REORGANIZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
Prepared for

Freeburg Community High School District #77
Freeburg Community Consolidated School District #70
Smithton Community Consolidated District #130
And
St. Libory Consolidated School District #30

Authorized By
Illinois State Board of Education
Dr. Tony Smith, Superintendent
And
Regional Office of Education #50
Ms. Susan Sarfaty, Superintendent
Conducted By
Dr. Nick Osborne
Dr. James Rosborg
1

 Table of Contents

Preface…………………………….…………………….……………. ….………..3
Introduction……………………………………………………………...….….......4
Historical Perspective……………………………………………………. ….….…6
School Consolidation….………. ,,…………………………………………….….12
Trends in Consolidation……………………………………………………….......17
Reorganization Incentives……….……………….……………………….….... …24
Transportation System Review and Analysis………………..………….….…..….28
Facilities………………………………………………………..……………..…...37
Enrollment History and Projections…………………………………………….... 44
Curriculum Analysis & Assessment………………………………….………..…. 50
Extra-Curricular……………………………………………………………….........68
Financial Considerations and Comparisons…………..………………………........75
State Incentive Calculations……………… ………………………………...........88
Financial Conclusions……………………………………………………………..107
Reorganization Recommendations………………………………….…… ……....108
General Questions……………………………………...……………...….……….118
First Steps and Further Questions…………………………………………………126
Bibliography………………………………….…………………….......................128

2

 Preface
The consideration of consolidating two or more school districts is a very serious
decision that must be carefully reviewed by all stakeholders of the school districts.
Normally Boards of Education, staff, parents, and students become the main stakeholders
engaged in the consideration for reorganization. However, we must also focus on the
impacts that all members of the community will experience as the result of any
reorganization efforts. The bottom line of final considerations should be based upon what
is best for the students. The compelling question to pursue is simply this… “Will it Be
Good for Kids?”
We would like to commend the Boards of Education for Freeburg CHSD #77,
Freeburg CCSD #70, St. Libory CSD #30 and Smithton CCSD #130 for their willingness to
pursue the development of a study that involves examining the reorganization options that
may create an opportunity to provide improved educational opportunities for all students
involved. The process of establishing a reorganization feasibility study and rendering
recommendations regarding possible re-organization options does not occur without the
assistance of several individuals. The leadership of the district superintendents, Dr.
Thomas Rude, Mr. Greg Frerking, Mrs. Tomi Diefenbach, and Dr. Ryan Wamser and their
staffs has been essential to the successful pursuit of this study. And finally, we would like
to acknowledge the role of the Regional Superintendent of Schools, Mrs. Susan Sarfaty, and
her staff who have served as contributors to this study. The Regional Offices of Education
play a very essential role in establishing and supporting the quality pursuit of education in
the school districts within our State. They are essential elements in support of the State’s
efforts to reorganize the school districts into units that can function at a higher level of
efficiency both fiscally and academically.

3

 Introduction
The organizational structure of public schools has gone through many various forms since
their early beginnings. Different arrangements and formats have been explored and pursued to
provide the most efficient and most effective procedure for the delivery of education to the
citizenry of their local communities. Throughout the United States, school administrators and
school boards are presently being forced into the careful examination of the fiscal operational
parameters of their schools. The worsening economy is creating much stress on the school
administration and their governing bodies as they attempt to sustain the delivery of a high-quality
education for all students. In Illinois, the revenue side of the budget is being heavily impacted by
the failure of the State to provide the necessary funding to support the operations of the local
school districts. With many of the school districts depending on general state aid to support their
fiscal needs, the present delay and projected shortfall of general state aid and categorical payments
in Illinois is forcing many of these schools to consider making serious cuts to their operational
budget. As school administrators and school boards look for ways to cut costs, some are beginning
to consider the possibility of school district reorganization and specifically the possibility of
consolidation with another school district. This very tough decision is driven by the desire of these
governing bodies to provide the highest quality of education for its citizenry.
School reorganization is the process of establishing a different structure for the delivery of
education for a specific educational community. Very often presented as a means only to save
money, the reorganization process can take on many different forms such as the consolidation of
school districts into a new district or the merging of a high school and elementary schools into one
unit. This is the question presently being pursued by the Freeburg, Smithton, and St. Libory
School Districts.
Consolidation is the practice of combining two or more schools for educational and or
economic benefits. It has been found that a consolidated school can often offer an expanded
4

 curriculum and a more prominent identity in the community while reducing costs through the
economy of scale. On the other hand, consolidation can sometimes incur numerous liabilities,
especially if there are schools that will be closed that presently are the providers of community
services and the sole source of identity for the community. It is sometimes difficult being the
messenger who says that some school districts are simply too small to survive. Fortunately, there
are now more people willing to stand up and say that for the benefit of a better education for
children, school consolidation must be a serious consideration for many of our smaller school
districts in Illinois.
When schools can combine small student populations into one building under the
governance of a single unit, they normally can gain efficiencies of operation and management due
to the economy of scale. Typically, the more efficient the operation the more likely they will be
able to gain enhanced resources. School districts can leverage these additional resources to provide
a better quality of education for its students. The possible enhancements to the system could
include the broader curricular offerings, greater extra-curricular opportunities, and improvements
to the overall educational environment.
Today’s reality faces the fact that the plans for reorganization are many times met with
opposition from some administrators, boards of education, faculty, parents, and other community
members. These individuals tend to argue that although the schools might save money, the personal
identity of the schools will be lost, and the residents could end up footing the bill because they will
pay more in taxes when their district merges. However, when examined, it is found that in most
situations after reorganization the flow of resources are enhanced while maintaining or even
lowering the impact on the local tax payer. Naysayers also maintain that larger schools and fewer
administrators mean a decrease in school unity, personalized education, and accountability.
Do the benefits of school consolidation outweigh the possible impacts on communities?
Therefore, the examination of the reorganization of schools is a personal decision; a decision that
5

 has different variables of impact from community to community. It is extremely important that
each individual school district and community carefully examine all the critical elements involved
in the deliberations of reorganizing schools.

Historical Perspective of Public Education
When we look at the evolution of the American public education system we will find its
early origins began in the 17th century. The concept of the public supporting the public
educational system began in Massachusetts in 1647. It was the establishment of the Old Satan
Deluder Law that required that all towns of 50 or more families provide an elementary school
where teachers were required to teach not only reading and writing, but the Bible as well. Towns
that held 100 or more families were required to have grammar schools. This was a school where
students focused mostly on Latin and Greek. This act was a way for the local community to ensure
that education was passed from one generation to the next. Puritans, also, wanted to avoid having a
generation of poor and unintelligent people, and to keep that from happening, they made sure that
every citizen got enough education to read so that they could understand the laws and read the
Bible. Life in the 1600's was based on religion and their laws came from the Bible. The Satan
Deluder Act was a follow-up to the parental neglect law of 1642. Apparently, some felt that the
Law of 1642 didn’t go far enough in ensuring that children got a proper education. This law,
though oddly named, was a crucial turning point in American public-school education and is
credited with giving rise to public education for the masses which the United States enjoys to this
day.
It was in the late 18th century that Thomas Jefferson provided some of the first leadership
directed at the establishment of a public-school system throughout the emerging United States.
Jefferson believed that education should be under the control of the government, free from
religious biases, and available to all people irrespective of their status in society.
6

 In the early 19th century, another champion for public education emerged. Horace Mann
felt that a common school would be the "great equalizer." He felt that through the establishment of
the common school, poverty would most assuredly disappear and a host of moral vices like
violence and fraud would diminish. In sum, there was no end to the social good which might be
derived from a common school. His belief in the establishment of the common school led to his
being identified as the “Father of the American School System.”

Historical Perspective: Freeburg Community High School District No.77
Although existing as a two-year high school for several years, it was not until 1923 that Freeburg
Community High School officially graduated its first four-year class. Initially, there was just the FreeburgFayetteville area attending FCHS, but the Smithton, Paderborn, Floraville area came into the district in 195051 and St. Libory joined in 1971-72 so that there are now 122 square miles in District #77. FCHS has a
current enrollment of approximately 750 and is anticipated to grow over the next few years. On staff we have
48 certificated personnel and 20 non-certified employees. Forty percent of our teachers have master’s
degrees. FCHS has six feeder grade schools - St. Libory G.S., Smithton Elementary, St. John's Catholic G.S.
of Smithton, Millstadt Elementary, Freeburg Elementary, and St. Joseph's Catholic G.S. of Freeburg.

The old high school, built in 1927, was the typical three-story brick structure. In 1950 additional
classrooms were built onto the north side and a new gym was built just south of the school. A tornado in May
of 1968 demolished most of the 1927 building. Since there were some difficulties in collecting the insurance
money, and the need to pass a referendum for additional classrooms due to an expanding enrollment, FCHS
students attended classes all over town for the next three years. Finally, in 1971 the re-modeled north wing
and the new south wing were ready for use. There were three separate buildings so students had to go outside
to get from one building to the other until 1977 when the "ramp" area was enclosed to attach the north wing,

7

 the gym, and the south wing. In 1989 a new carpeted cafeteria, a kitchen, and four classrooms were finished,
and in 1997 FCHS added 14 new classrooms.

Historical Perspective: Freeburg Elementary School District No.70
The Freeburg Elementary School District is the product of a consolidation of 19 districts in the
Village and surrounding areas. The reorganization and consolidation and the erection of the new school was
under the leadership of the Superintendent, the late Carl L. Barton. In 1974 the school was named the Carl L.
Barton School in his honor. Mr. Barton served as Superintendent of the Elementary School for 26 years.
Working with Mr. Barton as Assistant Superintendent was the late Leon H. Dickerson. Mr. Dickerson served
the Elementary School for 21 years, first as a member of the faculty and later as Assistant Superintendent. In
1974 the new gymnasium was named the Leon H. Dickerson Gymnasium in his honor. Dr. Clarence Haege
replaced Mr. Barton as Superintendent in 1974. Dr. Haege served District 70 until 1994. Following Dr. Haege
was Mr. C. Lawrence Meggs. Mr. Meggs served the District as Superintendent from 1994-1998. He was
replaced by Superintendent Dr. Rob Hawkins. Dr. Hawkins was replaced by Mrs. Tomi Diefenbach who
presently serves as the District Superintendent.
The present Elementary School has been a pace-setter from the outset of the use of the new building. It
was the first public school building in the United States to be equipped with coaxial cable to receive
educational television in every classroom. In 1991 the use of television in the classroom was updated by the
purchase of a satellite dish through the Parent-Teacher Association.

Since the school’s inception in 1954 it has undergone several additions. In 1962 a wing was added to the
south of the first building, and in 1974 a major addition brought the total square footage of the school to
72,468. The 1974 addition included a new Gymnasium, Science Lab, Special Education Department, School
Office, and Library/Media Center. In 1990 the school underwent a major renovation which cost $1.4 million.

8

 This included all-school air conditioning and carpeting of the K-4 classrooms. 1996 saw the completion of the
next major addition to the district. A cafeteria, 8 classrooms, and a band room were added.

Historical Perspective: Smithton Elementary District No. 130
Smithton was founded in 1850. Originally there were two separate towns, Georgetown, and Smithton,
across a shared Main Street. After years of support for combining Georgetown and Smithton grew, and it was
logical to call the new town by the name of Smithton. For over 150 years, people have been moving here,
building homes, and raising families, making Smithton the strong community it is. Whether you were born
and raised in Smithton or because you just recently moved to Smithton, it is an amazing place to reside!

Historical Perspective: St. Libory Elementary District No. 30
Very little information was available regarding the history of the St. Libory School District. The
review did identify a close relationship with St. Liborius Church. Historical archives revealed that at one
time there was a St. Liborius High School and a St. Liborius Grade School. It is assumed that sometime after
World War II the schools shifted to a public-school setting.

The educational systems in this study are very similar to many of the other rural American educational
programs. However, it is important to note that our system of education differs from the systems of education
that exist in other nations. One of the main differences is that in America the primary responsibility for
educating its people is the responsibility of the states and the local school districts. This pursuit of equity of
education for all students has been a challenge for our communities and our states. Many attempts have been
made to create a guarantee of equitable public-school opportunities for all students; however, in most cases
the efforts to achieve this desired status has failed. In reality we have found that where you live will dictate
the quality of your public-school education. In Illinois, like many other states, we have realized that the
quality of education is very dependent upon the availability of both local and state resources. In Illinois, the
9

 struggle to provide the highest quality of educational programs brought about an early realization that total
equity most likely will not be achieved. Therefore, the best that Illinois and other states can do is to pursue
the establishment of an adequate education for each of its students.

Each year the State of Illinois determines a foundation level for each student based on the total
amount of funds appropriated. The General State Aid Formula is basically a foundation approach with three
separate calculations, but for nearly 80% of the school districts in Illinois the “Foundation Formula”
calculation serves as the means through which they receive their fiscal assistance from the state. The
foundation level represents a minimum level of financial support to provide a basic education per pupil. This
foundation formula is best described as the adequacy level for education. In other words, it attempts to
respond to the question of how much money is needed to provide an adequate not equitable but adequate
educational program for the students in Illinois. The foundation or adequacy level for 2016 was set at $6,119
for general state aid payments to be made during the 2016-2017 academic year. Recognizing the fact that
local wealth and resources vary from one community to the next, the general state aid formula attempts to
distribute state dollars to assure that, at a minimum, all districts can support their students at the foundation
level. The formula is designed to distribute more aid to poorer districts and a minimum amount to wealthier
districts. The amount of state aid that districts receive is basically the difference between the foundation level
and the available local resources multiplied by the number of students (average daily attendance).

Many times, the struggle to attain the best possible system of educational services has
caused the local school administration and governing bodies to examine the economy and
efficiency of their present educational delivery system. The unpredictability of local and state
support along with declining enrollments is usually the catalysts for these examinations. In Illinois
funding for education has varied dramatically over the years depending on the fiscal integrity of the
state and the availability of local revenue sources. These self initiated examinations by school
boards have in many situations evolved into the discussion and consideration of possible
10

 reorganization of their school districts, specifically the consolidation of the school systems into a
more efficient and effective structure.
In the United States, school districts have been consolidating since early in the last century.
This occurred at a time when there were several school-initiated unifications happening that helped
to reduce the number of the nation’s school districts from 13,588 to 17,995. However, since those
early efforts we have seen consolidation at the national level slow to a much more reduced pace.
The reorganizations of school districts in Illinois can be traced back to around 1899.
It was at this time that some of the first considerations were given to the concepts of
efficiency and economy of scale. The actual first official consolidation petition was
initiated in 1903. However, not much activity occurred after that early petition. It was not
until 1946 that school consolidation began to take on a more serious consideration in our
state. Illinois Governor Adlai E. Stevenson targeted school consolidation as an issue that his
newly elected administration would confront. At that time in Illinois, there were around
11,000 separately established school districts ranging from one-room schoolhouses in the
rural regions to the district that served the entire city of Chicago. Each had its own board,
budget, and administrator. This post war effort to reduce the number of Illinois school
districts was very successful. Beginning in 1947, the 11,000 school districts started
declining and reached a consistent existence of approximately 1,000 by the mid-1950s. The
massive reduction came as the result of the closing of the many emotionally embraced “one
room” schools. Many of these “one room” schools came together to form the Community
Consolidated School Districts that presently exist throughout the state. Since the early
efforts of the Stevenson administration, there has been little progress to reduce the number
of school districts in Illinois. Today there are 852 school districts operating in the state of
Illinois. That would indicate a reduction of only 148 school districts in the past sixty-five
years.
11

 The School Reform Package of 1985 was supposed to address the problem of school
consolidation. One of the 169 measures in the package was Senate Bill 730, which required
Regional Offices of Education to establish reorganization committees. These committees
were then directed to look at all unit districts within their jurisdictions that had fewer than
1500 students, all elementary districts with fewer than 1000 and all high school districts
with fewer than 500. When the consolidation legislation of 1985 was passed, discussions
were undertaken by small districts everywhere on the belief that consolidation was a "done
deal." However, the consolidation initiative died because many of the politicians, including
Governor, James R. Thompson, were concerned about the impact that this legislation would
have on their ability to be re-elected to their political positions. Therefore, the proposed
legislation slowly slipped into the proverbial fog that has consumed many of the best
intentions of the Illinois political governance system.

SCHOOL CONSOLIDATION
WHAT IS STANDING IN THE WAY OF SCHOOL CONSOLIDATION TODAY?
Some would argue that the strongest opposition comes from a fear of losing another
community institution. That indeed could be a major roadblock to consolidation simply because
schools have remained long after the business district died, the general store closed, or the post office
was relocated. These schools serve as the only remaining remnant of former communities. We have
found in working with schools on the reorganization reviews that one cannot discount the value placed
on the local events held at these community schools. It is events such as an annual chili supper, fall
festival and the Pee Wee Basketball Tournaments that bring together the members of local community
and continues to nurture the emotional connections to these last vestiges of the community’s identity.
Communities often resist consolidation to protect their sports teams. But in some places, school
districts have lost so many students they can no longer field a starting lineup and face little choice

12

 except to merge operations to sustain reasonable quality athletics and academics for their students.
Carr P.J. & Kefalas, M. (2010)

Another factor that seems to stand in the way of the school consolidation is the unwillingness
of many of the boards of education to consider the merger of the governance process; this may be as
much a hindrance as the possible emotional loss of the community identity. However, as schools
statewide are being faced with unprecedented fiscal concerns, the idea of merging small districts has
moved to the top of the agenda both at the local and at the State level.

WHAT ARE THE POSITIVE EFFECTS OF SCHOOL CONSOLIDATION?
Consolidation of schools has both curricular and financial advantages. First, it often
enables the consolidated schools to share courses and facilities. Sharing results in a more
varied curriculum because fewer classes are dropped due to low enrollment. Expenditures
for capital improvements and basic maintenance are reduced because there is no need to
upgrade or maintain duplicate facilities. Because consolidation often combines classes and
increases their size, fewer teachers need to be employed. Consolidated schools, moreover,
do not normally employ as many administrative personnel as did the separate schools.
Consolidation of schools also can produce psychological benefits. When combined,
schools often gain a confidence and an identity in the community they did not previously
possess (Kay 1982). Sports programs and co-curricular activities flourish in consolidated
schools because of combined funding. Additional co-curricular activities are often offered.
The argument to consolidate the smaller school districts in Illinois has been based
upon several assumptions: (1) potential cost savings that could accrue from the combining
of the districts; (2) greater administrative effectiveness and operational efficiencies; and (3)
fiscal benefits due to the economy of scale; (4) additional co-curricular activities; (5) and
most important the educational advantages for all students.
13

 In Illinois, many districts would realize cost savings from a reduction in
superintendent salaries and from the overall fiscal efficiencies that economies of scale
would provide. There are approximately 842 men and women who serve as school
superintendents in Illinois (a few serve as superintendent in more than one district). Many
are paid on a full-time basis to run a single building with fewer than 500 students. Each of
the 852 school districts have a board of education consisting of seven elected persons,
which means there are approximately 5,964 board members (852 x 7) who are overseers of
local education in the state. Many would argue that the governance of the schools needs to
be streamlined. For example, in one Southern Illinois County with a population of
approximately 32,000, there exist 17 school districts and 119 school board members. When
we examine the governance systems in other surrounding states we find a much more
streamlined system of governance. For example, in Kentucky, there are 174 school
districts. Each of these school districts are governed by school boards made up of five
elected members. This equates to a total of 1,249 school board members in the entire state
(5x174). This is nearly one sixth of the total school board members that presently govern in
Illinois.
Many of the school districts in Illinois are so small that they realize no benefit from
the concept of economy of scale when it comes to the expenditures of operating their school
facilities and educational programs. They realize no competitive advantage in contracting
for operational equipment, food, maintenance supplies, textbooks, supporting instructional
materials and technology. Suppliers tend to provide the largest discounts to the highervolume buyers. In many situations smaller school districts have attempted to gain from the
benefits provided from economy of scale by establishing consortiums and buying
partnerships with other school districts. One example of this effort can be found with the

14

 Egyptian Trust Consortium that provides health insurance to many school districts in
Southern and Central Illinois.
Administrative effectiveness often results from an increase in role differentiation.
Because a small district superintendent has only a building or two, he or she usually serves
as a principal and as the district business manager. These duties are in addition to serving as
the chief executive officer responsible to the board of education for the oversight of the
curriculum and as the legal administrator for state mandates and local board policies. This
causes a serious fragmentation of effort and responsibility. Consolidation would increase
the number of children and the financial base of the district to the point where such role
differentiation would be feasible.
The financial advantages to consolidate usually are represented by the increased
operational efficiency of the school districts, the possible enhancement of revenue from the
General State Aid and the reorganization incentives that are offered by the State of Illinois.
However, it is important to note that each reorganization consideration can result in
dramatically different fiscal benefits and enhancements. Therefore, each situation must be
carefully analyzed, and each consolidation consideration must examine the projected levels
of efficiency and the potential for increased revenue. In some instances, school districts
have explored consolidation only to discover that peculiarities in the state financial aid
formula would result in less state aid with consolidation.
The Illinois State Board of Education maintains a "Watch List" of districts that are
in financial trouble. If these public districts were private businesses, they would have
declared Chapter 11 bankruptcies years ago. Just as Chapter 11 provides the opportunity
for reorganization, schools on the Financial Watch list should see this situation as a similar
opportunity to review the fiscal health of the district and to examine the possible benefits
that can be derived from the merger with one or more school districts.
15

 Board members must take time to become aware of the impact that consolidation can have
upon students, instruction, district governance, finances, and the community. Consolidation is not
without risk, pitfalls, and controversy. It requires much additional effort from administrators and
teachers to ensure its success and needs a commitment from the general community to support the
goals of consolidation. Hence, options that cannot earn professional, community or taxpayer support
may not be viable.

Support received from stakeholders will be dependent upon:
• Expanded student opportunities
• Potential long-term savings related to building renovation and shared construction
• Lower administrative costs
• Keeping the best of existing district instructional programs and teacher expertise
• Motivation to plan the district’s own destiny
• Finding lower costs and higher efficiencies.
Educationally, there are good reasons to consolidate. When a small high school can only meet
the state mandated curriculum by stretching itself as thin as to become transparent, it is time to take
action. Educational advantages become especially apparent at the middle school and the high school
level where departmentalization is common. Small high schools and junior high/middle schools have
great difficulty in meeting the required state curriculum. In attempting to do so, teachers are
sometimes assigned to teach courses for which they possess only the absolute minimum legal
requirement. Many of these schools looking into consolidation cannot offer foreign languages,
advanced mathematics, or advanced science courses. Even ordinary subjects like algebra, geometry,
biology, and chemistry are offered on an "every other year basis." This is not a satisfactory solution
for the student who moves into the district during the "off year when the subject needed was taught
the year before.

16

 TRENDS IN CONSOLIDATION
Serious consideration for consolidation has been in existence for some time. Much
of the initiative with consolidation began with the movement to consolidate many of the
one room schools that existed throughout this country. This movement began in l918 as a
reaction to the perceived academic weakness in rural and small schools. This served as a
catalyst for broader based consolidation efforts that took place during the 1940’s and 50’s.
Ravitch (1984) reports that, while total enrollment in elementary and secondary schools
nearly doubled from 1945 to 1980 (from 23 million to 40 million), the number of schools
dropped from 185,000 to under 86,000. During the 1970s the number of schools in the
country declined 5 percent.
ISBE WAIVER PROCESS
If the present reorganization efforts will not afford the districts an opportunity to pursue efforts
to restructure their existence, then they can pursue the ISBE Waiver Process. The Waiver Process has
been established by ISBE to allow school districts desiring to reorganize to bypass the legislative
statutes. For example: In this study all four of the districts would have to be represented on the
petition for legislative reorganization options. However, if only three wishes to pursue a petition, then
those three would have to request waiver. Basically, they would be requesting a waiver out of the
“substantially coterminous” requirement, which is what requires all four to be on the petition. If the
three districts are successful in waiving out of that requirement, then the three districts could advance
a petition and potentially get it to referendum vote (if it gets through all its steps) without including
the fourth.
In this example, Smithton EL, Freeburg EL, and Freeburg HSD would each have to complete
the waiver process and file the same waiver. If approved, it would allow them to pursue a referendum
question with just the three of them, without St Libory being represented on the petition or at the
referendum vote.
17

 ISBE has approved a waiver of this same issue. United Twp. HSD has five elementary feeder
districts. Two of the elementary districts did not want to pursue any reorganization attempt. The high
school district and the remaining three elementary districts each filed a request to waive out of the
“substantially coterminous” requirement. Their waivers were approved. At this point, the districts
have not carried forward with an actual petition, but they still have their approved waivers for
approximately another year and a half.

The application deadline for the Fall 2018 Waiver Report is Wednesday August 15, 2018.
Applications for modifications of the School Code, or for waivers or modifications of the State
Board’s administrative rules are not subject to the postmark deadlines for waivers of the School
Code. However, in all cases approvals for any of these requests must be granted before the request can
be implemented.

