<body><div><figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=3XoYcg_1Gw63kah00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=3XoYcg_1Gw63kah00" width="780" height="520" ><figcaption>Natalie Copper, School Age Child Care site coordinator, revs up demonstrators with a megaphone ahead of Monday night's school board meeting. They were in the lobby of the administration building. Credit: Richard Cahan</figcaption></figure>The Evanston/Skokie District 65 school board held a lengthy discussion Monday night about the district’s proposed budget cut plan, with several board members questioning administrators’ priorities. Board President Nichole Pinkard, Vice President Chris Van Nostrand and member Maria Opdycke asked more questions and expressed more skepticism about the plan than they had in previous meetings. Much of the discussion revolved around the way administrators are proposing setting aside funds for capital expenditures, like building repairs. District 65 Chief Financial Officer Eric Miller said his priority was to invest in school buildings, saying that failing to set aside more funds for that would be “playing with fire.” “I’m standing up for the buildings, because I think the buildings are instructional dollars,” Miller said. “Because every dollar you don’t spend when you needed to, and it costs you more money later, someone else, some other board, is going to go, ‘Oh geez, now we have to find that money.’”Administrators also presented new scenarios modeling the closure of the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Literary and Fine Arts School, which some board members had previously requested, but administrators said Monday they are still recommending their original budget plan. Those sweeping budget cuts were first proposed by administrators at the Oct. 13 board meeting and include the closure of Lincolnwood and Dewey elementary schools, along with ending district-provided Head Start.Originally, that plan was also set to eliminate the district’s School Age Child Care program, but the district walked that back after it came to a new agreement with the Evanston Association of Childcare Professionals, the union representing the district’s childcare staff. The board approved an extension of its bargaining agreement with the union on Monday.The proposed cuts have faced widespread criticism and community scrutiny, particularly after some Dewey Elementary parents discovered a $27.35 million error in the district’s five-year financial projections. A group of parents and educators also found that proposed staffing cuts to the early childhood program would eliminate all early childhood special education staff, a claim that district officials pushed back against without providing updated figures. Public voices<figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=2XAVJU_1Gw63kah00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=2XAVJU_1Gw63kah00" width="1024" height="683" ><figcaption>Demonstrators walk to the District 65 Joseph E. Hill administration building before heading inside for Monday’s school board meeting. Credit: Richard Cahan</figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=4cKGSM_1Gw63kah00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=4cKGSM_1Gw63kah00" width="1024" height="683" ><figcaption>Demonstrators listen to speeches outside the Joseph E. Hill Early Childhood Center. Credit: Richard Cahan</figcaption></figure>Before Monday’s meeting, more than 200 people gathered outside the board room in the Joseph E. Hill Early Childhood Center at a protest organized by the Illinois Education Association. The demonstration was in solidarity with Head Start and the early childhood program. Kids and adults chanted “Whose schools? Our schools!” as they marched from a staging area near JEH into the atrium of the building. Protesters stood there and chanted as district administrators and school board members made their way into the meeting.More than 40 people — ranging from parents to employees to community members — signed up to speak during the public comment portion of the meeting. Speaker after speaker made their case to the board. Multiple early childhood teachers from JEH spoke up about the importance of their roles.<figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=1rxiqr_1Gw63kah00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=1rxiqr_1Gw63kah00" width="1024" height="683" ><figcaption>“For 40 years, our district promised every child, every day, for whatever it takes, and tonight, that foundation is on the chopping block,” said Racheal Martin, parent and educator. Credit: Richard Cahan</figcaption></figure><figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=1JskQb_1Gw63kah00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=1JskQb_1Gw63kah00" width="1024" height="683" ><figcaption>“I am asking you, the board, to start holding this administration accountable and demand transparency, accuracy and responsibility,” said Peter Rios, a Dewey parent. “I’m asking you to demand not only financial clarity, but also academic excellence. These goals are achievable without closing programs or schools, but they require you to exercise the oversight and leadership this community elected you to provide.” Credit: Richard Cahan</figcaption></figure>Ashley Peterson, an early intervention transition coordinator at JEH, described her colleagues as “fierce.”