It’s good to see the state board showing some concern for growing class sizes while some of our local board members don’t.

Bill you are correct, the majority 4 wanted to build cash reserve vs adding teachers. The minority 3 thought they could be less aggressive building cash reserve and bring some teachers back. Maybe the 4 had a crystal ball and knew mistakes from the past would continue to haunt us and they were correct based on the discovery of the $328K mistake.

Jorge, the community didn’t pass the referendum due to the past board and Rickers lack of credibility. The community must have used the same crystal ball the majority 4 took advantage of. It is a shame the district is the least funded/most crowded just as it is a shame Ricker made the decisions he made. I’m concerned about what hasn’t been uncovered and the impact that will have on current and future budgets. The upside, Ricker is gone. Now the board needs to find a way to work together and show the community the can do so. This 4 vs 3 crap is driven by egos and nothing more and it must stop. Two of the 4 need to grow up and make decisions for themselves vs following the ego leaders. If that were to happen, maybe, just maybe the community would support a referendum. The community is working with what we have....which isn't much at this point.

I think that if your child goes to a public school you should pay more in taxes or make a donation to the school district $1000.00 per kid perhaps . I'm sick of paying the high tax for schools that just blow it in the long run.What I was hearing when the referendum was up for vote the first or second time was that people were mad about bus service for after school activities they were mad that the bus took the kids home after school and then came back for the kids that had these activities. Why couldn't the parents pick them up ? There are alot of older people that live in Lemont that do not have children in the school system and they will still vote NO if a referendum is brought up again.

people are over taxed and this is where the are taking there stand. Sorry but it's true

Maybe part of the problem is that there are a lot of half baked opinions beng passed around as fact by all sides of the equation. That creates a feeling of discomfort that prevents people from reaching for their wallet!

First of all Lemont is definately NOT the worst funded school district in the state, or even the local area. With 2011 education expenditures of $5879.00 per student and total expenditures of $10,472.00 per student 113a is better funded than many, many school districts in Illinois. You wll also see that 113A is one of the few schools to achieve AYP for 2011 at any funding level. It is also rated very well in number of classes that meets or exceeds targets at 89.5%!

School funding figures can be compared at
http://iirc.niu.edu/SearchMain.aspx?search
this site is maintained by Northern Illinois University and the data used is provided by the ISBE.

I do not suggest that I have the answer to any of these issues, but I think any complicated issue is best solved by first understanding the nature of the problem. The data suggests that the problem is not wholly the amount of revenue that is provided for education.

I invite you to view these ISBE statistics and you will see pages and pages of districts operating on less per pupil.

Nice of you to "take a stand" and punish the children in the public schools Rick. There are plenty of public services that I pay for that I see no benefit from, can I get a refund on those taxes? If people are over taxed why do other communities step up and support their public schools by passing referendums (in many cases those residents already pay higher taxes than residents here)? Guess those communities either care more or they don't have the cheapskate element that so many Lemont residents seem to have.

Dave, you are wrong on many levels. 1) revenues have nothing to do with expenditures, you can't question levels of funding and then use levels of expenditures as a comparison. 2) Your link that you provide shows 2011 financials, which are for fiscal year 2009-10. Since 2009 there have been approx. 22% of expenditures cut so what you are looking at does not reflect those cuts. But again if you are talking about funding you should look at revenues not expenditures.

How about you do a little research for us and look at all of the local school district using the stats provided by your link and tell us how many local school district have lower per pupil funding (REVENUES) than 113a - you seem to be implying that there are many. Your arguments would carry more weight if they were based on fact rather than your opinion.

Jorg or whoever you are. I didn’t say Ricker led us to financial ruin, you did. I’m beginning to think he suggested to live within our means as he knew in Feb of 2011 what was about to hit in regards to the transportation funds. I’m just praying this is the end of the bad news, but most likely we will have more surprises.
Looks like Dave found information to say we aren’t the least funded/most crowded. I agree the district needs more funds. However, credibility of some of the board is still a major issue and a referendum will not pass until that changes.
Jorg, you can try to blame the 3 all you want, but all you are doing is trying to make yourself feel good about your childish behavior. I’m pretty sure the actions of Mr. Aurelio and Mr. Malley meeting with our political representatives had a great deal to do with the FOP NOT being assigned to the district. The mistrust was prevalent prior to them being on the board. Once again, leave your ego at the door and get to work on being a unified board. If you ever want to have a chance to pass a referendum, it is an absolute must. The community will not reward your behavior and that is unfortunate for the kids. That is why you do this, right?

