District 200 committee reviews 2025 tentative levy, EBF gap analysis shows understaffed tutoring and elevated supervisory aids

Oak Park‑River Forest School District 200’s Community Finance Committee spent a large portion of its meeting on the 2025 tentative tax levy and a line‑by‑line Evidence‑Based Funding (EBF) gap analysis intended to identify where staffing and spending differ from the state model.

Staff explained the board approved a tentative levy at its prior meeting using "scenario 4," which captures roughly one‑third of available recapture (about $700,000) and yields an estimated levy increase of approximately 4.4 percent; adoption and a public hearing are scheduled for the December 4 board meeting. "That tentative levy was based off of scenario 4 ... the estimated levy increase is about 4.4%," a district staff member said.

Committee members emphasized that the levy is a tool, not a complete solution, and that Scenario 4 assumes multi‑year expense reductions (discussed in the model as 2.5%–5% cuts in out years). Staff detailed internal cost‑saving efforts — postponing some capital alternates, consolidating online meeting platforms, and meeting with administrators to find efficiency opportunities.

The EBF gap analysis review focused on mapping district staffing to EBF categories and identifying where District 200 differs from the model. Key findings discussed:

- Core teachers: district headcount at roughly 104% of the EBF model (alignment flagged as positive). - Specialist teachers (PE, music, art): about 108% of the model. - Instructional facilitators: about 109%, but some staff may be miscategorized. - Core intervention teachers (certified tutors during the school day): approximately 54% of the model — identified as a significant understaffing relative to the research‑based intervention strategy. - Supervisory aids (including security/monitors): reported at 258% of the model; school site staff aggregated at 236% — committee members recommended carving out functions not covered by EBF (transportation, food service, mandated special ed) for clearer public reporting.

Members discussed how the EBF model uses different poverty measures (Department of Human Services counts vs. free/reduced‑price lunch) and how District 200 is an outlier on some metrics; speakers urged the committee to footnote anomalies when presenting results to the public. Several participants proposed prioritizing a short executive summary and a small set of high‑impact line items for deeper analysis before the staffing and budget decisions for next fiscal year.

Next steps: the committee asked staff and a small subteam to prepare summary materials and prioritized line items for deeper review in January so the work can inform the spring budget and negotiation process.