Evanston/Skokie District 65 Board of Education President Patricia S. Anderson banged her gavel to adjourn a special meeting Monday where the board chose the only option she deemed “not an option” — failing to pass any school closures before the 2026-27 school year.

The vote marked the board’s second attempt to reach a decision on which schools to close, if any, alongside Dr. Bessie Rhodes School of Global Studies before next school year, which is also when the district’s new Foster School is slated to have its inaugural year.

At the board’s Nov. 17 meeting, Superintendent Angel Turner said that according to the district’s legal counsel, if the board could not pass on a scenario, it would default to zero additional school closures next school year.

The district first introduced 33 potential scenarios closing zero to four schools at the board’s Sept. 29 meeting. Through its deliberations, board members boiled their options down to four closure scenarios: Kingsley and Willard Elementary Schools; Kingsley and Lincolnwood Elementary Schools; only Kingsley and only Lincolnwood. In every scenario, Willard’s Two-Way Immersion strand was also slated to close. 

On Monday, board members unanimously rejected the scenario closing both Kingsley and Willard and split in their vote to close Kingsley and Lincolnwood, both with no discussion. In the divided vote, board members Sergio Hernandez, Mya Wilkins and Andrew Wymer voted in favor of the closures. 

Before voting on the one-school closure scenarios, board member Maria Opdycke described the board’s current situation to her colleagues.

“We’re at this point now,” she said. “We’re at this point now, and I think our choice is now zero or one (closures).”

The board then split on its vote to close just Kingsley and voted 4-2 against closing only Lincolnwood, with Anderson joining Hernandez, Wilkins and Wymer to reject the scenario. 

The first time the board voted on the final scenarios, it had the same outcome for both the two school closure scenarios and the only closing Kingsley scenario. Those who voted in favor of the two-school scenario at the board’s Nov. 17 meeting — Hernandez, Wilkins and Wymer — voted against the one-school closure and vice versa. 

The district forgot to put the scenario with just Lincolnwood on the Nov. 17 agenda, leading to the board having to vote on it at a special Nov. 20 meeting. Per Illinois law, all agenda items must be made publicly available at least 48 hours prior to a meeting. At the meeting, board members voted unanimously against just closing Lincolnwood and voted to reintroduce its final four scenarios for another vote to mark the beginning of December.

The district’s process to create its closure scenarios began with forming three subcommittees of community members focused on the district’s facilities, finances and programming in April. The committees developed the five criteria the district used to evaluate its schools to shape its scenarios.

The closure considerations are part of Phase 3 of District 65’s Structural Deficit Reduction Plan, which includes the goal of cutting the district’s budget by $10.9 to $14.85 million before fiscal year 2030. Between Phases 1 and 2 of the SDRP, the district reduced spending by about $20 million. The plan is meant to help the district reach financial sustainability for future years.

Board members reaffirm initial vote stances 

Before casting their second round of votes, each of the board members shared their decisionmaking priorities. Every member maintained the stance they held for the November votes on the scenarios.

Wilkins said she was in favor of either voting on a two school scenario or at least naming two schools that would have staggered closures. Staggered scenarios were something the board discussed, but eventually moved away from in its discussions.

“I really hope that our board is able to face reality and find the courage to do what is right tonight and vote on closing or at least naming two additional schools that will close,” she said. “If not, we will own the consequences of this decision and the fallout of what happens next.”

Hernandez, whose votes fell on the same side as Wilkins’, said the financial outcome of closing one school was not enough to weather the outcomes of federal funding being blocked — a consideration that isn’t factored into the district’s current financial projections. He said two school closures resolve some of these costs and called on the community to continue offering ideas to help the district move forward.

Rounding out those in favor of a two school scenario, Wymer said he tried to come to terms with abstaining from the one school scenarios’ votes, but could not do so if he wanted to keep his promise to protect the financial health of the district.

He said in fiscal year 2027, a one school closure would require more than $2 million in programming and staffing cuts, five times what the district would have to cut if a two school closure scenario passed. He added that with a one school closure, the district has no clear plan on what would be cut next or how to determine school closures in the future, requiring them to go through the “brutal process of SDRP (Phase) 3 all over again.”  

Board Vice President Nichole Pinkard, a one-school scenario backer, emphasized the decision to close two additional schools actually impacts six schools — the two in the scenario and Bessie Rhodes would close, Foster School would open while Willard and Orrington Elementary School would see new students join their communities as these schools, along with Lincolnwood and Kingsley, are part of Haven Middle School’s feeder pattern. 

She said the closure of one school gives the community the “grace and space” to come up with a plan for the district’s future and for Foster School to open properly. If that fails, Pinkard said she would come back next year to close Lincolnwood, assuming the scenario only closing Kingsley passed. 

Opdycke similarly emphasized she wants the district to leverage the innovative and creative ideas the community has in making expenditure-cutting decisions instead of looking to close more schools to reduce costs. 

Anderson, who sided with Pinkard and Opdycke in the November votes, chose to caution the board against passing none of the scenarios instead of picking a side. 

“The ultimate failure of the plan would be to close no schools,” she said. “That would be a travesty because that would put us in a financial position that would be beneath even a one school closure.”

Public commenters divided on scenarios 

More than 30 community members were also divided on which scenarios and schools the board should have voted to close. Several also came in support of specialized programming, including Lincolnwood’s Structured Teaching Education Program and Willard’s TWI strand. 

The Willard community asked the board to eliminate the removal of Willard’s TWI strand from every scenario. Some emphasized that at previous meetings, the board wasn’t sure why the strand was being removed and that there were no proven cost benefits to the program’s removal. 

Among the voices advocating for their schools, a group of Kingsley parents called for the board to vote for a one school closure — and close only their school. 

Julia Emfinger said many of the Kingsley parents she has spoken to understand the need for changes in the district, but that shouldn’t disrupt multiple schools in the Haven feeder pattern.  

“Leaving Kingsley is not going to be easy, but it’s a sacrifice we and many other Kingsley parents are willing to make,” she said. 

What comes next for the board 

The six member board’s divisive votes were due to the resignation of former board member Omar Salem in early November. 

“The board’s vote on this issue has been significantly impacted by a six-vote body,” Anderson said Monday. “I am committed to filling the board vacancy as soon as possible.”

The board is expected to announce its newest member after holding closed door sessions on Dec. 2, 4 and 9 to discuss its candidates. Twenty-eight community members applied for the vacant position, including three who ran for four open seats on the board in the April election, according to reporting from Evanston Now.

The new board member will serve the remainder of Salem’s term, which is complete in April 2027 alongside the terms of Hernandez and Wilkins, the only sitting board members who were not elected in the April election.

Anderson emphasized that the focus of the board should be student learning and organization in the district. 

“My hope is that the board can come to a decision so that the children of District 65 can all benefit from the outcome,” she said.

Email: [email protected]
X: @anavi_52

Related Stories: 

— D65 board revives final 4 school closure scenarios 

— D65 failed to advance a single school closure scenario. What now? 

— Meet 7 stakeholders at the heart of D65’s school closure debate