Can JEH be sold for cash to fund the budget shortfall and/or maintenance on existing schools? The administration can work from home, available classroom space or from city-owned offices that are vacant. The early childhood programs can move to available classroom space in existing schools.
A referendum would easily pass to make necessary repairs to existing schools and at least improve the optics as to the quality of Evanston education so that future families will choose D65 more than they have in the last 5 years.
Closing neighborhood schools permanently damages the Evanston community, impairs property values and precipitates a downward spiral in D65.
Now we’re talking! I didn’t even consider this option, make them have board meetings from the high school gym like every other school district on earth
South Side Community Center and Robert Crown can take existing 3yr-5yr olds. Right sizing Admin staff to under 44 personnel and move them into a city building or let them work from home. There are very feasible ways to sell that property.
I’m increasingly on board with this idea and Robert Crown is honestly a really great facility for this (I am there all the time in the summer for camps and such). Perhaps there's even an option to renovate Washington and build in some kind of integration with Robert Crown for this.
Imagine if the City offered the old Civic Center to D65 as their headquarters and the early childhood center, allowing then for the sale of the current JEH facility.
The opportunity for doing just what you described was squandered in 2022 in the rush to get a commitment to build a new school in the 5th Ward and line up the crazy financing, but ironically enough, to not actually start construction.
They made a case for building a 5th Ward School and had a facilities plan in hand, and instead of going to the community with a big and ambitious plan to address all of the issues at once - opening buildings, closing buildings, renovating buildings, attendance lines, and the like, they chose a small-ball option - merge Bessie Rhodes into the Foster School as a "school within a school" (it never made a lick of sense to begin with, but remember that?), pay for the new building with lease certificates (which were going to be cost neutral) and not close any other schools. This was the tale the community was told.
And this was before we found out that that the $40 million budget for Foster wasn't grounded in reality, that the funding for the lease certificates was an Enron-quality fraud, and the District was running seven figure deficits that were being hidden.
Instead, we were left with a crisis to solve, and solve now.
The District needs to have the trust of the community to sell a referendum, and even though there is a new Board, its willingness to spout the same nonsense about the loss of students being due to low birth rates and an aging population rather than take steps to correct the issues which prompted people to leave and not return isn't helping.
I still think that the whole story needs to be told about the lease certificates. It isn't a case of letting bygones be bygones which isn't talked about in polite company. There was $3.25 million in operating funds that went out the door to investors rather than to our teachers and students. The $3.25 million is part of the structural deficits which is necessitating school closures.
Who from the District and the Board knew that the "transportation savings" that were supposed to pay for the lease certificates were not what they were cracked up to be? If there is anyone still working at the District or on the Board who did, they shouldn't be.
What did Raymond James, the District's financial advisor, say about the funding for the lease certificates? We know that the slide deck they presented to the Board made a point of noting that the $3.25 million figure came from the District business office and that no one sitting on the Board asked about that. If I were on a school board thinking of using Raymond James to issue a bunch of lease certificate, I would want to know about the level of diligence and/or candor that the Raymond James showed with regard to this deal.
Is this District considering using Cordogan Clark for additional work? They shouldn't be. They have done great work bringing Foster in on the budget (so far!), but they knew that the $40 million budget that Dr. Horton continued to reference in public wasn't real and never corrected that, at least in public. Do they continued to deserve the trust of this community?
The current school board has the same President who squandered the money under the last school board.
The current school board is not acknowledging why it has lost 24 percent of the student body. It is blaming everything but the actions of the prior administration on the loss of the 24 percent of students. This feels like a set up for a Referendum: it’s not our fault there was a mass exodus of students. These are naturally occurring exoduses (unaffordable housing and high infertility rates). Please give us more money. We promise we will only throw good money after bad money.
Until there is some accountability or at least some finger pointing, I don’t think most people will be comfortable with a Referendum for a District that magically lost 1/4 of its student population. Where did they go? And why do they magically return to ETHS?
District 65 could also just build another brand new school. With those bus savings there would be enough money saved to close 13 more elementary schools.
I like it - thinking outside the box to handle things holistically. If the space allows, essentially relocating Haven/Kingsley to Lincolnwood is a great idea. Kids wouldn't be in school next of busy streets, and that's a great location for townhouses. Washington could turn into the next Little Beans Cafe (the city could sell that property).
As if stands it seems like the Board has everyone right where they want them. 6 months wasted on generating scorecards without tying out the data properly, and an hour of my time making new spreadsheets for reddit showed that they didn't update walkability scores once one school is closed (so the 2 closest to each other show up over and over), or consider what to do if the adjacent school is over capacity.
The public hearings will fall on deaf ears if anyone tries to point out the rankings are done wrong - doing something fresh, bold, and requiring a referendum is absolutely the way to go.
There's a huge amount of the past that is being hidden, like what staff was moving bills to the next fiscal year and counting future income (resulting in back to back 7 figure deficits on purportedly balanced budgets) , but it's clear everyone is protecting each other and recriminations are a waste of time. We just have to trust that the top down leadership has changed enough to prevent this from reoccurring.
I agree and wish I had time to litigate all the malfeasance, but if Grossi and Mitchell seem to be satisfied with the state of things, I am willing to listen.
Since their goal is to achieve walkable schools in the district. Why wouldn't they close King Arts. It is a magnet school., not a walkable school. They already closed one magnet school why not the other one? I also think they would get a lot of push back not only from parents, but from the Lincolnwood community if they tried to sell that land to be redeveloped.
Because King Arts is where the D65 admin have been historically sending kids with heavier ED/BD issues to receive some level of a therapeutic learning environment, etc. (which I will assume is usually warranted and also a win for the classrooms at the other schools).
Walkability is one metric. When factoring for all the metrics - Geography (32%), Equity (22%), Building Cost (21%), Building Functionality (16%), and Building Income (9%) - King Arts has a relatively high overall impact score (meaning closing the school would have a higher negative impact across these 5 measures). King Arts' student body is over 70% non-white and over 50% of students come from low-income households. Additionally, the building is more updated than many of the other buildings.
