'Silent majority' starts new Web site against Dist. 204 suit

In the week since Neighborhood Schools for Our Children formed and collected enough money to sue Indian Prairie Unit District 204, the Internet has been buzzing with responses.

There have been countless forum posts back and forth, not to mention comments under newspaper articles and columns and, of course, e-mails.

Most heartening to me was the formation of a rival Web site to the NSFOC protest over District 204's choices for Metea Valley High School -- www.nsfocfraud.com. I wish every "silent majority" became as vocal as this one has decided to be.

One of the organizers e-mailed me to say their goal is to use the site to "provide as much factual information as possible and to share the comments we get."

According to the Web site, the new group's motivation is straightforward -- "to increase awareness of the frivolous lawsuit filed by NSFOC; Call out the selfish motives behind it; Provide a platform for the district's 'silent majority' to be heard; Hope that the volume of responses/support will aid in having the suit dismissed."

Behind the site, according to their own words, are "a number of mild-mannered parents from across the district with one thing in common: deep feelings of anger and disgust resulting from the NSFOC and their actions."

If you agree with any of the above, I urge you to visit the site, as many residents have.

Meanwhile, the Web site organized by the people who filed a lawsuit against the school district is www.nsfoc.org.

Their stated purpose is that the "IPSD school board pulled the rug out. We want the school board to slow down, re-think and re-do the new high school, the boundaries, their own criteria and fiscal responsibility." They say they are concerned for "the health and safety of our children and the fiscal integrity of the district."

This group didn't materialize until boundaries for the new high school site were revealed. However, they stress their issues have nothing to do with those boundaries. They say they are comprised of a cross section of the district and not just residents who are unhappy with the way the boundaries fell for their homes.

Peruse the site. Their beefs with the school district go far and wide and their wishes are simple: start all over again regarding the third high school.

In my view, it's because of people like this that our high schools are overcrowded now. If residents had passed the first referendum in 2005, the district would have been able to buy the Brach-Brodie land near 75th Street and Commons Drive at a decent price and that school would be opening in the fall. Now they want to delay again.

The third high school has been an issue that has gone on and on in our district, and it seems many would prefer to return to the past rather than move forward.

One complaint I'd like to address is one that continually gets brought up about me, from back in 2001 -- a complaint that is mirrored in comments against the school board (many of whom weren't on the board seven years ago.)

In 2001, when residents were considering whether to convert two middle schools into freshman centers to mitigate district growth, some wanted the district to build a third high school.

We were then told a third high school was simply not going to be built and the freshman centers would take care of the overcrowding. Because of many factors -- not the least of which were changes to Naperville's master plan that created more housing than the school board could have anticipated many years ago -- the freshman centers haven't been enough. We all know that now.

There are many, many things that most everyone in the world knows now that we didn't know years ago about many subjects. That's life. Those of us who can see the future accurately are quite lucky.

Back then, I wrote about my own high school -- the fourth in a high school district that was built based on projections that turned out to be wrong. My high school opened and closed within 10 years and never had an enrollment higher than 1,500. Some use that column as some sort of proof, I suppose, that you can't believe what I say.

Well, what I said then was true: Why build another high school when you don't think you'll need it, when another proposal makes more sense? What District 204 did -- not building when officials didn't think they needed it until it was obvious they did -- was more prudent than what some wanted them to do at that time with uncertain numbers.

However, much has changed in the subsequent years. Zoning was changed, populations increased more quickly than anticipated and the freshman centers weren't big enough. Many agreed we now needed a third high school.

I'm unclear why that's an indictment of anyone. Things changed. Plus, creating freshman centers were one of the best things the district ever did. Just ask anyone who has had a freshman there.

So they were a perfect stopgap. They would have been enough if projections were correct; they were good for the growth we had and gave us time to realize we did need a third high school.

How can "prudent spenders" complain about that?

But they do, using that "mistake" to suggest the board was somehow inept.

Yes, I once said a third high school was unnecessary. I now disagree. Sue me. (Oh, I shouldn't say that to some people in Naperville … )

As for those who say we still don't need a third high school, and that enrollment is peaking and will decline, it's a fact that this morning we could easily fill three high schools at excellent capacities.

The question remains: How large should our high schools be? Voters said they wanted smaller high schools. Most high schools around us have about 2,500 students. At that number, District 204 can fill three schools and then some for many years to come.

No one wants to build a high school on dangerous land. But let the experts do their job in investigating the Eola Road site. If that is the issue, then that should be the issue, not the laundry list of complaints, accusations, word-twisting and delay tactics some are pushing.