[3/23/26] D65 - REGULAR BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING

001A perfect technology conversation in the facility. I call this meeting to order at 6:12. Can we have the roll call, please? >> Yes. Pinkard >> here. >> Hernandez >> here. >> Ben New >> here. >> Wymer >> here. >> Wilkins >> here. >> Anderson >> here. I move that the board of education approve today's meeting agenda as presented. >> Second. >> Pinkard. >> Yes. >> Hernandez. >> Yes. >> Optike. >> Yes. >> Van Nstrand. >> Yes. >> Wymer. >> Yes. >> Wilkins. >> Yes. >> Anderson. >> Yes. >> Any board comments? We're gonna move on to public comment time. >> I just want to wish everybody a happy uh soon to be spring break. I think it is much needed and so please get some rest and relaxation. Enjoy time with family and um be

002safe. >> Thank you Dr. Turner. >> Members of the public are welcome and invited to address the board during open public meetings. Speakers are discouraged from using the 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 re refrain from applause between speakers so we may respectfully allow all speakers the opportunity to be heard. Also note that it is not customary for the board to respond to public

003comments. The best way to correspond with members of the board is by emailing schoolboard district 665.net. Okay, I'll start by calling the first few speakers. We have Kelly Post, Michael Wyman, Natasha Flowers, Patrina Gregory, and Lexie St. John. Oh, the timer's on. I'll start the time. >> Okay. Sorry, I can't see it. It's not on there. >> Good evening. My name is Kelly Post and I am the president of Deck. I want to begin by thanking the board members who have taken the time to reach out and start building relationships with building deck representatives. Our goal was to create meaningful two-way communication so that you can make informed decisions, decisions that directly affect educators and ultimately the students we all serve. Recently, many of you have received communication surrounding the impact of K2 iPad carts.

004Now, I want to bring us back to the decision made in January to close two schools in addition to the Willard Twe. Inventory has been completed and now educators are facing the daunting task of packing up entire teaching spaces spaces with the expectation that this work does not happen in front of students. Packing up years and in many cases decades of materials, resources and memories is a herculean task. Deck continues to advocate that these educators be compensated at their perdem rate for allotted days June 8th and 9th. Even with those two days, many will not be able to complete this work and will be forced to continue on their own time over the summer without compensation. >> Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to present to you. I'm Michael Wyman, co-executive director of

005North Channel Community Rowing here in Evston. I co-ounded NCCR in 2021 with three fellow rowing coaches with the goal of introducing the sport of rowing to underrepresented and underserved middle school kids here in Evston. At the time, there were no opportunities for students of any age to row in Evston. As you may know, rowing historically has been a sport for the privileged. It has been established with tradition, discipline, and unfortunately exclusivity. It's a demanding, highly technical sport that requires specialized equipment, coaching, and access to water. Because of these barriers, rowing hasn't historically been a sport for all, but it is one of the top sports that help student athletes get into college. In our first year, we had 36 kids in our summer camps. Today, we serve about 55 seventh and eighth graders each summer.

006We compete locally and regionally and have been fortunate to receive amazing financial support from individuals, corporations, and foundations to uh fund our programming both indoors, on the water, and via enrichment programs geared towards teaching our kids more than just how to row. As our mission statement states, NCR fosters discipline, teamwork, and confidence, helping young athletes re reach their fullest potential on and off the water. Today we partner with many local organizations like both wise family focus parks and wreck ecston and and yes district 65 to promote our enrollment. Our camps are freer for free for those students that qualify for free or reduced lunch. We provide free swimming lessons and evens transportation as needed. Some of you may remember the URGED grant that um we helped the district win in 2023 that brought 20 rowing

007machines into five of your schools. We also played an integral role in starting the rowing team at HHS, now 105 members strong. This past summer, our enrollment was 55% bipok, 30% free or reduced lunch, and 30% girls. In the fall, we were more selective. We are uh 75% bipok, 36% free reduced lunch and 43% girls. While you're extremely proud of these numbers and can say that we are at the top of similar programs to ours around the country, we want to do better. We promote our programs everywhere we can and ask a lot of our connections. That said, we find it very difficult to reach the underrepresented and underserved communities here at Evston. those that may not have access to the internet like your digital 65 backpack or similar email. We have we need help

008reaching Evston's low-income communities and BIPO families. So, we welcome your ideas and referrals. I will follow this meeting with an email to Adila here who I'm proud to say is a parent of an NCCR alum. Thank you for your time and consideration. Have a nice evening. Good evening. I am Natasha Flowers joined by my colleagues Trina Gregory and Lexi St. John. As deck representatives for JH Early Childhood Center, the district's dedicated prek school, we are here tonight to present crucial information about our vital program. JH ECC provides comprehensive early childhood with six head start classrooms, five of which are full day, six preschool for all classrooms and three smaller ratio special education early developmental um also known as C classrooms that exclusively serve students with IEPs. All Head Start and PFA rooms are inclusion classrooms

009integrating general education students and approximately four to five students with IEPs. To serve our diverse community, four classrooms, two Head Start, one PFA, and one seat are fully bilingual. Supporting students and staff proficient in both Spanish and English. Every classroom delivers highquality preschool instruction led by teachers who possess specialized expertise in early childhood education. The majority of our lead teachers hold EL endorsements and many also possess special education credentials. Our focus is centered on delivering exceptional highquality preschool programming designed to serve traditionally marginal marginalized students and families. Our programming is provided at no cost to families sustained through grant funding and special education dollars. We maintain a dedicated grant team to ensure the sustainability and compliance of our funding. Our student body reflects the district's vibrant diversity. 33% black students, 28% Latin students, and 15%

010white students. According to the district's dashboard data, 42.5% of our student population is identified as having limited English proficiency and 42.5% have IEP plans, including speechonly IEPs or are under evaluation for an IEP. This commitment to diversity extends to our teaching staff who represent a rich variety of ethnicities and cultural backgrounds, enriching the educational experience for every child. I'm Trina Gregory. JCC utilizes a rigorous highquality instructional framework to ensure optimal student success. Our curriculum is aligned with Illinois State standards and explicitly designed to cultivate kindergarten readiness, ensuring a seamless transition into District 65's elementary buildings. Furthermore, we prioritize holistic development through a schoolwide social emotional learning system, instilling essential competencies like self-regulation, emotional awareness, and empathy in our students. We strategically supplement this with our evidence-based SEAL practices, proactively supporting our students social emotional well-being,

011and successfully avoiding behavioral moments that result in exclusionary practices. Beyond our high quality teaching, some of our staff members are foundation 65 grant recipients. These grants directly fund three annual connection connecting cultures through celebration events and black family literacy. These gather gatherings are critical to fostering community partnership, ensuring our families feel valued and seen and demonstrating our school's commitment to cultural responsiveness. Our early childhood center integral role within the district provides essential continuity of care optimally preparing students and families for their educational journey in district 65. We consistently receive positive feedback from district 65 families and elementary staff who express appreciation and confidence when incoming kindergarten students are JH alumni. Being district operated also ensures streamline communication, allowing kindergarten staff to easily and directly consult with our team for comprehensive student support. >> Hi, Lexi

012St. John. A defining and legally mandated obligation of our early childhood center is to provide special education services for all 3 to 5year-olds residing within district boundaries. While 42.5% of our on-site students have an IEP or are being evaluated, this figure does not capture the full scope of our responsibilities to the children in our community. We are obligated to offer universal childfind screenings for all children aed 3 to five within district boundaries, averaging around 35 screening requests per year. Furthermore, annually we manage the transition of approximately 55 students from early intervention services as they turn three. For all of our students with IEPs, we are required to offer and provide services in the least restrictive environment. Meeting this mandate demands highly structured classrooms, highquality instruction, and opportunities for inclusion with non-disabled peers. Furthermore, we must

013provide a continuum of services enabling students to fluidly fluidly transition across varying levels of support. This comprehensive model, which safeguards the inclusion opportunities, cannot be reliably guaranteed through community programs or by offering only specialized education classrooms in the district. The continuation of our early childhood program is essential to sustaining highquality special education for our IEP students, a necessity that is demonstrated by the amazing progress our students achieved during their tenure at JH. In closing, we aim to share with you today the unique and indispensable nature of our school and the critical work we do for our diverse student population. We respectfully urge that when making decisions, it is recognized that JH ECC does not always operate under the same model as our K8 buildings. Please consider that aggregated data might not fully capture the nuanced

014and highly effective practices occurring within our center. We extend an invitation to the board to learn more about our program and our legally mandated responsibilities to all prek students in the community. We encourage you to witness firsthand how our highly qualified teachers and staff provide specialized support to the most vulnerable students with varying backgrounds and needs. Come see a learning environment where every student not only receives a highquality education, but also feels safe and unequivocally loved. Thank you. Next we have Jason Orlof, Miam Kendall, Carly Johnson, Liz Nolans, and Greer Beckman. So, first off, um, last time I was up here, I wanted to talk about the Montgomery public school systems $2.7 billion maintenance deficit, but I got derailed. And being a Quaker, it's my spiritual practice to follow where my emotions lead. And it

015was good to be able to talk about the fear that I experienced as a father in D65 under Dr. Horton's administration and under that 30-foot metal light fixture that fell on me. So, I won't get back to that today, but I want to spend a little more time on something that I discovered that made a lot of sense to me because Dr. Dr. Turner, do you remember that time at Yoro at your uh listening session where I came up to you and I said, "Hey, Principal Becklas just had a state of the school uh meeting and she didn't report on any of the Native Americans or the Asian-Americans or Caucasian-American kids." She said her only priority was the African-American kids. And I asked you, "Well, how's the other kids doing? Is the gap closing because

016we're raising the bottom or because the top is lowering?" You remember that? That was really helpful because I think that that makes a big sharp contrast to what Dr. Horton's administration was. And I'm glad that you were listening. Dr. Seth, is she here? Oh, well, she was at the this uh workshop, another one of the listening sessions where she talked about Oh, she she talked about being in every workshop because she wanted to make sure that social justice and equity was represented. But when I brought up my concern that a quarter of the families had left Evston, she said she didn't care about those families. I thought, "How can you not care? Are you those families? You mean like my family? You don't care about my family. You don't care about my kids. Principal Beckas

017doesn't consider my kids a priority. Well, that's not okay." And I found this chart, this timeline that shows the evolution to social justice because I also consider myself a social justice advocate, but I am a liberal. And I think there's some healing that needs to happen that 25% of the perhaps social justice liberals left the public school system. And for us to get them back, I think we're going to have to do some work. One of the things that I think might be useful is something I like to call rotate to renovate like they're doing in Montgomery Valley or sorry the Montgomery public school system where they have 263 buildings and the only way they can renovate them is if they close one once in a while and all those students go to a sister

018school. We could do that here at Evston. Let's say we closed Dewey, took it offline for just a few years to renovate it. And while we renovated it, that low enrollment, say at New Foster, is actually a god-given opportunity for those students to have a home while theirs is being renovated. Thank you. Hello, my name is Miriam Kendall. I'm here with ScreenSense Evston. Tonight, the board will be voting on the purchase of new student iPads for the 2627 school year. Several scenarios were included in the memo, including options to migrate from a one-toone device policy to a tech cart model for younger grades. We are encouraging the board to vote to proceed with one of the newly presented tech cart models. While the recommendation from the district admin is to continue with the current one-on-one

019device policy, including for kindergarteners and first graders, proceeding with this stat strategy maintains the status quo from COVID, a status quo that we have the chance to change tonight. While the short-term costs are comparable, what are the long-term cost differentials both in terms of financials and educational outcomes of having onetoone devices? The district has already made several strides towards more intentional technology use. Removing YouTube access, establishing screenfree indoor recess, and implementing a bell-to-bell no cell personal device policy are all great steps in the right direction. In the March 9th discussion, I heard a lot of consensus from the board members agreeing in some capacity that it is time to maybe rethink how the district approaches tech. So, let's think critically this evening and start that process towards more thoughtful technology tonight. We don't have to

020rubber stamp this purchase just because it is what is currently being done. When there is so much disagreement in our district about the future of D65, this is an area where there is so much agreement. We've heard from parents speak loudly and now you all have the chance to demonstrate collaborative action with us in support of our kids, building essential trust with this community in the process. In addition to voting to move younger grades to a tech cart model, please also consider some other short-term changes to support the best outcomes for all students. Because not only is there an absence of evidence that these devices help kids learn, there is a growing body of evidence that they actually hinder positive educational outcomes. Short-term actions you could take right now include providing more structured guidance to

021teachers about appropriate screen time use in the classroom, including implementing an all free time screenfree policy, not just indoor recess. Let's start setting the standards when the centralized iPad updates occur over the summer. As was discussed at the last meeting, turn on the tracking functionality so the district actually has the data they need to make informed decisions and then we have the ability to monitor it later on. You can strengthen the securely app functionality districtwide, turning off access to non-curricular games and streaming. And I highly encourage the continued collaboration between the board and screen sense so that we can work together to create a formalized technology opt out option for parents not including curricular applications and state testing requirements of course. Let's revisit the long-term tech plan for the district. Thank you. Hi everyone. My

022name is Karly Johnson and I'm a D65 parent. I'm here tonight to request that you vote no on the continuation of 1:1 devices for K5 students. There's mounting evidence that heightened screen time has adverse effects on development and learning outcomes, including in the areas of comprehension, emotional regulation, and attention span development. So, let's look briefly at reading comprehension. For example, a 2023 sweeping meta analysis done in collaboration with the American Educational Research Association found that for elementary age students, there is a negative correlation between leisure reading on digital devices and reading comprehension. Modest positive outcomes did not emerge until high school, which suggests that for students who are developing their foundational reading skills, reading on digital devices is associated with worse comprehension. Similarly, another 2021 analysis also from AERRA found that particularly for younger learners,

023the use of digital reading in the school setting, even on ebooks with educational enhancements, could not compete in terms of comprehension with print reading supported by an engaged adult. This is of course not an exhaustive summary, but high impact studies like these demonstrate the need to approach edtech with a critical lens. As a parent and an educational researcher, I am concerned about the lack of evidence that we've been presented regarding the efficacy and the ROI of these programs. Until the district can provide this evidence-based rationale, it should pursue a paired down approach to edtech for the sake of both student and financial wellbe well-being, particularly amidst a budget crisis. Credible evidence should precede lavish spending and broad-based implementation, not the other way around. Please vote no on this expensive and unfounded purchase. Hi, my name

024is Liz Wins and I'm a founding member of Invest in Neighborhood Schools and a parent of three in D65, including one who is thriving here at JH because of the early intervention he received. While I agree with a lot of the comments tonight around limiting iPad use in school and making sure that we have better special ed outcomes for all students, I'm here tonight regarding the updated master's facilities plan. While the projected $500 million in capital needs over the next 50 years is a staggering figure, it is also a critical roadmap for our ch children's future. However, a plan of this magnitude cannot be executed in a vacuum. Success requires deep community buyin and transparent prioritization. To that end, our group has launched invest in neighbor, sorry, invest inev.com to serve as a resource for

025residents. We are here to move beyond collaboration as a buzzword and begin the hard work of helping this board prioritize these investments equitably. We invite the board and the public to visit our site and we look forward to being an active partner in this vision. Thank you. Um, hi everyone. My name is Greer Beckman and I'm a parent of two children in district 65. I really appreciate you all engaging in a thoughtful conversation last week about the student device purchase. Thank you for asking questions and taking the research seriously. Thank you for listening to the community for your work to figure out screenfree indoor recess and removing open access to YouTube. I also appreciate you taking the time to listen to me today because I'm worried. I am very worried about how screen time is

026impacting my kids. I know many of you are parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and I have to imagine that you're feeling worried, too. Last year, when I asked my first grade daughter what she liked to do during Friday free time, she told me she played on her iPad. When I let her know I'd love for her to make a different choice and play with friends. She told me she'd have no one to play with because everyone was on their iPads. This really broke my heart and it worried me. So I connected with other parents. I talked with her teacher. Her teacher was amazing. She supported my daughter and the other kids whose parents had reached out and our kids started playing games and reading together. I heard about more and more kids joining more and more

027real connections happening. So I know we can do this. We can reduce our reliance on devices in the classroom and create learning environments that foster connection. I also think it's inevitable given all the research that screens harm children leading to shortened attention spans, struggles with comprehension, privacy violations, emotional dysregulation that school districts around the country are going to need to figure this out. Many already are. Legislation is coming. There's several states that have already passed legislation on this topic. And there is a bill in the Illinois General Assembly that would ensure that parents could opt their children out of schoolisssued personal electronic devices, electronic textbooks, electronic required reading, or electronic or online assignments. So, this is something we are going to have to address in the near future. and I just think it'd be great

028if we could get a start on it now. So, we're really here to partner and collaborate with you on this. We know you all want what's best for our students and we really look forward to figuring this out together, but please vote no on this half million dollar student device purchase so we can work together to make a better plan for our kids. Thank you. Next we have Maryanne Miller, Lauren Greenwood, Zaki Tasik, Alli Burch, Jean Clipperton. Hi, and thank you for your time and your service. My name is Maryanne Miller. I have two children in D65. I am concerned about the district's proposed half million dollar spend on new iPads and question the educational benefits of a onetoone device policy on learning outcomes, especially in younger grades. I appreciate the discussion last week by