What would it mean to close King Arts and leave Orrington untouched when just 15% of Orrington students currently come from low-income households (will be even fewer when Foster opens), at just over 50% utilization rate, and a building that needs a lot of work? I agree that closing both Kingsley and Lincolnwood leaves the NW side in a pinch (though is consolidating all that wealth and all those resources to a school with a great reputation in a building that's in better shape than most so much of a pinch?). If it's truly a capacity issue, the district might have to find a way to bus kids from just across Green Bay Rd (Kingsley area) to Orrington and invest in updating that school (which will have to happen anyway, as it's slated to remain open). I can't imagine too many of those parents would object to their kids getting looped into Orrington. As for increased class sizes, how about a concentration on professional development around classroom management skills and investment in more classroom aides? Before we moved, my kids were in CPS classrooms of 28 kids where a skilled teacher with an aide could manage things quite well.
As has already been stated, it's a horrible, impossible situation. No one wants this. We're going to have to think together as a community about how to shoulder the burden and move forward together. Though it's hard to imagine currently from a financial standpoint, Dr Pinkard's comments at the Board meeting about reimagining shuttered buildings for other uses was a hopeful, creative message. Feels more productive than fighting to close down another magnet program and keep the status quo in other schools that frankly a lot of parents haven't been that thrilled with anyway (see: many families on the NW side opting out of D65 before the current debacle).
I hope we can move past this (understandably) reactionary, defensive, winners-losers stance to something more open, creative and collaborative that sets the district up for a positive future.
I have enjoyed reading your columns in the past, but it seems crazy to me to consider building another brand new school in Evanston right now!!! It was a horrendous idea to right a wrong, and there was, indeed, a grievous wrong in the closing of Foster School and sending all the black kids on buses in order to integrate our schools back in the 60s, by building a brand new school in a community that is no longer majority black, and where the overwhelming number of families who were affected by that wrong are long gone from Evanston…the way the project was shoved through without a referendum and so much of what Horton did while here was corrupt and shortsighted. At this point, with the district in shambles, why would residents want to pay more taxes to build yet another new school? This makes no sense.
What does make sense, however, and is also not happening, is to rethink HOW we want to educate Dist 65 children…inept and ineffective focus on “closing the achievement gap” and “looking through an equity lens” have gotten us nowhere, for generations now. The achievement gap is still there and has gotten wider. Innovative ideas such as community schools, in which social workers work beyond regular school hours to meet the needs of working families, where health services are brought into the schools, or rethinking our configurations and perhaps considering K - 3 schools and 4 - 6 schools, and redefining our goals as to what is truly best for children and families…this all seems missing in the current narrow focus on closing schools to reduce the budget gap. How about interviewing some of the many, many families in north side schools who have taken their children out of District 65, to hear why they did so? Simply assuming they are all racist helps no one. Some creative thinking is absolutely required now, and some of the new board members are asking for this. However, the leadership of the Board, holdovers from the previous board, don’t think creatively and aren’t asking the important questions. Most unfortunate, indeed.
If the District is in shambles, isn't that exactly the point where you should rebuild from the shambles? They've moved on from virtually all the equity-related curriculum and even then, the vast majority of stuff they teach in public schools in IL is dictated in Springfield anyway. My kid was in both parochial and D65 schools over the last five years and the curricula are pretty much a wash (D65 had better math, parochial had better reading).
I'm not sure what I can offer you that would be satisfying here. On one hand, you want rethink "how we want to educate" but at the same time criticize the equity work, which is exactly the Board's attempt at rethinking the "how." And as you point out, it didn't move the needle on the achievement gap at all.
I would argue that we've been wasting 20 years arguing about the "how" and which adult is racist or not while letting the fundamental core assets of D65 (buildings and teachers) fall by the wayside.
In reference to the comments about the superintendent…Having been on the Board which hired Paul Goren, the pool of candidates for Superintendent was shallow at best and I expect it hasn’t improved. Even tougher for a District to hire top notch talent when it is financially strapped, failing on many fronts and in a town which is rarely satisfied with its key leaders. While we’ve had some terrible ones, I don’t think the Superintendent is the core issue.
Honestly the problem started with our voters. Mostly the ones who don’t bother to vote in school board elections. Other than the higher turnout for the 2017 referendum, we range between 10% and 30% turnout for school board elections. In 2015 the winning candidate won with only 3400 votes with only 4 candidates on the ballot for 3 seats.
As a result we get ill-equipped, misguided Board members and leaders who hire and support people like Horton. For example remember that Sergio won his re-election narrowly over John Martin. A few hundred votes made the difference. And Suni Kartha finished 4th of 4 possible seats in her 2017 re-election. A stronger challenger or more voters could have tossed her out, but instead she led us to Horton as Board President.
If you have lived in Evanston for the past decade and haven’t been voting in every election please take responsibility for our current situation. The power was in your hands and it was squandered. So each time you complain, own your role too.
I share this as a reality check. It’s easy to complain. If you want to save our schools and community then vote in every election and
also consider serving on the school board if you have strengths which could benefit the community. If you do this over time then things can change for the better.
I will blame the voters to anyone who will listen, which is why I think this is ultimately their problem to fix. If you elect people who can't read a balance sheet, don't be surprised when they pick a superintendent who also can't read a balance sheet (Horton) and the finances get wrecked.
I don't think our current superintendent is the issue. She was handed a raging tire fire. I will also say that after Ms. Mitchell was hired, I was speaking with someone else who is in the school finance world and he said that was "the real deal."
I feel badly for parents who have elementary school age kids whose schools are being closed. The path to this was set 3-4 years ago when many of them had teeny, tiny kids who required a whole lot more attention than what was happening in a school district that they likely assumed had a competent Board and superintendent. They either weren't in D65, weren't living in Evanston, or just didn't have the bandwidth to focus on school district governance.
I do think that the Board members who set us down this path should get honorary front row seats for the school closing hearings. I am sure they will not be there to face up to the damage that they caused.
This path was set in 2017 when Suni and Anya took control of the Board, chased away Goren and hired Horton.
Assuming elected leaders are making smart choices is problematic.
And yes, I understand that people with small children are very busy. I ran for school board when our son was five years old and figured out a way to make serving on the board work even at that young age. If people can’t be bothered to even vote because they have young children then they truly have the school district they helped to create.
I realize I’m coming across very strongly and it’s simply intended to motivate people to show up for elections or step up to serve on the school board.
We saw what happened nationally when we had many millions fewer voters actually vote in 2024 compared to 2020. The same is true locally.
