|
Post by WeNeed3 on May 29, 2009 8:56:01 GMT -5
D204 begins pondering search for leaderD204 has until June 30 to find new superintendent May 29, 2009 By TIM WALDORF twaldorf@scn1.com Indian Prairie School District 204's board met Thursday night for the first time since it learned it needs to hire a new superintendent. Prior to the meeting even convening, Board President Curt Bradshaw assured the press that no action would be taken as a result of the closed-session meeting. "We're just going to meet tonight and start discussing what our options are," Bradshaw said. "This is our first real opportunity to do that." The special meeting was called after District 204 Superintendent Stephen Daeschner announced last week that he'd accepted a job as superintendent for Greater Clark County Schools in Jeffersonville, Ind. Board members knew Daeschner was considering the position but had no advance notice of the official decision. After Daeschner's announcement, Bradshaw said the board will likely seek its new superintendent using a job description similar to the one it created for the search two years ago when Daeschner was hired. But Daeschner will be leaving for Jeffersonville at the end of June, and the hiring process generally takes a year, which is how much notice superintendents usually give of their departure or retirement. "June 30 is obviously our drop-dead date," Bradshaw said. "That's part of what we're going to discuss and start working through tonight." Whether that June 30 deadline would be for naming an interim superintendent or a new one would also need to be discussed, Bradshaw said "We should know a lot more after tonight," he concluded. www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/1597139,District-204-under-the-gun_na052809.article
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Jun 2, 2009 13:19:38 GMT -5
204 E-news.... The Indian Prairie School District 204 Board of Education met Monday night to discuss filling the vacancy left by Superintendent Stephen Daeschner, effective June 30. The Board has engaged the services of Dr. Bill Attea of Hazard, Young, Attea and Associates, Ltd., to update the district's "Superintendent Search Criteria," which was initially developed by the community and board two years ago; and to assist the board in evaluating its options for its current superintendent search. During the process, Dr. Attea will gather input from leaders of various parent and community groups, as well as district staff and the board. Dr. Attea is Chairman of the Board of Hazard, Young, Attea and Associates, Ltd., the nation's largest executive search firm serving public school districts. Dr. Attea is highly familiar with the District 204 community and personally conducted searches which led to the hiring of several past, successful Indian Prairie superintendents, including Dr. Scullen, Dr. McKinzie and Dr. Daeschner. The District 204 board plans to consider all viable options before its seven members select a replacement for Dr. Daeschner. "Finding the right superintendent to work collaboratively and productively with the board and community is critically important," said Curt Bradshaw, board president. "We need to find someone who can move forward with our district's aggressive, yet attainable, targets and goals for student excellence and make the transition from one superintendent to another as seamless as possible." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- School District 204 www.ipsd.org780 Shoreline Drive Aurora, IL 60504 USA
|
|
|
Post by title1parent on Jun 3, 2009 5:43:18 GMT -5
www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=298010&src=76Dist. 204 begins search to replace DaeschnerBy Justin Kmitch | Daily Herald 6/3/2009 Indian Prairie Unit District 204 has hired the chairman of the search firm responsible for finding Stephen Daeschner to help pick the departing superintendent's replacement. School board President Curt Bradshaw said Bill Attea of Hazard, Young, Attea and Associates, Ltd., has been hired - at an undisclosed hourly rate - to update the district's 2-year-old search criteria and to assist the board in evaluating its options during its latest superintendent search. "Ultimately what this costs us depends on which options we pursue," Bradshaw said. "But we anticipate this step will cost us no more than $2,000." In 2007, the firm recommended the district hire Daeschner, who is leaving June 30 to take a superintendent position in southern Indiana with more than a year left on his contract here. The same firm helped Naperville Unit District 203 select its new superintendent, Mark Mitrovich, who begins work July 1. That search sparked some embarrassment when the district learned Mitrovich's Ph.D. was not from an accredited university - a fact the search firm apparently overlooked until it was pointed out by a resident. The district wound up paying the company only half its fee as a result. For Indian Prairie, Attea will gather input from leaders of various parent and community groups, as well as district staff and the board. Bradshaw said the district is putting its faith in Attea. "It is significant that we hired Dr. Attea. He's the best. He is the chairman of the board of the nation's largest search firm and the company is named after him," Bradshaw said. "The (school) board and community both have a high level of trust and comfort with Dr. Attea. He has had a close relationship with the district since he was personally involved in the hiring of Dr. (Thomas) Scullen over 20 years ago. "Most recently he met with 150 people in individual or focus group settings to order to develop the search criteria that was used two years ago (to find Daeschner.)" Attea also previously conducted searches that led to the hiring of several former Indian Prairie superintendents, including Scullen, Gail McKinzie and Daeschner. Bradshaw said the board has not ruled out the possibility of having a permanent superintendent in place for the coming school year but admitted that would be unlikely. "Finding the right superintendent to work collaboratively and productively with the board and community is critically important," Bradshaw said. "We need to find someone who can move forward with our district's aggressive, yet attainable, targets and goals for student excellence and make the transition from one superintendent to another as seamless as possible."
