HMS "Next Steps" Survey Results Are Clear that the Administration, BOE and Facilities Committee Have Much Work To do Before Choosing A New Referendum Date

As the school year winds down, we will be writing our final posts before signing off -- permanently. When the 2015-2016 school year ends, we -- the bloggers  -- will have officially graduated all of our children from D181 and have decided that now is the right time to end our blog.  Our hope is that current and future parents will continue to closely monitor what is happening in D181 and, if necessary, start their own blog that will continue to shine a light of transparency on the good and the bad in the district. We will elaborate further on June 9, when we will be publishing our final post, but today and later this week, we are going to publish 2 important posts.

This first one addresses the HMS Referendum Next Steps Survey Results.  Later this week, the second post will address Curriculum Issues that were discussed at last week's Learning Committee Meeting and will be discussed at tonight's BOE meeting.

At tonight's BOE meeting, the HMS "Next Steps" Survey results are on the agenda for discussion.  As you all may recall, following the failure of the HMS Referendum, the BOE tasked the administration with conducting a survey, the purpose of which was to determine why the referendum failed and whether or not the BOE should approve going to referendum in the future on the HMS building.

We are not going to summarize the Survey Results that are going to be presented tonight to the BOE, since the administration and consulting firm it hired to conduct the Phone and Online Survey have done so.  The following links will take you to the reports and results and we encourage all of our readers to take the time to read ALL of the documents posted:

1.  Link to the Board Docs Agenda item on the Next Steps Survey
2.  Power Point Presentation for 5/23/16 BOE meeting
3.  Director of Communications 5/23/16 Summary Memo on the Results
4.  Patron Insights' Phone Survey Results -- Final Report
5. Online Survey Results with Redacted Comments

What we plan to do instead of summarizing the reports is to provide you with our take-aways (and of course, they are opinions which you may or may not agree with) and the next steps we hope the BOE will take, starting tonight.

First, our take-aways:

1.  It is clear that the main reason that the referendum failed was the exorbitant price tag.  It is also clear that in order for an HMS referendum to have any chance of succeeding, the price tag must be below $45 million.

2.  Too many bells and whistles were included in the first referendum, but in our opinion, even if you strip out the auditorium and running track, that will not lower the price tag by $20 million, so other changes are needed to the "winning Cordogan design."

3.  There is insufficient interest in rushing back to referendum in November 2016.  A majority of survey takers want the BOE to either take as much time as is needed to develop a design that the community will support or at a minimum wait until April 2017 at the earliest.  It will be interesting to see if the administration attempts to spin the responses to suggest that enough time exists between now and November to develop a design that the community can support and approve less than 6 months from now.  More importantly, it will be interesting to see if the BOE falls for this spin or immediately quashes any notion of going to referendum before April 2017.

4.  Based upon the survey results that show that a new design is in order, Cordogan must be terminated as the Architect on an new HMS project.   Unfortunately, for Cordogan, they have already had multiple swings at bat to design a new HMS that would cost $45 million.  As past blog posts have reported, their original design came close to a projected cost of $45 million, but a last minute bait and switch escalated the price tag by 66% to $73 million.  While they generated several project modifications that lowered the $73 to $65 million, $60 and $55 million, it was clear from the presentations to the BOE that the architecture firm was not supportive of their "cheaper" versions.  How then could anyone trust them now to develop a cheaper design that the community will support?

5.  We hope that all of you will take the 30 to 45 minutes it will take to read the COMMENTS submitted by the community members on the Online Survey:  Online Survey Results with Redacted Comments.  While the comments are consistent with the Survey results, we do want to take a moment to express our sadness and disappointment in community members who suggested that the only reason Clarendon Hills residents voted NO was because they didn't think they would benefit from the referendum.  There were many negative, personal comments against Clarendon Hills residents and we found them to be ignorant, hateful and destructive.  Thankfully, as the data shows, more than 50% of those who took the online survey actually live in the HMS feeder areas within D181 and the majority of the comments were from people who voted No AND gave very detailed and substantive reasons that have nothing to do with which side of town you live on to explain why the referendum failed.

Now, we would like to list our hopes for the next steps the BOE should take, starting tonight:

1.  Have a meaningful, substantive and constructive discussion tonight on the survey results.

2.  Decide that it will NOT go to referendum in November 2016.

3.  Terminate it's relationship with Cordogan Clark, the architecture firm.

4.  Agree that it will not take any further steps on an HMS referendum until it has finalized and approved its Facilities Master Plan -- just like D86 did as a first step.

5.  Set a timeline for finalizing and approving a Facilities Master Plan.

6.  Prioritize capital projects that are in the Facilities Master Plan and IF HMS remains the priority, THEN and only THEN....

7.  Set a timeline for deciding what the MAXIMUM dollar amount that should be spent on EITHER a new HMS OR a renovation of the existing HMS and conduct a formal RFP process to select a reputable architecture firm that must bid on the project as has been done with past successful D181 referenda.

8.  Once the winning firm is selected, then work with that firm to design a new or renovated HMS that will be within the budgeted amount.

9.  Go to referendum, but only after ensuring that a Committee of Community Members has been formed that will do the heavy labor needed to promote in a constructive, non-devisive manner the referendum question.

In our opinion, the earliest this can happen is April 2017, but since the administration has proven itself incapable of meeting ANY deadlines -- whether budgetary, facilities or curriculum -- we doubt that an April 2017 referendum can be achieved.  Instead, we hope the BOE takes as much time as is necessary to set a budget, select an architect and design a reasonable and fiscally responsible new or renovated Hinsdale Middle School.

We can't wait to listen to tonight's BOE meeting and see if ANYTHING AT ALL is decided on this important topic.

Stay tuned and SOUND OFF!