Please Note: The process for applying for a modification of the School Code, a waiver of State Board
rules, or a modification of State Board rules is the same process as the one used in applying for a
waiver of a School Code mandate

FACTORS THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED IN CONSOLIDATION?
Over the years many justifications have been offered for considering the
reorganization of schools and specifically the consolidation of these individual units into a
merged existence. The justifications have been led by the concept that larger schools can
perform at a higher level of efficiency than their smaller counter parts. It has often been
suggested that the merged unit would be able to offer an improved educational program for
all the students.
However, (Beckner and O'Neal 1980) in their study pointed out the benefits of small
schools and questioned the effectiveness of school reorganizations. In their study, they
18

 pointed out that in many situations the smaller schools have shown to be able to perform
functions that are impossible in larger schools. Small schools usually provide closer
relations between faculty and administration, a smaller teacher-pupil ratio, and an enhanced
potential for individualized instruction.
School districts looking at the possibility of consolidation must invest adequate time
to carefully examine their community and to determine the possible impact that
consolidation of the local schools may have on the overall stability of the community.
According to Kay (1982), a leading research analyst in the school consolidation field, a
school system "considering consolidation ought to investigate the nature, extent, and
strength of other community institutions and social service agencies serving any community
facing possible loss of its schools."
It is critical that all parties impacted by potential reorganizations should be provided
the opportunity to actively engage in discussion and debate related to the proposed mergers.
Yes, we must carefully review the research and the related concerns of economic efficiency
and school size; however, these items alone should not be allowed to totally discount the
effect of school consolidation on the community. Only by granting equal importance to all
the major factors can decision-makers ensure that "narrow concerns about formal schooling
do not unconsciously override broader educational concerns and the general well-being of
the community to which those broader educational concerns are intimately connected" (Kay
1982).
One of the major factors that can contribute to the benefits of consolidation is the
concept of economy of scale. Economy of scale can be defined as the reduction in cost per
unit resulting from increased production, realized through operational efficiencies.
Economies of scale can be accomplished because as production increases, the cost of
producing each additional unit falls. We can relate these business definitions to the
19

 calculations of the cost necessary to provide a quality educational program for each and
every child in our school districts. It is important to note that for many small school districts
the benefits that can come in relation to economy of scale normally evades them. In many
situations this usually prevents them from being able to receive certain fiscal advantages
within their operations. Small school districts have a harder time funding a wide array of
programs and normally end up providing a basic adequate program for the students. For
example, the cost of providing a course in Calculus for two students becomes much more
expensive than providing the same course for fifteen students. It is normally apparent to the
investigator that the larger schools due to their increased enrollment, enhanced revenue can
provide more diverse curriculum offerings needed by students to get into college and find
jobs.

Although different needs have driven reorganization in the past, the critical areas of concern
today are the educational opportunities reorganization provides students and the fiscal viability of
school districts to provide the highest quality educational opportunities. School District
Reorganization is the umbrella term which includes consolidation, school district conversion, partial
elementary unit district formation, annexation (detachment and dissolution), high school deactivation,
and cooperative high school attendance centers. Districts can receive financial assistance from the
State in order to hire a consultant to conduct a School District Reorganization Feasibility Study.
Feasibility studies are a tool to be used by school districts wanting to investigate the advantages
and/or disadvantages of reorganization options.

20

 Effective
Date
7-1-12

County

7-1-12

Douglas/
Moultrie
Whiteside

7-1-12

Effective
Date
7-1-13
7-1-13

Bureau

County

Type of
Reorganization
Annexation (72a(b)Dissolution)
Annexation

Annexed to or New School
District Formed
Ladd CCSD 94
Princeton ESD 115
Arthur CUSD 305

School District
Dissolved or Deactivated
Leepertown CCSD 175

Annexation (72a(b)Dissolution)

Rock Falls ESD 13

Riverdale SD 14

Type of
Reorganization
Consolidation

Annexed to or New
School District Formed
Abingdon-Avon CUSD
276
East Coloma-Nelson
CESD 20

School District Dissolved
or Deactivated
Abingdon CUSD 217
Avon CUSD 176
East Coloma SD 12
Nelson Public SD 8

Milford Area Public
SD 124
Arthur CUSD 305

Milford CCSD 280
Milford TWP HSD 233
Atwood Hammond
CUSD 39
West Richland CUSD 2

Knox/
Fulton
Whiteside/ Consolidation
Lee

7-1-14

Iroquois

Consolidation

7-1-14

Douglas/
Piatt
Richland

Annexation

7-1-14

Lovington CUSD 303

Annexation (72a(b)Dissolution)
Deactivation

East Richland CUSD 1
Tuition to:
Dimmick CCSD 175

Cherry SD 92 (k-8)

Dodds CCSD 7
Ina CCSD 8
Catlin CUSD 5
Jamaica CUSD 12
Bluford CCSD 114
Webber TWP HSD 204
Woodlawn CCSD 4
Woodlawn CHSD 205
Hoyleton Cons SD 29

7-1-14

Bureau/
LaSalle

7-1-15

Jefferson

Consolidation

Spring Garden CCSD 178

7-1-15

Vermilion

Consolidation

Salt Fork CUD 512

7-1-15

Jefferson

Hybrid Formation

Bluford Unit SD 318

7-1-15

Jefferson

Hybrid Formation

Woodlawn Unit SD 209

7-1-15

Washington Annexation (72a(b)Dissolution)

Nashville CCSD 49

21

 7-1-16

No Reorganization Effective with 2016-2017 School Year

7-1-17

LaSalle/
Bureau
Vermilion

7-1-17

Consolidation

Dimmick CCSD 175

Cooperative HS

Bismark Henning
Rossville Alvin
Cooperative High School

2017-2018 Totals:

Number of School Districts:
Elementary…………… 368
Secondary…………… 97
Unit …………………... 386
IDJJ…………………… 1
Total………………….. 852

Dimmick CCSD 175
Cherry SD 92
Bismark Henning CUSD
1 (9-12)
Rossville Alvin CUSD
7 (9-12)

Another LEA’s
Cooperative HS…………. 2

Data Received From- Illinois State Board of Education School Business Service Division, July 2017

School districts like many other institutions are very resistant to change. This
resistance is natural due to the nature of organizations preferring to maintain the
comfortable stability of complacent continuance. In many situations, additional incentives
must be offered to encourage the school districts to take on this uncomfortable change
initiative. Fortunately, in Illinois an impetus to promote reorganization consideration began
in 1983 when the General Assembly established financial incentives for newly consolidated
districts. Since that time, these same incentives have been authorized for other types of
reorganizations. Except for high school deactivation and cooperative high school formation,
all other types of reorganization may qualify for these incentives.

Michelle Henninger with the Illinois State Board of Education stated interest in reorganization
seems to be increasing. She indicated “we’ve gotten a lot more calls from those interested in asking
questions about reorganization, board members, district personnel, and citizens, the calls seem to have
picked up from all categories” (Personal Interview March 2011)
22

 The state House passed HB 1216 in 2012 which called for the creation of the School District
Realignment and Consolidation Commission, whose purpose was to recommend the number of school
districts needing to reorganize in Illinois to the governor and the General Assembly. The commission
was also responsible for advising the optimal amount of enrollment for a school district and where
consolidation and realignment would be beneficial. By July 1, 2012 the commission was required to
submit a report with its recommendations to the General Assembly. Their results included the
following recommendations:

1) Require the State Board of Education to complete feasibility and efficiency studies for districts in
counties with small and declining school-age populations, subject to a specific appropriation for
the purposes for carrying out the recommendation
2) Require the State Board of Education to convene a study group to develop a district efficiency
profile calculation, giving consideration to performance, finances, demographics and size, subject
to a specific appropriation for the purposes of carrying out the recommendation
3) Allow non-contiguous but compact school districts to reorganize if contiguous school districts
reject reorganization
4) Permit districts under 750 student enrollments to dissolve with or without referendum
5) Establish a hold harmless provision that would maintain grant and entitlement funding levels for
four years following a dual district to unit district reorganization
6) Implement a tax inequity “step-down” for dual district to unit district reorganization
7) Pilot a reorganization school construction program
8) Allow for a delayed reorganization effective date
9) Convene a commission to review and revise reorganization incentives

Data Received From- Classroom First Commission: A Guide to P-12 Efficiency and Opportunity.
Lieutenant Governor Sheila Simon, July 2012
23

 Needless to say, all of these recommendations have not been implemented. But it does give
school districts a basis to formulate discussions regarding the school consolidation initiative. As we
have stated over and over, the ultimate decision regarding school consolidation rests within the people
of the districts involved in the study.

Reorganization Incentives

Financial incentives are available for reorganization options except for detachment and
annexation and high school deactivation.

Currently, the Illinois State Board of Education actively supports school districts that are
considering one or more of the approved reorganization options. The consultants do want to point out
that with the change in the state aid formula, these current incentives could be delayed. The new state
aid formula funding results were just distributed to the school districts in early April 2018. Currently,
ISBE provides four major incentives to school districts that agree to consolidate:

• Evidence Based Funding Model Difference: paid if the EBF funding for the newly reorganized
district(s) for the first year of existence is less than the EBF funding would have been that same year
based on the previously existing district’s elements that are utilized to determine adequacy targets for
funding. Please note that the calculations for EBF Funding Difference Incentive has not been
completed by the Illinois State Board of Education and is not included in the incentive section for this
report.

• Salary Difference: for teachers employed in each newly reorganized district who were also
employed in one of the previously existing districts, calculates the difference between what those
teachers were paid in their original district for the last year of existence and what they would have
been paid if placed on the highest salary schedule of the districts forming the newly reorganized
district
24

 • Deficit Fund Balance: calculates each previously existing district’s fund balances by combining the
Education, Operations and Maintenance, Transportation, and Working Cash funds; if any previously
existing district has a combined deficit fund balance, the incentive pays the difference between the
lowest deficit and the other deficits; a positive combined fund balances is considered a deficit of $0;
for districts with a deficit, an additional calculation compares current year expenditures to prior 3-year
average expenditures, with the incentive being reduced by the excess if the current year expenditures
are greater than the prior 3-year average

• $4,000 per Certified Staff: $4,000 paid for each full-time, certified staff member employed by each
reorganized district

However, even with the state providing payment for feasibility studies and the lucrative incentives we
are finding few school districts that are willing to pursue the concept of reorganization.

At this time in Illinois a joint commitment on the part of Legislature, Governor and
State Superintendent of Schools is needed to support expansion in the reorganization of
schools. These officials, in concert, could provide the needed momentum to move the
consolidation effort forward at a more effective rate in the state. Without this joint
governmental effort, we will continue to see an anemic attempt to bring higher levels of
efficiency to operating our educational system in Illinois.
Meeting the educational needs of all students has always been a challenge. Today
that challenge has been amplified with the multitude of needs and concerns that face public
education. The declining population in some schools coupled with the decline in revenues
makes the consideration of school district reorganization a reality of necessity.

Presently in Illinois there exist approximately 200 single building school districts. These
districts are working very hard to provide the highest quality of education possible for each of their
25

 students. However, many of those districts are experiencing enrollment declines and revenue
shortfalls that make it increasingly difficult to maintain the level of quality that their public demands
and that their students deserve. With the prospects of continuing declines in enrollment and
continued budget shortfalls, a number of these districts are actively reviewing the reorganization
options outlined by the Illinois State Board of Education.

PRESENT TYPES OF REORGANIZATIONS:
Consolidation is the merger of two or more existing districts to create a new district and
requires:
⇒ Voter

signatures or school board action

⇒ Public

hearing conducted by regional superintendent

⇒ Approval

by State Superintendent

⇒ Successful

referendum

Annexation is the incorporation of a portion or all of one school district into another school
district and requires:
⇒ Voter

signatures or school board action

⇒ Public

hearing conducted by regional board of trustees

⇒ Regional

board of trustee’s approval

⇒ Referendum

approval (for annexation of entire district)

School District Conversion is the formation of a single new high school district and new
elementary districts based upon the boundaries of a dissolved unit district and requires:
⇒ Voter

signatures or school board action

⇒ Public

hearing conducted by regional superintendent

⇒ Approval

by State Superintendent

⇒ Successful

referendum

We now move on to school district comparisons.
26

 High School Deactivation is the deactivation of a district’s high school attendance center and
sending its students in grades 9 through 12 to one or more other districts once all districts
agree and requires:
⇒ Board

resolution to deactivate

Þ Successful
Þ Tuition

referendum

agreement by the affected districts

Cooperative High School is the establishment of a jointly operated high school by two or more
contiguous unit or high school districts, each with grades 9 through 12 enrollments of fewer
than 600 students while retaining the affected districts’ school boards and requires:
Þ Board

resolution by all boards affected

⇒ Successful

referendum

⇒ Cooperative

agreement by the affected District

27

 Transportation Report
GENERAL INFORMATION
A major issue that must be considered during any discussion of the consolidation of school
districts is the one dealing with student transportation. This issue is magnified even more with the
past actions taken by the State of Illinois in reducing the reimbursement amounts for student
transportation. Another issue is the rising cost of fuel. In 2013 then Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn called for
massive cuts and the possibility of elimination of state spending on school transportation. This was
the start of the decline in funding that continues today.
Specifically, if the consolidation of school districts requires an increase in the number of miles
traveled by a district’s busses, the cost of these additional miles could use up any potential financial
benefits that could be found through a consolidation. In addition, if the consolidation reorganization
of routes may cause students to ride much longer on school busses to and from their schools, parents
may be reticent to accept such a new requirement imposed on their children due to a consolidation.
These specific challenges could be minimized by individual contact with the parents/guardians of the
new district’s students.
After reviewing current district bus routes, interviewing administrators to discuss their
thoughts, and reviewing the mileage between current attendance centers, it appears the impact on
student transportation would be minimal if the school district reorganization efforts maintains the
present district profile. However, if a different attendance center pattern is established the additional
time and miles could impact those students enrolled at St. Libory.
When considering the merger of two or more districts, transportation concerns tend to center
around the length of bus routes, the amount of time students will be on the bus, whether shuttles
between towns will be added or expanded and whether transportation costs will have to be higher and,
if so, how much. These four school districts have typical transportation programs although varied in
one way or another.
28

 The study addressed these considerations and concerns. The report includes general
information about the four districts. The four districts, Saint Libory, Smithton, Freeburg Community
High School and Freeburg Elementary own 31 large busses, run a total of 28 regular routes and 4
special routes per day. Saint Libory contracts with South West Illinois Bus Company for one bus. The
four districts transport a total of 1,547 regular students for a total cost of $595,906.
TRAVEL TIME
As provided by the Administrators in the region, the travel time between the primary
communities of Smithton and Freeburg is not significant. However, the distance from St. Libory to
the other three communities is approximately 12-17 miles. The Primary miles from Smithton to
Freeburg is 3.4 miles; from Smithton to St. Libory is 17 miles; from St. Libory to Freeburg is 12
miles. A commonly cited standard for one-way length (duration) of school bus rides for elementary
children is 30 minutes.

29

 GENERAL TRANSPORTATION DATA
Table #1 shows some significant differences in the cost per mile for regular transportation per
student for 2016-17 school year, with Freeburg 70 spending $4.13 per mile; Freeburg 77 spending
$3.40 per mile; St. Libory spending $5.93 per mile; Smithton spending $4.65 per mile. Table #1 also
shows significant variances in the cost per mile for Special Education, with Freeburg 70 spending
$3.79 per mile; Freeburg 77 spending $3.38 per mile; with St. Libory spending $2.51 per mile; and
Smithton spending $5.75 per mile. The cost per student also varies from District to District. The
yearly cost per regular student ranges from a high of $875.38 to a low of $317.43. The districts’ cost
per mile ranges from $3.40 to $5.96 for the 147,383 miles of regular routes and from $2.54 to $5.75
for the 72,011 miles for special routes. The total for extra-curricular miles was 29,315 and the costs
ranged from $0.00 to $3.66 per mile. In each district, the district superintendent administers the
transportation system. One factor for this extreme difference in per mile could be related to the fact
districts sometime transport small numbers of students via a separate bus. The districts combined
square miles located in St. Clair County include a total of 125 square miles.

1) REGULAR TRANSPORTATION: (Full size bus) RATE PER BUS PER DAY BASED ON ONE
AM AND ONE PM ROUTES PER DAY $210.00 per bus per day: x 1 bus x 174 days per year =
$36,540.00 (A) Annual Cost (Number of buses may change yearly according to demand and routing.)

DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION BALANCES
District balances remain strong for all districts except for Saint Libory. A review of projected
FY 18 transportation balances shows fund balances for the districts as follow: Freeburg CUSD 70
$479,407; Freeburg CUSD 77 $383,431; Saint Libory $753; Smithton $483,101.

30

 TABLE 1 Transportation Information
School District

12
0

0
1

5
0

Totals and or
Average
31
3

12

10

1

5

28

$278,670

$171,186

$39,392

$106,658

$595,906

630
$442.33

536
$319.38

49
$875.38

336
$317.43

1,547
$385.20

67,517

50,304

6.612

22,950

147,383

$4.13

$3.40

$5.96

$4.65

$4.04

Freeburg 70 Freeburg 77

# of Busses Owned
Other Vehicles

14
2

# of Regular Routes
Regular Route Costs
No. of Students
Cost Per Student
Total Regular Miles
Total Cost Per Mile
# of Routes
Route Costs
No. of Students
Transported
Cost Per Student
Route Miles
Cost Per Mile

St. Libory 30 Smithton 130

REGULAR ROUTES

1
$100,307

Special Education Routes
1
$70,348

1
$43,593

1
$41,296

4
$255,544.00

6

13

4

4

27

$16,717.83
26474
$3.79

$5,411.38
20817
$3.38

$10,898.25
17365
$2.51

$10,574.00
7355
$5.75

$9,501.63
72011
$3.12

Extra-Curricular/Other Non-Reimbursable

Extra-Curricular Cost
Extra Curricular Mile
Cost Per Mile

$12,297
3,640
$3.38

$75,759
25571
$2.96

$0
0
$0.00

Beginning Fund Balance July 1, 2017

2016-17

$544,952

$490,674

$1,953

Budget Expenditures(Est)

$381
104
$3.66
$527,908

2017-18

$466,499

$510,771

$63,600

$191,850

2017-18

$479,407

$383,431

$753

$483,101

Fund Balance (Est) June 30, 2018

$88,437
29315
$3.02

31

 DISTRICTS COOPERATIVE EFFORTS
Three of the school districts are to be commended for establishing cooperative efforts in the
transportation of their students. Presently Freeburg CUSD 70 serves as the coordinator for the
management, maintenance, and scheduling of busses for the three school districts. Each district
independently own their busses but the operational parameters are based with Freeburg CUSD 70. St.
Libory has a contract with Southwest Illinois Bus Company.
QUESTIONS AND CHALLENGES
After conversations with the Superintendents, some of the challenges and questions mentioned were
as follows:
1.

More information is needed to determine possible benefits and complications. This
would include a combination of owned busses, district ran versus contracted
transportation. Possible location of a central bus garage to start routes and provide
maintenance and repair.

2.

Determination of where the busses would be housed at night to save fuel would need to
be made. Possibilities of utilizing the bus driver’s home, central garage, or school
facility.

3.

Configuration of routes to maximize student benefits or time and comfort and district
needs are needed.

4.

Multiple variables could develop by combining five different distinct districts.
Including possible capital development funding and incentives for new buildings.
Another variable could include High School and possible concurrent routes.

5.

Proposed transportation funding legislation could dramatically impact district budgets
and overall transportation systems.

6.

How would population growth of the districts affect defined reorganized routes?
32

 7.

How will after school changed routes impact programs?

CONSIDERATIONS FOR NEW DISTRICT LEADERS
Some areas to review with the new district leaders would include the following possibilities:
1. Due to the inter-weaving that occurs with Freeburg CUSD 70, Freeburg CUSD 77, Saint Libory
CUSD 30 and Smithton CUSD 130 some of the current routes could be merged into single routes.
2. Districts currently run a variety of routes to take students to various special programs, which could
be merged into single trips of students from the new consolidated district.
3. The distances geographically between school districts except for Saint Libory are relatively short
compared to what is seen in most school district consolidations in Illinois. The actual mileage and
travel times between the towns of Freeburg, Saint Libory and Smithton CUSD 130
4. Savings may be realized through the consolidation of transportation administrative and
maintenance services along with less of a need to maintain the same number of “spare” busses as
are currently needed by the five districts running their own transportation programs.
5. It appears that current maintenance facilities and bus storage areas may be sufficient to support the
needs of the newly formed school district. A Centralized location may be considered based on the
districts that make reorganization decisions.
ADDITIONAL FACTORS THAT MAY IMPACT COSTS
Factors that should be considered that would potentially increase the cost of transportation would
include:

1. Any new configuration of attendance centers by the new school district. The new Board of
Education will be reviewing how they might configure the grade level attendance centers within
existing facilities in each of the current districts. For example, a possibility exists that the new
district could include a middle level (5-8 or 6-8) grouping housed in one of the current facilities.
33

 2. How the newly consolidated district’s board of education would establish a series of “activity bus”
routes to aid students and parents with the increased distances that parents may need to travel to
pick up or deliver their students to before or after school activities such as clubs, music/drama
groups and athletic team practices and games.
CURRENT LEADER RECOMMENDATIONS
Some of the recommendations mentioned during the conversations held with the District
Superintendents include:
1. Prepare individual student/ family and district questionnaires to determine the individual
student and family needs. This information could provide valid information to the four Boards
of Education for decision-making, as well as the new board and decision makers. Information
provided could include the possibility of some of the parents taking their children to school
with the district taking them home or vice versa.
2. Build on the existing cooperative transportation efforts. The present arrangement could serve
as the format of operation for the new district.
COST SAVING OPPORTUNITIES
As discussed earlier in this report, some transportation costs are obviously being saved
because of the consolidation of administrative and maintenance services for the three school districts.
The cost per student and per miles could be further reduced with the inclusion of all student
transportation and all districts being facilitated in a cooperative organizational process. Additional
savings would be experienced with extra-curricular activities due to further consolidation of services.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Illinois State Board of Education offers the following comments to provide a broad
discussion of options for Transportation. Comments for effective transportation management and
efficient operation, according to Essentials of Illinois Finance by James B. Fritts state that on average,
34

 transportation costs for Illinois Districts consume four to five percent of the total operating budgets
(IASB, 2007). Rural districts transportation expenditures run higher due to the necessary
transportation of their students (IASB, 2007). The four school districts in this study cover an
estimated 125 square miles of St. Clair County.

Costs of vehicles, fuel and labor are increasing at a rate higher than inflation. A standard size no-frills
bus may cost as much as $70,000.

Currently, regular transportation costs are calculated on an equalizing formula only for
students who live more than 1.5 miles from school or live within areas that have a designation as
hazardous for students to walk to school. Three of the districts in this study are elementary districts
that provide transportation to students, pre- k- 8th grade. The other is a high school district
transporting students in grades 9-12. The high school district experiences more extra-curricular miles
as the result of their extensive involvement in athletics and other activities. The formula used to
calculate the funding for transportation is presently being reviewed and is also impacted by the new
Evidence Based Funding Formula. As always in Illinois transportation revenue may change due to
proposed funding legislation.
The Classrooms First Commission (2012) proposed an “incentive” for Transportation that includes
an additional supplement for transportation costs where a need is demonstrated after a school district/s
has/have been reorganized. Calculations for the transportation incentive would be a formula based on
inputs such as number of districts in the reorganization, number of students transported, and
geographic area of the reorganized district. The transportation incentive would assist with bus route
scheduling and increased expenditures such as fuel, supplies, etc. (Costs and benefits to be calculated).

35

 Transportation Conclusion
Based on the present transportation systems and patterns, it is projected that the reorganization
of the districts will have minimal impact on transportation of students. The relatively proximity of
student attendance centers within St. Clair County provides viable options. As provided by the
Administrators in the region, the travel time between the communities of Freeburg and Smithton is
minimal. However, the distance between St. Libory and Smithton is 17 miles and the distance
between St. Libory and Freeburg is 12 miles. Even those these distances are not unusual for school
districts in Illinois the time element will present a certain level of concern for parents of students that
will be on the bus for thirty minutes or more. There may be some increased riding time and
transportation costs required to transport 6-8 grade students to a middle school site, if one is chosen.
The number of students and the costs to transport these students will depend on what grade level
configurations the newly formed district’s board of education would approve. However, as noted
earlier in this report other potential efficiencies found through route consolidation, administrative and
maintenance services, and consolidation of equipment could more than off-set these additional costs.

36

 Facilities Report
The review of facilities is a critical component of the feasibility study to determine each
building’s present condition, their structural integrity, and their compliance with both state and federal
codes and their capacity quotient. There is presently a total of five buildings associated with the
school districts involved in this study.
The study has focused on the review of the existing school facilities with an emphasis on the
following three areas:
•
•
•

Condition of the current facilities
Determination of the various school’s ability to meet the needs of the presently organizational
structure.
The determination of any newly proposed organizational structure’s capability of meeting the
needs of a newly reorganized district.
The review of the facilities consisted of a walk-through examination of each of the buildings

and a review of their most recent Health Life Study reports and an examination of the current
architectural floor plans for each of the school districts. A meeting was held with each of the district’s
superintendents to determine other specifics regarding the present facilities of the school districts
engaged in this study.
The investigation of the district facilities found them all to be in fair to good condition. The
age of the buildings tends to create a challenge in the overall operational of the school plants.
However, each district has done a good job on the maintenance and custodial day to day care of their
facilities.
All buildings reviewed presently meet proper occupancy compliance with the Illinois State
Board of Education. The review of the Health Life Safety reports indicate that each district is
presently pursuing recommendations that will allow them to maintain their status of compliance.
Each school district is operating within the appropriate timelines of compliance for each item listed in
the Ten-Year Life Safety Reports.
37

  

Freeburg Community

High School CUSD N0. 77
9-12

 

 

 

 

Smithton CUSD N0. 130


 

 

 

 

38

 N0. 70

Primary Center



. 



