Even though the decisions made by the administration and school board at Township High School District 214 are, by definition, not state legislative issues, I am raising this issue because there is a significant overlap between D214 and State House District 53, as the large majority of District 53 sits within D214.

It isn’t every day that the plans of a local school district make it to the Chicago Tribune editorial page, but that’s what was featured in today’s paper, with a headline that tells the whole story:  “$850M for renovations in suburban School District 214. Seriously?
The Bears aren’t the only ones in need of a property tax break.”

And now a phone survey is being conducted by the district, ostensibly to understand community opinion on a possible referendum.

I urge you to call 224-526-9581 and participate in that survey, regardless of whether you have children in the district or not.

(As of Tuesday, October 21, the survey remains open, but I do not have information on the duration of the survey period.)

If it is past that deadline when you see this, I urge you to contact the district by e-mail or phone to express your opinion.

In any event, here’s what to know about that survey:  it is not a survey to genuinely understand community opinion.  Instead, it is packed with (mis)leading questions and editorializing to steer responses towards the desired end, a set of answers consultants and the district can point to, in order to justify a referendum.

Here’s a summary of the content of that survey, as transcribed by software (with errors that may occur).

First, the editorializing:

High School District 214 is the center of Educational Excellence where students discover their future at District 214. We encourage every student to explore world class academic and co-curricular opportunities that will inspire them to find their passion and reach their potential. However, our aging infrastructure is deteriorating and some of our school facilities are no longer meeting our community standards. Our youngest building is 52 years old with our oldest built in 1957 and our facility quality is not equal across the district, with half of our schools enjoying newer facilities, while the other half does the best they can with what they have.  Our comprehensive facility assessment conducted by an external experts identified over $850 million in needed improvements that are not cosmetic. They are necessary to keep our students and teachers safe, warm and dry.  Our district takes pride in not having gone to referendum in over 52 years, but if we are going to give our students, teachers and communities the facilities they deserve, it’s time to get serious about improving our school buildings. That’s where our community has begun an open, transparent process to develop a plan for the future of District 214. . . .

District 214 achieved success while remaining one of the most fiscally responsible districts in Illinois compared to our peer districts. We have the third lowest overall tax rate, the second lowest expense per pupil and the second lowest average administrator salary, we prioritized spending in classrooms with the second highest percentage of expenses spent on instruction compared to our peer districts.

Second, the proposed spending.  Using the district’s language, the spending is split into the following categories:

• Safety, security and accessibility, $59 million.
• Classrooms, $60 million.
• STEAM Spaces, $75 million.
• Mechanicals, $200 million.
• Infrastructure, $190 million.
• Pools, $105 million.
• Innovative spaces, $35 million.
• Main entrances, $10 million.
• Student support areas, cafeterias, and kitchens, $78 million.
• Athletic facilities, $100.5 million.

If you do the math, you’ll note that this is well over $850 million and whether the transcription had errors or the district added more spending onto the consultant’s initial calculation, I can’t say.

But either way, the survey claims that the district is and has been fiscally responsible, and that claim is absurd even from the survey itself.  The survey claims that the improvements proposed are necessary to “keep our students and teachers safe, warm and dry” yet the proposed spending goes well beyond the basics, to new pools, new athletic facilities, construction to facilitate the latest trends such as “STEAM” and “collaborative learning areas” — and the split of proposed spending among different categories does not differentiate at all between the addressing of existing deferred maintenance and the addition of new items.  A proper survey would ask voters the equivalent, if this were family finances, of “do you want the Chevy or the Cadillac?” rather than “are you willing to buy a new car?”  The way these questions were asked is irresponsible.  No survey that truly, genuinely wanted to learn voters’ opinions on willingness to spend for the necessities vs new upgrades, would ask questions in this manner.

On top of this, those of us who follow the district and its spending have heard repeatedly that they make every effort to keep up-to-date with maintenance needs such as new roofs and mechanicals.  After all, the very ethics scandal that the district found itself in two years ago, was because the district had major contracts for new HVAC systems with Trane, the company which wined and dined the former Director of Operations and another staff member in Kentucky.  Either they have been misleading us all along or only a small portion of the proposed spending would be dedicated to these elements, and this portion would be otherwise funded by regular tax revenue.

Finally, the district boasts that they “prioritized spending in classrooms with the second highest percentage of expenses spent on instruction compared to our peer districts.”  This is actually not something to boast about, if what it means is that they did not spend on necessities, in order to spend more money on “instruction” than they actually, truly, had available.