Are Nine Years of D181's MAP Student Growth Summary Reports Invalid? Are the Reports D181 has Relied Upon "MISLEADING" and do they "MISREPRESENT" the Growth Summary Data?

We begin this post by copying from our last one a statement made by Dr. Larson at the May 9, 2016 BOE meeting.  As you may recall, BOE members expressed concern over the Growth Summary data for the Fall 2015 to Spring 2016 MAP data.

In response, Dr. Larson stated that the results "misrepresent the total percentage of students who are meeting growth goals and there's a long explanation to it but I just happened to find it out by going through the data set and coming across a discrepancy and so when I contacted NWEA they said 'yeah that is a discrepancy' and they are actually looking into doing some revision work with their growth summary reports because there are people who are complaining about that -- it's misleading.  But again, I would need all the visuals to really explain it more thoroughly."  (5/9/2016 Meeting Podcast, Counter 2:10:21.)

Over the last few days, as we awaited the posting on Board Docs of the Learning Committee agenda and related documents for its May 16, 2016 meeting, we decided to compile D181's MAP growth summary data for prior years.  With a little digging, we found the MAP Growth Summary Data for 2006-2016 on the D181 website and Board Docs.  Below is a chart we prepared from the Growth Summary data reports NWEA created for D181 beginning with 2006 - 2007 school year and from which former administrators created Board Reports and D181 schools developed their School Improvement Plans.

The following chart*** shows (or so we have always been led to believe) the % of students who met their Growth Targets in Math and Reading since the 2006-2007 School Year.  Each of the NWEA Growth Summary Reports and Board Reports/Powerpoint (created by D181 Administrators) that we used to create this master chart have columns or spreadsheet charts that purport to show the % of students meeting their growth projection. Until Dr. Larson's declaration (at the May 9 BOE meeting) that the 2015-2016 NWEA Growth Summary Reports "MISREPRESENT" this information, no one (to our knowledge) in the D181 Administration (past or present) had EVER made such a suggestion.

As we awaited Dr. Larson's explanation of the mysterious "DISCREPANCY" that she claimed would show how the reports NWEA created for D181 "MISREPRESENTED" the growth data, we were curious to see if past reports were different than the 2015-2016 reports published on Board Docs for the May 9 Board meeting.  The links to the sources are at the conclusion of this post, for anyone who wants to see the actual reports.  While we are not statisticians, in our lay opinion, we do not see that NWEA did anything substantially or significantly different in the 2016 Spring Reports showing Fall 2015 to Spring 2016 student growth from it's past reports.  (We understand that NWEA updated its NORMS in 2015, as it does every four or five years, but the format of the reports remained the same as in the past, other than adding a couple of new columns dealing with comparative data.)

This is important because whatever explanation Dr. Larson gives regarding the mysterious DISCREPANCY, she had better explain whether the DISCREPANCY existed in the past NWEA reports, potentially invalidating the reported results since 2006 that D181 administrators have relied upon and represented to multiple BOE's.

What follows is the chart we have created for each grade level, and in our lay opinion, it shows that student performance has declined dramatically over the years -- in particular in Math -- and this year is the worst year in the last five years for a majority of the schools, regardless of the grade level (as highlighted in RED).


Grade 2 -- MATH  (Note:  Second Graders began taking MAP test in the Fall 2013.)
Year                  District     Elm       Madison      Monroe      Oak      Prospect     The Lane     Walker        
2013-2014           55.1        32.6           46.3            65.7         55.8         64.4             60.4           53.2
2014-2015           64.4        73.2           63.1            40.3         55.6         74.3             69.2           80.6
2015-2016           37           31              44               32            38            26                51              36

Grade 2 -- READING (Note:  Second Graders began taking MAP test in the Fall 2013.)
Year                  District     Elm       Madison      Monroe      Oak      Prospect     The Lane     Walker
2013-2014          39.8         58.7           37               22.9         46.5         40.7             45.3           36.2
2014-2015          58.4         60.7           66.2            50.7         60            52.9             56.9           67.7  
2015-2016          47            38              56               31            68            53                41              49


Grade 3 -- MATH
Year                  District     Elm       Madison      Monroe      Oak      Prospect     The Lane     Walker
2006-2007           49.1         61.7          27.7           48.6           34.6      59.4              62.7           51.7
2007-2008           59.3         45.8          64.2           50.9           50         64.4              66.1           69.4
2008-2009           52.7         61             41.8           50              53.8      58.1              54.2           55.6
2009-2010           62.9         59             55.7           56.6           55.2      73.9              71.6           68.2
2010-2011           56.3          68.2         51.2           55.3           50         61.8              52.1           60
2011-2012           55.7          46.8         63.2           53.8           69.6      57.5              44.3           55
2012-2013           47.5          60            49.4           40              80          33.8             38.6           48.8
2013-2014           73.6          81.4         81.17         59.7           87          75                67.6           67.2
2014-2015           65.8          72            78.2           61.3           90          50.9             56.1           60.4
2015-2016           37             44             41             28              58          28                40              19


Grade 3 -- READING
Year                  District     Elm       Madison      Monroe      Oak      Prospect     The Lane     Walker
2006-2007           45.6         61.7         52.2            40.5         28.8         35.4             59              40
2007-2008           52.3         41.7         50               60.4         58.3         45.8             59.7           51
2008-2009           47.2         56.1         51.9            38.1         53.8          36               54.2           47.6
2009-2010           55.6         66.7         47.1            56.2         58.6          56.5            60.6           45.5
2010-2011           40.2         59.1          31              34.2         35.9          35.3            38.4            63
2011-2012           51.8         44.7          64.7           43.1         58.7          45.9            41               65
2012-2013           49.9         45.7          55.8           45            75.6          37.5            44.6            54.8
2013-2014           58            58.6          65              43.5          63            62.5            59.7            54.8
2014-2015           56.6         63.3          56.4           62.2          60            56.4            54.4            41.7         
2015-2016           47            50             52              43             60            48               41               42