To be fair, a lot of people did step up in the last election! We started off with 17 for 4 seats, which is pretty damn good! I hope I played at least a small role in making it attractive/scary.
it occurred once the house was burning down. It didn’t occur when the house just needed some important maintenance and upgrades.
Last election was the clear exception to the pattern of the prior decade. Hopefully highly competitive elections continue in the future and with competent candidates.
Tom - Thanks so much for your re-apperance as you have launched a wholesome and fulsome discussion of the dilemma we are facing whether we have children in the school system or not. Based on many of the comments I think we have some potential candidates for the next election.
Tom, I appreciate that you are pushing us to use a forward-looking lens and think creatively about what the district should be working towards. I agree. But I do think your argument has a few gaps...
1. You question why D65 should invest in schools in NW Evanston if families aren't sending their kids there. Yet this ignores the fact that a majority of families still send their kids to public schools and deserve reasonable access to public education--simply taking that away for a section of the city isn't the answer.
2. As other commenters noted, I think you're missing the point regarding why families are opting out of the district. They aren't leaving because the facilities. They are leaving because they do not trust the district. Period. And I would argue that this trust issue is a much more important deeper problem than the budget pickle. We can find creative ways to finance things, but we cannot easily rebuild trust. And further eroding it will lead to a more precarious education system rather than a stronger one.
3. Your comments sound dangerously like you're saying, "This is your neighborhood's problem to figure out. It is somehow your fault that the school district's poor leadership has caused your neighbors to opt out of the system." I know that's not your intent, but I would respectfully offer that we all benefit from a strong school district, and we're all harmed by a weak one. We should all be working together to build a better system.
I'd say it's that trust means that people believe the district's leaders (1) know what they are doing (are competent), (2) are honest and transparent, and (3) are effectively achieving their directive to educate the city's elementary-age children.
I personally believe that small wins are the path to rebuilding trust, because the likelihood of failure (and size of the harm) is directly related to the size of the effort.
I've seen a ton of small win this year alone. We got teacher assignments at a normal time. The PTA has returned to normal fundraising activity and running events again. The 504 specialist reached out to us right at the start of the year. They repaved the sidewalk that was all stained from the former location of the shipping containers. The STAR test results arrived in my inbox just now, in a timely manner for me to review my kid's performance. Things honestly seem like back like a normal school district again.
Up top - the Board is elected and the whole point of an election is to pick people you trust. If you voted in people you don't trust, I'm not sure I can offer much solace.
That's great! How do we build on that and take on bigger improvements one step at a time? I don't think we're in disagreement here... I'm just saying let's feed a positive cycle of growing improvement rather than a negative one.
Families are opting out of D65 because they want their kids in schools that are academically challenging and financially stable. It’s not because the buildings are old. Call out the failures of leadership over the last eight years. Call out messaging which leaves out Hispanic kids and learning outcomes, and cynically tries to divide Evanston’s population and neighborhoods. Win back board seats. Run a competitive superintendent search that expressly looks for a leader who wants to revamp the administration. Create a challenging curriculum with differentiated learning options and district-wide TWI/early dual language programs. Watch enrollment rise. Sergio and Stacy need to be shown the door. They created the financial and academic problems we face, and are not the people to solve these problems. They are the problem.
I had my kid in D65 from K-2, Parochial School 3-4 and he’s back in D65 now. I can attest that the curriculum over there is not that different - the reading was better, the math was worse. This idea that D65 is teaching some not serious curriculum is out of date. I think that was true in 2021, I don’t think it’s true now. He has homework, just like in the parochial school and basically stepped right back in at the same point.
You mention financial stability is scaring parents off - that’s fair. One way to gaurantee that stability: fund and build a new school that won’t be arbitrarily closed when there is a short term need, and have a comprehensive facilities plan around it.
Here’s hoping it’s better than it was in 2023 when we left. The lack of letter grades remains a serious problem and makes it seem not academically rigorous. Switching out of MAP testing to a lower calibrated test is problematic. When I speak to D65 families (privately) classroom discipline/classroom disruption remains a consistent factor. Which impacts what is being taught/retained regardless of how it is taught.
Agreed on the letter grades thing, I understand the ideas behind “standards based” but practically, as a parent, it’s hard to work with and set expectations for the future.
I don't think moving away from the MAP test is necessarily bad. For grade level or just above grade level kids that test gives them material that they have not been exposed to in class and so the kids are forced to just guess on the test. Think 5th grader being given trigonometry problems or reading passages from Shakespeare. As a college professor I'd prefer my kids not learn to just guess on tests. Tests should only give them material that they are expected to know the answer to. My feeling on MAP is that it is only really useful for students who might not be at grade level on all metrics - and even then it is only useful if they then follow up with adjusted instruction which I'm not sure is always the case (especially when they don't always have the ability to re-group kids who are at the same level).
Letter grades and transitioning to HS are a different thing though and I'm in agreement with you there. Just wanted to point out that there are actually lots of valid criticisms of MAP.
I hate to break it to you but STAR and iReady are both adaptive tests. I view this as a good thing. If the tests don't go beyond grade level, there's no way to know if a kid needs more of a challenge in class. In my experience the teachers in this district are certainly not going to tell you your kid needs something more than what's provided in class. I'd say the bigger problem with MAP was how much class time it took.
Multiple sets of circumstances can be true at the same time. Yes, the previous board and superintendent were financially irresponsible, possibly to the point of malfeasance AND birth rates are declining nationally AND our older residents are not selling their homes to younger families with elementary aged children AND many of our post-WWII era school buildings are in a prolonged state of disrepair.
Laying the blame for district 65’s situation at the hands of a few individuals will not put us on the path to solving our problems, even if those individuals were bad at their jobs.
My point is that district 65 is structured in a way that makes public school funding difficult in a way that one would not expect given the wealth of the city (NU being tax-exempt is one example). We also just a pandemic that required emergency spending in an attempt to mitigate learning loss. The question of school closure/consolidation would have come up sooner or later, regardless of who was on the board or in the administration.
Too bad 15-20% of that emergency spending went to dead-end pet projects, like Horton's failed teacher residency program and money for his friends' businesses. Not a nickel went to improving HVAC systems (how many districts used the money), something we could actually use right now.
This is the constant conundrum with D65 - over the decades they continually make short-term decisions and ignore the long-term. Now things are so bad that even your core assets themselves are short-term horses to be traded.
