[5/4/26] D65 - Committee of the Whole

001I'm going to call this meeting to order at 502. Can we have the roll call? Today's May 4th, 2026. The time is 5:02 p.m. Roll call. Uh Wymer >> here. >> Wilkins >> here. >> Pinker >> here. >> Hernandez >> here. >> Oakdike >> here. >> Anderson >> here. Next we have uh board and superintendent comments. Maya Wilkins is not present due to work rellated travel and is joining us virtually as allowed by port board policy two 200. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the staff of D65 for the care and dedication they bring to our schools and to this community each day. During what has been a difficult period in our district's history, they continue to center students, support one another, and show the care and commitment that define the J

002factor or joy factor as we call it. We have heard firsthand from so many about the incredible educators, support staff, and administrators within our schools. The connections they build with students, the welcoming environments they create, and the care they show each other, they show each day do not go unnoticed. We also want to express our appreciation for all the team members behind the scenes who help our schools and district run smoothly each day. Their dedication and belief in our students make such a difference. Sometimes we see that impact in the moment and other times we hear about it later. Either way, the work they do every day really matters for the children of this community. Week sent some treats on behalf of the school board and administration as a small token of our appreciation. We

003appreciate each of you and thank you for everything you do. And so if we could just pause to just give a round of applause to our staff. Thank you. So I want to provideate on the middle school librarians. As communicated on Friday, I would like to share that we are reinstating the middle school library program. This The decision will be brought to a formal vote at the May 18th regular board meeting. In alignment with the collective bargaining agreement, all educators will be notified of their 2026 2027 placement by May 22nd. We care deeply about our schools and the decisions being made are guided by a commitment to preserving a highquality education for every student in this community both now and into the future. The work to address our district's structural deficit is not easy, but

004it's very necessary. We are continuing to work alongside the school board to determine the best possible ways to achieve the required $6.3 million in budget reductions. We will continue to prioritize and retain studentf facing positions and services as we have done in both phase one and phase two of our structural deficit reduction planning process. Again, we are grateful for the engagement and advocacy of our community and thank you for your continued partnership. Those are all of the superintendent comments. >> Thank you, Dr. Turner. And on behalf of the board, I also want to extend thanks to all of the staff and the community in this venture that we have together. So, thank you very much. Uh we're going to move on to public comments. At this time, members of the public are welcome and invited

005to address the board during open public meetings. Speakers are discouraged from using public comment period to air specific concerns about staff members, being mindful that the public comment period is not a suitable form for factf finding or resolution of disputes. Rather, we encourage members of the public who have concerns about specific district employees to follow district communication guidelines found in the student handbook. Please remember to state your name and that you have three minutes to address the board. Speakers may not yield their time to someone else. Please refrain from applause between speakers so we may respectfully allow all speakers an opportunity to be heard. Also note that it is not customary for the board to respond to public comments. The best way to correspond with board member with members of the board is by emailing

006schoolboard district.net. The first few speakers we have are Kelly Post, Tracy Harvard, Lexi St. Jennifer Hayes, Christy Keml. >> Good evening. My name is Kelly Post and I am the president of DEC. Deck represents the union of certified educators responsible for delivering the core education our students receive every day. However, we are one of five unions in District 65. And today, Deck is here to advocate for our colleagues in the school age child care program, members of EACCP, whose work is essential to the functioning of our school community. These educators are often the first to greet our students as early as 7:00 a.m. providing stability and care for working families. They are there at the end of the day as well, supporting students until as late as 6 o'clock, 6:45, I was told just recently.

007They don't simply supervise. They reinforce learning, assist with homework, and collaborate with classroom educators to ensure continuity in each child's experience. They are not an add-on to the school day. They are an integral part of it. They support the whole child for the whole day. While we understand that the district is discontinuing the optional care and flex care portions of this program, we are deeply concerned about the impact this decision will have on the students and families who rely on these services and on the dedic dedicated educators who make this possible. When we talk about supporting students, we must consider the full scope of their day and the full network of adults who make that support possible. These educators are part of that network. They deserve to be da valued and protected. Thank you. >>

008Good evening. I'm Tracy Hubard, the library department chairperson and a resident of Evston. Um, I appreciate the recent decision to continue having a certified librarian in each of the middle school libraries. It was humbling last week to hear the stories of the impact of libraries on our learning community. Um, thank you to everyone who spoke up. As a teacher, I know plans have to change depending upon my students and the situations. And I know making revisions is not easy. The current financial situation in our district is not easy, but it is real. My work environment is our students learning environment. In my 30 years as a parent and educator in the district, decisions have been deferred on building maintenance and meeting the needs of all of our learners. Funding schools isn't a unique problem to

009Evston, but a national problem. But having to justify our impact on student learning is stressful. Again, our work environment is our students learning environment. I hope we don't have to do a repeat of this. My impression from the board conversation last week is that there is not a shared long-term vision for what our schools look like, feel like, and sound like. I urge the board, the administration, and the community to work together to look not just at the immediate impact of the changes, but the long range implications of decisions being made. It's an amazing community to work in and for and I think we can and will do better. Or as my Angelou said, do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better. In this regard, the District

01065 librarians are committed to educating students to be aware of how to evaluate and use information in a digital and physical formats while encouraging them to explore the world around themselves through literature. Good evening. I'm Lexi St. John, a school psychologist for JHECC, here with a lot of my colleagues from my building. I appreciate the thoughtful conversation regarding preschool and transportation at the last board meeting. I also heard the idea of wanting to reimagine preschool in our district. This work has actually been discussed in past stakeholder committees, including the SAP 3 early childhood committee. While this committee focused on many aspects of early childhood, we did examine the idea of moving preschool into elementary buildings and identify significant hurdles. One primary hurdle is a specialized space of materials mandated for preschool programs. Classroom counters, sinks,

011toilets, cubbies, etc. must all meet specific requirements. Playgrounds must adhere to unique safety standards. These requirements are mandated by our grants and we are regularly audited. Would the preschool classrooms be in a quiet part of the building so our students can nap? What about therapy and evaluation spaces? Staffing was also discussed in the committee. Will all elementary staff, including Fable, receive professional development specifically to early childhood? Are administrators ready to have new three-year-olds in their buildings throughout the year? Do related service staff have the appropriate credentials and training to evaluate and provide therapies to this age group? What would collaboration and planning look like if preK was mixed into the elementary buildings? Who would collaborate with the prek teacher? Currently, our building has developed its own scope and sequence of a curriculum. Will the district

012redesign curriculum so that prek is included in the elementary curriculum? What about the bilingual teachers and their specialized planning and collaboration? Currently at GH, the vast majority of our staff has a common plan, allowing for thoughtful student planning across disciplines. We lose this if we are separated, which directly impacts student outcomes. Special education presents the most critical challenge to reimagining preschool. The 7030 rule caps IEP students in general education classrooms at 30%. and a centralized building. We can balance these ratios. If we are separated, what happens when the 7030 cap is met? Will these IEP students then have to go to a different school raising transportation costs? What happens when they're identified after they started? Then they have to move. What h um my colleague spoke at the last meeting and shared that she is

013able to group students from different classrooms for therapy. If preschool classrooms are separated amongst buildings, therapists will have to see students on a one-to-one basis, increasing workloads and staffing needs. Separating preschool also impacts our required continuum of services. At JH, having general and special education classrooms in one building allows students to move flexibly across the continuum. If a student needs a higher level of support, the classroom is just down the hall, not in a different building. Currently, 10 of our students spend parts of their day in both settings to meet their unique needs. This allows us our students to truly receive a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. If you separate preschool classrooms across the district, we lose this accessible continuum impacting our most vulnerable students. Reimagining preschool is not a

014simple task and has already been considered in the past. The community is listening to the statements being made about early childhood without an understanding of the work we do here, nor the burden of moving our program. This is harmful to our students, families, and our staff. If early childhood is discussed in the next planning, I ask that our staff be at the table. Thank you. Hi, I'm Jennifer Hayes. I'm a special education resource teacher also here at JH ECC. So, what is JHCC? We're an early childhood school in this prek to 8 district. Here's a little bit more about who we are and what we do. We serve both children and families through multiple programs. For general education and special education inclusion students, we have five full day full day sessions which are seven hours

015each and two of those are bilingual. We have 14 half-day sessions which are either 2.5 or 3.5 hours and one of those is bilingual. Over 30% of the students have full IEPs in these classrooms. Two psychologists on site do the testing to determine special education eligibility. And special education resource teachers like myself and related service staff like speech therapists, social workers, occupational therapists, and physical therapists are constantly in and out of the classrooms providing support all day long. For our students with the highest special education needs enrolled in our seed program, we have six half-day special education sessions, two and a half hours each, and one of those is also bilingual. ECC was previously in the des district elementary schools as well as the option having been brought up again in the last few years.

016But here are some things to consider about that. Similar to Washington school sack program, school age program, we're unable to dictate the number of students who are going to enroll each year. So if an ECC was in each school, we might have 10 students in a school one year and only four the next year. So kids might end up needing busing anyway from one program to another based on which one is full and underenrolled locations might lose those slots. Also, there might be high costs involved for renovations, buying new furniture, classroom supplies, size appropriate playground equipment, fencing, and the steel safety ballards outside the fencing. Also, licensed and grant-f funed preschool programs have to follow specific rules under DCFS and our grants, which means they need things like child-sized bathrooms right in the classroom, specific

017square footage for cut, small furniture, and play space, and staffing models and logistics for this type of change would disrupt the quality and collaboration that is needed to serve our most vulnerable population. Also, busing is essential. Most of our families are low income and or at risk, and they need the bus. This year, some students couldn't even start until their bus service began. Our grants cover a portion of these transportation costs. And lastly, how is JH different from other Evston preschools? It's the only one that's part of a public school district. All teachers have bachelor's and/or master's degrees, Illinois professional licenses, plus ESL endorsements, bilingual certifications, other certifications, and we're the only one offering all of this under one roof. special education inclusion with on-site pushin and pullout supports, 504 plans, MTSS support, bilingual programming,

018and special education programming for our highest need students. Thank you. >> Christy Carol, Ashley Peterson, Natalie Copper, Greer Beckman, Miriam Kendall, and Richard Low. Christy Carol's not speaking. I'm actually All right. So, good evening teachers, families, and board members. Happy teacher appreciation to all the teachers out here. Um, my name is Ashley Peterson. I'm the early intervention transition coordinator here at JH. And my role is to cultivate the foundational relationships while supporting students and families that are transitioning out of early intervention here to JH. One of the things I tell my incoming families is that we focus on helping these littlest learners to become the best versions of themselves by meeting them exactly where they're at developmentally. We often hear a lot about data and MTSS plans, but in preK, the most vital data is

019human and cannot be measured in these standardized ways. This week, I watched a student who arrived with us a year ago with minimal language and peer interaction skills stop a teacher in the hallway because they heard a crying peer. He said, "Oh no, they're sad. We have to go see. Why are they sad?" And then insisted that they stop and comfort that child. That development of communication, empathy, and social regulation is the quiet work that happens here at JH that makes the rest of education possible in district 65 and something the world needs more than ever today. As a member of the SAT 3 ECC committee tasked with evaluating our current preK model against the decentralized alternatives, I was genuinely surprised to find that the idea of moving into elementary schools schools is even still

020being considered. I can speak directly to the conversations we had in that meeting and maintaining JH is the best path forward for our students and our families. Having worked in districts without centralized early childhood centers, I have seen firsthand the logistical failures and isolation that occurs when our early childhood classrooms, services, and evaluations are fragmented across early childhood programs in the elementary schools. Many districts without an early childhood center wish they had one, and genuinely, it's one of the things that brought me to this district. While the board and community members may not realize, there is a method to the madness here at JH. Our programs cannot simply be picked up and plopped into another location that is not prepared. This was all discussed at the SAP committee meeting and I would urge you to

021review that work with other stakeholders from that meeting because I do not feel that the conversations we had have been properly conveyed to you. Early childhood education is one of the most unique areas of education and the most crucial to all of our students. It does not fit into the traditional K to8 framework and because of that we are often treated as an afterthought or considered child care instead of what we actually are the foundation of learning for all of the students in this district. Dismantling JH would only further isolate our most atrisisk students and the educators who serve them. I recognize that as a district we face significant financial and spatial constraints and while these circumstances may not be our fault, navigating them is certainly our responsibility. But dismantling JH is a short-term approach

022that will lead to long-term systemic failure and the only ones who will lose out are most at risk students. Thank you for your time and consideration. Good afternoon. So, I'm going to read the letter that was sent in united opposition to the closure of the school age childcare program to the district 65 board of education administration. On behalf of the unions of district 65, we write in unified and unequivocal opposition to the proposed closure of the school age childcare program. This program is not just an auxiliary service as it a vital, deeply integrated part of our school community. Its closure will directly impact more than 350 school age children, effectively displacing one amongst the entire school population. Beyond the numbers, this disruption, this decision disrupts families, undermines student support system and weakens the very fabric

023of her district. The SACC program has consistently been a self-sustaining program that generates revenue for the district. The recent exception occurred during the summer of 2024, not due to program failure, but because the district did not fulfill its operational obligations. Eliminating a program that is both financially violent, community- centered raises serious concerns about priorities and decision-making. Most critically, disclosure will disproportionately impact students with special needs. Students who rely on the consistency, care, and specialized services that SACCC staff proudly provide. These are services that families depend on and that align directly with our district's commitment to serving the whole child. The reality for working families is clear. The school day does not begin and end with the bowel. Our staff are present as early as 6:45 a.m. welcoming children to a safe structure and a nurturing

024environment and remain until 6 p.m. to ensure students are cared for until their families can return. Removing this support creates an immediate and significant hardship for parents and guardians who rely on this program to maintain their livelihoods. SACCC staff are not casual and temporary workers. They are highly qualified professionals licensed through DCFS, certified as first aid CPR and AD and and trained through DCFS approved coursework. They meet rigorous standards to serve children safely and effectively. Staff are required to complete at least 15 hours of professional additional development annually and implement DCFS mandated curriculum that supports child development. Our workforce spans from first year educators to four to five year veterans. That's me. Bringing a depth of experience that has helped shape generations of students. The foundation built in this program has contributed to the development

025of future educa educators, administrators, and leaders within district 65 and beyond. We were present during the most challenging of times during the CO 19 pandemic when many others would not and could not enter buildings. We continued to serve, support, and stabilize our community where it was needed most. The program is also unique in its daily connection to families. SACC staff are the only district employees who interact with parents every single day through structured signin and signoff processes fostering relationships and trust that are not replicated during the tra traditional school day. This consistent communication strengthens the school home connection in meaningful and lasting ways. Additionally, this program operates under USDA guidelines ensuring that students receive nutritious meals that meet federal standards. It is a secure regulated and environment. This is submitted on behalf of all the

026local union leaders and I respect ask that it respectfully be submitted in its entirety in the board minutes. I'm trying to take up time but I have sent letters signatures to all of you by email. I do have hard copies if you so desire. Hi, my name is Gre Beckman. I'm a D65 parent and member of Screen Sense Evston. We are feeling hopeful about the board's recent questioning of the use of technology in D65 schools and the district's efforts to respond to community concerns. We wanted to share with you about the LAUSD school board who recently passed a screen time policy that eliminates the use of student digital devices for students through first grade. Provides maximum daily and weekly screen time limits delineated by grade level for all other grades. Encourages the use of pen

027and paper assignments. Clarifies opt- out procedures for technology use during the school day. and ensures equitable access to technology by allowing families to opt in to the use of districtisssued devices at home. The fact that this resolution in LA comes after months of pressure from parents who started a group called schools beyond screens who spoke at board meetings at district learning sessions and expressed their concerns directly to school administrators and board members gives us real hope that parents in D65 can also have an impact. Smaller school districts, Beverly Hills, Bend, Oregon, Burke County, North Carolina, have enacted similar policies. But now, the second largest school district in the country is taking action to reduce screen time in the classroom to eliminate screens for their youngest students. And it's the school board who brought this resolution,

028who voted to implement it. This is so exciting because we know from your questions that you board members are concerned about the use of screens in schools and you have the power to make a real change. You have a precedent. You have the research and the data. You have the support of the community. We would love to partner with you like schools beyond screens did with the LA school board to create a resolution of our own. We want to thank you for all your partnership so far and we really look forward to continuing to work together on this and we also wanted to share briefly with you about a federal lawsuit MC vers Curriculum Associates the company that makes I Ready. According to the filing, the company collects and generates vast amounts of personal information

029from students as they use I Ready. The data goes beyond traditional educational records and iReady allegedly creates detailed data profiles about students that can be used to predict and influence behavior. The product is accused of sharing student information in real time with third parties, including advertising and analytics companies like Google. Plaintiffs claim the company does not obtain proper parental consent for this data collection and sharing. And they allege that the data practices harm students and violate their privacy rights under multiple federal and state laws. Given I Ready is highly utilized as a core curriculum in our district, we wanted to be sure the board and district were informed about these deeply concerning allegations. Thank you for your efforts to protect our students and their privacy. We really appreciate all that you do. >> Good afternoon.

