In two posts back in November and December we had some choice words for some of our elected representatives on the Park Ridge-Niles District 64 School Board who were looking down their noses at the idea of checking into whether all kids attending D-64 schools – and getting $14,000/year per kid educations for free, courtesy of Park Ridge taxpayers – actually resided in the District.
So we felt pleased and somewhat vindicated to read yesterday’s Park Ridge Herald-Advocate article reporting that this past Monday (Feb. 9) night the D-64 Board voted to conduct residency checks for all students enrolled for the 2015-16 school year (“District 64 Board approves annual residency checks,” Feb. 10).
And we have to give Supt. Laurie Heinz props for coming up with three options for the residency checks: Option A, with checks every three years; Option B, with families checked every year via in-person presentation of residency documentation; and Option C, being the same as Option B but with residency documents simply being sent in.
While we prefer Option B, any of the three would be better than the Swiss-cheese residency check system that’s currently in place and that actually might be allowing people who owned a home in Park Ridge five or even ten years ago to continue to send their kids to D-64 schools even if they sold that home and moved to Niles, Des Plaines, or Edison Park.
But nothing ever seems to be an unqualified “win,” much less a “win-win,” for either the students or the taxpayers at D-64.
So when Board member John Heyde and his coat-holding acolyte, Scott Zimmerman, once again objected to any residency checks as being “too burdensome” for residents, Heinz immediately scrambled for a “compromise” to mollify them. And consistent with the view that compromise produces a camel when what you really need is a thoroughbred, Heinz’s compromise was Option A (an every-three year check) but applied to only half of District families!
Seriously.
Fortunately, Board president Tony Borrelli and members Dan Collins, Bob Johnson, Dathan Paterno and Vicki Lee resisted getting sucked down that rabbit hole into Heyde’s and Zimm’s own special non-accountability wonderland; and that absurd compromise was defeated 5-2.
But it sounds as if the residency check for this coming school year will be a “trial” – with the expectation that if the first year’s check doesn’t disclose a significant enough number of scofflaws, the Board would cancel the residency checks for future years. What that “significant enough” number might be, however, apparently was not discussed by a Board and administration that historically treats concrete, measurable performance goals like plague-ridden rats.
Considering that each scofflaw student represents $14,000 of cost, however, just three or four scofflaws could cover the cost of one relatively “junior” D-64 teacher – assuming the Board and Administration don’t come up with ways to seriously dilute those savings by heavily padding the costs of conducting the checks.
The two most notable Board member comments on that issue, based on the H-A article, were from Collins and Paterno.
Collins, who has two children in District schools and who was the only Board member to vote against “free” (i.e., taxpayer-paid) Chromebooks, apparently went beyond his own personal opinion and made the effort to talk to District parents about the annual residency checks. And he reported – not surprisingly to us – that everyone he talked to thought annual checks were “a great idea.”
We’re betting he would have received an even more ringing endorsement from those District taxpayers without kids in D-64 schools who just pay the bills.
Paterno, on the other hand, reportedly dismissed the checks thusly: “We should at least do it once, and if we don’t catch anybody, we’d know it was a waste of time.” Kind of like the DEA raiding a suspected drug house once, finding no drugs, and never checking it again.
With that kind of attitude (reportedly joined in by Vicki Lee) combined with Heyde’s and Zimm’s outright opposition to residency checks, it sounds like a majority of the D-64 Board might be engineering the “trial” for failure and sabotaging it right from the get-go.
And, not surprisingly, according to the H-A article the Board didn’t even specify whether the District will use Option B or Option C. That left filling that decision-making void to D-64 Public Information Coordinator (a/k/a, Propaganda Minister) Bernadette Tramm, who reportedly confirmed to Pioneer Press that the Board is leaving those kinds of details up to “the district administration.”
Big mistake, or bad idea?
Unless a few Board members grow spines pretty quickly and force the bureaucrats to put in place a transparent, clearly-understandable residency check process with specifically measurable goals, the one-year “trial” might very well be both.
To read or post comments, click on title.
9 comments so far
Some governing bodies use a system where you just fax or bring your utility bill with your name and address on it into the office together with a form you sign that has all the gobbledy-gook, hold harmless verbiage, etc. on it to attest that you’re kosher. Otherwise you don’t get the resident rate for the class or program or membership. What is the bigass deal, D64?
I do not see how this could possibly be “too burdensome” for any parent or student. Every single student has to go to get their books and supplies (IDs, locks, gym uniforms, etc.) each year. I would think that would be an opportune time to bring a Drivers License, utility bill, or credit card bill to prove residency. Voilà!
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the kind of brain-cramp we get when we keep electing rubber-stamps to the school board, especially if they are parents of school kids whose primary concerns are (a) making sure their kids get the best education everybody else’s money can buy, and (b) keeping the teachers and administrators happy.
If the student is not a resident presumably he/she will not be allowed to attend any of the D64 schools?
