School Closures FAQ

Students Excluded from Analysis in K-5 and 6-8:

1. Students in special programs (Park, Rice, JEH Early Childhood Center, and Family Center
   1. Reason: These are specialized programs that don't follow regular attendance boundaries. Students are assigned based on program needs, not geographic boundaries, so including them would skew boundary change analysis.
2. Not in District 65: Students who attend District 65 aligned to ISBE School Code that live out of the District.
   1. Reason: Students not in District 65 boundaries are excluded from district boundary analysis because they do not live in the district. 
3. King Arts Magnet Assignments: Students who are assigned to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Literary and Fine Arts School (Scenarios 3B and 3D only)
   1. Reason: King Arts is a magnet school with choice-based enrollment, not boundary-based. 

King Arts Closure Exception (Scenario 3X): In scenario 3X, ALL King Arts students are kept because King Arts is closing as a magnet school and reopening as a neighborhood school in this scenario,  so students leaving King Arts represent legitimate changes due to magnet closure.

Baseline Boundary

In spring 2022 as part of the Student Assignment Plan, the School Board approved new attendance boundaries to go into effect beginning in the 2026-2027 school year. The Board-approved changes create shifts for the Walker, Dewey, Foster, Willard, Lincolnwood, Kingsley, Washington, Lincoln, and Orrington school boundaries. If the Board decides to close zero additional schools, the new attendance areas will go into effect.

• D65 Attendance Boundaries webpage
• Google Map with both current (2025-2026) and future (2026-2027) attendance areas. Use the search function to enter your address to see where your residence is located.

Feeder patterns for each school closure scenario are available on the School Closure Hub. Parameters for the closures, including any effects on transitions for middle school students, will be part of any decision made by the School Board. No decisions have been made.

Transitions certainly impact everyone but not always in the same way. Each District department is coordinating under an umbrella transition steering committee to work with each impacted school  (a school that is closing or having students re-assigned to a new school) to manage and support the complex student transition needs. Targeted supports that have previously been discussed (but are not comprehensive) are transition meetings, smaller group introductions to the school and school community, staffing plans focused on adequate resources, and possible continued connection to staff members. 

The models for transportation needs, which are included in each scenario in the “Data Tables” dropdown of each school closure scenario, include only roads and intersections that were preliminarily identified as IDOT hazards within District 65 based on current road conditions and traffic volume using ISBE’s point-based system – the district will need to formally submit the findings to IDOT for approval. However, we know that within the Evanston/Skokie area there are other roads and intersections which need safety measures in place to accommodate students who walk or bike to school.

Once the board votes on a scenario, decisions will need to be made about any increased needs for transportation, which could include additional bus routes or crossing guards. We are estimating these needs to be approximately $50,000 per school closed; those numbers will be refined as the board narrows in on a particular scenario.

We have dedicated time for all students throughout each week to focus on social emotional learning, building relationships and creating welcoming environments. The district has provided resources to all school leaders that can be used when talking about possible closures and consolidations and school leaders. We are also making plans now for the needs of all impacted schools after a decision has been made, both to process a decision and to prepare for changes.

Staff support is available through District 65’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and we have been encouraging partnership with the collective bargaining units to provide support to colleagues.

The School Board is considering a variety of options. The importance of walkability and schools in neighborhoods is captured in the scorecard categories and criteria (walk distance, required transportation, adjacent school distances). The scorecard also captures other values including equity and financial factors. We have to hold that the goal of this phase is to get a strong and stable financial foundation.  

As a result of the combination of values and factors, the Board has to consider a variety of options and ultimately find the best road forward. 

District 65’s long-term vision goes beyond saving money — it’s about making sure every child has access to a high-quality education that challenges them, celebrates who they are, and helps them succeed in school and in life. We are focused on strengthening teaching and learning so that all students have the support they need to grow. We will continue to ensure that our curriculum will reflect the diverse backgrounds and strengths of our students, and we’ll use data and feedback to keep improving academic outcomes.

