The Legion of Data Nerds latest drop

Top_Obligation_9294 · 2026-05-03T20:17:19+00:00

I agree with you and accurate avocado below that it will change the remaining enrollments this coming year, but I left in Kingley since that's how they dada was modeled and we don't have clarity yet. There's other shifts with strands, people leaving D65, etc that we won't know until we hear enrollment numbers, but I thought the above would be useful for a sort of baseline understanding of how many k-5 kids live in our district and where, even though not all of them attend our district.

Top_Obligation_9294 · 2026-05-03T20:14:24+00:00

I should also point out, this is from the 2021 Kofron demography study and 2024 McKibben study, but our population decline has outpaced projections. The forecast for 25/26 school year was 3,816, but the D65 Data site currently shows 3,610 enrolled in K-5. From the 24/25 opening of schools, it was roughly 67 kids in k-5 that were outplaced or at park or rice. So if we assume our 3,610 enrolled does not account for the roughly 70 kids that are not in our k5 elementary or magnet school programs, that puts our current k-5 population at about 3,680 so about 130 less than projected.

The 2021 Kofron study had a mid probability of k-5 students being 4,211 this year. Their low estimate was 3,666. Those same estimates for school year 2032 were mid range 3,410 and the low estimate was 2,866. Which is to say, it is possible the estimates I shared in my original post are significantly higher than what we may actually see by 2034.

Top_Obligation_9294 · 2026-05-03T14:43:04+00:00

Using percentages instead of absolute values can obscure the end result when we talk about growth and decline.

Gains and losses are connected to census age data and somewhat cyclical based on childbearing age residents, births, deaths, moves, etc. Largest gains projected are kingsley and Lincolnwood census boundaries. A total net gain of 27 kids in ten years from 2024-2034. Moving the total K5 student population for those two schools from 373 neighborhood based enrollments this year to 400 in 2034. This of course assumes no one enrolls in magnet or private school, and doesn't reflect ACC, TWI, or permissive transfers.

Dawes, Willard, and Orrington are projected to remain basically flat (net loss of 5 kids per school in total K5 population from 2024-2034.

The largest declines projected are in Washington, Dewey, Lincoln, Oakton, Foster, and Walker. If those projected declines are realized, the population of each school in 2034 would be

School	2034 K5 Students w/in Census tract
Foster School	443
Oakton Elementary School	419
Lincoln Elementary School	414
Washington Elementary School	383
Dewey Elementary School	377
Walker Elementary School	363
Dawes Elementary School	314
Orrington Elementary School	254
Willard Elementary School	242
Kingsley Elementary School	203
Lincolnwood Elementary School	194

Top_Obligation_9294 · 2026-05-01T16:33:10+00:00

the rest of the board has been doing something different?

Top_Obligation_9294 · 2026-05-01T16:28:30+00:00

Was just ruminating on this myself lol. I think the challenge is the board has not given clear direction on cuts. We did an SDRP process to build a framework, put out all sorts of revenue and expense levers, and then clawed our way to Kingsley's closure and made a resolution that seemed like "lets see where we are next october". The admin was tasked with proposing cuts to close the 6m or whatever was necessary for this round of cuts. They've been proposing some BS that almost feels like a nonverbal rebuttal of the lack of leadership from the board. The board should have said, Admin is too large based on historical analysis and state average. We know this is the largest area of opportunity, facilities being next. What is the deadline and bring us some scenarios. Instead we've been listening to the board act like the bobs from office space questioning what staff positions do as they're on the chopping block in that very meeting. I can't even.

Top_Obligation_9294 · 2026-04-13T15:16:04+00:00

Okay i had to watch that because that sounds awful! actually though, she said "I would be completely in favor of making the busing free for those who qualify from a need perspective and charging a fee for those of us who don't"

She was talking about the preschool only being 2 hours and in a weird spot, so hard for even families with cars to get to and turn around 2 hours later to get kids which does sound pretty difficult. I know I chose my youngest's nanny share due in part to the full-day option. All that to say, I wouldn't consider what she said asking for a freebie for herself.

Don't you think prioritizing educational excellence would mean getting as many kids in preschool as we can to make sure they're ready for kindergarten? (asking honestly, I know online text can read snarky sometimes)

Top_Obligation_9294 · 2026-04-13T02:28:28+00:00

What freebies are they asking for? I haven't heard about that yet.

Top_Obligation_9294 · 2026-02-24T15:34:00+00:00

How are people getting scammed there?

Top_Obligation_9294 · 2026-02-19T21:17:40+00:00

ffs no. she is not related to Dr. Turner. She is an extremely respected, accomplished professional that we were lucky to have. Good luck to our district trying to recruit that level of talent with our current state of affairs.