 

 

Freeburg USD N0. 7


 

 

 

Saint Libory CUSD N0. 30


 

 

39

 

 

Table 1: Reflects Each Building’s Age, and Their Present Status Regarding
Compliance with the State’s Health and Life Safety Regulations.

School

Freeburg
CUSD 77

Year Built

Structure Ten Year
Compliance
Health Life
Safety Report
1927 additions
9-12
On file with the
In
1950 1971, 1977
ROE
compliance
1989, 1997 and
2012

1954 additions
1962, 1990 and
2002

Pk-8

On File with the
In
ROE
compliance

1948 additions
Smithton
CUSD No. 130 1994 and 2003

K-8

On File with the
In
ROE
compliance

Freeburg
CUSD 70

Saint Libory 1969
CUSD No. 30

K-8

On File with the
ROE

In
compliance

40

 Table 2 Shows the Present Enrollment and Square Foot Capacity
Present Enrollment Estimates Total Classrooms Needed and Total Square Footage Needed to House Students
Name of
School

PK

Freeburg
0
77
Smithton
5
130
St. LIbory
1
30
Freeburg
17
70
Totals
Total
Classrooms
Needed

Total
Square
Footage
Needed

K

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

53

53

53

56

60

68

56

66

50

0

0

0

5

9

8

10

6

9

8

9

11

0

0

83

77

91

81

90

78

88

87

90

0

0

Total
12 Enroll
2018

Total Sq.
Footage
Bldg.
Needed*

643

32.2 135030

0

520

26 57200

0

0

76

0

0

782

39.1 86020

23 141 139 152 147 156 155 152 162 151 153 184 157 149 2021

101 286610

1.15 7.1

0 153 184 157 149

Total
Class
Room
Need

7 7.6 7.4 7.8 7.8 7.6 8.1 7.6 7.7 9.2 7.9 7.5

2530 15510 15290 16720 16170 17160 17050 16720 17820 16610 32130 38640 32970 31290

3.8

8360

101

286610

*For elementary school space square footage recommendations, the general rationale is as follows:
A)
B)

The total space of 100-110 square feet per pupil assumes at least three sections per grade level, or 525 pupils K-6. Smaller
enrollment schools will likely average considerably more than 100 square feet per pupil.
For each elementary instructional space, square footage is based upon the number of pupils (e.g., 25) using the space at any
one time as indicated. If there will be more pupils in the classroom than indicated (e.g., 75 instead of 50-60 in music), square
footage will have to be increased. If there will be fewer pupils (e.g., 15 instead of 25 in a grade six classroom), the classroom
must still be 900 square feet unless otherwise noted (e.g., smaller general music space)

*For middle and high school space square footage recommendations, the general rationale is as follows:
A)

B)

The total space of 120-220+ feet per student depends upon 1) school enrollment, 2) grade levels in the school, and 3)
specialized areas (e.g., auditorium, pool) desired. As the enrollment, grade levels, or desired specialized spaces increase, so
would the required total square feet per pupil. Student enrollment of at least 75 pupils in grades 7-9 and 100 pupils in grades 1012 (525 pupils 7-12) will be assumed unless otherwise indicated.
A breakdown of the total square feet per student based on the type of school:
Square feet per student
Middle School
120-150
Junior High School
130-165
High School
120-220

Calculations utilized for this study are as follows:
K-8
9-10

110 Square feet per student
210 Square feet per student

41

 To determine operational needs and capacity considerations for each of the districts it was
necessary to identify the total number of classrooms presently being utilized by each of the school
districts.
Tables 3 shows the number of classrooms that exist at each of the schools in the district. In determining
the level of capacity for the district’s buildings the reviewer utilized a student to classroom ratio for
calculation purposes. The ratio of students to classrooms utilized was set at 20 to 1 for the elementary
and the high school districts.

Table 3 Represents the Calculated Classroom Capacity

School District
Freeburg No. 70
Freeburg No. 77
Smithton No. 130
St. Libory No. 30
Total capacity

Classrooms
Actual
Excess
Presently Enrollment Capacity Present
+/- Capacity
Classroom
(20/Classroom) Enrollment
Classrooms
Being
Need
Utilized

41
38
26
6
111

820
760
560
120
2260

782
643
520
76
2021

39.1
32.15
26
3.8
101.05

1.9
5.85
0
2.2
9.95

38
117
40
44
239

The calculated enrollment capacity for Freeburg 70 is estimated to be 820 students. The present
enrollment for the Freeburg 70 is 782. The calculated enrollment capacity for Freeburg 77 is
estimated to be 760 students. The present enrollment for the Freeburg 77 is 643. The calculated
enrollment capacity for Smithton is estimated to be 560 students. The present enrollment for the
Smithton 130 is 520. The calculated enrollment capacity for St. Libory is estimated to be 120 students.
The present enrollment for St. Libory is 76 students.

42

 FACILITIES CONCLUSION
It is noted that the present buildings are capable of meeting the basic needs of the school districts as
they presently exist and are also capable of providing the necessary capacity to meet the needs of any
proposed reorganization plan. Decisions regarding the best appropriate use of each building must be
determined if a reorganization effort is pursued. At this time no, new facilities would be necessary to
accommodate a consolidation of the four districts.

43

 SCHOOL ENROLLMENT HISTORY AND FORECAST
School enrollment history and a forecast for the future are important ingredients when considering the
merger of two or more districts into a new unit district. Projected increases or decreases in enrollment impact
the number and type of buildings needed, the breadth of the curriculum and the level of financing that will be
required.
Establishing projections of future enrollment provides data that can be utilized in making critical
decisions regarding the operational aspects of a school district. Being future focused is an important
ingredient in organizational planning. It is important and becoming a demand of the public to operate our
schools in the most efficient manner. Having a focus on the future helps us to plan for the proper dimension
of resource allocation.
To begin the review, we did a historical review of the enrollment patterns for each of the four school
districts beginning in the 2012-2013 school year through the present 2017-2018 school year. Enrollment for
all schools in the study has evidenced a level of stability over the past six years (See Tables 1 a-f).
The total enrollment for the districts participating in this study has ranged from a high of 2,044 in
2016-2017 to a low of 1960 in 2012-2013 (See Table 1).

Present data shows stability in enrollment though

years 2017-2018.

44

 TABLE 1 ENROLLMENT HISTORY
Table 1A

2017-18
District Name

Pre-K

4

3

2

1

K

5

Grade Level Totals
6

7

8

9

12

11

10

TOTALS

1

5

9

8

10

6

9

8

9

11

0

0

0

0

Freeburg CCSD 70

17

83

77

91

81

90

78

88

87

90

0

0

0

0

Freeburg CHSD 77

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

153

184

157

149

Smithton CCSD 130

5

56

54

57

52

61

61

72

56

65

0

0

0

0

23

144

140

156

143

157 148 168 152 166
Table 1B Grade Level Totals

153

184

157

149

K

1

2

3

4

St Libory Cons SD 30

Totals
2016-17
District Name

Pre-K

5

6

8

7

11

10

9

12

TOTALS

1

10

13

9

9

8

9

8

9

11

0

0

0

0

Freeburg CCSD 70

19

75

93

83

79

90

84

81

93

79

0

0

0

0

Freeburg CHSD 77

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

185

161

150

165

Smithton CCSD 130

5

53

53

53

56

60

68

56

66

50

0

0

0

0

25

138

159

145

144

158 161 145 168 140
Table 1 C Grade Level Totals

185

161

150

165

K

1

2

3

4

St Libory Cons SD 30

Totals
2015-16
District Name

Pre-K

5

7

6

9

8

10

12

11

St Libory Cons SD 30

0

12

8

8

9

7

9

10

10

9

0

0

0

0

Freeburg CCSD 70

2

83

83

79

96

80

86

92

75

93

0

0

0

0

Freeburg CHSD 77

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

163

150

161

160

Smithton CCSD 130

5

52

54

54

58

67

53

62

53

60

0

0

0

0

Totals

7

147

145

141

163

154 148 164 138 162
Table 1D Grade Level Totals

163

150

161

160

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

2014-15
District Name

Pre-K K

St Libory Cons SD 30

0

10

9

9

6

8

9

10

10

7

0

0

0

0

Freeburg CCSD 70

6

84

76

99

75

89

90

70

96

91

0

0

0

0

Freeburg CHSD 77

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

153

156

161

137

Smithton CCSD 130

0

57

54

58

67

53

63

56

63

60

0

0

0

0

Totals
2013-14

6

151

139

166

148

150 162 136 169 158
Table 1 E Grade Level Totals

153

156

161

137

K

1

2

3

4

District Name

Pre-K

5

6

7

8

9

11

10

0

12

10

9

9

12

10

12

7

10

0

0

0

0

Freeburg CCSD 70

6

71

93

77

89

91

77

92

89

90

0

0

0

0

Freeburg CHSD 77

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

161

164

140

143

Smithton CCSD 130

0

53

53

64

49

59

54

60

61

48

0

0

0

0

Totals

6

136

156

150

147

162

141

164

157

148

161

164

140

143

District Name

87
776
661
520
2044
78
82
769
634
518
2003

78
776
607
531
1992

12

St Libory Cons SD 30

2012-13

76
782
643
539
2040

91
775
608
501
1975

Table 1 F Grade Level Totals
Pre-K K

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

St Libory Cons SD 30

0

11

9

11

10

10

12

8

9

6

0

0

0

0

Freeburg CCSD 70

0

87

77

85

84

77

93

89

87

82

1

1

0

0

Freeburg CHSD 77

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

166

138

139

161

Smithton CCSD 130

0

55

61

45

60

53

62

61

54

56

0

0

0

0

Totals

0

153

147

141

154

140

167

158

150

144

167

139

139

161

86
763
604
507
1960
45

 In looking at the districts in this study, let us consider U.S. Census data that tends to be
very accurate but is not compiled by school districts, only by counties. As a part of this study we
reviewed the population trends for St. Clair County. Table 2 shows population figures for St.
Clair County from 2010 through 2015 and the forecasts for 2020, 2025 and 2030. Projecting
population growth is an important part of a reorganization study. Reviewing the population
trends within the county normally provides a good indication of the enrollment projections for
schools. When the county is showing a 2.8% decline in population over the past five years one
would normally assume that the school districts would be experiencing a similar percentage
decline in enrollment. However, given the diversity of the population for St. Clair County and
the present positive enrollment trending data for the subject school districts it does not establish a
parallel analysis. As a part of this study we reviewed the population trends for St. Clair County
from 2010 through 2015. In addition, we examined the population projections for the county
through the year 2030.

TABLE 2 ST. CLAIR COUNTY POPULATION HISTORY AND FUTURE TRENDS

TABLE IDPH POPULATION PROJECTION FOR ST. CLAIR COUNTY ILLINOIS
2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

270,056

268,167

267,263

266,648

261,315

To develop and forecast future enrollment projections in this study we have used the Cohort Survival
Method. A cohort is a group of persons [in this case, students]. The cohort survival projection methodology
uses historical student enrollments to “age” a known population or cohort throughout the school grades. For
instance, a cohort begins when a group of kindergarteners enrolls in grade K and moves to first grade the
46

 following year, second grade the next year, and so on. A “survival ratio” is developed to track how this group
of students grew or shrunk in number as they moved through the grade levels. By developing survival ratios
for each grade transition over a five-year period, patterns emerge and can be folded into projections by using
the survival ratios as a multiplier. For example, if student enrollment has consistently increased from the 5th
to the 8th grade over the past ten years, the survival ratio would be greater than 100% and could be multiplied
by the current 8th grade to develop a projection for next year’s 9th grade. This methodology can be carried
through to develop five years of projection figures.
As shown in Table 3 the projections indicate the subject districts will continue to experience a gradual
increase in enrollment. However, St. Libory has a growth index calculation of .988 and will continue to
experience a small decline in enrollment. The following growth index calculations have been determined
based on the past trending data: Smithton 1.013; Freeburg 70 1.004; Freeburg 77 1.012. The calculated
projections indicate a continued composite growth for the four districts. All districts except for St. Libory
indicates a survival ratio of more than 1.0.
Table 3 shows the enrollment projections for each of the school districts through the school year of 20222023.

47

 TABLE 3 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

Table 3 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
Table 1A

2017-18
K

District Name
St Libory Cons SD 30

1

2

3

4

5

Grade Level Totals
6

7

8

9

5

9

8

10

6

9

8

9

11

10
0

11
0

12
0

TOTALS

0

Freeburg CCSD 70

83

77

91

81

90

78

88

87

90

0

0

0

0

Freeburg CHSD 77

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

153

184

157

149

Smithton CCSD 130

56

54

57

52

61

61

72

56

65

0

0

0

0

144

140

156

143

157
148
168
152
166
Table 1B Grade Level Totals

153

184

157

149

K

1

2

3

4

9

Totals
2018-19
District Name
St Libory Cons SD 30 1.000

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

TOTALS

5

9

8

10

6

9

8

9

11

0

0

0

0

Freeburg CCSD 70

1.004

83

77

91

81

90

78

88

87

90

0

0

0

0

Freeburg CHSD 77

1.012

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

155

186

159

151

Smithton CCSD 130

1.013

62

62

73

57

Totals

57

55

58

53

66

0

0

0

0

145

141

157

144

158
149
169
153
167
Table 1 C Grade Level Totals

155

186

159

151

K

1

2

3

4

9

2019-2020
District Name
St Libory Cons SD 30 1.000
Freeburg CCSD 70

1.004

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

5

9

8

10

6

9

8

9

11

0

0

0

0

84

78

92

82

91

79

89

88

91

0

0

0

0

Freeburg CHSD 77

1.012

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

157

188

161

153

Smithton CCSD 130

1.013

57

55

58

53

63

63

74

57

67

0

0

0

0

146

142

158

145

159
150
171
154
168
Table 1D Grade Level Totals

157

188

161

153

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

5

9

8

10

6

9

8

9

11

0

0

0

0

Totals
2020-2021
District Name

K

St Libory Cons SD 30 1.000
Freeburg CCSD 70

1.004

84

78

92

82

91

79

89

88

91

0

0

0

0

Freeburg CHSD 77

1.012

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

159

191

163

154

Smithton CCSD 130

1.013

58

56

59

54

63

63

75

58

68

0

0

0

0

147

143

159

146

160
151
172
155
169
Table 1 E Grade Level Totals

159

191

163

154

K

1

2

3

4

9

Totals
2021-22
District Name
St Libory Cons SD 30 1.000

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

5

9

8

10

6

9

8

9

11

0

0

0

0

Freeburg CCSD 70

1.004

84

78

92

82

91

79

89

88

91

0

0

0

0

Freeburg CHSD 77

1.012

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

160

193

165

156

Smithton CCSD 130

1.013

Totals

59

57

60

55

64

64

76

59

68

0

0

0

0

148

144

160

147

162

152

173

156

171

160

193

165

156

District Name

K

St Libory Cons SD 30 1.000
1.004

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

5

9

8

10

6

9

8

9

11

0

0

0

0

85

79

93

83

92

80

90

89

92

0

0

0

0

Freeburg CHSD 77

1.012

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

162

195

167

158

Smithton CCSD 130

1.013

60

58

61

55

65

65

77

60

69

0

0

0

0

0

149

145

161

148

163

153

174

157

172

162

195

167

158

Totals

75
768
652
542
2035
TOTALS
75
772
660
549
2053
TOTALS
75
775
667
556
2069
TOTALS
75
778
675
563
2088

Table 1 F Grade Level Totals

2022-23

Freeburg CCSD 70

75
765
643
534
2017

TOTALS
75
781
684
571
2106
48

 ENROLLMENT CONCLUSION
The enrollment of three of the four school districts has been stable over the past 10 years. The
communities involved in the study have experienced an increase in overall population due to the increase of
housing units being developed within their respective communities.

If reorganization is pursued by the districts, enrollment will not be an area of concern. Given the
present school facilities and with the available capacity the increase in numbers could be absorbed into
existing schools depending on any new configuration considered for the organizational structure of the newly
organized school district.

49

 CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT COMPARISON
Curricular Configuration Overview
In terms of their respective curricular configurations, the Freeburg Elementary #70 and Smithton
Elementary #130 school districts are quite similar. Both districts have excellent and caring staffs that
challenge students to excel. St. Libory #30 by the nature of its size does present a different educational
environment. As with the Freeburg and Smithton faculty, St. Libory staff works to challenge their students.
The St. Libory staff just must expand its horizons to cover more than just one grade level. All three
elementary districts attempt to implement a rigorous academic curriculum aligned with state and national
standards. In addition, the Freeburg Community High School curricular program is comprehensive in that it
addresses the needs of vocational and college-bound students.
Each district has aligned its curriculum with the State of Illinois Learning Standards and has
implemented annual data-driven District Improvement Plans to address ongoing curricular and pedagogical
concerns. Textbooks have been adopted that are consistent with the state standards. All four districts have
made a solid commitment to incorporating instructional technology initiatives into their programs.
All four districts’ academic efforts are reflected in their student achievement scores on the PARCC
and ACT State tests. All four districts belong to the Belleville Area Special Services Cooperative (BASSC)
which provides a variety of special education services. Freeburg Community High School District has dual
credit courses in conjunction Southwest Illinois Community College (SWIC). A closer look at these
opportunities follows in the discussion of Freeburg Community High School’s curriculum. The building
configurations of the elementary districts are different as described below.
Freeburg Community Consolidated School District 70 has three distinct curricular environments that
are somewhat dictated by the physical environment. They are as follows:
1. Freeburg Early Childhood/Pre-Kindergarten - Only Freeburg District 70 offers an Early Childhood
program. Developmental screenings are conducted twice each year and eligible students are identified.
Remaining slots in the program are offered to at-risk students based on the results of the
50

 developmental screenings. The district adheres to state regulations governing class sizes for this age.
The Early Childhood/Pre-Kindergarten is led by a teacher with an early Childhood background with
assistance from teacher assistants.
2. Freeburg District #70 Primary Center Education (Grades K-2) – The core curriculum consists of
language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. Other areas of study include art, health,
physical education, music, and technology. Both Title I Reading Specialist and Academic
Interventionist are available for students who need additional reading instruction to meet grade-level
expectations and benchmarks. Students are assessed by teacher observation and unit tests. Students are
also monitored using the AIMS-web and reading diagnostic tests.
3. Freeburg Elementary School Education (Grades 3-8) – The core curriculum consists of language arts,
mathematics, science, and social studies. Students are also taught in art (Grades 3-5), physical
education, music, and technology (Grades 3-6). Band is also offered to students beginning with 4th
grade. In addition, there is an Art Club for 8th grade students and a Technology Club for students in
grades 6-8.

Smithton #130 is similar in many ways to Freeburg Elementary except for its core make-up.
1. Smithton Early Childhood/Pre-Kindergarten- Because of space limitations, Smithton #130 does not
have Early Childhood/Pre-Kindergarten. Space limitations are an ongoing problem for the Smithton
Elementary district. The district does work with the Belleville Area Special Services Cooperative
(BASSC) to assist students with special needs.
2. Smithton Primary/Intermediate (Grades K-6) - The core curriculum for K-6 is: Art, PE, Technology,
Music, double block of English/Language Arts and Math, Social Studies and Science. A Title I
specialist is available for students who need further reading support.
3. Smithton Jr. High (Grades 7-8)- The core curriculum for grades 7-8 includes: Math, double block
English/Language Arts, Social Studies, Science, Health/PE, Technology/Art or Band, and Study Hall.
51

 St. Libory #30 provides a much different format than Smithton #130 and Freeburg Elementary #70.
1. St. Libory Early Childhood/Pre-Kindergarten - St. Libory does not have an Early
Childhood/Pre-Kindergarten program. The district does collaborate with the area Head
Start Early Childhood program and the Early Childhood program associated with the
Belleville Area Special Services Cooperative (BASSC).
2. St. Libory Kindergarten through 8th grade - Because of the small student enrollment, St. Libory
teachers generally have more than a single grade responsibility. In addition, St. Libory does not
have a Title I program. Teachers must double up to teach both 3rd and 4th grade, 5th and 6th grade,
and 7th and 8th grade. While research shows this is generally considered to be a disadvantage in a
child’s education, there is something to be said about the fact that St. Libory’s classroom size
generally ranges from about 8-14 students. Just by numbers alone, teachers can spend more
individual time with their students. In addition, classroom websites are available for follow-up
support at home regarding current homework assignments. St. Libory includes in its core
curriculum Math, Science, English, Social Studies, and PE/Health as required by the state of
Illinois. Another strong attribute of the school is that Computer/Technology classes are offered.
8th Grade Algebra I – Students attending Freeburg Community High School who completed
Algebra 1 during their 8th grade year and are enrolled in Geometry as freshman can apply to have
Algebra 1 placed on their transcript. No high school credit is earned for this class, but the class
does appear on the transcript for college admissions purposes. All three elementary districts can
offer this opportunity to their students as they enter Freeburg Community High School.
Special Education and Title Services
Special education services for both the elementary districts and the high school are coordinated with
the Belleville Area Special Services Cooperative (BASSC) and provided for students with disabilities ages 321. If a student is found eligible for special education services, an Individualized Education Program (IEP) is
developed and implemented to designate services that are required and to assure that the placement of the
52

 student eligible for services takes place in the least restrictive environment. Programs are available for all
handicapping conditions; learning disability, behavioral disorders, speech therapy, early childhood education,
hearing impaired, vision impaired, and intellectually disabled. Whenever possible, itinerant services are
provided to the student so that he/she will be able to participate in as much of the regular school program as
possible. If such an arrangement does not sufficiently meet the student’s needs, he/she is placed in a special
education class on a full-time basis. BASSC is a cooperative association of 24 school districts in the
Belleville, IL area which offers special class placement and other services for various types of handicaps.
Operated under the provisions of the Illinois School Code (Section 14) and the regulations of the Illinois State
Board of Education, program costs are shared by the local districts and the state. The programs, including
transportation, identification, evaluation, placement, and delivery of services to students eligible for services
under IDEA, follow procedure provided in the Illinois State Board of Education’s Rules and Regulations to
Govern the Administration of Special Education. Policies and procedures as established by BASSC shall be
considered a part of the Board’s policies and procedures. These established procedures make it easier for
schools to consolidate. Freeburg and Smithton elementary districts also provide a school wide Title plan and
offers services for all children. Title I is a federal program that provides financial assistance to schools to help
ensure that all children meet challenging state academic standards. Title teacher works with students in each
grade to ensure they have a positive understanding and comprehension of the subject content.

Freeburg Community High School Curriculum Incentives
In the introductory portion of this study, the consultants pointed out that many consolidation efforts
are made because the smaller high schools cannot offer college preparatory classes such as foreign language,
advanced mathematics, advanced science, and expanded fine/practical arts classes. This is not the case for this
consolidation study. As stated below, Freeburg Community High School offers a wide range of college
preparatory courses.

53

 Courses for College Credit – Freeburg Community High School offers courses that students may take for
college credit. Currently FCHS offers three types of opportunities for college credit. They are as follows:
1. Advanced Placement (AP) Courses: Advanced Placement courses are courses designed to prepare
students for the Advanced Placement exam in that subject matter. AP Exams are provided by The
College Board. Students performing well enough on the AP Exam are able to receive college credit
for their score. FCHS currently offers AP Courses in US History, Calculus, Biology, and US
Government.
2. Saint Louis University 1818 Courses: Students enrolled in SLU 1818 courses have the opportunity to
earn college credit directly through Saint Louis University. FCHS currently offers SLU 1818 courses
in English, Physics, and Chemistry.
3. SWIC Dual Enrollment: FCHS students may earn college credit through SWIC Southwestern Illinois
College for the following vocational courses; construction, welding, and manufacturing. Students
enrolled in one of these courses are considered SWIC students.
Gifted Education – Freeburg Community High School provides opportunities for students who are
designated as Gifted Students. Students achieve the designation of gifted by either scoring at the 98th
percentile or above on national standardized tests given at FCHS or by achieving a class rank in the top
ten of their class. Opportunities open to Gifted Students are the Saturday Scholars program and the annual
Gifted Class held each June.
Weighted Classes – FCHS has a two-tiered system for awarding weighted credit to students who choose
to pursue courses with increased rigor. Courses which provide students with the opportunity to earn
college credit in core subject areas are granted an AP/Honors weight. Curriculum includes: AP Biology,
AP US History, AP Calculus, AP US Government and College Psychology, College Chemistry, College
Physics and College English. Courses which are of an increased complexity and beyond those required
for graduation or college admission are awarded an Honors weight. That curriculum includes: English 2
Accelerated, College Preparatory English, Anatomy/Physiology, and Trigonometry/Pre-Calculus. The
54

 course of study in all weighted courses is highly rigorous with elevated expectations and requiring
significant work outside of school. This opportunity gives FCHS students the challenge they need to be
successful in college.