030My name is Miriam Kendall from Screen Sense Evston. As Greer just mentioned this month, the second largest public school district in the country took a major stance against overusing screens in schools. We are excited to partner with the board now on how D65 could take similar and immediate action for next school year. We appreciate all of the progress the district has already made to curb the non-instructional use of devices in the classroom, and we're excited about what the next phase of reduced text looks like for D65. The future of education is not iPads, but is instead passionate educators, compassionate counselors, expert librarians, quality afterare, and early childhood education. Most importantly, it's about human connection. If a district as large and diverse as LA County School District can implement this change, I am confident we can,

031too. While the recent analysis on iPad carts did not present cost savings, I'd encourage the district to continue to scrutinize what it spends on technology annually, particularly as you all are being forced to make hard decisions elsewhere. What researchbacked educational benefits do our kids actually receive from those tech expenditures? And how does that compare to other very painful cuts that you are being asked to make? The news from across the country should instill that this issue is not Evston specific and it is not going away anytime soon. Recently, I had the privilege to speak on a panel with the Hutchinger Report and I spoke with journalists from many national news outlets including the New York Times and NPR. My co-panelist was an elementary school teacher from New York who is rejecting the overuse of edtech

032for her students because she has seen the negative impacts firsthand. I have now spoken with parent organizers in Seattle, LA, Boston, and Washington DC, just to name a few. We have also made connections with at least a dozen other school districts in the Chicagoland area, including Oak Park, Palletine, Glen View, Skoi, Betavia, Western Springs, and Riverside. The analog education movement is happening everywhere, and D65 should be a leader in this space. We ask the district to take two next steps. First, the district must gain the ability to monitor how long our children are using their devices and on which websites and applications they are spending their class time. Without this critical screen time reporting data, how can the board and admin craft a new strategic technology vision and monitor progress? This is urgent for you

033to be able to make informed decisions as we thoughtfully reimagine technology for next school year. Secondly, while the district makes these long-term tech strategy shifts, please give parents optionality when it comes to their own children and screen time. Just as caregivers can opt out of sexed and active shooter drills, parents should also have the ability to opt out of non-curricular and non-state required screen time. We sit with so many challenging decisions as a district right now, and this would be a clear step toward demonstrating community and parent support from the board. Thank you. Hello, my name is Richard Lowe. Uh, I have two children in district 65 who receive disability support from the district. Uh, but I'm of course not here to to talk about them. My comment is just to ask the board if

034you are in the process of considering cuts uh to deeply consider disability equity and the vulnerability uh of the most vulnerable students of district 65 in those cuts and even perhaps to name them when you choose not to make the cuts based on that on that basis. Um, I think it's really important that in order to be credible about disability equity that we have to represent that in our decisions that we make. Uh, and I do not envy the position that you're in, but I really do hope that um you will more deeply consider disability equity as one of the major factors that you make in uh refraining from making certain cuts, especially when it's services that are directly helping the most vulnerable and disabled students that we have in the district. Thank you. Next

035we have Jacob Carlin, Lauren McNarmer, Jean Clipperton, Lindsay White, Jamie Hopka, Kelly Farley. >> Hi, my name is Jacob Carlin with the Legion of Data Nerds. Last Thursday, we published an analysis about administrative growth in D65 over the last 10 years. And this morning, we published a frequently asked questions page for that analysis to provide additional clarity and foster community dialogue on this topic. Accuracy and transparency are very important to us as they aid better decision-making. I don't have enough time to go through our findings in my three minutes of public comment, but I hope you'll take the time to read through the analysis and engage with us. Throughout our group's involvement in this process, we've identified many financial levers available to the district to set this set the district's course on a sustainable path

036while minimizing the impact on the student experience. A large lever we've called on for right is right sizing the administration. We were under the impression that as the district looks for ways to improve the balance sheet, admin cuts would be included. I was blown away by the fact that buried on slide 13 of the April 20th fiscal year 27 budget reduction plan listed after $568,000 of potential savings in face leaison is a row for central office admin and non-union support positions with a potential savings of $8.3 million but this was disclosed 19 days after the April 1st deadline to go into effect for fiscal year 27. I'm trying to assume that everyone is operating with good intentions and looking out for the best interests of the children, but this one is difficult to reconcile, especially

037paired with proposed cuts to counselors and librarians paraded as necessary savings measures. There is a lot of work to do to put this district on a sustainable path, but we need to put the levers in the hands of people who are willing to use them properly. Hi, my name is Lauren McNamera. I'm a Kingsley and Haven parent and a member of the Legion of Data Nerds. The Legion released an analysis last week showing that in the past 10 years, while student enrollment declined 25%, administrators increased on every metric we tried. Does it take more administrators to run a district now than in 2016? Maybe. Uh but speaking as a community member and concerned parent, this seems like a real mismatch and an opportunity to rightsize our district footprint. We will have decrease by one school

038next year on top of the 25% enrollment drop. Does our district leadership have a perspective on how many administrators are required per thousand students or per school? The rationale for keeping the current level of roles has been we cut positions already and in the last board meeting we are 19 days past the deadline to cut these roles per the contracts. Now, there's an oversight. Neither of those statements provide a justification for what teams are working on and what leaders are accountable for. Who's accountable for ensuring a smooth transition for the 800 students moving to a new school next year? Who's accountable for ensuring academic outcomes amidst all these transitions? Who's accountable for ensuring the TWE community specifically has a smooth and equitable transition? Who's accountable for launching the dual language middle school programs at Haven

039and Nichols and the hiring and curriculum decisions and entirely new program needs? Who's accountable for ensuring Bessie Roads is sold is sold at a favorable price? So many people have gotten up here at this podium for so long and asked for things in the name of transparency and trust that I'm not sure transparency and trust is a priority for this group. But you have my tax dollars and more importantly you have my kids. Trust and transparency is vital. I asked the board to set transparency and community trust as a priority for the administration to be data driven. This could be measured by the amount of outrage. How many parents are so alarmed they are coming here to be public speakers at board at a board meeting? How many are unable to be here but watching

040along on YouTube? I also asked the board to transparently identify our priorities for the next school year, staff them appropriately, and identify if we still need staff that are not supporting the priority work for our district. Thank you. >> Good evening. I'm Gene Clipperton, a parent and with the Legion of Nerds. Research shows that interdisciplinary teams perform better and we can all benefit from increased collaboration. The nerds have presented analysis on comparative budgets across other districts and ways to rightsize the administration within our own district. We have all of our data and analysis publicly available so others can download and replicate it. The problems facing our district are solvable and of the district's own making. Reinstating the librarians is a fantastic move as the right admin right sizing offers over 26 times the savings of

041eliminating middle school librarians. As fellow nerd Kelly McCabe wrote you, the district hired its way into the crisis and now wants students to pay their way out of it. Jacob and Lauren have highlighted the millions of savings available more than the needed deficit and that we have doubled our central administrators. This is in addition to the creative savings solutions like facility rentals and solar power presented in the fall. Our analysis can provide additional insights and a broader perspective. Have any of these been pursued? We look forward to any opportunities to collaborate on data andor analysis to save the district from costly consultants and support getting our district on the right path. Hi, my name is Lindseay White. I have been consistently advocating since last fall for this board to uphold equity in the SDRP process

042and keep in mind our most vulnerable students. As we hear more about keeping middle school librarians, I wonder what this means for programs like SACC. I said it throughout last fall and I'll say it again. When we decided that we wouldn't close the recommended number of schools, these cuts had to come from, as Dr. Harkin called it, programming and staffing. We sit here tonight living these cuts, and it doesn't feel good for any of us. This board really has lost its way since the beginning of the community engagement sessions at the beginning of STRP, where our community shared our collective values. What I heard the most mentioned in those sessions was concern for our incredible staff and educators, uplifting our most vulnerable families through a continued focus on equity, and keeping intact everything that makes

043our district unique. Arts education, PE every day, paraprofessionals, supporting classrooms. By nickel and dimming our way to a balanced budget, we're still solving for the 6.3 million. Uh let's see. We seem to be targeting the very things that people wanted to uphold at the start of this. I urge the board to think more big picture when it comes to the 2728 budget. We cannot keep taking away services to get an additional 5 million in cuts for the next year. We need to look at right sizing our admin and right sizing our school buildings to reflect our current population. We now have 149 days until October when we need to make some more really tough decisions. After the 6.3 million, again, it's another 5 million that's coming in cuts, followed by another 3 million the year

044after, followed by another 1.6 million the year after that. This is a budget crisis and we need to start treating it that way. At several of the last board meetings, the agendas have shown that the board will discuss revenue opportunities, alternative approaches to reducing the deficit, but we have seen no discussion of anything related to this. In fact, when it's been brought up at several of these past meetings, there's been a series of hushed whispers and then moving on to the next item on the agenda. So, I asked the board, "When are you going to start taking these financial metrics seriously and begin having conversations about how we will balance all of these next school budgets?" I know we have the resolution in place that would propose for closing Lincolnwood in the fall. When will

045the board start discussing this in a meaningful way? And if there are alternate strategies, when will the public begin to hear about them? $5 million is a lot of money to find in the next school budget, and I highly doubt it can be accomplished through administrative cuts alone. Our district can't stand another round of what happened last year where we dragged out the deadline, backtracked on decisions, and frankly just couldn't make decisions. Please don't put our community through it again. Start having the discussions. Thank you. >> Good evening. I'm Jamie Hopky. I'm a 65 parent. Um I don't accept that a third school closure is baked in. Let's try to have some perspective on how we got here. Just a 9% turnout in 2019 schoolboard election brought us Sergio. Turnout rose to 22% in 2021,

046only to fall again to a whopping 18% turnout in 2023. Super low v voter turnout was never the mandate to close our neighborhood schools. Yet the same low turnout unpopular board hired Susan Harkkins out of six firms for SDRP3. The one they didn't pick, New Solutions K12, warned that closures don't save as much as people think and wanted to focus on alternatives first. Choosing Nate Levenid would have avoided pitting schools against each other. Instead, Susan Harkkins claimed neighborhood closures is the easy way to get to 12 million based on her 2 million per school estimate that's now known to only be 1.2 million per school. And that's not accounting for the deep civic scars it will leave. And yes, the three of you campaigned on school closures without saying how many or which schools voters

047didn't get the full picture. And you were all elected before the feds exposed the district's massive corruption through a 17count federal indictment of Horton. Two-way community engagement has been minimal at best. Admin did absolutely nothing with SDRP3 ideas from last April. District leadership handpicked facilities committee people to ensure that they'd have support for their scorecards. However, even admin admitted facilities committee never got to consensus on school closures and admin ultimately made the recommendations. Closure scenarios were recommended to you before the October community survey results were even returned. This has been a top-down admin agenda, not a communitydriven process, and the community is pushing back with data. The nerds have given you real solutions. Isby language states that you can form a citizens committee for school closures completely separate from admin. Where is the two-way engagement

048with the board and the community? Yes, Lincolnwood was spared and that is intensely appreciated. But at the same time, you've expanded free busing and avoided cutting any non-mandatory spending. Why don't you make SACC and other non-mandated spending self- sustaining? You've commissioned expensive audits and still haven't identified any meaningful savings. Inappropriate sped out outplacement or astronomical community services costs barely register on your radar. And now, are you really considering another 5% raise for JH central office staff? After voting to fire counselors and librarians and displacing Kingsley kids, you're raising salaries for people already earning more than most Evston taxpayers. I hope not. Hi, Kelly Farley. Um, you know, it's messed up. I didn't write this part originally, but the board was provided with a detailed staff and community-ledd facilities committee assessment on why splitting prek was

049a bad idea last year in the board meeting. We all saw it. And apparently also from the SAP, yet here we are. I don't know. Um, I'm having a really hard time understanding that the board who has known about the cuts needed for the year starting July 1 did not know the of the asserted deadline to make administrative cuts. Either that's untrue or it's a gross error in judgment by this board to not be confirming deadlines required and additional costs related to staffing changes and other contract sessations. Did you really not know? Is it not is it not actually a deadline? Is this some sort of smoke screen to keep us distracted? We've known that we have to make these cuts for the year that starts in two months and for every year for the

050next several years. And here we are grasping at straws and pitting the community against themselves once again. We closed one school which is projected with inflation to bring us about $7 million closer to closing the de the gap by FY30. If we're still going to end up needing to close another, it means that we've effectively spent over $1.5 million from this coming year for no solution and drastic whiplash cuts with no vision of where we're headed. while still likely having to make a closure and possibly impact kids more than once with closures while reducing mental health supports. Now, you're considering eliminating a union through SACC, an accessible, reliable program that supports students with special needs, and instead offer it to a private company who does not provide the same access of services and is able

051to set their own prices. Sounds a bit like our busing problem. No. Is Evston a union buster for privatization? Who of your students do you think will be most impacted when we close SACC? I look forward to providing informed analysis about the growth in administrative positions and where there can be cuts that are the least impo impactful to our students and minimal to the staff who had no part of the bleep show of the past few years. I encourage the board to remember that if we hit the target of cuts this year, we still have $9.5 million of recurring permanent cuts needed by FY30, 5 million by next year alone. We demand a vision from this board. We cannot ask the community to fund a referendum just to let this board p once again to

052buy time when you've proven you can't rise to the urgency of now. It's unconscionable and grossly irresponsible to our district's future. Please put students before structures and privatization of services. We have Liz Wins, Katie Armstead, Peter Buggera, Marcy Mice, and Rita Schlimon. >> Hi, I'm Liz Wllins and I'm a D65 parent, including a son here at JH and co-founder of Invest in Neighborhood Schools at investinston.com. I just want to acknowledge that I know that there is still a lot of work ahead and hard decisions to be made, but in the past few meetings, I've heard more talk from this board about needing a roadmap and a vision than ever before. This gives me hope. There has also been mention of an HR audit of central office and questions about how deep the governance of this

053board should go. I want to ask that you continue to dig in, to ask questions, and hold this administration accountable to the Evston community. This community is like no other. Just last week at my daughter's orchestra concert, we ran into multiple of my husband's colleagues, connected with my son's beloved JH aid who was there to support her grandson and stopped in between acts to take selfies with him and caught up with friends from across neighboring schools. This is just not something you find everywhere. Right now, our community is going through some major transitions, but we continue to show up for each other, and I hope that the last few weeks have shown that the board will continue to show up for the Evston community as well. Thank you for all that you do. Hi, my

054name is Katie Armistad. I'm a district 65 parent who co-founded Invest in Neighborhood Schools. I'm making a public comment tonight on three things. One, administrative overhead. Two, our 2.7 million in annual capex. And three, a small proactive step that I think the board should consider. One, administrative overhead. Instead of counting the number of heads or leading us down what I view probably an emotionally charged debate about administrators, simply direct your administration to manage to a central office payroll target that's down X% year-over-year and set X to whatever you need to achieve a balanced budget. I don't know what non-union increases in the FY27 model, but leave it up to your administration to implement a salary freeze, introduce pay cuts, or reduce headcount. Last meeting, the administration told us they missed an April 1 deadline in

055employment agreements to terminate up to 22 administrator roles. I've since foyed these employment agreements, which have not been produced yet because the administration cannot locate them. I don't know how that we have employment agreements with an April 1 deadline if we don't even know where the employment agreements are. CDA's lock us into rate increases all across this district, but not on the second floor of this building, and it's not an indictment on the work of our administrators. They care. Some of them seem incredibly talented, and they work hard, probably this year more than ever. It's just an acknowledgement that we can't afford them all. Second, I would like the board to reconsider the newly adopted 2.7 million in annual capex until a comprehensive facilities plan with financing is finalized. At the March 23rd meeting, when

056a board member asked Studio GC if 2.7 was the right number, Studio GC said, and I quote, "I'm hesitant to give you a number like that because I think there has to be a first pass at bringing the buildings closer to baseline." And he went on to describe a referendum. To the extent our goal is to show fiscal discipline before a capital referendum, the shift from 1 to 2.7 isn't going to be our headline. And I don't think it's going to be politically popular for voters to hear that this board was prepared to spend $2 million on a single building at the expense of things like our middle school counselors. And if we have to put if we have a building that is in such poor condition that we need to put 90% of our

057capex to it this year, then why wasn't it first on the list of the facilities to close? I think you're handcuffing yourselves and these are capital projects that require and deserve long-term taxpayer finding financing in tandem with a reduced footprint. Finally, a small suggestion for the board to consider. There is a mural on the corner of Church and Dodge that I pass every morning. It says, "Where there is no vision, there is no hope." It's a George Washington Carver quote. And as this board works to refine its vision, I'd like to suggest a simple, proactive step to take. Since the last board meeting, families in this district have received, I think, up to six separate emails from our superintendent on a whole host of topics. All of them negative and most of them threatening more

058pain. It's peace meal. It's chaotic, and it doesn't reflect a well-run district. As far as I can tell, families want to hear less from our superintendent and more from this board. To that end, I'm asking the board to close this fiscal and school year with an endofear recap communication outlining wins throughout the year and steps you plan to take over the coming summer months. There's been some meaningful wins that I think are getting buried in the noise. And I know we have a ton more work to do, but we're approaching a nearly balanced budget for the second fiscal year in a row. It's outstanding and you guys should be on a megaphone about this. If you're tired of shouting from the sidelines and want to help be a part of the solution, check us out

059at investineevston.com. Good evening. I'm Peter Rogier, a proud parent of three Kingsley Comets and a family that has relied on the SACE program for 5 years. I'm here because of a troubling pattern in recent weeks. Proposed cuts to counselors, librarians, and now child care that don't reflect the values of this community or I suspect of this board. on SACC. Before the board accepts the proposed costs at face value, has admin looked at funding sources that flow directly to this district and that a private vendor like right at school couldn't access? Eliminating SACC may close those doors entirely. I've also heard from parents of students with special needs who depend on SACC because their child requires an aid or other supports that only the district can provide. For those families, this isn't a child care preference.

060It's how they get to work. Handing that off to a private provider isn't a simple substitution, and the board should understand exactly what happens to those kids before any decision is made. Now, the larger pattern, we've been told that contractual deadlines passed for central office reductions this cycle, that the administration has already cut to the bone. I'd ask the board to further consider that claim. Independent analysis shows D65 employs significantly more central office administrators today than a decade ago while serving substantially fewer students. The cut to the bone framing is not supported by those numbers and this board deserves a direct reconciliation between what's been presented and what the data actually shows. I'd also ask when did the board learn that the deadline had had passed? Because if the answer is at the April 20th

061meeting after the fact, a deadline that constrains the board's options should should have been flagged proactively, not cited retroactively as a decision as a as a reason the window is closed. The sequencing here is backwards. Rightize central office first. Understand what remains. Then do the work to determine what else is necessary. That's how you protect counselors. That's how you protect librarians and it's how you protect crit before and after school care programs that everybody needs. not by treating them as a first line of cuts while administrative overhead gets a pass for another year. Thank you. >> Hello, my name is Marcy Mai and I am a longtime educator in district 65. I'm here today as the chair of the Illinois Education Association's Region 41. Region 41 represents more than 1500 members, including educational support professionals,

062licensed staff, and retired educators across the Northshore. We stand in strong support of the essential work and inclusive practices carried out by the staff in the school age child care program. As a teacher who works across the district, I see firsthand how the SACC provides equitable and necessary care for students and families who rely on it every day. I am deeply concerned about decisions that could shift this work away from district 65 employees and into the hands of outside providers. Moves like this risk undermining the stability of the program, the relationship built with students and families, and the experienced workforce that currently supports it. I urge the board to support our students by protecting the school age child care program and by ensuring that this care continues to be provided by the dedicated district 65

063staff who know this community best. Thank you. >> Um Slimon That concludes our public comments for today. >> All right, with that, thank you community. Um, with that, we're going to move to approval of the meeting agenda. >> I move that the board approve today's meeting agenda as presented. >> Second news trend. Yes. >> Wymer. >> Yes. >> Wilkins. >> Yes. >> Pinker. >> Yes. >> Hernandez. >> Yes. >> Opt. >> Yes. >> Anderson. >> Yes. Next we have curriculum and policy. >> Great. Our first topic is the uh sped workload analysis. And I believe we have a presentation. Good evening. My name is Jenny Sulik. I'm the director of student specialized services for the district. Just want to introduce yourselves. Ann Wildman, uh, school social worker with the district and deck co-chair of the

064joint committee for special education and inclusion. >> Hi, I'm Julia Irons. I'm a bilingual speech language pathologist in the district and de executing it from there. Julie I mean Jenny Open it again. Try opening it again. Can you grab somebody from tech? >> Dr. Beersley, can you grab someone from Tech to see if they can come support Thank you. They're actually This works too. Um, Jenny, I'll drive it. >> She's gonna navigate it. She's going to navigate it for you >> and then you just tell her next when you want her to change. >> Click the first slide for me, Adila. >> Okay. Is that the first one, Jenny? >> Okay. It looks like it's working. >> Audit special educ. So, this recommendation from the audit aligned with the work of the joint committee of

065special education and inclusion that was already working on updating the workload plan last year in finalizing it this this year. Having a workload plan and and updating it is a Illinois state mandate that was established in 2009 and amended in 2016 to create a more robust workload plan focusing on workload rather than case load. The mandate ensures that special education staff have sustainable workloads in order to implement IEP services at the required quality and intensity. The workload plan also should at least include not only instruction, but paperwork, IEP meetings, and collaboration. Workload plans should be reviewed at least annually in collaboration with the union. Next slide. >> So in our last uh contract, there was a side letter that was added which is linked there um in which Deck and the district agreed to develop

