Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Staffing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CFC reviews EBF gap analysis: staff reclassifications and next steps to inform spring staffing
Summary
Committee and consultants reviewed the district's updated EBF gap analysis, which reclassifies several staff groups and adjusts per-student spending lines; members asked for clearer public presentation, three-year averages, and a research memo before spring staffing recommendations.
Oak Park–River Forest School District 200’s Community Finance Committee spent the bulk of its Jan. 20 meeting reviewing a revised EBF (Evidence-Based Funding) gap analysis that will inform spring staffing recommendations.
Brian presented the 2026 update to the committee, saying the team revisited state EBF category definitions and job descriptions to make classification decisions more consistent. He described three principal changes: shifting some staff into central office categories (including reclassifying some instructional facilitators and department heads), moving certain support roles out of special-education teacher lines into the low-income pupil-support category, and expanding per-student investment lines to include contractual services, supplies and equipment while offsetting those lines by related non-property-tax revenues (for example, athletic fees).
Committee members pressed for clearer public communication and context. Bob and Michelle (members of a CFC subteam) said the raw EBF outputs can show extreme percentages and zeros that could mislead the public without explanatory notes. One member noted that the state’s low-income measure (DHS-based) differs materially from the district’s free-and-reduced-lunch counts and recommended the district calculate its own “at-risk” estimates for staffing decisions: “If District 200 decides 200 kids need extra help, they should get extra help whether they fit into one of these categories or not,” a member said.
Consultants and committee members also discussed specific categories where the district diverges from state targets: pupil-support staff (appears highly over target after reclassification), supervisory aids/security (classification ambiguity between supervisory-aid and security functions), substitute-teacher costs (higher local rates and long-term substitute usage), and technology spending (state benchmarks dated for one-to-one device environments). Several speakers recommended looking at three-year averages and adding gross-versus-net presentation (show gross spending and then show offsets from fees) before sharing widely.
The committee asked staff and consultants to produce a research-backed memo and suggested next steps: (1) circulate a tracked-changes version of the committee charter and EBF memo to the board, (2) supply the capital-asset policy copy requested earlier, (3) provide item-level breakout for high-variance categories (substitutes, supervisory aids, pupil support) and (4) compare the district to peer districts using the new state dashboard when available. Consultants emphasized the EBF tool is a framework rather than a prescriptive staffing mandate and recommended the district set local targets where statewide averages are inappropriate.
Next steps: consultants will circulate the memo and recommended next steps; the committee will review the materials and expects to inform board staffing discussions this spring. The committee set its next meeting for April 21.
