You obviously don't understand the situation. The school is overcrowded. There are multiple neighborhoods that are bussed to Churchill. The Boundary committee recommended that one neighborhood currently being bussed to Churchill be bussed to Grande Park. The administration changed that recommendation to a do nothing proposal that doesn't alleviate overcrowding at all. Even if the one subdivision went to Grande Park as proposed, there would still be kids being bussed to Churchill. Also, nobody is against anyone going to Churchill but when the school is overcrowded something needs to be done and moving music/art to a cart and shipping the ISP program to another school are are not acceptable solutions.

That is NOT what I said above. I stated that it makes no sense to add fiscal irresponsibility (additional busing) to an issue that can be rectified without incurring additional expenses. Nowhere in my response did I suggest that a group claims ownership of a school. The situation at hand is tricky, and while no one looks forward to changing where their kids attend school, it is irresponsible to sacrifice the standard of education (programs on a cart, increased class sizes, removal of ISP kids) for convenience. There are several subdivisions that currently attend Churchill. The fact is that Churchill numbers are growing, and already over capacity. Some relief is necessary, and since there is no additional space being added to the school, there will need to be a shift in the number of students attending.

Actually, your builder was required to provide land and cash to the school district, as were all the builders. Your subdivision contributed its fair share, no more, no less, to the district based upon a set of criteria. The residents of Churchill, or any other subdivision, have no superior claim upon a school. As for the issue of the great environment at Churchill, everyone in the district provides tax money for that, not just the residents. The issue of parity is one of fairness, and if people are concerned that their children are going to get an inferior education somewhere else, that is a legitimate issue. Maybe some of this could have been avoided if the Churchill folks focused their prior attention on making sure all the schools were as good as theirs, making it easier for parents to consider a move. I truly feel for anyone whose children have to move, and certainly understand the logic in keeping local kids at their schools. However, if parents would be more involved in making sure all the schools were great, instead of trying to get as many resources for their school without regard for others, some of this pain would be relieved.

Dave...I don't think the issue is if kids will get a quality education at other schools...I happen to think all of our Oswego schools are great. Churchill school is certainly not the only good elementary school in Oswego. The issue is over-crowding and balancing the enrollment, so as to CONTINUE to provide a quality education at ALL Oswego schools. I truly believe that all parents are exercising their right to advocate for their children. I don't think anyone is trying to garner more or better resources for their child at a particular school, rather the opposite, I think there is a push to make all the schools equal. Unfortunately, in order to do that in a growing area such as Oswego, boundaries need to shift.

MET, I was responding to Kelly's assertion that people were concerned about changing schools because they were afraid of losing the "very diverse school with an awesome staff" and her "our builder provided money as well as land to provide that school to be in our subdivision" which directly implies ownership . I agree that Churchill is not the only great school in Oswego, my home school is one as well. However, if you visit all of the schools in the district and look at the achievement scores and other variables, you will notice some distinct trends and they do not support the assertion that all schools are equal. I agree that parents are just advocating for their children, and they should. I also said I feel for everyone whose child has to move and completely understand why any affected family would be concerned. This boundary issue is always tough because some kids are going to be negatively affected and no matter who they are it is simply not fair to them. I also feel bad for those who have to have their kids at an overcrowded school and agree that this needs to be rectified. Many others have identified valid reasons for various approaches, I just can't accept the arguments of ownership and dismissal of parent's concern over losing something their kids won't have at another school.

Who made that promise? The only legal "agreement" that can be approved would need to come from the Board, not the administration or committee.

No one said there was a "legal" agreement but the administration discussed multiple times with Home and School various locations for an addition. This Superintendent and the previous one also spoke to Home and School regarding overcrowding and stated that something had to be done and outlined various options including building a new elementary school nearby. There has been general agreement from parents and the administration that the school is overcrowded as needs relief. Some board members may not be in agreement but the reality is this issue is not new.

But you even realize, the Adminstration should never had made promises about additions or even hint at something along those lines.

I was speaking of meetings and campaign promises. I was giving my opinion of Dr O'Donnell's proposal not criticizing the board in any way. Functional and educational equity was a large part of the last BOE election. I am hoping the board will consider this when making a decision.