066a comprehensive workload plan basically to upload update the plan um that was last updated in 2016. Uh the intention was to promote manageable workloads, provide clarity and consistency in the workload sizes of special education teachers and related service providers so that we can meet student needs because everyone agrees that teaching conditions are learning conditions and that rolled over into the work of the existing committee. How do I go on? Um, so last year, oh, thank you, Stacy. Last year, uh, you received a memo at the end of the year with the text of the workload plan that was submitted. That work was collaboratively um completed by uh the broader workload by the broader special education um and inclusion committee as well as a workload subcommittee. Um and that the purpose was to ensure that we

067um knew everything that all of our workloads encompass and that there is a problem solving process in place that's consistent across roles and disciplines in the event that an uh an educator feels that they can't meet student needs with their current workloads. Um this year the um broader committee regularly and then there was also a workload subcommittee um where we finalized the documents from last year as well as developed um stakeholder facing documents for to describe what that problem solving process will look like so that everyone can start engaging in that process with fidelity next year. And then we also um laid the foundation for next year's work by collecting workload data through a survey that will be used to develop the role specific aspects of the plan. And then most importantly on the bottom

068bullet um we have agreed to amend the side letter to extend the timeline. Um we were originally hoping to wrap up all this work at the end of last year, but um we discovered that it is much more important to have a comprehensive um plan that can be minimally updated from year to year than to rush through. Yes. Um so over here you just see there's a link to the workload plan. Um and then on the left are the five key components that apply to all special education and related service providers to different degrees. And then on the right um the way that the workload plan will be monitored and the support that will be provided if an educator feels that their workload is not manageable. This is also um kind of a flowchart of

069what the problem solving process will look like and on the bottom is a link a PDF link to um sorry a link to a PDF of the slideshow that will be shared with um all stakeholders next year. Um, essentially it just outlines what meetings should take place and how long the strategies should be uh implemented before a final determination is made about the workload of an educator. And then these next three are just three different um stakeholder facing um sorry different documents for different stakeholder groups. So this is one is for the school leader. The next one I believe is for um the IIS coordinators and then the third one is for the educators to look at um within the workload plan what are their individual responsibilities um within both the problem solving process and

070the workload plan maintenance. All right. So the um school code that dictates this workload plan also specifies that data must be collected regarding the workload of special educators and that was a large part of our committee's work this year. Um we created a survey that collected approximately 70 data points. It was actually a few more but the ones that are most relevant for our data analysis. So 70 data points per respondent. We got 204 staff responses which was almost an 80% response rate. Um so we feel pretty good about that. That has left us with a spreadsheet of uh 14,280 data points to analyze. Um where we are right now is a data integrity review has been conducted by a subcommittee that was representative of the staff roles and the student groups served. So when

071I say student group served, I mean an IIE teacher who works primarily in gened classrooms has a very different point of view than an IE teacher who works primarily in a specialized program. So we wanted to make sure that all of those um were represented and the data integrity review was just cleaning up the data, taking out words so that formulas will work. um making sure you know that the data is able to be analyzed. Next slide, please. So, you've heard a fair amount at this point about the areas in our workload plan, but we collected from all of these educators um information about how many service minutes, that's delineated in an IEP. Um how many service minutes they are expected to deliver, also inclusive of 504 minutes and MTSS minutes. Um what is the

072size of their case load because that is a portion of workload. how much time they require for planning and creation of materials and how much time is spent on face-to-face student evaluations. That's in the first component of the workload plan. Second component, we collected data regarding how much time staff spend collaborating with each other around collaboration of IEPs and creation of necessary visuals. Um, writing IEP goals. How much time is spent in family communication? and how much time is spent uh creating behavioral supports. We collected data regarding how many meetings a g a person in a given role is expected to attend in a year. How long are those meetings taking? How much time are they needing to prepare for those meetings? In the fourth area, we collected case management data. So, how long is

073it taking you to do the duties of a case manager? Whether you are case managing IEPs or 504s, you have to schedule all of those meetings. You have to do progress monitoring, there's a fair amount of documentation required for compliance. Um, and the last area of our workload plan involves crisis management. So, how much time is any is someone in a given role spending responding to immediate student crisis? That can be behavioral or emotional crisis. That can also be for more of our OT, PT, speech, responding to a kid's essential device has stopped working and I am the only one in the building who knows how to fix it. So that is also included um in there and also you know the risk and threat assessments. How long does all of the follow-up paperwork take

074all of that? Next slide please. So what will this look like once we have analyzed all of this data? Um we have defined many different um staff groups by which this data will be broken down. Um again like it's not just special education teachers, it's elementary inclusion special education teachers, it's middle school specialized program um special education teachers, it's specialized program social workers, ECC speech paths. We have a ton of groups that we don't want to create data that is ultimately meaningless across too broad a swath of um of roles. And so to work the the work of the committee for the next year um we are continuing this workload by discipline. Um, we've been referencing workload plans from other districts and we are looking at we eventually will have charts that provide averages of

075what is expected, you know, for for a special education teacher in an elementary, you know, how many hours would we typically expect them to be spending in IEP meetings per year? How many minutes per week do we expect them to spend planning? What is the average? So that we have um the workload problem solving. It gives us a place to start. It's an average. Oh, you're at like double the average. Okay, we that's maybe where we need to problem solve or this particular piece of work is taking you, you know, twice as long to complete as it seems as seems to be the average. So that might be uh you know room for PD a skill deficit. Um so we'll be working on all of that and we will also continue our work on our

076continuum of services. Um, we need to, so this summer we're actually having a summer project to really develop systems to collect and analyze student outcome data in a much more uniform way across the district so that we can use that data to evaluate the effectiveness of our different special education service delivery models. Um and that will roll into the c the committee's work next year of refining our continuum of services expanding our in district capacity and figuring out how are we actually making these decisions about what level of service um students are in need of. >> That is the end of the presentation. Any questions or discussion? I uh can you go back to slide eight >> the school leader one? >> Uh so my my question about actually the next three slides is is

077this is very comprehensive. How is this information going to be pushed out into the different locations so that there's consistency across buildings and how this is implemented? >> Sure. So the the first one is school leader if you want to go on to the next one is I coordinator and then the next is deck membership. >> So this and this is a roll out next year because this work is just being finalized this year. So we have time in the beginning institute days and the beginning collaboration days to really dig deeply and really then the expectations is that all stakeholders familiarize them themselves with the workload plan that was uh linked into to one of the slides what it is what are the components and if somebody comes to you as a IEES coordinator or

078a building leader or I'm an a physical therapist who it does doesn't have the capacity to fulfill my my minutes. I know what what I need to do next to problem solve my my workload. I can go to my building leader or IEES coordinator. This is what the workload plan entails. Listen to what the concerns are, what we're problem solving over. Offer some strategies. Uh like Ann mentioned in maybe it's an area that we can offer some more professional development. So if it is evaluation writing that's taking a lot longer than the average time, is it your mentor we can set you up with? Is there a webinar? Is there another person in that role that can help with that professional development? That strategy then is written down, tried, check in four to six weeks,

079problem solved, great. If not, what is the next step? Is it meeting with me? Is it escalating up? And then is it looking more deeply into what has been tried? And is there anything else that can can be tried to make your workload more manageable? >> So this this will create some consistency across the district and how workload um management happens. >> Yes. And what's expected from the workload. That's that was the 14,000 data points that we'll be analyzing and looking at uh really digging into next year like Ann said by role. So when a staff member comes and says my workload is unmanageable, we have something to go on. We already took a sample from our own district staff of how what their responsibilities are and what's the average time that they're spending on

080each responsibility as part of their workload. >> Thank you. You're welcome. >> So as far as timeline, what uh you keep saying next year. Um so this is for implementation in the next calendar year or the next academic year? >> Next academic year. Okay. Sorry, I always think in school year. Yeah. Yeah. And then and then and then we can expect to begin to see the data kind of the baselines when um get a sense of where this data took us and the outputs. >> Oh, sure. Sure. >> Was that to is that the end of next academic year that you're saying that we see that or >> I hope it doesn't take that long. Um, I think that we're ending in a really good place and have a lot a lot of conversations that

081three of us and the committee did to say this is where we're at now. Where how do we just pick up in August right away and keep going without having to go back and say what was that that we did last year? Where did we end off? Where was that analysis? So, we're ready to go in in the fall. So, hopefully it won't take that long. Um I think there we're doing some educating on um creating the formulas and some of that work can be done outside of the committee in preparation to to get it going for the committee. And why we're saying the fall two in academic years is if as part of the side letter and the timelines is that the workload would be uh created and brought to the the board and

082deck union um membership by May of 2025. We're bringing it by May of 2026. So really it's it's not time to implement it now. We're bringing it to you for input feedback. We'll bring to to Deck as well. and then full implementation will be next year. That's not to say that we don't have a problem solving process now when staff loads and when staff is coming and saying I have too too many kids. I can't service all my minutes. I'm missing all of my plan, missing all of my lunch. Then I've been sitting with them and the I coordinators working through what that looks like. We just don't have that time analysis to to look at when we're problem solving. >> Okay. um 14,280 data points. First, that's commendable to to the educators and staff

083to you know buy in and to give that amount of data. I also say 14,280 data points and trying to understand how the team has the time to do that analysis. And so my question is what types of supports are necessary to support your knowledge of the work but how to bring to you supports of folks and we live next we're unique and we have this university over here where we have relationships with where we can ask for data analysis support um in a way that respects and privileges the expertise that you have but can help with some of those formulas. And so I'm um wondering how that can happen and how OEP or any can help do this work because it's um a lot of analysis and a lot of um um is impactful

084for the work ahead. Second, I also think um a lot of this is coming from surveys and I'm curious the systems we use because some of this should be data points. I'm curious is just number of cases when meetings are happening. I would hope that there's data and systems that we can pull out and then try to triangulate in in ways. So not trying to make it complex but I think this is such a um everyone in the country is having these issues and we have a unique opportunity to try to take the audit take the surveys and try to understand what this is. So it's a key part of our vision going forward that we're starting with making sure we understand the services we need to provide the spaces we need to provide and

085how to support it. So um no solution to that but I do believe that we have I know we have the resources. So I know that there's resources both in folks who are sitting this audience and also in the community who would love to um do this and I want to say important that support from a data analysis not from the analysis of the problem. That is where your expertise lies but help to bring that together so we can move this analysis forward a little uh faster hopefully. >> We appreciate that. Thank you. Actually, when we were looking at the the data points, we said, "Oh, we should should have probably talked to someone in data before we created this form because we could have avoided some of this cleanup." So, I appreciate that, >>

086Maria. Yeah. And I also echo appreciate the 80% of educators that responded to this. That's a big thing. Um, it's nice to have some, um, primary source data for us to be able to analyze in this endeavor. Uh, and I would also just suggest that as you think about this, I just, um, little quick search, uh, so nothing definitive, but it looks like there's the potential for additional AI tools to help address some of the workload challenges. I'm I'm I'm sure that a lot of it is related to paperwork and things that are more administrative and manual in nature. Um, and we're living in a really extraordinary time. So I encourage your team to investigate those types of tools that can help you guys alleviate some of that administrative burden and also reporting so that

087you can address the minutes uh that are so critical. >> Thank you. >> I just wanted to go so again I appreciate the work that the joint committee's done. So that's pretty powerful and I really appreciate the uh delineated roles for each of the stakeholders that's part of the you know the continuum of services right um going back to what what one of our uh public commenters mentioned around disability equity um just making sure that as you continue this work right I know you are um engaging the uh the parent um committee for uh students with um um special education services So, so that you know that's great. Continue doing that and and would love to hear again in regards to what their reaction is uh to the plans that you're working on to really

088uh ensure that we have a great continuum of services for our kids with um specialized education services. >> Thank you. >> Jenny, is is there do you have a um like an overview of a timetable for the next school year when you'll be coming back to give us updates? I do not have one set. I assume that through our our collaboration as my school board liaison and with the rest of the academics team and the cabinet to see what else is coming in in coming months to try to balance where that's at and where we're at as a committee with our work as well. >> Just to check in to see Maya, if you're waiting to jump in. Yeah, I did have a question. Um did I didn't want to interrupt. Sorry. Um this is

089just a followup to questions around timing. Um so I understand that a lot of the analysis hopefully will be done next school year. Um I'm just wondering will the sort of implementation in terms of support for you know how to use this analysis and support and and professional development. Do we expect that to at least start happening next year or is that something that we think will happen the following school year? >> So the workload plan the actual plan will be implemented and rolled out to stakeholders next year. Then digging into the all of the data that was collected in the time analysis, we'll continue to build out workloads per discipline. So we'll start at a broad level next year and then drill down per discipline by the end of next year for the following

090year. So they'll we'll still have a problem solving uh way if uh staff members feel like their workload is unmanageable and cannot provide the IEP services. So it's both. >> Got it. Okay. >> You know, one one thing I like us to also pay attention to is u the types of so when we when you do um observations to determine whether students need um particular services, right? Um, and I know it's been presented before to to previous boards, um, but you know, the the breakdown of where students land in regards to, uh, the services that they need in regards to special education, right? So, if it's emot for emotional behavior, for it's for autism. Um, so just again as as um and what I appreciate this is such a comprehensive approach to to what you're

091doing and you're bringing in not just the folks that have the specialed background but also uh the clinicians and psychologists and just folks. Yeah. So, so just being mindful of that as well as we as we continue to do >> can I um I think just as a way of sort of understanding the systems that are used it would be not today but at some point to sort of have some representation of what are all the platforms or systems that are being used to document um services and also to help create services because I think that's a a big of the uh of the workload and having spent some time years ago working in this space, I know it's those systems can be very helpful or very laborious and it' be good for us just

092to you know be informed. I think one of the things we're trying to do is get more informed of all the systems and and things are being used. So at another time could be a FYI just helping us get up to speed of um how technology and systems are helping you do what you do. >> Thank you. >> Anything else colleagues? Thank you to the three of you. Uh please give our thanks to the joint committee. Um we have three FYIs that are mentioned in the agenda but I actually I believe fall under finance more closely than curriculum and policy perhaps. >> Okay. So I think we're completed for curriculum policy. >> Okay. Uh I am running this portion of the meeting. Um first up, hi Dr. Oer. Can you come on up and tell

093us about the overview and history of the SA program, please? All right. Good evening. I'm Dr. Deborah Oer. and I am the director of um programs and partnerships. Good evening. I just want to start off today on our first slide of uh giving a little bit of historical context. If we could go to the Oh, that was to begin. It's important to acknowledge the rich history of district 65's commitment to early childhood and school age child care which began in 1965 with the opening of Evston Head Start. In early 1970s, partnership grew with the school with the child care network of Evston, leading to afterchool care in five elementary schools and the addition of after kindergarten care. Programs continue to expand, including a second Head Start program and the opening of early childhood center at

094Miller School, which is now Kavali, and later moved to Kingsley Elementary and operated there into 1990. In 1982, we progressed. Superintendent Dr. Campbell expanded services to include before school programming at 12 schools. This longstanding long-standing commitment continued in 2002 when these early childhood and family programs were unified at the JE Center under Superintendent Hardy Murphy. Our current program model, the current SAC program provides before and after school care at 12 school sites. We want to emphasize that district 65 is unique. We are the only nearby school district that directly operates and subsidize a child care pro program unlike our surrounding neighbors who contract with private providers or partner with their local park district. While we recognize the importance of child care access for our families, the critical challenge that we continue to face that is

095that the current SAC model has not been financially sustainable. The program model overview and capacity for the 2627 school year. I want to reiterate based on the communication that has come out, we plan to continue offering before and afterchool program at all elementary schools and King Arts with the exception of Washington Elementary. We made this decision due to consistently low enrollment at Washington where fewer than 10 students have participated in both morning and afternoon sessions over the past two years. Our focus this year is for the SAC program has been on strengthening systems and processes to ensure a more efficient, sustainable and highquality delivery of our program. We remain compliant with DCF reg DCFS regulations which guide our capacity requirements and require a 1:2 staff ratio for children ages five and older. 1 to 20.

096>> Sorry, 1 to 20. I apologize. >> 1 to 20. It is important to note that enrollment is capped by DCFS licensing capacity. Most schools are licensed in our district for 45 to 50 students and Lincolnwood is a limit of 30. This cap is based on a DCF DCFS formula which they use to determine how many students occupy a space at any given time. We could apply for larger a larger license, but we might also need to consider hiring additional staff to ensure coverage and that students safety ratios are in place if we are occupying more than one space at any current time existing in our district before and after school programs. On this chart, you can see all of the elementary schools and magnet schools listed. It is important to remember that SAC is

097not the only option for our families. The district has longstanding existing partnerships that provide alternative before and after scare school programs. On this edge of the slide, thank you for adjusting that. The partners that you see listed in the yellow box at YOU right at school and books and breakfast have operated since 1971, 2012 and 2013. These partners continue to operate in our district today. District 65 compared to other surrounding districts. As mentioned earlier on slide three, this slide just reinforces that our surrounding districts meet their child care needs by either contracting with forprofit providers or partnering with local districts. District 65, as you can see in that first box, provides a variety an array of options for our students and our families. You can see the hours that they operate in the far column

098and you can see the other school districts six, Glen View and WT use private or park districts to occupy their child care needs. As part of my analysis this year, some of the operational challenges include program alignment. Because each school operates its own child care site, we see some inconsistencies in programs. What you get at one site might not necessarily be the exact same based on the style of the provider. Although we do have some consistencies across the board such as homework, help, sports, and other uh other programs that are um other crafts and so forth within that program. We don't see a consistency across a dayto-day experience for our students. Second, the DHS subsidy structure poses financial challenges. Reimbursement is based on student attendance. We are required to staff programs for five days a

099week regardless of attendance of students who receive subsidies, forcing the district to also absorb those costs. We also incur additional operational and financial demands from maintaining a substitute pool and providing necessary one-on-one supports for students. As a district program, we must provide supports for students as listed in their IEP. Previously, flex care enrollment requires us to reserve spots and staff for students who may or may not attend, limiting spot slots for those who are in who need daily care. This was discussed and approved for elimination by the board on the April 20th meeting. our current enrollment optional care. You can see for our half day students on those half day Wednesdays, we had 244 student excuse me students enrolled. Our flex care students are students were enrolled in flex care. We have 67 families who

100have enrolled in this service. Some of those families have taken >> weather warning. >> Are we okay? >> We'll keep going. We gonna just wait until them somebody come. >> Sorry. Is that my time? Oh, sorry. I didn't know any time. 67 of those students have enrolled. Again, not all of those families have taken advantage of uh the flex care, but it's there for them if they need it in case of an emergency. As you can see, I won't go through all the numbers, but it's listed in the enrollment broken out on the far column. I further broke down the attendance based on category. Students who are only enrolled in AM, only enrolled in PM, only enrolled in both AM and PM. And the again optional care and flex care. These numbers are fluid because

101people enroll or disenroll or change status based on the needs for their families. I'll kind of scroll through faster. Sorry. Our current stack numbers, we have 12 site coordinators, one for each school, 19 group leaders. That's depending. They're not equally dispersed because it depends on the number of students who are enrolled based on our 1:20 ratio model. Currently, we have five pair of professionals as one-on-one. We have four on uh on call substitutes and two district site coordinators, which is mandated by DCFS because one coordinator can only oversee six schools. On this slide, you'll see our expedenditures and revenue. This slide outlines the components that make up Sachs program operational costs. The largest area of expenditures is salaries and benefits which covers program staffing. You can see for the 25 school year and the 26