Academic Achievement Overview
All three elementary districts are doing very well at addressing the basic educational needs of its
students as measured by the mandatory standardized testing program prescribed by the State of Illinois. The
statewide PARCC achievement data outlined in the following charts illustrates the state of student
achievement in these districts as measured by these tests. All three elementary districts are to be commended
for their efforts especially in the face of ever increasing academic achievement requirements. The citizens,
teachers and students of both districts should be very proud of these successes. In addition to outstanding
leadership, teacher, staff, and student efforts, it demonstrates the commitment of the local communities and
the support they provide to their schools.
As of February 2018, the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) announced that they are again
changing the state test (PARCC) to a computer adaptive format. The constant change creates challenges for
school districts to accurately analyze assessment results for academic improvement. For this reason, the
consultants have focused their assessment data analysis on the 2016 and 2017 academic years.
As of January 2018, school districts finally got the results of the state mandated science test students
took two years ago. While one could question the validity and reliability of results that are two years old, the
good thing is that the consistency of test results was maintained in both Freeburg Elementary #70 and
Smithton #130. Because St. Libory’s student numbers were so low, the state did not provide results for its
students. The science results state wide was around 60% proficiency of students that met standards. Smithton
Elementary school’s results were 82.1% meeting standards and Freeburg Elementary school’s results were
79.1% meeting standards. These results support our findings that the successes of the elementary districts in
the Freeburg/Smithton/St. Libory areas consistently scored higher than state average. Tables 1 through 13
55

 below contain test data related to the Illinois Elementary PARCC Test and the High School ACT Tests from
2016 and 2017. As this data establishes, all four districts in the study are achieving results higher than the
state averages. Tables 9 and 10 show specific district and state comparisons. The data does show that even
through all three elementary districts scored above the state average on assessment results, there are some
significant differences in the results that should be discussed indeterminacy if efforts of consolidation should
be explored.

56

 Freeburg Elementary #70
Table 1

2015-16 14.8% higher than state average. 2016-17 19.2% higher than state average.
Table 2

Tables 1 and 2 demonstrate positive instruction at Freeburg Elementary #70
57

 Smithton Elementary #130
Table 3

2015-16 24.5% higher than state average. 2016-17 27.3% higher than state average.
Table 4

Tables 3 and 4 demonstrate positive instruction at Smithton Elementary #130
58

 St. Libory #30
Table 5

2015-16 8.3% higher than state average. 2016-17 7.2% higher than state average.
Table 6

Tables 5 and 6 demonstrate positive instruction at St. Libory Elementary #30. The test results
are significantly lower than the Smithton and Freeburg scores. Another concern is the results show the
state average catching up to the St. Libory Elementary average.
59

 All Compared to State
Table 7

\
Table 8

The side by side averages of the three elementary districts shows that efforts of curriculum alignment
between the three districts could offer opportunities for even higher test scores in all three districts.

60

 Table 9 Freeburg Community High School No. 77

Table 12

Table 11

Table 10
Ready for College Course Work

CTE Enrollment

Freshman on Track

School

74.4

School

458

School

98.3

District

74.4

District

458

District

98.3

State

50.5

State

277,461

State

87.1

Table 13
Percent of Students Met ACT Benchmark
English

Math

Reading

Science

All 4 Subjects

School

83.5

60.3

69.4

56.2

42.1

District

83.5

60.3

69.4

56.2

42.1

State

64.5

42.6

46.2

37.7

28.2

Table 15

Table 14
Advanced Course Work (AP/IB/DUAL Credit)
Grade 10

Grade 11

Grade 12

School

44

70

124

District

44

70

124

State

30,084

57,402

73,171

College Enrollment
12 Months

16 Months

School

81.6

82.4

District

81.6

82.4

State

69.5

73.2

61

 It would normally be assumed that Freeburg Community High School #77 would not experience
significant curriculum impact via consolidation. However, a recently announced 90 home subdivisions in
Freeburg will bring an increase in the population of the community and also increase the enrollment in both
the elementary and the high school. This increase in enrollment could allow the high school to offer even
more curricular and co-curricular offerings. The community of Smithton has also announced the
development of a 60 to 140 home sub-division. This would not only impact Smithton but would also bring
about increased enrollment at the high school.
Freeburg Community High School scores above the state average in all academic categories. This data
supports that Freeburg Community High School has a strong academic regimen along with a dedicated staff.
The curriculum includes courses for college credit along with dual enrollment classes for its vocational track
students. The district needs to be commended for its wide variety of curricular offerings for both college
bound and vocational track students.

Full-Time Equivalents
This portion of the report identifies the number of full time equivalents (FTE) currently employed by
the three elementary districts involved in the study to go along with a separate FTE for the high school
district. This is separated out by the grade and/or subject that teacher currently instruct. FTE does not include
administrators, teachers’ aides, cooks, custodians, or support staff. It only includes individuals who are
employed in a position that requires that they hold an Illinois Professional Educator License (PEL).
As has been detailed elsewhere in this study, Freeburg #70 consists of: Early Childhood/PreKindergarten, Freeburg Primary Center Education for grades K-2, and Freeburg Elementary School
Education for grades 3-8. Smithton #130 consists of: Early Childhood/Pre-Kindergarten, Smithton
Primary/Intermediate for grades K-6, and Smithton Jr. High for grades 7-8. St. Libory Elementary #30 is
made up of one location for grades K-8

62

 Table 1
2017-2018 Full Time Equivalents (FTE)
PK–8 Freeburg; PK-8 Smithton; PK-8 St. Libory-Teachers by Grade/Subject
Grade
Freeburg
Smithton
St. Libory
PK-8
PK-8
PK-8
PK
2
0
0
K
4
3
1
1
4
3
1
2
4
3
1
3
4
3
.5
4
4
3
.5
5
4
3
.5
6
4
3
.5
7
4
2.5
.5
8
4
2.5
.5
Band/Music
1
.5
0
Title I
1
2
0
Art
.5
1
0
Librarian
0
0
0
Nurse
1
1
0
Guidance/social worker
.5
1
0
Health and P.E.
2
2
0
Speech
1.6
1
.1
School Psychologist
BASSC
1
BASSC
Special Education
6 +BASSC 3 + BASSC BASSC
Technology
.65
1
1
Athletic Director
0
0
0
Totals
52.25
39.5
7.1
Table 2

Total # of teachers
2
8
8
8
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7
7
1.5
3
1.5
0
2
1.5
4
2.7
1 + BASSC
9 + BASSC
3.65
.5
98.35

2017-2018 Full Time Equivalents (FTE)
Freeburg Community High School #77
Subject
Freeburg 9-12
Science
5
English
5
Math
5
Foreign Language
2
History
4
P.E./Health/Drivers ED
5
Art
1
Music
1
Family Consumer Science
1
Business/Computers
1
Industrial Arts
3
Resource
4
Transition Program
1
Life Skills Program
1
Guidance Counselor
2
Social Worker
1
Totals
42
63

 Total Teacher FTE
60

53.1

50

42

41.5
40
30
20
7.1

10
0

Freeburg 70

Smithton 130

St. Libory 30

Freeburg 77

Total Teacher FTE

Consolidation on one hand can lessen the total teachers and administrators, but on the other hand create more
positions if the curriculum expands.

Pupil/Teacher Ratio
25
20:1

20

20:1
18:1
15:1

15
10
5
0

Freeburg 70

Smithton 130

St. Libory 30

Freeburg 77

Pupil/Teacher Ratio

The pupil/teacher ratio is a positive for St. Libory.

Average Salary
70,000

62,440

62,301

60,000

51,241

50,000
40,000

33,704

30,000
20,000
10,000
0

Freeburg 70

Smithton 130

St. Libory 30

Freeburg 77

Average Salary

The discrepancy of average salaries will be a problem in consolidation.
64

 School Truancy
2
1.5
1%

1
0.5
0

0%

0%

0%

Freeburg 70

Smithton 130

St. Libory 30

Freeburg 77

School Truancy

The monitoring of chronic truants is a real strength for all four districts.

Attendance

100

96%

97%

97%

96%

Freeburg 70

Smithton 130

St. Libory 30

Freeburg 77

80
60
40
20
0

Attendance

The attendance rate for all four districts is outstanding.

English Language Learners
2
1.5
1

1%

0.5
0

Freeburg 70

0%

0%

0%

Smithton 130

St. Libory 30

Freeburg 77

English Language Learners

The demographics of all four districts is similar which minimize population conflicts if the districts decide to
merge.
65

 Table 16
District Demographics 2017

District

Enrollment

% Low Income

% Mobility

Freeburg #77

668

16.6

3.3

St. Libory #30

88

18.2

5.6

Freeburg CCSD #70

783

6.3

5.6

Smithton CCSD #130

534

14.1

5.2

State

2,028,162

50.2

6.9

Table 16 contains enrollments, low income percentages and mobility rates as expressed in the School Report
Cards for each district. This chart further emphasizes that district demographics will be of minimal impact on
consolidation efforts.

SUMMARY FOR CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT
Curricular Positives
1. Each district has aligned its curriculum with the State of Illinois Learning Standards and has
implemented annual data-driven District Improvement Plans to address ongoing curricular and
pedagogical concerns.
2. Textbooks have been adopted that are consistent with the state standards.
3. All four districts have made a solid commitment to incorporating instructional technology
initiatives into their program.
4. All four districts’ academic efforts are reflected in their student achievement scores on the PARCC
and ACT State tests.
5. As they are all above state average, all four districts belong to the Belleville Area Special Services
Cooperative (BASSC) which provides a variety of special education services.
6. Articulation refers to the process of linking two or more grade levels or the linking of educational
systems. Pertaining to educational systems, Freeburg Community High School has provided for
66

 the linkage of its high school courses with community college, vocational, and university courses.
This component of articulation is outstanding.

Curricular Negatives
1. Just as the articulation of educational systems at the high school level fits into the outstanding
category, the articulation between the three elementary districts currently is a great weakness.
Likewise, except for the work with Algebra at the 8th grade level, the articulation between each of
the three elementary districts and the high school needs improvement. If the districts want to keep
from having upper grade teachers unnecessarily repeat much of what has been taught in the lower
grades, a greater effort of articulation must take place. The consultants would recommend that
efforts be made between the four districts for a greater emphasis on curricular articulation whether
the districts proceed ahead regarding their efforts for consolidation. The bottom line is we feel
with an effective articulation program, overall test scores will go up and there will be a
consistency of curricular offerings, honor rolls, report cards, grading scales, to go along with the
overall improvement of communication to parents and community.
2. Currently, only Freeburg District #70 offers an early childhood program.
3. While there is some consistency between the Freeburg and Smithton elementary school districts
regarding curricular offerings, efforts need to be made to provide even more consistency between
the districts. There is little consistency between St. Libory and the other two elementary districts.
4. Even though all three districts score higher than the state average in their state assessments, there
is a significant difference in test results between the St. Libory district and the other two
elementary districts. The consultants feel that consolidation could lessen this differential in test
results.

67

 EXTRA CURRICULAR OPPORTUNITIES
A rich public-school experience includes many opportunities for students to pursue various avenues of
interest. Although academics are the primary reason for the existence of our public schools in Illinois, many
students can benefit from a wider range of educational opportunities than is provided through the regular
instructional environment of the classroom. Research has shown through repeated studies that when students
find an area of interest external to the classroom their academic performance is enhanced. This important link
between extracurricular and academic success dictates that our schools provide learning experiences for students
outside the classroom. The data collected in this regard, demonstrates that Freeburg Elementary #70, Smithton
Elementary #130 and Freeburg Community High School #77 have made a commitment to provide a rich
extracurricular program for their students. St. Libory Elementary #30 is limited in their extracurricular activities
by the number of students enrolled along with the limited number of staff to fulfill these responsibilities.
With this said, the three elementary districts and the high school district provide twenty-seven activities at
the elementary districts and twenty-nine formally organized extracurricular activities at the high school district.
At the PK-8 levels the three elementary districts offer twenty-seven sports opportunities, though not duplicated
in all three districts. At the high school level Freeburg offers eighteen athletic extracurricular activities. If we
combine all athletic and non-athletic activities within the four school districts we will have ninety-two
opportunities with some duplication (Please see Tables 1, 2, and 3.)
If one looks at the total scope of the co-curricular activities offered within the four school districts there
are definitely some highlights. Freeburg Community High School #77 has a broad range of both activities and
sports that compare with any school district their size throughout southern Illinois. Some of the larger districts in
the area offer boys and girls tennis, boys wrestling, and boys’ volleyball. For this to happen in Freeburg, there
would probably have to be further consolidation efforts with another high school to build the student numbers in
such a way to have enough participants to open these sports offerings, although the recent announcement of the
new 90 home subdivisions in Freeburg might assist this effort. At the elementary level, there are some truly
unique activity offerings. For example, St. Libory offers Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA), a Lego Club,
68

 and a Computer Science Club. Smithton Elementary and Freeburg Elementary have Chess Teams, Character
Education Groups, and Scholar Bowls. With consolidation, all these activities could be coordinated to have
consistency throughout the district. The elementary districts would be able to add soccer and cross country for
all students by developing a cooperative agreement even if the elementary districts were not located at the same
location after consolidation. A cooperative agreement could be developed between the three elementary schools
to provide their students activities that closely align with each students’ individual talents. Currently because of
its size, St. Libory is woefully short to the other elementary schools regarding both activities and athletic
offerings. The one glaring component of St. Libory is that our research finds that no spring sports such as track
are offered. This greatly limits their students as they enter the high school setting. The following tables break
down the offerings both in athletics and co-curricular activities.

69

 Table 1 Extra Curricular Athletics Presently Being Offered

Co-Curricular Athletics:
Elementary Districts
Freeburg Elementary CCSD #70

• Boys Baseball (fall) - Grades 6-7-8
• Girls Softball (fall) - Grades 6-7-8
• Boys and Girls Basketball (winter) - Grades 6-7-8
• Boys and Girls Cheerleading (winter) - Grades 6-7-8
• Girls Volleyball (winter) - Grades 6-7-8
• Boys and Girls Track (spring) - Grades 6-7-8
• Boys and Girls Cross Country – Grades 6-7-8
Total –11

Smithton Community District #130
• Boys Baseball
• Girls Softball
• Boys and Girls cross country
• Boys and Girls basketball
• Boys and Girls cheerleading
• Boys and Girls volleyball
• Boys and Girls bowling
• Boys and Girls track and field
Total – 14

High School District
Freeburg Community High School
#77
• Boys Baseball
• Girls Softball
• Boys and Girls basketball
• Boys and Girls track and field
• Girls cheerleading
• Girls volleyball
• Boys and Girls soccer
• Boys and Girls golf
• Boys Football
• Boys and Girls cross country
• Boys and Girls bowling
• Weightlifting
• Boys and Girls Swimming
Total - 20

St. Libory Consolidated School District #30
• Boys Basketball
• Girls Basketball
• Girls Volleyball
• Boys Baseball
Total – 4

29 total activities at the Elementary Level

20 total activities at the High School Level

70

 Table 2 Extra Curricular Activities Presently Being Offered

Co-Curricular Activities:
Elementary Districts

High School District

Freeburg Elementary CCSD #70

Freeburg Community High School #77

Beginning Band - Grade 4
Chess Team - Grades 6-7-8 selected
students
• Chorus- Grades 6-7-8
• Concert Band - Grades 5-6-7-8
• Pep Band - selected students from
Concert Band
• Scholar Bowl - Grades 6-7-8
academically selected students
• Student Council - Grades 6-7-8 elected
representatives
• Advisory classes are held at the end of
the day for grades 6-8. These classes
are used for character education and for
additional academic support.
Total – 8

Art club
Chorus
Color Guard
Dance Team
Drama Club
Family, Career, and Community Leaders of
America (FCCLA)
• Foreign Language Club
• Freeburg Business Leaders of America (FBLA)
• Future Farmers of America (FFA)
• Home Economics
• Industrial Arts Club
• Literacy Club
• Marching Band
• Math Team
• Model UN
• National Honor Society
• New Horizon
• Pep Band
• Post Prom
• Scholar Bowl
• Science Club
• Service Club
• Stage Band
• Student Council
• Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD)
• Students Against Violence (SAVE)
• Winter Guard
• WYSE Engineering and Technical Society
• Yearbook Staff (The Spotlight)
Total - 29

•
•

Smithton Community District
#130
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Academic Fair (Grades K-8)
Algebra Competition (Grades 6-8)
Art Club (Grades 6-8)
Band (Grades 5-8)
Character Council
Chess Club (Grades 7-8)
Chorus (Grades 6-8)
Drama Club (Grades 6-8)
Geography Bee (Grades 6-8)
Girls on the Run
Let Me Run
National Junior Honor Society
Scholar Bowl (Grades 6-8)
Spelling Bee (Grades 6-8)
Student Council
Talent Show (Grades K-8)
Tech Club (Grades 6-8)

•
•
•
•
•
•

Total – 17

St. Libory Consolidated School
District #130
28

• Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA)
• Lego Club
• Computer Science Club
total
activities at the Elementary Level
Total - 3

29 total activities at the High School Level

71

 Table 3 Co-Curricular Activities Presently Being Offered at Elementary Districts
Freeburg Elementary CCSD #70:
ATHLETICS:
Boys Baseball (fall) - Grades 6-7-8
Girls
Softball (fall)
- Grades 6-7-8CCSD #70:
Freeburg
Elementary
Boys
and
Girls
Basketball
(winter) - Grades 6-7-8
ATHLETICS:
Boys
and
Girls
Cheerleading
Boys Baseball (fall) - Grades(winter)
6-7-8 - Grades 6-7-8
Girls
Volleyball
(winter)
Grades
Girls Softball (fall) - Grades 6-7-86-7-8
Boys
(spring)
- Grades
6-7-8 6-7-8
Boysand
andGirls
GirlsTrack
Basketball
(winter)
- Grades
Advisory
are held at the(winter)
end of -the
day for
grades 6-8. These classes are used for character education and for
Boys andclasses
Girls Cheerleading
Grades
6-7-8
additional
academic
support.
Girls Volleyball
(winter)
- Grades 6-7-8
Activities:
Boys and Girls Track (spring) - Grades 6-7-8
Concert
Band
- Grades
5-6-7-8
Advisory
classes
are held
at the end of the day for grades 6-8. These
Beginning
Band
Grade
4
classes are used for character
education and for additional academic
Pep
Band - selected students from Concert Band
support.
Chorus
- Grades 6-7-8
Activities:
Student
- Grades5-6-7-8
6-7-8 elected representatives
ConcertCouncil
Band - Grades
Scholar
Bowl
- Grades
6-7-8
Beginning
Band
- Grade
4 academically selected students
Chess
Team- selected
- Gradesstudents
6-7-8 selected
studentsBand
Pep Band
from Concert
Character
Counts
Chorus - Grades 6-7-8
Girls
on the
Run - Grades 6-7-8 elected representatives
Student
Council
Let
Me
Run
Scholar Bowl - Grades 6-7-8 academically selected students
Talent
Chess Show
Team - Grades 6-7-8 selected students
Spelling Bee

St. Libory Consolidated School District # #30
St.
Libory
School
District
#30
Athletics:
GirlsConsolidated
and Boys Basketball,
Girls Volleyball,
and#Boys

Athletics:
Baseball Girls and Boys Basketball, Girls Volleyball, and Boys Baseball
Activities:
Activities:Fellowship
Fellowshipof
ofChristian
ChristianAthletes
Athletes(FCA),
(FCA),Lego
LegoClub,
Club,Computer Science Club
Computer Science Club

Smithton Consolidated School District #130
Athletics:
BoysConsolidated
Baseball, Girls Softball,
Boys District
and Girls Cross
Country, Boys and Girls Basketball, Boys and Girls
Smithton
School
#130

Cheerleading,
Boys
and Girls
Volleyball,
Boys and Girls Track and Field.
Athletics: Boys
Baseball,
Girls
Softball, Boys
Boys and
and Girls
Girls Bowling,
Cross Country,
Activities:
Girls
on
the
Run,
Let
Me
Run,
Academic
Fair
(Grades
K-8),
Algebra Competition (Grades 6-8), Art Club
Boys and Girls Basketball, Boys and Girls Cheerleading, Boys and
(Grades
6-8),
Band
(Grades
5-8),
Character
Council,
Chess
Club
(Grades
7-8), Chorus (Grades 6-8), Drama Club
Girls Volleyball, Boys and Girls Bowling, Boys and Girls Track and
(Grades
6-8),
Geography
Bee
(Grades
6-8),
National
Junior
Honor
Society,
Scholar Bowl (Grades 6-8), Spelling Bee
Field.
(Grades
6-8),Girls
Student
Council,
Talent
ShowAcademic
(Grades K-8),
Tech Club
(Grades 6-8)
Activities:
on the
Run, Let
Me Run,
Fair (Grades
K-8),
Algebra Competition (Grades 6-8), Art Club (Grades 6-8), Band
(Grades 5-8), Character
Council,High
Chess Club
(Grades
7-8), Chorus
Freeburg
Community
School
#77
(Grades
6-8),
Drama
Club
(Grades
6-8),
Geography
Bee
(Grades 6-8),
Athletics:
National
JuniorGirls
Honor
Society,
Scholar
BowlBasketball,
(Grades 6-8),
Spelling
Boys
Baseball,
Softball,
Boys
and Girls
Boys
and Girls Track and Field, Girls Cheerleading, Girls
Bee (Grades
6-8),and
Student
Council,Boys
Talent
K-8),
Tech Boys and Girls Cross Country, Boys and Girls
Volleyball,
Boys
Girls Soccer,
andShow
Girls(Grades
Golf, Boys
Football,
Club (Grades
6-8)
Bowling,
Weightlifting.
Activities:
Art club, Freeburg Business Leaders of America (FBLA), Family, Career, and Community Leaders of America
(FCCLA), Home Economics, Literacy Club, Marching Band, Pep Band, Stage Band, Chorus, Model UN, Students
Against Destructive Decisions (SADD), Students Against Violence (SAVE), Scholar Bowl, Student Council, Yearbook
Staff (The Spotlight), Drama Club, Dance Team, Industrial Arts Club, Literacy Club, Math Team, National Honor
Society, Science Club, Service Club, Winter Guard, Color Guard, WYSE Engineering and Technical Society, Future
Farmers of America (FFA), Foreign Language Club, New Horizon, Post Prom.

72

 Table 4 Co-Curricular Activities Presently Being Offered at Elementary Districts
Activity

Freeburg Elementary

Smithton Elementary

St. Libory Elementary

Boys Baseball
Boys Basketball
Girls Basketball
Girls Volleyball
Boys Volleyball
Girls Softball
Boys Track and Field

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No

Girls Track and Field

Yes

Yes

No

Boys Cheerleading
Girls Cheerleading
Boys’ Cross-Country

Yes
Yes
No

Yes
Yes
Yes

No
No
No

Girls’ Cross-Country

No

Yes

No

Boys Bowling
Girls Bowling
Totals

No
No
9

Yes
Yes
14

No
No
4

Academic Fair
Algebra Competition

No
No

Yes
Yes

No
No

Art Club
Band
Beginning Band
Character
Education/Council
Chess Club
Chorus
Computer Science Club

No
No
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
No
Yes

No
No
No
No

Yes
Yes
No

Yes
Yes
No

No
No
Yes

Concert Band
Drama Club
Fellowship of Christian
Athletes
Geography Bee
Girls on the Run
Lego Club
National Junior Honor
Society
Pep Band
Scholar Bowl
Spelling Bee
Student Council
Talent Show
Tech Club
Totals

Yes
No
No

Yes
Yes
No

No
No
Yes

No
No
No
No

Yes
Yes
No
Yes

No
No
Yes
No

Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
8

No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
17

No
No
No
No
No
No
3

As one can see from the table above, there is a significant difference in co-curricular offerings at the elementary level.

73

 Please note, high school activities are listed in tables 1, 2, and 3. There is no need to differentiate as
we are dealing with one high school. This is actually a good situation regarding co-curricular activities,
especially as we look at the emotional level surrounding the school mascot at the high school level.
Freeburg has a unique situation in that there is a great loyalty to the school mascot. Involving another
high school district would greatly complicate things as the mascot for Freeburg is “Midgets”. Needless to
say, this mascot name is unique not only in Illinois but throughout the nation. To change the name would be
highly contentious in the Freeburg community. The name “Midgets” was given to the FCHS basketball
team by a local newspaper sports writer. That year the basketball team had a small team with the tallest
player at five feet ten inches tall. He was the center.
Since the 1934-35 school year the name “Midgets” has been the loyal team name for many hundreds
of Freeburg Community High School students on all types of teams. It is now held as an affectionate and
respectful label. Today where, political correctness has come to a forefront; there has been some
controversy with the mascot name from sources outside the school district. This controversy has seemed to
even strengthen the resolve of the Freeburg community to stay with this mascot name that has been a rich
tradition of the school for nearly 100 years.

