I agree on the divided board being a good thing - for too long it was unanimous decisions, without this much debate or thought. The previous Boards rubber stamped whatever the Administration fed them. I think it says something that the three members asking the most questions and voting against closing two more schools right now are the three who had the most votes in the last election - and more votes than past elections, so it was a more engaged electorate. Plus local press and constituents raising questions about the data and analysis is valuable and not something every school district is afforded by its community - so I appreciate that Board Members are listening to that too instead of just the expert the Administration hand picked.
What I am having an issue with is the Board members who cannot get enough votes for two more closures refusing to even pass one more closure. That’s not reasonable governance. Nobody is saying closing an additional school later is off the table completely - Dr. Pinkard said that explicitly at the last meeting. But closing two out of three schools in NW Evanston poses legal risk, including because of Lincolnwood deed restrictions. They could blow through any savings from closing Lincolnwood with legal fees real fast.
There doesn’t seem to be an appreciation for how unrealistic it is to close 3 schools and open 1 in the same time period (plus move Step and TWI to different schools). Particularly for an Administration with the track record this one has (which Tom, you’ve covered extensively). That’s a lot of IES services to coordinate and a lot of transportation to change. Teachers and staff have raised issues about whether there will be space in consolidated buildings to provide appropriate IES services. There is a mentality from the Administration that they just want to get it all over with (Turner made a comment to that effect) - but it’s not about them. There seems to be no accountability for Administration staff when things go wrong or badly in this District, so maybe they feel job security and just don’t care if it goes badly.
"There is a mentality from the Administration that they just want to get it all over with (Turner made a comment to that effect) - but it’s not about them." is certainly the vibe I get from Turner and the administrators in the meetings. On one hand, I can't blame them, if I was in their situation, I'd want this over with too. But on the other hand, the board (via the taxpayers) sign the checks. They work for the people and are at will employees and are welcome to leave if they hate the plan. So many of them, including Turner, don't live anywhere even close to Evanston - why stay here if it's so miserable!?
The things you mentioned about how costly it is to close schools and transition students and teachers to new schools are precisely why the retrospective data analysis on several school closing processes across the country shows that there isn’t much money saved after all.
It seems to me that the district and this board have really given zero thought to how some of what they are proposing is going to impact kids who get special education services and it really disgusts me. Do kids in the STEP program not deserve to go to a school in their neighborhood instead of across town? Teachers from that program spoke in public comment about the difficulties of moving it from Lincolnwood yet no one is listening to them. Beardsley actually said in one of the meetings that they could put an "accessible" classroom in a school building that's not disability accessible. How marginalizing is it to not be able to access your entire school building because of a disability? How are kids with disabilities not a "marginalized group" in the eyes of this district or this board? It's mind boggling to me.
Unfortunately this is par for the course for D65 Administration when it comes to special education. The administration and some commentators have made flippant comments about how kids can just adjust and be flexible in moving schools. Which is pretty ableist. Moving diverse learners away from established educators is more impactful than for typical learners. Being in larger class sizes is more detrimental to diverse learners (in my experience but I’m not an educator). The changing of physical locations for neurodivergent kids is a huge disruption. I also think walkability is a lot different when kids have disabilities - and the nuance of that seems lost on a lot of commentators that I’ve seen (e.g. a kid may be able to walk, but not ride a bike; or a kid may be able to walk only so far to get to school but not more than .75 - and their parent chose the school for proximity and now it’ll be gone but no district funded transportation available either).
The administration made a point during a Board Meeting about kids being able to stay at King Lab given the IEP services established there. I actually disagree somewhat with the focus put on including King Lab in the closure conversation because I think it’s an important space for kids who have a harder time in general education (and I’m not a King Lab parent). But I also don’t know that concentrating kids with IEP services at King Lab is the best course. I do think a lot of STEP kids are already going to schools across town, and the district pays to transport them there. But moving the program when it’s been established is a disruption. And I don’t trust that the Administration adequately reached out to these families about what they want as far as STEP location (maybe they did, but again, that’s not something that’s been disclosed). These points about kids with disabilities, neurodivergent children or diverse learners don’t seem to be part of the conversation (e.g., a parent had to point out that the SDRP score cards made ADA considerations a part of facilities, and not equity). Pat Anderson campaigned on special education considerations, and so maybe that’s been part of her rationale for voting the way she has. There’s just a lack of dynamic or inclusive thinking from the Administration in this process so I’m glad the closures have not just been pushed through the way the Administration wants.