We will also continue building on our strong social-emotional learning systems to support students’ well-being and strengthen connections between families, schools, and the community, ensuring every child feels seen, supported, and ready to thrive. We are very proud of the fact that Governor Pritzker chose to sign IL Senate Bill 1560, a law that focuses on student mental health, at District 65 in recognition of the strong systems we have already built to support student social, emotional and mental health. 

We have decided for reasons related to our political context to not publicly release our map showing where TWS students live.

The Student Programming Committee’s guidance was to place the programs closest to where native Spanish speakers in TWI with an EL classification (TWS) students live. Of all Willard TWX/TWS students, only 10 will live within Willard's new attendance boundary when Foster School opens. Approximately 22 TWX/TWS students live in Wards 6 and 7; this represents only 35% of the total TWX/TWS students currently at Willard for TWI. Foster's boundary, on the other hand, accounts for 58% of TWX/TWS students attending Willard's TWI program. This demonstrates that the current Willard TWI program primarily serves students from outside the immediate neighborhood, which is why the baseline reflects students being assigned to Foster — where a majority of TWX/TWS students live.

These parameters for the closures, including timing and impact, will be part of any decision made by the School Board. No decisions on this have been made at this time. 

There may be an impact on the distribution of the district’s Title I funding if a Title 1 school is closed (40% or more students qualify for free and reduced-price lunch). The District will need to pay specific attention to a comprehensive transition plan for all families and have specific steps for families or students who could be more impacted (low income, students with IEPs and English language learners). We will work with our school leaders, educators, social workers, and FACE liaisons among other employee groups, to build this plan. More targeted support may include transition meetings, smaller group introductions to the school and school community, staffing plans focused on adequate resources, and possible continued connection to staff members.

Yes. In the case of a closure, not all staff positions are eliminated.  The District has developed a model that identifies positions that would likely be shifted to other schools to ensure high quality educational services for students. Staffing would be determined based on enrollment, student needs, safety and facilities. Some positions can be eliminated in the case of school closures, and these positions are reflected in the potential cost savings models. 

Absolutely correct - the physical strand would close and students would be part of the TWI program at Foster School if they live in the Haven feeder pattern. If not, they would attend the home school where they live (if TWi is offered) or at a school with TWI in their feeder pattern, based on their address.

We understand that some in the community feel that this decision is being rushed. The potential need to “right size” our district footprint was discussed with the community as early as February 2024, when the Structural Deficit Reduction Plan work began. District 65 began community engagement and subcommittee work on potential school closure in March 2025.

This process has been developed by reviewing national guidance, consulting with districts who have experienced/are experiencing the school closure process, engaging with our local consultants, and learning from our experiences. The decision to close any school is incredibly difficult. We are following recommended timelines to balance engagement and community awareness while also trying not to extend the timeline longer than advised.

We will have a firm understanding of the exact number of staff positions after the board decides how many schools to close. At this time the financial impact estimates are modeling four section closures per site.

The timeline will be finalized in conjunction with our collective bargaining leaders after the board makes a decision. We will continue to follow all collective bargaining agreements.

We have heard this request from our educators. This is something that will be discussed with  our collective bargaining leaders.

This is certainly still an option. The school closure process is a difficult process to continue to return to year after year. As a result, districts generally try to assess and define the needed closures at one time.  Additionally, staggering closures can inadvertently lead to students changing schools multiple times. The School Board will make the final decision. No decisions have been made.

Geography and equity are the two highest weighted categories on the scorecard. If schools in NW Evanston fall to the bottom of the scorecard with those current weightings, it is objective based on the categories and criteria.  Equity captures impact and who is impacted (students who have an IEP, are an English Language Learner (EL) or are low income (measured by free and reduced lunch).  Geography captures the experience of getting to and from school with the majority of the criteria recalculated with each scenario.  Scorecard scores are normative and reflect relative impact when compared to other scenarios.

