[2/23/26] D65 - REGULAR BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING

001feed on the YouTube. >> We'll push up on a recording. >> You'll push it up. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. Hello. My name is Kelly Post and I am the president of Deck. Tonight, as you discuss the possible change to district start times in order to save transportation costs, DEC urges you to consider some unintended consequences. Currently, we have an early release side letter within our bargaining agreement through interestbased bargaining. The early release subcommittee was tasked with creating an early release model. That proposal received favorable feedback when it was initially presented to the board in the spring of 2025. Because of the many moving pieces currently facing the district, Deck and Cabinet are in the process of extending implementation approval to the 2728 school year. In addition, the proposed later end times will significantly

002affect afterchool and athletic opportunities for students, the broader community, and educators. It also brings new child care challenges for families. Recent headlines and ongoing uncertainty is leaving educators exhausted. They are in pain. Deck is deck is asking school board members to actively reach out to building deck reps. We will provide that contact information. Visit the buildings. See educators at work doing what they do best. If you cannot manage during the school day, host a virtual call. Hear their concerns, but also hear their hopes and dreams for our district. Thank you. >> Good evening. Uh, my name is Lindseay Jernigan. I'm the parent of three Kingsley students recently reassigned to Orington. And I'm here asking the board to confirm that bus transportation will be provided for our neighborhood west of Ryan Field. Our homes are all

003more more than a mile from Orington. Mine is 1.3 miles away. While barely ekking in under the 1.5 mile transportation threshold, this distance far exceeds the district's definition of a walkable school, which is 75 miles. Not surprisingly, the farther students have to travel, the more potential hazards they face. Along the routes between our neighborhood and Orington, children would pass Ryan Fields and two other Northwestern Athletic Stadiums on Ashland, a street level CTA crossing at Isabella, a fire station on Central, a canal overpass on both Central and Isabella, and two streets used by emergency vehicles entering and exiting the hospital. Elementary age students such as my six-year-old should not be expected to navigate that distance over two and a half miles round trip or those hazards just to get to and from school. I'm asking the

004board to prioritize common sense safety and be proactive, not reactive, when it comes to investing in the well-being of our kids. Please confirm transportation for our neighborhood. Thank you. Good evening. Uh my name is Kelly McCabe. I'm a parent of a fifth grader and a second grader at Washington. And I want to share my family's experience over the last 10 days as I believe the student centered perspective has been missing from recent discussions. On Wednesday, February 11th, we first learned about the accusations of sexual abuse through a roundt article. I cannot tell you how jarring it was to see sexual abuse mentioned in conjunction with our beloved Washington Elementary. That day was chaotic. We waited for any form of communication from the district and we received only a brief email from our principal stating that

005no district 65 students were involved. We were left in the dark unsure of how to discuss this with our children. it would have been helpful to receive guidance on age appropriate talking points. In fact, we didn't receive any other communication until after that next day of school had ended. So, early Thursday morning, as I was drinking my coffee, I found myself tasked with packing lunches and talking to my seven-year-old and 11-year-old about sexual abuse. in an effort to make sure that they knew the facts and they weren't caught off guard in the playground. Crisis communication was lacking and that is just one example of how this district has failed to prioritize families and students in these critical moments. The situation underscores how unprepared this administration is to communicate effectively, build trust, and support a positive

006school culture. We need a comprehensive independent investigation into how you ensure student safety with full transparency on what was known. We need accountability for systemic issues. It's hard to believe that no one knew anything for years. If not outright malfcence, there seems to be a culture where concerns were not raised or heard. This culture must change to demonstrate accountability. What does it take to rebuild trust? a complete overhaul of this district's administration coupled with actual community engagement. We need real dialogue, town hall meetings where we can have honest conversations, office hours held in public spaces to encourage community dialogue and outreach. Currently, public comments are a one-way street um with zero opportunity for meaningful exchange. This district has been administratively centered for far too long and not student centered, and it's time for that to

007change. We're also witnessing the rise of a two-tier education system in Evston. Wealthy families who can afford private school are fleeing this district and others are left behind in public schools. This risks not only the present generation of families, but the future ones. If this erosion of trust continues, we risk dividing our community and undermining the public education system for future generations. >> [applause] >> Uh, hi, my name is Lauren McNamera. I'm here tonight as a working parent of a middle uh, and elementary school students. Uh, on the agenda materials tonight, the Grant and Prairie intersection is listed as having less than 20 students crossing it. I would like to know how this data was compiled as I really don't think this is true as of the stated data collection date of December 2025, myself

008and loads of Kingsley families cross there. If this intersection was removed from the list due to Kingsley's removal from the list, um I think that should be flagged and I note that Haven is also on the same campus and those kids also walk home that way. Um there was discussion at the last meeting of swapping school start times to save money. I understand that the start times are currently staggered to allow doubled routes and savings. I hope the board is asking what specifically is different when middle school starts earlier that we don't have today. Middle school starting at 9:00 will present my family with two working parents logistical challenges. Today I can send my middle schooler out to school by 7:50 and take my elementary student to before care and make it to work on

009time for my 9:00 a.m. meetings. If middle school doesn't start until 9:00, I will have to trust my middle schooler to get out the door on his own, and this just makes me uncomfortable. Please allow time for community feedback on the schedule changes. I understand we will all start to feel the pinch of the financial situation, but a later middle school start will have impacts on parents who work outside the home and need to be in the office by 9:00 a.m. Finally, the situation at Washington is devastating, and I don't even go there. The last email that was sent on this topic was better, uh, providing the timeline of what was known when, but that should have been the first email sent immediately after this came to light. The board and admin seem to be

010circling the wagons on this issue and leaving families on the outside. Who are you protecting in response to these allegations? My daughter got up here a few weeks ago and in her own words, not mine, asked if you knew who you were working for. And so I ask again, is it the kids? [applause] Uh good evening board. Uh, thank you for the opportunity to introduce myself. My name is Phil Andrew. I happen to be a candidate for the United States Congress here in the ninth congressional district. I uh I have kind of a unique background. I'm a former FBI agent. I was a hostage negotiator with the FBI for 16 of my 21 years. And since I retired from the bureau, I've been running a crisis management firm called PAX Group. And we do a

011lot of work with school districts. Uh, in fact, Jaden Chow, the former director of safety and security at CPS, joined our firm after many years of collaborating on building Chicago's CVI and safety infrastructure. Um, I'll share just a quick anecdote. One of the the the great moments with JD and I was uh one of my first clients was the arch dascese of Chicago nearly 300 parishes, 225 schools and we were building out safety programs for them and I invited Jaden as the director of the public schools to kind of talk about how she approached safety and I remember being in this room with uh a lot of the religious leaders and uh education leaders in the arch dascese And Jaden began by saying that the most important thing you can do is make sure that

012every child feels loved. And I sort of chuckled and looked back at the room and said, "Do you get it?" Like, if they're doing this over at CPS, like we have got to elevate this. At PAX Group, we believe that safe people thrive. And uh that is a driving force in my life largely because uh I was touched by violence as a young person when I was 20 years old. I was shot after being held hostage in the first school shooting here in America. And that work drives me. It is an imperative to me to keep children, families, and schools safe. And we have collected a um a group of professionals from safety to psychology, psychiatry, as well as workplace and school culture to try to build a holistic approach to community school safety. And

013certainly we're available to you. But uh but I do want to tell you that uh you have a strong partner in a potential representative in Congress that I believe deeply that our nation is at a crossroads that our very structures that uphold democracy and liberty are under attack. And that's what's drawing me into this important moment. I have three children in the United States Navy. I took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution as they have. and I take that serious. And finally, that uh thank you for your work. There are three Andrews, my nieces and nephews are in district 65 and uh their future and their well-being is in your hands. Thank you. [music] Next we have Sarah Frost, Jamie Hopka. Hi, my name is Sarah Forest. I'm a parent of two children

014here at JH. Last week, I wrote an open letter to the district and superintendent asking for a timeline regarding the paraprofessional at JH arrested for sex crimes against minors. I appreciate that a timeline has since been released and I understand that the pair professional Flores Hernandez was put on leave once D65 learned of the allegations in January. However, given that both Mendes and Flores Hernandez had outstanding warrants for sexual abuse of a minor in Florida from June 2025 at the time of their arrest here in Illinois, I am very concerned that these individuals were still working with children when there was a warrant out for their arrests. So, my question now is, is there a mechanism in place for D65 to receive this information such as outofstate warrants? Would periodic background checks rather than just

015before initial hiring provide added safety for our students? I understand we cannot provide perfect safety for students, but the idea that an alleged sex offender was working with toddlers, including my own, even while a warrant was out for her arrest, is deeply concerning and merits a re-examination of policies. Thank you. My name is Jamie. Good evening. and I'm a Washington parent and these allegations are really disturbing. It It's just been awful for all the families at Washington and JH. Um, [clears throat] so I'm going to repeat what this community has been telling you for years now. We want smaller class sizes and walkable neighborhood schools. That's why I supported seating the next highest vote getter from the last election for the open seat. Voting is the only small threat of accountability available to us for

016this powerful board seat where you levy our tax our property taxes every single month and threaten to close our schools. In fact, we are the highest levied district among our neighboring school districts and our property taxes continue to rise year after year. I won't speak for Kingsley or Lincolnwood taxpayers, but I can imagine how frustrating it must feel to pay 134 $1,500 a month in property taxes and then be told that your neighborhood schools are going to be shut down. I know how it feels personally. My own property taxes have gone up 40% since I moved here in 20 2020. And yet, this administration threatened to close the very school that my husband and I paid more to be near, Washington. When I first heard about potential closures in September, I remember thinking, "This is

017unbelievable with the level of taxes I pay, how are we even having this conversation?" I was so frustrated. I actually looked up taxpayers for common sense and thinking I might start something like it, but of course, it already exists. But that's the level of concern that brought me here. The reason I keep coming to these meetings is simple. When taxpayers aren't paying attention, the spending gets completely out of control, like the situation we're in. I may or may not make a difference, but I am going to continue to come up here and call it out. There are many ways to address all this overspending. Even as an average taxpayer, I can see that. Which is why it's extremely disappointing to watch this board continue spending money we do not have. Eliminating prek transportation represents over

018a million dollars a year in savings. That is lowhanging fruit. And yet, you couldn't get there. PreK transportation is not required by the state. And this is one of the few states that has teacher pensions written in our state constitution. Illinois supports education, but even Illinois doesn't require us to bust prek. You keep cutting valuable programs like Mandarin and Willard Spanish program continue to threaten to close our neighborhood schools. But why are you you why are you eliminating academic opportunities for students while maintaining non-mandated expenses like pre-K busing? You cannot keep levying our property taxpayers for more and more while refusing to make what I believe was one of the easier spending control choices. Stop prek busing. Please control spending. Please restore trust by demonstrating some fiscal responsibility. Thank you. >> Great. Um let me

019just I believe his name was scratch Alexandra. Okay, that concludes the public comments for tonight. >> Next uh item on the agenda is the approval of the transportation policy. >> We're supposed to move it, right? >> I move that the board approve the uh proposed Wait, do we >> Okay, I don't know if we'd say it and then discuss. >> Okay, discuss. Sorry. Okay. Yeah, I think I think you discuss Oh, sorry. Okay. >> All right. We're gonna >> Okay, go ahead. >> I move that the board approve the proposed amendments to policy 4 U 110 and 412. Second. Okay. Discussion. >> Not discussion. Discussion. >> Um, I want to talk about the 1.5 miles because we I just want to level set on what we've been operating under today. Um, and then because we