102which is um to date. Operational costs include everything that's listed on the far column. optional care and flex care. As previously discussed and approved by the board, we are eliminating both the flex care and oppos oper optional, excuse me, care services. These were elements and components of the SACC program. Again, I want to reiterate, we are keeping the before and the afterchool program for the upcoming school year, >> but eliminating those services, >> but eliminating these two services. Our half day, these are the costs broken out itemized by categories. This total does not include the salaries of professional develop prof uh pair professionals required by students IEPs. It also does not take into account any sub guest educator or guest sub for the program during these days. Questions? Going back to the oops optional care

103days operational cost. You indicated that >> this this slide here. >> Yes. Mhm. >> That that total cost did not include the cost for the paraprofessionals that work that provide coverage for some of the students in in the program as well. There was another mention >> this was just the staffing for the group leaders for the uh members of EACCCP group leaders site coordinators. Is there any estimate to the to the additional cost of the pair the pair of professionals that work with the students that attend these child care programs? >> I can get that for you. We have five. So then I can do the hourly rate that they would get paid. >> And again, I just also want to reiterate. So they they also work from 12 in the afternoon for the half

104days to 6:00 p.m. So for those hours, can you go to slide eight for a quick um because it's about the optional care and flex care because I think one of the questions around this is fine. This is this is fine. Um one of the my understanding that the discussion particularly around the optional care it's not so much the cost it's also it by having sack team do programming if you will then they're not able to participate in professional development that's part of the that's part of the uh school so can you speak to the I think the particularly with optional care part of the motiv motivation for um removing that particular program. >> Yeah, absolutely. So, actually one of the um when we surveyed the staff, one of their their comp I don't want

105to call it a complaint, but one of their suggestions is that they don't ever receive professional development. And when we were moving towards more of a school-based model, thinking about how can we get professional development for our school age child care because rightfully so, they deserve as much, you know, professional development monthly as our educators and the rest of our other union teams. And so this way, although yes, there are some um downsides to it, but there's also some positives looking at they will be able to attend for a professional development for three three hours just like everybody else in this district monthly. And again, for um some time now, and I I can't speak to before I got here, that wasn't consistently happening, right? And so this would give them an opportunity not to

106also have professional development in areas that they would like growth in but also to be part of their buildings since they are not school age school age child care is not a program in their building. They are part of the building and so therefore this gives them an opportunity to actually engage with the school community as well in that aspect. And is there any other beyond uh half day um Wednesdays are there any other days where SAC provides um programming when the school is closed? Is that the only >> not currently? >> That's the only that's the only >> they used to in previous years. Yes. On the non-attendance days, the Friday after conferences that used to be a full day of sack and this year this that no longer exists. And so that is

107an opportunity as well for us to leverage professional development on that day. >> And final thing with this and then I'll move off of this. Um what is the work that we're doing to you know because yes by taking away a day families have to figure out what to do right um >> how what efforts are we doing or have we done to you know first when deciding to do this to know that there's options we have partners and even you know I don't know if some of the programming even takes place in our uh building so can you speak to what families are to do >> yeah but just for the half day just for the half day just half day >> just for the half day >> what what has the communication plan

108all those things to communicate the other options that are available with us removing this half day option to families. >> So again, we have programs and providers here. These are not the only programs in our community. So I don't want to say that I'm going to sit here and promote some out. I can't promote everybody in the community. Do we have community partners in our school that offer that? Yes, in some of our buildings, in all of them, not currently. And so moving forward, yes, you know, on here since we have, you know, relationships in our community with the city of Evston and we do uh uh intergovernmental, you know, um we are connected to the city of Evston and YMCA. Those they offer also half-day programs which I have um communicated with already to

109our sack families. But again, additionally, we can, you know, facilitate conversations that way for them as well >> for the U, pardon me, for the optional care and the flex care programs. So, the enrollments are 244 for the optional care and 67 >> for the flex. >> Are those is there overlap between those or are those mostly unique students in each of those programs? I would have to look at that data, but I can definitely look that up for you. >> Yeah, I'm just I'm curious. >> A lot of our 67 families some again that is kind of like, hey, something might come up. I might be late at work. You know, I'm going to enroll and pay a $50 enrollment fee to do the flex care in case I need it. Some families we

110found use it. Some use it once a week. Some use it, you know, once a month. It it just varies. Um, unfortunately I can't break out the finances of that because when the payment is made, it's all lumped into one sum. It's not, you know, >> that's helpful. Um, and then I was curious, do we know, let's assume it's 244 plus 67 just to make it easy. Um, whatever that total is, do we know how that's broken across schools? Do we know what the enrollment patterns are? Uh, where different locations where it's offered? >> I do. >> Okay. Yeah. I'm just curious. >> I have it broken out by school. So, how many flex care are each school? Absolutely. I have it by school for you. I can send that to you. >> Yeah. Yeah.

111I'm just I'm just curious if you know are a lot of those students concentrated in >> in certain schools for the flex care >> higher than or higher or lower at certain places. >> We have a um let's see Willard who has 11 which is the highest. >> Thank you. I wanted to ask I think one of the things that's been pointed out is that uh children with IEPs or other disabilities aren't accepted in the private programs. Is there an opportunity for us to negotiate for providers that are using our buildings um to accept those students and then potentially provide the aid still um to attend with that student to accommodate for that need? Well, I want to be I want to be careful by saying that they can attend those programs because they can

112attend their programs. Um, legally, we have to do it because IEEP is individual education plan, which is a school term. It's not a term that programs that are private use. It's only for schools. So, do they have accommodations? They do, but it's not such as what we would have extensively for a school day with a one-on-one. So they do provide supports, right? The city of and I don't want to get into specifics, but like the programs that we do have here like right at school and so forth that we do have in our buildings, they have structured >> and so I think on um Dr. Wymer's um board question today. I think I I specifically dropped that in of exactly the supports that right at school and so forth that they do. Is there an

113opportunity to have a conversation and how they can get better? Absolutely. And how we can provide support? Um I'm do I hear you saying correctly that they would offer the program and we would continue to pay for a one-on-one? Is that what you're >> I mean I guess what I'm wondering is how can we allow and ensure that any student in our district has the ability to attend one of these programs >> if a disability would otherwise prevent them from attending. >> It's a it's a valid point. I can take that back and have conversations. I meet with them monthly, weekly, um some weekly, some monthly, but definitely can take that back. >> Yeah. And I think I hear her saying if if a a program like a right at school has a student with

114um an IEP that enrolls into that program, the district still provides the peer professional support that that student need to participate in that program. >> I don't want to prescribe the solution. Um, I just wanna I just want to ensure that any provider that we allow to service our students are mandated to serve all of our students. >> Um, regardless of their individual needs, whether that be IEP or physical disability or whatever. Um, so they're using our space, they're addressing our population, they need to be able to address our entire population. I also want to take in consideration that we don't share that IEP with them because of confidentiality. So again, that would have to go through, you know, a parent signing off on that would be okay. But again, they do direct sign up.

115They don't go through the district. They sign up directly with right at school. >> Yeah. And maybe maybe that just looks like um us having a an interface with between the families and right at school because it could be true that maybe those families don't believe that they can advocate for themselves with right at school and it would be helpful if you know we as a provider of the space could help ensure that those services were provided equitably. >> Thank you for that. >> I'd like to ask a question. Uh I chuckled a little bit when I it said partnerships and it listed right at school. So right at school as I understand it is a contractual arrangement that we have >> correct >> with a child care provider that's owned by a massive equity

116firm um and is making a profit. Um we they pay us a fee to use our building and have access to our students. That fee is roughly what? $90,000. >> That is correct. >> Yeah. Um so I'm sitting here and I'm looking at SACC. If we go back to the money, um is 81% externally funded whether through uh government funding or through um parent uh familial uh fees and such. And thinking of again the $90,000 of we make off of right at school, but we don't know what right at school's revenue is. Have we done any research about what if we really focused in on what we know is working, which is SACC? We know it's working for I mean it's the most inclusive option for our students with IEPs. Um have we done any

117research about if we simplified options, would that impact um getting us up to 100% of external funding for SACC? Well, I'd also want to look into that because I don't want to base that that assumption on five students with IEPs, right? So maybe trying to look over time. I mean, those are only five, not only five, but they are five students with IEPs. So I again I would like to have conversations to say how we are serving them, right? Or if we can serve them better. So what I hear you saying is if the other programs did not exist have we looked into other options if we did that then we'd have to then look at capacity right but then we would also increase our staffing model which then also would we would see an

118increase in our operational cost >> yeah so I've heard repeatedly from parents uh not knocking right at school but there's inconsistent quality um different experience experiences. That's we don't control the quality of right at school's offerings. >> Sure. >> SCC is ours. Uh we do control expectations. We control um to some degree the quality we can make changes. >> Um and I'm just curious if we've tried everything we can to make this work. >> Um when we're so close, we're 19%. 19%. >> And just to build on that, >> go ahead. >> Maya, >> sorry I you all went out for a second. Um, just to build on that, I mean, I think that there are a lot of implications to SACC that I would want to fully understand before making major changes. Um I

119can see because of budgetary pressures the need to make some adjustments to flex care and optional care for next year. Um, but further than that, I just think we really need to do a deep dive and make sure we understand the implications, including getting feedback from parents who are in some of the different programs um to just understand what it is about SBCC um why they selected that option as opposed to other options. um as well as looking at the model itself because I think that there is a difference between not having the program and subsidizing the program. And so, you know, I would like to see just make sure we're fully understanding the implications including if we would be able to keep onsite care at every site um and what the implications would be

120to making some changes to make it more sustainable. um going forward as opposed to not having that option. I think you know like I've I've my kids were participants in SASC and some of other programs as well and one of the great things about SACC is that the people who work there really do become a part of the school community um and so they build relationship with students not only before and after care but also sometimes play other roles in the school and so it's a familiar face for students to see throughout the day. So, I think we just have to really make sure we're thinking through this before we have make any big changes because there are definitely implications that we haven't considered yet. >> Thank you. >> So, I just want to clarify.

121I mean, we're not >> making any decisions tonight. So, we're just trying to understand where we could shape the future. This part of the presentation is for you to thoroughly understand SACC and then when we talk about the additional expenditure reductions, you will have a conversation >> as one of the expend expenditure reductions the board wanted us to consider. So I just wanted to also point out that um you know the history of right at school um it came in to replace PTAs managing after school programs because the PTAs were not equally able to sustain before and before and after school programming um for students and specialized things. Um, and so in order to alleviate the burden of PTAs having to run those programs, we brought in right at school because they did offer that.

122We can certainly look to put out an RFP and I think you probably did that for foster if I recall >> that was done for foster >> some other um opportunities. But what I will say is that you know the the programs that we were offering or that have offered in the past things like I think it was like taekwond doe >> those are the cooking class you know other kinds of enrichment programs Spanish was offered at at I know they want to bring it to Willard but it's also at Walker you know other kinds of enrichment we could do a math thing and those are things that are more specialized that that SACC I don't think would be able to provide in that same way. Um, and it also allowed parents to volunteer in

123the school both like after before and after school. We had the young authors at Dwey that we had parents do. We had the Dewey um tiger times that was something that parents were able to do and right at school really provided a way for people to register for that program and also helped with background checks and do the things that administered the program and took that burden off of off of PTA. So, I don't think that we should just vilify Right at School for being for profit. Um, I think that they provided a service for us at a time that we critically needed it. I think there are criticisms of Right at School and we should address those with them. Um, but just, you know, there's there's opportunities there as well. >> So, um, can

124you go to slide I think uh it's on here slide guess it's slide five. the existing programs with the yellow box. Thank you. Um >> the this one. >> Yeah. So I think because we're in, you know, we're talking about structural deficit, all conversations are about money right now. But I think part of what I see this presentation is doing is starting a conversation about what is our how do we more integrate and be clear as we go forward what we want to do with before and after school. Obviously Evston values this service as you see there's so many options um and other organizations that aren't even up here where kids are and also the complexity of our district in the past of busing also impact I don't see Miss Joanne up here I don't

125see there's many organizations that have been critical and are critical to how our kids spend so hopefully what the community has asked us to do is ask questions so because we're saying hey let let us understand what SACC is how it works. Let's understand it. That gives us this understanding to now go back and have a holistic conversation and planning with partners here with as they see the staff right this is not a us versus this is hey we just we're what is it let us make sure we understand the program phenomenal work that's been done Dr. Dr. Turner, there has been a lot of conversation just to help us understand this. I see this as the beginning of a conversation. Um, and of course, it did get put on there last week as a

126as a closure, but that's not what we're talking about. We're really talking about let's understand and let's streamline the the initiative right now with respect to flex care because the challenge with flex care is those are 76 slots that have to be held every day or else we can be out of compliance. Is that correct? You have 76 people who are paying 67. >> Well, we have to hold those spots and so that takes away if that spot is being held for someone who might come. Somebody who needs it every day who wants to pay for full day might not be able. >> So it says empty. >> So as a school if I have 20 I I have to alloc I have to Right. Okay. >> Correct. Because they could come at 24-hour notice

127and then we'd be out of compliance. Right. >> Correct. >> So in that sense I think the if we can separate how to make sure we're being efficient with flex care and and optic care and particularly around PD. I'm curious the conversations around if PD is valuable. Does the team value being able to participate in PD? So to me that's the conversation we're having and then let's um part of the vision let's work with community with providers. We used to have the Evans network. There are all these providers who are constantly in conversation and everyone wants to work together to make use of our to make use of our uh buildings in the way that provides the before and after uh service that we need. >> Can I ask a followup then? I'm I'm curious

128because we're about to see later on we're going to look at a list of reductions and there is listed SACC. You you've just said it's the beginning of a conversation. So what if this board expresses that it's its will to to to begin initiating the end of SAC? How how is that the start of a conversation and and I guess practically speaking as well as where does that conversation take us? Uh what's the process for that conversation >> for the board? You saying for the board to to what? So, as I understood it, we're going to be looking at a list as we look at how to bridge the gap of um meeting our $6.5 million of expenses. We're going to be looking at a list later where it's listed as one of the potential

129cuts. You just said that this is the beginning of a conversation about living into a vision. If we express that SACC if if there's at least four people here who express that SAC should be we should begin that process of closing it. I'm curious how that starts a conversation. Um and I'm curious then what we're triggering if later in this meeting four of us express a willingness to begin triggering that process. >> So um I'm looking at >> Yeah. I mean I mean I'm I'm I'm looking to see what >> Well, I think it if if that is the will of the board, then we would start some type of impact bargaining with EACCP. We can't just make a decision. It is um a union and so we would be moving forward and have starting

130to have that conversation um with EACCCP leadership if if that um is the route that the board intends to travel. >> Right. So I think one of the biggest challenges is how to have conversations with everyone involved around partic particular ways that we might go to say let's talk about SACC really says let's have a conversation to understand what the full before and after school initiative can be I am do not believe in are getting to our our numbers that we need to be this year that we are making a decision about ending SAC DC we're start establishing a conversation today with ground rules of what is the program what are common common approaches that we can begin to have a conversation so I don't think when we get to the next thing we're saying

131let's vote on closing SECCC this year >> is that what you're asking >> so go ahead follow up >> in in alignment with what um Tiffany has said to to me this is we can't we can't consider alternatives or we can't reimagine what the program's going to look like without first communicating with the union to me that's that's the start I don't know I don't know what the end is but I know that's the start we cannot consider we cannot dream we cannot envision without talking first to the union regarding the impact that it will have on them. Um, another part of this conversation is talking to parents and the community about what they see as what they what the options they would like to see or what their needs are. So, um, in my

132view, it's not I'm not making a decision for anyone. I'm start I'm just starting conversation. And the conversation though that is being triggered is a cost-savings conversation though. >> It is, but it could also be more than that. It could be a conversation that brings more options to the table for parents in the community. That's how I'm looking at it. >> Right? I'm trying to understand from an SACC perspective. >> We are triggering a conversation indicating that we view this as a potential savings. I'm trying to understand that through a hopeful lens of starting a conversation because that's now not how I would receive it if we were going into um looking at ways to close the union. Um so I'm trying to understand how this is a hopeful positive move forward for our staff

133who offer these essential services to most of to many of our marginalized kids. >> Would it make sense for us to close out the indepth conversation of this right now and then we go into where you can put all of the other options together on the table to have the conversation. I just wanted there has been lots of conversation. Um there has been a request for this district to consider all of the things on the table and the request for the district was to provide the school board with with everything. Essentially this next part and what this would have made the third time we are putting everything on the table that you could possibly consider. And as we continue to keep having these conversations and you push on what you want us to further explore,

134i.e. technology, that is like that's a new addition that we're going to talk about in this next presentation. And so, you know, we get to each part and we ask you specifically for each part for the the board's guidance and direction on which way you want us to go because at the end of the day in this case, this this impacts people and personnel and all the other areas. And as as Tiffany said, because SACC is part of a bargaining unit, we have to legally follow what what we need to do to engage in any conversations. But we can't make that determination. The board has to give us guidance and direction. So I almost feel like if we wrap up this conversation of the discussion of SACC, everybody could kind of decompress for a second

135and then we come back with the adding of all the things and you can weigh your options of how or in terms of what you want for guidance for the district. >> One clarification that we did just on SACC on on slide six. Um I think we've just been having a conversation as if it's SACC comparable or right of school. I just want to um as we see most other communities have been in conversation with their park districts and things like this. Can you um I just like can you speak to is this only a SACE or writer school conversation? >> I'm sorry I'm I'm not clear what you're asking. No, I'm just saying that just in in some sense um what everyone has been speak a lot of what has been in comments and

136up here is we're comparing we're getting rid of SEC or we're to get to go to right at school and I'm just trying to say as we look here we see that there's multitude of partners that communities use and so have we only been in conversation about the future of school age childcare the future of before and after school programming only with right at school Well, I think they offer although they have before and after school that is similar, but they do offer other things, they each offer something different, right? So, it's not comparing apples to apples necessarily, right? Have we been in conversations with other people and other partners? Not at this current time. Um I get I I've heard you know thinking about an going to do the RFP process such as with

137Foster to see you know are there other people out there that would like to but currently right now these are the programs that have been in our district they've been partners with us from you saw the dates right and at this point moving forward for for this year it's my understanding that currently where we are with the board that that is what's staying for SY27, >> right? And I and I I want to just add to this slide, too. This slide really lifts up um in the research that Dr. OSHA has done reaching out to these districts. This slide just indicates very clearly that district 65 is the only district operated child care program. You'll notice in the other school districts, I'm sorry, in the other, yeah, school districts, it's partnership or private and we

138were just trying to trying to really map out on this slide the what what we have currently in in district 65. Um I think the other piece we wanted to um be clear on is we are not entering in in into any type of additional agreements with any additional partners. These are existing partners which is if you go back to the previous slide it showed in the previous slide all of the existing partners that we are al you know continuing to support even with the elimination of SAC specifically at Washington and which we're not offering because it's under that um one to 20 ratio threshold which in full transparency there hasn't been we we haven't really had clear expectations or set kind of a a firm hold on that. We want to do that moving