Seven scenarios were brought forward as recommendations to the board, but more than 30 scenarios were completely modeled — including boundary maps, feeder patterns, program placements, data tables, and assessed for feedback. These 30+ scenarios were shared publicly on 9/29 and can be found in this presentation on slides 23, 26, 28, and 31.

The current modeling practices are dynamic. In each scenario, we recalculate the vast majority of the criteria to be scenario-specific and the process iterated based upon modeling outcomes and input from the facilities subcommittee and the School Board.

The decision to close schools is up to the School Board. The board could choose to go in a direction of phased closures. Additionally our Financial Services team continues to evaluate cost-saving options to reduce our annual spending and close the structural deficit.

With the help of a local university partner, the district used optimization modeling for boundary redistricting when schools close according to a list of objectives (see question “How reliable and objective is the data/modeling (scorecards, enrollment projections) behind closure choices?” in School Closure Process FAQ).

Optimization modeling is an approach that finds the best solution to a problem with multiple objectives and constraints. When schools close, the model systematically evaluates possible boundary configurations to identify solutions that best balance competing goals like minimizing student distance while maintaining appropriate building capacity.

This is optimization modeling, not artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML). AI and ML are useful for recognizing patterns in data or making predictions based on historical examples. Boundary redistricting is a different type of problem — we need to find optimal solutions given specific constraints and objectives, not learn patterns or make predictions.

We are following an intentional process that was designed to focus on the whole picture by balancing quantitative data with community voices, equity, and the lived experiences of students and staff. This structured, public process, coupled with the commitment to transparency, aims to ensure accountability beyond any individual preference.

Our administration and Board are committed to rebuilding public trust by continuing to institute systems, processes, and structures designed to enhance efficiency, productivity, and, most importantly, accountability. We are continuing to assess and reform the historical practices within the district to ensure every process is optimized. We believe these structural changes are essential for restoring and maintaining public trust.

Over the past two years the current administration has implemented several significant changes, including:

• Financial Reductions: We have taken decisive action toward financial sustainability, reducing our annual budget by $20 million and right-sizing staffing levels by more than 100 full-time employee positions
• Contract Accountability: Established a contract process that requires an extensive review process, including preparation of a detailed scope of work, review of insurance coverage, alignment to the strategic mission of the District, and available budget of the noted source of funds. The superintendent cannot execute a contract independently.
• P-Card System Overhaul: Enhanced practices related to managing P-card distribution, including decreasing the number of cards and converting the five remaining cards to be department-level. Additional documentation is required for expenses, there are limited purchase amounts, and an enhanced authorization and review process is rigorously upheld.

The District has been fortunate to engage with two different university partners in this process.  One partner deeply supports our scenario modeling process by providing access to an advanced modeling tool that optimizes boundary changes and school closures according to a list of objectives. 

The District has also been engaging with the community as questions and concerns have arisen and when appropriate reviewing concerns more deeply to understand the technical concerns and assess if they are valid. 

We wholeheartedly share in the belief that a transparent and clear process is necessary to navigate this difficult time. Here are some ways we are working to maintain transparency:

• The SDRP website is consistently updated to include the most current information.
• We have partnered with community organizations to spread the word about upcoming community engagement meetings.
• School leaders are regularly updated to help them  better understand and communicate the process with their communities.
• The Fast 5, the district’s newsletter (also available for community members to receive through the district website) has a standing, recurring section dedicated to the Structural Deficit Reduction Plan.

Please explore these links and resources for additional information:

• Engagement Opportunities section: Thorough record of all meetings and their accompanying presentations, memos, and recordings.  This is where the meeting summaries (list of all questions asked via the QR code, in the case of the October community engagement) will be shared as well.
• Data Hub section: Data that has informed the process, including creation of the scorecards and scenarios. 
• School Closure Hub: Boundary maps, feeder patterns, data tables, and the financial impact of every school closure scenario presented to the board

We are always striving to be more transparent and accessible. If you have ideas on additional steps we can be taking or you would like to receive flyers/graphics/verbiage to share with your community, please reach out to Hannah Dillow, dillowh@district65.net.