020are kind of reassigning all well, not reassigning all of our students, but reassigning a lot of our students that were bust to foster. Um, we're coming up on some of these edge cases where one and a half miles is a really long way for kids to walk. I did some research on kind of other countries that [clears throat] have more of a walkable culture um and how far they want or they um allow their their students to walk or encourage them to walk and it's about 75 miles um as a walkable amount. I think too when we think about 1.5 miles, what's going to end up happening is a lot of people are going to drive their kids to school and in some of the neighborhood schools that we find, we're going to see a

021lot of traffic around those school buildings. We already see it if you ever drive your child to middle school. Um, you'll see that traffic back up, especially around Nicholls. That's when I'm most familiar with. Um, and so I wondered, you know, we we really been focused on like uh magnet busing and and hazards and crossing guards, but we haven't actually addressed this one and a half miles. And I know there was some discrepancy around one and a half miles and what was modeled in the transportation and the STRP savings. And so, um, I wanted to hear my board colleagues and what your thoughts were on the 1.5 miles and then, um, talk about what we might want to do in terms of understanding the costs. Just to be clear, the the cost savings that were

022presented uh that are in this are based off of one point based on 1.5 not not the 75. Do we have any uh estimate of the cost of 75 or just as okay? >> Not at this time. >> But when we just so but in the SDP documents we were using 75. Were those savings that were in those numbers based on the 0 75 or based on the 1.5? >> The 75 related to the STRP work was for the scorecard calculations that we that the administration came up in conjunction with the facility subcommittee >> but all the physical stuff was using the 1.5. >> Correct. >> Which is our current transportation policy and school code. I think just to ground that 75, you know, and I think you were in the room when they decided

023on that. That was a committee-based decision because it was an adequate differentiator in the community as opposed to a verdict around walkable distance. >> And can you remind us where did the 1.5 come from? >> Schools. >> The 1.5 is in school code. >> Great. Thank you. So there's um uh because of our hazards. I mean so there's a map uh that's on the the board I mean on the uh website where we see we bus a lot for hazards, right? Um and not we don't really bust that many kids currently for uh for 1.5 miles. Correct. the Willard Island kids were bust uh in some sense, but for the most part uh and Walker kids, but for the most part, if people are bust, it's because of as because of hazards, right? Is that

024an accurate uh description? Not necessarily for >> hazards in program placements like like step for their sped purposes as well as twe and dcc and magnet king arts >> and uh based off of where people are assigned to go not what people have confirmed to go. Do we have an increased number of kids for 1.5 miles for next year than we've had in previous years? Do we know that? >> No. There is no projected increase or no measurable increase of the students that would live more than 1.5 miles from their school. >> Okay. I have a question about um there was a sentence under the um for semicolon 110 that the district may provide transportation to and from school sponsored activities that may is not a definite it's how how do we interpret that? >>

025So we have um school buses or at magnet and at our middle schools. Um that does that's not in taking into consideration um YMCA or family focus. That's just basically our schoolbased after school activity buses. >> Okay. >> So is it only for kids who are you don't add new buses for kids to drop them off to after school places if they're not already on a bus or is it only who gets access to being dropped off let's say at the Y or at Fleetwood? Is it only kids who were bust in the morning who >> No. Current practices that we've been um very accommodating. Over the last few years, the YMCA has provided a few buses at a few of our um southern end schools and we've been trying to actively uh have them

026take on more. Um but no, right now we student after school providers prek really all of our schools at no cost to them >> I think I read and correct me if I'm wrong Lou Lou but it's like if you're caregiver or child care situation requires you to cross a hazard then you would be bust is that right after school >> we we take >> we take students to a variety of different we take students to a variety of different um after school programs that are not D65 based. >> So that may means optional. >> We choose. >> Okay. Can we do a just in terms of the distance? In terms of the distance, I'm thinking about like, you know, we've heard people have written about sort of the little the places that are between

027one and one and a half miles away from schools and that, you know, that can happen all over the city. Um, and we can handle that by hazard or we can handle it by distance. And so I guess I'm asking if we want to handle it by hazard or we want to handle it by distance, but I feel like it's unreasonable that that a kindergartener is going to walk over a mile to school. So we're going to end up having to have people drive their kids to school. Um if that's possible and that's going to create some traffic headaches for us, I think around schools. Um, >> no one else >> particularly talking Maria about the like we've heard from a lot and just heard from um folk uh sorry my memory but long evening

028um right on the edge of the town's boundary up on one of the haven pattern schools >> for >> Orington yeah is that what you're talking about this scenario? Oh, it's like that scenario. It's also the scenario of the Dewey boundary. Um although I think Chicago is a hazard there, so we would bust across that. There's the um I think it's called the hillside neighborhood that's on the far side of uh the Crawford, you know, in that corner. There's um I don't know the distance around like the the corner that is the the little pocket of housing that is to the west of Dodge and to the south of Howard. um that wouldn't necessarily cross a hazard, but would be a really long way for a kindergartener to walk. So, I'm thinking about those those

029specific corners. I'm thinking about like the Howard boundary to Oakton. So, we had a cost estimate for Gross Point Road, Ridge, and Chicago. I'm hearing that that would address most of the situations you just named, and that was estimated of $400,000, I believe, last time we saw this at the committee of the whole. Mhm. >> Uh so my question would be then we would need if you know if you're asking how do we go about this um you know what would be the implications then budget-wise for a one or 75 um is that what you're we'd need to do some comparative work then is that >> so gross point if there's a there's a map um there's a map I think is the gross point is really uh the Gross Point is actually uh a

030hazard too, right? So Gross Point is hazard. The uh area around the the new area where Kingsley families going to Orington, it looks like that would be is that under hazard, is that considered under the hazard map? >> Gross Point did not meet the threshold of 12 points. >> Okay. And what was the other intersection that you mentioned? Ridge was it >> ridge? I'm I'm looking at an old map, so I'm trying to uh >> and there are a number of ridge intersections that come in at the 11. >> Yes, that's correct. >> I do I do have some rough numbers uh for the board. Uh Maria, based on your question about 75 and 1.5. So based on the new school assignments for next year, assuming everybody goes where they're intended and there are no

031permissive transfers, but of course with the permissive transfer, transportation is not provided. There are about 250 students that would live 1.5 miles or more from their assigned school, a majority of whom are King Arts. >> And what was that number, Chris? Sorry, I just want to note >> it was approximately 250 students. >> Thank you. >> And it is about 8,000 students. That would be 75 or more. >> Okay. And that includes all the magnet too. >> That would include all of magnet every student in the district. This is strictly how far students live from school based on their program placement. They could be in STEP and live. >> Got it. >> Not in that attendance boundary, but those are at least rough numbers to kind of give you guys some. So you're saying 250

032uh which are mostly King Art students which makes sense because it's uh uh do we know how many? So there's very few students particularly now with Willard not not having the Willard Island. Uh there's very few students who are not assigned a school that's 1.5. We have students 1.3 or things like that but few >> correct and I and I should preface those numbers are um current K4 students rolled up one grade level for next year. So be first through fifth grade students that those are what those numbers represent. >> So that implies we're only busing for hazards and that's a few few number of students particularly if we're saying the uh magnet schools were not busing for magnet were busing if you were 1.5. Mhm. >> So there would be few students who are

033actually busted for distance and then the conversation is really around what we considered hazards which is what is triggering which is what we would be busy. >> Can I ask a followup here then? So thinking about hazards and for instance a ridge um we have a number of intersections here that we could do add the discretionary one point and get us to 12. Um, realistically, what, you know, if we were to take all of the 11 points in here, give them a a discretionary one point, realistically, what could we expect the state ID dot to cover or to to I'm sorry to um to name as an I do hazard. >> Well, it wouldn't be a I do. It'll be our own hazards and we're asking I do to view it as a hazard, >>

034right? But in the state policy, the board school boards can add a point to a scoring. If it's coming in at 11, then that gets us to a 12. So I guess the main thing I'm asking here is this would then have significant cost savings if that's designated as an I do hazard, right? Don't get funding based on hazards >> and reimbursement is low. >> Yeah. >> It's something, but >> it's something. Yeah. Yeah. So there's two ways to deal with hazards. There's crossing guards, right? And so you're saying students are walking across the crossing guards or we bus across uh are we bus uh in that sense. So there's in this sheet there's one two there's the Walker there's a situation with Walker where part of Walker students have to cross demster currently. Are

035we busing the kids? We're busing in that situation. And the and even here if we it still will be 11.5 with the crossing guard. So that one you're still even if you added a crossing guard it's almost like it's at the 12. >> Which one are you referencing? Sorry. >> The if you look at the sheet the walker walker is even with a crossing it's 13 without uh a crossing guard. You add the crossing guard >> uh reduces it but it's still high. Yeah. >> Uh in that sense and it's on a street that's the most uh traffic street >> uh in some sense and there aren't any crossing guards on that piece. But if you go to uh for instance if you go to where's the Chicago the Chicago Avenue where we uh Lincoln

036if you look at Lincoln um you're at 11 when you add crossing guards you're down now to nine. So there is I think this is a question Chris you were asking about whether we just you know have this thank you for the information Chris so sorry the other information that gives us real factual information of what the numbers are and it's almost like do we have a point if we say everything at 11.5 the crossing guard like how do we determine using these numbers and pick a number and we those are hazards from there or stick we have I do hazards which are the Right. How do we That's really the question for us. How do we use this information to determine what our line is? >> Can I get go back to my question.

