Hard to tell how to view this. Everyone should have their tax bill by now and know that District 113 got about a 6.7% increase over last year. Those on SSA got a 3.5% increase based on inflation. Most of us have to get by with what we get and adjust our life styles to that. We can't just go on spending and expect our income sources to pick up the excess.

Very often I hear people compare school districts and budgets and expenditures to those of a household.WRONG!

COMPARE TO A CORPORATION. In that every now and then or even more often money is borrowed or a line of credit is drawn on to retool or for inventory. Department stores factor for inventory. They don't live on only the money in hand or revenues.

I am on the opposite side of this issue with very close friends of mine. When it comes to my kids education....go for it.

Just like some of my friends would say when it comes to the value of their real estate...To do whatever it takes to kept it "up there".

Not sure what the other comments have to do with this article, except by at least a degree of separation. None-the-less, I am disappointed. Sam, you can't always get what you want (especially in a group setting), even if you think you are right and for the right reasons. There are at least equally valid reasons for not releasing raw data as for allowing its release. I, personally wouldn't see the harm in it being available for outside review to individuals who have been previously involved in the process (in contrast to Mr. Pirri, who wouldn't even sit at the table with a committee). But my personal opinion is just that....one opinion. It also seems that there was consensus among most of the leadership committee and the board. One decision that you don't agree with hardly invalidates the process, but ditching the process because of one decision you don't agree with doesn't speak highly of your commitment to that process. It is difficult to be in the minority in a room, but we need varied voices in order to make the process work.

WHoever wrote this headline should be ashamed of themselves. The process of recommending a course of action to the Board is almost complete. It has been transparent beyond belief. Anyone can go on line and see the notes from every study group meeting. Anyone could have come to any meeting.

Sam resigned at the endo of the process because he disagrees with the decision to rellease raw data on the survey. While regrettable, it does not change the fact that he and others have done a tremendous amount of work that should result in a different plan. Sam was a vital part in making that happen.

The process has worked the way it was designed. It has been inclusive and respectful of all ideas that were brought to the table. In the end, that is what is important. Just because someone resigns at the end over a single issue doesn't diminish this or "upset the calm." Sam and I don't agree on many things, but I respect his decision just as I am sure he, with the exception of this issue, respects the process and the recommendations that will be made.

The Board’s decision goes far beyond a refusal to release “raw data.” In addition to the raw data, the market research group prepared a number of analyses of the data including an assessment of likely voters. There is also a chart that shows how community members rated 37 school attributes against importance and need. The District 113 School Board refuses to release all of these important analyses to the public.

Again, my opinion, but I think a dissenting opinion from a participant who finishes the process has more validity than a refusal to participate further due to a disagreement.
As for the survey results, I think the professionals should have some authority to determine what data and analysis is released to the general public. This survey was to gather iniformation that could be used by the committees and the board, not for general public use by any Tom, Dick or Harry (or Frank). I believe "internal document" covers the general area. Having said that, I also believe that the vast majority of this process has been incredibly open, and open to dissent. I also don't believe there is any data in that study that contradiets anything that has been make public. My personal opinion is that the survey didn't really do a good job of differentiating. It's clear people want up to date school infrastructure and facilities. It's also clear people want government to spend less and be prudent. As for priorities, people are all over the map and it really is up to this committee group to find the sweet spot between cost and the need/really want to have/might be nice/extra trimmings continuum.

Although, if the Bush admin had released the "raw data" on WMD in Iraq, I wonder if we'd be where we are today.

To Amy: Where the process broke down is when Mr. Shapiro apparently couldn't deal with a group decision with which he disagreed. That certainly doesn't diminish the work that has already been completed, but it does muddy the water as to Sam's motivation. If you are going to refuse to participate on principle, it better be an awfully important pricipled stance. I prefer to believe that the professionals are simply advocating that their own industry standards be adhered to, even though this project was undertaken at no cost to the district. Transparency is one thing. The demand for some "independent" evaluation of raw data (by any self appointed expert with a FOIA document), implies distrust and/or lack of confidence in the professionals in marketing who have donated their time and expertise. Or it simply means that one is unhappy with the results.

Back when the survey was proposed, I believe I made a comment somewhere on one of the threads calling for the release of the raw data. Given the level of distrust between the Public and the District that came out during the past referendum, I believed that making the raw data available would help to engender trust through transparency. Let everyone who wants to, do their own analysis, come to their own conclusions, and compare/contrast against what the District came up with. Could those conclusions be different? Sure. Would someone argue about something? Sure. But laying out the normalization methodology, giving the data for others to review would help to allay fear, doubt, and uncertainty about the process. The personally-identifiable information can be removed from the raw data - no one really expects to get the respondent's IP or email addresses, phone numbers... We just want the data to verify the claims with.

