Julie Gottshall, Richard Hegg, Christine Letchinger, and John Marozsan.

Their profiles are posted on the caucus website at:

   www.lbschoolcaucus.org/candidates.html

You are encouraged to visit the site for more information about them and their qualifications. We believe you will be impressed, as we are, with the credentials they bring to the challenge at hand.

It is vital for all voters to understand the fiscal and educational performance of the past four years and prior, in order to cast an informed vote in this highly important election. Indicated below are some of the “scorecard” elements for which the current incumbent candidates are accountable:

• District spending per student has advanced to over $19,000 per student for the 2012-13 school year. The Chicago Tribune reported last October that Lake Bluff was the 3^rd highest in % increase per student in the state, from 2005-06 through 2010-11.

• Middle School math performance as measured by state ISAT testing, reports Lake Bluff ranking as follows, for school years 2008/09 and 2011/12

Year             Grade           State Rank  

2008/09          7th                 198 of 1355            

                   8^th                  449 of 1355

2011/12           7^th                 619 of 1386             Source: www.schooldigger.com

                    8^th                 459 of 1386

7^th grade results have regressed in the past four years, 8^th grade has made no progress. By any standard that is dismal, yet the incumbents declared themselves at a recent candidate’s forum, as “pleased” with science and math testing results. What would it take to be embarrassed?

• The LB Math curriculum has allowed for only 40 minutes per class of math instruction. Just this week, the district announced to parents that math instruction classes would be increased to 60 minutes. The ISAT deficiency has been known and declining for years. Why such inaction while our students are insufficiently prepared to advance and compete at the high school level?

• In the face of declining enrollment, the board approved an expense budget increase of over $1 million, or 9.1%, compared to FY 2012 actual expenditures. Notable increases are $203K in Benefits, $185K for Services, and $304K in Supplies. At what level would the incumbents independently recognize a fiscal model that is unsustainable, and impose spending constraints of their own initiative? We can’t afford to wait and find out.

Follow-up messages to this will address further deficiencies, including approval of a debt structure for construction of the new elementary school that dramatically escalates the debt service obligation starting in 2016. This “creative” financing was adopted by the board in 2008 and 2010 to temporarily fulfill a “no increase in taxes” promise, in order to secure referendum approval for the new construction. This matter deserves further explanation, and will be forthcoming shortly.

For those interested in obtaining a ballot by mail and for early voting, please visit