Chicago Board hears public outcry over charter closures; discusses community schools expansion, food service and Title IX updates

Chicago Board of Education members heard more than two hours of public participation on April 9, 2025, with parents, teachers and charter supporters urging the board to protect students after recent Acero charter network closures and to tighten charter contract accountability. The meeting also included lengthy staff presentations and questions on the district’s plan to expand its Sustainable Community Schools program, a proposed renewal of food-service contracts, a review of Title IX and student-protection work, and the district’s consideration of a revised commercial-activity (advertising) policy.

Why it matters: Speakers said charter operators must be held to clear financial and transition responsibilities when they close schools, and several board presentations covered programs and contracts that would affect school operations, staffing and student supports. Board members asked for follow-up data on program evaluation, procurement details and the district’s contract oversight.

Public comments focused on Acero closures and charter accountability. Jackson Potter, CTU vice president, told the board the tentative agreement between Chicago Public Schools and the teachers’ union represents important gains for educators but cautioned that it alone would not solve longstanding problems in schools. “Building back what's been destroyed in this era of divestment and educational apartheid is not a one‑day or one‑contract effort,” Potter said. Caroline Rutherford, CTU charter division vice chair and a teacher at Acero Marquez, thanked the board for reaching an agreement that kept five Acero schools open but called the memorandum of understanding “not sufficient” because charter contracts, as written, can allow operators to close schools with no financial consequences. “Operators can close schools without accountability,” Rutherford said. “That needs to change.”

Parents and teachers from affected schools described rapid school closures and asked the board to require stronger transition plans and financial responsibility from charter operators. Lucy Salgado, an Acero parent, said the network “closed our schools with no warning” and urged the board not to grant long charter renewal terms when operators have not demonstrated stability. “We want stability. We want honesty,” Salgado said. Peter Collins, a high‑school teacher who also identified himself with Acero schools, asked the board to revise charter contracts so operators must “cover the cost of closures” rather than shifting the burden to taxpayers.

Acero parents who testified virtually said the transition agreement they had seen did not guarantee the five schools would remain open or offer clear consequences for harm. Melina Pereira, identifying herself with Parents for Education, said the signed agreement lacked details on accountability and student transfer supports. “What comes next is change,” Pereira said.

Supporters of charter renewals also spoke. Educators and parents from Perspectives Charter School, North Lawndale College Prep, Urban Prep and Catalyst Schools described program results and urged multiyear renewals. Amina Ojo, a Perspectives staff member, asked the board to consider seven‑ to ten‑year renewal terms for high‑performing schools, and Andrew Roy of the Illinois Network of Charter Schools urged renewal terms tied to student impact and academic growth.

Staff presentations and board questions

Sustainable Community Schools expansion: Autumn Berg, acting executive director for the Office of Sustainable Community Schools, asked the board to authorize second renewal agreements for lead community‑based partner organizations and described a planned expansion. Berg said the renewal period would be May 1, 2025–April 30, 2026, with an increase in the not‑to‑exceed amount to $11.8 million to support expansion planning and an additional cohort of schools. Board members sought details on school selection, funding per school, monitoring and evaluation. Berg said 75 schools submitted applications to be considered for expansion and that the selection subcommittee would review letters of interest and make recommendations; she also said the district is procuring evaluation partners and intends to publish contracts when available. Several board members emphasized the need for participatory evaluation data and asked for more information on monitoring and historical outcomes before expanding the model further.

Nutrition contract renewal and school food concerns: Jason Mojica, executive director of Nutrition Support Services, presented a request to authorize a third renewal year of existing food‑management agreements with Aramark and Open Kitchens for FY2026 (July 1, 2025–June 30, 2026). Mojica said the not‑to‑exceed amount for the renewal year is approximately $116 million and that negotiated CPI adjustments are part of the contracts. Board members and commenters pressed district staff on food quality, translation of student feedback into menu changes, disparities across sites (schools that cook on site versus warming sites), and chronic staffing shortages in kitchen personnel; Mojica and his team pointed to student tastings, surveys (tens of thousands of responses), a chef residency program and grant partnerships (for instance with Ingenuity) to address gaps. Board members asked for more robust data on participation, mode‑of‑service differences, and the recent incidence reports (including isolated reports of expired product) so they could assess operational risks and possible contract remedies.