Well if Dave is right about the $$$ we spend per child. I know for a fact that St. Cyrils and St. Al's tuition is about $ 3600 .00 So then your spending more per child than a private school. ( probably getting a better education)

Lisa,
Your statement that "expenditures have nothing to do with revenue". Common accounting practices call for expenditures and revenues to be in balance more often than not. Seems to be how we got into this mess in the first place.

To answer your question my quick analysis shows about 260 school districts have education "expenditures" of less than $5200 per student. There are bound to be more between $5200.00 and Lemonts $5879.00.

The only data that I have for the revenue is the fact that the 260 other school districts are not on a Financial Plan, so their revenues must be in line with their expenditures more often than not!

I notice that you argue about this set of data, but provide no source of data that is "better", more "current", or refutes this data set provided by ISBE and NIU. If you have I'm open minded enough to look at it.

This is the information ISBE has provided to us citizens to make this kind of analysis, for exactly this purpose. If you have better set of data, I'm not too lazy to ok into it myself. Just provide your source.

Dave, your arguments and what you state they prove are completely wrong, in fact they are half-baked (your words not mine).

You throw out two year old expenditure figures to prove that many local school districts are better FUNDED than 113a; is that a correct statement or an incorrect statement by you? To say you are proving something about funding by using two year old expenditure data is absolutely incorrect and you have not proved anything other than a lack of understanding between the difference of funding and expenditures.

You are 100% incorrect in stating that you have proof that 113A is better funded than many local school districts. District revenue data IS on the link you provided - albeit two years old, same issue as looking at two year old expenditure date. Take the total district revenue then divide by the number of students to get per pupil funding. Take all local districts and let us know how 113a looks in terms of per pupil funding when compared to other local districts.

I didn't come on and state things like 113a is better funded than other local school district, you did. If you want to back up your FUNDING claims with actual true facts and supporting data go to the NIU site, do a little research and show us the facts, rather than state your opinion as fact.

Dave, are you serious in thinking that what you have stated proves that many local school districts are lower funded than 113a? ? It is mind-boggling to me that you don't understand this. You came on the message board and said you have facts that show that there are many local districts that are lower funded than 113a. Where are your facts??? What are the names of these districts and what are their per pupil funding levels when compared to 113A. Nothing you have stated or provided shows anything about funding levels between districts.

Nowhere have I stated that I have any better data set so I am not keeping anything from you. I pointed out two things to you - 1) your data is two years old, 2) you are wrong to talk about funding and then throw out expenditure levels to prove your point on funding.

If my three kids go to Target and one spends $5, and the other spends $8 and the third spends $10 does that mean that the one who spent $10 receives more funding (gets a bigger allowance) than the other two? No it doesn't and it is ludicrous for you to make a claim that expenditures prove anything about funding.

If you can't admit how woefully wrong you are then so be it, I am done trying to get you to figure out the difference between revenues and expenditures. In the future you might want to be a little more accurate and knowledgeable in your comments, otherwise what you say also comes across as inflamed rhetoric.

Lisa,

The details, all of them, are on the web site. Go there and look. They breakdown everything down to the Superintendant phone number. The website has an automated search function and will give you a list of the 260 schools.

As I thought you have nothing, but your inflamed rhetoric! Your Target explanation doesn't show anything about money management because it does not take into account what the overall goal of the shopping trip is. If the overall goal of the shopping trip is like a school budget, then the spend has to be compared with the budget, and then the budget has to be tied to the goals of the organization.

AQll i can say is if you were comfortable with one send you would give that person more, if ou were not you would give them less..... I think that's where are with 113A, somewhere between I dnt trust any of the money spenders and I dont have any more money left to give anyone....

But as I thought you have no data, good or bad - old or recent.

So Dave to wrap this up I think we are in agreement on a few things:

You don't understand the difference between revenue and expenditures. You think that district expenditures = district revenues and that proves that 113a is well funded.