Jessie, In my opinion that last BOE election wasn't about anything other than very vocal people voting in members who would kill the third high school at any cost. And if you remember, they killed the third HS even before they had any plans to replace it with. It was this that caused them to take too long in debating HS solutions and run out of time to address additions or new elementary schools prior to the bonding authority expiring..

Yes TC I agree.. all I can do now is remind them of what they said they would do... Katra included a link that shows their commitment to equity...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eW6rQktWNY

Crystal, I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but that's EXACTLY what this will come down to if past history is any indication. Look back a few years at how Scaramuzzi/Cullick engineered a high school boundary change that made NO sense in terms of capacities but made their neighbors happy. And how it cost the district three years of sending two sets of high school buses into their neighborhood because the board ignored the committee's recommendation and then ordered that the old boundary be "grandfathered".

You need to educate yourself on what a school district means. School District 308 incompasses the towns of Oswego, Aurora, Plainfield and Montgomery. The residents of these towns all pay taxes to 308. To say that Oswego should fight together as city is absurd. I am sure the citizens of Aurora are so greatful that their kids don't have to go to top schools like Waubonsie Valley High School. Where is OHS and OEHS on that list? Check your stats...

You do realize that the district encompasses more than just Oswego addresses, right? That it's pretty common for districts to serve more than one town/village/city name? Solutions are wonderful, if they make sense. And since this is a public school, your reference about religion is really misplaced.

Ask the kids? I asked my kids what they wanted for breakfast today. They said ice cream.

Portables aren't an option because there is no money to buy or rent them. The board isn't even entertaining the notion at this time.

It is also a matter of being fiscally responsible with our tax dollars. If children can walk to school, it saves the district money. No bus, bus driver or gas needed. Homes within 1.5 miles of the school are considered walkable. All of the churchill club homes are within this distance to the school which makes it fiscally irresponsible and wasteful to bus them to any other school. Many of the children in the ISP program do not choose to receive transportation services because they are located so close to the school. This also saves the district a considerable amount of money. The ISP program also houses therapists that provide services to children in general education classrooms as well which streamlines the efficiency of services making the program's current home the most economical solution.
The boundary committee spent countless hours at meetings and within their homes studying everything they were given to come up with a logical and balanced proposal. With regards to Churchill Elementary, we should respect the committee's intelligence and hard work by implementing the boundary changes they suggested. Pleading ignorance after the fact or refusing to acknowledge the information presented is not a viable excuse nor an option for those who have our children's future in their hands.

If the ISP kids weren't special needs they wouldn't even consider moving them.
In this day and age it shouldn't even be discussed "where to put" the special needs kids. Every kid that lives in their attendance boundary has a right to go to their school. If the boundaries change that's different.
If their specific classroom gets moved however, that's just plain wrong.

Regardless of what was said or written up early on in this process when emotions were high and when information was limited at best, the parents in the Prescott Mill subdivision DO NOT support moving the special needs children. It unwisely was discussed as an option because it was among many scenarios the boundary committee had on its slides. It was also quickly dismissed by the Prescott Mill parents, because there were many others of more merit to be considered. The teachers you reference were advocates in this process for the special needs students and were very clear about the negative impact the move would have on them. In an attempt to uncover any options that would keep our subdivision's students at Churchill without compromising their education or anyone else's, the group met with the boundary committee and has attended all of the public forums. Ideally, would Prescott Mill love to stay at Churchill? Absolutely. Who wouldn't? It is a phenomenal school. However, NO ONE wants to do it at the expense of the children who need the stability the most. Please understand that. We also value the incredibly difficult work the boundary committee has done. We respect the open dialogue they were willing to have. Now it is in the Superintendent's and Board's hands to hopefully make an informed decision which alleviates the overcrowding while impacting the least number of students. That should not involve moving special needs students.