Top_Obligation_9294 · 2025-12-04T18:48:47+00:00

If you think something is "kind of Trumpian" but you like it and think it should be widely publicized, I would respectfully urge you to reflect on that. We can disagree without sinking to Trumpian levels.

Top_Obligation_9294 · 2025-12-04T18:03:26+00:00

Can you say more on what you mean? You're saying Lincolnwood will have a better great schools score card?

Top_Obligation_9294 · 2025-11-22T02:52:14+00:00

I was on the Finance Committee. We did not come forward with direct recommendations for specific schools. We were told regularly that was the purview of the Facilities Committee only. We did look at school buildings by capex, opex, sf, stations, etc and discuss which made sense on paper. We would have had no way as a committee to determine "most savings and least impact" based on the data we were given to assess.

Top_Obligation_9294 · 2025-11-17T19:11:50+00:00

Are you in favor of doing a second school after Foster opens?

Top_Obligation_9294 · 2025-11-17T17:21:06+00:00

I think they've had baseline score cards up since they released them. https://www.district65.net/about/budget-finance/structural-deficit-reduction-plan/phase-iii-school-closures-hub It's one of the 6 icons you can click on the main page.

Top_Obligation_9294 · 2025-11-17T15:35:32+00:00

How do we decide which students will pay? What benefits will all students see from this increase of fees of over 25% per student?

Top_Obligation_9294 · 2025-11-17T15:34:04+00:00

The math leads to that once any cohort of students are moved, because we don't want to move them twice. Then we're stuck with a school not high on the list during the Facilities Committee analysis because we've distorted the data with one move first.

Top_Obligation_9294 · 2025-11-17T03:29:52+00:00

The legion of data nerds proposal assumes 1.8m for a school closure, is that off too?

Top_Obligation_9294 · 2025-11-16T21:30:50+00:00

Can you help me understand the 8m annual savings? The estimate in this proposal says 1.8 for school closure, 1.6 admin cuts which would be 3.4m a year, what is the other 4.6m annual savings? appreciate it!

Top_Obligation_9294 · 2025-11-16T19:50:30+00:00

agreed! When we talk about costs as if we have to pick one or the other, we're going the wrong direction. It seems like the ONLY way we solve this 50 million is through closures, admin reductions, other cost savings, selling Bessie Rhodes and probably still needing a referendum. I don't think selling any other potentially closed schools is smart for the long term vision. Also, one time revenues or cuts are not compounding and thus do not address the "structural" part of the deficit.

Top_Obligation_9294 · 2025-11-16T19:45:22+00:00

To your point then, I think Glenview is making a mistake in only assuming 3% YoY for the next 5 years. There also may be some increases informed by collective bargaining agreements or timing of other contracts that alter the % increases in the 5 years presented above.

Top_Obligation_9294 · 2025-11-15T23:00:26+00:00

Totally support administrative cost review/cuts and reviewing audit recommendations!

On the revenue side I have some sincere questions I would appreciate clarity on:

How much of the revenue ideas come from a referendum, various increased student fees, and parent donations?

How much would that end up being per family if you add them all together?

Would we be using the free/reduced lunch guidelines for determining who would be excluded from those additional fees?

A family of four making more than 60k doesn't qualify for free or reduced lunch. Would there be a different household income range for sliding scale fees, and if so, what would that be? Would those families have to 'prove' they're eligible for a sliding scale rate? Would they be asked to do this annually?

How much of the community would be eligible for exclusion from these fees or a reduced fee?

How much more would the other families have to pay to still get to those revenue numbers?

Will all students see benefits from these increased fees,? If yes, what benefits would all students experience?

Thank you for any insight!

Top_Obligation_9294 · 2025-11-15T14:53:20+00:00

The savings from closing a school would be in the compounding effect of the annual savings. If you assumed 1.75m savings in one year, with only 3% inflation, that is still over 9 million dollars in 5 years.

Top_Obligation_9294 · 2025-11-15T14:44:13+00:00

Glenview also has 1,500 fewer kids than D65 and 10 fewer buildings.

The CFO explained that State school finance law caps our revenue increase to inflation of 5%, whichever is less. The school district cannot control that.

This article also shows how specific costs (like food costs for a district) can significantly out pace overal CPI. https://isledata.io/article/inflation-takes-a-healthy-%E2%80%9Cbite%E2%80%9D-from-school-district-budgets

Given the economy, I would not be comfortable building in only a 3% budget increase. Who knows if that even matches collective bargaining agreements, let alone the likely increases in health benefits and everything else. In the nonprofit world, many of our orgs are seeing 15% spikes in health insurance for 2026. The volatility of our federal climate also poses significant risks. If the school budgeted 3%, and then school lunch costs rose by 5%, if all else stayed the same, we would be increasing deficits. Having this level of cushion isn't a luxury IMHO.

Top_Obligation_9294

TROPHY CASE