037I don't think I I got the answer I was looking for. No, no worries. Um could we wholesale apply for the 11s and have a realistic expectation that the ID do would indicate those are hazards? If that's the direction from the board, we can submit it to ID dot for approval with the additional judgment point and the determination will ultimately be up to the individuals at I do to approve or deny. >> Okay. Do you have any experience that would indicate um how that might go? Okay. Thank you. >> And how much do they reimburse? I think Lou, you were saying like they how much of a of a general ed if they are reimbured is reimbured. >> I'd have to look at the exact numbers, but it's nothing like spend reimbursement. It's low. Genet

038reimbursement is low. So the increased routes would perhaps be a lot more than any type of reimbursement, but I don't have those numbers. I could look at them. I could work work to get them for you. >> Would I be right to assume? So you you'd forecast $400,000 if we indicated Ridge, Chicago, and Gross Point as hazards for our own use. That that was >> Yeah. So theoretically, if we also simultaneously applied for the the 11 intersections here with the discretionary point, would that 400,000 come down? >> I'd have to look at the exact numbers and routes, but a lot of the 11s, a lot of the high numbers based on that um were Ridge Chicago point >> almost all of them were. There's a few I think >> maybe an intersection Dodge. So it

039would be relatively close because a lot of the ones are are Chicago and Gross Point, >> right? So, if we were fortunate enough to have ID do designate much of Ridge as a hazard, um that could bring the 400,000 down. >> It would you'd receive more in Jen reimbursement. >> Right. Right. At the last meeting, Andrew, you brought up a good point about the designating the hazard in part partial areas of a road. But in this conversation, we're talking about the entirety of >> this was the entire the example that we presented was the entirety of Ridge. >> The entirety of Ridge, >> but in Ridge, there's like so there's Washington School, there's Oakland, the Oakland Street, right? So really where you should be crossing ridge is for Oakton and for uh from where you

040live. Someone who goes to Washington doesn't live on the the east side of bridge, right? >> Yeah. If I go to Washington really open where I might >> There's Dewey Orington all that too. I was wrestling with that question, Maria, and part of what I struggled with was so then it becomes really complicated. So if we want to chop a bridge and then we're making decisions based essentially on assignment areas. Yeah. >> Which makes it very challenging from an equity standpoint and just general fairness standpoint. So um that's something I was wrestling with as we approached this meeting. >> Yeah. So in this policy, we're kind of choosing to deal with those distances by designating hazards in those streets where we know that there's students that would be crossing. So, in that Green Bay, I'm

041going to call it the Green Bay Island for Kingsley and the Hillside Island for Willard, they would be bust because of the hazard. Um, in the I'm sorry, I don't know the name of the neighborhood, but it's in the blue box at the bottom left. I don't know the distance. >> Yeah. No, no, I know it's Do, but I don't know what that neighborhood is called. Um, >> that's probably not 1.5 though, is it? That's not close. >> Currently, they're not busted. >> Okay. >> Also want to call out that in order for Foster, so as we're in some sense, I think we were trying to reduce busing. >> Yeah. >> Right. And so we were taking Emerson and trying to turn Emerson into a crossable street so that we're not I think it was

042190 kids that would need if you're if Emerson stays a hazard which according to these numbers could be a hazard. If if Chicago's a hazard, Emerson's a hazard. just want to say we would be having kids from the other side of Emerson walk to foster while we then have other streets returning into >> we're using hazards to have kids bust. So from my equity whatever these so there's a either we're increasing buzzing or we're using crossing guards to address this but as we turn them on to some as we turn it off then I don't you know the numbers aren't you know the numbers aren't the same >> and the savings projected are based on the hazards Yes, >> the >> that yes and then there the the crossing guard issue is a whole another

043point of consideration. Correct. >> Uh it is except it affect the the reimbursement part. >> If it's not a hazard because you have a cross there then you don't >> um satisfy for for reimbursement. >> But so they go hand in hand in in kind of every other way. >> Okay. All right. So, >> okay, >> once we come to a decision about this portion of the policy, it will influence how we look at the crossing guard positions as well. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> So, here 11 11.5 is the clear distinction in the in using the table provided, right? 11.5 is clear is a I guess you have a couple of tens but you have a lot of 9.5s right you have 11.5 which are really your dumpster street which you just have to

044you have to bust for dempster uh yeah it was a combination of he gave us a total score so this is using I do all the students >> can I just uh ask a kind of a clarifying question about the overall uh kind of scope of this transportation discussion. So my understanding is that we have one topic which is whether to consolidate our policies basically so that they're consistent, right? And that primarily involves uh removing special transportation for magnet schools or removing magnet schools as their own policy. So that's that's the first piece, right? Um is that largely independent then of these other parts? Can we move I'm I'm wondering if we can start to to break off some pieces of this policy and focus on the ones that we can get done tonight. >>

045That's great. Can you go back and show the four uh 4.4 just the language? >> So I think Okay. >> Because one is relatively straightforward, right? And then two gets significantly more complicated. Is that correct? >> Mhm. >> And it's partially more complicated because once we remove magnet schools, um then uh students potentially who were currently being bus to magnet schools may fall into a different category or they may not in terms of potential hazards. >> Correct. And I think based on our last meeting, we came to consensus around the fact that that was the decision we would make was to to consolidate that policy. >> That was the board's direction to us. >> Yes. Okay. So >> 410 for this one. Yes. >> 410. So 410 is we have consensus around that. >> Okay.

046>> Can we see 4121? >> We're we're we're rescending 112. >> 12. >> We're sending 112. And a related question, if we I'm wondering um is it worth it to figure out how many students uh if we go to the the more uniform policy um and we don't bust just or magnet school is not its own criteria. How does that affect our bus budget overall? Because I wonder I think we're trying to compare the savings that we would get on our current baseline, but the current baseline has built into it that we're busing magnet students. Correct. >> Yes. My understanding that there was a notation in the memo about um it would rescending the policy would result in the loss of approximately $30,000. Is that correct? >> In fees. >> Yes. Okay. >> The impact

047of actual number of busing would be very limited. This would just be mostly cleaning up policy so everybody is >> um under the same criteria. >> Say that again. You're saying that um approving uh the change to four uh to 110 and rescending 112 of course with the 30 but you're saying it doesn't reduce it doesn't really have an impact in the reduction of buses >> it would be very limited. >> Okay. >> Do we this may have been mentioned last time. How many students are bust based on magnet school status currently that wouldn't fall under the uh new policy >> that wouldn't >> so I how yeah how many students are affected I guess the first question is how many students are affected by this elimination of magnet school busing >> again that would

048be determined on the hazards that would be approved >> because they would follow the same criteria So depending on if they were crossing a hazard, then we'd be able to get the number, >> right? But what about on our under our current hazards? >> How many do we have right now? >> So what I'm I guess what I'm trying to figure out is whether this is actually a sequential process where first we uh eliminate for 112 and then figure out how that actually would affect our busing numbers. and using the current hazard criteria and then after that figure out what new hazard criteria would be and what the budget implication of that would be because I think we're trying to we're trying to do two things at once, right? We're trying to >> we can't

049isolate them. >> What's that? >> We can't isolate them to understand the effect >> because we're doing two at once. I'm saying >> right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So I'm wondering um uh yeah if we're trying to do two things that actually work at cross purposes right now which is we're trying to uh standardize this policy which then uh eliminates bus service for some students uh and then trying to figure out how to also change the uh hazards. But that doesn't then give us any real clarity into the students that are affected by the change in the magnet status or magnet policy. was only the King Arts kids because of now with Rose, but we are providing transportation for Rose kids. >> And I just want to clarify, if we're eliminating policy 112, then if a

050child or a family elects to send their child to King Arts, they would be responsible for Okay. So, that's not what we're saying. >> It's the same. >> It's okay. Got it. So then it basically says, do you live more than one and a half miles away? >> Do you have to cross a hazard? >> If you live on the other side of just on the other side of McCormack and are going to King Arts, you would still qualify for busing under the updated 4110 policy because you crossed the hazard of McCormack and you would get free transportation. >> Apparently I completely missed that. >> Everyone's treated >> the same. So the fact that you're electing to go to a school doesn't need it's not like a permiss it's not treated like a permissive transfer.

051>> So some additional information. So really the purpose of um the recession of 4112 and the slightly updated language and really the only thing we did in 4110 was update it to say K8 just to align with school code and then just resend the portion in that or red line that portion of the 4110 policy that references that magnet students are transported in accordance with 4112. So really the the intent and the purpose behind this is to say we have transportation policy and to just provide clarity for families. Now, if you're a TWE kid that lives in Willard's new boundaries and is going to foster, you don't have to pay a fee anymore. You are going to have to cross McCormick, it's a hazard. You're getting your free transportation even though you're a TWE kid

052where currently you would have to pay a fee for that transportation. So, we're just trying to clean it up and align it where everybody, all students in the district are transported the the same way. Okay, thank you. >> Any >> I changed my mind on the on the prek transportation since our last meeting. >> So >> done with that one. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Are we done with magnet? >> Well, any more questions about that? >> We got just got Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. We're just saying is there any more discussion than the on this issue. Okay. So, >> call question. >> Yeah. Do we call the vote? >> I got to do it again. Okay. >> How do I just do it again so everybody know? >> Okay. I move that the board

053approve the proposed amendments to policy 410 and pol and 412. >> Second. >> Okay. >> Wymer. >> Yes. >> Wilkins. >> Yes. >> Pinker. >> Yes. Hernandez, >> yes. >> Optek, >> yes. >> Ben Newandr, >> yes. >> Anderson, >> yes. >> Motion passes 70. >> Sorry. So, I move that the board approve the ID do hazard routes for FY27. have discussions. >> And this is the ID do guidelines in addition to the Ridge Chicago and Gross Point that we're talking about now. >> Yes. >> And so the ID do hazards just for everyone to be there's only three I do hazards, right? There's dempster. What is that? Remind everyone the everyone of the >> So I have them displayed up here. There's Dempster, Emerson, Golf, Green Bay, and McCormick. The board has had conversations

054like you mentioned, Dr. Pinker, in the past around Emerson and potentially reducing the speed to 25 miles per hour and placing crossing guards at several of the intersections there, which would essentially no longer make it a hazard. There is potentially a portion of Emerson that would qualify as a hazard as uh because it's a multi-art hazard. Um I'm working with I do on on that currently. Um but so we would essentially as part of this action we would need direction and clarity from the board on the I do hazards. Of course we we can submit them all to high dot but would like Emerson for example be considered an ID dot hazard or are we adding crossing guards there >> and just the um it would take more than one bus. So in some sense

055the number the cost of crossing guards are what? 20,000 a crossing guard. So 15 >> 13,000 a crossing guard >> with >> meaning right now. >> Okay. Um and how many we're adding on Emerson? We're'll be adding how many possib number that you mentioned 190 but we can round up and just say it's approximately 200 >> but that would then be Yeah. So that's multiple 80 and the bus one a buses around is 80,000 right? Okay. And so that would be more than even if it's a double route, you're looking at more than one bus. If you don't make it, if you do not >> I understand what you're saying. So basically, if we don't put crossing guards there, it's more than one bus. So either we're paying 80,000 times the number of buses or

056we're paying 13,000 times the number of crossing guards. >> Yeah. That's that's what this is getting designed for foster. >> Yeah. We're roughly projecting six additional crossing guards that would be in the foster boundary with I believe two stationed at Emerson. >> I think that's the cost of bus. >> What's the What's the cost of one bus? >> I think it's 80. Isn't it 80,000 the cost of a bus? >> Yeah, that's what So 13 time six. >> I'm sorry. You said how many crossing guards? Six. >> Six totally. >> So that's a bus. Yeah, >> one bus. >> Yeah, >> crossing guards are better than buses. Also, I don't know if anyone from the city is listening, but I think we should put speed cameras during school times. Emerson, I might be ambushed outside

057of here. But, >> uh, just to clarify, Maria, are you asking about the whether it's more efficient to have a bus versus the equal number of crossing guards? >> I think what we're saying is Yeah, that's what I think Dr. picker was saying it's 80,000 for a bus, it's 13,000 for a crossing guard. If we have six crossing guards at 13,000, that's $78,000. So, it's about the same as having a bus, but I think the distance >> that we're talking about is pretty short. What do you think? It's like for me, I think it's 0.9. I would my house would be one of the houses impacted by this. I think it's about 08 miles for me from my house to foster school. So whether I'm getting on the bus to get 08 miles because I