Office of Student Protections and OIG reports: Brian Thompson, executive director of Student Protections (Office of Student Protections and Title IX), and Phil Wagenekt, Inspector General, briefed members on student‑safety work. Thompson described the office’s intake, trauma‑informed investigations, student supports and training programs (including a new bystander‑intervention curriculum piloted in eight schools) and reported a 9% increase in reported incidents in the first semester of 2025 compared with the same period in 2024; OSP opened about 2,300 investigations in the year’s first semester, a 42% increase over the prior year, Thompson said. He also explained that federal Title IX regulatory changes and accompanying U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights guidance required a legally‑mandated policy amendment accepted earlier in the meeting to maintain federal compliance. Wagenekt described OIG’s adult‑on‑student allegation caseload and said the specially staffed OIG unit investigates alleged adult‑on‑student sexual misconduct; since 2018 the OIG’s unit has issued substantiated reports across a range of misconduct findings, including cases the district and outside agencies did not otherwise investigate. Board members asked for disaggregated data (for instance by student age and gender) and for timelines and case‑inventory detail; the OIG said investigations vary by complexity and sometimes take more than a year, and the office is working to keep caseloads manageable and transparent.

Commercial‑activity policy (advertising): Courtney Hill, executive director of Marketing, presented proposed amendments to the district’s 2006 commercial‑activity policy to allow the district to consider limited advertising or sponsorships on district‑owned assets. Hill and staff described an audit of national and local precedents (for example, the CTA ad network) and explained that building a city‑scale out‑of‑home advertising network would require major capital or an outside vendor to finance installation; an estimated build cost was large (staff cited multi‑million‑dollar capital needs and a five‑to‑ten‑year runway to realize significant net revenue in some models). Board members raised concerns about guardrails, restricted content (for example, food or products not appropriate for school audiences), equity in revenue distribution across neighborhoods, naming‑rights scenarios, and transparency; staff said the recommended amendment would enable the district to open a public comment period and further feasibility work, including equity safeguards and review processes for each potential deal.

Votes at a glance

- Motion M01 — recess for 30 minutes (moved by Member Lopez). Passed by roll call: 15 ayes, 0 nays. The transcript recorded a roll call in which board members who answered “Aye” included Member Smith, Member Lopez, Member Thomas, Member Boyle, Member Wallace, Member Rosenfeld, Member Rivas, Member Rio Sierra, Member Brown, Member Bannon, Member Gutierrez, Member Biggs, Member Zaccor, Member De Berry and Vice President Bautista. (The board recessed and later reconvened.)

- Motion MO2 — commence a closed session pursuant to the Open Meetings Act (moved by Member Boyle). Passed by roll call: 17 ayes, 0 nays. The board entered a closed session; no votes on agenda items were reported on the record after that session.

What’s next: Several items presented at the agenda review committee will return to the April 24, 2025 regular meeting for formal action (for example, renewals and authorizations described by staff). Board members repeatedly requested additional data: evaluation plans and monitoring reports for the Sustainable Community Schools expansion; detailed breakdowns of food‑service performance and the vendor KPI reports; additional OSP and OIG data disaggregated by student age and other demographics; and clearer operational plans, equity distribution rules and content guardrails if the district pursues commercial advertising. Public comment remains open for matters that will be taken to the full board for decision.

Ending: The meeting included extended public testimony from parents, unions and charter representatives, a multi‑office staff briefing on student protection and program proposals, and board member requests for precise monitoring and evaluation information before acting on the major contract and policy proposals discussed on April 9.