Grade 4 -- MATH
Year                  District     Elm       Madison      Monroe      Oak      Prospect     The Lane     Walker
2006-2007            45.6         56.3          63.3          36.7          51.9        41                25              52.3
2007-2008            57.6         62.7          58.8          64             63.2        49.3             45.8           57.6
2008-2009            51.1         64             45.3          55.9          57.1        40.5             50.8           50
2009-2010            57.8         59.6          61.4          56.8          67.2        54.5             50              55.4
2010-2011            50.3         36.6          59.2          57.1          54.4        44.3             34.4           62.5
2011-2012            49.6         55.3          36.8          50              69.6       55.6             44              46.8
2012-2013            53.8         45.7          55.4          54.3           51          63.6             48.4           53.1
2013-2014            59.4         47.8          59.7          57.8           45.5        76.5             64.1          47.6
2014-2015            59.7         44.4          68.3          43.5           65.1        72.7             50             77.2
2015-2016            41            45             43             28              59           51                23             41


Grade 4 -- READING
Year                  District     Elm       Madison      Monroe      Oak      Prospect     The Lane     Walker
2006-2007           52            56.3         62.5            41.7         53.7         43.4             50              59.1
2007-2008           57.2         50.9         50               53.9         60.3         51.6             63.8           71.7
2008-2009           47.6         57.1         43.8            35.6         44.9         48.6             53.8           50
2009-2010           58.2         67.4         57.8            47.1         56.3         61                50              73.4
2010-2011           48.4         43.9         52               41            56.1         57.7             37.5           50
2011-2012           57.6         61.7         56.3            51.3         55.6         59.7             52              74.5
2012-2013           53.5         54.3         50               40             49           66.2             53.1           60.3 
2013-2014           60.4         54.3         64.9            49.4          60.5        78.8             52.4           54.8
2014-2015           59            54            61.9            51.6          62.8        60.6             60.3           63.2
2015-2016           47            45            37               35             59           70                48              45



Grade 5 -- MATH
Year                  District     Elm       Madison      Monroe      Oak      Prospect     The Lane     Walker
2006-2007            57.6       52.5         52.2            48.7           71.7         54,8            55.6           68.9
2007-2008            60          70.8         61.6            50.8           56.1         52.9            58.7           77.8
2008-2009            57.7       62.3         54.7            53.2           52.2         50               54.5           80.3
2009-2010            54.7       50            50               47.4           72            55.1            48.5           64.2
2010-2011            57.8       54.2         50               60.7           64.6         55.7            61.7           58.8
2011-2012            55.4       50            44.9            46.8           70.5         53.2            37.5           74.5
2012-2013            55.4       59.6         59.1            52.6           68.8         50               48.1           55.1                        
2013-2014            53.1       59.6         50.8            48.6           76.5         57.1            41.9           41.9
2014-2015            55.8       57.7         46.9            58              68.2         48.8            55.1           69
2015-2016            37          52            50               38              46            37               29              26      


Grade 5 -- READING
Year                  District     Elm       Madison      Monroe      Oak      Prospect     The Lane     Walker
2006-2007            50.1       52.5         38.8            48.7          46.8          50.8            55.6           59
2007-2008            54.9       64.6         48.6            49.2          40.4          66.7            50.8           64.4
2008-2009            52.4       60.7         60               51.3          48.5          38.2            49.1           59
2009-2010            55.4        61.5        57.4            45.6          59.2          40.3            52.9           79.2  
2010-2011            55.7        64.6        44.2            58              58.1         58.2            60              52.2
2011-2012            59.2        50           56.4            54.4           60.7         66.2            60.9           64.7
2012-2013            53.5        51.9        55.7            59              57.4         49.3            48.1           53.1    
2013-2014            59.5        53.8        57.1            55.7           74.5         64.5            58.1           54
2014-2015            64.1        71.2        56.8            63              73.8         64.3            62.3           64.3
2015-2016            51           54           52               44              54            56               47              47


Grade 6 -- MATH (Note: Only targeted students at the middle schools took MAP in 08-09.)
Year                  District     CHMS       HMS
2006-2007          NA           NA             NA
2007-2008          44.7         44.6            44.7
2008-2009          62            60.5            63.6
2009-2010          47.1         40.6            52.5
2010-2011          51.3         47.9            54
2011-2012          46.5         46.1            46.8
2012-2013          48.4         48.8            48
2013-2014          43.4         48.1            39.8
2014-2015          50.3         50.5            50.2
2015-2016          36            40               33 


Grade 6 -- READING (Note: Only targeted students at the middle school took MAP in 08-09.)
Year                  District     CHMS       HMS
2006-2007          NA           NA            NA
2007-2008          47.4          47.6          47.1
2008-2009          56.7          56.4          56.9
2009-2010          51.4          55.4          48.1
2010-2011          52.2          46.6          56.7
2011-2012          53.7          53             54.3
2012-2013          56.2          52.7          59.1
2013-2014          54.9          58.3          52.4
2014-2015          59.3          59.3          59.4
2015-2016          56             56             55


Grade 7 -- MATH (Note: Only targeted students at the middle school took MAP in 08-09.)
Year                  District     CHMS       HMS
2006-2007          NA           NA            NA
2007-2008          44             43.2          45.3    
2008-2009          52.4          48.9          61.1          
2009-2010          57.6          57             58.1
2010-2011          56.8          50.9          61.6
2011-2012          48.1          51.6          45.5
2012-2013          51.8          51.1          52.4
2013-2014          51.6          48.5          54
2014-2015          58.7          56.2          60.6
2015-2016          45             52             37