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 3, 2009 7:51:32 GMT -5
I'd like to know what these criteria were at that time and what they will be for this search. I'm not comfortable with "focus groups" (read: special interests) having an influence on the Superintendent search.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Jun 3, 2009 14:31:06 GMT -5
There seems to be some rumors and emails being posted on blue that the IPPC is going to get involved and wants some feedback from residents from all ES, MS and HS's. I don't know anything about this but that would be nice to get feedback from not just special interest groups but from parents across the district.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 3, 2009 14:52:21 GMT -5
There seems to be some rumors and emails being posted on blue that the IPPC is going to get involved and wants some feedback from residents from all ES, MS and HS's. I don't know anything about this but that would be nice to get feedback from not just special interest groups but from parents across the district. Yes, that's kind of what I was trying to say in the previous post. As an example, I don't think we need to list something like "emphasis on special needs kids" as one of the criteria, though I can see some vocal parents (who have SN kids) coming out very strongly in favor of that. Nothing against SN kids, but as I've talked about in other posts, it almost seems as though we have become a magnet for SN kids based on our reputation. And I can see this eventually becoming a drain on our resources compared to other districts. In general, I don't want the most vocal proponents of various special interests having an undue influence on the choice of Super. To me, a good Super is a good Super...we don't need one with a "specialty" or bias in this or that.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 3, 2009 21:48:31 GMT -5
Schools get separate funding because of special needs kids enrolled in a district. The state is obligated to pay the school district a dollar amount based on their special needs enrollment totals. While the great state of Illinois is currently way behind on their payments, about $6M is supposed to be on its way and yes, that will go directly to special ed programs because that is what is already owed to those programs. So the special ed programs themselves are not a drain on this district. Certainly no more than athletic programs, Project Arrow programs or the like. Do your research before you start pointing fingers and stating that the special ed programs are using up the district's money or becoming a "drain"--nice choice of words.
The people who are drained are the parents who are supplementing various therapies and outside programs because they are not offered through the district. I know of several parents who have given up larger homes, vacations, a nicer car or similar things so their child(ren) can continue these therapies. Some have even gone bankrupt or depleted retirement funds. Much of these therapies, etc. are not covered by insurance and families spend upwards of $40,000 a year to help their children become productive members of society.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 4, 2009 7:19:13 GMT -5
So I take it you would prefer that we as taxpayers pay for it rather than the families forego a nicer car or larger house?
I stand by my point. Even if we were reimbursed for the money by the state, which you admit is iffy, it is not a healthy thing to have a large proportion of special need kids at a school (or district).