It's easy to blame Horton (like I guess I did above!) but his corruption was the symptom of the problem, not the cause.
It’s very hard to rebuild trust when the same people are there and mistakes have not been acknowledged, and new board members don’t even vote in a new president, and the same problems plague the SDRP process as in past years. It’s not just about school closures and trimming the budget at this point. There needs to be a good faith effort to take the concerns of all parents seriously and create a long-term vision everyone can get behind.
Is there a mechanism for amending a referendum if one comes forth to add controls/guardrails/conditions that the board would be legally required to meet going forward?
I’m trying to figure this out. In theory the 2017 money was earmarked but they just ignored it … but the earmark was not in the language of the referendum, it was in a memo attached to the approval of the referendum. I do wonder if it’s in the language of the referendum if it will make a difference?
The only building I would support actually selling is JEH due to the prime real estate location. All other buildings need to be leased so they can be put back in use later if needed. One neighbor recently mentioned to me that Noyes and Chiravalli were both D65 schools and that because they were sold off that created the NE void of options except for Orrington. What would you think about trying to get the city to trade Noyes for Orrington? Getting Noyes back in D65 would improve the enrollment numbers by being more walkable to bigger NE areas and could increase the occupancy numbers that they are concerned with at Orrington. I know Noyes needs a lot of work but so does Orrington...
Thanks Tom for providing a discussion venue. Like all of you, I am frustrated with the district's situation and this has been a great place to vent with likeminded people over the past year. One thing that seems to be lacking in these threads is a plan for organizing. I frankly don't have the time or bandwidth, and it's possible we have missed a call to action.
But there are a few things you can do right now. Fill out this survey if you haven't
It hasn't been mentioned, but the 3rd ward is facing a big problem too. Option 3b will feed Lincoln kids to Chute instead of Nichols, losing walkability. I raised this point in the survey. Maybe I will have time to go one of the planned listening sessions. That's about all I can do with limited time.
Start a petition if you have an issue the board isn't listening to. Here is an example of limiting screen use in D65 -- please sign if you haven't!
Hope this helps, it has made me feel like I am doing something. Maybe it moves the needle a little in the right direction. Best of luck to North Evanston folks!
Let them know you don't mind I guess, haha. I definitely value differing opinions, maybe Chute has advantages Nichols doesn't offer. Change is coming and we can only best adapt to it and find wins where we can. Envision Evanston is a perfect example, the city spent way too much money and Biss put his political credibility on passing the measure. Then residents overwhelmingly re-elected Biss. There is no stopping it, but opponents were able to slow down the process and split zoning from the planning document. That's a win! Work with what's coming along, be realistic about what can be done.
I like that you are proposing another solution to the school closing mess that is thinking more longterm. Just like there were more creative solutions to righting the wrongs of closing the 5th ward school that wouldn't have added to the mess we are in. There has been very little thought about the future, only fixing the dire state of the district today.
Tom - thank you for your thoughts. As usual you make a lot of sense.
How our City Council can help D65....
Given that D65 needs money, focus ought to be given to situation before Evanston's City Council for a 31 story development at 605 Davis that is taking advantage of a huge tax break by providing an additional 10%, or 43 units over the required 10% for a total of 20% affordable housing. Estimates vary but it looks like upwards of $40M will be pocketed by the developers which would translate to about $28M that the school districts will lose over the next 15 years.
But this is far from a done deal. The Council can just say no to the developer at the 20% affordable level. The tradeoff is simple: help improve the education of our current residents children rather than subsidize affordable housing at $1M a unit.
If this makes sense to you, please write your Council Member and tell them to vote no to the 605 Davis tax benefit deal.
Can you explain more here? I haven't been following the news in the affordable housing tax schemes business lately. It's such a gross industry. They're building too much affordable housing?
Illinois passed the Affordable Housing Omnibus Bill in 2021 that provides a developer a substantial property tax abatement in exchange for designating some units as affordable. The top tier, which is reached at 20% of the units being affordable, allows a reduction in assessed value for over 30 years. The bill was hailed at the time as a means to address the lack of affordable housing in the state.
The problem for both D65 and City finances is that these tax abatements come at a time when both entities are in desperate need for more revenue. Indeed, the City just announced their intention to raise property taxes by nearly 14%, which ironically makes Evanston even more unaffordable to live here.
The only way to discourage the developer from using this tax incentive which will make them a lot more money is for the City Council to say that approval for variances will only be provided if the developer adheres to a 10% affordable housing allocation and foregoes the property tax abatement loop hole at the 20% figure.
I am sure every candidate for City Council was asked many times "what can you do for D65?" The answer was always "not much - D65 is a separate entity." But with the 605 Davis decision pending, the Council Members can do something very tangible for D65.
Please reach out to your Council member and tell him to stand fast against the 20% proposal.
But like, suppose they construct a building on the site, which is currently a parking lot and rats. 80% of this units are, I guess, luxury housing. Will those still be taxed at the same rate as normal? Or does the developer/owner get abatement on those too?
On Thursday, October 9, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois formally filed criminal charges against Dr. Devon Horton for acts he allegedly committed while serving as Superintendent of District 65.
The District has been aware of the ongoing investigation and has fully supported the process. At the request of federal authorities, we have maintained confidentiality to protect the integrity of the investigation.
We are deeply troubled and angered by these allegations. Now that the federal government has formally indicted, the District is reviewing the specific details of the indictment with the District’s legal counsel. A more detailed statement will be forthcoming after we have had an opportunity to review the details of the indictment.
Sergio Hernandez (he/him) and Dr. Nichole Pinkard (she/her)
It’s great to have you back Tom, even if just temporarily.
Can JEH be sold for cash to fund the budget shortfall and/or maintenance on existing schools? The administration can work from home, available classroom space or from city-owned offices that are vacant. The early childhood programs can move to available classroom space in existing schools.
A referendum would easily pass to make necessary repairs to existing schools and at least improve the optics as to the quality of Evanston education so that future families will choose D65 more than they have in the last 5 years.
Closing neighborhood schools permanently damages the Evanston community, impairs property values and precipitates a downward spiral in D65.