SUMMARY FOR EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES
Much of the details regarding the positives and negative for extra-curricular activities has been
previously discussed. The key component from the consultants’ viewpoint is that consolidation would bring
more consistency and opportunities to extra-curricular activities. St. Libory students would gain the most
regarding opportunities to diversify the basic curriculum offered in a co-curricular format to enhance the
individual strengths of the students. We do not see consolidation leading to more activities at the high school
level unless there is a significant increase in enrollment. We would suggest even without an effort towards
consolidation that opportunities be afforded to the students by developing an agreement between the three
elementary districts for extra-curricular activities.

74

 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND COMPARISONS
In this section of the report, the consultants have attempted to provide the readers with the pertinent
data necessary to make judgments about the feasibility of reorganization considerations for the four school
districts. This section of the report will include several tables showing comparative data.

Revenue funding for Illinois has now been changed from the State Aid Model to the Evidence Based
Funding Model. This process of funding is still being processed at the state level and the school districts
are struggling to understand how this new model will impact their revenue stream of state dollars.
Currently all indicators predict increased revenue for the school districts in this study.

There are four major components to the model:
1. First, the model calculates how much a district needs to provide a high-quality education to its students,
called the district’s Adequacy Target. A unique Adequacy Target that reflects student needs is calculated
for each school district. • This is based on the actual per-pupil cost of providing a set of research-based
interventions, or Essential Elements, proven to impact student learning. • The Adequacy Target is adjusted
to account for regional differences in wages.
2. Second, EBM calculates each district’s Local Capacity Target, or the amount each district can contribute
toward its Adequacy Target from local resources. • To determine this, EBM looks at what the district
should be contributing, based on its property wealth and its individual Adequacy Target, and adjusts that
based on what the district is collecting in taxes, called “real receipts.” • This gives the most accurate view
of how well a district can support itself.
3. Third, the model determines how well-funded a district currently is, or the Percent of Adequacy that is
currently funded, considering the district’s local capacity and its current state funding.
4. Finally, the distribution method directs new state dollars to those districts that have the lowest Percent of
Adequacy.
75

 The following calculations were presented to the Illinois School Districts during the month of April.
The following data represents the EBF calculations for the four school districts. The concept of the model
is based on adequacy and the calculations made by the state is to determine the percentage of adequacy that
exists within each district in the state of Illinois. As noted in Table 1 the Final Percent of Adequacy for the
districts in this study range from a low of 66.4% at St. Libory Elementary District No.30 to a high of 72.7%
for Freeburg Elementary District No.70 The adequacy percentages shown in the ISBE report for all four
subject districts indicate that new dollars are needed in the years ahead to move each of the districts closer
to their full status of adequacy. It is anticipated that each district will be receiving increased state funding
each year until they reach the 100% of their targeted adequacy level. However, please note the increased
funding for the districts will only occur if the State approves additional funding for the EBF Model during
the legislative budgeting process.

TABLE I EVIDENCE BASED FUNDING MODEL CALCULATIONS FOR THE STUDY SCHOOL DISTRICTS

New 13 Digit ID

District
Name

County

Organization
Type

Total
ASE

Final
Percent of
Adequacy

Calculated
New FY 18
Funding
(Tier Funding)

Base Minimum
Funding

Total FY 18
State
Contribution

5008207000400

ST LIBORY
CONS SCH
DIST 30
FREEBURG
CC
SCHOOL
DIST 70

5008207701600

FREEBURG
COMM H S ST
DIST 77
CLAIR

High
School

671.00

68.2% 51,536.27

1,166,630.43

1,218,166.70

5008213000400

SMITHTON
CC
SCHOOL
ST
DIST 130
CLAIR

Elementary 524.48

71.7% 25,401.29

1,134,904.02

1,160,305.31

5008203000300

ST
CLAIR

Elementary 90.50

66.4% 7,236.98

255,172.76

262,409.74

ST
CLAIR

Elementary 766.80

72.7% 33,429.64

1,295,261.41

1,328,691.05

76

 This section of the report will address comparative financial data between the four districts.
An attempt has been made to draw analogous data between the four school districts which might
become issues for discussion by the respective Boards of Education, and/or citizens of the
communities involved in the study.

TABLE 2 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE SUMMARY 2015-2016
REVENUE SUMMARY BY SOURCE 2015-2016
SOURCE

FREEBURG
70

FREEBURG
77

SMITHTON
130

ST. LIBORY
30

LOCAL TAX

4, 238,901

$4,793,244

$2,863,912

$437,357

OTHER LOCAL FUND

$304,420

$522,941

$154,228

$70,332

GENERAL STATE AID

$1,053,674

$762,701

$985,701

$210,947

OTHER STATE FUNDING

316, 291

$336,195

$162,174

$51,461

FEDERAL FUNDING

$422,730

$231,124

$257,780

$81,193

TOTAL FUNDS

$6,336,016

$6,646,205

$4,424,365

$851,290

FUND

EXPENDITURE SUMMARY BY FUND 2015-2016
FREEBURG
FREEBURG
SMITHTON
77
70
130

ST. LIBORY
30

EDUCATION

$4,127,608

$5,119,389

$3,518,535

$569,353

OPERATIONS/MAINT

$636,731

$1,039,630

$304,929

$58,995

TRANSPORTATION

$337,277

$338,789

$166,725

$56,904

DEBT

$352,027

$499,361

$162,502

$0

TORT

$977,107

$505,579

$195,130

$38,071

IMRF

$213,453

$196,354

$145,816

$12,402

FIRE/SAFETY

$193,623

$59,873

$10,150

$48,133

CAPITAL PROJECTS

$0

$0

$0

$87,615

TOTAL

$6,837,826

$7,758,975

$4,503,787

$871,473
77

 TABLE 3 TAX RATES AND EAV
TAX RATE AND EQUALIZED ASSESSED VALUATION
SOURCE

FREEBURG 70

FREEBURG 77

SMITHTON
130

ST. LIBORY 30

EAV/PUPIL

$200,143

$409,215

$182,349

$159,590

TOTAL TAX RATE

$2.76

$2.06

$3.16

$3.42

INSTRUCTIONAL
EXPENDITURE BY
PUPIL

$4,880

$5,890

$5,114

$4,360

OPERATIONAL
EXPENDITURE BY
PUPIL

$8,409

$11,354

$8,506

$51,461

Total revenue generated by the districts range from a high 6.6 million to a low of 851 thousand

The assessed valuation per pupil indicates the local property tax funding difference between the four
districts range from a low of $159,590 and a high of $409.215.
The instructional expense per pupil in the districts vary with a low of $4,360 to a high of $5,890.
The operating expense per pupil in the districts vary with a low of $8,409 to a high of $11,354.

78

 TABLE 4 TAX RATES ST. CLAIR COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS
St. Clair County Tax Rates 2013 to 2017. Rates presented for area comparison.
The tax rates for the study range from a low of 2.42 to a high of 3.51
First Tax Installment Du e

07/17/13

07/16/14

07/01/15

07/01/16

06/29/17

Belle Valley #119

4.42460

4.72750

5.03170

5.25120

5.34980

Belleville #118

3.37800

3.48800

3.56780

3.64120

3.93230

Grant #110

3.55390

3.91340

4.00200

4.52800

4.54280

High Mount #116

3.95710

4.10880

4.18320

4.58970

4.60410

Milstadt #160

2.89530

2.92970

2.99330

3.12290

3.31810

Pontiac #105

2.39010

2.41900

2.48980

2.85510

2.87640

Signal Hill #181

4.26330

4.22440

4.27920

4.32540

4.44900

Whiteside #115

2.75420

2.80460

2.76130

2.79400

2.76610

Wolf Branch #113

3.68090

3.69990

3.72380

3.85360

3.86360

Harmony-Enge #175

3.65470

3.77030

4.04180

4.68420

4.76230

Belleville #201

1.97120

1.97120

2.03520

2.15500

2.15540

Freeburg #70

2.60370

2.68130

2.76100

2.84070

2.82780

St. Libory #30

2.56150

3.17420

3.42420

3.42130

3.51300

Smithton #130

3.10410

3.13580

3.16050

3.25280

3.26250

Freeburg #77

1.94620

1.96310

2.05700

2.30450

2.41580

Central #104

3.25000

3.25000

3.25000

3.25000

3.25000

O'Fallon #90

3.11980

3.14230

3.16940

3.13520

3.16680

Shiloh #85

3.40890

3.42250

3.47190

3.48960

3.68860

O'Fallon #203

2.20050

2.20050

2.22710

2.24240

2.31080

Cahokia #187

11.04360

11.04340

11.04340

11.04850

13.08280

Dupo #196

5.38960

5.42000

5.42000

5.42160

5.29710

East St. Louis #189

10.83530

10.83840

10.83840

10.83830

10.83840

Lebanon #9

6.14170

6.21670

6.21670

6.51870

6.52600

Lovejoy #188

8.10310

8.47560

8.47560

7.56270

8.58270

Marrisa #40

5.86400

6.01610

6.01610

6.21170

6.52310

Mascoutah #19

4.42790

4.65970

4.65970

4.93380

5.17630

New Athens #60

4.30040

5.10550

5.10550

5.25410

5.29680

BELLEVILLE

STUDY DISTRICTS

O'FALLON

UNIT DISTRICTS

79

 Table 4 shows the historical trend of tax rates for St. Clair County school districts from 2013 to 2017.
In review of the subject districts of this study the data reveals that the lowest elementary district tax rate is
found at Freeburg Elementary No. 70 with a rate of $2.89. The highest elementary district tax rate is found at
St. Libory Elementary No. 30 with a rate of $3.58. Smithton Elementary No. 130 has a rate of 3.26.
Freeburg Community High School No.77 has a rate of 2.42.

In comparison to other St. Clair County school

districts the districts in this study with the exception of St. Libory have maintained some of the lowest tax
rates in the county.
The combination of the high school and elementary rates are shown in Table 5:

TABLE 5 COMBINED HIGH SCHOOL ELEMENTARY RATES

TOTAL COMBINED TAX RATES FOR THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICTS

DISTRICT RATE HIGH SCHOOL RATE
ST. LIBORY ELEMENTARY
3.58
2.41
FREEBURG ELEMENTARY
2.89
2.41
SMITHTON ELEMENTARY
3.28
2.41

TOTAL RATE
5.99
5.30
5.69

80

 TABLE 6 TAX LEVY/RATES AND EXTENSION ST. LIBORY

ST LIBORY LEVY/RATES AND EXTENSION 2017

Property Type
Farm
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Mineral
State Railroad
Local Railroad
County Total
Total + Overlap

Total EAV Rate Setting EAV
6,405,407 6,285,317
5,952,857 5,509,672
1,590,050
876,105
5,777
5,777
12,442
12,442
0
0
0
0
13,966,533 12,689,313
14,080,965 12,803,745

Other Values
EZ Value Abated
EZ Tax Abated
New Property
TIF Increment

Fund/Name
ED
OM
IMRF
TRANS
WORKING CASH
FIRE SAFETY
SPEC EDUC
TORT
SS
LEASE
Totals

Levy Req
MAX Rate CAL Rate Actual Rate
CERT Rate Tot Extension
311,000
2.4508 2.428977
2.429
2.429 $339,247.09
49,000
0.375 0.382701
0.375
0.375 $52,374.50
6,000
0 0.046861
0.0469
0.0469
$6,550.30
16,000
0.12 0.124963
0.12
0.12 $16,759.84
6,500
0.05 0.050766
0.05
0.05
$6,983.27
6,000
0.05 0.046861
0.0469
0.0469
$6,550.30
2,600
0.02 0.020307
0.02
0.02
$2,793.31
62,000
0 0.484233
0.4843
0.4843 $67,639.92
0
0
0
0
0
$0.00
1,700
0.05 0.013277
0.0133
0.0133
$1,857.55
460,800
3.598946
3.5854
3.5854 $500,756.08

0
$0.00
52,277
1,277,220

The total EAV for the district is 14,080,965 with a total certified tax rate of 3.5854. The total
extension of local funding for the district is $500,756.08.

81

 TABLE 7 TAX LEVY/RATES AND EXTENSION FREEBURY ELEM 70

FREEBURG 70 LEVY/RATES AND EXTENSION 2017

Property Type TOT EAV
Rate Setting EAV
Farm
45,626,437 45,446,968
Residential
94,582,147 94,472,530
Commercial
19,392,431 13,848,226
Industrial
4,178,454
4,079,930
Mineral
25,762
25,762
State Railroad
1,097,390
1,097,390
Local Railroad
0
0
County Total
164,902,621 158,970,806
Total + Overlap 164,902,621 158,970,806
Fund/Name
ED
BOND
BUILD
IMRF
TRANS
WK CASH
FIRE SAFETY
SP ED
TORT
SS
LEASE
Totals

Levy Req
MAX Rate
1,850,573
1.12
351,325
0
660,919
0.4
79,485
0
198,276
0.12
82,615
0.05
82,615
0.05
33,046
0.02
1,170,025
0
119,228
0
82,615
0.05
4,710,722

Other Values
EZ Value Abated
0
EZ Tax Abated
$0.00
New Property
795,550
TIF Increment
5,931,815

CAL Rate Actual Rate
CERT Rate Tot Extension
1.164096
1.12
1.12 $1,846,909.36
0.221
0.221
0.221 $364,434.79
0.415749
0.4
0.4 $659,610.48
0.05
0.05
0.05
$82,451.31
0.124725
0.12
0.12 $197,883.15
0.051969
0.05
0.05
$82,451.31
0.051969
0.05
0.05
$82,451.31
0.020788
0.02
0.02
$32,980.52
0.736
0.736
0.736 $1,213,683.29
0.075
0.075
0.075 $123,676.97
0.051969
0.05
0.05
$82,451.31
2.963265
2.892
2.892 $4,768,983.80

The total EAV for the district is 164,902,621 with a total certified tax rate of 2.892. The total
extension of local funding for the district is $4,768,983.80.
The Freeburg Elementary District No. 70 reported at their April 2018 meeting of their Board of
Education that the Equalized Assessed Valuation (EAV) for the district increased by 1.98%. (This is not
included in Table 7 calculations) This translates to approximately $190,000 in additional revenue for the
district. This increase compares to a 5.04% increase last year. The average increase over the last five years is
1.68%.
82

 TABLE 8 TAX LEVY/RATES AND EXTENSION SMITHTON 130

SMITHTON 130 LEVY/RATES AND EXTENSION 2017

Property TypeTOT EAV
Farm
16,339,900
Residential
74,901,808
Commercial
4,721,216
Industrial
424,810
Mineral
3,991
State Railroad
0
Local Railroa
0
County Total 96,391,725
Total + Overla 96,391,725

Rate Setting EAV
16,339,900
74,901,808
4,721,216
424,810
3,991
0
0
96,391,725
96,391,725

Fund/Name Levy Request Max Rate
ED
1,962,954
2.000
BOND
163,282
0
BUILD
245,369
0.25
IMRF
85,000
0
TRANS
117,777
0.12
WK CASH
49,074
0.05
FIRE SAFETY
49,074
0.05
SP ED
19,630
0.02
TORT
343,688
0
SS
129,000
0
LEASE
49,074
0.05
Totals
3,213,922

Other Values
EZ Value Abated
EZ Tax Abated
New Property
TIF Increment

0
$0.00
746,879
0

Cal Rate Actual Rate
Cert. Rate Tot Extension
2.036434
2.000
2.000 $1,927,834.50
0.169394
0.1694
0.1694 $163,287.58
0.254554
0.25
0.25 $240,979.31
0.088182
0.0882
0.0882
$85,017.50
0.122186
0.12
0.12 $115,670.07
0.050911
0.05
0.05
$48,195.86
0.050911
0.05
0.05
$48,195.86
0.020365
0.02
0.02
$19,278.35
0.356553
0.3566
0.3566 $343,732.89
0.133829
0.1339
0.1339 $129,068.52
0.050911
0.05
0.05
$48,195.86
3.33423
3.2881
3.2881 $3,169,456.30

The total EAV for the district is 96,391,725 with a total certified tax rate of 3.2881. The total
extension of local funding for the district is $3,169,456.30.

83

 TABLE 9 TAX LEVY/RATES AND EXTENSION ST. LIBORY

FREEBURG HIGH SCHOOL 77 LEVY/RATES AND EXTENSION 2017

Property Type
Farm
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Mineral
State Railroad
Local Railroad
County Total
Total + Overlap

Total EAV
Rate Setting EAV
70,325,924 70,109,577
175,943,677 175,390,875
24,281,305 18,753,190
4,292,853
4,199,390
42,195
42,195
881,135
881,135
0
0
275,767,089 269,376,362
275,881,521 269,490,794

Fund/Name
ED
BOND
BUILD
IMRF
TRANS
WK CASH
FIRE SAFETY
SP ED
TORT
SS
LEASE
Totals

Levy Req
Max Rate
2,859,570
1.02
542,642
0
0.25
700,875
0
155,000
0.12
336,420
140,175
0.05
140,175
0.05
56,070
0.02
1,450,000
0
137,000
0
140,175
0.05
6,658,102

Other Values
0
EZ Value Abated
$0.00
EZ Tax Abated
New Property 1,594,706
TIF Increment 6,390,727

Cal Rate Actual Rate
Cert Rate Tot Extension
1.02 $2,812,824.31
1.061101
1.02
$555,394.92
0.201358
0.2014
0.2014
0.25
$689,417.72
0.260074
0.25
0.0576
$158,841.84
0.057516
0.0576
$330,920.51
0.124835
0.12
0.12
0.052015
0.05
0.05
$137,883.54
0.05
0.05
$137,883.54
0.052015
0.02
0.02
$55,153.42
0.020806
0.538052
0.5381
0.5381 $1,483,902.71
0.050837
0.0509
0.0509
$140,365.45
0.05
0.05
$137,883.54
0.052015
2.470624
2.408
2.408 $6,640,471.50

The total EAV for the district is 275,881.521 with a total certified tax rate of 2.408. The total
extension of local funding for the district is $6,640,471.50.

84

 TABLE 10 ESTIMATED TAX RATE NEEDED FOR NEW DISTRICT

TAX RATE CALCULATION FOR THE NEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
TAX LEVY
EXTENSION

ST. LIBORY 30
SMITHTON 130
FREEBURG 70
FREEBURG HS 77
NEW DISTRICT

TAX BASE DIST
EAV
RATE

COMBINED
RATE

500,756 14,081,000
3,170,000 96,392,000
4,769,000 165,903,000
6,641,000 275,882,000

3.556
3.289
2.875
2.407

5.963
5.696
5.282
2.407

15,080,756 275,882,000

5.466

5.466

By combining the Equalized Assessed Valuation of all districts, we end up with a combined EAV of
$275,882,000. If we divide the 275,882,000 into the present combined tax extensions for the four districts of
$15,080,756 we arrive at an effective tax rate of approximately $5.46. This means that to generate the same
level of local revenue in the new district that is currently being received in the four existing districts the new
district would need to establish a total tax rate of at least $5.46. It must be understood that this is only a
financial simulation and should not be taken as a recommendation for what the operating tax rate should be in
the newly consolidated district. That decision can only be made by the Committee of Ten that establishes the
full proposal for the formation of a new district that will be voted on in each of the existing districts. The
projected tax rate is lower for all districts except Freeburg Elementary No. 70 which would experience a tax
increase of .18. The rate would be a reduction of .50 for St. Libory taxpayers and a reduction of .24 for
Smithton taxpayers.

85

 TABLE 11 ISBE SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL PROFILES

Pursuant to the authority provided by Section 1A-8 of the School Code, the Illinois State Board of
Education (ISBE) has developed the “School District Financial Profile” to help monitor the finances of school
districts and identify which are in or are moving toward financial difficulty. This system has replaced the
“Financial Watch List and Financial Assurance and Accountability System (FAAS)” that had been used for
the assessment of a school district’s financial health. The major change in methodology is the FAAS utilized
only one financial indicator – the Fund Balance to Revenue Ratio. The Profile includes that indicator plus
four additional measures to expand our capability to accomplish a truer risk assessment.
The five indicators are individually scored and weighted to arrive at a Total Profile Score and
applicable designation.
1. Fund Balance to Revenue Ratio
2

Expenditure to Revenue Ratio

3. Days Cash on Hand
4. Percent of Short-Term Borrowing Ability Remaining
5. Percent of Long-Term Debt Margin
86

 If a district receives a score of 3.54 - 4.00, they are in the highest category of financial strength - Financial
Recognition. These districts require little or no review or involvement by ISBE unless requested by the
district.
If a district receives a score of 3.08 - 3.53, they are in the next highest financial health category of Financial
Review. Districts in this category will be given a limited review by ISBE, but they will be monitored for
potential downward trends. Staff will be assessing the next year’s school budget for negative trends.
If a district receives a score of 2.62 - 3.07, they are placed in the category of Financial Early Warning. ISBE
will be monitoring these districts closely and offering proactive technical assistance (e.g., financial
projections and cash flow analysis, etc.) These districts will also be reviewed to determine whether they meet
the criteria set forth in Article 1A-8 of the School Code to be certified in financial difficulty and possibly
qualify for a Financial Oversight Panel.
If a district receives a score of 1.00 - 2.61, they are in the highest risk category of Financial Watch. As with
the Financial Early Warning districts, ISBE will be monitoring these districts very closely and offering them
technical assistance including, but not limited to, financial projections, cash flow analysis, budgeting,
personnel inventories, and enrollment projections. These districts will also be reviewed to determine whether
they meet criteria set forth in Article 1A-8 of the School Code to be certified in financial difficulty and
qualify for a Financial Oversight Panel.

87

 CONSIDERATION OF STATE INCENTIVE MONEY
Please note that the following information doesn’t yet contain the Evidence-Based Funding estimated
incentive. It does contain the current estimates for Deficit Fund Balance Incentive, Salary Difference
Incentive, and $4,000 per Certified Staff Incentive.
However, if the three districts pursue a waiver to go forward without St Libory, estimates would have
to be revised without St Libory in the mix. But, estimated incentives are always a moveable target based on
the best information at this time. If the districts move forward, they can always request updated estimates
as they need. Estimates can be provided to the school districts at any time outside of a formal study.
There is a substantial salary incentive difference. While that seems great now, if a consolidation
happens and the actual salary schedule mirrors the highest salary schedule (this is a negotiated item between
the new school board and new union), once the 4-year incentive time expires, the new district would be
looking at supporting those salaries with local funds. This must be considered as the new district begins to
structure their future budgetary strategies.
Smithton has a unique schedule in that teachers were only advanced a half step in the 2016-17 school
year and a half step in the 2017-18 school year. To make the comparison, the teachers were moved back to
the step they were in the 2015-16 school year and then advanced them on each other schedule – in effect,
moving the other district teachers up 2 half steps to see what they would have made on the Smithton
schedule and moving the Smithton teachers up 2 full steps to see what they would have made on each other
district schedule.

88

 TABLE: 12 TOTAL FUND BALANCE – FY 17 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
Total Fund Balance - FY 2017 Annual Financial Report
St Libory Cons SD 30 / Freeburg CCSD 70 / Smithton CCSD 130 / Freeburg CHSD 77
Consolidation into Unit District

The below are estimates only. Final incentives will change based on the applicable Annual Financial Reports used at the time of the reorganizat

County/District

Cash
or
Accrual

Educational
Fund

O&M
Fund

Transportation
Fund

Working
Cash
Fund

Total

Grand
Total

St Clair County
St Libory Cons SD 30
Less 2016 taxes rec'd
prior to 6-30-17
Less Early Taxes: Spec Ed

Cash

Cash

Adj. Fund Balance

1,953

1,570

2,178

907

156,182

6,804

518,090

544,952

1,791,474

Cash

0

0

0

1,553,369

1,165,795

527,908

404,770

0

0

0

0

290,601

757,384

490,676

0

0

0

0

0

3,359,057

3,651,842

0
0
_____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________
1,165,795
527,908
404,770
1,553,369

Cash

101,466

3,359,057

0
0
_____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________
504,541
518,090
544,952
1,791,474

Adj. Fund Balance

Freeburg CHSD 77
Less 2016 taxes rec'd
prior to 6-30-17
Less Early Taxes: Spec Ed

504,541
0

Adj. Fund Balance

Smithton CCSD 130
Less 2016 taxes rec'd
prior to 6-30-17
Less Early Taxes: Spec Ed

59,125

54,354
362
_____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________
52,321
663
49,069
(225)
44,465

Adj. Fund Balance

Freeburg CCSD 70
Less 2016 taxes rec'd
prior to 6-30-17
Less Early Taxes: Spec Ed

93,534

3,651,842

1,538,661

0
0
_____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________
290,601
757,384
490,676
0

1,538,661

Total Fund Balance from Page 8 of the 2017 AFR; Early Taxes from Page 24 of the 2017 AFR
89

 TABLE 13: Unreserved Fund Balance - FY 2017
Annual Financial Report
St Libory Cons SD 30 / Freeburg CCSD 70 / Smithton CCSD 130 / Freeburg CHSD 77
Consolidation into Unit District
The below are estimates only. Final incentives will change based on the applicable Annual Financial
Reports used at the time of the reorganization.