You don't understand that approx. 4.5 million has been cut from the expenditures that you are looking at. So you think that 2009 data is an accurate picture of what is going on in 113a currently.

You don't have any facts that back up your statement that there are many local school districts that receive less funding than 113a. So basically your facts are really fictional data that you can't prove but you like to state them as factual.

Instead of doing some research on your own and proving your statements you expect others to prove your points. It is like me saying 113a has a 100 million surplus and then when I am asked where I got that information I give a website address and tell you to go there to look for it yourself. I know the information on the huge surplus is there, there is a lot of information there, just keep looking and you will find it yourself.

So to sum it up you really have no idea what you are talking about do you?

Playing the cheap card that characterizes so many in the village, you don't have any more money left to give...whatever.

Lisa,

Have I agreed to something now that you have put the words ino my mouth? I am again willing to look at any data, or source you have that supports your position.

I certainly don't agree with your characterization that Lemont is somehow cheap or has cheap people. I have had the great fortune to be involved with many generous and benevolent Lemonters. I have found them to be generous with both money and act. I have consistently seen Lemonter help Lemonter through illness, injury and the occasional tornado. I don't see them as cheap, and I don't see them as uncaring.

If Lemont is so cheap, Why does the High School have enough reserves to lend TAWS funds? Because we LEMONTERS built a reserve of funds through school board and administrators managing the business effectively and efficiently. I don't think Lemont won't, or doesn't, or didn't fund education. My opinion.

I have tried to keep this conversation to facts and data sets to help drive out the emotions that are present and keep a mindset towards a business discussion towards whatever the facts may really be. I have done this because the Lemont I know will respond to something that makes sense to them. They have supported the community in the past, they will again.

Thank you for your comments Patti. I have run into the same issue with the data. I am trying to avoid doing some of the "personal factoring" into the process that you have described, ie. only taking the large schools, only taking surrounding 3 counties......as that skews the results! I understand tat it takes time to compile more results, I understand that maybe downstate doesn't apply here, or maye it does..... that's why I was hoping to find some valid data that has already been compiled in a meaningful manner.

The NIU website is offered as such a site using the ISBE data, so it's a shame that the numbers have to be first interpereted, and then painstakingly calculated by the average citizen in order to make an informed decision on an important local referendum. You seem to have done it, and I will try to do it next month when work slows down. Most voters will not invest this time. They might do a web search or sme other research for school fundng information, and they are likely to be directed to the same information that I have found.

I will send email to the NIU center advising them of the opportunity they have to upgrade their reports by including the revenues in the compiler. If and when it is avalable to the compiler the website allows some pretty powerful comparison capabilities for spend, test scores, % low income etc..

Sorry for mis spells, big fingers, tiny phone

Dave, you are able to view a districts' revenue by going to the ISBE website and clicking on district's report cards.
To make things simple, just compare districts that are comparable to SD113a size (approximately 2500 students). For example, Tinley Park CCSD 146 has 2300 students (200 less than SD113a) and has a revenue of approximately 37 million, tax rate of 3.74. SD113a revenue was approx. 26 million with a tax rate of 1.55. Lemont educates 200 students more, with about 11 million less per year. That puts things into perspective, SD113a is expected to operate with much less than other districts.

Jorg, you really need to work on your memory and comprehension. Do you not recall the decision Ricker made to NOT tell the board about the transportation funds we must repay. He was informed in Feb. 2011. It is hard to comprehend why he held that information especially as they were working on financial plans to submit to the state. So any reasonable person would have to wonder what else he hid from the team. Now that the financial committee has the ability to look under the hood, we will soon know if we have other concerns.
In regards to your childish behavior. Well, hiding behind a fake name pretty much says it all. That’s about as childish as it gets. If you really believed in what you are saying the grown-up thing to do would be to use your real name. So if you want to file a lawsuit for what you perceive to be my “implied criminal behavior” comments, knock your lights out. However, be careful what you wish for. In order to show up in court you will need to grow a pair and use your real name. So my remarks made to Jorg aren’t going to be very beneficial to you. Just sayin!!!

Jorg doesn't have a pair because she is a member of the board.

Hank and Mike, in regards to your attacking and critical posts-these are reflective on your character and credibility, not mine.

You don't matter.