029the board and the idea of shared device carts. Regarding the district's proposals for device purchases, I believe there is much more room for thinking creatively. I would appreciate the board's thoughtful scrutiny of these proposals while considering the evidence that onetoone device use does not support improvement in learning outcomes. As you know, responsible tech use in school is an extremely important issue to parents and our community in Evston. Last year, ScreenSense Evston, a grassroots organization now with representation across all of D65, was formed by parents in response to a growing body of knowledge of the negative effects of screen use in kids and a lack of action by our school district to address this. It bothers me that D65 has not been more proactive in identifying the potential harms of irresponsible technology use in terms of

030equity, learning, and development in our kids. Please continue to consider the pros and cons of a onetoone device policy, especially in younger learners. Please consider the learning and developmental risks implicated from screenbased learning in young children. Please consider the concerns of over 1,000 people who signed the petition for less screen time in our schools. Please vote no on this proposed device purchase and continue to work for something better for our children. >> Hi, good evening. Thank you for being here. I'm Lauren Greenwood. I'm a parent in D65 and I'm here tonight because I'm worried. Uh trust in this district has been broken and it has not yet been rebuilt. I know we are working on that, but SDRP was rough on everyone. Um just in school conversations at the playground, I see parents that are

031really frustrated. Um they're confused. They're trying to figure it out. And you know, so far we haven't seen the board necessarily signaling a change or a willingness to change. And I know it's there. I just I feel some urgency with October around the corner and new schools being opened and there's just a lot coming up. And I would hate to see us lose this opportunity to really signal the change. I mean, we know that enrollment declines are down 25% since 2018. Um, and families are making choices uh right now about where they're going to send their kids to school next year. And many are continuing to choose to leave. And we need to ask why. Instead of strengthening neighborhood schools, the core of this district, we're seeing some investment in programs of choice. And while

032many neighborhoods struggle for resources and stab stability, that imbalance is not going unnoticed among parents. We also need transparency and discipline around our finances. Public reporting is suggesting that enrollment is down significantly, but administrative roles have gone up um potentially 10% in that same time period. So, if this board is serious about making hard decisions, those decisions can't fall solely on families and students and teachers. We also must include a critical review of the administrative structure and spending before the next budget is approved. Again, signals. Um, finally, safety. The situation involving former staff members has deeply shaken the community. Parents understand there's limits to what could be shared and discussed publicly, but what we haven't seen is clear accountability or communication about what has changed as a result of what happened. So, who's responsible for

033followup when serious concerns are raised? Who's responsible with following up with DCFS when we have teachers on paid leave? What safeguards are in place today that maybe weren't in place before because we learned something and we looked back at the situation that how can we do better for our kids? These aren't abstract questions. They go directly to whether we can trust the system and the district with our children. So right now across Evston, families are asking a simple question. Can we trust District 65? These questions require more than words. They require visible, measurable action. They require signals and we are waiting. Thank you. Uh, good evening. My name is Zoki Tasich and I have three children at Washington Elementary. I'm here tonight to talk about the iPads and um I'm in the tech in district

03465. Uh I'm also here on behalf of Green San Evston. Uh as was mentioned at the last meeting um there are now over 1,200 signatures uh on a change ch change.org uh petition um that we have out there uh on limiting the use of iPads in uh D65. Um a few people have already said uh that these iPads have a have a negative education effect. So, I'm not going to get into that too much. Um, I just want to point out a few things. Um, District 65 spends $3.9 million a year on uh tech. That includes the iPads, obviously, and also the IT staff and software and a bunch of other expenses. Uh we were talking a few months ago about needing to close schools in order to save $2 million a year, which turned

035out to be more like a million and a half maybe a year. And we spend $4 million on tech. Um now, not all of that is iPads. Uh but uh in a an article last year, I recall seeing that for a specific year, uh we spent $2 million on iPads. The last year, I think we spent about 600,000. Um I want to briefly talk about the memo you will all be looking at tonight and talking about called student divi device purchase for SY 2627. Um, somehow this memo concludes that sharing iPads requires just as many iPads as having a one on one iPad and costs just as much. Um, that is absurd and I hope that the person who wrote this memo, who I will not name, gets uh grilled about that by the board.

036Um, there are some hypotheticals in here about sharing between kindergarten and first grade. I would urge you to consider an alternative hypothetical sharing between K through five. Each grade has 100 students, let's say. Uh, that's 600. They're about six hours in a day. Uh, no class should use iPads more than a half an hour, an hour max for the fifth graders. So why can't we have 100 iPads that are shared between 600 kids? You should ask that to the person who wrote this memo. Thank you for your time. All right. Hi, I am Ally Burchie. Thank you guys for being here tonight. I appreciate you all. Um, I'm the parent of two current kids at Kingsley Elementary and I'll have three at Lincolnwood next year. Um, as a Kingsley parent, I closely followed the school

037closure meetings, but I didn't really feel like there was anything I could do, so I didn't actively participate. But here, I feel like we have a real chance to make positive change. Um, I would like to encourage the board to reduce screen time in the classroom and tonight to vote no on the um extra iPad use. All right, I have already emailed most of you, but I just want to reiterate this story. My nine-year-old last year came home having accessed a gaming website on his school iPad. Parents had alerted me that this website was inappropriate, so I checked it out. And I'm not very tech-savvy myself, but I fumbled around for a bit, and I quickly came upon the comment section. I don't know if you all have read it. I was honestly, frankly, embarrassed

038to send it to everyone because it was full of hate speech and absolutely despicable stuff. stuff that my nine-year-old accessed in his classroom. And it's upsetting to me because it's not something that happened in my own home. Now, I can't control what goes on in the classroom on the iPads, but you guys have the opportunity to. I feel like unregulated iPad use is out of control in the classroom. It's the wild, wild west on the internet, and we can put safety guards in place and do our best, but we can't really keep up with the internet. Kids are finding disturbing content, and let's be honest, the teachers aren't really able to regulate this. My story is only one story. I'm sure there are many others out there with similar experiences. I think we're all aware

039and everyone's discussed the harmful effects of technology on our children. And I would like to encourage the board to reconsider the iPad's use and screen time in the classroom. You guys have the opportunity to do right by our children. And I encourage you to please do so. Thank you. Hello, Jean Clipperton, a D65 parent and member of the data nerds. I'm also speaking on iPad and technology use from the perspective of the numbers. The detailed examples in the technology memo were revealing not of a path forward, but of a commitment to a predetermined path plan over both parent input and research evidence. Notably, the revised technology proposal had one option that was higher than prior proposals after the board indicated that the previous plan was too expensive. The CART model presented rested on two assumptions.

040That all specials and lessons do and must occur at the same time within a grade. That is not necessarily true, at least not at my children's schools. Additionally, at our school, library and coding are often taught by the same person, making an additional cart unnecessary. The analysis also fails to account for how costs behave at scale. The memo treats the cart model as if all costs scale linearly with device count, but fixed costs, costs like infrastructure, licensing, and support staff don't change as much whether you have one cart or 10, while variable costs like hardware and repairs do. A shared cart model serving multiple classrooms spreads those fixed costs across more students, meaningfully lowering the per student cost. That math was never shown, which means the cost comparison between models was incomplete at best. The

041cost estimates are inflated, either because administrators are unaware of how programming works on the ground or because lowerc cost alternatives, particularly those that families prefer, aren't being seriously considered. I'd like to understand why we're so committed to this model, particularly given that earlier research on technology benefits is mixed, and we appear to be spending the equivalent of one school closure per year at least on technology. how much of it is covered by the technology fee, which doesn't even appear to cover the cost of hardware. I recognize that this is relatively small, a line item less than 1% of our budget. My deeper concern is the pattern. No meaningful engagement with family feedback, administrator raises that exceeded our deficit, and a permissive transfer deadline set over spring break. As a parent, I want to see the

042district work with and for the families it serves, making decisions grounded in evidence and best intent, not institutional convenience. And that's how we do it. I was excited to see the 50-year master facilities plan and appreciate that the prior memo from technology services mentions a longer refresh cycle for increased savings without efficiency costs. And I'm hopeful we can look to the future and truly act in the interests of our students as we move forward. Thank you. Next we have Russ Shonne, Laura Buchanan, Jacqueline Mendoza, Rebecca Ma, Lindsay White. >> Can we start the clock again? >> Thank you. Russ Shon Wood, parent of two. Uh, happy almost spring everyone. First, I'd like to congratulate Chris for the appointment. Looking forward to the experience of this newly constituted board. Hopefully to move the district forward. Uh,

043I also personally want to recognize the tremendous staff and teachers at Willard Elementary where my kids go. Just really appreciate them. If the district is going to thrive, it's going to take both reducing expenses and increasing revenue. Tonight, I want to focus on the reducing expenses part. On the topic of technology, we've heard a lot. I agree with them all. I was originally planning a satire showing uh preschoolers on iPads. I didn't think it would go over well, but today I picked up my second grader who is loves technology, huge Minecraft guy. And I asked him, should the district be spending money new to get new iPads every few years for kids? His answer was no. I then said, "Would his answer change if that money could go towards keeping schools open?" He said, "Of

044course. Spending money on iPads that increases the likelihood of closing neighborhood schools is stupid." At a time when every dollar matters, I asked the board to evaluate this expense with a simple question. Does it improve student outcomes? If not, why are we spending money on it? that money could be used elsewhere. I understand there are challenges in unwinding the current iPad policy, but I ask the board to use this opportunity to revisit this policy and other polic policies that were started during the pandemic. I also have a few other suggestions. First, it was mentioned before, but Evston has one of the lowest, excuse me, the ratio of administrators to students is out of whack in Evston. Across Illinois, the ratio is about 135 to1, administrators to students in Evston is closer to 90 to1. If

045there's an area where further reductions might be warranted, this is one. Second, the delayed tax revenue that cost the district more than 1.2 million, which is equivalent to at least a school closure. If the board hasn't acted yet, I'd urge the board to take meaningful action, including pursuing legal act legal options to recoup that money. And finally, I would ask the finance team to audit every expense. If it's not legally required, review whether it can be reduced, rebid, or eliminated. On average, districts waste 5 to 15%. Which would close our gap. Before we know it, October will roll around. I want this board to do everything they can to keep our neighborhood schools open. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Laura Buchanan and I'm a parent of a student in district 65. I'm here

046tonight to ask the board to please vote no on spending $500,000 on onetoone student devices. The district does not have the funds to purchase these devices and studies have shown that edtech does not improve students education and may even lower test scores. There is substantial research that indicates screens harm children leading to shortened attention spans, struggles with comprehension, privacy violations, and emotional dysregulation. For the adults in this room, I'm certain this none of this comes as a surprise. None of us need research studies to tell us what we all implicitly know. Screens fracture our attention, and gamification replaces our internal motivation with external incentives. We know that information is retained by our brains simply by committing pencil to paper over hundreds of hours. As a college student, fortunately before the age of smartphones, I discovered

047that the best way for me to study for math exams was to sit in the university library on the third floor in silence. No laptop, no internet, just hours spent solving practice problems over and over again with pencil and paper. When I wrote college term papers, I would disconnect my Ethernet cable, if you remember those, from the computer and hide it away in my desk so that I would not be tempted to surf the net. But children in 2026 face infinitely more technological distractions at a younger age than our generation did. And if adults find it difficult to unplug, to ignore the constant pig of the ping of the smartphone, frequently resorting to tricks to minimize the control of these addictive devices over our brains, imagine how our children feel. Children should not be subjected

048to unnecessary technological intrusion in schools of all places. We know this and we cannot continue on our current path simply due to simply because of institutional inertia. And so besides simply voting no tonight on the purchase of $500,000 worth of new onetoone devices, I'm asking the board to move forward instead with real intention and leadership. This moment is an opportunity to develop a long-term strategic vision for technology use in the district, focused on digital well-being for our students, reducing distractions and guided by current research into the drawbacks and benefits of using screens in the classrooms. Change is difficult and overhauling systems already in place can feel daunting. But as a community, this could be a watershed moment for us to come together and set our students on a better educational path for the future. In

049a town that prides itself on having progressive values, let's embrace embrace the chance for Evston to be a leader in acknowledging that our current one-to-one device policy is harming students. In the coming years, I suspect roll back of onetoone device policies nationwide will be a gradual wave that washes over school districts nationwide. Let's be on the forefront of this wave. We can lead. Let's leave a lasting positive, intentional legacy for the future of district 65. Thank you. Hello. Uh, my name is Rebecca Muk and I have two third graders at Oakden Elementary School. Um, I have not prepared anything. Um, I'm speaking from my heart. I have a transgender young child and it came to my attention recently that there is a gender support committee uh that is staffed by well it's uh run by

050staff members and it hasn't met this year. Um I find that really sad and I came here to explain why that hurts people. It hurts people like me and it hurts people like my children and their twin who is deeply embarrassed about their their twins identity at their school. Um my kids have endured slurs directed at them based on their identity in school. Um although at not at a district 65 from a district 65 employee but uh there's a partnership with the YMCA summer learning program. My baby was restricted from using the restroom that they would actually be legally required to use under Trumpism. My baby was humiliated, asked to stand by staff members outside when the other girls use the restroom. My baby is assigned female at birth. They identify as non-binary. That should

051not be happening ever, ever to an eight-year-old. Never. Um, my child occasionally comes home with apology letters about being teased about which bathroom they're using. Staff needs support. This makes people feel uncomfortable and that's okay. We're That's why we're all here to be in a public school environment and to embrace diversity, right? Um, I urge I urge the board to please have this committee meet. It is so important. Um, I get comments all the time, uh, from students. Um, one of them I I got a comment about my daughter, my child's body, um, asking if it was the same as their twin. That's invasive. Um, someone asked me, uh, a parent told me that her second grader is too young to learn about gender diversity. Uh, and she referenced social contagion theory, meaning that if

052you're exposed to transgenderism, uh, the Trumpist word for that, that your kid will automatically like, I don't know, poof, become transgender or gay themselves. There's a lot of fear out there. I want to say being transgender is really cool. My child is so smart. They are one of the smartest people I know. They don't always test well, okay? But emotional and social intelligence, oh, off the charts. They know themselves. This is how they were born. They were born this way. Um, no one has become transgender by being exposed to this education. Um, I I think parents are very afraid. Good evening board um and staff members. Sorry my voice a little shaky. I had to skip my payment meds to be here today. My name is Jacqueline Mendoza. Um and I have emailed Miss Parham

053and then she directed me to email Dr. Spiff about questions about what Mrs. Flores Hernandez role was in the classroom which I have not heard back from anybody since March 5th. I got back in town on February 20th from military leave, not in the best condition. So, I should not have to come up here to get answers about what's going on in my son's classroom. And if I can stand here, you can all look this way and pay attention, too. I'm in a lot of pain and I would really appreciate it if you listened. I need answers. I I don't care about the case. I don't care what's going on in court. My only question was is what is Mrs. Flores Hernandez role in the classroom and I've been ignored. A lot of people here

054mentioned this trust in D65. I am such a big advocate for D65 telling everybody not to leave and do everything possible to put their kids in this amazing school system. And now I find myself questioning the advocacy. So, if somebody could please get back to me, I would greatly appreciate it. I wish I could stay for the rest of the meeting, but I'm supposed to be on bed rest. Thank you very much for your time. Hi, I'm Lindsay White. I'm a D65 parent. Uh, my comments tonight are going to focus on STRP. Most of the conversations I'm hearing from concerned parents in the district are surrounding how we're going to balance this budget and what the next phase of STRP looks like. And yet, we're coming here tonight without STRP on the agenda. Last meeting

055on March 9th, the board appeared ready to discuss revenue opportunities for the 202627 school year. However, when this was brought up in the meeting, there appeared to be some hushed whispers. It was not discussed and it's not on the agenda again tonight. I also heard Maya say in the last meeting that she thought an STRP update should be placed on every meeting agenda moving forward. And yet again tonight, no revenue, no STRP on the agenda. There are I counted 191 days before October. There are at best then 12 schoolboard meetings between now and then. Meetings where this board is supposed to figure out how we balance the budget. which additional schools will close and what things will look like moving forward. Why are we not having public discussions about what this will look like when

056it appears like there's so little time left when the board decided to close only one school in addition to Bessie Rhodess in this coming school year against the recommendation of our consultant against the data and tireless work of the SDRP committees and against almost half of this board. It sounded like there were plenty of creative revenue ideas being discussed by various community groups and board members. And now the public is waiting to hear what these ideas are and if they will come to fruition. At a recent meeting, all board members were given guidance to have these conversations in the community, find the creative solutions, but we sit here tonight with radio silence. Uh I also see that the future of preschool and preschool busing may be discussed tonight. my comments at the last meeting, I

057mentioned that getting rid of busing will severely limit preschool access for uh a huge swath of our community, many of whom would not otherwise attend preschool. Many of these kids uh are the most likely to be affected by our district's appalling racial achievement gap that we've been working for decades to try to fix. Research and data shows that access to quality preschool education and support in the classroom improves the educational outcomes of children. Giving families ask access to preschool via busing is one important way that we work to close the racial achievement gap. As this board continues to discuss SDRP and which direction it will go with future school closures or budget updates, please keep our most vulnerable and marginalized students and families at the forefront of these discussions. Evston is a community with people