Thank you, Tom. I agree. No matter the outcome of this school closure process, this Board (excluding holdover members - they don't get props for clinging on) has already fundamentally changed how business gets done in the District, for the better. As a Bessie Rhodes parent, I can confirm that school communities are getting much better treatment from the Board and the District, and even though this is bittersweet for Bessie Rhodes families, it is progress. Is watching this unfold still uncomfortable? 100% Do I still get angry and frustrated? Daily. Will mistakes still be made? Absolutely. But every time this Board asks questions, talks to each other in public, and takes the time to explain to the public why they are making the choices they are making, they are enacting transparency and accountability. I don't think we'll ever get all the access and visibility we want, but I'm seeing great strides by Board Members that are committed and doing the work.
Not to pat myself on the back, but I actually wrote about the Foster School project back at the time, in part because I had a sense that it was probably a bad decision financially. However, it never crossed my mind that the Administration would present numbers that were utter fiction or that the Board would accept those without checking them against reality.
The other reason I wrote that is that the Foster School project needed to be a part of a larger discussion about facilities as the CC study was already out and the possibility of closing other schools was not part of the discussion. It turns out the deliberate omission of those issues from public discussion was really just a set up to ensure that when School closures came, it would hit North Evanston as hard as possible ... "look at those utilization numbers".
The comment about the undemocratic nature of school boards hits home as the Board is meeting behind closed doors to pick a new Board member who will untie this knot. No accountability for the people who back the chosen one.
That board and administration got away with pushing the new school through because that board and Horton browbeat people who expressed doubts as being racist. Covid and the lack of in-person meetings didn't help. It was obvious that at least one North Evanston school was going to have to close, probably Kingsley, but that was never part of the discussion. I assumed that they kept that out of the discussion to prevent more push-back from North Evanston families. I hope they didn't hide it on purpose as that "it would hit North Evanston as hard as possible," but based on their hostility towards North Evanston, I wouldn't be surprised. (Remember when one of the board members said something like "Fuck them...let them move to Wilmette!"?)
Thanks for making this. I've been of the same mindset - this deadlock will give time for the board to get the transit audit numbers, the special Ed audit numbers, and hopefully find out if any/all of the schools have deed restrictions.
And hopefully the underlying numbers on so many of the consultant assumptions can be FOIAed now that they aren't pre-decisional. The transport "savings" were clearly just guesses that were applied evenly regardless of which schools were closing, and maybe they can actually run the numbers a bit better and find out closing schools could end up costing money if done wrong.
The giant misses in the budgets the last few years have kept me from taking the dire predictions seriously. There hasn't been any solid explanation for how things were so far off and what changes have been made to prevent other wild swings.
Since half of the savings from each school closure was staffing cuts (presumably from class consolidations), the doom and gloom by some people about Cuts is also hard to take seriously - the closure plans were going to require all teachers at 1-3 schools to move , even if they kept their jobs. Now things can be paced out a bit more.
My only real worry is that a board member gets picked by the superintendent in mid February, another vote happens in March, and they try to rush an additional closure by August. I believe it would be best to open Foster with just BR closing and see just how many people actually want to go there and move forward at that point. Maybe it'll only be one section per grade and they have to reconsider permissive transfers. Maybe it'll be bursting at the seams. Who knows!
I absolutely agree about waiting to see how things shake out after Foster opens. As I understand it, kids who live in the 5th ward are not required to switch to Foster if they want to continue at the Northside school they are currently attending. If that is still the case, it's possible that there will be more students at the Northside schools than projected.
"Recall that in September 2024, as the Board considered approving a large -$13m unbalanced budget, Dr. Grossi warned them of the consequences. The Board unanimously passed the bad budget anyway followed by four board members announcing they weren’t running for re-election."
THIS. It’s truly baffling to me that two of those same board members—part of the decisions that brought us to this cliff—now position themselves as the responsible fiscal stewards.
"For as chaotic as it feels here, it’s good to know we still know how to play the game. I feel like I’m watching the community rebuild something that was lost."