139forward um when we talk about a return on investment because operating a program that's underenrolled just doesn't make sense. And so this is what this particular slide um just provided. But we wanted to just really on the comparable slide show you what what is what and and what we currently have. And to your point, all of these things are in district partnerships, but to your point, it doesn't include the um the kids going with Miss Joann's program. And like we left some additional offerings off of here. Um but these are the ones that are are more heavier populated with with our students that participate in the program. So, just wanted to just call call that out. >> Thank you, Dr. Turner. Um I think we're ready for you. >> Okay. Well, can I I just

140like to have one more thing then. I didn't know we were cutting it. Sorry. Um just that if you have a private provider, right, providing for a school district, um and then we know that park districts do this there there should be a financially viable way to do this. Um and I just want to say like can we keep it and find a financially viable way to do it with SACC when we know it offers the highest quality of services to our students with IEPs. Um um is that part of the conversation we're starting? Um if we decide to move down into impact uh Barton, >> I think I think I think I think it could because you're going to come back up and that we posed the same question that we've heard a couple

141of weeks from you all. um where we pose the question on one of these slides and you all have to give that guidance and that's when you spend time deliberating about that. So I yeah I think I think we can get there but you all would just have to make the decision. I just want to present the information what you charge me you charged me and my team to do. >> Can you pull up that SDP? >> Are we moving to the next thing? >> Yes we are. >> Thank you. >> Okay great. >> We are moving. >> Okay. So um so I'm going to start with um the expenditure reduction plan SDRP phase three. Click to the next slide for me. And so what I really want to just lift up with what essentially

142what me and the team have brought to you all as a board the past couple of weeks. I want to take kind of the conversations we've heard and the guidance of what we've thought we've heard um at those meetings on April 13th and what we've heard on April 20th and try to land on opportunities for you all to come to consensus around how you want to move forward. So I'm going to start with the first one. What we heard was from the community and from the board very loud and clear on April 20th is go back to the table and figure out how to get some more technology savings. And so, um, I'm going to turn it over to Dr. Beersley who is going to walk through these and then we're going to pull up

143from these conversations what we've heard as places that you want to reduce and you all have to discuss and come to consensus about it. I'll turn it over to Dr. Beersley. >> All right. Thank you, Dr. Turner. appreciate it and just also want to thank my team for a really short turnaround time. You know, essentially the team went back and took a, you know, heard the feedback, went back and did a dive to really try to identify where some opportunities could exist to get some financial savings within this fiscal year as well as next year. Now, one point that I do want to clarify, in the last meeting, there was conversation about the iPad purchase. That was in the context of us trying to define cuts for the next fiscal year. >> The iPad purchase

144that this board approved last month was using budgeted funds from this fiscal year to purchase the iPads. And so reversing that purchase does not would not change what we need to save for the next fiscal year. It would attain some savings for this year. So what you'll see in the slide here is when I went back to the team, they took a look at that iPad purchase and as you may remember, we have two grades that are using iPad 8s. We've made considerable shifts around essentially the devices, how much they're used, when they go home, things along those lines. Those iPad 8s would require very, very significant amount of time from the technology team to make them workable if we keep them in circulation. So the team essentially what we have here they went back

145to the drawing bot board. They found a way to decrease the iPad purchase that was previously approved by $65,000. And that is actually finding an alternative way to essentially update the the keyboards that go with the iPads so that we can we essentially don't need to purchase half of those iPads. So that would be a $65,000 savings in this fiscal year. Additionally, uh the teaching and learning team has been looking at the advis the sixth grade advisory course and instructional resources. One of the strands of that class was focused on steam learning and it utilized a curricular material that also had supplies called fuse. The teaching and learning team has decided to not renew fuse going forward. There's a lot of social emotional learning lessons and resources for that course. There's a lot around executive

146functions and significant work has been done to interweave some of the AVID uh essentially methods and organizations into that sixth grade course. So they we will not renew fuse for next year. That is a budgeted expense again from this fiscal year. We renew this year for next year and you'll see that's reflected because we will not renew it going forward. So you see it for FY27 and FY26. Additionally, um you know, uh the technology team has been doing a very comprehensive inventory of copers and we've been removing copers in order to try to, you know, one because of secure print. We are able to better utilize the printers we have. We don't have to have as many copers and printers in private spaces, all of those things. Um they identified 10 additional black HP or

147uh HP black and white copers that we can remove that again that's a 20,000 savings from this year. Now shifting to next year also hearing very much the conversation around I pass. >> Can I pause you for one second Dr. Beersley? >> Yep. >> So essentially the FY26 savings that you proposed here. >> Yep. what was actually budgeted and approved. This these savings would allow us to come under budget for this current fiscal year with these with these eliminations or reductions. >> These are spending reductions from funds that were budgeted for this fiscal year. How we net out will be a wash of all sorts of other spending, but this is essentially close to $100,000 that we will not spend in this fiscal year. So, just really trying to operate as a responsible and conservative

148way as we can. Does that go against hit the one point does does that hit the tax in some sense does that decrease Tamara what we you know what we have because of the the property taxes so the savings from this year so like in that sense does that decrease how much we have to >> it everything has to net out so there could be um differences in revenues and expenditures so it all has to net out >> but anything that we were able to we're going to be about a million dollars out of budget for fiscal year 26. So the half a million dollars of approved iPad purchase, even though it was budgeted this year, if we hadn't have spent that money, the budget deficit we will attain would have been less. >> So

149I just want to be looking at budget numbers. Yes. >> Exactly. And so then if we didn't spend that money for this year, we would have to cut less for next year because that's a budget deficit. So, all things being equal, I appreciate the the hundred thousand, but we're we're still working on >> Yeah. And now I'm going to shift to next year because I tried to provide some of the rationale for why we don't foresee the iPad forgoing the iPad purchase this year. We do not see that as being kind of the best move in the long-term savings around student replacement devices. What you can see in FY27 is that the technology team is essentially saying, "Let's spend $250,000 less on student device replacement next year." And that's because we would have retired all

150of the iPad 8s. We'd be operating with newer devices. And it gives technology time one to continue to collaborate with teach with the academics team to continue to collaborate with teachers. We shared with you when we brought this before a survey with educators who were still prefer the onetoone method, the one to devices. And so this gives us an opportunity to say next year we will spend half the amount on iPads and we can determine how that looks through our collaboration with educators and through continuing to solicit voice from the community. So that says essentially, you know, originally we came to you with a $550,000 purchase approximately for iPads. We have significantly decreased that and it says next year we would be $250,000 below that. And how that plays out whether it's we extend life

151cycle or we look at a different type of model for students is something that we need to work with educators and kind of set up because it does change routines for educators. changes the way we think about time, things along those lines. So, it is saying that we will spend $250,000 less in student devices and gives us some runway to make figure out what that change looks like. Um, we discussed cancellation of fuse. Um, when we cancel fuse, fuse operate did not operate on the iPads. Well, majority of the challenges didn't work on iPads. So, we had MacBooks. Those MacBooks are just in their sixth year. So, we will not purchase new MacBooks and we will sell those. So, that brings in 45,000 in revenue as opposed to adding to an expense. Um, and then

152you see here that there are a couple more options around removing printers. Now, what we're looking at is a couple fold. Um, that first line removal of additional HP printers. Um, we're removing some additional HIT Packard printers, which are more expensive to copy from on the copier contract than our Canons. Um, and our Canon contract comes up for renegotiation next spring. And the technology team is ready to to go, you know, really go to bid on that, find the best possible solutions. If we pull those additional HPs, I said to the team, let's pull all of the HPs with the exception of ones that we would need to continue to maintain to be able to print color in a school because if we had pulled every single one, we would have left a couple of

153our K5 schools without the ability to print in color. So that would be if we do that, it's 50,000. What happens there is these are these are printers that are in some cases in our principal's offices, administrator's offices. It could be a special education coordinator, could be a speech and language path. They're ones that are more in individual office spaces. And again, because we have secure print, the concerns around privacy of materials are not as great. Um, essentially we can put through print jobs and then swipe the machine when we're in front of it to get documents. Um, and then the last one would be to remove all of them. And that would mean that a subset of schools would be left without color printing. Uh, schools always have an option and educators always have

154an option to go to the Jordan Teacher Center here to print in color, but again, that's an inconvenience. I do want to note that printing in color is five times the cost on a single page as black and white. So, we really are trying to drive people to black and white unless it is absolutely necessary to print color. Um, just as a note too, um, in regards to students having worksheets, the type of work to physically do pen and paper, pencil and paper work, we purchase no uh, essentially the workbooks with our tier one instructional materials. So students get math workbooks, they have literacy workbooks, and that is true through the middle school. And so those materials are provided, they don't need to be copied into packets. When we see packets, more times than that,

155that might be a supplemental material. And we really want our educators to be maximizing the tier one workbooks and the tier one materials to the extent possible, which would also minimize those packets. All right. Um, the last two are really for buildings and grounds. We lease a parking lot across the street from Willard on Herd. It's 30 parking spaces and the most recent contract for this year was $10 a day for a total of $54,000 which is pretty sizable. Um and then the other one would be that we pay approximately well look would be to look for parking relief from the city of Evston. They increased their prices by approximately 40% going into this year. They had not increased it for several years. When we reached out and communicated some concern about those increases, they

156did indicate that maybe that there could be some possibility to discuss this, but I don't know where that would go. All told, we spend over $50,000 in parking to the city of Evston. And one thing to note, part of the ordinance from Foster is that the city of Evston Park District has approximately 30 spaces in the Foster parking lot for free. >> That's the district parking. >> That's part of the ordinance. So, yep. >> I mean, but the whose parking lot is >> that is our parking lot. >> It's our parking lot. So, we're providing the city 30 slots for free, right? That's just want to be clear. Yeah. So, just want to be clear. We all understand that. Okay. Our parking costs consists of a lot at Lincoln and then a couple we pay

157for uh three spaces at park. We get parking placards or uh for Dewey and Orington and all told it's over $50,000. >> So just a Willard parking lot. Is that a private person's or is that a private that's a private persons? That's a private contract and that is up for renegotiation and so he has reached out and depending on the will of the board we'll go you know either renegotiate that or cancel that. >> But if we were to cancel that where would >> if we cancelled that then we would be street parking similar to what we do at Orington and Dwey but those those placers are about $1,000 for an equivalent amount of for approximately 30. The parking lot is what gets expensive with the city of Evston. >> Okay. But I'm just so

158I'm not doing the math in my head. Is it cheaper for the number of teachers who park in the Willard? Is it cheaper for them to park in the Willard parking lot than for you to play for pay for pack? >> It's about $53,000 cheaper. >> Okay. Okay. >> Wait. >> To park in the parking lot than the 110 a teacher, right? That's >> the Wait, maybe I said $1,000 >> for the teachers to get the city placard park in the street. It's about $1,000 to park in the lot. It's 54,000 >> and there's 30 cars. So it's >> 30 spots. >> Yeah. >> 30,000. >> 16,000. 16,000 more for the lot. >> No, no, no. It's a,000 for the 30 total. >> Oh, total is $1,000. >> That's why she said it's use costing

159$54,000. She was correcting $53,000. >> Sorry about that. >> Very clear decision making. >> I thought a final clarification. Are there enough street parking? So I mean it's easy to say. Are there slots on the street? >> They had street parking first before we even negotiated two years ago. And to be honest, you know, and I wearing an educator hat, all of those things like parking the street is it's more of a hassle. You have to know your the days they're going to street clean. You have to know when they're going to plow. You know, it you know, Orange and Dwey would love to have a place to park. I did I did reach out to um principal Battle to ask her about the impact um of removing the parking lot. Uh and she just

160mentioned that it's full every day and that the street signs are confusing or she said tricky. >> Absolutely. >> And it's tricky because on one side it's one it says one thing and then on the other side it says another thing and depending on which side you decide if you mess up you could get a ticket. >> Great. Well, and that's it's it's a shortened part of the year for street cleaning. I want to say it's like >> winter time you hit snow though and you know it's you know it our educators at Orington and Dewey navigate it. >> It's not optimal. We wish we had good parking for everybody but and you know reneg opening this up and negotiating there's a chance that we could >> you know have some savings on this. >>

161You know >> it's a church parking lot. You said >> it it's associated with the church across the street. >> Okay. >> I I think it it we need to there needs to be some type of discussion though. Oh yeah. >> With the city of Evston around parking on the street period because even with the placards, you know, a couple of weeks ago, I mean, I just got a ticket at Oakton for academic learning wall, >> right? Because it wasn't no sign right there, you know. Um, and just think that if that could be the case of what happens with educators having to play kind of this tag team approach on parking on the street depending on what side you can't park on without >> getting the ticket versus the other side. So just something

162to think about. So can we just uh the liaison I mean this is a very explicit issue that can't be discussed at the city liaison meeting um particularly around how to address um parking parking issues for teachers in schools without parking lots um and tying that to our wonderful agreement to provide parking for Fleetwood which is necessary but now we should bring all that into consideration and reduce the cost >> and also what Dr. Beersley and uh Omar have complain been complaining about I think they went up on our parking placards for the district. Correct. >> The so what we pay for are essentially permits. Um so we pay for permits at Dwey and Orington and those went from $30 a permit to $50 a permit. And then for our parking lots the essentially the

163permits for the parking lots went from $70 per month to $110 per month. And then how much are the ones that we get the placers that we hang? Don't we pay the city for those as well? >> I don't believe we actually pay for those. Oh, >> okay. So, let's keep making those free. >> All right. You can hit to the next slide unless there are any other questions. We'll come back and go through each question on on what you want to discuss. Okay. So this this um I just want to lift this one up this slide up again at the per board discussion at the 420 um board meeting and it sounds like a little bit today there's been a lot of discussion back and forth. This is what I was talking about um

164Dr. Wymer that it was coming back up for you all to talk about a little bit more uh deeper. What we heard at the 420 meeting was to move forward with impact bargaining and to renegotiate the RAS contract fee. Um essentially, you know, conversation would just need to be presented. We committed to providing you with the information around SACC. Uh hopefully that can answer your questions and continue discussion just needs to take place with you all as a board. When it comes to face liaison at the 420 meeting, we heard several different things. We heard um reduce the face liaison from a total of six technically seven with the vacancy um reduce it to one position and don't fill the the vacancy. So essentially reduce it from six face leaison to four um really need

165to get guidance if that is the direction in which you are asking the board to go. There also has been conversation and discussion with board members around reimagining the face liaison role and so we just need clarity. Um I know we heard at one point the board did not like the one person to a feeder model but it sounds like um you all are you like that model now again because that's kind of the model you want us to go with a face liaison. So we just need guidance on what the direction is as it relates to central office admin evaluate um consolidation of miscellaneous and non-union central office based staff. I think uh there was going to be some continued discussion. That's kind of all we heard from that. So looking for continued guidance

166in that area. You can click to the next one and the next slide. Um we heard at the 420 meeting when it came to uh retract the hazard conditions. We heard keep ridge and eliminate gross point and Chicago Avenue hazards. If that is in fact accurate, we just need to take a consensus here to know if that's how you want us to move. When it comes to eliminate pre-k transportation, what we heard um is the feasibility conduct a feasibility study to determine impact on enrollment sliding scale fee based on free reduced lunch start annual fee lower than a thousand per year per rider. Um, and so we really need to understand a feasibility study and what exactly um does that entail and and what what you want the the direction for the district to go

167and what the consensus is there. We heard for decrease cap X spend for FY27, reduce the cap X spend um to 2.3 million from the 2.7 originally um with a potential savings of $400,000. So just really need to get consensus if that is what the the board wants to do. Um next slide please. We also heard um decrease and at the 420 meeting we heard decrease the crossing guard spending. So uh continue the agreement of retaining two possibly three guards stationed in close proximity to each school. Negotiate with the city of Evston to cover major intersections. And the consensus was to cap this at about $400,000 which we are estimating anywhere between a hundred,000 uh to $150,000 worth of savings. And so just need to get consensus from the board if that is the direction

168you want to go. We heard at the last meeting that you wanted us to um retain that original savings was $60,000 and what you agreed to was to retain for the SY 2627 school school year and um come back and provide the board with more information around the program um and the data of evidence impact. And so um the board has moved the district is moving need to know consensus if that is what you still want us to do. Uh essentially that would be uh zero dollars in savings there. Next slide. Won't talk spend time on this because May 18th is set up for you all to have the discussion around the disposition of properties uh i.e. Bessie roads and Kingsley. So it'll give you a little bit more time to decide uh which direction

169you want to move forward. And so I won't spend any time on this slide. This slide is simply it was a much more robust slide. We wanted to really get to the nitty-gritty of what we need to just continue to remind you. The foster project, the estimated remaining project cost um is a little bit over $10.2 million. The lease certificate proceeds available is a little bit over 5.5 million, which leaves the estimated funding that will still be needed to complete this project at about $4.7 million. And so really wanted to just, you know, this is just to continue and to remind it and put it out there. Um I know that um we've had some folks that were concerned about how the foster numbers are panning out, but we've we've been transparent with this and

170have communicated this m multiple times. Um next slide, please. >> I just want to congratulate you and your team on that. >> Thank you. >> Great job. >> Thanks. So the ne the next slide, master facil facilities plan. So, this is just a reminder as well, the savings here. We had a master's facilities plan. There is no savings. I mean, it's $598 million worth of uh work that needs to get done over the next 50 years. And so, just want to keep lifting this up as you know, the priority with the facilities that the district currently still owns. Um, all in alignment with the board approved resolution. So, I I won't um beat a dead horse with this, but just to remind you of that, can you click the next slide? And so I want

171to just close out here um summary and next steps. And so really next steps again as a reminder continue exploring and determine alternative deficit reduction strategies per the board resolution that you just saw. You know sticking to that and what what the ultimate goal is um by October 2026. Um which is just the financial sustainability and 75% K to 5 building utilization. Consider increasing the capital investment to 1% CRV. I know at one point that was a concern and a priority and it still remains so we just included it. Execute phase three operational reductions uh beginning as early as the uh start of the 2627 school year. And then the last one is just really um you know we've heard it from the community and we continue to echo just making sure that we continue

172to are thoughtful and the board establish a vision for SDP phase 4 um so that we have the direction in which we want to go. I think this concludes um my portion of the discussion and so we can just go back to the individual slides and discuss where you all want to come to consensus on um for each slide. So if you want to go all the way back to the technology one I think >> I'm just going to Yeah, I think we should just start from the top. >> Yeah. So the technology Yeah. Yeah. Go back. And I think the best way to go about this is to just I think um for the items of analysis, what I would like for us to do is, you know, we can have discussion about any

173of these things as needed, but then when we're done with the discussion, let's just have a will of the board vote so that the administration has their um knows which direction we would like for them to head. Okay. Um so I think just thank you on the FY26 items. That's those those are great. I don't have any concerns about those. Does anyone want to talk about those? >> Those savings have already been realized. >> The they will be realized once we have direction. >> Oh, so yep. We're >> okay. >> Tomorrow. >> Okay. Um, does anyone have any concerns about the cancellation of Fuse or the reselling of those MacBooks? No. Great. Um, thank you. On the reduced device spend of 250,000. That's half of what we uh spent this year. A little less, but

174um that's a great start. I appreciate that a lot. Um >> so hold on a second, Maria. So FY26, you said that stuff. You're fine with the FY26. >> Everyone does. >> Okay. >> Yeah, everyone's good there. >> Um so I was just moving to Fuse because it's got two items there and it sort of relates to the other cuts. Um does anyone have any concerns about the reduction in device spending proposed? No, I just want to just um recognize and call out that for looking ahead and saying, "Hey, let's give us time to do this responsibly in collaboration and conversation with community, which I think I just want to thank y'all for that and really thank you for the with all of the it's just really putting options so we can understand, but time

175to have conversations to then do it in a responsible way. >> Thank you. I just want to circle back to the printers only because that was one of my struggles. And I, you know, I I I want to make sure that even though we will be making sure that educators use the the curricular materials, that they will also have access to a black and white printer at least. and um a color printer because it it it will be very >> taxing to >> have to come to the Jordan Teacher Center to do color printing. So, I just I want to make teachers make sure they have supplies. >> Yeah. I think what that means then is you wouldn't take the removal of all remaining HPs. That 34,000 you would not take. There are black and

176white printers. um the technology team literally inventoried every copier and printer in the district and has made sure that they're adequate amounts in the buildings and so like I'm thinking of one particular case where there was concern about one one removed the tech team has worked with administrators got administrator sign off this one case they had did not have response so they did return a copier because that meant that the school then had one on the second floor so they're being very pragmatic about it working through it um black and is absolutely there. The real challenge here is we're pulling out some of these color ones that we just had, frankly, more than we probably needed. But that 34,000, if we keep those in for next year, we'll allow color print at every school. And

177then when we renegotiate the Canon contract that's coming up, we can make sure that we are able to do that within one copier contract going forward. So you asking us should we think of doing both of these or one of the like how to understand this? >> You could do you could do both and you would net 84,000 do one or the other >> but the experience I guess from a teacher from a school standpoint >> or you is it to leave the second >> impactful to do the 50,000 because every school still has the opportunity to print in color. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. And then if we remove all remaining color printers, educators would have to come to the Jordan Teacher Center to color anything in print or anything in >> schools.