058with strong values and moral conviction. I hope we see that reflected in the STP discussion moving forward. Thank you. The last speakers we have are Jamie Hopka, uh, Lisa Weiss, Marne Glazer. >> Good evening. I'm Jamie Huffky. I'm a Washington parent. Um, first I want to thank uh Pat, Nicole, Maria, and Chris for your continued hard work and dedication to curbing our spending. I also want to say I love our teachers in Evston, and I don't think I've come up here and said that ever. So, I was balling my eyes out watching Neapville's 203 board meeting last week and people coming out and supporting their teachers. And I'm like, God, I have never showed support for Mr. D, Miss Heron, all these wonderful teachers at Washington, and I'm sure there's amazing teachers at Kingsley and

059Lincoln and everywhere else as well. Um, you know, last meeting Andrew said trust is thin and trust is thin than Andrew. In fact, trust is non-existent between some of the public in this administration and some board members. The former superintendent Horton's federal indictment was rare even for Illinois. And the fact that Sergio and Maya, who hired him and approved his spending tied to that corruption, still sit on this board is a profound breach of trust. And to make matters worse, we just found out that uh they were on the board that defended Vice Principal Mendes, who was, you know, arrested for alleged child sex abuse. Um there were earlier acquisitions here in this very district. You know, my kids deserve better. This is just gross. I hope there isn't uh performative pearl clutching over the

060StudioG GC report tonight. A half a billion dollar 50year out pro uh projection. Come on. I look forward to comparing these geothermal HVAC costs to the facilities assessments of our neighboring districts. Let's be honest, this is just a power play by the administration to manipulate some of you to close Lincolnwood. Board members, you're being misled by this report's headline. If you want a clearer picture of this new master facility report, read foyerass Tom Hayden's analysis on it using real context. He shows this report align kind of closely with the 200 million we already knew we needed in this near term. Uh none of this inflated nonsense to intentionally cause panic. You know, um there is significant non-mand nonmandated spending that should be cut. Um, for example, no one's suggesting cutting special ed below federally required

061levels. But right now, district 65 is spending about 27% of its budget on special ed while peer districts are closer to 22%. You know, the gap matters. diving in to figure out how to provide services in our district instead of paying for outplacement of those 53 students to go to insanely expensive private schools should be a top priority so we can sustain strong services and financial stability. You know, how are other districts or peer districts doing it so so much more efficiently? You know, so like the former deck president Dr. Baker was up here two years ago and she said, you know, people who say things cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. >> If you want to know how your March Madness bracket's doing, my son will check the scores

062for you. on his school iPad during school. I'm Lisa Weiss and I have two kids in the district, ages 11 and nine. I'm here to add my voice to say no to buying more iPads. And I'd actually like to take it further if we could. I'd like to see us sell the devices we've already purchased, or at least a good portion of them, so we can reallocate those resources toward learning tools we know work. So, yeah, I found my kid this week um live streaming college basketball on his school iPad. Um, and I know ESPN isn't the worst, but every week we discover new distracting sites and games our kids can freely access on their school iPads. Having these distractions on school devices legitimizes the distractions. If you're not standing over your kid's shoulder, it

063looks like they're doing homework on equipment the school gave them. In our home, we never allowed our kids to have personal devices. No phones, no iPads, no smartwatches. It hasn't always been easy for us, but we made that choice deliberately and followed through. So the moment school iPads came home, they interrupted the way we wanted to raise our kids. Now I watch my kids bounce through tabs, refresh their screens, chase pointless notifications, and I wait for a data breach. If we're going to justify every dollar spent, and we should, we need a credible methodology for examining the actual return on the investment for all of our kids. What measurable student growth are we seeing? What are the documented student and teacher benefits? We know that the 2018 state assessment, 44.8% of district 65 students met

064the proficiency benchmark in math. In 2024, that number was 42.3%. I know I can't claim iPads caused that, but where's the evidence that they helped? Our kids are supposed to learn computer and technology skills, but we're not even teaching them how to type. The devices are supposed to advance equity, but the achievement a gap the achievement gap is not closed. And from what I see in my house, my kids, maybe your kids too, can use Google Docs while AI corrects their spelling or suggest words. We're buying tools that think for our kids or at best interrupt their thinking. I understand that unwinding our relationship with technology won't happen overnight. I Ready is embedded in how we assess students, but this is reversible. Districts across the country have already pulled back on edtech and we can

065too. District 65 is an opportunity to lead at the K12 level to develop a clear evidence-based policy on devices and AI that other districts can actually learn from. We know that ScreenSense Evston made the New York Times for pushing back on this and I think now our district has an opportunity to be part of that story too. I hope we can take a stand here. Thanks. I am Marne Glazer. I have studied the effects of wireless radiation on biological systems for 26 years. mentored by top international researchers, doctors, physicists, and attorneys. I am also a retired Evston school psychologist. I support limiting the presence of wireless devices in kindergarten and early grades. As a former Montasauri teacher of young children, I know how important these early years are for sensorial exploration of the world and

066for developing manual dexterity and writing skills. Socially, young kids are learning how to make friends, to pay attention, and get along with one another. Putting them in front of a machine is not the way to do that. And it reinforces a habit that may become addictive in the future as we all have noticed. Based on my 26 years in the world of wireless, including 10 years on committees with people from the wireless industry and the military, I can tell you that the story we all have been given on cell phone and Wi-Fi safety is not correct. There are now thousands of studies, the great majority of which show biological effects on animals and humans from wireless radiation. The FCC safety limits are based on an old idea from the 80s that as long as the

067radiation is not strong enough to cause heat damage, it must be safe. It is not. The concern is that long-term exposure as we have now is going to cause health problems for some of us. Of course, our children are the most vulnerable. I have been informed by attorneys in the field that there is not one insurance company in the world willing to cover the wireless industry's liability should wireless device users develop health damage. that may also apply to the liability of schools. This should concern the district. For that reason, I encourage district 65 to refrain from buying tablets for the early grades. Limit the amount of wireless devices used in all classrooms and adopt proven lowcost measures to reduce radiation from classroom modems while preserving adequate function. And I can get you materials to do

068that. Thank you. Thank you for public comment. The next uh item on the agenda is discussion of the combined master's facility plan 10-year health life safety plan. Dr. Beardsley. >> Thank you, President Anderson. I appreciate it. If the Studio GC team can come up to the podium, I appreciate it. Um we have Pat Callahan and Marissa Marissa Arbano with us tonight to present. Um, before they jump in, I do want to start by thanking the Studio GC team. When we went to bid for this project, we were seeking a knowledgeable partner to help us. >> Let me interject you for one second. So, the we only have one projector tonight. So, board members, if you could just check your emails for the presentation and just follow along. Unfortunately, we're having some tech issues here and

069the main uh bub blew out, so we're kind of doing a manual way. Can you let Chris know that? >> We good to go board? >> All right. Um, so I will just start over. I do want to sincerely thank the studio GC team. When we went to bid for this project, we were seeking a knowledgeable partner to help us navigate a s significant well to help us navigate significant facility prioritization, decision making, and work. We also wanted a team that could help us apply a lens for sustainability. The Studio GC team has been wonderful to work with. They've been extremely responsive and supportive of the district during this project and supporting planning for summer work. Tonight, they'll provide an overview of the combined master facility plan with the 10-year health life safety. The plan

070is still in draft form and we will post a final report in May once the site assessments are complete. So, I'll have the studio GC team pick up. Thank you. You can start the show and advance the slide to slide three. >> You want to? >> Well, thank you. >> Uh with me this evening is um Marissa Arbina, our project manager. Um myself, I'm Pat Callahan, one of the original founders of Studio GC. Um the work that was that has been presented to you in its draft form is a result of 4,000 hours by 23 staff members over 24 weeks. Um much of that activity occurred in the evening hours or early morning hours without students in the building. So I want to thank Omar for him giving us access to the facilities at some

071very odd hours even during this the Christmas break. So break. So um this evening please uh we're just going to talk through the components of the facility master plan some overview of the findings and some next steps uh that our team is prepared to undertake. There are some elements of the plan which I'll refer to during the presentation that still need to be completed. So if you can advance the slide please or if you want to give it to me I can do that too. So the facility master plan is comprised of of really two primary elements uh and then some subsets. First is um in addition to walking the buildings to identify building component level needs as part of the master plan. We included the dennial required life safety survey so we could accomplish

072that. At the same time, um the facility assessment itself, um sustainability opportunities that we've seen, uh and then some other data sources the district has contracted previously that we incorporated into the study itself. And then finally, an overview of the findings. And then lastly, the next steps. Next, next. So, health life safety is a dennial requirement by every school district in the state of Illinois. Um, it requires uh a licensed architect or engineer to provide details of the building's deficiencies as it relates to the codes under which the building was constructed or under which the building is administered under Illinois part 180 of the of the school code. Um that means that we effectively have to look at every element of the building based on changes in use um deferred maintenance issues or challenges that

073result in um uh violations of the code. Um and so part of our process is to ensure that you have a complete 10-year denial survey at the end of this facility master plan which you do. Next uh it's compris the life safety survey is comprised of three components. One is safety reference plan. So every building has been identified. All the appropriate and pertinent detail that the state requires is included. Uh include exit capacities, room capacities, etc. Um a list of violations and I want to describe violations. They really fall into three categories. A, B and C. I'll get into some detail as to what those mean. uh A being urgent, B being required and C being being recommended. And then lastly, a detailed description of the existing conditions of each building which includes building envelope,

074type of construction, type of mechanical systems, condition of plumbing systems, etc. Next, so the AB and C items are uh urgent is is defined by the state. Doesn't mean you have to do it tomorrow. Uh but the idea being that let's just say a deferred maintenance issue might be um an an exit sign that is no longer illuminated. It's still there but it's no longer illuminated. The illumination part is what the code requires. The illumination needs to be installed. So those are the items that kind of fall in that A category. The B category are required items might be under under ventilated spaces. Um, and so we've identified those and the C's are recommendations, meaning they're part of the code, but in in a particular building that was constructed under a previous code, those recommended

075items would be considered an upgrade by the state, but nonetheless, based on current codes and current research, um, we we we owe it to you to give you that recommendation to improve the safety of the building, if you will. uh as a result of doing so um the dennial survey simply identifies the deficiencies. It authorizes or the state then is notified. They approve the actual dennial survey and that work is required by the district to to complete within the the 10-year period. The AB and C items have the additional time restrictions. Um if the district would choose to secure special funding through fire prevention funds or health life safety bonds or etc then this a second process is required which is an amendment process. And an amendment process means we take specific items off of

076the dennial survey and ask for special permission by the state to have those items be completed. And then those items then in turn are authorized to be completed and have a a different time track than the dennial survey items once the state approves the amendment. So that's just a little bit about life safety. So in terms of the dennial survey, we're uh two steps into this. Um the remaining steps are uh review with the district of the items um and then submitting those through the IWAS system, the electronic submission system and through the uh ROE and then ultimately this board would then approve that. Your board action would approve the denial survey to be submitted. The dennial survey then would be sent through the ROE down to the state and then would sit as a

077record of um the tenure filing. So let's get into the facility assessment itself. So our team evaluates site work and paving exter the exterior of the buildings, the building envelope itself which includes roofing uh doors, windows and exterior materials. um the learning environment itself, floors, ceilings, casework, um the infrastructure, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems. And then the district has a separate consultant that deals with asbestous in the buildings, but we've incorporated that into our report so that it's complete and everything is in one place. And then obviously we've tagged or identified those items that meet the health life safety requirements that are on the dennial survey in terms of A, B, and C. So the this is a a snapshot of the um report itself. And so the report looks at building structure. So structure

078and nonstructural assemblies. We look at roofs, openings, and walls. accessibility both from the site to get to the building as well as in the buildings. Um mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire prevention, IT and low voltage in infrastructure, building security areas we see potential vulnerabilities, physical hardening, um technology and preparedness procedures um are considered. And then lastly, the site assessment, which is parking, traffic flow, circulation, outdoor education um and pedestrian areas. Our team um still uh needs to spend more time in your buildings to do two things. One, the roofs. It was unsafe due to the weather to get up there. So, we have to finish the roofs, our evaluation of the roofs. You had another consultant evaluate the roofs. That has been incorporated into the report, but our job is to basically make that assessment based

079on what we see in place today and maybe adjust those time frames for recommend recommendations on replacement. And we need to do the same on the on the site property um which we will be hopefully completing here in the next month. Next please. Um the assessment captures uh the data uh in a in a or effectively a database um that identifies each component that's been identified, what the category of the component is, what the quantity of the component is, and what the cost of the component is. Um, this also then aggregates that information for the district as a whole and it gives uh the administration the ability to isolate costs and isolate items um within the tool itself. We were asked to evaluate sustainability opportunities for a couple of reasons. Certainly the district has an

080initiative to make these buildings more sustainable based on their age and I think there are opportunities. Um we looked at particularly the mechanical systems. We looked at all the mechanical systems. In our report we've given you three options for replacement. Lowle option would be replace in kind. What you have the higher level option would be the geothermal system. For the purposes of the numbers, for the purposes of the dollar values, we've used the geothermal as the baseline. if the district chooses to have us reconsider that we can adjust the costs accordingly. Um, but one thing about sustainable approaches, particularly geothermal that I just want to mention is we look at it not only for the first cost, what you invest in it, but also what it's going to cost you over time. Right? A geothermal

081system is much more efficient over time and cost you less while there is an initial investment upfront. And in addition, there are still federal tax credits to offset the upfront costs of geothermal uh that are available to till 2032. The solar we have not yet completed um that requires a roof assessment and so we have to finish our roof assessment before we can make recommendations for solar. So we did incorporate other data sources. So we incorporated the McKibben 2024 um demographic information again trying to make or create this master facility plan so all of your data from all of your consultant is aggregated into one location. Um the Ahira which is your three-year asbestous report for each facility. Um and included in our numbers are areas where the district still has asbestous that it's maintaining

082in your in the buildings. um in effort to be more comprehensive that other work that's happening in the building would need asbesus abatement in order to be achieved. Those numbers are also included in the uh projections. Um the exterior maintenance surveys by Hutchson Design Group for uh masonry and roof is also incorporated into our work. Um but the roof surveys and the roof our evaluation of the roofs um is again one of the components that we have yet to complete. And then lastly the um KMED carbon-f free assessments and then the district sustainability plan trying to recognize that as we as we look at the facilities and look at the sustainability plan what options are opportunities are there out there to be more sustainable. So, an overview of the findings. Um, the health life safety

083uh compliance needs have identified some what what we're calling under vventilated or underperforming mechanical systems. Um, some areas where we have outdated fire alarm panels that can no longer be expanded and devices can't be replaced because the head-end systems aren't functioning the way they're supposed to. They are still functioning, but they can't be leveraged for replacement. um galvanized water piping. Um galvanized water piping is um degrading, especially due to the age of the buildings. It's not copper. It doesn't last as long um and needs to be replaced in many buildings. Um doors requiring uh higher fire ratings or fire ratings per code andor wider widths to accommodate handicap accessibility. We've identified those locations as well. exit sign replacements or additional exit signs in blind hallways or blind corridors where if you come out of a

084room, you need to be able to view an exit sign so you know where to go. Um and then lastly, the building accessibility improvements. You know, ADA was established in 1990. Um the Department of Justice has said it's about time that everyone complies with ADA and now we're here. Um so we have identified locations within the buildings that obviously due to the building's age or maybe the split levels uh that make it challenging for accessibility to be achieved. Next please. Um this we gave you a kind of a snapshot looking at kind of aging infrastructure and other uh areas of building maintenance that need to be uh considered by many districts in the state. um you have a maintenance backlog. There is still work to be done at all the buildings currently. Um doors and

085flooring and casework and you know outdated ceiling systems, roofing and tuck pointing has kind of reached end of life. Um asbestous materials that need to be or should be removed. Um most of those are in non- studentent occupied areas but they still exist. Um and then um we typically do this as a as a function of the size of the district based on the buildings that you have. Um how much districts across the the country invest in and this is a national average invest in their facilities on an annualized basis. And a a build or a district of your size with almost 1.3 million square feet on average invests about $20 million a year across the district. Um, so just a benchmark to be aware of. We're not saying it's right or wrong, just giving

086you something to shoot for. Um, and obviously the enrollment um, and discussion about facilities need to be considered in this conversation with respect to the investment of your facilities. Next, please. So, I want to talk for a moment about how we calculate our costs. Um we have been tracking construction costs as a firm since inception 1992. Uh there are two um market uh publications one by Turner Construction and one by Mortonson that tracks construction costs escalation yearbyear since 1900. Um so we have included in our our um master plan the forecasting from I think 2003 so the last 20 years of escalation. And if you look at the the uh chart um it represents what something cost in 2020 2003 which was about we could actually build the school building for about $200 a square

