Evanston District 65 board authorizes staff reductions after heated public hearing over middle-school counselor cuts

The Evanston District 65 Committee of the Whole on April 13 held a public hearing on a proposed reduction in force tied to a multi-year sustainability plan and heard hours of testimony from students, parents, teachers and school counselors who said cutting middle-school counselors would damage student safety and learning.

Dozens of speakers used their allotted three minutes to describe counselorsclinical qualifications and everyday roles. "School counselors are not an extra service. They are not a luxury," said Jacob Delay, a middle-school counselor and department chair, urging the board to preserve positions that he said provide crisis response, targeted interventions and continuity for students.

The hearing came as administrators laid out a fiscal plan in which phase three of the Structural Deficit Reduction Plan (SDRP) identifies roughly $5.9 million in proposed reductions for FY27, including about $3.8 million in personnel savings and $2.1 million in non-personnel cuts. Administrators told the board that, given current enrollment trends and budget assumptions, additional reductions or facility changes may be required in coming years.

Parents and students emphasized immediate consequences. "Taking away school counselors means taking away an important support system for students like me," said Veronica Smith, a fifth grader who told the board she has ADHD and relies on counselors during transitions. Multiple parents and educators described counselorswork in assessing risk, running programs such as AVID and supporting students with 504 plans and IEPs.

Speakers contrasted the proposed savings with recent one-time purchases: "The same amount reportedly saved by eliminating counselors paid for iPads," said Lulu Miller, an NPR science reporter and District 65 parent, drawing a link between technology expenditures and staff cuts in the public remarks. Several people questioned whether administrative or capital expenditures could be pared instead.

Board members acknowledged the intensity of the testimony and discussed alternatives. During the meeting the administration said the SDRP package as presented would take effect July 1, 2026, unless the board directs a different approach. Board members noted the district must meet cash-on-hand and capital-transfer targets and that delaying reductions could worsen the fiscal outlook.

After deliberation the board adopted a set of resolutions to implement personnel reductions and nonrenewals. The motions recorded in the meeting packet included (1) a resolution authorizing reduction in force of teachers, (2) approval of nonrenewal of certain non-tenure teachers, and (3) a resolution authorizing reduction in force of educational support personnel. Each motion passed by a majority recorded in the public proceeding.

Board President (by roll call) and other trustees who voted in favor said they took no pleasure in the decisions but considered them part of meeting fiscal obligations; trustees who opposed the measures said they were not ready to eliminate student-facing positions without a fuller menu of alternatives. Several trustees urged the administration to return with a comprehensive list of additional cost-saving options and the likely impacts before the board finalizes longer-term facility decisions this fall.

What happens next: administrators will begin to implement the approved phase-three items and prepare detailed options for the board. The district said it will pursue stakeholder engagement and further analysis of alternatives while it balances cash needs, upcoming facilities decisions and the October 2026 timeline for facility-utilization determinations.

The board also received other business at the meeting, including the auditors FY25 presentation and approval of a landscaping contract; the audit presentation noted a clean opinion on the districtfinancial statements on a modified cash basis and flagged the districtlong-term fiscal pressures that underlie the SDRP planning.

The committee concluded the public hearing and proceeded to regular public comment and the rest of its agenda.