49th in funding" is NOT a half truth, it is 98% a lie. Vote down enough referenda at the local level, and the mandates and contract bloat go on autopilot and trigger a state take over (see Round Lake and Winthrop Harbor)

Martrie and Meeks are nothing but demogogic propagandists fighting for more payroll & pension piggery. The idea that it is "for the children" is a crock.

Meeks is correct about shortchanging kids, but his answers prove whose interests he is really looking out for - Fat Unions.

There is only way to "equalize funding." Unify school spending from ONE source (State) and EQUALLY fund every child at about $7,000, allowing the parent to choose the schools.

Turn every public school into an independent charter, abolish the legal fiction of a "District" and send the fat Administrators to the Unemployment lines.

The current system is the clear equal protection violation, and no Ralph and James, there isn't enough money in IL to spend $17,000/ child/ year.

Any town that actually IS spending that much is engaging egregious waste, fraud, abuse of parents, children & taxpayers.

In closing, has any one see the recent National Geographic survey? Public Education is an utter and complete failure, and doesn't deserve another dime in its current configuration.

Fund Children, not Systems or Districts.
3:59 PM

Extreme Wisdom said...
YDD,

My guess is that you and I will differ greatly on this issue, but the fact is that you appear to be operating on the notion that WE MUST INCREASE FUNDING to improve education.

I reject that notion, and when confronted with facts, most other people do to.

While most agree that every child deserves equal access to a decent education, the idea that we need to make Maywood equal to River Forest (seperated by a River) is absurd on it's face.

The last River Forest Superintendent pension pig here saw a 4 year, $84,000 compensation boost (wholly manufactured by a supine legislature), retired with an artificially bloated pension (wholly manufactured by a supine legislature), and now 'consults' with Districts to find yet more useless Superintendents (at a $14,000/head hunt fee).

You tell me how this spending on this pig (multiplied by 1000s of similar adminstrators/teachers across the state) connected one neuron in one child's head. It didn't.

[Note: I am not calling rank an file voters (Dem or Rep.) who are concerned about education "pigs." They are simply misinformed as to what constitutes "an educated populace."

OTOH, I make no apologies for calling anyone who took fat end-of-career bonuses for the purpose of artificially (and acturarilly unsound) fattened pensions "pigs," for that is what they are.]
4:17 PM

Jose said...
Fund kids not districts
that is the solution
6:53 PM

steve schnorf said...
So, Wisdom, since you argue that local property tax funding for schools is effectively state taxes, does that equally apply to local financial support for park districts, firefighters, police, 708 boards, etc? That doesn't make much sense to me.

As far as Senator Meeks' comment, he was talking about the State of Illinois budget, and we are desparately low in the rankings of what support we provide from state tax funds for k-12 education. I think that point is very valid on its face, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see it.

As to the other major issue, whether increased or adequate funding alone will improve all underperforming schools, that certainly doesn't seem to be the case. And no one I've heard, including Ralph Martire, argues that we need to average up all schools to the level of per pupil spending of say a New Trier.

But, as long as we base the majority of our k-12 funding on local property taxes, property poor districts are going to be aat a very great disadvantage. Right now, some of the very highest education property tax rates are in some of the very poorest communities in the state. It would break my back financially (and probably yours) to pay the education tax rates in many of those communities, And the sad thing is, it doesn't raise them much money.

And by the way, tell suburban lesgislators that they are going to vote to bring suburban school funding down to $7000 per pupil/year all in and see how long it takes many of them to tell you that their constituents won't stand for it. The schools are why many of those taxpayers have chosen to live in those districts and pay those taxes.

Unfortunately, this problem doesn't appear to lend itself to simplistic solutions, or someone would have solved it long ago. And by the way, the practices of the local school disricts you rail about are set by a board elected by local taxpayers in every district in the state, save one.

