9 candidates vie for 4 seats on Rich Township District 227 Board
Nine candidates, including three incumbents, are seeking election to four 4-year seats on the Rich Township High School District 227 Board April 1.
With proficiency scores across the district consistently below the state average, according to the Illinois State Board of Education, academic improvement is a top priority for many candidates.
Board member Tiffany Taylor, seeking a second term, said the district has provided great facilities for students over the past several years.
After announcing in 2019 it would close Rich East High School in Park Forest, the district poured millions of dollars into renovating its other two schools. The former Rich South, located in Richton Park, reopened as the Fine Arts and Communications Campus, and the former Rich Central in Olympia Fields is now the STEM, or science, technology, engineering and mathematics, campus.
'We're focusing now on the academic side,' Taylor said Monday.
Taylor said the district has made slow progress on academics over the past several years. Between 2020 and 2024, the percentage of ninth graders on track to graduate jumped from 76% to 89%, according to data from ISBE. The 4-year graduation rate also rose from about 82% to 85% during the same period.
The district lags in proficiency scores for English/language arts, math and science, which are assessed each year.
Last year, 10% of Rich Township 227 students were assessed to be proficient in English/language arts, compared to 39% of students across Illinois. In math, about 4% of students were proficient, compared to 28% statewide, and in science, 26% were proficient compared to 53% statewide, ISBE reported.
'We are making strides,' Taylor said. 'It's a slow motion type of thing. It's not something that's going to happen overnight.'
Taylor is running as part of a slate that includes board members Andre Allen and Mia Carter as well as former board member Cheryl Monique Coleman. Taylor said Coleman's former seat was up for election two years ago, but Coleman chose not to seek reelection for personal reasons.
Others seeking election this year include Petrina Bennett-Wilkins, Mason B. Newell, Jasmin S. Ford, Shagmond Lowery and Marla D. Johnson.
Lowery said he is running after a unsuccessful bid to bring a fresh perspective. A Rich Township High Schools alumnus and retired teacher, he said as a board member he would better engage the community in helping students succeed.
Lowery said he worked with neighboring schools to prevent bullying, fighting and school threats via an alert system he developed, MyPAL Schools, to share data on reported incidents. He said he also visits area districts to mentor students and prevent violence.
'The culture has to be changed,' Lowery said about District 227. He said as someone who lives in the community and is active at school events, he believes he has the respect and admiration of many students that will serve him well.
'I'm coming to keep these babies safe — I'm coming to make a difference with school safety,' Lowery said.
Petrina Bennett-Jackson, an alumae, also looks to improve safety and test scores. Bennett-Jackson said Tuesday the board has misplaced priorities and electing her would help fix the district's 'horrible reputation.'
'I would love to have better communication,' Bennett-Jackson said. 'I would love for more people to attend the meetings and speak up on what's going on in the schools and in the community and what we can do to collaborate, to work together.'
Bennett-Jackson said working as a finance director for Cook County puts her in an especially strong position to abate property taxes that have soared to record highs in the south suburbs.
'Our taxes are high, and it's getting out of control,' Bennett-Jackson said. 'You have people moving out of the community. You have businesses moving out of the community, and we need to bring those businesses back.'
She said she would work to get more community grants and bonds to cover district projects rather than relying on homeowners in the community.
Lowery also said he wants to lower taxes for homeowners, and as board member would leverage business partnerships he has developed through MyPAL Schools to bring funding in without relying on homeowners.
Lowery also wants to partner with businesses rather than out-of-state vendors to revitalize and, in turn, benefit the schools.
Taylor said the district has saved homeowners $23 million through state property tax relief grants, which abate $2.5 million each year.
She said as overall costs and worker salaries increase, taxes inevitably go up as well. She said it's important the district continues to be fiscally responsible in order to minimize that extra burden.
Besides Lowery and Bennett-Jackson, district alumni running for board seats are Newell and Ford. The two candidates are running together with goals to similarly foster community engagement, minimize taxes and boost academic achievement.
'We are proud products of this community, and we are deeply invested in its success,' their website states. 'Our unique blend of expertise in education, health care and mental health equips us to tackle the challenges facing our district … Together, we can create a district that reflects the strength and potential of our community.'