Dear Special needs mom,I take umbridge to the fact that you claim to know what is happening at Churchill School. AT is NOT taught in a closet. As a matter of fact it says "classroom" on the wall plate and has a room number. Those who work at Churchill often wondered what the building engineer was doing in a classroom and not an office, where he currrently resides. Reading services are not taught in a hallway and both specialists have classrooms. Math and reading interventions, taught by TA's, are provided in the hallway, as are most, if not all, interventions throughout the district. Math recovery and K-Leap both have very nice areas, that are secluded in the hallways. I think they enjoy their space and find it to be perfectly fitting. Maybe you should ask them about it? Yes the LRC is closed for two weeks at a time during map testing; however, the LRC director DOES go into the classroom to provide lessons to those children and offers ample book check-out before testing begins. I have yet to hear one child complain. I encourage you to visit other schools, such as Wolf's Crossing, and see how they do things. You will find that they too have a computer lab in the LRC. Many schools in our district provide interventions in the hallway, this is nothing new. Parent volunteers have always been in the hallways. So I think Mr. Walsh has a very good idea of what is happening in his children's school and you are the one that needs to be informed.

Christina...are you kidding me? In my opinion...Mr. Walsh needs to spend a little (lot) more time invested in his children's school. The AT class may say "classroom"...but have you stepped foot inside? I hope you have a small footprint! It was once the janitor's office. A small room (at best). And FYI...as a parent volunteer..reading help IS conducted in the hall...with numerous students chattering and walking about. The LRC is NOT closed for 2 weeks, rather for 1/4 of the school year for testing, resulting in no book activity...which my attribute to our dwindling reading scores. And let's not make light..JUST BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN DONE ELSEWHERE....DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT. ..

Christina- Our P.O. Box has a suite number, it doesn't make it a suite. That room is very small. In identically built schools like Southbury, it is used by building personnel and not as a classroom. Maybe the fire department should determine how many learners can be in there?... If they are professional, a staff member shouldn't be complaining about their teaching setting, it doesn't mean they 'enjoy' it. I find it difficult to believe that they would rather be in a hallway than in a classroom where sound can be blocked out. However, that is just my opinion of my teaching style.

Crystal, all Board members addresses and phone numbers are on the District Website.

PMP, I believe the assertion being made is due to the following lines from a letter from Prescott Mill parents to the Board stating, "Potential solutions to this problem:
In general, solutions that have less of an impact from a distance, financial, number of students, and location factors include:
• Relocate special needs and/or kindergarten children from Churchill.
o Perhaps Eastview or Old Post could accommodate more students.
o Special needs children have been housed at Churchill for 7 years, which
is a good, solid amount of time, as special programs tend to get moved
frequently. This program is an exception within Oswego."

I read that as the signors of the letter recommending moving the special needs students since they've been there seven years and it's time for them to move.

I haven't said this came from Prescott Mills. I have actually heard this during board meetings from board members. It's on the video at the district's website. I don't know the specific part of the video (it's very long) but it's there. I have heard it more than once from Board members and frankly the administration says the same thing ever year to these parents. I've never had a problem with PM before.
It should be noted though that some residents from PM did write a letter that made these kinds of suggestions. Below are 2 quotes from this letter saying why Special needs should be moved:
"Special needs children have been housed at Churchill for 7 years, which is a good, solid amount of time, as special programs tend to get moved frequently. This program is an exception within Oswego.
ALL special needs children are bussed from all over the district. Sending them to another location, while keeping the teachers and aides for stability would be a reasonable action."
Again, I think most people don't think this way but unfortunately the suggestion was made.

Thank you four thoughts and the constructive way that you presented them. I was involved in the writing of the letter that you quote from, by that I mead that we all discussed the letter before it was sent out. Again, as you can see, we didn't single out special needs kids in that letter, but listed that as a possible option among many others. In any discussion, all options needs to be on the table to have a rational and open discussion. I think that healthy debate of all issues is a good thing. I just reject the personal nature that these discussions ineviably bring out. Next,why don't we all discuss religion and politics :) those are never heated subjects. Thanks both of you for your replys.