ALSO this. I 100% agree and appreciate the optimistic take. The community is the constant in this and we are the ones who will drive fixing the district long after the people who got it here are gone. It's stunning to see how far the district has fallen in a relatively short period of time since the last referendum. Hopefully come spring 2027 we will be fully out of the era of feckless board members and turning the page on a new day with new district leadership as well.
I wouldn't consider any board member from 2019-2024 a good fiscal steward. They looked the other way while the place burned down and rode off into the sunset patting themselves on the back the whole time.
There is nothing that stands out more than when they gave Horton a plaque on his last day, for building the Foster School ... in an empty field. There is no better metaphor for that era.
By the way, if anyone knows where the plaque is, I would like to obtain it to hang on my wall.
“We haven’t had nearly enough [disagreement]. Groupthink has ruled supreme. It’s not just Evanston - the thing I’ve found the most striking, writing about schools, is how undemocratic school boards are compared to City Councils. There’s a level of deference to authority (superintendents, staffers, consultants) that doesn’t exist in any other level of government.”
I completely agree. Having been elected to, served, and challenged for asking reasonable questions on a board (not d65), this is definitely a dynamic that is structurally reinforced. While I understand the need for the open meetings act, it really diminishes opportunities for constructive problem solving—or for that matter, reasonable dialogue/debate—beyond the formal monthly meetings of the board. And given that dynamic, it is the responsibility of the board president to set the tone and lead with transparency.
At the beginning of the school closure discussion they said everything would be on the table, and that didn't materialize. Nichole kept pointing out that she thought the discussion of school closure and programming cuts would be knitted together. I agree with that point.
But I also think people are going to realize that they don't want to make a lot of these cuts. Are we going to support slashing our crossing guard budget in half? Or staggering school start times? Or increasing what each family pays for student fees, after school care, sports, etc? When push comes to shove these changes are not ideal. I guess time will tell if the changes are preferred to school closure.
For the special ed audits and bidding out contracts -- are we certain we'll realize savings instead of the exact opposite? Everywhere I look, costs are going UP. But I guess I'm ruled by fear not hope 🤷
I don't think that's fear, that's just reasonable concern. You could be right about re-bidding contracts with higher costs. But I would expect those costs to show up eventually, and I'd rather the board have all the information for a holistic decision than putting out fires every year.
As an economist and someone who has spent a lifetime looking at budgets, the huge annual inaccuracies are massively concerning. Also concerning is a board that is nowhere near consensus. I agree fully that means that the process is working, but it also means the information is likely still poor. Thx
Agreed, Tom, that what appears as strife and discord is actually a democratic process in process. Collectively, our tolerance for the slowness and messiness of real decision making around complex situations has deteriorated greatly. A fantasy of fast and clean dominates, but is indeed a fantasy. I'm glad the community is activated and the board is listening responsively. I see it as a sign of growth. At the same time, it's horrible to watch and experience and I'd be lying if I said I didn't wish it was happening at some other time or in some other place! Kids don't care about the progress the adult world needs to make or "interesting times" or whatever. Once this decision is made, the community will need to press just as hard for a genuine plan from the Board and Administration about how these changes will roll out and preparation for how the effects of these changes are likely to show up in the classroom for students and teachers. We cannot plan to throw up some decorations at new schools and that's that. This phase of the process will also be messy, but can be anticipated and prepared for.
I wish it wasn't happening to our kids either, but one day they will be adults and I hope we're setting a good example. As the world around us turns towards authoritarianism, I hope our kids will grow up to fight for democracy.
I concur with Anonymous - thanks for the opinion and insight. I agree with you that the level of community engagement is exemplary. People do not get involved—or get mad—when they don’t care. Clearly parents and the community at large DO care. They also believe things can get better and that is impressive considering the abysmal track record in academic achievement coupled with financial mismanagement over the last few years.
Regardless of which schools close, it is obvious that D65 must dramatically reduce its administrative salary burden. There are, of course, other ways to reduce expenses; however, the well documented increase in administrative positions while enrollment fell is egregious.
We can hope the current board’s exercise of responsibility vs. rubber stamping superintendents’ whims becomes the new standard for the district.
“ Regardless of which schools close, it is obvious that D65 must dramatically reduce its administrative salary burden. There are, of course, other ways to reduce expenses; however, the well documented increase in administrative positions while enrollment fell is egregious.” Absolutely.