The board has not made any decisions yet. The board will continue its discussion around potential school closures/consolidations at the next meeting, which is scheduled for October 27 at 6 p.m. (view meeting schedule).

Yes. These will be on the Engagement Opportunities section of the SDRP website in the column titled Links. They will each be titled “Meeting summary” for each meeting following the conclusion of the mid-October community meetings.

Additionally the Board will be given access to the full list of all questions asked and an independent analysis (done by a local university partner) of the feedback given through both the community engagement meetings and survey. This independent analysis will also be available on the website once finalized.

The school closure analysis uses multiple verified data sources, established methodologies and a framework rooted in community input.

Data Sources

• Student enrollment and demographics from the district's student information system
• Enrollment projections from the McKibben Demographic Study, an independent third-party analysis
• Facility assessments from Cordogan Clark, a third-party architecture and engineering firm
• Geographic and transportation data calculated using industry-standard GIS methods (geocoding, point-in-polygon test) with A* search algorithm for actual walk routes and distances to school
• Financial data from the Master Facilities Plan (MFP) and building operations costs

Framework Development

The categories, criteria and weights used in the scorecards were determined by the administration with help from the Facilities Committee, a group of community members who applied through an open application process. The subcommittee met multiple times between April and June to establish the framework through deliberative discussion and consensus. Their process and decisions were presented publicly at board meetings.

Technical Implementation

The district implemented the technical calculations based on that framework. The methodology uses:

• Standard min-max normalization (a common statistical technique for comparing metrics measured in different units)
• A boundary optimization model from a local university partner that simultaneously considers multiple optimization objectives
• Program placement optimization (TWI, STEP, RISE, ACC) accounting for accessibility requirements and student populations

Verification

A sensitivity analysis test was conducted using 24 different combinations of data structures and weighting schemes to test the categories and criterias established by the subcommittees, showing consistency in results, particularly for schools ranking as least impactful to close on the baseline scorecard.

Boundary Redistricting Modeling

When schools close, student attendance boundaries must be redrawn. The optimization model considers multiple objectives simultaneously. Multiple combinations and weights of the objectives were tested and optimized based on the scenario:

• Minimize distance between schools and walkable blocks assigned to them
• Minimize distance between schools and blocks requiring transportation (due to distance or hazard crossings)
• Balance building capacity to maintain utilization
• Minimize change from the board-approved FY26-27 boundaries

Each scenario models the entire district after closures, not just the closing of schools in isolation. When schools close:

• All district boundaries are redrawn through the optimization model
• Programs (TWI, STEP, RISE, ACC) are placed at specific remaining schools
• All metrics are recalculated for every school district-wide – e.g., capacity and utilization at each remaining school, students changing schools (from FY27 baseline), transportation needs across the district, program accessibility, etc.

The model does not simply assign students to the nearest school. It finds boundary solutions that best balance all objectives across the entire district. Each scenario is modeled separately with complete boundary redistricting and program placement, showing district-wide impacts.

What the Analysis Measures

Scenario scorecards show the operational and student impacts if each scenario were implemented:

• Percentage of students changing schools from FY27 baseline
• Proportion of marginalized students (IEP, EL, low-income) among those affected
• Transportation needs (walkability, busing requirements, hazard crossings)
• Building capacity and utilization across remaining schools
• Facility conditions and capital expenses
• Financial costs and potential revenue

Limitations

• The min-max normalization method is sensitive to extreme values (outliers). If one school has exceptionally high or low raw values in any metric, it can compress the normalized scores for all other schools toward the middle of the 1-5 range, potentially reducing the discrimination between schools that are actually quite different.
• The analysis captures operational and student impacts but cannot quantify psychological or developmental effects on students.
• Cannot predict how individual families will respond to closures or how those decisions affect future enrollment.
• Scorecards organize information to inform decisions but cannot determine which factors should be prioritized – that is a values-based decision for the board.