087foot and now that's nearly $500 a square foot. Um, construction costs go up and down, but we think it's important that we provide you with escalation because we're suggesting in our report when items should be considered for replacement. And if that's five years from now, and I use $2,25 in five years, you're not going to that number is not going to be representative of what it's going to cost in five years. So our number or our facility master facility plan includes escalation for all of the work included based on the year we're projecting it or suggesting it be um implemented. And again um it's a tabular format. We worked with administration to identify what the next 50 years looks like. And it's not a number to startle you, but remember that a roof lasts or

088has a warranty for about 20 to 25 years. So in 50 years, you should replace a roof twice, right? So we just want you to be aware that when we place these numbers on in this page, we're projecting out for you to have a tool in the future to recognize what needs to be done next and roughly what that will cost in the year it's supposed to be completed. Next, um, as part of the previous study that you had done, we wanted to, um, put a facility condition index together that mirrored what you previously had. There isn't really a standard for this across the country. There are a number of of, uh, of groups that do it. So, um, we tried to mirror what the previous study did just to give you a snapshot. And

089quite frankly, the facility index is about the same, right? the the the where the buildings sit with respect to, you know, being excellent to good all the way to consider replacement are about the same. And there's two factors to this. One is the replacement cost has gone up, right? It's more expensive to build a building today than it was when when the last report was issued. Um and two, even though our numbers are escalated a little higher because it's more expensive today to fix the buildings, um the actual values for the facility cost index remain about the same as the previous report. Next, so what are our next steps? Um we need to complete the survey, the exterior work, which was the roofs and the site. Um and then work with administration to review in

090detail the A B and C items on the health life safety to prepare it for the board's action um to qualify all the items as a dennial survey then to be go through the appropriate approval process through the ROE in the state um we will that will become back to the board um the dennial will come back to the board for board approval once that work is completed um and then the master plan itself needs a little bit more work with our additional fieldwork and then to sit down and go item by item through the buildings to make adjustments necessary as to when those items should or should not um be completed. Um I want to just mention briefly that we use um a guide that's actually published in England um for the lifespan of

091building materials, right? And in in Europe, they're called quantity surveyors that deal with building materials and counting building materials. Um they provide, you know, u years of useful life for a roof, for a wall or a concrete walk, a door, etc. And those are the baseline numbers that we put into our report to project out when you should consider replacement for things based on the year they were installed. Right? When we do our physical observation, like for instance the roofs, we will make and make additional modifier adjustments. If the roof is in better shape, then we will extend that further out. If we think that there's areas of the roof that may may be in not as good shape, we will reduce that as well. And again, I'm just using the roof example, but it

092applies to all the building components. >> I think that's it. >> All right, >> I'd love to take questions. Thank you. We'll open up for questions. >> So, I have a question. So, uh some of the buildings that are listed um will be closed and depending on next steps, there may be more closed. What is the obligation in terms of maintenance of those buildings if they are not being used for students? Would that uh minimize the amount of maintenance work that has to be done or or does it just stay the same? >> So, what I I would answer that in a couple different ways. First, we always have an obligation to maintain and sustain the district resources that we have. Um I think it'll be critical for district administration to understand the long-term plans

093for a building. If we are mothballing a building for potential future use as a school or for sale to another school potentially, we need to continue on with the maintenance to make sure that the building is in a is in a usable state. The other thing that we hold, you know, we one, when we went out for RFP on this, there was no decision on closure. So, we clearly included all schools. Um, and then as even if we move to sale for sale on any of these, it is helpful to be able to provide information on the building itself. The last thing that I will say is that as we close schools, we will obviously continue to have pretty significant utility costs and maintenance costs on those buildings for landscaping, alarms, all those different things.

094And so we're averaging that it's about a 60% of the overall cost. So there'll be a reduction, but we still will need to be caring for the resources that we have. >> And that was factored into the roughly 1.6 million we estimated saving per closure. Is that right >> there? So if I recall the consultant's chart, she did have a $50,000 savings around utilities. And that is largely because we're expecting a much more efficient building with Foster because that we have solar panels on the roof and so we expect utility reductions there and then I believe there was somewhat for reduced utility costs. Sorry, Tamara. >> Yes. No, that that's correct. >> Thank you. This is comprehensive um and a bit overwhelming, but you mentioned that you hadn't had a chance to uh investigate or

095survey the roofs yet. Does that mean that the there is no calculation for what roof replacement would be on a timeline in this report or did you plug based on historical? >> So what we did was we included the Hudgetson design report for the roof. So the roof costs and the replacement costs are in the actual report currently, but it needs to be double checked by our observations and if we need to make any adjustments to timelines, that's what our team will be doing when we get to the exterior review. >> Thank you. And um as we've kind of been steeped in these numbers from the Cord and Clark um report from before, how do we think about the reconciliation between sort of what we are seeing in terms of amounts in that report and

096what we're seeing here? specifically when I look across I would expect to see some increase just from the building inflation costs as you mentioned but there's just there's a couple that are outliers and I'm not sure how to think about it so the one in particular and we can take this offline if we don't go >> ahead um but like King Arts for example it's about a $5 million difference um it's less than it was reported by Cordigan Clark whereas a virtually all of the other ones are, you know, significantly more than a million. Is there some way to think about that delta? >> Yes. So when when we did this report, we did not look at the cord and clar report. So we evaluated this completely independently. But I will tell you after we

097have reviewed the cord and clar report after we completed our work, the the scopes that are in each report are different. Right? So if you're trying to compare dollar for dollar or total to total, that's not really a fair comparison because the actual scope of work is different. For instance, there were several instances in the previous report that um allowed for an annual maintenance cost of $20,000 for the next 10 years for roofs or for windows or something like that. We do not take that approach because we don't know. First of all, that's not enough to cover the entire cost of the actual item. So our report takes the entire item. So if it's all the flooring or all the roofing or all the building envelope for tuck pointing. So ours is comprehensive to the

098to the extent that it's the complete building um quantification for a particular item. So that is probably the biggest difference between the two reports. And we did notice some in uh I won't say inaccuracies but differences in quantification between our reports in terms of square footage for this or square footage for that. Um our our report does quantify the exact square footage of all the facilities. >> I think one thing I'd add Maria to is we as we mentioned in our last board meeting, we did start doing some of the roofing work at King Arts a couple of years back. We started doing some of the abatement work. Certainly wasn't $5 million worth of work, but we did a partial roof replacement and we did some of the abatement work at that point and are

099we're hoping to come back this summer and make more progress on that roof and more progress on the abatement work. So certainly not $5 million, but there were some projects that happened after the completion of the last master facility plan at King Arts. Can I just ask a clarification of what? Excuse me. Um what you just said. Um when you said that these are different, I just want to make sure what you're not saying is there's that there's some things that the cardigan might have had needed to be done that you you didn't look at. So your report is full. This is anything that needs to be done in these buildings with resp with with respect to health life safety and master facility is included here. So if there's a difference I think it's like

10017 million was for King Arts then and now it's 9 million. That is a difference in interpretation by both companies. >> Correct. >> There isn't a later we're going to say oh there was 5 million that Cartigan there was a service that they looked at that you just didn't look at. >> Yeah. I mean, I think their report was was comprehensive at the time they did it for the for the scopes that they identified. >> The other big difference between the two reports is we we use escalation in our numbers and their numbers were not escalated. They were all in whatever current year the the project was estimated. >> So, I think I heard you say that the 20 million prescribed that we should ideally set aside, >> nobody does it, by the way. That's

101what I wanted to know. Um because you said something about like a national average. So is that an actual average of expenditures or is that like some theoretical kind of formulation? >> There are some uh companies that do projections based on all of the needs in every school in the entire United States and they have come up with this formula that says you should be spending this to maintain that amount of square footage. It's a target, right? It's and most districts can't achieve it. If you can achieve it by half, you'd be well above most. Right? So, I think what we the reason we put it in here is because it is important that maintenance be done on buildings to get you to a point of preventative maintenance. Your facilities right now have significant areas

102where they need to be repaired. Once you get to repair, you can do preventative maintenance. So, there's kind of a baseline that we need to try to get to in order to get the buildings to a serviceable condition. So that's the question. Um so you see 500 600 million and go whoa. Um and part of that is assuming we're repairing every building that's in our footprint. Um given the lack of of work in this space across multiple administrations, are we and I don't know if you can ask I'm going ask and see if you can answer it. Are we at the point of there's either patch and repair to the whole plant or there's okay we now have so much money to spend that we need to step back and rethink or think about what

103our footprint is also given the um our demographics um and I think in the past we've been thinking about it mainly for utilization but now we also have these costs where there's very different costs between places so any you know have you seen this across so many different places. Where's the point as you think about cost? And I know on the last table some things are in 40 and red and green where you go, hey, this might just cost too much to just patch and we need to be thinking taking a step back and thinking about our plant feeder pattern by feeder pattern to come up with a number that is re you know that's more reasonable to go out and ask for support to do. So, how do can you help us think about

104that conversation we need to have as a community, as a board, as an administration? >> Yeah, I appreciate that's a thoughtful question. So, um with other districts that we have assisted through this process, whether it was building closures, consolidations, whatever the case may be, um every district is deficient. Every no districts are at baseline and just doing preventive maintenance because the way the schools in Illinois are funded, they just don't permit you to do that. Right? Years ago, it was it was more you were it it was more achievable back in the 80s and 90s, but now it's much more difficult. But I will tell you that really this is a tool. This is not a this is not a death now. This is not a this is, you know, this is what you have

105to do. The buildings need to close. This is not what this is. This is a set of variables that allows you to make decisions as you look at how students are educated and where they're educated. This provides you additional information to say where are we going to invest the resources knowing what you have to invest to make those decisions. So that's the way I would view this report. Not as a not as a oh my goodness we have so much work ahead of us and we can't afford it but more so how do we prudently take this document in concert with the conversations you're having about where and how we educate our kids and marry those two together to make your best investment decisions. That's how I would ask you to look at it. >>

106Um, couple questions maybe in a somewhat uh similar vein. So the first is because we anticipate increase an increase in cost in each future year. There is value basically in moving more quickly. Correct. Because we're locking in theoretically today's or next year's prices versus 2033 prices. Is that correct? Yes, that's true. >> Um, and generally speaking, um, is it cheaper to build a new school versus retrofit and repair an old one? >> There's no hard and fast rule to it. Um, some of it has to do with the age of the building. Some of it has to do with when the last time infrastructure was repaired. And your largest cost on your buildings are mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and building envelope, meaning roofs and tuck pointing and windows, etc. Those are your big biggest big biggest

107expenditures on a building. So, um, spending money sooner certainly saves escalation and construction pricing has gone through the roof, if you will, and doesn't look like it's going to slow down anytime soon. Um but when it but as we look at um the do we keep it or do we not I think building a new building has its own set of expenses right there's demolition of something unless you have land that doesn't have anything on it there's demolition of something to put something new there um the conditions of your buildings are not past the point of no return to the extent that you can't you know repair right I we we maintained until about five years ago, the oldest continuously operated elementary school in the state of Illinois in West Aurora, which was constructed in

1081888. It was finally replaced 133 years after it was built. So, there's an opportunity to repair buildings at a at probably a lower cost, provided you're very judicious on how you do it, than constructing a new building from scratch. And then building on that, if there's say an opportunity, so based on what you're saying, if there's an opportunity uh to expand, say, a current school, um I assume that part of what is driving the high overall cost assessment here is basically the amount of square footage that we have and the fact that it's really distributed because we don't get any economies of scale when it comes to construction, right? right? We replace one one roof in one school, but we still have 15 other roofs that might need to be repaired. So, have you seen

109districts uh develop maybe a viable strategy in which they expand the footprint of an existing school uh in order to make enhancements to your point so they don't have to deal with say a brand new site um while also reducing the total scope of schools again in order to get more economies of scale on the construction costs. >> That is possible. We've also seen um strategic phasing where you do five roofs at a time instead of one roof at a time, right? And that drives cost down because you get a crew for the summer to do all your roofs. So, I mean, there are ways to to shave those costs down. Um, if you're talking about expansion and consolidation where you might, you know, close a building, move those students to a larger building that's

110expanded. There is e economy to that in in lie of building a brand new building. Um that is one uh consideration for you to for you to make. >> Thanks. >> You're welcome. >> And in this uh in in your report and in your survey, how did you consider how did you evaluate our learning spaces? >> Was there anything evaluated related to like the modernization of them or are they up, you know, are they up to date or was that included in this at all? >> So we did an evaluation of your spaces. We we use a process called spatial agility. How flexible are your classrooms to be converted for modern day learning, right? Um and so we included in our report the physical changes, lights, ceiling, flooring, those kind of things. We didn't include

111furniture. We didn't include reconfiguration of space. Kind of an update or a refresh of the actual environment itself. >> That's what is included in the numbers. >> Flooring, painting, ceilings, lights. >> Right. Do we have a so as we think about modern so I think one of the questions or the issue for me is um because our spacers are older and we're in a period where you know learning spaces we might think differently about what our science classrooms are even what a library looks like we think differently because you know we've changed uh buildings changed this is to make things functional it is not necessarily to bring our buildings to 21st century. You know, like I when we all go into Foster when it opens and then we go into some of our other buildings,

112it's going to be a contrast of what a 21st century building looks like. So, just want to be clear this we could then have another conversation about what do we need to do to buildings to make them bring them up to 21st century. in your facilities, in your plans, you did go through buildings and say which ones have small small learning spaces, which ones are traditional classrooms and I think even special ed and some we were able to point that out. So there is the beginning of a language to sort of understand the types of spaces that are in there. Is there have you been asked in other is there another type of do you have a language for looking at spaces to say hey I'm looking at a particular school and say this science

113lab or this is is a is designed to do you know the type of 21st century learning have you could I don't know if you did it for us now if you didn't is that plausible to layer on top of what we have >> yes it was not part of the study although we did the foundational work for Um we find that updating or modernizing classrooms for 21st century learning or future ready we now call it um is best driven by curriculum and pedigogy. >> Um that results in the best outcomes rather than just making rooms fancier and prettier. Um are we actually impacting the student and the educator in that space? So yes, there would be kind of a next step to look at the actual educational environments in that context. Yes. >> And

114most likely that would be an assumption that would be additional dollars. Is it likely that when you do that most building you come up with a 21st century building without spending money? >> Uh you'd be surprised. I mean there's a lot of existing classrooms that have what we call spatial agility to be able to be flexible enough to deliver a modern curriculum with with you know a modern pedigogy. Um I think that um smaller classrooms might be you know changed in use. So a study of the building itself based on the room sizes even though the building may be older it could be what we call restacked right so it could accommodate some of the the the kind of future projections of the future ready ideas that the district wants to implement. Yes. >> Thank

115you. Is is there a so thinking just kind of tapping on here uh first of all construction costs about $26 is about 500 per square foot which tracks with what we've experienced with Foster. Um is demolition generally included in that cost. You mentioned demolition earlier. >> Well, I'm I'm just saying that when you when you look at comparing a new building to a renovation, right, >> you have to if you're going to build on an existing site, the cost of demolition is not inexpensive, you know, >> right? So you'd have to include that in the cost of >> additional funding, >> right? So that kind of >> Yeah. >> balances out the benefits perhaps of one or the other. >> And then a general rule of thumb, I think kind of tapping into what Dr.

