D65: Invest in Neighborhood Schools, a coalition of over 600 Evanston/Skokie School District 65 families, released a 10-page alternative proposal to Phase 3 of the district’s Structural Deficit Reduction Plan on Saturday.
The proposal, titled “Alternative SDRP III Path: Whatever It Takes,” was cosigned by over 50 parents and caregivers from Lincoln Elementary, Willard Elementary, Dawes Elementary, Washington Elementary, Nichols Middle and Chute Middle schools. It introduced cost-cutting recommendations for the district to consider to replace its school closure scenarios, which the board is set to vote on in less than two weeks.
IINS formally submitted the proposal to the public record at Monday’s District 65 Board of Education meeting. Several parents spoke in support of the proposal and read out its recommendations during public comment.
IINS co-founder Katie Armistead pushed the board to “find a better path” during her comments introducing the plan.
“Given that school closures harm students, are an unproven method to reduce budget deficits, there is no broad community approval and new data is still surfacing, school closures should be the last option explored, not one of the first,” she said.
The proposal was created in response to calls made by board members Nichole Pinkard and Maria Opdycke for community-driven and “innovative” ideas at the board’s Oct. 14 meeting. IINS began working on the analyses in the proposal shortly after and encouraged the district to take the time to thoroughly evaluate each of its suggested strategies.
Before delving into specific strategies to address structural deficit problems, the proposal called on the district to explore additional cost reductions, analyze revenue potential and conduct an independent financial audit of the district. It also argued that the district needed to prove its capacity to successfully close Dr. Bessie Rhodes School of Global Studies and open the new Foster School so the transition’s impact on the deficit and community can be fully assessed.
If school closures become the only viable option available to the district, the proposal requests that the district prioritize preserving its specialized programming — the Structured Teaching Education and Two-Way Immersion programs.
The proposal contains 20 ideas related to cost-reduction, revenue generating and facilities and deferred-maintenance options. Ideas included relying on external donations, partial leasing of school facilities, student entrepreneurship programs, selling underutilized district-owned assets and efforts to increase student enrollment.
“The proposal gives the district the ability to hold SDRP (Phase 3) goals while incorporating slight adjustments,” District 65 parent Zoran Tasic said. “It includes four actions that could result in approximately $12 million in net annual benefits to the district through a combination of feasible cuts and revenue generating options.”
In detailing each idea, the proposal included the annual net income they would bring the district if they were adopted. The final idea proposed the creation of a Diversified Community Investment Fund to sell the schools to raise capital.
The strategies either have equal or less administrative and logistic complexity than the current school closure scenarios, the proposal states. In the proposal, IINS emphasized that the district should look at their analysis with the “same level of rigor and time” that was used for the school scorecards used to create potential closure scenarios.
“While this work requires effort, it is a far more constructive investment: one that keeps schools open, strengthens communities and places students at the center of every decision,” the proposal reads.
Multiple public commenters at Monday’s meeting encouraged the board to make serious efforts to rebuild public trust and avoid facing a similarly difficult situation in the future.
For Sheila Seyfried, a former Orrington Elementary School PTA president, the closure processes feel too rushed and volatile.
“Schools seem to rotate weekly, on and off the chopping block, creating confusion, division and distrust,” Seyfried said. “This instability erodes faith in the system and distracts from the real goal: building a stronger, more sustainable district for the future.”
Email: [email protected]
Related Stories:
— District 65 flips to two school closures after public pushback, new financial projections
— City-School Liaison Committee addresses D65 school closures, public safety
— ‘One shot to get this right’: D65 board mulls over school closure scenarios