058would cross Emerson or whether my uh my nephews would then just walk to Hartry. I think that's the so >> so it is important to understand the distance related to crossing guards because some of these other areas it might be yes you can put crossing guards but the distance is a lot longer. >> Right. >> Do you have thoughts? So the gross point is an example that's a what is that's a distance issue as well as a as a safety issue >> and the ID do guidelines would if those um routes are approved and we it would result in busing but we might be able to get some form of small amount of reimbursement for that whereas if it's all crossing guards That's that's district 65. >> So So the plan that we have and

059that we have been working with and Dr. Beardsley may be able to speak on this a little bit more with the work that you're doing with the city of Evston. What the plan was always to have crossing guards on Emerson at several at like two of those intersections. And if that's the case and that stays the way that we planned, Emerson would not be considered a hazard. Those portions of Emerson would not be considered a hazard. Same thing with the intersections on McCormick. Church in McCormick, for example, we have a crossing guard on Church in McCormack. If that stays, it's going to result in a score of 11.5 instead of 12. >> So, I think there's maybe a strategic question, too, in terms of how we use our resources. Uh, and and I don't I'm

060not enough of an expert in this to know. So, I look look to you all for guidance on this, but I think anecdotally, there's there's kind of the question of uh are crossing guards actually effective? uh in compare comparatively to using resources on a bus uh we know that we have uh I mean the administration has told me that uh in many cases uh drivers ignore crossing guards um that we may have some issues with absenteeism. So I I guess I'm wondering is it actually strategically the best way to uh assume that a crossing guard could resolve the issue or some of the safety issues or are we better off submitting as many hazards as possible to I do uh and and then seeing if that basically protects our flexibility and also gets us a

061little bit of a reimbursement. So essentially if we submit it to I do what you're saying is if we submit ever to I do we would get I don't know is it 20,000 reimbursement for a gened route to >> confirm. >> But at any rate it would it would take it down from the six cross. So if you put six crossing guards as the same as a bus if we put that as an I do hazard and approved then that would make the bus more efficient. >> I understand what you're saying. >> Yeah. I mean, >> separate issue though on the crossing guards. Separate issue on the crossing guards and whether that's the most efficient way to >> to to move kids. I think there's a lot of detractors from buses because they're late. They,

062you know, are rowdy and there's, you know, maybe some safety considerations for children on buses that aren't present when they're walking. So, I would probably net those out as equal >> potentially. I just have an observation about Ridge. Um, so if we designated Ridge as a board, you know, just district uh hazard, there's eight crossing guards. So that's that could theoretically then be eight crossing guards that are removed and no longer needed if that was a designated hazard and transportation was offered because that's over $100,000 of the 400. >> Um, Okay. So, we're talking about the >> So, there so there's the two types of hazards. The I do hazards. Can we agree on the ID dot hazards? There's another conversation about these hazards that we've added that are D65. Right. bridge is not a

063the way you're saying it wouldn't be a ID do hazard. It would be us adding additional one. Is that correct? >> Well, so the question would be is we have the a number of intersections on ridge at 11. We apply for them to become ID hazards. Yeah. >> Right. I want I want to separate first saying we're agreeing the ID do hazards. We're accepting the hazards that ID do has defined as hazards which are these up here and we are trying to address the golf the um the Emerson one to turn that away from being an ID dot. So we're saying there would be four ID do hazards in here that we are busting for and then now the conversation is are we adding ridge Chicago or others that would be our choice to add

064hazards but are not defined as hazards from my do >> these these hazards are assuming no crossing guards. >> Yeah. >> So even if you McCormack is a hazard you still wanted to have a crossing guard there it would no longer qualify as a hazard. >> Right. Right. That's what I'm saying. Yeah. No crossing guards. What if they reject it as a hazard? So these five, you said four, but you meant five, right? >> These five. >> These four. Well, I'm assuming that Emerson is going to be removed as a as a high. Yeah. Okay. >> Because we're going to put crossing guard. So four would be these four. >> That's no. So let's let's >> because ridge and Chicago are all separate. I'm talking about the >> address. Yes. So what I'm hearing from

065from the board in this conversation is should or the question I have hearing this conversation is it the board's will that the district double up crossing guards on hazardous roads. So there's a crossing guard at McCormack and Church. Do we keep McCormick as a hazard and submit it to IDOT without the crossing guard or do we keep crossing guards at these hazardous roads and submit them to ID dot with the crossing guard there as the traffic control? >> Well, who's crossing? So, McCormack is like if I look at this, you go to Walker. Everyone from McCormack goes to Walker. Who who is required to cross McCormack to go to school? I might choose to because I go to besides and we bus walker kids to shoot. >> Part of it is probably due to the

066old boundaries. Walker's bound attendance boundaries previously extended into that uh Washington area east of McCormick. So we would like these are where crossing guards are currently placed with the current boundaries. We would need to re-evaluate the the placement of these crossing guards based based on the new boundaries. But with the new boundaries here, there really wouldn't there's no one who's required to cross besides shoot. Walker kids go to shoot where's buses provided. There's no one required to cross McCormack. >> No, not that I can really think of. Mo King Arts would be the only one, but you guys has already approved the previous policy that if they cross a hazard, they're going to get free transportation anyways. So, so they would be offer they would be eligible for free transportation. the only potential uh so

067so that's like McCormack over there by Church and Dempster. Um when you start looking at like McCormack and Green Bay for example, the board may potentially want to keep a crossing guard there because of the Haven students that that are going to Haven that could potentially crossing there from from Orington and not necessarily the elementary students going there. But everybody in that Skoi area west of McCormack that's assigned to shoot is eligible for busing because it has been the the practice that there's not adequate public transportation over there for our 68 students. >> Okay. >> So Chris, if you place that one crossing guard at McCormick and Green Bay, does that negate it becoming an ID dot hazard for the whole >> street? >> Just for that intersection. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. >>

068All right. Have you placed one just at the bridge >> that comes across uh uh McCormack to Simpson? That would negate that as a hazard. So then you're now saying if you're going to you could walk to Foster if you put a if you put if you're going to you could end up walking the foster if you live on the other side. >> Right. So that's important to understand. The crossing guards negate >> negate the hazard. >> Yeah. and the McCormick and Green Bay one. I I don't have it up in front of me, but I think it was 11.5 some somewhere around there. So, that's where the board could use the additional half a point determination that we could submit to ID do for for the rationale of why we think it should be

069uh kept as a hazard and the justification could potentially be that our 68 Haven students, the crossing guards are there for our 68 Haven students where there's adequate public transportation. They'll be walking for our K5 students. We would like as a hazard because of the age group or something along those lines. >> Okay. >> So, in your in the in the table we have here, you're definitely recommending the the Green Bay, the one of Green Bay, the the Dempster. And can you speak to Dodge and Kirk? There's a here Dodge. And why is that blue? >> Yeah, but I'm saying do there's three here. So So the question of dodge I did I'm the person who asked for that. >> Okay, that's why I went to >> So what what I was I was asking

070for a comparison of Dodge in comparison to Chicago Avenue. So what in the data would tell us we would have we would have Chicago Avenue as as a hazard and Dodge wouldn't be. And so this document actually sort of lays that out in terms of all those streets. Um and pretty much they're the same, right? They're both 9.5. >> No, I didn't necessarily want Dodge. I wanted to It was a comparison. Just a comparison. >> Yeah. And >> like uh part of the reason why there aren't many crossing guards on Dodge currently is the old boundaries. Those were dividers for the old boundaries versus the new boundaries. So, um, Lincolnwood extended to Dodge. Now, Dwey goes all the way west of that. Same thing with, uh, part of Washington over there to Dodge. It used

071to be Walker, now it's all Washington. So, as part of the new boundaries, we're going to re-evaluate where crossing guards are placed, but we we need direction from the board on on how that process is going to going to work. Are we going to potentially double up hazards and crossing guards? Are we going to place are are we going to use the board's judgment point and say anything that's an 11, we're going to say it's a 12 and not have crossing guards there? If it's an 11, are we placing crossing guards there and not making it a hazard and using that as part of the criteria how we place crossing guards? Those are decisions that or direction that we need from the board. >> I guess looking at the the data, the 11s are like

072King Arts or the Walker. I don't see too many 11s that are um are in these conflictual areas and of course the the Willard is at 10 point I mean the Green Bay so it seems like we King Arts it's because the kids are >> it's dips are right >> he said like if we use 11 if we use 11 so which >> um it's there's Oakton Dawash Washington has one. >> Lincoln has three. >> Walker has one. >> Lincoln has three on the No, talking about with the two guards or you're talking about without no guards. You're doing it with 11. >> I just want to make a quick reminder. It's micwise. It's really hard to hear you guys. Okay. And so you just may want to speak up a little bit if you

073want. >> Should we be looking >> Which column should we be looking at, Chris? The column with guards or without guards when we're looking at the number of 11. >> Can Can you repeat the question? I'm sorry. >> When we're looking at the table, the table has two columns. One, a total a total count with guards and a total count without guards. Which of the columns when you're should we be focusing on the column with guards or the column without guards? >> Depends if we want guards. >> So then we have to look at with guards. >> Yeah, that goes back to the original question. Is it the will of the board to double up hazardous intersections with crossing guards or not? If the answer is no that we're going to designate hazards as we

074can if it's 12 or more then it would be the column without the crossing guards. If the board says that we want to place crossing guards here instead of having it be an ID do hazard you can look at the column that is with a crossing guard. >> So far as the question before us is the motion is to approve I do hazard routes. So we need to approve these four. And then another question is do we want to designate additional routes for the district? And another question is what are we telling you to apply for with the discretionary points? Is that so three questions really before us? Is that I get them all for this particular motion? >> For for this particular motion. Yes. Your third question is probably the easiest. We want to

075apply, right? [laughter] Check on that one. So, [clears throat] so we do want to apply for the I do guidelines only. Is that the consensus? It's a three-part motion. So, I want to try and get through the three parts. >> So, just to review, the three parts are ID do guidelines only. >> Yes. >> The additional hazard designation and what's the third one? >> We're giving indication to them where to use our discretionary points >> for crossing guards. >> Okay. >> No discretionary points for I do hazard application. I do hazards. >> So you can have a policy that I do hazards only but we try to increase increase the number of I do hazards. >> So these are the we have we have four I do hazards assuming Emerson will be will be removed.

076We're busing for that. We're going to ask to see if others have to decide which others we would like to get reviewed to become part of that list. And then those if they get part of that list would be must four >> in essence. And then >> so what I'm hearing from the board is Dempster from Cross Crawford to Ridge, G from Crawford to McCormack, Green Bay from Isabella to Ridge, and McCormack from Dempster to Green Bay. Submit those two I do for approval as I do hazards. Are there any additional hazards outside of that that the board would like us to either identify as a district 65 hazard and not submit to ID do and not get the reimbursement or submit them to ID dot for approval with up to two judgment points from

077the board. So that so that's the second question. Am I correct in in what I'm hearing? >> Yes. So what are the second what is that second list of of hazards that we would like to be uh considered? >> So in the memo we have Ridge, Chicago and Gross Point are the three additional ones. >> And then I think the question around the because of the change in Kingsley the the central the the area that the that we were just speaking to that goes from that you got to walk in front of To get to Orington, you got to walk in front of >> the Orion and the hospital. >> Well, that would be if we designated Ridge a hazard, then we would bust them across it because it's on the other side. >> Okay.