Grade 7 -- READING (Note: Only targeted students at the middle school took MAP in 08-09.)
Year                  District     CHMS       HMS
2006-2007           NA           NA             NA
2007-2008           54.3          53.7           55.2
2008-2009           68.4          66.7           71
2009-2010           55.3          56.3           54.5
2010-2011           59.8          64.8           55.6
2011-2012           52.4          54.3           51
2012-2013           51.3          48.1           54
2013-2014           55.5          58.6           53.1
2014-2015           54.2          62.1           48.4
2015-2016           50             48              51 


Grade 8 -- MATH (Prior to Fall 2013, 8th graders did not take the MAP test.)
Year                  District     CHMS       HMS             
2013-2014           47.1          47.5           46.8
2014-2015           52.5          52.5           52.4
2015-2016           26             30              27


Grade 8 -- READING (Prior to Fall 2013, 8th graders did not take the MAP test.)
Year                  District     CHMS       HMS
2013-2014           39.2          37.6           40.7
2014-2015           46.2          53.7           40.6
2015-2016           33             27              38

Recall, as we explained our last post, in 2013 Dr. Russell insisted that NWEA expected that high

Dismal MAP Test Growth Results -- Real or Not? Is the D181 Spin Machine Once Again Cranking Up to Avoid Accountability?

By now the news is spreading like wildfire across D181. The Fall 2015 to Spring 2016 MAP test Student Growth results are ABYSMAL!

On Monday, the D181 Administration posted the MAP test Student Growth summary results (District Wide and School by School) on Board Docs for the May 9, 2016 BOE meeting. The two reports can be accessed in their entirety at the following links:

District wide Results: http://www.boarddocs.com/il/hccsdil/Board.nsf/files/A9SPMW6508EE/$file/2015-2016%20Fall-Spring%20Growth%20Summary%20Reports%20-%20District.pdf

School by School Results:
http://www.boarddocs.com/il/hccsdil/Board.nsf/files/A9SPN4650B27/$file/2015-2016%20Fall-Spring%20Growth%20Summary%20Reports%20-%20Schools.pdf

Rather than show you images of each page of the report, we have created our own Comparative Chart that highlights the Grade Level Growth for each school.

We expect that you will have the same reaction to the results that we did -- one of shock and disappointment in how D181 has let our children down.

We begin by reminding our readers that D181 students in Grades 2 through 8 took the MAP test last Fall and this Spring. Each time the students take the MAP test, they are given a projected growth target of how many RIT points their new score is projected to increase from their prior score by. Each student has a different growth target. The MAP Reports D181 ordered from NWEA (the Northwest Evaluation  Association) show the percentage of students that met their Projected Growth Target. We have highlighted in RED the lowest % growth target met in each grade in Math and Reading.

Grade 2                                   % Met Math Growth Target       % Met Reading Growth Target
District Wide                                                37                                                         47
Elm                                                              31                                                         38
Madison                                                       44                                                         56
Monroe                                                        32                                                         31
Oak                                                              38                                                         68
Prospect                                                       26                                                        53
The Lane                                                      51                                                        41
Walker                                                          36                                                        49

Grade 3                                   % Met Math Growth Target       % Met Reading Growth Target
District Wide                                                 37                                                         47
Elm                                                               44                                                         50
Madison                                                        41                                                         52
Monroe                                                         28                                                         43
Oak                                                               58                                                         60
Prospect                                                       28                                                         48
The Lane                                                      40                                                         41
Walker                                                          19                                                         32

Grade 4                                   % Met Math Growth Target       % Met Reading Growth Target
District Wide                                                 41                                                          47
Elm                                                               45                                                          45
Madison                                                       43                                                           37
Monroe                                                         28                                                          35
Oak                                                              59                                                           59
Prospect                                                       51                                                           70
The Lane                                                      23                                                           48
Walker                                                          41                                                           45

Grade 5                                   % Met Math Growth Target       % Met Reading Growth Target
District Wide                                                  37                                                           51
Elm                                                                52                                                           54
Madison                                                         50                                                           52
Monroe                                                          38                                                           44
Oak                                                                46                                                           54
Prospect                                                        37                                                           56
The Lane                                                       29                                                           47
Walker                                                           26                                                           47

Grade 6                                   % Met Math Growth Target       % Met Reading Growth Target
District Wide                                                 36                                                            56
CHMS                                                           40                                                            56
HMS                                                              33                                                            55

Grade 7                                   % Met Math Growth Target       % Met Reading Growth Target
District Wide                                                 45                                                            50
CHMS                                                           52                                                            48
HMS                                                              37                                                            51

Grade 8                                   % Met Math Growth Target       % Met Reading Growth Target
District Wide                                                 26                                                            33
CHMS                                                           30                                                            27
HMS                                                              27                                                           38


In looking at these results, the question to be asked is "What percentage of students should be meeting their growth targets?"

Let us recall that in 2013, there was much discussion at the Board table about this because NWEA (the testing company) had historically told school districts that 70% of students in high achieving school districts should be meeting their growth targets. At the June 10, 2013 board meeting, when the 2012-2013 MAP data was presented, Kevin Russell, former Director of Curriculum and Assessment, stated that despite this statement being included in the Fall 2012 MAP results letters that D181 parents received, NWEA now was taking the position that the new goal was that 50 to 60% of students would meet the target.  (See June 13, 2013 Blog Post.) For those of you with a good memory, in the months that followed, the BOE formed a committee to set growth goals, culminating in a goal that at least 55% of students should meet their growth targets. This goal has continued for each school as documented in the 2015-2016 School Improvement Plans presented at the November 9, 2015 BOE meeting.  (Click to open 2015-2016 School Improvement Plans.)