“I warn you, the early childhood educators in this building are fierce, and we are very dedicated to these students,” Peterson said. “We will not stop advocating. And the more you try to silence us, the louder our voices will rise.”Following public comment, Opdycke said she appreciated how the administration had responded to errors in its financial projections, and again acknowledged that the district needs to take action to address its financial woes. But, she said, “no plan can fully solve the structural deficit.”She asked the administration to model closing King Arts so the board could study the “tradeoffs” of taking or not taking such an action. What the finances look likeMiller also gave a presentation detailing updated financial numbers, including acknowledging the district’s $27.35 million error, which the RoundTable was the first to report. He showed several graphs describing the district’s financial situation, which suggested that without school closures, the district’s cash on hand would continue to decline. He repeatedly referred to fiscal year 2029 (school year 2028-29) as a “decision point” when the district would need to take further action to address cash flow issues — even if the plan currently on the table is approved — alluding to the possibility of a capital referendum or even more cuts. Several union contracts will be up for renegotiation that year. <figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=0FEEy4_1Gw63kah00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=0FEEy4_1Gw63kah00" width="1832" height="1028" ><figcaption>A new chart from Monday’s board meeting showing the incorrect and corrected financial projections. The slide also shows corrected capital expenditure figures. Credit: District 65</figcaption></figure>Administrators then invited Robert Grossi, who runs a financial consulting firm, to answer questions from board members as an outside expert. Grossi previously served as a District 65 financial adviser from 2023 through 2025 during the earlier years of the district’s ongoing budget crisis. Although he said he was there to address any board questions about the district’s budget proposal, he suggested he had not independently reviewed it. He provided some general recommendations but didn’t offer a concrete evaluation of the plan. He said the board would need to “make some tough decisions,” and acknowledged that any path forward “is going to upset somebody.” Pinkard said the “comprehensive nature” of the district’s plan — specifically that it would mean the district would close four total schools in two years (Lincolnwood and Dewey in addition to the already closed Kingsley and Bessie Rhodes), made it difficult for her to see how all the pieces of the plan fit together. “There’s a piece of trust here that … you’re asking us for, that to be honest, I’m trying to get there when I’m seeing the numbers changing as much as they are,” Pinkard said. Capital spendingPinkard also asked for clarification on how much the district planned to put toward capital expenditures in the future. Last year, the board initially agreed to put aside $2.7 million each year for building improvements, but later revised that figure down to $2.4 million. The plan proposed by the district, according to slides presented Monday, would increase that figure to $7.24 million in fiscal year 2028 and more than $8 million in fiscal years 2029 and beyond. “If we’re also trying to get to a referendum discussion to really put funds in, I just want to acknowledge it is a choice to spend it on buildings … as opposed to put it in a way that could allow us to keep schools open until we get to the ultimate fork in the road of making a decision,” Pinkard said. The conversation later returned to a debate over capital expenditures. Miller repeatedly emphasized his concern that not investing in buildings could lead to other issues down the road. Multiple times, he cited a hypothetical example of a boiler bursting in the middle of winter, leaving a school without heat. Without adequate funds set aside for capital repairs, Miller argued, the district could be in real trouble. <figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=1VfoAA_1Gw63kah00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=1VfoAA_1Gw63kah00" width="1024" height="683" ><figcaption>Board member Maria Opdycke at Monday’s meeting. Credit: Richard Cahan</figcaption></figure>Board members also expressed some confusion about how much the district needed to set aside for capital improvements slated to take place over the next two summers. The district has already asked the state of Illinois to provide Health Life Safety bonds to cover some repairs. Funding for those summer projects will come partially from the district’s own capital expenditure fund and partially from HLS bonds. In summer 2027, proposed repairs would cost $3.85 million in district funds and $5 million in HLS bonds. New boundariesAssistant Superintendent Stacy Beardsley also presented the new proposed school attendance boundaries released Friday, explaining the district’s rationale for its latest model. These new boundaries come after two earlier proposals released Oct. 13 and 23, which followed the announcement that the district’s budget plan would include closing Lincolnwood and Dewey. The latest plan would affect 630 students attending kindergarten through fourth grade, according to a student impact webpage also released Friday, down from the 713 students impacted under the first proposal.The new map changes three elementary school boundaries from the second proposal released two weeks earlier. A thin section of northwest Evanston near Golf Road would move to Willard Elementary School from Foster Elementary, and a section of downtown bounded by Emerson Street, Maple Avenue, Church Street