078>> Exactly. >> Okay. >> So, that would take care of that corner. And then Gross Point takes care of the hillside corner, >> right? >> And Chicago Avenue takes care of the >> lake portion. Yeah. The Yeah. >> From Main Street to >> Right. from Main Street to the red line up there. >> Okay. >> Is there any unintended consequences of uh bridge being a hazard all the way through and bus? I mean, I'm just looking at y'all. A bridge is a hazard all the way through. That that was based on the example based the the numbers and the number of routes >> we that are estimating uh was included in ridge all the way through in that example. >> Okay. Okay. >> Yeah. There are no intended consequences for adding those routes. The estimated

079cost that we presented to the board at the last meeting was about $4 million. So all in all, you're still saving approximately $200,000 from current transportation cost. likely to do that >> and dividing it up uh just wouldn't make sense. The way we would be inclined to divide it, particularly with the Haven feeder pattern concerns, is the traffic's lower on that part of ridge actually than a number of other sections. So, it just doesn't make sense to divide it up. >> Okay. And then we're we're choosing to mitigate. We're not going to apply Emerson from McCormack to Ridge because we're going to put crossing guards there. Is that what we're saying? >> Yeah. Just make sure. Yeah. Let's I'll make sure we're we're good with that. Yeah. >> I think the distance I mean part

080of returning to school was to be able to walk. [sighs] >> Yeah. I mean, I think I guess I just think about like, you know, Chris's point with reliability and that it is a fastmoving road. >> Say what? >> What? >> Say that again. I'm sorry. >> Just that the reliability of uh of the crossing guards separate issue I believe. But you know, I guess um Yeah, I mean the the distance is just really close and I think we've chosen as a community to prioritize walkability. >> We'll say you also have a lot of uh there's a lot of students crossing there from high school students like Emerson is >> constantly uh crossing. We just would have to definitely pay attention there because that's a whole new I mean it's we haven't had to do

081that since what 70 years. >> Yeah. How often do we have to revisit? Right. we should be revisiting at least every every year. >> Yeah. So, so again, there's the app. So, again, I think moving forward, right, I mean, we can make a decision now. Again, we're going to have our team recalibrate and and refine where we need crossing guards, where we need, you know, transportation. And yeah, that's >> and there is a prop a proposal coming forward to address the speed limit on Emerson as well, correct? Mhm. >> So take that into consideration. >> So to be clear, if the speed limit doesn't change, then Emerson So that's important. If the speed limit is not changed, then Emerson is a I do hazard and we would have to when we then have to bus

082across it >> without a crossing guard. If the speed limit doesn't change and there is no crossing guard, [clears throat] >> it would it would be a night out. >> What's the importance of the speed limit being changed to even >> that's huge. That's why ridge doesn't qualify because it's 25 even though many people don't go 25 but ridge is only 25 miles an hour. bridge was 30 miles an hour. That would >> So if they don't change the speed limit, would we want to then use still use crossing guards or would we be back in the That's >> I would want the the transportation team to really look at the different intersections in Ridge to where they may see and you've been looking at the propensity of accidents in in some of the some

083sections in Ridge, right? There's again They they changed the speed from 30 to 25 a couple of years back. I want to say three four years ago, right? But there's still it's still and Ridge is one of the worst streets to drive in this town. Uh but again, you got two lanes, right? It's four lanes actually on how we do it. Uh but uh yeah, no, there there's sections where where where there's a propensity maybe working transportation kind of works with the city to kind of figure out what the where where have there been accidents, right? Because I think that's what I'm concerned about. because we're concerned about the safety of our kids. Um I that you that would be part of that refining piece that our transportation team would have to do once they

084move on with our recommendations in regards to what are what are some of the hazard routes here. So >> and just an observation to the Emerson. So Emerson is two lane right till the uh canal. Um, another two-lane would be Oakton on the on the south end, which actually has higher traffic than then Emerson. >> Oakton. >> Um, >> Oakton two lanes. >> H, >> which where is Oakton? Two lanes. >> I'm Oakton is a single lane to the canal. >> Oh. Oh. >> And I'm just raising that. >> Yeah. >> Um, these lateral streets Um, if we were to designate Emerson, you're going to have a hard time not designating something like an Oakton, which would cause all kinds of grief as far as chopping up assignment areas and drastically raising transportation prices. >>

085Doesn't it also though have to do with the number of traffic lights in between two points? Because ultimately like on Emerson there's no stopping point between Ridge and like Dodge and so cars just go through whereas on Oakton there's like stop signs there's there's the >> right across Yeah. There's a lot of like places where it's chopped up and people go slower. >> There's not a lot of places. I don't think >> it's also a school zone. My argument would be uh I would support Emerson with crossing guards and see how it goes. Um that's what I'm hearing you say, Dr. Pinker. Right. >> Well, I'm guess I'm I'm saying I'm I'm looking at this. It's hard for me to imagine that this is really the traffic on like in the morning Emerson is backed

086up. Everyone trying to get to the university. So, they're saying that Emerson is only a one whatever it says. It says it's really low. That just seems uh I know what I see every day. I can't even get out to turn. Um so I am all four kids walking from that side of uh Emerson to Foster. I just want us to be clear that part of us doing this is because also the speed limit was reduced and putting in traffic cars. If the speed limit is not approved and it stays at what it is, are we still saying with that speed, we're okay with just putting in crossing guards? Or is this is this decision based on our decision to do this based on the combination of the reduced speed by 5 miles per hour

087and the crossing guards? So, we just need to be clear what we're Is it both or is it crossing guards alone and staying at 30 miles is >> I think it's both. >> Okay. >> I think it's both cuz I mean I hear your point in the morning I see that but in the afternoon it's not that way when these kids are getting out of school. >> Okay. >> It's really fast. >> Okay. So, are we ready? >> Sir, do you want to read the motion again? >> Motion again. >> Are we adding that? Are we adding the caveat? >> So, I I mean, >> do you want clarity about what we're actually going? >> No, just with respect to I just want to be clear about Emerson. If the speed limit is not reduced,

088are we is are we moving forward with Emerson as a >> crossing guard only? >> So, do we want to apply for the ID do hazard designation for Emerson >> anyway? Because we're not going to know whether the speed limit has been reduced until some point in the future. So, we want to designate Emerson as a hazard here and then we can always mitigate that hazard by reducing the speed limit and putting crossing guards in. I think it's but we don't want to not do that and then we're going back, right? Is that correct? From a timing perspective. >> Yeah, the board can make that decision. >> Okay. >> Once we put the crossing guards in, then it's no longer it's a Okay. But we can basically say it's a hazard and then when the

089speed limit comes down we can decide to put the crossing guards in and then we can change the course. Okay. >> Okay. >> Sorry about that. Just >> No, no, no. It's important to clarify. >> So we're saying I do these five dot hazards plus Ridge, Chicago, and McCormack. Or are we just doing the I do hazards at this turn? >> Gross point. >> Gross. I'm sorry. Sorry. Gross point. All one motion. >> Okay. >> Sorry. Chicago is a h are we operating? We're just talking about our ID dot hazards. We're we're not talking about our additional hazards that we've added such as Chicago Avenue because if we vote on this right now, we're voting to take off >> just this. >> Yes. >> Does that mean does the Chicago hazard stay in effect? >>

090I thought you were voting for this and the additional This is an additional hazard. No, right. No, we're >> that'll happen later. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, if you another more a couple of more slides because this is right. There's there were four options presented in the memo. >> A, B, C, and D. >> Okay. >> And I think we're we're we're voting on a hybrid of it. >> Um, so because I know now we're removing Emerson on this one, right? But so, but we're talk what I understand is we are voting on IDA guidelines plus Chicago Ridge McCormick and Gross Point. >> Okay. Chicago is in McCormack already. McCormack is in here, >> right? >> So, just take McCormack off and address what you said, >> right? >> Chicago point, >> right? >> I'm sorry.

091Yeah. No, I said McCormick by mistake. My apologies. Yeah, >> those are the three plus Chicago. >> Correct. >> So, you say that? >> Yeah. Motion so everybody's clear. bridge. Okay. So, I move that the board approve the ID do hazard routes uh for off 27 with the I I do current ID dot guidelines plus Ridge Chicago and Gross Point. >> Wymer, >> yes. >> Wilkins, >> yes. >> Pinker, >> yes. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> Uptegrand, >> yes. >> Anderson, >> yes. Motion passes 70. >> Now we can move into discussion for direction on the crossing guard budget. >> Can we jump straight to questions or is there any presentation? Can you put up the map with the dots? >> So, I was curious about the uh data around usage. Um 20 or more

092u I'm just anecdotally uh winter months there's less walking to school. So, do we trust that December 2025 data point of usage? >> In the in the memo from the last meeting and the one that was brought forward, we mentioned that we are going to do it again in the spring when more students are more likely going to be walking when it's a little bit nicer out instead of in December and that re-evaluate. And then another tricky question would be if we remove a crossing guard, how would we ever begin to determine whether or not an intersection would reach that level of utilization when there's not a crossing the guard there, so we don't know if people are avoiding it. It kind of creates a data problem. >> So we can add and remove guards.

093We're constantly evaluating. Uh so then we can say we like to put a guard here. We can do an analysis there, get it >> and then determine if we want to keep it there or we don't need it. So that can crossing guard situation could be fluid. >> Yep. >> Um we don't have a um a set that we that we have to have at these streets and these streets that could like I said and we're always evaluating that with Andy frame from different times of the year like this summer. >> Um any crossings over here. Um maybe we can repurpose that card and put them into this intersection without it affecting the budget. Um and so that's why some of our direction was um if we had a budget then we can say okay

094we have this many guards and then we can look to say this these are the places that we think that we would place them. Um but again that could always be be moved. >> Yeah. It's helpful but it's tricky because we are basing our determination here a bit on current usage. I want to ask a follow-up question just about that in particular and kind of when that uh evaluation takes place, what's the framework in which that you use to evaluate it and just these are my limited observations driving around town during school crossing hours and like the particular one that that strikes me is the northwest corner of Nicholls. There's a tremendous amount of traffic and children crossing and when Mr. Wright was a principal, he used to stand out there and uh be the

095crossing guard because there was a lot of kids crossing. I'm always freaked out about it. There's no crossing guard there. But then on the northeast corner of Nicholls where there's very few there's not a lot of cars, not a lot of traffic. Um I don't see as many kids crossing there although I don't hang out there that much. Um, but I am showing up there right as kids are are going. How do we determine that the northeast corner needs a crossing guard, but the northwest corner does not? >> We recently put a guard there and that was um >> at the northeast corner. >> The administration said we we need a guard here, but again, if if things change and and there's more crossings um at the intersection here, we can easily move that guard

096to that post or removed. That was just the direction of where we should place it. Uh based on school leaders. >> Okay. So the school leaders determining >> they were like, "Hey, we don't have a guard anywhere here." And so we placed one there. >> Okay. >> So Okay. >> But but again, if there's more students crossing all of a sudden than have been at a different area >> because I think it's both a confluence of students and traffic, >> right? Because it could be a lot of students are crossing an intersection, but there isn't a lot of traffic. And so we wouldn't necessarily need a guard there. >> So I have a question in terms of the ask from the board is you need like a general budget amount. >> I mean that >>

097is that >> that would be yeah if you want to jump in. >> Yeah. So, so really what we're trying to ask is is it the will of the board to allocate a budget for FY27 below current program cost? And if the answer is no, we'll continue to have the 55 guards continue to pay the our portion of the cost sharing agreement and come FY28 be responsible for the $737,000. If the board says allocate a budget below our current program cost for next school year, you can establish a budget range for for the administration and we can implement crossing guards in a priority of quarter that you wish. It could be that based on the crossing volume that we have from our crossing guards from December and September. >> Prioritize that in some ranking order.

