District 65 publishes criteria, weighting and timeline for possible school consolidations under deficit plan

District 65 administrators and community subcommittees on Monday presented the first part of Strategic Deficit Reduction Plan (SDRP) Phase 3, releasing the criteria and weighting that will be used to create school scorecards and model scenarios that could include school consolidations or closures.

The presentation, led by Dr. Susie Harkin and Dr. Stacy Beardsley with finance lead Tamara Mitchell and volunteer subcommittee members, said the district faces a structural imbalance even after $13.3 million in reductions the board approved earlier. The district budget is about $189,000,000; a recent facilities review put deferred repairs and maintenance at approximately $188,000,000 for 18 school buildings. Current enrollment is roughly 6,200 students, average occupancy about 65 percent, and average building age about 79 years. The district and volunteer committees will use the criteria to create scorecards and run scenarios for the board, with initial modeling expected in August and proposals to the board in September.

Why it matters: The district framed this work as tying facilities and program choices to long-term financial sustainability. Committee members and staff said the criteria are intended to make any model-driven proposals systematic and defensible and to surface tradeoffs among equity, geography, building condition and cost, and potential revenue from repurposing or selling properties.

Most important facts: The facility subcommittee recommended five categories for evaluating schools—equity, geography, functionality, building costs (expenses) and building income (revenue) — and applied analytic hierarchy process weighting that ranked geography and equity among the highest factors and building income lowest. The committee agreed to use a 0.75-mile walkability standard when scoring geography, include an equity analysis focused on historically marginalized groups, and explicitly separate capital (repair) costs from operating costs in the modeling. The finance subcommittee said early, illustrative math suggested that closing between zero and four schools could be part of options that achieve multi‑million dollar reductions, but the board will receive 0‑to‑4 options and is not committed to any particular number.

Supporting details: Presenters described the multi‑committee structure: the finance subcommittee developed an initial list of revenue enhancements and expenditure reductions; the facilities subcommittee developed categories, criteria and weights to produce school scorecards; and the programs subcommittee reviewed magnet programs (ACC, TWI, King Arts) and early childhood to recommend where programs should sit if consolidations occur. The district will finalize the fiscal year 2025 closeout in July and attach dollar estimates to options this summer. The facilities subcommittee will test scenarios in August and bring initial scenarios back to the board in September. Public engagement sessions were scheduled immediately following the meeting and a stakeholder survey was to be distributed.

Context and constraints: Committee members emphasized that any closure or consolidation would require board action and, where required, public hearings and compliance with state rules (e.g., transportation provisions). Staff and volunteers repeatedly framed the work as exploratory: the criteria produce scenarios for board consideration, not a preordained plan to close a set number of schools.

Next steps: The district will (1) finalize FY25 closeout numbers; (2) add dollar estimates to the revenue and cut options; (3) publish school scorecards using the agreed criteria; (4) run multiple scenarios (including 0 schools closed); and (5) return to the board with modeled options and racial equity impact assessments for each scenario.