116Pinker has said here as far as like a a deep renovation. Uh we know what we've got estimate of new costs, but is there um a rule of thumb as we're envisioning what's possible even and and dreaming um what would a not a new construction but a deep renovation? Is there square foot costs we could generally work off of? I'm hesitant to give you a number because I think if you had um a vision for how that might look and what the building might become. Much of the renovation costs we've kind of identified, you know, plumbing, mechanical, lighting, those kind of things. And the extra work, you know, finishes, acoustical treatments, um you know, color, you know, all those kind of things that build a modern, future ready environment. um you know would be the

117only additive costs to what we're what we're representing here. So I think actually within the framework of what we provided you you could get pretty close to a heavy look at your buildings. >> Okay. Um we are considering it's one of the recommendations emerged out of our SJ3 process is to create a board policy around capital expense funding. Um, I'm not sure how we got to our 2.7 million, but would you recommend the CRV CRV 1% or a percentage of CRV as a good standard for measuring um what we should be setting aside for capex? >> Yeah, we have a similar district and I'll just compare you to them. So, they spend about $5 million a year on 20 buildings. Um they have a high school, it's a unit district, so they have high school

118to a pre-K center. Um and they spend about $5 million after investing $85 million about 10 years ago to bring them back to baseline. So after that first baseline, now they're at a run rate of about five million and the district is staying fairly well ahead of their preventive maintenance. So, um, that's why 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 than an expenditure for maintenance. Unless you look at a phase plan and look at roofing, right, and say we want to do a phase roofing replacement, knowing that that's a big exposure based on what we saw and based on the Hutchinson plan. Um, but we're happy to help you kind of slice and dice this and

119look at it in multiple different ways. So when we're talking about baseline um what would be what where is the cut off in your report for what is baseline for us? We haven't given you that number within the >> okay >> but we certainly can >> okay >> we can we can parse the data to say you know an expenditure of axe will bring this building to baseline so that those future replacements would be you know um on a regular maintenance cycle >> would you be able to um and I don't know if this is the right way to think about it so I would just ask Stacy to take the lead in in thinking about how to do this but sort of baseline being maintenance, deferred maintenance, ADA accessibility separated out because I would

120assume ADA accessibility is part of bringing that building up to like today's maintenance, right? >> Isn't but it's not is it under health accessibility isn't is it under health life safety? >> Not directly. However, the state does provide you latitude with relocating programs to areas that are accessible. Right? So if you have a second floor program, you can relocate to the first floor program to because it may take a structural change to the building in order to facilitate that accessibility. I think the accessibility would be probably more akin to when you look at modernizing the building for universal access. That would be the appropriate time, I think, to marry those two things. >> Okay. I just wanted to take out any sort of like large outliers that um would kind of skew that number, but

121it sounds like it's pretty standard. Exteriors, mechanicals, you said, >> but for the um >> This is a point of clarification though too, Pat. The report I think in HLS does have some of the accessibility items. >> Okay. Yep. >> But they're they're individual item accessibility, a doors too narrow, those kind of things. not full accessibility to the entire building with elevators and those kind of things. >> So, we have a portion of it but not all. >> That's not fun. >> Okay. Thank you. >> One of the um um I think we've had conversations about early childhood and whether um you know ideation of whether it can move to buildings and the big question is about bathrooms. So, I I was hoping uh I didn't get enough time today. went through all the many

122of our buildings have more than four classrooms with bathrooms. Be interesting for now that we've fully done this to understand are there which buildings are viable for being able to have you know however many classes of prek and I'm sorry kindergarten which we're obligated to do and are there other classrooms that can you know hold um early childhood. Um just just to know that I mean Stacy I'm sure we have that here but is that's a a column to know how many bathroom classrooms are in a building would be good and of course I guess it has to be on first floor right second floor is not >> and we definitely have that information on the number of classrooms that have bathrooms if we were ever to convert an existing K5 building to an early

123childhood you would have to shift the plumbing features lower them think about your cabinets and mill work things like that to make the kind of size appropriate >> the presence of the bathroom is very helpful because plumbing and all that but there'd still be significant retrofitting adjustments to make the space work >> so to take a so I'm not saying a whole building I'm saying so of course there's >> a select number of classrooms >> right right okay >> so we are taking this very seriously and I'm looking at you Tamara but also Dr. Turner. Uh, so if we parse out that 4% CRV of 20 million, which is impossible right now. 20 million is impossible. Uh, but it it recommended 1% for ongoing maintenance, which tracks with what you said about your district having

1245 million for 20 buildings. We'd be at what 4.9 at least based on the previous numbers. Um, I mean, how seriously are we going to take this for targeting next our next budgeting cycle of sustainability? Are we going to onramp up to say a 1% CRV because we're at 2.7 capex right now, which is not anywhere close to what would be recommended here. So, I'm just curious how we're going to handle this as we move forward. A really deep commitment to ensuring that we are moving towards sustainability. So I think part of the question is let me see if I'm whether we can do this by ramping up to 5 million a year or whether to the point I think you said uh community first had to make a major investment. So the relationship between

125Yeah. the relationship between a a life safety where we're we can go or a referendum that's bigger and then out of that is also the how much we're putting aside each each year. Right. It's not if we just let's say we just put six million aside. That doesn't address the >> right the backlog. But but right, we're in we're in a dance of trustworthiness of like it's been 1 million capex for 10 years and we're the first board to raise that um to demonstrate that we're serious about no longer acrewing backlog maintenance before we go ask for for public funding to address backlog maintenance seems to be important to me. Um so I'm curious from an administrative standpoint of the recommendations you're going to bring for us budgetwise. I guess Tamara, you may not be

126with us when we see the proposed budget, but are we going to target increases there to keep moving towards sustainability? Oops. So, the tenative, I'll present the tenative in June before um my departure. What I would caution as far as raising that number from the 2.7 million up to 4.9 or 5 million is that the more we put towards capital, the more pressure that's putting on other operational areas of the budget. So, um I do I think that's a realistic number to target for FY27 at this point. I do not. >> So, I I do think there's a um and I we're not going to have that answer here. A lot of uh thinking, understanding models of so you can also reduce cost by reducing buildings. We had a whole convers we were locked on

127one additional school. I guess there's an interesting question here now of listening at this and understanding are we able to use SDRP analysis to address this or do we have to go um backwards? um not backwards. Do we move forward with taking that information but having um different models of understanding how we want to to me this isn't a one school closure. This is a a fundamental understanding of our footprint. What do we want to do and how we want to use money to move us forward into that that future plan. So how to who drives that? Is that a you know is that a is the superintendent coming back to us to say here's my thought on five models of doing this or is that a the board comes to you and says here's

128our three models. So I think I'm torn in how do you take this information right now we take it and move forward which I think people have asked move forward with um viable options that uh you know addresses this who's who drives that >> um I have a question for y'all uh with the folk you work with. So, as we're we're both dealing with a structural deficit and we're and then also trying to envision part of that requires um casting a longer term plan for our facilities and securing funding. Um you do a tenure, this is a 10-year, you know, the primary focus is the 10ear. Um, previously this district had a a seven was it seven years or eight years the the 2017 uh referendum. Do you have any suggestions for for bite-sized movements

129forward and envisioning the future and engaging with the public? Um, does you know is it is 10 years what makes sense? Um, or do have any of your clients ever moved forward with like a 20-year plan or something like this? >> They have. Yeah. Uh, but a 20-year plan is pretty predictive. You're trying to really guess what the future's going to be. Yeah. >> I think a 10-year plan is a realistic assessment of where you can something that's achievable. >> Yeah. >> Um, you know, and in this case, the the 10-year survey, you know, the A and the B items are about $19 million, right? And those are the items that, you know, based on our assessment that the state is saying you need to deal with those in the next five years. I think

130that'd be a good place to start. And I think again this you know and Dr. Pinky you're asking okay so then who who does what right like who who should be the ones right so then we we've got like a baseline here like there's things that need to be done right that they're just required to be done in order to fix our buildings and just make them workable. Um and of course there's definitely considerations where we're just going to have to make a hard decision and then not have some buildings. But but the way I see it is that again that that's going to have to be we have to we'll have to identify the priorities of what that 19 million is going to be spent on. Um um and then that's something that we'll

131discuss as a board which which I think the administration can bring forward to us. Okay. Well, here's the A items that need to be get. So what I appreciate is that again this is coded in a way that again we can work and we can work with Studio GC as I mentioned to to h help the administration and help us kind of think through what what is it that within that 19 million that we need to get done right and and and then we really really have to dig into making some hard decisions in regards to how we move forward. So so just to kind of try to answer Dr. Pinkard's um question is okay we have this tool right um baseline 19 million that just to get our buildings just functional uh but also

132you know having the administration just come come to us with with the listing of okay so here's the things that we need to prioritize because uh this building's going to fall apart on top of you know so we really want to make sure that that's something that again it starts with the administration we have the conversation on what what what's priority and then we really start digging into some some decision making around our 10-year facilities plan. Is that is that about right? >> I guess my issue with going at it like that is that if we're talking about buildings that are in such levels of disrepair and in a climate where we don't we don't have a good grasp on the utilization future of our footprint. You know, like one of the questions that comes

133up for me is, well, should we be spending this money on King Arts this summer because it looks like they're not in bad shape compared to some other places. And that was just something that came up after looking at this. And so without seeing without without thinking through a long-term plan of what our building footprint should look like and how we want to address that, are we just going for a patch and maintain or are we going to think more long term about how we build a future ready building footprint and what all that could potentially be. So, from a life safety perspective, I I understand. But, you know, if we're going to not have a school in operation, it doesn't seem right to spend $10 million to fix a roof. >> I think we

134need to talk about what the process is for figuring this out. So the way I look at it is uh we will have we know which buildings we'll have in place pretty much for next year and if those buildings are going to have students in them then the life safety corrections to me would be a priority. Is that correct thinking? So, what I would say, and Pat can correct me any which way, but we know that the top priority ones you want to get done within the next year. Okay? >> Based on timing of work, the needing to go to bid, having contractors lined up, we are late to adjust for what the summer scope of work would be, what we would want to do is plan for that work coming through next year. You

135know, we mentioned last time we have a cracked wall at King Arts. That would be a final thing that we do need to do. That's that's a critical item. Um, so we would want to take this report. I think my I would want us to stay the course with our current summer plan because if we pivot from there, we won't be able to do work this summer because we're really kind of out of runway. Um but then to take the time and define you know do we want to do any you know what would engagement look like this either board or community to do some of the grouping on starting with the health life safety items to be able to say how do we want to pace this out. They've given us given us a

136good place to start, but it's up to us to then say how much are we willing to spend and based on that what are we able to prioritize and so do we so I guess this gets back to the question of how much we're able to spend what are we able to spend out of the one point the 2.7 or the four point or we have to have uh we have to have bring money from somewhere so how like the conversation in October has to be based within and an understanding of where we're trying to where we're trying to go. So, how do you >> So, yeah, >> I might have partially followed that, but I what I would also want to add and then redirect me if I am nowhere near what you were

137asking. Um, there's the reactionary piece of getting to kind of the most important health life safety items. I also think there needs to be some thinking about how do you bundle necessary work in the district to make a co cohesive ask to move. >> Okay. >> Pat talked about, you know, like a comparative district went out and did like $85 million of work to basically elevate the floor of where the buildings were, you know, to get us to a stronger place. I think looking through this, you know, galvanized piping and plumbing is not pretty, but it was in just about every single school >> and that has an impact on schools, water, all sorts of things. So, are there things that roofs are in trouble, you know? So, how do you prioritize and say, can

138we bundle some of this work to make concrete progress? Now, the other conversation about are you making progress on all schools or some schools is a conversation that the board needs to decide when, how, if you're having that. >> The last thing I would say is um Pat also mentioned like the vision for what learning spaces can become is also generally driven by academics. And so if we want to draw a stronger vision for what our buildings can be, I think we have to give ourselves some lead time, some intention and some guidance to get to that vision. >> Okay? And because I do think the community has expectations for the buildings and you know I gave you pictures of a chimney and walls and windows like that's not the vision of our schools. >>

139So thank you. >> You know those those are the things that come up for me. >> Thank you. So, can I follow up with that? Just to say, so we're looking at some very hard decisions in October. Um, a very I think a reasonable request that we've received is to accompany those hard decisions with that forward-looking vision. So, with what you just described, would it are you would it be too soon realistically to have that forward-looking vision in October? That's what I heard. I heard it being too soon to think that we could combine both the hard choices with the forward-looking vision. Is that Yeah, >> the um I think that's something we would want to talk about as a team. I think it's a lot to ask. Um, you know, we had talked about

140in January being really just solely focused on getting closures and openings and student assignments, right? And we haven't quite been able to pull that off. And so, you know, I think that's when you do that, we want to do that, right? Um, and so to define a process, do that process, and come back with a product that I think the community would accept is valid, it feels like a very tight runway. So, one last question. Uh, based on, uh, the information that you submitted to us today and based on some of the conversation you've heard, what do you recommend as a concrete next step for this board to take? Well, I think the board we need to work with administration to parse this out and put it in what I'll call bite-sized chunks for you

141and look at a couple different alternatives to as groupings. Um um I think that would be our next step before the board would could be re-engaged that this is a lot of information to take in at once and we know that um and it falls into so many different categories. We just need some time to digest it with administration so we can come up with a plan to offer you some alternatives. Thanks for the way it was presented. It was It was a lot, but it was understanding. >> Thank you both. We appreciate it. The next item on the agenda is uh action rec regarding the approval of the student device purchase for TW school year 2627. Seven. >> All right. Um, Elena Caserus is going to come up and we um I want to

142start by thanking Elena and the technology and academics departments for being incredibly responsive to the request from the last meeting. Tonight, Elena will share technology distribution models and input that have has been received from educators to help educate the board on this request. We understand and do not want to minimize the challenges of screen time. As a district, we've made and continue to make significant steps to make sure technology has clear a clear clear educational value. We will continue to collaborate with educators and leaders and process community feedback to inform and make improvements. My hope tonight is that the iPad replenishment will be approved. Too often in education, we swing the pendulum too rapidly from one extreme to another. We rush to solve a problem and through our rush, we create a new problem. Technology,

143when used appropriately, brings educational value. Shifting away from our current technology configuration in introduces significant change for educators and students when we want them to be 100% focused on creating on welcoming new students and building new school cultures and routines. I ask that you support the purchase tonight and continue to work with us to use technology in an educational manner that is focused and limited. >> Thanks Stacy. Good evening everyone. Um, nice to see everyone again. I am going to go over a presentation, include some additional information, and then have some time for questions. So, with this presentation, I'm going to further discuss the student device purchase for next school year, including a review of our one-to-one model that was proposed and then potential shared card options based on feedback from our last meeting. And

144then I'll provide some additional context on questions that have come up um including around student the student device life cycle cost efficiency efforts and considerations for shared carts. Um hopefully we'll have a discussion and decision today so that we can um make a purchase whatever it might be and begin provisioning those devices for the new school year this spring. Um we do have a really busy summer this um summer and so um hopefully we would um like some time to get prepared for the coming school year. So I wanted to fill in some context. We didn't discuss this at our last meeting, but district 65 does assess an annual technology fee as part of our annual student fees. The fee is $80 for students qualifying for full price meals and 24 for those qualifying for

145reduced price meals. That um fee does include a device protection plan that was created two and a half years ago um to cover repairs and replacements for accidental damage, fire, and theft up to two claims per year per student. And then down below I kind of um am going to explain how much it really costs to purchase onetoone technology for a student each year. So with our current model, studentu students in district 65 receive two new iPad refreshes during their K through eight journey. One refresh in first grade with an iPad and a case, a folio case. It doesn't have a keyboard case. and then one refresh in fifth grade with an iPad and a keyboard case. We also provision cases for third grade students um to support developing developing typing skills. Um so there

146on the chart outlines the total investment for nine years K through eight and that comes to a total of $989 per year per student. that doesn't take into account the annual technology device fees. And then to further offset the costs, we do on an annual basis resell our technology, our aging technology to um Apple buyback programs. So based on our conversation from two weeks ago, we have evaluated three potential device models for the coming school year. The first option is the one we discussed last time, a onetoone student device model. The second option is shared carts for first and second grade. Those um kindergarten students would still have onetoone iPads from graduating eighth graders. And then option two is shared carts for kinder and first grade. Our second graders would have one to one iPads

147in that case as well. And the way that we came up was the with these considerations is really talking to administrators and school leaders in moving to a shared cart model using background knowledge from when district 65 previously had a shared cart model. Um we really decided that devices would be stored in carts and shared between classrooms. They would be shared between no more between no more than two classes and then carts would be shared across grade levels not within the same grade level. That is because um the same grade levels often have the exact same schedules. So ELA at the same time in kinder, math in the same time in in kinder. So we couldn't see kinder classes sharing carts with another. It would be a kinder class and a first grade class sharing.

