I'd almost prefer that Board members act in their own self interest for their own kids - it means they have skin in the game instead of some vague dedication to "equity"
I'd almost prefer that Board members act in their own self interest for their own kids - it means they have skin in the game instead of some vague dedication to "equity"
Forget self-interest for their kids, the Board isn't even structured to ensure every Ward is represented, let alone every school community. So, there are schools with literally no voice on the Board.
What I've been told in the past is that the campus liaison structure accounts for that. Yet, if you ask the Board if their campus liaisons actually visit the campuses you can expect a 500 word email explaining why that isn't an obligation (in a particular case to explain why Biz had not visited Haven MS even once during the contentious 2021-2022 school-year).
The majority of the Board does not demonstrate an interest in kids or education, at all. A couple members aside, most of them seem to be there to represent their own professional interests. It's shameful.
Not only did Biz not visit the school, she then lectured us about how even reaching out to her [our elected representative and supposed school board liaison] was white supremacy in action because it was "going around" the leadership of the school [even though many parents HAD started with the school leadership and also her literal role was supposed to ameliorate those interactions between parents and district employees].
I'm curious if Haven's (wonderful, IMO) principal was grateful that the school's Board liaison took such a principled stand against offering tangible, in-person support with the broader school community - a stand that resulted in her doing basically nothing - during a time when every available hand should have been on-deck to help a struggling school.
TBH I think he realized that the central admin including the supposed head of тАЬculture and climateтАЭ and Dr. Horton, and also the board were not going to help and potentially making things worse. And he and the VPs and social workers worked from within to strengthen relationships with students, families and teachers and the last two years have proven out that was more effective than anything our тАЬequity focusedтАЭ board has done. And then Soo La had the nerve to get another dig at Haven when they talked about downsizing the 5th Ward school to not have middle school.
Agree! Haven's turnaround these past two years is 100% due to the principal, teachers, leadership team, staff and parent community. IMO the Board gets zero credit and, in fact, actually served to continually destabilize the school community with their unfair and ill-informed commentary.
Biz still should have shown up, at least one time.
I agree completely. The BR students are being treated like another resource to be allocated in service of the boardтАЩs grand plan. It doesnтАЩt matter if they spend one year in a neighborhood school, then another at a nearby school when the first school is closed/consolidated. They (and the other students displaced by consolidation) will wind up wherever they need to in order to facilitate the boardтАЩs plan. Maybe if they had kids in the affected schools (like superintendent HortonтАЩs were in King Arts, which is why no one mentioned that school until Joey Hailpern did yesterday), they would show a little more care in jerking these kids around.
If walkability is still a chief factor in their goals, there are very few options for closures that wouldn't impact walkability for a subset of their students. So why not just be clear about what schools they're targeting for closure. The only possibility I see is closing one of Kingsley or Lincolnwood and redistricting those kids to the 5th Ward school or Willard based on where they live closest to. Currently there are already students being bussed to Orrington who live in NE Evanston so they don't have to make the dangerous crossing on the street level tracks north of Central, and kids who are bussed to Dewey from the Noyes-Ridge area, what's their walkable school that doesn't involve crossing Green Bay? There are kids zoned for Willard who live west of Crawford, who aren't walkable to any other school.
IтАЩm not sure that walkability is still a chief factor тАФthatтАЩs the thing. It was part of their justification to get the new 5th Ward built тАФand I donтАЩt really think they care about it when it comes to the rest of the district. Just like I donтАЩt believe that they were ever serious about a тАЬschool within a school.тАЭ That was merely another ploy to quiet a community during a school board election and crucial moment in getting the new school across the proverbial finish line. Awful, just awful.
I agree with this assessment. New school as an asset replacement for Kingsley seems like a slam dunk. Lincolnwood is 4 blocks west and new school is 3 blocks South. Otherwise, any closure is a net negative to walkability.
