Skip To Main Content

District Home

Schools

Translate

Community Conversation - Kingsley

Thank you to all of the individuals who invested the time to engage in our Community Conversation sessions regarding the Structural Deficit Reduction Plan.

Meeting summaries were created to provide increased transparency across the community and to provide insight as to the perspectives and thoughts across various stakeholders.

The total number of participants does not include district facilitators.

Meeting details:

  • Date and time: April 24, 2025, at 6 p.m.
  • Location: Kingsley Elementary School
  • Approximate number of participants: 56

Small Group Activity

Participants were asked to create a "T-chart" on chart paper,  then to note aspects of the proposed school closure/consolidation criteria with which they were "satisfied" or "not satisfied." This was worded to align with the survey made available through July 7. Questions and comments were written at the bottom of each T-chart.

Robust conversation took place across sessions.  Responses were transcribed directly from the chart paper provided from the various groups.

Satisfied

  • #1 factor is geography
  • Appreciate openness and subcommittees (but no specific communication back to schools)
  • Agnostic to school performance to make decision
  • Well-thought presentation. Those factors taken into account are well considered and fleshed out.
  • Proportion of "pie" that is financial v. human feels pretty right.
  • Criteria seem sensible and well crafted.
  • We like that geography carries the most weight.
  • Overall well thought out process and criteria
  • IEP
  • Walkability/geography/.75 mile criteria
  • Considering middle school feeder patterns
  • Not making student achievement a criteria
  • Scorecard approach
  • Thorough, community-engaged process
  • Geography as most important factor
  • Community conversations and opportunities for feedback
  • Geography weighting
  • Good process
  • Community involvement

Not Satisfied

  • Lack of clarity on Foster - impact on equity
  • Missed opportunity/confusion about announcements re: Foster School
  • Lack of focus on academic excellence and programs
  • Want to see data and advance planning
  • Mental health/community impact
  • Equity should include more subcategories and given a larger weighting in the pie — data used for demographics may be incomplete or inaccurate, especially since self-reported
  • How do D65 schools compare with surrounding districts?
  • Geography is given too much weight. If we have too many buildings, we can walk a little more. Should consider overpasses over busy roadways. We are divided on geography because it does have an impact on building community.
  • Consider marketing "sellability" of Evanston based on schools to attrack new families to EVanston. Including state of the art theater and art facilities, science labs, TWI and magnet programs, these programs can help attract families to live in Evanston.
  • Support magnet program, TWI, ACC
  • District needs to advertise this process as a school closing process instead of burying the lead.
  • The plan for how will the district support children and parents/faculty/staff with the disruption of having to move schools.
  • Acknowledging that ALL school, teachers, and admin will be affected by this
  • Saying 5Es, state data, etc. are "adult problems" — this is not the case, everyone will be dealing with the repercussions.
  • I think the building criteria should be weighted more than equity/geography.
  • 2021 #s (of $) are reflected in the building evaluation (not current $ status)
  • It seems pretty obvious we need to close (a) school(s)
  • Proximity of a school to transit stops should be considered as part of the Geography category (schools near transit make life easier for working parents)
  • Is equity overcounted, given Foster School opening?
  • Is "geographic proximity" really that important (4th bullet)?
  • More community input into weighting of categories
  • How will staffing be affected
  • Weighting of metrics within categories is unclear (example: building functionality — how many schools have separate gyms and cafeterias?)
  • Walkability is assumed to be a factor that everyone wants. Have the approx. 20-25% of D65 families who use the bus been surveyed?
  • Some criteria seem overweighted when taken with the investment in Foster School and seem repetitive (a new school to address walkability and walkability is a criteria)
  • What about hybrid models (3rd party that works with the school while it is still in operation)
  • Disagree with "equity" weighting — too high
  • How demographics are being counted — what if children in Foster boundaries want to stay at current school?
  • Cost to individual families who need to transport kids to farther schools
  • Commitment to educational outcomes — needs to be better articulated.
  • Should not disregard transit — not all parents drive/have cars
  • Location w/r/t whether school is on busy streets?
  • Student distribution in case of closures should be a whole committee
  • Transparency of current costs taking up a majority of the budget/what other interventions would save or provide financially v. school closures
  • Family choice v. enforcement on new boundary lines for schools
  • Building income — why part of the pie when potential financial increases/sales are known? i.e. when amount it will help the budget isn't known

Questions

  • Does Foster feed in to Haven? Will it have TWI?
  • Clarity around equity and Foster School as a consideration
  • How do we advance plan/build connections and community to prepare kids for transitions?
  • Would a potential closing create a new school desert like there was in 5th Ward? i.e. King Arts is only school in 2nd Ward.
  • How are we prioritizing teacher retention and morale post this big change?
  • Has anything been done to consider capturing the students who left D65 during the pandemic?
  • If a school closes, and the family lives equidistant to 2 schools, can family input be taken into account in where the students goes, not just address? (IDOT hazards, how many students from old school are going to new school, etc.?)
  • If we close schools, there is a real risk that families will pull out of D65 altogether. Does this start a downward spiral?
  • Ten years demographic modeling seems short term. What if enrollment increases after that?
  • How would programmatic student moves be factored into criteria?
  • Will we be more flexible in allowing permissive transfers?
  • Can we prioritize consolidation v. splitting?
  • Are all programs (ex: TWI, STEP) given equal consideration?
  • For families who have left D65 why did they leave? Where did they go? Are there certain wards with more kids leaving?
  • What was the overall capacity in 2016?
  • How does D65 capacity compare to comparable districts?
  • After potential school closures and redistricting, are we thinking about the impact on middle school education?
  • D65 seems resigned to this being due to population decline, not the move to private school/out of Evanston because of the schools. How can we address this?
  • What efforts are being taken to keep kids with IEPs with current school psychs?
  • If we close a building, is there hope for future reopening? 
  • Ideal class size for each grade level?
  • Where is ETHS investment/involvement?! This is their largest feeder system!
  • Did HVAC inspections look at ventilation or just A/C?
  • What is D65 doing to recruit/attract/retain families to stay in public schools (vs. private or moving)?
  • How will lawsuits/financial pushback be handled/prepared for? Will it negate school closure costs?
  • How will you inform communities of the current budget, financial practices, interventions being done instead of closures, etc. BEFORE closing schools? Need to know why this is necessary and what has been done to prevent it, and what will be done to prevent it in the future.