Now we’re talking! I didn’t even consider this option, make them have board meetings from the high school gym like every other school district on earth
This is addressed somewhat in the full SDRP memo as to why it’s not presented as a current scenario https://meetings.boardbook.org/Public/Agenda/1247?meeting=712765
South Side Community Center and Robert Crown can take existing 3yr-5yr olds. Right sizing Admin staff to under 44 personnel and move them into a city building or let them work from home. There are very feasible ways to sell that property.
I’m increasingly on board with this idea and Robert Crown is honestly a really great facility for this (I am there all the time in the summer for camps and such). Perhaps there's even an option to renovate Washington and build in some kind of integration with Robert Crown for this.
Just to be clear, I was mostly joking. There's a lot of other stuff that happens at JEH besides board meetings and admin offices..
Hi Matt, did you post the full SDRP memo? If so could you post it again?
Thank you.
Imagine if the City offered the old Civic Center to D65 as their headquarters and the early childhood center, allowing then for the sale of the current JEH facility.
The opportunity for doing just what you described was squandered in 2022 in the rush to get a commitment to build a new school in the 5th Ward and line up the crazy financing, but ironically enough, to not actually start construction.
They made a case for building a 5th Ward School and had a facilities plan in hand, and instead of going to the community with a big and ambitious plan to address all of the issues at once - opening buildings, closing buildings, renovating buildings, attendance lines, and the like, they chose a small-ball option - merge Bessie Rhodes into the Foster School as a "school within a school" (it never made a lick of sense to begin with, but remember that?), pay for the new building with lease certificates (which were going to be cost neutral) and not close any other schools. This was the tale the community was told.
And this was before we found out that that the $40 million budget for Foster wasn't grounded in reality, that the funding for the lease certificates was an Enron-quality fraud, and the District was running seven figure deficits that were being hidden.
Instead, we were left with a crisis to solve, and solve now.
The District needs to have the trust of the community to sell a referendum, and even though there is a new Board, its willingness to spout the same nonsense about the loss of students being due to low birth rates and an aging population rather than take steps to correct the issues which prompted people to leave and not return isn't helping.
I still think that the whole story needs to be told about the lease certificates. It isn't a case of letting bygones be bygones which isn't talked about in polite company. There was $3.25 million in operating funds that went out the door to investors rather than to our teachers and students. The $3.25 million is part of the structural deficits which is necessitating school closures.
Who from the District and the Board knew that the "transportation savings" that were supposed to pay for the lease certificates were not what they were cracked up to be? If there is anyone still working at the District or on the Board who did, they shouldn't be.
What did Raymond James, the District's financial advisor, say about the funding for the lease certificates? We know that the slide deck they presented to the Board made a point of noting that the $3.25 million figure came from the District business office and that no one sitting on the Board asked about that. If I were on a school board thinking of using Raymond James to issue a bunch of lease certificate, I would want to know about the level of diligence and/or candor that the Raymond James showed with regard to this deal.
Is this District considering using Cordogan Clark for additional work? They shouldn't be. They have done great work bringing Foster in on the budget (so far!), but they knew that the $40 million budget that Dr. Horton continued to reference in public wasn't real and never corrected that, at least in public. Do they continued to deserve the trust of this community?
The current school board has the same President who squandered the money under the last school board.
The current school board is not acknowledging why it has lost 24 percent of the student body. It is blaming everything but the actions of the prior administration on the loss of the 24 percent of students. This feels like a set up for a Referendum: it’s not our fault there was a mass exodus of students. These are naturally occurring exoduses (unaffordable housing and high infertility rates). Please give us more money. We promise we will only throw good money after bad money.
Until there is some accountability or at least some finger pointing, I don’t think most people will be comfortable with a Referendum for a District that magically lost 1/4 of its student population. Where did they go? And why do they magically return to ETHS?
District 65 could also just build another brand new school. With those bus savings there would be enough money saved to close 13 more elementary schools.
I like it - thinking outside the box to handle things holistically. If the space allows, essentially relocating Haven/Kingsley to Lincolnwood is a great idea. Kids wouldn't be in school next of busy streets, and that's a great location for townhouses. Washington could turn into the next Little Beans Cafe (the city could sell that property).
As if stands it seems like the Board has everyone right where they want them. 6 months wasted on generating scorecards without tying out the data properly, and an hour of my time making new spreadsheets for reddit showed that they didn't update walkability scores once one school is closed (so the 2 closest to each other show up over and over), or consider what to do if the adjacent school is over capacity.
The public hearings will fall on deaf ears if anyone tries to point out the rankings are done wrong - doing something fresh, bold, and requiring a referendum is absolutely the way to go.
There's a huge amount of the past that is being hidden, like what staff was moving bills to the next fiscal year and counting future income (resulting in back to back 7 figure deficits on purportedly balanced budgets) , but it's clear everyone is protecting each other and recriminations are a waste of time. We just have to trust that the top down leadership has changed enough to prevent this from reoccurring.
I agree and wish I had time to litigate all the malfeasance, but if Grossi and Mitchell seem to be satisfied with the state of things, I am willing to listen.
Since their goal is to achieve walkable schools in the district. Why wouldn't they close King Arts. It is a magnet school., not a walkable school. They already closed one magnet school why not the other one? I also think they would get a lot of push back not only from parents, but from the Lincolnwood community if they tried to sell that land to be redeveloped.
Because King Arts is where the D65 admin have been historically sending kids with heavier ED/BD issues to receive some level of a therapeutic learning environment, etc. (which I will assume is usually warranted and also a win for the classrooms at the other schools).
But couldn't they close King Arts, and move these classrooms to another school?
I think it is 19 students?
Walkability is one metric. When factoring for all the metrics - Geography (32%), Equity (22%), Building Cost (21%), Building Functionality (16%), and Building Income (9%) - King Arts has a relatively high overall impact score (meaning closing the school would have a higher negative impact across these 5 measures). King Arts' student body is over 70% non-white and over 50% of students come from low-income households. Additionally, the building is more updated than many of the other buildings.
What would it mean to close King Arts and leave Orrington untouched when just 15% of Orrington students currently come from low-income households (will be even fewer when Foster opens), at just over 50% utilization rate, and a building that needs a lot of work? I agree that closing both Kingsley and Lincolnwood leaves the NW side in a pinch (though is consolidating all that wealth and all those resources to a school with a great reputation in a building that's in better shape than most so much of a pinch?). If it's truly a capacity issue, the district might have to find a way to bus kids from just across Green Bay Rd (Kingsley area) to Orrington and invest in updating that school (which will have to happen anyway, as it's slated to remain open). I can't imagine too many of those parents would object to their kids getting looped into Orrington. As for increased class sizes, how about a concentration on professional development around classroom management skills and investment in more classroom aides? Before we moved, my kids were in CPS classrooms of 28 kids where a skilled teacher with an aide could manage things quite well.
