Evanston CCSD 65 met Oct. 27 for a regularly scheduled Board of Education meeting dominated by the Strategic District Reconfiguration Plan (SDRP) Phase 3, including a staff recommendation to close two neighborhood schools in addition to the already‑closed Bessie Rhodes site.

Dr. Susan Harkin, the district’s external consultant, told the board that student‑centered services recommends “a financial model incorporating a two‑school closure, plus the Bessie Rhodes school closing” to raise district facility utilization and protect long‑term fiscal health. The recommendation accompanies multiple financial models that aim for a balanced operating budget and a 90‑day cash‑on‑hand target, Harkin said.

Why it matters: The board faces a structural deficit driven by declining enrollment, an estimated $188 million in deferred facilities needs and annual expenditures that currently outpace revenue. The staff models show a small set of tradeoffs that can restore fiscal stability but would require closing buildings, program moves and additional operational reductions. Community members and staff told the board the cost of rushing that work could be the loss of student services, strained special‑education programs and further erosion of trust.

Community concerns: More than 50 speakers used the public‑comment period, and an additional 1,335 people completed an online survey. Teachers, special‑education staff and parents urged protections for STEP and RISE (specialized programs for students with intensive needs), bilingual/TWI offerings and neighborhood Title I schools. Diana Regine, an intermediate STEP teacher, said the programs “are highly specialized programs that rely on consistent environments, trained staff, and carefully structured spaces. Relocating them without dedicated planning risks undoing years of progress for our students.”

Labor and accountability: Kelly Post, president of the District Educators’ Council, criticized past central‑office spending and demanded accountability, saying the timing of closures must allow adequate planning. “This process demands clarity, transparency, and time,” she said, urging the board to “slow down this process” and consider closing a single building next year rather than several at once.

Staff analysis and options: The district staff presented several modeled options that differ by how many schools are closed (0–4), how capital needs are funded (use working cash, sell or lease properties, or issue certificates), and how much to invest annually in ongoing capital work. Staff highlighted that a one‑time FY27 payment tied to the new Foster Elementary is roughly $6.0 million under current plans, and that scenarios that close two schools plus Bessie Rhodes would raise district utilization into the low‑70 percent range while preserving some flexibility.

Board response and next steps: Board members debated two broad paths: (a) adopt the staff recommendation and identify two schools now to move forward, or (b) narrow the technical scope to two‑school scenarios but model a phased or sequential approach (first close one school, let enrollment and boundaries settle, then evaluate a second closure). The board held an informal “test of will” but did not take a formal vote on a closure plan at this meeting; legal counsel noted such an action was not on the posted agenda.

The board asked staff to return with refined modeling no later than Nov. 3 and to prepare to identify the final two‑school scenario by Nov. 17, 2025. Staff was asked to include: tighter transportation estimates tied to revised boundaries, explicit simulation of a sequential (phased) closure that accounts for students moving once versus moving twice, and more precise counts of program space needs for STEP, RISE and bilingual/TWI programming.

Other board business: The meeting concluded with routine votes to approve personnel items, vendor contracts (including Incident IQ and EPIC special‑education staffing), maintenance and safety contracts (Johnson Controls) and Foster construction bid packages (playground/landscaping). Board members recorded roll‑call approvals on those items before adjourning at about 11:20 p.m.

What’s next: The district will refine the two‑school scenario models, produce sequential (phased) impact runs for the Haven feeder area, and return to the board with updated sensitivity analysis and implementation details. The board set a target of Nov. 17, 2025 to select a final two‑school scenario to carry forward into required public‑hearing steps and any subsequent policy actions.