With the watered down goal from 70% to 55%, parents have a right to expect that the schools at each grade level will meet this growth target. So, there is no question that  the percentage of D181 students who met their individualized growth targets for the 2015-2016 school year is unacceptably low.

How many schools (7 elementary and 2 middle)  had 55% or more of the students meeting their math and reading targets?

In 2nd grade, 0 in math and 1 in reading.
In 3rd grade, 1 in math and 1 in reading.
In 4th grade, 1 in math and 2 in reading.
In 5th grade, 0 in math and 1 in reading.
In 6th grade, 0 in math and 2 (of 2) in reading.
In 7th grade, 0 in math and 0 in reading.
In 8th grade, 0 in math and 0 in reading.

But worse than only a few schools having 55% or more of the student meeting their growth targets, was the absurdly low percentile seen at some schools and the very clear discrepancy shown between schools. Two examples will show the discrepancy: While 58% of Oak's 3rd graders met their Math growth targets, only 19% of Walker's 3rd graders did. And while 68% of Oak's 2nd graders met their Reading growth targets, only 31% of Monroe's 3rd graders did.

How can this be? Same district, same grade, yet shockingly different growth results. And those two examples are just the tip of the iceberg.

Now, in all fairness to the administration, we have listened to the May 9, 2016 BOE meeting podcast, and during the meeting, when a couple of BOE members raised concerns about the results, Dr. Carol Larson, the Director of Assessment and Program Effectiveness, made the following statement:

The results "misrepresent the total percentage of students who are meeting growth goals and there's a long explanation to it but I just happened to find it out by going through the data set and coming across a discrepancy and so when I contacted NWEA they said 'yeah that is a discrepancy' and they are actually looking into doing some revision work with their growth summary reports because there are people who are complaining about that -- it's misleading.  But again, I would need all the visuals to really explain it more thoroughly."  (5/9/2016 Meeting Podcast, Counter 2:10:21.)

She explained that she is going to be presenting a more detailed report to the Learning Committee at the upcoming May 16 committee meeting (to be held at the Administration Center starting at 6 p.m.) (Click to open Board Docs Agenda for upcoming 5/16/16 Learning Committee Meeting.)

Our reaction to Dr. Larson's statement is that it appears that the administration may once again be cranking up the old Spin Machine in an attempt to minimize the growth results and deflect attention away from the obvious questions -- the WHY questions -- that would explain how so few of our students are achieving appropriate growth after one year of learning.

The following are questions that we hope are answered at the Learning Committee Meeting next Monday:

The HMS Referendum -- The Bait and Switch Continues. Time for the BOE to Cut the Fishing Line.

Looks like the HMS Bait and Switch continues.  

Let us recall.....First the D181 BOE and Administration selected an architect whose "HMS design contest" proposal cost $46 million. Then less than 2 weeks before the BOE had to decide whether to go to referendum or not, the price tag skyrocketed to $73 million.  Then at the ninth hour, the architect brought forward three additional proposals with price tags of $55, $60 and $65 million. The BOE majority (with two sane and rational board members justifiably saying NO to the $65 million plan), voted to go to referendum for $65.

And guess what the community said? NO WAY! The Referendum FAILED! And, it wasn't even a close vote!  

So now, as the BOE is trying to decide when and if and at what price tag to try again, the architect has come forward with a new proposal -- one in which it will agree not to be compensated for any more design changes - which per their letter, will only be MINOR --made prior to any future referendum being approved AND in which the firm will agree to lower its Architectural Fees on the whole project in order to get the price tag down to under $60 million. Really? Well, we are not buying it!

Check out the letter they sent to "Don" 45 days ago, on March 24, 2016.(That's right -- "Don" has been sitting on this letter for over one month, not publishing it for all the community to read, and to our knowledge, it wasn't published or discussed at the April 11 BOE meeting! The letter is now posted on Board Docs for the Monday, May 9 BOE meeting and can be accessed at: March 24, 2016 letter.

As we read the architect's letter, we were, to be frank, beyond disappointed in Cordogan Clark. Why? Let's take a look. The following will quote portions of the letter in blue and then give our reaction in red.

The letter states in relevant part:  

"As you know Cordogan Clark revised the design seven times since the competition to continue to find cost savings and we were intimately engaged in every organized activity to present the facts and information related to the HMS referendum and were ready and willing to do more and even offered to go door to door to provide information, and get the message dispersed."

Reaction:  How comical that they claim they revised the design 7 times to find cost savings! How ironic that they neglect to acknowledge that their original $46 million "winning design" was revised UPWARD by nearly $30 million. The fact that they ignore this apparent "teeny weeny fact" in their letter speaks VOLUMES. In our opinion, they just don't get it! Furthermore, their claim that they were "intimately engaged in every organized activity to present the facts and information related to the HMS referendum" must mean they worked hand in hand with the Vote Yes Committee and Director of Communications.  Obviously, they had ZERO influence, since they were unable to convince anyone to conduct the door to door canvassing that they reference. Not once did the community get any flyers from the Vote Yes community group. It just got flyers from Ms. McGuiggan. Why not?  Why didn't the architect work to create flyers for the VOTE YES group that were mailed to the community or distributed door to door? It seems that this firm is quick to claim that they would have and could have done more, but the reality is that what they SHOULD have done, they did NOT do. So why trust them now? We sure don't!

"As a gesture of our commitment to CCSD 181 and this project, we offer to forgo additional compensation for the efforts related to design adjustments required to bring the project price lower than the $65 million for the next referendum phase. It is our opinion that the current design, with some reasonably minor adjustments, as agreed to by CCSD 181, could bring the project cost down to under $60 million."