County/District

Cash
or
Accrual

Educational
Fund

O&M
Fund

Working
Cash
Fund

Trans
Fund

Total

St Clair County

St Libory Cons SD 30
Less 2016 taxes rec'd
prior to 6-30-17

Cash

44,465
_____________
_
20,539

Adj. Fund Balance

Freeburg CCSD 70

Less 2016 taxes rec'd
prior to 6-30-17

Cash

_

Adj. Fund Balance

Smithton CCSD 130
Less 2016 taxes rec'd
prior to 6-30-17

Cash

Less 2016 taxes rec'd
prior to 6-30-17
Adj. Fund Balance

Cash

1,953

1,570

114,731

6,804

2,178

907

54,354

39,400

_

(225)

_

663

_

60,377

518,090

544,952

1,791,474

3,359,057

0

0

0

0

0

404,770

3,123,934

504,541

_

518,090

_

1,165,795

0
_
_
1,553,369 1,165,795

0
290,601

724,896

_

0
724,896

544,952

_
_
1,791,474
3,359,057

0

0

290,601

_

46,204

504,541

1,553,369

_

Adj. Fund Balance

Freeburg CHSD 77

65,004

0
0

_

490,676

_

0
490,676

0
404,770

_

0

_

0
0

0
3,123,934

1,506,173

_

0
1,506,173

Unreserved Fund Balance from Page 5 of the 2017 AFR; Early Taxes from Page 24 of the 2017 AFR

90

 TABLE 14: ESTIMATED EVIDENCE BASED FUNDING DIFFERENCE
ESTIMATED Evidence-Based Funding Difference Incentive
St Libory Cons SD 30 / Freeburg CCSD 70 / Smithton CCSD 130 / Freeburg CHSD 77
Consolidation into Unit District

The below are estimates only. Final incentives will change based on the Evidence-Based Funding factors at the time of the reorganization.

District
St Libory Cons SD 30
Freeburg CCSD 70
Smithton CCSD 130
Freeburg CHSD 77

Enrollment*

RCDT Code

87
771
518
661
2,037

50-082-0300-03
50-082-0700-04
50-082-1300-04
50-082-0770-16

Evidence-Based
Funding

4 Year
Total

See Note Below

Evidence-Based Funding (EBF) Difference Incentive is payable for 4 years.
Estimate is based on the EBF payable in fiscal year [ ].
Evidence-Based Funding is calculated for the combined district for the first year during which the reorganization becomes effective.
Evidence-Based Funding is also calculated for the original districts prior to the reorganization.
If the sum of the EBF for the individual districts prior to the reorganization is greater than the EBF for the combined district,
a supplementary state aid payment equal to the difference will be made. If the amount of EBF after reorganization is greater
than the combined EBF the districts would have received prior to reorganization, the incentive is $0.

NOTE: Estimates for the Evidence-Based Funding (EBF) Difference Incentive unable to be calculated at this time.

*Total number of students - based on 2016-17 school year Fall Enrollment Counts

91

 TABLE: 15 EVIDENCE BASED FUNDING DIFFERENCE
ESTIMATED Evidence-Based Funding Difference Incentive Calculation
St Libory Cons SD 30 / Freeburg CCSD 70 / Smithton CCSD 130 / Freeburg CHSD 77
Consolidation into Unit District

The below are estimates only. Final incentives will change based on the Evidence-Based Funding
factors at the time of the reorganization.

Estimated Evidence-Based Funding - after Reorganization
(Base Funding Minimum + Tier Funding)
Evidence-Based Funding - before Reorganization
(Base Funding Minimum + Tier Funding):

Total Evidence-Based Funding - before Reorganization

$0.00

Gain (Loss) Loss = Incentive

$0.00

NOTE: Estimates for the Evidence-Based Funding (EBF) Difference Incentive unable to
be calculated at this time.

92

 TABLE: 16 DEFICIT FUND BALANCE INCENTIVE

ESTIMATED Deficit Fund Balance Incentive
St Libory Cons SD 30 / Freeburg CCSD 70 / Smithton CCSD 130 / Freeburg CHSD 77
Consolidation into Unit District

The below are estimates only. Final incentives will change based on the applicable Annual Financial Reports used at the time of the reorganization.

District
St Libory Cons SD 30
Freeburg CCSD 70
Smithton CCSD 130
Freeburg CHSD 77

Enrollment*

RCDT Code

87
771
518
661
2,037

50-082-0300-03
50-082-0700-04
50-082-1300-04
50-082-0770-16

Deficit
Fund Balance

Grand
Total

$0
$0
$0
$0
$0

$0

Deficit Fund Balance Incentive is payable for 1 year.
Estimate is based on the Annual Financial Report (AFR) for the year ending 6/30/17. The 3-year average calculation is based on the AFR
for the years ending 6/30/16, 6/30/15, and 6/30/14.
Deficit Fund Balance Incentive is calculated by summing the fund balances of the Educational, O & M, Transportation, and Working Cash funds.
An additional calculation is made for Purchased Services, Supplies, and Capital Outlay of the same funds. If the current year's
expenditures are greater than the three prior years' average expenditures, the Deficit Fund Balance Incentive will be reduced by that amount.

Each district had positive combined Fund Balances for the year ending June 30, 2017.

93

 TABLE: 17 ESTIMATED SALARY DIFFERENCE INCENTIVE
ESTIMATED Salary Difference Incentive
St Libory Cons SD 30 / Freeburg CCSD 70 / Smithton CCSD 130 / Freeburg CHSD 77
Consolidation into Unit District

The below are estimates only. Final incentives will change based on the salary schedule differences at the time of the reorganization.

District
St Libory Cons SD 30
Freeburg CCSD 70
Smithton CCSD 130
Freeburg CHSD 77

Enrollment*

RCDT Code

# Full Time
Teachers

87
771
518
661

50-082-0300-03
50-082-0700-04
50-082-1300-04
50-082-0770-16

7
47
37
42

2,037

133

4 Year
Total

Salary

$495,509

a

$1,982,036

Salary Difference Incentive is payable for 4 years.
Calculation is equal to the difference of the sum of the salaries earned by each teacher in their original district and the sum of the salaries
they would have been paid if place on the highest salary schedule of the districts involved.
Estimate is based on the most current staff listings and salary schedules as provided by the districts.
Actual incentive will be calculated based on staff employed by one of the original districts in the year prior to the consolidation/annexation
who will also be employed by the consolidated/annexing district and the salary schedules in effect he year prior to the consolidation/annexation

a

Based on salary information provided by each of the four districts for the 2017-18 school year.

NOTE: Above estimates assume staffing levels of new district to be the same as the combined staffing levels of the original districts.
The estimates do not take into account potential increase or decrease of staff levels due to the reorganization.
*Total number of students - based on 2016-17 school year Fall Enrollment Counts

94

 TABLE: 18 SALARY DIFFERENCE INCENTIVE

ESTIMATED Salary Difference Incentive - July 2018 Revision
St Libory Cons SD 30 / Freeburg CCSD 70 / Smithton CCSD 130 / Freeburg CHSD 77
Consolidation into Unit District

The below are estimates only. Final incentives will change based on the salary
schedule differences at the time of the reorganization.
Below figures taken from individual district pages

Employee Name
St Libory Staff
Freeburg EL Staff
Smithton Staff
Freeburg HS Staff
Estimated Total Home

2017-18 Home 2017-18 Highest
Salary
Salary
$267,257.14
$406,106.12
$3,314,075.10
$3,407,440.82
$2,069,216.48
$2,257,978.26
$2,829,329.12
$2,903,861.65

Difference
$138,848.98
$93,365.72
$188,761.78
$74,532.53

$8,479,877.85

Estimated Total on Highest
Estimated Salary Difference Incentive

$8,975,386.85
$495,509.00
$495,509.00

95

 TABLE: 19 ST LIBORY ELEMENTARY
ESTIMATED Salary Difference Incentive - July 2018 Revision
St Libory Cons SD 30 / Freeburg CCSD 70 / Smithton CCSD 130 / Freeburg CHSD 77
Consolidation into Unit District

The below are estimates only. Final incentives will change based on the salary schedule differences at the time of the reorganization.
Comparison of St Libory staff
St Libory schedule starts with Step 0; Freeburg EL, Smithton, & Freeburg HS salary schedules start with Step 1
Smithton salary schedule granted half step over previous placement for both the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years
Freeburg EL takes TRS out of salary listed on schedule; St Libory, Smithton, & Freeburg HS pay TRS on top of salary schedule salary

Name
St Libory Staff
Albrecht, M
Anthony, S
Bultman, S
Diecker, S
Greiwe, J
Moorhead, E
Weber, R

2017-18 2017-18 2017-18
2017-18 St 2017-18 St Freeburg EL Freeburg EL Smithton
Step
Libory Step Libory Salary Step
Salary
M/9
B+16 / 16
B+24 / 20
B+8 / 17
B+ 8 / 4
B+8 / 1
B/2

Estimated Total on Home Salary System

$38,746.15 M / 10
$43,558.24 B+16 / 16
$47,520.88 B+24 / 18
$43,840.66 B+8 / 14
$32,801.10 B+8 / 5
$30,253.85 B+8 / 2
$30,536.26 B / 3

$62,448.00 M / 9
$65,104.00 B+16 / 16
$68,765.00 B+24 / 18
$61,043.00 B+8 / 15
$48,089.00 B+8 / 4
$44,341.00 B+8 / 1.5
$44,749.00 B / 2

2017-18 2017-18 2017-18
Smithton Freeburg HS Freeburg HS
Salary
Salary
Step
$58,128.57 M / 10
$60,565.93 B+16 / 17
$64,064.84 B+24 / 21
$56,889.01 B+8 / 18
$43,529.67 B+8 / 5
$39,876.92 B+8 / 2
$39,879.12 B / 3

$59,267.03
$67,397.80
$73,647.25
$65,434.07
$45,894.51
$42,000.00
$42,000.00

Highest
Salary
$62,448.00
$67,397.80
$73,647.25
$65,434.07
$48,089.00
$44,341.00
$44,749.00

Highest Individual
District Difference
F - EL
F - HS
F - HS
F - HS
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL

$23,701.85
$23,839.56
$26,126.37
$21,593.41
$15,287.90
$14,087.15
$14,212.74

$267,257.14
$406,106.12

Estimated Total on Highest Salary System

$138,848.98

Estimated Salary Difference Incentive - St Libory Staff

Check $138,848.98

St Libory total teaching staff
Less part-time
St Libory full-time teaching staff

7
0
7

Estimated Full-Time Administration
Estimated total Full-Time Certified Staff

1
8

96

 TABLE: 20
FREEBURGELEMENTARY
ESTIMATED Salary Difference Incentive - July 2018 Revision
St Libory Cons SD 30 / Freeburg CCSD 70 / Smithton CCSD 130 / Freeburg CHSD 77
Consolidation into Unit District
The below are estimates only. Final incentives will change based on the salary schedule differences at the time of the reorganization.
Comparison of Freeburg EL staff
St Libory schedule starts with Step 0; Freeburg EL, Smithton, & Freeburg HS salary schedules start with Step 1
Smithton salary schedule granted half step over previous placement for both the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years
Freeburg EL takes TRS out of salary listed on schedule; St Libory, Smithton, & Freeburg HS pay TRS on top of salary schedule salary

Name
Freeburg Elementary Staff
Becker, K
Birch, A (60%)
Cooper, A
Derwort, M (21 years)
Deterding, K (22 years)
Dierker, R
Douthit, S
Freebairn, M
Gagen, S
Gale, K (24 years)
Goodnight, J (65%)
Goscinski, T (50%)
Green, C
Grommet, C
Havel, L (22 years)
Hazelwood, J
Heidenreich, L (32 years)
Heiligenstein, G (26 years)
Howard, R
Hummert, J (21 years)
Hund, L (24 years)
Imm, Justin
Janssen, Je
Janssen, Ji (21 years)
Joseph, M
Kassly, E
Ketchum, S
Ketterer, K
Kolakowski, M
Krauss, B (22 years)
Krauss, D (26 years)
Kuklinski, L (26 years)
Lang, S (50%)
Lanter, D (23 years)
Mitchell, K (frozen Step 13)
Mueller, N
Mullins, P (24 years)
Nall, A (50%)
Payne, A
Pierce, D
Range, J
Richards, J
Richter, J
Rogers, M
Schulz, J
Schulz, S (23 years)
Shorter, R
Smoker, D
Thompson, D
Tucker, N
Wiggs, J (30 years)
Woods, K

2017-18
Freeburg EL
Step

2017-18
Freeburg EL
Salary

2017-18
Smithton
Step

2017-18
Smithton
Salary

2017-18
Freeburg HS
Step

2017-18
Freeburg HS
Salary

2017-18 St
Libory Step

B+24 / 5
M/3
B+8 / 6
M+24 / 20
M+24 / 20
M+24 / 20
B+8 / 2
M+24 / 13
M / 13
M+24 / 20
M/5
M+24 / 20
M+8 / 12
B+8 / 9
M+8 / 20
M+24 / 20
M+24 / 20
M+8 / 20
B+24 / 6
M / 20
M+24 / 20
B+16 / 5
M+24 / 20
M+24 / 20
M+24 / 20
B/8
M / 10
M/3
M / 13
M+8 / 20
B+24 / 18
M+24 / 20
B/3
M+24 / 20
B / 13
M/9
M+24 / 20
B/1
M+8 / 15
M / 12
B/6
M / 20
B/1
B/5
M / 20
M+24 / 20
B/1
B/1
B/5
B+16 / 4
M+16 / 20
M+24 / 18

$49,772.00
$31,149.00
$49,792.00
$82,497.00
$82,497.00
$82,497.00
$44,341.00
$70,894.00
$67,558.00
$82,497.00
$35,577.10
$41,248.50
$67,000.00
$53,701.00
$80,173.00
$82,497.00
$82,497.00
$80,173.00
$51,475.00
$79,160.00
$82,497.00
$48,931.00
$82,497.00
$82,497.00
$82,497.00
$51,556.00
$62,448.00
$51,915.00
$67,558.00
$80,173.00
$68,765.00
$82,497.00
$22,374.50
$82,497.00
$47,039.00
$60,995.00
$82,497.00
$21,125.00
$71,710.00
$65,988.00
$48,951.00
$79,160.00
$42,250.00
$47,248.00
$79,160.00
$82,497.00
$42,250.00
$42,250.00
$47,248.00
$47,681.00
$81,185.00
$79,143.00

B+24 / 4
M/2
B+8 / 5
M+24 / 20
M+24 / 21
M+24 / 19
B+8 / 1.5
M+24 / 12
M / 12
M+24 / 23
M/4
M+24 / 19
M+8 / 11
B+8 / 8
M+8 / 21
M+24 / 19
M+24 / 24
M+8 / 22
B+24 / 5
M / 20
M+24 / 23
B+16 / 4
M+24 / 19
M+24 / 20
M+24 / 19
B/7
M/9
M/2
M / 12
M+8 / 21
B+24 / 18
M+24 / 24
B/2
M+24 / 22
B / 12
M/8
M+24 / 23
B/1
M+8 / 14
M / 11
B/5
M / 19
B/1
B/4
M / 19
M+24 / 22
B/1
B/1
B/4
B+16 / 3
M+16 / 24
M+24 / 17

$46,729.67
$29,204.84
$44,991.21
$74,780.22
$76,158.24
$73,398.90
$39,876.92
$64,913.19
$61,829.67
$78,916.48
$33,538.57
$36,699.45
$61,440.66
$48,909.89
$73,847.25
$73,398.90
$80,294.51
$75,225.27
$48,189.01
$71,694.51
$78,916.48
$45,987.91
$73,398.90
$74,780.22
$73,398.90
$46,738.46
$58,128.57
$48,674.73
$61,829.67
$73,847.25
$64,064.84
$80,294.51
$19,939.56
$77,537.36
$52,673.63
$56,680.22
$78,916.48
$19,209.34
$64,926.37
$60,665.93
$44,261.54
$70,312.09
$38,418.68
$42,802.20
$70,312.09
$77,537.36
$38,418.68
$38,418.68
$42,802.20
$44,528.57
$79,519.78
$70,639.56

B+24 / 5
M/3
B+8 / 6
M+24 / 21
M+24 / 22
M+24 / 20
B+8 / 2
M+24 / 13
M / 13
M+24 / 24
M/5
M+24 / 20
M+8 / 12
B+8 / 9
M+8 / 22
M+24 / 20
M+24 / 31
M+8 / 26
B+24 / 6
M / 21
M+24 / 24
B+16 / 5
M+24 / 20
M+24 / 21
M+24 / 20
B/8
M / 10
M/3
M / 13
M+8 / 22
B+24 / 26
M+24 / 26
B/3
M+24 / 23
B / 13
M/9
M+24 / 24
B/1
M+8 / 15
M / 12
B/6
M / 20
B/1
B/5
M / 20
M+24 / 23
B/1
B/1
B/5
B+16 / 4
M+16 / 30
M+24 / 18

$48,689.01
$28,913.41
$47,271.43
$87,035.16
$87,035.16
$87,035.16
$42,000.00
$70,767.03
$64,762.64
$87,035.16
$33,230.71
$43,517.58
$64,762.64
$51,654.95
$82,038.46
$87,035.16
$87,035.16
$82,038.46
$50,150.55
$79,649.45
$87,035.16
$47,271.43
$87,035.16
$87,035.16
$87,035.16
$48,689.01
$59,267.03
$48,189.01
$64,762.64
$82,038.46
$73,647.25
$87,035.16
$21,000.00
$87,035.16
$56,443.96
$57,540.66
$87,035.16
$19,794.51
$70,767.03
$62,875.82
$45,894.51
$79,649.45
$39,589.01
$44,558.24
$79,649.45
$87,035.16
$39,589.01
$39,589.01
$44,558.24
$45,894.51
$84,500.00
$82,038.46

B+24 / 4
M/2
B+8 / 5
M / 20
M / 21
M / 19
B+8 / 1
M / 12
M / 12
M / 23
M/4
M / 19
M / 11
B+8 / 8
M / 21
M / 19
M / 30
M / 25
B+24 / 5
M / 20
M / 23
B+16 / 4
M / 19
M / 20
M / 19
B/7
M/9
M/2
M / 12
M / 21
B+24 / 25
M / 25
B/2
M / 22
B / 12
M/8
M / 23
B/0
M / 14
M / 11
B/5
M / 19
B/0
B/4
M / 19
M / 22
B/0
B/0
B/4
B+16 / 3
M / 29
M / 17

Estimated Total on Home Salary System

2017-18 St
Highest
Libory Salary Highest Salary District
$33,932.97
$19,680.66
$33,650.55
$48,086.81
$48,937.36
$47,237.36
$30,253.85
$41,293.41
$41,293.41
$50,636.26
$22,424.29
$23,618.68
$40,443.96
$36,197.80
$48,937.36
$47,237.36
$56,497.80
$52,336.26
$34,782.42
$48,086.81
$50,636.26
$33,367.03
$47,237.36
$48,086.81
$47,237.36
$34,782.42
$38,746.15
$32,801.10
$41,293.41
$48,937.36
$51,769.23
$52,336.26
$15,268.13
$49,786.81
$39,029.67
$37,896.70
$50,636.26
$14,419.23
$42,992.31
$40,443.96
$33,084.62
$47,237.36
$28,838.46
$32,235.16
$47,237.36
$49,786.81
$28,838.46
$28,838.46
$32,235.16
$32,518.68
$55,665.93
$45,539.56

$49,772.00
$31,149.00
$49,792.00
$87,035.16
$87,035.16
$87,035.16
$44,341.00
$70,894.00
$67,558.00
$87,035.16
$35,577.10
$43,517.58
$67,000.00
$53,701.00
$82,038.46
$87,035.16
$87,035.16
$82,038.46
$51,475.00
$79,649.45
$87,035.16
$48,931.00
$87,035.16
$87,035.16
$87,035.16
$51,556.00
$62,448.00
$51,915.00
$67,558.00
$82,038.46
$73,647.25
$87,035.16
$22,374.50
$87,035.16
$56,443.96
$60,995.00
$87,035.16
$21,125.00
$71,710.00
$65,988.00
$48,951.00
$79,649.45
$42,250.00
$47,248.00
$79,649.45
$87,035.16
$42,250.00
$42,250.00
$47,248.00
$47,681.00
$84,500.00
$82,038.46

F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - HS
F - HS
F - HS
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - HS
F - EL
F - HS
F - EL
F - EL
F - HS
F - HS
F - HS
F - HS
F - EL
F - HS
F - HS
F - EL
F - HS
F - HS
F - HS
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - HS
F - HS
F - HS
F - EL
F - HS
F - HS
F - EL
F - HS
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - HS
F - EL
F - EL
F - HS
F - HS
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - HS
F - HS

Individual
Difference
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,538.16
$4,538.16
$4,538.16
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,538.16
$0.00
$2,269.08
$0.00
$0.00
$1,865.46
$4,538.16
$4,538.16
$1,865.46
$0.00
$489.45
$4,538.16
$0.00
$4,538.16
$4,538.16
$4,538.16
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,865.46
$4,882.25
$4,538.16
$0.00
$4,538.16
$9,404.96
$0.00
$4,538.16
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$489.45
$0.00
$0.00
$489.45
$4,538.16
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,315.00
$2,895.46

$3,314,075.10

Estimated Total on Highest Salary System

$3,407,440.82
$93,365.72

Estimated Salary Difference Incentive
Check

Freeburg EL total teaching staff
Less part-time
Freeburg EL full-time teaching staff

52
-5
47

Estimated Full-Time Administration

3

$93,365.72

97

 TABLE: 21 SMITHTON ELEMENTARY
ESTIMATED Salary Difference Incentive - July 2018 Revision
St Libory Cons SD 30 / Freeburg CCSD 70 / Smithton CCSD 130 / Freeburg CHSD 77
Consolidation into Unit District

The below are estimates only. Final incentives will change based on the salary schedule differences at the time of the reorganization.
Comparison of Smithton staff
St Libory schedule starts with Step 0; Freeburg EL, Smithton, & Freeburg HS salary schedules start with Step 1
Smithton salary schedule granted half step over previous placement for both the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years
Freeburg EL takes TRS out of salary listed on schedule; St Libory, Smithton, & Freeburg HS pay TRS on top of salary schedule salary

Name
Smithton Staff
Beggs (step 26)
Berry
Borgschulte
Brueggeman
Carter
Courtney
Fox, T (step 32)
Gaubatz
Geberding
Hammel
Hedrick
Hoover
Hoover, A
Junker (step 20)
Kapp
Koester
Kueker
LaFrence - new @ Step 2
Lance
Lepere
Lucash
Morra
Mueth
Osborn
Rainbolt
Rank
Ratz
Rogers, O
Runyon
Sehr - new @ Step 1
Servos
Sliment
Smith, J
Smith, M (step 23)
Thom
Wheatley
Wu, S - new @ Step 4.5

2017-18
2017-18
Freeburg HS Freeburg HS
Step
Salary

2017-18
Smithton
Step

2017-18
Smithton
Salary

M+8 / 22
M / 12
M / 15
B/5
M+8 / 11
M / 11
M+16 / 24
M+24 / 12
M+24 / 12
B+8 / 15
B+24 / 14
B+24 / 16
B+8 / 4
B+8 / 15
B / 14
B+8 / 11
M / 14
B/2
B / 2.5
M / 10
M / 11
M / 12
B/5
B / 14
M/5
B/9
B+32 / 4
B/5
B+32 / 5
B/1
M / 10
B/5
M/6
M / 22
B+8 / 14
M/9
M / 4.5

$75,225.27
$61,829.67
$65,315.38
$44,261.54
$61,440.66
$60,665.93
$79,519.78
$64,913.19
$64,913.19
$56,889.01
$59,283.52
$61,305.49
$43,529.67
$56,889.01
$55,000.00
$52,238.46
$64,152.75
$39,879.12
$40,609.34
$59,574.73
$60,665.93
$61,829.67
$44,261.54
$55,000.00
$53,058.24
$49,632.97
$47,468.13
$44,261.54
$48,928.57
$38,418.68
$59,574.73
$44,261.54
$53,785.71
$74,450.55
$55,726.37
$58,128.57
$52,328.02

Estimated Total on Home Salary System

M+8 / 27
M / 13
M / 16
B/6
M+8 / 12
M / 12
M+16 / 31
M+24 / 13
M+24 / 13
B+8 / 16
B+24 / 15
B+24 / 17
B+8 / 5
B+8 / 21
B / 15
B+8 / 12
M / 15
B/2
B/3
M / 11
M / 12
M / 13
B/6
B / 15
M/6
B / 10
B+24 / 5
B/6
B+24 / 6
B/1
M / 11
B/6
M/7
M / 24
B+8 / 15
M / 10
M/4

$82,038.46
$64,762.64
$70,767.03
$45,894.51
$64,762.64
$62,875.82
$84,500.00
$70,767.03
$70,767.03
$63,528.57
$65,434.07
$69,419.78
$45,894.51
$65,434.07
$59,882.42
$56,443.96
$68,706.59
$40,776.92
$42,000.00
$61,045.05
$62,875.82
$64,762.64
$45,894.51
$59,882.42
$52,657.14
$51,654.95
$48,689.01
$45,894.51
$50,150.55
$39,589.01
$61,045.05
$45,894.51
$54,237.36
$79,649.45
$61,678.02
$59,267.03
$49,635.16