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 4, 2009 7:42:51 GMT -5
I stand by my point. Even if we were reimbursed for the money by the state, which you admit is iffy, it is not a healthy thing to have a large proportion of special need kids at a school (or district). What is "unhealthy" about it? You might want to explain yourself better on this one as it does sound like you would rather see "them" somewhere else. I am sure that is not what you meant.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 4, 2009 7:45:56 GMT -5
I stand by my point. Even if we were reimbursed for the money by the state, which you admit is iffy, it is not a healthy thing to have a large proportion of special need kids at a school (or district). What is "unhealthy" about it? You might want to explain yourself better on this one as it does sound like you would rather see "them" somewhere else. I am sure that is not what you meant. It IS what I meant. Not that I want all of "them" to go away, as you put it, but I want our district to have the same percentage as any other district with similar demographics. There is a difference.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 4, 2009 9:07:48 GMT -5
So I take it you would prefer that we as taxpayers pay for it rather than the families forego a nicer car or larger house? I stand by my point. Even if we were reimbursed for the money by the state, which you admit is iffy, it is not a healthy thing to have a large proportion of special need kids at a school (or district). No, that's not what I said. Do you even understand special ed at all? The parents of some of these children forego many things that others take for granted. And it doesn't just stop at large homes and nice cars. People take for granted the fact that their child was able to participate in a conversation with a peer People take for granted the fact that the sibling was able to say "I love you" to another sibling or to a grandparent. They take for granted a simple hug because hugging is often painful to these kids. They take for granted when they are able to tolerate kids yelling/screaming in a school auditorium when the volume is so loud or if it's the first time they've been able to hear it. Because of therapies and other treatments, these kids are often able to fit in socially and become more like their peers everyday. I'm not asking the state to pay for this. This was mandated under IDEA laws. Do you even know what that is? If insurance companies would treat children and adults with disabilites with the same compassion as those with other illnesses, we'd all be much better off. Those with disabilities are treated as second class citizens, especially by the state of Illinois. And you, asmodeus, are no better with your offensive statements. Stating that it is "unhealthy" to have these kids at a school shows your ignorance with special education. There are several kids that have enjoyed having these kids in their classrooms so they can be peer buddies, mentors, etc. It helps those kids be productive, successful human beings as well and fosters "normal" kids' social/emotional learning too. You could learn a lot from some of the peer buddies at these schools. I'm glad our kids are not as insensitive as you are. I read on a Tshirt somewhere...."my kid is acting this way because he has autism. What's YOUR excuse?"
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Jun 4, 2009 9:14:25 GMT -5
Why?
IMO this is what is great about our district and makes it stand out from others. My kids have learned so much about kids with special needs from being in the classrooms with them.
Do you want the racial percentages in our district to be the same as other districts too? You are really starting to sound discriminatory, asmo. Why just pick on this group?
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 4, 2009 9:52:10 GMT -5
Rather than address eb204's pointless diatribe, I will respond to this.
I grew up one step from the ghetto on the west side of Chicago. Most of my grade school was black. Most of my friends were black or other races than Caucasian. I do not have a racist bone in my body. That being said, I cannot tolerate the direction our society has taken with respect to allowing the family structure to deteriorate. Most of this has been caused by the liberal agenda of our politicians.
One of the reasons I moved to Naperville was because I thought it was a conservative, pleasant, wholesome area to raise a family. It has a very high percentage of two-parent families. Am I a bad person for wanting to limit my exposure to "diversity"? Let me ask you and the others here...would you be happy if we suddenly had a high percentage of low-income families in D204? Or a high percentage of non-English speakers? All in the name of diversity? Be honest. There is nothing wrong with variety and even trying to be a melting pot to a certain degree. But many of us work in Chicago and endure a hellish commute and obscene property taxes to live in an area that tries to maintain whatever is left of the "ideal" life.
As the years have gone by, I have started to see that Naperville and D204 in particular are not immune from the same things that caused me to want to live here-- primarily increasing social agendas by those who supposedly know what's good for us. Suddenly everyone has a peanut allergy, everyone is autistic, teasing is bad, everyone has ADD, we need a/c in the schools or we'll die, etc. We have come to expect less and less from our kids, partially because we're told they have issues that are out of our control when in fact many of them can be attributed directly to parenting. Just look at the woman whose kid was promoted up through 5th grade when he couldn't read at a 2nd grade level. I can't help but believe the woman did nothing to monitor her child's progress, yet in all likelihood the kid was or will be diagnosed with some sort of special need. I do acknowledge there are legitimate special needs kids. But I am convinced that this has become an industry unto itself and has become a self-fulfulling prohecy. People don't want to hear they are poor parents...they much prefer to be told their child's problems are due to an "illness." Again, there ARE real cases that deserve treatment and sympathy. I just happen to believe there are many more that are imagined. Many will disagree with me on this.
|
|
Arwen
Master Member
Posts: 933
|
Post by Arwen on Jun 4, 2009 10:15:20 GMT -5
Asmo, I sincerely hope that you are never blessed with a special needs child. For the child's sake.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 4, 2009 10:35:58 GMT -5
Asmo, I sincerely hope that you are never blessed with a special needs child. For the child's sake. You may be right. Some of us do not have the patience or temperament. But don't mistake my beef with the overdiagnosis of SN for an indifference to those who truly are affected. I hate our overabundance of lawyers but can appreciate the fact that good ones are sometimes a necessity.
|
|