“We can hope the current board’s exercise of responsibility vs. rubber stamping superintendents’ whims becomes the new standard for the district.” Yes.
Having had my own personal interactions with Supt. Horton, his decisions seemed to be based on nothing more than personal whims and biases. Hopefully we are on the way to a better school district in the long term, despite the obvious pain and disappointment we may all have experienced in the past as well as in the present.
I had the same reaction when reading about the stalemate yesterday: It's better to have a board that discusses and disagrees than one that behaves like lemmings and takes the district over the cliff as Horton's board did.
It might be prudent to not open Foster until we can afford to operate it. More cuts to administrative overhead and waste are likely possible with Tamara Mitchell’s continued efforts. I would suspect that the administration has not been forthcoming about expected Foster enrollment because it is going to be low.
Thanks for this! I’m just curious why you’re saying it’s not a done deal. I am a teacher and I’m really worried about the district’s future. I don’t know about finances but I know about teaching and all this happening is just too much for many teachers at D65.
The issue with the board is that they can’t decide right now to close 1 or 2 schools. Zero is only the reality temporarily until they cross this bridge. They absolutely have to close at least one building or the finances are very very dire and we head into state takeover territory.
I’m new to this, and you have much more of a history with this than I do, but do you think Sergio, Mya and Andrew even care? To your point, Sergio isn’t used to getting pushback, and it seems like these three would rather watch it all burn than compromise if they don’t get their way. The email sent from the board tonight seemed like it was meant as a message to those three.
I think they care - but their position seems to be: close two schools now to avoid closing another later. Sergio and Andrew are Oakton parents and I think there’s fear that if they don’t close 2 north side schools, then Oakton (or ACC at Oakton) will get the axe next. I think that fear is misplaced but I can appreciate where it comes from.
Thanks for the response. I didn’t realize Sergio was an Oakton parent as well. That helps explain why the Oakton families speaking up have been such outliers versus where most of the rest of the community seems to be.
I agree on the divided board being a good thing - for too long it was unanimous decisions, without this much debate or thought. The previous Boards rubber stamped whatever the Administration fed them. I think it says something that the three members asking the most questions and voting against closing two more schools right now are the three who had the most votes in the last election - and more votes than past elections, so it was a more engaged electorate. Plus local press and constituents raising questions about the data and analysis is valuable and not something every school district is afforded by its community - so I appreciate that Board Members are listening to that too instead of just the expert the Administration hand picked.
What I am having an issue with is the Board members who cannot get enough votes for two more closures refusing to even pass one more closure. That’s not reasonable governance. Nobody is saying closing an additional school later is off the table completely - Dr. Pinkard said that explicitly at the last meeting. But closing two out of three schools in NW Evanston poses legal risk, including because of Lincolnwood deed restrictions. They could blow through any savings from closing Lincolnwood with legal fees real fast.
There doesn’t seem to be an appreciation for how unrealistic it is to close 3 schools and open 1 in the same time period (plus move Step and TWI to different schools). Particularly for an Administration with the track record this one has (which Tom, you’ve covered extensively). That’s a lot of IES services to coordinate and a lot of transportation to change. Teachers and staff have raised issues about whether there will be space in consolidated buildings to provide appropriate IES services. There is a mentality from the Administration that they just want to get it all over with (Turner made a comment to that effect) - but it’s not about them. There seems to be no accountability for Administration staff when things go wrong or badly in this District, so maybe they feel job security and just don’t care if it goes badly.
"There is a mentality from the Administration that they just want to get it all over with (Turner made a comment to that effect) - but it’s not about them." is certainly the vibe I get from Turner and the administrators in the meetings. On one hand, I can't blame them, if I was in their situation, I'd want this over with too. But on the other hand, the board (via the taxpayers) sign the checks. They work for the people and are at will employees and are welcome to leave if they hate the plan. So many of them, including Turner, don't live anywhere even close to Evanston - why stay here if it's so miserable!?
The things you mentioned about how costly it is to close schools and transition students and teachers to new schools are precisely why the retrospective data analysis on several school closing processes across the country shows that there isn’t much money saved after all.