PMP, regardless of who first put it out there, moving special ed was specifially listed as an option in the letter you all signed. I'm not sure how that doesn't single them out. Maybe it wasn't the ONLY option, but that's just splitting hairs. Though I am sure the overall intent of the letter wasn't meant to be discriminatory and thoughtless, I think the wording and tone is extermely unfortunate. It comes across as if these kids are used to moving - no big deal for them - when, as I'm sure you know, it is a very big deal for any kid and especially for many kids with special needs. Most of these kids are not bussed now so you are adding that into the mix for them as well. To be blunt, if you sign something, you own it. How would you feel if Churchill parents put out the exact same option, but substituted "Prescott Mill" for "special needs"?

You may not have known this when the letter went out, but every year parents of kids in Diagnostic and ISP don't know where their child will go to school until August. Every single year. They don't know if they will have to be bussed, they don't know if they will be able to stay with school friends, neighbors, and even siblings. So, I hope you can understand why so many people are upset by the option as it was presented in the letter.

Clearly, we all want what's best for our kids and I think we can all agree that it isn't overcrowding and art and music on a cart. I wholeheartedly agree with your comment below - the BOE needs to be held accountable. There have been too many missed opportunities. Maybe it's time for us to stop griping about individual schools and see to it as a community that the BOE addresses the larger, long-term issue of overcrowding otherwise we will all be in this very same boat again next year.

Christine, really that is essentially what you are doing, replacing "special needs kids" with "Prescott Mill" in an online letter which is, of course, your perogative. Again, as I said previously, we didn't single out special needs kids to move, we mentioned it as a possible option amongst others based on what the committee recommended. We would have never even mentioned it as an option if it had not been mentioned before. I think that it is RIDICULOUS that the administration waits so long to let parents know where their student will be attending school. I thoroughly agree with you on that! To your statement, "To be blunt, if you sign something, you own it." I never said I didn't! To this day, I 100% stand behind everything in that letter. It was a free form list of ideas for the district to consider, providing no more weight on any one option than another. I would imagine that you are focusing on Special needs children because that is a hot button issue for you. Others may focus on busing because that is theirs. Please accept from me, and maybe only from me because apparently some people are now stating that their names were added to the letter erroneously, that it was NEVER my intention to say that the only way to alleviate this situation was to bus the special needs kids out of Churchill.

Maybe it would have been better to leave that option off of the letter in its entirety but we assumed that ALL options needed to be on the table to have an open and honest discussion of the problem and the possible solutions. To LJSs statement, when we built here we were told that our school would be Wolfs crossing. Then we were told that a new subdivision (centex) was to be built just south of us across Wolf's road that would house a elementary school that we would attend but that subdivision fell thru (plans approved, zoned, etc but the builder pulled out and went under). To imply that we didn't do our homework as to where our children would go to school, built a homes willy nilly and figured "its the districts problem to find us a school" is just flat out wrong. The decisions for us to not go to Wolfs Crossing or cancel the building of the subdivision came long after many of us either started building or our homes were delivered. At that point, their wasn't much for us to do other than incur substantial financial penalties and stop construction. I never dreamed at some point in the future, the communities would be embroiled in a "my community" over "your community" argument as it pertains to schools. Not very community like if you ask me.

Thanks, PMP. I appreciate your comment. I think all of our intentions are to have the best learning environment for our kids. We need to focus on getting the BOE to act in the best interest of the entire community instead of continually sweeping the issue under the rug or shifting the burden because if this continues it won't just be us, it will be parents two, three, four years from now saying the same things.

I agree Christine.

I may be wrong, but I believe the only reason that east of Fifth has busing was due to construction. I also believe that busing will be halted after this school year. That part of the subdivision falls into walking range of the school. So busing in Churchill will no longer be an option.

LJS, I live in another area of Oswego, with a school within Walking Distance, PrairiePoint and the previous Board decided it would be better to bus the kids PAST the school to Huntclub, so even if you do buy a home within walking distance it doesn't mean you will attend that school. I agree that moving to another school to releave overcrowding will be necessary. This Board doesn't seem to understand they will NOT please everyone, so they choose to do nothing instead.

"The bottom line is that under this re-districting program that everyone is still going to school and still getting transportation to and from school. Any needs beyond that is just selfishness on the part of parents."
AMEN to your comments Mike!

