Oak Park–River Forest committee settles on eight peer districts, plans public financial dashboard

On March 11 the Oak Park–River Forest SD 200 committee reviewing the district’s planned financial dashboard presented a refreshed list of eight peer districts and recommended procedures for maintaining that list.

Committee members and staff said the dashboard will publish benchmark metrics — starting with per‑pupil operating expenditures, per‑pupil salary and benefit expenses, and per‑pupil expense growth (five‑year average) — and will link to source data so the public can see the values behind comparisons.

The committee’s decision matters because the district plans to use the peer group for ongoing financial benchmarking and to present those benchmarks publicly on the district website.

Graham, who led the presentation, said the peer list and metrics were developed beginning in December and refined after committee feedback. He said the group’s work “is something that Tom Kopsky, myself, and Steve worked on dating back to December,” and that the goal was to produce “good fit, good benchmarks, good data references for how we’re spending money.”

The selection method uses a two‑step approach: fixed variables (the district’s single high‑school structure and geographic labor market in Cook and DuPage counties) and changing variables (relative enrollment, EAV/poverty measures and other metrics pulled from the EBF dataset). Bob Spatz, who contributed to the methodology, said “all the data for this is pulled from the EBF dataset that’s put out for the EBF calculations.”

Members discussed how often to refresh the peer list and how to avoid single‑year volatility. Several members favored an annual review to rerun the metrics and a smoothing rule to prevent districts from moving in or out of the peer set based on a single anomalous year. Bob Spatz recommended a three‑year rule: once a district appears in the peer group for three consecutive years it would remain until it misses the criteria for three consecutive years before being removed.

Committee members also asked about data vintage. Staff noted the benchmarking slides were prepared with audited financial (AFR) data through fiscal 2023 and that fiscal‑year‑2024 values were expected to be available before the next CFC/CFC meeting; staff said a footnote should accompany published charts to identify the fiscal year of the source data.

The committee discussed the ideal peer set size for clear visuals and public use. Members recalled prior conversations recommending roughly eight to 12 peers; the current methodology produced eight peers under the selected criteria. Staff said the dashboard will allow the public to click through to a spreadsheet showing each peer’s source values for transparency.

Next steps identified by staff were finalizing language and chart colors, double‑checking calculations, and preparing the three starter metrics for website posting once the FY2024 data are loaded.

The committee did not take a formal roll‑call vote to adopt an ordinance; members expressed support for proceeding with the eight peers and the proposed review procedure.