Home > United States > Schaumburg, IL > D211 BOE Member Peter R. Dombrowski

D211 BOE Member Peter R. Dombrowski

D211 BOE Member Peter R. Dombrowski

Share

Serving the Community as a Member of the District 211 Board of Education. Pete is a community leader who is familiar with the concept of hard work.

He is willing to work hard on our behalf.

05/27/2026

Should education funds be diverted for this purpose?

(105 ILCS 45/1-17)
Sec. 1-17. Homeless prevention.
(a) If a child is homeless or is at risk of becoming homeless, the school district may:
(1) provide rental or mortgage assistance in such amount as will
allow the child and his or her parent, his or her guardian, or the
person who enrolled the child to remain permanently in their
current living situation or obtain a new living situation;

(2) provide financial assistance with respect to unpaid bills, loans,
or other financial debts that results in housing being considered
inadequate pursuant to Section 1-5 of this Act and the Federal
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act42 USC CHAPTER 119, SUBCHAPTER VI, Part B: Education for Homeless Children and Youths https://share.google/fn5dJbkIBBGpONGfK ; or

(3) provide assistance under both items (1) and (2) of this
subsection (a).

(b) In order to provide homeless prevention assistance under subsection (a) of this Section, a school district shall first make an attempt to provide such assistance through a homeless assistance agency that is part of the Federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act's continuum of care for the area in which the school district is located. If the attempts to secure assistance through the applicable continuum of care are unsuccessful, subject to the limitations specified in Section 29-5 of the School Code, transportation funds under Section 29-5 of the School Code may be used for those purposes.

(c) Prior to providing homeless prevention assistance pursuant to subsection (a) of this Section, a housing plan must first be approved in writing by the school district and the parent, guardian, or person who enrolled the child.

(d) For purposes of this Section: "At risk of becoming homeless" means that documented evidence has been provided by the parent, guardian, or person who enrolled the child that shows that a living situation will, within 8 weeks, cease to become fixed, regular, and adequate and will result in the child becoming homeless within the definition of Section 1-5 of this Act and the Federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. The documented evidence shall include, but need not be limited to: foreclosure notices, eviction notices, notices indicating that utilities will be shut off or discontinued, or written statements from the parent, guardian, or person who enrolled the child, supplemented by financial documentation, that indicate a loss of income that will prevent the maintenance of a permanent living situation.

"Person who enrolled the child" also means an unaccompanied youth. (Source: P.A. 100-332, eff. 8-25-17.)

https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus?DocNum=4137&GAID=18&DocTypeID=HB&SessionID=114&GA=104

Photos from D211 BOE Member Peter R. Dombrowski's post 05/20/2026

https://capitolnewsillinois.com/news/when-the-school-year-ends-their-paychecks-do-too-lawmakers-could-change-that/

So, the state legislature wants to make sure school staff on vacation for the summer continue to get a paycheck.
And according to the article, 93% of that pay will come from the districts. Our district is funded mostly through property taxes.

This is what an unfunded mandate looks like.
Politicians in Springfield are being influenced by unions and lobbyists. You work 12 months a year, pay your property taxes, and the person elected by your neighbors wants to ensure your hard earned money is not used to make sure your kid can write a father's/mother's day card with correct spelling... but wants to use that money to pay for someone's summer vacation.

This is wrong.

More interim docket action 05/15/2026

For those unaware.
A former D211 teacher was terminated in 2020 for comments made on social media.
That case if before the SCOTUS.

I encourage everyone to read the documents and be aware of how these local elections can have significant impacts.

A Closer Look (SCOTUSblog By Kelsey Dallas/May 7, 2026)

Hedgepeth v. Britton
At their next private conference on Thursday, May 14, the justices are expected to address a petition for review involving Facebook posts on Black Lives Matter protests, a community uproar, and competing claims about public school teachers’ free speech rights.

The case, Hedgepeth v. Britton, centers on Jeanne Hedgepeth, who, until 2020, was a social studies teacher at Palatine High School in Illinois. Hedgepeth was fired over Facebook posts she made on May 31 and June 1, 2020, while on vacation in Florida, which referenced protests over George Floyd’s death in police custody.