098It could be intersections that meet the threshold of 11 on the I dot and put it at at dodge. I I don't have it exactly in front of me, but you know, if it's 10.5, put it at intersections that are 10.5 and then re-evaluate based on traffic volume and and move them around accordingly. So, the board can establish like the priority criteria for placing crossing guards for us or give us direction to that. But really the direction that we need from the board is is it your will to have a budget below current program cost for next school year >> of a >> yes. Yes. >> My answer is yes. >> I would suggest that we use the data to because in some senses somehow being able to say there's a we're using data you

099know 9.5 or whatever to determine this. I think >> well one of the things such that we're we're you know it's not someone can't come back and say we just >> well I I want to point out though that the the data that we have here is for kind of the major roadways. So when I think about the need for crossing guards I think about the intersection and I know I always reference what I know. So, um, uh, the the intersection of Wesley and Lake, which is the corner, that's a pretty lake is pretty busy right there. And that's an intersection where a lot of kids cross to go to Dewey School. Um, that would be one that wouldn't show up here. Probably wouldn't get to a nine or 9.5, but I think is an

100important one because of the amount of traffic going through. Now, other side, Wesley and Davis, we also have a crossing guard there. I mean, I don't think we need it. It's It's a lot of There's a lot of parents that are walking their kids to school. You know, the crossing guard is kind of superolous, but I mean, again, these are personal situations that I don't want to necessarily base our decisions upon, but I can say that at least there's a couple I know of that we probably don't need. >> Yes. And that and to address that, we can give you direction about how the pruning of those c crossing guards happen. So, as a board, we can provide that input. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And that doesn't need to happen today. It sounds

101like it would be helpful to have direction from the board on a budget range that you would like to allocate for the crossing guard program. So, it looks like the estimated total cost for next school year, this is with the cost sharing agreement. So, this includes the city of Evston's portion that they pay and our portion. The total cost is approximately $700,000 for next year maintained in our current crossing guard program. What budget range should would you like us to to set or would you like to set for the crossing guard program next year? And then we can look at >> in our current crossing guard using your data even though we're going to go back out and do it in a non-winter month. 25 only 25 of the 55 have more than 20 like

102only the yellow ones highlighted. So only 25 of the 55 here have more than 20 kids crossing at any point in time. >> I'm sorry. Only 25 of the 55 have more than 20 kids crossing at any point in time. >> Right. So the >> in December in the winter do it again in the spring. >> Okay. >> So and if we were to use Oh, sorry. Keep in mind that there's the there's six foster guard posts that have been recommended that don't have any data on it, >> right? Yeah. >> So, if we were to go with those 25 based on a usage uh usage 20 plus being kind of our cut off, I'm I am curious because that leaves out some schools and I'm, you know, I'm curious if we would be comfortable

103say designating a minimum of two guards per school. um to address crossing areas that that particular school, you know, important for that school. So, I I I'm concerned if we're going to go off usage if we leave schools without this service. Um I don't know if two is something folk would be comfortable with. I don't know if that's realistic. That put us at 30 guards, which is 309 just under 400,000. >> So, does it make sense to think about it like there's guards that are placed directly at the corners of the schools, you know, are very close? there's a number that's there and maybe we should ask building leadership, >> you know, in the same way that we did on the middle school like what they think and then, you know, see what that comes

104back as if we I don't know if that's appropriate, Dr. Turner, to ask the building leadership to make that recommendation. And then there's the ones that are a little bit further away that the students would be crossing because they're walking, but they're not crossing a major hazard. So what I think about there is like um you know that maybe the the school administrator doesn't have as much of a purview into the traffic times the number of kids walking that are a little further away that we then would determine. So in terms of like a minimum number per school, I don't know that I think a minimum number is appropriate. The number in my head I was going with was about half a million dollars. So it's about 40 guards. So we'd look to eliminate about

10515 guards off of our rolls. We'd get to about a half a million dollars worth of spend. >> So you propose a budget of about 500,000 >> 525 >> 700 525 >> and then what I hear you also say is we then think about oh sorry um I'll repeat what I said. So essentially what I heard you say was setting a budget for about $500,000. Us eliminating 15 of the guards off the 55 that we have calculated now. So reducing that by 15 guards surveying school leaders to get their view of where um they think guards should go. Bringing that information back and then that's doing a cross analysis. board can then give input and feedback and then we'll give a final review of the locations where we will propose where we will want the

106guards to go for the upcoming school year within that $500,000 budget. >> And that the 500 is what we're paying like we're not saving money. We're pretty much >> paying what we pay. Well, the basically the city would take 25% of that for next year and then we would have to >> 25% of the 500,000 >> for Isn't it next year that they still pay a portion and then the following year we pay the whole thing? >> I think that they pay approximately 150,000 of the 700,000 estimate next year. >> Yeah, because I don't think they amount. >> Okay. Okay. Sorry about that. I had that in my head. >> That's okay. >> Yeah. And I guess the point of that number from my perspective is like it gives us a starting point, but we

107may be wrong up or down. And so then we would use school leadership to determine if we were wrong and then we could amend it. >> So you going with school leadership feedback first or >> I'm saying let's start with 500,000. Let's look at the number that we have. we'll get rid of 14 or 15 of them, however many that is, and then let's just cross reference that. If a school leader says like, no, we have to have a guard there, then let's consider that. >> So, we're not starting with volume. The 25 that are indicated by volume. >> Is that our we starting with saying we're going to cover these 25 high volume C intersections? Is that our starting point? >> I'm I didn't stipulate that. >> Okay. I'm just I think with going

108by volume, but the the 40 um target would based on this list, which I don't think includes Foster, so that complicates it a little bit, but that would put us at a minimum if we did the 20 plus intersections, which is 25, and then a minimum of three per school, that puts us exactly at 40. >> I can vote for that. So, say that again. the number. So it's 25. >> We start with based on >> uh use of intersection >> that's 25. >> It's 25 and then ensure that no schools left out. Um if you go you could go with the three minimum if we have higher needs with uh utilization than we think we could go with a two minimum. Um and you but with the three minimum it would get us to

10940. >> That doesn't include fossil. >> Are you talking about the highlighted ones that are in the memo? So there's 24 highlighted ones, right? >> 256. >> That's what Dr. Peter said. 25. >> Okay. Okay. So then 25 plus 6, so 31. >> But then he was saying add, >> right? But if you if you go with the two cross and guard minimum, it'll give you room to add foster in there because foster is not factored in there is what he's saying. >> Yeah. So two minimum foster and the 25 would make sense based on >> so two two crossing guards per school. So the only thing about the u like a walker the minimums a walker the ones on here who don't have kids crossing walker right >> and Lincoln have a lot of

110bus have buses right so the walker kids have bus the Lincoln kids because of that particularly the ones who were who are west of uh Chicago their bus so >> you know just >> I mean if a if a school leaves crossing guards we should you know if they if the if the administrator says, but I wouldn't assume we just have to just give two just because we need to give two. >> Well, what I'd throw in it to to advocate for Walker and Lincoln uh because we're looking at Lincoln's, we're looking at Main Street. >> That is a very busy street right there. Um and so I would be a little frustrated if I was a Lincoln parent and didn't have access to any crossing guards. uh based, you know, I I would still

111think that we we we need to build in some coverage of all schools. For instance, even at Walker, they may be bust, but there's still going to be kids walking. Um and church is a super busy street going through that area right there. >> Um so, so I'm just concerned if we if we have schools like Lincoln and Walker that we're not giving any crossing guards to, I just that doesn't feel right to me. Well, I mean, I think that's that's the whole point of where we start, right? And I think in in lie of saying and mandating every school has a minimum of x amount. I think we we can say, "All right, here's our starting 25 plus the six for foster or however many principal Bellel thinks we need around the school because

112I think there's a lot there also. And then let's have building school leaders." So, I agree with you. the the intersection of uh church and what was the one >> central >> uh just central or east prayer >> church and in central park or um would be would be one I would expect to see a crossing guard at >> but I think you know that gives us some room >> and this is just a starting point this could be re-evaluated as we are moving forward >> okay I agree main you know I don't want >> I want people I want the board to know that there's >> room for adaptation so makes it a little easier to come to consensus. >> Okay. So district, y'all are good on board next steps on on board guidance

113that they just provided. Budget 500,000 40 crossing guards breaking that down 25 traffic about two guards per school gives us a little bit wiggle room with how many guards we need to put at Foster. That's what we heard >> as our starting point. So we're good. All right, I think that's what we needed. >> Next is proposed consent agenda action items. >> There's a there's a split at this. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> I apologize. >> I forgot my glasses. Jenny, come on up. So this is just for this discussion. It's really opening it up to allow board to continue to ask any questions around the sped audit. there is no formal presentation. They will reference back uh to different parts of the presentation that has been presented. So I just wanted to name that.

114>> So uh last time you came up here I asked about community engagement and I understand there has been some community engagement now. Can you speak to that? Tell us what you've heard and who you've engaged. >> Can you pull that mic to you too? >> Sure. Sure. So I shared once the the audit was public on the website along with the MDNA and then paragraph introducing the the report I shared that with the Moran center with CCDI and with case. I meet with case in CCDI on a monthly basis. I met with case this morning um and talked a little bit about it and uh the next time I meet with CCDI DI asked them to put some their questions on our running agenda that we have. Luca from Maran Center responded said he

115appreciated the sharing and that he would read thoroughly and and get back to me if he had any questions. Okay. Uh so the the report um makes clear that the spending increases in 22 23 and 23 24 uh okay I'm sorry I'm I'm uh and I don't want to take this off but let me uh so the report makes clear that the spending increases in 22 23 and 23 24 and that's when it went from 20 27 to 35 and 35 to 45 have now said a much higher threshold limiting our ability to reduce spending without jeopardizing the IDA funds given that constraint but what is your but the report also says there's a lot of areas for improvement so can you help us understand what your analysis is of what the current expenditures are

116most amendable to reductions even if it's not you know can happen right away so how are you thinking about you what the report is saying what where we can reduce in and taking away what you can legally do right now because of >> I I also want to clarify the amendable to reductions I think that's >> so let me set this so let me let me ask it in a general sense we're obviously went up greatly the audit says we went up greatly and that there's some areas we need to reduce and we should address them immediately but Thee says we're constrained from what we can reduce. So without what do you look at and you see in that report that tells you hey here's the areas that need to be addressed regardless of if

117you can address them right away because of the constraints of >> if I'm um thinking about then the specific part of the report that you're referring to about addressing immediately that was really them paying attention into and having more oversight on maintenance of effort. Um that it has been done in the district because it has to be done in order for the idea grant to be approved. Um, we're looking at it and I think what they were referencing is looking at it more of a a proactive tool so that we can be tracking more closely if we do have any allowable reductions to keep that tracked and using our expenditures to know where we're at when maintenance of effort is um is due. So I I guess I interpreted the report as saying our expenses