As has already been stated, it's a horrible, impossible situation. No one wants this. We're going to have to think together as a community about how to shoulder the burden and move forward together. Though it's hard to imagine currently from a financial standpoint, Dr Pinkard's comments at the Board meeting about reimagining shuttered buildings for other uses was a hopeful, creative message. Feels more productive than fighting to close down another magnet program and keep the status quo in other schools that frankly a lot of parents haven't been that thrilled with anyway (see: many families on the NW side opting out of D65 before the current debacle).
I hope we can move past this (understandably) reactionary, defensive, winners-losers stance to something more open, creative and collaborative that sets the district up for a positive future.
I have enjoyed reading your columns in the past, but it seems crazy to me to consider building another brand new school in Evanston right now!!! It was a horrendous idea to right a wrong, and there was, indeed, a grievous wrong in the closing of Foster School and sending all the black kids on buses in order to integrate our schools back in the 60s, by building a brand new school in a community that is no longer majority black, and where the overwhelming number of families who were affected by that wrong are long gone from Evanston…the way the project was shoved through without a referendum and so much of what Horton did while here was corrupt and shortsighted. At this point, with the district in shambles, why would residents want to pay more taxes to build yet another new school? This makes no sense.
What does make sense, however, and is also not happening, is to rethink HOW we want to educate Dist 65 children…inept and ineffective focus on “closing the achievement gap” and “looking through an equity lens” have gotten us nowhere, for generations now. The achievement gap is still there and has gotten wider. Innovative ideas such as community schools, in which social workers work beyond regular school hours to meet the needs of working families, where health services are brought into the schools, or rethinking our configurations and perhaps considering K - 3 schools and 4 - 6 schools, and redefining our goals as to what is truly best for children and families…this all seems missing in the current narrow focus on closing schools to reduce the budget gap. How about interviewing some of the many, many families in north side schools who have taken their children out of District 65, to hear why they did so? Simply assuming they are all racist helps no one. Some creative thinking is absolutely required now, and some of the new board members are asking for this. However, the leadership of the Board, holdovers from the previous board, don’t think creatively and aren’t asking the important questions. Most unfortunate, indeed.
If the District is in shambles, isn't that exactly the point where you should rebuild from the shambles? They've moved on from virtually all the equity-related curriculum and even then, the vast majority of stuff they teach in public schools in IL is dictated in Springfield anyway. My kid was in both parochial and D65 schools over the last five years and the curricula are pretty much a wash (D65 had better math, parochial had better reading).
I'm not sure what I can offer you that would be satisfying here. On one hand, you want rethink "how we want to educate" but at the same time criticize the equity work, which is exactly the Board's attempt at rethinking the "how." And as you point out, it didn't move the needle on the achievement gap at all.
I would argue that we've been wasting 20 years arguing about the "how" and which adult is racist or not while letting the fundamental core assets of D65 (buildings and teachers) fall by the wayside.
In reference to the comments about the superintendent…Having been on the Board which hired Paul Goren, the pool of candidates for Superintendent was shallow at best and I expect it hasn’t improved. Even tougher for a District to hire top notch talent when it is financially strapped, failing on many fronts and in a town which is rarely satisfied with its key leaders. While we’ve had some terrible ones, I don’t think the Superintendent is the core issue.
Honestly the problem started with our voters. Mostly the ones who don’t bother to vote in school board elections. Other than the higher turnout for the 2017 referendum, we range between 10% and 30% turnout for school board elections. In 2015 the winning candidate won with only 3400 votes with only 4 candidates on the ballot for 3 seats.
As a result we get ill-equipped, misguided Board members and leaders who hire and support people like Horton. For example remember that Sergio won his re-election narrowly over John Martin. A few hundred votes made the difference. And Suni Kartha finished 4th of 4 possible seats in her 2017 re-election. A stronger challenger or more voters could have tossed her out, but instead she led us to Horton as Board President.
If you have lived in Evanston for the past decade and haven’t been voting in every election please take responsibility for our current situation. The power was in your hands and it was squandered. So each time you complain, own your role too.
I share this as a reality check. It’s easy to complain. If you want to save our schools and community then vote in every election and
also consider serving on the school board if you have strengths which could benefit the community. If you do this over time then things can change for the better.
I will blame the voters to anyone who will listen, which is why I think this is ultimately their problem to fix. If you elect people who can't read a balance sheet, don't be surprised when they pick a superintendent who also can't read a balance sheet (Horton) and the finances get wrecked.
I don't think our current superintendent is the issue. She was handed a raging tire fire. I will also say that after Ms. Mitchell was hired, I was speaking with someone else who is in the school finance world and he said that was "the real deal."
I feel badly for parents who have elementary school age kids whose schools are being closed. The path to this was set 3-4 years ago when many of them had teeny, tiny kids who required a whole lot more attention than what was happening in a school district that they likely assumed had a competent Board and superintendent. They either weren't in D65, weren't living in Evanston, or just didn't have the bandwidth to focus on school district governance.
I do think that the Board members who set us down this path should get honorary front row seats for the school closing hearings. I am sure they will not be there to face up to the damage that they caused.
This path was set in 2017 when Suni and Anya took control of the Board, chased away Goren and hired Horton.
Assuming elected leaders are making smart choices is problematic.
And yes, I understand that people with small children are very busy. I ran for school board when our son was five years old and figured out a way to make serving on the board work even at that young age. If people can’t be bothered to even vote because they have young children then they truly have the school district they helped to create.
I realize I’m coming across very strongly and it’s simply intended to motivate people to show up for elections or step up to serve on the school board.
We saw what happened nationally when we had many millions fewer voters actually vote in 2024 compared to 2020. The same is true locally.
To be fair, a lot of people did step up in the last election! We started off with 17 for 4 seats, which is pretty damn good! I hope I played at least a small role in making it attractive/scary.
That’s true. Unfortunately
it occurred once the house was burning down. It didn’t occur when the house just needed some important maintenance and upgrades.