178That would be the case and that wouldn't feel incredibly fair to >> Is there an opportunity? Is there an opportunity for us to just put color printers in those locations? >> That would be the >> the 50,000 will keep the color copers there. >> That's 34 pulls them out. >> Okay. So I think you want the 50,000 but not the 34. >> Do we need color printing Pat? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Which one? When? >> So we need >> we can remove the >> 50 says you keep you maintain all the color printing capability in all the schools. The 34 say we remove it out of all of them. >> Yes. >> So we're not removing the 34. We're we're we're not moving forward with the 34,000. We're going to maintain the 50,000 and

179keep them in all of the schools. The 50 to Pat's point is those are some copy some copiers that are coming out of or color printers that are coming out of administration's offices like school principles, maybe a speech path, maybe a case manager, things along those lines. So everything has an impact at this point. >> Yeah. >> Um but there still would be the color capacity to print at every school. >> Okay. So, we are realizing the savings of 50,000 and we are going to not realize the 34,000. >> Correct. >> Right. >> Okay. Great. Um, Willard parking lot. >> We should definitely renegotiate um because that's a parking lot that is when we're not there in the school day. I mean, it's on Herd Street, right? >> The we park there during the school

180day, >> right? But it's not necessarily It's on Herd Street. It's not >> at weekends. >> Yeah. >> Either or. Or summer. a busy lot. >> Oh, right. Yeah. If we're not there, it's zero, >> right? >> And other people use the lot on the weekend, >> I would assume. Yeah. >> So, I'm just saying. >> Yeah. I would hate to impose on the teachers of Willard the need to worry about parking tickets and those kinds of things. It's just an additional >> But there's an equity, right? You're saying that other districts, other schools. So only so this is where sometimes it's important. >> This has been we've been doing this for two years. It's not a it's not we've been Can you get clear about what has what was the parking support for Willard

181teachers three years ago? Four years ago. >> There was none. They parked on the street. >> All this is a three-year contract prior to that. I believe they were parking on the street, but I don't honestly know. >> How did it come about? >> Yes, they were. >> Do we know? >> Thank you. >> Yes, we were parking on the street. Appreciate it. >> Yeah. And I I mean I could I knew that they were parking on the street and it came about because they started they started >> Oh, they started complaining that they were getting tickets. >> It was it was we received some complaints. I remember that about them not having the ability to park. And so um >> the district then sought after >> trying to come into some negotiation with the

182the owner of the parking lot and who owns the church and that's how we entered into that. We didn't want to do anything like >> I think it we wanted to originally at first wanted to do a five-year agreement and we were like no let's cut this down and the agreement was three years >> so it's coming up on the time for us to renegotiate the contract contract is done at the end of the school year >> so we have been in touch with the individual so he's awaiting the the potent you know the idea to renegotiate So is that the consensus to renegotiate? >> That's where >> so but there's rene we have to >> there has to be a cap. I mean there has to be renegotiate or what happens if I mean

183>> so you would have as the board would have the opportunity to approve a new contract and so we can negotiate it and then come back and the board can decide whether you feel like that's an appropriate amount to spend on the lot. >> Okay, >> sounds good. >> Okay. And then the parking relief from the city of Evston. I think we should definitely seek that. >> Yes. >> Or we should just charge them 44,000 for the spots at Foster. >> We should enter we should enter into a collaborative conversation and relationship. >> Yes. >> We can take it out of our right pocket and put it in our left. >> And the plan I think for right now the plan is our next uh district and city of Evston liaison meeting is February 14th.

184And so I think our plan is to May >> I mean sorry >> May 14th I'm sorry Valentine's Day that was weird. Um May 14th is is our next date. So the plan is to add this to the agenda for us to discuss. >> Um so that's that's I mean that's as best we could do with that one right now. So our total uh for FY27 out of these items is 357,500 >> plus the add the uh FY267 and then anything potentially saved on >> that's what we have right now. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Right. That's >> I meant from the adding the FY26 because it does >> it doesn't count. >> Well, we're trying to plug a $6.3 million gap. We're trying we're we're still working on 6.3. Okay. All right. That's already >>

185Oh, actually, do you need to do we have necessary consensus on that? >> Which one? >> So, you want to can you summarize back and repeat back what what you what you the direction? I think you said you were going to summarize for us. What's the direction? And then you all take the consensus. So the direction is um thank you for the student replacement reduction in spend. Yes to the cancellation of fuse and the yes to the resale of MacBooks. Yes to the removal of additional HP printers. No to the removal of remaining HP color printers. Please renegotiate the Willard parking lot lease and we will consider that expenditure once we know the value. And please seek relief from the city of Evston for the 44,000. is is the board. And so what are we

186doing? Taking a roll call. Adila consensus. >> Does anyone disagree with that? >> Does anyone Does anyone disagree? >> Okay. >> Just check in with Maya. Yeah. >> Oh, Maya. >> And my one note for the math is 45 is a revenue item and not a savings on expense. So you're probably more at 3125. >> Oh, good call. Thank you. >> Wrong side of the ledger. >> Maya, are you there? Yes, >> I'm sorry. I could I really could not hear the end of that review. >> Um, okay. So Maya, the um cancellation of Fuse, the resale of the MacBooks, the removal of the additional HP printers and then that is that is all from of changes and then uh we are going to maintain the remaining HP color printers. We've asked the administration to

187renegotiate the willing Willard parking lot lease and to negotiate with the city of Evston for the parking fees. >> Got it. Yeah, that makes sense. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Now the fun stuff. Okay. Uh so here uh we have the SACC before and after school plan. We we heard a lot about that. We have the face leaison and we have the central office admins non-union support. Um I think have we does anyone want to have any further discussion about the SACC? What I'd like to do here is I would like to have discussion about these items and then after the discussion I would like for everyone to give the will um so that the administration knows how to proceed. >> So yeah for discussion on SAC Um yeah I mean when

188I look at this big picture I think it's clear that um we have an opportunity um or at least I feel we have an opportunity to provide uh clarity and guidance around the need to rightsize the the central size of the central office. I know we have the HR audit that's upcoming so that'll be important. Um, I hope that what we do as part of that HR audit is also just look at how roles have evolved over time because I know that in organizations you can have kind of decades of growth and sometimes roles don't make sense anymore or sometimes we need to think differently about how to meet student needs. So I think that's important. We certainly know from at least from publicly available data that we are um our administrator to student ratio

189is is out of whack compared to our peer districts. And we also know that we have more administrators uh than we used to when we had fewer number of students. There may be u a sound reason for that in terms of how again student needs have changed over time. Um, but it's just when I when I look at this, it's hard to look at the $360,000 that we would save on SAC, which is a really successful studentf facing program. And it's hard not to compare that to then the $8.2 2 million and think that um this is yet another opportunity where we could really prioritize student facing cost student facing programs um by figuring out uh a way to to again rightsize the the central office administration. So at least from a you know from

190my my seat my perspective as a board member I do want that to be clear guidance um that I think that needs to be uh a top priority here moving forward. So I think so I want to clarify something from last week. So the what I flagged last week was the concern has been the admin positions not miscellaneous because those are two different buckets right the so it says there April one because I I don't know if if people recall this but from March we did not renew and displace like um honorable dismissals admins because there was the cut off of April 1. So that's why those happened in the month of March. >> How how much savings was was realized from those cuts? >> Well, no, no, no. It wasn't re it wasn't related

191to so I don't let's separate the two. I'm talking about the cut off because that came up quite a bit today, right? The cut off of April 1 and it being a a surprise. And so I don't and I'm not saying that's intentional. It just may be is so much going on that people are not, you know, that the date maybe wasn't clear. But that is why when we had to non-renew an admin and do honorable dismissals for admins, we had to do them in March. Like that was the conversation. So if we go back to our March board minutes or the activity from March, there are admins on that that um board document for that reason. So now in terms of the in terms so my point was last week and my concern was

192around the focus has been and the HR so let's instead of calling it HR audit it will be an audit regarding admins that's specifically what was requested and so that's been the focus so that will be um coming in upcoming weeks so that is so we can talk about not just the admin one of the things that I I want to make clear is what ISB's requirement is of us like what those specifics when they label a bucket of admin what that means what year you know what that data looks like over a year so something comprehensive so it's not just being we're not just responding to just something individual but it is some type of um we are laying out what all of that means what miscellaneous means what this district considers an admin

193to mean how many those are yearover-year since I've been here which has been 23 and maybe actually probably the year prior to me coming because it was it was definitely admin heavy upon arrival. So those are the things that's an admin review in terms of looking at the central office and I think Melissa mentioned this in the last and I think she just focused on central office being the um being reduced uh by 50 FTE but it was really a hundred overall and that's actually what we've been doing over the last three years. Like I just think about when I came in, my team was 14. I've lost five and a half FTE just in HR team alone because that's what we've been doing. We've been assessing the work. We had people do workload analysis

194in 2023. We took all of that information and we said, "Oh, okay. We could probably collapse this position, collapse this position, collapse this position." and we've had multiple projects that unfortunately as we continue to reduce central office staff we haven't been able to address. So that was my flag was the concern around admins. I do think maybe there could be some ability to address or you know right-size admin structure but we if you look at our contract and and we have shared those with the dealer now we did ask for an extension um when they were initially requested because obviously we got a lot going on here in the district. So we when they came in we asked for the extension until um May 5th and we have now shared those with her. But that

195was my point last week was now we've missed the window to rightsize kind of the administration piece. And so now we're asking to cut the positions of the actual people that are doing the work like boots on the ground. So I I'm not saying that, you know, we couldn't go back and assess some things because I do think as a cabinet we have like taken another stab at what that could potentially be. But that's actually what I was flagging next last week. we've missed the window to actually rightsize admins because in the contract admin sign in this district it specifically says we have to non-renew or address that by April 1. Hence us putting those admins on the the March um board memo. >> Do you know what date that was that they were on

196the March board memo? Was it a board meeting or just an update? >> No, no, it was the board March. >> I was just looking back. Was it March? That's a board action that you actually had to sign a resolution for. >> I just want to flag proportionally. So for instance, comparing the the so so if we were to cut the 8.2 million, we would not have a functioning district. >> No, that would >> that is encompassing. >> That's but the savings here from SACC, that's what everyone keeps assuming is that's potential savings, right? That we're talking about an existential problem if that was realized. Um, but the 360,000 here is just savings because cumulatively just the SACC program is $1.8 million roughly. So just as we're if we're going to look at perspectives here

197and relationality, right, that 8 million's large, but just I just wanted to raise that up as we're compar comparing these numbers and I'm excited to see the HR audit. I think it'll be really important and to share that publicly. Um, and then I like what Chris said. I just want to amplify a bit what Chris said is I think that moving forward in whatever SDRP 4 is is that this is one of the frames of asking what administration do we need to accomplish our mission. Um, and so opportunities to consider that alongside of facilities, alongside of other things as well. >> I just want Oh, go ahead. >> And um, I want to highlight the word evaluate because that means to for administration to look at the structure and the systems and the outcomes and

198come back in addition with whatever additional information comes from the audit. I I'm tasking admin to do to do that evaluation. So that's that's how I read that. So I get and we would be sharing that information obviously because I think the other thing that comes into play is some of the projects like we wanted to um have a timekeeper system position control like all of those things went that that's what we were tasked with when we were hired and came in but as we cut cut cut you know some of those things went to the bottom of the list. So I think we also then have to assess and I think obviously that that'll have something to do with the board's vision on how we move forward is where we actually spend our time

199and and then we can assess like what's left positionwise in central office because we would be basing that upon you know what the vision is for the district moving forward. We had a strategic plan when we walked in it was still in play and that's what we've been using. So we had projects that were set and maybe that changes. So it does give us an opportunity to assess the positions that are still, you know, that sit in central office and what we need to get that done. >> And I think that's a, you know, a good way of potentially >> structure. I know we've made m I know we've made major cuts to admin over the last couple of years because I've been a part of those. So I know how drastically we've reduced. I

200think my ask would just be for any additional recommendations to really understand along with the cuts like what that would mean in terms of implications. So what work would not get done um when we make additional cuts so we can you know accurately assess the impact it'll have on the district. I just want to point out that in the in the March meeting there were two administrators on the list of terminations that we approved. Um so that was two I think one of them was anyway I don't want I don't want to go back but I think what I want to what I want to just point out is that yes we've cut a lot but we ballooned a ton. No, no, no. But I I want to make sure we're not mixing two things,

201right? The flag on the March meeting was it had nothing to do with SDRP. It was about the the lack of understanding around this is what I heard today at this podium is that we were not clear on the April one cut day for admins that that there those cuts had nothing to do with SDRP but they were on the March board agenda because there was a April one cut off. So I don't I I'm not sure whether that just wasn't clear but that's the flag for that. It has nothing to do with STRP. is the flag that if you go we actually reduced four admins on the board agenda because I just I had recently had to pull the resolution for something. So I know there was four there. We signed off on them

202because we had to notify those. Those are the ones from our closing schools and we non-renewed an admin and we had to do that in March because of the April one deadline. So I think the um I mean as a new board member say I own not knowing the April 1st deadline and figuring that into my my um own analysis of what options are. Um now we all know that. Um I think we definitely had April 15th. I think April 15th was definitely clearly a date in our heads. Um yeah and so we just never thought to ask the question about was there a date for um u for admin. So, um I don't believe that that was hidden from us. I just think we didn't ask it and I own um on not not

203necessarily doing that due diligence to have these conversations before then. So, but we have to we know it now and we have to move forward. Let's do the analysis and figure out the >> just to throw a different tact. >> Okay. I feel that um April 1st was in the middle of spring break. We had a conversation before um spring break about the potential cuts that we were uh you know the things we wanted to see from the cuts. This was enumerated as something and we were not advised at that point that there was an April 1st cutoff. So yes, it is incumbent upon us that it's April 1st, but now I know that I have asked our attorney for clarification on that. I know that Nicole has asked for clarification on that. We have

204not gotten clarification from our attorney on that. So I feel that with the ability with the with the dollar value that we have in front of us here and recognizing that we can't just you know get rid of the administration and replace them with robots. Um there should be an opportunity for us to say okay in the face of all of these studentf facing cuts that we are proposing we as a board would like to see the central office reduce its administrative budget by $250,000 and that that might be a place where we can find some grace for not being advised ized that April 1st was a deadline even though we indicated to the administration prior to that deadline that we wanted to see administrative cuts. Now, I understand there's going to be an audit,

205but I also understand that since that time, we've had the recommendation of I don't remember exactly how much, but about a million dollars worth of studentf facing cuts in counselors and librarians. And we know we know that over the last several years, I'm going to pull up the nerd site because it's awesome. We've had a 67% increase in the adminto student ratio. We've had an increase in per pupil admin spending from 2,200 to $3,400 per student. We've had two times the central office TRS administrators. It's gone from 11 to 24. We know that the general administration has more than doubled from 2.4 million to 4.88 million, which includes superintendent, assistant superintendent, curriculum directors, and coordinators. So, and and at the same time, we have lost 25% of our students. And so, there just isn't a

206way for me to square those two things in light of we told the administration that we wanted to see administrative cuts. The deadline, which we didn't know, my fault, but you all knew it, happened on April 1st in the middle of spring break. And here we are choosing between the mental health of our admin of our middle schoolers, the middle school librarians, the before and after school care and and we just and then we can't touch administrators until an audit comes through which we should have known was happening before. So, I feel that we need clarification from our attorney on what actually the April 1st deadline covers. And I would like for the board to decide to ask the administration to find $250,000 of savings within their staff for the 2627 school year. >> All

207right. So, I just want to clarify a couple things because I don't mind >> one point of context to that just you know um just to be fair to the administration because there was a period of months where we pretty much had the administration on hold because we told them as a school board that we were leading um additional cuts. So I think that's just important context to have because you know for a couple of months in there we had the administration on hold as we sort of gave them unclear guidance and weren't sort of gave them guidance that wasn't true in terms of what we were doing as a school board. So I think that's important context to have as well. Um, as well as, you know, the fact that, you know, again, I

208I was here for those administration cuts. So, I know that we've made significant cuts over the past two years in order to address this already. So, I just think as we're going through this, it's important for everyone to remember that context as well. >> Yeah. And I'd throw out there, I believe that first of all, review of some closed session minutes and recordings would prove that the board did know about the April 1st deadline. um whether or not we connected that to the context you can make a case that you know we wouldn't have known to possibly but I I know that that was addressed um the other context would be is that STRP2 was um admin centered right sizing admin and so part of this is I think us as a new board uh

209having to live into some of the heritage history that was shaped before we came here SDRP3 was primarily constructed as a site level um intervention, financial intervention. Um and then we know how that pound panned out leading up to the January resolution where we didn't um you know ultimately take the recommendation. Um and um at no point do I recall this board saying to the admin like we're going to need to recalibrate STRP3 to refocus it. Obviously we want to keep right sizing admin among other things. Um but I just think we have to own that as a board as well is that we came into a process that was focused on site level. Um and that played out the way it did and we found ourselves here. So that seems to be important context