Carol, I have to disagree. The joke about "riding the short bus" isn't out there because kids with special needs are accepted; it is out there because they usually do not get a chance to be included and accepted by their peers because they are often separated (really, segregated). Aside from the individual issues these kids face regarding consistency and stability, I don't see how sending them away from their classmates, neighbors, and siblings could be a good thing for most of them. I understand where you're coming from and we always encourage independence, trying new things, and meeting new people at our house, special needs or not, but I don't think "any special needs kid would benefit".

... Said by a person using an anonymous yet amusing alias.

I agree that that guest comment was completely inappropriate. That's the problem with anonymity, it makes people who aren't brave enough to pin their names to something negative they are saying bold.

Mr. Lange,
Thank you for finding my pen name amusing, history buffs should get a kick out of it! While I agree with and see the irony of my criticism of anonymous postings while myself remaining anonymous I complete stand by ALL my comments and CHOSE to remain anonymous. After seeing the type of treatement that our PM neighbor received for speaking publicly and offering suggestions to help alleviate the overcrowding at Churchill, many of those suggestions originating from the boundary committees themselves, I remain anonymous. This particular person has received numerous threats, in addition to harrassment, for voicing those concerns. I can take care of myself but since my spouse and children are active Churchill community members, it is for their safety that I remain anonymous. The vitriol that has emminated over this issue and the treatment of those who chose to voice their concerns is a great cause for concern and I certainly do not want to expose my children to it. At the end of this excercise, regardless of what is decided, we are ALL members of the Churchill School community, at least for this year. The comments made forth during said excercise have been anything but civil our conducive to that community. So while I hide behind my anonymity, it is not to demean or insult others, but to shield away from the intimidating and bullying that has become common.

PCPM, what are you talking about?

PM (now TC) has agreed with many of the posts and disagreed with others and that's OK. TC has even thanked other posters for being constructive (unless that was being sarcastic and I missed it). I re-read all of the posts and I haven't seen any threats or harassment.

The most uncivilized these posts have gotten was when TC was chastising EA about who signed the letter and that's between 2 PM homeowners!

For a forum and topic such as this, I think this has been pretty civilized.

Add, you are correct. I changed my profile from "Prescott Mill Parent" to my initials so that no one would accuse me of hiding behind an anonymous moniker. And no, my thanking of other posters is not sarcastic. I certainly don't think that I was "chastising EA" for his/her comments for not really supporting the letter but having their name associated to it. I was just pointing out the facts for the community to understand so that you all would understand that no one was coerced where the latter was concerned. And I would certainly propose that there have been many more uncivilized posts as a whole listed under this topic than this.

TC, I wasn't trying to accuse you of trying to hide anything by changing your name. Just clarifying who I was talking about.

And "chastising" might have been a strong choice of words. Your response only underscores how this has been pretty civil.

ADD, I know you weren't implying anything pointing out that I changed my profile. It just had been brought up elsewhere and I wanted to address it. And I try to be civil at all times, even in the face of incivility. Thanks.

SAS, I agree. If I have offended anyone with any of my posts on this topic so far, my apologies. It is for this reason, we have not discussed this topic at all with our children. We want to make sure, whatever is decided, that our children are not tainted on the idea, wherever they land.

wish there was a "like" button

:I havre contacted the board several times via email and have always received a response as well. I have given them data and articles and they have always been appreciative.

I can honestly say that I read that document wholly unbiased. From what I read, I would have to agree with you. There are a number of supporting arguments for not moving PM, going into great detail. When it came to the list of other options, I got the feeling of "why don't we throw out a bunch of ideas and see what sticks." Although that probably was not the intent, that is how it came across. I think a better tact would have been to list each of the options' pros and cons and decide on which appears to be the most plausible.

Despite the misconstrued document, I am still in favor of keeping PM at Churchill provided there is a solution that does not negatively impact education.

What are the projected capacity numbers over the next couple of years? Is there any work being done to again secure financing for construction while the decisions are being discussed? I am guessing we will need to expand and/or build new schools in order to meet the projected growth seeing that the new section of Churchill is still selling as well as the rest of PM.