Right now, as much work as we've all put into the process, as much trust as has been engendered on all sides, by all involved along with the community at large -- it all seems to be at risk due to the fear, uncertainty, and doubt surrounding the data from the survey.

The common conclusion I've heard from others goes along the lines of "Well, they didn't like the results, so they don't want anyone to see the actual numbers...". I'd like to think that's not true, but without the data...

Sam. I applaud your efforts up to now, but I do think resignation over this issue is overblowing it. Having said that I shouln't have gone so sarcastic with that retort, because is was not supposed to be an analogous situation. The fact is that the Bush admin sold the Iraq war on a faulty premise that was not borne out by the evidence. I actually believe that the market research group is fairly representing the data. Having said that, in the interest of "transparency" why not release the data and let the nay-sayers go to town. Let everyone have their own opinion based on the most factual information available. Then consider the source when eveyone draws a different conclusion (mostly based on their individual preconceived ideas). Talking about this drowns out the discussion of the real issues.
btw...Again my opinion, but I think a signed contract ( and some healing) in D109 will help grease the real estate market a little (especially for folks who have small children who are the primary new buyers in our community), and a solid plan for D113 will further create a sense of stability and help people who are looking see that our community truly values its educational institutions. Let's not be distracted from the real issues.

As a member of the leadership team as well as two other committees I entered the process seven months ago with a certain amount of hope as well as skeptiicism. I did not support the initial referendum simply because I felt that the facts had not been clearly laid out and that a great deal of additional work needed to take place before the voters were asked to make a pivotal decision. Now, after seven months of getting educated by a host of professionals both on the committees and within the community I feel extremely confident in the work of the committees and with the reccomendations that will come forth. I have spent many years volunteering and working in committee setttings both on the school board level, as well on other not for profit boards and I have NEVER seen such an open process. But this was critical to get at the appropriate information as well as to assure all parts of the ciommunity that we had everyone's best interests at heart. I did not know Sam prior to this experience on the commiitte but, I was very impressed with his knowledge, intellect and resolve to do the right thing. I am truly dismayed that he chose to resign at this juncture but I respect his decision and for the reasons that he stated. We need to move forward and do our best for our children, grandchildren, and generations to come.

Eddie -

The 1914 committee was heavily weighted with members of the administration, staff and proponents of the referendum. The following voted at a key 1914 Buildings meeting: Superintendent, HPHS Principal, Athletic Directors at Both schools, 2 teachers/staff, 2 Board members, 2 heads of CARE (Group in favor of referendum), Student that debated in favor of referendum, architect that wrote articles in favor, 2 architects opposed and 4 other citizens.

At least 12 of the 18 votes in the 1914 buildings group would come down in favor of something like the referendum. Only 2 of the 18 were known opponents.

That was OK to me because at least we had the market research which seemed to represent the views of the community. The problem was we only had a high level qualitative summary of a tiny fragment of the research and not the actual results. The incomplete research lacks credibility without the underlying data.

There was no concensus over the decision to withold the research from the community in the leadership team and there was no vote. We cannot have a situation where the Board uses an informal discussion at the leadership team to cover for a controversial decision that they make. Especially when the decisions are going to be even more controversial in the future.

For that reason, I felt it was best to step away from the leadership team. I look forward to continue working on this issue but outside of the study group construct.

One simple question that I'm not sure the article answers. I hope someone knowledgeable will answer.

Was/Is the raw data available to all members of the market research committee and the leadership committee?

The raw data was not and is not available to the Leadership Team. I'm not sure about the market research committee but I think not.

In a poor attempt to be fair (as all of us see the E1st parade coming miles away), I couldn’t have more mixed feelings about this.

1) SHAME ON THE DISTRICT – Why wouldn’t you make the information available to the leadership team? You opened these flood gates by involving every- and anyone. Either you trust these people or you don't.

Admit the mistake and make the data available to both committees. With more than 50 people on both committees (if initial rosters are accurate), I'm sure only a few of the usual people would argue that these groups are not an extension of the general public. Put tight restrictions on use of the data, and let them have at it.

I don't agree at all that the raw data NEEDS to be made available to the general public to pick apart, depending on obvious preconceived positions. Everybody has had MORE than a chance to join the process and participate. However, this argument is moot unless the district steps up with its committees.

2) SHAME ON E1ST – How many more ways are you going to try to VERY PUBLICLY discredit a process you openly advocated (and apparently are managing poorly)? If you want to make your statement to the district administration, I can respect that. But to run to the newspapers and whine about it does nothing for the schools and only serves another agenda.