210too. >> And what I wanted to say is so we've shared the requests for contracts have come including yours. So you will you will see the in the signed contract where the date is in terms of the April one date. Absolutely. Forensic I I certainly got that information so Jennifer can also tell you like how that was established but it actually is the it's in the it's in our contracts that we sign. So it's a a legal document. So, I think that that's the part and then the rest of it I'm in alignment with. We should be looking wherever we uh can, but you know, once that April one date passed, then it'll be for for next year. >> I think um yeah, I just kind of want to try to tie together some of

211these different threads. I mean, yeah, I think at a high level, um, we are collectively trying to provide a guiding principle that we really want to preserve student programming and student needs where wherever possible. Um, and that that's kind of the the high level directive that when we talk about the budget, we should really be thinking about have we exhausted non- studententf facing options first. Uh and then I would really just uh encourage us uh as we move forward um that there should be a clear decision criteria as well going into uh any proposed uh reductions in the central office. So or to administrative positions. So, you know, we should be thinking about uh you know, hopefully having learned some recent lessons like to your point, uh, Tiffany, what are the projects that we want

212to be able to staff and what are the actual cost savings associated with those projects because it's very different to see positions in the light of potential budget savings if they bring efficiencies. Um, uh, we should also be thinking about, you know, how do we, uh, map a, you know, quote unquote, administrative position that also has a large impact on the student experience. Um, so I'm not going to, you know, sort of dictate what all of those criteria would look like, but I think even before we start diving into the numbers, we should start thinking about what is the framework that will be used to make this evaluation. because if you get the data and then you start trying to interpret it without uh a clear sense of where you're going, um I think uh

213it's just not as optimal. >> I'm in agreement with that totally because this goes back to building a foundation of a vision for what we want to see happen. And so that's what I'm in total agreement with that. >> Okay. And I'm I'm in agreement with building a vision, but we also have to face the reality of of rising costs, right? Um so when we think about all the rising costs that are impacting us, transportation costs, right? Um the cost of health care, right, to help maintain uh that we've agre agreed upon in all of our uh collective bargaining agreements. Those pressures are going to continue to rise. uh and and and we just cannot so so we we continue to talk about well you know this well let's keep on looking at the admin

214let's look at admins but I get it that that that's just part of the solution the part the other part of the solution is again what is it that we value as a community do we want to maintain structures that again we've already done two demographic studies that have shown so what the data nerds are are telling us we we've already done we've done the demographic studies we know we have less of a student population that's that's registering to for our schools. So what's before us is okay well yeah let's look at all the operational uh and personnel pieces that we can cut but we're still facing a u an issue around are we going to choose old structures to house our students in that are again just we we just have too many structures

215in in place at this point to be able to provide a high quality educ education for our students and and and that's we we we need to be you know we can't we continue as we continue to have this conversation there's always something somebody's going to put another barrier up oh well I don't want you to close sack but at the end of the day what we have to do is we have to talk about what structures are we going to have to close >> because ultimately that is is is is where this is all leading us to because we we are still dealing with all the we continue to maintain structures that again are not adequate to educate our students then then We continue to increase the impact of the economic pressures around again

216health care costs for our employees uh you know uh transportation costs the rising cost of special education services and how we're continuing to identify more and more students because we're getting better at those types of services right so again it I just we we just have to get into really ensuring that we are we we we're we're kind of just pushing away the structural conversation in regards to, you know, buildings that that we just need to have a conversation about and and and and >> be real honest with ourselves to ensure that we >> I don't think we're Yeah. I mean, I I >> Hold on. I want to focus us back into the SACC face leaison and central office ads about >> otherwise we're going to be here for >> I mean and just

217let >> comments on that central office ad >> um >> I think that we know we have work to do >> and that we are going to have to do that. >> Does anyone else want to ask the administration to find 250,000 within that within their budget for the 26 27 school year? Can I say can we table that to come back to as we go through can we just do our addition here? So we're at 357,000 right and so I want to >> I think that's an important question you're raising. >> Well okay so >> 312 312 can you go to the next screen >> okay so from last week or two weeks ago the hazards uh maybe go forward a slide just so we know all the well I guess what we wanted

218to know >> why don't we finish where we Let me >> I actually think the next slide it would be good to get those numbers because those are >> if we're trying to those are let's because we're let's get to the next one and then we come backwards to see where we are in our total. >> Thanks. >> Understood. Okay. >> Thank you. Okay. Okay. So, >> y >> hazards. So, I think this is I mean we're retracting just to be clear. We're retracting hazard additions. The 160 is savings from what we had earlier. I just want to be clear about this. What we had earlier this year said we would implement or is this taking away busing from kids who had busing last year? Understand the the the distinction between that. >> So gross

219point of Chicago those were >> I think you were asking about the million right? No, I'm asking about the So, it's retract hazard additions. >> Yes. So, Gross Point, I did misspeak last meeting. Gross point and Chicago have been hazards. We have had crossing guards and it has been a so it is not required to be a hazard by Illinois State by IDOT, but it has been considered a D65 hazard prior to this time. >> Well, we weren't busing. We were having crossing guards, right? >> Crossing guards there. I can't speak to whether we're picking people up on the bus. >> I would have to confirm that on that, but definitely crossing. >> Okay. And then the um 400. So, I think we've all agreed on the 400 for capex. So, that's 312 + 400.

220That gets us at 700, right? >> Yes. Okay. What is the total that we need we needed to hit today? >> The total deficit reduction. >> Yeah. >> It's still 635,000 from the last time. >> Okay. So, I'm saying right now >> the reason that is is simply because we announced on Friday we were reinstating librarians. we had we have not had time as a team to synthesize what those impacts are and we are still wrapping up lottery placements and all those things. So all of this works together. So that's why we're keeping it at that keeping it at that amount until everything plays out and then we will be able to give you something versus us keep moving in real time and we get scrutinized with our data by the data nerd. So, we

221should go for over that amount of money. Okay. But I'm just saying right now we're at 700. 700, right? Based on what we're Okay. >> Sorry. I'm sorry. I had to take a little break. Um I had 160 for hazards, sliding scale, revenue, crossing guards. >> So, when you just came in, we started with the number you said earlier, the 312, added the 400. So just trying to make sure as we're we're unders I think so I will say for me I think it's important to have this conversation about all these items to say which of these things I think should be even should be reduced right it's not just to hit a number but do we believe these things should be reduced so if the number goes over 700 or 600 whatever that is

222then I'm making the decision about the item not necessarily I'm just trying to hit a number so for me the 400,000 the and the retract the retract the hazard addition. It was my understanding last week. So this is why I think it was important to get clarif clarification on this. I think when we said that we thought we were we were we were saying hey we had just voted to add this so let's not put it into effect. So technically no one's being impacted because we voted we're resending something that we voted for that didn't get implemented. What I >> Okay. >> What is that the is I'm just Is that true? >> So that is one of the challenges of kind of working these things out as we go. I did I double So

223Lou reached out to me and he said, "Hey, that was a mistake." Um and so Gross Point and Chicago are D65 hazards currently. They don't qualify to be a hazard via IDAP. If we did not move forward with them as a D65 hazard, we would be changing the services provided to the families that do cross Gross Point or Chicago to get to school in the K5. And in that sense, it's just really putting in would be putting in crossing guards in some sense. I assume they're crossing guards as opposed to busing. Okay. Great. >> Well, I am for So, I am still for the 160. And here's here's how I think about that. Um, with the return of Foster, Emerson to me is a very busy street. And I'm asking kids to walk from Emerson

224across Emerson and G into Foster with crossing guards. And to me, I don't believe that that street is less dangerous than a kid crossing Chicago with crossing guards. So if I'm not going to ask the district to put buses to move from Foster to there, then I think the equitable thing here is that >> to me Chicago is equivalent uh to that. So that's my reason for um being okay with the change still keeping the 160 in reduction but with crossing guards on uh Chicago. I I agree with that. Especially based on the issue of equity. >> I agree. >> Andrew. Yes. Maya. >> Maya, you still there? >> Yeah, I'm on. Sorry. Yeah, I'm comfortable with that. >> Okay. Chris, do you still agree with the 160,000 in savings for crossing guards? Okay, we're

225moving forward with that one >> for housing. >> Uh, sorry. >> Yeah, just to make sure, Chris, I know you just walked in. I don't want to confuse. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. Um and then the elimination of the prek. The direction there is that there there will be a feasibility study to determine the impact on enrollment and a sliding scale fee based uh based on free and reduced lunch starting with an annual fee of lower than $1,000 uh per year per rider. >> Yeah. I don't think we're going to save a million dollars with that. >> It was 50 to 65 to 60. That's 50 to Yeah. 50 to 605 is what we were quoted last meeting >> that we would uh earn from that. >> But I think the question on the table

226was whether so again we so say it IBOed in some sense about whether we asked parents to pay a part of transportation. We had that for um for magnet. We took it out again as I said as we've understood more money is due then you go back and look at some decisions and say can I remove them. So to me if we were looking at sliding scale fee for free reduce uh for transportation for prek I think that should be a sliding scale for transportation in general to the district. I don't know why we would charge prek >> differently. So that's just a policy of are we going to do sliding scale? How do we do it for Jenna busing? >> So we we don't anymore, but it was $600 for um our full pay

227students and I believe $270 for our reduced lunch students and then students that qualify for free lunch don't pay. That was for the magnet blessing. >> All right. >> And I would just flag that we we did hear from parents coming in saying that you know that that would be too much a thousand. And so this sounds much more doable uh for working class uh family. >> So, it's really just do the feasibility study. We're actually over what we need for next year. So, we could do the feasibility study and figure out how to implement. >> The thing about busing for me is that it's a million dollars and I want to see us spend a million dollars educating kids and providing, you know, more services if we can do that. Um, and I don't

228think that it's worth it for us to try and, you know, whatever the impact of kids not attending prek because now we're charging for busing in one year. But I would like to see us figure out a way to spend a million dollars on programming instead of transportation >> for the net for 2728. For 2728 Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> There's one the page down. There's one more that we haven't looked at. Just a feasibility study. >> Just a feasibility study. >> That's it. So, so there won't be an action on on looking at >> Yeah. because then we can >> look about in investigate bringing it into alignment with other policies >> and for the feasibility study will you clearly lay out what it is you want examined for feasibility? >> So, I was

229going to ask that. So, we actually know how to charge parents for magnet. It's really just us deciding if we're going to want to re, you know, bring that back. I don't know what a I mean, the study would be would pre-k parents pay it, I guess, is the question. >> Well, there's a what's their capacity to be able to >> How do you assess that? >> I mean, you uh you know, you can do a direct survey, >> but I mean, is anyone gonna really answer? >> Well, >> is that is that is that actionable data? >> I'm just going to put a little comment in here, too. I think you also to think about the impact on the quality of the program because if there's an impact on your ability to maintain 7030

230or serve students, you know, because some students you need to serve also. So that's just something to think about is is there unintended consequence on the quality of the program? >> I thought that that one thing we could potentially study as well is uh models for expanding prek. So I I think that needs to be >> uh under consideration as well, which is um can we uh open up the program to more students or for a longer period of time to increase enrollments and potentially uh just improve the efficiency of the way that we spend money by actually having more students in it. >> So that's a prek study. >> Yeah. I mean a pre the other the other one was the other idea that I had was >> a strategic plan, right? Well, it's

231it's also something that's very relevant to our conversations now around the next phase of STRP. And so I do wonder I really appreciate that being raised, Chris. Um and um that would be a document that would be very important to have say by September. Um as we're going into the height of um looking at possible configurations of infrastructure. Um, so, so I would second the a broader kind of dayong feasibility. Is that what you're saying, Chris? That's what I heard you saying? >> Yeah. Or just Yeah. various models for >> Yeah. PreK study. Yeah. >> And the conversation bringing back pulling up what um recognizing that there's already been conversations about it. So, it's just raising awareness and having the conversation about prek. >> Well, it's basically taking the SAP 3 work >> and continuing

232forward. which we heard about extensively tonight. >> We have a foundation that we can work from. >> Yeah, >> but that's budget for that's FY2 uh 728 budget. It's not FY2627. Okay. >> Okay. Um the 400,000 on capex. I had in my uh workbook 300,000 from last time, but 400,000 reduction in capex. >> So we're >> at 300 as well. Yeah. Um in my thinking I was thinking >> so uh >> yes because There are implications of >> what's the total of >> down to 300,000. >> What's the total of the bids? >> The so the bids that you're asked to approve today, we did not take the alternate on the King Arts roof, which means that we are going to do the King Arts roof in four separate projects, which is not much fun.

233Um but it does by when we move forward with this we have approximately $300,000 for additional projects and for instance like we had to add the park door and so things are going to come up. We are and I missed that. That was my miss on the review. We are intending to spend up to that 2.4. That's what we're planning on. >> Um if you know it would be difficult to take another 100,000. >> Yeah. Okay. So that's 300,000. And Stacy, what you said last um week when u because in some sense we're still talking about numbers that are over the 600. So we might end up over but you're saying if you you need to know now what the capex is because you can't you can't do the work later. >> Bringing forward tonight

234we can move forward with all of that work and then we have out of that 2.4 for approximately $300,000 left because we didn't move forward with the alternate on the King Arts roof which would have really left us with nothing which would have gotten left us in with real challenges for school later requested summer projects and emergency. >> Okay. >> So the capex should be 2.4 with a $300,000 savings. >> That's correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. So just in review is there uh 60 in the hazards. We're all in favor of maintaining those hazards. So that saving stands. Um no savings on the prek transportation in lie of uh trying to charge people for the 2026 27 school year. We're going to put that effort into uh potentially expanding uh prek. >> Yeah, we're do

235a pre-k study based on uh SAP 3. And then uh the number of savings for capex will be 300,000. So the total on this slide is 460. >> The total on the first slide was what? Just so we're at the keeping score here. >> It was 312 312500. >> So that would put us at 772500. >> And we're still going. >> Okay. There's the crossing guard. We're solving for >> what are we solving for? >> Uh well, right now we have >> we were Yeah. >> 772,500, but I don't remember. I don't know where we ended up after we reinstated the librarian. >> We don't we um you were out um for that. So, we don't know exactly what that amount is going to be. So, right now, we're looking at let's just say 700K

236and then we'll hear what the difference is. So, we should go over tonight. We should try to get over >> um We're at 772. >> So we Let's keep Okay. >> Talk about the crossing guards then. >> Okay. Uh does Stacy, do you want to just go back where we were? >> So we Oops. So, I believe earlier this year we landed on reducing the um crossing guard budget to $500,000. And so then there's discussion now to have that cap at $400,000. So there two pieces with the crossing guards. So we have the contract with Andy Frame. The rates that we pay to Andy Frame have been the same for the past two fiscal years and that rate will be the same for next fiscal year. So we'll have three years of consistent hourly rates

237that we're paying. The shift in the cost is coming from the city picking up less money >> for the crossing guards. So, um, if we land at reducing that $500,000 cap, push it down to or $500,000 budget to 400,000 or 350,000, wherever the board would like us to go, then we will work within um a certain number of guards at each building and possibly potentially reach out to the city as well to see if they would be interested in or willing to increase the amount that they will cost share with us for next fiscal year for FY27. Um because after FY27 the cost share is done at that point. So all of the costs will be on the city or on the district. >> The original contract value was 750 total, right? >> About that,

238correct? >> And so and we had we at 750 we had 55 crossing guards, right? >> I believe it's 50. That additional five was for foster, right, Stac? Oh, was it? But what it was like 13 and change per crossing guard per year, I want to say. >> Right. Right. >> I'm going to call it 13650 just for funs. >> But there was also discussion about decreasing the number of crossing guards based on the previous study that was done about the number of students that were using each location for crossing. So I think that's how we got to >> the discussion about reducing the number based on that information. >> Can I ask a clarifying question? In some sense I think of there's two types of crossing guards. There's those I got to get across

239busy streets, right? The school's not right there. I got to walk across ridge and those are definitely public street hazards. Then there's crossing guards because it's right out in front of a school and I'm dealing with parents and we need to you know crossing guards we all grew up with that was done by our par our parents did those things even students were the crossing guards there when has we those who are familiar with this place with Evston have we always conflated both you know have parents or communities ever been the crossing guard right out in front of the building I'm not talking about on busy streets not on I'm not talking Oakton and Ridge, but you know, if I look at Lincolnwood, like KFax and I can't imagine that those are streets that we

240really need to have, you know, that's a different street than crossing some of the other places. So, we're probably not going to make this decision tonight, but I think it's probably interesting to think about types of crossing guards and, you know, the city, hey, you're responsible for those that are on busy streets, but in front of our buildings, you know, that's really, you know, that's different. And how do we think about working with our PTA um you know, to begin to because that's a real cost. If you're like four, that's 60,000. That's a person. That's a job. But that's different than crossing, you know, McCormack. That's no school's responsibility. That's the city's responsibility. >> And I think I just want to echo I think what you're articulating is where we're going to find ourselves. We

241are >> because if we do two per facility, um we're at 17 after the closures. Correct. >> So 34. >> But we don't have two necessarily at all middle schools. Just depends. >> Okay. But we're pretty much where you described with the cuts we're making because that two at each facility is 34. >> 500,000 that's 37 total guards. At 400,000 it's 29. >> At 500,000 I'm assuming 13,650 per crossing guard. I might be a little off. Um it's 37 crossing guards that we would have. And that was when we looked at it in the intersections when we were deep in that and we we thought, okay, we could probably get rid of 18 or so. And then there was some wiggle room around that. And Maya made the point about near the schools. And then

242we had the extra ones for foster. And um I think I think that it's important to set a budget, but I also think it's important that once all of these 37 or 29 guards are placed, we look at the map and we see where there's gaps. Well, I think the I think it's possible to might h that we might have more than 37 because we're I truly believe that we can negotiate and work with the city to to so I think there's the cost and then there's what's the right number of guards that need to be there and how do we how do we share that cost in some sense. So I don't I wouldn't assume we only need 37. >> So go back to a cautionary go back to negotiating a cautionary agreement with

243the city. >> You will have to at this point. >> Yeah. I mean, that's that's a thing and I think we have a moment. We we have the ability >> uh to negotiate that. But we need to set our budget of what we're going to work with and then engage that conversation of how to get full. >> And I I think we're need to clarify our guidance uh to the administration. If we're going down to 350, we've already said that's 29 guards. So that's not we're not even capable of having two. No, >> I thought we went down to 400. >> That's 29 guards at 400. >> Yeah. So, we're not even capable of having two at every school, which was the previous guidance that we gave the administration >> if we're at 400. >>

244Correct. Because that's uh that's 29. Two at every school is at every building is 34. So, um we're going to have to clarify our guidance to the administration as part of this about what we're expecting because that that won't work anymore. another agenda item for the city liazison meeting. >> Yeah. So, yeah. So, again, I don't I think that we're clear that it's going to have to be a joint uh effort um with making sure we have crossing guards and we're going to set our budget. Then we're going to have to go to that conversation. There's a history of them having supported it. So, we're just going to have to have that conversation. >> Are we are we comfortable clarifying our guidance now? Because we are making a decision. Are we car That's money. I'm

245talking we made a commitment to every school to have a minimum of two guards in our previous conversation. And so I'm I'm wondering we just heard an articulation I forget who said it about middle schools. Um is part of the guidance in reducing to 400 that we're saying two at every elementary school. That would solve problem there perhaps. I don't know. But we're messing up with our previous guidance that we gave the administration. So if we're making this decision, we kind of have to attach that to a revision of our guidance. So I'd say we've prioritized the the elementary schools >> based on kind of what you articulated Dr. Pinker. >> So that's 100,000 savings, right? Because we're going to 400 from 500. Okay. >> So we were aiming for 700 and we are at