It seems to me that the district and this board have really given zero thought to how some of what they are proposing is going to impact kids who get special education services and it really disgusts me. Do kids in the STEP program not deserve to go to a school in their neighborhood instead of across town? Teachers from that program spoke in public comment about the difficulties of moving it from Lincolnwood yet no one is listening to them. Beardsley actually said in one of the meetings that they could put an "accessible" classroom in a school building that's not disability accessible. How marginalizing is it to not be able to access your entire school building because of a disability? How are kids with disabilities not a "marginalized group" in the eyes of this district or this board? It's mind boggling to me.
Unfortunately this is par for the course for D65 Administration when it comes to special education. The administration and some commentators have made flippant comments about how kids can just adjust and be flexible in moving schools. Which is pretty ableist. Moving diverse learners away from established educators is more impactful than for typical learners. Being in larger class sizes is more detrimental to diverse learners (in my experience but I’m not an educator). The changing of physical locations for neurodivergent kids is a huge disruption. I also think walkability is a lot different when kids have disabilities - and the nuance of that seems lost on a lot of commentators that I’ve seen (e.g. a kid may be able to walk, but not ride a bike; or a kid may be able to walk only so far to get to school but not more than .75 - and their parent chose the school for proximity and now it’ll be gone but no district funded transportation available either).
The administration made a point during a Board Meeting about kids being able to stay at King Lab given the IEP services established there. I actually disagree somewhat with the focus put on including King Lab in the closure conversation because I think it’s an important space for kids who have a harder time in general education (and I’m not a King Lab parent). But I also don’t know that concentrating kids with IEP services at King Lab is the best course. I do think a lot of STEP kids are already going to schools across town, and the district pays to transport them there. But moving the program when it’s been established is a disruption. And I don’t trust that the Administration adequately reached out to these families about what they want as far as STEP location (maybe they did, but again, that’s not something that’s been disclosed). These points about kids with disabilities, neurodivergent children or diverse learners don’t seem to be part of the conversation (e.g., a parent had to point out that the SDRP score cards made ADA considerations a part of facilities, and not equity). Pat Anderson campaigned on special education considerations, and so maybe that’s been part of her rationale for voting the way she has. There’s just a lack of dynamic or inclusive thinking from the Administration in this process so I’m glad the closures have not just been pushed through the way the Administration wants.
I agree with that and I hope you turn that critical eye to the IINS proposal which advocates moving Park and JEH to Kingsley.
Thank you, Tom. I agree. No matter the outcome of this school closure process, this Board (excluding holdover members - they don't get props for clinging on) has already fundamentally changed how business gets done in the District, for the better. As a Bessie Rhodes parent, I can confirm that school communities are getting much better treatment from the Board and the District, and even though this is bittersweet for Bessie Rhodes families, it is progress. Is watching this unfold still uncomfortable? 100% Do I still get angry and frustrated? Daily. Will mistakes still be made? Absolutely. But every time this Board asks questions, talks to each other in public, and takes the time to explain to the public why they are making the choices they are making, they are enacting transparency and accountability. I don't think we'll ever get all the access and visibility we want, but I'm seeing great strides by Board Members that are committed and doing the work.
Not to pat myself on the back, but I actually wrote about the Foster School project back at the time, in part because I had a sense that it was probably a bad decision financially. However, it never crossed my mind that the Administration would present numbers that were utter fiction or that the Board would accept those without checking them against reality.
The other reason I wrote that is that the Foster School project needed to be a part of a larger discussion about facilities as the CC study was already out and the possibility of closing other schools was not part of the discussion. It turns out the deliberate omission of those issues from public discussion was really just a set up to ensure that when School closures came, it would hit North Evanston as hard as possible ... "look at those utilization numbers".
The comment about the undemocratic nature of school boards hits home as the Board is meeting behind closed doors to pick a new Board member who will untie this knot. No accountability for the people who back the chosen one.
That board and administration got away with pushing the new school through because that board and Horton browbeat people who expressed doubts as being racist. Covid and the lack of in-person meetings didn't help. It was obvious that at least one North Evanston school was going to have to close, probably Kingsley, but that was never part of the discussion. I assumed that they kept that out of the discussion to prevent more push-back from North Evanston families. I hope they didn't hide it on purpose as that "it would hit North Evanston as hard as possible," but based on their hostility towards North Evanston, I wouldn't be surprised. (Remember when one of the board members said something like "Fuck them...let them move to Wilmette!"?)