According to the petition, Hedgepeth shared “pictures of her beachfront view with the caption: ‘I don’t want to go home tomorrow. Now that the civil war has begun I want to move.’” When a Facebook friend commented that she should move, Hedgepeth replied, “I need a gun and training.” Hedgepeth also “reposted a satirical meme that read, ‘Wanna stop the [r]iots? Mobilize the septic tank trucks, put a pressure cannon on em ... hose em down ... the end.’ Hedgepeth added: ‘You think this would work?’” During this period, she also exchanged a series of Facebook comments with a former Palatine student about racism, abortion, and the concept of white privilege.

Hedgepeth’s Facebook was set to private, but her posts and comments quickly spread through the Palatine community. Students, teachers, parents, alumni, and news organizations reached out to the school about Hedgepeth, prompting the school district to release a statement “clarifying that Hedgepeth’s posts ‘do not reflect the values or principles of District 211’ and apologizing ‘for any harm or disrespect that this may have caused,’” according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. In June 2020, school leaders informed Hedgepeth that they would recommend to the school board that she be fired, citing the Facebook posts and “Hedgepeth’s prior disciplinary sanctions and warnings,” including for using profanity in her class. After weighing the issue at two consecutive meetings, the board voted for Hedgepeth to be dismissed.

Hedgepeth asked the Illinois State Board of Education to review the board’s decision and also filed a federal lawsuit against the board and board members who voted in favor of her termination. She alleged that her firing violated the First Amendment’s free speech protections.

In February 2024, a federal district court in Illinois sided with the school board, and the 7th Circuit affirmed that decision last August. First, the 7th Circuit considered whether Hedgepeth’s Facebook posts were a form of protected speech, determining that they were because she was speaking “as a citizen on a matter of public concern.” Then, it considered whether Hedgepeth’s interest in sharing that speech outweighed “the District’s interest in addressing actual disruptions and averting future disruption,” applying the balancing test that was outlined by the Supreme Court in 1968’s Pickering v. Board of Education. The court concluded that “the District’s interest in workplace efficiency outweigh[ed] [Hedgepeth’s] right to speak.”

Hedgepeth has now asked the Supreme Court to review whether the 7th Circuit properly balanced the school district’s interests against her own. According to the petition for review, the lower court, in applying Pickering’s balancing test, should have focused on what, if any, specific impact Hedgepeth’s Facebook posts had on instructional and extracurricular activities at the school, rather than on the general disruption they may have caused in the community. “Whatever latitude public employers may have to restrict speech to avoid genuine workplace disruption, it does not extend to firing employees for engaging in private, off-duty speech simply because school officials must field some complaints from people” who may live near the school but who are not current “students, parents, or faculty,” the petition says.

Initially, the school board and board members named in the lawsuit waived their right to respond to Hedgepeth’s petition for review, but the court requested a response in February. In that response, filed last month, the board emphasized Hedgepeth’s two past suspensions “for profane outbursts at students,” presenting her termination as the culmination of multiple violations of district standards, rather than as a response to only the 2020 Facebook posts. The board further argued, in any event, that the 7th Circuit had properly balanced Hedgepeth’s free speech rights against the school district’s interests as an employer, contending that Supreme Court precedent does not prevent courts from assessing the broader community’s – and not just teachers’ and students’ – response to challenged speech in the process of determining “whether the speech affected the government entity’s ability to provide effective and efficient public services.”

Hedgepeth v. Britton is scheduled to be considered by the justices for the first time at their private conference on Thursday, May 14.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-819.html

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/05/more-interim-docket-action/

More interim docket action Plus, the latest on E. Jean Carroll’s defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump.

05/13/2026

Track and Field Conference.

Claim ownership or report listing
Want your school to be the top-listed School/college in Schaumburg?

Click here to claim your Sponsored Listing.

Location

Schaumburg

Contact the school

Click here to send a message to the school

Website

Address

Schaumburg, IL