246872. Is that what I'm hearing? Yes sir. 8725. >> And again then because when we deal with the bringing back the librarians the six number might go up. So just to be it might go up. Okay. >> And because AVID is there we're still in consensus about that. >> Okay. >> So now back to the So the SACCC programming potential savings of 360,000 that is the optional and the flex care we already decided on because I I can't imagine that that's okay. >> So flex care is already included. >> That's not included. Okay, for the whole rest of the program this is for the whole program >> already gone before and after and this is not the the ask here is just regarding moving forward with impact bargaining. Well, two that's impact bargaining to begin

247to negotiate the fee. >> That's per the board discussion on 420, >> right? >> So impact bargaining of what? >> So let me ask for this is a good clarifi clarifying question. My understanding is to engage in a conversation in general just about SACC to be respectful and talk to the SACC staff. It's a you have to engage in impact. That doesn't mean does that mean that that doesn't mean you have closing the program? Can you clarify that? >> Correct. So I would be bringing a conversation to EACP leadership. They actually would be deciding based off of what we were opting to do if they wanted to send a request to impact bargain because they ultimately have to say instead of us doing X, we're asking to do Y. But that conversation that you're talking

248about it before we even get to impact bargaining, we would be meeting with them. I would be meeting with EACCP to discuss what the board what we're proposing as a district. >> And if we're not proposing we're not proposing um to reduce before and after school care outside of um flex outside of flex care and opt um >> optional care for next year 2728. We're not discussing the first one. We're only discussing increasing trying to renegotiate wrath. So we don't have to engage in impact bargaining. We don't have to begin the conversation. >> 27 the program is still in place. The board y'all made that decision. >> Right. Correct. >> That's moving forward for what you want to do 27 28 and beyond. >> Right. >> So that's that's your that's your decision. And the

249only thing up here that we would be moving forward with is the renegotiating of the the right school contract, which is what we heard you say. That process to what do Tiffany just explained? It it takes a a give and take. So it again, it's what she would present and what they want to do. So, we're asking, do you want us to move forward with that conversation that would move forward to potential impact bargaining depending on what it is that they want to engage in? So, that's what that's what that is. What is the board's guidance? And that this is again this is only if the board is saying they want this to be considered as part of um reductions part of the SDP. If this is not if the board doesn't want that you

250know as part of the reductions then the district wouldn't move forward with any any action. We will continue to maintain the program and as Dr. OSHA said continue to keep thinking about making efficiencies and um to get to productivity of the program, but it's this is you all's decision to decide what you want to do. >> That would be good. >> I think I went first last time, so I >> I think our my guess is that our preference is to see if we can make this program sustainable before we do anything else. Is that >> correct? I mean, yeah, that' be my preference. >> I think what what I heard from the community is that they really value the relationship that they have with their SACC provider. They really like that the relationship that

251they have with that person and that is the heart of the value of that program and the continuity across the day. and then also the issue around uh accessibility for students with disabilities. And on the other hand, I hear the complication of the way that we have structured this program as being very regul like it's very regulated from how we ratios and providing that service um in the way that we've structured it. And so I wonder if there's a way for us to reimagine the SACC program where we can in some way maintain the relationships that children have with the SACC providers um and uh unbburden ourselves from some of the regulatory issues that we have. I don't know if that's possible but the value is in the provider. So, >> and just to add

252to that, you I mean it was mentioned earlier, we have to follow DHS guidelines for the program part of that's part of it. So, reimagining it and dshifting oursel is is something we could consider, but it's going to be within those guidelines because we're mandated to do that. >> So, >> okay. >> And another that clarification. >> Yeah. Another consideration is can the program become self- sustaining financially or are we going to have to continue to subsidize the program and what's the community's tolerance for an increase in whatever there would you know what the the tuition cost would be in order to break >> it's volatile Yeah. So, so that's that was one of my considerations. >> So, there's a need for um so in essence, we're still talking about SACC sack with but we

253also have other programs in the building. So, I hope what we can do is spend the next year, this summer, next year to have a holistic understanding of of what we need to provide, right? Because part of the cost structure is it's also other things there. there was a reason why those other programs were brought in. We need to go backwards and now say what is it that we need to do. We we need to be cost effective because you know running deficits in one area means you're going to have to cut another place. So I think we can figure this out but for this year we're we're not we don't need to the only thing we need to do is renegotiate the contract for next year. >> Right. >> That makes sense to me.

254I support that. >> That makes sense to me. And I just want again I agree Nicole around the the holistic view of what child care options are in Evston right because the city right the city offers different types of programs there's private program there's so many things so so so many resources >> uh but again for me it's always about okay so then who who's being impacted and how how are they part of the conversation so if parents who came someone came to talk today I was impacted I mean I use sack uh it was critical uh And then I moved on to a very you know again I I wasn't reduced lunch or anything and so so I I paid what I had to pay. Uh it was useful but once I could I

255I went to I did yu because I was my kids were dosed so that was a lot cheaper actually almost free. So, so we, you know, parents are always trying to piece together. We're always trying to piece together uh how we, you know, how we get our kids taken care of so we can get to work and then get home from work and and be able to have them in a safe place. So, to have a comprehensive um list for families at the beginning of the year to say, "Look, here are all your options, you know, in regards to here's what we offer as a district. here's what your school offers, but here's here's what what's what's available in your community in your ward would be incredible. And I think one place where we can

256have that conversation with is uh Evston cradle to career, right? Because they engage all the stakeholders and I think we're still are we still paying >> it's the digital backpack, >> right? >> No, we don't pay for >> Yeah. Well, we don't pay Oh, we don't pay cradle to cradle to career. No, not we're still partners with Ev. No, I I said I'm saying out of school programming. Out of school programming. >> Yeah. But you know, Evston cradle to career, right? That they they have their lunch and learns and they engage all all community members and stuff on that or at least all the institutions in Evston. So that's a place to kind of have that conversation as well. So >> okay, so I think we're good. Uh we are going to attempt to renegotiate

257the right at school contract fee. We are not going to move forward with impact bargaining for uh the closure of SACC and then we will um ask this administration to come up with a more comprehensive plan that we can discuss the more specific guidance of at a later date. Okay. Face liaison. Um so I think we were we started talking about this there were seven uh There really weren't seven because I believe that seventh one is a face liaison at Rice. Correct. >> Yes. >> Which is a different level face liaison because the school that particular time administrator chose not to have an assistant principal. That's why face liaison is there. There's a new leader there. Now the request is to rightsize her the same way our other um high need school is. So that

258is is what the plan is for that moving forward. So technically it's six positions >> and >> right and it's going from six to four is what we heard >> because there's one open currently. >> So there's a vacancy. >> Yes. >> There's one vacancy. >> So we would close the vacancy which would give us five people and then the proposal here is >> an additional one. So close two out of the six positions. And so that would leave us with a lead face liaison and one liaison per feeder pattern. >> That is what your request is and that currently is not the structure of the face liaison. So what we need to know is is that what you all are asking that is what was given to me. >> So I would ask uh

259you know I know >> so I remember I remember discussing the six to five last time because one because that position wasn't staffed. Can you just clarify from five to four? Is that currently a staff position? >> That would impact somebody that's already that's currently staffed in it. Maya, >> got it. Okay. >> So, I guess my question be is with where we stand now. So, so we we all knew right going into our discussions through STRP3, right, that there were staffing programming there would be disperate impacts. And this is the one instance where it's it's not just disperate impact. it's just straight up um uh you know a racial impact and if we have already solved for enough money I'm I mean it's already a very painful cut to make and we've already solved

260for enough money. I'm curious why we would cut that now. Maybe keep the position closed that is unfilled. But um I I'm just concerned about um you know we'd be making a financial cut, not a data driven you know this is what's best for the kids cut u when we're not even sure we need it. So that's my concern in this. I think that's a great point, Andrew, and I think we I would love to see us take this opportunity to evaluate the face liaison program and curriculum and just ensure that it's connected to the other supports that are in the school. I think that, you know, there's there's a lot of different ways that this could go, but this this was an imagined program under different leadership. Um, and you know, I think we

261have some good data on what the impact of the face leaison has been. Um, so far I'm sure there are face leaison that would give us their opinions on how to improve it or what might make it more effective. Um because who what's to say that we shouldn't find a place to add some additional face leaison if we find that the data supports um improvements in um belonging and reduction in potential behavior incidents if that's part of what this does and uh and take this opportunity to say is it correctly aligned to the administration in our culture and safety or should it be aligned to MTSS or what does the administration think about um the effectiveness of the program and what KPIs are we measuring it by. Can I ask one clarif clarification on face

262leaison because um understand there's or try to understand is the is the empty lo is the um vacant location the vacant slot is that related to chute because my understanding is shoot doesn't have face leaison and if I understand the program model I would be surprised that fa that shoot doesn't have face leaison given the demographics of the kids so can can I understand the >> the the opening that we had. So at this point in time, shoot does not have I don't they don't have an assigned face leaison, >> but is that the open is is if someone was >> vacancy is the vacancy is shoot and Kingsley >> and so what they do is so what they're doing right now is they're rotating if somebody needs a face leazison and they either have

263the the the school safety specialist go or um the the student safety coordinator go or they might pull a face leaison from another building to go over there. So there there's a little bit of patchwork going on right now because we have a position that was supposed to be filled and it wasn't filled. >> So So there's two faith leaison right now in Haven, but Kingsley So I guess this is really trying to and this is what I think we'll do over the years. So we have two face leaison at Kingsley I mean at Haven who served the Haven feeder pattern but Kingsley doesn't have a face leaison. >> Shoot doesn't have one. Oh, you mean but she said Kingsfley in >> well that like what I'm saying is that they they cross and they're

264covering each other's schools. So Miss um Miss Aguular or Miss Barton might go over to Kingsley if something's needed at Kingsley or Jose Limo or Kimberly Addison will go over to Kingsley if something's needed over Kingsley. So right now I mean yes there is alignment but we've always had we've had to continue to restructure because we're not filling positions and also Donna Cross and Brian Harris are working on a program evaluation right now. >> Oh, cool. >> Okay, that's that's perfect. So, so then again, I just want to uh and and a little bit of history on the face liaison piece. Again, part of it was to really ensure that we're in we're we're the the thing about the face liaison as Brian mentioned last time when he talked about it when we last met

265is that again it they're folks from the community. They're trained. Uh they are folks of color, >> right? Uh and um and a lot of times in some of the stories that are related, right, it's it's um at the core of the problem is that that we we we we still continue to have a lack of diversity that reflect in our staffing that reflects our student body, right? So the face liaison during co and that's what some of those co funds were used for. We we're trying to trying to imagine, right? um you know how we how can we best serve all our students but particularly most marginalized students and face leaison was one of those those ideas that we came up with um and again but but at the core right we really need

266to explore as we consider face leaison okay so what is it how how are we preparing our teachers through PD u through trainings how to be culturally responsive to students Uh, you know, I I would I would say that if you go to Shoot, um, again, Shoot has a really really great culture, right? And it has a has and and every, you know, my kids, all my all my three boys went through shoot uh and it was a diverse school and and they they knew how to everybody had this cultural responsiveness built in, right? Um, and how do we emulate that, right? Uh, throughout the school district. Uh but the face liaison kind of help fill that gap as we figure that out as a system like how do we root out um you know

267bias that that that that our staff brings to to to the to the setting. U you know it's it's unconscious bias. We're all biased. So how do we continue to do that work? But so the face leaison were kind of just this measure to kind of okay as we figure that out let's have folks from the community engage those students who again staff's having issues dealing with. So but but again I I ultimately want us to again I'm in total agreement with with Marie saying let let's really look at so I'm glad to hear Dr. expect that we are doing the evaluation just because just to see but that has to be the consideration in regards to okay so what but the why is that that there's this bigger issue that we continue to deal

268with not only our our school school system our school district but other school districts in regards to cultural responsiveness and for for our most marginalized >> great uh okay so >> yeah just one other thing and yeah I I agree wholeheartedly something we need to just keep at the forefront. The other thing is we've got so many transitions coming up next year. I just think the more support we can have in this area for students, the better because next year it's going to have so many transitions that I think are going to make things, you know, difficult in some ways. And so I think like having that support there will be more important than ever. >> It's a great point. Jinx, buy me a Coke. >> So, if we were to just keep the closed

269position closed, we are still acknowledging as a board that there needs to be a reconfiguration of the way this works. Is that I'm understanding. >> Is it is it true that the savings then would be half the 193? >> No, that dollar amount is for all the faith. reduce all of it. >> No, that's the salaries and benefits for two people. >> So if we So would it Okay. So So if we still keep the position closed, then we're still capturing some savings there. >> Because I I do imagine because of the reconfiguring of the Haven feeder pattern, there's just a different set of complexities next year and it' be interesting to understand. So keeping one hopefully we have enough >> coverage. >> So So it's really five face leaison. >> Yes. >> Just closing

270that unfilled position. >> Correct. >> Okay. So our grand total and I'm I'm going to just take out my plug for the right school revenue increase. So reviewing it from the top, we've got hazards of 160,000. I'm considering that other savings of 312500 which is the tech the printers the fuse um crossing guards at 100,000 face leaison at 96,876 capex at 300,000 so the total reduction is 969,376 so we've got um a lot to work No, I think we're all in agreement with the face leaison. If is everyone in agreement with the face leazison on keep the position closed >> but do not reduce additional support. >> Correct. Correct. Okay. So, we've met our burden. I mean, I think in a good faith effort, I would like to ask that we have some position consolidation

271from the administration um for the 2026 or 27 school year. Uh I know that, you know, we have reduced a lot of positions, but it went like this. So, we're still above where we were and we have less students. So it isn't uh it isn't it it isn't a like forl like necessarily but I would encourage the administration to take a look at areas where it could potentially employ technology in le of people um to make things more efficient uh and then to assist in you know I think just a a good faith effort towards the community. I would like to point out that in in the STRP2 the original presentation didn't include administrative cuts. The community was then asking for for administrative cuts. They were added I think to the tune of 26 or

272something of that. Um and so that was that was a response I think positively that the administration gave during STRP2. I think at this stage it would also be a good faith to say we're going to take a look at what we have and not everyone is applies to the April 1 deadline. So there's a potential consolidation of some roles. Um and I would like to ask the administration maybe it's not 250 considering that we've met our we're almost at a million dollars with the rest of the things that we have decided. maybe it's 150 um that we can just ask as a good faith uh and to you know stack hands with us and make sure that we're uh saving additional studentf facing roles going forward. So >> I do just want to put

273on the record that what was brought forward earlier did include some cuts from central office. >> I'm not sure if you're saying you know like you're saying in addition to the ones but I just want to be clear that was brought forward earlier did have some central office cuts. >> Can can I just get a followup just for myself but also I think it's good to be transparent about this. We do know we are going to have an external audit. It was supposed to be it was going to be like miday and so should we should see this in June at a June meeting committee the whole >> and it will be for admin. So this is a focus on admin. Yes. >> Yes. So hopefully June committee the whole >> I just want to

274clarify because I I was confused for the record around something that we brought with 26 and 20 we brought some later something. I'm not sure what what that meant. I was just saying that in the initial in SDRP2, so going back a year or more ago, the initial proposal by SCS did not contain as much administration administration cuts as was ultimately made. And so at that time, the proposal, the reaction from the community to the proposal was, we want to see additional administrative cuts and save preschool busing. And so that's what transpired at that time. Um, and so I think what I'm saying is is that that responsiveness demonstrated a willingness to come together with the community and recognize that despite the fact that administrators have been cut, we are still over the ratio. We

275also have more than we did in 2015 or 2018 even. um and that we recognize that right sizing is uh required. I also would like to just make and no shot at the data nerds um but I I would also like to assess the data right so I think that's that that's important for us as well pulling that information from ISBY being very clear about those administrator numbers what how that aligns with the actual report that we shared and and the administrators there so no shot to to them and their wonderful website but I also would like to um ensure that that's accurate data. >> Thank you. >> That would be helpful. And then I think in addition to that, I know I asked this before, but you know, I think looking at the ratios

276is one thing, but our district is not necessarily like every other district. And so, you know, I'd really like to understand from an admin perspective what makes sense and along with that what we would not be able to accomplish if roles were cut because I really want to look at it not just from a numbers perspective but what the true impact on the district is going to be because even if roles aren't studentf facing that does not mean that they don't have an impact on students >> um uh received and that is something that we are um John is we are working on that. So in comparison to other districts like what their admin teams look like, what the structure is. So th those are things that will uh come as part of this um

277admin audit. >> And will there also be because I know we've made previous decisions seeing comparable um salary totals for similar positions. Is that part of because that's one of the main critiques has been you know overpaid admin um and um but the reality is in running a district is we have to be competitive >> we have to be competitive and I think the the other thing about salaries and so this is what's challenging so I want people to understand from an HR perspective right >> if a person comes in but you're you have no experience and I have 26 years our salaries look different for the same title so we shouldn't I I think that may be a stretch to try to compare salaries to roles because those are determined based off of people's,

278you know, they have the experience and the receipts that says that based off of their history, they should have, you know, they should earn a higher dollar amount because they have more experience um in the role. So sometimes that means if they're stepping in a role with more experience, they're expected to hit the ground running where if I'm brand new to the role, I I may not be able to do that. So from an HR perspective, that's what that would look like in terms of salary. >> Well, I think an example of that that you were responsive to is the downgrading of Hannah's role. She's leaving the district and we're hiring a specialist in lie of a manager. >> Hannah, communications manager to a specialist. >> Correct. >> That that is an absolutely that's a

279great example. >> Okay, moving on. Okay, >> we're discussing people here and we should >> I am sorry. >> I thought she announced >> she she announced here. >> Yeah, >> she announced all the things. >> All right. Um the action is the Park School automatic sliding door installation. I move that the board accept the scope services by Allegian Access Technologies totaling 34,500 for the installation of automatic sliding doors at Park School. >> Second, >> yes. >> Wymer, >> yes. >> Wilkins, >> yes. >> Inker, >> yes. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> Optek, >> yes. >> Anderson, >> yes. I move that the board accept the base bid by All American Exterior Solutions in the amount of 953,350 for the King Arts roofing removal and replacement. >> Second, >> yes. >> Wymer, >> yes. >>

280Wilkins, >> yes. >> Pinker, >> yes. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> Oakdike, >> yes. >> Anderson, >> yes. I move that the board accepts the bid by CEC Environmental Inc. in the amount of 198,000 for the King Arts asbestous abatement. >> Second news, >> yes. >> Wymer, >> yes. >> Wilkins, >> yes. >> Pinker, >> yes. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> Anderson, >> yes. I move that the board accept the bid by Taza Construction in the amount of 493,475 dollars for the King Arts flooring replacement. >> Second, >> yes. >> Wymer, >> yes. >> Wilkins, >> yes. >> Pinker, >> yes. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> Optike, >> yes. >> Anderson, >> yes. Um, is there any other business to be addressed by the committee tonight? With no further business, I am adjourning this meeting

281at 9:08 p.m.