Oh, and residential property tax rates are pretty low in Chicago. I would love to pay them here in Springfield. But you are right, to properly fund schools, we are going to need a net increase out of an income tax increase and a property tax decrease, and it will have to come from someone. It's going to have to come from people like me, not people who make $30 or $40,000 a year. It's going to have to come from the people who currently live places where they pay property taxes of $12,000 to $50,000 per years, and they are not going to get as much back in property tax relief as they pay in incresed income taxes. You can't take it from poor people.
7:36 PM

Anonymous said...
Some of these suburban administrators pensions and salaries are ridiculous
8:59 PM

Cal Skinner said...
In the interest of full disclosure, Steve, are you a director of Martire's board of directors?
9:35 PM

Jeff Trigg said...
District 51 in Washington, IL (where I grew up) spends the least per pupil in the state - about $4500. Their test scores are very well above average and actually higher than Roundout (the highest per pupil spent in the state - about $24,000) for 5th grade reading. District 51 is one of the very few districts that do not have a collective bargaining agreement in place for teacher salaries, yet the teachers still average $39.000 per year.

Everyone wants to talk about needing more money to improve education, but few (Including Republicans) want to talk about needing to reform teacher performance issues to improve education. I contend the biggest problem is NOT money, it is the teacher's unions and I base that contention on the evidence that District 51 very clearly illustrates.

Before one additional dollar is spent or ANY tax is increased, if they don't discuss teacher performance issues, tenure, teacher's pensions, and true accountability, along with other issues I probably have no clue about, we simply can not trust at all that their motives are pure when it concerns improving education. If they care at all about the children (instead of the huge teacher unions campaign contributions) they would be willing to just listen to other ideas about education improvements.

Until Meeks, Martire, and the lot of them come out publicly and say we need to investigate all aspects towards improving education (including why District 51 is doing so well with less) there is no other logical conclusion to make than to believe they are bought and paid for by the most powerful unions in Illinois and can't be trusted with our children.

*thanks for the plug Cal
11:15 PM

steve schnorf said...
Cal, yes I am. I joined the board of CTBA after I retired. I joined because they were the only group I saw taking a straightforward and public stand on education inequalities in this state.

No, I don't agree with Ralph on everything, but truthfully, I don't agree with much of anyone on everything. Being on the board does allow me to have at least some decent insight into what Ralph says and doesn't say.

And by the way, from time to time I take a look at your site, and I want to tell you that the debate that has been going on among bloggers on your site regarding what needs to be done to improve k-12 education is among the best I've ever seen. It is a credit to you, your site, and the people who post. But, I would have expected no less from you.
1:47 AM


Dan Johnson-Weinberger said...
Well, if the general point is valid that the state is not funding education (in fact, we are 49th for state funding), which means that wealthy areas can afford to pay for their schools while poor areas just can't, then it is totally legit to remind people that we still rank 49th out of 50 in terms of state funding. That's not a lie. That's just making the point that state funding is very, very low. And that is the worst thing about state government. Now, it's also legitimate to argue that we should require a longer school day and a longer school year and make it much easier to fire bad teachers, but none of those points cloud the major problem of a lack of state funding for education that force poor kids into poor schools and thus, likely, poor futures. In fact, I'd say it's a little dishonest to call Senator Meeks' comments on 49th out of 50th in terms of funding a lie!
1:52 AM

Jeff Trigg said...
Dan, if I may address a few of your points.

"That's just making the point that state funding is very, very low. And that is the worst thing about state government."

Corruption and wasteful spending would be strong contenders for the "worst" thing about our state government, in my opinion. I'd say anti-democratic election laws contribute, but you know that...

"Now, it's also legitimate to argue that we should require a longer school day and a longer school year and make it much easier to fire bad teachers, but none of those points cloud the major problem of a lack of state funding for education that force poor kids into poor schools and thus, likely, poor futures."

In particular, unless I am misinterpreting, "the major problem of a lack of state funding for education that force poor kids into poor schools".