118like we have uh we have a lot more people in categories than others and it definitely talked about our pair pair of pros uh and our transportation and I thought it said look at all these right now and so when it says assume west ed understands. So when they say look at these right now are they how is that in light of mole >> if there's a specific part in the report that that says right now or that that's being interpreted um I will look at that again the way that my interpretation is is that they are making these recommendations to look at overall from the district that we are a legally compliant district. there are opportunities to to strengthen that will also lend hand inand with maintenance of effort and our spending efforts. So

119when we're looking at out of district placements and looking at reintegrating our kids that is also looking at our continuum of services that we provide in the district. Can we provide programs and services that are comparable to out of district? If we do so, then looking at our staffing, do we have the staffing in order to to provide the services, the direct instruction for those programs, um that may reduce pair professional, that may increase, that may move around the money depending on where um we see that we get better outcome data for our students when we're looking at the continuum of services and staffing >> and and sometimes I know in the report they talked about staffing models in comparison to districts. It's not necessarily apples to apples and oranges to orange oranges. We are

120looking at um the joint inclusion committee is looking at workload plans. They're looking at time analysis. What exactly is being done with this within a certain role and then what are the efficiencies within that role. So in some districts the assistant principal does all the 504 work. That's not the case in this district. So to compare us to another district, say a CPS, we're going to have different ratios. So rather than just go with that as our main data point, I'm going to have Jenny explain the the work that you're doing. The joint committee of special education and inclusion is um we've been meeting all year and right now we are working on a workload uh staffing model that includes a really uh looking at a time analysis and roles and responsibilities of each special

121education staffing position in the district. Um a to look at what the consistency is across the district with roles and responsibilities. be to look at how much time is it taking on average to complete all of the the roles and responsibilities within your position and still be able to provide services based on students IEPs with the intensity that they are created for. So the federal the ID grant correct? >> Yes. [clears throat] >> Uh and we get 2 point about 2.3 million for that per year. Is that correct? >> If we didn't have the federal ID grant, this is just hypothetical. >> Um and therefore we didn't have thee. How would that change our approach towards providing services? >> I want to read from the report itself. It says consequences for not meeting the MO

122eligibility and/or compliance standards are significant. LEAs are not eligible eligible to receive IDA part B funds until they have met eligibility standards shown by budgeting at least the same or more than the last year the LOE met compliance test. If an LOE fails the compliance standard, the SEA may require them to repay the funds using non-federal funds in the amount of the failure or the LEA's part B grant amount. So, it's not quite as simple as, oh, we just don't need the $2 million. It's much more complex than that. For us to lose federal funding around special around special education is significant and it would be a significant problem. The grant is also intended to supplement, not supplant, local funds. So everything that we've been talking about, the maintenance of effort and the threshold and

123looking at our staffing models and our time analysis and our continuum of services, that's all student need driving our services, which is driving our our budget needs. That's why we need time to to really had take that three years this year to look at our data, collect more data, analyze more data, and then do some trials and in expanding programs and what we need and looking at using student outcome data in order to drive those decisions and then provide the appropriate professional development and materials if needed if we're adding any programs. Okay. >> Um I know that you're in the first year of your plan [clears throat] is rolling out is is being implemented. Um and it's primarily with the um staff that provide special education services, excuse me. [clears throat] But one of the

124recommendations in the audit was to have more voice from the um general education staff. Is that going to be considered as part of this look see to see how people are doing their jobs and what they're using their time for because part of the training and all of the um other things that have to happen in order for these students to receive their services have to include when they are in the general education population. So how what are you thinking about that? Well, that's part of the continuum of services. So, we're going to look at that continuum of services which includes a robust co-eing model. And so, you can't have a robust co-eing model if you're not speaking to general education classroom teachers. Okay. So, so what is that that continuum of services from the

125the least restrictive to the most restrictive and then how do we start to ensure if we are for for example trying to develop a solid co-eing model that's that's professional learning for two educators. It's not the special educator, but what does that planning look like? What does the co-eing model look like? How does that work in the classroom? So, that's I think that's part of it. So, absolutely, you've got to have the general education educators at the forefront of this as well as the principles, the assistant principles, the pair of professionals. I mean, this is wraparound support for our special education students. >> Do we have a robust co-eing model now? >> Not robust. Nothing is >> I would not say robust. I would say it varies from school to school and and it's Certainly

126something we could focus on. >> So this last So >> do we have a co-eing model in our elementary schools? >> It's some we do. >> Yeah. >> So that that is part of the committee right what how are we defining co-eing? What is co-eing? It's also that's where we need the time and we are starting immediately. We are in the first year but again starting the first year in January of 2026 is starting the first year not this school year. um once we got the the report um and that is really using our student outcome data. What does our student outcome data look like? In the report it mentioned I AR data. We also need to look into MAP data. We also look need to look into are students meeting their um their IEP

127goals. We need to look at are their IEP goals ambitious enough? Are we doing progress monitoring? So we have multiple data points to determine if that uh placement is the least restrictive environment for that student to receive direct specialized instruction and continue to make progress and growth. >> And you'll notice in a lot of our goals, it talks about using data to inform how we're progressing with students and with educators. So I I'm I'm um >> so looking looking at the report and looking at the years. So we're we go from 2021 26 million though we've talked about this before 2122 to 27 million 22 23 to 35 and then 23 24 to 45 million. Structurally, what did what did we do? What fundamentally changed in our approach to special education between 2021 22 and

128223. That's historical data that we really haven't done like that forensic. We've said, okay, we see it's increased. we need to take a look at what we're doing now and we need to kind of say okay what's going to be the most efficient and fiscally responsible and um really focused on student needs moving forward. I mean I think we could go back and do a lot of backwards planning but I think what we've been spending a lot of our time on is what is happening here and now and how do we start to take those structures and change those structures to to keep from increasing. >> Right. And I just want to add too that some of the timeline you gave was during co >> um and then it came off respectfully that's a very

129good question but we asking people who were not here so for us to try to put the dots together in a district that use have used manual systems Dr. Dr. Romy D. Christopharo came I want to say and Stacy you can correct me. Did she come like at around the pandemic time? She was I think probably a year or so year or two before she five or six years >> right she started doing some work co happened still was trying to do a change in the systems and and and we've changed that leadership in the sped department two times Jenny makes the second time under my leadership that we've changed the leaders changed that leadership so I say all of that actually three times because Romy served under me for a year we had another

130person in it the previous here and now year three Jenny is in that role. >> Yes. >> So, so trying to connect the dots I think is we're still trying to connect some of those dots. I think at the end of it and and why all of these costs if you had to ask me what is really we don't have a continuum of services in this district which is what she's talked about. Um, and that continuum of services allows for us to offer a plethora of services to support all of our students needs and not have to and self-contained classroom. So, that was another big thing. I think we shifted from Thanks for calling that out, Pat. We shifted from some self-contained classrooms, right, to really a heavy inclusion model. >> And we're trying to

131bring people along. and then bringing people along. We increase staff along the way to support in in that model, which has traditionally been the district's choice of how to do things over time. >> So that's I mean actually so I mean that's so that's what I'm was looking for. We went to we went from self-contained to inclusion which increased cost. That's I'm just saying a 20 million increase >> there has to you know >> right but I'm just putting the dots together from what we tried to figure out. We don't defend like I because they're not here. I can't definitively. This is what we're speculating as we're trying to put the pieces together and what has happened over time. >> I have a quick question about about that also. I think it was SDRP2, but

132Maya and Sergio uh correct me if I'm wrong. There was a row or a line item on the potential budget cuts for reducing social workers from um you know as to make up the overall decrease the budget cuts that you all were were considering and it was voted by the board not to reduce social workers and so I'm curious how that was do you recall what I'm talking about? >> I think I do. >> Is Yeah. So, I'm wondering, you know, how that could be a line item in an SDP budget that a consultant put together. I believe it was uh student centered services >> school counselors and not social workers because social workers are tied to kids. school is what the district right in addition to the reason that the board did not do

133that cuz I led the SDRP phase 2 work alongside Dr. Harkin the reason that that was decided is because at that particular time the and the board supported us the district made a choice to not remove or touch any services that that directly impacted student learning, right? or or or student facing in in some type of way. And so that was not giving us a a return on our investment. You could argue, oh well, you got rid of academic tutors. That's cuz when we looked at the data and the original design for academic tutors, that was not it wasn't working and we were just hiring people to do a job and we were it wasn't working. And so as a result, we eliminate that. So it was school counselors. >> Okay. as as one one

134area and it was it was really and we made the decision not to do that because we had just brought on AVID. They were working extremely hard in our middle schools and was doing really great work and our goal along with other roles was not to directly impact any student roles at that particular time. >> Okay. Thank you for that sense. Um my next question is when you talk about the time study, one of the things that you referenced was kind of understanding the roles and responsibilities and what that means across buildings. And so when I think about conversations I've had with individuals in the district and kind of their from their perspective, right, social worker, psychologist, principles to better understand kind of how the pieces fit together. You know, one of the one of

135the comments that came out of that one of those conversations was, you know, you can't get rid of my social worker because I don't have an assistant principal. And I'm wondering how we think about the roles and responsibilities of how um some of those line items that are affecting thee are actually augmenting uh deficit in another area. Does that make sense? >> It does because the roles of things like social worker, psychologist, OT's, PTS, anything should be consistent across the district. And so that's one of the things, sorry, that's one of the things that this that this study is looking at. It shouldn't be a social worker does one thing at one school and another thing at one school. We should have a fairly consistent service model to ensure that a social worker perhaps isn't

136doing a quasi AP role in duties that are not appropriate. So but the thing but that would be like their extra duties. So that's what Janie's working on now and that's what the joint inclusion committee is working on now. What does this look like across the district? Because in essence, think of it this way. We have a whole lot of students who are going to be transferring schools. They're getting social work minutes in one school. They should have the same model of social work minutes at the next school. And the services should be similar in all schools, almost identical. Just like if I'm going to be at a third grader at Kingsley and then I'm going to go be a third grader at Oakton, there should be not dramatically instructional models. >> Yeah. I guess

137my question is really around if that so so what would it be a potential outcome of this time study to find that and I'm just going to make up numbers here 50% of the time a social worker is spending is not actually delivering special education services. And so you don't you can't parse out that person's salary and say 50% here 50% there. 100% all in thee no matter what they're doing. Is that right? >> It is. And it's it's part of thee and it's just part of staffing costs that's coming out of local funds. Um it's not coming out of the the idea grant. Um, and that is going to be the hardest part to quantify is when you're responding to the things that come up every day that you haven't planned to come up

138where you're supporting students and you're doing investigations and you're doing assessments with kids that sometimes could cross over with an assistant principal when you're supporting students. >> And how do you think about kind of what the role is of [clears throat] these individuals? what what their role should be. You know, another comment that I've heard um is social workers do, you know, community level social work like organizing food drives or coat drives or things like that. Um you know, how do you think about kind of working top of license and how to measure whether a a certified staff is working at top of license? I think that starts with what's a what's in what's in a student's IEP minutes. Like, are we meeting the students needs? That's what you're >> if you're saying top of