I think walkability will still have to be at least somewhat of a factor for bussing savings, and they'll also consider which schools will lose the most 5th ward students. I don't think the farthest south elementary schools will close, and I don't think Washington will close because it already has two TWI streams and will likely absorb some of the Bessie Rhodes students who don't go to the 5th ward school. Once you start to look at it from that lens, it will more than likely be a north school and Kingsley would make the most sense for the reasons you said.
WeтАЩll see. Sadly, itтАЩs all about clear as mud.
Re school closures, I do think itтАЩs likely that 2-3 schools will be on the chopping block тАФand given this Board and Administration who knows if the ones chosen will make any logical sense. In fact, given past track records, that seems unlikely.
Austere times are coming тАФfor sure. Where is the $200M+ coming from to repair existing schools, for example?! There is no way you can justify this many schools with the declining d65 student population. And I think weтАЩre past the point of claiming that the families/kids that left will come back. Why should they?
They need to have a referendum on the 2025 ballot and should've had one on the 2023 ballot! Even if it fails miserably, they need to at least get the ask out there. The 2017 referendum was specifically designed only to last until 2024. I don't understand why they're not talking about this. Even if they fired everyone at 1500 McDaniel, they'd still be in rough shape. They need to at least lift up the per-pupil funding so it levels out with ETHS and the only way that will happen is via a 5% referendum.
At the listen and learn in April, someone asked Dr. Turner if they were planning on trying to get enrollment numbers up. The comms person spoke up and said they are not targeting families that left as they assume it's unlikely they'll come back at this point. Their goal was targeting new Kindergarten families...Seems like most new Kindergarten families would like some clarity on if their school is going to get shut down if they are on the fence of sending their kid to D65, but that's just me.
There's no real technical upside to increasing enrollment - like it doesn't really bring in any additional revenue but it increases the costs. We have such a broken system here in IL!
Sergio JIUST said in a recent board meeting that they are reaching out to families who left to find out why. Ha! Another lie. I am one of those families and have many friends who left and no one has been contacted because he made it up.
I'd almost prefer that Board members act in their own self interest for their own kids - it means they have skin in the game instead of some vague dedication to "equity"
Forget self-interest for their kids, the Board isn't even structured to ensure every Ward is represented, let alone every school community. So, there are schools with literally no voice on the Board.
What I've been told in the past is that the campus liaison structure accounts for that. Yet, if you ask the Board if their campus liaisons actually visit the campuses you can expect a 500 word email explaining why that isn't an obligation (in a particular case to explain why Biz had not visited Haven MS even once during the contentious 2021-2022 school-year).
The majority of the Board does not demonstrate an interest in kids or education, at all. A couple members aside, most of them seem to be there to represent their own professional interests. It's shameful.
Not only did Biz not visit the school, she then lectured us about how even reaching out to her [our elected representative and supposed school board liaison] was white supremacy in action because it was "going around" the leadership of the school [even though many parents HAD started with the school leadership and also her literal role was supposed to ameliorate those interactions between parents and district employees].
I'm curious if Haven's (wonderful, IMO) principal was grateful that the school's Board liaison took such a principled stand against offering tangible, in-person support with the broader school community - a stand that resulted in her doing basically nothing - during a time when every available hand should have been on-deck to help a struggling school.
Probably about as much as he appreciated Horton basically throwing him under the bus during the school town hall that was finally held.
TBH I think he realized that the central admin including the supposed head of тАЬculture and climateтАЭ and Dr. Horton, and also the board were not going to help and potentially making things worse. And he and the VPs and social workers worked from within to strengthen relationships with students, families and teachers and the last two years have proven out that was more effective than anything our тАЬequity focusedтАЭ board has done. And then Soo La had the nerve to get another dig at Haven when they talked about downsizing the 5th Ward school to not have middle school.
Agree! Haven's turnaround these past two years is 100% due to the principal, teachers, leadership team, staff and parent community. IMO the Board gets zero credit and, in fact, actually served to continually destabilize the school community with their unfair and ill-informed commentary.
Biz still should have shown up, at least one time.