Thanks for making this. I've been of the same mindset - this deadlock will give time for the board to get the transit audit numbers, the special Ed audit numbers, and hopefully find out if any/all of the schools have deed restrictions.
And hopefully the underlying numbers on so many of the consultant assumptions can be FOIAed now that they aren't pre-decisional. The transport "savings" were clearly just guesses that were applied evenly regardless of which schools were closing, and maybe they can actually run the numbers a bit better and find out closing schools could end up costing money if done wrong.
The giant misses in the budgets the last few years have kept me from taking the dire predictions seriously. There hasn't been any solid explanation for how things were so far off and what changes have been made to prevent other wild swings.
Since half of the savings from each school closure was staffing cuts (presumably from class consolidations), the doom and gloom by some people about Cuts is also hard to take seriously - the closure plans were going to require all teachers at 1-3 schools to move , even if they kept their jobs. Now things can be paced out a bit more.
My only real worry is that a board member gets picked by the superintendent in mid February, another vote happens in March, and they try to rush an additional closure by August. I believe it would be best to open Foster with just BR closing and see just how many people actually want to go there and move forward at that point. Maybe it'll only be one section per grade and they have to reconsider permissive transfers. Maybe it'll be bursting at the seams. Who knows!
I absolutely think your skepticism about the consultant numbers and the financial projections is well placed.
I absolutely agree about waiting to see how things shake out after Foster opens. As I understand it, kids who live in the 5th ward are not required to switch to Foster if they want to continue at the Northside school they are currently attending. If that is still the case, it's possible that there will be more students at the Northside schools than projected.
"Recall that in September 2024, as the Board considered approving a large -$13m unbalanced budget, Dr. Grossi warned them of the consequences. The Board unanimously passed the bad budget anyway followed by four board members announcing they weren’t running for re-election."
THIS. It’s truly baffling to me that two of those same board members—part of the decisions that brought us to this cliff—now position themselves as the responsible fiscal stewards.
"For as chaotic as it feels here, it’s good to know we still know how to play the game. I feel like I’m watching the community rebuild something that was lost."
ALSO this. I 100% agree and appreciate the optimistic take. The community is the constant in this and we are the ones who will drive fixing the district long after the people who got it here are gone. It's stunning to see how far the district has fallen in a relatively short period of time since the last referendum. Hopefully come spring 2027 we will be fully out of the era of feckless board members and turning the page on a new day with new district leadership as well.
Thank you, as always, for the sound analysis.
I wouldn't consider any board member from 2019-2024 a good fiscal steward. They looked the other way while the place burned down and rode off into the sunset patting themselves on the back the whole time.
There is nothing that stands out more than when they gave Horton a plaque on his last day, for building the Foster School ... in an empty field. There is no better metaphor for that era.
By the way, if anyone knows where the plaque is, I would like to obtain it to hang on my wall.
Ha - very true!
“We haven’t had nearly enough [disagreement]. Groupthink has ruled supreme. It’s not just Evanston - the thing I’ve found the most striking, writing about schools, is how undemocratic school boards are compared to City Councils. There’s a level of deference to authority (superintendents, staffers, consultants) that doesn’t exist in any other level of government.”
I completely agree. Having been elected to, served, and challenged for asking reasonable questions on a board (not d65), this is definitely a dynamic that is structurally reinforced. While I understand the need for the open meetings act, it really diminishes opportunities for constructive problem solving—or for that matter, reasonable dialogue/debate—beyond the formal monthly meetings of the board. And given that dynamic, it is the responsibility of the board president to set the tone and lead with transparency.
At the beginning of the school closure discussion they said everything would be on the table, and that didn't materialize. Nichole kept pointing out that she thought the discussion of school closure and programming cuts would be knitted together. I agree with that point.
But I also think people are going to realize that they don't want to make a lot of these cuts. Are we going to support slashing our crossing guard budget in half? Or staggering school start times? Or increasing what each family pays for student fees, after school care, sports, etc? When push comes to shove these changes are not ideal. I guess time will tell if the changes are preferred to school closure.
For the special ed audits and bidding out contracts -- are we certain we'll realize savings instead of the exact opposite? Everywhere I look, costs are going UP. But I guess I'm ruled by fear not hope 🤷
I don't think that's fear, that's just reasonable concern. You could be right about re-bidding contracts with higher costs. But I would expect those costs to show up eventually, and I'd rather the board have all the information for a holistic decision than putting out fires every year.