and Ridge Avenue/Green Bay Road would move to Lincoln Elementary from Foster. These changes return Foster’s proposed boundaries to the shape used today, a triangular area covering the city’s historically Black neighborhood in and around the Fifth Ward.This would also mean the entirety of Lincolnwood’s current attendance boundary would go to Willard, consolidating all of the area in Evanston west of the North Shore Channel and Green Bay Road into a single elementary school. Lincoln, meanwhile, would draw even more students from downtown to the school in the city’s southeast.The only other affected area would be the four blocks between Main Street, Asbury Avenue, Washington Street and Dodge Avenue, which would move from Dawes Elementary to Washington Elementary. This area is in the Washington boundary currently.After presenting those new boundaries, Beardsley showed two scenarios she said the board requested the administration to model: the closure of King Arts alone, and the closure of King Arts and Lincolnwood. Closing King Arts would push the utilization of Nichols Middle School higher, Beardsley said, since King Arts currently serves students in kindergarten through eighth grade. It would also mean that the RISE program for students with multiple moderate to severe intellectual or developmental disabilities would need to move. Beardsley provided some cost-savings estimates, but acknowledged that projected net savings from closing King Arts alone or King Arts and Lincolnwood were not complete; more calculations are needed to determine transportation costs. <figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=2cgwyn_1Gw63kah00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=2cgwyn_1Gw63kah00" width="1830" height="1032" ><figcaption>The side-by-side-by-side comparison of the three school closure scenarios administrators showed to board members on Monday. Credit: District 65</figcaption></figure>According to the district’s presentation, closing King Arts and Lincolnwood would cause a total of 721 students to change schools, with 52.4% of those defined as marginalized students (students with an individualized education program, low-income students or English learners); closing only King Arts would move 443 students, with 63.7% of those being marginalized students. The district’s originally proposed plan would move 630 students, 43.2% of whom are categorized as marginalized. Board member Andrew Wymer flagged the percentages of marginalized students who would move under each plan, saying the numbers hearkened back to the district’s history of forcing marginalized students to move schools. He questioned whether the board was appropriately prioritizing equity in its planning.Van Nostrand said that members of the community are looking for, but struggling to find, a throughline in the district’s decision-making process. Closing Bessie Rhodes was intended to lead to more investment in neighborhood schools, Van Nostrand said, but the district is now proposing closing some of those. The district also opened Foster, a new neighborhood school, while pushing to close others, he noted. The district has repeatedly emphasized equity in these processes, but families of students in the two-way Spanish/English immersion program have been the subject of transition every year — with the Bessie Rhodes closure, the closing of Willard TWI and now the proposed closure of Dewey. Van Nostrand said his preference would be to support the district’s plan, but that he wanted to make sure he was being “rigorous” about it. Opdycke said she wants a plan that the community can get behind. She framed the district as facing the immediate crisis now, from fiscal year 2027 (this school year) to fiscal year 2029 (school year 2028-29), before having a decision in fiscal year 2029, referencing a ballot referendum. “This is their community. This is their life, This is their money. This is their home,” Opdycke said of families whose schools could be closed. “And I feel like closing two neighborhood schools now, to save maybe $3 million a year when there might be another path that I think is just as viable, feels shortsighted.”The board is set to vote on advancing the budget plan at its next meeting at 6 p.m. Monday, Nov. 16 at the Joseph E. Hill Early Childhood Center.The board also discussed financial safeguards at Monday’s meeting, which you can read more about here.The RoundTable is still writing follow-up coverage. Reach out to Education Reporter Hope Perry with tips, questions and concerns at hopep@evanstonroundtable.com.<h2>Support the RoundTable!</h2>Your commitment as a MONTHLY SUSTAINING DONOR helps us the most!Recurring contributions – at all levels – enable us to build a viable newsroom that will serve Evanston for the next 25 years! </div></body>

Block Source: evanstonroundtable.com

Misinformation

Clickbait

Old or repetitive news

Explicit content

Location not relevant

The Evanston/Skokie District 65 school board held a lengthy discussion Monday night about the district’s proposed budget cut plan, with several board members questioning administrators’ priorities. Board President Nichole Pinkard, Vice President Chris Van Nostrand and member Maria Opdycke asked more questions and expressed more skepticism about the...

District 65 board debates budget cut plan again amid community backlash

NewsBreak

The Evanston/Skokie District 65 school board held a lengthy discussion Monday night about the district’s proposed budget cut plan, with several board membe

District 65 board debates budget cut plan again amid community backlash

Comments