State funding does not force poor kids into poor schools. Arbitrary addresses force kids into "poor" schools. (I'd preface that by saying bad schools considering the "poorest" district in the state in D-51 in Washington, IL is not bad). My suggestion would then be if you think it is bad to force students into "poor" schools (you really mean bad schools since money is NOT the only factor) then stop doing it based solely on address.

What is wrong with letting accelerated students learn together? What is wrong with letting "slower", "challenged" students learn together? What is wrong with letting students' achievements and their parents decide to "force" students into schools that fit them best?

Forcing students into only one school wihout another choice (unless they have a few thousand of their own money to spend per child) based on an address is therefor a BIGGER problem than state spending even with your logic.

I can see where Meeks/Martire's 49th contention could possibly be considered a lie, but you have to admit it is entirely disenginuous and misleading as an accurate statistic on how well our education system is funded.

Can I tell Illinois and the Feds I only made $2,000 this year based on only one of my sources of income? Or do I have to tell them ALL of my sources of income? Some people would be LOCKED IN A CAGE for making not too dis-similar claims as what Meeks/Martire are making. Be honest, if the label of "lie" doesn't fit, you MUST admit that the claim is disengenuous and misleading at the least. And that claim doesn't inspire much credibility does it?

steve schnorf - thanks for your service to Illinois. I envy you and truly appreiacte your personal interest and time spent. Now do what you can to get Martire et all to just start considering other educational performance increasing ideas OTHER than more money. It is your duty as an American and Illinoisan to entice them to consider why District 51 does so well with soo little and to learn from the answer they get (which is teacher performance based pay).

I'm sorry, but you (and they and everyone else) fail to have any credibility until you address more than JUST the money issue.
2:40 AM

Extreme Wisdom said...
Steve asked:

So, Wisdom, since you argue that local property tax funding for schools is effectively state taxes, does that equally apply to local financial support for park districts, firefighters, police, 708 boards, etc? That doesn't make much sense to me.

My Response:

I do know that much of what goes on at the local level is capable of being dictated by the state.

Home Rule is one example of the state 'managing' the process of just how much control of local taxation (among other things) a municipality can have.

The fact remains that the legislature CAN zero out property taxes for education if they wish.

You later make the point that the suburban white mice "won't stand for" reducing spending on the schools.

You may be right, but that's a political issue. I know that more and more people won't stand for the obscene property taxes or the outright malfeasance that goes on the districts.

Politically, I would love to see just how "impossible" it is to pass a 60% reduction in most people's property taxes.

For my part, your critique about "simple solutions" is one of the main points that needs to be addressed.

The supporters of the status quo (Martire, The Education Industry and their purchased political class) have purposefull created an unnecessarily complex Rube Goldberg contraption. Every time a reasonable reform is proposed, they hide behind all of that complexity, complaining that some issue or another prevents reform.

It is my view that this system is breaking down, and that there can only be benefits from smashing it.

You are correct that many of the doped white mice in the Suburbs are brainwashed into believing that their absurd spending is getting them a good education.

The fact is that $7,000/student is plenty to educate virtually anyone.

The reason I chide the Meeks of the world is that they use their constituents as a stick to beat on this current system's inequalities, only to get more funds in the door of this same corrupt system.

I'll take Meeks seriously when he starts talking about breaking down and radically reforming the system that has so poorly served his people.

The fact remains that we can have a better education system for less net dollars. It is time to start thinking about one thing and one thing only. What serves the child?

Let's be honest. The current model of never-ending payroll and pension bloat does not serve anyone's interest save the protected class that created said system.

THEY should be the ones to pay, simply by going away.

Fund Children, Not systems. It has a nice ring to it.
8:26 AM

MORE COMMENTS - MORE COMMENTS - MORE COMMENTS - MORE COMMENTS - MORE COMMENTS

At 11:19 AM, 4Piggybanks2 said...

