by Joann Thomas, Peoria, IL

As a former elected official in Peoria County, I understand the commitment and dedication that public servants must show the people they wish to represent. I believe Jehan Gordon exemplifies what we want our public servants to be. She is young and energetic and ready to get to work solving the many problems our state is facing.

As a member of the Pleasant Hill school board, a retention coordinator at Illinois Central College, and a volunteer mentor in the Peoria high schools Jehan has worked hard to improve our community and provide opportunities for our children. Once elected, Jehan will help to address problems facing our state’s economy, local residents without healthcare, and the issues facing our local schools. Jehan is committed to listening to the people of our region and will fight to ensure our voices are heard in Springfield.

Jehan Gordon is a strong voice that will represent our interests in Springfield. I hope you will join me in supporting her this November.

This letter came from an anonymous West Peoria resident who wanted to express concern and thanks:

I write this in regards to the attractive residential areas of West Peoria. I have for the past ten years gone to City Hall and called many, many times to complain about the property at 2820 West Rohman. Nothing was ever done.

A few weeks ago, a few gentlemen appeared and filled a dumpster with debris such as shrubs, trees, bushes, weeds, etc. and there stood a house!

My point here is to say no thanks to West Peoria, this property is going to look like an attractive residential area – after only ten years or more.

by Dolores M. Klein, for Peoria National Organization for Women

In July of 1980 at a Rally labeled Pro-Family by the sponsoring California arm of the Moral Majority, Conservative Caucus leader Howard Phillips (still active today) railed against government policies he felt were anti-family. The major result, in his eyes, “has been the liberation of the wife from the leadership of the husband …..” He went on to say: “You know it used to be that in recognition of the family as the basic unit of society, we had one family, one vote.” He decried the idea of one person, one vote as women being liberated from the leadership of the husband politically! It’s well-known that at a Houston Women’s Rally, a group of Utah delegates were urged to call for nullifying the 19th Amendment giving women the vote.

Sobering history, though today the acceptance of Suffrage for women is undergirded by the number of women holding elective public office and a woman being a viable candidate for President. But MORE equal is not equal.

Perseverance, dedication, and commitment by men and women willing to work tirelessly for equality began in Revolutionary times, with Abigail Adams and her family. In July 1848, at the first Women’s Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, N.Y., one hundred men and women signed the Declaration of Sentiments, including anti-slavery leader, Frederick Douglas who supported the then unpopular proposal of women voting.

It is frustrating for those of us who learned to support human rights in our Christian religions; to still be told that it is God’s will that we accept inequality. I deny that Jesus came to take on maleness; he came to take on human nature. Elizabeth Cady Stanton said it well: “The great spirit of the universe is not responsible for any of these absurdities.”

At the behest of Rep. Bella Abzug in 1971, the U.S. Congress designated August 26th as Women’s Equality Day. The observance not only commemorates the 1920 passage of the 19th Amendment, granting women the right to vote but calls attention to the continuing efforts toward full equality.

When Alice Paul was asked why, after her final success gaining Suffrage, she entered the Equal Rights Amendment for Ratification in 1923; she said that when you put your hand to the plough, you don’t take it off until the end of the row. With Susan B. Anthony, the Napoleon of the Suffrage Movement, we say: “Never another season of silence.”

by Sharon Crews, West Peoria, IL

District #150 has too many “irons in the fire,” and the latest—the Wacky Wednesday plan to cut 90 minutes from the primary school day to give teachers a common prep period has been deemed “legal,” but it certainly isn’t “right” for students.

District Watch, whose efforts against the earlier 45-minute per day plan were successful, is continuing its efforts to oppose the Wednesday plan.

Superintendent Ken Hinton did not admit to being swayed by the group or public opinion. According to board minutes, he scraped the 45-minute-per-day plan “because the initial plan as brought forward and supported by the Board could cause a financial hardship for our families.” He failed to acknowledge that the old plan (and the new plan) would shortchange students educationally.

As a retired Manual teacher and a member of the District Watch group, I beg the readers to call or send e-mails to board members Gorenz, Ross, Spangler, and Wolfmeyer to ask that one of them—that’s all that’s needed, just one, to reverse the Wednesday decision—to make a motion to call for a new vote on this plan.

