Community Conversation - Prieto

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 25, 2025, at 9:30 a.m.
• Location: Dr. Jorge and Luz Maria Prieto Community Center
• Approximate number of participants: 30

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

• Glad finally addressing financial crisis
• IDOT hazards taken into consideration
• Appreciate the amount of consideration for minimizing impact on students
• Prioritizing equity in criteria
• Considering building income
• Prioritizing geography and eqiuty
• Comprehensive and deliberative process to determine criteria
• Utilizing diverse data sets to inform decision making
• Inclusive process to recruit committee members
• Transparent process, timely communication with opportunities to engage
• Equity must be a priority so all kids can participate in all school activities, parents can be involved
• Appreciate the consideration of many kinds of data
• Process is more transparent than what happened at Bessie Rhodes
• Geography should be a top priority
• .75 miles feels like an appropriate distance
• Equity being a large component of process
• Impressed with amount of criteria, thought, and detail. Agree with prioritization
• Encouraged that community members and carious industries being consulted
• Seems reasonable even if it will be painful
• As painful as this is and has been, it is good that a decision will be made and acted upon soon.

Not Satisfied

• Walkability of .75 miles is disconnected from reality of kids will walk that far
• Overall process — no meetings in North Evanston until last night
• Too much subjectivity in pie chart/data
• Not considering partial school closure to rent out space
• Dissatisfied of equity definition
• Impact on magnet programs: TWI and ACC
• With committee representation (3rd, 8th Ward not represented)
• Not knowing which school will be closing
• Desire to have zero schools closed
• Perhaps have temporary closures to improve facilities
• Wants to hear more about cutting other areas instead of closing a school
• There cannot be enough, never can be enough community involvement/engagement
• Clarify - if you are somewhat equidistant between. schools, is there option/flexibility to choose which school? Then can you choose the middle school?
• No discussion of academic achievement impact and equity in terms of learning from these closures.

Questions

• Does this get us to a # we need to operate in the black?
• Are you working closely enough with the city on zoning reform which creates environment to increase housing stock?
• More time with the modeling scenarios/outcomes before public comment in September/October
• Why does D65 pay for transportation for all kids?
• Need to be working to "right-size" the district to represent enrollment population
• Will we know by December?
• If they can address supports that will be in place for students that have to switch schools?
• If a family gets assigned to Foster School and doesn't want to attend, can they be reassigned?
• What role is the community engagement conclusions on the decisions made?
• Spending on furniture, other large expenses being taken into account?
• How to maintain enrollment — what is the strategy?