Speaking of "pork" and education funding........ and teaching our kids to tell the truth

1. Since the "49th out of 50" comment isn't presenting an accurate picture/the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then I would just lump it as another scare tactic to push people into tossing more money at a system that is a bottomless, mismanaged financial pit. Sound bites work - even when they're "wrong" and the School Industry handlers, etc. know it.

2. If this is the type of "truth" level we're teaching our kids, we should remember that, they, too, will one day be politicians, CEOS, educators and so on. Should this make us proud? Partial product truths can kill us. Partial facts get us into wars. If we worry so much about calling a comment technically legal, we can be sure there's more that isn't being said.

3. Keeping it simple, follow the money. Today's paper talks about the "pork" in the pending budget. And in other recent news - School Industry people are revving up the locals/parents/so-called grass roots soldiers to tell "The Government" they want more money for education. I keep asking them and others the same basic question (aside from fixing bad financial management, excessive benefits, etc.) - "Exactly what is 'The Government" supposed to take money away from to pour into a broken school system?" (Do we cut aid to destitute moms who can't afford baby formula? How about aid to the homeless, does that get chopped?) No one has an answer. Period. Still the chant and wear matching shirts and demand more money from "The Government". And, ultimately, WE ..... ARE..... "The Government"! Every tax dollar comes out of our pockets not from a space ship from the planet Xena.

4. As to the school boards elected by a sleeping and sheeplike population, while some board members are well-intentioned they are often clueless about business. Others are school industry slanted drones. They protect their own. Some school board members don't even realize they're being tolerated and worked around by administrators. The few who risk going against the tide are usually attacked professionally and personally. This isn't my idea of a great America or great American school system.

It was much easier knowing a lot less about the School Industry but living in Fantasy World only gets us more of the same bankrupting baloney. How many decades will the School Industry keep doing what doesn't work?


Condensed:

Our kids (the Littlest Taxpayers) and our adult taxpayers are not being well-SERVED by these paid public servants and elected public servants.

At 12:04 PM, steve schnorf said...

Wisdom, it's a political issue, but that's the world we live in. Solutions that are impossible to implement aren't solutions, they are wishful thinking.

At 2:11 PM, vern said...

The 2005 school spending figures have recently been released by the Illinois State Board of Education and can be dowloaded from the ILEARN webpage (http://webprod1.isbe.net/ilearn/ASP/index.asp). The average district spent $9,099 per student, a 3.5 percent increase from the FY2004.

Former Education Secretary Rod Paige once said, "What determines a child's future isn't how much is spent, but how wisely that money is spent."

According to the ISBE, the Venice Unit District spent $28,285 per student (highest in Illinois). Despite spending all of that money, only 32.6 percent of Venice’s students met the 2005 ISAT reading standards. After being on the financial watch list, the Venice District was placed under the state’s financial oversight panel. More money does not make better schools.

The Akin Elementary District spent $4,281 per student (lowest in Illinois). 59 percent of Akin’s students met the 2005 ISAT reading standards. The Akin School District has no debt and a perfect 4.0 financial recognition profile from the Illinois State Board of Education. 99 percent of Akin's students are low-income, the students that many administrators cost so much more to educate.

The State Board of Education figures do not include debt repayment, capital improvements, summer schools and other expenses. When these expenses are added, Venice had total spending of $3,443,683 with 91.89 students (average daily attendance) for a total of $37,476 per student; while Akin spent only $928,688 with 209.11 students (ADA) for a total of $4,441 per student.

The 50 lowest-spending districts all had at least half of their students meet both the math and reading standards in their general student population; while only 43 of the 50 highest-spending districts had half of their students meet both the math and reading standards.

At 2:34 PM, vern said...

While I'm at it. Look at the 2005 National Education Association's Rankings and Estimates Report. Summary Table K reports that Illinois' total school spending was $32,218,293,000 for the 2004-05 school year with a total average daily attendance of 1,890,644 (Summary Table D). This works out to $17,041 per student! According to these figures, Illinois spends more per student than any other state! Illinois is actually number one, not 49.