Last election was the clear exception to the pattern of the prior decade. Hopefully highly competitive elections continue in the future and with competent candidates.
Tom - Thanks so much for your re-apperance as you have launched a wholesome and fulsome discussion of the dilemma we are facing whether we have children in the school system or not. Based on many of the comments I think we have some potential candidates for the next election.
Tom, I appreciate that you are pushing us to use a forward-looking lens and think creatively about what the district should be working towards. I agree. But I do think your argument has a few gaps...
1. You question why D65 should invest in schools in NW Evanston if families aren't sending their kids there. Yet this ignores the fact that a majority of families still send their kids to public schools and deserve reasonable access to public education--simply taking that away for a section of the city isn't the answer.
2. As other commenters noted, I think you're missing the point regarding why families are opting out of the district. They aren't leaving because the facilities. They are leaving because they do not trust the district. Period. And I would argue that this trust issue is a much more important deeper problem than the budget pickle. We can find creative ways to finance things, but we cannot easily rebuild trust. And further eroding it will lead to a more precarious education system rather than a stronger one.
3. Your comments sound dangerously like you're saying, "This is your neighborhood's problem to figure out. It is somehow your fault that the school district's poor leadership has caused your neighbors to opt out of the system." I know that's not your intent, but I would respectfully offer that we all benefit from a strong school district, and we're all harmed by a weak one. We should all be working together to build a better system.
People say a lot about “trust” - what does that mean to you?
I'd say it's that trust means that people believe the district's leaders (1) know what they are doing (are competent), (2) are honest and transparent, and (3) are effectively achieving their directive to educate the city's elementary-age children.
I personally believe that small wins are the path to rebuilding trust, because the likelihood of failure (and size of the harm) is directly related to the size of the effort.
I've seen a ton of small win this year alone. We got teacher assignments at a normal time. The PTA has returned to normal fundraising activity and running events again. The 504 specialist reached out to us right at the start of the year. They repaved the sidewalk that was all stained from the former location of the shipping containers. The STAR test results arrived in my inbox just now, in a timely manner for me to review my kid's performance. Things honestly seem like back like a normal school district again.
Up top - the Board is elected and the whole point of an election is to pick people you trust. If you voted in people you don't trust, I'm not sure I can offer much solace.
That's great! How do we build on that and take on bigger improvements one step at a time? I don't think we're in disagreement here... I'm just saying let's feed a positive cycle of growing improvement rather than a negative one.
Families are opting out of D65 because they want their kids in schools that are academically challenging and financially stable. It’s not because the buildings are old. Call out the failures of leadership over the last eight years. Call out messaging which leaves out Hispanic kids and learning outcomes, and cynically tries to divide Evanston’s population and neighborhoods. Win back board seats. Run a competitive superintendent search that expressly looks for a leader who wants to revamp the administration. Create a challenging curriculum with differentiated learning options and district-wide TWI/early dual language programs. Watch enrollment rise. Sergio and Stacy need to be shown the door. They created the financial and academic problems we face, and are not the people to solve these problems. They are the problem.
I had my kid in D65 from K-2, Parochial School 3-4 and he’s back in D65 now. I can attest that the curriculum over there is not that different - the reading was better, the math was worse. This idea that D65 is teaching some not serious curriculum is out of date. I think that was true in 2021, I don’t think it’s true now. He has homework, just like in the parochial school and basically stepped right back in at the same point.
You mention financial stability is scaring parents off - that’s fair. One way to gaurantee that stability: fund and build a new school that won’t be arbitrarily closed when there is a short term need, and have a comprehensive facilities plan around it.
Here’s hoping it’s better than it was in 2023 when we left. The lack of letter grades remains a serious problem and makes it seem not academically rigorous. Switching out of MAP testing to a lower calibrated test is problematic. When I speak to D65 families (privately) classroom discipline/classroom disruption remains a consistent factor. Which impacts what is being taught/retained regardless of how it is taught.
Agreed on the letter grades thing, I understand the ideas behind “standards based” but practically, as a parent, it’s hard to work with and set expectations for the future.
I don't think moving away from the MAP test is necessarily bad. For grade level or just above grade level kids that test gives them material that they have not been exposed to in class and so the kids are forced to just guess on the test. Think 5th grader being given trigonometry problems or reading passages from Shakespeare. As a college professor I'd prefer my kids not learn to just guess on tests. Tests should only give them material that they are expected to know the answer to. My feeling on MAP is that it is only really useful for students who might not be at grade level on all metrics - and even then it is only useful if they then follow up with adjusted instruction which I'm not sure is always the case (especially when they don't always have the ability to re-group kids who are at the same level).
Letter grades and transitioning to HS are a different thing though and I'm in agreement with you there. Just wanted to point out that there are actually lots of valid criticisms of MAP.
I hate to break it to you but STAR and iReady are both adaptive tests. I view this as a good thing. If the tests don't go beyond grade level, there's no way to know if a kid needs more of a challenge in class. In my experience the teachers in this district are certainly not going to tell you your kid needs something more than what's provided in class. I'd say the bigger problem with MAP was how much class time it took.
Multiple sets of circumstances can be true at the same time. Yes, the previous board and superintendent were financially irresponsible, possibly to the point of malfeasance AND birth rates are declining nationally AND our older residents are not selling their homes to younger families with elementary aged children AND many of our post-WWII era school buildings are in a prolonged state of disrepair.
Laying the blame for district 65’s situation at the hands of a few individuals will not put us on the path to solving our problems, even if those individuals were bad at their jobs.
My point is that district 65 is structured in a way that makes public school funding difficult in a way that one would not expect given the wealth of the city (NU being tax-exempt is one example). We also just a pandemic that required emergency spending in an attempt to mitigate learning loss. The question of school closure/consolidation would have come up sooner or later, regardless of who was on the board or in the administration.
Too bad 15-20% of that emergency spending went to dead-end pet projects, like Horton's failed teacher residency program and money for his friends' businesses. Not a nickel went to improving HVAC systems (how many districts used the money), something we could actually use right now.
This is the constant conundrum with D65 - over the decades they continually make short-term decisions and ignore the long-term. Now things are so bad that even your core assets themselves are short-term horses to be traded.
It's easy to blame Horton (like I guess I did above!) but his corruption was the symptom of the problem, not the cause.