Newell, Ford, Coleman, Johnson, Carter and Allen did not respond to requests for comment by the Daily Southtown.
ostevens@chicagotribune.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Regarding the New Wording of Draft Resolutions for the General Meeting of Shareholders Convened on 30 June 2025
AB PST Group (hereinafter, the 'Company'), taking into consideration that: (i) at the extraordinary general meeting of shareholders of the Company, to be held at 10:00 a.m. on 30 June 2025, being convened at the initiative and decision of the Board of the Company, it is intended to consider the issue to delist all the outstanding shares of the Company from trading on the regulated market AB Nasdaq Vilnius (hereinafter, the 'Meeting'); (ii) in its notification about the intention to delist the shares of the Company from trading on the regulated market AB Nasdaq Vilnius the Board of the Company, among other things, recommended to its shareholders, who intend to vote 'for' the decision do delist the shares of the Company from trading on the regulated market AB Nasdaq Vilnius, to provide their draft resolutions on the items of the agenda of the Meeting; (iii) on 28 May 2025 the shareholder of the Company AB 'HISK' (hereinafter, the 'Shareholder') has provided to the Company the draft decisions of the Meeting, which were announced by the Company; (iv) on 9 June 2025, the Shareholder provided one more letter with new draft resolutions of the agenda items of the Meeting (hereinafter, the 'New Draft Resolutions'), whereby, taking into consideration the circumstances, indicated in the letter, offers to the Meeting to foresee higher price of the tender offer aimed at delisting the shares of the Company from trading on the regulated market AB Nasdaq Vilnius than it was offered by the draft decisions, provided on 28 May 2025 (EUR 0.760 instead of EUR 0.735), hereby announces the following New Draft Resolutions for the Meeting, proposed by the Shareholder: 1. Delisting of shares of the Company from trading on the regulated market AB Nasdaq Vilnius. Draft resolution: 1.1. To initiate delisting of all the outstanding shares of the Company and to delist them from trading on the regulated market AB Nasdaq Vilnius. 1.2. Although Article 33(7) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Securities foresees that the shareholders, who voted 'for' the decision to delist the shares of the company from trading on the regulated market are obliged to submit the tender offer aimed at delisting the shares of the company from trading on the regulated market, however, aiming to provide the shareholders with a possibility to vote 'for' this decision without gaining the obligation to submit the tender offer and still maintaining the right to participate in the tender offer and also further maintaining the right to sell the shares held in the Company during the tender offer, to establish that: - only the shareholder of the Company AB 'HISK', having voted 'for' the decision to delist the shares of the Company from trading on the regulated market AB Nasdaq Vilnius, will under the procedure set by legal acts submit the circular of the tender offer aimed at delisting the shares of the Company from trading on AB Nasdaq Vilnius to the Bank of Lithuania for approval and will implement the indicated tender offer for the price, established following the principles, indicated in item 1.3 hereof; - during the effective term of this tender offer, the right, but not the obligation, to sell the shares will be vested in all the shareholders of the Company, except for AB 'HISK'; - the decisions of this general meeting of shareholders of the Company regarding delisting of shares of the Company from trading on the regulated market AB Nasdaq Vilnius and regarding submission and implementation of the related tender offer is valid only if the price of the tender offer is not higher than established by the decision 1.3 of this meeting. 1.3. The price of the tender offer aimed at delisting the shares of the Company from trading on AB Nasdaq Vilnius will be set in accordance with item 1 of paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Securities, which is EUR 0.553, adding 37,5% premium to the fair price, established under these principles, i. e., to set that the tender offer price shall be EUR 0.760 for single share of the Company. 2. Authorizing the manager of the Company. Draft resolution: To authorise and oblige the Manager of the Company (General Manager) with the right to delegate, after the relevant Company's shareholders shall implement the tender offer aimed at delisting the shares of the Company from trading on AB Nasdaq Vilnius, to carry out necessary actions and to submit necessary documents to AB Nasdaq Vilnius on delisting of the shares of the Company from trading on this regulated market. Upon request of the Shareholder, taking into consideration that all the New Draft Resolutions, comply with the drafts, provided on 28 May 2025, only except item 1.3 of the draft resolution, according to which the offered Tender Offer price is increased from EUR 0.735 to EUR 0.760, wherefore the conditions of all the minority shareholders of the Company are being improved during the tender offer (and it would be not beneficial for them to vote for the draft decision dated 28 May 2025 with the lesser price), the Company provides the Meeting for voting with only the New Draft Resolutions, presented by the letter of the Shareholder, dated 9 June 2025, indicated above. The Company also informs that its Management Board does not have and will not provide any alternative draft resolutions to the Meeting on its agenda items. ATTACHED: - Letter of the shareholder AB 'HISK' regarding provision of New Draft Decisions of the Meeting.- General voting ballot. For more information:Tomas StukasManaging Director of AB PST GroupTel.: +370 618 21360 Attachments AB HISK Rastas II (del sprendimu projektu pateikimo) (LT-EN) General ballot paper 2025-06-30 (updated)_ENError in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
£140bn of transport investment missed over last government says new report