148I'll go over each of the options and build in some additional context. It outlines a lot of the information that was shared on the memo. So the first device option that we're presenting is the onetoone device option. This purchase includes new iPads for all students. So it includes our students from Rice Park students that are in step and rise in first and fifth grade and keyboard cases for all students in third and fifth grade. The devices follow a four-year life cycle with the exception of our kinder students who would then get their device on year five. Um the purchase is slightly tweaked from two weeks ago. It is pretty tightly in line to projected enrollment numbers. So there's no excess buffer um to account for breakage over the summer. Um I think there was like

149a 70ish difference between last week and this week, two weeks ago and this week. Like I said, kinder students will continue to you to use um onetoone devices by repurposing the fifth year iPads from graduating eighth graders. And the buyback revenue is estimated around 39,000. Um, that's a conservative estimate. Buyback models, they grade the devices from like A to I think E. And so I kind of took what the middle range would be. All our devices are in pretty good shape because students are using them right now. If they were broken or had a cracked screen, they would be replaced. Um, you can see the grand total there. And then I'll move on to our second option. First and second grade shared carts. So carts would be shared between first grade classrooms and second groom

150class second grade classrooms. Um they would be sized to the largest class. Unshared carts are required at some schools due to uneven class sections. So the data that we used for these numbers was directly from registration and RAD and we used the real section numbers for next year and the real section enrollment numbers. And so I believe there was three schools in both option two and three. There were different schools that had um uneven section numbers meaning that there was three sections in first grade and two sections in second grade. So we would have to have an extra cart for first grade that wouldn't be shared existing. So current first grade iPads would be repurposed with additional devices purchased as needed. So we would use our first grade devices right now to fill the majority

151of those carts, shared carts. We would purchase carts for library and computer science as those curriculums do rely on technology and we would base on the largest class size in those grade levels and then kindergarten remains onetoone using repurposed devices. We would purchase onetoone devices for park rice and students in step and rise programs. And then the buyback revenue is the same 39,000 from option number one. So this number here 1,117 is the expected number of iPads that we would have to buy. The inventory here 550 is the inventory we would apply from current first grade iPads. Can I have a quick clarification >> on the so the one to one for park r step and uh rice step and rise >> in a in a one to one why aren't we why are we

152only purchasing why is it only included on this on option two and not on option one >> um because option one is one to one for all of our students >> so we so >> it includes park rice >> so they already have. So you only need to provide 56 560 devices. So when I get to shared laptop card and then park so I guess I'm just >> I'm just being dense here. I really am trying to understand why we need 600 more machines when we're in a shared cart situation for those. Yes. I'm just really trying to understand the part. I understand the others. I just don't understand the rice park. Were they not in one to one? >> They are onetoone. So the 560 number here includes all rising first graders whether they're

153at park rise step every single school. 560 is how many projected first graders we have. The reason why this purchase is much bigger is because it includes the 550 or I'm sorry it includes iPads for shared carts. I believe in this model there was 600 and then it includes filling carts for computer science and library. So that would be 11 22 carts that we would purchase. We have the carts we would fill 22 carts and then it includes one devices onetoone devices for park rice step and rise. And so in this we're assuming that a school there's a library there's a CS teacher and a library teacher who are separate in in in our elementary schools. >> Yep. We don't have the data yet on specials educators and so it's hard to estimate that right

154now. I would say in some schools the library and computer science class are also on different floors and so we wouldn't be able to move the carts. >> Just as a little there >> based on scheduling there isn't there are no schools currently that all the coding classes are taught by librarians. There is always another educator in the building teaching coding. Based on the number of sections in the building, that may vary how many sections >> and they could be teaching it at the same time. That could then prohibit them from >> it is very frequent that they're teaching it at the same time because our fifth graders would all go to specials at the same time and it could be that some kids are at library and the another one of the electives that

155they're at is either SEAL or computer science. It's very common that it's occurring at the same time. >> The reason it's a difference in the number, at least the way I understand it, the reason it's a difference in the number of because one to one, they wouldn't need it. Every kid has it. They come to those classes with the devices. That's correct. >> Versus going to a shared model. Now we're sharing and I got to make sure that the coding and the CS teacher have devices for those kids to use when they go to those particular classes which couldn't necessarily be the same cards that they would use at the grade level. I mean >> I mean the library curriculum stands to reason that it's about books right does the library curriculum require the use

156of devices >> there. So the library curric curriculum has multiple strands and part of one of the strands is around digital citizenship and media and there's also a steam strand as well >> for K through2. >> There are times I can't speak to the exact lessons but as we said earlier digital citizenship and those kind of things does go all the way back into K per state. So I can't speak to the exact lessons but the library curriculum uh literacy is one of those strands. >> It starts in K through two. the ISL the standards um have an integration with media literacy and steam. >> I just really um go ahead. >> I I guess I was just going to So, did we purchase iPads for our first graders last year? >> Yes. >> Is

157that the 550 that's denoted here on the slide? >> That's the one that that's what would be applied. >> Okay. And so presumably let's say we have 550 first graders we would assume right about so if we have those kids rising to second grade and then we've got first graders who are going to share those same iPads. Maybe we need maybe we need 20% more 25% more maybe 30% more to account for some of the single strands that you talked about. I'm still not getting to 1100. And so I'm I'm just not I'm not understanding the math. It's like if we're sharing why do we need twice as many? >> I have a slide after option three that illustrates it for one school. So I can I explain that one and then take more questions

158to try to clarify. >> The biggest purchase here for the 1,117 accounts for provisioning shared carts for specials classes. That is an additional 22 22 um classes times 25 iPads. an additional 550 iPads. >> So, 22 sections of computer science and library. >> So, 11 schools times a computer science cart and a library cart. So, 11 times two. >> And that's assuming for you're you're doing that analysis for K K5, not assuming we're assuming there's laptop carts for all of >> K2. Uh my next option does not purchase for computer science because computer science starts in second grade. Okay, I'll continue explaining this in the next and then try to paint a visual to try to help clarify um and then take any more questions about that. Um let's see. Okay, the next option would

159be for kinder and first grade shared carts. Carts are shared between kinder and first grade classrooms sized to the largest class size. Unshared carts are required at some schools due to uneven class sections. Um there's three in this model similar to the last. And new iPads are purchased to support shared carts. So, we would not be taking the devices from eighth grade to supply these carts. We would purchase new iPads. Um, dedic I'll speak to the technical considerations in a little bit, but we would need at least a Gen 10 or higher iPad to support a shared cart model. Um, dedicated carts in this option would only be purchased for library. That's why there's a smaller number here. That would be about 11 additional carts that are purchased. So I think like 250 or something.

160Again, onetoone devices are purchased for Park Rice and students in step and rise. And then there's an increased buyback here um because we are reselling all the majority of our exiting eighth grade iPads. So you can see the purchase price and then what an estimated buyback would be. So going to try to paint the picture a little bit further of why a shared cart model doesn't equal 50% savings. Um sharing devices between two grades does not reduce devices by half. Um, we have to build the carts for peak classroom needs, not the average enrollment. So, there's three considerations there. Carts are sized to the largest class. So, devices must cover the largest class in each pair. Example, if one first grade class has 22 students and the paired class has 17, that shared cart has

161to have 22 devices. So, it's not half of 22 plus 17. It's the higher number we would take. Not all classes can be paired. I noted that in both option two and three, there was three schools that had uneven sections. So those uneven sections would have their own carts. They wouldn't be shared. And then library and computer science require their own carts due to scheduling conflicts and the use of technology within their current curriculums. So here's an example using the uh option two which was the shared first and second grade carts. If we have a school with a 100 students and five sections in grades first and second, pair one would be a first grade class of 22 and a second grade class of 19. That cart would need 22 iPads. Pair B would be

162a first grade class of 20 kids, a second grade class of 19, and we would need 20 iPads for that cart. This is a school that had an unpaired section. That first grade h class has 20 students. That cart would need 20 students. This is where the increase, the larger increase comes um for library specials. We took the highest section number in first grade at that school and then we added a one to two buffer. We did stop at 23 since that is the deck cap. So we knew we would never need a cart of 24 or 25 because that would be above the deck cap. Um, so that library specialist cart would need 23 iPads and that computer science specialists cart would need 21 iPads. So 100 students and you can see the need

163would be 106 iPads. the difference is not very much. But when you multiply the difference across multiple schools and there's greater differences in paired groupings, um those are the estimates that we got based off of the current sections and enrollment numbers within those sections from RAD and registration. Did you could you repeat the number of schools that are on that are odd that have odd number of tracks out of the 11? How many? >> Um there's three. >> So there's eight eight schools that have >> um I can tell you what they are. There was three schools. I put them in my speaker notes. Um, Daw, Foster, and Walker were for the first and second grade option, and Foster, Lincolnwood, and Washington were at the um the third option. >> So, in a in a

164school with four, it would be 80 kids. So, the So, it would be because you would be able to double up. There wouldn't be an unpaired, right? So in some so this is the worst possible situation of of not the worst the most expensive situation but the plausible situation for um eight schools is you would have 80 yeah the numbers I'm trying to figure out what the bottom see what I'm saying so >> this is not this is the bottom so this is supplying the carts with the absolute minimum needed Um we looked at the actual enrollment numbers and if we look at uh let me see this case 19 and 19 is pretty close. >> It'll be like 106 and 80. It could be 82 kids or 106. Okay. Still 106 is whether it

165can serve 60 kids or 80 kids. Okay. Thank you. >> Are there any I know the math is very hard to understand. It's that's why I tried to put in this slide because I knew it would not make sense. Um, are there any additional questions about that before I move on? I mean, I still don't get it. Um, so if I'm just trying to pencil this out, and I appreciate the thought you put into this, Elena. Um, if I'm looking just at scenario one where everybody that's like baseline, everybody gets their own machine. >> Yep. >> Right. So, we need 560 to replace the first graders or to give to the rising first graders whose kindergarten iPads are retiring. Right. But the rising second grade, so so if we're going with the second scenario, those

166second graders have an iPad already. So we don't need to buy iPads for them. We need to buy iPads for the first graders. And we and so let's say, you know, that we identified was 560. That's how many we would need if we were going to buy them all. 560, right? But in fact, 550 of them are going to be shared between first graders and second graders. I can clarify a little bit there. Um, so we're talking about our rising students. So, right now, our kinder going into first will not bring an iPad because they have a five-year iPad. So for for our first and second pairing, we only have 550 iPads to share among that cohort of students because we have to resell the now year five going on year six iPads. They wouldn't

167support a shared iPad setup. >> So let's say that there's just as many they're equal group size, right? So there's 550 first graders and 550 second graders. So that's where we get 1,100. You have 1,117. So maybe there's a few more. So that's the population of first and second grade. That's not where I got those numbers from. I can say so I can I can remember where these numbers are coming from. For shared carts, we would need 600 iPads for rice. For park, rice, step, and rise, we would need 35 iPads. And then for our computer science and library carts, we would need the difference. Off the top of my head, I think it was like 550, right around there. So 550 plus 600 plus 35 should be around that number. If we take the

168debt guidelines times the 22 cart that we talk talked about earlier, you know, essentially that 22 times 23 puts you right at 506. And so I think one of the challenges is we want to think when we share we're immediately dividing by two. But when we add in two additional carts and we have buildings without elevators, we have classes on different floors, things get complicated quickly. And so dividing by two is really just not feasible especially when we have different numbers of sections across grades. Um and then we add back in those extra carts. And so it, you know, even when we, you know, when before we went one to one, one of the when we looked at like uh making the move for access to innovate in the middle schools, we were already device

169numbers almost at the one to one line because of the amount of devices on carts, floors, complications, sharing, all sorts of things. So, it is difficult math, but when we put it together and we think about specials and other demands on devices, it doesn't net the savings sometimes that we you would hope to see. >> I mean, it doesn't net any savings at all. >> No, I have the longevity of um how much it would cost over nine years. >> Um so, I can share that later on too if it's needed. They're generally pretty similar. Um, and because the once you buy the specialist carts, you know, those are around for a few years, but then you have some inconsistent purchasing years because you're not on your regular cycle anymore. >> Can I ask you

170a different I mean, it's connected to this, but um um the we're talking iPads and one of the you know, I've used Apples a long time. Um, one of the challenge of the iPad is of course what it means. is a personal device and it doesn't allow you to do the, you know, checking what's going on. But they just released a new device, the Neo, that is more going back to their old days of sort of being like an iPad that's not that much more expensive and it already comes with a uh keyboard. Now, that just happened. Have y'all had any conversation around for older grace, not for around the NEO and what it might mean for um teaching and learning with the using a computer as opposed to, you know, learning typing and all

171that as opposed to a device. Uh I >> Yeah, the Neo is a really intriguing device. Um, I think if we ever wanted to pivot our students to using um, laptops instead of iPads, sixth through eight or even 8th grade, it would be a great option, especially because of the resale value. We do not have any resale value whatsoever from Chromebooks. Um, companies said that we could pay them to pick them up. This is not even a lie. So, um, it would be awesome. They are more expensive than the iPads. So I don't >> But they come with the keyboard, right? So they >> they're they're very similar to a MacBook. >> So the common I'm curious the cost of the >> without I think they're under 500 529 possibly. It maybe $479. I I

172forget off the top of my head, but yeah, our tech team definitely reviewed and is excited about it, but that would be an increase for us right now. We've got a couple more slides here. So, why don't we try to bring those up and >> thank you for grappling with some of the numbers with me. I'm going to share some considerations now around shared carts. Um, so that we have that background knowledge before making a decision. Um, so we would set up the iPads using an Apple shared iPad setup. technology would initially set up each iPad, including logging students in with their email and password and creating a fourdigit PIN for each student. Students would use that four-digit PIN to access the iPad every time they use the device. Right now, our students don't use

173a PIN to access their devices. They do in our upper grades, but not in our primary grades. um devices must be used by the same students. Um so it wouldn't be a grab-and-go model. iPad A would be have iPad number one would have to be shared between student number one in first grade and student number one and second grade. Um if a device is damaged, not charged, um whatever comes up, we would need to manually reconfigure a replacement. Um the reason being that we would need to sync the code to powers school. Um educators do have access to their username and password but we would ma have to make sure that new code is accessible for all educators in order to support students. So it would it wouldn't be super flexible if a device is

174not charged. If a device is broken and needed to be repaired, we need to have um support right away for that device in order for students to continue accessing the tech that they need. And then student data is stored on the device and shared across users, meaning that each iPad must support multiple user storage. So we would have plan to have two students use an iPad. both of their storage would be on the iPad at the same time, not like accessible by each other, but that is why we would require a newer device with sufficient capacity. So, we would recommend a gen 10 or higher. Um, our purchase right now is for gen 11s. Our exiting ninth or our graduating ninth graders, sorry, eighth graders have um Gen 9 iPads. And then just some considerations

175around securely aware and securely home. Securely filtering applies to the device, not individual students using the device. So if there is a securely aware um alert where technology and school staff get alerted, we wouldn't know who the student is that's using that device. So we would have to go to the teacher and say, "Hey, at what time at 12:52 we got a concerning alert who was using the device at that time." Um, and then securely home would not be available for families of students who are using shared um, devices. So we currently have securely home available for all K through eight families who would like to use it. They get weekly reports of their students um usage, what they are accessing, apps, um what they're searching for. We would not be able to allow that

176because a family would get their search access for two different students. So those are the technical considerations and then some instructional considerations. Um in talking with the academics department, school leaders and then we did do a survey with educators K through two. Um we pulled some instructional considerations that we want to make sure you all have background on. Um so access to learning throughout the day. Students would not have access to devices outside of their scheduled times. When we talked to school leaders with this, they shared that scheduling is already really hard and the thought of having to schedule when a cart is shared between different classes would add another layer. Um there would be limited ability to support makeup work, pull out services, ELIS intervention using any type of device, um tier 2, tier

177three instruction and accommodations that require flexible or frequent access. So the access would become totally schedulebased and not student new need-based for our technology. And then there definitely would be reduce opportunities for creation. We have been working to decrease um passive use of technology and increase active use instead. Um when we have a set schedule for specific instructional minutes, for example, assessments or I ready my path, um there would be fewer opportunities to grab the iPads and go for project-based learning, student creation opportunities, snapping a quick video, audio design, or demonstrating students thinking in a multiple in multiple ways. And then finally, e-learning. Um, students using shared devices wouldn't be able to engage in digital learning on e-learning if that's something we continue. Educators would most likely assign work packets to be completed. And then

178I'll share this um slide from our K through2 staff including administrators, educators. Um, we sent out a survey to get initial feedback from our educators. Um we did get 80 responses which is a pretty good response rate for a one week or so turnaround survey. Um there was a strong preference for onetoone devices. So we had 70% of educators I think that was 56. Um sharing that they thought onetoone was the model that best supports learning. Um many respondents indicated no meaningful instructional benefit to a shared C cart model. And then concerns that came forward were loss of instructional time with loginins, moving carts between classes, um charging cables, troubleshooting, scheduling conflicts for um core instructional blocks and assessments, and then the impact on differentiation and intervention services. And then finally, students without techni reduced

179access for students that don't have access to technology at home, e students or newcomers who need access to devices to transition and using tools like Google translate and then students using any specialized apps to support their learning goals. This was a quote from an educator who submitted the form saying that maintaining one device per student ensures instructional time is protected, assessments are efficient, and students have consistent access to learning tools. And then um before I go on with my um recommendation um similar to what Stacy had shared um just to clarify um this quote here and I I pulled this um language from the Kosen Blashki report on screens and balance education technology and community conversations from last year. um that screen time is often used as a blanket term um but includes very different

180experiences in schools. School screen use generally falls into three categories. Educational technology which can support learning, entertainment which is passive consumption and social media personal devices which is not part of classroom instruction. And we have our personal device policy and any type of social media would be blocked both on our firewall and filter. Um and that brings me to what I had talked a little bit about before. Um active versus passive use. Um we are consistently trying and progressing to increase active use of technology. This is creation. This is designing. Problem solving. The iPads offer a lot of great opportunities. Um, we have kids making podcasts, book reviews, digital book reviews, showing their math problem thinking. We have kids in fifth grade that are using Python code to create music. Um, and it also with

181an opportunity within apps like my iReady provides personalized and differentiated learning. um passive. What we're working to limit is consumption. Watching, scrolling, blocking YouTube was a huge impact to reduce the amount of passive um consumption. And then isolated repetitive tasks without deeper thinking. So working on an app, just practicing without recall or without turning and talking to a friend to see what they learned or questioning from an educator. So we are consistently trying to get better. We shared some things last the last two weeks that we have progressed so far and then also shared plans in which we are hoping to move forward. And so I'll come to my final recommendation for to continue our onetoone student device purchase. Um, it is the most coste effective purchase for next school year and it's a predictable

182model. Educators in first grade and fifth grade know they're going to get new devices. Educators in um third grade know they're going to have a swap of keyboards. Our kinder students know that a tech staff will come and set up their kinder students the first or second week of school with their iPads to get them started. those educators know what to expect. It ensures consistent access for students and staff, supports differentiation, intervention and instructional flexibility and avoids scheduling, operational and systems limitations of shared carts. And then right now with the short timeline that we had, it would align with educator and leader back. And then I as I mentioned in the last slide, we are continuing to strengthen our program. We are always progressing progress over perfection. Um we are continuing professional learning for staff.