Reaction:  Read carefully what they said.  They essentially want to keep the current design with "minor adjustments".  No mention of what those minor adjustments might be, no mention how they determined that these unnamed adjustments could reduce the price tag by $5 million.  Are they planning to eliminate the auditorium?  The running track?  What are they talking about?  And are they really suggesting that reducing the price tag by a mere $5 million will be all it takes to convince more than 50% of the community to vote yes? In our opinion, this statement is meaningless and cannot be trusted.  It is clear as a bell that the community is not just going to accept MINOR changes to the design.  Hopefully, the online and phone surveys will show that the community expects not just MAJOR design changes but also a much greater reduction in the overall cost of the project.  The refusal by the architect to even consider this possibility in their letter leads us to conclude that they will never work to achieve the community's real goals and desires for a new or renovated HMS.

"We believe that the design, which was highly favored by the Administration, HMS staff and the Facilities Committee has inherent efficiencies and can be further refined to realize these savings."

Reaction:  Are they joking?  They claim their own design has ''inherent efficiencies?"  And that as a result of these "efficiencies" their plan can be  "refined" to "realize savings?"  What does that even mean and why should we trust their assessment of their own project that was riddled with cost mistakes from Day One? Simply making this claim does nothing to instill greater confidence in the many community members who didn't fall for the first round of bait and switch and are way too intelligent to accept at face value anything Cordogan Clark now says. Sorry folks, but once you stop laughing at this ludicrous suggestion, you should vent the anger you should be feeling towards this architecture firm and DEMAND THAT THE BOE FIRE CORDOGAN CLARK.

"Furthermore, we also offer to fund the cost of an independent cost estimating company which could validate the cost of the revised HMS design that we jointly settle upon and further reduce the negative perceptions related to the previous cost estimate."

Reaction:  So now, not only do they want to reduce the price tag with MINOR adjustments, and expect us to believe their representation that their design is inherently efficient, which they believe will reduce the price tag by $5 million, they also want to pay OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKETS the cost of an independent cost estimating company to validate the revised future HMS design cost?  Wow -- THEY SOUND DESPERATE!  Perhaps they realize that their contract might actually be in jeopardy, but in our opinion, its' too late for them to regain the community's trust!  But wait, the icing on the cake is next.....

"Additionally, we are willing to reduce our total fee percentage by a quarter of a percent to 6.4% from 6.65% to further illustrate our commitment that we are the right partner."

Reaction:  To top off their offer to tweak the design and lower the costs to the D181 taxpayers, the architects also offer to CUT THEIR FEES!  Yippee! Hooray!  SAY WHAT??????  As we recall, there were concerns raised by board members BEFORE the contract with this architect was approved about the fee percentage they were asking for.  Yet, at no time did this firm offer to lower their fees below 6.65%.  It is unbelievable that in a last ditch attempt to convince "Don" and the BOE to stick with them as the HMS architect, they are willing to cut their fees now.  What D181 taxpayers had a right to expect last December was that the district would hire an architect that was willing to make a profit, but realize that it had to come in at it's low point from the start, if it wanted the community to trust it and consider such a high price tag.  The fact that the firm is willing to cut it's fees now only means that they had built in quite a cushion because you can bet your bottom dollar that they will still be making a lot of money if D181 accepts all the things this letter offers.

So we should all be asking, is this really their bottom line?  Should we believe ANYTHING they say or offer?  Well, it certainly looks like "Don" has bought into their proposal -- hook, line and sinker!  His report to the BOE for Monday's HMS discussion states:

"I have confidence in the firm's ability to design a school that our community can support, and appreciate their continued partnership." (http://www.boarddocs.com/il/hccsdil/Board.nsf/files/A9NRFE5F1C7A/$file/BOE%20Report%20-%20HMS%20Facilties%20Update%2016-05-09.pdf)

Well, if after all the bait and switch tactics and excuse making and last ditch offers to cut the price-tag with only "minor" design changes, Dr. White really has confidence in a continued partnership with THIS architect firm then here is our final reaction:

NO ONE should have confidence in Dr. White either!  In our opinion, especially after receiving this letter, his recommendation to the BOE should have been to CUT THE LINE with Cordogan Clark and hire a new architecture firm.  The fact that he didn't come to this conclusion may require some tough decisions by the BOE, not just to go against his recommendation and fire this firm without Dr. White's approval, but also, to conclude that HIS contract should NOT be renewed when it comes up for renewal in the next 12 months.

SOUND OFF!

The HMS Next Steps Survey

Below is the text of the D181 "HMS Next Steps Survey."  We are publishing this so that everyone can see the survey questions.  We encourage our readers to submit via comment to this blog your answers to the survey questions and in particular, any narrative responses you provided.  We hope that in the interest of full transparency, the D181 administration and BOE will publish for the community ALL of the narrative responses that are submitted, and do so in un-redacted form.  Just in case they don't, this blog will provide a forum for publication of narrative responses our readers wish to share.

TEXT OF THE SURVEY:

"As part of the March 2016 General Primary Election, District 181 had presented voters with a referendum question, seeking authorization to sell up to $65 million in bonds for the purpose of building a new school that would replace Hinsdale Middle School. The referendum was defeated by a vote of approximately 56% to 44%. The Board of Education and administration are very interested in hearing community input on the failed referendum, and input on how best to move forward in addressing the school's facility needs. Thank you for taking the time to provide your feedback!

Responses are limited to one per person to ensure all respondents have an equal voice.

There are several opportunities to share comments. Please do not identify yourself or any individuals in your responses.

You will need to click "submit" before exiting the survey to ensure your responses are recorded.

