Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the District Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District previews $2.19 million in recommended reductions, warns of staffing and class-size impacts
Summary
District finance staff presented a budget workshop recommending roughly $2,186,000 in reductions, projecting flat evidence-based funding, lower categorical reimbursements and higher transportation costs; staffing changes could affect class sections and trigger reduction-in-force action before April 15.
Get email alerts on the District Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District finance and operations staff told the Downers Grove Grade School District 58 board they recommend approximately $2,186,000 in spending reductions to address a projected revenue shortfall and that the district is modeling conservative revenue assumptions, including a flat evidence-based funding allocation.
Finance staff (Todd and others) described key assumptions in the five-year forecast: evidence-based funding held flat, conservative growth in property-tax revenue tied to CPI assumptions, a quarter-million dollar contingency and an additional $200,000 contingency for private placements. Staff said utility and replacement costs will rise in later years and projected a 6.5% increase for transportation expenditures in the model to guard against contract increases and specialized transportation needs.
Administrators said the governor’s recent budget proposal includes new money for evidence-based funding but that nearly all of it benefits higher-need (Tier 1 and Tier 2) districts; the district therefore modeled no net EBF increase. Staff also said categorical reimbursements (for items such as transportation and special education) are likely to be prorated at lower percentages next year, meaning the district may submit larger bills but receive a smaller percentage of reimbursement.
The recommended reductions package presented in January and reiterated at the workshop would preserve core curricular and extracurricular programming while achieving the stated savings. Staff said that preserving instructional coaching without class-size impacts would require additional savings because the coaching positions alone cannot be reallocated to avoid adjustments to class-size targets.
Human-resources and operations staff said implementation of the reductions could affect about 70 K–6 classroom sections districtwide; current modeling estimates roughly 12–13 K–6 sections would be impacted, and about 30 middle-school sections (out of ~315) could be reduced as well. Administrators emphasized that numbers are enrollment-dependent and that the district will continue to update figures before final decisions.
Staff noted statutory and operational timelines: reduction-in-force actions must be taken by April 15 under the current law, and the administration plans to bring RIF recommendations at the April board meeting if needed. The administration also proposed returning to an earlier annual cadence for the financial workshop in January so staffing and budgeting conversations occur earlier in the year.
District leaders defended the value of instructional and behavioral coaches: the district currently employs five instructional coaches and one behavioral coach who provide job-embedded professional learning, co-teaching, modeling and crisis support. Staff presented teacher survey data indicating high reported impact from coaching cycles and said coaches will continue to be considered in budget trade-offs.
The board and administrators agreed to continue refining projections; staff will present more detailed staffing previews and a recommended reduction-of-force action timeline in coming meetings.

