District 65 to Vote on School Closures Tomorrow

On Friday, the District 65 Superintendent sent out an email to the community detailing the next steps in the school closure plan. In the email, she laid out the scenarios to be considered:

Current Status of School Closure Discussion

On November 3, the School Board narrowed its focus to two scenarios. To view proposed boundary maps, strengths and challenges, data tables, and more, click the links for each scenario below.

• Scenario 2D-Revised: Closure of Kingsley and Willard after the 2025-2026 school year

  • TWI section at Willard Elementary would close

• Scenario 2F-Revised: Closure of Lincolnwood and Kingsley after the 2025-2026 school year

  • STEP program at Lincolnwood Elementary would move to Dewey Elementary

  • TWI section at Willard Elementary would close

You can see the full details from the November 3rd meeting at this link.

Earlier this week, I asked the District if they will be considering other proposals, such as the IINS proposal. They gave me the following comment.

According to Board Policy 2:220, “District residents may suggest inclusions for the agenda. … The Superintendent, in consultation with the Board President, shall prepare a final agenda for each meeting of the Board of Education.” The School Board is extremely grateful for the community’s engagement with this process and will continue to take feedback into consideration as difficult decisions are discussed and made. In line with Board Policy 2:220, the community proposals will not be added to the agenda. The school closure scenarios being discussed were developed based on a transparent process rooted in data and community collaboration.

But the agenda for Monday’s meeting was posted yesterday and includes an additional option to close a single school.

8. Discussion: SDRP Phase III

• 8.A) Action: Approval for the Commencement of the Required School Code Public Hearings to Consider School Closure Scenario 2D-R2 (Kingsley Elementary School and Willard Elementary School)

• 8.B) Action: Approval for the Commencement of Required School Code Public Hearings to Consider School Closure Scenario 2F-R2 (Kingsley Elementary School and Lincolnwood Elementary School)

• 8.C) Action: Approval for the Commencement of the Required School Code Public Hearings to Consider a One School Closure Scenario of Kingsley School

So there is a third option, I guess!

Third Option: IINS and/or Parent Plans?

The recommendation to close a single school comes from plans proposed by parent groups, including the IINS plan. You can read details on all the plans over on the Roundtable. The IINS plan (full plan) lays out the following:

1. Close only one Haven-feeder elementary school, because the savings from a second closure are minimal and unnecessary for balancing the operating budget.

2. Monetize district assets instead of closing more schools by leasing or selling JEH, selling Bessie Rhodes, selling Park School (after relocating the program), and evaluating the Greenleaf facility.

3. Right-size central administration to peer-district levels, reducing administrative staffing and payroll for recurring annual savings (~$1.4M).

4. Prioritize the successful opening of Foster School with phased enrollment, community support, and stabilization—no major additional closures or disruptions in the same year.

5. Prepare for a March 2027 capital referendum to address $80–$90M in deferred maintenance, with a community-led planning process and a citizen oversight committee to rebuild trust.

For this plan to work, additional savings must come from further administrative cuts, which includes leasing, selling or closing JEH, the administrative building located at 1500 McDaniel. The building currently houses the board room, administrative offices, and the early childhood program. According to the IINS plan;

Review and model the lease of the administrative portion of the JEH building and relocate administrators to neighborhood schools, bringing them closer to the students they serve. Alternatively, model the full sale of the JEH building and relocate both administrators and the early childhood program to neighborhood schools. Additionally, the relocation of a stand-alone early childhood program presents an excellent opportunity to partner with the City of Evanston and explore underutilized spaces in both existing D65 and City of Evanston buildings, to “co-use” space

Regarding staffing - Larry Gavin at the Roundtable wrote an analysis on the administrative staffing levels. I maintain my own database of staffer compensation1. If you look at total compensation (salary, plus healthcare, pension, etc) you can see there was a decrease this year, between 2025-26. But District 65 is still spending about 8% of the annual budget on non-instructional non-principal/AP headcount.2 We’re spending a lot more compared ten years ago.

This is driven partially by an increase in headcount, as Larry Gavin mentions, but also driven by increasing costs in benefits and new state requirements.

Ultimately, this is the decision for the Board to make - I don’t think the administrators (or the consultant they hired to generate the SDRP) are going to suggest closing the headquarters and laying off more administrative staff. Does a school district with 6,000 students need a dedicated administrative building and board room? What type of administrative size is appropriate for a District of this size and how do we balance this with the desire for neighborhood schools?

I support the IINS plan. Once you close a building and sell a property, you can’t get it back. I understand the District’s desire to minimize disruption if they have to close two schools back-to-back, but we need to baby step through this mess. There’s a great deal of uncertainty involving the financial projections - this year alone, we started with a $12 million dollar deficit project and ended basically break even. So it’s hard to feel great that we understand the impact of changes especially now that they’re actually putting contracts out for bid, something not done in over a decade.

I still think we should go for a 2026 referendum, while the Trump iron is hot, but that’s just me.

The clock is ticking, but one thing at a time.

Update from Dekalb County, Georgia

Speaking of administrator salaries, here’s a wild story out of Georgia, where Dr. Horton was, until recently the Superintendent. His associate, Elijah Palmer, made $118,451.01 with District 65 in 2023. After leaving mid-year to join Dr. Horton in Dekalb, check out the wild salary increases:

• Fiscal Year 2024

  • Director of Organizational Effectiveness (July 24, 2023 – January 31, 2024)
    Pay Grade 132, Step 12 – Total Compensation: $67,818.79

  • Chief of Staff (February 1, 2024 – June 30, 2024)
    Pay Grade DPC 1 – Total Annual Salary: $148,905.64

• Fiscal Year 2025

  • Chief of Staff (July 1, 2024 – July 30, 2025)
    Pay Grade DPC 2 – Total Annual Salary: $210,672.26

This data was obtained by a parent in Dekalb via open records laws. This is quite the promotion cycle!

There was a court hearing involving Mr. Palmer and his ex-girlfriend, another former District 65 employee over some credit card debt. In this hearing, the parties testified that Dr. Horton verbally promised higher pay as part of their relocation offer but when the arrived were saddled with Board-approved salaries. Looks like they found a solution.