It’s very hard to rebuild trust when the same people are there and mistakes have not been acknowledged, and new board members don’t even vote in a new president, and the same problems plague the SDRP process as in past years. It’s not just about school closures and trimming the budget at this point. There needs to be a good faith effort to take the concerns of all parents seriously and create a long-term vision everyone can get behind.
A con artist preys on people in bad circumstances. They don’t create bad circumstances.
Is there a mechanism for amending a referendum if one comes forth to add controls/guardrails/conditions that the board would be legally required to meet going forward?
I’m trying to figure this out. In theory the 2017 money was earmarked but they just ignored it … but the earmark was not in the language of the referendum, it was in a memo attached to the approval of the referendum. I do wonder if it’s in the language of the referendum if it will make a difference?
Seems worth investigating and taking a stab at if it would.
The only building I would support actually selling is JEH due to the prime real estate location. All other buildings need to be leased so they can be put back in use later if needed. One neighbor recently mentioned to me that Noyes and Chiravalli were both D65 schools and that because they were sold off that created the NE void of options except for Orrington. What would you think about trying to get the city to trade Noyes for Orrington? Getting Noyes back in D65 would improve the enrollment numbers by being more walkable to bigger NE areas and could increase the occupancy numbers that they are concerned with at Orrington. I know Noyes needs a lot of work but so does Orrington...
Thanks Tom for providing a discussion venue. Like all of you, I am frustrated with the district's situation and this has been a great place to vent with likeminded people over the past year. One thing that seems to be lacking in these threads is a plan for organizing. I frankly don't have the time or bandwidth, and it's possible we have missed a call to action.
But there are a few things you can do right now. Fill out this survey if you haven't
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfBgGxskcPdcdKav5Hr9_b0dPR8FWES7yV_I419W0MI3hcpag/formResponse
It hasn't been mentioned, but the 3rd ward is facing a big problem too. Option 3b will feed Lincoln kids to Chute instead of Nichols, losing walkability. I raised this point in the survey. Maybe I will have time to go one of the planned listening sessions. That's about all I can do with limited time.
Start a petition if you have an issue the board isn't listening to. Here is an example of limiting screen use in D65 -- please sign if you haven't!
https://www.change.org/p/limit-screens-for-district-65-students?recruiter=1389016806&recruited_by_id=f0c25380-962c-11f0-a0c9-85c0d41db77b&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_message&utm_term=psf&utm_medium=mobileNativeShare
Hope this helps, it has made me feel like I am doing something. Maybe it moves the needle a little in the right direction. Best of luck to North Evanston folks!
My kid is in Lincoln and honestly Chute would be easier walk for us!
Let them know you don't mind I guess, haha. I definitely value differing opinions, maybe Chute has advantages Nichols doesn't offer. Change is coming and we can only best adapt to it and find wins where we can. Envision Evanston is a perfect example, the city spent way too much money and Biss put his political credibility on passing the measure. Then residents overwhelmingly re-elected Biss. There is no stopping it, but opponents were able to slow down the process and split zoning from the planning document. That's a win! Work with what's coming along, be realistic about what can be done.
I like that you are proposing another solution to the school closing mess that is thinking more longterm. Just like there were more creative solutions to righting the wrongs of closing the 5th ward school that wouldn't have added to the mess we are in. There has been very little thought about the future, only fixing the dire state of the district today.
Tom - thank you for your thoughts. As usual you make a lot of sense.
How our City Council can help D65....
Given that D65 needs money, focus ought to be given to situation before Evanston's City Council for a 31 story development at 605 Davis that is taking advantage of a huge tax break by providing an additional 10%, or 43 units over the required 10% for a total of 20% affordable housing. Estimates vary but it looks like upwards of $40M will be pocketed by the developers which would translate to about $28M that the school districts will lose over the next 15 years.
But this is far from a done deal. The Council can just say no to the developer at the 20% affordable level. The tradeoff is simple: help improve the education of our current residents children rather than subsidize affordable housing at $1M a unit.
If this makes sense to you, please write your Council Member and tell them to vote no to the 605 Davis tax benefit deal.
Can you explain more here? I haven't been following the news in the affordable housing tax schemes business lately. It's such a gross industry. They're building too much affordable housing?
Illinois passed the Affordable Housing Omnibus Bill in 2021 that provides a developer a substantial property tax abatement in exchange for designating some units as affordable. The top tier, which is reached at 20% of the units being affordable, allows a reduction in assessed value for over 30 years. The bill was hailed at the time as a means to address the lack of affordable housing in the state.
The problem for both D65 and City finances is that these tax abatements come at a time when both entities are in desperate need for more revenue. Indeed, the City just announced their intention to raise property taxes by nearly 14%, which ironically makes Evanston even more unaffordable to live here.
The only way to discourage the developer from using this tax incentive which will make them a lot more money is for the City Council to say that approval for variances will only be provided if the developer adheres to a 10% affordable housing allocation and foregoes the property tax abatement loop hole at the 20% figure.
I am sure every candidate for City Council was asked many times "what can you do for D65?" The answer was always "not much - D65 is a separate entity." But with the 605 Davis decision pending, the Council Members can do something very tangible for D65.
Please reach out to your Council member and tell him to stand fast against the 20% proposal.
But like, suppose they construct a building on the site, which is currently a parking lot and rats. 80% of this units are, I guess, luxury housing. Will those still be taxed at the same rate as normal? Or does the developer/owner get abatement on those too?
The developer gets an abatement on the WHOLE building.
Affordable housing is the gift that keeps on giving to everyone except those looking for actual affordable housing
"
"Dear District 65 Community -
On Thursday, October 9, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois formally filed criminal charges against Dr. Devon Horton for acts he allegedly committed while serving as Superintendent of District 65.
The District has been aware of the ongoing investigation and has fully supported the process. At the request of federal authorities, we have maintained confidentiality to protect the integrity of the investigation.
We are deeply troubled and angered by these allegations. Now that the federal government has formally indicted, the District is reviewing the specific details of the indictment with the District’s legal counsel. A more detailed statement will be forthcoming after we have had an opportunity to review the details of the indictment.
Sergio Hernandez (he/him) and Dr. Nichole Pinkard (she/her)
Board Leadership"
In case you don't get the district emails
Who's this Horton guy everyone is talking about
😆