Even though school starts in a month, the work of implementing this plan is barely underway. Frankly, at any point between now and August 26, reverting to last year’s full-day Wednesday schedule would be far easier than implementing the new schedule. At the July 7 board meeting, Hinton implied that implementation would be carried out by principals, who are just returning to work, and by teachers, who arrive when school starts.

Hinton also indicated that individual principals would also be responsible for finding activities “to utilize the time in the most effective way to see that the students are engaged.” I don’t believe any decision has been made as to what these activities will be or whether or not these activities will be for all children ousted from school early, for just the students at Title I schools, for just students whose parents can afford to pay for afterschool programs, or for the students who are just hanging around school with no place to go.

The original shortened-day plan was to be a cost-cutting measure. The new plan is anything but a money saver especially since Hinton has announced that he has contacted and plans to hire an overseer (another highly-paid administrator) to insure the plan’s success.

Absolutely no one who has opposed the plan is against common planning time for teachers. However, Hinton has consistently made public statements that indicate that he considers an argument against a shortened day to be an argument against common planning time.

Even though Hinton has continuously touted the educational importance of lengthening both the school day and the school year, he justifies his current change of mind by saying that adding the time to the teachers’ day would cost money.

The money issue is an important one to taxpayers and to teachers. The district pays teachers at the Edison schools extra for a longer day that includes common planning time. Next year’s Manual teachers will be paid over $6,000 each for this extra time to collaborate. The same is proposed for the new Glen Oak and Harrison Schools.

Doesn’t it seem fair either to end the longer teacher day and extra pay for teachers at those schools or to extend the same time and financial benefits to the teachers at all District #150 schools? However, the issue of common planning time and compensation should be worked out during next year’s negotiations with teachers. Students should not be “caught in the crossfire” with a loss of instructional time.

Hinton has continually ignored all the offered suggestions to find time within the present school schedule for common planning time. The opposition has continually asked that efforts be made by teachers in 2008-2009 to experiment with common planning in time already available and to offer suggestions to help the central administration and board to set up a well-thought out proposal for the 2009-2010 school year. Imagine that!

Hinton has come very close to guaranteeing that this plan will result in immediate improvement in test scores, etc. What if this common planning period does not result in a significant rise in AYP scores? Will the teachers be blamed as they were at the “old” Manual? Will next year’s scores at Manual go up because its “new” teachers will be paid over $6,000 for the added collaboration time? Loucks Edison had the common prep time—not a “miracle cure,” was it?

Surely, no one believes that teachers can teach all the same material that was taught last year—while losing this large chunk of time this year (54 hours per grade level—216 total). Yet Hinton has not acknowledged that curriculum changes are needed to eliminate material or to move it from one grade level to the next. More than likely, teachers will be held accountable for the same material they taught last year.

Union leadership has been strangely quiet on this issue. Hinton has intimated that the union is pleased with this decision. Personally, I don’t believe that teachers, in general, favor the plan.

Please, those of you Peorians and West Peorians—whether you have children in District #150 schools or not, e-mail or phone Hinton and board members to let your voices be heard.

In November, a new administration will take office. Whether it is led by the Democratic or the Republican candidates now seeking office, it is the duty of American citizens to hold the new leaders of our beloved Country to an important mission, restoring the balance between the three branches of Government.

In order to direct our leaders, the trio of books written by John Dean are MUST reading for all of us; Conservatives Without Conscience, Worse Than Watergate, and Broken Government. The ghost of Barry Goldwater will haunt this country until his honor as the father of modern Conservatism is restored.

By Dolores M. Klein
Peoria, IL

In the recent spate of national and local news concerning women teachers being sexually involved with young make students, a recurring question arises: isn’t there gender “discrimination” in the public’s reactions and in the legal sanctions involved? There’s no question that there’s been a detrimental long-standing attitude on the part of the public. Remember such movies as Summer of ‘42, which perpetuated the stereotypical “a consummation devoutly to be wished” sexual initiation idea.

But evidently forgotten in all the reaction and discussion in recent months, is the disastrous Supreme Court Decision some twenty years ago, with Chief Justice Rehnquist leading the vote, which said that Statutory Rape Laws were chiefly intended to protect girls. He clarified it by saying that it was because girls could become pregnant.

Most feminists were outraged at the time, as many of us have sons as well as daughters. Since then, the states have had to deal with protecting young boys as best they can.

– Dolores M. Klein