2017-18
2017-18 St 2017-18 St Freeburg EL
Step
Libory Step Libory Salary
M / 26
M / 12
M / 15
B/5
M / 11
M / 11
M / 30
M / 12
M / 12
B+8 / 15
B+24 / 14
B+24 / 16
B+8 / 4
B+8 / 20
B / 14
B+8 / 11
M / 14
B/1
B/2
M / 10
M / 11
M / 12
B/5
B / 14
M/5
B/9
B+24 / 4
B/5
B+24 / 5
B/0
M / 10
B/5
M/6
M / 23
B+8 / 14
M/9
M/3

$53,168.13
$41,293.41
$43,840.66
$33,084.62
$40,443.96
$40,443.96
$56,497.80
$41,293.41
$41,293.41
$42,142.86
$42,426.37
$44,124.18
$32,801.10
$46,389.01
$40,727.47
$38,746.15
$42,992.31
$29,687.91
$30,536.26
$39,595.60
$40,443.96
$41,293.41
$33,084.62
$40,727.47
$35,349.45
$36,481.32
$33,932.97
$33,084.62
$34,782.42
$28,838.46
$39,595.60
$33,084.62
$36,197.80
$50,636.26
$41,293.41
$38,746.15
$33,650.55

M+8 / 20
M / 13
M / 16
B/6
M+8 / 12
M / 12
M+16 / 20
M+24 / 13
M+24 / 13
B+8 / 14
B+24 / 15
B+24 / 17
B+8 / 5
B+8 / 14
B / 12
B+8 / 12
M / 15
B/2
B/3
M / 11
M / 12
M / 13
B/6
B / 12
M/6
B / 10
B+24 / 5
B/6
B+24 / 6
B/1
M / 11
B/6
M/7
M / 20
B+8 / 14
M / 10
M/4

2017-18
Freeburg EL
Highest
Salary
Highest Salary District

Individual
Difference

$80,173.00
$67,558.00
$72,667.00
$48,951.00
$67,000.00
$65,988.00
$81,185.00
$70,894.00
$70,894.00
$61,043.00
$64,136.00
$67,355.00
$48,089.00
$61,043.00
$57,382.00
$58,223.00
$70,697.00
$43,499.00
$44,749.00
$64,418.00
$65,988.00
$67,558.00
$48,951.00
$57,382.00
$56,597.00
$54,162.00
$49,772.00
$48,951.00
$51,475.00
$42,250.00
$64,418.00
$48,951.00
$58,059.00
$79,160.00
$61,043.00
$62,448.00
$53,324.00

$6,813.19
$5,728.33
$7,351.62
$4,689.46
$5,559.34
$5,322.07
$4,980.22
$5,980.81
$5,980.81
$6,639.56
$6,150.55
$8,114.29
$4,559.33
$8,545.06
$4,882.42
$5,984.54
$6,544.25
$3,619.88
$4,139.66
$4,843.27
$5,322.07
$5,728.33
$4,689.46
$4,882.42
$3,538.76
$4,529.03
$2,303.87
$4,689.46
$2,546.43
$3,831.32
$4,843.27
$4,689.46
$4,273.29
$5,198.90
$5,951.65
$4,319.43
$995.98

$82,038.46
$67,558.00
$72,667.00
$48,951.00
$67,000.00
$65,988.00
$84,500.00
$70,894.00
$70,894.00
$63,528.57
$65,434.07
$69,419.78
$48,089.00
$65,434.07
$59,882.42
$58,223.00
$70,697.00
$43,499.00
$44,749.00
$64,418.00
$65,988.00
$67,558.00
$48,951.00
$59,882.42
$56,597.00
$54,162.00
$49,772.00
$48,951.00
$51,475.00
$42,250.00
$64,418.00
$48,951.00
$58,059.00
$79,649.45
$61,678.02
$62,448.00
$53,324.00

F - HS
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - HS
F - EL
F - EL
F - HS
F - HS
F - HS
F - EL
F - HS
F - HS
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - HS
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - HS
F - HS
F - EL
F - EL

$2,069,216.48

Estimated Total on Highest Salary System

$2,257,978.26
$188,761.78

Estimated Salary Difference Incentive
Check

Smithton total teaching staff
Less part-time
Smithton full-time teaching staff

37
0
37

Estimated Full-Time Administration
Estimated total Full-Time Certified Staff

2
39

$188,761.78

98

 TABLE: 22 FREEBURG HIGH SCHOOL
ESTIMATED Salary Difference Incentive - July 2018 Revision
St Libory Cons SD 30 / Freeburg CCSD 70 / Smithton CCSD 130 / Freeburg CHSD 77
Consolidation into Unit District

The below are estimates only. Final incentives will change based on the salary schedule differences at the time of the reorganization.
Comparison of Freeburg HS staff
St Libory schedule starts with Step 0; Freeburg EL, Smithton, & Freeburg HS salary schedules start with Step 1
Smithton salary schedule granted half step over previous placement for both the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years
Freeburg EL takes TRS out of salary listed on schedule; St Libory, Smithton, & Freeburg HS pay TRS on top of salary schedule salary

Name
Freeburg HS Staff
Adrian, C
Asher, E
Barthelemy, M
Biver, M
Bonsall, J
Brentlinger, JR
Dalke, J (M+6)
Etter, M
Fahrner, S
Florczyk, C
Gericke, D
Haas, D (M+2) - retire
Heady, J (B+25) - retire
Hoover, T
Klazynski, J
Kloess, B
Laur, M
McEvilly, P
McQuiston
Meinert, A (200 days)
Mitchell
Modglin
Morgan, A
Mueller, K
Mueller, M
Mueth, B
Neighbors, E
Nipper, S
Overbey
Rushing, N
Scheid, H
Stuart, A
Stuart, R
Tedford, J (M+52)
Thompson, A
Wesbecher, N
Wessel, M
Wittenauer, R
Wojtkowski, V (M+26) -rtmt
Wondolowski, M
Young, J (200 days)
Zerial, D

2017-18
Freeburg HS
Step

2017-18
Freeburg HS
Salary

2017-18 St
Libory Step

M+24 / 20
M+24 / 10
M / 11
M+24 / 15
M/4
M+8 / 11
M / 15
M+24 / 23
M / 22
M / 13
M / 11
M / 26
B+24 / 27
M / 17
M+24 / 10
B+24 / 6
M / 12
M/9
B+16 / 8
M/9
B/3
B/1
M+24 / 17
M+24 / 12
M+24 / 19
M+8 / 10
M/6
M+24 / 9
M+24 / 13
M/8
M+24 / 21
B / 13
M / 14
M+24 / 17
B / 10
M+24 / 23
M/9
M / 11
M+24 / 23
M / 13
M/9
M / 12

$87,035.16
$64,762.64
$61,045.05
$75,076.92
$49,635.16
$62,875.82
$68,706.59
$87,035.16
$79,649.45
$64,762.64
$61,045.05
$89,889.29
$89,285.49
$72,890.11
$64,762.64
$50,150.55
$62,875.82
$57,540.66
$51,654.95
$63,934.07
$42,000.00
$39,589.01
$79,649.45
$68,706.59
$84,500.00
$61,045.05
$52,657.14
$62,875.82
$70,767.03
$55,864.84
$87,035.16
$56,443.96
$66,705.49
$79,649.45
$51,654.95
$87,035.16
$57,540.66
$61,045.05
$108,378.52
$64,762.64
$63,934.07
$62,875.82

M / 19
M/9
M / 10
M / 14
M/3
M / 10
M / 14
M / 22
M / 21
M / 12
M / 10
M / 25
B+24 / 26
M / 16
M/9
B+24 / 5
M / 11
M/8
B+16 / 7
M/8
B/2
B/0
M / 16
M / 11
M / 18
M/9
M/5
M/8
M / 12
M/7
M / 20
B / 12
M / 13
M / 16
B/9
M / 22
M/8
M / 10
M / 22
M / 12
M/8
M / 11

Estimated Total on Home Salary System

2017-18
2017-18 St Freeburg EL
Libory Salary
Step
$47,237.36
$38,746.15
$39,595.60
$42,992.31
$33,650.55
$39,595.60
$42,992.31
$49,786.81
$48,937.36
$41,293.41
$39,595.60
$52,336.26
$52,602.20
$44,690.11
$38,746.15
$34,782.42
$40,443.96
$37,896.70
$35,915.38
$42,107.45
$30,536.26
$28,838.46
$44,690.11
$40,443.96
$46,389.01
$38,746.15
$35,349.45
$37,896.70
$41,293.41
$37,047.25
$48,086.81
$39,029.67
$42,142.86
$44,690.11
$36,481.32
$49,786.81
$37,896.70
$39,595.60
$49,786.81
$41,293.41
$42,107.45
$40,443.96

M+24 / 20
M+24 / 10
M / 11
M+24 / 15
M/4
M+8 / 11
M / 15
M+24 / 20
M / 20
M / 13
M / 11
M / 20
B+24 / 18
M / 17
M+24 / 10
B+24 / 6
M / 12
M/9
B+16 /8
M/9
B/3
B/1
M+24 / 17
M+24 / 12
M+24 / 19
M+8 / 10
M/6
M+24 / 9
M+24 / 13
M/8
M+24 / 20
B / 12
M / 14
M+24 / 17
B / 10
M+24 / 20
M/9
M / 11
M+24 / 20
M / 13
M/9
M / 12

2017-18
Freeburg EL
Salary

2017-18
Smithton
Step

2017-18
Smithton
Salary

$82,497.00
$65,785.00
$64,418.00
$74,034.00
$53,324.00
$65,430.00
$70,697.00
$82,497.00
$79,160.00
$67,558.00
$64,418.00
$79,160.00
$68,765.00
$74,237.00
$65,785.00
$51,475.00
$65,988.00
$60,995.00
$53,239.00
$67,772.22
$44,749.00
$42,250.00
$77,573.00
$69,324.00
$80,820.00
$63,460.00
$56,597.00
$64,322.00
$70,894.00
$59,522.00
$82,497.00
$57,382.00
$69,128.00
$77,573.00
$54,162.00
$82,497.00
$60,995.00
$64,418.00
$82,497.00
$67,558.00
$67,772.22
$65,988.00

M+24 / 19
M+24 / 9
M / 10
M+24 / 14
M/3
M+8 / 10
M / 14
M+24 / 22
M / 21
M / 12
M / 10
M / 22
B+24 / 18
M / 16
M+24 / 9
B+24 / 5
M / 11
M/8
B+16 / 7
M/8
B/2
B/1
M+24 / 16
M+24 / 11
M+24 / 18
M+8 / 9
M/5
M+24 / 8
M+24 / 12
M/7
M+24 / 20
B / 12
M / 13
M+24 / 16
B/9
M+24 / 22
M/8
M / 10
M+24 / 22
M / 12
M/8
M / 11

$73,398.90
$61,213.19
$59,574.73
$67,237.36
$50,137.36
$60,349.45
$64,152.75
$77,537.36
$73,072.53
$61,829.67
$59,574.73
$74,450.55
$64,064.84
$66,175.82
$61,213.19
$48,189.01
$60,665.93
$56,680.22
$49,625.27
$62,978.02
$39,879.12
$38,418.68
$69,261.54
$63,751.65
$72,018.68
$58,902.20
$53,058.24
$59,764.84
$64,913.19
$55,232.97
$74,780.22
$52,673.63
$62,991.21
$69,261.54
$49,632.97
$77,537.36
$56,680.22
$59,574.73
$77,537.36
$61,829.67
$62,978.02
$60,665.93

Highest
Highest Salary District
$87,035.16
$65,785.00
$64,418.00
$75,076.92
$53,324.00
$65,430.00
$70,697.00
$87,035.16
$79,649.45
$67,558.00
$64,418.00
$89,889.29
$89,285.49
$74,237.00
$65,785.00
$51,475.00
$65,988.00
$60,995.00
$53,239.00
$67,772.22
$44,749.00
$42,250.00
$79,649.45
$69,324.00
$84,500.00
$63,460.00
$56,597.00
$64,322.00
$70,894.00
$59,522.00
$87,035.16
$57,382.00
$69,128.00
$79,649.45
$54,162.00
$87,035.16
$60,995.00
$64,418.00
$108,378.52
$67,558.00
$67,772.22
$65,988.00

F - HS
F - EL
F - EL
F - HS
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - HS
F - HS
F - EL
F - EL
F - HS
F - HS
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - HS
F - EL
F - HS
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL
F - HS
F - EL
F - EL
F - HS
F - EL
F - HS
F - EL
F - EL
F - HS
F - EL
F - EL
F - EL

Individual
Difference
$0.00
$1,022.36
$3,372.95
$0.00
$3,688.84
$2,554.18
$1,990.41
$0.00
$0.00
$2,795.36
$3,372.95
$0.00
$0.00
$1,346.89
$1,022.36
$1,324.45
$3,112.18
$3,454.34
$1,584.05
$3,838.15
$2,749.00
$2,660.99
$0.00
$617.41
$0.00
$2,414.95
$3,939.86
$1,446.18
$126.97
$3,657.16
$0.00
$938.04
$2,422.51
$0.00
$2,507.05
$0.00
$3,454.34
$3,372.95
$0.00
$2,795.36
$3,838.15
$3,112.18

$2,829,329.12

Estimated Total on Highest Salary System

$2,903,861.65
$74,532.53

Estimated Salary Difference Incentive
Check

Freeburg HS total teaching staff
Less part-time
Freeburg HS full-time teaching staff

42
0
42

Estimated Full-Time Administration
Estimated total Full-Time Certified Staff

4
46

$74,532.53

99

 TABLE: 23 $4,000 PER CERTIFIED STAFF
ESTIMATED $4,000 per Certified Staff Incentive
St Libory Cons SD 30 / Freeburg CCSD 70 / Smithton CCSD 130 / Freeburg CHSD 77
Consolidation into Unit District

The below are estimates only. Final incentives will change based on the number of qualified staff employed by the reorganized district(s

District
St Libory Cons SD 30
Freeburg CCSD 70
Smithton CCSD 130
Freeburg CHSD 77

Enrollment*

RCDT Code

87
771
518
661
2,037

50-082-0300-03
50-082-0700-04
50-082-1300-04
50-082-0770-16

# Certified
Staff

Certified
Staff

8
50
39
46
143

$572,000

Grand
Total

a

$1,716,000

$4,000 per Certified Staff Incentive is payable 1, 2, or 3 years based on the reorganized district's rank in EAV/Pupil and ADA.
Payment(s) start after the first complete year of reorganization and are flexible from year to year depending on the number of qualified staff
Actual incentive is based on the number of full-time, certified (licensed) staff employed in the reorganized district.
Estimate is the number of full-time teachers from information submitted by districts for the Salary Incentive estimates plus the number
of full-time administrators from ISBE's Employment Information System (EIS) for the 2016-17 school year.
No annexing or resulting district shall be entitled to this payment unless such district acquires at least 30% of the ADA of the district being
annexed.
a

Based on estimated rank in EAV/Pupil and ADA, this reorganization estimated to receive incentive payment(s) for 3 years.
143 x $4,000

NOTE: Above estimates assume staffing levels of new district to be the same as the combined staffing levels of the original districts.
The estimates do not take into account potential increase or decrease of staff levels due to the reorganization.
*Total number of students - based on 2016-17 school year Fall Enrollment Counts

100

 TABLE: 24 QUINTILE RANKS
ESTIMATED Quintile Ranks for $4,000 per Certified Staff Incentive
St Libory Cons SD 30 / Freeburg CCSD 70 / Smithton CCSD 130 / Freeburg CHSD 77
Consolidation into Unit District

The below are estimates only. Final incentive will change based on the applicable data for computing quartile ranks
used at the time of the reorganization.
2015 EAV from FY 18 EBF and 2016-17 ADA -- high school district EAV used as EAV for unit district
Estimated EAV / Pupil = $252,529,972 / 1,977.06 = $127,730 = 3rd Quintile
Estimated ADA = 1,977.06 = 2nd Quintile
Unit School Districts
Quintile
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th

EAV / Pupil
$166,269 and above
$131,066 to $164,975
$106,346 to $130,953
$82,156 to $106,254
$81,815 and below

Reorganized District's Rank in EAV / Pupil by
Quintile

1st Quintile
2nd Quintile
3rd Quintile
4th Quintile
5th Quintile

ADA
2,218.97 and above
1,031.22 to 2,210.42
634.27 to 1,029.52
399.06 to 630.45
395.18 and below

Reorganized District's Rank in ADA by Quintile
3rd/4th/5th
Quintile
1st Quintile
2nd Quintile
1 Year
1 Year
1 Year
1 Year
2 Years
2 Years
2 Years
3 Years
3 Years
2 Years
3 Years
3 Years
2 Years
3 Years
3 Years

Incentive estimated payable for 3 Years.

101

 TABLE: 25 SUMMARY OF INCENTIVE PAYMENTS
ESTIMATED Summary of Incentive Payments
St Libory Cons SD 30 / Freeburg CCSD 70 / Smithton CCSD 130 / Freeburg CHSD 77
Consolidation into Unit District

The below are estimates only. Final incentives will change based on the actual information at the time of final calculation.

St Libory Cons SD 30
Freeburg CCSD 70
Smithton CCSD 130
Freeburg CHSD 77

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

4 Year
Total

$0
$495,509
$0

$0
$495,509
$572,000

See Note Below
$0
$495,509
$572,000

$0
$495,509
$572,000

$0
$1,982,036
$1,716,000

$495,509

$1,067,509

$1,067,509

$1,067,509

$3,698,036

Year 1
EBF Difference Incentive
Deficit Fund Balance Incentive
Salary Difference Incentive
$4,000 per Certified Staff Incentive
Total

NOTE: All payments of Reorganization Incentives subject to yearly adequate appropriations by the General Assembly -- less than
full appropriations would result in proration of incentive payments

NOTE: Estimates for the Evidence-Based Funding (EBF) Difference Incentive unable to be calculated at this time.

102

 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REVIEW
The revenue and expenditures of each of the school districts were examined to determine the present
fiscal functional capacity related to deficit or non-deficit operational status. It is important to note that in the
process of fiscal planning it is not unusual for a school district to enter into deficit spending. When a district
is committed to providing the highest quality education for all students it may require the utilization of
surplus funds to provide for their programs.

TABLE 26 PRESENT REVENUE/EXPENDITURE SUMMARY JULY 2017
REVENUE/EXPENDITURE SUMMARY JULY 2017
St. Libory CCSD #30

July

Ed Fund

O/M Fund

Trans

REVENUE

653,500

65,550

37,400

Working
Cash
6405

EXPENDITURE

571,837

60,550

63,600

0

EXCESS/OVER

81,663

5,000

-26,200

6,405

July

Ed Fund

O/M Fund

Trans

REVENUE

3,405,199

304,074

147,043

Working
Cash
47,256

EXPENDITURE

3,617,974

301,750

191,850

0

EXCESS/OVER

-212,775

2,324

-44,807

47,256

July

Ed Fund

O/M Fund

Trans

REVENUE

4,437,801

768,451

400,954

Working
Cash
89,938

EXPENDITURE

5,094,134

759,074

466,499

0

EXCESS/OVER

-656,333

9,377

-65,545

89,938

July

Ed Fund

O/M Fund

Trans

REVENUE

5,874,760

832,842

403,528

Working
Cash
132,363

EXPENDITURE

5,674,188

886,730

510,771

0

EXCESS/OVER

200,572

-53,888

-107,243

132,363

July

Ed Fund

O/M Fund

Trans

1,970,917
2,008,104
-37,187

988,925
1,232,720
-243,795

Smithton CCSD # 130

Freeburg CCSD #70

Freeburg HSD #77

TOTALS ALL DISTRICTS

REVENUE
14,371,260
EXPENDITURE 14,958,133
EXCESS/OVER
-586,873

Working
Cash
275,962
0
275,962
103

 TABLE 27 PROJECTED REV/EXPENDITURE SUMMARY JULY 2022
REVENUE/EXPENDITURE SUMMARY JULY 2022
St. Libory CCSD #30
686,175

O/M
Fund
68,828

39,270

Working
Cash
6,725

EXPENDITURE

606,147

64,183

67,416

0

EXCESS/OVER

80,028

4,645

-28,146

6,725

July

Ed Fund

REVENUE

Trans

Smithton CCSD # 130
3,745,719

O/M
Fund
334,481

161,747

Working
Cash
51,982

EXPENDITURE

3,762,693

322,873

205,280

0

EXCESS/OVER

-16,974

11,609

-43,533

51,982

July

Ed Fund

REVENUE

July

Ed Fund

REVENUE

Trans

Freeburg CCSD #70

5,236,605

O/M
Fund
906,772

473,126

Working
Cash
106,127

EXPENDITURE

5,297,899

812,209

499,154

0

EXCESS/OVER

-61,294

94,563

-26,028

106,127

July

Ed Fund

REVENUE

Freeburg HSD #77

Trans

6,932,217

O/M
Fund
982,754

476,163

Working
Cash
156,188

EXPENDITURE

5,901,156

922,199

531,202

0

EXCESS/OVER

1,031,061

60,554

-55,039

156,188

Trans

TOTALS ALL DISTRICTS

O/M
Working
Trans
Fund
Cash
REVENUE
16,600,716 2,292,834 1,150,306 321,022
EXPENDITURE 15,567,895 2,121,464 1,303,051
0
EXCESS/OVER 1,032,821
171,370 -152,746 321,022
July

Ed Fund

104

 The following assumptions were made in consideration of the projected revenues and expenditures:
1. Generally, a 3% inflation factor is used in projecting 2018-2019 through 2021-2022 revenues and
expense. However, due to recent change to the Evidence Based Funding model it is difficult to predict
the increase in state dollars to the budget.
2. A 1.15 increase was added for local sources and a 1.04% increase in expenditures was considered.
3. A significant consideration is the vigilant awareness of the district’s adequacy targets under the new
EBF Model.
4. The projected revenue assumes no significant changes in equalized assessed valuation.
5. The projected revenue assumes a modest increase in student enrollment.
6. Local, state, national and international economic situations are volatile, causing these projections to be
broad estimates useful for discussion purposes.
7. The incentive revenue calculations would be added to the revenue for the years following the official
reorganization of the districts into a single operational unit. Please note that the new revenue is only
for four years and that additional expenditures related to salaries will be the sole responsibility of the
new district following the final year of incentive revenue.

EBF Difference Incentive
Deficit Fund Balance Incentive
Salary Difference Incentive
$4,000 per Certified Staff Incentive
Total

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

4 Year
Total

$0
$495,509
$0

$0
$495,509
$572,000

See Note Below
$0
$495,509
$572,000

$0
$495,509
$572,000

$0
$1,982,036
$1,716,000

$495,509

$1,067,509

$1,067,509

$1,067,509

$3,698,036

It is difficult to make fiscal projections presently in Illinois due to the inconsistent allocations of new
dollars by the legislature. We offer another scenario to assist with the fiscal projections of a new district
based on limited growth in state and local funding but with the inclusion of State Incentive dollars. Please
note that the districts in this study are not subject to the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law.

105

 TABLE 28 PROJECTED REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ESTIMATES 2017-18 TO 2023-24

PROJECTED FISCAL ESTIMATES FOR THE NEW DISTRICT
FISCAL YEARS

ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
EXCESS / ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
TOTAL LOCAL TOTAL STATE FEDERAL
STATE
TOTAL
TOTAL
UNDER
EAV
TAX RATE
REVENUE
REVENUE
REVENUE INCENTIVE REVENUE EXPENDITURES
14,371,000

3,879,000

993,000

0

19,243,000

19,972,000

-729,000

274,350,000

15,036,840

3,956,580

1,007,895

0

20,001,315

20,357,500

-356,185

275,400,000

5.46

15,337,577

4,035,712

1,023,013

495,509

20,891,811

21,345,955

-454,144

280,908,000

5.46

15,644,328

4,116,426

1,038,359

1,067,509

21,866,622

20,919,036

947,586

286,526,160

5.46

2021-2022 NEW DIST.

15,957,215

4,198,754

1,053,934

1,067,509

22,277,412

21,128,226

1,149,186

292,256,683

5.46

2022-2023 NEW DIST.

16,276,359

4,282,729

1,069,743

1,067,509

22,696,341

21,339,509

1,356,832

298,101,817

5.46

2023-2024 NEW DIST.

16,601,886

4,368,384

1,085,789

0

22,056,060

21,552,904

503,156

304,063,853

5.46

2017-2018 EXISTING
2018-2019 EXISTING
2019-2020 NEW DIST.
2020-2021 NEW DIST.

