What You Should Know:

After studying schools for two years, the LWVGE developed a CRITERIA that could be used to evaluate future school referenda.

Why You Should Care:

Referenda represent the only way schools can increase their funding. By evaluating a referendum through the Criteria, the LWV can determine whether it will support or oppose it without having a major restudy of the 1997 position.

Criteria For Evaluating School Referenda

.School Referenda Criteria

The issue of how to address school referenda was a program priority in 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07. At the February 2007 Program Planning Meeting, it was suggested that it be retained and restated as a position:

Use the School Referenda criteria adopted in 2005 to evaluate the current status of our school districts in the event of a referendum. The criteria act as a basis on which to examine districts in areas of finance and program, but will not prohibit a broad-based study in the future.

 Note: No study is planned for 2007-2008.

Note: The following criteria were proposed for adoption by the LWVGE in 2005.  These criteria are adapted from the criteria provided by LWVIL with minor changes recommended by the Education Committee members of 2005 including LWVGE members Rinda Allison, Margaret De La Rosa, Shawn Fasules, Lee Crumbaugh, and Dee Manire.

  1. Is the funding request consistent with other positions of the LWVUS, LWVIL, LWV of DuPage County and the LWV of Glen Ellyn?

 Evaluation: 1. Yes, the funding request by Glen Ellyn School District 41 is consistent with the Education position as stated by the LWVUS, and IL and LWVGE.     

We have included portions of each of these positions, and links to League websites for review. The LWVGE local position on the District 41 Facilities Plan Consensus from 1997 all questions and answers have been included except for original question number 2.  The original question text/answer is not relevant to this the current (4/17/2007) referendum question.

 LWVUS Education Positions:

http://www.lwv.org/where/creating/eqed.html

Creating a Just Society: Education

In evaluating federal programs that have been, or will be, established to provide equality of opportunity for education and employment, the League will support those programs that largely fulfill the following criteria:

The nationwide effort to achieve equality of opportunity in education should include participation of government at all levels and encourage the participation of private institutions.

State and local governments should contribute to the extent their resources permit; at the same time, adequate federal funds for the establishment and continuation of programs should be available if necessary.

LWVIL Education Positions

The following is taken from LWVIL “Positions in Brief”

http://www.lwvil.org/where_we_stand/positions_in_brief_2003-2005.doc

SCHOOLS:  The League supports a system of high quality elementary and secondary schools for all children in Illinois, which provides for local control of school program and budget within minimum program requirements set by the State.  The State should provide leadership to local communities for program development and should set standards for recognition and accreditation of schools.  The effectiveness of educational programs should be evaluated regularly.  The League favors minimum standards for graduation and promotion of students.  The League supports increased professionalism for teachers including stringent teacher preparation standards, comprehensive teacher and principal evaluations, changes in tenure and increased teacher compensation.  The State should assume the major responsibility for funding public schools and guarantee an adequate level of financial support.  League believes that charters should be established by local school boards and that the Illinois State Board of Education should continue to monitor the progress of existing charter schools before supporting further expansion.

 School Finance (1975, 77, revised 1993):  The League believes that schools should be provided stable, reliable and adequate revenue through a combination of federal, state and local sources.  State funding levels should be sufficient to enable districts to provide for all students and education that meets both standards established by the State Board of Education and legislated mandates.

  1. Has the school board communicated the reasons for seeking additional funding through accessible public channels, for example open meetings, web sites, news releases, community mailings, pamphlets, etc?

 Evaluation:  2: For the April ballot the school district is attempting to communicate its need for a bond referendum with use of a public survey, targeted mailings, and several community forums.  In addition the district and grass roots organization GrowingD41 have published several supporting documents on its website, and has been physically present at school functions to distribute voter information.

This committee must note the decision to go to referendum by the board was not made until February 5, 2007, which is a short time frame to communicate to the voters of the district

This committee recommended in 2005 that boards consistently allow a minimum of six-months lead-time for all future funding requests. 

  1. Has the opportunity been provided for citizen response to the school board’s proposal for increased local school funding?

 

Evaluation: 3. Yes, the board has provided opportunities for citizen discussion.  Specifically, the board conducted board meetings, community forums and a district –wide survey.    

  1. Has the school board demonstrated fiscal responsibility in the following ways?
    1. Implementation of cost-effective measures, including but not limited to identifying operating inefficiencies such as utility costs, outside contracts, transportation routes;

  Evaluation:

    1. Long range planning (within a range of three to five years), including projections of income and expenses and their effect on reserves, programs and personnel;

Evaluation:

    1. Continued evaluation of the need and cost-effectiveness of programs;

 Evaluation: Search for other suitable sources of revenue, e.g., district charitable foundation grants.

 Evaluation:

    1. Pursuit of intergovernmental cooperative agreements for improved delivery of services or cost savings?

Evaluation:

  1. Do income-and-expense or enrollment projections indicate current and/or future financial difficulty?  Consider the following:
    1. Budgeted expenditures have exceeded budgeted revenues in one or more funds and in more than one fiscal year.
    1. The working cash fund has been closed out and (1) has been combined with repeated short-term borrowing, or (2) the debt incurred is not being systematically retired.

Evaluation:

    1. There has been repeated postponement of (1) maintenance actions, (2) purchases of instructional materials, or (3) program implementation.

 Evaluation:

    1. There has been late payment of debt service, salaries, or contributions to pension funds (signaling that a fiscal crisis has already occurred).

 Evaluation: Financial institutions have imposed a limit on borrowing.  The school district bond rating has changed (signaling that a fiscal crisis has already occurred).

 Evaluation: Have unique financial hardships been imposed on the district (e.g., tax caps, tax exempt properties, TIF districts, rapidly increasing enrollment, property reassessment, and other unfunded state and federal mandates)?

 Evaluation:

    1. Have future educational or demographic trends which may require additional funding been considered, e.g. increasing use of technology, increasing special education costs, “at-risk”, bilingual, special needs?

Evaluation:  

  1. Is passage of the referendum essential to maintain, restore or achieve the established educational goals of the district?  Consider the following in comparison with comparable districts:

·      Cost-per-pupil expenditures, as defined in the State Report Card, are within an acceptable range.

       An acceptable student-teacher ratio and student-administrator ratio, as defined in the State Report Card, are offered.     

·      Salaries for teachers and administrators are competitive enough to attract highly qualified, talented personnel.

·      The curriculum and program are competitive and of a high enough standard to prepare students for their future.

Evaluation:

-OR-

 6A. Is passage of the referendum proposal essential for maintaining the physical plant for health, safety, and educational needs, e.g., increased enrollment space need, asbestos abatement, compliance with ADA requirements?

Evaluation:

 7.   In determining the amount of the referendum, were the district’s current reserves considered?  Is any portion thereof being used to reduce this referendum?  If not, why not?

 Evaluation:  

  1. Are there unique community factors that could affect the League’s position on the referendum?

 

Evaluation: 8: The Glen Ellyn community, specifically the elementary district (D41) is expected to present a referendum to build a middle school. This is a district that has projections indicating at least 10 years of elementary enrollment growth.  District 41 (elementary district) is currently operating over its physical capacity with some 300 students in portable classrooms.  Two referendums in one year may be more than this community can economically support.