This survey will close on Wednesday, May 18.

A report on the survey data is tentatively scheduled to be presented to the Board of Education on Monday, May 23.

If you have any questions, please call 630.861.4924 or email Director of Communications Bridget McGuiggan (bmcguiggan@d181.org). Information about the District's work in determining the next steps for HMS will continue to be posted on the D181 website: www.d181.org > Our District > HMS Referendum.

Thank you again!"

Comment of the Day: D181 Survey Now Available on the HMS Failed Referendum and Possible Future Referendum

We have just received the following 2 part comment which we are posting as the Comment of the Day.  We encourage all our readers to not only take the Survey, but also spread the word to others that they should take it and answer truthfully and candidly about whether they voted yes or no and then detail the reasons why.

We also encourage our readers to attend the Community Engagement meetings, although we are once again curious why it is required that people sign up to attend.  This requirement will not only put off some people, but discourage last minute attendance by residents who don't know ahead of time if their busy schedules will permit them to attend.

Part 2 of the submitted comment expresses one Voter's opinion on next step.  We are posting it here in order to get the discussion going, so as always, SOUND OFF!

COMMENT OF THE DAY:
"Anonymous said...

Got the following e-mail from Dr. White:
Survey and Engagement Events on HMS Facilities Planning
Dear D181 Families, Staff, and Key Communicators,
Where do we go from here? That is the question we are posing to District 181 residents, staff, and local business employees through a new online survey and two upcoming events as we contemplate the next steps in addressing the facility needs of Hinsdale Middle School. We know where we have been. The referendum question asked in the March General Primary Election - seeking authorization to sell up to $65 million in bonds to build a new HMS - was defeated 56% to 44%. We want to better understand why the referendum was not successful, and we are eager to learn what changes should be considered so that any future plan is one our community can support. To that end, together with the Board of Education, I invite the District 181 community to share your input.

The survey is open now through May 18 and can be accessed at http://tinyurl.com/SurveyOnHMS or from the District website: www.d181.org >Our District > HMS Referendum. Meanwhile, our partner firm is completing calls to 500 residents to capture their feedback. We are also hosting a pair of engagement events later this month. These round-table sessions will be an opportunity to have a conversation about the long-term plan for HMS. Please join us May 24 at Prospect School (6:30pm) or May 26 at our Administration Center (9:30am). We are asking those interested in attending to please RSVP, either online at http://tinyurl.com/RoundTableHMS or by calling 630.861.4924.

Throughout the weeks and months ahead, we will continue to listen intently, welcome questions, and share information about this facilities work. Thank you for your continued partnership!

Don

May 2, 2016 at 8:54 AM

 

Anonymous said...

Part 2:

I think that it's unwise that the administration is still trying to push a new school, when pretty much the entire DOL will be new next school year. Get the new staff in and settled, and fix the hot mess that is the curriculum first before wasting more tax dollars on a new school. I believe we need to do something with the HMS building, but we have bigger fish to fry right now.

However, if we really must talk about next steps for HMS, here are my thoughts:
Before even looking to architects, decide how many classrooms we need, how big those classrooms should be, what extra places are needed (workrooms, datacenter, staff bathrooms, etc.), get a list of needs, prioritize wants, and set a firm budget. Some of the things posted on BoardDocs too often stated that the architects didn't know they needed to include in the design. Why the **** not?

Also, for somethings like an auditorium, can the district do a crowdfunding page? That way, if they get the money, they'd get it, and the taxpayers who don't want it don't have to pay for it. Also, make it big enough for the entire school, and able to hold all their non-athletic events (music concerts, musical, presentations, etc.). Plus, the district said that the village would pay for a multi-story parking garage. The district should see where else they can fund parts of the school besides bonds/property taxes. Also, regarding parking deck, maybe have it match the height of the school? The school design that went to referendum had 3 floors above grade, and one below. If the village is willing to pay for it, maybe have the parking structure be 3 floors above and 1 floor below grade? That would greatly increase the available parking for the stores around the current site. Plus, after the recoups its money from the parking structure, maybe the village could turn over control to the district and start paying a leasing fee?

Another thought I had is learn from the referendums that brought CHMS. Instead of one big school, maybe we should make 2 smaller schools. HMS currently has around 800 kids, CHMS has around 680, so about 1500 middle school students total. Why not have 3 middle schools of 500 each? That way, it'll be easier to know what's fair and parity.

I've talked to a bunch of people at both HMS & CHMS. Some of them say that when CHMS first opened, some parts like the gym and music rooms were already too small. If we build a new school, how do we go about that? On the one hand, if we make them proportionally sized to CHMS, that screws over the people who go to the new school. If we make the appropriately sized, that screws over CHMS students. So do we screw over everyone, or have as many people as good as possible, even if it's unequal?"

May 2, 2016 at 9:16 AM

 

D181 Not in Top 100 of Recent National Public School District Ranking

2016 Best School Districts - Niche 

https://k12.niche.com/rankings/public-school-districts/best-overall/ 

D181 is not on list of top 100 school districts. D86 is.

Sound Off!

Sayonara Part 2

Dawn Benaitis, Director of Learning (Curriculum & Instruction), resigns from the District effective end of day June 30, 2016.

Source:  4/11/16 Personnel Consent Agenda

No words needed.

Feel free to SOUND OFF!

HMS Referendum Results By Precinct -- Majority of NO Votes Cast in the HMS Feeder School Boundary Areas

Both DuPage County and Cook County have now released the results of the HMS Referendum by precinct.  DuPage County results can be accessed at:  Dupage County precinct results for Downers Grove Township, Dupage County precinct results for York Township, Cook County precinct results for Lyons Township.  While we are by no means experts in analyzing election results, we have done our best to do a rough analysis of what areas in the D181 community voted YES or NO (by using Precinct Maps that are available at: Dupage County precinct map for Downers Grove and York Townships, Cook County Precinct Maps for Lyons Township).  Below is a chart we have created showing the results by D181 School*:

So what do these results show?

