The Evanston/Skokie School District 65 board’s Committee of the Whole on Monday discussed draft scorecards to guide possible school closures as part of the district’s Strategic Deficit Reduction Planning (SDRP). Staff said they will model closure scenarios affecting two to four elementary schools and bring scenario packets to the board on Sept. 29 for review, then hold a public engagement period in mid-October before returning to the board on Oct. 27.

District staff described two kinds of scorecards. Baseline scorecards compare each school across five weighted categories — equity, geography, building functionality, building income potential and financial impact — and normalize scores so the board can see which buildings would be “least impactful” to close. Scenario-specific scorecards recalculate geographic and transportation impacts for the cohort of schools in each closure scenario, tracking how many students would be reassigned, how many would exceed a 1.5-mile walkability threshold, and anticipated busing needs and costs.

Stacy, a district staff member working on facilities modeling, said the scorecards allow the district to “understand the impact of the scenario” and to limit initial scenario work to manageable combinations. Susan, a district finance staff member presenting budget context, told the board the district must still identify $10 million–$15 million in additional reductions and said closures would be one lever among others to reach long‑term financial sustainability. Susan also revisited occupancy and facilities data: District capacity sits at about 58 percent occupancy with Foster School opening (that figure assumes Bessie Rhodes closes and Foster opens), and the district’s 2022 deferred‑maintenance estimate remains large — roughly $188 million through 2040 (about $160 million through 2030 after indexing, staff said).

Board members and staff debated how many closures to model. After discussion, the board asked staff to prepare multiple scenarios in the 2–4 school range (two, three and four closures), and to provide two alternative scenario packets inside each category so trustees can compare options. The board also charged staff to finalize baseline scorecards and produce scenario-specific scorecards for the Sept. 29 packet. Several trustees asked staff to show occupancy and walkability implications for each scenario and to show estimated transportation costs tied to changed busing needs.

Trustees declined to include middle-school or magnet-school closures in the Sept. 29 modeling because that work would require significant additional program- and licensure-analysis and would push the timeline past September. The board asked the programs committee to evaluate grade‑configuration implications (for example, moving sixth grade into elementary schools) before any middle‑school scenarios are considered.

The district will publish the Sept. 29 scenario packet online and schedule in-person and virtual community sessions in October, including sessions aligned to feeder patterns and staff‑only sessions; board members can supplement those sessions with community appearances. Staff cautioned that a small number of early scenario revisions may be necessary after community feedback.

The scorecards and scenarios are analytical tools to inform, not to decide; the board remains the final decision maker and will vote on any formal closures in future meetings. Staff said the next formal public board packet with scenario packets will go out Sept. 29 and community engagement will follow in mid‑October, with an Oct. 27 board meeting to receive community feedback and consider any next steps.

Why it matters: District 65 is balancing falling enrollment, underused buildings and a large deferred‑maintenance backlog. The board’s choice of how many schools to study and which criteria to emphasize will shape the range of options the community will later be asked to consider.