I think that's a real risk for sure
As an economist and someone who has spent a lifetime looking at budgets, the huge annual inaccuracies are massively concerning. Also concerning is a board that is nowhere near consensus. I agree fully that means that the process is working, but it also means the information is likely still poor. Thx
Agreed, Tom, that what appears as strife and discord is actually a democratic process in process. Collectively, our tolerance for the slowness and messiness of real decision making around complex situations has deteriorated greatly. A fantasy of fast and clean dominates, but is indeed a fantasy. I'm glad the community is activated and the board is listening responsively. I see it as a sign of growth. At the same time, it's horrible to watch and experience and I'd be lying if I said I didn't wish it was happening at some other time or in some other place! Kids don't care about the progress the adult world needs to make or "interesting times" or whatever. Once this decision is made, the community will need to press just as hard for a genuine plan from the Board and Administration about how these changes will roll out and preparation for how the effects of these changes are likely to show up in the classroom for students and teachers. We cannot plan to throw up some decorations at new schools and that's that. This phase of the process will also be messy, but can be anticipated and prepared for.
I wish it wasn't happening to our kids either, but one day they will be adults and I hope we're setting a good example. As the world around us turns towards authoritarianism, I hope our kids will grow up to fight for democracy.
I concur with Anonymous - thanks for the opinion and insight. I agree with you that the level of community engagement is exemplary. People do not get involved—or get mad—when they don’t care. Clearly parents and the community at large DO care. They also believe things can get better and that is impressive considering the abysmal track record in academic achievement coupled with financial mismanagement over the last few years.
Regardless of which schools close, it is obvious that D65 must dramatically reduce its administrative salary burden. There are, of course, other ways to reduce expenses; however, the well documented increase in administrative positions while enrollment fell is egregious.
We can hope the current board’s exercise of responsibility vs. rubber stamping superintendents’ whims becomes the new standard for the district.
“ Regardless of which schools close, it is obvious that D65 must dramatically reduce its administrative salary burden. There are, of course, other ways to reduce expenses; however, the well documented increase in administrative positions while enrollment fell is egregious.” Absolutely.
“We can hope the current board’s exercise of responsibility vs. rubber stamping superintendents’ whims becomes the new standard for the district.” Yes.
Having had my own personal interactions with Supt. Horton, his decisions seemed to be based on nothing more than personal whims and biases. Hopefully we are on the way to a better school district in the long term, despite the obvious pain and disappointment we may all have experienced in the past as well as in the present.
I had the same reaction when reading about the stalemate yesterday: It's better to have a board that discusses and disagrees than one that behaves like lemmings and takes the district over the cliff as Horton's board did.
Now that no schools seem to be closing, what is the expected enrollment at Foster next Fall? Does anyone know this number?
I don't think it's a done deal that no schools are closing
It might be prudent to not open Foster until we can afford to operate it. More cuts to administrative overhead and waste are likely possible with Tamara Mitchell’s continued efforts. I would suspect that the administration has not been forthcoming about expected Foster enrollment because it is going to be low.
Thanks for this! I’m just curious why you’re saying it’s not a done deal. I am a teacher and I’m really worried about the district’s future. I don’t know about finances but I know about teaching and all this happening is just too much for many teachers at D65.
The issue with the board is that they can’t decide right now to close 1 or 2 schools. Zero is only the reality temporarily until they cross this bridge. They absolutely have to close at least one building or the finances are very very dire and we head into state takeover territory.
I’m new to this, and you have much more of a history with this than I do, but do you think Sergio, Mya and Andrew even care? To your point, Sergio isn’t used to getting pushback, and it seems like these three would rather watch it all burn than compromise if they don’t get their way. The email sent from the board tonight seemed like it was meant as a message to those three.
I think they care - but their position seems to be: close two schools now to avoid closing another later. Sergio and Andrew are Oakton parents and I think there’s fear that if they don’t close 2 north side schools, then Oakton (or ACC at Oakton) will get the axe next. I think that fear is misplaced but I can appreciate where it comes from.
Thanks for the response. I didn’t realize Sergio was an Oakton parent as well. That helps explain why the Oakton families speaking up have been such outliers versus where most of the rest of the community seems to be.