I agree completely. The BR students are being treated like another resource to be allocated in service of the boardтАЩs grand plan. It doesnтАЩt matter if they spend one year in a neighborhood school, then another at a nearby school when the first school is closed/consolidated. They (and the other students displaced by consolidation) will wind up wherever they need to in order to facilitate the boardтАЩs plan. Maybe if they had kids in the affected schools (like superintendent HortonтАЩs were in King Arts, which is why no one mentioned that school until Joey Hailpern did yesterday), they would show a little more care in jerking these kids around.
And they're not even telling us what the "grand plan" is!! What is it besides just handwavey claims about "equity"??
According to Sergio his grand plan is system level changes , at least that what he stated when he scolded us after the meeting
If walkability is still a chief factor in their goals, there are very few options for closures that wouldn't impact walkability for a subset of their students. So why not just be clear about what schools they're targeting for closure. The only possibility I see is closing one of Kingsley or Lincolnwood and redistricting those kids to the 5th Ward school or Willard based on where they live closest to. Currently there are already students being bussed to Orrington who live in NE Evanston so they don't have to make the dangerous crossing on the street level tracks north of Central, and kids who are bussed to Dewey from the Noyes-Ridge area, what's their walkable school that doesn't involve crossing Green Bay? There are kids zoned for Willard who live west of Crawford, who aren't walkable to any other school.
IтАЩm not sure that walkability is still a chief factor тАФthatтАЩs the thing. It was part of their justification to get the new 5th Ward built тАФand I donтАЩt really think they care about it when it comes to the rest of the district. Just like I donтАЩt believe that they were ever serious about a тАЬschool within a school.тАЭ That was merely another ploy to quiet a community during a school board election and crucial moment in getting the new school across the proverbial finish line. Awful, just awful.
I agree with this assessment. New school as an asset replacement for Kingsley seems like a slam dunk. Lincolnwood is 4 blocks west and new school is 3 blocks South. Otherwise, any closure is a net negative to walkability.
I think walkability will still have to be at least somewhat of a factor for bussing savings, and they'll also consider which schools will lose the most 5th ward students. I don't think the farthest south elementary schools will close, and I don't think Washington will close because it already has two TWI streams and will likely absorb some of the Bessie Rhodes students who don't go to the 5th ward school. Once you start to look at it from that lens, it will more than likely be a north school and Kingsley would make the most sense for the reasons you said.
WeтАЩll see. Sadly, itтАЩs all about clear as mud.
Re school closures, I do think itтАЩs likely that 2-3 schools will be on the chopping block тАФand given this Board and Administration who knows if the ones chosen will make any logical sense. In fact, given past track records, that seems unlikely.
Austere times are coming тАФfor sure. Where is the $200M+ coming from to repair existing schools, for example?! There is no way you can justify this many schools with the declining d65 student population. And I think weтАЩre past the point of claiming that the families/kids that left will come back. Why should they?
They need to have a referendum on the 2025 ballot and should've had one on the 2023 ballot! Even if it fails miserably, they need to at least get the ask out there. The 2017 referendum was specifically designed only to last until 2024. I don't understand why they're not talking about this. Even if they fired everyone at 1500 McDaniel, they'd still be in rough shape. They need to at least lift up the per-pupil funding so it levels out with ETHS and the only way that will happen is via a 5% referendum.
At the listen and learn in April, someone asked Dr. Turner if they were planning on trying to get enrollment numbers up. The comms person spoke up and said they are not targeting families that left as they assume it's unlikely they'll come back at this point. Their goal was targeting new Kindergarten families...Seems like most new Kindergarten families would like some clarity on if their school is going to get shut down if they are on the fence of sending their kid to D65, but that's just me.
There's no real technical upside to increasing enrollment - like it doesn't really bring in any additional revenue but it increases the costs. We have such a broken system here in IL!
Sergio JIUST said in a recent board meeting that they are reaching out to families who left to find out why. Ha! Another lie. I am one of those families and have many friends who left and no one has been contacted because he made it up.