I suppose “update” isn’t quite the right word, even though it feels to me like it is. The Prairie Crossing development in Grayslake in far north-northwest Chicagoland is one that, before we moved into our current home, we look at quite seriously multiple times. Their whole deal is being environmentally friendly, but we really liked the pioneer farmhouse-style architecture, the lake, the fact that it adjoined a nature preserve, and the fact that there were, when we looked, plans for a little “town center” with shops at the train station at the south end of the development — though it seems, by looking at their website, that they haven’t found particularly many tenants yet.
Why didn’t we buy there? A couple reasons, ultimately. First, the fact that it is really quite a bit away from the city, and, for all that it had the objective of walkability with the “town center,” it didn’t have the actual walkability of our current, closer-in suburb. Second, the fact that the development was not quite adjacent but quite near a landfill (which the sales staff neglected to tell us, and we only found out about from a work colleague who lived there). And, third, the schools: the north half of the development was served by Grayslake-based Woodland school district, and the south half (where the new construction was going the last time we looked, and the planned shops were) by Fremont schools — a school district that was originally all rural, so their response to the new subdivisions in the middle of farmland and at the edges of their school district was to construct a single set of facilities in the center of the school district, six miles away. (The Woodland schools area also in a similar center-of-the district cluster.) Or, alternatively, the kids could attend the parochial school in town, or the charter school at Prairie Crossing itself — but this was so environmentally focused that I didn’t think it would be a good fit for any reason other than its proximity.
But here’s where the “update” comes in: in Illinois, the city of Chicago is very willing to approve new charter schools, and there are lots of them, so much so that there are disputes about whether the large number of charter schools is producing too many empty classrooms in the regular public schools, leading to school closings and teacher layoffs. But outside of Chicago, school districts have been opposed to charter schools, and Prairie Crossing school opened up against the wishes of the Woodland and Fremont school districts, under a special Illinois State Board of Education approval (one of four in the state).
Now that approval is at risk, as their last renewal of the charter was contingent on enrolling more low-income and other “disadvantaged” students — they currently have only 0.5% compared to 31% in the Woodland school district — which gives the school districts another weapon in their fight to shut them down — a battle they’re continuing because state aid is redirected to the charter school. And the news today, the school district won the latest round. (The latest article is here; if it’s paywalled, you can access it here.)
Why are they fighting them tooth-and-nail?
According to the Woodland school district’s fact sheet, they actually have a fairly sound reason for opposing the school: as a state-chartered school, the state redirects to Prairie Crossing an amount equal to the per-student spending in that district, multiplied by the number of students at the charter school. If they’re being honest, then this is indeed an injustice, since Prairie Crossing’s costs are much lower, without any special needs kids, ESL kids, or the like. But are they being honest, or does this funding formula exclude extra costs/extra state and federal funds for kids with special services?
So, on the one hand, yes, any school voucher program that could conceivably exist should reasonably strip out the cost for special services in determining how to set the voucher levels. But one gets the feeling that even if a voucher program were to be carefully structured to be a financial “win” for the local school, costing them less in vouchers than they’d otherwise spend on students, turf wars would still mean they’d reject such a plan.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In