139license, I'm really looking at social work is part of a student's IEP >> and we need to be working with the students goals in their IEP and following those IEP goals. >> Okay. So it really is driven by the IEP and what the IEP minutes are, >> right? I mean, all of these decision around special education is going to be foundational to what's in an IEP, which is a legally defensible document, >> right? Do we have a technology system that contains like a database that contains all of the requirements for all of the IEPs in our district? So um we have um Embrace it's called it's it's our IEP and eligibility system. So we can pull reports from Embrace. Um that's sometimes a moving target and making sure that all of the some information has

140to be entered manually. So we have to make sure that that's all up to date in order to get up-to-date reports. But we know from Embrace how many minutes we're required to deliver across the district in PTO, speech, all that kind of stuff. >> Well, I want to go back to what Jenny is saying. We we could, but what we want to make sure is that those goals are written appropriately and that's starting with the basic like how are we writing those goals? So, if we went and pulled that information right now, >> we might have some IEPs that were not written as well as others. So, we would need to revise those goals. So as with any database, the information you put in is only going to be as good as the information you

141put out. Y So that's one of our foundational pieces is we need to make sure that the information going in is topn top quality. Then we can start to get appropriate data including progress monitoring things like that. I star um uh I we can get those data points to really start to analyze the effectiveness of the goals that have been written and progress monitor. So just want to make sure I understand the the big picture plan here. So the study is starting in 2026. >> Correct. >> So the the time announcement is is really it's focused as part of the committee work to have a workload staffing model. So what the workload plan that we are mandated to have every district is mandated to have. >> Sorry, let me let me just try one more

142time. Sure. >> So we have you have a three-year plan, correct? It starts in 2026. >> Yes. So by 2029, it's possible we may have a system to determine if we can reduce any of that 47 million that we're spending. >> So within that time, we'll work on the the seven recommendations within the three-year plan. And part of that was more um fiscal oversight and on maintenance of effort. Uh but some of those costs and part of that part of that shift that has been made since Tamara has been here and that we're continuing to work on is how we're how we're coding what we're spending money on. How we're coding how much we're spending on contractual service per discipline, how we're coding um different purchase service areas. So, it's more um concrete on how

143we're spending our money, >> but ultimately we can't ultimately we need to be able to justify per thee any reduction in service. Correct. It has to has to be valid. >> Um but we can't do that until we have a system in place. Correct. >> So, I guess what I'm getting at is I'm trying to just kind of understand the bottom line here. Is it basically 2029 before we would be able to make reasonable reductions in what was previously an increase of $20 million? >> Uh, that's a a possibility. Yes. But what I would say is still students needs and IEP services are are going to drive staffing. uh looking at our continuum of services, looking at our staffing models, being fiscally responsible, there could be some reductions, but that has to be based on

144student needs. >> Just as a clarification, I think one of the things that I would be perfectly happy to spend all of this money if we knew that we were getting great outcomes. And so one of the things that I think I'm looking for in this is, you know, we've got uh a level of providers, a ratio of providers to students that are really high for uh as compared to the state average that aren't educators. >> I So when I think about >> I think they're all educators. >> Okay. They aren't special education teachers. >> No, they're not certified teachers, but I would say that a pair Yeah. I think Pat, I see your face. >> Okay. >> Say this. >> Um, so I'm a physical therapist. >> Yep. >> And much of what I

145did and what they continue to do is make the educational program accessible to a student. And without that those outcomes will decline. So when you think of a student's team, they they are all working together as educators to help that student learn. So that's the reality of it. And you know, we when we get to 2029, we may be in a different service delivery model. I mean, that may come from some of the work that that's being done and we may have that continuum and that may actually be more expensive, right, >> than outplacement. So, but we don't know that yet. You know, I'm not making any predictions. I'm just I just >> have been at the table and I know that sometimes >> what you want for the best outcome for a a student

146and their family may be outside of what you predicted financially. So I'm just saying that >> I guess what I'm looking for is >> the weight, right? So, like I 100% understand exactly what you just said and I'm and I'm I'm wondering and I think this is just all part of the I'm wondering if this is all part of the process, but to say, you know, maybe it's true that it's we would drive better student outcomes to hire additional special ed teachers versus having so many pair pros. And so when I think about how we are spending our money and the quality of services that we're delivering or maybe we need more PTs than counselors. So it's kind of how are we thinking about waiting to drive the student outcomes that we desire. >> Yeah.

147See the issue with SPED though is that again it's again it's an IEP. It's an individualized education plan and we have to adhere because every student is an individual, right? One one thing I I wish I I remember Romy once said, "Why why don't we all do individual education plans for all students, no matter whatever disabilities they have or what have you, right? That'd be great because then we can really dig into what there what the specific and unique needs of every student is, right? That would be ideal in education world because then we can really meet students and families where they're at. Um costs a lot of money to do, right? Um and this is public education. Uh and and what we really want to do, it goes back to ensuring that students have

148access, right? It's always been about access and and that's and and we are federally mandated to provide access through the individual education plan at at whatever cost it may may come. We we have to it's maintenance of effort. We have to figure out a way to do it. And and so that's the challenge, right? And and I get I get what you're saying. Can I ask you I see what you're trying to say. No, we that that we really want to figure out, you know, how to how to ensure that we in in this whole process that we're we're improving student outcomes, but if the student doesn't have and specifically uh students who have individual education needs don't have some of the supports they need, then outcomes will worsen. And what what I hear you

149proposing is well, you know, okay, let's take off some of the weight, but we again it's all what what drives sped is student need and whatever it may cost that that is what we're going to have to >> Can I just ask a cl just a clarifying question? >> Can I just jump in just real quick on something? We're talking about bargained positions and open space. And so the district doesn't we would we wouldn't be able to make these decisions without >> gosh no >> making the decision connecting with the bargaining unit impact bargaining on what we decide to do and then making some decisions. The other part of this early on in in the conversation I heard something about APS and social workers which is also a bargained position and when a position is

150in the bargaining unit the work can't just go to like a a non-union position. So I I just want to I just want to caution us around the c you know some of the nature of the conversation. I understand is it may not be you know the we may not be you know intentionally speaking on you know something or that may not be the thoughts on like long term but because these are bargaining unit positions we just have to be careful about the nature of the public conversation um that we're having because we would have to engage the bargaining unit for any of this. Thank you, Tiffany. I think I think the point is >> it isn't we didn't increase the number or the percent of students with IEPs from 2020 to 2021, like between

151those three years at the rate of increase in spend. And so it would make perfect sense to me if we increased the percentage of students and we increase the cost. But there was an exponential increase in cost beyond the students served. And so that's where it gets tricky, right? So we want to provide the services that are in the IEP. We want to be accordance with the law. We want to give the students a quality education, but it seems we've gone off track just by the rate at which we've increased expenditures versus the percentage of students that need these services. I call you're up. No, I I mean so I don't to me this isn't a conversation about how do we >> we want high quality services for kids but also in terms of understanding

152our service understanding our service model I think even if folks weren't here then we could go back and look at how many social workers how many psychologists how many parapros how many special education educators did we have in 2020 2122 to 22 23 because that implies that we have a different service you know service when we went from contained classrooms to inclusion that is probably going to increase and that was a decision that wasn't made by y'all but you're implementing that and so that's just a simple thing for me to understand is it is the increase because of moving from uh classrooms to inclusion and in doing that that's you know that's the reality of that and now you're really trying to perfect that model and understanding what the staffing is. But I just find

153it in order to truly understand the this memo here, it does imply that there were staffing, we just have a different model between those years. And I think that's important to understand. So we know what we're doing now um at that at a cost that's almost like 15,000 you know 20 million in in increased costs over over a year. That doesn't mean we decrease it but I think we just need to understand what the what the staffing implications of that are particularly as we're thinking about having to still currently reduce our our budget. Right. And right now we've been saying special education is not an area that we're looking at. And so I hear what I'm saying here you're saying that we're not going to look at it to 2029. So that means as we

154move forward the next year, we're doing all of this while these costs might still be increasing without having the model of understanding that I just so I would like to understand the staffing differences between 2122 and where we are now to understand is it just transportation cost or is it a fundamentally different in terms of the staff that we have to support this work. >> That's a good question. >> A little bit. So I I hear what you're saying and yes there there there could have been some changes between the the program models there that would impact staffing. I think just special education is also the number of students qualifying for special education because they do have to qualify has steadily been increasing as well. we are better at um determining eligibility for students. Uh

155the with this since COVID particular um we've had staffing shortages which forces districts to use contractual agencies which increases cost. Uh out of district placement costs has have risen. Uh transportation costs could have risen. Some of those things are out of our control. So it could be one of those things. It could be all of those things. I think that's where then the immediate recommendation is to have some more oversight on MO. Make sure we're we're budgeting, we're having our coding so we can track where those increases are happening and what is in our control to look at is there more fiscally responsible way to provide quality services to our our students. and exactly what you're saying agree with what we would do going forward. We should be able to start you off with a

156table that shows those increases in transportation increases in those same categories of what happened from 202021 to now. Right? To understand where the deltas are changing, >> right? It seems like um we've uh you know out of placement uh tuition runs us I think about four million a year plus transport costs. Um we're going to have a a significant number of kids come off of that roles from graduating from 8th grade. I know you've cautioned against counting that in the savings column, but how have your processes or how have you how do you look at Jenny our process for outplacement and obviously we're trying to provide those services in house. How do you think about that moving forward to try and keep that out of placement tuition back down to a normal level? So that's

157again the the work of the continuum of services and looking at our students that we do have out of district and what is the profile of learning and what programs could we offer in district that is more comparable comparable to our out of district programs. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. We will now move on to the proposed consent agenda. Action items. I move that the board approve the following items as part of the consent agenda. Gift approval for the Willard mural. Personnel appointments, leaves, and separations. Board of Education January 2026 meeting minutes and February 2026 bills payable. >> Just a quick question about the PK gift. >> Yes. >> Um just checking in to see if we're I was trying to look at Stacy and talk. It's hard. Uh trying to see if we're

158just confirming you know PEP compliant for donation this large. >> So we are PEP compliant. These funds were funds that we did look into when we previously looked at the Willard spend and they were funds from before the creation of PEP. >> So we did check in with PEP and that's all fine and quiet. >> Second >> Wymer. >> Yes. >> Wilkins. >> Yes. >> Harder. >> Yes. >> Hernandez. >> Yes. >> Optike. >> Yes. >> Van Newstrand. Yes. >> Anderson. >> Yes. >> Motion passes 70. >> Next is approval of resolution regarding the suspension and dismissal of the administrator. I move that the board approve the resolution regarding the suspension and dismissal administrator as >> second. >> Wymer. >> I'm sorry. >> Okay. Let's try this. Uh, next is approval of resolution regarding the

159suspension and dismissal of an administrator. I move that the board approved the resolution regarding the suspension and dismissal of an administrator as noted. >> Second. >> Sorry. I'll take the vote. Wymer, >> yes. >> Wilin, >> yes. >> Pinker, >> yes. Hernandez, >> yes. >> Optek, >> yes. >> Van Newstrand, >> yes. >> Anderson, >> yes. >> Motion passes 70. >> Any other business? With no further business, I adjourn this meeting at 8:42.