CS Unfortunately there are only 2 options,
Do nothing to alleviate the overcrowding or change the attendance boundaries.
1. Doing nothing will impact programs and the quality of education at Churchill
This is what has happened over the last few years and we can see the results in the AT program, LRC, etc. There is almost no way this won’t lead to Music/Art on a cart and makes it much more likely that the ISP special needs program will need to be moved to another school, splitting families while impacting our must vulnerable student population.
2. Follow the recommendation of the Boundary Committee and move PM to Grande Park.
This is a subdivision that already is bussed into Churchill. Bussing these students to Grande Park, while not ideal would enable current and future students from all the subdivisions that currently feed into Churchill, to experience a high quality education in an atmosphere that isn’t busting at the seams.
There are no other options. That needs to be emphasized. Either attendance boundaries are altered or programs changed. The board can’t issue bonds for expansions because the authority to issue bonds has lapsed. The same thing applies for portable classroom. To go from where we are today to expanding Churchill would require the community voting to increase taxes to pay for construction bonds. This seems like a remote possibility at this time.

Yeah....I already realized what the solution was, I just did not want to say it. Instead, I easily chose the cowards way and stated "a solution that does not negatively impact education."

"...voting to increase taxes to pay for construction bonds. This seems like a remote possibility at this time." I still think it needs to be done, despite the current predicament due to lack of planning (or was it caused by inaction).

After reading the responses a few weeks back about Dual Language and space, this request does not surprise me. Nor, do I think it is because they don't 'like' the students w/ special needs. They are under the impression that these students are not all Churchill School boundary students. This is an accurate statement as far I am aware. If Dual Language or ELL was there, they would have the same arguement. I know that this will result in a lot of 'dislike', but all the commenters should ask themselves-if it were ESL/ELL, DL, or special education and this was not their home school, would I want them to move first?

Being a certified special education teacher and administrator, I can agree with the other comments that this is always the way. For decades, the special programs get moved to where the space is. This is extremely difficult for the students and not a good educational model, but it is the practice. Mrs. Christine Nelson did a great job of keeping the programs at Churchill when many others may have had them moved to other schools with space. I have often thanked her for this. Especially with the hign number of students that this is their home school, it provides them the best opportunity for interacting with their peers in and out of school. So, I think PM and more should move.

However, I do not find their letter offensive or cruel. They are looking out for them, just as parents in the special education programs are, and the AT program and DL and ..

I'd like to offer a different perspective...it's not just to the detriment of the special needs kids if they were to be moved. It's to the detriment of all the kids...we should all be teaching our children to embrace differences in others, and to eschew the notion that acceptance comes only to those who look/act/learn a certain way. ALL of our children benefit from diversity.

I volunteer in the LRC on Mondays and Mrs. Lofthouse does try to go to the classrooms and has some awesome presentations like her one on Chinese New Year. I am guessing she has to do this since this is teacher plan time. However, the students did not check out books for a month. This does not help use achieve the new Core Standards which include increasing non-fiction reading.

I love Mrs. Lofthouse, and I know she is always finding new ways to work around the challenges and engage the students, just as you mentioned - please don't get me wrong. It's a shame that our students are limited in regards to access to the LRC because of poor planning decisions.

As a side note: My son recently came home with books on Lincoln for Presidents Day. What a great opportunity to share a bit of history with him about my home town. When I was his age, we used to go on school tours of the Lincoln Sites. As we flipped through each page together, it brought back a flood of great memories I was able to share with him from my childhood. So thank you Mrs. Lofthouse.

Allette....I like your style!

Just an update. I did email the board regarding the AT room and using it for a meeting. I received an email from Mr. Walsh in an extremely timely manner thanking me for my suggestion. I appreciate a response which is better than the communication I have received from District Student Services which is a 0/3 response.

Who attacked Mrs. Lofthouse? I only saw comments commending a teacher for dealing with a less than ideal situation.

All the comments I have read are commending Mrs. Lofthouse for her lessons and positive handling of overcrowding (i.e. can't use her library for weeks for MAP testing). Overcrowding is the topic which is why it was discussed.