Kaneland school leaders outline outreach plan for potential referendum, emphasize teacher input and transparency

Kaneland CUSD 302 administrators updated the board on plans to gather community feedback and solidify options for a potential facilities referendum, saying the district will bring a recommendation to the board in time for a January deadline to set the ballot question.

Dr. Rolling, leading the outreach effort, said he has begun contacting village leaders and scheduling building-level meetings to collect input from families, staff and students. He described a plan to survey students (via homeroom), convene teacher and student focus groups, and hold outreach events in each of the district’s seven buildings so stakeholders can state priorities and concerns.

“Who do you want to hear from and what data do you want brought back?” Rolling asked the board, framing the next two to three months as a time to refine what voters will see. He said the referendum planning team will be split into two subgroups — one focused on construction and facility needs, and a second on communications and community engagement — to produce more targeted, timely information for voters.

Susie Axel, president of the Kaneland Education Association, told the board that teachers want two things: meaningful teacher input and clear, specific descriptions of what each referendum project would include. “Be more specific in regards to what that entails,” Axel said, urging administrators to avoid blanket language such as “modernize.” She also asked whether referendum projects might include spaces available for community use that could generate revenue.

Board members pressed administration to present tiered options that show how much of the district’s needs each level of investment would address — for example, a plan that covers roughly 40 percent of needs, another that covers 60 percent, and a larger plan that covers a still greater share. Several trustees recommended presenting concrete tax impacts for typical households and simple monthly or yearly comparisons to make the choice understandable to voters.

Administration acknowledged community confusion after a posted video that illustrated facility needs; several board members said some residents assumed the video represented a finalized project list. Rolling said communications must emphasize that the video was illustrative of needs, not a vote-ready list of projects.

Board members also identified an expected constituency that will insist on a brand-new high school. Rolling and others responded that a new high school is fiscally impractical and explained that some choices (for example, a field house) have knock-on effects for other parts of the high school and district facilities.

No action was taken; the item was informational. Administrators said they will provide monthly updates and return to the board with refined project options, tax-impact illustrations and stakeholder feedback.