The board must weigh these quantifiable factors alongside qualitative considerations when making final decisions about school closures.

In compliance with the Open Meetings Act no more than two board members can be present at each community engagement meeting.

Foster's boundaries were used in the modeling and did change in some scenarios — just not in the one recommended to the School Board. The model optimizes boundaries based on the objectives as described in previous FAQ.

Once the Board makes its decision on school closures, D65 will engage in a representative process to assess each available property to determine next steps. The District has drawn upon the School Property Profile Assessment Report, recently completed by MPact Collective, Inc., Sentient Co., and the Baum RealtyGroup, as a resource in this process.

The Board and the District understand the importance of these properties to their school communities and will maintain and care for the properties on an ongoing basis while decisions are being made.

Programming needs are an active part of our conversation and were a factor in the decision to maintain our middle schools (program-specific spaces). As the number of scenarios are narrowed, a more detailed walkthrough of each building will be conducted to verify program and related service space needs. 

District 65 had a peak enrollment of 7,559 during the 2016-17 school year with 40 classrooms per grade level in K-5.  Over the past several years, we have decreased sections yet schools have continued to use and maintain the classrooms as office spaces, breakout rooms, etc. As a result, the rooms have largely been maintained.  Shifting the rooms back into standard classrooms will require movement of furniture to ensure we are meeting the needs of students and educators, refreshing rugs (primary) and ensuring that projectors or other classroom based technology is working. 

Each criteria received a normalized score so that it could be compared to other schools in District 65. It is important to understand that with this normalization function, there should almost always be a scenario that scores 1.0 and a scenario that scores 5.0 within each criteria being compared. The minimum value in the set normalizes to 1.0, and the maximum value normalizes to 5.0. A score of 1.0 does not mean "no impact"; it means "least impactful relative to the other scenarios in this comparison group." 

The difference between 3D and 3B is more than just swapping one school for another. When you change which schools close, you create an entirely different optimization problem with different boundaries (even for those schools not closing), objective weightings, and possibly program placement options.

A member of D65’s RAAD (Research, Assessment, Accountability, and Data) team recorded a video explanation of the differences between the baseline and scenario-specific scores:

Yes.

By reducing the overall capital footprint, closures allow the district to focus its limited annual investment (roughly $1–2.7 million per year) on fewer, more heavily used schools. School closings could reduce the need to maintain those buildings until a decision about the long-term use of the buildings is made.

The assumption in the current financial models is that the district would reduce its annual investment for those schools (based on a square footage calculation); however, the board could modify this assumption and allocate the potential capital cost reduction towards other school facility needs, considering the level of deferred projects. By eliminating those savings, the remaining deficit reduction outside of school closures in the model would increase.

Declining enrollment is just one reason for the financial shortfall.  The primary reason for the shortfall is that the district has a structural deficit, with expenditures consistently outpacing revenues, and this imbalance is expected to persist until a plan is implemented to address the gap.

Most national and district-level research converges on a functional target of an 85–95% school utilization rate. Below 80%, schools are typically considered underutilized and subject to programmatic or boundary review. The district’s projected capacity for the next school year, based on current enrollment projections, is an overall capacity rate of 64%.  The district has several schools at or below 80% of their capacity. To address the district’s structural deficit, it is crucial to optimize all areas of efficiency regardless of future revenue from its voters. The recommendation to close schools has been on the district’s radar since the last referendum.

With the limited revenue options available, right-sizing the District through school closures is an important step toward long-term financial sustainability. District 65 is relatively well-resourced and therefore does not qualify for large amounts of funding through many of the state or federal grants available to less-advantaged districts. Unlike high school districts, which often benefit from strong philanthropic support, elementary districts typically receive far fewer private donations, though opportunities for community giving should continue to be explored. Continuing to operate underutilized buildings diverts limited funds away from classrooms and student programs. Consolidating schools allows the District to reduce costs and reinvest savings to strengthen learning environments for all students.