The North of England would have received an extra £140 billion in transport investment under the previous government if funding levels had been the same as in London, research has claimed. Independent analysis by think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) looked at Treasury figures between 2009/10 and 2022/23, during which time the Conservatives were in power. It reached the figure, which it said was enough to build seven Elizabeth Lines, by considering the amount of spending per person across the different English regions over that period. While England as a whole saw £592 spent per person each year, London received double that amount with £1,183 spent per person, the IPPR said. The entire North region saw £486 spent per person, with the North East and North West seeing £430 and £540 spent per person respectively. READ MORE: Upgrades to Energy Coast train line 'crucial' for Cumbria | News and Star Cumbrian MPs have called for a 'major upgrade' of the Cumbrian coast train line to help boost economic growth. Former prime minister Rishi Sunak promised to 'upgrade' the energy coast train line linking Carlisle, Workington and Barrow after cancelling the leg of HS2 from Birmingham to Manchester.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump orders Marines to Los Angeles as protests escalate over immigration raids, demonstrating the president's power to deploy troops on US soil
President Donald Trump ordered a contingent of about 700 Marines to Los Angeles on June 9, 2025, in response to what Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth described as 'increased threats to federal law enforcement officers and federal buildings.' This dramatic escalation of the military presence in Los Angeles followed Trump's June 7 order to send about 2,000 National Guard troops into the city. Both measures were Trump's response to what he called 'numerous incidents of violence and disorder' by those protesting his administration's actions rounding up and deporting immigrants in the Los Angeles area. State and local officials decried Trump's actions, with California Gov. Gavin Newsom calling the move 'purposefully inflammatory,' as well as 'an illegal act.' California sued the Trump administration on June 9 to block its deployment of National Guard members. Other critics of Trump's actions said the scale and character of the protests did not warrant such extreme measures. Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with William C. Banks, a scholar of the role of the military in domestic affairs, to understand the extent of a president's power to send American troops to Los Angeles. Can American troops be used inside the country? They can, but it is an extraordinary exercise of authority to use troops domestically. It has rarely been done in the U.S. as a way of responding to a civil disturbance. Congress has delegated that authority of deploying American troops domestically to the president in limited circumstances. Otherwise, the only authority is exercised by governors, who have control of the National Guard. Why was American law set up this way? The U.S. was founded in response to heavy-handed English use of the military by King George to interfere with the civil liberties and rights of the colonists in the lead-up to the American Revolution. So, when the founders created the U.S. Constitution, they were very careful to insert roadblocks that would make it difficult for the government to use troops to carry out its own programs. The country's framers also understood there might be occasions when it would be necessary to use the military domestically. They did a couple of things to control the exercise of military authority. One was to ensure that the commander in chief of the military was a civilian. Second, they gave the authority to call up the National Guard, what was known as the 'militia' in those days, to Congress, not to the president, in order to create a separation of powers. Under what circumstances can the president deploy troops to an American city? Under the Insurrection Act, which was signed into law in 1807, a president can deploy troops during what is called an insurrection, simply meaning when all hell breaks loose. The president can decide that it is 'impracticable,' according to the Insurrection Act, to enforce the laws of the U.S. in a given city, and he may call forth the military or the National Guard to help restore law and order. In order to invoke the Insurrection Act, the president first has to make a proclamation to those he calls the insurrectionists to cease and desist. Unless the alleged insurrectionists immediately do what the president says, the president then has the authority to deploy forces. Trump has repeatedly called the protesters in Los Angeles 'insurrectionists,' but has also walked those remarks back and hasn't made any kind of formal proclamation yet. When Trump ordered California's National Guard members to deploy to Los Angeles on June 7, he did so on a narrow statutory authority to protect federal buildings, properties and personnel that were trying to enforce immigration laws. What is the Posse Comitatus Act and how does it apply to the current situation in Los Angeles? Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878. This act's name derives from an arcane Latin term that means 'the power of the county.' This law establishes a legal presumption in the U.S. that the military, if it is deployed domestically, should not engage in law enforcement. This act is an important part of American law. It means that the military and National Guard are trained on this principle that they are not to engage in domestic law enforcement activities. Those are reserved for police, sheriffs and marshals. Invoking the Insurrection Act is the principal exception to this law. So the Insurrection Act allows the military to act as law enforcement officials? That's right. By invoking the Insurrection Act the military could act as cops and have the right to arrest, investigate and detain civilians, with only the Constitution as a check on its power. This is not a situation that California National Guard members have trained for. They are trained to fight actual wildfires, but this is something entirely different. Are there any legal roadblocks that could curb the president's authority to send U.S. troops to Los Angeles? The short answer to this question is no. Can state governors or other elected officials prevent U.S. troops from being sent to their cities? In many ways that is the main question right now. California's governor, Gavin Newsom, has said that the state doen't need these military forces. Newsom's June 9 lawsuit against the Trump administration argues that the authority over the National Guard is reserved for states, 'unless the State requests or consents to federal control.' That has not happened in this case. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: William C. Banks, Syracuse University Read more: From Kent State to Los Angeles, using armed forces to police civilians is a high-risk strategy Debates over presidential power to suspend habeas corpus resurface in Trump administration In a new era of campus upheaval, the 1970 Kent State shootings show the danger of deploying troops to crush legal protests William C. Banks does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.