Expert: Mobiles in disrepair at U-46 schools
Wheelchair ramps coated with ice. Exits blocked by snow. Walls so rotted you could push a screwdriver through them with little effort.
This was the condition of mobile classrooms in Elgin Area School District U-46 when Edward Kazanjian visited them in December 2008, he testified Monday in federal court.
Monday marked the fifth day of U-46’s federal desegregation trial, now in its second week. A 2005 lawsuit claims U-46 assigned minorities to older, more crowded schools; provided inadequate bilingual services; and denied them access to gifted programs.
The first phase of the trial, which began last week, addresses claims minorities were sent to inferior schools. Later phases of the trial have not been scheduled.
Attorneys suing the district in the class-action suit argue mobile classrooms were a symptom of overcrowding at high-minority schools in U-46 and were inferior to permanent classrooms.
On Monday, Kazanjian, a school facilities expert and former school administrator, testified about the condition of more than 60 mobiles he visited across 22 sites in the district in 2008.
During two hours of testimony, Kazanjian recounted concerns he had with the physical condition and safety of the structures.
“A lot of these buildings were deteriorating exponentially,” he said. “This wood was so soft and rotted ... that I could take my screwdriver and stick it in there with very little effort. I’m confident there is water in those walls, and that’s not a good thing.”
“They painted over a lot of wood that was rotted and deteriorated ... as they say, putting lipstick on a pig,” he said. “A lot of the window latches were broken. They were using sticks to hold the windows closed.”
Kazanjian also said he was surprised by how far many of mobiles were situated from the school building and observed some elementary-age children walking unattended between the school buildings and the mobiles.
During cross examination, U-46 attorneys tried to establish that most of the mobiles Kazanjian visited in 2008 have since been removed. District lawyers also said U-46’s policy was not to assign students with disabilities to mobile classrooms. Witnesses testified earlier in the trial that the youngest students and rookie teachers were generally not assigned to mobiles.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys spent most of the afternoon establishing in detail the credentials of Michael Alves, their expert on student assignment. Alves, a Boston-area educational consultant who literally wrote the book on a popular form of school choice, began to testify that U-46 sited more mobiles at high-minority schools before the trial was convened for the day.
Alves will return to the stand Tuesday morning, with plaintiffs expected to wrap up their case the same day. U-46 could start mounting its defense as soon as Tuesday.