You’d have to be blind to not see the position you’re eventually going to take - and before the final plan is even presented. Please tell me you're going to offer something more substantial than picking away at raw data and stacked committees when you supposedly had aaaaaaaall this support.

"Raw Data" in the hands of a person not qualified to accurately, dispassionately and with no inherent bias would serve no purpose. It sounds as if you're not even trusting the people who were hired to administrate the survey, let alone the Dist 113 personnel and School Board members. Sounds like nothing and no one will ever satisfy some people. Perhaps Mr. Shapiro did not see things going his way, and wanted to be a baby and take his ball and went home. It's not about you, it's about the quality of the education that our children receive. And whether you believe it or not, that includes the quality of the environment in which the students learn.

If you want to be part of the solution, be one...but don't scream from the sidelines when you don't like the play on the field!

Agreed that more data should have been made available (and yet may be), but as has been noted above, this distracts from the real issues, and that is what the Ed1st folks want....distraction. The district has already allowed a few very loud individuals to have far more sway over the process than they deserved. There were opponents of the prior referendum who continue to participate because they had legitimate concerns, and were interested in seeing that the process was indeed open and inclusive. Mr. Greenberg might be the best example of someone who is often in disagreement with the majority but participates because he sees the value in both the process and the goal. The timing of Mr. Pirri's letters to the DF Review and the community, and Mr. Shapiro's resignation certainly gives the impression of a concerted effort. By allowing these folks who impede every attempt at progress this much influence, the district has cost itself the opportunity of putting any referendum on this November's ballot. If interest rates move up even a few basis points, a years delay in moving forward could cost the district hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. From the leadership committee's recommendations as pulblished on the district website, it is clear that the district has some significant needs. It is not a matter of if, but, what, how much, and when. I believe we have a better plan for the effort, but those who won't lead or follow now need to get out of the way.

SInce it's me smiling in the April 2011 picture up top along side Sam I thought I'd begin sharing some of my thoughts - the first one - those on the 1914 / PE committee are people interested in seeing something done to make our schools' facilities live up to the high level of the rest of the District 113 education equation. We've got outstanding teachers, parents and students - we pretty well all see that our facilities are far from outstanding - some barely servicable at best - most outdated and detrimental to today and tomorrow's students and community. The Ed First proponents in our group seemed to see these truths just as well as RIck and I (former CARE for 113 Co-Chairs) and the rest of the committee did. Sam - I know you're passionate - sorry to see you leave the group - but if you do not believe that our schools need significant improvements (understanding that we may differ as to what that means) I'm fine with your departure.

A final unrelated comment - if you have not yet supported Lungevity's Breate Deep Deerfield, please do - visit my facebook page or www.lungevity.org. Thank you!

WE ARE IN OUR THIRD GENERATION AT DIST 113 AND FROM THE 40'S TILL NOW HAS SERVED US WELL . I WAS ACTIVE BEFORE THE WITE GROUP GOT INVOLVED AND WAS PRESENT THE NIGHT THEY GAVE THEIR PRESENTATION AT THE DIST 113 MEETING .I VOICED MY CONCERNS THAT ''NEEDS''WERE MORE IMPORTANT THAT ''WANTS'' AND THAT THE ECONOMIC SITUATION WOULD COME INTO PLAY AFTER ALL WE DO HAVE LOW INCOME PEOPLE JUST STARTING OUT , YOUNG FAMILIES , BOTH WORKING TO MAKE ENDS MEET AND SENIORS ON A FIXED INCOME PLUS LAY OFFS ,LOSS OF JOBS , HOMES LOST , EMPTY STORE FRONTS . OTHER PEOPLE VOICED THEIR CONCERNS AND THE BOARD THAT WAS ELECTED TO REPRESENT US DID NOT BUDGE . REFERENDUM LOST $93,000.00 TAX PAYERS MONEY DOWN THE DRAIN . FOLLOWED BY STUDY GROUPS THEN BY A SURVEY. ALL THAT INFORMATION AND IT CAN NOT BE RELEASED . IT SEEMS THAT THE TAX PAYERS ARE LEFT OUT AGAIN . HOME VALUES ARE GOING DOWN AND TAXES ARE GOING UP AND ITS THE PULSE OF THE TAX PAYERS THAT COUNT . WE DO NEED MAKE IMPROVEMENTS BUT UNDER THE PRESENT TIME WHEN WE HAVE A 5000 CAPACITY AND 3700 STUDENTS IN SCHOOL WITH A DECLINE IN THE FUTURE ITS THE NEEDS THAT ARE IMPORTANT. FIX INSTEAD OF REPLACE.------PAL PICCHIETTI