ED-RED is just one of the lobbying firms payed for with taxpayer monies by D46. The last time I checked the total was nearing $50,000/yr on hiring lobbyist firms. $50,000 would add another teacher to the classroom, or it would buy a lot of other supplies that actually help the education of the children.

So, you are asking all of us to take the myopic view by only looking at a SINGLE expenditure in the category of using tax payer money to lobby for more tax payer money instead of looking at the bigger picture. Interesting indeed, that the bigger picture shows many other organization lobbying as well, including the likes of IASB, ISBE, IASBM, etc. We must look at the big picture here because every SINGLE expenditure must be looked at in it's totality. That is the only way to determine if it is int the best interest of the children.

Mr. Jarratt:
Can you clarify your specific objections to the author's analysis? It was hardly "myopic" as you butcher the term. It is specific to a particular salient point, and your responses are nonsensical.

To wit: your conclusion "every SINGLE expenditure must be looked at in it's totality," is gibberish. And "IASB...etc" were not (yet) part of the discussion. These vagaries avoid discussion on the merits in lieu of combat, straight out of sports board trolling: "In response to your take on how best to handle Rizzo, I offer BOOO CUBS SORIANO." Is it your position that schools should have no voice in the political appropriations process at all, or is your objection strictly on the merits of ED-RED? What are your metrics? Who can tell. Seems like you just spout off in a meek attempt to hold court as the local contrarian. You certainly aren't raising the level of discourse.

And for goodness sakes: enough with the tired trump cards TAX PAYER MONEY & BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN. It is sophomoric to presume that you and the original author do not at least share SOME common ground. Your definitions and prescriptions may differ, but you do yourself no favors by spouting off as if you and you alone are the Superherodefender of All Things Money and Children and all other views are invalid. It's remarkable to assume your views on budget expenditures have a proven linear relationship to educational outcomes, therefore you win. It is a tiresome trope, sir.

I was at the original meeting several years ago when ED-RED first came in. I believe the initial fee was $300/yr now in a few short years it has more than trippled. They toughted their ability to lobby for more taxpayer money in that meeting. Again, as I said, there are many other groups the district is paying for nearly identical work. The bigger picture is to look at all the duplication and see what helps the children the most. The education of the CHILDREN are the most important factor, not the political agendas in lobbying organisations funded by the taxpayers of the district.

Here is just one example of duplication in a quick 1 minute search: ISBE and ED-RED both supported SB-7.

As stated earlier, the board should do a review of all the lobbying organizations it pays to determine duplication and effectiveness. That should be the prerequisite before a decision on a single organization is made. If not, then as the question I asked were meant to clarify, there will be now method of deciding what or how many groups to fund which can lead to a waste of taxpayer funds. It is plain common sense to make sure the districts dollars are spent wisely, not just thrown at any or every organization that supports the policies you approve of.

I am extremely, extremely disappointed that I made a lengthy insightful post about this on here that didn't take either side on this issue, but instead provided facts and encouraged readers to do their own research on this matter ... only to have my post inexplicably removed.

It was more of a statement about how it's unfortunate that in this day and age people have to spend any money to lobby for their schools' needs in Springfield than anything.

I'm not going to re-post everything, but lawmakers downstate owe school districts a ton of money.

If taxpayers don't pay their taxes on time, guess what happens? But when Springfield continues to cut funding for schools across the state in massive amounts, as they have done and continue to do, I think the district feels it necessary to have more power to try and sway these politicians.

I wish there was a way to penalize lawmakers who got us in this financial mess to begin with the same way they go after taxpayers for things.

It's sad that they have to do this to begin with just to try and get what they want to help children in their school districts.

Not taking sides, just pointing out the unfortunate reality of the situation.

I think the key thing is for people to go to the website of this organization and find out directly from them what their goals and plans are, and whether or not the district benefits from it given the cost they pay to be involved in it. That's all. Very easy to look up, if anyone is interested.

Just goes to show that money talks. A sad but true reality.

I'd be willing to bet one of the reasons he is questioning this group is because many of the ideas they support would likely cost people their jobs.

Furthermore, when people start throwing words like "consolidation" around, generally it means there will wind up being fewer teachers, larger class sizes and worst of all, based on the site's own admission, and the blog above, the group seems supportive of having a state superintendent who can place sanctions on what they deem to be "underperforming" teachers.

There's one huge problem. There are many cases in which wonderul teachers are given a classroom full of troubled students. Or ones that aren't as educationally developed, for example. And because a teacher's performance is largely based on state-implemented test scores in many cases, those scoring low may be labeled as bad teachers.

While sometimes that may be the case, other times the teachers are simply victims of circumstance, under-funded schools, classrooms and programs, and other things beyond their control.

I personally have no problem with people questioning things. For far too long, I didn't see enough questioning of things in the district. Just because someone wants more information about where taxpayer money is going and why isn't always a bad thing. In fact, it's that kind of transparency that leads to new ideas and positive changes, which are things all school districts should welcome.

And one final thought: While I don't necessarily agree with the state's idea to want to take control of the property tax situation in general, perhaps if municipalities and school districts weren't overtaxing (in my opinion) residents to begin with, the state wouldn't feel the need to intervene.

They see firsthand every day how many people are losing their homes because they cannot pay their proerty taxes, which are now in the three, four-thousand or more dollar range annually for people locally ... and in many cases more.

For families who have situations where only one parent can work, that is a huge, huge burden to bear in many cases. If you have a job making 25,000-30,000 and live with one other person who is disabled, and you own a property where they take $4,000 a year from you just so you can own your own property (which doesn't include cable, electric, water, gas, trash, homeowners insurance, car insurance, food, gas prices and a slew of other costs) it's a big deal to a lot of people.

My point being, I cannot blame school board members for scrutinizing every dollar they spend these days. Because the economy isn't getting better as some claim, it is getting worse.

And the more people that continue to live in our districts and burden our school districts, the worse it gets for taxpayers, and the more it will costs everyone to live here.

People need to stop developing so many new residential areas too. Ask your villages to re-zone residential areas.