Evanston District 65 presents $13.2 million deficit‑reduction plan with four scenarios that would cut up to 79 FTE

Superintendent Dr. Turner and district consultants outlined a structural deficit reduction plan on Jan. 13 that would cut roughly $13.2 million for fiscal year 2026 under a multi‑phase process and offered four scenarios that range from about $15.2 million to $16.1 million in reductions and 72.5 to 79 full‑time equivalent (FTE) positions.

The scenarios presented prioritize minimizing harm to student‑facing services while targeting reductions in central office staffing, purchase services, transportation and non‑direct school staff. Consultants put a $4.5 million reduction in student transportation across all scenarios as a key savings lever and said some proposals include removing bus aides except where required by IEPs or 504 plans.

Why it matters: Evanston CCSD 65 projects deficits that would deplete reserves unless the board approves reductions. District presenters said without action the district could see materially lower days cash on hand in FY26–FY28 and would risk short‑term borrowing (tax anticipation warrants) or deeper cuts in later phases. The board set a Jan. 27 meeting to choose which phase‑2 path to advance and begins implementation for July 1, 2025 if approved.

Financial picture and scenarios Tamara (district finance staff) presented historical and projected fund performance showing deficits of about $7.9 million in FY23, $8.5 million in FY24 and a FY25 projection “just under $13.6 million” if no reductions occur. The board policy target is 90 days cash on hand; presenters said FY25 cash‑on‑hand would fall to roughly 71 days without action and could drop below 40 days in FY26 if nothing changed.

Consultants outlined four high‑level options (summary figures offered by staff): - Scenario 1: ~$15.2M reduction, ~72.5 FTE cuts (26 central office; 22 section reductions; 24.5 non‑direct school staff). - Scenario 2: ~$15.6M, ~76 FTE (similar central office reductions; deeper non‑direct school reductions). - Scenario 3: ~$16.1M, deepest school‑level cuts (pivots more functions away from a top‑down central office model and increases school autonomy). - Scenario 4: ~$15.5M, ~79 FTE (a different configuration that includes some SEL position impacts).

All scenarios were intentionally developed above the $13.2 million target to preserve flexibility; presenters said the board can mix elements to reach the $13.2 million target while preserving higher‑priority items.

Key categories and likely impacts Presenters repeatedly emphasized protecting direct student supports: special education, multilingual services, social work, psychology and mental‑health therapy services were explicitly identified for preservation in the phase‑2 planning. Areas identified for reductions include: - Central office staffing: an additional 21–26 FTE reductions are proposed for FY26 on top of earlier reductions; staff framed this as a shift to a more school‑based staffing model. - Transportation: $4.5 million in potential savings across scenarios, including route consolidation, elimination of after‑school and summer busing, and the option to eliminate non‑mandatory preschool routes; presenters noted removing bus aides except for IEP/504‑required routes was on the table. - Purchase services and contracts: non‑transportation contracted services, software and outside agency costs were targeted for about $1.8 million in savings, with centralized purchasing and cooperative buying recommended. - Supplies and other objects: supply reductions (example cited: a 10% supplies cut) and containment through centralized purchasing. - Academic skill centers and summer learning: some pandemic‑funded programs (formerly ESSER‑funded academic skill centers) and parts of the summer portfolio were included as possible reductions or restructurings.

Stakeholder engagement and equity aims District staff reported 12 stakeholder sessions in November–December and 270 participants plus 209 online responses. Melissa (engagement lead) summarized themes: preserve student‑facing certified staff, retain arts/athletics and magnet programs, reduce central‑office spending where possible, and protect supports for most vulnerable students (English learners, students with disabilities). Staff said class size targets remain: K–2 target 23, grades 3–5 target 25, grades 6–8 target 28.

Presenters repeatedly noted a stated goal to avoid short‑term borrowing and to keep decision timelines that allow advance notice to affected employees and families. They also said the district will try to use attrition and non‑renewals where possible to limit layoffs.

Public comments and classroom context Several teachers and a union leader used the public‑comment period to urge the board to protect instruction and services. Dr. Tricia Baker, identified as DEC union president, said the district and union are “over the hump … of negotiations” but warned about continuing budget and deficit risks and urged educator engagement. Beth Brady, an English teacher at Dawes, said, “I am here to provide some context for ways in which we're currently under serving our English language learners,” and asked the district to account for time teachers need for collaboration and inclusive instruction beyond direct‑instruction minutes. Third‑grade teacher Danielle Foster said, “I currently have 27 in my small 3rd grade classroom at Dawes,” and described challenges of meeting social‑emotional and academic needs in larger classes.

Timeline and next steps Staff said follow‑up stakeholder sessions will run through Jan. 23; the board will choose a phase‑2 direction at the Jan. 27 meeting. Implementations tied to FY26 would take effect July 1, 2025. Staff also outlined a phase‑3 process (school consolidation/closures) to begin in the months after, including criteria development, data modeling and public hearings if consolidation is proposed.

Discussion points and unresolved issues Board members focused questions on the transportation assumptions (contract terms, vendor conversations and the relative share attributable to preschool routes and bus aides); how to preserve early‑childhood access if preschool routes change; the effect of central‑office staffing reductions on service levels; and safeguards for special education and newcomer students. Consultants said they had reviewed transportation bills and had begun vendor conversations but cautioned that enrollment and other variables affect eventual savings. Staff committed to further impact analyses and to exploring mitigation strategies and community partnerships.

Ending The board did not take a final vote on phase‑2 reductions at the meeting. Members and staff framed Jan. 27 as the decision point after the district completes the current stakeholder sessions and refines scenario details. Presenters emphasized the intent to balance fiscal health, equitable services and timely notice to affected employees and families.