At 8:59 PM, monelson said...

Steve –

Extreme makes a good point. We ought to be able to devise a simpler, more effective funding method. The problem here is not his solutions simplicity, but Springfield’s need to make everything complex for complexities sake!

Your response typifies what is wrong not only in this state, but in education – that is “If it’s not obtuse and confusing, the public might figure out what were doing”. Two points here, first the socialist welfare redistribution formula (no I am not republican, I am conservative and borderline libertarian) is way to complex and penalizes local districts that decide they need to raise Ed Fund rates. When D300 raised its Ed Fund rate 55 cents in March (which I opposed), the formula redistributed more than half of it to other districts. How does this make sense? Extreme is right – fund children at a specific dollar level from a single source. Let schools raise what ever else they want to. And get it away from property tax, where it unfairly burdens the fixed income taxpayers. If it’s unrealistic to expect uncomplicated solutions from our current political leaders, let’s get new ones…oh there I go again, being simplistic.

The second overcomplicated, obtuse and confusing area is where the money is spent. If you read the mandated budget forms hard enough, you can determine that most districts spend 50% directly on classrooms and 50% on management. Here’s an oversimplified example –

25 Students in a classroom at what $8000 per child? So …..$200,000 in tax revenue
1 Teacher (with 30% benefits, etc)………$80,000 Expense
Books, supplies, etc………………………$10,000 Expense
Heat, lights, etc…………………………..$10,000 Expense
Total Direct Classroom Expenses…………………………..$100,000

Administration? …………………………………………….Priceless!

I am sure I did not include something’s, so what another 10-20,000? Still does not get away from the fact that our current school structure is too bloated at the top. But with the way we report it regular folks can’t see it.

Extreme makes sense…Simplify, reduce, and truly spend it “for the Kids”!
Throw anyone who can’t make that happen out….

At 9:05 PM, monelson said...

Oh and did Rev. Meeks lie?

Who cares, he's is now a politician, not a reverend, and we expect he will use any fact he finds anyway he can to get what he wants.

What is it he wants anyway? Oh yeah, what all real politicians want..to get elected and re-elected.

If I have offended any politicians out there, you might want to reassess your career choice, because you may not be a politician… you may actually be a servant and representative of the people you were elected by.

At 11:53 PM, Extreme Wisdom said...

Steve,

In 1979, a 28% top tax rate was "wishful thinking." The rate was 70%. (lowered by JFK from 90%)

In 1984, the idea that the Soviet Union would soon cease to exist would have been laughed at. (by both parties, BTW)

Reform is always impossible...until it happens.

Who/What do YOU stand for, an "educated populace" or a protected monopoly sucking down $500 billion nationally?

The current system is indefensible.

Sacred Cows make the best Hambuger.

Fund Children, not systems.

At 1:43 AM, steve schnorf said...

Wisdom, this is one of those really unique situations then, when the only choices are either an "educated poulace" or "a protected monopoly sucking down $500 billion".

Such a reasoned stating of the question certain makes enlightened dialogue easier, as I try to think through what I stand for. I'm really happy for you, I guess, since I'm not fortunate enough to live in a world where most important decisions can be made by simply choosing between absolute good and absolute evil.

Good for you. If I saw the question that simply, I would be able to make a decion as easily as you do.

At 12:52 PM, monelson said...

Vern -

The numbers on the front page of that reports make more sense:

48,367,410 students
$489,687,594,000 current spending
or $8,618 per student.

Don't know what Summary Table D is, but we have nearly 2.1 million students in Illinois alone.

At 12:58 PM, monelson said...

The NEA reports shows Illinois as follows:

4th in expenditures
5th in enrollment at 2.1 million
5th in # of teachers at 131,779
16th in teacher - pupil ration (1-15.9)
16th in spending per student at $9591

Maybe the Rev needs to get someone who knows how to use the internet to get his "facts" for him.