4 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Tired Evanston Parent's avatar

Never consider sunk costs. But the D65 board is going to cling to sunk cost fallacy until the district is taken over. By then, we’ll have spent several more millions on a school that won’t be built.

Expand full comment
Chatty's avatar

I have to agree, this is a prime example of the sunk cost fallacy. Don’t wring hands about money already wasted- think seriously about how to best improve district academics, finances, and democratic processes. If the financial consultant is advising to pause construction, that should be on the table.

Expand full comment
Frustrated's avatar

Correct. Yes, it is expensive to cancel the school but not to the tune of $48 million expensive. Soo La Kim's argument of we can spend millions to cancel a school or spend millions to have a new school is comparing apples to oranges.

Also, the board saying that the new school isn't the cause of the financial mess but yet failing to acknowledge what is. Ugh.

Expand full comment
Tom Hayden's avatar

I think that's a very fair criticism and I got the sense that is the next step, asking "if not Foster School, where is money going to come from"

I do worry they're going to put so many constraints on the cuts that this consultant can come up with that it will make the job basically impossible.

✔️ keep foster school

✔️ dont cut individual line items related to a,b,or c

✔️dont close schools x,y, or z

✔️ dont lay off staff

Expand full comment