•
Please note the projections in Table 28 are based on the following assumptions:
1. The general estimations used the baseline data from the 2017-2018 fiscal year.
2. It assumes that a new district is formed beginning with the 2019-2020 academic school year.
3. The EAV is calculated to increase at a rate of 2% per year.
4. The total expenditures are projected to increase at 1% per year.
5. The estimated local tax rate is estimated at $5.46
6. The state revenue will show minimal increases under the EBF model.
7. The federal funds are projected to increase at 1.5% per year.
8. It assumes that staffing positions will be reduced beginning with the 2020-21 academic year.
9. The state incentive revenue is added beginning with the 2019-2020 fiscal year and provides additional
revenue through 2022-23.
10. Beginning with the 2023-2024 fiscal year no incentive money will be available to support the
budgetary needs of the district.
Once again, I must caution that after the fourth year this revenue will no longer be available. It is
important not to establish a reliance on these dollars. Budget wisely and utilize the incentive revenue in a
manner that it will assure the success of the new district.
106

 FINANCIAL CONCLUSIONS:
The financial projections for each of the four school districts indicate that each district will continue to
see increases in the local revenue due to the projected increases in the EAV. It is difficult to predict the
revenue from the State. The Evidence Based Funding (EBF) Model provides an excellent equitable
format for calculating the distribution of funds to the school districts. However, the formula is dependent
on the State Legislature allocating additional funds each year more than the previous funding levels for
the EBF model to work.
The expenditures will continue to increase as the school district deal with contract-based salary increases
and the inflationary cost of supplies and materials.
Based on the fiscal review it is projected that the reorganization of the school districts into a single unit
will provide a more efficient operational platform for the educational programs. Based on the
assumptions this projected scenario indicates that the newly organized district could move out of deficit
spending beginning with the 2020-2021 academic year.

107

 REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The process of reviewing school districts for potential reorganization and consolidation can be
a challenging as well as an emotional pursuit. The review of the possible merger of the four school
districts into a single unit district was the direction given for this study. Information to support this
study was solicited and gleaned from each of the districts involved, as well as from the Regional
Office of Education and the Illinois State Board of Education. A community meeting was held to
determine the attitude of the public and to respond to questions related to the possible reorganization
effort. Special thanks are extended to the Boards of Education, the Administration, the staff of the
schools involved in the study, the Illinois State Board of Education, and the Regional Office of
Education.
It should be noted that the establishment of a new school district is an option that can be
pursued by a local Board of Education. The Boards must first approve a petition asking permission to
pursue the reorganization of the school districts. Approval of the petitions must be received from the
Regional Office of Education and ultimately the State Superintendent of Schools. Once the petitions
have been approved the Boards of Education can then appoint a “Committee of Ten” who will
carefully review the study and establish the public referendum question seeking approval from the
registered voters of the districts to establish the reorganized option. The pursuit of a new unit district
can also be initiated by a group of individuals who come together as a “Committee of Ten” desiring to
reorganize the existing school districts.
The investigators feel very strongly that all four boards of education should engage in a serious
review of this feasibility study and if necessary investigate further to gain a clear perspective on the
possibilities that reorganization might provide to the districts. It is recommended that the stakeholders
of the districts be actively invited to participate in the review and decision-making process of this
pursuit.

108

 The consideration for reorganization is prompted by a variety of conditions and issues that
affect the school districts and their communities. In this study an effort was made to examine each of
the issues and to identify the compelling reasons to investigate the possibility of school district
reorganization. The following options are presented for review and consideration:

109

 Option 1:
All four districts remain as they presently exist maintaining their individual autonomy as a school
district and continue to pursue cooperative programs and efforts to gain maximum efficiency of operation and
maximum opportunities for all students. Review the present needs that exist for each school district and seek
opportunities through cooperative ventures to meet the identified needs of the districts. This should consist of
curricular, extracurricular areas, support functions such as transportation, food service and professional
development opportunities for all staff members.

FREEBURG ELEM SCHOOL K-8
FREEBURG COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL

SMITHTON ELEM SCHOOL K-8

ST. LIBORY ELEM
SCHOOL K-8

Administrative Staffing Recommendation:
Retain the present administrative alignment.

110

 Option 2:
All four districts form into a new PK-12 Unit District under the administrative authority of one newly
elected school board.
St. Libory, Freeburg, and Smithton grade schools will remain K-8 schools.
School boundaries should be adjusted to maximize the utilization of the current facilities of each
elementary building.

FREEBURG ELEM SCHOOL K-8
FREEBURG COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL

SMITHTON ELEM SCHOOL K-8

ST. LIBORY ELEM
SCHOOL K-8

Administrative Staffing Recommendation:
We recommend the appointment of one District Superintendent with the establishment of an Assistant
Superintendent for Curriculum and Personnel. Appoint building principals at Freeburg High, Freeburg
Elementary, Smithton Elementary and St. Libory Elementary.

111

 Option 3:
All four districts form into a new PK-12 Unit District. St. Libory would be closed as a school site.
Students from the former St. Libory district will be distributed to the Freeburg and/or Smithton elementary
schools. New elementary district boundaries will be established, and student assignments to the elementary
schools will be based on the relationship of the student’s residence and the location of the elementary school.
School boundaries must be adjusted to maximize utilization of the current facilities of each elementary
building.

FREEBURG ELEM SCHOOL K-8
FREEBURG COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL

SMITHTON ELEM SCHOOL K-8

Administrative Staffing Recommendation:
We recommend the appointment of one District Superintendent with the establishment of an Assistant
Superintendent for Curriculum and Personnel. Appoint building principals at Freeburg Community High,
Freeburg Elementary, and Smithton Elementary.

112

 Option 4:
A new Hybrid District is formed. Districts 70, 77 and 130 would form a new Unit District
St. Libory Elementary District 30 would remain its own district and students will continue to attend Freeburg
Community High School. Boundaries would be redrawn to maximize the current facilities of Freeburg and
Smithton grade schools. This will require the pursuit of the waiver process.
School boundaries may be adjusted to maximize the current facilities of each elementary building.

NEW UNIT DISTRICT

St. Libory
CCSD 30

Administrative Staffing Recommendation:
We recommend the appointment of one District Superintendent with the establishment of an Assistant
Superintendent for Curriculum and Personnel. Appoint building principals at Freeburg Community High,
Freeburg Elementary, and Smithton Elementary. The option of a Middle School could be established as a
component of the new district.

113

 Option 5:
Please note if St. Libory elects not to participate in any of the options. The remaining three districts
could pursue the ISBE Waiver Process. For example: In this study all four of the districts would have to be
represented on the petition for legislative reorganization options. However, if only three wishes to pursue a
petition, then those three would have to request a waiver. Basically, they would be requesting a waiver out of
the “substantially coterminous” requirement, which is what requires all four to be on the petition. If the three
districts are successful in waiving out of that requirement, then the three districts could advance a petition and
potentially get it to referendum vote (if it gets through all its steps) without including St. Libory.
In this example, Smithton Elementary, Freeburg Elementary, and Freeburg Community High School
would each complete the waiver process and file the same waiver. If approved, it would allow them to pursue
a referendum question with just the three of them, without St Libory being represented on the petition or at
the referendum vote.

The application deadline for the Fall 2018 Waiver Report is Wednesday August 15, 2018.
Applications for modifications of the School Code, or for waivers or modifications of the State Board’s
administrative rules are not subject to the postmark deadlines for waivers of the School Code. However, in all
cases approvals for any of these requests must be granted before the request can be implemented.

Please Note: The process for applying for a modification of the School Code, a waiver of State Board
rules, or a modification of State Board rules is the same process as the one used in applying for a waiver of a
School Code mandate

114

 STUDY RECOMMENDATION:
After much consideration and review the investigators of this study recommend that the school
districts pursue the reorganization of the four school districts into a newly consolidated unit school
district as outlined in Option #2. All four districts form into a new PK-12 Unit District
The investigators recommend that each school district after examining the information
provided in this study pursue the establishment of a petition asking for authority to conduct a public
referendum seeking approval from their constituents to merge the four districts into a single operating
PK-12 Unit school district. Once the petition is approved it is recommended that a Committee of Ten
be selected and immediately begin working on the development of a referendum plan and the planning
for the efficient design and operation of a newly established PK-12 Unit school district.
1.

A Committee of Ten would be established to pursue the development and the design of the
process to establish a new Consolidated Unit School District including the planning and
preparation for the public referendum.

2.

The Committee of Ten would work to provide leadership in the establishment of strategies that
will be utilized to assist the newly formed Board. Actions taken at this time will be critical to the
long-term solvency and integrity of the newly formed school district. The Committee of Ten
would need to review thoroughly the financial issues related to the proposed new district. They
will be responsible for helping to determine the new tax rate and begin the planning for long term
fiscal issues. The new board will be charged with the responsibility of maintaining a balanced and
protective interest for all stakeholders of the newly developed district.

3. The boundary for the new Unit School District would be established by combining the present
boundaries of Freeburg Elementary District No. 70, Smithton Elementary District No.130, St.
Libory Elementary District No. 30 and Freeburg Community High School District No.77.

115

 GENERAL QUESTIONS REGARDING CONSOLIDATIONS
1. In general, what is the process for undertaking a school district reorganization?
A feasibility study may be conducted to assess options, or data may be gathered
less formally by school boards or interested citizens
• A petition is filed with the appropriate regional office of education
• The regional office publishes notice of a hearing
• A hearing is held to consider the petition
• The regional superintendent decides to approve or deny the petition
• The State Superintendent reviews the information from the local hearing and makes a
decision to approve or deny the petition
• If approved, the regional superintendent certifies the public question for the ballot
• Citizens vote
2. Who must approve the filing of a petition under Article 11E?
Section 11E-35 provides that a petition shall be filed with the regional superintendent of
schools of the educational service region in which the territory described in the petition or
that part of the territory with the greater percentage of equalized assessed valuation is
situated.
3. Does P.A. 94-1019 change the petition requirements under prior law?
Only minimally. Under Article 11E, petitions must be signed by at least 50 legal resident
voters or 10% of legal resident voters, whichever is less, or approved by the boards of each
affected district. These are the same requirements set forth in three of the School Code
reorganization articles consolidated into 11E. Unit district formations under the prior
Article 11A had the same requirements, but also required the signature of 200 voters in the
territory if the petition was not approved by the boards. While the 200-voter signature
requirement was not carried over to Article 11E for consistency purposes, this is not a
116

 substantial change. Any unit district formation involving four districts will automatically
meet the 200-voter signature requirement, and ISBE had not found the 200-voter signature
requirement to be an impediment to getting a petition on the ballot.
4. What must be included on a petition?
a. A request to submit the proposition at a regular scheduled election
b. A description of the territory comprising the districts proposed to be dissolved and
those to be created
c. The maximum tax rates for various purposes which the proposed district(s) shall be
authorized to levy, with PTELL information if necessary
d. Allocation of supplementary State deficit difference payments among proposed districts
e. Division of assets and liabilities
f. If desired, a request to elect school board members at the same election by separate
ballot
g. If desired, a request that board members for a unit district (other than a partial
elementary unit district) be elected by school board districts rather than at large
h. If desired, a request to submit the format for the election of a new high school board as
part of a unit to dual conversion proposition
i. If desired, a request to submit a proposition by separate ballot for authority to issue
bonds
j. A designation of a committee of ten of the petitioners (Committee of Ten)
5. How are tax rates for the proposed district specified on the petition?
Section 11E-80 distinguishes formation of a district subject to PTELL from a district not
subject to PTELL.
Proposed district not subject to PTELL:

117

 A non-PTELL district, other than a partial elementary unit district ("hybrid district") must
include in the petition:
A. The maximum rates for educational, operations and maintenance, and pupil
transportation purposes, subject to the rate limitations in Sections 17-2 and 17-3; and
B. If the new district wants to secure authority to levy other taxes above the permissive
rates, then those maximum rates must also be included. For example, such additional
levies might be needed for special education, leasing of educational facilities or computer
technology, capital improvement, and fire prevention and safety.
Where a partial elementary unit district ("hybrid district") not subject to PTELL will be
formed, Section 11E-90(b) or 11E-95(b) provides the necessary purposes and tax rate
information. Generally, the petition must include:
A. The maximum rates for both K-8 and 9-12 educational, operations and
maintenance, and special education purposes;
B. The maximum rate for pupil transportation purposes; and
C. If the new district wants to secure authority to levy other taxes above the permissive
rates for unit districts, then those maximum rates must also be included.
6. What is the Committee of Ten? Who is usually included, and how does it
operate?
A committee of ten of the petitioners will be designated in the petition. The Committee of
Ten acts as attorney in fact for all petitioners, may amend the petition in all respects (with
exceptions for increasing or decreasing territory in a unit district formation), and may
make binding stipulations on behalf of all petitioners as to any question with respect to the
petition. While the Committee of Ten technically doesn’t come into existence until
designated in the petition, the reality is most committees form prior to the petition to work
on the items needed in the petition. That committee then becomes the “Committee of Ten”
118

 when it is formally designated in the petition. It is the duty of the petitioners to complete
the items required in the petition. As representatives of all the petitioners, this duty usually
falls to the Committee of Ten. Also, most parents/taxpayers will want to know additional
information regarding the proposed new district(s) such as: curriculum, extra-curricular
offering, facility usage, transportation issues, etc. Most Committees of Ten also formulate
plans for the new district(s) in these areas for presentation at the local hearing and
community and board meetings. Committees of Ten often form sub-committee work
groups to develop these plans as well as the information required for the petition. Usually,
one or two members from the Committee of Ten serve on each sub-committee work group
along with additional community members.
7. What districts have the right to be notified of and vote on a school district
reorganization?
“Affected districts” have the right to be notified of and vote on the reorganization.
Section 11E-10 defines “affected district” as:
Any school district with territory included in a petition for reorganization
under this Article that encompasses (i) 25% or more of the total land area
of the district, (ii) more than 8% of the student enrollment of the district,
or (iii) more than 8% of the equalized assessed valuation of the district.
8. What notices must be given when a petition is filed?
Section 11E-40 states that upon filing of the petition, the regional superintendent shall
cause a copy of the petition to be given to each school board of the affected districts and to
the regional superintendent of any other educational service region in which territory
described in the petition is situated. The regional superintendent also must publish notice
at least once each week for 3 successive weeks in at least one newspaper of general
circulation in the area. The notice shall state when and to whom the petition was presented,
119

 the prayer of the petition, descriptions of the territories proposed to be dissolved and
created, and the day on which the hearing shall be held. If applicable, at the same election
but by separate ballots, the notice also must include the proposition to elect school board
members and any proposition to issue bonds, including the amount and purpose.
9. What are the hearing requirements? Who conducts it and how is it conducted?
No more than 15 days after the last date on which notice was published, the regional
Superintendent with whom the petition is required to be filed shall hold a hearing. Prior to
the hearing, the Committee of Ten shall submit maps showing the districts involved and
other pertinent information. The regional superintendent shall allow for public testimony
on the action proposed in the petition. Any regional superintendent entitled to notice and
any resident or representative of a school district in which any territory described in the
petition is situated may appear in person or through an attorney to provide oral or written
testimony or both. The regional superintendent must arrange for a written transcript of the
hearing. The regional superintendent shall allow for public testimony and shall present or
arrange to have presented the following:
• Evidence as to the school needs and conditions of the affected districts and in the area
Adjacent thereto
• Evidence with respect to the ability of the proposed district(s) to meet ISBE recognition
standards
• A consideration of the division of funds and assets
• A description of the maximum tax rates and if applicable, the specifications related to
PTELL

120

 10. Who must approve the petition prior to it being placed on the ballot? Can these
decisions be challenged in court?
Within 14 days after the conclusion of the hearing, the regional superintendent must
approve or deny the petition through a written order. Failure to act within 14 days shall be
deemed a
Denial. The regional superintendent shall submit the decision and all evidence to the State
Superintendent of Education. The State Superintendent shall review the petition, the record
of the hearing, and the written order (if any). Within 21 days after the receipt of the
regional superintendent’s decision, the State Superintendent shall approve or deny the
petition through a written order. If denied, the State Superintendent shall set forth in
writing the basis for denial. The decision of the State Superintendent is a final
administrative decision subject to the Administrative Review Law. Any resident of any
territory described in the petition that appears in support of or opposition to the petition at
the hearing or any petitioner or any school board of any district in which territory
described in the petition is situated may, within 35 days after receipt of the decision by
certified mail, appeal.
11. Does P.A. 94-1019 eliminate the role for the Regional Board of School Trustees?
The regional board of school trustees does not play a role in the reorganization types
included in Article 11E. It is only involved in detachments and dissolutions under Article
7. P.A. 94-1019 has no impact on its role.
12. Who is responsible for paying the costs associated with reorganization?
The petitioners are responsible for paying the costs of notices and transcripts. Some prior
reorganization articles required these costs to be split with the regional superintendent, but
in Article 11E these costs are placed on the petitioners.

121

 13. What protections are included in P.A. 94-1019 to ensure viable school districts
result from school district reorganizations?
All reorganizations under Article 11E must be approved by a majority vote in each of the
affected districts. In addition, Article 11E has several protections against allowing a
reorganization that will not form a viable district. Both the regional superintendent and the
State Superintendent must approve the petition before it ever gets on the ballot. During this
review, the regional superintendent and State Superintendent must consider the needs of
the proposed districts and the surrounding districts and determine whether viable districts
will result from the reorganization.
14. What are the general election procedures under Article 11E?
Elections are conducted in accordance with the general election law. The regional
superintendent is the election authority who orders the elections and certifies the
reorganization question, candidates for newly created school boards, and a proposition to
issue bonds, if any, to the county clerk for placement on the ballot. When board members
are elected for a new district, the regional superintendent calls the organizational meeting
and certifies the officers.
15. What are the passage requirements for a reorganization question?
For an optional elementary unit district, a majority of the electors voting in the high school
district and a majority of the voters in at least one affected elementary district must vote in
favor of the proposition. For an elementary district electing to join an optional elementary
unit district (opt-in), a majority of the electors voting in that elementary district only is
required. In all other cases under Article 11E, a majority of the electors voting at the
election in each affected district must vote in favor of the proposition.

122

 16. If approved, when does the reorganization go into effect?
The change becomes effective after the time for appeal has run; however, the
administration shall not be affected until the July 1 following the date that the school board
election is held for the new district(s). The effective date for purposes of administration
and attendance may be accelerated or postponed by stipulation and with the approval of
the regional superintendent.
17. What actions can be taken prior to the effective date of the new district?
After the new board has organized and elected officers, but before the effective date of the
reorganization, the new board shall have the following powers if the existing districts so
allow by stipulations approved by the regional superintendent:
• Establish a tax levy
• Enter into agreements for depositing and investing funds
• Conduct a search for a superintendent and enter an employment contract
• Conduct a search for other administrators and staff and enter employment contracts
• Engage the services of accountants, architects, attorneys, and other consultants
• Plan for the administrative transition
• Bargain collectively
• Expend funds from the levy and from the existing districts to meet payroll and other
essential operating expenses
• Issue bonds under Section 17-2.11 (Fire Prevention & Safety)
18. What happens to the tenured teaching staff of districts involved in a
reorganization?
Upon the effective date of a school district reorganization, the positions of tenured teachers
shall be transferred in accordance with Section 24-12. Tenure is not lost and transferred
teachers shall be treated as if they had been employees of the new district during the time
123

 they were employed by the original district. Article 11E also provides specific
requirements in the case of a school district conversion or multi-unit conversion. Positions
of tenured teachers that, during the 5 school years immediately preceding the effective date
of change, were full-time positions in grades 912 shall be transferred to control of the
school board of the high school or combined high school–unit district. Positions of tenured
teachers that, during the 5 years immediately preceding the effective date of change, were
full-time positions in K-8 shall be transferred to the control of the school board of the
newly created successor elementary district. Positions of tenured teachers that were fulltime positions not required to be transferred to either shall be transferred to the control of
whichever of the boards the teacher shall request. If neither the original district nor the
newly created district can stipulate as to where a position is transferred, the regional
superintendent shall make the determination.
19. When districts combine or consolidate, the teaching staffs tend to have their pay
scales equalized by bumping everyone up to the highest-paid district’s level. Are
there any exemptions for these adjustments from the 6% Teachers’ Retirement
System (TRS) cap?
Yes. Newly amended Section 16-158 of the Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/16-158) requires
A teacher’s same employer to pay TRS the present value of the increase in pension
benefits that results from that portion of a salary increase more than 6%.
PLEASE NOTE: The Illinois Senate and House of Representatives have passed a bipartisan
budget bill (HB 3342) that Governor Rauner signed into effect on June 4, 2018. Of
significance to public school districts is language in the bill that decreases the level of
permissible end of career salary increases from 6% to 3% for TRS employees. This means
that any annual increase in total reportable creditable earnings in excess of 3% during the
four-year period used to calculate an educational employee’s retirement annuity (generally the

124

 final four years of employment) will cause the school district to incur a penalty in the form of
additional contribution payments to TRS.

20. Must taxpayers assume the payment of outstanding bonds (long-term debt) of
other districts in a consolidation?
Generally, any long-term debt remains with the taxpayers within the boundary of the
previous district that incurred the debt. But, whenever the entire territory of two or
more school districts is organized into a unit district, the petition may provide that
the entire territory of the new unit district shall assume the bonded indebtedness of
the previously existing school districts.
21. Must taxpayers assume the responsibility for liability payments and other court
actions of other districts in a consolidation?
The responsibility for liability awards and payments resulting from legal litigation
after the reorganization of the school districts will become the responsibility of the
newly organized district. GENERALLY, PRIOR LITIGATIONS AGAINST ONE OR
MORE OF THE FORMER DISTRICTS WOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
THE TAXPAYERS OF THE FORMER DISTRICT HELD LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE LITIGATION. THE STATUS OF LEGAL LITIGATIONS AGAINST ONE
OR MORE OF THE FORMER SCHOOL DISTRICTS SHOULD BE CONFIRMED
BY THE AUTHORITIES OR THE LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF THE
DISTRICTS ENGAGED IN THE REORGANIZATION.
22. How does a school district reorganization impact approved waiver and
modifications?
Newly created districts under Article 11E must apply for waivers and modification
regardless of whether any of the former districts had been previously approved.

125

 FIRST STEPS AND FURTHER QUESTIONS
1. If a school board is interested in exploring reorganization options, what are the
first steps?
The following are suggestions only. Since each school district is unique, how it first
explores reorganization options will vary. A school board should first assess its own
district’s situation to discover which option or options would most benefit the district’s
students, parents, and taxpayers. Inquiry letters could then be sent out to neighboring
districts to gauge interest in reorganization. Interested districts can discuss reorganization
options during board meetings, joint board meetings, community meetings, and/or small
group meetings. Interested districts may also apply for Reorganization Feasibility Study
funding in order to hire a consultant to report on their specific situation. It is best for a
school board exploring reorganization options to continually communicate with its public.
A referendum is more likely to be successful with community buy-in. A board should keep
its local regional superintendent informed of its discussions and progress.
2. If a citizen is interested in exploring reorganization options, what are the first
steps?
The following are suggestions only. Since each school district is unique, how citizens first
explore reorganization options will vary. A citizen should assess his own district’s
situation to discover which option or options would most benefit the district’s students,
parents, and taxpayers. This could be done by gathering information about curriculum,
finances, school buildings, student transportation, extracurricular activities, and the
community’s’ feelings regarding reorganization. Inquiry letters could even be sent out to
neighboring districts to gauge interest in reorganization. Citizens may present the
information gathered to the local school board. If the citizen drive leads to the filing of a

126

 petition for school district reorganization, all requirements of Article 11E must be met, just
as if a school board submitted the petition.
3. Who can I contact for further information?
ISBE provides technical assistance for districts or citizens investigating reorganization
options. ISBE can also send staff members to interested communities to discuss these
options. Questions on School District Reorganization options and process can be addressed
to: Michelle Heninger School Business and Support Services Division Illinois State Board
of Education 217/785-8779 mheninge@isbe.net

127

 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beckner, Weldon, and Linda O'Neal. "A New View of Smaller Schools." NASSP Bulletin 64
(October l980): pp.1-7.
Brantley, William E. "Consolidating High Schools: One District's Answer." Spectrum l (Spring
l983): pp.15-22.
Burlingame, Martin. Declining Enrollments and Small Rural Cities and Districts: An Exploratory
Analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, March 27-3l, l978. ED 151 127.
Carr, P.J., & Kefalas, M. (2010). Reimagining Education in Small Towns. School Administrator, no.5 vol.
37, pp. 30-33
Cuban, Larry. "Shrinking Enrollment and Consolidation: Political and Organizational Impacts in
Arlington, Virginia l973-78." EDUCATION AND URBAN SOCIETY 11 (May l979):367-395.
Greene, Robert T., and others. "Richmond's Progressive Solution to Decling Enrollments." PHI
DELTA KAPPAN 6l (May l980): pp.6l6-6l7.
Kay, Steve. "Considerations in Evaluating School Consolidation Proposals." SMALL SCHOOL
FORUM 4 (Fall l982): pp.8-10.
Malkovich, Becky. “Will Fewer Bucks Mean Fewer School Districts?” Southern Illinoisan 18
April 2010
Ravitch, Diane. "What We've Accomplished Since WWII." PRINCIPAL 63 (January l984): pp.7-13
Classrooms First Commission Web Site – This site is constantly being updated and provides numerous
documents about consolidation.
History of Illinois School Reorganizations 1983-2011 (June 2011.)
Illinois State Board of Education.
School District Reorganization at a Glance (July 2010)
Jessie H. Ruiz and Dr. Christopher Koch. Illinois State Board of Education
Murtaza, Danish. “Too Many School Districts in Illinois? What You Should Know About School
Consolidation.” (January 2018) Better Government Association

128