The District explored several strategies to close the budget gap, including new revenue levers and further expenditure reductions (including administrative reductions), alongside school closures. Ultimately, closing underutilized buildings creates a more efficient system where resources can be redirected to benefit all students. By reducing the costs of operating and maintaining underused facilities, more funding can be invested directly in classrooms, programs, and student supports across the District.

Phases I and II of the Structural Deficit Reduction Plan largely focused on reductions in staff (in the last two school years, there has been a reduction of approximately 130 FTE). So far this has included $20 million in reductions with the focus on preserving the investments deemed critical to staff, families, and community members.

Funding for deferred maintenance and necessary renovations in buildings that remain open will primarily be addressed through available financing mechanisms rather than existing operating budgets. These include Health Life Safety bonds for eligible projects, proceeds from a potential capital referendum if approved by voters, or funds generated through an operating rate referendum if approved. Additionally, as the District’s Debt Service Extension Base (DSEB) becomes available in future years, it can be strategically utilized to fund priority capital projects.

Closure-related costs such as moving and transportation have been considered in the District’s financial modeling. Potential transportation cost increases are included in the models, and moving costs are expected to be managed with a mix of internal staff and contracted support. While counseling costs have not been specifically modeled, the District is committed to providing transition support for students and staff. Overall, the projections are conservative and allow flexibility for these types of implementation expenses.

District 65 has been open and transparent about our financial challenges with the community and the City of Evanston. For example, the City of Evanston has been a partner with the District on recent grant efforts to support sustainability work. The District and the City also work together on IDOT grants. Generally, the institutions partner where we can.

Proceeds from the sale or lease of closed school buildings are modeled with the assumption that they will be realized within the forecast fiscal year. The District’s projections are conservative, serving as the primary contingency if those revenues do not materialize as planned. A healthy fund balance, consistent with Board policy, is critical to ensuring the District can absorb revenue fluctuations and maintain financial stability.

Deferred maintenance cost estimates are based on the 2022 Master Facility Plan (MFP). These estimates include an industry-standard 5% annual cost escalator to account for inflation. The District has recently engaged a new architectural firm to conduct an updated MFP and a 10-year Health Life Safety Survey. All deferred maintenance projections will be reviewed and revised this spring as new data and cost assessments become available.

As we are about 80% funded by property taxes, increases or decreases in student enrollment do not impact those revenues. District 65’s largest source of state revenue is evidence-based funding (EBF), which also remains unaffected by changes in student enrollment.

Unlike other nearby districts, District 65 is required by the Illinois State Board of Education to provide free transportation services to its general education students. Because of this, other nearby districts have a revenue lever available to them that we do not have. For reference, the data source for this information is linked here, which contains the most current data available on the ISBE website.

 

1. Non-Salary & Benefit Savings: Savings from building-related aspects, including cost of electricity, natural gas, insurance, custodial supplies, waste removal, water, telephone and WAN services, security monitoring/BAS, and copier/printing.
2. Salary & Benefit Savings: While some positions will move with students to maintain classroom size guidelines and appropriate supports, some positions may be eliminated in the case of school closures. The savings from those positions are reflected here.
3. Avoided Capital Cost: Savings from the recommended capital improvements needed at the school buildings closed in each scenario.
4. Foster School Net Savings: This $50,000 accounts for the operational efficiencies of Foster School compared to Dr. Bessie Rhodes School of Global Studies. 
5. Transportation Increase: This placeholder assumes transportation costs will increase with each school closure. More specific values will be available as we continue to refine the scenarios.
6. Lease of Closed Facilities: This is an estimate of the annual revenue for the lease of the schools closed in each scenario.
7. Section Savings: This is a placeholder that assumes four section closures per site at $75,000 per educator for salaries and benefits. It is a conservative placeholder because we do not know whether additional staff may be impacted by this reduction as well. Additionally, we won’t know the actual impact until a decision is made and personnel impacts occur.