Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Vocational Programs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, alumni urge Proviso board to keep Miss Roberts Academy in cosmetology program
Summary
Former students, instructors and salon owners told the Proviso Township High School District 209 board that Miss Roberts Beauty Academy provides low-cost, community-rooted cosmetology training and urged the district not to send students to offsite vendors; commenters raised concerns about transportation, program quality and a lack of community notice after a May 26 contract decision.
Dozens of community members and program alumni urged the Proviso Township High School District 209 board on June 9 to reverse or revisit a recent decision to move cosmetology and barber instruction away from a long-running local provider.
"Miss Roberts Academy gives success to its community," said Danielle Johnson, a two-time graduate and former instructor, testifying to the board about the program's role in preparing students for careers at low cost. Multiple speakers described Miss Roberts as a community institution that offered accessible training and sometimes provided tuition relief when families struggled.
Several commenters said they learned only after the board's May 26 vote that the district planned to send students to an outside operator and said they had not been consulted. One community partner who helped introduce the program in 2014 told the board the district had previously voted the program into CTE offerings and that community partnerships had driven strong recruitment.
Speakers highlighted practical concerns if students must travel offsite. "You're going to send our children 30 minutes outside of the community when they couldn't even get the buses to Miss Roberts on time," one commenter said, urging the board to consider transportation barriers and attendance impacts.
Other comments raised questions about how the district evaluated outside vendors. A commenter referenced media and complaint histories about at least one chain provider and asked whether the board had reviewed licensing, complaint records and high-school program offerings before approving the contract. The transcript records the concern but does not include documentary evidence in the meeting record.
Board policy was also invoked: the public-comment period and procedures limit remarks to three minutes, a point the chair quoted when denying a request to play a video during the comment period. Presenters said they had produced video and other materials they would share with district staff if permitted.
The public commenters asked the board to consider equity implications of relocating vocational instruction, noting that Miss Roberts historically charged modest tuition and served students from nearby neighborhoods. Several speakers said they had helped students obtain licensure and employment and warned that moving programming to more distant vendors could reduce completion rates.
The board did not take a vote on the cosmetology program during public comment. The record shows public requests for procurement documents and contract-scoring materials were filed (foyer/public-records requests noted later in the meeting). The next procedural steps for the contract—whether the board will reopen the procurement, request additional vendor information, or direct staff to seek alternative arrangements—were not decided that night.