183We are continuing to review all student app scopes determine to determine curricular alignment and cut down on scopes if they're not needed. We are looking into more opportunities to keep devices um at school based on feedback. This is both during the school year. Um surveying staff and families to see if we should keep um our all of our elementary iPads at home. Um and then during the summer, a spring survey this summer to get feedback on if we should take iPads home during the summer or not. We're also partnering with NORC to develop an edtech toolkit. We're partnering with the KOR Foundation to enhance our computer science programming and digital citizenship across content areas. And we are working to develop grade level expectations for student creation and demonstration of learning using technology. That's my final

184recommendation. Um the reasons why and I would love to talk about any questions you may have. Go ahead. >> Who wants everyone looking at me? >> Um, so I I really appreciate um all the information that you've provided over the last couple weeks. I know I've asked a million questions. Um and so I do feel like we're moving in the right direction um in terms of um some of the creative solutions like working with teachers individually to utilize paper uh more frequently um uh like you said kind of differentiating between the passive and the educational time. So I do feel like we're we're making strides and we're moving in the right direction. Um, for for me it really just comes down to this the the it still seems like a big number um in light

185of a very difficult budget situation. So I'm still trying to grapple with um uh is there a way that we could do this more affordably. Um and so again, just as as a board member, I'm not thinking about this as a educational expert or a technology expert, but just how do we we grapple with this? um particularly in light of the discussion last week about the uh missing revenue from tax receipts as well as well. So that that's just kind of my frame around this. Yeah, thank you for for again providing the information, Elena. You know, again, I'm I'm for ensuring that all our students have access to the tools they need and families um to the tools they need uh to support their social, emotional, and academic outcomes. Given how curriculum has become so

186integrated with technology, it's it's a hard it's hard to pull away. And I and again I am of the ilk I mean I where again I I just think developmentally you know particularly students in the early grades should have very little access to to the technology. What we need to be focusing on is you know social interaction fine motor skills gross motor skills you know again just the best practices to to build out a a balanced human being right which is comes from early childhood. So I'm a big big fan of that. um all that albeit I be I believe in that again I know that that again the curriculums that we have adopted and some of them recent again just really have integrated these technological pieces that educators need in order to do optimize

187their job right so you you need to and again I you know I have been I've been out of the classroom for what 15 years already uh but I remember when we first started integrating technology and how again when when we integrated technology, I was able to then do differentiated instruction, right, which is a best practice and and focus on my students who were maybe had an extra challenge, maybe focus on the ones who needed an extra extra extra work uh and we were able to talk through that and that opened up avenues for me as an educator to be more efficient. So I see what the educators are saying, right? Um, and I I hear what the parents are saying as a parent. Again, you know, I I've seen I've worked through my through

188my teenagers, soon to be young adults, uh, you know, who are doom scrolling. I've had to talk them down from, you know, just some of the challenging content that they see in in uh, in the internet. So, so again, all of these things are informing how I I look at this. So, I'm I'm going to vote to support the recommendation with the caveat that we really I I want us to dig into our technology policy which actually, you know, addresses some of these pieces. I was just looking at our policy manual here, but I really want us to get really focused in on these developmental pieces. And I know that we're doing the work as a district. And again, like you said, it's not uh you know, it's progress, not progression, but I want to

189continue on that progress piece. And particularly for our youngest uh students, right, who really for me it's just we really need to figure out a way to ensure that we they they get as little screen time as possible and only when they need to do assessments and and and really just ensuring that there students are working with one another and and working on those higher these better skills around playing, right? The work of children is play and for play they learn. Um you know and uh so so so all of those things are kind of what are going to form my vote. Um, I guess I guess what I'm anchoring in is the achievement report that reflected that 57% of kindergarteners were meeting ELA benchmarks and 41% of uh, second graders were meeting ELA benchmarks,

190which indicates that at least the methods by which we're teaching are not working. and it feels I appreciate the thought you've put into it. I appreciate you thinking through the cart model. Um I'm I'm not totally grasping the numbers. I feel like there's places where we could have economized a little bit. Like I think library for kindergarteners having iPads is not necessary. Um even if we're thinking about digital literacy like I think we can probably handle that another way. Um, but all that's to say, like I'm not seeing the the ability for our financial decisions to support student outcomes in a way that will make a difference. And continuing to go down a path because we are on the path is not a reason to to do that. And there isn't a way, you know,

191if it if if the iPads could actually measure the amount of time that students were spending on their apps. If we had a way to restrict the pictures that are showing up in the storage that are taking up all of the time. If there was a way for us to restrict the amount of time the kids are spending when guest educators are in the building. if there was if there was some like there's been a lot of movement towards progress here and I don't want to say that there hasn't been. I really appreciate the limitations to email. That is really important. I think we've had a lot of close calls and we're good um to limit that. I think the YouTube thing is a really good thing, but kids are still watching March Madness on

192their iPads today and it will just be a game of whack-a-ole. And so when we're talking about kindergarteners and first graders, I think we can do better. I just I just think we can. So I'm going to pick up on um a line from you, Maria. Um just because we've been going down this path doesn't mean we have to keep going. Um, and to me that means we don't have to keep going down that path. We can I mean the cart model is not costefficient. Um, but we don't have to keep going down the same path with the one-on-one uh use of iPads. I mean, I I value the input from the community about their concerns with their kids and iPad use in the schools. And I think some of the um concerns raised, you

193know, if there's a sub in the room, there there should be some guidance for that person about what's happening with those kids and those iPads on that day in that room. Um, if we're going to continue to use these iPads, then they should be restricted to curricular use and it should be enforced across the district. So, I know some teachers are better at it than others. I know it's inconsistent across buildings. So, you know, some of this professional learning for staff and some of this uh building into some consistency across the district so that building leaders know what their teachers are doing. Um, and I respect the input from the teachers as well. um if they feel like they can make an adjustment to have more paperbased instruction and to do that with their kids,

194I applaud that. Um but I I do think if we continue with the one-on- ones, we're going to have to have some stronger recommendations and controls around it, especially in how it's used for for use in the classroom. Um, you know, it's it's unfortunate that we had to tell we had to enforce no free time on the iPad because we're in a classroom and there's all these resources there. But that's that's in place. That's wonderful. Um, but let's continue to set more guidance around how the iPads are going to be used and make sure that they're focused on instruction and make sure that the passive use of the iPad is diminished and the active use and the creative use is elevated. >> Okay. Um, so I spent a lot of time thinking about kids use

195of technology in schools. Um, and I I from a utilization standpoint, a utility standpoint, I think we are just at the point in society where a device and so I want to let me say what I'm going to say before people interpret what I'm saying. A device is almost like it is what it is. um the cost structure, a device per kid is is particularly a kid as we're thinking about where they're going to be 20 years from now, 15 years from now. We're preparing them for that society. That doesn't mean that how we use it now um is where we need to be. And I think of there's a we can purchase a device and then it's only used 20 minutes in class or you can purchase it and it's used all day. And

196so I think we're focusing on the on the cost of purchasing where I think the conversation where I'm really hearing screen sense and families are about well what is it what's happening with it and so the I would like to see us move forward with purchasing but re have a clarity of redesigning the tech plan having I think even in the tech plan it talks about monitoring um and monitoring at the at the I think the school level what is the role of the administrator for you know do we look across what's going on um and I understand that the iPad limits that right what we would have done with a Chromebook you can do you can't do on iPad so I will say particularly for middle grades I really think it's important to look

197at the NEO because you get back all of the ability to monitor and all of the ability to know at the class level what's going on um at the K grades K2. Um I my experience is the digital creation of oh the ability to have manipulatives online which I think is um beneficial from an equity standpoint. So for me it's both the the we are at the point where cost structure is sort of whether you use it or not because of assessment uh the way a digital curriculum is I don't see how you get around it and what it means for teachers to have to do it. So, as someone who has taught in the in the worked with the literacy the um library teachers here in the 38 minute blocks to try to do

198coding with Tinker on the laptop cart and spending 12 minutes to get kids to log into devices. I really understand the ramifications of a of a laptop card and what it would mean with using that and we can't underestimate that or underestimate what the what the teachers are saying about the friction of going back to that. But I do think we owe um having clarity and visibility and ownership of how how it's being used for core instruction. But then I think we also need to triple down in how it's being used for production. Um which I think before co there was probably more creative production and the devices. And to be honest, my sixth grader comes home and he's never creating anything on his creative. So if we can own the need to work with

199curriculum and to me it's not you it's the what's the curriculum expectations. Um and the last thing I'll say is um we're talking about opt out. I think parents should have to opt in to taking devices home in a way that there's clarity of what are the expectations we as a district want them to do with that. Um what are the um expectations around use that we can be able to see. so that we can be adding value at home. So if you're taking it at home, you need to be doing something positive with it. And if not, then it needs to stay there. So I think there's ways to get to to be heard and to come up with something that's more um more effective, but also the reality of we're living our kindergarteners.

200We have to think about the world that they're inhabiting. And I think we shouldn't, last thing I'll say, we we there is work going on here. the work that's happening with um both the tech the tech policy and also the AI that you're um being working on with the capor. So I expect that we can own this collectively and move forward. And finally, I'll say Northwestern can be and should be and already is a partner um in thinking about how to do this. So for me um um I just think the c we're not saving money. So it's not a money issue for me. is more so hearing how are we going to come back with a better integrated tech plan that also is in partnership with the deck. So deck curriculum tech and family

201screen sense all working together to come up with something that we can own and what is the timeline of being able to do that. So these new devices when they roll out in the fall there's everyone feels heard and feels like continuing the work that you've already done. So it is important when people look at this proposal there's a lot of stuff that you've heard but can we move forward with that so the devices if they are in the home they're being more uh effective and we can then hold teachers into conversations the same way some teachers use a lot of worksheets and we need to look at that so we should be looking at how the how the technology is being used and have accountability at that level. >> Dr. Pinker said a lot

202of what I'm going to say. So this might sound a bit repetitive and you asked for questions and I'm not hearing many questions. So I'll just follow a pattern here of just giving my comments. Um so I'm really appreciative of the parent concern around tech um and experience these concerns in my own family. Um I don't want my K through five child's iPad coming home. Um though I have a middle schooler and I've seen that used very positively through homework. So I do think differentiation is really important. Um, I like Dr. Pickard, I don't see the money savings here. I'm the one who asked, I think, if we could uh pilot a CART model and um I I just don't see that. And I think as well, it just strikes me that we only had

203one educator, I think only one educ educator come to public comment um today, but I heard from a number and this is validated as well in your response rates. Um, I've heard from a range of educators. So, I think I I heard from six, just to be really clear, a small sample size, but everyone said that a cart model would be a real difficulty and a challenge. Um, it would restrict the individualized education elements that are made possible by digital resources. Um, I heard concern about how this would impact fidelity to IEPs. And so, I'm concerned here. We need to move forward. We need to center digital well-being, equitable access to digital tech. Um, and we need to do so in a strategic non-reactionary way. Um, so I think one of the bits there is

204going to be involvement with deck in addition to the community. Um, and I don't think I've heard enough from educators about this. Um, so I'm approaching this my vote for this from a collaborative vantage point. Um, I just want to give Dr. Turner and Dr. Beardsley and Elena a shout out that so far in my time on the board, you have been good faith partners in trying to push change on this. And so I'm moving forward assuming you're going to be good faith partners as we continue to work on this. Um, and and and you all are doing your best to follow board policy. Uh, so but I have asks too that have been named. Um, I think almost all I' I'd like I need I want to see hard data on um tech use

205that we can verify the active versus passive use. We just have to be able to have that. Um I would think it'd be crucial to see that on a class level to be able to different so even assessment of educational um use of educational tools. Um you know it's common so that the tech policy was passed in March of 2024. It's common throughout strategic plans to do a mid a mid refresh and review. And I would love to see a review of the tech policy um where we just go and see what do we want to adjust. Things have changed, sensibilities have changed, awareness has changed. Um I also want us to see us start soon on a strategic plan that's communitydriven. And I think this is going to bubble up as something that we

206embed into a five-year strategic plan. Um I want to see optin as much as possible options. um especially around the taking of devices home and I I know that ROI is mentioned in the tech policy. I was hoping Dr. Beth would be here because one of my colleagues on the board said something that spurred, you know, how can we communicate whether or not this is worth it. Uh if we can't communicate that, then we need to stop. We need to come up with a plan to stop this. And so that's really an urgent thing to me of being able to assess utilization of digital tech on our educational outcomes. So how can we do that? Dr. Spouse could have answered that possibly if she was here. >> As I look at this decision, I'm thinking

207about really three different areas. Number one, budget. Number two, impact on learning. And number three, appropriate use. I think the first two budget and impact on learning are really what are going to drive my decision around whether or not to approve the onetoone devices. I think appropriate use is something that can be thought of separately because I think parents have brought up some very valid concerns about you know making sure that um technology is used in an appropriate way making sure you know teachers know the right way to integrate it making sure you know there are additional safety um things taken into consideration but on budget I mean it's clear that you know oneonone devices places um are mo most cost effective which I think is surprising but they are and then impact on learning

208it's clear that there are a lot of logistical issues that come up with using carts and having shared devices um and I think that it is so so important for us not to interfere in any way with instructional time so I don't want to do anything that will hurt students from that perspective um and I also think like there's a reason why um you know Illinois mandates that we do some computer literacy and I think that it's really really important for students to start to learn technology literacy and I know that that's something that is um within our technology um policy uh and I think you know just having one-on-one devices and having those conversations like I think when things come up one of the things that I like to see is that you know

209teachers are having conversations in computer science that students are having conversations about some of the dangers, some of the things that they should look out for, what what's appropriate and inappropriate, you know, that they see when they are online. I know that's something that I talk to my kids about all of the time because I want to make sure they are prepared because technology is a way of life and it's not going away. It's getting more complicated and I think we have a responsibility to prepare students for that. Um, so I am going to vote in favor of one to one onetoone devices. Um, but you know, like everyone else up here, I think it's important for us to continue to evolve our policy, make sure people are trained and know how to really use

210it in an appropriate way so that it's contributing to student learning um, and that we're we're keeping kids safe while they're doing it. With that discussion, I'm going to motion. I move that board of education approved purchase option one for the school year 26 27 school year second >> Pinkard. >> Yes. >> Hernandez. >> Yes. >> Opt. >> No. >> New strand. No >> Wymer. >> Yes. >> Wilkins. >> Yes. >> Anderson. >> Yes. >> Motion passes. 52. >> The next item is uh the action approval for contract for bid package number 24 for Foster Elementary School. I move that the board approve bid package number 24 for the purchase and installation of the foster school audiovisisual equipment and security systems awarded to Bloom USA Incorporated for the amount of $39,500 >> second. >> Oh,

211he's coming. >> Do you want to tell us something fun? I'm just kidding. >> No questions. >> I'll just presentation. >> It's going well over there. >> It's going well over at Foster. >> Going well. >> Nice job, sir. >> Under budget on schedule. >> Can we just read? >> Unbelievable. >> Can we read into the public record the amount that we're under bid? >> We came in under bid, correct? >> Yes, we can. >> Can you read that? Can you state that amount for the public? >> Uh, it's in the memo. Oh, I don't have the exact number, but >> 300,000 309,500, >> but under bid 10 and something. >> So, we're under by how much? >> It was bid at 500,000 roughly. Right, Kirby? >> The budget was 500,000. >> Yeah, the budget.

212Excuse me. >> We're under budget. The There was some additional electrical detail that needed to go to install the AB. So, it's the total AV package is closer to 380, but it's still under budget by the budget is 500,000. So, >> Okay. So, it's about 120 that we're under. >> Yes. Second. >> Okay, I'll take the vote. Pinker, >> yes. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> Optic, >> yes. >> Ben Newandr, >> yes. >> Wymer, >> yes. >> Wilkins, >> yes. >> Anderson, >> yes. >> Motion passes 70. Action approval of theou with the city of Evston for foster safe walk routes. I move that the board approve the amendedou with the city of Evston for the Jackson Emerson crosswalk project under which the city maintains the infrastructure and the district provides the crossing guard staffing.