Walking this through, let’s say it nets 100 kids that are truly not residents in the D64 system. Spread amongst 7 schools, and through grades K – 8, the class room sizes would shrink maybe by one or two students per class. I don’t foresee the school district laying off teachers for losing one or two students per class. The cost per an education per kid would than increase. However, maybe with smaller class room sizes test scores would improve.
So this residency trial may have the unintended consequences of improving standardized test scores. Although if the non-resident kids were the smartest kids in each class, you would need all of the resident students scores to increase anyways just to offset the brain drain.
So this dragnet would achieve your objective of getting rid of the deadbeat freeloaders. An unintended consequence is that the cost per student increases, if my example holds true. And the effect on standardized test scores is unknown.
Perhaps I am totally wrong. What are your thoughts?
EDITOR’S NOTE: If he were alive today, after reading that kind of labored/tortured “reasoning” Socrates would have happily chugged the hemlock.
Does this board believe it was elected for the purpose of rubber-stamping, or holding accountable, public employees?
Looking forward to your profile of the candidates for the upcoming election to vacancies on the school board.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Don’t all the ink stains on their sleeves give the answer away?
I just realized that December 2014 marked the 10th anniversary of PubDog. I think that deserves a muted huzzah or two. You make me nuts about half the time with your mean-spirited posts, but the other half of the time I applaud your speaking truth to the entrenched and unaccountable. And ALL of the time I enjoy your wit. So, thanks, PubDog!
EDITOR’S NOTE: We suspect that our most “mean-spirited posts” are the ones that speak the most truth to the most entrenched and unaccountable – and that you’re either one of those entrenched (current official) and/or one of those unaccountable (former officia), or the relative/friend of the entrenched and/or unaccountable.
But you’re welcome, nonetheless.
Your contrived ‘residency’ problem based upon, in your own words, “rumors of families from Chicago’s northwest side neighborhoods renting one bedroom condos in Bristol Court, Park Ridge Pointe, or smaller multi-family developments for between $12,000-$18,000/year just to establish an in-district address … rather than sending their kids to Ebinger. Norwood Park, Taft, or paying private school tuition…” is a bunch of baloney. it’s about as real as voter fraud that is practically nonexistent.
has anyone provided and evidence whatsoever that this is actually a problem rather than just rumors? Or is the burden of proof to engage on a residency witchhunt now “rumors”.
Seriously, what’s up with that?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Yeah, and the reports of all the non-resident freeloaders who have been caught by D-207’s residency checks are also “a bunch of baloney,” right?
So you’re idea is to assume there are no non-resident freeloaders and not to do any checks to test THAT assumption? Brilliant! There’s a place for you on the D-64 Board or administration.
I spoke at the D64 meeting in January and again on Monday, strongly in favor of yearly residency re-verification. D207 has what seems to be a pretty good form and procedure in place. D64 has a form, but it’s not as “tight” as 207’s. If 64 will update their form and make a few modifications, it just might work. I suggested that that volunteers could help with the process, thus saving the district some money, we’ll see if they put out a call for volunteers. One board member thought they should hire a consultant to tell them how to check residency. It ain’t rocket science for heaven’s sake. Fortunately saner heads prevailed on that. There is also the issue of students from local private schools who receive services from D64. Currently there are 42 such students. Their parents need to provide the same residency verification. It’ll be interesting to see how it all plays out.
EDITOR’S NOTE: That Board member who thought residency checking needs a consultant is our buddy Zimmerman, a/k/a Mini-Heyde. We can’t tell from the video whether or not Heyde’s lips were moving when Zimm was talking, but Heyde definitely was NOT drinking water.
i’m finding park ridge very depressing. the leadership is just pitiful…..between the declining schools and yes they are declining people, the TIF, my outrageous taxes on my modest home, and then reading this……….it absolutely happens people. there are kids right now attending d64 who moved out of the limits. i know of 2….yes it’s a pain to provide all the documentation to maine south but i appreciate their efforts and responsibility to the tax payers. as a previous poster wrote, many people in park ridge are hopelessly mired in the past…….and times have changed
EDITOR’S NOTE: Don’t get depressed, do something to make the situation better.
Most of these rubber-stamp board members get very afraid when groups of citizens show up at meeting who aren’t there to pat them on the back and say “Good job!” So organize some friends, go to meetings, and demand that these elected folks do their job instead of just rubber-stamping what the bureaucrats tell them to rubber-stamp.
Let me see if I understand this. You know of two families that have moved out of the district and yet you know, FOR A FACT, that their children are still attending District schools??
Well under that heading of “doing something to make the situation better” (and if you are not full of BS) why don’t you, or why haven’t you, walked into the principles office and demanded an explanation?? If the admin and board seems to believe this does not happen you have the perfect opportunity to prove them very wrong and in a very visible way. That might go a ways in improving your depression.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Good point.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>