As noted above, we are not trained in analysis of election results, so our reflections are, in our opinion, more "common sense" observations that we -- D181 parents and taxpayers and community members -- are making.  We'd love to hear what the rest of you think about the results  -- remembering to be mindful that the comments should be constructive and focused on what needs to happen in order for any future D181 referendum to be successful -- so as always SOUND OFF!

We will begin by pointing out that the HMS Referendum lost by 1,147. That is a significant number. There are a total of 32 precincts. D181 voters in Dupage County reside in either Downers Grove Township or York Township. Those in Cook County reside in York Township.  

Elm, Lane, Oak and Madison Schools are the feeder schools for Hinsdale Middle School. Monroe, Prospect and Walker are the feeder schools for Clarendon Hills Middle School. The majority in FIVE of the seven feeder schools' precincts voted NO to the referendum. This majority included voters in the Elm and Lane boundary areas. The NO votes in the Elm and Lane boundary areas exceeded Yes votes by a relatively slim margin, but what cannot be ignored is that 1601 voters in these two HMS feeder areas did not support building the new HMS as proposed in the referendum -- that is nearly 30% of the NO votes that swung the decision. Even in the two HMS feeder schools that had a majority of voters vote YES, a total of 1187 people voted NO. This means that 2788 people in the HMS feeder districts did not support the referendum question to build a $65 million ($90 million with bond interest) replacement school and tear down the existing 40 year old school.

But what is most significant is that the combined NO votes from the HMS feeder schools' precincts made up 51.5% of the total NO votes cast.  

In the three schools that feed into Clarendon Hills Middle School, the margin was much wider, with between 65% and 75% of the voters casting a NO vote on the proposed referendum.  A total of 2630 voters in the CHMS feeder boundaries did not support the referendum question to build a $65 million ($90 million with bond interest) replacement school and tear down the existing 40 year old school.    

While the percentage margin of NO votes from the CHMS feeder schools was larger than from the HMS schools, the reality is that the combined NO votes from the CHMS feeder schools' precincts made up 48.5% of the total NO votes cast.  That is LESS than the total NO votes cast from the HMS feeder schools' precincts.

Moving forward, the D181 Administration and Board of Education must work with the Facilities Committee and ask the really hard question -- why did 5418 community members vote NO?  No doubt, there will be vote YES supporters who will say that the election was lost because parents whose students have or will attend CHMS did not want to see their taxes raised for a school that will not benefit their children.  Accusations were made before the election that a NO vote from CHMS feeder school voters would be a sign of being a bad neighbor, not supporting children and an unwillingness to reciprocate the YES votes cast nearly 20 years ago (in 1997) to build CHMS.  

But hopefully, the Administration, BOE and Committee members will not be so quick to jump to these ludicrous conclusions, since they will have to explain how 51.5% of the NO votes came from voters who live in the HMS feeder schools' boundary areas. Hopefully, these three groups will take the time to do a proper analysis and engage community members who voted NO to determine what it will take for them to change their vote to a YES vote. This engagement and analysis work, if rushed or done in a sloppy, slipshod fashion, will only lead to defeat of a future referendum, whether it is on the November 2016, April 2017 or March 2018 ballots.

In that regard, we were curious to see what the Agenda for the April 11 BOE meeting has that might indicate the type of community engagement that the Administration is proposing to gather this critical information. Sadly, we were extremely disappointed to see that rather than immediately arrange for a district wide survey, that could easily be publicized with Postcards being mailed to ALL D181 Postal Patrons, with a link provided to an online survey, instead, the Administration has arranged for a consulting firm, Patron Insights, to do another randomized PHONE survey of only 400 people.  (See Dr. White's 4/11/16 HMS Facilities Update and Discussion Report.)

400 people????  Really?  In our opinion, a randomized phone survey of only 400 people is NOT going to provide the BOE with meaningful or statistically significant information as to why 5418 of 9689 voters chose to vote NO on March 15, 2016.  If this is the type of quick information gathering that the Administration is proposing to the BOE as a first step, then we are not hopeful that a successful referendum will ever be achieved.  Our hope is that on Monday night, the BOE will SLAP DOWN this ridiculous proposal and insist that the Administration start doing things right.  

For us, the HMS referendum is turning into a comical version of Aesop's Fable -- The Tortoise and the Hare.  We all know that the slow and steady tortoise won that race, not the cocky and quick out of the starting gate hare.  The Administration, BOE and Facilities committee should all recall the moral of this childhood story as they continue the "journey" to a successful HMS referendum.......

_____________________________________________

* Note:  Downers Grove Township Precinct 11 (in Dupage County) appears to have voters within both the Walker and Prospect school boundary lines (based upon the D181 Boundary map accessible at: D181 Boundary Map) so we have separated it out in the above chart.

Cook County Precinct Results Now Available for the March 15, 2016 HMS Referendum

Cook County has now released, by Precinct, the results of the HMS Referendum.

For those readers interested in analyzing where the Yes and No votes were cast, we have provided the results below.  DuPage County has not yet issued the results, but when they do, we will publish them.

(Source:  http://results316.cookcountyclerk.com/Detail.aspx?eid=31516&rid=299&vfor=1&twpftr=0)

For those of our readers interested in seeing exactly where the boundary lines are for the 4 Cook County Precincts, we have copied a map below:

(Source:  http://cookcountyclerk.com/aboutus/map_room/Documents/Township%20with%20Precincts/Lyons%20Township%20Package.pdf)