213>> Second. Can I say >> a comment is I just want to thank our um city school liaison committee members uh for your work and then I also had a question about does this take us up to seven crossing guards for foster >> because it was six and that's >> so I think just to note so we had shared a visual that showed some recommended locations for crossing guards for foster but bas Based on previous discussion, my understanding is there's kind of a set budget and transportation is going to need to develop some criteria and then decide upon crossing guards. So those are not required. Those were some recommendations that'll have to get fed into some decision- making with the transportation department. >> So this is the one that's for sure though. >> That one

214would be this would be the one for sure. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. This doesn't preclude additional conversation, continue conversation with the city about sharing costs on this. Okay, >> someone second. >> Second. >> Anderson. >> Okay, I'll take the vote. >> Harder. >> Yes. >> Hernandez, >> Yes. Van Newren, >> yes. >> Wymer, >> yes. Wilkins. >> Yes. >> Anderson. >> Yes. >> Motion passes. 70. >> Oh, it's my first time doing this. Sorry. I move that the board of education approve the bid from MS Glass Incorporated for the warehouse windows partial replacement project in an amount not to exceed $72,70 as outlined in the scoped services >> second. I think it's important here to also point out that in we think of you hear warehouse and you just think of boxes but there's

215also in people who work here right and so the windows is not creating an environment a safe uh a climate safe environment for them so that's important to say it's in there but you hear warehouse but it is people's workspace as well >> take the vote Pinker >> yes Fernandez. >> Yes. >> Van Newandrand. >> Yes. >> Wymer. >> Yes. >> Wilkins. >> Yes. >> Anderson. >> Yes. >> Motion passes 70. >> This is not my first time and I need to pay attention. I move to award the contract for masonry restoration services to restore works masonry restoration for their base bid of $47,810 for the repair of the Washington school retaining wall. >> Pinker, >> yes. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> Optek, >> yes. >> Vanrand, >> yes. >> Wymer, >> yes. >> Wilkins,

216>> yes. Anderson. Yes. Motion passes 70. I move that the board of education approve the proposal from Restore Works Masonry Restoration for the Walker School chimney restoration project in the amount of $44,800 outlined in the scope services. Pinker, >> yes. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> Optek, >> yes. >> Van Newandr, >> yes. >> Wymer, >> yes. >> Wilkins, >> yes. >> Anderson, >> yes. >> Motion passes 70. Um, I move I move to approve the disposal and disposition of the surplus assets identified in appendix A and further authorize administration to continue bringing forward regular disposition recommendations over the next year to optimize warehouse space and district functionality. >> Second. >> Okay. Pinkard, >> yes. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> Optek, >> yes. >> Ben Newandr, >> yes. >> Wymer, >> yes. Wilkins. >> Yes. >>

217Anderson, >> yes. >> Motion passes 70. >> Next item is the approval of district discipline improvement plan. I move that the board of education approve the school year 22 23 district discipline improvement plan as pres is that the right school year that no SY 2526. Yes. >> So, SY 2526 district discipline improvement plan as presented for submission to the Illinois State Board of Education as required by state compliance guidelines regarding exclusionary discipline metrics. >> Second. >> Any questions? >> Questions or thoughts or >> Yeah, I just have a thought on this one. I just want to thank um the administration. This is really important. And I know it's something that we have to do, but I appreciate the thought that was put into this because I think like looking at disproportionality by race is something

218really important that we need to continue to make sure um we're keeping at, you know, the top of our priorities. So, just thank you for the thought that went into this one. Brian's there. Wave. Brian. >> Yeah. Because this this has a f I mean the the the report is focused on the negative, but there's a lot of positive that's happening within the report. So I just want to give a shout out to all the folks that are working on that. >> I just want to say if we look at the Illinois report card, some of the data, I think overall our discipline, our discipline, our suspensions and expulsions have dropped >> significantly. So again, just to kind of underscore some of the positive things that that have uh we've undertaken in regards to how

219uh training our educators uh you know in in in being more responsive and culturally responsive to our students. Um again just I want to again pile on the kudos to the um uh uh safe and healthy climate team. Brian uh I know Jess Plaza is doing some really incredible work around social emotional learning. Um again, those are pieces that again we've um been working on the past couple of years to really integrate into our classrooms uh to not only support academic outcomes but also again just the development of social emotional skills as well as u relationship building for students and and our educators. Yeah, our district stars team which is our internal district team um that collaborates across departments um that consists of um Brian Harris, Jess Plaza, Charmaikica McCoy, um Jenny Sulick sits on

220there. Um I want to say Amy Korea also sits on it. So it's a combined team where we come and look across all of our different um supports across the district and they work together to really support the needs of schools. But I will say um a another huge thing that the district does is in collaboration with um our deck educators, there's a um student services is it student support services committee? The student support services committee which essentially is the committee that combines our de educators and district staff that work on our behavior continuum. Um, and that's done in conjunction and partnership to allow us to provide educators and staff with a behavior continuum framework to work with to then determine how um, it's a work it's a work in progress. We're making uh, steady

221progress and to your point, Maya, there are some positive things and and Pat some positive things to really call out and name in there. Um, but we still got some work to do >> to get get there. >> So, thanks to the team. I just have a couple questions. Um, so it's the memo starts by noting that we are in the top 20% in SY22 through 23. >> Yeah. >> Brian, you want to come up? >> Yeah. >> 23. >> Yeah, that's what that's how the memo starts. So, I was just I tried to on ISB's website. I looked up the up-to-date statistics. Um, it showed us at a 3.8% disproport disproportionality rate uh for 25. I was just can you is this uh 24 25 numbers? >> No, the numbers that you're looking at

222right now >> at the start of the the memo. >> Yeah. So those numbers right there are numbers that were up till March whatever date is on there. Um so that's this school year >> be 2025 2026. So that when you look at the actual state just say so that is up to date. Okay. form that's submitted. That's actually the board that we submit to ISBY. That is >> correct. Yeah. Yeah. >> 2520 memo that has the wrong date. We just need to correct the memo. >> Got you. >> And then just another question was um the goal one on page nine I think uh was to reduce uh tier three disproportionality to 25%. and it referenced a table, but then I didn't see a table about how >> page nine. What are you referring

223to? We >> It's a year delay. >> Got it. Thank you. Okay, >> that's a year. >> So there's that's the other question answered. >> The state is it's a delay. So essentially what he's given >> is 2425. We're in 2526. You won't get that until next year. >> Okay. So this is 2425. It said 2223. Okay. Um on page nine it said goal one was to reduce disp disproportionality at tier three schools to 25%. >> So I would have to see that in terms of the page you're referring to but that's always the goal is to reduce the disproportionality rate. And so how we do that is by putting together those resources such as our counselors, our face leaison, and our social workers working in collaboration with each other and MTSS teams working in

224collaboration with each other to develop plans when they identify students as needing some extra additional support. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful. It just had said to reference a table and I hadn't seen that. So yeah, maybe have to see. >> Maybe we can update that um after the fact >> uploaded. It didn't upload everything in there. >> Yeah, got it. So I would have to see that in front of >> it references the table, but the table is not is not there. >> In addition to I think the goals are >> because it's a it's a delay. So whatever the data is showing up for the tier three schools, that goal is set to decrease that. >> Right. >> Does that make sense? So we came into this school year decreasing the

225based off the goal we set from from the previous year >> right >> but the table is not in there for you to see that. So we would need to just update the table. So I just say work with RAD to make sure that we have that table and then we can just update it and >> okay >> repost it back on board book. one um question or um in here if I look at this and you said face leaison but I actually didn't see face leaison um referenced in here and as a can you speak to the role of face leaison and helping us achieve this and if it's possible to me you know to make sure somehow their role is communicated as we begin to think about you know cost and budgets and

226you know really connecting roles to the impact they're having and So my assumption is that um face leaison are part of the part of the package that is opportunity that's >> right and I would even highlight how you restructured the face liaison this year than what the structure was last year if that makes any sense to support that. >> Yeah so face leaison family and community engagement um leaison work with students at the tier one level and so what me and Dr. Plaza did this year, this summer, this past summer was really hone in on what tier is everybody working at, what team is working at each tier. So counselors are really two, tier two, tier three, uh social workers are tier three, faces at tier one. Um and so every student really, if we

227want to really be technical about it, every student is tier one because every student can benefit from connection in the building with an adult or staff member within the building. And so what FACE does is building that connection with those students in the building, doing things such as uh lunch bunch groups, um following up with bullying uh investigations and in conjunction with counselors or social workers or administration if needed. Also facilitating restorative conversations. Uh reaching out a lot of family work. Um more family work in some schools than other other schools. just connecting with families who may be disengaged from the from the process because of distrust or mistrust, I'm sorry, of of of the system. Um, and just really trying to get our families of color uh involved in the in the in the

228school system and making sure that there's some connection in terms of resources and things of that nature. >> Yes. So, I would just say if it's I guess my question is should it be in here in this report or is that not too much of a level in here? >> It should be in there. um reason being because they're that first step when we're talking about students being engaged uh and students feeling that sense of belonging. They're really they're really one of those first steps. Now, however, yeah, there's we say tier one, but you know, just being intentional and being um um transparent about it, my face team is comprised of of staff members of color, right? And so when we're talking about our black students, our black students are are connecting with people that

229look like them in the building. And so they may be tier three, right? So they may have a relationship with the face leaison within their building even though they are tier three and they might be working with a social worker or working with a counselor, but that cultural connection is there. >> I was curious. Oh, I was curious about um on page nine in tier three it you uh it notes the district uses courageous conversations as a adult improvement as needed sort of an intervention for adults. Um I'm just curious do we have any we used to have but do we have any district-wide program PD about racial bias um structural uh power? >> So I can't speak to that. I do know that um in our our deck and and admin collaboration meetings that

230there is a committee that does focus on that. I'm not sure where that is. So you would have to speak to them in regards to that work. >> Yeah. So the there's a um there's a debt committee uh referred to as DELT which is the diversity equity leadership team. In full transparency, um that team existed before in the past. District kind of took over that team and it became a district team. We engaged in um negotiations with uh deck last year. Wanted to get back to the committees that are embedded within the contract. dealt was re-imagined and brought back to the forefront and it includes district folks paired with some members of the deck exec team and they are now trying to really work together because it is a deck specific committee. What that committee

231really wants to do is expand it across the other bargaining units and then other places, right? But in order to do that, there has to be consensus because that is a part of that particular bargaining unit as an as an agreement and it's not an agreement amongst all of the other bargaining unit. So, we got some work to do to bridge that gap. We like the direction that committee wants to go in terms of making this inclusive across multiple different groups but it's a work in progress. Um to your question in terms of do we still offer the racial bias like seed and beyond diversity and uh courageous conversations and full transparency that you know if if schools want to offer that at the school level yes but the district is not taking that on

232at the at at the district level just because of all the things. >> Yeah. And and just to flag for us as sort of board accountability as we have and I've already had conversations with colleagues is our board policy still states that we will take an equity training as be part of being on the board. So we just need to reimagine that too um for beyond beyond seed since we're beyond that maybe maybe it's courageous conversations I don't know but that's something we need to revisit and hammer out as we're trying to also lead by example. >> Yeah. Also I also want to throw in there too when we're talking about uh disproportionality and how students how black students see themselves in the building. We have only 11 black male teachers in our district, right?

233So, where are black boys, black males seeing themselves represented within the buildings that they're in? Um, I'm a former student of District 65. back in the day. I know what it is to to walk into a classroom and not feel represented within your classroom. And then moving down to Atlanta in high school, senior high school, and then seeing people that look like me teaching me, it gives you a sense of pride within your class and it makes you feel like you belong there. Um, when you have that representation, >> um, was actually Michael reached out to us. So, they wanted us to meet with them. They're going to readjust the survey because they attempted to send something out with no one laying eyes on it. So, we don't do that. >> The Dell committee, right?

234So, that was stopped. Our systems are working. So, we are reviewing their form and then they've asked for us to join their um me and Kelly um their April 22nd meeting to just talk about like path forward because one of the things that I definitely noticed when I came in we may have had some um like some systems in place but I don't know how comprehensive they are. Once people take bias training then we have to hold them accountable. So people are taking training but then when things happen how are we connecting that back? So, we should be able to and and that wasn't happening. So, We got a second. >> I just had a um the ask about making sure that um will we have to come back to approve at another time if

235we added something about face leaison to this? Do we have >> what you essentially is approving the district plan which was the isby one. >> Okay. >> This particular memo. >> Okay. He will revise the update for the memo. The the ISB plan is very tailored to what is want us to respond to. >> Okay. >> So that's essentially what you the memo is just giving you more of context of the work that the district is doing to accomplish. >> Okay. So yes. >> Yes. >> Benstrand. >> Yes. Wilkins. >> Yes. >> Anderson. >> Yes. >> Motion passes 70. >> Fen over here. >> Um approval of theou with the city of Evston. I move that the board of education approve the 2025 20 to 2027 athletic programou with the city of Evston for elementary

236sports programming including the provision of district facilities and the reimbursement of student scholarship fees costs. Pinkard, >> yes. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> Upg? >> Yes. >> Ben Newandr, >> yes. >> Wymer, >> yes. >> Wilkins, >> yes. >> Anderson, >> yes. >> Motion passes 70. >> It's late. I move that the board of education approve the fiscal year 2526 early childhood program governance bylaws as presented to ensure continued compliance with early childhood grant requirements and to secure future program funding. >> Second, >> yes. Hernandez, >> yes. >> Vanstrand, >> yes. >> Wymer, >> yes. >> Wilkins, >> yes. >> Anderson, >> yes. >> I move that the board approve the FY2627 amendment change and scope request to transition Head Start to a full school day model and reduce the funded enrollment count by 27

237students. >> Second. Can I ask a question? >> Good evening. Um, so the proposal is to close the two half day sections and make that a full day section and then to reduce the enrollment in each full day section from fif from 17 to 15. Is that corre? Am I understanding that correctly? from 19 to 17. >> 19 to 17. Oh, okay. Okay. Um, so my question is as part of the uh process you are expecting to um have the same grant fulfilled in terms of um reimbursement for the program and that if that does not happen, you will not move forward with the change. Am I is that am I understanding that correctly? >> Yes, it is an unusual request. Usually when you ask to reduce the funding or reduce the slots, the funding

238goes with it. >> Um, but I asked that we be able to retain those funds and reinvest those monies to the higher operating costs. So if it is declined, we will still operate with the five full school day classrooms and the one half day double session classroom with the same funding or they'll approve it with the same funding and we'll be able to make the half-day classroom a full day. And because our state funded programs have been on average underenrolled by about 40 students, um the 27 students that we are reducing will still have space in those um in the state funded classrooms. Okay. >> Although it's a half day. >> Thank you. >> Can I follow on? Um I think this is related on page 23. It says if the request to retain funds

239is declined, district 65 early childhood would have to close two classrooms and terminate at least four support staff members or close three classrooms. So we're saying that wouldn't happen if we don't get the funding. >> Correct. We were trying to give the funding agency. >> Ah, that's for them. >> The perspective. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> So it's really we're if it doesn't happen, we stay where we are. Okay. >> Pinker. >> Uh, yes. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> Van Newandr, >> yes. >> Wymer, >> yes. >> Wilkins, >> yes. >> Anderson, >> yes. >> Motion passes 70. I move that the board of education approve the fiscical year 2526 Head Start annual funding application and supporting documents as reviewed and recommended by the program governance teams to meet the district's annual grant

240obligations. >> Second >> Pinkard, >> yes. >> Hernandez, >> Yes. Ben Newandr, >> yes. >> Wymer, >> yes. >> Wilkins, >> yes. >> Anderson, >> yes. >> Motion passes 70. >> Why I get all the long ones here? Um, I move that the board approve the following March 2026 contract renewals. Contract renewals above 25,000 outlined in the attached memo for Agile Agile Bits Incorporated. one password in the amount of 38,28 CDWG Google Workspace in the amount of $3,87 H Heartland Business Systems Microsoft Azure in the amount of $43,932 Sentinel Technology SIM SOC in the amount or S cover in the amount of $25,67929. 9 BrainPOP instructional access in the amount of 29,250 um 29,2551 and securely content filter uh SEIPA in the amount of 41,800 and JMF Apple MDM in the amount of 93,673 >>

241second question I have a question about brain pop which grades is uh BrainPOP and I know we've used it. Do we have any data on how it's used? >> So, this purchase of BrainPOP was only to get us to the end of this fiscal year and it's terminated after this year. >> Okay. >> So, this was um essentially when we looked at it in the fall, we made the decision to terminate, but we had educators actively using it. So, we needed to communicate a phase down and move off the platform. >> Okay. So, this is let finish out the year. >> That is it. And then no brain pop will not be available in the district. >> Okay. >> On a subscription basis >> any other basically >> just I mean I'm familiar with all

242these programs and I'm familiar with them all and we use them for admin and things. It's good that Brainop should have kind of expired a long time ago. >> Yep. >> We're putting >> Put your mic down, Dr. Turner. >> Oh, sorry. Brain pop should have expired a long time ago. We're finally putting it to rest. RIP. After the end of this year. >> RIP. Brain pop. That's what I >> Okay. Pinker. >> Yes. >> Hernandez. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Sorry. >> Strand. >> Yes. >> Wymer. >> Yes. >> Welcome. >> Yes. >> Anderson. >> Yes. >> Motion passes 70. >> Right. I move that the board of education as part of of the consent agenda approve the f approve the following personnel appointments leaves and separations the February 2026 board of education meeting

243minutes and the March 2026 bills payable >> second >> Pinkford >> yes >> Hernandez >> yes >> van News trend >> yes >> Wymer >> yes >> Wilkins >> yes >> Anderson Yes. >> Motion passes 70. >> Okay. Action resolution for the nonrenewal. And dismissal of administrators. I'm honorable dismissal of administrators. Excuse me. I I move that the board approve and adopt a resolution for the non-renewal and honoral dismissal of the administrators as noted. >> Second >> Pinkard, >> yes. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> Optek, >> yes. >> Venrand, >> yes. >> Wymer, >> yes. >> Wilkins, >> yes. >> Anderson, >> yes. 20 action resolution for the dismissal of educational support staff. I move that the board approve and adopt a resolution for the dismissal of educational support staff employee Marabel Flores Hernandez. >>

244Second >> Pinkard, >> yes. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> Optek, >> yes. >> Ben Newandr, >> yes. >> Wymer, >> yes. >> Wilkins, >> yes. >> Anderson, >> yes. With no further business, I move to this meeting at 9:57.